1

“How do we process the news that someone who was a spiritual leader in our community, who taught us God’s Word, who ministered to us, no longer considers himself a follower of Christ?”

He was a storyteller.

“I’m Joshua Harris and I know how to use story to reach an audience.” https://clearandloud.com/

“How do we process the news that someone who was a spiritual leader in our community, who taught us God’s Word, who ministered to us, no longer considers himself a follower of Christ?”

I’ll respond with another question:
How do we process the news that our pastors included sexual predators and those that covered for them?

I love you, Dee 🙂

Does anyone know, when Joshua Harris left Covenant Life Church to pursue a graduate degree at JI Packer’s school in Vancouver, did he ever join a church there?

“How do we process the news that someone who was a spiritual leader in our community, who taught us God’s Word, who ministered to us, no longer considers himself a follower of Christ?”

Not by turning to Piper, please…

Max: He was a storyteller.

“I’m Joshua Harris and I know how to use story to reach an audience.”

All of this slick marketing stuff (including the video clip above) leaves me cold. By nature, it is inauthentic.

Over 6,000 people have liked his post, so it must have been the right decision, right? Right?

Additionally, why do I get the feeling that more layers of this onion will get pulled away over the next couple months…? What I mean is there is subtext to both of his posts that will come to light sooner rather than later.

I don’t believe there is any chance of Harris giving an apology or any other information about what he knew at SGM. I feel certain that SGM made him sign an iron-clad confidentiality agreement. If he did say something, Mahaney might send out one of James MacDonald’s “hit men” to get him. Who knows?

This is a very sad story about Josh. I agree that if he knew of any abuse going on that he had an obligation of speaking up. As to why Josh left the faith? Only he really knows and for anyone to speculate with limited to no information would be wrong. Some have claimed it was due to Mahoney, extreme fundamentalism, etc. While this mayor may not be true, to make such claims is foolish. It could be as simple as personal sin, period. That being said, Ms. Easter’s request that he tie purity teaching with abuse is totally foolish. Attempting to tie biblical principles to abuse is wrong. OTOH, misusing biblical principles for personal gratification is just as wrong.

“How do we process the news that someone who was a spiritual leader in our community, who taught us God’s Word, who ministered to us, no longer considers himself a follower of Christ?”

Good Lord! How in the heck are CLC members supposed to process a long line of dysfunctional “pastors” at their church?!! I would process my family out of there!

John: Over 6,000 people have liked his post, so it must have been the right decision, right?

Whew, that in itself is a sign of the condition of the church in America. It’s sort of like the standing ovations that Savage and Hybels received when their failures were reported.

Dan Saunders: Ms. Easter’s request that he tie purity teaching with abuse is totally foolish. Attempting to tie biblical principles to abuse is wrong.

Forgive me for not knowing the context of Ms. Easter’s request. Will you please say more about your understanding of biblical purity teaching?

I am fairly sure you will agree that the following suggests an environment ripe for abuse, as well as some examples of abuse. Purity teaching is not just about physical modesty and waiting till marriage. It refers to a specific, novel, recent movement. Proponents push the idea of marrying girls off at menarche. Fathers are supposed to pick out their daughters’ husbands. There is a highly disturbing idea that a girl’s father is her first boyfriend. Boys are told that as husbands they will be kings. Boys and girls alike are supposed to put marriage ahead of college and even high school. Girls have been shamed as cups full of spit. They are forced to wear skirts in one school, and banned from wearing skirts in another school. As wives, they are to submit to their husbands in every single way, including painful and unwanted sex and physical discipline. Quiverfull is a big part of the purity movement.

My youth ministers preached an early version of purity teaching, and I found it harmful and confusing. I hope that you had a more uplifting experience.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

Thank you so much for sharing your story, Dee Holmes. I am so very sorry for what you went through, and your warning to other Christians is very much needed here.

I completely agree with you & Dee Parsons that Harris should come clean about sexual abuse coverups at SGM.

But all this piling on, this need so many evangelicals have to make pronouncements as to the state of Harris’s soul in the past, present and/or future… It says rather more about the emotional & spiritual needs of those making pronouncements than it does about Joshua Harris. I believe this phenomenon is coming from a place of rigidity and fear, and even an unwillingness to assess one’s own doubts, which is very common in evangelical culture.

Not to mention a need to get a thumbs-up from our own Christian communities.

In doing so, ironically, Christians making these kinds of statements are doing exactly what Joshua Harris was trained to do: focusing on one’s public image and the view others have of your faith life (doctrinal purity, ability to quote the Bible, etc.). Even expressing sadness over Harris’s soul is a way of doing this.

Simple answers and formulas are comforting; that’s why IKDG was so wildly popular in the first place!!

Instead, consider this hypothetical scenario:

What if, say, Joshua Harris really did, truly trust in Jesus for his personal salvation when he was young? What if, in that context of being a real, actual, Christian, he had genuinely prayed that God would use his book IKDG for good in the lives of other Christians — only to discover, years later, that it had instead done a whole lot of damage to a generation of young people? Wouldn’t that be devastating?

If I were Joshua Harris and had prayed and thought that way in the past, then I would wonder, did God even answer my prayers? What sort of a God is this? And maybe even, does God even exist in light of this, and how would I know? How would I trust Him? Why would I ever pray for Him to use me or guide me ever again?

This scenario is entirely plausible. But it’s far easier to just say, “Nope, Harris was not a Christian.”

I thought Harris going to Regent was an excellent move to quite possibly think through all these things.

Anyway, folks, if you really grieve and worry over the state of Harris’s soul, it really is ok to just pray privately for him.

Friend,

Rightly teaching both boys and girls the need for purity and sex only within marriage is biblical. Unfortunately, extremism on BOTH ends of the spectrum take away from biblical principles. I would say definitely not all proponents of purity pursue the things you have indicated. Those that I am acquainted with do not. As someone once said, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because some have abused biblical principles does not negate the principles themselves.

Dan Saunders: Rightly teaching both boys and girls the need for purity and sex only within marriage is biblical. Unfortunately, extremism on BOTH ends of the spectrum take away from biblical principles.

Indeed.

dee:

This is good to see. Christians often come down on different sides, didn’t want to imagine you two doing the Paul and Barnabas.

Thank you Dee! This is an excellent article. We don’t tell you often enough how much your voice and your heart and your hard work are appreciated.

I’m ashamed to say that it didn’t even occur to me, until you pointed it out, the gaping hole in Josh’s recent posts. I was too focused on IKDG, purity culture, his marriage, separation/divorce. He’s apologized (somewhat) for the book, he’s even apologized to the LGBT community, but he hasn’t apologized for how the victims of sex abuse were treated on his watch.

So thank you for keeping the victims first, and continuing to push him on that. I hope someday soon he will.

elastigirl: what might such “hit men” do?

And further: What is RIGHT? This is the very thing that frustrated me most about SGM: They cared more about protecting their organization from legal consequences than they did about comforting CHILD victims of sex abuse. I know “WWJD?” can be a cliche, but seriously: Wouldn’t the path of a true follower of Christ be to say, “I don’t care if it costs us all our jobs, and all our buildings. We are going to care for the sheep.”?

If Josh telling the truth might even now bring some comfort to these victims and their families, shouldn’t he do it?

Eli:
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes, I believe this phenomenon is coming from a place of rigidity and fear, and even an unwillingness to assess one’s own doubts, which is very common in evangelical culture.

In doing so, ironically, Christians making these kinds of statements are…focusing on…public image and the view others have of your faith life…Even expressing sadness over Harris’s soul is a way of doing this.

Simple answers and formulas are comforting…

It is also possible that Josh Harris never really experienced the real thing. That what he saw was abuse and tyranny, and it is not surprising considering the people he associated with and was raised around. That he rightly questioned what it all had to do with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, but then wrongly confused that with Jesus and rejected the faith in Him as nonsense without having ever experienced Him. That’s not a simple-minded answer and I’m not giving it from a state of ignorance.

I’ve been on the inside of neocalvinism as an elder and seen some sausage made, then watched over the last ten years as person after person in that church went the way of Josh Harris or became Unitarian Universalists or the like. I’ve tried to tell people that what they experienced wasn’t the real thing, it was fake and pharisaical.

Having known Jesus for 37 years, I don’t consider your hypothetical plausible. Have never never seen an honest prayer unanswered. Sometimes the answer has been “no”, but never seen Jesus just ignore someone and let them swing in the wind. Not His gig, not His style. I can’t know exactly what has gone on in Josh Harris’s heart or what he ever really believed, but I am not ignorant of the milieu he experienced. Do you have direct experiences with neocalvinism as I and many others here have?

Finally, it’s kind of vulgar for you to tell us who wonder what the guy ever really believed, given the group he ran with, that we are basing our opinions on fear and are being simple-minded. Of course, that’s every bit as much the unwarranted speculation you condemn. And when you basically tell us all to shut up and pray quietly reather than speaking out about what we think, have you ever considered that there are many people here, regulars at a forum about spiritual abuse, who’ve been treated to that sort of bullying behavior in cultic churches, told to just pipe down and not speak out? Have you considered how that sounds to many here? Just wondering, you seem to have huge blind spots in your thinking. All-in-all, not a very thoughtful or well considered post.

Eli: But all this piling on, this need so many evangelicals have to make pronouncements as to the state of Harris’s soul in the past, present and/or future… It says rather more about the emotional & spiritual needs of those making pronouncements than it does about Joshua Harris.

The New Calvinist community, who once adored Harris, have been particularly harsh in this regard. Instead of just dropping him like a hot potato, they want to kick the spud down the street for a while. It’s as if he let them down by damaging their brand. The really hardcore among them are probably thinking he experienced Calvin’s “evanescent grace”, a temporary fake grace given by God to the reprobate to make them think and act as if they were saved, only to later damn them for their deceptive behavior. That stinkin’ thinkin’ is, of course, not from God … such folks are in a great spiritual dilemma themselves. I wonder what Calvin thinks about “evanescent grace” now?

Coming from the ‘none’ side, most of the nones who have commented aren’t sure what to make of Harris. Many of the exvangelicals raised in the “purity” culture are most concerned about whether he has fully realized the damage his books did and do. Those aware of his later career (much might depend on when they became ex and how much they kept up) are more concerned about the abuse coverup. See Libby Anne https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2019/07/josh-harris-is-no-longer-a-christian-but-im-still-angry.html who states

As I talked my feelings on this through with a friend, she noted that Harris was both “victimized” and “played a role in the victimization of others.” I think she’s onto something.

She is putting his feet to the fire for his more recent actions such as the coverup since then he was older and more independent then, but, she is willing to listen.

I do wonder whether his most recent statement is in part to draw fire away from his wife. Apparently at least some Christian bloggers have blamed the separation/divorce on his wife (note that most states require a period of separation before a divorce so they are separated and in the process of getting a divorce [or perhaps the divorce is now final]) and have described her in terms not appropriate for humane people to use.

Dan Saunders: Rightly teaching both boys and girls the need for purity and sex only within marriage is biblical.

Chapter and verse?
There’s more than one of us out here who believe no such thing.
Muff’s one of the few who’ll admit to it and own it.

Muff Potter: Chapter and verse?
There’s more than one of us out here who believe no such thing.
Muff’s one of the few who’ll admit to it and own it.

Come on, Muff. Ephesians 5:3 for starters: “sexual immorality” = “fornication” = having sex outside of marriage, treating it lightly, casually, like something you sell off cheaply. That’s pretty much the meaning of “porneia”, which is the operative word.

Jesus designed this whole universe to be a reflection of His relationship with those whom He made and loves. Marriage is something of a metaphor for this relationship, as is sex itself. I shouldn’t have to go into all the ways this is so, you could likely lecture me on them.

From a purely practical perspective, throwing the Bible aside, do you really think, at the end of the day, that when we are biologically designed to develop close emotional bonds to those with whom we mate (swans are just like us) and this is not a matter of much debate, there are biological things that go on that confirm it, when STDs are killing and maiming young people by the millions, when the Sexual Revolution has run exactly in line with the explosion of divorce rates, that a casual, anything goes attitude towards sex makes any sense at all?

Nonsense.

My perception of Harris is that his world revolves around him. He will pursue anything that keeps him in the spotlight, whether it’s commiserating with victims or ditching the faith. That’s why there isn’t any ongoing concern for the victims of SGM, just his perception that it brought “chaos” to his life.

I hope he learns to thrive in anonymity, like the rest of us.

“We needed to be calling in other people, we needed to be, obviously, making sure that — and we did report many cases of sexual abuse, but in some cases obviously we made huge mistakes.”
I’m afraid that this is an admission of guilt here.

Dee: What else do you want Josh Harris to say?

I deeply respect and always appreciate you following the advice about keeping the victim in front of you. But with this whole Josh Harris “deconstruction” matter, your blogs about it feel tangential. Almost “click baity-y” or “shirt-tail-ish.”

Yes, Josh Harris was “a leader” in the SGM churches. Yes, he admits he left to go to seminary around the time of the lawsuit. I don’t see how that means he now has to say anymore than you admit he already has about the SGM sex scandal. Josh Harris’ announcement about his departure from Christianity–which you showed us he has before tied to the sex abuse cover up–and its impact on his marriage are big enough deals in and off themselves. I don’t think by Josh Harris announcements on those matters necessarily means he isn’t heartbroken, guilt-ridden, etc., about the SGM sex scandal.

You need something more than “Josh Harris was an SGM leader, and so now that he is making headlines about leaving Christianity and divorcing his wife, he should say a whole bunch of things about the sex abuse scandal.”

Are you angling for an interview with him? I mean, he’s admitted publicly it was wrong, poorly handled, illegal, etc. etc. What else do you want him to say that can help the victims? Without something more than coincidences of timing, I think you are coming across on this one a bit like those old-timey side-show strongmen who demonstrated feats of strength by holding back two trucks headed in opposite directions.

Mod: Please pick a name and stick with it. You have also commented as A season of seasons, See baby not bathwater, Brent, and Brent Thompson. GBTC

Law Prof: Jesus designed this whole universe to be a reflection of His relationship with those whom He made and loves.

Unless you’re in a mass extinction.

Maybe Jesus didn’t love the dinosaurs? Just sayin’

The world isn’t simple and I don’t think the universe reflects anything other than the physical properties that run it. It is not good or bad.

To Muff’s point, the Bible’s concept of “marriage” morphed mightily over the millennia depending on the society that wrote it. The patriarchs and kings of the Old Testament were hardly “like swans”.

I think Harris’ motivations aren’t simple either. He may really have doubts about the faith or it’s just a grab for sympathy. (“no, Josh, please don’t leave the faith”) or it may be calculated plan to avoid culpability or he may go for a “season” (ie till it all blows over) and make dramatic return (after sufficient “restoration” of course) and then write a book about his triumphal return to bosom of the Lord….or he may shave his head and eat cheese.

Nothing in life is simple, all life is suffering to some degree or other. The point of faith is to get you through it, not around it.

Law Prof: It is also possible that Josh Harris never really experienced the real thing.

Sure, that’s possible. But my point is, only God really knows.

A lot of real, faith-filled Christians sincerely pray to God and yet wind up doing a lot of damage. Bernard of Clairvaux & the Crusades. Martin Luther & the Jews. Jonathan Edwards & slaves. Today’s evangelical leaders & covering up sexual abuse. Etc. etc.

Yes, we all have terrible blind spots. Yes, including me.

I’ve read all of Dee Parsons’ blogposts here for over a year now, and many of the comments. I’m genuinely grateful for her gutsy exposure of victimization in the church as well as all the readers here who have emerged from formerly spiritually toxic environments of one sort or another, whole and healed.

Yes, I think that Joshua Harris came from a very unhealthy Christian community. Yes, I think speaking out against spiritual toxicity, clergy sexual abuse & coverups, financial corruption, etc. etc. is important. Criticizing Joshua Harris for pushing harmful views, bad theology and covering up child sexual abuse at SGM is perfectly valid.

However, I believe that Dee Holmes’ perspective, having experienced devastating spiritual damage herself, is also perfectly valid as well.

I think it’s a good warning to Christians not to put the ultimate stamp of approval on someone else’s soul.

Ken P.,

“I was trying to be facetious, but that doesn’t seem to work here sometimes.”
++++++++++

it worked just as you intended.

yes, it’s ridiculous that christian culture resembles the mafia. if i could clap 3 times, spin around & say nrwawawawawa to send crotch crickets to mafioso christian leaders it’d be at the top of my to-do list.

but now i’m taking the proposition seriously. just how far would a famous-&-godly christian leader go in issuing consequences to someone for breaking the non-disclosure agreement? (for God’s glory, of course.)

that they would require an NDA means they’re moral and biblical screwballs to begin with.

Law Prof: It is also possible that Josh Harris never really experienced the real thing.

The “No true Scotsman fallacy”

Law Prof: It is also possible that Josh Harris never really experienced the real thing. That what he saw was abuse and tyranny, and it is not surprising considering the people he associated with and was raised around. That he rightly questioned what it all had to do with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, but then wrongly confused that with Jesus and rejected the faith in Him as nonsense without having ever experienced Him. That’s not a simple-minded answe

I don’t remember if I’ve mentioned it in this particular thread, but the impression I now have of Josh Harris is that he was the Christianese Culture War equivalent of a Child Star CELEBRITY with additional Famous Father Syndrome. His father was a Christianese Homeschooling CELEBRITY, and Josh was probably fast-tracked into Daddy’s position/pulpit.

IKDJ established his CELEBRITY status in its own right (analogous to “Child Prodigy CELEBRITY”) and from then on the rules of CELEBRITY were in effect within his Christian Bubble circles.

Remember how messed up Child Star CELEBRITIES get when they grow up? Add the fact that Josh admitted to being sexually molested as a child. Not only is that becoming the New Normal in Christian CELEBRITY Culture, it messes up your head by itself. Add the other above factors, and I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a breakdown/scandal somewhere on the calendar.

Now that things are hitting the fan, I would expect a one-eighty flip to get as far away from his previous culture as possible. Such wild swings are common when spiritual abuse cases boil over; in a best-case scenario (like Eagle & me), the swings back-and-forth should damp out over the next few years, eventually stabilizing somewhere in the middle.In a worst-case, he transfers a Fundamentalist personality to the other extreme polarity and gets stuck there.

Jeannette Altes: There is a very wide spectrum between the purity culture in church and the ‘anything goes’ casual hook-ups you suggest. It seems as though you are suggesting a very binary view with no room for nuance, circumstance, and grace.

Remember who we’re taking about and his background.
Law is a profession and culture of precise definitions and Boolean logic.

Iowa Steve: The “No true Scotsman fallacy”

So, has it really come to this? I cannot propose even a possibility that someone raised in Harris’s environment did not experience a true representation of Jesus? Really? In a culture which has become known for tyrannical control, repeated lies, twisting of the Bible, child sex abuse and the cover ups thereof? Are those Christian virtues? No, of course not. You’re just fundamentally wrong here to accuse me of a logical fallacy. It’s a non sequitur, to be precise.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Remember who we’re taking about and his background.
Law is a profession and culture of precise definitions and Boolean logic.

Ah, but the law also allows for (even sometimes hinges on) interpretation and does allow for nuance…. 😉

Law Prof: Have never never seen an honest prayer unanswered. Sometimes the answer has been “no”, but never seen Jesus just ignore someone and let them swing in the wind. Not His gig, not His style.

That was my experience with the faith – prayers unanswered.

God says in the Bible he’ll meet my needs, but he has not done so. I’ve had to find non-spiritual work-arounds for some things in my life. When you stop depending on a deity or expecting him to answer, you have to figure out how to live life without him.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Remember who we’re taking about and his background.
Law is a profession and culture of precise definitions and Boolean logic.

Not in all respects, and if we do employ binary logic, it goes down through several levels of if-then propositions which gives one a wide range of nuance. The whole point of the actual practice of law and accounting (my other gig in academia) is of judgment and gray area.

I was only responding to what Muff said about there being nothing in the Bible saying we can’t have sex with people outside of marriage.

SiteSeer: I’m not disagreeing with you, per se, but there is more going on to affect divorce rates, so I don’t think we can just say this is cause and effect. Not so long ago, divorce was not acceptable. People remained in horrifying marriages for life. Believe me, I know some of them. People today do not have to consign themselves to a lifetime of misery just because they made a mistake in marriage. So, just to say, I think one has to have some other metric to measure the state of marriage than just divorce rates.

You’re right, we cannot automatically say cause-effect. The social sciences and human behavior are not as simple as test tubes (which are not so simple themselves). Agreed.

But, if we’re going to say there is no relationship between having sex with multiple partners outside of the benefit of marriage and the jaded attitude that often leads to divorce, then we might as well say there’s no relationship between rigid patriarchy and the abuse of women.

Headless Unicorn Guy: It’s not only chickens that turn on and peck Defectives to death in the barnyard.

Some corners of the church shoot their wounded … after wounding them.

Daisy: That was my experience with the faith – prayers unanswered.

God says in the Bible he’ll meet my needs, but he has not done so. I’ve had to find non-spiritual work-arounds for some things in my life. When you stop depending on a deity or expecting him to answer, you have to figure out how to live life without him.

Your needs have not been met. I am not you, and cannot judge you all-in-all, what you need or don’t need. But I know you have a fine mind having seen your posts here and suspect that a great number of things you really do need have been given to you. Whether you’ve always received what you want is another matter. I sure haven’t gotten all I wanted.

SiteSeer: So far he has been the only leader I’ve ever seen change direction or apologize at all, in any way, for anything.

This is why I have more sympathy for him than any others. Even if his apologies are not enough because they can’t fix what was done, they *seem* genuine?

Law Prof: Whether you’ve always received what you want is another matter. I sure haven’t gotten all I wanted.

I’m not going to go into a lot of details, but it’s all the same differences.

If there’s a God, he hasn’t been meeting my needs.

I want and need my mother. She was my best friend. She’s dead from cancer. God didn’t heal her.
God has not replaced her in my life with a friend or a spouse.
The bunk in the Bible about God placing the lonely in families is a crock and a half.

And that is just one example. I don’t care to enumerate my other issues with the faith and with God.

I loathe going into details about any of this with Christians,
because most Christians like to play Defense Attorney for God (rather than empathize),
which I mention in my blog post.

I refer to this post:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/deconstruction-deconversion-joshua-harris-and-the-awful-christian-reaction/

The result is the folks in the painful deconstruction or deconversion process – such as myself or Harris – end up having still-practicing-Christians want to get into these intellectual debates, or they want us to justify our reasons.

It’s just a debate for you. And you’re quite happy with your Christian life.

I’ve learned there is absolutely nothing I can say to a Christian in your position to get you to understand.

The typical still-Christian person is usually more interested in proving there is a God, God cares, God is never wrong, and that Christian wants to defend their faith and the Bible.

-That drive to want to defend God, to still believe him for yourself, takes prominence over anything I may say or any of my experiences that don’t line up with the Bible or with God.

It’s like debating complemenetarianism with comp men – it’s merely an intellectual process for them, for the men, but following comp for years had real-life, negative, and painful consequences for me personally as a woman.

My experience and pain from and with complementarianism counts for nada, because defense of complementarian is the foremost concern with comps.

Same deal when discussing this stuff with Christians about why I don’t want to be a Christian anymore, the subject of unanswered prayer, etc.

The only correct response is (and I get into this in my blog post about Harris) is something like, “I’m sorry, Daisy. I don’t know why God hasn’t been there for you, and I don’t know why so many Christians you’ve known have not been there for you, either.”

As for his Christianity, places like CLC have no idea how wide the stream of Christian thought is. Great saints like Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Macrina would be denounces as heretics in NeoCal churches in 2019. The reason I’m still a Christian is that I discovered that Calvinism isn’t the only way to be a Christian. Hopefully Harris can do something similar. Our forefathers and mothers have given us a great gift if we would only look beyond the narrow slice of the tradition we may have come from.

Amen, Ricco!

And when you factor in the Western Fathers, saints, and doctors, the stream is even wider. 😉

“In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North,
But one great fellowship of love
Across the whole wide earth.”
— Traditional African-American Hymn

Max,

“In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (Calvin, Institutes)

“The judgment, made in Scripture concerning the apostate, as if wholly different from true believers bears upon this subject. ‘They went out from us’, says John, ‘but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us’.(1 John 2:19). As Augustine filly remarks ‘That is not really the body of Christ, which will not be with him forever’(Christian Instruction 3:32). And elsewhere: ‘They were not sons even when they were in profession and name sons.’(Admonition and Grace 9). Thus the apostle distinguishes ‘being in the church’ as to external profession and the ecclesiastical body; and ‘being of the church’ as to internal communion and the mystical body of Christ (which belongs to the elect alone). Now the apostate and antichrists (of whom John speaks) had indeed been among them in the Christian assembly and the visible church of believers by a profession of faith and communion of the sacraments; and had fallen from that communion, not so much by a change of place, as a change of doctrine and affection (as they are said to go out of the world, not who separate themselves from it in body, but in mind and affections). And because a great scandal could have arisen thence (as if the church had begotten such pests or true believers could fail), John meets the case when he adds they were not of the number of true believers, because if they had been of them, they would in like manner have remained constantly with them but this happened in order that it might be manifested that not all who are in the church and who male a profession of faith are truly believers and members of Christ’s body. The apostle could not have said this unless he had supposed it to be certain and indubitable that they, who had once been drawn into the mystical body of Christ and the invisible church, could not fail from it.” (Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 15th Topic, Q16.6).

The Schoolmen were always a bit wordy but Turretin and the succinct Calvin get it right (as opposed to the “Stinkin’ thinkin’ “ of their opponents.

Dan Saunders: Rightly teaching both boys and girls the need for purity and sex only within marriage is biblical. Unfortunately, extremism on BOTH ends of the spectrum take away from biblical principles. I would say definitely not all proponents of purity pursue the things you have indicated. Those that I am acquainted with do not. As someone once said, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because some have abused biblical principles does not negate the principles themselves.

I agree with what all you said there.

And the words and terms “purity,” and “purity culture” are not understood and defined the same way by everybody.

There may be some very extremist Christians out there saying things like kids should not date or hold hands, and those types of Christians are putting that sort of thing down under the heading of “purity culture,”
but IMO, the vast majority of mainstream Christians simply mean more reasonable views when they use the term “purity,” such as encouraging abstinence- until- marriage.

The terms Purity and Purity Culture mean different things to different people, depending on who one is talking to.

Christians aren’t on the same page with that term any more than the Complementarians can all agree with what Complementarianism is and what it looks like or how it should be defined and practiced.

SiteSeer: And then there is the situation where a couple are in love and are so sure they are going to be partners for life that they get involved in a physical relationship but for whatever reason, the relationship does end and they move on, vs a person who is promiscuous, moving from one superficial relationship to another. The person who is promiscuous most likely has deeper issues that are driving them and those issues may be what affects their ability to build a stable marriage, as opposed to the fact that they had multiple partners. Would preventing them from being promiscuous before marriage change the outcome?

I do agree with you that the ideal is to wait for marriage. And, one hopes, that marriage partners will be chosen well so that a marriage can be built that will go the distance. But, kids make mistakes. Having never been married before, they have to make the decision of their life. Some people are just naturally better judges of character than others, which gives them a better chance at success. Purity culture made the whole thing more difficult and prone to failure by removing the learning experience of dating and relating to the opposite sex before making a *very* final decision that one was doomed to live with for life.

Agreed on every point. Kids make mistakes. I made mistakes, my wife made mistakes (with me). Our adult children made mistakes.

I’m not an advocate of purity culture. Hate it. People are not ruined because they give in to youthful passions. God can make people new and forgive and give grace. That’s what’s missing in purity culture and those sick examples you hear of church teachers taking a flower and pulling off a petal for each kiss or bit of physical contact a young woman has and then holding nothing but the stem and saying “This is what you look like after having sex.” Those people are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and sadistic.

Law Prof: Finally, it’s kind of vulgar for you to tell us who wonder what the guy ever really believed, given the group he ran with, that we are basing our opinions on fear and are being simple-minded.

I address this in the post at my blog, in general terms.

It is my view, that yes, Eli is correct, that a lot of Christians bash and get hostile towards another Christian who is deconverting (or who may be deconverting) such as (but not limited to) Harris, and that for a lot of them, it is based perhaps in fear.

I get into that in my blog post about Harris, so I won’t belabor it here.

I didn’t take Eli’s post the same way.
I didn’t pick up from Eli that he (or she?) was trying to tell people in the comments here to shut up.

Seeing as how so many Christians have been acting so poorly on Twitter and in blog comment boxes about Harris, you have other doubters (such as myself) witnessing this poor behavior, and I know I am turned off and repulsed by it.

In this case, I do think it would probably be better for all the gung-ho Christians who are shouting Bible verses about the un-saved perishing (at Harris) to instead stop yelling at Harris and praying for him.

Because this isn’t just about Harris.

You have other folks in the deconstruction process seeing how the online Christian community is treating his state, and it’s pushing us further away, it’s not enticing us to stay or re-consider.

elastigirl: it’s easy for me to say, sitting up in bed here leaning against cushy pillow with my coffee —

It’s funny you said this; that exact thought occurred to me just before I clicked “Post”. “Easy for you to say what Josh should do, when it’s not your life/livelihood on the line.” I freely admit, I can’t GUARANTEE I would actually do it, if I was in his situation. We don’t ever know until we’re there.

But I was once in leadership at a church plant where a moral failure occurred. And we were faced with that decision: The cost of calling it what it was, publicly, might be the implosion of the church. I had to look across the circle at a brother I loved (not the one who had sinned) and know that he might soon be looking for another pastorate. And HE had to consider what it would mean for his family. And we ALL had to consider the risk of losing a community we held dear. But we did it, because we believed it was the right thing to do.

So I’ve had at least a glimpse of that scenario. And I want to believe I would have that same integrity if the stakes were even higher. I do say it with some humility, but I think we’re right to say, this is what should be done.

Max: The New Calvinist community, who once adored Harris, have been particularly harsh in this regard.

Instead of just dropping him like a hot potato, they want to kick the spud down the street for a while.

It’s as if he let them down by damaging their brand.

Yep. I also say that same principle applies to Non-Neo-Calvinists – to the regular, average, every day Christians, as well.

I think when someone leaves the faith (or may leave it), some Christians get fearful or angry about it, because a lot of them want to believe their faith / God / Bible is workable, has all the answers for life for everyone, etc.

A guy leaving the faith sort of forces Christians out of their happy, content, ‘I’ll live on auto-pilot and just assume my world views are correct’ places,
and makes them examine, (even if it’s briefly), that maybe the faith does not work, and perhaps it’s not so true after all.

Maybe the faith does not work as advertised.

I’ve seen many Christians say, (or I’ve seen this in Christian blogs and books), that if you are, say, a drug addict, for instance, that Jesus will heal you of your addiction.

If you just trust in Christ (this sort of Christian marketing goes), then presto bingo, you will be granted meaning, purpose, and inner peace and joy at all times, and Jesus will remove your addictions (or whatever your problem is).

But that is not reality for every one, not even those of us who followed Christ since our childhoods.

Some Christians like to point to atheism, Hinduism, and whatever other world views and religions, as not providing practical solutions or not offering inner peace.
They claim belief in Christ will provide all that and so much more.

They can’t consider that the Christian faith may be amiss, or their life-long understanding and assumptions of it may be wrong…

So, I think, for some of them, it’s easier, faster, and more comfortable to go on the attack against the guy (such as Harris) who says he may be walking away from the faith.

Muff Potter: Chapter and verse?
There’s more than one of us out here who believe no such thing.
Muff’s one of the few who’ll admit to it and own it

I don’t care to get drawn in to a back and forth over this,
but for now,
I will say that remaining a virgin until marriage (for both men and women) is one of those beliefs/practices that was largely assumed in the culture in which the Bible was written,
which is likely why one doesn’t see a lot of specific, “Thou shalt not boink prior to marriage” verses explicitly stated to suit your satisfaction.

I find it hard to believe the reverse (which is what you are inadvertently promoting with your view):

Which is, that the God of the Bible is peachy keen fine and dandy with no standards at all sexuality,
everyone just running around sexing it up all over the place,
with whomever, whenever, whatever,
and God is just hunky dory with that.

I don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth was sexually active, as he was not married.
He was a single (as in unmarried) guy.

I think the expectation and understanding among the Jews of the OT era (and carried into the NT) is that one was to refrain from having sex prior to marriage.

It wasn’t something that had to be spelled out in a chapter and verse, because the readers of the day already knew this was the deal.

And I have to say that being celibate over my life (as I am a single, not married person) has helped in some ways.

I’ve not had to be concerned with getting pregnant out of wedlock,
I’ve not had to spend a fortune on birth control
(barring the time years ago I was on it for awhile to make my period regular),
I told my fiance up front when I was with him I was waiting until marriage, so I would tolerate zero pressure, guilt trips, or manipulation off him to have sex, etc.

I’ve had sexually active (prior to marriage) women friends phone me or write me going back to my teen years to tell me they regretted having sex with boyfriends.

They were hoping the guy they were boinking would propose marriage, etc, but the guys they were with were just using them for sex.

I’ve avoided a lot of that type of heartbreak and being used by men.

There are advantages to abstaining.

But I don’t see the Bible teaching a hedonistic, ‘do whatever you want sexually when you want to, with whomever you want to’ sort of philosophy about sex, either, nor do I see it even implied.

One dude in the NT got chewed out by Paul for doing his own mother- in- law, or some such.

So there are some expectations going on there.

Daisy: I didn’t like Detwiler’s comments or attitudes about Harris at all (I saw them via a tweet or something by Julie Anne)
I was taken aback at how hateful and critical he was about Harris being in a faith crisis.

This is not a reply to Mr Detweiler’s comments, as I haven’t read them. Rather, it is a comment on the state of the salvation of a person in a faith crisis.

To wit: I don’t think you can tell without looking at what comes after the “faith crisis”. Many heroes of the biblescribshers had crises of faith.

SiteSeer: I feel the same way. Whatever you think about Josh Harris, this has been a devastating reveal of how relationships work in Christianity. In a way, I’m actually grateful for it because now there’s no illusions about what lies behind the happy church smiles. It’s best to know the reality of things.

Yep, that a million times. I totally agree.

I know Dee’s priority here is about the SGM abuse situation,
but I’m mostly looking at other aspects of this Harris bruhaha, at how it’s playing out on Christian Twitter / Christian blogs, and it’s not been very pretty.

Iowa Steve: The “No true Scotsman fallacy”

Yes, that, and variations of it keep popping up on Christian Twitter about Harris (or about folks like Harris).

If Harris is thinking about leaving the faith (or has done so), he must not have been a “real” Christian to start with.

That one comes up a lot, and it drives me bonkers.

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but doesn’t the NT say somewhere that yes, it’s totally possible for a person to be a “real” Christian but to later in life, for whatever the reason, to leave the faith??

Sorry I don’t remember the exact BCV on that.

I think Jesus alluded to it, did he not, when he talked about seeds falling on good soil, on rocks, or among weeds, and one or more of those seed examples he gave represented a “true” believe, not a “false” convert.

But anyway, I wish, I so wish all the still-happy-to- be- a- Christian folks out there would give some of these cliches a rest, about how,
‘So- and- so must not have been really saved in the first place, a truly saved guy would never leave the faith!’

Law Prof: So, has it really come to this? I cannot propose even a possibility that someone raised in Harris’s environment did not experience a true representation of Jesus? Really? In a culture which has become known for tyrannical control, repeated lies, twisting of the Bible, child sex abuse and the cover ups thereof?

I already addressed this above, but putting that aside…

Forget how Harris was raised, look at the push back the man has been getting from Christians online, some of whom may have met him, some no.

I’ve seen more condemnation of the man than support from a lot of Christians (on Twitter and some forums/blogs), and all just because the guy may be changing his views about God and Christianity.

Jeannette Altes: There is a very wide spectrum between the purity culture in church and the ‘anything goes’ casual hook-ups you suggest.

Indeed. Some people have sex outside of marriage but within committed relationships. Some people still take it very seriously. Some people take it more seriously than married people, honestly. I’ve seen both. I think I’m with Muff on this one although I dont get into it much. There is definitely more room for differing opinions here than is often acknowledged.

Law Prof,

I don’t think Lea would disagree with all the point you made in your post taking them each separately and at face value,
her position seemed to be saying that reasons for why people divorce can be more complicated or numerous than you were suggesting re: pre-marital sex only.

There have been studies about this. Here’s one or two:

(Of course, some of these studies are sometimes backed by excessively pro-marriage conservative groups, so you may have to take some of their reports with a grain of salt):

Why virgins may have happier marriages
By Christian Gollayan October 23, 2018
https://nypost.com/2018/10/23/why-virgins-may-have-happier-marriages/

This is from Huff Post:

New Study Claims People Who’ve Had More Sexual Partners Report Unhappier Marriages
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440

You can also google for this headline, and several sites will turn up:
“CDC Study Says Teen Virgins Are Healthier”
-(based on a 2016 study)

I’m going to assume that Josh didn’t want his marriage to end in divorce or his faith to end in apostasy, but I’m also going to assume he did want the announcement of both to get him some likes on Instagram.

Mod: Please pick a name. You have also posted as Rupert Whitebear. Pick one and stick with it. GBTC

Life is hard.

SiteSeer: It takes years to work through all of the issues when you re-examine your faith and your life. You can’t just suddenly come up with a statement that defines who you are and what you believe now, and it’s all re-settled and you live out this new perspective the rest of your life.

It is a painful process that takes years. And if you once lived in the world of everything being certain and defined, you are reluctant to step back into that again.

I can’t say that I have a clear “statement of faith” for my life at this point. I would be very reluctant to try to come up with one because it is in flux.

All I can say for sure is, “God is love.” So many things I once believed have turned out to be wrong. I’m old and wise enough to realize my own definitions mean little, it is a process of discovery, learning who God is and how he operates.

I agreed with your whole post, but especially that part of it.
I discussed some very similar things to it in my blog post about Harris.

Stepping away from one’s faith is a painful, drawn out process. It can take years.

I’ve seen some Christians hostile towards Harris assume questioning one’s faith is a simple and quick ordeal. The amount of ignorance or denial about what folks like Harris go through in this area is astonishing.

I wonder. Should Harris decide to remain a Christian, but leave the -was he a Calvinist? – conservative fold,
To become an uber liberal, woman-preacher affirming Christian, or, if he became a moderate to conservative Arminian,
Would that go over well with the branch of Calvinist, conservative Christians who are now lashing out against him?

I mean, would they rather have him become a Liberal Christian, or become a Christ-rejecting Agnostic?

If we’re being real, I bet the hyper conservatives would rather see Harris become a Christ rejecting Atheist/Agnostic than turn into a Progressive Christian.

Daisy: But a lot of Christians out there have been very comfortable making all sorts of definite opinions on his beliefs, character, and state of his soul, based off a few somewhat vaguely worded IG posts.

You know, I no longer care one bit about what Josh Harris believes except in how it affects others. And belief that affects others needs positive action.

Harris enforced an abusive church culture that also protected abusers. Some of the
stuff he taught publicly has hurt many people, though he has recanted and walked back some of that. But as dee said, his recent deconstruction posts kinda refer to everything except CLC’s abusive church culture, their protection of child abusers, and their refusal to take responsibility for those things.

He needs to deal with hurt inside his family, and though his wife hasn’t said much, I’m sure it’s there. She also may be dealing with her own church and family culture deconstruction. But Harris has personally hurt people I know by things he did and allowed to go on as a pastor. There are a lot of victims who were molested inside his church.

The public is so focused on Harris’ beliefs and his book that nobody is talking about the abuses within CLC that he himself enforced.

Daisy:
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but doesn’t the NT say somewhere that yes, it’s totally possible for a person to be a “real” Christian but to later in life, for whatever the reason, to leave the faith??

The New Cals don’t believe that’s possible, and neither do traditional Baptists, and that makes up a large percentage of evangelicals who probably think they need to say something about that.

There are Christians who believe that, but they probably aren’t the ones all mad about it on Twitter.

Friend: Problem is, most churches don’t teach forgiveness of sexual mistakes. They just offer “clear teaching.” The cup of spit message is more the norm than the exception.

Absolutely true.

Law Prof: Daisy, you were trying to fit me into some kind of paradigm as if I was one of those comfortable, smug Christians, well-satisfied with my faith. Or were those comments directed at others?

I have to say, you sounded pretty smug to me, too. As do a lot of Christians who say things like “Just because it’s not what you wanted….”

Are you going to say stuff like that to kids who’ve been abused their whole lives, who live in poverty, and can’t get a good education? People struggling from severe depression or illness? Whether Christians are honest about it or not, evil can be very real in the lives of people, and sometimes people have very little “good” in their lives. And that’s a theological problem to them that receives a platitude instead of compassion.

Carl Truman:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/07/kissing-christianity-goodbye

“[Joshua Harris] was exploited by those who saw in him a marketing opportunity and consequently gave him far too much exposure and responsibility far too soon…I wonder if any of the leading YRR lights have spent a moment reflecting about whether they and the culture they created bear any responsibility for this mess. Or is Harris’s apostasy merely another of those Satanic attacks that confirm that they are on the right track and must press on?”

“YRR was so successful…But the movement’s leadership was often arrogant. In public, critics were derided and then ignored; in private, they were vilified and bullied. An extensive informal network of individuals, institutions, and organizations who wanted a slice of the YRR action was happy to oblige the padrini by keeping critics on the margins. And one by one big leaders fell from favor: Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Tullian Tchividjian, C. J. Mahaney, now Josh Harris. On Friday the news broke that The Village Church, home of YRR megastar Matt Chandler, is being sued over alleged mishandling of sexual abuse.”

“at no point has there been any apparent heart-searching, among those left in the movement, as to whether such falls indicate a problem in the very culture of the YRR”

ishy,

Valid.

Law Prof: f you want to casually brush that aside while demanding that all others respond to your pain or anger at God in the “appropriate manner” that you alone define, then I have to wonder where your empathy is.

And that part of your post was just disgusting. It’s turning things around on me. You are projecting.

ishy: I have to say, you sounded pretty smug to me, too. As do a lot of Christians who say things like “Just because it’s not what you wanted….”

Are you going to say stuff like that to kids who’ve been abused their whole lives, who live in poverty, and can’t get a good education? People struggling from severe depression or illness? Whether Christians are honest about it or not, evil can be very real in the lives of people, and sometimes people have very little “good” in their lives. And that’s a theological problem to them that receives a platitude instead of compassion.

Pain happens to all of us. My wife, mom and sister was sexually abused as children, my wife’s closest friend was sexually abused by a step dad and stabbed in the face by her mom (still has the scar). They have all responded to this abuse in different ways. Three of four follow Jesus. My sister died rejecting Him. I danced between the raindrops there, never faced that sort of abuse, but like all people, I’ve struggled, had periods of doubt and desperation—namely when dad died bitterly rejecting Jesus to the end, when the family and I went through the abuse of three cultic churches in which leaders did their best to slander us and destroy our reputations. There was also an extended period of bullying I dealt with as a kid that still sets me off in rages at church abuse. So it’s not like we don’t all have sorrow and agony. Life’s tough, as was said above by someone else.

I hate pat answers and Christianese that doesn’t match up with the Bible (e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), which talks a great deal about desperation and anger and abuse and people questioning God for all of the above.

But there’s one thing I don’t think is fair. If someone looks at abuse and something awful that happened and tells someone agonizing over it “Jesus loves you in spite of all, He hates the abuse also, please don’t chuck him out with the garbage”, down will come a chorus of anger from people telling you that you’re not empathetic, that you don’t get it, that you’re smug and self satisfied in your so-called faith, that if you’d been through what I’ve been through, you’d reject Jesus and the whole claptrap too.” That’s not fair, and it doesn’t match the reality of my wife, who dealt with her share of abuse, or her best friend, who dealt with an attempted murder by her own mom—and both love Jesus.

Sometimes seems that the only acceptable response is “I totally get it why you hate God, under the circumstances because some person hurt you or a family member died, you have every right to hate God.” If you don’t say that, some people tell you “Why you’re just driving me farther away from God!” I personally think that’s bullying.

Daisy: And that part of your post was just disgusting. It’s turning things around on me. You are projecting.

You know what, Daisy? You’re not the only one with a loss to deal with and I think your behavior right now is unconscionable and I don’t care what anyone has to say about it. It’s bullying to tell people that if they don’t respond in precisely the way you want that they’re driving you farther from God. That’s wrong. I didn’t make up the death of my father, I go through pain also, we share the loss of a parent to cancer in spite of prayers in common. I’m just flat out telling you that your’s is not the only possible response.

Lea:
(and I would personally rethink using that towards every woman who disagrees with you on a point)

That’s a terrible game to play. This has zero to do with your gender. That’s just wrong for you to imply.

Daisy: If Harris is thinking about leaving the faith (or has done so), he must not have been a “real” Christian to start with.

That one comes up a lot, and it drives me bonkers.

You and I both, Daisy!

I think it’s the only way they can square what happened with their Calvinist belief in OSAS.

They don’t get that it’s impossibly tautological!

Lea: Thank you, Daisy. It’s been a bit of a shock.

I am sorry about your friend, too. I hope you get some rest.

Law Prof:
Either I’m going crazy or things are getting ugly here or both.Maybe both. I have never had anyone play the gender card on me in all these years.Never seen anything like this in nearly a decade on this forum.Upsetting.Strange.Don’t know what to say.But if I’ve gone off the rails and am the crazy one, I probably wouldn’t know it.No clue anymore.But I’m out, folks.Honestly do wish everyone well.That’s not just a Christianese platitude in this case, far as I know—but then again, what do I know anymore?

I’ve been watching this unfold, and it is indeed somewhat weird, especially for this forum. Some real passive-agressive stuff going on. Actually, plain old aggressive, mostly. Almost willful misunderstanding and assuming the worst of one’s interlocutor. People seeming to want to be offended, and not taking a response at face value, but reading further offense in it and escalating.

I think Lea has the right idea at this point – walk away from it and move on. But yes, it is rather strange…

I will be honest. In hindsight, I gave him way too much benefit of doubt.

I was happy when he denounced his own book. The courtship model was BS. He was misguided, but I thought he would turn around to see the truth. Maybe he can be of use to God is some other way in the future.

There was sexual abuse in SGM. But with Mahaney at the helm, ok maybe he got no choice/didn’t know any better. We know how strong the “elders” and “leaders” are in convenient churches.

So I had “faith” that Harris, an ex-Calvinist leader, can turn around and preach about the evil of Calvinism, and all its abuses that went on. This would make a great testimony.

But then I heard about his separation from his wife and I face-palm myself. Why did I ever have any faith in someone being able to do God’s work, when they start off so broken and then followed other misguided Calvinist leaders.

And his flat out rejection of God and embrace of homosexuality is the icing on the cake.

The saddest part? I bet if we talk to Calvinists about this, they would still defend the courtship model and their other legalistic teachings. What didn’t work for Harris, the author, might still work for other Christians because it is “biblical”.

Jerome,
I trust First Things for their analysis and editorializing.

SiteSeer: I think marketing is the worst thing to happen to the church. It is, by nature, a hypocrisy of sorts; it’s antithetical to sincerity and reality. It’s interesting to me how many of the big leaders in the “church” are actually marketers.

AKA The Gospel According to Dan Draper…

Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Calvinists believe in Perseverance of the Saints, which is something different than OSAS.

“Perspiration of the Saints” as it’s called, is where God keeps you saved, but only if you persevere and don’t sin too much or too severely.

OSAS is where you are saved by God no matter how you fail.

Law Prof: But there’s one thing I don’t think is fair. If someone looks at abuse and something awful that happened and tells someone agonizing over it “Jesus loves you in spite of all, He hates the abuse also, please don’t chuck him out with the garbage”, down will come a chorus of anger from people telling you that you’re not empathetic, that you don’t get it, that you’re smug and self satisfied in your so-called faith, that if you’d been through what I’ve been through, you’d reject Jesus and the whole claptrap too.” That’s not fair, and it doesn’t match the reality of my wife, who dealt with her share of abuse, or her best friend, who dealt with an attempted murder by her own mom—and both love Jesus.

Thank you for the clarity of this and sharing your experiences. It helps.

I have kind of been on both sides of this statement. When I was questioning my faith, statements made to me like the one you quote above seemed trite and plastic and made me want to yell, “really?!” That doesn’t mean the person who said it was being trite or fake – some maybe were, some weren’t. But in the midst of the confusion and anger and pain, it all seemed the same.

On the other hand, now, believing in Jesus as I do. I so want to say, “Jesus really does love you!” But because of my own experience, I hold my tongue and just try to listen, mostly….unless a sore spot gets pushed….then I might rant a little… 😉

I read his pamphlet, I think that’s what you would call it, “Books That Changed My Mind”. I thought it was interesting, humble, and enjoyable. And it definitely continued to affirm traditional Christian ideas about sexuality. But if his original repudiations of IKDG were a 90, the latest is the complete 180.

Law Prof: t’s not just a Christianese platitude in this case, far as I know—but then again, what do I know anymore?

You have begun the journey–good luck and wish you well

roebuck: I’ve been watching this unfold, and it is indeed somewhat weird, especially for this forum. Some real passive-agressive stuff going on. Actually, plain old aggressive, mostly. Almost willful misunderstanding and assuming the worst of one’s interlocutor. People seeming to want to be offended, and not taking a response at face value, but reading further offense in it and escalating.

I think Lea has the right idea at this point – walk away from it and move on. But yes, it is rather strange…

I just want to say that nothing I’ve said to HUG was meant in response to Daisy’s or Law Prof’s posts. I was agreeing with HUG — and with Daisy re one point — not taking sides on a very delicate dispute that I hope will be resolved amicably. I love both Daisy and Law Prof. I think y’all are basically on the same side!

Lea: I have a friend basically dying today so I’m stepping away from this nonsense for a while. Sigh.

I’m so sorry, Lea.

roebuck: But yes, it is rather strange…

Maybe a change of topic would help:
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2019/07/30/christi-bragg-sues-matt-chandlers-the-village-church-for-1-million-in-damages-related-to-child-sex-abuse/#more-17412

Beakerj:
Law Prof,

I’m sorry but I winced when I read your original reply to Daisy, because it did sound like a smug Christian reply.

What an awesome time it would have been to just let this thing die down, instead of stirring it up.

Law Prof: Sometimes seems that the only acceptable response is “I totally get it why you hate God, under the circumstances because some person hurt you or a family member died, you have every right to hate God.” If you don’t say that, some people tell you “Why you’re just driving me farther away from God!” I personally think that’s bullying.

We all suffer pain and loss in this world, no one gets through without it. Some have it a lot worse than others and peoples’ temperaments can make dealing with loss easier or more difficult. And you can’t really compare losses. One person may have lost the only friend they have in the world whereas another had a strong circle of friends to support them after their loss.

I think you hit on something important, though. When someone has gone through the one loss that is beyond their power to deal with, when their heart is hanging in ragged tatters and their hope is crushed, there isn’t anything you can say that is going to help. That’s not your fault and it’s not their fault. It’s just that there aren’t any words for a time like that. It’s a time when being there without words is the thing of value. Not many Christians are comfortable with that, they want to speak some words, fix you, and then move on with their busy lives. Sometimes the only words that comfort are ‘I’m so sorry’ and ‘I’m here for you, you’re not alone.’

CLC (Covenant Life Church) was the flagship of a heavily documented abusive religious cult (PDI/SGM) that strapped on some form of Calvinism to apparently legitimize their history of abuse of authority and accountability. At the thirty year mark, people were so ill in their souls that many Washington D.C. local area pastors could not help these families when they awoke to the damage they had experienced and sought outside assistance.

Law Prof: People cannot recreate the intimacy of the First Century church by setting up a church plant or building a megachurch and drawing together a scattered group of people from various states and sterile suburban communities and then just creating that closeness and intimacy with once-a-week small groups closely tended by lieutenants of the leadership team

I reading elsewhere I came across the passage from Nassim Taleb
Nassim Taleb
“we are made to follow leaders who can gather people together because the advantages of being in groups trump the disadvantages of being alone. It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one. Those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have passed us some of their genes. This is apparent from a social pathology: psychopaths rally followers.”

SiteSeer,

That is a mic drop moment. That said, didn’t Carl run deep in those circles?

Jeffrey Chalmers:
And least we forget, Joshua Harris’s book, just like SGM, Calvary Chapel, 9 Marks, neo Cals, Founder’s, etc, etc all claim at their peak of fame that they have the “True Way”, or they have captured “the original church”, orso e other catch phrase…
This is the problem with living to long, you live through several “flashes in pan”…

AND the pattern has been that the flashes in the pan have increased exponentially within Evangelicalism in the last 40 years.

Does anyone else feel like all the articles and comment threads about Harris is exactly what he wanted and we’ve all just fallen into his little trap? It seems like Harris’ posts were more about getting attention than about a personal and thoughtful response to the crises in his life. I feel like I’ve been conned into giving him a couple of hours of my life just reading articles about him…and posting to this blog. To be clear, I’m not evaluating or condemning anyone else’s use of their time, just my own. Bye, Harris…go swim that lake and climb that mountain, I’m getting back to my life.

Max: The really hardcore among them are probably thinking he experienced Calvin’s “evanescent grace”, a temporary fake grace given by God to the reprobate to make them think and act as if they were saved, only to later damn them for their deceptive behavior.That stinkin’ thinkin’ is, of course, not from God … such folks are in a great spiritual dilemma themselves.I wonder what Calvin thinks about “evanescent grace” now?

Ah… there’s that evanescent grace again! And this brings me to something I saw in a Calvinist Facebook group today. Someone made a post asking:

“How do I know that I’m not the next Josh Harris?
#rethinkingcalvinism”

Speaking of elephants in the room, no one mentioned evanescent grace in that discussion. And I wanted to so badly, but I had already pointed out the ramifications of believing in such a deplorable teaching on another post. That got me muted by the administrator for several days with a sharp rebuke for mocking Calvinism. I don’t think they actually think through the meaning of evanescent grace. If they did, it would shatter all their illusions about assurance, something Calvinists insist the elect actually possess. But if it is true that there is no difference from the grace that both reprobates and the elect experience, according to Calvin, then how can they be so sure they are saved? God could withdraw that grace from them, making their damnation all the more certain. The Calvinist god in this scenario is very much like a cunning magician, isn’t he?

Paul,

It’s often hard to deduce motives from a thin slice of observed behavior, but I’ve been wondering “why so public?”, which I think is the same question you are asking.

Again, it’s impossible to know, but if I were in his shoes, (from the little of his story that has been told), I might be a bit upset with the people whose expectations pushed me into the path that led to the present. That would include his father and especially CJ (for whom perhaps he felt pressured to cover?).

A big public “in your eye” kind of statement might be a repudiation of the people as much as it is a repudiation of doctrines.

But it’s impossible to know from the outside, and might even be deeply mysterious from the “inside.”

Samuel Conner

You might be right. If you are, and Harris is looking to publicly rebuke his father and Mahaney, what a sad situation! From what I know about narcissistic personality disorder, and IF Mahaney has this disorder, Mahaney’s spent less time thinking about Harris in the last 7 years than I have in the past 2 days and certainly won’t care about Harris’ posts except to see them as a small victory over one who abandoned him.
Those posts tell me Harris wanted attention, from whom and why may be impossible to say, but he certainly got what he wanted in a general way.
Even as I post this I feel as if he’s sucked me back in…

Daisy: If you just trust in Christ (this sort of Christian marketing goes), then presto bingo, you will be granted meaning, purpose, and inner peace and joy at all times, and Jesus will remove your addictions (or whatever your problem is).

I suspect that it is this ‘Magic Genie’ christianity that has left so many disappointed and feeling as if God failed them. I don’t know. Right now, life sorta sucks, and I don’t see it getting much better anytime soon. Yet, even when it gets so bad I just don’t want to go on, I can never totally give up hope. I truly believe there is a God, that he is good, and that the mess we are in right now is the result of sin and its destructive impact on all who are on this earth. Some of my messes are my own fault, and some are not.

I think christianity has been selling the Magic Genie God for some time. Many of us have discovered that we can rub that God bottle till our hands are raw and no Genie ever comes to grant our wishes. Maybe we need to deconvert from christianity and its Magic Genie, and discover who God really is. It’s a long process, and I often find myself echoing David’s woeful psalms. Sometimes I can only say, ‘I feel like giving up, yet will I trust in Thee’. I’m sorry if that doesn’t help; just trying to share what I have experienced.

Thersites,

“…It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one…”
+++++++++++++

interesting quote. in what sense has it been profitable? i’m wondering what his thoughts, or anyone’s thoughts, would be.

Law Prof,

I think what started your argument that went ballistic is the basic atheistic argument that “because God allowed something very emotionally painful to happen to me, therefore God does not exist and people who claim that He does and talk about him positively in any way piss me off and it is all their fault!” This is a very common argument and no surprise that on a blog that criticizes “Christian” leaders for their blatant lying and hypocrisy that you find some people who do not call themselves Christians here and end up arguing some form of this kind of thing.

This is not a logical argument, but an emotional one. My boss can do things to me very unpleasant but that does not prove that she does not exist. In fact the anger that is expressed in these cases does not make logical sense. How can you be angry at something that does not exist? I am not here to argue with someone using these arguments. They are actually very angry at what they call a non-existent God. It is not our fault that bad things happened, for we had no part in causing those things in the first place. And you are right that many people have experienced these things and their responses are all over the board. I too have been through hell and back and my faith has never been stronger.
And I agree that there is a certain smugness that gets expressed when a person blames their anger on you or me when we had nothing to do with it in the first place.

If someone acts enraged by a God that does not exist because this non-existent God did not stop some tragedy from happening to them I cannot help them. They are stuck inside there own contradiction of things they say that they believe.

For Christians we have the book of Job, which is one of my favorites, which deals exactly with this very issue in the character of Job. I admire Job for refusing to “curse God and die” as it was suggested to him. His friends who God declared dead wrong were suggesting a host of ideas like the one I brought up. Everyone gets angry at God on occasion, I know I have. I have chosen not to stay there. Others choose the opposite. Their real problem is with God, from my perspective. The problem is pride when the clay wants to judge its maker.

The reality is that this life is extremely temporal, I would call it a temporal anomaly. Nothing that happens here needs to be permanent. We believe that all the tears will be wiped away and all sorrow and pain will one day cease. According to the Scriptures, everything we have experience will one day soon be permanently forgotten and I would prefer to believe in that hope then to stay enraged at a God I tell others does not exist.

This brings up my last point and that I have found in my exchanges on these watchblogs that most of the comments are of rather low quality because people just express their personal opinions AT each other while referencing nothing of a higher and more noble source. This is because, I guess, people either don’t esteem the Bible as any kind of higher reference or are very ignorant of what it actually says. I am glad that you referenced it when someone said something that is actually trash. This will not change the conversation with those here who do not believe in the God of the Bible, but it would sure greatly improve the comments of those here who claim that they do believe in this God. I see a lot of pride, honestly, expressed by “Christians” who claim that their own personal opinion is The Truth. My opinion is sure not The Truth, but I do recognize the authority of the scriptures and my need to bend my thinking to conform to it instead of trying to bend it to conform to my preferred way of thinking. If our highest source of reference is ourselves, as Christians, then we are truly the biggest fools on this planet…

elastigirl:
Thersites,

“…It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one…”
+++++++++++++

interesting quote.in what sense has it been profitable?i’m wondering what his thoughts, or anyone’s thoughts, would be.

Hmm….my thoughts based on my own experiences is that many (most? all?) are looking for a feeling of security – safety. And those things are perceived to be founds in numbers. Conform to the group, gain protection from the group.

From Tolkein’s ranger, Strider, to the hermit in the cave, from Elijah hiding in a cave to John the Baptist living in the desert; the group, whether religious or social, have always distrusted those outside the group. But sometimes, Truth can only be found in the desert places.

It takes valuing truth over perceived security to break away from the group. I know people who are still involved in the cult I left who acknowledge that the place, the leaders, are wrong…but they are afraid to leave because they are afraid they won’t be safe, protected, covered.

My thoughts, anyway…

TS00: And what if they are right? I mean, their sense of security is false, but is it better than feeling terribly alone? Sometimes I wonder . . .

I can only speak for myself. For me, I would rather be alone and shunned and have truth than to embrace deception. That doesn’t mean I don’t have days or weeks (or even months) of wrestling with doubt and sadness, fighting depression. Maybe because I grew up in a family dynamic that was full of deception and false fronts, I now value truth above false security. Everyone’s mileage will surely vary… 😉

TS00: I’ve never considered myself naive, but I think the Magic Genie theology suckered me in. I kinda secretly believed that I would be ‘safe’. My marriage wouldn’t fail. My kids wouldn’t reject the faith, or become alcoholics or sexually confused. And who knows what else – all subconsciously, mind you.

Now we’re talking. Early in my foray into evangelical Christian Bible studies, the teacher — referring to James and the “count it all joy” approach to various trials — said something that stuck with me: if someone told you that becoming a Christian was going to be easy and make dealing with every problem easy, they lied to you. From there, other reality checks within Scripture and avoidance of proof texting proved helpful on the matter.

In the case of Harris, from what people have shared, it appears that SGM teaching as well as his evidently lucrative formulas encapsulated in book form might not have been spot on in major ways, from doctrine to practice. The same could be said for the the Pharisees and Sadduccees (blind leading blind, their teachings making converts worse).

My focus remains accountability, which is still relevant regardless of current faith profession. You can’t get paid big money for years as a professed Christian leader and teacher/mass marketer of Christian truth and doctrine and then define the terms of the “grace” you would cede to yourself by mumbling some words of regret and asking for and/or demanding tender mercies.

All of this focus on the propriety of discussing “was he/wasn’t he” has taken the matter far afield from what is a baseline matter, which is accountability and a focus on those affected financially and spiritually as a result of the failings of a purported Christian leader/teachings who went huge on the $$$ and the “listen to me” side. The last part is key, as we need to be done with the massive error with massive financial reward and sway on people’s lives that can be skated by with an oopsie ‘cuz grace and personal reflection/crisis of the oopsier.

No matter the spiritual state of Harris, he took a position of authority and was apparently well-compensated in doing so. Did a word come up from him connected with regret about the financial aspect of his long-term endeavors, or about restoring any of those in the form of a victim fund or just straight back to the congregation who supported his ministry (sic)? I must have missed that. Even in his deconstructed state, actual repentance/restoration/reconciliation of the type to which he alluded — even if on a personal ‘do the right thing’ level — should not be separated from that.

If you want to talk about abuse, think of how many people who gave and gave in one form or another carry that subsidy of Harris and Harris Inc. as a burden, and think how much healing could happen if actions met words. Or, people can let him set terms as he sees fit, let himself get cast as the victim — which has permeated each thread on him to a growing and alarming degree — and expect the same pattern to emerge as part of the toolbox of the authoritarians when crisis time comes. As has been mentioned, first things need to remain first things, and holding to account those perpetrating error and abuses (spiritual, physical, financial, authoritarian, and otherwise) qualifies.

Andrew: didn’t Carl run deep in those circles?

Carl Trueman, Kevin DeYoung, & Ray Ortlund were brought in to evaluate Mahaney’s fitness for leadership in 2011 based on whatever sins he had confessed to at the time. (Their evaluation was prominently posted at the SGM website for years afterward as further evidence against Mahaney mounted)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160728102104/https://www.sovereigngrace.com/sovereign-grace-blog/post/findings-from-our-preliminary-panel

“We do not believe C.J. Mahaney’s confessed sins have disqualified him from Christian ministry. Or to put it positively, from all that we have seen, heard, and read, we believe C.J. Mahaney is, at this moment in time and based on those sins which he has acknowledged, still fit to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a pastor to others.” — Kevin DeYoung, Ray Ortlund, Carl Trueman

Jerome: “We do not believe C.J. Mahaney’s confessed sins have disqualified him from Christian ministry. Or to put it positively, from all that we have seen, heard, and read, we believe C.J. Mahaney is, at this moment in time and based on those sins which he has acknowledged, still fit to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a pastor to others.” — Kevin DeYoung, Ray Ortlund, Carl Trueman

I was surprised at the mildness of Trueman’s description of the downfall of some of the YRR celebrities

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/07/kissing-christianity-goodbye

his “fallen from favor” is understated and anodyne; “disgraced” is closer to the reality, IMO.

Maybe even quasi-“inside” critics of the YRR are worried to protect the brand?

Samuel Conner: I’ve been wondering “why so public?”

The public part began with an announcement of separation. Maybe they no longer wanted to live under the same roof, and could not do that without significant attention.

I’m not sure even Joshua Harris anticipated this much public fascination. People are taking his story as an opportunity to tell their own. Folks have moved quickly to catharsis.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: And at this point in my life, not only am I not going to put up with that nonsense, but I will tell people flatly that if their god can only get people to be part of his group through the threats of eternal damnation and/or hellfire, well, then I’d rather not. In fact, if you have to use threats of eternal punishment to coerce people to some sort of “faith” in Jesus, then you’re doing it wrong, IMHO.

Yeah, Brent stepped on my last nerve.

I am very serious about what I am about to say. If their god is the God-I want no part and will assume I am not one of the elect and therefore I will go to Hell. The God I believe in is a God love and I take John 3:16 as it says-Whosoever without any conditions.

Paul: Those posts tell me Harris wanted attention, from whom and why may be impossible to say, but he certainly got what he wanted in a general way.

Some people live their lives as the persona on the stage.

Maybe he’s setting up to be an Instagram “influencer” (gag)

Nick Bulbeck: I have read Mr Detwiler’s comments

Detwiler writes that Joshua Harris “has decided to renounce Jesus Christ as the only Savior of the world and he plans to propagate his unbelief and false doctrine at large which amounts to an attack on biblical Christianity. Joshua has become a Judas. He has betrayed the One who loved him and gave up his life for him.”

So much here. This little statement condemns all non-Christians, including Jews, and most lifelong believers as well. I could not pass this litmus test, given that Christianity has to be “biblical,” and that is bound to be a narrow definition. The guilt trip about the Crucifixion is a nice touch, given Jesus’ great fondness for Thomas who doubted.

A person cannot say my marriage and faith have broken down, and I’m sorry I was wrong about so many things. Certain Christians have to hear that as ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

Jeannette Altes: I can only speak for myself. For me, I would rather be alone and shunned and have truth than to embrace deception. That doesn’t mean I don’t have days or weeks (or even months) of wrestling with doubt and sadness, fighting depression. Maybe because I grew up in a family dynamic that was full of deception and false fronts, I now value truth above false security.

I feel the same way. My dad was a compulsive liar and gaslighter. It was crippling to grow up with and I want no more of it in my life. It gets lonely but I just can’t play the game to fit in. I saw an interesting cartoon – https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/comics-candy-hearts-tommy-siegel-coverimage2.jpg

SiteSeer:
Maybe he’s setting up to be an Instagram “influencer” (gag)

I don’t follow him on instagram but man, everybody has an instagram so it doesn’t seem odd to me.

BTW, thank you so much for your expression of sympathy last night. I appreciate it.

Friend: Detwiler writes

Man, I’ve always gotten an uneasy feeling from that guy, he’s too vitriolic in general for my taste and this really has just solidified that for me.

Max,

Ah, Calvi-God – such a kidder.

Lea: BTW, thank you so much for your expression of sympathy last night. I appreciate it.

<3

TS00,

Seems like as these guys flame out they still try to pretend it’s simply another guy’s bad, rather than institutional failure. They will never admit that their theology and authoritarianism is the root of the problem.

ishy: Detwiler’s comments

Unresolved SGM/Mahaney stress mostly likely. I have a touch of that myself with a local church and their leadership. The hair on the back of my neck and my blood pressure go up when I think about them.

Lea,

Thinking about you and your friend. Praying for you both.

Samuel Conner: One gets the sense from Detwiler’s writings that the problems of SGM were related to bad personnel, not a fundamentally flawed ministry culture

Well, if that’s the case, he should be seriously evaluating that position … considering all the darlings from that culture who have fallen: Driscoll, Mahaney, MacDonald, Harris, etc. There are some serious systemic issues within New Calvinism (and related side-chutes) which produce questionable leadership. We shouldn’t all stand with our mouths open in amazement when they slip and fall.

JDV: If you want to talk about abuse, think of how many people who gave and gave in one form or another carry that subsidy of Harris and Harris Inc. as a burden, and think how much healing could happen if actions met words. Or, people can let him set terms as he sees fit, let himself get cast as the victim — which has permeated each thread on him to a growing and alarming degree — and expect the same pattern to emerge as part of the toolbox of the authoritarians when crisis time comes. As has been mentioned, first things need to remain first things, and holding to account those perpetrating error and abuses (spiritual, physical, financial, authoritarian, and otherwise) qualifies.

Amen to all that. Actual repentance from greed and abusing sheep, including the cover-ups this post is about is the bottom line. Not how many likes he can get on a social media site.

You missed this from Carl Trueman’s post mentioned multiple times in the thread here: “On Friday the news broke that The Village Church, home of YRR megastar Matt Chandler, is being sued over alleged mishandling of sexual abuse.” That is news that is very relevant to this blog, I would think.

Max: It is the unspoken 6th point of Calvinism … it is the “S” in TULIPS … “Surprise!”

That is a great addition to the acronym. I had been calling it the silent point because Calvinists don’t talk about it. But “surprise” is much better. To explain deconversions like the one discussed in this post, I would think that Calvinists wouls want to be less silent on this point. The answer has been there for them all along.

Dan Saunders,

Friend:
Dan Saunders,
Amen!

Thank you.

Samuel Conner: Just as there’s no way of knowing that a life-long unbeliever on his death-bed will not, in God’s mercy, come to a never-visibly-articulated but genuinely saving faith in his last moments, there’s no way of knowing that, in God’s reprobative wrath, a self-conceived and visibly seemingly life-long persevering believer will not lose faith in his last earthly moments, so that lifelong perseverance is not a guarantee of regenerate status.

I really don’t think it’s about theology anyway. They want to gatekeep who gets into heaven themselves. They use their theology when it fits, but pretend the uncomfortable parts don’t exist because they don’t really believe most of it anyway.

Lea:

The trailer was interesting. Josh really does look like a baby to me in it! Highlights how very young he was.

Dee: ““We just didn’t have the training.”
If Josh was a kid in high school, Id give him a break. However, he was in his 30s (b.1974) when this stuff was happening. ”

True, and I see that as a different issue than the IKDG stuff. However what WAS Josh’s education at that point beyond what his parents taught him and what CJ taught him.

I think there’s a good case for saying Josh Harris suffers from stunted growth. He was protected in the Christian Fundamentalist bubble for approximately 40 years. Imagine what that can do to a person’s thinking processes.

Having once been a member of a insular, rigid Christian cult, I have first-hand experience the kind of brainwashing that is involved. And I was only in that group for 6 years. But it took at least two decades to shed the cult baggage. Now, think about what it must be like to be in such a rigid, mind-controlling community for 40 years. Josh Harris has a lot toxic thinking to shed.

ishy: I really don’t think it’s about theology anyway. They want to gatekeep who gets into heaven themselves.

What would God ever do without REVEREND Grima Wormtongue at His right hand on J-Day, whispering in His ear who is REALLY Saved and who is not?

“ME SHEEP! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! …”

Jerome:
Oops, nouthetic ‘counseling’ bigwig Heath Lambert realizes his book ‘Finally Free: Fighting for Purity’ has Joshua Harris’s name on its cover:

https://baptistnews.com/article/southern-baptist-author-removes-foreword-by-joshua-harris-from-his-book/#.XUHKKPJKjbM

“[Lambert has] asked Zondervan to remove the foreword from future publications of the book…’Of course, there is nothing that can be done about copies that have already been published’…he said.”

Should not be, but I am always amazed by Blogs that do not allow a comment like-Lambert’s.

Ken F (aka Tweed): That is a great addition to the acronym. I had been calling it the silent point because Calvinists don’t talk about it. But “surprise” is much better. To explain deconversions like the one discussed in this post, I would think that Calvinists wouls want to be less silent on this point. The answer has been there for them all along.

Yes, the answer has been there for them all along. But for some it is to horrific to accept. So cognitive dissonance sets in. When one has bought into a certain religious system that has these kind of implications, it takes a lot of struggling and clogging of the ears and eyes to maintain it.

mot: Heath Lambert realizes his book ‘Finally Free: Fighting for Purity’

Let’s try books I will not be reading for 800, Alex.

So many rich nuggets here…it’s hard to absorb them all. Thanks, Max, Darlene, Samuel Conner, KenF, et al. I agree with so much that you’re saying!

Yes, indeed, only Jesus knows the human heart. I believe with all my heart that He relentlessly pursues every single human being up to the very nanosecond of death. I believe there are a lot of deathbed conversions that *no one* knows anything about except Jesus. I believe — and this is based on actual evidence — that He “speaks” to dying, comatose patients, when it seems they are beyond any sort of comprehension or communication…but *He* can get through to them. I believe there will be a lot of surprises in Heaven!

And I think Brent Detwiler needs to stop making assumptions about other people’s souls. Good grief!

Stan: And it definitely continued to affirm traditional Christian ideas about sexuality.

The more I age, the more I realise that God IS traditional Christian ideas about sexuality. God is utterly, absolutely, eternally consumed with sex. Nothing, but nothing, but NOTHING else matters to Him. Nothing. God will sacrifice everything and anything in his infinite burning passion to glorify the hatred of incorrect sex.

“Heaven”, as it is commonly known, will be a perfect celebration of nothing but sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other. Who knows? but God may arrange for every kind of injustice to be celebrated too – trillions of children may be abused, trillions of humans may be eternally starving, trillions of impoverished beings may be oppressed, but the Elect will glorify God anyway because these trivial things will merely be a demonstration of how God treasures traditional Christian sexuality.

I suppose it’s possible that someone could fail the Ultimate Test if they embrace something that, if taken out of context, could be made to resemble Justification By Works. But as long as they then affirm that it is only through The Doctrines Of Grace that they affirm traditional Christian sexuality, they will be Saved.

BWAH @ NickBulbeck.

Darlene: A large swath of people who left my former Christian cult threw off all restraint and went wild.

The kids in high school who’s parents were overly strict were always the ones who went wild, imo.

I personally always wished I’d gone a little *more* wild but it doesn’t seem to be in my personality alas. Even when I take risks, I overthink them first lol.

Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Greetings! Blessings in Christ. I don’t think I understand you here. You seem to be advocating for a broad inclusive Christianity. Do I understand you correctly? If so how are you going to reconcile that with Catholic doctrine, that you must be a Catholic to be saved? I am just misunderstanding what you have said here?

Nick Bulbeck: God will sacrifice everything and anything in his infinite burning passion to glorify the hatred of incorrect sex.

Now you are really freaking me out – this sounds like something Piper could write…

Daisy: I agreed with the whole of your post but just wanted to reference those parts of it.

I wrote my own views and concerns about how the Christian community has been reacting to Josh Harris’ deconversion (or whatever it is) on my own blog
(and I don’t totally agree with Dee’s approach, which I discuss on my blog here):

Deconstruction, Deconversion, Joshua Harris, and the Awful Christian Reaction
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/deconstruction-deconversion-joshua-harris-and-the-awful-christian-reaction/

The overall Christian response to Harris has, for me (from what I’ve seen on blogs and on Twitter), run the gamut from disappointing to horrifying to disgusting (depending on who we’re talking about, and the specifics).

Many Christians are really uncomfortable and even hostile towards someone who steps away from the faith.

Many Christians seem to dislike an Ex-Christian more than they do the pagan guy or atheist who’s never been converted in the first place, and I find that so bizarre and sad.

I think the cruel and caustic remarks from Christians against Josh Harris stems from them thinking it is bad p.r. for their particular brand, in this case Calvinism. I also believe they are worried that others in the same camp might begin to question their religious beliefs. In fact, I have observed this reaction within the Calvinist Facebook group where I am a member. One person actually started a post asking: How do I know I won’t become like Josh Harris? #rethinkingcalvinism

How utterly sad this post has made me. Joshua seems to be one of the casualties of the SGM and the Neo-cal leaders embracing of C.J. Mahaney and his hoodwinking. The crisis of faith doesn’t end with Joshua. Instead of condemning C.J. Mahaney when they knew there were many, many problems in what he taught and his views on himself being an “Apostle” they overlooked it all and embraced and defended C.J. Mahaney. Why? We are only left to speculate. But the fact that there was a large amount of money to be made was more than likely a factor. I grieve for Joshua and many, many others who find themselves questioning their Christianity. The whole tale of SGM and C.J. Mahaney is tragic. Heartbreaking to the extreme. I am thankful for those whe stood up and pointed out the problems and would not back down like Dee and Deb. You were very courageous. Thank you!

Darlene: I think the cruel and caustic remarks from Christians against Josh Harris stems from them thinking it is bad p.r. for their particular brand, in this case Calvinism.

The traditional Baptists and fundamentalists loved IKDG. They made me read it 3 times at Liberty. But they all have legalism in common.

Some of the New Cals I’ve seen commenting on it don’t realize IKDG was written before PDI’s conversion to “Sovereign Grace” and New Calvinism, though. They were still fairly charismatic prosperity gospelish then.

Ken A:
Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Greetings! Blessings in Christ. I don’t think I understand you here. You seem to be advocating for a broad inclusive Christianity. Do I understand you correctly? If so how are you going to reconcile that with Catholic doctrine, that you must be a Catholic to be saved? I am just misunderstanding what you have said here?

Ken A, I’m not sure what particular comment you are responding to that Catholic Gatecrasher made. However, this much I can say having read and commented on this blog for many years now, the majority of folks here don’t take kindly to patronising Catholics with the insinuation that Catholics are not *saved*. Not 100% sure that is where you’re coming from, but I guess you could say I’m heading it off at the pass.

People of all stripes and various religious and philosophical beliefs are welcome to comment here. Of course with the exception that anyone would support and promote abuse of any kind. And this is what I like about TWW, the endeavor to treat everyone respectfully and with dignity even>/i> when we disagree. Treating our neighbor as we would want to be treated.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Nick Bulbeck,

Nick has finally arrived . . . 😉

Darlene,

Hi Darlene, I thought he was saying the opposite, that Catholics think they are the only ones saved? Which is probably equally problematic, but I will never confess to be an expert on Catholicism having only been to mass twice ever.

Ishy/Darlene, I always focusing on calvinism is misguided when dealing with things like purity culture and patriarchy, which are more on the ‘conservative christian/fundamentalist’ ends of the spectrum and do not line up in any specific way with reformed doctrine broadly.

Connect the Dots: Mod [responding to “Connect the Dots]: Please pick a name and stick with it. You have also commented as A season of seasons, See baby not bathwater, Brent, and Brent Thompson. GBTC

Maybe all those names are The Dots.

I’m clutching at straws here, obviously.

ishy: because the New Cals are freaking out on social media.

I get that, I just think it’s more the clique thing. Maybe nobody else cares about Josh Harris that much? IDK.

Lea: I get that, I just think it’s more the clique thing. Maybe nobody else cares about Josh Harris that much? IDK.

Right, I think it may not be theological, but sociological.

dee: Stick to one name in the comment section, BTW. It is interesting for me to go back and see the trajectories of comments from an individual. I bet that’s why you pst under different names.

Does this mean that Becky Thatcher and Injun Joe Shouldn’t comment here anymore?

dainca:

Think about Harris’ past.He grew up the son of a homeschooling guru.He gained notoriety and his own audience at a very young age, still in his teens.He went into the pastorate without any seminary training.He again (still) was in the limelight in Christian circles.He confessed that he himself had been a victim of sexual abuse.All of that together is enough to lay the groundwork for significant deconstruction – which happens to a lot of people when they hit their 40s.

Not to say he has no responsibility whatsoever for it, but I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the handling of the abuse issues.I have a hunch that the pastors at CLC were using Harris as much (or more) as they used anyone else. With his own history as an abuse victim, and his immaturity and lack of training, he simply may have been too overwhelmed and triggered to call out the other pastors.I don’t see him running away to avoid the consequences; I see him running away to try to clear his head and be able to ask questions he was not allowed to ask up to that point in his life.I think that with time, thought, and distance from the Christian starmaker machinery, he will be able to find appropriate words to express remorse for his part in the cover-up.It doesn’t seem like he is at heart the same kind of person as Mahaney et al. which is part of the tragedy of this situation.

All the above is very much how I feel about Josh Harris. He was used by the kingpins in that echo chamber of an environment. More than likely, as what happens with a lot of people who begin to see glimmers of the toxicity while they are still within those communities, Harris probably *felt* a whole lot more than he could express.

This is exactly how many people escaped my former Christian cult, where, sad to say, much abuse was going on both with the adults (spiritual, psychological, mental and emotional) with the added dimension of harsh discipline toward the children. It was to the point where no one had any thoughts of their own. Absolutely everything was judged and critiqued through the teachings of the leader/pastor. There comes a point where the person inside of you is screaming to get out.

Samuel Conner: Try as one may, one cannot with certainty make one’s calling and election sure with the kind of confidence that people want.

I suppose the real question is whether or not death gets the final say. Will people get to the other side of death and hear God say, “sorry, now that you are dead there is nothing I can do for you.” There is a verse in Romans 8 that says not even death can separate us from God’s love.

Darlene: There comes a point where the person inside of you is screaming to get out.

Exactly. It’s get out now or die a slow death.

Lea:
Darlene,

Hi Darlene, I thought he was saying the opposite, that Catholics think they are the only ones saved? Which is probably equally problematic, but I will never confess to be an expert on Catholicism having only been to mass twice ever.

Ishy/Darlene, I always focusing on calvinism is misguided when dealing with things like purity culture and patriarchy, which are more on the ‘conservative christian/fundamentalist’ ends of the spectrum and do not line up in any specific way with reformed doctrine broadly.

With all due respect…there is this thing called Google. If Ken A or anyone else *sincerely* wants to know what Catholics *actually* believe about salvation of non-Catholics…Google it, dang it. With a focus on *Catholic* sources, please, not Dave Hunt or Lorraine Boettner. 😉 We Catholics know what we believe. Anti-Catholics don’t. Trust me.

Start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism.

This is nothing new. I’ll gladly provide historical context later.

In the meantime, please don’t assume. Google exists for a reason!

Thank you!

And special thanks to Darlene.

ishy: The traditional Baptists and fundamentalists loved IKDG. They made me read it 3 times at Liberty. But they all have legalism in common.

Legalism and authoritarianism are the key, I think. They come in different flavors but they all work the same basic way,

SiteSeer,

habit?

elastigirl,

Maybe? Or just easy to agree upon ‘bad guys’ to focus on? And then so many of the most vocal antagonists have turned out to be secretly practicing what they preach against. It gets so weird.

SiteSeer: I think he was just trying to clarify an unexpected comment. Nothing wrong with that if one is looking to better understand, as long as it doesn’t lead to an off-topic debate or proselytizing on either side.

That’s all fine, as long as unwarranted assumptions are not being made. 😉

There are a *lot* of misconceptions out there. These misconceptions were understandable back in the day. But in the Age of Google… not so much. IYKWIM.

ishy: The traditional Baptists and fundamentalists loved IKDG. They made me read it 3 times at Liberty. But they all have legalism in common.

Unreal! What that was doing anywhere near a college curriculum is remarkable, let alone being featured three separate times.

Thersites: My guess is anyone who has separated from the herd will never feel real great about it and mourn the inability to be part of the group.

This was (is still) true for me. The shunning that followed my exit hurt- as it was meant to. We all have a need for a safe place to call home – to belong to a family. Unfortunately, with both my familial and church experiences being what they have been, I struggle, still, believing that a group can be trusted, which interferes with becoming part of a group again. Honestly, it kind of sucks, sometimes.

But…I continue the work of finding balance. I am both hopeful and wary with the church I am going to…

Thersites,

so, the profit simply togetherness for its own sake? it is its own reward? regardless of the ratio of bad to good, honorable to dishonorable?

perhaps.

i love being an oulier, though.

Thersites: My guess is anyone who has separated from the herd will never feel real great about it and mourn the inability to be part of the group.

Joshua Harris revealed some time back that he is a survivor of sexual abuse. That must have made him feel separate from the herd long ago.

Now he has left, and opened up about a few things.

He does need to talk about the sexual abuse at Sovereign Grace. The angry reactions from others in his former herd could make it harder for him to say more.

Some of his new critics have painted his apology to LGBTQ people as embracing the LGBTQ agenda… freighted language. Distorting and discrediting might keep him quiet, but in my view, the best way forward is to find the courage to tell all. He is showing so much optimism that it is hard to perceive internal struggle. His upbeat words have caused some people to welcome him to freedom, while causing others to feel left out or behind.

elastigirl: maybe smaller groups are better.

I wager you are onto something and wonder if the big organizations inhibit smaller groups.

Daisy: I find it hard to believe the reverse (which is what you are inadvertently promoting with your view):
Which is, that the God of the Bible is peachy keen fine and dandy with no standards at all sexuality,
everyone just running around sexing it up all over the place,
with whomever, whenever, whatever,
and God is just hunky dory with that.

Daisy, may I ask: Why are you assuming that this Muff is advocating this kind of lifestyle? Law Prof seemed to make that assumption as well, and I don’t quite understand why. Obviously, not everyone who has sex before marriage is eager to have it with all the people he (or she) can find. Perhaps some are, certainly but not all.

I’m sure Muff can answer this for himself, but could it be he’s wondering whether sex between loving and conscientious couples is permitted, even outside of marriage?

Commenting with the intent of trying to build empathy for the “deconstructed”/“deconstructing”/“deconverted.”

Mr. Jesperson:
And I agree that there is a certain smugness that gets expressed when a person blames their anger on you or me when we had nothing to do with it in the first place. […] Their real problem is with God, from my perspective.

You’re in the conversation, yes? You expressed a belief they found offensive, yes? They don’t think your god exists, yes?

Can you then see how—from their perspective—their issue is with you? Can you consider that perhaps, from their perspective, “my faith-based claims are true so you shouldn’t be upset with me” perfectly fits the definition of smug?

Darlene: However, this much I can say having read and commented on this blog for many years now, the majority of folks here don’t take kindly to patronising Catholics with the insinuation that Catholics are not *saved*. Not 100% sure that is where you’re coming from, but I guess you could say I’m heading it off at the pass.

Wow! Just Wow! How you got that what I said to Catholic Gatecrasher is beyond me. That is not what I said and not what I believe in any way shape or form. I don’t know any denomination that would say Catholics can’t be saved. And I would take exception to anyone saying that. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. So it wouldn’t matter what denomination one was from. I feel like you said something really, really unfair here.

Serving Kids in Japan: I’m going through something vaguely similar: someone close to me is likely dying.

I”m so sorry! I wish you all the support. I agree commenting can be a good distraction from all sorts of things.

And thank you for your sympathy. She has passed on, so we will be doing the funeral whenever arrangements can be made. They were just waiting to distribute organs 🙁 She is younger than I am and it’s just been a shock.

I hope Catholic Gate Crashers comment was not directed at me, but since I was quoted..I was merely attempting to decipher KenA’s point as I thought Darlene had it flipped. I certainly never *agreed* with him, I had no particular time or interest in digging up doctrine so I hope you were directing that request for ‘google’ to Ken A.

Thanks.

Lea,

Lea, I will be thinking of you today. I’m so sorry that you lost your dear friend.

Lea,

Thank you, as well.

ishy: … was “the thing” at the time …

And so is New Calvinism … look what’s happening within their ranks! Prominent leaders are falling one after another, leaving their followers confused and disillusioned. I’m growing weary with new things; the ancient stuff wasn’t all that bad.

Thersites,

I have been thoroughly enjoying your comments. And you are spot on about the dynamics of groups- a subject I studied and experienced in my profession of several decades. Most people never look at the group’s dynamic because they are involved with the group content and rightly so. But the dynamics actually give them better information about the actual content that brought the group together in the first place. I call that “questioning the content assumptions” made by the leaders/influencers of the group. That’s where trouble starts. Lol.

On a related note to the herd/tribal mentality, I have been astonished to read some neuroscientists, mostly atheists, promoting the concept that we lack free will. Their “research findings” are making their way into several discussions. Quillette ran a few articles but there are quite a few podcasts, too. The latest was promoting compatiblism as a way to define our free will! Definitely a Calvinist term. I don’t know what to make of this except perhaps there is a new generation of deterministic philosopher kings from the world of science? I think there is a world of difference between what we do based on personal safety (herd mentality) vs. what we are capable of doing.

To be on topic, I will add that Josh Harris was raised and groomed to make a living off religion. It would not surprise me to find him seeking to do the same with his new beliefs.

Lydia: Josh Harris was raised and groomed to make a living off religion

Hi Lydia.

About the time I was considering giving Joshua Harris the benefit of the doubt, I see his “mood” picture on Instagram … the one with him staring at a lake and contemplating his post-Christian destiny. He’s marketing his new chapter already.

Max: He’s marketing his new chapter already.

He is suggesting a newfound peace, which does attract empathy from some people: How good that you are free! Others, though, are wondering, What am I, chopped liver?

Lea:
I hope Catholic Gate Crashers comment was not directed at me, but since I was quoted..I was merely attempting to decipher KenA’s point as I thought Darlene had it flipped. I certainly never *agreed* with him, I had no particular time or interest in digging up doctrine so I hope you were directing that request for ‘google’ to Ken A.

Thanks.

Yes, Lea, sorry! Not directed at you! Not at all!!

Thanks, CatholicGC! I just didn’t want people to think I was on the same page with that other dude.

Max: Suggested to me that he is self-centered.

I think you’re making way too much of this. I have pictures of myself on my personal instagram page! So does everyone else. It’s not that deep.

Of all the things to criticize this seems unnecessary.

JDV: ishy: The traditional Baptists and fundamentalists loved IKDG. They made me read it 3 times at Liberty. But they all have legalism in common.

Unreal! What that was doing anywhere near a college curriculum is remarkable, let alone being featured three separate times.

Not that remarkable; IKDJ was SCRIPTURE(TM).
(Just like Late Great Planet Earth and Prayer of Jabez were in their heydays.)

Friend: Yesterday I saw a kid post photos of her lunch and her new sneakers. She was sharing her day with friends. I’m like who CAAAAAAAARES?!

EXACTLY! I mean, I have mine private now, but when it was public I would post recipes and tag them with the recipe page. It’s fun!

Lea:

I think you’re making way too much of this. I have pictures of myself on my personal instagram page! So does everyone else. It’s not that deep.

Of all the things to criticize this seems unnecessary.

Yep, I agree. Instagram seems to be the place for people to display artistic expression. So it isn’t only Josh Harris doing this.

I would say we need to wait and see how things pan out when it comes to Josh Harris. As it is, I think the Christian community is being way too critical of the man.

Again, at the risk of being redundant, I can say without a doubt that there are far worse Christian leaders, or perhaps I should call them cult leaders. For example, the cult I once belonged to had meetings several nights a week from 8 p.m. till 2 or 3 a.m., and sometimes all night until the wee hours of the morning. And during that time individual members would be publicly excoriated. Then we would get a lecture about how unfaithful we were. As if that wasn’t enough, each member would be publicly judged into a category. if I told you the names of those categories you would think I was crazy for not getting out of that place immediately. Since we lived communally, we never had homes that we could go to to get away from it all. It was a 24/7 nightmare of a bubble. On top of it every one handed in their paychecks and got a measly $10 weekly allowance. When people left oh, it was usually with a few meager belongings, the clothes on their back and their last paycheck which they refused to hand in.

Okay, now feel free to say:

Cry Me a River!!!

Max: Okrapod passed away

Oh no! I knew she was sick but had not heard. Sad.

Lea: Max: Okrapod passed away

Oh no! I knew she was sick but had not heard. Sad.

She was a kindred spirit.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2019/05/27/ocrapod-nancy-green-has-gone-home-rest-in-peace-friend/

Ken A:
I don’t need google. There is the Baltimore Cathecism. I have read it. Have you?
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson11.htm
Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

While I like you and hope the best for you, I am going to have to go with the official Chrurch teaching on this. Sorry. It is right there in black and white.

Oy, Ken A. I don’t know what to say. You seem determined to reignite the Thirty Years’ War. 😀 (Talk about derailing the thread, my friend. 😉 )

I can’t believe you disavow the use of Google. But oh well. I will gladly do the research for you.

This is also in black and white:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here is the money quote:

The children who are born into these [Protestant] Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

Now, I think I can anticipate what you’re going to say next: “Hey, youse guys *changed* your teaching at Vatican II!”

Please allow me to head this objection off at the pass, if I may. No, we have NOT changed our teaching. In fact, Vatican II was essentially a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. It did not change dogma.

Long before Vatican II, Thomas Aquinas taught that non-Catholic Christians may bear no culpability for refusing to become Catholic if they are “invincibly ignorant.” (Yes, I know, that phrase sounds offensive. I’m just reporting, not endorsing. 🙂 ) IIRC Aquinas was not the first to use this argument; it goes back to the Early Church Fathers. But he clarified it in his usual precise way.

He meant essentially the same thing that the VCII “Decree on Ecumenism” stated in the excerpt I cited above: If you grow up as a faithful Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran or Anglican — with no real opportunity to engage actual Catholic claims (as opposed to anti-Catholic mythology) — then, from the Catholic POV, you are a Christian on the path to salvation.

Of course, Aquinas wrote in the 13th century, when there were no Baptists or Methodists or Lutherans or Anglicans, but his point was viewed as applicable throughout subsequent centuries. I remember being taught about “invincible ignorance” by the nuns back in the day. *And* about “baptism by blood” and “baptism of desire,” two ecumenical doctrines explicitly taught in the very earliest centuries of the Church.

I can’t remember whether the Baltimore Catechism mentions these things — it’s a children’s catechism, so it may not go into all the permutations and iterations — but I can assure you that the Church has *always* recognized baptism by blood and by desire, as well as the mitigating effects of “invincible ignorance.” (Which is why quoting a few lines from a single proof-text can be kind of misleading IYKWIM. Which is, again, why Google is so valuable. 😉 )

BTW, have you ever heard of Father Leonard Feeney? Father Feeney claimed that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” means there’s absolutely NO salvation for any non-Catholic, regardless of circumstances. Cardinal Cushing, then cardinal-archbishop of Boston, countered that the Church has NEVER taught this. He sent Father Feeney a Vatican statement clarifying actual Church teaching, which Feeney refused to sign.

Bottom line: Father Feeney wouldn’t budge. So, in 1949, Cardinal Cushing suspended his priestly faculties, and then, in 1953, the Holy See excommunicated him.

Feeney was *excommunicated* for insisting that there’s absolutely no salvation outside visible membership in the Catholic Church. And this happened *before* Vatican II. Please let that sink in for a moment. Thank you! (See, Google really is your friend!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney

So, if a rigid, absolutist view of salvation outside the Catholic Church really *was* official Church Teaching before Vatican II, then all I can say is that neither Cardinal Cushing nor Pope Pius XII apparently got the memo!

One more thing. Are you familiar with the rebaptism controversy in the Early Church (3rd century)? The rigorists — including St Cyprian of Carthage — insisted that non-Catholic baptisms were not valid, even if they used proper form (the Trinitarian formula) and matter (water). Pope St. Stephen insisted that such baptisms were valid…so when heretics joined the Catholic Church, they did not have to be re-baptized, as long as their previous baptisms had been “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Pope Stephen’s view ultimately prevailed, and it has perdured to this day. (That’s why my friend who recently converted from Methodism did not need to be re-baptized: Her Methodist baptism was valid.)

Well, the late Father Stanley Jaki, a noted Renaissance Man — physicist, theologian, historian, polyglot — once pointed out that Pope Saint Stephen’s teaching on the validity of heretical baptisms paved the way for the Vatican II “Decree on Ecumenism.” This totally makes sense to me. If Trinitarian baptisms are valid — even when they are administered outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church — then it logically follows that the people who receive such baptisms are authentically Christian. D’uh!

So, you see, this is a very ancient teaching.

Vatican II was held in the early 1960s, more than four centuries after the Protestant Reformation. The Council Fathers were dealing with reality: generations of believing Christians who had grown up in faithful Christian families and milieus, with little or no opportunity to learn What Catholics Actually Believe. Quite often, these Christians had been seriously misinformed about Catholic beliefs and even brainwashed with anti-Catholic propaganda. They could not be held responsible for this. It wasn’t their fault. Therefore, it is wrong to say that they are not Christians or that they are “graceless” or that they cannot be saved. Au contraire…to the extent that they share our faith in Jesus, our belief in the Trinity, etc., they are in partial or “imperfect” communion with us. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the Catholic POV. And, as Pope Saint Stephen’s and Thomas Aquinas’s teachings– and the excommunication of Father Sweeney — clearly show, it predates Vatican II.

Sorry for this longwinded screed. Bottom line: Sometimes it’s better NOT to tell Catholics what Catholics believe. Sometimes it’s better to let Catholics speak for themselves. Know what I mean? 😉

And now I will get off my soapbox re this. Let’s return to our originally scheduled program — the Joshua Harris Show. 😀

Your sister in Christ,

CGC

P.S. The relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a whole separate issue, as we regard the Orthodox as very close to us indeed. (They do not always return the courtesy. ;)) We also recognize the validity of Orthodox Orders and Sacraments — not just baptism but also Chrismation, Eucharist, Confession, etc.

Oops, KenA, I said I was done, but I forgot one thing. Your citation from the Baltimore Catechism states:

he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved

Um, that’s the key. “He who *knows* the Church to be the true Church” — you have to *know* this. If you don’t know this, then you are not culpable. Hence you can be saved. That’s the point. In the proverbial nutshell.

I wish I had noticed that phrase before. I could have saved myself (and everyone else) a lot of windy words, LOL!

Now I really am done. Sorry for taking the bait and derailing the thread. Love yas!

Catholic Gate-Crasher: With all due respect…there is this thing called Google. If Ken A or anyone else *sincerely* wants to know what Catholics *actually* believe about salvation of non-Catholics…Google it, dang it. With a focus on *Catholic* sources, please, not Dave Hunt or Lorraine Boettner. We Catholics know what we believe. Anti-Catholics don’t. Trust me.

That’s not been my experience.

You can quote Catholic A at Catholic B, and B will say A doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I’ve had the same experience talking to Calvinists about Calvinism.
Even if you quote a Calvinist to the other Calvinist, the Calvinist will still say the Cal you are quoting is incorrect, and will say you “don’t understand Calvinism” – even when you’re quoting from Calvinist sources.
Had the same thing with Catholics I used to debate years and years ago.

Connect the Dots,

I agreed with much of your post.

Serving Kids in Japan: I’m sure Muff can answer this for himself, but could it be he’s wondering whether sex between loving and conscientious couples is permitted, even outside of marriage?

Guys like Muff want a BCV (book / chapter/ verse) where God explicitly lays out that pre-marital nooky is a no-no.
(I think that concept is assumed through both the Old and New Testaments.)

I’m simply pointing out there is no reverse in the Bible, that I can recall:

There is no BCB saying,
‘The Lord God says ‘I am fine and dandy with pre-marital nooky.”

There are actually more prohibitions against sexual activity and describing what God does not like about certain sexual acts, then there is anything in there with a nonchalant, do anything you want, view towards it.

Perhaps the most sex-affirming book in the Bible is The Song of Songs, but I don’t recall even that saying there are no sexual standards.

But please, correct me if I am wrong:

Is there a Bible verse that plainly says,
“God is fine with extra-marital sex,”

And/or is there a verse which reads something like,
“God is OK with extra-marital sex, so long as two or more people engaging in it love one another and its consensual”

Because if you’re saying there are no anti-pre-marital nooky verses, if your only criteria is love and consent,
you’re sort of yes, arguing, the opposite must be fine with God.
…Lots of sex all over the place (so long as it’s loving and consensual)

There was an article about Married Swinging Christian couples, who think it’s OK and biblical for married Christian couples to “swap” partners. They are all consensual about it, too.

So, is it OK and moral and biblical for married couples to swap partners, to have sex with another person’s spouse?

I don’t remember the Bible specifically saying it’s wrong or immoral for people to swap partners – is it adultery if they all agree to it, and it’s consensual?

“Swinging towards God! Body-building Christian couple spread the word about religion via their WIFE-SWAPPING network”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2769240/Body-building-Christian-couple-spread-word-religion-WIFE-SWAPPING-network.html

Daisy, Song of solomon is about an unmarried couple 😉 I don’t think ‘never have sex’ is the same thing as ‘don’t have standards’.

You can choose not to have sex, others choose differently. I think it’s valid to point out that a lot of people portray these things as EXTREMES and they just aren’t. Most people aren’t wife swapping, if have sex before they get married, most of those are probably with long term partners, many of them the person they ultimately marry. People marry more than once. We make way too big a deal of this when we could focus on things that are actually harmful instead. As long as you’re not hurting anyone or cheating, i’m good. Life is short.

(BTW, consent is REALLY important and we are, by default talking about people: animals can’t consent).

Daisy: If consent and love are your only, or main, criteria on if or when sex is ethical, wise, and etc.,…

I read some articles a few years ago about the Animal Love freaks, who claim they LOVE their animals romantically.

Are you equating one night of sex between an engaged couple with bestiality?

I can reassure you that broader acceptance of sex out of wedlock has not caused all of society to lust after their pets.

Friend: Are you equating one night of sex between an engaged couple with bestiality?

Only if she’s Furry.
Or Scaly.

Friend,

Me too, and not for nothing but taking away people’s sleep time is pretty well known as a brainwashing technique, right?

Headless Unicorn Guy,

And now for something completely different. Bishop Gavin Ashenden, last seen on TWW after claiming that there is no such thing as spiritual abuse, has come out against mini golf.

Rochester Cathedral in England installed a mini golf course inside the nave as a charming summer activity. The course features little bridges, and it invites people to think about various kinds of bridges in their lives.

But Gavin Ashenden is having none of it. Says the Right Rev Gav: “I’m afraid I think it’s a really serious mistake, perhaps born of desperation. The idea that people are so trivial that they can be almost tricked into a search for God by entertaining them with a golf course is a serious-category error.”

Link to photos of mini links: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-49162116

elastigirl: you don’t rely on a rotary dial phone?

No, but I still have one in the garage with my collection of other old things. At last count, I have 64 fishing rods/reels (some vintage) and about 175 old fishing lures. I was thinking about getting a smartphone, but my flip phone keeps perking along fine. And, I wouldn’t need a smartphone’s computer capability since I have one on my desk; nor, would I need the camera on the phone – I have one of those, too. I tried taking a selfie with my old camera the other day just to see what it would feel like … I wasn’t impressed.

Daisy: But I think that’s reading an awful lot into a single IG post/photo or two.

I thought we weren’t supposed to question motives on this site?

You might need to go back and read all the assumptions you’ve made about Muff, and guys like him (whatever that means). You’ve made some huge leaps about sexual habits and what people “might” do. Having premarital sex or sex with a committed partner out of wedlock does not turn a person into sexual deviant.

Darlene: Again, at the risk of being redundant, I can say without a doubt that there are far worse Christian leaders, or perhaps I should call them cult leaders. For example, the cult I once belonged to had meetings several nights a week from 8 p.m. till 2 or 3 a.m., and sometimes all night until the wee hours of the morning. And during that time individual members would be publicly excoriated. Then we would get a lecture about how unfaithful we were. As if that wasn’t enough, each member would be publicly judged into a category. if I told you the names of those categories you would think I was crazy for not getting out of that place immediately. Since we lived communally, we never had homes that we could go to to get away from it all. It was a 24/7 nightmare of a bubble. On top of it every one handed in their paychecks and got a measly $10 weekly allowance. When people left oh, it was usually with a few meager belongings, the clothes on their back and their last paycheck which they refused to hand in.

That’s horrifying, I’m so sorry! So glad you were ale to escape!

ishy: Though I hated it so much that I wrote an editorial in the school newspaper against fear-based faith.

Good for you!

Lea,

I’m so sorry for your loss, Lea. My condolences.

ishy,

Not sure if you saw this, the Washington Post did a recent article called, “Inside Liberty University’s culture of fear;” a big part of the story was the way the campus newspaper was controlled.

Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Catholic Gate Crasher, you expressed a view that is at odds with Catholic doctrine, someone asked you about it, and here we go with a bunch of drama. Nobody wants to Google it or pull out the old catechism, or talk about it, either, most likely. My husband’s extended family were devout Catholics and I studied for it and the question was a natural one. But, if you don’t feel comfortable explaining what you believe, why come here and bring it up?

SiteSeer:
Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Catholic Gate Crasher, you expressed a view that is at odds with Catholic doctrine, someone asked you about it, and here we go with a bunch of drama. Nobody wants to Google it or pull out the old catechism, or talk about it, either, most likely. My husband’s extended family were devout Catholics and I studied for it and the question was a natural one. But, if you don’t feel comfortable explaining what you believe, why come here and bring it up?

I what????

I did no such thing.

My “view” *is* Catholic doctrine. As I decisively showed with my verbatim excerpts from the VCII Decree on Ecumenism. That is an ***official*** source, not an anecdotal one. If you have issues with that, it is your problem, not mine

What on earth is going on here?

Do you really, honestly think you know more about Catholic Teaching than Catholics do?

As for the drama charge: Enough with the gaslighting.

This. Is. Becoming. Surreal.

I was just minding my own business…expressing empathy for Joshua and Shannon…and now I am being subjected to a freaking inquisition.

It’s insane. Enough. Basta!

If you really believe ecumenism is not part of Catholic Teaching, then may I respectfully suggest you have not been paying attention? Mama mia.

I feel as if I’ve wandered into an alternate universe.

Darlene,

Praise God that He delivered you from that hell, Darlene. You went through that valley for a reason. You can’t help someone out if you are still in. Welcome back to TWW. We fight religious devils here.

Friend,

I dont think my reply quite worked as I intended. I’ve messed up a reply twice lately. Sorry, my senility is creeping up on me.

Seriously, I loved the recently TWW posted video of the Right Reverend, and colleagues. I would have gone farther in life, if only I had a Brit accent.

SiteSeer,

Yeah, that cartoon says a lot….

Quartet of TGC bureaucrats (Kevin DeYoung, Greg Gilbert, Collin Hansen, Justin Taylor) puzzle over:

“why a number of young men who were at one time closely associated with The Gospel Coalition have been forced to leave the ministry.”

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/reflections-josh-harris-deconversion/

“Our primary takeaway is that in years past our tribe was too quick to elevate gifted men who may not have had enough time to prove themselves faithful for the long haul.”

Jerome,

“We’re still the geniuses sent by God to fix the church, but it doesn’t matter at all when we’re dead wrong.”

Ken A,

We have to put the Roman Catholic Church’s exclusive claim in it’s context. For centuries they had put down anyone who disagreed with them through intimidation up to and including murder. John Huss comes to mind. Then came Martin Luther. The Pope because of the protection of Fredrick could not have Martin Luther murdered. so they excommunicated him. They lost control of Europe that they had for centuries. Too many churches grew up. So at Trent they condemned them all. Their devotees never took back Trent. It is still the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This is just a fact my dear. I am sorry if you didn’t know this, but that is just the way it is. (and by the way if you don’t think the church was in great need of Reform you need to look into the state of it as embodied by the Borgias through Pope Alexander VI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI)

TS00: There simply isn’t a Genie in my bottle anymore,

I have been walking with Jesus over 30 years now, and although I do not doubt the truth of what I read about him in the Bible, I feel heavy and burdened on a daily basis For where we are as Humanity on this planet. Solomon said with more knowledge comes more sorrow, And I have found that to be true. I sometimes wonder if reading these watch blogs Is even making it worse. But knowing these things has helped me navigate and deal with calvinist people in various churches so there has been some good that’s come from it. Meantime, It’s hard not to feel discouraged.

end of the day I feel like the disciples who said to Jesus well where else are we going to go? You have the words of eternal life.

ishy: Many people didn’t like Falwell Sr, and he did have some strong evangelical tunnel vision, but the difference was that Falwell Sr honestly cared about people, even people that hated him. He met me once and never forgot my name. He always stopped to talk to me on campus, and remembered what major I was and what I wanted to do. He even offered to write me a recommendation. He invited people to speak at LU who didn’t agree with him. He let students run the paper. As far as I can tell, Jr only does things he think will advance himself.

Falwell Sr also was a big tipper (making up for Christians’ rep as stingy tippers), had a prankster’s sense of humor (like driving up behind someone and hitting the horn), and did NOT like fanboys (he’d punch them in the gut if they fawned over him).

Falwell Jr has none of these, only the constant unsleeping all-consuming unsmiling Concentration on The Cause (and Self) of The True Believer. (Or Rush Limbaugh after he spent too long listening to his own PR.)

Same for Franklin Graham; there’s a reason “Rags to Riches to Rags in Three Generations” is a folk proverb in both English and Chinese.

Nathan Priddis,

Yes, the Three Amigos video was riveting in its special way… I think we all have our moments with trying to reply as well. 😉 Here’s the Monty Python “Tale of Sir Robin.” The Three Headed Knight shows (show?) up around 1:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdgjYoBMIg

…a proliferation of reports and reflections on Joshua Harris’ recent trajectory—from renouncing his book: ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’, to separating from his wife, to rejecting the label Christian altogether? Something is very wrong with this picture. Is it the individual or is this a sad examinable reflection on the greater organizations he was once a part?

Catholic Gate-Crasher,

Just one question. Has the RCC repealed the Council of Trent “anathemas”?

Bridget,

Sorry, I see Catholic Answers the same way many here see Pulpit and Pen.

Also I was asking CGC, not you.

Ken P.,

Did you read the link? It seemed to deal with the facts. Facts are facts.

I didn’t answer for CGC, she is perfectly free to answer as is anyone on this site. But you’ve made it pretty clear that you only accept answers from your chosen few, which comes across as pretty rude.

Bridget: He’s an ex-Catholic I see.

Yes, I like to see different perspectives.

Ken P.: Yes, I like to see different perspectives.

Different perspectives that accord with yours. Got it. 😉

Thank you, Bridget!!!! I was starting to think I was losing my mind.

Y’know, there’s even a name for the view KenA keeps ascribing to the Catholic Church. It’s called *Feeneyism,* after Father Feeney. It is a condemned heresy!

It doesn’t matter what Dale, KenA, Siteseer, or anyone else may think or claim. It matters what the Catholic Church officially teaches. And she does NOT teach that all non-Catholics are headed to Hell. Not even close.

Oy!! Again…thank you, Bridget, from the bottom of my heart!

Ken A,

What prompted you to pick at this scab? What was your goal?

Ken F (aka Tweed):
Ken A,

What prompted you to pick at this scab? What was your goal?

Some folks just like to bash Catholics whenever they get the chance. It’s a hobby for them, although they would consider it a *calling*. I’m speaking as a former Catholic basher myself. I know the mindset well. That is why I suspected something was up the minute Ken A started this fiasco. Yes, I’m talking to you, Ken. I sensed that what was beneath that initial
sweet veneer was a desire to put on the boxing gloves and reprimand CGC.

Like I said, former Catholic basher here, so I pick up the hints and read between the lines before they come out swinging with both fists.

SiteSeer,

Sorry, did not mean to quote that missive, not sure how that happened.

SiteSeer,

Siteseer, I support Catholic Gatecrasher for defending her beliefs. And this *off topic* started with Kenny A challenging CGC. When other people’s beliefs are challenged or questioned on this site, and as often times happens it goes a little off topic, they aren’t told to be *done* with it. If that is the case, Ken A should have never started going off topic by challenging CGC.

Personally, I have no problem with tangents. And apparently from all the various discussions at TWW throughout the years, it has happened many times before. And people weren’t rebuked for it.

SiteSeer:
Ken F (aka Tweed),

Possibly history on this site.

Or not. I don’t know Ken A from Adam.

Thank you again and again, Darlene. And Ken F.

Ken F (aka Tweed):
Ken A,

What prompted you to pick at this scab? What was your goal?

I didn’t have a goal. I just wanted to know how she could reconcile her opinion with what the Baltimore cathecism taught. I really didn’t mean to upset her. All can read the link I posted to the Baltimore Cathecism. It speaks for itself. That is what I was taught in Catholic grade school. I actually like a lot of what CGC posts. She seems like a nice lady to me.

dee:
OK-let’s stop the discussion on Catholicism. Instead, focus on Harris. I would love to hear more about what you think of his views or lack thereof of child sex abuse coverup. I heard from a source that Harris may be about to discuss this issue in the near future. I hope he does.

I hope he does as well. It would clear up a lot of people’s questions.

Darlene: Yes, Beaker, here in the U.S. folks are enamored with the British accent. But I would imagine they’re a dime-a-dozen where you are.

Dime-a-dozen? Hmm… Dime would be shilling, and dozen must be pronounced differently because they say Zed instead of Zee. So maybe those accents are a shilling-a-dozedden? I’m SO CONFUSED…

Friend,

Al-yoo-minnie-um.

“What is worth exploring in this instance … is why a number of young men who were at one time closely associated with The Gospel Coalition have been forced to leave the ministry. Our primary takeaway is that in years past our tribe was too quick to elevate gifted men who may not have had enough time to prove themselves faithful for the long haul.” (The Gospel Coalition)

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/reflections-josh-harris-deconversion/

The New Calvinists are reevaluating their model for selecting the next generation of stars to promote their movement. Former TGC Greats: Driscoll, Mahaney, MacDonald, Harris … living examples that a touch of charisma, a gift of gab, and a gimmick do not equal anointing for gospel ministry.

Lydia,

Awww Lydia! I have missed you, too! I so agree with you about Josh. Did you read my comment about being cynical of Josh and Shannon because of the same thing? I still feel that way about Josh by looking at his media and comments. I would like to hear what you are sensing about Shannon. I mean, I know she has to make a living and all she knows is all she knows. I am hoping at least that all is real and she is finally getting her chance. But? What do you think?

I’m not an Al Mohler fan but I like to check what the usual suspects have to say.

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/01/joshua-harris

He mentions legalism but I think he feels that legalism is those other people. Our rules are more important than their rules, so we’re all good over here.

He also gets into discussing the issue of whether a Christian can walk away from the faith, suggesting that maybe Josh wasn’t what he said he was. This kind of makes me sick. Little introspection here about the toxic environment (CJ Mahaney) that may cause someone to break.

It’s not a horrible article but I so dislike Al Mohler that it’s hard for me to read anything of his and not pick it apart.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Dare one suggest that even the mighty Albert Mohler might one day turn his back on all that he has long laid claim to? Yep, it could happen; which is why we are foolish to put our trust in men. Any men. We would be much wiser to trust in women.

It was a joke, relax. 😉 But seriously, so much of christianity is built upon the foundation of men and their doctrines, books and teachings. And so many of them either fall far short of their own standards, or, like Harris, completely turn their backs on them. Our foundation must be built on Christ alone, the chief and only trustworthy cornerstone. (Women, are no more worthy of the ‘authority’ position than are men; but they are no less worthy of being listened to and properly evaluated.)

Ken F (aka Tweed): After all the time all the YRRs spent promoting Harris, why should we trust them now? If they were wrong on Harris, what else are they wrong about?

“… our tribe was too quick to elevate gifted men who may not have had enough time to prove themselves faithful for the long haul …” (The Gospel Coalition)

New Calvinism has been a longer haul than many of us thought it would be.

The problem with religious movements is that they want to move too fast. In their haste to promote their teachers and proliferate their teachings, they make mistakes. They end up purging popular leaders who shouldn’t have led and casting aside aberrant teachings which shouldn’t have been taught. Such dubious readjustment casts doubt on the whole movement and they eventually stop moving.

Law Prof,

That is sickening 🙁

Steve240: Looks like the shoe may be dropping

Does anyone have an Instagram account to confirm that the pic is real? It does look like his Instagram, and there apparently was a Pride event in Vancouver over the weekend.

Regardless of the pic’s authenticity, marching in a Pride parade does not necessarily mean Joshua Harris is gay. He has apologized for disparaging LGBTQ people. Relatives and friends often march in such parades.

It makes sense to reserve judgment until the photo’s origin is confirmed and Joshua Harris comments about it.

bendeni,

I was wondering if Josh might be gay, but this doesn’t prove anything. I’ve been to pride events and it makes sense considering he was specifically called out for his behavior towards LGBT christians, and he made a specific point that he was wrong.

bendeni, even when someone is gay, it can be hurtful to speculate. They may not be out yet, they may not have dealt with whatever they need to before talking about it. I made a mistake once saying a friend was gay who was not yet out (although I wasn’t wrong) and make it a point to never do that.

Lea: even when someone is gay, it can be hurtful to speculate. They may not be out yet, they may not have dealt with whatever they need to before talking about it. I made a mistake once saying a friend was gay who was not yet out (although I wasn’t wrong) and make it a point to never do that.

That’s right! Thanks Lea.

Max: “I need to avoid audiences”

What an amazing thing for him to say… to his 26.2k Instagram followers.

Different topic: what do you think about the many official statements encouraging people to pray for Joshua Harris? Nobody can stop anyone from praying; it’s everyone’s right. But these various exhortations seem disingenuous to me: show how wrong Harris is, and watch your own back lest we pray for you too.

Max,

Lovely answer, thanks. I am also a major fan of prayer requests (when not weaponized), and prayed for you during your time of uncertainty. 🙂

Friend,

Thanks Friend for praying for me earlier this year … those were tough days. Speaking of prayer, I had to make an emergency trip to the dentist today to replace a crown. I asked my 5-year old grandson to pray for me – his prayers are so innocent. He prayed:

“Dear God, bless this food lunch to our bodies. And, Papaw broke his tooth, so be sure you help him at the dentist.”

God heard that little guy’s prayer. The dentist helped me with my broken tooth and I’m good for another 20 years. Whenever I want some serious attention from God, I always ask my grandson to pray. He has no theological agenda, is not trying to takeover churches with his brand of belief and practice, and treats everybody the same (male and female) … he has a clear path to God’s heart.

Friend: But these various exhortations seem disingenuous to me: show how wrong Harris is, and watch your own back lest we pray for you too.

“Imprecatory Prayers”, i.e. Put a Hex on You?

“O GREAT CHEMOSH! O GREAT BAAL! BRING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION DOWN ON THESE MY ENEMIES!”
— Imprecatory prayer from some Fifties “Bible Epic”

Lea: Dee: ““We just didn’t have the training.”

They didn’t have the training because they didn’t WANT the training. They thought their position as the fair-haired boys of evangelical Christianity gave them supernatural knowledge about everything. They built a theocracy, and masqueraded it as a church.

I have a feeling Josh really didn’t know much about the abuse cases at first, unless he read the forbidden blogs. Though CJ was his mentor, CJ controlled all the information, and I’m willing to bet CJ didn’t want anyone to know this information.

The control issues still affect former SGM members. Many have continued to be afraid to tell their stories, and are still controlled by the false definition of gossip. They still are afraid to talk about ANYTHING. One good thing I have noticed on my FB feed since Josh dropped Bombshells #1 and #2 is that people who were previously afraid to talk are now making truthful comments. And that is a good thing!

When Bombshell #1 was dropped, my mindset was to wait and see. Josh, among many others, was both a perpetrator and a victim SGM abuse. Realizing that has got to be mind-blowing for anyone, and it takes time, sometimes lots of time, to process it and begin to heal. Now that Bombshell #2 dropped, followed by the participation in the Gay Pride parade, there’s no telling what will follow. My thought on some of Josh’s issues is,sorta, “some things you just ought not tell.” But Josh often told those kinds of things — I remember being horrified that he stated on Dobson’s radio program, with his wife’s permission (but what else was she going to say?) that though he was a virgin when they married, she was not. There’s a difference between being dishonest and being discreet.

I felt sorry for Josh for the first time I saw him being petted and primed by CJ at Celebration, and I feel sorry for him now. And I pray for his healing, as we wait for other shoes to drop.

Nickname: They didn’t have the training because they didn’t WANT the training. They thought their position as the fair-haired boys of evangelical Christianity gave them supernatural knowledge about everything.

They made themselves gods.

Excellent post!

bendeni: I agree with you that we REALLY (please!) need to hold off speculating about Josh. His attending Pride may be no more than showing support for the LGBT community.

I wouldn’t doubt that the idea of Josh being gay has not gone through everyone’s heads. But my daughter did comment way back in 2010/11 after meeting him that she thought he could be. But I told her that just because someone acts gay like doesn’t mean they are gay. I have a friend that our other friends sometimes wonder out loud about that because of his mannerisms. But I knew a cousin of his long before I ever met this person and I always thought that about his cousin, too. But the men in that family just have more feminine mannerisms. I am not the most feminine acting personality and I have always resented that it is unnatural for me to constantly have to try to act more feminine. I assume it is difficult for less masculine personalities in men as well. Also, my son-n-law who I am 100 percent sure is not gay attended the Pride parade over here in support of equal rights for all people and their sexual preferences. And if Josh does set off a 3rd bomb in that direction, it wouldn’t mean that he suddenly dropped off the gay bashing bus and became one. It would mean that the poor guy fought against his tendencies his whole life. I have no idea what that would feel like. Therefore I do not judge them who struggle differently than I.

I worked along side of Josh full-time, on staff at CLC, for two years. I don’t claim to have been best friends with him. But, for instance, I did have meetings in his office every Tuesday, which he led probably 50% of the time. Just to give you an idea. I was enmeshed in CLC/SGM culture as much as one could be, and know more than 99% of the people throwing out loose ideas. My boss, ultimately, was Grant. I interacted with Grant regularly, much more than Josh. I have opinions, but I feel they’re informed.

Josh was caught in the middle of all this. The big bombshell, Morales, that surfaced from the 90s, had nothing to do with Josh. Nothing. I think some people aren’t clear on that. In terms of his “admission,” he was senior pastor when all of this broke. Point man, the one major news networks go to for comments. CJ was instructed NOT to comment, via his attorneys. Guess who’s left to do the talking?

It’s my opinion he included himself saying “we” should have done things differently as essentially a way of standing alongside his team. If he had singled them out and said “yea back then they screwed up bad, but I wasn’t there…etc” I mean the ramifications of that would have been it’s own shock-wave of conflict. It’s my opinion, again based on all I witnessed, experienced, and heard from basically living at CLC and being deeply involved, Josh was caught in the middle of total chaos, yet still had to be the spokesperson. All the discussion in the community surrounding it pertained to CJ, Grant, and others present at the time…as well as Brent Detwiler and his hatred of CJ…let’s call it what it is. Josh was background, yet the one in the spotlight all the same.

CJ ran away…trust me there are many people still hurt to this day over his jettison to Kentucky, because that’s what it was. He gave one very brief, vague statement to the members — I think it was a members meeting, not even on a Sunday morning — and that was that. Anyone with a rational mind can understand why Josh would move back to his home region…or thereabouts. Five years of that type of burnout? Come on.

In terms of Grant…he was a man of integrity, admitting on the stand he knew they should have gone to the police. There was no skirting around it or using vague language…he just simply said it. It’s hard to imagine the kool-aide was so thick that even someone like Grant, who I deeply respect and admire, would not have taken matters to law enforcement. But that’s what happened. Albeit his mistakes, I promise you he is a good man.

All this to say, I don’t think there’s any “admission” from Josh here. During my time there, there were things taken to the police…and in fact there were officers on site every Sunday morning for security. Montgomery County Cops…not third part security. Things were not as they were during Josh’s tenure like the free-wheeling 90s of CJ.

Like I said…much of this is opinion, but it’s informed opinion. Not just based on a couple interviews where one word was spoken over another, etc. Josh did not jettison. CJ did, and in my view he is a total coward, leaving thousands of people high and dry with hardly a word. To be (a little) fair, SGM had been planning the move to Louisville for some time, prior to the shit hitting the fan. It’s not as if this all happened right away. But…they sure found the motivation to finally pull the trigger at quite the opportune time.

As for Josh’s leaving the faith…well that’s a whole different story I suppose. It’s sad to see how many “Christians” show their true colors with all their opinions. Theological bashing, not an ounce of concern for him as a person. Love…supposedly the essence of Christianity. I severely beg to differ. Having left the faith myself a couple years ago, a journey of almost a decade, I was both surprised and encouraged to read about it. But that’s another story not relevant here. Thanks for reading.

dee,

I’m sorry you feel the need to respond that way. I don’t respect your aggression insinuating that I think you and the rest are idiots, nor your attempting to wish me well after doing so. I don’t receive that. I didn’t say anything insinuating you are all idiots. That’s cheap and unwarranted.

I offered opinions, and intentionally qualified them as best I could, regarding my years spent there in actual company of those people. That’s all. I didn’t claim to have known Josh very well, as you stated. I clearly said what capacity I interacted with him (and didn’t interact with him,) and more-so others. Being there in the capacity I was does offer a unique perspective, more so than news articles and internet discussion. You see things, hear things, get inside scoops, have conversations, etc., and you do get to know people; that informs perspectives.

As for my comments being a “cover” for Josh — yea ultimately they were. If I was coy about that, I wouldn’t have posted. I find it very hypocritical you take me to task on my outlining, or attempting anyway, my actual working relationship years with him up close, then simply add in your reply that you knew enough about Josh to know he was a coward. Fascinating.

Disagree all you like. I respectfully add that you attempt to get a fuller grasp on a person’s perspective and what they actually said before replying with false insinuations.

Thank you for reading my thoughts.

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:36 AM Ben wrote:

JTR79,

I think the trouble is that abusers and the like are very very good at manipulation. So you look at them and you see a happy, gregarious, outgoing, entertaining person, someone who is a nice, charming guy, good at schmoozing the crowds. They may come across as generous and kind. But it’s a mask. And those of us who have been on the receiving end of their abuse know better, but people around us (like you) don’t see it. It’s not your fault; it’s the abuser manipulating.
For example, my ex was abusive; I thought he was going to kill me at one point. Yet my church saw him as a good guy with a few problems; they invited him to preach, and to this day he is the treasurer. Even though social services said he shouldn’t be in a living situation with our children, the church still think he’s a good guy, just like you think Grant is a good guy. Or take my friend’s case. Her partner went to jail for beating her up and attempting to rape her, and her sister STILL thinks she’s lying about it. They believe the charming, pleasant abuser over the woman who was actually abused by him.

You say these men are good people, and you know that because you worked with them. Yet you ignore the criminal and moral evil they have done because you think you know better than the courts and the victims. Again, not your fault you’ve been manipulated. But you should look at reality and actual conduct, not just their personal demeanour.