The Guy From Dubai (TGFD) Presents: Another YRR Flame Out: R W Glenn

 

TWW is pleased to announce that we will be regularly republishing Todd Wilhelm's (aka The Guy From Dubai) posts from his blog Thou Art The Man. We got this idea from The Gospel Coalition which appears to publish posts supportive of SGM as well as featuring those posts from Todd's former pastor, John Folmar. Folmar is the pastor of UCCD which is a clone of Mark Dever's CHBC/9 Marks. UCCD is known to our readers as the Hotel California of the Middle East. Once you join, unless you play it their way, you can't leave, even if you conscientiously, as well as gospelly, object to their actions.You can read Todd's story at My, My Dubai, 9 Marks Plays Hardball.

Todd is an official TWW hero. When he realized that UCCD was selling books by CJ Mahaney, he confronted the pastors and asked them to remove them from the bookstore. As we recently learned from Todd,  John Folmar does not believe that Mahaney has done anything to disqualify him from being a pastor just as his mentor, Mark Dever, has role modeled his unwavering supporter of CJ Mahaney in spite of the implosion of that ministry.

Todd has expressed deep concern and consistent support for those who have experienced child sex abuse while attending SGM churches. When Folmar refused to remove the books from the bookstore, Todd attempted to resign from UCCD. The typical nonsense ensued which you can read about at our linked post. He willingly gave up close associations while living in a foreign  country in order to stand up for the abused. That is the stuff that heroes are made of.

TWW wishes to present another side of what is going on in the rest of the world. Todd is an American living in Dubai for the foreseeable future. He may provide some counterpoint to the regular reports from Dubai at The Gospel Coalition. We plan to repost his articles on either Tuesday or Thursday and occasionally as a replacement for one our posts. 

Disclaimer: Todd does not necessarily concur with everything we write here and I guess TWW doesn't necessarily agree with all of his points of view but I am hard pressed, at this time, to think of one. We are grateful to Todd for granting us this privilege.

(Note: we are having a bit of trouble transferring the audio only files. We hope to get this fixed in the near future. You can visit Todd's post to play those audios until we figure this out.)

I anticipate the typical ho-hum comments about "gossip" in regards to this post. To this I say "Baloney!" RW Glenn published a book with Tim Challies which was pushed as one of those "it" books. R W Glenn was presented as a public role model by John Piper and others. He posted at The Gospel Coalition and was held up as a role model to pastors as well as conference speaker.

Guess what? You don't get to pretend that this man never existed. People have a right to know what happened to the guy whose books, sermons, etc were advertised and sold to the public. The public has a vested interest in understanding why things went wrong; why Challies has removed the book from his website and why R W Glenn is now a "name that must not be spoken." 


 

Another Member of The Young, Restless and Reformed Club Flames Out

 

1 RW Glenn

 

2014-09-11 RW Glen bio

R.W. Glenn was on the cusp of breaking into super star status in the celebrity pastors gospelly club. He was a gifted speaker, senior pastor at a fairly large church, has authored several books, had some minor roles in major conferences and major roles in minor conferences, and had rugged good looks to boot.  You can see R.W. Glenn listed as one of the minor speakers in John Piper’s Desiring God conference of 2012 here.

Glenn has written articles for the Gospel Coalition.  One of them can be found here.

2014-09-11 RW Glenn TGC article

Glenn was friends with Piper as evidenced in this rather bizarre video where they discussed the role of physical exercise in the process of sanctification.

And then there is this video where Glenn demonstrates he holds the acceptable view on church membership.

Redeemer Bible Church of Minnetonka, MN is the church where R.W. Glenn was the senior pastor.  His church is an approved member of both The Gospel Coalition and 9Marks, as evidenced by being listed in their church listings.

2014-09-11 RW Glen church part of TGC Network

 

2014-09-11 RW Glen church part of 9Marks

Everything came to a screeching halt in early August of 2014.  The details are currently a bit sketchy, but it seems R.W. Glenn may have been involved in some moral failures of the sexual nature. A recent screen capture of the Redeemer Bible Church website has this to say:

2014-09-11 FYI RW Glen no longer part of Redeemer

 

Below is an audio from a sermon recently preached at Redeemer Bible Church in which, reading between the lines, you can get a good idea of what has happened.  Of interest to note is that John Piper visited the church the previous week and preached from the book of Ruth.  The sermon is not available on the Redeemer website.  The whole sermon from which the audio was taken can be viewed below the audio clip.

 

 
 
00:00
 
00:00
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not out to crucify R.W. Glenn.  The Bible says in James 3:2 “For we all stumble in many ways.” All humans struggle with sin.  I pray for R.W. Glenn and his former church.  That said, what is amazing to me is the fact that yet another leader in the YRR movement has met with major moral failure.  I think it is time for us average christians to rethink the way we are “doing Christianity.”  Do the parachurch organizations such as 9Marks, The Gospel Coalition and Together 4 the Gospel warrant the large following and  loyal devotion of so many people?   I quoted Carl Trueman in a previous post and he warned that these types of organizations were prone to come off the rails.  It seems like he was prophetic in what he had to say.  Our habit of elevating men to celebrity status, dare I say to the status of gods, sets them up for a fall.  After all, what mere human can maintain his integrity when he is worshipped as some of these preachers are? Surely God is not pleased with this, and I know from experience that many young christians have their faith shattered when their celebrity pastor fails.  Further, perhaps if these groups are spawning so many serious failures amongst the leaders their teachings also warrant scrutiny.  9Marks is real big on membership covenants.  I personally believe they cannot defend their views biblically.  I can also attest to the fact of how much abuse occurs as they subjectively choose to apply these contracts to their members.  Many more items they subscribe to should also be questioned.

Take a look at who R.W. Glenn follows on Twitter.  It’s like a who’s who of the Young, Restless and Reformed Celebrity Pastors Club. This is not to say that because Glenn is following somebody they are also corrupt, but it is interesting to note how the same “crowd” of celebrities hang out with each other, like the same organizations, etc.  It does lend credence to the fact that there is a evangelical industrial complex.

Also of interest to me is how quickly Cruciform press has dumped R.W. Glenn’s latest book he c0-authored with Tim Challies.  Below is an endorsement of the book by Jerry Bridges, a man tainted in my mind because he chose to speak at C.J. Mahaney’s church.  Notice the date – August 4th.

2014-09-11 RW Glenn tweet on book jerry bridges

The scandal seems to have come to light in early August.  Cruciform Books, the company co-founded by Tim Challies,  published “Modest” but now it seems they have dropped the book from their line-up. I searched their web page under “R.W. Glenn,” “Tim Challies” and “Modest” and came up empty.   It can still be found on Amazon, as seen below.

2014-09-11 Modest Book Cover on Amazon

2014-09-11 Modest about the author

Tim Challies refers to the Modest book on his Facebook page, but the link no longer works. His post just below the Modest one is now more than a bit ironic.  I wonder if Challies will soon be coming out with an article telling us how to think biblically about R.W. Glenn? You know, just like the one he wrote titled “How To Think Biblically About C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.”

2014-09-15 Tim Challies FB page missing link to Modest

I was able to find the Challies post here.  Below is a screen shot of the blog article.

2014-09-15 Challies blog on RW Glen Modest book

 

Additionally some Christian book stores have ceased selling Mark Driscoll’s books.  Yet C.J. Mahaney’s books are still widely available. The last time I checked they were still onprominent display in the bookstore located in the lower level of the United Christian Church of Dubai.   Anyone familiar with my story knows that I quit UCCD because they refused to step away from promoting  (at times from the pulpit) C.J. Mahaney’s books.  What gives?  Driscoll’s and Glenn’s books are treated as if they had leprosy, rightly so; why not Mahaney’s?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Comments

The Guy From Dubai (TGFD) Presents: Another YRR Flame Out: R W Glenn — 172 Comments

  1. Rather off topic so ignore/drop if you like de(e/b)…

    Is this site’s criticism of church membership limited to the restrictive/vaguely-worded legal-contract like documents you’ve showcased before? If not, what does a “good” one look like?

    Related question – can you have accountability for the church leadership w/out membership and elders/deacons/etc chosen from those members by the members? (Context of non-denom protestant churches. Guessing the hierarchy of denominations and Catholicism changes the accountability structure)

    (Probably not “second!” by the time I typed this…)

  2. “Preach the Gospel, die, be forgotten.”

    A pastor/preacher/minister either lives by this credo or he/she doesn’t.

    And if he/she doesn’t he/she is not to be trusted. In addition, his/her ministry most likely produces nothing of lasting value.

    Why do we even remember Paul, John, Matthew, etc.? The only reason we have any of the letters of the Apostles is because they were just that, Apostles — it was part of their unique and one-time-only calling to write inspired Scripture. Meanwhile, why don’t we have any of Timothy’s letters or sermons he preached, or Titus’, or Philemon’s, or Epaphras’, etc. etc.? BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GIVE A RIP ABOUT BEING REMEMBERED.

    “Thou must increase, and I MUST DECREASE,” is what every true pastor/preacher/bishop/minister says to Jesus (not TELLS US that he says this to Jesus, but actually says this to Jesus).

    What sort of person agrees to be filmed, with their answers and “wisdom” being posted to the WORLD? Honestly, the degree of hubris required to agree to such a thing….it never ends well for such people.

  3. What gives? Driscoll’s and Glenn’s books are treated as if they had leprosy, rightly so; why not Mahaney’s? Inquiring minds want to know.

    The exact same difference between the books of Emmanuel Goldstein and those of Big Brother (chuckle chuckle).

  4. srs wrote:

    Is this site’s criticism of church membership limited to the restrictive/vaguely-worded legal-contract like documents you’ve showcased before? If not, what does a “good” one look like?

    I am a believer in freedom of conscience. If someone signs a membership contract which is spelled out with specific guidelines on issues like discipline, then the person is informed prior to the signing. In other words, we need to delineate the fine print. So, if some church says that they will bar you from communion if you ask about the salaries of pastors, and if you sign it knowing this is the case, then you have made an informed decision.

    I have yet to see any “good” contracts. Therefore, I will continue to refuse to sign one.

    srs wrote:

    can you have accountability for the church leadership w/out membership and elders/deacons/etc chosen from those members by the members?

    Simple answer…”no.”

  5. pcapastor wrote:

    Honestly, the degree of hubris required to agree to such a thing….it never ends well for such people.

    I love the photo shoot. I had a kid who years ago was interested in acting. I had to get head shots. Needless to say, they were useless. Can you imagine what was going on in this guy’s head when he sat for those photos. He said he wanted to be an actor at one time. Perhaps he became one after all.

  6. I am bit confused as to your joy in the this man’s sin even though you state you are here to not “crucify” him. Why talk about CJ Mahaney, John Piper, Tim Challies? You forgot to mention, his mother, his father and all his friends, if the intent was to list all the people that is associated with him.

  7. Jomy J wrote:

    I am bit confused as to your joy in the this man’s sin even though you state you are here to not “crucify” him.

    Joy? So you are deliberately choosing to misrepresent us?

    Jomy J wrote:

    Why talk about CJ Mahaney, John Piper, Tim Challies?

    Did you not understand the intent of this post? This man was a public figure pushed by public figures. We were told to buy his books, listen to his sermons, go to his conferences, etc. Then, suddenly nothing? That is deceptive. You can’t have it both way. Play in public, pay in public.

  8. dee wrote:

    Joy? So you are deliberately choosing to misrepresent us?

    Because they are Jomy J’s Gods, and Gods Can Do No Wrong.

  9. As a rule of thumb, I don’t trust any pastor with the “styled bed-head”/ metrosexual look…I know it’s superficial, but so far I’m batting a thousand using this rule.

  10. doubtful wrote:

    As a rule of thumb, I don’t trust any pastor with the “styled bed-head”/ metrosexual look

    Add looking like this in an expensive head shot and you may hit perfection. I wonder who paid for it?

  11. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Because they are Jomy J’s Gods, and Gods Can Do No Wrong.

    He has been taught by celebrity YRR demigods who not only have been given special insights into why God sends tornadoes also have been given powers to read the motives of people. Dangerous.

    Frankly, I am getting tired of this nonsense. I tried to preempt it by my introduction but they are not to be dissuaded from their typical ho-hum, sub par analysis.

    It’s the guy’s first time on this blog and he suddenly knows our emotions. Baloney!

  12. “had rugged good looks to boot” He does not look good. Mark Driscoll never looked good either.

  13. dee wrote:

    He has been taught by celebrity YRR demigods who not only have been given special insights into why God sends tornadoes also have been given powers to read the motives of people. Dangerous.

    Isn’t such Speshul Sekrit Knowledge called “Gnostic” in Koine Greek?

  14. Everything came to a screeching halt in early August of 2014. The details are currently a bit sketchy, but it seems R.W. Glenn may have been involved in some moral failures of the sexual nature.

    That just means he got caught and couldn’t cover it up. “Moral failure” — dead woman, live man, or Commander “not sex” with Handmaids a la Gothard or Douggie?

  15. srs wrote:

    Guessing the hierarchy of denominations and Catholicism changes the accountability structure)

    There is an accountability structure in my protestant denomination regardless of the fact that the pastor(s) are not initially selected by the congregations. At the same time there is a system for dealing with problems if and when they happen. Also lots of decisions are done in committees instead of hashing it out in business meetings (like ole timey SBC). I get the impression from some comments that not everybody would be happy with that sort of thing and want more involvement in decision making for more people.

  16. After reading about Piper and Glenn talking about exercise…. I have a question. Is gasteric bypass surgery “gospel centered” especially if it leads to sanctification? Just curious….can you answer that John Piper?

  17. doubtful wrote:

    As a rule of thumb, I don’t trust any pastor with the “styled bed-head”/ metrosexual look…I know it’s superficial, but so far I’m batting a thousand using this rule.

    Me, too. I’ll take a bald guy in a chasuble over a guy who looks like he just stepped off the set of The Vampire Diaries any day.

    In 20 years, YRRs will probably look back at all this, do a facepalm, and mutter to themselves, “What were we thinking?”

    Lord, have mercy on us.

  18. I had never heard of this fellow until a few years ago our Bible study group leader had us listen to, and discuss, a sermon series that Glenn did on marriage.

    Glenn’s views were, of course, hard-lined patriarchy.

    For instance he once proclaimed: “Wives, if your husband asks you to do anything, and it is not sinful to do it, then to refuse is a sin.” (Close paraphrase.)

    (Note, I tried it on my wife later with a “beer me, woman.” Didn’t work out so well.)

    (Another note, the previous note was a joke.)

    Anyhow, his sermon series was the final nail in the coffin of that small group. We’d been drifting into two camps for about a year. Several of the families ate this junk up. Loved it.

    Many of us didn’t.

    In the end, we fissioned off to a safer space. Our group has remained intact and has grown to this day. The other group floundered and died.

    And now I hear this about this guy again in this context. Sort of puts some perspective on his marriage advice. Sadly.

    Why do people fall for this junk?

  19. Why is C.J. Mahaney still given a free pass? Why is True Beauty feted and plugged by all the Reformed bloggers, and the GirlTalkers presumably handed a publishing deal for their next money-spinning project, a book on emotions (those sinful womanly ones, of course).

    Good question. Why? Perhaps because the sins of blackmail, deception, cover-up of sexual abuse of many young children – these are all acceptable. On the other hand, the sin of adultery – which Glenn was presumably caught in – is not. If that’s all he did (which of course we don’t know) it’s a far lesser evil than the manifold, documented sins of C.J. which affected hundreds.

  20. dee wrote:

    He said he wanted to be an actor at one time. Perhaps he became one after all.

    Without making a comment on Robert Glenn, about whom I know very little, there is a very serious point behind all this. In any church culture that prizes oratory and ascribes authority and anointing to gifted speakers, there will always be a very fine line between preacher and actor. This will be as much because we pew-sitters enjoy a good performance as it is because the practor* loves performing.

    I, as a member of the Church, take my share of responsibility for this. For every famous practor performing on stages, there are many more obscure ones, as well as preachers who do not aspire to perform. Their heavenly Father, who sees what is done in obscurity (if not literally in secret), will reward them even if nobody else does.

    * Practor: new word. I submit it for formal adoption as has happened with Deebs.

  21. May wrote:

    Why is C.J. Mahaney still given a free pass?

    Because he has great hair.

    Or perhaps, which is more likely (and being serious now), for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

  22. THE gist of the post and some comments appear to be, Pastor Glen experienced a moral failing because he’s part of the YRR crew.
    *
    So, if he was a moderate Lutheran pastor this wouldn’t have happend?
    *
    Looking at mankind and the history of sin, that doesn’t really compute.

  23. @ srs:

    I’m sure the views on membership contracts are at least slightly diverse around here… but therein lies an illustration in itself.

    Point 1 of 3: the TWW “site”

    None of us signed a contract to be regulars here!

    There’s a Prime Directive. This directive states the following: All commenters must acknowledge the pain some people have experienced at the hand of pastors and churches which overemphasize a particular doctrine or which apply harsh and capricious discipline. TWW exists, in part, to provide understanding in this area. [Deebs] are dead serious about this (even though it is based on a concept from Star Trek). [Deebs] repeat this doctrine under Definitions.

    But other than that, the culture that has grown here over the years has kind of grown itself, and undoubtedly has crystallised because most of us regulars are in some basic way similar in personality and outlook to the Hostesses *. That tends to happen in any sub-group, church or otherwise. Everything produces fruit after its kind, and a contract can’t alter that more than superficially.

    Point 2 of 3: Government by contract

    Studying the topic of best practice in commercial Supplier Relationship Management a while back, I came across an interesting piece that has stuck with me ever since. The author – a secular business person, remember – observed that once either party starts appealing to the contract, it’s generally a sign that the working relationship is breaking down. Likewise, when a car scrapes against the crash-barrier it’s a sign that its driver has lost control.

    The church is made of relationships. A group of believers held together by contracts is no more a living expression of the Church than a frozen collection of donated organs is a person. Membership contracts are mainly written to handle relationship breakdown, and I believe they evolved
    to protect churches from being sued by ex-members. I’m hesitant to condemn their existence too sweepingly – not all ex-members are victims. A few are genuinely divisive and vindictive people. The sad irony is that membership contracts are most effective against leavers who are victims, who were abused and spat out by the organisation but who would never have intended to sue it.

    Point 3 of 3: Communicating rules

    The most important rules in a family-like structure like an expression of the Church are unwritten. The beginning and end of all church rules is love, and although you can describe love, it’s virtually impossible to define it. Indeed, I’d suggest that if it has to be defined then it isn’t love. So to find out what’s expected of a church member, it’s best just to hang around for a few weeks and see what the unwritten rules are – how does everybody behave, what creates awkwardness and tension if you bring it up in conversation, what gets applauded and affirmed, and so on. Those are the real rules, and they may be different from anything on a membership contract.

    * Or “Blog Queens”, as they prefer to be known.

  24. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    THE gist of the post and some comments appear to be, Pastor Glen experienced a moral failing because he’s part of the YRR crew.
    *

    Baloney! The gist of this post is that you don’t push a pastor publicly, tell us to buy his books and listen to his sermons, extol his gifts and then, boom, one day he is gone, his books are gone and no one says a word.

    Honesty demands that we explain that he had a moral failing that was so bad that he no longer exists. R W who? We love to say how wonderful we all are but we refuse to speak the whole truth. In fact, by so doing, we lie about who we are.

  25. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Because he has great hair.

    His hair is easy for the young fanboys to imitate. I have seen it in churches around the South. One guy does the CJ Mahaney head and the rolled pants of a hipster. It looks a bit odd.

  26. E.G. wrote:

    For instance he once proclaimed: “Wives, if your husband asks you to do anything, and it is not sinful to do it, then to refuse is a sin.” (Close paraphrase.)
    (Note, I tried it on my wife later with a “beer me, woman.” Didn’t work out so well.)

    Laughing and crying at the same time!

  27. @ dee:

    Well… husbands and wives do belong to one another. So if he’d gone on to add the converse:

    Husbands, if your wife asks you to do anything, and it is not sinful to do it, then to refuse is a sin (equally close paraphrase)

    then I’d say he had an important and challenging point. Though it’s just possible he forgot to mention the second part.

  28. @ dee:
    How many points do I get for ‘Most adorable blog queens’?

    [This will never get through moderation…]

  29. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    So, if he was a moderate Lutheran pastor this wouldn’t have happend?

    I have not seen too many moderate mainline pastors of whatever denomination proclaiming in public that they (elders) are those to whom one must submit. Nor have I see too many M M pastors acting and looking like they are more interested in their stage appearance than in their message. Maybe some are out there like that, but if so I have missed it.

    So, once you put yourself out there, and your buddies put you out there as somehow “special” and you profit financially from it (book sales) then there is a different dynamic at work. So people then say, uh huh, you and your buddies loved the “special spotlight” and the “success” that went with it, but where is the spotlight now that things are not going so well? And something like, you who were quick to tell other people to repent and confess and accept consequences, does that not apply to you also? That, of course, is a rhetorical question, but a legitimate one.

  30. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    THE gist of the post and some comments appear to be, Pastor Glen experienced a moral failing because he’s part of the YRR crew.

    My take away from this post is that YRR leaders are just as capable of sin as anyone else. However, they have been turned into idols by their adoring fansboys who have somehow forgotten that idolatry is a sin.

  31. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    So, if he was a moderate Lutheran pastor this wouldn’t have happend?

    Can you name several moderate Lutheran pastors who have their faces, sermons, books, tweets, and videos plastered all over the evangelical world wide web? Didn’t think so.

  32. I’m thinking Lutheran pastors speak at conferences, Lutheran pastors “hawk” their writing, have radio spots, try to get on T.V. and climb the ladder at every opportunity for positions that will pay them more.
    *
    I’m pretty sure their moral failings are right up their too. HOWEVER, more liberal denominations may be more accepting of moral failings while not so much in conservative evangelical circles;
    In evangelical circles cheating on your wife is a sure-fire way to lose your pastorate and the spot on the dias. I’d say the conservative evangelicals have a HIGHER STANDARD for moral failings.

  33. @ senecagriggs yahoo:
    Seneca, are you really such a dolt? No one, and I mean NO ONE suggested that ANYONE should get a pass for moral failings, Lutheran or otherwise. The assertion is that his personality flaws were coddled by the theology of the YRR, and found solace and company there. UNTIL he committed the only sin currently receiving swift summary judgement from the big cheeses- personal sexual impropriety. Swift judgement and no discussion of the fall, while other sins (pride, verbal abuse, Machiavellian power grabs, mistreatment of spouses/subordinates, questionable use of church funds, intentional “ignorance” of sexual abuse of children,etc) go unnoticed. The reprehensible thing, dear Seneca, is that buddy Bob was held up as a paragon of wisdom and virtue and expert advice in the very area in which he HAS NOW FALLEN, and suddenly no one has a word to say. He just gets disappeared from all pertinent websites with no commentary on how the mighty have fallen. This behavior exposes the sham that is at their core– the peons who actually wrestle with these issues, and are earnestly seeking to honor God despite their weaknesses, are left hanging when the supposed expert advisors fail and then disappear. The peons(of which I am one) then struggle with hopelessness regarding how THEY can ever overcome their own sins and wondering how Jesus isn’t enough. Do you get it? The great leaders have created a false construct that shipwrecks the faith of the little people, and then strands them with no lifeboat, and no SOS because NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. Seneca, I hope if you have a wife, you are not thus intentionally obtuse at home.

  34. Nick Bulbeck said:

    “In any church culture that prizes oratory and ascribes authority and anointing to gifted speakers, there will always be a very fine line between preacher and actor.”

    I think a perennial problem within Christianity is the assumption that a man who is a natural leader with obvious speaking skills must be anointed by the Holy Spirit Himself with the gifts to be a pastor, bishop, etc. Just look at John Chrysostom. What looks like his surname was actually a nickname that meant “golden mouth”, in recognition of his giftedness in the pulpit and with the pen. Then there were guys like George Whitefield who were naturals at drawing (entertaining?) a crowd. Any time somebody is outwardly successful, God must have done it.

  35. Billy Allred wrote:

    I’m listening to the piper sermon now. Perhaps they just added it.

    Piper’s sermon was not on the Redeemer Bible Church blog when I wrote the post, but as you mentioned, it is now. I just listened to it. Admittedly not a Piper fan, I wanted to highlight a few items I found “interesting”:

    Piper was relating when his church went through a similar experience 20 years ago. His elders were all lined up front to inform the church of their disciplinary plan for the fallen pastor. A single mom and her daughter were in attendance at the service for the first time. Her daughter was impressed with the process and wanted to return to the church.

    It strikes me as a bit odd to not take care of this disciplinary process in a closed door meeting for members. I suppose this is how some churches do things, but growing up in Minnesota I can attest to the fact that we are generally a very reserved people and handling a meeting like this would be offensive to most. Piper can consider himself fortunate that only 230 people quit his church.

    Piper spoke of how you can look into an offender’s face and tell him that you forgive him, but you do not trust him. He said trust is built and earned and when destroyed it takes a long time to get it back. He then used an example of a babysitter that has abused your children; you forgive them but you don’t hire them again.

    All the while I am thinking – “and this applies to Piper’s trust of Mahaney how?” Does he not see any parallels?

    At the 26 minute mark and again at the 32 minute mark Piper compares Ruth and Orpah. First he uses the ruse “one of the ways I could have preached on this,” implying that he wasn’t going to follow that line of reasoning, but then immediately begins preaching utilizing that line of reasoning. What he says is, in my opinion, shameful. He said the situation at Redeemer was going to separate the “Ruths” from the Orpahs.” How so? The Ruths would stay true to God, even though it looks bleak at the moment. The Orpahs would leave. He implies that if an individual decides to leave the church they are choosing to turn away from God and turn to paganism! I believe my interpretation of what Piper says is correct because in the sermon the week after Piper’s, included in this post by one of Redeemer’s pastors, the comment was made that they had not yet lost a single member.

    What really chafes me is the pressure Piper is placing on the church members to not leave. I say leave. Run away. In my opinion God has exposed this church because of its corrupt leaders and corrupt system. Leaving may be hard, made even harder by idols like John Piper, but if you leave you will be much better off. Here is an interesting quote left on my blog by a woman who formerly attended Redeemer:

    “The result of what IS taught, however, causes people to hide what they are doing. I have dealt with the Elders there. Not pleasant by any means and I wasn’t living in some big ugly sin. Don’t take their silence wrongly. I pity what Glenn is likely being served up. If he has repented, there is unlikely to be much grace shown anywhere, ever by them.”

    Link to Piper’s sermon: http://redeemerbiblechurch.com/resources/sermons/bitter_providence_and_barley_harvest

  36. Pastor RW sinned like you and me and Piper, apostle Paul and apostle Peter (who was shown favoritism!). If you do not like the theology or “YRR” movement, then that is a different topic to disucss. The right course of action was taken here as he was placed on leave and we pray all those that are involved here are being counseled and restored over time. This involves women, men and children. They are your brother and sister in Christ. The focus on this posting is about his connection with Challies, gospel coalition and Piper. I am a little disturbed here that there is brokeness here and your focus is on his circle of friends and how they recommended his books. We are all limited in our nature and we are all capable of falling from thrones on any given day. i will testify to that. I think false theology and injustices need to be called out. I am not against that. However, neither one is happening here. This calls for prayer and for us to run the feet of Jesus for broken families.

  37. dee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    * Or “Blog Queens”, as they prefer to be known.
    I prefer adorable blog queens.

    With references to Star Trek running around here, my eyes first read that as “Borg Queens”!! O_O

  38. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The author – a secular business person, remember – observed that once either party starts appealing to the contract, it’s generally a sign that the working relationship is breaking down.

    Ain’t that the truth?

  39. Jomy J wrote:

    We are all limited in our nature and we are all capable of falling from thrones on any given day.

    Sigh. The sin equivalency argument. We are all the same worms. I am one who does not believe the resurrection “limits” us as much as some want us to believe. As if we have NO choice but to have sex outside marriage, spiritually abuse others, cheat, steal, etc, etc. Or whatever the equivalent du jour.

    I think the point is that he sought to be a very public preacher/pastor paid to interpret to others what Jesus says about how to live. Let us not miss the HUGE point.

  40. Jomy J wrote:

    I am a little disturbed here that there is brokeness here and your focus is on his circle of friends and how they recommended his books.

    No brokenness here from what I can see.

    There is, however, a healthy and necessary critique of the culture of Celebrity Pastors (TM) whereby the wagons belonging to other Celebrity Pastors (TM) are circled quickly around the Big Men and the Cone of Silence descends.

    Obviously, regular old pew-sitting sheep must not question, criticize, or discuss the actions of the Celebrity Pastor (TM) class.

  41. Jomy, the point of this blogpost is not who is friends are (WERE), but the culture, hypocrisy etc, rampant in the YRR, and how that plays out in the lives of the real people. These real people have been encouraged (COMMANDED) to emulate (IDOLIZE) and follow (SILENTLY OBEY) the LEADERS. When the leaders are outed as frauds, the real people are not treated honestly, and the incident is swept ubder the rug while a new Golden Boy is selected. Yes, there is tragedy in Bob’s family, but the larger tragedy is the disservice done to the body. @ Jomy J:

  42. Seneca

    Except when if comes to child sex abuse and domestic violence. Then we cover up that as well

  43. pk47tech wrote:

    dee wrote: Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    * Or “Blog Queens”, as they prefer to be known.

    I prefer adorable blog queens. With references to Star Trek running around here, my eyes first read that as “Borg Queens”!! O_O

    Love it!

  44. Lydia wrote:

    I am one who does not believe the resurrection “limits” us as much as some want us to believe. As if we have NO choice but to have sex outside marriage, spiritually abuse others, cheat, steal, etc, etc. Or whatever the equivalent du jour.

    Only if you’re a Big Name CELEBRITY Apostle with Perfectly Parsed Theology.

    Then like CELEBRITIES (and Gods) You Can Do No Wrong.

  45. Lisa wrote:

    The reprehensible thing, dear Seneca, is that buddy Bob was held up as a paragon of wisdom and virtue and expert advice in the very area in which he HAS NOW FALLEN, and suddenly no one has a word to say. He just gets disappeared from all pertinent websites with no commentary on how the mighty have fallen.

    doubleplusungood ref doubleplusunperson.
    memhole.
    oceania has always been at peace with eurasia, comrade.
    LLBB.

  46. Eagle wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    After CJ Mahaney I’d say Patrick Stewart redeems the bald head!

    Scary part is, The Humble One(TM) kind of resembles Captain Picard.

  47. Jenny wrote:

    Me, too. I’ll take a bald guy in a chasuble over a guy who looks like he just stepped off the set of The Vampire Diaries any day.
    In 20 years, YRRs will probably look back at all this, do a facepalm, and mutter to themselves, “What were we thinking?”

    Type Example:
    Barack “Barry” Obama’s senior prom pictures.
    With the HUGE Afro.

  48. Jenny wrote:

    Me, too. I’ll take a bald guy in a chasuble over a guy who looks like he just stepped off the set of The Vampire Diaries any day.

    At a former parish of mine several years ago, we had a Permanent Deacon who was a dead ringer for Archie Bunker — physical resemblance, blue-collar background, even similar voice. His “testimony” (life story, actually) was something you never forgot — from “In construction, just like Our Lord and St Joseph, only I’m Union and they weren’t” to his oldest son dying as a teen from a freak Reye’s Syndrome reaction to aspirin.

  49. Jomy J wrote:

    . The focus on this posting is about his connection with Challies, gospel coalition and Piper. I am a little disturbed here that there is brokeness here and your focus is on his circle of friends and how they recommended his books.

    You still do not seem to get our point. All of RW’s celebrity friends foisted him on the public, recommending that we embrace his teachings. However, when he has a fall, they all go silent. They have an obligation to inform the public the reason for their sudden silence on the matter. It is the honest thing to do,

    Instead, we live in a dishonest mindset. We recommend, extoll, invite in public. Then when the inevitable happens we go silent. Frankly, this calls into question some of his teachings and recommendations. There should be a caveat emptor on his stuff. But, no, we pretend like he never existed.

    Let me repeat-this is not about how the recommended his books. It is how they suddenly don’t talk about them anymore. That is deceptive.

  50. Lisa wrote:

    Yes, there is tragedy in Bob’s family, but the larger tragedy is the disservice done to the body.

    Well said.

  51. Jomy J wrote:

    This calls for prayer

    Really? So why didn’t they announce that they want us to pray? They have said absolutely nothing.

  52. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I’m thinking Lutheran pastors

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    HOWEVER, more liberal denominations may be more accepting of moral failings

    Oh really? All Lutherans are “liberal?” You sure about that? Would you like me to give you a little lesson on the matter? I thought you were well-informed?

  53. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Can you name several moderate Lutheran pastors who have their faces, sermons, books, tweets, and videos plastered all over the evangelical world wide web?

    *Applause*

  54. “The assertion is that his personality flaws were coddled by the theology of the YRR, and found solace and company there.”

    I beg to differ. Friends tend to support friends. Pastors, knowing full well the criticism they always get, are pretty much protective of each other. As mentioned before, nost of these guys live in glass houses and are slow to throw stones at their peers.

    THIS ISN’T A YRR THING.

    Did you not follow the Roman Catholic scandal? The assertion is that his personality flaws were coddled by the theology of the YRR, and found solace and company there. What about the Catholic Priests who raped little boys were simply sent on to their next assignment by their bishops.

    The conservative Evangelical community is NOT in the habit of sending pastors who commit moral misdeeds on to their next church with no one the wise. Has there been some well noted cases where that happened? Yes. But it’s not many;
    Evangelicals really, really don’t like pedophiles.
    *
    TWW wants to suggest that the YRR crowd is actually worse then other pastoral/denominational groups.

    Don’t think you have a case. Not if you look at the facts.

  55. “Except when if comes to child sex abuse and domestic violence. Then we cover up that as well”

    They tell us to keep our mouths shut about it and get over it. Beating women and children, sexually abusing women and children is no big deal. Not being submissive to your creepy self-worshiping father or husband, outrageous.

  56. Lisa wrote:

    Bob was held up as a paragon of wisdom and virtue and expert advice in the very area in which he HAS NOW FALLEN, and suddenly no one has a word to say

    Someone else has picked up on this part of the post as well. Is it a coincidence that this occurred? Isn’t this spiritual warfare, being attacked on the very point where we think/deceive ourselves we are strong, so that the damage if we fall is all the greater? I think 1 Tim 3 : 6-7 is particularly appropriate here.

    As for nothing being said about it, the repentence ought to be a public as the sin, presumably just those directly involved and the local church. The details don’t need to be publicised to all and sundry.
    Sweeping it under the carpet by just removing articles and links etc. is also wrong. A discreet but truthful explanation is a minimum I would have thought. Would also have the advantage of cutting out speculation and rumour-mongering about what really went on. No false accusations, no attempts to defend the indefensible.

  57. Rafiki wrote:

    There is, however, a healthy and necessary critique of the culture of Celebrity Pastors (TM) whereby the wagons belonging to other Celebrity Pastors (TM) are circled quickly around the Big Men and the Cone of Silence descends.

    Obviously, regular old pew-sitting sheep must not question, criticize, or discuss the actions of the Celebrity Pastor (TM) class.

    The Redeemer Bible Church website states to call the church or return to their website in coming days for further information. Until an official statement is issued by the church, I think it is inappropriate to speculate or jump to conclusions regarding R W Glenn, even if such speculation may ultimately prove to be accurate.

  58. dee wrote:

    They have said absolutely nothing.

    My late father had a saying:

    “Only a lawyer can talk for two hours and say absolutely nothing.”

    Looks like it’s not just lawyers.

  59. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I’d say the conservative evangelicals have a HIGHER STANDARD for moral failings.

    Well, they certainly have much longer lists of what constitutes "sin" than more moderate denominations. I dare say that the Lutheran pastor would not have to resign from the pulpit because of a glass of beer or an undergrad degree from a catholic university. I saw an argument in a church where we were, once, as to whether a guest speaker should be "denied the pulpit" because he had on a colored shirt instead of a white one (a transgression on somebody's list). So, yes, conservative evangelicals would be more apt to condemn "sin" including pretend sin, and denominational preference re-labeled as sin, and abject silliness also called sin. I use the word "moderate" because there are liberal groups out there that make Lutherans and Methodists and such look like fundamentalists in comparison.

  60. E.G. wrote:

    For instance he once proclaimed: “Wives, if your husband asks you to do anything, and it is not sinful to do it, then to refuse is a sin.” (Close paraphrase.)

    As a member of the male gender for decades, trust me, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE SEX.

    E.G. wrote:

    (Note, I tried it on my wife later with a “beer me, woman.” Didn’t work out so well.)
    (Another note, the previous note was a joke.)

    I find it’s more efficient to snap fingers sharply, hold hand out, then wife scurries up and places beer there, no need to say “beer me” if the woman’s properly trained.

    Actually, were I to try that, my wife would either roll her eyes or dump said beer in my lap and my teenage daughters would laugh uproariously.

  61. Nancy wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    I’d say the conservative evangelicals have a HIGHER STANDARD for moral failings.
    Well,they certainly have much longer lists of what constitutes “sin” than more moderate denominations. I dare say that the Lutheran pastor would not have to resign from the pulpit because of a glass of bear or an undergrad degree from a catholic university. I saw an argument in a church where we were, once, as to whether a guest speaker should be “denied the pulpit” because he had on a colored shirt instead of a white one (a transgression on somebody’s list). So, yes, conservative evangelicals would be more apt to condemn “sin” including pretend sin, and denominational preference re-labeled as sin, and abject silliness also called sin.

    If you don’t have the Holy Spirit in the first place or, in the alternative, if you do but have simply stopped listening as you idolize men, it’s remarkable what an ass you will make of yourself as you strive for righteousness. You’ll look more foolish than the average atheist.

  62. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    dee wrote: They have said absolutely nothing. My late father had a saying: “Only a lawyer can talk for two hours and say absolutely nothing.” Looks like it’s not just lawyers.

    I'm not only a lawyer, but I teach it at a university. I've reached the stratospheric levels where I can talk for one solid semester, three days a week, and say absolutely nothing.

  63. Jomy J wrote:

    Pastor RW sinned like you and me and Piper, apostle Paul and apostle Peter (who was shown favoritism!). If you do not like the theology or “YRR” movement, then that is a different topic to disucss. The right course of action was taken here as he was placed on leave and we pray all those that are involved here are being counseled and restored over time. This involves women, men and children. They are your brother and sister in Christ. The focus on this posting is about his connection with Challies, gospel coalition and Piper. I am a little disturbed here that there is brokeness here and your focus is on his circle of friends and how they recommended his books. We are all limited in our nature and we are all capable of falling from thrones on any given day. i will testify to that. I think false theology and injustices need to be called out. I am not against that. However, neither one is happening here. This calls for prayer and for us to run the feet of Jesus for broken families.

    I guess in large part many people’s focus is on why this celebrity culture is not rejected by more Christians and why people such as you can’t see that it in large part contributes to problems such as this. Men rather than Jesus are put on pedestals, they receive huge honoraria, they get big advances on book deals, they’re coiffed, they’re cute, they’re trendy, but many of these heroes are spiritually vacuous.

    As for the theology, I completely disagree with you, I think the theology itself is bad, I also think it’s an injustice to Christendom to exalt people like this.

    No, you are wrong, NOT everyone falls like this, not everyone does these things. We all sin, but no, you’re wrong.

  64. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    The conservative Evangelical community is NOT in the habit of sending pastors who commit moral misdeeds on to their next church with no one the wise. Has there been some well noted cases where that happened? Yes. But it’s not many;
    Evangelicals really, really don’t like pedophiles.

    Darrell Gilyard was sent on. John Langworthy was sent on. And these involved big names: Prestonwood Baptist, Paige Patterson, etc. It goes on in smaller churches. You obviously to do read Amy Smith’s blog which keeps track of the weekly, if not daily, reports of pastors and sex abuse. Go over to Stop Baptist Predators. Boz Tchvidijian says we are as bad, if not worse that the RCC.

    Now, your comment about TWW wanting to suggest that YRR is worse than other groups when if comes to sexual misconduct is patently false. You know what annoys me, Senenca-you know all of this yet you regularly distort that information. I am trying to figure out why you are doing this.

    I am going to watch you comments very carefully. If I believe you are deliberately being misleading in your comments, you will not be approved. I am getting quite tired of your game playing. Sometimes, i believe that you are trying to be trollish.

    Why don’t you start your own blog? Since your arguments seem to be compelling to you, perhaps you will be a success.

  65. Law Prof wrote:

    No, you are wrong, NOT everyone falls like this, not everyone does these things. We all sin, but no, you’re wrong.

    This is becoming the latest meme from these groups. We are all sinners- so what?

    Here is a post written by Collin Hansen, the guy who coined the term YRR. In it, he bemoans the fact that you can live a life of fame and fortune, doing much good then lose it in the end like Paterno. He discusses how we should confess our sins. But, IMO, he doesn’t seem to understand that certain sins, like pedophilia and the covering up of pedophilia, is worthy of greater condemnation and should result in the loss of moral authority for the rest of one’s life.

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/authority-in-weakness/

  66. @ dee:

    NATE MORALES was sent on to further abuse!! This was verified in court by one of the pastors who sent him on his way.

  67. Seneca “j” Griggs, you really don’t want me telling my story about the southern Baptist wife beating convention.

  68. JLaw Prof wrote:

    Actually, were I to try that, my wife would either roll her eyes or dump said beer in my lap and my teenage daughters would laugh uproariously.

    Glad I’m not alone in that department . . . 😉

    Now, if I was in the kitchen and asked nicely to get something for hubby on my way back to where he was, that would be another story.

  69. dee wrote:

    Here is a post written by Collin Hansen

    Yes, Collin, blame the loss of moral authority on the tele-evangelists and on the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure you never imagined it could come from within the ranks of the Young Restless and Reformed movement, eh?

  70. Dee was mentioned in the Seattle Weekly newspaper doing an article on Driscoll survivors:

    “But there was another phenomenon going on too, several observers have noted. Dee Parsons—the North Carolina co-founder of a blog, The Wartburg Watch, that writes often about Mars Hill—says that even prominent evangelical leaders around the country looked the other way because Driscoll was attracting large crowds in “godless Seattle.” “Therefore, we have a success story,” she says they reckoned.”

    http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/954633-129/the-reckoning-of-mars-hill

  71. Segue, referring to the Seattle Mars Hill article that Dee posted in the top banner.

    A well done article, and especially for the calling of spiritual PTSD, “Mars Hill stress syndrome”.

    Quote, ” It didn’t help that Driscoll, according to McPherson, let it be known that his wife underwent Caesarian sections because he didn’t like wide hips”.

    Ummm, what? Giving birth a la naturale doesn’t give you wider hips, you’ve either already got ‘wider’ hips or you haven’t. You get whatever you’ve been given out of the genetic lottery. Or have I missed something in biology I shouldn’t have?

    Dee’s comments on megachurches – touche. I would like to see a pew survey of the views of those who are ‘unchurched’ towards megachurches. And they should care what those on the ‘outside’ think of them. Enough already with moving away from transparency and shaming those who leave and speak out.

    Last point from the first commenter on the article: “Remind me again, why are religious institutions accorded tax free status?” I suggest this will be asked by many more also.

    A question for TWW men, do you relate to the below quote? Do you personally think church experience is emasculating and too feminine to be comfortable? (or should I phrase the question differently?)

    “McPherson admits, however, that there was something appealing about Driscoll’s masculinity. “It felt like I could be a man and love God at the same time, where at most churches I felt that I had to castrate myself,” he says. “

  72. @ dee:

    That article lost me right from the get go. What does “moral authority” mean exactly? Does he mean “morality” in general? How do you have authority in your morals? Then the term was used so often that the article just became one long blurred bit of nothingness.

    “Moral Authority” is the title and basis of the article, but the author never defines what that means to him.

  73. dee wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    No, you are wrong, NOT everyone falls like this, not everyone does these things. We all sin, but no, you’re wrong.
    This is becoming the latest meme from these groups. We are all sinners- so what?
    Here is a post written by Collin Hansen, the guy who coined the term YRR. In it, he bemoans the fact that you can live a life of fame and fortune, doing much good then lose it in the end like Paterno. He discusses how we should confess our sins. But, IMO, he doesn’t seem to understand that certain sins, like pedophilia and the covering up of pedophilia, is worthy of greater condemnation and should result in the loss of moral authority for the rest of one’s life.
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/authority-in-weakness/

    I think in part it’s the theology. The notion of total depravity has a paradoxical effect on many Calvinists: rather than causing them to own their sinful natures and be personally heartbroken and thus treat others with kindness, recognizing the vast gulf between them and a perfect God, it causes many to make sin an abstraction. It’s a theological debate, not a heartfelt reality. For example, a teenage girl at a neocalvinist church where I was a leader (before being booted of course) was abused both physically and emotionally by a 20-something member of the worship team. When confessing his sin, he said only “Oh, the heart is desperately wicked!” Mind you, not MY heart.

    Total depravity for many is a tool for denying sin, it’s an abstraction fit for a book of systematic theology that can put hefted up onto a shelf, or diluted by stating “We’re all in the same boat, any one of us could fall just the same way.”

    It’s the same thing as one saying “The devil made me do it.” or the favorite of children “But everyone else did it.” It’s just masked by fancy phrases and hidden behind theological degrees and name-dropping of the appropriate theologians. But it’s exactly the same thing.

  74. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    THE gist of the post and some comments appear to be, Pastor Glen experienced a moral failing because he’s part of the YRR crew.

    Nah. I’m old enough to remember the likes of the Bakkers, Swaggart, et al. And more recently Haggard, Bill Gothard, and others.

    What ties these people together with Mahaney, Driscoll, Harris, and Glenn? It’s not theology? Most of the above are/were likely Arminian in their leanings… if anything. (Frankly, I’d bet it would be hard to find an identifiable “theology” with most of those folks.)

    So, it’s obviously not theology*, per se. Rather, it is things like consolidation of power, prestige, “rock stardom”, etc.

    It just so happens that the YRR thing is a bit of a (waning) fad right now. So most of the types who go for church-as-vehicle-to-prestige-and-power glom onto neo-Reformed theology. It’s the best way to fuel their ride to the top because there are a zillion adoring, mainly male, young and hipsterish fans out there to support them.

    As this YRR fad dies out – and it will because the next generation of young-and-impressionables won’t find it cool to follow an old trend – something else will take its place. That something may be wrapped in faux theology. Or it may be… anything else. The Evangelical Industrial Complex is nothing if it ain’t creative.

    —–

    *One might argue quite well, however, that YRR neo-Calvinism is well suited to support power and prestige churches because of the underlying assumption of being chosen plus patriarchal caste system dynamics.

  75. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ dee:
    Well… husbands and wives do belong to one another. So if he’d gone on to add the converse:
    Husbands, if your wife asks you to do anything, and it is not sinful to do it, then to refuse is a sin (equally close paraphrase)
    then I’d say he had an important and challenging point. Though it’s just possible he forgot to mention the second part.

    There was no mention of the second part.

    And I’m still waiting for my beer.

  76. Hmmm, I just noted that these marriage/family sermons are from 2004. How old is Glenn now? Maybe 40 at best (unless he just looks really young)?

    So, we was likely, at best, 30 when doing this series.

    I can tell you, at 30-ish (or younger?!?!) there’s no way I’d have the gall to give marriage/family advice. Even now in my mid-40s, hardly.

  77. E.G. wrote:

    I can tell you, at 30-ish (or younger?!?!) there’s no way I’d have the gall to give marriage/family advice. Even now in my mid-40s, hardly.

    Lesley and I were both 24 when we married, and I would certainly have taught a series on marriage at 30. But then, I’m unusually vain and self-important, and love the sound of my own voice. Apart from when I listen to recordings of myself, when my voice sounds much more nasal (and, therefore, petulant) than it really is.

  78. @ Bridget:
    I am so glad you feel that way. I want to write about that post. I believe he downplays the heinous nature of child sex abuse.

  79. @ TW:
    Quoting ‘He said the situation at Redeemer was going to separate the “Ruths” from the Orpahs.” How so? The Ruths would stay true to God, even though it looks bleak at the moment. The Orpahs would leave. He implies that if an individual decides to leave the church they are choosing to turn away from God and turn to paganism!’

    Maybe I’m being pernickety but was it not Orpah who stayed and Ruth who left and went with Naomi back to Israel? I wonder what would be ‘Moab’ today?

  80. @ E.G.:
    Yep-he knew how to do it, didn’t he? It reminds me of a youth pastor who was convinced that if we just followed his SS curriculum, our kids would grow up to be giants of the faith-an odd belief for a man who believed that God chose some to be saved and some not.

    Needless to say, he raised a kid who was the prodigal on steroids. I wonder what he says now.

  81. E.G. wrote:

    The Evangelical Industrial Complex is nothing if it ain’t creative.

    Boy, isn’t that the truth? 🙁

  82. @ Bridget:
    @ dee:
    I know right? He writes: “But the Penn State scandal erupted, much like it did in the Roman Catholic Church, precisely because the public expected more from men who claimed to live by higher standards.”

    Because the public doesn’t expect anyone but leaders not to have s*x with children.

    Oy.

  83. My husband’s astute observance: why do those who fall over into a hyper, even hyper hyper form of Calvinism always just know they not only are elect but anointed to greatness and authority? Wouldn’t some be anointed to clean the toilets?

  84. Haitch wrote:

    A question for TWW men, do you relate to the below quote? Do you personally think church experience is emasculating and too feminine to be comfortable? (or should I phrase the question differently?)
    “McPherson admits, however, that there was something appealing about Driscoll’s masculinity. “It felt like I could be a man and love God at the same time, where at most churches I felt that I had to castrate myself,” he says. “

    I find nothing appealing about Driscoll’s “masculinity”; witness his whining on his blog after the interview with Justin Brierley over here. He talks like a man, but he fights like a girl. (As it were.) The biggest reason he is able actually to intimidate so many members of his church is that they lower their social and emotional guard against him in the mistaken belief that he will play by the same rules. Also, of course, enough people will stand with him to make it very difficult to stand up to him without being isolated and ostracised. That’s not manhood. He’s not man enough to repent, for one thing.

    BUT, oddly enough, I think there is an issue regarding the infantilisation of believers. I mean a culture that constantly talks about resting in God’s loving arms, “wombs of liquid love”, how everybody is hurting and broken and hurting, and did I mention how hurt you all are, in fact everything hurts you and leaves you needing to be healed, and moreover every issue that ever faces every person is all about hurt and can be treated by gently healing them in a gentle and non-threatening, yet gentle, environment. That builds churches along the path of least resistance and that cultivates no perseverance, resilience or overcoming faith in the face of adversity. Or, that sings constantly about a love affair with our lovely boyfriend, beautiful Jesus. And yes, I’ve seen all of this and could easily give names, dates and times (though I won’t). And of course there is no shortage of exceptions.

    I repeat: this kind of culture appeals to some – both men and women – but it stifles and repels many others, both men and women, because it infantilises (not feminises) them. This is misinterpreted by patriarchalists as the “feminisation of men” simply because they believe women are weak, helpless and infantile – that is, they believe women are effectively babies. Thus, when they encounter gentle_gentle_gentle Christianity that treats them like babies, they think they’re being treated like women.

  85. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Oh, yes indeedy do. You are somewhere on the genius continuum. We could all talk about that for a week. And probably there are a lot of personal stories of getting resistance in various ways when one insists in acting like a grown up. Or worse, insists that others recognize one’s grownup-ness.

    And no, it is not about femaleness. Females come in different kinds for different reasons in this matter, just like males do.

    One example along that line: this week their mom had to drop the 9 year old from a particular after school program because the racial bullying could not be brought under control, and the 9 year old was wanting to hide her face behind her hair to hide the “flat nose, flat face, Chinese” insults. She was way not able to handle it and neither could the adults make it stop.

    So the 12 year old was consulted for advice, since she was also the subject of racial bullying at about that age but with different results. The 12 year old confirmed that the situation was bad (and the teachers had confirmed the stories) but the older had some advice for the younger. I quote: “Toughen up Buttercup!” The 12 year old, at age 10, had chased down her bullies on the playground, thrown the leader to the ground, jumped on top of her and was whapping the #$% out of her when a teacher pulled her off–and that ended that. The younger is too shy and too physically small and is being bullied by boys, so that is not going to happen. But everybody at school thinks the younger is so wonderful because “she never gives anybody any trouble and is so sweet.”

    I see this difference in response played out in churches and on the job and pretty much in humanity at large. Thing is, in church you are a sinner if you defend yourself or think for yourself or ask the wrong questions or make somebody else feel “uncomfortable” or gracious help you is you eventually get up with some people who think like you do. Of course you are not one of the elect if you just head out the door and shake the dust off your feet. Never mind that such actions are grown up, and effective, and the dust off the feet at least is clearly biblical.

    How often is it said at church, in effect, come to us, little one, and we will love on you and tell you every move to make and eventually bully you, because that is in the nature of things. School, church, family, job; it can happen anywhere. The person who is or lets themselves be infantalized (smaller, younger, more placid, more bound by “the rules”) loses and then has no way to solve the hurt. But “toughen up Buttercup” is of course defined as sin at the church house.

    I have to quit now, I have to go out to the back 40 on some pretense, where nobody can hear me, and cuss up a storm (quietly of course). The @#$% s. To make a virtue of never quite growing up. But that is what they do, and it is sooooo wrong in so many ways.

    Thanks for bringing up the matter of infantilization. Sorry if I went off on one side trail of that. It is applicable in so many ways. You have a great insight in what you said. And somebody needs to tell the guys that it is not feminization but infantilization. And the guy who felt “castrated”, of course he did. They were trying to turn him into the prepubescent child he used to be so they could control him.

  86. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I repeat: this kind of culture appeals to some – both men and women – but it stifles and repels many others, both men and women, because it infantilises (not feminises) them. This is misinterpreted by patriarchalists as the “feminisation of men” simply because they believe women are weak, helpless and infantile – that is, they believe women are effectively babies. Thus, when they encounter gentle_gentle_gentle Christianity that treats them like babies, they think they’re being treated like women.

    yes.yes.and oh so yes. I can only say what herewegokids7 said, “boom”.

  87. Estelle wrote:

    @ TW:
    Quoting ‘He said the situation at Redeemer was going to separate the “Ruths” from the Orpahs.”

    I kept on reading “Oprah”.

    By the way, do you know that she is literally “playing God” in the “Shack” movie that’s supposedly being made. Or at least that’s the rumor.

  88. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    “wombs of liquid love”,

    Who has said that? That’s just weird…

    I think that’s very astute: more about infantilising than feminisation.

    I’ve thought of it as hot-house flowering. In my experience, it hasn’t been from an over-focus on hurt (in my corner, we didn’t get personally hurt because “all was from God for our own good”) so much as from people not being encouraged to grow up and out. Never go out in the cold, never stretch your legs, stay rooted in those rows and keep on drinking from the sprinklers.

    That’s also why I have come to deeply dislike the word “sheep”. Treat us like we’re dumb, herdy, and ploddish (because God says we are!) and we will act like it. Whereas it’s merely a metaphor, one of a number.

  89. dee wrote:

    Needless to say, he raised a kid who was the prodigal on steroids. I wonder what he says now.

    Depends. I know some old school Reformed types who would just accept it and hope and work for the best. I don’t know, however, if those who stumble into the neo-Cal version of Reformed theology as the-next-cool-thing have that level of perspective or staying power. It would be interesting to know…

  90. So sad.

    I can only hope that R.W.’s former Gospel Coalitionists didn’t abandon him personally in the same way they seem to have abandoned him professionally. Perhaps they are doing their best to minister to him and his family behind the scenes.

  91. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Hi,if you try so hard to be first,then try saying something profound please. This goes for the rest of the first crowd. I mean really,this the best you can do? First!

  92. Patrice wrote:

    [Wombs of liquid love…] Who has said that? That’s just weird…

    I’d rather not say, as I’m satisfied he meant well! He was just one of those people who are emotionally intense, and partly because of that, have frequent and emotionally intense spiritual experiences.

    On reflection, I think the issue is a bit broader than just the infantilisation of Christianity, because many people who get drawn into that church sub-culture are not particularly keen on it. Rather, because it’s the main exposure they’ve had to Christianity, they get the idea that being weak, vulnerable and emotional all the time is a more “spiritual” way to be.

    The “hot-house flower” thing is interesting. Is it your experience that this primarily applies to middle-class Christians? ISTM, at least, that a largely powerless religion that can accomplish little more than psychosomatic effects is more likely to appeal to people to whom life presents relatively few practical or tangible difficulties. That’s not to say middle-class people don’t have problems (that’s nonsense), but they do have jobs and incomes – otherwise they wouldn’t be middle class – and are less likely to live in neighbourhoods where, for instance, shootings and gang violence are rife. In that context, church could provide a kind of “Judeo-Christian yoga” to top up their emotional resources – but of course, it mustn’t rock the boat.

  93. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    they get the idea that being weak, vulnerable and emotional all the time is a more “spiritual” way to be.

    Not only emotionally weak and vulnerable but also intellectually (don’t ask questions that people don’t want to deal with) and economically (one household income/stay home mom) and socially (restrict one’s social interactions to one’s co-religionists) and academically (only this “approved” school/seminary) and politically (vote the right way).

    What is racism and sexism and ageism, for example, other than a societally sanctioned attempt to enforce weakness and vulnerability on groups of people so that they can be controlled by other people? With the church (some church systems) leading the pack!

  94. Mr.H wrote:

    Perhaps they are doing their best to minister to him and his family behind the scenes.

    I need some explanation here; just a generational thing. The term “minister to” is used a lot–a whole lot–nowadays. I do not hear it used much as terminology in my religious tradition, but I note that the evangelicals (and perhaps the charismatics) seem to have taken up with that saying. Also, it was not a term that was in fashion back in the day as it seems to be now. I do not have a clear idea of what that means, and it has a really condescending sound to it. Perhaps you or somebody can explain to me what exactly do people mean when they say this.

    For example, in this situation. This pastor seems to have committed some act of betrayal to himself, his family, his congregation of believers, those who promoted him professionally, and his God. He seems to be living with some consequences of his choices and actions. Consequences are one way that people learn. It looks like the scripture warns of consequences, so I am assuming that God approves of consequences.

    What, then should those who have been betrayed and therefore injured do? Forgive? OK, that is good, required even. Tell the guy that it is alright because they too have done something wrong in the past and the very ubiquity of iniquity makes it OK? Surely not. Tell him that they will determine when and how to ameliorate the consequences so that he can be “restored” and get back to his prior profession? That has certainly been seen to be abused (apparently) rather publicly in a famous instance often referenced on this blog. So what does that leave which can be called “minister to.” That is an active verb is it not–so actually do what?

    Now understand, the use of christianese language has enormously changed over my lifetime, and I am almost certain that I am getting the wrong impression from some of the current idiomatic expressions and that I do not understand the assumptions behind a lot of stuff. I am willing to think the best where possible, but “minister to” is one I cannot seem to get a grip on.

    Thanks. There may be others here, also, from various religious backgrounds who do not “get it” so let me venture to say that I ask for information for all of us who may want/need it.

  95. @ Nancy:
    In my day – 1980s – mainly charismatic usage ‘minister’ meant pray with, often for healing, often one to one at the front of the church. In a wider context than that meant get involved with, counsel, be with and try to help. The opposite of ignore.

    What matters of course is the content of what is being ‘ministered’. Strong discipline over serious sin, or an attempt via cheap grace to get back to normal, or to feeling normal, in as short a period as possible. I don’t think brief confession, a quick prayer, short break away to readjust does justice to the nature of the sin. Forgivenness is instant, but sanctification, getting at the root of the problem takes time. The latter point is why I am inclined to think cases of this nature bar someone from further public ministry for a long time, if not permanently.

  96. dee wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    I’m thinking Lutheran pastors

    Seneca could go to the same metro that featured the Redeemer scandal and find a bunch of very conservative Lutheran pastors. North Heights Lutheran up in the north metro could swallow up Redeemer, Piper’s church, CHBC and still have room to swallow up several MHC campuses, and they have several very conservative pastors. They also don’t throw out controversies and abuse like candy at a Christmas parade.

  97. David

    There is nothing wrong with people vying for first. And Nick, if you read here, often says things that are profound. Now, I am looking for something profound from you,

  98. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Is it your experience that this primarily applies to middle-class Christians? ISTM, at least, that a largely powerless religion that can accomplish little more than psychosomatic effects is more likely to appeal to people to whom life presents relatively few practical or tangible difficulties. That’s not to say middle-class people don’t have problems

    Yah ISTM, middle class mores have been long understood as particularly Christian, here in the US. And the middle class has been slowly eviscerated, yet the church leaders/materials/structures have kept its sensibility. I suspect that’s one reason why Mark Driscoll was so appealing. He has been unapologetic about his lower class background. His ideas of manliness come from a stereotype that exists most loudly in those circles.

    I think everyone should be middle class lol but yeah, it comes with a comfortableness that can easily be misinterpreted as proof of strength, as “earned”. And once that happens, separation occurs, followed by judgmentalism by ignorance. And voila, hot house flowering.

    It’s interesting that over time, Mars Hill has become largely suburban. It is not much in the city anymore. City missions are difficult and one must mature in order to maintain them. They confront our comfort, requiring us to build a sturdier broader theology, while also keeping the essentials firmly in hand. They require sacrifice too.

    It can’t be done by those who focus on the self-feeding machine of “living right” with proper family/gender structures, over-scrupulosity, and poring over the Bible. (Not to say that those elements aren’t necessary of course)

    (con’t)

  99. David LaVeque wrote:

    Hi,if you try so hard to be first,then try saying something profound please. This goes for the rest of the first crowd. I mean really,this the best you can do? First!

    It’s just become a fun “tradition” on this blog we inherited from a beloved commenter. Just fun!

  100. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    (con’t)

    So for eg, Mark fell into the usual way-it’s-done, keeping only some of the trappings of his past. Mark is not radically Christian, no matter what he has said. The Evang culture is a powerful force, mostly because it’s one of those things hard to see (existing right behind the eyes, as it were). And it makes bad art for these very reasons, IMO.

    I can’t stand to listen to most sermons because they are so…I don’t know…twee. For a long time I felt ashamed of myself, until I realized who the sermons were for. Then I felt angry, and sad. And you are right, I’m def not the only one who feels that way.

    I wonder if the promotion of emotionalism and vulnerability is particularly on the charismatic end. Because I was raised in a version that said we need to be glad for everything, anger is bitterness (instantly!), and asking deeper questions is faithless. It seemed to me a jacket of the “power of depravity and positive thinking”. Lol. And one cannot go anywhere difficult, or choose a life “out there” and maintain such tight parameters.

    I don’t know. Just thinking.

  101. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    One last bit: I’ve been idly looking into the Black American church because I’ve been wondering why it contains so much of the same old “give the pastor all the money”. Pastors will drive around in cadillacs while the rest use a bus system, if there is one. And many members are proud of it!

    Black pastors maintain a lot of power in their communities but most don’t bother to gather their communities to fight injustice. Black justice activists have recently developed contempt for them because they keep the membership quiet and acquiescent.

    So maybe this thing I’m trying to understand is more about US Christians being more American than Christian. If so, it’s a particular form of the American psyche, and certainly not the most attractive. It comes up looking a lot like our problems with the banksters and transnat corps. All power to the top; the rest be quiet and obedient because sheep!

    I’m not sure.

  102. @ Ken:

    Thanks, Ken. This is not the first time you have answered a question of mine–with understandable explanations. I appreciate that. There are more distances between protestant traditions on the one hand and generations on the other hand than can be overlooked, IMO. Thanks again.

  103. Patrice wrote:

    Pastors will drive around in cadillacs while the rest use a bus system, if there is one

    I read that Pope Francis, while a bishop in Argentina, rode the bus. May his tribe increase.

  104. Nancy wrote:

    I read that Pope Francis, while a bishop in Argentina, rode the bus. May his tribe increase.

    It’s likely to, unless they’ve reversed their opposition to birth control.

  105. David LaVeque wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Hi, if you try so hard to be first, then try saying something profound please. This goes for the rest of the first crowd. I mean really, this the best you can do? First!

    Hi, David; I believe you’re new here, so welcome to Commenters Corner.

    Strictly speaking, I never try to be first; opportunity arises only rarely and through dumb luck, as I’m at least 5 hours out of synch with the ABQ.

    Now, obviously, I’m not unaware of the possibility that your own comment was intended to be humorous. It was not the comment of a troll or a chatterbot, so the other possibility is that it was a real complaint.

    TWW is a community, and a diverse one at that; it has a demographic mix that many local church congregations would love to have (and, if I may say so, that many others would be unable to cope with). As such, humour is both a vital and a profound part of it. I’m guessing it is one reason why many of the regulars here feel able to be themselves, bearing in mind that many come from church backgrounds where this was not the case.

    Personally, I’m convinced that an undiluted diet of profound comments (however one defines “profound”) would quickly become leaden and monotonous, and eventually leave you crying out for a little levity. Most of my comments are a lot longer than one word… but I would never be offended if you skipped over them.

  106. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    The conservative Evangelical community is NOT in the habit of sending pastors who commit moral misdeeds on to their next church with no one the wise. Has there been some well noted cases where that happened? Yes. But it’s not many;
    Evangelicals really, really don’t like pedophiles.

    Um, wrong. The conservative evangelical community *is* “in the habit of sending pastors who commit moral misdeeds on to their next church with no one the wise(r)” There are numerous documented cases of this, only some of which are highlighted at stopbaptistpredators,org.

    Catholics have not cornered the market on sex abuse. Nowadays, in fact, we are a hell of a lot more transparent than most fundagelicals are.

    According to all the surveys and studies done on this issue, the percentage incidence of sex abuse is roughly the same across all communions. (Percentage, not raw numbers. Some communions are teeny-tiny yet harbor a surprising percentage of predatory pastors.)

    I would respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on this issue, Seneca. Information’s just a click away.

  107. Regarding RW Glenn, a commenter talked about it not being official until from the church. It was told to the church on the day they announced it that he had been carrying on a 3 year affair with a woman.

  108. Sarah L. wrote:

    It was told to the church on the day they announced it that he had been carrying on a 3 year affair with a woman.

    I wish they had told all those who read his books.etc. My guess is that he has hidden far more than that. Anyone who can write books, preach sermons, etc during those 3 years is quite an actor.

  109. Catholic Homeschooler wrote:

    Catholics have not cornered the market on sex abuse. Nowadays, in fact, we are a hell of a lot more transparent than most fundagelicals are.
    According to all the surveys and studies done on this issue, the percentage incidence of sex abuse is roughly the same across all communions. (Percentage, not raw numbers. Some communions are teeny-tiny yet harbor a surprising percentage of predatory pastors.)

    You are absolutely correct, much to Seneca’s dismay. Thank you for hanging in here with us!

  110. I wouldn’t be too self congratulatory on the Catholic sex abuse front.

    Many Parishes are still refusing to release documents, and while I agree that Catholics are now more transparent than Evangelicals, it’s because the Catholic Church has been forced to by lawsuits, not because they chose to do the right thing.

    The Book Mortal Sins, does a great job documenting just how long and hard the Catholic Church has denied wrong doing and justice until forced.

    http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Sins-Crime-Catholic-Scandal/dp/0312594895

    I see a similar pattern playing out as many Evangelical skeletons are being brought out of the closet and in to court rooms.

  111. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I repeat: this kind of culture appeals to some – both men and women – but it stifles and repels many others, both men and women, because it infantilises (not feminises) them. This is misinterpreted by patriarchalists as the “feminisation of men” simply because they believe women are weak, helpless and infantile – that is, they believe women are effectively babies. Thus, when they encounter gentle_gentle_gentle Christianity that treats them like babies, they think they’re being treated like women.

    A permanent nursery, always ready with the diaper change and bottle of warm milk. Like never needing to leave the womb.

    (As far back as I can remember, adult actors in little-child roles — a common comedy skit in old movies — has CREEPED me out, BAD. Probably because I was raised by a mother who wanted to keep me her little baby boy (Cue “Mother” from Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”) and had to grow up 15+ years literally overnight. And then there’s that sexual fetish called “Infantilism” — CREEPY CREEPY CREEPY.)

    And when that sort of thing gets associated with “feminine”, you get a Hypermasculine reaction. Anything to get as far as possible from it. (Contrast that Christianity-as-Permanent-Womb with Extreme Islam’s reputation.)

  112. Nancy wrote:

    So the 12 year old was consulted for advice, since she was also the subject of racial bullying at about that age but with different results. The 12 year old confirmed that the situation was bad (and the teachers had confirmed the stories) but the older had some advice for the younger. I quote: “Toughen up Buttercup!” The 12 year old, at age 10, had chased down her bullies on the playground, thrown the leader to the ground, jumped on top of her and was whapping the #$% out of her when a teacher pulled her off–and that ended that. The younger is too shy and too physically small and is being bullied by boys, so that is not going to happen. But everybody at school thinks the younger is so wonderful because “she never gives anybody any trouble and is so sweet.”

    The older was a Rainbow Dash and the younger a Fluttershy.

    In my time in Bronydom, I find it interesting that Lauren Faust wrote six very different archetypes of the feminine into her “Mane Six” characters.
    * Applejack — “The Boss”, take-charge type, runs her family orchard
    * Fluttershy — “The Nurturer”, quiet and shy
    * Pinkie Pie — “The Free Spirit”, a hyper goofball with random insight
    * Rainbow Dash — “The Athlete”, brash and fiercely competitive
    * Rarity — “The Artist”, glamor fashionista and businessmare
    * Twilight Sparkle — “The Scholar”, asocial nerdy intellectual
    Yet all six of these are feminine in their own way.

    Yet Mark’s Hill and imitators, allegedly speaking for God Himself, has only ONE archetype of masculinity — “I Can Beat You Up!”

  113. Jomy J wrote:

    We are all limited in our nature and we are all capable of falling from thrones on any given day.

    Yes, but most of the rest us resist the temptation to ascend the Iron Throne. YRRs fling themselves headlong at it.

  114. zooey111 wrote:

    Yes, but most of the rest us resist the temptation to ascend the Iron Throne. YRRs fling themselves headlong at it.

    “A cold Iron Throne
    Holds a boy barely grown;
    His crown based on lies,
    YOU WIN OR YOU DIE —
    Game of Thrones!”

  115. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Personally, I’m convinced that an undiluted diet of profound comments (however one defines “profound”) would quickly become leaden and monotonous, and eventually leave you crying out for a little levity.

    “Satan fell through force of Gravity.”
    — John Donne(?)

  116. Patrice wrote:

    One last bit: I’ve been idly looking into the Black American church because I’ve been wondering why it contains so much of the same old “give the pastor all the money”. Pastors will drive around in cadillacs while the rest use a bus system, if there is one. And many members are proud of it!

    This is something Booker T Washington wrote about in his book referring to his time building up Tuskegee Institute. His biggest barrier to providing education to poor blacks were black pastors.

  117. Nancy wrote:

    What is this “iron throne” you all are talking about?

    I think it’s off the telly. Series called “Lost Game of Prison Breaking Bad Thrones”, or something.

  118. Patrice wrote:

    One last bit: I’ve been idly looking into the Black American church because I’ve been wondering why it contains so much of the same old “give the pastor all the money”. Pastors will drive around in cadillacs while the rest use a bus system, if there is one. And many members are proud of it!

    Black pastors maintain a lot of power in their communities but most don’t bother to gather their communities to fight injustice.

    I find this fascinating, and wonder if it’s a feature of post-colonial, ‘conquered’ societies who have had to deal with much trauma. I’m curious – how are the churches run by Native American Indians on reservations doing?

  119. Patrice wrote:

    So maybe this thing I’m trying to understand is more about US Christians being more American than Christian

    This is one reason why I hang around TWW, and I’ve found it very enlightening. I think there’s some elements that leap out strongly as “American Christian Culture”. I guess if it just stayed in America, was recognised as such and contained, it wouldn’t matter so much. But when it’s exported is when I prick my ears up. It’s not just missionaries etc teaching their cultural brand as being “the light of the Word”, it’s a lot more pervasive than that. One of my strangest experiences was flying over Indonesia discussing with the Javanese man sitting next to me Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.

  120. The Piper-talk at Redeemer church should be used in Spiritual Abuse classes around the world. Scripture twisting and misapplication to suit the speakers purpose which is, “Don’t you even THINK of leaving this church” if you leave, you’re going to be labeled a Quitter…an Unfaithful One…maybe even, Unelect!! WHY, you ask would Piper go to such extremes to keep a congregation in line? BECAUSE IT POINTS OUT HIS OWN FAILURES! Driscoll is a flaming ball of crap, CJ Maheny is protecting child abusers, and now, his local fan-boy, who was just on the cusp of Reformed Stardom proves to be an adulterer. Rather than minister to the victims and perhaps even questioning the theology that put the bullets in RW Glenn’s gun, Piper decides to paint for those poor, bleeding people that they cannot abandon ship without being labeled as cowards and haters of God. May God have mercy on his sick soul!

  121. Nancy wrote:

    @ zooey111:

    What is this “iron throne” you all are talking about?

    It was originally a series of books (which I am reading), then went to TV. Everybody wants the Iron Throne, & everybody is at war with everybody else to get it. Its the ultimate symbol of power, being made from the swords of all the former royals who died fighting for it. (The pic on the 1st volume, PB, is utterly creepy because of its presence).

  122. Haitch wrote:

    I’m curious – how are the churches run by Native American Indians on reservations doing?

    If I may intrude here Haitch. It’s important to remember that Native Americans are not monolithic in their religion and belief systems. They have a wide range of diversity in that regard. I come from a reservation in Northern Wisconsin at which the populace is largely Roman Catholic. The Jesuits were the first Europeans to make contact with my tribe. They understood in terms of pragmatism that by allowing the Natives to retain their cultural identity and incorporating it into the pantheon of Catholicism, they’d have much better success in winning converts.
    Such inclusive syncretism is unthinkable in Evangelical Protestantism which tends toward an exclusivist mindset, which is why in my opinion anyway, Protestant sectarianism never made much headway where I’m from. Compare and contrast the Native religious landscape of the Upper Great Lakes region with say the influence of the Reformed tradition in the Northeast, and the Baptist tradition below the Mason-Dixon line.

    Haitch wrote:

    I find this fascinating, and wonder if it’s a feature of post-colonial, ‘conquered’ societies who have had to deal with much trauma.

    It’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion along these lines without the discussion devolving into a contest of hurled caricature and ideologically driven invective. And before you know it, it resembles the legendary sea battles between the Dutch and British Navies in the 17th century. I will say this though, the American experience differs dramatically from the annals of other English speaking peoples who went out a conquering.

  123. Haitch wrote:

    Nancy wrote:

    What is this “iron throne” you all are talking about?

    HBO’s Game of Thrones, medieval fantasy where everyone shags anyone and short life expectancy is common. It’s also an analysis of power (is that a correct plot summary?)

    Several people have told me they originally tuned in for the shagging and stayed for the storyline. It’s a fantasy of Medieval Power Politics and caste system at its nastiest, with several Great Noble Houses killing each other off over the throne. Because only one can sit on the Iron Throne (and that One WILL BE ME!). The title “Game of Thrones” is the in-universe idiom for Power Struggle.

  124. @Muff Potter, just lost the whole of my comment to you – error 503. Due to TWW Apache server !!!!

  125. I’m frankly quite amazed at the silence about this whole RW Glenn thing in the neo-Cal internet universe.

    Well, maybe I’m not all that surprised.

    But it’s 1984 memory hole type of stuff. It’s like the guy disappeared from the face of the earth and never actually existed.

  126. linda wrote:

    My husband’s astute observance: why do those who fall over into a hyper, even hyper hyper form of Calvinism always just know they not only are elect but anointed to greatness and authority?

    The same reason those Hypnotic Reincarnation Past-Life Regression Memories are always of a Major Historical Figure — King, Queen, Famous Highborn of some sort.

  127. 11 years ago we visited this church. After some back and forth we decided not to be members.

    Comments like this sealed the deal

    “Personally, I would be very leery of accepting a person into membership who couldn’t get on
    board with our application materials.”

  128. This blog post has recently been taken down from Wilhelm’s site… While some ensuing comments there seemed to be heated, most everyone seemed to be behaving respectfully, and trying to get to the heart of things. What gives? :/

  129. That’s Weird wrote:

    This blog post has recently been taken down from Wilhelm’s site… While some ensuing comments there seemed to be heated, most everyone seemed to be behaving respectfully, and trying to get to the heart of things. What gives? :/

    Maybe the elders got to him.

  130. Both this blog and many of its supportive commentators give off the impression of a screed based on a disagreement over theology, rather than concern for churches and wayward pastors. As some have noted, it does feel as though people are rejoicing over Glenn’s failure.

    What I haven’t noticed after spending 20 minutes in the comments, is a lack of compassion and a lack of Scripture.

    As someone who lives in Minnesota, is a Reformed Evangelical (of sorts), and has met Glenn on several occasions, all I can say is that this is a tragedy; for his wife and family, for his church, for the lady (ladies) with whom he sinned, and for himself. Rather than pointing fingers, this should lead us all to introspection.

    Paul said to Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine…” Some of these men have been so focused on doctrine (and on themselves) that they have lost sight of their lives. Yet the opposite has often been true among our mainline brethren, their lives may be in order, but their doctrine is in opposition to the Scriptures. Is one worse than the other? In both cases we need humility, not superiority, mercy, not ad hominem attacks. As Peter said, humble yourself under the mighty hand of God and in due time he will lift you up,” And Micah says, “And what does the Lord requine of you? To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Let us strive for that together.

    Rather than fight and excoriate the fallen, the foolish, and the factionalizing; and without brushing sin and failure under the rug; how can we live and teach in a way that will lead churches of Jesus Christ, across denominational lines, to deeper devotion and humble, God-honoring lives?

  131. Welcome Steve D.

    If you are concerned about the lack of Scripture, look no further than the bottom most pages and see Bible verses which we post. If one reads them, they get you through the Bible in about 1 1/2 years. Also, look at EChurch on each weekend. It is a church service complete with sermon from Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid. If you read about Wade Burleson, you will find that he tips Reformed in his theology.

    Also, this blog has written lots of stuff about Ed Young Junior, Paige Patterson, the prosperity Gospel leaders, etc. Yet RC Sproul says that non_Reformed people are Christian, barely. So, your compalints about theological bias may be a bit overblown.

    Perhaps you have not read enough ofcurrent NeoCalvinist lietrature but it is evident to many that, for all their lectures about obedience, Reformed folks havw just as much trouble in that area as the nonReformed. However, they cover it up and pretend it didn’t happen. The books written with Glenn disappear without comment. If it had been someone like Ted Haggard, on the other hand, fingers would have pointing from the Reformed crowd.

    The outside world is watching us. We should be open about our sins and failures with the world. Then, we should pick ourselves up and begin a plan of discipline with a hope to resotration. Instaed, we hide it. That is how we deal with sin.Instaed, we act as it we do not believe that our leaders sin. We act a bit ashamed. Yet, if we truly understood the Gospel, we should be amongst the first to admit and own our sins.

    As for pointing fingers, isn’t that precisely what you are doing? In fact, we encourage that critique. My guess is that you are doing it becasue you don’t like what we are doing and think you have a better way.  We are open to it and listen carefully as you, and others, write comments. It might be nice if so called gospel leaders did the same. Many of them won’t allow comments or delete critical comments. That’s why we started a page called “My comment Was Deleted” so we can see what these leaders won’t allow.  This blog allows you to do what many in your camp will not allow. Speak your mind.

    As for going across denominational lines, that’s a little tough when men like Mark Dever will not allow those who practice pedobaptism to take communion in his church. But, hey, theology over love and unity rules.

    PS: we will update on the Glenn story if, and when, he accopmplishes his repentance and resotration. If it goes well, there will be much to rejoice.

  132. Lizzie, That’s Weird

    I found out why it is down. Although I am not at liberty to mention the person involved, there is a very hurting person (not Glenn) who contacted Todd. Out of compassion, he decided to take it down. Given what he told us, we empathize with his decision. His decision is another reason why we call Todd our officail TWW hero. He truly cares for others over himself. Think about his stand for those SGM victims. It might give you some clues in this situation.

    He stands by what he wrote, fully. We are waiting to see if we are contacted. If so, we will make a decision at that time.