Storm Rages in a Cosmic Teacup- NASA
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein
We know Tom Ascol and he will be the subject of another post shortly. I wrote about Voddie Baucham early on at TWW. I found him controversial then and was surprised to see his name nominated for the SBC Pastors’ Conference. I realized that many would not know who he is, especially since some of his utterances have been highly controversial. Hence this post.
Who is Voddie Baucham, and why is he controversial?
Fascinating. I know that people often look at Wikipedia as a dubious source. However, I have found much value there so long one checks the information. So let’s start there.
Born in Los Angeles,[2] Baucham studied at New Mexico State University and Rice University, playing football as a tight end. He then transferred to Houston Baptist University, where he graduated with a B.A.[3] He went on to obtain an M.Div. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a D.Min. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Baucham also did additional post-graduate study at the University of Oxford.[4] He founded Voddie Baucham Ministries in 1993.[5]
Baucham served as pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas (a congregation within the Southern Baptist Convention) until he moved to Zambia in 2015. He is a board member of Founders Ministries.[6]
In March 2022, Baucham confirmed that he had been asked to accept a nomination for president of the Southern Baptist Convention, but noted that as an overseas missionary, he was not sure if he was eligible.[7]
Theology
Baucham is Reformed in his theology, and subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. He calls himself a “fire-breathing, TULIP believing, five-point Calvinist.”[8] Baucham appeared in the 2019 Netflix documentary American Gospel: Christ Crucified speaking in favor of penal substitutionary atonement. His statement “God killed Jesus” was criticized for “muddying the waters” on this doctrine.[9][10]
Biblical patriarchy
Baucham is an adherent of biblical patriarchy. He outlined his views on the subject in his 2009 book What He Must Be: …If He Wants to Marry My Daughter, though preferring the phrase “gospel patriarchy”.[11] Baucham criticized Sarah Palin‘s vice presidential candidacy in 2008, on the basis that women serve best at home.[12][13]
Baucham is also a supporter of the Stay-at-home daughter movement.[14] He appeared in Vision Forum‘s 2007 documentary Return of the Daughters, in which he said that America is suffering an “epidemic of unprotected women.”[15]
Some points of interest from Wikipedia:
- He calls himself a fire-breathing, Tulip believing Calvinist(a)
- He said God killed Jesus in his defense of penal substitutionary atonement
- He’s a board member of the Founder’s Ministries.
- He supports biblical patriarchy.
- He didn’t believe Sarah Palin should have run for VP, not due to politics but because he believes women serve best at home.
- He supports the “stay at home daughters” movement, which means that women must live at home with their daddies until married.
- He says America is suffering from an epidemic of unprotected women.
Some think he is a plagiarist and a threat to children, women, and daughters, and Owen Strachan is positively swooning over him.
Yikes! Baptist News posted Plagiarism is the least thing to worry about with Voddie Baucham, who is a threat to children, women and daughters
Owen Strachan tweeted: “200 years from now, no one who studies church history will know the names of the woke critics of Voddie Baucham. But they’ll know Voddie’s name. They’ll know it because of the God he faithfully proclaimed in faithless times. Be assured of that.”
Voddie, reviewing one of Strachan’s books (I’m sure they’re flying off the shelves), proving that he can play the game as good as any of them, said:
Few men possess the mix of intellect, winsomeness, academic rigor, pastoral sensitivity, and raw courage that drips from every page of this book.”
Is that enough to have you reaching for your Pepcid? The word “winsome” for those of you new to this blog is one of the banned words on TWW. 🙂
Why does Voddie sound like a child abuser when he says that babies are “vipers in diapers and need to be spanked?”
Baptist Press quoted Baucham:
“People who don’t believe in original sin don’t have children. … That’s a viper in a diaper. The angry cry happens early. The demanding cry happens early. The stiffening up of the body, that happens early. … One of the reasons God makes them so small is so that they won’t kill you. And one of the reasons he makes them so cute is so that you won’t kill them.”
That sounds kind of funny until it sounds as if it borders on child abuse
Baucham’s proposed solution for this hypothetical murderous infant drive is that “they desperately need to be spanked. And they need to be spanked often. … There were days when Junior needed to be spanked five times before breakfast. … You need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.”
Baucham has gone so far as to give an example of a shy little pastor’s daughter who was afraid to shake a male deacon’s hand at church. Baucham described: “Pastor goes back in the office, goes through that whole process — spank the child, comes back out, child won’t do it again. Goes back again, asks the deacon, ‘Will you please wait here?’ Thirteen times. Thirteen times. That deacon was like, ‘Little girl, please … .’”
A statement on patriarchy:
From Baptist News:
There’s also the war against the patriarchy, the war against male headship, which again is an assault on the God of the Bible. The woman is made after the man — male headship. The woman is made for the man — male headship. The woman is brought to the man — male headship. The woman is named by the man twice … male headship.”
A statement on spousal abuse and divorce: Don’t even consider it.
Baptist Press:
There’s a person who’s in an abusive marriage. That is not biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage.”
Voddie and his “stay-at-home daughter” thing: God gives men daughters, so the men don’t need to seek younger wives…
This is an entire section in the Baptist Press opinion piece, and it is well worth the time. However, the following statement is worrisome to those who have seen sexual abuse within families.
A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead, they go find a substitute daughter. … We’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters.”
He does not believe that his daughter should leave home to go to college.
Since the beginning, women have been making decisions that affect the entire world. … It all starts with what women do in the home.” It claims that “girls are confused about where they fit into the world, even into their own families.” Rather than getting a college education and pursuing a career, the documentary follows women who “are rejecting the unloving demands of modern culture … (and) who are attempting to return to a family centered approach to womanhood … living productive lives in their father’s home until marriage.”
I had a short Twitter interaction with Jasmine, Voddie’s daughter. She told me she no longer advocates the” stay-at-home daughters” movement. (If I find the tweet, I’ll include it.) I apologized for my assumption. In this article, she states:
She explains: “My dad is not an abusive, overbearing ogre who dictated every decision of my life” and that it was actually her dad who “forced me to get my license” and “pushed me to get an online degree.” And now that she’s married, she says, ”I’ve never made decisions for myself.”
I know she was trying to defend her dad, but I might suggest that she not present herself as someone who “never made decisions for herself.” This statement alone causes me to pause.
Plagiarism, friendship with a convicted child sex abuser, and a problem with SBC polity.
Baptist Press posted With Ed Litton not running, the race for SBC presidency draws new interest, including one possibly controversial candidate
Plagiarism
The Baptist Press reported:
Aside from the racial issue, Baucham has been accused by conservative author Joel McDurmon of plagiarizing and falsely attributing quotations to Critical Race Theory scholar Richard Delgado. Baucham and his publisher have denied these accusations.
According to McDurmon, one particularly problematic passage involves Baucham accusing Delgado of asserting that “whites are incapable of righteous action on race.” This false quotation is nowhere in Delgado’s work. But this attribution was mistakenly made not only in the book, but also attributed to Delgado by Baucham in a sermon. McDurmon has called this “a lie and distortion of CRT.”
For those who would like to pursue this subject further, this is a helpful post. Richard Delgado And Neil Shenvi Respond To Voddie Baucham Plagiarism Charges
As I said in my last article, I am thankful that some on Voddie’s “side” of the debate see the problems in his work. I pray that these errors are corrected soon and that Voddie works to remedy his damage to the truth. Falsehoods tend to exponentially multiply and morph into even worse falsehoods, and this damage will only continue until Voddie puts time and effort into correcting his errors. The repentance should be louder than the sin, and in this case, the sin is a key passage in a bestselling book. May we continue in grace and truth.
Finally, I have a great deal of respect for Dwight Mckissic.In the Baptist Press article, he is quoted as saying:
Prior to his pastoral tenure at Grace Family Church, Baucham previously served on staff at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, where vocal Black SBC pastor Dwight McKissicis pastor. McKissic appears not to be a Baucham fan. On March 3, he retweeted a link to the problematic Baucham sermon that said: “It’s ridiculous. Voddie plagiarized, misquoted and had a sorry excuse for his ‘mistakes.’”
Baucham’s relationship with Stephen Bratton, a convicted child sex abuser
Baucham is former teaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Churchin Houston, where one of his closest coworkers who succeeded him as pastor, Stephen Bratton, later was convicted on multiple counts of child sexual abuse and is now serving a 17-year prison sentence for repeatedly raping a female family member who was a minor
The abuse occurred from 2013 to 2018, which overlaps a two-year period from 2013 to 2015 in which Baucham and Bratton worked together at the Houston church. Other sources have detailed the reportedly close relationship between the two pastors. Documented aspects of their ministry relationship include the following: both of them co-signing the anti-social justice Dallas Statement, Bratton posting from Baucham’s Facebook page, and Bratton being recognized in the acknowledgments section of Baucham’s book, Expository Apologetics.
While other co-pastors at the church not only cooperated with the police investigation but actually reported Bratton to police when he confessed to them, there appears to be no public statement by Baucham on the matter.
Voddie is not a member of an SBC church!
William Thornton at SBC Voices posted Tom Ascol, Voddie Baucham and what a time to be in our Grand Convention! It’s a good article. Here’s what he says about Voddie’s church membership.
But Voddie Baucham is a believer in meaningful church membership which found him in no man’s land when his name was floated by the back room boys as a possible SBC presidential candidate. Baucham lives in Zambia and isn’t a member of any Southern Baptist church; hence, not qualified to be SBC prez. If formerly being a member of an SBC church was sufficient, we could have Russell Moore, Beth Moore, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as candidates.
By this time, I’m sure I’ve left you with enough fodder to consider an investment in the makers of Pepcid. But, just in case, we leave the SBC to report on one more fallen pastor at Hillsong.
The Christian Post reported: Former Hillsong Dallas Pastor Reed Bogard resigned after he was accused of rape, investigation reveals
Reed Bogard suddenly resigned in January 2021, just two weeks before a new report came out. Now we know the reason why.
an internal investigation commissioned by Hillsong Global showed that the married father of three was accused of rape by a junior female staffer with whom he had a monthlong affair while serving at Hillsong NYC years earlier.
The former junior Hillsong NYC staffer who asked not to be publicly named in this report when contacted by The Christian Post, said she has been trying to move on with her life. She confirmed she participated in a deposition concerning the allegation but would not say anything more than what was already included in the report.
And the increasingly evident, clueless, and uncaring leaders of Hillsong central did nothing about it.
Hillsong leaders were made aware years earlier of a sexual relationship between the two parties, but an investigation was not conducted by the church at the time. Church leaders were led to believe the relationship was consensual and “consequences to both [parties] were meted out accordingly,” investigators revealed.
…It shows that Hillsong Church Australia first learned of the sexual affair between Bogard and the junior staff member in the second half of 2014. The relationship began in September 2013 and continued through the beginning of January 2014.
“At the time, the Church did not conduct any meaningful inquiry into the details or circumstances of the affair, and no one with appropriate training was assigned to look into matters,” investigators noted.
Why didn’t they do anything back in 2014? Well, guess who was the ridiculous head of Hillsong central at that time. Brian Houston!. I am beginning to think there was much, much more going on, and am wondering if the leaders were complicit in these matters. Who knows? I don’t, but I am sure suspecting stuff at this juncture. I’m happy to see that Hillsong Dallas bit the dust. I think the whole enterprise needs to die.
Voddie Baucham could have been the motivation for this song – wait until the end:
https://youtu.be/Nlz_3HLpTGc
I know Jasmine Baucham Holmes doesn’t want to speak about her father, but she needs to be pressed on it.
Also, I had speculated this morning that due to the possible legal entanglements between the local (Arizona) Hillsong and the Hillsong mothership (real property and the college), it might be difficult to leave. Well, apparently, it’s not THAT difficult, because the local pastor, Terry Crist, announced they were pulling out their seven sites. Presumably the USA site of the Hillsong College will also pack up and leave.
Oh, and Ken, that song was *savage*. But necessary.
… and from the post, a quote from Pastor V. Baucham about fathers and daughters: “A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”
A pastor preaching his “theology” to the families in his congregation, including men in this pastor’s church with daughters at home…
In the novel “Legal Grounds” I’ve written exactly how this plays out.
Is the answer to a man’s midlife crisis the attention of a minor, a girl? That’s her job now?
Do “cougars” need the attention of young men or boys, minors?
There is theology to back this up?
Elderly King David’s servants brought him a beautiful girl in her youth to “bring him vigor”. Yes, another dicey King David story. 1 Kings 1, the story of Abishag. So this traditional solution to old men’s issues is not new. Concubines were provided to keep the old guys “young”.
Stay-at-home-daughters. Puh-lease. Go read some Jane Austin or Anne or Charlotte Bronte to find out why this may sound nice on paper but doesn’t work in the real world. Even supposing all husbands are stand-up guys who can make a salary that supports an entire family, there is still untimely death or disability to consider when preparing daughters for the real world. (Spoken as a stay-at-home-mom with a college education and previous work experience to fall back on, who makes sure husband’s life insurance is always paid up.)
And what exactly are the fathers “in need of a younger woman’s attention” supposed to do when their daughters get married?
And the “vipers in diapers” bit is just… frightening. A baby screams because they’re hungry, have no way of feeding themselves, and have no other way to communicate this to caregivers. When Paul talks about a child doing childish things in 1 Corinthians 13, he doesn’t say it’s wrong for a child to do these things, only for an adult to. If Voddie feels the need to spank an infant for crying, he has a worrying lack of ability to put himself in someone else’s shoes.
My feeling about Hillsong is it’s headed the way of RZIM.
How does it seem like a good move to name a senior pastor that you knew was in an ‘affair’ with a younger staff member before? That person should be permanently disqualified.
Here’s the question: did the church they sent him to know he had a history so they could keep him accountable? (Again, he should never be allowed on any church staff but hypothetically, if one thought he repented and was fully restored, shouldn’t you warn the church for his own sake?)
And that’s giving everyone the full benefit of the doubt.
The substitution of a daughter for a younger mistress is patently creepy.
And what of men without daughters? What is a wife supposed to think of that teaching? This is some Sovereign Grace level weirdness.
The complete package . . . misogyny, child abuse, male-worship, plagiarist, and he’s being ‘considered’ to lead the SBC???
oh please
Good article by David Robertson on how we respond to the Hillsong news
https://theweeflea.com/2022/03/26/hillsong-heartbreak-how-should-we-respond/
From the article:
“It would be foolish and sad if churches now decide not to sing some of the great songs that Hillsong have produced because of the sins of the founder. Applying that standard would leave us with very little to sing!”
I am not at all up to speed on current Christian music, but I find it hard to believe that Hillsong has that much of a monopoly on the market. And I don’t see how a church can feature Hillsong music without making it look like they are endorsing Hillsong.
The “All men are pigs, especially me,” version of theology. It has its defenders.
Concerning Owen Strachan and Voddie Baucham:
Nobody, but nobody (except for V Baucham) has so far accused Owen Strachan of a “mix of intellect […] academic rigor”. Cute hair – yes, marrying well – yes, intellect and academic rigour – no.
Owen Strachan’s main intellectual value seems as an almost infallible bad-ideas-detector. If he likes something, it is probably a bad idea, but if he is enthusiastic about it (female subordination, ESS, Calvinista theology, fighting against a caricature of CRT), it is definitely a very bad idea, and can be dismissed without much further scrutiny.
I like him. He is incredibly useful.
If a child’s experience of her father’s hand is that it is an instrument of punishment and pain, it would not be surprising were the child to consider the hands of male strangers to be objects of terror. Will he strike me too?
So Christianity, Evangelical, plays to the base desires of (some) men? The men, that is, that choose to live their lives guided by their most base, lowest level, primitive cravings? These men can violate their wives, because a woman is HIS wife and God gives them the right? When these men “need” or crave a younger woman or a girl, their daughters fulfill that desire?
So instead of a man facing his base cravings and overcoming them, he has built a theology to fulfill them? Cult.
OTOH: “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” Colossians 3.5.
(Reading this cult “theology” and one wants to take a shower. Yuck.)
Jude 12-13 “These are the ones who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, like shepherds caring only for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, churning up their own shameful deeds like dirty foam; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.”
This savage rhyme at the end seems to captures Baucham’s teachings:
“Jesus hates me, this I know;
For my Doctrine tells me so.
Little ones does he despise;
They are vipers in his eyes.
Yay!!!!”
Ironically sung by a slaughtered lamb puppet…
“the Founder’s Ministries”
Whew! Now, that’s a subject worthy of a whole post. Founders = Calvinist slaveholders (including pastors/elders) in the South who believed sovereign God was on their side during the Civil War until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. After the War, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from the Founders’ theology and remained distinctly non-Calvinist for 150 years until the Founders began a “quiet revolution” to drag the SBC back to its theological roots, without asking Southern Baptists if they wanted to go there.
Some bad boys indeed in that bunch. These Hyper-Calvinists were on a mission long before the New Calvinists showed up to wrench control of the SBC away from millions of non-Calvinist members. Mohler was formerly one of their darlings before he launched his own New Calvinist army to Calvinize a once-great evangelistic denomination. They don’t come any more mean-spirited than Tom Ascol and Al Mohler … they rule congregations with an iron first, enslave women to the “beauty of complementarity”, and subordinate Jesus … all the while twisting Scripture to defend their aberrant belief and practice.
“… enough to have you reaching for your Pepcid …”
Too late for Pepcid, the level of flattery within New Calvinism is enough to make you puke! The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, and other NeoCal hangouts are replete with flattering lips. You only move up the pyramid if you flatter the elite who sit on the pinnacle.
I remember an Al Mohler interview years ago with Greg Gilbert when Gilbert’s book “What is the Gospel?” was released. At one point Gilbert swooned over Pope Mohler, responding “Ohhhhh, Dr. Mohler, what a sweet question!” (Puke) Gilbert is now Mohler’s pastor! Flattering lips paid off.
“When I return, will I find faith on the earth?” (Jesus)
“I’m happy to see that Hillsong Dallas bit the dust. I think the whole enterprise needs to die.”
I suspect that Hillsong has sung their last song. It’s done … it just hasn’t quit yet. So sad for thousands/millions who were deceived by charisma without character.
Hillsong would have been only a small blip on the radar, if not for their ex-worship pastor Darlene Zschech. IMO, she was the real deal (unlike Houston) … her inspired songs put Hillsong on the map. She left Hillsong 15 years ago … I suspect she saw what was going on behind the curtain.
Agreed. Cults are easier to spot when they have folks like Strachan who open their mouth and reveal all.
Samuel Conner,
This.
That story was deeply disturbing. Not least because it depicts the deacon in question as pleading with the child to yield to her father’s abusive control, rather than the man standing up for the child and saying, no, she doesn’t have to shake my hand if she doesn’t want to. The authority of the father/pastor must not be challenged!
I hate the “vipers-in-diapers” paradigm. It paints human beings’ fundamental identity as “sinners” instead of “image bearers”. The only reason sin is so devastating is because we were made to represent God in the world.
Yes, children sin and behave in ways which need correction (btw, same for adults). But Scripture mentions that there is a period in a child’s life before he or she knows right from wrong (Deut 1:39).
I think the “vipers-in-diapers” paradigm dehumanizes children and provides a pretext to lord authority over them.
Ouch. But there is some truth there.
Lowlandseer,
I just left this comment on that blog post. My Morrison is far closer to Houston than specualted.
“You said “Mr. Morrison, the Western world’s only Pentecostal political leader, has not been a member of Hillsong for 15 years, but guilt by association is a useful card to play in an election year.” Perhaps you may remember that Morrison brought Houston along with him when he visited the US during the Trump years. Morrison asked to bring Houston along to the White House dinner during his stay. The Trump White House refused the invitation since it was aware of the controversy surrounding Houston and the alleged coverup of his father’s sex abuse in the church. That was only 3 years ago. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7488255/White-House-denied-Scott-Morrison-bringing-Hillsong-Pastor-Brian-Houston.html“
The real vipers-in-diapers are the mob of immature, nonspiritual, young, restless and reformed New Calvinists running rough shod over the American church.
I firmly believe that was Baucham’s intent.
Jasmine:
She explains: “My dad is not an abusive, overbearing ogre who dictated every decision of my life” and that it was actually her dad who “forced me to get my license” and “pushed me to get an online degree.” And now that she’s married, she says, ”I’ve never made decisions for myself.”
Dee:
“I know she was trying to defend her dad, but I might suggest that she not present herself as someone who “never made decisions for herself.” This statement alone causes me to pause.”
The statements by Jasmine are similar to those made by women who have been in emotionally abusive relationships. They have little self worth and believe they are incapable of making decisions for themselves. They have been discouraged from maturing and becoming capable individuals. It is sad.
Voddie Baucham’s beliefs about child rearing (and for girls, that could be until the father dies if she doesn’t marry first) are literally nauseating.
“The angry cry happens early. The demanding cry happens early. The stiffening up of the body, that happens early.” “they desperately need to be spanked. And they need to be spanked often. … There were days when Junior needed to be spanked five times before breakfast. … You need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.”
This identical type of teaching from the Ezzos and the Tripps resulted in actual deaths of children due to parents believing that those types of teachings were God’s commands to them and to refrain was to disobey God. It absolutely leads to child abuse. Anyone who spanked a child “all day until you just wear them out” has committed abuse. And Baucham’s teachings are that “the first three years” is when you exert this kind of parenting.
The description of forcing a child to have a certain kind of touch with another person is a set-up for that same child to be sexually abused because it teaches the child that she has no right to say no to an adult wanting touch. She will be physically spanked for that rebellion. So if a deacon grooms her, then wants other kinds of touches, she is paralyzed. She’s been trained that she’ll be beaten if she says no. How any stories of child sexual abuse have we read in which the abuser had groomed the parents to the extent that they trusted the abuser over their own child only later to be faced with the truth?
Just sickening. And SBC and TGC support this.
Mostly related to what we hear many New-Calvinists teach. When my sons were in college everyone was gushing over Baucham. It was as if the worst you could make the gospel sound the better.
Speakin of TGC, they posted this histrionic rant from Matt Chandler on their FB page today, and all the comments focus only on him using slang that people from other countries don’t understand. This crowd seems to think it’s not good preaching it it’s not abusive.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-disciples-didnt-bail-on-jesus-because-of-judas/
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I am totally out of that loop, too. I just wish we Catholics would get rid of that dated 1970s “Glory and Praise” dreck and go back to Plainchant and Palestrina. But Hillsong music’s not even on my radar screen. I don’t think I would recognize a Hillsong tune if you played it for me on the kazoo.
New Calvinism is a horror theology for those seeking Christ. It’s full of teachings like total inability to find and accept Christ no matter how much you seek Him, only a chosen few are selected for the Body of Christ and you can never sure you have been elected, Christ’s sacrifice was limited to those selected before the foundation of the world, and other such theo-nonsense. Their gospel is built on doctrinal propositions, which are not life-giving … there is no personal encounter with the Living God … no salvation in Jesus which can be experienced … a gospel which is not ‘the’ Gospel at all.
You might enjoy this spoof. It’s how I feel about the songs they were singing in my old church. Modern praise music cannot hold a candle (so to speak) to the ancient hymns and liturgies. Some of the new songs are good, but too many aren’t, making it not worth my effort to sort through them.
https://youtu.be/HB7gPIIQT7Y
Are you the next Julie Roys, aka a circular firing squad? Voddie speaks truth and he refutes error. His book “Fault Lines” is evidence of that. Thanks for letting me know your website is starting to become more and more void of credibility. This is sad because your work on the ARC has been good.
Catholic Gate-Crasher,
I could listen to Palestrina all day and Tomás Luis de Victoria. Marvellous music.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
https://cw39.com/crime/son-of-conroe-pastor-sentenced-up-to-8-years-for-indecency-with-a-child/
Saw your tweet of this outrageous case of a congregation’s idolatry of a pastor and his son.
A congregation, apparently, has the power to enable a criminal. Cult.
The below linked blog post is ten years and five days old.
I wrote it while lamenting the fact that the men in my (then) church were going to an Iron Sharpens Iron conference where Voddie was to be speaking.
There are two links of interest in it.
One is to the testimony of a guy who went to hear Voddie speak and was shocked to see how some of the men reacted to Voddie, stirring them up against feminism (and women in general).
The second link is to the transcript where Voddie was speaking against Sarah Palin and said that the Judge Deborah was a curse to her people because she was a woman leading men.
I was having a bad day ten years ago.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/03/voddie-baucham-is-sexist.html
I’ve had several drive-by comments by hardcore Voddie supporters. They really do think that he rightly divides the Word of Truth.
From the article: “Throughout the trial, members of the Living Way congregation packed the courtroom in an apparent show of support for the Ensey family. Pastor Randy Ensey testified at his son’s sentencing and asked for leniency. But prosecutors said that he refused to agree that the victim was in no way at fault for her own abuse.
Prosecutors showed that Pastor Ensey had approached one of his congregants, the victim’s relative, seeking to pressure the victim to “have mercy” on her abuser. Pastor Ensey also met with the child’s current pastor and asked him to intervene in a similar manner.”
It is so hard to fathom the recurring pattern of churchgoers supporting the predator over the victim–in this case, even when the victim is a minor.
The congregants were there to support the predator, not the victim.
Abusers couldn’t continue to abuse without their enablers. I’m not even sure it requires cult-like conditions. I am beginning to think that many humans choose to side with power in whatever organization, business, school, political party, etc. that they belong to. Siding with power is selfishness. It keeps their personal status quo undisturbed and may even advance their standing within the organization.
The fact that this pattern happens in churches as often as in secular organizations raises the question as to whether the organized church is just another worldly organization. Do the enablers actually believe their own Scriptures? Do they believe their own Savior who spoke of millstones for those causing a child to stumble? Their behavior says they do not.
Here is a link to my response to one of the outlandish comments left under my above linked post.
The commentor was so off the rails (on the crazy train), I thought it was funny.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2019/06/ship-wreck-really-loves-voddie.html
At the time of writing, I was still married.
I’m divorced now.
But DON’T WORRY VODDIE and Voddie lovers! My divorce was completely legit. The ex was being chronically unfaithful.
Eyewitness,
Thank you. Excellent comment. Churchgoers sold out to the “power” of orgs & their criminal leaders seems to be the case.
Clinto,
Surely you know how to make your case better than this. You “like” Voddie, you don’t “like” the ARC. Why don’t you try this? Go through my arguments and then refute what I said. You have lots to work with so give it a shot. If you show that you are intelligent in how you present your case, maybe you will wn a few over to your thoughts. I think Jesus said something akin to this. I have been writing since 2009 and nothing in my style has changed so try a bit harder.
Good decision to leave that deal.
Too bad churches can’t seem to part with their criminal leaders.
Thanks for reminding us that some folks can’t tell one person apart from another.
dee,
I agree with Dee hear…. Are you saying the quotes of VB are incorrect? Did really NOT say those thing about daughters? I am a father of a daughter, and DO have daughter fo give “young women attention”?
If VB did not say this, it is important that you correct “the record”…. I think waht VB said, at a minimum, is creepy..
Max,
Hello Max
Towards the end of this sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, Edwards says this “l “And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling, and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north, and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God”. Just before that he also says that no one knows who are saved or damned and so the Gospel is proclaimed to all. In essence it is the Great Commission. And what Edwards preached is no different from the Lord’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
But we don’t like to think of Hell, do we?
Ahhh … but in the world of hyper-Calvinism, only the elect can hear that proclamation. Damned souls cannot hear and respond to the gospel call … it is their fate sealed before the foundation of the earth. In the meantime, the real Gospel says that God is not willing that any should perish and whosoever will may come. I heard that call and responded 70 years ago … I was a whosoever-will who came and my life was changed … my personal experience with Christ is not open to the arguments of others.
Cynthia W.,
In which case, said men have no business getting married and/or having children. They can’t be trusted with those more vulnerable than themselves.
dee,
Clinto probably got burned in an ARC church … who subsequently became a Baucham fanboy, jumping from the skillet into the fire. So sad to see so many otherwise intelligent folks be drawn into this deception.
Jeffrey Chalmers,
Sorry for typos.. while I hit reply to Dee’s comment, I am responding to Clinto.. also,
It should say, “I am the father of a daughter, and DID NOT have a daughter to give me “young women attention”…..
The more I think about this, the more concerned I get…..
Wild Honey,
I agree. I expect some men don’t think it through before they agree that views such as Mr. Baugham’s are “Biblical.” Questions such as, “Is this what you are like? Can’t be trusted in a room with a female coworker, treating your daughters as psychological concubines?” can get people to connect with reality. “Eeeew, no!” say decent people who just got befuddled for a minute.
But some, obviously, are like that. I think when Mr. Baugham says that men such as himself want younger women, not their age-peer wives, and are looking at their daughters for their “needs,” we should believe him and say, “Eeeeeew!”
Cynthia W.,
I agree…. Am I the only one that thinks that the statement that our daughters are their for our “ young women needs” is downright creepy???
Voddie Baucham teaches child abuse. He says to hit babies, when babies don’t have the cognitive understanding to understand why they’re being hit. He said to hit a child all day long–THAT’S ABUSE. He calls babies “vipers in diapers.” Jesus said to let the little ones come unto me for of such is the kingdom of God.
I’d also note that his teachings about “stay at home daughters” are abhorrent. There are quotes above. You can find them. My father (RIP) made sure that his two daughters could take care of ourselves because he knew what it was like to be extremely poor as a child and didn’t want that for his children. And Dad was no flaming liberal. So yeah, me and my sister are the financial supports for our families. Yeah, my sister is married, but she is the financial support. As for me, I’m in my early 60s, and Voddie would have had me as a servant in my father’s house and then push me into a male relative’s house, because he sees women as incompetent unless we have a male headship.
Oh, and Voddie Baucham is a plagiarist. Again, details are above.
Under no circumstances should *anyone* consider that Voddie Baucham speaks truth. If he told me the sun is rising in the east, I’d be sure to poke my head out of a window to confirm. Baucham is a dangerous person, and if the SBC were to go with him, then you know, the SBC really deserves to figuratively burn to the ground, because it would be abundantly clear that the welfare of women and children is nowhere to be found.
Sorry, not sorry to be so blunt!
the whole ‘male headship’ thing is male idolatry
it has nothing to do with Our Lord, no
Lowlandseer,
Thus is because “miserable” and “happy” are in a completely different sense, in this extract. The fundamentalists however, allow no dimension, no perspective, no meaning, no agency.
I’ve insufficient idea about Edwards’ family and social relations, himself, but Jesus and the OT promote many crucial things that the fundamentalists themselves oppose, such as soul competency and the priesthood of the believer.
Certainly it suited the 17 th and 18 th century style, to get snap decisions out of people you knew and could breathe down the neck of in your town. We can still be sinners and still be in the hands of God with all emotions – anger of kinds we don’t understand amidst His topmost ones – and not feel we owe it to specific preachers to display specific body language at particular times.
Apparently this has to do with baptists who didn’t know they were calvinists, or calvinists who didn’t know they were baptists, in this time of long range hegemony, and increasingly people who will drift off from what they didn’t think it was, or did think it was, and / or from any voting process.
(Aside from there being a number of different calvinisms, and a number of different new calvinisms, before we even get to “neo” calvinism. I’m confused as to how “new” a new calvinist Edwards actually was, but that’s just me.)
Baucham might find himself boss of something that is called one thing but is another. This wouldn’t bind any other individuals, at all. Are ordinary congregations praying for their own good, under their own God?
(Similar situations crop up in other countries all the time too.)
Clinto,
Given that (perhaps) almost nobody is all-or-nothing, on any side, it would be of general value to pick a couple of the top truths and errors you have in mind at this point, so that the many readers can continue to weigh up how well they fit in full context, please.
Has Mr Baucham got any principle when it comes to other people’s affairs?
No. It’s very creepy. I too have a daughter (grown and with kids). What man would want to think about any daughter this way. And no daughter should have that weight put on her shoulders, making it her fault if her dad has an affair. Does that responsibility pass to his granddaughters as he gets older?
In this case, I don’t think overstatement is possible.
The SBC is such a mess that before you know it Tom Ascol and Voddie Baucham will be nominated to hold senior SBC leadership positions … oh, wait a minute …
So sad to see a once-great evangelistic denomination in the hands of such mean-spirited folks. I wonder if the mainline millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have figured out what’s going on yet, while they continue to support the NeoCal revolution with their tithes and offerings? Or are they content as long as you don’t mess with their potluck dinners? But, I suppose the SBC masses never really cared about such things as theology and ecclesiology, as long as those wonderful chicken dinners were served up periodically.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
You make a very good point… lets assume VB position is not some sexual perversion thing, just a old fashion father is king of his house, and expects family “serving him, attending to his wishes”. Is not that in opposition to Christ calling us to be servants, and being the “least”….
Sigh…. It just never ends with these preacher boys being elevated above the principles taught by Christ..
And yet Edwards preaches unconditional election:
“The conversion of a sinner being not owing to a man’s self determination, but to God’s determination, and eternal election, which is absolute, and depending on the sovereign Will of God, and not on the free will of man; as is evident from what has been said : and it being very evident from the Scriptures, that the eternal election of saints to the faith and holiness, is also an election of them to eternal salvation; hence their appointment to salvation must also be absolute, and not depending on their contingent, self-determining Will.”
–Jonathan Edwards
He tries to have it both ways. I think this type of Calvinism is highly dishonest. Maybe this is why he is “home boy” for so many New-Calvinists.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I agree
Most hyper-Calvinists I have known eventually get so confused by the mumbo-jumbo of twisted jots and tittles that they don’t know what they believe after awhile … and are not even sure they are saved! I personally witnessed a pastor who after 14 years in the ministry accept Christ … he knew his theology, but he didn’t know the Savior. Pulpits which speak out of both sides of their mouths on God’s plan of salvation have confused millions. There’s a lot of that going on in SBC these days as long-time traditional non-Calvinist pastors attempt to merge into the new theological paradigm in order to hold onto their retirement plan. The New Calvinists are now in control so they are getting with the program. You just can’t trust such folks to give it to you straight from the pulpit.
Why do the Pharisees and Sadducees come to mind, with so many in leadership appearing to be blind guides leading the blind, with shades of difference as far as accurate doctrine while many of the important and needful things seem neglected?
As to the other point, many appear to be content with prioritizing socializing, while those with kids park them in childcare and at the dinner table . Plus, many figure want to have private school options that they offer, with some churches having donation systems set up for scholarships as well.
Are people just taking the money that they would budget for schooling and babysitters and other activities and just directing it to the institutions for these purposes? Then, when questionable activity surfaces that warrants some oversight, do they punt that if the situation is working too well for them (friends and connections at this particular place for them and / or the kids), with willingness to take the easy way out and at worst go to a similar place down the street that doesn’t seem to be in the middle of a prairie fire?
It’s possible to know theology but not Scripture. You can have select passages memorized to support doctrinal propositions, but yet miss Truth outlined in the whole of Scripture. You can think you’re heaven-bound and miss it altogether.
JDV,
I’m convinced that the majority of church members don’t know Jesus. They use the church for the reasons you mention, without ever coming to knowledge of Christ.
Jeffrey Chalmers,
You are not the only one who thinks it is extremely, even insanely, creepy.
According to numerous sources, some of them respectable, Jonathan Edwards was “America’s greatest theologian”. This is the same Jonathan Edwards who, at a time when many Christians saw clearly the wickedness of chattel slavery, defended the right of New England ministers to own black slaves and purchased one or more himself. Of course, if you are a Calvinist, you believe that God has ordained everything the way that it is, including the cruelties of slavery. But an intellectual theological system is no substitute for godly, wise judgment and godly tender-heartedness towards the weak and oppressed.
King of the house in command of his wife and children…
King in the pulpit in command of “his” church folk…
King of the nation in command of its citizens …
Israel wanted a king, which greatly disturbed Samuel the prophet. “Give them what they want and they’ll find out the hard way they made a big mistake,” God said. Indeed.
People want a lesser god.
“They don’t reject you, they reject me,” God told Samuel.
Supporting a pulpit king, (family king, nation king) is rejecting God.
(A church leader/administrator/pastor, or a father, or a civil servant can do the role without kingship.)
Coup Counted.
You can stop polishing your halo; the reflections are blinding all the rest of us.
Ah, The Altar Call.
(Despite Edwards being a Calvinist, where God Predestines whether you are Saved or Lost and you have NO choice in the matter. And i don’t think the Altar Call/Sinner’s Prayer Salvation actually developed until about a century after Edwards.)
And since it’s an Altar Call, Souls Will Be Saved (and that justifies any means necessary to get them on their knees saying the Words). And the best run-up to the Altar Call is the threat of Eternal Hell. Saw this all the time during my time in-country.
“If you can’t love ’em into the Kingdom, SCARE ‘EM INTO THE KINGDOM!”
The problem with Hell is when Hell becomes the center of all your theology.
When Hell and Wrath become the ONLY attributes of God.
When Avoiding Hell becomes the entire Gospel.
When Hell becomes God.
The Great Chain of Being.
Boots stamping on faces, all the way down.
Kiss Up, Kick Down.
“For these are the things which the Goyim do…”
And it is possible to know SCRIPTURE to the point you lose any humanity you may have had and become an MP3 playback loop of Verse after Verse after Verse. No neurons above the brainstem.
Like Saudi or Talibani Religious Police endlessly reciting their Koran.
Completely Weaponized SCRIPTURE.
And then factor in Calvin’s doctrine of “Evanescent Grace”, where God sends a False Salvation to the Reprobate, indistinguishable from the real Election until the Heaven/Hell switch point at the Great White Throne. SURPRISE!
No wonder Calvinists are always scrambling for PROOF that They are Really Truly Elect (and that You’re NOT). Once this was “material blessings”, i.e. the Proof was becoming Filthy Stinking Rich (and since you were Elect, you could do this by any means necessary without jeopardizing your Predestined Salvation). Now it’s Utterly Correct Reformed Theology (i.e. Purity of Ideology, just like the Communists of the last century). And in both cases One-Upmanship (“More Elect Than Thou”) comes into play with the obvious results.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Not only are today’s Hyper-Calvinists more Calvinist than Calvin, they are more Calvinist than Calvin could ever dream of.
Just like the Taliban and al-Daesh are more Islamic than Mohammed.
They say that near the end of his life, Karl Marx said “I am not a Marxist”.
Similar account of Charles Darwin, “I am not a Darwinist”.
Wonder if Calvin would see all this and say “I am not a Calvinist”?
And the same Jonathan Edwards who also founded a university, wrote several monographs on the natural flora and fauna of his area of the New World (concentrating on insects and spiders), and died from a smallpox inoculation side effect while setting an example for public health. A major figure (and microcosm) of Colonial British America, yet today he is only known for ONE Hellfire-and-Damnation sermon.
So did American Evangelicals in 2016 & 2020.
Ava Aaronson,
Right before the implosion of Mars Hill and Mark, “Deep throat” Driscoll, he and his top cronies were calling themselves, signing letters to congregation, as their: “prophet , priest, king”..
That takes really big you know what (or incredibly delusional) to call yourself that! Plus, given the warnings in scripture about people spreading/preaching false theology, I would be pretty scared if I said that about myself..
Clinto,
I see the sock puppets are surfacing to Defend Mine Anointed.
Happens every time a ManaGAWD comes under blog scrutiny.
Usually with handles we’ve never seen before.
Jeffrey Chalmers:
Cynthia W.,
I agree…. Am I the only one that thinks that the statement that our daughters are their for our “ young women needs” is downright creepy???
Straight out of Craster’s Keep from mid-period Game of Thrones.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
After my time on these watchblogs, my first impression when I hear the name “Voddie Baucham” is:
“Vipers in Diapers” Baucham?
“Beat the Shyness out of Fluttershy” Baucham?
(As well as the abovementioned GoT parallel.)
Remember Boz T’s testimony?
About in all his years as a prosecutor specializing in child sexual abuse cases, he NEVER encountered a church who took the side of the victim?
Only “RALLY ROUND THE PEDO-PERP, BOYZ! GAWD SAITH!”
This is flatly untrue. Anti-slavery belief among Christians was very much a minority view in the American colonies. Not even the Quakers held an anti-slavery belief during Jonathan Edwards’ life (1703-1758). In fact, you had Benjamin Lay (1682-1759) who came to Pennsylvania colony in 1731 after a stint in Barbados, where he saw the practice of slavery unchecked. Lay got thrown out of Quaker meetings for his demonstrations about the evils of slavery. For example:
(Wikipedia)
Lay was a pamphleteer and many of his anti-slavery polemical works were published by Benjamin Franklin. Lay also pressed Franklin on his ownership of slaves. After Lay died, the anti-slavery/abolitionist cause was more quietly pressed by Quaker John Woolman (1720-1772). Over time, Quakers became anti-slavery and abolitionist, and by the Revolutionary War, the first anti-slavery society was founded in Philadelphia, where many Quakers lived.
Contrast to Jonathan Edwards:
(also Wikipedia)
Yale University has had to face the legacy that it was founded in part on the enslaved people Jonathan Edwards donated to start Yale.
It’s worth noting that Jonathan Edwards (the younger) was against slavery and wrote about it:
(also Wikipedia)
I know Evangelicals like to pat themselves on the back about how they were opposed to slavery early on, but in point of fact, that’s untrue. Hannah More didn’t start working with “early abolitionists” in England until the 1780s, well over 40 years after Benjamin Lay in Pennsylvania colony. In any case, anti-slavery and abolitionism was never a popular movement, even in the runup to the Civil War. (Read about the reactions to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, for example.) And I can’t help but point out that the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were rabid slaveholders and, then, defenders of Jim Crow.
Sorry to have gotten into so much detail here, but I have gotten tired of Evangelical self-congratulations over slavery and abolition, because the Quakers got there first.
Sad fact: people volunteer for this, for being the doormat*.
But then, Israel wanted a king, a lesser god.
*Leah Remini & Mike say no one joins a cult… it’s bait and switch and then entrapped.
So there must be some kind of bait and switch to volunteering to be what ends up as trampled on. Something shiny that draws people in.
Looking at Wilson, Piper, Hybels, just can’t imagine the draw, but it’s got to be there somewhere since hordes follow.
Steve Hassan, the cult expert, says his girlfriend dumped him, then three lovely Moonie girls approached him in the Student Union at college. Oops, there went seven years of his life. Yikes.
“…through an inferior operation of the Spirit…”
No apology necessary. Excellent information. Also, it’s why reference to “good old days”, IMHO, is a bit narrow in POV. Even the Quakers got it wrong in the beginning “good old days”, according to your research. There is neither “good old” nor “great” in these orgs for some people – maybe not you or me but some people.
IMHO, get better, move forward to ground higher than “good old” and how “great” we thought we were while some were suffering. We can always do better.
Looking back is never the answer, IMHO. Just one example: #MeToo. Try telling “good old” and “great” to women like Christa Brown. As they say, “Never forget”. While some were relishing their good old and great, others were dealing with their own personal holocaust. And nobody listened, no one believed them. Not good, not great but yes it gets old.
The first Southern Baptists were slave-holders, including pastors and deacons of “Southern” churches. They used their Calvinist theology to credit sovereign God for giving them a predestined right to own slaves. To them and others, Abraham Lincoln said “You do not have the right to do wrong.”
The Fall in Line behavior.
The “Fall in Line or Else” folks could have exactly what they yearn for in another country. Several countries, as a matter of fact where it’s all One Way or the Highway (to a gulag). They could have that, without wrecking a democracy.
Interesting that a democracy ideally divides power among three branches with attempted equal representation in Congress, preventing autocracy.
And the church supposedly should have, among church people power, the people power divided among 18 gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church. Romans 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4. Preventing autocracy in churches.
Instead we’ve got 2 of the 18 gifts running the show: pastor + gift of giving or $$$. So it’s not really church or the Body of Christ as described in the Bible.
Is it surprising that autocracy in churches occurs with the same behavior among pastors as among autocratic country leaders? Abuse of power, misuse of resources, and vice (violating young men and women)?
Holy Spirit given gift of discernment, anyone? That would be a change of pace.
And run away fast, when someone makes such a claim about themselves. Red flag to head for the exit.
Bingo!
@Muslin. Thanks for correcting the history on abolition of the slave trade and of slavery. Woolman died in England in 1772 while spreading his views against slavery. I note also that some Unitarians also opposed slavery such as Joseph Priestley (e.g., sermon against the slave trade, published 1785) or Josiah Wedgwood. However concerted group efforts (barring slave revolts) don’t seem to have started until the 1780s. One could say the Haitian revolution ending in 1804 was the first successful permanent abolition of slavery.
I do note that Oglethorpe founded Georgia in the 1730s with a prohibition on slavery though that may have been partly to ensure jobs for English debtors in the new colony but that prohibition was overturned later (with the strong support of George Whitefield).
“George Whitefield, AKA George Whitfield, was an Anglican cleric and evangelist who was one of the founders of Methodism and the evangelical movement. Born in Gloucester, he matriculated at Oxford in 1732.
Born: December 16, 1714, UK
Died: September 30, 1770, Newburyport, MA”
– wikipedia
Ah, yes, the “good old days” of our “great” American denomination orgs and leaders.
We need to keep moving forward to higher ground with full acknowledgment of the carnage we leave behind in our wake.
If 5 point Calvinism is true, why does it matter what a person believes or how they live? If the eternal decree is unchangeable, there is nothing a person can do through belief or action to change it. So why do Calvinists seem so insistent on perfectly parsed doctrine and right practice, when human decisions and efforts make no diffference at all. If salvation is only a matter of when but not if, it seems like Calvinists should be the most chill people on the planet. But they are not. They seem to act as if their beliefs and practices make a difference. Perhaps they don’t really believe in the 5 points?
Headless Unicorn Guy,
HUG, I left you a comment of gratitude on the Galli thread, but this site has been moving so quickly that I figured you never saw it.
When a person is not really into the autocracy deal, it’s a good reason to not participate in a particular local church, if that is how it rolls.
Autocracy in governance, in church, in marriage & family* is a destroyer of our agency, as we were given in being created by God in His image.
*For a limited time, a child is reared under the ever decreasing benevolent autocracy of a loving parent. However, why would anyone want to remain a child forever under the autocracy of a government, in a church, in a complementarian marriage, in an autocratic family?
Rules and laws should create civil order that equally upholds individual agency. There’s a balance and a tension there to be constantly upheld and valued and assessed with critical thinking.
Does one go to church only to leave their agency and critical thinking at the door? And then only to be ruled and overcome by an autocratic leader and the social pressure of his minions?
Nope.
Voddie speaks his opinion then searches the scripture to find obscure verses that he can manipulate to agree with him.
The obscure and misused verse he used against women in leadership was laughable.
He’d rather call Deborah a curse (even though she was very much a blessing to Israel) than to allow a woman in the Bible to be a good example of leadership to our daughters.
Please, as others have suggested.=, refute the things in the blog post above.
Make a comment for each point. We don’t mind.
But don’t say, “He preaches the truth” and expect us to just take your word for it. That is your opinion. You have proven nothing. To us, you opinion is wrong.
We can see for ourselves that Voddie has a twisted agenda.
Like Hitler vilified the Jews and Putin vilifies the Ukrainians, Voddie vilifies women and children in order to make an enemy to fight against. He vilifies so he can wage his war and make himself look like a savior even though he is actually an oppressor.
And in many cases, will never see again.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I have thought that same thing for years.
Really, what’s it matter what anyone does ….. myself included.
That’s why so many of the New Calvinists have drifted into antinomianism, believing they have been released by “grace” from the obligation of observing the moral law. After all, they have no free will … “It was meant to be” is a bunch of theological baloney … enslaving women to the “beauty of complementarity” was meant to be, ruling church as overlords was meant to be, subordinating Jesus was meant to be, etc. etc. Southern Baptists better nip Baucham’s leadership aspirations in the bud … it was not meant to be!
The “Old” Calvinists are more smug in their electedness. The “New” Calvinists are in-your-face rebels, breaking all the rules.
“Shall we sin to our heart’s content and see how far we can exploit the grace of God? What a ghastly thought! We, who have died to sin — how could we live in sin a moment longer? … Let us never forget that our old selves died with Him on the cross that the tyranny of sin over us might be broken” (Romans 6:1-11 Phillips)
Someone termed it “drive by commenting”. Apt.
Google just had Hillsong / Brian Houston as number 7 on their trending searches list. Not for good reasons obviously.
I do like some of their music, but what a train wreck they are putting on for display.
Well, I said what I said about my exes chronic unfaithfulness and my divorce for the sake of Voddie and all those who don’t believe in divorce for any reason but unfaithfulness.
To be honest, his emotional abuse and Narcissistic rages were way harder to bare than his unfaithfulness.
In fact, for women like me, we rejoice at the eventual unfaithfulness because, in the Evangelical Christian world, a spouse’s unfaithfulness is a “get out of jail free” card.
So, I only really mentioned the chronic unfaithfulness in a snarky attitude because of Voddie and his ilk (Piper, MacArthur, etc.) who think verbal, emotional, spiritual, and Narcissistic abuse are not grounds for divorce. (Those guys can all take a flying leap off a massive cliff for their hard-heartedness towards women in abusive situations.)
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Bad logic (logic being all about honesty). Our will to opt in has to be contingent (God will tip it in favour, unseen, as much as He can without violating our discretion).
His will that we who opt in – note below into what – can get saved is not contingent.
Superstition about the universe and history has obscured the issue of what to be saved from.
He requires of us now, fruit of the gifts as growth in Holy Spirit filled integrity (since His Ascension). This is a separate and ongoing issue from the point about eternal satisfaction of our prior wrongs.
Hypercals want us to stay on the milk (bewitch us) when we’re raring to profit in virtue.
The five Tulips don’t cover the whole of soteriology (the “salvation bit of salvation”) let alone the Christian life (the road to our salvation).
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Scenario:
Clinto (stopping by again): Critical This & That Theory.
Some Wartburger: Indeed some of these have become exaggerated, distorted and materialistic since the degrees of hijacking by the anti-hypercal counterpart of the hypercals. Most of the critical theories started out well enough in parts.
Structures of ideas are powerful, but are not things. The world needs MORE critical theories, not less. And some Critical Critical Theory Theories. Sincere people have been swept up in scenarios led by people less sincere than themselves (on more sides than one). The world needs more criticism of crooked business practices.
None of this faces those statements of Dr Baucham’s actually being cited by Dee and others as “creepy”, “worrisome”, or “hard hearted”, nor his apparent ambition to make his personality conflicts play out on denominational scale.
You can’t solve a button pushing problem wholly within the button pushing system (that’s in G⍥del’s theorem). Holy Spirit strength – and that is our prayers – is the wild card in ALL our hands through priesthood of any believer and soul competency.
How many or few “contenders” are teaching their adherents / constituents to pray and intercede? Sadly most denominations taught us NOT to pray, for the last 40 years (and some big ones, longer than that).
This originally belonged to the established genre of ironical just-so stories at previous times of disaster. Awed taboo on talking about the real God has become superstition because listeners have stopped up-ending it.
Max,
But it still comes down to preaching the Gospel to all because, as Edwards says, we don’t know who will be saved – that is known only to God. As you’ve often said, Hyper-Calvinism can lead to antinomianism or, worse, a complete refusal to preach at all, which is the point I think Ken is trying to make in his own way. There is a tendency, sometimes deliberate, to conflate God’s knowledge and plan with how we think things should be done. Edwards writes extensively on this, although you would think his “ Angry God” sermon was all that he was known for. An example is “THE END OF THE WICKED contemplated BY THE RIGHTEOUS: or, THE TORMENTS OF THE WICKED IN HELL, NO OCCASION OF GRIEF TO THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN Rev. 18:20 “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.* He differentiates between the relationship between “saints” and “sinners” now and in the glorified state. Two different dynamics are at work.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
“ Now, God is pleased again to pour out his Spirit upon us; and he is doing great things amongst us. God is indeed come again, the same great God who so wonderfully appeared among us some years ago, and who hath since, for our sins, departed from us, left us so long in so dull and dead a state, and hath let sinners alone in their sins; so that there have been scarcely any signs to be seen of any such work as conversion. That same God is now come again; he is really come in like manner, and begins, as he did before, gloriously to manifest his mighty power, and the riches of his grace. He brings sinners out of darkness into marvellous light. He rescues poor captive souls out of the hands of Satan; he saves persons from the devouring fire; he plucks one and another as brands out of the burnings; he opens the prison-doors, and knocks off their chains, and brings out poor prisoners; he is now working salvation among us from this very destruction of which you have now heard.
Now, now, then, is the time, now is the blessed opportunity to escape those everlasting burnings. Now God hath again set open the same fountain among us, and gives one more happy opportunity for souls to escape. Now he hath set open a wide door, and he stands in the door-way, calling and begging with a loud voice to the sinners of Zion: Come, saith he, come, fly from the wrath to come; here is a refuge for you; fly hither for refuge; lay hold on the hope set before you” (Sinners in Zion Tenderly Warned).
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
I didn’t know this but Robert Breckinridge spent five nights in Glasgow (13-17th June 1836) debating slavery with George Thompson, a British Abolitionist, who had accused every American pastor as complicit in defending slavery.
Breckinridge pointed out “It was absurd to talk of American slavery, except in so far as it applied to the sentiments of what was the minority, although he would say a large minority, which tolerated slavery. It was not an American question. In America there were twenty-four separate republics; of these, twelve had no slaves,(31) and twelve of them tolerated slavery. Two new states had recently been added to the Union, and God speed the day when others would be added, till the whole continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific was included in the Union, carrying with the Union, Liberty and Independence. Of the two states which were lately added, one was a slave state,(32) and the other free. Of the twelve free independent sovereign states of America, to which he had alluded, one, Massachusetts, had, for a longer time than his opponent had lived, not tolerated slavery. There were no slaves in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, and in four of them there never had been a slave. Eight of them, of their own free will and choice, abolished slavery, without money and without price.(33) By the influence of the spirit of God, and the influence of divine truth, they had totally abolished slavery.(34) Of the twelve states, at least four, Ohio with a million of inhabitants, Indiana, Illinois and Maine, never had a slave. Since 1785 till this hour, there never had been one slave in any of these states. These twelve either never had slaves, or had abolished slavery without any remuneration. These states contain 7,000,000 out of the 11,000,000 of the white population of the Union, and nearly two thirds of the whole territorial extent of the republic as now peopled.(35) And when we remember that they have stood as they now do for the last twenty years, as it was now more than twenty years since slavery was abolished, how could they be charged with the responsibility of the existence of slavery in other states, or be charged with fostering slavery which they were the first people upon earth to abolish, and the first to unite with other nations in putting down the slave trade as piracy?(36) This he was aware would be denied; but, though Wilberforce had laboured in the cause for twenty years, the American constitution had fixed a limited time for the abolition of the slave trade,(37) and the moment the twenty years had elapsed, the congress did abolish it; and this was in the same month, and some days before the abolition bill had passed through Parliament. Thus, America was the first nation on earth which had abolished the slave trade, and made it piracy. If we judge by the number of republics which tolerate no slavery—if we judge by the number of American citizens who abhor slavery, it will be found not to be an American question, but one applicable only to a small portion of the nation”.
(R J Breckinridge, Discussion on American Slavery, published 1836).
Indeed! Because ALL of every tribe, tongue and nation are loved by God and can access salvation through Christ. God is not willing that any should perish. Whosoever-will may come … so preach the Gospel to ALL!
“And that “whoever” means anyone … For all have the same Lord, whose boundless resources are available to all who turn to him in faith. For: ‘Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’. Now how can they call on one in whom they have never believed? How can they believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how can they hear unless someone proclaims him? And who will go to tell them unless he is sent? As the Scripture puts it: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!’” (Romans 10:12-15)
“The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people. For this day in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, the Messiah.” (Luke 2:10-12)
Pure and simple: Hyper-Calvinism is not good news of great joy for ALL people. “We don’t know who will be saved” is reformed mumbo-jumbo. Scripture is clear “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
If I’m wrong with my simple theology to believe that anyone-anywhere-anytime is within reach of salvation and I tell them the precious message of Christ, then I will be convicted of loving them too much. If a Hyper-Calvinist is wrong …
I watched the Hillsong documentary. Lots of thoughts and I will write about it. So depressing.
That was hilarious.
Every Christian should read this for themselves so see the sick mind of Jonathan Edwards. It is so full or horrifying quotes it’s difficult to know which ones to use for examples. Here is what he says to the reprobate of saved parents:
And that is just a small sample for people thinking of making him their “home boy.” Here is the whole text:
https://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/contemplated.htm
Chilling. The Calvinist God is not the God of the Bible. Edwards did not preach the heart of Christ. Teachings like this are the very reason that 90+% of Christendom have rejected the tenets of reformed theology for the last 500 years.
Thousands/millions of Hillsong followers are now confused and disillusioned. They may never try church again. Charisma without character always ends like this.
Do you think that Calvinists across the planet would read Edwards’ quote and proclaim “Amen! He’s right! That’s what I believe!”? If so, the church is in more trouble than I thought.
No just Calvinists, but all Christians who believe that non-Christians go to a Hell of eternal damnation and torment.
These would include people who force older children to go to church against their will; tell their children that they will go to Hell if they marry outside the faith or race, or otherwise displease Mom and Dad; believe that only their sect is going to Heaven; believe that Jews are no longer the Chosen People; hunt witches in their towns; etc.
What is Christianity without the threat of eternal torment in Hell?
Does it have enough to offer?
I have watched Calvinists who did not develop the sick soul and crazy mentality, but they went in two very diverse directions: one group stayed full 5 point, with election “temporal” and being otherwise dogmatic universalists. The other is a gent who was, may still be, on EWTN hosting a show about converts to the RCC. He was a former Presbyterian minister who could not longer stand it and became RCC.
I have watched many who were of various theologies but held to ECT change that over time, as loved ones “missed the boat” so to speak. Suddenly they were conditionalists, or purgatory accepters, or went all the way to restorationist hell, a form of universalism.
Most, eventually, just could not connect the dots between a God who ordains everything that happens, evil, ands then punishment eternally in horrific conditions for those committing supposedly ordained by that God.
You can only worship a monster so long, before you go in search of the real God or toss the idea altogether.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Here’s another one for you Ken
“ This hatred of God will be fully declared to them; they will see it, and will see the fruits of it in their misery. Therefore, when God has thus declared his hatred of the damned, and the saints see it, it will be no way becoming in the saints to love them, not to mourn over them. It becomes the saints fully and perfectly to consent to what God doth, without any reluctance or opposition of spirit; yea, it becomes them to rejoice in every thing that God sees meet to be done.”
Eventually you might get the gist of what Edwards is saying.
I pray to God I never sucumb to Edwards’ sick and twisted theology. He has some nice things to say here and there, but not enough to compensate for the rest. The ancient liturgies describe God as the “Lover of mankind.” Too many modern theologies make him the loather of mankind.
I would hope not. But that is up to each of them. Or perhaps they have been predestined in such a way that thay cannot do do otherwise.
My brother in Christ, Max…it’s been said, “calvinists make god to be very much like the devil. The devil wants everyone in hell, the calvinists only want some.” I stand with Max. God is love and wants none to perish.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
My final quote – after all, the post is supposed to be about Voddie Baucham.
“Can you feel the heat? Edwards hoped so, and not because he was sadistic or even pessimistic; he was not. And it’s not that he worried that his audience needed to be convinced that hell was real. Unlike today, few eighteenth-century people doubted that hell existed. As Edwards saw it, the people’s problem wasn’t belief, but conviction. Edwards worried that his hearers were aware that hell existed, but they were “not sensible of this”; they did not believe that the threat of hell, being doomed to eternal punishment, applied to them. Edwards exposed this false sense of security with his personal, sensible images. He wanted his hearers to “feel” hell, to experience its threat in the sermon because the lack of sensibility to hell was a serious impediment to salvation. The committed and passionate pastor, therefore, addressed his congregation personally with sensible images of terror not to condemn them, but to prevent them from eternal condemnation. Like all revivalists, Edwards aimed to awaken sinners from their drowsy spiritual state. In the revivals, Edwards hoped that sinners would not only comprehend theological ideas but have an experience of the gospel that would change their lives, before it was too late.”
(Ron Hill, ‘Jonathan Edwards for Armchair Theologians’)
Sorry, my mistake the author is James P Byrd. Ron Hill is the illustrator.
This goes back to my original point. If Calvinism is true, the elect will be saved no matter what, so it is impossible for it to ever be too late for them. No amount or histeionic warnings or failing to warn will change whether or not the elect are saved. So what good does it do to teach like that unless he really did not believe in the unconditional election he taught? And if if that kind of teaching does in fact make a difference, then Calvinism is wrong and Calvinist teachers should be avoided.
I am puzzled by your long and energetic comment. It does not seem to relate to what I wrote.
I said nothing about whether the “many Christians” who saw clearly the wickedness of chattel slavery were a majority or a minority of any particular group, or of Christians in any particular places, or whether they were evangelicals or otherwise.
The reason why Edwards defended the right of his fellow minister (named Doolittle) to own slaves was that Doolittle’s congregation wanted to oust him because he was a slave owner. Doolittle’s own church saw clearly the wickedness of chattel slavery, even though Doolittle and Edwards did not. Edwards cannot be defended on the grounds that everyone else thought the same way as he did.
only men drunk on their own power would dare call themselves ‘pastor’ and at the same time advocate the beatings of helpless lambs
what is this cruelty? it is so far from the Kingdom of God to which precious ‘lambs’ belong?
it is a hellish place it is where small babies are beaten without mercy, I’d sayc
How in the world did this post get derailed?
sorry, Tom (oops)
Lowlandseer,
I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I’d note that after 1836, when Breckenridge wrote his piece, things got far more fractious in the USA, especially in the 1850s. Southern planters were looking to expand their slaveowning territories, and at times considered Arizona (where cotton grows quite well if there’s water for it), parts of Mexico and Cuba. Of course all of these would have been brought into the USA as slave states. (Edward Baptist talks about this in his economic history of US slavery, “The Half Has Never Been Told.”)
I’d also note that in 1850 the Fugitive Slave Act opened up a huge can of worms, given there were some escaped slaves who were living in free states but who now risked being sent back South as enslaved property. Some moved to Canada; others chose to take a risk, but when even the governments of free states could be compelled to return fugitive slaves, that caused problems and sometimes riots. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, and it would have allowed for states to choose whether they could be slave or free. This led to “Bleeding Kansas” as both sides sent in settlers to try and throw the vote one way or the other. Ultimately Kansas was admitted to the Union in 1861, after enough Southern Senators had left to take up the side of the Confederacy. (Ironically, the unsettled nature of the 1850s here in the USA rather remind me of today.)
And then there was the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) case. Basically, the Dred Scott ruling said that American citizenship was not intended for people of African descent, whether slave or free. Yeah, it was really that hard, and it tended to harden attitudes on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. And, as I’m sure you know, we ended up having a Civil War anyway, in part due to slavery (but not completely, and “it’s complicated”).
I do appreciate you taking the time to bring that reading to me, I was unfamiliar with it. I looked up Robert Breckenridge, he has an extensive Wikipedia. He’s credited with setting the foundation for public schools in Kentucky, and for supporting Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860, against his own nephew, John C. Breckenridge. Robert Breckenridge was in the uncomfortable position of being a slaveowner who was against slavery. He eventually came around to support the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves as the Union armies took more Confederate territory. (Just on a legal note, I’m still trying to figure out the legal basis of the Emancipation Proclamation, but in any case it was superseded by the 13th Amendment. I suspect Lincoln used his authority as Commander in Chief of the Army to issue it as part of wartime actions, but I’ve never really looked into it.)
Thanks for letting me wander around in the antebellum period for a little bit. The politics of the USA in the 1850s bear a striking resemblance to today.
https://www.ajc.com/news/hillsong-atlanta-pastor-resigns-after-australian-co-founders-scandal/2WLRFZZUR5FTJLZI6U6PDUK2ZY/#:~:text=%20Sam%20Collier%20has%20resigned%20as%20lead%20pastor,as%20one%20of%20the%20reasons%20for%20his%20resignation.
The nomination announcement at the Founders website purports that Voddie Baucham is an “SBC missionary”?!
https://founders.org/2022/03/22/statement-from-southern-baptists-nominating-tom-ascol-and-voddie-baucham/
But it appears that his venture to Zambia has been an effort independent of the Convention:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150417235937/http://launchthemove.com/financial-goals
IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL GOAL: $123,000.00
“the cost of the initial move. This goal includes needs like airfare (for me, my wife, and our seven youngest children), the ‘crate’ that will ship our belongings (this is the largest single need due to Zambia’s remote, land-locked location), vehicles, and other set-up costs.”
“The second goal is raise [sic] our monthly support….MONTHLY FINANCIAL GOAL: $5,000.00”
dee,
Thx, in advance.
The emotional abuse destroys a person from the inside out. There are a number of references in the Bible in this regard. God cares about our mental health.
Tom Parker on Mon Mar 28, 2022 at 04:53 PM said:
“How in the world did this post get derailed?”
Edward’s fan boy. If they’d only quote Jesus as much as, or more than Edwards.
When New Calvinism began to sweep through the American church several years ago, I listened to podcasts of YRR pastors to see what made them tick. I sat with a notebook listing 4 columns marked: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Reformed Icon. When the “pastor” would use one of those names, I made a check mark. I found that they talked a lot about “God” – the Calvinist God received the majority of checks, Jesus was mentioned only a few times, and the Holy Spirit hardly at all. Reformed icons (Calvin, Edwards, Piper, etc.) got more air time than Jesus! I also found that sermons were drawn primarily from the epistles … the Gospels were rarely used. Jesus is simply not the main thing in New Calvinism. It’s another gospel which is not the Gospel at all.
Lowlandseer,
Lowlandseer, you know your way round Edwards. Does he explain much about fruitful living in Holy Spirit strength including in our interceding and supplication? Did he believe the church started at Ascension: that the eschaton includes our overt ministering and our tarrying, both? Did he draw any distinctions between prior and subsequent works?
I note Edwards uses vague metaphors when referring to the Christian life – like the ones that were bandied around when I was “getting saved”. What causes the bulk of people who quote Edwards to detract from proper explanations of the Christian life? I think God sees what is going on around Earth and wants to get us all through it which depends on our restored integrity somehow. I think that when we are beyond, we will know what sadness really is. I don’t think praise is some silly or vague ecstasy.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Remember The Trail Of Tears.
And Pious Piper is a real Lightweight compared to the other two.
RANK HATH ITS PRIVILEGES.
Especially when bestowed by Divine Right.
“For God so hated the world that he sent his only Son to destroy it and cast as many as possible into Eternal Hell…”
Any minute now… Any minute now… Any minute now…
— Hal Lindsay crossed with Jack Chick
It was predestined. None of us could have prevented it.
If SBC Calvinist leaders wanted to come across as more African American-friendly, it makes sense that they would recruit one of the meanest they could find.
Now I remember why I stopped coming here and reading. It’s simply an echo chamber. About 20-25 of the same people (The same people I was reading here 10 yeras ago) repeating the same vapid, empty critiques of anyone and anything Calvinisstic. Sad.
Considering how much effort I put into making sure all my comments are maximally vapid, empty, and repetitive, I feel a bit hurt that I was not called out by name. I was hoping you meant me.
Considering how much effort I put into making sure all my comments are maximally vapid, empty, and repetitive, I feel a bit hurt that I was not called out by name. I was hoping you meant me.
Not on your life!
So glad you came back to join us during this Lenten season. Instead of your own boring “I don’t like what you said,” why don’t you do what I do. In this post, I gave specific examples. Am I to believe that you believe babies are “vipers in diapers” who deserve to be spanked as babies? Perhaps you believe that females should stay at home, being the pretty face that will help their fathers not to get a new young wife? My guess is that you are a part of the CBN crowd (and will vigorously deny it.) And I have hurt your feelings.
I resemble that remark! Too bad you haven’t stopped by for a while, Bob. You’ve missed a lot of vapid, empty critiques from the TWW regulars.
I figure he is a fan of SBC’s Founders Ministry, an Ascol and Baucham cheerleader.
I am wondering if we need to set the bar higher for ourselves. Rather than settling on making comments that are merely maximally vapid, empty, and repetitive, perhaps we should also strive for commenta that are also maximally inerudite, vacuous, insipid, irrelevent, and inane. It could be worth a shot.
Michael in UK,
Hi Michael
Yes, he did. The first Edwards’ book that I bought was “Charity and Its Fruits” (Banner of Truth), a collection of sermons preached between the Northampton Revival, 1735, and Tje Great Awakening, 1740. I didn’t know
the first thing about him at that time and fifty years later I’m still being surprised by him. Having said that, I’ve just finished reading the works of Hugh Binning, a Presbyterian minister in Glasgow about 100 years before Edwards and I found his Treatise of Christian Love equally, if not more, inspiring. You can pick up a Kindle edition of the works for a couple of pounds.
Some of the trolls think you and I already fit that description, Ken. 🙂
I plan to be sipid and ane from here on out.
Baucham is a cruel man, and sooner or later, Karma and her sister Comeuppance will catch up with him. They’re relentless that way.
And I will try to write comments that whelm to an appropriate level.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
🙂
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
I think I should be the one thanking you for all your insights into an era I know so little about. Fascinating and enlightening!
Guests are not supposed to invite other guests. This should have started and ended with a simple etiquette question. You rightly take it a step further with the question of appearances and alliances.
Beyond those concerns, there’s the whole large category of protocol. And finally we get to the all-important issue of national security. This is not particular to one administration or to the White House. In every country, the residence of the head of state has to have criteria for letting people in.
I remember a screaming preacher from 1970s Christianese AM radio:
“MAN SEES A CUTE LITTLE BABY – GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!“
Sure that isn’t part of his appeal?
“The Cruelty IS the Point.”
Because his example gives Christians permission to be Cruel, to indulge their Cruelty as Godly.
Permission to do what was previously Forbidden.