The whole point of the piece was built around a disagreement he had with what CJ said. Not sure where the exaggerated praise/no opposing viewpoints in the wiki definition applies. Unless every article that doesn’t mention the lawsuit is now a puff piece, which of course, then you would have to hang the definition of what a puff piece is to “an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery; an article or story that mentions a person involved in a lawsuit, but doesn’t mention the lawsuit.”

I didn’t dispute whether he admired CJ or not. I said the point of the post was a disagreement with one of CJ’s points. Yes, he said listen to it, and it was helpful. But he didn’t ignore other viewpoints, the whole point was he had another viewpoint. And the comment section shows that other folks saw it that way too. The point being that, regardless of Challies affinity for CJ, this particular piece does not fit the definition of “puff” as defined in your post. The only reason I made a comment is because of the specific definition of puff you offered, and the specific post you referred to.

It seems pretty clear to me (I have followed Challies off and on for a while – he is in my area and I used to run in circles that intersect with his circles) that this is ‘praise by faint damn’, as Arce insightfully pointed out. This is a light disagreement so Challies can say he’s not a fanboy who fawns over everything CJ does. And given the timing of this piece, and the final, chummy line about ‘classic CJ’, Mahaney is still being framed as a lovable, likeable, harmless guy. Challies does this sort of passive-aggressive thing all the time. His ‘a la carte’ section is often used to express or embed certain opinions on a variety of issues without taking full responsibility for them or having to defend them. So he’ll say, hey check out what RC Sproul Jr or Thomas Sowell have to say about Christians and economics…which is a way to agree with their far right economic positions and (and introduce others to them) without having to defend it. It is like, ‘hey, look at this interesting thing’ (unspoken: that I happen to agree with). In the same way, ‘hey, look at this helpful talk by CJ “nothing to see here” Mahaney.”

I really think, in summary, that this piece on CJ is a way to show that Challies supports him while at the same time enabling Challies to distance himself from being a complete fanboy, should time require it.

Also, Joe, NOT to mention the lawsuit – to cite and interact with CJ Mahaney right now as if NOTHING like a major newsmaking scandal is currently engulfing him is mighty suspicious. Timing is everything.

Also, a few days ago Challies posted a link to an article about the D’Souza scandal saying “While I try to guard against “sanctified gossip,” this seems like a significant story considering Dinesh D’Souza’s rising profile in the Evangelical world”. The next day he posted D’Souza’s response, questioning its wisdom.

I guess the Mahaney lawsuit is not a ‘significant story’ given Mahaney’s already high profle in the Evangelical world.

I read the Challies piece yesterday, and my gut feeling was “this is weird”. Leaving aside the heavy handed complementarianism (which, as you know, is a huge issue to me)the whole thing just felt like an exercise in hair-splitting and dancing around in circles — a piece of filibuster, if you like. Apart from “my wife doesn’t have a harder job than me”, which all sounds very childish, and not quite Challies’ usual tone, it had the feeling that he was playing some sort of obscure (or not so obscure) game, and this was the best he could come up with. It’s like an exercise in closing ranks by pretending there are no ranks (“see, we actually disagree with each other on something”, despite the fact that their point of disagreement is purely abstract and academic, compared to the huge skip load of stuff they agree on

Tim Challies doesn’t get it. He simply doesn’t see how rebellious CJ Mahaney is, and how detestable SGM is to so many people. He must assume those who have big problems with Mahaney and the way he operates – penetrating himself into every area of a person’s life leaving nothing undisturbed – are just mistaken about the man and his ministry.

Challies is oblivious to the way Mahaney routinely drew attention away from the gospel and to himself. Any reference he made to his wife and family was done out of his obsessive tendency to make the outside of his cup appear pure. So he would constantly be painting a picture of his own life and marriage in such a way as to make you believe he was righteous, because he personified the man-made regulations he had established for holiness. So whenever CJ said anything like his wife’s job was harder, what Challies isn’t aware of are all the times CJ mentioned that his family was a reflection of his skill as a leader. “Her job is harder” was code for “I am such a humble man that I am willing to praise my wife, although what she does in her role is made possible through my role, and how well she does is a demonstration of my excellence as a leader.” It’s not as if Carolyn was doing anything by faith. No, what she was doing was following him.

The remarks were always self-gratifying in nature. They weren’t designed to edify those anyone listening, they were designed to make you look at him and his life. In fact, they had the effect of making everyone feel inferior to him, his wife, and his family. It was a control tactic. They elevated themselves and then used the impressions they gave of their superiority to get you to follow them, and that’s how you would bear fruit.

Its the same thing they’ll be trying to pull off in Louisville. They’ll make it appear like joining up with them will help you in serving the will of God, but what they are really after is your time and your money. “Thank you for serving!” is code for “Thank you for serving us!”

Gee, Caleb W., your father doesn’t happen to have been a pastor in your former circle was he?

Anyhow, glad you got out.

Re: Challies: The more I see of the new calvinistas, the more I see a snappy little dog chasing his unfortunate tail.

I used to read Challies back when blogging first started as he was an early adapter. He used to do tech stuff for other bloggers and left poor Ingrid Schlueter high and dry at Slice during a meltdown. But I can remember being freaked out at many commenters over there because it was my first real exposure to the serious Reformed movement outside the SBC. I can remember reading comments like: God is glorified and pleased as He throws babies into the fire of hell.

I am serious. People used to make such comments over there all the time to “show the Glory of God”.

I am even more amazed that no one seemed to think such beliefs from a Christian were abnormal.

That is why I have no respect for Challies. Of course, it only stands to reason he would become a pastor.

Anon 1,
I agree with you. It is darker than I think most realize. What they appear to be oblivious to is their own lack of humility, and empathy regarding the wreckage they leave while bulldozing through people’s lives.

“The remarks were always self-gratifying in nature. They weren’t designed to edify those anyone listening, they were designed to make you look at him and his life. In fact, they had the effect of making everyone feel inferior to him, his wife, and his family. It was a control tactic. They elevated themselves and then used the impressions they gave of their superiority to get you to follow them, and that’s how you would bear fruit.” – Evie

Hmm….sounds remarkably like my former Word of Faith ‘pastor’…..”See how wonderfully God has blessed us? If you do what we teach you, He will bless you, too. Not working? You must be doing it wrong….where’s your Faith?”

He could spend 45 minutes taking an offering….

reading all that’s happening as of today in christian world…..

christian culture is nothing short of a circus! a few gracefuls on the trapeze, but clowns galore on the ground. An amazing spectacle to behold.

Julie Anne, even knowing what I know of the fanboy set, it blows my mind to think that this got a pass from the crowd. That is beyond sick, it rates as domestic violence in my book to have so psychologically overpowered his wife that he could reduce her to this. Even by the strictest complementarian standards, that is a mockery of everything marriage is supposed to be. I am beyond disgusted

Sooooo . . . does having that level of detail about leaders’ sexual exploits mean that everyone should conform to that model? I imagine that attendees paid to receive this information. Good grief, can’t couples be left to figure out their own sexual identities? Or was everyone expected to perform like the leaders? Did couples now have expectations for one another that might not have been there before attending one if these conferences? This just makes me sick . . . I don’t want to know this information about every leader in SGM — ick and 2x ick.

Irish, the irony is the only way people can see it objectively is if they get out of the movement. It takes years to debrief from it. And what is worse, it is better if they STAY OUT OF CHURCHES for quite a few years while they seriously pray and search the Gospels to know the REAL Jesus. Not the fake one that stands behind their guru.

I am always heartbroken when they immediately want to find a church after leaving such groups. They are easy pickins but do not realize it. They go on a search for “good leaders” as if that was not their problem in the first place. If only people could know they can have anointing (1John) and be filled with the Holy Spirit: The Best Teacher.

Off Topic:

But related to sexual abuse scandals that is developing … http://is.gd/HJvv23 NYT > Public Editor’s Journal [MARGARET SULLIVAN] > Times Must Aggressively Cover Mark Thompson’s Role in BBC’s Troubles

This lady has more balls than all the men in NYT and BBC combined.

“does having that level of detail about leaders’ sexual exploits mean that everyone should conform to that model?”

This level of detail is called a lack of class. Period. It reminds me of something you would hear some redneck talk about in a bar. I know unbelievers who would be offended at such coarseness.

Deb, Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all the main speakers EXCEPT ONE at this Baptist seminary, well, er um, BAPTISTS?

I took the Challies comment as making a point that CJ was stating that his wife's job was harder than his at that time — possibly motivated by a backhanded way to make CJ look good. In other words, the pretense of slightly disagreeing to actually highlight the apparent good attitude of CJ being humble in marriage.

And if you happen to check out CJ’s tweets, he uses this word all the time. — Julie Anne

Shouldn’t that be “Servicing” instead of “Serving”?

But then, when you’re that Humble(TM), a woman’s only reason for existence must be as a schmuck-sheath. Whenever YOU get (Humbly) horny.

HUG – You’ll notice that every time someone compliments C.J.’s humility book on Twitter he responds exactly the same way: “I’m glad to hear the book served you. It was written by a proud man pursuing humility by the grace of God.” Copy and paste, copy and paste. I’m thinking maybe he could simplify things by just saying “Thank you. I’m the worst author I know.”

I find it highly ironic that the job C.J. finds “harder than his” and which Challies finds commendable in his own wife gets me labeled a “man fail” when I do it. I suppose I should have thought of that back when I, um, “chose” to become a stay-at-home-dad. I also suppose it would make these guys’ heads explode if I could explain how God has used it to teach me humility and servanthood, and how the words of Col. 3:23-24 have come alive in a setting where my talents and my gifts aren’t used and aren’t appreciated by the four 5-and-under youngsters I care for. “Daddy, I don’t know or care that you sang Mozart operas in college. I have a dirty diaper and it needs changing RIGHT NOW.” What I find so disheartening about the YRR crowd is how they really believe that God’s grace and His workings in the lives of His people can be so narrowly defined. To them, God can’t be teaching me anything or using me or reaching others through me; I’m not fulfilling my ordained “role.” Sigh. The marginalization and pigeonholing in the name of doctrine is absolutely mind-boggling sometimes.

I don’t read this guy or really even know who he is.

I would just say that the time between now and the resolution of the lawsuit could be years away.

Mahaney fans are going to have to hedge their bets and build fire walls as the thing progresses. They will not be free to go public with full declarations until there is a clear and decisive end to this.

If I were betting, I would guess that a jury will never render a verdict in this case. The most likely outcome is that either side may have something to gain and lose in the trial, so a settlement is probably in the cards. Most settlements involve the payment of some money, and the affirmation that there is no admission of fault.

If a jury renders a verdict finding Mahaney at fault, then the members of the evangelical community will have a tough time standing by him. Right now, the only “judgment” is that Ambassadors of Reconciliation report which did not find Mahaney at fault. Evangelicals can sort of hide behind that report. A jury verdict would be an affirmative finding of wrongdoing. A settlement will be a tie, so to speak, from a PR standpoint.

The question right now is how will things be handled in the meantime. I predict that Mahaney’s star will fade a bit. There will be some “distancing.” Some of that will be sincere as people learn about the allegations. Some of that will be pure calculation.

If the lawsuit discovery were more public, it would have a greater impact. But the fact that the plaintiffs are not using their real names means that we will probably not hear much during the discovery phase. The only development we may learn is the addition of plaintiffs, if that happens.

Again, these are all guesses.

Another thing about Mahaney. Bill Clinton figured out that as the President, he could keep talking, keep working, keep emphasizing that Americans wanted him to “get back to work” etc. That realization enabled him to shape the present and the future. It really depends on whether one can be shamed.

Mahaney may figure out the same thing. If he keeps writing, talking, ministering etc., he may weather even a jury verdict. Mahaney did not commit the acts of abuse that are the genesis of the suit. The allegations are that he and his churches did not respond properly to them. He could even apologize for that if the verdict is negative, and still have a large presence. He might even write a book about how the lawsuit taught him to be more humble.

It’s all so hard to predict, but interesting to speculate and wonder what others are thinking and how they may react.

Craig: “I find it highly ironic that the job C.J. finds “harder than his” and which Challies finds commendable in his own wife gets me labeled a “man fail” when I do it.”

And it goes the other way too, for these people.
If a man feels called to ministry, this is commendable. But if a woman gets that feeling, she’s being deceived.

There are different sets of rules that go with these roles. There is no “Common Law” as in, if it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander. What they fail to see is that when you make different rules for different people, then the scales are not balanced, they are faulty. Another word for this is injustice.

Anonymous, You are forgetting one small detail. Lots of info about how a “shepherding cult” operates will be forthcoming in minute detail. That is not good for Mohler. He supported it and affirmed it as “strong leadership”. He cannot plead ignorance without looking, well, ignorant.

Sorry I haven’t been able to respond since my first comment. Trying to finish season 1 of Homeland so I can catch up in the current season…

I have to admit “praise by faint damnation” is a great and amusing phrase. And if the operating assumption is that Challies was actually looking to say “nothing to see here” then I guess I can see how it could be a type of puff piece under that category. Having read Challies a long time, and seen how he has always been leery of the charismatic elements of CJ’s background, I just don’t see him as that actively invested in protecting CJ’s image.

“I don’t think I can put much stock in the idea of their accepting any settlement that includes no affirmation of fault.”

You know, some are discounting the unbelievable coverage of the fact there is such a lawsuit. Why is that? I was amazed it made the Brit Guaridan. So we are seeing major interest. This is not just a lawsuit about ‘you were mean to us’. It is about a system wide church organization whose system policy (policies are not always written but you can see a pattern)
was to protect molesters under the guise of they said sorry so there are no criminal consequences. The CHURCH was deciding OVER our own criminal law what is criminal and what wasn’t. That is serious business. This is not just ONE rogue pastor. They are telling the world that they believe criminal acts have no consequences if you “confess” them. And if you disagree and talk about it, you are the REAL sinner because you are a gossip.

This is not going to play well with any jury or the public. That is why airing this closed system is going to be a shock to some folks. What seems so normal in that closed system seems heinous and callous to the pagan
world! (They believed good was evil and evil, good)

The other thing that is not going to play well is the bizarre focus on men and serving them. Both women and children were to serve men’s needs. Everything centered around men. Very man centered religion Mahaney developed. It is going to be bizarre for folks to process taht SGM pastors told a mom to put a lock on her daughters door inside so the dad could not get in to rape her again. And for the mom to simply ahve more sex with him so he would not be tempted. (right there they do not understand at all what was going on)

And these are the “Christians” folks are to look up to???

I mean this is Papa Pilgrim stuff in the Suburbs.

I would advise people to start copying videos and web pages. Esp of Mohler and the other GC/T4G guys. I think the the scrubbing will start very soon.

Anon 1 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:38 AM said: “This is not just a lawsuit about ‘you were mean to us’.”

I frequently see a “redemptive edge” in the actions and activism among those of us who have survived spiritually abusive church situations and “malignant ministers.” Yes, it is at some level “about us,” but NOT “just about us.” As we process through the horrific damage we endured, we do not others to suffer the same. So we shift from mere *intervention* in our own situations to *interception* for those immediately at risk of being abused, to *prevention* so the systems of people and policies and processes are openly healthy and non-violent in the long run. A lot of survivors with this redemptive bent toward prevention find as much tenacity to challenge abusive systems as those who benefit from those systems expend to keep themselves the power-and-pride beneficiaries of them.

Anon 1 also said, “The CHURCH was deciding OVER our own criminal law what is criminal and what wasn’t. That is serious business.” Doesn’t that mean Sovereign Grace Ministries actually acted with a passive form of anarchism or even revolutionary overthrow of civil authorities … rather than working within government as we are taught in the New Testament? Any group, religious or otherwise, that sets up an alternative to our government … well, perhaps that might explain some of the national and international interest in the story, in addition to the unfortunate but realistic parallels to the system issues of Penn State where the cover-up and the keep-quiet-or-else culture of image.

On the one hand, I’ve been waiting for somebody to call out this “being a mom is the hardest job in the world” rhetoric for the lie that it is. These men saying it, like Mahaney, do NOT believe it. They don’t believe it for a moment, and it always sounds terribly condescending.

On the other hand, if my husband said to me, “I don’t think your job is harder than mine,” I’d be kind of annoyed at him. Especially if his job seemed to consist primarily of blogging.

I’m at home with a 2yo and a 1yo. It’s hard sometimes, but it’s not the hardest job in the world; I’ll take what I do over making iPhones in a Chinese factory any day. I’d take it over nearly any job, actually.

That said, I’m sure what I do–or what most of us do–is much harder than what any of these TGC men do, as their jobs seem to consist primarily of blogging, going to conferences, and drinking coffees at Starbucks, while their wives (or their wives’ hired help) deal with all the practical stuff at home.

I’m not sure if this is damning with faint praise or not, but it managed to make me feel annoyed at both Mahaney and Challies.

When I was at an SGM church, CJ and Carolyn came to do a marriage seminar. CJ told about how as they were checking into their hotel for the weekend, right in the lobby, he “grabbed” Carolyn’s “bottom”. If I remember right, he communicated that Carolyn was a little embarrassed but that didn’t seem to bother CJ. He said something about how he encouraged “bottom grabbing” in the Mahaney family. Of course, people in the audience laughed, but I thought it was inappropriate. CJ also told us about how sometimes when he gets home from a trip, they can’t even wait to get home to have s*x, so they stop off on the way and get a room at a hotel. No joking – he said this in mixed company! Later they split us up into men’s and women’s groups and Carolyn talked to us ladies about marital intimacy. It was embarrassing. I also remember way, way back I was at a married women’s retreat where Carolyn spoke. People submitted questions anonymously for her to answer. One lady asked, “What should I do if my husband wants oral s*x, and I am uncomfortable with it?” Carolyn’s answer: “I think you should learn to like it.”

I am a reader of the blogs. Challies has been a strong supported of the Mahaneys for years. Trust me, the Mahaneys have touted him on their blogs. Just google Challies and Mahaney. — Dee

As in “mutual admiration/************ society”? (ed.”nicety” correction)

CJ also told us about how sometimes when he gets home from a trip, they can’t even wait to get home to have s*x, so they stop off on the way and get a room at a hotel. — Moniker

This is The Humble One(TM)?
Sounds like something out of Bee Jay Driscoll.

Cee Jay, Bee Jay.
Bee Jay, Cee Jay.

Here is what my mother told me a long time ago about these sorts of personal revelations being shared publicly: If a person is talking about it in public it means there is actually something lacking. Otherwise, they would not need to talk/brag about it.

I think we saw this with Driscoll loud and clear. CJ is a bit more subtle but perhaps he is trying to convice himself? Seriously, grown ups have no need to share such intimate details. But then, it does make money.

By the way – I am the Anon person from 9:47…

Dee – I agree that their general attitude is much like the Pharisees, and this is what is so incredibly distressing to me.

I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School around the time that discussions about forming TGC were taking place. I recall the big meeting that took place on campus where all the heavy-hitters gathered in a room to decide what was important and needed in the church. No one was allowed in that room other than those men that would become the founding members of TGC, and discussions were not made public. It was a very interesting weekend to say the least. And while I wholeheartedly believe that the initial intentions were good, we all know that good intentions can have bad outcomes…they’re called “unintended consequences”. I believe that is what we are seeing here. It is Fundamentalism 2.0.

When I relocated to my current city, I visited a SGM church. At the time I did not know much about them, and initially liked the church. But something deep down inside told me something was very wrong. My visit to a home group heightened that feeling. After about 2 months I decided to leave the church – I cannot tell you the pressure I felt when I shared my decision with the home group. I was interrogated by everyone in the room, like I had committed a crime. At that point I knew I had done the right thing. And after reading the stories of those who were a part of SGM for longer periods, my initial gut reactions were confirmed…sadly. My heart and prayer are with those who have been hurt, and I pray fervently that the Lord would remove the blindness of those within SGM and those who would be in a position to speak firmly into the lives of CJ and his leadership. That is what is needed – circling the wagons and reinforcing the fortress does nothing but make everyone involved look complicit, approving of what is taking place by their silence.

I wanted to be lavished with attention, affection and approval. And I’d received correction instead.

This is very important. When a man is “lavished” with all the attention, affection, and approval from his peers and followers, he unconsciously expects the same at home. When it’s not provided in keeping with his egotistical needs, the wife becomes the enemy. She is the only one who does not appreciate him for what he is. The conflict continues as his narcissistic image of himself is damaged by one who is “commanded” to respect him.

It’s a recipe for disaster in a relationship unless the perceived enemy caves in to supply the accolades he requires.

No surprise that there were blanks about the founding of TGC. The secrecy and general sense of elitism has been in place since the beginning; it’s no surprise at all that it has become their general mode of operation when trouble crops up with Coalition members.

Deb – It is very much like that.

If CJ thinks Carolyn’s job as a SAHM is harder than his, he must think it’s really really really hard. In his blog post on “Ordinary Pastors,” he says: “Pastoral ministry should never be romanticized. It is heavy labor. One hour in the pulpit is like eight hours with a jackhammer.” http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/post/e2809cordinarye2809d-pastors.aspx

“Over at SGM I read stories in which shy little children were to be forced to speak nicely to the pastors and, if not, they were to be ‘punished.’ What do you think that means in a group that believes in a liberal application of corporal punishment?”

Hasn’t arch-patriarch Voddie Baucham said/implied that shyness in children is a form of “rebellion”? Cindy Kunsman mentioned this in her study on multigenerational faithfulness. Excerpt and link below.

“In context, Baucham breaks “Discipline and Training” down into components to be expected of children (and training is so directed) that I have also heard discussed in audio sermons: 1) Do What They Are Told; 2) Do It When They Are Told; 3) Do It With a Respectful Attitude. His numerous audio sermons cover this same basic content as outlined in his book. There is some variation however, wherein Baucham (between these different venues) changes examples of behavior of a two year old sticking out one’s tongue at an adult to an example used interchangeably with shy, avoidant behavior suggestive of fearfulness in a two year old. Baucham handles both examples as morally similar if not identical, both stemming from the same core sin issues – that which ultimately qualifies as willful rebellion over which a two year old should have mastery.”

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/02/selfish-sin-of-shyness-deterrent-to.html

Hasn’t arch-patriarch Voddie Baucham said/implied that shyness in children is a form of “rebellion”? — Hester

Which must be “cured” via twelve-inch glue sticks and quarter-inch plumbing supply lines, wielded in such a Godly(TM) way so as to not leave marks?

Until there is no more Sin(TM) or Rebellion(TM), only “He Loves Big Brother”?

“It is not sufficient for you to Obey Big Brother, 6079 Smith W. You must LOVE Big Brother.” — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

FYI I asked Tim “Why insult your readers like this?” re: his Mahaney article. I will let you know when it gets pulled.

Hester – unless he’s been living under a rock, I don’t see how Challies could not. All major media oulets have reported on the story. At the very least, TGC folks have heard about it and passed it along – I don’t see how this could escape their attention.

Anonymous 1:56 – Yes it does seem cultic. I had similar encounters with the Church of Christ when I was an undergrad. Although the folks at the SGM church were not as blatant in how they presented it, the implication was definitely there, and the atomsphere of the home group was one that inspired such authoritian practices. I suppose I was sensitive to it because of my former experience with CoC in college; that’s what I believe kept me from jumping all in.

There are many things that bring me sorrow about this entire situation: I consider myself an Evangelical that leans toward a calvinstic understanding of doctrine, particularly as it pertains to salvation. I am basically on board with much of the doctrinal concerns that are espoused by TGC (I am a bit taken aback by their obsession with the Comp/Egal issue) – much of it is echos the doctrine of Trinity Divinity School and the EFCA of which I am a part. No one would argue that the church in America is a hot mess on many things – but TGC is losing its credibility to speak into that mess because they will not tend to the mess that exists within. I cannot and will not judge the motivations of any person – but we all have the ability to be decieved, to believe our own hype and get caught up in the celebrity culture that plagues all of American Christianity. And – as a former seminary student I can say that it is so easy to get sucked into the “bubble” and lose touch with what happens at ground level. I think that can happen with larger churches as well because the leaders become so far removed from the folks in the flock.

With regard to SGM – my heart aches for those who are hurt or victimized. Because my experience with them is limited, I can only say that I pray that the Lord will use this as an opportunity to truly break the hearts of these leaders and help them see the hurt they have inflicted.

“How long will it take for The Gospel Coalition/Al Mohler/Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever to mention the SGM/Mahaney ‘situation?’ Day 6”

Another interesting question is how long will it take Fox News Channel (which extensively publicized 2016) to mention the Dinesh D’Souza “situation”… Haven’t seen hide nor hair of it yet, at least not on TV.

Hester: “Another interesting question is how long will it take Fox News Channel (which extensively publicized 2016) to mention the Dinesh D’Souza “situation”… Haven’t seen hide nor hair of it yet, at least not on TV.”

The only thing they did was post D’Souza’s response to the World Magazine article – and that’s all I’ve seen. I don’t expect to see anything else.

Why the increasing number of pastors who boast publicly about how strong their sex drives are (often in vivid detail)? And what purpose does this serve, anyway? — Hester

Alpha Male of a Herd, Bugling a Mating Display to attract a Harem.

Or “I Get Laid More Than You — NYAAAAH! NYAAAAAH! NYAAAAH!”

So while a guy gets beaten up then he reads posts like he does above. Posts about oral sex, grabing a woman’s butt, bragging about their sex life, etc…

AND THE IRONY OF THIS SITUATION IS THAT THE GUYS WHO CONFESS THEIR DIFFICUTLY WITH REGULAR PORNOGRAGHY ARE TOLD THEY ARE THE ONES SCREWED UP.
— Eagle

And don’t forget the JUICY JUICY JUICY Testimonies on Testimony Night! And Public Confessions of JUICY JUICY JUICY Sin!

How else can the Church Ladies get their porn fix in a plausibly-deniable Godly(TM) manner?

Diane —

And I can picture Cee Jay Mahaney having his Armorbearers preceding him blowing long trumpets to announce how Humble he is.

@ HUG:

“Try ‘Obama is The Antichrist’ instead.”

What I’m waiting for, if Hurricane Sandy wallops the East Coast early next week, is InfoWars to say that Obama and his Illuminati paymasters created the hurricane with their weather machines for the purpose of disrupting/delaying the election. (“There’s NEVER been a HURRICANE north of the CAROLINAS after AUGUST!!!! COINCIDENCE?!?!?!”)

It’d be a pretty stupid thing for them to say, since if Sandy hits anywhere, she will hit blue states… But the race riots and martial law predicted for this summer failed to materialize so they need something to doom about.

@ Eagle:

“So while a guy gets beaten up then he reads posts like he does above. Posts about oral sex, grabing a woman’s butt, bragging about their sex life, etc.”

And the people who write those posts never think that their “hot Christian sex” stuff may lead some of these men struggling with porn, right back into it. I mean, for Pete’s sake – I’m not against talking frankly about sex, but why do you need to brag to a crowd of people that you’re so hot for your wife that you just can’t make it back to your house from the airport?

Even arch-matriarch Debi Pearl does this. She calls having sex with her husband (apply bleach to brain here) “ministering” to him – but as if that wasn’t bad enough, she just couldn’t resist adding the little afterthought about him calling her “a mighty fine minister.”

RE: Moniker on Wed Oct 24,2012 at 10:50 AM,

Believe me I am no prude by even the slightest degree of definition, but what you’ve regaled us with here concerning Mahaney’s making public his sex life with his spouse, violates all bounds of propriety.

He may have tons of power and authority in Reformia, but he doesn’t have a milligram of class anywhere else.

@Hester – re: Fox News…I know…shocking…

Sigh….after reading that stuff about CJ’s sex life I have felt unclean all day. And incredibly thankful that no-one I know would consider having sex with their wife when she felt that unwell, or vice versa…these people have abuse down to a (pseudo-biblically justified) art form. I have no respect for these child beating, wife using ‘pastors’. How is any of that Christlike behaviour from them?

Lynne T. That reminds me of a certain Driscoll & Piper fanboy on YouTube, who basically tried to tell me that men being “expected to cut women slack” for getting away with “bloody murder” once a month because it’s a “hormone thing” is the other side of the coin to giving men slack. Their “hormone thing” that women should accept is that they are “emasculated” and do not “react well” when led by women or anyone they can beat up…

@ Diane:

Per the Challies sex article:

1. Comparing sex to communion is creepy. Period.
2. I notice he’s rather light on applying the concept of “bringing the Gospel into the marriage bed”…I wonder why… Sorry to be crude, but what he wrote there sounded like it really could lead to an article analyzing different sexual positions and how they relate to the relationship between Christ and the church.

@Evie “on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:51 PM said:”

I’m not going to repost Evie’s comment above because it was long, but as a former SGM pastor, I say what she said is brilliant. It is spot on in every way. What she said is the “pathology of praise” that goes on in SGM. I’ve thought about this for years and have never heard anything so succinct, clear, and accurate. Well played.

“Maybe if Challies is whacked out enough in his sin/sex/marriage teachings,
then maybe T4$ will finally reward his gospel diligence and give him a main session spot.”

Does he still live blog those conferences? He used to

Guys, I know quite a few YRR here who are campaigning for Obama. Why? Because Rommey is a Mormon. Yes, it stunned me. But the more I thought about it the more it made sense. Obama is more statist big gov type. The YRR tend to gravitate toward power and control stances.

I feel like I disrespected Jesus just by reading that! These guys are obsessed.

I totally agree. I did mention it was cringeworthy.

He liveblogged at the last T4$. That’s where he mentioned that statement for us, “shouldn’t we be willing to remain in ignorance” (regarding the SGM scandal). Nope, not willing.

Anon1, Internet Monk is more Lutheran these days. Michael stopped considering himself a Calvinist around 2007-2008 so it hasn’t even been “Reformed” as such for a while and Michael had comments from time to time about the “Truly Reformed” that would have put him off the team. He admired some people in the Reformed tradition but he was starting to find fault with Piper around the time I started even figuring out who this Piper guy was.

And my comment on Challies’ CJ post was deleted sometime in the last 2 hours.

Umm .. the way Christians compromise in the marriage bed is by demanding their ‘needs’ get met, isn’t it?

Seriously, I don’t have the foggiest idea what he means by putting the gospel in the marriage bed, unless, for him, ‘gospel’ is shorthand for male and female roles? My own mental image is of placing tracts under the pillows, but I think I’ve missed the point. And I’ve been married over 35 years.. Obviously we’ve been doing it wrongly all this time :-<

Anon1, it depends on how you define Reformed. You may just mean anyone who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox. That’s not how everyone (or Michael Spenser, while he lived) seemed to use the term.

If we use the term “Reformed” to just mean Protestant than Wesleyans are “Reformed” even though Methodists would disagree with Calvinists on legions of points. 🙂

As WTH said, “Reformed” does not equal “Reformation.”

Luther was non Calvinist by a long shot, though it’s probably best to read some of the period documents by both Luther and Melancthon than for me to even attempt any kind of summary, ’cause I’d be hopelessly out of my league (and probably unintentionally misleading) if I were to do so.

“Why the increasing number of pastors who boast publicly about how strong their sex drives are (often in vivid detail)? And what purpose does this serve, anyway?” — Hester

*******************

Sexual repression for so long in christian culture, but now sex is cool in christian culture. Latent adolescence now being let out = middle age 15 year-old boys.

I roll my eyes at how dysfunctional christian culture is concerning sex and the human body. First the message is that sex is as dirty as a back alley and as dangerous as heroin, and only whores do it. Now it’s as sweet as chocolate fondue and as cool as Ray Ban sunglasses, and the in-crowd does it.

(but this new message fits the messengers about as well as Angels Flight pants and a tight shiny partly-unbuttoned shirt on a paunchy 55 year-old at a high school dance in 1978. Latent sexal revolution on the outside, awkward prudish repression on the inside)

re: Reformed— I propose a new term, “Rehformmedan”. It is to this that I suspect CJ converted, though he may have also secretly converted to be a closet Baptist. To do so, I suppose he must have somehow lost his Baptism in the Spirit, and been re-baptized in water in a non-charismatic manner.
re: the gospel in the marriage bed: tonight I will sleep with my Bible under my pillow rather than on the nightstand. Tomorrow I’ll report any biblical-bed-benefits which may have accrued! 🙂
Seriously, what they REALLY mean by the gospel in the marriage bed is this: “Authority and submission are an erotic necessity.”

Okay, a general question/musing I’ve had for a while, sort of prompted by Elastigirl’s comment about Christians being repressed sexually…

From Ephesians 5:
“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.”

My main concern is with “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.” I’ve heard many Christians claim this verse means we can’t ever talk about sex, that we can’t tell our children what goes on in the bedroom (because it is “in secret”), etc. But:

1. The Bible talks a lot about these secret, shameful things. See the Old Testament.
2. There’s no a linguistic cue in the preceding verses to indicate that these secret, shameful things are exclusively sexual – they’re just the “unfruitful works of darkness.” I assume “works of darkness” would also include theft, murder, lying, etc. So why the idea that this only applies to sexual sin? Maybe you could get it out of the references to fornication and uncleanness in the previous paragraph, but they also mention covetousness which is hardly exclusively sexual so that doesn’t really work either. Seems to me, to be consistent, that these folks should be just as uptight about tax fraud as they are about sex (it is a “work of darkness,” after all, often done secretly).
3. How are we supposed to “expose” these secret, shameful “works of darkness” if we can’t ever mention them?
4. Most importantly – a married couple having sex (let alone sex itself) is NOT a “work of darkness”! It’s a GOOD thing and God actually commanded it at creation. So to imply that this verse = no talking about sex ever seems WAY off to me.

Please somebody tell me if I’m crazy and/or give me some feedback on this one. This is one of those passages that won’t stop gnawing at my brain because I’m dissatisfied at some level with the interpretations I’ve heard thus far, and I KNOW firsthand how badly the normal interpretation plays out sometimes.

(Note: when I heard John MacArthur preach on this, he said we’re “not even supposed to talk about [sex]” and how that would “devastate our culture” (LOL – this was preached in 1979), and then he talked about the “joy of discovery” for newlyweds. But then he seemed to imply in other places that he didn’t mean ALL sex. Seemed inconsistent to me.)

@ Anon 1:

As far as I know Lutherans ascribe to penal substitution (not the same thing as substitutionary atonement, I think?), not Christus Victor or the ransom theory.

Also, in the Luther I’ve read, I’ve never seen any evidence that he didn’t believe in sanctification… That “sin boldly” statement has to be weighed against his other writings where he definitely acknowledges the existence of sin and discourages it. Plus it would be pretty silly for our liturgy to start with confession and absolution every week if we thought sin stopped after justification, or still existed but wasn’t a problem anymore.

Hester – not sanctification in the Wesleyan sense – “entire sanctification.”

Agreed that “Sin boldly” is a much-abused quote!

and look how you and I came out re. “penal substitution.” Maybe the MO Synod does teach that? It is definitely *not* accepted in the synod I belong to.

I think everything you mentioned about those interpretations of the Ephesians verses comes from seeing the world through sex-colored glasses (or, fear-of-sex colored-glasses).

I’ve never heard it interpreted that way (although it doesn’t surprise me), & I’ve grown up in church — so rest assured there are multitudes of people in the christian sub-culture who would be as perplexed and annoyed as you are by that perpsective.

I second that. I have always assumed those verses referred to stuff like lurid celebrity gossip — where people gain pleasure from making the stories more and more deliciously scandalous, a kind of verbal pornography that gets its kicks from wallowing in every kind of evil. That has nothing to do with speaking out the truth about difficult situations, or being realistic (not voyeuristic) about the fact that we are all embodied and therefore, to varying degrees, sexual. I’m a great believer that putting sex in its rightful place stops it from spilling over into places where it doesn’t belong (like pornovisions)

@ Numo:

Per the penal substitution thing, it’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding the difference. I haven’t studied theories of the atonement as much as some other things, so feel free to enlighten me.

@ Numo:

Yep, Lutherans definitely DON’T believe in entire sanctification! – but then, at least the way it was described on that page, I’ve never met anyone else who did either. Thanks for the link.

I forgot to add that I don’t think I’m “sexually repressed” at all. Maybe this omossion means I really am repressed.
To remedy this repression, I will bring my first salacious report from our new “gospel” marital bed. The gospels (along with apostles, epistles, and apocalypse) have been in the bed for 2 hours now. Doesn’t seem to be *working* yet….. Must….call…. Tim… in morning for advice.

Hester (again) – I think that passage can easily be understood to mean (among other things) don’t talk in a salacious way, as someone else said above.

But the idea of sex being somehow unmentionable or dirty is not something I was raised to think… like I said, I’ve never heard that passage being equated with any/all discussion of sex.

but then, I’ve never heard any Lutherans preaching about “being unequally yoked” (in the sense that evangelicals take that passage), so there you go.

I apologize for inconsistent capitalization. I’m typing on an iPad and things come out weird.

Jeff S – While I’ll freely admit that I haven’t sought out much material on – or definitions of – limited atonement, what I have read has made my hair stand on end.

It just does.not.compute from a Lutheran standpoint. But then, we don’t talk much, if at all, about predestination, either.

Oasis —

I’m so sorry — i’m full of feeling on your behalf. If a platitude is not altogether unacceptable, Never say never.

I often think of the Winans’ song that says “He is able to change our nature” (including those elements of our nature that have been modified due to circumstances). Yes, even these things. In the kindness and gentleness that is God alone, and institution-free.

Jeff S – i am actually deeply troubled by pretty much all the points made by 5-point Calvinists.

Sometimes I think that people try too hard to figure out “logical” systems when it comes to faith – and i’ve gotta say that I feel uncomfortable with the YRR take on *all* of the 5 points. Really, limited atonement and irresistible grace alone don’t make any sense to me… the former seems like a formal logic problem (i.e., math-based), not so much an assessment of the NT.

but that’s just me. I’m more than happy to avoid these subjects for the remainder of my life! 🙂

elastigirl: Thank you… Sometimes, in a moment of weakness, I stop saying it. I will look up that song.

Lynne T: Thank you, also. I appreciate your words so very much, more than I can express at the moment. And I’m glad you ran away from Calvinism. I heard something once: “God allows us to be abused BECAUSE he loves us.” Pretty twisted/dangerous/abusive.

@ Numo:

“But then, we don’t talk much, if at all, about predestination, either.”

I think this may be the root of some of the confusion so here goes (please correct me if I’m wrong). I think Luther just wasn’t as theologically precise as Calvin and the Reformed folks – for instance, about predestination, he himself admitted he couldn’t go there and discouraged other people from doing so lest they get caught in an infinite feedback loop about being elect (which is a VERY real danger that IMO, Calvinists don’t warn against enough). So when someone asks what Luther believed about predestination or any other “petal” of TULIP, it’s hard to answer the question with any certainty because he didn’t always say, and if he did, usually didn’t do it in the same way as a Calvinist.

Limited vs. universal atonement? Never even heard the question discussed, at least not in those terms. Possibly because Luther was so concerned about comforting people with the Gospel that he wouldn’t even put that idea out there. I have a feeling also that even his beliefs about total depravity aren’t the same as Calvin’s.

Basically, I’m not saying Luther didn’t know what he thought about these things. I’m saying that if he did and he thought it would make a believer doubt their salvation, he might not say it; and he wasn’t an ultra-precise logical treatise junkie like Calvin and his Reformed descendants (just look at the # of questions in the Westminster Catechism vs. Luther’s to see what I mean).

Tim Challies has posted a link to an article posted yesterday by SGM Church Indiana senior pastor Mark Altrogge on “12 Things To Do When You Are Criticized”.

http://www.theblazingcenter.com/2012/10/12-things-to-do-when-youre-criticized.html

Either quite a coincidence or maybe Tim is reading here.

Under the Remember The Cross section Altrogge writes:

“Someone has said that people won’t say anything about us that the Cross hasn’t said and more, which is, we are sinners who deserve eternal punishment. So actually, anything anyone says about us is less than what the Cross has said about us.”

So-evidently–just get over it already. Criticize (expose) freely I say, because, according to this, the recipient of criticism has no right to complain about it. We all deserve hell anyway (the no victims rule–didn’t some SGM pastors use that same logic with abuse victims?) and, imo, pastors of this particular SGM stripe shouldn’t even be writing an article about how to deal with criticism because how to deal with it is–oh well, I am a sinner deserving hell, who am I to complain, I deserve so much mooooorrrrreeee– and am even sinning reading/writing an article about how to deal with criticism. I do not even deserve to write.

Re: my comment on “He is able to chang our nature”–

Let me qualify that — what I was thinking of had to do things that are fear-based…. things that are contrary to that “fruit of the Holy Spirit”.

As to what exactly our nature is and what is change-worthy and changeable about it, that’s a can of nasty worms.

Wow, Brad, I think you nailed it with this: So … why do we expect anything other than theological constipation, emotionally immature responses, and Law-breaking actions from those all bound up in ungracious Neo-Calvinism? That’s about all they’ve got to work with …

And what a visual: theological constipation!!

@ Dee:

“I attended a Missouri Synod church for 3 years while in college. The pastor allowed me, as well as a number of other college students who were not members, to take communion. Is this common?”

1. When did you go to college? The LCMS has loosened up significantly over the years so this will affect the answer.
2. Was this a campus ministry/campus chapel, or a “normal” church in town? Because sometimes chapels/campus ministries don’t have as tight of rules per this sort of thing.

@ HUG. Yup. Every culture-type has its own set of problems in their forms of hiding from truth, or overfocusing on a limited scope of truths.

To add to what I said earlier at 10:55 today, I do have friends who are 4-point and perhaps even 5-point Calvinists. However, they truly focus on grace as a way to *integrate* people from all cultures, rather than overfocus on soteriological details in a way that *isolates* them from people. For these friends, their emphasis is on grace is something each and every person needs (Christians included), not something that Christians have and dispense to the world of need. This shows far more maturity, wisdom, and humility than what I have seen in practice from the Neo-Calvinist/YRR types.

Dee – I absolutely believe that churches which are half (or more, or slightly less, but still significantly influenced by women’s decisions) female-led will be more likely to get rid of child molesters.

@ Dee~

“Diane

Excellent comment. “So-evidently–just get over it already. Criticize (expose) freely I say, because, according to this, the recipient of criticism has no right to complain about it. We all deserve hell anyway (the no victims rule–didn’t some SGM pastors use that same logic with abuse victims?)”

This is a tactic. You can’t criticize us because we already admit that we are the worst sinners in the world. So bug off.”

Yes-and the fact that they are even writing articles about criticism and how to deal with it…how one should defend it…goes against the worm theology they teach because who are they to complain about criticism? They deserve hell. Still. Even as believers and adopted children of God.

I think women are just more likely to care about children. You could disagree, of course.

Dee – I don’t think Luther subscribed to the hyper-Calvinist “God demands satisfaction!” view – which reminds me a bit of when people used to fight duels. The would demand “satisfaction” if they were insulted by another man, and call them out to fight. Some were “satisfied” by a bit of blood spilled, even by meeting at a dueling ground and going through the motions – but in most cases, someone died. (Sometimes both of the duelists.)

From our perspective today, that seems crazy, no?

Equally…. I think the paradox – for me, at least – re. Christ’s death is that, seeing that we needed to be freed, God himself became incarnate. He did not expect *us* to be able to ransom ourselves and free ourselves from sin and death. he did it for us. He did it because he loves us, not because some kind of duelists’ idea of “satisfaction” was imposed by the Father.

If you go the “penal” route, then you end up with Edwards’ furiously angry god. (Lowercase g on purpose.) I do not think that is accurate re. the nature and character of God.

And I think Brad has hit on some great points above. (Though I am not sure I entirely agree with him; that’s cool, too – we can peacefully disagree, and who knows if *I’m* right, anyway? ;))

“Sin boldly” has always been a quote that I try to live up to. By that I mean, I am fallible and sinful. I do and say things that aren’t Christlike. But, and that is a glorious but, I know the grace of Jesus. Instead of acting like the Pharisees, or like the people in the post I am about to write, I want to try to admit it. I want to show that I get it. When people look at me, I don’t want them to see some self-proclaimed “good” Christian. I want to be the type of person who so gets it. I can admit my failings to the world and say they are forgiven and by the grace of God I go on. And even here, i fail but onwards. As Aslan said “Higher up and deeper in.”

I want you to understand that I know where you are coming from. We are all sinners simply because we are born in corrupt bodies and we have bad thoughts even if we don’t “practice” sin that hurts others. The problem I have with what you have said above is that CJ can say it, too. Mohler can say it. Ed young can say it. They can say, ‘sin boldly’ and many people are wounded or taken advantage of. If I go with your explanation then what is the point of a having a watchblog because sinning boldy is to be expected from Christians. Even pastors, etc.

What I just posted is a different translation than the one that uses the word “boldly,” but you get the point – proof-texting, etc.

@Muff Potter –
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks HUG should write a book.

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

See, I think He payed a HUGE price so we would stop doing those things when we become New Creatures in Christ. A born again person who continues to murder? A born again practing pedophile? I am afraid NT Wright is rubbing off on me. I have always had a problem with this idea that we can reprobate and saved. I always thought we were to mature and grow in Holiness.

If what Luther says is true, why the outrage over Mahaney? It is one reason why I suggest if this is really true then we should lock up the silver and hide the children when the Christians come over/

Does this mean I believe we are sinless? Of course not. But I do believe that we start to walk in the light when we are saved. I also believe Hebrews 10 applies to us today.

Anon1, I think the Calvinistas would agree with you that we stop doing the big sins once you are saved. The difference is that big sins according to them are more like being homosexual than molesting children.

If this were about protecting hidden homosexuals in the church, I’ll bet we’d be hearing about it on every site you could think of.

I hope that isn’t true, but I fear it is.

What Dr. Fundystan said!

I think folks are missing the fact that – not unlike Paul in the 1st chapters of Romans – Luther was, in that letter (the aprt I posted) exaggerating and using contradictory language for a purpose – you are reading the closing sentence of that ‘graph backwards… what he means is that the lamb of God paid a very GREAT price.

Lutehr used a lot of rhetorical techniques that are also in the NT… so maybe reading the entire letter would help? I really thought that the graph i cited would give some context, but I guess not…

anyway, Dr. Fundystan: by George, you’ve got it! (to quote professor Higgins.)

Dee, yes. Tim Keller’s church saying the wrong words while installing a deaconess (making it an ordination rather than installation) got more play in Evangelical circles than SGM protecting child abusers and oppressing victims.

RE: Hester on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:59 PM,

I think it’s important to remember who St. Paul wrote his letters to and how they were understood at the time he wrote them. Nothing new here, but it deserves repeating because it minimizes the amount of baggage that can be dredged up from the 1st century and made to stand as sacrosanct in our own time.

A big CAVEAT! upfront here and now: The following is Muff Potter’s opinion only and should gentle reader be made uncomfortable by it, by all means reject it and adhere to your own ethos regarding the subject.

I agree that the primary focus [in current evangelical thought] of the Pauline passages you’ve cited containing the word ‘fornication’ is “sexual sin”, almost to the exclusion of the surrounding words in surrounding passages.

‘Fornication’ was the best word the Elizabethan translators could come up with for the Greek word ‘porneia’ which meant to traffic in slaves bought and sold for pagan cultic temple worship. The context here is violence done to others via the institution of slavery in the form of non-consensual sex forced on slaves. I no longer buy into the doctrine that the passages demand an all inclusive prohibition of even mature and responsible sexual relationships outside of marriage.

Hester, elastigirl, & numo: When I was a kid, one of the banned books in the school library was “Auntie Mame: An Irreverent Escapade” by Patrick Dennis. So I went to the public library and read it on the sly in one of the back alcoves to see what the fuss was all about. Sure enough, the stage and silver screen versions had been sanitized enough to comport with 1950s sexual attitudes and mores.

Hi, Muff.

Interesting. One thing is clear to me — church gets so involved in people’s personal lives that there is little mental space or time left to consider treating the text with critical and intellectual justice — beyond what they are fed by church leaders.

I think what also factors in are (1) people are tired from life in general. If one can pray and read the bible casually in their spare time, that is reaching the established gold star ideal.

(2) Everything about life — every product one can buy — is based on what is quick, easy, and convenient. We expect what we read to be intuitive and immediately understood, and so we read the bible in the same way we read People magazine, Women’s Health magazine, Time magazine, etc.

In short, we have time & energy to pursue knowing God through a variety of convenient and readily available means. But not through intellectual rigor.

Church industry knows this, and so it produces the same quick, easy, and convenient methods just like all other industries.

And convenience extends into the management methods employed by church leaders. Keeping people on the same intellectual level, all feeding on the same conclusions together, is manageable. Different conclusions through honest personal inquiry, intellectually justified, is a problem for church leaders. VERY inconvenient.

“Don’t forget Uppity Wimmen. That’s a bigger sin than homosexuality.

There seems to be at least some tolerance for same-sex child-molesting. Not as much tolerance as for opposite-sex, but it’s there. Either NAMBLA’s gone syncretic or it’s not homosexuality if the kid hasn’t hit puberty. (You find similar attitudes in sects of Afghani Islam.)”

this is so true and something I just do not get. Is it that children are less valuable? But if it is two grown men it is worse? But a little boy is understandable? How sick can these “great men of God”, get?

There is nothing unchristian, unJesus, unGod, unHoly Spirit about happiness. It is not a worldly, secular, unsanctified substitute for “joy”. It is a good and basic thing. — Elastigirl

In my experience “JOY (Christianese Definition)” is too much like the Joyful Enthusiasm of North Koreans. Nothing happy, nothing pleasant, only the Joy Joy Joy of “He Loved Big Brother.”

this is so true and something I just do not get. Is it that children are less valuable? But if it is two grown men it is worse? But a little boy is understandable? How sick can these “great men of God”, get? — Anon1

“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”
— Benny Hinn
(Followed with imprecatory prayer for cancer, death, and damnation)

“All Animals are Equal. But Some Are More Equal Than Others.”
— G.Orwell, Animal Farm

Hi, elastigirl! No, no, you’re not annoying me at all! My feelings and thoughts are very complicated, contradictory and conflicted. I appreciate your advice very much, and treasure it. Thank you!

Ms. Weird, honored to meet someone with such high levels of weirdness, possessing such a great and glorious name, haha… 🙂