Tim Challies and The Gospel Coalition: Some Bloggers Are Gospel Deficient

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. Andre Gide

Blog_(1)
Orteg9
 

 

Last week was a rather busy week for TWW. We reported on a pedophile at an SGM church, navigated a difficult situation at Dallas' Prestonwood Baptist Church, which also involved a pedophile, and we uncovered some links between Tim Challies and the products he loves.

Coincidentally, in the last few days, there have been a few blogging articles, written by "gospel" bloggers, which cast a negative eye upon certain unnamed Christian bloggers. Tom Challies wrote about his rules for being a "gospel" blogger in The Blogs, the Battles and the Gospel here. This post was based on a similar article posted by Tim Keller a couple of years ago here. SBC Voices also referred to the Keller article this week called Three Rules for Christian Debate on the Internet hereJustin Taylor, at The Gospel Coalition , again this week, chimed in with a similar post called Ten Question to Ask Before Engaging in Controversy here. Taylor's post appeared aimed at bloggers since he stated that the post is about engaging in "public" discussion. Then, today, The Gospel Coalition cross posted (in the Number 1 position on their Home page) A Painful Plea to Women of the Church by FABSHARFORD (that's how she writes it on her blog) here.

Well, what's up with all of that?

Since we were not kept in the loop (or we were in the covered wagon in the center of the circling "gospel" bloggers, who knows?), I thought it might be nice to make a few comments about this seemingly coincidental plethora of bloggers, blogging about other bloggers, who don't blog like they should blog if they are gospel bloggers.

Tim Challies and bloggers

He discusses seven rules for blogging:

  1. You don’t have to follow Matthew 18 before publishing polemics if the person has published publicly.
  2. You must take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of someone’s views.
  3. Never attribute an opinion to your opponent that he himself does not own. 
  4. Take your opponents’ views in total, not selectively.
  5. Represent and engage your opponents’ position in its very strongest form, not in a weak ‘straw man’ form.
  6. Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives! 
  7. Only God sees the heart—so remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology. 

I agree with him in #1 and #3. 

#2-I disagree with this point. If an individual has not been clear in his intent or meaning, it is his responsibility to clear things up.That is why I believe in having an open blog with open comments. There have been many times when I realized that I had not been clear in my explanation. The critiques have helped both Deb and I to correct potentially misunderstood statements.That is our fault, not the fault of the reader.  But some bloggers do not allow critical comments. Some don't even allow for comments at all. Such manly bravery!

#4 Challies imposes a frequently impossible mandate. Let's take the writings of John Piper as an example. This guy has been writing for decades. He even publishes books that are chapters out of other books he has written! He made a rather bizarre statement of how women should give a man road directions if she is approached to do so.(She is not to make him feel like she is telling him what to do). I have read a lot of Piper. In general, this statement is in keeping with his overall theology of gender roles. I Google, read his site, look to see if others have addressed this and think through his books that I have read. Once again, if this is not what he meant (even though he said it) then it is up to him to clear this up. It's called an "explanation."

#5 Once again, Challies puts the onus on the blogger to find the "strongest" argument. I am sure he wasn't referring to the two of us.  But, in case he was, I would be quick to assure him that we spend hours researching this stuff. If we can't find the "strongest" argument after hours of looking, then the onus is on the opponent to supply one, tout suite.

#6 I always love the "motives" argument. If they can't get you on content, they go after your sinful motives. We are writing to an audience who are seeking ways to view various "hot button" issues. Challies, for example, follows John Piper's mandate for not allowing women to read Scripture from behind the pulpit. I do not doubt Challies holds this opinion strongly. It is almost humorous to think that he would change his mind after Dee, a female blogger, presents her argument against this. (Remember, women are NOT to teach men). Instead, I write to the people who are not Tim Challies. I want to engage them as they wrestle with this issue.

As for the motives issue, I prefer my pastor's statement. "Even on my best days, my motives are mixed."  If he is looking for purity of motive, I suggest Challies start with Jesus because it isn't going to be found in me or him.

#7 This one is the crux of the matter. It appears that Challies is saying that the only thing that is up for discussion is theology. I disagree. It is the practice of said theology that is the problem. For example, it is important to see how certain theological constructs have led to the deconstruction of the SGM brand. You can only learn this by studying the actions. For example, SGM is the first crowd whom I have ever heard believed that asking questions is "sinfully craving answers." I bet we could search, high and low, and not find a theologically viable argument to support such nonsense. Sometimes, all you can say is "This is truly nuts!"

Dee wants to add a few "rules" of blogging as well. 

1. Disclose financial or relationship ties.

If one has a financial tie to anything that is being discussed, it is the obligation of the blogger to make that perfectly clear, in bold letters on the home page. For example, since our blog has become busy, we have considered the possibility of advertising.  It might be nice to make enough money to pay our technical bills.  However, the idea of reviewing a book which, if purchased through our blog, makes us money, does not sit well with me. I never want anyone to think that we are personally benefiting from a positive book review.

Matt Redmond told TWW that there was a noticeable spike in his book sales at Amazon after we reviewed his book. We put a link to the book but we are not an Amazon affiliate and we made no money from the link. I think I would rather have a plain old placement ad for Viagra than raise a question in readers' minds that we are pushing a book because we make money. I truly loved Matt's book and I make no money for saying so.

If Matt Redmond was the husband of my best friend, I would also be obligated to say so. Pushing a friend or family member, without notifying the reader, is deceptive.

2. Be big boys and allow critical comments.

I find it most amusing when I go to another blog and read a bunch of comments that read like endorsements for a book. "Wonderful post." "Amazing post!" As I read further, I see no critical comments. Everyone knows that said blogger is hiding the critique by not allowing such comments to be posted. That is why we have a page on our blog in which people can share un-posted or deleted comments.

In fact, we wrote a whole post about Tim Challies who does deletes comments here. Apparently even a Scripture verse is a candidate for deletion. Darn awkward that Bible, you know.

Here is a comment from a reader, Dave AA, who attempted to post a Scripture verse on Challies blog.

Post: Should You Go to T4G? http://www.challies.com/interviews/should-you-go-to-t4g
Date: 10/18/11
Editor: David Kjos
Comment: “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” Jer. 6:14 and 8:11 
Deleted: Same day
Deleted because: The article referred to praised C J Mahaney as “exactly the kind of man we want to stand with”. These identical verses by Jeremiah expressed my opinion that CJ is NOT the kind of man we should stand with–that CJ has seriously wounded many, and caused much strife, which T4G brushed aside lightly. 
 

3. If one does delete a comment, it is considered "polite" in the blogging world to say that one has deleted a comment.

Manners, its all about manners. Do they teach manners in "gospel" churches? Also, one should be prepared to dialog via email with the person whose comment was deleted. But, that can be awfully awkward. So, perhaps it is better to have a blog like Desiring God which does not allow for comments because real men don't do comments.

4. Words are easy. Actions are harder. It might mean you will chose to care for a child over a buddy.

So many who blog in TGC have come out with treatises proclaiming that they are "against" child sex abuse and cover up in the churches. So what? I know criminals in prisons who are against it as well. But, when push come to shove, in spite of accusation after accusation, silence rules the day.  So, Joe Paterno is a bad guy but your pastor buddy is to be protected at all costs. Even worse, he is to be pushed at conferences around the world. I have dedicated a song aimed at this thought at the end of the post.

5. Ultimately, Christian blogging should not be about the blogger but about the people who come to our blogs.

We claim to believe in a God who gives gifts and thoughts to all those who follow Him. Heck, all truth is God's truth so those outside of the faith have something to say as well. We claim we understand that the Body of Christ is made up of parts and each part contributes to the whole. Yet we delete comments when "the part" doesn't fit our comfortable paradigm. These are not mere comments. There are beloved people behind those comments. Such disregard for those people reminds me of Rush Limbaugh who often quips "I was born to talk, you were born to listen." 

There are some authoritarian pastors out there who do not like the fact that the little guy has access to the marketplace of ideas. They believe that they should be the ones who control the conversation. The internet is dangerous because ideas can be judged in a much larger medium and entrenched ideologues are now forced to contend with challenges to their precious ideas. It must be so frustrating for some of them who see two women, with no connections, making some waves. But isn't that just like a God who makes disciples of fisherman and tax collectors and had some harsh things to say about Pharisees?

The church has driven away many people, refusing to answer their awkward questions or viewing them as troublemakers. Deb and I try to honor all those who visit here. Every comment, even the negative ones, represent the thoughts of folks dearly loved by our God. We respect the time that they have spent to express themselves. It boggles our mind that anyone would want to spend any time with us at all. We may disagree with some and we may not express ourselves in the same way that they do, but we make an effort to get behind the words to the awesome person underneath. We are blessed by their presence. They have changed our lives and we grow every time we read a comment, even the harsh ones.

In fact, if a blogger goes to sleep at night without thinking about the people behind the comments, it is possible that (s)he thinks that their own thoughts are far more important than those who respond to those thoughts. If so, it is hubris. It's about those who come here. There are times that we allow tough comments with difficult language on this blog. Why? We do so because that person has something to say and is very upset. If God can take it, so can we and we need to get over ourselves. (We hate bad words but are are silent about child sex abuse…?)

Now, onto Fabsharford's comments on blogging.

I think it is important that we consider "Fabs," as she also refers to herself, as a sweet young woman who is involved in a church that she absolutely loves. In fact, she reminds me a little of me when I attended Park Street Church in Boston. I loved this church. I was a relatively new Christian and loved the teaching and the fellowship there. I met my husband there as well. 

I went on from there to several excellent churches in different states. I had a pastor who encouraged women to teach. I watched a pastor handle in awkward situation in a Godly manner. Until ten years ago, I had no idea that pedophile cover up, domestic violence, insistence on secondary issues such as young earth creationism and gender roles were problems in the church. My pastors were, in general, intellectuals who could handle the tough questions of the faith and who demonstrated kindness and grace under pressure. I even found my short time in Ed Young Jr's church rather amusing, knowing that I would move on in short order.

If our readers had met me 15 years ago, they might have thought me naive, never imagining anything but normal struggles of the faith. My guess is they would not have wanted to read anything that I had to say. I needed to meet a bunch of atheists who walked away from evangelicalism. I needed to begin to address those "difficult" verses in the Bible. I had to watch what I believed to be a cover up of a pedophile situation in a church. I had to become friends with a boy who, was not only not believed by his pastors when he reported a tough situation, but was considered a "head case" by them. He wasn't. He is one of the bravest young men that  I have had the privilege of knowing. I had to see a pastor "report" me to another pastor and then watch the new pastor blow off the seriousness of another "penitent" pedophile in his midst who would go on to screw up yet again.

I had to read SGM Survivors and see it for myself. I needed people to tell me their stories of pain and abuse. I am NOT the same person today that I was when I was a 20 something, starry-eyed new Christian.

BUT…

The Gospel Coalition should have known better before cross posting "Fabs" take on women. It is their lack of judgment that causes me to address this uninformed, naive post. They must believe it and they have no excuse. So, if Fabs is reading this, it is not directed at you but at TGC.

Please stop holding forums to discuss the flaws of this messy and broken bride of Christ with intention only to dissect, not to help her grow.  Please stop gossiping about her issues as if she’s some far away celebrity who will remain unhurt by your rehashing of her failure in such a public and degrading way.

Funny- Under the name of TWW is the phrase "dissecting Christian trends."  Surely that is just a coincidence. Let's talk about the issues we "gossiped" about last week. 

  • A child molester whose presence was concealed from members
  • A large Baptist church which still hasn't taken responsibility for sending a pedophile on his way who then went onto molest more children
  • The dead silence on the part of TGC on the pain in SGM and the continued featuring of Mahaney at conferences
  • A blogger who claimed "objectivity" while having some "ties" to products he reviews.

It is also degrading to conceal child molestation in the camp. It is the victims and the families who are deeply hurt by this. As for suggestions on how the churches could improve, I would imagine that Fabs may have overlooked our explanation about the problems of pedophilia and our suggestions on how to deal with it. She must have been reading quickly when we discussed that bloggers should transparently share their biases. In fact, we hope she reads this post which also explains how we think blogging should be handled. We have suggestions but they can be rather difficult for a non-transparent type of personality.

Please stop pointing out how fat or ugly she is.  Please stop publicly shaming her.

Yeah, that pedophilia stuff is really,really ugly. It is also awkward to discuss domestic violence. Is it better to, as the Dixie Chicks said in Good-bye Earl, "put on dark glasses, long sleeve blouses and make up to cover the bruise?" We want people to think that Christians are "nice." Yes, we may be sinners but we are the nicest of sinners.

In fact, it has been our experience at the blog that people, who are outside of the faith, find it disgusting when we cover up problems that they know are there. We promote Chick-Fil-A boycotts and ignore child molestation. We are not fooling anyone except ourselves. There is a great deal of respect from outsiders for people within the faith that fight evil in the church. I believe it is our transparency in discussing these problems that helps unbelievers to see that there are those in the faith who want to be "real" instead of being well made up fakers. 

And we are not perfect.  We say the wrong thing.  We grow and we change and the words we spoke in the past are words of which we now repent, but that is the nature of sanctification and there is no one exempt from that process.

I have one thing to say to this: Prestonwood Baptist Church. We are waiting… (years and years while they keep denying)

Here is where it gets weird. Those who accuse the church are like SATAN.

Know this: your accusations are not the first to be leveled at this broken bride.

There is one who points at her all day and whispers to her of all her sins, all her failures, all the ways she has failed to accurately reflect the heart of Jesus.  He recounts them one by one and tells her that they are too horrific to be forgiven.

But that one is Satan.  God forgive us for fulfilling Satan’s job description.

I guess the prophets were like Satan as well? How about Martin Luther? How about those who fought racism in the church? Or are the only prophets for today those who rest squarely in the TGC camp? The rest of us are like Satan. Palm hits head…

The Church will change when we – who are the Church – raise our hands, take responsibility for her flaws.  

So, how is this going to occur? We can't "gossip" about the problems. But somehow we are going to rise up and change. Could it be that the author does not see that some people are raising their hands and taking responsibility while a whole bunch of men that she admires are staying very, very quiet?

She does not believe that people can be discipled and cared about through a blog.

I’m frustrated with myself and others for making a world in which it’s possible, no – encouraged, for women to consume theology in environments where they will never be forced to wrestle and apply.  I’m frustrated for being a part of a generation that thinks we can be discipled and disciple at a distance, through a blog or through a conference.

She is wrong but she is young and does not have much experience. And many of the male bloggers will not take the time to find out how to do so. It means reading and reacting to  difficult comments.

When Eagle came to this blog, he was angry at the faith. He enjoyed the company of agnostics far more that Christians. He had good reason to do so. However, Eagle got sick and landed in an ICU in Virginia. What happened next is a testimony to the love of Christians at this blog and the Internet Monk. Eagle was visited by a number of us. People went out of their way to send chocolates, balloons and cards. As Eagle has said on a number of occasions "We did church in that hospital." Eagle is different because of the love expressed by two blogs.

I would hold up the response of readers of two blogs to any church in America. God uses all mediums to His glory and the Internet is forging new ground. I love to blog because, within the blog, I find Christ's love.  However, admitting that God can work through blogs that critique the church is threatening to the "authority based church and pastor" status quo. The pulpit and the church building are not the only place to find the workings of the body of Christ. Deb and I are blessed.

Here is a video for those who use too many words and exhibit to little action.

Lydia's Corner: Judges 1:1-2:9 Luke 21:29-22:13 Psalm 90:1-91:16 Proverbs 13:24-25

Comments

Tim Challies and The Gospel Coalition: Some Bloggers Are Gospel Deficient — 294 Comments

  1. Funny- Under the name of TWW is the phrase “dissecting Christian trends.” Surely that is just a coincidence.

    Yes, this must be a coincidence because the whole point of your blog is healing so growth can happen. You are all about helping people grow. This is so blatantly obvious that Fabs’ comment here can only be coincidence. Or else she is thinking of someone else, which is entirely possible.

    There is one who points at her all day and whispers to her of all her sins, all her failures, all the ways she has failed to accurately reflect the heart of Jesus. He recounts them one by one and tells her that they are too horrific to be forgiven.

    But that one is Satan. God forgive us for fulfilling Satan’s job description.

    Now here a bit of discernment is in order as while it is true that Satan does accuse the brethren day and night, this is hardly the end of the matter, because Paul instructs us to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to expose them.

    It isn’t quite responsible to assume where ever evil is being exposed it is necessarily the work of Satan.

  2. God Bless you for this post. Their problem is you and many here have love for the pew sitters and those outside the institution.

    They think your love and allegiance should be toward the leaders of Christendom.

    I think the main problem is we define “church” differently from them.

    What passes for Christian leadership these days is basically a variation of “sit down, shut up and listen” or you are in sin.

  3. I had to giggle at bit at the rules. For example, you see them commenting all the time on egalitarians, feminists, etc. They apply motive, agenda, and some fantastic fantasy they made up along the way.

    Then they refuse to engage with those that they attack, or delete comments they don’t agree with,etc.

    If they wish others to live by their list of rules it would be appropriate to live by them yourself.

    I’m sorry but their arrogance at times just blows me away. IT SHOULDN’T but it does.

  4. “Now here a bit of discernment is in order as while it is true that Satan does accuse the brethren day and night, this is hardly the end of the matter, because Paul instructs us to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to expose them. ”

    they think they get to decide what are evil deeds. They do not think we are in a position to discern such things.

    Funny how they twist scripture. I wonder what Fabs thinks of the little 3 year old at SGM who was made to face her molester to forgive him? Or the raped daughter whose mom was to put a lock on the inside of her bedroom door so dad could not rape her but still remain head of the house. Shhh. SGM said calling the police or telling others there were molesters in the church was sin and gossip.

    Fabs is doing nothing but affirming that those sorts of heinous crimes remain secret and that victims are worthless to believers like her and not worth justice or protection. NO thanks. I could never be in a church with that sort of thinking. And these days, you never know. You gotta do some serious interviewing and digging to make sure you are not already in a church like that! So much secrecy and hiding horrible sin against the least of these.

    Methinks she needs to find a different Body of Christ. She does not get it and has not been taught well at all.

  5. Is “Gospel” the new buzzword for The Party Line/doubleplusgoodthink?

    I remember when “Scriptural” was the buzzword used to stamp you down with Cosmic-level authority.

  6. Anon 1 wrote:

    God Bless you for this post. Their problem is you and many here have love for the pew sitters and those outside the institution.
    They think your love and allegiance should be toward the leaders of Christendom.

    1) Wasn’t this called “Priestcraft” and “Clericalism” when Tetzel was hawking indulgences?
    2) And “Fuerhrerprinzip” in Germany some 70-80 years ago?

  7. Very informative post, thanks. Concerning Fabs, you’re right to point more to TGC than to her. Their cynicism and opportunism are apparent. “Hey, look, she’s saying all the right things, and in an emotional way to which we would never stoop, but we know that a lot of people like that sort of thing, especially women! Let’s link to her!”

  8. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Is “Gospel” the new buzzword for The Party Line/doubleplusgoodthink?
    I remember when “Scriptural” was the buzzword used to stamp you down with Cosmic-level authority.

    Get ready. Pretty soon they won’t be using the term “blogging” anymore. It’ll be traded in for “exhorting”. Blogging isn’t *really* a gospel centered word.

  9. LOL at

    Please stop pointing out how fat or ugly she is.

    But it’s dandy for complementarians (and other Christians) to tell unmarried ladies that the reason they are unmarried is because they are ugly and fat. They do.

    Much dating / getting marriage advice in Christian blogs or books has at least one obligatory chapter or paragraph telling women to stay thin, have long hair, and wear make up.

    One of the things I don’t understand about her perspective, is that she’s directing it to other members of the bride. But she’s behaving as if those who are publicizing problems in the church are non Christians.

  10. @ JeffB:

    And wouldn’t Ms. Fab be just thrilled to be on the front page of TGC blog. What an honor! What prestige! And TGC gets to use this post by a fanwoman to say what they won’t. I guess they all get what they want in the end.

  11. *facepalm* I’d say I’m surprised but I’m not. Just another parrot trying to sound pretty but sounding like a crow instead. Or worse, a vulture. Tell people what to do and how to do it, especially “gospelly” and it’s just going to tank. I prefer people be up front and honest in comments on my own blog. I won’t delete unless it’s rude beyond belief but that’s a personal rule. Plus, I know I hate having my own voice silenced after being raised that way. I refuse to perpetrate that kind of abuse.

    This is what they are doing. Silencing people because it isn’t what they want to hear. They might be saying if you can’t say something nice then don’t say anything at all when they mean, which is what my mother always meant, if you can’t say what I want to hear keep your mouth shut or I’ll punish you and shame you to keep your ugly mouth shut. They only want to hear their opinions parrotted back to them as fact. They don’t want to hear reality.

  12. We could add a “rule” for bloggers who do have comments– Be there! Answer questions, especially if you know your article is controvwrsial or linked to a wider audience than usual. Hopefully Fabs will answer some of the comments on her article. A blogger who’s good very good at responding is Denny Burk. Especially bad is Ray Comfort– I’ve scanned the comments on a few of his articles and he’s just MIA. Dozens of questions and arguments on-topic from skeptics (his target audience?) and no reply. Then there’s the TGC blogger who answered my concerns with a totally ambiguous statement, followed by “My last word. God Bless You!” I still don’t know what he meant prior to that. But I know what “My last word. God Bless You!” meant.

  13. Dee,

    Terrific post! The Gospel Coalition has been operating in a vacuum for way too long. I believe some of their alliances have been decades in the making. Then when they take their narrow theological construct to the blogosphere, they want to be the only valid voices.

    We’re late to the game, but I think we’re definitely disrupting some of their plays. I’m grateful for the team players here at Team TWW!

  14. Applause! Applause! Applause! for the Eliza Dolittle Clip! Maybe when they read here they will open their eyes, take the fingers out of their ears, and remove their hands from their mouths and realize what Eliza is saying, “Don’t sell me your books!, don’t ask me to conferences!, don’t ask me to tithe! Show me!.. Never do I want to hear another word! there isn’t one I haven’t heard! Eliza is disenfranchised believers and the world. Wake up gentlemen!

  15. Sorry for the interruption but if you think their (Calvinista) blogging rules are vague enough for them to have to interpret for you then take a look at these YRR pastors on church discipline.

    If this is not enough to scare you that young men should NOT get such power, nothing will. Thankfully, an old hand retired pastor came on to give some seasoned advice to the little boys who have decided that his 30 years of experience are not enough and are advocating he read Devers treatise and history on church discipline. they want so badly to bring the old days back when the church did things right such as support slavery and elder rule.

    http://sbcvoices.com/could-you-do-it/#comment-166016

    Don’t even bother with the post if you are short on time. Just read the comments.

  16. They should watch the clip “Let a woman in your life” maybe if they will open their eyes and realize they are arrogant like Henry Higgins and don’t want to deal with the messy reality of life.

  17. The Bible exhorts believers from one end to the other to do justice and to advocate for the poor — there might even be a verse or two about rebuking our brethren or being responsible for the wickedness of another because we failed to speak. Doing justice sometimes requires public outcry where other methods have failed. In one thing you are correct, WE are the church. If we don’t admit our own faults, confess, and repent WE, THE CHURCH are going to be as healthy as a gangrenous limb allowed to fester.

    I posted this on Fabs Harford’s page.

  18. Looks like Challies and others have violated their own rules, not to mention Dee’s rules. I know that when I first came to this blog, I was very naive regarding problems in the church. All I knew was that there was some negative influence affecting the lives of my friends and I wanted to understand it without having to “drink the koolaid”. What I have learned about these trends has been life-changing for both me and my family. We have taken a closer look at churches and what we need from a healthy church environment and we are not afraid to ask questions. I am always reminded of what my grandmother tells me about asking questions, “The worst answer you can ever receive is ‘No’ so you really don’t have anything to lose.”

    Y’all, I have to have another surgery in a little over a week. The fifth one in 21 months. For the last couple of years I have been battling to stay out of a wheelchair but if this surgery doesn’t work… well that wheelchair better be purple and sparkly.

  19. Is the bride of Christ broken?

    Religion is broken, institutions are broken.

    Does Jesus see His bride (not who/what we think of as His bride) as broken, or does he see His own sanctified, cleansed, redeemed, and loved with an everlasting love?

  20. Dave A A wrote:

    We could add a “rule” for bloggers who do have comments– Be there! Answer questions, especially if you know your article is controvwrsial or linked to a wider audience than usual. Hopefully Fabs will answer some of the comments on her article. A blogger who’s good very good at responding is Denny Burk. Especially bad is Ray Comfort–

    I agree! I posted two comments on TGC’s post about the papacy. One of my comments referenced Matt Redmond’s latest post, and I’ve been in moderation for several hours.

  21. Ditto to much of the above. How are we supposed to expose the works of darkness if that’s now defined as “calling the bride fat and ugly”?

    Also, speaking of blogs, the latest post at Scarlet Letters is now up and I’m examining Doug Phillips’ lecture on MANLINESS…anybody want to run over and check if I was “Gospel-centric” enough in my criticism? ; )

  22. Samuel Miller penned this advice in 1831. Nearly 200 years later they stand as words of wisdom for many in the T4G crowd. Many of their churches are in form “elder led” and “congregational” in polity. In practice they are ruled by one authoritarian pastor accountable to no one.

    Ecclesiastical Tyranny
    From “The Ruling Elder” by Samuel Miller

    “We know that ministers are subject to the same frailties and imperfections with other men. We know, too, that a love of pre-eminence and of power is not only natural to them, in common with others; but that this principle, very early after the days of the Apostles, began to manifest itself as the reigning sin of ecclesiastics, and produced, first Prelacy, and afterwards Popery, which has so long and so ignobly enslaved the Church of Christ. Does not this plainly show the folly and danger of yielding undefined power to pastors alone? Is it wise or safe to constitute one man a despot over a whole Church? Is it proper to intrust to a single individual the weighty and complicated work of inspecting, trying, judging, admitting, condemning, excluding, and restoring, without control? Ought the members of a Church to consent that all their rights and privileges in reference to Christian communion, should be subject to the will of a single man, as his partiality, kindness, and favoritism, on the one hand; or his caprice, prejudice, or passion, on the other, might dictate? Such a mode of conducting the government of the Church, to say nothing of its unscriptural character, is, in the highest degree, unreasonable and dangerous. It can hardly fail to exert an influence of the most injurious character, both on the clergy and laity. It tends to nurture in the former, a spirit of selfishness, pride and ambition; and instead of ministers of holiness, love, and mercy, to transform them into ecclesiastical tyrants. While its tendency, with regard to the latter, is gradually to beget in them a blind, implicit submission to clerical domination. The ecclesiastical encroachments and despotism of former times, already alluded to, read us a most instructive lesson on this subject. The fact is, committing the whole government of the Church to the hands of pastors alone, may be affirmed to carry in it some of the worst seeds of Popery; which, though under the administration of good men, they may not at once lead to palpable mischief, will seldom fail in producing, in the end, the most serious evils, both to those who govern, and those who obey.”

  23. @ Daisy:

    : )

    I was tempted to put a demotivator about Chuck Norris at the top of the article but I couldn’t find one that I liked enough…

  24. Juniper, I’ve heard that in its original literary context the axiom about well-behaved women is unfortunately like Lord Acton’s observation that great men are rarely ever good men.

  25. @ Mandy:

    Mandy, I will be praying for you. I am very sorry for what you have been going through and pray that God would mercifully give you the best of outcomes.

  26. Ms. “Fabs” said:

    “We grow and we change and the words we spoke in the past are words of which we now repent … ”

    News alert: the institutional American evangelical church is NOT displaying growth or change, and they are not repenting of SQUAT!

    Instead of growth, change and repentence, you got evangelical “leaders” EMBRACING odious doctrine/practices, for example:

    The destruction of women as image-bearers of God, the subjugation of 50% of the world’s population via the dictates of “complementarianism”;

    Doug Wilson’s “neo-Confederacy” that states that abolition of slavery was evil and secular and that the millions of victims of the Atlantic slave trade just needed to passively “rest in the gospel” while enduring injustice;

    Praising and promoting the doctrines of the loathesome, graceless, angry god of the YRR eggheads;

    “Gospel fakery” that leads to sweeping terrible abuse of CHILDREN (as well as the criminal behaviour of abusers) under the carpet as demonstrated across several denominations and evangelical parachurch organizations;

    The totalitarian control tactics of many churches, most notably SGM, and utter squelching of academic freedom at prominent evangelical schools and seminaries;

    Joining the evangelical church at the hip with the GOP in pursuit of political power by inculcating the sheep as the shock troops in the untenable and anti-democratic “culture wars.”

    To name but a few problems.

    Ms. Fabs, guess what? Many of us who are ALSO the bride (not just the glorified leaders) are FED UP with this nonsense!

    We thank God for social media as a way to have our voices heard!

  27. @ Mandy:

    Mandy, I can’t possibly know or understand the magnitude of what you are facing but my thoughts are with you also.

  28. Crying Foul? : “C. J. Mahaney – Inmate In A Proverbial Public Opinion Penalty Pukka Perhaps?”

    “Cry havoc! n’ slip the blogs, and the legal beagles of the hour?” -Sharkspeare (c)

    Charge(s): multiple; aiding in the willful cover-up of possible double digit PDI/SGM church member pedophilia incidents. 

    Civil trial: class action suit, State of Maryland; with a pending court date of February 2014. Status: Expanding charges expected; TBD.

    Real Status: A growing international public awareness campaign, in hot pursuit of justice within Sovereign Grace Ministries. Public opinion has apparently pushed President Charles Joseph Mahaney out of the SGM captain”s chair effective April 12th, 2013, as he moves towards damage control measures, 

    (…understanding one of the fundamentals of criminal prosecution, once a lawsuit gets rolling major players usually bow out of interviews, etc., upon receiving wise counsel their Attorneys. )

    …and a pending defensive posture, brutal trial preparation, in light of pending negative trial outcome, and his 60th birthday? Are we looking at an early retirement party perhaps as well? SGM has said very little about the whole thing. (I wonder why? snark.)

    Get out your glove C.J. perhaps? Time ta play ball?

    hmmm…

    …the ball has been snapped…

    (grin)

    For the time being many mystified Christians are protesting the launched class action lawsuit when scripture clearly says not to?

    What?

    Please stop using your head as a proverbial hat rack.

    …my house shall be a house of prayer, and you have made it a perp paradise?

    A heinous crime has been perpetrated against Jesus’s church?

    Time ta wake up and smell da mounting manure pile.

    >-((S“㋡”py((º>™
    ___
    Notes: “Child Abuse Lawsuit Against Sovereign Grace Ministries Adds Names and Charges” (extensive article) -Christianity Today. “An Update” (Feb. 27)

  29. @ Eagle:
    Yes!! Without having to deny damage, I can still tidy the house, play on the internets, and remain fed and warm. Even better, I can walk my dog around the block. Last week I met an amazing ice puddle, all swirls and pillars and I was enchanted by this little gesture of God set into creation, here for an hour and gone. What a privileged creature I remain, for all that!

  30. @ Mandy:

    A sparkly purple wheelchair sounds kinda cool, but praying that the operation goes well and you don’t need any wheelchair – even the sparkly purple sort!

  31. For example, SGM is the first crowd who I have ever heard believed that asking questions is “sinfully craving answers.” I bet we could not find a theologically viable argument to support such nonsense. Sometimes, all you can say is “this is truly nuts!”

    THIS IS PERFECT!!! Somehow we all knew what type of questions would cause a “problem” for us. I could not live under that shroud anymore. How can anyone try to “reason together” when this is a prevailing attitude to this day.

  32. TW, Great quote. So true and WTH it is so true that “great men are rarely good men’. And that is because of what it takes become “great” and stay “great” in the eyes of those who think you are “great”. Mega church pastors I’ve known….comes to mind…

    Googling Samuel Miller….

  33. Some day we will all stand before God, and He will have a recording of all of our words, and know the motives behind them. What is said in secret, will be public information before the true Judge. I think that some of the “housecleaning” that has been discussed on this blog exposes problems and sins in the church that have been hidden for years, decades perhaps, and need the light of the internet to shine on them. If a pastor has nothing to hide, then he need not fear, and if he is falsely accused, then God will give him the strength to endure false accusation, just like Joseph in the Old Testament. HOWEVER….if the blogs expose a true sin, then God can use this medium to actually help the innocent victims and also alert fellow Christians to the dangers some churches pose. The net has taken “the cat out of the bag” and it’s not going back in. The WORLD looks on, and sees the church hiding, lying, and even protecting pedophiles. People in the WORLD understand exposing such things is necessary, and the name of GOD IS MOCKED when professing Christians turn a blind eye to sin. Jesus had a lot to say about sin, and He was not afraid to rebuke the Pharisees the most…the most religious people of that time period. He even called them names, like “whitewashed tombs”. How’s that for “being polite?” Let’s call sin – sin – and evil – evil – and try to work to STOP it, expose it, name it for what it is, and not be afraid to use this vehicle of the internet to try to purify the church. The internet is the new “Wittenburg Door” and may God use it to clear up His church.

  34. Rafiki wrote:

    News alert: the institutional American evangelical church is NOT displaying growth or change, and they are not repenting of SQUAT!

    You know, one thing I’ve noticed from every last one of the Calvinista ‘celebrities’ is that repentance is always called for from those who disagree with them. When they do happen to talk about themselves being repentant, you can tell right away that it’s nothing but BS, just like CJ’s supposed ‘humility’. They are so blatantly insincere that I’m amazed and saddened by how many people actually believe them.

  35. justabeliever,

    Well said! The longer the ‘shepherds’ maintain their wall of silence against sin in their ranks, the more culpable they appear.

  36. @ Anon 1:
    “Without having to deny damage, I can…”

    Yah, that little phrase took a looong time for me to settle.

    I suspect the lack of that understanding is at the heart of Fabs’ post. Wrongs/damage/weaknesses fully recognized don’t take away from our walk with God. Our walk is one of both love and truth.

    Some people prefer to “forget” wrongs and weaknesses, to lay them over with the cheese-sauce of “grace”. But Grace is alive, large and active. It grabs us, shakes out the s**t, and then hangs us on the clothesline to air out in the sun and breeze.

  37. @ JeffT:
    Towards a new christianurban dictionary:
    1. Humbility: humbug humility
    2. “u surp me, I slurp ye”: short-form complementarianism

  38. Doug Wilson’s “paleo-confederate” views on race and slavery get far more respectful engagement (when he should be ignored as a self-published ideologue who distorts the history of slavery for his own culture war ends – where is the respect for truth?) than egalitarians, “liberal” Christians, Catholics, Rob Bell, etc etc put together. I take what these guys say about the rules of engagement and disagreement with a big grain of salt. Can’t they see the hypocrisy? Politics, power, influence.

  39. @ Patrice:
    I just stopped in on a little break from my wanton usurpation to say I’m really enjoying having your voice in these discussions Patrice.

    Also Mandy- I hope your sugery works so well you won’t need a wheelchair, even a purple spangly one, nor even a spangly walking stick 🙂

  40. I was thinking about Satan this morning after reading the posts referenced in this article and I experienced a life-changing revelation that I just have to share! I suddenly realized that, by speculating upon the intentions of an invisible naughty man who tries to trick me into doing bad stuff, I am actually succeeding in rendering my every nonsensical utterance completely void. It’s a massive relief to finally come to terms with the fact that, unless I am in the office of a psychiatrist, my hair-brained opinions are bereft of any factual worthiness and contain no relevance whatsoever to the real world. Praise the lord!

  41. Oh, the BBC video is hilarious! That is exactly what I was taught to act like at a dinner table.

    I learned this in a non-Christian home and then in church.

  42. Oh good grief…

    Challies linked to a “web wisom” series of articles on Ref21 today. From part 3:

    “Proverbs reminds us that we should be conscientiously careful as to the number, speed and intended effect of our words. Perhaps we like the idea of being some kind of online first-responder, quick to the scene of the latest crash, showering insights over situations that no-one else has even realised have happened. If slowing down means that our name is not prominent, then so be it.”

    Says Jeremy Walker to whom Challies (what day is it today that Challies has posted and kept track? Let’s see- informing the reformed says, “I have now blogged for 3,424 consecutive days”) links. Something to think about there.

    And, after the predictable onslaught of Proverbs verses, there is this gem:

    “Even more innocent sites can be used to destroy someone’s character or cripple reputations. Digging up and spreading around tales – even true ones, when and where you have no business meddling in it – will bring no honour to the Lord. God abominates such things. Think of how much ‘news’ on some sites is nothing more than gossip, sometimes simply slander, both in the world and in the church: who has said what about whom, who is linking up with whom, what is rumoured to be going on behind the scenes at such and such a place. Again, consider the need to know and the need to tell. Consider not speaking or waiting to speak if you are not sure. If the matter hangs in the balance, ask yourself with judgement day honesty whether or not you accurately know and are responsible to tell before you open your mouth or press the appropriate button. If you can, let the fire go out.”

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/03/a-web-of-wisdom-social-media-3.php

    Keep the fire going, Dee and Deb. Fire is light and light exposes.

    With “judgment day honesty” (loved that little fear tactic) I csn say we are responsible, each one of us, to expose what is wrong and warn others…so those who have eyes to see will see – and ears to hear will hear.

    “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;” (Eph 5:11)

  43. I wonder if Challies read this part of the web of wisdom article…

    “Do not be obsessed with measuring your petty progress and your ephemeral fame. Numbers can be deadly, especially if we become enslaved to them. How many friends do I have? What about him or her? How many views? How many retweets? We are being trained to think of the whole environment as some great arena for a straight competition in which numbers are the register of success or failure, influence or irrelevance. Do not use social media as a platform for your own promotion or to build your own reputation. I understand that you may be under some right obligation (contractual or felt) to draw attention to kingdom work you have been or will be involved in, and I appreciate that we ought to be sufficiently committed to the truth to which we cling that we are willing to make it known even at the risk of appearing self-serving. That said, it is frankly sickening how many men (some of whom make criticising others part of their stock-in-trade) manage to spend a great deal of their time mentioning that they have written such-and-such a book, recommending their own work shamelessly, linking to sweet things others have said about them, and retweeting anything with their name in it.”

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/03/a-web-of-wisdom-social-media-6.php

  44. Oh good night!
    “Think of how much ‘news’ on some sites is nothing more than gossip, sometimes simply slander, both in the world and in the church: who has said what about whom, who is linking up with whom, what is rumoured to be going on behind the scenes at such and such a place.”

    It is rather strange. Some guy says he is objective but does not talk certain ties. This is “gospel?” When we mention the ties, this is slander? I know what this is about but i guess i shouldn’t say it because he did not spell it out exactly. This is all so silly. Certain men need to act like men and not hide behind “proverbs.”@ Diane:

  45. Doug Wilson is one of the golden boys that some at TGC believe is an intellectual. They allow this nonsense because he is one of theirs and they think he is smart. @ Caleb W:

  46. Here is what I don’t understand. If these guys make money endorsing stuff they like, why not say “I make money endorsing this stuff I like?” It is quite simple. @ Diane:

  47. @ dee-

    It’s a spiritual bombardment type of series of articles designed to make us so introspective that we cannot possibly blog/comment again. I found it abusive.

    I also don’t think Challies read it all…or he would not have linked to it, imo.

  48. Diane wrote:

    @ dee-
    It’s a spiritual bombardment type of series of articles designed to make us so introspective that we cannot possibly blog/comment again. I found it abusive.

    True. Now we’ve had a taste of the spiritual abuse that others have experienced under these “ministries.” If they keep this up they will dig their own hole.

  49. Diane wrote:

    “Do not be obsessed with measuring your petty progress and your ephemeral fame. Numbers can be deadly, especially if we become enslaved to them. How many friends do I have? What about him or her? How many views? How many retweets? We are being trained to think of the whole environment as some great arena for a straight competition in which numbers are the register of success or failure, influence or irrelevance.”

    Speaking from experience in Furry Fandom and observations of Big Name Netizens, I have only one word of advice if you want to win the Internet Numbers Game: PORN.

  50. Caleb W wrote:

    Doug Wilson’s “paleo-confederate” views on race and slavery get far more respectful engagement (when he should be ignored as a self-published ideologue who distorts the history of slavery for his own culture war ends – where is the respect for truth?) than egalitarians, “liberal” Christians, Catholics, Rob Bell, etc etc put together. I take what these guys say about the rules of engagement and disagreement with a big grain of salt.

    It’s the same Rules of Engagement as a trid gamer in D&D: I *ALWAYS* GET *MY* WAY! I *ALWAYS* WIN! MINE! MINE! MINE!”

  51. JeffT wrote:

    ou know, one thing I’ve noticed from every last one of the Calvinista ‘celebrities’ is that repentance is always called for from those who disagree with them. When they do happen to talk about themselves being repentant, you can tell right away that it’s nothing but BS, just like CJ’s supposed ‘humility’.

    A god Can Do No Wrong, and that also holds for the Predestined Elect.

  52. Deb
    I just finished reviewing all of our posts involving Tim Challies, looking for alleged slander. I forgot about some of the funny things we have said. Like calling some of these guys “The Neo-Calvinist Illuminati.” And then there was the HUG solution to the women cannot speak from the pulpit.”The Neo-Castrati.” Then one of us said we were being taken for a ride to a Calvinista truck stop. From what i can see, our posts have lots of links and we can draw some conclusions based on those links.
    @ deb:

  53. I’m not sure I’ve come across too many forums among Christians that are only set up to dissect the messy and broken bride of Christ [sic] with no desire to bring about growth or health. (I don’t doubt that there are some hate-sites out there targeted at Christianity in general; there are hate-sites for just about everything else, after all.)

    Which brings me to the “messy and broken” thing. I don’t know whether you’ve all noticed, but there are plural derogatory references in the post under discussion to the bride of Christ. She is “messy and broken”, “this broken bride”, and so on. Now, I’ve read the NT from cover to cover and I don’t recall God at any point calling the Bride of Christ messy or broken. Indeed, at no point does God call his people any such thing in any context under the new covenant. It’s ironic that these descriptions of the church occur in a paragraph attributing accusation against the church to satan, isn’t it?

    The Bride of Christ is not broken, messy, a useless, helpless baby needing to suckle indefinitely at the intellectual teats of self-appointed men like the gospel coalition. (A deliberate mixed metaphor, btw.) She is seated with Him in heaven; she has His mind, His Spirit and His royal authority. Her worth is proven, to those who will see, by her continual struggles against (among other things) the counterfeit “churches” men have built on Jesus’ behalf. When we call out the unrighteousness of such men we are no more attacking the Bride of Christ than we are attacking our own bodies when we pull out splinters or wash.

  54. I recently read a comment online to the effect of: Treating Douglas Wilson like a serious intellectual is a serious mistake and will come to haunt TGC. I couldn’t agree more.

    dee wrote:

    Doug Wilson is one of the golden boys that some at TGC believe is an intellectual. They allow this nonsense because he is one of theirs and they think he is smart. @ Caleb W:

  55. DaveAA
    We try hard to be there. Sometimes it gets difficult when the blog gets so busy. We are grateful for all of you smart people who stand in the gap and continue the conversation. It is a little intimidating to go out on a Friday night, work on EChurch on Saturday AM and then find a gazillion comments and email. We are trying so hard to keep up. Keep us in your prayers.@ Dave A A:

  56. Sopy
    The SGM matter will be a defining moment for the Neo Reformed crowd. I expect books to be written about it in the future. I also believe that the silence of the leaders will figure prominently into the history. It recalls the church in Germany during WW2-such silence… @ Sopwith:

  57. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The Bride of Christ is not broken, messy, a useless, helpless baby needing to suckle indefinitely at the intellectual teats of self-appointed men like the gospel coalition. (A deliberate mixed metaphor, btw.) She is seated with Him in heaven; she has His mind, His Spirit and His royal authority. Her worth is proven, to those who will see, by her continual struggles against (among other things) the counterfeit “churches” men have built on Jesus’ behalf. When we call out the unrighteousness of such men we are no more attacking the Bride of Christ than we are attacking our own bodies when we pull out splinters or wash.

    That was beautiful!

  58. Nick
    I was so annoyed. being accused of acting like “Satan” is just so mundane. Years ago, someone referred to us as “minions of Satan.” That showed class! Minions os a cool word.@ Nick Bulbeck:

  59. @ dee:

    Yours is a labor of love. I can’t believe all the time and energy and care you both put into this site. I regret that I don’t have the time and energy to contribute much, but the insight you and the commenters provide into the “RBD/Calvinista” mindset often makes me guffaw, it is so spot on. From where I sit anyway.

  60. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Excellent comment!! I completely agree with this. Unfortunately, this is the language one hears constantly in many churches today (Calvinista and not). The “saints”‘are being treated and spoken of as unbelievers. They are looking for a”deep” repentance. When they are asked what the Bible says about them, they can quote every scripture that points to brokenness and our need for a Savior. BUT these are redeemed saints! When I listen (I can sit and not listen 🙂 ) to teachings these days, I come away either confused or full well knowing that I have just been taught as if I was an unbeliever. It appears that churches, possibly trying to accommodate the unbelievers in their midsts, are now preaching as if those gathered “as the Church” are unregenerated. It is becoming quite pronounced, especially in the Calvinista realm. If you read the dead guys that they read, you find that many of the dead guys were doing the same thing. Many so-called ” “teachers” of our day are perpetuating this same scheme on the saints. It makes me ill.

  61. Dee –

    I know you are busy, but I was wondering if you have listened to any of the SGMdetox programs? They have been good.

  62. Nice article folks. Poor old Satan gets blamed for everything that brings to Light the hidden things that are done in the darkness of religious camouflage.

    There are numerous issues that have seen the light of day on religious or spiritual blogs that would never be allowed in many pastor or elder controlled churches.

    On my own blog I write on the dynamics of spiritual abuse, providing a conceptual for folk to hang their disillusioning experiences on. Being listened to and authenticated is the first step towards healing an abuse free walk with the Divine.

    If anyone’s interested you can find the first of my Spiritual Abuse series of blog posts here:

    http://theprodigalprophet.com/2013/02/06/spiritual-abuse-how-we-get-into-it/

    Dylan Morrison Author

  63. dee wrote:

    From what i can see, our posts have lots of links and we can draw some conclusions based on those links.

    Dee, both you & Deb have got these guys defecating bricks (a euphemism for scared shitless). They know they can’t invoke blasphemy laws to silence you or hire thugs to smash your presses, so they do the next best thing and appeal to polite sensibilities against gossip and slander. Keep up the good work, you girls are gettin’ to em’.

  64. “Think of how much ‘news’ on some sites is nothing more than gossip, sometimes simply slander, both in the world and in the church: who has said what about whom, who is linking up with whom, what is rumoured to be going on behind the scenes at such and such a place.”

    This is the result of their push for celebrity and making merchandise of what they call the Gospel. They forget that the lemmings are in their churches and at their conferences. Their teaching has no meaning for me. They do not “define” for me.

  65. @ Caleb W:
    Keep in mind that other serious intellectuals have extended Douglas Wilson the same courtesy. Christopher Hitchens obviously considered him an opponent worthy of multiple engagements. And if you haven’t seen those videos, I must say Wilson did a darned good job for his school of thought.

    I’m not an advocate of all things Wilson. He’s said some bizarre things that I have a hard time understanding what planet he is coming from. But he also has a lot of good stuff to say. I would really like to hear him address his critics more directly and offer either a retraction of mistakes (which seems impossible for “leaders” these days) or a clarification of strangely worded phrases.

  66. “She is “messy and broken”, “this broken bride”, and so on. Now, I’ve read the NT from cover to cover and I don’t recall God at any point calling the Bride of Christ messy or broken. Indeed, at no point does God call his people any such thing in any context under the new covenant. It’s ironic that these descriptions of the church occur in a paragraph attributing accusation against the church to satan, isn’t it?”

    Bingo, Nick. The Bride is not sinless perfection, totally depraved or messy and broken. She is pure of heart and seeking Holiness.

    The Bride they want to describe is one who caters to molesters and tells victims not to gossip about their rape or call the police. Their Bride lords it over others and it’s leaders get to define what is sin as they see fit. Their Bride has folks stuck at the Cross contemplating sin….and redefining sanctification and keeps people stuck under a cult of personality leader who dibbles out milk afraid they will grow past them in spiritual maturity.

    The True Bride is thankful for the Cross and focuses her energy focuses on the Resurrection and NEW LIFE. The True Brides loves people and seeks to help them and rejoices over their continued spiritual maturity going on to feast on meat and using their spiritual gifts for the Body.

    Listen, that post would not have appeared unless this blog is having influence. They had Fabs write it because in their world the gender thing is all important and hey! They have women who can write, too! So they trot them out when needed.

    Fabs has a ministry income to be concerned about. So stop talking about what she defines as the bride because her husband is making his living as there!

    Yawn. Same old thing. Rebuke for speaking of negative truths they don’t like. Call them sin. Ooookaay. Sorry but for me, children come before ministry careers, Fabs.

  67. dee wrote:

    DaveAA
    We try hard to be there. Sometimes it gets difficult when the blog gets so busy. We are grateful for all of you smart people who stand in the gap and continue the conversation. It is a little intimidating to go out on a Friday night, work on EChurch on Saturday AM and then find a gazillion comments and email. We are trying so hard to keep up. Keep us in your prayers.@ Dave A A:

    Y’all probably could use a vacation! Take a week and just ask a question, like “What would be YOUR nine marks?” or tweet the news, like ,”CJ steps down to devote time to church plant in Louisville. In other news, Pope steps down to devote time to church plant in Rome!” Your commenters could run with it. Someone like Fabs isn’t similarly blessed, so she really should answer a comment or two! “I’m not really a misogynistic man!” or something!

  68. Miguel wrote:

    @ Caleb W:
    Keep in mind that other serious intellectuals have extended Douglas Wilson the same courtesy. Christopher Hitchens obviously considered him an opponent worthy of multiple engagements. And if you haven’t seen those videos, I must say Wilson did a darned good job for his school of thought.

    Miguel, How much poision do you prefer in the good stuff? It really boils down to that. If you have not, do some research on Wilson, his conferences and writings over the last 20 years. The guy is wacko fringe and if we believers do not speak that out loud just because we like that he took in Hitchens, then shame on us.

    Read about his happy slaves.

    I’m not an advocate of all things Wilson. He’s said some bizarre things that I have a hard time understanding what planet he is coming from. But he also has a lot of good stuff to say. I would really like to hear him address his critics more directly and offer either a retraction of mistakes (which seems impossible for “leaders” these days) or a clarification of strangely worded phrases.

  69. Bridget wrote:

    The “saints”‘are being treated and spoken of as unbelievers. They are looking for a”deep” repentance. When they are asked what the Bible says about them, they can quote every scripture that points to brokenness and our need for a Savior. BUT these are redeemed saints! When I listen (I can sit and not listen ) to teachings these days, I come away either confused or full well knowing that I have just been taught as if I was an unbeliever. It appears that churches, possibly trying to accommodate the unbelievers in their midsts, are now preaching as if those gathered “as the Church” are unregenerated. It is becoming quite pronounced, especially in the Calvinista realm. If you read the dead guys that they read, you find that many of the dead guys were doing the same thing. Many so-called ” “teachers” of our day are perpetuating this same scheme on the saints. It makes me ill.

    Bridget! You just touched on one of the things that blows me away. I would listen to Piper in early days and wonder: Who is he talking to? It would be a taped sermons or something. Surely he is not talking to believers in his church? He does the same thing with large audiences of pastors!

    I see this all over that movement. It is very confusing and not something people pick up on for a while unless they are trained in such things. I felt the same way about many of Al Mohher’s articles. Who is his audience? Surely not believers?

    I have come to the conclusion they seriously believe most people they face in church are not saved. If John Piper thought he was preaching to unsaved people at Bethleham for so many years, should he not look inward?

  70. I’m amazed at the amount of effort lately that TGC has invested on different blog posts that amount to little more than, “Sit down, and shut up.” I notice on TWW’s home page that it’s now been 124 days of silence from TGC on addressing the lawsuit brought by victims at SGM. They’ve been too busy with all of their Gospel activities to even acknowledge that situation, but have an inordinate amount of time to chastise anyone who would dare point out their indifference. We understand TGC. The first response from an abusive church is ALWAYS to assassinate the character of the one speaking out. It’s a hallmark of authoritarianism.

  71. @ Anon 1:
    Listen, I podcasted him for a few years without hearing any reference to his views on slavery, so at least his culture wars don’t take over his preaching. I’ve heard the one line from that book that talked about mutual affection between slaves and masters in the south. As I recall, that line, from a book he co-authored, was removed form the re-release under another title. It’s gonna take more than that one line that seems to be retracted to convince me he’s a complete kook. Like I said, for things like that I would like either a public retraction or something by way of an explanation. Right now he seems to be ignoring the fact that he ever published that, which casts more doubt on him than an open apology ever could. It could be that he holds some bizarre racist views, but I find it more likely that he is just politically opposed to the centralization of power in the federal government.

    He is what he is: A complimentarian Calvinist. And as such I will always have significant disagreement with him on a number of issues. But I have also learned form him and continue to benefit from his teaching on some issues. I’m not saying it’s not there, but I have personally encountered very little I would consider outright poisonous in his teaching. I’m not saying it’s not there, but either I am intolerably weak in discernment, improbably fortunate for having avoided it in my considerable exposure to his materials, or he just doesn’t spend as much time on his inexplicably quirky view as his critics do. Possibly all three. But one thing I most certainly do not do is write a person’s entire corpus of work simply because they belong to the John Calvin club and holds to complementarian views. IMO, despite the incredible damage being done by that group in many areas, there are still many good guys in their midst. Despite the pedophile scandals, I still believe there are many good Roman Catholic authors worthy of reading too.

    I have’t actually read Wilson in a few years, but have you seen his presentation on Christianity and sexuality at a Indiana University? He took on screaming atheist fundamentalists with patience and class. His better critics take his better work into consideration as well:
    http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/

  72. dee wrote:

    Natalie
    Has you comment been approved yet? Keep us posted.@ Natalie:

    @Dee

    I guess the moderator is willing to share his post space with Wikipedia, but not Matt Redmond. Or maybe my comment was lost. Or perhaps Tim Challies ate it? Not sure.

    Here is what I said: “If anyone is looking for a great perspective on the the new pope then check out this post by author Matthew Redmond. http://mattbredmond.com/2013/03/15/the-new-pope-luther-and-our-need-to-take-aim-at-ourselves/

    ALSO! It appears that Colin responded to my comment( the one that was permitted), but then his response was removed. My latest comment is currently in moderation once again.

    “Colin, I wasn’t able to read your response to me. Perhaps it has been either lost or it was deleted. One of my comments was also lost or deleted.”

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/15/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-papacy/?comments#comments

  73. The teaching direction in my former church used to emphasize the building up of the believers. As this “preach-the-gospel-to-yourself” crowd became more and more popular the folks in the pews now get a steady diet of preaching aimed at the “dirty rotten sinner.”

  74. @ dee: Well, after having my comments (and those of a few others) describe as “slitherings of Satan,” I’ve gotta agree. Minions *is* a cool word!

    Not sure how I feel about “slitherings,” though… (For you Harry Potter fans, I *definitely* don’t come up as being a member of Slytherin, though maybe I need to go out and get a Slytherin house scarf? ;))

  75. @ Anon 1:

    Like Mahaney says in the Resolved Conference 2009 trailer-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZgrI2qPifk

    “We are enemies of God. We are God ignoring, we are God defying, we hate God.”

    It’s confusing, Does he include himself in the “we”? If so, that’s, well, not too good to say you hate God. He could have said – the world hates God. But he didn’t.

  76. @ Hester:

    Chuck Norris would’ve been a better example than my Lego Carpet tough guy!

    I just saw a funny Chuck Norris meme the other day. On the Norris photo, it said:
    “I was bit by a cobra. After five agonizing days, the snake finally died.”

    I’ve read more of the Scarlet Letters blog: Manliness (TBB), and she says Philips is enamored of Titanic, and he considers the actions of the men on board, who tried to save women and children, the last true example of manliness before secularism and feminism set in.

    I’m not totally on board with all aspects of secular feminism myself, but, I wouldn’t go blaming all of men’s selfishness these days on feminism.

    A lot of men these days will not come to the rescue of a woman, especially one they don’t know, but I just don’t see how feminism is the cause of that. Even if it was, men should still help people.

    In all the examples in the Old Testament where Israelites were carted off in captivity, some of them did not buckle in to pagan society, such as David (who was tossed in the lion’s den as a result).

    The picture I got is that even if your culture is wicked, God still expects you to stand apart and do the right thing any way.

    Another thing that rubs me the wrong way about Philips’ views on the Titanic.

    If I had been on the Titanic, I would have tried to save myself and other people (male and female). I would not have waited around for a man to save me. (I might have been that way up til a few years ago, because I was raised to be very passive, but now? No.)

    But John Piper and these other guys would probably rather me go down with the ship than rescue myself or others, because I’m a female.

  77. Lee wrote:

    The teaching direction in my former church used to emphasize the building up of the believers. As this “preach-the-gospel-to-yourself” crowd became more and more popular the folks in the pews now get a steady diet of preaching aimed at the “dirty rotten sinner.”

    There’s a lot of this about, and I wonder whether it is due to an increase in gifted motivational speakers who, though not actually Christians, have built their careers successfully from within the professing Christian community. I recall a blog comment from someone who was strongly drawn to [rhymes with] Merry Global because “he’s aggressive with sin”. Well, of course he’s aggressive with other peoples’ sin. Unfortunately I’ve also seen him publicly flaunt his own as though he believes it shows how big and clever he is. It’s much easier to deal with someone else’s sin because that way you can appear zealously holy without actually pursuing holiness yourself. It’s a well-known phenomenon that psychologists term “projection”. (The term was actually first used by Sigmund Froid – the wikipedia article on it is reasonably interesting, especially the paragraph headed “Criticism” at the end).

  78. Bridget,

    My hubby and I have had a wonderful week at our beach condo, but alas it’s time to go home. Today is the first time I have missed SGM Detox, but I plan to listen to it this evening when I get back home.

    Dee has definitely been doing the ‘heavy lifting’ on the blog this week. She is terrific!

  79. “But one thing I most certainly do not do is write a person’s entire corpus of work simply because they belong to the John Calvin club and holds to complementarian views.”

    What do you mean when you say you do not write a person’s entire corpus of work simply because…etc.? Do you mean you do not write OFF a person’s entire corpus of work? Just trying to understand what you mean. Thanks.

    Also-

    “Despite the pedophile scandals, I still believe there are many good Roman Catholic authors worthy of reading too.”

    Concerning this…If I knew the author/pastor/priest covered up a pedophile in his church (in Wilson’s case my concern is his not informing his congregation until 8 months after the arrest of Sitler, and even then only at a “heads of household” men only meeting), I would not be in the least interested in reading any of his work. Call me narrow-minded, I guess. Because, imo, someone who does this has not love, nor is he acting in love, and is a clanging cymbal.

    If I did not know, then perhaps…until I did find out.

    But since I do know about Wilson and his cover up, he’s in the first category.

    @ Miguel:

  80. Diane,

    That 2009 Resolved trailer is AWFUL!!! I was so upset about it prior to the conference that I wrote a post called The Scream of the Damned and the Last Straw. It still makes my blood boil!

  81. @ Deb:

    Good for you! It sounds lovely! Dee might need a box of chocolates to soothe the overworked muscles 🙂

    I think you’ll enjoy Detox. To think that men who have such hearts as theirs were in SGM and no one even knew who they were is quite sad. There was so much rejection of the priesthood of believers in that environment. Any churches that leave have a lot of detoxing to do, if they even can.

  82. @ Bridget:

    I hear different, conflicting messages on Christian TV about all this.

    Ray Comfort hosts a show where he and Kirk Cameron insist that there are a of “false converts” in today’s churches because (in their view), people targeted for conversion don’t hear that they should repent. They are presented with an easy-believism type faith, or Jesus will make them happy and wealthy message.

    So these guys really stress the “you’re a sinner, need a Savior, so repent and accept Christ, or you will go to Hell when you die” message.

    Meanwhile, pastor Joseph Prince has a different message in his shows. He keeps emphasizing a message of grace, and says that it is God’s goodness which causes a person to repent, not a stress on sinfulness and repentance.

    I see where both sides have some merit, but I don’t know what to make at it all. Maybe some people need the Comfort approach, while other people would need the Prince approach. I don’t know.

  83. @ Miguel:

    As someone who’s deeply involved in the Christian homeschooling community and had some brief exposure to the conservative end of the PCA – be very cautious about Wilson. Pedophile incident aside (see Diane’s comment above), he has some rather numerous connections to neo-Confederates, Reconstructionists and Federal Vision theology. FV walks the heresy tightrope and has caused some real headaches in the PCA lately. The Dean of Graduate Studies, Peter Leithart, at Wilson’s college was actually put on trial by his presbytery a few years back for allegedly espousing Federal Vision stuff. He was acquitted but the connections remain. (I have a secondhand personal connection to this because one of the homeschool 20-somethings who was in my homeschool group was recently honored, BY NAME, on Leithart’s website for a paper he wrote. As you can probably guess, this worries me.) Wilson’s fingerprints are also all over a lot of classical homeschooling.

    I haven’t read any of his stuff, but I’ve seen enough in my research to make me pretty wary. Just keep your eyes peeled. I’m not saying everything that ever came from the man’s pen is evil, but just encouraging caution.

  84. Addendum @ Miguel:

    Actually, Wilson’s complementarianism and Calvinism are some of the least worrying things about him, IMO… : )

  85. @ Daisy:

    that post above by me was in reply to Miguel, who said in part,

    He is what he is: A complimentarian Calvinist. And as such I will always have significant disagreement with him on a number of issues. But I have also learned form him and continue to benefit from his teaching on some issues. I’m not saying it’s not there, but I have personally encountered very little I would consider outright poisonous in his teaching

  86. @ Daisy:

    “A lot of men these days will not come to the rescue of a woman, especially one they don’t know”

    These same men probably wouldn’t come to the rescue of a man they didn’t know, either…which is just as bad. And I believe there is also a documented instance on Titanic where women from second-class were turned away from the first-class lifeboats because they weren’t the “right” lifeboats (even though the first-class passengers were allowed to use the second-class lifeboats). Oh, the glories of the “old order of patriarchy” (Doug’s own term)!

  87. Dave A A wrote:

    ’1. The devil has enmity toward women,

    I think that quote is priceless. While my memory might be faulty, Nel Noddings in “Women and Evil ( GRIN, Amazon told me I bought the book 12 years ago), takes the idea that women tend to define evil differently than men. What fractures relationships is evil, not fighting over property etc. What is the greatest relationship that we can have? Our friendship with Jesus and the rest of his family. He came into this world with the cooperation of a woman.

    So, it is only reasonable that we women and those who love are the ones to be attacked.

  88. Hester wrote:

    And I believe there is also a documented instance on Titanic where women from second-class were turned away from the first-class lifeboats because they weren’t the “right” lifeboats (even though the first-class passengers were allowed to use the second-class lifeboats).

    Don’t forget that all the gates from Third Class (steerage/commoners) to the upper decks were still discovered to be closed and locked. Can’t have the lower classes interfering with lifeboat loading.

  89. dee wrote:

    he SGM matter will be a defining moment for the Neo Reformed crowd. I expect books to be written about it in the future. I also believe that the silence of the leaders will figure prominently into the history. It recalls the church in Germany during WW2-such silence…

    “I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!” — Sgt Schultz

  90. Diane wrote:

    But since I do know about Wilson and his cover up, he’s in the first category.

    That is one of the horrible things. Another are his conferences with League of the South folks. There is a ton and too long to get into. I used to read his blog and when one would dare disagree with him he would demand they give him the name of their church and pastor to bring them under discipline. The guy is a despotic nutcase and we have not even touched on his view of women. I would rather he not present the Christian position to the athiests. He could NEVER speak for me. I am trying to tell them that guys like Wilson are not what Jesus taught us to be like.

    I am hearing the same type arguments for Wilson I heard for Driscoll for years. Ignoring the huge red flags because they like a particular bent.

  91. Eagle,

    That was a great comment! I’d be surprised if it gets published.

    Speaking of Dever’s 9 Marks, I’m fairly sure it was a self-published book in the beginning.

    There was a time when I respected Dever. I remember buying a book called Believer’s Baptism which Dever, my former pastor, and other scholars contributed to. That now seems like ages ago…

  92. Diane wrote:

    “We are enemies of God. We are God ignoring, we are God defying, we hate God.”
    It’s confusing, Does he include himself in the “we”? If so, that’s, well, not too good to say you hate God. He could have said – the world hates God. But he didn’t.

    It is a lie. Believers could not hate God. Yes they do believe this but when you question their followers (because you cannot question them) you find an interesting twist. It goes like this but they won’t admit this is what they are saying and if you sayb it back to them they claim it is NOT what they believe. Calvinism is like that…very confusing:

    So it goes if you do the circular debate with them: You hate God. You cannot help it. But since God forced you to believe so Jesus obeyed for you on the Cross (imputed righteousness) so God sees you as Righteous even though you are still a worm and hate God. You have no input or volition in the matter. You still hate God but are not blamed for it becuase he chose you and forced you to believe. So carry on. And feel horrible about it! The more you think about it and your sin the better off you are. Forget any of this Kingdom living stuff. You can’t obey Christ’s commands. (Love God, Love others) Jesus has obeyed for you.

    Thing is their followers ought to understand this means they should NOT listen to them because they are worms who hate God, too.

  93. Daisy wrote:

    Is this the same Doug Wilson who wrote about “egalitarian pleasure parties,” and implied that women want to be raped, or being raped is the outcome of women not wanting to be dominated by men, which is why some of them read “50 Shade of Grey”?

    That is him. The guy is a creep. People need to go back and read his blog and mablog from way back in mid 2000’s from about 2006 on, I think. He was considered wacko fringe. The social media has made him pretty popular in some Reformed groups. I was STUNNED when Piper promoted him. It only proved to me how far down Piper has gone.
    For another perspective on Wilson, an old blog called Poohs Think by Michael Metzler who is a former student of Wilsons. He left the cult and started writing about it. And yes it is a cult.

  94. Anon 1,

    They conveniently leave out the Holy Spirit, and it angers me to no end.

    I choose to listen to that still small voice, not Mahaney and his cohorts. God will NOT be mocked.

  95. Deb, the Holy Spirit, Who dwells in believers is their biggest fear. We won’t need them and they know it.

  96. Anon 1 wrote:

    I dedicate this video to the women at the girltalk blog, Fabs, Dorothy Patterson and YRR wives everywhere…..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

    That’s the ticket. From now on, whenever I opine intelligently on macroeconomics at a dinner party with comps, I shall neutralize their scorn by closing with “…but I do like little kittens. They’re so soft and furry.”

  97. @ Anon 1:

    I’ve noticed the same thing, even with more lukewarm Calvinists.

    I was looking into Calvinism years ago, to see if they were right, and if I should start identifying as a Calvinist, so I began talking to them online, reading their material to learn about Calvinism, but you can’t pin down exactly what they believe.

    If you read one of their books or blogs and ask them follow-up questions to see if you’re understanding their positions correctly, they will say no, you have it wrong, or they accuse you or creating a straw man argument.

    Many of them also say in order to really, really understand Calvinism (or the Bible / the Gospel), you must be fluent at ancient Hebrew and be able to read the Bible’s New Testament in koine Greek, you must have an I.Q. of 235, and have multiple PhDs.

    That part is especially strange, because I thought one big dispute Reformed /Protestant guys had with Roman Catholicism is that RC Church for much of its history taught that only priests/ Magisterium can or should read and interpret the Bible.

    Some historical Protestant guy said even a plow boy should be able to read and understand the Scriptures.

    Also, for all their railing against the RC papacy and how RCism rejects sola scriptura, a lot of Calvinism, IMO and experience, do the same thing, only they have made Calvin and/or church father writings on par with the Bible in authority or importance.

    I don’t think studying church history or patrisitic writings is bad or wrong, only that many Calvinists place way too much emphasis on it.

    I’ve seen lots of Calvinists make fun of fundamentalist Baptists for ridiculing the study of patrisitic writings and koine Greek, and while I disagree with the fundies on some issue (including their anti intellectualism), they are, IMO, right in mocking the practical worship of intellectualism, higher education, and study of church history/fathers that runs rampant among Calvinist circles.

  98. @ Anon 1:

    Wilson has also been embraced by MacArthur recently, and was the keynote at TMC’s Creation Symposium last month.

  99. @ HUG:

    “Don’t forget that all the gates from Third Class (steerage/commoners) to the upper decks were still discovered to be closed and locked.”

    …which was apparently actually required by law for “health” reasons, because steerage was associated with immigrants/foreigners and thus (allegedly) disease. Though apparently the stories about armed guards at the gates are unconfirmed. There were also no lifeboats for third class.

    But of course Phillips never mentions any of that

  100. Daisy wrote:

    … I thought one big dispute Reformed /Protestant guys had with Roman Catholicism is that RC Church for much of its history taught that only priests/ Magisterium can or should read and interpret the Bible.

    I think TGC wants to be the Protestant Magisterium. At least they act like it.

  101. @ Diane:
    Diane,

    You are correct, I meant to type “write off.”
    I do not know the details of Wilson’s story with the pedophile.
    On an unrelated note, I’m not sure I would know exactly what to do if a pedophile did start attending our church regularly. However, I would know exactly who to ask about it!

    It does make one begin to wonder if there’s something about the theology of such groups that causes them to bury important information about these king of things, though.

  102. @ Hester:
    Hester,

    I know too little about neo-Confederacy and Reconstructionism to be entirely critical of somebody for having friends with those views. As far as the Federal Vision is concerned, however, as Lutheran, I see their teaching as forward progress for Presbyterians. It seems to recover a much needed sacramental emphasis combined with an objective understanding of the covenant of Baptism. At least, that’s what I surmised from their brief statement of affirmations and denials.

    A PCA pastor friend of mine at the time was involved with the trial of Peter Leithart. I did not realize he had been acquitted. He viewed this heresy as a return to Roman Catholicism, but it seemed to me like a non-revivalistic way to do reformed theology, free of decision theology.

    Don’t worry, I’ve heard enough critical of him to keep a wary eye on his materials. But I just don’t use them that much anymore. Our parish school uses his logic cirriculum, but that class is taught by a woman who would have little tolerance for patriarchal malarky.

  103. Daisy wrote:

    If you read one of their books or blogs and ask them follow-up questions to see if you’re understanding their positions correctly, they will say no, you have it wrong, or they accuse you or creating a straw man argument.

    Yes, this is a constant problem. God cannot be both good and evil at the same time and this is a problem for them when they start with the determinist God paradigm of God controlling every molecule. They cannot wrap their heads around a totally Sovereign God who created beings who can say no to Him. He did because He is that great and that confident. But they think that makes God into a some sort of sop.

    Where they really miss it is that God is relational. They miss that part of Jesus Christ…God in the flesh who came among us. It is God with us and God IN us if we are believers. Not this unknowable entity controlling every molecule against our will. The will He created us to have.

    This is why every single convo starts out with God’s Sovereignty and stays on that theme. Anything to do with man’s volition is a stawman argument or you are accused of saying God is not really Sovereign.

    But when you question closely they backtrack and then claim it is all a mystery how God can be totally good and control everything constantly but not send evil. Evil is who we are. (Where oh where is any vestage of the Image of God with these folks?) There are mysteries about God we won’t know now but we can KNOW Him through Jesus Christ because we have the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is relational and synergistic relationship.

    The thing is, if they really believe what they believe about God then we should not listen to them because they have no ability to think, reason, make decisions, etc. And how can we be sure God is controlling them at that moment? That is the scary part. And the reason is even after Justification you can do NOTHING to obey Christ’ commands. You cannot love God or others. (Ever notice there is little love in tht movement?)

    You are really only saved from the imputed guilt of Adam. (I do not believe in imputed guilt) You cannot become a new creature growing in Holiness because you are too busy being justified over and over stuck at the cross and not living in freedom of the resurrection now. Not being the Kingdom here and now. All the verses in the bible you might have thought were sanctification verses are taught by them as Justification verses. You cannot do what Jesus says in the NT. Or what Paul says. Jesus is obeying for you IF you do them at all. The most important thing is correct doctine. More important than people. More important than little girls who are molested.Correct doctrine is everything.

    All sins are equal and no big deal unless disagreeing with the pastor. Ever wonder why they are embracing Mahaney? Doug Wilson? Even though there is such rotten fruit there? Because it does not matter. Their doctrine is approved so nothing else matters. It was the same with Driscoll until it got too embarassing for them. Now it is Mark who?

  104. @ Miguel:

    Wilson appears to advocate for the stoning and/or exile of homosexuals, people who commit adultery, etc.

    I don’t know if I’d want to become like one of those extreme Independent Fundamentalist Baptists who separates from every one and everything who doesn’t agree with them all the time, but wanting to return American to Old Testament laws and punishment is extreme. (Not to mention the advent of Christ means we’re living under grace now.)

    Has Chuck Colson Finally Gone Off The Deep End? [mentions Wilson]

  105. @ Anon 1:

    “They cannot wrap their heads around a totally Sovereign God who created beings who can say no to Him.”

    So…SGM would not believe a human can say no to God, right?

    I listened to Jerry Bridges speak at the hotel church in Louisville last Sunday. I have no idea who he is nor have I even heard of him. I thought he was one of the SGM board members, but no. Anyway, he spoke on the sovereignty of God. He said everything that happens in your life is God’s will…ordained by God for you. Blind at birth? Ordained by God. Lost your job? God’s will. You get my point. No exceptions. All is God’s will. Bridges was born with heart valve abnormalities…that was God’s will for him, he said. God designed him that way. Now, the fact that Bridges had open heart surgery recently to correct how God designed him is something I cannot understand…but that’s beside my point.

    Using Bridges logic, isn’t the SGM lawsuit God’s will? It is happening, isn’t it? Just how does SGM categorize this lawsuit that is happening to them? God’s will? If they say, no not His will, but His discipline, how can that still not be His will? (Beings Bridges was preaching everything that happens to you is God’s will ALL WHILE SGM is trying to get this lawsuit dismissed.)

    Can one get the will of God dismissed? Isn’t SGM, mere humans, in essence saying no to God by fighting His will for them? His will is for them to have a lawsuit.

    Or does SGM think that because God created the law profession and there are attorneys availabel to them, that that means they can fight the suit and NOW the will of God is to fight. Why is the will of God to fight? Because whatever these guys declare the current will of God is– cancels out the previous will of God.

    And how do they know what the current will of God is? If it exists and it is available to them, then it’s God’s will, I guess. Am I missing something, Anon 1?

  106. @ Anon 1:

    “And the reason is even after Justification you can do NOTHING to obey Christ’ commands. You cannot love God or others. (Ever notice there is little love in tht movement?)”

    I wonder what they think about John 14:22-25? Jesus says we will love Him and obey Him. And we will do that by the Holy Spirit’s empowering. Christ in us.

    Why the endless book writing about how we need to do this and that…if we are nothing but ugly worms with no desire to obey and an inability to love God? I mean, why are worms paying them to do it? And they teach that worms cannot do what these books teach, yet they write them anyway with the intended audience being…worms. Insanity. Like the web of wisdom article today. Why would someone write all these admonitions for worms to do this and that and beware of this and look out for that and obey all these Proverbs we have listed for you, when worms do not have the ability to do any of it? And Jesus supposedly obeyed the web of wisdom for you anyway?

  107. @ Anon 1:

    Oh yeah, the Calvinist obsession with Sovereignty. I agree God is sovereign, but I don’t share their understanding of how God uses His sovereignty.

    I think God is sovereign but respects people’s choices and does not always or usually over ride them, even if they are choices He does not like or agree with.

    There are portions of the Bible that have examples of people who resisted God – and rather than over ride their wills, God would sometimes send a consequence for their decision or bad behavior.

    If you really want to confuse a Calvinist, try explaining you are neither Calvinist or Arminian.

    I don’t consider myself either one (because I disagree with my understanding of both positions), but some Calvinists can’t understand.

    They think rejecting Calvinism automatically means you are an Arminian. They can’t conceive that there is another position.

    I’ve also never understood the Calvinist position to consider man’s decision in accepting or rejecting Christ as meaning man is responsible (deserves credit) for his or her salvation, as though the decision is regarded as being a “work.”

    The Bible talks about the Holy Spirit drawing a person to Christ, I agree, but it looks to me like God ultimately leaves it up to that person whether to accept or reject Christ, because you are responsible for your choice; God does not twist someone’s arm to force them into heaven or relationship with Him.

    I also don’t share their view that being dead in one’s sins should be understood to mean that a person cannot respond to the Gospel (ie, dead men can’t talk, think, respond).

    You said,

    You are really only saved from the imputed guilt of Adam. (I do not believe in imputed guilt)

    I’d have to do some more reading on that to offer an opinion.

    Either in that post or one above, you were mentioning how many Calvinists won’t get people to get past the foot of the cross, they continue to act as though followers of Christ are still un-saved.

    I see this as another parallel with Roman Catholicism, and they claim to be very much against RCism.

    I did a lot of reading about RCism years ago. One common critique of RCism by Protestants and Calvinists against the Mass is that the RC doesn’t represent Christ’s atonement as being a one-time, finished thing.

    There is no need to keep replaying Christ’s sacrifice, they say. If you go into an Roman Catholic church, you will see a Christ figure on a cross.

    A lot of the criticisms I read (some by Calvinists/ Protestants) is that the RC needs to realize Christ is not on the cross any more, that He’s off the cross, and the tomb is empty. People need to focus on the fact that Christ is still living, etc.

    It’s strange to me that some Calvinists recognize these points when debating Roman Catholic apologists, but they continue in their blogs to act as though Christ is still on the cross.

    I know that an un-saved person needs to be directed initially to Christ on the cross, but some of the Calvinists still have Him there and preach it to people who are already redeemed.

    The Bible says Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the Father, and believers in Him are seated with Him there too, if I recall right.

  108. @ Diane:

    Diane, Yes, I have pondered many such things myself for a long time now and round and round it goes. But Gods will MUST be seeking to dismiss the lawsuit that God’s will brought them, dontcha think? God has two wills in this instance, I suppose. But funny how man has no volition at all in any of it. hmmm.

    But lets take the application of this doctrine a step further. You are a child born with severe disabilities and hearing this rot. Or you were abused horribly as a child and hearing this stuff. God’s will? Seriously?

    It breaks my heart. It really really does. I want to gather up all these broken people hearing this stuff and beg them to rethink it. I want to scream that GOD LOVES YOU! He sent Jesus Christ for you! You live in a fallen world with true evil because man and Lucifer said NO to God. But we say Yes, to Jesus Christ. And we are to fight that evil here right now with love, compassion and truth about God’s character.

    We have a choice. We CAN choose whom we serve.

    (Bridges is a big deal in the Reformed movement. Him speaking at SGM is an affirmation of CJ. Does he realize what affirming CJ means?)

  109. Some interesting posts on here. Thanks Todd for your Samuel Miller quote.

    Some people (re certain “big names” mentioned on here) are worth considering for certain insights without taking on board their overall view. A friend of mine who works in the private sector gleefully quoted a particularly apt bit from Marx not so long ago at the height of the banking crisis. But I doubt whether he or I would even dream of subscribing to Marxism as a serious way of doing things.

  110. @ Anon 1:

    “(Bridges is a big deal in the Reformed movement. Him speaking at SGM is an affirmation of CJ. Does he realize what affirming CJ means?)”

    Admiring that strong leadership of Mahaney that Al Mohler loves so dearly?

  111. Daisy wrote:

    Either in that post or one above, you were mentioning how many Calvinists won’t get people to get past the foot of the cross, they continue to act as though followers of Christ are still un-saved.
    I see this as another parallel with Roman Catholicism, and they claim to be very much against RCism.

    They seem to have more in common than we might think. I have been interested in this myself studying from the Reformation pov because the word “Reformed” actually refers to reforming the Catholic church. Just as Protestant is a protest against the Catholic church. They retained many similarities. They both have their roots in Augustinian thinking. The Reformation was much more political than I think many give credit. The Theses are all about indulgences. Luther (An Augustinian monk) tended to over correct with the teaching that any works at all is wrong even in sanctification. (He did not like the book of James at all) But both seem to view Justification similar in that it never really is complete here and now even though I think they would disagree with that, I think they define it differently than I would. (The Catholic by works and the Reformed- by imputed righteousness)

    Neither one really acknowledges a synergistic sanctification where with the Holy Spirit we can obey Christ’s commands to love God and love others.

    I probably just offended a ton of people and realize I am no scholar. Just thnking out loud about what I am reading and researching.

  112. @ Miguel:

    I don’t want to harp too hard on this, since you’ve already said you’re not really reading Wilson much anymore – but here are some links about Reconstructionism. The first is the best summary article I’ve yet found of their theology, and the second is a 4-part series about how their theology and their politics are interwoven. Some of their political goals are downright scary, as Daisy mentioned above.

    http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=6457

    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisrec.html

    You may also want to keep an eye on my blog (http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com), as I’m critiquing my way through a box of Vision Forum CDs so I’ll be bound to cover Reconstructionism eventually (though I haven’t yet). It’s chemically pure evil as far as I’m concerned.

  113. Koyla, Here is my problem. Most people have no clue about Wilson’s background. All we are doing is letting them know he has some bizarre beliefs. Some folks, especially the young, take a recommendation from the celebrity like Piper as an affirmation of all. that would not be a problem at all if we have prepared them as Bereans. But for the most part, they have been taught to follow man.

    I have been conducting a very unscientific survey among some YRR here. I ask them about Wilson and they know about him from Piper and now the GC…. and love his taking on of athiests. They have no clue about his dominionism, league of the South, pedophile support, etc. They have NO idea that he basically has a cult following in Moscow Idaho. And that is because Piper and others have totally ignored it. They admire his “strong leadership” and in their view, “correct doctrine”. That is why I become alarmed. It is not a long walk to “new normal” if you get my drift. I just recommend they do some serious homework before being impressed. Hey, maybe they agree with Black and Tan?

  114. Anon 1 wrote:

    But lets take the application of this doctrine a step further. You are a child born with severe disabilities and hearing this rot. Or you were abused horribly as a child and hearing this stuff. God’s will? Seriously?

    Some New Age beliefs are like this.

    I’ve read a little about them, and they tell people if something bad happens to you now it’s because you chose it in a “past life.”

    @ Hester

    I’ll have to look at your links a little later, and maybe they already mention this, but a couple of weeks ago, I found a link from a blog I was reading where some guy wrote a very long blog page about the roots of Reconstructionism. I don’t think I bookmarked it, though.

    He said a lot of the current day interest among some far, far right Christian groups has roots with one or two Civil-War era Confederate guys, who had pretty racist and sexist view points. I can’t even remember the names of those guys.

    But I was creeped out not only by their views and comments (which were quoted on the page), but especially that anyone calling himself a Christian today would agree with, approve of, or advocate them, and I think Wilson is one of those guys.

  115. Diane wrote:

    I listened to Jerry Bridges speak at the hotel church in Louisville last Sunday. I have no idea who he is nor have I even heard of him. I thought he was one of the SGM board members, but no. Anyway, he spoke on the sovereignty of God.

    In’shal’lah…

    He said everything that happens in your life is God’s will…ordained by God for you.

    In’shal’lah…

    Blind at birth? Ordained by God.

    In’shal’lah…

    Lost your job? God’s will.

    In’shal’lah…

    You get my point. No exceptions. All is God’s will.

    In’shal’lah…

    (Aside to Wilson) Born a black slave on a Southern Plantation?

    God Hath Willed Slavery. In’shal’lah…

  116. Jenny wrote:

    I think TGC wants to be the Protestant Magisterium. At least they act like it.

    Magisterium as in “teaching authority of the church” or Magisterium as the evil religious establishment in Golden Compass, et al?

  117. Jenny wrote:

    Wilson has also been embraced by MacArthur recently, and was the keynote at TMC’s Creation Symposium last month.

    These five Kings said one to another:
    “King unto King o’er the word is brother…”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”

  118. “He said a lot of the current day interest among some far, far right Christian groups has roots with one or two Civil-War era Confederate guys, who had pretty racist and sexist view points. I can’t even remember the names of those guys.”

    I think RL Dabney was one of them:

    R.L. Dabney

    Through Vision Forum, Doug Phillips sells books on Robert Lewis Dabney, who was Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff and chaplain during the Civil War. After the war, Dabney wrote a book called A Defense of Virginia, which even over a hundred years later is considered one of the most racist books ever written. Dabney considered black people to be a “morally inferior race,” a “sordid, alien taint” marked by “lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste.” He considered slavery to be ”the righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation” between blacks and whites. He condemned the “abhorrent amalgamation of [white] children with blacks” and actually argued that it was better for blacks to be enslaved than not since it was better for their minds and their health. Dabney called the attempt to educate all Negroes “mischievous,” “tyrannical,” “useless,” “impracticable,” and “dishonest.”

    http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/rl-dabney/

    Guys, this is the stuff of Doug Wilson, too. If you are not familiar with the word “kinist” become familiar. It seems some from this movement which is a fringe of the REformed wing is becoming more and more mainstreamed. The last Paul Washer sermon I listened to years back was the one where he was praising Doug Phillips.

    I think the guy who started this blog came out of some variation of this movement if it is the one I remember from a while back.

  119. @ Anon 1:

    Yeah, that was the name, R.L. Dabney.

    The guy’s page about Wilson and Reconstructionism I found was very long, but interesting and disturbing. I wish I had bookmarked it.

    The page had a red, white, and blue background. The guy was trying to explain to his readers the history behind Wilson’s views on gender roles.

    Maybe Wilson is great at defending the idea of God’s existence with an atheist as was claimed above, but if Wilson’s idea of God is as sexist and racist as what I read on other pages, no thanks.

    My impression based on what I’ve read of him, is that the God Wilson believes in is not the same one I believed in since childhood.

    If I am ever able to find that one blog page again, I’ll link to it. Hester’s links (like this one, “Christian Reconstructionism“) look pretty thorough, though, so they may mention the same information.

  120. One of the worst view points I’ve ever seen was described on this page (Redeeming Dinah: The Errors of Ron Williams, the IFB, and Gothard’s Esteem of Rabbinical Writing as Holy Writ) – people who tell rape or childhood sexual abuse victims they are permanently damaged and did something to deserve being violated.

    I don’t know if these guys are Calvinist, Reconstructionist, or what. They’re identified on that page as belonging to Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches.

  121. Diane wrote:

    @ Anon 1:

    “They cannot wrap their heads around a totally Sovereign God who created beings who can say no to Him.”

    So…SGM would not believe a human can say no to God, right?

    I listened to Jerry Bridges speak at the hotel church in Louisville last Sunday. I have no idea who he is nor have I even heard of him. I thought he was one of the SGM board members, but no.”

    Isn’t Jerry Bridges head of Campus Crusade?

    Eagle would probably know.

  122. Wow…

    I botched that last comment. My part was, “Isn’t Jerry Bridges head of Campus Crusade? Eagle would probably know.”

    Sorry about that. It’s late.

  123. @ Bridget:

    @ Anon 1:

    I got myself in a lot of trouble over the 20 years I was in various (mostly reformed) churches by trying to address this very issue! I saw it clearly from when I first became a Christian and started to read the bible. Before my conversion I had no knowledge of the Christian faith or the bible as I was a Buddhist. The first chapters of the bible that I read were John 14 – 17 and I was convinced by those words and by what I had experienced that God the Holy Spirit was present in my heart. What I had experienced was confirmed as I read through (devoured!) the scriptures. I spent a year communing with God and reading the scriptures before I ever attended a church.

    With a passion I hated the preaching and teaching that addressed believers as though we were still unbelievers – as though no momentous, powerful work of God had taken place in us. These men spoke as though nothing fundamentally changes when we are born again – excepting that we are “saved” and are going to heaven when we die. I couldn’t understand why they didn’t believe what the bible teaches! Hadn’t God given us a new heart and new spirit or removed our hearts of stone or put His Spirit within us that we might walk in his ways and obey Him? Were we not new creatures in Christ Jesus? Didn’t we have the law written in our hearts? Were we not to be guided into all truth by the Spirit? Does the anointing we receive not abide in us? Etc, etc, etc. In effect they totally ignore the scriptures and deny the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Sadly many, many people have been led astray to rely on men rather than on God.

  124. @ MM:
    MM, the is a foundational issue within the church, in my opinion. I think that for those who grow up ‘in the church,’ they can go their whole lives never actually having that personal experience yet, because of what they are taught, they believe they are fine because they believe The Doctrine and go to The Church. It is so sad. My prayer is often that Jesus would give them whatever personal encounter they need to be freed by the Truth…..

  125. @ Anon 1:
    Hi Anon1, I agree with what you’re saying. I think one can only helpfully appreciate the odd “insight” after reading the whole canon of belief of people in such a position, not least to be fair to them. So in a sense one appreciates the odd “insight” *despite* of the whole body of work (re my earlier analogy of Marxism).

    I also agree that we should encourage Christians to be Bereans and to see whether these things are true. Just because a well-known Christian speaker/theologian endorses someone does not necessarily make it so 😉

  126. @ Jeanette:

    “I think that for those who grow up ‘in the church,’ they can go their whole lives never actually having that personal experience yet, because of what they are taught, they believe they are fine because they believe The Doctrine and go to The Church.”

    I see what you’re saying, but just be careful as not everyone has a “conversion experience” and it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t true Christians. Some of us grow up into it as we go and never know any different. I say this because my mom has gotten the “no big emotional crisis = lost” thrown in her face a lot.

  127. Diane wrote:

    Using Bridges logic, isn’t the SGM lawsuit God’s will? It is happening, isn’t it? Just how does SGM categorize this lawsuit that is happening to them? God’s will? If they say, no not His will, but His discipline, how can that still not be His will? (Beings Bridges was preaching everything that happens to you is God’s will ALL WHILE SGM is trying to get this lawsuit dismissed.)

    This is what I find so exasperating. SGM leaders and pastors teach that God is absolutely sovereign over everything and everything that happens is His will. They say that believers are supposed to accept everything that happens – good or bad – as being directly from the merciful hand of God for His glory and for our sanctification. They teach that we should give thanks no matter what happens because God causes all things to work together for good a la Romans 8:28. But apart from Josh Harris’s statement back in 2011 that God was “spanking” SGM, I have seen absolutely no acknowledgment from any leader in SGM that God has ordained the exposure of the corruption in SGM, the lawsuit, the mass exodus of members and churches, etc. as a means of purifying His Church for His glory and our good. These men are stiff-necked arrogant fools, in my opinion. For all their preaching about the sovereignty of God, they can’t seem to recognize when it is operating right in front of them.

  128. Hester, I did not read MM comment as having some big emotional crises or even experience. I would not put the Holy Spirit illuminating truth to us in that category.

  129. Miguel, my exposure to Wilson consists of Reading Black and Tan, Southern Slavery As It Was, and some of his blog posts, especially on gender issues. I’ve also seen a significant amount of his interaction with Hitchens.

    All I can say is that both of his slavery books are just bad history. It is not serious or even decent scholarship/historical writing. He spends a lot of Black and Tan moaning about the ‘guild’ of professional historians, largely because they don’t take him seriously. Note the criticism he recieved from historians at the University of Idaho a few years back when he tried to hold a ‘conference’ there on his views. Christians need to understand that it isn’t always the case that resistence or criticism from the academy is a sign that they’re doing something right. We seem to have that attitude a lot.

    And here at Wartburg Watch, we all know about Wilson’s views on gender, which are pretty arcane, condescending, and terrible. I’ve never read him on Christian Classical Education, but I’ve run into enough people of that ilk to be wary of anyone who espouses it, especially in Christian circles.

    As for Hitchens, he debated pretty much anyone with a public presence who would debate him. He debated Dinesh D’Souza for crying out loud! So the fact that Hitchens debated him doesn’t say much to me. I don’t recall Wilson getting into gender issues and political views when they debated the existence of God, but Hitchens should have pressed him on those issues. Because Wilson’s views on God are tightly connected to those other views.

    So I’m not saying that Wilson isn’t a smart guy. He’s seems intelligent and he writes well. One of his books might even be worth reading. But David Irving is a smart guy, too.

    Miguel wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    Listen, I podcasted him for a few years without hearing any reference to his views on slavery, so at least his culture wars don’t take over his preaching. I’ve heard the one line from that book that talked about mutual affection between slaves and masters in the south. As I recall, that line, from a book he co-authored, was removed form the re-release under another title. It’s gonna take more than that one line that seems to be retracted to convince me he’s a complete kook. Like I said, for things like that I would like either a public retraction or something by way of an explanation. Right now he seems to be ignoring the fact that he ever published that, which casts more doubt on him than an open apology ever could. It could be that he holds some bizarre racist views, but I find it more likely that he is just politically opposed to the centralization of power in the federal government.

    He is what he is: A complimentarian Calvinist. And as such I will always have significant disagreement with him on a number of issues. But I have also learned form him and continue to benefit from his teaching on some issues. I’m not saying it’s not there, but I have personally encountered very little I would consider outright poisonous in his teaching. I’m not saying it’s not there, but either I am intolerably weak in discernment, improbably fortunate for having avoided it in my considerable exposure to his materials, or he just doesn’t spend as much time on his inexplicably quirky view as his critics do. Possibly all three. But one thing I most certainly do not do is write a person’s entire corpus of work simply because they belong to the John Calvin club and holds to complementarian views. IMO, despite the incredible damage being done by that group in many areas, there are still many good guys in their midst. Despite the pedophile scandals, I still believe there are many good Roman Catholic authors worthy of reading too.

    I have’t actually read Wilson in a few years, but have you seen his presentation on Christianity and sexuality at a Indiana University? He took on screaming atheist fundamentalists with patience and class. His better critics take his better work into consideration as well:
    http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/

  130. @ Hester:

    Hester – I really want to THANK YOU for the links to the articles in the Public Eye and Worldview Weekend on “Christian Reconstructionism” (CR) and “Dominionism.”

    From around 1999 to 2006 or so, influenced by a now-former elder at my former PCA church, I delved VERY deeply into Reconstructionism. I read a ton of Reconstructionist writings and periodicals, and followed blogs, including Wilson’s (among others).

    You see, I was relatively new in the faith, and my career was in the political field (I have had a passion for politics and history since I was very very young).

    As a Christian, I deeply wanted my passion and my career to conform to my faith. I wanted to “do” my vocation in a way that honored God. Being in a PCA church, and seeing the links between Rushdoony, North, Van Til and orthodox presbyterianism, I figured that CR theology would be a good place to start constructing my “worldview.”

    The Reconstructionist doctrines always left me vaguely uncomfortable but I was merely a totally depraved sinner, so I did not trust my God-given conscience and common sense, so convinced was I that I was “the worst sinner I knew.”

    Looking back, by God’s grace and life experience in the real world, I realize that in studying these aberrant Reconstructionist teachings I was actually standing on the edge of a steep cliff looking straight into the pit of hell.

    That’s what Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism is to me: the pit of hell.

    It is simply un-Biblical, hateful, totalitarian, and completely anti-democratic. It’s scholarship on history and culture is riddled with errors. It is enslaving. It’s real-world consequences – an idealized evangelical theocracy governed by an OT legal framework – is incredibly scary.

    It is also, frighteningly so, becoming more and more mainstream in American evangelicalism, I believe. The Public Eye article really lays this out well regarding modern U.S. politics, I think.

    Thank you again Hester for the information you provided – I’d love to read other resources if you have them. Dear Lord – make me a Berean!

  131. I left the church 20+ years ago because I was taught at Christian college that (as a woman) I was an inferior kind of human and my experience of God was incomplete until I married a man who could intercede for me. My church taught that only their interpretation of Scripture is correct; it’s their way or the highway. So I chose the highway.

    Only recently did I start to see that turning my back on God was a mistake. I realized I should have heeded the words of Jesus when he told his followers that they needed to listen to the Pharisees because they were teaching God’s Word. “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

    When I reconverted to Christianity I was deeply suspicious of the church. I was not sure how I would fit in. Experience has taught me to think hard and pay attention when someone asks me to put aside my common sense and my conscience just to get along with the group dynamic. I sincerely wanted to follow Jesus but was not sure I would ever be able to to trust anyone who told me that to do so I must believe in things I KNOW to be false, out of “faith in the church.”

    I was alarmed by many of the false and harmful things being taught by other Christians today. I was horrified by the lack of integrity and honesty in the men who were being touted as the new apostles. It made me question my conversion. Like Peter I took my eyes off Jesus and started to sink. If I had not found a place where Christians were being open and honest and faithful I’m not sure what would have happened. But I did find TWW. So what happened is that I now know there are Christians who still believe in justice and mercy and faithfulness instead of weighing out dill and mint and cumin. Who place other human beings above rigid doctrine and oppressive authority and their own glory.

    I would write more but I have to go to church now. I still do that because of this blog. Dee and Deb, if you guys are minions of Satan, I guess things are not working out according to plan…

  132. @ Hester:
    Hester, thanks for bringing that point up. I am one of those who grew up in church and does not have a ‘convertion date’ or story. I have gotten funny looks from many when I tell them that I can’t remember a time when Jesus wasn’t a part of my life or when I didn’t know him….and I can remember back to 18 months old….

    So, I’m not suggesting that growing up in th church and not having the ’emotional’ experience means you’re not ‘saved.’ My experience, however, is that there are many who grow up in churches and are not taught that the relationship is the thing. They are taught that going to church and believingthe right doctrine are what ssave you. And so they really don’t know him…only a twisted form of knowing about him….

  133. Lilyrosemary, How precious you are! There are many of us challenged in finding a body of Christ Full of openess and transparency That is not centered around some personality. May you be blessed in this journey with your Savior!

  134. lilyrosemary wrote:

    I would write more but I have to go to church now. I still do that because of this blog. Dee and Deb, if you guys are minions of Satan, I guess things are not working out according to plan…

    I loved reading your whole story – beautifully written. Shame on Dee and Deb for changing your thinking and causing you to go to church! 😉

  135. @ Rafiki: What a great post. And you are *so* right about reconstructionism (and its other iterations, like Seven Mountains, so beloved of many New Apostolic Reformation people).

    A *lot* of what’s now called Seven Mountains was the norm in That Church (the one that booted me). It was really weird – I was experiencing a ton of cognitive dissonance for a long time before they kicked me out, but I didn’t put all the pieces together until later. I think doing so would have been almost too much for me, because it would have implicated so many people in what is clearly a destructive and dangerous approach to life, government, politics and the wider world in general.

    I do think that it thrived in Washington due to Reagan and his reiteration of Winthrop’s “shining city on a hill” – without, of course, any mention of the fact that those who didn’t agree were NOT allowed to live in that city, nor to have any part of it.

  136. numo wrote:

    I was experiencing a ton of cognitive dissonance for a long time before they kicked me out, but I didn’t put all the pieces together until later. I think doing so would have been almost too much for me, because it would have implicated so many people in what is clearly a destructive and dangerous approach to life, government, politics and the wider world in general.

    YES. 🙂

  137. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Hester, thanks for bringing that point up. I am one of those who grew up in church and does not have a ‘convertion date’ or story. I have gotten funny looks from many when I tell them that I can’t remember a time when Jesus wasn’t a part of my life or when I didn’t know him….and I can remember back to 18 months old….

    Jeanette, my church (RCC) considers both types of conversion event valid — sudden Damascus Road and gradual catechism. Problem with a lot of Evangelicals is they’re tunnel-visioned on the spectacular Damascus Road experience and Moment of Conversion Decision. During my time in-country, I’d run into guys who could recite the Year/Month/Day/Hour/Minute/Second they Said the Words and Got Saved(TM) and they’d look down their gospelly noses at those who couldn’t remember to the exact second. It was “Can You Top This” bragging rights, and you had BETTER conform to their One True Way of conversion experience or else.

  138. Wow, Timbo is really stinging from the (mostly deserved) criticism he is receiving. Is he also obliquely characterizing the reportage of TWW regarding his thinly concealed (like a cat covering up on a tile floor) financial conflicts of interest as gossip?

    My favorite female humorist is the late Peg Bracken, author of I Hate to Cook Book. (I love to cook but I also love this title.) She responded to the famous advice about speech, attributed to The Buddha and Socrates (clearly she didn’t have a problem playing with the big boys) among others. (Paraphrased) Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
    PB’s response (also paraphased–I couldn’t find the quote.) was that this standard seems to leave out everything but “Excuse me, kind sir, but your pants are on fire.” I would add some necessities such as “Could you bring me some toilet paper?” but her point is sound.

    So, adhering to this standard, I say with my fellow blogger/commenters to Tim Challies in his capacity as an avatar of The Gospel Coalition and the modern American evangelical church,”Excuse me, sir, but your pants are on fire.” And instead of saying, “Thank you, friends, I had better put them out. Ouch!!” …

    I can’t resist adding the other half of the schoolyard rhyme. Yep, “Liar, Liar…”

  139. Rafiki wrote:

    Looking back, by God’s grace and life experience in the real world, I realize that in studying these aberrant Reconstructionist teachings I was actually standing on the edge of a steep cliff looking straight into the pit of hell.

    That’s what Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism is to me: the pit of hell.

    It is simply un-Biblical, hateful, totalitarian, and completely anti-democratic. It’s scholarship on history and culture is riddled with errors. It is enslaving. It’s real-world consequences – an idealized evangelical theocracy governed by an OT legal framework – is incredibly scary.

    It’s The Handmaid’s Tale for Real. (And guess who gets to be the Commanders of Holy Gilead?)

    It’s “Just like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

  140. Eagle wrote:

    Jerry Bridges is with the Navigators. He is to Nav what Bill Bright is to Cru.

    And in my college days the Navs had a rep for the Most Extreme Christians on campus, far more than CCC. When I hear “Navigators”, I think Campus Crusade on steroid OD.

    JMJ over at Christian Monist is a Navigators burnout.

  141. @ Jeanette & Anon 1:

    I didn’t mean to suggest that illumination by the HS is optional (and re-reading MM’s comment now, I think you are right that that is more what she was talking about, not a big “crisis” experience – I was reading the comments quickly while heading out the door to church).

    I think I’m just sensitive to this issue as my family has been picked on a lot on this issue because we attend liturgical churches (“dead” churches to our rock band Bible church acquaintances). We’re also not very emotive people, which is also not allowed in modern evangelicalism. Maybe I can blame it on being a Yankee and thus a “cold fish”? ; )

    I know I’ve had watershed experiences/incidents that had a great impact on my spiritual life…though they were much more along the lines of realizations than the rush of certainty that MM described. Frankly after immersing myself in Puritan assurance literature for 2 years, I wish I would have such a rush of certainty…

  142. @ Hester:

    Whether we have an experience of coversion or grow into our faith, those who teach and preach should encourage us with the truth of what God has done for us in Christ and what the scriptures tell us of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We will always be imperfect, have countless questions, sometimes be full of doubts and fear, but we are always loved and totally accepted in the Beloved.

    I heard various versions of the “we are all desperately wicked, deceitful, thankless, hard-hearted, God-hating rebels” from men who thought it a mark of great spirituality to call themselves the chiefest of sinners and the wormiest of worms. I refused to play the game!

  143. @ Rafiki: I can think back on a fair number of places/situations where I either didn’t fit in or where I felt very uncomfortable – and see that they were Reconstructionist or NAR hangouts.

    In one instance, I could have ended up attending an early a.m. meeting with people that I now believe to have been both key players in government and in various aspect of Reconstructionst and/or NAR stuff. (Or just plain “culture wars” proponents.) I consistently accepted the invitation but never did show up, and eventually the person stopped asking. It was a group of women, fwiw…

  144. Hester wrote:

    I think I’m just sensitive to this issue as my family has been picked on a lot on this issue because we attend liturgical churches (“dead” churches to our rock band Bible church acquaintances). We’re also not very emotive people, which is also not allowed in modern evangelicalism. Maybe I can blame it on being a Yankee and thus a “cold fish”? ; )

    I am, I think, a full-blown Calvinist, brought up in a Presbyterian/evangelical environment. BUT recently I’ve felt the need to do strange things, like consider converting to Roman Catholicism. The reason? Sudden deaths in the family and an awareness that you need more than a name or a set of beliefs to give you comfort. I found the catholic service comforting in its open acceptance of a stranger. I found reassurance in the symbols and the ritual as I began to understand what they represented. There is also the familiarity of its contribution to the daily routine of life. I’ve just spent a lot of time in Ireland where the RCC is part of the fabric of life. All of this seems to be missing from the hard Protestantism I’ve been brought up with.

    Strangely too I’ve discovered the writings of the Church Fathers and guess what? They weren’t bogeymen but sensible faithful people confronting the evils of their times.

    So yes I think it is important to see the value in the sacramental church as well as holding doctrine dear.

  145. MM wrote:

    I heard various versions of the “we are all desperately wicked, deceitful, thankless, hard-hearted, God-hating rebels” from men who thought it a mark of great spirituality to call themselves the chiefest of sinners and the wormiest of worms. I refused to play the game!

    I grew up in an environment of constant teasing, putdowns, and belittling. All such “worm theology” did was elevate the belittling to Cosmic Importance. I want something or somebody to tell and show me that I’m actually worth something.

  146. iolair bhann wrote:

    So yes I think it is important to see the value in the sacramental church as well as holding doctrine dear.

    Because as entropy sets in, Doctrine alone drifts into “Ees Party Line, Comrade!” and nothing more.

  147. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    No, Christian Reconstructionism isn’t like a goofy Hollywood movie.

    It’s actually a very real, very dangerous and very evil doctrine that has consequences for the politics and culture that exist here and now, dammit.

    Hester – great posting on Van Til. For more, I’ve always liked the essay “Machen’s Warrior Children” which I’ve linked to previously.

  148. @ Rafiki:

    Thanks Rafiki.

    The comments reflect almost exactly what I’ve been thinking recently – even to the point of having the same reservations, particularly about Mary worship. I bought Raymond Brown’s New Testament Commentary a few months back and it is the best I’ve read in years for clarity and precision. Everything was clear and to the point and I was left wondering why I’d never heard of him before. (The answer was easy – I don’t normally visit Catholic bookshops. I also picked up a ” Catholic” Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church!).
    Thanks again

  149. @ Rafiki: Have you ever read The Handmaid’s Tale, or seen the movie?

    *neither* of them are goofy; in fact, the so-called “Republic of Gilead” in both is ultra-Reconstructionist.

    I prefer the book to the film, though. I think the film tried hard, but maybe it would have been better for the script and story if done as a 2-3 part TV show. (a la the Beeb, PBS, etc.)

  150. @ Marge Sweigart:

    @ Marge~

    “They say that believers are supposed to accept everything that happens – good or bad – as being directly from the merciful hand of God for His glory and for our sanctification. They teach that we should give thanks no matter what happens because God causes all things to work together for good a la Romans 8:28.”

    Thanks Marge. I am still trying to figure out how SGM, who teaches that everything is from the hand of God, can fight against this lawsuit. How can they kick against what is from the merciful hand of God, as you put it and not rejoice in the suit? I realize it is hypocrisy and they are not intending to follow what they teach,but still-my brain hurts trying to understand. I should stop trying.

    When did the will of God go from lawsuit…to fighting lawsuit- not only fighting it, but asking it to be dismissed? In other words, asking a judge to make the will of God disappear?

    Bridges began his sermon talking about how he had malformed heart valves at birth. He said that was how God designed him in the womb, etc. It was God’s will for his life. He then said he had recently had heart valve surgery to correct this God willed design for him. HUH? What happened to God’s will for his life? Do they teach that the will of God (as they teach it…every single thing that comes into your life) is something to not take seriously? I want to know how he got from the first will of God, to the surgery will of God.

    I don’t get the logic and it just bugs me to no end. It reminds me of a word of faith adherent who told me recently that Jesus healed her of her heart disease at a recent prayer meeting she went to and then immediately asked me if I knew of a good Christian (of course) cardiologist that I can recommend for her.

  151. @ numo:

    Yes, I am familiar with the book and the movie.

    But I’m frankly more familiar with the real life implications of people being elected to office and organizing politically in the U.S. who hold these aberrant views and are rapidly mainstreaming them in both the church and politics.

    And my own study of these doctrines led to a very serious crisis of faith for me personally.

    Forgive me if glib snappy movie references regarding this topic don’t go down well with me.

  152. Eagle, Looks like your comment got deleted over at SBC Voices and a big rebuke from one of the big boys. You called a “brother in Christ”, a fraud! GASP. How dare you and a pastor, no less!

    Well, If Mahaney and guys like that are what we can expect as the real deal….then what does that say about what passes for Christianity on a blog full of SBC pastors? I think you know the answer to that one!

    http://sbcvoices.com/could-you-do-it/

    By the way, that blog has not had ONE WORD about the lawsuit, Mohler’s involvement with someone like Mahaney, Dever, etc. Nothing but praises, I might add. The Reformed wing of the SBC is totally corrupt, blind and ignorant.

  153. That is why I am no longer affiliated with the SBC. It is a corrupt power hungry political organization and not truly a Christian denomination. It keeps moving further and further away from the love of God for humanity and our love for his grace and forgiveness, and toward a hierarchy that feeds money and power from the pew to the big dogs.

  154. @ numo:

    I thought that Anglicanism would be a suitable halfway house in that the Mary stuff would be dropped and transubstantiation lessened. I don’t know much about Lutheranism apart from being in an Augsburg Confession church many years ago. At that time I ended up attending a Polish Methodist church! I’ve also been to Paisley Abbey a couple of times which is high Anglican/Church of Scotland and I’ve been following the Book of Common Prayer to try and get into a ‘routine’ of prayer at night.

  155. @ iolair bhann:

    IB, that sounds very similar to where I’ve been, church-wise, for a few years now – Anglicanism as “halfway house.” When I do go, which is not often, the Anglican service and communion, along with the Book of Common Prayer, has been a real place of respite.

  156. “And my own study of these doctrines led to a very serious crisis of faith for me personally.”

    Rafiki, I have to tell you where I first heard of these doctrines. It was not until about 2005 when I started doing some research on church trends. I found all these forums and new blogs that were discussing this movement from Fed Vision, Reconstruction, Dominionism and they were all done by folks who had come out of these groups. I had NO idea. I was stunned. (You would think someone who voted for Reagan would have heard of it since it seems some think he was a Dominionist! I think the Marxist Liberation guys want a nanny state to control us too. Two peas on a pod, I guess)

    The stories of the people I read came from Doug Wilson’s group CREC, Some OPC groups, Sproul, Jr., Doug Phillips, Gary NOrth and probably other names I cannot recall.

    The people who were coming out were shell shocked. It seems to have some roots in Gothard because his name came up all the time and I had never heard of him! I think it might have been more of a copy cat thing? So, what I read about him and his training program astounded me. It seems it was incorporated in many churches…which were not really of that bent. And from what I hve read about his “institute in Basic Life Principles” blew me away. A very subtle way to suck folks in with a detailed how to Christianity. A formula to follow which basically teaches people HOW to think.

    These were the days I became aware of just how toxic what was passing for Christianity was out there. I had no idea so many major problems existed!

    I was just concerned about the trajectory of the mega industrial complex which was chewing up people right and left but was nothing compared to some of the stuff out there. So, imagine my surprise when I hear that Piper was bringing in Doug Wilson to speak at Desiring God. I was stunned. Now he is considered an “intellectual”. Seriously? More like an ego maniac manipulator.

    So I am seeing what was considered the fringe just a few years ago become mainstreamed by guys like Piper, Gospel Coalition, etc. What we should have been concerned about was Mahaney, too. but he was able to reinvent himself and his movement well enough we did not see him as the “Head Apostle” from People of Destiny a shepherding cult.

    Nothing is safe anymore. We simply have to do our homework.

  157. @ Anon 1:
    Anon1: Sadly at SBC Voices they all for the most part just pat each other on the back regardless of the circumstances. The SBC is truly a sad place with these pastors “leading” the way. They are a quite intolerant group of folks for the most part.

  158. Mot, I seriously think they believe if they ignore everything it will go away. And they probably think speaking negative truths about guys they have adored and promoted is a sin, too.

    Kind of strange they cannot even mention there is a lawsuit. Shows one how bad it is has gotten. That is why their words about Penn State coverup appear fake. They are also “covering up”. They have no love for ordinary people. They have lots of love for the celebrities.

  159. @ Anon 1:

    You are correct they have no love for ordinary people. They really do believe they are “rulers” and everyone else is just to follow their edicts with no questions allowed.

  160. @ Anon 1:

    Some of the kids who were raised and homeschooled inside this Christian subculture are now in their 20s and 30s and they’re beginning to speak out. I’m not sure if Julie Anne has already mentioned this here, but Homeschoolers Anonymous, a website where these young people can share their stories, just went up today.

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/

  161. Hey all
    Can you help me with something? I can no longer find FabSharford’s post at The Gospel Coalition. I could find one post she did in January but the one written about here seems to have disappeared. I may not be looking at this correctly but it does seem a bit difficult to find when, on Friday, it was in the #1 placement spot on the right column.

  162. Dee wrote:

    Hey all
    Can you help me with something? I can no longer find FabSharford’s post at The Gospel Coalition. I could find one post she did in January but the one written about here seems to have disappeared. I may not be looking at this correctly but it does seem a bit difficult to find when, on Friday, it was in the #1 placement spot on the right column.

    Dee – do you have the original link? You can put the link in wayback machine.

  163. Dee – go to TGC page and hit “earlier links” at the bottom of the menu on the right hand side.

  164. If you want to get an idea of the “new and improved” CBMW, you might want to read “And Apology to the Wounded Birds” and “The Womanhood Chatter and Going Beyond the Wars”. Looks like Mary K has been replaced.

  165. Sorry, the articles I mention above are on the second page of TGC just about Fab’s Painful Plea.

  166. Jenny wrote:

    @ Anon 1:

    Some of the kids who were raised and homeschooled inside this Christian subculture are now in their 20s and 30s and they’re beginning to speak out. I’m not sure if Julie Anne has already mentioned this here, but Homeschoolers Anonymous, a website where these young people can share their stories, just went up today.

    https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/

    That is awesome. I really pray for healing for all these young people coming out of these movements whatever they are. I think we are in for some serious fall out from the YRR movement, too in a few years. We are already seeing some small movements in that area and usually from the pew sitter who thinks a lot. :o)

    Years ago, I had a correspondance with a woman and her husband who came out of Scott Browns FIC movement. They were helping young woman escape. These were young women who were homeschooled and had to stay home and “serve” their fathers until someone their father approved of would marry them. Some were in early 20’s and had never had a gyn exam! One was found to have a large tumor that had to be removed upon her first exam! ONe of them could not even drive. They had never worked outside the home and were basically socially ignorant. No skills at all to navigate the basics in the world.

    It is criminal.

    And SBTS was promoting Scott Brown and FIC just a few years back through Randy Alcorn. It did not go over well, though.

  167. Jenny, I went to the site you linked and the first story I read isabout the bizarre Gothard indoctrination!

  168. @ Jenny:
    Thank you for that link! I was raised in public and private schools. My husband was homeschooled. The church we were a part of intentionally dumbed-down the kids, so I don’t entirely blame his parents for the deficiencies. I know there are awesome homeschooling families out there. It all depends on the environment and world perspective that the family may be influenced by, such as Vision Forum, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. I’m glad the voices of some of these young people are beginning to ring out. Their story needs to be told.

  169. Jenny wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    Some of the kids who were raised and homeschooled inside this Christian subculture are now in their 20s and 30s and they’re beginning to speak out. I’m not sure if Julie Anne has already mentioned this here, but Homeschoolers Anonymous, a website where these young people can share their stories, just went up today.
    https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/

    Jenny, I have not mentioned it, but thank you for doing so.

    Ever since my spiritual abuse journey, I have been trying to figure out what led our family to that spiritually abusive church who sued us and who were our primary influencers. I found that the most influential people in the last few decades have been leaders in the homeschool movement who have an agenda. We have been taught so strongly to “train our children” and some of us did that quite well. We created little obedient and compliant robots who were polite, respected authority and looked really good in church all lined up in a pew. People always commended us on our beautiful large family.

    What many are finding out is those robots, when released to the real world, start questioning where they came from, what they believe, where they are going. This is a normal response for young adults. But I’m seeing a disturbing trend especially among young adults who were raised in this kind of environment. Many of these “trained” adult kids are now going 180 degrees in the opposite direction perhaps in response to the controlled environment in which they were raised, some suffering a host of problems similar to what abuse victims experience: mental health issues, addiction issues, etc. There is a lot of heartache among this group.

    I feel very responsible for buying into this garbage. I will continue to speak out against it on my blog. It takes a lot of emotional energy to work up one of these posts because it means I have to admit my failure. My blog will continue to be a platform for these precious young adults. I believe in a way that some of us parents were cult leaders in our families. We were fed an agenda by those home school leaders. We believed it. We saw their perfect families and wanted to emulate what we saw.

    Most of the participants in the group are former homeschool students. Two of us are homeschool moms. Interestingly, you will notice that most of these folks have walked away from their Christian heritage. I think conservative homeschoolers will find this shocking. In fact, I, Julie Anne Smith, am afraid to post about this on my private Facebook page because I have easily 300+ homeschooling friends/moms who might be pretty upset if I mention this big homeschooling secret.

    So yes, I am partnering with R.L. Stollar who is an amazing individual and now friend who was completely homeschooled and started this group. I have so much respect for what he is doing to help his peers. I hope other homeschool parents will listen to our collective voices. It’s never too late, right? Please tell me that. We still have 4 of our 7 kids under 18 yrs old.

  170. Jenny wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    Some of the kids who were raised and homeschooled inside this Christian subculture are now in their 20s and 30s and they’re beginning to speak out. I’m not sure if Julie Anne has already mentioned this here, but Homeschoolers Anonymous, a website where these young people can share their stories, just went up today.
    https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/

    Jenny, I have not mentioned it, but thank you for doing so.

    Ever since my spiritual abuse journey, I have been trying to figure out what led our family to that spiritually abusive church who sued us and who were our primary influencers. I found that the most influential people in the last few decades have been leaders in the homeschool movement who have an agenda. We have been taught so strongly to “train our children” and some of us did that quite well. We created little obedient and compliant robots who were polite, respected authority and looked really good in church all lined up in a pew. People always commended us on our beautiful large family.

    What many are finding out is those robots, when released to the real world, start questioning where they came from, what they believe, where they are going. This is a normal response for young adults. But I’m seeing a disturbing trend especially among young adults who were raised in this kind of environment. Many of these “trained” adult kids are now going 180 degrees in the opposite direction perhaps in response to the controlled environment in which they were raised, some suffering a host of problems similar to what abuse victims experience: mental health issues, addiction issues, etc. There is a lot of heartache among this group.

    I feel very responsible for buying into this garbage. I will continue to speak out against it on my blog. It takes a lot of emotional energy to work up one of these posts because it means I have to admit my failure. My blog will continue to be a platform for these precious young adults. I believe in a way that some of us parents were cult leaders in our families. We were fed an agenda by those home school leaders. We believed it. We saw their perfect families and wanted to emulate what we saw.

    Most of the participants in the group are former homeschool students. Two of us are homeschool moms. Interestingly, you will notice that most of these folks have walked away from their Christian heritage. I think conservative homeschoolers will find this shocking. In fact, I, Julie Anne Smith, am afraid to post about this on my private Facebook page because I have easily 300+ homeschooling friends/moms who might be pretty upset if I mention this big homeschooling secret.

    So yes, I am partnering with R.L. Stollar who is an amazing individual and now friend who was completely homeschooled and started this group. I have so much respect for what he is doing to help his peers. I hope other homeschool parents will listen to our collective voices. It’s never too late, right? Please tell me that. We still have 4 of our 7 kids under 18 yrs old.

  171. Eagle, These SBC Reformed pastors have no idea that guys like Mohler are using them. If Mohler’s position were in jeporady he would change on a dime and leave them all hanging. The thing they never get is the top guys are all about themselves and retaining power. It has nothing to do with beliefs. Beliefs are what they use to get and keep followers. But you can always find more of those.

  172. To be called an intellectual can be a bit of a two-edged sword, in my opinion. I’m not thinking about the normal way of decrying somebody as “pseudo-intellectual” but rather the fact that some of the most disastrous experiments in human history have been from, or supported by, intellectuals. In one sense a coherent and persuasive intellectual ensconsed in academia (or similar unassailable position) may be far more dangerous than just the angry ranting guy on a soapbox.

  173. @ Anon 1:

    I think far too many of the power brokers of the SBC only care about power and money. They have no concept of being a servant.

  174. Julie Anne, One of the best lessons you can teach your child by modeling it, is to admit you were very wrong and talk about it in detail so they can learn by your experience and how it affected them. That will stay with them so hopefully they will remember it one day and not hold on to something wrong to save face. That does not mean they won’t resent it for a while. I woudl rather have my child resent me than Jesus Christ, who is not to blame for our choices. God did not will these movements or experiences.

    I think it is ridiculous how some groups have this rule that “dad” or the “pastor” is never wrong even when he is wrong. I was astonished to see that application in so many of these closed groups. And now it is becoming mainstream.

  175. Eagle, It IS sick. It is the bubble. It is groupthink. Can they not put themselves in the position of a parent who trusted their leaders only to be treated like thsi? No, they can’t. They tend to view the parent as weak followers. That is the whole irony of this movement. The contempt for people they view as “under” them. The non ministerial person. So they want your allegiance and to fill up a pew for numbers and they talk a good game but really, when it comes down to it, they have no respect for them.

    How do I know? By their silence. It SCREAMS what they really believe. CJ is more important than a 3 year old girl who was molested. They have an “upside down kingdom”. It ain’t the real one. Mohler has taken the SBC to the toilet.

  176. Eagle, Their view of “correct doctrine” is more important than molested little girls and covering it up. Not unlike Penn State, is it? But it is different when it is a celebrity pastor covering it up. He gets a pass because of correct doctrine. These are the same guys that did not have a problem speaking up about Schaap. But CJ? He is one of them and it is different now.

  177. @ Anon 1:

    “It seems to have some roots in Gothard because his name came up all the time”

    Doug Phillips actually spoke the words “beloved men like Bill Gothard” in the first lecture I analyzed.

  178. @ Julie Anne:

    “We created little obedient and compliant robots who were polite, respected authority and looked really good in church all lined up in a pew.”

    There is one big thing that Christian parents who follow “Christian” parenting advice miss. They are training their children to listen to an external voice (allegedly God, but really their parents). When they are no longer that external voice, and are replaced by peers, college professors, etc., they lose them because they never taught them to think for themselves. One of my parents’ big maxims when they raised me: it’s a lot harder to rebel against your own decisions.

    Except when you present the above to a naive Christian parent whose children are under 10yo, it doesn’t matter how old you are or how many children you’ve successfully raised…you’re an idiot because you aren’t spouting the canned party line. Most of them seem completely unable to listen until they’ve already reaped the consequences of their control-them-and-make-them-mind parenting.

  179. @ Rafiki: Hey, I can see why you’d react as you did… though I find both the book and movie to be quite chilling, all things considered.

    Between the outright Reconstructionists and other sorts of Dominionists, we have very real reason to be worried. I’m still amazed at the way these people are getting a pass from most of the media (people like Jeff Sharlet and Rachel Maddow excepted).

  180. @ Hester:

    Like Julie Anne, I was seduced by the siren song of VF, et. al., for a few years before my BS-meter finally went off. My husband never fell for it, gently guided me away from sharp objects and steep ledges and patiently waited for me to come to my senses and give all my denim jumpers to the Goodwill. I think I apologized to him and my kids for the whole crazy episode every day for about a year.

    Since then we have been known as the “rebel homeschoolers” – the ones the other homeschool families at church no longer ask over for play dates or invite to birthday parties. We were hurt at first, but we found a local inclusive group to hang out with and got over it. Now I have one kid in college and two still at home. They don’t seem any worse for wear from their excursion to VFland.

    Since then we’ve tried to minister to other homeschool parents we know who remain in that mindset. It is tragic how many of them insist that they would never, ever apologize to their child for anything (because that would compromise their authority in the home) and they would never, ever allow their children to make important decisions for themselves (because “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child”).

    No matter how we try to explain it, most of these parents either do not understand

    hypercontrol + isolation = dysfunctional young adult

    or they willfully choose to disregard it. As you point out, most of these parents have young children yet, and haven’t endured the pain of watching a child struggle and self-destruct.

    I’m glad to see the adult children of the homeschool movement begin to speak out at Homeschoolers Anonymous. I know they will gain so much strength from finally having a voice. I would also really like to hear the stories of parents who were lulled into this movement and whose families were ultimately victimized by it.

  181. Hester wrote:

    There is one big thing that Christian parents who follow “Christian” parenting advice miss. They are training their children to listen to an external voice (allegedly God, but really their parents). When they are no longer that external voice, and are replaced by peers, college professors, etc., they lose them because they never taught them to think for themselves. One of my parents’ big maxims when they raised me: it’s a lot harder to rebel against your own decisions.

    I’ve always thought it was important that people think for themselves, but I never thought about it quite that way before: being trained to listen to an external voice instead of an internal voice. I remember reading (in William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience, I think?) about a monk who said what a relief it was to simply obey authority, knowing that you weren’t responsible for your actions as long as you were following the orders of your superiors. But what if your superiors command you to do something repugnant to God? Failing to cultivate that inner voice can be a problem even if you’re not prone to rebellion.

  182. @ Eagle:

    Eagle, since you mentioned finding a way out of your 5 year season of doubt … and anyone else interested,

    Here’s a wonderful site that has helped me much lately http://howtotalkevangelical.addiezierman.com/ It’s the blog of a very gifted lady (I think), who went through a period of deep depression, alienated from ‘Church People’, started drinking, and then slowly found her way back to faith. Now she writes about Evangelical cliches and ‘slogans’. Her writing is really deep and beautiful, and it’s helped me much. Here’s a wonderful post to begin with:
    http://howtotalkevangelical.addiezierman.com/?p=1537 It really touched me deeply.

    I don’t even remember what link I followed to end up at her site, so if it was anyone here that recommended it… sorry for the repetition. 🙂

  183. @ lilyrosemary:

    “I remember reading…about a monk who said what a relief it was to simply obey authority, knowing that you weren’t responsible for your actions as long as you were following the orders of your superiors.”

    I’ve seen this same attitude among comp wives, too. “It’s such a relief to submit because I know that if everything goes wrong, it’s all his fault!”

  184. @ Julie Anne:

    Checked out Homeschoolers Anonymous and it’s great. Others on here have said that the internet helped SGM survivors “compare notes” – well, now this is starting to happen with the Christian homeschool Bubble “survivors” too. There are also academics beginning to validly study homeschoolers (not agenda-driven “studies” like NHERI puts out). Put these two things together and what’s revealed will be very ugly.

    The sad part is this wouldn’t need to be done if Christian homeschoolers had just admitted from the beginning that their community wasn’t perfect. But many of the ones I know, as soon as you bring up a problem case, they immediately try to define that case away – i.e., they weren’t a real homeschooler so that problem can’t be used to criticize us. If this doesn’t work they revert to other strategies (“But they were extreme“, etc.), unable to see that many of the things they themselves do are exactly the same as what the “problem” family did.

    Often unpleasant things are kept hidden. For instance, the dad of a homeschool family in my state, who were widely admired when I was a kid, killed himself a few weeks ago. No one knows why. Other times kids implode really badly and “no one saw it coming.” Think also of the reaction to Lydia Schatz’s death – no one thought the parents would be capable of it because they seemed like such a “sweet family.”

    I’m not anti-homeschooling by any stretch, but someone needs to shine a light on the more extreme sectors of the movement. They won’t like what they find in many cases.

  185. Monica,

    I don't recall anyone mentioning the website How to Talk to an Evangelical, and I look forward to reading some of the posts over there. Thanks for the link!

  186. Hester,

    I am grateful for how you're tackling important issues affecting the homeschooling community.

    I have been reading some of your posts. Keep up the great work!

  187. Monica –

    Thanks for that link. The book that was quoted at the beginning of the post was a beneficial read. It is “A Praying Life” by Paul Miller.

  188. Deb, Dee, everybody:

    How old are these Head Apostles, Pastor-Dictators, and the like? Would they be classified as Baby Boomers (birth year roughly 1942-65)?

    The reason is Baby Boomers tend towards submerging themselves in Cosmically-Important Causes and Ideologies, Purity of Ideology, Grandoise Plans for Perfect Futures, all a cover for their own Utter Selfishness and total indifference to anything outside themselves. NPD with an Altruistic (and Humble, of course) coat of paint. Behavior characteristics we’ve seen in the batch of CELEBRITY Pastors and spiritual abusers covered here at WBW.

  189. Hester wrote:

    @ lilyrosemary:
    “I remember reading…about a monk who said what a relief it was to simply obey authority, knowing that you weren’t responsible for your actions as long as you were following the orders of your superiors.”
    I’ve seen this same attitude among comp wives, too. “It’s such a relief to submit because I know that if everything goes wrong, it’s all his fault!”

    I think this, perhaps, more than anything else explains the appeal of highly centralised, controlling and infantilising churches. Many commentators, secular and religious, have remarked over the years on the fact that the “typical” cult member is actually relatively well-educated and, in theory, should be able to see through the half-truths and outright lies.

    But of course that’s not how it works. There is evidently a deep-seated fear of adulthood and mature responsibility that is not lessened, and may sometimes even be worsened, by developing one’s intellectual knowledge. If the emotional cost associated with asking difficult questions, or of undertaking some proper critical thinking, is too high, we don’t do it.

    (It works even at a frivolous level – it’s presumably why so many England football fans cling to the belief that we can win the next World Cup. Those of you with no interest in Association Football will probably not realise just how daft that is.)

  190. “But of course that’s not how it works. There is evidently a deep-seated fear of adulthood and mature responsibility that is not lessened, and may sometimes even be worsened, by developing one’s intellectual knowledge. If the emotional cost associated with asking difficult questions, or of undertaking some proper critical thinking, is too high, we don’t do it.”

    This is going on at all levels of society here. People will defend mandates from the government for themselves/others but never stop to think the people making the mandates will never have to live under them. It really is unbelievable.

  191. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    it’s presumably why so many England football fans cling to the belief that we can win the next World Cup.

    LOLOLOL daft indeed.

    Detour alert:

    Nick, are you going to even bother watching the UEFA Champions League now with no English teams moving forward?

    Come on over to the Bayern Munich side! 🙂

  192. Hester wrote:

    The sad part is this wouldn’t need to be done if Christian homeschoolers had just admitted from the beginning that their community wasn’t perfect. But many of the ones I know, as soon as you bring up a problem case, they immediately try to define that case away – i.e., they weren’t a real homeschooler so that problem can’t be used to criticize us. If this doesn’t work they revert to other strategies (“But they were extreme“, etc.), unable to see that many of the things they themselves do are exactly the same as what the “problem” family did.

    Hester, they have had a lot of practice. I suspect most of these folks are also the same folks in abusive, high-controlling churches and that’s how they behave there. It is all connected. That’s why I said that parents behaved like cult leaders in our own homes. We learned this at our churches (churches like SGM, HOFCC, etc). If our kids rebelled, just like Calvinistas do, we blamed our sinful children. It could never be us, the parents. Our system was too perfect, just like the Calvinista system.

  193. Julie Anne wrote:
    I suspect most of these folks are also the same folks in abusive, high-controlling churches and that’s how they behave there. It is all connected. That’s why I said that parents behaved like cult leaders in our own homes. We learned this at our churches (churches like SGM, HOFCC, etc). If our kids rebelled, just like Calvinistas do, we blamed our sinful children. It could never be us, the parents. Our system was too perfect, just like the Calvinista system.

    Did you ever see the TV show “Kids by the Dozen?” There was a family featured who had excommunicated/shunned their (I think oldest) daughter. So the family was a little cult of its own. I think there’s a major tie-in here to the ‘church discipline’ discussion at SBCVoices. For those who haven’t read the story, Pops tries to do right by his wayward son Billy by excommunicating Billy from the local SBC. But there’s a problem. Billy can still take communion at any of hundreds of Protestant churches in his city, including dozens of non-SBC Baptist ones. And Pops makes it clear 3 times that Billy’s still welcome to hang out and eat with him and Mom. Sooo… The only churches where the popular ‘church-disciple’ model will be REALLY effective are fully FIC ones– where the family IS the church and the Patriarch is also the cult-leader.

  194. Rafiki wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    it’s presumably why so many England football fans cling to the belief that we can win the next World Cup.
    LOLOLOL daft indeed.
    Detour alert:
    Nick, are you going to even bother watching the UEFA Champions League now with no English teams moving forward?
    Come on over to the Bayern Munich side!

    To pursue the detour… I have plenty of interest remaining in the Give Us Yer Money Cup (as Jimmy Greaves once called it) – as it happens I’ve long been an admirer of Bayern, and of German football more generally. I even support Scotland when they’re playing (as an expat Englishman resident north of The Border).

  195. Until we purge the narcissists, psycopaths, and snake-oil salesmen from our ranks within evangelicalism, we will continue to have abuse and authoritarianism plague us. It is high time that evangelicals start to get educated in psychology and start to understand differences in personalities. It is high time that we start to think for ourselves and start holding those in leadership to account for their actions.

    To Tim Challies if you’re reading this: You and the rest of the nutcases in the New Calvinist movement do not have any authority over what we say, over the fact that some of us have egalitarian marriages, and the fact that we choose not to believe in a Calvinistic deterministic God (and yes, Tim & friends we voluntarily CHOOSE this). You will not tell us what to do and what to say, and we will be watching and opposing you every step of the way. We stand with the abused and you do not.

  196. Marge,

    I've already taken a look at the motion. Thanks for sharing the link with our TWW family. We may be chiming in about it and asking a few questions.

  197. Ryan,

    Preach it brother! My hubby and I are celebrating our silver anniversary in May, and we have always had a fantastic egalitarian marriage.

  198. Marge

    I would be so embarrassed if I were the accused. We will be discussing the lovely charges in the motion to dismiss. 

  199. A few days ago, some of us were having a conversation about this new trend among some preachers to encourage their church members to live a life of poverty, or to go serve in remote parts of the world for the gospel, and if you do not, it’s suggested you may not be a true follower of Christ, you are selfish, etc.

    I do not object to Christians who want to be missionaries or help the homeless and such, but it does bother me when
    1. preachers present those as a Christian’s only options for service; and
    2. they ignore the regular, every day Christians sitting next to them, in the process of weeping over Africa’s orphans or the un-saved Muslims in the Middle East etc

    I found this link the other day which critiques these preachers’ views.

    The author also mentions how some pastors pushing for American / middle class Christians to go live in shanties in Timbuktu to preach to the natives, also tend to be enamored of big book publishing deals, conferences, and they typically have mega- church structures that cost millions:

    Here Come The Radicals!, on Christianity Today.com

  200. @ Caleb W:

    So…her solution for women who have been wounded by complementarianism is more complementarianism? LOL, no thanks.

    so also refers to Satan several times (ie “the thief who comes to steal and destroy”) as if to suggest it is Satan who has distorted gender complementarian views, and that is what’s causing the pain and discord,not the complementarianism itself.

    It’s my position that it is complementarianism itself, coupled with many of the male gender wanting to control women, and woman’s fallen nature of wanting to be controlled by a man, that has led to some of the problems with how women are treated and viewed in the church.

    There are only so many ways the complementarians can dress up and reword the gist of their position, which is married women are to submit to their spouse, as in, the man gets final say, women in abusive marriages must remain where they are, a woman’s highest or only calling in life is marriage/ parenting (so if you’re not married and/or a childless female, there is no place for you in their universe). You can’t honestly dress any of that up to make it sound “winsome” or appealing, or pin it on Satan twisting their views.

  201. Rafiki wrote:

    The Reconstructionist doctrines always left me vaguely uncomfortable…
    .. I realize that in studying these aberrant Reconstructionist teachings I was actually standing on the edge of a steep cliff looking straight into the pit of hell.
    …It is simply un-Biblical, hateful, totalitarian, and completely anti-democratic. It’s scholarship on history and culture is riddled with errors. It is enslaving. It’s real-world consequences – an idealized evangelical theocracy governed by an OT legal framework – is incredibly scary.

    I haven’t read nearly as much on the topic you have, but after looking at some of Hester’s links, alone with a few web pages a few days ago about it, I was very much creeped out.

    Some of these Reconstructionist guys want American law to permit the stoning to death of people who commit adultery, women who have sex before marriage (why do they not include men), etc. Very creepy stuff and flies into the face of Christ’s teachings (Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and did not call for the crowd to kill her with their stones).

    How is it that they are so enamored with Old Testament teachings/Laws and seem to ignore New Testament teachings?

  202. Daisy,

    We have followed this path; but it is absolutely not for everyone. To raise up a one-size-fits-all way for every Christian to live an “obedient” life for God goes against the Scriptures that point to the many different gifts and roles we have. We all come with what we have to the table. It’s varied by God’s design.

    I think it’s our tendency to want to define carefully what is THE best in every area of life, i.e. how to live a godly life, the best way to do Bible study, the best way to do church, the best theology, the best way to teach our kids, the best way to run a marriage. I think we try to define them so tightly, package them and then sell them to others as The Way to do life for everyone.

    I’m not knocking the books. When I think of their lives and where they each live, I can understand their messages as good exhortations to think differently, a challenge to not just live mindlessly. But it seems the message is for those who think it fits them and not for everyone.

  203. It is a truly bizarre post.

    Daisy wrote:

    @ Caleb W:

    So…her solution for women who have been wounded by complementarianism is more complementarianism? LOL, no thanks.

    so also refers to Satan several times (ie “the thief who comes to steal and destroy”) as if to suggest it is Satan who has distorted gender complementarian views, and that is what’s causing the pain and discord,not the complementarianism itself.

    It’s my position that it is complementarianism itself, coupled with many of the male gender wanting to control women, and woman’s fallen nature of wanting to be controlled by a man, that has led to some of the problems with how women are treated and viewed in the church.

    There are only so many ways the complementarians can dress up and reword the gist of their position, which is married women are to submit to their spouse, as in, the man gets final say, women in abusive marriages must remain where they are, a woman’s highest or only calling in life is marriage/ parenting (so if you’re not married and/or a childless female, there is no place for you in their universe). You can’t honestly dress any of that up to make it sound “winsome” or appealing, or pin it on Satan twisting their views.

  204. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I do remember the age I accepted Christ as Savior (I was under the age of ten), but my particular conversion still doesn’t line up with the Baptist, fundamentalist, or evangelical favored method of hearing testimonies by people who were really violent or very, very wicked pre-conversion.

    As I’ve said before, I’ve watched a lot of Christian TV over the years, and I’ve noticed that the audiences and pastors seem to whoop it up more, applaud more, and be more impressed by testimonies from people who said they didn’t accept Christ until age 25 – 60, and prior to it, did crack cocaine, mugged granny ladies, lived on the streets, and beat up puppies.

    The 700 Club show tends to feature these more “spectacular” testimonies more often than run- of- the- mill conversions.

    My conversion isn’t as thrilling.

    I was a shy, quiet, well- behaved kid who accepted Jesus before age ten, I didn’t knock over any banks or go on serial killing sprees, or descend into prostitution, booze, or pills before (or after), so my testimony is not considered as sexy or life-altering.

    The evangelical / fundamentalist favor for stunning conversion stories, and featuring them so often, does sort of paint a distorted view that Christ is only for people who have very, very messed up circumstances (i.e., severe drug addiction, etc).

    If you’re an “Average Joe” or “Average Jane” living a fairly clean, hum-drum, uneventful lifestyle, they make it seem like you don’t need a Savior. Like Jesus is only for mafia guys, convicts, or drug sellers.

  205. Daisy wrote:

    Some of these Reconstructionist guys want American law to permit the stoning to death of people who commit adultery, women who have sex before marriage (why do they not include men), etc. Very creepy stuff and flies into the face of Christ’s teachings (Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and did not call for the crowd to kill her with their stones).
    How is it that they are so enamored with Old Testament teachings/Laws and seem to ignore New Testament teachings?

    Because Reconstructionism means THEY get to be in POWER.

    “The only goal of Power is POWER.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four

  206. @ Caleb W:

    So anyone who does’t live out the complementatian life (the extra-biblical rules of which have yet to be determined . . . stay tuned) is “a wounded bird.” And “someone” is sorry. So, would ya’ll come back for more? (Would that be like a dog returning to its vomit?) A bird-brain has more sense!

  207. Daisy wrote:

    So…her solution for women who have been wounded by complementarianism is more complementarianism? LOL, no thanks.

    It’s called “doubling down”; when things are circling the drain, do what got you there in the first place HARDER! Like the USSR when they started cracking apart at the seams in the Brezhnev era.

    so also refers to Satan several times (ie “the thief who comes to steal and destroy”) as if to suggest it is Satan who has distorted gender complementarian views, and that is what’s causing the pain and discord,not the complementarianism itself.

    “THE DEBBIL MADE ME DO IT!” — Flip Wilson’s Geraldine

  208. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    It’s “Just like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

    That’s something else I wanted to say above in my post about Reconstructionism but forgot.

    As I was reading about what these guys want America to be like under Old Testament Law, I kept thinking, “This sounds an awful lot like Islamic sharia. What is the difference?

    Another thought is that if you read the Old Testament closely, even God Himself was not always as strict as the Reconstructionists are, and Jesus Christ seems to convey in the New Testament that God leans more towards grace and mercy than punishment.

    Is it the Old Testament that says ‘God desires mercy, not sacrifice?’

    To me, God does come off a lot more harsh in the Old than in the New Testament, but even in the Old, there are occasions where God forgave people and gave them a second or third chance, but I don’t see that from the Reconstructionist advocates.

    If your position is even more harsh, strict, and un-forgiving than God’s is in the Old Testament, that should be a clue to you that something is amiss with your view.

  209. Daisy wrote:

    As I’ve said before, I’ve watched a lot of Christian TV over the years, and I’ve noticed that the audiences and pastors seem to whoop it up more, applaud more, and be more impressed by testimonies from people who said they didn’t accept Christ until age 25 – 60, and prior to it, did crack cocaine, mugged granny ladies, lived on the streets, and beat up puppies.

    The 700 Club show tends to feature these more “spectacular” testimonies more often than run- of- the- mill conversions.

    I think a lot of that is because Christians are not supposed to watch Jerry Springer but still want their fix of “JUICY! JUICY! JUICY!”

  210. Hester wrote:

    We’re also not very emotive people, which is also not allowed in modern evangelicalism. Maybe I can blame it on being a Yankee and thus a “cold fish”? ; )

    I’ve lived all over the nation since childhood, but was born in the south, and I favor the south to other parts, but I’m not emotive, either, and I don’t feel comfortable in churches / denominations that stress an outward showing of emotion,such as hand waving during services, etc. I’ve been a guest in a few churches like that and felt so awkward.

    What I really don’t care for are preachers who try to make you feel ashamed for not showing emotion during a service, like these preachers on TV who chide people with, “Why is it you cheer and laugh at sporting events but show no emotion at church?”

    I’m not emotive in church settings (when I bother to attend) nor am I emotive in secular settings.

    There is a pressure by some denominations to act or be a certain way, like you have to always be happy-smiley or emotive.

    TV pastor John Hagee on occasion will tell his viewing audience how he sees a lot of Christians that look like “mean bull dogs” or like they suck on lemons. He thinks that sends a bad message about Christianity to Non Christians. I find that pressure by him and other Christians to be always-happy-looking a little annoying.

    Some Christians may have a good reason for why they are not smiling – some may have just lost a loved one, or they have depression, or their personality is just simply not a perky, bubbly one.

    God made us all different, so who is this guy, or any preacher, to present this “smiley- upbeat, you must be an extrovert” persona as being the only “biblical” one, or only authentic Christian witness?

    The Bible says “Jesus wept” and that “Jesus was a man of sorrows.”

    I’m sure Jesus also laughed at times and was happy, but I don’t get this picture of him from the Gospels that he was a perpetually perky guy all the time. So Jesus would get a dressing down in some churches for not being happy smiley enough.

  211. @ Daisy:

    Amen to your statements! Why is it that some people can’t understand that others want to worship God in a more contemplative manner? As a man with a very logical and critical mind, I found God in systematic theology books, not through emotion-based or guilt-ridden sermons. There are many others who are like this too. :o)

  212. @ Dee:

    Here it is:
    A Painful Plea to Women of the Church by Fabienne Harford

    As someone else suggested, you can also use the Wayback Machine, aka Internet Archive, to retrieve old or deleted web pages.

    Sometimes Google Cache carries a copy of a page that has been removed.

    What you do to use Google cache is look for whatever article in Google like normal (type in the name of whatever article you want), hover over the link that shows up, and you will usually see a small, grey colored set of arrows to the right of the link; hovering on that will display info about the page in the right hand margin, including a link that says “Cached.”

    You can click on the “cached” link to access the older article, or at all, if the current link has been deleted.

  213. lilyrosemary wrote:

    But what if your superiors command you to do something repugnant to God? Failing to cultivate that inner voice can be a problem even if you’re not prone to rebellion.

    “Ich habe nur meine Befelhe Ausgefert.”
    (“I was only following orders.”)

  214. @ Daisy:

    “What I really don’t care for are preachers who try to make you feel ashamed for not showing emotion during a service”

    I’ve read this is some old literature too (1700s, I think). The 18th-century equivalent of, “Yeah, I know not everybody is really emotional, but you know, it’s really disturbing when you don’t ever cry about Jesus, folks. I’m just sayin’.” I recall one guy specifically said that a true conversion experience consisted of an overwhelming feeling of conviction, followed by a sudden feeling of joy and elation.

    “I’m sure Jesus also laughed at times and was happy, but I don’t get this picture of him from the Gospels that he was a perpetually perky guy all the time.”

    And then you get the opposite extreme of, “The Bible never shows Jesus laughing. Therefore Christians should never joke around and be silly because we’re called to be sober-minded.” I guess nobody can agree on anything…

  215. @ Ryan:

    “As a man with a very logical and critical mind, I found God in systematic theology books, not through emotion-based or guilt-ridden sermons.”

    But ya gotta have HEART, Ryan! Head vs. HEART!

    ; )

  216. @ Eagle:

    I was brought up in Southern Baptist churches, and my Mom was one, and she was a very loving and sweet person.

    If it sets your mind at ease at all, many of your rank- and- file SB-goers are okay people. Most don’t participate in or cover up child abuse.

    Some of them can make hurtful comments, though, there is a disposition among some of them to criticize you or give glib, pat answers, sprinkled with Romans 8.28 quotes(*) (and other verses), if you admit to them you are hurting.

    I personally don’t see what part a Baptist would have in accepting Calvinism. I cannot fathom why anyone calling himself a Baptist would accept Calvinism.

    I have read in Batpist publications that some Southern Baptists are upset that Calvinism is making in-roads among SB churches.

    I am mystified why any SB church would allow Calvinism in.
    ——————–
    (*) I used to find Romans 8:28 comforting, but as I’ve had it quoted off-hand at me by so many Christians (not just SBers) in times of my deepest pain, I’ve about come to hate that verse.

    The folks that quote it at wounded people aren’t the ones that are willing to actually sit with you as you cry and hold your hand. They want to quote Rom 8:28 and be on their way. They mis-use Bible verses in that way.

  217. @ Deb:
    We are at more than 30 and less than 40 years of marriage, most great, some difficult, with the latter mostly related to outside forces. And egalitarian all the way, though it took some educating of my somewhat younger partner that she should continue to stand up for her ideas, just be willing to find middle ground and end every disagreement in a cuddle.

  218. @ Eagle:

    Holy cow, that page says that preacher makes $600K a year, and more if you count fees he gets for appearing at conferences and stuff. :O

  219. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    They must be pretty sure of themselves if they think they are married and think they are immune from adultery. They call for the stoning of adulterers…

    It seems like some famous preacher or another is falling into adultery or some other sexual sin. I’ve seen tons and tons of exposes on Christian TV and online about how lots of male preachers, run of the mill Christian guys,and now, even some Christian women are looking at prOn (X rated sites, films, etc).

    I also find their wanting to stone people to death over adultery (and other things) in our day ludicrous because Christ expanded the teachings to include motive. He said if you look on a woman in lust, that is the same as adultery.

    Do all these Reconstructionist guys expect me to believe they never, ever lust after women they see, or they don’t have pr0n addiction problems?

    The whole point of the OT Law was to demonstrate none of us is perfect and sinless, we can’t live up to God’s standard of sinless perfection (as conveyed in OT laws) all the time, hence our need for a Savior.

  220. @ Ryan:

    Not that I’m against emotion per se, I do feel things very deeply, but I’m not prone to show my emotions around people I don’t know well, or in a church setting.

    It’s not my personality to sob in public or in a pew, and I had depression for year (I did my crying in private, did not smile much around people), so I don’t appreciate these preachers who shame you for not being smiley- happy at all times in public.

  221. Hester wrote:

    And then you get the opposite extreme of, “The Bible never shows Jesus laughing. Therefore Christians should never joke around and be silly because we’re called to be sober-minded.” I guess nobody can agree on anything…

    Yes, I’ve seen that extreme too.

  222. @ Hester:

    Hester and Daisy,

    Yes, the heart is important too. I’ve always been cautious about emotionalism because of some bad things I’ve seen in some charismatic meetings, such as the Toronto laughter movement, Todd Bentley, etc.

    By the way I lived in the same small town as Bentley when I was a child. I can tell you some stories about him…

  223. @ Ryan:

    Thank you for the link, I’ll have to check that out soon.

    One thing I wanted to explain is that I know there are some loving people who believe in Calvinism.

    I didn’t mean to suggest that all Calvinists are horrible people (I hope I didn’t give that impression)_ only that I don’t view Calvinism as being Baptist.

    If someone tells you he’s a Muslim but that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, it would give you pause – or a Roman Catholic who says, “I believe in sola scriptura, sola fide.”

    To me, Calvinism does not match up with what and how Baptists have historically viewed theology, or how they usually view things (well, not how I was brought up in Southern Baptist churches any way); that was all I meant.

  224. @ Ryan:
    Wow! I’d never of Todd Bentley before but it took only a quick Google search to see why you mentioned him in relation to the dangers of emotionalism. I don’t think emotional expression is a bad thing, but I always see potential danger in unruly crowds and poor impulse control.

    I would worry about any church where I found myself wondering: Are we worshiping Jesus or Dionysus?

  225. @ lilyrosemary:

    Yep, that’s Todd Bentley alright – he kind of looks like King Henry VIII with tattoos and piercings all over his body. Bentley touches people and they fall convulsing on the floor.

  226. Daisy:

    Some of them can make hurtful comments, though, there is a disposition among some of them to criticize you or give glib, pat answers, sprinkled with Romans 8.28 quotes(*) (and other verses), if you admit to them you are hurting.

    Someone I know wrote a post on Facebook last week, telling her friends how sad she was because she was treated badly by a loved one. I will now translate from Christianese what she was told, by one of her fake church friends: “You are upset and it’s making me PANIC. If you’re a REAL Christian, you will feel joyful, no matter WHAT! No one can take away your super happy feelings away from you unless YOU LET THEM. Therefore, if you feel sad, it’s YOUR OWN FAULT! Now throw on a fake smile and show me how JOYFUL you are!”

  227. Sorry about the dramatic blue I don’t know how it happened. My post was for Hester and Daisy

  228. Ryan wrote:

    Yep, that’s Todd Bentley alright – he kind of looks like King Henry VIII with tattoos and piercings all over his body. Bentley touches people and they fall convulsing on the floor.

    Ah, yes. Tatted Todd and his pet angel Emma, with Shaking Stacy as sidekick/shill.

    “ANGELS! ANGELS! ANGELS! SHEEKA-BOOM-BAH! BAM!”

  229. lilyrosemary wrote:

    I would worry about any church where I found myself wondering: Are we worshiping Jesus or Dionysus?

    If they’re “dry”, it ain’t Dionysus.

  230. Daisy wrote:

    They must be pretty sure of themselves if they think they are married and think they are immune from adultery. They call for the stoning of adulterers…

    Do all these Reconstructionist guys expect me to believe they never, ever lust after women they see, or they don’t have pr0n addiction problems?

    Yes, they are immune. Like Stalin’s Party Commissars, they are the ones giving the kill orders — never those on the receiving end. When you’re in POWER, you Can Do No Wrong.

    “All animals are Equal
    BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
    — G.Orwell, Animal Farm

  231. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    lilyrosemary wrote:
    I would worry about any church where I found myself wondering: Are we worshiping Jesus or Dionysus?

    If they’re “dry”, it ain’t Dionysus.

    I was thinking of the Maenads. Frenzied crowds make me nervous, whether they’re drunk on wine or the Holy Ghost!

  232. Oasis wrote:

    Someone I know wrote a post on Facebook last week, telling her friends how sad she was because she was treated badly by a loved one. I will now translate from Christianese what she was told, by one of her fake church friends: “You are upset and it’s making me PANIC. If you’re a REAL Christian, you will feel joyful, no matter WHAT! No one can take away your super happy feelings away from you unless YOU LET THEM. Therefore, if you feel sad, it’s YOUR OWN FAULT! Now throw on a fake smile and show me how JOYFUL you are!”

    Two words: Christian Hedonism.

    “God Is Most Glorified In Us When We Are Most Satisfied In Him” John Piper

  233. Anon 1 wrote:

    Oasis wrote:
    … if you feel sad, it’s YOUR OWN FAULT! Now throw on a fake smile and show me how JOYFUL you are!”

    Two words: Christian Hedonism.
    “God Is Most Glorified In Us When We Are Most Satisfied In Him” John Piper

    So true! When they are talking to someone who is hurting, their words always sound the same to me, “Stop being upset so I don’t have to be bothered by your pain.” It really is selfishness with a cloak of pseudo kindness wrapped around it.

  234. My two cents on Wilson:
    In “Her Hand in Marriage” (a book that my parents bought when they were homeschooling), he teaches from OT Law that a father has the right to unilaterally break his daughter’s engagement, if he doesn’t approve of the guy. And pretty much any other vow an adult daughter makes is subject to approval. And he teaches that this holds for modern Christians. And, yes, it did complicate my relationships, thank you.

    No wonder these guys delete comments. If they can delete a spiritual vow made by an adult, why not delete words they don’t like?