For Todd
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C. S. Lewis link
Last night, we received a forwarded email from one of our readers, Todd Wilhelm who has stood up for the victims, actual and alleged, in the SGM lawsuit. He has never met them yet he has sacrificed much to give them a voice. We hope to tell his full story one of these days. He is one awesome guy! He gave us permission to reprint the following.
Todd's wrote an email to Wayne Grudem:
Dear Dr. Grudem,
I understand you are scheduled to speak at C.J. Mahaney’s church on the 21 July. I would urge you to reconsider. Prudence would dictate that national leaders such as yourself refrain from indirectly supporting those who cover up sexual abuse in their church.
Thank you,
Todd Wilhelm
http://thouarttheman.org/2013/07/08/the-hall-of-shame/
“I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.”
Ezekiel 34:15-16
The response and a quiz:
While you are reading this response, ask yourself, "What's missing?"
Dear Todd,
My name is John Paul Stepanian, and I am Dr. Grudem’s assistant as well as a student here at Phoenix Seminary. One of my jobs is to see to Dr. Grudem’s correspondence on his behalf.
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Dr. Grudem speaking at CJ’s church. Dr. Grudem has the challenging task of weighing many worthy and intriguing requests. His current research, teaching, speaking engagements and family commitments have filled his schedule, and unfortunately he will be unable to answer your questions directly. Please accept his regrets. Dr. Grudem has asked me to personally respond to these requests on his behalf.
Dr. Grudem is speaking at CJ’s church specifically so that he can signal support for CJ in the face of unjust accusations. No further communication on this subject will be responded to.
May God bless your continued work for His kingdom.
Sincerely,
John Paul Stepanian
MA to Dr. Grudem
Phoenix SeminaryOn behalf of:
Wayne Grudem, Ph.D.
Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies
Phoenix Seminary
Apparently Wayne Grudem does not subscribe to Matthew 18 when it involves one of his friends. There have been far more than two witnesses who have come forward to describe the serious nature of issues within SGM. In the life of the church, that should be enough substantiation. But, Grudem is the systematic theology guy and I guess he knows the "biblical" exemptions better than this woman. Perhaps he will write a book on the systematic approach to Matthew 18 and show us all how to do a workaround?
There is something seriously missing in this email. I hope it is due to the "wet behind the ears" status of Grudem's assistant. Not once does he mention the victims, actual and alleged! Not one little expression of concern is given! In the end, this is all about CJ. Why? I leave that up to all of you to speculate.
Grudem has just taught me a valuable lesson. He claims to teach "correct" theology. He purports to tell women what they can and cannot do for glory of God link. He must believe that he has a certain authority so that he can teach all of us how to think correctly.
When he cannot take a minute to express one bit of concern for those who have been deeply wounded, he shows that his theology is just a bunch of rules that do not change the heart. Jesus spent His precious time with the lost and letdown. Authority is best understood when leaders wash the feet of the disenfranchised. True authority is understood in the context of servanthood.
I taught Grudem's entire Systematic Theology book (the big one). Today, I realize that I was sold a bill of goods. I believed that "proper" theology would lead to a well rounded Christ follower. I was wrong. It does not change the heart. Only Jesus can do that.
Well now we know the real agenda here. SMH
Dee,
I now have regrets about buying Grudem's Systematic Theology at the LifeWay bookstore at SEBTS…
Horrible.
Simply unbelievable. Evangelicalism is quickly becoming known more for the defense of the powerful and the status quo. Evangelicalism is quickly becoming associated with cowardice. Sad.
”No further communication on this subject will be responded to.”
You can’t follow Matt 18 here at all. Grudem will not allow it. You can’t approach him one on one, and you also can’t take the second step either. He won’t acknowledge you.
He needs to write his next book on ‘exceptions’ to the rule. He can’t preach on how to use Matt 18, because he won’t acknowledge its existence on his own behalf. Then he wonders why people refuse to follow his program.
Sigh.
I would still teach from and use the book. It’s a good book.
But the response is horrible. What’s horrible about it is the “unjust accusations” label.
To make a judgment like that, one would need to know all of the facts. Plus, where there are factual disputes, one would have to decide all in favor of Mahaney.
Another thing that bothers me here is Grudem’s apparent blessing of the way SGM churches were organized and run. That is a huge disconnect for Grudem, I believe. I do not believe that Grudem endorses in this book the kind fo apostolic authority that Mahaney claims to have relating to “his” churches. Nor do I find in Grudem’s book, the blessing of the kind of heavy handed shepherding tactics for which Mahaney’s churches are legend.
Grudem could have very easily said that he will speak wherever he can to try and make a difference and help churches implement and practice correct theological practices, as described in the NT. Mahaney’s church would be the BEST place for Grudem to go to help accomplish that.
But for Grudem’s assistant to write back in such a way that claims more knowledge about the case than anyone I know claims to have and to promote unbiblical practices as the same time is unbelievable.
It doesn’t have to be so hard.
Btw, if I get an invitation to speak at Mahaney’s church, I’ll let you know. I would go in a heart beat. And my topic would be true NT shephering.
Mahaney and his followers could actually benefit from that.
But cheerleading will not help Mahaney, as we have already seen.
It is truly amazing isn’t it? Mohler is teaching at an upcoming conference at SGM Cornerstone in Knoxville on “leadership”.
So what is the real reason they are determined to show support for Mahaney? Because 1) He has correct doctrine and 2) They agree with the Shepherding cult method.
They are a bunch of fakes.
Has it not occurred to any of these RBD men that they can easily support CJ “privately,” behind the scenes, as a friend; maybe even speak into his life? Why do they feel like they have to be so public with their support? Are they worried about something else, other than CJ. You’d think that wisdom would be saying something different to these men.
And, again, another well known name to support CJ and his upstart, memberless (according to Dever), church plant. Aren’t SG plants elsewhere closing their doors? Why not go support those plants and men? Better yet, go have a coffee with a plaintiff in the SGM lawsuit. 8o
You invite us to speculate why any mention of the victims is omitted. Here seems the most obvious one-The original email did not mention the victims, either. It was all about CJ. So, the response was actually pertaining to the content of the email.
By the way, before I get all the accusations of being biased toward CJ, I am not. I do think what has happened is horrible and my heart breaks for the victims. If he is guilty of anything close to what has been alleged, then it is grievous sin and should be dealt with.
However, I do have a bias against the bias of many of the posts and comments here where people are not treated fairly. This at times is a total spin zone, and I think this is one of those.
Anonymous wrote:
Well, you would have to believe that Grudem has knowledge of what the “correct theological practices” actually are. I was in a SG church for 15 years. I wouldn’t want him implementing anything in my church. I had enough of Grudem’s ideas with just the implementation of his complementarian ideas. No one needs more of his UNBIBLICAL lists.
I can’t say I’m too surprised that Grudem (through his assistant) fails to show any concern for the victims. It’s all in his statement of “unjust allegations.”
Grudem flatly denies that the victims exist. (At best, he thinks they’re all lying) Why should he be concerned about a) fictitious people or b) liars?
The problem is not so much that he can’t be concerned for the victims, but that he so quickly assumes that they… just aren’t.
@ Confused:
Your name fits you well.
Which people are being treated unfairly? Are you referring to all the women, children, and men who have been harmed and/or run out of SGM churches while CJ and SGM are supported by Piper, Dever, Mohler, Grudem, Bridges, and many others?
@ Confused: Why did the plane crash at San Fran airport? I have been watching the interviews. I have not heard any interviews that did not express concern for the victims while answering the original question.
There are two reasons that come to mind why Grudem did not. Stupidity in handling the inquiry or he just does not think about it.
Back to spinning. Thanks for giving us one moe adjective to add to our list of “What the world is saying about TWW!”
Confused wrote:
It is a blessing TWW allows comments that disagree with them or even rebuke them. Not sure how that can be “spin” since you rarely see that on many of the blogs that have supported Mahaney. I would love to see some of these leaders “man up” like Dee and Deb do.
BTW Confused, it was telling that the T4G Facebook statement defending Mahaney stayed up about 12 hours before it was deleted. It is dangerous allowing the peasants to disagree publicly. That is why TWW is admired by many of us peasants who do not have pulpits or book contracts to influence people. You should be grateful you are welcome to come here and disagree. You would not be allowed with those you seem to be defending.
Also, I want to say Thank You to Todd. What a blessing to see a man actually try to approach these celebrities concerning their behavior.
Confused, I do take your point that the reply was probably written in the spirit of the first letter, i.e., being all about CJ. Dee, Deb, I do think that’s one possible explanation.
Beyond that, though, the letter is so disturbing in its blatant support of a man who is still under suspicion, that I think Dee and Deb are well within their rights to bring it before us for close scrutiny.
Confused wrote:
Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The victims were implied in the original email, when the writer referred to refraining “from indirectly supporting those who cover up sexual abuse in their church”. The verses quoted had to do with the victims, with the fact that the Lord cares about the weak and the injured, He is on the side of the oppressed, He is a God of justice…
What actually happened was that the author of the original email gave Wayne Grudem the benefit of the doubt, in supposing that Grudem would only indirectly support CJ and maybe not be aware of it, and pointing out how that was not wise… And what he got was an answer saying that actually Wayne Grudem makes it a point to give intentional support to CJ! So the benefit of the doubt was quite misplaced.
“support for CJ in the face of unjust accusations”? Talk about a slap in the face?! How would one of those who reported the terrible things they were subjected to feel, to be told it’s all an unjust accusation?! And it wasn’t just one person who claimed such abuse took place. How brazen can one be?! When is enough enough?
This is the sad result of the decision on the lawsuit. It is being spun that CJ is innocent of all charges. That is not true. The Statute of Limitations was the decision, not innocence of charges. Who is spinning Confused? I would say CJ and the SGM affiliates and friends.
I still have the words of the revision of the lawsuit in my head. Grudem and Co could not have read them. The words of the revision cannot leave anyone who has seriously read them.
Over and over we have gotten a glimpse into how these men’s minds really work. From the early quotes to reporters from Al Mohler a year ago concerning Mahaney to the statements of T4G and TGC defending him in light of the lawsuit. Those of us reading the other side including the SGMwikileaks docs, the details of the lawsuit and survivors stories know there is something seriously wrong with the character of these celebrities. For me, I think it is hard heartedness and loving doctrine over people and their celebrity. They have built a movement and done quite well with it. And yes, Grudem is in that category. His book was used more at SBTS than scripture.
And what is even more telling is all these men from Piper, Dever, Grudem, etc, who command large audiences and are conference hounds are going to a tiny church in Louisville made up of the SGM entourage that fled Gaithersburg… to speak soley because it is Mahaney. They are forcing this support. Going to lots of trouble.
No one can say there were NOT molestations at SGM because there were convictions. So these men cannot have their cake and eat it, too. On one hand, Mahaney cannot be a strong leader and on the other know nothing about these convictions. One reason Mahaney gave it away is because of the public statement issued using the 1st Amendment as an excuse to protect molesters. Mahaney did not have to go along with that statement so I would have to believe he actually believes it is truth.
When something like this goes on and on, people tend to forget all the past dots to connect. SGM wikileaks really showed me who they were and how they think. Silly immature men with too much time and money on their hands who were totally immersed in themselves. If Mohler, Dever, Piper, etc, etc see no problem with that sort of interaction or the 1st Amendment statement then I have to assume they are of the same bent. They certainly have pulpits, conferences, blogs and plenty of venues to set us all straight.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I think the decision hurt CJ more than helped. The only way to clear your name when under that kind of suspicion is to have your day in court. Of course, there is always the possibility that CJs day in court would have ended in state custody…
By having John Paul Stepanian speak on his behalf, Grudem absolves himself of any responsibility for what it written in his reply to Todd. I don’t think Todd is wet behind the ears at all. I think he expressed Grudem’s sentiments precisely.
I hope these boys realize that they have lost so much credibility in the eyes of so many Christians. I myself question not just Grudem or Mahaney or the rest of the boy’s club, but even the very theology that they believe. Because the theology that is being used right now to cover for Mahaney is the very same theology that was used to cover for the predators.
What kind of theology creates Christians who are so cruel, heartless, and corrupt? Not a theology that I want to ascribe to, that’s for sure.
Way to go, Grudem. Way to go…
Oh, and one more thing…
Grudem doesn’t address the victims at all because he has demonized them. Just like the rest of TGC and T4G, he would have people not believe their allegations or believe that the victims are not really victims at all, but are just out for money. Isn’t that what TGC implied?
Deb wrote:
Well, you all know I have a space on my shelf where this tome used to be. Feel free to send me yours Deb, & I’ll set the Wormecutor into action 🙂
Anon 1 wrote:
Hey, doesn’t Ceej’s $100K “gift” to SBTS of a couple of years back make the list?
Frankly, I think the money is the #1 real reason they’re determined to show support.
@ Desley:
1: the accusations are unjust 2: therefore there are NO victims 3: therefore no mention of victims
Really, this approach is more honest than t4g and TGC. They said lots about victims, while still believing there are no victims.
From the letter:
“… challenging task of weighing many worthy and intriguing requests. (Doc G very very very busy) and unfortunately he will be unable to answer your questions directly. Please accept his regrets.”
Translation “John — I don’t want to see any mail criticizing me for visiting CJ– he’s been unjustly accused, you know. Just tell them I’m busy!”
“No further communication on this subject will be responded to. May God bless…”
Translation: “GOOD MORNING!!!”
“”Good morning! (God Bless)” he (Bilbo) said at last. “We don’t want any adventures here, thank you! You might try over The Hill or across The Water.” By this he meant that the conversation was at an end.
“What a lot of things you do use Good morning (God Bless) for!” said Gandalf. “Now you mean that you want to get rid of me, and that it won’t be good till I move off.”
From The Hobbit
I missed one parenthetical explanation. “many worthy and intriguing requests” (mail from critics does NOT qualify as worthy and intriguing!)
Y’know, I’d expect a letter like this from, say, Donald Trump…
Shall we all write them emails/letters?
Desley wrote:
Most of them use proxies when responding to controversial issues. It can give plausible deniability if needed later. That part did not surprise me. What surprised me was the implication that CJ is totally innocent and the allegations are unjust. Innocent of what? Not calling the authorities? teaching his pastors in his pastors college to protect victims? Not teaching that all sins are the same so the victim is just as sinful as the molester? Innocent of using the 1st Amendment to protect molesters?
What exactly is unjust according to Grudem?
Anyone who watched the interactions over the years with CJ and the celebs know he plays to the court. He is always acting like he is around greatness and so humble to be included, blah, blah, blah.
He is constantly fawning over them and promoting their books, sermons, teachings,etc.
I think they bought into it. Just because someone is a Christian celebrity does not mean they are wise or discerning. In fact, it often means just the opposite because they are so insulated.
@ Mark J Baker-Wright: Do you think he is naive? Does he need CJ for other purposes?
Anon 1 wrote:
Yep and thank you.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes!
@ sad observer: I would like to see the leaders have a gut reaction whenever this subject is brought up. First acknowledge the pain and then do their “CJ is just alright by me.” routine.
@ Monica: And they say we are judging CJ? How does Grudem know that the accusations are unjust? Has he ever talked to one of the plaintiffs?
@ Anon 1: I want Grudem to teach us all how to do a Matthew 18 workaround. If they can do it, so can we.
@ dee:
Desley wrote:
I didn’t mean that Todd was wet behind the ears (although on his coming vacation he will be). I meant that the responder for Grudem was since he admitted to being a seminary student.
Rafiki wrote:
You are not the only one to think that. As the saying goes,” Follow the money.”
@ Dave A A: You get points for quoting from The Hobbit!
Dave A A wrote:
That was my take as well.
@ Dave A A: The requests are “worthy” of his time. This probably means speaking engagements-recognition, fawning, etc. The victims are not. They won’t pack auditoriums, will they and they probably won’t give money.
numo wrote:
So, shall we call him “The Wayne?”
Thomas wrote:
They will get some poor, fawning slug in their organization to delete them for the glory of the gospel.
OT, sort of.
Anybody know how far back Mahaney’s friendship with Mohler goes?
formerly anonymous wrote:
I read about this over at survivors a while back. Seems it started with Dever and I am assuming they met through him.
formerly anonymous wrote:
It definitely began before he gave a boat load of money to SBTS and started referring to Mohler as "the smartest man ion the planet." Imagine what some money and embarrassingly weird flattery can buy you these days?
Anon 1 wrote:
This is one of my favorite kinds of questions! I have been wondering the same thing for almost five years (when I first learned about their friendship).
Here is what I have discovered…
Mark Dever became senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in 1994 (according to Dever's bio).
Dever sought out Mahaney after assuming the pastorate at CHBC. When Mahaney spoke at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in February 2011, he reminisced that he and Dever had been friends for 15 years – listen to the first two minutes of Mahaney's message. If Mahaney is correct, that means he and Dever met somewhere around 1996.
Dever has been long-time friends with Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan (perhaps going back as far as the early 1980s).
Duncan wrote a blog post on the T4G website around 2008 stating that it was Dever who introduced him and his good buddy Al Mohler to Mahaney. The T4G website has been revamped, and the blog has been eliminated.
Mahaney first began giving $$$ to Southern Seminary in 2002.
Based on the above information, I would assume that Dever introduced Mahaney to Mohler sometime between 1996 and 2002.
Follow the money! All the T4G/TGC/SBC folks use Grudem’s book. He will never speak out against any of them and vice versa.
In regards to Grudem as a theologian… his latest works offering blind support for capitalism and Republican ideology are terribly written and naive. He’s not much of a theologian at all. Read Miroslav Volf instead. Better for your mind and soul, and keeps money out of the wretched T4G loop.
Dee – I’m cracking up. I had no idea you covered the same story. I think our secretaries need to do a better job coordinating 🙂
It’s funny, I’ve noticed when we we’ve done this before, we address the same story, but cover different slants. God must have wanted this story to get a little more publicity if we were both prompted.
Yes. If knowing all the right theology in one’s head were enough, we could just as well do without a living and active Christ.
Desley wrote:
I don’t agree with this completely. In a heated subject like this one, any assistant would know to be very careful with wording. He offers this statement: “Dr. Grudem has asked me to personally respond to these requests on his behalf.”
Even if this assistant uses his own words to relay Grudem’s message, using the words “unjust accusations” is very disturbing and is obviously the kind of talk that the assistant is familiar with. That in and of itself is concerning.
I have Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology text on my shelf. I’m debating in my mind what to do with it, whether to burn it or read it again with a much more critical eye. There are a number of things I agree with him on, but his response is disgusting.
@ Deb:
Thanks Deb.
Now, does anyone remember when it was that Mahaney and Tomczak parted ways? That is, what year? And was that the same year PDI became SGM?
Julie Anne, I just read your blog post. Am I reading right? A survivor very involved with SGM in the past wrote that CJ used SGM funds to pay for Grudem to take a year off from teaching at Phoenix so he could head up the ESV translation team?
CJ supplied Grudem with a years worth of salary?
This guy knows how to buy loyalty in the right places, I will say that.
It was in the late 1990s that we visited the SGM church in Chesapeake, VA and were told that SGM was formerly PDI. When I heard what PDI stood for, I thought to myself that it sounded like a cult and that the name change was a good idea.
I just did a quick search. I did not realize that Tomczak and the name change occurred in the same year – 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grace_Ministries
@ Anon 1:
I would verify that statement. SGM may have contributed to a fund (or not), or funded an entire year (or not).
Anon 1 – yes, that comment was linked from SGMSurvivors. Grudem and Mahaney appear to be very tight. Look at what I just found on wiki:
Over and over again, we see Christian leaders elevating CJ and his kingdom of churches to a lofty status – remember, he’s the one with no initials behind his name, no formal schooling. In an interview, I remember complementarian gurus saying that SGM is the model church to watch for how to teach complementarianism. A complementarian clause was even part of SGM’s church membership agreement. I haven’t seen a current membership agreement to know if it is still there, but this idea was elevated as the gold standard for churches.
CJ can do no wrong among his friends and I suspect that some of his buddies have refused to read anything on the lawsuit because they know his character, his beliefs, his works, and how could someone who has the right doctrine do anything wrong?
@ Julie Anne:
Julie Anne, What I am seeing is that the “correct doctrine” they so loved about SGM did not work out well at all.
“Love” was missing.
Bridget wrote:
I doubt very seriously it could ever be verified. When the megas wanted to fund something that might not go over well publicly, it was always buried in some line item in a department under some catch all title. I remember reading not long ago that the old SGM had a travel budget that made corporate America look cheap. Perhaps it was buried in there. :o)
Another reason to NEVER join a church that won’t show you a detailed budget. Or allow you a vote.
There is something seriously wrong (evil) within the American Evangelical Church, when highly respected men back each other up when accusations are made that could be true. Serious allegations are on the table, which are either true or false, which inflice pain on multiple victims from the attendees, the church and the pastoral staff, so why would he go there to preach in support of CJ?
WHAT AN EVIL MESS! I can only think of the Old Testament, when the kings did many good things, but left the High Towers (Alters to Idols) and did evil in sight of the Lord over and over again in the books of Kings.
I’m pretty sure Systematic Theology taught there is only one absolute Truth, the Bible, any deviation leads to sin. Matt 18 was just thrown away by Grueden. SAD!
@ Julie Anne:
OK. So name change and Tomczak occurred in 1998. Mahaney friendship with Dever (at least) goes back circa 1996.
Here are a few more, if anyone has the answers.
Did the doctrine change coincide with the name change from PDI to SGM or did that happen sooner?
Does anyone know what happened to anyone who left/tried to leave PDI? Was it difficult to do or were people given any trouble if they wanted to leave? Also, was doctrinal differences an acceptable ground for leaving, if there was an acceptable ground for leaving PDI, or any of the pre-SGM incarnations?
@ formerly anonymous:
Did the doctrine change coincide with the name change from PDI to SGM or did that happen sooner?
I mean, did the doctrine change happen sooner?
@ Anon 1:
While I’m not convinced that SGM funded an entire year of Grudem’s living expenses, they push his Systematic Theology, the ESV, and Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
@ Julie Anne:
Julie Anne, this reminded me of a friend of mine who asked to be removed from Baptist 21 mailing lists because of their support for Mahaney. (Baptist 21 is mainly made up of Danny Akin’s sons. Seems like empire building in the SBC) The responder to his email was very arrogant and also declared that Mahaney was unjustly accused.
My guess is the support will dwindle if and when the money dries up. But since Mohler controls most of the funding in the SBC indirectly with his loyalists in place, that could take a while.
formerly anonymous wrote:
These quotes my help answer some of your questions from wiki (link above):
Here’s another link I found: http://sguncensored.blogspot.com/2008/03/did-sovereign-grace-ministries-forget.html
More historical info here: http://ramblingsofsheldon.blogspot.com/2012/10/exposing-extremism-sovereign-grace.html
Bridget wrote:
You never know how this works. A donation to the ESV translation team or some other non profit involved….could have covered it. We will probably never know. I am not sure how long one has to be at Phoenix to obtain a year paid Sabbatical. Grudem had to go there because of his wife’s health. He made a big deal about giving up his tenured career to submit to her health needs. I was embarrassed for him that he made such a big deal about his “sacrifice” for her.
Bridget wrote:
Bridget – I concur with you. My main point of highlighting the post was that Grudem and SGM have very close ties. I remember very well when the ESV was published and there was a push to have everyone at CLC to have the ESV translation bible. A one-second Google search yielded this video from Josh Harris promoting the ESV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPrilkAyaZ0 He’s pushing Grudem’s baby.
Julie Anne, In my neck of the woods, if you were not using the ESV you did not know Jesus. It was that blatant. I found it interesting Mohler promoted the ESV since the SBC has their own translation, the Holman, and he is an employee of the SBC. :o)
But go take a look at Crossway and see what authors they publish. Funny how all this stuff is promoted as “godly” when it is simply business.
I want to ask all of your advice. Should I email Wayne Grudem and tell him that I’m going to burn my copy of his Systematic Theology text unless he retracts his support of Mahaney?
@ Ryan: Why don’t you find some pithy quote from his tome and send it to him along with a question? How does this line up with your seeming coldness to hurt people?
Dee, I am on your side. I just don’t understand your logic. These men need bold confrontation – didn’t Martin Luther burn the unjust papal bull written against him? He did and rightly so. In any case we have a difference of opinion and I’ll leave it at that.
Ryan wrote:
You could cut some nice quotes out of his book & use them to question his appallingly sub par response….imagine being sent bits of your own book. I’d also want to ask him if he considers abused children to be his neighbour & beloved of Christ?
Confused wrote:
Confused — If anyone is spinning, it’s Grudem.
The truth is that Senior Pastor C.J. Mahaney justified his inaction to protect children from known child molesters by saying he as a pastor was entitled to do so due to his First Amendment rights. He doesn’t deny that there are victims and he doesn’t deny his knowledge that convicted child sex offender David Adams (one of several already convicted pedophiles at the two churches) was attending the church and was not effectively prevented from having contact with children.
Here’s what Christianity Today wrote in March 2013:
“Last week, SGM asked a Maryland court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that “courts can’t get involved in the internal affairs of church business” (Associated Press paraphrase) and that the allegations against it are too vague. [Christianity Today] reported on SGM’s First Amendment defense in January, noting how legal observers question whether clergy-penitent privilege applies in this situation.”
All of that prior post was *alleged,* of course!
“I’m fairly sure that PDI International became Sovereign Grace Ministries sometime in 2002. I know the name did not change before 2002 because “PDI Ministries
Gaithersburg, Maryland” gave at the Leaders Associate level ($5,00 – $9.999) in 2002 (see 2002 SBTS Roll Call, p. 32).
http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2003Spring.pdf
”
Now that is interesting. SBTS took a donation from an “Apostle” of the People of Destiny. I had always thought the relationship started after they changed their name. I guess the terminology of “Apostle” and “People of Destiny” did not raise flags for Mohler or his trustees. Strange
formerly anonymous wrote:
According to a December 23, 2002 Washington Times article, Tomczak parted ways with Mahaney and the ministry he co-founded in 1996.
Check out this fascinating quote from Wayne Grudem in the referenced article:
PDI International became Sovereign Grace Ministries sometime in 2002. What is the evidence of this?
It is found in a Southern Seminary publication. “PDI Ministries Gaithersburg, Maryland" is listed in the 2002 SBTS Roll Call as giving at the Leaders Associate level ($5,000 – $9.999). See page 32.
Furthermore, Grudem confirms that Sovereign Grace Ministries was in existence prior to the publication of the Washington Times article on December 23, 2002.
Apparently, SGM didn’t make contributions to SBTS in 2003, but in 2004 the following contributions were listed on the Roll Call (page 36):
@ Anon 1: We were doing the same research at the same time! 🙂
Amazing!
Why are y’all surprised by this? All these guys care about are themselves and their friends in the “business.” I saw it when I was in the seminary in Ft Worth. There may be something in the supporters past and when it is brought to light, they want to given “comfort” by the people they supported…. These guys are not going to go against those they see as their “peers.” And trust me, the average person in the pew is not seen as their “peer.”
@ Ryan: I think Dee and beakerj have very good suggestions for a protest… better than simply threatening to burn the book, imo.
But that’s just me.
@ Anon 1:
@ Deb:
Hmm. OK. What I’m trying to get to is Mahaney’s dissatisfaction with Tomczak’s citing doctrinal differences as the reason for their parting ways. I was wondering what kind of man Mahaney was about this type of thing before he “got religion” of the Calvinista variety. The reason I was wondering about Mohler is because of his Hotel Calforniaism, though he is hardly unique among these guys for that, and I forgot all about Dever anyway. I know with Mohler, doctrinal differences are not an acceptable reason to leave a church. (For the life of me I do not understand that. I would think of any reason, doctrinal differences would be one of the most obvious!) I just wonder if Mahaney would have taken issue with parting ways over doctrinal differences prior to his change of doctrine or whether that might have been part of the change, and how he became influenced in that direction anyway, and by whom.
Because apparently he always did have that I’m-the-boss-of-you streak, or so I gather….But I thought he regarded Tomczak as a peer, though he clearly did not treat him that way when Tomczak cited doctrinal differences.
I suppose my real question is, was the issue really doctrinal differences that Mahaney had a problem with, or would he have had this same problem no matter what Tomczak’s reason? And was that because of who Mahaney has always been or because of his new buds and beliefs?
From the WA Times article (link in a previous post) –
This is how/when/where the roots of That Church are as well – in fact, the Head Honcho (who booted me) was a junior pastor at Christ Church for a while. It all started in that basement…
Anon 1 wrote:
So, they’re kind of like “ESV Only”?
Some Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are KJV 1611 Only (KJV Only).
Which is funny for so many reasons – Erasums, a Roman Catholic, compiled the text (TR) upon which the KJV was based, and KJV Onlyists despise all things Roman Catholic…
The KJV underwent some changes over the centuries, so that that KJV of today (that IFB people use) is not the same as the 1611 – so you can ask them which of the KJV revisions is “God’s pure Word” (since they ask “which of the modern versions is God’s pure word”) – and it goes on and on like that. 😆
I thought KJV Only was scary enough. It’s upsetting to hear other Christians may be ESV Only, or getting there.
@ Daisy: Back in the 80s, SGM (PDI, then) was NASB Only.
@ formerly anonymous:
Mahaney has rid himself of every “peer” he ever had in PDI/SGM. Those with him in Louisville were never peers; they were underling loyalists who went with him. He now has a new ring of peers who aren’t so “under his feet.”
@ formerly anonymous:
IMHO, I think the doctrinal difference was just an excuse to get Tomczak out of the picture.
From what I have read, Mahaney had been going down the Calvinist path years before Tomczak left the organization. The Washington Times article points this out:
numo wrote:
And in 5-10 years, it’ll be another version….
The major red flag in Grudem’s assistant’s reply (for me) was the phrase “unjust accusations”. That tells us that Grudem considers himself judge and jury of the accusations.
He and his buddies rant and rave about how unjust it is for people like Dee and Deb and SGMsurvivors to be talking about SGM leaders as if they were already convicted by the courts. But they are quite ready to make their own judgements in advance, and label the accusations as “unjust”.
The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind. . .
@ Barbara Roberts:
Those were my thoughts over at the SGM Survivor site. Grudem is a hypocrite.
Thanks all, I’ll adopt a moderate tone in my email to him. I get angry really easily over the alleged sexual abuse of kids – and also I really respect systematic theology authors in general – the two combined really hit me today.
I bought his book on systematic theology. Biggest waste of $20 I ever spent.
Contact —
Dr. Wayne Grudem
Phoenix Seminary
4222 E. Thomas Road, Suite 400
Phoenix, AZ 85018
602-850-8000
wgrudem@phoenixseminary.edu
Thanks Janey,
Tomorrow I’m going to compose my letter to him.
@ Randall Slack:
Agreed!
@ Julie Anne:
Everyone was pushing it. Let’s not give Grudem too much credit for the ESV though 😉 After all, dozens of men worked on that translation.
SGM is not the only church that promotes Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology book. I am (still) a member of the United Christian Church of Dubai ( http://uccdubai.com ) A 9Marks church pastored by John Folmar; previously Folmar served as assistant pastor at Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
Folmar has implemented a pastoral intern program, just like Mark Dever has at his church. In this program UCCD trains potential pastors that Folmar has chosen for 9 months. One of the textbooks they utilize is Grudem’s systematic theology. Since Folmar models his church after Capitol Hill Baptist Church I would assume that Dever also uses Grudem’s book in his intern program. This is rather surprising since Grudem is a proponent of the charismatic gifts. (I once saw an interesting discussion on Youtube involving Grudem explaining his view of “prophecy”, but could not locate it.) Grudem does do a good job of explaining things in an easily understandable way, so I guess Baptists can overlook his charismatic leanings. Besides, if they used Berkof’s Systematic Theology, a superior text in my opinion, they would have to overlook his views on church polity and baptism. (Berkhof was a Presbyterian). It seems the 9Marks boys would rather countenance charismatic gifts than infant baptism and presbyterian form of church government. This makes sense when you realize that Dever has said his Christian brothers who hold to infant baptism are sinning! (A view I highlighted here: http://thouarttheman.org/2013/06/28/is-9marks-view-of-baptism-biblical/ )
I think KD got it right when he stated above that:
“Why are y’all surprised by this? All these guys care about are themselves and their friends in the “business.””
Here is a short video you may find amusing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lligpV4dgKs
@ Ryan:
Well, considering his arguments for women being banned from preaching are total bunk, he probably hasn’t really got much to offer in the future, now it is Narrative Theology that is becoming the new “it” theology.
Some points to back up why he is wrong on women (the only works I know from him):
1. It was a devout Catholic who pointed out to me that there is NO position/task in a Protestant church that isn’t (and has always been so) open to a women – preaching, teaching, praying, leading bible studies, reading scripture, etc. is all done freely by women. It is the Priesthood that is closed, but that doesn’t exist in Protestantism (or the Acts church).
2. The Eastern Orthodox church makes an even stronger case for women apostles, as Junia (female) is sainted in the EO, and was also an apostle in their teachings. In the EO women are encouraged to take on leading/teaching roles.
3. He *selectively* choose an ancient writer that goes against all the others of that time to bolster his women-had-no-power arguments (Epiphanius). Here are some other, better known, ancient church writers, who were often VERY sexist, supporting Junia as a woman Apostle:
“John Chrysostom (347–407) was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine, as did Jerome (340/50-419/20), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).”
4. Given that women were prophets in the early church:
the very fact that the biblical texts present women as legitimate prophets creates a prima facie argument that they were as important as apostles (and therefore “superior” in the church to elders/pastors]. The scriptures which illustrate this linkage and priority are:
Luke 11.49: “I will send them prophets and apostles…”
Eph 2.20: “…God’s household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, which Jesus Christ being the cornerstone.”
Eph 3.25: “…which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it is now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets…”
1 Cor 12.28: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers…”
So, given Grudem’s little lists on women’s roles are bunk, I doubt his Systematic Theology works in any helpful way – probably better Great Christian writers to donate your time to.
Again, the only factual argument a Protestant has ever given me on women’s historically limited roles in church are that they were limited from the priesthood. So, then I always ask: do protestants have a priesthood historically?
See, we have no role in our entire Protestant churches that has been historically/traditionally male-only. It is only the last 500 years in the Western Protestant church where women have been shut out from the gifts (teaching, preaching, apostleship – well, that is a pretty undefined gift since about the second C.-, leading, managing, etc.). In the ancient churches, women did all these things – certain Abbeys controlled and managed their affairs with little to no input from Rome on leading, finances, teaching, etc. from the dark ages through to today. Many women were sainted for their powerful teaching and resistance to society. Macrina the Younger (327-379 A.D.), was a brilliant thinker and educator who greatly influenced her brothers’ development, becoming fully responsible for Peter’s education after her mother’s death. She and her brother Basil founded a double monastery for men and women. There she taught, healed and prophesied for many years and established a hospital as large as a walled city. All four were declared saints by the Catholic church. Marcella (325-410 A.D.), whose Church of the Household in Rome became a center of study, prayer and charity. Marcella assisted Jerome in combating heresies and settling theological disputes. She inspired another woman, Fabiola, to establish the first hospitals in Rome, and Marcella established the first retreat for Christian women on the outskirts of that city. Under Marcella’s leadership, Paula and her daughter Eustochium assisted Jerome in his Latin translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew. These women traveled to Bethlehem and dedicated the rest of their lives to translate, revise, and correct the manuscripts, several of which Jerome dedicated to them. There, Paula founded three convents and a monastery, establishing the model for Scripture study and copying in monasteries which continued until the Reformation. Hilda (614-660 A.D.), abess of the convent at Hartlepool, County Durham. In 657 she founded a double monastery A.D. for men and women at Whitby in Yorkshire, which became renowned as the leading school of theology and literature in 7th-century England. Five of Hilda’s monks became bishops. One of them, John of Beverly, baptized the Venerable Bede, a medieval historian. Teresa of Avila was named a Doctor of the Church in the 16th C. These positions had authority and teaching/leading attached. But, growing up Protestant, we are never aware of how many powerful, authoritative women help bring our scriptures and faith to us today.
I find it funny how history is so contrary to what these neo-Cals believe. They don’t have an historic or biblical argument in their bonnets to deny women these things – just good ol’ sexist Calvin. But then Calvin completely departed from the traditions of the church.
Barbara Roberts wrote:
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I agree. It is frustrating however, that it is being spun into an innocence that it seems clear(at least to me) that cannot be possible after reading the revision of the lawsuit. It raised more questions I would love to ask CJ and his friends than it did show his innocence. Unfortunately there will always be those who stand by CJ no matter what and a reason I would love to see this thing go to a court of law.
Here is the video which I said I couldn’t find concerning Grudem’s view on prophecy. (I mentioned it in a previous comment which is in moderation – I guess it’s middle of the night in the USA right now!)
For the record I am firmly in Ian Hamilton’s camp.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/23/a-debate-on-the-continuation-of-prophecy/
-Todd Wilhelm; I am (still) a member of the United Christian Church of Dubai ( http://uccdubai.com ) A 9Marks church pastored by John Folmar; previously Folmar served as assistant pastor at Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
@ Anon 1:
I’m thinking that their records were lagging behind what was actually going on.
@ Deb:
Deb – In my surfing today, I found a couple places that referenced the issue with Larry’s teenage son and that played a part in Tomczak leaving. Did you find that anywhere?
@ Julie Anne:
That appears to be the real reason Tomczak parted ways with Mahaney.
Theological differences seem to have been used as a smokescreen.
Just found this on the net: http://www.mahaneysports.com/about/
“CJ and Chad are a father-son team seeking to bring a unique, gospel-driven discernment to sports through a weekly podcast and articles.”
Someday, when Christian leaders stop doing and saying stupid things, this blog will run out of material.
Bridget wrote:
Because it’s not about CJ being their friend, it’s about him being a “leader” and “in authority.” Of course leaders can sin, in their minds, but it’s sinful for the common people to refuse to submit to sinful leaders. Some Christians are more equal than others, I guess.
CJ interviews Grudem: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/post/meet-wayne-grudem-(1).aspx
@ Janey:
Great comment! I don't foresee that ever happening…
Prophetess Deb
Use this link: http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2009/01/cj-mahaney-interview-with-wayne-grudem.html
@ Nicholas:
Thanks for bringing these interviews to our attention. I remember reading that series of posts when Mahaney published them on his Cheap Seats blog.
Nicholas wrote:
My imaginary caption to the photo on the Mahaney Sports blog is:
“Now son, when you find out you’ve got pedophiles raping kids in your church, don’t go to the authorities. Protect your child molesting employees and youth leaders! Just claim clergy-penitent privilege and take the First Amendment.”
Deb wrote:
Wayne Grudem may be able to dissect the Trinity but he is spending too much time in the sun when contemplating SGM. Good night!
Janey wrote:
Gospel driven sports???? What about ‘gospel driven equality” when it come to the treatment of his son when he walks on the wild side? What about a bit of gospel driven kindness when it came to Larry Tomczak and his son?
Maybe that is why he has so much trouble. He spends far too much time thinking about gospel driven sports and not enough time contemplating the actual Gospel when it comes to others.
It brings to mind Nero who fiddled while Rome burned and blaming it all on “those” Christians.
@ Wesley: Welcome to TWW. Good comment. The leaders sin but only in the nicest of ways.
@ Julie Anne: Yep-there are thoughts that CJ used that ill-defined situation to go after Tomczak.
TW wrote:
Let my people go or there shall be plagues of frogs and boils.
Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology book is well promoted at my church, here in the UK. I know that a few of my friends got it, even those who are not studying theology or planning to work in ministry.
I opened it only once, when I asked my house mate if I could borrow his copy. I wanted to check what he said about the doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ and how he used it to support his views on the roles of women in the church. I had read about it online but then I wanted to see the original book.
I guess that the whole book may be not that bad… I accept that there will be differing opinions on that, despite what this email may say about him (or his assistant) and his position about CJ. But I have to say that I wasn’t too impressed by the book, as I found it lacking in a few areas.
For example, since in the past I was a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church I was curious about what he said on the role of the old testament law for Christians, an issue that can be quite confusing and there are different theological positions… I found nothing in the book, except one reference to the 10 commandments that wasn’t even that relevant.
Another criticism is the way he compared the positions explained in the book to what other Christian groups believe in relation to particular doctrines, especially if he was talking about Catholic beliefs. In those cases he would just use one or two sources and leave it at that, while he would use more sources for Protestant doctrine. It felt a bit too dismissive.
TW wrote:
He took it a step further, I believe when he said he would not let his buddy, Lig Duncan take communion at CHBC since he believe in infant baptism. This fascinated me. It bolsters my belief that, after they take care of all of us, they will begin to eat each other. The last one standing will be the chief theologian presiding over an empty church.
Suggestion: Tell them you now believe in infant baptism…..
@ Martos: That was a great comment. Very insightful. You can well imagine that we are not really big on ESS at TWW, being women and all. We started writing about that issue years ago.
@ Janey:There are always the politicians…
@ Deb:
Mahaney starts off praising Grudem and identifying him as a close friend. So I guess Grudem has now decided to return a favor. It reminds me of this: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2011/06/fbfi-rallies-to-defend-chuck-phelps/
Sorry this is off topic, but I just noticed the announcement about the Jared Mellinger tweet in the announcement section above.
It’s interesting that he used the word “vindictive.” Usually that word implies that someone is overreacting in an unfair or vicious way to an event. As in, something that actually happened. The word vindictive IMPLIES that there is actually some real event behind the person’s actions that they want to be “vindicated” about.
So is he trying to claim that the charges really did happen and people are just overreacting, or is he trying to say that the allegations are false? If the latter, he’s doing a terrible job.
Also, would he or anyone else like to comment on what evidence has presented itself that would lead them to conclude which “type” of victim these people are? SGM and the pastors associated with it have not, to my knowledge, released any information about WHY they disbelieve the allegations other than to repeat that CJ and the other pastors are good guys.
If it is possible to discern between different “types” of victims then how are they doing that? What evidence is used?
This is a really powerful video (@22 mins.) by survivors of sex abuse speaking about the affect on their lives and how they walked to a place of healing from their past.
http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6300229/k.43F8/Childhood_Stories_Documentary.htm
We in the Church, as a whole, need to get educated on what is abuse, what is its affect in a child’s entire life, how abusers function and manipulate people in our faith communities, etc. I believe that it is ignorance of all of the above, that would cause a leader, such as Wade Grudem (ostensibly he approved the response from his assistant) to call alleged abuse and the cover-up of alleged abuse as “unjust accusations”. It shows clearly that he does not understand the issue.
Mr. Grudem, please watch this video!
BTW, it’s John Calvin’s 504th birthday today.
Pam – The video link doesn’t seem to be working.
Dee:
Your comment at 8:16 today is spot on.
Grudem’s book, at least the section on Christ (which has been released as a separate book for study purposes) is excellent.
All systematic theologies have their strenghts and weaknesses. I appreciate all here who have commented because it has made me aware of some areas to be watching in Grudem’s work if I ever come upon those sections.
Claiming that SGM churches are the way the church is supposed to work is ludicrous. I am not judging the truth of all the allegations in making this statement. Maintaining such a claim today just makes one look foolish.
I am just looking at the large numbers of people and churches that have left SGM and the complaints are fairly uniform regarding the weird shepherding procedures. Mahaney also claimed Apostleship of some kind.
This is NOT how the church is supposed to look.
Grudem is obviously trying to prop up Mahaney, as he has said Mahaney’s churches are the way churches are supposed to look.
This will not work in the long run. Change may not come soon, and the change will probably not be a complete “coming clean”, as we might wish.
But propping this Mahaney guy and his churches (former churches?) up is not a strategy that works over time. Too much has gone on there, lawsuit or not. Too much blood has been spilled (metaphor only people.)
This is an excellent film on the cover up of abuse at missionary boarding schools. It takes so much courage for these adults to come forward.
http://allgodschildrenthefilm.com/
They also have a Facebook page:
https://m.facebook.com/#!/allgodschildren?__user=1209722803
@ Bridget:Perhaps if you go to their website directly
http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6143703/k.15DC/7_Steps_to_Protecting_Our_Children.htm click on “Childhood Stories Documentary” at bottom of left sidebar.
@ dee:
“Gospel driven sports???? What about ‘gospel driven equality”…”
++++++++++++++
Why stop there? And think of the possibilities… JOB CREATION!
Gospel-driven BBQ-ing——–which requires a Pastor of BBQ
Gospel-driven waterskiing—-which requires a Pastor of Waterskiing
Gospel-driven bike rides—–which requires a Pastor of Bike rides
Gospel-driven motorcycles—-which requires a Pastor of Motorcycles
Gospel-driven camping——–which requires a Pastor of Camping
Gospel-driven hiking———which requires a Pastor of Hiking
Gospel-driven board games—-which requires a Pastor of Board Games
Gospel-driven canasta——–which requires a Pastor of Canasta
+++++
…which, of course, will pave the way for
Gospel-driven cooking——–which requires an “Administrator” of Cooking
Gospel-driven make-up——–which requires an “Administrator” of Make-Up
Gospel-driven gardening——which requires an “Administrator” of Gardening
Gospel-driven housecleaning–which requires an “Administrator” of Housecleaning
Gospel-driven hairstyles—–which requires an “Administrator” of Hairstyles
Gospel-driven glue-guns——which requires an “Administrator” of Glue Guns
Gospel-driven silk flowers—which requires an “Administrator” of Silk Flowers
Gospel-driven sheet & towel folding–which requires an “Administrator” of Sheet & Towel Folding
(always folding in 3, never in 2, the trinity & all. the elder in charge of said administrator will decide if edges are to face to the side or to the back… should he choose the path of the heroic culture warrior & determine the edges must face forward, the Administrator must submit to even this)
Pam Palmer wrote:
Comes up blank for me on a Mac. May be that their videos use Windows only Codecs.
@ M. Joy:
“This is an excellent film on the cover up of abuse at missionary boarding schools. It takes so much courage for these adults to come forward.”
http://allgodschildrenthefilm.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
My family members (generation that precedes me) also experienced abuse at Christian Missionary Alliance missionary boarding schools, just on a different continent.
The aftermath is like gene mutation, getting passed down. These crimes have generations of consequences.
Val wrote:
Val, Great comment. On this one point, I want to add that the above was extremely shoddy scholarship by Grudem (and Piper) which calls his credentials into question on anything else. To cite Epiphanius is having any credibility on Junia was an act of desperation to prop up his theory since Epiphanius also claimed that Priscilla was a man, too.
Ironically, the chauvinist Chrysostom who wrote about the female Junia also states (I think in Homily 10 but don’t quote me) that a man should NOT “authenteo” his wife. Which leads us to understand that it certainly did not mean “authority over” as translated in 1 Tim. :o)
Just thinking about Grudem’s lists….and his being a scholar and all….
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
Could be. I was trying from an iphone.
@ formerly anonymous:
I wanted to make sure you saw my comment here where I responded to you: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/07/09/a-letter-from-wayne-grudems-office-i-guess-cj-is-intriguing/#comment-106549 It was stuck in moderation probably because of the 2 links yesterday. I see it is now released.
Janey wrote:
Oh please. Why do Christians do this? Why does everything in life, down to the most mundane, have to be Christianized or filtered through the Gospel?
I don’t think sports need a Christian spin, or aspects of the Gospel need to be found in a game of football. 🙄
The Christian tendency to try to find Jesus in absolutely everything reminds me of how the psychiatrist Freud got everyone thinking that everything symbolizes s-x, to the point he (or someone) later said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
Sometimes a sports game is just a sports game, and not a metaphor or analogy for Jesus or salvation.
BTW, my sister has a wobbly relationship to the Christian faith long before I got that way, in part because of how other Christians usually act.
She cannot stand talking to Christians who are like Stepford robots – you can’t just have a normal conversation with them, they have to talk about religion 24/7, or, when talking religion, have to pepper every other sentence with a Bible verse.
She told me I was one of the few Christians she liked talking to because I could
1. talk about anything (TV shows, or whatever) without always bringing up Jesus/ Bible stuff
and
2. when we did talk religion, I acted normal about it. I could reference biblical concepts without directly quoting a verse every three sentences.
As far as point 2, it just occurred to me Jesus was rather the same way. Some of the only times he straight up quoted the Old Testament was in religious debates with Pharisees. The rest of the time, he told stories to the common people to get his point across.
dee wrote:
I’m not an expert on all things Wayne Grudem, but if he’s a gender complementarian, he might be a supporter of ESS, which is not, IMO, supported in the Bible.
ESS – A New Doctrine
I skimmed over Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women. That long list is more than ridiculous.
Some people make Christianity harder than it has to be or is, for themselves, or for other people.
It’s sad how people want to make up rules for other people to live under, or sometimes, these rules are self-imposed. Jesus came to free people of strict rule-keeping, but Christians want to go back to Old Testament rule-keeping.
Even should I stay a Christian, I feel perfectly fine ignoring what Wayne Grudem or any other Christian thinks I should be doing, or how I should be living my life. So I can look at his long list of rules for women and find it sad and pathetic, but also laugh it off.
His long list of rules for women remind me of all the extra-biblical rules rabbis came up with. It wasn’t good enough the Scriptures declared Sabbath a day of rest, they made up all kinds of rules like you couldn’t so much as gather twigs on the Sabbath for firewood.
Since I’ve walked away a little from Christianity and lost a sense of having to follow rules, I’ve felt a lot more liberated. I’m not interested in feeling compelled to do X, Y, and Z to please God and certainly not some man’s idea of how I, a woman should live.
I saw this comment on Facebook the other day from a Lifeway worker:
“If all you do is disagree, it won’t be long before your voice is marginalized, ignored & eventually forgotten.”
I have my thoughts on this. Many thoughts. 🙂 But what do you guys think?
A follow up to my post above (which is in moderation):
Grudem’s long list of rules for women also reminds me of government bureaucrats and their fondness for rules.
Futurama – The Bureaucrat Song
What if Grudem’s mailbox were to be deluged with many, many requests that he not speak at Mahaney’s church?
And what if letters were sent to Grudem’s supervisor/employer at Phoenix Seminary, asking about the propriety of one of their employees supporting Mahaney, and questioning both Grudem’s judgment, and the motive for Grudem’s decision?
You would think someone would be interested in whether Mahaney’s past financial patronage of Grudem’s writing might have an influence on Grudem’s current use of time and resources, especially if there’s any possibility of Phoenix Seminary’s name and reputation being connected with the affair.
Anon 1 wrote:
That is odd ball.
How desperate do they have to be to come up with stuff like ESS, which messes with the entire Trinity, and also write out women in the Scriptures?
“That’s a man, baby!”
Hopefully they still grant that Mary, mother to Jesus, was a woman. Or, will they say that Mary was really “Mario,” a dude?
Was it the ancient Greeks or actors in Shakespeare’s day who had all female parts played by males?
The gender complementarians want an all-male Bible, apparently. Do they just ignore the entire books of Ruth and Esther? I know that Driscoll sort of side steps Esther by declaring her a bimbo.
@ Daisy: Good one, Daisy!
Don wrote:
Bingo! Grudem is ultimately an employee. How many females does Phoenix have enrolled?
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I think I used to have a friend who was in management at Lifeway and could not wait to get out.
We could start by asking Phoenix if they agree with SGM that the 1st Amendment protects pastors who do not report child molesters.
Since they are an institution of higher learning, I would like to get their take on that issue.
Nicholas wrote:
What the hell does that even mean? Can sport just be sport, or do we have to use the big-G adjective on everything?
The big G adjective is for advertising purposes. I’d rather get my sports information from ESPN and Christian wisdom from Scripture. I guess that leaves CJ and Chad out in the cold. I don’t find either of them an expert on either venue so I’m not sure what a mix of the two will result in. Maybe a disaster?
@ M. Joy:
Thank you M. Joy for posting about this documentary. I found it in segments on Blip TV and I just finished watching the whole thing. Excellent. It parallels a lot of what we talk about here.
@ Bridget:
@ Deb:
OK. Thanks!
Nope, the big G adjective has to be used all the time now. I got into this on Justin Taylor’s blog in reference to the, wait for it, “Gospel Transformation Bible”. Now, I don’t know why you can’t simply call it the “Transformation Bible” or the “Christian Transformation Bible.” I’m so sick of this movement. It makes no freaking sense. …
“gospel deeps” (an actual Jared Wilson book title)
“gospel doctrine, gospel culture” (brought to you by Ray Ortlund)
Do any of these guys stop to think how absolutely silly it sounds?
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain: I don’t know what the problem is, but it works for me…I’ll email their website and check.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1: Excellent suggestion!
@ numo:
Thank you 🙂
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I asked the same thing in a post above. I do not understand the habit by some Christians to go looking at everything in life through a religious filter.
As an unmarried person, I used to haunt forums for single Christians. I didn’t post an awful lot, I read. But on one occasion I did post.
The other singles were talking about “Christian” dating (as opposed to worldly?), and most acted like they understand what that meant.
I did a post and asked, “what on earth is ‘Christian’ dating? Not having s-x on a first date, is that pretty much what that comes down to?”
A couple other singles came out of lurking mode to agree with me. They didn’t understand it either.
As far as I’ve been able to tell from reading most Christian dating advice in books and on blogs, “Christian dating” means never being alone with a member of the opposite gender.
Which is of course ludicrous, because you cannot get married unless you date, and you can’t date as an adult unless you meet alone for dinner or movie dates.
I asked the people in the single forum about all this. When I microwave my popcorn, I don’t have a “Christian” way I go about it. I just stick the popcorn in the machine and hit a few buttons. Would a Non Christian do it differently?
Don wrote:
Don, your suggestion is excellent! Hmm, maybe e-mail and tweeting. I think I need to look up some Twitter handles.
dee wrote:
Dee,
I’m beginning to think they don’t believe any such thing is part of the gospel. Their gospel seems to be more a hierarchical authoritarian lifestyle than anything else.
Julie Anne wrote:
Oh thanks! No, I didn’t see it. 🙂
For the tweeters here: Phoenix Seminary: @PhoenixSeminary (this is where Grudem works)
Grudem has a twitter account, but it appears to be inactive. (@waynegrudem)
elastigirl wrote:
I’ve been thinking about this. Here’s my idea. Tell me what you think:
This ridiculous idea originated as a good idea which was washed through Schaeffer, which was that everything in this world is a legitimate place for Christians to work/redeem because God made it all.
But rather than understand that all the universe is a witness to God’s genius (in itself, as is!), some narrow-minded “geniuses” (“I’ve a degree from Harvard!!” Lol) decided that God intended them to bring all the universe into the Christianity (the church) and “force it Christian”.
I suspect the root of their problem lies in doctrines of total depravity. To them, nothing in this world even approximates goodness—it’s all complete bunk. The human heart as well as all of creation and then, of course, also all human study of creation. Depraved depraved depraved
Therefore, among other things, they birthed nouthetic counseling and odd ideas of evolution/creation. Human relational principles didn’t really matter when they structured their churches, either. (Look at Driscoll’s church! Ack!)
And since reality is depraved, it cannot be used as a yard stick. Their yardstick is derived from various interpretations of the Bible, and because the Bible cannot be used that way, they come up with the most absurd ideas I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing. And they plaster those ideas onto reality with utter seriousness.
It seems to me that this idea also drives what they are pleased to call “complementarianism”. That women have obviously been given gifts of leadership/prophecy/ teaching is dismissed as a mistake. It’s a mistake because reality is depraved. And they end up appealing to the very nature of God, who is supposedly above/beyond this thoroughly corrupted created reality, in order to determine the value/identity of women.
Some of these people may have been given good brains, but they cannot learn to be intelligent or wise when they continually reject reality as corrupt. They may have some good ideas about the Bible, but it can’t go very far because they do not use it properly (Haven’t read Grudem, never will.) Thus they look dumber as they go along. And because it is not possible to think at all, really, without taking reality into account, they end up with a mishmash of dissonance. And because they have their eyes on a tiny corner of goodness in a vast sea of evil, they do not see the corruption in their hearts.
Thus Grudem can do his morning devotions in the same way that a genuinely humble and relational believer does, and come up completely missing the essentials of Christianity. Because Christianity is always/ever about love for God and self/other, and love finds no place except in appreciation and care for what is inside and around one. Grudem has no idea. He is not a believer for the simple reason that he doesn’t understand love.
Whaddayathink?
@ Daisy:Thank you for making me laugh! (The popcorn…)
@ Patrice: I’m thinking you’re on target.
What’s interesting (in a very sad way) about the Schaeffer influence is that he wasn’t like them *at all* in terms of the world (the universe, really) being a bad place. I can tell you 1st-hand that folks at Swiss L’Abri liked good food, good drink (though that was a luxury; the local wines were good but local beers were terrible), art and all the rest. It didn’t have to be “Christianized,” though God knows I think Hans Rookmaaker was wrong about many things (like abstract art) and that some people – like Frank(y) – *did* try to xtianize a LOT of things. I was there shortly before Schaeffer went full-tilt into his hard right phase, though I think I missed it by a matter of months or even weeks. (he was already very ill.)
Birds of a feather…
At home with Mark Driscoll: Wayne & Margaret Grudem Interview
http://www.waynegrudem.com/interview-by-mark-driscoll-with-wayne-and-margaret-grudem-on-their-marriage/
Numo – interesting comments about L’Abri. Two remarks I’d like your comments on:
1) I read Rookmaaker’s main book (Modern Art and The Death of a Culture) and loved it, as he was one of the only Christians at that time discussing both modern art and Christianity seriously. What do you think he was wrong about, esp. concerning abstract art?
2) Why did Franky go hard-right, and then hard-left (to wherever he is now as a curmudgeon), and what was the horror-movie phase about?
Janey wrote:
Here’s what Christianity Today wrote in March 2013:
“Last week, SGM asked a Maryland court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that “courts can’t get involved in the internal affairs of church business” (Associated Press paraphrase) and that the allegations against it are too vague. [Christianity Today] reported on SGM’s First Amendment defense in January, noting how legal observers question whether clergy-penitent privilege applies in this situation.”
The general legal rule is that the privilege is with the penitent. If the penitent does not want the priest to disclose, then the communication stays undisclosed. However, if the penitent wants whatever s/he said disclosed, then the the priest must disclose it. In other words, no third party can compel the priest to testify absent permission from the penitent to disclose the conversation.
This came up last month when the Church of Scientology tried to avoid disclosure of Laura DeCrescenzo’s pre-clear (PC) folders, even though DeCrescenzo definitely wanted disclosure as she’s suing Scientology. California law gives the privilege to the penitent, and the US Supreme Court declined to issue a stay in the case. It’s also worth noting that Scientology had to admit there wasn’t much in the way of “confidentiality,” as approximately 259 persons had access to DeCrescenzo’s folders.
I am not familiar enough with the SGM lawsuit, but the allegation is, per SGM practice, children were made to go into penitential situations and repent of being abused. (I don’t know of another way to put it, but let me be clear, it’s a load of malarkey.) Based on the general legal principle, those people could call CJ Mahaney or anyone else who heard the “confession” and force them to testify (e.g., if a three year old was made to confess, then that person could waive the privilege and force the “priest” to testify).
Anyway, just wanted to give some background on the priest-penitent privilege.
Janey wrote:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait…this guy is less than seven miles from my office that I have to visit most every day of the week? Of course, if he’s smart, he’s not in Arizona right now since it’s so HOT, but still, he’s located here??? Is this true? (People call things “Phoenix” that aren’t located in Phoenix, but I doubt he’d want to talk to a mouthy heretic like me in any case.)
Patrice wrote:
I cannot know what goes on in Grudem’s heart, but Jesus’ teachings on love are pretty clear — if you’re loving only your buddies and those you approve of, that’s not love.
@ numo:
It’s such a weird thing to do, slap Christianity onto reality like caramel on an apple, and then name the caramel coating “God’s apple”. One can’t know anything about reality that way, and if not, how can one know God? It can’t be done.
I found Schaeffer as you did, altho never went to L’Abri. Do you know how Schaeffer believed re depravity (Presbyterian, wasn’t he?) or how he saw it affecting creation? Did he go hard-right because he was ill, do you think?
So it seems to me that the old mind/body dualism thing crept in through the total depravity door. It laid waste to the lovely Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdian ideas that Schaeffer held in his hands. I wonder why none of them rejected such a wretched doctrine? Did they just ignore it or try to contain it? I don’t know.
The depravity ideology creeps through in the way Grudem treats politics. If one believes that the world is depraved, then of course one would want to alter society in a totalitarian and theocratic manner; to protect, at any expense, that tiny bit of goodness against the hordes of evil and outer darkness. 😯
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
SWD — That’s fascinating. I wonder how that works in Maryland. I think you’ve got an interesting angle. Today the (alleged) victims want their “confessions” made public, so the staff and teachers at those churches/school may have an obligation to bring it out.
Janey wrote:
Well, the stumbling block appears to be the statute of limitations at this point. Until the plaintiffs can get past that hurdle, we can’t even discuss forcing Mahaney or the other pastors who heard “confessions” to testify. Plus, as you noted, this is Maryland, and I don’t know the status of priest-penitent privilege in that state.
@ elastigirl:
That is beautiful!
He teaches a Bible Study at Scottsdale Bible Church, near Chaparral High School on Shea. @ Southwestern Discomfort:
@ TedS.:
I hope their granddaughter does grow up to be a pastor and I hope that she never hears this interview where her desire to be one is laughed at by her grandparents.
TedS. wrote:
Some fascinating moments in this interview:
00:57 – Their son Elliot is an Acts 29 pastor
1:20 – Margaret talks about horrible death of their daughter-in-law in a car accident, but Driscoll doesn’t want to deal with it until he discusses complementarianism with Wayne.
2:00 – Wayne and Mark met at a Crossway publishers dinner.
5:15 – Margaret says: “He gives me a lot of freedom.”
6:00 – Mark asks them a question, and Margaret turns to Wayne and says, “What do you think, Wayne?”
10:20 – Margaret says the criticism Wayne gets is devastating. “He doesn’t tell me everything he knows.” This comment makes Wayne uncomfortable for some reason. He tries to cover.
10:35 – Margaret says people in their Sunday School class criticize Wayne. “I don’t need to know what they said….I want to be able to smile at them.”
12:30 – Wayne and Margaret don’t always agree.
16:15 – Their granddaughter Hanna wants to be a pastor. Awkward laughter by all three.
19:15 – Margaret enjoys Beth Moore Bible studies. Always on her shelf.
22:20 – When offered a final parting comment, Wayne tell us that Margaret is very independent. [I guess he would know, but it sure doesn’t seem that way.]
Patti wrote:
No kidding. Watching her grandparents trying to quench the Spirit’s call in her life is a bit painful…hmmmm. (minute 16:15) The Bible says a lot of women will be prophesying.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
But surely ecclesiastic “confessions” don’t have a statute of limitations…they aren’t dictated by “worldly governments,” right?
Janey wrote:
Yes. I am confident that God will take care of Grudem in the best way possible and we need not worry about his soul. Our concern is what kinds of attitudes/behaviors we want represented as belonging to our God.
This man is unapologetically calloused in his views re the sexually abused. And I am one of them, tho not from this particular situation.
Moreover, in the interview with CJ, he was asked, “…where in ministry are you most regularly tempted to discouragement?” and his first answer was: “I am disappointed when I see churches and organizations gradually adopt an egalitarian position, because I think it will lead them step by step towards liberalism…”
In one sentence, this man rejects my full humanity and condemns my sensibilities towards society/economy/gov’t as evil.
He rejects me from fellowship in the church in three fundamental ways yet he remains monied, respected, and positioned at the center of the church (proper) with mouth-wide-open.
I do not want what he represents to be connected in any manner with the person and life of Christ. It looks just terrible to people who don’t know Christ. It also looks terrible to people like me, who love God with all our hearts. He has no idea of the real Christ because he does not love or respect that which God made. Loving friends and those who agree with you is no particular thang. Everyone does that.
I’m just ranting, not at you. 😕
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
But they went the civil route, what about going the criminal route? Coast? lack of evidence (he said, she said sort of problems)? Criminal has no statute of limitations on it, or they are more easily waived for the victims. If it is the LAW to report suspected child abuse, why can’t many of these cases go to trial for criminal negligence? It would be even better, because CJ could go to the slammer for a while -then everyone could look again to TGC to see what gems they would write about buddy CJ in stripes. I mean, criminal court is the best place to try these cases anyways – much more justice oriented consequences (jail), much more public.
I saw this on Facebook today and thought it would fit well in this general discussion.
“If your life is motivated by your ambition to leave a legacy, what you’ll probably leave as a legacy is ambition.” ~ Rich Mullins
Patrice wrote:
I had never heard of Mahaney before this year, but after watching his videos and reading his writings, it’s hard to imagine what people found to be so wonderful about him. He doesn’t seem to have very good judgment about protecting children, about using money, and about his own self-aggrandizing apostolic position. His 10-minute video on his own humility is so awkward I cannot make it past minute 2:00.
I’m with you. I’m glad Jesus didn’t follow the Pharisees’ prescribed way of behaving around women. Jesus condemned two attitudes more than any other: hard-hearts of the Pharisees and unbelief of his own disciples. (He never condemned a woman — isn’t that interesting?)
I agree with N.T. Wright on women in the church. His speech from 2004 is worth reading as he takes on the comp reading of 1 Cor and 1 Tim 2.
(He’s in favor of woman pastors — on biblical grounds.) N.T. Wright is one of the top 10 New Testament scholars today.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2012/08/06/n-t-wright-on-why-women-should-be-in-pastoral-roles/
Speaking of legacy, my ex-pastor worried once from the pulpit about whether he would “leave a legacy” as a pastor, or waste his life.
“I believed that “proper” theology would lead to a well rounded Christ follower. I was wrong. It does not change the heart. Only Jesus can do that.”
-OR-
Grudem’s theology is just plain wrong, and how he lives is the logical result of what he believes. Consider that as another option.
Hester wrote:
The mega church pastors I knew all were concerned about “legacy”. That was why no negative truths were allowed and considered sin.
Janey wrote:
Which bothers guys like Piper to no end. They tried like crazy to paint him as unorthodox on Justification/ NPP.
@ Janey:
I am proud and grateful to call NT Wright a man of my God. And I can even disagree with him and all remains well. 😉
@ Hester:
What did “legacy” mean to him? Books or a church-plant record or what?
@ Don: I should preface this by saying that I studied studio art in undergrad and have done a lot of pretty abstract work myself, though that was long ago…
At any rate, I think Rookmaaker’s idea that we were facing “the death of a culture” is off-base, and further, that his (mis)understanding of abstract art as devoid of meaning and/or somehow almost nihilist is just plain wrong. A *lot* of abstraction is based on real, visible things (starting, kinda, with Cezanne) and really – if you spend much time looking at Japanese woodcuts and ink paintings (as the Impressionists, Whistler and others who came after them did) there’s a clear reworking of reality – in a somewhat abstract, stylized way – that’s innate to that art.
Think about Monet, who spent years trying to capture the effects of light on both natural and man-made surfaces and structures (landscape, architecture, etc.). Have you ever looked at his series of paintings of the front of Rouen Cathedral at various times of day? Or his seris of huge – and stunning (imo) – water lilies paintings? (Done when his eyesight was failing, iirc.)
There’s all kinds of art in the world, and some of the most striking abstraction I’ve seen comes *long* before the 20th c.
I don’t think art has to be “representational” to be good, but hey… that’s just me.
Re. frank, if you read his memoir Crazy for God (which is very good), you’ll get the lowdown. btw, I know a lot of people have difficulty believing some of his stories of life at L’Abri, but I met some of the more outrageous characters (real people) who show up early on in the book, and I think he’s telling the truth about them. It struck me as an eccentric place, with many genuinely eccentric people who were long-term residents/staff. (I don’t mean that in a bad way, either – it was a *very* quirky place, and I have no doubt that it still is that way.)
Frank’s film series and his father’s How Should we Then Live were the start. There’s A Time for Anger, and his (I think self-published) Sham pearls for Real Swine, which is just plain embarrassing. (I was sent a complimentary copy because I belonged to an xtian arts organization when it came out – i think everyone received one. Shortly after, I was visiting some friends who lived near Udo and Debbie – this is when they lived in NY state – and was advised to NOT mention Sham Pearls… around them. So…)
Coda: I remember sitting in the chalet where I lived at L’Abri on one Sunday afternoon, when the discussion turned to art. It seemed as if we were all parroting Rookmaaker word for word, and when I said something re. his views on the emptiness of abstract art, i realized that I didn’t believe what I was saying and thought there were other ways to look at it. but… I was young and didn’t want to make waves, so I didn’t bring that up.
@ Don: I think the horror movie thing was simply that he got a job! Again, see Crazy for God. he talks about it there.
I do recall that he was *heavily* criticized in the evangelical press for having taken that gig.
@ Patrice: Check his son’s book Crazy for God… he gives the background on Schaeffer’s early association with fundamentalist Presbys. (This was back when there was a HUGE war going on in the US Presby church over “The Fundamentals of the Faith.”)
I mean, who in their right mind would send missionaries to a Catholic canton in Switzerland to try and steal sheep? But… the splinter group of Presbys that the Schaeffers belonged to did just that! (there’s a sanitized version of the story in Edith Schaeffer’s book “L’Abri.” Believe me, I was in for a rude awakening when I got there, because it wasn’t how she portrayed it in the book – and I’ve got lost of company that way.)
Frank feels that he was responsible for the hard-right turn that his dad took; he discusses this in Crazy for God.
Schaeffer wasn’t doing any speaking at the time he was there – he was semi-retired. Udo Middelmann (one of his sons-in-law) did most of the Sunday preaching, and John (another of his sons-in-law) sometimes lectured. John was a breath of fresh air; not long after I was there, he was banned from lecturing and preaching.
Schaeffer’s books and pamphlets include a slim volume on the reasons for infant baptism. I have never seen it anywhere except in the Swiss L’Abri bookshop. 😉
Janey wrote:
They don’t–but the acts that are being sued over (the abuse) have a statute of limitations in most states. That means you have to bring the action within a certain period of time or you’re presumed to have waived your right to sue.
Oops! “At the time I was there,” not “he.”
numo, Francis Schaeffer chunked a variety of things in the arts in specific cases. He may have been convinced of his accuracy in assessing its overall trajectory but he’d be hard pressed to explain to Messiaen that Messiaen’s music did not emerge from a truly Christian worldview. Ditto Penderecki. Or even Frank Martin, who could be identified as a Calvinist and having a conservative compositional approach who still found ways to integrate atonality and pantonality into his work.
Perhaps one of the most persistent canards among Christian controversialists seems to be “ideas have consequences”. Sometimes ideas do have consequences but a lot hinges on what you decide to do with them. 🙂
@ Patrice: I never came across a discussion of depravity in any of the Schaeffer material that I read, but that doesn’t mean he never wrote about it, only that I haven’t read all that much!
I never heard the concept raised during my time there. If it *had* been a big thing in his books, I doubt I’d have wanted to go there in the 1st place.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet: I’m all too aware of this, W. it was equally true for – and of – most of the people who worked at Swiss L’Abri when i was there.
Rookmaaker’s books on visual art give me the willies now, though I think there are some credible ideas in them. I just can’t stand to look at them now.
Patrice wrote:
No argument here Patrice. This thought trend has also birthed the notion that the Almighty demands perfection from imperfect humans and since they cannot meet that perfection, he had to contrive an horrific death by torture for his beautiful son in order to appease his wrath against us. As if the horrible consequences of our own stupid choices down through history are not enough.
numo wrote:
J.M.W. Turner, the real “painter of light”, who died in 1851. Works of his that are very abstract:
“Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway”
“The Slave Ship” aka “Slavers Throwing overboard the Dead and Dying—Typhoon coming on” (a most unsettling painting
I know there are others. Turner was EXTREMELY prolific and left his works to the British people (the “Turner Bequest”). Brits can go to the library where his works are kept and look through watercolor after sketch which are not on display. *jealous*
@ Southwestern Discomfort: I have been to the Tate (where the Turner Bequest is housed, mostly) and got to see a lot of his work – they were fair-minded, and had some of the howlers on display alongside the good-sublime canvases.
I also – kind of accidentally – got to see some of the watercolors up close, in the London office of SwissAir. I mean, you could walk right up to them and really *look* at them – no laser sensors or velvet ropes keeping you 2 feet away from the work. That was an incredible treat!
@ Southwestern Discomfort: Right with you on *jealous*
Muff Potter wrote:
Yeah, God’s wrath and total depravity are twins. Why would a god who was soo angry towards creatures who were soo awful even bother with it? That’s what never made sense to me.
This kind of god wouldn’t bother unless he sort of enjoyed being enraged and punishing people, even to forever in flames because of a few earth decades of ignoring him. Makes no sense when I see the world around me, what makes things/creatures whole, and what destroys.
But if it did make sense and if our god were thus, I wouldn’t worship him. I’d spend my nasty brutish and short life spitting and clawing at him. Good thing it ain’t so. 🙄
(off topic)
Gender roles are reversed in this new mountain biking video
There’s a video on the page with the biking couple in it.
@ numo:
Looking back at it, Rookmaaker seems to have indulged the same old attempt to plop a narrow Christian meme on top of stuff and whatever didn’t conform was to be rejected. Rather than looking openly and with love. Rather than evaluating reasons and searching for life that was/wasn’t there. Rather than recognizing that everything is God’s, from traditional realism to abstraction of principles on down to the visual reality of a quark. Rather than realizing that there is nothing on this earth that came from the mind of God bad, and in human hands, nothing bad is original but only twisted.
He opened up a lot compared to what had gone before but didn’t reject the basic premise. Thus he thought he could pick through reality, designating, by decree, some things righteous and some things not. And thereby condemning most of one culture’s century of art.
@ Patrice: I think you’re right.
I never did understand his condemnation of Mondrian – it seemed to me that he felt almost personally betrayed by Mondrian’s art, or maybe it was just that he thought all Dutch painters should be realists – I really don’t know the answer to that.
I *can* see why someone would tap into the feeling of post-WWII despair as much as he did – living through the Nazi occupation and everything. What I *don’t* get is how he came up with a formula in which Miró’s art is empty and nihilistic. (Just using one example that struck me as odd – I wanted to believe it, because he seemed so authoritative, but then I just couldn’t see it, because it wasn’t there.)
I wonder if Rookmaaker wasn’t on a knife edge himself, what with the Dutch heritage of art vs. the extreme iconoclasm of the Reformation in the Netherlands… it was fine to pain landscapes and genre scenes and portraits, but dare to have art in churches and you risk God’s wrath *and* the wrath of the people. (or looting, whichever…)
Hey, Val, Thanks for the historical information about women in ministry in the Catholic church over the decades. That was a helpful list. Where did you get your information? Do you have a link?
In my seeking of more information, I got more info on Wiki. I also found an intriguing website that was about the RC Womenpriests Movement. It is a renewal movement within the RC Church. It began with the ordination of 7 women on the Danube River in 2002. Looks like it is a growing idea!
Here is a quote about this group: “Roman Catholic Womenpriests are at the forefront of a model of service that offers Catholics a renewed priestly ministry in vibrant grassroots communities where all are equal and all are welcome. The voice of the Catholic people–the sensus fidelium–has spoken.
We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests.”
I like this statement a lot: “We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place . . .” Maybe there is something that others can learn from these folks?!
Just a quick, niggling point (sorry) but most of this was pre-Catholic church and just plain “Church” – Macrina the Younger is an EO saint, I don’t know if she is also an RC saint?
I heard about the recent women priest movement, but afaik it was condemned by the RC Church and the bishop involved was defrocked? Not sure, but it didn’t end well.
Historically, women were never ordained priests, well, they *may* have been, but unlikely, check out the link, but in the earliest church, there were no priests, just apostles and prophets, Junia was definitely an apostle and all of Phillip’s daughters, as well as other women, were prophets. However, women were ordained (as healers, teachers, prophets, etc.) up until the 11th C. at this point, the were many changes in the church. The Great Schism between the EO and RC, followed by a period where there were 2 popes at the same time (with France following a different pope than Rome), caused the Catholic church to close ranks, throw out general ordination and only ordinate priests (including deacons, a male-only position in the RC) – at which point women were no longer officially ordained.
http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/meaning-ordination-and-how-women-were-gradually-excluded
I can’t add too many links or this will get lost in moderation, but try googling: Junia – female apostle (one site, called God’s Word to Women, gives some of the info), but I found a lot looking up Junia.
I have, and will highly recommend, an e-book (more like an e-article) by Scot McKnight titled: “Junia is Not Alone”, but it is only on kindle e-books, not downloadable on-line, it was really cheap a few years ago. This is what launched me into investigating all this. If you have a mac you can download kindle. The sheer number of early church fathers who called Junia a women apostle vs. the later attempt to erase this fact is what always sets off my radar when people say that there is no historical precedent for women in leadership – an apostle was the *highest* order in the early church, nothing trumped apostle in terms of leadership (hence why Junia was in Jail with Paul, the Romans were after the leaders of the churches, she was also, likely, a Roman Citizen). But it didn’t stop there, women were prominent in church history – martyred by the thousands, traveled to far off places, set up convents and monasteries, preached, taught and prophesied. Built huge hospitals and left amazing legacies.
@ numo:
The Reformation’s history of destroying all icon/image didn’t cause Rookmaaker to think as he did because there was open contrition regarding that by Dooyeweerd and, say, the folks at Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. Although they still couldn’t take any kind of visual frivolity, I think that was more a cultural predisposition than secret condemnation.
It was likely partly from over-adoration of the Dutch Golden era. But I suspect at base, it was a belief that Christianity was something apart from creation and given to a broken creation to be reformed by it. Maybe they inflated the human’s need for repentance to all of creation needing repentance and thus they made the mistake of anthropomorphizing all of creation lol. Not sure.
Whatever it was, he called post-war despair into judgment rather than feeling compassion for a culture facing it’s own impotence and inclination to destruction. That was a huge mistake and it damaged art done by Christians for half-century afterwards.
Mondrian was so very Dutch: austere, tidy, analytical, and intellectually scrupulous. I think Rookmaaker felt it a personal affront that he didn’t also adhere to old ways. A conflation of subculture style/mores with Christianity, ISTM
dang, numo and Patrice….. amazing discussion.
if only I could join you, with a candle, a bottle of wine, (epoisse) cheese(!), and a cigarette….”:o”(!!)
black turtleneck…
@ Patrice:
Very much agreed.
I believe you’re right on this – but how on earth was someone to actually paint the sensation (visual and otherwise) of, say, all the neon signs and electric marquees on Broadway? You can’t do it “realistically” (whatever that means). I doubt it was even possible to photograph it successfully…
Re. iconoclasm, I came a cross a very pricey book 9from an UK-based publisher) last night – a new study (maybe the 1st of its kind) of art made *for* Dutch Protestant churches after the wave of iconoclasm. Per the publisher, a lot of the images in question have never been published before.
if this is true… well, we need to revise our understanding of what happened after the wave of looting and destruction. (Which, afaik, sounds like it was as good an excuse to run wild in the streets as any hooligan of the time could have desired…)
I wonder if I can nab a copy through the university library nearby – would really like to see this thing!
@ elastigirl: Oh hey – we can do with the food and drink, but no black turtlenecks necessary! (Especially not in this heart. :))
Me, I’m a jeans and t-shirt type. Some of my favorite footwear: Sanuks and Vans. (The ones with nice patterns, not necessarily the most “girly” ones by any stretch of the imagination.) I suspect I’d look pretty much at home in SoCal.
@ elastigirl: I know what you mean about cigarettes – something french, perhaps? (Though I was a chain smoker and am *so* glad I was finally able to quit, back in the mid-80s.)
It does seem to have a certain Bohemian je ne sais quois, though.
@ Patrice: I also can’t help wondering if Rookmaaker would have been affronted by the actual social set-up of the “Dutch Golden Age,” based on new money and hard-driving commerce…
@ Patrice: btw, I had to look up Dooyeweerd. I had never heard of him ’til last night.
Oh, what fools these German Lutherans be. 😉
numo & Patrice,
I know zilch, nada, about art and art history except that I want to get a print of Van Gogh’s Thatched cottages at Cordeville for my wall.
Didn’t the Nazis destroy a lot of art which they felt was “degenerate”?
@ elastigirl:
Sounds like an Audrey Hepburn movie 🙂
@ Patrice:
He never made clear what he meant by “legacy.” He did talk a lot about planting a church (even though his church only had 5 families) but I’m not sure if that’s specifically what he meant. But man, was he obsessed with Don’t Waste Your Life. So here’s my question (which is a sincere one, not just pot-stirring, and I’d be interested in any answers from the Calvinists here):
In a very “high Calvinist” view of God’s sovereignty, where God personally controls every atom, particle, etc., how can anybody “waste their life” since God already foreordained everything that happens in their life? Doesn’t this mean Piper’s whole book is just a big contradiction?
@ Bridget: Have you seen her in “Funny Face”? If not, go to Netflix and grab it (streaming). Very much Beat Generation, both here and in Paris. (Also very high fashion.)
Hester wrote:
Very astute!
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff – they even held exhibitions in which they contrasted ‘modern art’ with photos of & art by mental health patients, & those with special educational needs.
Patrice,Numo & Elastigirl: I’m in on the discussion. A friend of mine has just gone back to work at English L’Abri so I may be in those circles again. They did me a lot of good when I was their secret painter in residence & got to spend time with those who knew Schaeffer & Rookmaaker well. I’m not painting right now but am desperate to find time to draw.
@ Anon 1:
LOL, or “get better than they deserve”
Val, Thanks for more info. I followed up on the story about Roy Bourgeois who was dismissed from his order by the Vatican after serving over 40 years for ordaining a woman in 2008. He was also part of a protest in Rome about this topic in 2011. There is an interview on Patheos.com Mar. 25/13 Scot McKnight.
“AFTER serving as a Roman Catholic priest for 40 years, I [Bourgeois]was expelled from the priesthood last November because of my public support for the ordination of women.
Catholic priests say that the call to be a priest comes from God. As a young priest, I began to ask myself and my fellow priests: “Who are we, as men, to say that our call from God is authentic, but God’s call to women is not?” Isn’t our all-powerful God, who created the cosmos, capable of empowering a woman to be a priest?
Let’s face it. The problem is not with God, but with an all-male clerical culture that views women as lesser than men. Though I am not optimistic, I pray that the newly elected Pope Francis will rethink this antiquated and unholy doctrine….”
The NCR, the National Catholic Reporter, has a series of articles on the support for women seeking ordination. In a Dec. 3/12 article, “Ordination of Women Would Correct an Injustice,” they begin by stating:
“The call to the priesthood is a gift from God. It is rooted in baptism and is called forth and affirmed by the community because it is authentic and evident in the person as a charism. Catholic women who have discerned a call to the priesthood and have had that call affirmed by the community should be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand.”
@ numo:
long live jeans and vans
I wear vans whenever i’m not wearing flip flops. my claim to fame is that I was the first person in my high school to wear jungle vans. i’m very proud of that.
That and having autographed black & white glossies of Florence Henderson & Robert Reed (Brady Bunch groupie here… my admitting this is a measure of the level of trust I feel here)
I like cigarettes. never smoked, aside from the odd cigarette now & then. My English father-in-law introduced me to epoisse cheese (stinkiest thing on earth). I loved it (once I got it past my nose). I brought some home from England, and was sitting in Gatwick surrounded by cigarette smoke, & figured if they can smoke I can take out my stinky cheese. I also had an espresso. And the combination of epoisse, water biscuits, espresso, & cigarette smoke was perfect — a GREAT olfactory memory. I highly recommend it.
@ Beakerj: Please keep us posted on the L’Abri front – sounds like it might be really good for you.
btw, I *do* feel that both Schaeffer and Rookmaaker clearly communicated that creating things (visual art, music, theater, dance, whatever) is good, and for that, I’m very grateful.
@ elastigirl: Water biscuists – I love them, but haven’t had them in ages! They’re so wonderful with soft cheeses, though I must admit I’ve never tried the one you mention. It’s hard to get good cheeses here, at least, without paying outrageous prices. However, you’re making me think Emmental (which I fell in love with while in Switzerland, many moons ago), and I know that the gourmet grocery store 30+ miles from here sells good Emmental, so…
Smoking: oh please, never start! It’s so addictive, and so very hard on the body. I was up to 4 & 1/2 packs a day when I finally quit. (I know; it seems absolutely unbelievable to me now, but… grad school was very stressful for me, and that’s when my consumption peaked.) Even now, nearly 30 years after quitting, there are times when the smell makes me want one. Thankfully, the cravings are rare now, especially since smoking’s been restricted or banned in so many public places.
Now, as to TV shows – I was crazy about Patty Duke when it was new (I was in early grade school and allowed to stay up and extra half-hour on the night that it aired), but as a kid, my real love was Peanuts.
Vans: you know way more about them than I ever will. I only just started wearing them a few years ago, after I discovered Zappos and 6pm.com.
elastigirl wrote:
You have every reason to be proud!
@ Muff Potter: A docu on “degenerate art” and the Nazis. Am afraid the video is pretty blurry, but it might be of interest…
@ numo:
Yes to high fashion, but it was classy high fashion. Nothing like what we see today as high fashion. Then again, she was a class act without the high fashion.
@ Barb Orlowski:
I wish I could find some accurate data (all lost, since the early church could hardly write down names of their leaders – or the Roman’s would use those lists to feed their lions) on when the transformation from Acts style apostles and prophets morphed into bishops. It was well before Constantine, but I do think it represented an overall loss for the Church. Jesus’ and Acts model could be transplanted into any culture – hostile to the church or not. The later Romanization of the church “offices” (I hate that name, it’s a Roman name, I like “callings”) limited how church could be done. Suddenly the average Joe Christian was in need of a priest for communion, a council of bishops for final decisions, etc.
This morphed into a distinct class system in the church between those with an “office/calling” and those without (laypeople). In the early church leaders were celibate and dedicated their lives to their calling, often living in monasteries or venturing far from their homes to evangelize, while lay people often had families and jobs that brought the larger church income. Their worlds were very different, so the class distinctions weren’t as felt. I mean, a nun could have status, but also live in poverty all her life, so the high respect was balanced by a high price for the one who was called.
As protestants threw out many of the restrictions on what entailed a calling – celibacy was scoffed, vows of poverty slowly gave way (something I think Pope Francis is trying to draw the Catholic line on again), church leaders have now become “one of us, with privileges”. Sure, they say their job is hard, most well paying jobs/professions are hard. I teach intermediates, my pastor preaches on Sunday – if I worked full time, I don’t – I would need to teach 7! lessons 5 days a week. And take all that free time teachers supposedly have to prep, mark, assess, fill out psych ed assessments,OT assessments, speech path assessments, and write reports. I also visit with parents and phone parents. But, like me, a pastor will one day retire, like me a pastor can build a nest egg, buy a house with his income, have a family. Traditional callings meant one gave up personal attainments, nest eggs, families, retirements, etc. Today, my pastor’s job really doesn’t strike me as much different from my school’s principal’s job, except that my principal is a women and no one doubts her competency. It is hard to feel like we owe pastors all this extra spiritual authority, consideration, and right to limit their job to one gender (because that particular gender are “leaders”) when they have boiled their job description down to what we all do: get paid, have a family, retire. Now, just like in teaching, there are many great pastors who are truly called to teach/preach, but the actual expectations on a pastor have dropped from lifelong servitude to the calling to sharing rights with all the other workers out there – yet some pastors feel we are still in the Middle Ages and believe their calling is some how more divine or beyond all the other service-oriented professions. That, and psychopathic correlation is in the top ten for pastors, while teachers are at the bottom ten 🙂
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/07/profession-and-psychopath-correlation/
For the priesthood to hold the honour and mystery it used to, the actual church leaders need to look a lot more self-sacrificing. Check out Dee and Deb’s posts about Mark Driscoll in Haiti (he was pathetic, to say the least, but, more to the point, he didn’t act like one called by God, but like one going on a PR stunts who was scared sh**less) as to why I feel anyone claiming pastors have a higher calling are not looking at what that calling really looked like historically.
@ Bridget: Oh, absolutely!
Actually, I thought she looked best as a bohemian waif (in that movie).
@ Bridget: Although the real-life photographer that Astaire’s character was based on was nothing like the man portrayed in the film!
(some of his most famous models are in the movie, though…)
@ Bridget: Coda: I think there’s still some very classy clothing in the “high fashion” category even today, but with all the glitz and constant preening for the media, it can be very easy to miss.
numo wrote:
That you never heard of him when at L’Abri is odd. It is his stuff that Schaeffer drew from, via Kuyperian strand. Hmmm
numo wrote:
Do you have title and author on hand? I be tres interested.
Muff Potter wrote:
Oh yeah, sad to say the underlying impulse was similar: an outworking of an ideology plastered onto reality in an authoritarian way. Rookmaaker et al had the grace to recognize that one doesn’t go around erasing what one finds disagreeable. Condemnation was enough (attitude that still thrives. Natch)
Numo mentioned that her suspicions began over their condemnation of Miro. It began for me when looking at official Soviet and Nazi art which had all the qualifications Rookmaaker et al recommended but was dry as bones. From there I went to the American Social Realists, some of which I love but surely not a complete expression of our world!
Van Gogh’s work stands up fairly well in a good print because of his color and the broadness of his images. I like him very much.
Hester wrote:
From this perspective, although God controls every atom etc, we don’t know how. We are not privy to what He is doing and thus must go forward as best we can. And since God is in control of every little thing, it is likely true that we also must be working in every little thing.
We must also be totally efficient and thorough, as God is, since we are in His image. We must work our a**es off because we are co-laborers with Him and He is using us to bring His kingdom. Our actions are part of His pre-ordained plan and since we want God’s will to be on earth as it is in heaven, we will do everything we can to make it happen even when we don’t know exactly what that is. We give it our all, we do our best.
This is a Puritan strand. As you can see, it coincides with ideas of Capitalism. Thus your pastor was concerned with measurable product.
I lived this way in my early years. It has some good in it but the obsessional aspects are not healthy. Plus the emphasis on “something to show for it” is misplaced. Our actual legacy is that we lived in love; all else is by-product.
Does that make some sense of it?
Beakerj wrote:
I’d love to know how it goes for your friend and you, as you move again in L’Abri circles.
My project this summer is to put methodical artmaking back into my life. I am not hugely busy, as you seem to be, but ill (which is its own kind of busy, I suppose), and am trying to work out how to paint between/around episodes/relapses. Here’s to us this summer, Beakerj! (Raises coffee cup).
Do you happen to know John Peck?
Sorry for grabbing the thread with multiple comments, everyone. I’m done.
Patrice wrote:
There are some college ministries that focus on scripture memory as a measurement of spirituality. And in some circles the number of minutes you spend in prayer (plus having the “right” doctrine) is the measurement. You can be a loveless robot but meet the standards.
Janey wrote:
Yes, you can and completely miss Christ. The earnest among us, though, believe that we are not being heart-obedient unless we show x, y, z. That creates tremendous internal distress because of the constant cranking to force self into line, to like/want/produce the approved product. It’s so sad!
God is multi-dimensional and full of varied interests and He built various aspects of Him/Herself in us. We cannot know what aspect of God we image unless we spend time learning how we each were made. And the resulting actions (for eg, our devotional lives) will vary.
I suspect that we have thousands of denominations because we do not recognize this point. Why wouldn’t a person emphasize the aspect of God that he/she was made to embody, and why wouldn’t another person emphasize another aspect? Why is that an affront to us, to the extent we call down heresy and fragment into thousands of pieces? We end up being drawn to a particular denomination because of our personalities rather than because of its correct notion of God! The emphasis is all wrong!
We have an inadequate understanding of the hugeness of God. It is not God’s sovereignty that we should concern ourselves with but His/Her astonishing largeness and largess. IMO, sovereignty is an authoritarian construct into which we have shoved God’s actual being. The result is that those of us who image aspects of God that don’t fit the construct are squeezed out and left lying on the floor. Arg!
@ numo:
dang, aGAIN, numo & bridget…. now Audrey Hepburn is in the mix… oooooo– if only to have this conversation in person in a lowlight cafe, candle, wine, etc., NO cigarette,… upright bass, brushes on drums in background…
beakerj — who else wants to come?
@ Patrice: The thing is, I haven’t read Schaeffer in *decades,* so for all I know, he might have been very upfront in mentioning Dooyeweerd – in footnotes, if nothing else.
However – I *think* (might be wrong here) that a lot of his books came pretty directly from his talks. And people don’t usually put foot/endnotes in talks, so…
@ Patrice: A very quick Google search pulled this up, among other things.
I don’t know how accurate it is, but you might want to give it a look. The thing is, L’Abri was so all-consuming that I can’t imagine that Schaeffer had much time to sit and read philosophical tomes…
@ Patrice: Here you go.
@ numo: skimming through the Google preview of the book, it seems like it’s very biased in favor of Schaeffer – the author even posits that the “How Should We Then Live?” film series is every bit as good as Sir Kenneth Clark’s “Civilization.” NOT!!!
@ elastigirl:
Can the cafe be in Paris in the Spring (rain is no problem) surrounded by museums?
@ numo:
Thanks! That book is so expensive, I can’t even ask for it as a Christmas gift!
So, from googling, it seems Schaeffer was more influenced by Van Til than Dooyeweerd, and Rookmaaker also took only a smattering from him. This makes sense.
Van Til thought theology was the queen of human thought/endeavor, out of which all else flowed. Dooyeweerd thought theology was one study among many fields and that all fields of study were under God and expositions of Him/Her. You can see that would make a huge difference in how one studies art.
Van Til’s thought spawned the theocratic movement. He was autocratic and authoritarian.
@ Patrice:
Art washed through theology would question the value of trying to capture the neon jazz flash of NYC streets at night.
For the Christian who sees art-is-its-own-field, neon lights and their effects are valuable in their own right, being from God’s hand as is all the earth, and open to examination/criticism/delight.
Interesting. Thanks again!
@ Bridget:
Paris anytime, mon amie
@ Patrice: That book: I know! but I wonder if there might be any chance that you could at least get it via interlibrary loan?
As for lights and all of that (no just Broadway), I think it was hard for these guys to think of things like light and color as worthy subjects in themselves. If something was abstract (or even if it wasn’t), it was so easy to pin it on “the death of [our] culture.”
One thing I did learn from skimming that book on F. Schaeffer: that Rookmaaker was in a POW camp, and – horrifyingly – that his fiancee and her family died at Auschwitz.
@ elastigirl:
Failing Paree, we could meet in Detroit, at my cozy home along the outer edge of American as well as Am Christian society. W00t
@ Patrice:
If Paris didn’t work, I was going to suggest Detroit.
I noticed an interesting pattern this morning. T4G begins the process of erasing CJ Mahaney. (CJ is uninvited to the 2014 conference.) John Piper begins the process of erasing CJ Mahaney (CJ is uninvited to Cross conference.) Wayne Grudem’s mouthpiece makes an unequivocal statement of support for CJ. Here is the pattern I see. T4G and John Piper don’t need CJ. He needs them. But CJ doesn’t need Wayne Grudem. Wayne needs him. Current SGM pastors need CJ (or at least need SGM–which is still CJ’s fiefdom.) CJ doesn’t need them.
So my prediction would be that those whom CJ needs will continue to erase him; while trying not to burn their bridges (pardon the mixed metaphor) in case he is miraculously rehabilitated. Those who need CJ: Grudem and other CJ indentures or oblates (sons-in-law, Pastor’s College students and SGM pastors, among others) will keep trying desperately to shore him up. As for SGM, which is stuck with its unhealthy mutually parasitic relationship with CJ… Which walking dead man will collapse first? (Metaphor courtesy of Jim, formerly of SGMRefuge.)
Look for the Southern Baptists to begin quietly untying the ties that bind them to CJ.
@ elastigirl:
Detroit works for me. Never been to those streets. Place is inconsequential. Can I wear jeans and flipyflops? Weather determining, of course.
@ Phoenix:
It would be fascinating to watch the unwinding if the circumstances surrounding the whole thing weren’t so insidious.
Patrice wrote:
I have been a long time fan of Van Gogh’s work. I remember long ago in the VA hospital, the day-room bookshelf had an over-sized volume of nothing but Van Gogh color plates. That and Don McLean’s song Vincent have stuck with me over the years.
Patrice & numo,
From the readings I’ve perused, I see little difference between Schaeffer, Van Til, et. al. and the bearded clerics of Iran.
@ Bridget:
In Detroit, you can wear whatever you want. Be hip be square, all interesting on its own terms. Love in the ruins. Free tours with guide! Good art museum. Lots of conversation! My sissy is a sommelier and I could likely get us some great hooch at wholesale prices.
I mean it. Set a date. You all are welcome.
@ Muff Potter:
Van Gogh is marvelous for broken people. He had a hard life and wanted so much to be able to make it ok, spilling it onto canvas after canvas, all the way to the end. I’m glad there was a book of his at the VA.
@ Muff Potter: I dunno, Muff. I’ve never read Van Til, but I don’t think Schaeffer is anything like as bad as you’re saying. In the books he wrote late in life – definitely yes; it’s as if he came full circle to the fundamentalism of his youth.
But there was some pretty good material prior to that, flawed though it is.
@ Patrice: Sounds good! (Stratford, ON is calling my name…)
Previously I said…
Daisy wrote:
Then I saw this (“Sex it down: Egypt’s conservative male-only TV show draws scorn”) today (about present day Egyptian TV shows):
So they go from eliminating vice by way of keeping naked women off their show to eliminating all women period?
Because women, just by existing, are so smutty and tempting. 🙄
Patrice & numo,
In recent years I have also become an aficionado of William Blake’s work. Especially his water colors and engravings with the book of Job as subject.
Phoenix wrote:
I was rereading this thread and saw your comment. Would you explain a little more about why Grudem needs C.J.? Why would he need C.J. more than Mohler does, for example?
“Spiritual Fracking: The End Of Protestant Christianity As We Know It?”
“Most of us began our journey into faith with trusting hearts. Yet incidents of abuse, media accounts of perverted religion, personal disappointment, loss, betrayal, and even unrealistic expectations of God can cause us to develop a warped or damaged view of faith. Too often, what began as an authentic relationship with God deteriorates into a defective faith with an incomplete or poisoned view of God — one that allows the religion, not the relationship with God, to control our life.”
– Stephen Arterburn, “Toxic Faith”
hmmm…
Charles Joseph (C.J.) Mahaney is known by many within SGM (Sovereign Grace Ministries) for :
1. Injecting dangerous scriptural toxins (sin sniffing, etc.) into the body of Christ.
2. Allowing harmful authoritarian control into the body of Christ.
3. Permitting moral toxins (pedophilia, etc.) to exist within the church as well.
(among other things…)
huh?
Wayne Grudem, the leading pop neo-Cal theologian, finds this all acceptable?
figure$.
Most likely the most comprehensive religious cover-up in American Protestant history?
$ure.
Wayne Grudem, the ESV (English Standard Bible) study bible general editor, should know better?
http://www.waynegrudem.com/esv-study-bible-general-editor/
We would assume so.
Shame on us.
As long as they (these proverbial Elmer Gantry types) can exploit our hard earned dollars, they will. They know that there is a religious sucker ‘born again’ every minute.
Don’t give a religious sucker a break?
hmmm…
$ure.
The forces of social good and scriptural enlightenment as presented in Sovereign Grace Ministries are not strong enough to offer any real resistance to the forces of social evil and spiritual brutality these professional religious clones are pursuing; victimization of the Christian church as a whole, is sure to continue…
What?
Did you say it was this past Sunday morning when you last saw your good friend?
Setting in the pew
With misery on their brain
Stoned upon a potion
They heard from some unholy pulpit,
In some unholy church,
In some ungodly group of churches,
They said they were christian, but they were only messin’ with your mind?
They only had a c note
To live on until next Sunday
Yet they spent it on C.J. Mahaney who was giving something toxic for their soul…
Did you say you think your good christian friend is flying blind?
could b.
God loves us, no matter how much someone in religious church power misrepresents God, their leadership position, or deceptively using the Lord’s name to control and manipulate the church you have attended on the basis of toxic behavior. These church leaders apparently do not really know God, and are not close to what God wants the church to be.
Stop the Religious Spiritual Fracking,
Don’t be fooled.
Unless you are careful, your children might be next on their expanding list.
(sadface)
But understand this, that in the days to come there will come times of great difficulty. For faux pastors, and deceptive ‘religious men’ will appear and spoil the church Christ came to save, being lovers of themselves, lovers of the people’s money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their heavenly calling, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, unapproachable, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of authoritarian control rather than loving God and serving the people, having the appearance of a type of godliness, but denying the power of the Holy Spirit. Avoid such nefarious pastors, and religious men…
If encountered, Run, don’t walk to the nearest church exit door; your family will thank you, your wallet will too!
Blessings!
Sopy
—
“Dump The Proverbial SGM Trash n’ Jump Ta ‘Light’ Speed?”
hmmm…
Wayne Grudem,
Hello,
We must reject the SGM core idea that every time a biblical law’s broken, the victim is said to be just as guilty as the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the scriptural precept that each individual church member is accountable for his/her actions. We must also reject the SGM core idea that the emphasis (focus) in the Christian life, be placed upon sin, rather than the finished work of Jesus Christ who atoned for that sin.
What?
Hopefully , you will see the validity and ramifications of these things.
Where is the good news?
huh?
…Jesus loves me this I know, cuz the bible tells me so, lit’l ones to Him belong….hum, hum, hum…
(grin)
Sopy
—