The Gospel Coalition Critiques Culture, Then Blocks Their Critics and Evades Questions

The internet is not for sissies. Paul Vixie link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=61538&picture=terrified-man
Terrified Man

Most of you are familiar with Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. Do you know what happened when Pillsbury, which owned Haagen-Dazs, became threatened by the growing popularity of Ben and Jerry's products and decided to try to *freeze them out?* (I could not resist.) I remember seeing pictures of Greenfield protesting outside of Pillsbury's headquarters, holding a sign that said "What's the Doughboy Afraid of?"

In 1984, big business came after the little guys. Pillsbury, the million dollar company behind Haagen-Dazs, began to feel threatened by the rapid growth of Ben & Jerry’s. In an attempt to shut down the young upstarts, Pillsbury gave Ben & Jerry’s distributors throughout Boston an ultimatum: sell Hagen-Dazs or sell Ben & Jerry’s, but not both. 

Cohen and Greenfield were not about to let this corporate giant shut them down. After finding little hope in their legal options, the two decided to take matters into their own hands. Together, they launched the now famous “What’s the doughboy afraid of?” campaign and began taking it as public as they could. From placing advertisements on the sides of buses to renting banner planes for flying around major sporting events, Cohen and Greenfield did whatever they could think of to gain support for their little business. They took out a classified ad in Rolling Stone magazine asking readers to “help two Vermont hippies fight the giant Pillsbury Corporation.” Greenfield even took to being a one-man picket outside the headquarters of Pillsbury in Minneapolis, handing out pamphlets that read, “What’s the doughboy afraid of?” 

Later that year, Cohen and Greenfield came up with the idea of putting a 1-800 number on every pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. “We started getting like a hundred calls a night,” recalls Greenfield, “most of them between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m.” Many callers even offered to form gangs of Doughboy busters.

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 9.33.42 PM
link

Guess who won out on this deal? The media coverage was enormous and Pillsbury came off looking like the big bad corporation trying to stomp on the little guy. (My favorite flavor is Cherry Garcia.)

Today, TWW asks the question…

What's TGC afraid of?

The Gospel Coalition is terribly concerned about the recent Facebook controversy and inadvertently reveals their own hypocrisy.

1. Trevin Wax, an editor for The Gospel Coalition website, wrote ONE FACEBOOK, TWO WORLDS, THREE PROBLEMS

If you were on Facebook last month, you might have felt like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole when you noticed Facebook on its own “Trending” sidebar. Several former employees admitted to manipulating the Trending feed. They frequently introduced topics they thought deserved more coverage and occasionally suppressed conservative commentary by choosing different sources for topics that would appeal to conservatives.

Fascinating… Wax is appalled that former Facebook employees admit to manipulating the *Trending* feed. He should know something about that one.

2. Wax appears very concerned about *tailored* news.

The tailoring of our news feed leads us to assume that everyone sees what we see, and then we assume the worst of the people around us. How can they think that way? we wonder. They must be either stupid or evil!

3. Wax is terribly concerned about self righteous news loops.

Read news from your desired slant over and over again and you create a self-righteous loop: You are right. They are crazy. You are right. They are crazy.

4. Wax has solutions for this awful problem. He wants to learn from their opponents!!!! Good night!

  • Let’s consult news sources and websites from people on the other side of the aisle.
  • Let’s become experts at recognizing the slant in the news and commentary we come across, whether it be from the right or the left.
  • Let’s reject the tendency to assume the worst in our political opponents and take umbrage at every perceived slight.
  • Let’s learn how to express the perspectives of our opponents so well that they agree with our characterizations, even if in the end, we still disagree.

Two commenters at the website immediately saw the problem. I took a screen shot in case they disappeared…

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 8.16.42 PM

The Gospel Coalition blocks those who disagree with them on a number of issues, especially anything to do with Sovereign Grace Ministries, CJ Mahaney and other BFFS  who are designated a TGC officially protected gospel™ BFF.

Jonathan Merritt contacted me and asked if I had been blocked by TGC. After snorting, I told him that I was most definitely blocked, along with anyone else who had the temerity to speak up on behalf of the SGM victims. This is absolutely not allowed by the very culturally concerned TGC editors.

Merritt went on to write The Gospel Coalition and how (not) to engage culture for Religion News. He began the article with this observation. 

TGC’s brand of Christianity is both conservative and Calvinist, but according to its tagline, they feel called to promote “cultural transformation.” Numerous articles address how and why Christians should engage culture. The “About” page on its website says they desire to help Christians “truly speak and live for [Christ] in a way that clearly communicates to our age.

1. Merritt stated that the TGC articles are a "handbook on how to criticize just about anything." I would like to add that, from my perspective, TGC criticizes anything and everything except their own tribe.

TGC managing editor Matt Smethhurst tackles how to criticize fellow Christians. Blogger Jared Wilson lays out when you should criticize your pastor. Popular blogger Justin Taylor explains how to criticize your non-Christian friends and how to criticize another person’s theology and how to criticize the evangelical movement at-large.

 Merritt made a particularly incisive statement on Thabiti Anyabwile.

When writer Thabiti Anyabwile wanted to criticize homosexuality, for example, he encouraged readers to recover their “gag reflex” and focus on the “yuck factor.” Setting aside the many–and I mean many–problems with this way of thinking, Anyabwile’s approach is not exactly a silver-plated conversation starter in a non-Christian culture. 

2. Merritt declared that TGC is on a "blocking spree."

Over the course of the past year or more, TGC has been on a social media blocking spree. Those who dare to criticize them are being shut down and shut out.

3. Merritt provided examples of how TGC demonstrates their hypocrisy by blocking those who have the gall to critique their officially protected class of gospel™ people and ministries.

For example, Rachel Held Evans was blocked when she critiqued an article by Jared Wilson who was positively quoting Doug Wilson.

The article quoted controversial pastor Douglas Wilson: “the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Evans countered that the statement was offensive and degrading to women and triggered images of rape and sexual violence. Later, prominent theologian Scot McKnight called on TGC to remove the post, arguing it “inculcates justified violence” against women.

TGC’s leaders would have done well to listen to her. She was expressing legitimate concerns and Douglas Wilson has also praised the “unexpected blessings of slavery” and admitted that he believes LGBT people could be executed in certain circumstances.

I was about to add that Jared Wilson apologized for writing this statement. I'm glad I didn't. You see, this crowd will often block the critics, remove the offending post and continue to tiptoe through the tulips whilst pretending nothing ever happened. They also pretend that the critic doesn't exist as well.

The original link to the article is now disabled. The author later apologized for posting the quote, but the link to the apology is also now disabled.

Then, there was, and is, the infamous blocking of all of us who stood by the victims of Sovereign Grace Ministries while the editors of TGC and their BFFs continue to support them.

Evans was not the first person to be stiff-armed for speaking up. Not by a long shot. Most people who have been blocked by TGC say they were punished for questioning the coalition’s disastrous defense of Sovereign Grace Ministries, a prominent Calvinist ministry that was embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal. TGC personalities connected to SGM continued to express support and friendship for those involved with the scandal even as it became clear that Sovereign Grace leaders were complicit. Many who questioned TGC’s stance were blocked. Some who merely used Twitter handles such as #istandwithsurvivors were similarly punished by TGC.

He listed other reasons for blocking people.

  • Questioning  Biblical masculinity
  • Retweeting another's critique (Sorry to those who retweeted TWW tweets)
  • For no reason that they can figure out
  • Tweeting that TGC was blocking people.

Merritt wondered if the leadership of some organizations can be narcissistic.

Merritt provided the following quote which should cause some TGC leaders to do some self examination.

 A pattern of offering criticism while not being able to receive it, according to Dr. Leon Seltzer of Psychology Today, is a characteristic trait of narcissism. As Seltzer writes, “Deep down, clinging desperately not simply to a positive but grandiose sense of self, [narcissists are] compelled at all costs to block out any negative feedback about themselves.”

Where is the accountability?

TGC editors refused to answer Merritt's reasonable questions. What are they afraid of?

 I first emailed TGC editorial director Collin Hansen, asking him about their blocking policy. I received no reply. I sent two follow-up emails asking Collin if he received my first note. Again, I received no reply.

I then spoke with several TGC employees off-the-record who told me there was no official social media policy and that several people have access to their accounts. Another TGC employee requested an interview with the person they believed was responsible for managing their social media, but informed me that no one at TGC wanted to speak with me. No one is required to speak to a particular journalist. But several of my colleagues also report similar treatment when they’ve contacted TGC.

A ministry that blocks dissenters and ignores journalists who might ask difficult questions is not engaging culture; they are evading culture. Christian isolation will not lead to cultural transformation.

Merritt offered some excellent suggestions on how NOT to engage culture.

  • Constantly criticizing outsiders while only listening to insiders … is how not to engage culture.
  • Shutting out dissenters who challenge your beliefs, content, or ideas … is how not to engage culture.
  • Operating in a pattern of isolationism, tribalism, and egotism … is how not to engage culture.
  • Refusing to answer difficult questions about your organization’s practices … is how not to engage culture.

Thanks go out to Jonathan Merritt for asking TGC the hard questions even though he can't get an answer.

Here is my final question:

What is The Gospel™Coalition afraid of?  

In fact, I think it would make a great hashtag. #whatistgcafraidof?

TGC is supposed to be loaded with *real* men who demonstrate Biblical™ manhood. However, they come across like that third grade bully who calls someone a name and then hides behind his mommy's skirts. Ah yes, sissies, that's word I was looking for.

Everyone should be asking why Collin Hansen refuses to answer questions. People should ask Tim Keller, who was a TGC founder, why he supports such a repressive culture from folks who are supposed to be engaging the culture. What exactly are they afraid of?

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 9.02.57 PM

Comments

The Gospel Coalition Critiques Culture, Then Blocks Their Critics and Evades Questions — 388 Comments

  1. First?

    I may humbly suggest that perhaps the emotions felt by TGC blockers aren’t fear and trembling so much as arrogance and contempt… which if anything, would be worse, because fear implies recognition of the power or truth of your opponents’ arguments, whereas the latter implies they aren’t even worth engaging because they are so self-evidently deluded and wrong.

  2. I think it might have to do with the verse about always having an answer, they want to make sure that only the right questions get asked so that they can give good answers. If the wrong questions get asked, the answers won’t make them look so good which makes God look even worse. Not having all the answers would ruin their image.

  3. I guess the comments they block are not “gospel-saturated” enough, or not “winsome” enough, or not “irenic” enough.

  4. The leaders of The Gospel Coalition are arrogant. They remind me of David Miscavige, the head of Scientology, in their arrogance.

    The fact that they cannot address their critics and questioners also reminds me of Scientology. David Miscavige has a PR person named “Karen Pouw.” Now she exists–somewhere. But in recent times, some of the PR emanations from Scientology have sounded like they were straight from Miscavige himself, including a press release against the movie “Going Clear” which included a four-letter word. But actually talk to a Scientologist and actually get some audio/video about Scientology’s objections to “Going Clear”? “Karin Pouw” was silent to reporters from the world’s biggest news outlets.

    As for blocking people, Scientology does that literally. I’ve picketed Scientology in a number of places, but I will never forget the handlers I had in Los Angeles when I showed up with a sign at Big Blue in 1997 and (later that day) at the Shrine Auditorium. They literally sent someone out with big bunches of balloons to block me and my sign! I learned that day how I could use my voice to project off the buildings on L. Ron Hubbard Way and off the front of the Shrine Auditorium. That’s one way to get around a literal blockage and have your voice heard.

    Scientology also has this bad habit of hiding when there are picketers. They’ve rented trees, shrubbery and trucks (different incidents) to block views from their venues so that their members can’t see the people protesting outside. It’s sad and funny at the same time. They’re so afraid of what we are saying that they can’t possibly let anything about their bad acts get to their faithful.

    TGC does the same thing. It blocks people, and it won’t respond to requests for comment. And it does this for the same reason Scientology does–because it is arrogant enough to believe it, and its fellow travelers, have the only truth. And they will protect their organization and their organization’s best beloveds and not allow any criticism whatsoever.

    Just like Scientology. Yup, I went there.

  5. Jamie Carter wrote:

    Not having all the answers would ruin their image.

    All but one of the new Calvinists I’ve known just parroted other people in their answers. I always wondered if any of them really struggled with God over passages like I do.

    That was really good work on Jonathan’s part, especially in getting everyone to send in their screenshots. I’ll admit that I’ve never been blocked, but they make me see red just to hear them quoted by other people. I’ve never been able to bring myself to visit their sites.

  6. Dee –
    The question of what they are afraid of is CLEARLY answered in one of the passages you quote. They are aftaid

  7. srs wrote:

    Dee –
    The question of what they are afraid of is CLEARLY answered in one of the passages you quote. They are aftaid

    (drats! Clumsy smartphone fingers)
    The are afraid of “egalitarian pleasuring party”‘s. A phrase I going to the totally work into conversations w my wife (fingers crossed)

  8. JD Greear is set to become SBC President tomorrow. Given how Larycia Hawkins was driven from Wheaton, how has Greear escaped being hounded over his similar position regarding Islam?:

    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2010/09/30/reaching-muslims-for-christ-a-conversation-with-j-d-greear/

    Trevin Wax interviewing J.D. Greear several years ago:

    “You make the case that Muslims do worship the same God as Christians, although with obvious errors in understanding.”

    Hmmm…

  9. Quoting from the OP:

    What is The Gospel™Coalition afraid of?

    I don’t think they are afraid, IMO.

    They think that they are right. They have the inside track on “truth”. They intend to control the narrative. And those who disagree with them on this issue, have nothing of wisdom or import to offer. Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.

    We engender annoyance, rather than fear.

    In much the same way that ants annoy the picnickers. They brush off the ants, and spray repellent around, not out of fear of the ants, but just to get rid of them.

  10. BL wrote:

    Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.

    They believe that those who disagree with them are not among The Elect like themselves.

  11. Quick off topic announcement and then over to the Open Discussion section:

    Thanks to kind donations, Jeannette Altes who posts here was able to pay her June rent and bills. She has been facing hard times: lost her job, being treated for a tumor, and she is looking for work.
    She currently needs donations for food, household supplies, and gas money for her car.
    https://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
    Prayer needs: Please keep her in prayer – stress/anxiety, health, job, provisions.

  12. I wonder if one of the TGC groupies will drop in to disparage TWW while missing the irony of their ability to comment here.

  13. Don’t they want to be Christ-like? I mean, Jesus openly and publicly fielded yes/no questions designed so that a “yes” answer meant being murdered by one angry mob while a “no” answer meant being murdered by another angry mob.

    Jesus didn’t put his detractors into moderation, but used the opportunity to both humiliate them by showing their logical fallacies and to speak the truth to those who listened. Why not take that road? Maybe they simply don’t have that kind of wisdom?

  14. I may be wrong but I think it’s not so much fear, it’s just a cold, calculated marketing strategy, much the same as Pillsbury’s. If people don’t see Ben & Jerry’s in the store, they won’t know it exists and they’ll never know what they’re missing. They’ll never know there are other choices, other possibilities.

    The Gospel Coalition aims to keep the majority of people unaware of the deeper debates and the incidents of abuse that are happening. They don’t want the rank and file to become aware that there are questions they can’t answer, they don’t want them to see how lacking they are in contrast to those with compassion, because it would cut into their market share.

    They know that a few people might see a comment or post before it’s wiped away but it’s a numbers game, if they can sweep it under the rug fast enough, very few will notice.

    Every business owner has to be pragmatic. There are always going to be those who are displeased but if you can retain control of the narrative, you can keep most of the people ignorant of them.

    And, now, on top of all the posts about delicious food on the last thread, I am left thinking about Ben & Jerry’s and Haagen-Dasz! I think I need some chocolate, at the very least…

  15. siteseer wrote:

    And, now, on top of all the posts about delicious food on the last thread, I am left thinking about Ben & Jerry’s and Haagen-Dasz! I think I need some chocolate, at the very least…

    You could use Ben & Jerry’s to make a delicious Sacred Cow Sundae (TM, Gram3), the frozen dessert of choice for TWW posters.

  16. If it is true as the Apostle John states in the ESV that love casts out fear, then wouldn’t that perhaps means that there is no real love going on in there?

    18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 1 John 4:18 English Standard Version (ESV, via Biblegateway.com)

  17. Siteseer: thank you for putting that insight together so well. They are controlling the narrative so that average people don’t even know there are other “choices, possibilities, questions they can’t answer, deeper debates” to consider. I have observed this in many (most?) of my friends and acquaintances. If they have heard of opposing ideas, it’s only been in a dismissive fashion because it comes from the Big Dogs who are aggressive, coldly calculating marketers.

  18. Velour wrote:

    You could use Ben & Jerry’s to make a delicious Sacred Cow Sundae (TM, Gram3), the frozen dessert of choice for TWW posters.

    I’m on it!

  19. I think they MUST block what they have no answer for, or they are exposed as people who haven’t thought through their positions to the under-lying base of them. IF someone asks them a question that probes where they themselves will not go, then they likely feel they have no choice but to block. Pitiful? Character-wise, yes. But more a sign of sloppy scholarship, ignorance of the great oral traditions of Christianity from the days of the Fathers (and Mothers), and a thick coating of smugness from being the Big Cheese in a small dairy. If these people cannot discuss openly and dialogue with other Christian people, how can they think to sell their versions of ‘the gospel’ to non-Christians?

    I’m thinking, no Holy Spirit, they are still hiding out in the Upper Room? No Pentecost to free them to come out into the world and preach their ‘gospel’ in the open air. No spirit of the early Apostles who went into the heart of cities to the places where dialogue and debate were held OPENLY and yes, they were challenged, AND YES THEY RESPONDED.

    The Big Cheeses are only big in their own little world. Bring them out and they will not run with the big dogs because they are afraid of looking ridiculous. And they are too proud for that. Yes, pitiful. Eventually their isolation to protect their ‘image’ will be totally encircled. And they will become cults unto themselves. God have mercy on those these cowards would subjugate to their will.

  20. Incidentally, glancing down the “Recent Comments” list just now, I notice that every link to a recent comment is marked with the Union Flag. I’m assuming this is some quirk arising from WordPress’s interaction with the wider interweb – it’s not the first time we’ve had non-standard flags, after all, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. And it only applies to the Recent Comments list at the top right of the page, not to the comments themselves as they appear going down the page.

    But I can’t help wondering; is the same true for emdy else out there? We have several nationalities represented here, so I wonder whether you’re all seeing all the Recent Comments as Union Flags, or as flags appropriate to the country you’re reading from.

    Or maybe that’s just what They want me to think.

  21. >>Constantly criticizing outsiders while only listening to insiders … is how not to engage culture.

    It also leads to very poor decision making!

  22. Why is anyone shocked? I ( and anyone else who questions the posts) have been blocked at SBC Today, and Pravda….
    These guys just don’t want to hear anything but ” you guys are great!”

  23. srs wrote:

    egalitarian pleasuring party”‘

    I still can’t believe that quote. Does Doug Wilson believe women don’t get pleasure from sex? I mean, maybe not with him…

  24. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Incidentally, glancing down the “Recent Comments” list just now, I notice that every link to a recent comment is marked with the Union Flag. I’m assuming this is some quirk arising from WordPress’s interaction with the wider interweb – it’s not the first time we’ve had non-standard flags, after all, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. And it only applies to the Recent Comments list at the top right of the page, not to the comments themselves as they appear going down the page.
    But I can’t help wondering; is the same true for emdy else out there? We have several nationalities represented here, so I wonder whether you’re all seeing all the Recent Comments as Union Flags, or as flags appropriate to the country you’re reading from.
    Or maybe that’s just what They want me to think.

    Nick, I see a Union Flag when you post, nothing when I post. Or perhaps a Texas flag is visible on your end?

  25. This is ot, but I wanted to let velour know that I just saw this: “Vegan bakers discovered chickpea juice acts like an egg white, putting meringues back on the menu.”

    On topic, I still don’t know the purpose of the gospel coalition. What does it even do? Is its purpose merely to engage (poorly) with culture?

  26. Lea wrote:

    I still don’t know the purpose of the gospel coalition. What does it even do?

    Don’t they produce Sunday School materials for children? If they can influence the littles at a vulnerable age, then that ‘planting’ of their ideas in the minds of children will someday bear fruit. Unfortunately, it may not be good fruit.

  27. siteseer wrote:

    And, now, on top of all the posts about delicious food on the last thread, I am left thinking about Ben & Jerry’s and Haagen-Dasz! I think I need some chocolate, at the very least…

    Coincidentally, I have a pint of Ben and Jerry’s in the freezer – and it’s chocolate fudge brownie. Yow!

  28. Lea wrote:

    On topic, I still don’t know the purpose of the gospel coalition. What does it even do? Is its purpose merely to engage (poorly) with culture?

    That is an excellent question. It seems to have been a way to present a large group of like minded evangelical men and attract new ones. Sort of a power structure for pastors and ministry leaders. A way to promote books, conferences and materials.

    In their world, being published at the Gospel Coalition site is a huge deal. Accepted by your peers and the possibility of more as in speaking gigs, jobs, etc.

  29. K.D. wrote:

    Why is anyone shocked? I ( and anyone else who questions the posts) have been blocked at SBC Today, and Pravda….
    These guys just don’t want to hear anything but ” you guys are great!”

    Badge of honor.

  30. If you’ve been around TWW a while, you’ll likely have read a few times at least something like, “The issue isn’t legalism, it’s authoritarianism.” It took me a couple of years of thinking about that before I finally got it. I think it helped to see how so-called leaders from *all* zones in the theological landscape could be authoritarian, and how even the truths about grace could be gutted to create false rules and regulations in people’s life.

    Anyway, the last few years, I have been tuning in as much as I could on group/movement that has been labeled “cultural authoritarians.” This term goes back to at least 2010. This group constitutes the secular equivalent of authoritarians in the Church. I thought it would be important to bring this up to show that what is happening in the Church with certain teachers, churches, denominations, and networks with hierarchical leadership and extreme loyalty etc. is also being reflected in the wider culture. This has implications … what we’ve learned about spiritual abuse of authority, and all the related power differentials and dynamics, can help us interpret other realms of social activity and better navigate how we understand and connect with people in the broader community.

    We’re likely to run across cultural authoritarians in other places, and not just in the Christian community. For instance, this morning, I ran across this description of how “authoritarian voters” are affecting this election. (And although the article I was reading was about one particular party, I believe it shows up regardless of party affiliation.

    […] and a newly active block of voters known as authoritarians, defined not by demographics but by psychological profile. Authoritarians are hostile to outgroups and embrace aggressive, punitive policies toward them …

    […] political scientists use this term to describe a psychological profile of individual voters who are characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders or other unfamiliar groups.

    Authoritarians are socially rigid and prize order and hierarchies. And when they feel threatened — “activated” in political science parlance — they look for strongmen-style leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

    Sound familiar? Hostile. Aggressive. Punitive. Order. Fear. Rigidity. Hierarchies. Strong leaders. Protect insiders. Prevent change. Fear.

  31. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That’s pure terrible, so it is.
    (As they say in Glasgow. So they dae.)

    Aha and aha. If you are literally saying that people there use the expression ‘pure terrible’ it might explain a common expression here. Over in the eastern part of NC the people frequently use the expression ‘pure t’ but nobody that I asked had any idea what the ‘t’ stood for, and I asked quite a few people. However, if it stands for ‘terrible’ then it would be an explanation since it was used to describe something which would fit the idea of ‘pure terrible.’

    Wouldn’t that just be something now!

  32. ishy wrote:

    All but one of the new Calvinists I’ve known just parroted other people

    New Calvinist ranks are populated by scribes, not prophets. Scribes just repeat what they hear; prophets preach what they see. New Calvinist “preachers” allow the agenda of the reformed movement to shape their message. So they borrow words from each other to stay on message. God, give us prophets with a word from you!

    (As a side-note: James MacDonald was the featured speaker at yesterday’s Southern Baptist Pastors Conference. David Platt is the featured speaker today.)

  33. The Gospel Coalition Critiques Culture, Then Blocks Their Critics and Evades Questions

    You expect anything different from Illuminati with their One True Way?

  34. Christiane wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    I still don’t know the purpose of the gospel coalition. What does it even do?

    Don’t they produce Sunday School materials for children? If they can influence the littles at a vulnerable age, then that ‘planting’ of their ideas in the minds of children will someday bear fruit. Unfortunately, it may not be good fruit.

    “Give me your children for five years and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
    — Adolf Hitler, cult leader

  35. From the OP: “A ministry that blocks dissenters and ignores journalists who might ask difficult questions is not engaging culture; they are evading culture. Christian isolation will not lead to cultural transformation.” There are other intellectual ghettos that this applies to: YEC for one. By evading culture rather than engaging it how is the Great Commission directive honored?

  36. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Incidentally, glancing down the “Recent Comments” list just now, I notice that every link to a recent comment is marked with the Union Flag. I’m assuming this is some quirk arising from WordPress’s interaction with the wider interweb – it’s not the first time we’ve had non-standard flags, after all, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. And it only applies to the Recent Comments list at the top right of the page, not to the comments themselves as they appear going down the page.

    I’ve noticed that when I open a post in “Recent Comments” from a non-U.S. poster -Australia, Austria, Taiwan, Japan, U.K. – that all of the Recent Comments will change to that flag.

  37. Darlene wrote:

    What is TGC afraid of?

    They fear “who”, before “what”. Those who point out that it is not The “Gospel” Coalition, but The “Calvinist” Coalition. Those who question and resist the new reformation. Those who reveal the error of their teaching and their real agenda. Those who are calling them to account for their stealth and deception in planting theology, rather than churches. Those who document the abuses of their authoritarian leadership. Those who express concerns about the drawing away of a generation to follow the teachings of a mere man (Calvin) which have been debated and considered aberrant for the last 500 years. They live in fear that a prophet will step forth and point a bony finger in their face, who will shed light on darkness.

  38. BL wrote:

    They think that they are right. They have the inside track on “truth”. They intend to control the narrative. And those who disagree with them on this issue, have nothing of wisdom or import to offer. Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.

    You have just described John Calvin and the atmosphere in 16th century Geneva. Dissenters to his message were driven from the city, imprisoned, executed. Blocking blog comments is just another 21st century way to silence the opposition. The spirit of Calvin lives.

  39. ishy wrote:

    Jamie Carter wrote:

    Not having all the answers would ruin their image.

    All but one of the new Calvinists I’ve known just parroted other people in their answers.

    doubleplusduckspeak INGSOC.

  40. K.D. wrote:

    These guys just don’t want to hear anything but ” you guys are great!”

    Ees Pravda, Tovarichi!

  41. Velour wrote:

    BL wrote:

    Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.

    They believe that those who disagree with them are not among The Elect like themselves.

    Gawd’s Speshul Pets.

  42. Jerome wrote:

    JD Greear is set to become SBC President tomorrow. Given how Larycia Hawkins was driven from Wheaton, how has Greear escaped being hounded over his similar position regarding Islam?:

    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2010/09/30/reaching-muslims-for-christ-a-conversation-with-j-d-greear/

    Trevin Wax interviewing J.D. Greear several years ago:

    “You make the case that Muslims do worship the same God as Christians, although with obvious errors in understanding.”

    Hmmm…

    I would suggest that it comesdown to Greear being a powerful leader within the SBC organization, as opposed to Prof. Hawkins’ position within the Wheaton College hierarchy.

    (I also believe that sex and race play a role here, but at bottom, it’s about power, who has it and who doesn’t.)

  43. Janey wrote:

    Their hypocrisy and blindness to their own double standards is amazing.

    You expect any different from Utter Righteousness?

  44. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    If you’ve been around TWW a while, you’ll likely have read a few times at least something like, “The issue isn’t legalism, it’s authoritarianism.”

    Great post, Brad. Wade Burleson’s post on the issue of Authoritarianism: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html

    I find great irony in how you point out that TGC reflects the broader culture when their Foundation Documents answers the question “How should we relate to the culture around us?” with “By being a counter–culture.”.

    Authoritarianism isn’t just driven from the top down, being forced on people. There are those who want the perceived security that comes with someone else being responsible. I think that this is what one of my favorite philosophers, Jim Davis, was portraying in a particular strip: Garfield, wearing a hero’s cape, enters a pet store and opens all the cages saying “Be free”. No one exits. He then closes all the cages saying “Be safe”.

  45. Christiane wrote:

    The Big Cheeses are only big in their own little world.

    Exactly. And if you can police the boundaries of your world, you are safe. New Calvinism is a perfect example of weakness on the throne. Control, manipulation, and intimidation are not spiritual strengths, they are weaknesses of the flesh. If you allow someone’s weakness to control your strength, they own you.

  46. Lea wrote:

    I still don’t know the purpose of the gospel coalition

    It is not a “gospel” coalition. That name is a front for what it really is … a “Calvinist” coalition. It is an organization formed by a few old-guard Calvinists to unite and direct the New Calvinist movement; they are using the energy of an indoctrinated youth to accomplish what they couldn’t over the years – Calvinization of mainline Protestant non-Calvinist denominations. Of course, they are free to use “Gospel” in their name, because they sincerely and passionately believe that Calvinism = Gospel.

  47. FW Rez wrote:

    I find great irony in how you point out that TGC reflects the broader culture when their Foundation Documents answers the question “How should we relate to the culture around us?” with “By being a counter–culture.”.

    What did Jesus Himself say? Something about His disciples should not be like the Gentiles, who lord it over others?

    Authoritarianism shows up amongst liberals and conservatives politically and theologically. It is soooo much about power, and security, but based in fear. Love is countercultural; fear-power-contro is not.

  48. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    FW Rez wrote:

    I find great irony in how you point out that TGC reflects the broader culture when their Foundation Documents answers the question “How should we relate to the culture around us?” with “By being a counter–culture.”.

    What did Jesus Himself say? Something about His disciples should not be like the Gentiles, who lord it over others?

    Authoritarianism shows up amongst liberals and conservatives politically and theologically. It is soooo much about power, and security, but based in fear. Love is countercultural; fear-power-contro is not.

    Bingo!

  49. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Authoritarianism shows up amongst liberals and conservatives politically and theologically.

    I have seen that idea before, that the real split is not conservative/liberal, but more authoritarian/libertarian (ish). And you have authoritarians on the liberal and conservative side.

  50. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    What did Jesus Himself say? Something about His disciples should not be like the Gentiles, who lord it over others?

    Speaking of, someone mentioned the Baptist faith message deal the other day and I actually went to it. They use the term ‘servant leader’ for husbands!! That’s not a biblical term. That’s not biblical at all. So irritating to see this business school style gibberish infiltrate religious institutions. Jesus never said be a ‘servant leader’, he said be a servant. There is a HUGE difference.

  51. Max wrote:

    . That name is a front for what it really is … a “Calvinist” coalition. It is an organization formed by a few old-guard Calvinists to unite and direct the New Calvinist movement; t

    Good point. It acts as a one stop guru resource for what to believe and teach others —as it was geared toward young pastors. Indoctrination.

  52. @ Lea:
    Tell me about it. I did not even know the BFM existed until AL Mohler… and I grew up in Seminary circles. No one paid attention to it. At all.

    Now, go read the 1963 BFM and note the differences. Mohler has done all he can to make the SBC creedal…for a reason. Now theBFM is what they point to for unity. So I ask.. is ESS covered by the BFM?

  53. I can understand banning trolls or personal, vitriolic attacks on TGC authors. However, it is troubling that they would ban people simply for standing with victims or asking respectful, yet challenging questions. Strikes me as immature on their part to do so.

  54. @ Lydia:
    Lydia provides an accurate assessment of why folks are drawn to TGC, T4G, and other popular organizations of the reformed movement: “like minded” … “power” … “promote books” … “speaking gigs” … “jobs”.

    As the good Dr. Mohler said “Where else are they going to go?”

    When you see it, you can’t un-see it, dear Lydia.

  55. @ brad/futuristguy:
    In culture, the more of your money and choices gov controls the more authoritarian the leaders. They just sound nicer on social issues which keeps people from seeing it.

  56. Lea wrote:

    I have seen that idea before, that the real split is not conservative/liberal, but more authoritarian/libertarian (ish). And you have authoritarians on the liberal and conservative side.

    Yes, and in fact, some of the articles I saw on this a few years ago specifically talked about “cultural libertarianism” as the polar opposite of “cultural authoritarianism.” The “libertarian” was in the sense of allowing freedom of conscience, opportunity (and responsibility) to think for one’s self and decide and change views and actions — versus having all views and actions controlled. It isn’t the same as license — absence of morals or ethics — but space to co-exist peacefully with others with.

    This article is helpful in distinguishing between the two on the social and political fronts.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/

    This doesn’t mean the theological version is fully aligned with all the characteristics mentioned in that article. But at least the idea that there is a counterpart to authoritarianism is crucial, and that it offers a zone where we can live out what it says (even in the ESV) in Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (ESV, from Biblegateway.com)

    And there is a lot to glean from TWW and other survivor blogs about what freedom in Christ means in the Church context, as countercultural to the inevitable bondage of authoritarianism.

  57. Lea wrote:

    They use the term ‘servant leader’ for husbands!! That’s not a biblical term. That’s not biblical at all. So irritating to see this business school style gibberish infiltrate religious institutions. Jesus never said be a ‘servant leader’, he said be a servant. There is a HUGE difference.

    Yes there is a HUGE difference. And the terms “leader” and “servant” are mutually exclusive.

  58. Lydia wrote:

    jobs

    Young reformers have realized the best professional network going for them is to become involved with TGC, T4G, and other reformed organizations. They serve as employment clearinghouses for growing job opportunities in New Calvinism. TGC affiliation is as important as toting an ESV Study Bible! It identifies you as part of the gang.

  59. @ FW Rez:
    Russell Dilday told it like it was! The BFM2000 revision paved the way for two distinctly different theologies to co-exist in a single denomination (but it’s proving not to be a peaceful coexistence). Dilday’s analysis was prophetic.

  60. Max wrote:

    They serve as employment clearinghouses for growing job opportunities in New Calvinism.

    Who is paying for this? Printing press? Website fees? Conferences? I’m just sort of confused. Like, I need to see a balance sheet to get this org, because it has to be about more than twitter…

  61. What are they afraid of? An evangelical church that isn’t fantastically wealthy, politically connected, and an integral part of southern family life. So they’re building the corral around those who are still there.

    The young, restless, and Reformed are the same people who grew up in moral majority churches and were promised privilege within southern society for being a Christian. They’re angry that that didn’t happen, and Mark Dever has directed their anger at their brothers and sisters within their churches who ruined everything by not being good enough.

  62. @ Stan:

    Feel free to delete this one if this is an anathema political post, but I think that explains the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment of Trump as well.

  63. Max wrote:

    TGC affiliation is as important as toting an ESV Study Bible! It identifies you as part of the gang.

    It makes you one of the Inner Ring of The Highborn.
    By Divine Right.

  64. Stan wrote:

    The young, restless, and Reformed are the same people who grew up in moral majority churches and were promised privilege within southern society for being a Christian.

    “RULERS OF TOMORROW! MASTER RACE!”
    — Ralph Bakshi, Wizards

  65. Lea wrote:

    Who is paying for this? Printing press? Website fees? Conferences? I’m just sort of confused. Like, I need to see a balance sheet to get this org, because it has to be about more than twitter…

    More good questions! I know that SBTS paid for CBMW infrastructure and such for years. Which means the pew sitters in the SBC. Must be a similar sponsor of some kind for TGC. I have never looked into it.

  66. @ Stan:
    Russ Moore worked for congressman Gene Taylor.

    I am not convinced they grew up in mm homes. Mm was dead a long time ago. Many YRR I know grew up in very dysfunctional families and found church as teens or in the seeker world church.

  67. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I saw flags earlier today on the right hand column (all Stars and Stripes) but there are no flags there as I write this. Conspiracy seems to be the best theory now.

    Too bad you can’t put a Scottish flag up beside your name, Nick. Unfortunately you missed your opportunity in 2014.

    “‘Aye or Die’ on my chest is not a tattoo, it’s a birthmark!” – Groundskeeper Willie from “The Simpsons”

    And for your benefit, Nick, World Football news from this side of the pond:

    All of the quarter-finalists in the Copa America Centenario will be determined by the end of the day. Both Brazil and Uruguay are out! Peru took care of Brazil 1-0 the other night. Have not heard of rioting in Rio yet.

    Team USA won group A with a 1-0 victory over Paraguay, despite playing with 10 men for the last 40 minutes. That coupled with a wild 3-2 win by Costa Rica over Columbia gave the USA the top spot in group A. 2 quarterfinal matches are set so far. USA will play Ecuador in Seattle and Peru will take on Colombia.

    Also, Messi will probably sit in Argentina’s match today against Bolivia.

    Time to watch Euro 2016. GO ICELAND!!

  68. Here is another story coming out of Community Evangelical Free Church in Elverson, Pennsylvania. It shows how nepotism is a major problem. Parents trusted their son to the youth group and some of the youth group members introduced him to drugs and alcohol. One member who was related to the Stoltzfus family sold their child drugs. The church came down on the son, but swept under the carpet the allegations Elder’s children’s drug selling. The man in this story is struggling with drug addiction today due to being involved in the youth group.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/issues-of-alleged-underage-drinking-and-drug-activity-in-community-evangelical-free-churchs-youth-group-and-how-one-parents-son-was-adversely-affected/

  69. Corbin wrote:

    Has that been happening more often? I haven’t been around here for a while…

    In my observation I would say no, at least not an upturn. My comment was meant more as a talisman to ward off malicious spirits. Some defenders occasionally come through when their particular hero came up for review and instead of being blocked or harassed they were largely treated with respect. It may have been frustrating not to get to be a martyr.
    Most commonly I find the drive by comments come late in a discussion thread, long after everyone has moved on to a new topic.

  70. Lydia wrote:

    Many YRR I know grew up in very dysfunctional families and found church as teens or in the seeker world church.

    This.

    Ken Blue (pastor/author) of Healing Spiritual Abuse also observed this in his book. That the common denominator he saw in counseling people who’d been in abusive churches was that they had been predisposed to it by bad childhoods.

    Of course there are plenty of healthy people, with non-abusive childhoods, who get in abusive churches.

  71. Steve Scott wrote:

    Don’t they want to be Christ-like? I mean, Jesus openly and publicly fielded yes/no questions designed so that a “yes” answer meant being murdered by one angry mob while a “no” answer meant being murdered by another angry mob.
    Jesus didn’t put his detractors into moderation, but used the opportunity to both humiliate them by showing their logical fallacies and to speak the truth to those who listened. Why not take that road? Maybe they simply don’t have that kind of wisdom?

    Amen! Jesus never blocked anyone. Of course, the usual suspects have said they wouldn’t follow his example in having a woman preach his resurrection, so they probably secretly think he was wrong to do so.

  72. Velour wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    They use the term ‘servant leader’ for husbands!! That’s not a biblical term. That’s not biblical at all. So irritating to see this business school style gibberish infiltrate religious institutions. Jesus never said be a ‘servant leader’, he said be a servant. There is a HUGE difference.
    Yes there is a HUGE difference. And the terms “leader” and “servant” are mutually exclusive.

    I had not thought about the servant leader part, but you’re right. All excellent points.

  73. Ken P. wrote:

    I saw flags earlier today on the right hand column (all Stars and Stripes) but there are no flags there as I write this. Conspiracy seems to be the best theory now.

    I believe you have the position in a nutshell. In an even smaller nutshell: The world has gone Mad.

    I’ve been following the Copa America, though it gets less prominence on the sports pages over here than the much more local Euro 2016 – not least because the latter has been accompanied by some very unsavoury off-the-pitch violence of the sort we all rather hoped had begun to go out of fashion. Sadly, it appears to have been both organised and pre-meditated. But I stray: the USA are indeed having a good competition – better, as you say, than Brazil!

  74. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    The “libertarian” was in the sense of allowing freedom of conscience, opportunity (and responsibility) to think for one’s self and decide and change views and actions — versus having all views and actions controlled. It isn’t the same as license — absence of morals or ethics — but space to co-exist peacefully with others with.

    Experiencing an authoritarian church on one hand and living in a community dominated by the local university on the other, both having unwritten speech codes, I have seen the methods employed to define how I should think from both ends of the spectrum. If there is a viable group offering an alternative to the left or right hand straight-jacket it is welcome news.

  75. @ Velour:
    I am also looking at those who opted for ministry as a career choice specifically in this movement. They seem to be drawn to what they perceive as the nonchaotic “strong leader” and the roles and rules. And want to be like the gurus. I saw this so often. Dressing and talking like Driscoll, Mahaney and others.

  76. Bill M wrote:

    m. If there is a viable group offering an alternative to the left or right hand straight-jacket it is welcome news.

    I can relate.

  77. TGC has absolutely no interest in dialogue. They are only interested in bludgeoning people into believing what they believe and refuse to be held to any standard of morality – questions and criticisms are not allowed. They are far too smug and self-important to deign to interact with us non-elect – “Do not touch God’s anointed” is their modus operandi.

  78. Lea wrote:

    Who is paying for this? Printing press? Website fees? Conferences? I’m just sort of confused. Like, I need to see a balance sheet to get this org, because it has to be about more than twitter…

    Here is their 2014 report (not much real information)

    http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=31178

    Interesting that an organization that at that time had been in existence for 7 years had accumulated $1.4 million in assets, which represents 86% of their operational expenses for the year. Is it good stewardship to be collecting donations when you have operational income and reserves that more than cover your expenses?

    One reason they can operate in the black and produce all the content they do is that many of their contributors have full-time positions with similar roles in other organizations (Trevin Wax blogs at TGC while holding the position of Managing Editor for the Gospel Project, i.e. Lifeway).

  79. JeffT wrote:

    They are far too smug and self-important to deign to interact with us non-elect – “Do not touch God’s anointed” is their modus operandi.

    To which the Apostle Paul admonishes “Don’t cherish exaggerated ideas of yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities …” (Romans 12:3 Phillips).

  80. Lea wrote:

    Who is paying for this?

    BTW: There is a big green “DONATE” button on their website. One of the causes you can contribute directly to is “Theological Famine Relief”, where your donations will send TGC literature across the globe. Currently feature is John Piper’s “Prosperity”.

  81. @ FW Rez:

    Thanks! They have 700k in donations, and 1.4m in revenue. All it says about that is “In addition to charitable contributions, charities may derive revenue from tuition, fees, investments, rents, sales of inventory, and other income.”

    So who knows what that comes from. None of this is broken down to a level that makes a thorough analysis possible…

    They have 1.5m in ‘program’ expenses. What is that? No clue. I’m guessing salaries and maybe website fees/printing costs? I’m not sure what else it could be.

    Ok, so ‘Ministry types’, which is, I guess, what they do.
    ◾ Pastoral Support (primary)
    ◾ Apologetics
    ◾ Bible Study & Engagement
    ◾ Ministry Training, Consulting

    Maybe their fees come mostly from training and consulting, which would mean the churches I guess. Also selling books. I don’t know what ‘pastoral support’ is unless they have some sort of on call counselors. Apologetics seems like a throwaway – this is yammering on twitter and the internet, I guess.

    So, mostly sounds like a scam to me. I suspect the pastoral counseling/consulting/training is not terribly useful to the average pew sitter who is paying for it (I guess).

    They have 28 people listed as staff (only 9 women), lots of editor. Some dumb titles. Why do they need a ‘director of advancement’? Oh, that’s code for fundraising I think (he oversees fund development strategy and donor and foundation relationships)

  82. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Anyway, the last few years, I have been tuning in as much as I could on group/movement that has been labeled “cultural authoritarians.” This term goes back to at least 2010. This group constitutes the secular equivalent of authoritarians in the Church. I thought it would be important to bring this up to show that what is happening in the Church with certain teachers, churches, denominations, and networks with hierarchical leadership and extreme loyalty etc. is also being reflected in the wider culture. This has implications … what we’ve learned about spiritual abuse of authority, and all the related power differentials and dynamics, can help us interpret other realms of social activity and better navigate how we understand and connect with people in the broader community.

    I remember reading that when the public perceives a loss of safety/security, it can only go on so long / get to a certain level, and the pendulum tends to swing back into authoritarianism. I wonder if all of the mass shootings, terrorism, and a perceived sense of lawlessness in recent years is driving an urge in some to return to the *perceived* sense of safety that comes through strong authority? There is a perception among many people that public safety is diminishing, for instance the recent flap about transgender bathrooms. We scoff at it but there is no denying that a lot of people feel less safe. When change doesn’t happen gradually enough, there’s a danger of provoking a swing in the other direction.

  83. @ Lea:

    Also, Pastoral support must not be counseling since they don’t seem to have any staff who serve in that capacity?

  84. Lea wrote:

    I still can’t believe that quote. Does Doug Wilson believe women don’t get pleasure from sex? I mean, maybe not with him…

    The Doug Wilsons (religious or secular, the differences are only cosmetic) of the world are why so many unhappy women seek happiness elsewhere.

  85. Lea wrote:

    it has to be about more than twitter

    The New Calvinism movement would not exist, if not for social media. Organizations, conferences, and popular books certainly influence the YRR masses … but the day-in-day-out driver is the multitude of Twitter exchanges among the NC brethren. The YRR have proven to be masters of social media to advance the new reformation.

  86. Lea wrote:

    Pastoral Support

    Part of this is buying and sending Piper books around the world under the Theological Famine Relief project.

  87. Max wrote:

    o which the Apostle Paul admonishes “Don’t cherish exaggerated ideas of yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities …” (Romans 12:3 Phillips).

    That verse must not be in the ESV

  88. FW Rez wrote:

    Part of this is buying and sending Piper books around the world under the Theological Famine Relief project.

    They have a list of publications I probably won’t ever read like ‘missional motherhood’, some pamphlets and Jared Wilson’s super helpful ‘Gospel Shaped Worship’??

    And they have an article about ‘modern medicine failed me in kenya’ which bothers me and an article about marital intimacy that includes this doozy: “Regardless of any limitations, men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality.”

    What???

  89. FW Rez wrote:

    One of the causes you can contribute directly to is “Theological Famine Relief”, where your donations will send TGC literature across the globe.

    When you sincerely believe that the religious bunch you hang out with has a corner on the truth – only you – then the rest of Christendom is suffering in a theological famine. If you believe you have been sent into the world for such a time as this to restore the gospel that everyone else has lost, then you must give your life to relieve those who live under the curse of this end-times famine.

    The Prophet Amos warned about a great famine that would come upon the earth, “not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.” What New Calvinists don’t seem to realize is that they are the ones who have been deafened by the theology they profess … they are the ones who have been caught up in the “famine of HEARING the words of the Lord” while they feed on the words of mere men. They have a hearing problem as they read Scripture through a reformed grid. It is to them that the rest of Christendom must direct famine relief.

  90. JeffT wrote:

    That verse must not be in the ESV

    The ESV tones it down a little:

    “I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned” (Romans 12:3 ESV).

    Evidently, as evidenced by widespread arrogance in their ranks, New Calvinists don’t have enough “measure of faith” to overcome a proud heart.

  91. BL wrote:

    Quoting from the OP:

    What is The Gospel™Coalition afraid of?

    I don’t think they are afraid, IMO.

    They think that they are right. They have the inside track on “truth”. They intend to control the narrative. And those who disagree with them on this issue, have nothing of wisdom or import to offer. Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.

    We engender annoyance, rather than fear.

    In much the same way that ants annoy the picnickers. They brush off the ants, and spray repellent around, not out of fear of the ants, but just to get rid of them.

    I tend to agree with this also. I don’t think they are afraid at all. I think they just like to control what is being said so as to not be “overpowered” by the naysayers. I honestly don’t think this is a unique reaction though, many organizations do that. (I’m not defending TGC btw)

  92. FW Rez wrote:

    Part of this is buying and sending Piper books around the world under the Theological Famine Relief project.

    I remember when we used to fund Bible translation, production, and distribution. Guess that’s not in style anymore…

  93. Gram3 wrote:

    I remember when we used to fund Bible translation, production, and distribution. Guess that’s not in style anymore…

    700k in donations (from somewhere) to fund books that give their authors royalties…That’s missions, right? Wouldn’t want any of these people to get god wrong.

  94. ibelieve wrote:

    many organizations do that. (I’m not defending TGC btw)

    Indeed they do. The Gospel Glitterati have been quite successful in adapting worldly means for their personal ends while pretending this is somehow about disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We should give them credit for their skill, but no credit for doing the actual work of ministry.

  95. Max wrote:

    Evidently, as evidenced by widespread arrogance in their ranks, New Calvinists don’t have enough “measure of faith” to overcome a proud heart.

    I think you are bang on

  96. Lea wrote:

    700k in donations (from somewhere) to fund books that give their authors royalties

    And money for the publishers like Crossway who “partner” with TgC which runs a website that “reviews” Crossway books and authors. Who then produce more “famine relief” materials. I agree with Max who absolutely nailed the famine we are experiencing.

  97. Lea wrote:

    “Regardless of any limitations, men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality.”

    HUH??

  98. siteseer wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    “Regardless of any limitations, men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality.”

    HUH??

    My response exactly! It’s stuck somewhere in the middle of an article about marital intimacy (full of stereotypes of men need this kind of intimacy, women need this other kind), but yeah. WHAT? Even in the midst of an article that’s not supposed to be about sex, they seem to think it’s all about sex…

  99. siteseer wrote:

    women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality

    Good grief! I suppose a good place to start would be to cut their husbands off (no, not surgically) until the husband learns to treat his wife with dignity and respect.

    Their whole system of dominant-submissive in a marriage is so perverse. It bears little resemblance to healthy marital life.
    What happens to young people raised up in such an aberrant culture? Do all the young men stand the chance to end up like Josh Duggar, and all the young wives like poor Anna? I feel sorry for the young people. The rest of them need to be kicked in the (yes) for all the harm they do to the dignity of the married state.

  100. Lea wrote:

    “Regardless of any limitations, men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality.”

    Wait, I thought women weren’t supposed to be responsible for anything, just the order takers. Seems to me in their world, the big man is responsible for his own sexuality (whatever he wants, when he wants), and the little woman is just to obey – unless it’s more convenient to lay everything at the feet of the woman, then that’s his prerogative. These are some very strange people.

  101. @ Stan:
    Boom! I was going to comment this same thing but Stan beat me to it. The TGC is about networking like minds not bringing in new converts or even engaging other Christians.

  102. Patriciamc wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    “Regardless of any limitations, men are called to shepherd their wives’ hearts just as much as women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality.”

    Wait, I thought women weren’t supposed to be responsible for anything, just the order takers. Seems to me in their world, the big man is responsible for his own sexuality (whatever he wants, when he wants), and the little woman is just to obey – unless it’s more convenient to lay everything at the feet of the woman, then that’s his prerogative. These are some very strange people.

    This is another one of those misleading terms & concepts – like ‘servant-leader’.

    The phrase “women are called to shepherd their husband’s sexuality” actually means what you noted “whatever he wants, when he wants, and the little woman is just to obey.”

    Also, you have likely noted, that while women have no ‘authority’, they still bear a great deal of responsibility.

    You might have missed their various teachings & assertions that inform us that it is women’s fault that:

    the church is feminized.

    that men feel emasculated.

    that men don’t want to go to church.

    that husbands abuse.

    that men use porn.

    that men yell.

    that women get raped.

    that men lust.

    Nothing much has changed in their attitude toward women since Adam was confronted by God about his disobedience in the Garden,

    “It was the woman you gave me ”

  103. Gram3 wrote:

    I remember when we used to fund Bible translation, production, and distribution. Guess that’s not in style anymore…

    They need to make sure that their “Gospel” filters are in place.

  104. Jack wrote:

    networking like minds not bringing in new converts

    And the YRR church planting movement is about planting theology, not churches.

  105. Gram3 wrote:

    I remember when we used to fund Bible translation

    No need to do that any longer … Piper has translated it for you.

  106. Lea wrote:

    “Vegan bakers discovered chickpea juice acts like an egg white, putting meringues back on the menu.”

    But… chickpea juice is a poultry product. It’s right there in the name.

    😉

  107. @ siteseer:
    I think it has something to do with “enfleshing the nature of the Gospel” or something. In other words, I do not have a clue, either.

  108. Lydia wrote:

    Must be a similar sponsor of some kind for TGC. I have never looked into it.

    Crossway is a “partner” of TgC.

  109. Friend wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    “Vegan bakers discovered chickpea juice acts like an egg white, putting meringues back on the menu.”
    But… chickpea juice is a poultry product. It’s right there in the name.

    And here I just had a really nice lunch (homemade) and now I’m feeling sick.
    You’re no FRIEND to me!

  110. Let’s take a step back: why would a group want to censor criticism? Because it has something to hide. Censorship is anathema to freedom of information. It is what authoritarian governments, totalitarian governments, corrupt organizations, religious cults, and the spiritual forces of evil have in common. Secrecy loves darkness, it does not want to be searched.

    TGC would beg to differ. To TGC, censorship is part of their public affairs strategy, part of their image and brand strategy.

    There is a problem with that though. TGC isn’t a Fortune 500 company beholden to its stockholders. It purports to be a ministry of the Lord. It is held to higher standards and cannot hide under the cover of darkness.

    Let’s give no ground to the Adversary who would love to give the lost world another reason to never consider Christianity.

  111. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Authoritarianism shows up amongst liberals and conservatives politically and theologically.

    Well, thank you for this. After reading about the SBC’s problems here for awhile, I noticed parallels with the schism in the Episcopal Church. Although that looked in many ways like a grass-roots uprising, it also had the features of a power grab.

    We all need to care about all of these disputes, whether or not we share every belief of the affected congregations. Low-hanging fruit is found throughout the theological spectrum. The warning call is often the sudden discovery of righteousness about some topic that upsets people. All of a sudden you have to take a stand!!!! That can sound like Scripture (Repent!), but sometimes it’s not.

    My great-grandparents had clobber verses about gambling, and my grandparents had clobber verses about alcohol. Their generations excluded and condemned people, too. Now the techniques are more sophisticated and more money is at stake, but the yen to marginalize comes from the same spirit, and it’s not kind.

  112. Friend wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Hope you’re kidding…?

    You can make it up to me by emptying out your wallet and giving me all of the crisp bills.
    A little retail therapy will cure me, I think. Or a pair of earrings.

  113. siteseer wrote:

    when the public perceives a loss of safety/security, it can only go on so long / get to a certain level, and the pendulum tends to swing back into authoritarianism.

    That’s what several of the recent (2015-2016) articles talk about re: cultural authoritarianism, and what can catalyze the swing back toward it. Safety/security.

    It may be no coincidence that in the Christendom realm, the growing movement of authoritarian networks may have arisen in part due to reactions against the drastic/”theologically unsafe” changes in liberal mainline denominations from the 1970s onward (which, for instance, contributed to the founding the the more conservative PCA/Presbyterian Church in America).

    Plus the changes of postmodern times in general and some of the more chaotic streams within the “emerging ministry” movement (where Mark Driscoll and followers created a whole distinct authoritarian wing in reaction against some of the excesses and uncertainties in postmodern theology).

    Plus those who wanted to be in control, such as the SBC conservative resurgence (which set the stage for an even more radical take-over by Neo-Calvinists).

    An irony in the whole mess is, by trying to make things “secure” and “predictable” and “spelled out” through dictatorial leadership and legal covenants, it removes many essential aspects of human dignity — freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom to take risks and be responsible for the consequences. The absence of which, in turn, could very well result in a worse state of affairs than if disciples (and citizens in the social realm) were free.

  114. @ Lydia:

    I’m trying to offer my idea of why people come to these churches to be hammers, but you’re saying where the nails come from.

    Moral majority hung around longer in some parts of the country longer than others. I’m 28, grew up in Texas, and definitely remember believing someone who doesn’t go to church is weird. For the 32 year old head pastors out there, they may have been adolescents on the tail end of moral majority.

    Furthermore, at my former gospel(TM) centered church, I had to endure listening to young men my age talk about how ashamed they were/are because they didn’t get the gospel(TM), when they were just kids who believed what their parents and traditional Baptist churches taught them about the Lord.

  115. TGC wants to be perceived as inclusive all the while knowing that they are not. They talk about working across denominational lines but have no intention of working with anyone that does not share their view on certain secondary and/or tertiary issues. Their founder’s statement clearly says “We invite all Christians to join us…” but only after defining themselves as exclusively Reformed.

    Accepting favorable and supportive comments in social media while blocking comments from those that might want to engage them with a different perspective is true to their agenda: to control the “Gospel” narrative.

  116. Friend wrote:

    Well, thank you for this. After reading about the SBC’s problems here for awhile, I noticed parallels with the schism in the Episcopal Church. Although that looked in many ways like a grass-roots uprising, it also had the features of a power grab.

    One of my long-term projects is to fill in a chart with all the major theological streams and different forms of church organization on one side, with examples to fill each box. I have it about half done, due to lack of time not lack of examples of power abuse to fill in the squares.

    Who knows … maybe we can all chip in and do a crowd-sourced chart like that sometime.

  117. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    An irony in the whole mess is, by trying to make things “secure” and “predictable” and “spelled out” through dictatorial leadership and legal covenants, it removes many essential aspects of human dignity

    Well said!

  118. @ Friend:
    I think getting upset about some doctrine that is bringing about abuse to innocent people may be seen in a better light, if nothing more than expressing solidarity with the injured in the face of those who are perpetrating abuse. Good to be at peace with all, in so much as we are able, but standing with those who are being abused is a large part of the faith of Christ.

  119. @ Stan:
    Different ages, different perspectives. The moral majority as a voting block fractured in the early 90’s. Go back and look at stats Clinton got from evangelicals. It is a shocker.

  120. Off-topic important announcement: Gram3’s Key Lime Pie recipe is now posted at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, the Cooking tab.

  121. Christiane wrote:

    I think getting upset about some doctrine that is bringing about abuse to innocent people may be seen in a better light, if nothing more than expressing solidarity with the injured in the face of those who are perpetrating abuse.

    Yes, but. (1) Which doctrine, who has decided on the doctrine, is it true or not true/consistent with scripture and tradition? (2) What is abuse and who defines it? Is it abuse to say that thus and such is true and one is required to believe it? You see where I am going with this. (3) Which innocent people and what are they innocent of? Who has decided on innocence or lack of it? Is someone who is preaching a false gospel innocent? Is open opposition to such a thing abuse?

    I am assuming here that you were not talking about criminal behavior.

    I don’t think that truth can be sacrificed based on vague generalities any more than supposition can be elevated to the level of truth itself. But that is a narrow line to walk. Mostly we don’t do that very well.

  122. @ okrapod:
    I had in mind the patriarchal teachings that lead to the abuse of women (and children) …. I agree speaking generally is not wise, but considering the blog we are on (and the reasons many are here), I think I am writing in a certain context that would be understood here. In principle, you are correct about the wisdom of being specific.

    How do you comprehend the doctrine of Christian solidarity with people who are abused and sick and suffering? I expect there must be some form of this teaching in evangelical life, or the Deebs wouldn’t have risen in support of so many in need of their advocacy. There are many evangelicals who stand with abused people, one being Wade Burleson who consistently has been on the side of the angels.

  123. @ brad/futuristguy:
    Brad, I’m curious: how do you define “Christendom”? It’s not really used much outside of US evangelical circles, except in reference to medieval Europe and the Crusader kingdoms in the Middle East, which were there and gone.

    Not trying to challenge you, but sincerely wondering how you define the term, and what it means to you personally. I am puzzled when i see it (confessing to my historian’s hat, kinda, though haven’t worn it professionally in quite a while).

  124. Regarding Cohen and Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s,

    “After finding little hope in their legal options, the two decided to take matters into their own hands. Together, they launched the now famous “What’s the doughboy afraid of?” campaign and began taking it as public as they could.

    *…placing advertisements
    *…renting banner planes for flying around major sporting events
    *Cohen and Greenfield did whatever they could think of to gain support
    *…They took out a classified ad in Rolling Stone magazine
    *…Greenfield even took to being a one-man picket outside the headquarters of Pillsbury
    ++++++++++++++++

    I think something similar could be viable for challenging the IMB / NAMB (whatever their collusion) on the missionary recall / forced retirement blackmail, and larger situation.

    it appears to be dripping with corruption.

    seems to me if all was on the up-&-up they would come clean. why not challenge them more and more for transparency?

    I think people and God deserve at least that.

    I especially think large ads in major newspapers and magazines with direct questions in big black font could be a good catalyst. $ could be pooled to fund it.

    Later that year, Cohen and Greenfield came up with the idea of putting a 1-800 number on every pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

  125. FW Rez wrote:

    Authoritarianism isn’t just driven from the top down, being forced on people. There are those who want the perceived security that comes with someone else being responsible. I think that this is what one of my favorite philosophers, Jim Davis, was portraying in a particular strip: Garfield, wearing a hero’s cape, enters a pet store and opens all the cages saying “Be free”. No one exits. He then closes all the cages saying “Be safe”.

    I agree strongly with this. TGC would exist without the fearful pew sitters that support them and follow them on social media.

    I was born in 1968 and the amount of information and opportunities available to people has grown exponentially in my lifetime. I see it as exciting and empowering but sadly I think it causes many, many people fear and anxiety. Then authoritarian leaders come along who will tell you what is right from wrong, who will tell you which new ways of thinking and being are okay and which are not, who will relieve you of the need to do your own research and come to your own conclusions, and you follow these leaders because it makes the world feel more understandable and safe.

    It’s a scary authoritarian cycle. The right wing of one religion incites people to acts of terrorism, and the response of the fearful victims is to turn the authoritarians in their religion and culture for answers.

  126. Christiane wrote:

    How do you comprehend the doctrine of Christian solidarity with people who are abused and sick and suffering? I expect there must be some form of this teaching in evangelical life, or the Deebs wouldn’t have risen in support of so many in need of their advocacy. There are many evangelicals who stand with abused people, one being Wade Burleson who consistently has been on the side of the angels.

    I did not know there there was a doctrine of christian solidarity. This is the first time I have heard that term.

    As to whether there is such a thing among evangelicals I have no idea. I am not now nor have I ever been an evangelical. I was Southern Baptist decades before they started re-defining themselves as evangelicals; I raised by children Free Will Baptist, a sort of less rigid type of baptist fundamentalism-not evangelicals; I and all my family are now Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic variety, not evangelicals.

    I have no idea what ‘stand with’ means. My parish has a ministry to the homeless in which they sleep and eat and clean up at our church nights during the winter. We also partner with a religious community in a needy section of town. Nobody calls this standing with though, so I really don’t know what all that term might include.

    You can tell that we are talking back and forth across a large divide of terminology.

    My concern is with the idea of doctrine. I am not aware that Baptists or Evangelicals or Episcopalians or Catholics have doctrines which excuse abuse of any sort. There have been abuses of all kinds, in all kinds of groups, but not in compliance with some doctrine to my knowledge.

    And Wade seems like a good man, but I am not of his religious persuasion, so I have no idea if he has some doctrine that would apply here, and IMO baptists do not form individual doctrines. It is more likely that Wade applies scripture as he understands it.

  127. numo wrote:

    how do you define “Christendom”?

    Good question. I use Church [capital “C”] for the Church universal, the body of Christ across all races and places, times and spaces. I use church [little “c”] for a local church as a time-and-place specific group of people who gather together (as a partial or whole group) to learn and live life together.

    I use Christendom for institutionalized Christian denomination-theological systems that have in the West typically gotten associated with cultural-social-political aspects of particular countries or regions. Sometimes these are even welded into place as the leading institutions in that country/region.

    I use the term Christendom with a more negative connotation, as a Christendom system usually exerts a lot of influence (or control, even) over the people in the institution and also typically in the society. It’s like a kingdom of Christianity instead of Christ’s Kingdom. Christendom has its particular messages, and methods (such as “attractional church” and mega-church). The more Christendom-ish and institutionalized the influence is, the less organic, local, and vibrant the churches in it tend to be.

    So, my European friends talk about being into a second “post-Christendom” generation. There were a lot more “Dones” and “Nones” and “Gones” a generation earlier there than here. The institution wasn’t meaningful, or they didn’t like the power it exerted in society, or etc etc. So, they don’t generally use it as a positive designation either.

  128. @ okrapod:
    ‘Solidarity’ is a Catholic principle of social doctrine. It may be described as “a commitment to the good of one’s neighbor with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself’ for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him’ instead of oppressing him for one’s own advantage.

    The model for the teaching of this principle is, of course, Our Lord Himself, Who is one with humanity even to the point of “death on a cross”. Jean Vanier describes it in this way:

    “Jesus begins to make the passage
    from the one who is healer
    to the one who is wounded;

    from the man of compassion
    to the man in need of compassion;

    from the man who cries out:
    ‘If anyone thirsts let him come to me to drink,’
    to the man who cries out:
    ‘I thirst.’

    From announcing the good news to the poor,
    Jesus becomes the poor.

    He crosses over the boundary line of humanity
    which separates those whose needs are satisfied
    from those who are broken and cry out in need.”
    (from ‘The Body Broken’ Jean Vanier)

    OKRAPOD, I hope this helps explain what I mean by ‘standing with’ others who are in trouble. I call it a Christian doctrine as I believe many Christian people who are not Catholic also understand and practice it in their sojourning on this Earth.

  129. @ Kemi:

    You are correct to a point, but there are also other reasons why people want authoritative and even authoritarian religion. For one thing, not everybody thinks that everybody search the scriptures and everybody come to their own conclusions is the whole story. Lots of people want teachers, preferably teachers who know what they are talking about. And lots of parents want their kids to hear the same thing at church that they hear at home, and hear it from somebody who they respect besides just their parents. And some people have just had enough of listening to every different idea that every different person has and they come to the conclusion that there is nothing about Christianity is true but it is just a bunch of opinions with no solid basis. And one way to stop arguing with one’s spouse about this or that religious idea is to say the church says or the pastor says–that can cool down an argument and divert the person’s attention to the church or the pastor and away from the spouse. Works wonderfully well with children also.

    I am thinking that these are down to earth pragmatic reasons that probably won’t go away. The problem comes when the ‘authority’ is wrong, ignorant or abusive.

  130. Christiane wrote:

    solidarity with the injured in the face of those who are perpetrating abuse.

    Always a good, centering reminder, thanks. The Episcopal Church fractured (ostensibly) over several decades of hot-button issues. Abuse? Well, all sides claimed righteousness: We must accept X! We must not! We must stay together! We must leave!

    Lincoln wrote, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time.”

    Abuse? Maybe not. But our parishes and dioceses lost sight of malice toward none and charity for all.

  131. Christiane wrote:

    ‘Solidarity’ is a Catholic principle of social doctrine. It may be described as “a commitment to the good of one’s neighbor with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself’ for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him’ instead of oppressing him for one’s own advantage.

    Something not practiced for decades by many priests when it came to children. Why try to paint something we both know did not happen at the upper levels of the Catholic Ministry bureaucracy. Instead, It protected predators. The same system is still in place.

    Why act shocked and dismayed about evangelicals while promoting doctrines as if your own church did not ignore them for decades when it came to children?

    I don’t get where you are coming from when you promote Catholicism as some sort of ideal as opposed to Protestantism. They both have proven to be in need of a more bottom up polity.

  132. You might find some interesting reading re: this topic (and preceding ones) in the Didache, pretty much the oldest Christian document regarding how to live a Christian life, the practices of baptism and communion, and Church polity. It is short; you can read the whole thing in less than 20 minutes. But Chapters 11-13 (five minutes to read all), there are some interesting instructions that apply to these conversations, and indicate that there is nothing new under the sun. In one of the translations, Christians are warned against “Christ-mongers”–those who would use Christ to make money.

    The Didache is available free on the internet.

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html Here is one translation, selected pretty much at random from among 4 translations.

  133. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    a chart with all the major theological streams

    OK… happy to name the four major parties, but I really don’t want to offend any TWW readers who had an experience different from mine. Do you have an email address, or is there a way to contact you privately via your blog?

  134. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t get where you are coming from when you promote Catholicism as some sort of ideal as opposed to Protestantism.

    I suppose it won’t matter, but I did write this concerning the principle of solidarity in my reply to Okrapod: ” I call it a Christian doctrine as I believe many Christian people who are not Catholic also understand and practice it in their sojourning on this Earth.”

    At NO time have I ever excused any abuses of innocents practiced by anyone in the Catholic Church, clergy or laity. There is no excuse for abuse of innocents. Nor is there any excuse for it in the whole of Christendom.

  135. Kemi wrote:

    I was born in 1968 and the amount of information and opportunities available to people has grown exponentially in my lifetime. I see it as exciting and empowering but sadly I think it causes many, many people fear and anxiety.

    Information Overload and its companions, Future Shock and Analysis Paralysis.

    And when you’re completely overwhelmed by this trio, you end up longing for someone to tell you exactly what to do, exactly what to feel, exactly what to think, JUST TO MAKE THE THRASHING STOP. Someone who’ll Simplify everything to something your brain CAN handle, JUST TO MAKE IT STOP.

    I think this is also the dynamic at work in Islamic Radicalization. Follow all the Rules, Recite What Is Written, and chop the Overload back down to the memorized Holy Book. No matter what gets lost in the chopping.

  136. Lea wrote:

    It’s stuck somewhere in the middle of an article about marital intimacy (full of stereotypes of men need this kind of intimacy, women need this other kind), but yeah. WHAT? Even in the midst of an article that’s not supposed to be about sex, they seem to think it’s all about sex…

    Fertility Cult, like the Groves of Asherah or amulets of Priapus among the goyim.

    “Most cults are started so the Cult Leader can (1) get rich, (2) get laid, or (3) both.”
    — My old Dungeonmaster, in the parking lot after a D&D session

  137. FW Rez wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    Pastoral Support

    Part of this is buying and sending Piper books around the world under the Theological Famine Relief project.

    That reminds me of a political cartoon during the Ethiopian Famine of the Eighties:

    A starving Ethiopian child being handed a book labeled “Marx” instead of food.

  138. Lea wrote:

    srs wrote:

    egalitarian pleasuring party”‘

    I still can’t believe that quote. Does Doug Wilson believe women don’t get pleasure from sex? I mean, maybe not with him…

    Well, when PCCP Wilson can only think of women as Sex Slaves…

    What’s next? Chain them to the man’s bed?

  139. In the spectrum of welcoming dissent to tolerating it to suppressing dissent and finally punishing it I have found all too many church authorities fall into the latter category of punishing those who dissent. If anyone, people representing “The Church” should be of the welcoming category but by their actions they prove they are not of The Church but are of a much lower realm.

    I had a former pastor who thought it his job to police what people said on their facebook posts and among other things told some to take down their posts expressing their disappointment with things under his leadership. I have not had direct contact with TGC so I am unable to report directly but extrapolation from my experience elsewhere, TGC operatives suppressing dissent online is likely representative of what they do with dissent in their personal realm. I venture that some in TGC admire Calvin for his systematic repression and not just his systematic theology.

  140. @ Christiane:

    Thanks. I have found it in the CCC #1939 – 1948 under the heading Human Solidarity. It seems to be a broad concept and not just about people who are abused. I found that section to be worth reading and worth consideration. I have not read much about Catholic social teachings. I ran across the Catholic Worker Movement, and Liberation Theology and Preferential Option for the Poor but that is about it.

  141. I am curious if there are leaders in the SBC who are actively and outwardly going against TGC? I’m sure a lot of seminary professors might be afraid to speak out now in fear of their jobs?

    I was at SEBTS when Akin became Chancellor, and admit I was a bit unhappy at the move, as my home church had just fallen to pieces, in part because of the new Cal movement. I went to a mostly non-Calvinist SBC church for awhile, and now have kinda left SBC churches entirely after being disheartened about this and other issues, such as the emphasis on celebrity pastors. I’d have more hope if there were more outspoken people like there are gathering here around this blog, but I didn’t see that in churches at all. People didn’t even seem to think about it.

  142. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    srs wrote:

    egalitarian pleasuring party”‘
    I still can’t believe that quote. Does Doug Wilson believe women don’t get pleasure from sex? I mean, maybe not with him…

    Well, when PCCP Wilson can only think of women as Sex Slaves…

    What’s next? Chain them to the man’s bed?

    Oh man. now I’m wondering if these guys red a lot of the Conan type lit as kids…

  143. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t get where you are coming from when you promote Catholicism as some sort of ideal as opposed to Protestantism. They both have proven to be in need of a more bottom up polity.

    This reminds me of the seemingly disparaging passage in Judges “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” As we all know, thing were all so wonderful later when they were ruled by kings. (I need a sarcasm font)

    It is one of the joys of reading through the bible, as much as it reveals God, it reveals us and our earthly systems, warts and all. Jeffrey Chalmers said it a few days ago, nothing new under the sun.

  144. Tim wrote:

    Plus I’m blocked from their Twitter feed, of course.

    Something’s terribly wrong when they block Tim Fell, who is always polite. As we all know, they just block people who disagree no matter how politely.

  145. Bill M wrote:

    I had a former pastor who thought it his job to police what people said on their facebook posts and among other things told some to take down their posts expressing their disappointment with things under his leadership.

    If a minister or anyone else said that to me, my language would be most un-Christ like.

  146. BillM,

    You make a good point, although I’m not sure why anyone would push Catholic doctrine… it’s kind of disturbing to see a religion pushed that has catered to so much abuse. I thought this blog was to help people *out* of abusive systems?! *shakes head*

  147. ishy wrote:

    I am curious if there are leaders in the SBC who are actively and outwardly going against TGC?

    There is a group of “traditionalists” within SBC under the umbrella of Connect316 who have been expressing concerns about the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC. They blog over at sbctoday.com.

  148. Tim wrote:

    I once left a comment at TGC in 2013 that complimented the writer and suggested taking her position even further. It was deleted, which caused me to ask Is Hospitality Lacking at The Gospel Coalition?

    Plus I’m blocked from their Twitter feed, of course.

    This helps provide a reference point. I have always found Tim’s comments here and on his blog to be considerate and that of a gentleman. That TGC blocks him is without excuse.

  149. Max wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    I am curious if there are leaders in the SBC who are actively and outwardly going against TGC?
    There is a group of “traditionalists” within SBC under the umbrella of Connect316 who have been expressing concerns about the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC. They blog over at sbctoday.com.

    But be careful making comments….actually, they are no better than TGC…

  150. ibelieve wrote:

    I’m not sure why anyone would push Catholic doctrine

    Just to clarify, my point was all systems have their faults, even the “more bottom up polity” that I also favor. As for Catholic vs Protestant it is similar to my politics, I no longer have a “dog in the fight”.

  151. Patriciamc wrote:

    Bill M wrote:
    I had a former pastor who thought it his job to police what people said on their facebook posts and among other things told some to take down their posts expressing their disappointment with things under his leadership.
    If a minister or anyone else said that to me, my language would be most un-Christ like.

    I recommend telling them to pound sand–winsomely and with a sincere smile.

  152. K.D. wrote:

    Max wrote:
    But be careful making comments….actually, they are no better than TGC…

    That’s unfortunate. 🙁 Still, at least there’s some dialogue.

  153. okrapod wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    How do you comprehend the doctrine of Christian solidarity with people who are abused and sick and suffering? I expect there must be some form of this teaching in evangelical life, or the Deebs wouldn’t have risen in support of so many in need of their advocacy. There are many evangelicals who stand with abused people, one being Wade Burleson who consistently has been on the side of the angels.
    I did not know there there was a doctrine of christian solidarity. This is the first time I have heard that term.
    As to whether there is such a thing among evangelicals I have no idea. I am not now nor have I ever been an evangelical. I was Southern Baptist decades before they started re-defining themselves as evangelicals; I raised by children Free Will Baptist, a sort of less rigid type of baptist fundamentalism-not evangelicals; I and all my family are now Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic variety, not evangelicals.

    I would love to find an Anglo-Catholic Church to attend, but the nearest one to me is in Pasadena, TX, about 90 miles away….

  154. They are not afraid of the truth. It comes down to birds of a feather flock together. Today I contacted Grace Community Church (John MacArthur ) my former pastors mentor and the place that trained him for the ministry would stand with Billy and call Ken Ramey to vindicate billy from his pulpit and apologize to my son. Please contact them and ask them to stand with Billy on this. I’m giving ken a chance to do the right thing. However I’m also calling on GCC and TMS to do what is right since they trained him. Tomorrow I’m supposed to hear back from one of the pastors there so will see what their response will be. If they are true to God’s word then they will call ken ramey to vindicate Billy.

  155. K.D. wrote:

    But be careful making comments….actually, they are no better than TGC…

    Do you mean SBC Today or SBC Voices?

  156. Bill M wrote:

    extrapolation from my experience elsewhere, TGC operatives suppressing dissent online is likely representative of what they do with dissent in their personal realm. I venture that some in TGC admire Calvin for his systematic repression and not just his systematic theology.

    I don’t need to extrapolate about these critters. Been there, done that, keyed out. The Authorities Must Not Be Questioned.

  157. Bill M wrote:

    As for Catholic vs Protestant it is similar to my politics, I no longer have a “dog in the fight”.

    My position is that I am not going to let either side intimidate me from investigating whatever truths there are on the other side. And whatever the Orthodox have to say, I want to hear that too. And while we are at it, there is a lot to be learned from the Jews.

  158. Max wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    But be careful making comments….actually, they are no better than TGC…
    Do you mean SBC Today or SBC Voices?

    I’ve been booted from both….

  159. K.D. wrote:

    I would love to find an Anglo-Catholic Church to attend

    There are Anglo-Catholic parishes which are not affiliated with The Episcopal Church; they have their own denomination. My church is “an episcopal church in the catholic tradition.” Both of these use the name anglo-catholic. I always use the whole statement ‘anglo-catholic episcopalian’ in describing myself.

  160. Velour wrote:

    And the terms “leader” and “servant” are mutually exclusive.

    I don’t agree with this. I don’t like the way “servant leader” has been misused over the years, but there is an element of truth in that title. I’ve been in various types of leadership positions for nearly all of my 30+ year career and have been under leadership during all that time, so I have a little bit of experience in this matter. Bad leaders do not think of themselves as serving the people who work for them. Good leaders do. Good leaders provide their people the top-cover needed for them to do their jobs. They filter out the stuff that rolls downhill so that their workers don’t have to deal with it. Lots more could be said, but let’s consider whether Jesus was a servant leader. Jesus called himself a servant. And at the same time he said he is our Lord and Master. Sounds to me like he considers himself both a servant and a leader. The problem is not with servant leadership. The problem is the way it has been abused and misused. Many people are great servants who don’t know how to lead. That is not servant leadership. Many others know how to wield authority, but they don’t know how to serve. That makes them bad leaders. Lets not let the bad examples make us believe that there is no such thing as servant leaders

  161. Bill M wrote:

    This reminds me of the seemingly disparaging passage in Judges “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” As we all know, thing were all so wonderful later when they were ruled by kings. (I need a sarcasm font)
    It is one of the joys of reading through the bible, as much as it reveals God, it reveals us and our earthly systems, warts and all. Jeffrey Chalmers said it a few days ago, nothing new under the sun.

    But later, in I Samuel ch. 8:
    “4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

    5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

    6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

    7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

    8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. ………..

    10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

    11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. …..

    14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

    15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers ……..

    18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

    19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

    20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”

    I wonder if the YRRs are traveling down the same path as ancient Israel?

  162. Ken F wrote:

    The problem is not with servant leadership. The problem is the way it has been abused and misused. Many people are great servants who don’t know how to lead. That is not servant leadership. Many others know how to wield authority, but they don’t know how to serve. That makes them bad leaders

    I agree with you about the qualities of a “good boss”, who may serve and protect the team.
    I just wouldn’t call them a “servant-leader” but “a good boss”.

    I just don’t like this term “servant-leader” (anybody know who started it and what year?) because in many cases it disguises authoritarianism in the church. It’s tossed around the way “Biblical” is tossed around: to silence any dissenters.

  163. Gram3 wrote:

    Bill M wrote:
    extrapolation from my experience elsewhere, TGC operatives suppressing dissent online is likely representative of what they do with dissent in their personal realm. I venture that some in TGC admire Calvin for his systematic repression and not just his systematic theology.
    I don’t need to extrapolate about these critters. Been there, done that, keyed out. The Authorities Must Not Be Questioned.

    Ditto. I’ve been “keyed out” (TM, Gram3) too.

  164. K.D. wrote:

    I’ve been booted from both…

    “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1).

    The blessing of God never falls on disunity. I doubt that we will ever see that again in SBC ranks; the New Calvinists have sowed seeds of discord. Of course, as I think about it, before the Calvinism wars, there were the conservatives vs. liberals … before that, concerns about the charismatics entering SBC ranks … before that, something else I’m sure. Yep, Southern Baptists have always been fussing with each other about something.

  165. Ken F wrote:

    Jesus called himself a servant. And at the same time he said he is our Lord and Master.

    Husbands were referred to as servant leaders. Not Jesus.

    I don’t have a problem with the concept in a business setting where someone is obviously the boss but the problem is that Jesus didn’t TELL his disciples to be servant leaders. He told them to be servants. The mentality is all wrong with these pastor guys. The heart is wrong. The pride is overbearing. All of them need to stop using this term.

  166. okrapod wrote:

    I always use the whole statement ‘anglo-catholic episcopalian’ in describing myself.

    Have you thought of making a portmanteau word for yourself? I once met a man who called himself a Methobaptiterian. 🙂

  167. Bill M wrote:

    ibelieve wrote:

    I’m not sure why anyone would push Catholic doctrine

    Just to clarify, my point was all systems have their faults, even the “more bottom up polity” that I also favor. As for Catholic vs Protestant it is similar to my politics, I no longer have a “dog in the fight”.

    Honestly, I don’t have a “dog” in the fight either.

  168. Velour wrote:

    I just don’t like this term “servant-leader” (anybody know who started it and what year?) because in many cases it disguises authoritarianism in the church. It’s tossed around the way “Biblical” is tossed around: to silence any dissenters.

    I dislike the term as well.

    Coined in the late 60s / early 70s by Robert Greenleaf in “The Servant as Leader” as a counterpoint to the common authoritarian leadership found in corporations/business and defined (originally) as:

    …A new kind of leadership model – a model which puts serving others as the
    number one priority. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others; a
    holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of
    power in decision-making.”

    …and the SHARING of POWER in decision-making. Yeah, on that aspect, not so much.

    Leaders within churchianity shanghaied the phrase from the business world (incorporating the title, but not the actual concept), and by tacking the word “servant” onto ‘leader’ a thin veneer of *humble* is overlayed their title.

  169. Ken F wrote:

    The problem is not with servant leadership. The problem is the way it has been abused and misused. Many people are great servants who don’t know how to lead. That is not servant leadership. Many others know how to wield authority, but they don’t know how to serve. That makes them bad leaders. Lets not let the bad examples make us believe that there is no such thing as servant leaders

    The problem is that real ‘servant leaders’ aren’t going to be referring to themselves as such.

  170. Lea wrote:

    the problem is that Jesus didn’t TELL his disciples to be servant leaders. He told them to be servants. The mentality is all wrong with these pastor guys. The heart is wrong. The pride is overbearing. All of them need to stop using this term.

    Amen.

    And they need to get away from Hebrews 13:17 and spend a few weeks in Mark 10:

    “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. NOT SO WITH YOU. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    And, uh, no – preaching once or twice a week, writing books, speaking at conferences – yeah, that does not qualify as serving.

  171. BL wrote:

    Coined in the late 60s / early 70s by Robert Greenleaf in “The Servant as Leader” as a counterpoint to the common authoritarian leadership found in corporations/business and defined (originally) as:
    …A new kind of leadership model – a model which puts serving others as the
    number one priority. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others; a
    holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of
    power in decision-making.”
    …and the SHARING of POWER in decision-making. Yeah, on that aspect, not so much.
    Leaders within churchianity shanghaied the phrase from the business world (incorporating the title, but not the actual concept), and by tacking the word “servant” onto ‘leader’ a thin veneer of *humble* is overlayed their title.

    Thanks for the research on the “servant-leader” phrase.

    I’ll believe a church that says that have “servant-leaders” when they prove it through things like congregational votes, listening to dissent, not having membership covenants, having women preach, teach, and lead — using all of their gifts.

  172. BL wrote:

    Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    This verse must have not made it into the ESV either.

  173. Velour wrote:

    Thanks for the research on the “servant-leader” phrase.

    You’re welcome! It’s something I dug into several years ago with Warren’s PDL & the Peter Drucker injection into churchianity, because I wondered where all this crap was coming from.

    I chased a lot of rabbit trails and found a massive number of connections between all these various leaders.

    What we now have is a Churchianity Industrial Complex (with a tip of my hat to Eisenhower).

    And riffing on Eisenhower’s warning: “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the churchianity–industrial complex. “

  174. Lea wrote:

    Oh man. now I’m wondering if these guys red a lot of the Conan type lit as kids…

    If so, they probably only read the knockoffs, not R E Howard’s original Conan.

  175. okrapod wrote:

    And whatever the Orthodox have to say, I want to hear that too. And while we are at it, there is a lot to be learned from the Jews.

    I will give a hearty agreement to your statement. When I left an authoritarian church and found refuge elsewhere, a colleague sent me Eph 3:10,11.

    “God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord.”

    His take on the Ephesians passage was different but for me a very meaningful understanding of the passage, I was truly thankful for the rich variety. Since then I have uncovered a latent interest in different perspectives, also finding much to admire in the Orthodox faith and more respect for Jewish traditions and their understanding.

  176. Nancy2 wrote:

    11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. …..

    Reading later in 1Kings 4 the vast stores of wealth consumed just to maintain Solomon’s household, that it was taken from a relatively poor populace, and you get some idea of the oppression predicted by Samuel. And unlike the representatives of TGC, Solomon was reputed to be wise! Consider the plunder TGC leaders could wreak, well actually we don’t have to, just read the rest Of Kings to get the picture you get when you put a single not so wise man in charge.

  177. Velour wrote:

    I’ll believe a church that says that have “servant-leaders” when they prove it through things like congregational votes, listening to dissent, not having membership covenants, having women preach, teach, and lead — using all of their gifts.

    I will always take exception to the formulation servant-leader. Jesus called us to be servants, not servant-leaders. When someone says servant-leader they are still emphasizing leader, servant is only a descriptive modifier that soon gets lost and forgotten. Jesus used servant as a noun, not as an adjective.

  178. Bill M wrote:

    I will always take exception to the formulation servant-leader. Jesus called us to be servants, not servant-leaders. When someone says servant-leader they are still emphasizing leader, servant is only a descriptive modifier that soon gets lost and forgotten. Jesus used servant as a noun, not as an adjective.

    Spot on.

  179. Lydia wrote:

    Something not practiced for decades by many priests when it came to children. Why try to paint something we both know did not happen at the upper levels of the Catholic Ministry bureaucracy. Instead, It protected predators. The same system is still in place.

    Indeed, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/catholic-church-fights-clergy-child-sex-abuse-measures

    Hopefully the rank and file are putting pressure on their leaders to do what is right.

  180. Velour wrote:

    Bill M wrote:
    I will always take exception to the formulation servant-leader. Jesus called us to be servants, not servant-leaders. When someone says servant-leader they are still emphasizing leader, servant is only a descriptive modifier that soon gets lost and forgotten. Jesus used servant as a noun, not as an adjective.
    Spot on.

    Spot spot on.

  181. “The resolutions committee declined Bart’s resolution against sexual predators. We can’t understand why and we aren’t sure if there will be time for Bart to resurrect it. How could they oppose that?” (David Miller)

    This is a quote from David Miller’s post on SBCvoices

    (the reference to ‘Bart’ is to Dr. Bart Barber)

  182. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I clicked on a comment by Jack in the Open Forum and all the flags on the right went Canadian. Then I clicked on comment by Christiane and they went American. Clicked on your name and the flags went British.

    What is this World coming to?!?!?!?

  183. BL wrote:

    problem is that real ‘servant leaders’ aren’t going to be referring to themselves as such.

    Bingo!

  184. @ Ken F:
    The problem was taking a business model to the Body. For one, the concept we have of leader does not fit except what has been institutionalized from history as such. Pope, Elder, Pastor, etc.

    Jesus warned about the Gentile system which was the Roman Chain of Being- very much a caste system we sadly adopt without thinking.

    When leader is used in Scripture to describe an OT character or such it is used as ‘one who has gone before’. One who has been in the trenches. It has nothing to do with being given a title or position. That is the bad system. It is used for those who demonstrated faith, obedience, etc.

    Years back, Blanchard (One minute manager guy) developed a system for mega big cheeses where he practically institutionalized the word for pastors.

    It was meant to soften the top down structure of megas that were rapidly becoming a huge market niche. The celebrity pasrors were deemed a servant leader and people bought it hook, line and sinker. It sounds so nice without giving up power.

  185. On the servant topic.

    A couple of Sunday’s ago our rector explained to the children in the children’s homily why he wears an apparently useless piece of cloth hanging from his arm during mass. It is called a maniple, which may but not must be used in catholic vestments and is used by some lutheran and some anglo-catholic priests or so Wiki tells me.

    Here is the anglican take on it. The history of the cloth is noted, but for our purposes it is used by deacons when they assist at mass. It started out as a cloth for wiping things but is now symbolic. A priest is first ordained a deacon, and when later he is ordained a priest that is in addition to, not instead of, being a deacon. So the priest is both priest and deacon, and the maniple reminds Father S that he is a deacon right on and is a servant of the servants of God.

    Imagine that. I love it.

  186. @ siteseer:
    One can hope. But just like SGM and others, if the same system is in place, even if the players and the titles are changed, I wouldn’t bet on it.

    I can understand promoting Jesus Christ. I just dont get promoting an institution. I don’t think the doctrine of solidarity worked for many children for decades. Even going back further and the cruelty to unwed pregnant teens. I have been around evangelists for Catholicism and recognize it when I see it.

    I have no problem with Catholic doctrine at all. I just don’t understand the need to promote what are deemed as ‘Catholic doctrines’ to others as if they are some sort of protection against abuses. They were not.

  187. Lydia wrote:

    The problem was taking a business model to the Body.

    Indeed. Because in business, the purpose is different for starters. Everybody knows this person is really the ‘boss’ (I’ll leave off different types of leaders/whether the boss is really a leader etc for now). So any ‘servant’ activities are that person giving up power by caring for/about others in some fashion.

    That is not what the church is supposed to be though! Jesus had no patience for all these people who wanted to be in charge and play power games. He was about love and serving others. The people who use ‘servant leadership’ in the church only use it to dump and lessen the servant part, which was the WHOLE of the lesson Jesus was giving! He specifically said not to ‘lord it over’ others.

    Not that people who act as servants cannot actually be true leaders, because leaders are more than a position (like pastor/elder). If bob at church has been a servant to the population, with no official position, and decides the church has erred, makes his case, is turned down and leaves, with many many members following, he IS a leader because people are following his example and leadership. But he is not running around calling himself a ‘servant leader’ as a ploy. He just is doing what’s right. That’s the difference.

  188. @ Lydia:
    Hi LYDIA,
    you might see the word ‘solidarity’ differently if you realize that the model used for it originates in the Incarnation, which is a teaching all Christians understand as ‘God With Us’

    I think we can get too hung up on what is different, and overlook what is shared and always has been shared among Christian people. I think it is a good thing not only to note what IS shared among us, but also to celebrate it as a way forward to help victims of abuse. Even the most hard-core fundamentalist will comprehend that the Holy Spirit ‘comes along side’ of us and offers strength and comfort. So maybe the idea of ‘solidarity with’ those in trouble is not so much a ‘Catholic’ principle as it is a more universal expression among ALL human persons of good will, including people who are not Catholic or not even Christian. I think ‘solidarity’ is something we can see hard-wired into who we are as made in the image of God. It is not so much ‘a principle to be followed’ as it is a part of who we are as human persons in relation to Our God and to one another. We weep with those who weep. We are asked to help bear one another’s burdens. We stop by the side of the road and help the injured person. We instinctively know that there is more to who we are as individuals when we are impelled by our better angels to live in service to others in community, or why would we both be here in support of the work of the Deebs?

  189. @ Lydia:
    @ Lea:
    And, the SBC has used and twisted the servant-leader business model to “gently” define/appoint the husbands as the bosses in Christian marriages.

  190. Revisiting OT: Could Merritt find out if TGC has blocked those danged anti-Reformed liberal feminists Carl Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Goligher, et al?

  191. Ken P. wrote:

    What is this World coming to?!?!?!?

    Madness and evil, probably, but I believe we are zeroing in on the fault here. And I speak as someone who is currently knee-deep in nested javascript functions…

  192. Lydia wrote:

    Jesus warned about the Gentile system which was the Roman Chain of Being- very much a caste system we sadly adopt without thinking.

    The Chain of Being started with the Romans?
    I always associated it with Medieval times — “The Lord in his Palace and the Serf in his Hovel, God Wills It!”

  193. Ken P. wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I clicked on a comment by Jack in the Open Forum and all the flags on the right went Canadian. Then I clicked on comment by Christiane and they went American. Clicked on your name and the flags went British.

    What is this World coming to?!?!?!?

    Tory Takeover of the Colonies of the Empire.
    Cecil Rhodes Lives!

  194. Bill M wrote:

    Consider the plunder TGC leaders could wreak, well actually we don’t have to, just read the rest Of Kings to get the picture you get when you put a single not so wise man in charge.

    Once while flipping cable channels, I came upon a Catholic Bible Study of “the rest of Kings”.

    The Jesuit hosting the study: “It’s a Banana Republic!”

  195. “Most people who have been blocked by TGC say they were punished for questioning the coalition’s disastrous defense of Sovereign Grace Ministries, a prominent Calvinist ministry that was embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal.”

    ‘punished’ ???
    sometimes being blocked by such people is a confirmation that they cannot HANDLE a dialectic, rather than a sign that they refuse to dialogue with those who have a different point of view. The word ‘punished’ only takes meaning if those who were blocked assume it was the latter. If blocked people realize that they may have been cut off by those with a strong fear of being seen as unable to cope with probing questions, then the actual action of being ‘blocked’ is in itself a confirmation that the blockers are insecure in their own ethos and reasoning and therefore UNWILLING to engage those who desire a dialectic with them.

    My bet is that those who block people or who are closed to dialoguing are often insecure, and do not wish to be exposed as on thin ice ethically or half-baked in their thinking. The ‘block’ serves as a defense mechanism. In attempting to keep themselves from being exposed, their block likely exposes their insecurity when communicating in an arena with diverse Christian people.

  196. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    @ Lea:
    And, the SBC has used and twisted the servant-leader business model to “gently” define/appoint the husbands as the bosses in Christian marriages.

    YES! I thought it was just a bunch of people using a buzzword term but they actually put it in the Baptist Faith Message deal! Wtf???? For people who are all ‘it’s all about the bible’ that is NOT in the bible!!!

  197. Christiane wrote:

    Even the most hard-core fundamentalist will comprehend that the Holy Spirit ‘comes along side’ of us and offers strength and comfort

    If you are going to be a catholic apologist, or like Lydia thinks an evangelist, you might want to take some time to better understand protestant thinking and the world as seen by protestants.

    Oops there about fundamentalism. What I saw in my time in country with baptist fundamentalism is no where near what you seem to be saying. The Spirit is seen as having many functions and not just strength and comfort, and the emphasis in fundamentalism is often that the Spirit convicts of sin, points toward Jesus Christ, enables understanding of scripture etc etc. Your comment sounds like a very limited and very negative idea about fundamentalism, and this sort of thing will turn off your readers in the blink of an eye. That would be really off track, because one of the places that disaffected baptist fundamentalists end up is in the RCC. If you miss the similarities in the thinking style between baptist fundamentalism and catholicism you might want to check that out. I even read a comment by Mohler once saying that within protestantism it was calvin or nothing and if not that people would go be catholic. That is not an exact quote, but he ‘gets it’ in this area.

    Please see next comment also.

  198. Christiane wrote:

    My bet is that those who block people or who are closed to dialoguing are often insecure, and do not wish to be exposed as on thin ice ethically or half-baked in their thinking.

    Calvinists have a history of “blocking” those who disagree with their aberrant theology. In the 16th century, they banished, imprisoned, and executed opposing Christians.

  199. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Patriciamc wrote:
    Bill M wrote:
    I had a former pastor who thought it his job to police what people said on their facebook posts and among other things told some to take down their posts expressing their disappointment with things under his leadership.
    If a minister or anyone else said that to me, my language would be most un-Christ like.
    I recommend telling them to pound sand–winsomely and with a sincere smile.

    In the section on Biblical Ethics:An Overview in the ESV Study Bible, the question is asked if it is permissible to conceal truth in order to mislead. The answer is yes “because candour must be used judicially. Charity should temper how one responds to another person. To say to the pastor bluntly, ‘Your sermon was terrible’, would not be edifying but destructive. Speaking the truth in love requires discernment and restraint. Tact is a Christian virtue. In any case, the blight ion never to speak a falsehood does not moly that ne has an obligation to tell everything that one knows. There are many times when silence is appropriate (cf. Matt.26.63).
    My understanding of this is that it is okay not to divulge your true theological position as a New Calvinist when being interviewed for a position in an SBC church and that, once you are in, you cannot be criticised because that would hurt your feelings. It would also lead to the complainer being disciplined.
    On a serious note, the depths to which these people sink in order to justify the unjustifiable (by using the Lord’s silence before Pilate as an example is quite astonishing).

  200. Christiane wrote:

    you might see the word ‘solidarity’ differently if

    The word ‘solidarity’ is unfortunate. While it is used in catholic social teaching it is more often seen by the general populace as something used in politics, sociology, economics. The Wiki article on solidarity explains this. It can be perceived by protestants of various kinds as one of the political ideas used to bring about ‘the one world government’ about which they talk quite a bit. And frankly, this concept misunderstood and misused could in fact do that. The Wiki article says that it is one of the six principles in some european political document, and that would be a red flag right there for a lot of protestants. This is not common ground between protestants and catholics, not as people understand it, and not when seen as an international political concept, and not when the word solidarity is used.

    In fact, some might end up saying that this is evidence that the RCC has signed on with the coming antichrist and will be the de facto false prophet, if not evidence that this pope or the next one or the next one will in fact be the personified antichrist. I kid you not. I have heard this. I did not make this up.

    A word to the wise. Be careful here.

  201. Christiane wrote:

    “The resolutions committee declined Bart’s resolution against sexual predators. We can’t understand why and we aren’t sure if there will be time for Bart to resurrect it. How could they oppose that?” (David Miller)

    This is a quote from David Miller’s post on SBCvoices

    (the reference to ‘Bart’ is to Dr. Bart Barber)

    But the SBC at its annual convention in St. Louis this week passed a resolution calling on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag.

    The Confederate flag was a bigger issue to Southern Baptists than church sexual predators?

    What’s the world coming to? … or should I say “What’s the church coming to?!”

  202. okrapod wrote:

    Your comment sounds like a very limited and very negative idea about fundamentalism

    Hi OKRAPOD,
    Yes! I do have a very poor opinion of the kind of ‘fundamentalism’ that is found in all religions. This is true.

    As to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Comforter’ is only one of many titles we give to the Holy Spirit, and it does, in the case of my comment, show how a relationship to the idea of God in solidarity with those who suffer. OKRAPOD, in my limiting my comment on the Spirit’s role in relationship to the topic of solidarity, you feel I have exhibited a shallow understanding of the Holy Spirit? People of my faith have a very highly defined theology of the working of the Holy Spirit in keeping us focused on Christ, which I thought you knew. Sorry if you were confused. Thanks for dialoguing, and for your insights which I value.

  203. Christiane wrote:

    you feel I have exhibited a shallow understanding of the Holy Spirit?

    No, I think you have a shallow understanding of baptist fundamentalism. I think on that subject I am not the one who is ‘confused.’ I think you have slung dirt at some people who do not deserve that particular kind of dirt slinging.

  204. In the mid-80’s, we tried to join the Gathering of Believers (forerunner to CLC). We met with one of the main leaders, whose name escapes me, and asked a large variety of questions ranging from theological to practical. In essence, we were interviewing them to find out if they met our standards.

    Before the end of our discussion, we scheduled a follow-up meeting, but were stood up. No excuse or apology was given. We tried again, at the church convention in PA, to meet with the same man for lunch and were again stood up without apology or reason, after which we understood the message that we were unwelcome to join this church.

    They had vetted us and found us wanting.

    We came to the table with rudimentary theological beliefs as well as a rather bold wife (moi) who was not afraid to speak and asked her own set of questions. Timid is not a word anyone has used to describe me.

    In this manner, they weeded out undesirables who did not fit their desire for newbies whom they could mold into their peculiar brand. This methodology succeeded as they built an empire which flourished for decades until it didn’t, suddenly and violently crashing.

    TGC is attempting to do the same thing … Vetting people to find like-minded folk while weeding out those who would put a damper on their brand. The secret is to keep the free-thinkers out so that those they are molding won’t be dissuaded by dissenters. Narrowing their world into happy, nodding, pew sitters in order to pretend that this is the Way, the Truth and the Life makes for a very large, but shallowly rooted, belief system.

  205. Max wrote:

    But the SBC at its annual convention in St. Louis this week passed a resolution calling on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag.

    What? Dumb.

  206. Max wrote:

    The Confederate flag was a bigger issue to Southern Baptists than church sexual predators?
    What’s the world coming to? … or should I say “What’s the church coming to?!”

    I don’t think it’s a bigger issue to the church, but to the resolutions committee, which is largely TGC now. They refuse to let the SBC even talk about it. I think the larger SBC is just unaware of it.

  207. Lea wrote:

    Max wrote:
    But the SBC at its annual convention in St. Louis this week passed a resolution calling on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag.

    What? Dumb.

    I should say, I don’t say this because I’m all yay confederacy, I just think that’s a poor use of time.

    Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, I think that particularly issue is not entirely unlike the eating meat for idols issue dealt with in the NT. It’s more about the heart of the person doing a thing, why they embrace or don’t embrace, as well as the possibility of hurting others or causing them to stumble.

  208. okrapod wrote:

    In fact, some might end up saying that this is evidence that the RCC has signed on with the coming antichrist and will be the de facto false prophet, if not evidence that this pope or the next one or the next one will in fact be the personified antichrist. I kid you not. I have heard this. I did not make this up.

    Hi OKRAPOD,
    I wouldn’t worry about me. 🙂 I use the work ‘solidarity’ in the best sense: as in when we ‘weep with those who weep’, we feel an empathy with them, but we ALSO go beyond the emotion and we ask what we CAN do to offer assistance. Sometimes, the only thing is to sit with people and listen to them. Listening is a merciful service that is so needed by so many.

    I’m sorry you don’t like the word. Being ‘one’ with those who suffer is not something easily contained in words at all. I consider a Christian’s ability to be there in the midst of those who suffer to be a revelation of grace at work in our lives. It is one expression of loving-kindness to stand WITH abused people and listen to their accounts of what they have endured and to pray for them and offer support, and THEN to work to stand up to those who abuse others and call them to account. No matter who the abusers are. No matter where it leads.

  209. @ okrapod:
    Yes, I have a very, very poor opinion of ‘fundamentalism’ in the sense that I define that word. I think we are defining the term differently. We seem to be using words and terms that we both see in different contexts. That makes it hard to communicate well. As to those whose fundamentalism has led them to activities that abuse others, I don’t think we can see that and NOT comment. Some sins are sins of ommission, when we see abuse and do and say nothing. Mud-slinging won’t cut it. I’d rather work constructively as is the tradition of my family who challenge child abusers in their roles as pediatric physicians (there’s a child psychiatrist in the family, too). Okrapod, you know I was teaching in the inner city for many years. I am not one to throw mud, but I cannot see what I have seen and do nothing, no.

  210. My celebration tempered by the Family Integrated Pastor, Pastor Roger Jimenez and his outrageous theology regarding homosexuality. His rant is the extension of so many other posts that the Deebs have highlighted on this site.

    That being said, Can we all join together to rejoice in the traditional Calvinists stepping out to address the heresy to Subordination. Also, clearly saying that relations within the Godhead have nothing to do with gender roles.

  211. Elizabeth wrote:

    That being said, Can we all join together to rejoice in the traditional Calvinists stepping out to address the heresy to Subordination. Also, clearly saying that relations within the Godhead have nothing to do with gender roles.

    Absolutely. Some of the these folks make the ESS people look like intellectual as well as historical and theological light weights.

  212. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    @ Lea:
    And, the SBC has used and twisted the servant-leader business model to “gently” define/appoint the husbands as the bosses in Christian marriages.

    The servant leader is “equal in servant essence” but has a “different leader role”. Translation: YOU are a servant always. I am a servant that gets to be a leader. It is slapping a fish on Orwellian doublespeak.

  213. Elizabeth wrote:

    My celebration tempered by the Family Integrated Pastor, Pastor Roger Jimenez and his outrageous theology regarding homosexuality.

    Somebody needs to check him out, like the FBI maybe.

  214. Stan wrote:

    Revisiting OT: Could Merritt find out if TGC has blocked those danged anti-Reformed liberal feminists Carl Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Goligher, et al?

    But, but, they are comps! They agree that gender roles must be preached!

  215. Lydia wrote:

    The servant leader is “equal in servant essence” but has a “different leader role”. Translation: YOU are a servant always. I am a servant that gets to be a leader.

    They do the same thing with that pesky ‘submitting to one another’ verse. THEIR version of submitting involves being in charge…ours is obeying.

  216. Remnant wrote:

    TGC is attempting to do the same thing … Vetting people to find like-minded folk while weeding out those who would put a damper on their brand. The secret is to keep the free-thinkers out so that those they are molding won’t be dissuaded by dissenters. Narrowing their world into happy, nodding, pew sitters in order to pretend that this is the Way, the Truth and the Life makes for a very large, but shallowly rooted, belief system.

    I think you have nailed it.

  217. Lea wrote:

    I should say, I don’t say this because I’m all yay confederacy, I just think that’s a poor use of time.

    We used to call it low hanging fruit. It’s pandering to the media with an easy win everyone can get behind. They Pat each other on the back and brag about unity as they read about their vote.

    Dealing with those who protect molesters or look the other way is a whole other issue. Not many manly men are left in the SBC who are willing to stand up for innocent children.

    A better use of their time would be firing Mohler and kicking out Mahaney, for starters. Send a serious message: we won’t tolerate men like you.

  218. Lea wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    The servant leader is “equal in servant essence” but has a “different leader role”. Translation: YOU are a servant always. I am a servant that gets to be a leader.

    They do the same thing with that pesky ‘submitting to one another’ verse. THEIR version of submitting involves being in charge…ours is obeying.

    If only everyone went along and stayed in their respective roles. Everything would be all rainbows and unicorns.

  219. @ Lydia:

    In his latest Mortification of Spin post on the subject, Trueman defends himself from Denny Burk’s accusation of being a feminist.

  220. Lydia wrote:

    If only everyone went along and stayed in their respective roles. Everything would be all rainbows and unicorns.

    I think some of these look back types really do think that when men were in charge and women knew their place, everything was fine. They have to have an incredibly poor grasp of history to believe this.

  221. Off topic, like watching a train wreck I could not help myself and checked out the first ballot at the convention. What on Earth is in “illegal” ballot and how can they have 108 of them…. first time around? I don’t get it.

  222. Breaking SBC News:

    J.D. Greear has withdrawn as a candidate for SBC president. Steve Gaines will be the next President of the Southern Baptist Convention under some very bizarre circumstances. Go to sbcvoices.com for details.

  223. @ Elizabeth:
    Hi ELIZABETH,
    I joined you in celebrating by commenting on the Patheos site, AND by posting this on Denny Burk’s blog:

    ” Christiane Smith June 15, 2016 at 11:03 am #

    Hi DENNY,
    in case you have not seen this:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/15/subordination-stopped/

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    Denny has not allowed me to comment there on the ESS matter (I’ve tried), but I hope he takes a moment to read the Patheos article. I don’t expect for my comment to make it through his moderation, but I thought he should know what was said there, just in case it helps him understand how others see the issue of ESS.

  224. Lydia wrote:

    What on Earth is in “illegal” ballot and how can they have 108 of them…. first time around? I don’t get it.

    I tried to find out at sbcvoices…best I can tell these super smart pastor men are incapable of properly filling out a ballot???

    Oh, but Merritt has SO much courage to talk about the confederate flag…would that they had so much courage to talk about treatment of women and children.

  225. Lydia wrote:

    The problem was taking a business model to the Body.

    I’ll come to the defense of business. I’ve worked with groups in business, non-profits, churches, and just backpacking groups, there are organizational models applicable across that spectrum. My main involvement has been largely with businesses and there are many models used. The most effective were team oriented or those with an owner or CEO who was indiscernible from others. Meetings throughout the organization had spirited debate. I’ve also see the one guy in charge mentality, no debate, and it usually accompanies a lot of turnover in personnel.

    Sorry I needed a paragraph before just saying I see the problem not as using business models but as using bad organizational models.

  226. Elizabeth wrote:

    Have you all been following this week’s discussions over at Jesus Creed? A great review of Carl Trueman’s call out(as posted here at WW) and the responses from subordinates. Today’s post is titled: Subordination Stopped
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/15/subordination-stopped/
    I feel like celebrating!!!!! Anyone else with me!!!! The consensus is being formed and I am dancing!!!

    I was just reading this latest article. McKnight’s had at least four articles lately criticizing ESS. I’m glad to see the majority of people commenting also disagree with it. It’s nice seeing someone call out the usual suspects on this.

  227. Bill M wrote:

    I see the problem not as using business models but as using bad organizational models.

    They can both be a problem.

    I have no problem with business. I majored in it. But church should not operate with the same MENTALITY as a business. It’s purpose is different. That should be reflected.

    churches can learn from businesses how to streamline thing, organizational and team challenges, etc…but ‘servant leadership’ is a term that is being used to toss out the idea of being a servant by people who want to be ‘leaders’.

    As I said, this gets into where power comes from. In school, we studied the differences between power that flows from knowledge, position, charisma, etc…

    Churches should NOT be operating with the same mentality of a business. And church “leadership” too often lack a servants heart, and try to use this phrase as some sort of handwavium to pretend like they are actually following Jesus by being authoritarian jerks. They are not.

  228. @ Bill M:
    I have similar background working with both for profit and non profit organizations for a long time in org development. I was a big proponent and facilitator of bringing the business model to churches. I now think I was dead wrong. We could discuss why forever. It’s a huge topic.

  229. Lydia wrote:

    If only everyone went along and stayed in their respective roles. Everything would be all rainbows and unicorns.

    Except when it doesn’t. Then you are expected to suck it up, keep your mouth shut and keep up appearances for the sake of the all-important rainbow & unicorn image.

  230. Ken P. wrote:

    J.D. Greear has withdrawn as a candidate for SBC president. Steve Gaines will be the next President of the Southern Baptist Convention

    The YRR twitter channel is abuzz with tweets about how humble and gracious Greear was to withdraw and are already declaring him as SBC President in 2018. The beat goes on.

  231. @ Ken P.:
    Don’t worry. Gaines is on the faux unity bus. I fully expect him and Mihker to do photo ops. Floyd was a non Cal, too, who just spike at T4G. It’s all about money at that level.

    I can hardly believe the convention was this split when it came to Greear. But I think Gaines was a safe vote. He will go along with the powers as Floyd did. Maybe get some speaking gigs.

  232. okrapod wrote:

    Somebody needs to check him out, like the FBI maybe.

    Agreed. The FBI has dropped the ball twice now, the previous fumble was the San Bernardino massacre. I don’t think that the American people will tolerate another tragedy on account of bureaucratic ineptitude, fear of ‘profiling’, and not following up on their watch lists. All this mind you from a liberal (Potter) and an old FDR style Socialist to boot.

  233. Lydia wrote:

    @ Ken P.:
    Don’t worry. Gaines is on the faux unity bus. I fully expect him and Mihker to do photo ops. Floyd was a non Cal, too, who just spike at T4G. It’s all about money at that level.

    I can hardly believe the convention was this split when it came to Greear. But I think Gaines was a safe vote. He will go along with the powers as Floyd did. Maybe get some speaking gigs.

    Mohler. sorry

  234. ishy wrote:

    I don’t think it’s a bigger issue to the church, but to the resolutions committee, which is largely TGC now.

    These sort of things at SBC’s annual convention are intended to distract the “messengers” from dealing with critical issues of the day … like Calvinization of the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America.

  235. Max wrote:

    The YRR twitter channel is abuzz with tweets about how humble and gracious Greear was to withdraw and are already declaring him as SBC President in 2018. The beat goes on.

    I have some conspiracy theories about this. They will say this proves the Cals have not taken over. The SBCprez has what sort of power? Wasn’t Gaines or his wife on the GCR secret lock box committee?

    Are they all the same in that stratosphere?

  236. Lydia wrote:

    I can hardly believe the convention was this split when it came to Greear.

    I fully expected the YRR to tweet their tribe back to the convention hall to cast their votes, while the traditionalists were still in the gift shops.

  237. Lydia wrote:

    I have some conspiracy theories about this. They will say this proves the Cals have not taken over.

    Yeah, it buys the New Calvinists two more years to complete Calvinization of the denomination behind the scenes (they only have a couple more SBC entities to go), while the unsuspecting non-Calvinist majority think they are still in charge! Another brilliant strategy by the new reformers!

  238. BL wrote:

    You’re welcome! It’s something I dug into several years ago with Warren’s PDL & the Peter Drucker injection into churchianity, because I wondered where all this crap was coming from.

    Good job. I so appreciate this blog and the deprogramming (also from Gram3 on Comp, Reconstructionists; Lydia, Max – SBC leaders, Chicago Statement – Inerrancy, Young Earth & others here) I’ve gotten on TWW.

    In the past decade plus I’ve endured all kinds of insufferable nonsense that’s been shoved down our throats in churches. Without knowing the history I thought: A) Is this in the Bible; B) If it’s Biblical like they claim why aren’t other Christian denominations doing it? C) Does it adhere to the royal law of Love?

  239. Christiane wrote:

    “The resolutions committee declined Bart’s resolution against sexual predators. We can’t understand why and we aren’t sure if there will be time for Bart to resurrect it. How could they oppose that?” (David Miller)

    Yes, seriously, how and why do people oppose a resolution against sexual predators? How can anyone defend such opposition?

  240. Stan wrote:

    @ Lydia:

    In his latest Mortification of Spin post on the subject, Trueman defends himself from Denny Burk’s accusation of being a feminist.

    Ha ha! It is a family war. “You are not comp enough which makes you a liberal feminist”! I am munching popcorn watching this one. Who are the real comps? :o)

    Been down this road before.

    Meanwhile, the Body of Christ operates on giftings even down to those who encourage brothers and sisters in this journey, those who are nothing —are important. Perhaps even more so, as Paul suggested. Such as, Those who are shut in and those who only have adults for protection.

    Internecine wars on comp doctrine are a distraction from the truth of mutuality and the 58 one another’s. I am still a heretic to both sides. And honored to be.

  241. Max wrote:

    the unsuspecting non-Calvinist majority

    I find it hard to think that they are all that unsuspecting. For one thing there was the upheaval with loss of SBC churches to things like CBF and such some time back. These are those who stayed, not those who left. And the neo-cals are not exactly hiding while they build bigger barns to house their sheep in full view of everybody. It is plain to see what is happening. They resisted and disapproved of the charismatic movement and the ‘costals left but these are those who stayed. The local SBC mega has a lot of stay home moms who will go to the mat before admitting that this lifestyle does not make them better than other people and somehow more righteous (not based on works, of course, but just look at what a nice life I have.)

    What we saw about 20 years back is that the pastor at that time preached and preached stay at home moms with the result, and perhaps for the express purpose, that lower income families with working moms and of course single moms became more scarce and higher income families tended to predominate. We thought at the time that he was deliberately trying to accomplish that specific shift in the membership for financial reasons.

    Okay, so you get people including the women who want to hear how righteous they are, and they would flock to comp doctrine as long as it was safely sane and middle class. And as long as like minded people were there to agree with them. Add to that a basic disinterest in doctrine, why would they care if neo-cal took over the SBC? What would they want that they could not get at SBC neo-cal mega?

  242. Elizabeth wrote:

    My celebration tempered by the Family Integrated Pastor, Pastor Roger Jimenez and his outrageous theology regarding homosexuality. His rant is the extension of so many other posts that the Deebs have highlighted on this site.

    I went to his church’s website. I didn’t see that he had any college education, any exposure to diverse people.

    He apparently doesn’t know that there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse in conservative evangelical churches, it is the No. 1 reason that churches get sued, and that the churches have a pedophilia problem. He blames it on people who are different.

    Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church (not affiliated with a Baptist denomination) who espoused all kinds of hatred toward everybody – including gays – eventually softened. Gays bought a house and called it Equality House across the street from Westboro.

    Fred Phelps was eventually excommunicated from his own church for his softened attitude. So there’s hope that maybe this hate-filled CA pastor will come around too.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/fred-phelps-equality_n_5378433.html

  243. Nancy2 wrote:

    And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. …..

    Sounds like an apt description of the orignators and subsequent graduates of the Leadership Network and the ‘leaders’ it has produced.

    Took young men.

    Appointed the young men to themselves.

    Got the young men driving them around.

    Riding on the backs of the young men.

    Got the young men running ahead of them announcing their ‘greatness’.

    The young men have got themselves kings…

  244. okrapod wrote:

    I find it hard to think that they are all that unsuspecting.

    500,000 of the suspecting ones left SBC in the last two years. They are sick and tired of all the wrangling about this and that, drifts in theology, shifts in ecclesiology, and the poor national leadership SBC keeps serving up.

  245. Those who control the news, control the people.

    This has ALWAYS been the way that Sovereign Grace operated. I’m not surprised in the least bit.

  246. Lea wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Max wrote:
    But the SBC at its annual convention in St. Louis this week passed a resolution calling on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag.
    What? Dumb.
    I should say, I don’t say this because I’m all yay confederacy, I just think that’s a poor use of time.
    Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, I think that particularly issue is not entirely unlike the eating meat for idols issue dealt with in the NT. It’s more about the heart of the person doing a thing, why they embrace or don’t embrace, as well as the possibility of hurting others or causing them to stumble.

    Do you have any insights about the timing of this? The resolution talks about eliminating racism in a rather urgent way. The news story I heard on the radio mentioned a desire to welcome African Americans into the SBC. Both inclinations could be sincere, both could be tone deaf or cynical or a distraction… but other churches have put out anti-racist messages in the past year or two, in light of current events. Maybe the SBC is not merely ignoring its bigger problems.

  247. okrapod wrote:

    What we saw about 20 years back is that the pastor at that time preached and preached stay at home moms with the result, and perhaps for the express purpose, that lower income families with working moms and of course single moms became more scarce and higher income families tended to predominate. We thought at the time that he was deliberately trying to accomplish that specific shift in the membership for financial reasons.

    Sounds familiar even with the non denominational seeker megas.

  248. Lydia wrote:

    I can hardly believe the convention was this split when it came to Greear. But I think Gaines was a safe vote. He will go along with the powers as Floyd did. Maybe get some speaking gigs.

    The man who changed his church to elder rule and jumped a fence to trespass into a gated community is now SBC prez. Gaines or Greear …… I don’t know which one is the worst!

  249. Velour wrote:

    In the past decade plus I’ve endured all kinds of insufferable nonsense that’s been shoved down our throats in churches. Without knowing the history I thought: A) Is this in the Bible; B) If it’s Biblical like they claim why aren’t other Christian denominations doing it? C) Does it adhere to the royal law of Love?

    Velour – you provide a great 3-step filter for testing what we hear and see in church! As I’ve watched the New Calvinist movement blossom in all its arrogant glory (and watched the body count climb due to authoritarian abuse of one form or another), I keep asking “What love is this?”

  250. @ BL:
    Hit it on the head. An interesting question to me is what happens when the young men who sold themselves to the older men figure out that the old guys are gone and now they have to fight among themselves to be the next group of Old Men. That will be the case sooner rather than later. Kevin DeYoung has apparently made the early cut. Owen BHLH may be losing out, however, given the way that the Trinitarian debate is going.

    Anybody heard from Bob Letham yet? I was waiting for Fred Sanders, but he has weighed in. Wonder what is going on in George Knight III’s neighborhood. Mark Jones seems to have shot an arrow through the idea that ESS conforms to the Westminster Standards. Another guy whose name I am blanking on said it does not conform to the Heidelberg, either.

  251. siteseer wrote:

    Yes, seriously, how and why do people oppose a resolution against sexual predators? How can anyone defend such opposition?

    Does anyone have the text? It might have been poorly worded.

    I once attended a big meeting of a women’s organization that brought up a resolution in support of women soldiers who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The writers assumed it was one of those mom-and-apple-pie things and wrote carelessly. Unfortunately it mentioned only women soldiers in those two places: no mention of women sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen, wounded warriors, veterans, retirees, serving in the US, serving abroad but not in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc., etc. There was no chance to rewrite, and the majority noes were led by military women.

  252. Friend wrote:

    The news story I heard on the radio mentioned a desire to welcome African Americans into the SBC.

    It seems that each year SBC brings up a race-related resolution. They are still trying to live down their racial beginnings – the SBC was formed by slave-holding Calvinist pastors and laymen prior to Civil War. It took the SBC 150 years before someone presented a resolution to repent of that sin. Attempts to attract African Americans to the SBC is not new. Indeed, there are nearly 5,000 African American congregations affiliated with SBC. While there may still be some remnant of racism and racists within the denomination, this is largely a thing of the past. Southern Baptists just need to get over it and move forward … and while they are moving forward, they need to deal with this new resurgence of Calvinism which wants to take the denomination back to its roots (theology, not racism, i.e.).

  253. Elizabeth wrote:

    My celebration tempered by the Family Integrated Pastor, Pastor Roger Jimenez and his outrageous theology regarding homosexuality. His rant is the extension of so many other posts that the Deebs have highlighted on this site.

    Roger Jimenez is a disciple of the notorious Steve Anderson, an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor over in Tempe. Anderson is, as I said, notorious. They both had videos yanked off YouTube in the last three days for hate speech.

    And yes, I have been to Anderson’s church. (I went because Kent Hovind was there.)

  254. Nancy2 wrote:

    The man who changed his church to elder rule and jumped a fence to trespass into a gated community is now SBC prez. Gaines or Greear …… I don’t know which one is the worst!

    A quick Google shows that Bellevue Baptist Church was involved in a child sex abuse scandal in the later ’00s. From Wikipedia (citations not included):

    Handling of minister misconduct

    On December 18, 2006, the church announced that a minister and staffer at the church for thirty-four years had been placed on leave with an investigation pending regarding a “moral failure,” identified by Gaines and others as alleged child molestation in the 1980s.[8] The next day, December 19, Gaines released a statement that acknowledged that he had been aware of the allegation since June 2006 but that he did not address it for several months because the staffer had been attending professional counseling and also because of confidentiality concerns and compassion for the staffer.[8] The same day, Michael Spradlin, who is president of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (located across the street from Bellevue’s campus), told the Commercial Appeal that “[i]f a minister has first hand knowledge of allegations of child molestation and does nothing about it then that minister should resign.”[8][9][10] On December 20, 2006, Gaines addressed several hundred members of his congregation, saying he would like to remain pastor at Bellevue.[11][12] On January 28, 2007, a church committee released a report on the incident. The report criticized Gaines for not immediately coming forward with the information related to the alleged abuse, either to the church or to authorities. No criminal charges were ever brought regarding the allegations'[13][14]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gaines_(pastor)

    Yay, the SBC has rolled to a new low. You couldn’t find another pastor out there who hadn’t covered up a child molestation scandal???

  255. Max wrote:

    It seems that each year SBC brings up a race-related resolution. They are still trying to live down their racial beginnings – the SBC was formed by slave-holding Calvinist pastors and laymen prior to Civil War. It took the SBC 150 years before someone presented a resolution to repent of that sin. Attempts to attract African Americans to the SBC is not new. Indeed, there are nearly 5,000 African American congregations affiliated with SBC. While there may still be some remnant of racism and racists within the denomination, this is largely a thing of the past. Southern Baptists just need to get over it and move forward … and while they are moving forward, they need to deal with this new resurgence of Calvinism which wants to take the denomination back to its roots (theology, not racism, i.e.).

    I’d note that a lot of those old SBC Calvinist theologians were unrepentant slaveholders and racists. As William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” So while it may look like an argument about Confederate flags, at bottom, there’s an argument about honoring the men who supported slavery and were also strong Calvinists.

  256. mirele wrote:

    Roger Jimenez is a disciple of the notorious Steve Anderson, an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor

    The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC recently showed clips of these two in action. It’s hard to believe people could buy into this kind of hate, but apparently it’s quite popular in certain circles. . . . the more extreme, the better for their ‘base’.

  257. Max wrote:

    Yeah, it buys the New Calvinists two more years to complete Calvinization of the denomination behind the scenes (they only have a couple more SBC entities to go), while the unsuspecting non-Calvinist majority think they are still in charge! Another brilliant strategy by the new reformers!

    That is one theory. However, I was recently told that more and more SEBTS students are saying they don’t want to attend Greear’s church (The Summit). Their reasoning? Greear is not “Calvinist enough” for them.

    That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the more dedicated YRR types is nominated, and then elected, SBC president in 2018. And if things go well for the Mohler wing of the denomination, then they could put that person up in 2017.

  258. mirele wrote:

    I’d note that a lot of those old SBC Calvinist theologians were unrepentant slaveholders and racists.

    Not even when early victories by the Confederacy turned to defeat! The “Christian” slave-holders were certain that sovereign God was on their side in the war, until they realized that He wasn’t. I hope they repented, but a proud heart is hard to kill. Soon after the Civil War, Southern Baptist theology began to trend away from the Calvinist roots of the founders … with non-Calvinist “whosoever will” belief and practice prevailing for 150 years … until New Calvinism came along.

  259. Burwell wrote:

    Greear is not “Calvinist enough” for them.

    Is Gaines non-Calvinist enough to deal with the increasing Calvinization of the denomination during his 1-2 year window of opportunity? Or is the office of SBC President really just an ambassador of sorts, with no real power to make a difference? If Greear had been elected (even if he isn’t Calvinist enough), it’s clear from the Twitter chatter that he would have been viewed as a champion for the YRR cause, throwing more fuel on their aggressive and militant takeover of the SBC. I’m not sure that Gaines will have a similar influence on the apathetic millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists to help curtail the reformed movement. For the average Southern Baptist, you can mess with his theology, just don’t touch the potlucks.

  260. Christiane wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    Roger Jimenez is a disciple of the notorious Steve Anderson, an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor
    The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC recently showed clips of these two in action. It’s hard to believe people could buy into this kind of hate, but apparently it’s quite popular in certain circles. . . . the more extreme, the better for their ‘base’.

    It’s one of the things I couldn’t stand about my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marks/CBMW/John MacArthur-ite church: the relentless attacks on gays that so many members made as well as the pastors/elders. (Members prided themselves on boycotting their own families’ holiday celebrations if there was any gay family member. So much for showing the love of Jesus to a wide array of people.)

    My ex-senior pastor even asked during Adult Sunday School if gays
    could be executed for being gay. I said, “We could all be executed for our sins by God.”
    Anyway he retorted before the class with some Scripture verses to prove his point
    that they could. I thought it was bizarre. Why pick on them? Why not look at your own sins? Oh, I forgot he considers himself among The Elect.

    I work a real job, in the real world, with a diverse group of people, we’re expected to get along, be professional, work as a team, and follow anti-discrimination laws. My boss is gay and a terrific boss. He’s a far nicer human being than ANY of my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marks pastors.

  261. Max wrote:

    For the average Southern Baptist, you can mess with his theology, just don’t touch the potlucks.

    If only they knew that once the neocal’s get in, they will shut down all of that potluck nonsense!

  262. Lea wrote:

    If only they knew that once the neocal’s get in, they will shut down all of that potluck nonsense!

    After a YRR pastor successfully lied his way past the search committee and gained control of an established traditional SBC church near me, he of course changed everything. In his bull in the china shop maneuvers, he ousted the dear saint who had been in charge of the kitchen for years. She was a master at organizing fellowship dinners – it was her gift. The young bull decided he wanted his own hand-picked potluck gal that he could control (his favorite foods), so the saint had to go. They still have potlucks, but I wouldn’t call them fellowship meals any longer.

  263. Hello all.

    I just wanted to say how disgusted I am to learn of the TGC Theology Famine Fund.

    There are people actually dying of real famine in the world. (North Korea springs to mind immediately). There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in many countries. There are people dying daily because of a lack of clean water, and of preventable diseases. There are children facing a hopeless future because of no education. There are millions of orphans in the world.

    Yet what this lot thinks the world needs most are books by John Piper.

    It makes me very angry.

  264. There may be other reasons why some women flock to comp doctrine.

    Not all who do are fundy or Calvinist. My children are grown now, but we made the considered decision for me to stay home. For us, not only did it mean a better lifestyle but was financially advantageous. My working meant a higher tax bracket and more outgo than income considering our very special needs child.

    And yet year after year on mother’s day I was treated to sermons that told me unless I pulled in an income I was in violation of the Scripture given the extolling of the Proverbs 31 woman.

    Just as women who are employed outside the home get tired of the putdowns, so do those who choose to be full time homemakers.

    And of course, some, not all Calvinists either, just plain understand the Scripture that way. Not evil, not simpletons, not new puritans or new Calvinists, just comp.

    And I refuse to capitalize Calvinist but spell check does it anyway:)

  265. May wrote:

    There are people dying daily because of a lack of clean water, and of preventable diseases. There are children facing a hopeless future because of no education. There are millions of orphans in the world.
    Yet what this lot thinks the world needs most are books by John Piper.
    It makes me very angry.

    “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

    TGC’s variation:

    “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Read in peace, take this book and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

  266. Max wrote:

    The young bull decided he wanted his own hand-picked potluck gal that he could control (his favorite foods), so the saint had to go.

    So, the mouth said that he had no need of the hand…

  267. Lydia wrote:

    Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Goligher, et al?
    But, but, they are comps! They agree that gender roles must be preached!

    I know, and that remains a big sticking point because complementarianism is lethal to building authentic Christian marriages and communities, despite how “benevolent” it is practiced by some people.

  268. May wrote:

    I just wanted to say how disgusted I am to learn of the TGC Theology Famine Fund.
    There are people actually dying of real famine in the world. (North Korea springs to mind immediately). There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in many countries. There are people dying daily because of a lack of clean water, and of preventable diseases. There are children facing a hopeless future because of no education. There are millions of orphans in the world.
    Yet what this lot thinks the world needs most are books by John Piper.
    It makes me very angry.

    I join you in your outrage. It’s one of the problems with the NeoCalvinists and their para-church organizations/clubs. The leaders don’t really care about these life-threatening issues. All they seem to care about is sounding smart, important, and having lots of fans. Being quiet, humble, behaving with Christian service doesn’t seem to be important to any of them. They are always screaming for attention and praise.

  269. BL wrote:

    So, the mouth said that he had no need of the hand…

    Yes, there is a disproportionate number of mouths in the Body of Calvinism vs. other members of the body.

  270. Paula Rice wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Goligher, et al?
    But, but, they are comps! They agree that gender roles must be preached!

    I know, and that remains a big sticking point because complementarianism is lethal to building authentic Christian marriages and communities, despite how “benevolent” it is practiced by some people.

    On the positive side, perhaps a lot of people will start to examine the validity of the broader non-mutualist position(s) that the non-ESS scholars hold.

  271. @ Max:
    Max wrote:

    Yes, there is a disproportionate number of mouths in the Body of Calvinism vs. other members of the body.

    reminds me of an old joke: ‘. . . that goes to prove there are more horses’ asses than there are horses’

  272. Gram3 wrote:

    On the positive side, perhaps a lot of people will start to examine the validity of the broader non-mutualist position(s) that the non-ESS scholars hold.

    What does that mean? What position(s) do they hold?

  273. Max wrote:

    As I’ve watched the New Calvinist movement blossom in all its arrogant glory (and watched the body count climb due to authoritarian abuse of one form or another), I keep asking “What love is this?”

    Aye. ‘What love is this?’

  274. @ Gram3:
    Yes, lets hope! I believe this issue has become one because it’s God’s will and there’s a whole lot of shaking going on.

    I think those who refuse to yield will end up as marginalized as the women they insist on marginalizing! You reap what you sow!

  275. May wrote:

    I just wanted to say how disgusted I am to learn of the TGC Theology Famine Fund … what this lot thinks the world needs most are books by John Piper.

    To the TGC bunch, Paul admonishes: “Don’t cherish exaggerated ideas of yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities …” (Romans 12:3).

  276. Linda wrote:

    And yet year after year on mother’s day I was treated to sermons that told me unless I pulled in an income I was in violation of the Scripture given the extolling of the Proverbs 31 woman.

    Good grief. I never heard of such a thing in church. Did you get the impression that he was preaching that because he felt constrained by scripture to do so, or was he thinking that he just might get more money in the offering plate that way?

    I admit that I have a low opinion of preachers when they try to tell people how to manage their lives either way when it comes to money.

  277. Linda wrote:

    There may be other reasons why some women flock to comp doctrine.

    Not all who do are fundy or Calvinist. My children are grown now, but we made the considered decision for me to stay home. For us, not only did it mean a better lifestyle but was financially advantageous. My working meant a higher tax bracket and more outgo than income considering our very special needs child.

    But see, I would not consider that comp in the way these guys are talking. I think families should make their decisions together. It’s only a problem if the husband is the only one with a voice…

    And none of that is the pastors business.

  278. Gram3 wrote:

    An interesting question to me is what happens when the young men who sold themselves to the older men figure out that the old guys are gone and now they have to fight among themselves to be the next group of Old Men.

    I am seeing a variation of that going on now from the early seeker movement. Is there anything sadder than a sixty-year-old former celebrity trying to remain relevant in that world? Yes they traded their purpose driven Hawaiian shirts for golf shirts but still….

    rule #1. substance is always relevant.

  279. @ Max:
    There were more African Americans in my SBC churches as a kid than there are now. My first SS teacher at 6 was African American. And to keep me focused instead of talking she gave me jobs to do. Sometimes she would hold my hand with her white gloved hand when she prayed. Precious memories.

  280. @ Linda:
    Working outside or inside the home has nothing to do with mutuality. That was invented by pastors as part of the culture war shitck.

  281. okrapod wrote:

    I admit that I have a low opinion of preachers when they try to tell people how to manage their lives either way when it comes to money.

    Yes. It seems to be about controlling your personal life either way. I am trying to figure out when that became so fashionable.

  282. Lydia wrote:

    @ Max:
    There were more African Americans in my SBC churches as a kid than there are now. My first SS teacher at 6 was African American. And to keep me focused instead of talking she gave me jobs to do. Sometimes she would hold my hand with her white gloved hand when she prayed. Precious memories.

    Awwww. What a sweet lady.

  283. Lydia wrote:

    They ignored the last resolution Peter Lumpkins put forward about it.

    Well, they didn’t exactly ignore Rev. Lumpkins’ resolution, but greatly modified it before it was presented to the floor for vote. That amended resolution was passed in 2013 and, even in its modified form, reflected Rev. Lumpkins’ concern about SBC leaders chumming with non-SBC ministries with questionable backgrounds in this area. Though not stated, he had SGM in mind – which was in court proceedings at that time – as reflected in these words from the resolution: ” … we encourage all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse.”

  284. Lydia wrote:

    I am trying to figure out when that became so fashionable.

    For one thing it became fashionable when there developed a market for it. No use telling women to stay home if they have basically no other options for example. No use telling women to stay home if you want to be a culture warrior until the culture is telling women something different. No use telling men that they aren’t manly enough any more while the nation is in the midst of a war and the men are actual warriors. And besides, everybody in our culture is trying to tell people what/how to do, wear, eat, raise their kids, find their inner self, meditate, lose weight, change their attitudes about everything, maximize their sex lives and live to be elderly. Perfect time to get on that wagon with your own elixer of life for only 10% plus offerings. People have already been trained to want that sort of thing.

    I am too old and too disillusioned and too convinced that we have lost our way to deal with it all.

  285. okrapod wrote:

    What does that mean? What position(s) do they hold?

    People like Trueman, for example, and like Aimee Byrd, I assume, hold to a form of complementarianisn that is not grounded in ESS but rather in the “plain reading” of the clobber verses and perhaps other things like ecclesiology. I think it will be interesting to see if, in the wake of this ESS discussion, people begin to scrutinize the basis for that kind of complementarianism and perhaps discover that it is not as firmly prescribed as they assume that it is.

  286. okrapod wrote:

    And besides, everybody in our culture is trying to tell people what/how to do, wear, eat, raise their kids, find their inner self, meditate, lose weight, change their attitudes about everything, maximize their sex lives and live to be elderly.

    So very true!

    A big problem for comp pastors was when large percentage of women started earning decent professional incomes. The tune started to change. Funny how that works.

  287. @ Gram3:
    That is an interesting point. If they understood it from the ESS perspective it might cause them to question the entire premise. Unless they just switch to a non ESS comp guru like Trueman. :o(

  288. okrapod wrote:

    And besides, everybody in our culture is trying to tell people what/how to do, wear, eat, raise their kids, find their inner self, meditate, lose weight, change their attitudes about everything, maximize their sex lives and live to be elderly.

    No kidding! It is very draining. I say let me be, I will find my way. 😉

  289. Bridget wrote:

    I say let me be, I will find my way

    Oh, me too. I gotta be me, answerable not to the masses of ideas out there. Let me tell something that happened. A lady at church asked my daughter: “Is your mother still able to do her housework?” Young daughter replied: “Well Mom is not much into housework; she is more an outdoors person, but now that the girls (her daughters) are older we are hoping that they will take it up.” Silence.

    But you know, how tragic it is for people to lose themselves in all the rules of how one ought to do. If my favorite tool is a pair of loppers instead of an egg beater, so what?

  290. I guess I caused a stir by stating that being a servant is not mutually exclusive with being a leader. I agree that the term “servant leader” has been used badly and much harm has been done by abusers who have wrongly applied it. This is why I don’t particularly like the term. But I know what it intends to communicate. Some have made comments that seem to indicate there should be no leaders in the church. I find that thought disturbing because it does not reflect the realities of human nature. Whether we like it or not, we all find ourselves aligning with hierarchy, and we all end up either leading or being led. If we attempt to deny leadership and hierarchy we won’t be able to stop the abuse and power grabs when they come, and come they will, because we won’t be prepared. Leaderless communities eventually end up being led by “the party,” which can be a formal structure like in communism or an informal cabal with unspoken rules and penalties. I personally think it’s much better to find a way embrace hierarchy and leadership as an acceptance of a fact of life because it allows us all to find ways to limit the damage by setting up the right checks and balances. It allows us to put in place spoken rules and penalties so that all parties know how to operate within the system. Dee and Deb, for example, do a great job in leading this forum because they’ve laid out the rules and they’ve put in place checks so that bad actors don’t get to run amuck. As a consequence, this forum is a great place for safe community. That is a great example of servant leadership.

    I was not raised in the deep South, but I now live here. The cultural aspect that bothers me the most is the avoidance of talking about problems. It seems that the main emphasis is “if you cannot say anything nice then don’t say anything at all.” I find few people here who actually want to work through problems. Most want to talk as if nothing is wrong, which leaves a lot of unspoken elephants in the room. I find this to be a very ineffective way of coping with life. I am wondering if this at the root of the SBC problem. Maybe it’s the avoidance culture that has allowed so many problems to fester so badly. I’m thinking that if leadership expectations could be more openly addressed then maybe leadership problems could be dealt with earlier. This conflict avoidant culture seems to create breeding ground for abusive leaders.

    As to whether or not Jesus established leaders, here are a couple of clues. In John 21 Jesus told Peter to “Tend My lambs, … Shepherd My sheep, …Tend My sheep.” This requires leadership. One important note is he set up Peter as a leader after Peter experienced crushing failure. Here something else he said in Matthew 28: “make disciples.” That also requires leadership. If we try to find a church that does not openly address leadership and hierarchy, we will end up with a party-ruled church with unspoken rules, expectations, and punishment. That’s not a church I want to be a part of.

  291. Ken F wrote:

    I’m thinking that if leadership expectations could be more openly addressed then maybe leadership problems could be dealt with earlier.

    There is a lot I disagree with in your comment. One is the idea the Body of Christ has to operate only within its fallen nature to desire kings (leaders/hierarchy). I thought the idea was to grow and mature. To be fully human as God intended at Creation as much as possible on a corrupted earth . But that is a big subject that goes deep into areas like our view on original sin and our view of “being human” and what that really means.

    If the underlings have expectations/ guidelines for the “leader” then the leader is really an employee of the underlings. That is exactly how our government was supposed to operate. But it really operates as an oligharcichy because we gave them too much power.

    I grew up around pastors who were employees. It was a better system not a perfect one. They were considered part of the priesthood, too.

  292. @ Ken F:

    This is silly Ken! No one has said leadership can’t exist In church. But it doesn’t have to be all hierarchy. That’s the exact wrong way to do.

    As for southerners avoiding conflict, maybe? Or maybe you just don’t pick up on the undertones that others get instinctively.

  293. Lea wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Max wrote:
    But the SBC at its annual convention in St. Louis this week passed a resolution calling on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag.
    What? Dumb.
    I should say, I don’t say this because I’m all yay confederacy, I just think that’s a poor use of time.
    Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, I think that particularly issue is not entirely unlike the eating meat for idols issue dealt with in the NT. It’s more about the heart of the person doing a thing, why they embrace or don’t embrace, as well as the possibility of hurting others or causing them to stumble.

    These are my sentiments as well. I think it was at the SBC voices blog in the comments section that I had such a realization. It was around the time of the refugees. The article was very pro refugee* and a woman in the comments disagreed. Oh boy, you would have thought ishe was literally Hitler for even questioning the article. All the righteous indignation and virtue signaling by these people. I don’t know if they are trying to overcompensate for SBC’s past mistakes or what. But what I realized was that they are exactly the same as these men who they try to distance themselves from. The problem of the founders was not racism. That most likely came as a result of their pride, arrogance and unwillingness to engage those with different opinions–amongst other things. And that is the same way these men act.

    I hope that makes sense. I also don’t mean to imply all previous generations were racist (that would be several people I’m descended from!) I have a lot more thoughts on this but I’ll quit rambling. 🙂

  294. siteseer wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    Whether we like it or not, we all find ourselves aligning with hierarchy

    Not all of us.

    I agree. We are not serfs. Our work/business relationships are contractual. Even marriage is based on a contractual agreement. Why say vows? Why have laws to protect property division in case of divorce and so on.

    We read hierarchy into a lot of situations because we have been trained to do that. Someone who has been hired to facilitate worship or admin the church is not your hierarchy. The expert you hire to advise you is not your hierarchy.

  295. Ken F wrote:

    I was not raised in the deep South, but I now live here. The cultural aspect that bothers me the most is the avoidance of talking about problems. It seems that the main emphasis is “if you cannot say anything nice then don’t say anything at all.” I find few people here who actually want to work through problems. Most want to talk as if nothing is wrong, which leaves a lot of unspoken elephants in the room. I find this to be a very ineffective way of coping with life. I am wondering if this at the root of the SBC problem

    Many Southern states were settled by people from England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    It seems a common cultural practice to talk about everything – the weather or anything – and not talk about the real issue(s).

  296. Ken F wrote:

    Some have made comments that seem to indicate there should be no leaders in the church. I find that thought disturbing because it does not reflect the realities of human nature.

    There is a semantic component at work here. I have grown to dislike the term leader because so many young people I’ve seen who aspire to “leadership” do so to take command, tell others what to do, take the glory. I believe a servant works from an entirely different motivation. A servant will be given responsibilities and will have followers but only in small aspects of their lives, not wholesale command of an organization and the lives within it. A servant will not usurp free agency of other adults and will respect boundaries.

    So we would need to work out some definitions, but you are right, some are saying there should be no “leaders” in the church, I’m one of them.

  297. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks, Deebs, for this one. Hysterical. I do believe TGC et al have no concept of irony whatsoever.

  298. @ Bill M:

    I agree with you definitions are important. I see differences between natural leaders, people who lead by example, and this positional leadership that too many authoritarian pastor/elder types go for.

  299. Lea wrote:

    As for southerners avoiding conflict, maybe? Or maybe you just don’t pick up on the undertones that others get instinctively.

    I think that is true. But people do tend to be cautious before they say what they are really thinking. The southern style of communication is different from where I came from, especially I think among the women. My daughter who grew up here can do it really well. I can’t do it well at all. My son once said that my daughter could ‘take a phrase and turn it into an afternoon’ all the while having basically said nothing at all. That is a bit much but is in the right direction for description of one aspect of southernese.

  300. Lea wrote:

    But see, I would not consider that comp in the way these guys are talking. I think families should make their decisions together. It’s only a problem if the husband is the only one with a voice…

    And none of that is the pastors business.

    Those are my feelings as well. I was a stay at home mom because I found I didn’t have the energy to do mothering well and also maintain a career. But it was a decision we made together for our best way of life, not because anyone said we had to. And we do not follow with any of the other comp stuff about hierarchy and authority and all that.

  301. May wrote:

    I just wanted to say how disgusted I am to learn of the TGC Theology Famine Fund.

    There are people actually dying of real famine in the world. (North Korea springs to mind immediately). There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in many countries. There are people dying daily because of a lack of clean water, and of preventable diseases. There are children facing a hopeless future because of no education. There are millions of orphans in the world.

    Yet what this lot thinks the world needs most are books by John Piper.

    http://i1.wp.com/www.nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/the-theologians.jpg

  302. Burwell wrote:

    That is one theory. However, I was recently told that more and more SEBTS students are saying they don’t want to attend Greear’s church (The Summit). Their reasoning? Greear is not “Calvinist enough” for them.

    CALVIN isn’t Calvinist enough for them.

  303. Lydia wrote:

    Unless they just switch to a non ESS comp guru like Trueman. :o(

    But remember that the reason that George Knight III came up with the role idea for the immanent Trinity is that the exegetical base was crumbling and the PCA was scrambling. Since 1973, a lot of women have been trained in theology who know how to do it as well as the boys. And, more importantly for conservatives, these women use conservative presuppositions and methods. I think that the one thing that will break the thought processes of women who are into soft comp is a really bad personal experience that they cannot ignore.

    I am probably projecting my own history with this, but the fact is that I have a wonderful husband and many of the pastors I had were wonderful, too, and I didn’t feel called to teach or preach. So there was really not a perceived problem from my POV. Until I had some very bad personal experiences with patriarchy and “Complementarianism” and ESS. Then everything changed…

  304. Lea wrote:

    this positional leadership that too many authoritarian pastor/elder types go for.

    Have the search committee at your church post “servant wanted”, then post an add “leader wanted”, then compare the applicants. I’ve sat in on enough employee interviews that it became apparent which candidates were interested in the work and which ones were interested in the paycheck. In similar fashion a candidate that doesn’t have a servants heart should be easy to spot, if only you are looking for it. At my former church the new pastor told his prospective parish committee that he wanted to be in charge of a large church and apparently they didn’t even blink.

  305. Ken F wrote:

    Some have made comments that seem to indicate there should be no leaders in the church. I find that thought disturbing because it does not reflect the realities of human nature. Whether we like it or not, we all find ourselves aligning with hierarchy, and we all end up either leading or being led.

    I agree with what I think you are saying about human nature. I also think that you are possibly conflating hierarchy with leadership, or at least that is what I hear. The problem is not leadership but rather the nature of the leadership. The problem is not hierarchy but rather who is automatically promoted to the top of the hierarchy and who is automatically excluded from the hierarchy. Is there hierarchy specified where none is necessary or even beneficial?

    Your impression of the Deep South culture of avoidance may be because you have not yet learned to speak the cultural language like a native. 🙂 I think “indirect” is a more accurate word than “avoidant” for describing what used to be the Deep South way of approaching conflict. There are many historical reasons for that, IMO. OTOH, I have no personal experience living in a culture that is not heavily influenced (at least) by Old South ways, so I may be missing something in your observations due to that bias. Yet, even so, Southern culture is not at all monolithic, so there may be reason for you to hope. 🙂

  306. Lea wrote:

    As for southerners avoiding conflict, maybe? Or maybe you just don’t pick up on the undertones that others get instinctively.

    Should have read your comment before I repeated what you said!

  307. siteseer wrote:

    was a stay at home mom because I found I didn’t have the energy to do mothering well and also maintain a career. But it was a decision we made together for our best way of life, not because anyone said we had to. And we do not follow with any of the other comp stuff about hierarchy and authority and all that.

    In other words, you and your husband made decisions like adults who love and respect one another. This is a foreign concept to people who have no idea how to do that, sadly.

  308. Max wrote:

    BL wrote:
    They think that they are right. They have the inside track on “truth”. They intend to control the narrative. And those who disagree with them on this issue, have nothing of wisdom or import to offer. Because those who disagree are disobedient & rebellious to God.
    You have just described John Calvin and the atmosphere in 16th century Geneva. Dissenters to his message were driven from the city, imprisoned, executed. Blocking blog comments is just another 21st century way to silence the opposition. The spirit of Calvin lives.

    Ha ha, Max. I was just having a convo with a Calvinist on Fb and he tried selling the line about how life was so nice in Calvin’s Geneva – especially how Patriarchy was practiced so benevolently.

  309. Gram3 wrote:

    I think “indirect” is a more accurate word than “avoidant” for describing what used to be the Deep South way of approaching conflict.

    Yes. ‘Indirect’ is considered more ‘genteel’ …. an example, instead of descriptions of the horrors of the Civil War, a Southern lady might use the term ‘the late unpleasantness’ . . . which in its ‘indirectness’ provides exactly the kind of message she needs to send in code to exactly the right people.
    There is a ‘politeness’ among the old people in the South, that is passing now, as that generation leaves us. For many, the term ‘the late unpleasantness’ seems the very epitomy of a lost graciousness, when so many Southern families were devastated by that War, and were still able to express themselves in subtle terms that still evoked drawing rooms and verandas overlooking the lawns and rivers ….
    yes, in the South, if your family were among the ‘better’ people, you may have been left impoverished by the Civil War, but you still had the manners that separated you from the ‘mean girl’ street women of a lower class for whom ‘impolite’ directness betrayed a lack of heritage where good manners were de rigueur and ‘who your grand parents were’ opened more social doors than flashy money and lack of pedigree.

  310. Gram3 wrote:

    People like Trueman, for example, and like Aimee Byrd, I assume, hold to a form of complementarianisn that is not grounded in ESS but rather in the “plain reading” of the clobber verses and perhaps other things like ecclesiology. I think it will be interesting to see if, in the wake of this ESS discussion, people begin to scrutinize the basis for that kind of complementarianism and perhaps discover that it is not as firmly prescribed as they assume that it is.

    Aimee Byrd (conveniently!) is coming out with a book entitled, “No Little Women,” the title of which makes me think of Louisa May Alcott’s famous work, “Little Women”. Intentional? Or maybe an oversight.

    Alcott was a feminist whose parents, influenced by all that was going on in what is now referred to as the “Burned-over District” of Massachusetts, were abolishionists, transcendentalists, and promoted women’s rights.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district

  311. Ken F wrote:

    As to whether or not Jesus established leaders, here are a couple of clues. In John 21 Jesus told Peter to “Tend My lambs, … Shepherd My sheep, …Tend My sheep.” This requires leadership.

    I can appreciate your post and for the way in which you’re trying to work this out. I didn’t get the impression you’ve arrived at a working solution.

    It’s an important subject. In my view, the Fall destroyed the harmony and oneness God intended for us to experience within community with one another as we see patterned in the Godhead. Jesus’ ultimate achievement in redemption was to restore this.

    The Fall is what caused patterns of rule/subject to form (“he shall rule over you”), but Jesus was clear that “it should not be so among you.” There’s no instruction in the New Testament which gives any adult believer the right to exercise authority over another adult believer. Yet, this is what we see happening: men assuming authority over their wives, Pastors assuming authority over their congregations, etc. That’s where the problem stems from imo.

  312. Gram3 wrote:

    I am probably projecting my own history with this, but the fact is that I have a wonderful husband and many of the pastors I had were wonderful, too, and I didn’t feel called to teach or preach. So there was really not a perceived problem from my POV. Until I had some very bad personal experiences with patriarchy and “Complementarianism” and ESS. Then everything changed…

    You raise an important issue here because I think many complementarianism women are satisfied living under their relatively benevolent dictatorships that they’re fine submitting to. The woman who struggles within this hierarchical arrangement is the problem and needs to change. “God’s order” is offered as a prescription to all kinds of various conflicts, but mainly is offered as a basis for the men to maintain the position of authority and control. This is why guys like Grudem rooted it in the ultimate authority, so they could say, “See, this is the way it works in the godhead.”

    We are to pattern our lives together on structures of community we find in God, but when we observe the ways in which the Persons of the Trinity function, we never find there a hierarchical structure of authority where One possesses greater rank. They always work together within a perfectly mutual relationship of shared leadership and initiative.

  313. @ Bill M:
    My personal favorite big red flag is when he has a ‘vision for the Gospel’. As if the souls in that church have been in the desert until he came along. Pulpit committees are now smitten by such grandiosity.

    The big buzz talk for the young Neo Cal pastors now is a ‘vision for missions’ since Platt took over. It s uncanny how they say exactly what the Mohler crew promotes.

  314. Darlene wrote:

    . I was just having a convo with a Calvinist on Fb and he tried selling the line about how life was so nice in Calvin’s Geneva – especially how Patriarchy was practiced so benevolently.

    Oh dear. Benevolent?

    This reminds me of a history teacher I had who said the best form of govt was a benevolent all knowing dictator, but the odds for that being the dictator you got were not great. And if you got the wrong kind, everybody suffers. Patriarchy is a roll of the dice. If your particular husband happens to be decent kind and smart enough not to lord his power over you things might be ok. If he’s not there is no help for you. That is a poor system for women and is bound to lead to abuse. People who can’t see this are stupid or blind.

    okrapod wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    Yes, that too. Sort of a verbal way to have tea with your last cracked teacup-because you know how to have tea.

    This is a good example. You can wear used hand me downs or a dress made out of drapes ( hee ) and still be a lady. That’s not a mentality everybody gets.

  315. @ Ken F:

    Ken, I agree with you mostly. Among humans there are always people or groups or philosophies which assume and are granted some level of control in a situation. Humans run in packs and herds with some sort of individuals and ideas to follow. I happen to be part of a religious tradition that is hierarchical which I think is the biblical method and which I think is one way to address the issue of people who do not want anybody to be the-one-who-gets-to-say-how-things-are-going-go-be except of course themselves. However, if this is not done well there can be a lot of problems with ‘leadership.’ So, IMO, there are potential problems with either approach. So, personally, I think we need to stick with the bishop, elder and deacon ideas. Our Greek scholars can furnish the biblical words; when I try it I mess up the endings of every word, especially when it comes to -os vs -oi or something.

    That said, I think you are really missing something when it comes to talking to southerners and getting them to talk to you, and since I am reckless I will bring up yet another aspect of this. You have said that you are from elsewhere, aka ‘not from around here.’ You did not say where. Southerners do not trust people who are not from around here, and certainly are not going to let them ‘come down here and tell us what to do.’ You may be sounding like you want to stir up trouble, that is to have people engage in conflict so that you can impact or direct the outcome of the conflict. Even if you succeed at getting people to engage in conflict eventually it will all settle down, people will go back to tried and true ways of keeping the peace (and keeping happy whoever it is who is actually in charge/ has the power of influence which you have probably not identified yet) and you will be blamed for it all. Trying to get people to change long established cultural practices is not always the best idea if other ways can be found to accomplish whatever it is that you think needs accomplished.

    At least, this is my conclusion after moving from KY to NC and making all the mistakes in the book in trying to adapt.

  316. Bridget wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    That’s not a church I want to be a part of.

    Rules can exist without hierarchy.

    AKA: Bylaws. Rules without hierarchy. The laws agreed upon and voted laws are the hierarchy.

    It has not ceased to amaze me how many YRR seek to get around the established bylaws at some point during their takeover. Some are able to even get rid of them. Some ignore the spirit in which they were written to split hairs to get what they want. Iknew of a particularly nasty move on this by Ezell before he became NAMB prez in order to take over and old church to expand the satellite branches.

    People in churches have no idea what they are dealing with when it comes to that movement until it is too late.

    If you want to make me red-hot mad just take advantage of old church members in nursing homes or sick by denying them a church vote on a major decision…. but take their money.

    Thugs.

  317. @ Paula Rice:
    The Female Subordinationist system can facilitate abuse by men who are narcissistic and women who are parasitic. A selfish man can play the “submit” card and the parasitic woman can play the “you need to be like Jesus” card. The people in the church can become unwitting supporters of very serious pathology. There are perverse incentives built into the system which disordered people can and will exploit. That is assuming a charitable view of the promoters of the system, but I think there is ample evidence that the promoters and chief beneficiaries of the system do not actually care about the very real consequences of their system in the lives of real people, including innocent children.

    The system of hierarchy does not promote unity but rather division of the interests within the marriage. It promotes conflict over the “rules” of the system and promotes grievances when expectations are not met. A system of mutual love and respect, however, does not make room for either Lords or Parasites. The Law of Love calls each of us to be conformed to Christ rather than to a system where we are called to consider others’ interests. IMO it is the difference between a marriage (or any relationship) patterned on the letter which kills rather than being patterned on the Spirit which gives life. It is pro-Fall and anti-Gospel.

  318. okrapod wrote:

    Southerners do not trust people who are not from around here, and certainly are not going to let them ‘come down here and tell us what to do.’

    Especially if there is a pervasive ‘you southerners are doing this WRONG’ attitude that goes along with it, I think. I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s kind of the feeling I got from the post.

  319. Bridget wrote:

    Rules can exist without hierarchy.

    True. I think what this gets into is that there must be a decision making process, but it doesn’t have to be top down. Baptists traditionally had the vote, which is also a means of getting rid of bad actors.

    If you take that away, introduce elder led where those elders are mostly chosen by the pastor and not allowed/willing to stand up to him? Then you have a system for bad decision making, groupthink, and lack of buy in by the church itself – should they disagree. You have these people who change the ‘person who does the potlucks’ for no particular reason. You have dumb decisions made to benefit the guys on top, and the people at the bottom treated like they are not important. THAT is what I don’t think is the right way to ‘lead’ a church.

  320. Lea wrote:

    If you take that away, introduce elder led where those elders are mostly chosen by the pastor and not allowed/willing to stand up to him?

    From Acts: The apostles speaking to the assembly:“Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.

    From the Didache: “Appoint bishops for yourselves, as well as deacons, worthy of the Lord, of meek disposition, unattached to money, truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

    Bishop = Elder

    The assemblies CHOSE FROM AMONG THEMSELVES.

    The *believers* (men and women) chose *from among themselves*.

    I think the common practice among churchianity today is that the hierarchy chooses a group from which the assembly can vote upon.

    But the assembly can not be trusted to choose from amongst ourselves – leadership has to do that for us.

  321. Ken F wrote:

    But I know what it intends to communicate. Some have made comments that seem to indicate there should be no leaders in the church. I find that thought disturbing because it does not reflect the realities of human nature. Whether we like it or not, we all find ourselves aligning with hierarchy, and we all end up either leading or being led.

    People who are actually servants who lead, do not claim the title for themselves.

    Those in churchianity who DO use the term to describe themselves & their co-fellows are using it falsely.

    You wrote: “that seem to indicate there should be no leaders in the church”

    Until we have a working definition of *leader* that we agree to, then we will continue to produce misunderstandings like the above.

    I do not say that there should be no leaders in the church. I DO say that there should be no leaders as those currently exhibited in the church.

    And your defense of leadership in the church seems to say that the current hierarchy & institution is good, it just needs to be tweaked a bit.

    So, until we have some working definition of what we are both calling leadership, then we will continue to misconstrue each other.

    You mention the realities of human nature being reflected in the church, & someone earlier referenced the acceptability of using business models in the church.

    And something deep in my heart cries out ‘no!’

    Does no one else see that Jesus called us to be something so very much different?

    We aren’t to take in the models used by the world. We aren’t to excuse and justify something by attributing to ‘human nature.’

    Did Jesus not emphasize that we were not to look like, be like, act like, organize like the *world*?

    We are to be a BODY. Where *every* part is needed, and *every* part has the opportunity to function when we gather together.

    Why is there so little maturity in churchianity?

    “but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

    ” according to the proper working of each individual part causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

    We don’t mature, because when we gather together only a few people ‘supply’- only a few people “work” and the majority sit on their butts, not feeling *any* responsibility to bring something to the assembly. Not having spent any time the prior week listening for God’s still small voice.

    “Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.

    “We have different gifts according to the grace given us.”

    “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.”

    We are supposed to be a body when we assemble together – NOT a scholastic exercise based upon the teachings of one man, not a classroom that we attend week after week, year after year, always ‘learning’ but never attaining.

    Why does the assembly usually see the pastor as being so spiritual, why do they acquiesce to his assertions of authority? Because he is the only one who ever has the opportunity to “supply” the body.

    You don’t think there is an 80 year old woman, faithful to the Lord for 60 years who MIGHT have something God has gifted her with – that the WHOLE body could benefit from, yet for 60 years she sat silently in a pew?

    She probably didn’t even consider that SHE might have something to offer, because those guys in the pulpit have never taught that each believer has something from God that the Body needs.

    Sure, pulpit-guy may teach on occasion about gifts from God to each believer, but he doesn’t mean what God means about the use of those gifts.

    Your gifts are to be used to further Pulpit Guys vision, what HE has decided is important from his ‘vision casting’.

    No one’s gifts are to be manifested in the assembly, except those Pulpit Guy has chosen. The rest of you, if you can’t serve Pulpit Guy’s vision, then your purpose is to fill a seat on Sundays and tithe.

    And for the majority of people in churchianity, they think that’s just fine.

    And so they continue as infants, blown about by whatever new emphasis the next impressive speaker or writer comes up with.

    So, how do we define leadership?

  322. Lydia wrote:

    AKA: Bylaws. Rules without hierarchy. The laws agreed upon and voted laws are the hierarchy.
    It has not ceased to amaze me how many YRR seek to get around the established bylaws at some point during their takeover. Some are able to even get rid of them.

    Lex Rex or Rex Lex

    The YRR leadership has proven over and over that they are kings above the law – even the laws THEY mandated.

  323. Lea wrote:

    This reminds me of a history teacher I had who said the best form of govt was a benevolent all knowing dictator,

    A poor student of history then, a good king is the exception.

  324. Lea wrote:

    This reminds me of a history teacher I had who said the best form of govt was a benevolent all knowing dictator, but the odds for that being the dictator you got were not great. And if you got the wrong kind, everybody suffers.

    People who do the right thing of their own accord need no king.

  325. Bridget wrote:

    Rules can exist without hierarchy.

    Very much agreed. Those who realize that the universe Does Not revolve about them know this instinctively from the divine template within and need no rules.

  326. okrapod wrote:

    Trying to get people to change long established cultural practices is not always the best idea if other ways can be found to accomplish whatever it is that you think needs accomplished.

    Very true. The Jesuits have long understood this principle and have applied syncretism to their advantage for centuries.

  327. Gram3 wrote:

    The Law of Love calls each of us to be conformed to Christ rather than to a system where we are called to consider others’ interests. IMO it is the difference between a marriage (or any relationship) patterned on the letter which kills rather than being patterned on the Spirit which gives life. It is pro-Fall and anti-Gospel.

    Yes! The Spirit which gives life!

    Whom among us, indwelt by God’s Spirit, has received a spirit of the slave as opposed to another that has received the spirit of sonship? Who among us has received but a morsel of the spirit whereas another has been given the whole feast? Who from among us has received a spirit by which our Lord requires we bow in obedience yo another whereas one receives the spirit of ruling and reigning?

    Tell me, all you who insist upon female subordination, which one of you has God granted the power to minimize and marginalize the Spirit of the Living God that lives within me?!

    None I say! Not one of you!!

  328. Paula Rice wrote:

    Tell me, all you who insist upon female subordination, which one of you has God granted the power to minimize and marginalize the Spirit of the Living God that lives within me?!

    Considering that the Usual Suspects have no difficulty at all diminishing their only Savior and covering their tracks with meaningless words, I think they have no problem doing likewise with the Holy Spirit and his work in female believers. Females are derivative humans, and the Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit are derivative gods.

  329. Muff Potter wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Rules can exist without hierarchy.

    Very much agreed. Those who realize that the universe Does Not revolve about them know this instinctively from the divine template within and need no rules.

    Bingo!

  330. BL wrote:

    Until we have a working definition of *leader* that we agree to, then we will continue to produce misunderstandings like the above.

    That’s the critical point. Honesty and transparency about the leadership structure is very important. The problem with the YRR-type churches discussed in this forum is not so much about whether there are leaders, but the corrupt and non-transparent nature of their leadership. Churches can be healthy even if they have defined leaders. But it does not come naturally or easily.

  331. okrapod wrote:

    You have said that you are from elsewhere, aka ‘not from around here.’ You did not say where.

    Thanks for you comments. I was a little crunched for time over the last few days and probably did not express myself well enough. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, but have not lived there for more than 30 years. In the meantime I’ve lived in Central and Southern California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia, and Italy. And I’ve traveled extensively in the USA and have visited more than 20 countries. I’ve been around Southerners most of my adult life and I do very much appreciate their culture and gentility. What bothers me at times is their avoidance in working through problems or misunderstandings. I’m ok with an “indirect” approach if it makes progress toward resolution or reconciliation. But that seems to be a much more elusive goal here compared to other places I’ve lived.

    okrapod wrote:

    Southerners do not trust people who are not from around here, and certainly are not going to let them ‘come down here and tell us what to do.’ You may be sounding like you want to stir up trouble, that is to have people engage in conflict so that you can impact or direct the outcome of the conflict.

    This is where it can feel like there is a built-in hierarchy where I am not allowed to have a voice simply because I’m not from around here. The SBC church we started attending here nearly nine years ago used to be very participatory and egalitarian. There was just enough “leadership” structure in place to keep the bills paid and organize volunteers. I got along great with everyone and church was a great experience. But that changed a few years ago. I had not yet heard about the Calvinist takeover of the SBC, so I did not know how to put into context what happened. In hindsight, I suspect it was an attempted new-Calvinist coup. I started asking indirect questions at first. But got no answers and things were getting worse. So I got more direct. That blew up in my face until I had a mandatory sit-down with some of the elders. They had been led to believe that I was an agitator trying to undermine them. By the time the meeting was over it felt to me like they had a big “Roseanne Roseannadanna” moment. All of a sudden I was no longer in trouble with the church leadership, but there was no opportunity to understand what happened. When I tried to get some insight into what changed I was that there was no problem. My questions about what happened were ignored and I was told to look on the bright side. It was a very weird experience. I’ve never been in a church where dialogue was so shut down. That’s what I mean by avoidance. It was not just that they were indirect, they refused to have any more discussion. How can folks reconcile if problems can never be openly discussed? Is that normal for the South? Is the YRR crowd taking advantage of Southern gentility so that they can change the SBC before anyone will object?

    okrapod wrote:

    Trying to get people to change long established cultural practices is not always the best idea if other ways can be found to accomplish whatever it is that you think needs accomplished.

    This was the really strange part. What got me in trouble was not that I was trying to change the church culture, but I was asking why the church was changing its culture in such a non-participatory way. In hindsight, I am sure it was a YRR-like power grab, but no one will talk about it. I don’t know to what extent I served as a sacrificial anode during that phase of the church. The momentum seemed to slow after my encounter, but I don’t know if there was a correlation. I think the church is still feeling the siren call to YRR, but there has been much less overt movement toward that end recently.

    The end result is I’m not sure what I am supposed to do with regard to church. I have not left this church because the pastor is humble and is nothing like the YRRs. And I’ve recently been having great discussions periodically with one of the elders about the direction of the church in relation to new Calvinism. I think it’s a safe church for now, but I no longer have the enthusiasm I once had. I’ve thought about looking for another church but I fear landing somewhere worse.

    And as for hierarchy and rules, the Christian group where my wife got burned the worst was one that had the appearance of everyone being equals. All it took to become the scapegoat was an accidental breaking of one of the unspoken rules. Those who have not been burned by an egalitarian group are either extremely blessed or they have not been with it long enough or the group has not yet had to deal with an influx of new members with different cultural assumptions. Just give it enough time and it will likely have its own crisis This is why I so distrust human nature, even among Christians. It’s why I see value in spelling out rules and expectations to some extent. I think the biggest problems lie at the extremes.

    Anyway, thanks for listening.

  332. Ken F wrote:

    Those who have not been burned by an egalitarian group are either extremely blessed or they have not been with it long enough or the group has not yet had to deal with an influx of new members with different cultural assumptions.

    Egalitarians are people, and people will do what people will do. Just like “Christian” does not guarantee that everyone will act like Christ, “egalitarian” does not guarantee that some will not see themselves as somehow “more equal” than others. Thanks for highlighting that. The reason more people have not been burned by female pastors is because there are not as many female pastors as male pastors. So just reversing the gender does not reverse the fall nor guarantee no abuse.

    As for your church experience, it sounds to me like it was more due to the Calvinista enthusiasm that is pulsing like a thrilling and fevered wave through the conservative church. Trying to imitate Owen BHLH and Piper with that bit. 🙂 FWIW, what you experience in a SBC church located in the South may reflect outside influences that are not distinctly Southern. But I may be reading my own experience at my most recent former church into your experience.

    Hope you find a reasonable resolution, and I hope the elders at your church wake up and smell the Calvinista coffee.

  333. Gram3 wrote:

    Considering that the Usual Suspects have no difficulty at all diminishing their only Savior and covering their tracks with meaningless words, I think they have no problem doing likewise with the Holy Spirit and his work in female believers. Females are derivative humans, and the Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit are derivative gods.

    Yes, and what gave them the idea something like this was ok?

  334. Paula Rice wrote:

    Yes, and what gave them the idea something like this was ok?

    Why the Bible of course. This is what Scripture teaches. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

  335. Muff Potter wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    Yes, and what gave them the idea something like this was ok?

    Why the Bible of course. This is what Scripture teaches. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

    I always mentally add “AL’LAH’U AKBAR!” to that tag line.

    And the word “Scripture(TM)” still triggers my gag reflex from my time in-country.

  336. Lea wrote:

    That is a poor system for women and is bound to lead to abuse. People who can’t see this are stupid or blind.

    Or they’re MEN who Personally Benefit from the System.

    “What do you mean, ‘the system is broken’? It Works Just Fine For ME!”

  337. Darlene wrote:

    I was just having a convo with a Calvinist on Fb and he tried selling the line about how life was so nice in Calvin’s Geneva – especially how Patriarchy was practiced so benevolently.

    He’s reading the wrong history book. Tell him to google “Servetus”.

  338. Darlene wrote:

    life was so nice in Calvin’s Geneva

    Calvin attempted to force Geneva into a “Christian” utopia using the strong arm of the magistrate. You either conformed to his doctrine or suffered persecution. To believers who opposed his teachings, life in Geneva was anything but nice.