“I’ve been pondering a post on this thing that’s been called Young, Restless, and Reformed. What’s good? What’s bad? What needs to be celebrated? What needs to addressed? For starters, it may be time to retire the name.”
Kevin DeYoung
(DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed)
Jonathan Edwards (Wikipedia)
I will never forget that day back in 2006 when the September issue of Christianity Today arrived in the mail. Dee called and said: “You really need to read the article on the front cover called: "Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback – and shaking up the church”. (link)
As I write this post, I'm looking at that CT issue featuring a guy in a yellow t-shirt with a picture of Edwards on the front along with the words: JONATHAN EDWARDS IS MY HOMEBOY. Much has transpired in the YRR crowd since Colin Hansen wrote that article. Before we get into that, here is a little background information.
In early September 2003, a friend and I went Binkley Chapel on the campus of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary to hear John MacArthur address the students. He had come to our area for two reasons – to speak at Southeastern as well as at a community wide event promoting a church plant that my family and I were involved in. It was the first of many visits to listen to chapel messages. My friend was more familiar with MacArthur than I because she had previously been a member of a congregation that was affiliated with his church when she lived in Phoenix. During MacArthur’s address to the seminary students, she leaned over and whispered: “What do you think about the Arminian/Calvinist debate?” “What debate?” I asked. She rebuked me by saying: "You mean you don't know what's going on between the Calvinists and Arminians?" I said, "No I don't." Then she barked: "Well, you'd better find out!" I have never forgotten her words, and sadly she died prematurely a year ago yesterday.
I had no interest in finding out about the conflict because it sounded way too cumbersome, and I had enough going on in my life! I was extremely involved in my daughters' Christian school — from leading Moms in Touch once a week to volunteering with choir to serving as room mom coordinator, among other responsibilities. And of course I had a wonderful husband to love and cherish. Little did I know just how much I would learn about the debate in the years to come . . .
Here are the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" leaders Colin Hansen spotlighted in 2006:
John Piper
Joshua Harris
C.J. Mahaney
Al Mohler
Mark Dever
As I look back at that YRR article five years later, it's hard for me to imagine that I didn't know who some of these leaders were at the time. I had heard of John Piper and Al Mohler, and I recognized the name Joshua Harris because his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye was published in 1997 when I was homeschooling my daughters. It's so hard for me to believe that I did not know who C.J. Mahaney and Mark Dever were in 2006. In fact, I did not find out about Mahaney and Dever until two years later! When I re-read the YRR article in the fall of 2008, the light bulb came on because by then I knew who the players were in the New Calvinist Movement.
In my research I discovered that Mark Dever graduated from Duke University, which is also my alma mater. In fact our dorms were fairly close together on East Campus – I lived in an all girls' dorm (Giles) and he lived in an all-guys dorm (Pegram), we probably frequented the same dining hall, and we checked our mail at the same on-campus Post Office. I am a year older than Mark, so we were in college together for three years, although I never knew him. I did attend the Presbyterian church he frequented just once during my sophomore year — Blacknall Memorial Presbyterian Church. I preferred to attend Duke Chapel to hear Dr. William Willimon, the Dean of the Chapel. Duke Chapel is still a special place because it's where my husband and I exchanged our wedding vows. Well, enough about that. . . Suffice it to say that even though I earned the same undergraduate degree as Dever, he and his colleagues likely view me as "gullible and easily deceived" because of my gender. . . Is any of this sounding ridiculous yet?
Getting back to the YRR article, I want to share my impressions five years after first reading it.
(1) The 7-page article begins with a huge photo that spans the first two pages. It shows a multitude of Together for the Gospel conference attendees who are clamoring to meet John Piper during a break. They are referred to as "Christian hedonists" in the caption. What is wrong with this picture? I cannot find one female face in the large crowd of attendees. Not surprisingly, most of those pictured are young men. (pages 32-33) There are five additional pictures in the CT article, and women are glaringly absent.
(2) Hansen begins the YRR article with this sentence: "Nothing in her evangelical upbringing prepared Laura Watkins for John Piper." Why does he name a woman at the outset of his piece, given that no females appear in the photos? (page 32)
(3) The article then focuses on Joshua Harris. Hansen writes: "Later, C.J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Wait a cotton-pickin' minute! Larry Tomczak co-founded the Gaithersburg church with Mahaney.
(4) It is shocking to read what happened at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary upon Al Mohler's arrival. The YRR article states:
"Starting in 1993, the largest Protestant denomination's flagship seminary quickly lost at least 96 percent of its faculty. SBC inerrantists had tapped 33-year-old Al Mohler to head the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which until then had remained open to moderate and liberal professors. Mohler addressed the faculty and re-enforced the school's confession of faith, derived from the landmark document, the Westminster Confession.
"I said, in sum, if this is what you believe, then we want you to stay. If not then you have come under false pretenses, and you must go," Mohler, now 45, said. "As they would say, the battle was joined."
Indeed, television cameras and news helicopters made it difficult for Mohler to work for a while. He still isn't welcome in some Louisville churches. That's not surprising since no more than 4 faculty members — from more than 100 — stayed at Southern after Mohler arrived." (pages 35-36)
(5) Hansen indicates that Mark Dever "conceived Together for the Gospel". (page 38) My theory is that given C.J. Mahaney's involvement with conferences and large gatherings over the years, he and Dever came up with Together for the Gospel. I wrote a post quite a while ago explaining that Mahaney spoke at a "Together on a Mission" conference in England in 2005 and low and behold, "Together for the Gospel" launched in 2006. Coincidence? I think not. I believe Mahaney's involvement from the beginning is why Mohler, Dever, and Duncan have shown such fierce loyalty to Mahaney since he stepped down from leadership in SGM back in July.
(6) It's certainly worth noting that Colin Hansen's current bio indicates that he is "editorial director for The Gospel Coalition. Formerly an associate editor for Christianity Today magazine, Hansen is the author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey With the New Calvinists". . . (link)
In tomorrow's post, I will share John MacArthur's reaction to the YRR movement, explore Barna Group statistics about Reformed churches in America, and examine Kevin DeYoung's recent commentary about the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. Stay tuned. . .
Lydia's Corner: Job 23:1-27:23 2 Corinthians 1:12-2:11 Psalm 41:1-13 Proverbs 22:5-6
I first encountered some of the member of this group through a cult-like collegiate organization that is remarkably similar to SGM. The YRR movement sent me into a deep depression because it promised to give my soul an end to its searching. Instead, it threw a few cement blocks around my neck.
This collegiate organization began by going around campus showing those of us raised in church that we really weren’t saved. Now, that may be true. In the church there will be wheat and tares alike, but Jesus says not to cut them down because you may cut the wheat in the process. Looking back on it, it isn’t shocking that this would occur.
As I said before, the group wanted to show us our lostness. They showed me that I wasn’t really saved and told me what had to happen in order for salvation to occur. I was told that now the Holy Spirit would be in my life and change would begin. Instead of freedom, I got some of the worst law imaginable. Jesus’ message of an easy yoke and light burden wasn’t present, but weird rules about bible study groups and conference attendance became the measuring sticks for sanctification.
I got out, but some of my friends who were part of this group and who idolized Piper et al. have either left the faith or are quietly dying inside because of the graceless message. One friend even told me that recently while working on staff for their women’s groups she was called on the carpet concerning her attitude. She was met in the parking lot of the organization and was told that she had to give them a repentance plan in order to show she was going to be different… I think that last tidbit really sums up these groups.
I will have more of a response later. Dee and Deb, I love what you are doing! Thank you!
Eagle,
I am honored that you would be following our blog while flying to California. Are you spending Christmas there?
Robin,
Thanks so much for your comment. I suspected that there were young Christian ladies out there like you who are being manipulated by these hyper-authoritarian leaders. By the way, does the collegiate ministry you mentioned have the initials C.O.?
Deb:
That’s interesting that you were part of a church plant in 2003. How has it done? Are you still involved?
I did not know that you attended Duke University Chapel under Willimon.
I would not think that you would have ever been in sympathy with what Mohler and the Southern Baptist Conservatives did at Southern.
I never read this article in CT (I really don’t read that magazine), but remember when it came out.
I never knew who CJ Mahaney was. I knew Mohler and Dever. To me, Mahaney was like Carrera in the 3 Tenors – Pavaroti, Domingo and the “other guy”. Mahaney was the “other guy.”
And of course Josh Harris was a complete unknown to me until a parent at a youth meeting when our new youth pastor came 3 years ago suggested that the youth group read “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”. I stood up and suggested that our youth group should be Jesus centered (like my mentors David Busby and Barry St. Claire) and not rules centered, which is what this woman was arguing for.
I have heard of Piper. My pastor likes his writing, but I have never read his books.
And since I was involved the SBC conservative resurgence since I was 18 in 1979, I had heard of Mohler and am very glad for Southern’s return to a commitment to its founding documents and doctrinal fidelity. Several Presidents at Southern had addressed that issue, but only with limited success. Duke McCall fired 13 professors in 1959 in the Friday night massacre, but because he believed in a policy of letting the faculty select the new faculty, nothing changed long term.
Mohler, with the support of the new trustees (with outside help from Billy Graham and his entourage), told the faculty that the seminary was going to return to the founding documents and theology and that the administration would get involved in faculty hires etc. Interestingly, very few profs were fired, which was a good thing. Molly Marshall was confronted, but most left through attrition or to fill spots in other institutions when it appeared in the early days that a moderate Southern Baptist world would be successfully created. That has not really materialized, sadly, and may become extinct in large part, but I hope not.
The Baptist colleges have taken interesting routes. Watching Baylor in the years to come will continue to be interesting. The Regents (I think that is what they call them) have become much more conservative over the years. The question remains there to what extent President Starr or successors will become involved in faculty selection and retention. I doubt that Baylor will become more conservative, but I have conservative friends who believe that it will. I don’t live in Texas. I discouraged my children from going to Christian colleges, but they already did not want to do that.
By the way, when you were at Duke, did you ever run into Fran Hudson? She is a prof of international relations at an SEC college now. We were in high school together. She might not have been in your class, but graduated high school in 1979.
Robin, you described my own experience perfectly–” The YRR movement sent me into a deep depression because it promised to give my soul an end to its searching. Instead, it threw a few cement blocks around my neck.” I escaped by deleting all my Calvinista blogs and subscribing to blogs like this one instead! I also told my YRR worship pastor, “I love you, but I will NEVER love your doctrine!”
I suspect that John MacArthur’s reaction to this movement is grabbing the attention of many who otherwise would look the other way. I give him a great deal of credit for his courage in speaking out.
MacArthur appreciates women as holding important positions in God’s sight as demonstrated in his book “Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible, and What He Wants to Do with You.”
http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Extraordinary-Women-Shaped-Bible/dp/0785262563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324563645&sr=8-1
Anonymous,
I’m running out the door to meet Dee at a cute little coffee shop between my house and hers, so I don’t have time to respond other than to say that I didn’t know your friend because she was two years behind me at Duke and one year behind Dever.
The church plant I was involved with is thriving, but we left in May 2005 because of a terrible internal conflict.
Blessings.
Deb, that would be correct! It is none other than Campus Outreach! That thing is soul destroying!!!
One of the things that Mohler did was to close the social work school at SBTS, effectively firing Diana Garland, who was the dean. Diana and her husband are deans at Baylor now, he in the seminary and she in Social Work. David has also served as the interim president at Baylor. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people at Baylor and vicinity who are grateful that Mohler made the decision he made. Some believe it was divine providence to Baylor’s benefit.
BTW, I served on a review panel wrt SBTS in the early ’80s. There was not an issue of people on the faculty being outside the mainstream of traditional Baptist theology, which has always been a balance between Arminianism and Calvinism (but usually 4 not 5 points). Mohler took it back to a singular Calvinist theology which had been the case when the seminary was founded and for its very early years. So that took it outside the mainstream of traditional Baptist theology which was not to either extreme. The hierarchical and pastor-dominated model of church governance now mandated there is also outside the Baptist mainstream of the priesthood of each and every believer and congregational rather than elder governance.
Ted, You would most likely have to be a woman to understand how debilitating McArthur’s teaching is. Yes, he (get that?) allows women to be deacons to other women.
Phil Johnson of Pyro fame has worked for McArthur for many years and pretty much serves as his mouthpiece. I can remember a few years back reading a comment Phil wrote on his blog (comments section) saying that his wife and McArthur’s wife would NEVER answer even a doctrinal question is asked by a man. They would refer the man to their husbands or another man. That is one example.
Recently, Phil did a post on the “Monsterous Regiment of Discernment Diva’s” which basically rebuked women bloggers who dared think they had spiritual discernment to call out men. Dee and Deb would included in that assessment. Perhaps you should not be here since McARthur and co think it is sin.
There are a ton of examples of some of McA’s bizarre teaching on women. Some of them were on clips that Cheryl Schatz used on her women in ministry DVD. One of them shows that McArthur teaches that Adam’s sin was listening to his wife. It is a sin to listen to your wife. Another he taught that the bible teaches long hair is a sin for me. (his faulty translation of 1 Corin 11)
The list is long. Women are fine as long as they know their place in his pecking order.
But you have misread what it means that McArthur allows women deacons. So does Driscoll, btw.
I do not think it is McArthurs criticism that is getting to YRR. His criticism has been around for a long time and mainly focused on Driscoll. He has shared many a stage with quite a few other YRR leaders, though.
I think it is the blogosphere and all the stories of churches being ripped apart and all the unnecessary vitriol coming from these Neo 20 something cage phase Calvinists. They have created little monsters looking for a Servetus in every pew. I think this might be DeYoungs way to try and rehab the image.
“I would not think that you would have ever been in sympathy with what Mohler and the Southern Baptist Conservatives did at Southern.”
Deb, In the SBC, this is codespeak for ‘you are a liberal’.
Which is interesting since Mohler now promotes and helps protect a man, Mahaney, who taught his SGM pastors not to call the authorities when there was a molestation situation in his “family of churches”. And there were quite a few molestation situations! I guess that is what “conservative” means these days.
Robin:
The reference to Campus Outreach as possibly being a negative organization is new to me.
When I was in graduate school some 26 or so years ago, Campus Outreach had a huge and positive impact on the university that I was attending. It was thoroughly evangelical, culturally sensitive and effective, and doctrinally astute. That was contrary to the Baptist Campus Ministries organization that actually had better on- campus facilities. But the Baptist groups were basically shallow, avoided evangelism on campus (but not overseas – overseas missions was a big deal), and were very doctrinally vague.
I did not have any involvement with Campus Outreach because I was a grad student with no time. But the kids who did and the directors seemd to be fantastic people. I saw them as some of the more effective Christian leaders on campus, from what I could tell.
I have had no knowledge of Campus Outreach since that time, so I have not kept up. Our church supports one person who works for Campus Outreach at a university in the D.C. area. This person grew up in an agnositic home and attended at very secular high school in our town. This person became a Christian at Elon College (maybe through the ministry of Campus Outreach).
When I toured some colleges in the D.C. area last July, I struck up a conversation with one of the female tour guides at George Washington who was raised Greek Orthodox who recently had been going to some of the meetings that the person whom our church supports is hosting. She was very positive about them.
I know the person our church supports. He is super guy, and doesn’t fit any stereotype of an agressive, dogmatic person. He is really laid back, easy going and effective with students.
I have children in college. I would recommend them to Campus Outreach (if their schools have one), but am concerned after reading your posts.
Can you direct me to some information that might describe the problems with Campus Outreach? Is it a system wide problem, or was it that your chapter or organization was bad?
Thank you.
Deb:
Thanks. You can certainly respond, but don’t feel compelled to do so.
Sorry about the church. Church conflicts can be the most discouraging of all experiences.
YRR? It’s nice to know what that stands for.
It’s nothing like YYZ.
Arce UNITED STATES on Thu, Dec 22 2011 at 10:32 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
One of the things that Mohler did was to close the social work school at SBTS, effectively firing Diana Garland, who was the dean. Diana and her husband are deans at Baylor now, he in the seminary and she in Social Work. David has also served as the interim president at Baylor. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people at Baylor and vicinity who are grateful that Mohler made the decision he made. Some believe it was divine providence to Baylor’s benefit.
BTW, I served on a review panel wrt SBTS in the early ’80s. There was not an issue of people on the faculty being outside the mainstream of traditional Baptist theology, which has always been a balance between Arminianism and Calvinism (but usually 4 not 5 points). Mohler took it back to a singular Calvinist theology which had been the case when the seminary was founded and for its very early years. So that took it outside the mainstream of traditional Baptist theology which was not to either extreme. The hierarchical and pastor-dominated model of church governance now mandated there is also outside the Baptist mainstream of the priesthood of each and every believer and congregational rather than elder governance.
Robin:
Also, I just went and searched Campus Outreach on the net. I looked at the doctrine, strategy, vision, philosopy etc. statement. I could not find anything there that seemed out of the mainstream of standard, orthodox Christianity.
It may be that you do take issue with some standard, orthodox Christian doctrine, which is fine.
Or it may be that the persons they employed to run the group that you were involved in were bad apples. I understand that, too.
I would in no way question your beliefs or feelings or experiences. But am trying to just get a handle on what you experienced and what specifically was the problem that you encountered. I don’t want my children hooked up with a bad group, and I don’t want our church supporting a bad group.
Thanks.
This collegiate organization began by going around campus showing those of us raised in church that we really weren’t saved. — Robin
Ah, the Ressegue Regression. No matter how many times the mark has walked the aisle or Said the Magic Words, browbeat him into doubt and more doubt and more doubt re his salvation. When you’ve finally broken him, take out your Bible, lead him through the Magic Words so he’s Really Really Really Sure he’s Really Really Really Saved This Time, and cut another notch on your Bible for brownie points at the Bema.
She was met in the parking lot of the organization and was told that she had to give them a repentance plan in order to show she was going to be different… I think that last tidbit really sums up these groups. — Robin
Enlightened Self-Criticism before Party Commissars?
Deb, In the SBC, this is codespeak for ‘you are a liberal’. — Anon1
And Traitor, and Thought-Criminal, and Goldsteinist.
Which is interesting since Mohler now promotes and helps protect a man, Mahaney, who taught his SGM pastors not to call the authorities when there was a molestation situation in his “family of churches”. And there were quite a few molestation situations! — Anon1
Molestation situations by MEN. Godly (TM) MEN.
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
The list is long. Women are fine as long as they know their place in his pecking order. — Anon1
i.e. Cooker, Cleaner, Breeder (of sons only), always looking up with wide eyes and trembling lips to the Man? Like Chloe from Left Behind after her Altar Call scene — “What is Thy will, My Lord Husband? How might I better Submit?”
Re Jonathan Edwards, poster boy for this essay:
I understand he was one of the most brilliant and educated men of his place and time, instrumental in a lot of New World zoology and patron of higher education. (The guy also seems to have been obsessive-compulsive, but you get a lot of that in historical figures. That and manic-depression; the obsessive & manic phases are what makes them make a splash in history.) And all he’s known for today, out of all his life achievements, is ONE Hellfire-and-Damnation sermon.
Hansen writes: “Later, C.J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Wait a cotton-pickin’ minute! Larry Tomczak co-founded the Gaithersburg church with Mahaney.
doubleplusungood refs doubleplusunevents.
doubleplusungood ref doubleplusunperson.
LONG! LIVE! BIG! BROTHER!
Robin,
I had never heard of Campus Outreach until last May when Matt Hill went missing in D.C. From what I understand, Matt was the director of Campus Outreach at George Washington University, and somehow he reported to Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Dever sent out a Tweet announcing his disappearance, which caught my attention. It was a really strange situation, and you can read about the outcome here.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/missing-youth-minister-matt-hill-found-alive-50628/
Matt is from Charlotte and graduated from Elon, so his close North Carolina ties have kept me interested in him. He obviously suffered some kind of crisis, and after reading your testimony, I am getting VERY SUSPICIOUS…
Robin,
I searched the internet like Anonymous did and couldn’t find much controversial information about Campus Outreach, that is until I stumbled upon this website. I Googled “Campus Outreach” and “Criticism”, and this is what came up. The name “hillsmurf” is interesting…
You will definitely want to read this blog post. Feel free to e-mail me privately at Deb@thewartburgwatch.com with your reaction. You may not want to post your comments here.
http://hillsmurf.blogspot.com/2009/05/thoughts-on-campus-outreach.html
Way back in my day it was the Maharishi, Timothy Leary & Abbie Hoffman. We were young too, and many of us bought into the whole enchilada. Later on, some of us got caught up in the Southern California Jesus scene under the aegis of fundamentalists like Chuck Smith. Many of us grew up and got out of that too.
Whether young, commie, & anarchist; or young, restless and reformed, both regimes will strip you of your humanity if you let them. I’ve now realized that life is too short and precious to be squandered on things that only guarantee power to the men that promote them.
Arce:
You have mentioned this so-called “review panel” that looked at Southern Seminary before.
I remember asking you about that. I would be very interested in learning the name of the “review panel”, under what auspices it conducted its review, whether it ever produced a report of its findings.
“Review panels” come in all sorts and sizes. For example, my wife and I were a “review panel” of my child’s room last night, and made certain findings about its condition.
There were various “review panels” of sorts of Southern over the years. Many conducted by the seminary Presidents themselves. Even Dr. Honeycutt announced in his last year or so that Southern had embarked on a quest to hire more professors who took a conservative, traditional view of the Scriptures. One of the first such persons hired was David Dockery.
So, I guess “review panels” vary in their size, rigor of inquest, findings and authority.
In SBC life, fortunately, the ultimate “review panel” are the SBC people.
Their review has been in for a long time. That’s what brought about the great changes at Southern.
Deb:
I read the post on the guy named Matt Hill. Wow! How did I miss that? I guess it was such a local story. Matt Hill is not the guy I know, but I am sure they know each other.
I am going to ask the guy that I know what he knows. He is still with the Campus Outreach and is very excited about all that is going on. He comes from a fairly well to do family, and has other options. So, I am assuming at this point that he is not bothered by anything organizationally.
I could not pull up the other article. I will have to try later. What does “Hillsmurf” mean, or what do you think it means?
Muff Potter:
Don’t say it!
Did you “Tune in, turn on and drop out!”?
I used to listen to Chuck Smith on the radio 35 years ago. He followed Chuck Swindoll on the local channel. Swindoll was much better. Smith had some interesting things to say, as I recall, but I did not buy into him. I wasn’t in California.
I have run through a bunch of Christian ministries and emphases over the years. I have been blessed never to get too “planted”, and because I am cynical by nature, I never by into everything someone says. I think that my nature has served me well over the years.
But I will also say that I have always learned something from people and movements, even those with whom I later came to disagree.
Life is interesting that way.
I had never heard of Campus Outreach until last May when Matt Hill went missing in D.C. From what I understand, Matt was the director of Campus Outreach at George Washington University, and somehow he reported to Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Dever sent out a Tweet announcing his disappearance, which caught my attention. It was a really strange situation…
Usually when something like this happens, the guy had some sort of spectacular burnout and cracked up. The mention of “making his will” arouses fear of suicide, though it might be more accurate to say they got desperate and just wanted to “go away”. I remember this being theorized as the explanation for the temporary disappearances of Agatha Christie and Aimee Semple McPherson — burnout and crackup, and they had to “go away” for a while until they recovered. A more recent example was that “disappearing bride” who got in the news a few years ago — under pressure from her family’s expectations, she just went CRACK! and ran away from it all.
Anonymous Thu, Dec 22 2011 at 02:22 pm
It was a review panel for the SBC, with representatives from the nearby states, all volunteers, mostly laity. We came to the conclusion that most, if not all, of the faculty were within the mainstream of Baptist thought and practice, and that none were so far from the center of that that they should be dismissed or disciplined. The panel varied all over the place in terms of our backgrounds and interests, but all were long-time Baptists.
BTW, because we did not support the CR in our findings, the report was deep sixed.
I searched the internet like Anonymous did and couldn’t find much controversial information about Campus Outreach, that is until I stumbled upon this website. I Googled “Campus Outreach” and “Criticism”, and this is what came up. The name “hillsmurf” is interesting… — Deb
Deb, that’s what was done to me back in the Seventies, though in my case it was a completely-independent local “Christian Fellowship” instead of any organized group like Campus Outreach, Campus Crusade, or the Navigators. Same M.O. Exactly. If I hadn’t discovered Dungeons & Dragons and gotten out of that environment, I would have drunk their Kool-Aid until things got real ugly and spectacular.
And in these blogs I’ve read the same experience from Eagle with CCC/”Cru” and Christian Monist with the Navs. And I got the same vibes from Calvary Chapel (Chuck Smith) — nothing I could really put my finger on, but a general aura of something gone seriously wrong.
The fact that a LOT of groups are behaving this way and burning out people tells you something. It’s like they all have a common script they work from.
And the idea mentioned in the link that Campus Outreach goes after the BMOCs — the Quarterbacks, the Cheerleaders, the Celebrities, the Alpha Males & Females of the herd. Maybe they’re counting on a trickle-down effect, but I can tell you as the former Omega Male of my high school it doesn’t trickle down. Instead it casts Christ as the God of the Jocks and Cheerleaders and Alpha Males and Alpha Females and The System, NOT us Geeks and Gamers and Furries and Bronies and all the other Omega Males and Females. i.e. “Christ is the God of the Rich and Powerful and the Rich and Powerful Alone.”
“Enlightened Self-Criticism before Party Commissars?”
Headless, You remind me of John Immel over at SpiritualTyranny.com. I love his blog. He has some of the same ideas you have about what this is really about.
“The fact that a LOT of groups are behaving this way and burning out people tells you something. It’s like they all have a common script they work from”
It is called the doctrine of the Nicolatians. They are mentioned in Rev. “Conqueror of the People” is what it means. And it comes in all shapes, sizes and denominations. It just so happens the YRR folks are the current poster boys and so far, make the best Nicolatians yet.
Much of the gravitational field that holds so many people in total thrall to systematic theology is the horrific fear of hell. It’s used as a cudgel to bludgeon, batter & beat into submission those who would dare to disagree with neo-reformed thought.
One commenter above (I think it was Robin) remarked that she felt that her “salvation” was at stake if she didn’t acquiesce to what some campus ideologues were selling.
Do you remember when Jean ValJean rescued Fantine and told her that God has never seen her as anything but his beautiful & beloved child? Robin, you also are his beautiful & beloved. You don’t have to drink their kool-aid. It’s worse than hemlock because it’s slow acting, creates suffering, and will suck the joy right out of your soul.
Thanks, Arce.
You mean the convention authorized the review panel you were on? What year?
Arce,
As a committe member who produced the report did you keep your copy?
You shoud post it. Would make interesting reading.
Like I said, I guess the churches of the convention did not agree, and pushed forward.
Headless Guy:
If I am reading correctly, you don’t care for Campus Outreach, Campus Crusade or Navigators?
I don’t know you well enough to know why.
Some don’t agree with the theology of these groups. Some are in line theologically, but don’t like the emphasis or personalities.
What is your complaint with all of these groups?
We were “appointed” by some officer from the Exec Bd, I believe, on recommendation from the state execs. Not the annual convention. I was on because my folks had been active at state level. Our preliminary report consisted of letters from each of the committee members regarding our conclusions, sent to the chair to collate and these were given to someone on the exec bd who, I was told, did not like it that no one found fault with any of the faculty sufficient to call for dismissal or reprimand.
I think the whole exercise was an attempt in the early days of the CR to have dirt on the seminary. The CR was just beginning, perhaps even behind the scenes then; I know it was happening in places before it succeeded in electing a convention president.
My memory puts the review in 1980, 81 or 82, because I can tie it to other activities in that time frame. So no true “report” was prepared, as we were nixed based on the letters that were submitted to the chair by the members.
I do not have many papers from the 1990s, due to several moves and some loss of documents over time. For 30is years ago, sorry, not a chance I could locate my contribution to the effort.
What is your complaint with all of these groups? — Anonymous
My main beef with them is they usually have a very rigid and overcontrolling behavior — very much “You Have To Do It Exactly Like Us Or You’re In Sin/Have a Demon/Not Really Saved/etc.” In many ways, the overcontrol and forced conformity is as bad or worse than the Cults (TM) they denounce. (This was compounded by Christian Cult Watch groups — back in the Seventies & Eighties, they defined “Cult (TM)” entirely by aberrant theology, NOT by abusive control-freak behavior towards their people. A lot of spiritual abuse got in under the radar that way and did a lot of damage.)
Then their theology is usually pretty thin — standard Fundagelical: YEC, Altar Call, Wretched Urgency Witnessing, End Time Prophecy, Enclaving/Separation From Those Heathen. Often over-spiritualized to the point of denigrating the physical world. Overmephasis on Full-Time Christian (TM) Work to the point of Clericalism (except they don’t call them Priests, Monks, or Nuns); the Navigators especially had a reputation for pushing their members into Witnessing and Bible Study and other “Full Time Christian” pursuits to the point of burnout and flunking out of their classes. (JMJ/Christian Monist was a Nav missionary burnout; check his blog “Christian Monist” for continuing details.)
Now Campus Crusade (now under the trendy name “Cru”) varied a lot from campus to campus. CCC Cal Poly Pomona was actually pretty mellow in the late Seventies, though they still had their share of “What Were They Thinking?” moments. However, CCC Cal State Fullerton at the other end of Brea Canyon was fully into the Satanic Panic (think Mike Warnke/Jack Chick Conspiracy a Go-Go with Fred Phelps attitude) and were on a war footing with the campus D&D club. (We actually had to screen noobs for CCC infiltrators at one point; we’d run them through some games with our WEIRDER gamers and see if they went Bible-Banger on us.)
Headless, You remind me of John Immel over at SpiritualTyranny.com. I love his blog. He has some of the same ideas you have about what this is really about. — Anon1
I would not be surprised if he experienced a similar burn job to Eagle’s & mine.
And keep something in mind about me. I “Grew Up Martian”, always on the outside looking in at those weird creatures called humans. Plus, my mind cascades with echoes and similarities from a head that got stuffed full of data long before I could handle it. (160 IQ and natural-talent speedreader at age 4 kind of does that to you. What a long strange trip it’s been…)
Thanks, Arce.
Appreciate the background.
Headless:
Thanks. I get what you are saying.
I appreciated Navigators as a young Christian, but heard complaints that you have mentioned. It is very regimented, I understand.
The Campus Crusade groups that I have known about have been good, but I can see what you are saying. They really did needed to change the name, as the world gets smaller. If Graham were active today, he would not have called his organization “Crusade”. Having said that, “Cru” is still so close. They probably should have bit the bullet and made a real name change.
You are right about the theology. It is very basic, kind of like a Billy Graham crusade.
I rememeber Chick Tracks. I loved them as a new Christian. Some are still great. But others – wow, I shudder to think that I actually handed some of them out. The good ones, however, were priceless and were great conversation starters when I was a new Christian in high school.
I have never been into gaming, D&D or any of that. But the world is a big place, and there are all types of people.
The older I get the more I see that the expression of Christianity needs to be inclusive and as broad as possible. In an urban setting that can be tough. You need enough similarity to have cohesion, but you don’t want the church to all look the same. In areas where the physical and cultural demographics are the same, there’s not much you can do. But in a larger city with all types of people, you want to appeal to all sorts of people with different interests.
I think churches have to work hard at this.
I read the C.O. blog and I will write more later but, as far as being against orthodoxy, I am extremely orthodox but no thanks to C.O. In the past two years, I began reading and listening to some Lutheran thelogians and was lifted from despair because the gospel (good news) of forgiveness and salvation was proclaimed. While involved in C.O. I was too busy trying to get more sanctified to worry about whether I was orthodox in the essentials of the Christian faith. My opinion concerning C.O. and the like is they get an A for evangelism but after that someone should muzzle them. They turn Christianity into Islam light. I don’t really want to comment on everything in the public forum but, way too many people were hurt at a much deeper level than I. I can’t even imagine what those who actually got deeper into the organization went through. There are so many people who checked out of Christianity all together. And it isn’t because they decided they didn’t believe, they leave because they can’t live up to the standards and decide to get out and forget God because staying in is more painful.
Thanks, Robin. I see what you are saying.
Eagle, I was trained in the same evangelism techniques, but not through CCC or CO. God used much of that in my early Christian life, but I came to see that much of it was unbalanced. I think that there is benefit to learning how to witness to a stranger, but most of the evangelism training that I had in my early Christian life was designed for stranger evangelism – talking to people you don’t know. It doesn’t work in real relationships. You give the speech. No response. Then what?
On another matter, I noted your statements about Communism in the U.S. First, it needs to be remembered that Hiss was a spy. Chambers did not lie. Hiss did. Did politicians use this for their benefit? Sure. Politicians use anything they can for their benefit. But the truth needs to be remembered. And as a politician, Truman tried to discredit the entire Hiss inquiry and prosecution, calling it a “Red Herring”. Truman was wrong on that count. Chambers biography, Witness, is one of the most important literary works of the 20th Century.
The entire “Black List” ruined lives thing is untrue. Most of these people were later successful in Hollywood. And most of them were communists. The studio execs were the ones who were worried about dealing with them. Famed movie director Elia Kazan cooperated with HUAC and was proud of what he did. (See the end of “On the Waterfront” where Marlin Brando says what Kazan is saying to his Hollywood communist friends). He was right to be proud. The members of the Hollywood party were not in the “open” Communist party, which was legal in the U.S. Instead, they remained members in secret at the request of their Soviet handlers, who were GRU agents (Soviet Military Intelligence, not KGB, which was non-military).
What is ironic is that J. Edgar Hoover, already knew who was in the secret Hollywood Communist party. The FBI had broken into the home or office where material was kept, the FBI copied the info, and then put it back and the Communists were unaware of the break in. That’s why the FBI was so uninterested in the entire HUAC Hollywood hearings and fallout. They already had the info.
I believe that any persons who are cooperating with a foreign government or movement to harm the U.S. should be investigated. And I believe that their activities and efforts, if discovered, should be disclosed. So I do not get worked up about HUAC. I realize the politicians of every stripe will use what they can to promote themselves. What’s new about that?
On the McCarthy thing, I do not believe that McCarthy was a good spokesman for efforts to alert the U.S. people to the dangers and efforts of communists who were employed by the government. I think that even Truman got involved in these efforts through loyalty oaths and such.
But the claims people make about McCarthy are really laughable. Again, he was a politician and tried to promote himself. The politicians on the other side of the aisle used the censure hearing against him like one big commercial. Murrow was clearly in on that. One of Murrow’s friends who had worked at the State Department (or may still have worked there) jumped to his death from a New York hotel after being questioned by the FBI in connection with his secret illegal activities for the party. It was believed by Murrow at the time, and others, that Murrow’s friend was wrongly suspected. The FBI knew better then, and we all know better now with the release of so much material from that era that could not be released at the time due to security concerns. We also know much from the opening of the Soviet archives.
The scene that you quote from the hearing where Senator McCarthy was being questioned has some background to it that most people do not know. Welch had a young associate lawyer in his firm who had been a member of communist organization (I believe it was the National Lawyers Guild) while in law school a year or two earlier. During the Senate’s censure hearings against McCarthy, they asked McCarthy to provide documents. McCarthy and his staff either refused, or produced them directly to the Senate members, rather than through Mr. Welch’s law firm, because they knew this young lawyer who was working with Welch on the Senate hearing (and may have been removed due to security concerns and replaced with another associate) would have access to the documents and might leak the information in them to Soviets or their contacts in the U.S.
So, leading up to the particular clip, McCarthy and his staff had been questioned for several hours. Many questions related to Roy Cohn, staff counsel for McCarthy. (Bobby Kennedy had also been staff counsel for McCarthy but switched sides when the political winds changed. McCarthy is god father to Bobby Kennedy’s daughter – I believe it is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, or perhaps another daughter).
At any rate, McCarthy listens to several questions about Roy Cohn, questioning his honesty, sincerity, loyalty to the country, and finally McCarthy responds to Welch by saying that he did not appreciate members of his staff, like Cohn, being criticized and having their loyalty questioned, especially when Welch had on his staff a person who had been a member of a communist group in law school, and was the reason for some security issues in the process (and again, I believe had to be taken off the hearing counsel panel when his communist affiliations of a year or two earlier had been discovered).
That’s when Welch gave his famous statement, which he laughed about just moments later. Welch knew he was mugging it up for the cameras, and Murrow knew what to do with the film.
The older I get, the less respect I have for politicians of any stripe. Or at least my respect is tempered.
But I know that the security concerns of the pre-war and post-war times with respect to communism were very real and genuine. The record is clear that there were many who actively helped the Communists against U.S. interests or were actual secret party members. These included Roosevelt confidants such as Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Curry, Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of State Alger Hiss, his brother Donald Hiss, members of the Ware-Hiss Communist cell in D.C. and a host of others.
What all this has to do with Al Mohler, I am not sure. But it is interesting to discuss.
Anonymous:
During the alliance of convenience between the USA & USSR against the common enemy of Nazi Germany, Stalin took the opportunity to infiltrate the US with various intelligence plants & ops.
Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was a grandstanding asshole.
Why does everybody act as though these two statements are one-or-the-other mutually exclusive?
Totally disagree, anon, on your comments on McCarthy, the blacklist and HUAAC. It was a witch hunt – ever read Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible”? Three guesses as to what actually inspired it…
Eagle: good comments!
Robin: So glad you got out, and ikwym about hearing Lutherans speak about grace, mercy etc. (I was raised Lutheran but lived in charismatic-fundyland for several decades. Having real grace extended to me when I was going through a personal crisis helped bring me back to my roots.)
HUG, one of my in-laws served in the military in signals intelligence for a while and he told me about how those two statements have become part of the training. It’s true there were infiltrators, it’s true there were people in the entertainment industry with communist sympathies, but McCarthy was still a grandstanding asshole who chose the dumbest way to address the issue.
“HUG, one of my in-laws served in the military in signals intelligence for a while and he told me about how those two statements have become part of the training. It’s true there were infiltrators, it’s true there were people in the entertainment industry with communist sympathies, but McCarthy was still a grandstanding asshole who chose the dumbest way to address the issue”
Very true. If you read Whittaker Chambers’ book, Witness, who was in the underground communist groups in DC during the 20’s-30’s and worked with the infiltrators in government, you will know he thought McCarthy handled it totally wrong, too. In fact, he thought McCarthy hurt the truth of how bad it really was in government. The problem with people thinking the whole thing was a witch hunt is they are ignoring not only Elizabeth Bentley’s evidence but the declassifying of the Venona encryptions back in the late 90’s.
“These included Roosevelt confidants such as Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Curry, Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of State Alger Hiss, his brother Donald Hiss, members of the Ware-Hiss Communist cell in D.C. and a host of others.”
Adolf Berle was given all these names in addition to Lawrence Duggin in 1939 by Chambers because of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Chambers outed himself as a former underground worker in DC. When Berle took the information to FDR, he laughed and blew it off. Thankfully, Don Levine who was in the meeting with Berle and Chambers (at Berles house) kept meticulous notes and held on to them.
A. Hiss was an adviser at Yalta. Venona proved he was “Ales” the Soviet spy in the state department.
“During the alliance of convenience between the USA & USSR against the common enemy of Nazi Germany, Stalin took the opportunity to infiltrate the US with various intelligence plants & op”
Actually, most of the serious recruitment took place early in the 1900’s. It takes a long time for infiltration and the goal was affecting/influencing policy. Not just spying. The Aberdeen Proving Ground was a nest of Americans spying for Soviets.
Numo:
That’s o.k. People make different judgments about things.
History records the facts as to who committed perjury, practiced espionage etc. The names I mentioned were adjudicated to have done what they did or it’s beyond reasonable dispute.
As to Hollywood and writers, Kazan cooperated and was proud of his role. Miller did not and was proud of his role. Kazan directed “On the Waterfront” which is his testimony. He always thought it was surreal and unfair to be judged by fellow communists on whether his work was sufficiently revolutionary while at the lavish homes of people in Hollywood. Miller wrote “The Crucible”, and that was his testimony about how he felt. I don’t think that he and Kazan ever reconciled. Some in Hollywood are still bitter about Kazan’s actions.
As to politicians, there’s plenty of room for criticism.
I think many people have good reason to feel bitter about Elia Kazan’s testimony.
But… I don’t want to further derail this thread.
*
on another topic entirely (but *definitely* related to this post and blog), Stephanie Drury at Stuff Christian Culture Likes just tipped me (and many others) off to a terrific blog that fact-checks statements made by Mark Driscoll:
http://driscontinuity.tumblr.com/
This is just the kind of thing our illustrious blog queens need for research/future posts on the YRR crowd.
hold that thought!
back to McCarthy et. al. for a sec: yes, of course there were some spies and infiltrators in the US. But the US had its own agents in place abroad… tit for tat, as far as the spying game goes. (See John le Carré’s novels on same.)
It all *might* have been handled better had McCarthy and associates not started the “Red Scare.”
There were a lot of people who, in their youth in the 1920s and 1930s, had been affiliated with one or another group that had others who were infiltrators and dedicated adherents to Soviet communism, which it not merely communism, but an adverse and dictatorial extreme form of the ideology. Many left those groups when the U.S. and the USSR became unfriendly in 1945-46 or shortly thereafter. A problem with the witch hunt and with the black lists is that many of those who were not adherents, but merely had an acquaintance or friend and had been a part of some group (like a book study or a discussion group) got tagged just as if they had been a dedicated Soviet supporter. The brush painted broadly, and McCarthy did not care who got spattered.
Many effectively innocent people were caught up in the frenzy and lost jobs and careers. Many joined organizations like the National Lawyers Guild totally innocently, not knowing of the fact that other members were Soviet communists. Guilt by association is not fair to any one. BTW, on that basis, all of the republican candidates for office could be disqualified, and it would not be fair. Having known someone, even being friendly with someone, should not cause the pain that it caused in the 1950s.
Imagine if God worked this way. You are a member of a church group, and someone in that group turns out to be a child molester. So you get to go to hell along with them, just because you were a friend to them. That was McCarthyism.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75155553?access_key=key-1ie4tvtibidzn1u5kpw4
Numo, thanks for the link. from that link, here is a link to the forward of the Driscoll’s book on marriage. All I can say is that if anyone reading that does not see glaring problems with the Driscolls (knowing everything we know about them) they are so far gone it is a shame.
I have not seen anyone here say that McCarthy did not handle things badly and most agree he was a grandstander. But most of the government inflitration was NOT guilt by association. As anon above said, this is factual and can be proven. FDR was warned in 1939 by Adolf Berle and blew him off.
I am watching Oleg Kalugin, former KGB Major General, on C-Span 3. He is the highest ranking member of the KGB to have defected.
Numo, the fact that the U.S. had spies has no bearing on anything. The differences between the 2 countries, the U.S. and the former USSR are like night and day. One is a representative democracy that values personal freedom – religion, speech, economic freedom. The other does not believe in these freedoms and was dedicated to the enslavement of millions of people. The fact that all countries have spies does not make the fact that some countries dedicated to evil purposes are the moral equivalent of countries that are dedicated to freedom, however imperfectly pursued.
Anon1 is correct in her history, as well.
Arce:
No doubt that people have been unjustly accused of things throughout history.
However, the metanarrative of the anti-communism in that regard is overblown.
It’s over now. Thankfully, the nature of communism (not just as practiced in the USSR and China, but the very nature and unavoidable consequences of collectivism wherever practiced) was revealed in the late 1940s and beyond. And even greater, fortunately the place where this system was tried has now abandoned it. Hopefully, China will follow.
Arce – maybe more to the point, it was a lot like having friends and associates (and relatives by marriage) who were Jewish in Hitler’s Germany. Talk about “guilt by association”!
Nobody was guilty except the persecutors.
” need to re-read up on Alger Hiss, Whitaker Chambers and the ‘pumpkin’ papers. My point is that Albert Mohler is practicing “spiritual McCarthyism” on issues such as YEC, Calvinism, etc… When I think of some of the ways Mohler has acted it reminds me of Joe McCarthy. I wish more people would stand up to him and ask, “Have you no sense of decency”
Here is a question for you. Are we doing the same thing McCarthy did when we question those who share stages with these guys like Mohler, etc? Or those who seem to be partnering with them? How are we not doing guilt by association, too, when we lump all these people into one group? If they are not like them then why are they hanging with them and promoting their books.
anon1 –
Thanks for the link to the excerpt from the new Driscoll book.
Wowsers. I would have preferred quite a bit less “vulnerability” and “transparency”. And without all the lecturing about what my response to it should be.
My hat is off to Dee and Deb if they are planning to read and review it. I don’t know if I could plow through the whole thing.
Dana: “And without all the lecturing about what my response to it should be.”
I didn’t make it through the excerpt because of time. But what you have said, Dana, about being lectured on what our responses should be…
Well, I could say a lot of things. But instead, I’ll just say this. HUG is really onto something with the 1984 references. Their Big Brother attitude that seems to make the Holy Spirit into the Thought Police is very chilling.
Driscoll: Here how it IS. (End of discussion, because I’m bigger, smarter, and stronger than you. Oh, and I’m the concerned keeper of your soul). This is how you are to respond. (Because God thinks the way I do and the sooner you figure this one out the better off you’ll be. And we all just want to get along which we certainly will be able to do when you start agreeing with me which is equal and the same as agreeing with God.)
HUG, one of my in-laws served in the military in signals intelligence for a while and he told me about how those two statements have become part of the training. It’s true there were infiltrators, it’s true there were people in the entertainment industry with communist sympathies, but McCarthy was still a grandstanding asshole who chose the dumbest way to address the issue. — WTH
Except I’ve only heard it spun one of two ways.
1) All those Pure Innocent Victims of McCarthy’s Fascist Right Wing Fascist Witch Hunt.
2) McCarthy’s Persecution and Ruin by The World Communist Conspiracy (which had taken over ALL the government and media) for Speaking The Truth.
In retrospect, both of these have the distinct aroma of Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories.
Kazan directed “On the Waterfront” which is his testimony. He always thought it was surreal and unfair to be judged by fellow communists on whether his work was sufficiently revolutionary while at the lavish homes of people in Hollywood. — Anonymous
In my experience (with the “Social Justice Movement” c.1980s), the hardest-core True Believers in Marxist-Leninist-Castroist doubleplusgoodthink were young “Yuppie Puppies” from Irvine’s Upscale Exclusive Gated Communities. Trust Fund Kiddies et al.
I wonder if their gung-ho Communism was just an extended temper tantrum against Mommy & Daddy not letting them have their way. (And “redistribution of wealth” access to Mommy & Daddy’s money.)
Thankfully, the nature of communism (not just as practiced in the USSR and China, but the very nature and unavoidable consequences of collectivism wherever practiced) was revealed in the late 1940s and beyond. And even greater, fortunately the place where this system was tried has now abandoned it. Hopefully, China will follow. — Anonymous
China has mutated into more of a blend of the traditional Chinese Imperial system and Fascism, still retaining a Marxist coat of paint.
Well, I could say a lot of things. But instead, I’ll just say this. HUG is really onto something with the 1984 references. Their Big Brother attitude that seems to make the Holy Spirit into the Thought Police is very chilling. — Mara
That’s because the way my brain is wired, any stimulus can cause a random cascade of related information. Sometimes related in a way only my own brain can relate. It all comes out as parallels and echoes.
Driscoll: Here how it IS. (End of discussion, because I’m bigger, smarter, and stronger than you. Oh, and I’m the concerned keeper of your soul). — Mara
i.e. “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”
(Because God thinks the way I do and the sooner you figure this one out the better off you’ll be. And we all just want to get along which we certainly will be able to do when you start agreeing with ME which is equal and the same as agreeing with God.) — Mara
I encountered this attitude almost word-for-word in a Catholic context years ago. The guy with this attitude was only one or two steps away from becoming a QF/P with a Rosary.
HUG, I thought the catholics were the original QF crowd? No birth control. Of course, that has changed somewhat now.
Well, I could say a lot of things. But instead, I’ll just say this. HUG is really onto something with the 1984 references. Their Big Brother attitude that seems to make the Holy Spirit into the Thought Police is very chilling. — Mara
And it could get worse if you combine the right attitudes and ideas. Like two I heard separately over the years.
1) From a radio preacher many years ago (don’t know the guy’s name, except he had an accent like J Vernon Magee but was much louder and in-your-face). The subject was The Millenium after the Second Coming (Dispy EOTW choreography), and the line I remember is “HE SHALL RULE WITH A ROD OF IRON! NO DISSENT SHALL BE TOLERATED!”
2) Attributed to James Dobson, as of a couple years ago: “Christians need to start preparing themselves for the careers Christ will give them after His (Second) Coming.”
Connect these two, and they don’t make the Holy Spirit into the Thought Police. They expect to BE God’s Thought Police, enforcing “THAT ROD OF IRON” for Big Brother Jesus.
Pingback: Linkathon 11/28 | Phoenix Preacher
I read the excerpt numo and anon1 linked to for Real Marriage.
Between the Driscolls’ forthcoming Real Marriage and Ed Young’s The Sexperiment I think it’d be fun to publish a book called Real Celibacy: the truth about how Markulinity makes celibacy look awesome.
I kid, kinda.
WTH
Thanks for the laugh.
“there is a difference. Many of these guys rush to defend each other and support each other. Look at how Dever embraced Mahaney, or how Piper took Mahenay’s material into his book that he edited. That is quite different than the way some individuals tried to distance them self from other members in the McCarthy witch hunts. In the case of the neo-reformed its not guilt by association, they associate with each other and prop up each other. They can reference, defend, etc.. That’s why I include them together”
Some of us here have attempted to nuance the issue saying we think McCarthy was grandstanding and eventually made a fool of himself but also to remind folks there are FACTS that support many of his accusations about communists in government. Yet, we are painted as part of McCarthyism because we dare say he was right about “some” of it. Because ALL he did was bad according to liberal philosophy.
That is what I mean by painting with a broad brush and guilt by association. The liberal media has done to McCarthy exactly what you accuse the Calvinistas of doing with each other. According to liberal media history everything McCarthy did was a witch hunt. Which is simply not true. Even though he was brash, vulgar and a drunk. And Bobby Kennedy’s best friend!
Condoms? Would that be like
“Hedge of Protection”?
Eagle and WTH – LOLZ! 😉
I go to a reformed seminary because I wanted to learn more about God so I may be better equiped to serve it. It was the closest and cheapest christian college I knew so I signed up. Little did I know I would fall straight into the world of dogmatic christians who flaunt their theology and focus on biblical obscurities and in doing so make division out of it. I would like to affirm you claims on “calvinistas” as I have first hand experience with them. This isn’t to say they are all like this, there are many godly men and women in my seminary. But this “YRR” is a real issue
better equiped to serve Him* blasphemous spelling mistake =L