Here’s something for you guys to read. There is a deeply disturbing story out of John Bryson’s Acts 29 Fellowship Memphis. A worship pastor Rick Trotter allegedly placed a camera in the restroom and recorded females and some underage. He was caught the church allegedly covered it up, and told the victims not to go to the police or press charges. Rick Trotter went to another Presbyterian Church and allegedly did the same thing for 3 years. One of the victims contacted me in this situation…this has been a dark, dark story.

John Bryson sits on the Board of Acts 29, and Bryan Loritts was also involved in this church.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/the-sordid-tale-of-rick-trotter-bryan-loritts-john-bryson-and-acts-29-fellowship-memphis-and-downtown-presbyterian-church/

BTW Rick Trotter was the announcer for the NBA basketball team the Memphis Grizzlies.

What a wonderful post! Thank you so much for doing this at all, much less when you have been having such a rough time.

My wife and I have been leading divorce recovery groups in Christian churches for ten years. We were both previously divorced from adulterous spouses. We have walked the walk and talked the talk.
My experience is that many, maybe most pastors do not have a clue regarding divorce and how to approach it in a holistic Christian viewpoint. As Dee has suggested, they cherry pick verses to support their own positions without regard to the real world consequences of their advice.
Participants in our groups have repeated horror stories of being told to return to spouses that were serial adulterers, physical abusers and who have put the barrels of guns in their mouth to intimidate them. Others have been shunned and prohibited from setting foot in the church after refusing to return to abusive spouses.
I had always tried to not speak critically of other churches in our groups. However, after I saw patterns of dangerous marital and divorce advice from the usual suspects, I have had to speak out and plead with participants to not go back to there abusive churches.
I highly recommend the Divorce Minister blog at: http://www.divorceminister.com/en/ He was put through the wringer by his church after his adulteroous wife left him. Much thoughtfull commentary and advice there.

Daisy wrote:

I’ve never married. I would like to still.
But, at this point, after seeing these Christians constantly teach that wives must stay in an abusive marriage no matter what, I would stay away from any Christian man who believes in comp/permanence with a 100 foot pole.
I’d rather marry a Non-Christian (assuming the Non Christian guy treats me well, of course).

There is no guarantee that a non-Christian, non-comp guy won’t “change his sinful ways”.

THANK YOU, Dee, for writing this. I agonized for years in an abusive marriage before I even had the strength to begin to search out alternative voices on the subject of biblical marriage and divorce. My divorce was final last year, and relief was certainly one of the first emotions to peek out from under twenty years of “God hates divorce!!!” Joy has since crept in as well, and while I’m adamant in my lack of guilt by now, I still have to remind myself sometimes that it’s perfectly okay to rejoice at being freed from bondage to a man who was only a Christian on the outside.

Loren Haas wrote:

Participants in our groups have repeated horror stories of being told to return to spouses that were serial adulterers, physical abusers and who have put the barrels of guns in their mouth to intimidate them. Others have been shunned and prohibited from setting foot in the church after refusing to return to abusive spouses.
I had always tried to not speak critically of other churches in our groups. However, after I saw patterns of dangerous marital and divorce advice from the usual suspects, I have had to speak out and plead with participants to not go back to there abusive churches.

Good for you.
What you are describing re: “gun in mouth” or shunning after refusal to return to an abusive spouse;
these are not the actions of Christian ministers or Christian Churches. Most REAL Christian organizations and people will try to get a wife and the children to a place of safety and offer support. If a crime has been committed, reporting it to the police is something that a real minister/priest/rabbi would do.

The ‘other’? Not Christian. No way.

Dee, I can relate to your post. After reading the whole Bible chronologically multiple times and comparing real life to it, God has been revealing to me that much of what I’ve been indoctrinated with is in fact proof texting.

How does this Dr. Professor with all her degrees not know that God DID divorce Israel? (Jeremiah 3:8). She could then argue that Israel did return to God, but that was because God punished them with death, famine, and exile, the consequences of their sins, but in his loving compassion he drew them back. Abuse victims are not God. They do not have any power to punish and draw back their unfaithful spouses.

You also mentioned the marriage covenant. Despite what all the famous “c”hristian authors say about the Bible and “the marriage covenant,” there is no such thing as a marriage covenant in the Bible! Micah 2:16 that has often been mistranslated as “God hates dIvorce” is really God hating how they were cruel & violent with their wives and as my sister has pointed out to me, their wives from the covenant are not from “the marriage covenant,” but from Israel whom God has a covenant with. ie They are wives from God’s covenant with Israel. To put it bluntly, people became married by having sex.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Here’s something for you guys to read. There is a deeply disturbing story out of John Bryson’s Acts 29 Fellowship Memphis. A worship pastor Rick Trotter allegedly placed a camera in the restroom and recorded females and some underage.

I’m off to bed now and will definitely finish this article tomorrow. For right now, all I can say is that any woman who stayed in the church after it handed out dish rags to the women on Mother’s Day is a fool.

Prayer Requests:

*Billy starts high school in Texas. (He is the young man whom Dee covered in an abuse article.) Please pray for a good school year for him and for provision for him and his mom Marquis. The GoFundMe account is still open. His mom is a single mom and their budget is very tight. https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

They need money for food and bills.

*Harley, who posts here, is also in Texas. She will be having foot surgery on WEDNESDAY.
She’s been in a lot of pain. Please pray for a successful foot surgery, recovery,
and for her husband who will be taking care of her post-surgery. Please pray on WEDS for her, if you’d be so kind.

Thank you.

Dee – Great post. You have, however, added another name to my list of people that I will need to pray for grace to deal with them if I run into them at Cousin’s BBQ. These people really try my patience.

Wade Burleson has some encouraging words for those that are caught in an impossible marriage situations in his book “Fraudulent Authority”. His thoughts parallel yours as best I recall.

siteseer wrote:

I really feel that marriage has become an idol in the Christian church today. Somehow the contract has become more important than the people involved!

I think a lot of Christians are also to blame for the heavy pressure they place on other Christians to be married. I know so many people now who got married way too fast because their parents or people from their church or other institutions that being unmarried is a big problem and they should hurry up and get married.

I was engaged while I was in college, and I remember going to a gathering of those in the college ministry. There was some church members there, and two men were having a very loud discussion in the next room that anyone who waited to get married could not be following the will of God. I knew they were doing this for my “benefit”, since my fiance and I were extending our engagement because of some big problems that cropped up in his family. I had told hardly anyone about the problems, but Christians still thought it was their business to tell me, or even gossip about how we must not be listening to God. Several people told me that once we got married, all the problems would be solved. Well, those problems in his family ended up tearing my fiance apart, and he became a very different person. That long engagement saved me in the end from what would have been a miserable marriage.

I saw a lot of people at Liberty U. rush into marriage with people they didn’t know at all. They are all divorced now. Marriage did not solve their problems. I agree with siteseer that the church has made marriage an idol. I think Christians should be much more open and honest about the problems in life, but most of the time they are the most in denial. They cause some of the biggest messes, and the hardness of their hearts causes other people to stumble big time.

Comment 2 of 2

Actually, the last one was long enough.

Deb wrote:

Believe it or not, it was the push for short engagements (by pastors and seminary professors) that led to the creation of our blog. Dee and I met with three pastors at her now former church and asked why they push for short engagements. It was an enlightening conversation.
It was that convo that caused us to delve into related topics on the internet, so in a strange sort of way, we have the push for short engagements to thank for The Wartburg Watch.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Wow, interesting!

I walked into that room and asked those men if they knew what the wait time was for a marriage ceremony at that church. They looked at me like they had no idea what I was talking about. It was over a year. They just gaped at me.

Then I walked out of the room and left that party. I never went back to the college ministry after that.

>>”And God will heal her hurts because she is His child

You cannot heal a wound that is constantly being reopened.

Nancy2 wrote:

There is no guarantee that a non-Christian, non-comp guy won’t “change his sinful ways”.

I think when you get close to someone you are taking a leap. There are no guarantees that he’s not a skilled liar.

The comp view of marriage has no way to deal with this. Thanks for this post.

Persephone wrote:

Every time I asked for help with my husband’s alcohol abuse, I felt confronted with the idea that I should probably repent of … never quite sure what, but something.

You can’t fix someone who doesn’t want to be fixed. Maybe these pastors shouldn’t be shunning psychology.

Thanks for sharing your story and I’m glad you are out.

ishy wrote:

Especially when they push short dating and short engagement periods.

Yes! That is just plain crazy.

@ Sister:

Excellent comment!

siteseer wrote:

I really feel that marriage has become an idol in the Christian church today. Somehow the contract has become more important than the people involved!

Very true! I fear many have done to marriage what the Pharisees did to the Sabbath….made it extremely burdensome!

@ Loren Haas:

I’ve actually been asked if I want to break up my family. I responded with..”I’m not the one who has done this”.. My husband and I have been married 34 years. We have six adult kids with the youngest being 18. I’ve spent the last year living the kind of life that I never could have imagined! He seemed to be going through something last year. The farthest thing from my mind was possible adultery! He’s been a wonderful husband and father up until this. I started finding some things out in September and it’s snowballed from there. One of the main things honestly that tipped me off big time was the way he reacted when I just started asking normal questions over some of the things I discovered. In all this time of marriage, he has never treated me this way, thrown me under the bus in front of our kids, and given me looks of pure disdain. It’s like I was living with an alien. Everything I had was circumstantial evidence. He knew it and was trying to convince me of no affair. He had just lied about a bunch of things. So, about six weeks ago I discovered that he had been withdrawing huge chunks of money from our savings. He was so busted. I left him for nine days and only came home for the weekend to take our youngest on a mission trip with his youth group that we had planned for months. He was supposed to leave when I came home and continue counseling. When I left, it scared him and he started talking with some people but didn’t give the whole story! I’m back and he won’t leave. I think the affair is over and he just wants me to move on forward now. It’s clear he wants our marriage. He says he took the money because he had gotten into porn and hated himself. Although he hadn’t looked at porn in months he was still hiding money. I don’t believe it. I feel like I’m dying inside!

Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.

I’m not sure what he thinks ‘do not be harsh with them’ means. Also, all that pesky stuff about loving your wife, and love being patient, kind, etc…

Gram3 wrote:

rather a pointer back to one’s own righteousness for being pious about marriage at the expense of people who are suffering,

I don’t think we have any right to tell OTHER people that they should suffer more. There is nothing righteous about that.

It would be good if these guys at seminary would watch one of Lundy Bancroft’s videos or read his books. I found that very enlightening.

I always enjoy the practical side of faith presented here & this post is no different.
I struggle with the old testament. God seems unduly harsh. The Canaanites were given no chance to know God. Job was used as a toy basically, and his children were destroyed having done nothing wrong, with the express purpose of hurting Job. There are many examples of this.
Is this a loving God? I don’t know. Even some Gnostic sects had trouble with this so separated the Creator God from Jesus.
I think the Bible is divinity seen through the veil of humanity. Life for common people was often hard & short. They were much closer to death than most of us. They routinely lost their children. Women commonly died in childbirth. Famine & plague were constant companions. At 33, Jesus himself would have been considered venerable.
This results in a document that tries to make sense of that struggle, replete with villains & heroes. Examples of courage & sacrifice as well as acknowledgement of our darker nature.
I don’t it was meant to be a step by step users manual, those that treat it as such are missing the point of the misery, suffering and lessons within its pages.
Thanks for a great blog post.

Jack wrote:

I don’t it was meant to be a step by step users manua

Should have been “I don’t think…”

Lea wrote:

Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.

1. I don’t recall Jesus going around smacking the church. If the Comp’s claim that a husband is supposed to love his wife like Jesus loved the church, well there’s an example.

2. Love is gentle, love is kind….
Love doesn’t smack.

3. Christians are supposed to obey civil laws and the Bible says so. Assault (the threat)
and battery (the completed assault & contact) are crimes. They can be prosecuted as misdemeanors or felonies in my state.

If a child(ren) was present there is a separate charge of child endangerment that is filed by prosecutors in my state (California).

I’m sure that others will add to this list.

Gram3 wrote:

the man’s children. I’ve seen that, too. Men are *very* reluctant to talk about being abused by their wives or girlfriends. There is so much shame involved for both male and female victims. Why must Christians, of all people, add to their pain by saying, “You are failing God!” Maybe they are protecting their children when they flee.

Absolutely, Gram3. There are men who are victims’ of womens’ violence. And they and the children need protecting.

mot wrote:

What planet are these “christians” from?

Delusion.

“Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.”

Probably somebody who is into “christian domestic discipline”.

“What can be guaranteed is this: If she loved, forgave, kept arms of redemption open in the midst of the pain and violation, and did nothing that closed the door for restoration, then she will stand before the Lord without regret for the choice she made.”

The implication being, of course, that if she divorces the adulterous husband she will be in big trouble with God at the Judgement. The only valid issue, IMHO, is the question of remarriage after divorce. Given that Christians have been all over the place on that one, it comes down to her personal decision, without attempted coercion by any pastor or elders.

Lea wrote:

Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.

The Bible doesn’t say that wives shouldn’t hit their husbands, either. I wonder if this mindless pup would be A-OK with a wife “disciplining” hubby. Or, more pointedly, with his wife beating him.

I’m not sure what he thinks ‘do not be harsh with them’ means. Also, all that pesky stuff about loving your wife, and love being patient, kind, etc…

Not to mention the part that starts with, “Do unto others…”

Gram3 wrote:

?!?!?! His hermeneutic is “if God doesn’t say I can’t do it, then I can do it?

That’s a common ploy teens and pre-teens use with their parents and teachers. That tells us the maturity level of this Al Mohler disciple, doesn’t it???

Lea wrote:

Cause you missed something.

When someone is indoctrinated (or delusional) they cannot think rationally through the implications or consequences of their thoughts. They only know the narrow scope of the content of their indoctrination or their delusional thought. Parrots do not think about what they are saying or even consider that it might actually *mean* something.

Incidentally, for those of you from Alabama, I cannot now say or think the word moron without hearing a friend from Alabama who pronounces it Moww-rahhn. Love it.

Gram3 wrote:

When someone is indoctrinated (or delusional) they cannot think rationally through the implications or consequences of their thoughts.

I was just reading some article from a ‘no longer quivering’ lady (I believe she is an atheist now). She said “I feel like Christianity is becoming polarized. The mainstream is so indefensible, so they either become liberal, and don’t take everything chapter and verse, or they dig in and become extremists.”

I do think this is a danger, but I have decided being ‘liberal’ is not so bad, if the heart is right. If you go with Christianity and attempt what Jesus asked, that we love god and each other, you may make errors of interpretation but the substance of how you treat people will be right. And that IMO is what is actually important.

Oh! One more thing, and I think this applies to the topic very much.

I think some people hyper-focus on the ‘difficult’ passages, about submission and divorce and homosexuality, because they see some people rejecting the interpretation of them and they want to MAKE you accept them. Because inerrancy. Or because there is an argument about them, and if you like to argue, or show people how much better and more pious you are by believing these things that are ‘hard’ then these are the things you want to spend all your time on.

But when you do, you miss basically everything else. And everything else is WAY more important than those few passages. And those few passages should be interpreted through everything else.

So it’s a mess.

NJ wrote:

“Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.”

Probably somebody who is into “christian domestic discipline”.

“PAPA SPANK!”

“So, about six weeks ago I discovered that he had been withdrawing huge chunks of money from our savings. He was so busted.”

“He says he took the money because he had gotten into porn and hated himself. Although he hadn’t looked at porn in months he was still hiding money. I don’t believe it. I feel like I’m dying inside!”

notmylife, I just now saw your comment. The folks over at the Cry For Justice blog may have some practical advice for you under their financial abuse tag. If your finances have always been completely comingled, that’s a tricky situation. The reason he gave for the withdrawals makes no sense, and I think you are on the right track to distrust what he told you. Even if he makes apparent moves to completely reconcile, it’s probably a good idea to watch your accounts like a hawk, and formulate a plan in case he pulls that stunt again (which may mean he’s getting ready to leave). That kind of behavior destroys trust, which can only be earned. If his violation of Scripture might include leaving you destitute, you are more than justified in protecting yourself.

Nancy2 wrote:

There is no guarantee that a non-Christian, non-comp guy won’t “change his sinful ways”.

Depending on what his ‘sinful ways’ are, I’m okay with that.

I just want someone who won’t abuse me (physically or verbally) or repeatedly cheat on me. If the guy cusses, drinks, smokes, or doesn’t believe in Jesus, I’m fine with that.

Nancy2 wrote:

“And God will heal her hurts because she is His child. And He will completely forgive where she may have fallen.”
—-
(Nancy said):
Hold the horses, here! I just caught this on a second read. The husband committed adultery, which resulted in a pregnancy, and a female “councilor” says God will forgive the wife where she may have fallen ????????
That is TWISTED!

I’ve noticed that some kinds of Christians, (like the ones who are into Neo Calvinism, or Fundamentalism, or Biblical Counseling), are bound and determined to hold an innocent party guilty for whatever sin someone else did.

So, in a case where one spouse beats on, or cheats on, the other the Christian will hold the non-abusive/non-cheating spouse 50% culpable.

I’ve seen this in books and blogs about Christian counseling, where the Christian counselor tells the sexual abuse victim that she and/or her personal sin played a role in her abuse and/or reaction, so she needs to ask God for forgiveness.

Some Christians do this because they have this view of theology that all people are sinners, so therefore, if someone sinned against you, who are you to act upset when you’re a sinner too. You will likely be taught that you did something to cause your abuse, so you are at fault.

These types of Christians hold victims accountable for what perps do all the time. It is very warped and perverse.

Daisy wrote:

I’ve never married. I would like to still.
But, at this point, after seeing these Christians constantly teach that wives must stay in an abusive marriage no matter what, I would stay away from any Christian man who believes in comp/permanence with a 100 foot pole.

Remember Daisy, it’s a feature, not a bug.
To make sure Wifey stays sweet(TM) with you no matter how you treat her.
If you hammer that teaching into the wimmens’ brains, they won’t get ideas.
Especially Pastor’s Widdle Wifey.

Gram3 wrote:

Lea wrote:
Cause you missed something.
When someone is indoctrinated (or delusional) they cannot think rationally through the implications or consequences of their thoughts. They only know the narrow scope of the content of their indoctrination or their delusional thought. Parrots do not think about what they are saying or even consider that it might actually *mean* something.

doubleplusgoodthink, doubleplusduckspeak.

siteseer wrote:

I find it amazing that human beings feel confidence to make assertions like this. How does she know how the person will stand before the Lord or what will happen? She has absolutely no more clue than anyone else what will happen on that day!

….I really feel that marriage has become an idol in the Christian church today. Somehow the contract has become more important than the people involved!

You cannot preach that enough. Both points 100% right on the money.

The older I’m getting, the more annoyed I get with Christians who think they know with total certainty how God will react to, or what God thinks about certain things –

Kind of like every time a hurricane or tornado levels some American city, the Usual Suspects go on to their Christian blogs or TV shows to say with conviction that said natural disaster occurred because of lack of American support for Israel, the legalization of homosexual marriage, or what have you.

I don’t feel quite as comfortable putting words into the mouth of God or, concerning some subjects, claiming I know for-sure-for-sure why God allowed X, Y, and Z to take place.

Some of the people who did that in the Bible were dressed down by God – like Job’s miserable comforters in the book of Job who swore they knew up and down WHY all this bad stuff had happened to Job. God showed up at the end of the story to tell them they were completely wrong.

@ ishy:
It’s interesting how a lot of Christians feel so comfortable dishing out advice that may not impact them personally but can impact someone else, and very negatively.

I was engaged to my ex for a few YEARS. I broke up with him for several different reasons. Thank goodness. Had I married him, I know I would’ve just had to divorce him later…..

You know, many Christians leave people in binds like this.
On the one hand, they treat you like a loser freak failure if you stay single, but, if you do marry and realize it was a mistake (or the spouse is an abuser), they shame you and rebuke you for divorcing.

You cannot win with most Christians: whether you stay single or marry (and later have to divorce) you get criticized either way.

You might as well live life on your own terms, since you will have to deal with any consequences and not the busy bodies who pass judgment on these matters all the time.

ishy wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Where is the incentive for Christian women to marry these men? I can’t see any.

I believe the perceived incentive is acceptance. Acceptance as a “grown-up”. Acceptance by married peers as an equal. Acceptance that you are decent enough to have a guy like you. Acceptance by family members who imply they will love you more if you are married and produce kids.

At a lot of churches, once you say “I Do”, you get to sit at the grown-ups’ table with all the other grown-ups and those (sneer) singles have to serve YOU.

It’s called “Salvation by Marriage Alone.”

Patriciamc wrote:

Daisy wrote:
I was just on Match a moment ago, and this is really sad, but I was so turned off when a guy went on about how he loved the Lord, etc. Maybe I’m being unfair, but something just said no, turn away.

Have found that the people who shoot off the most about how much they love the Lord are often trying to convince themselves–or convince unsuspecting dupes. For example, will never forget Mr. Annis, a man I knew from our small town from my early days of becoming a Christian, who prayed the loudest in the congregation, was the showiest of all about his passion for the Lord…then suddenly started sleeping around with the most notorious women in our little town; made a big show of it, mocked and ridiculed his wife, just rubbed it in her face.

If you really believe it, you just do it, no need to shout it, e.g., “It’s all about Jesus” – Mars Hill Church slogan, “The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea” – North Korea.

siteseer wrote:

“What can be guaranteed is this: If she loved, forgave, kept arms of redemption open in the midst of the pain and violation, and did nothing that closed the door for restoration, then she will stand before the Lord without regret for the choice she made.”
I find it amazing that human beings feel confidence to make assertions like this.

Some have such confidence because they are ignorant, infants in Christ, not knowing the Lord well enough to know that there is much they do not know.

Some have such confidence because they place such emphasis on the words of men who smugly profess to be speaking on behalf of God that they pick up whatever’s told them and run with it, assuming it has a biblical foundation when it does not.

Some have such confidence because they have no fear of the Lord whatsoever and do not care about truth, but rather the raw power they can exert over another.

ishy wrote:

There was some church members there, and two men were having a very loud discussion in the next room that anyone who waited to get married could not be following the will of God.

Of course we all know about the major emphasis the Bible places on short engagements, how it’s a sin to have a long one, it’s right there in black-and-white. Of course.

Lea wrote:

>>”And God will heal her hurts because she is His child
—-
(Lea said)
You cannot heal a wound that is constantly being reopened.

Good point.
Add to that some Christians telling you that the wound is your fault, it’s due to some sin of yours, and/or it’s okay because it’s to sanctify you, it’s to make you “holy not happy,” blah blah blah.

And you can never go to the doctor to get it treated. You have to live with it forever.

Jeff S wrote:

All of this stuff is garbage the people heap on others an mess up their lives so they can feel comfortable with their theological puzzle.

But of course, that is what pharisees do: “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” – Matthew 23:4

If a balding, paunchy, middle-aged church leader’s middle-aged wife develops a physique vaguely reminiscent of a Soviet-era powerlifter and he wishes to jettison her for a well-painted newer model, he does so with impunity and his followers manufacture all manner of excuses to justify his behavior.

If a church leader sets in place a draconian system for discipline and “leaving well” that tyrannizes members such that they are disciplined for doing what’s right and can never leave without being abused, and then the leader is finally called to account and yelps “trap” and runs rather than submitting to the system he made, he gets to start all over again and followers manufacture all manner of excuses to justify his behavior.

Pharisees are nothing like Christians, they are antichristian.

Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.

If you do not marry you get criticized, unless you are terminally homely in which case you get pitied. If you do marry you get criticized: ‘I just can’t see that working out, you do know about his great grandmother’ and such. If you marry and it works out well you get criticized because you had such potential as a young person and why did you not become a neurosurgeon. If you marry and it turns out badly then you get criticized if you stay in the marriage, if you leave the marriage, if you actually divorce, if you remarry after the divorce or if you do not remarry after the divorce–all of it gets criticized.

And if you live out your life, raise children, work a job, remain married until the death of a spouse and then finally call it quits somebody at your funeral is sure to say ‘well, I didn’t want to saaaay…but now that she is gone…she could have done better, it all looked good from the outside but…, she could have been a concert pianist but I heard he made her give it up, the children did not turn out as well as they pretend because I heard…, you do know that they had a rocky time there for a while…, But Now She Can Have Some Peace.

St. Paul the Maligned got it right. If you marry you will have problems. Sometimes you just have to let the other person go ahead and go. You might want to consider refraining from marriage, but that is not for everybody. And don’t anybody think that I/Paul could not be traveling with a wife/woman like the other apostles, because it is my choice. (I am betting he was being criticized at that point.)

Lea wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
His hermeneutic is “if God doesn’t say I can’t do it, then I can do it?
——
Lea said:
I guess. I mean, read between the lines a little bit dude. Cause you missed something.

God does not condemn the particular action of scamming people out of funds in Nigerian e-mail scams, or online dating scams, therefore, it would be totally okay with God if I scammed people out of money on the internet.

-That’s his reasoning. Only, applied to domestic abuse in marriages. But you can see how ridiculous it is when applied to other subjects too.

This article by David Instone Brewer is very helpful on the subject of divorce and remarriage

I have long been critical of the church’s inability to teach or practice healthy relationships.

The way the church prepares young people for marriage is don’t have sex, boys are boys and act like pervs, but it’s the girls’ responsibility to keep their legs closed.

Then the idea of how adult men should function is demeaning to men and women because it infantilizes men and women. From the teachings of CBMW, Biblical, Christian men aren’t required to be adults the same way women are, nor are they required to demonstrate maturity as humans or Christians. Normal adults don’t blow a gasket when they don’t get 100% of their way, someone doesn’t meet 100% of expectations, voices a different opinion, or points out erroneous information.

Then if a man isn’t into sports, forget it, he isn’t really a dude because he is testosterone deficient. It’s like High School when jocks are allowed to bully nerds, geeks, artists, and awkward kids.

It’s sad that they have defined masculinity so narrowly. It is so damaging to men, because the ideal is based in fantasy and doesn’t hold up to the rigors of modern life.

How can we expect people to have healthy marriages when the one place that should be a nurturing environment for loving, caring relationships so often turns out to be a cesspool of selfishness and abuse?

The response to the cheated on or abused spouse is the same as to the abused pew peon: you can’t leave, you must continue to support the church although there is no financial or leadership accountability, God put me over you.

Abusive systems beget abusive relationships.

Lea wrote:

It appears to me from the many stories of this style, that pastors and elders need some education about the fact that skilled liars are SKILLED. That is how they manage to pull people in.

I fear that a lot of the men who end up in these positions are very gullible. Well meaning but not seasoned at dealing with conflict and always looking for the simple, easy answer. Yes men.

@ ishy:

I see what you mean, and yes, the church tends to stigmatize singles for being single, but I’m over 40 now.

For me to marry at my age, there is zippo incentive for me to marry a Christian guy who is bent on male hierarchy views.

I’m very much okay now with not needing the approval of other adult Christians for myself or how I live my life.
I do not see anything attractive about me marrying a Christian man, especially
1. if he believes in male headship and
2. Christians keep saying should the spouse turn out to be abusive, I am forbidden to divorce.

It’s kind of like Christians trying to peddle or market home-made cookies to the public by telling them that all the cookies contain rat poison, and once you get sick off them, you are forbidden to go to an E.R. and get medical treatment.

I’m like, No thanks, I’d rather skip cookies totally, or else get a bag of Famous Amos or Keebler at Kroger’s. 🙂

Daisy wrote:

I guess. I mean, read between the lines a little bit dude. Cause you missed something.
God does not condemn the particular action of scamming people out of funds in Nigerian e-mail scams, or online dating scams, therefore, it would be totally okay with God if I scammed people out of money on the internet.
-That’s his reasoning. Only, applied to domestic abuse in marriages. But you can see how ridiculous it is when applied to other subjects too.

It is because the guy simply hasn’t thought things through, probably hasn’t been and isn’t being taught to think things through, but rather to be an open pit to receive the imparted wisdom of the Great Men of his seminary. Possibly he doesn’t have the sort of internal spiritual guidance–i.e., the Holy Spirit–that functions in part as an “idiot button” for Christians telling them “Hey idiot, what are you thinking?” Anytime one would posit that beating one’s spouse is kosher because it’s not explicitly prohibited in the Bible, then justify his “Christian argument” not by reference to the Bible, either Old Testament or New, but to the theories of an ancient rabbi who quite probably didn’t know Jesus Himself, you must suspect that he might not know Jesus were the latter to walk up and give him a hug.

Uncle Dad wrote:

So it is with divorce. If you haven’t faced it, shut up.

I’m so happy to hear of your wife’s recovery!

My husband has also received the kind of cancer advice you spoke of- much of it from Christians! It was actually kind of eye opening to see the superstitious ideas with no evidence supporting them that some Christians will latch onto. It made me realize they probably do the same with the ideas they adhere to in the faith.

@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:

Excellent post. I agreed with everything you said. 🙂

Law Prof wrote:

Possibly he doesn’t have the sort of internal spiritual guidance–i.e., the Holy Spirit–that functions in part as an “idiot button” for Christians telling them “Hey idiot, what are you thinking?”

Or, you know, a conscience.

Reading that guys comment, he doesn’t come off like someone who is just arguing for the fun of nit-picking either. He seems like he really believes you should be able to smack around your wife. Very serious red flags there.

Nancy2 wrote:

Particularly since he is an SBTS student. How prevalent is that opinion in our conservative seminaries?

He is trying to figure out how to COUNSEL people in domestic abuse situations!!! And this is his stance.

What wife will have a chance in that counseling session??

Jack wrote:

The Canaanites were given no chance to know God.

I am not sure that the evidence, sparse as it may be, supports that conclusion. Look at God’s covenant with Abraham. Genesis 15. He talks about judgment being brought on the Egyptians but he also mentions the return from Egypt. “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

That sounds like the Amorites did not change their ways even over a period of 400 years and finally their time ran out. So apparently God was aware of the decision and made a deliberate choice.

But did the Amorites have the opportunity to know about the god of Abraham. Well, note that God assumes that Abraham knew what he/Gpd was talking about as being the iniquity of the Amorites. I am assuming that if Abraham new about the Amorites then the Amorites knew about Abraham, Beginning from the arrival in that area of Abraham and his big bunch of people (enough to field a small army early on) and then the whole lifetime of Isaac in which the tribe grew and then the lifetime of Jacob the tribe of Abraham was there. Abraham’s people had become a sizable tribe and were very prosperous. How probable is it that they had no contact with the Amorites, and how probable is it that the story of the binding of Isaac was not told and retold concerning human sacrifice? How probably is it that the surroundings tribes were clueless about the god of Abraham? I think it is not probable at all, especially since God time and again warned the Jews about staying away from the locals and don’t be marrying them-which in fact they were.

I think the Amorites knew. In the same covenant God talks about the judgment on the Egyptians, and for sure the Egyptians know about the god of the Hebrews. It looks to me like in the OT God is portrayed as giving people more than adequate time to forsake their other gods and their other religious practices.

Jack wrote:

I struggle with the old testament. God seems unduly harsh.

I read through the same Old Testament and think God seems almost absurdly patient.

Since Jesus clearly permitted divorce in cases of adultery, we would do well not to state or imply otherwise.

ishy wrote:

I read the “two greatest commands” in the Bible yesterday, and it’s interesting how the two greatest commands are the least important commands to many Christians.

TBH, Deebs could just remove my (long) comment and replace it with yours!

Slight off-topic grateful comment.

Someone here (maybe Ken F.?) recommended on another thread Reconsidering TULIP by Alexander Renault. I just bought this book since I have been deprogramming from NeoCalvinism, which in all honesty I didn’t swallow hook, line, and sinker.

What a wonderful book! Thank you.

Victorious wrote:

Very true! I fear many have done to marriage what the Pharisees did to the Sabbath….made it extremely burdensome!

BINGO! So was marriage made for man? Or was man made for marriage?
Depends entirely on who ya’ talk to.
Many in modern Christendom read wayyyy too much into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Since Jesus clearly permitted divorce in cases of adultery, we would do well not to state or imply otherwise.

Hi ANONYMOUS,
I AGREE with you, wholeheartedly.

But what has happened when a cult decides that the words of Christ Himself have no more meaning than other parts of Scripture, other parts where the cult can say ‘the Bible clearly says’ and point to these parts as the ‘authoritative’ Word of God?
That ‘freedom’ from honoring Our Lord’s Words and Actions as spoken and done in the Very Person of God has given the cult people a chance to OVERRIDE Our Lord’s Royal Law, even, in favor of actions that have brought great harm to others, in violation of the Law of Love.
And the tragedy is that the cult people declared they were ‘justified’ in doing so ‘because the Bible clearly says’.

Anything goes, when men create golden calfs in the absence of Our Lord as the Lens through which sacred Scripture is to be interpreted, as is celebrated in the Book of Revelation 5, this:
““You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals,
because You were slain,
and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. . . .
. . . Worthy is The Lamb”

And so, even in sacred Scripture itself, St. John reinforces the truth that Our Lord as the ONLY One fit to ‘open the scrolls’ to us.

Lea wrote:

Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.

How would such a seminary discipline a ministry student for tweeting a comment so egregiously against the Royal Law of Christ?

Christiane wrote:

Lea wrote:
Julie Anne just retweeted something from a STBS seminary student saying he doesn’t see anywhere in the bible where husbands can’t hit their wives.
How would such a seminary discipline a ministry student for tweeting a comment so egregiously against the Royal Law of Christ?

Considering that the young pup is at a seminary where the leaders have done despicable things to other godly Christians (fired or got rid of moderates and those not in lock-step, advocate authoritarianism, excommunications and shunnings, plus Patriarchy/Complementarianism) he seems to be “strutting his stuff” and preening his feathers, just like they’ve taught him.

@ okrapod:
I don’t think God needs anything from me so I won’t bother with apologies. There aren’t enough pixels to discuss every instance you bring up. All of those wars led us not to perdition but to you & I to have the freedom to discuss these issues without secret police tracking us down.
Look, the twentieth century had a lot of crap to work out. And more so with the American civil war.
Much of these wars were for,or against an ideology.
So we’re a go for genocide if God approves? Franklin Graham thought so after 9-11. I think we can be thankful that man of God didn’t have his hand on the button.
This is the justification the Calvinists use to subjugate their adherents. God says it’s OK. It’s in the Bible.
I’m just saying the Bible needs context,and yes, I judge it by modern standards of equality,freedom & justice.
Probably said to much, so I’ll see you all over at the next post.

@ Christiane:

School starts tomorrow and I may get over myself by tomorrow. That is some hope. In the meantime on the subject of divorce Jesus did not mention the circumstance where a believer is married to an unbeliever, but Paul addressed the issue. Arguments for divorce in the case of abandonment and/or abuse are based on what Paul said and not what Jesus said. If what Paul said must be seen through the lens of Jesus, and Jesus said nothing about it, then divorce would only be permitted for adultery, and in fact many people make that argument.

When Gram3 and Lydia and I were talking about the ‘lens’ thing they said that the argument was that some people were using the idea of seeing scripture though the Jesus lens as a way to manipulate scripture to say what they wanted it to say. This can be done, of course, in anything that Jesus did not address.

What I am saying, having listened to Gram3 and Lydia and what they said that the people who changed that were saying at the time regarding the BFM 2000 is that using the Jesus lens as an argument is a two edged sword that can cut both ways, and apparently some people were in fact doing that.

I think it sounds nice and religious to have that in some official statement, but apparently it was being abused by some people, and I can see that it certainly can happen.

Julie Anne Smith wrote:

Thank you, Daisy. He evidently posted it in another group – a Calvinist group and the post has since been taken down.

You’re welcome.

The post though appears to still be on Facebook,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RickThomasNet/permalink/10153214128439567/

Here are two of his comments from that thread (in which wife abuse is being discussed):

[by Corriell Savannah Brotherwood, August 13, 2016]

thanks again but I think it is wrong to call something sin that the bible does not call sin, hitting is not sin. while it is the sin in ones heart that often leads one to hit that does not have to be the case nor am i sure it is the case in the example giving
—–
note in my research on this topic I found that some rabbis taught that there was such a thing as educational beatings and non-educational beatings the former was ok the latter was forbidden

Daisy wrote:

They start sounding like this:

Top Imam: Beating Wives Is The Only Way To Control Them
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/17/top-imam-beating-wives-only-way-control-them

Very true. 🙁

You can live by control OR you can live by love. Not both.
In reading the Bible, you cannot miss that God wants us to live by love.
Yet the church is promoting the opposite way: control.

Power, control, hierarchy, discipline, abuse
OR
love.

Daisy wrote:

the Biblical Counseling Facebook group

Can I repeat that it is SO DISTURBING that this guy might be let anywhere near a couple who needs counseling? Or a person? Or literally anyone at all.

Lea wrote:

Daisy wrote:
the Biblical Counseling Facebook group
Can I repeat that it is SO DISTURBING that this guy might be let anywhere near a couple who needs counseling? Or a person? Or literally anyone at all.

+100

@ Jack:

Just to be clear on my views, I do see in some instances in the OT God looks very unloving.

For example, God immediately struck dead some guy who merely reached over to steady the ark of the covenant, because it was wobbling and about to tip over.

I never could figure that out, like why it was worthy of death (and yes I am aware of the rule that only Levites could touch it, and I don’t think the guy was a Levite??). But still, death for touching a wooden construction always struck me as severe.

On the other hand, there are instance in the rest of the OT where God did forgive people for doing stuff like that, or for far, far worse.

Lea wrote:

note in my research on this topic I found that some rabbis taught that there was such a thing as educational beatings and non-educational beatings the former was ok the latter was forbidden

To be fair to Brotherwood, I don’t know exactly what he meant by quoting that stuff.

I couldn’t figure out if he agrees with what those rabbis taught about abuse, or if he was just musing aloud, or what.

And his screen name sounds like a put-on. “Corriell Savannah Brotherwood.” 🙂

If that is his true name, I apologize if I sound mean for joking about it, but it sounds similar to me like “Rev. Lovejoy” from the Simpsons cartoon.

I could imagine there being a “Rev. Charitygrace Brotherwood” in the same cartoon show.

Daisy wrote:

@ Jack:
Just to be clear on my views, I do see in some instances in the OT God looks very unloving.
For example, God immediately struck dead some guy who merely reached over to steady the ark of the covenant, because it was wobbling and about to tip over.
I never could figure that out, like why it was worthy of death (and yes I am aware of the rule that only Levites could touch it, and I don’t think the guy was a Levite??). But still, death for touching a wooden construction always struck me as severe.
On the other hand, there are instance in the rest of the OT where God did forgive people for doing stuff like that, or for far, far worse.

It was a matter of severe and nigh blasphemous disrespect. There was a specific method for transporting the Arc, those poles that had been made of fancy wood and covered in gold and those rings on the top of the Arc hammered out of gold, one slid through the other and then the Arc was carried with proper respect for the extraordinary, unprecedented situation that the Arc had the very Spirit of God in it. This was a Big Deal to say the least! And they dump it into the back of a rickety cart wobbling along. Imagine a parade with a king not carried up high on a litter borne by elaborately-dressed servants, but tottering along in a cart behind a big smelly ox and then the ox slips and down tumbles the king–like a scene out of the comedy show Monty Python, no? That’s what they did with the Arc of the Covenant, treated it like a joke. Bet neither David nor Uzzah could’ve possibly missed the significance of those big hand-hammered gold rings designed for carrying the Arc properly, but obviously they just couldn’t be bothered. Generally, carts might have been used for carrying garbage or the like, not kings and least of all the very Arc of God. Read the myth of Sir Launcelot, who created a scandal by consenting to ride in the back of a cart, it wasn’t considered fit for a knight.

In context, what David and Uzzah were doing there might have been along the lines of the mockeries of God that only the most vicious and reprobate so-called Christian leaders engage in that are are chronicled here.

Daisy wrote:

Yes, I was freaked out that this guy is not only in a seminary, but he said something in his post which seems to suggest he may eventually work in some kind of counseling field.
I can imagine any abused people going to see him for counsel, and the long term damage he will do to them, because he will undoubtedly tell them the abuse is their fault

If his “counsel” is anything like my untrained, uneducated, and unlicensed ex-pastors/elders at the NeoCalvinist church it is very dangerous and consists of listening
to insufferable opinions as “advice”. My ex-pastors blew getting a woman alcoholic
care and even blamed me for a church member’s genetically inherited brain disorder and memory problems (despite the fact that she can’t work because of said problems
and has gotten a monthly disability check from the federal government for more than 30 years). I dunno. Houston, Do you think there’s a teensy problem that has NOTHING to do with “sin”?

My ex-pastor had a “Ph.D.” from the finest diploma mill that Independence, Missouri has to offer — Faith Bible College. $299.

@ Lea:

I am thinking what are the chances that this lad has prior experience with men hitting women, either his dad hitting his mother, or he himself hitting his wife possibly. He sounds like somebody looking for a possibly personal reason to say it it not forbidden.

Law Prof wrote:

But that’s not the God I worship. So we’re talking about two different Gods here, one that I don’t believe exists and the other–the One Who knows all, sees all, loves all–that I very much do believe exists.

I see a lot of the ‘two God’ heresy in modern day theology, only as a ‘reverse’ of Marcionism. In Marcionism, Christ was chosen as Lord, and the ‘God of Wrath’ of the OT was dismissed and the OT was abandoned.
Today’s dualism works more in reverse: the ‘God of Wrath’ is taken literally, as are many parts of the OT, including the Ban;
while Our Lord in the NT gets ‘put in His place’ by means of ‘inerrancy’, and ‘ESS’, and any point of view which re-creates Him in an image which is more pliable to a theological agenda.

It’s a form of the old Marcion dualism, turned upside down and so come back to us re-arranged so Christ won’t get ‘in the way’ of the ‘new’ theologies that don’t center on Him.

Law Prof wrote:

Or that as a seminary student he would not be called on the carpet, thoroughly dressed down, and expelled forthwith.

He accidentally told the truth about what a fair number of them believe but dare not say. While they would deny that they advocate physical discipline, in fact they deny the personhood of women in exactly the same way as advocates of the no-divorce-no-way view deny the personhood of the man or woman who is being abused verbally, physically, or via adultery or any other abusive treatment. That is the rot at the core of these beliefs–that one human has the right and even the duty to rule over another human being. For purely arbitrary reasons.

Daisy wrote:

I can imagine any abused people going to see him for counsel, and the long term damage he will do to them, because he will undoubtedly tell them the abuse is their fault, the Bible does not condemn it, and they cannot divorce over it.

And the example he gave- the husband, wife and daughter presented as one-dimensional characters, the situation incompletely described, contrived to lead the readers to see physical violence as a solution; as the only viable solution. A very, very sad situation.

Gram3 wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
Or that as a seminary student he would not be called on the carpet, thoroughly dressed down, and expelled forthwith.
He accidentally told the truth about what a fair number of them believe but dare not say. While they would deny that they advocate physical discipline, in fact they deny the personhood of women in exactly the same way as advocates of the no-divorce-no-way view deny the personhood of the man or woman who is being abused verbally, physically, or via adultery or any other abusive treatment. That is the rot at the core of these beliefs–that one human has the right and even the duty to rule over another human being. For purely arbitrary reasons.

Very well put. A person cannot have this belief and truly have the Holy Spirit inside them, period. I like your use of the word “rot” too because I’ve long felt there was rot at the core of the SBC, and now we know what that rot is.

Gram3 wrote:

While they would deny that they advocate physical discipline, in fact they deny the personhood of women in exactly the same way as advocates of the no-divorce-no-way view deny the personhood of the man or woman who is being abused verbally, physically, or via adultery or any other abusive treatment.

This brings to my mind something I’ve seen some permanence-marriage Christians quibble about on blogs and forums:

What constitutes abuse, and at what level of abuse is it okay for a Christian to tell a victim they may leave.

I am stunned that any of that is even up for debate.

Another aspect of that is that there are a lot of Christians (usually men and/or complementarians and/or permanence types) who do not consider anything but physical abuse as being “real” abuse. (And some of them seem to think only “severe” physical abuse counts, such as broken ribs etc).

So, for example, if a husband is consistently verbally abusive to his wife (which may involve not yelling or obvious insults, but a steady stream of criticism), they don’t regard that as being a form of abuse or a grounds for divorce.

I love my father, but – he is the kind of super critical type of person, and you can believe that being subjected to a constant drip- drip- drip of negativity, never hearing a compliment or any praise, can really do a number on your sense of self worth. There is no way I could withstand being married to a guy who has that trait, like my father has.

But you have a lot of Christians who nit pick to death what abuse is, who don’t believe emotional / financial/ verbal mistreatment “counts” as abuse and don’t think a target should get a blessing from a church leave in those cases.

Patriciamc wrote:

This is an issue I simply don’t understand: the obsession with or need to control a woman or women in general. Why?

I am a man, and I simply don’t understand either. I read the accounts of the actions and pronouncements of these people and their ilk, and I think, these are twisted, sick people. How they got that way, I don’t know. I think it’s a congenital vulnerability in ‘solo [sic] scriptura’ Christianity. You really can proof-text just about anything you want, and if you are of a twisted, misogynistic, authoritarian mindset, why, you can convince yourself that you are oh so holy.

It is a huge problem, and seems to be getting worse. People get really screwed up when they think they know what God really wants, and nobody else does. It’s a pathology. A lot of evangelical Christian denoms are leaning this way. Why be surprised that people see this, and just think Christianity is full of nothing but nut-jobs.

Patriciamc wrote:

This is an issue I simply don’t understand: the obsession with or need to control a woman or women in general. Why?

All I can figure is that we have an out of control pandemic outbreak of little man syndrome.
I see it at my current church. It’s easy to tell which men have a bad case of it, and which men are perfectly healthy. I think little man syndrome can be passed down from father to son!

Nancy2 wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:

This is an issue I simply don’t understand: the obsession with or need to control a woman or women in general. Why?

All I can figure is that we have an out of control pandemic outbreak of little man syndrome.
I see it at my current church. It’s easy to tell which men have a bad case of it, and which men are perfectly healthy. I think little man syndrome can be passed down from father to son!

That’s an accurate description, I think, but not an explanation. The explanation lies, I believe, in a number of factors, which mostly boil down to lack of role models for boys growing up.

The popular media typically portray men as bumbling idiots, psychopathic crooks, or anything else other than strong, ethically and morally upright humans. Combine that with screwed up homelife/broken homes, violent video games, really ugly music, etc., and you are going to reap the whirlwind.

Yes, many men are a real mess. Look to your boys…

Nancy2 wrote:

don’t believe these “Complementarians” are doing their sons (or daughters) any favors by teaching male headship and female submissiveness! They’re just providing more role models, IMO.

Of course they’re not doing them any favors. And of course they are providing role models – that’s my point. They are somehow, in a very nasty way, meeting a felt need of a certain kind of young men, when very little else is. And it’s all wrapped up in Gawd and the Bible and all that, so it must be good and right, yes?

Velour wrote:

Those women changed peoples’ lives by carrying The Gospel. When these NeoCal men today say it can’t and shouldn’t be done…ohhh puhhhllssee boys. It’s been done for hundreds of years.

It’s been done by women for thousands of years, and still is, even though the small minded 20th century men preach otherwise.

roebuck wrote:

The popular media typically portray men as bumbling idiots, psychopathic crooks, or anything else other than strong, ethically and morally upright humans.

Yes, that is true, IMO. Not very PC, but true. I especially appreciate your concise statement of what true manhood looks like. And, surprisingly, it is about character. Just like true womanhood. Both sexes should emulate Jesus, the Messiah and not John, the Piper.

Gram3 wrote:

I especially appreciate your concise statement of what true manhood looks like. And, surprisingly, it is about character. Just like true womanhood.

Indeed. Children do not need to be taught to be men and women. They need to be taught to be kind, decent people who care for others.

Loren Haas wrote:

My wife and I have been leading divorce recovery groups in Christian churches for ten years. We were both previously divorced from adulterous spouses. We have walked the walk and talked the talk.
My experience is that many, maybe most pastors do not have a clue regarding divorce and how to approach it in a holistic Christian viewpoint. As Dee has suggested, they cherry pick verses to support their own positions without regard to the real world consequences of their advice.
Participants in our groups have repeated horror stories of being told to return to spouses that were serial adulterers, physical abusers and who have put the barrels of guns in their mouth to intimidate them. Others have been shunned and prohibited from setting foot in the church after refusing to return to abusive spouses.
I had always tried to not speak critically of other churches in our groups. However, after I saw patterns of dangerous marital and divorce advice from the usual suspects, I have had to speak out and plead with participants to not go back to there abusive churches.
I highly recommend the Divorce Minister blog at: http://www.divorceminister.com/en/ He was put through the wringer by his church after his adulteroous wife left him. Much thoughtfull commentary and advice there.

Thanks for the shout out!

Hi Wartburgers,
Please pray for Harley, if you’d be so kind. She’s having her foot surgery tomorrow.
Thanks, friends.

So, does Stovall believe and teach that all of Israel will be in Heaven? Her covenant logic means she must as God remains faithful even to the faithless. That would include even faithless Israel in the eschaton.

And how does she deal with the Old Testament instructing the death sentence for adultery (e.g. Deut. 22:22)? Or that God Himself divorced Israel over adultery (see Jeremiah 3:8)? How about the Bible describing Joseph divorcing Mary over the discovery of her pregnancy BECAUSE he was a RIGHTEOUS man? If all Scripture is God-breathed….

Patriciamc wrote:

This is an issue I simply don’t understand: the obsession with or need to control a woman or women in general. Why?

lots of reasons, I suppose . . . insecurity, lack of self-esteem, jealousy, after a day of getting kicked around at work while kissing up to ‘authority’ then coming home to continue the game of ‘kiss up kick down’???

I cannot think of ONE GOOD REASON why in a sacramental Christian marriage, a man would need for his wife to be ‘submissive’. The whole idea of Christian marriage is being there FOR one another, being caring in an ‘either to other’ way. It’s based on love, not on domination/submission.

Divorces? Tell a man to expect his wife to be ‘submissive’ and when she has had enough garbage, she will RUN, not walk. Some women last longer than others, but the strong ones know their worth and they get out of sick relationships where respect does NOT exist for the honorable place of women in Christian marriage. Neo-Cal pastors who have advised men to behave wrongly towards their wives have fostered many break-ups, I imagine; they have much to answer for because of the real damage they have done to people’s marriages.

siteseer wrote:

I do not think any person owes some church person an explanation of why they feel they need to divorce, much less to have to ask their permission

Yeah. Aside from if I wanted counseling (although now that I realize counseling standards in church are so low I probably would never use them) I can’t imagine asking a church figure for permission to divorce. It’s not their business to decide what is right, especially in cases of abuse or adultery. If you want someone’s opinion you can ask for it, of course. But never permission.

@ Law Prof:
I’m just sitting by a swimming pool in Florida after a great vacation. To any Floridians out there, you have a great state. My son is splashing around happily. I help with his homework, I assist his soccer team, make sure he eats well, tuck him in at night. We’ve put away money for his future. Not because we’re great parents, because God already decided it. Whatever dreams we have for him mean nothing because God already decided that he may be evil. Or good. A healing doctor, or a Josef Mengele.
My brother is a drug addict not because his birth mother drank with him in the womb but because God decided his fate before time began.
Why pray? Why do anything? Creation is nothing more than a tape playing to an inevitable finish.
Somehow that makes it worse than if God just stuck us in an ant farm.
At least ants have some freedom. Oh, wait, God ordained their movements too.
Ugh. I’ve never felt farther from faith than right now.
By the way,there are physicists that theorize that all space and time already exists before we move through it.

Jack wrote:

My brother is a drug addict

Jack,

I’ll pray for your brother. You just never know what’s going to happen.
In my own family, as in many families, there are a few addicts/alcoholics in various
branches of our family tree.

Hi Harley,

“Lord Help Me To Hold Out”, recorded at the Gospel Legends in Mississippi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTf8gTHme08

Christiane wrote:

I cannot think of ONE GOOD REASON why in a sacramental Christian marriage, a man would need for his wife to be ‘submissive’. The whole idea of Christian marriage is being there FOR one another, being caring in an ‘either to other’ way. It’s based on love, not on domination/submission.

Before I started attending my current church, I did some digging on the Internet to see what the pastor has said about women and gender roles. I found a recording where he went over the Ephesian verses and said that the instructions to wives and to husbands are really saying the same thing: to love each other and look out for each other. He didn’t say one word about wives submitting, the husband being the boss, etc. I was sold!

Patriciamc wrote:

Before I started attending my current church, I did some digging on the Internet to see what the pastor has said about women and gender roles. I found a recording where he went over the Ephesian verses and said that the instructions to wives and to husbands are really saying the same thing: to love each other and look out for each other. He didn’t say one word about wives submitting, the husband being the boss, etc. I was sold!

Those pastors and Churches are out there. Wade Burleson is such a pastor and he has a Southern Baptist Church. Maybe someday, he can help lead the SBC into a better place, if nothing more, than by his good and decent example.

When my Christian daughter and her Christian friend were discussing divorce in the church, her friend was shocked that 1/2 of Christian marriages ended in divorce. My daughter explained that she was shocked that that many stayed together.

@ Nancy2:

Oh, it says he’s a “pastor in training.”

*shudder*

Daisy wrote:

@ Nancy2:
Oh, it says he’s a “pastor in training.”
*shudder*

Well, we already knew that he was in the PIT.

siteseer wrote:

And to carry this misery to it’s logical conclusion, I give you the ravings of John Piper:

I need a nice box of chocolates. Scratch that. To deal with John Piper, I need to stay at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel with my own suite, room service, golfing, horse back riding, swimming, and massages. Oh yes, and the high tea on Sunday.

I’ll need a bathrobe monogrammed with my initials and matching slippers too.

I need an ocean side view with a balcony.

And that’s the *price* I charge to endure a John Piper video.

Bill the boyz at T4G for my stay (1 month).

siteseer wrote:

@ Velour:
Very creepy.

LOL.

I’m owed for that other John Piper video I sat through recently here and took 8 pages of notes. The whole manhood/womanhood, boy/girl one. It was painful. Every.Single.Moment.
He is beyond clueless.

Velour wrote:

LOL.

I’m owed for that other John Piper video I sat through recently here and took 8 pages of notes. The whole manhood/womanhood, boy/girl one. It was painful. Every.Single.Moment.
He is beyond clueless.

Oh, sorry, I meant the way your ex-pastor ordered his daughter around was creepy.

I’ll save you the pain of perceiving Piper and paraphrase his predicament:

If we Christians work to end the persecution of believers in other countries, we could thwart God’s purpose and prevent the gospel from taking root. So I guess we should just let people suffer because God’s will and the gospel. 🙁

Maybe I’m misunderstanding his drift. I hope so. But I fear not.

Please forgive if this is off a bit but this has got to be one of the most ironic videos of Piper with Mark Driscoll talking about how smart Doug Wilson is.

https://youtu.be/b2X078_VDjc

Oh and here is a real prize

https://youtu.be/z2CEPBUi8nI

brian wrote:

Please forgive if this is off a bit but this has got to be one of the most ironic videos of Piper with Mark Driscoll talking about how smart Doug Wilson is.

What are they smoking?

ishy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Piper’s video said it was ‘a loss of The Gospel’. Is he out of his mind? (Don’t answer that. Because we KNOW he’s out of his mind.)
The closing of Mars Hill was an answer to fervant prayers of people like me. It protected Christians and saved The Gospel.
Piper’s gospel is Calvinism. Driscoll seemingly converted a lot of Calvinists at Mars Hill, though I wouldn’t doubt that many of them have moved far away from the neo-Calvinist movement after the walls came tumbling down.

Bingo.

Someone here recommended the book Reconsidering TULIP by Alexander J. Renault.
(A former Calvinist now Eastern Orthodox Christian.) I just bought a copy and started reading it. Very good. It’s 117 pages total.

Nancy2 wrote:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/corriell-brotherwood-36491942

This guy is teaching jr high youth group.

Nancy2 wrote:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/corriell-brotherwood-36491942

Also this::: I am seeking teaching and counseling opportunities in the Show Low, AZ area; in order to use the gifts God has giving me to serve the body of Christ by apply the years of training I have received.

I feel like we need to warn all the women in Arizona…

siteseer wrote:

I do not think any person owes some church person an explanation of why they feel they need to divorce, much less to have to ask their permission.

Even *assuming* the church has any interest or competence in determining what the true situation is. People, including church people, want easy and formulaic answers to life which is neither of those things. Church leadership should be far wiser than that. Our experience is that church leadership, particularly the professional ones, are not. There are exceptions to that, thankfully.

brian wrote:

Piper with Mark Driscoll talking about how smart Doug Wilson is.

No doubt that is one that is high on the “don’t even consider” list. Smart does not necessarily include wisdom and it does not exclude foolishness, delusion, malfeasance, or pastoral malpractice. Smart sometimes enables people to be better at those things, unfortunately.

Thanks for those links.

Lea wrote:

This guy is teaching jr high youth group.

Peer leadership.

Lea wrote:

This guy is teaching jr high youth group.

He’s a real person??? Just when I was beginning to suspect/hope that it was all a set up…

@ okrapod:

It’s a pendulum. Society shifts too far in one direction and people try to shift it way too far back. There is generally a happy middle somewhere.

But people are people. There is no perfect system that will protect everyone.

It is a hermeneutical fallacy to cite a prophet’s “living” or “acted out” parable as prescriptive for believers in their ordinary experiences and relationships. Otherwise, why not, e.g., “In the year that the commander in chief, who was sent by Sargon the king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and fought against it and captured it– 2 at that time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, “As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush, 4 so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt.” There are any number of examples of the prophets–extraordinary servants of God–behaving in odd and provocative ways that have nothing to do with Christian sanctification. John Piper can emote about this all that he wants to, but he is wrong. His influence puts heavy loads on believers’ shoulders that the Bible simply doesn’t require. Just because evangelicals–broadly speaking–have not treated marriage with the respect and devotion that the Bible calls for does not mean the church has to make up for it by fetishizing marriage and leaving vulnerable Christians in miserable and, at times, dangerous situations.

okrapod wrote:

I also think that the wide open acceptance of divorce for any reason or no reason, and never mind the kids, has gone too far in our nation and the church should make it clear that Jesus was not in favor of divorce for just any reason or no reason.

Yes, I agree, and the disciples seemed to get that point.

Anna wrote:

I’m so tired of hearing about cases where pastors, and even the abused woman’s good ‘Christian’ friends counsel her to stay and be the martyr.

I guess a lot of Christians find it pious and noble-sounding to tell abused wives to stay in these marriages.

It’s easy for them to tell women to stay in those situations – the advice does not affect them, it affects someone else.

I shared a post on this thread the other day about how pastor Charles Stanley used to say he was opposed to pastors staying in the pulpit if they got divorced, but he changed his tune after his wife divorced him years ago.

I also see a strain of thought among some Christians who seems to think that the Christian abused wife is supposed to redeem the abusive husband or play the role of Holy Spirit for the husband. I don’t even see anything in the Bible that teaches this.

Such attitudes take all personal responsibility off the abuser and puts all the onus on the victim.

bc wrote:

When my Christian daughter and her Christian friend were discussing divorce in the church, her friend was shocked that 1/2 of Christian marriages ended in divorce. My daughter explained that she was shocked that that many stayed together.

Not only that, but…

Atheist Marriages Last Longer Than Christian Marriages, Research Says (2013)

According to a study conducted by the Barna Research Group, divorce rates are higher among “Bible-believing” Baptists and nondenominational Christians. Divorce rates are lower among the more liberal Methodists, and even lower among atheists.

That comes by way of a Barna survey.

Of course, after such studies are released, a percentage of Christians get bent out of shape and start writing responses, where they nit pick the data to say, “no, we don’t think this is quite right.”

One observation this: such Christians want to have it both ways. They apparently like to feel that believing in Jesus makes life better and makes believers immune from divorce and other things in life.

However, some of them turn around (like complementarians) and argue that too many Christians have been swayed by secular culture.

Either being a Christian makes one impervious from cultural influence and sin or it does not – I wish they’d make up their minds on this.

Anna wrote:

If making peace means leaving an abusive husband, then God approves. He would NEVER want one of his precious children to stay and subject herself to ANY kind of abuse. When a man makes a choice to abuse his wife, he has abandoned his marriage vows.

Absolutely.

siteseer wrote:

(editorial on Desiring God site):
“Should We Help Believers Escape Persecution?”

The other day, I skimmed that page you linked to.

Based on what I recall, its author was arguing that because God can and does use Christian suffering to bring about good or his purpose, that no, Christians should not intervene and rescue Christians who are being martyred.
That is one twisted, warped view.

He used Joseph as an example – imagine, he said, if someone had rescued Joseph from slavery. Then that famine would have happened, and lots of people would’ve starved, because there was no Joseph to have come up with keeping food in store houses in Egypt.

I find that attitude strange also because it makes God look like an incompetent idiot.

Supposing someone HAD rescued Joseph – God being God could have dang well come up with a Plan B, C, or D if he needed to.

Apparently I think God is more competent and capable than these Neo-Calvinist guys, who think the choices of people can mess up God’s long term plans.

It looks to me as though the Bible teaches the opposite from the Desiring God site: when and where you can, you should help other people who are hurting or in trouble.

– That was sort of the main point behind Jesus’ Good Samaritan parable.

Jesus did not say that you should just walk by the injured guy on the road because God might be using that dude’s injuries for some other eventual purpose we just cannot see yet.

@ okrapod:

A lot of gender behavior and so on really is socially constructed.

A lot of comp Christians assume God designed all women to want children, to enjoy wearing the color pink, etc.

My mother who was a comp certainly pressured me into all that, in spite of the fact I was a tom boy. I hated pink, I did not like wearing dresses, playing “house” or playing with dolls.

I preferred more boyish pursuits, such as watching Bat Man cartoon shows, pretending to be Bat Man, I was interested in sports cars and so forth.

I was not born or designed by God to like pink, baking casseroles, or wearing frilly dresses, that’s for sure.

FW Rez wrote:

read an article by one of the people in the FB group and came to the conclusion that to him “Biblical” counseling is about confronting people with their sins. Sounds like a big power trip for the counselor:

Yes, I’ve read a book or two by these guys (as well as some of their blog posts), and the bottom line is that they victim-blame.

When you tell them whatever problem you are under-going, their response is to tell you that one or more of your personal sins is to blame. (Even in cases of sexual assault, amazingly.)

Months ago, I put a link on this blog to a FAQ by a Biblical Counseling group. They specifically stated that they were not there to help you overcome your pain and problems but to help you overcome your sins, or be held accountable for your sins. I thought, why on earth, then, would I bother with your counseling?

If I was hurting emotionally or dealing with trauma, my very reason for seeking out mental health treatment would be to overcome the pain/problem, not have someone wag their index finger in my face and blame me for my problems. But that is what Nouthetic / Biblical Counselors propose.

Gram3 wrote:

It is way more complicated than that. Their reasoning is based on rejecting psychology/psychiatry because it is not in the Bible and because most practitioners do not incorporate Biblical principles into their practice (why is this surprising???.)

Modern Western medicine that is evidence-based is not Biblical in that sense, either.

So, if these guys/gals were consistent, they should call the elders to pray and anoint them when they have cancer or a broken bone or a heart attack or a stroke. Give me an atheist who is competent when I’m going into surgery.

In that context, I’m not interested in their conversion story or how many years they spent in seminary having all wisdom methodically expunged from their brain.

I agree with all of that.

For years, I had clinical depression and anxiety (I still have anxiety, not so much depression these days).

I don’t think these biblical counselor type guys appreciate when a person has been hurting (psychologically or emotionally) for years and years, they want relief from that pain, no matter what.

I know I tried toughing it out spiritually for years.

I stopped taking anti-depressant meds and relied on the Bible and prayer only approach, because so many Christians and Christian books shame people for not relying on God only.

After years of that Bible-only approach, I dumped it and went back to seeing shrinks and taking medications.

You just get to this point where you want the pain to stop, and you don’t care an iota if God is opposed to whatever treatment you’re using, or if it’s an atheist or Hindu who came up with whatever the treatment is so long as it works.

All of the spiritual stuff can become moot to a person who is in a lot of pain and very tired of it and cannot bear another second of it. I don’t think some types of Christians, or the Nouthetic Counseling guys, understand this at all.

Daisy wrote:

I was not born or designed by God to like pink, baking casseroles, or wearing frilly dresses, that’s for sure.

I don’t like those things either, and I am not a comp, but that does not mean that somehow I am really at heart a man, or for that matter any less a woman. I have not lived in comp circles, but in the world I did live in nobody cared about casseroles or frilly dresses. We were more about libraries and labs. There are many faces of manhood and womanhood. What I am opposed to is trying to obliterate the very idea that there is such a thing as manhood and womanhood in the first place. I am sorry that you had such bad experiences growing up. You have developed a lot of wisdom, and I think that you have a much needed message for people today.

Good post, Dee. You are right to point out that the whole of Scripture should be explored in regard to this and other issues we face as believers. Cherry-picking passages seldom paints the picture properly from God’s perspective.

In regard to this topic, “religion” too often look at the physical and misses the greater problem of spiritual adultery in its midst. We have forsaken God on many fronts and are in desperate need of humility, prayer, and repentance within the Body of Christ.

okrapod wrote:

What I am opposed to is trying to obliterate the very idea that there is such a thing as manhood and womanhood in the first place.

I’m sympathetic to that point to a degree.
However, application matters.

You have a lot of complementarians or people with traditional values who seek to define man and woman in very rigid, fixed ways.

So, you end up with lists such or opinions as,

“All women want to be mothers. All women are too emotional and better at relationships than men. Women are more nurturing. Women do not like math, sports, or science. All women, when girls, like to play with dolls and wear pink, or they SHOULD enjoy these things. It is unbecoming or wrong if a woman/girl does not enjoy any of this stuff.”

Then the boys and men get their own lists – like it is wrong and unmanly for a boy to cry. All boys like football. All men like beer drinking. Men should not cry. etc etc.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

You were a G4 Rainbow Dash and your mother tried to turn you into G3 Rainbow Dash.

I’ll have to Google that. I’m only very minimally familiar with the Pony show. 🙂

Daisy wrote:

I guess a lot of Christians find it pious and noble-sounding to tell abused wives to stay in these marriages.

Cue the Church Lady Superiority Dance…

okrapod wrote:

There are many faces of manhood and womanhood. What I am opposed to is trying to obliterate the very idea that there is such a thing as manhood and womanhood in the first place.

But most Christians are not trying to do that.

Men are men and women are women. There are a few innate differences of biology and so on and so forth, but what that actually means on an individual level is wildly blown out of proportion by people who overemphasize ‘womanhood’ or ‘manhood’. Not all men are burly guys running into the woods. Not all women are frilly girly girls. It’s silly to make a big deal out of what we are.

And as Christians, we are called to be christlike. We are called to love. We are called to be decent people. There is no need for the church to try to be teaching ‘manhood’ or ‘womanhood’. Obviously, the ones that are trying are doing a terrible awful no good very bad job of it!

Lea wrote:

And they want to feel useful. And they can’t fix someone else’s sin, so they make it into a problem of YOUR sin and try to fix that.

IMO, that is *exactly* why this happens. The relatively good one is pressured to create a “win” because the enablers know that the relatively bad one will *not* respond to any appeal or pressure short of very serious consequences. And I agree that it is harmful to the innocent, but it is also harmful to the bad actor because it forecloses an opportunity for them to repent. And it makes a mockery out of justice/righteousnes/goodness. But that is another comment thread. 🙂

okrapod wrote:

What I am opposed to is trying to obliterate the very idea that there is such a thing as manhood and womanhood in the first place.

And rightly so, I’m against it too. Other than radical secular femi-nazis at the extreme arc of the pendulum, I have yet to see anybody here or at CBE (christians for biblical equality) advocate such nonsense.
What I have seen at the other extreme (CBMW, Baucham, Kassian, and a host of others) is a rigid caste system of gender roles based solely on plumbing received at birth.

Gram3 wrote:

Their reasoning is based on rejecting psychology/psychiatry because it is not in the Bible and because most practitioners do not incorporate Biblical principles into their practice (why is this surprising???.) Modern Western medicine that is evidence-based is not Biblical in that sense, either. So, if these guys/gals were consistent, they should call the elders to pray and anoint them when they have cancer or a broken bone or a heart attack or a stroke.

Give them another hundred years or two. Taking a long view “Modern medicine” has been around for a while. Yes the understanding and treatment options have developed considerably in the last hundred years. There are texts describing a rational approach to medical treatment that are thousands of years old. On the other hand Modern psychology/psychiatry as a respectful endeavor is quite recent in relative historical terms. So I think their misunderstanding is less to do with anti-science or that it is “Biblical” than it is just 18th century thinking.

@ Jack:
…and it certainly, most decidedly does not mean that we have no choice, just automatons acting per the irresistible guidance of a puppet master who will judge us for doing that over which we had no control. That, too, is a god whom I do not worship, I worship the One Who knows all, past/present/future and is working it all out for the good, not the one who predetermines it all.

We are still not talking about the same god.

Daisy wrote:

It looks to me as though the Bible teaches the opposite from the Desiring God site: when and where you can, you should help other people who are hurting or in trouble.

– That was sort of the main point behind Jesus’ Good Samaritan parable.

Jesus did not say that you should just walk by the injured guy on the road because God might be using that dude’s injuries for some other eventual purpose we just cannot see yet.

Piper’s version of ‘God’ was not revealed to us by Christ. Piper is giving us an alternate version of God, a ‘negative’, dark, and blurred. I think Piper is definitely unwell. Certainly he cannot is unable (or unwilling) to recognize the God that Our Lord Himself has revealed to us.

Christiane wrote:

@ Velour:
He VELOUR,
I hope Harley checks in and gives us an update …. although she may be in pain and resting. I am praying for her today and tonight for vigil. If you hear from her, please let us know how she does. The first three days after surgery are usually pretty tough, so she could use all our prayers, yes.

I was just praying for her again. I know that Harley’s husband was going to be taking care of her post-surgery.

Yes, I’m hoping she posts an update here in a few days. I hope the bone fusion in her feet was successful and can alleviate the tremendous pain that she’s been in.

Gram3 wrote:

I can only speak for the ones I’ve encountered, but another problem, I truly believe, is that they see themselves as having some sort of priestly power over mental/emotional/spiritual problems. To acknowledge the value of the insights of the godless would be to acknowledge that they are not the sole possessors of such power and importance.

JUST LIKE SCIENTOLOGY!

Gram3 wrote:

I think there is an epidemic of immaturity in our culture. There has always been immaturity, of course, but it was not celebrated quite so wildly.

Our comp churches feed and nurture that immaturity. We have to play the roles to fit their notions of “Godly” men and “Godly” women to make the “over-ripe boys” feel like manly men.

okrapod wrote:

There are a number of kinds of situations in which divorce is the only compassionate choice. Often it can be the necessary choice. At the same time I also think that the wide open acceptance of divorce for any reason or no reason, and never mind the kids, has gone too far in our nation and the church should make it clear that Jesus was not in favor of divorce for just any reason or no reason.

But the thing is, if the church is focused on Christ and teaching his character that we should be more like (the fruits of the Spirit), they don’t really need a special teaching on divorce. And those who believe in free or open marriage and think lightly on divorce aren’t very likely to be in the church.

Gram3 wrote:

Their reasoning is based on rejecting psychology/psychiatry because it is not in the Bible

But yet they are OK with practicing philosophy in church!

Daisy wrote:

Based on what I recall, its author was arguing that because God can and does use Christian suffering to bring about good or his purpose, that no, Christians should not intervene and rescue Christians who are being martyred.
That is one twisted, warped view.

Especially from someone who sits in an air-conditioned office every day, whose wife brings tea and food on demand. Piper wouldn’t go himself to a place where he could be martyred or even suffer a little bit.

Gram3 wrote:

IMO, that is *exactly* why this happens. The relatively good one is pressured to create a “win” because the enablers know that the relatively bad one will *not* respond to any appeal or pressure short of very serious consequences. And I agree that it is harmful to the innocent, but it is also harmful to the bad actor because it forecloses an opportunity for them to repent. And it makes a mockery out of justice/righteousnes/goodness.

I always wonder why nobody talks about the sins of pride and greed. I think those two sins are the most egregious in US churches. Maybe because the people preaching (and maybe who also control the salaries of the ones who practice “biblical” counseling) are often the most guilty of those sins?

Christiane wrote:

in his choice to abuse his wife, he has also abandoned his manhood. This is something neo-Cals don’t get.

I like this!

This is Harley. I am home from the surgery and quite doped up.The surgery lasted about 2 1/2 hrs. My foot dr had me take a 15 milligram table of morphine about 45 minutes before he started operating. We had to stop it for a while later for a bit, so the nurse could get another table of Morphine that was in my purse (hubby was taking care of it). He stopped at the grocery store near buy to get a rotisserie chicken for lunch and supper. I am going to try and walk him through the steps of using my quesadilla maker so we can have chicken and cheese ones with sour cream topping. Right now I’m going to have to crash for awhile, trying to find a comfortable place for my foot. Thanks for all your prayers, and support – Geva

@ Harley:

Thanks for checking in! Hope you feel better.

@ Harley:

Praying you will be comfortable and heal soon!

Gram3 wrote:

And, in that context, requiring a man who dismisses his wife to issue a decree of divorce to her was a mercy since the woman, who had no other means of support, was then free to marry another.

Exactly. The Writ of Divorce demanded in Deut. 24 was the wife’s protection against being accused of adultery should she remarry. That legal document was proof she was no longer married to another. Even God issued a Writ of Divorce to faithless Israel per Jer. 3:8.

I have read that the original purpose of the dowry was also for the wife’s protection should she be abused or discarded. It was to be returned to her so she would not be left without the means to support herself.

These laws were necessary (as they are today) due to the prevalence of husbands putting their wives away for “any cause.” Jesus reply to the Pharisees in Matt. 5 that whoever marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery is prefaced by the necessity of a Certificate of Divorce (Matt. 5:31) which would negate the sin of adultery.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
I just read the post and many of the comments, and I think it’s going to take a couple of days to get the disgusted look off my face.
Go back and read the comments again. He’s been responding to Julie Anne. He says “not all hitting is assault” and then uses boxing as an example. Because when one spouse hits another they’re just practicing their boxing moves?

Maybe he needs to talk to the police or an attorney. His “advice” can get a man who follows it arrested and prosecuted, for a misdemeanor or a felony.

“Assault” is the threat. “Battery” is a completed assault and making physical contact someway (with a body, object, spitting, etc.).

Gram3 wrote:

Anna wrote:

When a man makes a choice to abuse his wife, he has abandoned his marriage vows.

I missed your excellent comment. In some cases, I think there was never intent to create a real marriage, and that lack of intent can stem from various things and can also manifest in various ways. It is abandonment.

In one case I know quite a bit about mainly because I’ve lived a long time, the wife married her husband because she wanted children and a means to support them so that she could be seen as Mother Of the Millennium. He was not a person but a sperm donor and an annuity. The children were monuments to her achievement. She was abusive to him *and* the children when they did not meet her unmeetable expectations.

So, what do you suppose the elders did? Guilted him for not laying down his life for his wife and hinted about church discipline. The men who were his church friends abandoned *him.* This is the flip side of Piper’s and Brotherwood’s inane and wicked “counsel” and the end result of requiring utter and unconditional submission by wives and utter and unconditional sacrifice by husbands. It is madness. It is not the way of Christ.

I think it’s a good thing that we have civil courts and laws in this country and so I recommend that if a man “smacks his wife” that she call 911 and have him arrested and that she seek a restraining order and if some poor man is (according to his story) forced to become a sperm donor they should just go to court and see what the judge thinks the poor fellows’ responsibilities are to his sperm dump. Don’t be surprised if the judge laughs and says he’s heard that story before. In the NT it does say that if someone wants to leave then let them go and it’s become pretty obvious that the church no longer is able to figure out the things that divorce courts routinely do in the U.S.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:

brian wrote:

Please forgive if this is off a bit but this has got to be one of the most ironic videos of Piper with Mark Driscoll talking about how smart Doug Wilson is.

What are they smoking?

“Tokin-the-Ghost Jehovah-Juana (YOING! YOING! YOING!)”
— Can’t remember the guy’s name, but he won polls for “Most Crazy Preaching”

“Crowder” or “Clouder” or something like that…
Whatever the name, the guy was as WACKED OUT as someone in a “High as F***” YouTube video.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Velour wrote:
His “advice” can get a man who follows it arrested and prosecuted, for a misdemeanor or a felony.
He’s pursuing an m.div and biblical counseling. It’s scary!

Scary indeed.

I turned in my ex-pastors/elders for the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, a crime in my state. Their “Biblical Counseling” crossed the line in to diagnosing medical problems,
when the state never licensed them and they’ve never been to medical school.

Max wrote:

ishy wrote:

I always wonder why nobody talks about the sins of pride and greed. Maybe because the people preaching … are often the most guilty of those sins?

That works both ways. I’ve know preachers who pounded the pulpit against certain sins of the flesh, only to be discovered later as being the worst offenders. Remember Ted Haggard?

There can be a less-evil/more Tragic dynamic at work in such cases.

The guy is trying to self-medicate/self-treat in secret, so he preaches against his overwhelming temptation/compulsion. That way he can try to stop it without admitting to anything in public or anyone finding out. Especially in play with a preacher-man who’s expected to always be More Holy and Righteous than God. (It’s not just chickens who peck the defective to death in the barnyard.) Even more so for someone like, say, Driscoll (who created a culture of “punch ’em in the nose and throw them under the bus” at any sign of imperfection or weakness, i.e. something that would make him a LOT of enemies looking for him to fall). Add a little “I Have Secret Sin X, so everyone else must also have Secret Sin X” and Ted Haggard et al falls right into place — kind of Tragic, actually.

Remember Rush Limbaugh, number-one fanboy of the War on Drugs while fighting a secret OxyContin addiction?

Or the old saw about getting into Psychiatry because you’re crazy to start with and are trying to cure yourself without anyone finding out?

Gram3 wrote:

I truly believe, is that they see themselves as having some sort of priestly power over mental/emotional/spiritual problems.

One of my concerns with the “Biblical” counseling movement is that it will draw students with an entirely different and less appropriate personality type into the counseling programs at SBC seminaries than the type of students that were attending when the programs led to professional licensing. I envision Bible thumpers yelling “repent” replacing the more pastoral oriented counselors of yesteryear.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:

Julie Anne is still talking to him. He said this: “This does not mean that I would counsel some to simple go home and pray if they are being abused nor would I counsel them to flee”

He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

He’s pursuing an m.div and biblical counseling. It’s scary!

BTW: the “Biblical” counseling track only includes 6 counseling courses over an array of topics. No depth. Nothing that requires a prerequisite. Pretty much “Introductory this” and “Introductory that”. Lame.

Velour wrote:

Lea wrote:
He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.

Third options: SWAT team, bolt of lightening, police dog, or Nancy2.

Maybe he’s looking for the option where she kicks the abuser out? Maybe with help from Mr. Smith or Mr. Wesson. That sounds like a good plan.

Actually, reading his responses, I honestly think he is either too dumb to understand the dynamics of abuse or he is an abuser himself. Maybe both.

Velour wrote:

All of that “obey” and “submit” teaching that he’s get from the NeoCalvinists/Complementarians just serves to enable whatever immature thinking he already had.

Also Total Depravity made an appearance.

And “abuse is not loving discipline.” So he’s one of the wife spanking is cool nutjobs too probably.

Anyone here run into those who believe a remarried person should renounce their current marriage and return to their first spouse, regardless of whether that previous spouse was abusive/dangerous? Be back in an hour or so to explain further…

Dan from Georgia wrote:

Anyone here run into those who believe a remarried person should renounce their current marriage and return to their first spouse, regardless of whether that previous spouse was abusive/dangerous? Be back in an hour or so to explain further…

Yes. At my ex-NeoCalvinist/9 Marks/John MacArthur-ite church there were nuts who espoused this.

One woman could pick fights with people in record time at social events by telling them, when she found out that they were divorced, that they had to refer to their ex-spouse
as their ‘current spouse’ because according to her ‘they will always be married in God’s eyes’. Well, that’s one way to ruin a party, lady.

I guess our legislatures, courts, and laws don’t exist either…because after all…because she says so.

I’m not any good at crafts. But if I knew how to fold her a tinfoil hat, I would have.

Velour wrote:

Lea wrote:

He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.

Third options: SWAT team, bolt of lightening, police dog, or Nancy2.

‘or Nancy2’ LOL 🙂

Velour wrote:

Third options: SWAT team, bolt of lightening, police dog, or Nancy2.

How about just a wife with a backbone, a little self-respect, and half a brain?
This comp/pat baloney strips self-respect away from half of the population.

FW Rez wrote:

the “Biblical” counseling track only includes 6 counseling courses over an array of topics. No depth. Nothing that requires a prerequisite. Pretty much “Introductory this” and “Introductory that”

Exactly how many counciling classes can a person squeeze out of the Bible?

Harley wrote:

. I am home from the surgery

I hope your surgery went well and you recover quickly.
Harley wrote:

I am going to try and walk him through the steps of using my quesadilla maker so we can have chicken and cheese ones with sour cream topping.

I’m sure it will be tasty. But, hey, who cares as long as hubby cleans up the mess. I have no doubt that he will!

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Third options: SWAT team, bolt of lightening, police dog, or Nancy2.
How about just a wife with a backbone, a little self-respect, and half a brain?
This comp/pat baloney strips self-respect away from half of the population.

Agreed, Nancy2.

For being a woman with a back bone, working brain cells, and asking hard questions…I got the “Comp” royal treatment at my ex-church (9Marxist/John MacAthur-ite): excommunicated and shunned.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
Third options: SWAT team, bolt of lightening, police dog, or Nancy2.
‘or Nancy2’ LOL
Aye. It’s true.
I KNOW! That’s what’s so great about it.

I think we should call our 2017 camp in Kentucky: “Camp Backbone”. This is where Nancy2 will be teaching us target practice. Our “targets”? Garage sale copies of Patriarchy books by All Of The Usual Suspects.

Signed,

Velour, Vice President
of Online Retail,
Marketing, and
Customer Surveys
Pound Sand Ministries (TM), proud host of the 2017 Camp Backbone

Velour wrote:

I think we should call our 2017 camp in Kentucky: “Camp Backbone”. This is where Nancy2 will be teaching us target practice. Our “targets”? Garage sale copies of Patriarchy books by All Of The Usual Suspects.

With each book opened to the page, or turned to the side, with the photograph of the author.

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:

I think we should call our 2017 camp in Kentucky: “Camp Backbone”. This is where Nancy2 will be teaching us target practice. Our “targets”? Garage sale copies of Patriarchy books by All Of The Usual Suspects.

With each book opened to the page, or turned to the side, with the photograph of the author.

I want tee-shirts and/or sweat shirts also!

Velour wrote:

I saw a great t-shirt on amazon recently: Cinnamon Rolls not Gender Roles.
Pic of cinn rolls on shirt.

A ‘must have’ for the new online store.

🙂 YES!

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
I think we should call our 2017 camp in Kentucky: “Camp Backbone”. This is where Nancy2 will be teaching us target practice. Our “targets”? Garage sale copies of Patriarchy books by All Of The Usual Suspects.
With each book opened to the page, or turned to the side, with the photograph of the author.

LOL, you green-eyed woman.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
I saw a great t-shirt on amazon recently: Cinnamon Rolls not Gender Roles.
Pic of cinn rolls on shirt.
A ‘must have’ for the new online store.
YES!

I just checked Amazon. They have a whole bunch of “Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles” t-shirts, from different sellers, different styles…and nice sweatshirts (zip up) and even ball caps! Woo hoo!

“Biblical counseling” has 3 basic solutions for all human problems:
1. You are sinning: in which case repent!
2. You’ve been sinned against: in which case forgive!
3. “Pray”
Ta-da! Problem solved!

Contrast that with (for just one example) the research of Dr. Bessel van der Kolk- you can listen to a sample of his book on this page http://www.audible.com/pd/Science-Technology/The-Body-Keeps-the-Score-Audiobook/B00OAOQJXY/ref=a_search_c4_1_1_srTtl?qid=1472072353&sr=1-1

Which one would you trust your healing to?

If the trauma research of van der Kolk and others is correct, the so-called “biblical” counseling paradigm will just re-traumatize the person and make things worse.

Biblical counseling is at the stage in the practice of human psychology where leeches were in the practice of human medicine.

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
I just checked Amazon. They have a whole bunch of “Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles” t-shirts, from different sellers, different styles…and nice sweatshirts (zip up) and even ball caps! Woo hoo!
Ahhhh, I just had a beautiful vision. Thousands of people wearing those shirts flash mobbing all of the comp conventions: SBC, T4G, TGC, CBMW, 9Marx …….

Camp Backbone needs a camp song. What do you think it should be?

We could flash mob the Comp boyz. We could have a dance routine, a song,
our Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles t-shirts, ball camps. And lets not forget..participants can wear either subversive leg coverings that get the Comps
all “angry”: a) leggings, or b) yoga pants.

FW Rez wrote:

BTW: the “Biblical” counseling track only includes 6 counseling courses over an array of topics.

Who counsels the women in the churches?

Dan from Georgia wrote:

they need to renounce their sinful marriage and return to their first spouse.” Unbelievable that they could never bring themselves to use the word “divorce” in regards to what they were advocating.

I would post back that the poster needs to “renounce their sinful idol of marriage and stop taking God’s name in vain [and making Him look bad].”

siteseer wrote:

“Biblical counseling” has 3 basic solutions for all human problems:
1. You are sinning: in which case repent!
2. You’ve been sinned against: in which case forgive!
3. “Pray”
Ta-da! Problem solved!

With some “Biblical counseling”, you should alter the second solution as follows:

“You’ve been sinned against: in which case, realize that you, too, are a sinner, and that even if you’ve been beaten unconscious by your psychopathic spouse or you’ve been sexually brutalized by your youth pastor, you must acknowledge that at bottom you are no better than the predator who violated you, and that as a point of fact, unless you get over yourself already before your physical wounds have even healed and forgive the perp–as in allow them free reign to brutalize others (and you) in the future, you’re the one who’s really in the wrong, you brought it all on yourself, and you need to welcome the discipline, shunning and further traumatization by the pastoral team, who are only trying to “love you well”.

Nancy2 wrote:

Would that third option be “Submit more!”???

Well, that is the point of sending you in to “help” him understand that he is “mistaken” and needs to submit to your wise and winsome counsel. Or something unpleasant and unwinsome.

Law Prof wrote:

With some “Biblical counseling”, you should alter the second solution as follows:
“You’ve been sinned against: in which case, realize that you, too, are a sinner, and that even if you’ve been beaten unconscious by your psychopathic spouse or you’ve been sexually brutalized by your youth pastor, you must acknowledge that at bottom you are no better than the predator who violated you, and that as a point of fact, unless you get over yourself already before your physical wounds have even healed and forgive the perp–as in allow them free reign to brutalize others (and you) in the future, you’re the one who’s really in the wrong, you brought it all on yourself, and you need to welcome the discipline, shunning and further traumatization by the pastoral team, who are only trying to “love you well”.

Ahhh, yes. Know that crazy-making line well from my ex-NeoCalvinist church. When anyone had the temerity to say to me the whole forgiveness lecture, I would look at them,
smile, and say, “I’m going to punch you in the nose right now until you bleed.
Just remember, it’s your fault and YOU MUST FORGIVE me and not call the police!”

Stopped them dead in their tracks each and every time. They lost color, Law Prof.

siteseer wrote:

Lea wrote:

Julie Anne is still talking to him. He said this: “This does not mean that I would counsel some to simple go home and pray if they are being abused nor would I counsel them to flee”

He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.

magic?

Harry Potter to the rescue!

I do think there is an element of magical thinking here. They think they can make the problems go away, because they want them too. Or by the woman submitting. Or because they prayed.

God doesn’t stop every bad thing from happening in the bible or now. There will always be evil people doing evil things. They will never stop without a real heart change (which is internal and cannot be forced) or real consequences for their actions. Biblical counseling that cannot make the former happen and actively discourages the later.

Anna wrote:

have personally been to a Christian counselor that did more to empower me as a woman than any other friend, colleague or pastor ever did

There is nothing wrong with a Christina counselor. People are using ‘biblical’ counseling as shorthand for a certain style.

A Christian can be a licensed counselor who uses proper therapy or a quack. There is probably a lot of inbetween too

Gram3 wrote:

Lea wrote:

And “abuse is not loving discipline.”

The problem for the Denny Burks who are flailing around looking to re-brand CBMW and Female Subordinationism is that they have taught the odious interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that a wife has an innate desire to rule over her husband and “buck his authority.” This MowwRahhn on Facegook is merely acting on that disgusting teaching which has no basis in the text because it *presusmes* that male authority is part of God’s Good and Beautiful Design. Jesus disciplines the Church, right? Ergo, it is not odious to discipline your wife. It is your duty. Such is the internal logic of Female Subordinationism.

Do the Denny Burkes of the world not understand Gen 3:16 and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is New Testament. They want women to live in an OT world.

mot wrote:

They want women to live in an OT world.

Yes they do.

And many of them want a theocracy and a return to an Old Testament style of patriarchy/government. The plan is for them and their local friends to take over
locally,then state-wide, and nation-wide. They want to do away with the U.S. government.
They believe in slavery for non-Christians (which probably also includes the members of any Christian denomination that they don’t like), they dislike Jews, and they deny the Holocaust happened.

Their group was behind the Chicago Statement/Inerrancy of Scripture signing a Chicago hotel. It seems like a ploy for credibility. I’m not keen on discussing their inerrancy of Scripture theories. I love God’s Word. But men who behave like them? No.

@ Nancy2:
PS: said counselor is a former marine.

Nancy2 wrote:

@ Nancy2:
PS: said counselor is a former marine.

Semper Fi.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Go back and read the comments again. He’s been responding to Julie Anne. He says “not all hitting is assault” and then uses boxing as an example. Because when one spouse hits another they’re just practicing their boxing moves?

Isn’t boxing fully consensual, where-as domestic violence is not?

(Both boxers agree to stand in the ring and pummel one another. I’ve never heard of a wife who agrees to let her husband beat her, or who is okay with it).

Also, boxers get a paycheck to get beaten up, it’s part of their job. The same cannot be said of marriage.

siteseer wrote:

“Biblical counseling” has 3 basic solutions for all human problems:
1. You are sinning: in which case repent!
2. You’ve been sinned against: in which case forgive!
3. “Pray”
Ta-da! Problem solved!

Biblical Counselors are like this:
“Stop It”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlWBhohDp4

Anna wrote:

In this context, yes – biblical counsel would revictimize. I have personally been to a Christian counselor that did more to empower me as a woman than any other friend, colleague or pastor ever did. I don’t think you can put ‘biblical counseling’ into a box and assume that Christian counseling promotes the subordination of women in any form. My experience was in fact, quite the opposite.

I think most of us in this thread are talking about this type of Biblical Counseling (as opposed to a generic Christian who happens to also hold a biblical world view or morality):

The Rise of Biblical Counseling
https://psmag.com/the-rise-of-biblical-counseling-7af9da5b00d0#.hexweurdo

Daisy wrote:

Lea wrote:
He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.
She can’t stay and she can’t leave. That doesn’t leave any other option.

Remodel the house. Put a wall down the middle of it. 2 different doors for each of them, etc.

Lea wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a Christina counselor. People are using ‘biblical’ counseling as shorthand for a certain style.
A Christian can be a licensed counselor who uses proper therapy or a quack. There is probably a lot of inbetween too

Another thing I’d add about the particular guy we are chatting about who is taking biblical counseling classes –

He’s going to a Southern Baptist seminary to take his counseling classes, and Southern Baptists officially hold to female subordination as a matter of doctrine and practice, so any “education” he receives from them is going to assume women are to be subordinate to men in any counseling he/they give.

@ Christiane:
This is a version of Pascal’s wager. Why waste my lifespan on activities with no added value? Praying makes no sense in a predetermined world. I don’t believe the universe is predetermined. And if prayers offer comfort, go for it.

@ Velour:
Thanks, this is appreciated.

Jack wrote:

Praying makes no sense in a predetermined world.

I’ve been having problems in this area. My prayers seem to bounce of the ceiling.

Having said that, there are several places in the Bible where appeals to God – by prayer, or face to face chats – God changed his mind about things. Jesus instructed his followers to keep praying.

James 4
You do not have, because you do not ask.

2 Kings 20
Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and say to Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of your father David, “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you.

Psalm 6:9
The LORD has heard my cry for mercy; the LORD accepts my prayer.

Genesis 18
Abraham Begs for Sodom
…25″Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” 26So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.”

Luke 18
The Parable of the Persistent Widow:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8

Matthew 7:7
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Lea wrote:

siteseer wrote:
Lea wrote:
Julie Anne is still talking to him. He said this: “This does not mean that I would counsel some to simple go home and pray if they are being abused nor would I counsel them to flee”
He is looking for a third option. That doesn’t involve going home or leaving.
magic?
Harry Potter to the rescue!

I was just thinking “invisibility cloak!”

Nancy2 wrote:

That’s where ESS comes into play.
Women are to be meek and humble, like Jesus.
Men are to be commanding and all-powerful, like God.

If, in the end, the meek are to inherit the earth, where does that leave the powerful/ESS?

Gram3 wrote:

Dan from Georgia wrote:

My wife divorced an abusive and adulterous man, and I told them that it would be unsafe for my wife to return to him. Made no difference in the conversation. They still said that I was supposed to give up the adulterous marriage.

At which time I hope you invited them for a long walk on a short pier.

I haven’t had time to look up the scripture but in the OT it says that if one has divorced, and remarried, and that marriage ends in divorce you are not to return to the first marriage and marry that person again. Look it up you’ll find that’s what it says

siteseer wrote:

Anna wrote:

In this context, yes – biblical counsel would revictimize. I have personally been to a Christian counselor that did more to empower me as a woman than any other friend, colleague or pastor ever did. I don’t think you can put ‘biblical counseling’ into a box and assume that Christian counseling promotes the subordination of women in any form. My experience was in fact, quite the opposite.

Was your counselor a credentialed counselor that was a Christian, or was your counselor practicing nouthetic (also termed “biblical [TM]”) counseling?

A licensed therapist (LPC)…and now I am realizing that there is another flavor of counseling out there? Holy cr#p: (ed.)

I would NEVER see a counselor without credentials (licensing). These ‘counseling’ pastors are rarely equipped to deal with abusive situations.

Daisy wrote:

Biblical Counselors are like this:
“Stop It”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlWBhohDp4

omg! That’s awful! lol you are right!

Jack wrote:

We didn’t cook ourselves with CFC’s, we didn’t incinerate ourselves in nuclear fire. Sure we’re capable of the horrifying but I toured Kennedy Space Center. We’re also capable of doing the amazing.

I’m not sure what you took from my remarks, I’m in agreement with yours.

siteseer wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Biblical Counselors are like this:
“Stop It”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlWBhohDp4
——————–
omg! That’s awful! lol you are right!

And who knows, maybe the Newhart method would be more effective than Nouthetic counseling? LOL. 🙂

Velour, I am so supportive of Billy! I went to that church for 16 months and only learned of his plight through this wonderful blog, and his situation predates my time there. I no longer attend for many reasons, and have found a wonderful small church in the area. The school district provides calculators if they are in public school. Has he moved to private school? Wouldn’t blame them for going private! Can’t find that post on the open discussion thread. Wish to help!

@ Bill M:
Hi Bill M.

It was this one “We may be enjoying a temporary respite but I don’t see things abating.”

I took it to mean that we were all primed to start killing each other on a mass scale again. Maybe I misunderstood.

The world is more at peace now than in previous decades. The great nation states don’t seem as keen to beat the war drum on such a scale as World War II. That was total war affecting nearly every part of the world.

This isn’t to minimize the various civil wars, brush wars and other conflicts like Sudan, Central African Republic, Ukraine to name a few.

Thousands still suffer but not on the scale of previous wars between the larger nation states. I believe there is great potential in the world to do good. And I think that potential comes through choice, not pre-determination.

I’m not really going to try to explain how that fits with an all knowing God, that’s a mystery of faith.

Gram3 wrote:

That’s how I see it. That’s not how the Female Subordinationists see it, sadly, because everything must be re-framed to be about Authority and Power.

And when you re-frame everything to be about Authority and Power, there is only Power Struggle and its two possible states:
1) My boot stamping on your face.
2) Your boot stamping on my face.
And the only way to avoid (2) is to make sure of (1). Forever.
Dom or Sub, Top or Bottom, Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip. Nothing in between.

Lea wrote:

I do think there is an element of magical thinking here. They think they can make the problems go away, because they want them too. Or by the woman submitting. Or because they prayed.
God doesn’t stop every bad thing from happening in the bible or now. There will always be evil people doing evil things. They will never stop without a real heart change (which is internal and cannot be forced) or real consequences for their actions. Biblical counseling that cannot make the former happen and actively discourages the later.

I think this needs a whole post.

Finallyfree wrote:

Velour, I am so supportive of Billy! I went to that church for 16 months and only learned of his plight through this wonderful blog, and his situation predates my time there. I no longer attend for many reasons, and have found a wonderful small church in the area. The school district provides calculators if they are in public school. Has he moved to private school? Wouldn’t blame them for going private! Can’t find that post on the open discussion thread. Wish to help!

Here’s Billy’s mom’s comment from August 24, 2016, 3:32 p.m. with the school supplies list is on the Open Discussion thread. There’s many comments there, including old ones. It’s one of the newer ones…at the end. Her screen name is “Marquis”.

Thanks. I don’t know about Texas schools, I’m in California. I don’t know if this is a special calculator for advanced math. And I don’t know if the school offers them on loan
to students with tight budgets. (I know people in my state (California) who are able to
borrow everything from computers etc for their children from schools because of
tight family budgets. I don’t know Texas’ rules.)

Julie Anne Smith wrote:

Haha – some of you are eavesdropping on my conversation with the wannabe pastor/counselor (Lord, have mercy!).

I have been. I’m glad he’s talking to you, but I think it’s kind of like you’re giving him rope to hang himself.

I noted he said something about righteous anger being about offense against god, but this ‘Christians should suffer’ thing they keep bringing up is about suffering for god, not because you have a terrible husband!!

I am now 1 day post op. Still in extreme pain. The high powered dose of the pain killer makes me tense and edgy. I will have to go down to the lower dose. Right now I’m dopey feeling. It’s hard for me to make sense of the written words I see. I hope what I’m typing comes out sounding right. I am going back to bed now for awhile. Thanks for the prayers and thoughts.

dee wrote:

I think that uf you read through this blog you wll find a couple of articles dealing with church discipline from a positive situation, Most people have no trouble with church discipline in cases of adultery, embezzlement, etc.

Church discipline must have a place; it is very appropriate in situations where a given sin taints the whole congregation or is particularly egregious, such as was occurring with the sexual sin in I Cor that Paul said warranted expulsion.

It would also be appropriate in the case of leaders who attempt to consolidate power and lead by compulsion rather than godly example alone; this sort of sin by its very nature is antibiblical, tears a fellowship apart and puts the focus on the leader rather than Jesus. Expulsion from the fellowship would be appropriate there as well; e.g., in the recent debacle at CHBC, Matt Chandler and his elder enablers should have been disciplined and perhaps expelled rather than the unfortunate woman whom they thought they had the right to discipline.

Law Prof wrote:

in the recent debacle at CHBC, Matt Chandler and his elder enablers should have been disciplined and perhaps expelled rather than the unfortunate woman whom they thought they had the right to discipline.

Right. Funny how they examples they give are a husband bringing his girlfriend to church in front of the wife, but that is not the reality. No one would have objected to church discipline for the pedophile. But that’s not what we saw.

Jonathan wrote:

Do you see church discipline in the same manner? The premise, principle, and goal are the same, are they not? Leaving aside Matt 18 due to redundancy, Paul’s goal in 1 Cor 5 is twofold: 1) to protect the church body in purity and association, 2) for the ultimate restoration of the person sinning.
“I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (! Cor 5:5, NASB)

This teaching is that 9 Marks, heavy-Shepherding, un-Biblical nonsense.

Church discipline is used in authoritarian churches against those who ask legitimate questions. Abuse is couched in *Biblical* terms to hide that its abuse. Can you imagine what Jesus has to say about all of it?

Here is Dr. Ron Enroth’s book Recovering from Churches That Abuse:
http://www.reveal.org/development/Recovering_from_Churches_that_Abuse.pdf

It and his other classic book are available for FREE online. Thank you, Dr. Enroth.

Other books like “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen cover the mis-use of “Church Discipline”. Same for Ken Blue’s Healing Spiritual Abuse.

And finally Barbara Orlowski’s (she comments here) Spiritual Abuse Recovery also covers the abuses of church discipline by abusive churches/leaders.

Jonathan wrote:

But you can’t argue that separation through divorce is always the answer.

I don’t argue that divorce is always the answer, but it probably is usually the answer. I do know that that decision is to be made by the person being abused, and not you and not me. They alone can say whether the marriage is over.

Jonathan wrote:

If you are reading the text, and we claim to be Christians, then reconciliation must always be the end goal.

No.

Jonathan wrote:

Lea wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I believe God CAN heal. No caveats necessary.
God can heal. That doesn’t mean he always does. And that doesn’t mean you have a right to tell SOMEONE ELSE to stay in a dangerous situation because you believe god CAN heal that person.
Sometimes he heals the abused person, by taking them away from the situation. We should care about them too.
You are the one who needs to rethink your position. God can heal an abuser after they are no longer a danger to their spouse. God can heal the abused too, by removing the source of their pain.
I’m not arguing that the abused must stay in the immediate situation. But you can’t argue that separation through divorce is always the answer. Separation? Absolutely! And God may not heal in the end after a lifetime of separation. But you can’t argue from Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, or Hosea that final and absolute divorce is the answer. If you are reading the text, and we claim to be Christians, then reconciliation must always be the end goal.

That’s frightening. So now the entire family is to be placed at risk by one maniac.
Children are at great risk, along with the wife, in domestic violence families.
Risk of being physically abused, sexually abused, and also it goes without saying they are emotionally and psychologically abused.

If you read “the texts” we are cautioned against having false idols. Many NeoCalvinists have now made a false idol of marriage. And the children raised in these living Hells
frequently swear off marriage and can’t stand it because of their parents’ marriage.
When a church ratifies this in the “name of God” aren’t they taking the Lord’s name in vain?

If Jesus said the greatest commandments are love – to love God and to love your neighbor – where is the is the LOVE shown for these women and children in these violent families?
[Side note: As Gram3 has pointed out that there can be violent women who abuse men.
So whomever is the victim, they deserve to be free and NOT have to live this way. God never meant for marriage to be a prison.]

Read A Cry for Justice blog by pastor/former cop Jeff Crippen (Oregon) and Barbara Roberts (Australia). Also read their book.

Julie Anne Smith wrote:

Haha – some of you are eavesdropping on my conversation with the wannabe pastor/counselor (Lord, have mercy!). I still hope to find more information from him. I want to find out how he came to believe what he believes. I don’t think anyone would endorse hitting wives at SBTS; however, the hierarchical structure of complementarianism makes the soil ripe for abuse if someone is prone to abuse. The flippant way he talks about hitting wives makes me think that it has been normal in his world. I want to dig deeper.
I’m pleased that he has been engaging with me so readily.

I think the guy’s both completely unhinged, naïve and perhaps a bit dense. He’s speaking freely perhaps because he doesn’t know any better, for to put the ugliness that is the end game of the belief systems espoused by SBTS and the like on display so brazenly, it’s dangerous to his future. It’s quite alright to speak like that in closed neocalvinist complementarian circles, but to speak that way to an outsider? To broadcast it? Not likely any conference honoraria or book deals in his future.

Jonathan wrote:

This is the same argumentation used by those who argue for homosexual relationships

Also this is such a dodge.

The bible gives reasons the marriage can dissolve, like adultery and abandonment. The bible gives directives to husbands to love their wives and not be harsh with them.

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

But you can’t argue this from the character of God

If you believe that the character of god is love for us, not an institution? Yes, I can.

You can’t just claim something about God without it being defined by Scripture. God IS love, absolutely. But then I can’t just apply that however I want. Once again, that’s exactly how liberalism within Christianity creeps in.

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

How are they at risk of being abused if they are SEPARATED??

This is silly, though. If you have to be separated for life for the safety of yourself and possibly your children? You are effectively divorced. This is mindless devotion to rules over logic.

Answer this- Did God continually pursue faithless Israel even though Israel broke the covenant?

Also, an appeal to “logic” apart from Scripture is dangerous.

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

How are they at risk of being abused if they are SEPARATED??

This is silly, though. If you have to be separated for life for the safety of yourself and possibly your children? You are effectively divorced. This is mindless devotion to rules over logic.

So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Answer this- Did God continually pursue faithless Israel even though Israel broke the covenant?

Answer this- Is an abusive husband god? Or is an abused wife meant to be God, pursuing her faithless, dangerous husband for all of eternity?

Jonathan wrote:

Also, an appeal to “logic” apart from Scripture is dangerous.

How about an appeal to logic within scripture?

Yes, please do!

Jonathan wrote:

So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?

You are welcome to trust in this, and tell us all about it, after your much larger wife has been continually berating you and beating you to a pulp.

Then, tell us all about it. Until then, you are simply laying heavy burdens on others and not lifting a finger to help them.

^auto incorrect — should read: “My law protects…”

Victorious wrote:

Correction from previous comment

I do see the regulation about a husband taking back the wife he has sent away in Deut. 24.

Jonathan wrote:

So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?

If restoration is desired by the abused party, that’s the deciding factor imo. God gives us choices and only the injured person knows what’s best for him/her/children as the result of abuse in the relationship.

Velour wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

What’s frightening?!?!?!? How are they at risk of being abused if they are SEPARATED?? I explicitly said, “Separation? Absolutely!” And by the way, I’m not a Calvinist OR a neo-Calvinist.

How much training do you have in domestic violence? I take it you don’t have any training
and don’t know how high-risk these domestic violence filled marriages are, especially during separation.

Oh, I thought you were a Calvinist/NeoCalvinist because you write like them. What denomination is the church that you go to?

If you are reading the text, and we claim to be Christians, then reconciliation must always be the end goal.

Who says reconciliation must be the ‘end goal’? Survival and a decent life must be the ‘end goal’ and escaping violence for one and all, including children. There are more paramount concerns than keeping a bad marriage. If we are Christians and reading the texts than God is very clear that sowing (behavior/choices) results in reaping (consequences).

Domestic violence charges, when police come to a home, also include ‘child endangerment’ charges which prosecutors will prosecute separately from the domestic violence charge.

I go to a non-denominational church. And I am all for separating if the child(ren)/wife/husband are in danger. Separate and be in safety from the abuse. But pray for conviction from the Holy Spirit to come on the abuser. Pray for restoration of the marriage. Once again, THIS is the model of God pursuing His unfaithful people in Scripture.

Law Prof wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?

No, it is silly to expect a person who specializes in dominating their wife, gaslighting them, and beating them to repent.

The problem isn’t with God, Who when He walked among us tended towards calling the abusers and users of people within the church “sons of hell”, advocating that it’d be better for them to be drowned forthwith, and overturning their tables and cracking a whip at their buttocks. The problem is with the abusers who derive pleasure from hurting other people within the church, such as their wives, and with earnest but unfortunately dumb people who pressure the beaten down wives to accept the sociopath back so they get that Awesome, Tear-Jerking Testimony and “Win a Great Victory” for the Lord (actually, the pastor and the church system).

Jesus knew how to deal with abusers. I think that you do not.

Oh ok. So there are people that God can’t save. Cool. Well, to hell with them then.

If someone loses his/her temper and physically assaults another in a restaurant, on the street, or any other location, he/she would be arrested. It would either be a misdemeanor or possibly a felony depending. Marriage should not be considered an exception. Assault is a crime and bullying is receiving much attention today as well.

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I go to a non-denominational church.
What type of non-Denominational church do you go to? Is it Reformed? Do they answer to a higher authority?
Non-denominational usually means they don’t answer to a higher ecclesiological auhority. And no.. it is not “Reformed.” Non-denominational means “without specific denominational ties.”

Some times non-denominational does answer to a higher authority.

Is your church a Complementarian promoting church? Elder-led? Membership Covenants? Young Earth believing? Women can’t teach?

Jonathan wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?
No, it is silly to expect a person who specializes in dominating their wife, gaslighting them, and beating them to repent.
The problem isn’t with God, Who when He walked among us tended towards calling the abusers and users of people within the church “sons of hell”, advocating that it’d be better for them to be drowned forthwith, and overturning their tables and cracking a whip at their buttocks. The problem is with the abusers who derive pleasure from hurting other people within the church, such as their wives, and with earnest but unfortunately dumb people who pressure the beaten down wives to accept the sociopath back so they get that Awesome, Tear-Jerking Testimony and “Win a Great Victory” for the Lord (actually, the pastor and the church system).
Jesus knew how to deal with abusers. I think that you do not.
Oh ok. So there are people that God can’t save. Cool. Well, to hell with them then.

I didn’t say “can’t save”, and you didn’t respond to anything I said. I said that the problem is in expecting an abusive husband to repent of being an abuser. Most do not, many are sociopaths and psychopaths for whom the concept of repentance is a joke. The Bible talks of people with seared consciences, does it not? The Bible talks of kicking the dust off its feet, does it not?

I did not say “to hell with them”, but I would say: To hell with your notion of encouraging a woman to say with her abuser and wish for godly repentance.

Yes it does. Jonathan, your problem here is with Jesus, take it up with Him.

Law Prof wrote:

I didn’t say “can’t save”, and you didn’t respond to anything I said. I said that the problem is in expecting an abusive husband to repent of being an abuser. Most do not, many are sociopaths and psychopaths for whom the concept of repentance is a joke. The Bible talks of people with seared consciences, does it not? The Bible talks of kicking the dust off its feet, does it not?
I did not say “to hell with them”, but I would say: To hell with your notion of encouraging a woman to say with her abuser and wish for godly repentance.
Yes it does. Jonathan, your problem here is with Jesus, take it up with Him.

Spot on, Law Prof.

You gave some more Scriptures that had also crossed my mind but that I didn’t put in my post. Thank you.

Jonathan wrote:

Oh ok. So there are people that God can’t save.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between can’t and doesn’t?

Law Prof wrote:

were I trying to advocate a position that runs contrary to the Bible, common sense, reason and seemingly everything Jesus ever did to abusers or the abused

He considers ‘logic’ to be dangerous!

Logic and reason and conscience are god given and innate.

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Oh ok. So there are people that God can’t save.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between can’t and doesn’t?

So… I guess you are a calvinist then?

Law Prof wrote:

@ Velour:
Bravo to all of that, keep up the good work!

Thanks, Law Prof. I’d been robbed and beaten in broad daylight. I was so upset when I was at court when I saw how badly victims were treated, that it really ‘lit a fire’ under me. I was inspired to change my state’s law by a letter in “Dear Abby” from Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro, describing their state’s novel program to help high risk victims and protect them, give them sealed voting records, sealed department of motor vehicle records, a first class mailing address to use for business, records, receipt of mail (no packages). I cut out the “Dear Abby” letter, taped it to my bedroom wall,
and vowed, “I’m going to get the same law written and passed in California.” I’d never changed a law before. But I was just…DETERMINED. And I did. Nothing could stop me.

I understand Jonathan’s dilemma here, because were I trying to advocate a position that runs contrary to the Bible, common sense, reason and seemingly everything Jesus ever did to abusers or the abused, I don’t suppose I’d be able address a point, either, I’d have to obfuscate, avoid direct questions, set up straw men, and play low rent rhetorical games as well.

Jonathan should be quiet and learn in all humility. A good place to do that would be the local courthouse and to watch the cases.

Or to get together toiletries, food and other items for women and children fleeing to shelters from violence.

He should talk to police who deal with domestic violence.

I can tell he has none of that, and also is lacking in good sense.

What I saw were life and death situations in domestic violence. And it’s not a laughing matter. And God does expect us to help these women and children. “When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.”

Jonathan wrote:

Logic and reason and conscience are god given and innate.
Logic and reason cannot be trusted apart from Scripture. Our reasoning faculties fell along with the rest of us with the Fall. So no, human “logic” can’t always be trusted.

Exactly why I’d suggest that you stop advocating positions apart from scripture.

bc wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Dan from Georgia wrote:

My wife divorced an abusive and adulterous man, and I told them that it would be unsafe for my wife to return to him. Made no difference in the conversation. They still said that I was supposed to give up the adulterous marriage.

At which time I hope you invited them for a long walk on a short pier.

I haven’t had time to look up the scripture but in the OT it says that if one has divorced, and remarried, and that marriage ends in divorce you are not to return to the first marriage and marry that person again. Look it up you’ll find that’s what it says

Deut 24 is the answer for where that is found in the OT

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I go to a non-denominational church.
What type of non-Denominational church do you go to? Is it Reformed? Do they answer to a higher authority?
Non-denominational usually means they don’t answer to a higher ecclesiological auhority. And no.. it is not “Reformed.” Non-denominational means “without specific denominational ties.”
Some times non-denominational does answer to a higher authority.
Is your church a Complementarian promoting church? Elder-led? Membership Covenants? Young Earth believing? Women can’t teach?
Not sure how you qualify complementarian vs. egalitarian, so I can’t answer that. We are congregational/elder led (NOT elder rule). No we don’t sign membership covenants. WE are a mixture of YEC and OEC (and I’m not sure what that has to do with anything). And yes women can teach in certain settings.

Thanks.

What’s on your church’s website? Any resources/links such as Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood? 9 Marks? Any ties to John MacArthur?

What do your pastors/elders teach about Young Earth/Old Earth, not just what people in the pews believe.

Women can teach in some settings? Which ones?

What are your thoughts about John Calvin?

What are your pastors/elders’ thoughts about John Calvin?

Thanks.

Law Prof wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
Logic and reason and conscience are god given and innate.
Logic and reason cannot be trusted apart from Scripture. Our reasoning faculties fell along with the rest of us with the Fall. So no, human “logic” can’t always be trusted.
Exactly why I’d suggest that you stop advocating positions apart from scripture.

+100

Victorious wrote:

Take heed then to your spirit

Lovely.

Velour wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

BS Psychology, Masters in counseling

I’m shocked that you have degrees in Psychology and Counseling and know nothing about domestic violence.

Where did you earn your degrees? Why didn’t they teach students about any of these “big topics”. That’s terrible. And a huge waste of money.

I’m not going to keep going back and forth about this. It isn’t that I don’t know about domestic violence, but I just believe that God is bigger than our sin. Here’s what I am not saying: protect abusers, keep the abused in a prison of an abusive marriage, or anything of the sort. Here is what I AM saying: God has a very high view of marriage, shows the example of himself pursuing Israel despite grievous sin, and would be glorified in showing His power to convict the abuser of sin and bring restoration in marriage. Please stop painting me into your little boxes of “he must be a neo-calvinist, anti-woman, uninformed, ignorant, SGM/9 Marks/etc. loving, moron.” I’m not any of those.

Law Prof wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Lea wrote:
Law Prof wrote:
were I trying to advocate a position that runs contrary to the Bible, common sense, reason and seemingly everything Jesus ever did to abusers or the abused
He considers ‘logic’ to be dangerous!
Logic and reason and conscience are god given and innate.
Logic and reason cannot be trusted apart from Scripture. Our reasoning faculties fell along with the rest of us with the Fall. So no, human “logic” can’t always be trusted.
That’s not a very good argument, Jonathan.
What is your education? Where did you go to school? What was your major?
Degrees earned? Institutions where earned?
BS Psychology, Masters in counseling (though I’m not sure why we are having a peeing contest here)

Oh call me crazy, Jonathan, but perhaps it’s because sometimes people get a mite touchy on areas of wife beating and when people seem to show more bona fide interest in “prayin for the poor abuser” than for the well-being of the abused.

Yep.. I never advocated for any of that.

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
BS Psychology, Masters in counseling
I’m shocked that you have degrees in Psychology and Counseling and know nothing about domestic violence.
Where did you earn your degrees? Why didn’t they teach students about any of these “big topics”. That’s terrible. And a huge waste of money.
I’m not going to keep going back and forth about this. It isn’t that I don’t know about domestic violence, but I just believe that God is bigger than our sin. Here’s what I am not saying: protect abusers, keep the abused in a prison of an abusive marriage, or anything of the sort. Here is what I AM saying: God has a very high view of marriage, shows the example of himself pursuing Israel despite grievous sin, and would be glorified in showing His power to convict the abuser of sin and bring restoration in marriage. Please stop painting me into your little boxes of “he must be a neo-calvinist, anti-woman, uninformed, ignorant, SGM/9 Marks/etc. loving, moron.” I’m not any of those.

I didn’t paint you in any boxes. I asked what type of church you went to and what they believe. I asked what they teach.

These are fair questions. After all, you are the one casually dismissing felonious violent crimes that result in prison time. I’d be asking the same questions if you gave a pass at other violent crimes.

Velour wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
BS Psychology, Masters in counseling
I’m shocked that you have degrees in Psychology and Counseling and know nothing about domestic violence.
Where did you earn your degrees? Why didn’t they teach students about any of these “big topics”. That’s terrible. And a huge waste of money.
I’m not going to keep going back and forth about this. It isn’t that I don’t know about domestic violence, but I just believe that God is bigger than our sin. Here’s what I am not saying: protect abusers, keep the abused in a prison of an abusive marriage, or anything of the sort. Here is what I AM saying: God has a very high view of marriage, shows the example of himself pursuing Israel despite grievous sin, and would be glorified in showing His power to convict the abuser of sin and bring restoration in marriage. Please stop painting me into your little boxes of “he must be a neo-calvinist, anti-woman, uninformed, ignorant, SGM/9 Marks/etc. loving, moron.” I’m not any of those.

I didn’t paint you in any boxes. I asked what type of church you went to and what they believe. I asked what they teach.

These are fair questions. After all, you are the one casually dismissing felonious violent crimes that result in prison time. I’d be asking the same questions if you gave a pass at other violent crimes.

I’m not dismissing felonious violent crimes at all. If someone abuses their spouse or children, they SHOULD go to jail.

Velour wrote:

@Jonathan,

Was your counseling degree in Biblical Counseling?

No.

Velour wrote:

@jonathan,

What are your thoughts about John Calvin?

See!?!?! “I’m not trying to paint you in any box.” Yet, you are trying to peg me in one of your little holes so you can latch on to something and say.. “aha!”

I think John Calvin had someone murdered because they didn’t believe exactly the same as he did. Those are my thoughts on John Calvin. And I already told you I’m not “reformed” or neocalvinist or whatever you want to call it.

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
@Jonathan,
Was your counseling degree in Biblical Counseling?
No.

How did you get through a Counseling program, graduate, and have no knowledge of domestic violence? You write about Scripture verses instead of real human beings who are being harmed and whose lives are in danger.

Even an angel of the Lord told Joseph to take Mary and the Baby Jesus and to flee from impending violence. I tell victims who are Christians that story.

Velour wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Velour wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I go to a non-denominational church.
What type of non-Denominational church do you go to? Is it Reformed? Do they answer to a higher authority?
Non-denominational usually means they don’t answer to a higher ecclesiological auhority. And no.. it is not “Reformed.” Non-denominational means “without specific denominational ties.”
Some times non-denominational does answer to a higher authority.
Is your church a Complementarian promoting church? Elder-led? Membership Covenants? Young Earth believing? Women can’t teach?
Not sure how you qualify complementarian vs. egalitarian, so I can’t answer that. We are congregational/elder led (NOT elder rule). No we don’t sign membership covenants. WE are a mixture of YEC and OEC (and I’m not sure what that has to do with anything). And yes women can teach in certain settings.

Thanks.

What’s on your church’s website? Any resources/links such as Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood? 9 Marks? Any ties to John MacArthur?

What do your pastors/elders teach about Young Earth/Old Earth, not just what people in the pews believe.

Women can teach in some settings? Which ones?

What are your thoughts about John Calvin?

What are your pastors/elders’ thoughts about John Calvin?

Thanks.

Women can teach in some settings? Which ones?
This depends on the church and what they believe. I’ve been in both types, where women can teach other women and be a deacon, and then I’ve sat under women pastors. I’m not sure what this has to do with domestic violence though.

What are your thoughts about John Calvin? Already gave you this.

What are your pastors/elders’ thoughts about John Calvin? They believe the same way I do about him. I’m sure he has some decent things to say on some things (as I would say about any scholar), but they aren’t “calvinists.”

Jonathan wrote:

I believe God CAN heal. No caveats necessary.

It isn’t a caveat to recognize that only 1% of abusers change their ways. Yes, God CAN heal, but he doesn’t just go around sprinkling magic fairy dust on abusers. Abusers have to WANT to change. The statistics don’t support that many of them want to.

http://fcapc.org/fcapc/faqs/index.asp?subject=dv

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Abusers have to WANT to change.

I found a talk by Lundy Bancroft (who worked with abusers for a very long time) very helpful in this regard. He said most abusers CAN change, but they don’t because they don’t HAVE to!

He said the abusers he’s seen change were mostly the ones who were really unsuccessful at it (could not maintain a relationship). So telling a spouse to stay with an abuser makes them more likely to continue abusing, not less. With no consequences, they have no need to change.

@Jonathan,

Thanks for the brief answers you gave.

Lea wrote:

With no consequences, they have no need to change.

True. Reaping what one sows is also a biblical concept.

Beakerj wrote:

I think at the heart of this is whether marriage was made for humankind, or humankind for marriage? That will set your trajectory when things get dangerous. As will the small matter of loving your neighbour. And mercy triumphing over sacrifice. That sort of thing.

Spot on.

Muff Potter wrote:

Lea wrote:
What you have to ask yourself, is if god cares more about ‘marriage’ as an institution, or the people in it.
Exactly. In my opinion the same things Jesus said about the Sabbath apply also to marriage.

Amen.

Lea wrote:

So telling a spouse to stay with an abuser makes them more likely to continue abusing, not less.

It’s as though the church ‘leadership’ was sanctioning the abuse, first by no consequences, secondly by telling the wife to go back into the hell of abuse

Where is Christ in this?

@ Jonathan:

Abusive men seldom change, because they benefit from the abuse (they keep control over their wives, get all their needs met while neglecting hers – they don’t have an incentive to stop abusing), as domestic violence experts explain in their material on these topics.

And I don’t see God stepping in and forcing such men to change.

Which leaves women with one solution, really: dump the guy, go to divorce court.

Jonathan wrote:

But pray for conviction from the Holy Spirit to come on the abuser. Pray for restoration of the marriage.

Since you are a counselor, you do know that many abusers are convicted time and time again that God does not want them to abuse their spouse. Then, they do it again. This goes far deeper than a conviction of sin. I am sure you have met convicted people who are abusers, addicts, pedophiles, etc. if God does not change them due to their conviction, then what is wrong with God? Or is this something deeper than simple “sin.”

Jonathan wrote:

But you can’t argue this from the character of God, the intention of marriage, or from the Bible. You can simply say “no” based on your feelings. This is the same argumentation used by those who argue for homosexual relationships, based on the subjective rather than the objective truth of Scripture.

I think the Scriptures show that it’s the character of God to side with the victim, not with the oppressor, so God is peachy keen and fine and dandy with victims divorcing their abusers.

And P..S, if this means anything to you… I’m rather socially conservative on many a topic. (I’m not a left wing SJW type of person).

Daisy wrote:

I can’t quite figure out, the older I get, why so many Christians think it’s their place to command other Christians what to do in their personal lives.

You read my mind, Daisy.

If we can’t order someone to get a haircut a certain way, what makes people think they can go even further into peoples’ lives and order them about.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Daisy wrote:

I think the Scriptures show that it’s the character of God to side with the victim, not with the oppressor

The sacred Scriptures absolutely do represent the character of God as ‘on the side of the victim’ when seen in the Light of Christ Who was the clearest revelation of God we have received.

It is not without purpose that the ‘God of Wrath’ characterization is used to shore up practices of abuses by church leadership,
but only after the position of Jesus Christ has been demoted to a ‘lesser god’, and the words of others in scripture are seen as equivalent in importance to those of Christ. Only then can a leader practice evil and at the same time claim ‘the bible clearly says’.

Christiane wrote:

It is not without purpose that the ‘God of Wrath’ characterization is used to shore up practices of abuses by church leadership,
but only after the position of Jesus Christ has been demoted to a ‘lesser god’, and the words of others in scripture are seen as equivalent in importance to those of Christ. Only then can a leader practice evil and at the same time claim ‘the bible clearly says’.

Well said. ‘Not without purpose’ is exactly correct. I still am not clear in my own mind as to how much people are deceived and how much they know full well what they are doing, but this stuff serves the ‘purpose’ of the deceiver who was a liar from the beginning.

Sorry about that-it kind of gets away with me sometimes.

Jonathan wrote:

What’s frightening?!?!?!? How are they at risk of being abused if they are SEPARATED?? I explicitly said, “Separation? Absolutely!” And by the way, I’m not a Calvinist OR a neo-Calvinist.

How long is this separation supposed to last? Two weeks? A month? Indefinitely? If it’s recurrent – the husband has a pattern of abuse causing the wife to have to leave – she should divorce. Not waste the rest of her life on the guy.

Jonathan wrote:

Answer this- Did God continually pursue faithless Israel even though Israel broke the covenant?

Human wives are not God.

Lea wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
So… I guess it is silly to trust in God to bring repentance and restoration to a broken marriage?
————-
Lea said:
You are welcome to trust in this, and tell us all about it, after your much larger wife has been continually berating you and beating you to a pulp.
Then, tell us all about it. Until then, you are simply laying heavy burdens on others and not lifting a finger to help them.

His reasoning here sounds quite similar to the church fan boys who flood the comments here every time Deb and Dee do a post exposing some church for coddling a pedophile in their midst.

They run into the comments screaming, “So you think (1) God is incapable of healing pedophilia??? (2) You think there is no grace for pedos, hunh hunh?”

It looks to me God more often than not does not “heal” pedos of their pedophiliia. Maybe God can, but he is sure not going around every day zapping the pedo out of pedos.

As for (2), I guess God can extend grace to a pedo, but it does not follow from this point that God expects people to put kids in jeopardy by allowing the pedo to be around kids more.

For all the years I suffered from clinical depression and prayed for God to heal it, he never did.

I had to read books by mostly secular authors to get delivered from depression. Prayer did squat for the depression in my case. God did not magically lift it from me.

God did not heal my mother of her cancer and other problems, and she died.

Concerning abuse in marriage, same deal.

God more often than not does not heal men of being abusers – the men have to decide for themselves to change and enter treatment programs specifically for abusers.

(Regular marital counseling does not work for abusive relationships, btw.)

I wonder if Jonathan is conflating every day, regular marital type spats with domestic violence? They are two very different situations and have to be treated differently.

dee wrote:

Jonathan
What kind of a church do you attend if there is no website? Is it trying to remain anonymous and off the grid?

I was wondering that.

Jonathan wrote:

But instead of trusting in my experiences and feelings, I’m going to keep trusting in a great God who can save.

So, for weeks, months or years, a woman has to keep tolerating physical and/or emotional, verbal, or social abuse, keeping her fingers crossed that maybe, just maybe, God will intervene?

She has to waste years of her life (and possibly get it cut short depending on how violent the spouse is) all to please your criteria of when and how a woman may divorce, handle a volatile marriage?

Do you know, if I ever marry, and my husband turns out to be an abuser, that I won’t consult you first about what to do? I will divorce his butt and have zero regrets or second thoughts.

(I’d probably call the cops first, report the guy and/or press charges. Well in some states, I believe the cops haul the guy away regardless if the wife asks them to or not.)

It’s easy for you to brush off other people’s feelings and safety when it’s not your own. Very convenient.

I dumped my ex fiance for many reasons, one of several is the louse exploited me financially and was very self-absorbed. According to you, I should now, or back then, run back to him and try to “reconcile.” Not gonna happen.

Jonathan wrote:

Oh call me crazy, Jonathan, but perhaps it’s because sometimes people get a mite touchy on areas of wife beating and when people seem to show more bona fide interest in “prayin for the poor abuser” than for the well-being of the abused.
Yep.. I never advocated for any of that.

Yes you did.

Jonathan wrote:

Oh ok. So there are people that God can’t save. Cool. Well, to hell with them then.

I’m not a Calvinist. I do think people have free will (and no how Calvinists define it), so people can choose to reject God. So I don’t think it’s inaccrate to say that some people therefore make themselves “unsavable.”

Even if a pedo, alcoholic, or an abuser has a “come to Jesus” moment, that does not guarantee an instant healing or change.

An alcoholic who accepts Jesus will more often than not likely still have a craving for alcohol, a pedo will still sexually desire kids, etc.

And while we’re at it, while people are saying you don’t answer questions (other than a few superficial ones) or address reasonable points made, will you address my points about Jesus and the New Testament?

Under what circumstances did He suggest a light touch towards, or hand-wringing prayers for, abusers?

How did He invariably treat those who abused within the church and in the name of God?

If the notion that some people are beyond God’s grace is so repugnant to you, why is the Bible so replete with examples of precisely that sentiment?

Why did Jesus tell people to shake the dust off their feet (which by the way had majorly serious connotations for the ancient Jews)?

Why did Paul say that some sin shouldn’t even be prayed for?

Why did Jesus advocate millstones/lakes for those who harm and mislead little ones?

I’m not suggesting that I know, in my humanity, who is and who is not beyond all hope, not suggesting that we shouldn’t pray for our enemies (and one who beats their wife while claiming to follow Christ is my enemy), not suggesting that God is unable to save–but I am suggesting that your perspective is so far afield from any perspective I see demonstrated in the life of Jesus, the Pauline epistles, the letters of the other disciples, that it makes me wonder where you got such nonsense in your head.

Anyway, ball’s in your court, I’ll see which of the above questions you directly address.

Daisy wrote:

Your interpretation of the Bible is not fallible, however.

I think I meant “INfallible” there, pardon me.

Jonathan wrote:

Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? “I know that God can heal…. but it isn’t likely in these specific situations.” I believe God CAN heal.

Well, God can do anything. Does it follow from that that we throw prudence and mercy and, yes, justice out the window? God acts through means. God can cure ALS, for example. He does not do that routinely, AFAIK. To make that statement is not to deny God’s power. It is to be a realist rather than a naive idealist. Both physical and mental disorders are a result of sin entering this world.

Who pays the emotional, spiritual, physical and financial bills that an abuser leaves in his/her wake? Who takes care of the children while the abused spouse pursues the abuser? Must the children, who had no voice whatsoever, forever have no voice? Why?

I apologize if I am misreading your intent, but I just do not see this as a reasonable application of Biblical narratives or instructions. And I do see it as counter to the example set by Jesus, the Christ.

@ dee:
Thank you for this, Dee.

Velour wrote:

That’s not a very good argument, Jonathan.
What is your education? Where did you go to school? What was your major?
Degrees earned? Institutions where earned?

If he goes to an IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) type church, they actually frown on and disapprove of higher education and being intellectual.

(They have the opposite ‘problem’ from Neo-Calvinists, who usually idolize intellectualism and mock anyone who does not have 34 college degrees and who cannot read koine Greek.)

Some Christians take some odd-ball pride in being “worldly” ignorant.

Some of them display a paranoia of Non-Christian /secular education or educational systems, e.g., the Nouthetic Counselors who are suspicious of all psychology and psychiatry.

They tend to be locked into a very shallow, one-dimensional way of reading the Bible they feel comfortable with, because they think they are taking the ‘Bible plainly’ and any other way of understanding the Bible is thought to be “liberal” or not respect God enough.

They’re unable to step outside and see the Big Picture, or grasp that doctrines have real-world impact on people.

I have been thinking of getting a copy of this book (I suspect this would help Jonathan):
The Blue Parakeet
https://books.google.com/books?id=VclJg79MDGoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Law Prof wrote:

Praying is in part getting closer to the One Who made us and loves us, a conversation with a good friend, prayer is not just “Give me this or that..do this or that…help this person or that.”

OK, on this point, I’ll concede. Prayers aren’t like a vending machine.

Jonathan wrote:

Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? “I know that God can heal…. but it isn’t likely in these specific situations.” I believe God CAN heal. No caveats necessary.

So Jonathan, let’s take you back 1975 years and put you on another continent, there you are, a Jewish construction worker who happened to be replacing some brickwork on the top of the temple and suddenly you look up and there’s Jesus of Nazareth and standing next to Satan himself and Satan’s telling Him to take the plunge off the temple because of course, God the Father can do anything, anything at all. So do you join in with Satan and urge Jesus to take a dive off the side because, to quote you, “God CAN heal…no caveats necessary.”

Velour wrote:

Children are at great risk, along with the wife, in domestic violence families.

Yes, thank you. And they are not always protected by the people and institutions who should be protecting them, including churches and church leaders.

Jonathan wrote:

BS Psychology, Masters in counseling (though I’m not sure why we are having a peeing contest here)

Your attitude towards marital abuse victims betrays an ignorance of abuse dynamics. That is why she was asking about whatever training or education you may have received.

Daisy wrote:

(They have the opposite ‘problem’ from Neo-Calvinists, who usually idolize intellectualism and mock anyone who does not have 34 college degrees and who cannot read koine Greek.)

And yet, the hitch is, there’s hardly a bona fide intellectual among the entire tribe of neocalvinists. Mohler? To refer to him as intellectual is a joke. Piper has some decent academic credentials and, assuming he writes his own stuff, a pretty good command of the English language, but then again, certainly nothing special or noteworthy even by the standards of the average State U where I teach, most of my colleagues would spin intellectual circles round the lot of them–and again, I teach at Average U.

Jonathan wrote:

But then I can’t just apply that however I want.

You also cannot apply your interpretation of the point of OT narratives at the expense of other people just because you want to do that. That is how legalism creeps into the church. Is legalism better than liberalism? I think Jesus had a lot to say to legalists.

Jonathan wrote:

Also, an appeal to “logic” apart from Scripture is dangerous.

Read Paul. He likes logic. He also likes Scripture. They are neither incompatible nor mutually exclusive.

Law Prof wrote:

Piper has some decent academic credentials and, assuming he writes his own stuff, a pretty good command of the English language

Except when he tweets. 🙂

Jonathan wrote:

So far, you have asked my what denomination, am I complementarian, young earth, anti-woman teaching, what my “qualifications” are, did I go to Bible college, what do I think about John Calvin, am I reformed, etc. I have sought to answer every single one.

On the comp one, not really.

You danced around that by saying to her, “I don’t know how you define comp.”

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
Piper has some decent academic credentials and, assuming he writes his own stuff, a pretty good command of the English language
Except when he tweets.

Touche. I stand corrected. But it’s not so much the grasp of English that’s lacking in those treats as the grasp on reality.

Jonathan wrote:

Women can teach in some settings? Which ones?
This depends on the church and what they believe. I’ve been in both types, where women can teach other women and be a deacon, and then I’ve sat under women pastors. I’m not sure what this has to do with domestic violence though.

I’ll attempt to clue you in on how they’re related 🙂
Worst-Great Book of the Year
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/03/02/worst-great-book-of-the-year/

Jonathan wrote:

So there are people that God can’t save. Cool. Well, to hell with them then.

Do you consider that a reasonable inference from what Law Prof actually wrote? If you do, then that may be the reason you are missing the point. You have shown no evidence of teachability or even of an ability to listen.

Jonathan wants us to believe that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us into all truth.

And, Jonathan, if you pay attention to what I just wrote, you will see the problem you are having here.

dee wrote:

What kind of a church do you attend if there is no website? Is it trying to remain anonymous and off the grid?

Even my father’s rinky dink church of like 160 people (99% are like over the age of 65) has a web site. A rather modest site, but they do have one. 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
Also, an appeal to “logic” apart from Scripture is dangerous.
Read Paul. He likes logic. He also likes Scripture. They are neither incompatible nor mutually exclusive.

Brilliant.

Beakerj wrote:

I think at the heart of this is whether marriage was made for humankind, or humankind for marriage? That will set your trajectory when things get dangerous. As will the small matter of loving your neighbour. And mercy triumphing over sacrifice. That sort of thing.

Thank you Beaker. Your insight and wisdom on this shines. I hope you are feeling encouraged.

Lea wrote:

That’s what these sorts of men do when arguing with overly emotional females who just don’t get it.

Don’t I know it. They especially like to do that as a deflection when said females are actually referencing the actual texts and using that awful, awful logic. If you can’t make an argument, make an accusation.

Velour wrote:

I think his church has a website. I just don’t think he wants us researching it.

You know, you’re probably right; not exactly like Jonathan presents himself as a paragon of virtue and integrity, guess I’d be surprised if he told the truth there. My neocal church of 70 had a website, and the pastor had a blog, as well as a number of members.

Gram3 wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
Also, an appeal to “logic” apart from Scripture is dangerous.
Read Paul. He likes logic. He also likes Scripture. They are neither incompatible nor mutually exclusive.

No kidding, as one who has done a bit of legal appellate work and has read more caselaw and legal writings by famous jurists than I can ever remember, Paul’s writing reads like extremely high level legal reasoning and logic, like a Supreme Court brief put together by a brilliant legal mind, he puts arguments together like a master of the craft, very obviously had a fine legal mind and top flight training.

Law Prof wrote:

You know, you’re probably right; not exactly like Jonathan presents himself as a paragon of virtue and integrity,

I always suspect Nice Kekbulb is afoot in these conversations. Or his evil twin Ick Bulbneck. The alternative that there are people who think this way counseling people in God’s name like this is too horrible to think about.

Time for ice cream.

Law Prof wrote:

that the marriage relationship is this perfect representation of God’s relationship to us, thus the wife should not necessarily leave or turn her back on even an abusive husband, is that in the case cited, it is the abusive husband–not the wife!–who’s perverting the image of God and His relationship with the church.

I think complementarians make way too much out of marriage, and possibly other non-comp types of Christians.

I don’t really remember Paul or other NT writers using earthly marriage as some kind of apologetic or proof of Christianity.

I suspect it’s probably not wise to argue the truth of your faith by appealing to earthly marriage.

Jesus doesn’t suddenly end up being and staying in the Tomb on the third day 2,000 yrs ago, because Mary and Sam in 2016 U.S.A. get a divorce.

Jesus still arose from the grave, regardless if Sam and Mary’s marriage works out. Christianity doesn’t become less true if Sam and Mary divorce.

@ Daisy:

I wanted to add a P.S. to that post.
(I’m sorry, sometimes a point does not occur to me until AFTER I post something).

I said,

Jesus still arose from the grave, regardless if Sam and Mary’s marriage works out. Christianity doesn’t become less true if Sam and Mary divorce.

The irony for me here, who’s been in a Faith Funk the last however many years, is that stuff like that does not cause me to have doubts about Christianity.

Ironically, it’s the attitudes of Christians such as Jonathan arguing (unless I’m misunderstanding him) that abused wives must stay married to their abuser.

There’s little to no consideration shown to a hurting person.

Rather, theological views and preferred biblical interpretations are sided with over and above the happiness or safety of people.

It’s that kind of thing that makes me wonder if Christianity is worth it or is true, since so many of its adherents I run across do this sort of thing. (I do see some exceptions, like some of the good people who post on this blog, though).

Gram3 wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
You know, you’re probably right; not exactly like Jonathan presents himself as a paragon of virtue and integrity,
I always suspect Nice Kekbulb is afoot in these conversations. Or his evil twin Ick Bulbneck. The alternative that there are people who think this way counseling people in God’s name like this is too horrible to think about.
Time for ice cream.

Just think, in a few more days…you can make a Sacred Cow Sundae (Gram3’s TM), the *official* frozen dessert of Pound Sand Ministries, founded right here on The Wartburg Watch.

Ice cream. I was coming home and I had to force myself not to stop and get ice cream at the store. I kept telling myself, “This too shall pass. You have watermelon at home.”