TWW Responds to Joe Carter, Editor for The Gospel Coalition, Who Called This a Hateful, Lying Blog

"With power comes the abuse of power. And where there are bosses, there are crazy bosses. It's nothing new." Judd Rose link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=152284&picture=background-wallpaper
link

We interrupt our website rebuilding to further discuss Joe Carter's post Beware of Broken Wolves. As you know, Joe Carter said that this post wasn't about us. A person left a comment on his blog asking if he was specifically referring to us or Spiritual Sounding Board. Joe denied this and I believe him in regards tp his initially published post. Unfortunately Joe decided to take this opportunity to go after TWW. Not only that, he initiated a Twitter war with Dee and got himself into a bit of hot water.

Joe Carter says TWW is hateful, yada, yada, and yada

Here is the comment that started it all.

He then followed up with another comment.

Thanks to our friends.

First and foremost, I want to thank our many friends who rose to the occasion, leaving comments which questioned his entire premise. Some of you guys really do theology well!

Rebuttal to Carter's points.

  1. The word, discernment, in Calvinista lingo, means that you offer opinions that do not reflect well on their BFFs or *tribe.* Case in point-CJ Mahaney.
  2. We do not *bash* other people. *Bash* is an indiscriminate word meaning to strike violently. We write hard posts that involve abuse of children and adults at the hands of theologically and empathetically impaired church leaders. We believe that harming others in the name of Jesus is something that is to be exposed and evaluated. Jesus called religious leaders, who burdened the people, words like *dogs,* *vipers,* *white-washed tombs,* etc. He even suggested that those who hurt his dear little ones should have cement boots applied and be flung in a deep lake. Abuse is ugly and it affects people for the rest of their lives. Many have left the church not due to unbelief, but due to abuse. My pastor, a loving man, said to a friend of mine who told him he had a bad experience in the church, "There's a lot of that going around these days." Thank God for men and women like him who get it.
  3. He has not dealt with us for over a decade. It has only been 8 years since our start and I doubt he heard of us for some time when we first got started. However, I bet his interested in us began when we started supporting those who were hurt by CJ Mahaney and gang. Joe Carter really loves Mahaney and will go after anyone who brings it up to him. Basically we were screwed from the start. 
  4. He said that we only care about trashing other Christians who do not subscribe to our theological beliefs. Sanctified™ baloney! We care about people who have been abused by churches. It appears that the Calvinistas have been in the news recently so they get the attention. However, we have written about non-Calvinistas such as Benny Hinn, Ed Y Young JR, Maurilio Amorim, Pete Wilson, IFB pastors, Bob Jones University, Steven Furtick, Generations Church, Franklin Graham, and on and on. 
  5. He said we have lied and slandered good people. We put links to all of our posts-something that Joe Carter did not do when he wrote this screed. The reason for that is that he knows we don't deliberately lie. He just doesn't like our opinions. he should link to what we wrote, show how he knows we know that it is a lie, and prove his point. However, he cannot do that. One thing I can promise our readers is this. You may not like our opinions but we would never, ever deliberately lie/slander in order to cause harm to another person. We might be mistaken in our opinion or you might disagree with us but we don't lie. he still does not get the definition of these words. 
  6. He claims that most every reputable Christian-Reformed, non Reformed, complementarian, egalitarian, Sunday school teachers janitors etc. want nothing to do with us. Joe must be very busy keeping in touch with *just about every reputable Christian group* in this country. This is the sort of hyperbole that will discredit TGC. Joe should use real names of groups and real numbers.
    It must be hard for him to see that our blog has gained such a large readership. He needs to do what we do. Prove it! Give us links.
  7. He says we are backbiters. This means to talk slanderously about someone who is not present. ROFL!  We are discussing public figures involved in public ministry. If the want to play in public, they get to be critiqued in public, just like us, Joe! Our blog, unlike others that we know of, allows for comments and even highly critical comments of us. We can take it.You friends can as well. As you know, we are the weaker sex, right?
  8. The infamous Tim Challies post was brought up. We are thrilled. Deb busted her tush researching out post that got Challies bent out of shape. We, along with the rest of our readership, forgot about it. I bet Tim is not thrilled this was raised again. We plan to present our original post. This time we have lots and lots of readers who will most likely remember this for a long time to come. Maybe Joe should have let sleeping dogs lie. Plan to see this on our blog in the next week or so.

My initial *hateful* response to Joe Carter 

Here is my response on Carter's website. Referring to the above first comment I said:

Joe Carter tried to hurt Dee and Janet Mefferd on Twitter. He actually admitted it.

Here is what happened. I was asleep when things exploded. Unbeknownst to me, Carter came onto Twitter with a goal in mind. Eric catches on and calls him on it.

He proceeded to ask me what I believe about homosexuality and reparative therapy.

I am pretty sure that Carter had no idea that I wrote extensively on this subject quite a while ago. But, those posts were not highly discussed except on this blog. It looks like they flew under his radar and he didn't Google before he decided to *trap* me. 

Here were my answers after I woke up and got home from church which we attended this week in the morning instead of Saturday evening. 

  1. I said that I was sorry to disappoint him but he would find my stand orthodox and told him to Google it. I decided that he needed to do his own research instead of flying off the handle.I research and link every time I make a statement about TGC as opposed to Joe who decided to deal in hyperbole and innuendo.
  2. I told him that I take the same stand that the SBC takes on reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is ineffective.
  3. I also sent another tweet telling Joe "not to faint" because I met with Justin Lee, the head of The Gay Christian Network and found him to be an awesome and loving person.

3. He asked if I thought unrepentant homosexuals would go to heaven.

My answer is one that TWW readers will recognize. I leave the matter of who gets into heaven in the capable hand of our Father who does not need or desire my advice. I wonder if TGC thinks God could use their help?

Joe White and TGC seem to be fixated on this subject and I, for one, am getting tired of it. Joe gave an example of what he had in mind by *Broken Wolves.*

I am sick to death about the chronic fixation on homosexuality by TGC while they ardently continuing to defend the indefensible when it comes to things like CJ Mahaney/SGM situation. In the midst of the Twitter feeds there were some who questioned him on his support of Mahaney. Carter still stands by him. He also expressed concern that TWW doesn't seem to understand that TGC is against child sex abuse. Seriously?!!!

Why is Joe Carter so mad at TWW? We believe it is about CJ Mahaney.

The Christian Post wrote The Gospel Coalition, Christian Bloggers Spar Over Sovereign Grace Ministry, C.J. Mahaney on Twitter Sadly this conversation, begin with great hope on my part, ended in a similar fashion to that conversation.

In one tweet, Carter suggested that Parsons, Hoag and Julie Ann, a spiritual abuse watchdog blogger, were "pathologically dishonest."

After Parsons asked him to clarify what "slander" he was referring to, Carter responded "Have you not intimated that CJM was involved in a coverup of sexual abuse?" linking to a recent post on her site where a guest blogger claimed that Mahaney was guilty.

Parsons defended herself, claiming that "everyone has a right to express their point of view. Also, I tend to believe the victims."

…Carter challenged Parsons, arguing that by publishing posts which argued that the civil lawsuit was true, she was still defaming Mahaney and other SGM leaders' reputations.

"So accusing someone of covering up pedophilia does not hurt their reputation?" he asked. "So how is 'I believe it, I can publicly repeat it' not gossip? Is that the Christians standard now?"

…Parsons told CP that she thought she addressed Carter in a way that was "very matter of fact" and "no animosity," inviting him to see if he wanted to meet with one of Morales' victims.

"I made that offer two times," said Parsons. "Joe Carter did not respond to me, and then on Saturday he turned the tables on me and mentioned slander and lawsuits and one of the tweets said, I could be sued for what I said."

This exchange made me sad and left me with a couple of questions.

-Why is CJ Mahaney and SGM so important to TGC?
-Why is homosexuality the hot button issue for TGC, CBMW, etc. Did you see their new organization? Why nothings about child sex abuse if they are so gosh darn concerned? 

-Why is Joe Carter so angry at TWW? Perhaps we are having some impact on the injustice found in cover up child sex abuse, downplaying        domestic violence, membership contracts and church discipline.
-Does the TGC council believe that this sort of exchange reflects well on their organization?
-Will Joe Carter be made to prove that TWW lies.
-Do the women who support TGC believe that this sort of exchange with a women is indicative of how women are treated in TGC and related groups?

My summation for the current exchange with Joe Carter, is taken from, oddly, The Christian Post from 3 years ago.

Parsons said she was disappointed with how the interaction with Carter transpired.

"I really wanted to build a bridge [with Joe] and that was my goal and my hope and that's since been destroyed. And that's where I stand," said Parsons. "I had no animosity to Joe Carter in that exchange. I looked at it as the potential for positive opportunity to bring understanding in this whole mess and I'm actually very sad."

Here are some comments by readers on Joe Carter's now infamous post on Beware of Broken Wolves.

Thank you all for your kindness.    

 

 

And the weirdest comment of the Carter post awarded to the dude who chalks this up to a demonic phenomena! 

Comments

TWW Responds to Joe Carter, Editor for The Gospel Coalition, Who Called This a Hateful, Lying Blog — 363 Comments

  1. Somewhere in all the Twitter exchanges, didn’t he link to the TGC search results on “abuse” to prove they totally care? Because the fourth result is actually their rote dismissal of Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife.

    And if Joe Carter is interested in exposing GLBT-affirmers, he ought to check the Redeemer City to City Network first.

  2. Re:
    3. He asked if I thought unrepentant homosexuals would go to heaven.

    Does an unrepentant anyone go to heaven (unrepentant jewel thief, drug cartel member, liar, etc?)

  3. Wow. Once again, the inability of my reformed brothers to speak with grace and humility and kindness leaves me saddened and embarrassed.

  4. Joe Reed wrote:

    Wow. Once again, the inability of my reformed brothers to speak with grace and humility and kindness leaves me saddened and embarrassed.

    Referring to Mr. Carter, that is.

  5. Coming from probably what you all would label as a fundamentalist, non-evangelical, and non-calvinist:

    I’ve only recently been exposed to mainstream evangelicalism in the past few years or so and haven’t been that impressed. It has a sub-culture among the pastors and professors that is absent amongst the “average churchgoers.” Just walk around the SBTS campus and the elitist, semi-materialistic, and tradition-centric culture is evident.

    When people get in their bubble of being “persecuted” it’s easy to get this tribal mindset of us vs. them. We are right, everyone else is wrong. A little leaven festers and leavens the whole lump. Money gets involved, luxury lifestyles, and other materialistic and power influences.

  6. Joe Reed wrote:

    Wow. Once again, the inability of my reformed brothers to speak with grace and humility and kindness leaves me saddened and embarrassed.

    Glad to hear it, Joe, hope for you yet (said somewhat tongue in cheek, while you put me into the red zone with regularity, nonetheless I consider you–as opposed to some of the horse’s patoots you defend–a genuine “brother”). Now if you’ll stop referring to yourself as “reformed” and instead as a “follower of Jesus” and dump all this other nonsense, you’ll make great strides. You won’t stop driving me insane til you drop the labels–no one will refer to themselves as Reformed or Arminian in heaven, so might as well just drop it now and grow up.

  7. @ Law Prof:

    🙂

    I’m not a huge fan of labels either. But they serve a purpose. I could be real cheeky and say that Reformed is synonymous with follower of Jesus but that’d send the needle back to the red zone ha!

    Grace to you brother.

  8. Daisy wrote:

    Does an unrepentant anyone go to heaven (unrepentant jewel thief, drug cartel member, liar, etc?)

    Some people, like me, don’t think homosexuality is a sin.

    I wish I’d talked more about Scientology’s version of excommunication, which is a complex blend of being cut off from services (and thus threatening your eternity) and disconnection (where your family and friends are threatened with being cut off from services, thus threatening their eternity). It can get unbelievably weird.

    There’s currently a court case in federal court in Florida right now, where the judge is annoyed by both the plaintiffs and Scientology. Luis and Rocio Garcia want their money on account back from Scientology. Scientology says they have to go through arbitration (a process that has never been used in Scientology). The judge agreed with Scientology and forced the Garcias into trying to find three Scientologists in good standing who could hear the arbitration. Problem is, since the Garcias are now Suppressive Persons, there is NO Scientologist in good standing who would be on the arbitration panel for fear of disconnection. Such a person couldn’t even be in the same room hardly with the Garcias. This went around in circles for a year or so, but finally the judge got fed up and very recently said that HE was taking over supervision of the arbitration and asked Scientology for names of members in the Los Angeles area who were not in the Sea Org or otherwise “employed” by the cherch. And that’s where it’s at right now. That, on top of the very serious human toll of parents disconnecting from children and children disconnecting from parents so they can keep shelling out money to Scientology for “services” designed to get rid of body thetans (aka the spirits of dead space aliens blown up in volcanoes 76 million years ago). I think you get my feelings about that, too.

  9. Joe Reed wrote:

    Wow. Once again, the inability of my reformed brothers to speak with grace and humility and kindness leaves me saddened and embarrassed.

    I read your comment and couldn’t help but be reminded that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. 400 years later, his bones were carried out of Egypt by the descendants.

  10. I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

  11. @ Joe Reed:
    Perhaps you can explain to me, a nonCalvinist, why this theologically assured men seem to get so bent out of shape when you challenge them that they strike hard ad mean? Why not just let it go? Why not research what I actually said? Why call me a liar without proof? Why tell me most of Christendom is against me? I don’t get it.

    So long as one doesn’t abuse others, one will not hear from me. So why not just be nice and let things slide? Now Carter is going to have to deal with us defending ourselves on the Tim Challies post and it will seem awkward for Challies, one more time. Do they have to try to win every argument and when they can’t, start calling names?

  12. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Some people, like me, don’t think homosexuality is a sin.

    I am so sick of this subject I could scream. We must learn to respect one another because God respected us enough to give us free will.

    I swear, if I hear one more TGC person start on the homosexuality stuff, I will slap them upside the head and tell them to spend some time working on their own lives which do not seem particularly stellar to me.

  13. ishy wrote:

    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

    I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

    It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.

    I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

  14. Joe Reed wrote:

    @ Law Prof:

    I’m not a huge fan of labels either. But they serve a purpose. I could be real cheeky and say that Reformed is synonymous with follower of Jesus but that’d send the needle back to the red zone ha!
    Grace to you brother.

    Of course it would because it’s undiluted manure (this coming from a former elder of a reformed, neocal church and a former paid staffer of a Presbyterian church), all I care about is does one love Jesus, is He the center for them, is He Lord and God and IT for them. If that’s the case, all else can be worked out and atoned for (even the tendency of so many who call themselves reformed to be fake nicey, to post and speak only that which makes them sound good and godly, as opposed to just saying what they think, straight up, like that fellow named “Jesus” always did).

  15. ishy wrote:

    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

    Which is why I think they are the sins that hurt the church the most. Most abuse, or otherwise, is not about lust, but about power, and pride is the sin that drives it. Arrogance–driven by pride. Taking advantage of other Christians–driven by greed.

    Groups like TGC would never go after those two sins. It would disqualify all of them.

  16. Law Prof wrote:

    . Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

    You left out pedophilia. But, a grown man attacking a little boy can’t possibly be as sinful to them as homosexuality. They’ve proven it by circling the wagons around a certain BFF.

  17. ishy wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.
    Which is why I think they are the sins that hurt the church the most. Most abuse, or otherwise, is not about lust, but about power, and pride is the sin that drives it. Arrogance–driven by pride. Taking advantage of other Christians–driven by greed.
    Groups like TGC would never go after those two sins. It would disqualify all of them.

    The drive for power we see among so many such as Mr. Carter and others who share his passions for control is about lust, trust me. Just because one doesn’t have sexual lust doesn’t mean they don’t lust and aren’t in idolatry of what they list after.

  18. Nancy2 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    . Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
    You left out pedophilia. But, a grown man attacking a little boy can’t possibly be as sinful to them as homosexuality. They’ve proven it by circling the wagons around a certain BFF.

    If all you have is a raw lust for power, then sin is irrelevant, even the sin of covering up pedophilia, of destroying anyone who tries to stop you, of abusing and attempting to marginalize those who speak the truth. If your God is your power, right and wrong become irrelevant. The problem is when your followers still make some pretense about right and wrong, so you have to find some means of building a bridge to them so you can maintain your power: hence, pick on homosexuals, demonize them, always plays to the cheap seats. I’m curious, though, have they ever considered how much time Jesus spend discussing homosexuality versus the abusive tactics of church leaders? I forget the scriptures where Jesus called homosexuals “snakes” and “blind guides” and “sons of hell”. Where is that? Even Paul, who had some strong condemnations of the practice of homosexuality (with which I completely agree) seemed to spend a great deal more time condemning abusive church leaders.

    What gives? Do these people read the Bible? Do they care what it says? Or do they just love their power and do what it takes preserve it, by any means, and if the truth has to be sacrificed, to heck with truth.

  19. @ dee:

    I wish I had some sort of profound answer. My opinion is that this kind of behavior is not rooted in Calvinism as such, because I see it coming from lots of different places, and not only religious ones. Political discourse is like this now too.

    My best guess to answer your questions – insecurity rooted in immaturity. Too insecure to handle criticism, too immature to respond with any class, or to know when to just keep quiet.

    One more lesson from my Dad: Son, you don’t need to defend yourself. Guard your character, and God will defend your reputation.
    I’ve learned by experience that he was right, as usual.

  20. If good ol’ boy Joe ventures down into the comment section and realizes that you have actual certified [1] LGBT people commenting on your blog… well, I hope he’s near his fainting couch, bless his heart!

    [1] I’m not certified, but I do have a gold star

  21. Joe Reed wrote:

    My opinion is that this kind of behavior is not rooted in Calvinism as such, because I see it coming from lots of different places, and not only religious ones.

    I disagree.

    The NeoCalvinists are notorious for their mean-spiritedness and arrogance. They aren’t at all like soft-spoken, accepting, gracious classical Calvinists.

  22. @ Ryan Ashton:

    Ryan,

    Does Challies even take comments? I just went to his website (I never read the guy) and he has some note about a “letter to the editor” in lieu of comments.

    If that’s a case, Challies is just another coward in his crowd.

  23. Daisy wrote:

    Re:
    3. He asked if I thought unrepentant homosexuals would go to heaven.
    Does an unrepentant anyone go to heaven (unrepentant jewel thief, drug cartel member, liar, etc?)

    Daisy, you have a good eye there. But here is the thing. I think Joe Carter’s definition of “unrepentant” homosexual might mean something different than what you’re thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised that Joe Carter’s definition of repentance would include rejecting the reality that they (the homosexual) are attracted to a person of the same gender. So, in that world, a homosexual that has repented will not even have same-sex attraction any longer. And if they do, they must not have “repented.” Just my take on the issue having been in that Evangelical world at one time.

  24. Nancy2 wrote:

    Joe Reed wrote:
    I’m not a huge fan of labels either.
    Labels, like …. Say….. Broken wolves?

    Broken wolves…that term is so ambiguous as to mean whatever one wants it to mean. And that’s why Joe Carter’s article caused so much confusion. But I doubt, due to the prevailing TGC attitude that every time they write, God is speaking directly through them, that he has the wherewithal to recognize that he is the one who caused the confusion.

  25. ishy wrote:

    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

    The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

  26. dee wrote:

    Do they have to try to win every argument and when they can’t, start calling names?

    Of course they do. This is what they do. This is what the current crop of Neo-Calvinists must do in order to remain respectable among their peers.

  27. Law Prof wrote:

    I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

    I have to agree with you on this one Mike. To quote you, "He is a real piece of work!" I just read a chapter of a book telling us that dealing with Pharisees is necessary training for us for the future. This Spirit is still active and it ways have not changed. Men like Joe plotted together to actually kill the miracle working Son of God. Woe to You – Jesus told them. The Celebrity Culture is worldly and corrupt. It cares only about its ego and wallets. God has already condemned both. Joe's comments about WW remind me of all the caustic political babble that we hear these days from every party. The guy simply does not give a cr@p (ed.) about truth, just like his father.

  28. Darlene wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.
    The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

    Spot on!

  29. Nancy2 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    . Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
    You left out pedophilia. But, a grown man attacking a little boy can’t possibly be as sinful to them as homosexuality. They’ve proven it by circling the wagons around a certain BFF.

    Let’s not forget domestic violence aka spousal abuse, of which the larger percentage of victims are women – (another fact the Neo-Cals dismiss).

  30. Back to Tim Challies, whom I never read, until tonight’s look at his blog.

    He has a myopic focus on discernment blogs, and his criticism of them, without acknowledging the very hard work they do in uncovering stories, worthy of a Pulitizer Prize. Tim completely missed that we also have E-Church, help the needy (GoFundMe), have weekly prayers for those in need, sick, etc. We discuss biscuit recipes. We discuss sports, including contributions from our reporter Nick in Scotland.

    We discuss movies, books, dogs, cute shoes, good make-up concealers, and a host of other subjects.

    We are real people. And most of us are real nice people.

    We are varied. We critique one another. We sometimes even argue with one another.
    But we learn so much from one another.

    Tim C. might learn something too if he were brave enough to take comments on his blog,
    which he’s not.

    Sigh.

    The Backbone Award goes again…drumroll please…to the ladies: Dee and Deb/The Deebs from North Carolina. They have the spine to take comments and to permit rigorous debate.

  31. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Joe Reed:
    i’m surprised that you seem surprised.

    Ditto here. If anything is true, it’s that the Reformed/Neo-Calvinist Camp has become widely known for their nasty, caustic, cruel treatment toward others. It earns them brownie points and respectability among their peers.

  32. And this is a response to a Matt Smethurst question at TGC in 2015

    What are you learning about life and following Jesus?

    Unflinching, self-denying obedience to Christ is absolutely essential to the Christian life. I’ve been a believer more than 30 years, and for all that time I’d have nodded in agreement with that statement. But it was only during this past year of research and study that I truly began to understand and appreciate the role of obedience in the life of the Christian.

    “Obedience is such a core theme of the Bible that I don’t know how I missed it for so long. And now I don’t know what to do with that realization. Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Yet we live in a culture where obedience is considered an optional add-on to faith and the Christian life.

    I feel compelled to tell everyone I see that we can’t truly love Jesus and follow Christ if we are not keeping his commands. But too many people will dismiss that message as “legalism” and refuse to hear that the only appropriate response to grace is eternal gratitude and unquestioning obedience to the Lord of the universe.

  33. dee wrote:

    why this theologically assured men seem to get so bent out of shape when you challenge them that they strike hard ad mean?

    Entitlement. Comes with the superiority or rulership [of men, in this case] theology. Sloppy positioning, weak argument, loose or careless discourse. As mentioned in the post, histrionic with hyperbole.

  34. Joe Reed wrote:

    Son, you don’t need to defend yourself. Guard your character, and God will defend your reputation.

    Good advice. Jesus modeled this.

  35. Oh dear Lord this guy is certifiable!!!!! The two most dangerous creatures are snakes and women according to this nut??? He then states that these two creatures got men kicked out of the garden!!!!!! How any man or woman who professes Christ would listen to this nut is beyond me much less give him a platform of any sort . I read the link below and Dee! Deb ! If you haven’t seen it you really need to take a look at it. He sums women up in that postLowlandseer wrote:

    You might get a better idea of where Joe Carter is coming from if you read this early online article by him. (I hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but who knows?)

    http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2003/10/my-large-wife-and-her-clothes.html

  36. Ken F wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Does Challies even take comments?
    No. But you can send him an email that he won’t answer.

    LOL!

    Who is this coward to lecture Dee & Deb at The Wartburg Watch and Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board? The gals are superior to the NeoCal crowd, all a bunch of big babies who don’t have the spine to permit comments, discussion, and even — gasp — criticism!!!

  37. @ Velour:
    When I get home later this week I will post the email I sent to him that he did not answer. This ilk stir the pot and run.

  38. I just tweeted Tim Challies and asked him why he doesn’t permit comments on his website yet criticizes women discernment bloggers @Wartwatch @DefendtheSheep who permit comments, debate,a and criticism.

    I told Tim to get a spine!

  39. Ken F wrote:

    @ Velour:
    When I get home later this week I will post the email I sent to him that he did not answer. This ilk stir the pot and run.

    They are just cowards whose logical fallacies and un-Biblical arguments would be blown out of the water if they permitted comments…and they know it!

  40. Darlene wrote:

    The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

    Well, and then there’s Mohler who does the same thing with marriage. Oh the broken wolves things suddenly all makes sense now. Absolute submission to your husband and pastor, both men. Or the entire Calvinista system will fall apart because these men literally cannot handle women having equal abilities or responsibilities. They would no longer be special snowflakes served on hand and foot.

    And I wonder if deep down they cannot handle that many of these women in their lives are right about God, and they are not. Their whole theology is built on them taking God’s place, and as much as they talk about being biblical, they are not. You have to completely ignore everything Jesus says, and leave out a whole lot of other verses in the Bible, to come to the conclusions they do. Even deYoung said that they did yesterday: “What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses.”

  41. There is one aspect that I have learned in coming out of an abusive church system, from the pastor, to his church board minions, right down to the lower laity whom are trying their very best to provide the ‘good fruit’ necessary in gaining the leaderships’ approval, so they too can move on up the authoritarian ladder, and that is this:

    When a pastor, elder, church board leader, or anyone who claims they know Jesus better than the rest of us, is called out on their aberrant rendition of our Holy Scriptures by those who are deemed as lower laity nothings (women for some reason are cast into this selective group by the apostate church system), the topic of homosexuality is always used as the trump card in trying to “win” the debate.

    The issue of homosexuality is always used by wolves in sheep’s clothing (and yes, a pastor man can be the greatest wolf of all himself) as a deflection to take believers’ down another road of conversation in trying to defend his false theology.

    I have seen this tactic used time and again by male preacher men/and male elder leadership who, themselves, are secretly engaging in immoral sexual sins of the grossest kind, desperately clamoring for another topic to dissuade the congregation. Another favorite of many preacher men, is the proverbial “jezebel spirit” theme which is popular amongst those who love to add additional experiential false scripture to their Bibles, so as to shut up those who are questioning the pastors’ immoral behavior.

    Perhaps the pride of this life engulfs many a preacher man to the point of when they are questioned on their worldviews, ideology, and their perspective regarding their own interpretations of theology, it’s always the diversion of sins of another people group (homosexuals) that become the main topic of whether one is saved or not.

    I have literally witnessed many a preacher man, yes, man, try to destroy the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (both women and men). And in the end, Jesus won! The gates of hell shall not prevail against the LORD’S ekklesia. Alleluia!

  42. ishy wrote:

    Well, and then there’s Mohler who does the same thing with marriage. Oh the broken wolves things suddenly all makes sense now. Absolute submission to your husband and pastor, both men. Or the entire Calvinista system will fall apart because these men literally cannot handle women having equal abilities or responsibilities. They would no longer be special snowflakes served on hand and foot.

    A man recently left this YELP review about my former gulag Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley [9Marxist/NeoCalvinist/John MacArthur-ite]:

    “This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”

    At least his review stayed up! The pastors/elders had repeatedly scrubbed the internet of my criticisms, including at Google, on Amazon (pastor with the fake Ph.D. and my book reviews, and Google). I had to start my own blog to criticize them!

  43. Deb wrote:

    @ Velour:
    That comment was cleverly done!

    Wasn’t it?

    He lives in Palo Alto, CA — near Stanford University. I wonder if he’s a Stanford student or graduate, as the church is constantly trying to get Stanford students to join.

  44. Deb wrote:

    Interesting tidbit over at the 9Marks website…
    The column on the left – Popular this month – features an episode called “How to Leave Your Church Well”(https://www.9marks.org/interview/episode7/)
    Kinda surprised they would actually admit that this is popular on their website.

    Well, it probably has a stipulation about your elders picking your next church, because that’s a point in all their covenants.

  45. Concerning Gays making it to heaven, as many sins as I have committed, I don’t have a prayer without Jesus. As a wise man once said, ” You really don’t know what God thinks, who’s saved and who’s not.”

  46. Darlene wrote:

    Daisy, you have a good eye there. But here is the thing. I think Joe Carter’s definition of “unrepentant” homosexual might mean something different than what you’re thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised that Joe Carter’s definition of repentance would include rejecting the reality that they (the homosexual) are attracted to a person of the same gender. So, in that world, a homosexual that has repented will not even have same-sex attraction any longer. And if they do, they must not have “repented.” Just my take on the issue having been in that Evangelical world at one time.

    This is a good point. Joe Carter has expressed his belief in the validity of “reparative therapy” in the past. He’s also expressed his opinion that states which outlaw “reparative therapy” for minors are doing a bad thing. It’s possible he’s changed his mind. I don’t know.

  47. Like Dee and Deb, I don’t know why people get so hung up about homosexuality. I recently connected with a friend from high school who is married to a person of the same sex. It doesn’t bother me. That is her life not mine. I saw a picture a few yrs ago of another close friend from my school years. He was gay and I didn’t know it. In this picture he looked so happy. More than I ever saw him before. I don’t know why he was that happy. But God does, and that’s enough for me. Instead of focusing so much on this issue, try focusing on things that really matter, as in your daily walk with Christ. Or how about on how prayer changes lives and things. I could go on and on here. To Joe Carter, be very careful of who you accuse and point fingers at. The Bible talks about there being angels that we are unaware of. Dee and Deb are truly 2 of them.

  48. Hmmmmmm, My Large Wife and Her Clothes ……… I am sorely tempted to paste a link to that article as a comment on JC’s “broken wolves” article……… What to do, what to do?

  49. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    This is a black hole horror. I don’t understand the judges position on this. Any legal minds out there that can tell me why the injured party has to have this:

    ‘The judge agreed with Scientology and forced the Garcias into trying to find three Scientologists in good standing who could hear the arbitration. ”

    They can’t be any former Scientologists? I don’t get this.

  50. @ Lowlandseer:

    He will claim it is youthful humor but let’s put the shoe on the other foot. They would howl from the rooftops the wife was being disrespectful of her husband –with bad humor. Not to mention his premise is wrong about the events in the garden of Eden.

  51. @ Law Prof:
    Agree. One of the problems pastors and Christian professional have is they live and work in bubbles. Then they preach and teach us as if they know the environment they are rarely in. It’s one reason I can barely listen to their typical sermons anymore. They have no clue. I used to wonder how they would handle working in the real world. I actually think it would help them see all kinds as worthy and valuable. That does not mean we “embrace” or promote everything. We don’t have to. I used to muse a bit on Piper having to get a real job and report to a woman. It would be the ultimate humbling exercise. :o)

  52. Lydia wrote:

    used to muse a bit on Piper having to get a real job and report to a woman. It would be the ultimate humbling exercise. :o)

    I would be happy if only a female police officer would pull him over and write him a ticket for a traffic violation!

  53. Lydia wrote:

    This is a black hole horror. I don’t understand the judges position on this. Any legal minds out there that can tell me why the injured party has to have this:
    ‘The judge agreed with Scientology and forced the Garcias into trying to find three Scientologists in good standing who could hear the arbitration. ”
    They can’t be any former Scientologists? I don’t get this.

    The whole thing is crazy. Basically Judge Whittemore refused to handle the case when Scientology presented “evidence” that it has an arbitration procedure to deal with issues where “former parishioners” want their money on account (that is, money not used for services) back. The judge’s rationale is that he didn’t want to get in the middle of a religious issue. The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts not to get involved in disputes involving religious dogma.

    There are several problems with the judge’s position, starting with the fact that this arbitration procedure has never been used. Ever. Then, because the Garcias are Suppressive Persons, any Scientologist who wants to remain in good standing with David Miscavige HAS to cut themselves off from them. There can be no contact. Then, Scientology has turned down every person proposed for the arbitration by the Garcias saying they are not Scientologists in good standing. All of this has frustrated the judge, who, in his attempt to try and not get involved in what he believes is a religious dispute (and not a contract case) is now in the middle of an arbitration of a religious dispute.

    For Scientology, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If the Garcias get their money on account back, others will come out of the woodwork wanting THEIR money back. People did just walk away and leave money on account, Scientology is that toxic. I think for the Garcias it’s now just the principle of the thing.

  54. @ Karen:
    I am old, I guess. I never saw this level of an entitlement to micromanage people’s lives at church when I was growing up. The pastor had one vote like every one else at meetings. My parents would have laughed in their faces. Actually, the church would have sent them packing. Maybe their generation sacrificed to fight tyrants so they recognized the traits? :o)

  55. Law Prof wrote:

    But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

    Whatever you think of it from a biblical (ha) perspective, homosexuality would fall into the ‘hurts nobody else’ category for me. Which means it’s way, way down the list of things to worry about or rather I don’t worry about it at all.

    If you look at all the potential problems and the one you focus on is the one that literally hurts no one else, and don’t seem to care at all about abuse, child abuse, rape, greed and financial misdeeds, unkindness etc? You priorities are suspect. Your reasoning is suspect. And I don’t see any reason to take what you say seriously.

  56. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    I know this is a black hole but is all this predicated on the Garcia’s signing any documents with Scientology when they joined? You can see where I am going with this, right? Even if the arbitration has never been used, is it hinted at in any signed documents.

    We should be concerned, too. Thanks for bringing this up.

    People need to know what joining any authoritarian and closed “religious” group can mean for their future.

  57. Carter’s bio on that article was interesring:

    “Joe Carter founded Evangelical Outpost in 2005. He is the web editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. A fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran, he previously served as the managing editor for the online magazine Culture11 and The East Texas Tribune. Joe has also served as the Director of Research and Rapid Response for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign and as a director of communications for both the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Family Research Council. He is the co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicaton.”

  58. @ Ryan Ashton:

    Ryan, he quoted Frank Turk!

    Frank Turk simply says this: “Notice that Paul here instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town and not watchbloggers.

    Why on earth didn’t Paul talk about bloggers, I wonder?

    I will say if he considers blogs like this ‘entertainment’ maybe it’s because he has no interesting in fixing problems? A root cause analysis starts with looking intensely at what is wrong, not simply thinking good thoughts. After you know what the problem is, only then can you work on fixing it. These guys would rather pretend problems don’t exist.

  59. Lydia wrote:

    One of the problems pastors and Christian professional have is they live and work in bubbles. Then they preach and teach us as if they know the environment they are rarely in.

    – the reality of the work-a-day world…
    Great observation. (Some would say “mean” or mean-spirited – however, no, this is insight. The bubble is co-dependency with Mother Church. Rather than the view of a “broken wolf”, this is the keen eye of a critical thinking reflective person of faith.)

  60. Lydia wrote:

    I am old, I guess. I never saw this level of an entitlement to micromanage people’s lives at church when I was growing up. The pastor had one vote like every one else at meetings.

    Yes, but. I never saw the pastor have a vote at meetings. Never. The pastor chaired the meeting and did not vote.

    Only one time, when somebody had been removed from fellowship and was re-applying for church membership did I see the pastor step down and turn the meeting over to the chairman of the board of deacons as acting chair. The pastor then, as a member of the congregation, moved to receive the person back into fellowship; this because nobody else would so move. After the vote the chairman of the board of deacons stepped down and handed the meeting back to the pastor.

    Otherwise, the pastor had no vote at all in that situation.

  61. @ Daisy:
    Exactly! In the NT, homosexuality is one manifestation of humanity’s Genesis 6:5 plight. So are all the vices that Paul lists at the end of Romans 1. No one enters God’s kingdom without repentance and faith–no not one.

  62. ishy wrote:

    it probably has a stipulation about your elders picking your next church

    grown American freedom-of-religion adults being told who will pick their next church????? Whisky Tango …

    It’s the USA. It’s 2017. Wake up, already!

  63. My link to the large wife has been removed. Apparently, Joe does not approve of being quoted.

  64. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Yet we live in a culture where obedience is considered an optional add-on to faith and the Christian life.

    I am actually referencing you entire comment, not just what I have quoted above. I agree with you, and I want to add something.

    Here on TWW not long ago I mentioned something as being done ‘in obedience’ and someone commented in a way that I understood to be at perhaps the other end of the spectrum from me on the issue of ‘obedience’. Therefore I have since then spent a little time checking to see if indeed there is some really vast difference of understanding on this issue.

    There is indeed a vast difference of understanding on this issue. I see some extreme ideas at both ends of the spectrum on this issue, and some of the ideas I believe are so far off base as to become paths to be diligently avoided.

    This post is not directly about that, so I am not going further with this at this time, but I think that the issues of authority and the issue of what does obedience mean for the christian are basic differences which are part of the heart of the issues being discussed.

  65. Karen wrote:

    When a pastor, elder, church board leader, or anyone who claims they know Jesus better than the rest of us, is called out on their aberrant rendition of our Holy Scriptures by those who are deemed as lower laity nothings (women for some reason are cast into this selective group by the apostate church system), the topic of homosexuality is always used as the trump card in trying to “win” the debate.

    The issue of homosexuality is always used by wolves in sheep’s clothing (and yes, a pastor man can be the greatest wolf of all himself) as a deflection to take believers’ down another road of conversation in trying to defend his false theology.

    I have seen this tactic used time and again by male preacher men/and male elder leadership who, themselves, are secretly engaging in immoral sexual sins of the grossest kind, desperately clamoring for another topic to dissuade the congregation. Another favorite of many preacher men, is the proverbial “jezebel spirit” theme which is popular amongst those who love to add additional experiential false scripture to their Bibles, so as to shut up those who are questioning the pastors’ immoral behavior.

    Perhaps the pride of this life engulfs many a preacher man to the point of when they are questioned on their worldviews, ideology, and their perspective regarding their own interpretations of theology, it’s always the diversion of sins of another people group (homosexuals) that become the main topic of whether one is saved or not.

    I have literally witnessed many a preacher man, yes, man, try to destroy the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (both women and men). And in the end, Jesus won! The gates of hell shall not prevail against the LORD’S ekklesia. Alleluia!

    I have a perfect example of this:

    Two months after my sons assault I was going to homeschool Billy. I could not fathom sending him to school with kids who had bullied him in the past and teachers did nothing but encourage it at times. So I get a call from the pastor asking me to come meet with him and the elders. Ok now I’m thinking at this time they are going to actually sit with me and go over how they were going to come along side me and Billy and actually discuss what just happened to my son. NOPE!!!!!
    They get me in the pastors office and all the elders are there plus the man who heads the men’s ministry (all men). I’m not thinking anything of it I’m just relieved that they were going to help us through this terrible thing in our lives. So they ask how I am and I say ok then they ask what my plans are with my son in regards to school. Keep in mind school has been in session for a week already at this time. I expressed that I was homeschooling Billy. The men then begin to tell me how they don’t believe that is best for Billy and that he needs to be in school. At this point I’m confused because this church most kids parents homeschool or their kids are in private school. I would have thought they would encourage me to homeschool and offer to assist in any way. Instead there’s this big push to put him in school. Then in this meeting one of the men gives me a list a schedule on how he starts his day at 6am with quiet time and gets dressed has breakfast and so forth that I to should make a list and follow a schedule. He gives me his schedule as an example to follow. Not once do they mention what just happened to Billy but I’m so worked up about them pushing me to put Billy in public school that I’m no longer focused. The pressure gets more intense as they give me bible verses in managing my life and that they prayed about this and all came to the same conclusion Billy needs to be in school. At the end I’m still insisting that I will homeschool. During this meeting a friend walks by seeing me in there with all the men and she is furious that they had me in there like that. She stands by the door and yells out are you ok? I said yes the youth pastor at that time tells her she needs to leave and she refuses telling him after exchanging words “Get thee behind me Satan” and he shut up quickly. He was trying to get her away from assisting me and she believed from day one what they were doing was abusive. I still hadn’t seen it yet for myself because I was still stuck under the idea that I was to submit to their authority. I still chuckle to this day with her how she put that youth pastor in his place and said get behind me Satan. This woman is a strong Christian and boy did she ever go to bat for me and Billy when I look back. I admire her courage and her discerning mind she reminds me of Dee.
    So after this meeting the head of the men’s ministry walks me out. He says “look Shauna when these men come together and pray about a matter I would TREMBLE,TREMBLE if they all prayed and came to the same decision and went against that”. He said ” you can do what you want but if you choose to homeschool him then your on your own”. I believed they would be done with me after that at this point I was scared. Then he went on to say “Shauna there are things going on in this church that you have no idea about but I really believe we need people like you here and I believe God is going to use you and your son to change this church “. I’m still confused at this point but felt I had no choice but to put Billy in school. I felt we needed the church more than anything at this point and I believed they cared but was confused as to why no discussion about Billy’s rape? Even still I didn’t realize what I have now to come know. I was hurt and confused about putting Billy in school and why he wasn’t good enough to be homeschooled like their children. Even Dee was confused by this. Anyways they used key people who had been involved heavily in our lives to influence my decisions knowing that I respected their opinions and trusted what they said. This is where manipulation of members is accomplished they use people in the church who you are close with to push those they want to submit to their authority even more.
    Anyways I can attest to the fact that these men and those men around them believe they have direct contact with God in that He tells them what He wants done and if you disobey your out of the family of God

  66. @ Josh:
    Joe was of the opinion that he could make some big announcement and half of TWW’s audience would run. He doesn’t get it. TGC is an either/or proposition. They do’t get love and mercy which transcends all human boundaries. I wonder when he lost the joy found in loving others, even those who disagree with him? he lives in a dark world of his own making.

  67. @ okrapod:
    Your last sentence is what I think, too. On one end, their life verse is Hebrews 13:17. IMO, a very bad translation and misunderstood in context. On the other end are antinomians. Both are free to believe what they want if it doesn’t harm others.

  68. Lydia wrote:

    Weird. The pastors in churches we were in never chaired the meeting. It was a deacon.

    That would work also. The way I saw it work was the pastor chaired the meeting and he in turn called on whoever had recommendations on which to vote in turn to present what they had to present. One would be the chairman of the board of deacons but also the SS Superintendent might have a recommendation regarding SS, and the WMU president might have a recommendation about something the WMU wanted the whole church to get involved with, and so on-the youth pastor might make a presentation for example.

    It definitely was not a one man show for anybody.

  69. @ ishy:

    A few months back the pastor at my old church said from the pulpit, “I don’t care about lying or embezzlement; it is immorality that will destroy the nation!”

    Sure enough, lying was a major vice there.

  70. @ dee:

    Sadly it isn’t limited to Calvinists. They went on about it at my old church, which was nondenominational Pentecostal/Charismatic. (They actually critiqued Calvinism from the pulpit.) Acceptance of homosexuality was seen as compromise, deception, and apostasy. In fact, they were freaked out that, when I got a Twitter account, I talked to bisexual feminists. But, they went on being sneaky and deceitful.

    Let’s put it this way: when I found watch blogs and read descriptions of spiritual abuse, much of it resembled what the church did. And things my friends told me they experienced resembled even more things described as spiritually abusive. Oh yeah, we were taught to trust leaders over those who accused them.

  71. @ Lydia:
    I will have to check back to see if this gets scrubbed:
    “My large wife and her clothes

    Dear Joe,
    I love my wife but I hate the way she dresses. She is a large girl and the clothes she wears are very unflattering. How can I tell her that her style of dress makes her look fat without it getting me into trouble?
    D.J.

    Dear D.J.,
    There are only two things in the world that scare me – snakes and women. There are a lot of dangerous creatures on earth, but these are the two you really have to watch out for. They both have a menacing yet hypnotic quality. Both appear rather seductive, at least when viewed from a safe distance. And this may just be a coincidence, but they both get pretty riled up when you poke at them with a stick.
    By themselves they are nothing to mess with. But put both together and things can get really nasty. The last time those two conspired they got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Clearly, they are nothing to mess with.
    While it is difficult to say which to fear most, I personally would rather stick my head in a bucket full of rattlers than tell a woman she looked fat. If you don ‘”

  72. @ okrapod:
    My Aunt was Deacon Chair in her mid sized Baptist church in Michigan in the 1970’s. She chaired the meetings at her church. I remember because my cousin and I had to sit quietly with my Uncle until it was over. Things have changed so much and not all for the better.

  73. @ Law Prof:

    What I find interesting is that the church I was raised in would single out homosexuality, but they would go on lying and being deceitful, and claim to follow the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible spends a lot more time criticizing deceit than homosexuality.

  74. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    Sadly it isn’t limited to Calvinists. They went on about it at my old church, which was nondenominational Pentecostal/Charismatic. (They actually critiqued Calvinism from the pulpit.) Acceptance of homosexuality was seen as compromise, deception, and apostasy. In fact, they were freaked out that, when I got a Twitter account, I talked to bisexual feminists. But, they went on being sneaky and deceitful.

    Very true. My (sort of) church is Missionary Baptist. (I do believe there are some Calvinists in the midst, but I cannot prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt) They get massively freaked out at homosexuality; speaking in tongues; not tithing 10% of the gross household income; allowing women to pray aloud in public, or in church, unless we are in our little segregated women’s classes — participate in mixed gender SS discussions — speak in business meeting — be a pastor, deacon, or even a choir leader. Women should be rarely seen and never heard.

  75. @ Nancy2:
    OH, and Baptists not being allowed to stay true to their faith by practicing misogynystic and homophobic discrimination in public venues.

  76. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    A few months back the pastor at my old church said from the pulpit, “I don’t care about lying or embezzlement; it is immorality that will destroy the nation!”
    Sure enough, lying was a major vice there.

    Sure, because the people they consider “immoral” are the ones completely ignoring them. How dare they??

  77. @ Darlene:

    “The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    seems to me these 2 issues are the primary threats to the comfort zone of the majority of men. that the likes of joe carter, TGC, etc. make these the litus test of whether or not one is a committed christian seems to me to be a measure of their self-centeredness.

    also, i think it’s a convenient trap to lay for their perceived enemies, and other inconvenient people.

    –the fact that joe carter and TGC would even desire to trap their perceived enemies and other inconvenient people using these issues (issues of human dignity, no less) is a measure of their cruelty.

    –the fact that they actually lay such an artless trap is a measure of their stupidity. such a regrettable and embarrassing broadcast, revealing just how self-centered, cruel, and oafish they must be.

    –sigh….. the fact that they don’t appear to regret or be embarrassed by it… is there a better word than oaf?

  78. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    Let’s put it this way: when I found watch blogs and read descriptions of spiritual abuse, much of it resembled what the church did. And things my friends told me they experienced resembled even more things described as spiritually abusive. Oh yeah, we were taught to trust leaders over those who accused them.

    This is why Joe was as vitriolic as he was about TWW–watchblogs make people realize that that movement is not of God, and that people who demand absolute submission are abusive and not godly leaders.

  79. Darlene wrote:

    The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

    Maybe that’s the difference between Neo-Cal types and places like where I grew up. They did not like feminism, but it seemed non-Christian religions, especially Islam, were seen as worse, or at least they denounced them more. (Though there were jokes about how they believed in submission, unlike Americans.) They did, however, think the Illuminati was behind both feminism and the interfaith movement, and the so-called Gay Agenda(TM).

  80. @ Nancy2:

    The place where I grew up, while comp and anti-feminist, didn’t oppose women’s preaching; in fact, the pastor’s wife preached as well. And, when her husband died, she became the senior pastor. It was actually while she was senior pastor that an elder expressed displeasure at my talking to bisexual feminists on Twitter.

  81. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    Daisy, you have a good eye there. But here is the thing. I think Joe Carter’s definition of “unrepentant” homosexual might mean something different than what you’re thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised that Joe Carter’s definition of repentance would include rejecting the reality that they (the homosexual) are attracted to a person of the same gender. So, in that world, a homosexual that has repented will not even have same-sex attraction any longer. And if they do, they must not have “repented.” Just my take on the issue having been in that Evangelical world at one time.

    This is a good point. Joe Carter has expressed his belief in the validity of “reparative therapy” in the past. He’s also expressed his opinion that states which outlaw “reparative therapy” for minors are doing a bad thing. It’s possible he’s changed his mind. I don’t know.

    If he follows Denny Burk [1], it’s likely that he believes that the orientation itself is intrinsically sinful. Obviously, this is a ridiculous belief, even – or especially! – by the standards of an as-literal-as-possible hermeneutic, given that it demolishes a traditional understanding of the distinction between temptation and sin. But they’re more than happy to throw out sound principles of scriptural interpretation if it means that they get an unattainably lofty standard with which they can single out LGBT folks for special oppression.

    [1] http://www.canonandculture.com/is-homosexual-orientation-sinful/

  82. dee wrote:

    Joe was of the opinion that he could make some big announcement and half of TWW’s audience would run. He doesn’t get it. TGC is an either/or proposition. They do’t get love and mercy which transcends all human boundaries. I wonder when he lost the joy found in loving others, even those who disagree with him? he lives in a dark world of his own making.

    It seems to me that they’ve made HOMOSEXUALITY™ the One and Only True Litmus Test Issue of our time, so would it be fair to say that he might be engaging in some projection of a psychological sort with an assertion like that?

  83. Law Prof wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.
    I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
    It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.
    I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

    I share your views on the practice of homosexual behavior but at the same time I have compassion for those who are dealing with same sex attraction-and I cannot understand why so many Christians act so awful to homosexual people while at the same time ignoring the fact that they have their own pet sins that God is not pleased with-have they never read Romans 2?

    So now homosexual people who do feel a tug from God wind up being treated like absolute crap by much of the church instead of us loving them and allowing Holy Spirit to help them- meanwhile we laud proud, arrogant leaders who care nothing for broken and hurting people only to hurt them more.

    The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus knows our hearts and our struggles and even our sanctification is by faith alone and not by selfrighteous striving. I wish some of these church leaders would study Galatians for awhile and get the memo!

  84. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk [1], it’s likely that he believes that the orientation itself is intrinsically sinful.

    I am deeply concerned about Denny Burk’s position. basically, you are screwed from the start if you are gay. They very thought that poi are gay is sinful-all of it. he even says those who adhere to celibacy are sinful if they ever have a gay thought. How absolutely draconian. I bet he doesn’t give a thought to himself if he looks at a woman and thinks she is cute.

  85. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    What I find interesting is that the church I was raised in would single out homosexuality, but they would go on lying and being deceitful, and claim to follow the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible spends a lot more time criticizing deceit than homosexuality.

    In that vein, I’ve heard so many lies in church about the LGBT community that I can’t even. At this point, frankly, I can’t take anything they say about the topic seriously.

    Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    They did, however, think the Illuminati was behind both feminism and the interfaith movement, and the so-called Gay Agenda(TM).

    Too much Alex Jones? He said recently that [a certain public figure] was having stuff put in the water to turn the frogs gay! It’d be hilarious if so many people didn’t take him seriously.

  86. PS if Joe should be reading here:

    I do not agree one hundred percent with anyone but Jesus. That would include WW. But I read here because they do care for hurting people who have been denied a voice elsewhere. I would be careful what I said about them. They are not perfect, but I believe they belong to Him, and He cares about them.

    I know what it is like to be hurting, shut down, misunderstood, and told to be silent as a victim. I did what I was told. Those scars ran deep but I wanted to obey the Lord. Only later did I discover how Jesus really felt about what I was going through. For years there was a blockage between God and myself because I believed the lies I was told about Him. NO MORE!

  87. @ Josh:

    They love Steve Quayle, who is a frequent guest of Alex Jones. And the Haggmam and Haggman report, that Quayle also appears on frequently.

    They think hormones cause people to be trans.

  88. dee wrote:

    I sure have under about that myself. Do you know about the George Rekers story?

    Yes, I am familiar with that incident, among others (including John Paulk getting caught in a gay bar at the height of his time leading an ex-gay organization). Beyond that, there was the time – not involving any improprieties – that Alan Chambers, former head of Exodus, testified that “99.9%” of the people he’d worked with had not experienced a change of orientation [1], on top of the scientific research by conservative researchers who came to basically the same conclusion [2] (although, in a somewhat dishonest manner, that’s not how some of the researchers went on to sell it to the “family” “research” groups).

    [1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2012/01/09/alan-chambers-99-9-have-not-experienced-a-change-in-their-orientation/

    [2] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2011/10/27/the-jones-and-yarhouse-study-what-does-it-mean/

  89. My mom had a saying, “the wounded dog cries the loudest.” Hence, Mr. Carter’s railing against this site and others like it only solidifies my theory that he must be struggling with his own theology and spirituality. Taking cheap potshots at people is far from mature, but that’s the only way he has been programmed to deal with people who challenge his itty-bitty worldview. When our church exposed our former pastor’s true stripes, one of the questions I asked him was, “is this (Neo-Cal Reform Theology) all you know?” And sadly, he had no answer. It really bothered me, because I liked the guy and hoped he would see the error of this stuff, but it was like he had been brainwashed. The kids coming from some of the Southern Baptist seminaries today are being fed this garbage as though it were truth. Thankfully, he booked before doing too much damage.

    Exposing the darkness that has crept into churches is not popular or easy but absolutely necessary. Carter’s howling (like a “Broken Wolf”) should only serve to encourage those sounding the alarm. Please don’t take your foot off the gas!

  90. Lydia wrote:

    My Aunt was Deacon Chair in her mid sized Baptist church in Michigan in the 1970’s.

    There we have a clue. I was never in a Baptist church back when that had women deacons. Apparently Michigan in 1970s was a tad different from that part of Louisville that I remember from the 40s. Or maybe her church was not SBC? Or perhaps there was a mistake and I was born a few generations too soon-I have actually rather wondered about that from time to time.

  91. Bunny wrote:

    For years there was a blockage between God and myself because I believed the lies I was told about Him. NO MORE!

    They seem to believe that ignoring the bad things makes them go away and is more godly. They ignore the fact that talking about abuse and being believed is healing. Knowing that you are not alone. Knowing that that didn’t come from god.

    Thank you for sharing and I hope they listen (although I have my doubts).

  92. dee wrote:

    I am deeply concerned about Denny Burk’s position. basically, you are screwed from the start if you are gay. They very thought that poi are gay is sinful-all of it. he even says those who adhere to celibacy are sinful if they ever have a gay thought. How absolutely draconian. I bet he doesn’t give a thought to himself if he looks at a woman and thinks she is cute.

    Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

  93. Lydia wrote:

    I know this is a black hole but is all this predicated on the Garcia’s signing any documents with Scientology when they joined? You can see where I am going with this, right? Even if the arbitration has never been used, is it hinted at in any signed documents.
    We should be concerned, too. Thanks for bringing this up.
    People need to know what joining any authoritarian and closed “religious” group can mean for their future.

    In order to get services in Scientology, you have to sign contracts. So yes, the Garcias signed all sorts of contracts. I would call them contracts of adhesion, because they’re not entered into on an equal basis. Scientology is arguing that these contracts include arbitration.

  94. Nancy2 wrote:

    Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

    This is true.

    Or maybe it’s deflection. Keep talking about that and you don’t have to talk about your treatment of women.

  95. okrapod wrote:

    Or maybe her church was not SBC?

    I can’t answer for Lydia, but a friend just went to ‘yankee baptist’ seminary and it is apparently quite different from SBC. Or so I hear.

  96. Bunny wrote:

    NO MORE!

    Amen, and congratulations on your “Victory in Jesus”, instead of men and their abhorrent teachings.

  97. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    What I find interesting is that the church I was raised in would single out homosexuality, but they would go on lying and being deceitful, and claim to follow the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible spends a lot more time criticizing deceit than homosexuality.

    You ALWAYS tunnel-vision on The Other Guy’s SIN SIN SIN, never your own.

    The example given is “why not gluttony?” And all the YouTube videos of too-fat-to-stand-up preachers SCREAMING from their pulpits about sexual(TM) SIN SIN SIN gives you the answer. Especially when (like pedophilia) it’s becoming a Privilege of Pastoral Rank.

    And then there was a humorous example (don’t remember the source)regarding “caffeine addiction”:

    “Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

  98. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Joe has been a busy boy this morning deleting history.

    As of now, Oceania has ALWAYS been at Peace with Eurasia, Comrades.
    (And the chocolate ration has always been TEN grams…)

  99. In Southern Kentucky, (I am very familiar with Todd, Christian, Logan, Warren, Trigg, Hopkins, and Muhlenburg counties) I have never seen a woman deacon or a woman preacher in an SBC church.

  100. Josh wrote:

    It seems to me that they’ve made HOMOSEXUALITY™ the One and Only True Litmus Test Issue of our time, so would it be fair to say that he might be engaging in some projection of a psychological sort with an assertion like that?

    I do believe it would be not only fair to say that but even should be the first thing to be considered; and if it could not be ruled out then one ought not listen to him.

    I remember when divorce was the big litmus test, and that was just before the whole nation took up divorcing as a national sport. I ask the question as to why ‘divorce’ was on so many minds before it became so popular? Maybe wishful thinking? Maybe insecurity in people’s marriages and fear that the spouse would leave? All I know is that the single issue matter should be held in suspicion until proved otherwise, whatever issue the single issue approach is about.

  101. I have one question for Joe Carter. If CJ is innocent, why is still not head of SGM??

  102. GSD wrote:

    Carter’s bio on that article was interesring:
    “Joe Carter founded Evangelical Outpost in 2005. He is the web editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. A fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran, he previously served as the managing editor for the online magazine Culture11 and The East Texas Tribune. Joe has also served as the Director of Research and Rapid Response for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign and as a director of communications for both the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Family Research Council. He is the co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicaton.”

    1) I expected better from First Things.
    2) Patrick Henry College (i.e. boot camp for Future Commanders of Gilead); why am I not surprised?
    3) Defrocked Marine…
    4) “Rapid Response” (Truth Squad? Enforcer?) for Huckabee? God’s Anointed Next POTUS who covered up for Jim-Bob Duggar?
    5) “Argue like Jesus” reminds me too much of ex-debating team types, where Truth was completely irrelevant and all that mattered was to WIN the debate no matter how many you throw under the bus.

  103. okrapod wrote:

    I do believe it would be not only fair to say that but even should be the first thing to be considered; and if it could not be ruled out then one ought not listen to him.

    That did not sound like what I was trying to say. I did not mean to say that one should judge the worth of what somebody says based on their sexual orientation. I did mean to say that it is important to distinguish between hypocrisy and objectivity, even if one does not agree with what people are saying; and if it is hypocrisy then refuse to listen to it at all in any way.

  104. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

    Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

  105. Lydia wrote:

    @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
    I know this is a black hole but is all this predicated on the Garcia’s signing any documents with Scientology when they joined? You can see where I am going with this, right?

    You mean Scientology’s “Church Covenant”?

  106. Nancy2 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    “Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

    Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

    Then stay far, far away from San Francisco. That City of the Perpetually Offended overreacts to anything and everything.

  107. Nancy2 wrote:

    Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

    As well as planting the fear in their reptile hindbrain that a bigger, stronger, more manly man than themselves could use them exactly the same way they use a woman.
    (i.e. “Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”)

  108. Nancy2 wrote:

    or the bacon fat I put in my beans

    Preach it, sister. Am I the only who who thinks that the bacon one now buys at the grocery is not only higher priced but also cheaper quality? Has bacon gone the way of tomatoes? I don’t mind growing tomatoes or going to the farmer’s market for tomatoes, but pigs? Don’t think so.

  109. okrapod wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    3) Defrocked Marine…

    Say what? Other than honorable discharge? What?

    No. “Defrocked Marine” is a colloquialism for a real jarhead who retains the full-honk attitude after he musters out. Like his inner R Lee Ermey role is constantly on and up front.

  110. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    3) Defrocked Marine…

    Where are you getting ‘defrocked’ from? I don’t think leaving service honorably should be called that.

    Sidenote: went out with a marine recently and heard some interesting hazing stories!

  111. @ dee:

    “I am deeply concerned about Denny Burk’s position. basically, you are screwed from the start if you are gay. ”
    +++++++++++++++++

    the last day my teen age son went to church was the day the youth pastor took the question “Will people who are gay go to hell?” and answered it with “Yes, they will.”

    no qualification. that was his answer.

    troubled my son so much he considers church to be a dangerous and harmful place run by fools. i can’t say i disagree.

    imagine, what tender-aged person in that youth group who is attracted to his/her own sex must have felt upon hearing that news.

    people take their own lives over something like this.

  112. Geoff Smith wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    Exactly! In the NT, homosexuality is one manifestation of humanity’s Genesis 6:5 plight. So are all the vices that Paul lists at the end of Romans 1. No one enters God’s kingdom without repentance and faith–no not one.

    And Romans 1 is a literary convention called a “decline narrative”; at that time, the concept of history was the opposite of today’s — a constant decline from an original Golden Age of perfection.

    And given it was written by a Rabbi, Romans 1 should normally have ended with a “For these are the things which the Goyim do”. Instead (like that other Rabbi from Nazareth) he flips the ending one-eighty with “for such as these were you”.

  113. Lea wrote:

    @ Ryan Ashton:
    Ryan, he quoted Frank Turk!
    Frank Turk simply says this: “Notice that Paul here instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town and not watchbloggers.

    Why on earth didn’t Paul talk about bloggers, I wonder?

    Well, John (in Revelation) talked about global thermonuclear war and helicopter gunships (with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded hippies), so why not?

  114. @ Nancy2:
    The bigger cities were probably a bit different but they all went to CBF here after Mohler took over SBTS and got rid of female profs.

  115. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Geoff Smith wrote:
    @ Daisy:
    Exactly! In the NT, homosexuality is one manifestation of humanity’s Genesis 6:5 plight. So are all the vices that Paul lists at the end of Romans 1. No one enters God’s kingdom without repentance and faith–no not one.
    And Romans 1 is a literary convention called a “decline narrative”; at that time, the concept of history was the opposite of today’s — a constant decline from an original Golden Age of perfection.
    And given it was written by a Rabbi, Romans 1 should normally have ended with a “For these are the things which the Goyim do”. Instead (like that other Rabbi from Nazareth) he flips the ending one-eighty with “for such as these were you”.

    I don’t get this. Meaning they, the Roman Christians, are not doing these things anymore or they don’t matter anymore?

  116. elastigirl wrote:

    the last day my teen age son went to church was the day the youth pastor took the question “Will people who are gay go to hell?” and answered it with “Yes, they will.”

    people take their own lives over something like this.

    If anyone doubts you, they need only look up the stats for attempted suicide in the LGBT population versus in the general population. Now, in keeping with their long-held tradition of slandering LGB and trans* people, the standard conservative evangelical line is that this is evidence that “being gay” is a mental disorder (how they reconcile that with the simultaneous yet contradictory claim that being gay is a choice is their problem, not mine). With that said, Schrodinger’s razor, I mean Occam’s cat, I mean … whatever, you know what I mean … would say that the simplest explanation is that if someone is told that they’re intrinsically disordered, unnatural, and an affront to God by virtue of a propensity that they did not choose – and have often spent years praying to have taken away – then of course they’re going to feel like an unredeemable pile of excrement, and it shouldn’t be surprising if they treat themselves in that way!

  117. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And given it was written by a Rabbi, Romans 1 should normally have ended with a “For these are the things which the Goyim do”. Instead (like that other Rabbi from Nazareth) he flips the ending one-eighty with “for such as these were you”.

    …which is of course why Romans 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 are the proof texts for why so-called reparative therapy clearly works (God wills it!), despite the mounds of empirical evidence to the contrary.

  118. Recently, I have noticed that men who embrace neo-Calvinism hold a very rigid view of women’s “roles” and value. It seems to me that some of them display either anger or distain for women who hold opinions that don’t agree with their own. In the comment section of Carter’s blog, he appears to use gas lighting and ridicule when a reader questions his motives.
    I believe that the more insecure a man is in his worth, the more he expects others to agree with him and the harsher he is towards assertive women. I have a younger brother who has become involved in a reformed SB church here in the south. He has always struggled with his self-esteem. Now that he has become an elder in his church, he has become very bossy and controlling. I do push back, but his respect for me as a women has greatly diminished. I believe he also uses a lot of thought stopping to avoid any doubt that he is “in charge”.
    I attended the wedding of his youngest daughter and before she came down the aisle, the pastor grilled the groom in front of us as to whether he was sure he was ready to take on the responsibility of a wife and be a leader at home. The bride is treated like a child! (She has lived alone and supported herself for many years).
    All I can say is: stay strong!

  119. “believe that the more insecure a man is in his worth, the more he expects others to agree with him and the harsher he is towards assertive women. I have a younger brother who has become involved in a reformed SB church here in the south. He has always struggled with his self-esteem. Now that he has become an elder in his church, he has become very bossy and controlling.”

    Ann, you have just described what many of us have witnessed are most of young men graduating from SBTS and pastoring churches. They needed an identity. And the Neo Cal movement is like crack for those types for many reasons. It’s very structured, very hierarchical, faux intellectual and male dominated. And he will find plenty of support in that world from other men if he toes the line and buys in all the way.

  120. @ Lydia:

    Do you have any thoughts about the type of women who also buy into the neo-cal movement? I have a couple of ideas but no personal experience and no first hand observations to support any idea one way or the other.

  121. @ Nancy2:

    From archive.org. The whole post “My large wife and her clothes”. The other links cut off most of the last paragraph. FWIW.

    “october 22, 2003
    My large wife and her clothes
    Dear Joe,
    I love my wife but I hate the way she dresses. She is a large girl and the clothes she wears are very unflattering. How can I tell her that her style of dress makes her look fat without it getting me into trouble?
    D.J.

    Dear D.J.,
    There are only two things in the world that scare me – snakes and women. There are a lot of dangerous creatures on earth, but these are the two you really have to watch out for. They both have a menacing yet hypnotic quality. Both appear rather seductive, at least when viewed from a safe distance. And this may just be a coincidence, but they both get pretty riled up when you poke at them with a stick.

    By themselves they are nothing to mess with. But put both together and things can get really nasty. The last time those two conspired they got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Clearly, they are nothing to mess with.

    While it is difficult to say which to fear most, I personally would rather stick my head in a bucket full of rattlers than tell a woman she looked fat. If you don’t like the way she dresses take her shopping for a new wardrobe. Compared to an emergency room bill it will be a bargain. And for future reference, D.J, let me share with you a valuable insight: never, ever, no matter how many Twinkies she’s snorted, should you tell your wife she looks fat. You’ll have an easier time finding anti-venom than finding a good divorce lawyer.

    Posted by Joe Carter at 07:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack”

    https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20040113131514/http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com:80/archives/2003_10.html

  122. Heather wrote:

    The other links cut off most of the last paragraph. FWIW.

    Ha! He already edited this, apparently. He took out the part about shopping, right?

    A friends husband has tried to buy her clothes he likes better (although it has nothing to do with weight). She hasn’t exactly embraced them.

  123. dee wrote:

    why this theologically assured men seem to get so bent out of shape when you challenge them that they hard ad mean? Why not just let it go?

    Because they are deeply insecure and you are a threat to their identity. If their identity were truly in Christ, you would be no threat to them at all! But because their true identity is in their tribal identity, you are a true threat which must be destroyed. The worst of it is that you are a woman and you have continually shamed them, and they cannot bear that shame.

    I am not a psy*, but that is how I read this reaction, and that is how I have read the reactions I received from the pups I encountered who did not appreciate a Berean with a Bible.

  124. Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

    A few months back the pastor at my old church said from the pulpit, “I don’t care about lying or embezzlement; it is immorality that will destroy the nation!”

    Well, folks, you heard it here first: lying and embezzlement are perfectly moral.

    Now, I’m a non-Christian (a never-Christian, I should say), so maybe I don’t get a vote on this. But I get *really, really cranky* about how, in Christianese, “morality” refers only to sexual matters. No, morality is MUCH broader than that. We make thousands of moral choices every year, and we’re fully clothed for well over 90% of ’em.

    Conservative Christianity has a very impoverished moral vocabulary because it doesn’t acknowledge that. Also because it tends to make claims like “all sins are equal in God’s sight,” which — even if true, which presumably it isn’t because there’s an (unfortunately ill-defined) unforgivable sin — but even if it WERE true, it clashes violently with our innate moral sense… and with the believers’ own tendency to elevate some sins to the top of the seriousness hierarchy (like, oh, I don’t know, gay sex) and downplay the significance of others (like gluttony).

    I’m getting wildly off-topic, though. And I’m also not acknowledging the stuff conservative churches do *right* (at least, good churches). And there’s a lot that they do! But TWW probably isn’t the right place to sing the praises of church ladies with casseroles. 🙂

  125. Nancy2 wrote:

    Now, can anyone find an article where Joe Carter rails against fat preachers, deacons or elders?

    Doubtful.

    Snorting twinkies! Honestly.

  126. Heather wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    From archive.org. The whole post “My large wife and her clothes”. The other links cut off most of the last paragraph. FWIW.
    “october 22, 2003
    My large wife and her clothes
    Dear Joe,
    I love my wife but I hate the way she dresses. She is a large girl and the clothes she wears are very unflattering. How can I tell her that her style of dress makes her look fat without it getting me into trouble?
    D.J.
    Dear D.J.,
    There are only two things in the world that scare me – snakes and women. There are a lot of dangerous creatures on earth, but these are the two you really have to watch out for. They both have a menacing yet hypnotic quality. Both appear rather seductive, at least when viewed from a safe distance. And this may just be a coincidence, but they both get pretty riled up when you poke at them with a stick.
    By themselves they are nothing to mess with. But put both together and things can get really nasty. The last time those two conspired they got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Clearly, they are nothing to mess with.
    While it is difficult to say which to fear most, I personally would rather stick my head in a bucket full of rattlers than tell a woman she looked fat. If you don’t like the way she dresses take her shopping for a new wardrobe. Compared to an emergency room bill it will be a bargain. And for future reference, D.J, let me share with you a valuable insight: never, ever, no matter how many Twinkies she’s snorted, should you tell your wife she looks fat. You’ll have an easier time finding anti-venom than finding a good divorce lawyer.
    Posted by Joe Carter at 07:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack”
    https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20040113131514/http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com:80/archives/2003_10.html

    What a sad sad view of women. We are people. Treat us like people. The end.

  127. @ okrapod:

    Frankly, they were mostly young. And in the early days of Neo Cal you had the whole “smoking hot wife” meme going on with most of the YRR men. It was sex, sex, sex all the time. They thought they had discovered Christian sex or something. Mohler really pushed early marriage (but not for his own) so many of them worked dreaming of one day not working but had to help husband career first. The young guys were very defensive about this and often complained on blogs the church should pay more. Right. First job. And they adored Mary Mohler. An invite to something Mary was putting on was coveted.

    Most of them were so shallow I have nothing to report. They pretty much parroted the comp party line. They lived to please their husband and obey him. They used social media to share lacy frilly syrupy platitudes. They were very Stepfordish. Basically they were more like sweet naive little girls, IMO. Not young educated women. Although they might have been reluctant to show that side. And don’t forget I live in Neo Cal Mecca.

    It would be an interesting social experiment to follow their trajectory and report 20 years later how it all worked out for them.

    And yes, I know I sound mean. But you asked. :o) it was the twilight zone for me.

  128. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Heather:
    Now, can anyone find an article where Joe Carter rails against fat preachers, deacons or elders?

    No, because they’re MALE.

    Women have to be built like in porn — supermodel-skinny except for the shapely hips and the two basketballs grafted to the chest. Perfect eye candy in every way — even after a dozen Quiver-kids. (Anyone else think this is highly unrealistic?)

    But Manly Men? They can be bald spheroids missing half their teeth who’ve never heard of hygiene and that’s still OK. “WOMAN, SUBMIT! ME WANNA!”

  129. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Frankly, they were mostly young. And in the early days of Neo Cal you had the whole “smoking hot wife” meme going on with most of the YRR men. It was sex, sex, sex all the time. They thought they had discovered Christian sex or something.

    Sounds like the Sexual Revolution on the usual Christianese 20-30-year delay fuse.

  130. Lydia wrote:

    The young guys were very defensive about this and often complained on blogs the church should pay more. Right. First job. And they adored Mary Mohler. An invite to something Mary was putting on was coveted.

    1) I’d complain too. I’d be looking for a partner, not a pretty parasite.
    2) Mary Mohler = Serena Joy, Commander’s Wife?

    Most of them were so shallow I have nothing to report. They pretty much parroted the comp party line. They lived to please their husband and obey him. They used social media to share lacy frilly syrupy platitudes.

    Like the eyes of the Nazgul when Frodo saw them at Weathertop. No actual eyes, just two black voids opening into the no-interior of an empty shell.

  131. Gram3 wrote:

    Because they are deeply insecure and you are a threat to their identity. If their identity were truly in Christ, you would be no threat to them at all! But because their true identity is in their tribal identity, you are a true threat which must be destroyed. The worst of it is that you are a woman and you have continually shamed them, and they cannot bear that shame.

    “with sword I wash my shame away —
    Fate, bring on me what you may!”
    — Arab or Persian couplet I remember reading once long, long ago

  132. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Sounds like the Sexual Revolution on the usual Christianese 20-30-year delay fuse.

    It does have that element it sounds like. Also it is true that some women really and really do not want to spend their lives in the work force (for multiple reasons), and for them this would look like an enticing rescue from something they big time want to avoid. Then also back in the days of the popularity of Freudian concepts there was the idea of ‘daddy’ and some women wanting not a husband so much as rather an ongoing daddy figure.

    My dad, in trying to convince me to beocme a lawyer, kept talking about how the law was going to open up for women and how he saw so many widows come into the firm he worked for in such desperate straits that they did not even know how to write a check much less manage their affairs now that they were widows. Dad thought that would be a opportunity rich field of law for a woman lawyer. I was not really into that, but in retrospect he was probably correct that these widows were out there who could not (or would not?) function.

    I would like to think that we are beyond that, but perhaps the Freudians were on to something.

  133. I came across an article today which was written in 2013. The title of it is “There’s a Wolf and There’s a Sheep and There’s a Difference. So How do You Tell?” by Donald Miller.

    I believe Joe Carter would be, to borrow a phrase from his good friend C.J. Mahaney, “well served” if he were to read it.

    Here are the last few paragraphs:

    “Some Christian leaders make controversial statements in order to build a tribe. They’re looking for a downline of submissive people who will do what it is they want them to do. They sell confidence and security, rituals to perform, books to read and ultimately a sense that if they obey their rules, they will be okay. They use the name of Jesus to make themselves mini gods. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of status, fame, power, money and glory to be had by becoming a modern day pharisee. And those who are looking to put their faith in something tangible, like an earthly leader, rather than something intangible, like Jesus, are prime for manipulation.

    Here’s the obvious key: Are the Christian leaders you follow known to be humble? Are they known to be gracious? Do they seek attention by making shocking statements? Do they interact with sinners and religious leaders alike with grace and kindness the way Jesus did? Do they insist on being the center of attention? Do they surround themselves with yes men and get rid of people who will not submit?

    If so, you’ve got a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

    http://storylineblog.com/2013/03/25/why-controlling-people-arent-tracking-with-jesus/

  134. Lydia wrote:

    It would be an interesting social experiment to follow their trajectory and report 20 years later how it all worked out for them.

    That I’d like to see.
    I’m sure it would show a LOT of negative side/aftereffects.

  135. Ann wrote:

    I have a younger brother who has become involved in a reformed SB church here in the south. He has always struggled with his self-esteem. Now that he has become an elder in his church, he has become very bossy and controlling.

    Barney Fife Syndrome

  136. Linn wrote:

    I found out, much to my horror, that my wonderful church somehow “joined” TGC when our new pastor came last year

    Does your church have a congregational government? If it does, ask how the church became a member of TCG in the next business meeting. If you don’t ask an elder or deacon. You have a right to know and this is precisely how pastors are trained to sneak these things in the “back door.” I know, because it happened in our church. Your wariness is well-founded. Christ never operated underhandedly or stealthily; that’s the tactics of the Deceiver!

  137. okrapod wrote:

    I would like to think that we are beyond that, but perhaps the Freudians were on to something.

    I think Dr Freud himself was on to something, but he ended up taking his experience (upper-middle class neuroses of Victorian-era Vienna) as universal for all people in all times and places. (The man did have a tendency to go off on tangents — see “nasal sex”. Like I’ve observed in creative contexts, you have to be a little crazy to go outside the box but not so crazy that you can’t go back in.)

    And then his followers followed a common pattern of being More Freudian than Freud, and Freud became established as Inerrant Dogma for a time.

  138. Christiane wrote:

    Ann wrote:
    I have a younger brother who has become involved in a reformed SB church here in the south. He has always struggled with his self-esteem. Now that he has become an elder in his church, he has become very bossy and controlling.

    Barney Fife Syndrome

    Or a bit (no, make that a lot) darker example:

    “Brewery-wagon driver saved from obscurity by his beloved Nazis.”
    — Leon Uris, Armageddon: a Novel of Berlin, referring to a (fictional) KZ Kommandant

  139. Lydia wrote:

    @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
    Thanks. Boy oh boy. People don’t need to sign anything or swear public oaths for any “religion”.

    Didn’t that Rabbi from Nazareth talk about “swearing public oaths” in that Sermon on the Mount?

  140. okrapod wrote:

    Josh wrote:
    It seems to me that they’ve made HOMOSEXUALITY™ the One and Only True Litmus Test Issue of our time, so would it be fair to say that he might be engaging in some projection of a psychological sort with an assertion like that?

    I do believe it would be not only fair to say that but even should be the first thing to be considered; and if it could not be ruled out then one ought not listen to him.

    Remember Ted Haggard?

    Though I think another dynamic in play is preaching against it in an attempt to self-treat in secret; i.e. preaching more to himself than to anyone else. (After all, SSA is probably THE strongest taboo in that culture.)

  141. Josh wrote:

    Seekeroftruthweb wrote:
    They did, however, think the Illuminati was behind both feminism and the interfaith movement, and the so-called Gay Agenda(TM).

    Too much Alex Jones? He said recently that [a certain public figure] was having stuff put in the water to turn the frogs gay! It’d be hilarious if so many people didn’t take him seriously.

    This is where Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory intersects/overlaps with The Big Lie.

  142. dee wrote:

    Do you know about the George Rekers story?
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/05/10/rekers-rentboy-and-caner-painful-hypocrisy/

    Again, I think he was preaching to himself, trying to self-treat in secret.

    “For that which I do not want to do, that I do.”
    — some Rabbi from Tarsus

    Think of the fear of someone in a prestigious Morality Guardian position being “outed” to be violating the strongest taboo in his Moral culture…

  143. dee wrote:

    @ Josh:
    Joe was of the opinion that he could make some big announcement and half of TWW’s audience would run.

    “ABRACADABRA” = “I Speak and IT IS SO!”

    Ego much?

    (Plus echoes the Japanese Navy in WW2, whose elaborate battle plans depended entirely on the enemy acting/reacting exactly the way the Japanese battle planners wanted them to act.)

  144. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And then his followers followed a common pattern of being More Freudian than Freud, and Freud became established as Inerrant Dogma for a time.

    Oh, yes. And then we threw out just about everything he had observed and totally vilified the man, which I can understand, but which is of course thinking in fallacies. Who said it, then it must be wrong. What were the motivations of whoever said it, then it must be wrong. Was it said a long time ago then (a) it must be right -or- (b) it must be wrong. Of course these are all fallacies.

    But upper middle class, of course, were the only ones who could afford to indulge in some of the behavior he observed, while the poor Irish immigrant woman who worked for them could not afford such stuff. Which raises the observation that it must be choice and opportunity, not innate personality or innate biology. Much less a command from God. At this point I wonder why the neo-cal proponents of female ineptitude don’t look at social structures and start talking about choices and who can afford which choices instead of talking about something allegedly innate to females. It seems to me that they are making the same mistake that you have observed that the Freudian minions did-applying something to everybody which would only be applicable to some-at most-and that only as a choice.

    But then, it is the middle class and above who have the money that the religious charlatans want, so there you go. And indeed there are women who choose the female neo-cal life style when they have the opportunity to do so. I am about ready to say that there is nothing new under the sun.

  145. It’s been shown time and time again that the New Calvinists defend their own. They protect and cover to keep their icons on the throne (e.g., Mahaney), until the potato becomes too hot to handle (e.g., Driscoll). Anyone who voices concerns about the men and ministries which are part of the reformed movement are branded hateful liars. They don’t like the watchblogs because they illuminate the things they do in darkness. They despise the “discernment bloggers” who are standing up for other Christians, not bashing them (actually, discernment blogging is a good way to refer to TWW). Speaking of bashers, the New Calvinist elite put folks like Joe Carter into positions where they can bite and devour all dissenters. It’s a militant and aggressive movement.

  146. I don’t know much about Joe Carter – only what I read about him here, and some of his articles and tweets I looked up after reading about him here. I also looked him up at https://acton.org/about/staff/joe-carter.

    As I see it, Joe Carter is not a Christian leader, pastor, apologist. He is a political lobbyist. As such, he is in it to win, to score points, to one-up others.

    He works in a “Christian” “think-tank” – whatever that means. He works where religion and politics meet. And that is not a good place to be, because you play to “win”, not to communicate. You can’t communicate if all you want is to get your point across. Communication also means listening, and – occasionally 😉 – even accepting that the other side has a point. From the Christian point of view, winning at almost any price is destructive and perverts the true meaning of Christianity, from a political point of view, you lose a lot of avenues of agreement if every difference of opinion is couched in religious, absolute terms. This is one of the tendencies that destroy the common ground that we seem to be losing and that we as societies so desperately need.

    I have been most suspicious of anyone mixing religion and politics. It is a toxic mixture. Just take a look at all the places where this plays out. And yes, the US is one of these places. If religion wasn’t so politicized, and politics not so mixed up with religion, the US would be in a much better place, IMHO.

    IIRC, Jesus did not “play to win”, to score, to one-up others. He won for us by losing. Just a thought.

  147. Heather wrote:

    let me share with you a valuable insight: never, ever, no matter how many Twinkies she’s snorted, should you tell your wife she looks fat. You’ll have an easier time finding anti-venom than finding a good divorce lawyer.

    Well, that tells us a lot about how Joe Carter, the outspoken Complementarian, values and esteems wives, doesn’t it? Imagine how they speak about women privately!

  148. Harley wrote:

    Like Dee and Deb, I don’t know why people get so hung up about homosexuality. I recently connected with a friend from high school who is married to a person of the same sex. It doesn’t bother me. That is her life not mine. I saw a picture a few yrs ago of another close friend from my school years. He was gay and I didn’t know it. In this picture he looked so happy. More than I ever saw him before. I don’t know why he was that happy. But God does, and that’s enough for me. Instead of focusing so much on this issue, try focusing on things that really matter, as in your daily walk with Christ. Or how about on how prayer changes lives and things. I could go on and on here.

    Excellent comment, Harley. My sentiments exactly.

    I always say to folks who are hung up on this issue, “Can you dictate another person’s hairstyle?” Answer: “No.” Me:”What makes you think you can dictate their dating relationships if you can’t even dictate their hairstyle?”

  149. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    It would be an interesting social experiment to follow their trajectory and report 20 years later how it all worked out for them.

    That I’d like to see.
    I’m sure it would show a LOT of negative side/aftereffects.

    Back then… Probably around 2005-6 there was a video going around of a young YRR pastor wife explaining how she obeyed her husband. He left lists for her to accomplish down to how to organize condiments in the fridge. It was her joy to obey him. I want to find her. :o)

  150. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Ha ha. It was creepy. It’s all they talked about. I knew because I was on social media. But seniors in churches they took over were aghast at the constant focus and drive by gratuitous mentions in sermons. Then seniors are labeled as prudes. Uh no. The YRR did not invent sex but they though they did.

  151. @ Todd Wilhelm:
    I read “Blue Like Jazz” somewhere around in the early ’00. The cussing pastor Miller mentions from the Emergent world is Mark Driscoll. A few years later Driscoll was an up and coming Reformed pastor in the YRR movement.

  152. okrapod wrote:

    At this point I wonder why the neo-cal proponents of female ineptitude don’t look at social structures and start talking about choices and who can afford which choices instead of talking about something allegedly innate to females. It seems to me that they are making the same mistake that you have observed that the Freudian minions did-applying something to everybody which would only be applicable to some-at most-and that only as a choice.

    I am going to say again that Female Subordinationism is about money and status for the clergy class. In other words, Economics (and Pride)wins. That is why George Knight III invented ESS back in the 1970’s so that females could be kept out of PCA pulpits as the PCA was growing. If the exegetical arguments could not be sustained (and they cannot without 1 Corinthians 11 being hierarchical while being consistent), then the labor price of conservative clergy decreases due to the increased supply from females coming into the labor pool (sorry for being so unspiritual about this.) The SBC closed the implicit loophole which would have permitted “autonomous” local SBC churches to call female pastors with the revisions in the BFM2K. Not surprisingly, the most vocal female defenders of this are the wives of the men who benefit from the labor pool being restricted, including tenured professors at various institutions. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Naturally, there is a lot of spiritual airbrushing that can make people think this is not what actually happened, but as someone who was on the other side of the fence when it happened, I kind of remember how it was sold at the time and how it turned out to actually be.

  153. Lydia wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Ha ha. It was creepy. It’s all they talked about.

    This is a form of OCD commonly called “Thinking with your gonads.”
    Or “Packing your brains below your belt.”

    I knew because I was on social media. But seniors in churches they took over were aghast at the constant focus and drive by gratuitous mentions in sermons. Then seniors are labeled as prudes. Uh no. The YRR did not invent sex but they though they did.

    Everyone open up your hymnals to a filk of Elvis:
    “YOU AIN’T NUTHIN’ BUT A HORNDOG!”

  154. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    We should all send Twinkies to Joe. Boxes of them. Hee hee.

    And keep him away from any San Francisco City Councilmen…

  155. Gram3 wrote:

    I am going to say again that Female Subordinationism is about money and status for the clergy class.

    It may be now, but how does one explain that the idea itself is as old as humanity?

  156. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    We should all send Twinkies to Joe. Boxes of them. Hee hee.

    Custom made twinkles, shaped like sheep!

  157. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Remember Ted Haggard?
    Though I think another dynamic in play is preaching against it in an attempt to self-treat in secret; i.e. preaching more to himself than to anyone else. (After all, SSA is probably THE strongest taboo in that culture.)

    To be frank, when I first brought up projection I was thinking in the less extreme sense of him viewing this as a hard line issue over which he would separate from, reject, and shun someone at the drop of a hat – and projecting that onto all of us Wartburgers. While it is true, inasmuch as the effect has been detected with physical measurements of arousal, that some homophobes appear to be afraid of something within themselves, this is not true for everyone. In that regard, I’m uncomfortable generalizing the self-hatred principle to this specific situation (or any other specific situation, lacking further evidence). He may be driven by his own internalized homophobia, or he may just be a straight guy who takes advantage of his position to bully others because he likes feeling powerful by putting others down.

  158. okrapod wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I am going to say again that Female Subordinationism is about money and status for the clergy class.

    It may be now, but how does one explain that the idea itself is as old as humanity?

    Sin

  159. okrapod wrote:

    the idea itself is as old as humanity?

    I was referring to the doctrine. I’m pretty sure you know the answer to the question. 🙂

  160. @ Gram3:
    Frankly I had not thought of this. And that makes me disappointed in myself. Sigh. I knew the whole YRR thing was more about economics and power than doctrine for the big cheeses but women pastors?

    Yep. Look at the women who were BFMed’ out at SBTS. It has been a domino effect. Taking WMU money. Getting rid of the Carver school, homemaking degree at SWBTS, etc. I can’t even remember the long list.

    And they did not really announce all this with their intentions so some bright eyed young single women for ministry would come to Louisville and be gone in one semester rethinking their plans. This was a while back. My mom hosted some of them.

    So it was- go to our new four year college, pay for a useless education and be a Gospel wife instead! That is where God wants you! God said so right there in the BFM. A Creed!

    It would be interesting to look at stats on this since mid 90’s on in several areas like seminary, missions, etc.

  161. Gram3 wrote:

    I was referring to the doctrine. I’m pretty sure you know the answer to the question.

    Oh, I do. And I mean the idea of male dominance and female submission/ subjugation. I think we retain it from our more primitive primate ancestors. I think that we can trace it in written history back to whoever wrote the genesis comment ‘he shall rule over thee’ which to me looks like they were making an observation as to how things are-not some edict from God, but that is an opinion. If we find an early civilization in which the males were not dominant and did not think they should be then I will take another look at the idea, but right now I have not seen such a thing discussed in antiquity. I note that it is a part of Islam which seriously predates the neo-cals, and FWIW I heard the idea of ‘the man wears the pants in the family because God said so’ long before there were neo-cals (to my knowledge).

    Now this group plays it for money and power and whatever, but they did not invent the idea.

    And issues about the status of Jesus in relation to the Father go way back also, which is one of the reasons for the earliest ecumenical councils. The word heresy was slung around on this issue some 1700 years or more before the neo-cals.

    And the issue of women in teaching roles is discussed in scripture and has been an issue for the universal church from the beginning.

    I am just not seeing any originality in what the neo-cals are doing. If that is not what you were saying, then I totally missed it, and I beg your tolerance for my going off on a tangent.

  162. elastigirl wrote:

    imagine, what tender-aged person in that youth group who is attracted to his/her own sex must have felt upon hearing that news.

    people take their own lives over something like this.

    Shows you just how unqualified the youth pastor is!!

  163. Janey wrote:

    wish Joe Carter would read this Gospel Coalition article “10 Reasons to Be Humble to Your Opponents”

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-reasons-humble-toward-opponents

    One of the reasons: “Your enemies might be right…about something.”

    Good advice, but Joe probably won’t humble himself to read that piece.

    In the comment stream on the “Broken Wolves” article, Joe said “About the time I started blogging (2003) I heard about “discernment” blogs or “watchblogs” — blogs that exist for no other purpose but to warn people about the people and theology these people don’t like.”

    Well, he’s right! Watchbloggers don’t like people and theology which are precipitating all sorts of problems in the church. From Mahaney to Driscoll – and assorted others in between – New Calvinism continues to run roughshod over the established Church with its mission to restore the gospel that the rest of us have lost. They are known for their arrogance, militancy, and mean spirits. Praise the Lord for discerning bloggers and their followers who warn people about them.

  164. @ okrapod:

    It’s the level of enforcement based on interpretation, is it not? Piper said that a woman reading scripture aloud in a service was teaching men. Some think it’s ok for women to speak if they don’t font use the sacred furniture on stage. Some think women can give a testimony. Mrs Criswell taught a mixed SS class over 300 that was on the radio where many men might be potentially influenced by a woman teaching men. They claimed it was all under her husbands authority.

    So the idea is as old as humanity but what does it mean and look like in application today?. The Neo Cals and others were only too happy to make it a Gospel issue.

  165. @ Law Prof:
    Friend, some of us use the term ‘Reformed’ as an indicator of not us vs. them (I.e. Reformed vs. Arminianism) but of our denomination. The Reformed Church in America is the oldest denomination in America and the Christian Reformed Church is an offshoot. Where I live, there are two churches only in many small towns. So, the Overisel Christian Reformed and the Overisel Reformed churches are literally across the street from each other.

    It seems like this argument is ongoing between the two of you, but some of us are Reformed (pronounced correctly with the emphasis on the first syllable). Or Christian Reformed.

    (And it should be noted that neither of these denominations look much like the YRR/calvinista crowd)

    Thanks.

  166. Lydia wrote:

    Piper said that a woman reading scripture aloud in a service was teaching men.

    My daughter, a gifted singer, attended an SBC church plant for a short period when the New Calvinist movement was just beginning. She attended there until she discovered that the young pastor and his young elder team were in the business of indoctrinating members in reformed theology. She took the stage one Sunday morning to sing and was asked by the lead pastor (29 years old) to read a passage of Scripture from his ESV Bible before her song, but to not offer any commentary or testimony before she sang … just sing and sit down. That was her first clue that she was in trouble and she put her behind in her past at first opportunity.

  167. Kris wrote:

    (And it should be noted that neither of these denominations look much like the YRR/calvinista crowd)

    Tina God for that mercy!

  168. Max wrote:

    was asked by the lead pastor (29 years old) to read a passage of Scripture from his ESV Bible before her song, but to not offer any commentary or testimony before she sang … just sing and sit down. That was her first clue that she was in trouble and she put her behind in her past at first opportunity.

    Good for her! Arguing is useless in these situations. They only try to hurt you.

  169. dee wrote:

    You MUST read Vernick’s comment over at the post. Joe is obviously not pleased.

    She pinned his ears back!

  170. Ok first this guy wouldn’t draw a crowd unless it was a bunch of HEMAN women haters!
    2nd joe carter get a real bible King James Version 1611 where the scriptures are translated 300/400 years after the original scrolls. Your verses are made up! Sorry dude I don’t recognize the dumbed down version. Dumbed down in the sense that words have been added to Gods holy word and they have been taken away. No wonder why this fool is confused. My opinion is all

  171. I guess according to piper women shouldn’t share the gospel to men because they would then be teaching if they were to answer questions asked about the verses they shared. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:

    It’s the level of enforcement based on interpretation, is it not? Piper said that a woman reading scripture aloud in a service was teaching men. Some think it’s ok for women to speak if they don’t font use the sacred furniture on stage. Some think women can give a testimony. Mrs Criswell taught a mixed SS class over 300 that was on the radio where many men might be potentially influenced by a woman teaching men. They claimed it was all under her husbands authority.

    So the idea is as old as humanity but what does it mean and look like in application today?. The Neo Cals and others were only too happy to make it a Gospel issue.

  172. Well said I agree Law Prof wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

    I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

    It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.

    I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

  173. Here’s a newsflash for Joe Carter: No one chooses to be gay. And while we can go back and forth on the moral implications of acting on that impulse, nowhere does Jesus address the matter in the Bible. Moreover, while one may hold differing views on that issue, few Christians would contend that Carter’s accusations are fair or Christian. Not only are his accusations nothing more than ad hominem attacks, but they overlook the obligation of Christians to resist injustice and oppression.

    With the biblical mandate in mind to welcome the outcast and the oppressed, Carter would be well advised to focus his time and attention on his own conduct. Jesus welcomed the outcast, but Carter (like a certain Episcopal priest of my own experience) claims the right to create outcasts.

  174. PS I’d point out that, at a time when virtually no one in my home denomination, The Episcopal Church, would pay attention to my complaints of abuse by my priest, Dee was one of the few people to treat me, and my concerns, with respect. For that, and her efforts to help all sides to my dispute to move towards a ceasefire (we’re still far from reconciliation, unfortunately), I will always be grateful.

    How anyone could claim that peacemaking is hateful or divisive is beyond me,

  175. dee wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    You MUST read Vernick’s comment over at the post. Joe is obviously not pleased.

    There are several alternative reasons as to why Joe Carter quoted Vernick, none of them leave Carter in a positive light.

  176. @ Bridget:

    mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?

  177. Leslie Vernick’s taking Joe Carter down for misquoting her article! Here is her comment in response to his blog post.

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3275797560

    Leslie Berg Vernick

    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

  178. Nancy2 wrote:

    dee wrote:
    You MUST read Vernick’s comment over at the post. Joe is obviously not pleased.
    She pinned his ears back!

    I have copied and pasted Leslie Vernick’s response to Joe Carter here.

  179. @ Velour:
    Your link does not lead to the quote you’ve put up. Please give us a link to the comments by Leslie or we’ll need to take down your comment.

  180. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Your link does not lead to the quote you’ve put up. Please give us a link to the comments by Leslie or we’ll need to take down your comment.

    Hi GBTC,

    I just double-checked the link and it is correct and Leslie Vernick’s quote is showing.

    The Gospel Coalition website does not number comments the way TWW’s website does.

    To see Leslie Vernick’s comment:

    *Go to the bottom of the page of Joe Carter’s article

    *Press the green rectangle that says, “Show Comments”

    *Scroll down to Leslie Vernick’s comment (or do a search of her name and it will show).

    Thanks!

  181. @ Shauna:

    I am sorry this happened to your son Shauna. I am beyond words, just tears. You sat amongst fools in your meeting and they will have to answer to Jesus one day for their unrepentant sins. Praying for your family.

    The Divergent Series is alive and well within apostate churches.

  182. This is a slight deviation from the topic of Joe Carter (whoever he is), but the mention of Twinkies segues into some pretty sweet double standards regarding the pseudo Christianese industrial complex.

    I have heard it said within conservative, patriarchal quick-sand types of churches, that when “men are overweight, it is a sign of success,” but when “women are overweight, it is a sign of laziness.”

    Yes. I have heard it said. I have also sat amongst church leaders who are obsessed with the condition of overweight women, who mock overweight women, and who judge and disrespect overweight women, all the while their bodies (the temple of the Holy Spirit) is equally and grossly out of shape. The double standards and the double mindedness just boggles my mind, which means according to the Scriptures, these men are unstable in all of their ways, not just one, but all ways.

    Apparently, gluttony amongst men is not a gross sin, just amongst the women folk.

    I have a feeling that Joe Carter (whoever he is amongst the ecclesiastical ranks), does not preach nor teach a clear, concise Gospel Message, pointing people to Jesus Christ.

    Maybe its time Joe gets a real job like the Apostle Paul did to support himself so not to be a burden to the saints. Not my words, but Paul’s.

  183. @ Max:
    How insulting. And that YRR pastor had been indoctrinated to believe he being pious and obedient to God. In those cases there is nothing else to do but leave.

  184. Don’t pay Carter and TGC any mind; they are selling and peddling a false gospel anyway; just forget them; they are of no importance.

    Talking of which, what about Tim I-know-everything Challies: Does anyone recall the drivel he wrote a couple of years (?) ago about how to read the Bible in public and who is NOT supposed to read it in public (meaning the places they refer to as “churches”)? That was the funniest thing I’d read at the time coming from that false gospel camp. It was hilarious. Where can we dig it up again?

  185. Boston Lady wrote:

    Don’t pay Carter and TGC any mind; they are selling and peddling a false gospel anyway; just forget them; they are of no importance.
    Talking of which, what about Tim I-know-everything Challies: Does anyone recall the drivel he wrote a couple of years (?) ago about how to read the Bible in public and who is NOT supposed to read it in public (meaning the places they refer to as “churches”)? That was the funniest thing I’d read at the time coming from that false gospel camp. It was hilarious. Where can we dig it up again?

    Agreed that they are selling a false Gospel.

    Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles? Yes, I’d like to see that article if you’re able to find the link to it.

  186. Ken F wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles? Yes, I’d like to see that article if you’re able to find the link to it.
    https://www.challies.com/articles/men-women-the-public-reading-of-scripture
    Happy reading!

    Thanks, Ken F.

    Challies of course conveniently omitted in his summary of Paul’s letter to Timothy that
    Paul was referring to one woman (singular “the woman) who was teaching one man (most likely her husband) error. She wasn’t doing it intentionally. She was just not properly trained yet. Paul wanted her to learn quietly first. Paul did not issue an edict for all Christian women for all time to be silent.

    The issue was error, not gender. The same would be true if a man was in error. Learn first, then teach.

  187. Velour wrote:

    Learn first, then teach.

    That would pretty much shut down the gospelly coalition. No wonder they don't let women teach. How dare you point this out. 🙂

  188. @ Ken F:
    We will soon revisit this topic of who can and who cannot read scripture in church. I seem to recall that Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist takes the same position.
    🙁

  189. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Your link does not lead to the quote you’ve put up. Please give us a link to the comments by Leslie or we’ll need to take down your comment.

    GBTC,

    I copied the link to that specific comment and included it Velour’s comment. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take you directly to Leslie’s comment under Joe Carter’s post – it just takes you to the post. Weird!

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves#comment-3275797560

  190. FYI,

    Tim Challies’ church, Grace Fellowship Church (Toronto), has four pastors (one of which is Tim who blogs and does other things), three deacons, and three staff. As far as I can tell, it was established in 2000.

    These guys presume to have ALL the answers, don’t they?

    The lead pastor at Challies’ church is on the executive committee for The Gospel Coalition Canada.

  191. @ Deb:
    Velour & Deb. Ya, Challies’ “church” is also into the covenant thing.

    http://www.gfcto.com/church-covenant

    (Read it through carefully, and it will make you sick).

    Oh, and have a short look around its site and “feel” the hipster and condescending vibe. Yes, TGC link is not surprising at all. In the end, birds of a feather deceive together, in my opinion.

    (Sorry for going a little off-topic, but this Challies’ madness came to mind out of the blue). I’m looking forward to the topic of who and who may not read the Bible. To me, it’s a no-brainer…

  192. @ Deb:
    That quote exists. For some reason, it does not allow us to link directly to the quote. I have a screen shot of the comment in question for our archives in case someone complains which, given the current situation, I doubt will ever happen.

  193. Velour wrote:

    Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles?

    Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

  194. Bridget wrote:

    Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

    Bridget, yes, that was part of it. Foolishness. I can think of 1001 reasons why we women can and should read the Bible ANYWHERE…and teach. God’s given us eyes and they’re not for looking after babies and pots and pans only (whaha). But enough of that lot now; they always make me sick after a conversation or two about them.

  195. May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

  196. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?

    Haven’t a clue who, and it is beyond my comprehension keeping him around. My “guess” is the “who” are like-minded. That is the conclusion “who” leaves me with.

  197. Ken P. wrote:

    Do you think Russell Moore had something to do with it?

    Joe Carter has written multiple articles for the ERLC blog. Buzzards of a feather …..

  198. @ Boston Lady:
    From the Challies church contract:
    “I also understand that if I am overtaken in any fault, I will be subject to biblical discipline which seeks my restoration. [12]”
    Does this mean women can be disciplined for eating too many twinkles ?

  199. Velour wrote:

    Paul was referring to one woman (singular “the woman) who was teaching one man (most likely her husband) error. She wasn’t doing it intentionally. She was just not properly trained yet. Paul wanted her to learn quietly first. Paul did not issue an edict for all Christian women for all time to be silent.

    The SBC sees this as an absolute command for all women in all churches for all time to “remain silent”. In my (almost former) church, women are not even allowed to speak in mixed gender SS churches. The church of my childhood is debating about going down the same legalistic path. I have come to the conclusion that women are not part of the church body.
    A 9 yo old boy can preach from the pulpit as a visitor, but and adult woman who is a so-called member can not speak or read a verse in SS class!

  200. Deb wrote:

    We will soon revisit this topic of who can and who cannot read scripture in church. I seem to recall that Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist takes the same position.

    Essentially yes. At BBC, the text reading just prior to the sermon is always done by a man (elder or BCS seminary student). Elsewhere in the service, occasionally a couple will read a text together (alternate verses), or the praise team will divide up a reading (so women, men, and the worship pastor leading will all read) — I suspect the justification is that in those forms, “headship” and “Biblical eldership” is still being modeled (wife under her husband, women praise team members under a pastor/elder).

  201. Bridget wrote:

    Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

    Even 9Marks says women can read scripture in church, IIRC. How can there be so much confusion if this is such a critical issue?

  202. bendeni wrote:

    Deb wrote:

    We will soon revisit this topic of who can and who cannot read scripture in church. I seem to recall that Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist takes the same position.

    Essentially yes. At BBC, the text reading just prior to the sermon is always done by a man (elder or BCS seminary student). Elsewhere in the service, occasionally a couple will read a text together (alternate verses), or the praise team will divide up a reading (so women, men, and the worship pastor leading will all read) — I suspect the justification is that in those forms, “headship” and “Biblical eldership” is still being modeled (wife under her husband, women praise team members under a pastor/elder).

    You would think that, if Christ is the reason for coming to Church, then this ‘biblical’ affirmation of the equal placing of persons ‘in Christ’ would be honored, not mocked:
    “27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    (from Galatians, ch. 3)

    But IF a “Church” does not interpret the importance of these words with Our Lord as the center of the Church, then it is possible that He can be dismissed as the incarnated ‘Equalizer’ of all human dignity and instead, some may view ‘male’ headship as superseding that important teaching in Galatians.

    What is ‘cultural’ in the writings of St. Paul is one thing, but the truth is, when Paul speaks about Christ, he nails it and gets it in the right order: all are equal at the foot of the Cross; all are equal who witnessed the Risen Lord, and in the act of the Incarnation, Our Lord took all humanity to Himself and did NOT discriminate. If St. Paul speaks of Our Lord, we should listen to him. When Paul’s writing strongly reflects the culture of his times, that does not take precedence over what he teaches about Christ Himself and who WE are ‘in Christ’.

  203. Nancy2 wrote:

    A 9 yo old boy can preach from the pulpit as a visitor, but and adult woman who is a so-called member can not speak or read a verse in SS class!

    goodness mercy!
    when people take something illogical to its extremes, we can far more easily see it for what it is: in the case you describe, I would call it male gender idolatry

  204. Nancy2 wrote:

    From the Challies church contract:
    “I also understand that if I am overtaken in any fault, I will be subject to biblical discipline which seeks my restoration. [12]”
    Does this mean women can be disciplined for eating too many twinkles ?

    I think I recall a passage in Leviticus saying that having a BMI over 24 is an abomination for women.

  205. Gram3 wrote:

    How can there be so much confusion if this is such a critical issue?

    Seems like all the “critical issues” cause confusion. So much confusion that they drive believers from the gathering of the saints!

  206. Ken P. wrote:

    I think I recall a passage in Leviticus saying that having a BMI over 24 is an abomination for women.

    It probably said that men are exempt from that abomination too!

  207. Ken P. wrote:

    I think I recall a passage in Leviticus saying that having a BMI over 24 is an abomination for women.

    “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘There existeth not a barn that dost not benefit from a fresh coat of paint.'”

  208. Josh wrote:

    “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘There existeth not a barn that dost not benefit from a fresh coat of paint.’”

    Are we getting into Don Rickles/Rodney Dangerfield territory here?

  209. Deb wrote:

    May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

    I would think that these people would know that one of the ways to most deeply disrespect the humanity of another human being would be to tell them they weren’t fit to read aloud from Holy Gospels of Our Lord in community.
    My goodness, we are all-of-us-who-believe to give voice to the Word together against the darkness. ALL of us sinners upon whom God has looked.
    Yes.
    Even the men. 🙂

  210. Nancy2 wrote:

    The SBC sees this as an absolute command for all women in all churches for all time to “remain silent”. In my (almost former) church, women are not even allowed to speak in mixed gender SS churches.

    Do they castrate pre-pubescent boys if & when they need high-pitched voices for the choir?
    Because “Women shall remain silent in church.”

  211. Deb wrote:

    May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

    How can you be ashamed when You Can Do No Wrong?

  212. Ken P. wrote:

    I think I recall a passage in Leviticus saying that having a BMI over 24 is an abomination for women.

    Is “having a bra size less than 40DD is an abomination” a later textual addition?

  213. Nancy2 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

    Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

    I’m married to a Kentuckian. I’ve lived in NC for over 27 years. Before that, back during the ’80s, I lived in Loozyana for three years.

    Bacon fat in beans still makes me sick to my stomach. :p You can take the Boston Girl out of Boston, but you can’t take away her preference for plain, fresh, steamed vegetables. I don’t even want butter on ’em.

    I’m with you re the Wildcats, though, but just for B-ball. For football, it’s “Roll Tide” all the way.

  214. Boston Lady wrote:

    Oh, and have a short look around its site and “feel” the hipster and condescending vibe.

    Complete with BCD glasses, shaved heads, big full beards (with optional jewelry woven in), sixty-centimeter pierced ear spools, and more tats than a Yakuza?

  215. Lydia wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    You are on a roll!

    Making every blogger’s day more surreal since 1996…

  216. Somewhat related: A friend posted a piece about a young mom who was unceremoniously told to leave the church building during a church service because she was breastfeeding. This was in a state where it’s illegal to kick women out of *anywhere* for breastfeeding. She is now suing the church, in part for humiliating her in public. She had really liked the church up till that point; it gave her emotional and spiritual support during her husband’s deployment. I googled her church. It’s part of a network (Summit) affiliated with the Gospel Coalition. SUHPRISE, SUHPRISE!

  217. Clarification: They wanted her to go to some special room, so yeah, she still would have been in the building or on the campus. Just not at the service.

  218. Nancy2 wrote:

    Are we getting into Don Rickles/Rodney Dangerfield territory here?

    I was trying to re-imagine scripture if it were written by the Good Ol’ Boys of TGC.

    “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good dieting discipline. Let your pulchritude be seen before all, that by it I may draw all men to myself.”

  219. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I’m with you re the Wildcats, though, but just for B-ball. For football, it’s “Roll Tide” all the way.

    What is football? (Smile)
    Every time UK plays the Tide in basketball, I think about an Otis Redding song: “I’m just sittin’ on the side of UK, watching the Tide get blown away…….”

    I like bacon or ham in my beans, and butter on my steamed broccoli, but there’s a lot more to Kentucky food than just butter and bacon! Cornbread, biscuits, fried chicken, Burgoo, barbecue, fried chicken, potato salad…….. My husband is originally from Maine, so I cook Jacob’s Cattle beans and Soldier beans too, in the crockpot all day long, using his mom’s recipe!

  220. if mirele doesn’t mind, she made this comment on JC’s blogpost:

    “As I said before, it’s deliberate. The article is designed to introduce a sense of unease among those who might legitimately challenge the actions of authoritarian church leaders.”

    reminds me of Steve Bannon and his protege, the orange one. frightening people to control them & the narrative.

    to the degree that conservative christian powerbrokers are influenced by current methods in DC,…. i think i feel sick.

  221. Velour wrote:

    I always say to folks who are hung up on this issue, “Can you dictate another person’s hairstyle?”

    More like “Not unless you’re Got Hard (in looong denim jumpers… with looooooooong… waaaaaaaaavy… haaaaaaair…)”

  222. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Boston Lady wrote:
    Oh, and have a short look around its site and “feel” the hipster and condescending vibe.
    Complete with BCD glasses, shaved heads, big full beards (with optional jewelry woven in), sixty-centimeter pierced ear spools, and more tats than a Yakuza?

    Yes, HUG, and with more cheesy pick-up lines than Johnny Bravo, I’m sure. Oh, yes, of that I’m sure. One tried a lame one on me once. “You come here often?” he asked. “No, this was the first and last time; isn’t your wife waiting for you in the car already?” I answered.
    I saw someone had commented about a “safe church” somewhere on this thread; so I had a quick look into it. It had a “Calvin College.” Safe? SAFE? S A F E? Not. Oh, the world of the gullible is never dull…

  223. Bridget wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    @ Bridget:
    mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?
    Haven’t a clue who, and it is beyond my comprehension keeping him around. My “guess” is the “who” are like-minded. That is the conclusion “who” leaves me with.

    Russ Moore.

  224. Boston Lady wrote:

    Yes, HUG, and with more cheesy pick-up lines than Johnny Bravo, I’m sure.

    “That wouldn’t happen to be… pepper spray, would it?”
    — Johnny Bravo (baby!)

    (Though for a compilation of truly awful NSFW pickup lines, it’s hard to beat the lyrics of “Bad Touch” by the Bloodhound Gang.)

  225. Of course Joe Carter called this a “lying hateful” blog. He is a lying, hateful man, and he projects his own lack of character onto anyone who stands in the way of his ambition.
    “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
    “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
    Carter does not have the Holy Spirit.

  226. tb wrote:

    Just walk around the SBTS campus and the elitist, semi-materialistic, and tradition-centric culture is evident.

    Oh yes. One SBC pastor (who is Reformed and regularly attends T$G, btw) called it a “plantation culture”. He’s not wrong (said this former student).

  227. Boston Lady wrote:

    The one Ken F gave is also funny and anti-Biblical.

    The link I posted was written in response to the comments from the one you posted. The first was weird, but mostly problematic for turning the reading into a polished performance. As you pointed out, there is no biblical mandate for that. The 2nd article clarifies that women don’t have to go through these antics because they are unqualified to speak at all. Both articles are disturbing and should disqualify Challies from having a platform. Yet there still seems to be demand for his writing.

  228. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Paul was referring to one woman (singular “the woman) who was teaching one man (most likely her husband) error. She wasn’t doing it intentionally. She was just not properly trained yet. Paul wanted her to learn quietly first. Paul did not issue an edict for all Christian women for all time to be silent.
    The SBC sees this as an absolute command for all women in all churches for all time to “remain silent”. In my (almost former) church, women are not even allowed to speak in mixed gender SS churches. The church of my childhood is debating about going down the same legalistic path. I have come to the conclusion that women are not part of the church body.
    A 9 yo old boy can preach from the pulpit as a visitor, but and adult woman who is a so-called member can not speak or read a verse in SS class!

    That is so sad, Nancy2.

  229. Deb wrote:

    May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

    Amen, Deb!!!

  230. Ken F wrote:

    Yet there still seems to be demand for his writing.

    Birds of a feather…

    It can be eye-opening who gets their word out there and thus attracts a following. But then, the cronies come out of the woodwork and show up.

  231. Bridget wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles?

    Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

    Those guys are a *piece of work*! Just nuts!

    What is this…a leftover of slavery where literacy itself was outlawed (and critical thinking skills and communication with it)?

  232. Velour wrote:

    What is this…a leftover of slavery where literacy itself was outlawed (and critical thinking skills and communication with it)?

    I think it is a desperate attemp by insecure men to preserve their inflated egos and define themselves as being superior to some other group of people. Slavery is over. People other than free, white, male property owners have the right to vote. What else is left for them to grab onto, other than “God saith”?

  233. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Clarification: They wanted her to go to some special room, so yeah, she still would have been in the building or on the campus. Just not at the service.

    Doesn’t matter, so long as she’s not flumping her anatomy out on a front row pew, why in the world is it any business of theirs? Sort of thing where I could see Jesus, were He about, brushing pastor aside like a beefy running back shunts off a defensive back and taking the puplit and giving a pretty pointed lecture like He did when people were looking to get rid of the children because they were making too much racket or when those hypocrites were preparing to stone the woman caught in adultery. One of those jaw dropping, could-hear-a-pin-drop moments where the leaders cease to become leaders as they’ve known it in a moment–the sort of wonderful things that always seemed to be happening when Jesus walked among us.

    It’s funny, we met a missionary couple, very nice young people in their 30s, from Germany. She had an infant and we were sitting in the park watching our kids play and she decided to breast feed, popped up her shirt and then, maybe a second later, grabbed the baby and popped him on. I was thinking “Wow, I just saw the missionary’s bajinga! I didn’t make a scene, though, because I know that culture well and she’d have rightly thought anyone who tried to make something sexual or offensive out of a mother nursing a baby or even letting her parts show for a moment in that context would be a full blooded buffoon not even worthy of her concern.

  234. @ Law Prof:
    honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.
    Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross, but nobody cares.

    A nursing mother is providing her infant with needed protection until the infant is old enough to receive their first immunizations,
    so it is a matter not just of nutrition, but also of life or death in the protection that the mother’s breast milk is naturally offering her infant. ‘Sexy’? WHO CARES!!!
    People need to grow up. And stop the crazy. Infants NEED their mother’s milk, case closed.

  235. back to JC’s blog post and motivation/method/madness behind it…

    trying to figure it out

    was it to stir up publicity or himself?
    –as of today, a search on his name now appears 4th or so surrounded by JC the baseball player results. earlier in the week JC the ‘communications specialist’ didn’t show up at all.

    –he comes across as dull as a butterknife, out of touch, & skills-wise undermining his own communications & writing career (i’m not a little surprised at the ‘journalism professor’ thing). the whole thing makes him look bad. but all publicity is good publicity.

    –included in job description for a communications specialist:

    *control the dissemination of information on our company’s behalf

    *Collaborate with marketing professionals to produce copy for advertisements or articles

    *Assist in communication of strategies or messages from senior leadership

    is JC’s blog article, including co-opting the influence or market value of the name “Leslie Vernick”, and his interaction in the comment section an exercise in marketing? manipulating public thought according to the goals of his employer(s)?

  236. Velour wrote:

    Those guys are a *piece of work*!

    Yes, that particular word choice gets your comment through customs with less trouble, even if not the most appropriate.

  237. elastigirl wrote:

    back to JC’s blog post and motivation/method/madness behind it…

    All good points/questions. I’m still wondering why DeYoung’s post was squashed. He basically threw Carter under the bus. Is it because DeYoung’s name is more famous? Is it TGC spreading the wealth? Or did Carter use his editor position to squash DeYoung’s post?

  238. Velour wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    One puzzling piece is why Carter’s post is still available on the TGC home page but DeYoung’s was only available for part of one day and then buried. It can still be found on TGC, but only by searching. It only has 16 comments compared to nearly 300 for Carter’s. Some of the comments are very good: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/

    Most curious.

    I think I see why they buried his.

  239. Ken F wrote:

    All good points/questions. I’m still wondering why DeYoung’s post was squashed. He basically threw Carter under the bus. Is it because DeYoung’s name is more famous? Is it TGC spreading the wealth? Or did Carter use his editor position to squash DeYoung’s post?

    I think Rev Kev’s intentions were to support and back up JC. But, in his haste, he was not careful enough with his words and ended up shining the light on the darkness TGC is so determined to hide.

  240. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    What is this…a leftover of slavery where literacy itself was outlawed (and critical thinking skills and communication with it)?
    I think it is a desperate attemp by insecure men to preserve their inflated egos and define themselves as being superior to some other group of people. Slavery is over. People other than free, white, male property owners have the right to vote. What else is left for them to grab onto, other than “God saith”?

    So true, Miss Nancy2.

  241. Ken F wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Those guys are a *piece of work*!
    Yes, that particular word choice gets your comment through customs with less trouble, even if not the most appropriate.

    I learn from the best, Ken F., to fly under the radar. And yes, I absolutely meant what I said about them! Since I’m in the second-class citizen/ranking that they have come up with and try to foist on us.

  242. elastigirl wrote:

    he comes across as dull as a butterknife, out of touch, & skills-wise undermining his own communications & writing career (i’m not a little surprised at the ‘journalism professor’ thing). the whole thing makes him look bad. but all publicity is good publicity.

    His college degree is from an online college.

    There’s nothing like the rigors of the college classroom in person, meeting people different than oneself, having ideas challenged, that really gets the brain kicked into gear.

    He seems to have lived a sheltered life.

  243. @ Lea:
    Velour wrote:

    And yes, I absolutely meant what I said about them!

    I was thinking that you used the toned-down version. In any case, they are not a piece of grace. I agree with your assessment.

  244. Ken F wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Velour wrote:
    And yes, I absolutely meant what I said about them!
    I was thinking that you used the toned-down version. In any case, they are not a piece of grace. I agree with your assessment.

    LOL! Agreed, Ken F.!

  245. Velour wrote:

    Those guys are a *piece of work*! Just nuts!

    A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
    I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.

  246. Nancy2 wrote:

    A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
    I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.

    We could say “a byproduct of bovine digestion,” or as our friends from the UK might say, a “steaming sheep of height.”

  247. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Those guys are a *piece of work*! Just nuts!
    A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
    I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.

    Spot on, sister!

    Save a puppy that is put on the roadside for me.

  248. Josh wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
    I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.
    We could say “a byproduct of bovine digestion,” or as our friends from the UK might say, a “steaming sheep of height.”

    Exactly, Josh.

    Hey, Jesus used harsh words and phrases too!

  249. Boston Lady wrote:

    I saw someone had commented about a “safe church” somewhere on this thread; so I had a quick look into it. It had a “Calvin College.” Safe? SAFE? S A F E?

    “SAFE? There’s nowhere that’s ‘Safe’.”
    — Sandor “The Hound” Clegayne, Game of Thrones

  250. Christiane wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.

    They’re called “Mantits” or “Moobs”.

    And flaunted with all the “I’m to SEX-AY for my Shirt” of Right Said Fred.

    It’s the male version of body image dysphoria.

    Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross, but nobody cares.
    A nursing mother is providing her infant with needed protection until the infant is old enough to receive their first immunizations,

    so it is a matter not just of nutrition, but also of life or death in the protection that the mother’s breast milk is naturally offering her infant. ‘Sexy’? WHO CARES!!!

    People need to grow up. And stop the crazy. Infants NEED their mother’s milk, case closed.

    Having “grown up Martian”, I find it not only weird but ridiculous that in this country the only Forbidden function of mammaries is their original biological one.
    Eye Candy for guys? No problem.
    Grab holds for guys? Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
    Breastfeeding her kid? AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAGH! FILTHY! FILTHY! FILTHY!

  251. Ken F wrote:

    One puzzling piece is why Carter’s post is still available on the TGC home page but DeYoung’s was only available for part of one day and then buried.

    This is like Kremlin-watching on May Day during the Cold War.

    i.e. Who is currently on top in the Politboro Power Struggle?

  252. I had a thought. The Bible says that in the last days, there will be divisions in the church, and that false believers will be there trying to destroy and divide God’s people. So you would think that anyone who was a real minister called by God would been seeking to unite people, not looking for ways to divide. It seems to me that by their very actions of hard-heartedness,an d using smaller and smaller issues to push people away from each other, they are proving *themselves* to be the bad shepherds, rather than the people they’re pointing the finger at.

  253. Christiane wrote:

    honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.
    Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross

    Hey! I resemble that remark!!

  254. Liz wrote:

    I had a thought.

    Very insightful. I think you are on to something. A friend sent me this earlier this week: https://theopolisinstitute.com/how-the-reformation-failed/. Here’s a quote that aligns with what you wrote:

    Polemic was a tool of the powerless against entrench powers, and Luther was its master. Yet, the Reformers eventually turned their considerable rhetorical powers against each other, creating stark polarities and treating every dispute as a cosmic war of light and darkness, truth and error. Reformation polemic descended into propaganda, which bolstered the group of identity of separated communions by demonizing other churches. For all the virtues of polemic, Lutheran and Reformed would often have been better served by gentle answers.

    The ministry that publishes this is reformed. But in a different sort of way.

  255. Ken F wrote:

    @ Velour:
    When I get home later this week I will post the email I sent to him that he did not answer. This ilk stir the pot and run.

    Here is what I sent to Challies in response to his article on Paul Young’s theology. I thought it was a fair statement. I did not get a response and Challies did not take up the challenge to review The Shack Revisited.

    I was a bit surprised by your recent article titled “What Does The Shack Really Teach? ‘Lies We Believe About God’ Tells Us.” It sounded like you were trying to show how you creatively found the true theology behind The Shack. While I believe that you are somewhat correct in connecting the two, a much better source for the theology behind The Shack is Baxter Kruger’s book “The Shack Revisited” (see https://www.amazon.com/Shack-Revisited-There-Going-Dared/dp/1455516805/). Note that in the forward Paul Young confirms that this is the book that explains the theology of The Shack. In other places Paul Young states that it is the best book ever written about The Shack. If you wanted to critique this theology, it seems that this would be a much better source. Were you unaware of this book? It has been out since 2012, and it is apparently getting traction again because of the release of the movie. Wouldn’t that be a better book for you to review?

    TGC has been going after Paul Young, but they really need to look at the theologians who work with Paul Young. I personally am finding the theology of both Young and Kruger to be very solid.

  256. Ken F wrote:

    The ministry that publishes this is reformed. But in a different sort of way.

    There is nothing Reformed about the Theopolis Institute though there may be some lingering credentials among them. Peter Leithart was the brains behind Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision. Before that he was a Reconstructionist and Dominionist. None of those are cool any more. Liturgy is the new thing among this particular crowd.

  257. Gram3 wrote:

    There is nothing Reformed about the Theopolis Institute

    That’s what I was thinking when I first read the article. I was wondering if it was something I could get involved with, so I checked out their statement of faith. Here is what I found (see: https://theopolisinstitute.com/about/statement-of-faith/)

    1. The Theopolis Institute is committed to historic Biblical Christianity. We seek to be thoroughly Biblical, comprehensively catholic, and true to our Reformation heritage. We affirm the historic faith as presented in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in the great statements of the Reformation such as the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic, Westminster Confessions, Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and Second Helvetic Confession.

    The Westminster Confession is as reformed as it gets, and the Canons of Dordt is as 5-point Calvinist as it gets. This is why I said they are reformed but in a different sort of way.

    But this is more concerning:

    11. We affirm Biblical theocracy, affirming that Jesus reigns over every area of life. Since “all Scripture is profitable . . . for instruction” (2 Timothy 3:16), we believe that all Scripture is given for instructing all areas of life, including national life. We are also committed to the restoration of church government, since that is where Christ’s theocratic reign is concentrated and first manifest.

    I’m not into the whole theocracy thing – too much like Calvin’s Geneva.

    Still, the article is interesting in how it highlights the dis-unity created by the reformation.

  258. @ Ken P.:
    Sorry for you. You need to buy a nice Hawaiian shirt to wear at the beach. My dear father of blessed memory ALWAYS wore a big shirt at the beach out of modesty (‘course that was a long time ago and times have changed, but flabby is flabby and Hawaiian shirts hide a lot of sins) 🙂

  259. Linn wrote:

    https://www.emm.org/media/k2/items/cache/98ec0092d694f3f780e032d45228a0f5_M.jpg
    A meme you might enjoy, as I couldn’t think of anything else to add to a wonderful discussion.
    I found out, much to my horror, that my wonderful church somehow “joined” TGC when our new pastor came last year. So far, nothing seems off, but I am keeping my eyes and ears wide open.

    Phase One of the Neo-Calvinist Take-over. If you stay, do so to watch and learn and warn others when you see disturbing signs.

  260. Boston Lady wrote:

    @ Deb:
    Velour & Deb. Ya, Challies’ “church” is also into the covenant thing.
    http://www.gfcto.com/church-covenant
    (Read it through carefully, and it will make you sick).
    Oh, and have a short look around its site and “feel” the hipster and condescending vibe. Yes, TGC link is not surprising at all. In the end, birds of a feather deceive together, in my opinion.
    (Sorry for going a little off-topic, but this Challies’ madness came to mind out of the blue). I’m looking forward to the topic of who and who may not read the Bible. To me, it’s a no-brainer…

    From Challies’ church site titled “Affiliations.”

    Legally, GFC is an independent local church governed by a body of elders elected by the membership. Independence is not a posture that GFC has formally adopted, but a position it finds itself in at this time as a result of God’s providence.,/i>”

    Pray tell, what recourse does a member have who has been mistreated by the pastors, deacons, or anyone else in that community? Who could they possibly go to that would be able to be objective? Those key relationships listed on that page are enough to scare any savvy Christian away. All the usual suspects, in other words.

    http://www.gfcto.com/about/affiliations

  261. __

    “Encouraged Awareness Advised?”

    hmmm…

    Toxic doctrinal additives and the un-natural level of authoritarian behavior currently present in many Neo-Calvinist 501(c)3 corporate pastorship(s) (such examples as Acts29, 9Marks, and SGC come to mind) present a religological safety concern. Examples of documented abusive behavior are numerous and plentiful. Subscribers of these types of religious non-profit institutions are encouraged to beware.

    🙂

  262. Gus wrote:

    As I see it, Joe Carter is not a Christian leader, pastor, apologist. He is a political lobbyist. As such, he is in it to win, to score points, to one-up others.

    He works in a “Christian” “think-tank” – whatever that means. He works where religion and politics meet. And that is not a good place to be, because you play to “win”, not to communicate. You can’t communicate if all you want is to get your point across. Communication also means listening, and – occasionally – even accepting that the other side has a point. From the Christian point of view, winning at almost any price is destructive and perverts the true meaning of Christianity, from a political point of view, you lose a lot of avenues of agreement if every difference of opinion is couched in religious, absolute terms. This is one of the tendencies that destroy the common ground that we seem to be losing and that we as societies so desperately need.

    I have been most suspicious of anyone mixing religion and politics. It is a toxic mixture. Just take a look at all the places where this plays out. And yes, the US is one of these places. If religion wasn’t so politicized, and politics not so mixed up with religion, the US would be in a much better place, IMHO.

    IIRC, Jesus did not “play to win”, to score, to one-up others. He won for us by losing. Just a thought.

    Very insightful analysis, which of course could apply to other religious “leaders” as well.

  263. Ken F wrote:

    We are also committed to the restoration of church government, since that is where Christ’s theocratic reign is concentrated and first manifest.

    That is 9Marks and Doug Wilson on steroids. Every time the Recons failed (and they failed every single time) they reinvented themselves. Theopolis is the newest iteration. Trace the names back a few decades. They believe in Big C Church that has nothing to do with Christ as the Head of the Church or the Holy Spirit. Their history is telling. If you don’t like Geneva, then run for your life.

  264. Sopwith wrote:

    religological

    Love that term! Think I’ll write an un-biblical, un-gospelly article “Beware of Religological Wolves!”
    Hope you are well.

  265. Christiane wrote:

    You need to buy a nice Hawaiian shirt to wear at the beach.

    Mostly off topic– just got back from walking the dogs to the beach. About a dozen fisher-folk there clad in winter boots, flannel shirts, and hoods. No worries about any Hawaiian shirt let alone topless man. Where we used to live, with young kids, we drove miles for summer swims to avoid “Thong Man” on the nearby beach.
    We followed a very large set of canine tracks, together with deer hoof prints. Likely a large dog, and the deer need not feer, but MY WHAT LARGE CLAWS YOU HAVE, GRANDMAMA. I needed to unzip my parka walking back home up the hill, so I am officially proclaiming today the first day of spring around here. It’s supposed to reach mid-60’s by Thursday! Yesterday it snowed most of the day together with a biting North wind, but nothing “stuck”.

  266. Gram3 wrote:

    If you don’t like Geneva, then run for your life.

    It’s crazy how this stuff keeps spreading. God must has some kind of purpose in letting his church run amok. But I don’t understand it.

  267. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Oh, Derby pie and bourbon!

    And if you’re from Louisville, there’s kuchen and White Castles. (I’ll pass on the latter, but my kids and husband love them.)

  268. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    A nursing mother is providing her infant with needed protection until the infant is old enough to receive their first immunizations,
    so it is a matter not just of nutrition, but also of life or death in the protection that the mother’s breast milk is naturally offering her infant. ‘Sexy’? WHO CARES!!!
    People need to grow up. And stop the crazy. Infants NEED their mother’s milk, case closed.

    Breastfeeding her kid? AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAGH! FILTHY! FILTHY! FILTHY!

    This may be the FIRST time I defend a Neo-Cal church. But here goes. I think the folks in that church were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. Do I personally have a problem with a woman taking out her breast in public and feeding her baby? No, 100 times no. But, she wasn’t forced to leave the sanctuary, let alone the building. In fact, a woman in the immediate area of where she was sitting offered to give her something to just cover her breast. But no. She insisted on doing it her way, and if it bothered anyone else or went against their rules -tough cookies (regardless of what you or I may think of those rules). She could have sat there and fed her baby IF she would have accepted the covering the woman offered to her. There was no one telling her she couldn’t breast feed her baby.

    And for what it’s worth, there are MANY other churches and private institutions and environments that would also tell her to cover while she was breast feeding. Big Deal! This is not abuse or mistreatment by any stretch of the imagination. And she has no case if she intends to sue. If she had been in a Conservative Jewish Synagogue, or a Islamic Mosque, or among Conservative Mennonites, or many other religious environments, she would have been told the same thing. It seems like these days, so many people take offense that they can’t just do whatever they want – even in the context of a particular practice within a particular cultural milieu. So many people want to cry: Persecution. Abuse. Sorry this was not a case of either.

  269. I’ve got a comment that hasn’t passed customs yet, but for those of you who seem to think that the woman who wanted to feed her baby in that church was being mistreated….I call foul on that. I watched her video and I am convinced it’s a non-story. All a big ado about nothing.

  270. Dave A A wrote:

    Where we used to live, with young kids, we drove miles for summer swims to avoid “Thong Man” on the nearby beach.

    Yikes. Southern Cali?

  271. Law Prof wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
    Clarification: They wanted her to go to some special room, so yeah, she still would have been in the building or on the campus. Just not at the service.
    Doesn’t matter, so long as she’s not flumping her anatomy out on a front row pew, why in the world is it any business of theirs?

    in the park watching our kids play and she decided to breast feed, popped up her shirt and then, maybe a second later, grabbed the baby and popped him on. I was thinking “Wow, I just saw the missionary’s bajinga! I didn’t make a scene, though, because I know that culture well and she’d have rightly thought anyone who tried to make something sexual or offensive out of a mother nursing a baby or even letting her parts show for a moment in that context would be a full blooded buffoon not even worthy of her concern.

    I’m going to disagree on your analysis, Law Prof. Just as the German woman has her culture, so does that church. And she wasn’t told to stop feeding her baby. In fact, someone offered her a cover while she was feeding and she refused. She had no concern for the culture of that local community. Her attitude was that she should be able to do what she wants without any concern for the social/cultural mores of that church. Regardless of what may think of the rules in that church, (and personally, I have no problem with women feeding their babies in public in this manner) every church and religious institution has its social mores and rules.

    We don’t have to agree with them, but if we are among those people in a worship context, then we can at least respect their culture. If we don’t like it, then we don’t have to worship among those folks. We can walk right out of there. Yay! But this was not a case of her being mistreated. I watched her video and I’m not convinced that she has a case to sue, if that would be her intentions. She would be treated in a similar manner in a Conservative Jewish Synagogue or an Islamic Mosque, or a Mennonite Church or in any number of religious venues. So many folks want to cry Persecution these days. So many folks thinking they’re being marginalized. We have become a Cry-Baby society.

  272. Gram3 wrote:

    Their history is telling. If you don’t like Geneva, then run for your life.

    Except instead of there being only one Geneva as in John Calvin’s day, now there are multiple mini-Genevas under the guise of Neo-Calvinist, 9Marx, independent, elder ruled and led church/gulags. And it may be that every month, or perhaps every week, new mini-Genevas are popping up all over the country. Heaven help us all!

    *Credit goes to Velour for the term gulag to describe Neo-Cal churches. 😉

  273. __

    “20 Characteristics That Describe A 501(c)3 Religious Sociopath?”

    hmmm…

    @ Illustrious Dave A A,

    Thanks! I am indeed! (A cat with nine lives is suspect.)

    I l@@k forward to your forthcoming ‘signal’ article. (snicker) I am sure that you will bring to light the most positive and favorable characteristics…

    Hope you also are well,

    The tipping point being at hand, our day will come yet, believe you me,

    ATB

    Sopy


    🙂

  274. Christiane wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    Where we used to live, with young kids, we drove miles for summer swims to avoid “Thong Man” on the nearby beach.
    Yikes. Southern Cali?

    In SoCal I’m not sure folks would have complained even if he forgot his thong. But this was Idaho. He successfully petitioned City Hall to uphold his sunbathing rights.

  275. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    And if you’re from Louisville, there’s kuchen and White Castles. (I’ll pass on the latter, but my kids and husband love them.)

    Ha, by the time I get to Louisville, my “accent” is already obvious! I live in a county that borders with Tennesse. White Castle – yuck – Anywhere but there! I will take a hot brown, though!

  276. @ Nancy2:

    i’m having to look up all these food items you keep mentioning, to see what in the world they are! Burgoo, a ‘hot brown’, derby pie….

  277. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m having to look up all these food items you keep mentioning, to see what in the world they are! Burgoo, a ‘hot brown’, derby pie….

    Ahhhhh, Burgoo! Girl, ya don’t know what you’re missin’!!!

  278. Darlene wrote:

    And it may be that every month, or perhaps every week, new mini-Genevas are popping up all over the country.

    “Tomorrow Belongs To MEEEEEE…”
    Cabaret

  279. __

    It is important to recognize that when the SGM 501(c)3 church establishment decided to treat sexual abuse as an internal matter and did not report the abuse to the authorities, the SGM church effectively picked up the sword given to the state; hiding the wrong and delaying justice; whereas determining guilt and innocence before the law was not and is not a matter God had entrusted to the church; thereby effectively usurping authority divinely given to the state for it’s own purposes.

  280. Sopwith wrote:

    __
    It is important to recognize that when the SGM 501(c)3 church establishment decided to treat sexual abuse as an internal matter and did not report the abuse to the authorities, the SGM church effectively picked up the sword given to the state; hiding the wrong and delaying justice; whereas determining guilt and innocence before the law was not and is not a matter God had entrusted to the church; thereby effectively usurping authority divinely given to the state for it’s own purposes.

    And Excellent observation, Sopwith!

  281. May as well up the count to 360…
    Somewhereintime wrote:

    Do unrepentant pastors that protect child molesters go to heaven?

    Are they of the Predestined Elect?

    “Are they God’s chosen? Are they God’s chosen?”
    — Gordon Dickson, “Soldier, Ask Not” (key flashback scene, both novella & novel)

  282. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Are they of the Predestined Elect?

    Are they predestined to molest?

    Apparently so if we are to believe a recent TGC post:
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-pray-if-god-has-already-determined-everything

    Most Calvinists believe in a form of determinism—that is, God has determined every single event. At each moment there is only one possible future: the future God has determined.

    The comments posted on this article are outstanding – they all expose the fallacy.

  283. Pingback: Authority in the Christian blogosphere – Notes UNITED STATES

  284. Ken F wrote:

    Apparently so if we are to believe a recent TGC post:
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-pray-if-god-has-already-determined-everything

    Most Calvinists believe in a form of determinism—that is, God has determined every single event. At each moment there is only one possible future: the future God has determined.

    “In’shal’lah…”

    And since Calvinistas also believe God predestines everything for His Glory and nothing else…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5m5mNFTaw
    (If you’re not offended by really really sick joke videos about Jihad or 9/11 or suicide bombers, search YouTube for “allahu akbar vines”.)

    Though I’m surprised nobody’s traced down my Gordon Dickson quote above.
    Any Old School SF litfans in this thread?