Was Mark Driscoll Disqualified or Wasn’t He? Time to Cut Through the Bull

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.-" W.C. Fields.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=4222&picture=the-bull

The Bull

If you think that trying to figure out who is in control of the Ebola mess is daunting, you will find discovering who is in charge at Mars Hill equally unnerving. Was Mark Driscoll actually told he could not preach for an unspecified amount of time? Is this the real reason he left? Mark DeMoss was supposed to be handling public relations for Mars Hill. I don't know how much he is being paid but whatever it is, it should be less. Is DeMoss even around Mars Hill these days or has he quietly slipped out the back door? (See yesterday's tweets: I hear Lyall Mercer is trolling for business.)

Folks, there is reason to believe that we are all being taken for a ride on the Mars Hill bus. Driscoll may have quit because he was told he needed to have some sort of remediation.

The original statement from the BOAA and an ineffective church governance structure.

Let's take a look at an excerpt from the original statement of the BOAA, made at the time of Driscoll's resignation. Apparently, the *Overseers* are the same thing as the BOAA. Maybe. I think. Possibly. Who knows.

While a group of seven elders plus one member of the Board of Overseers was charged with conducting this investigation, the full Board of Overseers is charged with reaching any conclusions and issuing any findings. 

Raise your hands if you are  bit confused!  I went to the Mars Hill website and found this description.

BOARDS OF ADVISORS & ACCOUNTABILITY (ed. note: BOAA- this was the board from which Paul Tripp resigned and this means outsiders can be members.)

The Board of Advisors & Accountability has three categories of responsibility:

1)     Counsel. Assist and advise the Church on those matters where prudence requires an outside perspective.

2)    Accountability. Provide support and outside objective oversight when needed.

3)    Governance. Manage or direct the civil and business affairs of Mars Hill Church, as required by all 501(c)3 organizations.

The Board of Advisors and Accountability meets twice every year.

EXECUTIVE ELDERS (ed. note: BOEE)

The Executive Elders oversee and manage the day-to-day affairs of the church as a standing committee and first-among-equals within the Board of Advisors and Accountability.

Our current Executive Elders are Pastors Mark Driscoll and Dave Bruskas.

FULL COUNCIL OF ELDERS

All of the pastors at Mars Hill (paid and unpaid) comprise the Full Council, which meets annually. The Full Council approves the slate of nominees for the Board of Advisors & Accountability, and changes to the doctrinal statement.

BOARD OF ELDERS

Advisory committee of Mars Hill elders selected by the Executive Elders to provide recommendations to the Board of Advisors & Accountability.

Now, is it clear? Dee doesn't think so and believes that this leadership structure is what contributed to a break down in leadership accountability. Mixed messages were, and continue to be released. It appears that Paul Tripp agrees with me about the poor governance structure at Mars Hill. From Charisma News. No wonder Tripp hit the road.

This is without a doubt, the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I've ever been involved with," Tripp is quoted saying in the letter.

One of Tripp's concerns was the way the church governance was set up.

"You can't have a church culture where you essentially have a very tight circle and everyone else is your enemy," he said.

From the BOAA: Mark Driscoll is not disqualified from being a pastor

In this statement, these *Overseers* indicated that Driscoll was not disqualified from being a pastor. In fact, they said he did nothing *immoral!* Plagiarism, calling women *penis homes* and gleefully proclaiming piles of dead bodies under his bus are considered moral and even pastoral? Seattle is sure a different kind of city if that is true.

We concluded that Pastor Mark has, at times, been guilty of arrogance, responding to conflict with a quick temper and harsh speech, and leading the staff and elders in a domineering manner. While we believe Mark needs to continue to address these areas in his life, we do not believe him to be disqualified from pastoral ministry.
Pastor Mark has never been charged with any immorality, illegality or heresy. Most of the charges involved attitudes and behaviors reflected by a domineering style of leadership.
We found some of the accusations against Pastor Mark to be altogether unfair or untrue.

So, all is well. Naughty Mark just needed to take some anger management classes. It is apparent they intended for him to stick around if this statement is true.

Finally, Mark Driscoll was not asked to resign; indeed, we were surprised to receive his resignation letter. 

Mark Driscoll says he is not disqualified from being a pastor and blames it all on style

Driscoll, however, wasn't having any of it. He wanted to pick up his nice severance check and lick his wounds. Note that he seems to believe the confession of his sins are behind him. 

I readily acknowledge I am an imperfect messenger of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are many things I have confessed and repented of, privately and publicly, as you are well aware. Specifically, I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit. 

He also states that he has done nothing to make him ineligible to drive the killer bus.

Prior to and during this process there have been no charges of criminal activity, immorality or heresy, any of which could clearly be grounds for disqualification from pastoral ministry

Please read the next statement carefully. It was all a matter of style. You like chili with bean and I like chili without beans. That can be divisive during a cook off-that's all.

Other issues, such as aspects of my personality and leadership style, have proven to be divisive within the Mars Hill context,

Driscoll presents the politician's excuse. If you believe this, then you deserve a church like Mars Hill.  Whenever anyone says they are resigning because of their family, they are not. It just sounds nice. As for the *unsafe* part* who knows? It depends on whether you believe that Driscoll's accounts are trustworthy. I am still looking ( 5 years now) for anybody who saw the machete man that Driscoll claimed attacked him while he was preaching. (Please contact TWW if you saw,not heard about this event.)

Recent months have proven unhealthy for our family—even physically unsafe at times

Dee wants to know if he gave John Catanzaro a jingle. I wonder if the church will pick up the tab?

Note the legalese present in this statement.

Therefore, consider this written notice of my voluntary termination of employment.

According to comments at Warren Throckmorton's blog, there is speculation that Driscoll  gets his severance so long as he voluntarily leaves as opposed to being thrown out. If the severance is one year worth of salary, we may be talking about a windfall here. All you good tithers at Mars Hill who struggle to make ends meet, enjoy watching Driscoll's lifestyle. You have helped him live above the fray.

One day, like the Phoenix, Driscoll shall arise more beautiful than before. Nice story but was it all spin? 

Was Driscoll told he could not preach? If he did nothing immoral, etc, why not?

On Friday, October 18, more information was being released, hinting at the possibility that Driscoll was told he could not preach. In Mark Driscoll's Resignation: What is the Real Story, Warren Throckmorton reported that Driscoll had said he resigned because he realized that he was a divisive leader and that the controversy was taking a toll on his family. But, there seems to be another narrative floating around out there.

Driscoll's sister said that Driscoll wanted to preach and the BOAA was not going to let him.

Driscoll’s sister Melanie Thompson commented on her public Facebook page (under the name Erma Gauthier). Her narrative adds a new wrinkle. According to Thompson, “they” (I presume the BoAA) would not let Driscoll preach.

According to Driscoll's sister, the sale of the Ballard campus is proof that the BOAA would not let him preach.

Erma Gauthier If they were going to let him come back …ever…then why would they sell mars hill Ballard behind his back.
Yesterday at 10:23am

Erma Gauthier Yeah. The people would have to bring him back. The Pastors have blocked him without disqualification.

Did the BOAA, in accordance with the BOEE change their mind? Was Driscoll guilty of persistent sin?

According to Warren Throckmorton, this statement was read to Mars Hill Sammamish yesterday. Please read the whole statement at the link.

The investigation of formal charges against Mark Driscoll has revealed patterns of persistent sin in the three areas disclosed in the previous letter by the Board of Overseers. In I Tim 5:20, it requires that an elder be rebuked for persistent sin. Our intention was to do this while providing a plan for his eventual restoration to leadership. The Board of Elders in agreement with the Board of Overseers are grieved, deeply grieved, that any process like that was lost to us when Mark Driscoll resigned in position and left the church. 

The elders appear to admit that they have handled things badly in the past, going as far to say that they have acted just like Mark Driscoll. "Acting just like Driscoll" may become the golden standard of how not to act! Does the BOAA agree with them? This next part addresses only the elders.

The elders of Mars Hill Church acknowledge as we’ve gone through all of this investigation, and heard all of these stories, we acknowledge that we have personally led in some of the same ways that demonstrate some of the same ways that Pastor Mark had. And those things require repentance and forgiveness and restoration. We realize that there are ways that we have led as elders in ways that have been domineering, sometimes arrogant and sometimes boastful and at least for my part, I want to say I deeply regret those sins and I ask for your forgiveness.  

So, it appears that Driscoll may have been in persistent sin. But persistent sin has nothing to do with morality? Folks, we are being sold a cock and bull story. To this observer, it appears that Driscoll was about to be punished and he got to leave with a nice paycheck. He should head over to Capitol Hill Baptist Church. They may be experienced in helping a pastor on the lam.

In a jaw dropping statement, Carl Truman, apparently alluding to the Driscoll situation, thinks that financial oversight needs to be given to external elders!

Good night! Driscoll did consult with outsiders and look how much he made….Wait a minute-we don't know because they won't tell the people who pay his salary, the pew sitters, but we think it is a lot.

Carl Trueman thinks they should get outsiders to set the financials of the church. We know ECFA doesn't care about large salaries so he must mean other pastors.

Carl Trueman, a church history professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, suggests churches might do well to separate the two, reserving financial oversight for external elders and church discipline for internal elders. “When there are large sums of money, you need to take some account of external accountability,” he said. “But we shouldn’t allow the needs of financial accountability to change how we shape our church government.”

Dee's response? Are these people putting gin in their koolaid aid?? This is crazy. Take a look at Steven Furtick's outside compensation advisors to see how this works. Read the post. Do you think these guys would ever tell Furtick he makes too much? 

Ed Young Jr: Fellowship Church, Dallas/Grapevine, TX
Perry Noble: NewSpring Church, Anderson, SC
Stovall Weems : Celebration Church, Jacksonville, FL
Kevin Gerald : Champions Center, Seattle, WA
Jack Graham Prestonwood Baptist, Dallas/Plano,TX

Trueman is living in a naive world. Unfortunately, those aspiring pastors, who study under him, will latch onto this latest and greatest idea. It is an idea that will miserably and it will provide a cash cow for mega pastors.

On Wednesday I plan to write a post which will be my assessment on how the people who pay the money for these churches (like you and me) should respond. It is time to set a few rules of the game for those who want to prevent being soaked by the likes of Furtick, Driscoll, Young and others. Mark Dever wants his keys to the kingdom. Well, I have a few key suggestions for those who are tired of being told to shut up and keep on giving. Did you know that those who hold the money, hold a few keys as well?

Lydia's Corner: Beginning our reading plan for the third time
Genesis 1:1-2:25  Matthew 1:1-2:12  Psalm 1:1-6  Proverbs 1:1-6

Comments

Was Mark Driscoll Disqualified or Wasn’t He? Time to Cut Through the Bull — 192 Comments

  1. It’s the penis homes remark of Driscoll that I find to be blasphemous. St. Paul explicitly said it was better to remain in holy celibacy than to be married; those who can’t control the temptation to lust can get married, and it’s their job to have families, but by default, men and women are children of God. The blessed Virgin Mary never had sexual intercourse, but was home to our Lord. The remark Driscoll made was entirely alien to the theology and practice of the early church, which de-emphasized sex and required absolute fidelity within marriage, which itself was understood in an iconographic sense rather than a sexual sense, although established as the proper outlet for sexual desire and as the means of raising families in stability.

  2. The more I read this Driscoll business, the more confusing it gets…..I wonder if they want it that way?

  3. @ William G.:
    You don’t think his statement is outrightly misogynistic, nor that it devalues women by making them simply “penis homes” rather than human beings in their own right?

    Those are my first concerns, not celibacy or lack thereof! But then, i’m a woman, and think MD’s misogyny (as well as his hatred of gay men) clearly indicates that there is something VERY wrong with him, mentally and emotionally. Imo, he should have gotten the boot when he was writing those screeds under the name William Wallace II.

  4. Here’s the other factor Dee. Mars Hill Seattle is a 9 Marks church. If true and Driscoll resinged and fled then he also violated the 9 Marks system as puhsed by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman. Do you think a member of CHBC or Mars Hill Seattle can flee a church when they are in the discipline process. The Neo-Cals have created a two tier system where the pastors who lead it are accountable to no one. CJ Mahaney fled, now so has Mark Driscoll. My question to Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman is this…where were they when they were distributing testicles? Are they going to do anythign about a Pastor who flees a 9 Marks chruch under threat of discipline?

  5. @ numo:

    Numo…Mark Driscoll like CJ Mahaney is mentally ill. Neither is qualified to teach, lead of be in ministry.

  6. Eagle wrote:

    @ numo:
    Numo…Mark Driscoll like CJ Mahaney is mentally ill. Neither is qualified to teach, lead of be in ministry.

    Driscoll and Mahaney give mental illness a bad name.

  7. @ Eagle:
    @ Patrice:
    As someone who is married to someone who has and also personally lives with the “joy” of a mental illness, can I please say it is extremely frustrating to see people diagnose others with mental illness as a bad thing, without actually knowing or talking to these people. Would you mock them in same way using cancer or diabetes as a substitute for mental illness? If you hold up only those who are jerks as having mental illness, you can discourage people with actual problems from getting help. I speak from personal experience here, even.

    Sorry it’s a pet peeve, and it hurts a little.

  8. Patrice wrote:

    Eagle wrote:

    @ numo:
    Numo…Mark Driscoll like CJ Mahaney is mentally ill. Neither is qualified to teach, lead of be in ministry.

    Driscoll and Mahaney give mental illness a bad name.

    *
    I’m thinking those comments are uncalled for.

  9. Perhaps the biggest bull in this storybis the idea that anyone on this blog, authors or readers, are in a position to judge whether Driscoll was qualified or unqualified to continue as pastor. That would be the prerogative of MH church and her leadership. This blog post seems to me to be little more than self promoting speculation and discussion. Now I do think it appropriate for the authors and readers to consider what he has written, and may write, for the broader church. But as for MH and any local church he may serve in the future, his qualifications there are for them to determine.

  10. Jude 1:9New International Version (NIV)

    9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a]

    [ Even angels have to be careful what they say to satan, the truly evil one. ]

  11. Phillip Miller wrote:

    That would be the prerogative of MH church and her leadership

    And that is the bull that I am talking about. Pastors who push their books and sermons to the public get to be judged by the public. You want my money? Well, I am a big believer in Consumer Report. This blog is my version of Consumer Report. My rating of Mark Driscoll?-A lemon…

    Anything less leaves the sheep at risk from a guy who pretended he was a big man and was only a wuss when he turned tail and ran.

  12. Phillip Miller wrote:

    Perhaps the biggest bull in this storybis the idea that anyone on this blog, authors or readers, are in a position to judge whether Driscoll was qualified or unqualified to continue as pastor.

    Scripture is the standard for all believers, leaders included. Mark’s mouth alone disqualifies him:

    Eph 5:3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
    Eph 5:4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting…

    His preaching and teaching often included filthy (imo), silly talk, and course jesting and often made women the brunt of his jokes.

    I could post other scripture which disqualifies him, but you get the message. Scripture is the standard:

    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

  13. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    If you hold up only those who are jerks as having mental illness, you can discourage people with actual problems from getting help.

    I hear you, ABQ, and I think you’re right. We need to be careful to distinguish between sin and mental illness or we will be making the same mistake that the nouthetic counselors sometimes do. IMO merely as an observer of humanity for a long time, Mahaney and Driscoll fall squarely in the sin category. Along with all of their enablers and apologists.

  14. The problem is that our modern day has substituted baseline technical legality with morality and forgotten about virtue. Technical legality is nothing like personal virtue.

    This is not even a Christian issue–pagan philosophers have understood the difference between baseline morality and personal virtue.

    How shameful that we who have the Holy Spirit to help us in our striving toward virtue no longer remember our call–to be like Christ.

  15. @ Phillip Miller:

    If we assume that outsiders are in no position to judge whether a public figure who has promoted their brand, style and theology throughout christendom is qualified to lead, that insiders are the only ones who can make that judgment, are we to assume that Paul of Tarsus was in sin when he called out Peter as well as the Superapostles at Corinth? Are we to assume that no christian can exercise discernment over anyone’s public pronouncements? If that’s so, then who are you to judge Dee and Deb and the posters on this forum, not being in the same church fellowship with them?

  16. Phillip Miller wrote:

    This blog post seems to me to be little more than self promoting speculation and discussion. Now I do think it appropriate for the authors and readers to consider what he has written, and may write, for the broader church. But as for MH and any local church he may serve in the future, his qualifications there are for them to determine.

    In the sense of maintaining his position as a pastor or elder at Mars Hill Churchcorp, you are correct, since they are an independent church. However the Church is fully qualified to weigh his words and his actions, study the Bible regarding the strict qualifications for an elder and pastor, and come to our conclusions and publish those conclusions *in the same manner and venue* that he promoted his filth.

    I think that you are speculating about the bloggers an commenters here when you say we are speculating. Were you being intentionally ironic when you say that this blog is engaging in self-promotion by discussing Mark Driscoll? He is a walking, breathing example of shameless self-promotion on par with the Kardashians.

    Any human being who refers to a man who does not meet Driscoll’s criteria as a vulgar and misogynistic term for female genitalia is perverse. Any human being who refers to a wife as a home for her husband’s penis is perverse. Any human being who is perverse is disqualified from being a pastor or elder. I could go on…

    Do you think he is qualified to be an elder according to Scripture?

  17. @ Phillip Miller:

    Hah! I have a comment to you in moderation, probably because I quoted Driscoll when he described a wife as a “p” home, except I used the anatomical word.

    Are you serious?

  18. Mark Driscoll is one of the speakers at Hillsong Europe Conference 2015 at the O2 arena London next July with Joseph Prince and J Franklin. Thought it strange when I first heard it but wonder what will happen now. Brian Houston has a few problems of his own at the moment

  19. Eagle wrote:

    Mars Hill Seattle is a 9 Marks church.

    Was… A 9Marks Church. Now they are an 8Marks church.
    Seriously– They still showed up in the locator around The 1st of Sept, but by the 1st of Oct they’d been deleted. Whether they self-deleted or were removed by 9Marks we may never know. Of course, Driscoll still violated the Mars Hill policy which he’d implemented and used to advantage against others.

  20. @ Victorious:
    “His preaching and teaching often included filthy (imo), silly talk, and course jesting and often made women the brunt of his jokes.”

    there is record of another famous fundamentalist SBC leader making jokes at the expense of women, but he did not stop there and caused severe employment problems for some women. . .

    I lay all this contempt for women at the door of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message which began treating women as lesser beings than men (there is no other way to describe it, even when they try to dress the doctrine up . . . it is what it is)

    this patriarchy thing is both a sickness and a form of male idolatry and it does have victims and makes the men who follow this doctrine less than men of honor and dignity . . . such a waste . . . how many women has it driven away from the Church ?

  21. @ dee:
    Mark is a public figure. He didn’t preach in a silo to MH alone. He wrote books for which he was very well compensated, his sermons were placed on YouTube by MH. This makes him a public figure. We don’t need the almighty BOAA or whatever at MH to tell us whether he is qualified or not. The simple truth is that they are wrong and have completely ignored Biblical qualifications. Mark has not passed the test of being: above reproach, gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, and his reputation outside of MH is not stellar (just to name a few things from 1 Timothy 3).

  22. @ Lori:
    Sorry Dee, I didn’t mean to reply to you. Oops! I was attempting to reply to Phillip Miller. My daughter just made me watch the first 2 episodes of The Walking Dead because I asked her so many questions and I’m still all shook up and my fingers just won’t type right. 🙁

  23. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Albuquerque Blue…my sister has dealt with schizophrenia since 1996. Its a burden my family has carried. I’m not mocking it. Actually in the past I attended NAMI to cope with it.

  24. Eagle wrote:

    CJ Mahaney fled, now so has Mark Driscoll

    I wonder if he is on his way to Louisville to hang out with Al and CJ. OK, I know that was extremely snarky but I am hiding behind my defense of being all shook up over TWD.

  25. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    You don’t think his statement is outrightly misogynistic, nor that it devalues women by making them simply “penis homes” rather than human beings in their own right?
    Those are my first concerns, not celibacy or lack thereof! But then, i’m a woman, and think MD’s misogyny (as well as his hatred of gay men) clearly indicates that there is something VERY wrong with him, mentally and emotionally. Imo, he should have gotten the boot when he was writing those screeds under the name William Wallace II.

    I believe calling women is entirely misogynistic and is thus an example of blaspheming Gods creation. To reduce human beings to their reproductive anatomy is not only dehumanizing but de-anamalizing; indeed even to refer to vegetation in this manner would be offensive. However, in this respect his remarks were fundamentally wrong not just to Christians but to Jews and to all civilized people; any religious leader who teaches such is a teacher of superstition and not piety, to use the words in their original meaning.

    Even members of religions that contain dogma which is misogynistic, such as Islam and the sky-clad monks of Jainism (who believe, unlike the members of the white robed sect, which is the other main denomination of that faith, that women must be reincarnated as men to achieve moksha, or liberation, perhaps because their monks wander in the nude, yet they view female nudity as unacceptable, and this nudity is an austerity required for the attainment of moksha) would likely find Driscoll offensive in reducing women to a purely sexual function.

    However, within a specifically Christian context, and informed by my denominations love for the Theotokos and believe in her perpetual virginity, I view Driscolls remark as an abhorrent attack upon the dignity of the blessed Virgin Mary and also upon the dignity of all celibate women, including those who have become nuns, who are faithfully following the instructions of St. Paul.

    What is more, Driscoll is guilty of selectively reading Paul, for he teaches those parts that restrict the Presbyteriate and Episcopate to men, while ignoring those parts that suggest celibacy for men and women. This is additionally misogynistic. Also our Lord speaks of the advantages of celibacy in the dialogue regarding eunuchs, and all of this is devalued when persons of either gender are reduced to the value of their genitalia. It is almost literally the definition of dehumanizing, to use such language, and if Driscoll were an Orthodox Christian, I believe he would be repelled from the Eucharist for using such language. Any church should deny communion, let alone the ministry, to such a man until he repents; as the leader of a denomination furthermore one could argue that Driscoll qualifies as a heresiarch; in the Orthodox Church it would be canonical and not entirely unwarranted to convene a local council to anathematize him, except that in teaching Neatorianism and Iconoclasm he is already anathema, and were too busy dealing with the genocide of our members in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, and preparing for a general council in 2016, and are more concerned about our own errors on the whole than with the impious and blasphemous remarks made by those outside the church. However I can positively assure you that every Orthodox Christian I know who is familiar with the case is sickened by it, and I believe the blog Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy has run articles specifically addressing heresies coming out of Mars Hill.

    One can however amuse oneself by noting that despite the pretentious name of his sect, Driscoll has likely never read the writings of Psuedo Dionysius the Aereopagite, which are among the most important theological texts of the sixth century church, and which played a key role in the refinement of apophatic theology. In fact, contemplating God in the manner described by Psuedo-Dionysius, Ss. Gregory Nazianzus, and Maximus the Confessor, that is to say, the via negativa, or way of negation, can produce religious ecstasy if preceded with proper repentance. I myself have tastes this and strongly recommend it, especially coupled with the Jesus Prayer, as an easily accessible form of Christian mysticism. Alas I doubt anyone at Mars Hill has even heard of it. When an Orthodox Christian hears of the Aereopagus though, we think first of Paul’s evangelism, and then, of the brilliant literary corpus that someone, wishing to preserve their modesty, attributed to the first bishop of that see, according to an ancient tradition.

  26. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Yeah, I hear you. I have ComPTSD.

    I am wondering if part of the problem comes from the psychology field long ago placing “personality disorders” under the Mental Illness umbrella.

    Most of the personality disorders include ethical rifts that run throughout the lives of the inflicted individuals. Whereas a person with mental illness can mature, learn to manage symptoms, develop deep friendships, and even become wise, the personality-disordered find it very difficult to mature or develop solid relationships.

    I’ve been in/out of the lives of a person with borderline and one with passive narcissism. The person with borderline occasionally put in huge efforts to change but only inched forward in the 25 years I’ve known her. She is a woman of courage but people still can’t be around her very much. The person with passive narcissism hasn’t change a whit in the 35 years I’ve known him (and not from lack of effort by others lol). It’s very strange and sad.

    So I too get frustrated. And it’s made worse because the more extreme forms of personality disorders, the narcissistic and sociopathic, are what most people think of when they hear the phrase “mentally ill”.

    No one should be mocked for being who he/she is. I think it happens often to the mentally ill because one’s mind breaking down is the stuff of nightmares. We rely on some amount of internal stability to make our way through this wild&wooly world.

    What people don’t realize is that there are all kinds of stability and with a little help and structure, the mentally ill can make their way fine.

  27. @ Phillip Miller:
    This is like the babelfish from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. If your argument is true, then you have no right to make it, because you’re an outsider here, making judgments about others’rights to make judgments from the outside.

    Granting your argument actually makes you guilty of a far worse sin, since elders are public figures who are sometimes to be rebuked publicly, but Romans 14 seems to indicate that your personal, divisive opinion about another group of Christians’ opinion on a disputable matter should have remained between yourself and God.

  28. Phillip Miller wrote:

    are in a position to judge whether Driscoll was qualified or unqualified to continue as pastor. That would be the prerogative of MH church and her leadership.

    No, I think not. Driscoll put his views, comments, and teachings out there for the entire globe to see, when he posted content to You Tube, publishes a blog that is open to the public, went on national shows to discuss his beliefs, such as “The View” and Glenn Beck, and published work such as the book “Real Marriage,” where excerpts have been made for free to the public on the internet.

    I am allowed to derive conclusions based on what I’ve seen and read of the guy. Driscoll fails the qualities the Bible says a church leader should have.

  29. Phillip Miller wrote:

    Perhaps the biggest bull in this storybis the idea that anyone on this blog, authors or readers, are in a position to judge whether Driscoll was qualified or unqualified to continue as pastor.

    So with all we’ve read, heard, and seen from Driscoll himself that demonstrates his abusive personality and wacked-out ‘theology’, we are to remain silent? Funny, I thought we have a duty to warn others of so-called men of God who bear rotten fruit.

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:15-16

  30. @ dee:

    Another thing too I am not understanding about this. The Bible says all believers are a member of “the church” regardless of physical location.

    It seems to me that you, Dee, as a Christian, are a member of the body of Christ (“the church”), the one Driscoll also claims to be part of, so you are in fact permitted to judge his teachings and behavior.

    I don’t recall any passage in the Bible that insists you, Dee, would have to be specifically a member of Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church at “123 Elm Street, Seattle, Washington” in order to form or share opinions or warnings about the guy.

    I don’t recall any Bible passage which teaches geographical location forbids one Christians from pontificating about a preacher who lives in another state or attends another brick building church once a week.

  31. William G. wrote:

    I view Driscolls remark as an abhorrent attack upon the dignity of the blessed Virgin Mary and also upon the dignity of all celibate women

    I’m a virgin lady who is over 40 years of age. I have read Driscoll’s writings about singleness and celibacy, and he not only writes vulgar things in crass terms about men, women, and sex, but Pastor DudeBro (Driscoll) has no clue about singleness and celibacy.

    He thinks his views on these topics are biblical, but they are in error.

    I’ve explained it before on older posts on this blog, but to cite but one example – Driscoll assumes (and this is so very wrong), that if you are single past some age or another, it’s because God “called” you to be, that your only “excuse” for being single (he wrote this in one blog post), is that God will send you to the deepest, darkest remote regions of some jungle foreign land, where you will give tracts to the natives and die a martyr.

    Driscoll seems to believe that God expects or demands everyone else to marry, no exceptions.

    This gets into the old saw about “singleness being the rare exception” which preachers teach means that God expects most folk to marry, but recent info (released by BLS) publicized that adult singles now out number married couples in the USA – so for once, being single is “the norm” and being married is the rarity.

    Pastor DudeBro has no concept that God doesn’t pre-ordain who will marry or be single (God leaves it up to each person as to if they want to marry or not), and that being single past 30, 40 or whatever years, doesn’t mean you’re going to be a martyr for the faith in the rain forest.

    I’m over 40, never married (had wanted to be married but it wasn’t in the cards), am still a virgin, and am still alive and kicking and a middle class American citizen living a fairly ordinary life.

    There are other examples of Driscoll’s ignorance about singleness and celibacy, but I shall leave it there.

  32. Christiane wrote:

    how many women has it driven away from the Church ?

    There is no reason for a rational and informed woman to support a church in any way that teaches that she is less than God made her.

  33. Gram3 wrote:

    There is no reason for a rational and informed woman to support a church in any way that teaches that she is less than God made her.

    Amen, Gram3! And if/until they stop, they will continue to be bullied by those who relegate them to a subordinate position in the church and the home.

  34. William G. wrote:

    However, within a specifically Christian context, and informed by my denominations love for the Theotokos and believe in her perpetual virginity, I view Driscolls remark as an abhorrent attack upon the dignity of the blessed Virgin Mary and also upon the dignity of all celibate women,

    I do not understand why people would want to believe in (much less make a focus of) Mary’s perpetual virginity. Yes, celibate women need respect but why use that to try to make it happen?

    And if you will use perpetual virginity for such, why don’t you also put focus on Jesus’ perpetual virginity so that celibate men might also receive the respect they need?

    Since Mary is now in heaven, why do you see Driscoll’s demeaning comment about women as an insult first to her (who is beyond all harm), and second to celibate women, while leaving out most women, who happen to be sexually active?

    Altogether it feels suspiciously like the sameold objectification of the female, even if elevated cleaner and prettier.

  35. There are many other commentaries, both on right and left of theological spectrum, who have been critical of Mr. Driscoll. I can’t speak for the people who idolize MD, but I don’t see him as a pastor. And I haven’t seen much good fruit from the Driscollbots. They have been almost cult like in their attacks on Janet Mefford and others. And what did Janet Mefford do but expose MDs plagiarism. Other have critiqued MDs teachings and they have also been attacked. So bullying is biblical? In MD’s twisted little big man theology this might be fine. For me it is a poor witness.

  36. @ Patrice:
    Not only personality disorders, but reactive depression and generalized anxiety disorder and the like. “Mental illness” covers such a huge spectrum, and i don’t think there’s anyone out here who hasnt experienced at least brief periods in their lives that come under that catchall heading.

  37. Dave A A wrote:

    Seriously– They still showed up in the locator around The 1st of Sept, but by the 1st of Oct they’d been deleted. Whether they self-deleted or were removed by 9Marks we may never know

    I’m pretty sure it was due to Mark’s sudden and totally out-of-character disqualifying behavior that first occurred during September of 2014. Jonathan Leeman leapt into leadership and took away his keys until he straightens up and flies right and stops making misogynists look like misogynists.

    Let’s just hope he doesn’t become homeless because, by his own account, it makes him pretty cranky.

  38. I guess all those characteristics described in 1 Timothy about self control, sound judgment, and a good reputation are too hard for the great unwashed to understand. I mean, how dare we read the Bible and discern for ourselves whether this very public figure, who sought out a public persona way beyond the scope of his congregation, is fit to be speaking to us about Jesus. If he wants to “minister” to us via all these books, You Tubes, and what not, seems I need to be evaluating his qualifications as a minister against the Bible. Shouldn’t his neo-cal buddies be thrilled that we’re looking to the Bible as the measure or do they not really believe in the completeness or inerrancy of the Bible as much as they say? And how dare we warn those who look at that “bus” and consider a ride.

  39. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    Shouldn’t his neo-cal buddies be thrilled that we’re looking to the Bible as the measure or do they not really believe in the completeness or inerrancy of the Bible as much as they say?

    That’s because 1 Timothy is a really, really difficult book to understand. There are verses, like 2:12 which absolutely mean what they plainly say. No women in authority over men, ever. Period. When it comes to 1 Timothy 3, then things are much more nuanced. The qualifications for an elder are guidelines, not hard and fast rules like 2:12. It’s similar to church discipline where those who have attained a certain level of enlightenment are exempted from the rules which govern the less enlightened.

    So, you see, they *do* value the Bible. They use it a lot. They will help you to understand what you need to understand and to disregard the things which don’t concern you.

    Does that help? 😉

  40. @ Gram3:

    Yeah, you’re right that’s not plain is it? Unless we have someone speak on behalf of God for us, interpret scripture and tell us what believe, us little people might get off the rails on the train to heaven. Because, you know, salvation is now very complex too and we also need important guys to tell us when we might be hellbound, regardless of our sincere and deep beliefs about Jesus and the fruit we produce as we love Him and others. No, we need to be told that his death, in all practicality, isn’t enough. If we don’t give enough, serve enough, and show our devoutness enough we might be deceived about our destination. If we don’t go to church enough or even embrace “wrong” theology we might be at risk too.

    It’s funny me how these guys love to hate on RC, yet it never occurs to them how they embrace aspects of it. They don’t want a Pope, but yet there are Popes all through evangelicalism. I guess that extremely important event and symbolism of the veil being rent in the temple at Christ’s crucifixion doesn’t mean much either. We still need a “godly” man of authority to tell us everything.

  41. I left a post for William G, it’s higher up on the page, so William G, please take a look at that if you have scrolled past it.

    There are some new posts by Throckmorton about Driscoll. Driscoll was invited to speak to Robert Morris’ church.

    In another post, he reports that Wenatchee the Hatchet discovered that Driscoll’s church wanted to give Driscoll a raise so that his pay gets to $650K.

  42. William G, I am with you. But it is hard explaining this stuff to folks from a more Baptist-y tradition. We kind of talk past each other. Different paradigms, I guess.

  43. Patrice wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    However, within a specifically Christian context, and informed by my denominations love for the Theotokos and believe in her perpetual virginity, I view Driscolls remark as an abhorrent attack upon the dignity of the blessed Virgin Mary and also upon the dignity of all celibate women,
    I do not understand why people would want to believe in (much less make a focus of) Mary’s perpetual virginity. Yes, celibate women need respect but why use that to try to make it happen?
    And if you will use perpetual virginity for such, why don’t you also put focus on Jesus’ perpetual virginity so that celibate men might also receive the respect they need?
    Since Mary is now in heaven, why do you see Driscoll’s demeaning comment about women as an insult first to her (who is beyond all harm), and second to celibate women, while leaving out most women, who happen to be sexually active?
    Altogether it feels suspiciously like the sameold objectification of the female, even if elevated cleaner and prettier.

    The perpetual virginity of both Christ and Mary represents the supreme example for Orthodox monastics. It is the ancient tradition of the church, accepted by Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley, that Joseph was elderly at the time of his marriage to Mary, a widower, and that Mary has no children other than Jesus. St James the Just, the brother of our Lord, who presided over the first council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, is regarded as either his half brother or cousin, as are the other brethren mentioned, just as Lot was in fact the nephew of Abraham. Only in the 19th century did questioning this doctrine become common among Protestants; it’s a fad of people like Mark Driscoll and is of equivalent antiquity to belief in the Rapture (a doctrine entirely unknown to the church, the result of a mystical experience of one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren). These pillars of fundamentalism exist in opposition to the ancient faith of the church; they occur as a result of people reading the Bible without bothering to study what the people who wrote and compiled the New Testament, including St. Athanasius, who defined our 27 book canon, actually believed.

    The great reformers on the other hand immersed themselves in Patristic writings. Luther and Calvin were conversant in the history of the early church and the fathers; Cranmer quoted the obscure Prayer of the Third Antiphonal from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom when composing the Book of Common Prayer, and the even more obscure dogmatic definitions of the iconoclastic robber councils when writing the Book of Homilies. John Wesley for his part was extraordinarily well versed in Patristics, and held to customs such as fasting on both Wednesday and Friday, that had fallen out of use in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church; his model of salvation through entire sanctification is identical with the teaching of the Eastern churches until now.

    In contrast, contemporary fundamentalists just use a literal reading of the Bible without bothering to find out how the early church interpreted it, leading to gross errors which include misogynism in Driscoll’s case. Also, frequently some chapters of the Bible are read in preference to others or without regard to the whole; there is also the problem of fundamentalists using the Masoretic text and ignoring the so called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical books, which contain important Christological prophecies, for example, the Song of Suffering Servant in Wisdom Ch. 2. This problem is not confined to fundamentalists; I was scandalized to encounter a liberal Methodist elder who had read the Reformers but none of the Fathers, and another who thought St, Vincent of Lerins hailed from the 19th century. Liberals often make the same error, reading the New Testament without regard to the Patristic consensus as to its interpretation; they also tend to do things like deprecate the Pauline epistles because of Paul’s perceived meanness, and focus on the Gospels as authoritative, ignoring the fact that Paul more than anyone else opened the church to Gentiles, and the Gospels are believed to postdate his Epistles; Eusebius and others record that Luke’s Gospel was based on Paul’s preaching, as Luke had travelled with Paul and acted as a doctor and scribe to him. In like manner the early church believed Mark was based on Peters account, as Mark was the protege of Peter and was appointed by him to evangelize the great city of Alexandria. It is also believed the house of St. Mark contained the Cenacle; there are two buildings in Jerusalem that may be that, the famous one presently involved in an I vs P debate that was rebuilt by the crusaders in a Gothic style, and the Monastery of St. Mark which is owned by the Syriac Orthodox Church.

    Mary being taken up into heaven miraculously after her death has not prevented people like Driscoll, Chuck Smith, et al her. There was an early Christian sect denounced by Epiphanius that denied her any veneration; their opponents deified her and performed animal sacrifices to her. Epiphanius denounced both in his Panarion, and his view is authoritative in Orthodoxy, which holds the Theotokos,as being closer to God than any other human on account of having given birth to God the Word, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Proper veneration of the Virgin Mary negates misogyny; one cannot be a misogynist if one believes that the holiest of humans was a woman. There are probably more monks than nuns in Orthodoxy and our monks are operationally more important to the church, as it is from their ranks that the archimandrites who are destined to become bishops are drawn, and we sadly lack the hospital infrastructure of the Roman church. Sadly there are very few Roman nuns who work as nurses these days; I have extreme respect for nuns like Mother Theresa who devote themselves to being mothers for the sick and the suffering, and I wish we had more of that in the Orthodox Church, but the socialist and Islamic regimes in the homelands and the disorganized chaos in the diaspora have prevented the Orthodox from developing the fantastic charitable works that characterize the Roman church, and several Protestant denominations.

    I would be less inclined to view Mars Hill as a cult if it ran hospitals, homes for the elderly and other social services instead of paying its pastors amounts that would make the Borgias blush. At least the Catholic Church under the Borgias ran hospitals. The average salary for an Orthodox priest is $3,000/mo and the Bishops strictly speaking draw none; as monastics all their property belongs to the church, even their personal belongings.

    Driscolls remark was a slur directed at all women; it is inherently misogynistic and roughly on a par with the C word, or with calling a man the D word that previously referred to detectives or as a nickname for someone named Richard. Let the reader understand. Reducing anyone to the function of their genitalia is dehumanizing. I don’t like to read about sexually active women (or men); sexual activity outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments. The early church received polygamists and did not require divorce, in order to avoid breaking apart pre-existing families, but men who were polygamists or divorced were disqualified from the priesthood, for Paul instructed Timothy that priests (the word priest is a transliteration of presbyter, meaning elder, and not sacerdos, meaning an intermediary priest in the sense of a Kohanim; we all have a sacerdotal function via the priesthood of all believers,,although there is a specific sacerdotal ministry among the elders who act in the person of Christ when conferring the mysteries, or sacraments) should be the husband of one wife. They are not required to marry, but married priests represent the bulk of parish priests in our tradition, and must be married prior to ordination. They cannot be remarried or married to a woman who is herself divorced from a Christian marriage. Unlike the Catholics we will remarry divorcees, but we hate doing it, and will not permit anyone to be married more than four times in the church. However there are cases where if, for example, a woman is married to an abusive husband who assaults her and sleeps with other women, such a woman can be said to deserve a second chance at marriage and should not be forced into celibacy because of the evil of her spouse, as an example. I really don’t like to consider the dignity of sexually active persons though, as anyone who is sexually active outside of Holy Matrimony has a lack of control over their passions, and is procuring destruction for themselves. Such a person should not be subject to the dehumanizing language used by Driscoll, and deserves the love of the church, but they themselves are behaving in an undignified manner by allowing themselves to be enslaved by lust, and risking tragedies such as contracting an STD or accidental pregnancy, which can lead to further tragedies. Marriage does not guarantee safety, but it is a safer path than promiscuity and is also the legitimate outlet for human sexual desire that cannot be sublimated into an asexual love for God and humanity, which is what monastics do.

  44. Victorious wrote:

    Phillip Miller wrote:
    Perhaps the biggest bull in this storybis the idea that anyone on this blog, authors or readers, are in a position to judge whether Driscoll was qualified or unqualified to continue as pastor.
    Scripture is the standard for all believers, leaders included. Mark’s mouth alone disqualifies him:
    Eph 5:3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
    Eph 5:4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting…
    His preaching and teaching often included filthy (imo), silly talk, and course jesting and often made women the brunt of his jokes.
    I could post other scripture which disqualifies him, but you get the message. Scripture is the standard:
    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

    It should be noted that at the time Paul wrote that, the Gospels had not been written, and Paul did not presume to declare his epistles as scripture; the early church recognized them as inspired after his martyrdom. He probably wrote more epistles that we don’t have, and personal correspondence to Peter and the other Apostles; it’s a tragedy how little we do have, but what we do have was recognized as priceless. However, you cannot use Paul to endorse his own teachings in Ephesus as Scripture because Paul was not referring to the New Testament or pumping up his own writings in the manner of the megachurch pastors.

    There is no single standard for all believers, because all Christians, even Orthodox Christians, do not share a common canon of scripture. The Ethiopians have additional books in their New Testament; Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have differing Old Testament canons and even between Eastern Orthodox churches there is variation. The 27 books identified by Athanasius are almost universally accepted, but historically Athanasius was the first to accept all of them, and the Oriental churches, for example, do not read some of the books, such as Revelation, due to the late date at which they were accepted. Many liberal Christians accept Gnostic gospels and reject canonical material. The Ecclesia Gnostica developed a Gnostic canon, and a group of liberal Bible scholars published the New New Testament which features various apocryphal books. Since these people are all to some extent believers, we cannot say that the Scriptures are a universal standard. Only within an individual church that explicitly sets the scriptures up as a standard can they be said to apply, but even then, one runs into the problem of divergent interpretation.

    Ultimately, there is no way to set a standard outside of a church, except by being your own Pope and practicing, in the manner of General Charles Gordon, a private interpretation of Christianity. However being unchurched is unhealthy and contrary to the guidance of the New Testament; that so many people are unchurched is the result of false teachers like Driscoll setting up new denominations that are abusive cults, combined with the sex abuse problem in existing denominations and the encroachment of progressive theologians who are insensitive and ruthless in imposing sweeping changes of faith in the churches they get ahold of. Thus Christianity is becoming polarized between authoritarian fundamentalist churches on the Right, and authoritarian progressive churches on the Left. People who want to worship in the manner of their parents and preserve the ecclesial traditions in which they were born are being marginalized. Even in Orthodoxy there are attempts by some on the left and right, under demonic influence, to split the church in this manner. The ugly situation in Greece with the calendar schism, where Old Calendarist priests were seized by police, and had their cassocks ripped off and their beards and hair forcibly shaved, and where at the same time Old Calendarists adopted a strident, triumphalist and hateful view of the non-Orthodox, is an example of this process.

    We must understand however that each independent church sets the rules of the game. You cannot expect someone like Driscoll to adhere to your interpretation of Scripture, or even interpret Scripture consistently, without hypocrisy. Yes, Driscoll violated the directives of both Paul and our Lord, but much of what he did he passed off as scriptural, and the Mars Hill people insist he did not engage in any heresy. Whatever, it’s their church, and the standards of a church are ultimately set by those who govern it.

    It helps if a church adheres to the ancient creeds and has an established and accessible framework of canon law, however. Then at least you know what your rights are. The danger of Moses Model churches following in the footsteps of Chuck Smith, and one could say Driscoll is the Chuck Smith of the North, is that the leaders of such churches place themselves above accountability as prophets of God. You can either hear their message or go somewhere else. As a prophet, Moses wrote scripture, and unlike Paul, was more than an apostle and evangelist; Moses was accountable only to God and wrote the rules literally as he went along; most Jews and Christians believe God gave him the law. Moses was invested with a combination of religious and spiritual authority that was not exceeded until the coming of Christ; in a sense the Torah iconographically represents the Gospels. In going to a megachurch that follows the Moses model or anything close to it, or even one that follows the kind of crony Congregationalist polity of Mars Hill, where the Elders are above, rather than answerable to, the faithful, one is placing ones soul in the hands of someone who considers themselves to be on a par with Moses, and whose personal decisions ARE the rule of faith. I believe that to be exceedingly dangerous, and beg all readers of Wartburg Watch to avoid such churches; all the hurt people whose stories this blog tells attest to the danger of such churches.

    This does not mean one should avoid small denominations or independent churches, just those who have rulers who literally are more powerful than the Pope. The Pope can theoretically be deposed and cannot use his infallible magisterium against Holy Tradition, although at present the Roman church lacks a strong mechanism to hold the Pope to account. Before the Great Schism of 1054, heretical Popes were deposed by the other Patriarchs, who also occasionally deposed each other. Honorius I was deposed for teaching Monothelitism, and Patriarch Nestorius was famously deposed by Cyril of Alexandria. There is no mechanism, nor even as in the modern Roman church the history of a mechanism, to properly hold most of these megachurch pastors to account. To paraphrase Luther, they have made themselves Gods among men.

  45. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Yeah, you’re right that’s not plain is it? Unless we have someone speak on behalf of God for us, interpret scripture and tell us what believe, us little people might get off the rails on the train to heaven. Because, you know, salvation is now very complex too and we also need important guys to tell us when we might be hellbound, regardless of our sincere and deep beliefs about Jesus and the fruit we produce as we love Him and others. No, we need to be told that his death, in all practicality, isn’t enough. If we don’t give enough, serve enough, and show our devoutness enough we might be deceived about our destination. If we don’t go to church enough or even embrace “wrong” theology we might be at risk too.
    It’s funny me how these guys love to hate on RC, yet it never occurs to them how they embrace aspects of it. They don’t want a Pope, but yet there are Popes all through evangelicalism. I guess that extremely important event and symbolism of the veil being rent in the temple at Christ’s crucifixion doesn’t mean much either. We still need a “godly” man of authority to tell us everything.

    Note that without spiritual leadership, you are making yourself your own Pope. Christians need teachers, confessors and someone to be there to pray with them on their deathbed. It’s best to find a church where the pastors are accountable and not held to be individually infallible, as opposed to practicing Christianity privately and without support. Or for that matter, there are options like the Quakers; I wouldn’t want to be a Quaker as it sounds like a rather boring way to spend a Sunday morning, but in the traditional Quaker meetings one does benefit from the support of a church without a hierarchy. However, most Christian pastors are not out to get you; don’t let your faith be destroyed by evil heretics; Christ warned us of wolves in sheeps’ clothing (actually, He invented that analogy), and as a Christian one has to accept the risk of such people and make efforts to steer clear of them.

  46. Catholic Homeschooler wrote:

    William G, I am with you. But it is hard explaining this stuff to folks from a more Baptist-y tradition. We kind of talk past each other. Different paradigms, I guess.

    I believe that our traditions can help address this issue because our respective churches emphasize canon law and the use of creeds and a vast corpus of material that define proper conduct. The sex abuse scandal that rocked your church was due to Bishops failing to apply the canon law. If we can show Baptists how to apply the ancient creeds and canons, they can defend themselves against evil pastors like Driscoll.

  47. PaJo wrote:

    “How shameful that we who have the Holy Spirit to help us in our striving toward virtue no longer remember our call–to be like Christ.”

    Absolutely agree. That’s a good reminder for my own life.

  48. Well, now. just look-e here. A very public figure in the “baptist-y” tradition has disgraced himself and brought shame on the whole tradition, and some folks want to say that nobody has the right to object or criticize other than the members of his particular autonomous church, while some say that not even the members but only the elders can object to his behavior. As if declaring one’s church to be autonomous (if in fact they had actually done that) built a wall of protection around the lead pastor and he is now isolated from any criticism.

    This hiding behind the supposed protective walls of the concept of an autonomous church will not stand. It is too dysfunctional for the masses. It leaves the abused without a voice. It is the perfect incubator for all sorts of bad teaching (heresy) and bad practice (abuse) and bad governance (lack of) and shady financial schemes and lack of accountability for the leadership. And, let me be careful here in saying: we have the example of other christian traditions who do things differently in church governance and we have the fact that “this is america.” These people have forgotten that the archaeologists have told us that the walls of Jericho had a habit of falling down, apparently some wall problem there; and similarly these walls of “autonomy” will not hold against the cries of the abused and the maligned and the deceived and their defenders. Some wall problem there also.

  49. William G. wrote:

    I don’t like to read about sexually active women (or men); sexual activity outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Adults who are married are sexually active, William. If instead you mean promiscuous, yes that’s not a good idea. BTW, I have been celibate for 16 years.

    Comparing virginity with spiritual purity is not a very useful metaphor because virginity (male/female) is a combo of innocence, lack of experience, and ignorance. Spiritual purity is about being innocent as a dove and wise as a serpent in experience. To remove knowledge/experience/wisdom from purity is to fall straight into those dualisms that destructively haunt us, this one deepened by focusing only on female virginity.

    It’s also problematic to conflate virginity with celibacy. There are some who remain virgins throughout their lives, but more do not. A widow(er) may decide to become celibate. A person who has turned to Christ after a wild early adulthood may become celibate. People may not choose it at all but find themselves in that position in spite of their efforts. Why can’t celibacy be celebrated and honored simply for itself? It needs it, certainly.

    I am glad that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have given Mary position because she provides a way for the female to enter the faith. But that half-measure doesn’t keep your faith from misogyny. This focus on female virginity is case in point. Mary is celebrated for being a Mother and then turned into a Perpetual Virgin.

    I’m very glad that you love the orthodox church. I can see that it has great value. But this woman can find no place in the Christian faith, except small pockets, that allows her to be simply human and I now realize that the Orthodox church doesn’t offer it, either.

    It is demeaning it is to be a woman who is Christian, made esp difficult because of the completely male-oriented Scriptures at the center of our faith. If I hadn’t found God to be all love to me, I would’ve been gone a long time ago.

    PS: I’ve come across a few orthodox christians in comboxes recently and they’ve all had a similar wordiness and assertion of greater excellence. You all remind me of my old Reformed stomping-grounds, but with more symbols and pomp. I don’t mind but it is interesting. Is this because of the completeness of both faith-views, I wonder?

  50. Ah, I see you quoted the “they won’t let him preach” here — which is what I was referring to on my earlier comment on your later post. (Sorry, reading backwards this morning.)

    I had to stop in the reading of this, when I got to: Specifically, I have confessed to past pride, anger and a domineering spirit.

    That’s it, then. It’s all in the past. Why are all these mean people hounding the poor man for stuff that’s in the past? He confessed, he said. His former sins are covered now.

    /irony (or do I mean sarcasm?)

    I mean, I read this statement earlier and was annoyed by it. It reminds me a lot of a former elder who confessed to having an anger problem “in the past.” So of course it was dealt with, and no need for further concern.

  51. I have been noticing “Lydia’s Corner” for some time now, without understanding why it was there, until today. It’s a reading plan? How long does it take to go all the way through?

  52. @ Eagle:
    Yes, I noticed three fully grown p* homes in the group, along with a young one (a future p* home, that is, in MD’s phraseology). What are they thinking? (No, wait, maybe they aren’t thinking.)

  53. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    I guess all those characteristics described in 1 Timothy about self control, sound judgment, and a good reputation are too hard for the great unwashed to understand. I mean, how dare we read the Bible and discern for ourselves whether this very public figure, who sought out a public persona way beyond the scope of his congregation, is fit to be speaking to us about Jesus. If he wants to “minister” to us via all these books, You Tubes, and what not, seems I need to be evaluating his qualifications as a minister against the Bible. Shouldn’t his neo-cal buddies be thrilled that we’re looking to the Bible as the measure or do they not really believe in the completeness or inerrancy of the Bible as much as they say? And how dare we warn those who look at that “bus” and consider a ride.

    In the church we left, I am (in looking back) discerning a subtle discouragement of reading the Bible for yourself, even though they gave lip service to the concept. What was really encouraged was reading other men’s writings about the Bible. The most socially acceptable men in the body were the ones who were reading reformed commentary (and could quote and discuss what they’d read, and drop names). Since I wasn’t in the loop, I don’t remember many of the names that were dropped. Bahnsen was one I recall. Sproul (both Jr. and Sr.). Douglas Wilson. Puritan writers, I think. I’m not sure their reading went back much further than the Reformation. I only remember early Church names (like Origen? My brain is fuzzy today) occasionally being mentioned in a sermon — our first pastor used to say that christians are woefully ignorant of church history — but not in manly conversation.

  54. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    No, we need to be told that his death, in all practicality, isn’t enough. If we don’t give enough, serve enough, and show our devoutness enough we might be deceived about our destination. If we don’t go to church enough or even embrace “wrong” theology we might be at risk too.

    Wow. This is a beautiful summation of Federal Vision theology, in my limited understanding, not having made a learned study of the matter. Honestly, I think a lot of these scholarly men actually enjoy obfuscating the truth with “high,” confusing talk.

  55. @ William G.:

    I don’t agree with a lot of Roman Catholic views of Mary, that she was bodily assumed and did not experience death (the Bible does not mention this at all), or that she was a perpetual virgin.

    I am a virgin over the age of 40 because I was waiting for marriage to have sex, never got married. (I left a post for you higher up on this page with more about that issue, I don’t know if you ever saw it or not).

    My virginity is due in part to the fact that God says in the Bible that sex is for marriage only.

    I did not need to believe in a perpetual virginity of Mary to stay sexually pure.

    I’d also say, in opposition to your comment, that Jesus was the most holy human to ever live, not Mary. (Jesus was both God and human.)

    The Bible says in Genesis that male and female are both created in God’s image, and in Galatians, the Bible says there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, so on that basis alone, Christians should not be sexist against women.

    I therefore don’t think it necessary to create undue emphasis on the person of Mary to accomplish respect for all women.

  56. Patrice wrote:

    Comparing virginity with spiritual purity is not a very useful metaphor because virginity (male/female) is a combo of innocence, lack of experience, and ignorance..

    As a 40 something virgin (literal, physical virgin, no sexual intercourse), I don’t think I agree with this.

    I may be sexually inexperienced, but I’m not ignorant – not about sex, nor am I inexperienced in general.

    It’s not necessary to have sex to be a full fledged adult, to be mature, or to be worldly.

    This is one fallacy a lot of conservative Christians make about sex, (especially evagelicals) – that one has to be married (have sex) to truly be a grown up.

    Ergo, even never married virgins my age or older, are assumed to be terribly immature, stunted, and repressed.

    A lot of secular culture makes these same assumptions: that to really be a grown up, you have to have sex. That is not so.

    Or maybe I misunderstood your comments. I don’t know.

  57. William G. wrote:

    I don’t like to read about sexually active women (or men); sexual activity outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments.

    No such proscription is to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.

  58. @ Muff Potter:

    I think it was implied. If the woman was shown not to be a virgin on her wedding night, I believe the community was to stone her to death.

  59. Jimmy

    I think you better be careful about using this verse to put a negative spin on our judging the actions of others. We are called to judge the actions of others. We are not called to judge their salvation. Jude 9 refers to the Archangel Michael who was sent on a mission from God and given precise instructions on what to do and say. This scenario is being recounted in Jude but actually comes from the pseudoepigraphal book called The Assumption of Moses most likely written by Origen and Clement. That, in itself should give you pause in “applying it” to our situation.

    Michael was powerful but the negative admonishment of Satan was to be left up to God. In other words, Michael, as an emissary of God ,knew when and how he was to speak and did not go beyond that. To make an allusions that Michael dare not slander (by the way, that word when used in the Bible means to tell a lie in order to harm the reputation of another), and to attribute that to making judgements about another’s behavior which is clearly spelled out by the Bible, is making an unwise leap. 

  60. @ Daisy:

    One can imply and extrapolate just about anything one desires out of Scripture. The difficulty arises in getting others to agree with you.

  61. refugee wrote:

    Honestly, I think a lot of these scholarly men actually enjoy obfuscating the truth with “high,” confusing talk.

    That is their way of differentiating themselves from the riff-raff who are too unlearned to “get it” and therefore need Great Men to explain it to them. They are the Leaders who are Readers, and they are trying to intimidate you into agreement with them by using clever language, a mark of a deceiver.

    You mention Bahnsen, Wilson, and Sproul, Jr. in your prior comment. It sounds like you were involved in a dominionist church, and I hope you ran for your life from the Galatianism they teach. What is frightening to me is the way these men are being accepted by the YRR crowd who claim to be all about the Gospel.

  62. @ refugee:

    Doug Wilson makes me shudder. Are you aware of his philosophy that if we just marry off pedophiles and give them a wife to fulfill their sexual desires, it will take care of the problem? Worse yet, he promoted this philosophy by officiating the marriage of a young woman to a known repeat pedophile. A judge got involved and basically couldn’t prevent the marriage, but there was acknowledgment that any children of the union might have to come under court/state protection. How sad when the secular court has much more wisdom that those who profess Jesus. This is why people look at Christianity and say, “I want none of that” and I can’t say I blame them.

  63. Muff Potter wrote:

    One can imply and extrapolate just about anything one desires out of Scripture.

    I’m not reading anything into it. The OT commands that a woman had to be a virgin on her wedding night; if she was not, the penalty was stoning. The NT further explains that virginity is expected (of both genders) on the wedding night.

  64. @ William G.:

    A church body in which to worship, socialize, encourage, and enlighten each other spiritually and scripturally is a beautiful thing. A someone who has only exclusively been in Protestant circles since childhood I can say, that unfortunately, there is so much dysfunction in evangelicalism that it is hard to find “healthy” congregations. Note I said healthy, not perfect. By the way, I am currently a member of a “Bible” church. Yet, I find that I am increasingly withdrawing because the teaching is becoming rather stringent and non-optional on what I consider secondary issues. Secondly, as the teaching has become this way, I find I no longer relate to the congregants that are attracted to my church. We really should leave, but there are some practical issues that have delayed a departure.

    With regard to being religiously independent, you have to look at it a couple ways. There are those who are completely independent, not just in mind, but also completely because they do not belong to a church, at least at the moment. There are a number who might want to, but they can’t find one that feels safe. Then, there are those who have their church membership and may even be very involved, they are always looking at the teaching with a discerning eye. They are not just believing it because Pastor Bob said so, but are searching the scripture themselves and making sure that Pastor Bob isn’t false, unwittingly or intentionally. So these folks are independent in spirit, but yet are attached to a congregation.

    I am not advocating a Lone Wolf approach, yet many find themselves there, many sadly, because that is the best and safest approach in their particular community. One difference in being independent is that at least you have no one to abuse you, despite some pitfalls. Also, most people of this ilk are well aware of man’s flaws and corruptibility, as it has been on full display for them. It is not born out of an “I know best” puffed up attitude. In other words, what I’m speaking of is not a sentiment of “I am my own pope”. People of this sentiment don’t feel they have all the answers, and actually are offended by teachers, equally as human, who insist they do and won’t even stand for questions.

    Since this thread is about MD, he is an excellent example of what happens in abusive, dysfunctional churches, with no accountability. If you read the Mars Hill “survivor” websites, there are many who haven’t lost their faith, but might not be able to set foot in a church for a long time, if ever again.

    Anyway, since we have different church tradition and backgrounds, what I’m speaking of might be hard to fathom. I have zero experience with the RC Church. I hope you realize one of my comments was rebuking those in the evangelical world who love to bash the RC Church and are being hypocritical.

  65. Muff Potter wrote:

    No such proscription is to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.

    That is a disturbing thought. I never heard that. Do you mean “not in so many words” or are you talking about tolerating prostitutes or what? Or are you saying they had a loose sexual ethic perhaps with different rules for different people? What are you saying here?

  66. Patrice wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    I don’t like to read about sexually active women (or men); sexual activity outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments.
    Adults who are married are sexually active, William. If instead you mean promiscuous, yes that’s not a good idea. BTW, I have been celibate for 16 years.
    Comparing virginity with spiritual purity is not a very useful metaphor because virginity (male/female) is a combo of innocence, lack of experience, and ignorance. Spiritual purity is about being innocent as a dove and wise as a serpent in experience. To remove knowledge/experience/wisdom from purity is to fall straight into those dualisms that destructively haunt us, this one deepened by focusing only on female virginity.
    It’s also problematic to conflate virginity with celibacy. There are some who remain virgins throughout their lives, but more do not. A widow(er) may decide to become celibate. A person who has turned to Christ after a wild early adulthood may become celibate. People may not choose it at all but find themselves in that position in spite of their efforts. Why can’t celibacy be celebrated and honored simply for itself? It needs it, certainly.
    I am glad that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have given Mary position because she provides a way for the female to enter the faith. But that half-measure doesn’t keep your faith from misogyny. This focus on female virginity is case in point. Mary is celebrated for being a Mother and then turned into a Perpetual Virgin.
    I’m very glad that you love the orthodox church. I can see that it has great value. But this woman can find no place in the Christian faith, except small pockets, that allows her to be simply human and I now realize that the Orthodox church doesn’t offer it, either.
    It is demeaning it is to be a woman who is Christian, made esp difficult because of the completely male-oriented Scriptures at the center of our faith. If I hadn’t found God to be all love to me, I would’ve been gone a long time ago.
    PS: I’ve come across a few orthodox christians in comboxes recently and they’ve all had a similar wordiness and assertion of greater excellence. You all remind me of my old Reformed stomping-grounds, but with more symbols and pomp. I don’t mind but it is interesting. Is this because of the completeness of both faith-views, I wonder?

    I think you should denote the veneration we give to St. Mary of Bethany, who the Roman Catholics conflate with Mary Magdalene. I can find nothing in your description of your lifestyle that would be in any sense against the rules; men and women who have lost their virginity outside of wedlock are not denied holy matrimony or monastic tonsure. Priests must step down if they wish to be remarried, but laity are allowed remarriage, up to a point. We aren’t going to marry someone more than four times the Orthodox Church; marriages contracted outside the church are non- Sacramental and are not enumerated in the same manner. That being said, the earthly contingent of the Eastern churches are comprised of humans and humans do horrible things. The Oriental Orthodox have a very good record of nonviolence, but lamentably the Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox are tainted by various episodes such as the genocidal war against the Samaritans in 600 and the Nikonian schism of the 1600s. However, if there have been moments of darkness, there have also been moments of great light; following St. Vladimir the Great leading his people to the Orthodox Church, Kievan Rus became somewhat of a Utopian society, and was the only medieval European state with no death penalty. There was also religious freedom enjoyed by Khazars (Turkic Karaite Jews of the Crimean peninsula), Muslims and practitioners of other faiths. This lasted until the rise of the Muscovite dukes and Imperial Russia following the capture of Constantinople.

    I do believe that Orthodoxy offers some things Calvinism lacks; we reject absolutely the notion that our loving God would foreordain people to damnation, and in fact in response to the Confession of Dositheus, a Calvinist declaration of faith, the Calvinist theology in its entirety was anathematized by the synod of Jerusalem. Calvin for his part dismisses us in his Institutes as being the most idolatrous of Christians, but there has never been much theological contact between the two traditions. We are somewhat allergic to each other. Also in contrast to Calvinists we do not possess assurance of our own salvation; the only individuals we know definitively to have been saved are those saints who have been declared glorified following a detailed investigation (the process is similar to the Roman process of canonization; all Saints whose Sainthood became evident before the Great Schism of 1054 are venerated by both churches, and Anglicans have added some recent Orthodox saints such as Seraphim of Sarov to their liturgical calendar). What we do have, that Calvinists reject entirely, but which Roman Catholics also have, are mystical practices designed to facilitate greater knowledge of God. In this respect Orthodoxy and Catholicism are a bit like Sufi Islam or Buddhism, whereas Calvinism is a bit like Salafist Sunni Islam in its fundamentalist austerity; this is not to say that I suggest being a Sufi is better than being a Calvinist; God forbid.

    I do not agree that the scriptures are male oriented. In the Old Testament the books of Ruth, Esther and Judith describe the acts of female heroines within the people of Israel, and Judaism is matrilineal; in the New Testament we have “there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek,” etc. Most early adherents to the Christian religion were women seeking protection from the misogyny of Roman civil society, in which a father could unilaterally abandon or kill his children and in which other infringements upon the rights of women were the norm. The early church did not baptize men who pandered prostitutes unless they renounced their career.

    So on the one hand you have people like Driscoll who reduce women to their reproductive function, and on the other hand Elaine Pagels, who accuses St. Ignatius, who the Romans fed to lions in the coliseum, of having launched a successful conspiracy en route to Rome, when he wrote his famous epistles, designed to remove women from authority in the early church and impose a misogynistic male episcopate. I do not believe that the correct answer to Driscoll and his ilk is to transform Christianity into a mother goddess religion, which it has never been. We do not have the right to remake God in our own image.

    Lastly I should say that according to Paul, the ideal path for those who can pull it off is for virgins of either gender to remain celibate. The instruction of our Lord that the apostles, in spreading their message, were to be as wise as serpents, was never understood by the early Church to refer to sexual knowledge or experience; rather, this was seen as defiling outside of wedlock. The marriage bed is undefiled, but innocence was sanctifying; see the martyrdom of St. Lucy. Frankly I have to confess you made me literally a bit nauseated with that suggestion, assuming I read you correctly, which I really hope I did not. If you really believe that I urge you to reconsider; it’s very dangerous to try and use the words of our Lord to justify sinful behavior, and very safe and purifying to accept the unconditional forgiveness he offers for sinful behavior. I remember when Survivor was new there was a lady on it who justified her lying to win on the grounds that she was a Christian and would be forgiven, and that kind of anomic interpretation of the release of sins offered by our Lord makes me groan, it seems, shall we say, unregenerate, an example of the dead faith described by James.

  67. Nancy wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    No such proscription is to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.
    That is a disturbing thought. I never heard that. Do you mean “not in so many words” or are you talking about tolerating prostitutes or what? Or are you saying they had a loose sexual ethic perhaps with different rules for different people? What are you saying here?

    Muff Potter is misinformed; the Old Testament implicitly condemns formication but does not describe it as being as destructive as adultery or incest; both Rabinmical Jews, who use the Talmud, and Karaite Jews, who do not, reject fornication; the 800 or so Samaritans who live in the shadow of Mount Gerizim also reject it, and they accept only a modified version of the Pentateuch (which contains interpolations regarding the sanctity of Mt Gerizim vs. Jerusalem). We see no quarrel in the New Testament between the Pharisees and the early church over fornication.

  68. Daisy wrote:

    This is one fallacy a lot of conservative Christians make about sex, (especially evagelicals) – that one has to be married (have sex) to truly be a grown up.

    As in “You’re not REALLY an adult until you get your cherry popped.” (Marriage is often Christianese for getting laid, with ALL the accompanying baggage.) I remember catching hell from my family because I wasn’t sexually active, including pressure to get laid.

    They pulled that from the surrounding culture and just slapped on a Christianese coat of paint.

  69. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    It’s funny me how these guys love to hate on RC, yet it never occurs to them how they embrace aspects of it. They don’t want a Pope, but yet there are Popes all through evangelicalism.

    Who claim power and authority by Divine Right far in excess of any real Pope.

  70. Daisy wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I don’t agree with a lot of Roman Catholic views of Mary, that she was bodily assumed and did not experience death (the Bible does not mention this at all), or that she was a perpetual virgin.
    I am a virgin over the age of 40 because I was waiting for marriage to have sex, never got married. (I left a post for you higher up on this page with more about that issue, I don’t know if you ever saw it or not).
    My virginity is due in part to the fact that God says in the Bible that sex is for marriage only.
    I did not need to believe in a perpetual virginity of Mary to stay sexually pure.
    I’d also say, in opposition to your comment, that Jesus was the most holy human to ever live, not Mary. (Jesus was both God and human.)
    The Bible says in Genesis that male and female are both created in God’s image, and in Galatians, the Bible says there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, so on that basis alone, Christians should not be sexist against women.
    I therefore don’t think it necessary to create undue emphasis on the person of Mary to accomplish respect for all women.

    The council of Chalcedon describes Jesus as having a human nature and a divine nature in hypostatic union as opposed to Nestorius or Theodore of Mopsuestia, who taught that Jesus was the human hypostasis or prosopon (face) of Christ, the Word being the divine hypostasis, the two in that sense being united through a union of will, and thus Mary in no sense was the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ only, according to Nestorius. If we accept Chalcedon and Ephesus, one can say that Jesus, in his human nature, was perfect. Being a follower of Alexandrian theology, which emphasizes the divinity of Christ and a prophetic/Allegorical/Christological reading of Holy Scripture, over Antiochene theology, which emphasizes the humanity of Christ and a literal reading of Scripture, I tend to shy away from evaluating our Lord in comparison with other humans.

    I will say that while it is true that Christianity can reject Driscoll’s misogyny without veneration of Mary, if we do consider her to be the supreme example of mere mortals, and I do believe that Luke ch. 1 gives us reason for doing that, it becomes harder still to disparage women. This model also allows for the male priesthood described by Paul to exist without serving as mud in the eye of women, for that institution is compensated for by the veneration of Mary. I do think if you do not venerate Mary then it’s difficult to justify Paul’s instructions regarding the role of women in the church. However, the early church did venerate Mary and Nestorius was deposed because of his attempts to suppress such veneration, which he justified by separating Christ into two persons united via a single divine will, so as to deny Marys status as Theotokos. Regarding the Dormition (the Orthodox do believe that Mary died before her body was removed from this world, whereas some Catholics regard the assumption as a direct access to Heaven in the manner of Elijah), though it was not recorded in the New Testament, that does not mean it did not happen. There are a number of extra Biblical traditions regarding Mary that until the 19th century enjoyed universal acceptance in mainstream Christianity; certainly the perpetual virginity is an example; the story of the Dormition is admittedly more of an edge case, but I will observe that we see the fourth and fifth century church commemorating it, and unlike other New Testament saints, we have no bodily relics of Mary, which is remarkable given her importance, and the fact that we do have relics of John and Luke who were recorded as being her principle caretakers; her death is recorded as having occurred in Ephesus where John was Bishop prior to his exile to Patmos.

  71. William G. wrote:

    I would be less inclined to view Mars Hill as a cult if it ran hospitals, homes for the elderly and other social services instead of paying its pastors amounts that would make the Borgias blush. At least the Catholic Church under the Borgias ran hospitals.

    And did other works of charity as well. And, that’s the Borgias; it’s not, say, John Paul II.
    Sometimes we all get so caught up in arguing theology that we forget that Jesus Christ Himself went around healing people…….like, pretty much, everywhere He went.

  72. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Who claim power and authority by Divine Right far in excess of any real Pope.

    That does seem to be the case, except they always say “I did not say that; God said it, and you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with God” which I guess is supposed to hide the reality of what they are doing.

  73. William G. wrote:

    Also in contrast to Calvinists we do not possess assurance of our own salvation; the only individuals we know definitively to have been saved are those saints who have been declared glorified following a detailed investigation (the process is similar to the Roman process of canonization; all Saints whose Sainthood became evident before the Great Schism of 1054 are venerated by both churches, and Anglicans have added some recent Orthodox saints such as Seraphim of Sarov to their liturgical calendar).

    The formulation that a Catholic friend taught me is, “I have been saved, I am being saved, and I live in the hope that I shall be saved”. (You may word it differently). You don’t “lose” salvation the way you lose your car keys, but anyone can throw their faith away. God does not, as I tell people, drag people kicking & screaming into Heaven; if a person says, “No! I’m not having any”, he will be allowed to stay outside.

  74. William G. wrote:

    in fact in response to the Confession of Dositheus, a Calvinist declaration of faith, the Calvinist theology in its entirety was anathematized by the synod of Jerusalem.

    Hear wild cheering from Zooey, here.

  75. @ William G.:

    There was a guest speaker in adult formation at my kids’ episcopal church last Sunday, a man who teaches religion at a private college in the next city over. A methodist school I think. Anyhow, he had been asked to speak on Paul and Galatians and the first sentence out of his mouth was: “Paul was not a sixteenth century calvinist, no matter how many people try to make him that.” Young daughter remembered just in time that she was not in a baptist church so she refrained from saying “amen” out loud. I love it!

  76. dee wrote:

    Jimmy
    I think you better be careful about using this verse to put a negative spin on our judging the actions of others. We are called to judge the actions of others. We are not called to judge their salvation. Jude 9 refers to the Archangel Michael who was sent on a mission from God and given precise instructions on what to do and say. This scenario is being recounted in Jude but actually comes from the pseudoepigraphal book called The Assumption of Moses most likely written by Origen and Clement. That, in itself should give you pause in “applying it” to our situation.
    Michael was powerful but the negative admonishment of Satan was to be left up to God. In other words, Michael, as an emissary of God ,knew when and how he was to speak and did not go beyond that. To make an allusions that Michael dare not slander (by the way, that word when used in the Bible means to tell a lie in order to harm the reputation of another), and to attribute that to making judgements about another’s behavior which is clearly spelled out by the Bible, is making an unwise leap. 

    I fear you are slightly in error on this point; Jude was known and accepted in the second century church and Clement of Alexandria was born in 150, Origen later still; it is grossly implausible that the Assumption of Moses was written by either of them given the dating. I know of no scholars who have suggested that Origen or Clement wrote the Assumption of Moses. Origen for his part discussed Jude in his writings, mentioning the fact that it was broadly but not universally accepted as authentic.

    It should be noted however that Jude was more widely accepted as being authentic Scripture in the Fourth Century than either Hebrews or Revelations. Several fourth century canons include it and reject the others. Also, it is possible, in my own opinion, probable, that Jude was referring to Enoch and not the Assumption of Moses in vs. 9. Also, for that matter, Jude could have been referring to something else entirely, which would explain why so many learned theologians in the fourth century felt confident to pronounce it canonical without including Enoch or the Assumption of Moses in the canon, and while rejecting the Apocalypse of John and Hebrews as forgeries. So the verse in question is as authoritative at least as anything written in James, and more authoritative than anything in Hebrews or Revelations, if one wants to proceed down the road of evaluating passages based on the degree of their canonical acceptance. The fourth century fathers had no sense of humor and were terribly severe, but they were profoundly learned scholars, and I find myself unable to believe that they would include Jude in the canon without including a work that it refers to, if it were remotely relevant to doctrine, as they were all about not setting up stumbling blocks for people.

    However, one can surely warn people of Mark Driscoll’s evil without pronouncing judgment on him or his soteriological condition, so I don’t think you need to deprecate Jude v. 9; your argument works with it intact.

  77. William G. wrote:

    Kievan Rus became somewhat of a Utopian society

    In whose history books?! Seriously, I have spent a lot of time studying both Russian and Soviet history, and I honestly know of *nothing* (except the overly lavish praise and half-truths of some contemporary chroniclers who were being paid by royalty) to support this assertion.

    That Kievan Rus *might* have been a shade more peaceful than some of the other groups/states around it, I have no doubt. But that it was “somewhat of a Utopian society” is just not supportable.

    William, you’re a nice guy, but sometimes I feel like you have been hoodwinked by the Orthodox on some matters. I know that sounds harsh, but please understand, I am a historian (as well as an arts person) by training, and I’m willing to bet $$$$ that this assertion simply isn’t accurate.

  78. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    @ William G.:
    A church body in which to worship, socialize, encourage, and enlighten each other spiritually and scripturally is a beautiful thing. A someone who has only exclusively been in Protestant circles since childhood I can say, that unfortunately, there is so much dysfunction in evangelicalism that it is hard to find “healthy” congregations. Note I said healthy, not perfect. By the way, I am currently a member of a “Bible” church. Yet, I find that I am increasingly withdrawing because the teaching is becoming rather stringent and non-optional on what I consider secondary issues. Secondly, as the teaching has become this way, I find I no longer relate to the congregants that are attracted to my church. We really should leave, but there are some practical issues that have delayed a departure.
    With regard to being religiously independent, you have to look at it a couple ways. There are those who are completely independent, not just in mind, but also completely because they do not belong to a church, at least at the moment. There are a number who might want to, but they can’t find one that feels safe. Then, there are those who have their church membership and may even be very involved, they are always looking at the teaching with a discerning eye. They are not just believing it because Pastor Bob said so, but are searching the scripture themselves and making sure that Pastor Bob isn’t false, unwittingly or intentionally. So these folks are independent in spirit, but yet are attached to a congregation.
    I am not advocating a Lone Wolf approach, yet many find themselves there, many sadly, because that is the best and safest approach in their particular community. One difference in being independent is that at least you have no one to abuse you, despite some pitfalls. Also, most people of this ilk are well aware of man’s flaws and corruptibility, as it has been on full display for them. It is not born out of an “I know best” puffed up attitude. In other words, what I’m speaking of is not a sentiment of “I am my own pope”. People of this sentiment don’t feel they have all the answers, and actually are offended by teachers, equally as human, who insist they do and won’t even stand for questions.
    Since this thread is about MD, he is an excellent example of what happens in abusive, dysfunctional churches, with no accountability. If you read the Mars Hill “survivor” websites, there are many who haven’t lost their faith, but might not be able to set foot in a church for a long time, if ever again.
    Anyway, since we have different church tradition and backgrounds, what I’m speaking of might be hard to fathom. I have zero experience with the RC Church. I hope you realize one of my comments was rebuking those in the evangelical world who love to bash the RC Church and are being hypocritical.

    I agree with what you are saying; just so were clear, I was until a few years ago a Methodist; I have aggressively embraced Orthodoxy based on my love for the theology of John Wesley, which leads one directly into it as it were. I have attended the traditional Latin mass however and enjoy it; there are aspects of the Roman church that one can trace to the preschismatic church, that I believe Luther inadvertantly rejected, and what is more, the Catholic Church of today is a highly charitable church that has been forced to clean up its act on all levels, but I am not Roman Catholic. The lack of healthy congregations is why I left the Methodist church, and I have also left one Orthodox congregation following an episode of severe evil. In the Orthodox Church one has to watch out for three kinds of unhealthy congregations: militant modernist congregations, militant traditionalist congregations, and nationalistic congregations that view Orthodoxy as something hereditary. However, the multiplicity of overlapping jurisdictions makes it easy to escape an abusive parish unless you live in a part of the US with few Orthodox. The dreaded praise band, which I am allergic to, is absent from Orthodox churches, and this has helped me out quite a bit; there are certain things that have become normal in the mainline Protestant churches and even in the Catholic Church that I just can’t handle, that for the time being have not infiltrated into any of the Eastern churches (aside from the Maronite Catholic Church). Not to say that we are immune to it, although I am hoping that much of this is a storm that will pass.

  79. William G. wrote:

    I do not agree that the scriptures are male oriented.

    Again, I think you might wish to take a closer look at the struggles that both Jewish and Christian women have had – and are still dealing with – over the past several thousand years.

    You might not see it, but it definitely is there. Even your church’s (and the RCC’s) assertion that women cannot be ordained because they are physically *not male* is part of this accretion of interpretations that amount to telling us “There, there, go on home and take care of the kids and kitchen, dear,” along with a pat on the head.

    Am wondering if you’ve ever read Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay “Are Women Human?” She was a conservative CofE person, and yet she saw a *lot* of things (in the church and in society as a whole) for what they were and still are. And she had rigorous academic training and scholarly discipline, too. (Albeit she was only able to attend a “womens’ college” at Oxford, since there was only one – quite new at the time – that would admit women to their inner sanctums.)

    I realize that this and my previous comment might sound cranky, but I’m not intending to be harsh toward you personally – only to call it like I see it on what you’re asserting about women. God knows, the Church Fathers were *extremely* harsh about women on the whole, though there are some exceptions. The church never really shed the view of women as, at best, 2nd class people, contrary to what Jesus did and taught. If there really *is* no Jew or Greek, no Scythian or barbarian, or male or female in Christ Jesus, why were women prohibited from being ordained? For that matter, why were catechumens barred from physically being present during certain parts of church services after X point in time?

    I love church history, though not the unsavory parts. And sadly, for me as a woman, much of church history shows intense bias against me and everyone else of my gender. You guys elevate Mary, but the rest of us women, well… Honestly, I cannot think of any longstanding churches that are as intensely patriarchal as the Orthodox (all of you, not just the EO) and the RCC.

  80. @ numo:
    Might I also suggest that you look into issues like domestic violence in predominantly Orthodox countries? What I have read about Greece made my hair stand on end – and it is one of the most patriarchal societies in Europe, no question.

    Just because someone is X doesn’t mean they live like they believe it, after all.

  81. numo wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Kievan Rus became somewhat of a Utopian society
    In whose history books?! Seriously, I have spent a lot of time studying both Russian and Soviet history, and I honestly know of *nothing* (except the overly lavish praise and half-truths of some contemporary chroniclers who were being paid by royalty) to support this assertion.
    That Kievan Rus *might* have been a shade more peaceful than some of the other groups/states around it, I have no doubt. But that it was “somewhat of a Utopian society” is just not supportable.
    William, you’re a nice guy, but sometimes I feel like you have been hoodwinked by the Orthodox on some matters. I know that sounds harsh, but please understand, I am a historian (as well as an arts person) by training, and I’m willing to bet $$$$ that this assertion simply isn’t accurate.

    Well, Kiev lacked the death penalty, and most contemporary states would behead you for theft. So as medieval states go, and also in comparison to the later Czarist regime, Kiev seems to be a paradise, in that one could live there without fear of being killed, or knouted, or otherwise subjected to unpleasantness. By medieval standards, it was a good place to live; also a good place to do business. However, I will say that if Kievan Rus was Utopian, Czarist Russia, from Ivan the Terrible until the 19th century, was dystopian in the extreme. The only thing that kept the peasants alive was the church, which itself was after the excess of Patriarch Nikon run as a government department; Russian Orthodox traditionally did not believe in shaving the beard, and thus the Czar imposed a beard tax to make the country look more Western. In every age, logic suggests that one country will offer the best quality of life; at present that might be the US, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, or New Zealand; in the time of the Kievan Rus I can find no other state that was as pleasant; notably Imperial Byzantium was in those days a crumbling, impoverished military dictatorship, and there are contemporary accounts of travelers from Western Europe being shocked by how bad things were. The Oriental Orthodox actually celebrated the fall of the Byzantine Empire, because as dhimmis in the Islamic caliphates they could freely practice their faith without interference or violent persecution, as long as they paid the poll tax. I myself have been the victim of abuse by Russian Orthodox due to my sympathies for the suffering Oriental Orthodox in Syria and Iraq, and also have seen overt racism by Greek Orthodox directed at Armenians and other “Monophysites”, so if you’re looking for a blind follower of Byzantine dogma you have found the wrong man. If there were a single Methodist church that actually implemented John Wesley’s theology in its entirety and used his Sunday Service Book, the liturgy of the Anglican Church with some simplifications, I would probably go there. There is a lot of evil in the Orthodox Church, but if one can navigate around it, one can escape some of the problems with Western Christianity, but this requires a willingness to hunt around for bishops and parish priests who are worthy.

  82. William G. wrote:

    I would probably go there. There is a lot of evil in the Orthodox Church, but if one can navigate around it, one can escape some of the problems with Western Christianity, but this requires a willingness to hunt around for bishops and parish priests who are worthy.

    I am curious, what jurisdiction of Orthodoxy do you attend?

  83. @ William G.:
    Err, Peter the Great and beard taxes? It was more about trying to force Russians to conform to Western norms of dress (and speech – hence the subsequent vogue for French among the aristocracy). That he dragged Russia into the then-modern world by (at best) draconian methods, is unquestionable. That the tsars were, on the whole, terrible tyrants is also indisputable.

    But the Byzantine emperors were every bit as bad, and their excesses of murder (etc.) are out there, waiting to be read by those who eulogize Byzantium as the ne plus ultra of Christianity. Yes, and no. I’m very much on the “no” side of this, and unfortunately, many Orthodox historians tend to do a fair bit of projecting backward re. things like the iconoclastic controversy and the like. Not all by any means, though.

  84. @ William G.:
    hope you check back a bit later, William, as I have a reply to you about Russia (and Byzantium) that’s currently on the back burner. I suspect it’ll be posted in an hour or two.

  85. William G. wrote:

    I fear you are slightly in error on this point; Jude was known and accepted in the second century church

    I think you may have misunderstood me. I did not say that Jude was not accepted. I said that the story told of Moses, Michael and Satan was found in the pseudeoepigrapha of that day.

    William G. wrote:

    it is grossly implausible that the Assumption of Moses was written by either of them given the dating. I know of no scholars who have suggested that Origen or Clement wrote the Assumption of Moses.

    I do know of scholars who have believe that. Two sources A review of the New Testament by Walvoord and others at DTS and another summary of the New Testament edited by DA Carson and others both discuss this.

    William G. wrote:

    so I don’t think you need to deprecate Jude v. 9;

    I don’t know if you understand me very well. I didn’t deprecate Jude. I accept it as canon. To me it is an interesting conundrum and one that is worthy of discussion.

    I think it is important for you to understand that I take Scripture quite seriously and have studied how we got our canon. I do not accept the apocryphal writings as inspired Scripture but do believe they are important in the historical understanding of God’s work.

    When I answer a question, either in my comments or in my post, I am careful to consult sources that are acceptable to many Christians, albeit not all. Perhaps you might try a different approach with me. Start with the question “How did you come to that answer?” as opposed to assuming I am deprecating something.

  86. @ William G.:
    you know, that bit about keeping the peasants alive is true and not true at the same time. I think it’s important to look into things like (here I go again) domestic violence, which truly seems to have been recreation for a lot of Russian men, from the peasants on up. Literally “recreation,” when they were bored and (usually) drunk on vodka.

    I have a big volume of Russian folktales that was originally published in the 1940s, and you would not believe the number of stories that are literally about wife-beating. It was accepted then, and from what I have heard and read about the way a lot of Russian men treat women, still is very common. I’m afraid the RO church didn’t do much of anything to stop it in past centuries, or now. But it goes hand in hand with the high rate of alcoholism in Russia and the former USSR, in that people use their drunkenness as an “excuse” for hitting and otherwise harming their wives, children and other comparatively defenseless relatives.

  87. @ numo: btw, historian Orlando Figes wrote at some length on domestic violence in 19th c. Russia in his book Natasha’s Dance (it has copious endnotes and an amazing bibliography, and is very readable).

    He used quotes by contemporary writers who talked about the “sport” or “amusement” of wife-beating.

  88. Am I the only one who thinks that William G is here waving his golden censer of obfuscation because no one ever visits his own blog theleastof Pilgrims? He misrepresents the Hussite/Mennonites, spins Jerome and why he pushes for the perpetual virginity of Mary, and calls everyone else in the Reformed camp Nestorians. I’m backing Numo on this one!

  89. @ dee:
    I accept it as canon.

    You’re a better (wo)man than I am, Gunga Din! Literally.

    I accept that it’s there, but I no longer think it’s canonical, and feel similarly about Revelation. (Neither idea is original by any means, as you know. 🙂 )

  90. @ William G.:
    Yes, you have mistaken me and/or I was not clear. I do not think the wisdom in “innocent as a dove, wise as a serpent” has to do with sexual knowledge/experience. I was talking about spiritual purity and criticizing the “perpetual virginity” metaphor because it conflates spiritual purity with a female’s pre-sexual state.

    I do not know why you suspected (with nausea and pre-emptive chiding) that I might have seen sexual experience as essential to spiritual purity since I wrote that I believed promiscuity to be inadvisable and that I am in fact celibate.

    I think it’s probably not worth continuing this debate because I simply fall back into the weeds when you write: “The marriage bed is undefiled, but innocence was sanctifying; see the martyrdom of St. Lucy.” I am not yet able to maintain composure when I meet with (what I see as) yet another peculiar view held by yet another group of Christians on sexuality and especially female sexuality.

    But I will say a last bit about scripture. It cannot be honestly denied that Christian women have to slog long/hard to find full-human place within the Bible. One has to poke around to find those women protagonists of which you speak. Yes, they are there but a small cadre compared to the free-ranging plethora of men. Some OT parts are antagonistic towards women, (even if less so than the culture of that time).

    And unless we do some serious historical/cultural study, Paul says a fair bit about men being over women. Plus God is ever and always a male, in all persons. Oh, except once God is described as a hen, occasionally the Holy Spirit is designated female, and there might possibly be something to Shaddai, not sure. Every Christian woman makes profound adjustments to deal with this.

    It is far past time to correct this several thousand-year “problem” regarding women’s peer humanity.

    We will disagree but I wish you well, William.

  91. Victorious wrote:

    Scripture is the standard for all believers, leaders included. Mark’s mouth alone disqualifies him:

    Eph 5:3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
    Eph 5:4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting…

    His preaching and teaching often included filthy (imo), silly talk, and course jesting and often made women the brunt of his jokes.

    I could post other scripture which disqualifies him, but you get the message. Scripture is the standard:

    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

    Spot on. It’s mind-boggling why what is so simple too often will be overlooked. Especially in the comments by the guy that introduced Driscoll in that video TedS posted above. This stuff is downright crazy to fathom.

  92. “Driscoll presents the politician’s excuse. If you believe this, then you deserve a church like Mars Hill. Whenever anyone says they are resigning because of their family, they are not. It just sounds nice.”

    While my position regarding MD is like yours, doesn’t your statement above technically go against the grain of your unwillingness to judge another’s motive, Dee?

    I personally don’t think that rule is so hard and fast. On occasion, Paul seemed to judge motives when obvious action accompanied certain situations (similar to what you are perhaps doing….connecting the dots), and I don’t think it was something necessarily made known to him via the Spirit.

  93. numo wrote:

    Err, Peter the Great and beard taxes? It was more about trying to force Russians to conform to Western norms of dress (and speech – hence the subsequent vogue for French among the aristocracy).

    I’d heard wearing beards had gotten to the point of a folk belief that shaving was a sin — that having a beard was considered “Made in the Image of God” and shaving off your beard was blasphemy. Don’t know whether this was actually RO belief at any point or just a folk belief. I think it was the latter and the RO Church went along because a fish doesn’t know it’s wet. Might have originated as a sign of Manliness — if you could grow a beard, you were a Man — and got elevated to Cosmic importance.

  94. numo wrote:

    Might I also suggest that you look into issues like domestic violence in predominantly Orthodox countries? What I have read about Greece made my hair stand on end – and it is one of the most patriarchal societies in Europe, no question.

    Domestic violence/wife abuse is widespread in Greece?

  95. dee wrote:

    I do not accept the apocryphal writings as inspired Scripture but do believe they are important in the historical understanding of God’s work.

    Me too. I need a rubber stamp with that on it. Me too.

  96. Nancy wrote:

    Me too. I need a rubber stamp with that on it. Me too.

    Better yet: “And I also.” It rather has a certain flair to it.

  97. Just what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox and “Oriental Orthodox”?

    I assume they are different branches and divisions of the Eastern Rite, but I don’t know any details. “Greek Orthodox” and “Russian Orthodox” seem to refer to national or ethnic-specific branches, but what’s the difference between Eastern and Oriental?

    (I have a sister-in-law who’s Eastern Rite — Assyrian Christian from Kurdistan.)

  98. numo wrote:

    What I have read about Greece made my hair stand on end – and it is one of the most patriarchal societies in Europe, no question.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Domestic violence/wife abuse is widespread in Greece?

    Somebody needs to check this out. In my town we have a rather large and prosperous Greek Orthodox community–I have mentioned this before. Along with all the nice stuff that is said about that, people are also wont to say that they don’t treat their women very well. I would be interested in more information on this topic.

  99. numo wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    I do not agree that the scriptures are male oriented.
    Again, I think you might wish to take a closer look at the struggles that both Jewish and Christian women have had – and are still dealing with – over the past several thousand years.
    You might not see it, but it definitely is there. Even your church’s (and the RCC’s) assertion that women cannot be ordained because they are physically *not male* is part of this accretion of interpretations that amount to telling us “There, there, go on home and take care of the kids and kitchen, dear,” along with a pat on the head.
    Am wondering if you’ve ever read Dorothy L. Sayers’ essay “Are Women Human?” She was a conservative CofE person, and yet she saw a *lot* of things (in the church and in society as a whole) for what they were and still are. And she had rigorous academic training and scholarly discipline, too. (Albeit she was only able to attend a “womens’ college” at Oxford, since there was only one – quite new at the time – that would admit women to their inner sanctums.)
    I realize that this and my previous comment might sound cranky, but I’m not intending to be harsh toward you personally – only to call it like I see it on what you’re asserting about women. God knows, the Church Fathers were *extremely* harsh about women on the whole, though there are some exceptions. The church never really shed the view of women as, at best, 2nd class people, contrary to what Jesus did and taught. If there really *is* no Jew or Greek, no Scythian or barbarian, or male or female in Christ Jesus, why were women prohibited from being ordained? For that matter, why were catechumens barred from physically being present during certain parts of church services after X point in time?
    I love church history, though not the unsavory parts. And sadly, for me as a woman, much of church history shows intense bias against me and everyone else of my gender. You guys elevate Mary, but the rest of us women, well… Honestly, I cannot think of any longstanding churches that are as intensely patriarchal as the Orthodox (all of you, not just the EO) and the RCC.

    The C of E in the past was fairly misogynistic; it never officially embraced the high Marian veneration of the Anglo Catholic party, and even at that, in Anglican music there is a preference for the use of a boys choir to provide soprano voices vs. a choir of women. Now if you visit my local Orthodox parish, you’ll find a church with a predominantly female choir, just one man with an impressive basso voice, and one half of the icons in the church, those on the south side, depict women. That combined with our Marian veneration should more than compensate for the fact that we have a male priesthood. Male and female laity enjoy equal privileges in the Orthodox churches as a rule. We cannot accommodate any departure from the praxis of the early church however. If you regard the early church as misogynistic, then we are by extension, but remember, if it were not for Paul, we would not have a male priesthood and if it were not for Paul, the early church would not have accepted Gentiles without first converting them to Judaism, and the Gospels that contain the words of Christ would not in all probability have been written. It’s easy to misread Paul as having been this sort of nasty conservative guy who came along after the ministry of Jesus and ruined everything by imposing his own Pharisaism on top of it, and this is made easier by the fact that the NT is arranged with the Pauline epistles following the Gospels.

    However, if the NT is read chronologically, one begins with the Epistles, and then in the Gospels finds Paul’s teaching confirmed by the words and actions of Christ. One then concludes with the Johannine literature which establishes in an unambiguous way the manner in which these teachings were interpreted. The writings of the Ebionites and Nazarenes who rejected Paul are lost to us, so we cannot have a Pauline-free Christianity; nearly every aspect of our faith is shaped by his writings, and the Church Fathers were simply continuing from that point. It’s difficult to separate our understanding of Jesus from Paul, Paul from the Fathers, and the Fathers from the apostolic churches. Thus if you really believe the early church to be misogynist, the only viable alternatives are those Gnostic sects that worship a divine feminine principle, or alternative religions. However I for one would be saddened to see someone leave mainstream Christianity for such a reason; I really think you are looking at the fathers through the lens of contemporary secular culture, which will inevitably color them in villainous hues.

    Now regarding the priesthood specifically, if that’s your hangup, consider this: the main function of Orthodox priests is the celebration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, the Divine Liturgy itself requires the priest, who has fasted all night and probably served vespers the night before, to stand and precisely execute a ritual that can take between two and four hours to perform, while wearing layers and layers of heavy vestments, and contains many aspects that are a bit morbid, such as the Liturgy of Preparation, and touches like pouring boiling water into the chalice so that the sensation of drinking warm blood is accomplished. Portions of the Divine Liturgy are for the priest who believes that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord, like actually witnessing the crucifixion of our Lord. This dolorous duty is in addition to the priests obligation to hear confessions which can be disturbing, and to attend to the dying of the parish, etc. In addition to this, priests and bishops experience constant demonic attacks of varying intensity and sometimes succumb to them; I’ve seen it first hand and it was not a pretty picture. There is nothing in the Orthodox priesthood that compares to the glamorous and luxurious lifestyle of Mark Driscoll or Katherine Jefferts-Schiorri. If you look at what actually goes on, it should be apparent that the male priesthood is a burden and not a privilege. Some churches, such as the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia, celebrate Orthodox liturgical services but ordain women, so it is not as though what we do is completely inaccessible to women. However the Orthodox Church operates according to the chivalric principle that women should not have to toil in the altar. This does not prevent women from celebrating the majority of Orthodox services without male assistance; the equivalent to morning prayer that represents the main service in most evangelical churches does not require a priest. The male priesthood exists to deal with sacramental service that relates to the gruesome passion of our Lord and to endure the demonic attacks associated with that service.

    I haven’t met any Protestant clergy who have had the kind of macabre experiences most Orthodox and some Catholic priests that I know have faced. So it’s easy to discount this as us trying to elevate the importance of the priesthood and to protect it with a menacing ring of fire. However, I have personally witnessed one Orthodox priest have a violent breakdown due to this effect and I have an acquaintance who left the Orthodox Church for another denomination who I strongly suspect had the same experience. Many feminist Christians such as Elaine Pagels discount the existence of Satan, but in my personal experience the devil is real, and Orthodox clergy get attacked by him in ways worthy of a Stephen King novel.

  100. @ dee:

    I would urge you to discount such scholarship; if Origen wrote the Assumption of Moses then his commentary on Jude is preposterous. Now I apologize profusely if I misunderstood you, but I thought you were saying that Jude v 9 did not matter because it was based on apocrypha. However the main error relates to timing; the epistle of Jude existed in the second century church and therefore cannot depend on something Origen, a third century scholar, wrote. What is more, Origen appears to have been lukewarm regarding the epistle of Jude, and thus v.9 would in this case require him to have modified an existing epistle about which he did not care much. I don’t question the legitimacy of your sources, but I think they are in error on this point. Scholarly consensus, as biased as it is against Christianity, dates Jude to well before the time of Clement and Origen, both of whom I should add were later condemned as heretics. By condemned, I mean, written off, and not consigned to the flames, as they were long dead by the time it occurred; Origen at the 5th ecumenical council and Clement unilaterally by St. Photius.

  101. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: indeed it is, and Greek TV shows often show wife-beating scenes(or did in years past). Am speaking of scripted, non-“reality” TV shows.

    Something bad often happens to the token “good girl” in Indian movies as well.

    Violence against women isn’t exactly something that the church – as a whole, throughout the ages – has exactly spoken out against, you know. [: understatement to the power of 1,0000 :]

  102. numo wrote:

    I have a big volume of Russian folktales that was originally published in the 1940s, and you would not believe the number of stories that are literally about wife-beating.

    Is that a book that i can still buy somewhere, do you know? I’m doing a piece on domestic abuse next (well, will be finishing it finally), and would love to see some of those tales.

  103. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    numo wrote:
    Err, Peter the Great and beard taxes? It was more about trying to force Russians to conform to Western norms of dress (and speech – hence the subsequent vogue for French among the aristocracy).
    I’d heard wearing beards had gotten to the point of a folk belief that shaving was a sin — that having a beard was considered “Made in the Image of God” and shaving off your beard was blasphemy. Don’t know whether this was actually RO belief at any point or just a folk belief. I think it was the latter and the RO Church went along because a fish doesn’t know it’s wet. Might have originated as a sign of Manliness — if you could grow a beard, you were a Man — and got elevated to Cosmic importance.

    Russian Orthodox Old Believers do believe its a sin to shave; most traditionalist Orthodox also believe priests should have beards and long hair. This is because most icons of Jesus in the Byzantine tradition depict him as such, and also because it was the Roman tradition before Christianity for men to shave, so this custom developed in opposition to Roman culture. Extant Arian iconography often depicts Christ without a beard, so I believe this lies behind it, and not a desire to look manly.

  104. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: doctrinal controversies, mainly Christological. You’ve got the Copts, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo, the Armenian Apostolic church and the like saying one thing about how Christ is both divine and human, whereas the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian) plus the RCC and virtually all Western churches saying another.

    The “funny” (ironies of history) thing is that the whole controversy nearly tipped in favor of the belief held by the Copts et. al.

    And *then* there’s the whole “Nestorian” thing, which, imo, amounts to a tempest in a teapot at this stage of the game, but wasn’t exactly small stuff back then.

    Personally, I think all of these churches were and are xtian, but I suspect most Catholics and Orthodox (and many Protestants) would differ.

    It’s notable, though, that the Church of the East (aka “the Nestorians”) even had people at the Mongol court as converts. (In China, in the time of Genghis Khan and his immediate successors.)

    I’m sure William will fill you in on the EO take on this, and definitely with more knowledge tan I ever could!

    If you ever decide to crack Jaroslav Pelikan’s multi-volume series on the history of xtian belief, you’ll find it all covered. But be advised that it is less about church history (who did what when) and more about the history and development of doctrine. He was quite a scholar. (A Lutheran minister who converted to the RO church relatively late in life.) I love his work, not least because he is very, very balanced.

  105. roebuck wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    I would probably go there. There is a lot of evil in the Orthodox Church, but if one can navigate around it, one can escape some of the problems with Western Christianity, but this requires a willingness to hunt around for bishops and parish priests who are worthy.
    I am curious, what jurisdiction of Orthodoxy do you attend?

    At present, ROCOR, although I’m more moderate than some prominent online voices within that jurisdiction. Specifically I am not opposed to the efforts at restoring communion with the embattled Oriental Orthodox churches.

    Someone asked what these are; these are the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian churches that separated from the rest of Christianity with the Chalcedonian schism. They are accused of the heresy of Monophysitism, but deny that this is their belief, and increasingly have drawn closer to the rest of Orthodoxy. The two communions are very close in theology and praxis, on matters such as the use of icons, et cetera. The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes called the Nestorian church, but repudiated Nestorianism; it uses the same ancient Syriac bible as the Syriac Orthodox Church. The bulk of ISIL victims have been members of the Syriac, Assyrian and Armenian churches and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

  106. @ Nancy:
    I think you would need inside sources, and they would probably not want to talk to outsiders about this. It is a hard thing for anyone to discuss, after all, and these folks come from a culture which is highly patriarchal. Even a few generations of assimilation doesn’t necessarily change everything, you know?

  107. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: Long beards certainly were a symbol of Russian traditionalism. Peter the Great ordered the boyars (male aristocrats) to shave theirs, and met with a ton of resistance. Some of those leading the pushback against his ukase were executed and/or subjected to severe punishment for their refusal.

  108. @ William G.:
    it isn’t just Arian iconography, it’s early xtian iconography (in the West), period. Jesus was often depicted as a beardless youth, an actual “type” that’s now referred to as “the young scholar.” (in other words, it was a stock image in Greco-Roman wall painting.)

    You could then show this young man carrying a sheep, or with a flock of sheep, and an xtian who went into the catacombs would know that Jesus was being depicted as the good shepherd, but to those not in the know, said painting would look like a nice pastoral scene, common at the time. xtian imagery was disguised in various ways prior to Constantine, and at any rate, the long and lovely tradition of Greco-Roman wall painting is part of the heritage of xtian iconography (East and west). I’m afraid that the victory of the iconodules (pro-veneration of icons folks) in the East put an end to this style of realistic painting in the Byzantine Empire, though.

    Very, *very* few pieces from prior to the controversies (when many images were destroyed by the iconoclasts) survive. The biggest chunk we have was found – literally by accident – in a wall at the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. There are some amazing works in that trove, including an icon of Peter that looks like it was done a la Rembrandt (i.e., from life, and from a specific model).

    We honestly don’t know what all was going on, and what was destroyed, but if the destruction was anything like what happened in certain places in Germany and the Low Countries during the Reformation, the losses are very sever. (Of course, people were looting then, too, and I have no doubt that happened in the Greek East as well.)

  109. @ numo:
    in fact, the earliest xtian art likely wouldn’t be recognizable as such to most Catholics and Orthodox today, because it just plain doesn’t look like what they (and the rest of us) are all used to, 2 millennia on…

  110. @ William G.:
    so basically, one thing that I was attempting to say is that shaving actually *was* common during the early centuries of the church. I think this is more of a “I dress/look like a Hellenist” vs. “I’m from Palestine” kind of thing, and not so much theological. In the same way, fairly early paintings of the Adoration of the Magi show them wearing Persian garb (trousers, to be super-specific), which weren’t common in the Greco-Roman world.

  111. @ William G.:
    So how is it that we Lutherans belive in the Real Presence (aka Sacramental Union) “in, with and under” the bread and wine, but *don’t* view the Eucharist as you do re. the priesthood as well as the somewhat outre supernatural things you describe? I got to know a fair number of Catholic priest back in the day (especially during the time that i was living with nuns), and NONE of them had had such experiences, nor would theyhave found them credible.

    There’s a lot of room for differing belief and practice w/in Catholicism, after all – and at the time i am referring to, the movie theaters and bookstores were full of lurid depictions of exorcisms and the like. I wonder how some of these stories about the Eucharist got traction in the first place, and being of the generwtion that was in college when The Exorcist was released, I’m inclined to blame some of thesemtales on Hollywood.

  112. @ William G.:

    Just one clarification: We do not conflate Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene. Pious legend, both Eastern and Western, does this, but it is certainly not an article of faith. And never has been.

    There are a lot of misconceptions about Catholicism out there. And some, alas, are promulgated by our Orthodox brethren, who are closer to us than any other group. Sigh. So it goes.

  113. @ Catholic Homeschooler:
    I know Catholics who do commonly conflate them, though. I have a feeling that this is partly to do with where/when people grew up. Folk tales aboud everywhere, including the jot so savory ones (unfortunately).

  114. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    so basically, one thing that I was attempting to say is that shaving actually *was* common during the early centuries of the church. I think this is more of a “I dress/look like a Hellenist” vs. “I’m from Palestine” kind of thing, and not so much theological. In the same way, fairly early paintings of the Adoration of the Magi show them wearing Persian garb (trousers, to be super-specific), which weren’t common in the Greco-Roman world.

    The bearded Christ image seems to have become de rigeur after the painting of the famous icon of Christ Pantocrator at St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai, which is by the way, critically endangered by Islamic extremists at the moment. The possibility exists we could lose both that icon and the Ladder of Divine Ascent based on the text by John Climacus.

  115. @ Daisy:

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree on what’s descriptive and what’s prescriptive from Scripture. Just because the Bible says this that and the other on a plethora of secondary topics, I am under no obligation to adhere to the letter.

  116. @ William G.:
    I would also like to point out that during the 70s, nuns were doing the bulk of pastoral work (like visting with the sick and dying) in the diocese where i lived. I knew some who did this, and never heard a single craxy story about demonic attacks and what have you. Not ONE.

    One thing i am trying to clarify is that priest were in such short supply that the bulk of their duties were being performed by celibate women who NEVER got any recignition for it.

    I think the deal about not ordaining women because X is just painful, and not representative of reality, frankly.

    So i guess we agree to dusagrre in this, if it is ok with you.

    All the best,
    numo

  117. @ William G.:
    Chivalry really isn’t all it’s crackec up to be, you know. Men would understand this better were they to experience pregnancy and childbirth – and i mean that sincerely.

  118. @ William G.:
    I am no gnoetic, nor do i think one has to be if one is not Orthodox. Perhaps we’ve been reading different things? (Not joking here; boy, did some of the fathers have terrible things to say about women *and* Jewish people – Chrsostom comes to mind on both topics, btw.)

    To everyone else: apologies for the threadjack. This discussion really belongs under another heading altogether, i think.

  119. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    So how is it that we Lutherans belive in the Real Presence (aka Sacramental Union) “in, with and under” the bread and wine, but *don’t* view the Eucharist as you do re. the priesthood as well as the somewhat outre supernatural things you describe? I got to know a fair number of Catholic priest back in the day (especially during the time that i was living with nuns), and NONE of them had had such experiences, nor would theyhave found them credible.
    There’s a lot of room for differing belief and practice w/in Catholicism, after all – and at the time i am referring to, the movie theaters and bookstores were full of lurid depictions of exorcisms and the like. I wonder how some of these stories about the Eucharist got traction in the first place, and being of the generwtion that was in college when The Exorcist was released, I’m inclined to blame some of thesemtales on Hollywood.

    Well, the Orthodox have never agreed with the Lutheran interpretation, which has been called impanation or consubstantiation. Nor is transubstantiation an official doctrine. Lutherans reject entirely the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and there is no epiclesis or liturgy of preparation in the Divine Service. This goes along with Lutheran theology that salvation is something God does to you, rather than the result of synergy between God and man. As a result there is a theological intensity in the Divine Liturgy that is absent from the Lutheran divine service. There is a Ukrainian Lutheran church that uses a revised form of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and it is educational to look at the changes they made, I can try to find you a link to,their rubrics if you wish.

    I am at a loss to explain why Protestant clergy do not report the same level of demonic activity as the Orthodox I’ve known. I know an Episcopal priest who has found things of an administrative nature to be disturbing, and has suspected it to be due to a devilish attack, but it’s a bit tame compared to the Orthodox experience. I do not believe the Exorcist has anything to do with it; the evil I’ve seen did not consist of rotating heads and projectile vomiting.

    Also it should be stressed, these demonic attacks are not demonic possession; it’s believed that chrismated Orthodox Christians cannot be possessed unless they intentionally dabble in the occult. Possession is marked by uncontrollable violence or sinister behavior and an aversion to holy objects, and does not respond to psychiatric therapy. I suspect there are a few demonaics locked up in psychiatric ICUs across the country who will never be healed because most psychologists don’t believe in the cause of their affliction, thus it is written off as the result of a neurological condition, drug abuse or whatever. Yet any Christian priest or layperson of either sex should be able to fix it by chriothesia and chrismation, nothing that would harm the patient even slightly. Exorcist was the lowest rank of minor clergy in the early church, below the rank of doorkeepers.

    As for these demonic attacks, they tend to involve temptation, provocation, and occasionally, physical affliction as described in Job or the Life of St. Anthony as recorded by St. Athanasius. Anthony was really attacked in a Wagnerian manner; most do not get it that bad. It is easy to write off the Life of St. Anthony as hagiography, but Athanasius was the guy who gave us our 27 book canon. As a Lutheran though you may agree with Luther in his desire to remove James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. I myself do think he went a bit overboard there, but the Apocalypse is not read in the Byzantine lectionary. I am not a fan of chilliastic obsession over it as in Left Behind.

    I would like to say by the way I have enjoyed this discussion with you; both of our churches make some liturgical use of incense, but I don’t think either of us has swung any golden thuribles of obfuscation. Alas I only have a small hand thurible, which I fuel with excelsior as it seems to produce a better aroma in the confined space of my house than charcoal; for some reason my thurible doesn’t run well on charcoal. Excelsior is highly flammable so what I do is light it, quickly throw the incense on the jet of flame that erupts, then slam the lid shut and make the sign of the cross with the resulting smoke, which is only thick for the first few passes. The Copts have the best thuribles; they’re spherical and seal shut, and the priests can swing them in impressive 360 degree loops. The Byzantine thurible is left open and doesn’t have to be swung to produce smoke, it’s a bit close to the open top Ambrosian Rite thurible used in Milan. The ultimate thurible is the botafumeiro at the Basillica of Santiago de Compostela in Extremadura; the YouTube videos of it are amazing to watch. Each performance of it burns five hundred Euros worth of fuel and incense.

  120. @ William G.:
    The problem with your dating is that few of those icons were dated. I took a grad course with a Byzantinist and spent many hours in the library at Dumbarton Oaks, trying to find evidence that would allow me to assign a tentative date to one of them. (A very difficult one, too!)

    My understanding of that particular Christ Pantocrator is that it is typical of icobs of its type, not thst it was a trend-setter. Keep in mind that that trove was hidden in a wall and forgotten fir nearly 1000 years, and rediscovered by accident.

    Also keep in mind that those extremists don’t like other Muslims who do not support their position, and they are the primary focus of reprisals by said extremists.

  121. @ numo:
    And it is an especially beautiful icon, that Christ Pantocrator! One of the loveliest i have ever seen (in reproductions only, that is).

  122. @ Nancy:

    I stand by my original comment about sexual mores in the Hebrew Bible. Implying that something is ‘clearly’ taught is not the same thing as actually coming up with the explicit goods so to speak. I think it’s important to remember that women had no rights in the Bronze Age Levant. If she had no Patriarchal benefactor, prostitution was often her only recourse from destitution. Rahab would be a good example of one helluva designing woman who could think rings around Joshua’s men and she figured prominently in the lineage of Messiah.

    In the tale of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19) the moral outrage is not in the fact that the Levite had a sexual relationship with her, but rather his total disregard for her safety and welfare, and the grisly deed he then performed on her.

  123. @ William G.:
    Ikwym about the atyitudes regarding Armenians (and many others). It is bigotry, period, clothed in religion to make it look legit.

    I realize that you aren’t some kind of blind fanboy, given yoyr many previous comments about xtians in the ME.

  124. numo wrote:

    apologies for the threadjack. This discussion really belongs under another heading altogether, i think.

    I find your commentary pertinent. Driscoll has come to represent, in caricature, the ills in contemporary Evangelicalism. Over the last year or so, I’ve been reading comments from people here/there, like William here, offering the Orthodox tradition as an answer to these ailments. It is good to learn a bit of the tradition and context from a scholar.

    As you well know, numo, I am no scholar. I only have hard-earned skepticism and a dubious spidey-sense. So for myself, I am grateful when you offer substance, even though it only makes clear that the issues troubling Evangelicalism haunt all religious traditions to one degree or another.

    And yes indeed, Sinai’s Christ Pantocrator is an amazing piece! Would be sooo lovely to see it face to face especially because encaustic doesn’t show best in photos.

  125. @ Patrice:
    I’m an inveterate reader – scholar, not so much. Academia’s not for me!

    And like you, i am a skeptic about many things. One thing i am grateful for is that somehow or other, i got a decent dose of good theology (or might be better to say good, grounded ideas about God) via my Lutheran background. When the bottom dropped out of my charismatic/evangelical detour, it was there still, though it took me a while to realize it.

  126. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Ikwym about the atyitudes regarding Armenians (and many others). It is bigotry, period, clothed in religion to make it look legit.
    I realize that you aren’t some kind of blind fanboy, given yoyr many previous comments about xtians in the ME.

    Indeed. Lamentably within this very thread people have generalized that the Greeks and Russians are wife-beating drunks; the Orthodox with whom I disagree view the Armenians in a similar light. We should not generalize on the basis of nationality or culture; there was a recent sad case of a Roma boy beaten into a coma in Paris on the assumption that because he was a “Gypsie” he was up to no good.

    This may seem surprising but the idea that people of different ethnicities should worship in different churches was classified as the heresy of ethnophyletism by a council of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 19th century. As a result, Orthodox of different ethnic backgrounds coexist in the same denominations; a local Russian church has Serbian members and used to have a Greek priest. Since in the Kingdom of God there is neither Jew nor Greek, localized problems of criminality within specific cultures are invisible to the church, although the Orthodox Church does condemn wife beating, and drunkenness, and also the fact that physical abuse happens is one reason we allow remarriage where the Roman church does not. I find it a disgrace that Protestant churches in the US are still to a large extent divided between white and black denominations; the African Methodist Episcopal church still uses a version of Wesley’s Sunday Service book, whereas the denomination that became the UMC, that alienated African Americans, threw it out at about the same time. And now we have UMC pastors like Rev. Jeremy Smith, who is white, declaring with absolute certainty that “Jesus is black” (which is possible based on the Ethiopian Jewish connection, but unlikely, and irrelevant) and thus inverting the alienation rather than healing it. In the sight of God our ethnic distinctions do not separate us any more than gender.

  127. Patrice wrote:

    numo wrote:
    apologies for the threadjack. This discussion really belongs under another heading altogether, i think.
    I find your commentary pertinent. Driscoll has come to represent, in caricature, the ills in contemporary Evangelicalism. Over the last year or so, I’ve been reading comments from people here/there, like William here, offering the Orthodox tradition as an answer to these ailments. It is good to learn a bit of the tradition and context from a scholar.
    As you well know, numo, I am no scholar. I only have hard-earned skepticism and a dubious spidey-sense. So for myself, I am grateful when you offer substance, even though it only makes clear that the issues troubling Evangelicalism haunt all religious traditions to one degree or another.
    And yes indeed, Sinai’s Christ Pantocrator is an amazing piece! Would be sooo lovely to see it face to face especially because encaustic doesn’t show best in photos.

    Pray that the monastery doesn’t get destroyed then. Two days ago Bedouin raiders broke through the gates, abducted two monks and extracted a ransom of $21,000 for them; they claim the monastery was built in 2006 on the site of a mosque, and want it back. In reality it was built in the reign of Justinian, around what is believed to be the burning bush, which is still alive, and of enormous size. The Egyptian Government is turning a blind eye to the problem.

  128. @ William G.:
    Just real quick: the terms you cite above are incorrect re. the actual Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, but in the interest of getting back on topic, i will leave it to you to look them up.

    Best,
    numo

  129. @ numo:
    I wasn’t asking or expecting you to. I was taking yours because, imo, you are the most able and knowledgeable to respond to William G. Regards, Gavin

  130. @ Muff Potter:

    I can’t quite go there with you about prostitution. The law said “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel” (Deut. 23:18). So there is Rahab who is not of the “daughters of Israel” and who cut a deal with an invading force to save herself and her family and who, as far as I know did not practice prostitution after she married into the tribe–that does not condone prostitution among the Jews as allowed for their women.

    Now to say, well they did it anyhow. Of course the did, but that was not the original question.

    As to concubinage, I just read a really interesting article about that as to what it was then and as to what laws have been passed in Israel now regarding it, and it is all very interesting. The authors referenced the encyclopaedia judaica. And no, concubinage is not marriage, so to that extent I see what you are saying. It is always interesting to me when I read from Jewish web sites, how they quote many sides of arguments from their sages over the years. I get the impression that they seem to tolerate differences of opinion more than Christians do. I find that refreshing.

  131. William G. wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ William G.:
    I am at a loss to explain why Protestant clergy do not report the same level of demonic activity as the Orthodox I’ve known. I know an Episcopal priest who has found things of an administrative nature to be disturbing, and has suspected it to be due to a devilish attack, but it’s a bit tame compared to the Orthodox experience. I do not believe the Exorcist has anything to do with it; the evil I’ve seen did not consist of rotating heads and projectile vomiting.

    The demonic possession is there. I am Protestant and I agree the discussion is avoided in my experience, by the SBC.
    As I have written before, I have seen it in far South Texas ( The Valley area of Brownsville to Rio Grande City) and N. Mexico… It is scary and it is something you so not want to experience.
    Many in the drug cartels are very much involved in Satanism, Devil Worship, whatever you want to call it…..and many of the deaths are related not just to the drugs, but in blood, and they believe that gives them power…
    But the SBC, UMC, AofG who all have missionaries down there won’t discuss the subject…

  132. I think some Protestants have the view that things like that don’t happen and can’t happen, certainly that was my view in earlier Methodist days. It should be remembered of course that failure to reign in the passions; look,at what happened to Mark Driscoll, who was essentially brought down by a deadly mixture of lust, pride and wrath. I have to confess, I do feel sorry for him, I am not someone to enjoy schadenfreude. The real villain of the story, the monster he created known as Mars Hill, is still there, waiting to devour the next sucker.

  133. Nancy wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    But the SBC, UMC, AofG who all have missionaries down there won’t discuss the subject…
    Check out this on the FBI website about the Santa Muerte situation.
    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/february/santa-muerte-inspired-and-ritualistic-killings-part-1-of-3

    I was aware of Saint Death; Rev. Peter Owen Jones visited a shrine dedicated to her in Mexico City in episode 7 of Around the World in 80 Faiths. Troubling that human sacrifice is being offered to her; this feels like the resurgence of the ancient Aztec religion that the Roman church was never able to entirely suppress. In the Flower Wars I believe the Aztecs sacrificed as many as 40 million people.

  134. So by the way I found myself posting on an Orthodox blog a comment disputing with the blogger his opinion that Driscoll is disqualified. I hate to defend Driscoll, but his actions occurred entirely outside of our jurisdiction, and it seems to me the question of qualification therefore falls on whoever Driscoll works for. As I see it if he were received into our church nothing would stop him from being ordained if he repented of his earlier errors, because to my knowledge he has not divorced and remarried, castrated himself and (unpleasantly enough, there are ancient canons which make these disqualifies) has no physical blemishes or been the victim of male rape. I really wish that it was not in our canon law that someone sexually abused can’t be ordained, by the way; bishops can waive the canons on the grounds of economy but I’m sure there’s more than one nasty old codger in the church who would still apply them with strictness.

  135. @ Nancy:

    Let me be up front and clear. I do not endorse prostitution as an ideal but I do support its decriminalization, strictly regulated and overseen by law enforcement as a reasoned and pragmatic approach.

  136. @ William G.:
    William, I was in charismatic circles for 30+ years, and if anything, they *love* to find demons under teacups. 99 and 9/10ths % of what they say is superstitious hogwash, but there’s that tiny fraction that’s genuine.

    At any rate, they are NOT equipped to deal with it, and seem to ascribe more power to the demonic at times than to God Almighty. I was caught up in it, being very young when I 1st got into those circles (all of 16), and have a tremendous distaste for it all now, especially after being in a church that got into so-called “strategic level spiritual warfare.” My inner radar was telling me that most of the blips on the screen were false positives – put another way, that they had moved to Crazy Town.

    They booted me out, which was the beginning of the end of my time with that kind of xtianity. In fact, one of the things that upset the head honcho was my asking why the Nicene Creed wasn’t part of the church’s basic statement of faith. (Should have been a given, since he was ordained C of E and we said it during communion, but no way!)

  137. @ Nancy:
    this has been going on for a good while now; I doubt that the cartels are going to stop it, unless someone somehow breaks their hold on both drug trafficking and northern Mexico.

  138. @ William G.:
    40 million is probably more people than were living in Latin America and Europe combined at that time. I kinda doubt your source on that one…

  139. Numo, that was a top range estimate spread out over the three centuries prior to Spanish invasion. At the low end it was still millions. Now regarding finding demons under teacups, that suggests a morbid fascination. The experience I had with an Orthodox priest was so terrifying I had to take a course of antidepressants to recover; Dee actually knows the details and I may ask her to publish them, I haven’t decided yet, but it was ugly. I don’t want to be attacked in such a manner; I just want to pray in peace and focus on the love of our Lord. Part of what I appreciate about this blog is the Prime Directive, the idea of pastors obsessing over specific points of doctrine in such a manner as to cause spiritual harm. In Driscoll’s case, a fixation on masculinity like an extreme form of the “Muscular Christianity” that was popular in Anglican low church circles at the turn of the 20th century appears to have caused his downfall, and also much misery for the congregations and the junior pastors entrusted to his care. I think it’s so embedded in the culture of Mars Hill that even with Driscoll removed, the church will remain spiritually toxic.

    That said I don’t think Driscoll if he were to show genuine repentance and fight against the errors he propagated should be barred from the mission field. However, I don’t think he’s going to do that. Most of the famous false teachers in the history of the church did not; people don’t like to admit they’re wrong. However St. Athanasius restored Arian and Novatian clergy in his patriarchate who repented.

  140. numo wrote:

    William, I was in charismatic circles for 30+ years, and if anything, they *love* to find demons under teacups. 99 and 9/10ths % of what they say is superstitious hogwash, but there’s that tiny fraction that’s genuine.

    The DEMONS-Under-Every-Teacup types call themselves “Discernment Ministries” and “Spiritual Warfare”, but they’re more like FRP gamers, LARPing themselves as High-Level Mages & Clerics going around bashing balrogs. If they were honest, they’d do it through pencil, paper, funny dice, and 3 ayem pizza runs like I did.

    No wonder they were so much into “DEE & DEE IS SAY-TANN-IC!!!!!”; they didn’t want competition for THEIR live RPG.

    In Old School D&D, you occasionally ran into a gamer who was like this. We called such occult fanboys “MOMMs” — “Masters of Mighty Magick”. It wasn’t a complement; our local type example was clearly delusional, to the point of becoming a cartoon of himself.

    I’d be a lot less vitriolic about these LARPers who won’t admit to it if they didn’t cast all the rest of us as expendable Orcs and Red Shirts.

    And there’s also something insidious about this type of LARPing. You can cross over into the heresy of “Attributing too much power to the Devil”, to the point of “If it weren’t for Me and my Mighty Spiritual Warfare, the Devil would win.” Maybe that’s why so many of them are so shrill — they’ve made the Devil more powerful than God and deep down inside they’re afraid they’re on the losing side.

  141. Muff Potter wrote:

    Let me be up front and clear. I do not endorse prostitution as an ideal but I do support its decriminalization, strictly regulated and overseen by law enforcement as a reasoned and pragmatic approach.

    Gracious goodness, I certainly did not accuse you of endorsing prostitution as an ideal. As to the rest of your statement, I think that being a prostitute is a lousy way to make a living and I hope we can do better than that as a nation. It might be reasoned and pragmatic for the johns but for the girls? I don’t think so. Especially since teen age runaway girls are some of the females caught up in it. And folks getting cash any way they can to support a drug habit. And young immigrants lured with the promise of a job which turns out to be prostitution.

    Yeah, well, I am not good with all that.

  142. Nancy wrote:

    Check out this on the FBI website about the Santa Muerte situation.
    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/february/santa-muerte-inspired-and-ritualistic-killings-part-1-of-3

    Footnote 1 from that page:
    1 “La Santisima Muerte,” performed by Necrophobic, from the album Death to All, Regain Records, 2009. The influence of Santa Muerte is expanding into some English-speaking musical genres. An additional concern is the promotion of alleged rituals, such as “blood baptism,” derived from wearing bloody human skins taken from sacrificial victims.

    “Wearing bloody human skins taken from sacrificial victims”?

    Xipe Totec?
    The Flayed Lord of the Aztec pantheon?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xipe_Totec

  143. William G. wrote:

    Troubling that human sacrifice is being offered to her; this feels like the resurgence of the ancient Aztec religion that the Roman church was never able to entirely suppress.

    Somebody told me once that every few years you get some cult leader or brujo down in rural Mexico who tries to start a Flowery Way cult of the Old Gods. And up here you have the lunatic fringe of Raza Boys (Mexican Supremacists) who are so into La Raza they harken back to Pre-Columbian Mexico, before the Spanish came.

  144. @ Nancy:
    It’s boys just as much as girls, re. runaway teens who end up in this (sadly, for all concerned).

    I have *never* understood why the cops arrest streetwalkers but not johns.

  145. @ William G.:
    It is still far too high a figure, i believe. Even with the high population in parts of Mexico at the time of the Spanish conquest. 10,000 (give or take a bit on either side) seems much more believable, though still, imo, on the high side.

    As for muscular xtianity, iirc, it began in England in the mid-19th century, and wasn’t solely a low church Anglican phenomenon. There’s a very good book by Mark Giroard that has a large section devoted to it. The title is The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman. Really fascinating study of social/cultural history, as well as covering lots of art and architecture.

  146. @ William G.:
    Also, i do think that there is *some* bad stuff (spiritual/supernatural) out ther – but frankly, am at this point convinced that the worst evils (as well as very good and beautiful things) are born in the human mind and heart, and that we humans attribute FAR too much of it to outside forces.

    Re. St. Anthony, part of my gut tells me that there were multiple things going on there, not least the combined effects of extreme isolation as well as sleep and/or food deprivation with other posdible physical (medical) problems as a contributing factor. His hallucinations sound (to me) like, well, literal hallucinations, nothing to do with demons. But people of his time would likely have thought in supernatural terms first, much like the dexcription of the boy with seizures in the Gospels. Imo, God isn’t in the business of breaking someone’s brain in the interest of providing modern medical information (or much of anything else of the kind) in the Bible. How much more this is true with legends of various saints, well…

  147. Regarding the number of victims of human sacrifice, it was more like 10,000 a month at the low end. A few years ago before I became Orthodox and had a certain fear of Roman Catholics, I ran the numbers on the body count of the Inquisition vs the Aztec sacrifice and was shocked at the disparity; the total body count of the Inquisition was at most 3,000, that is to say the official body count of the official Inquisition; the total body count of the human sacrifice was at least an order of magnitude higher. However, both were evil. The fact that the Gospel became so distorted though as to justify the Inquisition is frankly more disturbing; thus my focus on seeking an absolute adherence to the early church. After the fourth century, things get a bit tangled; Nestorius used violent persecution but Cyril may have caused a Pagan woman to get killed, and his impatience at the Council of Ephesus caused the Persian bishops to leave forming what is today known as the Assyrian Church of the East. Which saved their lives; the Zoroastrian rulers of the Sassanian Empire were deeply suspicious of the church and the schism, which established the so called Nestorians as enemies of the Byzantine Empire, caused them to tolerate it.

    This is why Mars Hill troubles me; I feel like evangelicals recovered a portion of the doctrine of the early church but are now corrupting it in an authoritarian manner along the same lines that led to the corruption of the Roman church. Pope Leo I reigned during both the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schisms, was the first pope to claim infallibility, and the Greek theologian Romanides, who I rather like even if he comes across as a bit of a crank (poor translations of his work are on the site romanity.org), proposed that Leo contributed to the schisms as a way of increasing the power of his see over Alexandria and Constantinople, his two main rivals.

    We see the same kind of plotting, the same kind of aggressive distortion of theology in the 9Marks churches and in the case of Mars Hill, what Eagle amusingly calls the 8Marks churches.

    Regarding the life of Anthony, I feel compelled to accept it on the grounds of St. Athanasius having given us our 27 book canon, and the contemporary experiences reported by Fr. Lazarus, who after serving the liturgy one night a few years ago in the cave of St. Anthony, had a severe fall on the way back to his cave and had to be airlifted to a hospital. He states calmly he was attacked by a devil in the form of an ethereal bear, and this is happened on other occasions, but in this case he fell because he forgot to pray or make the sign of the cross. Orthodoxy implies a certain credulity to these accounts that most Protestants lack, but most of the accounts are of a happier nature. The Coptic church is particularly full of people who claim to have seen first hand the appearance of various saints, who unlike the Marian apparitions in the Roman church, did not instruct them in any new dogma. The Syriac Orthodox have a hymn they sing in their Divine Liturgy, which is adapted for the verse in Galatians, “I heard the Apostle Paul say that if any comes to you teaching a different Gospel, even if it is an angel from heaven, let them be excommunicated,” the music is rather upbeat for a Syriac hymn, most of which are exceptionally somber. I believe the music of the Syriac Orthodox Church heavily influenced Islamic religious music, especially the calls to worship sung by the muezzin.

    Thus I am inclined to believe Driscoll’s report of supernatural visions of people sinning, but I am inclined to doubt the heavenly origin of these. Regardless of the source, I suspect it contributed to Driscoll sort of losing the plot. I really feel sorry for him, I don’t like to see people become used by the devil in such a manner. I think the root of his problem was attempting to practice charismatic Christianity, which tends to incline towards the occult, without first tempering the passions, a prerequisite to facilitate discernment.

    Now regarding discernment ministries, I think some of these do a good job of exposing false teachers in the Pentecostal movement. Wartburg Watch is a kind of discernment ministry focused on identifying abusive pastors particularly within the evangelical area, but I believe that Dee and Deb have done some articles on problems in the Roman church, as well as good work by some Romans such as some of the recent charitable work done by Pope Francis. I hope to provide them with information on abuse problems in the Eastern churches without a jurisdictional bias, because I think most problems we have are confined to individual dioceses or parishes. There is of course the question of Patriarch Kyrills closeness to Vladimir Putin but that seems to me more of a political issue that may or may not create unpleasantness at the parish level. The Russian church has certainly tried to retain control of metropolitan churches historically under its jurisdiction in countries that have become independent of Russia.

  148. numo wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    It’s boys just as much as girls, re. runaway teens who end up in this (sadly, for all concerned).

    I have *never* understood why the cops arrest streetwalkers but not johns.

    Because the johns might be Respectable Pillars of the Community, with the money and influence to make things really hard on the cop.

  149. @ William G.:
    Please forgive my lack of belief in “ethereal bears,” but frankly, it sounds as if either someone attacked him or he somehow had an accident on his own.

    William, you seem very trusting, but as someone who’s been around long enough to be your grandma, i will take the liberty of saying this: don’t believe everything you hear or read, even when the person making such claims is supposed to be credible (priest or not). His “explanation” sounds like it belongs in Ripley’s Believe it or Not.

    Might i kindly suggest that someone needs to start an Orthodox version of Snopes.com? (Really – seems to me like a whole lot of religious equivalents of urban legends are floating around.)

  150. dee wrote:

    William G

    Can you try to make your comments shorter?

    I suppose that Dee has a point 🙂 That said, I for one enjoy your longer posts. Have you considered starting a blog of your own? It’s not that hard, and needn’t cost anything…

  151. @ William G.:
    Also, while i am going to give away my own hand here, i cannot for one second believe that making the sign of the cross is a protection from evil, any more than i think that charismatic uses of objects (similar line to “blessed” medals and the like) has *anything* to do with reality, other than in the minds of those who belive in them. And that belief is enough to soothe the fears of many, i guess.

    But God doesn’t do “magic” things, and no more are gestures or pictures or symbols holy in themselves. They work to *remind us* of the One who is holy, nothing more nor less.

    Human beings like tangible objects that they can touch, me as much as anyone else. Whether that’s a black leather Bible or a statuette of Krishna, rosary beads or a souvenir of a pilgrimage – i don’t think it much matters. It is a universal impulse. All humans create images, just as all humans make music, dance, create poetry or like to cook and eat good food. It is part of the divine spark of creativity that God gave to humankind. That people of all religions (and none) share the impulse – the need – to create is part of what makes us truly human, imo.

  152. @ numo:
    Yikes – just realized that i inadvertantly slammed ghe veneration of icons. I had no intention of doing so, and have a real fondness for icons myself, albeit i canmot imagine kissing one. But i *do* get the reason for it, and could perhaps wish that my beliefs had room for such things.

  153. @ William G.:
    Otoh, very few people are doing anything other than lighting candles and leaving small offerings of things like flowers, fruit and toys. This really evil narco-style Santa Muerte stuff is not only limited to certain cartels, but is being over-sensationlized in the mefia and popular imagination.

  154. Dee, I will try to tighten it up a bit. I have a nasty problem with verbosity. Regarding my blog,,it exists mainly for the discussion of liturgical matters that would not be of interest to the majority of,readers here, but some of the blogs I link to are worth a look.

  155. numo wrote:

    i cannot for one second believe that making the sign of the cross is a protection from evil, any more than i think that charismatic uses of objects (similar line to “blessed” medals and the like) has *anything* to do with reality, other than in the minds of those who belive in them. And that belief is enough to soothe the fears of many, i guess.

    You know by now how much I value your information and sensibility; it is one of the reasons I continue to read TWW. So let us explore this together here for a moment. Think about the power of belief itself as noted in the placebo effect, or what seems to be belief itself, and its apparent potential for real and measurable results. So if evil is mostly in the heart/mind of man, things like the sign of the cross and the belief associated with it may not be an illusion but may be tapping into something real in the functioning of humanity that can be augmented or appropriated in the fight against evil. Perhaps it is more that just an anti-anxiety measure but also does effect a modification of reality at some level.

    I am also thinking that your past experiences with the excesses of pentecostalism have influenced your thinking like my past experiences with mindlessness in fundamentalism have influenced my thinking and maybe there are more spiritual realities than you are comfortable with, and maybe it was not entirely necessary for me to burn the bible in the bathtub.

    I would love to hear any thoughts you have along this line.

  156. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Yes, and also there is no telling what the cop himself is doing on the side.

    Seen from a disease control viewpoint, the prostitute may be assumed to have more sexual contacts than the average john, so disease control would probably want to start with the pro. That does not totally solve anything, of course, but it would be a reasonable place to start.

  157. @ Nancy:
    You really did that?!

    And yes, i am willing to concede my own bias, and that i’m having a tough time believing that some things actually happen, but also more than a little willing to be open to what you say. After all, i’m just one person, and limited, and wrong more often than not.

    Still, i truly do believe that a gesture like the sign of the cross is primarily a way of focusing on God, and as such, a way for God to reach us. But again, i have, as you rightly say, seen too many abuses of things to *not* be skeptical, to some degree, at least.

  158. numo wrote:

    Otoh, very few people are doing anything other than lighting candles and leaving small offerings of things like flowers, fruit and toys. This really evil narco-style Santa Muerte stuff is not only limited to certain cartels, but is being over-sensationlized in the mefia and popular imagination.

    So you have a developing folk cult and a dangerous Lunatic Fringe.

    Where have we seen that pattern before?

  159. numo wrote:

    Also, while i am going to give away my own hand here, i cannot for one second believe that making the sign of the cross is a protection from evil, any more than i think that charismatic uses of objects (similar line to “blessed” medals and the like) has *anything* to do with reality, other than in the minds of those who belive in them. And that belief is enough to soothe the fears of many, i guess.

    It’s folk religion, accreted around the church.

    Years ago at Internet Monk, Martha of Ireland described how the Protestant Reformation (especially the Calvinists) stripped away the accreted folk religion in their iconoclasm leaving only the Bible and the Devil and nothing else, and we’ve been seeing the results ever since.

  160. Patrice wrote:

    numo wrote:
    apologies for the threadjack. This discussion really belongs under another heading altogether, i think.
    I find your commentary pertinent. Driscoll has come to represent, in caricature, the ills in contemporary Evangelicalism.

    Just as Calvary Chapel came to represent those ills for me many years ago. Like they distill all that can go wrong into one concentrated extract.

    In a way, the Taliban and ISIL do the same with Islam, distilling and concentrating the Dark Side of their faith.

  161. numo wrote:

    Re. St. Anthony, part of my gut tells me that there were multiple things going on there, not least the combined effects of extreme isolation as well as sleep and/or food deprivation with other posdible physical (medical) problems as a contributing factor. His hallucinations sound (to me) like, well, literal hallucinations, nothing to do with demons. But people of his time would likely have thought in supernatural terms first, much like the dexcription of the boy with seizures in the Gospels.

    After encounters both first- and second-hand with the “Demons Under Every Teacup” types, I have become very skeptical of such stories, going to a supernatural explanation only after exhausting natural ones. That given, I have encountered two probable paranormal experiences in my 58 years, of which only one is best explained as “demonic attack”. Two in 58 years.

    El biggo was in 1980 (the possible demonic attack) and is too complex to go into detail here. Suffice it to say it was the “weird $hit experience” of my life. (This is why I didn’t join the dogpile when LA Governor Bobby Jindal claimed experience with an exorcism — I figured everybody has at least one Weird $hit Experience and that was his.) At least I got an FRP scenario out of it for Stalking the Night Fantastic.

    The second probable was summer of 2013, when visiting one of my writing partners (the burned-out preacher) on the East Coast. I was sitting in the office at his church at night when I saw movement in the corridor outside, like something was going past at a fast walk. Crossed the doorway too fast for me to get any sort of look at it, just something going past. Asked my writing partner about it, and he said the church building was intermittently haunted, mostly occasional nuisance-level poltergeist activity.

    Neither of these left any physical evidence that they had ever happened, and neither repeated. So what do you do?

    In addition, I’ve had two or three possibles (primarily in the mid-Eighties), but those could be naturally explainable as “hypnogogic hallucinations” — vivid dreams breaking through into the waking world while you’re not really awake but not really asleep. I also have occasional “olfactory hallucinations” where I smell something that isn’t there, but again, what do you do?

  162. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I’ve had a couple of strange experiences myself, but as for the kinds of “demonic attacks” that charismatics believe in – not so much.

    And i have had one extremely vivid instance of sleep paralysis, when i was in my teens. Like most people, i thought some kind of evil entity was trying to kill me. So you can imagine my relief when i found out that this impression is universal, and that it had an entirely benign medical cause/basis. (Physically benign, that is – the emotional distress was pretty intense, but not lasting.)

  163. William G. wrote:

    This is why Mars Hill troubles me; I feel like evangelicals recovered a portion of the doctrine of the early church but are now corrupting it in an authoritarian manner along the same lines that led to the corruption of the Roman church.

    Having experienced Catholic-bashing (I live near the Vatican of Calvary Chapel, CC used to dominate the local Christianese AM radio bands, and a lot of CC’s mini-Popes are VERY anti-Catholic), I get alarm bells at mention of the phrase “the Roman church”. Also running across cage-phase Orthodox online (who may as well be cheering their favorite team in a stadium), I am suspicious of a lead-in to Great Schism Catholic-bashing, contrasting the Whore of Babylon Roman church with One True Perfect-in-Every-Way ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY ORTHODOXY.

    There’s a lot of Net Drunks out there looking for a fight, and some of them claim to have God in their back pocket for heavy hitting. Whether said Divine Brass Knuckles are into KJV1611, TULIP, speaking in tongues, Tridentine Latin Mass Uber Alles, or beards, robes, and Greek theo-technical jargon.

  164. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    There’s a lot of Net Drunks out there looking for a fight, and some of them claim to have God in their back pocket for heavy hitting. Whether said Divine Brass Knuckles are into KJV1611, TULIP, speaking in tongues, Tridentine Latin Mass Uber Alles, or beards, robes, and Greek theo-technical jargon.

    Would that they were confined to the net, but alas they roam around freely. One of my kids has recently had a co-worker “convert” to hyper-evangelicalism and now is a problem on the job. Add “rapture” to your list there.

  165. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yeah, i wince at “Roman church,” and i am definitely not Catholic. You’re right in your awareness that the filioque and talk of “the great schism” seem to inevitably follow, in certain forums, at least.

  166. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I *so* wish that the whole “my church is better than your church” trope would just.stop.now. But i don’t hold out much hope of it disappearing this side of Christ’s return.