7 Things You Should Know about #2014SBC

"Where two or more Southern Baptists are gathered in His name, there are at least three or more opinions. We are a lively and opinionated group. That will never change. But there seems to be a growing awareness that we must work together for the sake of the gospel. Too much is at stake."

Thom S. Ranier

http://www.bccenter.org/img/10.jpgBaltimore Convention Center

Messengers are heading home from the Southern Baptist Convention's Annual Meeting held June 10-11 at the Baltimore Convention Center.  The theme of this year's gathering was Restoration and Revival Through Prayer:  Psalm 80:18-19.  That passage of Scripture states:  

Then we shall not turn back from You;
Revive us, and we will call upon Your name.
O Lord God of hosts, restore us;
Cause Your face to shine upon us, and we will be saved.

Some messengers arrived early to attend the SBC Pastors Conference which preceded the formal meeting.  For the fourth year in a row, I watched some of the proceedings via live streaming.  Kudos to the SBC leadership for making this possible.  Also, the Baptist Press was live blogging the meeting and posting updates on Twitter and Facebook.  Yes, Southern Baptists are embracing social media in a big way! 

Here are 7 things we believe you should know about the SBC Annual Meeting that just wrapped up.

(1) Ronnie Floyd elected as SBC president

Twitter photoThis year there were three nominees for SBC president: 

Ronnie Floyd of Arkansas (who was nominated by Al Mohler), Dennis Manpoong Kim of Maryland (who was nominated by Dwight McKissic), and Jared Moore of Kentucky (who was nominated by Bennie Smith).  Messengers voted by ballot yesterday morning, and the results were announced several hours later.  Here they are:

Floyd: 1,834 (51.62%)
Kim: 1,446 (40.70%)
Jared Moore: 210 (5.91%)

Ben Cole over at Baptist Blogger has published an excellent analysis of the presidential vote.

(2) Low Attendance Numbers

The number of votes listed above is a clear indication of just how low the attendance numbers were.  Remember, Baltimore is situated fairly close to Southern Baptist churches in the Bible Belt.  Prior to the vote, the number of messengers registered was 5,001.  By the time the results were announced for SBC president, a few hundred more had registered.  If you add up the votes received by the three presidential candidates, it becomes clear that a good number of Southern Baptist messengers did not vote.  Why not? 

(3) Transgender identity Addressed by the Convention

We discussed this topic in a recent post – SBC Leaders Faced with a Denomination in Decline Decide to Target Transgenderism

Yesterday, a messenger made a motion from the floor that the SBC should clarify its position against transgender identity.  Here is a portion of the motion that was accepted by SBC messengers. 

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10–11, 2014, affirm God's good design that gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by one's self-perception—a perception which is often influenced by fallen human nature in ways contrary to God's design (Ephesians 4:17–18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we grieve the reality of human fallenness which can result in such biological manifestations as intersexuality or psychological manifestations as gender identity confusion and point all to the hope of the redemption of our bodies in Christ (Romans 8:23); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we extend love and compassion to those whose sexual self-understanding is shaped by a distressing conflict between their biological sex and their gender identity; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we invite all transgender persons to trust in Christ and to experience renewal in the Gospel (1 Timothy 1:15–16); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good always, welcome them to our churches and, as they repent and believe in Christ, receive them into church membership (2 Corinthians 5:18–20; Galatians 5:14); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers of Almighty God and therefore condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against them; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose efforts to alter one's bodily identity (e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery) to refashion it to conform with one's perceived gender identity; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any governing official or body to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy (Isaiah 5:20); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose all cultural efforts to validate claims to transgender identity; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That our love for the Gospel and urgency for the Great Commission must include declaring the whole counsel of God, proclaiming what Scripture teaches about God's design for us as male and female persons created in His image and for His glory (Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 20:27; Romans 11:36).

(4) On Sufficiency of Scripture Regarding Afterlife

Another motion was made that books such as Heaven is for Real should not be promoted in the SBC.  Messengers reaffirmed the sufficiency of scripture regarding heaven and hell.  Here is what they voted for:

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10–11, 2014, reaffirm the sufficiency of biblical revelation over subjective experiential explanations to guide one's understanding of the truth about heaven and hell.

(5) Paige Patterson Apologizes for Admitting a Muslim to SWBTS

The  president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Paige Patterson, has recently come under fire for admitting a Muslim to SWBTS.  Here is how the Baptist Press reported on the matter:

A messenger asked Patterson for a "straight-forward explanation" of his decision to admit a Muslim student to Southwestern's doctor of philosophy program. In response, Patterson told messengers, "I come to give you an apology. I owe the convention an apology," especially to those for whom "I have caused sorrow, heartache or disillusionment." He explained that a Muslim participant in one of the seminary's archaeological digs in Israel asked to be admitted to Southwestern's doctoral program. Patterson admitted the student and believes he is "very open to the Gospel."

Patterson said, "I made an exception to a rule that I assumed, probably wrongly, the president has a right to make." The student is not funded with CP money, Patterson said, and has "not been a problem on campus."

Patterson said he also admitted non-Christian students to Criswell College when he was president there and those students came to faith in Christ. On judgment Day Patterson said he will have an answer for God regarding his decisions to violate admission policies at both institutions: "I violated a policy but I didn't want to stand before You with blood on my hands. Dear God, I did the best that I knew how."

You can hear Patterson's apology in this video, beginning at the 7:30 mark.  In an unusual twist, Patterson (at the 14:13 mark) mentioned the name of a former president of Baylor University who once admitted a student who was an atheist.  That college president was Rufus Burleson.  In case you're wondering whether Wade Burleson is related to this leader of Baylor, they are cousins.  Wade has written about his forefather here.  Patterson wraps up his talk amid tears (just after the 15:00 mark).  As you might imagine, Wade has weighed in on the matter.

Immediately following Patterson's remarks, Steve James, chairman of Southwestern's board of trustees, informed those in attendance that SWBTS trustees will be discussing this matter in September and October when the board convenes. Apparently, there has been much outcry about this Muslim student enrolled in a Southern Baptist seminary. 

(6) A Church Endorsing Homosexuality is Addressed from the Floor

A motion was made that SBC officers consider disciplining a church in California that endorsed homosexuality.  That motion was ruled out of order. 

However, the matter came up once again when Messenger Wiley Drake asked Dr. Daniel Akin a question following the SEBTS President's report delivered toward the end of the two-day meeting.  Drake wanted to know how the SBC can discipline a church in California that has changed its stance on homosexuality and is now endorsing it.  Akin's response was reported by the Baptist Press as follows:

Akin replied that local churches are responsible for church discipline. Seminaries can teach students "how to think biblically and theologically about those kinds of issues," Akin said. He told Drake that all six SBC seminaries teach importance and necessity of church discipline.

(7)  The Elephant in the Room – Child Sex Abuse

Incredibly, neither the SBC leaders nor the messengers addressed child sex abuse (to the best of our knowledge). 

What's interesting is that the secular press is beginning to take notice…

Screen Shot 2014-06-11 at 6.36.04 PM

Perhaps some Southern Baptist messengers are clueless regarding child sex abuse.  To rectify this, a number of individuals stood outside the Baltimore Convention Center yesterday afternoon and passed out important information on this topic.  We will have more on this in our upcoming post…

Lydia's Corner:  Daniel 1:1-2:23   1 Peter 3:8-4:6   Psalm 119:65-80   Proverbs 28:14

Comments

7 Things You Should Know about #2014SBC — 282 Comments

  1. RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention…affirm God's good design that gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by one's self-perception

    Well whoopy ding for them, but this doesn't even allow for medical realities like CAIS – and just calling it "fallenness" that "grieves" you in the next clause isn't going to cut it either. Pardon the ignorance of a Lutheran, but how can these SBC guys not see that they're completely sc##wing themselves?

  2. (7) I wonder why Denny Burk, Al Mohler, and the others did not push hard on the issue of child abuse but felt the need to go full court press on transgender issues?

  3. brian wrote:

    (7) I wonder why Denny Burk, Al Mohler, and the others did not push hard on the issue of child abuse but felt the need to go full court press on transgender issues?

    Because Transgender is associated with HOMOSEXUALITY HOMOSEXUALITY HOMOSEXUALITY . (Mod. ed.)

  4. On point (5) above.

    Wade weighed in, indeed, and his post (to which Deb also provided a link) is well-worth reading – it’s both short and well-argued.

    On judgement day, one Dr Cornish (whom Patterson sacked for marrying a divorcee fleeing an abusive marriage) will also have to give account for his decision to break the rules as some interpret them. My guess is that he will give a clear and honest account, and if indeed the Judge has not changed since he walked the streets of Galilee and Judea, I also guess that Cornish will be heard favourably. In other words, in showing and acting out of love, he fulfilled the Law.

    Patterson’s judgement on Cornish was: Son, you made a mistake. And he decided he was obliged to uphold the purity of his organisations’s doctrinal reputation, and that this was more important than either Dr or Mrs Cornish *.

    But now, Patterson expects and hopes to receive mercy precisely where he withheld it. If he does, I hope he is shamed by the kindness of both God and the Trustees into repentance, looks up those people he threw out over issues of doctrine or policy, apologises to them unconditionally and seeks their forgiveness.

    * With apologies if Mrs Cornish also has a doctorate.

  5. So many bloggers have mentioned that the SBC is a non-denomination denomination. If it is an important issue, like homosexuality or women preachers or transgender individuals, the SBC can use its moral authority to deal with child sexual abuse and sexual predators in its midst. If it were important, Paige Patterson would be apologizing for his interference in the Darrell Gilyard case, rather than for admitting a Muslim student to a graduate program at SWBTS.

    SWBTS must be hallowed ground for baptists like Mecca is holy for Muslims. That Muslim student probably isn't hurting anyone, but Darrell Gilyard damaged people, possibly permanently. It all depends on what is a priority. Appearances of holiness and being set apart are more important than less important issues such as children and women. I understand doctrinal reasons for expelling churches for not following a doctrinal stance, whether or not I agree with that position, but it seems strange a Wiley Drake is not using his polemical skills to demand churches that harbor pedophiles be expelled or that Paige Patterson and Al Mohler be taken to task for their partiality towards people who are covering up scandal or are accused perpetrators in cases that involve pedophilia or sexual predation or both. This is more of a holiness issue in my opinion than a women preacher or admission of a Muslim human being to sanctified ground. It may not matter as much to the SBC where appearances of holiness is of premium importance, and denial of that elephant in the room is evident. They are as white washed walls on this issue.

  6. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Yes, Wade Burleson made some excellent points about the obvious double-standard of Paige Patterson.

    I just perused the comments under Wade’s post and found this one by Confused in the Heartland to be spot on: (link)

    Anonymous said…

    Thanks Wade, I appreciate your response. It was considerably more tempered than I expected. I was there today. Actually hoped I would run into you and introduce myself, but alas.

    In the end, I felt like the whole report was a well-planned charade and I’m disappointed that messengers ate it up so gullibly. I guess if you show a measure of humility and a few tears, it’s easy to convince people of anything. What I lament is the fact that, if one listens closely, they will hear that NOT ONCE was there an apology for the wrong-doing, rule-breaking or intimidation of others into silence. What he actually apologized for was creating a controversy that distracted everyone from an otherwise spectacular meeting. In other words, if the truth hadn’t come out and there hadn’t been this “black cloud” hanging over the meeting about this issue, then there would be no need for this apology because he still does not see what he did as a problem.

    At the end of the day, He won. The twitter-universe immediately lit up with sycophants praising Paige for his humility, in essence asking how anyone could DARE to question any actions by a man so humble and with such a heart for evangelism. I do not question Dr. Patterson’s heart, nor do I question his sincerity today, nor would I EVER question his love for the lost or for Christ. This issue was never about any of those things. It was about a flawed leader who leads one of our institutions with a tyrannical style whereby he hires and fires at random without accountability, spends money lavishly, sets his own rules and ignores those set forth by the convention and NO-ONE will call him on it. I am not optimistic that the trustees will do much about this. After all, they have framed the issue in such a way now that to bring it up is “sinful” and divisive. I’m confused as to exactly what course the average SB is supposed to follow anymore when they see an abuse of power?! The Scriptures exhort us to confront the individual and seek to bring the truth to light, but now we’re told that we merely need to stop talking and “talk to God” about it.

    I’m confused, disappointed, and more than a little disillusioned with the current course of the SBC. And I haven’t even commented yet on the other issues from this week.

    Thanks again for your willingness to stand up for what’s right. I don’t always agree with everything you say, but I know you’re a man of integrity who cares about people AND truth.

    Concerned in the Heartland.

  7. Hester wrote:

    his doesn’t even allow for medical realities like CAIS – and just calling it “fallenness” that “grieves” you i

    Lingo-that is all they have-lingo. They demonstrate the lack of intellectual rigor as they debate these issues. It is embarrassing.

  8. @ Mark:
    I found it interesting that they did not allow the motion to sack the church which has become gay affirming. I know they wanted to do so.

    IMO they decided to forgo ‘disciplining” that congregation because they knew that, if they did so, they would open themselves up to charges that they will act when it comes to gay affirming and will not act when it comes to churches which mishandle pedophile situations.

  9. Deb wrote:

    Anonymous said: 

    I’m confused, disappointed, and more than a little disillusioned with the current course of the SBC.

    Confused" is correct to be disillusioned. That is why few voted in the SBC election. The SBC is in decline and the leaders are driving it into the ground.

  10. I was at the SBC this year also.

    It is interesting to get perspectives from different people because there is so much going on and different things to attend that one can end up missing things.

    I had to leave before Dr. Patterson’s report but an apology was in order and I am glad he made one.

    I also missed the motions made by messengers, so I missed the transgendered thing. I saw the article on this blog about it and when I did not see it come out of the resolutions committee, I wondered what happened.

    There seemed to be less craziness this year, which is quite an achievement when you have an open mic and any Baptist there has a right to be heard.

    The ERLC report on religious liberty was great.

    I voted for Kim but am not disappointed with Floyd. The speech nominating Jared Moore was made by one of his deacons and was one of the most heartfelt speeches from a simple person. It was great.

    Also got to meet Kim and his family . What a sweet man!

    I did not see Wade the entire time. I circulated through the hall a bunch but that can happen.

    Got to meet Dwight McKissic and gave him a big hug.

    I did not get to meet Ben Cole but would have liked that.

    I attended the first night of the 9 Marks at 9 meeting where Mark Dever, Johnny Hunt and a young African America pastor named HB spoke. That was great.

    I also enjoyed the Baptist 21 luncheon where there was a moderated panel discussion between Mohler, Akin, Chandler, Platt and others. It was packed and was a good meeting.

  11. dee wrote:

    I found it interesting that they did not allow the motion to sack the church which has become gay affirming. I know they wanted to do so.

    At least Al Mohler had written on his web site an article about it, and seemed determined to see some negative action against the church. The article I think is something about “there is no third way.” Then California said they could not do anything–something about not actually being a congregation and something about it being Filipino, I think (don’t know what that is all about) and something something about the incapacity of the california people to do anything one way or the other.

    Could it be that Mohler did not do his homework before he wrote his article? Could it be that he knew all this but still is so far out that he wanted to raise the issue nevertheless? Had to be one way or the other.

  12. Thanks for this summary, Deb.

    From the SBC’s motion on transgender:

    “RESOLVED, That we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers of Almighty God and therefore condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against them…”

    Does that include ignorance from Baptist leaders, as to what those with gender identity issues actually go through? Somehow I doubt it…

  13. @ Anonymous:

    Thanks for your perspective on the annual meeting. Sorry you and Wade didn't connect.

    I don't know anything about Kim but will be doing some research.

    Jared Moore pastors a small congregation in Hustonville, Kentucky. He wrote about why he was allowing someone to nominate him for SBC president here.  In addition to his pastoral duties and blogging activities, Moore is working toward a Ph.D. at SBTS. He served as 2nd vice president of the SBC last year.

  14. @ Deb

    Is that the Ben Cole who used to work for Wade? I have wondered whatever became of that one.

  15. Anonymous wrote:

    he speech nominating Jared Moore was made by one of his deacons and was one of the most heartfelt speeches from a simple person. It was grea

    I am glad to know that he has a deacon. Last year his church had no phone or website. Then Jared went after TWW. In response, we offered to get his church a cell phone and pay for a one year contract. No response.

    Then we offered to help Jared, who has his own website, set up a website for his church since it was difficult to find out any information about the church. No response.

    Finally, Jared wrote an interesting post on how to get into a seminary PhD program if your grades/test scores are in the tank. He used himself, and his scores, as an example. He is now in the PhD program at SBTS. Fascinating that he was up for SBC president.

  16. From the Baptist Press article:

    On judgment Day Patterson said he will have an answer for God regarding his decisions to violate admission policies at both institutions: “I violated a policy but I didn’t want to stand before You with blood on my hands. Dear God, I did the best that I knew how.”

    You already do, Patterson, in case you didn’t notice. The blood of that woman you counseled to stay with her abusive husband, and just pray for him. When he rewarded her with two black eyes, and she asked, “Are you happy now?”, you just said, “Yes.”

    You’ve never apologized for that, as far as I know. Yet you make a tearful apology for allowing a few non-Christian students into your precious school. If you can’t see the blood you’ve had on your hands long before this, then you’re the blindest leader in Christendom that I can think of.

  17. About the transgender issue:

    The motion was actually milder in some aspects than I had feared. Still not good enough, but there it is.

    But this opens the door for these folks to pass resolutions about every sexual variation or oddity that has a name. There are lots and lots of them. They can pass a resolution per year for years and years to come to meet the “we are agin it” quota when it comes to sex.

    But this pre-occupation with sexuality is not totally bad if it distracts them from lengthening the list of places and products they want to boycott.

    I know it sounds like I hate the baptists. Not exactly. I left the baptists for entirely other reasons than this. I just happen to think they are off the track on this issue.

  18. It looks like Ronnie Floyd will surely bring a balanced, nuanced, and gentle approach to engaging with cultural trends, based on his history. #sarcasm

  19. @ Serving Kids in Japan:

    Speaking of Patterson (it will take me a moment to explain how he fits here).

    These two very right wing guys, (I am right wing too, but I don’t always agree with other right wingers all the time), Wilson and Wilcox, recently wrote an obnoxious editorial that appeared in The Washington Post saying if women did not want to be abused, they should get married.

    (Basically they were shaming women for being single and/or for having live-in boyfriends and blaming them for being abused by men).

    In a page called “Washington Post Thinks Marriage Would “End Violence Against Women” by Robin Marty (at care2.com), the author mentions,

    It’s not surprising that the authors would be inclined to play with statistics to try to promote their “pro-marriage” viewpoint.

    Wilcox has already been accused of skewing data to help support legal arguments for same-sex marriage cases.

    Publishing in one of the country’s most prestigious news outlets now gives their version of “facts” an air of authenticity they could not get by continuing to preach to the religious right family values crowd.

    The link that says “continuing to preach to the religious right family values crowd” goes to a site called “World Congress of Families” which has a list of their keynote speakers (for May 2013), one of whom is Paige Patterson.

    Interesting that these like-minded guys (men who apparently don’t take domestic violence seriously and who blame women for being abused by men- Wilson, Wilcox, Patterson) hang out with each other and show up to the same events.

  20. It’s sad and bewildering how Southern Baptists at Southern Baptist conventions and elsewhere will keep going after various sexual issues yet never support adults like me who have stayed virgins into our 40s.

    We try living by the Bible’s sexual ethos and yet get no speeches of encouragement from them. I never see them resolving to affirm and encourage adult celibates and the state of being childless (or childfree).

    Maybe if the Southern Baptists supported adult singlehood and celibacy (instead of running it down, like Mohler does), there would, ironically, not be as much sexual sin that they rant about.

  21. 5000 messengers…..I remember the days of 30,000, 40,000….. No one cares….the average person in the pew just doesn’t care…

  22. @ Josh:

    Oh, my. Read the article. I don't even know what to say. Mohler has been saying on his blog that the time is coming when every church is going to have to take a stand/declare themselves on homosexuality and every individual will also have to take a stand/declare oneself perhaps at work/on the job on this issue. He has opined that not taking a stand will not be an option and apparently nor should it be.

    So now with Ronnie there they may just advance that idea in baptist-dom. Thank goodness it is only the gays that have an agenda, else it could get ugly. (my attempt at sarcasm) Maybe they think that the decrease in popularity of that old southern standby with the white robes has created a moral vacuum which the baptists feel a need to fill.

  23. (off topic)
    In an interview with Dr. Cloud, the interviewer says,

    I’m thinking specifically of recent examples involving megachurch pastors manipulating bestsellers lists or even being accused of manipulating baptisms in order to trumpet a figure

    Ha ha, you can’t fool me with the vague references.

    1. “megachurch pastors manipulating bestsellers lists ”
    = Mark Driscoll / Mars Hill

    2. “being accused of manipulating baptisms in order to trumpet a figure”
    = Steven Furtick / Elevation church

    I know my evangelical and Reformed scandals 😆

  24. Daisy wrote:

    Interesting that these like-minded guys (men who apparently don’t take domestic violence seriously and who blame women for being abused by men- Wilson, Wilcox, Patterson) hang out with each other and show up to the same events.

    “These three Kings said one to another:
    ‘King unto King o’er the world is Brother’…”

  25. Daisy wrote:

    It’s sad and bewildering how Southern Baptists at Southern Baptist conventions and elsewhere will keep going after various sexual issues yet never support adults like me who have stayed virgins into our 40s.

    The subject of S*E*X makes people crazy.
    Whether you’re “YEAH YEAH YEAH” or “THOU SHALT NOT”.

  26. K.D. wrote:

    5000 messengers…..I remember the days of 30,000, 40,000….. No one cares….the average person in the pew just doesn’t care…

    “The chocolate ration of twenty grams has been INCREASED to ten grams!”

  27. @ Josh:

    The editorial to which you link refers to the guy as “anti gay.” I am not comfortable with that terminology.

    As much as I believe that the SB either shames or ignores adult hetero celibates and ridicules singleness, I don’t think I’d go so far as to label most or all of them as being “anti singles.”

    (They are possibly anti singlehood, but them having issues with the status is not the same thing as them being against singles).

    I think a lot of Southern Baptists, especially the figure heads, have some negative attitudes and prejudices towards or against singlehood, but, I don’t think they hate single adults themselves.

    I think it’s the same way in regards to homosexuality, transgenderism, and other related topics.

  28. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The subject of S*E*X makes people crazy.
    Whether you’re “YEAH YEAH YEAH” or “THOU SHALT NOT”.

    I think SBs are even more intimidated or put off by adult hetero celibacy than they are homosexuality.

    That may explain why Southern Baptist figure heads don’t support adult virginity/celibacy or mention it.

    I suspect they are more comfortable just assuming all heteros over 25 or so are having sex outside of marriage, because to them, and adult who is hetero and single who is not fooling around is viewed as a totally oddity, even though Jesus and Paul never- you- know.

    I don’t think SBs know what to make of adults who have actually totally abstained sexually.

  29. From https://www.facebook.com/PBCSilentNoMore/posts/639942499424920

    I’ve noticed Prestonwood members have recently started subtly acknowledging that Jack “may have” made a mistake. I would consider this progress, but it’s odd that even Jack won’t acknowledge his failure to protect children. It is still unacceptable that Jack & Prestonwood get a free pass on shunning victims.
    Additionally, I’ve had lots of scripture thrown at me from members as they declare me an enemy of Jesus, but I challenge any of them to produce scripture references where confession of sin & accepting responsibility is not required for sin.

  30. @ Amy Smith:
    Slowly, surely we are getting through to them. Wait until our post tomorrow. We think something important happened at the convention and it has to do with the efforts of those fighting child sex abuse.

  31. dee wrote:

    @ Amy Smith:
    Slowly, surely we are getting through to them. Wait until our post tomorrow. We think something important happened at the convention and it has to do with the efforts of those fighting child sex abuse.

    Oh, you tease us!!!!!! That’s not fair!!!! <3

  32. Amy Smith wrote:

    Additionally, I’ve had lots of scripture thrown at me from members as they declare me an enemy of Jesus, but I challenge any of them to produce scripture references where confession of sin & accepting responsibility is not required for sin.

    I don’t know if you wrote that originally or if somebody else did, but what did that person do to get called an enemy of Jesus, and what scripture did people use to say that? Thing is, the term “enemy of Jesus” is new to me, and I don’t know where it came from or what exactly it means in this context.

    If that question is too far off topic, just skip it.

  33. Daisy wrote:

    The editorial to which you link refers to the guy as “anti gay.” I am not comfortable with that terminology.

    Here’s a quote from Ronnie Floyd:

    “Satan has taken his tool of homosexuality, a gross and evil sin, and done a con job on the American culture, making it seem like all is okay when you are gay.”

    If that doesn’t qualify as “anti-gay” then what should we call this? A “studied critique”?

  34. dee wrote:

    Slowly, surely we are getting through to them. Wait until our post tomorrow. We think something important happened at the convention and it has to do with the efforts of those fighting child sex abuse.

    The gnats are bothering them?

  35. In other news, Muzza lost to Radek Stepanek today, thus failing signally to win another Queen’s Club title. Even more oddly, Rafa lost too (6-4 6-1) in Halle. Looks like several big names are struggling to get the clay out of their system.

  36. Rafki wrote:

    Here’s a quote from Ronnie Floyd:
    “Satan has taken his tool of homosexuality, a gross and evil sin, and done a con job on the American culture, making it seem like all is okay when you are gay.”
    If that doesn’t qualify as “anti-gay” then what should we call this? A “studied critique”?

    I suspected that I might catch some flak for linking to the Box Turtle Bulletin. If Feedly were not down, I would have looked up another less controversial site at which I saw the same news. Anyway, BTB is pretty reserved and conservative as far as LGBT news blogs go. Regardless, any editorializing in the article aside, Ronnie Floyd’s comments are damning enough in and of themselves.

  37. Concerning Denny Burk’s co-authored hate resolution against transgender individuals; I tried to comment on his blog about how silly, sad and unloving it is BUT he blocked it. Soooooo, I was just thinking I’d copy and paste it here 😉

    MY COMMENT TO DENNY BURK ON HIS BLOG THAT HE BLOCKED
    Agreed! Could the SBC (and I’m a member) BE anymore unloving and sad?! I could’ve sworn the Bible says that LOVE COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS. I choose to love all and forgive all because ALL have sinned and perhaps some of the transgender people aren’t actually sinning…..

    What about the people born transgendered? I have a friend whose uncle was born a transgender back in the 60′s and the parents and doctors decided he was a boy instead of a girl and stitched and cut him up as a baby. Years later he comes out as gay. So is he gay or not. Perhaps the parents and doctors made a mistake…… kinda like the SBC just did by passing this silly resolution.

    P.S. – HEY TRANSGENDER PEOPLE READING THIS; I LOVE YOU!!!! AND SO DOES JESUS!!!

    P.S.S – HEY ALL YOU SBC PEOPLE READING THIS; I LOVE YOU TOO AND SO DOES JESUS! LET’S SHOW THE WORLD THE LOVE OF CHRIST, NOT THE HATE OF IGNORANCE 🙂

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    IT NEVER LEFT MODERATION…….

    So what was so wrong with it, I wonder? I can only assume it was because I called out the obvious hate behind it…….

    Any other theories? I do like that I’m now apart of the larger group of other concerned Christians who have had their comments CENSORED by ol’ Burkster!

  38. Concerning the Heaven Is For Real decision, I totally agree 110%. I’ve always thought that book and now the relating bible studies for it they sell at Lifeway are just fiction.

  39. Josh wrote:

    Ronnie Floyd’s comments are damning enough in and of themselves.

    Absolutely Josh. You’ll catch no flack from me. Hate speaks for itself.

  40. There have been a number of books written by people who have had visions of Heaven. For the most part, I don’t think they are fiction; I think that most of these people are providing sincere accounts of their actual visions. How they came to have those visions and what they mean we can’t know and I don’t think churches should treat their accounts as Scripture. It bothers me when people denounce the writers though because if I were near death and had a vision, I would want to talk about it. (I know you aren’t denouncing them, Cassie).

    My personal opinion, supported by nothing objectively convincing, is that people do get visions of Heaven and we do sometimes get to see and hear from departed loved ones in dreams but those visions and those communications are symbolic and in code because we are just not meant to know more.

  41. Marsha wrote:

    There have been a number of books written by people who have had visions of Heaven. For the most part, I don’t think they are fiction; I think that most of these people are providing sincere accounts of their actual visions. How they came to have those visions and what they mean we can’t know and I don’t think churches should treat their accounts as Scripture. It bothers me when people denounce the writers though because if I were near death and had a vision, I would want to talk about it. (I know you aren’t denouncing them, Cassie).
    My personal opinion, supported by nothing objectively convincing, is that people do get visions of Heaven and we do sometimes get to see and hear from departed loved ones in dreams but those visions and those communications are symbolic and in code because we are just not meant to know more.

    I completely understand where you are coming from. I’ve had a few encounters myself. An elderly widow, who was a pastor’s wife, that I am close with absolutely loved the book but I just can’t take seriously a 3 or 4 year old’s account from when he was severely medicated and never actually flat-lined. In fact, I would find it hard to take a 3 or 4 years old account on practically anything seriously. Lol!

  42. Rafki wrote:

    Absolutely Josh. You’ll catch no flack from me. Hate speaks for itself.

    You made the point first; I was just agreeing with you. 😀

    With that said, I feel compelled to add another layer of response to the criticism surrounding labeling something anti-gay. Some people may not like the term when it’s their ox being gored, but the evangelical political machine has no right to tell me what words I am or am not allowed to use to describe the painful rhetoric that they dish out and expect me to take in silence.

  43. Cassie wrote:

    Concerning Denny Burk’s co-authored hate resolution against transgender individuals; I tried to comment on his blog about how silly, sad and unloving it is BUT he blocked it. Soooooo, I was just thinking I’d copy and paste it here
    MY COMMENT TO DENNY BURK ON HIS BLOG THAT HE BLOCKED
    Agreed! Could the SBC (and I’m a member) BE anymore unloving and sad?! I could’ve sworn the Bible says that LOVE COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS. I choose to love all and forgive all because ALL have sinned and perhaps some of the transgender people aren’t actually sinning…..
    What about the people born transgendered? I have a friend whose uncle was born a transgender back in the 60′s and the parents and doctors decided he was a boy instead of a girl and stitched and cut him up as a baby. Years later he comes out as gay. So is he gay or not. Perhaps the parents and doctors made a mistake…… kinda like the SBC just did by passing this silly resolution.
    P.S. – HEY TRANSGENDER PEOPLE READING THIS; I LOVE YOU!!!! AND SO DOES JESUS!!!
    P.S.S – HEY ALL YOU SBC PEOPLE READING THIS; I LOVE YOU TOO AND SO DOES JESUS! LET’S SHOW THE WORLD THE LOVE OF CHRIST, NOT THE HATE OF IGNORANCE
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    IT NEVER LEFT MODERATION…….
    So what was so wrong with it, I wonder? I can only assume it was because I called out the obvious hate behind it…….
    Any other theories? I do like that I’m now apart of the larger group of other concerned Christians who have had their comments CENSORED by ol’ Burkster!

    Now ol’ Burkster’s got a blog up about how to love your transgender neighbor. It had some good points, however, he really should’ve added a point about not passing legislation to prevent them from enjoying their civil rights that every American is privy to, or supposed to be privy to and to not pass resolutions condemning them.

    I want to write a resolution proposal that says we are to be RESOLVED TO LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AND TO GIVE THEM FOOD, WATER, SHELTER AND TO BE THE MOST HOSPITABLE PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, STRIVING TO SHOW GOD’S LOVE TO ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. That should pass, no problem…..

  44. I have some bad news.

    I was planning on protesting the presence of C.J. Mahaney the Anchored conference June 20-23. I’m going to have to call it off as my father is on hospice and his health continues to deteriorate precipitously. I am so sorry to have to do this, but my dad comes first. I hope you all understand.

  45. mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I have some bad news.
    I was planning on protesting the presence of C.J. Mahaney the Anchored conference June 20-23. I’m going to have to call it off as my father is on hospice and his health continues to deteriorate precipitously. I am so sorry to have to do this, but my dad comes first. I hope you all understand.

    Sorry to hear about your Dad. I will be praying for him and your entire family as I knos this must be a difficult time for everyone.

  46. @ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
    I am so sorry for your father’s illness. I am praying for you and will put this up on the banner of the home page. I wished I lived near you so I could give you a hug. If there is anything we can do, you know how to contact us.

  47. Rafki wrote:

    @ Josh:
    Doh! I must be a wee bit off in my reading comprehension skillz at the end of a long week!

    Hopefully your weekend will be more relaxed! I think the confusion is my fault, because I quoted you, while responding to flak coming from another direction. Anyhow, it seems that we’re pretty much entirely on the same page on this topic.
    ——–
    Now, going in a different direction from the Ronnie Floyd discussion – pretend this is a second post – another blogger shared this presentation on the biology of sexual identity as part of a response to the SBC resolution against trans* people. Obviously, this video won’t change the minds of any die-hard SBC folks, but I’ve found it interesting nonetheless. The section to which this link points, a few minutes starting at the 16:10 mark, is particularly intriguing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMiyp5bwrg#t=970

  48. @ Godith:

    LCMS, but apparently I’m in a freakishly laid-back part of the denomination (New England District). Note also that me being egalitarian about marriage is not representative of the denomination as a whole: their official stance is comp. Also the intersexuality issues discussed here and on other threads this week, are pretty much one of my personal peeves. The LCMS is basically not having those discussions at this point.

  49. Cassie wrote:

    Concerning the Heaven Is For Real decision, I totally agree 110%. I’ve always thought that book and now the relating bible studies for it they sell at Lifeway are just fiction.

    At most, they’d be Special Revelation, binding only on the one who had the vision/experience. And with anything like this, there’s always the confabulation factor, where your mind fills in the gaps on its own; you never actually know how much was real experience, how much was natural hallucination/dream, and how much was after-the-experience confabulation.

    The book itself is just the Christianese equivalent of the “Beyond and Back” NDE Travelogues that were a fad in the mainstream “proving life after death”. I remember similar books in the Jesus Junk Stores in the Eighties, often with an End Time Prophecy tie-in where the NDE traveler is told or implied “You will live to see My Second Coming”.

  50. Rafki wrote:

    Here’s a quote from Ronnie Floyd:
    “Satan has taken his tool of homosexuality, a gross and evil sin, and done a con job on the American culture, making it seem like all is okay when you are gay.”

    If that doesn’t qualify as “anti-gay” then what should we call this? A “studied critique”?

    How about “The Party Line regarding the Other”?

    Problem is, whenever the subject comes up the signal gets lost in all the noise.

  51. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t think SBs know what to make of adults who have actually totally abstained sexually.

    Daisy, I don’t think ANYBODY knows these days.

  52. Cassie wrote:

    Concerning the Heaven Is For Real decision, I totally agree 110%. I’ve always thought that book and now the relating bible studies for it they sell at Lifeway are just fiction.

    That’s a strong statement. Have you read the book or seen the movie? On what do you base your belief that it is fiction? Just curious….

  53. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    How about “The Party Line regarding the Other”?
    Problem is, whenever the subject comes up the signal gets lost in all the noise.

    The SNR is indeed quite low.

    It seems that the people who actually think that there’s a “militant homosexual agenda” will pat each other on the back … freak out together in mutual affirmation? (“One hand washes the other”). Everyone else will shake their head at the immense display of ignorance, and reaffirm their previously held view that the SBC (or other like-minded party) has nothing relevant to say on the matter. If the SBC wanted to have any influence on the topic of sexuality, they’ve lost that chance with most LGBT Christians a good while ago.

  54. Cassie wrote:

    I just can’t take seriously a 3 or 4 year old’s account from when he was severely medicated and never actually flat-lined. In fact, I would find it hard to take a 3 or 4 years old account on practically anything seriously. Lol!

    Okay – this at least somewhat answers my previous question….again, have you read the book to know that the father didn’t believe his son either at first?

    And to make a blanket statement that you find it hard to take a 3 or 4 year old’s account on practically anything seriously is, to me, a little chilling. This is the kind of mindset that causes people to discount the things children tell them about being sexually abused. I know – I was one of those children that was dismissed. Why do you find it hard to take a child’s account seriously?

  55. @ Godith:

    Mostly, having been baptized at some point by any church anywhere. Beyond that, maybe one brief class about Lutheranism (basically a new members class) and a public affirmation of your faith in Christ before you’re received into membership. No vows or anything like that.

  56. @ Daisy:
    Hey Daisy- if it’s not too weird for me to say- I think your comments on your own celibacy and just being right out there with it are awesome. In a world seemingly obsessed with sex, it’s important to realize that a full, meaningful life can be led without being part of couple. And I think you’d be surprised how many people do the same. (Heck I’m married and pretty much the same) Ok, I said that to be funny, but not that far off.

    Some of the most deeply spiritual growth times for me have been solo times. And it’s pretty cool how God uses every individual differently in different circumstances. I don’t have children and I’m sure that seems odd to some, but there’s been no lack of purpose and pouring out of love in my life. Just had to say, for what it’s worth.

  57. @ Hester:
    I have to admit, as low as my expectations are for anything erudite being passed at an SBC convention, I was pretty dumbfounded by this. For starters, while God determines sex, society determines gender. This statement doesn’t address several things:
    1) What is gender, and how does it present in society?
    2) Do Baptists believe in any absolutes? What about male rights of passage that include smoking peyote?
    3) If gender is linked inexorably to God’s ordination of sex, what do we do with intersexed, etc.? Did God mess up?

    Basically, this is one more sound bite that is essentially meaningless and embarrassingly ignorant.

  58. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    And to make a blanket statement that you find it hard to take a 3 or 4 year old’s account on practically anything seriously is, to me, a little chilling. This is the kind of mindset that causes people to discount the things children tell them about being sexually abused. I know – I was one of those children that was dismissed. Why do you find it hard to take a child’s account seriously?

    Hi, Jeannette! To clarify I said ‘practically anything’. Which means that if a child is telling someone that something bad has been going on and can describe these bad things that by all accounts they shouldn’t even be able to comprehend unless said bad things actually happened, then you should believe them and investigate. I am an abuse survivor!

    I find children’s accounts of reality hard to believe because they are children (5 & under) and are very imaginative. I taught 4’s & 5’s and they are great storytellers! I loved parlaying some of the more creative stories along to the parents to see what actually happened. I did have one child that told the class that daddy liked to gamble. Something like this is completely believable and uncensored truth though, more than likely. However, I just chalk up a Heavenly experience while under heavy anesthetic to the storytelling trait of children. That’s all.

  59. @ Marsha:

    “My personal opinion, supported by nothing objectively convincing, is that people do get visions of Heaven and we do sometimes get to see and hear from departed loved ones in dreams but those visions and those communications are symbolic and in code because we are just not meant to know more.”
    ++++++++++++++

    What informs your opinion that we are not meant to know more? I’m curious.

  60. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Marsha:

    “My personal opinion, supported by nothing objectively convincing, is that people do get visions of Heaven and we do sometimes get to see and hear from departed loved ones in dreams but those visions and those communications are symbolic and in code because we are just not meant to know more.”
    ++++++++++++++

    What informs your opinion that we are not meant to know more? I’m curious.

    I have known people who have had unusually real seeming dreams about deceased loved ones and a commonality to these dreams is that they seem to say something in code. For example, years ago a friend of mine lost her mother and was deeply grieving for her. Her father had died when she was a baby and her mother had worked hard and made sacrifices for my friend’s education and they were very close. Just after my friend got her first good job, she was able to send her mother on a trip with the Senior Center to Florida; mom came back talking of the wonders of this state. She died unexpectedly shortly afterwards. My friend really missed her mother and was very sad about not having the opportunity to make her mother’s life more comfortable. One night she dreamed that her mother was right there in the room with her. Her mother said, “Don’t worry about me. I am fine here in Florida; it is so beautiful! I miss you but we will see each other again.” She told me the story and wondered why her mother had said Florida and not Heaven. We speculated that maybe she wasn’t permitted to speak of Heaven and said Florida to convey her thought.

    Anyway, stories like that are my completely unscientific reasons for thinking that maybe we aren’t meant to know more.

  61. @ Cassie:
    I have and have read the book, “Heaven is for real” and have no problem with some of the boy’s visions. Some I do doubt, like men only fighting with swords at the last battle. Other things, I believe without a doubt. Like meeting his sister who died before birth and before he was born, and missing her. At times, I have felt the same thing about my older brother who died shortly after birth. I also wonder who I would have been, if I had been a younger sister rather than an only child.

  62. @ Cassie:
    Cassie, fair enough. However, to discount it without having read it – as the father did not believe the child initially, either…there are good reasons he changed his mind – seems a bit unfair. That’s my take.

  63. @ Dr. Fundystan:

    My gut feeling is that they are trying to drag pre-Fall perfection into a world where it no longer applies. There’s not a magic exception clause that exempts sex/gender from the effects of the Fall. Distinct male and female, with no biological blurring, was almost certainly the original plan, but as we know all too well, that got ditched a long time ago. So it confuses me why they keep constructing their rules about sex/gender as if the Fall never happened – esp. the Neo-Calvinist guys who love to talk about sin sin sin and worm theology all the time! – when the only possible effect of that is going to be injustice/exclusion for the intersexed.

    BTW your comment on the other thread about CBMW confusing vocation with innate gender identity, might just be the best explanation of the problem at the heart of their theology I’ve ever heard. Yet another reason Lutherans should have nothing to do with these people and their bullhonkey.

  64. @ Deb:

    He’s already had to choose. Believe it or not, he went with the OPC and his church has been removed from the NCFIC directory. The presbytery apparently said that OPC churches which had signed NCFIC confession, were causing “schism” in the OPC by implicitly accusing all non-NCFIC OPC churches of error without following the procedures for doing so in their Book of Discipline. (Swanson also claimed he only had “one little finger” in the NCFIC pie. What a laugher.)

    Not that this will change anything about Swanson or his goofy beliefs, of course…

  65. I find it amusing at best that the resolution about transgendered people be clarified and based off scripture when at the same time the SBC knowingly ignores Romans 13 and submitting to the law on pedophilia. How many scandals does it take? How many Prestonwoods does it take? If they can use scripture to base a resolution off, why can’t scripture guide them into following state and local law on child sexual abuse.

  66. At the risk of another thread hijack…did you guys see this at Survivors?

    To All the SGM Faithful Lurking Here:

    The Grand Lackluster, Still Clueless, Executive Director Mark Prater is in Glen Mills at CFC, and he is now bringing his new Minister of Propaganda (DeWire) to CFC as well. Looks like SGM HQ is split between 2 locations which is bound to be more expensive than one.

    My question to the SGM Faithful: Are you still drinking the Mahaney-ade that moving to Louisville was to save money?

    My belief is even stronger now. The move to Louisville was to:
    1) Escape the heat, scrutiny and correction at CLC;
    2) Be closer to his bud Al;
    3) Maintain his prestigious position among the celebrity pastors; and,
    4) Regain his “Big Dog” Senior Pastor position over what he hoped would be the new SGM Flagship Church.

  67. This was posted on the Repeal the Bylaws page on Facebook which is led by Rob Smith. You know what John Piper has taught about domestic abuse, and this response below is toward his video about a women enduring “being smacked”. So now that you know where John Piper stands on domestic abuse…do you want to know where Matt Chandler stands? READ….

    I was agreeing with Piper until the smacking part…and I do agree with him about involving the church…however, the church should give her shelter from her husband and help her call the police. That type of thing should never be handled solely in-house. You could pretty much bet he WILL hit her again if he doesn’t go to jail the very first time he hits her. One of my best friends was being physically abused by her husband and he was spending over $8000 per month on hookers and gambling. Matt Chandler (Acts 29 President) told her she would be kicked out of the church if she divorced her husband… because his own mother was abused by Matt’s dad…and she took the abuse for many years. He (Matt’s dad) later became a Christian, and said it was because of Matt’s mother’s witness of love and kindness to him in his worst state). So glad that worked out for them…but really…who’s to say she wouldn’t have been killed? That kind of thinking and counselling is highly irresponsible and just insane.

  68. Thank you everyone for your prayers, good wishes and kind thoughts. As my father has Alzheimer’s, we don’t know how long this process is going to take.

  69. Anna A wrote:

    I have and have read the book, “Heaven is for real” and have no problem with some of the boy’s visions. Some I do doubt, like men only fighting with swords at the last battle.

    That was actually a common idea during the End Time Prophecy surge of the Seventies. The explanation given then was that Armageddon would be fought on horseback with swords because of “The Energy Crisis”.

  70. Ah – that’s better. Sorry about that – Friday is my early start day. There’s a congregation in the nearby town of Stirling that does an extensive fruit + veg barra * for local folk on Fridays, and they’ve very kindly allowed me to join in. I hope (with their permission) to work out something alongside it that helps the local unemployed community, you see, but it seemed only courtesy to join in and help first. They start at 6 am, which is early in my book…

    * As in the Glaswegian: Zarra marra onna barra, Clara? For assistance with Glasgwegian-related languages, see Stanley Baxter’s classic “Parliamo Glasgow” sketches fae the 60’s and 70’s.

  71. Comment 4 of 5

    The idea of battles fought with swords (by muscle-bound heroic men, who are fawned over by helpless, doe-eyed women) is perhaps part of the same romanticised fiction that lies behind the sillier fringes of complementarianism. Tolkien, of course, decided that Middle-Earth would be pre-technological, though his female characters are generally neither helpless nor doe-eyed and his ideal of heroism has far more to do with inner strength and self-control. But I’m sure the pre-technological ideal has been around since the Industrial Revolution, or even the invention of firearms.

  72. This is perhaps an idea for another article on the Wartburg Watch:
    Christianity Today posted an article by an ex-church youth worker in jail for having sex with an underage girl he met through church work. The guy does not take any real responsibility, talking how he “stumbled” (stumbled is a word for an accidental mistake), and in terms to make it sound consensual. An “it’s easy to sin, I sinned, I lost a lot” article without speaking of the effect it had on the girl. Many people -see article I linked to – is horrified that a Christian™ magazine gives space to a child (statutory?) rapist to “repent”/ minimize his crime.
    Missionarymike suggests: “go the the Leadership Journal and the Christianity Today Facebook pages and every time the post something leave a comment like this “Take down the post, Leadership Journal and Christianity Today”. Swamp them until they do something. As of right now they are ignoring us and deleting comments but eventually it will catch up to them.”

    http://www.elizabethesther.com/2014/06/an-open-letter-to-christianity-today-take-down-the-rape-post-its-not-an-extramarital-relationship-its-rape-ctmagazine.html

  73. Comment 5 of 5

    Eagle wrote:

    One of my best friends was being physically abused by her husband and he was spending over $8000 per month on hookers and gambling. Matt Chandler (Acts 29 President) told her she would be kicked out of the church if she divorced her husband… because his own mother was abused by Matt’s dad…and she took the abuse for many years. He (Matt’s dad) later became a Christian, and said it was because of Matt’s mother’s witness of love and kindness to him in his worst state). So glad that worked out for them…but really…who’s to say she wouldn’t have been killed?

    There is, of course, such A Thing as “grace to endure” as it is sometimes called. It refers to an unusual – or extraordinary – reserve of inner strength, peace, joy, and whatever else, to keep going steadfastly through incredibly harsh or unjust circumstances. It has nothing to do with “putting up with difficulties” or clinging desperately to the vague belief that one’s suffering is somehow “glorifying God”. The believer given grace to endure experiences, personally and directly, God’s strength, love, pride in them, and willingness to suffer with them, in real time and in daily life.

    Some people just seem to have this, without any obvious spiritual reason, just as some people recover from incurable conditions without anybody praying for them. But “grace to endure” is every bit as noteworthy or miraculous as a tumour disappearing, a blind eye seeing or any other healing miracle. Jesus had furious words to say about those in religious authority who imposed burdens on people and didn’t help carry them. Mr Chandler’s insistence that a woman stay in an abusive marriage would have been all very well if he could have stood alongside her in faith and imparted “grace to endure” in the same way as if he could have laid hands on her and healed her. Otherwise, that merely smacks of a pharisee sacrificing a human being to prop up his own religion.

  74. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    About “grace to endure.” No doubt what you say is correct. Perhaps what Chandler said may be correct in some circumstances. The danger is that we never know how things will turn out, as mentioned by Eagle.

    I say this to emphasize the other side of the story-the other side to what Chandler said. My own mother endured. What she endured was not nearly as bad (to outsiders) as the situation described in this discussion, but it was bad enough that her family of origin and her oldest child (me) urged and even begged her to get out. But she endured. It ended tragically. I was not able to resuscitate her as she lay dead on the kitchen floor bathed in the sunlight through the window that Wednesday morning after Easter one year. I was 25. Now I am 80. It has haunted me all my life. When my own marriage went to *** in a hand basket I took the children and divorced “on advice of counsel” as it were. The church then asked me to take my children and leave. I/we left. Leaving the marriage and the church turned out to be one of the hardest and also one of the best things I ever did. But I had long ago realized that I would not lay down my life or sacrifice my children by “enduring” things that should not be endured.

    My point is that in some cases it is better not to endure, even if one may personally think that one can endure or even think that one has the grace to endure. One could well be mistaken. And the church can shove it. I say this in memory of my mother.

    Just saying.

  75. Regarding Kevin Swanson and the OPC. I find it odd that the denomination is concerned about him calling them in error, rather than the OPC telling him he is in error. Does that make sense. Kinda like–it’s all about the denomination rather than explaining the erroneous teaching of family integration church.

  76. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But “grace to endure” is every bit as noteworthy or miraculous as a tumour disappearing, a blind eye seeing or any other healing miracle. Jesus had furious words to say about those in religious authority who imposed burdens on people and didn’t help carry them. Mr Chandler’s insistence that a woman stay in an abusive marriage would have been all very well if he could have stood alongside her in faith and imparted “grace to endure” in the same way as if he could have laid hands on her and healed her. Otherwise, that merely smacks of a pharisee sacrificing a human being to prop up his own religion.

    Not only that, but the story fits too neatly into the sexist trope of man being saved by the love of a good woman. This fantasy is used by men to escape responsibility for their actions and emotions and shift blame to the women.

    I am aware there is a man saving woman trope as well, but it is rarely portrayed as a man enduring abuse until his wife or girlfriend is finally saved. Rather, it has more to do with saving her from promiscuity, financial difficulties, or other self destructive paths. It’s also BS. Saving someone from themselves is a super human task and it’s unfair to demand mere mortals to do the job.

  77. @ Nancy:

    Actually, we’re in more or less complete agreement here – I probably drowned my point in my own verbage. I meant that “grace to endure” is rare, often miraculous, never comes out of cold doctrine, and cannot be demanded of anyone.

    Perhaps what Chandler said may be correct in some circumstances.

    Well, he would be right in some circumstances, but only by luck on his part, like the broken clock that is exactly right twice every day. For him simply to say to someone, endure or you’ll be kicked out of the church, cannot be right – I suspect we’re of one mind on that. It would be for the woman herself to say whether she could endure that kind of environment or not, and if anything, just about everything possible should have been done to dissuade her without actively disrespecting her human dignity and her right to take responsibility for her own life.

    To put it in historical context, the “endure” bit more often than not referred to enduring persecution and martyrdom – that’s how serious a matter it is. In those contexts, though, it was the elders, apostles and other leaders (there were no CEO’s or celebrity “pastors”) who laid down their lives first. I can think of no excuse to sacrifice someone else’s life over a matter of secondary doctrine. (Divorce itself is not adultery!)

    It’s a big subject; a trained monkey could blog about it but it’s ****ing hard to live out. I don’t want to drown another point in verbage. I am really sorry that you experienced the long tragedy you described. And as empty as these words are, I’m glad that at least you were able to decide for yourself that it would not happen to you – many don’t. I say that as a man who, like an idiot, spent 10 years in an abusive church before doing anything about it.

  78. @ Retha: That post has ignite a firestorm. I have been collecting tweets, article, etc and plan to post on it on Monday. That post proves why there is a problem with church leadership in understanding child sex abuse. The guy who wrote it, IMO, is at high risk for reoffending. It is still all about him.

    Leadership (CT) is now deleting comments. It was up to 75 (BTW-I printed all of them) and they are back down to 15. Unbelievable.

  79. @ Eagle:
    If I could get corroboration on that story about Matt Chandler telling a woman to stay in an abusive situation, I would write a post about it.

  80. Nancy wrote:

    My point is that in some cases it is better not to endure, even if one may personally think that one can endure or even think that one has the grace to endure.

    Your comment made me cry this morning: for you, your mother and for others who have had to go through this sort of thing.

  81. Godith wrote:

    t’s all about the denomination rather than explaining the erroneous teaching of family integration church.

    That is a perceptive comment.

  82. @ Nancy:
    I’m so sorry about your mother.

    There’s a reason actively seeking martyrdom is a sin. Suffering for the sake of suffering isn’t brave – it’s dangerous and does no one any favors, least of all the one causing the suffering.

  83. I do not see, and cannot comprehend how “grace to endure” applies to a woman in a domestic abuse situation. I was stunned by what Matt Chandler said. I mean….after John Piper many people are enamored with either Francis Chan or Matt Chandler. You know how many times I was told to listen to or read Chandler? And this is the advice he can give, the best advice? I couldn’t believe what I read $8,000 a month being spent on prostitutes and gambling, a woman is being beat, and Chandler threatens to throw a woman out of a church if she divorces? Is that the “Explicit Gospel?” Is that Hyper-Cal discipline? What did the man endure? Or as king of the roost did he just get a slap on the wrist? Because the real crime is that she did not submit. Is Matt Chandler’s views that far off from an IFB?

  84. Eagle wrote:

    I couldn’t believe what I read $8,000 a month being spent on prostitutes and gambling, a woman is being beat, and Chandler threatens to throw a woman out of a church if she divorces? Is that the “Explicit Gospel?” Is that Hyper-Cal discipline? What did the man endure?

    Roman Household Codes. Paterfamilias can do anything he wants to the members of his household. ANYTHING.

  85. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The idea of battles fought with swords (by muscle-bound heroic men, who are fawned over by helpless, doe-eyed women) is perhaps part of the same romanticised fiction that lies behind the sillier fringes of complementarianism.

    Pulp Sword-and-Sorcery.

  86. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    To put it in historical context, the “endure” bit more often than not referred to enduring persecution and martyrdom

    Absolutely. And imposing some religious construct of “enduring” on someone else for the sake of a secondary issue is unjust and wrong and THIS:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Otherwise, that merely smacks of a pharisee sacrificing a human being to prop up his own religion.

  87. burnrnorton wrote:

    There’s a reason actively seeking martyrdom is a sin. Suffering for the sake of suffering isn’t brave – it’s dangerous and does no one any favors, least of all the one causing the suffering.

    Anyone have a can opener? Because I’m about to pry open a big old tin of non-arthropod invertebrates, i.e. worms:

    I’ve seen this attitude (actively seeking martyrdom) or if not that exact sentiment, then certainly shades of it, in the institutions and individuals who comprise what in Christianese is referred to as “the mission field.”

    I dislike it immensely. I also think that neo-Cals and most evangelicals for that matter infuse a “martyrdom attitude” in many areas of missions, from the whole Piper “don’t waste your life” meme to the David Platt “Radical” movement. And a lot of others in between.

    Could be a whole ‘nuther TWW post, actually. Anyway, my .02

  88. In light of all the word Dee and Deb do….can I propose a new name, in honor of the World Cup? 😛

    Team Deebs!!

    When the post goes up today we should all scream….”Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll!!!!!!!” It’s not Univision, but for this blog its close enough! 😛

  89. @ dee:
    I did some googling and think I figured out who the anonymous author is. If it is who I think, he got to know her when she was 13, kissed her at 14, and raped her at 15. Leaving out the ages was grossly irresponsible, regardless.

  90. Rafki wrote:

    I’ve seen this attitude (actively seeking martyrdom) or if not that exact sentiment, then certainly shades of it, in the institutions and individuals who comprise what in Christianese is referred to as “the mission field.”

    Oh, oh. This is not my day. One of my children had a friend from college who was an MK. The parents were IFB. This kid was so messed up. It was not enough that the parents were IFB and Gothard fans, there were also into “suffering for Christ.” As I listened to them talk, apparently suffering for Christ “on the field” included making your children suffer senselessly and needlessly and for no apparent reason. The kid would have hated God except he got over that growing up when he decided that there was no God. There were just layers and layers of bad stuff he had not and apparently could not work through, but he wanted to talk about. His parents and I had words. I remember telling them that if they wanted to “lay something on the altar” it needed to be themselves but not their children. They of course thought I was in rebellion against God for that attitude. It was all somewhat less than cordial.

    Crazy ideas. Communication by lingo. Cold heartedness in pursuit of the buzz one gets from feeling self righteous. Sad and damaging to the practitioners of these ideas, with lots of collateral damage to other folks.

  91. Eagle wrote:

    I do not see, and cannot comprehend how “grace to endure” applies to a woman in a domestic abuse situation.

    Agreed. My only caveat would be that if a woman herself (or anybody who was living through a world of s**t) telling me, I know how this looks, but God has given me the means to persevere with this. But even then, I’d be extremely uncomfortable about it.

  92. @ burnrnorton:

    What I would like to see as an alternative to the self-confessed, fame-craving perpetrator, who just got more attention from this article BTW, are articles from his wife and the girl he raped. I’d rather hear their perspectives and stories than his. Those are the stories that need to be heard. Mr. Perpetrator started off by talking about the attention he thought he deserved and wasn’t getting at home — ugh! So he goes and robs it from a teenager he’s supposed to be leading. Then he gets an article about himself published while he’s in prison?!?!

  93. @ Nancy:

    Your comments have been on my mind all morning. I can’t imagine going through something so horrific only to be betrayed by the church. You know Nancy one of the reasons why “the Gospel” has been lost to this crowd is because the least of these has been traded, and kicked aside and in its place exists the “greatest of these” the celebrity pastors, young, cool, hip, etc… are embraced and heralded. The golden calfs today are the John Pipers, Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, etc…

    The least of these include you Nancy, with what you endured. They include your family. The least of these are those that are hurt, broken, marginalized, on the sides and those that society won’t touch. They include the beaten housewife, the professional gay man dealing with HIV, the children growing up fatherless, the Iraq war veteran struggling to hold a job, the homeless man with schizophrenia, etc…

  94. Bridget wrote:

    Then he gets an article about himself published while he’s in prison?!?!

    So where are the heralded articles and books written by moms or dads in prison who shot and killed their child’s predator/rapist and then ‘repented’ and got forgiveness?

    (Was I being inflammatory?)

  95. @ Bridget:

    No one wants to write about the people who are left in shambles. Too painful. Let’s just hear about the perp, his repentance (which I didn’t even see in this article), and all the good stuff he can tell us now about what not to do. I’m pretty sure we know about that stuff from the Bible.

  96. Mara wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Then he gets an article about himself published while he’s in prison?!?!

    So where are the heralded articles and books written by moms or dads in prison who shot and killed their child’s predator/rapist and then ‘repented’ and got forgiveness?

    (Was I being inflammatory?)

    They’re not former “leaders.” I guess this guy gets attention because he was a leader. Apparently, even a bad leader deserves more attention than just a heartbroken parent. Our society, Christians worst of all, put leaders on pedestals.

  97. @ Eagle:

    Well, yes, sort of. But and also there is another side to bad stuff that happens. I cannot speak for anybody else, only myself. There have been a number of things that have happened in my life, in addition to these two that I have told. No more than other folks; I have just lived a longtime mostly. This, however is not what it sounds like. I experience some of this stuff, as it relates to me as part of what has made me what and who I am, for better or worse. Training, if you please, for something or other. The masters at TKD would tell the black belt kids that sure you will get hurt, just not badly injured we hope, but that happens when you train for mastery. There is an old church song which includes the line, bye and bye when the morning comes, when the saints of God are gathered home, we will tell the story how we’ve overcome, and we’ll understand it better bye and bye.

    I do not consider myself one of the least of anything in relation to most preachers, especially this recent bunch. I feel? perceive? a strength and resilience and, yes, I think wisdom and frankly have to guard against spiritual pride when comparing myself to them. I think that the bad stuff is the opportunity to process and grow and practice and understand and rely on grace (like is frequently mentioned here) and this is invaluable. I would not trade the experiencing of the bad stuff for any amount of strawberries in the springtime, delightful as that might be.

    You are also an “overcomer.” I hate the lingo, but that is what you sound like when you comment. One does not get to be an overcomer unless there is something to overcome. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

  98. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Eagle wrote:

    I do not see, and cannot comprehend how “grace to endure” applies to a woman in a domestic abuse situation.

    Agreed. My only caveat would be that if a woman herself (or anybody who was living through a world of s**t) telling me, I know how this looks, but God has given me the means to persevere with this. But even then, I’d be extremely uncomfortable about it.

    You can live through it with appropriate boundaries — like in a different house, far away, where you are loving yourself and not teaching children that this is proper behavior for a spouse. Actually, the abuser should be sent away . . . and the church should help send him/her away.

  99. In regards to Chandler’s advice, it would seem to me if the husband was a chronic adulterer with prostitutes a divorce would certainly be biblical per Jesus(Mt 19:1-10)

  100. @ Nancy:

    Thanks for the perspective, Nancy. I have personally known more than a few missionaries, MKs and (probably more importantly) the “lost people groups” who must be “reached with the Gospel(TM)” who, to quote you, “suffer senselessly and needlessly and for no apparent reason.”

    The culture of many sending organizations is so infused with the “suffering for Christ” message that I believe a lot of people end up getting burned. Badly.

  101. As many of you know, I taught school in East Texas for many years. I now have a number of former students in some sort of fundamentalist ministry.
    I see so many of these ” boys” ( in my mind I will always see them as boys.) as strict Baptist and Pentecostal paternal leaders…..I often wonder if I could have don’t something years ago when I taught them their senior year.
    They see women as second class citizens, and this in spite of the fact that many of their wives work in order for the family to make ends meet. ( many of the wives make more money.)
    I know one of these ” preacher boys” counseled a wife who was getting cheated on by her husband to stay with him……the last I heard she had contracted an STD from her husband and finally was leaving him….
    I so wonder if I could have done something??

  102. JP wrote:

    In regards to Chandler’s advice, it would seem to me if the husband was a chronic adulterer with prostitutes a divorce would certainly be biblical per Jesus(Mt 19:1-10)

    You would think.
    However, many of these men have lifted up marriage so high in priority that they worship it to the exclusion of the things that Jesus said we should be concerned with, like justice or loving our neighbor as ourselves and doing unto others as we would have others do unto us, etc.

  103. Bridget wrote:

    Apparently, even a bad leader deserves more attention than just a heartbroken parent.

    So much of this is so opposite of the teachings of Jesus. Are these attitudes what Jesus was talking about when He spoke of the spirit of Anti-Christ? The opposite of the Spirit of Christ?

    (Was that thought inflammatory and uncalled for?)

  104. @ Nancy:
    Nancy, reading your experience stopped my breath and made tears fall – I can’t even imagine… And as a twist on the subject and in full understanding of what’s been discussed, i’d say you had Grace to endure- the kind that Nick described, in the aftermath and the rest of your life. And grace to endure when you took your children and left… That’s the real meaning, I think, of that kind of Grace. That one can even keep walking sometimes, when what we’ve experienced should in all sense cripple us. (I don’t need to reiterate what it doesn’t mean, as you have all already done it here well.)

  105. As a pastor I wonder if counseling was offered? If the husband is unwilling, then the woman should have been allowed to decide for herself. Divorce is never preferable, but it is allowed by Christ for sexual immorality, and is forgiveable when not. I had to research this topic at length being a pastor and marrying a divorced woman. Now, my decision was easy, as my wife had been married to an adulterer(he inpregnated a woman he left her for-if that’s not adultery don’t know what is). But in my detailed research in regards to what Jesus and the bible said, I believe we have neglected that their are 4 words in the Greek, all with very specific meaning, for adultery/adulterer(s). All except the word Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9-11 seem to indicate a one time thing(not an ongoing state of adultery) if a divorcee remarries. Paul uses a word that clearly indicates an ongoing state of adultery.

  106. Bridget wrote:

    I guess this guy gets attention because he was a leader. Apparently, even a bad leader deserves more attention than just a heartbroken parent. Our society, Christians worst of all, put leaders on pedestals.

    Highborn and Lowborn, just like in Game of Thrones.

    Rank Hath Its Privileges.

  107. Bridget wrote:

    No one wants to write about the people who are left in shambles. Too painful. Let’s just hear about the perp, his repentance (which I didn’t even see in this article), and all the good stuff he can tell us now about what not to do.

    With all the JUICY testimony details that let the Church Ladies indulge in Vicarious Sin while still retaining their Respectable Righteousness.

  108. Eagle wrote:

    You know Nancy one of the reasons why “the Gospel” has been lost to this crowd is because the least of these has been traded, and kicked aside and in its place exists the “greatest of these” the celebrity pastors, young, cool, hip, etc… are embraced and heralded. The golden calfs today are the John Pipers, Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, etc…

    Bridget wrote:

    What I would like to see as an alternative to the self-confessed, fame-craving perpetrator, who just got more attention from this article BTW, are articles from his wife and the girl he raped.

    “I’M GONNA BE
    I’M GONNA BE
    I’M GONNA BE FAMOUS!!!!!”
    — opening theme, Total Drama Island

  109. Rafki wrote:

    I’ve seen this attitude (actively seeking martyrdom) or if not that exact sentiment, then certainly shades of it, in the institutions and individuals who comprise what in Christianese is referred to as “the mission field.”

    Did you know that in the RCC someone who actively sought martyrdom CANNOT be officially canonized as a Saint/Martyr? Because if they actively sought martyrdom, you can never be sure if they were a true martyr or a covert “Suicide-by-Cop”. (And Chesterton commented how a Suicide and a Martyr are actually direct opposites.)

  110. JP wrote:

    As a pastor I wonder if counseling was offered? If the husband is unwilling, then the woman should have been allowed to decide for herself

    First, marital counseling is contraindicated for abusive relationships because abusers are too good at manipulating situations and it’s just another way for the abuser to continue the abuse. Second, but who are you to allow an adult woman to decide anything for herself? She is always allowed to decide for herself, regardless of what her husband, abusive or not, decides.

  111. JP wrote:

    Divorce is never preferable, but it is allowed by Christ for sexual immorality, and is forgiveable when not.

    This is so important. I know of no other failure that is given the judgment, shunning, and permanent negative labeling as does divorce by believers and churches. Marriage has been elevated to a position nearly comparable in importance to salvation.

    I think marriage needs to be seen in the same light as the Sabbath being for people, not people for the Sabbath. I could be wrong, but from Genesis to Revelation, I know of not one couple who were married for life. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in marriage just as in all other aspects of life, mistakes and problems arise. But we need to emphasize that it is not the unforgiveable sin and His grace allows for second chances.

    Anyone who marginalizes the horror of beating, or assaulting their life’s partner is terribly mistaken. Anyone who is willing to give a batterer a second chance to commit the crime again, but not give the victim a second chance to remarry, does not understand the overall message of scripture imho.

  112. JP wrote:

    Divorce is never preferable,

    I disagree. It’s preferable to exposing children to behavior that will have a lasting effect on their lives. Some will feel entitled to emulate violence behind closed doors where it is justified by the perpetrator. Children learn by the example they witness. Assault is a crime and we need to be careful not to perpetuate this crime from generation to generation by excusing the perp and blaming the victim or elevating marriage to a place it was never meant to be.

  113. Moore has favored criminalizing homosexual behavior but he is young and has blogged more than he has thought about some things.

    Deb wrote:

    @ Anonymous:
    Thanks for your perspective on the annual meeting. Sorry you and Wade didn’t connect.
    I don’t know anything about Kim but will be doing some research.
    Jared Moore pastors a small congregation in Hustonville, Kentucky. He wrote about why he was allowing someone to nominate him for SBC president here.  In addition to his pastoral duties and blogging activities, Moore is working toward a Ph.D. at SBTS. He served as 2nd vice president of the SBC last year.

  114. @ Victorious:

    What I ran into post divorce was actually the opposite of what you all are talking about. I kept running into the unsolicited opinion that what I should do is ASAP run out and get married again, pretty much on a take whatever you can get basis, because anybody is better than nobody. I get the feeling that the great sin is not divorce per se, though that is the terminology that is used, but rather the great sin is self determination. And if that great sin in coupled with not getting married again, then it is doubly worse. The thing is, one must be married. All sins are forgivable in this area except the sin of not being married. Daisy is right about this, I think. Divorce and remarriage are more easily “forgiven” that never getting married or failure/refusal of getting married again post divorce.

    I think what we have going on here is some contamination of christianity by pagan phallic worship. I won’t get more specific, but think about how much of what they do could be at least partly explained this way.

  115. On a lighter note, my ppl and I are going to the mountains (actually foothills) this weekend (actually part of the weekend) camping. Young son (actually middle aged, balding and bespeckled son) just picked up my tent and they will set it up in just a bit. The rest of us can’t go until tomorrow. Young daughter (actually middle aged also bespeckled harassed school teacher lady) has to “process” in full academic regalia tonight for her school’s graduation ceremony. Meantime two granddaughters (actually one granddaughter and one apparently alien creature) will continue packing (actually fighting grandmother over what can and cannot be taken along.) We plan to frolic (actually slip and slide and risk life and limb) in the waterfalls, climb the mountain (actually a large rock) and sleep on air mattresses in the tent. Also practice starting fires in unusual ways which we have more or less researched. I sent off for an aurora fire starter and want to experiment with vaseline covered cotton balls vs dryer lint for tinder this time. (Everybody needs a hobby.) I plan to serve ham and cheese with optional tomatoes, onion, black olives, lettuce, mayo etc on croissants for lunch tomorrow accompanied by chopped fresh fruit. (With optional PBJ for anybody who turns their nose up at that.) Got the bear spray! If I could find my daughter’s dulcimer we could take that but I can’t find it. Looks like its a capella all the way. Leaving the fiddle at home (the other campers thank me for that). So there you go. We hope to enjoy the outdoors, prove to ourselves that we still have what it takes, and perhaps furnish a little local color for the tourists (sort of).

  116. Alright, I can’t break the code. The most moderate and cheerful comment I have ever made has just gone into moderation. Usually I can figure things out, but not this.

  117. William wrote:

    Moore has favored criminalizing homosexual behavior but he is young and has blogged more than he has thought about some things.
    Deb wrote:
    @ Anonymous:
    Thanks for your perspective on the annual meeting. Sorry you and Wade didn’t connect.
    I don’t know anything about Kim but will be doing some research.
    Jared Moore pastors a small congregation in Hustonville, Kentucky. He wrote about why he was allowing someone to nominate him for SBC president here.  In addition to his pastoral duties and blogging activities, Moore is working toward a Ph.D. at SBTS. He served as 2nd vice president of the SBC last year.

    Do you have a link or reference to Jared’s belief’s about this? I would like to see what he said (not because I don’t believe you).

  118. Eagle wrote:

    So glad that worked out for them…but really…who’s to say she wouldn’t have been killed? That kind of thinking and counselling is highly irresponsible and just insane.

    Jackpot Eagle. It irks me to no end when somebody cites some hunky-dory anecdote about how the abuse or the gay got ‘prayed away’ and that the same thing must apply to you too regardless of circumstances. Meanwhile, a woman might have to go to the emergency room with a broken rib puncturing her lung and her facial bones so ph**ked up they’ll never be the same. Or some 15 year old kid might decide to eat a .45 ACP round because his own Broke Back Mountain becomes Vincent.
    It is insanity and I applaud the clergy and laypeople who preach a different Jesus.

  119. @ Nancy:

    I’m so sorry, Nancy. I can imagine that you were shaped by these experiences. I’m blessed to hear your steadfast love toward God despite the experiences. And, thank you for sharing the other side of the story that we rarely hear from the pulpit.

  120. Nancy wrote:

    The thing is, one must be married. All sins are forgivable in this area except the sin of not being married. Daisy is right about this, I think. Divorce and remarriage are more easily “forgiven” that never getting married or failure/refusal of getting married again post divorce.

    That’s exactly the level of idolatry of marriage I was referring to, Nancy. I agree that there’s (dare I say discrimination?) toward both divorced and unmarried but that only exists (I hope) in churches. Unmarried/single state is, however, mostly admired and accepted for catholics as a sign of undistracted service to the Lord. Odd that Christians overlook that Paul mentioned it as a preferred vocation.

  121. Nancy wrote:

    On a lighter note, my ppl and I are going to the mountains (actually foothills) this weekend (actually part of the weekend) camping. Young son (actually middle aged, balding and bespeckled son) just picked up my tent and they will set it up in just a bit.

    I wholeheartedly approve, Nancy!

    My own young son is not balding (though his Dad is, as you all know). On the other hand, he’s a trained professional teenager and knows how to ask for money. We’re off to Mayrhofen in Austria in a few weeks and he wants to climb the Hoher Riffler with me.

  122. Victorious wrote:

    Odd that Christians overlook that Paul mentioned it as a preferred vocation.

    That’s a big clue, I think, as to what is going on. Just imagine, people who say “the bible says”every few minutes, who carry around bibles based on the concept of the bigger the better, who form fan clubs practically over this or that translation, whose life motto seems to be “the word in Greek is actually…”, those people, miss something as straightforward and easy to understand as what Paul said about choosing to refrain from marriage. This cannot be an oversight. They could not have missed this. I am not that gullible. There is method in this madness.

  123. Bridget: Do you have a link or reference to Jared’s belief’s about this? I would like to see what he said (not because I don’t believe you).

    It came from an exchange a couple of years ago but the link Deb gave above which I am attempting to put below has some of the same things. Start with comment 27 and note his comment #38.

    Anyone can be nominated for SBC offices. I think he is a good pastor but without having thought deeply about some of these subjects.

    http://www.snapnetwork.org/md_clergy_abuse_victims_to_leaflet_outside_big_baptist_meeting

  124. @ Marsha:

    “One night she dreamed that her mother was right there in the room with her. Her mother said, “Don’t worry about me. I am fine here in Florida; it is so beautiful! I miss you but we will see each other again.” She told me the story and wondered why her mother had said Florida and not Heaven. We speculated that maybe she wasn’t permitted to speak of Heaven and said Florida to convey her thought.

    Anyway, stories like that are my completely unscientific reasons for thinking that maybe we aren’t meant to know more.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    thank you for taking the time to share this comment. I do think inter-realm communication happens at times. the story you shared is thought-provoking. I suspect there is “loss in translation”. Perhaps a mixture of intent behind the communication, and association of ideas on the part of the one receiving it. Dream-like things can be pure reality through a kaleidoscope of feelings and memories on the part of the receiver.

  125. Nancy-

    Weekend eh? That sounds like a good way to spend it! Here’s my plan…I’ll go home today and go some light cleaning. Grab some dinner and think about maybe a movie or so. The place to go in Northern Virginia is Tysons Corner. Tomorrow I will run errands, take care of loose ends. I’m going out with a few friends a grabbing a drink. My friend always chooses the bar in the DC area. Sunday I will go to church see how I digest things, and go from there.

    I have to tell you something pretty funny. Last night I was driving to a Bible study and I was listening to Christopher Hitchens speak about death. When I arrived I thought to myself, “Man that is a first…” and probably that is the first time in evangelicalism that a person goes to a Bible study listening to Christopher Hitchens.

    I really love your perspective Nancy. Your wisdom shines through and I can tell you speak from experience and what you see in life. That’s wise…that is where many of the Neo-Cals have an epic failure. They surround themselves with likeminded people in age and background so they
    never get another perspective.

    As the Deebs can attest to I have gone through a lot. I’ve brushed up against Mormonism when I was a college kid. I had lived in different parts of the country and saw different culture. I’m looking forward to telling my story one day…there is a lot I think people will appreciate. It contains a lot of things from brushing up and walking through agnosticism while being recruited into Sovereign Grace and actively resisting it. I experienced a horrific betrayal that sent me into physical shock and deeply upset my family. My parents who are Catholic have a low view of Baptists and evangelicals based upon life experience. My Dad was doing his residency at Duke when John F. Kennedy was assassinated and he was shocked that some Baptists were pleased that Kennedy was killed because they didn’t want a Catholic in the White House. It was a dark and different time. My Dad also remembers segregation in North Carolina as well. When my parents learned about what happened and how I was hurt my Mom wept on the phone. This was all courtesy of Sovereign Grace. One of these days the Deebs will tell the story and what happened. For some reason I am not an atheist, and honestly I am puzzled. I’ve had more than my shares of brushes with cults in Montana and fundamentalists in Washington, D.C. But yes I’ve come though a lot myself. The wounds that Christianity and churches has imposed on people I think is what unites many in this cyber community.

  126. @ Victorious, restoration and repentance are what is preferable. Those are always preferable to divorce. But should those not occur, I would never try to get a woman to stay in an abusive relationship. But divorce should always be the last alternative

  127. @ Burnrnorton, trained counselors usually easily spot behavioral problems such as an abussive personality. If abuse had occurred the first thing I would do is to recommend separation if at all possible, and for a lengthy time. How the abuser handles the separation is a good indicator. Most cannot abate from their distinctive, controlling ways. This will require honesty from the abused party, but if they are not willing to be honest, they almost always will return to the abusive situation. And I never tell any person what they must do. If a person reaches a point where they feel divorce is their only option, I explain to them exactly what the bible does say about it so they know their responsibility before God. God’s will is always restoration in His way for any relationship. Through God people do change, and marriages do get saved. Sadly, this happens far less than it should in an abusive relationship. Abuse is about control, and many/most abusers simply will not relinquish that

  128. JP wrote:

    , I explain to them exactly what the bible does say about it so they know their responsibility before God.

    I hope you comfort them with scripture that says God Himself divorced His own people and provided them a writ of divorce to make it legal.

  129. elastigirl wrote:

    I do think inter-realm communication happens at times. the story you shared is thought-provoking

    I believe I’ve experienced instances (events?) of communication/signs (can’t even describe it succinctly!) with dead loved ones.

    I say this as someone who considers themselves to take a basic Christian position when it comes to what is broadly termed “the supernatural.” I’m not going to freak out on you if you have an occasional “reading” or peruse your horoscopes but if you’re a wee bit too hooked on these things (mileage may vary per individual) I might look askance at you. 🙂

    Personally, like Marsha, in order to best process the experiences in the here and now, and not to overthink or dwell on them, I, too, choose to believe that perhaps there are just some things we aren’t meant to know about right now. The great mysteries, as it were.

    I’m supremely grateful for those moments I’ve experienced, however. They are very comforting to me.

  130. @ Eagle:

    Your weekend look like it has promise. Poor old Hitchens. Way too impressed with his own ideas, IMO. But on the way to bible study? That is odd. Your experiences with the dark underbelly of christianity, so to speak, sound like a cautionary tale that would be well worth telling. You never know but there may be some stuff there that somebody really needs to hear. I have heard you say before that you would or might tell the story at some time. No rush. Whenever you are ready. Or never–up to you. But in my experience a lot of us end up telling the same sort of story with only the details being different. The plot seems to alway include something like; there was this and that was good, enough, I guess; and there was that which was pretty bad; and I always thought/hoped/wished but maybe that is foolish; and if only I could have been somebody else things might have been different; but then there is the issue of God and here is how I resolved that. So that is my story. Sure enough. It is everybody’s story, mostly. I will be interested to hear how your story happened when you tell it. Good talking to you. Later.

  131. Nancy wrote:

    I get the feeling that the great sin is not divorce per se, though that is the terminology that is used, but rather the great sin is self determination.

    Agreed 100%. The Christianese phrase is “rebellion.” Smacks of extreme control-freakery to me.

  132. @ JP:

    Perhaps “always” is a bit much. Paul said, addressing a certain kind of situation, if the unbeliever wants to go let him go. Nothing there about trying to save the marriage at all costs, making whatever concessions are necessary to get the unbeliever to stay. Just, let him go. The believer is not bound in such circumstance (paraphrase by Nancy, thoughts by Paul.) A lot of preachers have read a lot of different stuff into that advice, not necessarily agreeing with each other while doing so. But push comes to shove that is what he said.

  133. JP wrote:

    @ Victorious, restoration and repentance are what is preferable.

    JP wrote:

    But divorce should always be the last alternative

    See, here’s the deal JP. I’m not singling you out, please believe this. And on the face of it, these seem like very reasonable statements.

    I’ve experienced the sheer trauma of being a “child of divorce” and walked side-by-side with dear, dear beloved people who’ve gone through divorce.

    I’ve also heard those “perfectly reasonable” statements about divorce out of the mouths of many many evangelicals. And 99.9999% of the time they come out with a giant added dose of pure, smug judgment.

    Translation: you’re such losers that you couldn’t handle Biblical (TM) reconciliation and repentance.

  134. @ JP:
    Except that by saying divorce should be a last resort and advising her that the Bible says divorce is only OK for adultery, you are advising her to stay in the marriage. And you give counselors way to much credit in their ability to spot and minimize the damage an abuser causes in therapy.

    Finally, I don’t believe relational restoration is a priority, or even ipso facto desirable, in cases of abuse. It is hard enough for abuse victims to heal without forcing them to have a marital relationship with their abuser. I can’t imagine having to live with that fear and the omnipresent PTSD trigger.

  135. Eagle wrote:

    I do not see, and cannot comprehend how “grace to endure” applies to a woman in a domestic abuse situation. I was stunned by what Matt Chandler said. I mean….after John Piper many people are enamored with either Francis Chan or Matt Chandler. You know how many times I was told to listen to or read Chandler? And this is the advice he can give, the best advice? I couldn’t believe what I read $8,000 a month being spent on prostitutes and gambling, a woman is being beat, and Chandler threatens to throw a woman out of a church if she divorces? Is that the “Explicit Gospel?” Is that Hyper-Cal discipline? What did the man endure? Or as king of the roost did he just get a slap on the wrist? Because the real crime is that she did not submit. Is Matt Chandler’s views that far off from an IFB?

    Agree with you 100%. I am DISGUSTED by what Matt Chandler said.

    Thank goodness for these little corners of the internet where some right-thinking prevails. Otherwise I think I’d go mad.

  136. Nancy wrote:

    Leaving the marriage and the church turned out to be one of the hardest and also one of the best things I ever did. But I had long ago realized that I would not lay down my life or sacrifice my children by “enduring” things that should not be endured

    Thank you for sharing your story, Nancy. I just want to say that your comments on this blog are so wise.

  137. burnrnorton wrote:

    I can’t imagine having to live with that fear and the omnipresent PTSD trigger.

    Agreed. Physical bruises heal far easier than the emotional ones do. I still, after 30 yrs., jump 10 ft. when my son walks into the room. It’s called hyper-vigilance. I’ve even ducked when a physician reached toward me.

    Sometimes too much damage is done to resume a normal relationship.

  138. @ burnrnorton, safety is the first concern, which is why separation needs to happen. If a woman is looking to divorce, they normally have a place to go. The sad situations are when someone has no place to go and returns to the abuse.

  139. Victorious wrote:

    I still, after 30 yrs., jump 10 ft. when my son walks into the room.

    Just want to clarify that my son is not/was not my abuser. He just happens to be living with me right now after losing his condo to a foreclosure.

  140. @ Rafki, I to am a child of divorce. If a person is a Christian and desiring to follow God, they need to understand what the bible says about it. Divorce is painful, really no way to avoid that pain. It’s not the intended consequence of marriage in God’s eyes. But it happens. I’m one who will remarry a divorced person. When doing so, during counseling, you try to the best of your ability to make sure they realize the mistakes that were made the first time around and not repeat them. Their is no 100% hard and fast rule to human relationships. If their were, we would not see the broken lives that sadly are so common these days.

  141. Victorious wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    I still, after 30 yrs., jump 10 ft. when my son walks into the room.
    Just want to clarify that my son is not/was not my abuser. He just happens to be living with me right now after losing his condo to a foreclosure.

    I can understand the jumping. How does your son do with his mother reacting like this? I’m sure he understands, but I’m thinking it could be a bit difficult for him, too.

  142. JP wrote:

    If a person is a Christian and desiring to follow God, they need to understand what the bible says about it. Divorce is painful, really no way to avoid that pain.

    I may have overlooked your reply, JP, but will you comfort them by sharing God’s own divorce and presentation of a certificate of divorce?

  143. @ Nancy, I agree regarding what Paul said. If an unbeliever walks away, I believe 1 Corinthians 7 teaches that it is right to let them go. I also believe that the person that is left is free to remarry apart from sin occurring just as with adultery. I’ve yet to find how to stop someone who is intent upon leaving you. And to clarify, while divorce apart from adultery or abandonment is sin, it is forgiveable like any other. As someone else posted, divorce has been raised to an unforgivable sin in some churches. Thankfully, that attitude is changing in many churches

  144. I will let them know that God is ready to restore His relationship with anyone at anytime, so we should be as well. In Jehovah’s case, His “wife,” Israel, abandoned Him. 1 Corinthians 7 would seem to cover this for a believer. But God will receive His people back one day. And yes, you always comfort emotional pain. Human relationships are the most vulnerable thing on this earth. Perfection is not possible. What I do is try to instruct always be ready to forgive and if true change occurs, be willing to reconcile, just as God is with us

  145. JP wrote:

    But God will receive His people back one day. And yes, you always comfort emotional pain. Human relationships are the most vulnerable thing on this earth. Perfection is not possible. What I do is try to instruct always be ready to forgive and if true change occurs, be willing to reconcile, just as God is with us

    JP, I assume this is directed toward my question of you even though you didn’t address me by name.

    God did divorce His people for their idolatry. The significance of the certificate of divorce is to prove the divorce is legal and the woman (wife) would not be known as an adulterous women should she decide to remarry.

    It’s true that God didn’t abandon His people, but they are not referred to as His bride again. Deut. 24 (I think) forbade a husband from taking a wife back after He had put her away. God still offers a relationship in the NT through His Son on an individual basis.

    Thank you for your reply and especially acknowledging the need for comfort for those having been damaged by marriage.

  146. Eagle wrote:

    But yes I’ve come though a lot myself. The wounds that Christianity and churches has imposed on people I think is what unites many in this cyber community.

    I agree with this. A common thread of solidarity that I recognize is people who care or who have cared in the past for the community of people in Christianity tend to congregate here. A lot of us have seen that there are problems in Christendom, problems that are hurting people. From the hints you’ve dropped in comments I think you and I went a somewhat similar path towards agnosticism, though I went a different final path then you, and I appreciate you sharing them.

    Deebs, thank you for the articles. I really appreciate the insight and community I get here.

  147. @ Victorious, today, their is neither Jew nor Gentile. Believers are still the bride, Christ’s! And I agree, if you want to look at God’s divorce from Israel, it was for adultery and abandonment, which I believe is clearly taught in the New Testament as biblical with the freedom to remarry. God’s offer of a relationship has always been on an individual basis. Just a cursory reading of the Old Testament clearly shows not all of Israel followed God, and the New Testament teaches it is not by one’s bloodline we are saved. All of us need to be ready to forgive and be open to reconcilliation, which is my main point in regards to divorce. It does not occur far to often. But we are called to love as Christ loved us, and He is always ready to forgive and restore. For us humans, that’s easier said than done. It should however be the standard all believers strive toward

  148. Victorious wrote:

    It’s called hyper-vigilance

    Am well-acquainted with hyper-vigilance – it’s very difficult to manage and as you’ve noted it doesn’t just go away.

  149. JP wrote:

    I will let them know that God is ready to restore His relationship with anyone at anytime, so we should be as well. In Jehovah’s case, His “wife,” Israel, abandoned Him. 1 Corinthians 7 would seem to cover this for a believer. But God will receive His people back one day. And yes, you always comfort emotional pain. Human relationships are the most vulnerable thing on this earth. Perfection is not possible. What I do is try to instruct always be ready to forgive and if true change occurs, be willing to reconcile, just as God is with us

    And this belies your statement that safety is the priority. Relational restoration is not safe for an abuse victim in any way. First, an abuser typically goes through the whole remorse/begging for forgiveness thing countless times before the victim finally leaves. Second, restore what? In almost all cases, the relationship was poisoned by abusive patterns from the start.

    Frankly, it is incredible to me that you ink God permits divorce for adultery but not abuse. I’ve been cheated on. It’s horrible, but usually much easier to get over than abuse and the relationship has a much greater chance of having started out basically healthy and therefore being worth restoring.

  150. @ JP:

    Thanks for your response JP. I’m sorry about your own personal experience of your parent’s divorce. And I do appreciate, as Victorious noted, your acknowledgement of the need for comfort and compassion for those who are suffering.

  151. Victorious wrote:

    Unmarried/single state is, however, mostly admired and accepted for catholics as a sign of undistracted service to the Lord. Odd that Christians overlook that Paul mentioned it as a preferred vocation.

    I think it dates back to the Reformation Wars BECAUSE it was admired and accepted for Catholics as More Spiritual. When things blew up, having Married Clergy was an announcement which side you were on and it kind of got locked in after that. Catholics have Singleness and Celibacy so we have to have Salvation by Marriage Alone. (“We must sit because Enemy Christians kneel”, “Whatever WE do that YOU don’t”, and all that.)

    And after 400 years later, “Salvation by Marriage Alone” is now locked in at the level of a Direct Command from God. And you get horror stories like Lydia and Nancy and all the others that show up on this blog.

  152. Muff Potter wrote:

    Jackpot Eagle. It irks me to no end when somebody cites some hunky-dory anecdote about how the abuse or the gay got ‘prayed away’ and that the same thing must apply to you too regardless of circumstances.

    Sounds like a variant of “I have X problem so YOU must have exactly the same problem.” Especially if whatever-it-is worked for you. Or you never experienced it; the most glib and forceful advice always comes from those on the outside looking in. And it’s been that way for a LONG time — remember the Book of Job?

    Regarding “pray the gay away”, I have no doubt that it does happen for some causes of sexual orientation and personal histories. But everybody varies and what “worked” for one doesn’t mean it’ll “work” on anyone else.

  153. Victorious wrote:

    JP wrote:

    But divorce should always be the last alternative

    Why?

    As one whose parents divorced when I was 12, I know why. This is not at all related to the obvious times that people have mentioned, when divorce is a much better and fully responsible choice- but as far as not being the FIRST answer, there are so many reasons why.

    To be clear, I’m married to a divorced person, so I get it when there is no other alternative. But when you asked why- it struck a nerve. I’ve seen so much distruction in families through divorce being grabbed before some real soul-searching. Again- I’m NOT referring to cases where abuse of any kind is present.

  154. @ Nancy:

    Nope, no trees on the Riffler (though the lower slopes down by the loch, some way below the low point in the fotie, are wooded). But I did it last year and it’s a very easy walk.

  155. burnrnorton wrote:

    Frankly, it is incredible to me that you ink God permits divorce for adultery but not abuse

    burnrnorton, remember that when the Pharisees were asking Jesus about putting away their wives “for any reason.” Jesus told them that the reason Moses permitted it was because of the hardness of their heart. Such is the condition of the heart that could physically, emotionally, or verbally harm a loved one. God hates those who treat their wives treacherously according to Mal. 2.

  156. @ burnrnorton, people do change. It is not common with an abuser, but most abusers I’ve dealt with have not been Christians in the first place. Not saying a Christian or one who calls themselves a Christian can’t abuse, but my experience with them is they reject God. So, first thing that needs to happen is they are saved. Once again this is why you separate, and I’m not just talking for a month. If abuse has occurred regularly, I’d recommend a year minimum. Over the course of that amount of time a person with a controlling personality rarely can control themselves. Their are many other factors as well as each situation is unique. I live in SC where we have the highest domestic violence rate in the country. We deal with it often. It’s never pretty or easy. But to teach that we should forgive and that if a person shows genuine repentance we should be open to restoration is completely biblical. Does that happen often? No. And I am open to the verse that states God allows divorce and remarriage apart from sin for circumstances other than adultery and abandonment. And as I’ve stated earlier, divorce, like any other sin is forgiveable. That needs to be reinforced. I know many a pastor who would love to find the verse regarding abuse, because so many deal with the issue. It’s just not there

  157. @ JP:
    Again, I repeat the question relational restoration begs – Restore what?

    And there is a fundamental problem with your approach of looking for a verse. A verse doesn’t stand on it’s own, it exists in the context of the surrounding verses, the book, and the totality of Scripture. Very learned theologians have argued that abuse constitutes abandonment, which makes divorce permissible. The other problem is that the concept of abuse did not exist when the Bible was written. To ignore our greater recognition if the dynamics of abuse would be foolish and unloving. Given what we know now, isn’t it better to interpret the Bible on a way that recognizes this reality rather than in a way that ignores it?

  158. @ JP:
    Oh, and people can change
    . It isn’t the victim’s job to reward that change (which really just constitutes behaving as they should have all along) by forgiving them in the manner and under the conditions (“relational restoration”) you think they should.

  159. I’ve got one for you, JP: 1 Cor 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.” Since pastors wouldn’t be dealing w/ non-Christian couples at all, I can safely say that any pastor can pull out this verse and say, “Gee, is abuse in the same vein as greed or swindling?? If so, she shouldn’t even eat with this person, much less stay married to him.” 🙁

  160. @ burnrnorton:

    Some people equate abuse with abandonment as a cause for divorce, arguing that while physical abandonment may not have happened the abuser has nevertheless abandoned the marriage by his/her actions. After I divorced I read every theologian, denominational doctrinal statement, biblical reference and such that I could find. There is no consistent agreement among those sources in this area. For example, Ryrie denied divorce for adultery, said the Greek word porneia (sp?) meaning sexual uncleanness actually only applied to marriage with the bounds of forbidden consanguinity. The catholic church I believe (correct me if this is wrong) still teaches that sacramental marriage is binding for life even if there is separation and a civil divorce. One confusing issue is that Paul seems to have added abandonment as a reason for divorce while Jesus did not mention this. How does one explain this discrepancy? In the end the individual must choose who they will believe, and in doing that the individual is choosing for themselves what to believe. Not unlike some other things in scripture.

  161. Taylor Joy wrote:

    1 Cor 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—

    Good point, Taylor Joy! And since Jesus spoke of lust just as serious a sin as adultery as both originate from the heart, all those guilty of lust, porn, etc. might be in danger of divorce if adultery is one of the only valid reasons.

  162. JP wrote:

    we should be open to restoration is completely biblical.

    Would you be good enough to provide scripture for restoration?

    Does that happen often? No. And I am open to the verse that states God allows divorce and remarriage apart from sin for circumstances other than adultery and abandonment.

    Lust/porn/sensuality/fornication/impurity = adultery… a woman is intentionally invited into one’s mind or one’s home via computer. Immorality is adultery.

  163. burnrnorton wrote:

    it is incredible to me that you ink God permits divorce for adultery but not abuse. I’ve been cheated on. It’s horrible, but usually much easier to get over than abuse and the relationship has a much greater chance of having started out basically healthy and therefore being worth restoring.

    There are a number of Christians who believe that it is Biblically sound to divorce for abuse. In fact, most christians believe that. Unfortunately, it is the totalitarianism of men like John Piper and Paige Patterson who do not. Please see the following website.

    http://cryingoutforjustice.com

    Any person who consistently abuses his spouse is probably not a Christian even thought the espouse such a belief. The website that I referred to goes into depth explaining the Scriptural, moro and ethical reasons to divorce an abuser.

  164. JP wrote:

    But to teach that we should forgive and that if a person shows genuine repentance we should be open to restoration is completely biblical

    Abusers are not unlike pedophiles. The majority of them will abuse again. And most pastors and churches are not equipped to deal with the pathology of an abuser. Pastors and weekend biblical counselors are woefully inept in this area and can often cause more harm than good.

    In fact, most pastors and church leaders are easily fooled by the charm of the these abusers. In fact, Leadership Journal was sucked in by the tears of a rapist. I plan to discuss this on Monday.

  165. Nancy wrote:

    One confusing issue is that Paul seems to have added abandonment as a reason for divorce while Jesus did not mention this. How does one explain this discrepancy?

    Actually, Paul and Jesus had two different purposes in their statements. Jesus was going after the Pharisees who would divorce for no reason whatsoever-often leaving their spouse destitute. As always, Jesus was showing just how far the law extended and was convicting them of their sin of abandonment. This was one more pronouncement by Jesus that irritated the Pharisees.

    Remember, Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” fully realizing that people would go and sin. Why would He say that? because He was pointing to the fact that we are utterly unable to keep the Law. And He was about to give us the solution via the Cross.

    Paul was post Cross as he made his pronouncements.

  166. Nancy wrote:

    The catholic church I believe (correct me if this is wrong) still teaches that sacramental marriage is binding for life even if there is separation and a civil divorce.

    The Catholic church is very open in their annulments of marriages in which abuse is a factor.

  167. burnrnorton wrote:

    Again, I repeat the question relational restoration begs – Restore what?

    You are correct. There is nothing to restore. The wife married an abuser. He did not change one day into the abuser unless he developed a brain tumor and then the cure is surgery. The marriage occurred under false pretenses.

  168. JP wrote:

    What I do is try to instruct always be ready to forgive and if true change occurs, be willing to reconcile, just as God is with us

    So, you would think that a woman who had been smacked around for years should wait around for “restoration?” You really think that a woman can have a healthy marriage after being smacked around for years? Good night!

  169. @ Taylor, the person Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthins 5 is restored to fellowship in 2 Corinthians after he repents. As Jesus said, if someome comes to us and repents, we are to forgive. Repentance being defined as a true change occuriing

  170. Nancy wrote:

    My point is that in some cases it is better not to endure, even if one may personally think that one can endure or even think that one has the grace to endure. One could well be mistaken. And the church can shove it. I say this in memory of my mother.
    Just saying.

    Nancy, you’re a star. Good for you protecting your kids.I’m so sorry for what you went through in the loss of your Mum. I’m a child of divorce, my Mum divorced my Dad to give him a final wake up call about his out of control alcoholism & our lives were so much better after this. Of course it sentenced her to a life of hard graft to bring us up alone, but she never ever whinged & we grew up knowing she would have done it twice over if she had to because she loved us.
    And I’ve just said shove it to enduring endless neglect (just another form of abuse) myself – I’m 2 weeks in, & her memory gives me strength. I’ll add you to my list of role models when I wobble, because of ‘christian’ guilt.

  171. dee wrote:

    You really think that a woman can have a healthy marriage after being smacked around for years? Good night!

    Amen!

  172. Dee, I agree. Most pastors are not equiped to deal in depth with such issues. There are trained biblical counselors, trained in the bible and psychology, who are equipped. If it is beyond my limited abilities I readily refer couples to a person who has far more knowledge and ability in that area. The way I’ve learned to spot behavioral traits comes from them. As for an abuser being like a pedophile, if the behavior is not met by the Holy Spirit, you are correct, it will probably continue. But what of those cases, limited as they may be, where the person genuinely turns to Christ and repents, and demonstrates that over time? Is a marriage covenant to mean anything? Is even an abused person not to exercise fruits of the Spirit, including longsuffering, if a person is genuinely seeking change? I have a friend who is a multiple murderer. He was saved in prison, and exhibited incredible change in his life. His change was so complete the governor pardoned him. He’s now an ordained minister and has one of the most powerful testimonies you’ve ever heard. To rule out change is to rule out the power to change through the Holy Spirit. Rare as it may be, it does happen.

  173. And Dee, I’m going to go over that article in CT with a fine tooth comb. This is my professional world & calling – youth work – & I’ve done 20 years in this field in the UK, 15 of which was also being a church youth worker, & am currently undertaking a Master’s Degree in Youth Work & Community Learning & Development. Despite our age of consent being 16 we have legislation here that makes illegal any ‘relationship’ between a young person & their youth worker (or teacher, or youth pastor, & so on) if they are under 18. This is because of the acknowledged power dynamic of these relationships, & the clear implication that an adult in this position can have greater influence on young people than others. I just know I am going to want to throttle the self-serving ‘adult’in the article. No excuses for his behaviour, none. And our collective response to that article may have a very profound effect on the young woman involved, & those like her in terms of truly understanding they were not to blame.

  174. Nancy wrote:

    Alright, I can’t break the code. The most moderate and cheerful comment I have ever made has just gone into moderation. Usually I can figure things out, but not this.

    If we told you we’d have to ….

    Seriously. If we explain why things are moderated it allows the jerks and SPAMers to figure out ways to slip real nonsense and junk through.

    So like the US Navy and nuclear weapons, “we can neither confirm or deny …”

    So folks let’s just not talk about it. OK. If a comment gets moderated we’ll let it through when we can. Sorry.

  175. @ JP:

    Here again, maybe “always” is too much in talking about reconciliation. Let us say in the case of when the unbeliever wants to leave, and the believer lets him/her go and they divorce. Then the unbeliever comes back and whats to try again but is still an unbeliever. The believer is forbidden to marry an unbeliever. Reconciliation without marriage (cohabitation) would not be an option. Remarriage would not be an option. Saying they could kind of reconcile and be platonic friends? Knowing people, how likely is that when one wants to reconcile? That is asking for trouble, especially if/when one of them wants to marry somebody else. I suppose they could be friends with benefits while maintaining separate residences so nobody would know for sure–good grief, how ridiculous. I am thinking that “let him go” means just that. Let him go and while at it remove that temptation to get involved with an unbeliever again out of your life, including the one that recently left. It was wrong before and it is still wrong. That would be my thinking in situation.

  176. Burnrnorton, I would agree that a behavior that is evidenced over and over would be evidence of a lost person, not a saved one. I myself have never condemned a woman who has walked away from an abusive relationship. I have tried to impart what the bible does and just as important does not say about divorce. Many may infer abuse in to some passages, but as you stated it is never specifically addressed. When dealing with such a situation I first look to the woman’s safety, and if leaving is the solution then leave. But also if divorce is imminent, explain to them God forgives and His grace is sufficient. Sadly, there are consequences, physical and spiritual, for a poor decision in who we marry. Poor choices are a part of everyone’s life. God hates divorce, that is clear. We should too, even when it may be the only solution to escaping an abusive relationship. But recognizing a sin and condemning a sinner are 2 entirely different things

  177. @ JP:
    Change is rare and extraordinary, as you admit. So what? Should a victim wait around indefinitely to see if it will happen? Take it on faith that it has happened and risk his or her physical and psychological health on the slim chance that it works out? And even if the victim can be sure of the change, why should she have to do the arduous and ongoing work of being able to live with someone with a history of hurting and terrorizing her?

    Finally, I repeat my question – what are they actually supposed to restore?

  178. @ burnrnorton:
    These are all great questions, for any kind of abuse. Are we supposed to destroy ourselves in the effort to bring about change in another? Or does that destruction grieve God?

  179. Nancy wrote:

    Sorry if I have offended you.

    No offense. But talking about specific moderated comments gives insight into how to beat our system. So we ask that people not do that. 🙂

  180. JP wrote:

    I have tried to impart what the bible does and just as important does not say about divorce.

    I am not saying this for the “fun” of arguing, but to be sure you are aware of this. The idea that something that is not said is just as important as something which is said does not compute too well with some of us. An argument from the absence of evidence is a very weak argument, compared to an argument based on evidence. To argue from silence, one would have to demonstrate that the available evidence was actually intended to be a comprehensive handling of the matter and not just a specific limited comment. That can happen, but I don’t see that too much in scripture.

    Was it not that during the reformation there was a difference of attitude between a couple of high profile reformers about the issue of where scripture is silent. I read somewhere, and could be mistaken about this, that one tended to say that the only thing that was permitted was what scripture specifically permitted (all else was forbidden), and the other tended to say that the only thing that was forbidden was what scripture specifically forbade (all else was permitted). Those are very different understandings of how to understand the silences of scripture.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak, because my church is not part of a denomination which adheres to sola scriptura. My whole comment is only about where scripture is silent, no more.

  181. Bridget wrote:

    I can understand the jumping. How does your son do with his mother reacting like this? I’m sure he understands, but I’m thinking it could be a bit difficult for him, too

    For quite awhile, he looked annoyed and asked, “who did you think it was, mom?”

    Finally, I explained to him that it’s a real, uncontrollable reaction similar to when the doctor hits your knee with that little hammer. 🙂 I told him there’s a word for it and it’s called hyper-vigilance and occurs to one who has been thru a traumatic event of some kind like being attacked. He asked me what I had been thru and I simply said I’d been attacked.

    My son is 42 yrs. old and didn’t ask anything further so I left it at that. I just wanted him to know that it was a reaction unfortunately beyond my ability to control.

  182. @ Beakerj:

    I don’t think we can fix other people and I think that we should only endure pain that can’t be avoided or that serves a greater purpose. Destroying yourself to preserve a marriage, even with a truly repentant former abuser helps no one, least of all your spouse. I can’t believe in a God that wants us to suffer that much for an abstract principle like the sanctity of marriage.

  183. Bridget wrote:

    How does your son do with his mother reacting like this? I’m sure he understands, but I’m thinking it could be a bit difficult for him, too.

    BTW, he now makes some noise before coming up behind me in the kitchen so I know he’s coming. That has helped significantly and shows me he cares and doesn’t want to startle me again. I appreciate that.

  184. @ burntnorton, only if the abused sees a significant effort over time from the abuser. I’m not saying rush back in to an abusers arms. It would take a long, long time of evidence of change to warrant that. But if, and as rare as it is, it happens. If the abuser remorsefully and repentetly seeks counsel and demonstrates change, what then? To say such a relationship cannot be reconciled is to deny the power God has when we surrender to Him. It is rare, but it happens and will continue to. The one thing that is evident throughout this is the emotion that is attatched to it. Same with these child abuse scandals. I’m SBC and was disgusted we didn’t address the issue this week at the convention. But we must be able, at least try, to separate emotion and try to seek, what would God have me do here. In the case of abuse, if the abuser over time demonstrates change, what would God want? Would he want the covenant of marriage restored, seeing as He takes it very seriously, or would He want us to just walk away. As I sated, safety is paramount. If change is not demonstrated, then, the person must do what they feel is right for them. But God’s will is forgive when people repent, just as He does for us. That ain’t easy, but it is biblical

  185. @ Beakerj:

    Oh, hey, hang in there. And no, we are not supposed to destroy ourselves trying to change somebody else. The great argument as far as I can tell is whether the entire process of dealing with humans is up to God alone or whether also humans have some free will. I don’t see where there is any power given to one human to change somebody else. Set a good example, sure. Try not to be a stumbling block, sure. But bear the responsibility for somebody else’s decisions and behavior? Not unless they are 2 years old or so. And let oneself be destroyed? I don’t think that is reasonable. If it is wrong for person A (the other person) to try to destroy person B, then how could it not be wrong for person B to let themselves be destroyed as well. The idea here would have to be to have nobody destroyed, I am thinking. Persons are valuable. Destruction should not happen.

  186. JP wrote:

    I know many a pastor who would love to find the verse regarding abuse, because so many deal with the issue. It’s just not there

    Yes, it is. Abuse is the worst form of abandonment. Abandonment of care. Abandonment of love. Abandonment of respect. Abandonment of support. Abuse eagerly welcomes danger, insecurity, and fear into the home.

    Who cares if the abuser’s body is still in the home? That’s just a technicality. It may follow the letter of the law, but it violates the entire spirit of the law.

    Or as the booklet God’s Protection of Women (© RBC Ministries) says:
    “In the days of Moses, financially burdened men could pay their debts by selling their daughters to fellow Israelites. While such a practice is unthinkable today, buying and selling wives was common in the ancient Middle East. Moses, however, imposed limitations on this practice to soften the cruelty. For the protection of women who after being sold by their fathers were no longer wanted by their husbands, Moses wrote:
    If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money (Ex. 21:7-11).

    “Because this text lists
    three foundations of marital duty, Jewish scholars have seen it as a model of the marriage covenant. Rabbis have also seen in Exodus 21:7-11 a principle of interpretation that reasons from the lesser to the greater. In other words, if legal protection is provided for a slave wife, how much more would it apply to a free wife in Israel.”

  187. JP wrote:

    we should be open to restoration is completely biblical

    Would you please provide scripture that implies a broken, sinful relationship should be restored?

  188. @ Janey, and see this is part of the issue when trying to apply the bible to things not specifically mentioned. It is a challenge and leads to much disagreement. Protection is provided in those verses, for a slave. Property who had no choice. When the slave owner wanted to “betroth” her, she had no choice. No rights whatsoever. After this I’m going to bow out, as we’re probably not going to come to satisfactory agreement. But let me close with this. Abuse is unacceptable. Safety is paramount. Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness. Genuine repentance is rare. If divorce for abuse is sin, it is readily forgiven by God when we come to Him. And one of the things I think is every bit as important is when a woman leaves an abusive relationship, married or not, that she seek spiritual guidance to be as sure as possible that whatever led her in to an abusive relationship never happens again. Whether she was deceived, naive, or simply unable or unwilling to see the signs, my prayer is any woman who has been abused never finds herself in that situation again

  189. JP wrote:

    I have a friend who is a multiple murderer. He was saved in prison, and exhibited incredible change in his life. His change was so complete the governor pardoned him.

    Let me get this straight. He is a multiple murderer and he was pardoned? So, if we just come to Jesus and go to Bible study, we get pardoned? What about bearing the consequences of our actions?

    Shouldn’t a man who is a “multiple” murderer spend his life in jail? Heck, he could use his preaching abilities to bless the prison.

    Oh yeah, the governor did not pardon this lady and she was probable as incredible as your multiple murderer friend.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

  190. JP wrote:

    Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness.

    No. Genuine repentance is nice, but it doesn’t deserve honor and the victim owes nothing to the abuser. The reward for repentance is that the penitent is no longer a terrible person and is straight with God, not that the penitent’s human victims forgive and reconcile with them. Also, there is a definitional problem here. Forgiveness is a separate issue from reconciliation and both are separate from the issue of restoration of whatever relationship existed before.

    You also have a consistency problem. You pretty much say that staying open to reconciliation with an abusive spouse (and reconciling and restoring them should they repent) is the price you pay for making b the mistake of marrying them in the first place. So for the mistake of entering an abusive marriage, the abuse victim must wait for as long as it takes for the abusive spouse to repent and reenter the marital relationship if he or she does, no matter how difficult and painful that is. But for the sin and crime of actually committing the abuse, the abuser is owed forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration by his or her victim if he or she demonstrates true repentance. That balance doesn’t seem completely wrong to you?

  191. burnrnorton wrote:

    Forgiveness is a separate issue from reconciliation and both are separate from the issue of restoration of whatever relationship existed before.

    Agreed. Good word, burnrnorton!

  192. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:

    TWW can neither confirm nor deny? Oh man!!! Now I am on the floor laughing!! Did you hear that the CIA just entered Twitter this week? You know what their first tweet was?

    “We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.”

    https://twitter.com/CIA

    The Washington Post and ABC I think had an article about the CIA’s first tweet! LOL
    So GBTC if we figure out how to beat the moderation system what is in line for us?

    Will Team Deebs waterboard us?
    Will Team Deebs polygraph us? 😛
    Will team Deebs arrange a one way trip to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
    Will Team Deebs break out the Truth Syrum?
    Will Team Deebs force us to listen to a sermon jam of CJ Mahaney? 😯

    Inquiring minds NEED to know!! 😯 And we are on a need to know basis here!!

  193. burnrnorton wrote:

    Except that by saying divorce should be a last resort and advising her that the Bible says divorce is only OK for adultery, you are advising her to stay in the marriage. And you give counselors way to much credit in their ability to spot and minimize the damage an abuser causes in therapy.

    I think this is very wise and I totally agree what’s you’ve said here.

    I’d be curious to know what JP’s position is on male/female roles in marriage. Does he see things through the paradigm of male headship/female subordination?

    I know that can be disastrous when a counselor basically views the woman as needing to submit herself and “endure” like what was earlier discussed. A woman is regarded as the lesser of the two whose authority isn’t equal to that of her husband so her experience carries less weight. Rather than allowing her prescriptives to stand, the complementarian counselor often comes in and applies scripture in the sense that JP was describing in an effort to establish hierarchy (God over man, man over woman) out of which is assumed to flow peace, harmony, and the solution to every problem.

  194. Eagle wrote:

    My Dad was doing his residency at Duke when John F. Kennedy was assassinated and he was shocked that some Baptists were pleased that Kennedy was killed because they didn’t want a Catholic in the White House.

    Small world. I was in my first year of grad school at Duke when the JFK assassination occurred. As a newly wed Methodist I wasn’t aware of the Baptist anti catholic sentiments. In fact I was aware of very little of anything except my new bride and my studies!

  195. Dee, to answer your specific questions: He served 27 years and is engaged weekly at multiple prisons. As far as the lady you mentioned, I guess that needs to be taken up with the governor in question. This gentleman’s pardon was extended because of the incredible change and influence he had while in prison. Was it right or wrong he was paraoled, who’s to say. I was just stating what happened. Enjoy your site

  196. With all due respect to JP, his arguments about abuse and divorce are the very reasons I would never recommend a woman go to a pastor for counseling under these circumstances. In the 10 yrs. I was employed as a victim advocate, only one church would permit our agency to provide information to the pastor and staff. As prevalent as domestic violence and sexual assault against women is, there will always be the dangerous effort to keep a victim and children in a relationship with the abuser.

    Women need to know assault is a crime and it should be reported to law enforcement who will aid them to ensure their safety. The report will be recorded much the same as we hope will be the case with child abuse.

  197. @ Paula, in regards to your specific question regarding the male/female role. I have several friends where the wife has more education and has a far better job than the husband could ever dream of, providing income and benefits. When I’ve counsled them I’ve not stressed the traditional male as a provider as that’s simply not best for their family. Many have rebuked them and I don’t get that. The husband’s raise the kids and also homeschool, and the kids are provided for. I do believe scripture teaches the man should be the spiritual head of the house, not lord of the house. He should lead his family in to a more intimate relationship with God. That is his primary role as the spiritual leader. Sadly, many men either use this as a pretense to lord over the wife or even more commonly don’t lead spiritually at all. Thankfully many spiritual wives step in to fill the role of the husband for the children’s benefit. There is a reason women far outnumber men in the church, and it’s because the man has fallen short in his responsibilities

  198. Jackie wrote:

    Victorious wrote:

    JP wrote:

    But divorce should always be the last alternative

    Why?

    As one whose parents divorced when I was 12, I know why. This is not at all related to the obvious times that people have mentioned, when divorce is a much better and fully responsible choice- but as far as not being the FIRST answer, there are so many reasons why.

    To be clear, I’m married to a divorced person, so I get it when there is no other alternative. But when you asked why- it struck a nerve. I’ve seen so much distruction in families through divorce being grabbed before some real soul-searching. Again- I’m NOT referring to cases where abuse of any kind is present.

  199. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    Again- I’m NOT referring to cases where abuse of any kind is present.

    Patricia, my “why” question was asked in the context of divorce in cases of abuse. I was questioning why when abuse is present in a marriage, divorce should be a last resort.

    Just wanted to clarify that.

  200. I’m waiting for comment moderation that hopefully will explain why I don’t think divorce needs (or even should) be a last resort.

  201. @ JP: It’s true all marriages are different because no two people are alike. But you won’t be able to support your claim, using the Bible, that men are the “spiritual head” or that it’s his “primary role” to be the “spiritual leader.”

  202. Eagle wrote:

    She’s asking questions about moderation!!! TEAM DEEBS….WATERBOARD HER!!! BREAK OUT THE TRUTH SYRUM

    LOL!

  203. Leadership Journal yanked down that obnoxious article by the ex-youth pastor justifying his criminal sexual assault of a teenage girl. FINALLY.

  204. burnrnorton wrote:

    Finally, I don’t believe relational restoration is a priority, or even ipso facto desirable, in cases of abuse. It is hard enough for abuse victims to heal without forcing them to have a marital relationship with their abuser. I can’t imagine having to live with that fear and the omnipresent PTSD trigger.

    Agreed. I think it’s fine and dandy to want to try and apply the Bible as much as possible with regard to the institution of marriage. But in addition to the Bible I believe we are also endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Sometimes in the course of human events, marriage included, those rights get trampled with no remedy. When they do, it is the right of the trampled to dissolve the bands of marriage and pursue life, liberty, & happiness elsewhere.

  205. JP wrote:

    Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness.

    Yes, I think it should be. But forgiveness is not the same as restoration of trust. Trust cannot be demanded or commanded. It must be earned. You cannot require any abused spouse to fully trust his or her abuser again, no matter how much time passes, or how genuine the repentance is.

    JP wrote:

    If divorce for abuse is sin…

    Well, it’s not. If God of all people thinks that divorcing to protect oneself is sinful, then I think He’s just stupid, and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.

  206. @ Rafki:

    ” I, too, choose to believe that perhaps there are just some things we aren’t meant to know about right now.”
    ++++++++++

    I suppose I see it as “there are just some things we are incapable of knowing about”, beyond glimpses. who can say what we are meant and not meant to know. Thanks for the interaction.

  207. elastigirl wrote:

    there are just some things we are incapable of knowing about

    Your verbiage is a bit clearer, i.e. “incapable of knowing” and captures my opinion about the matter a bit better. 🙂

  208. Bear with me a moment… this from 1 Corinthians:

    Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

    If we are to “judge for ourselves” on such a vital matter as the length of a man’s hair, which the very nature of things should teach us… do we really need to comb through the new testament for technicalities we can use to free a woman, child or man (because there are abusive wives) from a cruel and godless marriage?

    Does not the very nature of things teach us that a person living in constant fear and torment in their very home is exactly the kind of person Jesus came to set free from, among other things, the tyranny of trying to please God through a Law they can never fully obey?

    This whole “freedom for the captives” thing is not something I made up so that I could suck up to a god-hating and sinful culture, in the hope that I could get some money or other sinful gratification on the side. Jesus himself said it. The Church, if I understand correctly what Jesus founded, both can and must stand up, take responsibility, and learn to follow the example of the early church: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. If we act out of love, then we have fulfilled all the Law and the prophets. And the converse is also true – if we fulfil all the Law and the prophets, but not love, our “faithfulness to God’s holy Word” is empty, and full of sin and death.

    There is no truth or “faithfulness to God’s Word” in on the one hand boasting of our doctrine of justification by faith, then on the other hiding our lack of bold compassion behind religious legalese.

  209. JP wrote:

    @ Janey, and see this is part of the issue when trying to apply the bible to things not specifically mentioned. It is a challenge and leads to much disagreement. Protection is provided in those verses, for a slave. Property who had no choice. When the slave owner wanted to “betroth” her, she had no choice. No rights whatsoever. After this I’m going to bow out, as we’re probably not going to come to satisfactory agreement. But let me close with this. Abuse is unacceptable. Safety is paramount. Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness. Genuine repentance is rare. If divorce for abuse is sin, it is readily forgiven by God when we come to Him. And one of the things I think is every bit as important is when a woman leaves an abusive relationship, married or not, that she seek spiritual guidance to be as sure as possible that whatever led her in to an abusive relationship never happens again. Whether she was deceived, naive, or simply unable or unwilling to see the signs, my prayer is any woman who has been abused never finds herself in that situation again

    The point of my comment was at the bottom. Rabbis believed that if it was true for a daughter who enslaved to cover her father’s debt, how much more was it true for one who was not.

    Jesus made it abundantly clear that letter-of-the-law and spirit-of-the-law issues, such as murder/hate and adultery/lust were intertwined and perpetrators of “spirit-of-the-law” violations couldn’t pat themselves on the back and trumpet their innocence.

  210. JP wrote:

    I do believe scripture teaches the man should be the spiritual head of the house, not lord of the house. He should lead his family in to a more intimate relationship with God.

    If I am a mother and wife, would it be a sin for me to lead my family into a more intimate relationship with God? Would I be usurping the role of another? What is wrong for me to do/ be, but right for a man?

    http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/what-the-man-should-be-the-spiritual-leader-did-to-me/

  211.   __

    “Freely Have You Received, Freely Give…”

    hmmm…

     @ Dee

    hey,

      As you know, our Lord Jesus ‘implied’ four things in the scripture passages of John 8:1-11 :

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=LEB

    1. Only God is really qualified to judge.

    2. Only God can forgive sin.

    3. He (Jesus)  is God. He can do both. Yep.
    (expanded and unpacked) :
    a.He Jesus, the Son of God, has brought the means of forgiveness. (His ultimate  death on the cross)
    b. He Jesus, the Son of God, will one day judge the nations. (the righteous judge coming in the clouds…)

    4. Wait for Him.

    (smiley face goes here)

    His eyes are ever upon the sparrow. Faithful is He who has called you, faithful is He who will bring it to pass.

    Love cuz He does.

    *

    Aristides, when describing the first century Christians to the Roman Emperor Hadrian, he said: ‘They love one another. They never fail to help widows. They save orphans from those who will hurt them. If they have something, they give it freely to the man who has nothing. If they see a stranger they take him home, and are happy as though he were a real brother. They don’t consider themselves brothers or sisters in the usual sense, but brothers instead through the Spirit in God’.

    *

    Thank-You for ‘all’ you do for Jesus’ lit’l ones.

    (tears)

    Au pied de la Croix pour l’amour des enfants ,

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: Third Day- “Your Love Oh Lord”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mP4LhdE4vc

  212. @ Retha, the principle behind Ephesians 5 is that if a husband is leading his wife and family in a Godly way, then the wife should have no problem following that kind of leadership. This does not make her under the husbands authority as some are teaching. Marriage is a partnership, not an oligarchy. Christ is to be the head of the relationship, and Ephesians 5 is pretty clear the man is to take the lead role in getting his family to follow Jeses. If a man does not that, someone has to, and the wife should lead her children and hopefully set a Godly example to help her husband see. Sin? I don’t think so. But if a husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church(a acommand that can never be fulfilled perfectly), the wife should be able to follow that type of husband, if she herself is following God. The scripture in Eph 5 has been used inappropriately by some prominent church leaders to set up a position of authority for the husband. In the garden when marriage was established, both Adam and Eve contributed to the fall. Eve was deceived but the sin was assigned to Adam as he was expected to lead, and did not

  213. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Does not the very nature of things teach us that a person living in constant fear and torment in their very home is exactly the kind of person Jesus came to set free from, among other things, the tyranny of trying to please God through a Law they can never fully obey?

    and

    If we act out of love, then we have fulfilled all the Law and the prophets. And the converse is also true – if we fulfil all the Law and the prophets, but not love, our “faithfulness to God’s holy Word” is empty, and full of sin and death.

    I like this 1000 times over, Nick. It infuriates me to see Christians justify cruel and inhumane treatment of others with sanctimonious, pious-sounding garbage. I struggle to think of ways that might help such men and women see that our understanding of the Bible should never negate common sense and human decency.

    Your amazing words, I think, come close to that. At least, they put very clearly how I feel about matters like this. And if they don’t convince the likes of Matt Chandler or John Piper, probably nothing will.

  214. JP wrote:

    s pretty clear the man is to take the lead role in getting his family to follow Jeses

    One of the problems that I have with complementarianism is that there is not a robust explanation available on what “Godly leadership” in the family looks like. Many give flowery stories on the “beauty of God’s design” yet some unable to define what that means.

    What do you do, as leader of your wife and family, that you wife does not, or cannot do?

  215. JP wrote:

    Adam as he was expected to lead, and did not

    Scripture please for Adam being expected to lead.

  216. JP wrote:

    Adam and Eve contributed to the fall. Eve was deceived but the sin was assigned to Adam as he was expected to lead, and did not

    Now that is a stretch-a real stretch.The Bible does not say that. In fact, I contend that Adam was just as deceived as Eve. You paint the picture of Adam sitting back, naming dog breed, while Eve was out “getting deceived.”

    Men, starting with Adam, are just as deceived as Eve. In fact, here is how I read it. Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam was deceived by his wife which speaks to his gullibility as well.

  217. @ Victorious:
    It is vital to the patriarchal narrative that men not appear as “stupid” as Eve since they are the “leaders.” In fact, CBMW has taken this to a whole new level, stating that women will remain in their subordinate throughout eternity because, well Adam, he wasn’t deceived just lazy in leadership.

  218. dee wrote:

    Men, starting with Adam, are just as deceived as Eve

    The condition of many churches/pastors today are living proof of that. Crazy teachings abound!!

  219. Eagle wrote:

    Matt Chandler (Acts 29 President) told her she would be kicked out of the church if she divorced her husband… because his own mother was abused by Matt’s dad…and she took the abuse for many years. He (Matt’s dad) later became a Christian, and said it was because of Matt’s mother’s witness of love and kindness to him in his worst state). /blockquote>

     
    I believe Matt Chandler is very wrong to use this as a reason to coerce a victim of abuse not to divorce her abuser. Taking the personal experience of his own family and laying it out as a rule for all it very very dangerous. How do you know, oh husband, whether you will save your wife? How do you know, oh wife, whether you will save your husband? 1 Cor 7 does not promise that the unbelieving spouse will be saved by the witness of the believing spouse: there is no guarantee. And there are plenty of evidence to show that staying in the abuse is very harmful to the victim and the kids, and can be lethal. Mind you, when the victim leaves, her risk of being killed by the abuser escalates, but as time goes on it generally diminishes and she can rebuild her life without that oppression. 
     
    If Chandler thinks what Eagle reported he thinks, he needs to go and do a basic introductory workshop in domestic abuse from a secular Domestic Abuse Training Agency. Or he could come to A Cry For Justice and read the stories from Christian survivors. 
     
    I have an apppendix in my book Not Under Bondage where I quote Augustine’s recollection of his own family of origin. Augustine says that his father had a terrible temper and his mother put up with it ad infinitum. Augustine did not see his father as an abuser, and he praised his mother for (my words) being a doormat. I think that perhaps Matt Chandler is another case like Augustine. Children of domestic abuse, though they grow up in it, do not necessarily understand all they dynamics of it. What they experience is filtered through their child eyes, and more importantly, through the views the abusive parent and the parent who is targetted by the abuser    and in many cases, those views are very skewed and remain skewed way after the child has reached adulthood. 
  220. @ JP:

    “…then the wife should have no problem following that kind of leadership.

    “and the wife should lead her children and hopefully set a Godly example to help her husband see.

    “…the wife should be able to follow that type of husband, if she herself is following God.
    +++++++++++++++++

    hi, JP.

    you seem like a nice person. I’ve had more than enough of the “shoulds”, though. if you only knew what this is like to hear.

  221. @ Barbara Roberts:

    The scriptures you reference specifically address an “unbelieving” spouse NOT an abusive spouse. I know couples where one is a believer and one not. They are happy to be married and love one another. However, no one in the relationship is abusive. Pastors need to get it through their heads that unbelieving does not equal abuser, but unrepentant abusers are probably unbelievers.

  222. @ Barbara Roberts:

    Augustine had plenty of warped views about many things. I believe it affected his theology immensely, and I don’t understand why scholars want to perpetuate his theology. Calvin references Augustine nonstop in his Institutes.

  223. JP wrote:

    I do believe scripture teaches the man should be the spiritual head of the house

    Scripture, please.

  224. Bridget wrote:

    Augustine had plenty of warped views about many things. I believe it affected his theology immensely, and I don’t understand why scholars want to perpetuate his theology.

    Augustine brought in a lot of baggage from his past, and you have to take that into account. Like his attitude towards sex and women — in his pre-conversion horndog days, women were sex objects; post-conversion as a celibate clergyman, women were forbidden fruit. The guy never had the opportunity to relate to women as people in his entire life.

  225. Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

    I like this 1000 times over, Nick. It infuriates me to see Christians justify cruel and inhumane treatment of others with sanctimonious, pious-sounding garbage.

    “You devour widows and orphans, and for justification make long prayers…”

  226. Bridget wrote:

    The scriptures you reference specifically address an “unbelieving” spouse NOT an abusive spouse. I know couples where one is a believer and one not. They are happy to be married and love one another. However, no one in the relationship is abusive. Pastors need to get it through their heads that unbelieving does not equal abuser, but unrepentant abusers are probably unbelievers.

    I agree, Briget. Unbelieving does not equal abuser — and I believe that’s why Paul said “If the unbeliever consents to live with the believer, the believer should not divorce. . . but if the unbeliever SEPARATES, let it be so.”

    “Consent to live” with means consent to live as a spouse ought to live: with respect for the other person, showing loving care and regard for their needs and wellbeing. It cannot mean just ‘”Yeah I wanna live with her, but I’ll go on abusing her because I enjoy the privileges and power gives me.”

    “SEPARATES” includes divorce — the Greek word was frequently used to mean divorce, the legal ending of the marriage.

    “SEPARATES” can include not just walking out, but so mistreating the other spouse that they flee, they leave, they declare the marriage over. This is abuse and the legal term for that situation is ‘constructive desertion’. The abuser is construed as having caused the separation, even if he is insisting that he wants the marriage to continue. His insistence is just part of his manipulative power and control and coercion.

    And that’s another way of saying what you said, Briget: that unrepentant abusers are probably unbelievers. 🙂

  227. Just some thoughts….

    JP wrote:

    God hates divorce, that is clear.

    Well, if you are referencing a specific OT verse for that claim (i.e., Malachi 2:16), then no, it is not clear. Interestingly enough, this is one the king James version gets better than some of the modern translations – “… he hateth putting away…” Which is the same ‘custom’ Jesus was addressing when questioned by the Pharisees. A specific action that involved cutting off a wife (often the first one that the had – and putting her away with no marriage rights, and no certificate freeing her – and essentially shutting her off – putting her away – with no hope of a future. Yeah, God hates that, I think. But it is not the same word used for divorce – it is a separate thing.

    JP wrote:

    If the abuser remorsefully and repentetly seeks counsel and demonstrates change, what then? To say such a relationship cannot be reconciled is to deny the power God has when we surrender to Him.

    Yes, but to counsel that such a relationship should be restored is a whole other thing. So what if the divorce takes place, the abuse survivor moves on and ends up marrying someone else. But then the abuser gets right with God and the survivor now has to reconcile?
    True repentance never demands forgiveness. True repentance involves an understanding of what was done and that would produce an understanding that the repentant abuser is owed Absolutely. Nothing. from their former victim(s). Period. Any repentance that demands forgiveness and/or dictates in any way what the victim must do is not not not true repentance.

    dee wrote:

    In fact, I contend that Adam was just as deceived as Eve

    Hmm….Dee, what about 1 Timothy 2:14? 😉

  228. Jeannette 

    I am getting ready to throw a big Father’s Day lunch for my husband and family. I will write about 1 Tim2:14 and why I do not believe it applies to this situation. For myself, I have a rule. If something is used as a proof text, and really smart pastors and theologians disagree as to the meaning of the proof text, then we have to be careful in building an entire indistry (CBMW, conference and books) based on such texts. Also, context in this one is important.

  229. @JP: “Retha, the principle behind Ephesians 5 is that if a husband is leading his wife and family in a Godly way, then the wife should have no problem following that kind of leadership.”
    And if a wife lead in a Godly way, a husband should not have problem with following either. (If two Christians marry, sometimes the wife will hear from God first, sometimes the husband.)
    If you agree with what I just said, your words have not given the meaning of “spiritual leadership” yet. If you disagree, then please tell me you do.

    “Ephesians 5 is pretty clear the man is to take the lead role in getting his family to follow Jeses.”[sic]

    Where? What verse say he should take such a role for his family? Does Eph 5 even mention family, other than the wife? Or male lead? http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/how-ofte-does-the-bible-say-men-should-be-the-heads-of-their-households/

    “If a man does not that, someone has to, and the wife should lead her children and hopefully set a Godly example to help her husband see. “

    Erm, I see you don’t call the wife’s “godly example” leading the husband. Exactly what should be part of the man’s “leading” of the wife, but not the wife’s leading/ Godly example. What, precisely, should he do but she should not? Give the exact text that say he should. And the exact text which say she should not.

    ” if a husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church(a acommand that can never be fulfilled perfectly), the wife should be able to follow that type of husband, if she herself is following God.”

    No man does it perfectly, and when he does it (perfectly) women are able to follow? Then tell me, when are women able to follow, and do you give them the burden of following – able or not – when he does not?

  230. That last sentence was unclear: …”when are wives able to follow, and do you give wives the burden of following – able or not – when husbands do not do it perfectly?

  231. @ JP:

    Abuse is as much a violation of the marriage vow as adultery or abandonment. It is an abandonment of the vow to love the marriage partner. It is a sign that the person who abuses is not a Christian, for a Christian should never abuse and should never break a vow. So, a spouse who abuses has already left the marriage, it is only the paperwork that needs to be completed, just as in the case of adultery.

  232. @ JP:

    An abuser broke, and therefor ended the marriage covenant with the first willful or intentional blow. The abuser is a felon in the view of the law, and has abandoned the covenant. Repeat, the ABUSER has ABANDONED the marriage covenant. There is no marriage covenant following abuse. There is only the legal nicety of a license that must be undone, as well as winding up the financial matters between the two parties. I do a lot of “agreed” divorces, which are the best that can be done to prepare for a reconciliation of the divorced parties. But I do not even consider it in the case of abuse.

    I think that pastors who put a couple back together after abuse should be charged with a crime if the abuse is repeated — felony aiding and abetting family violence. And if one of the parties dies as a result of abuse, then the pastor should be charge with aiding and abetting murder, by making the victim vulnerable and available to the murderer. An abuser is a murderer, and the only difference is the deed has not been fully consummated.

    BTW, I feel the same way about counselors — put an abuser back into a home with their victim and stand the risk of felony time for aiding and abetting the abuse.

  233. @ Serving Kids:

    If God of all people thinks that divorcing to protect oneself is sinful, then I think He’s just stupid, and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.

    It infuriates me to see Christians justify cruel and inhumane treatment of others with sanctimonious, pious-sounding garbage.

    I second all of that. John Piper’s position of no divorce and remarriage ever is even more contrary to God’s nature. It’s cruel, disgusting and immoral on top of being terrible exegesis.

  234. JP wrote:

    In the case of abuse, if the abuser over time demonstrates change, what would God want? Would he want the covenant of marriage restored, seeing as He takes it very seriously, or would He want us to just walk away.

    In the case of abuse, there is no covenant of marriage. An abuser is incapable of entering into a covenant relationship with another human being, because abusers do not recognize the abused as being an actual human being. An abuser does not have a wife, you see; the abuser went through the form of marriage in order to have a punching bag. Ergo: there is no marriage to preserve, and (by extension) no marriage to “restore”.
    And this applies even if the abuser turns from his abusive ways forever; even if he never strikes another blow. Because abusers are incapable of understanding what a covenant is. The only thing he is capable of is whining about how sad it is that nobody loves him. They are defective in their understanding of anyone’s feelings except their own.
    Those are the facts……You can argue now & forever, but that is the truth. We are talking about persons without empathy. Such persons will not repent, because they don’t see the point; the only reason they appear to do so, is to get themselves out of prison (where, of course, they no longer have access to their victim pool) so they can victimize all over again, because that’s what they WANT to do; it always was, & it always will be.
    It’s called evil. You should, IMO, already know that.

  235. burnrnorton wrote:

    JP wrote:

    Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness.

    No. Genuine repentance is nice, but it doesn’t deserve honor and the victim owes nothing to the abuser. The reward for repentance is that the penitent is no longer a terrible person and is straight with God, not that the penitent’s human victims forgive and reconcile with them. Also, there is a definitional problem here. Forgiveness is a separate issue from reconciliation and both are separate from the issue of restoration of whatever relationship existed before.

    You also have a consistency problem. You pretty much say that staying open to reconciliation with an abusive spouse (and reconciling and restoring them should they repent) is the price you pay for making b the mistake of marrying them in the first place. So for the mistake of entering an abusive marriage, the abuse victim must wait for as long as it takes for the abusive spouse to repent and reenter the marital relationship if he or she does, no matter how difficult and painful that is. But for the sin and crime of actually committing the abuse, the abuser is owed forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration by his or her victim if he or she demonstrates true repentance. That balance doesn’t seem completely wrong to you?

    Bless you; you are so right here. JP is dead wrong, but he will stick to his guns because if he doesn’t, he’ll have to admit that he is responsible for the welfare of the partner who returns to further abuse–and very possibly to be killed by the abuser. (Oh, but that would make JP an abuser himself, wouldn’t it?)

  236. Hester wrote:

    @ Serving Kids:
    If God of all people thinks that divorcing to protect oneself is sinful, then I think He’s just stupid, and doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.
    It infuriates me to see Christians justify cruel and inhumane treatment of others with sanctimonious, pious-sounding garbage.
    I second all of that. John Piper’s position of no divorce and remarriage ever is even more contrary to God’s nature. It’s cruel, disgusting and immoral on top of being terrible exegesis.

    John Piper is holier than God himself…we all know that’s true. Seriously, can you even begin to imagine what the New Testament would look like if JP wrote it?

  237. An Attorney wrote:

    I think that pastors who put a couple back together after abuse should be charged with a crime if the abuse is repeated — felony aiding and abetting family violence. And if one of the parties dies as a result of abuse, then the pastor should be charge with aiding and abetting murder, by making the victim vulnerable and available to the murderer. An abuser is a murderer, and the only difference is the deed has not been fully consummated.

    Amen!!

  238. Beakerj wrote:

    And I’ve just said shove it to enduring endless neglect (just another form of abuse) myself – I’m 2 weeks in, & her memory gives me strength. I’ll add you to my list of role models when I wobble, because of ‘christian’ guilt.

    I’m sorry, Beakerj, that’s the driest of deserts! Kudos for having enough. I’ll pray comfort for you.

  239. burnrnorton wrote:

    You pretty much say that staying open to reconciliation with an abusive spouse (and reconciling and restoring them should they repent) is the price you pay for making b the mistake of marrying them in the first place. So for the mistake of entering an abusive marriage, the abuse victim must wait for as long as it takes for the abusive spouse to repent and reenter the marital relationship if he or she does, no matter how difficult and painful that is. But for the sin and crime of actually committing the abuse, the abuser is owed forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration by his or her victim if he or she demonstrates true repentance. That balance doesn’t seem completely wrong to you?

    This is so good! I’ve copied it to desktop to remind myself. Thanks much, burnrnorton!

  240. zooey111 wrote:

    burnrnorton wrote:

    JP wrote:

    Genuine repentance should be honored with forgiveness.

    No. Genuine repentance is nice, but it doesn’t deserve honor and the victim owes nothing to the abuser. The reward for repentance is that the penitent is no longer a terrible person and is straight with God, not that the penitent’s human victims forgive and reconcile with them. Also, there is a definitional problem here. Forgiveness is a separate issue from reconciliation and both are separate from the issue of restoration of whatever relationship existed before.

    You also have a consistency problem. You pretty much say that staying open to reconciliation with an abusive spouse (and reconciling and restoring them should they repent) is the price you pay for making b the mistake of marrying them in the first place. So for the mistake of entering an abusive marriage, the abuse victim must wait for as long as it takes for the abusive spouse to repent and reenter the marital relationship if he or she does, no matter how difficult and painful that is. But for the sin and crime of actually committing the abuse, the abuser is owed forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration by his or her victim if he or she demonstrates true repentance. That balance doesn’t seem completely wrong to you?

    Bless you; you are so right here. JP is dead wrong, but he will stick to his guns because if he doesn’t, he’ll have to admit that he is responsible for the welfare of the partner who returns to further abuse–and very possibly to be killed by the abuser. (Oh, but that would make JP an abuser himself, wouldn’t it?)

    Elsewhere on this blog, I see some signs that JP is rethinking his position. I hope that this is true. If so, I would hope that he will return & enunciate that change.
    I cannot apologize for my anger, simply because I firmly believe that anyone who even so slightly lends credence to the abuser’s lies & manipulation is cooperating in the crimes that ensue after the poor victim returns to him. This includes anyone in a pastoral or counselling position to either or both parties. That is being an accessory both before & after the fact, & the law should recognize it as such, & act accordingly. It would save lives.

  241. @ dee:
    if you do write a post about it will you include that since the husband was spending money on hookers he was fornicating/adultering and that is exact cause that Jesus gave for permitting divorce. I fear that the churches these days are doing what the Pharisees of Jesus day did, parcing out pieces of the law to benefit themselves and their churches. Jesus would in no instance condone a man beating his wife.

  242. re: In an unusual twist, Patterson (at the 14:13 mark) mentioned the name of a former president of Baylor University who once admitted a student who was an atheist. That college president was Rufus Burleson.

    It seems like it slipped past most people, but the point Patterson was making was that the founder of Southwestern Seminary, B H Carroll, was that atheist who was admitted to Baylor. Had Baylor not admitted an atheist, that atheist (B H Carroll) would likely not have been converted, and Southwestern Seminary itself would never have been founded.

    MOD[Italics corrected per request]