Dee –

Wasn’t Brent D. interviewed on her program? Perhaps that is who he is referring to in his comments. I wonder how he makes the determination that someone is ” a known slanderer”?

Dee

Thanks for the heads up. In my experience this is typical of guys like Taylor who will make incredibly strong accusations–‘he’s a known slanderer’–but leave it fill in the blank so there’s plausible deniability. No one can contest his statement after all. Who’s the slanderer? This is a win/win for him any way you slice it. He gets to spray his moral accusations–dare we dub it slander?–with full impunity. Practically he’s doing the identical thing he condemns with a completely false sense of security that he’s behaving righteously. God knows his heart and is not ignorant of whom he intends to judge. Just more silly self-righteousness from immature guys catapulted into positions beyond their spiritual pay grade.

Lord bless…

Mara wrote:

peter lumpkins wrote:

Just more silly self-righteousness from immature guys catapulted into positions beyond their spiritual pay grade. Made me smile.

Me too. Which is why I referred to it on the last thread as ignorant arrogance. It is mind numbing.

1. Brent Detwiller was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show February 28,2013

http://tinyurl.com/lw5jpc2

2. Boz T was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show June 6,2013 re: the SGM lawsuit

http://tinyurl.com/loeo59j

3. Boz T was also interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show October 7,2013 re: sexual abuse in the church

http://tinyurl.com/p6zujd5

4. Peter Lumpkins was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show June 17,2014 re: his SBC resolution

http://tinyurl.com/m9oks49

4. Wade Burleson was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show Februrary 14, 2013.

http://tinyurl.com/kvy8dwb

5. Susan Burke (lawyer bringing the SGM lawsuit)was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show October 18,2012.

http://tinyurl.com/lfx5gz9

6. Bill O’Neil (lawyer) was interviewed on The Janet Mefferd Show May 16, 2013 re: appeal

http://tinyurl.com/jwkpa82

Justin Taylor has some s’plaining to do.

I read that post on Justin Taylor’s blog. If Mark Driscoll is stuck in an ongoing case of prolonged puberty for the last 30 years….then what does one make of Justin Taylor?

In totalitarian regimes history is re-written and defined by how they want to define it. It can be the Communists, Nazis, or Radical Islamic militants…they work at redefining the facts. One of the quotes I like from Joseph Goebbels fits Justin Taylor well…since he’s a master at propaganda.

“To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall.”

For the propaganda that Justin Taylor spews on his blog I only have one thing to say. It’s a disgrace…if he really were a man he’d act like one and hold other men to a reputable standard. Right now he’s acting like a 7 year old girl in third grade running to the teacher whining, complaining and tattling. But I guess that is what it means to be reformed.

Dee,
I would think with this post you now need to add Frank Turk to the list of Kevin DeYoung and Carl Trueman who have weighed in with great comments this week. This was a comment Turk made on Justin Taylor’s piece:

“When I read this post, I got a little dizzy. So we should receive a list of rules for how and whether to write as merely constructive, yes? But what if one breaks these rules, or has broken them in the past — should there be some kind of umbrage? From who and by what means?

Or what about someone’s “professionalism”? Are we allowed to criticize one’s professionalism? Or have we crossed the line when we have moved from the unspecific “one should” to “Frank Turk should”? If we have crossed the line by being specific, what has Justin done to Janet Mefferd? If that does not cross the line, did Janet’s sin that she did not back off Mark Driscoll when it was clear he was looking for the exit because his attributions were, at best, merely incidental? Or because Driscoll was doing her a favor and she wasn’t adequately flattered?

It runs round and round like a rodent on a wheel if we keep chasing the questions, but what it really comes back to is this: what are standards, and who gets to police them? More to the point, what happens when those who are supposed to keep the standards think they can do so from behind a curtain, but the practical result is downgrade — a lower standard of attribution, a lower standard of associational accountability, a lower standard of orthodoxy, a lower standard of maturity, and so on?

Is the problem really as Justin phrases it that there are just too many people looking for the Scandal of the Day? Or is the problem actually that the self-appointed gate-keepers have lost sight of the original purpose of the gate, and they now let so much pass by because they are center-bound and not boundary-bound that the gates are simply making things worse?”

Because he didn’t name names and now you’ve done an article on this, this will all be labeled as gossip, stirring up trouble, yada yada. It’s your fault, Dee. But it’s okay for him to accuse of slander.

I can’t remember what, if any, position Mr Taylor took in regard to the recent allegations levelled at Mr Mahaney. Certainly, the standard one among the latter’s circle of associates was that they regarded the allegations as just that, and would treat them as such unless and until they were proved in a court of law.

That’s fine, as far as it goes. The principle that an accused person must be innocent until proven guilty is rightly held as essential the world over.

So this person that Taylor refers to as a “known slanderer” (emphasis mine) – has that person ever actually been convicted of slander by any due process? How does he “know” this person is a slanderer? Because if the person has been convicted, it would be quite safe for Taylor to name that person; there would be no need for deniability nor fear of legal repercussions. Nor would there be anything obscure or unclear about Taylor’s position.

Since Justin Taylor is a godly and righteous leader who stands for the truth, we know he would never himself stoop to slander or gossip. Therefore the person he alludes to must be a convicted slanderer. Taylor should name him so that we can be properly warned to beware of this person.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I can’t remember what, if any, position Mr Taylor took in regard to the recent allegations leveled at Mr Mahaney.

Justin Taylor, along with Don Carson and Kevin DeYoung, were signatories to a statement of support for C.J. Mahaney published on the Gospel Coalition Website. In part the statement reads:

“So the entire legal strategy was dependent on a theory of conspiracy that was more hearsay than anything like reasonable demonstration of culpability. As to the specific matter of C. J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted.”

This statement was factually incorrect. After concern with their statement expressed by other members of the Gospel Coalition they added this disclaimer at the bottom of their statement:

“This statement reflects the views of the signatories and does not necessarily speak for other Council members, bloggers, and writers for The Gospel Coalition.”

The statement can be read in its entirety here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/24/why-we-have-been-silent-about-the-sgm-lawsuit/

@ An Attorney:

That’s very generous of you, but actually I think your comment rounds mine out very nicely!

I would assume that Taylor is referring to Brent Detwiler, especially since Detwiler was publicly denounced as “divisive” by Mickey Connolly, who was on the SGM board at the time. Of course, there’s no way to know who Taylor had in mind without asking him. Why would he make such an ambiguous statement?

Does it matter that Brent is certainly a suspected slanderer? Party to the blackmailing of Larry T, involved in some mucky de-giftings with pre-prepared statements for pastors to read out that do not always express the truth – even in some of the e-mails in his famous documents, he comes across as threatening and not consistent in his use of information.

I think it is Brent that is being referred to. I agree that to throw this kind of stuff around while child abuse is being investigated is distasteful at best and appallingly sinful at worst: but let’s not kid ourselves, Brent was as much part of setting up the system that allowed and enabled such acts as CJ – he just looks like the hero for how he has posted all his notes and e-mails online.

Regardless of who he’s referring to and why he thinks they’re a slanderer, Justin Taylor is to dictate to a journalist who she’s allowed to interview. He seems to think that he should be able to dictate who is ‘allowed’ to be listened to. That’s an incredibly arrogant and dangerous attitude to have, especially in someone who has some wider influence.

___

“Honest, My Commentz Twen’t Loaded!”

hmmm…

Justin Taylor, Pleeeeze…put dat proverbial paintball gun down, now… (fore you hurt youzeself)

nuck,nuck, nuck!

(grin)

hahahahahaha

Sopy
___
Comic relief: Moe, Larryy and Curly Interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upLYzdCJy_w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

;~)

—

dee wrote:

Eagle wrote:

It’s a disgrace…if he really were a man he’d act like one and hold other men to a reputable standard. Right now he’s acting like a 7 year old girl in third grade running to the teacher whining, complaining and tattling.

“You all upsetting me. I am closing down my comments after making a sweeping statement.”

All of this behavior reminds me of reading SGM Wiki leaks. Same attitude. Little boys with too much time, money and fame. They never really matured. Everything is show and control. They are emtpy suits.

dee wrote:

@ Bene D: I just updated the post to include your comment-with full attribution, of course!

Haven’t you learned anything from Driscoll? Just take down Bene D’s post and update yours with no attribution.

Julie Anne wrote:

Because he didn’t name names and now you’ve done an article on this, this will all be labeled as gossip, stirring up trouble, yada yada. It’s your fault, Dee. But it’s okay for him to accuse of slander.

A God Can Do No Wrong.

“Morals are for men… Not… GODS!”
— Second Star Trek pilot (1966), “Where No Man Has Gone Before”

dee wrote:

Marge Sweigart wrote:

Why would he make such an ambiguous statement?

Because he is afraid to say the name. That is why I do not think it is Brent. If he is afraid, i bet he is thinking it is Boz.

And oh yeah, for all those thinking this is a gossip fest, remember this. One of your boys started it.

He thinks he is above saying the name. The point is to take his word for it that a “known slanderer” was on Janet’s show so that others will believe she has no street cred. (He is a non thinker because there are so many illogical holes to jump through in his entire comment. But then, they have never really learned how to think. The indoctrination is all they know. Oh and trot out “unbiblical” and that covers the non thinking)

That is how it works in his evangelical ghetto. He is one of the important people. Young men hang on their every word. And it works well in the ghetto.

Problem is, it is not working in the wider world of blogging. They really are becoming a laughing stock as their petulant behavior and covering for evil deeds becomes an issue. These are the manly men of TGC? Crossway? Please.

@ dee:

I agree. Only Boz poses a real threat to them. He has name recognition now in many more evangelical venues, street cred as a prosecutor/investigator and has been pretty outspoken, etc.

They are not used to it. He is not so easy to malign/marginalize as they normally do in such situations.

@ Deb:

Why would I want to buy books published by Crossway when I see how they view possible/plagiarism and when they are ready to throw victims of abuse under the bus rather than believe that the victims might have a case against a ‘leader’? Justin Taylor is out to protect Crossway.

@ peter lumpkins:

Yet you accuse others of slander for asking reasonable questions about Ergun Caner?
https://twitter.com/SBC_Tomorrow/status/407927196582281216

A reputable investigative reporter had questions too. http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Controversy-follows-Baptist-theologian-to-north-Texas-124318149.html

But last summer, Caner’s story started to unravel when skeptics found evidence that despite his claims, the self-proclaimed young Jihadist actually moved to America from Sweden in 1969 — not from Turkey in 1978. Caner grew up looking and acting like most every other kid his age.
The discrepancies proved so damaging that Caner was demoted at Liberty Baptist and is now headed to North Texas to become vice president at Arlington Baptist College, home to 200 students and to perhaps a not-so-welcoming staff.
One faculty member told News 8: “I find it reprehensible that the leadership of the Arlington Baptist College would hire a man who is very clearly profiteering from the tragedy of September 11.”

Deb wrote:

Yep, Voddie Baucham

“Beat Fluttershy enough and she’ll turn into Rainbow Dash” Baucham?

Eagle wrote:

@ Anon 1:

Are you saying this is a modern day Judges situation?

It has been a while but I did a personal study on the Priesthood in the OT and how that morphed into the NT situation. It is amazing how often God sends prophets or rails Himself against corrupt priests OT. However, I do NOT think modern day pastors are like “priests” like in the OT but I DO THINK SOME THINK THEY ARE!

I am a firm believer in the priesthood of believer but I do not think many evangelical pastors today buy into that anymore. They see themselves as “set apart” like the OT priests. I do think history shows that the “church” set up a clergy caste system that has played out as very corrupt for the most part througout history. The bigger problem is that those who defied that system were usually wiped out so history does not record much about them. Marytrs Mirror is a start. It will make you weep, though.

No one in the body of Christ is meant to be “set apart” from his/her fellow believers. For example, elders would be those thrown to the lions first!~ What we have had for centuries is a man made system and tends toward corruption. I see the parallels of what is said in the OT concerning corrupt priests to what we see happening all around us now and historically. There are many who think they are entitled to indoctrinate the rest of us and see themselves as “set apart” as “God’s messengers” to us. As if we cannot have the same Holy Spirit they do.

One would have hoped that the land of the free and home of the brave post enlightenment could have avoided this after the Puritan debacle because they love freedom so much. It seem to work for a while most likely because of Westward expansion and who can control pioneers? (Ha!) But we have become so collectivized that we have been trained to look to others for what to think and to be taken care of in all aspects of life. It is only a natural progression this would happen in the so called evangelical church, too. Couple that with doctrine that says you are so totally depraved you have no volition and need someone to teach you and you have a recipe for tyranny.

What scares me the most about it is not enough people see the tyranny inherent in these guys. Justin Taylor does not know that his comment we are discussing in this thread has quite a bit of ignorant arrogant tyranny within it. He cannot see it because he has been indoctrinated in what to think. It has been all over his posts and comments for while now.

Bridget wrote:

@ Anon 1:

Taylor is simply trying to discredit Mefferd, and that without proof as Nick and An Attorney discussed above. I agree, it is unfortunate that many will believe him just because . . .

Bridget, to me the problem is that every single comment after his comment should have been asking him why he said “a known slanderer” with no reference. That should be a wake up call to his readers but it really isn’t. Lets see if the Reformed blogosphere lights up with many blog posts asking him, a public figure with a publisher, to clarify and back up his declaration. For them, it is business as usual. This is their normal.

They admire position/movements more than they do truth/basic logic.

Scott Shaver wrote:

your problem seems to be you place more credibility on investigative reporters than you do actual facts.

You are willfully ignorant if you think this man who claimed repeatedly to have grown up in the middle east, trained in jihad, and debated Muslims in Arabic isn’t a liar but merely “misspoke.” And your disdain for the press is typical of fundies like yourself: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/10/18/paige-patterson-warns-against-going-to-court-or-to-the-press/

As a sexual assault survivor and one-time follower of TGC (no longer and never again after TGC’s demonstrable insensitivity, IMO, to the victims of the SGM scandal), I’ve been profoundly grateful for Boz. He seems to have two allegiances: to Christ and to sexual abuse victims. And he is willing to call a spade a spade. No phony glad-handing, elbow-rubbing or looking the other way.

Even typing this I feel anger rising up inside of me at those who’ve allegedly perpetrated despicable acts in SGM, at those who’ve been in positions of power to help victims and haven’t, and at those at TGC who seem unwilling, again IMO, to examine their own people and biases.

But as a survivor, this anger isn’t new. I experience it weekly, sometimes daily, when I read or hear a news story about a victim who was treated poorly by the police, the justice system or the church. I experience it when I hear a coworker or friend make an uninformed comment about sexual violence. I experience it when I hear a pastor adamantly express that my body doesn’t belong to me, never has and never will, without offering the caveat that God doesn’t force us. I experience it when a politician minces words about “legitimate rape.” I experience it when I think about all of the injustices that have been perpetrated against me, all of my cries in the dark for earthly justice that continue to go unanswered.

And this anger is mine to deal with, to bring before the Jesus who seems safer than the God who I’m afraid of. And I do, most of the time.

If every single person had to live with this anger, all the time, I think more would be done. Because it’s a terrible, terrorizing anger — and should be — with the potential to be motivating and transforming. In it’s purest form, I believe it is a righteous anger.

Instead, the only anger I see demonstrated most often at TGC is a puffed-up anger toward those who dare to be righteously angry.

P.S. on Scott Shaver; he is a regular commenter over at SBC Tomorrow.

In other news, the Met Office has upgraded its storm warning for Scotland tomorrow from yellow (be aware) to amber (be prepared).

Fortunately, I had already reinforced the roofing felt on the shed, moved the bins to the leeward side of the house and put the loose stuff from the garden into the garage.

I hope this is helpful.

@ dee: I think you’ll be OK in the house over there. The storm’s not going to be that big.

Unless you make lasagne on a stove in the garage? (It could happen.)

Sara wrote:

Instead, the only anger I see demonstrated most often at TGC is a puffed-up anger toward those who dare to be righteously angry.

*the only anger I see demonstrated most often BY TGC is…

As it seems as though matters Mefferd may be disappearing sub judice, I thought it might be an idea to provide other items of interest (analogous to re-runs of previous finals shown while Wimbledon is waiting for the rain to stop).

It turns out that copper pyjamas can help fight MRSA.

dee wrote:

@ TedS.: Well guess what. Mefferd’s blog is now down. And all tweets regarding DRiscoll have disappeared. It smells legal to me.Thoughts? You seem to be up on this stuff.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser

@ dee:

I find it so strange that some evangelicals are so angry at him for exposing and discussing how rampant the abuse and cover ups are.

They should be angry abuse is happening to start with, not with someone who is pointing out that it’s happening.

I listened to the Janet Mefferd show when she interviewed Boz, and in days after. She sometimes takes phone calls from listeners.

IIRC, Mefferd got a call or two from people who were upset and angry that Boz said that child sexual abuse is just as bad/or worse in Protestant churches than in Catholic churches. I saw a commentator or two at other blogs also angry at him for making this claim.

IMO, one child sex abuse case is one too many, so I don’t even know how relevant it is for some evangelicals to get upset over his claim that it’s more prevalent in evangelical/Protestant churches.

I think it’s troubling period that it happens at all, and that so many churches cover it up and even defend perpetrators of it.

I’m also troubled that a lot of churches are just as apathetic or callous in helping Christians with other types of issues or problems in life, such as wives who are victims of domestic abuse.

A lot of Christians have this attitude that you shouldn’t get help from them.

You will repeatedly hear (if you go to another Christian, or church people, with whatever problem), that you are to “go to church to serve, not be served.”

I would assume a church (a group of believers) is the first place you could and should go for emotional support or money/ practical support, but nope.

There’s very much a “you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and deal with problems all alone” mindset among a lot of U.S. Christians.

Maybe that’s due to American cultural influence. We’re pushed to be very individualistic and self-sufficient at all costs, all the time.

@ Nicholas:
LOL…been called a lot of things, Fundamentalist not one of them until now.

@ Nancy:

for want of a better word (obviously). I need new glasses apparently.

Chris Rosebrough says that “Janet Mefferd has apologized for her treatment of Mark”: https://twitter.com/piratechristian/status/408332555201437696

She had nothing to apologize for imo.

Daisy wrote:

I remember that the ancient Egyptians thought that their Pharoahs were gods.
Did some Europeans sort of believe the same way about kings, that they were god-like, or were god’s representatives on earth, so they must be obeyed no matter what? Wasn’t that what the “divine right of kings” stuff was about?

Daisy, “Divine Right of Kings” was just how you sneak “The King is a GOD Incarnate” into a monotheism. And one of its biggest proponents was Kynge Jaymes circa 1611.

Dave A A wrote:

But you could take any dozen of the TGC folks and post their article under a pseudonym and I’d have no idea who it was.

Total conformity and Groupthink.
Just like the New Soviet Man.

Nicholas wrote:

Summary of the entire Caner scandal: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/09/11/tonights-service-will-be-live-streamed-630pm-cdt/
Caner unrepentant on twitter: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/05/06/i-categorically-deny-the-charges-those-who-brought-them-ergun-caner/

Don’t forget Ergun Caner’s predecessor in spirit, George Psalmanazar the Formosan Cannibal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalmanazar

Except Psalmanazar didn’t end up as a consultant for the Anglican Church and British Army regarding Formosa.

Nicholas wrote:

Btw, Scott Shaver’s attack on investigative journalists was not only in defense of Ergun Caner, but in defense of Prestonwood as well: http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/search?q=prestonwood

Prestonwood who…I don’t remember mentioning Prestonwood. Your eyes are playing tricks on you i fear.

@ Scott Shaver:

It is implicit in your attack on Amy Smith, who has been on of the leading activists in SNAP trying to bring accountability to Prestonwood.

Go back to the rock you crawled out from under. The entire leadership of your filthy cesspool of a denomination belongs behind bars: http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

Big words from a small character there baby Nick

And little whiners like you deserve 3 hours in a hog trap at the back of somebody’s hunting lease Nick.

@ Eagle:

Maybe Janet Medford simply remembered; she hosts a radio program, not a “discernment blog.”
*

Eagle wrote:

Right now he’s acting like a 7 year old girl in third grade running to the teacher whining, complaining and tattling.

🙁

dee wrote:

At this point, we need to assume that she has been threatened legally.

Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle, Washington’s Mars Hill Church, must have been very thankful for his friends in the Christian publishing world on Thanksgiving. Since he was asked some tough questions about some passages in his latest book, A Call to Resurgence, which gave insufficient citation to one of his sources, they’ve been circling the wagons around their author…

http://capthk.com/2013/12/04/journalist-accused-of-committing-sin-of-journalism

I apologize for and retract my comments in the second paragraph here: @ Nicholas:

@ Nancy:

I’m not sure what I would look up for that, what search terms to use. Would “Christian outsourcing” work?

It’s not even that I’m against churches referring people to non-church entities depending on the situation and particular personalities involved, because sometimes, some Christians are complete imbeciles on some issues.

For instance, if you have clinical depression and go to church folk for help, nine out of ten times, you will face insult, stupid advice, such as “have more faith, and read your Bible more and God will heal you”.

In such cases, it might be better for the Christian to skip consulting with church people altogether and go straight to a psychologist / psychiatrist of their own choosing.

Women who are being abused by their spouse seem to be told frequently, when they go to church people, to simply return the abuser and submit to him more and keep praying.

When a Non Christian service will generally encourage them to leave the jerk and provide a room at a shelter, if the woman chooses to leave.

I do think Christians should be able to go to church people for emotional support, though, or practical help.

They should be willing to help an abused woman, for example, by paying for a hotel room for a few weeks to help her get away from the abuser. (Not tell her to ‘submit more and pray abou it,’ but give her money so she can get away.)

You should be able to go to other Christians for at least basic support, but most are unwilling to do anything, not even listen to you pour out your heart over a two hour coffee or tea about a loss you’ve dealt with.

And I have, over my life, practiced what I preach (when and where I can help people I have personally known, I have helped them, either by giving them money if they needed it, or by listening to them cry, talk, about some loss or what not.)

I have seen a willingness by some Christians to do things like send funds to African orphans, which is swell, but those same Christians who cry about orphans and write checks for water wells to be built in Africa…

Do not want to spend two hours over a cup of tea with a Church friend whose husband just divorced her after 32 years of marriage who needs to talk about the pain.

He’s talking about Brent Detwiler

Seneca wrote:

Maybe Janet Medford simply remembered; she hosts a radio program, not a “discernment blog.”

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Often people who host radio or TV shows publish, or air, exposes on corruption and abuse (abuse of power, or abuse of children).

It’s not off base for a Christian radio host to air segments exposing someone who apparently steals from other people’s written works.

Seneca wrote:

Maybe Janet Medford simply remembered; she hosts a radio program, not a “discernment blog.”

And your point is?

My thought is she had to cave in to radio executives and sponsors who wanted her to back off – the danger of operating in a small niche media where the range of sponsors is very narrow and able to exert pressure on a media member dependent on those sponsors.

Blogs, “discernment” or otherwise, that do not accept advertising are subject to no such pressures that have nothing to do with the truth of what they say and which golden calf may be gored by it.

Seneca wrote:

Maybe Janet Medford simply remembered; she hosts a radio program, not a “discernment blog.”

She has a background as an investigative reporter. And this is all in line with the usual fare on her show.

tracy wrote:

He’s talking about Brent Detwiler

Tracy, are you in the inside? If not, who is your source?

@ Nick:

I looked through Janet Mefferd’s stuff and was less than convinced with some of it

I could only access the one from the Peter book and it looked pretty flagrant to me. Can’t speak to the other stuff though. Truth be told I’m actually not that interested in following Mark Driscoll closely at the moment, because I have all the Doug Phillips/Vision Forum stuff to deal with.

Dee/Deb, of all the things you ladies have posted over the years, this one probably makes me more sick that anything else(don’t misunderstand….I’m agreeing with you). Beyond despicable what Taylor / Driscoll / and the other YRR clowns are doing. They’re the KGB. Truth be damned. Ethics be damned. None of that matters. All that matters is protecting the brand. Beyond sickening. Does Christianity even matter anymore to these guys? Above all, we desperately need for the two of you to keep up your important work. We need that now more than ever. Someone has to call these dogs into account. Sorry, didn’t mean to offend dogs.

I just listened to Janet Mefferd’s apology to Driscoll. She said that “the interview should not have occured at all” and that she should not have brought Driscoll’s plagiarism “to the public’s attention.” This about face is bizarre! I think Mark’s Hill and Tyndale House mustered their “legal” resources on this one, and somebody also probably threatened to pull financial support for the Janet Mefferd show.

@ Invalid_Nate:

This may be why: thewartburgwatch.com/2013/10/08/is-janet-mefferd-being-intimidated-by-the-gospel-mafia-to-shut-up-about-sgm/

@ tracy:
I agree. Taylor seems to have kind of Biblical Manhood manliness to go after someone like Detwiler who, controversial figure that he is, drew the line in regards to Mahaney & SGM. Makes sense Taylor would refer to him as a slanderer considering he’s in Mahaney’s camp.

The sooner guys like Taylor are marginalized the better. He’s getting himself into trouble. And where will his help come from when he needs it? From guys like Mahaney? Good luck with that.

@ Nicholas:
Really? I listened to the whole program. Yes, she pressed him but seriously, this is Mark Driscoll we’re talking about. Isn’t that his thing? To go around pressing himself into things like he did at Strange Fire? Or when he goes on the attack like he often does? I would have thought Mefferd was a stronger woman than that. I blame her complementarianism for this. There are a thousand women who would gladly stand up to Driscoll and defend the hill rather than yield an inch to that man. I’m disappointed in Mefferd. Hope she regains her courage on this.

Regarding the Driscoll circus, a thoughtful article worth a read, and a thought-provoking discussion worth a listen:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/12/04/areopagitica/

http://toddpruitt.blogspot.com/2013/12/too-big-to-fail.html

Another of the many reasons why I am deeply thankful for TWW is that this is a pure labor of love, done in your own free time, a truly free press. I don’t always agree with your perspectives, but I am never troubled by your motives, which is far more than I can say for the Christian businessmen running T4G, TGC, Acts29, Crossway, Tyndale, etc. etc.

@ Deb:
Thanks Deb 🙂

dee wrote:

@ Scott Shaver: Scott
Could we please take it down a notch. I was really upset when the Ergun Caner thing came up because i knew, no matter what, it would become World War C/NC. The Calvinists hate Caner and the nonCalvinists love Caner or so the story goes.
Peter knows how I feel about Caner-we had it out a long time ago. I know why he feels the way that he does even though I do not feel the same way. I was hoping that he and I could come to a place of peace with one another since I admire him for the stand that he took in the SBC with the child sex abuse initiative. I fear that even that could be turned into WWC/NC Part 2.
I have been accused by some who say I am a Calvinist. Others say I am bound for hell because I am not a Calvinist. Looks like I have managed to miff off everyone. If I am neither a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist then what in the world am i?
Could we please get off the Ergun Caner thing? We are about to expose an Acts 29 church decimation which will not make us many friends. Combined with the Mark Driscoll thing, Vision Forum, Justin Taylor bringing up SGM again and calling someone a “known slanderer” and sermon scriptwriters, I have enough controversy to last a life time.
And I love Nick. he has been a kind, thoughtful person who has the uncanny ability to make everyone laugh. If that is what a twit is, then i want this blog to be filled with twits. I hope that I am one as well.

I believe, in context, that I responded to a request that I “crawl back under my rock” and for added measure, “belong in jail with the rest of SBCrs”.

Who needs to take it down a notch Dee?

__

Dee: “f I am neither a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist then what in the world am i?”

Answer: “His”

…who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. ~Jesus

;~)

—

@ Scott Shaver:

A word to the wise. The Elevation Church Poe-isms contributed by Tim Lawing (e.g. here) are funny.

Yours aren’t.

Bob Jones University has tweeted, and Janet Mefferd retweeted, that she is speaking at the BJU campus today and tomorrow: https://twitter.com/BJU_PR/status/408599576837242880

I posted previously about Mefferd’s connection to BJU here:

http://peelingbackthecurtain.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-comments-at-wartburg-watch.html

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ Scott Shaver:
A word to the wise. The Elevation Church Poe-isms contributed by Tim Lawing (e.g. here) are funny.
Yours aren’t.

Nobody on this end is attempting to entertain you.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Scott Shaver wrote:
Prestonwood who…I don’t remember mentioning Prestonwood. Your eyes are playing tricks on you i fear.
Plausible Deniability, probably of the “I didn’t use the name ‘Prestonwood’ and you can’t prove I did” manner.
Growing up with a narcissist/sociopath, you become very familiar with all the indicators of gaslighting.

Was the narcicissistic sociopath your mother or your father?

@ Scott Shaver:

Neither . . . a sibling who played everyone; if I remember correctly.

Dontcha just love when these guys make these forceful broad brush anonymous accusations….so basically I can pick whoever I don’t like that Janet has ever had on her show, and say LOOK Justin agrees this person is a slanderer!

They do this all the time too. All it does is throw gas on the fire and then they curse us nasty bloggers all out for the increase in heat. DOH.

@ pcapastor:

You beat me to posting this most excellent article by Carl Trueman at First Thoughts! This bears repeating.

He writes: “That is why the health of the Christian subcultures in our society depends to an important extent upon the freedom of the Christian press; and that in turn depends upon having plenty of public voices and different groups presenting their different perspectives without the threat of being silenced by those with power and money.” -C. Trueman

He ends his article with this excellent by John Milton regarding truth: “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.”

“I am with Milton here: The freer the press, the less the innocent have to fear and the more the guilty need to be worried.” -C. Trueman

This is the troubling reality of the personality-based leadership that encompasses much of American evangelicalism. Often, charisma and dynamic communication skills trump character and integrity as popular appeal wins the day. And for those of us who wish it were otherwise, there is no court of appeal with the authority to hear our case. Replete with positives, this remains one of the great weaknesses of contemporary evangelicalism.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/12/plagiarism-personality-driven-leadership-and-the-problem-with-evangelicalism/#sthash.PLspLT68.dpuf

I’ve never been to this site before, but after a few minutes of browsing I’m glad…This is a cesspool of gossip and hatred towards brothers and sisters in Christ. We live in a world where ~150,000 people die a day and all we evangelicals can do is get on blogs to argue and tear down others. Seriously? Is hearing “Well done good and faithful servant, you destroyed your brother” the goal? Not so much…

Driscoll, Acts 29, etc are making a positive impact for the advance of the gospel. Do they do it perfectly? No! Have they made mistakes? Surely! But thank God for His grace and that He uses sinful people to accomplish His purposes (see: the Bible).

@ Scott:

It would be nice if you applied your above thinking to:

Scott Shaver wrote:

Bridget wrote:
@ Scott Shaver:
Neither . . . a sibling who played everyone; if I remember correctly.
Scott: You mean he’s that angry and bent out of shape over a sibling?

I have the advantage of having been interacting with HUG for a few years now. If you took the time to stick around and read for awhile you might come to some understandings about people. But if you’re only here for a quick drive-by to assert your displeasure, then you probably aren’t going glean or grow much.

BTW – your last comment to me re HUG was appalling (if you stop to think about it). HUG also isn’t a public figure out promoting himself as a Christian Leader(TM). However, he may actually have more integrity than some of those Christian Leaders(TM) 🙂

Scott wrote:

This is a cesspool of gossip and hatred towards brothers and sisters in Christ. We live in a world where ~150,000 people die a day and all we evangelicals can do is get on blogs to argue and tear down others. Seriously?

ROFL !!!!!!!!!! That was almost Pythonesque.

It’s nearly as funny as the chappie who posted the other day something like Denominations are Wrong! There is no salvation in creeds or anybody’s theology! YOU’RE ALL INVITED TO MY BLOG INSTEAD

Scott wrote:

Driscoll, Acts 29, etc are making a positive impact for the advance of the gospel.

No, they aren’t

@ Scott:
P.S. Regarding: “cesspool of gossip and hatred”

You forgot “wretched hive of scum and villainy”
😆

Daisy wrote:

You forgot “wretched hive of scum and villainy”

Perhaps we need to rename TWW to Mos Eisley? 🙂

From point 3 Above:

“I probably should have kept this opinion to myself”

I agree. Justin Taylor has added himself to the long list of supposed Godly masculine men who whine and cry “slander” over an interview that they believe painted a friend and business partner in a less-than-positive light, yet have no words of comfort or prayers for sex abuse victims affiliated with the celebrity pastor in question. Most of these victims are women and children they’ve melodramatically sworn to protect even if it means giving up their seats on the Titanic’s lifeboat.

Justin Taylor and his compadres are not men. They’re little boys who’ve been caught doing very bad things.

Scott wrote:

I’ve never been to this site before, but after a few minutes of browsing I’m glad…This is a cesspool of gossip and hatred towards brothers and sisters in Christ. We live in a world where ~150,000 people die a day and all we evangelicals can do is get on blogs to argue and tear down others. Seriously? Is hearing “Well done good and faithful servant, you destroyed your brother” the goal? Not so much…
Driscoll, Acts 29, etc are making a positive impact for the advance of the gospel. Do they do it perfectly? No! Have they made mistakes? Surely! But thank God for His grace and that He uses sinful people to accomplish His purposes (see: the Bible).

Scott, this a very dangerous assertion that you make. I know this line well though. I used to hear it from the “pastor” at the A29 “Church” I formerly attended. The theory goes: “hey, the gospel is being preached, so who cares. Nobody is perfect.” Here’s why that’ s a faulty argument. It ignores much of the NT. If preaching the gospel is all that mattered, then the NT would be quite short. If preaching the gospel is all that mattered, then why the list of character requirements in Titus a1 Timothy? It also reeks of gnosticism. All that matters is the doctrine you believe. How you actually live your life doesn’t matter. Sorry, but that’s not Christianity.

In other news, there continues to be no need whatever to discuss cricket.