Wade Burleson Guest Post: “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women Rule,” Paige Patterson and His Inhumane View of Women

“But in the end it’s only a passing thing, this shadow; even darkness must pass.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien

Years ago, Wade Burleson reached out to us as we expressed our concerns about the goings on in the Southern Baptist Convention. At the time, both Deb and I were Baptists. Deb is still hanging on, barely. I have found a new home within a conservative wing of the Lutheran church.

Wade Burleson wrote a book that opened our eyes to the inner workings of the SBC. That book, Hardball Religion: Feeling the Fury of Fundamentalism, which we bought in March 2009, (the month we launched TWW) profoundly affected our lives and the trajectory of this blog. I was reeling from the shock of how my former Baptist church had mishandled a pedophile situation. Yes, the pedophile was finally caught by the police with no help from my church. Yes, he was in jail. But my husband and I, along with our friends, were mistreated because we insisted that the pastors be held accountable for their mismanagement that led to another full year of horrific abuse of teen boys by the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary student.

I was stunned. I had had wonderful pastors, like Pete Briscoe, in my life. I was trying to figure out this strange new world that I didn’t understand. Wade opened my eyes. The Deebs flew out to Enid, Oklahoma, to spend a wonderful weekend with Wade and his wife, Rachelle. Wade restored my hope that there were straight shooters in the SBC. He was willing to tell the hard truth, even when it hurt him. And it did.

Wade knows more about the SBC than many of us. He has seen the dirty dealings from the inside. Read the book. Wade has been a consistent supporter of women in positions of leadership. His thoughts on the matter of Paige Patterson and women have not changed for years. I could say a lot, but I think Wade will say it better.

We thank Wade for his kind support over the years even when we disagree on some secondary issues. He’s the best!


The Southern Baptist Convention is at a crossroads.

We have four weeks to correct our course or the future will be very bleak indeed.

Some are saying that the furor of Dr. Paige Patterson’s words about an abused woman submitting to her abusive husbandis unfair to him. “He didn’t mean it,” they say. “His words have been taken out of context,” claim Patterson loyalists.

No. Dr. Paige Patterson meant exactly what he said.  Actually,  what Dr. Patterson truly believes about women is worse than what’s so far been revealed in this little dust-up about abuse.
Let me show you using Dr. Paige Patterson’s own words while under oath.

In 2006, Dr. Paige Patterson terminated the highly acclaimed and brilliant Hebrew professor, Dr. Sheri Klouda, from the faculty of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, because she was a woman.

Let that sink in: Dr. Paige Patterson terminated Dr. Sheri Klouda due to her gender.

But why fire an acclaimed Hebrew scholar because she is female?

Dr. Patterson tells us under oath. The following exchange between attorney Gary Richardson and Dr. Paige Patterson during a deposition gives the reader a gut-wrenching glimpse into Dr. Patterson’s view of women and a possible basis for his view that a woman should submit to her abusive man.

Question (Richardson): Well, I’m interested in whether or not you claim here under oath today, Dr. Patterson, that you mentioned to these two gentlemen (Blaising and Allen) any concern about her (Dr. Klouda) violating the stipulation that she was placed under?

Answer (Patterson): Yes, I did mention it to both of them.

Question (Richardson): And what — what is it you say you said to them?

Answer (Patterson): I don’t recall the exact conversation, of course, but I did say to them that I felt that there was violation taking place perhaps, and furthermore, that I felt that it was inappropriate ecclesiologically for her to be in this position.

Question (Richardson): And what was the violation that you claim here today that you told them that you thought was taking place?

Answer (Patterson): I believe that she was indulging in the exposition of the scripture.

Question (Richardson): Giving her own conclusions?

Answer (Patterson): Uh-huh.

Question (Richardson): Yes?

Answer (Patterson): Yes, I’m sorry.

Pay attention Southern Baptists:

Dr. Paige Patterson, according to his own words under oath, believed Sheri Klouda, a highly trained and acclaimed Hebrew professor, was “indulging in drawing her own conclusions about the Scriptures.”

Dr. Patterson believes a woman should never draw her own, independent conclusions from the Scriptures and tell a man what she thinks God is saying. This was Dr. Klouda’s crime. Dr. Patterson tells us this under oath.

But It Gets Worse

In his same testimony,  Paige Patterson is asked what he thinks about a society where women are in positions of leadership. I am typing for you the dialogue complete and unedited.

Question (Richardson): Would think in regards to the issue of — of women in the church, that you and Paul Pressler have acted responsibly for the convention?

Answer (Patterson): I certainly hope we have, we’ve done our very best.

Question (Richardson):  And — and I think that you would agree that- that Wade Burleson would feel that he’s done his very best, wouldn’t you?

Answer (Patterson): Yes, he probably does, uh-hu. I’m not judging his heart. That’s only known to God. That’s something he does fairly regularly with regard to me.

Question (Richardson): On Page 1595?

Answer (Patterson): Yes.

Queston (Richardson): In view of time, I’ll try to rush through this, but the third paragraph down it says, There it is. (Wade Burleson writes:) “There is the narrow, biblical interpretation that says it all and causes our convention some serious problems. No woman shall have authority over a man.” Did I read that correctly — correctly?

Answer (Patterson): Yes.

Queston (Richardson): And he (Wade Burleson) is saying that in his opinion, that you have gone far beyond the prohibition of women pastors?

Answer (Patterson): Uh-huh.

Question (Richardson): Right?

Answer (Patterson): Apparently that’s what he’s saying.

Answer (Richardson): And, of course, you disagree?

Answer (Patterson): Yes.

Question (Richardson): “According to Patterson’s rigid and narrow interpretation of the Bible, it is wrong for a woman to serve in any position of authority over a man;” is that an accurate statement?

Answer (Patterson): In the church, yes.

Question (Richardson): How about anywhere else?

Answer (Patterson): Well I don’t take a position about anything else, because the Bible is not crystal clear on it. The Bible does say in the Book of Isaiah, that it is something of an indication of a wicked society when women rule over them.

Throughout the deposition, Patterson made remarks about how society is not following the standards of God’s word, but the church must follow the infallible Word of God when it comes to women not having any authority over men.

That’s why Patterson recently said “a woman should never go to court with marital problems,” problems that may even include physical abuse. Keep quiet. Submit.

One must conclude that in Patterson’s world, an abused woman is better than an indulged woman.

In his 1988 job interview with the Christian Life Commission (now the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) Board of Trustees, Richard Land said the following:

“I understand that [women’s ordination] is a problem with many [Southern Baptists] . . . and it is one that we need to be sensitive in addressing. It has been my experience and I hope I’m not being judgmental here, that many people, I suspect, use the women’s ordination issue as an excuse for having attitudes about women that aren’t Christian. I think we have to . . . make it very clear that we affirm the equality of women . . ., and be extremely cautious about extrapolating from two spheres, the home and the church. For instance, I don’t think that anything in the New Testament would prohibit a woman from being a professor or an administrator in any of our seminaries or colleges.”

In the span of 30 years, Dr. Paige Patterson has successfully managed to spread his denigrating view

Student enrollment under Paige Patterson’s tenure

of women into the Southern Baptist institutions where he possesses leadership.

I have been attempting to warn the Southern Baptist Convention for decades this has been happening.

Now there are Southern Baptists who are saying, “Dr. Paige Patterson loves women!”  “Dr. Paige Patterson is being misrepresented.” They declare, “Dr. Paige Patterson would never tell an abused woman to submit to her abusive husband..” “Dr. Paige Patterson was only joking when he said a man should own at least one woman.” 

To Patterson loyalists, Dr. Paige Patterson is a misunderstood man.

No. he’s not. Dr. Patterson is a man who speaks what he believes.

Either too many Southern Baptists are cowards or far too many Southern Baptists believe just like Paige Patterson

We must confront and remove leaders who propose an unbiblical, anti-Christian, inhumane, God-dishonoring view of women, and cover, hide, and excuse the sexual and physical abuse of women and not wait until society and culture shame us.

Indeed, shame on us.

Beth Moore, I’ve seen male leaders in our Southern Baptist Convention speak and behave shamefully around women. I’ve confronted the men every time I see it. I am grateful for your courage in speaking out about your horrible treatment.

We should have removed Dr. Paige Patterson years ago because Jesus demands humble, servant leadership in His Kingdom. The New Testament which unveils the Good News of the New Covenant of God’s grace in Jesus Christ declares it clearly:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

So many lives have been, are being, and will continue to be wrecked by anyone who crosses Dr. Paige Patterson.

The Southern Baptist Convention has one final shot at making this right. If not, I and many other Southern Baptist pastors may very well hand the Southern Baptist Convention over to the rigidic, misogynistic, legalistic, Old Covenant Baptists who believe a society is wicked when women rule.

Jesus said His Kingdom is ruled by humble servants, regardless of their gender. 

I choose to follow Jesus.


Comments

Wade Burleson Guest Post: “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women Rule,” Paige Patterson and His Inhumane View of Women — 306 Comments

  1. Just for the record—Isaiah 3:12 is where the heart of God grieves that His people are being oppressed by tyrants. That verse never complained about women in leadership at all. After all—if God is offended by women in leadership, why did He raise up Deborah to judge a whole nation?

    Ask the Calvinists why according to irresistible grace theology—if God didn’t want Deborah in leadership, God would have used “irresistible grace” to raise up a man instead!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  2. If husbands love their wives as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, then a watching world might draw different conclusions about Christ.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  3. And we come back to the crux of everything. Conservative Evangelicals (i.e. most Southern Baptists these days) are teaching a false gospel. They are not teaching grace. If men and women are not equal before God, then grace is not grace. The amazing grace of God that takes away the sins of the world doesn’t care about our color or sex. When someone teaches that sex, color, sexual orientation, or anything else matters to God except that Jesus died for us, that’s not truth. “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1 John 3:1) “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

    That’s it. Love and grace. It’s really not that hard.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  4. Why does my name have a Canadian flag beside it? I like Canadians, don’t get me wrong. But, I live in Wisconsin, and central Wisconsin at that. I’m not all that close to Canada. The system is rather confused, I think. But, it was cold enough this last December that I thought we were in the Arctic, so maybe . . .

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  5. @ Teri Anne:

    I’m not even Southern Baptist anymore and it made my heart hurt. I grew up with PP and his colleagues being admired and looked up to by my parents and those around me. Realizing the amount of misogyny and downright evil that’s been going on is painful. And the guy who was fired defended PP!! Crazy!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  6. @ Teri Anne:
    I heard that was going on. So, how long do you think he has before he is forced out? I think they will let him do his SBC speech, give him a standing ovation which will make my head explode, and then he will ride off into the sunset, sitting in his fancy, paid for mansion, laughing his head off.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  7. These guys say they worship God, but they actually worship maleness.

    I wonder how many people have been turned off to the idea of marriage by Paige Patterson’s talk? This is the first week in my life where I’ve thought that if I had come across Patterson’s argument about marriage stated so boldly, I would be turned off by the idea, probably because of the legal implications of Patterson’s beliefs. (I haven’t married for other reasons.) He’s not making marriage look attractive to women, maybe even to men.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  8. I think it is a sign of a wicked world when anyone thinks that they have a God given right to rule over others based on gender, race, or any other superficial aspect of their earthy being.In Christ all of us are equal, there is NO male or female, NO master or slave, nor rich or poor. Why is it so hard for these so called super educated theologians to figure out one of the main tenets of the Savior’s message?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  9. “Deb is still hanging on, barely”

    Well, I’ll turn 53 in a couple of months, and I’ve been in baptist churches my whole life. I can understand how Deb feels. I’m not quite “hanging on, barely” anymore ……… more like dangling from an old, dusty cobweb.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  10. ___

    “If Paige Patterson preaches at the SBC, he will, because of his past work, get a standing ovation,” Stetzer wrote in a blog post for Christianity Today. “Every news story will point to that moment … and say that Southern Baptists don’t take abuse seriously. … It’s a message to women that we must not send.”


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/04/southern-baptist-leader-who-advised-abused-women-not-to-divorce-doubles-down-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologize-for/?utm_term=.59c5da8800f6&noredirect=on

    -=-

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  11. Jarrett Edwards wrote:

    Why is it so hard for these so called super educated theologians to figure out one of the main tenets of the Savior’s message?

    Wishful thinking, twisted teaching, and entitlement.

    You can take the person out of the entitlement-environment but you can’t take the entitlement out of the person.

    Isaiah 2:12 For the LORD will have a day of reckoning against everyone who is proud and lofty and against everyone who is lifted up, that he may be abased.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  12. dee wrote:

    then he will ride off into the sunset, sitting in his fancy, paid for mansion, laughing his head off.

    You can’t take it with you, and especially where he may be going, may God be the judge of that.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  13. I just finished re-reading the book “Why Does He Do That” by Lundy Bancroft, a book about domestic violence.

    I was just saying on the previous thread, one thing of a few that struck me about this book is how often Gender Complementarian views and teachings on women and female submission echo the very thinking and attitudes held by abusive husbands.

    Paige Patterson uses some of the same rationalizations about how he thinks women should react to abuse that abusive husbands use (as explained in the book by Bancroft).

    If your doctrines abuot women, divorce, and abuse echo the same attitudes held by abusive men, I think it’s high time to seriously reconsider your doctrines. You’re interpreting the Bible wrong.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  14. Catherine Martin wrote:

    Why does my name have a Canadian flag beside it? I like Canadians, don’t get me wrong. But, I live in Wisconsin, and central Wisconsin at that. I’m not all that close to Canada. The system is rather confused, I think. But, it was cold enough this last December that I thought we were in the Arctic, so maybe . . .

    Sometimes the blog just acts weird. A year or more ago, it was showing a Japanese flag by my name when I posted, and I am definitely not in Japan – not then, and not now.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  15. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    He’s not making marriage look attractive to women, maybe even to men.

    I’ve been saying this for ages on this blog.

    Complementarians are not giving single women such as myself a reason to get married, or to want to be married – at least not to a complementarian man.

    I’d rather stay single or marry a Non-Christian who treats me well, as opposed to marry a complementarian man who is told he gets to “rule over” me, make all final decisions, and abuse me, and then not get help from an all- male- led complementarian church who would tell me, should I go to them for help,”You cannot divorce the guy, even if he’s abusing you.”

    Singleness sounds way more appealing by comparison.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  16. Jarrett Edwards wrote:

    I think it is a sign of a wicked world when anyone thinks that they have a God given right to rule over others based on gender, race, or any other superficial aspect of their earthy being.In Christ all of us are equal, there is NO male or female, NO master or slave, nor rich or poor.

    Jesus Christ said his followers are not to lord authority over one another, and complementarianism is in contradiction to this, because they twist Paul’s teachings to mean all husbands (and some comps teach all men) are allowed to rule over (have authority over) their wives or all women.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  17. GMFS

    I would like, if I may, to make an observation on this ongoing refrain that has surfaced a lot in recent years:

     Wealthy, white, middle-aged male speaks about, and treats, women like trash
     But they, and their supporters, insist that nobody respects women more than they do

    So: what counts is not what I do. What counts is that I say the right things in my public pronouncements.

    Jesus came out with some odd statements, with which Wartburgers will be familiar despite the paraphrase:
     Not everyone who says to me, No-one takes your authority more seriously than I do, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven; but only those who do the will of my Father
     If you love me, you’ll do what I command

    Why is Jesus so obsessed with these trivia – that is, with the sum of my actions? Why can’t he get over himself, deal with his issues, and drop his negative, critical, bitter spirit that comes from a desire to conspire against me? He should not question my attitude, nor rebel against the truth that I do what I do for him out of my sincere desire for what’s best for him. True, it may sometimes look otherwise, but that’s just a misunderstanding. It doesn’t matter that I lie, cheat and steal, or that I party the night away at drug-fueled orgies. I am the least worldly person you’ve ever met in your life!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  18. Daisy wrote:

    Someone posted this on the last thread, and I thought it had some good information in it, was worth repeating:

    [NEW AUDIO] Paige Patterson to Victims: Don’t Take It To Court Or To The Press, Settle It In The Church
    https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/lost-audio-paige-patterson-to-victims-dont-take-it-to-court-or-to-the-press-settle-it-in-the-church/

    Which, after we’ve seen with the Gilyard crimes, means women are out of luck in ever getting anything “settled”.

    I noticed with that, Patterson claimed it needed “two or more witnesses”, but there were at least 5 women who tried to get Patterson to do something. So, he must believe that the “two or more witnesses” must also all be male.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  19. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Why is Jesus so obsessed with these trivia – that is, with the sum of my actions? Why can’t he get over himself, deal with his issues, and drop his negative, critical, bitter spirit that comes from a desire to conspire against me? He should not question my attitude, nor rebel against the truth that I do what I do for him out of my sincere desire for what’s best for him.

    I notice the more someone believes they have power in the church, the less they actually follow anything Jesus says or does. They might quote the Bible a lot, but very little of it will be from the gospels.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  20. Paige Patterson or anyone else who thinks churches should be handling divorces, abuse, etc. is advocating for a Christian version of sharia courts or beth din. I don’t think too many Christians want to go down that path.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  21. NJ wrote:

    Paige Patterson or anyone else who thinks churches should be handling divorces, abuse, etc. is advocating for a Christian version of sharia courts or beth din.

    For sure….

    In this day of “Selective literalism”, we would do well to confront the “handle it in church” method of resolving abuse, with Romans 13. Physical assault/abuse is a crime in most states and if we believe Romans 13, the governing/state/civil/federal laws are ordained by God for the protection of citizens and to administer justice for breaking the law.

    If women begin to report abuse to the governing authorities per Romans 13, we might see a change in the number of abusers taking advantage of the “get out of jail free” card offered by some church leaders.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  22. Check out Christians for Biblical Equality and Marg Mowsco. Excellent information about egalitarianism and women in ministry including defense of women pastors. As a Brit, albeit getting oldish, and having arrived in the USA in 2008, I have become increasingly astounded at the wide influence of complementarianism. We are lifelong Baptists, conservative in theology, and have always been in churches with women elders, deacons and sometimes pastors. I had no idea that the SBC was so patriarchal and, having read the SBC Faith and Mission statement, am now more appalled than amazed. My husband and I (both theologically trained) have exercised teaching ministry in the church and have never had any problems until we came here. What a shock. One elder solemnly told me I could occasionally teach a mixed group of elderly church members if my husband was standing beside me. I think some sort of aura would envelop me from him to allow me to speak???

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  23. Victorious wrote:

    In this day of “Selective literalism”, we would do well to confront the “handle it in church” method of resolving abuse, with Romans 13. Physical assault/abuse is a crime in most states and if we believe Romans 13, the governing/state/civil/federal laws are ordained by God for the protection of citizens and to administer justice for breaking the law.

    The great irony for me is that our secular laws have roots in such ideas of christian justice like treating people as you would treat them…and said secular laws are overwhelmingly enforced and enacted by people who identify as Christian.
    … And most non Christian countries try to emulate them.

    Not perfect but most christians don’t want to live in the world of the Handmaids Tale.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  24. dee wrote:

    That happens because you live close to Canada and your internet service can sometimes slip over the border. I happens to me on occasion as well

    So basically we didn’t annex Wisconsin? Man! And I love travelling through Wisconsin! What a downer.
    True story: visited Florida a couple of years back and people thought I was from Wisconsin.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  25. @ Jack:

    Being a Handmaid intellectually and emotionally…spiritually… for “Gilead” already exists in these worlds.

    So does the role of Aunt Lydias, the Marthas, the econowives, the “unwoman”, etc.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  26. I encourage everyone to do a search on Page Petterson on You Tube. There is quite a collection of his messages…. my question is: Does this person really speak to the values of people in the SBC? Given the “internet age” we now live in, like it or not, these types of “messages” becme “larger than live”…. For example, I just watch the Page Patterson “ strip tease”….. is that whart SBC wants be know as?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  27. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    I encourage everyone to do a search on Page Petterson on You Tube.

    Just now did that a bit. Survived but barely. There is something wrong with this picture. He seems to be pulling the tottering old man routine. I am almost 10 years his senior, been his age but thankfully have not done that. If he is that bad off at his age there well may be something seriously wrong. Or not, of course. It may be just an act.

    I also got the impression that ‘because I said so’ is on his list of adequate reasons.

    For those who are still SBC but seriously unhappy, there is better to be had. Better to be had comes in several flavors, none of which are perfect, but several of which are better. Go for it.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  28. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    I encourage everyone to do a search on Page Petterson on You Tube. There is quite a collection of his messages…. my question is: Does this person really speak to the values of people in the SBC? Given the “internet age” we now live in, like it or not, these types of “messages” becme “larger than live”…. For example, I just watch the Page Patterson “ strip tease”….. is that whart SBC wants be know as?

    Precisely.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  29. I’ve never been long in a SB church because of all the continuing crises. It seems like something major comes around once every ten years. The one church I did attend for six months was a zoo-registered sex offender with keys to the church because he was a trustee (and he liked calling young women from the church directory at all hours, with heavy breathing), deacons who fought with each other all the time, people who showed up for meetings to yell at each other, but never attended services. One Sunday I drove into the parking lot, walked into the building, realized that my Sunday School room had again been turned into a storage room, and i fled. Never returned. SBs just seem to always need to fight, and can’t do a thing about anything or anyone until they have a crisis and are backed up against the wall. My current church isn’t perfect, but they don’t take potshots at members from the pulpit, and they do support women-and men-who have marital issues. They also have gone on record that they will make sure a woman is safe in any abusive situation. Single women-like me-also have significant ministry. I appreciate them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  30. This is just my Saturday morning musing, but I sit stunned at what is taking place in the SBC, the UMC, has taken place in the ELCA, what is going on in the RCC, and a whole plethora of Pentecostals in my own new home area.

    And I wonder. In some cases I wonder if there is truth in the allegations (false ones do happen at times.) So I try to tread lightly. But in other cases I wonder if our modern penchant for making church profitable through CCM, through celebrity book writers, through publishing houses of the various denoms seeking to turn a profit hasn’t filled us with the money changers.

    Just in the SBC the whole theology has changed at least twice in my lifetime. I’m speaking of what is officially published. I suspect once all the “just plain Baptist” stuff that could be sold did, dispensationalism got pushed to make money. And now it, at least the free grace portion of it, is not the “truth” anymore but Calvinism is. And I suspect when all the new study Bibles and commentaries and music and on and on have saturated the market, yet a new theology will pop up. And that is just the SBC. It is happening all over.

    And so I wonder sometimes also how long before there isn’t one stone of our nice buildings left on top of another. How long before believers everywhere fear for their lives and meet, if at all, in secret tiny groups with only the bare Word of God to study. Gone our beautiful liturgies, our books and celebrity Bibles and gotta have new translations and all the Jesus junk.

    Just saving faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing. No profit so the hucksters go away. Just simple faith. How long?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  31. Victorious wrote:

    NJ wrote:
    Paige Patterson or anyone else who thinks churches should be handling divorces, abuse, etc. is advocating for a Christian version of sharia courts or beth din.
    For sure….
    In this day of “Selective literalism”, we would do well to confront the “handle it in church” method of resolving abuse, with Romans 13. Physical assault/abuse is a crime in most states and if we believe Romans 13, the governing/state/civil/federal laws are ordained by God for the protection of citizens and to administer justice for breaking the law.
    If women begin to report abuse to the governing authorities per Romans 13, we might see a change in the number of abusers taking advantage of the “get out of jail free” card offered by some church leaders.

    This has been an ongoing point; true Biblical consistency on this renders unto Caesar what is due and recognizes civil realities. Here’s a recent post related to Patterson that fleshes this out further that I think could be useful in undermining the inconsistencies:

    Patterson’s 2018 statement references not recommending divorce because it’s not Biblical. We’ll come back to that one.

    In the 2009 TWW article what I found interesting was the same rationale apparently offered as it related to the Gilyard allegations. From the 2009 article: “‘We were dealing with a man of special gifts and talents,’ Dr. Patterson said. ‘I was unwilling to call anyone guilty until I had demonstrable evidence that these allegations were true.’ Dr. Patterson said that according to Scriptures, action cannot be taken against a minister accused of adultery unless there are two or more witnesses. He also asked for any other proof, such as photographs, videotapes or laboratory tests!”

    Thinking Biblically, I don’t believe the institutions which have been financing Patterson’s career during the times of the matters at hand are operating at a pre-Acts 6 organizational structure. Why is that significant? Because these institutions are by and large enmeshed with the state, from their 501(c)3 status to those gold-edged flags in the edifices — which it’s been contended puts them under admiralty law and thus under subjection to the state as the highest authority.

    You don’t get to cozy up to the state when it’s convenient for nest-feathering, only to turn solely to Biblical authority — with the church leader(s) as said enforcer — in matters that involve churchgoers who are also subject to local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Where is the acknowledgement from these oft-capricious authoritarians of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, or Romans 13 and Roman citizen Paul’s observing that the civil authorities not bearing the sword in vain?

    We can now circle back to Patterson’s 2018 statement referencing not recommending divorce because it’s not Biblical. His spin appears to be a colossal strawman to anyone with common sense, as a woman seeking his advice and guidance not only reported physical abuse but showed credible evidence of it. Unless physical assault is not a crime where he was pastoring (I’m admittedly not up on NeoCal seminary discipline methods), not directing her to the authorities (and perchance acting as a witness to what he’d seen and heard doesn’t ring true as far as being subject to civil authorities and rendering sufficiently unto Caesar. That’s especially if the case if his reported 2009 quote is accurate: “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”

    Additionally, I don’t see where the “special gifts and talents” of Gilyard or anyone else is supposed to factor into the civil duties of someone acting in authority at an institution enmeshed with the state. (Being affiliated or not with the state via 501c3 etc isn’t the issue, but the high degree of involvement further undercuts the excuse that these actions are bolstered by a truly Biblical approach.) Plus, what’s with all of these lawyers and spokesmen the authoritarians being into the situation? If they’re going to go the two-three witness route and leave it at that before considering involving the state or anyone from the outside, then why not rather be wronged than let it go to that per a proof-texted reading of 1 Cor. 6? The bottom line is they need to be called out for trying to have it both ways.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  32. ishy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Someone posted this on the last thread, and I thought it had some good information in it, was worth repeating:
    [NEW AUDIO] Paige Patterson to Victims: Don’t Take It To Court Or To The Press, Settle It In The Church
    https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/lost-audio-paige-patterson-to-victims-dont-take-it-to-court-or-to-the-press-settle-it-in-the-church/
    Which, after we’ve seen with the Gilyard crimes, means women are out of luck in ever getting anything “settled”.
    I noticed with that, Patterson claimed it needed “two or more witnesses”, but there were at least 5 women who tried to get Patterson to do something. So, he must believe that the “two or more witnesses” must also all be male.

    Yeah, if you want to talk about authoritarian cherry-picking at it’s worst, this certainly reeks of it.

    Patterson: “Lord, may we make up our minds that we won’t take our troubles to the press. We won’t take our troubles to the government. We won’t take our troubles anywhere except to the people of God and beyond that to the Lord Jesus.”

    So this leader (sic) appears to use Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 6 as the basis for what he presents as homebrew in-house authoritarian Biblical justice.

    The initial scenario describes both a relative equality of participants (brother to brother), and something in which an internal matter between two Christian siblings as it were had occurred. (For contrast, the Greek addition ‘eis se’ is widely translated “against you”). What is written in 1 Cor. 6 also corrrsponds to internal confrontation of a personal dispute or matter (Gr. pragma). In this case, the result of not going to an earthly authority appears to at worst represent someone being wronged (Gr. adikeisthe) or defrauded/cheated (Gr. apostereisthe).

    Context seems to strongly indicate personal tort matters between siblings as it were. Also adding perspective is the goal in Matthew 18 of being heard and gaining a brother, implying this is in large measure a matter of fellowship rather than uniform dispute settling of criminal matters. Again, looking at the end result, the penalty as it were in this case is a loss of fellowship (being treated as a heathen or tax collector). Does that sound like the way a criminal situation involving sexual assault would be settled?

    If you’re going to use Bibical counseling as it were, use the whole counsel. Throw in Romans 13 for the place of civil authority and being subject to those who do not bear the sword in vain. As pointed out, the law of the land in all 50 states is clear. The brother vs. brother matters in Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 6 do not negate the reality of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and submitting unto authorities. Whether people are members of a church or not, they’re members of a civil society and are subject to its laws and regulations. Another bonus is that most churches subject their entities to governmental authority, from their tax-evading status down to the gold-trimmed flags likely on premises, which if I’m not mistaken is a signal of subjection to admiralty law and civil authority. So you’re going to do that in one instance, but act like you’re a Christian tribunal justice dispensary excising other acknowledged authority in another?

    Simply put, you can’t cherry-pick per your interpretation of Scripture as an excuse to evade the administration of justice by applicable authority. This circles back to the issues with personal-take “Biblical” counseling setups where once again, latitude is too often given for authority can be whatever one personally interprets chosen verses to be, which of course can lead to spiritual abuse. (Of course, to be sure, I need to check with whatever spiritual leader [sic] at the local Christian-labeled tax-free entity I’m told to subsidize per an old covenant/Mosaic law proscription in order not to forsake what they tell me the assembly is. They might have a divergent opinion and exert discipline.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  33. I’m going to ask this question, because I honestly don’t know the answer, and, frankly, I don’t want to have to get that much down into the weeds on this question, but…

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    Just Wondering, your friendly neighborhood heretic.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  34. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    For example, I just watch the Page Patterson “ strip tease”….. is that whart SBC wants be know as?

    I just watched that video. It’s hard to believe that actually happened, anywhere. I was so relieved when he stopped with the jacket.

    I’ve heard people mention the video from CBMW in 2000, where Patterson makes some comments on women. Does someone have a link to that video? I can’t find it.

    It’s amazing to an outsider like me how long Burleson has been fighting the battle, and with such clarity.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  35. @ drstevej:

    “If husbands love their wives as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, then a watching world might draw different conclusions about Christ.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    i’m sure you mean well, but…. they all say that.

    All the John Pipers, Paige Pattersons, Doug Wilsons, Bruce Wares, Owen Strachans, and all the many christian leaders who deny women personhood and agency. whether directly or indirectly.

    i loathe this verse. it means absolutely nothing anymore. it is a clever tool in the hand of a benevolent dictator. and his lackeys.

    leave it to (many) male christian leaders and their egos, whether outsized or fragile, to redefine everything to protect their domain.

    (I don’t necessarily mean you. don’t know enough about you.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  36. drstevej wrote:

    If husbands love their wives as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, then a watching world might draw different conclusions about Christ.

    This isn’t enough.

    First of all, most husbands don’t love their wives like Christ loved the church.

    Second, this omits all the women who are not married, be they girl children, single (by choice or not), divorced or widowed.

    We need MORE than just “husbands love your wives like Christ loved the church.” We need what Jesus said, which was (paraphrase) Love God and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself. (Mark 12:30-31)

    Basically, women need to be respected and loved for who we are, not because we’re a daughter or a sister or a wife or a mother. But just because we’re human beings and just as worthy of love as any man. Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  37. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    We need MORE than just “husbands love your wives like Christ loved the church.” We need what Jesus said, which was (paraphrase) Love God and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself. (Mark 12:30-31)

    Basically, women need to be respected and loved for who we are, not because we’re a daughter or a sister or a wife or a mother. But just because we’re human beings and just as worthy of love as any man. Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.

    Exactly!!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  38. JDV wrote:

    Thinking Biblically, I don’t believe the institutions which have been financing Patterson’s career during the times of the matters at hand are operating at a pre-Acts 6 organizational structure. Why is that significant? Because these institutions are by and large enmeshed with the state, from their 501(c)3 status to those gold-edged flags in the edifices — which it’s been contended puts them under admiralty law and thus under subjection to the state as the highest authority.

    “Biblically” or “Sovereign Citizen Kookarama”?
    (Ask Judge Tim about his run-ins with Sovereign Citizen types…)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  39. JDV wrote:

    Simply put, you can’t cherry-pick per your interpretation of Scripture as an excuse to evade the administration of justice by applicable authority

    Or “Biblical” means “Heads I Win, TAILS YOU LOSE!”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  40. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    “Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?”
    +++++++++++++

    well, they’ve been believing in square circles and seeing them as triangles for so long i don’t think they’re capable of enough rational thought beyond “why would you even ask such a silly question?”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  41. Don’t miss this Terry Mattingly article, or the podcast embedded in it:
    https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2018/5/5/southern-baptists-domestic-violence-and-divorce-will-sbc-18-be-a-must-cover-press-event#

    EXCERPT: The seminary, which instructs women not to teach men and offers them classes in homemaking, this week fired a PhD seminary student from his $40,000-a-year job for simply tweeting about the Patterson debate, telling him that he was “indiscreet” and that his decision to speak publicly about the dispute “does not exhibit conduct becoming a follower of Jesus” and shows he was not properly deferring to “those placed in authority over you.”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  42. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    I have never heard anybody say, but they just might be enticed by the LDS idea that for eternity to be actualized, or some such idea, the husband must put his hand through the curtain and draw the wife through-if he chooses to. When the wall between LDS and some folks started to seem to get less tall I began to wonder about this.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  43. @ dee:

    I think they will let him do his SBC speech, give him a standing ovation which will make my head explode, and then he will ride off into the sunset, sitting in his fancy, paid for mansion, laughing his head off.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    can we pool money for a billboard near the convention site and emblazon something like,

    You can stay seated for the manufactured standing ovation, you know.

    Step 1. Find your conscience.

    Step 2. Find the courage of your convictions.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  44. Daisy wrote:

    Jesus Christ said his followers are not to lord authority over one another, and complementarianism is in contradiction to this, because they twist Paul’s teachings to mean all husbands (and some comps teach all men) are allowed to rule over (have authority over) their wives or all women.

    “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women [or Men] ‘Rule’,” particularly when Scripture is twisted to be the enforcer (false teaching) by poser spiritual leaders (false shepherds).

    2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

    2 Peter 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

    Answer:
    1 – Love God first.
    2 – Love one’s neighbor as oneself.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  45. @ elastigirl:

    You can stay seated for the manufactured standing ovation, you know.

    Step 1. Find your conscience.

    Step 2. Find the courage of your convictions.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    …i mean, it’s laughable, isn’t it? when courage amounts to not standing for a contrived standing ovation.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  46. @ Wade Burleson:
    I might also add, on what authority does “Dr” Paige Patterson proclaim all of his opinions, and contol “his” seminary?
    While I am not in a GARBC church any more, they would have thought SBC was to liberal to associate with… they would have blow a fuse over his “strip tease” .. so, if I were a pious GARBC “leader” I would not respect Paige Patterson….
    All of the prancing around exhibiting their “authority” (many, many different flavors of christainity claim they have the “true” authority)
    would be funny if it did not hurt so many people… when will pew peons stop giving all of these clowns such respect…. ??

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  47. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    PS… The picture of Paige Paterson with dead cheeta is pretty bad also….. If I were a SBC member I would be pretty disgusted by the whole situation, oh, and the “stained” glass would be the last straw…. ever heard of “graven images”??

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  48. @ dee:

    “So, how long do you think he has before he is forced out?”
    ++++++++++++++++

    …and another billboard:

    So, who pissed on Paige Patterson and said “MINE” in a power grab for his domain?

    It was never about concern for women, was it.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  49. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    When I was a missionary, I asked an SBC missionary friend how they could tolerate all the disorder (back 30 years ago when it all about the Battle for the Bible and not allowing charismatic gifts). The answer I got was,
    “We really don’t pay much attention; we just keep on because there is always ‘something’ to worry about.”

    Until she and her husband were called home from the mission field due to a severely crashing SBC budget.

    They just don’t seem to pay much attention, and the higher ups don’t seem to pay much attention to their churches, either. They are the only denomination with its own predator web site (Stop Baptist Predators). It’s not that other denominations/mega churches/small independent churches don’t have problems, but the SBC seems to have it’s head in the sand most of the time until there is an underground nuclear detonation and they suddenly need to pay attention.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  50. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I’m going to ask this question, because I honestly don’t know the answer, and, frankly, I don’t want to have to get that much down into the weeds on this question, but…
    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?
    Just Wondering, your friendly neighborhood heretic.

    Good q; I would assume they intellectually go with the ‘neither male nor female’ perspective as far as it concerns the believe/confess/repent path. From there, though, it appears to be a matter of discipleship, and some seem to affirm a “girls is weaker/bad so they need more shepherding” path.

    On the thou art the man blog this week, there are primary documents in which church discipline is being meted out by letter on a woman concerning marriage troubles, complete with the pastor of per the letterhead “a reformed and Southern Baptist church” pointing to Scripture here and there. Here’s a line from the first letter pushing for marriage reconciliation of an apparently abusive situation: “this is not just your marriage; this is your soul that is at risk!” As you’ll see (and can read further in the article), consistent application to both parties of standards of conduct is not clear and evident:

    https://thouarttheman.org/2018/04/24/arbca-pastors-middle-sexual-abuse-cover/

    The pastor wrote in the letter to the wife: “There is no provision for divorce for you in this passage. Two things would both have to be true for this to apply: number one, Logan would have to be an unbeliever (and you do not get to decide this issue – – only God, Logan, and the church as a whole are granted such authority) and also number two, Logan would have to be the one who departed; i.e. He would have to have left. Neither of these is true, let alone both. For you to read into this passage something else, something which it does not teach, is to make your imagination the rule of your life instead of God’s plan Word.”

    The pastor adds: “for if you persist in ignoring God’s Word, and insist on creating your own standard to live by, you may prove yourself to be the one who is adjudged an unbeliever who has departed from the marriage.”

    This is while according to the same pastor in this letter as I read it, the husband doesn’t automatically get cast as someone who is salvation is in jeopardy or is an unbeliever. Rather he is called in this context a “husband who does not obey God’s Word”. Again, this is all the same letter, and the husband in question already has been deemed by the pastor as not an unbeliever – – adding that it is God, the husband as well as this guy’s “church as a whole” that is “granted such authority” to “decide this issue”.

    This is while per the other information in the article, the husband was reportedly abusing her in various ways, which by this pastors definition would actually make him potentially an unbeliever, right? This is especially the case if being an unbeliever is something that be ‘adjudged’ post-church membership (let alone actual salvation moment and relationship between God and believer), complete with souls being at risk, no? And if so, a whole other reading of applicable Scripture comes into play regarding marriage and unbelievers (or believers-turned-unbelievers by church decree, or so the implication is), no? Despite the contention by the pastor of clarity in this situation, I’m finding quite the opposite.

    Bearing all this in mind, check your blood pressure while this pastor (sic) delivers the following regarding a “husband who does not obey God’s word”. After noting how Christ didn’t return insults or threats when he suffered, the pastor quotes 1st Peter 2:23 — 3:1 about being submissive to husbands. Interestingly enough, what is written about believers and unbelievers in 1st Corinthian 7 as well as the peace matter in verses 15 somehow doesn’t come up, despite his references of the chapter elsewhere in the letter.

    The pastor surmises: “if you found your marriage difficult, hard to bear, and unjust, then you found yourself in the same position as Christ”, adding that “God calls you to bear it as Christ did”. He even speaks about God’s “clear command “in this instance, while the guy appears to have made this anything but clear as far as believers, unbelievers, and consistent application of discipline and accountability.

    So back to the original question about how men and women are saved, when you get someone like this with what he intimates about adjudging a member’s salvation — all while wielding authority in the manner shown, all I can say is what shipwrecks can occur when accountability and oversight are eschewed and spiritual authority is abused.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  51. ION: Cooking

    Well, the chocolate crème patissière with caramel in was a bit of a disaster. The caramel really spoiled it.

    Sigh. As if my interstitial glucose management weren’t complicated enough today.

    IHTIH

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  52. elastigirl wrote:

    @ drstevej:

    “If husbands love their wives as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, then a watching world might draw different conclusions about Christ.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    i’m sure you mean well, but…. they all say that.

    All the John Pipers, Paige Pattersons, Doug Wilsons, Bruce Wares, Owen Strachans, and all the many christian leaders who deny women personhood and agency. whether directly or indirectly.

    i loathe this verse. it means absolutely nothing anymore. it is a clever tool in the hand of a benevolent dictator. and his lackeys.

    leave it to (many) male christian leaders and their egos, whether outsized or fragile, to redefine everything to protect their domain.

    (I don’t necessarily mean you. don’t know enough about you.)

    Well said.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  53. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    Honey, I’m a baptist, and I’m not sure if they even believe women have souls!!!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  54. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
    For example, I just watch the Page Patterson “ strip tease”….. is that whart SBC wants be know as?
    I just watched that video. It’s hard to believe that actually happened, anywhere. I was so relieved when he stopped with the jacket.

    Whatcha reckon would happen if a woman did that???

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  55. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    I really think they do believe it’s different. Consider these quotes from Bruce Ware’s article “Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God” in the Spring 2002 issue of the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:

    “I will here propose that it may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made image of God first, in an unmediated fashion, as God formed him from the dust of the ground, while the female was made image of God second, in a mediated fashion, as God chose, not more earth, but the very rib of Adam by which he would create the woman fully and equally the image of God. So while both are *fully* image of God and both are *equally* image of God, it may be the case that both are not constituted as the image of God in the identical way. Scripture gives some clues that there is a God-intended temporal priority bestowed upon the man as the original image of God, through whom the woman, as image of God formed from the male, comes to be. …
    The female’s becoming the image of God through the male indicates a God-intended sense of her reliance upon him, as particularly manifest in the home and community of faith.”

    In contrast to Genesis 1:27 —
    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  56. Just got my Spring 2018 Southwestern News in the mail.

    I only took one course there. There is Woman-to-Woman Connection Tea at 3PM Free to the first 1,000 attendees (swbts.edu/tea@3). Might be a fun picket event. There is a concert featuring favorites of the President on Friday 4/20 (free tickets at swbts.edu/gala). Lots of articles written by Katie Coleman and Julie Owen.

    That’s it. It’s now in the trash.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  57. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?
    Just Wondering, your friendly neighborhood heretic.

    Well, ***k knows what they believe about how Jesus saves women. More generally, what does patriarchy imply about how Jesus saves women… and actually, what does it say about Jesus’ ability to save at all? Though ESS is frowned on, it’s by no means dead, and it certainly doesn’t stop men (and women, come to that) believing in the eternal subordination of women.

    One of the first recorded things Jesus praught in a synagogue (and perhaps the first) was that he was anointed to preach good news to the poor, and freedom for the captives and the oppressed. He didn’t say that he was anointed to preach more “loving” masters for the captives and the oppressed. So, to my mind, a very important question about anyone’s good news is: for whom, exactly, is this good news? Is it just an opiate for the masses, making them satisfied with less while a corrupt God makes the rich richer and defends them their victims?

    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves. I think that male supremacists believe Jesus wasn’t saving anybody to any great effect, but was just ushering in a golden age of old testament kingdom. In it, he has conveniently freed them from the tedious obligations of the ceremonial law and all its blood sacrifices, whilst arming them with a more commodious Law whose only real effect is that everyone has to obey them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  58. jyjames wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    “spiritual authority?”

    Jesus.

    Well, all authority belongs to Jesus 😉

    No leader/preacher/pastor/ holds spiritual authority over anyone, contrary to what many of them believe.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  59. ishy wrote:

    Hard to believe someone thinks they are falsely accused of things he said on a recording that is still publicly available…

    It makes me wonder whether he’s thinking about running for an openly secular political office.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  60. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves. I think that male supremacists believe Jesus wasn’t saving anybody to any great effect, but was just ushering in a golden age of old testament kingdom. In it, he has conveniently freed them from the tedious obligations of the ceremonial law and all its blood sacrifices, whilst arming them with a more commodious Law whose only real effect is that everyone has to obey them.

    I don’t think they are thinking about heaven at all. Most of the patriarchists I’ve met have very little imagination, so everything is about appeasing themselves here and now.

    I do think much of the leadership of the multiple patriarchy groups is made of men who have undiagnosed NPD. It makes me wonder if that is why they are so against any sort of counseling that might not be created by them–they might be confronted with their own personality disorders.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  61. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    a corrupt God makes the rich richer and defends them their victims?

    erratum: That should have read, a corrupt God makes the rich richer and defends them from their victims.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  62. drstevej wrote:

    Just got my Spring 2018 Southwestern News in the mail.

    I only took one course there. There is Woman-to-Woman Connection Tea at 3PM Free to the first 1,000 attendees (swbts.edu/tea@3). Might be a fun picket event. There is a concert featuring favorites of the President on Friday 4/20 (free tickets at swbts.edu/gala). Lots of articles written by Katie Coleman and Julie Owen.

    That’s it. It’s now in the trash.

    Mine never makes it into the house. It goes from the mailbox to the trash barrel, never open….I stopped when the News quit publishing the 3-4 pages of where and what alumni were doing….I was always amazed at people I attended seminary with who did something outside the church realm. Maybe that’s why only ” big shots” are discussed now?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  63. emily honey wrote:

    Being a Handmaid intellectually and emotionally…spiritually… for “Gilead” already exists in these worlds.

    So does the role of Aunt Lydias, the Marthas, the econowives, the “unwoman”, etc.

    There’s a gap of understanding on my part.
    Even when I went to church, this level of authoritarian control was something I never experienced.

    I have no idea what an “Aunty Lydia” or “unwoman” is.

    Until reading this here, I thought this was the realm of cults like Warren Jeffs bunch.

    It’s a travesty that only southern Baptists themselves can undo. If they want to.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  64. @ emr:

    So by that logic, and going from the timeline they are using in Genesis 2, does that mean the earth is more important than Man, since man was made from it (and will return to it)? Contextually, that narrative comes right after Adam names the animals, and none of them were deemed an appropriate companion. So God fashions a creature that is a perfect match – Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh = equality. Never mind the fact that most of the time the word “helper” is used to describe God in the OT.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  65. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Just Wondering, your friendly neighborhood heretic.

    I meant to sign off, Just speculating, your friendly neighbourhood agnostic

    Just checking in from the heavenly neighborhood — your friendly neighborhood neighbor.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  66. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves.

    I took a Seminary class entitled Roles and Responsibilities and the topic one morning was the “women’s issue.” The professor’s not a bad dude, though he labeled himself a “soft patriarch” (men have authority but they should always be passing it on to others. It sounds like rubbish IMO). I brought up ESS and how it’s being applied to male-female relationships. It’s a Church of Christ school and most of these guys had never heard of it. I forget the exact dialogue of the conversation, but one guy basically said, “But it doesn’t matter if you have to submit in heaven because in heaven everyone’s going to be happy.” These guys were all almost a decade younger than me and had never thought outside their self-absorbed early 20s bubble. Nevertheless, I was really riled up at this point and said that none of them could possibly understand how hurtful it is to be told you’re second class citizens and will one day be magically happy about it. All that to say, I don’t think a lot of people are being taught to imagine what it’s like to be in someone else’s shoes, whether it’s gender, race, nationality, etc.

    I would like to add that other than that discussion, the seminary is very woman friendly considering they’re Church of Christ. I’m excited to see what happens when I take my preaching classes!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  67. @ K.D.:

    I’m a female seminary grad. I couldn’t find a job that made enough for me to live on here in Silicon Valley, and we won’t even talk about retirement. I went back to teaching “regular” school, and realized that I would have missed out on a much bigger ministry. I’ve known other seminary grads to tell me the same thing (both men and women)-they were able to do more in a “secular” job.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  68. JDV wrote:

    hy is that significant? Because these institutions are by and large enmeshed with the state, from their 501(c)3 status to those gold-edged flags in the edifices — which it’s been contended puts them under admiralty law and thus under subjection to the state as the highest authority.

    *off topic for the most part*

    I have to call this out as complete and utter nonsense. (I’d use stronger language if it were permitted.) I have a Juris Doctor and we never talked about admiralty law because it was like patent law, not generally relevant to what an average lawyer does on a day to day basis. I was five years out of law school when a sovereign citizen tried that gold fringe argument on me. And I sat for two weeks last October on a jury in Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton’s courtroom, where the very large flag does not have a gold fringe on it.

    Not casting aspersions on any commenter, but I would advise people to check their information and ideas if someone pushes what are basically nutbar sovereign citizen arguments. This is unfortunately something I now know quite a bit about, and I can tell you the arguments don’t hold water.

    I’d also note that unlike other 501(c)3 organizations, churches do not have to file tax returns with the IRS, which are then available for review. That’s why Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Focus on the Family have converted themselves into churches. This is hardly state oppression.

    **back on topic, sorry for the derail, folks, but sovereign citizen nuttery never gets a pass from me.**

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  69. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Honey, I’m a baptist, and I’m not sure if they even believe women have souls!!!

    Oh. Well, that’s a depressing thought.

    Maybe framing the question a different way: “Does Jesus redeem from the sin of Eve?”

    The way these guys act, you’d think Jesus redeems from the sin of Adam, hell and the grave, but the sin of Eve? That is a bridge too far, it appears. Because a lot of their belief about the role of women latches on to verses like 1 Ti 2:14, where it says women aren’t allowed to speak in churches because Eve was deceived and Adam was not.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  70. Jerome wrote:

    CBMW article, “The Gospel and Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091010031026/http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-Gospel-and-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood

    “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband.”

    *rolls eyes* I went and read this blog article and I was completely unconvinced. This guy seems to think that Paul has his letters planned out in his head and he wasn’t writing them on the spur of the moment based on information he’d received from/about the church he’d planted. *yeah I am not an inerrantist, letting my freak flag fly here*

    Moreover, he turns Ephesians 5:22-23 into something that a wife has to follow in order to be saved. This is adding to the good news of God reconciling the world to himself through Jesus. It says, in addition to belief in Jesus, you also have to be submissive to your husband. That’s not part of the Gospel. It’s just not.

    This is what happens when you take the Bible as a book to be riffled through to look for proof texts to handcuff people instead of living in the freedom of Christ.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  71. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    JDV wrote:
    hy is that significant? Because these institutions are by and large enmeshed with the state, from their 501(c)3 status to those gold-edged flags in the edifices — which it’s been contended puts them under admiralty law and thus under subjection to the state as the highest authority.
    *off topic for the most part*
    I have to call this out as complete and utter nonsense. (I’d use stronger language if it were permitted.) I have a Juris Doctor and we never talked about admiralty law because it was like patent law, not generally relevant to what an average lawyer does on a day to day basis. I was five years out of law school when a sovereign citizen tried that gold fringe argument on me. And I sat for two weeks last October on a jury in Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton’s courtroom, where the very large flag does not have a gold fringe on it.
    Not casting aspersions on any commenter, but I would advise people to check their information and ideas if someone pushes what are basically nutbar sovereign citizen arguments. This is unfortunately something I now know quite a bit about, and I can tell you the arguments don’t hold water.
    I’d also note that unlike other 501(c)3 organizations, churches do not have to file tax returns with the IRS, which are then available for review. That’s why Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Focus on the Family have converted themselves into churches. This is hardly state oppression.
    **back on topic, sorry for the derail, folks, but sovereign citizen nuttery never gets a pass from me.**

    I didn’t mention it to endorse it, but brought it up to point out that if they’re going for personal versions of authority whileeibing enmeshed with the state, they should take that to its conclusion. They’re the ones customizing authority as it suits them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  72. @ Jack:

    Aunts, unwomen, handmaids, etc.: Those are some of the main categories and roles of women in the Handmaid’s Tale. If you look up the synopsis of the Hulu series or book, you will likely find a list of different categories and characters that will explain each one.

    At a subtle level, women in these patriarchal worlds are living out those roles in some way already. Obviously not as extreme and graphic as the series or book, but the underlying themes and social psych world is still there. More so women play these roles on the emotional, intellectual, spiritual level. Maybe subconsciously.

    I would say minus the graphic violence and sexual utilitarianism altogether, but as we know especially evidenced in the past week – that’s actually a reality for some women behind closed doors in these worlds as well.

    I have seen Handmaid’s Tale mentioned multiple times in the past few threads – and was more so just jumping off your comment.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  73. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Moreover, he turns Ephesians 5:22-23 into something that a wife has to follow in order to be saved. This is adding to the good news of God reconciling the world to himself through Jesus. It says, in addition to belief in Jesus, you also have to be submissive to your husband. That’s not part of the Gospel. It’s just not.

    Yes. This is how many preachers present scripture . . . with their personally added opinions to what the text actually says. What is concerning is that they don’t seem to realize that they are even doing this. And they add their thoughts out of context to the who, what, when, where, why of the actual readers at the time of writing.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  74. Linn wrote:

    @ K.D.:

    I’m a female seminary grad. I couldn’t find a job that made enough for me to live on here in Silicon Valley, and we won’t even talk about retirement. I went back to teaching “regular” school, and realized that I would have missed out on a much bigger ministry. I’ve known other seminary grads to tell me the same thing (both men and women)-they were able to do more in a “secular” job.

    Amen! I taught public high school for 30 years. The district I spent most of my career, I literally believe God sent me to. I never applied for the position and wound up teaching government \ economics there.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  75. Catherine Martin wrote:

    Why does my name have a Canadian flag beside it? I like Canadians

    Well it’s like this. We use a plug in for WordPress blogs to generate the flag. And that plugin does a lookup of where your IP address is located. But there is no official list of IPs by geography. There are just various lists maintained by people as they have time. And things change a lot over time. So at times the IP address you’re using will indicate to locate you somewhere you are not.

    Toss in proxy servers, VPNs, large institutional setups which have their own way of routing internally and the flags may be off at time.

    GBTC

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  76. My personal position on this is very clear to me. Whether or not I want to do a particular job or fill a particular role, or am capable in whatever ways are required to do such tasks, I won’t be associated with any group or person that says, “You can’t do that because you’re a woman.” There are plenty of jobs I can’t do or qualify for due to my personal abilities. But I can’t think of a single job that no woman could qualify for – even the most physical. I live in an area prone to wildfires and there have been two nearby since I moved here. Both of the heads of the firefighting efforts were women, who’d worked their way up the ranks. They were seriously tough women. I can’t tell you how much respect I have for them.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  77. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    The following provides some insight into the thinking of such men:

    “It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion.” – Bruce Ware

    Since women are mere derivatives of men, would it then follow that female believers enjoy a lesser salvation than men? Of course not!! Galatians 3:28 sets that straight; in the Kingdom of God, there is to be no distinction in race, class or gender.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  78. @ Cindy Meyers:

    “Just saw this glimmer of hope from the heart of a well-known Christian Leader…

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apology-beth-moore-sisters/
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Thabiti says: “I do now commit to being a more outspoken champion for my sisters and for you personally.”

    I wonder if that means calling out christian leaders by name regardless of the risk it poses to himself.

    remarkable what amounts to ‘risk’ for American christian leaders.

    (i’ll be forever amazed at how dainty male christian leaders are where right and wrong are concerned.)

    however, i truly appreciated his sincerity. we’ll see.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  79. I was young and now am old. I’ve observed many strange things on planet earth. I’ve often pondered how it is that goobers can maneuver their way to high offices.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  80. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I’m going to ask this question, because I honestly don’t know the answer, and, frankly, I don’t want to have to get that much down into the weeds on this question, but…

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    Just Wondering, your friendly neighborhood heretic.

    Why don’t you try asking a different question. Something like this:
    In most religions, and especially Christianity, there is an evil antagonist. What if any goal, or focus,does he have towards women?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  81. Jerome wrote:

    CBMW article, “The Gospel and Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091010031026/http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-Gospel-and-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood

    “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband.”

    Some folks find it difficult to navigate life without a subordinate (group). After Civil Rights had its way, the Entitled moved on to target women. How convenient then to form a theology to fit their psyche or ineptitute or neediness masking as …. a calling of God? a work of the Spirit? the ESS of Jesus.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  82. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    One of the first recorded things Jesus praught in a synagogue (and perhaps the first) was that he was anointed to preach good news to the poor, and freedom for the captives and the oppressed. He didn’t say that he was anointed to preach more “loving” masters for the captives and the oppressed. So, to my mind, a very important question about anyone’s good news is: for whom, exactly, is this good news? Is it just an opiate for the masses, making them satisfied with less while a corrupt God makes the rich richer and defends them their victims?

    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves. I think that male supremacists believe Jesus wasn’t saving anybody to any great effect, but was just ushering in a golden age of old testament kingdom. In it, he has conveniently freed them from the tedious obligations of the ceremonial law and all its blood sacrifices, whilst arming them with a more commodious Law whose only real effect is that everyone has to obey them.

    Step into power and take over the world – at least the wife’s world, the congregants’ world, the neighbor next door’s world. (As opposed to love your neighbor as yourself, rule.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  83. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Maybe framing the question a different way: “Does Jesus redeem from the sin of Eve?”

    Adam, Adam, it’s all about Adam……. The sin of Adam.
    Many will say that Eve was deceived because Adam did not lead. Given that line of thinking, they should admit that the fall of man happened before they ate the fruit because Adam sinned in failing to lead Eve!!! Adam is doubly guilty, therefore, ahem, women should lead!!!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  84. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Nathan Priddis:

    i like Muslin’s question better.

    Yes, but you’ll never be able to get to an answer.
    The type of people named are in a separate category. They are different and need to be looked at differently.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  85. Bridget wrote:

    That article is a sad summary of a group of men who believe they have authority over everyone in their sphere. Authoritarianism is a huge problem in the Church. It’s one reason I no longer attend a brick and mortar gathering.

    I am sick to death of it myself. Enough! There needs to be repentance and sorrow. But as long as these little men-kings are holding on to their pulpits, I don’t think it will happen.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  86. jyjames wrote:

    “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband.” (CBMW)

    We have to remember at the root of such statements is reformed belief and practice. To the New Calvinists, Calvinism = Gospel. They in essence are saying “At a very significant level, Calvinism applies to women differently than it does to men.” Complementarianism is a cornerstone of New Calvinist identity. Thus, don’t expect any other song and dance from CBMW, TGC and T4G … Calvinism and complementarity are two peas in the same bad pod.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  87. one of the little people wrote:

    There needs to be repentance and sorrow. But as long as these little men-kings are holding on to their pulpits, I don’t think it will happen.

    Interesting how Americans understand that the historic State Churches of Europe were not representative of the Gospel but Americans cannot seem to understand that their own men-king church dynasties are equally not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one king – Jesus.

    Americans don’t see it. Americans rally round their false shepherds with their false teachings.

    Thank God Americans cut their missionary budgets; why should they spread their false teaching around the world. (Men-kings, however, now go overseas for big game hunting trophies.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  88. Max wrote:

    We have to remember at the root of such statements is reformed belief and practice.

    Max, what does “reformed” mean? (Honest question.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  89. Max wrote:

    Complementarianism is a cornerstone of New Calvinist identity.

    IMHO, Complementarianism is also the cornerstone of the SBC Conservative Resurgence identify! I have watched it unfold through the eyes of one of the subjugated.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  90. Nathan Priddis wrote:

    Why don’t you try asking a different question. Something like this:
    In most religions, and especially Christianity, there is an evil antagonist. What if any goal, or focus,does he have towards women?

    This is good.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  91. jyjames wrote:

    Max wrote:

    We have to remember at the root of such statements is reformed belief and practice.

    Max, what does “reformed” mean? (Honest question.)

    I honestly do not agree that this is mainly a reformed/Calvinist issue. (Before the blistering retorts, please remember that I wrote a 10 page thesis defending Pelagius.)

    This runs deeper than Calvinism (though it may be fueling the fire.) But there’s no one here who can say that there wasn’t sexism among the Baptists (or any other denomination) before the Neo Cal revisions.

    I think the question posed that basically asked “where is the enemy going with this, what is the end game?” is the most significant (outside of calling out the actual abuse the relieve the victims immediately.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  92. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Do these guys–the Pattersons, the Mohlers, the Chandlers, the Moores, the Mahaneys, the Pipers, the MacArthurs–all of them, do they think Jesus saves women in the same way he saves men? Or is salvation for women different somehow?

    I’m not sure but I’ve seen some complementarians argue that husband is responsible for his wife before God (for her salvation or sins?), which is totally foreign to the Bible.

    The Bible says each person is responsible to God for him or herself, and that there is only ONE mediator between humanity and God the Father, and that is Jesus, not a husband or other earthly, purely human male figure.

    Also, if you are a comp who thinks a woman needs a husband to represent her to God in the great here-after, what do you do with the women who never married, such as me?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  93. @ emr:

    Owen Strachan, he of the sacred testosterone, seemed to be arguing a similar thing, as quoted by someone on a previous thread on this blog (they quoted a long excerpt by him, which was, I think, taken from ‘Relevant’ magazine?)

    Some of these complementarians will go to any length to de-humanize women, in order to justify their male authority and privileged positions – it is very creepy.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  94. ishy wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves. I think that male supremacists believe Jesus wasn’t saving anybody to any great effect, but was just ushering in a golden age of old testament kingdom. In it, he has conveniently freed them from the tedious obligations of the ceremonial law and all its blood sacrifices, whilst arming them with a more commodious Law whose only real effect is that everyone has to obey them.
    I don’t think they are thinking about heaven at all. Most of the patriarchists I’ve met have very little imagination, so everything is about appeasing themselves here and now.
    I do think much of the leadership of the multiple patriarchy groups is made of men who have undiagnosed NPD. It makes me wonder if that is why they are so against any sort of counseling that might not be created by them–they might be confronted with their own personality disorders.

    Good point.

    If you’ve not read it, please consider reading “Why Does He Do That” by author Lundy Bancroft, and tell me if parts of how abusive husbands does not remind you of the same attitudes and arguments used by male complementarians. I just finished re-reading that book a few days ago, and I was astonished at how similar the arguments and attitudes between your average complementarians and abusive husbands are.

    Which is not to say all comp men abuse their wives, but, their justifications they use to hold on to authority over women is the same. Even among the “nice” ones.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  95. Jerome wrote:

    CBMW article, “The Gospel and Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20091010031026/http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-Gospel-and-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood
    “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband.”

    To get a more complete picture, here is the full intro paragraph from the CBMW archived web page you were citing:

    From CBMW’s site, by John Starke:

    A good question to ask in order to gauge the importance of an issue is, “How closely related is this issue to the Gospel?” Some would probably accuse me of hijacking the Gospel if I related it too closely to gender issues.

    After all, gender has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, or substitutionary atonement. Being egalitarian or complementarian is not something that determines our eternal destiny as adopted children of God.

    Praise God this is true! Yet, a more penetrating question may be, “Do we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” In my opinion, the overwhelming answer is Yes.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  96. Preacher’s Wife wrote:

    I forget the exact dialogue of the conversation, but one guy basically said, “But it doesn’t matter if you have to submit in heaven because in heaven everyone’s going to be happy.”

    This is one of the standard presentations I’ve heard American complementarian preachers use, when I see them on television, and they do their annoying, nauseating marriage sermons –

    Every time such preachers get to the “wife, submit” Biblical passage, they get uneasy, twitch, try to make a joke out of it, but ultimately tell any women listening something like this (to make it go down easier):

    “Sure you have to submit to your husband, but ladies, if your husband is loving you the way Christ loves the church, you won’t mind a bit! It will be delightful.”

    Unilateral submission based on an inborn trait such as biological sex is never delightful. It’s demeaning and sexist.

    But putting that aside, what if the husband is abusive to the wife and does not love her the way the Christ loves the church?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  97. Rachel wrote:

    I live in an area prone to wildfires and there have been two nearby since I moved here. Both of the heads of the firefighting efforts were women, who’d worked their way up the ranks. They were seriously tough women. I can’t tell you how much respect I have for them.

    Presumably, the godly male firefighters in the service prevent wildfires by rejecting homosexuality and the false authority of the women “over” them, so that God isn’t forced to send wildfires in judgement.

    </joke>

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  98. jyjames wrote:

    Where does one request a particular flag, please?

    It can be done, though it’s not foolproof. You have to think like a software developer.

    That is to say, go on google.

    It generally involves masking your IP address. More often than not, this is done for dishonest purposes (by spammers and hackers, for instance). Christians could in theory do it to change their Wartburg Flag, but that’s a bit like Christians attempting to produce “christian” rock music. Rock music is fundamentally of the devil and playing it for any reason could cause you to become demon-possessed. Only tacky tent-crusade organ music is holy.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  99. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It can be done, though it’s not foolproof. You have to think like a software developer.

    Or you can take gruelling road trips through various borders…

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  100. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Or you can take gruelling road trips through various borders…

    Och aye, that too.

    When we were in Austria a few summers back, my Wartburg Flag became Austrian.

    Incidentally, “och, aye” is a Thing. But “och aye, the noo” is not.

    IHTIH

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  101. Daisy wrote:

    I’m not sure but I’ve seen some complementarians argue that husband is responsible for his wife before God (for her salvation or sins?), which is totally foreign to the Bible.

    Many do believe this. It has to do with the “covenant”. They covenant their families to the faith, not individually.

    Being responsible to God is not all that important to them. Being “covenanted” and proving that covenant by listening to their preaching is.

    It really seems to me more of a theology to promote their cult leaders, as those are similar tactics of cults. I think the theology was made to cater to the whims of the leaders much more than have anything to do with the Bible. They just use the Bible as their convenient excuse to recruit gullible churchy followers.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  102. Jerome wrote (quoting a “C””B”MW article):

    “At a very significant level, the Gospel applies to a wife differently than it does to her husband.”

    This captures, really well, the perversion of the word “gospel” by the widespread counterfeit church that is so dominant today. By “gospel”, they do not mean good news; it isn’t news of any kind at all. It’s nothing more than religious law. Preaching this “gospel” is nothing more than spreading an ideology that demands its pound of flesh. It makes a few half-baked promises in return, but all it’s ever really after is that pound of flesh.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  103. In fact, the following advice attributed to Jerome from the 4th/5th century is as pertinent now as it ever was:

    Avoid, as you would the plague, a clergyman who, from being poor, has become rich; or who, from being obscure, has become a celebrity.

    This is, of course, a translation; presumably from Latin. I don’t know whether they had a word for “celebrity” in Latin in those days, and in the absence of mass media, the manifestation of fame would have been very different. But I don’t doubt that they had celebrities.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  104. okrapod wrote:

    For those who are still SBC but seriously unhappy, there is better to be had. Better to be had comes in several flavors, none of which are perfect, but several of which are better. Go for it

    Cosign. We even have a joke at my church about how many baptists have ended up there!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  105. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    When we were in Austria a few summers back, my Wartburg Flag became Austrian.

    That is one flag I did not pick up on this road trip, but I picked up three other TWW flags.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  106. jyjames wrote:

    what does “reformed” mean?

    Calvinistic in belief and practice. While there are some exceptions across the Christian spectrum, complementarianism is particularly resident in groups which profess Calvinism as their expression of faith. However, the un-Biblical subordination of female believers can be found wherever an authoritarian patriarchy desires to treat women as lesser citizens of the Kingdom. In SBC ranks, for example, we are finding an equally bad treatment of women in conservative churches which are non-Calvinist.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  107. Max wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
    IMHO, Complementarianism is also the cornerstone of the SBC Conservative Resurgence identify
    That is becoming more apparent with each passing day.

    One might say that perhaps the comp misogyny was a failed attempt to respond to what many saw as destructive forces which weakened and perhaps even destroyed the older concept of the family. Those forces were not primarily religious, however, in that we as a nation went through a re-thinking of geographic community for example in the stats of the great migration from the farm to the city. We also backed away from tribal identities toward more embracing of diversity. We had the sexual revolution. We had the pill and smaller families. We lost the idea of work for the factory all your life and expect a pension in the end. And all we saw for decades was war and cold war and clash of political theories and nuclear threat and economic shifting and now-yes now-the decrease in the middle class with some getting richer and some getting poorer.

    So, people can’t deal with all that all that well, and now we have political and social unrest. Amidst all that comes along a religious approach of hierarchy and authority and role playing, all of which seems to me to be an offer of a way that some may think is safer and more predictable than the direction of the secular society–thus the culture wars. Add to that ‘the bible says’ (certainty) and ‘you risk your soul if you don’t do it our way’ (fear) and there you go. And not least of all they offer religious identity in a culture where identity itself is characterized as either bad (wrong identity) or else good but persecuted.

    In conclusion, I am trying to say that the underlying problems have not gone away and there will be a market for authoritarianism under some guise or another for a while yet to come.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  108. Daisy wrote:

    “Praise God this is true! Yet, a more penetrating question may be, “Do we stand to lose something of the Gospel if egalitarianism is assumed?” In my opinion, the overwhelming answer is Yes.”

    Well! There you have it. Gospel, in it’s simplest form means good news. If men do not have authority over women, some of the “good news” is lost. That statement would lead me to conclude that the gospel’s primary audience/target/recipient is men – not women.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  109. @ Max:
    In it’s most pure, most original context “reformed” defined all Protestants who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation. The word has been twisted and redefined.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  110. Oh, something good happened at our house yesterday morning! One of hubby’s brothers, who lives in central, western Maine, is paying us a surprise visit! He showed up here in Southwestern Kentucky yesterday morning.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  111. @ Daisy:

    “Unilateral submission based on an inborn trait such as biological sex is never delightful. It’s demeaning and sexist.

    But putting that aside, what if the husband is abusive to the wife and does not love her the way the Christ loves the church?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    at this point, any christian maxim on marriage is like being an automaton dressed in a straight jacket wearing foot-binding oriental shoes with fermaldehyde in the fragrance diffuser.

    it is so much more simple and freeing to take a cue from my agnostic friends and relatives who love each other for who they are and everything they are.

    they need no “the-husband-must-love-his-wife-like-Christ-loved-the-church” rule broken down into multi-step explanations in books and sermons and blog articles in order to love self-sacrificially. both partners do it instinctively.

    blimey…. CBMW (and the gas they somehow pipe into people’s airspace) has christians believing they all have the relational skills of a potato. simply follow their shizophrenic rules and you’re on your way to becoming a gleaming Michelangelo marble sculpture.

    joe and and joanne christian, you already are a masterpiece, just like my agnostic friends and relatives.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  112. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    In it’s most pure, most original context “reformed” defined all Protestants who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation. The word has been twisted and redefined.

    Agreed. John Calvin took the Reformation in a different direction, by twisting Scripture to redefine “truth”. While all Protestants may be “reformed” based on the two primary streams of Christian expression, 90% of Christians worldwide today do not hold to Calvinistic tenets of faith.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  113. @ Max:

    “However, the un-Biblical subordination of female believers can be found wherever an authoritarian patriarchy desires to treat women as lesser citizens of the Kingdom.

    In SBC ranks, for example, we are finding an equally bad treatment of women in conservative churches which are non-Calvinist.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    oh my goodness, in Assemblies of God churches, too. the leash may be longer, but women are tethered & men are holding the other end. so contrary to their original principles.

    talk about a square circle. they don’t even realize it. (but that’s what stupidpills do to you)

    i’m all astonishment at how impressionable and easily led christian leaders are by the Great And Powerful Ozes.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  114. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Presumably, the godly male firefighters in the service prevent wildfires by rejecting homosexuality and the false authority of the women “over” them, so that God isn’t forced to send wildfires in judgement.

    Something like that? 🙂 They seemed to respect the women plenty, and each other. That is a job not many people are up for doing. I don’t want to think about how hard it must have been for women who were up for it to break in. Though in the end I don’t care about sex/race/sexual identity/gender identity/etc if you can stop the fire about to burn down my town!

    And to bring this back to a religious context, I had a brief fling in my early 20s with the Baha’i Faith, which among other things makes a claim to full equality for women. Oh no, that’s not quite right…we’re not allowed on their highest governing council, for no reason given beyond “someday it will be clear.” Somebody once actually said, “Would you want to?” and I said, “No, but I don’t want to be told I can’t based on no reason at all!” So in a non-Christian context I have run into this BS.

    I’m now a member of a mainline church where women can occupy any office at all. That’s not the only reason by lightyears but it’s one reason I’ve stayed.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  115. Rachel wrote:

    My personal position on this is very clear to me. Whether or not I want to do a particular job or fill a particular role, or am capable in whatever ways are required to do such tasks, I won’t be associated with any group or person that says, “You can’t do that because you’re a woman.”

    My position on this is clear too:

    Tammmie Jo Shults acted with the same verve and elan that Sullenberger displayed when he set down in the Hudson and saved many lives from certain death had they plowed into the densely populated NYC area.
    Shults and Sullenberger are cut from the same cloth.
    The plumbing specification is minor and has no bearing on what they are at their cores.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  116. okrapod wrote:

    In conclusion, I am trying to say that the underlying problems have not gone away and there will be a market for authoritarianism under some guise or another for a while yet to come.

    I think there has always been and will always be people who think everybody else should be under them. They think they need the power and the money and all the other benefits that come with those things. And they will continue to try to convince other people that they need all that and maybe one day they can be special enough to be in the same place.

    Once again, patriarchy and New Calvinism don’t just seek to subjugate women. Anyone who is not a leader is subjugated. They just hold out empty promises to men that maybe one day they too can have all those things. But they probably never will.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  117. Rachel wrote:

    They seemed to respect the women plenty, and each other. That is a job not many people are up for doing. I don’t want to think about how hard it must have been for women who were up for it to break in. Though in the end I don’t care about sex/race/sexual identity/gender identity/etc if you can stop the fire about to burn down my town!

    Well put.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  118. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Jerome was a man ahead of his time. The quote comes from his letter (394ad) to Nepotian who had left the military for the clergy. Jerome urged “Under Christ’s banner seek for no worldly gain, lest having more than when you first became a clergyman, you hear men say, to your shame, “Their portion shall not profit them.” Welcome poor men and strangers to your homely board, that with them Christ may be your guest. A clergyman who engages in business, and who rises from poverty to wealth, and from obscurity to a high position, avoid as you would the plague. For “evil communications corrupt good manners.” You despise gold; he loves it. You spurn wealth; he eagerly pursues it. You love silence, meekness, privacy; he takes delight in talking and effrontery, in squares, and streets, and apothecaries’ shops. What unity of feeling can there be where there is so wide a divergency of manners?”
    The last couple of sentences brought to mind the New Calvinists sitting in their coffee shops making sure they were seen and heard.
    He goes on to offer what is probably the basis of the Billy Graham rule:-“You must not sit alone with a woman or see one without witnesses. If she has anything confidential to disclose, she is sure to have some nurse or housekeeper, some virgin, some widow, some married woman. She cannot be so friendless as to have none save you to whom she can venture to confide her secret. Beware of all that gives occasion for suspicion; and, to avoid scandal, shun every act that may give colour to it…Such endearing and alluring expressions as my honey’ and my darling,’ you who are all my charm and my delight’ the ridiculous courtesies of lovers and their foolish doings, we blush for on the stage and abhor in men of the world. How much more do we loathe them in monks and clergymen who adorn the priesthood by their vows while their vows are adorned by the priesthood.”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  119. Max wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
    In it’s most pure, most original context “reformed” defined all Protestants who left the Catholic Church in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation. The word has been twisted and redefined.
    Agreed. John Calvin took the Reformation in a different direction, by twisting Scripture to redefine “truth”. While all Protestants may be “reformed” based on the two primary streams of Christian expression, 90% of Christians worldwide today do not hold to Calvinistic tenets of faith.

    I’d be interested to hear how Calvin twisted Scripture to redefine truth in your view.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  120. This a petition to the trustees to stand up for Paige Patterson -started by “Samuel Schmidt
    SWBTS MDiv, May 4, 2018”.

    https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-right-thing-for-the-southern-baptist-convention-and-paige-patterson.html

    His letter shows how these people think and operate, and particularly how they classify and label others in generic categories of good vs evil. (Them being good of course. Everyone else is evil.) It’s all so cultish and textbook.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  121. emily honey wrote:

    This a petition to the trustees to stand up for Paige Patterson -started by “Samuel Schmidt
    SWBTS MDiv, May 4, 2018”.

    https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-right-thing-for-the-southern-baptist-convention-and-paige-patterson.html

    His letter shows how these people think and operate, and particularly how they classify and label others in generic categories of good vs evil. (Them being good of course. Everyone else is evil.) It’s all so cultish and textbook.

    Sadly, it appears to me their is nothing that would cause these “men” to not support PP. It says lots about these men’s lack of character IMO. Been going on for decades.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  122. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Max wrote: John Calvin took the Reformation in a different direction, by twisting Scripture to redefine “truth”.

    I’d be interested to hear how Calvin twisted Scripture to redefine truth in your view.

    Me, too, Max.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  123. Preacher’s Wife wrote:

    I forget the exact dialogue of the conversation, but one guy basically said, “But it doesn’t matter if you have to submit in heaven because in heaven everyone’s going to be happy.”

    Happy as a North Korean Population Unit.

    These guys were all almost a decade younger than me and had never thought outside their self-absorbed early 20s bubble.

    And when you’re in that “self-absorbed early 20s bubble”, a lot of your thinking is done with the wrong head (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean).

    It’s like the stories I’ve heard of Furry fans that age at con parties, who not only see nothing wrong with slavery, but always focus on a Master’s Sexual Rights over his Animate Property.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  124. ishy wrote:

    … there … will always be people who think everybody else should be under them.

    “Pseudo-exceptionalism—the unearned conviction that we are superior because we were born…us.

    “The biggest side effect of pseudo-exceptionalism is passive-exploitive behavior or taking up whatever room one can get away, thinking that we’re special, and entitled to a bit more than others. Passive-aggressiveness is when one’s exaggerated sense of entitlement is thwarted, so therefore entitled to revenge.

    “Passive-exploitive behavior includes any behavior pursued in the dark about one’s pseudo-exceptionalism: talking over others; giving less attention to their preferences than yours; justifying yourself more readily than others; and rationalizing why you deserve more by whatever means.

    “The pseudo-exceptionalist’s prayer is, ‘Grant me one good reason why I can do what I want to do.'” (I’m a guy, I’m married to that guy, I’m caucasian, I’m not caucasian, I’m nobility, I’m beautiful, I’m the boss, I’m a PhD, I’m God’s pet kid, etc.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  125. Jack wrote:

    I have no idea what an “Aunty Lydia” or “unwoman” is.

    Handmaid’s Tale references.
    “Aunts” are the older women who keep the fresh unspoiled Handmaids in line. Their badge of office is the Electric Cattle Prod.

    “Unwoman” probably refers to either Lesbians or Uppity Wimmen — into the Camps and Up the Chimneys! God Saith!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  126. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Also, what exactly is the promised land of patriarchy? By which I mean, what do they hope eternity in Heaven will be like? I think it’s obvious that they don’t hope for the blessing of subservience and subordination for themselves.

    Harems of 72 Handmaids?
    “What is Thy Will, Milord Biblical Man? How might I better Submit?”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  127. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Honey, I’m a baptist, and I’m not sure if they even believe women have souls!!!

    Probably the same in-between status you find with the Kinkier Furry Fans (who gave the fandom their reputation) regarding their fantasy furry women:

    Just enough human so it isn’t bestiality, but not human enough for it to really be rape.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  128. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    All of the prancing around exhibiting their “authority” (many, many different flavors of christainity claim they have the “true” authority)

    And (like Conspiracy Cranks) these flavors do NOT hang out together.
    The Universe cannot have Two Centers.
    Or two One True Ways.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  129. @ Bridget:
    Being a Christian and what Jesus offers, in essence, is so contrary to anything this world has to offer.

    Later in the New Testament, the believers, the elect, are termed a remnant.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  130. So, went for a wee run up Ben Cleuch today. May have overdone it, as I’m still coming back from an achilles injury and I’m not that fit; several hours after getting back I wasn’t feeling great. So I took my temperature and it was 37.1 °C. While that is, technically, higher than 36.9 and in fact our thermometer usually reads slightly lower for me, I don’t really think I can call that a fever.










    Thanks for listening.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  131. JDV wrote:

    The pastor surmises: “if you found your marriage difficult, hard to bear, and unjust, then you found yourself in the same position as Christ”, adding that “God calls you to bear it as Christ did”.

    Until I hear about Jesus sleeping with his oppressors, I don’t want to see this analogy.

    What men this like do, is decide for themselves that divorce, or consideration of or even ‘lack of submission’, is a worse sin than Abuse. They take that to mean the wife will be considered unchristian and the husband will not. What lunacy.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  132. Max wrote:

    Calvinism and complementarity are two peas in the same bad pod.

    No. There are plenty of non-calvinist patriarchal types and plenty of calvinist egalitarians.

    Look deeper.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  133. Lea wrote:

    There are plenty of non-calvinist patriarchal types and plenty of calvinist egalitarians.

    I’ve certainly met plenty of the former in my church experience, but only a few of the latter. But, it may just be my area.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  134. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    For someone who claims to be not only Biblically literate but also a scholar, Starke (no known relationship) should know that when capitalized, Gospel refers to one of the four books bearing the name and not the εὐαγγέλιον, or euaggelion, which is often translated “good news.”

    For what it’s worth, the gospel is only made good news because of the message it refers to – Jesus’ atoning death, burial and resurrection, resulting in the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life. This is why gospel can never be applied as an adjective to something else, because it doesn’t have any inherent value on its own and therefore cannot serve as a modifier.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  135. Max wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    There are plenty of non-calvinist patriarchal types and plenty of calvinist egalitarians.
    I’ve certainly met plenty of the former in my church experience, but only a few of the latter. But, it may just be my area.

    There is a whole denomination, max…

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  136. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.

    as opposed to:
    “Broadcast news [substitute: Patriarchy] was founded on the trust and veneration of male icons, and as the media [substitute: church] landscape changed, many of us held on to such men wistfully.”

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/04/the-open-secret-of-charlie-rose/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Grant%20Akerman%20Winogrand%20Rose&utm_content=NYR%20Grant%20Akerman%20Winogrand%20Rose+CID_86c350e26016c9f010b56c8f53459714&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=The%20Open%20Secret%20of%20Charlie%20Rose

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  137. http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/05/03/a-letter-back-to-beth-moore-from-seth-dunn/

    (Seth Dunn: from Outsider SBC presidential hopeful loses nominator, NEWSBOB ALLEN, JUNE 9, 2016

    “A Georgia layman who announced recently he is running for president of the Southern Baptist Convention says it looks like his agenda to shake up business as usual in the nation’s second-largest faith group will have to wait another year.

    “Seth Dunn, a blogger and licensed CPA living in Cartersville, Ga., wants to eliminate the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, merge the International and North American Mission Boards and end retail sales by LifeWay Christian Resources.”)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  138. Max wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    I’d be interested to hear how Calvin twisted Scripture to redefine truth in your view.

    Limited atonement for starters.

    Max, limited atonement is not one of Calvin’s teachings. I am not a Calvinist nor do I approve of his theological determinism, but limited atonement is the brainchild of Theodore Beza in Reformation times. It was taught in the early middle ages by Gottschalk of Orbais as well.

    Jim G.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  139. jyjames wrote:

    as opposed to:
    “Broadcast news [substitute: Patriarchy] was founded on the trust and veneration of male icons, and as the media [substitute: church] landscape changed, many of us held on to such men wistfully.”

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/04/the-open-secret-of-charlie-rose/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Grant%20Akerman%20Winogrand%20Rose&utm_content=NYR%20Grant%20Akerman%20Winogrand%20Rose+CID_86c350e26016c9f010b56c8f53459714&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=The%20Open%20Secret%20of%20Charlie%20Rose

    You did see that a trial balloon was floated to have Charlie Rose come back about two weeks ago? And then last Thursday, three women filed suit against Rose and CBS News alleging Rose sexually harassed them and also alleging the network knew about it. Some weird stuff going on there. Thanks for the NYRB link, I think.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  140. Jim G. wrote:

    limited atonement is not one of Calvin’s teachings

    While the teaching may not have originated with Calvin, he certainly refined it to become a primary tenet of the general Calvinist view of predestination.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  141. Max wrote:

    Jim G. wrote:

    limited atonement is not one of Calvin’s teachings

    While the teaching may not have originated with Calvin, he certainly refined it to become a primary tenet of the general Calvinist view of predestination.

    And his followers over time ended up more Calvinist than Calvin.
    Just as the Taliban and al-Daesh ended up more Islamic than Mohammed.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  142. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    his followers over time ended up more Calvinist than Calvin

    That’s happened with most ist’s over the centuries. We now have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world, each separated by a different flavor of ist.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  143. “While Christians embrace the theology of repentance, grace, forgiveness and a restored relationship with God, in ministering to our fellow Christians, it has to be one and done. Once a member of the clergy has crossed the line of sexual sin, it’s time for him or her to find another career.”

    “One and done for clergy” – then the Pastor Patriarchy doesn’t close ranks and protect their own here.

    http://www.modbee.com/opinion/article210467684.html

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  144. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    perversion of the word “gospel” by the widespread counterfeit church

    Beware of any group preaching/teaching gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that! Free gospel-centered coffee and gospel-centered pastries might get you to come to church, but it will leave your soul empty. In my area, I can find churches tossing the word gospel around in some strange ways, without really ever preaching THE Gospel!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  145. And to make 200, we return to the title:
    “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women Rule,” Paige Patterson and His Inhumane View of Women

    “Reaction Video” when I read that is something like “And when Men Ruled and Barefoot & Pregnant Women Drooled, everything was unicorns farting rainbows and free ice cream for everyone?”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  146. Max wrote:

    Jim G. wrote:

    limited atonement is not one of Calvin’s teachings

    While the teaching may not have originated with Calvin, he certainly refined it to become a primary tenet of the general Calvinist view of predestination.

    Not so. The extent of the atonement wasn’t an issue in his day. It was hammered out at the synod of Dort.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  147. drstevej wrote:

    The extent of the atonement wasn’t an issue in his day.

    But Calvin’s views on particular election and redemption (salvation for the elect alone) are consistent with the doctrine of limited atonement.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  148. Melissa wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    @ drstevej:
    “If husbands love their wives as Christ loves His Bride, the Church, then a watching world might draw different conclusions about Christ.”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    i’m sure you mean well, but…. they all say that.
    All the John Pipers, Paige Pattersons, Doug Wilsons, Bruce Wares, Owen Strachans, and all the many christian leaders who deny women personhood and agency. whether directly or indirectly.
    i loathe this verse. it means absolutely nothing anymore. it is a clever tool in the hand of a benevolent dictator. and his lackeys.
    leave it to (many) male christian leaders and their egos, whether outsized or fragile, to redefine everything to protect their domain.
    (I don’t necessarily mean you. don’t know enough about you.)
    Well said.

    I sense a lot of you and your frustration with these guys. If you mean when you say “it means absolutely nothing” or something like that, when they throw that in at the end of a diatribe on men having a trump card on women and trying to insinuate the superiority of men in the way they do. I am with you. But this is a biblical metaphor that the Apostle Paul gave to men. So I cringe a little bit to hear someone say “It means nothing.” Especially in context where Paul relates that what he is really talking about is Christ and the church. As a Christian and I can’t assume that everybody here is a Christian, which is why I mention it. Clearly most of you are. I can’t go along with “it means nothing”.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  149. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And to make 200, we return to the title:
    “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women Rule,” Paige Patterson and His Inhumane View of Women

    “Reaction Video” when I read that is something like “And when Men Ruled and Barefoot & Pregnant Women Drooled, everything was unicorns farting rainbows and free ice cream for everyone?”

    Hug; I am very confident PP was not really concerned about inerrancy and liberals. He wanted to be the head of the SBC and put women in their places.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  150. Catherine Martin wrote:

    Conservative Evangelicals (i.e. most Southern Baptists these days) are teaching a false gospel. They are not teaching grace.

    It is true that the “grace, grace, grace” message of the New Calvinists has swept into many Southern Baptist churches, but you can still find some SBC congregations and their preachers who have their spiritual heads screwed on straight about the Grace available through the Cross of Christ … a message for ALL people which knows no distinctions in race, class or gender.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  151. @ Max:

    Max,

    You’re right on target. For those that don’t know—Limited Atonement is the L in the famous TULIP of Calvinism.

    Now let’s be honest about what Calvinism really teaches:

    T=Total Depravity—It’s not their fault. Their total depravity made them do it.

    U=Unconditional Election—-Salvation isn’t available to all because God only picked one lucky group that automatically gets it regardless of what they do.

    L=Limited Atonement—-Jesus only died for a lucky few. The rest of us are screwed.

    I=Irrestible Grace—-God will overpower your will and force you to do whatever God wants you to do.

    P=Preserverance of the Saints—-Sin all you want. No matter what you do—as long as you’re one of the lucky few chosen ones—God magically make sure you end up in Heaven!

    Nope. Not even close.

    Calvinism is actually a very subtle form of rebellion against God’s law of sowing and reaping. No matter how they try to deny this, the truth is that Calvinism tries to remove responsibility for our own decisions by transferring the blame—oops I mean responsibility for decision making—-to God.

    Nope. We can believe in the sovereignty of God without believing in Calvinism.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  152. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Handmaid’s Tale references.

    Read Handmaids Tale about 25 years ago so not as familiar with the minutia.

    The sad thing is based on what I’ve read here, I thought Emily was discussing real current Baptist terminology.

    I think I’m so far removed from the faith that I really don’t know it at all anymore.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  153. Lowlandseer wrote:

    I’d be interested to hear how Calvin twisted Scripture to redefine truth in your view

    Evanescent (vanishing) grace is a good starter. I’ve never heard a Calvinist give a good reason why this silent point of Calvinism makes sense and where it is supported in the Bible.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  154. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Evanescent (vanishing) grace is a good starter. I’ve never heard a Calvinist give a good reason why this silent point of Calvinism makes sense and where it is supported in the Bible.

    I just looked it up. I’d heard of it before–under the phrase “false assurance of salvation.” My thought about that is if God is like that, how can you trust him? Seriously, how can a god be trusted not to change his mind about your salvation somewhere down the road?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  155. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    Seriously, how can a god be trusted not to change his mind about your salvation somewhere down the road?

    Yes, there are many problems with that view of God. However, I don’t believe that Calvin taught that God changes his mind about anyone’s salvation. Rather, he seems to teach that God purposely gives some people vanishing faith in order to judge than more harshly because of it. This makes God even worse – it would be less cruel if he was merely whimsical.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  156. @ jyjames:

    On the opposite side of Calvinism is the reality of how much it grieves the heart of God when people reject salvation because then it means that Jesus blood was shed in vain for that soul. We get really upset when our time or resources or any sacrifice we make is wasted. Imagine how much more painful it is for Jesus when we reject Him.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  157. ___

    Massa Damnata Damna Ding Dong: “Do not Pass Go, Do not ‘Collect’ Heaven?

    hmmm…

    John Calvin, and Augustine, who’s writings he received placed his theological ‘christian’ religious system in the ‘massa damnata’ theory category.

    huh?

    Which says: “…the whole human race by original sin became a ‘massa damnata et damnabilis’ ™ : God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.”

    What?

    So as Augustine’s theological theory goes:
    “God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.”

    KRunch!

    “He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.”

    So according to Augustine’s theological theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as his writings display, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance…

    SKreeeeeeeeeetch!

    Fun theological religious system, huh?

    —> (See Calvin’s ICR for more details…)

    ♪♩♪♩ hum, hum, hum ..
    “ para bailar la calvinesta
    se necessita
    una poca de gracia
    una poca de gracia
    La calvinesta
    La calvinesta… (1)

    (grin)

    Si alguien está en Cristo, es una nueva creación ! (2)

    Yahooo!

    ATB

    La Sòpy
    ___
    (1) tr. “To dance the Calvinesta
    needs
    A little grace
    A little Grace
    The calvinesta
    The calvinesta…”
    sang to: https://youtu.be/g6T85X1ClmI
    (2) tr. If anyone be in Christ, they are a new creation !

    ;~)

    – –

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  158. @ Max:
    Sorry you can’t refine an idea if you’re no longer there to do so. And there is still no indication of how he twisted truth to explain how not everyone is saved.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  159. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Arminius used a similar term but no complaints about that.

    You are proving my point. I’ve never heard a Calvinist give a good reason explanation for why it makes sense. Your answer ia pretty much the same, just a deflection that does not address the real issue of whether or not God gives some people false faith and why he would do that. This is why I call it the silent point of Calvinism.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  160. One of the most amusing anecdotes about complementarian Calvinists can be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Blast_of_the_Trumpet_Against_the_Monstruous_Regiment_of_Women

    “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women” is a polemical work by the Scottish reformer John Knox, published in 1558. It attacks female monarchs, arguing that rule by females is contrary to the Bible.

    That didn’t make him half popular one Elizabeth I became queen:

    His polemic against female rulers had negative consequences for him when Elizabeth I succeeded her half-sister Mary I as Queen of England; Elizabeth was a supporter of the Protestant cause, but took offence at Knox’s words about female sovereigns. Her opposition to him personally became an obstacle to Knox’s direct involvement with the Protestant cause in England after 1559.

    If I were a Buddhist, I would say something about Karma here …

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  161. It sounds like Calvin planted, others watered and the crop came up. I neither know nor care where the seeds of the ideas originally came from, mostly because from my minimal knowledge of early christian thinking it seems that there were numerous and varied ideas from which to choose. What concerns me is whether or not the ideas are true, correct, accurate and whether they have proven themselves over time to be wheat or tares as it were in idea world.

    The more I listen to you all talk the more ‘catholic’ I become in my thinking. But then, that same thing happened to some folks in England as the protestant/calvinist/political aspects played themselves out back when. I am so thankful that there are still various ideas and various paths available, and thankful that I have had the courage to just walk away from some stuff that was religiously toxic in my experience.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  162. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    Jim G. wrote:

    limited atonement is not one of Calvin’s teachings.

    This is a long article that seems to show that Calvin believed in it even though he may not have stated it clearly: https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

    Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching.

    Sure. LA is the logical entailment of T, U, and I. No question. It is their good and necessary consequence.

    I think Calvin may have stopped short of the good and necessary consequence of LA, but there is no question it “fits” into his system quite nicely, and his successor Beza made LA part of the system.

    That brings up an important point. To be intellectually virtuous, we must “own” the good and necessary consequences of our theological systems even if we personally are not willing to go “that far.” If we can’t “own” those consequences, it may mean the system itself is beyond repair and should be discarded for a new one.

    Jim G.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  163. Sin all you want is exactly what the male pastor told my husband, while I was sitting with the pastor’s wife and couldn’t hear their conversation. This was in their living room while “teaching US the doctrines of grace” Strange that his wife didn’t tell me I could “sin all I want” I guess that’s just for the men. My husband refused to go to church after that. I no longer go there either and pretty much do not trust any “c”hurch.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  164. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    Maybe he’s just tired of every thread devolving into a rant about Calvinism. Even ones devoted to a non Calvinist!

    I know my Presbyterian denim treats women better than any non Calvinist church I previously attended. That matters a lot more than theology to me. That is theology. Love God love others. Done.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  165. Jim G. wrote:

    To be intellectually virtuous, we must “own” the good and necessary consequences of our theological systems even if we personally are not willing to go “that far.” If we can’t “own” those consequences, it may mean the system itself is beyond repair and should be discarded for a new one.

    Oh, my, that’s good. I have copied it and am keeping it. “Intellectually virtuous’- wow, just wow.

    May I add that the word ‘theological’ can be replaced by other words just as well. During my lifetime the older patriarchy of medicine was replaced by something much better for everybody including the patient. During my lifetime several educational ‘systems’ have been replaced some for the better and some not. Paul said that when be became a man he put away childish things. Discarding and replacing is not something foreign to our experience as individuals or as a society, nor is the process of discarding some while keeping some alien to us.

    But intellectual virtue seems to be an orphan child in some theological circles. Circles is a plural. More the pity.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  166. Jim G. wrote:

    I think Calvin may have stopped short of the good and necessary consequence of LA

    Actually, it was Moses Amyraut that affirmed a Calvinist-yet unlimited atonement view. The Helvetic Consensus (1675) was drafted to counteract the theology of Amyraldism.

    Calvin died in 1564, over a century prior.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  167. Lowlandseer wrote:

    I’d be interested to hear how Calvin twisted Scripture to redefine truth in your view.

    There have been books written . . .

    In short, in case you haven’t heard, Calvinism perverted the ‘good news’ that God so loved ‘the world’ into God so loved ‘the elect’. This is the faulty rationale allowing for all partiality and injustice in the world ‘in God’s name’, including Patriarchy and misogyny.

    One can understand why subjection and oppression, as modeled by John Calvin in Geneva, lives on in those denominations that yet cling to his ugly and false corruptions of the true gospel of limitless, impartial love to all who desire it. The genuine gospel, taught by Jesus, has no ‘special class’ of Israel, males, landowners or rulers. God’s love is offered, alike, to all human beings.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  168. ION and off the Calvinism topic— a miracle may well have occurred yesterday in Jacksonville. Megapastor Mac Brunson preached his last sermon after a one-week transition period. There is no scandal, no individual or group asked him to leave, he’s not retiring, and he has no new job lined up. He and his wife have been miraculously feeling led to move on God only knows where, and it’s been mysteriously confirmed. Now someone tell me any time any other megapastor has ever done this and I won’t think it’s a miracle.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  169. Avid Reader wrote:

    We can believe in the sovereignty of God without believing in Calvinism.

    Amen! Scripture speaks much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture speaks much about the free will of man. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before God.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  170. Lea wrote:

    I know my Presbyterian denim treats women better than any non Calvinist church I previously attended.

    That I would have to see to believe. If so, they have wandered far, far from their roots, which the New Calvinists are eager to drag them – and all of Christianity – back to.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  171. Avid Reader wrote:

    L=Limited Atonement—-Jesus only died for a lucky few. The rest of us are screwed.

    Those who promote such belief misrepresent the very character of God. What love is this?

    “The Holy Spirit and the Bride (the church, believers) say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:17)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  172. truthseeker00 wrote:

    That I would have to see to believe.

    You need to get out more. Or just accept my statement as fact. I am a woman, I think I would know. truthseeker00 wrote:

    If so, they have wandered far, far from their roots

    In the 1500s? Yes. Most denominations have.

    I think people should listen to okrapod when she mentions this conservative pendulum swing on women as a backlash against the 60’s. That has nothing to do with Calvin.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  173. truthseeker00 wrote:

    This is the faulty rationale allowing for all partiality and injustice in the world ‘in God’s name’, including Patriarchy and misogyny.

    there have been SO many rationales for patriarchy and misogyny in history in God’s name! This stuff did not began with Calvin.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  174. Dave A A wrote:

    Now someone tell me any time any other megapastor has ever done this and I won’t think it’s a miracle.

    I’m sure the other shoe will drop any minute. I didn’t know that guy was a megapastor, I thought he was just another nutter on twitter.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  175. Thersites wrote:

    Truth be told, I’m not real big on “rule” by man or woman.

    Neither am I.

    But to say that:

    “It Indicates a Wicked Society When Women Rule,” Paige Patterson and His Inhumane View of Women

    is to say that women are “more” wicked than men since it implies that society is not wicked when men rule . . . and we have history itself to prove that’s not true.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  176. Dave A A wrote:

    Megapastor Mac Brunson preached his last sermon after a one-week transition period. There is no scandal, no individual or group asked him to leave, he’s not retiring, and he has no new job lined up.

    He announced yesterday that he is going to another church:

    ““I’m going to another work. They will announce it at the church there. They deserve the right to announce that to their congregation. So there’s that, and my health is fine,” Brunson said.”
    http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180506/mac-brunson-offers-final-blessing-emotional-farewell-to-first-baptist-church-of-jacksonville

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  177. Dave A A wrote:

    Megapastor Mac Brunson preached his last sermon after a one-week transition period.

    And who will assume the senior pastor role when he exits FBC-Jacksonville? Heath Lambert!

    Frequent TWW readers will remember Mr. Lambert’s Luther-style posting of his “95 Theses of Biblical Counseling” http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/02/07/heath-lamberts-95-theses-of-biblical-counseling-reminds-me-of-bobs-advice-in-stranger-things-2-its-all-easy-peasy/

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  178. Gus wrote:

    If I were a Buddhist, I would say something about Karma here …

    Karma and her sister Comeuppance have a very real agency, even if it’s just a metaphorical reality.
    Buddhism has little to do with it other than labels for convenience.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  179. Bridget wrote:

    is to say that women are “more” wicked than men since it implies that society is not wicked when men rule . . . and we have history itself to prove that’s not true.

    There seems to be no end to what some guys (past and present) will Huey (helicopter) out of the Book of Isaiah in order to advance an agenda.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  180. Gal. 3:28-29. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
    Do we make a distinction between those who come to Christianity as Jews or Gentiles, or as slaves or freemen? Why then do we make a distinction between men and women, who are all heirs according to God’s promise?
    I left the SBC 7 years ago, and one of the many reasons why is because I am no longer willing to attend a church where I am a second-class citizen. They were happy to have my money and my free labor, but were unwilling to give me scope to exercise my God-given leadership abilities. God is going to judge these men for their treatment of His daughters.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  181. Max wrote:

    ““I’m going to another work. They will announce it at the church there. They deserve the right to announce that to their congregation.

    This is so bizzare– what’s the big secret about the other “work”? Have they neglected to tell the current guy he’s getting downsized? Is there an unfilled megapastor job opening somewhere? Why “going to another work. They will announce it at the church there…” rather than “going to another church”, and why couldn’t he announce it a week ago? Reminds me of Pete Wilson, who already had a parachurch job and a divorce lined up. At least Brunson didn’t give a poor me burnout sob story.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  182. Max wrote:

    And who will assume the senior pastor role when he exits FBC-Jacksonville? Heath Lambert!

    Personally, I’d bet Brunson brought in Lambert thinking he’d have another 5 years mentoring a young protege, and Lambert became impatient. So Lambert did a little biblical blackm…. er… counseling.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  183. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    No deflection. Definite Atonement (the preferred term these days) is clearly taught in Scripture and makes more sense than some of the other ideas about how we are saved.

    And here’s a strange fact. I’ve just spent the day on the Holy Island of LIndisfarne celebrating the faith of Celtic Christianity – Aidan, Cuthbert, Columba. Their most famous theologian was a man called Pelagius. 🙂

    Enjoy your faith and let others enjoy theirs.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  184. Max wrote:

    He announced yesterday that he is going to another church:

    But 8 days ago he said, “We are now seeking the Lord’s will for our next place of ministry and excitedly waiting for the Lord to show us His perfect will for our lives.”
    Not much waiting was needed.
    So I guess he sent out resumes last Monday and a “work” already hired him.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  185. Dave A A wrote:

    But 8 days ago he said, “We are now seeking the Lord’s will for our next place of ministry and excitedly waiting for the Lord to show us His perfect will for our lives.”
    Not much waiting was needed.

    Pst, it’s called ‘lying’.

    Can they not at least vague it up in a truthful way?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  186. Lowlandseer wrote:

    No deflection. Definite Atonement (the preferred term these days) is clearly taught in Scripture and makes more sense than some of the other ideas about how we are saved.

    That’s fine, but my question has nothing to do with any of the five points of Calvinism. I’ve found numerous resources by Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) that go into great detail on the five points. But I have yet to find Calvinist material on evanescent grace other that what Calvin wrote in ICR. The only material I can find is from non-Calvinists who criticize it. This is not a matter or letting others enjoy their faith. I am truly interested in how Calvinists view this teaching from ICR. And I am puzzled as to why there seems to be nothing written on it from a Calvinist perspective that can be easily found.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  187. @ Ken A:

    i’m sure there’s a kernel of goodness there in that verse and the context surrounding it. christian powerbrokers, their lackeys, and non-thinking leaders down the food chain have ruined it.
    can’t tolerate it any more. makes me ill.

    i’m completely irritated by the gender rules. that it doesn’t matter whether or not love my husband and give myself for him.

    I’m completely annoyed with the fact that husbands are compared to Jesus, but not wives.

    i’m completely annoyed with the words husbands and wives.

    i’m a human being, not a pawn in the politics of christianity.

    i’m done done done done done done with christian culture. simply put, life is too short to put up with it any longer.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  188. Max wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:

    Megapastor Mac Brunson preached his last sermon after a one-week transition period. There is no scandal, no individual or group asked him to leave, he’s not retiring, and he has no new job lined up.

    He announced yesterday that he is going to another church:

    ““I’m going to another work. They will announce it at the church there. They deserve the right to announce that to their congregation. So there’s that, and my health is fine,” Brunson said.”
    http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180506/mac-brunson-offers-final-blessing-emotional-farewell-to-first-baptist-church-of-jacksonville

    In the comment section, someone posts where he is going and when he begins…if the poster is to be believed.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  189. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):
    It may be that later Reformers. Didn’t use the word “evanescent”. Turretin, for example, talks of “common grace” in this example but I reality he is describing the same thing as Calvin.
    “II. The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (kata prothesin), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:588.“

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  190. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m done done done done done done with christian culture. simply put, life is too short to put up with it any longer.

    We can be thankful that this is only a “christian culture” and not “the” christian culture.

    My christian experience is very different.

    My wife is as devout a christian as anyone I’ve ever met.

    She just finished her certification exam and will earn more than me. We celebrated as a family. This is good for all of us. I’m not threatened, I’m elated! It was one heck of a challenge.

    My wish is that eventually Paige Patterson, and John Piper, and Mark Driscoll and all the rest of them go the way of the dinosaurs. And I think they will have their own “Yucatan Experience” when the women in their denominations stand up….and leave.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  191. @ elastigirl:
    Very well stated. I am grieved that men who claim to speak for Christ have abused the words of Christ and their position to cause a sister in Christ to come to your conclusions. I think I understand what you are saying. As much as I am able. But I have not been on the receiving end of denigration as my sisters in Christ have.
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Blessing in Christ!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  192. elastigirl wrote:

    i’m a human being, not a pawn in the politics of christianity.

    i’m done done done done done done with christian culture. simply put, life is too short to put up with it any longer.

    You and me both!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  193. @ Ken A:

    “Thanks for your thoughtful reply.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    you mean, you’re not strafed by my machine-gunned thoughts?

    well, let me tell you what i really think….

    (maybe another time…. when circumstances are such…)

    thank you for the gracious response, Ken A.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  194. elastigirl wrote:

    I’m completely annoyed with the fact that husbands are compared to Jesus, but not wives.

    i’m completely annoyed with the words husbands and wives.

    i’m a human being, not a pawn in the politics of christianity.

    I’m annoyed too, that a loose metaphor representing Christ and the church got carried way too far, far enough to well, there’s no other way to say it,… far enough to get creepy, and also get used to hatch a whole slew of gender role doctrines in fundagelicalism.

    elastigirl wrote:

    i’m done done done done done done with christian culture. simply put, life is too short to put up with it any longer.

    I’m also done with it. Done with everything except Jesus of Nazareth.
    His very literal and bodily person is the only thing I trust in these days.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  195. @ Jack:

    “We can be thankful that this is only a “christian culture” and not “the” christian culture.”
    +++++++++++

    even though i live about as far away geographically as you can get from biblical manhood & womanhood ground zero and still carry a US passport, it defines christian culture where i live.

    my happy alternative is slow Sunday mornings and bike rides out to breakfast.

    you’re a great person, jack.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  196. Grainne wrote:

    Jacob Arminius is also ‘reformed’. Definitely wasn’t a calvinist though.

    As were the Anabaptists – they were reformers who gave their lives for a free church.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  197. jyjames wrote:

    Catherine Martin wrote:
    Conservative Evangelicals (i.e. most Southern Baptists these days) are teaching a false gospel. They are not teaching grace.

    They teach grace for the clergy who go off the rails.

    And ONLY for the Highborn Clergy.

    This is called the HERESY of Clericalism — that only official clergy count in the eyes of God and all the rest of us can go to Hell. Pushback against such Medieval Clericalism was a major thing with the Reformation — anyone remember “Priesthood of the Believer”?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  198. Max wrote:

    Grainne wrote:
    Jacob Arminius is also ‘reformed’. Definitely wasn’t a calvinist though.

    As were the Anabaptists – they were reformers who gave their lives for a free church.

    The only thing Luther, Calvin, and the Pope could agree on was a Final Solution to the Anabaptist Problem.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  199. Dave A A wrote:

    I’d bet Brunson brought in Lambert thinking he’d have another 5 years mentoring a young protege, and Lambert became impatient.

    In your opinion, what is the theological leaning of Brunson? of Lambert?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  200. @ Lowlandseer:
    Also Ken, I’m currently reading William Perkins’ ‘Exposition of the Apostles Creed’. In his introduction he discusses the different kinds of faith. (Apologies for the long quotation from Works Volume 5, Pp8-11)
    Faith is of two sorts, either common faith, or the faith of the elect; as Paul saith, he is an apostle according to the faith of GodÕs elect (Tit. 1:1); which is also called faith without hypocrisy (1 Tim. 1:5). The common faith is that which both the elect and reprobate have, and it is threefold:

    (1) The first is historical faith, which is when a man doth believe the outward letter and history of the Word. It hath two parts: knowledge of GodÕs Word, and assent to the same knowledge; and it is to be found in the devil and his angels. So St James saith, the devils believe and tremble (Jam. 2:19). Some will say, What a faith have they? Answer: Such as thereby they understand both the law and the gospel; besides they give assent to it to be true. And they do more yet, in that they tremble and fear. And many a man hath not so much. For amongst us there is many a one which hath no knowledge of God at all, more than he hath learned by the common talk of the world; as, namely, that there is a God and that he is merciful etc., and yet this man will say that he believeth with all his heart. But without knowledge it cannot be that any should truly believe, and therefore he deceiveth himself. Question: But whence have the devils historical faith? Were they illuminated by the light of the Spirit? Answer: No; but when the gospel was preached, they did acknowledge it, and believed it to be true, and that by the virtue of the relics of GodÕs image which remained in them since their fall. And therefore this their faith does not arise from any special illumination by His Spirit, but they attain to it even by the very light of nature, which was left in them from the beginning.

    (2) The second kind of faith is temporary faith, so called because it lasteth but for a time and season, and commonly not to the end of a manÕs life. This kind of faith is noted unto us in the parable of the seed that fell in the stony ground. And there be two differences or kinds of this faith:

    (i) The first kind of temporary faith hath in it three degrees: The first is to know the Word of God, and particularly the gospel. The second, to give an assent to it. The third to profess it, but to go no further; and all this may be done without any love to the Word. This faith hath one degree more than historical faith. Examples of it we have in Simon Magus (Acts 8:13), who is said to believe, because he held the doctrine of the apostles to be true; and withal professed the same. And in the devils also, who in some sort confessed that Christ was the Son of the most Highest, and yet looked for no salvation by Him (Mark 5:7; Acts 19:15). And this is the common faith that abounds in this land. Men say they believe as the prince believeth, and if religion change, they will change. For by reason of the authority of the princeÕs laws, they are made to learn some little knowledge of the Word. They believe it to be good, and they profess it. And thus for the space of thirty or forty years men hear the Word preached, and receive the sacraments, being for all this as void of grace as ever they were at the first day. And the reason is because they do barely profess it, without either liking or love of the law.

    (ii) The second kind of temporary faith hath in it five degrees: For by it, first a man knows the Word. Secondly, he assenteth unto it. Thirdly, he professeth it. Fourthly, he rejoiceth inwardly in it. Fifthly, he bringeth forth some kind of fruit; and yet for all this hath no more in him but a faith that will fail in the end, because he wanteth the effectual application of the promise of the gospel, and is without all manner of sound conversation. This faith is like corn in the housetop, which groweth for a while, but when heat of summer cometh, it withereth. And this is also set forth unto us in the parable of the seed, which fell in stony ground, which is hasty in springing up; but because of the stones, which will not suffer it to take deep root, it withereth. And this is a very common faith in the church of God; by which, many rejoice in the preaching of the Word, and for a time bring forth some fruits accordingly, with shew of great forwardness; yet afterward shake off religion and all.

    But (some will say) how can this be a temporary faith, seeing it hath such fruits? Answer: Such a kind of faith is temporary because it is grounded on temporary causes, which are three:

    (a) A desire to get knowledge of some strange points of religion. For many a man doth labour for the five former degrees of temporary faith, only because he desires to get more knowledge in Scripture than other men have.

    (b) The second cause is a desire of praise among men, which is of that force that it will make a man put on a shew of all the graces which God bestoweth upon His own children, though otherwise he want them; and to go very far in religion; which appeareth thus: Some there are which seem very bitterly to weep for the sins of other men, and yet have neither sorrow nor touch of conscience for their own; and the cause hereof is nothing else but pride. For he that sheds tears for another manÕs sins, should much more weep for his own, if he had grace. Again, a man for his own sins will pray very slackly and dully, when he prayeth privately; and yet when he is in the company of others, he prays very fervently and earnestly. From whence is this difference? Surely, often it springeth from the pride of heart, and from a desire of praise among men.

    (c) The third cause of temporary faith is profit, commodity, the getting of wealth and riches; which are common occasions to move to choose or refuse religion, as the time serveth. But such a kind of believers embrace not the gospel because it is the gospel, that is, the glad tidings of salvation; but because it brings wealth, peace and liberty with it.

    And these are the three causes of temporary faith.
    (3) The third kind of faith is the faith of miracles; when a man grounding himself on some special promise or revelation from God, doth believe that some strange and extraordinary things which he hath desired or foretold, shall come to pass by the work of God. This must be distinguished from historical and temporary faith. For Simon Magus, having both these kinds of faith, wanted this faith of miracles, and therefore would have bought the same of the apostles for money (Acts 8:19). Yet we must know that this faith of miracles may be in hypocrites, as it was in Judas, and at the last judgment it shall be found to have been in the wicked and reprobate; which shall say to Christ, Lord in thy name we have prophesied; and cast out devils, and done many great miracles (Matt. 7:22,23; 1 Cor. 13:2).

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  201. Max wrote:

    Grainne wrote:
    Jacob Arminius is also ‘reformed’. Definitely wasn’t a calvinist though.
    As were the Anabaptists – they were reformers who gave their lives for a free church.

    And Paul.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  202. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    anyone remember “Priesthood of the Believer”?

    I do! It was long-standing doctrine of Southern Baptist belief for over 150 years, along with “Soul Competency”, until the New Calvinists began to diminish those teachings in SBC ranks.

    Those Biblical truths teach us that:

    Every Christian is equal under God (Galatians 3:28)

    Each believer has direct access to God through Christ (Hebrews 7:25-28)

    Each believer is free and responsible for reading the Scriptures and can trust the Holy Spirit to provide guidance and interpretation (John 16:13, 2 Peter 1:20-21)

    Only a pulpit which desires to control and manipulate the pew would attempt to strip that from a believer’s life.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  203. Lowlandseer wrote:

    And Paul.

    Paul was transformed along with every believer who willfully calls on the name of Jesus for salvation and life. The Church is at its best when it is preaching and living “transformed theology.”

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  204. @ Muff Potter:

    if Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and Denny Burke only knew how many times i’ve loved my husband and given myself for him… [if my husband only knew!:)]

    i’d say i represent Jesus darn well.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  205. @ Max:
    I quite like this quote from Thornwell.
    “No Christian would ever have dreamed of Arminianism if he had been guided only by his own experience; hence, when the love of system is laid aside, we find all pious Arminians sober and honest-hearted Calvinists, as their earnest prayers for grace and assistance unequivocally declare.L

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  206. @ Muff Potter:

    it’s verses like these that indicate to me that Paul wrote under duress. i don’t think he was the blockhead he sometimes comes across as.

    the degree to which christians overanalyze their every move based on these collections of ancient sentences…

    “guys… guys….. i had food poisoning when i wrote that.
    crimany, just how far are you going to take this thing?”–Paul

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  207. @ elastigirl:

    “@ Muff Potter:

    if Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and Denny Burke only knew how many times i’ve loved my husband and given myself for him… [if my husband only knew!:)]

    i’d say i represent Jesus darn well.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    whoah…. back up….

    as does any human being regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, relationship status, faith tradition, etc., when they give themself for someone else out of love.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  208. @ Lowlandseer:
    I pray for a day when the love of system is laid aside, when religion is replaced by relationship in Christ, when believers are know by “ian” (Christian) rather than some man-made “ist.” What a difference in doing church that would be!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  209. Jojo wrote:

    Max wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:

    Megapastor Mac Brunson preached his last sermon after a one-week transition period. There is no scandal, no individual or group asked him to leave, he’s not retiring, and he has no new job lined up.

    He announced yesterday that he is going to another church:

    ““I’m going to another work. They will announce it at the church there. They deserve the right to announce that to their congregation. So there’s that, and my health is fine,” Brunson said.”
    http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20180506/mac-brunson-offers-final-blessing-emotional-farewell-to-first-baptist-church-of-jacksonville

    In the comment section, someone posts where he is going and when he begins…if the poster is to be believed.

    Valleydale Church
    ‏ @ValleydaleSBC

    ALL Valleydale members should make plans to attend Sunday’s Town Hall Meeting at 4 PM in the Worship Center. Childcare is available for ages Kindergarten and under but you must reserve a spot for your child(ren) by emailing childcare@valleydale.org.
    Underway….

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  210. @ Max:
    But then no one would be better than anyone else and pew peons would have no humans to elevate…. we humans want our “heros” ….

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  211. P.S. we humans also want to be “right”/better than the guy next to us….
    no matter how they deny it, so many of the “zealous religiosity” people I know take great pride in having it better figured out than the next guy.. and definity better than that “other” flavor of Christianity …

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  212. Max wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:

    I’d bet Brunson brought in Lambert thinking he’d have another 5 years mentoring a young protege, and Lambert became impatient.

    In your opinion, what is the theological leaning of Brunson? of Lambert?

    Lambert must be calvinist with his ties to Mohler and SBTS. I didn’t think Brunson was, but his future church is TGC affiliated.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  213. Dave A A wrote:

    Lambert must be calvinist with his ties to Mohler and SBTS. I didn’t think Brunson was, but his future church is TGC affiliated.

    And to think that they succeeded Jerry Vines at FBC-Jacksonville, a prominent SBC non-Calvinist! Lambert will attract the young and reformed to reverse declining membership there since Vines retired. The New Calvinist movement continues to take SBC churches.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  214. elastigirl wrote:

    they need no “the-husband-must-love-his-wife-like-Christ-loved-the-church” rule broken down into multi-step explanations in books and sermons and blog articles in order to love self-sacrificially. both partners do it instinctively.

    blimey…. CBMW (and the gas they somehow pipe into people’s airspace) has christians believing they all have the relational skills of a potato.

    simply follow their shizophrenic rules and you’re on your way to becoming a gleaming Michelangelo marble sculpture.

    joe and and joanne christian, you already are a masterpiece, just like my agnostic friends and relatives.

    Good points.

    Some types of Christians (such as complementarians) take the simple and make it unnecessarily complicated.

    I have seen some Christian women online who say they divorced their first husband – who was Christian and abusive – to remarry a Non-Christian, and they say their Non-Christian husbands treats them much more ‘godly’ and kinder than their first (Christian) husband.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  215. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    But then no one would be better than anyone else and pew peons would have no humans to elevate…. we humans want our “heros” ….

    … to replace Jesus as the main thing in our churches.

    The waning authority of Christ in the American church is reaching epidemic proportions.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  216. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    so many of the “zealous religiosity” people I know take great pride in having it better figured out than the next guy.. and definity better than that “other” flavor of Christianity …

    We have drawn battle-lines between our brothers. We’ve diluted the Truth to suit our fancy. We’ve become a list of “ists” in the church: fundamentalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, etc. Our religious labels supersede our faith in Christ in many places. We’ve sought our face and found the ugly mug staring back at us. It’s a proud, prayerless, selfish, unrepentant reflection … and it will stay that way until we humble ourselves, pray, seek His presence, and repent. If my people … then will I.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  217. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Because a lot of their belief about the role of women latches on to verses like 1 Ti 2:14, where it says women aren’t allowed to speak in churches because Eve was deceived and Adam was not.

    Just for the record (and newer blog readers), what the Apostle Paul actually wrote in 1Tim 2:14 was that he didn’t allow women to teach the particular doctrine that women were the originator of men because Adam was formed First than Eve.

    There’s a huge difference between forbidding the teaching of false doctrine and forbidding women from teaching at all.

    Paul actually encouraged women to teach in church in other verses. No disclaimer limiting that teaching to female audiences either!!!

    “The church that silences women will be found to have silenced the Holy Spirit.”
    -Dr Bushnell

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  218. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’m annoyed too, that a loose metaphor representing Christ and the church got carried way too far, far enough to well, there’s no other way to say it,… far enough to get creepy

    Indeed. It’s a metaphor, not whatever these men have made of it. Did they take English class?

    I agree with you they take it to the creepiest place. If I hear one more thing about ‘washing her in he word’. These people can’t even get basic decency right. Maybe they need step back from this ish.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  219. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:

    if Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and Denny Burke only knew how many times i’ve loved my husband and given myself for him… [if my husband only knew!:)]

    i’d say i represent Jesus darn well.

    I’m sure you do.

    It’s so crazy how where abuse is conderned they manage to, given an example of a husband loving enough to give up his lofe, put a burden on the abused wife to literally (possibly) give up her life for the husband. And not out of love out of guilt and legalism.

    Disgusting thing.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  220. Max wrote:

    Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    so many of the “zealous religiosity” people I know take great pride in having it better figured out than the next guy.. and definity better than that “other” flavor of Christianity …

    We have drawn battle-lines between our brothers. We’ve diluted the Truth to suit our fancy. We’ve become a list of “ists” in the church: fundamentalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, etc. Our religious labels supersede our faith in Christ in many places. We’ve sought our face and found the ugly mug staring back at us. It’s a proud, prayerless, selfish, unrepentant reflection … and it will stay that way until we humble ourselves, pray, seek His presence, and repent. If my people … then will I.

    Max, you have saved me a lot of time and effort in having to write comments – you speak my thoughts and feelings so well!

    This post just says it all. It’s so simple, and people want to complicate it, and systematize it, and what all. “It’s a proud, prayerless, selfish, unrepentant reflection … and it will stay that way until we humble ourselves, pray, seek His presence, and repent.” Really, this is it in a nutshell.

    You keep it right on the beam – thank you Brother Max!

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  221. roebuck wrote:

    you speak my thoughts and feelings

    We are kindred spirits, roebuck. God bless you. May He give us both wisdom and hope for the days ahead. The organized church has become such a strange landscape – I don’t feel myself at home in it much anymore.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  222. @ Lea:

    Don’t get me wrong, so far as holy books go, I’m of the opinion that the Bible has no equal on the planet.
    Its claims are like no other, hope beyond the grave for a real and bodily resurrection.
    It’s what I choose to believe.

    “Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.”
    — Voltaire —

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  223. @ Lea:

    to be clear, my husband and i both give ourselves for each other self-sacrificially in an abuse- free relationship.

    (i already mentioned this but it feels good to say it again): in so doing, both of us reflect Jesus. not just him.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  224. jyjames wrote:

    Where does one request a particular flag, please?

    One doesn’t. The flag which is displayed is based on the IP address we see when someone leaves a comment. But in looking at things it appears the plug in we use hasn’t be updated in 9 years. Which in Internet years is back when dinosaurs walked the Earth.

    So I’ll be working on a replacement using a more current mapping algorithm.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  225. Lowlandseer wrote:

    It may be that later Reformers. Didn’t use the word “evanescent”. Turretin, for example, talks of “common grace” in this example but I reality he is describing the same thing as Calvin.

    Thanks for explaining this. It does look like “temporary” is the more commonly used word. I tried searching on “temporary grace” and it looks like that is the name of a band, which makes the searching more difficult. In the explanations you posted and in the little I was able to find it looks like Calvin’s emphasis is a bit different. Calvin seems to focus on the false faith given by God as evanescent faith, which makes God responsible, whereas the other reformed writers tend to write as if the false faith is due to the fault if the person, which makes the person responsible. The latter makes much more sense to me. I suspect that even though it seems Calvin’s followers have been more Calvinist than Calvin in many ways, in this case his followers seem to have softened Calvin’s pretty extreme stance. I would still like to find some reformed theologians who have specifically addressed what Calvin wrote about it in ICR.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  226. Lea: Pst, it’s called ‘lying’.

    Can they not at least vague it up in a truthful way?

    “The LOOORD is calling me to labor in a new field! They want me to start May 20th, and we need some time to look for a house and pack, so the 6th will be my last Sunday here. Because our new congregation has not yet voted to confirm my call, I can’t tell you where it is just yet.”
    Instead, he had pewsitters worried he had a dread disease.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  227. Max: Lambert will attract the young and reformed to reverse declining membership there since Vines retired. The New Calvinist movement continues to take SBC churches.

    Hasn’t SWBTS had declining enrollment? So my “off topic” of Brunson leaving his shrinking megachurch is not so off the Patterson topic as I’d thought.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  228. Jojo: In the comment section, someone posts where he is going and when he begins…if the poster is to be believed.

    And Valleydale Church, Bitmingham, AL, is in the middle of a pastor search, with show and tell next week and a vote on May 20. Hmmm.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  229. Avid Reader: Just for the record (and newer blog readers), what the Apostle Paul actually wrote in 1Tim 2:14 was that he didn’t allow women to teach the particular doctrine that women were the originator of men because Adam was formed First than Eve.

    Well, I’m one of those radical people who believe Paul didn’t write the pastoral epistles but they were written by someone in Paul’s name. I’m also one of those radical people who think a letter written to one guy 2,000 years ago isn’t instructions for all time, but just a letter written to a guy 2,000 years ago. Interesting, useful, but forever and ever amen? Oh, probably not.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  230. Muslin, fka Deana Holmes: Well, I’m one of those radical people who believe Paul didn’t write the pastoral epistles but they were written by someone in Paul’s name.

    This is a common scholarly belief for Timothy. There are, iirc, 7 that they think Paul wrote, and Timothy is one they think was written in his style.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  231. Lea:
    Dave A A wrote:

    Pst, it’s called ‘lying’.

    Can they not at least vague it up in a truthful way?

    Remember all those sermons about “When the Devil lies, he’s speaking his native language”?
    (Though that observation holds for pretty much all pathological liars; they are literally unable to speak truth. At all.)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  232. Headless Unicorn Guy: (Though that observation holds for pretty much all pathological liars; they are literally unable to speak truth. At all.)

    Maybe this guy is one– otherwise why couldn’t he have told the flock up front that he already had a new gig lined up (and he’d give specifics once the new flock voted) so they wouldn’t worry about him?

      (Quote)  (Reply)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *