9 Things You Should Know About Joe Carter’s ‘Beware of Broken Wolves’ Diatribe

"But there is a particularly nasty breed that often goes unnoticed, a type that we might call the “Broken Wolf.” These are the false teachers who use their own authenticity, pain, and brokenness to attract believers who are also suffering and broken—and then using their “brokenness” to lead the sheep to turn away from God’s Word and embrace sin."

Joe Carter

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=164951&picture=wolfWolf


We had planned to post ONLY permanent pages this week; however, circumstances have changed. Many of you are aware that TWW has been brought into Joe Carter's discussion on 'broken wolves'. That will not be the focus of this post, so please hold your comments until we publish Dee's upcoming post on what has been happening in the Twitterverse involving Joe Carter.


In case you missed it, Joe Carter, Editor for The Gospel Coalition, published a doozy of a post last Friday. It was entitled Beware of Broken Wolves, and it has caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. We want to take a closer look at this post, so in Joe Carter fashion, here are 9 things you should know about his Broken Wolves diatribe.

1.  The Gospel Coalition crowd is great at inventing terms such as 'complementarian', so it's no surprise that Joe Carter would come up with a description that is found nowhere in the Bible, namely 'Broken Wolves'

2.  Quite a few people who read Joe's post (including the Deebs) had a difficult time understanding his points. Either they aren't sure what he was trying to say or they have been told by Joe that they have misunderstood him. One reader remarked:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3270118297

If you, like us, are confused by Joe Carter's post, just remember this important Bible verse:

God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

(1 Corinthians 14:33)

3. When challenged by commenters to reveal whom he had in mind when he wrote his 'Broken Wolves' post, Joe Carter refused to 'name names'. One of the early commenters questioned whether 'survivor blogs' (TWW, Spiritual Sounding Board, etc.) were the focus of Joe's post, and he responded that they were not. (Unfortunately, there is more to report, and Dee will cover that later)

4. In his post, Joe Carter appears to be instructing women to confront 'broken wolves'; yet, when challenged, he claimed he isn't solely focused on women. From the post…

Many of us men—including elders called to protect their flock—remain silent hoping that one of our sisters in Christ will speak up before the popular and prominent female Broken Wolves in our midst devours another one of our own. But if not, we probably won’t speak up. The brokenness of Broken Wolves often act as a shield that protects them from any legitimate criticism because we fear being viewed as harsh or unloving towards women. The result is in failing to speak out we leave the women (and men) in our churches vulnerable to be ravaged.

5. Carter claims in a Tweet that commenters on the Broken Wolves post have fallen into two categories (see screen shot below).


https://twitter.com/joecarter/status/856268061380399104

Apparently, those in Carter's camp are the ones who clearly comprehend what he has written and consider 'Broken Wolves' to be a HUGE PROBLEM. The rest of us, well, we are probably predestined NOT to understand his post.   

6.  Several days after the post was published, Carter finally provided some insight into those whom he labels as 'Broken Wolves'. see screen shot below)

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3270847373

Also, a commenter asked whether he believes 'broken wolves' often espouse artinomianism, and Joe agreed (see screen shot below). 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3269169910An antinomian is 

a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.

7. In our opinion, Joe shows no empathy for those whom he labels 'broken wolves', nor does he attempt to understand how they became 'broken' in the first place.

8. Joe Carter claimed he is not deleting comments (see screen shot below).

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3269173308

Yet, the following appears twice in the comment section.

9. And last but not least, you should know that this must be one of Joe Carter's most widely read posts because there are well over 200 comments!

Comments

9 Things You Should Know About Joe Carter’s ‘Beware of Broken Wolves’ Diatribe — 271 Comments

  1. 1) So is Joe Carter’s “Broken Wolves” theory similar to the disputed “Broken Windows” theory in criminal law, that where there’s supposedly some disorderly conduct it will lead to worse things (i.e. crimes in communities and “heresies” in the church)?

    2) Why is Joe ranting on about adults’ relationships that he has no control over? They’re voters and tax payers and can do whatever they want.

    3) Why hasn’t Joe Carter done anything — including protesting and protecting and being proactive — about the record amounts of child sexual abuse in the conservative evangelical church? It’s the Number 1 reason that churches have been sued every single year for years on end! http://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2016/august/top-5-reasons-religious-organizations-went-to-court-in-2015.html

    4) Has Joe ever considered consulting with an attorney before he leads the charge to tell Christian women to harass another woman? The kinds of things he’s advocating could result in criminal charges, restraining orders, and civil lawsuits.

    I can tell that he’s never sat down with a really good attorney…one who should tell him point blank to leave people alone.

  2. Some Catholic FB friends approvingly posted this screed. I read it and thought “WUT??” Like everyone else, I thought it was pretty cryptic.

  3. from the post, a quote from Carter:

    “the popular and prominent female Broken Wolves in our midst”

    1- popular
    2- prominent
    3- female
    4- Broken
    5- Wolves
    6- in our midst

    Hmm…? Trying to figure out who fits all six categories…? Since they are #1 popular and #2 prominent, shouldn’t be difficult…? Yet, no idea…

  4. I can’t believe what I just read, is this guy serious??? It’s offensive and it’s a blatant attack on broken people women in general. This person has some nerve! I can’t even say man because Godly men wouldn’t say such things. He should consult a good attorney or better yet close his mouth.
    Seriously I think he should be held accountable by the Christian and non Christian community over saying such things. There are many believing and unbelieving organizations who have worked way to hard to support sexual abuse survivors. It’s an insult for this fool to walk around acting as if broken people are the problem. I guess nothing should surprise me anymore with these fools.

  5. If Joe thinks that a woman’s pain (“brokeness”) – which the woman in question may claim comes from certain Christian teachings – he may want to have a really open mind and consider that maybe the particular teaching that is being rejected (that he may even agree with and currently support) is in fact un-biblical and not true, right, or good.

    And secondly, dude needs to really, really examine his tendency to elevate protecting/promoting what he considers correct doctrine over and above people’s well-being, welfare, and feelings.

    You may recall in the New Testament, Jesus Christ violated the Pharisee’s correct doctrine, by doing things such as healing sick women on the Sabbath Day, and so on. See Luke 13:10-17.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:10-17

  6. I wrote a long response to Joe Carter’s article. I’m just going to quote the last two paragraphs. HUG should appreciate this.

    Finally, in all of this, Joe Carter doesn’t provide any real solutions to the problem of “broken wolves,” save to go on the attack. This reminds me of something Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, said about criticism: “Never defend, always attack.” I would rather follow the words of Jesus: “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).”

    I don’t see any of Jesus in Carter’s article.

    If you want to read the whole thing, you can do so here. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/323693_Who_Are_the_Real_Broken_Wolves

  7. My first assumption was that the broken wolves he was referring to were women who are now joining the swelling ranks of conference speakers whose blog posts are followed (and tweeted) by 1000s of evangelical women, but he feels these prominent women are not “orthodox ” in their theology because of various views about sex and gender (and subsequent roles). These bloggers have lots of influence on many evangelical women who, like their male fanboy counterparts, quote the bloggers without doing much Berean checking. AND, borrowing a page from the boys, they often “bite” anyone who disagrees with the blogger’s views.

    Based on that assumption, I also thought his comments were highly ironic considering that there are 1000s of men who seem to think every word uttered by their “guru” is Truth without ever verifying the ideas BUT never telling other men to deal with the male “groupies ” in their midst.

  8. Boyd wrote:

    Based on that assumption, I also thought his comments were highly ironic considering that there are 1000s of men who seem to think every word uttered by their “guru” is Truth without ever verifying the ideas BUT never telling other men to deal with the male “groupies ” in their midst.

    Very good point.

    It reminds me a little of a complementarian guy who used to post to this blog often who would say one reason he didn’t think women should teach or preach is that they are more prone to false teaching, or to believing false teachign.
    I told him several times, well, what about all the male false teachers, the men who teach wrong stuff or who believe it? They do exist. About every other male preacher on “TBN” spouts of views a lot of us would likely consider false…

    But I don’t see complementarians argue from this that all men should be banned from preaching/ teaching, leaving it only to… dogs or penguins, I suppose.

  9. This comment JC made in response to another commenter really got my attention:

    “I completely agree with that. The essential difference between a wayward sheep and a wolf is accountability to loving, biblical authority. As Leslie Vernick says in the article I linked to, “Wolves refuse accountability and resist submission to authority.”
    If people are humble enough to be restored they likely aren’t wolves. (That’s a key point a lot of people seem to miss.)”

    So, the difference between a sheep and a wolf is that a wolf will not voluntarily place him/herself under the thumb of a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, fallible church leader? Does that mean the families and victims that left SGM are wolves? Are Karen Hinkley and Maria Notcheva wolves? Is that what he is saying, or at least insinuating? Maybe he thinks I’m a wolf. Haaaaa oooowl!

    @Shauna and Velour – ladies, what is your take on his comment?

  10. a “broken wolf”… talk about an awkward, clumsy mixed metaphor.

    anyone who coins the phrase “broken wolf” and tries to write something about it is reaching, in the clever department.

    I would assume such a person is bugged about something, but he knows he is not exactly justified in feeling bugged, and that he doesn’t really have a case for it. there’s a faint suspicion that perhaps he is being petty, but this is drowned out by hubris and a desire for companions to join him.

    so he puts together a campaign for why people should join his cause and feel bugged just like him. he even goes so far as to coin a phrase for the source of his buggedness, in the hopes that it will catch on as he tries to rally support.

    so he chooses a common enemy for people to focus on: a “wolf” — everyone is terrified of wolves.

    but he has to put a new spin on it, has to rebrand the term to create a unique buzz word to rally around. A wolf, but not just any wolf…. a “mean wolf”? a “nasty wolf”? nah, not attention-grabbing enough. A “hungry wolf”? already been done…. hey, how about — a “broken wolf”?! yeah, that’s never been done before!

    and voila, bob’s your uncle.

    and so is born a new book, a new bible study series with dvd and glossy workbook, a council with a board of directors, staff, and its own website, and a brand new revenue-generating conference.

    the absence of critical thinking makes this all quite lucrative.

  11. I’m up late with sinus issues and can’t sleep, and have been thinking about this article and the world it reveals for the past few days.

    I wish I could put into words how horribly men from these groups treated me, and how much discouragement, pain, and disillusionment they caused and created in my life that I am not sure when or how it will ever end. They do not know what they do and how far it reaches into and effects someone’s life. I think some do know, and don’t care.

    They will spin everything for women to make it seem like bitterness (and who can tell what that word means anymore.) Or they will not so subtly or subtly infer that something is wrong with you or there is something inferior in your character or ability to perceive and understand reality though the exact opposite may be (and is likely) true.

    And they can’t actually explain what that could be or name it while you can thoughtfully engage and specifically name and diagnose problems in the system and treatments and people that are hurting and sometimes abusing you. They avoid dealing with your person or your story directly as a way to not have to back up what they are insinuating. They will do whatever avoidance techniques are necessary so they do not have to self-reflect on their own behavior/s and complicity.

    They will mistreat you, then pretend like you are the problem for bringing it up or standing up for yourself or other people. Or kind of scold you in a bait and switch type way for not bringing it up sooner or later or in the exact right way. And don’t be blunt about it or confident and to the point or be really articulate about it – because now you are surely getting uppity with your woman self and God forbid also there might be real sadness or real (righteous) anger behind the things that have repeatedly happened to you and other people.

    Basically, no matter what or how you say it or how you are, it betrays to them “lack of submission”, the cardinal sin. And you’re getting that air about you that you are trying to equally speak, think, and play on their playing field and in the things of heaven and kingdom that only *they* are supposed to touch and decide on. Don’t you know that?

    The social system and norms (many unspoken or inconsistent from what is being said and presented) and power differentials are implemented as such that there is no way for you to succeed in bringing up pain or disagreement that shines light on discomforting truths or something potentially wrong, very wrong, in their system. The whole thing is set up to fail for you. Doomed either way, and in *any* way, up or down, east or west.

    Enable. Conform. Take it on the chin from them and then come ask them for an ice pack, then repeat this same process as necessary. Perform. Behavioral modification and forced pleasantries, but no digging down and pulling out and looking at the roots and hearts of the matter.

    No thanks. I think I’ll leave.

    Pray for my healing. I desperately need it in so many ways.

  12. Nancy2 wrote:

    @Shauna and Velour – ladies, what is your take on his comment?

    My take on JC’s comment is that he supports a religious system of authoritarians and anyone who bucks that he believes doesn’t know the Gospel. I don’t think JC has encountered Jesus.

    And “no”, I’m not submitting my life to a senior pastor with a fake Ph.D. that costs $299 from a diploma mill, with another fake “advanced degree”, with a claim to a California teaching credential that state supervisors said was also “a lie” and the state had NEVER credentialed anyone ‘with his name’ [at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley]…to run my life.

    I am perfectly capable of running my own life.

    I listen to the Holy Spirit. I submit to God, not to fallible men (many of whom are in the ‘church business’ for the money and the power, period).

  13. Hmm, Carter says “popular and prominent _female_ Broken Wolves”. Combine that with the reference to homosexuality and it immediately makes me think of Rachel Held Evans. Vicky Beeching is another possibility. There’s also Jen Hatmaker but I’m not sure she would count as “broken”, whereas the previous two probably would.

    I’m not sure it is relevant, but also see these articles:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/july/jonathan-merritt-shares-his-story.html

    http://religionnews.com/2016/11/07/ann-voskamp-answers-tough-questions-about-a-word-that-can-both-harm-and-heal/

  14. Nancy2 wrote:

    As Leslie Vernick says in the article I linked to, “Wolves refuse accountability and resist submission to authority.”

    I don’t know what JC quoted Christian counselor Leslie Vernick since she is usually talking about domestic abusers, abusing their Christian wives.

    Me thinks that JC decided to rip Leslie’s quote out of context. Someone should contact Leslie.

  15. I dont mean any disrespect and I have said this before but the way many understand sola scriptura is untenable in any actual practical application in many aspects of life. Trying to force modern issues and ideas into scripture. It seems so subjective and in some situations has had a horrible effect on people’s lives. I am sure Mr. Carter is being sincere in his attempted application but if one looks at the interactions and the down to earth questions many brought up on twitter and on the comment part. The “they are wolves” and “warn a divisive person once then twice and then have nothing to do with them is a cop out. The actual application is an exercise in circular logic and rhetorical mind numbing apologetics which supports the home team that is ever shrinking.

    The reason these blogs started up was because the “authority” ignored or retaliated against victims on a regular basis which is been seen over and over again. Relegating over 50% of the church/human race to practical servitude is ignorant and destructive to families, people, and society in general. Their pie in the sky view of complementarianism is a major factor in many abuse issues, women not being able to divorce violent abusive relationships because the man has “repented” is also very well documented.

    The misapplication of sola scriptura has also lead to people with mental health issues being relegated to the back 40 of the church or booted all the way out the door. The denial of well-founded science, the belittlement or demonizing of psychology and psychiatry with neolithic counseling. There are just so many “exceptions” to their idea of sola scriptura but denial of some fundamental tenants of the Christian religion such as ESS, which strains the irony meter. Personally, I think there is such reactions to this is because the house of cards will fall if enough single cards are pulled out of the edifice.

    Want to hear something funny, one major reason I don’t go to bible studies/church studies is because I fear damaging other people’s faith. I fear “offending on of those little ones”, I admit that such emotionalism outside of an apologetic is pathetic but I do fear that. I don’t even make a good “wolf”. What I always found rather strange is that none of them seem to fear damaging other people’s faith, they seem to go out of their way to snuff out the wick or to break the bruised reed.

  16. If Joe wanted to confront people with right “Doctrine”, he would have made it a general warning with general principles. This is a witch hunt for anyone that criticizes TGC.

    As I did on Twitter and the other thread–I refer everyone to the signs of a cult.

    The number #1 sign of a cult is “Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.”

    Mr. Carter answered in his reply to Nate Sparks that those who do not submit to authority, regardless if they are right about “Doctrine” or not, are wolves. That “authority” need only only have accountability from “the Bible”.
    https://twitter.com/NateSparks130/status/855899080618381313

    As TGC theology is not historically Christian, and as they demand blind obedience, they just make themselves quite clear that they now clearly espouse cult behavior, something I do not think they have done before quite so openly. And be aware that Mr. Carter is also a spokesman for the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

    I implore everyone to make themselves familiar to cult behaviors. Ironically, thank you to the SBC’s class on cults at the 2003 Phoenix Southern Baptist Convention for introducing me to the Cult Education Institute:
    https://www.culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

    Everyone in the Southern Baptist Convention should now be treating TGC as a cult.

  17. @ ishy:

    Good to know about Joe Carter and TGC. Apparently Joe is in it for the $$$, like the rest of the authoritarians.

  18. As a Catholic who tends to be conservative in her theology, I can understand why some Catholics might approve the post. Especially without knowledge of who Joe Carter is talking about. This posting reminded me to pray for those whom I think might fall into that category.

    Brian, I agree with you about Bible studies and being careful not to hurt another’s journey. I have made that decision for me, many times.

  19. Interesting that he says that these broken wolves escape legitimate criticism due to hiding behind the shield of their brokenness, when he is part of an entire culture that escapes legitimate criticism by hiding behind the shield of ‘biblical’ authority. How is he doing any better than those he criticises?

  20. Beakerj wrote:

    Interesting that he says that these broken wolves escape legitimate criticism due to hiding behind the shield of their brokenness, when he is part of an entire culture that escapes legitimate criticism by hiding behind the shield of ‘biblical’ authority. How is he doing any better than those he criticises?

    Some of the people he attacked in the comments made the point that just because someone disagrees with TGC’s theology doesn’t mean they are not using the Bible. When he went after TWW, it was on the basis that everyone at TWW has the same theology (which anyone who visits TWW knows is ridiculous). But anyone who’s not Calvinista in their minds is not a Christian, and therefore, a wolf.

    May I also point out that most of these guys have appointed and ordained themselves or each other to positions of authority with very little due process, unlike my female pastor who has a doctorate and went through a rigorous psychological evaluation to be ordained. Some of them, like Carter’s good buddy CJ Mahaney, have no education past high school, and no formal Bible training. Not that I don’t believe that those are completely necessary, but Mahaney went straight into being a lead pastor in his early 20s. I do believe training is absolutely necessary if you don’t have education. I am not sure I believe someone in his 20s or 30s is eligible to be an elder.

    Just because you decide you are an authority doesn’t make you one.

  21. Anna A wrote:

    Brian, I agree with you about Bible studies and being careful not to hurt another’s journey. I have made that decision for me, many times.

    Hmmmm…I honestly didn’t get what Brian was referring to. I just show up at Bible studies and I am myself. I don’t have the power to destroy someone’s faith…by just being me.

  22. emily honey wrote:

    I wish I could put into words how horribly men from these groups treated me, and how much discouragement, pain, and disillusionment they caused and created in my life that I am not sure when or how it will ever end. They do not know what they do and how far it reaches into and effects someone’s life. I think some do know, and don’t care.

    Pray for my healing. I desperately need it in so many ways.

    I know seminary is very tough, especially now the way it is. You’re in one of the darkest places of this battle, and it’s a place where they are trying to indoctrinate as many people as they can. My heart grieves over it every day.

    If you feel like you can’t stay there, you can always transfer. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it may be that you would be prouder to hold up a masters degree from somewhere that doesn’t treat women like second class citizens. I know Northern is doing some exciting things with their degree programs, including an all online program. But seminary won’t last forever, and it will end sooner than it feels like it will.

    I will be praying for you. Go have some tea at the teahouse for me. I miss that place the most, I think.

  23. ishy wrote:

    Just because you decide you are an authority doesn’t make you one.

    This seems to be the central problem: The concept of authority and it’s place in Christianity. My view is that for adults, Jesus Christ is the authority. Not the Institutional church nor those with titles within it.

    That doesn’t mean there are no mature believers in the Body that can guide us in our growth but that should never be a static situation. We won’t grow past them if it is.

    I personally think it is an insult to our Savior to go along with the concept of some Institutional or human authority we must submit to taking the place of the Holy Spirit. I believe that negates the entire point of the cross/resurrection.

    I also believe that history bears out over and over that those who teach such –are the real danger.

    Joe Carter can give his opinions as I do. But, in the end, each individual is responsible for what they believe and do.

    I reject Joe’s premise. If not, the argument becomes who is an legitimate authority to submit to. Seems rather bizarre considering we all have access to the ultimate and real authority, Jesus Christ.

  24. Lydia wrote:

    I personally think it is an insult to our Savior to go along with the concept of some Institutional or human authority we must submit to taking the place of the Holy Spirit. I believe that negates the entire point of the cross/resurrection.
    I also believe that history bears out over and over that those who teach such –are the real danger.

    Their whole theology puts themselves in the place of God. They openly admit this with the ESS theology.

    The one thing they do not have as a cult is a central authority figure, and that is already a problem for them. They basically teach that any male can appoint themselves to authority, because that’s how most of them amassed power, and I think they’ve already started eating each other over it. They used to protect one another, but a lot of the big names have been dropped (Driscoll, anyone?). Some of these very confident guys like Mr. Carter might one day find themselves out on the curb called a “wolf” because they were in the way of someone else’s “loving authority”.

  25. @ ishy:

    Oh, I already left! 🙂 More officially last Fall.

    Thanks for the prayers, and Velour as well. I can’t, out of wisdom, publicly share details of my life and how seminary/SBC culture was for me and how that’s all interplaying right now, but I definitely need them!

  26. emily honey wrote:

    @ ishy:
    Oh, I already left! More officially last Fall.
    Thanks for the prayers, and Velour as well. I can’t, out of wisdom, publicly share details of my life and how seminary/SBC culture was for me and how that’s all interplaying right now, but I definitely need them!

    I’m glad you got out of it. It’s not a good place to be right now.

    If you want to keep it in mind, here’s Northern’s new online programs: http://www.seminary.edu/live/

  27. “Because of God, even the imperious ballbreakers, moralizing windbags, and meddling assholes may know love.”
    ― Joshua Ferris, To Rise Again at a Decent Hour

  28. These questions may be off the wall here, considering the mentality of Joe Carter (never heard of him before-hope he’s not offended, bitter or holds a grudge over that fact (some of Christianese’s favorite buzz words), but here it goes:

    1) Do male pastors get upset when women don’t acknowledge their male authority?
    2) Do male pastors get offended when women do not call them “pastor?”
    3) Do male pastors only consider that women can be “wolves in sheep’s clothing?”
    4 Do male pastors have a difficult time learning some wise theological truth from a woman?”
    5) Can a male pastor, in fact, learn a theological truth from a woman, or is this feat impossible?
    6) Why do men from the Gospel Coalition hate women? I don’t hear of a great expounding love for women, especially those who love the LORD their God, with all of their heart, soul and mind. Just sayin…..

    Every time I hear of the Gospel Coalition, I picture a conference room full of men who actually hate women, and are hell bent on “putting women in their place” here on earth in their little earthy kingdoms that will never truly represent the Kingdom Jesus speaks of in His teachings.

    I’m sorry, but it sounds to me that Joe Carter (whoever he is), is just plain jealous and envious of some woman, or maybe women, who are teaching the full counsel of Jesus Christ, and are actually pointing souls to Him, as led by the power of the Holy Spirit, instead of leading people to the false authoritative system set up by the false Christian industrial complex.

    Is Joe Carter about to write a book about “broken wolves” so he can bank off of using the Name of Jesus in vain, to fund his comfortable lifestyle?

    Praying for you emily honey, not because I’m so great; because Jesus and His Ways are “The Only Way,” for He loves you like no other.

  29. Oh my word you hit the donkey right the tail with your assessment. I totally see a grow group/discipleship series coming. elastigirl wrote:

    a “broken wolf”… talk about an awkward, clumsy mixed metaphor.

    anyone who coins the phrase “broken wolf” and tries to write something about it is reaching, in the clever department.

    I would assume such a person is bugged about something, but he knows he is not exactly justified in feeling bugged, and that he doesn’t really have a case for it. there’s a faint suspicion that perhaps he is being petty, but this is drowned out by hubris and a desire for companions to join him.

    so he puts together a campaign for why people should join his cause and feel bugged just like him. he even goes so far as to coin a phrase for the source of his buggedness, in the hopes that it will catch on as he tries to rally support.

    so he chooses a common enemy for people to focus on: a “wolf” — everyone is terrified of wolves.

    but he has to put a new spin on it, has to rebrand the term to create a unique buzz word to rally around. A wolf, but not just any wolf…. a “mean wolf”? a “nasty wolf”? nah, not attention-grabbing enough. A “hungry wolf”? already been done…. hey, how about — a “broken wolf”?! yeah, that’s never been done before!

    and voila, bob’s your uncle.

    and so is born a new book, a new bible study series with dvd and glossy workbook, a council with a board of directors, staff, and its own website, and a brand new revenue-generating conference.

    the absence of critical thinking makes this all quite lucrative.

  30. @ Ken F:
    Both articles are meant to point to others as wolves. If they get to define the wolves using their magical proof texting prowess,then their followers won’t recognize true wolves.

    It’s very crafty in a diabolical sense. Take someone suffering and perhaps lashing out at the cognitive dissonance that makes up so much of what they teach and paint them as a wolf, albeit broken.

    This is why I vote for victims of spiritual abuse to get out of the bubble, become strong and independent and seek Jesus Christ on their own to reverse the indoctrination.

    But let’s face it. It’s a made up doctrine. Like “Christian Hedonism”. Note how people over there are discussing it as if it were handed down by Moses. As if it is credible. Christian Hedonism took that group by storm years ago. They are easily led. By wolves.

    Let’s all go read Acts 20 and remember Paul’s warning.

  31. They do love women but only if these women fall all over themselves over them. They love the women who promote their teachings.
    Did anyone here take a look at joes favorite books on TGC website? He has a pallet of “interesting” books. NOT!!! Karen wrote:

    These questions may be off the wall here, considering the mentality of Joe Carter (never heard of him before-hope he’s not offended, bitter or holds a grudge over that fact (some of Christianese’s favorite buzz words), but here it goes:

    1) Do male pastors get upset when women don’t acknowledge their male authority?
    2) Do male pastors get offended when women do not call them “pastor?”
    3) Do male pastors only consider that women can be “wolves in sheep’s clothing?”
    4 Do male pastors have a difficult time learning some wise theological truth from a woman?”
    5) Can a male pastor, in fact, learn a theological truth from a woman, or is this feat impossible?
    6) Why do men from the Gospel Coalition hate women? I don’t hear of a great expounding love for women, especially those who love the LORD their God, with all of their heart, soul and mind. Just sayin…..

    Every time I hear of the Gospel Coalition, I picture a conference room full of men who actually hate women, and are hell bent on “putting women in their place” here on earth in their little earthy kingdoms that will never truly represent the Kingdom Jesus speaks of in His teachings.

    I’m sorry, but it sounds to me that Joe Carter (whoever he is), is just plain jealous and envious of some woman, or maybe women, who are teaching the full counsel of Jesus Christ, and are actually pointing souls to Him, as led by the power of the Holy Spirit, instead of leading people to the false authoritative system set up by the false Christian industrial complex.

    Is Joe Carter about to write a book about “broken wolves” so he can bank off of using the Name of Jesus in vain, to fund his comfortable lifestyle?

    Praying for you emily honey, not because I’m so great; because Jesus and His Ways are “The Only Way,” for He loves you like no other.

  32. I thought it was interesting that Joe Carter doesn’t list his educational background over at TGC. I had to do a little bit of digging. Turns out that in addition to being an editor at TGC and at the Acton Institute, he’s an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. Here is his educational background:

    Educational Background:
    M.B.A., Marymount University
    B.A. in Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

    Just think about that for a while. I need to run off to work.

  33. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I thought it was interesting that Joe Carter doesn’t list his educational background over at TGC. I had to do a little bit of digging. Turns out that in addition to being an editor at TGC and at the Acton Institute, he’s an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. Here is his educational background:
    Educational Background:
    M.B.A., Marymount University
    B.A. in Liberal Arts, Excelsior College
    Just think about that for a while. I need to run off to work.

    Yeah, absolutely nothing that has to do with the Bible. And he’s an unquestionable “loving authority”. Someone who is loving is honest about their lack of knowledge on something.

  34. Amen Shauna! I really have a difficult time trying to understand the ways of these men who define themselves as pastors, authority figures, and ‘godly men’ within the religious system that labels itself Christian. In studying the culture of Islam, I find remarkable similarities between Sharia and Christian(?) church men mentality, and want to vomit. Literally vomit!

    If Christian(?) men cannot get their women to submit to their name it and claim authority, they pull out the heavy artillery in using covert ways to shame the woman, twisting the authority of Jesus Christ in doing so. I wonder what these famous (???) preacher men would have to say about Mary Magdalene approaching the tomb of Jesus, only to find Him not there, RESURRECTED, on that early morn not that long ago!

    “How darest that Mary go out on her own, without the escort of a pastor man, so she wouldn’t interpret correctly that her Savior had risen, for she clearly needed and male theologian to clarify her observation.”

    To all of those “broken sheep” out there, who happen to be women, please remember the words of Jesus per Matthew 28, and lean on His understanding for His strength is our joy!

  35. Velour wrote:

    3) Why hasn’t Joe Carter done anything — including protesting and protecting and being proactive — about the record amounts of child sexual abuse in the conservative evangelical church?

    And take away a Privilege of Pastoral Rank?

  36. ishy wrote:

    The one thing they do not have as a cult is a central authority figure…

    What about The Antichrist?

    …and that is already a problem for them. They basically teach that any male can appoint themselves to authority, because that’s how most of them amassed power, and I think they’ve already started eating each other over it.

    What do predators eat after they’ve eaten all the prey?
    Let the Game of Thrones begin, with dagger and poison.

  37. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    Wow, he has cut his bio on many sites from what is was. Even Amazon. They tend to do this when going from one paying gig to another to better identify with the new paymasters. He had some other affiliations– I can’t remember them all. He was an editor at First Things.

  38. ishy wrote:

    The one thing they do not have as a cult is a central authority figure, and that is already a problem for them.

    Now that is an excellent point! Lord knows they tried to hang together with one theme. We are it.

    What they ultimately did was to make the institutional church the authority and its “God appointed” authorities within it, the arbiters of salvation.

  39. Shauna,

    I left you a question over on the GoFundMe page (about Billy’s Christian camp in remote Northern California this summer).

  40. Shauna wrote:

    Every time I hear of the Gospel Coalition, I picture a conference room full of men who actually hate women, and are hell bent on “putting women in their place” here on earth in their little earthy kingdoms that will never truly represent the Kingdom Jesus speaks of in His teachings.

    There is no doubt in mind that these men HATE women.

  41. I'd like to comment on the flip side of a "broken wolf". What about the elders and pastors that are so broken because they can do nothing but follow a man instead of truly seek the Living God? It takes hard work, faith and self control to do such a thing… seeking God.

    Yet another church that was thriving, had good preaching and a healthy (or so it seemed) body is getting sucked in by Dever and the 9Marks garbage, and the fallout has been very painful for regular and longtime attendees as well as newcomers to the church. People who question have been told publicly if you don't like it leave with NO REGARD for who these people are, how God has been healing them from past hurts at this church, or any other willingness to get to know each person in this small church to better understand their position. It is heartbreaking to watch from afar – the pain that is being inflicted on this little congregation. It is hard to watch the outright arrogance that has reared its ugly head in the leadership that seemed teachable before they starting courting Dever and his crowd. These are the REAL broken wolves that cannot stand alone, with Christ alone. Those who need to be propped up by a person rather then the Spirit of Christ.

    When the Bible says you will know My people by their fruits, by the way they love one another, then you will know that 9Marks is a broken wolf! RUN for your life and warn as many saints as you can on your way out! For the sake of the GOSPEL.

  42. Donna wrote:

    Yet another church that was thriving, had good preaching and a healthy (or so it seemed) body life is getting sucked in by Dever and the 9Marks garbage, and the fallout has been very painful for regular and longtime attendee a well as newcomers to the church

    Did the church have a congregational vote? How was the church organized that this happened?

  43. Kinda leaves me with a sad hopeless feeling to read the TGC article and then the responses. It feels like there’s no genuine attempt to understand what the other “side” is saying, just a rush to judgment and quick condemnation of motives, culminating with the now almost inevitable “not a Christian” or “definitely a cult” proclamation. I see it from both sides, and it makes me sad, because how can we actually talk to each other as brothers and sisters with these reactions?

    Some people, myself included, really do have a temptation to use their church-inflicted scars as leverage to justify un-Christlike character. And other people, also including myself, have a temptation to use authority in the church to cudgel others into submission.

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

  44. Joe Reed wrote:

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    For starters these fools should stop “shooting from the lip”.

  45. Joe Reed wrote:

    Kinda leaves me with a sad hopeless feeling to read the TGC article and then the responses. It feels like there’s no genuine attempt to understand what the other “side” is saying, just a rush to judgment and quick condemnation of motives, culminating with the now almost inevitable “not a Christian” or “definitely a cult” proclamation. I see it from both sides, and it makes me sad, because how can we actually talk to each other as brothers and sisters with these reactions?

    I think he made himself quite clear in the comments. He says that anyone who doesn’t submit to “loving authority” is a wolf.

    But if he was really attacking a problem of dealing with broken people, why make it vague on what kind of person he was talking about, then tell his female followers to go after and “attack” those they consider broken?

    Why didn’t he tell those people to talk to each other first? Why didn’t he tell people to pray for them, love them as Jesus loves them, and start an honest dialogue with them?

  46. @ Joe Reed:
    I don’t think you received the memo they sent out years ago. They talk. We listen and obey. Now, if you are in complete agreement or have the necessary credentials or plumbing, they will converse.

    It is very much a guru following and making bubble from which they live and breathe. They know nothing else but authority/submission. Everything must fit into that category.

  47. Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

  48. Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

    Talking about something is not hitting someone. You yourself just said people should talk about things.

  49. @ Donna:
    This makes my stomach hurt! My church was beginning to go down this path, and thankfully our pastor (who endorsed 9Marks) recently resigned. He served as our pastor for just a year and a half. In that short amount of time, our once unified congregation now appears to have some division.
    🙁

    Oh, and it didn't help that my pastor unfriended me on Facebook (while he was my pastor).

  50. Joe Reed wrote:

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    I finally got around to reading the article. When these guys are so convinced of their moral authority – the only talking they want to hear from you is “Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir”.

    I would usually insert some of my acerbic wit at this point but after reading some of the comments up thread, I don’t really feel it’s appropriate.

    My personal take on clowns like Joe Carter is that they are absolutely terrified of our pluralistic world. In their perception, science has debunked their scripture, women are equal to men (in principle if not in practice), Christianity’s voice is diminished while others come to the table (new immigrants, previously disenfranchised groups). This terrifies them.

    So they look to their holy scripture and pull out all the bronze age cultural crap like female subjugation that most of us agree should be consigned to the dust heap of history. Slap the name of “God” on it and proceed to beat congregations over the head with it.

    Then should someone challenge them, they cower in their pulpits and literally (in this case) cry wolf.

    Get the congregation chasing ghosts in the trees and they won’t look to closely at your excesses.

    Bullies and psychopaths can’t be reasoned with.

  51. Talk for the purpose of ministering grace – yes. Hitting is saying things intended to hurt. And I readily admit the Young Reformed gang, of which I’m close to theologically, has “hitting a brother” down to a fine art. Black belts in abusive speech are as common as pajama pants in Walmart.

    And I’ve done that too!

  52. ishy wrote:

    “Wolves are impatient with demands for verbal clarity.” LOL!!

    That is DeYoung’s version of Driscoll’s or Mahaney’s sinful questioning. There is a playbook.

  53. Joe Reed wrote:

    Kinda leaves me with a sad hopeless feeling to read the TGC article and then the responses. It feels like there’s no genuine attempt to understand what the other “side” is saying, just a rush to judgment and quick condemnation of motives, culminating with the now almost inevitable “not a Christian” or “definitely a cult” proclamation. I see it from both sides, and it makes me sad, because how can we actually talk to each other as brothers and sisters with these reactions?

    Some people, myself included, really do have a temptation to use their church-inflicted scars as leverage to justify un-Christlike character. And other people, also including myself, have a temptation to use authority in the church to cudgel others into submission.

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    “I’m sorry for promoting the ministry of Mark Driscoll. He is unfit to be a pastor. And pastors who cover up child sex abuse are bad.” – Tim Keller

  54. Joe Reed wrote:

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    One side sees the other side as people to be ruled. One side sees both sides as people who are all servants. That is the divide which cannot be bridged. The Authoritarians demand to be Rulers, and the only Ruler is the King of Kings. The Authoritarians are usurpers and I and others are calling them out on it. They are the ones who are rebellious against the real Authority because they have set themselves up in his place. That cannot be reconciled.

  55. ishy wrote:

    But if he was really attacking a problem of dealing with broken people, why make it vague on what kind of person he was talking about, then tell his female followers to go after and “attack” those they consider broken?

    My guess is that @ Ian is correct. In my estimation, though, Rachel Held Evans is old news, so he’s using dog whistles to stir up online attacks against Jen Hatmaker. With that said, I’m not sure how much he’s contributing, because from what I’ve heard, she’s already getting plenty of vitriol from Christians across the internet for no longer toeing the traditional line on matters of sexuality.

  56. ” … those in Carter’s camp are the ones who clearly comprehend what he has written and consider ‘Broken Wolves’ to be a HUGE PROBLEM. The rest of us, well, we are probably predestined NOT to understand his post.” (Deb)

    It is true that New Calvinism has become so intellectually inbred that only those in that tribe “comprehend” what what they say and write. They have superior intelligence, you know; pew peons just don’t get it. However, they are finding that they have underestimated us common folks who know that much of what they expound is dead letter, with no Biblical basis. Their foundation is cracking and they are concerned; thus, expect to see more diatribes by their tribe. The New Calvinist elite will continue to put folks like Joe Carter at the front to defend them as the reformed movement unravels. His piece on “Broken Wolves” is really a good thing – it has exposed their heart and mission even more.

  57. Wait, wait. The sin of these “broken wolves” is sexual in nature?

    I thought the life of Jesus made it clear that the sins of pride, self-righteousness, and arrogance were far worse. (Remember the prayers of the Pharisee and the tax collector and who went home forgiven?)

    C.S. Lewis has a lot to say about sin in Mere Christianity: The spiritual sins are worse than the sins of the flesh: They are more “more deliberate, more deep-rooted, and more cruel.”

  58. Josh wrote:

    My guess is that @ Ian is correct. In my estimation, though, Rachel Held Evans is old news, so he’s using dog whistles to stir up online attacks against Jen Hatmaker. With that said, I’m not sure how much he’s contributing, because from what I’ve heard, she’s already getting plenty of vitriol from Christians across the internet for no longer toeing the traditional line on matters of sexuality.

    Just reading the comments, it’s clear people interpreted that in many different ways. There was also the #ThingsOnlyChristianWomenHear hashtag happened right before the article, too.

    It doesn’t really matter if he was talking about someone specific, because he didn’t make it specific. He pretty much made an open call to attack any woman who anyone thought was a “broken wolf”.

  59. Janey wrote:

    Wait, wait. The sin of these “broken wolves” is sexual in nature?
    I thought the life of Jesus made it clear that the sins of pride, self-righteousness, and arrogance were far worse. (Remember the prayers of the Pharisee and the tax collector and who went home forgiven?)

    I think that is who he was thinking of when he wrote the article, but he widened it in his responses. Carter made it clear later that he thought anyone who didn’t submit was a wolf:
    https://twitter.com/NateSparks130/status/855899080618381313

  60. “… a commenter asked whether he believes ‘broken wolves’ often espouse artinomianism, and Joe agreed” (Deb)

    From my vantage point, New Calvinism itself will lead to antinomianism if left unchecked. There are YRRs in my area who feel that they have been released by grace to darn near do anything they want! It’s all grace, grace, grace … their behavior has been predestined, so it must be OK. Consider the steady stream of reports of abuse coming from New Calvinist ranks, whether it be authoritarian control and intimidation over members, subordination of female believers, verbal abuse of dissenters, or archaic practices of shunning/excommunication. The YRRs are redefining acceptable behavior in the context of being culturally relevant, while thinking that they alone preach truth.

  61. ishy wrote:

    It doesn’t really matter if he was talking about someone specific, because he didn’t make it specific. He pretty much made an open call to attack any woman who anyone thought was a “broken wolf”.

    Indeed! The shoe fits, but it might also fit someone else, or a whole group of people – but for the sake of discussion, if he is targeting one person in particular, then that means Joe isn’t willing to clearly call out his [ostensible] target, which makes him … a coward?

  62. Jack wrote:

    Who the [insert your favourite expletive here] is Joe Carter? Never heard of him.

    Within the inbred reformed movement, he is a wannabe celebrity. He does carry some credentials … Editor, The Gospel Coalition (TGC); Communications Specialist, SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC); Sr. Editor, Acton Institute (a religious think-tank); wrote a few books. But outside a small circle of reformed upstarts who are taking over the American Church, Joe is relatively unknown. The big dogs use him to attack dissenters with his literary teeth.

  63. Josh wrote:

    for the sake of discussion, if he is targeting one person in particular, then that means Joe isn’t willing to clearly call out his [ostensible] target, which makes him … a coward?

    Pretty much. And then he went on a ranting diatribe in the responses on how anyone who uses a username instead of their real name is a coward.

  64. Gram3 wrote:

    That is DeYoung’s version of Driscoll’s or Mahaney’s sinful questioning. There is a playbook.

    Nope. That isn’t what he said. He said that wolves like ambiguity and thrive on lack of clarity and imprecision. Which is interesting since Joe Carter was unclear by design in his post on broken wolves. So, I offer my sincere apology to Kevin DeYoung for totally misrepresenting what he wrote. I still have no idea what Joe’s point is other than women should make other women submit or shut up because otherwise men will have to do it and it makes them look like meanies when they have to do it.

  65. Gram3 wrote:

    One side sees the other side as people to be ruled. One side sees both sides as people who are all servants. That is the divide which cannot be bridged.

    Yes.
    Quote from Jared White seems apropos:
    “The real root issue here is authority. Men have invented false authority and perverted Scripture to justify it. You see it in the clergy/laity divide. You see it in doctrines of tithing. You see it in harsh judgments of cultural trends. And, of course, you see it in the home. Somebody has to be top dog. It’s the pastor, or the man of the house, or the church organization, or whatever. Somebody is in charge, others have to get in line. What’s really sad is it is completely upside-down and backwards compared to the message of Jesus, James, and Paul. We are all one in Christ and God does not show favoritism. Man, woman, master, slave, adult, child, Jew, Samaritan, Roman, Greek…all distinctions of race, gender, age, and social status fall away to nothing in the unconditional love of Christ. To take that freedom of the Spirit away from people is nothing short of despicable. Never settle for less than God’s perfect grace available equally to all.”

  66. Beakerj wrote:

    Interesting that he says that these broken wolves escape legitimate criticism due to hiding behind the shield of their brokenness, when he is part of an entire culture that escapes legitimate criticism by hiding behind the shield of ‘biblical’ authority. How is he doing any better than those he criticises?

    I think he is worse than those he criticizes. He is one of those who harms people and causes the brokenness, in a bad, bad way. He is one of the big, bad, wolves.

  67. Good question Deb and I would say because their theology is in line with the Catholic Church. Deb wrote:

    @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
    Wonder why Joe did his graduate level work at a Catholic school.

  68. @ Joe Reed:

    We are talking about words but even Jesus did not follow this rule. He talked back quite frankly and even insulting to the Pharisees. He considered them part of His tribe of Israelites yet their teaching and behaviors as very wrong. He wasn’t turning the other cheek in the sense you are using it. He saw them as snakes and said so publicly.

    When it came to the Romans He very much taught turning the other cheek. It made a lot of people angry and it’s interesting to discuss why.

  69. Maybe you should take a look at Luke 22:36 Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

  70. ishy wrote:

    This is a witch hunt for anyone that criticizes TGC.

    In 17th-century Salem, Massachusetts, many innocent women accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake or drowned. Cyberspace is a less messy way of silencing whom you declare “wolves” because they disagree with you. You are not guilty of being a wolf if you speak in opposition to aberrant belief and practice … many sheep over the course of Christian history were persecuted as wolves because they made a noble stand for Truth.

  71. Gram3 wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:
    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.
    One side sees the other side as people to be ruled. One side sees both sides as people who are all servants. That is the divide which cannot be bridged. The Authoritarians demand to be Rulers, and the only Ruler is the King of Kings. The Authoritarians are usurpers and I and others are calling them out on it. They are the ones who are rebellious against the real Authority because they have set themselves up in his place. That cannot be reconciled.

    Well (ed.) said. Let it be repeated!

  72. ishy wrote:

    I know seminary is very tough, especially now the way it is. You’re in one of the darkest places of this battle, and it’s a place where they are trying to indoctrinate as many people as they can. My heart grieves over it every day.

    I think this is an example of the actions of a broken wolf, according to Carter. Of course, I thought it was what the Bible called encouragement, but what do I know?

  73. @ Shauna:

    Only in the sense they view the institutional church and the church titles within as the necessary vessel for salvation. They like their ecclesiology but with on site mini popes. They call that church autonomy. (Wink) Add that to the caste system determinism and it’s a perfect recipe for totalitarianism.

  74. @ brian:
    Brian, do you think that, if Joe is sincere, his use of ‘wolves’ is ‘projecting’?

    The people getting hurt AREN’T the protected paedophiles, or the abusive ‘disciplinary’ authoritarians, no. The people being injured are their VICTIMS.

    So when the term ‘wolves’ is used and it doesn’t hold the right group accountable for ‘wolf behavior’;
    then directing ‘suspicion’ elsewhere may be a form of ‘denial’ of one’s own participation in a system that preys on vulnerable people.

    I think the first step in accountability is being convicted of one’s OWN part in the abuse of victims. But if someone cannot accept that their beloved system of authoritarian discipline IS abusive, then ‘projecting’ seems a possibility to me.

    What’s ‘broken’ is that Joe does not show concern for victims of abuse at the hands of those who do it ‘in the Name of Christ’. It’s not those who offer sanctuary to victims who are ‘wolves’, no. And there is no ‘authority’ given by Christ the Lord to pursue and harass innocents.

  75. Gram3 wrote:

    I still have no idea what Joe’s point is other than women should make other women submit or shut up because otherwise men will have to do it and it makes them look like meanies when they have to do it.

    Regardless of what he says as he back-peddles to explain his words, you have articulated the real agenda behind his post. Those darn women are starting to figure us out, questioning our subordination of them, they have become a threat to the movement … you faithful women, silence the she-wolves; we have more important things to do because we are men. They may be broken, but we don’t care – they are talking too much.

  76. Joe Reed wrote:

    Some people, myself included, really do have a temptation to use their church-inflicted scars as leverage to justify un-Christlike character. And other people, also including myself, have a temptation to use authority in the church to cudgel others into submission.

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    re-examine the Scriptures mentioned in some advice from the early Church:

    “”“For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
    For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.

    And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.

    For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?

    Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
    “Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
    So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.

    Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
    persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”

    St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
    a Father and Doctor of the Church

  77. “But there is a particularly nasty breed that often goes unnoticed, a type that we might call the ‘Broken Wolf’ ” – Joe Carter

    A feral junkyard dog (aka TGC Pastor) dissing on Wolves…

  78. Nancy2 wrote:

    I think he is worse than those he criticizes. He is one of those who harms people and causes the brokenness, in a bad, bad way. He is one of the big, bad, wolves.

    NO.
    He’s a feral junkyard dog, alpha of a feral dog pack.
    Wolves have a LOT more class than that.

  79. Max wrote:

    But outside a small circle of reformed upstarts who are taking over the American Church, Joe is relatively unknown. The big dogs use him to attack dissenters with his literary teeth.

    So he’s an attack dog for the Comrade Napoleons of the Reformed Animal Farm.
    (Note Orwell’s ethnic typecasting for those on top.)

  80. Joe Carter mentioned the Wartburg Watch at one point in the comments. Here’s what he said:

    “Let me first say that I never thought of WW as a “survivor blog.” Like most of the Christian community I’ve always thought of them as the main group of “discernment” bloggers—a group that exists solely to bash other Christians.

    Second, let me say that didn’t have them in mind at all when I wrote this article. To be honest, I don’t give them much thought at all anymore because I don’t respect them at all. The Bible says we should shun such divisive persons (Titus 3:10) and I have.

    I’ve dealt with WW for over a decade and they are one of the most hateful groups on the internet. If they take the side of survivors it is only because it gives them one more tool to bash Christians. Jesus said “everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). For more than a decade WW been completely unloving to the Bride of Christ. All they care about is trashing other Christians who do not subscribe to their particular theological beliefs. In that mission they’ve lied about and slandered some good people, something I won’t tolerate.

    That’s why I don’t deal with them anymore. Like just about every other reputable Christian community (Reformed, non-reformed, complementarian, egalitarian, et al.) I want to have nothing to do with that group of backbiters.”

  81. Gram3 wrote:

    I still have no idea what Joe’s point is other than women should make other women submit or shut up because otherwise men will have to do it and it makes them look like meanies when they have to do it.

    He’s telling the women to submit to his authority, to be authentic men, to take the initiative and step up to defend him and his helpless TGC male buddies from the big, bad wolves!
    How much more backwards can these guys get?

  82. Max wrote:

    From my vantage point, New Calvinism itself will lead to antinomianism if left unchecked. There are YRRs in my area who feel that they have been released by grace to darn near do anything they want! It’s all grace, grace, grace … their behavior has been predestined, so it must be OK.

    Well, that explains the pedophilia scandals, whether Pastor Pedo or Pastor’s Pet Pedo.

    Amazing what a Get Out Of Hell Free Card (do not pass Go, do not collect $200) signed by God before the foundation of the world can do for the attitude of God’s Speshul Pets. King Joffrey of Westeros or Caesar Caligula/Nero/Domitian/Commodus or Kim Jong-Un or Uday ibn Saddam (motto for all the above: “Just Because I Can”), anyone?

  83. Janey wrote:

    Wait, wait. The sin of these “broken wolves” is sexual in nature?

    According to Projecting Pastor Nympho (“I SEE Things…”)

    Sex not only makes people stupid, it makes Christians berserko crazy.

    “Even the very mention of the word is sufficient to induce… PANIC!”
    — Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

  84. Jack wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:
    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    I finally got around to reading the article. When these guys are so convinced of their moral authority – the only talking they want to hear from you is “Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir”.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another?”
    WHAP!
    — Animal House

  85. Deb wrote:

    He earned an MBA. Not sure if theology was an issue, but going to a Catholic university seems odd to me.

    I’m not so concerned about where he got his MBA. It’s just that neither of his degrees are religiously-based, yet he puts himself forward as an expert in Christian doctrine. His employment has been and is at these various (spell check suggested “vacuous”) “Christian” think tanks. Granted, it’s possible to reinvent yourself-today I’m a technical systems analyst although my official education consists of a B.A. in government (UT-Austin) and a Juris Doctor (University of Houston Law Center). But I find it interesting that, at least on paper, Carter has similar educational credentials to me and some others.

    Oh wait. Joe has the all-important Y chromosome to go along with his TGC editor’s job. That is where he derives his authority.

  86. Jack wrote:

    I finally got around to reading the article. When these guys are so convinced of their moral authority – the only talking they want to hear from you is “Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir”.

    Their authority and the humble submission of everyone else to their authority is the linchpin, the most crucial tenet, of their new and improved version of the gospel(TM).

  87. Ian wrote:

    Hmm, Carter says “popular and prominent _female_ Broken Wolves”. Combine that with the reference to homosexuality and it immediately makes me think of Rachel Held Evans. Vicky Beeching is another possibility. There’s also Jen Hatmaker but I’m not sure she would count as “broken”, whereas the previous two probably would.

    This is where I saw an issue. Prominent people and broken people? I think he’s conflating two groups in a confusing way. Probably on purpose, but who knows.

    @ emily honey:

    What a great comment.

  88. Velour wrote:

    For starters these fools should stop “shooting from the lip”.

    Preach it sister!
    The Book of Proverbs is replete with admonishments about fools and their mouths.

  89. ishy wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    This needs to be part of the conversation: http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/
    It’s Kevin DeYoung’s response to the comments on Carter’s post. Just posted today on TGC.

    I am laughing so hard right now.

    Ishy, “3. Wolves tend to be imbalanced.Imbalanced may not be the right word. I’m not suggesting truth is always the golden mean between obvious extremes. What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses. ”

    Don’t let the fact that the bible focuses on love a million times keep you from being unloving, because there was that one verse that says women should submit!

    That’s what I’m getting from this.

  90. Nancy2 wrote:

    So, the difference between a sheep and a wolf is that a wolf will not voluntarily place him/herself under the thumb of a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, fallible church leader?

    Amazing how many things end up boiling down to submitting to them, er, I mean, submitting to godly authority. It’s almost like they are nothing but a bunch of power hungry bullies.

  91. “3. Wolves tend to be imbalanced.Imbalanced may not be the right word. I’m not suggesting truth is always the golden mean between obvious extremes. What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses. ”
    Don’t let the fact that the bible focuses on love a million times keep you from being unloving, because there was that one verse that says women should submit!
    That’s what I’m getting from this.

    Who cares if the Holy Spirit is the authority of believers? Phooey on those big themes of Scripture when I can badly translate a verse from the Greek that I’ve already taken out of context!

    I am thinking of HUG’s famous “I HAVE A VERSE!” line right now…

  92. Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher UNITED STATES

  93. This is a bit off topic but I posted answers to some questions that all of you may have had about me and Billy in regards to our situation,family. It’s posted in comments on the fundraising/gofundme
    I hope my transparency helps you all understand us and our situation a bit better. My transparency can either be a blessing or a disaster by sharing to much.

  94. ishy wrote:

    But if he was really attacking a problem of dealing with broken people, why make it vague on what kind of person he was talking about

    Because he would sound super ‘mean’ otherwise?

    I too wondered if it had to do with the hashtag thing the other day, particularly since he was talking about authenticity. That’s the most interesting part of his comments. He is saying they are authentic. They are real. They have been hurt. And then he is extremely vague about what they are doing wrong, other than being hurt, until you get to his comments and suddenly it’s about not submitting to authority or alternately view of gay people?

    It was a messy article, and too vague and I think was on purpose. Some of these guys like to write in circles and then accusing everyone else of misunderstanding. They don’t like to say things in a straightforward manner because then it’s easier for people to tear their arguments apart.

    Which is why they just women to attack other women, so they don’t have to look mean. But people who comment anonymously on the internet are the cowards.

  95. Deb wrote:

    That, too, was my initial reaction – Joe has NO formal theological education.

    It wasn’t easy to find out that information. It’s not on his Amazon bio. I had to look at a picture of the back of “How to Argue Like Jesus” (Crossway 2009) to find out about his Excelsior (famous for its online nursing program!) College degree. Hmmm.

  96. Robert wrote:

    It’s almost like they are nothing but a bunch of power hungry bullies.

    and THESE bullies are not REAL Alpha males either …. a real Alpha male doesn’t exhibit fear of strong women or need to bully LBGT people; and a real Alpha male isn’t going to shelter and offer cover for a paedophile buddy because he wouldn’t have ‘paedophile’ buddies

    just sayin’

    when I think of how Dr. Sherri Klouda was treated, I can see ‘bully’ all over it. Honestly, how could grown men do such things and still walk around acting like ‘righteous’ Christians????
    It’s a pitiful male that has to bully innocent women and children to make himself look ‘powerful’. For shame. (there, I feel better)

  97. Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

    It depends on how you are defining hitting back.

    If someone is hurt by Preacher X and blogs and Tweets about it, that is not hitting back. If someone is hurt by Preacher X but punches him in the face, you probably have a point.

    If someone is hurt by Doctrine Z and blogs against Doctrine Z, that is not “hitting back.”

    There is nothing inherently harmful or immoral about publicly critiquing a doctrine, someone’s blog posts, etc.

  98. Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

    What about when the second punch is made by the same person that made the first punch?

  99. Ian wrote:

    Vicky Beeching is another possibility.

    Vicky Beeching is not well-known in the USA, but I do suspect her ouspokenness has put her on the “Gospel Wolves” radar. She left social media last week after a particularly hateful allegedly “Christian” meme about her was shared around.

    Vicky Beeching tells of vile abuse by fellow-Christians that forced her off social media

    Gay Christian rock star Vicky Beeching has spoken of the ‘relentless’ death threats and attacks that are forcing her off social media after she featured in an abusive meme that was shared 20,000 times.

    https://www.christiantoday.com/article/vicky.beeching.tells.of.vile.abuse.by.fellow.christians.that.forced.her.off.social.media/107726.htm

    It’s things like this-and no denunciations from the “Gospel Wolves”-that make me understand quite well why my LGBT friends want nothing to do with Evangelicals.

    This is why TGC is useless. Here’s a very real situation where a person is being thrashed online in the name of Jesus and not a peep from the opinion makers. Why,sharin any sort of compassion for Ms. Beeching and/or calling out her harassers might be too much, beause it might “give the wrong impression.” After all, uou have to remind awful horrible sinners like Vicky Beeching that they’re headed straight to hell. For all I know, the “Gospel Bully Boys” may have approved and shared the meme.

    *rolls eyes* I’m going to stick to cat macros and “let me sing you the song of my people” memes.

    (Death threats? Really?)

  100. When asked to elaborate on behaviors these Broken Wolves are espousing as not being sin, Joe Carter could only name one, as mentioned below.

    ***Could you elaborate more on what behaviors these Broken Wolves are espousing as not being sin?***

    The obvious one is in the area of sexual ethics. The Broken Wolves deny that homosexual behavior is a sin, and often imply that there really isn’t anything wrong with heterosexual fornication either.

    That’s it, only one? I’m disappointed. I was expecting much more if Broken Wolves are such a problem.

  101. Shauna wrote:

    This is a bit off topic but I posted answers to some questions that all of you may have had about me and Billy in regards to our situation,family. It’s posted in comments on the fundraising/gofundme
    I hope my transparency helps you all understand us and our situation a bit better. My transparency can either be a blessing or a disaster by sharing to much.

    Shauna’s update about her and her son Billy can be found here on the new page at TWW:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-fundraisinggo-fund-me/#comments

    Shauna and Billy still have financial needs, however the official TWW fundraiser has
    reached it’s 2 month limit (Dee and Deb’s rules for fundraisers here). As Dee and Deb
    have also stated on the new page here on the website, people are free to offer support
    independently of the official TWW fundraiser.

    You can also send care packages to people, gift cards, etc.

    You can email Deb for Shauna’s mailing address:

    deb@thewartburgwatch.com

  102. Nancy2 wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

    What about when the second punch is made by the same person that made the first punch?

    in the case of authoritarian pastoral abuses, it’s not ‘punches’ that need focusing on …… apparently these ‘churches’ go after people and try to ruin their lives by making ‘examples’ of them and I imagine this is just another way to try to control the sheep, by making them ‘afraid, very very afraid’ to get out of line

    my goodness, how could nay self-respecting sheep not realize that such ‘leaders’ ARE wolves?????

    and how could anyone worthy of being called a Christ-following participate in the subjugation and torment of innocent people?????

    something’s rotten in Ninemark

  103. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    He earned an MBA. Not sure if theology was an issue, but going to a Catholic university seems odd to me.
    I’m not so concerned about where he got his MBA. It’s just that neither of his degrees are religiously-based, yet he puts himself forward as an expert in Christian doctrine.

    Marymount University is a fine institution, highly regarded, and quite diverse. The combination of institutions and degrees suggests a pragmatic, job-focused approach to education.

  104. Deb wrote:

    Second punch??? Could you please clarify?

    If I told my Dad “he started it!” he’d always say, “that doesn’t give you the right to hit.”

    I love banter and discussion, you know that. But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.

    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

  105. Joe Reed wrote:

    But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.

    Maybe it is time for the supporters of the first pugilist to take stock of where they are leading the fight.

  106. Joe Reed wrote:

    If I told my Dad “he started it!” he’d always say, “that doesn’t give you the right to hit.”

    Would he not tell you to ‘use your words’? Because that’s all anybody is doing.

  107. Joe Reed wrote:

    But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.
    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

    Cults have definitions, and have been studied intensely for years. Demands to submit to authority without accountability is the #1 indicator of a cult. This is not something we just “made up” about them–it was not only clearly stated in Joe Carter’s responses in the article, but TGC members have written book after book about it.

    Furthermore, nearly every single thing they teach openly is an indicator of a cult:

    Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
    No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
    No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
    Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
    There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
    Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
    There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
    Followers feel they can never be “good enough”.
    The group/leader is always right.
    The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

    https://www.culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

    You don’t know they are “brothers”. If you can prove they are, please go ahead. Show how they do not believe Christians should give blind submission to their own authority, and all the other points on that list. I don’t think you can do it. Whether or not something is “mean” is entirely subjective and a useless discussion.

    Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Peter, nor any New Testament writer had kind words for false prophets.

  108. Beakerj wrote:

    Interesting that he says that these broken wolves escape legitimate criticism due to hiding behind the shield of their brokenness, when he is part of an entire culture that escapes legitimate criticism by hiding behind the shield of ‘biblical’ authority. How is he doing any better than those he criticises?

    Most excellent observation.

  109. Max wrote:

    In 17th-century Salem, Massachusetts, many innocent women accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake or drowned.

    At the risk of being pedantic, they were hanged. No one was burned at the stake.

  110. ishy wrote:

    When he went after TWW, it was on the basis that everyone at TWW has the same theology (which anyone who visits TWW knows is ridiculous). But anyone who’s not Calvinista in their minds is not a Christian, and therefore, a wolf.

    All of that for context, but the part I put in bold: ha ha ha, no we sure do not all agree with each other on every topic, theological or otherwise.
    Does this Carter guy ever bother to come by this blog and read it, or read the comments???

  111. Daisy wrote:

    Does this Carter guy ever bother to come by this blog and read it, or read the comments???

    He admitted he hadn’t in years. But I don’t think people here ever agreed theologically. What most of us do agree on is that pride and lust breeds bad churches no matter what denomination you find yourself.

  112. Robert wrote:

    At the risk of being pedantic, they were hanged. No one was burned at the stake.

    Also, that one man got pressed to death.

    The thing I always found fascinating was that the ones who ‘confessed’ were not killed. It was only the ones who stubbornly refused to submit to the ‘authority’ of people calling them witches and said ‘no, I am not a witch, crazy’ who were killed.

    I find it deeply alarming that these guys idolize the puritans, with no thoughts of where they went wrong and why we are no longer puritans.

  113. Lea wrote:

    I find it deeply alarming that these guys idolize the puritans, with no thoughts of where they went wrong and why we are no longer puritans.

    Well, the Puritans were trying to create an ideal Christian society, and it didn’t quite work. Why people would think it would work any better now is anybody’s guess.

    I’m not so sure we are no longer puritans. I think there is a pretty straight line between Puritanism and New England liberalism.

  114. emily honey wrote:

    Basically, no matter what or how you say it or how you are, it betrays to them “lack of submission”, the cardinal sin. And you’re getting that air about you that you are trying to equally speak, think, and play on their playing field and in the things of heaven and kingdom that only *they* are supposed to touch and decide on. Don’t you know that?
    The social system and norms (many unspoken or inconsistent from what is being said and presented) and power differentials are implemented as such that there is no way for you to succeed in bringing up pain or disagreement that shines light on discomforting truths or something potentially wrong, very wrong, in their system. The whole thing is set up to fail for you. Doomed either way, and in *any* way, up or down, east or west.
    Enable. Conform. Take it on the chin from them and then come ask them for an ice pack, then repeat this same process as necessary. Perform. Behavioral modification and forced pleasantries, but no digging down and pulling out and looking at the roots and hearts of the matter.

    Emily – you summarize this problem so well. Motives questioned, interpretation mocked, feelings dismissed, observations undercut, devalued and told to fall in rank or risk the boot of authority. I’m so sorry that this is also your experience. I have also left the church – though not my faith in God.

    Can these people really think they are representing Christ? Really?

  115. Robert wrote:

    I’m not so sure we are no longer puritans. I think there is a pretty straight line between Puritanism and New England liberalism.

    Robert, as an ex-Bostonian, I heartily agree. Puritanism is alive and well in liberal New England — only now it focuses on food purism, anti-smoking purism, etc. But, like their Massachusetts Bay Colony forbears, the New Puritans still love to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it!

  116. Lea wrote:

    It was only the ones who stubbornly refused to submit to the ‘authority’ of people calling them witches and said ‘no, I am not a witch, crazy’ who were killed.

    And several of them had property that conveniently became available after they were murdered by the authorities.

  117. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    a story:
    my aunt Evelyn had to have pure spring water from the mountains near the family home in Aldenville MA, so….. she frequently made trips to special places to fill plastic water bottles with this wonderful cold water. We were often invited along for the ride.
    One time, Evelyn is loading the car with her filled bottles and a ranger comes along and says ‘Hi Evelyn, what are you doing?’ to which she tells him about the water collecting from the tap at the mountainside rocks;
    and he says, ‘you don’t want this water, Evelyn’ and she says ‘why not? I always get our water from here, it’s the best!’

    ‘not anymore’ says the ranger, ‘hippies have been living upstream and have been peeing into the water for the last six months’

    We had to revive Evelyn before she could drive us home. 🙂

    Now Evelyn, who now rests in peace, was French-Canadienne by birth, but ‘everything fresh’ was her motto for all things potable and edible and the family ate well (except for the time of the hippie pee-water, that is)
    . . . . . maybe it’s not just the Puritan heritage operating in the New England, all that desire for wholesomeness ???

  118. @ Friend:

    And one site I read said a lot of it had to do with a doctrinal dispute in church, so one side of the disagreement was basically accusing the other of witchcraft.

    What. A. Mess.

  119. @ Lea:
    Actually, they idolize what they WISH the Puritans taught. They don’t read Puritan source documents. They just posit their own beliefs and claim the Puritans believed the same.

    Divorce for example. These NeoCals never tell you the Puritans introduced divorce into the Colonies. The first divorce granted by the Puritans (for which we have documentation that has survived) was in 1620. Puritans also granted divorces for cruelty, abandonment, impotence, and adultery (if the woman was the adulterer).

    Cotton Mather, one of the early Puritan ministers, was in favor of liberalizing divorce because of the hardship disintegrating marriages caused to the community.

    Everytime some moralizer pulls the “Puritan card,” double check their claims with someone who has a Ph.D in American History.

  120. Jean wrote:

    Emily – you summarize this problem so well. Motives questioned, interpretation mocked, feelings dismissed, observations undercut, devalued and told to fall in rank or risk the boot of authority. I’m so sorry that this is also your experience. I have also left the church – though not my faith in God.

    Can these people really think they are representing Christ? Really?

    They know they aren’t ‘representing Christ’:
    they have marginalized Him, they have placed His Words and Actions in sacred Scripture at the same level as the words and actions of other, even though He spoke and acted in the very Person of God; they belittled Him by declaring His status to be ‘eternally subordinate’ to the Father ….. they point to themselves as ‘male-headship leaders’ instead of pointing to Our Lord in all things

    They know they don’t follow Him.

  121. Joe Reed wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    Second punch??? Could you please clarify?
    If I told my Dad “he started it!” he’d always say, “that doesn’t give you the right to hit.”
    I love banter and discussion, you know that. But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.
    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

    Joe,

    What does physical violence have to do with confronting false and destructive teachings?
    Nothing.

    These groups are rightly being confronted for their false and destructive teachings.
    If they had taken stock of themselves first, I doubt any of this would be happening.
    They haven’t renounced it. Shame on them.

  122. @ ishy:

    Robert said, “And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.”

    ishy said, “Whether or not something is “mean” is entirely subjective and a useless discussion”
    ++++++++++++++++

    when my Brooklyn aunt is polite on the West Coast it’s a bit abrasive. i supsect it would be mean in Memphis.

  123. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    uritanism is alive and well in liberal New England — only now it focuses on food purism, anti-smoking purism, etc.

    Even insurance companies want people to stop smoking because of the enormous medical related costs with it. And it drives up premiums for everyone else too.

  124. @ Christiane:

    LOL! When we lived half-way up Robert Frost Mountain, just outside of Middlebury, Vermont, we got all our drinking water from a mountain spring. We used empty gallon milk bottles.

    But it’s not the penchant for fresh, pure stuff that makes the New Puritans just like the old ones. It’s the control-freakiness — the urge to impose (nay FORCE!) their lifestyle choices on everybody else. The old Puritans invented social engineering. The new ones carry on the tradition.

  125. Lea wrote:

    And one site I read said a lot of it had to do with a doctrinal dispute in church, so one side of the disagreement was basically accusing the other of witchcraft.

    I don’t recall the details, but economics was involved, too. There was a prominent but declining family that supported the witchcraft accusations, and an up and coming family on the other side.

    Basically it was the worst of human nature all coming together for one tragic event. I wonder if we’ll ever know precisely what set it off. As I recall it started with some of the girls behaving oddly.

  126. @ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:

    “Here’s a very real situation where a person is being thrashed online in the name of Jesus and not a peep from the opinion makers. Why,sharin any sort of compassion for Ms. Beeching and/or calling out her harassers might be too much, beause it might “give the wrong impression.” After all, uou have to remind awful horrible sinners like Vicky Beeching that they’re headed straight to hell. For all I know, the “Gospel Bully Boys” may have approved and shared the meme.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    brings to mind Professor Ralph Elliott (professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, authored “The Message Of Genesis” 1961, explosives thrown at house)

    “We received threatening telephone calls. And once, explosives were thrown on our front porch, damaging the door. For a while the police had to escort our children home from public school.”

    nothing like upstanding christian powerbrokers to inflict harm and ruination on people.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=c7A0WVhEnS8C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=ralph+elliott+the+message+of+genesis&source=bl&ots=fwqEENtRm9&sig=bU8iif4fAbmwp_jA3UoPZ–gA3o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioxfz8vcDTAhVW22MKHc-PBbY4ChDoAQhLMAk#v=onepage&q=ralph%20elliott%20the%20message%20of%20genesis&f=false

  127. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    So, Mr. Carter claims that he and his YRR buds believe in Christian charity, not “slander” and “gossip.”

    And let’s not forget: speaking the truth and exposing evil and abuse in YRR churches qualifies as “slander” and “gossip”.

  128. Oh, the irony from DeYoung’s post:

    4. Wolves are impatient with demands for verbal clarity. False teaching thrives on ambiguity. It eschews careful attention to words and definitions.

  129. Robert wrote:

    Max wrote:
    In 17th-century Salem, Massachusetts, many innocent women accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake or drowned.
    At the risk of being pedantic, they were hanged. No one was burned at the stake.

    Does anyone else find it strange that: 1). The puritans were Calvinists, and 2) the Danvers Statement was contrived in Danvers, MA – where Salem Village was located ???

  130. Ken G wrote:

    When asked to elaborate on behaviors these Broken Wolves are espousing as not being sin, Joe Carter could only name one, as mentioned below.

    ***Could you elaborate more on what behaviors these Broken Wolves are espousing as not being sin?***

    The obvious one is in the area of sexual ethics. The Broken Wolves deny that homosexual behavior is a sin, and often imply that there really isn’t anything wrong with heterosexual fornication either.

    That’s it, only one? I’m disappointed. I was expecting much more if Broken Wolves are such a problem.

    I’m absolutely not surprised. The integration of LGBT into the larger American society has freaked TGC and many other allied groups into a very nearly apocalyptic way of thinking. I am reminded of an election in California in the ’00s where persons were induced to empty savings accounts and even 401Ks to fund advertising.

    I cannot think of any issue in the last three decades which would cause this kind of ferment. I am completely unsurprised by Joe Carter’s remarks.

  131. Nancy2 wrote:

    Does anyone else find it strange that: 1). The puritans were Calvinists, and 2) the Danvers Statement was contrived in Danvers, MA – where Salem Village was located ???

    maybe something odd in the water there?

  132. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Puritanism is alive and well in liberal New England — only now it focuses on food purism, anti-smoking purism, etc. But, like their Massachusetts Bay Colony forbears, the New Puritans still love to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it!

    “New England Puritanism seven-times distilled down to eliminate any hint of ‘God’, yet keeping all the Righteousness and Moral Fury.”
    — one of the commenters at Internet Monk

  133. Robert wrote:

    Well, the Puritans were trying to create an ideal Christian society, and it didn’t quite work. Why people would think it would work any better now is anybody’s guess.

    “This time We WILL Achieve True Communism!”

  134. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    How would he rate the following Calvinista screed in the Uplifting Christian Charity Department?

    I don’t know how Mr. Carter would rate it, but speaking as one who is in general agreement doctrinally with the reformed guys, that piece you’re referring to is mean spirited, ungracious, convinces no one, edifies no one, deepens divisions, its offensive, and although Paul gets a bit sarcastic to the Corinthians, I can’t imagine in a million years the Holy Spirit moving anyone to write like that.

    It’s embarrassing to me, because I consider them brothers but it pains me to say it.

  135. Let me just make a comment on the homosexuality issue. My own views on the subject are “traditional” in that I do not believe the Bible supports same-sex relationships. However I recognise that others will take a different view. I also don’t believe a homosexual orientation is sinful in itself.

    But the thing is this. The homosexual community is a minority grouping which is subject to persecution and discrimination. And just as a white person cannot really understand what it is like to be black, so straight people can’t really understand what it is to be gay. Yet the church consistently (1) fails to extend the love of Jesus to homosexuals and (2) focuses disproportionately on homosexuality. From the Vicky Beeching meme to far more extreme expressions of hatred, it seems that many Christians regard homosexuals as modern-day lepers, diseased outcasts who are permanently unclean in God’s eyes. It is clear from the ministry of Jesus that it is people like these, rejected by the religious authorities, who are particularly loved by God.

    So I guess what I’m trying to say is: (1) People like Joe Carter should stop pontificating about homosexuality and rather spend time talking with homosexuals at length and learning who they are and why they feel the way they do. I’m sure most people who write about homosexuality (including myself) don’t know any homosexuals. (2) The evangelical establishment should stop pointing the finger at “others” as if they are public enemy number one and rather do some serious self-examination and sort out the many own problems in their own camp.

  136. @ Ian:
    Hi IAN,
    my Church agrees with you that having a same-sex orientation is not a sin in itself

    I think the Church has a lot to repent for in some of the treatment it has dealt out to LBGT people and to their families. I hope in time, the Church will come to realize that all of that ‘truth in love’ business was just plain unkindness dressed up in Christianese.

    What is more offensive is that when the public expresses support for LBGT people, and tells the persecutors to ‘stop’;
    then some ‘christians’ holler ‘we are being persecuted’ or they ‘demand their religious freedom to harass those they consider ‘sinners’.

    I think God made some people ‘different’ so that He could more easily figure out who the REAL self-righteous pharisees were who would treat ‘different’ people poorly. 🙂

  137. @ ishy:
    So true about the first definition of a cult is submission to authority. They also appeal to the authority of scripture–their interpretation, of course. They also appeal to the authority of creeds. They appeal to the authority of the church as institution– which really means the leaders. They cover all the authority bases except –Jesus Christ as the authority for each individual.

  138. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    *rolls eyes* I’m going to stick to cat macros and “let me sing you the song of my people” memes.

    I joined the Dogspotting group on Facebook, and the quality of my newsfeed improved immediately.

    elastigirl wrote:

    brings to mind Professor Ralph Elliott (professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, authored “The Message Of Genesis” 1961, explosives thrown at house)
    “We received threatening telephone calls. And once, explosives were thrown on our front porch, damaging the door. For a while the police had to escort our children home from public school.”

    My dad holds the “Conservative Resurgence” (or as I prefer to call it, “fundamentalist takeover”) nearly on par with Martin Luther nailing up his 95 theses. I knew about what was done to Dr. Klouda (spelling?), but this is sickening on a whole new level.

  139. Christiane wrote:

    my Church agrees with you that having a same-sex orientation is not a sin in itself

    While I’ve heard a spectrum of opinions on non-straight orientations from various Catholic Christians online, some of which were frankly as odious as anything coming from Protestant spheres (*cough* Austin Ruse *cough*), if we go by the language Pope Francis uses, the RCC on an official level seems to have about the most compassionate stance of any of the traditionally minded denominations today.

    By contrast, there’s Denny Burk, who teaches that merely experiencing “same-sex attraction” – mind you, not even lust – is a sin of which one must repent. So it’s no wonder that outsiders rightly recognize that as being damaging to LGBT individuals, if that’s where the SBC is on the topic (and don’t get me started on Pope Mohler, who believes that it’s a sin to delay [straight] marriage…).

  140. Ian wrote:

    People like Joe Carter should stop pontificating about homosexuality and rather spend time talking with homosexuals at length and learning who they are and why they feel the way they do.

    Sam Allbury (sp?) has writing that is often featured on TGC, and he is a single guy who wrestles with same-sex attraction. I think Rosaria Butterfield has been immensely helpful to the reformed community understand the subject as well.

  141. I haven’t read all the comments yet. But I read Carter’s post when it first came out. I thought he very unfairly targeted women, but I have had very negative experiences with the people he described (primarily one man in particular). When I say negative, I mean hostile and abusive towards us. It was really just one individual, so I wouldn’t say huge problem. An entire blog post is something of an overreaction.

  142. Josh wrote:

    if we go by the language Pope Francis uses, the RCC on an official level seems to have about the most compassionate stance of any of the traditionally minded denominations today.

    the RCC has been openly penitent in the USA on how LBGT folks were treated, and it has apologized and asked forgiveness from LBGT parents also …. this is something I am proud of, as I cannot judge anyone who is ‘different’ myself, being the mother of a Down Syndrome child and having been on the end of some pretty heavy bullying myself as his mother in the early days when the syndrome was not well-known or accepted as it is today.

    Strange, how experiencing difficulty for one ‘difference’ gives you compassion and empathy also for those who may be poorly treated for a different kind of ‘difference’, but God helps us to understand through suffering …. it’s one way He opens our eyes, yes.

    As for that ‘Austin Ruse’ person, I have never heard of him, but I can tell you straight up that just because ‘a mouse in in the cookie jar, doesn’t make him a cookie’ 🙂
    I’ll look him up and see what he’s been up to. The Church has got its share of prideful fools, and I have no excuse for any of us. 🙂 Thanks for communicating, Josh.

  143. @ Christiane:
    JOSH: yikes! just looked up Ruse and was directed to Right Wing Watch and you were right ….. heavy LBGT persecution from this guy …. another sick one, yes

  144. @ Josh:
    JOSH: yikes! just looked up Ruse and was directed to Right Wing Watch and you were right ….. heavy LBGT persecution from this guy …. another sick one, yes

  145. Josh wrote:

    By contrast, there’s Denny Burk, who teaches that merely experiencing “same-sex attraction” – mind you, not even lust – is a sin of which one must repent. So it’s no wonder that outsiders rightly recognize that as being damaging to LGBT individuals, if that’s where the SBC is on the topic (and don’t get me started on Pope Mohler, who believes that it’s a sin to delay [straight] marriage…).

    Seems to me the SBC has had homosexuals to kick around forever and about 20 years ago added women.

  146. Josh wrote:

    if we go by the language Pope Francis uses, the RCC on an official level seems to have about the most compassionate stance of any of the traditionally minded denominations today.

    But then they’re just Satan’s Counterfeit/Romish Popery…

  147. Christiane wrote:

    What is more offensive is that when the public expresses support for LBGT people, and tells the persecutors to ‘stop’;
    then some ‘christians’ holler ‘we are being persecuted’ or they ‘demand their religious freedom to harass those they consider ‘sinners’.

    Don’t you know that “PERSECTUIION(TM)” means not being allowed to persecute everyone else?

  148. Joe Reed wrote:

    Sam Allbury (sp?) has writing that is often featured on TGC, and he is a single guy who wrestles with same-sex attraction. I think Rosaria Butterfield has been immensely helpful to the reformed community understand the subject as well.

    As a straight woman, I find neither Allberry nor Butterfield very helpful at all. I would never, ever recommend either one to my LGBT friends unless I was looking to permanently offend them.. But then again, my opinion on LGBT persons is one reason I am firmly outside the charmed circle of the household of faith.

  149. Ian wrote:

    Let me just make a comment on the homosexuality issue. My own views on the subject are “traditional” in that I do not believe the Bible supports same-sex relationships. However I recognise that others will take a different view. I also don’t believe a homosexual orientation is sinful in itself.
    But the thing is this. The homosexual community is a minority grouping which is subject to persecution and discrimination. And just as a white person cannot really understand what it is like to be black, so straight people can’t really understand what it is to be gay. Yet the church consistently (1) fails to extend the love of Jesus to homosexuals and (2) focuses disproportionately on homosexuality. From the Vicky Beeching meme to far more extreme expressions of hatred, it seems that many Christians regard homosexuals as modern-day lepers, diseased outcasts who are permanently unclean in God’s eyes. It is clear from the ministry of Jesus that it is people like these, rejected by the religious authorities, who are particularly loved by God.
    So I guess what I’m trying to say is: (1) People like Joe Carter should stop pontificating about homosexuality and rather spend time talking with homosexuals at length and learning who they are and why they feel the way they do. I’m sure most people who write about homosexuality (including myself) don’t know any homosexuals. (2) The evangelical establishment should stop pointing the finger at “others” as if they are public enemy number one and rather do some serious self-examination and sort out the many own problems in their own camp.

    (1) and (2) are excellent. Spot on.

  150. ishy wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    This needs to be part of the conversation: http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/
    It’s Kevin DeYoung’s response to the comments on Carter’s post. Just posted today on TGC.
    – – – – –
    ishy said:
    I am laughing so hard right now. His points describe nearly everything about Carter’s article. “Wolves are impatient with demands for verbal clarity.” LOL!!

    Holy Guacamole.

    Yes, I think Deb and Dee need to cover this guy’s post as well… though I know they are very busy and probably have enough material to on their plates right now to churn out 67 posts.

    I have only just skimmed over the headings up and down De Young’s page about Carter’s page.

    Some of the things De Young is accusing wolves of (the people leaving comments on Carter’s post, apparently) are true of himself and/or of Carter and other TGC alums.

    I mean, regarding this:
    “4. Wolves are impatient with demands for verbal clarity.”

    That sounds pretty true of Carter. Carter’s post was vague, imprecise, etc, and he seemed to be impatient with the folks in his comment box who were saying, “Your essay is not very clear. What are you trying to say”

    From that page by deYoung:

    4. Wolves are impatient with demands for verbal clarity.

    False teaching thrives on ambiguity. It eschews careful attention to words and definitions. The Arians were willing to live with doctrinal imprecision. It was Athanasius and the orthodox party that insisted on defining terms. And they insisted on saying not just what was right but what was wrong. Good shepherds are willing to define and delimit. Don’t trust teachers who love to emote more than they love to be clear.

    Um. Carter’s page was fairly ambiguous.

    Nobody can be 100% precise on all doctrine. Nobody gets 100% of the Bible correct 100% of the time. I hope DeYoung is not implying that he and/or Carter and/or other TGC guys do have all their doctrine completely correct, and they are the only ones who totally understand all of the Bible correctly. If so, that is the height of arrogance.

    He said,
    “Good shepherds are willing to define and delimit.”

    Yes, and Carter was not willing to define and delimit.

    He said,
    “Don’t trust teachers who love to emote more than they love to be clear.”

    But he wants us to unquestioningly trust, and submit to his, DeYoung’s ,and TGC’s authority and teaching.
    LOLOLOL.

    I have not even read over the rest of his page yet.

  151. Daisy wrote:

    Holy Guacamole.

    P.S. that was not meant to slam guacamole, or to take guacamole in vain. I like guacamole. 🙂

  152. One quick thought without having read the comments– I suspect “broken wolf”, like “Christian hedonist”, is an oxymoron.

  153. Janey wrote:

    Wait, wait. The sin of these “broken wolves” is sexual in nature?

    I think it’s partly that, but that falls under a heading of “not submitting to biblical authority”

  154. ishy wrote:

    He pretty much made an open call to attack any woman who anyone thought was a “broken wolf”.

    I don’t think he’s considered that some of the women he labels as broken wolves don’t stay broken. Some do come to a place of healing and aren’t broken anymore – which makes them even stronger, and all the better able to stand up to guys like him.

  155. Christiane wrote:

    JOSH: yikes! just looked up Ruse and was directed to Right Wing Watch and you were right ….. heavy LBGT persecution from this guy …. another sick one, yes

    I don’t claim Franklin Graham as one of my own, so I don’t expect you or Catholicism as a whole to own the vitriol that Ruse puts out. Every group is going to have a bad apple or two. : )

    Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    As a straight woman, I find neither Allberry nor Butterfield very helpful at all. I would never, ever recommend either one to my LGBT friends unless I was looking to permanently offend them.

    I can’t speak to Allberry, but Butterfield has been influential in reinforcing in numerous conservative evangelical acquaintances of mine the idea that “homosexuals” choose their orientation and can “change” and “become straight” (sorry, I had an attack of the scare quotes, my bad…). If someone commended her work to me, I’d not be offended, but I’d sure as heck not have any interest in paying heed to anything else they’d have to offer on the topic.

  156. SeminaryChamp wrote:
    (Quoting Joe Carter):

    I’ve dealt with WW for over a decade and they are one of the most hateful groups on the internet.

    I suspect “hateful” to him means anyone (especially women?) speaking directly and bluntly and criticizing him or any pastor, church, or denomination.

    I was raised by my very traditional gender role mother to think it’s unfeminine, mean, or “un Christ like” for a girl or women to be direct, be assertive.

    (Which is kind of odd, because my father is a very out-spoken, grumpy, bold, and direct kind of guy. I partly take after my father in that, but had to repress it for years and years in deference to my mother’s wishes and parenting.)

    Joe Carter – my days of being a passive, meek, doormat are over. Funny that you consider challenging you or your views (and being direct about it) is “hateful.”

  157. Daisy wrote:

    Some do come to a place of healing and aren’t broken anymore – which makes them even stronger, and all the better able to stand up to guys like him.

    I ever so sincerely believe that the kind of women you describe are what Joe Carter believes are part of the “broken wolf” population.

  158. Lea wrote:

    It was a messy article, and too vague and I think was on purpose. Some of these guys like to write in circles and then accusing everyone else of misunderstanding.

    Maybe Joe Carter is taking the lead from Doug Wilson, who is also super vague in his essays and then accuses anyone who misunderstands his essays as the ones being at fault.

    Doug Wilson is a master of saying one thing, or making something really vague, and then later backtracking and insisting everyone who read his work got it all wrong, here’s what he “really” meant.

  159. Daisy wrote:

    Joe Carter – my days of being a passive, meek, doormat are over. Funny that you consider challenging you or your views (and being direct about it) is “hateful.”

    I pray for the day all women will stand up to men like Joe Carter.

  160. Daisy wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    He pretty much made an open call to attack any woman who anyone thought was a “broken wolf”.

    I don’t think he’s considered that some of the women he labels as broken wolves don’t stay broken. Some do come to a place of healing and aren’t broken anymore – which makes them even stronger, and all the better able to stand up to guys like him.

    On the contrary, that may be exactly who is talking about.

    They had something bad happen or a bad experience, they learned from it. They changed.

    That’s precisely what he hates.

  161. Nancy2 wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:
    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.
    What about when the second punch is made by the same person that made the first punch?

    Good way of putting it. That is pretty much what Carter and now DeYoung’s posts are doing. They or their cronies and/or their teaching victimizes people, then they blame the victims for speaking out against being abused…

    As I saw someone on another site say, Carter’s essay about Broken Wolves was an exercise in gas lighting. I agree to a degree. He’s basically abusing the abused but telling them they are abusers.

  162. @ Josh:

    Butterfield is female right? That’s interesting since I think more women are able to transition back and forth with sexuality than men. Or at least, in my acquaintance I’ve seen it happen more. But certainly not for all.

    Reparative therapy clearly doesn’t work at all.

  163. dee wrote:

    @ SeminaryChamp:
    We are responding to this today if I ever can get a few minuted of quiet. Kooky day.

    I know you guys must be really busy, but I hope you at least deal with DeYoung’s recent post referencing Carter’s soon (the one someone linked to in this thread somewhere)

  164. Some responses V asked “Hmmmm…I honestly didn’t get what Brian was referring to. I just show up at Bible studies and I am myself. I don’t have the power to destroy someone’s faith…by just being me.”

    Yes, that is what I was told, having seen many people “escorted” out of bible studies, and communion services either by elders or police a few times, it is clear that just being yourself can get you booted out. It can also get your family attacked financially, job threatened, losing your housing if you live with church people, lose your friends etc. That on top of the fact that if by your questions you cause a little one to stumble God will retaliate against you. God most likely will retaliate anyway but He will do it more and for longer than eternity. If that is possible. Asking questions terrified me because of the potential for retaliation, public rebuke, mocking, threatening, …….. It was and is a very effective control mechanism which does and always will justify its use in the machine but it leaves lasting scars.Like Mr. Carter posted in response to someone discussing WW that you warn a divisive person one then twice if they cause division any more God will kill them. I actually believed that it terrified me, which is stupid and I admit it.

    C asked “Brian, do you think that, if Joe is sincere, his use of ‘wolves’ is ‘projecting’?”

    This is one of my many character, spiritual, human flaws but I try to believe everyone is sincere. I have been rebuked for that a few times along with grieving complaining about pain and asking for prayers to many times. But yes I try to. After what I have seen the past few days I will admit not so much now.

    What has been drilled into my soul so strongly and keeps resurfacing even though I know it’s not true is that God so totally hates us all, even those in Christ but because the Father killed Jesus because of His wrath and eternal rage towards us it barely covers just how vile we are. Even the imperfections in our cell division are such a vile affront to a Holy and Righteous God. Nothing impure, corrupted, tarnished, ruined, depraved can be viewed by God, unless it is in hell where God will also be present as He pours out His eternal wrath on pretty much most of humanity. That is the rather mild version of what I was “taught”.

    Then I see the people I work with and I see such a different view of God and the Gospel which so contrasts the Dogmatic aspects of many evangelical tenants of the faith. I remember the “worm” theology, my first response which I deleted before I posted it was worms have a use. I am seeing just how such teaching has permeated my thinking process and how damaging it is. I am so blessed to have the type of work I have.

  165. I just skimmed through the comments on JC’s “broken wolves” article. The comments that are getting the most up-votes are the ones that are nailing him to the wall!

  166. Janey wrote:

    Actually, they idolize what they WISH the Puritans taught. They don’t read Puritan source documents. They just posit their own beliefs and claim the Puritans believed the same.
    Divorce for example. These NeoCals never tell you the Puritans introduced divorce into the Colonies. The first divorce granted by the Puritans (for which we have documentation that has survived) was in 1620. Puritans also granted divorces for cruelty, abandonment, impotence, and adultery (if the woman was the adulterer).

    Also (discusses the Puritan’s attitudes about women, sex, marriage -it sure isn’t what TGC believes in):
    http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wanted-sex-much-more-men?page=0%2C2&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston.

    His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of.

    Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years.

    Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him.

    The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men.

    A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her.

    That is totally opposite to what TGC type guys teach and believe these days. Total opposite.

  167. Velour wrote:

    Joe,
    What does physical violence have to do with confronting false and destructive teachings?
    Nothing.

    Joe is one of those guys like KAS over at Julie Anne’s SSB blog. Just likes to be a drive-by pot stirrer or fly in the ointment.

  168. Joe Reed wrote:

    Sam Allbury (sp?) has writing that is often featured on TGC, and he is a single guy who wrestles with same-sex attraction. I think Rosaria Butterfield has been immensely helpful to the reformed community understand the subject as well.

    Hmm. So this Sam guy is to TGC what Mary Kassian is to CBMW, a token?

    I think it takes more than just one of a kind doing a small number of guest blog posts to get through to folks like Joe Carter.

    I notice when I visit complementarian sites, 99% of their material is about marriage and for married people.

    Such sites have hardly anything by or for single adults, and the content they DO have for singles is assuming we will all get married, which doesn’t help folks like me who are over 40 and still not married yet (and may never be).

    I’m not sure it’s fair or helpful for Christians or their organizations to fixate on 99% of the population and ignore the one percent as they do.

  169. @ Lea:

    “It was a messy article, and too vague and I think was on purpose. Some of these guys like to write in circles and then accusing everyone else of misunderstanding. They don’t like to say things in a straightforward manner because then it’s easier for people to tear their arguments apart.

    Which is why they just women to attack other women, so they don’t have to look mean. But people who comment anonymously on the internet are the cowards.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    i dunno, makes me think of The Hunger Games.

    The Hunger Games are a display of power. It is capitol’s way of saying “We own you ” and we will do whatever we want to,to whomsoever we want to,so don’t you dare raise your voice against us. As president Snow says “Hope is the only thing stronger than fear” . The capitol uses the fear to keep the people of panem under control.

    stirring up fear in people with all the “wolves” talk, trying to get people to be “cause-y”.
    inciting not so much violence as aggressive confrontation in people, being so ridiculously vague about it. playing with their minds. so the people who joe has managed to rally do the dirty work while Joe and other immaculate ones keep their hands clean & remain in their ivory towers, watching it all happen.

  170. Robert wrote:

    Basically it was the worst of human nature all coming together for one tragic event. I wonder if we’ll ever know precisely what set it off. As I recall it started with some of the girls behaving oddly.

    About 40 years before the witch trials, my Massachusets grandcestor Mary was friendly with a widow woman. The widow woman’s neighbors had a young daughter who suffered a breakdown after being jilted. So the neighbors sued the widow for witchcraft (after all– couldn’t have been the cad’s fault, could it?) This sort of thing would then be handled strictly in civil court. Mary testified on behalf of the widow that she was a good Christian who would never dream of witchery. The judge ended up ordering the parties to pay each other something like 5 pounds for the badmouthing they’d been doing. A generation later and Mary might have ended up on the gallows.

  171. Lea wrote:

    On the contrary, that may be exactly who is talking about.
    They had something bad happen or a bad experience, they learned from it. They changed.
    That’s precisely what he hates.

    If that is the case, I may be one of the women he hates, But I think I would prefer the term “Sheep Dog”

    Sheep Dog – one who tells the still-naive or vulnerable sheep out there that Carter, TGC, and complementarianism are Wolves to be avoided.

  172. Lea wrote:

    Butterfield is female right? That’s interesting since I think more women are able to transition back and forth with sexuality than men. Or at least, in my acquaintance I’ve seen it happen more. But certainly not for all.

    Yes she is. From what I’ve seen of the work of Dr. Lisa Diamond, the percentage of women who experience their sexuality in a fluid or bisexual way is greater than the percentage of men who experience the same.

    Reparative therapy clearly doesn’t work at all.

    The facts show that to be undeniable, such that the folks still riding the “change is possible” bandwagon are only discrediting themselves. Of course, it’s a salve to the conscience to punt with “change is possible” rather than having to live with the reality that a blanket prohibition of all intimate and even non-physical close same-sex relationships puts a terrible burden exclusively on a long-reviled community – with insult added to injury in that the church is not willing to step up and be a close community for those who are single (whether they’re single by choice, by unfortunate circumstance, or by imposition of mandatory lifelong celibacy).

  173. @ mot:

    “I pray for the day all women will stand up to men like Joe Carter.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    …joined by all the men, of course.

    the initiative to start it doesn’t have to come from a woman.

  174. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Divorce Minister:
    One of the commenters said that Carter’s “broken wolf” accusation was nothing more than an attempt to cull injured sheep from the flock.

    Whether or not that’s the intention…it may very well be the effect.

  175. Josh wrote:

    Butterfield has been influential in reinforcing in numerous conservative evangelical acquaintances of mine the idea that “homosexuals” choose their orientation

    Funny. She helped me see that they didn’t choose it, and gave me some understanding for the legitimacy of the term “orientation.”

  176. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Uplifting Christian Charity Department?
    http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/04/21/an-apology-to-the-eastern-orthodoxy-community/

    I saw original articles charitably telling the Bible answer man to go to hell, but missed Hall’s “apology”. The only group to whom he forgot to “apologize” was the Arminians who hide under little children’s beds to scare ’em half to death. The Deebs were truly charitable toward JD a couple years back.

  177. Joe Reed wrote:

    I just wonder what it would take to actually get the two sides to talk to each other, not at each other, to treat each other as family, not enemies.

    Writing an article, such as Joe Carter has written, doesn’t promote communication in any way at all as far as I can tell. There is no family atmosphere in Joe’s words at all.

  178. Daisy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Joe,
    What does physical violence have to do with confronting false and destructive teachings?
    Nothing.
    Joe is one of those guys like KAS over at Julie Anne’s SSB blog. Just likes to be a drive-by pot stirrer or fly in the ointment.

    I gathered as much.

  179. Joe Reed wrote:

    Maybe the most valuable lesson my Dad ever taught me was that “he hit me first” doesn’t suspend the “don’t hit your brother” rule. In other words, the second punch is no more justifiable than the first.

    This may well be the truth, but also true is the clear and unavoidable fact that when confronted with the issue of those who, in the name of the church, took advantage of people, abused them, etc., that our Lord, when He walked among us, overturned their tables, scattering their money for the rabble to take, then grabbed a whip and went right after them–as an added bonus, he confronted church leaders who were abusive with epithets like “sons of hell”, “whitewashed tombs”, “blind guides”, etc. So long as this fits within your paradigm, fine.

  180. emily honey wrote:

    I’m up late with sinus issues and can’t sleep, and have been thinking about this article and the world it reveals for the past few days.
    I wish I could put into words how horribly men from these groups treated me, and how much discouragement, pain, and disillusionment they caused and created in my life that I am not sure when or how it will ever end. They do not know what they do and how far it reaches into and effects someone’s life. I think some do know, and don’t care.
    They will spin everything for women to make it seem like bitterness (and who can tell what that word means anymore.) Or they will not so subtly or subtly infer that something is wrong with you or there is something inferior in your character or ability to perceive and understand reality though the exact opposite may be (and is likely) true.
    And they can’t actually explain what that could be or name it while you can thoughtfully engage and specifically name and diagnose problems in the system and treatments and people that are hurting and sometimes abusing you. They avoid dealing with your person or your story directly as a way to not have to back up what they are insinuating. They will do whatever avoidance techniques are necessary so they do not have to self-reflect on their own behavior/s and complicity.
    They will mistreat you, then pretend like you are the problem for bringing it up or standing up for yourself or other people. Or kind of scold you in a bait and switch type way for not bringing it up sooner or later or in the exact right way. And don’t be blunt about it or confident and to the point or be really articulate about it – because now you are surely getting uppity with your woman self and God forbid also there might be real sadness or real (righteous) anger behind the things that have repeatedly happened to you and other people.
    Basically, no matter what or how you say it or how you are, it betrays to them “lack of submission”, the cardinal sin. And you’re getting that air about you that you are trying to equally speak, think, and play on their playing field and in the things of heaven and kingdom that only *they* are supposed to touch and decide on. Don’t you know that?
    The social system and norms (many unspoken or inconsistent from what is being said and presented) and power differentials are implemented as such that there is no way for you to succeed in bringing up pain or disagreement that shines light on discomforting truths or something potentially wrong, very wrong, in their system. The whole thing is set up to fail for you. Doomed either way, and in *any* way, up or down, east or west.
    Enable. Conform. Take it on the chin from them and then come ask them for an ice pack, then repeat this same process as necessary. Perform. Behavioral modification and forced pleasantries, but no digging down and pulling out and looking at the roots and hearts of the matter.
    No thanks. I think I’ll leave.
    Pray for my healing. I desperately need it in so many ways.

    What you’re referring to is called gaslighting, and it does not come from a Spirit of the Lord, but from hell itself.

  181. Joe Reed wrote:

    But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.

    I agree. So let’s look at what Joe, the Christian authority man leader, said about other believers, can we? Did you read his article and his comments?

    I don’t bother to respond to such nastiness as I read coming from Joe.

  182. Joe Reed wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    Second punch??? Could you please clarify?
    If I told my Dad “he started it!” he’d always say, “that doesn’t give you the right to hit.”
    I love banter and discussion, you know that. But when some take to calling other brothers cult leaders and women haters non-Christians and such things that are just plain mean, not to mention not true, it only serves to drive deeper wedges in the Body, and that makes me sad.
    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

    Please, Joe, you don’t know that these people are brothers. In fact, I’d say their attitude betrays an attitude exactly the opposite of brothers. Jesus called people “{snakes”, “sons of hell”, etc. That’s the way He referred to those who lorded it over others and were abusive. In all candor, you sound pretty pathetic logging in here and scolding people, many of whom have suffered a great deal of abuse from those who likely wouldn’t know Jesus if He approached them and gave them a kiss on the cheek.

    Personally, I think you’re well meaning but absolutely clueless, foolish in the extreme and misguided here. I just think you don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m tired of reading you scold people who are not as ignorant as you. Just drop it, it’s vulgar and ungodly.

  183. Daisy wrote:

    Some of the things De Young is accusing wolves of (the people leaving comments on Carter’s post, apparently) are true of himself and/or of Carter and other TGC alums.

    That’s what surprised me about DeYoung’s post. It almost looked like he was rebuking Carter. Rich irony. Maybe TGC’s strategy is to overwhelm “discernment blogs” by giving them too much material to work with. That is very disrespectful of the Deeb’s time.

  184. Law Prof wrote:

    our Lord, when He walked among us, overturned their tables, scattering their money for the rabble to take, then grabbed a whip and went right after them–as an added bonus, he confronted church leaders who were abusive with epithets like “sons of hell”, “whitewashed tombs”, “blind guides”, etc. So long as this fits within your paradigm, fine.

    Of course. Jesus didn’t do that every day, nor with every person, but yeah, there’s a place for that. The same eyes that wept over the city flashed with anger at the corruption in it.

    It’s funny – I typically am tempted to tell the people being stern or unkind with me that Jesus was loving and kind so they should be too, and then tell the people who irk me that Jesus flogged people, so that’s what I’m (metaphorically and verbally) doing too! He walked that line better than I could ever do.

  185. Joe Reed wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    our Lord, when He walked among us, overturned their tables, scattering their money for the rabble to take, then grabbed a whip and went right after them–as an added bonus, he confronted church leaders who were abusive with epithets like “sons of hell”, “whitewashed tombs”, “blind guides”, etc. So long as this fits within your paradigm, fine.
    Of course. Jesus didn’t do that every day, nor with every person, but yeah, there’s a place for that. The same eyes that wept over the city flashed with anger at the corruption in it.
    It’s funny – I typically am tempted to tell the people being stern or unkind with me that Jesus was loving and kind so they should be too, and then tell the people who irk me that Jesus flogged people, so that’s what I’m (metaphorically and verbally) doing too! He walked that line better than I could ever do.

    I don’t know exactly what you mean (except perhaps you’re taking an indirect shot at me by implying I’m “stern or unkind”), but I tell you what, Joe, in my Bible Jesus was ALWAYS ripping the living daylights out of those who, in the name of God, kicked down at the people beneath them, such as Joe taking snide shots at the so-called “broken wolves”. No exceptions. Can you find one for me? I do not take backhanded shots at people because I believe that such behavior is straight from hell. I also have noticed in my years on this earth that indirect shots are part-and-parcel of the YRR movement of which Joe has established himself as a key player. Let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”. I don’t have time for indirect snide remarks. I don’t think Jesus did, either.

    Jesus walked a lot of lines, but one line He never walked was to pussy foot around with crap such as is coming from the movement that Joe Carter represents. Bad news, don’t try to be an apologist for it. Again, vulgar, ungodly. Am I being too direct for your sensibilities?

  186. Joe Reed wrote:

    Funny. She helped me see that they didn’t choose it, and gave me some understanding for the legitimacy of the term “orientation.”

    Butterfield also plays a role in telling women we should be submissive to men. She used to be a college professor but now she’s a pastor’s wife. Her sexual history aside, she’d be held up as an example of a woman who “came home” from the evil world of feminism and the corrupt, worldly university. Again, I’m terribly unimpressed, but I’ve been working for the last 40+ years of my life and supporting myself for the vast majority of those years.

  187. Ken F wrote:

    Maybe TGC’s strategy is to overwhelm “discernment blogs” by giving them too much material to work with. That is very disrespectful of the Deeb’s time.

    LOL. 🙂

  188. Joe Reed wrote:

    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

    Who here was being mean to TGC? Who specifically are you talking about, and can you please give examples?

  189. @ mot:

    elastigirl wrote: “…joined by all the men, of course”

    mot wrote: “Absolutely!! I am for it 10000% I am willing to pay the price that comes with the support.”
    +++++++++++++++

    oh mot, you deserve to wear a big red and yellow S for SUPER man, and a red cape. red boots, red speedo and blue tights under the speedo are optional.

  190. @ Ken F:

    Daisy wrote: “Some of the things De Young is accusing wolves of (the people leaving comments on Carter’s post, apparently) are true of himself and/or of Carter and other TGC alums.”

    Ken F wrote: “That’s what surprised me about DeYoung’s post. It almost looked like he was rebuking Carter. Rich irony. Maybe TGC’s strategy is to overwhelm “discernment blogs” by giving them too much material to work with.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    are any of them really that bright?

  191. Muslin, fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Butterfield also plays a role in telling women we should be submissive to men. She used to be a college professor but now she’s a pastor’s wife. Her sexual history aside, she’d be held up as an example of a woman who “came home” from the evil world of feminism and the corrupt, worldly university. Again, I’m terribly unimpressed, but I’ve been working for the last 40+ years of my life and supporting myself for the vast majority of those years.

    It’s sad that her story can be and is being used to oppress not just LGBT people, but women in general. I would be shocked if she wasn’t aware that this was going on, but I’m not surprised that she’s done nothing to distance herself from the people who are using her story to bludgeon professional women and LGBT people who refuse to refer to themselves as “straight” and seek out marriage with an opposite-sex partner. If she’s legitimately served to enlighten a person or two, that’s great, but the evidence seems to indicate that that’s an unintended side effect.

  192. Daisy wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:

    And if TGC was mean first – that’s still no excuse.

    Who here was being mean to TGC? Who specifically are you talking about, and can you please give examples?

    Joe Reed Rule #1: The TGC Can Do No Wrong.
    Joe Reed Rule #2: See Rule #1.
    Joe Reed Rule #3: See Rule #1.
    Joe Reed Rule #4: See Rule #1.

  193. Dave A A wrote:

    The only group to whom he forgot to “apologize” was the Arminians who hide under little children’s beds to scare ’em half to death.

    Remember this:
    During the Reformation Wars, the only thing the Pope, Luther, and Calvin could agree on was The Final Solution to the Anabaptist Problem.

  194. elastigirl wrote:

    stirring up fear in people with all the “wolves” talk, trying to get people to be “cause-y”.
    inciting not so much violence as aggressive confrontation in people, being so ridiculously vague about it. playing with their minds. so the people who joe has managed to rally do the dirty work while Joe and other immaculate ones keep their hands clean & remain in their ivory towers, watching it all happen.

    Sounds like a combination of “Let Bubba Do It” doxing and “One Sociopath in Two Bodies”.

    (“One Sociopath, Two Bodies” refers to the dynamic between “I Was Only Following Orders” and “I did nothing (and you can’t prove I ever did), I only Indicated What Could/Should/Needed To Be Done”.)

  195. Daisy wrote:

    I notice when I visit complementarian sites, 99% of their material is about marriage and for married people.

    How else can you Outbreed the Heathen and/or spawn Uruk-Hai for Culture War Without End?

  196. Daisy wrote:

    That is totally opposite to what TGC type guys teach and believe these days. Total opposite.

    Just like ISIS tries to be More Islamic than Mohammed, so TGC tries to be More Puritan than the Puritans. Can You Top This?

  197. Lea wrote:

    @ Josh:
    Butterfield is female right? That’s interesting since I think more women are able to transition back and forth with sexuality than men. Or at least, in my acquaintance I’ve seen it happen more. But certainly not for all.

    All I know from observation (not direct experience!) is that “Hawt Lezbo Action” is a common type of pornography for a straight male audience.

    Reparative therapy clearly doesn’t work at all.

    I think it does work on a small subset of cases, and the Pray-the-Gay-Away crowd only publicize their successes, never the greater number of failures.

    I don’t have the book in front of me, but on my shelves back home is a Christian sexuality psych book by a therapist in Canada. In it, he relates how he was same-sex molested by a (Protestant!) youth pastor around puberty, and the effects that molestation had on him.

    He related that up until the molestation, he was starting to get aroused by pictures and sight of FEMALE bodies as he entered puberty. AFTER the molestation, he found the sight of MALE bodies and pics of MALE genitalia would sexually arouse him. This SSA arousal gradually faded away over the next couple years; apparently the molestation created an “SSA overlay” over a basic Straight orientation that faded over time without reinforcement.

    Two corollaries, both of which fuel propaganda for their respective factions:

    1) What if (as could happen now) he was “diagnosed” as Gay and streamed into the Gay Community/Gay Activist trip? (San Fran even has Gay high schools, but that city overreacts to EVERYTHING.) That could have the effect of reinforcing the SSA overlay until he might as well have been “Born This Way”.

    2) On the flip side of (1), I can see how Reparative Therapy could have worked on him, weakening/removing the SSA overlay by reinforcing the core orientation. Effectively repairing the damage done by the molestation. This would also fit with the Christianese Family Values Warrior trope I heard in-country about how Homos reproduce, i.e. “They’re After Our Children to Convert Them” via same-sex molestation. These two memes reinforce each other so well that I’m sure the abovementioned Reparative Therapy successes (not the failures) are referring to molestation-caused SSA overlays and citing these as their Universal Example.

  198. Josh wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Can You Top This?
    I see your Doug “Penetrate, Conquer, Colonize, Plant” Wilson and raise you Kevin “Womb Tomb” “Homosexuals must be put to death” Swanson.

    Both of which are Incredibly Full of Themselves.

    PCCP Wilson strikes me as a straight cult-leader psychopath (a less successful David Miscavage), but Womb Tomb’s dorky appearance and voice makes me think of an Omega-male Dork who saw a way to ride God to Alpha Male status (by Divine Right) and is throwing his weight around HARD.

  199. Daisy wrote:

    Some do come to a place of healing and aren’t broken anymore – which makes them even stronger, and all the better able to stand up to guys like him.

    Which (to guys like him) Cannot Be Permitted To Happen. Ever.

  200. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    2) On the flip side of (1), I can see how Reparative Therapy could have worked on him, weakening/removing the SSA overlay by reinforcing the core orientation. Effectively repairing the damage done by the molestation.

    Ah, I could see how a case like that might be pushed out as some sort of success story, but the question is…would this not better have been accomplished by regular therapy that dealt with the abuse? If I were designing a study that’s what I would look at.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    All I know from observation

    Well, that’s acting, not reality. I have known several people women who switched back and forth based on whatever, whereas the men I’ve known either started out bi or straight in youth and quickly ditched it as they got more comfortable, or alternately got married and lived basically a lie/double life until it all came out. That has been what I’ve witnessed in life. Certainly not saying every woman is up for SS action, as represented in “film”.

  201. Lea wrote:

    Don’t let the fact that the bible focuses on love a million times keep you from being unloving, because there was that one verse that says women should submit!
    That’s what I’m getting from this.

    Awesome, Lea! Loved this so much, I quoted you in a comment I just made on DeYoung’s article. Hope you don’t mind!

  202. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    PCCP Wilson strikes me as a straight cult-leader psychopath (a less successful David Miscavage), but Womb Tomb’s dorky appearance and voice makes me think of an Omega-male Dork who saw a way to ride God to Alpha Male status (by Divine Right) and is throwing his weight around HARD.

    Jabba the Hutt, with a Bible!

  203. Ken F wrote:

    This needs to be part of the conversation: http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/

    It’s Kevin DeYoung’s response to the comments on Carter’s post. Just posted today on TGC.

    YES!

    I found in this part 3 an answer to what happens to neo-Cal thinking when Our Lord is no longer the lens through which all Scripture is to be examined:
    ” What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses. Wolves ignore the whole counsel of God. They like to take themes like love or justice or hospitality or law or grace and then round off all the edges of Scripture to fit this one big idea. The problem is not in trumpeting this glorious truths. The problem is that their understanding of the truth gets truncated, and the application of the truth gets one-dimensional. This often leads to unbiblical conclusions that can sound biblical. ” (K. DeYoung)

    These men have a problem with Christ Who brings light to the Scriptures, especially when Our Lord interferes with the agendas these men have justified based on isolated verses.

    DeYoung has given insight into the neo-Cal mindset and it is terrifyingly devoid of light.

  204. Christiane wrote:

    DeYoung has given insight into the neo-Cal mindset and it is terrifyingly devoid of light.

    “I KNOW I’m Right —
    I HAVE A VERSE!!!!!”
    (which actually originated in a commenter’s poem either here or at Internet Monk)

    Or (to paraphrase a particularly sicko YouTube meme):
    “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR!AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! …”
    (The video meme is footage of a bloody accident or other mass-destruction Darwin Award with the Islamic praise-phrase looped over the audio starting just as things really hit the fan.)

  205. Just want to point out a small piece of flawed logic:

    The main responses are:
    1) The problem is huge
    2) The problem doesn’t exist
    Only one can be true.

    Well, “the main responses” itself means that there were other responses. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and at most one of them can be true. But it’s more likely that neither 1 nor 2 is true.

  206. Christiane wrote:

    What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses.

    I read that this morning and it’s been perculating all day. The Neo Cal movement cannot exist on “big themes”. They must be able to string proof texts together.

    Ah. A big theme in scripture: God’s constant provision for our RESCUE.

  207. Josh wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    But if he was really attacking a problem of dealing with broken people, why make it vague on what kind of person he was talking about, then tell his female followers to go after and “attack” those they consider broken?

    My guess is that @ Ian is correct. In my estimation, though, Rachel Held Evans is old news, so he’s using dog whistles to stir up online attacks against Jen Hatmaker. With that said, I’m not sure how much he’s contributing, because from what I’ve heard, she’s already getting plenty of vitriol from Christians across the internet for no longer toeing the traditional line on matters of sexuality.

    I totally thought he was writing about Glennon Doyle Melton. But really, it shows that it could apply to any woman with a strong opinion that is willing to speak out for the gospel she knows.

  208. Leslie Vernick’s taking Joe Carter down for misquoting her article!

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves

    “Leslie Berg Vernick • 12 hours ago
    Joe,

    I don’t know you but I hope you receive my words in the spirit they are intended.
    I read your blog on Broken Wolves where you quoted me.

    After reading it through several times I’m not sure what population you are targeting as broken wolves. Since you are an editor as well as an author, I assume you are being purposefully vague. Many readers responded with questions for clarification as to who exactly is a broken wolf since there is no such phrase in Scripture? I’m curious why you do not answer their questions directly? Isn’t that what writers do? If people are fuzzy or unclear about what you meant, why don’t you make it plain?

    You quoted from an article I wrote, Three Ways to Spot a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing. However my article does not support the points you have written, therefore, I’m curious why you chose to quote me? Your blog says one of the primary ways that you can spot a broken wolf is by her refusal to submit to church authority. By that definition, Martin Luther was a broken wolf. What I said in my blog is that a wolf that masquerades as a sheep refuses to submit to any authority. He or she is his own authority. My definition includes any church authority that acts like a god with no accountability or true shepherding of the sheep.

    I wonder if you are mislabeling broken sheep, individuals who have been wounded and are crying out for help and justice, as broken wolves? I also indicated in my article that another sure sign of a wolf in sheep’s clothing is that he or she is an expert in deceit. Some of those responding to your blog refer to a scandalous church situation in which there were allegations of cover-up of sexual misconduct and abuse. The sheep who were harmed by that injustice are not going to be silenced. They are bleating loudly because they want accountability and justice. They know that wolves in sheep’s clothing are also abusing sheep in other churches. These sheep are not broken wolves. They are practicing Proverbs 31:8-9 where it says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless and see that they get justice.”

    Thank you for removing my words from your blog and if you haven’t do so yet, I am asking you to do so. I don’t want readers to assume that I support what you have written, especially since you are so vague in what you meant. I hope you will clarify your words so that those who have been hurt by this grave church situation do not think you are referring to them. All sheep including those that are wounded must do all they can to help other sheep from being devoured by ravenous wolves.”

    Leslie Vernick
    http://www.leslievernick.com

  209. @ Velour:

    Note: For those wanting to read the comments to Joe Carter’s article, including Christian therapist Leslie Vernick whose work/writing Joe quoted out of context and she took him to task for it:

    *Go to the link I posted for The Gospel Coalition website

    *Go down to the bottom of the page of the article to the green rectangle that says “Show Comments” and press that.

    *Scroll down a little to see Leslie’s comment or do a search of her name.

    Thanks.

  210. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Just want to point out a small piece of flawed logic:

    The main responses are:
    1) The problem is huge
    2) The problem doesn’t exist
    Only one can be true.

    oldthinkers undoublethink.

  211. Your seventh point is the one that jumped out at me. Did he even give passing reference to how to bring healing to the so-called “broken wolves” themselves?

  212. Ian wrote:

    So I guess what I’m trying to say is: (1) People like Joe Carter should stop pontificating about homosexuality and rather spend time talking with homosexuals at length and learning who they are and why they feel the way they do. I’m sure most people who write about homosexuality (including myself) don’t know any homosexuals. (2) The evangelical establishment should stop pointing the finger at “others” as if they are public enemy number one and rather do some serious self-examination and sort out the many own problems in their own camp.

    Thanks Ian. On TWW you have at least two – Josh and myself. I have happily integrated my sexuality and my faith and it really means a lot if people listen. I had to wrestle with the issue of why some people had same-sex attractions through no choice of their own. I also had to look at the deeper question of what the Bible actually condemned and why and also taking into account the fact that it does not hurt anyone else. The main question is “does it violate the law of thy neighbour” and it led me to a different conclusion to the traditional view.

    I meet many Christians who have difficulty reconciling their knowledge of certain passages to their compassion for gay people. I have a lot of respect for these people as I used to believe the same. But I have also met some smug and abusive Christians who say things like “if the Bible is homophobic so be it – it’s your problem!” I can hear the contempt in their voices and I see it in their faces. It does not show the love of Christ. It only shows an idolatry of marriage and an idolatry of the written text.

    This is a good starting point: Good parents set rules for the wellbeing of their children. They don’t decide to make random rules and then decide to have children to merely make them slaves to the rules. The rules have no value of themselves and they cease to be of any use if they are not benefiting the children. If the children use the rule book as a substitute for a relationship with the parents something is wrong. And something is very wrong if they start using the rules to clobber their brothers and sisters. Yet many Gospel Coalition churches do this with their attitudes “the Bible says and we must obey it no matter what…”

  213. Joe Reed wrote:

    Sam Allbury (sp?) has writing that is often featured on TGC, and he is a single guy who wrestles with same-sex attraction

    Sam Allberry has spoken out about his “wrestling with same-sex attraction” and encourages other Christians to follow his example. But he has spoken at Matt Chandler’s church, wrote on John Piper’s website, had conferences with Albert Mohler, seems to be friendly with Mahaney and writes a lot for the 9Marks website. So I don’t really trust him…

  214. Daisy wrote:

    So this Sam guy is to TGC what Mary Kassian is to CBMW, a token?

    Very possibly – see my last post. He speaks out regularly affirming the Gospel Coalition party line on “homosexuality” but has said absolutely nothing about the abuses of his colleagues Mahaney, Piper, Mohler etc.

  215. ZechZav wrote:

    Sam Allberry has spoken out about his “wrestling…”

    It leaves me to wonder, for those who couch their experience in terms of “wrestling” or “struggling,” how many are continually trying to rid themselves of the attractions that cause them anxiety, versus how many simply use that language to placate the evangelical thought leaders who continue to insist not only that “change is possible” but also that it must be pursued until it is achieved?

    Like you, I don’t trust anyone who keeps too close of company with the ex-gay crowd. I’m not exactly a traditionalist myself, although I argue against the Burkian / self-hating / ex-gay position here from that viewpoint, because I suspect that an argument on such a basis would make more sense to a greater number of fellow commenters here.

  216. @ Josh:

    I agree. When Steve Chalke changed his position on a gay marriage, a Christian SSA Support group made a statement that they stand with the Evangelical Alliance and affirmed the traditional position. It sounded like “let’s affirm the party line to keep our peers happy, make sure we still get conference invites and we don’t lose our funding!” I could be wrong that was my interpretation.

  217. Jeri Massi wrote:

    I referenced Deb and Dee in my second response to Carter’s article. If you read his article to the end and then look at his points, he’s actually describing Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

    Broken Wolves and the Churches that Broke Them: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=17815

    When Wolves Bark at Their Own Reflection: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=17834

    Jeri, I read both of your articles and I must say that anyone with compassion and a heart for victims of abuse must grieve at the deplorable condition of Fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Sadly, me thinks the wolves in each of those Fundy camps are clueless when it comes to their abuse of the sheep. Beating the men servants and maid servants has become a rigorous activity from which they seem to take delight. All in the name, of course, of truth. Lord have mercy!

  218. ZechZav wrote:

    @ Josh:

    I agree. When Steve Chalke changed his position on a gay marriage, a Christian SSA Support group made a statement that they stand with the Evangelical Alliance and affirmed the traditional position. It sounded like “let’s affirm the party line to keep our peers happy, make sure we still get conference invites and we don’t lose our funding!” I could be wrong that was my interpretation.

    there is a LOT OF money available for those who entertain by telling people they are morally superior. As long as there is SOMEONE ‘out there’ to compare to and to point to, the crowd is able to say ‘thank God I am not like that sinner’.

    It’s an old story. But God neve did buy the argument.

  219. ZechZav wrote:

    And something is very wrong if they start using the rules to clobber their brothers and sisters. Yet many Gospel Coalition churches do this with their attitudes “the Bible says and we must obey it no matter what…”

    the kind of hatred that is directed towards those who are ‘different’, though innocent of wrong-doing, is dependent upon a group of people to target as victims of discrimination ….. nothing Christian about throwing stones at innocent people who happen to be different

  220. Darlene wrote:

    Jeri, I read both of your articles and I must say that anyone with compassion and a heart for victims of abuse must grieve at the deplorable condition of Fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Sadly, me thinks the wolves in each of those Fundy camps are clueless when it comes to their abuse of the sheep. Beating the men servants and maid servants has become a rigorous activity from which they seem to take delight. All in the name, of course, of truth. Lord have mercy!

    Sadly true about the Evangelicals-Fundamentalists, but there is something satisfying about the vague and somewhat confusing post by Joe Carter. He is afraid of this wave of challenge to the materialistic and corrupt version of Christianity that he defends as Biblical Christianity. The Religious Right doesn’t know what to do with challenges that come from their own offspring, people who can produce evidence of their grievances. The very vagueness and confusing nature of the essay shows that Carter knows he has to do something but couldn’t pull together a compelling argument without indicting himself. And that was my point. His article describes his own religious movement.

  221. ZechZav wrote:

    Yet many Gospel Coalition churches do this with their attitudes “the Bible says and we must obey it no matter what…”

    Which would work under pre-1945 German Bureaucratic Tradition; but does God subscribe to that tradition?

  222. Jeri Massi wrote:

    The Religious Right doesn’t know what to do with challenges that come from their own offspring, people who can produce evidence of their grievances.

    Because “THAT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”

  223. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Because “THAT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”

    They still haven’t gotten over the shock of being confronted with exactly what they are and have done. Oh wait, they’ve all been predestined for salvation, so none of this could possibly apply to them. Right? I mean, they prayed the prayer? right?

  224. Jeri Massi wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Because “THAT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”

    They still haven’t gotten over the shock of being confronted with exactly what they are and have done. Oh wait, they’ve all been predestined for salvation, so none of this could possibly apply to them. Right? I mean, they prayed the prayer? right?

    Though “pray the prayer” OSAS Salvation and Predestined Election are usually not found together, the end result is the same.