first?

Went back and read it.
Wow. Just, wow.

Dare I say, “Don’t murder your kids by abortion. Murder them by missions work, because it’s ‘Sanctified!'”

(Saying “Sanctified” in the voice and tone as Penny McGill, Ulysses Everett McGill’s wife from “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou” the same way she says “Bona Fide!”

Yeah, I wonder if he’d take his grandkids to a dangerous mission field? ( The Texas SBC made the Rio Grande River priority #1 in the 1970s until they discovered it was dangerous…..never mind it was pretty scary in some of the Colonias we knocked on doors in for years….There was always rumors some in ” leadership” didn’t want to endanger their high school age kids….To heck with the ” pew sitters ” kids….)
But take my children or grandchildren to ” The Valley” today? I would go, but my kids would stay home…

Libby wrote:

The bible is the problem.

Here is another way to view those difficult Old Testament passages: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2017/10/24/cross-one

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Still got it wrong. One more try: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/10/bashing-heads-3/

I started following this blog back when I was trying to better understand Discoll. I’ve criticized Piper in the past for his tone-deaf pastoral sensitivity at times.

But seriously, this post jumps the shark for this blog. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Chill out.

Man is the problem not God or His Word.

I’m not comfortable with people putting kids into harm’s way, but I have to at least give Piper more credit than Mark Driscoll on some of these issues.

A couple of years ago, I linked y’all to a blog post Driscoll wrote where he essentially said that married parents are more valuable than single, childless adults (such as myself), so that single, childless adults are expendable.

Ergo, Driscoll reasoned something like, it’s just betterfor singles to serve in dangerous areas to spread the Gospel to spare married couples harm-

Or, he argued, God invented singles to be sent off to dark, scary places to get bumped off because we don’t matter as much as Married Parents.

(It was one or the other, I forget exactly how he tried to justify his view, as it’s been a couple years since I read his terrible post.)

According to Driscoll, my only value or meaning in life as a childless, single adult, is to risk my life getting my head chopped off in some hostile anti-Christian area of the world, handing out Bible tracts.

No thank you.
And how insulting to suggest my life is of less value just because I have no spouse or no kid.

Perhaps Piper IS swimming the Tiber. First final salvation and now salvation by the Baptism of blood.

@ Catherine Martin:
Why is there a Canadian flag up by name. I’m not Canadian. I don’t even live that far north in Wisconsin! Hmmmmmmmm . . . . .

@ Paul D.:
Excellent point.

Well, well, well Piper has a positive view of John Adams. Too bad John Adams could not be reached for his view on Piper. We can probably guess, there are more than a few comments from Adams on “pious frauds”.

@ Tim:
@ Jeff:

I think we fail to realize just how much our experiences and preconceptions focus our attention on unimportant issues and blind us to the what’s really happening. The bigger issue to me is that we have a rapidly developing pharisee class that draws their importance and/or paycheck from expertise in the law. They comment on absolutely everything and seem to be everywhere at the same time. They magnify their own and each other’s exploits till the rich concept of the New Testament church becomes obscured and we all follow the exploits of Paul and Appollos; hanging on their every word and orienting ourselves based on every word that comes from the mouth of ……. While Christ founded a church where every member’s contribution is important, these “leaders” seek to rise above the “regular” members who must struggle to understand and keep up with the new and interesting things they have to say. They continue saying things,some right and some wrong, until we look to them rather than God or our brothers and sisters.

While it is true that we all get it wrong sometimes, most of us aren’t complicit in creating a large following for ourselves; by-passing our own ability to think and discern. We debate about the things they say rather than recognize who they are and what they’re all about.

It’s only been a week since he made the statements about “final justification”. Is there no end to crazy and weird world of the Pied Piper??? Does he sit idly in an office all day just dreaming new ideas???

I believe Mr Piper has been a missionary in Dubai for most of his life. Rather than criticising him, we should all be following his example.

I think.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

There really is tremendous value in being “single for the Lord,” as Saint Paul pointed out.

I have heard numerous Protestant pastors preach this but seen none of them practice it. I can’t help noticing that they chose to get married and have children. They were not wrong to do so, but they should give more thought what they say in the pulpit.

This Piper post on his Desiring God website reminds me of David Platt’s book, titled Radical. I was in a small group that read and discussed it. Me being the “me” that I am, I was not particularly enamored with it. The whole thing smacked of a series of pep talks one might give people who need to be inspired (guilted) to do stuff that they normally wouldn’t do, but that have good “optics” for outsiders as well as for subperforming insiders.

More recently, my group has read Nik Ripkin’s book The Insanity of God. That book is not trying to guilt the reader into taking on dangerous foreign missions, although it does tell his story of doing just that. With his wife. And young sons. However, the wife and children do not accompany him on his trips into Somalia; they are at home base in a nearby and (relatively) safe country, with his wife running the organizational aspects. I thought that book had a more inspiring and thought provoking message, coming from one who has lived out the Great Commission for years with his family, taking reasonable precautions to keep them safe, and carefully calculating the risks to himself. One of the points I took away from it was how he tried to evaluate risks to himself and others. Is it really for the sake of following Jesus and bringing his salvation message to others? Or is the action more about something risky YOU want to do?

I like what someone commented above: the decision to take your children into a dangerous place should be something that is determined by the individual family as they believe God calls them. Not by the admonishments of John Piper or the exhortations of David Platt. And developing the character of your children should not be of primary consideration. Or secondary. After all, following Jesus is about dying to self. Not improving self/children’s self. People, needy or otherwise, are neither projects nor stepping stones to better your kids.

@ Libby:
I don’t know if the Bible is the entire problem so much as that Christians interpret it 68 different ways from Sunday.

Stick ten Christians in a room, ask them a theological question, and you’ll get 8 to 10 different answers – and if they’re standard Baptists or Protestants, they will all claim the their views are based wholly on the Bible.

Some of their views come from how they choose to interpret the Bible.

Tim wrote:

I agree w 98% of your content, but I’m OK with Piper’s position here. I think we ARE too comfortable, me included. If he’s hypocritical in his statements and actions, then I would look at it differently.

I’m not so chill if this stuff is aimed at people like me in particular, which it sometimes is, vis a vis pastor Mark Driscoll, whose views lead to the implication that God loves single, chiildless adults far less than married parents.

So that, he reckons, only single, childless adults should spread the Gospel in the dangerous remote parts of the world, so that married parents can stay back in the comfy cozy security of their middle class neighborhood sipping their Star Buck lattes.

And to that I say, ‘bite me’ and ‘stick it where the sun don’t shine.’

I guess I can’t blame any parents who feel similar if Piper directs this at their kids.

This may be a little off subject, but did anyone ever notice how Muslim terrorist leaders are always strapping suicide vests to other peoples children?

“The first factor that might lead children to join terrorist groups is the potential of warped religious motivation. While most religions are decid- edly against suicide, most also tend to laud the concept of martyrdom, of dying for one’s faith. As one fourteen-year-old fighter in Najaf commented, “My parents encouraged me to come here [to Najaf, the site of a battle against U.S. forces during the summer of 2004]. I would prefer to live and taste victory, but if not my death will be rewarded with spiritual gifts in heaven.””

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I believe Mr Piper has been a missionary in Dubai for most of his life. Rather than criticising him, we should all be following his example.

I think

I think you are thinking of somebody else. This John Piper spent 33 years as the pastor of a church in Minneapolis.

@ dee:
If you have no problem with the bible, then could you please write a post addressing
the “hard” passages, both in the OT and NT? (Examples: the treatment of Eve in the Garden of Eden, virginity test for women only, genocide, exclusion of women throughout old and new testament, treating women like property (at least two passages that imply women are not the image of God), requiring women to submit to abuse (that’s in first or second Peter, I would have to look it up.) The list goes on and on.

ishy wrote:

By the time I was supposed to graduate, the New Cals were telling me and other single women preparing to be missionaries that we needed to find husbands first. Now, I went with a non-SBC agency from the outset, but there were people that were kind of offended by the fact that I still planned to be a single, female missionary.

I always found it rather irritating that people who insisted I had to get married to a Christian never seemed to get the fact that there are a whole lot more single women in the church than men. Never been to a singles group in a church that wasn’t at least 70% women to 30% men. My missions graduating class – 12 women and 2 men. Now, of course, the pastoral and youth pastor tracks were mostly male.

Where are all these mysterious men that want to be missionaries?

John Piper: Take your kids on dangerous mission trips because dying isn’t the worst thing that could happen to them and maybe they will become *good* Christians.
—————————————————

I would love for some adult former MK’s to comment on this.

I personally know many for MK’s who have left the faith. And those that remain Christian – most would not even think of raising their families on the mission field, for a variety of reasons. Think about it, for all of the thousands of missionaries, there are very few multigenerational missionary families. If any commenters were raised on the mission field, I would love to hear your thoughts.

For Piper to say taking your kids to dangerous countries for missions so they might be good Christians is naive and reckless. And as for his callous comment about children dying, he fails to address the hell that bereaved parents live in the rest of their lives.

Where exactly did he take his kids that put them in danger? Do they pass the test of being ‘good’ Christians? I do wonder if Piper’s kids have attachment disorders.

Now, I do know some former & current Missionaries whose kids have been in danger, mostly due to disease, but it wasn’t in this wanton way. Os Guinness was carried out of China as a kid by his parents when they were all expelled, rather than stay to die unnecessarily.

Tree wrote:

I like what someone commented above: the decision to take your children into a dangerous place should be something that is determined by the individual family as they believe God calls them.

Somewhat, surely, but not exclusively.

I spent a ‘time of discernment’ oversees with missionaries in a project run by the then Foreign Mission Board of the SBC and in the late 1950s. The missionaries themselves had mixed ideas about single vs married, and having young children on the field vs not, and male vs female, and evangelist job assignment vs school or hospital job assignments. Their opinions were based on the larger impact on the work, not just on the individual family.

My conclusion is that the decision is not just what the individual family wants to do or what they think they are called to do but rather that the impact on the larger ‘work’ that many people are doing is also a large factor in this decision and should be the deciding factor in who is appointed to where and when.

I agree with Piper. And I say that as someone who grew up, not in physical danger but certainly suffered other damages from my Dads calling as a minister of the Gospel. There are worse things than physical, temporal death.

My 4-yr old was just diagnosed with incurable, terminal brain cancer. There is no such thing as absolute safety from all dangers in this world. We put their lives at risk by bringing them into this world. We must be wise, of course. But part of wisdom is teaching our kids that Jesus is worth living for, and worth dying for. My greatest fear is losing my kids for eternity because I never taught them Jesus is worth everything we give him. If they grow up thinking Jesus is just alright, and chase after this perishing world with all their hearts, that will grieve me more than the imminent, temporary loss of my precious little one.

So I’m with Piper here.

There is nothing at all keeping Piper from risking his life on some mission field, he never has and never will. Why isn’t this obvious question ever presented to him? Go to Syria, Afghanistan, nothing keeping him from it. I doubt he even presents the gospel to the persons sitting with him on flights to and from his speaking conferences. I heard a panel question at a (conference on the gospel) where the question was asked “will you be sharing the gospel on the flight back home?” there was silence, Piper was on the panel. There was a lame fumbling answer. Piper never took his kids on a dangerous mission trip yet he expects you to!

Joe Reed wrote:

My 4-yr old was just diagnosed with incurable, terminal brain cancer.

Oh, Joe, what a terrible thing. There are indeed worse things than dying. I do not think for one minute, however, that either your four year old or anybody else’s four year old, is in any danger from God.

I know that you neither said nor implied that, but there are those who would, and I wanted to emphasize that God is the God of the children, not just the grownups.

Libby wrote:

@ dee:
If you have no problem with the bible, then could you please write a post addressing
the “hard” passages, both in the OT and NT? (Examples: the treatment of Eve in the Garden of Eden, virginity test for women only, genocide, exclusion of women throughout old and new testament, treating women like property (at least two passages that imply women are not the image of God), requiring women to submit to abuse (that’s in first or second Peter, I would have to look it up.) The list goes on and on.

I hope when you read this you feel the respect I am trying to give you, because I understand your position, and also share a lot of your frustration. However, please don’t reject the bible out of hand simply because people are jerks.

I was going to write a list of resources for further study on the historical, hermeneutical, and theological questions you brought up, but it seems your concerns focus mainly on the treatment of women, and the abuse that men have tried to justify by quoting from the bible. (If you would like some scholarly resources, I’d be happy to point you to some academics, historians, philosophers, and theologians who (no offense to Dee or Deb) have a bit more ability and training to handle these kinds of questions.)

It seems you have a lot of pain or anger on this issue, which is understandable, so I respect that. But your questions are not new, and there are potential academic solutions available — as well as emotional healing from abusive misinterpretations (Trust me, I’ve had more than my fair share…)

I need not repeat what others have said about interpretations and abuse. But I would like to point out that the bible presents a much richer view of women than most people realize, because apparently most protestants have grown used to the “protestant machismo” championed by Piper and Driscoll, which is totally contrary to what Jesus actually taught. Yes, there are certainly difficult passages in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. But how does Jesus treat women? I won’t give you a Sunday School lesson (you can read those passages for yourself), but of all his recorded encounters with women, is there a single one in which he does not seem to elevate them above the abusive men around them? Even with the woman caught in adultery (notice how the pharisees only brought the woman as the culprit — much like nowadays, it seemed they thought it was the woman who “makes” the man sin, and the perpetrator becomes the victim), when the crowds wanted Jesus to destroy her, he forgives her and exposes what dirtbags those men were — the very men that wanted to use the bible to abuse her.

Or perhaps most shockingly, the first witnesses to the event upon which the entire truth or falsehood of Christianity depends — the Resurrection — were women. In a time when a woman’s testimony was invalid in legal settings, or was discounted compared to a man’s. Whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or not is another argument (again, which I would be happy to give resources on); but unquestionably it is both odd (from a historical context) and beautiful that such an important thing as the truth or falsehood of his claims would rest on the testimony of overlooked and forgotten women. If Jesus wanted his ministry to succeed in a male-dominated society, shouldn’t he have made Peter the first witness? Instead he chose a former prostitute.

Again, I don’t expect to convince you online, and I don’t expect you to be satisfied with short answers, but I hope you seriously consider studying this stuff for yourself, if you feel that strongly about it. The fact that you are asking for clarification at all suggests to me that your mind is not quite so made up about the bible as you first claimed…

As for exposing kids to danger, I’ll beat the dead horse a little while longer: as so many people have said, it should be an individual question.

Now that that horse is mincemeat, and surely will never neigh again, I would like to add that, while I do not agree with Piper on who should have ultimate control in the decision, I think it is good for kids to grow up exposed to danger — I speak from experience: Long story short, for a few years we lived in a place that was basically a Dostoevsky novel, and I was a cynic by the age of ten. I was exposed to stuff no child should have to face, and dealt with the emotional scars for years afterward, and on occasion physical danger was all too real.

But, even though I hated it while we were there, I am thankful (after surviving) for the change it brought to my worldview, and the eventual strength that developed from the hardship. In fact, seeing the evil of the world was one of the things that strengthened my Christianity. (I suppose that is one of the few things that might make pain and suffering worthwhile: that the noblest things about humanity can only be seen in the midst of darkness, death and despair).

But that suffering happened contrary to what my parents wanted (they didn’t have much choice), and that makes all the difference: They didn’t willingly put me in that situation. True, even though experiencing that stuff probably made me stronger, the difference is that my parents did not think, “Oh, let’s go make our son almost die. That’ll teach him to be such a good little Christian. Think of what a testimony he’ll have if he survives! What great parents we are! The Father must be so proud! After all, he made HIS son suffer, and look what good came of that!”

Maybe that’s why Piper’s so keen on choosing to make the kids suffer — because of a warped view of the Father — Son relationship.

What Happened wrote:

@ Tim:
@ Jeff:

I think we fail to realize just how much our experiences and preconceptions focus our attention on unimportant issues and blind us to the what’s really happening. The bigger issue to me is that we have a rapidly developing pharisee class that draws their importance and/or paycheck from expertise in the law. They comment on absolutely everything and seem to be everywhere at the same time. They magnify their own and each other’s exploits till the rich concept of the New Testament church becomes obscured and we all follow the exploits of Paul and Appollos; hanging on their every word and orienting ourselves based on every word that comes from the mouth of ……. While Christ founded a church where every member’s contribution is important, these “leaders” seek to rise above the “regular” members who must struggle to understand and keep up with the new and interesting things they have to say. They continue saying things,some right and some wrong, until we look to them rather than God or our brothers and sisters.

While it is true that we all get it wrong sometimes, most of us aren’t complicit in creating a large following for ourselves; by-passing our own ability to think and discern. We debate about the things they say rather than recognize who they are and what they’re all about.

A “rapidly-developing pharisee class” – this is golden! And sadly true.

I still think Piper is useless and how he goes about admonishing christians is a load of crud. He’s led a comfortable life, christianity has been very good for him both financially and career wise. I think he really believes what he says but like so many other religious types, it’s easier to point out perceived logs in others eyes.

My wife comes from an area of the world where there has been and still is political instability and at times active insurgency. There have been bombings, kidnappings, rebellion in addition to the usual petty crime that comes from areas where there is a wide gap between the haves and the have nots. And yes, a good chunk of the violence has religious overtones, some of the insurgent groups are muslim and in some areas have identified with ISIS. The Canadian government does not recommend travel to the area.

Have we taken our family there? Yes. We took calculated risks. My wife was raised there and knows the languages and cultures, her family live there and are connected with the communities. Before we go, we check the news. We listen to the family. Sometimes there are places where we can’t visit and we keep it as low key as we can – there’s no way I’ll ever be mistaken for a local. We think it’s important that the kids know their heritage and culture, and meet great-parents, grand parents and other family.

My point is that if you are going on any mission work, you need to travel smart. Find out the history of where your going, catalog the risks, get the required immunizations, connect with locals and listen to them, check with your embassy and register. Don’t have an idealized view of the place you are going to visit. You can travel smart with kids but you have to do your homework.

Further to missions work and kids. It depends on the mission, and what you are going to do. There’s a guy who is associated with a Columbian mission from my wife’s church. Columbia is an area where there has been brutal insurgency. To his credit, he became fully conversant in Spanish, learned the culture, connected with locals and has lived there with his wife and kids for years.

A coworkder of mine is going on a 2 week medical mission to Kenya, she’s a nurse and they are going with nurses, doctors, pharmacists to a medical clinic. Treat illness, administer vaccinations, teach hygiene, I’ve given money to this mission as it’s the practical sort of stuff that I enjoy supporting. A prospective member of their team wanted to bring her 10 year old daughter. The team declined her application. They determined that this mission was not appropriate for youngster any more than you would take your kid to work in a big city emergency room.

And then there’s the mission group my wife’s church when she was a teenager. They were from a group called Youth With A Mission. The highlight of that group was the young lady who wanted to have her picture taken while riding on the hood of a jeep in a string bikini. Needless to say this horrified the host church and would generally fall under the category “bad idea” in the conservative culture of the area.

“John Quincy Adams, in my view, was the most superbly educated and maybe the most brilliant human being who ever occupied the executive office. (American Spirit, 115–116)

If John and Abigail Adams thought that their comparatively small aims for their children were worth the risk of death, are not our aims worth just as much risk?”
I am something of a JQA expert, or let’s just say ‘fan’ — he sure is fun to read about!! the idea of using his parents as models for your own parenting is insane. Ben franklin said John Adams was ‘completely out of his head’ and Abigal was way worse, a true nut!! when JQA was barely 12, she sent her son a letter saying, ‘It would grieve me less to hear you had been drowned at sea than to hear you did not become president.’ JQA didn’t WANT to be prez, didn’t LIKE it, just did it to shut her up, and when his mother died, he didn’t go to his mother’s funeral. when asked why, he said, “BUSY!” so if you want your kids to hate you, do what John and Abigal did…. at least Q didn’t crack…John adams had many other sons and grandsons who died before 40 from alchoholism because they couldn’t stand the pressure…

Q would have been much happier being a professor or poet, actually wrote his wife endless pages of surprisingly erotic poetry….caused a scandal by always swimming in the patomac naked…maybe that’s where LBJ got the idea from…. hated being prez, but LOVED being a legislator, after losing re election, he viewed it as no demotion to become senator, stayed at his post for decades and decades, actually dropped dean in the middle of giving a speech on the senate floor! masterfully defended the folks on the slave ship Amistad, when they made the movie he was played by Hannibal the cannibal lector, Anthony Hopkins…. Q was also a world class snob…really looked down on the voters, the voters didn’t like that, nobody does, no surprise they went for Jackson, a true ass kicker who lived in constant pain from a bullet he got dueling, protecting the honour of his wife. Q the snob wrote that he could not BELEVE he was losing to ‘a man who spells government with one n.’

While we are in the area of cross-cultural issues I want to add another dimension.

Two of my g’kids are Asian and each was adopted at age one (1) into our family which is white/ middle class and educated though not affluent/ more or less church-going/ and employed.

They have both had to deal with bias including at school and church. They are native English speakers, culturally aware, friendly, academically proficient and one is athletically adept. They are not however kissers of anybody else’s anatomy and neither is ashamed of their country of origin. None the less, they have been the object of what I am toning down and calling bias. The oldest just entered high school in a public school having refused to go to a private academically oriented school because in her words she is sick of snotty rich kids. She means ‘white’ not ‘rich’. That said, I can only imagine what it would be like to be a kid in a different culture from one’s own with not even the access to the dominant culture which our g’kids have had. Is that a level of child abuse? Maybe. Did the great commission say ‘go ye’ or did it say ‘take your kids and go’? Was it addressed to every person who is a believer, as some say, or was Jesus specifically focusing on the twelve (11+ 1) at the time, as some have said. When Paul said that he was entitled to take with him a female (sister/wife) as a female (wife/sister) as the other apostles did is it that he forgot to mention the children or did he omit the kids because people were not dragging the kids behind them as they did missionary travels at the time?

God does not need the damaging or the destruction of children to accomplish his goals. People do not need to somehow please God by damaging or destroying their children in order to make some hateful and angry god appeased–or to make themselves look ‘special’ in the eyes of such a god. Or, more likely, to make themselves look special in their own eyes and the eyes of those who contribute to the collection plate.

Dang it. When do we start valuing the young and the helpless, when the idea of valuing such is clear in scripture, which we ought to be able to read even when our own withered and dried up selves have long since forgotten how to do that?

(Word omitted) to ideas like Piper’s on this subject.

@ DebWill:

thanks for sharing the info. they’re all very late in life. oh… the wrongness of the whole situation is just too much sometimes.

the missions organization stands on the shoulders of my fearless (but remiss) grandparents — and on the necks and faces of their offspring. especially the white-collared leadership in their nicely furnished offices and salaries… wonder if they even have a clue.

Libby wrote:

If you have no problem with the bible, then could you please write a post addressing
the “hard” passages, both in the OT and NT? (Examples: the treatment of Eve in the Garden of Eden, virginity test for women only, genocide, exclusion of women throughout old and new testament, treating women like property (at least two passages that imply women are not the image of God), requiring women to submit to abuse (that’s in first or second Peter, I would have to look it up.) The list goes on and on.

I totally get what you’re saying. The bible is a mixed bag of all sorts that doesn’t make sense. In the old testament you’ve got talking animals, drunk patriarchs cursing nations because they were seen in their birthday suits, guys killing hundreds with ox goads and in the NT in addition to the miracles, there’s guys flying around in the air.
So I get it and yes the “put everyone and the dog to death” stories certainly don’t help.
I don’t believe in the bible as written and that led me to cease identifying with the Christian faith.
So why am I here? Christianity still has a huge impact on our society, plus I’m married to a devout Christian so I find that in understanding some of the issues surrounding the christian faith helps me in my own life as I struggle with it.
The bible is a double edged sword. It can be wielded for good and bad.
I find the gospels to be mostly uplifting. The rest, I interpret the rest through the lens of the 21st century. The Old Testament is a record of how our society used to be. What’s recorded there reflects the brutality of the time it was written. Here in the 21st Century (particularly in the “developed” nations) we don’t realize that warfare was brutal, the concept of constitutional democracy non-existent, the modern concept of childhood didn’t exist, mortality was through the roof – if you got to 40 you would be a senior citizen. Jesus at the age of 30 would have been considered “up there” by his peers, girls were married when their period arrived – as young as 12 (younger in some accounts), slavery and polygamy was A-OK. It was a way different world.
But Piper and his crew believe that it all happened, literally, that not one shred should be questioned and so that affects their outlook. So in their reality, God smites for his own glory and our suffering means nothing, because it’s for God’s glory, wives are beaten, for God’s glory, children abused – for God’s glory…you get the picture.

I don’t think any one faith has it right, I live my life the best I can without expectation of a cosmic pat on the head at the end of it all. I’ve found that my morality remains intact even after my faith declined.

Anyways, you’re not alone. Peace.

Libby,

Those are good questions. Here’s the answers:

The hard passages of the Bible are where the Bible translators changed certain texts to fit their own personal bias towards women. There are all kinds of examples where translators gave the same Hebrew/Greek word one meaning when applying to men and then totally changed the meaning when applied to women.

1) God NEVER cursed Eve in the Garden. The literal Hebrew was God telling Eve, “A lying in wait has increased your sorrow and your suffering.” God was recognizing that the serpent had tricked her. Then God warns her that she’s turning to Adam for comfort and Adam is going to wrongly try to rule her. That’s a warning NOT a command.

2) The OT was written in a time of cultural patriarchy where God had to put protections into the law, trying to protect women from domestic violence. Some of the OT passages about if a husband suspects his wife is cheating, he has to take her to the temple for a test. The whole point was to stop the husband from hurting her in a jealous rage by providing due process of law. These types of laws were NEVER God’s perfect will but simply a way to protect women under a culture that refused to recognize their rights in the first place.

Jesus told the Pharisees that there were OT laws that God NEVER wanted to have. But had to provide because of the “hardness of their hearts.”

3)In the OT, God raised up women into powerful positions. Deborah ruled the nation and led the military into battle. The King and leaders went to a female prophet for guidance. Etc. Etc. God never excluded women from being in authority, God just had to deal with a hard hearted culture putting road blocks in the way.

4) OF course women are made in the image of God. The Bible confirms that. Please show us the passage that you believe says women aren’t made in the image of God.

5) The Bible NEVER tells women to submit to abuse. That’s just misinterpretating caused by bias in the pulpits. In fact the Apostle Paul specifically said not to put up with anyone who slaps you in the face. (2Cor 11:20)

If you take the time to dig deep enough, you can see God’s heart for protecting women throughout the Bible. There are parts of the Bible warning us about domestic violence and the wolves who sneak into the churches (I.e. Judges 19-20) That’s warning us about bad behavior, NOT suggesting we follow that example.

Libby, Jesus is the greatest liberator of women that ever walked the face of the Earth. We have an uphill battle in the church fighting all the traditions of men that have covered up the truth for too long.

Not surprised. When you don’t think you’re justified by faith alone and your works are necessary for final justification, you will have to come up with some crazy, awesome good works to be able to prove to God you actually had faith in him. So, like Abraham you better be willing to do the ultimate sacrifice: offer up your children.

Libby,

We could talk about how God honored Jael in the OT for taking down the powerful enemy leader with nothing more than a bottle of milk and a tent peg. That’s not excluding women! That’s showing the wisdom of women rescuing a nation.

Then there’s the OT story of the woman who saved her whole city by dropping a millstone on the enemy leader who was trying to destroy them.

There’s a third story of another lady saving the lives of an entire city by getting rid of one bad guy.

How many more examples of the Bible honoring the strength, valor and courage of women would you like?

“Wow- I did not know this!! Can you recommend a good book? When I was a teenager, I read a book on the Letters of Abigail and John Adams. I so loved what she wrote that I decided if I ever had a daughter, I would name her Abigail. I did! I do not plan to tell her about this, however…at least not now. I truly would like to read more, though? Thoughts?”

yikes, I did not mean to burst your bubble or anything…. start out with a q bio by robert v. remini, short, really motors along…. and then maybe go to the longer bio by paul nagel — what a life! and he sure did love his wife, what a romance…..

reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold’s dad was always mean to him, because he suspected that his wife had been stepping out, and that Arnold wasn’t really his son. so when Arnold’s dad died, Arnold skipped the funeral, said “BUSY!” and who knows how much of his obsession with ‘achievement’ springs out of childhood rejection…. I believe our parents cast a longer shadow than we can imagine, you can never step out of it…. a pastor once said to me,

“I used to give parenting advice ALL THE TIME….until I had kids myself. Now….I keep my mouth shut.” I thought that was a very human thing to say.

elastigirl wrote:

i’d like to hear you say “Chill out” to their faces.

Your remarks reminded me of the movie “Mosquito Coast”. If someone has the urge to go off in service of some dangerous mission, that is their choice. On the other hand if they drag their wife and children off on that some potential catastrophe the danger is not just to life and limb. There is a good chance the children will grow up disillusioned with “the cause” after likely carnage in their lives.

Some thoughts from a former missionary in Colombia during the guerrilla wars and glory days of the drug cartels:
It was never “safe”, but it was liveable in the urban areas. You needed to be aware of what was going on and check with local (Colombian) leadership.
We had couples with children. Those children, now adults, are very thankful for their upbringing and the opportunity to be cross-cultural.
As our “range” gradually became more restrictive due to the violence, we finally left by our board’s request. However, attention to leadership building had already made us obsolete. Our branch of the Colombian church continues to grow.
I don’t think Piper understands how modern missions works, the fact that most overseas missionaries need to have legal paperwork to even get on a plane, that “independent” workers aren’t encouraged unless they have some kind of support network, and that there is no “safe” place anywhere. Kids can face more danger from family members who kill them through abuse and neglect, or “trusted” teachers/church workers who abuse them.
Sending organizations are very aware of the risks to families, they provide ongoing support, and they always have emergency plans. They also don’t recruit families for North Korea, either(pardon my sarcasm).

ISHY: well yeah, if a person has been knocked around by life AT ALL, you learn to tread easy, watch your mouth so you don’t cause someone pain, unless you’re a sociopath. I caused my dad a lot of pain when I stopped going to church, he blamed himself etc. when it was all ME… pastors had told us that ensuring your kids make it through the pearly gates was YOUR responsibility, do NOT drop the ball… think of the pain to REAL PEOPLE pastors’ words have caused…. think how much good someone like Piper could do by being SILENT….

Avid Reader wrote:

He plays magician pulling the rabbit out of the hat

IOW, Entertainer.

ishy wrote:

Piper gives advice on what parents should do to raise perfect Christians…

So did Got Hard.
Checklists, Workbooks, and all.

dee wrote:

*bloated jellyfish*

https://soundcloud.com/greenteaman a link to hear bloated jellyfish.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Check this out – Doug Wilson is “Presiding Minister” over a denomination: https://crechurches.org/

In the Episcopal Church, a “presiding bishop” is the equivalent of a Primate of a country; in Episcopal liturgy, “[name] our Presiding Bishop” is said at the same point in the call to prayer as we RCCs say “Francis our Pope”.

Catherine Martin wrote:

@ Catherine Martin:
Why is there a Canadian flag up by name. I’m not Canadian. I don’t even live that far north in Wisconsin! Hmmmmmmmm . . . . .

Either Wisconsin is too close to The Great White North, Eh, or Canada invaded just like in the South Park Movie.

Sorry if this is a bit too far off topic…

From the OP:

Let’s say they get caught in the crossfire and get shot? How do you think Child Protective Services would view the explanation of your gospel mission? Could/should this be considered potential child abuse?

Perhaps not in the state of Indiana, if recent news is any indication… 🙁

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/10/26/appeals-court-rules-sex-offenders-can-attend-church-children-present/802562001/

How can I raise a dolphin cutting through schools of sharks, rather than a bloated jellyfish floating with the plankton into the mouth of the whale called the world?

“I’ll take ‘Word Salad’ for $100.”

@ dee:

Thanks, Dee. I missed that comment.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ah yes, ancient poets’ sagesse.

William Polidori, Lord Byron’s physician, noting that handsome Byron’s syphilis was sucking the life out of women everywhere in Europe, wrote Dracula as an allegory: the handsome vampire whom women swooned over to their demise.

Subsequently, Dracula and Twilight sagas appear, frighten, entertain and inform of a deadly attraction to a dashing dangerous beau.

Be warned of the trophy catch, even among religious circles. After our reflection on 2-timer Barth, it turns out Tillich was a philanderer, etc.

Piper is just one crazy dude , I feel sorry for his wife and kids. He makes the Christian faith look foolish to the world. I really hesitate to tell anyone I am one due to his nonsense.

mandavilla wrote:

I really hesitate to tell anyone I am one due to his nonsense.

He’s not so well-known outside of his sphere, seemingly unbeknownst to those in the bubble. Small potatoes, though projected largely, often, word-saladly, loudly, viscerally.

Nevertheless, there are always those off the rail in any metier or context. One distinguishes oneself.

“It’s the overconfidence of experts that can result in spectacular mistakes. Overconfidence leads to the inability to see changes in the world around us, blinding us to new information that could help us avoid disastrous failures… The miscalibrated bluffer is the best bluffer of all, globally maladaptive, believing [and projecting] they are far more than they are.” M. Gladwell

@ Thersites:

“On the other hand if they drag their wife and children off on that some potential catastrophe the danger is not just to life and limb.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

alternatively…. i remember reading a blog post from a pastor in Idaho (can’t remember the name) talking about the glories of short-term missions.
In which case, it almost always seems some family members stay behind at home.

He was sort of criticizing “couch potato” christians while championing christians who go out on short-term missions. He made the point that there is nothing quite like the adventure of it all (in that instance, he was referring to how his short-term mission group improvised transportation by riding motorcycles through the night to get to their 3rd world destination).

Aside from the fact that i think short-term missions bring about more problems for the hosts than they do benefits, it seemed to me that the real point of the short-term mission was to fulfill an Indiana Jones fantasy while earning God-points at the same time.

it struck me as Extremely Selfish, wearing the Super Christian costume (which i’m sure had a cape — which true Supers would never do –“No capes!”).

and it seemed to me that the real risk is to the family members who stayed behind. the short-term missionary on the short-term mission careening through a 3rd-world jungle land on a motorcycle is exposing himself/herself to such unnecessary danger — should an accident happen and he/she be killed or disabled, the breadwinner / husband / wife / parent is no longer able to support and care for the family. the family bears the brunt and pays the price.

all for adventure-christianing.

dee wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I would love to be a missionary in Dubai, BTW.

It’s laughable to hear someone talk about being a “missionary” in Dubai or any other UAE country for that matter. These folks are really just church planters for expatriates. Proselytizing (nationals) is punishable by prison time or worse.

@ Todd Wilhelm:
Watched.

I was under the impression they just defunded their missionaries… however, on the video he gives a call to missions, give up the American Dream, and Go.

Did everyone notice how John Piper avoided giving credit to Abigail Adams for being an awesome mother? She deserves recognition for how she raised young John Quincy Adams in the middle of the Revolutionary War while his Dad was away from home working on things like the Declaration of Independence and trying to raise funds for the American military.

Abigail Adams was a tremendous mother who taught young JQA to love the Lord and love justice and hate evil. (Note: John Adams was one of the few founding fathers who made a point of refusing to own slaves because he actually believed in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.) It’s true that JQA was a young child when his Dad took him to Europe on a diplomatic mission for the US. Young JQA was inspired getting to watch people like William Pitt and William Wilberforce in heated debate on the floor of Parliament.

JQA would grow up to serve his country as:
Senator
Congressman
Secretary of State
Sixth President of the United States

But the greatest accomplishment of his life happened in the last few years when he was trying to retire from public life. His Boston Congressional District elected him to represent them in Congress, without him running any type of political campaign. There on the floor of Congress, he faced off against one hundred slaveholding Congressmen. Staring them down—he pointed his finger in their faces and told them what they didn’t want to hear. That slavery was a sin against God. That he was going to fight with every ounce of energy that he had left—until it was destroyed from this nation and the world.

There’s a powerful story hidden in the tiny print of the actual Congressional Record where JQA was fighting the evil system tooth and nail. I loved reading many pages of that Congressional Record. JQA loved quoting from the Bible. His actual diary is one of my favorite theological books with many profound insights.

If anyone is looking for a good book on this—here’s two:

The President Who Wouldn’t Retire by Leonard Falkner
(That describes how JQA settled a dispute in Congress by actually making the case for property law straight from the Bible)

Arguing About Slavery by William Lee Miller

These bios give a great overview of the story for anyone who doesn’t have the time to read JQA’s very lengthy diary or the Congressional Record. All four of the above tells the same really powerful story.

@ Libby:
Dee can do as she wishes, of course, but there are plenty of sites out there that already address your objections and concerns, just google for “Christian apologetics,” and look into sites such as
http://juniaproject.com/
Or C.B.E. which offer gender egalitarian interpretations and explanations of the biblical text.

Also check out the history of the transmission of the Bible – I did that years ago when continually running into “KJV Only” cranks online. From that, I learned how we got our Bible translations today. You’ll get into the preservation of manuscripts, lower textual criticism explanations, etc.

From what I’ve been able to see over the years, the problem isn’t really the Bible so much but how Christians choose to interpret it and apply it (or not apply it – some don’t even try to do the most basic of stuff that it says).

M. Joy wrote:

It’s laughable to hear someone talk about being a “missionary” in Dubai or any other UAE country for that matter. These folks are really just church planters for expatriates.

M. Joy is correct. As I recall she has spent time in the Middle East.

All these Neo-Calvinists love to come over to Dubai and make videos for the folks back home. I imagine it is great for fund-raising. They are happy to allow the misconception that Dubai is dangerous for Christians.

Dubai has a huge population of expats and as M. Joy said, these men pastor churches for expats. Muslims are not going to attend a Christian church anymore than I am going to attend a Friday prayer session in a mosque. On a few occassions I have seen muslims attend a christian wedding, but I can’t recall ever seeing a national attend a Friday morning church service. M. Joy is also correct when she stated that it is illegal to proselytize muslims. You wouldn’t be in the country for long if you attempted to preach on a street corner or hand out tracts. It is also illegal for a muslim to convert to Christianity. Evangelism can only really take place as two people become friends and then, of course, natural dialogues will take place. When you think of it, isn’t this also the most effective way to share the Gospel in America? Trust and true friendship will take years to develop. I think people of any religion can quickly sense if you want to befriend them simplly to attempt to convert them, or if you seek a genuine friendship.

@ ishy:

I guess it depends on the flavor of church or denomination. It figures that single adults get screwed either way in.
Some Christians either argue (like Driscoll) that singles are expendable, or, if you are single and want to do X, the church says “Nope, X is for married people only.”

You get hosed either way.

A lot of churches still don’t want to hire single men to be preachers.
“Unmarried Pastor, Seeking Job, Sees Job Bias”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/us/22pastor.html

“The Adams offspring received, in the words of family biographer Paul C. Nagel, “a baptism at home in the waters of self-doubt.” Within that atmosphere of chronic pessimism, John and Abigail were often hectoring, overbearing parents. When young John Quincy expressed a wish for a quiet life as an attorney, his father wrote: “You come into life with advantages which will disgrace you if your success is mediocre. And if you do not rise to the head not only of your profession, but of your country, it will be owing to your own laziness, slovenliness, and obstinacy.”

Abigail Adams was no different, always underscoring what a disappointment her children would be if they fell into sin and lost virtue. Among the long list of sins and vices the young children had to guard against were sloppy penmanship, slovenly dress and wasted time. In and of themselves these admonitions were not bad, but to the Adamses human frailty was to be countered with New England puritanical principles, and pitiless self-criticism was to be encouraged at the earliest age possible.

John once wrote Abigail of their children, “I studied and labored to procure a free Constitution of Government for them to solace themselves under, and if they do not prefer this to ample Fortune, to Ease and Elegance, they are not my children, and I care not what becomes of them.” In wholehearted agreement, Abigail one day wrote to her young children after a long sea voyage that if they had fallen into vice she would have preferred they drowned. Nagel called the Adamses’ parenting skills “a bewildering mixture of affectionate support and cruel distrust…”
Charles Francis learned from all that he had witnessed and endured. As ambassador to England, he found success without being resident in the White House. And Charles Francis was more attentive to his children, who apparently thrived: Charles Francis Adams Jr. became an industrialist and railroad magnate; John Quincy Adams II, a gentleman farmer and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate; and Brooks Adams, a noted essayist. Another son, Arthur, died at age 5.

The ambassador’s most prominent son, however, was the historian and writer Henry Adams, who won the 1919 Pulitzer Prize for his autobiography The Education of Henry Adams. His multivolume History of the United States, chronicling the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, is still considered a paragon of historical writing. Tragically, Henry’s wife, Marian Hooper Adams, committed suicide shortly after her father’s death in 1885. Henry commissioned one of America’s greatest sculptors, Augustus Saint-Gaudens, to design a memorial in Washington, D.C.’s Rock Creek Cemetery. Erected in 1891, the memorial has become world famous, and it is said that Mark Twain gave it the one-word title by which it is commonly known — the one word that could capture the trials of the entire Adams family — “Grief.”
http://www.historynet.com/abigail-adams

“

one of the nice things of being alive right now is all the great founding fathers scholarship: ellis, brookhiser, bailyn, chernow…. ellis has a book about the adams called ‘first family’….

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/books/review/john-quincy-adams-militant-spirit-by-james-traub.html

Correction:
Should read “I would have been more INCLINED not less, to hold on to…”

Rather than “been more included, not less, to…”

M. Joy wrote:

John Piper: Take your kids on dangerous mission trips because dying isn’t the worst thing that could happen to them and maybe they will become *good* Christians.
—————————————————
I would love for some adult former MK’s to comment on this.

A kid who went overseas at the behest of his church wrote a book about how this stuff messed him up.

The kid was burnt out by the whole experience, it messed with his faith.

I can’t remember his name. He wrote a book about it and went on Christian TV shows a couple years back to talk about it all.

I can’t remember the kid’s name, but articles like this one also started showing up:
The Case Against Radical Christianity
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/october/case-against-radical-christianity.html

@ Joe Reed:

I’m very sorry to hear of your child’s illness. My mother died a few years back, in spite of all my prayers for her healing, so that is true, nothing is a guarantee in life.

About one area in this where I sort of agree (don’t know if agree is the right word) with Piper is that he’s putting some sort of onus on married parents.

As I stated above, normally, most churches hose over single childless adults in some way… like, for example, singles are expected to make sacrifices that married parents are not b/c if you don’t have a spouse or kid, many Christians think your life is not as worthwhile.

I don’t know if it’s Piper’s place to shame, pressure or guilt trip parents into using their kids in some way to meet Piper’s opinion of what it means to live like a great Christian, though.

The older I get, the more I tend to tune out what other people’s opinions are about how they think I “should” live my life, especially these pastor guys or guys who earn a buck writing “Christian” blogs and books.

I don’t think Piper necessarily knows any more than I do about God, the Bible, or how to live life.

@ Arnold Smartarse:
I remember when I started along on my Faith Crisis Journey, I had this friend of mine who got bent out of shape with me.

She had been thru a Faith Crisis herself a year or two prior to mine, where she screamed she dumped Christ and was an atheist.

I supported her during that time. I didn’t judge her. (She later went back to being a Christian.)

When my time came, though, she was very critical. She wanted me to outline reasons I was doubting the faith. I gave her some of my reasons, though I told her I wasn’t comfortable with that.

And she more or less gave me the same sort of line that you did, about how I was expecting all Christians to be perfect.

I’ve heard pastors use that line, as well. How if you think all Christians are hypocrites, don’t go to your local perfect church, because you’ll just mess it up by joining (because you’re a hypocrite too).

I tried telling this ex friend of mine, that no, I don’t expect “Perfection” from Christians, but I was not (and still do not, outside a small number of you on these blogs) see Christians even trying to live up to the most basic of Christ’s teachings more or less consistently.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

… while I do not agree with Piper on who should have ultimate control in the decision, I think it is good for kids to grow up exposed to danger — I speak from experience

I had a worry wart for a mother. My mom was a helicopter parent. She was overprotective, and along with teaching me to be a doormat at all times, none of this did me favors as I got older and older.

Because as an adult, I kept running into mean, jerky people who wanted to use me or be obnoxious.

And I would sit there defenseless, like a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to do, because dear old over-protective Mom never taught me how to deal with conflict. (Neither did my dad.)

I was taught to avoid conflict as much as possible, and I became a master at avoidance. But there are some bad people or hardships in life that one cannot avoid.

So there is a valid point in there about if you over-protect your children at all times, this will harm them later in life. It sure created problems for me later in life, that’s for sure.

Daisy wrote:

I’m not sure I agree with all of Young’s theology myself,

Dang it, another typing error, I meant to say I don’t think I agree with all of Young’s beliefs either.

@ Daisy:

I found your comment very moving, Daisy, not least because I’ve met one or two of those as well (and you can probably imagine the kind of real-life characters of whom A. Smartarse is a composite).

You’ll be familiar with the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant – who, forgiven a huge debt, couldn’t forgive a trivial debt himself. It occurs to me that someone who is helped through a faith crisis, but comes out the other side scolding and intolerant of someone else in the same position, has not really come through it themselves. They’ve just learned to bury their questions. For my part – and feel free to take this personally – I admire people who have the bottle to keep their own difficult questions in view.

@ Persephone:

“I don’t know which way is up at this point. I’ve lived through some trauma in the last few years, … spiritual wobbliness”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

i’m sorry for the trauma. details aside, i’m sure it’s been rough. as far as ‘which way is up’, i feel the same. perhaps common sense to the rescue(!).

but also, (as you mentioned) the discussion here is fabulous. indeed, the bees knees. the only thing that’s keeping me going spiritually (aside from my longtime prayer group).

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

As for exposing kids to danger, I’ll beat the dead horse a little while longer

I’m not sure this topic can ever become a dead horse. Your personal experience is good input for this conversation.

@ JYJames:
It’s complex, which is another obvious shade on the above preacher of the post, as he does not seem to know what he is talking about. He’s been around a long time, so where has he been and what has he done that put himself and loved ones in harm’s way for the Gospel. Like you mentioned, easier to put someone else’s children in that position.

@ Persephone:

“Google feels like the enemy because every opinion out there seems to be as well researched and thought out as the previous one”
++++++++++++++++++++

chiming in again. they can’t all be true. it’s too exhausting. i figure, i can’t go wrong by simplifying & focussing on treating people the way i want to be treated.

and taking comfort in knowing that as sure as the sun rises and sets in all its vivid colors, and the faithful moon shines through my kitchen window just as it shone down on Moses and Boudicca and Michelangelo and Sojourner Truth, God is.

okrapod wrote:

You know what the doctor said about when you start hearing what goes on in other people’s minds.

I hear tell that Potter swears by his tin-foil hat.
Sez’ it makes him able to hears what’s goin’ in anybody’s head.

Sam wrote:

Let me spell it out for Piper (if he’s listening out there): nothing humans being can do will EVER be good enough. That’s why Christ came down here in the first place!

You mean I just can’t be a Mensch (Yiddish for good person) and not do the kinds of things to others I wouldn’t want done to me and have done with it?

Sam wrote:

No, it’s that kind of mentality that drives children away from Christianity when they grow up. It’s a lifetime of guilt and self-hate because the young ones will think that they are NEVER doing “enough” for God’s kingdom.

Brian on this and other threads being a type example.

Like Frodo after he bore the Ring, you will never be completely free of their image of God as Cosmic Monster this side of the Grey Havens and Undying Lands.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Navigators

Been there. Done that. Burned the T-shirt.

Persephone wrote:

If I could rest in the simple things, I’d be much better off.

Lord have mercy, God so bless us all, each and every one.

ishy wrote:

Though it is interesting, but a friend of mine that goes to one of the largest New Cal churches in the country says it’s the exact opposite there. So I guess it may not be surprising that the New Cals rant against single women. She said single men flock there in droves.

Any self-respecting single woman would bail out of a Calvinista church quickly, because there’s no respect for who we are. You’re barely considered human only if you’re married and popping out children.

mandavilla wrote:

He makes the Christian faith look foolish to the world. I really hesitate to tell anyone I am one due to his nonsense.

There’s a clobber verse for that one too.

Persephone wrote:

I don’t know which way is up at this point. I’ve lived through some trauma in the last few years, and still am not in a really stable place, which contributes to the spiritual wobbliness (or vice-versa).

Many of us have been there. My dark time came late it life after walking “easily” through Christian life for many, many years. “Not knowing which way is up” is a great way to describe the feeling I had during that dark period which was very frightening to me. What I focused on ultimately was the person of Jesus and what he did and why he did it. That was my lifeline when there was nothing else that made any sense at all. The Truth is embodied in the One who is also the Way and the Light, and that is the core. You are among friends here!

Joe Reed wrote:

with

Praying for your precious little one and for your family!

Persephone wrote:

I know the main focus of TWW is abuse, but this bit of thread drift is edifying to me.

Gram3 wrote:

What I focused on ultimately was the person of Jesus and what he did and why he did it. That was my lifeline when there was nothing else that made any sense at all. The Truth is embodied in the One who is also the Way and the Light, and that is the core. You are among friends here!

Great reply Gram3! I’ll add that any time someone diverts the efforts of the assembled church to their own goals,they are hurt of spiritual abuse.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

There was a bait-and-switch going on: “Come to Jesus, God will save you apart from works!” Then, after being saved: “Okay, Christian, you better work your butt off or God’s going to spit you out for being lukewarm. The Reprobate have it easy, because they don’t know any better. But now that you’re saved, by golly, you’d better keep God from getting angry with you again.”

And the worst part is that my friends struggled for years with this stuff, and well-meaning people only threw more bible verses at them: but they had been so conditioned to read every passage in its most abysmal interpretation that they found zero relief, and were sure that, in the words of one of them, “I can accept God’s grace for other people, but I can’t believe that Grace applies to me.” He said he would rather end his life than continue sinning against other people with no way to stop, no matter what he tried — but he was one of the nicest people you would ever meet. Both of them were, in fact, and the other one still is. But this theology preys upon the compassionate and the merciful, and really only serves the ruthless and “intentional.” But it always leads to burnout one way or another.

Re: issues with short-term mission trips to third world countries:

All my kids, my husband, and I, have all been on short-term mission trips at various times. The pricey fly-to-a-third-world-country is not my favorite. I do, however, see benefits to the long standing relationship my church has with a children’s home in a nearby foreign country. We send teams at least three times a year, providing practical support to the ever-increasing numbers and needs of the home, as well as spiritual encouragement to the adults doing the day to day hard whork.

Now then. Go to YouTube and search for John Crist Honest Mission Trip Leader.

You will probably laugh. You could cry just a little. And you may think a new thoughtful thought.

Bridget wrote:

@ Libby:
Knowing Christ and his teachings might give you a different perspective on Christianity.

But Christ believed in the Old Testament. Therefore, he did uphold patriarchy and all its abuses. He excluded women and called a Gentile woman a dog. He chose disciples that were misogynistic and advised people to turn the other cheek and not resist an evil doer. Ah, maybe that’s women have to marry rapists!!

Daisy wrote:

@ Libby:
Because the same Bible you claim is a piece of no good junk is a source of comfort or support for some Christians.
But I get it. I’ve been wallowing in Sort Of Agnostic World the last, what three years?, and I’m not quite sure what to do with the Bible. (But I do try to be fair about the Bible. Rather than just dismissing it out right as a rapey, awful book.)

Again, people who feel comfort are cherry picking verses. I don’t think I have been unfair. I am only guilty of quoting passages that really are in the bible and that
nobody seems able to explain in way which upholds the holiness of god. I identify as agnostic, because nobody can be 100% sure of anything. If there is a god, I believe he is a distant, indifferent god and not the one we see in the OT, NT or koran. Not someone to be prayed to, just someone who likes to create things.

Libby wrote:

It just seems to me that everyone cherry picks from a tree that has more rotten cherries and good cherries.

You are right to point out the pitfalls of cherry picking. But you seem to be doing the same thing here by finding the troubling passages and focusing on only one way to interpret them, and then rejecting all of the other passages that teach the opposite. Did you have opportunity to read this article that I posted earlier in this thread? – https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/10/bashing-heads-3/. It shows that there is a way to take into account the difficult passages. Whenever I’ve found difficult passages I’ve also always been able to find different ways of viewings those passages by researching different points of views. The fact that there are intelligent answers to your objections does not prove that Christianity is true, but it does suggest that things might not be as bad as you appear to be claiming. Just food for thought. In any case, it’s good to pay attention to questions/objections like yours because any faith worth believing must be able to stand under cross-examination.

Libby wrote:

I think the sufferings of women and children around the world would be greatly diminished if the world would reject organized religion,

That worked out pretty well for women and children under Stalin. One could make a solid argument that there have been more killings and tortures under atheistic communism in the 20th century than under all other religions combined throughout history. The one thing that history proves is the fall of man.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Libby wrote:
It just seems to me that everyone cherry picks from a tree that has more rotten cherries and good cherries.
You are right to point out the pitfalls of cherry picking. But you seem to be doing the same thing here by finding the troubling passages and focusing on only one way to interpret them, and then rejecting all of the other passages that teach the opposite. Did you have opportunity to read this article that I posted earlier in this thread? – https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/10/bashing-heads-3/. It shows that there is a way to take into account the difficult passages. Whenever I’ve found difficult passages I’ve also always been able to find different ways of viewings those passages by researching different points of views. The fact that there are intelligent answers to your objections does not prove that Christianity is true, but it does suggest that things might not be as bad as you appear to be claiming. Just food for thought. In any case, it’s good to pay attention to questions/objections like yours because any faith worth believing must be able to stand under cross-examination.

I don’t think I am cherry picking. I am trying to reconcile. The more I dig for answers, the more questions I have. But at the end of the day, does it make sense to embrace a god that no one can explain? And if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem.

It strikes me that Piper has failed to consider Abraham and Isaac. Abraham, the guy that begged and pleaded for God to spare to Sodom and Gomorrah, said absolutely nothing when he was told to sacrifice Isaac. God did provide a ram in Isaac’s place, but when you look at how their lives played out, Isaac was just much closer Sarah and her loss affected him greatly. He was also the only patriarch to marry just one wife, Rebekah, and not have concubines on the side. Piper wants parents to actually sacrifice their sons and daughters with no promise of a substitute.

What Happened wrote:

any time someone diverts the efforts of the assembled church to their own goals, they are hurt of spiritual abuse.

Very common, unfortunately.

It’s important, as a pew sitter/listener, to distinguish between God’s plan and what the preacher/speaker wants at any given moment. Some of it is Church Manifest Destiny.

Libby wrote:

I don’t think I am cherry picking. I am trying to reconcile. The more I dig for answers, the more questions I have. But at the end of the day, does it make sense to embrace a god that no one can explain? And if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem.

Part I

Ummm, let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that God ought to be something which can be understood, even explained, by humans. How does that make any sense? Humans still cannot even explain themselves or each other, much less the intricacies of creation. Why would we even remotely think that something we could understand, and therefore potentially control, would be a god, much less The God?

I am very slowly and insidiously being destroyed by a disease that nobody can explain much less control, not to mention that we all eventually are destroyed by a condition (old age) which we do not understand and which we cannot control, unless some other condition which we also do not understand and cannot control does us in first. More than that, we seem to be facing a post-antibiotic era in which we will all be helpless before diseases which we do not understand and cannot control as they inflict disaster on bodies which we do not adequately understand and cannot control.

More than that, we also do not know how to control crime, how to educate the uneducable, how to control the weather, how to get along with each other, how to avoid military conflict, how to all sing off the same page of the hymn book, how to treat rather many mental conditions, and sometimes even how to find the will to continue in the face of it all. So how would it be remotely reasonable to think that humans could explain God?

I have not read the comment section here, so if I have already rephrased another’s thoughts, please forgive.

As a former Piper listener/follower, until Jesus removed the scales from my eyes, I have long pondered the vain philosophies and preaching/teachings of such men as Piper. He judges, he criticizes, and he condemns on a continual basis, wrapping up his warped views in Christianese language.

And Piper sounds so good, doesn’t he? Then why in the world doesn’t HE practice what he preaches and teaches? Purchase an airplane ticket via the money he has fleeced from God’s sheep, and go, please GO to another country, putting his own life endanger to minister his version of the gospel of another jesus. I personally believe that Piper does not preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ per listening to his bizarre programs for years and years.

It is easy to preach it Piper, but to do as thou sayist is another subject altogether. Since the word “leadership,” or better yet, “servant leadership” are words of idolatry within the visible church, why in the world do these “Christian leaders” practice what they preach? That would make more sense from a Biblical perspective, would it not?

Perhaps the words “leadership cowards” would be a more appropriate label. A humble soul bears more “leadership” qualities than a proud babbling theologian.

ishy wrote:

will f wrote:
“I used to give parenting advice ALL THE TIME….until I had kids myself. Now….I keep my mouth shut.” I thought that was a very human thing to say.
I think this is especially relevant to Piper since by Piper’s standards, two of his sons have not grown up to meet his expectations. His church excommunicated one and another got divorced, which Piper has declared a near abomination.
Piper gives advice on what parents should do to raise perfect Christians (according to New Calvinist theology), but he didn’t by his own standards. New Cal theology itself teaches that if you submit to a church and govern everything your children do, then your family will also be Christian (as once very clearly explained to me in person by a founding member of the CBMW).

Thank-you Ishy. Well said.

Libby wrote:

But at the end of the day, does it make sense to embrace a god that no one can explain? And if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem.

Are you familiar with the field, philosophy of science? Or epistemology (the nature of truth, or the study of our ability to comprehend reality)? On an epistemological level, a consistent and strict maxim of “if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem,” would lead to abandoning most of what you can be said to “know.” That is not to say you are therefore wrong in your agnosticism by default, but simply as a reminder to apply consistent standards when investigating different claims. Do you realize that to demand a concrete explanation of something before you accept its existence would lead to knowing virtually nothing? Science is great, and is our best tool to discover what empirical reality is actually like. But no scientist worth his salt will tell you his theory is absolutely 100% certain. Or to claim we should not believe anything unless we can be absolutely certain, would lead to reject all scientific theories — which I’m sure you do not want to do. The nature of science (or, “knowledge”) is change, because our knowledge is always changing. So absolute certainty is unattainable even at the highest academic levels.

Does that mean we have reasonable room to doubt Einstein’s theory of relativity, for instance, or the theories surrounding the electromagnetic spectrum? No. Why not? Because there is enough evidence to establish those concepts beyond reasonable doubt. Most of science operates on the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.” If you want to apply that standard of acceptance to other matters of truth, it should be the standard to apply to all matters of truth. Thus, it is ill-advised to demand absolute certainty of any worldview, then claim that because there is not 100% certainty to its validity, you are justified in scrapping it. If that were the case, you would pull out the rug from beneath your own feet. (By the way, “beyond reasonable doubt” does NOT mean “free from any moments of doubt;” it simply means, given all the available evidence for an explanation in question, and given intellectual honesty, is there still warrant to discredit the explanation? If not, then it is the best explanation, and as there is no reasonable reason to doubt, it is beyond reasonable doubt.)

Libby wrote:

Ok, are you saying that stoning kids and marrying rapists are errors in the bible? It just seems to me that everyone cherry picks from a tree that has more rotten cherries and good cherries.

Libby wrote:

I am an agnostic who is all ears if anyone can sensibly explain this stuff to me. My mind is made up almost 100%. But, in 20 years, I have yet to hear a really good explanation of the bible and strongly lean toward a believe that the bible was written for the benefit of men by men. I think the sufferings of women and children around the world would be greatly diminished if the world would reject organized religion, not necessarily all believe in god. Why should a bunch of patriarchs from the first century be ruling our lives today?

Everyone looks at the evidence differently. As I mentioned earlier the Bible makes extraordinary claims, most of the old testament came from oral traditions dating back to the dawn of civilization, and reflects the brutality of the age. The new testament also reflects the mores and morals of the first century.
This include the reality of slavery, misogyny, monarchical hierarchy and other nasty business.
There are also ways to interpret the good there, if you take in historical context. For example “Turn the other cheek”. Taken literally it could mean “roll over and submit” when faced with injustice.
However in the first century – in the Levant, blood feuds were common. I insult you, you insult me, I hit you, you hit me – a never-ending cycle of violence that escalates.
By “turning the other cheek” it could be interpreted as taking the first steps to peace in what essentially is tribal warfare. Jesus is encouraging being the first to back down and end the cycle. I do not interpret this to mean bend over and take a kick in the pants.
This is why the founder of Islam, Mohammed, was so successful. He was able to negotiate an end to the cycle of violence of the Arabian tribes (and get it to focus outward to great effect!)

Religion needs a major overhaul, you won’t get people to ever reject it, but Christian reform has to come from Christians – at least in this forum folks are willing to engage in some of the hard conversations.

I have no intention of changing your mind, we’re all on our own journey (spiritual or otherwise).

An full disclosure (if you haven’t read any of my previous comments), I don’t believe the bible occurred as written, and do not identify a Christian for that reason but is there a God? Right now I’m comfortable with not knowing.

Libby,

Are you the Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism?

okrapod wrote:

Ummm, let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that God ought to be something which can be understood, even explained, by humans. How does that make any sense? Humans still cannot even explain themselves or each other, much less the intricacies of creation. Why would we even remotely think that something we could understand, and therefore potentially control, would be a god, much less The God?
I am very slowly and insidiously being destroyed by a disease that nobody can explain much less control, not to mention that we all eventually are destroyed by a condition (old age) which we do not understand and which we cannot control, unless some other condition which we also do not understand and cannot control does us in first. More than that, we seem to be facing a post-antibiotic era in which we will all be helpless before diseases which we do not understand and cannot control as they inflict disaster on bodies which we do not adequately understand and cannot control.
More than that, we also do not know how to control crime, how to educate the uneducable, how to control the weather, how to get along with each other, how to avoid military conflict, how to all sing off the same page of the hymn book, how to treat rather many mental conditions, and sometimes even how to find the will to continue in the face of it all. So how would it be remotely reasonable to think that humans could explain God?

I always find your opinions to be an interesting read. You’re absolutely right. Not everything can be explained, and I’m sorry to hear about your illness.
Science doesn’t even understand how the chemical soup, neurons and other structures in my brain come together to form a consciousness known as “Jack”.
But you come from the position that God exists and I get the impression that Libby is leaning the other way. I don’t think Libby wants to control God but instead sees people under the control of an ancient system of beliefs that doesn’t make sense to her.
I can relate to the reaction. As I drifted from faith and read more and more, I felt a little brassed that since childhood I’d been sold a dud set of goods. Then for a while I was all “angry atheist”, but now I’ve come to a sort of peace with it – I try to take in all sides and come to my own conclusions.
No, we don’t want to control God but we can’t sit and say “Well, can’t explain it, must be God!” and discussions need to happen regarding the excesses of religion (all religions) in today’s world.

Donna wrote:

He should weigh what and how he says things because he is going to cause a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering to families that their sovereign god ( he himself) will lead them into, thereby many a persons faith will be shipwrecked!

While he studies Theology in his third-floor office, ringing his submissive wifey to bring him tea.

Persephone wrote:

I rarely comment, but I want to give a thanks for the Bible discussion. I’ve been losing my faith over the past couple of years, despite myself. Google feels like the enemy because every opinion out there seems to be as well researched and thought out as the previous one, until my head is spinning.

I don’t know which way is up at this point. I’ve lived through some trauma in the last few years, and still am not in a really stable place, which contributes to the spiritual wobbliness (or vice-versa). I know the main focus of TWW is abuse, but this bit of thread drift is edifying to me.

+1
I’m sure that my story is a bit different than Persephone’s, but I also really appreciate this thread. In addition to struggles with my faith and church, I feel very socially isolated. It helps so much to read about all of you asking questions and drawing conclusions without being shamed.
Now back to finish reading the comments…

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

That worked out pretty well for women and children under Stalin. One could make a solid argument that there have been more killings and tortures under atheistic communism in the 20th century than under all other religions combined throughout history. The one thing that history proves is the fall of man.

Stalin trained as a priest and was well versed in the power of religious thinking so (like L. Ron Hubbard) he created one based on himself. It was only “atheism” insofar as he displaced God. It was more akin to emperor worship. Communism (in the soviet form) was also a religion based on the belief that the communist system would lead to an revolution that would lead to an evolution in humanity. It just needed a few strong men to make it happen – sound familiar?
Anyways, lack of belief in God does not automatically make one an amoral monster.

@ Libby:

Having said that last response, I would like to add: Just because it is unfair to demand absolute certainty before believing something, doesn’t mean you ought to believe it. Test it, and question it: nothing worth believing is worth believing if it is only a lie.

That said, have you read the peer-reviewed works of people like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J. Warner Wallace, Norman Geisler, and others in defense of the validity of Christ’s claims? If not, I encourage you specifically to read some of the works by William Lane Craig, or watch his debates with Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and other outspoken atheists, agnostics, scientists, etc. from a variety of academic backgrounds. They present many of the objections you bring up, and almost certainly some you might have never heard of before. Yet there are robust answers to your tough questions, and Dr. Craig’s concise debate format makes them readily accessible. The others are mostly accessible through books and academic journals.

But if you’re looking for reading material, there’s a whole spectrum from “light” to “dryly academic.” If you’re serious about the historical reliability of the Bible, I would recommend Licona, Habermas, Wright, and McDowell (“Evidence for the Historical Jesus” is a brief, 300 page compilation of the evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament manuscripts, as well as extrabiblical support for Jesus’ claims to be the son of God).

If you’re concerned about the philosophical validity of the theistic worldview in general, and the Christian view in particular (which might be quite different from what you think it is), then I recommend Craig (“Reasonable Faith” covers the validity of the basic Christian worldview, literally from the nature and beginning of the universe, down to the credibility of the New Testament eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, and is choc-full of references to other scholarly works in philosophy, cosmology, historical investigation, physics, archaeology, etc.), Geisler & Turek (“I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” is relatively light reading compared to the others, but runs through the philosophical foundations, objections, and answers to those objections quite succinctly), Ravi Zacharias (“Jesus Among Other Gods” is a comparison between Christianity and other religions; “Can Man Live Without God?” is an extrapolation of Nietsche’s “The Madman” parable, and the subsequent Absurdism/Existentialism that led to the incoherence of postmodernism).

And if you’re in the mood for crime/thriller mixed with historical investigation, Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ” is the riveting account of his journey from a journalist hostile to the Christian faith, to becoming a believer. It’s sort of “apologetics lite,” since he condenses the main points from many of the people previously mentioned, among others.

Also under that genre is forensic investigator J. Warner Wallace (“Cold-Case Christianity” is his most well-known and accessible work), who applied the rules of cold-case forensic investigation to the claims of Jesus’s resurrection, trying to determine whether or not it could be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, in a courtroom-like style, that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. If he rose from the dead, then he was probably the Son of God (or else a freak of nature, which would be equally miraculous, and require an explanation just as robust). And if not, then Christianity need not be taken seriously. Yet, as you can probably tell, he took it seriously enough to become a Christian.

On the supposed moral monstrosity of “God,” there are many excellent resources that clean up the foul air belched out by abusive men. Some of the best (as in, easiest to read and most helpful) which address your concerns (and many more) include Brad Jersak’s “A More Christlike God,” C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” and “The Problem of Pain,” George MacDonald’s “Unspoken Sermons: Justice” (which is available as eBook at Project Gutenberg, or a LibraVox audiobook on Youtube), Philip Yancy’s “The Jesus I Never Knew” (which discusses his escape from abusive theology into the orthodoxy of God’s kindness), and finally, the works of C. Baxter Kruger, including “Across All Worlds,” and “Jesus And The Undoing of Adam.”

You said you were all ears. Now you can be all eyes, too: That should be enough to occupy them for a while….

Happy hunting.

Libby,

The Bible starts out with God giving women full equality and authority over the Earth. Then when Adam messes this up, God recognizes that Eve was ambushed by telling her “A lying in wait has increased your sorrows.” That’s the literal Hebrew that was horribly mistranslated by the KJV.

Then God warns Eve that she’s turning to Adam for comfort but he will unjustly try to control her. Then the OT describes a bunch of bad behavior with people making the wrong decisions. That’s a description of history NOT any type of justification for those bad decisions.

Okrapod,

Bravo! Thank you for sharing. Those are really well thought out points.

Dee,

Thank you for the correction on his religious preference.

@ elastigirl:
@ okrapod:
Thank you so much for these comments. I found them so helpful.

To weigh in on the original topic, I wish Piper would back up his thoughts with some of his own experiences. During my childhood, one of my parents was murdered; it was a great trauma that still shapes who I am today. As a parent, I do see it as my responsibility to help shape my children’s values. We spend lots of weekends camping instead of plugged in to Netflix or the Xbox. When they were younger, we made more outings to the public library than to the toy store. At Christmas, they know that we budget not only for gifts, but also to contribute to charities in our community, and they get to help pick which ones. These are small examples of ways that I try to show them what I think is important by how we spend our time and money. But based on my own experiences, I cannot see putting them in danger for the purpose of building character or faith. IMO, raising a child in an environment where they feel safe and loved does not necessarily make a “bloated jellyfish.”

Avid Reader wrote:

Libby,
Jesus was in the habit of honoring, respecting and elevating women. The evidence is there if you look hard enough. Jesus had a whole team of women traveling with Him. That’s not excluding women! Good grief.
The whole reason that Jesus came was to set the captives free. As Jesus described His mission statement, He had come:
1) To heal the brokenhearted
2) To preach deliverance to the captives
3) And recovering of sight to the blind
4) To set at liberty them that are bruised
Jesus directly attacked the entitlement mentality of patriarchial culture several times. Jesus defended women several times. How many examples do you want me to give?

Thank-you Avid Reader for explaining the true heart and True Divinity of Jesus Christ in just a few sentences. John 3:17

The missionary field is wide open, and I appreciate the Biblical conversation here for it ministers to my soul.

Jack wrote:

Anyways, lack of belief in God does not automatically make one an amoral monster.

Yes, that is a very good point. The context of my comment was in reply to the proposition that religion is the source of evil. Neither Theists nor Atheists have a monopoly on either good or evil. Both “sides” can point to shining examples of virtue in their own camp and horrible examples of evil in the other camp. It really boils down to individual human choice – some humans strive to make life better for others, other humans strive to make life better for themselves at the expense of others.

Karen wrote:

A humble soul bears more “leadership” qualities than a proud babbling theologian.

True!

Dee,

Thank you for that clarification. That was just an honest question out of pure curiosity.

Yes I did read that article and the other articles that you suggested. I read a completely insane amount of books especially the really hard ones.

After hearing both sides of the argument and doing the heavy duty research, I believe in Christ because I believe in science, logic and reason.

No matter how many people deny it, science points to a God. The question becomes which God?

Many world religions say do this, do that and maybe—you might be good enough for Heaven. The reality is that you are just sacrificing for some god that’s never done anything for you. They want you to do the sacrifice for them.

Christ did the sacrificing for us. Then He said “Done!” It’s over. And Jesus warned us that the other voices in the world are thieves and robbers.

So Jesus said to them again, “I tell you the solemn truth, I am the door for the sheep. All who came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.”
John 10:7-8 (NET)

Libby wrote:

But Christ believed in the Old Testament. Therefore, he did uphold patriarchy and all its abuses. He excluded women and called a Gentile woman a dog. He chose disciples that were misogynistic and advised people to turn the other cheek and not resist an evil doer. Ah, maybe that’s women have to marry rapists!!

Many people interpret the life of Jesus and his disciples differently than I do. I try not to interpret the actions of Jesus and his disciples through a 21st century lense. They, as well as those living during the times of OT writings, should not be interpreted through our lense. When we do this, it is unfair to to them and the reality of the world they functioned in. Based on their reality, I believe Jesus preached a very different message from the current reality in his and his disciples culture. Just look at how the religious leaders of his time interacted with Jesus and you will find that he brought a message that they did not want to hear. Sadly, scripture has been very abused over thousands of years by those seeking power and authority over others.

Regarding the authority of the Bible and science:

Surprised By Faith – by Don Bierle, A scientist and a skeptic.
https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Faith-Don-Bierle/dp/B000NXI1RS/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B000NXI1RS&pd_rd_r=63J6BQYCH4KRF6BAJ6TR&pd_rd_w=nCoD3&pd_rd_wg=yRObj&psc=1&refRID=63J6BQYCH4KRF6BAJ6TR

Jack wrote:

I still think Piper is useless and how he goes about admonishing christians is a load of crud.

You’re kinder than I.
I think that what he ‘teaches’ is a steaming pile of horse poo-poo.

Bridget wrote:

But you are cherry picking verses, are you not?

Frankenfaith. It’s alive! Alive!

Libby wrote:

think the sufferings of women and children around the world would be greatly diminished if the world would reject organized religion, not necessarily all believe in god. Why should a bunch of patriarchs from the first century be ruling our lives today

I realize in all my verbiage I didn’t actually directly answer your comment — but the professionals I mentioned can do it much more effectively and credibly than I can.

However, I’ll give it a go.

First, I don’t really care about a bunch of patriarchs from the first century. The malpractices of a religion has zero bearing on the validity of that religion — though it does cause a filthy stench.

I care about the truth. If Jesus is who he says he is — namely, the truth incarnate, and the divine made accessible to humans — then whether I like it or not, his teachings ultimately outweigh my own prejudices. Now, that’s not really as bad as it at first seems: if Jesus is who he says he is, then he is also the very source of peace, life, and goodness, and is also the very epitomy of love — in fact, the highest expression of love, compassion, and mercy, and restoration for broken people, victims and perpetrators alike. If that is the case, then you can understand why the truth or falsehood of his claims are just a little important.

Thus, it is not the teachings of first century Palestinian patriarchs — many of whom were apparently blockheads just like the rest of us — that informs my life and worldview, but the teachings of the one who claimed to be the very source of Being — and then established beyond reasonable doubt that he is (if you disagree, please consult the sources dumped — I mean, written above).

I strongly encourage you to actually read what Jesus said. “Turn the other cheek” does NOT mean, “women, submit to abusive husbands.” Rather, if you read the context of the passage, and the broader context of Jesus’s life, it is more like condescending from a position of strength, acquiescing to those who are weak. Even Paul says, “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves” (Romans 15:1). Or again, Jesus Himself says, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5) and “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:29).

Now, if somebody told you to do those things, but didn’t himself do them, wouldn’t you think he was just trying to groom you for abuse? And in fact, that is exactly what abusers do.

But what about somebody who actually lived out that creed? Would you still think someone was an abuser who let himself be subjected to the same kind of humiliation, without retaliating? What about Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about Gandhi? Do you think they were simply out to promote an abusive regime? (I hope you don’t honestly answer “yes.” If you do, I’m afraid there’s really no point continuing the discussion…)

Did Martin Luther King Jr. support the abuse of African Americans at the hands of ignorant racists simply because he didn’t try to kill them? Similarly, Jesus himself lived out the meaning of this: willing to die for those who, out of ignorance, sought to destroy him. And instead of destroying them (as he could have if he was who he said he was), he took their hatred of him as the very means by which he would heal them. That is the meaning of Matthew 5: to show mercy even when you have all legal right to hatred. It most certainly does not mean allowing abuse to continue — it means stopping the cycle, and refusing to become an abuser yourself. If you look further at what Jesus actually did, all of it was in line with his teaching. Does that mean he condoned abuse? No. Look at what he did time after time when he encountered abuse — whether physical, sexual, or emotional, and even spiritual. He took the cruelty and abuse of the men around him, and took the full brunt of it upon himself so that he could save not just the victims, but even the abusers from their stupidity and cruelty.

At least, that is what early church taught. Quite a far cry from what you probably grew up with.

And as for “wives, submit to your husbands:” in the next few verses, and according to Christ’s teachings, the husband is the first to be crucified. The husband is supposed to be the first to sacrifice himself. Is that abusive? Whether men are actually good at holding to that teaching, is that teaching itself cruel and manipulative?

Libby,

If you take the time to really study the full context, the Bible supports equal rights for women and divorce for spousal abuse. However, We have a real problem with biased Bible translators who rewrote passages to fit their personal bias against women.

There’s way too much evidence on how the Bible teaches divorce for abuse that there’s no way to fit all that evidence into a comment on a blog post.

If you are open minded and willing to read both sides then there’s several great books on how the Bible actually encourages divorce for abuse including:

Unholy Charade by Jeff Crippen

Not Under Bondage by Barbara Roberts

The book Ten Lies the Church Tells Women by J Lee Grady gives a great introduction to how the Bible actually teaches equality for women.

If you want to do heavy duty research the book Gods Word to Women by Katharine Bushnell shows how Jesus is the greatest liberator of women ever to walk the Earth It shows how Jesus and the Apostle Paul were actually hardcore feminists.

There’s plenty of evidence if you take the time to find it.

Avid Reader wrote:

Libby,
We could talk about how God honored Jael in the OT for taking down the powerful enemy leader with nothing more than a bottle of milk and a tent peg. That’s not excluding women! That’s showing the wisdom of women rescuing a nation.
Then there’s the OT story of the woman who saved her whole city by dropping a millstone on the enemy leader who was trying to destroy them.
There’s a third story of another lady saving the lives of an entire city by getting rid of one bad guy.
How many more examples of the Bible honoring the strength, valor and courage of women would you like?

I don’t think the bible teaches that women are dumb or incapable, just lower ranking and required to be in submission to at least husband and father. Women like Deborah, Jael, are interesting, but more the exception and not the rule. I will pull these stories up on line and read again. Maybe they had no husband or father, this I don’t remember. Thanks

Bridget wrote:

Libby wrote:
Again, people who feel comfort are cherry picking verses. I don’t think I have been unfair.
But you are cherry picking verses, are you not?

No, I am not cherry picking. I am looking at the whole thing meaning old and new testatment. But at the end of the day, the testaments need to be reconciled and I don’t think this is possible. But even if you just look at the new testament, there is still much misogyny and devaluation of women. It’s just not quite as bad as the old testament.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Libby wrote:
But at the end of the day, does it make sense to embrace a god that no one can explain? And if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem.
Are you familiar with the field, philosophy of science? Or epistemology (the nature of truth, or the study of our ability to comprehend reality)? On an epistemological level, a consistent and strict maxim of “if it can’t be explained, there’s a problem,” would lead to abandoning most of what you can be said to “know.” That is not to say you are therefore wrong in your agnosticism by default, but simply as a reminder to apply consistent standards when investigating different claims. Do you realize that to demand a concrete explanation of something before you accept its existence would lead to knowing virtually nothing? Science is great, and is our best tool to discover what empirical reality is actually like. But no scientist worth his salt will tell you his theory is absolutely 100% certain. Or to claim we should not believe anything unless we can be absolutely certain, would lead to reject all scientific theories — which I’m sure you do not want to do. The nature of science (or, “knowledge”) is change, because our knowledge is always changing. So absolute certainty is unattainable even at the highest academic levels.
Does that mean we have reasonable room to doubt Einstein’s theory of relativity, for instance, or the theories surrounding the electromagnetic spectrum? No. Why not? Because there is enough evidence to establish those concepts beyond reasonable doubt. Most of science operates on the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.” If you want to apply that standard of acceptance to other matters of truth, it should be the standard to apply to all matters of truth. Thus, it is ill-advised to demand absolute certainty of any worldview, then claim that because there is not 100% certainty to its validity, you are justified in scrapping it. If that were the case, you would pull out the rug from beneath your own feet. (By the way, “beyond reasonable doubt” does NOT mean “free from any moments of doubt;” it simply means, given all the available evidence for an explanation in question, and given intellectual honesty, is there still warrant to discredit the explanation? If not, then it is the best explanation, and as there is no reasonable reason to doubt, it is beyond reasonable doubt.)

You have misunderstood me. I am not saying we must explain every nuance about god. For example, the trinity is hard to explain, right? But the doctrine is not contradictory to a holy god, or to Old Testament teaching (Let’s create man in OUR image).
So you don’t necessarily need to explain it. I am saying that the old and new testaments need to be reconciled because they appear contradictory. On one hand it claims god is love and the other hand, it justifies violence, slavery, misogyny. I think you get my point.

Libby,

I’m glad you asked about 1Cor 11. Let’s sit down for a cup of coffee together and study this:

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (1John 3:8), set the captives free and heal the brokenhearted (Luke 4). That includes freeing women from the crushing oppression of patriarchal culture.

Many times—Jesus directly attacked how women were being mistreated under patriarchal culture:

Jesus defended women’s rights to spend their own money however they see fit in Mark 14:3-9. That’s the story where Jesus attacks Simon for criticizing how a woman spends her money. Jesus completely rips apart how Simon was criticizing her, elevating himself and putting her down.

Jesus defends the equal rights of women in Luke 13:10-17. Jesus makes a point of healing a woman in the synagogue in front of everyone. The woman starts speaking in front of people who don’t like women speaking in front of men. They complain about Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Jesus directly attacks their entitlement mentality by attacking what they claim as special privilege—that they are descendants of Abraham. Jesus puts women on equal status by making the point that this woman is also a descendant of Abraham and thus (by their own standards) deserving of the same special privileges that they claim for themselves. Jesus is making the point that women have the same rights and privileges as the men.

In Luke 8:43-48—Jesus makes a point of making the most important person in that local town—the synagogue leader—stand and listen to a woman talk as long as she wants to. That spoke volumes in a culture that silenced women. The leader is in the biggest hurry of his life, yet Jesus chooses that time to make a point of taking time to listen to a woman.

In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus rips apart the idea that women have to be silent in the church. Jesus is giving a sermon to an assembly gathered at a house (yes that qualifies as a church service). A lady interrupts his sermon to make her point. Right here would be the perfect place for Jesus to tell her to be quiet. Or for Jesus to say that women have to be quiet in church. Yet Jesus simply corrects her theology. He validates her right to speak and responds to her point. Yet theologians still totally ignore the actual example of Christ and still try to twist Scripture to silence women.

By the way, the Apostle Paul was actually arguing for women’s right to speak in the church when he wrote those famous words in 1Cor 14. First Paul makes the point that everyone—including women—can speak in church (verse 25 and verse 31) as long as things are done in an orderly way. Then Paul answers the question that they had asked. Paul was referencing their question about if women should be silent.

Paul responds with an explosive——what???? You Corinthian men really think that you’re the only one that God speaks through so you want to silence the women? (ver 36) Then he again affirms the right of everyone, including women to speak in church as long as it’s not disruptive.

Now Jesus was directly attacking patriarchal culture when he saved the woman from the mob that wanted to stone her. Libby, you’ve probably read plenty of history on how patriarchy has a double standard of allowing men to do whatever they want while criticizing women for doing the same thing. That’s exactly what Jesus was attacking when he said to the men—that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone. Then Jesus made of point of refusing to accuse the woman. John 8:11

Jesus directly attacked patriarchal culture again when he answered the question on divorce. Jesus is speaking to men who lived in a culture that allowed married men to cheat on their wives as much as they wanted and it wasn’t considered adultery unless they were sleeping with a married woman. Then it would be a crime against that woman’s husband. No wonder they were shocked when Jesus attacks their entitlement mentality by saying that they can’t just divorce their wives for any frivolous reason. But that men should be faithful to their wives. Then Jesus shocks them again by making the point that it was possible for men to commit adultery.

There are so many examples of how Jesus fought how patriarchal culture demeaned women. Dig deeper and you’ll find them.

Just to be clear—Jesus came to set the captives free—that includes freeing women from patriarchal culture itself.

Jesus taught equality with the simple universal concept of teaching us treat to others the way that we would want to be treated. That was directly attacking the entitlement mentality of that culture. Julius Caesar once said that all of humanity exists to benefit the few. That’s the mindset that Jesus was directly attacking by elevating the common people to the same level of value as those at the top.

Libby wrote:

But at the end of the day, the testaments need to be reconciled and I don’t think this is possible.

Where does this requirement come from? Why is there a “need” for reconciliation? And what does reconciliation mean in this context? Does it mean that they must completely agree in all aspects? Does it mean that the New Testament cannot say anything at all that is contrary with the Old Testament? Did you come up with this requirement on your own, or did someone teach it to you? The Bible itself does not state this requirement, which means you are asking something of the Bible that the Bible does not ask of itself.

Hi everyone. I posted under the echurch but not sure how many go there or if dee or deb will look again for awhile. Do you remember the story they did on Shauna & Billy? Me! Five months ago I posted a negative review about LBC and Ken Ramey along with others. I wanted Dee and Deb to see this what someone from LBC has done. They posted a review not just slandering us , but attacking TWW, and making it as if I love LBC after what they did to billy. I posted a counter review to inform that person to take it down immediately. please see the bold face lies below:

Shauna Marquis
1 review

in the last week
LBC has been nothing but a blessing for me and my family. I completely agree with Mrs. Koro.

As Steve Tay has said, I’m here to defend the brothers and sisters that LOVE this church and have been changed by it. God’s word is clearly taught and I have learned more about what I believe in than ever before. The kids ministry is rock solid as well.

I see some reviews here are as quick to judge for an “agenda” as they make one of their own. Can a member not post an honest review? I don’t see that in the rules. You know…. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these reviews are from the same person. I have heard about this incident regarding a young kid and single mom. A very sensitive issue indeed but nonetheless, from what I understand, did not happen on the church property but in someone’s home. To use that situation as a scare tactic, to what should be handled with the parties themselves and authorities and not through Google, is shameful. It almost comes across as threatening.

When I arrive, I check in my child and then provided with a security tag so I know where my kids are at all times. I have asked and volunteers are issued a background check so kids are SAFE. Why would I voluntarily put my kids in harms way?

A church is a place where the community gathers. Communities are full of fun loving people but also depressed, broken, and people that have made some mistakes in the past. I am, unfortunately, one of those people. God saved and delivered me from my sin with the help of LBC and its counseling ministry. I did inform the leadership just as a precaution. Does that mean my name should be called out in the middle of service? What about others with similar experiences? What is a church to do? Does that mean I go to a different church then to not be a “danger”? That would mean I would be a threat to that new church. If that logic is followed, it would be dangerous and total backwards view on what Christ’s goal for the church is. I am saved by faith through grace and this church takes me as I am. A sinner in need of refinement everyday.

In the times that I have had a chance to talk to “pastor k”, It’s always been a pleasant conversation. I don’t get to talk to him much with being on top of my kids after services but he consistently opens his heart to what he struggles with during sermons. It’s refreshing to know that he’s willing to share and we get to know him during the messages.

I could keep going on in defending some of the mischaracterizations of LBC. I would recommend that if you’re skeptical, go to the website and see what this church is all about. I know, if you look past all the false noise, you’ll be as blessed, encouraged, loved, and strengthened in faith as my family and I have.

With all being said, i’m sure there will be reviews about my review. Calling me out, saying i’m stupid, naive, putting my kids in danger, accusing me of being in a cult. I CHOOSE to take my family here every Sunday. I LOVE this church and willing to defend it out of MY OWN WILL. Not some agenda pushed by a victimizing blog that takes advantage of broken people. Would you trust reviews of those that accuse? I wouldn’t.

Last night we carved pumpkins. 4, all with very funny faces. On Tuesday, I’ll take the kids trick or treating, my wife will man the candy bowl. We don’t take part in the occult aspect of it. No scary costumes, no scary decorations.
It’s fun. We take what fits our values and leave what doesn’t.

Christians run the same spectrum. Along that spectrum you’ve got Piper with his austere, preening, all for my glory God. There’s Dee’s common sense loving God and everything in between, from the best to the worst to the absurd. We all take from it what need but you’re never going to get consensus. So what kind of Christianity fits you? If I were to choose, it would be the one that hands out blankets and food on cold winter nights, that loves all our neighbors as we would love ourselves. That encourages tolerance and dialog to blind submission & obedience. And one that stands with the victim over the criminal – no matter the criminal’s Christian pedigree.

Is making God fit my outlook? Yes. But until Jesus comes down on a golden chariot to tell me otherwise, it’s the only guidance I’ve got.

Libby wrote:

You have misunderstood me. I am not saying we must explain every nuance about god. For example, the trinity is hard to explain, right? But the doctrine is not contradictory to a holy god, or to Old Testament teaching (Let’s create man in OUR image).
So you don’t necessarily need to explain it. I am saying that the old and new testaments need to be reconciled because they appear contradictory. On one hand it claims god is love and the other hand, it justifies violence, slavery, misogyny. I think you get my point.

It seemed you were making the case for strict agnosticism, so if that is not the case, sorry for potential misunderstanding. The difficulty is that you came into the conversation stating in fairly loaded and potentially hostile terms what you do NOT believe, not what you DO; which by default makes it difficult to really understand your position if you do not give clarifying information — which you later gave, after the potential for misunderstanding had apparently already been realized.

It is usually easier to have cordial dialogue when you stand by what you believe, rather than trample on what others believe. Do you see my point? It seemed like you were trying to attack the Christian position without making your own position clear or vulnerable to the same criticism — which is called a “polemic,” and I’m sure you’ve heard the term before, and almost as sure you view it as a negative.

Are you prepared to handle the same kind of argument against your own position? What if I told you that agnosticism justifies violence, slavery, and misogyny because it removes the objective moral duties to NOT perform violence, slavery, and misogyny? That without a transcendent source of moral obligation, even the worst crimes are permissible because there is really no reason not to do them? That without a transcendent moral law, you really have no right to believe any of those things are evil, because evil as a category no longer exists?

Do you see my point?

(For the record, I am glad you think those things are evil, and I agree with your assessment. However, how do you know those things are evil? What’s you’re standard — if you even have one you can posit? Unless you posit a transcendent moral law, you cannot say anything beyond “I don’t like those things.” But if you posit a transcendent moral law, you must posit a personal, transcendent, authoritative moral lawgiver, independent of culture or human interpretation: Personal, because only persons have the ability to make purposeful decisions, and personal effects require personal causes; Transcendent, because it must be beyond the influence of culture or fashion, and therefore unrestricted by time or place; and Authoritative, otherwise moral denunciations of any kind have absolutely zero force. Quite frankly, the short name for what that describes is “God.”)

As for reconciliation, I and others have repeatedly tried to point out that the God of the New and Old Testaments is the same, and there are plenty of ways to reconcile them, without abandoning Jesus’s teachings. However, such is the nature of your position, and the nature of the issue, that it will be more advantageous to study on your own. I assure you, there is great gain to be had in a book and a cup of hot chocolate, and it is far more effective for learning than debating with amateurs online.

Again, I would like to point you to the *scholarly* research mentioned above — if you are actually interested in an answer. If you just want others to “see your point” — then I’m afraid this conversation will go nowhere. Remember that you came asking questions? Was the purpose of your questioning then to learn, or to teach?

If you want dialogue, I’m happy to engage. But if you are just going to repeat your points, and I find myself prompted just to repeat mine, then I’m afraid the conversation will stagnate. Therefore, I implore you, please check out the resources for yourself — if you are as passionate as you seem, you owe it to yourself to get the professionals’ answers. And please, don’t just brush them aside and say, “I’ve read this all before.” I can almost guarantee you haven’t, and you might just be surprised at what you find. You say you’ve been looking for 20 years. Why not look a little more?

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Does that mean we have reasonable room to doubt Einstein’s theory of relativity, for instance, or the theories surrounding the electromagnetic spectrum? No. Why not? Because there is enough evidence to establish those concepts beyond reasonable doubt.

While a little off topic, what I want to say is also relevant to this comment thread. The double neutron star merger, GW170817 at an estimated distance of 130 million light years from Earth, first observed as gravity waves (GW) starting Aug 17, 2017 represents a strong affirmation of our collective understanding of the the large scale structure of the universe and its astronomical contents. The event was officially publicized Oct 26, 2017 in a series of press releases by organizations involved in making the observations. The totality of the event observations confirms the essential correctness of the underlying physical theories. The wikipedia (search for GW170817) is a good starting place for more detailed information.

YEC vs. OEC is a recurrent theme here at TWW. Under the title “Spinning Stardust into Gold”, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/spinning-stardust-into-gold/ an interesting account of the significance of GW170817 is presented. A factual but incomplete account of the event is given. I consider this account incomplete in two important ways. First, there are no references (links) given to the source descriptions (or wikipedia). Secondly, the very important distance (which is also an age) estimate is not given. Other GW events are mentioned, also without the age/distance estimates. The AIG article devolves into suggesting synthesis of the heavier elements is conjecture, a creation myth, and invokes the Plant of the Apes movies for intellectual support.

Science is an ongoing activity, not a final answer. The observations GW170817 linking gravitational and electromagnetic evidence are strong indicators of the consistency of current cosmology.

At the time I composed this there does not appear to be any mention of GW170817 at the Institute for Creation Research.

Further comments Nick? (using which ever persona you think is appropriate)

OldJohnJ wrote:

GW170817

And so at TWW we have our own Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

I’d like to point out that I am certainly not a YEC. Perhaps Arnold Smartarse would like to remind me what a heretic I therefore am?

I in no way intended to imply you were YEC. Please accept my apologies. Your comment was simply a trigger for one of my diatribes against YEC in general and AIG specifically.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

The Bible itself does not state this requirement, which means you are asking something of the Bible that the Bible does not ask of itself.

Ever tried dialogue with Calvary Chapel’s chief apologetics honcho?
He will try to convince you that it all fits together as perfectly and as tightly as a LEGO castle.

Ken F,

Thank you. Love the questions that you asked and how you brought us right back to logic and reason.

Late to the party in commenting, but I think there are far too many variables for anyone to make blanket statments regarding taking risks for the sake of the Gospel, or to play it safe for the sake of your children. Following Christ is done via walking in the Spirit and following his direction, which often for Jesus and Paul, was going headlong into danger/conflict, and sometimes it meant to flee and play it safe.

” 4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love, 7 truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything.” II Cor 8

“23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. 32 At Damascus, the governor under King Ar′etas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands.” II Cor 11

Paul told the Corinthians to “imitate me as I imitate Christ”, and he didn’t qualify himself as only speaking to those who were celibate. Taking risks for Jesus may indeed at times endanger your children’s lives (possibly less than the risk of routinely driving to eat at McDonalds would) and no one has the right to attach the word “child abuser” to your actions if the Spirit of God led you there. One size does not fit all.

Life itself is a constant risk, and the main goal in life should certainly not be to play it safe and stay alive.

@ OldJohnJ:

Interesting you should mention GW170817, because I did wonder about bringing it up a couple of posts back. What is particularly noteworthy about this observation is that it’s the first instance of an event being observed in the gravitational spectrum and then, subsequently, being observed by more traditional telescopes. Between them, these observations provided data that enabled cosmologists to choose between possible theories which, as you of course are well aware, is the heart and soul of scientific progress.

There was a time when it was also the heart and soul of theological progress. The example I generally use is: what of the various fragments of scripture was the appropriate and correct one to apply to whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised? The early church stated “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” but the true arbiter of this was the “data” provided by the Holy Spirit himself, through what he was doing. Unfortunately, God can no longer speak or act or otherwise intervene in human affairs, other than “through scripture”, because He was bound by the church when it determined the canon. Apparently.

The only reasonable cause for somebody to require that the older biblical ideas need to be ‘reconciled’ would be if one thought that God’s self revelation has been static rather than continuing. However, Jesus himself said otherwise, and the basic ideas that Jesus fulfilled the alleged messianic prophesies depends on the idea that both revelation (in the person of the Christ) and the understanding of that revelation (in the person of the Spirit) simply did not happen.

For a secular example, we used to treat syphilis with mercury and arsenic, a really bad idea. Now we use antibiotics. There is no need to reconcile anything about that-we know more and understand more now. The idea that syphilis was a disease, however, and the idea that disease needed treated, is a consistent idea. Some things persist, some things change and are modified. In this there is both consistency and change. Thus also with religion.

The idea of a need to reconcile biblical ideas is baseless given the elapsed time, the cultural differences, the progressive revelation of God in the Christ event and the progressive understandings through the Spirit. There is not only no problem here, there is evidence that God did not just give man law and then take off and leave man to his own devices. And there is evidence that God interacts with man where he finds man-and takes the initiative in doing that. To me that would be covered in Christianity 101, first semester. Christianity embraces the concept that here is a new thing, the so-far most comprehensive revelation of God himself, not only in the person of Jesus himself but also including when Jesus said stuff like ‘you have heard it said of old but I say to you…’; that sort of thing.

Nope, the reconciliation demand is dead in the water if one accepts the most basic ideas of Christianity. But if not, then no amount of jerry rigging flimsy attempts at reconciling ancient ideas with what Jesus said is going to work.

@ dee:

I just finished watching Wallace’s presentation on you tube.
He goes where the evidence points and he’s not afraid to take on the pretenders (on both sides) who claim to have it all rolled up tighter that a coil of razor wire back on the Nam.
I like that.

Hi Dee…the reason I made the comment is that you stated in pnr pf your comments above (sorry that I don’t know how to link the quote here) “I believe Christianity is compatible with evolutionary theory…I do believe God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible tells us “what is seen is not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3) and that “it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves ” (Psalm 100:3) To answer your question, I do believe it was dust from which God formed Adam.

@ kin:

“I think there are far too many variables for anyone to make blanket statments regarding taking risks for the sake of the Gospel, or to play it safe for the sake of your children. Following Christ is done via walking in the Spirit and following his direction, which often for Jesus and Paul, was going headlong into danger/conflict, and sometimes it meant to flee and play it safe.”
+++++++++++++++++

true, but Jesus was single. He was not a parent. I can assume Paul wasn’t a parent — he didn’t act like one. They’re both great — but neither knew much about parenting. Even God-in-the-flesh had his limitations. (To me, that was part of the point of the exercise.)

Once a person is responsible for the life of a vulnerable human being, that changes everything.

Philosophically, i can’t see that a parent has the right to put a child unduly in harm’s way, to make that decision for them.

(i’m not talking about driving around town, getting on a busy freeway — we all take calculated risks just in surviving day to day)

(but i’m sure i’m repeating what others have already communicated here)

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

It wasn’t an inter-campus ministry like that, just the college group of a very prominent church in the area.

When I was at Cal Poly Pomona in the late Seventies, the “More Nav than the Navs” group was also a local group affiliated in some way with a local church. Nothing like a Mega, though; more like some “Non-Denominational” Indie Fundy. Name of their college group was “Studies In The Word Of God”.

But they were influenced by the Navigators and other more “intentional” programs, and heavily steeped in Piper, Chandler, Driscoll, and Voddie Baucham.

Flutterhands Piper, “Deep Throat” Driscoll, and “Beat the Shy Out of Fluttershy” Baucham…

It was mostly the Worm Theology and Predestination of the New Calvinists that drove my friends to despair.

Worm Theology has a way of doing that. (I’ve been there, and some of the damage is Permanent.) Though the Sons of Calvin have Worm Theology in their DNA, it is NOT unique to them. Calvary Chapel and Jack Chick (which most of the local “non-denoms” or “Just the Bible” types copied & cloned) were no slouches in that department.

In the hierarchy of the spiritual elite, the really “intentional” or “solid” Christians, they were at the top: their doctrine was “on point,” they were “on fire,” and they were role models to the other guys.

God’s Green Berets/God’s Speshul Pets, always rubbing their Superior Theology in your face, gleefully anticipating their laugh when Christ Spews You Lukewarms Out Of His Mouth on J-Day.

Ever heard of the Heresy of Clericalism? It’s that only a Spiritual Elite of Uber-Christians (originally Priests, Monks, and Nuns, now “Intentional”, “Solid” and “On Fire”) matter to God and all the rest of us can go to hell.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

There was a bait-and-switch going on: “Come to Jesus, God will save you apart from works!” Then, after being saved: “Okay, Christian, you better work your butt off or God’s going to spit you out for being lukewarm. The Reprobate have it easy, because they don’t know any better. But now that you’re saved, by golly, you’d better keep God from getting angry with you again.”

So what else is new?
Except for the Calvinese term “Reprobate”, this is what I went through during my time in-country. With Global Thermonuclear War as God’s Chosen Punishment, before Eternal Hell.

And the worst part is that my friends struggled for years with this stuff, and well-meaning people only threw more bible verses at them: but they had been so conditioned to read every passage in its most abysmal interpretation that they found zero relief, and were sure that, in the words of one of them, “I can accept God’s grace for other people, but I can’t believe that Grace applies to me.”

Shot to shreds with Bible Bullets…

KNOWING God Hates Your Guts Because “GOD HATES SIN WITH SUCH A PERFECT HATRED” and you will NEVER be one of those On-Fire Uber-Christians.

Been There, Done That, Got the T-Shirt.
And the damage stays around; 40 years and counting.

You know the imagery I have to use for God-figure?
Aslan of Narnia and Princess Celestia of Equestria.
Because those are God-figures who don’t hate your guts.

Jack wrote:

As I mentioned earlier the Bible makes extraordinary claims, most of the old testament came from oral traditions dating back to the dawn of civilization, and reflects the brutality of the age. The new testament also reflects the mores and morals of the first century.
This include the reality of slavery, misogyny, monarchical hierarchy and other nasty business.

Or as I say about such passages in ha-Torah & ha-Tanakh:

“Welcome to the world of Bronze Age Semitic Tribal Warfare and Blood Feuds.”

Muff Potter wrote:

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

The Bible itself does not state this requirement, which means you are asking something of the Bible that the Bible does not ask of itself.

Ever tried dialogue with Calvary Chapel’s chief apologetics honcho?
He will try to convince you that it all fits together as perfectly and as tightly as a LEGO castle.

Or like Calvin’s Institutes.

(At which point, since Calvary Chapel is as Un-Calvinist as you can get, it’s just Papa Chuck’s Institutes instead of Calvin’s.)

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

It may have been the best of a bunch of bad alternatives at the time and place of origin. A Bronze Age tribal version of “You Take Responsibility For What You Have Done.”

Exactly.

dee wrote:

There are many things thatI believe are metaphors or simple explanations for things that are highly complex. An in-depth explanation of DNA to a simple people would have been confusing.

Some of the ancients were far from simple. The Antikythera mechanism is a concrete example which supports a level of sophistication uncanny even by today’s standards.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Perhaps Arnold Smartarse would like to remind me what a heretic I therefore am?

I think Arnold Smartarse would just opine that you’re looking for the perfect church, and then add the very witty and original aphorism that if you ever find the perfect church you should avoid joining it for fear of spoiling it.

Which is plain stupid, because Jesus IS the perfect church and you can’t spoil him by joining him. True holiness is contagious!

@ kin:

“Sure, but I pointed out Paul wanted the Corinthians to imitate his radical actions in following Jesus, and he wasn’t just talking to those who were single.”
++++++++++++++

re: understanding NT epistles — it doesn’t seem sensible to me to take statements writers made in a letter to one person/one people group as absolute, as the sum total of their thoughts on the subject.

it reminds me of what an android does in a movie — whatever the human says, the android takes it literally, at face value, as an absolute, not realizing the many other variables that bend or adjust the meaning and understanding and the application. when the android does this in a film the android is either the comedian or the one who will annihilate the human characters because of only being programmed to think one way.

agreed, on liberty. i observe lots of variety in level of caution amongst parents just in normal day-to-day living.

OldJohnJ wrote:

YEC vs. OEC is a recurrent theme here at TWW. Under the title “Spinning Stardust into Gold”, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/spinning-stardust-into-gold/ an interesting account of the significance of GW170817 is presented. A factual but incomplete account of the event is given. I consider this account incomplete in two important ways. First, there are no references (links) given to the source descriptions (or wikipedia). Secondly, the very important distance (which is also an age) estimate is not given. Other GW events are mentioned, also without the age/distance estimates. The AIG article devolves into suggesting synthesis of the heavier elements is conjecture, a creation myth, and invokes the Plant of the Apes movies for intellectual support.

Whilst I believe in YEC theologically and cannot argue the science (as a non-scientist), I do not trust anything Ken Ham says. I was concerned about the tone of his polemics and now he has given Christianity a bad name. Wondering Eagle has documented on his blog (and TWW may have covered or touched on this) that he has done some very shady financial tax avoidance with his “Ark Encounter” which has left the governors and tax-payers of Kentucky feeling conned.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/ken-ham-is-trolled-by-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation-meanwhile-he-attacks-atheists-and-the-media-is-under-scrutiny-by-kentucky-plus-he-blames-hurricanes-on-sin/

dee wrote:

Libby wrote:
marrying rapists are errors in the bible?
Actually, no they are not errors. I really encourage you to Google these bits of the Bible and look at some thoughts by intelligent people who still believe in the Bible and condemn rape.
Let me take on the *marry your rapist* situation. It is important that we understand the culture of that day. Women who were raped were considered unclean by just about every tribal group in existence. A woman who was raped was often thrown outside the community and condemned to live on her own. This was a death sentence. The only way a raped woman could support herself was as a prostitute. If she didn’t, there would be no way for her to feed herself and stay alive.
The solution was interesting. The rapist was now forced to be responsible for that woman’s welfare for the rest of her life. He would have to marry her and support her. That meant feeding her, giving her shelter, caring for any child that came along as part of the rape. For the vast majority of men in that time, this was a real problem because many did not have enough money to support more people in their family. This was a significant deterrent for rapists.
I can go deeper into this situation. I can also discuss the stoning of the kid as well. However, everything I have said is easily found today for those who truly want to try to understand the Scriptures. Frankly, it is far easier now than it was for me 25 years ago. Do you know how many commentaries and other books I had to buy??
One underlying assumption helped me as I looked at these things. I knew that there were extremely intelligent people who continued to believe in God even in light of these Biblical difficulties. Many of them, like myself, did not bury our concerns but faced them head on and looked for answers. Most of us have found them. Does this mean it is easy to fully understand. No! I am still on a journey trying to figure things out but I now have faith in the trajectory of the Scripture and in a God who loves his people.

I have heard similar defenses of this before. Here is the problem: If this person is a rapist, he will no doubt continue to rape other women. At some point, he will be unable to provide
adequately for one or all of them. He will also be able to re-rape them when they become wives. Eventually, these women will mother his children. Some of them will be male children. (a sociology professor from college told me that sociopathy is passed from father to son. If a man is a sociopath (the rapist), all of his male offspring will also be sociopaths). Anyway, the problem will perpetuate.

Why couldn’t God make a law forbidding the mistreatment of raped women. After all, there was a law forbidding clothing made of more than one fiber. Also, for a book that loves to stone people, why not stone the rapist? Anyway, I would rather prostitute than be married to my rapist. I also disagree that a rapist could be deterred from his crimes. Again, let’s stone him instead of the rebellious child.

Come on, everybody, where am I wrong here?? But thanks for trying to help.

ugh….. can’t sleep again.

@ Caroline:

…getting back to your comment, you make it very clear the consequences for kids when serious trauma happens. how sick of jp to spiritualize it all away as a good thing. i’ve heard so many things like this that simply don’t fit reality, some of which will ruin people. in response, i focus on the practical. i simply don’t have time for spiritual ideas that don’t improve life on earth now for all living creatures.

okrapod wrote:

And on another topic, has OJJ just outed Nick with one of his aliases? I bet he has. Star on the char of OJJ is that is correct.

Let me reassure you that I am not another of Nick’s personas.

Libby,

Imagine dating someone who you really care about. You go out of your way to show how much you care. But that person stubbornly refuses to believe that you love them. They say that they won’t believe that you love them unless you buy them everything they want and always do exactly what they want when they want it.

God showers us with all kinds of good gifts. God loves us even when we refuse to believe it. Just because God didn’t do everything exactly the way we think He should—doesn’t prove God was a misogynist. God was dealing with a bunch of hard hearted people who wouldn’t follow the rules that He wanted to give them so God had to give them rules that they would follow that would at least provide some type of due process of law for women.

Jesus told the Pharisees that certain OT laws were never how God wanted things to be. But those laws were given because of the hardness of their hearts.

OldJohnJ wrote:

Let me reassure you that I am not another of Nick’s personas.

LOL. Good thing, too. I like both your all’s comments. Lots.

Libby wrote:

Come on, everybody, where am I wrong here??

I would like to continue this conversation but in a few minutes we are out of here to take DIL to her endoscopy appointment for followup for her landing in the ER Thursday noc. RE will take her, wait, and take care of her. I will stay with all four kids-all of whom are good kids by the way. So-vomiting blood in the ER is going to take precedence today over TWW. We got lots of real life problems right now at the top of our lists.

I think you are wrong in thinking that some ancient culture should have done things the way you want them to have done, when they had no notion of where you are coming from and you have no experience of where they were coming from. Meaning, basically, there is no platform here for comparison.

I think that if you actually think that God told them to do it they way they did, then you are wrong to think that you have any right to try to tell God what he ought to have done, apparently based on some assumption that God needed to have kept you pleased with Him.

I think that you are wrong in what you think that scripture is, apparently putting it on the same level of priority and authority as God himself. Which is to say that you seem to think way too highly of scripture itself.

I think that you underestimate the sea change in thinking that happened because of Christ. In doing that I think you diminish Christ himself, and therefore God himself. Which, of course, rather ties in with what I just said about over-valuing scripture.

And I think you do something which we all do. We over-value ourselves, our opinions, how important we want to be in God’s eyes, and our own ability to comprehend much of anything.

Jack wrote:

The events of the bible can never be proven. That’s the nature of faith

That’s actually the nature of History. I cannot prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Danube, or that William conquered England in 1066, or even that Abraham Lincoln was actually shot in Ford’s Theater in 1865. But I have faith in the credibility of the eyewitnesses who recorded those things, and see no reasonable cause to doubt they happened, and see reasonable connections to events today that support those things happened. If that is the nature of “faith,” then I totally support your definition.

Otherwise, I agree in the main with your points, and think that, while I may disagree with your conclusions, your approach towards engaging with others is admirable.

(Now, to claim Abe Lincoln was a hunter of the nefarious undead, THAT would give me reasonable cause to doubt — unless someone could provide evidence and reasoning to back it up. But I think I’m still justified in saying he wasn’t a vampire slayer…)

dee wrote:

Glad to hear from you!I always hope you are lurking in the background when their subject comes up!!

I’ve been doing a lot of lurking in the background. There is really no appropriate or proper time to say this so I’ll do it here and now: A little more than 6 months ago my wife of almost 54 years passed away. While I should have been more aware of her condition than I was, there are times you don’t want to face up to the inevitable. Slow, very gradual change tends to hide the progression of things. With the help of my local, young family and a supportive church I am getting by reasonably well.

I’ll continue to read this very valuable blog and possibly be a little more active in commenting. Thanks to you, Deb and GBTC again for providing this forum.

@ Libby:
Libby, sorry if I am too late to the party, but I would like to offer some perspective if it’s ok.

Many years ago, I stood with my hand over a dumpster. In that hand was a well worn and well marked Bible. I was about to throw it away and chuck my belief in God in the dumpster along with it. Circumstances in my life led me to this place. It was a long, dark, stormy time.

I did not throw that Bible away. Something prevent me from going through with it.

Soon after I took a different look at the Bible as a whole. I don’t remember where I heard or read it, but reconciling everything in Jesus Christ was my new goal and I started to keep a record of questions and concerns. Believing that a God who would walk among us and sacrifice Himself for us had to be fundamentally good and loving helped me to see how the violence in the bible fit into the larger narrative, which is telling the story of the redemption of sinners.

That view will put you at odds with the majority of Christian brands out there. You are wise to see through them. Some of us who have seen all of these abuses repeat themselves in different people and organizations throughout the years recognize that we are seeing the same things as recorded in all of scripture dressed in different clothes. Same sin, different day.

I encourage you to keep whatever percentage of the Christian faith you have left, and to forget about all of the spin by various factions and brands that call themselves “Christian”. We all are supposed to be pointing at Jesus. Sadly we also fail.

My solution is to focus on Jesus “for me”, and to look for Him in the bible. All of the arrows are pointing to Jesus anyway, and the whole point of it all is what He has done for you. He calls for faith like a child has, a simple faith. Ultimately we are called to trust a person, not in a religion or faith brand.

In disconnecting from the brand wars and spin machine,I hope you find peace with God through our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Libby wrote:

a sociology professor from college told me that sociopathy is passed from father to son

It may also pass from father to daughter and then to a grandson, you’ve described the dark side of evolution. If we were created through a process of evolution then someone who forcefully spread his genetics around would have a disparate impact on the resultant population. That is not to excuse it but to give a possible explanation of the origin of our “sin nature”. I just don’t believe in a God that moves every particle of dust nor the minutia of every event. I can best sum up my place in the world with a quote from Katherine Hepburn in the “Africa Queen”, “Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above”.

unepetiteanana wrote:

Piper has a romantic notion of the Gospel rather than a rational one.

As Romantic as Twilight fangirls’ notion of Vampires.

Thersites wrote:

I can best sum up my place in the world with a quote from Katherine Hepburn in the “Africa Queen”, “Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above”.

Or what my observation of what well-done Furry art and fiction should be:
“TRANSCEND THE ANIMAL.”

Libby wrote:

For point 4 above, look at Genesis 1:27, So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God the he created HIM, male and female he created them.

Notice how only HIM is in the image of God. Also notice how Eve was pranced in front of Adam, just the animals were. Not nice.

It depends entirely upon how you (generic you) think about it.

Libby wrote:

Doesn’t think strongly imply the lower ranking and status of women?

If your thinking is uni-directional, well then yeah, I guess a woman’s status is just what fundamentalist nit-wits claim it is.

Why don’t you try thinking in more than one direction?

If ya’ do, you’ll quickly see that She (woman) has a level of refinement not found in the original (man fashioned from the dust), and it puts a whole new spin on the Pauline Papyri.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

kin wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
Philosophically, i can’t see that a parent has the right to put a child unduly in harm’s way, to make that decision for them.
Sure, but I’m arguing for liberty in that I don’t necessarily have the right to determine what ‘unduly’ means for you, nor you for me. The adventure of following Jesus will not look the same for every family.

So, what do you make of John the Pied Piper doing exactly that? Trying to guilt Christian parents into intentionally dragging their kids into dangerous situations, and manipulating them with gratuitous phrases like “bloated jellyfish”?

While I didn’t go away with any false guilt after reading his thoughts, I don’t have a problem with people encouraging others to be thinking outside their social normative box.

If I remember correctly, Piper did refrain from nesting comfortably in middle class/upper class areas and purposefully choose to live in a rougher neighborhood for the benefit of loving his neighbor in Christian love. I have no idea how much more risk he was taking in exposing his family to violent crime, but I’m sure it increased. For anyone to connect him with the child abuse label is outrageous, imo.

Again, it comes down to who has the right to determine what a person does as being reckless or not? We all have different standards.

elastigirl wrote:

nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution, spiritually, until one’s kids are older and self-sufficient. it’s not like success or failure of The Great Commission depends on me or you doing A instead of B or C and doing it NOW instead of later.

So if it were 75 to 80 years ago and you (a Polish family) had a Jewish family knocking on your door seeking to be hidden from the Nazis would you tell them to go away because you didn’t want to endanger the lives of your children? Reverse the roles and would you, being part of a Jewish family, appreciate dearly that an entire family took the risk to hide you?

While I’m sure many people declined to hide the Jews, thank God many families took the risk. Loving Jesus often can cost your life and those around you – which is why he said to count the costs.

@ kin:

You do know what false equivalence is right?
Elastigirl’s comment is not the same thing, and my opinion her comment stands.

@ dee:

“I have found that 25mg. of beanery (diphenhydramine) helps on occasion.”
++++++++++++

in your opinion, is this preferable to something like a generic sleep aid?

@ okrapod:

That’s very kind of you; no, OldJohnJ is definitely not me, and a good thing too, because without him we’d be robbed of a fine and independent mind!

Muff Potter wrote:

@ kin:

You do know what false equivalence is right?
Elastigirl’s comment is not the same thing, and my opinion her comment stands.

Thanks for the feedback – you may have a point. I reckon I’ll give it some further thought.

@elastigirl – I get you. That’s your perogative.

Piper’s view is contradiction-personified.

If all events are determined by God, and not just permitted mind you, but that their final end is actually decreed by God; and, if all these events are for the glory of God – why then would Piper do anything but give praise to God for carrying out what God Himself has determined will occur?

For Piper to remain consistent, instead of saying, “Perhaps we lose too many of our children because they weren’t trained as soldiers,” he should be saying, “For reasons I don’t understand, God, in His sovereignty, and for the sake of His glory, has not only chosen for us to lose many of our children, but also has determined that those same children would not be trained as soldiers; and for that, I rejoice in God for carrying out His decree.”

I posted this on a previous thread (prior to this being written) but it was near the end and in response to a comment by @Shauna. I hope it pastes clearly.

I am blown away by Piper’s incredibly poor exegesis of 1 Timothy 5:8.

Piper says

The question raised by this text, and many others, is this: What is the greatest good you can do for your children? What does a real, countercultural, Christian ambassador and exile from heaven think when he is told, “Provide for your household”? Provide what? Culture-conforming comforts and security? Really? I don’t think so. He is thinking, How can I breed a radical, risk-taking envoy of King Jesus? How can I raise a dolphin cutting through schools of sharks, rather than a bloated jellyfish floating with the plankton into the mouth of the whale called the world? How can I raise offspring who hear Jesus say, “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Luke 9:58) and respond, “Let’s go”?

Short answer? Um, no. Paul is talking about one thing only – working and providing (financially) for your family.

The entire context of the passage (5:3-16) addresses “the list”, i.e., the list of people aided by the church because they can not provide for themselves. Paul tells Timothy not to put anyone on the list who has family that can assist them, because God expects us to help our families in their time of needs. It is one of the ways we demonstrate the faith.

Never one to miss an opportunity to guilt the church, Piper adds to the text by expanding the meaning of provision to include the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). He then goes on to state:

Perhaps we lose too many of our children because they weren’t trained as soldiers. Maybe we trained them in comfort and security, and now they won’t leave it.

This is wrong on at least two levels – 1. This appeal to the consequences (fear of children walking away from the Lord) is a hypothesis which only reinforces his previous statement, there is no empirical evidence to support it, and; 2. His hypothesis is based on flawed exegesis, as previously stated above and is supported by both the Greek text and centuries of commentaries**.

Once again we have an example of Piper taking a plain, straightforward/clear Bible passage and obfuscating it by using it to support one of his personal opinions. In this case, Piper uses a passage about caring for family members who cannot care for themselves and reworks it to imply that Paul was telling Christians to take their children into hostile territories as missionaries, because if they didn’t, their children would fall away from the faith. This is eisegesis of the worst kind and should not be excused simply because it came from the desk of John Piper.

**For a more detailed, and Reformed Baptist, exegesis, see John Gill’s commentary on 1 Timothy 5:8 – http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_timothy/5.htm

@ dee:

dirt cheap! when put together, two of my favorite words!

OldJohnJ wrote:

A little more than 6 months ago my wife of almost 54 years passed away. While I should have been more aware of her condition than I was, there are times you don’t want to face up to the inevitable. Slow, very gradual change tends to hide the progression of things.

I am so sorry about your wife. That not being quite as aware-that is ubiquitous. We all do that, even when we try not to. Actually, it may be a good thing to have as much ‘good’ time as possible before the inevitable. Both my oncologist and my PCP do not focus on the inevitable. As a patient I really find that the best and easiest to deal with stuff. It affirms the patient in that one ‘sees’ the patient instead of seeing only the disease/condition.

I don’t mean to offend you. I am just saying how I find that this feels from the other side of the equation. But either way, we are born ‘alone’ and we die ‘alone’ and there is no changing that.

Bless you, OJJ, and prayers be with you.

@ readingalong:

i appreciated your comment. i guess i have mixed feelings — jp is so incendiary, for a little ferret of a person (i think on purpose!). my reactions are stoked.

i can see how your boys’ experience was a good one, and i can imagine how it shaped them positively.

i suppose i have too much direct and indirect experience with christians deliberately walking into perilous circumstances based on the belief that “God will take care of me” — God didn’t take care of them (as they imagined), requiring the costly resources (time, energy, money, emotion…) of others to come to the rescue. it took a toll on many people.

I don’t think the ‘rescued’ christians really even understood what they put others through. instead, it seemed they sort of congratulated themselves on how they walked by faith. how brave and fearless they were. no, they were irresponsible.

I don’t mean to say you fall in this category.

Respectfully, you are accusing me of claims I didn’t make (such as my faith being superior, or that I am more Godly with my view of the Bible, etc). I apologize if I didn’t convey very well that those aren’t my intentions. I can tell you rely on the Lord and care about the Bible and that it has brought you through some painful times. Someone on Facebook said something negative about you on Brandon Howse’s post about his recent situation. I told them that while I disagreed with your creation view, you do a thorough job reporting on issues and do it honestly. Peace to you.

OldJohnJ wrote:

dee wrote:

Glad to hear from you!I always hope you are lurking in the background when their subject comes up!!

I’ve been doing a lot of lurking in the background. There is really no appropriate or proper time to say this so I’ll do it here and now: A little more than 6 months ago my wife of almost 54 years passed away. While I should have been more aware of her condition than I was, there are times you don’t want to face up to the inevitable. Slow, very gradual change tends to hide the progression of things. With the help of my local, young family and a supportive church I am getting by reasonably well.

I’ll continue to read this very valuable blog and possibly be a little more active in commenting. Thanks to you, Deb and GBTC again for providing this forum.

So sorry for your loss! Prayers and hugs.

elastigirl wrote:

!!!

i just had an administrative / financial victorious breakthrough concerning my parents’ caregiving. i feel weak in the knees with relief.

someone raise a glass and cheers me!

Cheers!!!

dee wrote:

@ Libby:
Let me add something.
As these laws were bring written, God was the King of Israel. That means he functioned in the role of a law giver. By this I mean day to day laws. He was the CDC, the Sheriff, the FDA, HHS, HUD, etc. As such He set up some laws to protect the people.
The laws against shellfish and pigs were health laws since in those days, such creatures were contaminated food sources-infected with diseases, etc.
The two types of cloth commandment was to prevent people from being bilked by cheating cloth merchants.

Interesting. I did not know about the two types of cloth. Thank you

Libby wrote:

But isn’t also possible that there is creator who is impersonal?

Yes, that is Dee’s option 1. An intelligent and willful creator is, by definition, personal.

Libby wrote:

would love it if the bible were egalitarian, but I don’t think it is.

Could you be expecting the unreasonable? Has there ever been a truly egalitarian system defined and modeled anywhere? As long as humans have our current sexual dimorphism and only one gender can bear children there will always be difficulty in attaining a truly egalitarian society. When interpreted well, the Bible is amazingly egalitarian. But if you are convinced otherwise and refuse to look at it any differently then you will always see it the way you do now. I don’t know how anyone here can provide enough evidence for you considering how hard you have pushed back.

Libby wrote:

Is that how you learned to respond to people who simply disagree?

Earlier you asked “Come on, everybody, where am I wrong here??” If you can’t stand the answer, don’t ask the question. I don’t think you are engaging in honest dialogue with all of us.

@ dee:

I’m no expert, it’s just my humble opinion. I used to read Desiring God, but it was all very flowery and disconnected from reality. Your blog called him out as Poet Piper to which I laughed out loud because I thought it was accurate. Right now, my life is very indicative of what God tells us to do, to count the cost of following Him. This particular thing in which Piler pontificates is a perfect example of his romantic notion of the Gospel because he tells the reader to sorta enter a storybook fantasy of 1)take kids to a dangerous mission field and voila! 2) your kids will know true sacrifice and love Jesus. Like others have commented here it doesn’t and hasn’t always turned out like that. Maybe instead of forcing kids to make sacrifices (outside of reasonable sacrifices like birthday money going to, or time spent ministering to, the poor), we let them see us sacrifice? I mean, is forced sacrifice really sacrifice? I read on Facebook the other day about someone’s wife reading Piper and coming to the awful conclusion her husband was an idol in her life. She sobbed to him that she was sincerely worried her live for him was idolatry because Piper gave some stupid advice. It’s like Piper believes every act of devotion he commits to God is how everyone else will experience it – everyone can have a flowery experience. Sometimes following Jesus sucks.

Libby,

It is obvious that you are hurting deeply. I don’t know if you are aware that there are a lot of folks here who have survived truly horrific things, so this website is about as safe as a place as you will ever find, regardless of your theological or emotional state. That said, the only thing I can go by are your comments and they read as if you are trying to “abreact previous emotional trauma” rather than being interested in actually trying to figure out if there are other emotional and spiritual solutions to your dilemma. It is not ok to go ad hominem or attack other people who are trying to respond to things you wrote. Either you meant your questions or you did not. Trying to stir up strife and discontent just because you don’t like the kind words with which other people are trying to share comfort with you, is NOT ok. I don’t usually post here, but I am known. I tend to lurk in the shadows and Mr. Tweed keeps me current on what everybody posts. My concern is as much for the decent folks like me, who tend to lurk rather than post, as much as it is for you. You sound terribly angry and fiercely determined to pick a theological fight and win it at all costs. My life experience has been that folks who “have to win at all cost and publicly humiliate and destroy their opponents” usually hurt so very badly that they cannot afford the emotional and intellectual honesty of admitting to themselves the depth of their terrible pain. I sure hope that I am mistaken in your case, but based on your posts, I would be quite surprised. Please realize that there are good decent honest and caring folks on this forum, who, if you would attempt to trust them instead of attacking without thinking, might actually be able to help you recover from whatever your true story is. May you experience “Immanuel, God with us” “Christ our brother” our advocate in a very personal, experiential way, which bypasses your objections (which also, of course, need to be honored and respected, but that is another post) and goes straight to your core heart and core will and comforts you in ways that only our Creator and Savior can. After all, that is why Jesus came to become our kin, and kinsman redeemer. I will be praying for you. From one survivor of atrocities to another. And please remember : there are many survivors here who have found new hope and are now able to trust Jesus out of the depths of their broken but surviving hearts. May you also find him to be your comfort and your refuge.

Libby wrote:

I asked where I was wrong doctrinally, to which I got no response.

You actually received many responses which you simply disagree with or continued to make the same claims about the Bible over and over. I wish you well in your life journey. We will simply have to disagree about scripture.

@ Bridget:

We were responding at the same time 🙂

Bridget wrote:

Libby wrote:
I asked where I was wrong doctrinally, to which I got no response.
You actually received many responses which you simply disagree with or continued to make the same claims about the Bible over and over. I wish you well in your life journey. We will simply have to disagree about scripture.

Thanks, Bridget. It is ok to disagree.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

thanks and clink!

Ken F’s wife wrote:

Libby,
It is obvious that you are hurting deeply. I don’t know if you are aware that there are a lot of folks here who have survived truly horrific things, so this website is about as safe as a place as you will ever find, regardless of your theological or emotional state. That said, the only thing I can go by are your comments and they read as if you are trying to “abreact previous emotional trauma” rather than being interested in actually trying to figure out if there are other emotional and spiritual solutions to your dilemma. It is not ok to go ad hominem or attack other people who are trying to respond to things you wrote. Either you meant your questions or you did not. Trying to stir up strife and discontent just because you don’t like the kind words with which other people are trying to share comfort with you, is NOT ok. I don’t usually post here, but I am known. I tend to lurk in the shadows and Mr. Tweed keeps me current on what everybody posts. My concern is as much for the decent folks like me, who tend to lurk rather than post, as much as it is for you. You sound terribly angry and fiercely determined to pick a theological fight and win it at all costs. My life experience has been that folks who “have to win at all cost and publicly humiliate and destroy their opponents” usually hurt so very badly that they cannot afford the emotional and intellectual honesty of admitting to themselves the depth of their terrible pain. I sure hope that I am mistaken in your case, but based on your posts, I would be quite surprised. Please realize that there are good decent honest and caring folks on this forum, who, if you would attempt to trust them instead of attacking without thinking, might actually be able to help you recover from whatever your true story is. May you experience “Immanuel, God with us” “Christ our brother” our advocate in a very personal, experiential way, which bypasses your objections (which also, of course, need to be honored and respected, but that is another post) and goes straight to your core heart and core will and comforts you in ways that only our Creator and Savior can. After all, that is why Jesus came to become our kin, and kinsman redeemer. I will be praying for you. From one survivor of atrocities to another. And please remember : there are many survivors here who have found new hope and are now able to trust Jesus out of the depths of their broken but surviving hearts. May you also find him to be your comfort and your refuge.

How on earth have I attacked anyone? There is not one shred of evidence that I have initiated at attack. I was the one called emotionally ill. All I have done is disagree that the bible is the work of a loving god. Many others have drawn this same concludiosn. You have nerve implying that I am hurting when you do not know me. Is your point to bully people into agreeing with you? Are that strong in your faith? If you are all this upset about someone disagreeing with you, I think it is clear who has problems. If it were not so pitiful, it would be funny. You know what you can do with your “Prayers.”

@ Libby:

Several things:

First, I apologize if I in any way made you feel disrespected. That was not my intent, and that is a difficult thing to show when disagreeing online in such a degree as we do.

Second, I in no way insulted your intelligence. I wrote, “people far smarter than you or I” either have or have not believed. If I insulted you, I threw myself under the bus as well. That sentence was meant more as a way to show that there are people trained in this stuff who are, quite frankly, more capable of dealing with it than we are. That’s all I was trying to say, but maybe it was poor wording.

Third, your comments from the very beginning seemed to match exactly with what I have seen from people who are in pain. The reason I mentioned emotional pain at all is because I know how damaging it can be when you only get a head-answer that tramples over the heart. I was trying to temper my intellectual comments with a respectful suggestion that there was more than just intellectual curiosity on your part. I will freely admit that this subject is a painful one for me, and is the only thing that gets me angry enough to want to kill the perpetrators — but those feelings, however justified I am in having them, do not have any bearing on the truth or falsehood of Jesus’s teachings, or the truth or falsehood of the bible.

(As for being a writing teacher: it is precisely because I teach writing, and am trained in teaching writing, that your tone and diction suggested you felt extremely strongly about this stuff — I do too. But I was trying to respect that while disagreeing.)

Finally, as for Jesus and his example, when he saw people disagreeing violently, he gave head and heart reasons: trying to persuade the head while touching the heart.

But if you say that you are satisfied the bible is debunked, in the face of the evidence I have tried to present, that’s your choice. I will disengage from the conversation, because it seems your mind is made up — and you are the only one who has the ability to change that.

So, in short, I hope you feel now the respect I was trying to give you, while still trying to point out the flaws I saw in your argumentation. The fact that you disagree with me has zero bearing on how I view you as a person, and I think your contribution is valuable. But, if I cannot respond to you without being viewed as a perpetrator, then I will disengage. But I implore you, even if you don’t like me, at least read the people I mentioned if you are interested in a rigorous exposition of the stuff you’re objecting to.

I’ll end by saying: I did not mean to offend you, but I also wanted to show you the resources that overcame my own objections. I still share many of the misgivings you have — but I am finding answers that actually bring me hope. At that has made all the difference. But I can only present that: I can’t choose for you.

Even if you don’t like me, I enjoyed our dialogue, and I respect you as an intelligent human being. I hope that counts for something, even if it comes from my lips.

(BTW, trying to address someone’s evident pain is not really the same as putting them down. Sorry if you felt that way, that was not the intent).

If you feel that strongly, then I’ll respect your desire to cut off the conversation.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Third, your comments from the very beginning seemed to match exactly with what I have seen from people who are in pain.

I did not get this from Libby’s comments.

I came to my conclusions about Christianity honestly through reading, listening and weighing the evidence. There was no abuse, no pain, I live a pretty normal, middle class suburban life.

I’ve been told that if I just opened up my heart and mind, Jesus will do the rest. I did and it didn’t stick.

I’ve been told that “You have a closed mind” – by someone who won’t believe anything that contradicts the bible (no irony there!)

I was a believer, now I’m not. You can’t force it or fake it – though I suspect there are many “religious” people who do just that.

We’re not all “lost” – there are many ways to the truth.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I live in the same country as Calvary Chapel’s Vatican. CC dominated or dominates the “Non-Denom” church scene out here. Lotsa Chuckbots. And CC has always struck me as the type of Bible-Only Fundy that illustrates all the ways Evangelicalism can go sour, distilled down into one.

Calvary Chapel recently built a new ‘campus’ here in the hills of Southwest Corona. It’s an area where the last of the orange and lemon groves were cut down to make way for a gentrified yuppie paradise. I remember a time when late spring nights carried orange and lemon blossom fragrance as if straight out of Olam Ha-Ba.
That’s all gone now.

@ elastigirl:

The words of the prophetess (Joni Mitchell) were written long ago in vinyl (Big Yellow Taxi).

Hi Libby,

You might find some answers to your questions regarding troubling Bible verses at these two sites:

evidenceunseen.com
christianthinktank.com

Both use context of the times to help the reader understand what the troublesome verses actually meant to the hearers, which more often than not is not how we would understand it in our cultural context.

I also have a link to a paper by an Anglican scholar dude that addresses the issue of Lot offering up his daughters. I can’t find it on Google right now (it was wretchedly hard to find the first time around), but it’s bookmarked on another computer. I can look it up if you like. But the gist of it was that Lot was lying about having two daughters in his house, and only ever had two daughters, who were married and were not living in his house. The author of the paper drew this conclusion from careful analysis of the Hebrew and what the text actually said, verses what tradition tends to say.

Hey dee! Nice to see another Sanderson fan! I can’t wait for Stormlight III! It’s coming out right on time for my birthday, too! Yipee!

Here is something about Lot and his daughters from a Jewish standpoint.

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lots-daughters-midrash-and-aggadah

elastigirl wrote:

@ Muff Potter:
disappointing is not the word. trees…. groves of trees… citrus ones, even. live oaks as old as my great great great grandparents. how many more houses do we need?

It’s called “INVESTMENT Real Estate”:
Flip,
Flip,
Flip,
Flip,
Flip,
Flip,
Flip…

To contribute to a very good discussion about how to interpret the OT passages that make God look like a complete jerk, I highly recommend listening to a few minutes of this podcast starting at 15:54: http://www.nomadpodcast.co.uk/nomad-93-brad-jersak-a-more-christlike-god/. I have not yet listened to the whole podcast, but this one section provides a way of looking at it that I’ve never heard in my Protestant upbringing. Brad Jersak expresses an Eastern Orthodox view on how to view the OT.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

HA!! Funny you’d mention that. Just yesterday on one of the fundagelical FM stations, one of their talk show personalities was wringing his hands over the Christians who will dress up and go to Halloween parties. He must’ve prattled on for 10 mins. about spiritual deception and occult infestation, and then he went to a commercial break in which one of their carnival barkers will try to sign you up for his real estate scheme with which you can get rich flipping houses using other people’s money. It’s impossible to make this stuff up.

Muff Potter wrote:

what do you mean when you say you’re no longer a believer?

I was raised Christian, identified as Christian for many years, and did believe in the core Christian doctrines like the trinity & resurrection. I no longer believe the bible occurred as written, including the new testament so even if I consider myself of Christian culture, I can’t really say I’m a Christian.

Muff Potter wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HA!! Funny you’d mention that. Just yesterday on one of the fundagelical FM stations, one of their talk show personalities was wringing his hands over the Christians who will dress up and go to Halloween parties. He must’ve prattled on for 10 mins. about spiritual deception and occult infestation, and then he went to a commercial break in which one of their carnival barkers will try to sign you up for his real estate scheme with which you can get rich flipping houses using other people’s money. It’s impossible to make this stuff up.

I’m glad you addressed the double standards of the Christianese community…..I find it fascinating that “Reverend” Chris Rosebrough mocks all of those health, wealth, and prosperity money beggars on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, then turns around and does the very same thing…..begging for money for his radio programs. I wonder if Jesus would call this “hypocrisy?” Or is one begging method more “holy” than the other begging for money methodology?

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

“When interpreted well, the Bible is amazingly egalitarian.”

Amen. It’s so weird that I was raised to believe that and understand that but years of being around evolving comp doctrine caused me to question that and do some serious study. It finally dawned on me that without the non sensical “creation order”, comp doctrine doesn’t have a leg to stand on. And creation order is so simple to debunk if people would just start questioning pastors/teachers. I mean, we even have to include Gen 1 &2 in that study and what each means.

There are so many twists and turns in the interpretations of the creation narrative over the millenia , we really have to not only do a birds eye study but get into the nitty gritty of Hebrew scholarship and Western translations. The big ah ha moment that tied it all together for me (besides God’s “intention” for His creation with the subsequent forming of male and female to be a strong alliance) was the translation of teshuqa to desire around the 1300’s. It had been interpreted as “turning” until around that time which gives us a whole different focus. God predicted that Eve would be “turning” to Adam —instead of to Him. And because of that it would be easier for Adam to rule over her. The warning! (When I read of Adam and Eve in the creation narrative, I tend to view the narrative as speaking of men and women.). By changing it to desire, a different focus is introduced that takes us in a totally different direction. (Same with Esau and “turning” to sin vs. desire)

Not long after we see the cruel Lamech at work.

OldJohnJ wrote:

There is really no appropriate or proper time to say this so I’ll do it here and now: A little more than 6 months ago my wife of almost 54 years passed away. While I should have been more aware of her condition than I was, there are times you don’t want to face up to the inevitable. Slow, very gradual change tends to hide the progression of things. With the help of my local, young family and a supportive church I am getting by reasonably well.

As always, you have conveyed a deep well of meaning without many words, which is one of the reasons I appreciate your input here, OldJohnJ. I’m so sorry to hear your news; I don’t have anything of much value to say, but I hope that Wartburg can be a constructive piece of the jigsaw as life – for want of a better phrase – goes on.

@ Jack
Thank you for your candor. There’s much we can agree upon and celebrate our humanity with. Who says we have to be in lock-step agreement on all things theological?
Only the haters, elitists, Jihadists, and fundagelicals who pretend to have it all perfectly constructed into a LEGO castle.

OldJohnJ wrote:

There is really no appropriate or proper time to say this so I’ll do it here and now: A little more than 6 months ago my wife of almost 54 years passed away.

I am sorry for the loss of your wife. Hoping you are being comforted by Christ and those close enough to be a help.

Serving Kids in Japan,

You totally hit the nail on the head here. This is the same John Piper who supported the divorce of his son Barnabas Piper after years of spouting the theology of no divorce for any reason. That Barnabas Piper interview on Bad Christian podcast was really eye opening.

@ Karen:

Southern Calif. and Eastward into Arizona is the Bible Belt West.

Ken G wrote:

I’m not certain whether it is really necessary to believe the bible occurred as written to be a Christian.

A few years ago I would have rejected your statement, but now I agree with it. In the interview with Brad Jersak that I posted on this thread last night Brad asks an Orthodox bishop about a particularly gruesome slaughter. The bishop’s answer is like nothing I’ve ever heard in my upbringing (that discussion starts at 15:54, but the bishop’s answer is 17:00 to 17:30). It might surprise you to know that your view could be very Orthodox.

In the last few years of coloring outside the lines I’ve found that Protestantism does not have a lot of similarities with historical Christianity as it was practiced for about the first 1000 years.

I’m glad you comment here frequently. You give us all good things to think about and investigate.

Lydia wrote:

God predicted that Eve would be “turning” to Adam —instead of to Him. And because of that it would be easier for Adam to rule over her.

If you have not yet read “Eve” by Paul Young I highly recommend it. He builds on this theme in an unusual way. I’m not quite sure what he was consuming when he wrote it (it’s a bit on the weird side), but he gives a very thought provoking view of the Adam and Eve story. Complementarians along the lines of Piper will hate it.

Mike wrote:

Piper never took his kids on a dangerous mission trip yet he expects you to!

Maybe his version of christianity resembles the way an MLM works. If you take your kids on the mission field because he suggested it, he (as part of your “up line”) gets the credit for any glory that results, whether it’s people who become “good” regular tithers/churchgoers/neo-cal church members, or your children’s deaths as a “fragrant sacrifice to the Lord”.

Crazy.

Pastor Perry Noble Announces Divorce From Wife
https://www.christianpost.com/news/newspring-church-founder-perry-noble-announces-divorce-wife-17-years-asks-for-prayers-205087/

Popular founder of NewSpring Church in South Carolina, Perry Noble, who was fired in July 2016 for alcohol abuse and other “unfortunate choices and decisions,” announced Wednesday that after 17 years of marriage he is getting a divorce from his wife, Lucretia.

In a statement shared with The Christian Post through his publicist, Hunter Frederick, Perry said he “never imagined” himself in this position.

Libby wrote:

No, the testaments must reconcile in the sense that there can be no contradictions. The revelation of god can be progressive and continuing as long as there are no contradictions. The old and new testament gods are different. Interestingly enough, they do agree on misongyny.

I don’t think the God of the Old, New Testaments was a sexist, but he was dealing with cultures that were patriarchal, and many Christians today choose to interpret the Bible in such a way they view it as endorsing sexism.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

kin wrote:

Your last statement is doubtful, imo, even considering all of the nonsense that is legitimately attached to Piper.

Even considering that he seems to think that child molestation is God-ordained?

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/23/john-piper-explains-gods-will-in-scrabble-and-child-molestation-and-we-pick-up-the-pieces/

I am simply taking your statements for what they are: overstatements that are inaccurate and unfair. Though i used to read Piper many moons ago, I don’t keep up with him other than what’s posted here. To convince me of what your feelings lead you to state about him, you’d have to give me a lot more proof, and i think I would do the same for you if you were the one in the hot seat.

That’s my concern about blogs like this that are critical 24/7 – they create a feeding frenzy that can be very unloving and inaccurately subjective at times.

kin wrote:

I am simply taking your statements for what they are: overstatements that are inaccurate and unfair.

What? even after you are presented with support for those statements.

kin wrote:

To convince me of what your feelings lead you to state about him,

Feelings? Nothing was said about feelings leading him. He presented information. BTW, I don’t see anything wrong with feelings.

kin wrote:

Again, it comes down to who has the right to determine what a person does as being reckless or not? We all have different standards.

Well, there are laws on the books about how reckless one can be with there own life or someone elses life, since common sense does not always win the day. This goes for parents actions with their children as well.

kin wrote:

That’s my concern about blogs like this that are critical 24/7 – they create a feeding frenzy that can be very unloving and inaccurately subjective at times.

That is not an accurate reflection of this blog in my opinion. It is not critical 24/7.

I enjoy reading opinions on this blog. I am glad everyone’s opinions are welcome, because they are not on most blogs.

It is interesting to me, though, when people write as though there comments are facts and others people’s comments are reduced to feelings, inaccurate, unloving, etc.

@ Muff Potter:

“I have my own conclusions about the Abraham-Isaac story which would be certain to engender charges of heresy in many quarters of Christendom.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

now this i have to hear!

@ elastigirl:

…peas

Ken G wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

But wouldn’t it be more in line with the Great Commission to evangelize, say, Uzbekistan? Just asking.

A quick check of Wikipedia shows that about 9% of the population are Russian Orthodox. It seems the Russian Orthodox who are living in that country should have that responsibility.

A whole 9%? I’m sorry, but that sounds like an excuse for evangelical laziness. 😉

Bezides, by that reasoning, we Catholics should have the responsibility of evangelizing the lost and lapsed in Catholic countries, e.g., Latin America, which is far more than 9% Catholic. Yet evangelicals are forever sending missions to such countries in order to “save the Catholics.” See what I’m saying? You can’t have it both ways. Sheep stealing is sheep stealing. Not evangelism.

BTW evangelicals also send missions to “save” the Eastern Orthodox in heavily Orthodox countries. It has become a huge bone of contention. Orthodox hierarchs in those countries are speaking out about it.

Bottom line: Evangelize people who haven’t yet heard the Gospel. Not those who already have. Let the churches in those historically Catholic and Orthodox countries reach and tend their own sheep.

Bridget wrote:

Well, there are laws on the books about how reckless one can be with there own life or someone elses life, since common sense does not always win the day. This goes for parents actions with their children as well.

Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o7HPQxCK-Y

kin wrote:

@ Bridget:

This is the only quote that I referred to as an overstatement and doubtful:

“From where I sit, the Pied Piper is utterly uninterested in the welfare of anyone except men, and especially pastors.”

To me, that statement is qualified with the “from where I sit.” The commenter is clearly limiting his statement to his own experience with Piper’s writings and/or sermons. It seems he has every right to make such a statement of his experiences and he clearly qualified it as such.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

In the fundagelical milieu you must have a ‘Biblical’ world view. In that world view Catholics are not Christians and they are not ‘saved’.

kin wrote:

@ Bridget:

This is the only quote that I referred to as an overstatement and doubtful:

“From where I sit, the Pied Piper is utterly uninterested in the welfare of anyone except men, and especially pastors.”

It’s very unqualified don’t you think? For example: If all of Piper’s past and present female neighbors were interviewed and asked if he were “utterly uninterested” in their welfare to which they disagreed, then you have at least some people who would then dismiss the claim of “anyone except men…”.

BTW – I enjoy the blog and have publicly stated that I have benefited from it, especially the women. That being said, I do have concerns like many other people do.

We base our statements on what Piper has publicly said in the pulpit. He said that women should endure being abused, he said children have little fat bottoms so they can be whopped, he is friends with CJ Mahaney who was credibly implicated in a child abuse lawsuit, he loves Mark Driscoll’s theology and I could go on…from the heart the mouth speaks.

What Bridget wrote was a very reasonable conclusion.

@ ZechZav:
And, Piper purposely built a huge following of young pastors. I have not done an exhaustive analysis but I know a few people who did a while back. Pulpit Piper at Bethlehem was not always exactly the same as Piper teaching young pastors. It is truly amazing how social media changed so many things.

@ kin:
There is something that you are not taking into consideration. The audiences. What a speaker will say or teach to a certain group is not necessarily how they would treat someone one-on-one.

I am not necessarily referring to Piper here but back in the day I did enough comp conferences to realize that what people teach on stage is not necessarily how they live. I meant many a comp wife who would have scared General Patton. There was a lot of money in comp Doctrine back then.

A lot of times that stuff is based on what sells. With that said, I think Piper is probably more of an ideologue than most. Guys like Russ Moore (comps are wimps, we need more patriarchy) are opportunists.

“I am simply taking your statements for what they are: overstatements that are inaccurate and unfair”
++++++++++++++++

hmmm. sort of like saying “Harvey Weinstein is just an affectionate guy, and you’re all really blowing this out of proportion.”

@ OldJohnJ:

Count me in too OldJohn.

A.Tumbleweed wrote:

And Jesus confessed that when He asked the man, “Why do you call me good, there is only one that is good, and that is God.”

Jesus could not have been using hyperbole here?

A.Tumbleweed wrote:

I don’t believe there is any such thing as a “divine spark” in anyone, and confessed the same at worship last night. Can’t find that in the Bible either.

What am I to make of Psalm 8 then? How do I explain away any divine template placed into humankind by the Almighty?
C.S. Lewis argued that God’s ‘goodness’ cannot be wholly other, because then, no standard of goodness can exist by itself and on its own merits.

@ Muff Potter:
Original sin explains it for those that believe. For those that don’t, well good luck with that divine spark thing. We are born in sin, we proceed through life in sin, and we die in sin unless we are born again in the waters of Holy Baptism and receive the Holy Spirit. If there is built-in divinity, then Christ died for nothing. And, I am not going to take one or two verses from Hebrew Poetry and pit them against the hundreds of verses and the words of Jesus (no, not hyperbole) that speak to the embedded sin in mankind that He came to die for. I could ask the same question: How can anyone believe what C.S. Lewis said?! C.S. Lewis is no more. Jesus Christ is alive and coming back. He is the one who saves.

@ A.Tumbleweed:

I also once believed, as I was taught, and as everyone else around me believed, that any action considered “good” performed by a human was absolutely worthless, because God was going to destroy the universe and start over anyway, so this current world is a sinking ship, and any attempt to help people — besides correcting their doctrine — was considered the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

I’m sure you’ve heard that before.

But does that square with the exhortations throughout the Old and New Testaments to think on “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy” (Philipians 4:8), or to do what is right when no one is looking, because God values even the smallest act of kindness and mercy (Micah 6:8, Titus 3:14, James 2:24, 3 John 1:11, Matthew 6:1, Revelation 2:19, Matthew 25:34-40). I’ll let you read through those, because it really seems like Jesus and the apostles are saying there is indeed intrinsic worth in doing those things — kindness is not just an exercise in futility, as our (one-time) shared theology implies.

What about the verses that explicitly outline the goodness and value with which God created man? Such as, “I will make people more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir” (Isaiah 13:12), “For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected” (1 Timothy 4:4), and we are God’s creation. If you argue that “you can’t apply that to Man,” I simply ask, “Are we not His creation?”

Or the verses that outline the care and love with which God created us? “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13), “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 210). When an artist makes a painting, what gives that painting value? Is it not the painstaking care and skill that went into making it? In that sense, to say that we are worthless without God is a tautology — it is tantamount to saying, “Without God we would not exist.” But with God, everything matters — including us — and that is why sin is so terrible: Precisely because we have intrinsic worth, sin is an affront to both our dignity and to God’s lovingkindness for us.

Finally, I would be cautious of calling “unclean” what God has made clean (Acts 10:15).

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Do you realize I never once said that man’s goodness could justify salvation?

Every time I have heard someone support the Original Sin scenario, they have also “read into” the conversation that people who don’t believe in original sin do believe that your goodness can save you. It is interesting to see this happen over and over again.

@ refugee:
Lol. I think there is a lot of truth to this.

@ Muff Potter:
Now you have to share! I do know that my view has changed to suggest it has more to do with paganism then a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. Talk about people freaking out!

A.Tumbleweed wrote:

@ Bridget:
Tell me something, if there is no such thing as original sin, in the classic christian definition of the term, then why did Jesus have to die?

I believe in Original Sin (which ironically means that Man was good before he sinned), in the sense that Adam chose to sin, even though God had made him sinless — but sinless does not mean “perfect,” in the sense of maximal goodness beyond any improvement. The Bible does not say Adam was created in “maximal goodness” — only God is maximally good — but it does say he was not yet sinful.

But I can understand the view that, while denying Adam chose for all, we choose for ourselves — but we are not free from the destructive mental and spiritual consequences from the choices of our fathers and mothers, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Actually, come to think of it, that is essentially the doctrine of Original Sin — not that we have no choice in sin by physical necessity (as in, a law of nature), but that Adam and Eve were the first link in the long chain of generational trauma that now binds us. And Christ came to break that chain.

@ A.Tumbleweed:
I think that’s part of the problem. The idea there is a “classic Christian” definition. As if there was no meaning to the two concepts before Jesus came as the Human/God.

@ Lydia:
No, the problem is that words have no meaning and the Bible is not viewed as authoritative any longer so all that is left is opinion.

Or, rather, hear, hear! LOL!!

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I don’t care if you believe me or not. If I heard something similar about Southern Baptist in another country, my first reaction would not be the same as yours. I am not in the business of defending denominations or pastors/priests.

It’s just not where I get my identity. About all I can muster up these days is to defend Jesus Christ to the best of my ability because I do think he gets a very bad rap all the way around. Of course he doesn’t need me to defend him I do get that . I hope to keep on seeking truth outside of all the systematic theology and denominations.

My point in making the comment is that when we get into a position where we are promoting or constantly defending our denominations, sects or groups and not seeking overall truth, there will always be somebody —somewhere who’s had a horrible experience. So I fail to see the point of all of the whole tribe thing within Christendom. I know, I am weird. 🙂

Lydia wrote:

. I personally think that Jesus Christ’s rescue means that we should get to work here and now living out the Kingdom. Curing cancer, inventing things that improve life, etc, etc.

What does Jesus mean when he prays, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” if not this? When does he pray for it, if not now? And aren’t we the hands and feet of Christ, not only the “Professional” Christians, but also the doctors and the farmers, the professors and the factory workers, the stay-at-home moms and the engineers?

And doesn’t he also say that he only does what he sees the Father doing (John 5:19)? If that’s the case, it seems God is awfully focused on “healing the blind,” “binding up the broken-hearted,” taking care of the widows and orphans — and all-round giving hope to hurting people, NOW, in the current broken world.

There was a time when I would have scoffed at your examples as focusing too much on “petty” or “worldly” concerns. I have no clue how I ended up in that terrible place…

Lydia wrote:

I tend to think he goes too far sometimes.

Yes, but maybe that helps balance those that don’t go far enough. If nothing else, it helps one to think. What surprises me is how “Orthodox” (as in Eastern Orthodox) his theology is. I like reading outside the lines because it helps me to re-evaluate my assumptions and conclusions.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
That’s it. Often, an over correction brings us into alignment. I don’t even know how to articulate it but after way too many years spent around the quasi-determinists and strict determinist I had had enough. That wasn’t even part of my childhood church beliefs but had become so mainstreamed, it was everywhere. Ingrained. I simply had to go back to a blank white board —on my own. While I have no problem getting into the weeds/details, I prefer the Birdseye view of all of it. No ST. No Theology. Just the Golden thread of “RESCUE” our Lord provides. When I was a kid my mom used to encourage us to focus on the Lords promises. I think I get that now.

Sheesh! I Sound like a new age hippie but I can assure you I am the furthest thing in the world from that.

The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday,

Just wanted to say that I really appreciated the thoughts that you shared on this thread. Thought that you were kind and respectful in the way that you asked honest questions, presented well thought out logical points and expressed disagreement. Hope to hear more from you.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I don’t think Augustine said there was nothing good in us.

Yes. I agree with this. Augustine laid the groundwork for how the reformation defined it. But as far as I can tell he was not as extreme as the reformers.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

A.Tumbleweed wrote:

Well, the vast majority of Christians for the last 2000 have believed that there is absolutely nothing good in us and confessed that truth regarding man’s inability to save himself.
…
I don’t believe there is any such thing as a “divine spark” in anyone, and confessed the same at worship last night. Can’t find that in the Bible either.

Your statements here show that you have not read much church history. The belief that there is nothing good in us was taught by Augustine, but at that time he was in the minority. Western Christianity eventually embraced him, but Eastern Christianity is cautious with his teachings because they view many of his teachings to be erroneous. The ancient church did not believe in total depravity. Rather, they believed the image of God in us was badly damaged.

There are several things to unpack in your statement about what “the vast majority of Christians have believed.”
1) What exactly did the vast majority actually believe?
2) What should Christians actually believe?
3) Who gets to decide the right belief?

I’ll try to briefly address these.

1) Protestants actually represent a small fraction of the total number of Christians, so if a belief is only Protestant then no one can claim that it is something the vast majority of Christians believe. The belief that there is NOTHING good in mankind and no divine spark is actually a minority view.

2) Lots of self-appointed people claim to know what Christians are supposed to believe. For the first 1000 years of Christianity they hammered out the critical pieces in ecumenical councils. There are way too many details to go into here, but the bottom line is the early church relied on consensus (at least up until the great schism).

3) Protestants rightly opposed the idea of the Pope dictating what should be believed. But by breaking from the Pope in the way they did they ended up creating many thousands of popes. Now we all get to decide for ourselves what is the right thing to believe based on our own understanding of the “clear meaning of scripture.” Now we can join with others who believe the way we do, until we find out that they don’t and then we split and create another denomination. While Protestants reject the idea of a Pope, they pretty much embrace it every time they quote their favorite theologians/teachers/preachers. If you ever come up with a conclusion that does not fit your denomination because you think the Bible says something different, you will eventually be told “that’s not how we believe.” But why? Who says?

I guess my point is that many things in the Bible are not as clear as they appear once you start reading from other Christian traditions.

The Pope does not “dictate” any such thing. He is bound by 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. He cannot go against this Tradition in solemn matters of Faith and Morals — even if he wants to, as the current pope occasionally seems to want to!

We are not ultramontanists. In fact, ultramontanism was soundly defeated at Vatican I. Yes, you read that right. Vatican I.

There is so much disinformation and misinformation out there. It seems overwhelming at times. It reached a sort of crescendo of ignorance and bigotry on All Hallows Eve (oh, sorry, Reformation 500 Day). My Facebook feed was positively toxic.

Joseph leMaistre famously wrote, “Hatred of the papacy is the tie that unites all the separated churches.” He had a point.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I don’t think Augustine said there was nothing good in us.

Yes. I agree with this. Augustine laid the groundwork for how the reformation defined it. But as far as I can tell he was not as extreme as the reformers.

Thanks!! Yes, he did not go as far as the Reformers by a long time shot. And his ideas about the “Massa Damnata” were never adopted as dogma or anything​ close. Individual Church Fathers​ are not regarded as infallible. Some said some pretty kooky things (e.g., Clement of Rome re the phoenix; John Chrysostom re the Jews). It is their overall testimony that carries weight.

Thanks for understanding!!

Lydia wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I don’t care if you believe me or not. If I heard something similar about Southern Baptist in another country, my first reaction would not be the same as yours. I am not in the business of defending denominations or pastors/priests.

It’s just not where I get my identity. About all I can muster up these days is to defend Jesus Christ to the best of my ability because I do think he gets a very bad rap all the way around. Of course he doesn’t need me to defend him I do get that . I hope to keep on seeking truth outside of all the systematic theology and denominations.

My point in making the comment is that when we get into a position where we are promoting or constantly defending our denominations, sects or groups and not seeking overall truth, there will always be somebody —somewhere who’s had a horrible experience. So I fail to see the point of all of the whole tribe thing within Christendom. I know, I am weird.

I remember you used to give Christiane a hard time, too. You seem to think you know more about my Church than I (and my fellow Catholics) do. You don’t. And you know absolutely nothing about my search for “overall truth.”

BTW neither Catholics nor Orthodox think of their communions as merely “denominations.” Just FWIW.

That’s all I will say about this right now. Over it.

Lydia,

Great point on how we need to see ourselves as God sees us—that we are the righteousness of God in Christ—not as wretched sinners. I’m not saying that anyone is perfect. Of course we still need to listen to the Holy Spirit when He deals with sin in our heart. But the overemphasis on depravity of man is actually dishonoring the atonement of Christ which washed all that depravity away.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

There is so much disinformation and misinformation out there. It seems overwhelming at times.

As a Protestant I was taught many things about Roman Catholicism that I have had to unlearn. While I disagree with some of RC’s later teachings, I cannot believe that Catholics are not saves. I try to go to RC sources to find what they really teach, but sometimes it does not help much. For example, this article describes Papal infallibility as much more limited than what Protestants typically believe, but more strongly than what I think you wrote: https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility.

In any case, I find that RC theology is much closer to early church theology than Protestant theology is. I hope my comments here do not create a firestorm because that was not my intent.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

I hope my comments here do not create a firestorm because that was not my intent.

I don’t think that is what anyone intends.

Bridget wrote:

I don’t believe that man/woman, created in the image of God, were so corrupted by their sin/falling short that they no longer carry any of that image. I don’t believe that babies are born sinners; born into a world of death and decay that leaves us all, in some way, hardened and damaged, yes.

I learned that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam, but rather each of us is captive to sin by fear of death/mortality (Heb 2:15). Since we all die none of us escapes the bondage of sin except through Jesus. This makes a lot more sense than some kind of inherited guilt. Also, the Bible says we inherited death from Adam (Rom 5:12) rather than guilt or a sinful nature.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Joseph leMaistre famously wrote, “Hatred of the papacy is the tie that unites all the separated churches.” He had a point.

Whether or not one agrees with the the role of the Pope as the RC’s currently define it, one has to respect their honesty about admitting it. I find that Protestants disagree profoundly with setting up any man as a Pope, yet at the same time extensively quote from their favorite Reformed saints (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Spurgeon, Edwards, Sproul, et al) as if those quotes are the voice of god (capitalization intentional). It’s just a different form of “Popery” (snark).

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

A whole 9%? I’m sorry, but that sounds like an excuse for evangelical laziness.
Bezides, by that reasoning, we Catholics should have the responsibility of evangelizing the lost and lapsed in Catholic countries, e.g., Latin America, which is far more than 9% Catholic….Bottom line: Evangelize people who haven’t yet heard the Gospel. Not those who already have. Let the churches in those historically Catholic and Orthodox countries reach and tend their own sheep.

I don’t quite follow your reasoning here regarding Uzbekistan and Latin America. It seems like you are saying that the Christians in Uzbekistan should not evangelize, but rather stay kind of isolated and take care of their own group. So who is it then that is exhibiting evangelical laziness, the 9% or is it some other group you have in mind? And with Latin America, are you saying that Catholics should or should not evangelize in Latin America?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I remember you used to give Christiane a hard time, too.

Christiane gave her reason to be.

Christiane is a highly passive aggressive, trouble making troll who plays games with people (especially troubled or vulnerable people) on Christian forums and blogs.

You may want to see this post for more on that:
Be Cautious: Faux Niceness, Victim-Bullies, and Survivor Abuse Blogs
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/be-cautious-faux-niceness-victim-bullies-and-survivor-abuse-blogs/

The ‘Faux Niceness’ part would be a reference to Christiane. Christiane is not a trust worthy person. It bothers me to see someone defend her.

@Bridget, ZZ, Lydia

Looks like I’ve got myself in a pickle.

““From where I sit, the Pied Piper is utterly uninterested in the welfare of anyone except men, and especially pastors.”

“Untterly uninterested in the welfare…” would mean that Piper never said anything beyond the wacky, weird, or controversial statements about women and children that may or may not be taken as abusive. I don’t think that’s fair or accurate.

It’s your prerogative to have an opinion, but not all opinions are based on facts.

@ Avid Reader:
@ Avid Reader:
I think you made my point better than I did!. 🙂

@ Daisy:
Catholic gate crashes, read my comment on the link. I was blindsided. I have been trolled on 3 blogs.

Thanks Daisy. It’s rare to defend truth these days. Most would rather sweep it under the carpet because it’s not “positive”

@ Lydia:
Sorry for mangled first para. My iPad is glitchy on this long thread. Piper was explaining how a wife could make sure her husband mantained his leadership to her submission and her not sin doing so. He Used the example of a husband suggesting a ménage à trois.

I invite any and all here to fact check my assertion about that video. Some of you will remember it. And this is the thing about horrible creepy celebrity pastors. There is always a group of people who did not follow them and have absolutely no clue. I have Piper fatigue for that.

@ kin:
You do know that not even convictions are based on ALL facts, right? We look at words, actions, patterns, evidence and hopefully come out with an informed result. What if I asked you to prove— with only facts —that Piper does not teach female only submission using ALL of his public words?

Hi Kin,

In defense of Lydia and Serving Kids In Japan……their opinions actually are based on plenty of evidence.

Here’s the video where John Piper is so obsessed with keeping women submitted that he totally misses the bigger picture of how God hates abuse. Piper is straining gnats and swallowing camels. Same thing that Jesus slammed the Pharisees for. (Matthew 23:24)

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/26/domestic-violence-christmas-john-piper-sgm-and-tgc/

Now I’ve read hundreds and hundreds of pages of Piper’s writings. There are plenty of examples of how he really doesn’t care about women’s needs or the call of God on their lives because he’s so obsessed with keeping them in (his opinion) their place.

There’s a reason that Piper teaches that ALL women have to submit to ALL men, even down to “most casual relationship with a stranger on the street.” That even when a housewife gives directions to a confused motorist, that housewife better be submissive to this total stranger. That’s Piper’s actual teaching. Here’s the references if anyone doesn’t believe me:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R2VX1SIIUS1IIM/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1433537125

kin wrote:

It’s your prerogative to have an opinion, but not all opinions are based on facts.

Opinions are based on the facts that any one person has been exposed to. And even people presented with the same facts can view them in different manners.

@ kin:

“Or rather: It’s your prerogative to have an opinion, but not all opinions are based on ALL the facts.”
++++++++++++++

facts… what are facts? a sociopathic or narcissistic abuser is skilled at hiding in ‘facts’.

here’s my young daughter’s experience:

she has this friend, R — for a long time we were never quite sure if R was well-intentioned or not.

-she’s the kind of person who will metaphorically pinch you,
-you say “Ouch!”
-she says, “What?? What’d I do? Gosh, you’re so sensitive. You always
complain about everything. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.”

but R is much too smart to pinch anyone. too much fact! it’s always much more subtle than that. it’s nothing anyone could ever confront her with. there is no fact of pinching. like a backhanded compliment — the facts of the words were a compliment, behind the words were a stab.

the only assessment one can make is based on the experience of the person. there is always ‘plausible deniability’ in her own self-defense and in the defense of her from those who rally around her.

so, the net result of my daughter experiencing R: my daughter is frustrated, aggravated, angry, feels belittled, mocked, betrayed, she feels punched even though we wasn’t punched, she feels it is her fault, she feels unjustly accused, feels like she is going crazy.

when enough people have had this experience of R, the “facts” of the matter go well beyond what R said and what R didn’t say.

kin,

Double standards are an abomination to God. Prob 20:10

Pipers actual words reveal what’s in his heart. Matt 12:34. If Piper really cares about women why didn’t he publicly aplologize for all the hurtful things he’s said about women? Things like telling women to have to submit to every man—-including total strangers—-and telling women to sabotage their own careers according to Pipers feelings. If Piper feels offended at women getting promoted into higher positions that they’ve actually earned, Piper still tells them to sabotage their own careeers according to his feelings. Nevermind if they really need that promotion to provide for their families.

His writings actually teach men to feel offended if they have a female boss in the workplace. Nevermind who’s actually qualified for the promotion based on their education, experience, skills and quality of leadership, Piper feels that no matter how hard women work, they will never be qualified enough to get promoted to lead men, even if their male colleague is totally unqualified for that higher position. Plus Piper is ignoring all the scriptures about respecting our bosses. Piper is teaching rebellion and disrespect in the workplace simply because he can’t accept the idea that women can earn promotions.

Don’t get me started on how Piper can’t handle the biblical example of God raising up Deborah to the highest position of leadership in that nation. According to Piper, Barak should have been offended at that.

kin wrote:

I can find more articles for you like the one below that would certainly prove the quote above is an overstatement (due to the words “utterly uninterested”).

I’m trying to think through whether Desring God posting articles like this one written by a women guest contributor weakens or strengthens your point. I think your point would be better strengthened by an article actually written by Piper.

One problem with Piper is he is so thoroughly inconsistent that one can find quotes by him to prove almost anything.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

. I think your point would be better strengthened by an article actually written by Piper.

Aw, man. Now you’re making me work more? 🙂

Since it’s posted on DG’s website it has Piper’s rubber stamp of approval. Plus, it’s a recent posting.

@ kin:
Kin, that was a good find!

How it relates to Piper is a great topic for discussion since he started DG years ago.

1. It is written by a woman
2. It was written in March 2017

If there are many more like this I can see where someone would think we are off of our rocker the way we are talking about piper. I have no idea how involved piper is with desiring God on a day-to-day basis basis anymore. The word on the street is that they bought a place in Nashville, too, and spend most of their time there. I do not know if he moved DG with him or not. Back in the day he would get these bright younycollege graduates to come work for him for free to be tutored by the great one. ( their wives usually worked ) I only know this because I have family members who did such a thing so I heard about the operation quite a bit. A piper approved young pastor officiated one of their weddings ( they flew him in from the other side of the country) and there a 45 minute sermon on the wife’s submission as part of the ceremony . I thought my Baptist extended family were going to have heart attacks throughout the whole thing. Those of us in the immediate family already knew how bad it was.

There used to be quite a few articles on CBMW from Piper that were borderline Mormonism. That is where the article was located where he was teaching women how to give driving instructions to men without appearing to be leading them or teaching them. When CBMW decided to rebrand, they took them all down. There has been so much I can’t even remember it all —from his promotion of Mark Driscoll to Doug Wilson.

It’s hard to explain because one would have to go back 20 years to get an overview and that is just not feasible. But you know what is so interesting about this conversation with you is how easy it is for charlatans to rebrand themselves for a new and different audience. Driscoll is doing it. Tullian is doing it. Quite simply, it’s what they do. And it works. Everything is about legacy with these “Christian” celebrity stage guys so they have to rebrand.

Comp/Patriarchy is just not selling or resonating like it used to. And that’s because society has changed so much. It’s kind of pointless to talk about women’s submission in the face of the growing popularity of Islam, transgender, etc. what can you do with a “feminist” who wears a hijab instead of burning her bra?

@ kin:
Now you are just poking the bear. (Hee hee)

@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:

I missed this earlier. It was a big aha moment for me when I considered that Jesus Christ was/is the Kingdom. It is referred to the “kingdom of heaven” in some places and the “kingdom of God”, in others. The “Kingdom” is supposed to be us here and now as Christ in us.

That is “life”. Abundantly. Determinism is fatalism. Death. Perpetual sinners who can never metanoia.

Many thanks to everyone for your support the past few days. I apologize for not taking part in the conversation lately. In spite of a recent break from work, there have been plenty of distractions.

Kin, I intend to respond to you more fully later. Right now, in this part of the world, it’s time for church. In the meantime, I stand by my statements.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I appreciate your directness and candor. I never have to try to figure out what it is you’re saying. And that is a very good thing, IMO.

What I don’t understand is why disagreeing with Catholicism or relating the actions of the institution is “bigotry”. couldn’t the same be said of what you relate about evangelicals or Protestants, here? There are quite a few blogs where survivors of the Catholic Church abuse gather.

In my world view none of them are off the hook. They are all fair game because all of them claim to stand for Jesus Christ.

When we personally identify with a denomination or an institution instead of Jesus Christ, it becomes a real danger …. Especially for victims.

I have absolutely no hatred for Catholics. In fact we usually share a lot of the same values.

I’m not real big on huge institutions, though, I will admit that. 🙂

kin wrote:

I can find more articles for you like the one below that would certainly prove the quote above is an overstatement (due to the words “utterly uninterested”). His weird/strange complementarian view of women does not invalidate my point.

Kin, I’m afraid that guest post by Chelsea Stanley doesn’t impress me much, or change my mind about the Pied Piper. Even assuming that he did green-light that article personally, it doesn’t prove to me that he actually cares about women or their needs. It strikes me as more of a sop to any females that might remain among his followers. After all, without such occasional articles on his site, women might be turned off by his demonstrated true attitude towards them, and cost him their support and that all-important moolah. For readers who aren’t so enamoured of him, articles like Chelsea’s are simply gaslighting — an attempt to get us to doubt what we know about Piper’s teachings (as elastigirl so dramatically depicted above).

The content of Chelsea’s post is simply too much at odds with things that Piper himself has written and said, and with his behaviour.

A few examples:

Chelsea writes, “Support women in their callings.” But Piper has made it clear that, if a women claims her calling is to be a police officer, a CEO, a soldier, or (heaven forbid) a pastor, then her calling is not to be supported at all. Mustn’t have her “impacting any man with her femininity” (or whatever word salad he used) from a position of any authority.

She writes, “When serving on committees with sisters in Christ, value their intellect, gifts, and talents as much as you value those of your brothers in Christ.” How is that possible, since Piper won’t even let a woman give road directions if a man is around to do it?

She writes, “Protect women and children within your church from abusive situations.” How is that compatible with Piper’s evil advice to accept “abuse for a season”, or with his doctrine of permanent marriage, in which domestic abuse is not grounds for divorce? How can a wife or her children be protected from abuse, when they’re forced to keep the horrid fool in their lives?

This is my biggest problem with Piper. His hand-wringing about muscular women and giving directions might possibly be dismissed as “strange” or “wacky”. But his dictates on domestic abuse are not wacky — they are dangerous. They provide no protection to women or children in such situations, and even encourage wives to remain in them. His unwillingness to realize this and rectify his teachings are proof enough to me that he doesn’t care one whit for their welfare.

As for Piper being in “the hot seat”, as you said a few days ago, he’s there purely by his own choice. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to be a paid celebrity mouthpiece for New Calvinism and gender comp. Of his own volition, he’s out on stage and online, pushing the inconsistent nonsense of female subordinationism, and insisting on getting richly paid for telling people in scrupulous detail how to be “real” Christian men and women. He has no right to complain about people analyzing or criticizing his public teachings. And if I were in his shoes, I’d have no right to complain either.

elastigirl wrote:

facts… what are facts? a sociopathic or narcissistic abuser is skilled at hiding in ‘facts’.

Sorry I didn’t see your post earlier. Good point – I personally know someone like that.