John Piper and Duck Dynasty: Celebrity Endorsements Validate the Demonology of Peter Wagner and Robert Morris

"Unsuccessful people are the ones who are impressed by celebrity, by people's names and titles." Robin S. Sharma link

Screen Shot 2015-04-28 at 11.20.45 AM

Back in business!

Last Friday, one of our readers left an interesting comment on the Peter Wagner post. 

Screen Shot 2015-04-27 at 3.12.44 PM

I thought about that question most of the day. Is Peter Wagner's stuff really an indicator of a cult? Have any well known leaders ever endorsed Pater Wagner? Have any well known "non-cultish" celebrities, endorsed Robert Morris at Gateway church?

John Piper and Peter Wagner

So, before making dinner, I decided to put the name John Piper into a search with Peter Wagner's name. My jaw hit the table. It appears that way back in 1992, approximately 6 years after the publication of Desiring God,  Piper seemed to think well of  the thoughts of Peter Wagner. On the Desiring God website is a sermon he preached called Angels and Prayer.

In this sermon, Piper said that he believes that territorial spirits are real. He then discussed C Peter Wagner's beliefs in what appears to me to be a positive fashion.

Peter Wagner's Assessment

Peter Wagner just published a book called Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits. He believes that as we move into the '90s, the Holy Spirit is calling the church to a spiritual warfare with territorial spirits—evil spirits, demons, principalities, powers, world rulers of this present darkness, spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12)—which attach themselves to specific territories or regimes or institutions.

His assessment is that in the 1950s God began to ripen a harvest of souls as he put evangelism high on the church's agenda. In the 1960s God pressed the issues of compassion for the poor and oppressed on the conscience of the church. In the 1970s there were the first seeds of the growing prayer movement around the world. And in the 1980s, with the third wave, there has been a great emphasis on supernatural power in ministry, especially gifts relating to prophecy and healing. As we enter the 1990s, Peter Wagner sees spiritual warfare with territorial spirits moving to the forefront.

Piper then discussed his interpretation of Daniel 10: 1-21. He concludes this with the following statements:

So I conclude from this that there is good biblical reason for thinking that there are powerful evil spirits with special appointments from Satan over kingdoms like Persia and Greece. 

…So then, I would conclude that there are high-ranking demonic powers over various regimes and dominions and governments and realms of the world; and that they work to create as much evil and corruption and spiritual darkness as they can. They strive to interrupt Christian missions and ministry as much as they can.

He does caution regarding praying about the angels yet he does not back away from his seeming admiration of Wagner. Curiously, he leaves out the word "demons" when he cautioned about not praying for angels.

The second thing is to notice that Daniel's prayer that has such powerful effects in the spiritual realm was not a prayer about angels and territorial spirits. He was wrestling for truth and for the good of God's people the way we saw him praying last week. He was totally shocked when an angel appeared to him. And he knew nothing about the conflict with the prince of the kingdom of Persia.

But it's no accident that the messenger said that his struggle with the prince of Persian lasted exactly the same amount of time that Daniel's fasting and prayer did (cf. vv. 2, 13)—21 days. The reason for this is that the warfare in the spirit realm was being fought in a real sense by Daniel in the prayer realm.

And so it is with more of our prayers than we realize. But the point is this: Daniel's praying was not about angels. 

In 2010, Piper expressed belief that exorcism should be performed occasionally in the church. However, he makes a statement which is not backed up by facts. I believe that we should ask the question "What is your proof?" when someone makes claims. Why does he believe that there are the more demons in foreign countries? If Western non-Christian do not believe in demons, does that mean they don't get affected as much by demons as they do in Third World countries? Doesn't such a claim seem a bit paternalistic if not backed up by facts as opposed to hearsay? He talks about exorcism.

I've been involved in one in my life—only one. But I've read about others and it is much more common on the mission field, of course, where you are moving immediately into places where they are more explicitly demon-driven than we are explicitly demon-driven here.

In fact, in 2013 on Desiring God, the writer seemed to contradict this by promoting the idea that demons are prevalent in the Western world.

Demons have a notorious way of acclimatizing to where they are, warns Tope Koleoso, pastor of Jubilee Church in London. And in secular Western society, this means playing right into our neglect and diminishing of the supernatural.

…In this new episode of Theology Refresh, Koleoso talks frankly about our tendency to be skeptical, and practically about the process of spiritual warfare for the Christian leader. He challenges us to prayer and patience when the Holy Spirit prompts us that something is not ordinary and that perhaps demonic forces may be involved.

Finally, it is worth referring back to a post that we wrote questioning the one experience that Piper said he had with an exorcism.

When the group began to sing, "Alleluia," she got "absolutely wild." "She threw herself on the ground… screaming" before she lost consciousness. This "mesmerized" everyone. When it was over, she looked different, her voice was different, and she didn't remember anything at all. "I handed her the Bible and asked her to read Romans 8. She read all Romans 8. And that's when we left her," Piper recalled.

Now pay close attention to the next part. This young woman began to attend Piper's church. 

She said she had been into "Satan stuff" on the West Coast. Piper said he wouldn't give details because she could get arrested if he did.

Does this make sense? Are we not supposed to report crimes to the police? Piper seems to espouse such a view. I asked a few questions about his experience in that post.

1. Was the woman truly possessed? We don't know since Piper did not see fit to have her examined prior to her supposed exorcism.
2. Did she tell the truth about participating in some sort of crime or was that a hallucination or confabulation?
3. Should Piper participate in covering up illegal activities since it appears he believes she could be arrested? Isn't this the same excuse that churches give when they cover up for pedophiles? Does the pastor get to decide whether a crime gets reported to the police?

I have to admit that I was startled by John Piper's exorcism story. He said he loved Driscoll's theology and that leads me to wonder if that includes Driscoll's demon trials? No wonder there is so much confusion on this subject throughout the church. 

Am I just beating on John Piper because I am not a fan of his theological bent? Please let me explain what I am truly trying to do here. I want to figure out how certain unusual beliefs about demons entered the greater evangelical church. I often hear critiques from certain groups bewailing the supposed light weight theology that goes on in the evangelical church. So, I chose one of the most admired pastors within this group of self-styled, serious theologians to show how their well-regarded pastors may have participated in introducing some of this theology to the church. 

So, my answer to Ted at the beginning of the post would be "So, do you think John Piper is a cult leader?" (I know this one is going to get some interesting comments.)

Duck Dynasty and Robert Wagner

Fast forward to today.

Screen Shot 2015-04-28 at 11.21.03 AM

Duck Dynasty sure caught on over at the Gospel Coalition. Joe Carter even wrote two "Nine Things" posts about these guys link and link. Here is one of his glowing statements.

Why Duck Dynasty matters: Poised to be the biggest cable show of all time, Duck Dynasty is the highest rated show on TV to consistently portray a family that is unapologetic about their Christian faith and their affection for one another. The pop culture phenomenon is making it harder for television executives to ignore the demand for shows that portray families who put God first in their lives.

Denny Burk wrote 5 posts about the bearded ones (check Google) including one called The Gospel According to Duck Dynasty. In another post, Burk quibbled a bit with what Robertson said about race but he sure loved what he said about homosexuality. Others took up the duck calls for the DD boys: Russell Moore, Al Mohler, Matt Chandler, and groups like CBMW. There are more but you get my point. This group shows an obvious admiration for the Christian faith of the Duck Dynasty enterprise.

From one of our readers who is from the area:

For the Men’s Summit held on March 6-7, 2015. Jase, Cole and Reed Robertson headlined the event, which was heavily advertised and they spoke on March 7th. They presented in interview format in which the three Robertson’s sat on a couch on stage and answered questions from Robert Morris and told stories to the audience. Interestingly, all record of their appearance has been scrubbed from the Gateway site. This was odd.

Their appearance is credited for GW having the only sold-out men's conference in their history.

So what happens when the Duck Dynasty boys sit on the stage with Robert Morris? The previously mentioned theologian/pastors would most likely denounce much of the demon theology of Robert Morris, Gateway Church, etc. Yet, by publishing a large amount of man crush pieces on the bearded ones, they have inadvertently lent a positive spin on the ministry of the Duck boys. I looked to see if any of the theological types wrote posts discussing "DD Does Gateway" but I couldn't find any. 

Let's review a few interesting beliefs that Robert Morris has about demons link.

  • He claims that you must admit that you have a demon. If you do, you can get free.
  • A demon possessed Christians does not mean that the Christian is owned by Satan, merely in bondage. Here is the *word picture* he uses to explain this. Red flag: If a thief broke into your house, you would not say he owns the house. But, he could control things in your house.
  • If you feel helpless and powerless or have to confess a sin over and over again, you are in bondage with a demon.
  • Jesus cannot set you free unless you know you are in bondage!
  • Alcohol, prescription medicines (even when used as prescribed), pornography, pride, etc. can open a door to placing you under the power of a demon.

He believes that you can open the door to demons if you don't tithe which means that 95% of Christians are under demonic control since only about 5% tithe!

The Apostle Paul was preaching under the influence of a demon.

He believes that evil spirits can control believers in just about every area of their lives. Take a look at this book published online called Truly Free: Breaking the Snares That So Easily Entangle

  • Inferiority
  • malice
  • envy
  • bitterness
  • self-hate
  • self-pity
  • suicide
  • pride
  • lying 
  • Jezebel spirit ( Dee's absolute  favorite!))
  • stealing 
  • laziness
  • sickness
  • spells 
  • generational curses

Finally we get down to this belief in the ability for believers to control demons that have positions of power (think territorial spirits.)

He says that there is quite an impressive organisation the devil is running with seven categories of demons in Scripture:  thrones, lordships, rulers, authorities, principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness, and evil and unclean spirits.  They can be cast out in Jesus’s name. They have no choice but to leave when you cast them out in Jesus’s name.

Conclusion:

Today's pervasive misunderstanding and rather odd practices regarding demons can be traced back to rather shoddy theology expressed by a multitude of pastors in the past few decades. It is then buttressed by today's celebrity culture in which guys who make duck calls are considered headliners for church conferences. Robert Morris and his good friend, Chris Hodges are leaders in the ARC which I believe is the fasting growing group of churches.  I have outlined some of Hodges beliefs in this matter as well. I expect that we will be hearing a lot more about territorial spirits in the years to come. 

Let me end with this question which all believers should ask when confronted by claims of people being set free from demons.

Has any study been done to see if people who attend Gateway Church have fewer problems with pride, alcohol, pornography, lust, etc.? Since they are delivering people from demons regularly, Morris should have statistics on how Gateway Church is more *demon free* than other churches which don't regularly practice exorcism. Right?

My guess-they are no more lust, greed, or lazy free than any other church which doesn't practice exorcism. If so, then this is all a sham and one has to ask, "Who does it benefit…?"

Comments

John Piper and Duck Dynasty: Celebrity Endorsements Validate the Demonology of Peter Wagner and Robert Morris — 478 Comments

  1. I figured this demonology stuff reached its peak when Frank Peretti’s novels were published 20 years ago. But it sounds like it’s making a resurgence. Ugh.

  2. la premiere?

    (added a question mark, in case someone hits enter before I do, so I don’t look dumb i’m actually deuxieme, troisieme,…)

    so…. what do you believe about demons, then?

    are they real? do they impact us? is there power in Jesus’ name after all? (as is alluded to in all the scripted prayers and boilerplate stuff in Christian culture)

    perhaps ‘demons’ is a catch-all label for spiritual things that are darkness/anti God as opposed to light/God.

    I know from my own experiences that tangible forces jettisoned after invoking Jesus’ name.

  3. This is a post I did on why evangelical Christians will be unable to engage many atheists. I did this in reflecting on evangelical culture as well as atheism culture. An exploration of the problems of intellectualism, living in a “bubble” and he opportunities that are lost because of the current evangelical culture. I quote from Christopher Hitchens, George Carlin, etc.. so there is strong language in this post.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/why-evangelical-christians-will-be-unable-to-reach-atheists-with-the-gospel/

  4. elastigirl wrote:

    the scripted prayers and boilerplate stuff in Christian culture

    What do you mean by scripted prayers and boilerplate stuff? I must be having brain fog today or something.

  5. Alcohol, prescription medicines (even when used as prescribed), pornography, pride, etc. can open a door to placing you under the power of a demon.

    I am thankful that my high blood pressure medicine prevented my blood pressure from rising when I “learned” what about the dangers presented by my high blood pressure medicine.

  6. “John Piper and Duck Dynasty”…

    The Flutterhands meet The Beards.

    We’re all living in an episode of South Park

  7. Leila wrote:

    I figured this demonology stuff reached its peak when Frank Peretti’s novels were published 20 years ago. But it sounds like it’s making a resurgence. Ugh.

    “THEY’RE HERE! THEY’RE THERE! THEY’RE EVERYWHERE! SO BEWARE!”
    “DEMONS! DEMONS! DEEEEMONS! SHEEKA-BOOM-BAH! BAM!!!”

  8. Shouldn’t that be “Robert Morris” in the title (and the appropriate caption) rather than “Robert Wagner”? I see no mention of any “Robert Wagner” in the text itself, and since that name attaches to rather a different well-known person entirely, it may be a good thing to get the correction in.

  9. So what happens when the Duck Dynasty boys sit on the stage with Robert Morris?

    You get a NEW High Concept Reality Show, that’s what happens!

    Just add Kim Kardashian and Honey Boo-Boo and you’ve gota guaranteed crossover HIT!

  10. The Apostle Paul was preaching under the influence of a demon.

    We are now Officially into Aslan-Is-The-Antichrist country.

  11. He believes that you can open the door to demons if you don’t tithe which means that 95% of Christians are under demonic control since only about 5% tithe!

    So you fork over the $$$ to the Witch Doctor in the pulpit or the DEMONS will get you?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjrTcYMqBM

    Follow the Money…

    P.S. Both Pennsylvania Dutch stories and the Appalachian lore in Manly Wade Wellman’s weird fiction are full of Hexerai (witches) using their Magick to extort money from people by threatening them with curses and/or their familiar spirits.

  12. Mark J Baker-Wright wrote:

    Shouldn’t that be “Robert Morris” in the title (and the appropriate caption) rather than “Robert Wagner”? I see no mention of any “Robert Wagner” in the text itself, and since that name attaches to rather a different well-known person entirely, it may be a good thing to get the correction in.

    I have been laughing since you left this comment. Why I did do that? I do not have a clue! I used Morris’ name correctly throughout the post and messed it up in the title. I am totally losing it….

  13. Finally we get down to this belief in the ability for believers to control demons that have positions of power (think territorial spirits.)

    “Believers” or SORCERERS?

    Because isn’t Magick all about a mortal sorcerer forcing supernatural forces/beings to do what the sorcerer wants?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q97XUgGON4

  14. He believes that you can open the door to demons if you don’t tithe which means that 95% of Christians are under demonic control since only about 5% tithe!

    “Pay the protection money, or somebody’s gonna get hurt.”

  15. @ Nancy:

    all my life I’ve heard over and over again things like “in Jesus’ name we pray”, “by the power of the Holy Spirit”…. spoken with all the conviction it takes to opt for margarine.

  16. Mark J Baker-Wright wrote:

    I see no mention of any “Robert Wagner” in the text itself, and since that name attaches to rather a different well-known person entirely

    I just saw THAT Wagner in a tabloid headline yesterday (just in the checkout line– I don’t buy ’em, of course 🙂 ) still taking heat over Natalie Woods’ demise.

  17. Dee, If I had a dollar – or even a quarter – for every single time I’ve ever heard/read “Jezebel spirit,” I might have enough $$$ to pay for a trip to Europe.

    Seriously. This is an old, *old* phrase in both Pentecostal and charismatic vocabulary.

    Also, I would suggest using “C. Peter Wagner”rather than “Peter Wagner,” because he always uses that 1st initial, and also because it makes information like the material in this post more easily findable via Google and other search engines.

    Fwiw.

  18. I have a suspicious feeling that the more these churches feel the pinch from those of us leaving the more they will consolidate- “Birds of a feather flock together”. They have to, to survive. Look at what businesses do (-example: Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin Robbins). Church is a business today so they do not want to upset their apple cart. I am sick of the whole lot of ’em.

  19. Leila wrote:

    I figured this demonology stuff reached its peak when Frank Peretti’s novels were published 20 years ago. But it sounds like it’s making a resurgence. Ugh.

    I visited Peretti’s church once about 20 years ago, and can’t recall any demonology stuff (he was only on the worship team, not the preacher). But demons were sure under every rock in his books. In one kids book, the archaeologist hero foolishly unearthed a whole pandora’s boxload of demons in a cave, then had to do something heroic to stop them. Peretti was a pretty close neighbor at one time. His “The Omen” book had a lot of crazy demon-related stuff, but was an incredibly accurate portrayal of our neck of the woods– one in which the Duck Dynasty folks would feel right at home!

  20. elastigirl wrote:

    all my life I’ve heard over and over again things like “in Jesus’ name we pray”, “by the power of the Holy Spirit”…. spoken with all the conviction it takes to opt for margarine.

    The one that bugs me most is “if it be your will please be with so and so in this hour of whatever.” I just want to say hey, we have a promise of be-with-ness, what do you mean if it be your will? He already said he would, for crying out loud.

  21. @ Nancy:
    I don’t mind “In Jesus’ name we pray,” or “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” but I do sometimes wish they would be said with more conviction. However, I’m as guilty as the next person of saying them by rote, from childhood onward, especially since the 1st was part of the prayer we said before dinner, and I always wanted to rush through it so that I could eat. 😉

  22. Hahahaha !! “Opt for margarine!” Come to think of it,margarine isn’t all it is see to be cracked up as….. Food for thought. @ elastigirl:

  23. “Yet, by publishing a large amount of man crush pieces on the bearded ones…”

    Not that “man-crush” is a bad term, but I think the current vernacular is “Bro-mance,” unless that’s fallen out of favor lately.

    The one Duck Beard guy actually recommends that grown men marry 16 year old girls.

    As such, he’s falling right into ISIS territory there, though ISIS is also reported to assault females as young as nine years of age.

    Marry girls when they’re ’15 or 16,’ said ‘Duck Dynasty’ star
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/showbiz/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-comments/

    I find all the obsessive interest in demons by some of these church leaders odd, and can see how it can lead to problems.

  24. I never read (past tense) Peretti or any of the rest of that ilk, whatever it is. I never read (past tense) science fiction so perhaps I am illiterate, but hey you can’t do everything. I am not a pentecostal. Nevertheless, I had a close encounter of the weird kind once (or maybe twice.) I think it is better to build beliefs on scripture than experience, but I don’t discount experience if it does not contradict scripture. I don’t want any more close encounters though. When it comes testimony time I had rather talk about something else. But I do think that evil is real. Much beyond that I have nothing to say.

  25. numo wrote:

    “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,”

    Funny thing happened over at the lutheran school. They have chapel and do some things that grandchild was familiar with, until they said in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit at which time young grandchild made the sign of the cross and-nobody-else-did. The kid was seriously worried about how to handle this obviously humungous problem. We got through it.

  26. @ Nancy:
    glad to hear all is ok! some Lutherans do cross themselves, and the pastors make the sign of the cross several times during the course of the service. my family was very much against the congregation doing it, but honestly, i don’t get what the problem is. never have, never will.

  27. As far as other Morris endorsements by non-cultists, what say ye to his MANY appearances at seeker Megas to shill for the homeboy (Herr Furtick, Groeschel, Ed Young Jr.)? Well, I guess that pre-supposes that the homeboys aren’t cultists. Not sure I will go that far for any of them. In fact, I wouldn’t go farther for any of them than I can spit, and I never could spit without dribbling down my own chin.

  28. For Piper skeptics, there is no adequate explanation for some of his endorsements. Like Doug Wilson who is poison for a number of reasons. There are others like Peter Wagner, though I did not know about this connection before. The closest I can come to an explanation is that Piper likes to be the center of attention while he talks endlessly about God’s glory. That is my opinion, lacking any other plausible explanation.

    For Piperites, there is no need to explain Piper because Piper is the explanation. Just try to have a conversation with one when questioning Piper’s judgment or tweets or doctrine or anything at all about Piper. If he does something wrong, then it becomes right by being done by Piper. I am only slightly exaggerating. So, that seems to me to meet the criteria of at least a personality cult.

    TgC boys will glom onto anything or anyone who supports their primary doctrines. As long as you support those primary doctrines, then nothing else matters. I submit Douglas Wilson as evidence for this as well that neither TgC
    nor Piper were putting the integrity of the Gospel message at the top of the list when they promote Doug Wilson. From this we can conclude that Piper and TgC are not, at least in this instance, mostly about the Gospel.

    There is no explanation for taste when it comes to certain Christian celebrities, and as I’ve said before, Kardashian Kristians are going to act like Kardashian Kristians. That’s what they do.

    When it comes to Robert Morris, ISTM that he is selling protection from fear. To successfully sell something, you have to first gin up demand for your product, and so his emphasis on the ever-present danger that demons pose to the average Christian. I do believe that demons exist, and I also believe that they may well manifest themselves in very different ways in different cultures. I do not believe that God has ordered us to pursue battle against them but rather to prepare to resist them when they attack. That is best done, IMO, by prayer and knowledge of God’s word. They are defeated by the work of Christ not by giving money to the likes of Morris.

  29. @ Nancy:
    re. Peretti, you haven’t missed anything. i like good sci-fi, but Peretti’s books are not sci-fi and they are not, imo, even remotely close to being good. they are filled with nasty territorial demons ready to chew up humans with their big, ugly teeth, and so on.

    that people would assume they depict reality is mind-boggling, but many did, and still do.

  30. numo wrote:

    @ Leila:
    Longer ago than that. I 1st saw one of his books (This Present Darkness) in 1986 or thereabouts.

    You are right. I should have said 30 years! I am now of an age where the past few decades just blur together … :/

  31. @ Nancy:

    ““if it be your will please be with so and so in this hour of whatever.””
    ++++++++++++

    ah, a kindred spirit. gimme a break… spineless it’s-my-job-to-be-somewhere-in-the-middle-like-lukewarmwater pansybutt prayer i’m at the breaking point with this stupid religion of mine

    GodJesusHolySpirit are cool, though

  32. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    he is also selling fear.

    Yes, of course he is. He is creating the demand for his services as the intermediary and protector. Fear is a very powerful motivator. If westerners don’t ordinarily fear demons, then you have to pound on that theme until they do. If people in the third world already believe in animistic religion, then you have to convince them that your power is greater than the other guy’s power.

  33. srs wrote:

    I am thankful that my high blood pressure medicine prevented my blood pressure from rising when I “learned” what about the dangers presented by my high blood pressure medicine.

    To play devils advocate…..intended phrasing…..I think he is not referring to medicine in general but powerful and addictive narco’s like oxy, percoset, dilodid, etc(all misspelled i am sure….)

  34. @ Gram3:

    “The closest I can come to an explanation is that Piper likes to be the center of attention while he talks endlessly about God’s glory.”
    ++++++++++++

    good grief, yes.

    here, (on Wikipedia) in the front row, surrounded by others praising God almost to the point of facial hernia because of cultural limits of any other kind of physical expression, arms bolted to their sides. which of course makes it the prime opportunity for jp to seize the personal spotlight and demonstrate how he alone transcends such limits in his elite fervency. he goes for his double Nazi salute, fingers flexed beyond flexing, arms thrust out of their sockets like the snap of a flying flag.

    playing for the camera, of course.

  35. Dave A A wrote:

    I visited Peretti’s church once about 20 years ago, and can’t recall any demonology stuff (he was only on the worship team, not the preacher). But demons were sure under every rock in his books. In one kids book, the archaeologist hero foolishly unearthed a whole pandora’s boxload of demons in a cave, then had to do something heroic to stop them.

    What I know of Peretti is he founded a new sub-genre of Supernatural Thriller and his early books (which got him famous) were not that well-written. I heard later that he was the type of writer who benefits from a strong editor and he didn’t have a strong editor until later in his career.

    Most of the RL horror stories about Peretti novels are NOT due to Peretti but to his fanboys mistaking fiction for fact. And some of those fanboys get scary.

    This is an occupational hazard of anyone who makes his or her bones in the Contemporary Supernatural genre; Mercedes Lackey had a famous essay online years ago titled “The Last Straw” about her bad experiences along those lines, centering around her “Diana Tregarde” series (“Occult Detective” genre). The only copy I’ve been able to find just now is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.pagan/VoBmUbyEs_o circa 1997.

    Over at Slacktivist, there’s been speculation that Christians are especially prone to this kind of fanboying, as inside the Christianese bubble they have only read Approved Bowdlerized Wholesome Christianese stuff and have little experience with the power of fiction. So when they DO read something powerful, they are overwhelmed by it and mistake it for fact.

  36. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    What I saw re. Peretti was *not* fanboy stuff – it was NAR-type charismatics believing that his books were literal depictions of the “real” supernatural world. In other words, they made Peretti into a theologian.

    Which is hella scary, on many levels. And it was a widespread phenomenon, too.

  37. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, of course he is. He is creating the demand for his services as the intermediary and protector.

    I think I said this on an older thread, but the way Morris and guys like him teach on this stuff (give God ten percent of your income, or else God will allow you or your family to get sick, get divorced, etc), makes God sound like a Mafia Don.

    From Google:

    The Don or boss is the head of a crime family. The boss receives a cut of every operation taken on by every member of his family. Depending on the family, the boss may be chosen by a vote from the caporegimes of the family.

    Morris is making you an offer you can’t refuse.

  38. This is a classic Watching for Warts post right here.

    The connection between Piper and C. Peter Wagner is quite thin. One article from among the thousands and thousands of resources at Desiring God, and from 23 years ago! I know from first hand experience that C. Peter Wagner was very popular in evangelical circles in the 80’s through the mid-90’s. You can easily find connections online between Wagner and Rick Warren. Wagner and missionary statesman Ralph Winter co-wrote a commentary on Acts. Elmer Towns, co-founder of Libery U, was a long-time friend of Wagner. I am sure there are others. Why did you choose Piper? Hmmm. Surely there are other good theologians out there you could also link with Wagner with a little research. Or is the phrase “self-styled, serious theologians” just code for TGC? What about other theologians, like missionary statesmen, who wrote commentaries with Wagner? What about their responsibility for promulgating his views? Yes, as you say at the end of the article, it was a multitude of leaders who promoted this in the church. Yet there is this attempt to connect Piper by name to Wagner and then by extension, to Robert Morris.

    I know Wagner was in vogue when I was in college in the 80’s. We had one prof who taught on prayer who was wrestling through Wagner and Wesley Duewell and others who seemed to be teaching more directly on spiritual warfare. I think a lot of it comes out of the Jesus movement of the 70s as I see it in some of the writings of the late Keith Green and some other teachers in that movement. Then there was Peretti and the novels, which further popularized these teachings. Do we really want to check the associations and endorsements of every Christian teacher and leader over the last 25 years. You could come up with some real doozies, I’m sure.

    In TWW world, John Piper has become the new version of the Kevin Bacon game.

    What if Wade Burleson or some other teacher you respect went and spoke at Robert Morris’ church? Would I be justified in going back and criticizing all you had said in favor of Wade which you wrote before he ever went to Gateway. The TGC folks are supposed to be able to read the future with the Duck guys or else they get smeared with somehow endorsing the ducks being in league with Robert Morris.

    As to Duck Dynasty and Robert Wagner, that would make a good movie. But the Duck boys ISTM will do what they can to get out there and spread their message and they don’t seem real concerned with their venue. You’ll find them at minor league baseball games, conferences of all sorts, and all kinds of events.

    They most likely see Morris as good because Morris has a big venue.

    Here’s what I’m seeing you saying . . . Piper quoted Wagner once among 30plus years of preaching and has had a couple of experiences with demonic stuff >>>Wagner influenced Robert Morris >>>Robert Morris has Duck Dynasty for a conference and TGC puffed the ducks (though they did said puffing before the ducks ever went to Gateway).>>>Still though, TGC lends credibility to the Bearded Ones by endorsing some of their views. >>>Morris has lots and lots of crazy views and should be avoided. >>>How do people like Morris get by with such views? Answer: “Shoddy theology promoted by a MULTITUDE of pastors over DECADES, buttressed by the celebrities by the duck calls.” But the underlying answer is what it seems to always be . . . Piper and TGC.

    If you asked Robert Morris about his greatest influences, is there a chance in the world he’s listing John Piper and the Gospel Coalition? No way.

    If you ask John Piper about his greatest influences, is there a change in the world he’s listing C. Peter Wagner? No way.

  39. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    One of the 1st things I thought when reading This Present Darkness (which is a horrible book, from a writing standpoint alone) was that he was way, way off in his presentation of characters who were so evil that they were like demons in human form – literally unable to change, now that they’d sold out so much to the Dark Side. (In this case, various New Age rehashes of the same old same old occult-type ideas and practices.)

    That book does read like an instruction manual for demon-hunting, in many ways, and it certain was marketed in a way that allowed people to think that he *might* be writing about things that others had actually encountered. In all, a train wreck, and one that adversely affected the lives of many of the readers who took it seriously, not to mention their families and friends.

  40. numo wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    re. Peretti, you haven’t missed anything. i like good sci-fi, but Peretti’s books are not sci-fi and they are not, imo, even remotely close to being good. they are filled with nasty territorial demons ready to chew up humans with their big, ugly teeth, and so on.

    that people would assume they depict reality is mind-boggling, but many did, and still do.

    As I said in my comment just above, over-the-top fanboys mistaking your supernatural fiction for FACT is an occupational hazard for writers in those genres, and Born-Agains seem to be especially prone to going off that particular deep end.

    And about Peretti, I understand he improved as a writer when he got a strong editor late in his career. Before that, well, can you say “Captain Obvious”? One scene from his early stuff sticks in my mind no matter how much brain-bleach I pour over it:

    The Secular Humanist Conspiracy is meeting in their smoke-free room to plot how to destroy Christianity in the town. All the conspirators are completely demon-possessed, with the demons riding them like horses, controlling their every action and thought. My reaction to Peretti’s description was “THAT’s Carl Sagan; THAT’s The Amazing Randi; THAT’s Madelyn Murray O’Hair, THAT’s Steven Jay Gould; THAT’s Dr Ruth; THAT’s Shirley MacLaine, THAT’s Ike Bonewitz…” It was THAT obvious. (Though “Gunpowder Jerkoff” Mens’ Action-Adventure thrillers of the Late Cold War could be just as Captain Obvious with their bad guys….)

  41. numo wrote:

    That book does read like an instruction manual for demon-hunting, in many ways, and it certain was marketed in a way that allowed people to think that he *might* be writing about things that others had actually encountered. In all, a train wreck, and one that adversely affected the lives of many of the readers who took it seriously, not to mention their families and friends.

    I understand Peretti later stopped writing in that sub-genre he founded, specifically because he ran into “one fanboy too many” who mistook his fiction for fact and his “spiritual warfare novels” for SCRIPTURE(TM) — similar to Mercedes Lackey in “The Last Straw”.

  42. In the Fifties, a TV thriller by Rod Serling about a bomb on an airliner sparked a series of copycat bomb threats. Serling’s comment on the matter?

    “I am responsible to my audience. I am not responsible FOR my audience.”

  43. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    no, not fanboys. entire churches.

    Those were just large herds of crazy fanboys.
    (I wonder if Peretti had any problems with actual stalkers?)

  44. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    it was heavy-handed moralizing, like a Chick tract, but without the lurid cartoons.

    Numo, that can describe a LOT of Christianese fiction.

  45. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    yeah, like Left Behind…

    Whose “History Written in Advance” is the latest type example.

  46. Both my father and step-father believe this garbage. And, both, at one time or another suggested I needed an exorcism….. Not kidding and neither were they. Basically, everyone they knew individually “needed” an exorcism. Even themselves. The first time and last time my husband met my father, my father told him I had demons and that my little brother did too. That was 9 years ago. I think its best not to have contact with either one and they seem pretty cool with this arrangement too.

  47. __

    “Playing Chicken?”

    Demon spirits are subject the word of God…

    Yep.

    What?!?

    “Submit yourself to God, therefore resist the devil and he will flee from you…”

    hmmm…

    That these 501(c)3 proverbial ‘religious clowns’ are abusing God’s Word and kind folk’s sensibilities, is quite evident.

    bump.

    They are expecting you to ‘blink’ first.

    Sadly, many have.

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  48. Ok, I’ll bite.

    Sigh.

    I accepted Christ/started following Christ/got saved reading a Frank Peretti novel. I was 13. I had no idea what any of his stuff was based on–but he was the first person who articulated salvation as being a transactional act of Jesus rather than something we work really hard to accomplish ourselves. “He touched her, and her sins were gone.”

    That was good.

    Recently, I re-read “Piercing the Darkness,” and was saddened to realized that he may have popularized the Evangelical tendency to minimize or disbelieve abuse victims, and stop trusting the courts. It’s all about a little girl being demon posessed, her Christian teacher casting out the spirit, and how oppressed Christian schools and pastors can be by the evil government.

    I’ve been a Star Trek fan since I was 4. (Yes, four. You read that right.) Peretti was my introduction to Christian fiction. Sadly, he’s also been the high point. Not a single other author in his genre (Ted Dekker, for example) has reached the level of complexity, nuance, or storytelling skill that Peretti has. And if you want an early primer on the realities of spiritual abuse, read The Visitation. Yes, it was ignorant of attachment disorders. Yes, it had flaws. But it showed a level of awareness of the cracks in the church system ten years before spiritual abuse blogging became a thing. 🙁

    I can see why Peretti’s most recent post to social media was him building ships in a bottle. Fan boys think he’s the demonology pope, and critics know he’s not Stephen King.

    But he led me to Jesus. 🙂

  49. js wrote:

    I am sure there are others. Why did you choose Piper? Hmmm. Surely there are other good theologians out there you could also link with Wagner with a little research. Or is the phrase “self-styled, serious theologians” just code for TGC?

    First, I’m glad you turned your phone on. To attempt an answer, perhaps it is because Piper is considered by the YRR to be one of the foremost theologians of the past few decades in terms of influence in the conservative church. I’ve been around a bit longer than you, not that it matters since I’m female, but Wagner was *not* a big deal in most conservative churches and certainly not in the conservative church as a whole. Not so for Piper who transcends most boundaries which have historically helped to isolate vectors of bad theology.

    Piper has endorsed Doug Wilson and has invited him to speak multiple times at DG. Wilson is pure poison. Pure unadulterated poison when it comes to the Gospel. However, he does follow a perverse form of what he calls Reformed theology, and he does loudly proclaim the necessity of male supremacy. His soteriology and ecclesiology are rejected by the vast majority of leaders in the conservative P&R denominations, with certain exceptions like some insanity at Covenant Seminary and in isolated pockets like Birmingham and some other places who think that the Church is a political entity.

    Yet Piper’s judgment is not to be questioned. Even when people within his own theological school of thought questioned the wisdom of his endorsement of Wilson, he basically dismissed those very real concerns with his trademarked smirky grin.

    Similarly, TgC has embraced Doug Wilson as has Crossway which is the funding source, excuse me, *Partner* of TgC. Jared Wilson, no relation to Doug, wrote a glowing article for TgC praising Doug Wilson’s tirade about marital intimacy being about male domination. It was a stinking sewer of obscenity. Yet the wise young man, Jared, thought it was brilliant. When people protested with reasoned comments on his post, he said they needed to brush up on their reading comprehension. That is but one example of the oft commented on arrogance of the YRR.

    Please refer to my previous comment about Piperites. He walks on water.

  50. Is it just me or did js’ phone come on fairly quickly when Piper was mentioned in an article?

  51. Adam Borsay wrote:

    powerful and addictive narco’s

    I feel confident that I’m misunderstanding what you said, but I want to say something anyway. Setting Morris’ self-serving nuttiness aside, in churches where the nouthetic ideology has taken root, certain medications are on the taboo list, at least informatlly, because they are used to treat “mental illness” which is . Also, there is a secular movement to basically outlaw certain medications by regulating them into a practical oblivion because of abuse by some. It happens that for some people these medications, which can be addictive or have other unhelpful side effects, are the difference between life being tolerable at all and it being intolerable for various reasons which do not need to be detailed here.

    I know that you know that Morris is not concerned about addiction but is rather concerned with placing guilt which he proposes to remove for a price. But well-meaning other people condemn the use of “powerful” drugs because they have never walked a mile, or endured an hour, in someone else’s shoes.

  52. Gram3 wrote:

    For Piperites, there is no need to explain Piper because Piper is the explanation. Just try to have a conversation with one when questioning Piper’s judgment or tweets or doctrine or anything at all about Piper. If he does something wrong, then it becomes right by being done by Piper. I am only slightly exaggerating. So, that seems to me to meet the criteria of at least a personality cult.

    Remember Gram3 John Piper is the fourth person of the trinity. One is not to question the Lord’s anointed.

  53. elastigirl wrote:

    spineless

    That’s the word. Because if you ask for something and don’t get it, that is bad but you can always fall back on the if it be your will position. But if you ask for something and you get it, then you have a real problem. It could tear up somebody’s life in a big way, even completely rearrange somebody’s thinking.

  54. @ js:

    JS…I hope you’ll stay engaged. I think its necessary and helpful to have opposing views. So please loiter around and discuss! 😀

  55. Eagle wrote:

    John Piper is the fourth person of the trinity.

    But the pressing question is where does he fit within the hierarchy among the Persons? I’m conflicted…

  56. @ Gram3:

    You have some good points, but again and again we see articles and statistics of abuse of prescription meds both from over-prescribing or from doctor shopping or from selling/buying them on the street. We see doctors disciplined by the medical board here and I assume everywhere for this sort of thing. This is a complicated issue, but it is people doing this, not demons.

  57. @ Gram3:

    To clarify, I have no problem at all with virtually any form of prescription drugs that are often necessary for people in any number of debilitating circumstances. BUT they are also highly risky and dangerous due to their power and addictive qualities. Which is not well managed or taught about for those who need them.

    With family in medicine and married to an ER nurse I am well aware of the numerous stories of people who start off with legitimate pain medication following a serious medical problem. But many people are ill equipped to handle coming off of the medication—either due to intrinsic personality wiring, familial support systems, etc, and in our area many people end up turning to heroin when the scripts run out.

    So while the hyper spiritual language and ‘demon’ gobbly goop is absurd, it is a reality that many of our legal medications are extremely dangerous if we are not vigilant in our application and use of them. Eliminate the cooky aspects of those statements and you can say, ‘if you enter into using these medications without being prepared you open yourself up to significant problems down the road’

  58. Eagle wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    For Piperites, there is no need to explain Piper because Piper is the explanation. Just try to have a conversation with one when questioning Piper’s judgment or tweets or doctrine or anything at all about Piper. If he does something wrong, then it becomes right by being done by Piper. I am only slightly exaggerating. So, that seems to me to meet the criteria of at least a personality cult.

    Remember Gram3 John Piper is the fourth person of the trinity.

    And the First, and the Second, and the Third…

    Actually, I’d like to see him step into the squared circle for a match fight with other Fourth Persons of the Trinity. (Because There Can Be Only One…) Could you see a WWE Steel Cage Smackdown between Flutterhands Piper and Ayn Rand?

  59. Nancy wrote:

    This is a complicated issue, but it is people doing this, not demons.

    Yes, it is definitely a complicated issue. That means we need to carefully think through the implications of whatever decisions or regulations are implemented and that they not be made in the rush to “do something” and that people not be denied the blessing of the medications that we have available because of either abuse by others (which is punishing the innocent who are made to suffer) or some vague precautionary principle that does not recognize that there are trade-offs in life. That understanding seems to have disappeared in the First World. For some, that trade-off math looks very different than it does for others. I know that docs are under a lot of scrutiny, and I hope that the good and wise and compassionate ones are not prevented from acting in their patients’ interests because of the behavior or personal beliefs of others who are uninformed or inexperienced.

    I did not mean to sidetrack the discussion, but only to clarify.

  60. @ XianJaneway:
    Hey, I’m glad that you got something good out of it! You are the 1st person I’ve ever heard who has, actually…

    As for “xtian fiction” (as marketed by xtian publishing houses), i can’t read it. A few of Peretti’s books back in the mid-80s, because everyone at my then-church was nuts about them, was enough to make sure that i never went near anything like it again. (It wasn’t to my taste before that, though, like you, i like good sci-fi plus what now seems to be subgenre-ized as “literary fiction,” but used to be called “fiction.”)

  61. @ numo:
    No offense intended toward anyone who is a fan of some xtian author or other, though i think it’s better to try to get published in the regular market – and there *is* demand for good fiction out there, even “clean” light reading. If curious, check out Alexander McCall Smith (some of his books are mildly risque, but not many) for starters.

  62. Eagle wrote:

    One is not to question the Lord’s anointed.

    That is one of the biggest red flags I can think of, when a pastor calls himself “anointed”. When I found out Chuck Smith warned Christianity Today to “Touch not God’s anointed!” I freaked.

  63. Eagle wrote:

    This is a post I did on why evangelical Christians will be unable to engage many atheists. I did this in reflecting on evangelical culture as well as atheism culture. An exploration of the problems of intellectualism, living in a “bubble” and he opportunities that are lost because of the current evangelical culture.

    I got called an atheist by a somewhat well-known young earth creationist yesterday. The problem is, I’m not one. I told him flatly that I am a “post-churched admirer of Jesus.” He proceeded to try and fet me to cop to a Twitter length statement of faith and I refused to do so. He added my statement to his web page but didn’t remove the word “Atheist” as a descriptor. I told him this was not acceptable and that’s where it currently stands. My next step will be snail mail.

    Now this is the deal: this man decided to call me an Atheist because I cited the current case law on preaching creationism in the public schools. This man was brought in by a public high school to talk about critical thinking. The problem is that the extent of xxxx xxxxxx’s education is a one-year stint at a Bible college learning young earth creationism. He has no accredited college degrees and is manifestly unfit to teach high school students anything about critical thinking. He’s also a slippery eel.

    My point here is this: I pointed out the current state of the law, which allows different scientific theories to be raight in public schools. This does not include YEC, which is entirely faith-based. Because I pointed out he was riding pretty close to the edge (if not way past it) in his dealings with the Georgia high school, he called me an Atheist.

    …because I have a different (and majority) view of the law regarding the permissibility of teaching YEC dogma in a public school.

    So it’s come down to, if you don’t agree with the hardline evangelical, he is going to call you the worst thing he knows of. An atheist.

    This morning I came real close to saying “xxxx it, yeah I’m an atheist.” But then I realized that xxxx xxxxxx was pushing me there though his own obnoxious behavior, and I refuse to be pushed by a guy qhose “science” is, to be blunt, a pack of lies.

    But yeah, great work YEC guy in presenting Jesus. Great work.

  64. @ Adam Borsay:
    Some drugs are adfictive, all drugs are potentially dangerous or evrn lethal if one overdoses (as with aspirin poisoning or Tylenol/NSAIDS causing serious liver damage).

    -that does NOT mean that all psychotropic (for the treatment of psychiatric problems) drugs are inherently addictive. I am sure that ER nurses see bad things re. overdoses/drug interactions/too many medicines all the time, but for yhe most part, as long as a person sticks to the prescribed dosage and fosage regimen, they are fine.

    Please don’t speak about what are potentially lifesaving medications as if they’re automatically going to turn people into addicts. The same is true, for those in acute and severe chronic pain, of pain meds, so long as they are taken as they should be.

    We all have tons of dangerous substances in our kitchens, medicine cabinets, garages and basements. If used the way they are supposed to be used, under the proper conditions, they are safe. That even includes nitroglycerin, for those who have had it prescribed for yhem.

  65. Adam Borsay wrote:

    ‘if you enter into using these medications without being prepared you open yourself up to significant problems down the road’

    Yes, indeed. There has been enormous progress in our thinking about pain in my lifetime. And of mental illness. And of the brain. I can remember my grandmother being refused adequate doses of narcotics as she was dying of bone cancer. Thankfully, now we have a different attitude toward pain and a better technology to deal with it. However, recently a dear friend had to endure extreme pain following surgery and the doctors were very skittish because they are being blamed as a group for the problem. My objection is to any knee-jerk group punishment that is not rationally connected to the real problem and/or to an ideologically-driven denial of blessing to people who are genuinely suffering.

  66. @ Adam Borsay:
    One of the big reasons for the problem with the abuse of pain meds = lack of careful supervision by MDs. Full stop.

    Also, lack of understanding of adfiction, and lack of proper support systems for those who do become adcicted.

    Which is not the same thing as assuming that all people who need pain meds are either already addicted or will automatically become addicts.

  67. Here is an article from the American Psychological Association about the issue of inappropriate use of meds. The extent of the problem is a significant public health issue. Note that the article points out some problems that are correctable, like who does the prescribing for example. This is separate from the issue of narcotics abuse.

    http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx

  68. mirele wrote:

    So it’s come down to, if you don’t agree with the hardline evangelical, he is going to call you the worst thing he knows of. An atheist.

    This made me giggle. What a jerk that guy is.

  69. @ numo:
    It was a surprise for me. I grew up hearing Calvary Chapel pastors on the radio constantly, and their teachings were referenced in my family all the time. I was just discovering how much corruption there is in the church, but I didn’t expect it to hit so close to home.

  70. @ numo:
    I think you may have misunderstood my point. Everything you say I completely agree with. As i initially stated….playing devils advocate for the whole “demons gonna get you if you take dem pills!!!”….was that many prescription medications come with a host of serious potential problems that people should be equipped to handle if and when they crop up. And obviously this means professional medically trained personnel being pro-active in educating and equipping their patients.

    In an ER they can’t turn anyone away and they can often get completely slammed while at the time being woefully understaffed. The overtaxed Docs and Nurses are NOT the primary care physicians for these people and have to deal with what the individual claims. And when they are surrounded by constant demands for attention from all over the floor drug seekers easily slip through the cracks. Even when it is obvious why they are there. AKA, I have terrible unexplainable pain and I am allergic to everything BUT dillotid…and I need ‘this’ much. And if you give it to me I will get out of your hair and go home.

    What stinks for the people working at the ER is you have to take each individual at their word and you really do want to help and show care, but there is an actual condition called, I think….Empathy Exhaustion….meaning you are getting bombarded by peoples needs so much and at such a high anxiety level that you eventually can’t care anymore, you are too burned out. So, an addict comes in, a lot of the tell tale signs, and you have a car crash coming in the doors in less than 5 minutes, it just becomes easier to say, ‘fine, here is what you want’.

    And than at other times, you think you see all the signs, and you act skeptical and aren’t caring enough(because you have been burned so many times) and then you find out they actually are riddled with cancer that they had no idea about until they finally showed up at the ER. (true recent story) And so then you feel terrible about it and are more apt to just give the next person the pills they want.

    All that rambling to simply say, I agree with you. But prescription meds are highly addictive and our medical system is overtaxed in so many ways so too many people fall through the cracks and become statistics.

  71. Adam Borsay wrote:

    @ numo:
    there is an actual condition called, I think….Empathy Exhaustion….meaning you are getting bombarded by peoples needs so much and at such a high anxiety level that you eventually can’t care anymore, you are too burned out.

    OH MY GOSH this is me right now. Sorry, I know this isn’t related to the discussion, but I’m so done with empathy. 🙁 It’s awful, but after the next big story that TWW comes out with, I have to be done w/ blogging for a while. And I feel like I need to take off to tahiti alone or something. 🙁 I just want everyone to leave me alone, and stuff my face with chocolate while someone else takes the four kids for a while. I don’t even want to be touched, honestly, and I have two littles that need constant affection. 🙁

  72. Lisa wrote:

    In fact, I wouldn’t go farther for any of them than I can spit, and I never could spit without dribbling down my own chin.

    Gotcha! Well said.

  73. elastigirl wrote:

    all my life I’ve heard over and over again things like “in Jesus’ name we pray”, “by the power of the Holy Spirit”…. spoken with all the conviction it takes to opt for margarine.

    in all fairness if you have to scream or rather i should say if you feel you have to scream your prayers to get God to hear you…

  74. As far as a Piper-Wagner connection, they are both Fuller men. Piper was there from 1968-71 and Wagner came in ’71 to be a professor of church growth. As far as I can ascertain, Wagner didn’t come into this Latter Rain stuff until the 90s, though he did write a book on the Third Wave movement in ’88. But from what I can find, Wagner says he got there via John Wimber, who got there from Paul Cain.

    As it turns out, Piper does have some experience with Cain and Wimber that he recounts in an interview here, for what it’s worth:

    http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2011/10/a-conversation-with-john-piper/

  75. Eagle wrote:

    @ js:
    JS…I hope you’ll stay engaged. I think its necessary and helpful to have opposing views. So please loiter around and discuss!

    I’ll be here reading you folks mostly, but will chime in from time to time and not simply to be critical. I really have learned a lot from various people here over the years.

  76. srs wrote:

    Alcohol, prescription medicines (even when used as prescribed), pornography, pride, etc. can open a door to placing you under the power of a demon.
    I am thankful that my high blood pressure medicine prevented my blood pressure from rising when I “learned” what about the dangers presented by my high blood pressure medicine.

    I have an acquaintance say that the Devil is more likely to attack those who are evangelical Christians. I guess this can be used as an excuse for some sections of the evangelical South being among the highest consumers of Internet pornography, or for the state where I live, a Bible Belt state having the 5th highest death rate due to prescription controlled substance overdoses, or Southern Baptists having a very high divorce rate, and I could go on… I am just saying it might be convenient to blame this all on the Devil and not take personal responsibility.

  77. js wrote:

    Why did you choose Piper? H

    I missed hearing from you.

    js wrote:

    Or is the phrase “self-styled, serious theologians” just code for TGC? What about other theologians, like missionary statesmen, who wrote commentaries with Wagner?

    Why do you think I am done with this? I have another post in draft which will discuss Lausanne and YWAM. If I wrote about all of them in one post, I would still be writing.

    js wrote:

    What if Wade Burleson or some other teacher you respect went and spoke at Robert Morris’ church? Would I be justified in going back and criticizing all you had said in favor of Wade which you wrote before he ever went to Gateway

    I’d beat you to it.

  78. Bridget wrote:

    Is it just me or did js’ phone come on fairly quickly when Piper was mentioned in an article?

    You’re right Bridget. I did post again when I saw this article, but its only because I felt this article was an example of the concern (oops, bad word, sounds trollish :)) I expressed in my first post last week.

  79. Cassie wrote:

    The first time and last time my husband met my father, my father told him I had demons and that my little brother did too. That was 9 years ago. I think its best not to have contact with either one and they seem pretty cool with this arrangement too.

    You are one smart lady!

  80. Bridget wrote:

    s it just me or did js’ phone come on fairly quickly when Piper was mentioned in an article?

    You are also smart.

  81. @ Nancy:
    Thank you, Nancy. That is a very good article, IMO, and it addresses many of the concerns that need to be considered and addressed.

    Apologies to all for introducing the distraction and to Adam for misunderstanding.

  82. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    First, I’m glad you turned your phone on.
    >>>I turned it back on yesterday. I was busy this weekend being winsomely gospelly and things went well, better than I deserve ;).

    I’ve been around a bit longer than you, not that it matters since I’m female,
    >>>I really wish you’d stop doing that. Maybe you’re being tongue in cheek like me about my gospelly-ness, but I really think you’re brilliant and I read just about everything you write on here, except when you get extremely long-winded (I myself knowing nothing about excessive verbosity, of course).

    The scope of Wagner’s influence is a matter of comparing experiences. He obviously had a large behind the scenes influence which is felt in the NAR and such. In my circles, he was a part of a handful of teachers mid-80’s who were focused on spiritual warfare and was one of the better known writers in the field, but again, we’re just comparing experiences there to some extent.

    The bottom line is I agree with much of your assessment of the Piperites but I still don’t think their adulation justifies the tenuous connection proposed in the article, that was my point.

    I am speculating here, but my observation is that Piper tends to see the best in those with whom he agrees on the couple of things that are most fundamental to him and sees those with whom he disagrees as opponents to be defeated (several of his books are response books to trends he sees as unbiblical). We all do that to some extent but his public profile makes it more apparent to me. He also is an intense person meaning he warms his friends and burns his opponents. He seems to have allowed for a pretty wide reformed tent, which leads him to some questionable associations, as you have pointed out.

  83. js wrote:

    I did post again when I saw this article, but its only because I felt this article was an example of the concern (oops, bad word, sounds trollish :)) I expressed in my first post last week.

    Should John Piper be held to a high standard of discernment given the position that he has in the YRR movement? Or is he off-limits? Do you agree with Doug Wilson’s theology and the endorsement of Doug Wilson by TgC, Piper, Crossway, and Jared Wilson?

  84. dee wrote:

    js wrote:
    Why did you choose Piper? H
    I missed hearing from you.
    js wrote:
    Or is the phrase “self-styled, serious theologians” just code for TGC? What about other theologians, like missionary statesmen, who wrote commentaries with Wagner?
    Why do you think I am done with this? I have another post in draft which will discuss Lausanne and YWAM. If I wrote about all of them in one post, I would still be writing.
    js wrote:
    What if Wade Burleson or some other teacher you respect went and spoke at Robert Morris’ church? Would I be justified in going back and criticizing all you had said in favor of Wade which you wrote before he ever went to Gateway
    I’d beat you to it.

    Looking forward to another article. I know covering these things can get unwieldy sometimes.

    The Wade Burleson thing has me curious, when you say you’d beat me to it, what do you mean? Are you saying if Wade (and let me remove him from this, I just needed a hypothetical), let’s say your respected preacher went to Gateway, are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing him or her or are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing yourself for your former support? If it’s the former ok but if it’s the latter, I wonder about that.

    If a seemingly solid person veers in a direction that is not good, and I formerly supported the person, it doesn’t seem right that I should be criticized for having supported them in their better days. They seemed solid and I didn’t know they were veering off course. In other words, if a person you had supported suddenly went off the deep end theologically or morally, I wouldn’t go back and pick you apart over the ways you had supported him or her. Am I misunderstanding you or do we have a different view?

  85. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:
    I did post again when I saw this article, but its only because I felt this article was an example of the concern (oops, bad word, sounds trollish :)) I expressed in my first post last week.
    Should John Piper be held to a high standard of discernment given the position that he has in the YRR movement? Or is he off-limits? Do you agree with Doug Wilson’s theology and the endorsement of Doug Wilson by TgC, Piper, Crossway, and Jared Wilson?

    Yes, no and yes but that doesn’t justify tenuous connections, formerly anon’s post notwithstanding.

  86. @ js:
    I think what you say about Piper is right. In addition to the dubious notion of Christian Hedonism and his odd conception of divine sovereignty, he has made his covert disdain for or fear of women quite apparent, and in the process has caused nearly immeasurable damage to a generation of men and women. You will never hear about that damage, however, within the Piper-worship sphere.

    You might check out the thread over at Spiritual Sounding Board about a female writer at Desiring God and the ridiculous legalistic anti-gospel gospel that Piper preaches and the effects it has on real people. You will serve yourself and others to whom you minister well if you avoid developing the calloused heart that he has shown.

  87. @ Adam Borsay:
    You say “prescription meds are highly addictive.” Maybe you were intending to add “pain” before meds?

    There has been serious heroin use in my area for some time, but much of it is HS kids who are attracted to the danger, and then get hooked. Meth abuse is more of a problem now than heroin.

    In any case, i think Nancy’s points are good ones. She is a doc, btw…

  88. @ js:
    Whoa. Glad you clarified that! I believe you are inconsistent. If Piper has supported *any* false teacher in the distant or recent past, he needs to rescind that endorsement and correct the record. Yesterday. To refuse to do that can reasonably be construed as a continuing endorsement. That’s how it works in the real non-churchy world. There is no statute of limitations on endorsing and promoting bad teaching. Not even for Piper. If he wants the mantle of a prophet for this generation, then he needs to man up.

  89. formerly anonymous wrote:

    As far as a Piper-Wagner connection, they are both Fuller men. Piper was there from 1968-71 and Wagner came in ’71 to be a professor of church growth. As far as I can ascertain, Wagner didn’t come into this Latter Rain stuff until the 90s, though he did write a book on the Third Wave movement in ’88. But from what I can find, Wagner says he got there via John Wimber, who got there from Paul Cain.
    As it turns out, Piper does have some experience with Cain and Wimber that he recounts in an interview here, for what it’s worth:

    Its interesting but it still seems kind of thin to me. It seems that Piper’s experience with Wimber was one of exploring the pros and cons of the Third Wave movement. Piper’s fascination with this is obviously linked to his deep interest in Jonathan Edwards. One part of the interview that was especially interesting to me —

    JP: Yes, the ‘Third Wave’ movement of John Wimber was the context. There were other movements subsequent to that—like Toronto, Brownsville and, and a few other things—but I always thought they were… odd, you know, more marginal. Whereas, as long as Wimber was alive, he didn’t allow for too much foolishness. I mean, a lot of people would say it was foolish because they don’t have any place at all for charismatic manifestations, but with Toronto and so on I’m talking about the ‘gold growing in your teeth’, and the laughing and the falling down and the barking—I mean, that was not the first expression of the Third Wave. The Third Wave was charismatic gifts without tongues. It was Pentecostalism without tongues, and what I did in those days was preach a sermon series called “Compassion, power and the kingdom of God”. They’re all online, you can hear everything in them… that’s one of the great things, or horrible things, about the internet…

    DS: [laughing] Yes, you never escape your legacy…

    JP: … yes, everything is online.

    What I am hearing him say here is 1) that he respected Wimber’s ministry 2) He had reservations about other movements after Wimber 3) that perhaps he was somewhat hesitant to fully endorse now what he had preached back in the 90’s in that series (with the great things, horrible things comment).

  90. Gram3 wrote:

    @ js:
    Whoa. Glad you clarified that! I believe you are inconsistent. If Piper has supported *any* false teacher in the distant or recent past, he needs to rescind that endorsement and correct the record. Yesterday. To refuse to do that can reasonably be construed as a continuing endorsement. That’s how it works in the real non-churchy world. There is no statute of limitations on endorsing and promoting bad teaching. Not even for Piper. If he wants the mantle of a prophet for this generation, then he needs to man up.

    This is just like the church discipline issue. Define false teaching.

  91. js wrote:

    This is just like the church discipline issue. Define false teaching.

    I believe you are at least one response in arrears to me. Why don’t you explain how the deceptively named “complementarianism” is not abusive. That was back before you turned off your phone. Then, if you like you can define the parameters of church discipline and false teaching. You have not demonstrated a willingness to have a real discussion.

  92. I am not going to get roped into a complementarian debate with you. And no amount of mockery or questioning of my Driscollinity is going to change that. I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read lots of books from both sides. I have my view, you have yours. I do not believe my view is abusive, you do.

    Do you have to disavow me as a false teacher because I hold to complementarianism? Do all non-complementarians need to go back and publicly acknowledge any time they have quoted a complementarian teacher, even figures from church history who held to male leadership in church and home? Is there any room for quoting someone who says something true, even if they are wrong in other ways? If we use your rules, we’re going to have a lot of rescinding going on in cyberspace, I’m afraid.

    If you do call me a false teacher for complementarianism aren’t you falling into the same trap as the hyper-comps, making the comp/egal issue into a gospel issue, as in “if you don’t fall on one side or the other you don’t have the true gospel”?

  93. Demons are either sitting outside the exit door of ‘planned parenthood’ or next to an evergreen tree….. which ever one creates the chaos and disrespect for the widow and the elder….. hmmm. Spirtless people addicted to money are everywhere especially in the casino….

  94. formerly anonymous wrote:

    @ js:
    His personal involvement is further along in the interview.

    Thanks for this, I missed this the first time through. I think Piper describes an experience here as you say. It reminded me a little of Philip Yancey in “Disappointment with God.” IIRC, Yancey went with high hopes to a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting and was let down. That’s the sense I got with Piper and Cain.

  95. @ NotARealPerson:

    elastigirl: all my life I’ve heard over and over again things like “in Jesus’ name we pray”, “by the power of the Holy Spirit”…. spoken with all the conviction it takes to opt for margarine.

    not a real person: in all fairness if you have to scream or rather i should say if you feel you have to scream your prayers to get God to hear you…
    ++++++++++++++++

    i’m simply referring to people who appeared utterly bored as they recited their Christian jargon, the explosive significance and reality of what they were saying seemingly lost on them.

  96. js wrote:

    I am not going to get roped into a complementarian debate with you. And no amount of mockery or questioning of my Driscollinity is going to change that. I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read lots of books from both sides. I have my view, you have yours. I do not believe my view is abusive, you do.

    I understand that you desire to make pronouncements and judgments. I prefer a reasoned and calm and textually-based discussion. Just like I did not compare “complementarianism” to the slave trade, contra your assertion, I did not say a word about your Driscollinity, whatever that is. It sounds painful.

    I do not doubt you have read the Bible, and I do not doubt that you believe it. So have I and so do I. One difference between us is that you want to jump in and criticize without having any pushback. I have explained what is abusive about the system and the textual problems. You just want to say, in effect, shut up. That is just about as pastoral as the other pastors I’ve come across who say they are all about being servant-leaders and not about being tyrants. Bullfrogs and horsefeathers.

    Produce the textual evidence. That is, if you have it and if your position is really all about what God has said or if it is really about what you say.

    I am not a teacher, and I am certainly not a respected “spiritual authority” like Piper, so I don’t have to disavow you as a false teacher, whatever that means. Piper is responsible for what Piper says and does and the consequences of all that. He always talks about men taking responsibility. How about if he shows some leadership, for once, by taking responsibility for endorsing false teachers. Or do you not think that Wagner and Wilson are false teachers?

  97. @ dee:

    dee,

    just really curious — what do believe about demons?

    are they real? do they impact us? is there a place for offensive or defensive tactics on our part?

    no doubt you believe there is power in Jesus’ name. what do you believe about it concerning spiritual resistance/harrassment? do you give credence to spiritual resistance/harrassment?

    all I know is there are forces that are anti-God and anti-light which back off in response to Jesus, the name Jesus, singing about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, and simply saying “stop”.

  98. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, indeed. There has been enormous progress in our thinking about pain in my lifetime. And of mental illness. And of the brain. I can remember my grandmother being refused adequate doses of narcotics as she was dying of bone cancer. Thankfully, now we have a different attitude toward pain and a better technology to deal with it.

    Great big AMEN here Gram3. Are they finally starting to rethink their medieval and barbaric mindset for the terminally ill with regard to pain meds? I certainly hope so.

  99. Muff Potter wrote:

    Are they finally starting to rethink their medieval and barbaric mindset for the terminally ill with regard to pain meds?

    Yes, thankfully. Both of my parents received palliative care through the hospital and then through hospice care with a goal of maximizing their quality of life and comfort while helping me keep them at home. That was such a blessing to all of us and would not have been possible a few decades ago. There has been a sea change in this area. Praise God for the people who have devoted themselves to the relief of suffering!

  100. Gram3 wrote:

    I understand that you desire to make pronouncements and judgments.
    >>>I give my opinions, no pronouncements and judgments (as if anyone would listen anyway).

    I did not say a word about your Driscollinity, whatever that is. It sounds painful.
    >>>Just a little play on masculinity. I like to laugh. I am not an uptight Calvinist, I only play one on TV.

    I do not doubt you have read the Bible, and I do not doubt that you believe it. So have I and so do I. One difference between us is that you want to jump in and criticize without having any pushback.
    >>>My criticisms have almost nothing to do with complementarianism but you want to keep taking us back there. The things I have criticized I am fine receiving pushback on and have acknowledged some of it as on target.

    You just want to say, in effect, shut up.
    >>>Pejorative nonsense. I have been respectful (well, at least until I said “pejorative nonsense”) and have complimented your scholastic rigor and your right to voice your views. That I choose not to participate in a protracted discussion that will get us nowhere is not the equivalent of saying “shut up.”

    That is just about as pastoral as the other pastors I’ve come across who say they are all about being servant-leaders and not about being tyrants. Bullfrogs and horsefeathers.
    >>>Poppycock too, I suppose. What was Dee’s favorite word for awhile? Codswallop? I know who I am. You know virtually nothing about me but you are ready to lump me in with people you have personally known who have mistreated you. That’s not good. And a tyrant too? I happen to believe servant-leadership is possible. My Savior was a servant-leader (Php. 2). I strive to be (albeit imperfectly).

    Produce the textual evidence. That is, if you have it and if your position is really all about what God has said or if it is really about what you say.
    >>>I feel like this I’m watching a rerun of “Law and Order” on TNT. Surely you can see how a subject with such a vast array of biblical study and scholarship is not going to be resolved by us. Many New Testament scholars acknowledge tentative conclusions on this topic, not because they fear for their jobs or want to maintain status quo but because the subject engenders significant diversity of views. All I’ve argued is that those views should be allowed to co-exist (soul competency and all) but you have defined the argument in such a way that the complementarian is put into the inevitable “when did you stop beating your dog?” position. “Complementarians are abusive tyrants. Prove me wrong. And use the text.” No thank you. You know that there are arguments from the text but you don’t accept those interpretations. I will not play against a stacked deck, especially when I am a few bricks shy of a full load and wonderfully fluent in mixed metaphors.

    I am not a teacher, and I am certainly not a respected “spiritual authority” like Piper, so I don’t have to disavow you as a false teacher, whatever that means.
    >>>Okay, I accept that, but that wasn’t the key question. The key question is what should non-complementarian authors, pastors, teachers (Piper’s leadership counterparts on the other side) do with complementarians whom they have quoted, in some way endorsed or otherwise ministered with in any way? Should they disavow them? Should they pronounce them as false teachers?

    >>> How about if he shows some leadership, for once, by taking responsibility for endorsing false teachers. Or do you not think that Wagner and Wilson are false teachers?

    Again, we have to define false teacher before I can answer that. The great question of my childhood was “how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?” The great question of our discussion is “how many strange ideas must one have before he/she can be labelled a “false teacher”? Or is a false teacher false because of an essential denial of the gospel? Or is it something else?

  101. XianJaneway wrote:

    I’ve been a Star Trek fan since I was 4. (Yes, four. You read that right.) Peretti was my introduction to Christian fiction. Sadly, he’s also been the high point. Not a single other author in his genre (Ted Dekker, for example) has reached the level of complexity, nuance, or storytelling skill that Peretti has.

    Amazing that the Lord used Peretti’s novel to bring you to Him. I know this comment is from rather high up the thread, but I just got the chance to read it. How neat that Peretti impacted you so much. I hope some of my writings will do the same for some of my readers. (I mainly write in a different genre- fantasy) You have encouraged this writer, and challenged me to keep pushing for excellence.

  102. @ js:
    Let me recap a bit. Your initial complaint started as a compliment about TWW focus on abuse which then morphed into a complaint about undue attention being paid to the various Gospel Glitterati individuals and orgs. Your believe is that this is a distraction from what should be the focus of this blog. Abuse. But you say that TWW is hung up on Complementarianism and Authoritarianism and that’s why the Deebs spend so much time on the Usual Suspects.

    The dots I tried to connect for you that you are not connecting is the fact that the system of the falsely-labeled “complementarians” is inherently abusive though there may be instances where marriages are perfectly happy.

    If you want to complain that the Deebs focus too much on complementarians, then you need to demonstrate that the system is not abusive and that therefore their attention to it is unwarranted. You skipped a few of those steps. When you say that they shouldn’t talk so much about it, then you should be prepared to demonstrate why Comp is not abusive. That would at least advance the discussion beyond “I don’t like it that you talk so much about people I don’t want you to talk about.”

    You act as if this is a complicated issue. It is not. Piper and the Crew are throwing out chaff and hoping people miss the signal. The simple question is did God ordain a hierarchy of male rule over female or did he not? I say there is explicit evidence against that and no evidence for it. If you want to borrow God’s authority to say God said Males Lead and Females Follow, that Males speak and Females listen, that Males rule and females serve and help, then ISTM that you owe it to God to back up that claim of speaking for him, and you owe it to us to explain exactly what makes comp not abusive. That is the only way to back up your original complaint that TWW is focusing on comp instead of abuse.

    And hey, you would be the first guy to show us the goods. The warrant. The evidence for our subjugation from creation to the new creation. You could be the one to make sense of their loopy logic. You could be the one to unscramble their hermeneutic so that it looks something like the grammatical-historical method. You could be the one to form a consistent argument for female subjugation. Owen (not John) might publish it.

    However, I suspect you are not accustomed to having your presuppositions tested on this issue. Because you are accustomed to controlling the mic and the agenda.

  103. js wrote:

    G
    >>> How about if he shows some leadership, for once, by taking responsibility for endorsing false teachers. Or do you not think that Wagner and Wilson are false teachers?

    Again, we have to define false teacher before I can answer that. The great question of my childhood was “how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?” The great question of our discussion is “how many strange ideas must one have before he/she can be labelled a “false teacher”? Or is a false teacher false because of an essential denial of the gospel? Or is it something else?

    You’re more than a little shifty there, I don’t much like that in one who calls themselves by the name of my Lord. And dare I say that I have some highly sensitive antennae for that from decades of training and experience?
    Piper and other leaders in Christendom could be and should be very frank in their appraisals of other leaders and heavies, especially those who make extensive use of public fora to promote their views; they should call them to task for errant doctrines and practices, be they friend or foe, just like Jesus or pretty much any major figure in the NT did. There was no circling of the tents among the disciples or the apostles, they called it like it was, e.g., “I opposed Peter to his face.”
    The problem that Gram3 has her finger upon is one that many have noticed and that you sidestep. You make cute metaphors about licks on suckers, but it doesn’t aid in understanding. Any lick in the wrong direction is wrong and no leader should be reticent to point it out. If they are not technically false teachers, what’s to prevent Piper and the like from pointing out false teachings? Instead, they go silent when a person they’ve previously propped up turns out to be a fraud, they save their public rebukes for those who point the hard truths out, the whistleblowers become the problem. They construct fantastical doctrines that turn the Lord’s admonition to expose evil on its head, and make it evil to expose evil.
    The only reason that I can imagine leaders do this is because they have something other than the glorification of Jesus in mind—they’re protecting themselves and the system that gives them their prominence, wealth and influence, for if Jesus were glorified by presenting a falsely clean and pure face of the Bride to the world, He sure had a funny way of showing it by inspiring our tell-all, brutally-honest Scriptures!

  104. Muff Potter wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, indeed. There has been enormous progress in our thinking about pain in my lifetime. And of mental illness. And of the brain. I can remember my grandmother being refused adequate doses of narcotics as she was dying of bone cancer. Thankfully, now we have a different attitude toward pain and a better technology to deal with it.

    Great big AMEN here Gram3. Are they finally starting to rethink their medieval and barbaric mindset for the terminally ill with regard to pain meds? I certainly hope so.

    I’ve seen really good practice in this area, but I have to be honest in that if a terminal family member was inadequately medicated for pain I’d have no moral issues with ‘sourcing’ some of the ‘good stuff’ & dosing them up, after researching how.

  105. Not to throw more fire on your drug debate, but Morris’ new book claims that by following his simple instructions, all addictions can be instantly broken by simply casting out your demons. You just need to use his book to identify the “root” cause that allowed the demon/s to possess your body and soul in the first place (but only tithing can keep them out). Morris carefully explains that while a saved Christian’s “spirit” cannot be possessed, your body and soul certainly can. Of course your spirit resides full time in heaven, while your body and soul are the only thing you have on earth, so possession is pretty bad.

    If y’all know anyone who has seriously struggled with or lost someone to addiction then hopefully you can see how deleterious such teachings could be. In his TBN interview here http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Praise%20the%20Lord/ec/VhdGY2dDqEmZv_gVfKcxvj-rgs0Kit4r Morris makes it clear that he is marketing this book to addicts and their families. The problem is I have seen speakers at Gateway talk about how all their serious addictions were cured in a single moment this way. This leaves the uncured and their families devastated that God has helped some but chosen to abandon them. It also makes them believe that because they still desire or struggle with (blank) they are still possessed with demons. FTR that’s not a great feeling.

    If this system truly worked, Josh Hamilton, who has GW pastors flying all over the US at his beck and call, would have NEVER relapsed. Not the first time. Not the second or the third. Explain that one Great Robertini?!? Why is Josh still possessed?! Hmmmm? You casted his demons out and he tithes. Hmmmmm?

    Ironically, the first page of this book opens with Morris describing a rattlesnake coiled up inside his brand new third home. Because who doesn’t need three massive estates in Texas? That’s what this book is. Beyond snake oil, it is the coiled up snake ready to strike. This man is dangerous. His book is even more so.

  106. LT wrote:

    Morris makes it clear that he is marketing this book to addicts and their families.

    “Robber” Morris is hawking this tripe directly to drug addicts? Promising them miracle cures? That’s another trick Scientology has tried, and it has blown up spectacularly. Unfortunately, it’s done so only after the abuse and deaths of multiple patients. Let’s hope people catch on to what a fraud Morris is before that kind of tragedy happens.

  107. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “THEY’RE HERE! THEY’RE THERE! THEY’RE EVERYWHERE! SO BEWARE!”

    “They’re in! They’re out! They’re all about!!”
    “They’re quick and slick and insincere!”
    ♪”BEWARE! BEWARE! BE VERY, VERY WARE!”♪

    (tee hee)

  108. Nancy wrote:

    but again and again we see articles and statistics of abuse of prescription meds both from over-prescribing or from doctor shopping or from selling/buying them on the street. We see doctors disciplined by the medical board here and I assume everywhere for this sort of thing.

    This is a sore subject for me as I live with chronic severe pain and have for many years. Getting proper pain medication these days is getting extremely difficult – the Feds and some states are severely restricting who gets what and how much narcotic pain medication. There is a drive on to restrict it only to terminal hospice patients. Those of us who genuinely need narcotic medication and who willingly comply with the rules set up for pain management programs are being penalized for the actions of the abusers and the just plain stupid (sorry).

    As for the whole demon element, I remember the “demon of this” and demon of that in the 70’s As in demon of rebellion, demon of carnality, etc. I was accused of being demon possessed when my theology didn’t line up correctly with others.

    As for the territorial demon stuff, I knew George Otis from his YWAM days (I was in YWAM for several years), long before the extremism of territorial demon warfare became in vogue. Sad to see the changes

  109. “you owe it to us to explain exactly what makes comp not abusive.”

    I can explain for my southern Baptist father and the man who raped me the first ten years of my life. I was taught by my father and the man who raped me as a little girl that women were created by God for men, and to serve men, both of their favorite thing about the bible was the wife being submissive to her husband bible verses, those verses were my father and rapist porn.

    I come from a long line a comp men. My great grandfather would not let my great Aunt divorce her husband for beating her, my Aunt died young of cancer she lived and died in misery, her comp father made sure her husband did not lose his much entitled female slave.

    My grandfathers and father loved for underage girls to get married and pregnant, one of my uncles bragged to me when I was fifteen that he kept my Aunt pregnant so much that she had three children by eighteen, like she had a choice. The comp men in my family were a bunch of sickos with trapped miserable women and little girls under their thumbs, if these men did not have the mentality of Ariel Castro and Phillip Garrido they would be embarrassed.

    I hope as someone who grew up with these men that in the future women will start putting little girls feelings, safety, and future above comp men’s selfish fetish to have female slaves and not be ridiculed for it. And comp should be called female slavery.

    I was taught that if a man rapes his wife, it is not rape!
    a wife is not to refuse her husband sex, ever!
    A woman can not divorce her husband for rape.
    If a man beats his wife it is her fault for not being submissive enough, a woman can not divorce her husband for beating her.
    A woman should not work, but stay home and be subject to her husband.

    I see this as men arranging the Ariel Castro and Phillip Garrido life for themselves and their sons, we can do anything we wont to our daughters and wives and they better be submissive and not try to escape it. If they do escape us we and our friends will condemn them.

    Well yes my fathers says it is not abusive, why did my father not be submissive to my mother if being submissive is so great, because he is a MAN and men deserve better, he is not the one who has to do it.

    The comp men in my family had a system to deal with any un submissive little girl or woman who said anything about rape, they mocked, belittled, and dismissed rape. My hyper pro comp father told me, (rape is not that big of a deal).

    Comp makes them feel good, and it does not matter how bad it makes women and little girls feel, as daddy’s feelings will always trump wife and daughters feeling.

    Sorry about any wrong grammar or spelling in my post, I am dyslexic.

  110. Albuquerque Blue observed:

    mirele wrote:
    So it’s come down to, if you don’t agree with the hardline evangelical, he is going to call you the worst thing he knows of. An atheist.

    This made me giggle. What a jerk that guy is.

    This made me think… if the worst thing a fundagelical can think of is “atheist”, what’s the reverse equivalent? How might a hardline Dawkinsist dismiss, for instance, Melvyn Bragg or others like him?

    (Background for those interested: Bragg is a broadcaster and author who, though not a believer, has frequently defended Christianity over the years. wikipedia.org/Melvyn_Bragg and telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/Melvyn-Bragg may be of interest.)

  111. “The one Duck Beard guy actually recommends that grown men marry 16 year old girls.

    As such, he’s falling right into ISIS territory there, though ISIS is also reported to assault females as young as nine years of age.

    Marry girls when they’re ’15 or 16,’ said ‘Duck Dynasty’ star”

    Phil Robertson is creepy and disgusting. I am from Louisiana and he reminds me of my sick family. Getting married as teenagers ruined my mother, aunts, and grandmothers lives. It is just a way for men to get all the underage sex they want and the girl can not say no or escape him, that is how it was in my family.

  112. In other news, I have downloaded the score for, and begun learning, the ossia cadenza from Rachmaninov’s 3rd Piano Concerto; an up-to-standard performance (by Yefim Bronfman) can be found between 10’12 and 12’33 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFkAwFDZGHk.

    Through the end of May, I’m working on 11’20” to 11’53.

    It’s not as easy as it sounds.

  113. Nancy wrote:

    I never read (past tense) Peretti or any of the rest of that ilk, whatever it is.

    I think people made much more out of his books than he intended. I wasn’t a huge fan of most of his books, but I thought “The Visitation” was one of the best books I’ve ever read.

  114. Adam Borsay wrote:

    srs wrote:

    I am thankful that my high blood pressure medicine prevented my blood pressure from rising when I “learned” what about the dangers presented by my high blood pressure medicine.

    To play devils advocate…..intended phrasing…..I think he is not referring to medicine in general but powerful and addictive narco’s like oxy, percoset, dilodid, etc(all misspelled i am sure….)

    I’m not so sure. A “preacher” talked a close relative into going off her medication (prescribed for epilepsy). She 🙁 died a few weeks later, when she had a seizure during which she struck her head & died from the head injuries. This genius said that if she continued to take her meds, she would be “inviting demons into her”.
    THis whole prejudice against modern medicine seems to be founded in a belief that ANY medication is can attract demons.

  115. XianJaneway wrote:

    Not a single other author in his genre (Ted Dekker, for example) has reached the level of complexity, nuance, or storytelling skill that Peretti has.

    In fact, “The Visitation” was my entrance into Christian fiction, and I was blown away. I promptly gobbled up a whole bunch of other Christian fiction before realizing most of it was just not good. And in fact, that was true of most other Peretti stuff I’ve read.

    Since my introduction to his work was “The Visitation”, which has a supernatural aspect but is not saturated with demons on every page, I didn’t start off with the impression many people have of Peretti. I thought he was an interesting author writing a complex novel about how people deal with pain, not a course manual on demons.

    I remain convinced it’s one of the best stories I’ve read, and it feels deeply personal. Once I realized it was a standout, I left Christian fiction behind, but I still recommend that novel to anyone who will give it a chance.

  116. @ The Nightowl:
    I am sorry for the pain you are living with, and know whst you mean about hsving to jump through hoops to obtain any help, no matter how slight. I have been treated as if i was an addict, and it was awful. (I am not, and never have been, but some docs are far too quivk to jump toconclusions.)

  117. Jeff S wrote:

    I think people made much more out of his books than he intended. I wasn’t a huge fan of most of his books, but I thought “The Visitation” was one of the best books I’ve ever read.

    I assume this means that “The Visitation” is the best of Peretti’s works, the high point of his career?

  118. zooey111 wrote:

    This whole prejudice against modern medicine seems to be founded in a belief that ANY medication is can attract demons.

    Or Body Thetans.

  119. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    LT wrote:
    Morris makes it clear that he is marketing this book to addicts and their families.
    “Robber” Morris is hawking this tripe directly to drug addicts? Promising them miracle cures? That’s another trick Scientology has tried, and it has blown up spectacularly. Unfortunately, it’s done so only after the abuse and deaths of multiple patients. Let’s hope people catch on to what a fraud Morris is before that kind of tragedy happens.

    Morris = Miscavage Wannabe?

  120. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I assume this means that “The Visitation” is the best of Peretti’s works, the high point of his career?

    I didn’t read all of his books, but it was leaps and bounds better than the other samples I tried. It is narrative very different; a huge portion of the book is devoted to flashbacks telling the main character’s back-story and how he was essentially abused by the church and various movements within it. He manages to cover problems arising in home churches with loose theology, mega churches that run like businesses, small churches in the grips of the power hungry, ultra conservative, liberal, cults; the list is quite long.

    The theme of the book really revolves how you deal with this pain and abuse, and the answer is a lot more subtle than you’d expect (but it IS Jesus).

    Since the main character starts the book as a “none” (an ex-pastor) and isn’t redeemed by “returning to church” (and in fact, never seeks nor seem to require redemption), I think a lot of people who have experienced pain at the hand of the church would find it an engaging book.

  121. elastigirl wrote:

    are they real? do they impact us? i

    I believe in demons. I believe that the power of demons was attenuated, first by God in the garden, and then by the cross. The best explanation I have heard of how demons affects us was given by a sharp female Anglican pastor. She said that we start the fire and the demons fan the flames.

    As for exorcism, I take the view of the Vatican which has a team which carefully views each case with doctors, psychologists, religious experts, etc.before they proceed. Instead, we evangelicals have people like Morris declaring that he is, once again, infected by demons and needs, once again, another exorcism. Our approach is bogus and needs to be thoughtful and careful.

  122. LT wrote:

    Not to throw more fire on your drug debate, but Morris’ new book claims that by following his simple instructions, all addictions can be instantly broken by simply casting out your demons. You just need to use his book to identify the “root” cause that allowed the demon/s to possess your body and soul in the first place (but only tithing can keep them out). Morris carefully explains that while a saved Christian’s “spirit” cannot be possessed, your body and soul certainly can.

    Morris’s approach is bogus. But, just like Osteen, he offers a quick fix to a problem. However, in time, the quick fi will be seen for what it is-a pipe dream.

  123. To my knowledge, Robert Morris has never referenced Bill Gothard, but I find their demonologies to be very similar. The ease with which even Christians can be demonized, as well as the number of things that can bring it about, reveal a profound degree of superstition and lack of confidence in God.

  124. The Nightowl wrote:

    and how much narcotic pain medication. There is a drive on to restrict it only to terminal hospice patients. Those of us who genuinely need narcotic medication and who willingly comply with the rules set up for pain management programs are being penalized for the actions of the abusers and the just plain stupid (sorry)

    I am so sorry. I know that there are greater restriction being placed on narcotics which is sad since the hospice movement in the last few decades had finally convinced the medical world that pain control offers many an end of life free of severe pain. I hope it never returns to the days of suffering if it does, you can bet the euthanasia will become the new solution.

    I have been very grateful for a pain clinic in my area which as successfully helped my elderly mother and stepfather to dope with serious arthritic pain. They have performed various nerve blocks which have helped tremendously.

    I pray that you will find relief from your pain. I can’t imagine suffering with serious pain on a regular basis.

  125. Regarding what Gram3 and others said about the difficulties of getting adequate pain relief medications for certain patients: I suspect the modern right-to-die movement was in part motivated by this very thing, not just certain post-Christian ideologies.

  126. NJ wrote:

    To my knowledge, Robert Morris has never referenced Bill Gothard, but I find their demonologies to be very similar.

    Like Marky-Mark’s juiced Best-Sellers being very similar to other books by other authors (sometimes word-for-word)?

  127. dee wrote:

    I am so sorry. I know that there are greater restriction being placed on narcotics which is sad since the hospice movement in the last few decades had finally convinced the medical world that pain control offers many an end of life free of severe pain.

    The War on Drugs(TM) cannot be interfered with, no matter what the collateral damage.
    Just ask the DEA.

  128. P.S. Wasn’t one of the Romans’ beefs with these new “Christians” was that they WEREN’T superstitious enough to be a REAL religion?

  129. @ Jeff S.:

    I’ve never read Peretti or many other Christian authors. I read two books by Dekker, Blink and the first in that trilogy he wrote where all the books have color names. Blink was okay (though it was pretty transparently cashing in on Islamic terrorist stuff in the news), but I HATED the other one. The female character was infuriatingly badly written. She was supposed to be, essentially, a pre-Fall human in a parallel dimension, and her entire personality consisted stereotypical coy flirtatiousness. My takeaway from that, is that this is what Dekker thinks is the ideal, perfect female state – i.e., the true, unpolluted nature of woman deep down. Ugh. Gross. I was really turned off by that and haven’t read anything else by him since.

  130. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    This made me think… if the worst thing a fundagelical can think of is “atheist”, what’s the reverse equivalent?

    Excellent question. I think the closest equivalent in the cases of Melvyn Bragg would be calling them faitheists.

  131. Addendum @ Jeff S.:

    In other words, if you want to explore re-enacting/preventing the Fall on another planet/dimension (which is what the first book of Dekker’s trilogy was about), read Perelandra by Lewis instead. 🙂

  132. @ dee:
    I know what you mean by ‘believing in demons’!

    I don’t see this as optional if we take the bible seriously. It is not a subject gone into in great detail, but there is enough information for us to deal with demons if we encounter them.

    It strikes me an over-intellectual John MacArthur or nouthetic counselling type evangelicalism cannot cope with this subject, because spiritual discernment as a gift of the Spirit is required, only reading the bible is insufficient – vital, but on its own not enough.

    The gap in knowledge (= ignorance) over this was filled in the last century by charismatic deliverance ‘experts’ who imo added to the limited information the bible offers on this theme. There was often an anti-intellectual super-spiritual element to these teachers, veering into pseudo-christian mysticism and personal revelations. You can tell when you’ve got to this stage by the fact they stop quoting the bible, and start talking from experience.

    What we need and rarely get is a combination of biblically literate, thinking evangelicals who have also been filled with the Spirit. Mature pastoral ministry coupled with a sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and wisdom gained from experience.

    A man may have a very gifted teaching ministry, but if he lacks personal experience of demons, something will be missing. He may be very good at the theory, but weak on what you actually need to do when confronted with a demon manifesting itself.

    Unbelievers, who by definition know neither the scriptures nor the power of God, will always look for natural explanations of demonic phenomena. This should indeed be the first port of call, but if more than just fleshly sinning is going on, only the church is equipped by God to deal with problem.

  133. Guest wrote:

    “The one Duck Beard guy actually recommends that grown men marry 16 year old girls.
    As such, he’s falling right into ISIS territory there, though ISIS is also reported to assault females as young as nine years of age.

    Because of the Islamic tradition (probably from one of the Hadith) that Mohammed married one of his wives when she was nine.

    Though I have read Muslim scholars who wrote that the marriage was only ARRANGED when she was nine (arranged marriages being part of Arab tribal culture) and the actual marriage/consummation was when she came of whatever the legal age was in that place and time (which would still have been younger than here and now).

    However ISIS, like all Wahabi (and some Christians we know of), acknowledge and obey only “The Plain Words of SCRIPTURE(TM)”…

  134. Gram3 wrote:

    If you want to complain that the Deebs focus too much on complementarians, then you need to demonstrate that the system is not abusive and that therefore their attention to it is unwarranted. Y

    I want to know how many is too many? This is like throwing paint at a wall and seeing what sticks.. Secondly, although I do not focus on complementarianism, I get to discuss what floats my boat on a particular day.

    If people do not like the direction, there are other great blogs to read. The Gospel Coalition and CBMW discuss comp theology all the time. They rarely discuss abuse-very, very rarely except for some posts like “abuse is bad.”

    I do not count how many articles I have written on any subject and don’t plan to do so in the future. I don’t care about counting. I care about the stories and the people.

    As for our stands on abuse, we have taken risks that few are willing to take. It makes me smile that LS thinks he should advise me on what I should and should not write about and how much is appropriate. Perhaps he is the writer of a huge blog or the head of a group that cares for the abused. If so, he should let me know so I can learn from his experience on exactly how many posts I should write on child sex abuse.

    This blog is read by lots and lots of people. It is read more than I ever anticipated. Sometimes it is read more than I wish since I prefer personal contact with everyone. But one thing I do know, God has guided us in the direction we have gone in. We fill a niche that I didn’t know existed.I don’t think js knows about it either.

  135. Back in the days when I was a Christian, I read all the Peretti books and liked a lot of them. The Oath in particular I liked. The Visitation I actually read after I’d left the faith and I was surprised by how open he was writing about problems in the American church. I tried going back last year and reading “This Present Darkness” again. Nope, can’t do it. There are a couple of Christian authors I still keep in my library. C.S. Lewis y’all know of course. Stephen R. Lawhead’s Pendragon cycle and other works were pretty good reads and I’d recommend them to anyone.

    I think the problem in Religious fiction is the same problem faced in religious movies. Heavy handed message delivery and completely skewed portrayal of people outside whichever particular faith or denomination the creators are trying to promote. Message fiction is boring for the most part, for example Galt’s monologue at the end of Atlas Shrugged.

  136. @ Ken:
    Now, let me throw out something I struggle with. Many fits and seizures were actually caused by epilepsy. Epilepsy is not discussed in the Bible. I have to admit i wonder at times if some of those fits were caused by a disease, not a demon. I am trying to be honest here.

  137. Law Prof wrote:

    You’re more than a little shifty there

    That always causes me concern. Did you know that some of the Neo-Calvinists have been told to answer a person who asks if they are Calvinists this way. “I don’t know what you mean by Calvinism but i believe in grace, just like you do.” Bogus!

  138. js wrote:

    Are you saying if Wade (and let me remove him from this, I just needed a hypothetical), let’s say your respected preacher went to Gateway, are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing him or her or are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing yourself for your former support? If it’s the former ok but if it’s the latter, I wonder about that.

    I would do both. I am pretty open to discussing my foibles. I would call out anyone who supported Gateway and then I would point out that I had supported X who now supports Gateway and that gives me pause about my unconditional support.

    I would want people to know about it and I would also want people to know that it is OK to discuss the areas in which you were wrong or reconsidering. In other words-honesty!

  139. js wrote:

    I have my view, you have yours. I do not believe my view is abusive,

    I was brought up in a gender complementarian Christian family, and it is abusive. Abuse does not always mean physical abuse (but it can for some women).

    I later realized that complementarinism is unbiblical and damaging, so I rejected it later in life.

    Sometimes, Christian gender complementarianism can lead to physical abusive of women, is conducive towards it, and allows men who are prone to abuse to justify it in their own minds, and churches, ones who believe in comp views, end up enabling and prolonging spousal abuse (e.g., by telling such women to just submit more to the abuser, to never divorce the abuser, etc).

    On a lesser scale, and in spite of comp protests to the contrary (e.g., they will tell you they believe women are equal in worth but not in role), I was damaged in other ways, due to having been raised in complementarian outlook.

    The message I got from Christian complementarianism (in my family, local churches, and Christian material I read), is that I am limited, and all only because I am a woman.

    The message that complementarianism conveyed to me is that I am not as good or qualified as a man, so I should not try to use my talents and skills any where, not at school, not at college, not in a job, and certainly not in church.

    Complementarianism encourages women to be very passive, not to go after their own goals and dreams (e.g., but not limited to: you are supposed to ultimately tie up all your energy and devotion serving a husband and/or children), to have low to zero boundaries, to be unassertive, and to hand over all agency to a father, husband, or some other man.

    You are not encouraged to develop your own decision-making skills in life, which can be very dangerous to a woman.

    Some of these views are true in secular society as well. Secular culture still encourages women that assertiveness makes them catty and unappealing, and punishes women for being assertive (being assertive is considered an appropriate male quality, but not an appropriate female one).

    You should read a book such as “The Gift of Fear,” which also explains how teaching and encouraging women to have weak boundaries, to always put men first, to coddle men, to always be nurturing no matter what, to always put others first (all these traits and much more comprise complementarianism as well) make women very vulnerable to attracting abusive spouses, stalkers, rapists, con artists, manipulators, etc.

    There are definitely negative consequences to encouraging girls and women to live out what complementarians view as “biblical womanhood” (their picture of “biblical womanhood” isn’t actually even biblical).

    I had to reject complementarianism do be able to live my life, and to be able to develop healthy relationships.

  140. Hester wrote:

    Addendum @ Jeff S.:
    In other words, if you want to explore re-enacting/preventing the Fall on another planet/dimension (which is what the first book of Dekker’s trilogy was about), read Perelandra by Lewis instead.

    The only thing I read by Dekker was the joint book he did with Peretti, “House” which was awful. It was written badly, the plot was terrible, and it was all around not a very good book. That was the last bit of Christian fiction I can remember reading. I left the entire gener behind, and it used up what was left of the loads of currency Peretti earned from me for “The Visitation”.

    I will say this- of the handful of Christian books I’ve read, only “The Visitation” has captured how I think Christians actually behave and act in the real world, and it highlights how our worldview is different not based on culture wars, but how we turn to Jesus in times of pain and fear. The protagonist has large amounts of both grace and humility, while being uncompromising in convictions.

    If the book has a weakness, it’s how he boils down several mainline pastors into caricatured archetypes, but really they serve their purpose in the narrative. The main characters have many subtleties and are interesting (for example, a young pastor who has a lot of immaturity, but also a lot of genuine passion for Jesus, who both admonishes and respects an older pastor who has left the church).

    Anyway, I suggest giving it a chance.

  141. @ Daisy:

    P.S. and what I describe above is most certainly falls into a spectrum of what Christian gender complementarians teach.

    Some comps disagree or differ on some points, or some are more extreme than others, but yep, those things I mentioned in my last post are in fact taught, implied, or endorsed by complementarianists.

    The usual trick of a complementarian is to say, “what you said about comp is a strawman!”

    Or a complementarian might say (I’ve seen them do this before),
    “But what you describe is not complementarianism! I would never tell a woman not to go after her goals in life, and blah blah blah….”

    But some comps do teach this stuff, or, it is strongly implied in their views about women.

    Some of the things I mentioned in the post above were explicitly taught in books and sermons I heard by complementarians, or I picked up those views from them never the less.

    This following page addresses the complementarian tendency to say,
    “But what you describe is not true, real, biblical, or accurate Christian gender complementarianism! The kind I practice, promote, and believe in does not limit women, nor set them up to attract abusers and so on!”

    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

  142. @ Ken:
    I realize that you don’t see it as optional, but many others who “take the Bible seriously” do. I think there is truth there, but you are dealing with ancient texts written by people who have a very different view of both this world and the cosmos than we do, and I don’t think God interfered with that in their writing of the books that make up the Bible.

    So perhaps we need to be more careful about those references to demons than we often are. Remember, it hasn’t been very long in European history since people attributed comets, eclipses, earthquakes (and other disasters) as bad omens, divine judgments and more. I think there is something in all of us that reverts to that kind of thinking in the face of things that we don’t understand, even when we do know a fair amount about the science behind the events in question. Total eclipses of the sun *do* seem uncanny to observers, and even confuse wild animals and birds.

    Just my .02-worth…

  143. @ Ken:
    I wonder if you would consider dropping the use of the word “unbelievers”? It is uncomfortably close to “infidel,” really.

    I had to work at dropping Christian jargon after my decades-long sojourn in evangelical/charismatic circles. And since I began doing so, I started to realize how incredibly obscure – and off-putting – it is to those who aren’t part of the club. I mean, you practically need a decoder ring for a lot of it! It excludes people, whereas using plain English doesn’t.

    Just a thought…

  144. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Yeah, all of the stuff is essentially didactic, which does not make for good writing, let alone good novels.

    I’ve only read Lawhead’s Robin Hood book, and found it both less than it might have been (he obviously has talent) and so full of violent deaths that I was really repelled. There is no remorse at the taking of human lives, only an ever-increasing body count of Bad Guys. That is *far* more disturbing to me than any of the book’s other flaws. It’s as if the Bad Guys aren’t actually human, like a cartoon or video game. Yikes!

  145. @ dee:
    I vote for “disease,” and further, that God would not interfere with anyone to the extent of feeding them medical and scientific information that they were in no way prepared to understand.

    I think that if we stop looking at the Bible as some kind of technical manual, and start looking at its variety of texts for what they actually are, Scripture becomes deeper, richer and stranger than anything that comes along in the “technical manual” mode. Acknowledging that this is *not* modern writing (by any stretch of the imagination) opens up whole new worlds, or at least, it has for me, and for many others. It is also the default position of Catholicism and liturgical Protestant churches, as well as many Reformed churches. This huge “conflict” between faith and science is a *very* recent invention. (If anyone reads much about the history of science and scientific discovery in Europe, that becomes clear pretty quickly – the discoveries of the 16th-18th centuries were seen as showing us more about God’s creation, both this earth and the cosmos.)

  146. LT wrote:

    The problem is I have seen speakers at Gateway talk about how all their serious addictions were cured in a single moment this way.
    This leaves the uncured and their families devastated that God has helped some but chosen to abandon them. It also makes them believe that because they still desire or struggle with (blank) they are still possessed with demons.

    This is one of several things that has me doubting the Christian faith the past few years, after having been a solid Christian since I was a kid.

    I’ve seen so many churches and Christian television shows produce so many stories of people who had cancer, or drug addiction, or some other problem, and after they prayed for deliverance or help, moments later received a healing, or help.

    What about all the Christians who have prayed decades for ‘whatever,’ and never got help, never got a miracle? I hardly ever hear these same preachers or TV shows discuss those people.

    I think Christian ministries do a big disservice by depicting a God on their TV show (or in their local church) who always, instantly, answers prayers in the affirmative for everybody, when there are cases in real life where some Christians get a “no” answer, or their answer is delayed for decades.

    Even putting the demon stuff aside, when a preacher or church present story after story of Christians who were delivered instantly from “X”, it makes those who are listening in the audience who have not been delivered from “X” to feel even more hopeless, or like God picks favorites, and they are not a favorite.

    Evangelicals and certain other sorts of Christians are also very bad about teaching a “Follow this list, or follow these steps or life principles I am about to give you, and you will get the answer from God you want” philosophy.

    I see this reasoning a lot on Christian TV, and some Christian sites and blogs:
    “If you just do steps a, b, c, and d, God will answer your prayer in the affirmative!”

    If it’s a Joel Osteen type of church, if you don’t get a response to a prayer, you will be told you weren’t positive enough, or you must have spoken words of doubt.

    With other churches, it may be “you didn’t pray hard enough,” with others, “You didn’t tithe regularly.” It’s always some excuse like that.

  147. @ numo:
    We could switch to heathens, pagans, marauders, minions of Stan (sic), etc. in order to make this a friendlier, gentler blog. 🙂

  148. numo wrote:

    I vote for “disease,” and further, that God would not interfere with anyone to the extent of feeding them medical and scientific information that they were in no way prepared to understand.

    I am in a goofy mood today due to a number of pressures on me regarding some upcoming posts. So, forgive me but for a minute I began to wonder if God has a Prime Directive ala Star Trek.

  149. dee wrote:

    Many fits and seizures were actually caused by epilepsy. Epilepsy is not discussed in the Bible. I have to admit i wonder at times if some of those fits were caused by a disease, not a demon.

    On the one hand epilepsy was thought to be due to demons since Babylonian times, according to something I just read, and the Greeks called it the sacred disease. But Hippocrates postulated that it was due to physical causes. The idea of linking epilepsy with demonic activity was there in the thinking of people during the time of Jesus.

    I just read a little thing from the Cleveland Clinic (genuflect) about ‘non-epileptic seizures’ which have no electrical discharges in the brain at the time but which are genuine seizures and are thought to be related to psychological stresses.

    I did not search further on the subject because what I wanted was just these two ideas. Sometimes seizures are epilepsy and sometimes they are not. I think we can say the cases reported in scripture were seizures. I do not think we can know what kind of seizures they were. I don’t think it much matters. I think Jesus could and did heal all kinds of diseases, and when he did he seems to have been asserting some sort of authority to do so. At least the leadership told him that they thought that no one could do what he was doing unless God was with him. I am thinking that the reason for the healing ministry was at least two-fold: to relieve suffering and also to demonstrate that he came from the father like the gospel of John emphasizes so much.

    So, he healed sometimes in what looks like an exorcism. I don’t know what to make of that, but there is a lot we do not know about disease or about Jesus or about healing or about spiritual realities which we cannot see. I am thinking (a) he knew what he was doing and (b) he did not feel the need to explain this in detail and ( c) he may have used the common terminology of he day just because people would understand it.

    Or maybe some kinds of seizures are caused by demonic activity in somebody’s life. Some of the bizarre behaviors of some ‘pentecostal’ movements include really weird physical jerking and falling. Somewhere in the human mind there is the ability to make that happen, and that could be demonic for all I know.

    But people need to get a thorough medical evaluation, a confirmed diagnosis, and appropriate meds if indicated. Nevertheless, I don’t plant to second guess Jesus in the reported cases in scripture, not without a lot more solid and specific evidence.

  150. @ Guest:

    I am so sorry for what you went through.

    I believe you are the same Guest poster who’s been on Spiritual Sounding Board blog? I’ve your posts there. I’m very sorry for the abuse you were subjected to, it makes me sick, and that people were using God as a defense of it.

    I can see where Christian gender complementarianism lays the ground work for the abuse you described.

    The problem is, the usual complementarian will brush away your testimony by saying, “Yes, your abuse was awful, but that was not ‘true’ complementarianism. True complementarianism values women and girls. What you experienced was a twisting of complementarianism.”

    Christian gender complementarians tend to be blind in connecting the dots on how their views and teachings about women (which they think are sanctioned by God) do in fact set up an atmosphere that is conducive for women and girls to be…

    Raped, abused, conned, manipulated, or, at the lower end of the scale, harassed, held back in life, naive, gullible, more susceptible to being duped, taken advantage of, no confidence in themselves, etc.

    The guy who wrote this blog page tried to explain how complementarianism makes women vulnerable, like three or four times, to a male preacher who teaches gender complementarism, whose daughter was in an abusive marriage, who still didn’t grasp it:

    “Bible believing” pastors and the enabling of domestic violence
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/04/bible-believing-pastors-and-the-enabling-of-domestic-violence/

  151. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    LT wrote:
    Morris makes it clear that he is marketing this book to addicts and their families.
    “Robber” Morris is hawking this tripe directly to drug addicts? Promising them miracle cures? That’s another trick Scientology has tried, and it has blown up spectacularly. Unfortunately, it’s done so only after the abuse and deaths of multiple patients. Let’s hope people catch on to what a fraud Morris is before that kind of tragedy happens.

    Yes, to both them and their families. If you watch the TBN interview you will notice that about 80% of the audience are minorities and many are elderly. Morris speaks to them about buying his book to save their loved ones. He is already a millionaire yet he will only sell you this secret cure from God for $21.95.

    Morris also claims that CHRONIC ILLNESS may be caused by demon possession. He further claims that your small children can be demonically possessed. He uses the story of the syrophoenician woman as proof of this, then discusses how you allowed an open door for this possession through “Halloween, some of the video games, some of the Dungeon and Dragon games, occult things, ouiji boards, horoscopes.” These are three powerful motivators – fear that your child is or will be possessed like Regan in the Exorcist, plus any addictions or chronic illness all caused by demon possession.
    .
    Readers, if you have compassion for your fellow man please consider taking the time to post a review for this book “Truly Free” on Amazon or Barnes and Noble here http://www.amazon.com/Truly-Free-Breaking-Snares-Entangle/dp/0718011104 and here http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/truly-free-robert-morris/1120808687?ean=9780718011109 Your comments above are so insightful yet need to be seen by the desperate and vulnerable people who are looking for this instant cure. Please explain to them how and why a saved Christian cannot be possessed by demons. Please let them know that if they buy this book and God does not magically and instantly cure them of addiction or chronic illness He has not abandoned them. Amazon has large portions of the book to read in the “Look Inside” section, and the TBN interview http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Praise%20the%20Lord/ec/VhdGY2dDqEmZv_gVfKcxvj-rgs0Kit4r hits every one of the high points of this book, so you can write an informed review. I cannot tell you how helpful your comments have been to me over the last couple of years and I am truly grateful for that. Please consider that in using the review section to point out false doctrine and false hope you may be providing the only real information that will make the desperate reader “Truly Free”.

  152. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    f the worst thing a fundagelical can think of is “atheist”, what’s the reverse equivalent?

    Fundagelicals do not give Christian doubters or partial agnostics credence, either.

    The moment one of them sees the word “doubter” or “agnostic” in your bio, they don’t feel the need to take you seriously any further.

    It’s very strange. They claim to want to win converts for Christ, but the minute they deduce you are a doubter, or a half Christian/ half Agnostic, they lose all interest in converting you.

    For real. I have had them dump me mid-conversation online.

    It’s like they will debate or talk doctrine with you (they assume from the out set that you are completely Christian), but once it comes out you are not presently 100% Christian, they tell you to get lost.

    You are a waste of their time, your opinion on the Bible, theology, God, or what have you, means nothing because you are not a believer. I’ve had some of them say so.

  153. Nancy wrote:

    Somewhere in the human mind there is the ability to make that happen

    it can also be imitative behavior. I have seen – and personally experienced – just that with being “slain in the Spirit.” Yep, I’ve been on the floor a few times, though it was anything but supernatural and was, quite frankly, uncomfortable to boot. (Especially when the floor under the carpet is cement!)

    People are suggestible, and I think in extreme cases (a la some of the crazy animal imitations in Toronto, for example) mass hysteria comes into play. We are *all* suggestible, imo.

    As for what Jesus did and how he did it, I agree with you about the point being that he, in fact, did these things. Getting fixated on the “how” inevitably leads us away from the actual reason these things are there in the text in the 1st place.

  154. zooey111 wrote:

    THis whole prejudice against modern medicine seems to be founded in a belief that ANY medication is can attract demons.

    Some Christians, even without the demon doctrines, hold to anti-medication views.

    If you have clinical depression or anxiety, for example, they will tell you to forgo doctors and medications, and rely on faith, and/or Bible reading, Jesus, and church service only.

    “Real” Christians, (according to the anti medication, anti psychology guys), are spiritually tough, manly-man, He-Men. You’re supposed to tough out your illness – just you, Jesus, and a Bible.

  155. elastigirl wrote:

    just really curious — what do believe about demons?

    are they real? do they impact us?

    Permit me to jump in here uninvited, since your comment was addressed to dee. Short answer? No they are not, and they do not. Modern science cannot support any such claim that they have a reality beyond quaint superstition.
    Potter’s answer?
    They are very real. My own Native American tradition has a whole panoply of lore and legend concerning them, and we can say that it has a sort of loose concurrence with what the Apostle Paul wrote about them.
    This is not to say that I buy into everything my people say about the spirit world [and certainly not the nutbags the Deebs have profiled here on this thread], nor does it imply that I sign on to all in the world of say Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye the ‘science guy’.
    Let’s just say that if the whole domain of demonology is from zero to pi, I’m at pi/2 (90 degrees) within a certain tolerance band either way.

  156. Nancy wrote:

    demons

    Even the term “demon” does not always = evil spirit in ancient cultures. The Greek form, “daemon,” is also applied to creative (especially poetic) genius, and other things too.

    I think we need to be careful to not make sweeping assumptions based on how things are portrayed in a single source, let alone how the original language is being translated into ours or another modern language.

  157. Robert Morris teaches “Jesus cannot set you free unless you know you are in bondage”?

    What a goofy and completely baseless position to take. The Bible says Jesus frees us even before we know we need freedom, e.g., Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13.

  158. @ Daisy:

    Excellent comment, Daisy! Favoritism or partiality shown between people (ethnicity, gender, age, etc.) can be very damaging to all parties and difficult to recover from the effects of feeling/being treated “less-than” another.

    I’m appreciative of the women who frequent this blog as they are strong, intelligent, independent, courageous, and refuse to be persuaded to forfeit their full “personhood.” They strive to live up to their full potential!

  159. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    It’s one thing in Tolkien, but quite another in Lawhead – or, for that matter, in movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which really upset me, back when it 1st came out. (I saw it in a theater with a huge screen; an old movie palace that’s long since been converted into something else.) The bodies just kept piling up, and those who were killed were treated as faceless mooks, basically.

    I really dislike the way violence is portrayed in contemporary action movies as well.

  160. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    The problem is that Ken is referring to a particular kind of xtianity, so “non-Christians” can also mean people who are xtians but don’t adhere to the exact same beliefs as he and others in his camp do.

    That would include many of us, right here, who actually are xtians.

  161. @ numo:
    Body counts don’t upset me, but I can appreciate that they do others. Its always been the more personal violence like in horror movies that puts me off. Can’t watch them or I’ll be afraid of the dark for a week. And then my wife gets to laugh at me. 🙂

  162. @ Muff Potter:

    “Permit me to jump in here uninvited, … They are very real. My own Native American tradition has a whole panoply of lore and legend concerning them, and we can say that it has a sort of loose concurrence with what the Apostle Paul wrote about them.
    …Let’s just say that if the whole domain of demonology is from zero to pi, I’m at pi/2 (90 degrees) within a certain tolerance band either way.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    you’re the best, muff. & always invited. “loose concurrence” — I like that. I agree — I also see a loose concurrence with much of what I observe in other religions, practices, or just the sheer experiences people have in living on plant earth re: ‘dark forces’ (if I can sum it up with that label).

    I appreciate your openness.

  163. numo wrote:

    Some drugs are adfictive, all drugs are potentially dangerous or evrn lethal if one overdoses (as with aspirin poisoning or Tylenol/NSAIDS causing serious liver damage).
    -that does NOT mean that all psychotropic (for the treatment of psychiatric problems) drugs are inherently addictive. I am sure that ER nurses see bad things re. overdoses/drug interactions/too many medicines all the time, but for yhe most part, as long as a person sticks to the prescribed dosage and fosage regimen, they are fine.

    I’m going to have to beg to differ here. I’m an RN who was formerly a moderator for an online support group for people wishing to withdraw from psychotropic medications. We had 3000 members from all over the globe. Pretty much all of our members “stuck to the prescribed dosage” and yet when they tried to stop their medications, they became quite ill.

    I think the misunderstanding comes in when we assume the word “addictive” means that people take their prescription medications in a way that is similar to someone using substances for recreation, i.e. looking for a “high”. So, when someone who has been prescribed psychotropic medications reads that they are “addicted” they know that they have not abused their prescriptions and thus cannot be an addict.

    Unfortunately, the biochemistry of the brain does not care why one takes a medication. When the medications are taken for a prolonged time, the neurotransmitter receptors in the brain gradually adapt and when the medication is stopped, these receptors revolt causing great distress.

    Please understand, this is not indictment of psychotropic medications, nor a judgment upon those who take them. Personal experience, years helping others through their pain, and lots of research (I would refer you to the work of Dr Heather Ashton of the UK) could not allow me to let your comment pass without saying what I know to be true. Just as abuse is the hot button issue for Dee and Deb, seeing people given psychotropic medications without being truly informed about them is mine.

  164. numo wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    It’s one thing in Tolkien, but quite another in Lawhead – or, for that matter, in movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which really upset me, back when it 1st came out.

    You mean “Indy and the Temple of Splatter”?
    (That was the name it immediately acquired in local fandom.)

  165. numo wrote:

    @ dee:
    Since you are a minion of Stan, I think that’s a good choice!

    How about a minion of Kyle?
    Or Kenny?
    Or Cartman?

  166. Daisy wrote:

    I can see where Christian gender complementarianism lays the ground work for the abuse you described.

    The problem is, the usual complementarian will brush away your testimony by saying, “Yes, your abuse was awful, but that was not ‘true’ complementarianism. True complementarianism values women and girls. What you experienced was a twisting of complementarianism.”

    “No True Scotsman” fallacy, full-strength on the rocks.

  167. @ Sad:
    I know what you are saying, but stopping cold turkey does not work well. People go through withdrawal, as from Paxil and other SSRIs and benzodiazapines. I have been there, and there are ways to make this much less miserable, if people are working with docs who know how to taper dosages, etc.

  168. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Violence in movies has become far more realistic and, for me, hard to watch, over the past 15+ years. It’s often like torture porn/violence porn, and I hate that. Surely there are ways to depict (or not depict, but suggest) many things that don’t have to make viewers recoil?

    Of course, the larger problem is when viewers *stop* recoiling at graphic depictions of violence.

    As for horror, I cannot watch it, never could, but I see what you mean and agree. Though I think there is a way to do “body count”-type material without seeing all.the.deaths.

  169. Beakerj wrote:

    I’ve seen really good practice in this area, but I have to be honest in that if a terminal family member was inadequately medicated for pain I’d have no moral issues with ‘sourcing’ some of the ‘good stuff’ & dosing them up, after researching how.

    I feel the same way Beakerj. I too have no qualms about resorting to an ‘illegal’ underground supplier of opiates which would help ease the passing of a loved one who agreed to it, or even myself if it came to that. I’d also be on the research trail, up to and including how to avoid the long arm of the law and what kind of plea deal I could get if caught.

  170. “Complementarianism encourages women to be very passive, not to go after their own goals and dreams (e.g., but not limited to: you are supposed to ultimately tie up all your energy and devotion serving a husband and/or children), to have low to zero boundaries, to be unassertive, and to hand over all agency to a father, husband, or some other man.”

    Daisy this is what happened to me. My growing up was not abusive physically or extreme, but my dad (who has since passed and I loved him dearly) was a complimentarian. He felt that women should be in women roles such as teaching or nursing. He was a businessman and did not teach me or any of my sisters what he knew about finances or business. I wasted 30+ years thinking it was not good for me to be educated in the arts or business. I got my nursing degree and quit nursing after a few years because it was not my gift.

  171. numo wrote:

    @ Sad:
    I know what you are saying, but stopping cold turkey does not work well. People go through withdrawal, as from Paxil and other SSRIs and benzodiazapines. I have been there, and there are ways to make this much less miserable, if people are working with docs who know how to taper dosages, etc.

    That is the problem. Majority of docs don’t understand the need for a slow taper. When I stopped benzodiazepines, my own doctor said “You’ll probably have trouble sleeping for a few nights, then you’ll be fine”. I did a 50 percent cut (not cold turkey even) and was ill for several years. I liken it to a brain injury. It’s not the doctors fault, either, they must work within the “standard of care”, and their is no provision in this standard of care for a slow taper.

    If you could know what I’ve seen, the heartbreak, the devastation, the loss of life, even. I want to hurl something at the television every time an ad comes on for psychotropics!

  172. Sad, I agree with you about psychotropic medications. I am one personally that will try other remedies (diet, herbal, supplements) first before taking any drug. If then those don’t work I will weigh out my options. I am not against drugs but feel that we are way too of a drug happy nation. I believe in being informed of the effects vs. outcome. Those drug commercials always make me cringe when they start rattling off the side effects in the midst of everyone being “happy as a lark”. I took birth control pills and prozac and would never go back to any of them, but each to his or her own.

  173. Faith wrote:

    Those drug commercials always make me cringe when they start rattling off the side effects in the midst of everyone being “happy as a lark”.

    Rattling off the side effects at the speed of the guy in those old FedEx commercials with a voice pitched somewhere around a whisper. Just like all required legal disclaimers in any commercial.

  174. @ Faith:
    Not to mention Vets who are coming home with severe PTSD and drug issues. These issues need to be monitored so carefully, but often aren’t

  175. Nancy wrote:

    @ numo:

    You think that Jesus healed somebody of creative genius? What a bummer.

    The Evangelical Circus has many horror stories along those lines.

    numo wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    That’s a depressing thought, really: no Leonardo, no Mozart, and so on… Yikes!

    Only the endless doubleplusduckspeak of SCRIPTURE SCRIPTURE SCRIPTURE…

  176. @ Faith:
    I guess they are hoping you will miss all that while viewing everyone having great fun- golfing, swimming in the Bahamas, etc. activities,……….

  177. @ Sad:
    well, they have no specialized training in psychopharmacology, I suspect. And that is a huge problem, as you say.

    I am so sorry for what you and so many others have been through, believe me! I was fortunate enough to have docs who have known what they were doing, but even so, slow tapers bring a certain amount of withdrawal. But *nothing* like what you’ve been through.

    My response re. addiction and the assumption of it was more about the biases that many docs (and others in the medical community) have toward (in some cases) *all* patients who need stronger pain meds, be they opioids or not. I know that the GP I used to go to simply *assumed* that I was addicted to Darvocet, and she and other docs there acted accordingly. I wasn’t (I took it exactly as directed, and the dosages were low enough that I never did become addicted – also, I am seriously scared of addiction, so they didn’t have to preach at me about that). It is SO disheartening to be denied necessary pain relief, as well as being stamped with an “addict” label that’s both completely undeserved and untrue.

  178. Meant that comment @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I guess they are hoping you will miss all that while viewing everyone having great fun- golfing, swimming in the Bahamas, etc. activities,……….

  179. @ Sad:
    I have experienced the good effects of certain SSRIs and benzos, when administered properly (for me, it’s usually at doses that are subtherapeutic by official standards). The drugs that work well for me didn’t exist until recent decades, and I do know what it’s like to be on the *wrong* medicines. Not fun, to say the least.

    But the right ones can, if used properly, be pretty amazing in their positive effect. Still, everyone is different, and I think most dosing for most meds is anything but “one size fits all.” Some docs understand that; too many don’t, unfortunately.

  180. Gram3 wrote:

    The closest I can come to an explanation is that Piper likes to be the center of attention while he talks endlessly about God’s glory.

    Missed this the first time around- this is a great assessment, though.

    Recently I posted a link to a Piper article on my FB page along with a slightly-mocking tone. I received some private messages from women who were thankful for me standing up for them. I also received a private message from an elder at my church (though I don’t believe that he did so in his capacity as “elder”- certainly I don’t think there was any kind of meeting of the elders to “deal with me”, since I had lunch a week later with my pastor who knew nothing of this).

    The conversation with the elder was interesting; he suggested that I was not showing kindness in my assessment by the mocking tone I used. When I stepped back, I felt that probably he was right, in that it is not a tone I usually use (I strive very hard to communicate without disrespect, even when disrespect is reasonable, because disrespect can be off-putting to those who need the message the most). So I did end up posting an apology on my FB page for a few of the mocking things I said, but re-asserted that I still felt the criticism was valid.

    However, I used this as an opportunity to point out to the elder the problems I have with Piper’s theology, and it was a great conversation where I think he learned a lot. I also asked him if he would have approached me if the subject of my post had been Obama, who certainly seems to get mocked endlessly on FB. That caused him some pause, and he said that was a “good question” and seemed to reveal to him some bias. I also pointed out that my gentle mocking was nothing compared to calling people “main fails”, which someone associated with Piper did and who, I can only assume, has not been approached for his mocking tone.

    I know a few people were upset that I apologized at all, but I do think the elder had a point. One of the things I said was “I don’t see how a woman could respect John Piper”, and I realize that starting off that way is going to be immediately off-putting to any woman who DOES respect John Piper, and I’d rather those women instead consider what I have to say and be awakened to the reality of his teaching.

    At the end of the day, though, the elder learned a lot more from me than I did from him, and I’m glad he listened. He had no idea about Piper’s views on divorce (he seemed shocked, actually), and was surprised at the things I pointed out about Piper’s views of women.

    In the end, he assessed that Piper’s issue may be he focuses on God’s glory to a point his teaching might be skewed. I agree; the difference between us is I think that is a fatal flaw for a Christian preacher to focus on God to the point that humans are left out altogether. The dignity of humans is important to God, even if Piper seems to cast it off as an unimportant concept:

    “The imago dei is that about man which gives him the potential to be redemptively loved by God and to consciously depend in gratitude on God’s mercy. It is cited in unbelievers only in Genesis 9:6 (to justify capital punishment) and James 3:9 (where the implication is that we ought not curse man). It is not an important concept to the writers of Scripture . . .”

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/reflections-on-the-concept-of-self-worth

  181. @ Jeff S:
    You know, I agree about women not being able to respect Piper. One of the points I want to make is that *you* personally do not see how anyone could, and that is opinion and personal observation, not condemnation of those who might, nor a sweeping pronouncement on any and all women who might.

    So maybe you’re overthinking this a little? I have the same problem, so I understand your reasoning, but can’t help believing that it’s a lot simpler and more concrete. otoh, I do see your point in wanting not to alienate people. But never expressing your opinion in a direct way – about that, I’m not so sure.

    What I do know is that it’s all pretty tricky, and calls for sensitivity, discretion and a a willingness to listen, which are qualities you already have and then some.

    In other words, please don’t be worrying about it! You learned something, and you can move on from there.

  182. Sad wrote:

    I want to hurl something at the television every time an ad comes on for psychotropics!

    I hate those ads, too. Very misleading. But then, I don’t think prescription meds should be advertised in print or on TV.

  183. @ numo:

    Oh, I’m not worried about it 🙂 My conscience is clean, and the emails I got from women who felt encouraged made up for any mistakes I might have made. But if there were a few Piper following women who didn’t finish reading what I wrote because I started off calling them out, well, then I could have done better.

    Mostly, I’m happy to have had the conversation and opened up someone’s eyes just a little.

    Admitting I can do better is not the same as feeling like a failure. It’s not like I called women who like Piper “Women fails”.

  184. Jeff S wrote:

    In the end, he assessed that Piper’s issue may be he focuses on God’s glory to a point his teaching might be skewed. I agree; the difference between us is I think that is a fatal flaw for a Christian preacher to focus on God to the point that humans are left out altogether. The dignity of humans is important to God, even if Piper seems to cast it off as an unimportant concept:

    Wow! Jeff, what an eye-opener for me. I never thought of it that way, but how very true it is. Scripture clearly reflects God’s efforts in teaching His people to respect the dignity of one another as He does.

    Thanks for posting that!

  185. @ Jeff S:

    That article was quite a rambling treatise on self loathing called by another name; “Glorifying God.”

    “I see no room for self-acceptance until we are changed into the image of Jesus.” John Piper

  186. Bridget wrote:

    @ Jeff S:
    That article was quite a rambling treatise on self loathing called by another name; “Glorifying God.”
    “I see no room for self-acceptance until we are changed into the image of Jesus.” John Piper

    Yep. Piper’s rise to fame was built on his idea of “Christian Hedonism” and putting the focus completely on God being the chief end of man. I think he does so to the extent that he removes man from the equation almost entirely, and that’s problematic for a faith where valuing human dignity is so motivating to God that he made the largest sacrifice in history. And I don’t believe that was what historical Reformed teaching believed, even if it has become the neo-cal message.

    Devaluing human dignity is evident in Piper’s treatment of marriage, gender, natural disasters, etc. and it’s completely opposed to the language of the New Testament. I once saw a video where Piper praises asceticism, though I’ve been unable to locate it again, but that is very revealing when contrasted with Colossians.

  187. @ Bridget:

    PS – being changed into the image of Jesus is an ongoing process which is not complete until we see Him. Meanwhile . . . Piper advocates no self-acceptance?

  188. Ken wrote:

    What we need and rarely get is a combination of biblically literate, thinking evangelicals who have also been filled with the Spirit. Mature pastoral ministry coupled with a sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and wisdom gained from experience.

    Totally agree. Please let my former pastors at my former churches know about this, because they have precisely zero use for “biblically literate, thinking evangelicals” and they also utterly lack all appearance of neither sensitivity to the Holy Spirit nor wisdom gained from experience. Biblically literate pewpeons can be trouble for a pastor who has a Vision from God or a Biblical System that Must Be Followed.

    Many of them are way too young and have very limited life experience, much less pastoral experience. SGM and Capitol Hill Baptist, just to name two, have “internship” programs or “leadership tracks” which amount to indoctrination into the Leader’s System. This is what Amway and Mary Kay and do. You don’t have to know anything or have any experience. You just need to follow the System.

    They have taken “Do not let them despise your youth” as their life verse, and their interpretation is basically that any given young person can be as wise as any given older, seasoned saint. No, seriously.

  189. Jeff S wrote:

    and that’s problematic for a faith where valuing human dignity is so motivating to God that he made the largest sacrifice in history.

    This is where Piper would differ from you. Piper would claim that Jesus’ mission, and death, and resurrection was to glorify God. The problem is that man then becomes a bi-product of what God was doing. As you noted, the NT reveals a different story.

  190. Bridget wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    and that’s problematic for a faith where valuing human dignity is so motivating to God that he made the largest sacrifice in history.
    This is where Piper would differ from you. Piper would claim that Jesus’ mission, and death, and resurrection was to glorify God. The problem is that man then becomes a bi-product of what God was doing. As you noted, the NT reveals a different story.

    The reason that God sent Jesus was because he loved the world. It couldn’t be any clearer than that.

  191. Jeff S wrote:

    In my opinion, all of Piper’s errors can be traced back to not valuing the dignity of humans high enough

    You know, I can almost see how that perception might be comparable to the Pharisees who walked around with outward dĂŠcor that made them look holy in the eyes of others. It probably made them feel holier than the “average” believer in God. But Jesus confronted them about looking and feeling holy on the outside and neglecting the heart attitude towards others.

    Piper’s marginalizing of others in favor of portraying an absolute holiness in all probability benefits himself primarily.

    OK, off to read your post.

  192. @ Bridget:

    Was not Jesus dying for a lost world that He loved in of itself glorifying God? Is it not glorifying to God to want humans to be with Him forever in relationship and in eternity? What One has created, One loves?

  193. Faith wrote:

    Sad, I agree with you about psychotropic medications. I am one personally that will try other remedies (diet, herbal, supplements) first before taking any drug. If then those don’t work I will weigh out my options. I am not against drugs but feel that we are way too of a drug happy nation. I believe in being informed of the effects vs. outcome. Those drug commercials always make me cringe when they start rattling off the side effects in the midst of everyone being “happy as a lark”. I took birth control pills and prozac and would never go back to any of them, but each to his or her own.

    Faith, it’s interesting you mention the BCPs. When my husband and I were about to get married he was in the Obstetrics portion of medical school. He asked his professors (Major university teaching hospital) which forms of birth control that they recommended. They ALL said the only things they would let their wives use were the barrier methods…they felt there was too much risk with everything else. I’ve thought about this so many times over the years and I’m sure those same docs had to prescribe whichever method their patients wanted, even though they would not want their own wives on them. Caveat Emptor, sadly, must apply to medical care.

  194. @ Jeff S:

    “The conversation with the elder was interesting; he suggested that I was not showing kindness in my assessment by the mocking tone I used.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    if your elder was from Brooklyn I would guess that your so-called mocking tone would have gone unnoticed. (based on my experience with NY City-ites, & elsewhere were tone and words mean very different things).

    loved your comment – I hope to have time to respond to more of it.

  195. @ Jeff S.:

    I also pointed out that my gentle mocking was nothing compared to calling people “main fails”, which someone associated with Piper did and who, I can only assume, has not been approached for his mocking tone.

    Forget “man fails” – Piper has invited Doug Wilson to his conferences at least once. Wilson’s entire “sense of humor” – I use that term loosely because I honestly can’t locate said sense of humor, even though loads of people swear up and down that it’s there – is built around calling people names and/or insulting their intelligence if they disagree with him. He’s a bully, basically, who’s learned to disguise his bullying under faux-intellectualism and theologizing.

  196. dee wrote:

    If people do not like the direction, there are other great blogs to read. The Gospel Coalition and CBMW discuss comp theology all the time. They rarely discuss abuse-very, very rarely except for some posts like “abuse is bad.”

    There is also the opportunity to start their own blogs if they don’t like either your topics or your administration of *your* blog. I think WordPress is still free.

    Actually, I think that we can draw certain conclusions when someone, anyone, strains at gnats and swallows camels. I also think we can draw certain conclusions when someone, anyone, shows up and is only willing to pontificate without being willing to engage on the substance of the actual topics being discussed.

    Certainly we can all be misunderstood, and we can differ in our perspectives or experiences, but when someone deliberately mis-characterizes something and then refuses to either apologize or engage meaningfully in clarification, then I think we can reasonably infer that they are not interested in discussing but rather in directing.

    I’m going to preach a bit here as an apologist for your choices of advocacy, not that you need my help. So JS and other Hierarchicalists, don’t read the rest of this comment or God will be very angry with you. Consider this your trigger warning for Female Teaching.

    The System of Complementarianism is duplicitous, and it has been from its inception. The terminology they use is deliberately deceptive. They do not mean “complementary” but rather mean “hierarchy.” The FTC would have a cow pregnant with twins if a business used such deception. They say “equal” but they don’t mean “equal.” They say “function” but they don’t really mean “function” which can change according to changes in circumstance. Their “function” is static and unchanging and is determined solely due to a biological difference which has no bearing whatsoever on anything they screech about.

    They use the word “Biblical” in a very promiscuous fashion, and then they make up a proprietary hermeneutic which they never approve of others using for other issues. They control the vertical, horizontal, and volume. They will not be consistent about either textual interpretation or practical application. And that is because the entire System is, and has been from the start, an entirely ad hoc solution to the perceived imminent threat of female persons defiling the Sacred High Places behind the Sacred Pulpits in the conservative churches. And I really do mean Sacred High Places.

    That was precisely the reason for George Knight III’s invention of the System in the first place, and he is widely hailed as saving the PCA and the OPC from utter ruination by his innovative doctrine of “ROLES” for the sexes and “ROLES” for the Persons of Trinity and of the totally speculative Hierarchy among the Co-eternal Persons of the Trinity. We frequently forget to honor Dr. Knight’s ROLE in consigning both males and females to ROLES that he and Piper and Grudem and Ware and Owen (not John) and Dever and Mohler and Mahaney and Duncan and the entire Gospel Glitterati in their Wisdom simply make up out of thin air and proceed to propagate via inexhaustible hot air, shutting down opposing voices, and veiled threats and spiritual blackmail.

    And if anyone dares to be a Noble Berean, they are dismissed as being Rebellious Against Authority. These self-appointed Spiritual Authorities always conflate and confuse *their* self-anointing with God’s own authority. They conflate and confuse their words with God’s words and their commandments with God’s commandments. They pretend to be Manly, but when confronted they refuse to justify FROM THE TEXT using THEIR OWN HERMENEUTIC their assumption of the authority which belongs to each individual created in the image of God along with their presumptuous grab of the power of the Holy Spirit over believers and the rule of Christ over his Church.

    If that is not abuse of power, abuse of the Bible, abuse of language, and abuse of people for their own interests, then I do not know what abuse is. It saddens me to see what they will do–up to and including making the Eternal Son an eternally subordinate Person of the Trinity–in order to secure their own positions of power, influence, and wealth. It is pathetic, and there is nothing Biblical or manly about it.

    End of sermon.

  197. @ Faith:

    I agree with you, Faith. Everything Jesus did brought glory to God. I think we agree that the end result was glorifying to God, but the motivation was love. Piper seems to see it differently, and it shows in his writing.

  198. @ dee:

    Thanks for replying, dee, in the midst of everything else. I very much agree with your perspective on exorcisms.

  199. Gram3 wrote:

    Actually, I think that we can draw certain conclusions when someone, anyone, strains at gnats and swallows camels.

    Can I offer perhaps a different perspective? One thing we freethinkers find in our comments or forums is believers come in acting what we would consider belligerent or straining at gnats, is that they don’t know any better and that’s the only language they understand at this time. I cringe at drawing conclusions about someone and applying a lot of baggage that may not apply to them, they just speak like what we think is in that category. Sometimes people just don’t know how to even conceptualize or understand a differing position and it can be difficult to get everyone on the same page. For example, trying to prove a moral point to an atheist like me with Bible verses would be useless because the Bible doesn’t mean that to me; but if you only know how to talk in verses we won’t be able to talk until we have a lingua franca.

    Gram3 wrote:

    So JS and other Hierarchicalists, don’t read the rest of this comment or God will be very angry with you. Consider this your trigger warning for Female Teaching.

    I think that is an mean way to “other” JS and doesn’t reflect the character of what their posting history here has been. JS has not been dismissive nor tarring people here with the broad brush of the worst of the egalitarian position, but you’ve described JS as part of those trying to steal your mutual deity’s power and abuse the flock. Which if I remember my Christianity is supposedly a bad thing for someone to do and is a fairly bad accusation.

  200. Jeff S wrote:

    I laid out my argument for that in a blog post (back when I was actually blogging):
    http://lovewithoutfear.net/2014/12/30/why-i-believe-the-evangelical-church-needs-to-stop-listening-to-john-piper-and-those-like-him/

    Jeff, that post is just wonderful! It reflects a heart of love, understanding, compassion but most of all wisdom. You get what the gospel is and what it is not and said it with strong conviction.

    I’ve bookmarked it to read again. Thank you!

  201. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I think the closest equivalent [to the use of the word “atheist” as a final insult] in the cases of Melvyn Bragg would be calling them faitheists.

    Loved it so much I googled it, and I discovered it’s a Thing! Actually a book, as you probably knew already; and a very interesting-looking book too.

  202. @ numo:
    Totally agree with you on hating torture stuff, it makes me sad and then jumpy and scared. Can’t watch it. I worry less about people being desenstized to it through movies and what not, since a lot of us here in the US (and probably the EU) are very far removed from actually seeing horrific violence that it’s just a story, just make believe, for us. What I worry is how distracted with entertainment we are to see where a lot of the real violence in our society is occurring, behind closed doors or in power differentials between authorities and underclasses. I know I was blind to a lot of what was happening to friends and associates, let alone strangers.

  203. Hester wrote:

    Forget “man fails” – Piper has invited Doug Wilson to his conferences at least once.

    And Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant Wilson is just an Epic Fail across the board.

  204. Nancy wrote:

    But people need to get a thorough medical evaluation, a confirmed diagnosis, and appropriate meds if indicated. Nevertheless, I don’t plant to second guess Jesus in the reported cases in scripture, not without a lot more solid and specific evidence

    Very good advice. As it happens, I know a neurologist with a Large and Well-Known Multi-disciplinary Medical Organization who told me about a phenomenon called “pseudo-seizure” which sounds like what you are describing. He says that the way the brain works “is not well-understood. Now, if this neurologist and his colleagues don’t fully understand what is going on, then I would be hesitant to rule anything out before someone was thoroughly evaluated by knowledgeable medical professionals from whatever disciplines might be pertinent. If demonic forces do exist and do affect people, then we *might* not be talking about a strictly medical issue, though I cannot see how medical attention should not be the absolute first step in dealing with it.

    IIRC, Jesus healed in situations associated with demonic activity and also with reference to demonic activity. So it’s difficult for me to see how we can draw a bright line or absolutely rule something in or out. Seems like that would be trying to prove a negative unless we assume that spiritual forces do not exist.

    Anecdotally, I do know of one case of ongoing and serious death-like “episodes” where the person was evaluated at another genuflection-worthy institution and all physical causes were ruled out after a week or so of evaluation. This person had been involved in ministry in a place associated with demonic activity. The episodes ceased after the person was evacuated for treatment, but I have no idea what this means or does not mean WRT territorial spirits. I know another person who has lived in a different culture where animism is the dominant religion, and that person is now convinced that demonic activity is a very real thing. I hope I never find out personally.

    IIRC

  205. dee wrote:

    js wrote:

    Are you saying if Wade (and let me remove him from this, I just needed a hypothetical), let’s say your respected preacher went to Gateway, are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing him or her or are you saying you would beat me to it by criticizing yourself for your former support? If it’s the former ok but if it’s the latter, I wonder about that.

    I would do both. I am pretty open to discussing my foibles. I would call out anyone who supported Gateway and then I would point out that I had supported X who now supports Gateway and that gives me pause about my unconditional support.

    I would want people to know about it and I would also want people to know that it is OK to discuss the areas in which you were wrong or reconsidering. In other words-honesty!

    And that’s all good, I think its a good approach, upfront and honest is the best policy. My reservation is that I don’t think it is fair for others to criticize you about your support of that person before they went off the deep end.

  206. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Haven’t read the book, but I’ve read a few things from and about him. I like how he tries to make alliances with people of faith over common interests. Its something that interests me since I have a lot of people in my life that are still in religions and I don’t want us to only be divided by our differences.

  207. Uh-oh. Didn’t know I was going to make the front page…

    Dee, I didn’t follow up on that article on Friday, so I didn’t see your response to my comment, or Hester’s below that. Sorry.

    I know nothing about Peter Wagner or the New Apostolic Reformation (but God bless Wikipedia). I was wondering why this would be of such interest to evangelicals and post-evangelicals. I couldn’t imagine this stuff having much appeal, but I guess you’re saying, as is Hester, that this does have huge appeal to the charismatic wing of the church.

    It looks like devil-behind-every-bush theology to me, very cult-like. But I recognize some of the beliefs about demons (I also believe they’re out there, but like C.S. Lewis would rather not entertain them) and the requirement to speak in tongues. These things show up from time to time in a lot of churches.

    You said in your reply to me on Friday: “I am mostly interested in how things get the way they are in churches. I believe that a basic understanding of Wagner’s NAR will help trace the origins of some current thinking.” I agree with you on that. I’m also fascinated at how we got to where we are, and at how most people don’t recognize that a lot of our theology and church practices aren’t necessarily the way things have always been.

    You might be interested in George Marsden’s books. One of the Wikipedia articles referenced a book by Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism I think I’ll order that—I can recommend another book by Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture. Very balanced and interesting if you’re into church history.

    One of the scarier things in the Wikipedia article about the NAR: “This event [“The Response” hosted by 2012 presidential nominee Rick Perry on August 6, 2011] is cited as a sign of the influence of NAR beliefs on Rick Perry’s political viewpoints.[2][9] Other politicians that have been cited as having connections to the NAR are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback,[2] and Ted Cruz.[10]”

    Get ready, guys. 2016 is coming.

  208. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    I take your point about the lingua franca. That seems to me to be a good reason for someone to keep conversing until some understanding is reached or until the people realize that they don’t have a lingua franca or they don’t want to try to find one.

    I disagree about JS and whether I have Othered him. He and I *do* share a lingua franca, but he refuses to use it, despite numerous requests for him to use it so that we can discuss his opinion that the attention paid to his tribe by TWW is inappropriate. We both speak “conservative evangelical” and at least I can speak a couple of different dialects. He is not interested in discussing the real issue that he is complaining about and makes up an excuse for not discussing what he wants to complain about. It is difficult for me to see good faith there, though you can see it from your perspective.

    I apologize for not remembering the particulars of your life experience, so I may be saying what you already know. Or maybe not. The essence of “complementarianism” is Othering. Females are not fully human in the same way that men are human. Females can only display God’s image in a derivative way through the male. We must have a male spiritual guardian. We are essentially and unavoidably and irredeemably Other. Inside the System, our voice is illegitimate because we were supposedly created by God to be Listeners and Followers who can never, ever be Speakers to and Leaders of males. It is definitely dehumanizing to be told that God has created females to be by nature subordinate and to be told that God’s word says that, in contrast to males, females are inherently rebellious and easily deceived and desire to take over the male. We have no right to object to this teaching, even when using the very grounds that they use to justify it, and we must merely shut up and internalize the slander. If we do say something, it must be said in a particular way that is determined totally subjectively and usually by people with an interest to protect. The rules for such things are arbitrary, and we are subject to being chastised for inappropriate crossing of boundaries that are never clear. A female voice speaking with authority is offensive by nature inside the System. It is truly a no-win situation if someone is a female in these churches. What is most distressing to me beyond the merely personal offense is that they invoke the name of God to justify it.

  209. If people do not like the direction, there are other great blogs to read. The Gospel Coalition and CBMW discuss comp theology all the time. They rarely discuss abuse-very, very rarely except for some posts like “abuse is bad.”
    >>>You’ve made them more aware and me more aware of abuse and I think many of their articles go far beyond a simple “abuse is bad.” Of course, TGC, like many other blogs, is not chiefly concerned with abuse, so I expect them to cover a broader range of topics. But you are the blog queens for a reason so of course I cede the floor to you on topic choices, while respectfully registering my reservations about some articles.

    As for our stands on abuse, we have taken risks that few are willing to take. It makes me smile that LS thinks he should advise me on what I should and should not write about and how much is appropriate. Perhaps he is the writer of a huge blog or the head of a group that cares for the abused. If so, he should let me know so I can learn from his experience on exactly how many posts I should write on child sex abuse.
    >>>8.5/10 posts on abuse sounds about right :). I only advise you because I have the mic and all the power and I think you should listen to me and make sure not to push back. It’s the same reason I read you regularly and carefully consider what you all say :).

    This blog is read by lots and lots of people. It is read more than I ever anticipated. Sometimes it is read more than I wish since I prefer personal contact with everyone. But one thing I do know, God has guided us in the direction we have gone in. We fill a niche that I didn’t know existed.I don’t think js knows about it either.

    I wasn’t the one who hijacked my original post to fixate on comp theology. I mentioned in my original post a broad base of items that probably ticks off TWW with the TGC crowd. And I said many of these issues are not salient to the issue of abuse and thus the appearance is one of opposition not on the basis of abuse but on criteria rooted in doctrinal differences (and maybe dislike of style and such). I may be wrong but the comments are a forum for opinion and that’s mine.

    Gram3 wants me to prove a negative and I’m not wading into a minefield of loaded language.

  210. Gram3 wrote:

    a phenomenon called “pseudo-seizure” which sounds like what you are describing

    Exactly. The thing from Cleveland Clinic said they used to be called pseudo-seizures but that made it sound like it really was not a seizure but only a false seizure, something like a seizure but not the real thing. So they (everybody?) are calling it ‘non-epileptic seizure’ because they say it is a real seizure but without the electrical pattern seen in the brain of epileptics.

    As for the question of evil spirits/ demons/ pick a term I think there is evil which has some aspects of something we would call personality, and I think that I encountered it once in a confrontation I guess you would call it. That was here in the states in what should have been a safe and neutral place, or so I thought. And whammo, there it was. I think I know what it wanted but I have no idea how I knew that. I invoked the name of Jesus and told it what to do and why. And zappo it seemed to be gone. I was almost too terrified to talk and had to force the words out of my mouth, but one of my children was there (as a kid) and mothers will face down things to protect their kids. It took me a long time to process that in my thinking.

    I also think that what I watched in Africa in that ceremony that I have described before was people who had some sort of involvement with something spiritual and evil, but it was no threat to us at the time as far as we knew.

    I agree with C S Lewis on this that making either too much of it or too little is an error.

  211. The great question of our discussion is “how many strange ideas must one have before he/she can be labelled a “false teacher”? Or is a false teacher false because of an essential denial of the gospel? Or is it something else?

    You’re more than a little shifty there,

    >>>I don’t see it as shifty, I see it as a search for clarity. What is considered false teaching? At what point are leaders in Christendom to frankly appraise other leaders? Should Christian leaders spend all their time “farewelling” each other, or is there a better way? It’s just like what Dee says about church discipline. It’s in the Bible but we better be really careful about how it is applied and churches need to think carefully through what kinds of things are subject to discipline.

    It is the same thing here. What doctrines are to be opposed as false teaching? What I see Paul doing in his “I opposed Peter to his face” moments is opposing strongly the kind of teaching which adds to, changes or obscures the gospel or the flourishing of the gospel. But the overlooked part is that Paul puts up with a lot of foolishness along the way too and holds his tongue, often urging patience and gentleness. The best example is perhaps Philippians 1, where Paul says some preach with false motives, even to personally hurt him, but he rejoices because Christ is preached. In other words, he gives a wide berth to those who preach Christ with less than stellar motives while giving little room to those who preach a false gospel.

  212. @ Gram3:
    I’ll begin my response to your ending to let you know I am aware of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. It’s been a regular discussion point on this blog that crops up from time to time and I’m fairly familiar with it. No need to get in to its rightness or wrongness with me, not my issue nor do I have a perspective on it that is germane to the debate all of American Christendom is having about it.

    I disagree with how you are interacting with JS. You brought up complementarianism as a part of your hounding of them in this comment thread, they did not. They declined to discuss and had not brought it up in this comment thread. You will not let it go and are shading every comment js makes in light of your agenda for what you want to discuss with them. I’ve seen you assign them motive (don’t know JS’ gender so going neutral) without responding to what they’ve actually written.
    Gram3 wrote:

    He is not interested in discussing the real issue that he is complaining about and makes up an excuse for not discussing what he wants to complain about.

    So now not only is JS a cad for being a complementarian you also know that his actual complaint, the one he made at the beginning isn’t really about concern of tarring people with the brush of past associations, no matter how ancient or tenuous, forever. You instead know their true issue. Are you sayin JS is just hiding like a snake in the grass? Why would JS ever want to respond to you, you’re being a bully in my eyes. You’ve now moved the conversation from what they actually said, stated that they have hidden motives and meanings and you are going to force them to respond to your accusations. I don’t blame JS for declining to interact with you, there’s no way for them to get a fair chance or hearing. Because no matter what they repeatedly say, you’re going to bring it back to complementarianism vs egalitarianism.

    But hey, that’s just my perspective. That and $5 dollar will get you a small coffee.

  213. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    but you’ve described JS as part of those trying to steal your mutual deity’s power and abuse the flock.

    Sorry, I missed this part the first time. I do not think it is necessary to conclude that any particular “complementarian” desires to steal God’s power or abuse the flock. What I am talking about is the reality of what they are teaching which, IMO, is covered up by lots of pleasing language. The reality is that if someone purports to be a spiritual authority and to speak for God and then uses God’s authority to say God has said something which God has not said, then I believe that is a case of stealing God’s power. Or at least it is misappropriation. If someone makes a claim about what God has said, then ISTM that the burden of demonstrating that lies with the person making the claim, and particularly so if the claim disadvantages the other person, and most particularly if the other person is precluded from defending herself. Thankfully women are allowed to speak at TWW! If God has not said what they say that God has said, then they are invoking God’s authority and his name in vain. And Christians and Jews are not supposed to do that.

  214. js wrote:

    Gram3 wants me to prove a negative and I’m not wading into a minefield of loaded language.

    You implicitly want the Deebs to prove a negative as well. They must prove that their choice of topic and focus is not inappropriate. I have stated the reasons I believe that “complementarianism” is abusive in itself. You could start the discussion by refuting my argument. That is not the same as asking you to prove a negative, and I’m quite sure you know that.

  215. Faith wrote:

    @ Bridget:

    Was not Jesus dying for a lost world that He loved in of itself glorifying God? Is it not glorifying to God to want humans to be with Him forever in relationship and in eternity? What One has created, One loves?

    Of course it was. But the emphasis the scripture makes is how much God loves us. We cannot reduce that love down to a means to an end.

    We should be very wary of making emphasis the scripture does not make.

  216. Nancy wrote:

    I agree with C S Lewis on this that making either too much of it or too little is an error.

    Definitely. It hasn’t been a problem in my churches except for a few people who fixate on the Spirit of fill-in-the-blank that needs to be defeated.

    On the pseudo-seizure, it is my understanding that they can be provoked and observed, though I may be misremembering, and that it is a reaction by the person’s brain that is totally involuntary. FWIW, I think that the change in terminology is helpful and actually more descriptive or specific or something.

  217. js wrote:

    At what point are leaders in Christendom to frankly appraise other leaders? Should Christian leaders spend all their time “farewelling” each other, or is there a better way? It’s just like what Dee says about church discipline. It’s in the Bible but we better be really careful about how it is applied and churches need to think carefully through what kinds of things are subject to discipline.

    First, thank you for your clarification of your prior reference to church discipline. I did not understand what you meant.

    My opinion is that if someone is a recognized teacher who has taught something that is incorrect, due to that person’s own misunderstanding, then the person has a responsibility to correct that teaching. ISTM that is part of being a recognized teacher. Likewise, if someone who is considered a teacher has previously recommended someone who has, as you said gone off the deep end, then that teacher has a responsibility to warn the flock and rescind the recommendation. Certainly a teacher has a responsibility to exercise great care when endorsing or recommending another teacher, and it is this duty that Piper had failed to meet in the case of Doug Wilson, IMO, because Wilson’s numerous problems were well-known for *decades* before Piper embraced and *defended* Wilson as someone who gets the Gospel right.

    I think your reference to leaders spending their time “farewelling” one another is a bit of a straw man. No one is suggesting such a thing at all. That particular instance was an example of a poor use of Piper’s platform. If he is concerned about Rob Bell, then he needs to address those specific concerns in a that is more productive than a passive-aggressive tweet. I think a much better approach is for “leaders” to show that they actually do believe that leaders are to be held to a higher standard rather than a lower one. That would be a good start.

    I think all leaders should frankly appraise other leaders. The problems we have discussed at TWW include a lot instances where leaders have failed in their basic function as leaders and protectors.

    I think a good definition of a false teacher is a teacher that obscures the true Gospel by either adding to it or taking away from it. Both of those things can occur in various forms. That was the error in Eden, and that is the error Jesus addresses in Revelation. Some people teach false doctrine from deception. They need to be instructed and corrected. Others teach false doctrines to benefit themselves, and they should be exposed and denounced. Doug Wilson fits that category for a number of reasons which are well-known.

  218. @ Gram3:
    It sounds to me that labeling seizures caused by something other than epilepsy as if they are not actual seizure is very unhelpful to those who experience them – especially when it comes to these folks’ being able to get proper diagoses (insofar as it is possible to do so) and treatment.

    I have been reading some, and it does seem like there is considerable lterature, but i also have expeienced docs who were insistent that actual hysical pain (as in, it had a real, diagnosable cause) was “all in my head” to be comfortable relegating those who have such seizures to either some catchall definition of mentally ill, let alone ascribing these seizures to demonic causes.

    Then again, we are not very far past the days when things like evlipses, comets, earthquakes, droughts and more were seen as signs of God’s judgment.it seems wise to be careful about labeling things we don’t understand as either supernatural or else in some category of “pseudo” illnesses.

    Fwiw.

  219. Ted wrote:

    One of the scarier things in the Wikipedia article about the NAR: “This event [“The Response” hosted by 2012 presidential nominee Rick Perry on August 6, 2011] is cited as a sign of the influence of NAR beliefs on Rick Perry’s political viewpoints.[2][9] Other politicians that have been cited as having connections to the NAR are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback,[2] and Ted Cruz.[10]”

    Each and every one of them “GAWD’S ANOINTED CHOICE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT!” of the week.

  220. js wrote:

    It is the same thing here. What doctrines are to be opposed as false teaching?

    All too often it’s “Whatever doctrines YOU have that *I* don’t.”

  221. Gram3 wrote:

    That particular instance was an example of a poor use of Piper’s platform. If he is concerned about Rob Bell, then he needs to address those specific concerns in a that is more productive than a passive-aggressive tweet.

    Hard to get more profound or complex than “I made a poopie!” when using Twitter.

  222. @ numo:

    Yes. My son had a seizure one day just a minute after he got out of a swimming pool. He was rushed to ER as he had never before had a seizure. The ER Dr was sure that some medication that he had been on for months was the cause. Sure enough, stopped the med and he has never had another seizure. The pool situation was a close call. I talked to one lady who was on the same meds for years, started having seizures and it took years to figure out why she was having seizures! The meds were the reason.

  223. Gram3 wrote:

    Sorry, I missed this part the first time. I do not think it is necessary to conclude that any particular “complementarian” desires to steal God’s power or abuse the flock.

    I beg to differ. From above

    Gram3 wrote:

    I’m going to preach a bit here as an apologist for your choices of advocacy, not that you need my help. So JS and other Hierarchicalists, don’t read the rest of this comment or God will be very angry with you. Consider this your trigger warning for Female Teaching.
    ….
    ….
    ….
    If that is not abuse of power, abuse of the Bible, abuse of language, and abuse of people for their own interests, then I do not know what abuse is. It saddens me to see what they will do–up to and including making the Eternal Son an eternally subordinate Person of the Trinity–in order to secure their own positions of power, influence, and wealth. It is pathetic, and there is nothing Biblical or manly about it.

    You tied JS to specific named people as well as telling him and his ilk to avoid reading your sermon there where you label them abusers and supplanting part of your Trinity.

  224. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    I wonder if you would consider dropping the use of the word “unbelievers”? It is uncomfortably close to “infidel,” really.

    Not just “close”, it’s a near-exact synonym.
    Just “infidel” is associated with Islam.
    But the meanings of the words are identical.

    I had to work at dropping Christian jargon after my decades-long sojourn in evangelical/charismatic circles. And since I began doing so, I started to realize how incredibly obscure – and off-putting – it is to those who aren’t part of the club. I mean, you practically need a decoder ring for a lot of it! It excludes people, whereas using plain English doesn’t.

    And that’s the difference between a Technical Language and a Mystery Language.

    A Mystery Language consists of jargon reserved only for the Inner Ring of Illuminati, to freeze out any who are not Specially Anointed and Illuminated. Tribal Shibboleths and Recognition Codes.

  225. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    If you think I’m bullying JS, then that is how you see things, and I will assume you have good reasons for thinking so. If you will bear with me, JS was the one who introduced the idea of complementarianism as possibly being the reason that TWW focuses on TgC and other groups which advocate for it. I responded to that assumption on his part. I do not think it is bullying to respond to an imputation of motive to the Deebs that is/was unwarranted, IMO, since it is my opinion that the System is abusive. That opinion is shared by at least some of the commenters here. I offered an argument but he accused me of saying something which I did not say. It is my opinion that it is not bullying to respond to a false accusation which is proffered as an excuse to refuse further contact. I believe that I have, on at least a few occasions, offered an apology when I have misunderstood someone’s comment, and I believe I have not refused to discuss any matter, and I believe I have asked for clarification when I do not understand. I have never gone to another person’s blog and told them what to say or how to conduct their blog and compiled statistics. I do not accept your characterization of my conduct as bullying, though I do accept that you sincerely believe that and that I may well be wrong about that and this entire thing.

  226. @ Bridget:
    I am so glad your son is OK – and yes, i have heard of/read about this regarding certain medications (re. possible severe side effects) before.

    Frankly, i think some docs are *way* too prejudiced for their ow – and their patients’ – good, and this is one of those things that some,uunfortunately, do not take as seriously as they should. Or else just don’t listen at all, as was the case with the prejudiced docs i encounterd. (Those who assumed i was addicted to pain meds *and* those wo assumed that a very real phyical condition that can cause severe pain was “psychological” and/or that i was making it up. In that case, i can only say that after i underwent major surgery to deal with said physical condition, i have been entirely free of it, albeit minus a few parts of my anatomy. It was a REAL problem that had a real solution, albeit a rather dradtic one.)

  227. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Xtians have used “infidel” in the padt, although it seems like “heretic” has long been the epithet of choice, from early times-today.

    Which is to say: we do it, too. We heap names and more on people when we either don’t like or disagree with what they believe, and much worse, in terms of what has been doneto them. And if religious objections don’t work, we will find soe other way to cast aspersions on them.

    Boy, this makes me sad. But it’s true all the same, so there’s no use in pretending it doesn’t happen.

  228. @ Gram3:
    Gram, i understand why you so dislike complementarianism, but there are times when the going can get a little heavy.

    We are all guilty of belaboring things at times – i am too aware that i do it, and did it today in the comment section of another blog. There are reasons for why i reacted the way i did, but i am sure everyone sees it as overkill, and they would be correct in doing so.

    At any rate, we all have things that kick us into overdrive sometimes.

  229. Much of this comes out of the “Deliverance” movement of the late 1970’s, which was a Pentacostal thing. I don’t think that was mentioned in any of the above posts.

    The real issue is not whether their a territorial spirits or not (they are essentially biblical) but in the errant focus on those spirits. Our focus should be on Christ. I don’t need to know anything about what Satan is doing specifically. It because first spiritual pride to think I do, and then idolatry to focus so much on the enemy I forget the Friend. I battle Satan not by wielding a sword, but by taking every thought captive, serving in Love, and believing the Truth. Its a battle I fight everyday, but its all I need to do. Christ wins in the end, the details of that I can be blissfully oblivious to.

    All much of this theology has vague biblically grounding, its the focus that matters, which should be on Christ our Victor alone.

  230. @ numo:
    I think I was not clear. The term which I first heard to describe the phenomenon was “pseudo-seizure.” To me, that term has at least the possibility of being perceived just as you say, as dismissive and as not a real thing at all.

    The facts are, as I understand them from the neurologist from whom I learned the term, that the person is not experiencing an epileptic seizure but that the person’s brain is acting seizure-like (pseudo) *and* that the episodes are totally involuntary. The person is definitely not malingering or faking the disorder which, to me, might be implied by “pseudo-seizure.”

    Thus, to me at least, the term “non-epileptic seizure” seems more precise and less pejorative. Without going into family details, I have a big interest in this particular person in that particular situation not being dismissed or accused of faking it. That person believed, and I believe, that it was truly an instance of demonic influence/possession/oppression or whatever.

    And as for me personally, I have a disorder/defect which produces seizure-like episodes which on one occasion resulted in a few minutes of unconsciousness. That defect/disorder requires, as a result, that I pre-medicate when I reasonably expect to be exposed to a certain level of a certain stimulus which my brain cannot process correctly and which causes it to misbehave. It also requires that I take another medication, off-label and prescribed by an academic doc, and neither of those medications are on the approved list by the nouthetic/demonic guys. So, believe me, I get it about medications, both pro and con and also the trade-offs. Does that help? I’m with you I think.

  231. I find the link between Wagner and Piper tenuous at best, although I am not a fan of Piper a lot of people have followed and read Wagner. And if it wasn’t Wagner a about 100 books were influenced by him.

    I don’t think Pipers comments are out of context or represent a pattern of false teaching, but like most of us we read things and come away with a couple ideas out of 100.

    This renewed demons however troubling, and although I could find Piper questionable on many things I don’t think its his issue here.

  232. @ Gram3:
    Please seehttp://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Non-Epileptic-Attack-Disorder-(NEAD).htm
    For starters.

    One derogatory term they note is “hysterical seizures.” That comes right after the one you used, albeit i am certain you did not intend to use it in any hurtful way. But it is outmoded, and I’m sure the “pseudo” part of it has a LO to do with that.

  233. @ numo:
    Sorry for non-working link, but hey, you can copy/paste it. Am on phone – not the best for typing.

    Example i meant to say “lot,” rather than LO.

    Oh well.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    JS was the one who introduced the idea of complementarianism as possibly being the reason that TWW focuses on TgC and other groups which advocate for it. I responded to that assumption on his part.

    Mind linking to where js did this in this thread? You brought up complementarianism on this one, not them. If you have an issue with them on another thread why not address it there where it’s germane or link to it. As it stands, JS wouldn’t agree with you so you started getting in their metaphorical face. You’ve stated a lot of terrible things that js has done, but you offer no links, no supporting evidence.

    You don’t need to accept my calling you out on your bullying, I’m nobody to you, just a voice on the internets, like you are to me. But I am a part of the community that is TWW, and more so I’m part of the opposition. I don’t want people to feel bullied and afraid to disagree because the commentariat is going to rip them to shreds because they have different beliefs. The Deebs have never run their comments that way, they welcome all as long as people aren’t abusive. That’s important to me, and I’ll stand up for those being bullied. And I won’t encourage an echo chamber where only those who agree can talk without being hounded.

    If it’s worth anything, I hope the egalitarians win this little argument, because I find complementarianism vile and primitive.

  235. @ Gram3:
    I agree completely re. the term non-epileptic seizure. It sure beats “hysterical seizure” by a country mile!

  236. Ted wrote:

    One of the scarier things in the Wikipedia article about the NAR: “This event [“The Response” hosted by 2012 presidential nominee Rick Perry on August 6, 2011] is cited as a sign of the influence of NAR beliefs on Rick Perry’s political viewpoints.[2][9] Other politicians that have been cited as having connections to the NAR are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback,[2] and Ted Cruz.[10]”

    Doesn’t scare me, if I’m honest; because I followed up on the citations. Oddly enough, Wikipedia itself (of which I too am a big fan) advises caution with passive-voice phrases like “is cited” – it calls them “weasel words”. Personally I’d prefer something a little less pejorative-sounding, but I embrace the principle; when I read that kind of thing I start to wonder: cited by whom, in what context, and to what end? What are “connections” with Tina FeySarah Palin? Has NAR influenced Rick Perry, or the other way around; or has neither much influenced the other at all? Well, it turns out, cited by a watchdog group that comments on the religious right, and whom I’d expect to say that kind of thing.

    The cited article describes said watchdog group as “left-leaning”. I too am left-leaning – especially when it comes to macroeconomics – so my sympathies lie with them, if indeed the cited article represents them fairly and accurately. If NAR-folk are trusting in right-wing politics to bring in the Kingdom of God, then unless I’ve completely misunderstood the Kingdom, they are deluded. But I doubt whether they can actually do any more damage than Reaganomics has already done (or Thatcherism, if you’re on this side of the pond), nor make the Right any more Right (for better or worse) than it is.

    All this to say: I agree about not finding demons under every stone, but by the same token, I don’t worry about secret religious alliances behind every dodgy piece of legislation either.

    P.S. Tina Fey provides an important satirical service, IMHO.

  237. numo wrote:

    i am sure everyone sees it as overkill, and they would be correct in doing so.

    That may well be true. It certainly is true that some view certain things as overkill. One person’s overkill is another person’s response to either personal experience or the experience of people they care about. When people have been hurt, I try to give them some room, even when their hurt is not one I have personally experienced and especially when it is something I most likely never will experience. That is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior, but just the reality of being humans in a world that is hurtful. TWW is considered overkill on the abuse issue by those who do not want to hear what we have to say. Same for SGM Survivors, etc.

  238. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    If it’s worth anything, I hope the egalitarians win this little argument, because I find complementarianism vile and primitive.

    I am sure it will come as a great relief to you to know that I can declare you correct in this regard.

  239. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Sorry, Nick, but i think you misunderstand the very real involvement of Rick Perry and many other politicians with the NAR.

    Therebare far better sources for this than the Wiki artivle, but iirc, we have had a clash over this before, to no effect. I am sure Dee can recount the intersection of religion and politics in TX far better than i can, if only because she lived there in days gone by.

    I knew people in Congress and in politically appointed jobs on the Hill, back in the 80s-00s, who were very derply involved in the NAR. as it happens, they all belonged to churches i was part of. In one case, the congressman brought his “ppersonal pastor” to Washington and proceeded to start a church. This was during Reagan’s 2nd term. They also made common cause with Rushdoony-type Reconstructionists.

  240. @ numo:
    I mean that the person was non-responsive and not breathing for a long enough period that the people witnessing the episodes feared the worst and summoned medical help. Numerous times. The medical personnel who were locals were the ones who recommended evacuation. The people involved were convinced that it was a medical condition, but the local doctors suggested it might be what we would call demonic activity. I’m not saying it was or was not but that there does not seem to be an entirely satisfactory answer. Though I was not present for any of the events, the person is someone I’ve known for a long time who is a serious individual and who is much braver than I.

  241. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I don’t want people to feel bullied and afraid to disagree because the commentariat is going to rip them to shreds because they have different beliefs.

    Frivolity aside, I respect and appreciate both this sentiment in particular and your input to TWW more generally. It is indeed a community, and one that I am glad to share with you.

  242. @ Gram3:
    I guess i was not clear. Sometimes it can be good to let things rest for awhile.

    I am inclined to hammering too hard on things, and i learned it from one of my folks. I am a lot like that parent.

    Youmknow that old quote, “Discretion is the better part of valor”? I am still learning how to pull that off, and will be for the rest of my life.

  243. numo wrote:

    hysterical seizures

    Words fail. I would never have heard the pseudo term except for the neurologist who mentioned it to me, and I certainly would not ever intentionally hurt someone who is already hurt or marginalized. Not that I haven’t done it unintentionally or ignorantly.

  244. Gram3 wrote:

    numo wrote:

    hysterical seizures

    Words fail. I would never have heard the pseudo term except for the neurologist who mentioned it to me, and I certainly would not ever intentionally hurt someone who is already hurt or marginalized. Not that I haven’t done it unintentionally or ignorantly.

    In Victorian times, “hysteria” or “hysterical” was an affliction ONLY of women, and the standard treatment for hysteria was Hysterectomy.

  245. @ numo:
    Imwas kind of thrown into the “common cause with Reconstructionists” circle, and it was vety hard for me. I wss glad to get out! The people there wrre all charismatics with very, very close ties to both the Ft. Lauderdale Five and what is now called the NAR, but which had no name back then, in the mid-late 80s.

    Fwiw, these are the people who believed that “This Present Darkness” was not fictionsl, but a literal depiction of reality.

    It sounds like you have never been around this kind of mixture of fringe relions + politics. Since you have not, perhaps you might be eilling to listen to those who have? it is about all i can adk for at thismpoint – that you listen to us. I do not
    believe you have anything quite like this in the UK, though you do indeed have have NAR-related folks who would like to make these kinds of things an isdue. Some are associated with YWAM, while others (like Charlie Cleverly, the rector at St. Aldates, Oxford) have other alignments. I am all too aware of this because the Head Honcho of That Church knows them and is besties with some of them. His father, in turn, was an “apostle” of a certain blend of charismaticism back in the 50s and 60s, and became closely associated with YWAM. Head honcho is still a DTS leader, as well as being all too coxy with (craxy) former YWAM biggie George Otis, Jr. – the one who promotes driving out territorial demons as the cure for all social and political ills.

  246. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Mind linking to where js did this in this thread?

    I don’t know how to link to the specific comments by either of us, but IIRC it was on the Kevin DeYoung thread this past week. Maybe someone else can help with that or with my recollection.

    FWIW, I think that we are all a community, and JS is part of that as well. And I think that means that we need to act in good faith toward one another. I disagree that I have hounded him, and I did not know that it was unacceptable to continue from a previous thread. But that wouldn’t be the first time I broke a rule of netiquette in ignorance. If you think I’ve bullied someone, then I think that you should say so as a member of the community. That seems to be one of the points of having a community if I understand the concept correctly. Everyone must be convinced in their own mind for their own reasons.

  247. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    js wrote:

    It is the same thing here. What doctrines are to be opposed as false teaching?

    All too often it’s “Whatever doctrines YOU have that *I* don’t.”

    That is all too often true HUG, on all sides.

  248. @ Gram3:
    Of course you never intended to, and i know that.

    But “pseudo” is not a good way for any doc to approach real things, I’m thinking, because it asdumes that they have no physiological cause. Hysterical is certainly laden with Freudian ideas about women, too.

    As it happens, the real physical problem i had, which,produced severe pain but which was brushed off by dome docs, was an ob/gyn problem. So you can see why I’m kinda touchy about that, yes?

  249. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I think i am skeptical of the local doctors’ opinion…

    And I have no idea either way. It was very weird.

  250. @ Gram3:
    I am baffled as to how these episodes would be labeled as the result of supernatural forces, but i also realize that going into any detail would not be wise, on a public forum, so i need to let it rest.

  251. @ numo:
    Also, fwiw, i *hate* sounding like i belive in some kind of conspiracy theory. That’s one of the reasons i could not mske sense of many things that i encounterd from the mid 80s-early 00s. One doesn’t have to be of any spevific political persuasion to start connecting vety real dots in an accurate way, though.

    Which is why i am thankful for researchers and serious investigative journalists like Jeff Sharlet snd Rachel Tabatchnik. Unfortunately, too many people aren inclined to see the NAR as simply fringe crazies. Most are, but not all, and it’s those in the “not all” category who are genuinely scary.

  252. numo wrote:

    So you can see why I’m kinda touchy about that, yes?

    Numo, trust me, we are on the same page about this issue. The neurologist was not being demeaning but was actually trying to help when it was a very inconvenient thing to do. I admit I bristled at it, but it was just the term that was used at the time, and everyone knew that it was definitely a real and involuntary thing.

    I won’t get more autobiographical, but my defect/disorder was not even objectively detectable until fairly recently with advances in technology as well as a plausible mechanism due to animal studies. There wasn’t a “reason” for very real suffering that is experienced only subjectively. So, I thought I was “crazy” as well, in addition to very real physical suffering that no one else understood or even could understand. So I get it. I really get it. And I am very thankful that there are some doctors and other researchers who are both observant and who think outside the box enough to do ask questions and investigate weird stuff and who are curious enough to try to figure out what is going on. I try very hard not to dismiss other people’s pain as being insignificant, even if I’ve not experienced it personally.

  253. numo wrote:

    Also, fwiw, i *hate* sounding like i belive in some kind of conspiracy theory. That’s one of the reasons i could not mske sense of many things that i encounterd from the mid 80s-early 00s.

    Setting aside the political aspect, I think it is important to realize that there are many people, like me, who do not have any concept of what goes on or how the thinking goes in the NAR. We have not been on the inside, and we do not know what that reality looks like. I’m interested and sympathetic, but totally clueless except for the points of similarity with generic dominionism which I do know a little about.

  254. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I am baffled as to how these episodes would be labeled as the result of supernatural forces, but i also realize that going into any detail would not be wise, on a public forum, so i need to let it rest.

    Yes, probably so. In general I think that at least some medical professionals in cultures where animistic beliefs are widely held are more open to the possibility of what we call demonic activity. I have never lived or even visited a country where animism is a thing, so I don’t have first-hand experience with it. I don’t know how prevalent that openness is in the medical community in those cultures, and I don’t know if that openness is due to cultural pre-conditioning or whether it is due to observation of many more cases without obvious medical explanations. That’s why I said it was an anecdote. I really don’t know, and I don’t have any basis for saying one way or the other. However, I can certainly understand your skepticism after what you have been through and seen.

  255. numo wrote:

    I think i am skeptical of the local doctors’ opinion…

    I have never ever in any way at any time heard any doctor suggest that anything that he saw in this country was of demonic origin. I can’t speak for missionary doctors on the field. If people came back for the ER or wherever and said the doctor suggested demons as the cause of something I would (a) doubt that they had heard correctly or else (b) write a letter to the doctor’s employer (if a hospital) or to the medical board if not. And by and large I do not overreact to stuff, but this is over the cliff.

    Now I have said that I will not second guess Jesus about the exorcism of either the young lad or the demoniac in the cemetery, but that is because it is Jesus. Who knows what the condition was or what the cause was in those cases? Why would I open that can of worms?

    And I have postulated if a and also if b then possibly… But if not a and/or not b then obviously not. That is purely hypothetical and is meant to show how thinking might go in a certain way in circumstances where there is so little knowledge. Again why would I open that can or worms since we do not know a or b. But that is exactly the point. We Do Not Know A Lot Of Stuff.

  256. numo wrote:

    But “pseudo” is not a good way for any doc to approach real things, I’m thinking, because it asdumes that they have no physiological cause.

    Pseudo is used in medicine in another way, or another way also. Google the term pseudotumor cerebri and you will see how it is used. In that case it means that the symptoms and signs of increased intracranial pressure are consistent with what one sees with an intracranial tumor but actually this is a different condition and not a tumor. Nobody is suggesting that it is not real or not pathologic or not anatomic or not physiologic etc. It is merely that it looks like it might be one thing but in fact is something different.

  257. Van wrote:

    I find the link between Wagner and Piper tenuous at best

    I was not linking the two of them for time and for eternity. I was tying to demonstrate how Peter Wagner’s rather interesting beliefs found a niche into the more general evangelical culture. I find it interesting that Piper endorsed Wagner’s thoughts in back in1992.

  258. I do not have a copy of the new DSM V, but in previous DSMs one could find some descriptions of various conditions that occur in various cultures but not here. The diagnostic significance is that if one sees that behavior in that culture then don’t diagnose it like you would if you saw that or similar behavior here in a culture where we don’t do that. I can’t remember all the names of the stuff, but amok sticks in the mind. I believe that in some culture people suffer from amok and basically we do not. Nobody in the DSM was suggesting that it was demonic, but rather cultural. These were frequent and identifiable and culture related syndromes they were listing.

    What I saw in Africa was not a syndrome but rather a worship service. A strange one but one nevertheless where they invoked the spirits deliberately. Totally different idea than some medical or psychiatric syndrome. No physician in his right mind is so bad off that he cannot tell the difference between an individual med/psych condition and a corporate worship service. Is it a bunch of people participating in some ritualized behavior? Then is it not just some person having a ‘condition.’ These are different things.

  259. On a brighter note. At church tonight Father S told us the following. Some woman in the congregation in some way or other ran into a christian refugee couple from some middle east place where ISIS had destroyed their town. The gov relocated them here under the relocation program I have described before. They are arabic speaking, and maybe something else but the something else is not English. Anyhow, on christmas eve at the big vigil at our church they came and, for some reason and not knowing about these people Father S had somehow obtained some arabic symbol for the nazarene and incorporated that somehow in the creche. Father S is a piece of work and is always doing something unexpected. Anyhow, there it was. The couple could not get over it, put it on their facebook page and spread the word and now they come to our church, language problem or not. So next week the people involved in this have a meeting with our congressional representative (Virginia Foxx) to see if she can help us track down some more of these people and see if we can help them.

    So there you go. Merry Christmas and He is Risen all in one bundle.

  260. numo wrote:

    Gram, i understand why you so dislike complementarianism, but there are times when the going can get a little heavy.

    Let’s talk about a general idea instead of an instance. If we are talking about abuse of any kind in the abstract, then the participants in the discussion who object to abuse will almost certainly object to that abuse. Those who know a particular individual who has been abused are going to have a rather different response. Those who are the parents or grandparents of the person who was abused are going to have yet another kind of response. Shall we say that one is not concerned enough or that one is concerned too much about the incident in question? Shall we say that one is not concerned enough about that kind of abuse in general or that another is too fixated on that kind of abuse in general? Shall we say that one is not sufficiently concerned about the circumstances or institutions or ideologies which either foster or harbor that kind of abuse or shall we say that another person is too fixated on these factors or root causes or incubators for bad behavior?

    Let me humbly suggest that the people who have a close relationship with that person and have wept with that person and have walked with that person through the grief of the abuse are going to have a much different perspective on the abstract concept of abuse. If they are or have been an insider in a system or institution or ideology which either turns a blind eye to or fosters abuse or shames those who have been abused and encourages the abusers, then they are going to have a different perspective on that system which people who have not been on the inside or who have not had one of their children or grandchildren or other person close to them abused simply will not have. There is no way that they could have.

    None of my children or grandchildren, to my knowledge, has been molested, but I understand the intensity of the people who have to the extent that I possibly can. I have not been behind the scenes of an abusive church like SGM or the other ones where child abuse is an issue. But I understand the outrage that people who have feel toward those institutions or ideologies. I also realize that I do not have a face for those abuses, much less a face I look into all the time.

    However, I do have the dear face of someone who has been bullied by a pastor. And his wife. And others in that church. Because she would not submit to a man who had been poisoned by corrupt doctrine and thought he was entitled to rule over her because God said so. And whose friends bullied her because she rebelled against his tyranny. Who was intimidated by this man to the the extent that the police had to intervene. Who was really bullied by church leaders and members until they were strongly urged not to continue to pursue that by this woman’s family. This is someone I love and someone I will defend, along with many others like her whose names and faces I do not know. And I will do that even though I will never be subjected to that abuse myself. I know what caused it because I’ve seen how it happened to her and what it did to her and her trust in men and in the church.

    I know what caused it because I experienced what happened when I dared to question the System that teaches and encourages such thinking and behavior. It had crept into a different church. In a different place. But both were infected by the same poisonous doctrine which cannot be questioned because God Says So.

    Some people say that consensual sexual contact between an adult in a position of influence and a teenager is not abusive. Some people like me vehemently disagree now and disagreed at the time it happened. Others shrugged it off as a difference of opinion and what’s the big deal.

    Some people say that one person asserting authority over another person by divine right is not abusive. Other people vehemently disagree, and I believe there are good reasons for that. Some of those reasons have faces and names.

    There is another young couple I love who was abused by a pastor who did not like to be questioned. This was not about comp/egal but rather it was about a man’s assumed entitlement to power and position without being questioned, even by his clergy peers. He refused to discuss it because he knows what God says.

    Abuse happens when people use the power they have or the power they assume they have or the informal power they have due to people’s good will to use other people for their own purposes. Even when it is covered with justification using Bible verses. Complementarianism and clergy authoritarianism just happen to be the kinds of abuse that have faces I love.

  261. @ Nancy:
    Just to be very clear, the physicians who *suggested* the possibility of what we call demonic activity did not diagnose it as such. They couldn’t make a medical diagnosis because they did not have the means to do so. That is why they strongly insisted that the person be evacuated to the States to be properly evaluated. In other words, they knew the constraints under which they were operating and they knew there wasn’t anything else they could do. They were not missionary doctors but rather local physicians. None, zero, of the physicians here either diagnosed or even hinted at demonic action. As a medical matter, it remains undiagnosed conclusively (whatever that means), and ISTM that a medical doctor would not think of diagnosing demon activity. Those two things don’t seem to go together to me.

    Very interesting about the DSM and cultural behaviors. I had no idea, but as we have discovered, I am clueless about many, many things. Thanks for that info.

  262. @ Gram3:
    I am so sorry you had to go through all of yhat, the “crazy” part especially, and i am so glad this doc helped you. Doesn’t matter whst tetms he used!

    I have not been through the same kind of ordeal, but i understand at leadt some of what you are saying and am SO glad you finally got a medical diagnosis and help.

  263. Jeff S wrote:

    @ Victorious:
    I’m glad you found that helpful In my opinion, all of Piper’s errors can be traced back to not valuing the dignity of humans high enough. I laid out my argument for that in a blog post (back when I was actually blogging):
    http://lovewithoutfear.net/2014/12/30/why-i-believe-the-evangelical-church-needs-to-stop-listening-to-john-piper-and-those-like-him/

    This was a great blog post.

    I propose that Piper is a narcissist who gets his supply from his adoring Christian fans. 🙁 Therefore, Piper’s God is a narcissistic God.

  264. @ Gram3:
    I hear you, though am thinking it might help, when responding to people who are on the opposite side of this, to say why you feel so strongly – that it is precisely because you’ve known people who have been harmed by it all.

    That puts a human face on it, instead of it being theological or something that can be viewed solely in an abstract way (as if it was just a series of logical propositions).

  265. @ Nancy:
    Thanks, and that was ringing a distant bell for me after i wrote those comments. Still, i fear that in this specific instance, pseudo has bern used by some to write off those who experience seizures that aren’t from epilepsy, as with the earlier term hysterical seizures.

    As for amok and other culturally-based psychiatric problems, i think those things definitely should be in the DSM.

  266. @ Gram3:
    Listen, it doesn’t make much sense to me, either, so i cannot begin to imagine how baffling it must be to you and to others who have not encounteted it in some form.

    Laying aside partisan politics, it really is pretty well impossible to avoid talking about the fact that the NAR wants to “take dominion over” all spheres ov society and culture: science, finance and business, the arts, popular entertainment, and all aspects of goverment. They believe they have a divine mandate to do this, but they believe that they need to keep a relatively low profile and infiltrate all of these spheres via some kind of stealth takeover. I wish i was making that up, but i am not.

  267. @ Gram3:
    Just because a doc or scientist grew up around certain beliefs does not necessarily mean that they give any credence to those beliefs, if only because of their training. They are called upon to question things, even when it’s uncomfortable, and to try and keep their personal brliefs ofv the job.

  268. dee wrote:

    That always causes me concern. Did you know that some of the Neo-Calvinists have been told to answer a person who asks if they are Calvinists this way. “I don’t know what you mean by Calvinism but i believe in grace, just like you do.” Bogus!

    I saw a TV interview with a member of Westboro Baptist, who represent the ultimate end of reformed theology. The lady, when asked what she believed, spat out: “We believe in the doctrines of grace.”

  269. Law Prof wrote:

    I saw a TV interview with a member of Westboro Baptist, who represent the ultimate end of reformed theology. The lady, when asked what she believed, spat out: “We believe in the doctrines of grace.

    Now that is a comment which I will quote many times in the days to come. Thank you!

  270. js wrote:

    What I see Paul doing in his “I opposed Peter to his face” moments is opposing strongly the kind of teaching which adds to, changes or obscures the gospel or the flourishing of the gospel.

    Exactly, that is precisely why I’m opposing people like Piper, Drsicoll, the T4G crowd, Mahaney, Furtick, Dever, and your “tut tutting” of those who expose evil and tacit support of those who promote in the name of God. I know shifty when I see it, call it as I see it. You’re shifty.

  271. Gram3 wrote:

    They have taken “Do not let them despise your youth” as their life verse, and their interpretation is basically that any given young person can be as wise as any given older, seasoned saint. No, seriously.

    I see you met a former pastor I had.

    I’ve been offline for two days conducting an exorcism on a Windows server that was misbehaving. In the meantime a lot has transpired on this thread. It always nice when God
    chimes in.

  272. Law Prof wrote:

    I saw a TV interview with a member of Westboro Baptist, who represent the ultimate end of reformed theology. The lady, when asked what she believed, spat out: “We believe in the doctrines of grace.”

    . . . and the demons believe in Jesus.

  273. numo wrote:

    That puts a human face on it, instead of it being theological or something that can be viewed solely in an abstract way

    I thought I had done that in various interactions. I have to be careful because there are other people to consider. It’s a balance. There is a reason I take a somewhat theological approach, and that is because a false mask has been put on what is marketed as “serious” theology, and I think it is important to expose the errors where the lie, so to speak, and refute those errors which cause so much pain to people.

    But, at my heart, I am about people, real people. When Sam commented here and brian about their physical challenges, I had a face for them, though I don’t know them. Same for Daisy, and recently Guest. I don’t know Mirele, but I have a face for someone who sounds a lot like her. I don’t know Nick, but I know someone who has some of the difficulties he faces. That’s just the way I think.

    Now, the flip side of that is that when someone comes on here saying what I *interpret* as saying don’t talk about what that particular person does not think is abusive, then the face I see is the face of the other people who have told me “Don’t say that to anyone because it’s divisive.” Or “You can’t say that. We are the authorities, and God says you must obey us.” Or “We don’t have to answer you because you are commanded to listen to us because that is what God/the Bible says.” Or “You are only saying that because you are or have been influenced by liberals/feminists who doesn’t believe the Bible and don’t want to obey God.” Or “She’s in rebellion against God and the church.” Or “We don’t have to talk to you, and we will say whatever we choose to say [and there is nothing you can do about it and we can make life difficult for people you care about because of you.]” Or “She needs to get used to obeying me.”

    I do not say that to justify any bad behavior on my part, if I behaved inappropriately. I think there are people who believe that authoritarianism and thoughtcrime thoughtpolicing is not part of this particular system because of certain personalities. Or for some other reason like maybe they never thought about it in quite that way.

    Honestly, I am not concerned about JS’ welfare in a combox in the way that I am concerned with people like Guest or Daisy or the women who have bravely put up their stories who have experienced the reality of authoritarian systems. I wish that JS would not adopt the hard-hearted thinking of Piper, and I wish that he would work with people like me within the conservative church to prevent more pain.

    WRT dominionism, I have written some here about Rushdoony, and I think that he is the reason for Gothard, though I have never been able to connect those dots despite trying for a few decades. And then there is Father Bill of Five Aspects. As a result, I’ve been exposed to hard-core patriarchy and racialism. People at TgC pal around with Peter Leithart as if he is OK. They truly have no idea. I did not know about NAR, but when I read Brad’s stuff, it seemed very familiar because it is another form of Power religion. And true Christianity is not about taking power and dominion, except over individual selves, perhaps. In fact, that might be something close to a litmus test. Anyway, what you have to say about it is interesting and new to me.

  274. @ numo:
    No, it doesn’t mean anything necessarily. As I said, I don’t know why that physician in that culture *suggested* that as a possibility, but I do know that the physician was not making a diagnosis and that same physician insisted that the person be evacuated to a very good institution here for a thorough evaluation. Beyond that, I don’t know. A lot of things. I’m not a physician and I didn’t grow up observing an animistic culture and what goes on. I just talk to lots of people and listen to their stories, including missionary stories. It just happens that this person is one I’ve known for a long time, unlike some other stories I’ve heard. The longer I’ve lived, the easier it has become for me to say, “I don’t know, and I have no way of knowing for sure.”

  275. Law Prof wrote:

    js wrote:
    What I see Paul doing in his “I opposed Peter to his face” moments is opposing strongly the kind of teaching which adds to, changes or obscures the gospel or the flourishing of the gospel.
    Exactly, that is precisely why I’m opposing people like Piper, Drsicoll, the T4G crowd, Mahaney, Furtick, Dever, and your “tut tutting” of those who expose evil and tacit support of those who promote in the name of God. I know shifty when I see it, call it as I see it. You’re shifty.

    Seeking clarity is not shiftiness. Did Paul condemn Peter as a false teacher? No. Did Paul tell people to avoid Peter like the plague because of his errant stance? No evidence of that. Paul said Peter was wrong and said so to him publicly. Did Paul go on a crusade to defame Peter over this event recounted in Galatians? No evidence of that. Did Paul always remind people about what Peter had done in Galatia? We have no record of such. It may have been that Paul “farewelled” Peter somewhere along the way, but we don’t have any evidence that points in that direction. Peter seems to think highly of Paul in his letters (even if he does see his writings as difficult to understand). These two disagreed strongly but did not lose respect for each other or attack the other’s ministries. From what we know of Paul he was not about promoting or defaming ministry personalities, He was about preaching Christ. I’m not here to bow before Piper or Keller or anyone else and when I think they are wrong, I will say so. I don’t think their positions amount to a false gospel and I will not call them false teachers at this point. They may go down that path as may any teacher but they are not there yet, in my opinion. You seem to think they are false teachers. You are entitled to that view and I fully support your right to that view. I ask for the same respect for my view without being accused of having some hidden agenda. Even if you don’t agree with me I wish you wouldn’t question my honesty or tag me with some sort of sly debate trickery. I think I have been as forthright and truthful in what I have said, and I admit that I could be wrong about some things.

  276. @ numo:
    Thank you, Numo, and I am likewise thankful that you found some relief. I will say that the good thing about that complex of experiences is that I have a great deal more empathy for people who are struggling with all kinds of life difficulties and not just medical ones. Let’s just say I’ve personally had a very, very easy life, due not to myself. And I have been complacent about things I should not have been complacent about, and I have not appreciated things which are truly undeserved and unrecognized blessings.

  277. js wrote:

    As far as I can ascertain, Wagner didn’t come into this Latter Rain stuff until the 90s,

    I have no idea what is meant by this, but Wagner mentions 1993.. Spheres of Authority p.15

    ..I really didn’t tune in strongly to the apostolic movement until 1993 when I received a clear new assignment from God..

    This means? An appearance/vision?

  278. Van wrote:

    Our focus should be on Christ. I don’t need to know anything about what Satan is doing specifically. It because first spiritual pride to think I do, and then idolatry to focus so much on the enemy I forget the Friend. I battle Satan not by wielding a sword, but by taking every thought captive, serving in Love, and believing the Truth. Its a battle I fight everyday, but its all I need to do. Christ wins in the end

    Sorry I missed this earlier! That is very well said. Thank you for reminding us/me to keep focused on Who and what is true rather than the defeated enemy.

  279. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I hear you, though am thinking it might help, when responding to people who are on the opposite side of this, to say why you feel so strongly – that it is precisely because you’ve known people who have been harmed by it all.
    That puts a human face on it, instead of it being theological or something that can be viewed solely in an abstract way (as if it was just a series of logical propositions).

    Allow me if you will to put my human face on it. The experience of believers I know and have known for years in complementarian relationships is much more favorable than those I have heard about in this forum. I am truly sorry for the bad experiences of others but the experience of my family with this view has been good. We do not view it as hierarchical or abusive. I believe leadership exists in all sorts of spheres in society and there is a leadership dimension given to the father in the home and to the pastors/elders in the church. Both function as leaders through sacrifice and service. Just as I would not say because some politicians or police officers are bad we should not have police or other God-given governing authorities (I’m still thinking about the politicians part :)) so I will not say because some people misuse complementarian views we should discard the view, because I believe it best accords with Scripture. Every complementarian couple in our church I can think of except one seems to have a strong marriage, a happy family and much blessing through the relationship as they have tried to define it biblically. In the last ten years we have had four divorces in our church. None of them was among a complementarian couple. It wasn’t the comps who walked out on their wives or husbands or hooked up with their high school sweethearts or otherwise abandoned their commitment to marriage and left their kids in the dust. But I would never take this to mean therefore that because several non-comp relationships in our church ended in divorce and because most of the worst marriages are among non-comps that the non-comp position must promote abuse. I am one person in one place and I can’t form a full picture of the rightness of a thing just from my experiences. So my experience is much different on this score than many of you. In our church, everyone is able to ask questions and discuss things and come to different conclusions. Bruce Jenner got some interesting conversations going last week and not everybody agreed on all aspects of the discussion. Some of the most biblically literate, spiritually mature and competent women in our church are in comp relationships. We have a strong core of spiritually mature men and most of them are in comp relationships. But we understand that one does not have to hold the comp view to be a Christian. We have non-comp people in leadership among the deacons and have no statement of faith or covenant to sign regarding comp teaching. It is there among us in a significant group in the church but it is not the gospel. And there are many spiritually healthy non-comps among us every Sunday. And in our setting it doesn’t hinder the gospel as far as I can see but seems to promote spiritual health among many. I know with the experiences some of you have been through that you can’t imagine what I am telling you is true and our church is certainly far from perfect. But one thing I know, some of the most devoted and biblically knowledgeable and loving Christians I know hold to this view. I am sorry others distort it and have damaged you. Just as we shouldn’t take the Westboro crew as the poster children for Calvinism, I think we stand on shaky ground making the worst applications of the comp view the standard. Many of the best things in life are subject to distortion, subject to be highjacked by sinful people who would use any means to exercise power for selfish gain.

  280. nathan Priddis wrote:

    Do you know much about Gothard?

    Not personally, and he was not as big an issue formally in the churches I’ve been in since about the early-mid 80’s. However, his teaching was definitely a thing, almost an assumed thing, in the 70’s where we were. That was also about the time people started talking Reconstructionism, though Rushdoony was before that. It just struck me that the ideas were very similar, though not identical at the time. The way I would put it is that Gothard seems to me, in retrospect, to have popularized the basic outline of Rushdoony’s authoritarian and law-based Christianity. But, viewed from another perspective, Gothard had a lot in common with what we used to call “Independent” Baptists who were all about rules and such, and that isn’t the same foundation as Rushdoony was building on which was what I would consider a perversion of classical Reformed theology. It is my opinion, in retrospect, that Christian homeschooling helped to blend the two. Rushdoony certainly was involved in the thinking behind what we now see in the Complementarian ideology. Was Grudem or Piper or Knight influenced by Rushdoony in the 70’s via Westminster and the OPC? I don’t know, but they seem to be drinking the same stuff. Gothard was from Wheaton, so he fits better with Father Bill’s background, IIRC. In any case, the cure for whatever ails anyone is more authority, more law and rules, and less Spirit.

    Someday someone will sort out the 70’s, but it will probably not be in my lifetime.

  281. js wrote:

    I think we stand on shaky ground making the worst applications of the comp view the standard. Many of the best things in life are subject to distortion, subject to be highjacked by sinful people who would use any means to exercise power for selfish gain.

    That is certainly true. Bad experiences alone do not necessarily discredit a theory or an ideology or a theology. Good experiences alone do not necessarily validate a theory or an ideology or a theology. For conservative evangelicals, however, experience is not the test. The test is what does the best textual evidence say, without adding to it or subtracting from it, and what does it mean, using a consistent and standard grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

    The problem is that those criteria are not met by the Complementarian system, as I’ve endeavored to demonstrate. I’m not asking for special treatment of the gender texts. I’m asking for consistent application of the hermeneutic and for consistent application of the accepted principles of reasoning with which Paul was familiar. I’m asking for consistent rules and not ones that are designed to yield a particular result.

    Those are not radical requests, and the people who promote Complementarianism as a system would object if others used a subjective hermeneutic to support their issue. And they would be correct to do so! Either we decide we are going to have rules and principles, or we decide that anything goes. It is my understanding that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the accepted one among conservative exegetes. Yet the Comps do not follow that consistently when it comes to the gender texts, and I do not understand why this fact along with the edits they make to the textual evidence is not a scandal among those who claim to support inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, and the authority and sufficiency of the text.

    Obviously, for people who don’t have those presuppositions, this whole discussion doesn’t make a lot of sense. But there are people, like me, who affirm those faith positions and also say we should be willing to always examine our understanding because people are not infallible and interpretations are not inerrant. Sola scriptura should mean something. Semper reformanda should mean semper. We have texts and we have an accepted method of interpreting those texts. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

  282. God wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I agree with Nick.

    – God

    Dear God,
    If I message the Deebs my number can you give me a call because I have questions.
    Thanks
    Beakerj

  283. @ js:
    I have a request: could you please break your long comments (llike this one) into paragraphs? They would be much easier to read if you did so.

    Beyond that, let’s just say that i strongly disagree with what you’re saying.

  284. @ js:
    It might well be that these comp relationships are functionally egalitarian, in many cases.

    As for me, i have never wanted to be martied to a man who canmot accept me as an equal partner in decision-making and in every other aspect of life. It just doesn’t make sense to me – never has, and never will.

  285. @ Gram3:
    I’m glad you find what i have to say interesting, as i wasn’t sure it made much sense to people who haven’t encounteted it for themselves.

    Frankly, it is all very convoluted and nonsensical, imo, and awfully hard to “explain” in a coherent manner. I think Dee is doing an excellent job.

  286. dee wrote:

    Now, let me throw out something I struggle with. Many fits and seizures were actually caused by epilepsy. Epilepsy is not discussed in the Bible. I have to admit i wonder at times if some of those fits were caused by a disease, not a demon. I am trying to be honest here.

    Let me say at once if it is not blatantly obvious I am not a ‘deliverance expert’ or guru.

    What I have found is the description of the demonic in the bible still has its counterpart in modern experience. To the limited extent I have seen this, it was in connection with those dabbling in the occult (or perverted sex). It’s real. (This is worth at least as much as an M.Div or even PhD without such experience!!)

    I don’t think when Jesus ministered ‘deliverance’ he was accommodating himself to the primitive understanding of the times. He healed when it was physical illness, and cast out demons when this was the problem. But it was a unique period in world history.

    I don’t know about epilepsy – I have always assumed it was at root a physical illness. The NT does allow for spirits of infirmity, so some physical illnesses may have a demonic component or origin.

    Modern medicine can deal with physical illness; to attempt to deal with anything demonic requires that to one is given through the Spirit … the ability to distinguish between spirits or in short discernment (I know this has a wider application than just dealing with actual demons and includes discerning the ‘inspiration’ behind false doctrine).

    Add to the mix that some people can learn to fake the symptoms of being demonised in order to get attention for themselves.

    If I’ve learnt anything about this, it is that we are fools to entertain sin in ouir lives; this can bring us into spiritual oppression through our rank disobedience. The sins of others can likewise have this effect.

    I’m sorry, I doubt if that helps much! I would like to echo something Victorius said in the depths of this thread: it is far more important our names are written in the Book of Life than the spirits are subject to us.

  287. Beakerj wrote:

    Dear God,
    If I message the Deebs my number can you give me a call because I have questions.
    Thanks
    Beakerj

    You are not alone in this.

    Being omniscient, I obviously know everybody’s number already. However, it’s more important to me to respect people than to flash my omniscience around, so I am rigorous with data protection.

    Deebs may be able to think of a suitable intermediary, though!

    Best regards,
    God

  288. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know Nick, but I know someone who has some of the difficulties he faces.

    You mean, someone who’s trying to learn the Rach 3 ossia cadenza? The difficulties are indeed formidable..!

    🙂

  289. Just from reading the remarks here I think that the js attitude comes across as more people friendly that either end of the continuum where people insist that their understanding of scripture is right and the other is wrong and try to beat up on each other about it. God is not trying to destroy people, and what works for people is a huge clue, not just some hide bound understanding of some portion of scripture and the desire to force other people to do it one way and only one regardless of what that does to human beings. And I see that destructive attitude expressed on both sides of this issue. But I must have a missing portion of scripture because I do not see where we are saved by doctrine, or by the nature of our marital relationships either way.

  290. God wrote:

    Being omniscient, I obviously know everybody’s number already. However, it’s more important to me to respect people than to flash my omniscience around, so I am rigorous with data protection.

    Well, we are going to have to have a little discussion about this, because there are times when I personally got into some situation which might have been avoided if You maybe had given me a few more answers. I am not trying to be disrespectful here, but some of us feel at some level that you may have hung us out to dry on occasion. I mean, what does that do in some relationship? So like I said, time will come when we have to talk about this for sure.

  291. Here is some hope for struggling churches. Father S says (jokingly) that after studying mega church ideas to see what may help our little church he has sent off for a panty hose arm sleeve replete with tattoos which will come in the mail. This he plans to wear along with cargo pants instead of his priest suit, or whatever they call that black thing he wears. Underneath the layers of all that fabric with which the religious drape themselves, I suppose. What a ray of sunshine on a dark subject.

    At some level Father S kind of reminds me of Nick.

  292. numo wrote:

    It sounds like you have never been around this kind of mixture of fringe religions + politics. Since you have not, perhaps you might be willing to listen to those who have? it is about all i can ask for at this point – that you listen to us.

    Numo, there is a big leap between “It sounds like you have never” and since you have not” (emphasis mine). I will return to this in a moment.

    numo had previously written:

    … we have had a clash over this before, to no effect.

    No, we haven’t. I expressed an opinion and you did likewise (“This stuff is poison” is a representative quote), but we were actually talking about slightly different aspects of the topic.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “to no effect”. It’s true that Lesley and I haven’t revised any of our relationships, nor any of our plans for the remainder of our life together, on the basis of what you’ve written here. Which brings me to the main point of this comment.

    I didn’t respond to your warnings about the NAR and its large surrounding nebula at the time because I wasn’t satisfied with any old response, and I wasn’t sure how to continue the discussion without generating more heat than light. However, at this point, I think it appropriate to set a boundary.

    You have no idea whom or what I have been around, fringe or mainstream, “religious” or “political” (to the degree that there’s a difference). You don’t know what choices I have made, good, bad or indifferent. You don’t know what hardships Lesley and I have faced together, nor do you know what we have overcome and what we have learned thereby. You don’t know the good things God has brought our way, nor what form they took, nor how he has gone about working them all together for our good. You know very little about my theology, and even less about how I’ve arrived at it.

    Since you know so little about me, perhaps you might be willing to assume less. I have never been unwilling to listen to you, but I fear (and I use the word deliberately) that you are straying dangerously close to equating “listening to” with “submitting ideologically to”.

  293. Nancy wrote:

    At some level Father S kind of reminds me of Nick.

    Which is a very warm compliment, for which thanks; because I like the sound of Father S so far!

  294. LT, any insight into a major “incident” in Robert Morris’ life that led to a huge coverup and the shunning of George Grubbs. This incident was first mentioned by gWInsida at Warren throckmorton’s blog. He feels the incident is serious enough to disqualify Robert from ministry, involving life and death. Any knowledge? gWInsida does not want to share as he feels Gateway would shut down wt’s blog in that case.

  295. Beakerj wrote:

    If I message the Deebs my number can you give me a call because I have questions.
    Thanks

    @ God:
    God,
    Does your interaction of this site give us brownie points in the hereafter? Also, why do you like Nick so much? We are cuter. We also really like Beaker.

  296. Ken wrote:

    f I’ve learnt anything about this, it is that we are fools to entertain sin in ouir lives; this can bring us into spiritual oppression through our rank disobedience. The sins of others can likewise have this effect.

    So, since we are all still functional sinners, is Robert Morris correct? We are all under some sort of demonic oppression?

  297. Folks
    Dee is going to be very busy this next three days. Please forgive me inability to answer questions. I will try to do so in the evening.

  298. @ Jeff S:

    That’s the sort of thing you should tweet, as the caption to a humorous photograph of some kind. It could become a Thing!

  299. numo wrote:

    @ js:
    Define “spiritually mature,” please. I honestly don’t want to guess at your meaning.

    I would define spiritually mature as someone who is consistently living by Galatians 5:22 and 23, the fruit of the Spirit.

  300. numo wrote:

    @ js:
    I have a request: could you please break your long comments (llike this one) into paragraphs? They would be much easier to read if you did so.

    Beyond that, let’s just say that i strongly disagree with what you’re saying.

    I will try to be more reader-friendly (I struggle reading through long comments too sometimes).

  301. @ Jeff S:

    That was a good sermon, but I wonder what good it is to create a situation in which bad behavior thrives and then just say ‘you all be good now.’ But perhaps they had seen enough problems to at least give it a shot.

  302. numo wrote:

    @ js:
    It might well be that these comp relationships are functionally egalitarian, in many cases.

    As for me, i have never wanted to be martied to a man who canmot accept me as an equal partner in decision-making and in every other aspect of life. It just doesn’t make sense to me – never has, and never will.

    I think you are making a false assumption of these relationships by insinuating that they may be functional egalitarians. I am here, observing their relationships personally and I know these people well and see no evidence of any difference between public and private lives, though I concede that I don’t see everything in their lives. Still, I think it is uncharitable to assume that people are denying behind the scenes what they are affirming publicly without proof. But I do realize it is hard to understand how something would work for someone that we think would never work for us, especially in the cases of some commenters who have been wounded by people who would identify as comps.

  303. dee wrote:

    God,
    Does your interaction of this site give us brownie points in the hereafter? Also, why do you like Nick so much? We are cuter. We also really like Beaker.

    Taking your questions (etc) in order:

    Does your interaction on this site give us brownie points in the hereafter?

    I’ve already had to assign high-level territorial spirits (clean ones, obviously) to manage your existing stash of brownie points. You won’t go without, believe me.

    Why do you like Nick so much?

    If you have to ask, you’ll never know…

    We are cuter.

    Don’t forget that I look for cuteness of the heart; and it was Nick who first called you “Deebs”. Though I’ve never said you aren’t cute.

    We also really like Beaker.

    Who doesn’t?

    And before you answer that: I know. But Who matters?

  304. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    I think we stand on shaky ground making the worst applications of the comp view the standard. Many of the best things in life are subject to distortion, subject to be highjacked by sinful people who would use any means to exercise power for selfish gain.

    That is certainly true. Bad experiences alone do not necessarily discredit a theory or an ideology or a theology. Good experiences alone do not necessarily validate a theory or an ideology or a theology. For conservative evangelicals, however, experience is not the test. The test is what does the best textual evidence say, without adding to it or subtracting from it, and what does it mean, using a consistent and standard grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

    >>>Absolutely agree with this.

    The problem is that those criteria are not met by the Complementarian system, as I’ve endeavored to demonstrate. I’m not asking for special treatment of the gender texts. I’m asking for consistent application of the hermeneutic and for consistent application of the accepted principles of reasoning with which Paul was familiar. I’m asking for consistent rules and not ones that are designed to yield a particular result.

    >>>I’m not interested in a system, I am trying to understand what the Bible teaches and see it at work in my life and the lives of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I tend to apply Occam’s Razor to these things. The issue here is, does God establish any special order of leadership in the home and church and world? Romans 13 points to God-given authorities in the world to whom we should generally submit. Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3 seem to point to parents as servant-leaders of their children and husbands as servant-leaders for their wives. As to source/head in Ephesians 5:23,24, I believe it makes more sense to submit to a head than it does to submit to a source. 1 Timothy 2, along with the overwhelming pattern of male leadership in the early church, seems to point to male leadership in the eldership of the church. I’m trying really hard to be brief, but those are the contours I am laying out.

    >>>I don’t see how any of this amounts to a subjective hermeneutic. I am dealing with the text, trying to see what makes the most sense.

    >>>I had to look up Ephesians 5:23,24 to make sure that I had the references right. I opened my NIV 2011 (which is a fine translation IMO) and read the verses. I didn’t have to have a special comp-friendly translation to reach my conclusions.

    But there are people, like me, who affirm those faith positions and also say we should be willing to always examine our understanding because people are not infallible and interpretations are not inerrant. Sola scriptura should mean something. Semper reformanda should mean semper. We have texts and we have an accepted method of interpreting those texts. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

    >>>I couldn’t agree more with you here and I have examined my understanding and will continue to do so. Both sola scriptura and semper reformanda are meaningful to me. My view of the evidence is different than yours. I am trying to come to the text and study it without being pre-committed but I know we all have biases. But I am open to change. If you have one or two resources that represent the best of your views I would be willing to read them. I have changed in a couple of doctrinal areas through the years through Bible reading, study and conversation. I am not a fan of systems. I am a fan of weighing the biblical evidence and seeing where the scales tip. We are probably far more alike than you think. We both believe the Bible. We are both passionate and long-winded :). We are both seeking the truth. I think we both love Jesus. And I think this particular issue has been given far more attention by all sides than the Bible gives to it. We are all in danger of making this a gospel-plus issue. I especially fear the ways we may negatively regard fellow brothers and sisters in Christ over this issue. I am in favor of freedom on this issue. That’s where I stand at this point in my life.

  305. Nancy wrote:

    @ Jeff S:
    That was a good sermon, but I wonder what good it is to create a situation in which bad behavior thrives and then just say ‘you all be good now.’ But perhaps they had seen enough problems to at least give it a shot.

    It seems encouraging to me that they admit fault, rather than using “mistakes were made” kind of language.

    But only time will tell, really.

  306. I have to bow out at this point.

    I will post occasionally but I have noticed that this forum has taken over my thinking in the past couple of days. TWW pulls you in once you put your foot in the water of the combox 🙂 Combine passionate people and strong opinions and you have a compelling forum.

    Having said that, I want to stay far from defensiveness, far from the need to respond to every comment that responds to something I’ve written (I feel that one especially the last couple of days). I realized when I was up til one last night posting and back up at 6:30 this morning checking my phone that I am slipping into an unhealthy pattern. I don’t want to use time unwisely, so I will aim for proportion in reading and posting. I don’t want to regard people here in an unloving way and I don’t want to be harsh and the more I post, the more the possibility that I could be careless with my words.

    I want all of you who disagree with me to know that I am not against you. For those who have faced abuse, I want you to know that I believe you. I believe Julie. I believe the overwhelming majority of the SGM case. I believe abuse is out there and I don’t think it is unimportant and I believe TWW has done a great job bringing much of it to light.

    I know some who read these posts are not believers. I hope that you will trust in Jesus someday. He is so much better than us knuckleheads who follow Him.

    Keep up the good work. I will be reading and learning.

  307. greedo wrote:

    gWInsida does not want to share as he feels Gateway would shut down wt’s blog in that case.

    Do you really believe that Gateway/Morris has the power to shut down a blog??

  308. js wrote:

    But I do realize it is hard to understand how something would work for someone that we think would never work for us, especially in the cases of some commenters who have been wounded by people who would identify as comps.

    For me it is not *primarily* about what works, because some people can adapt and do *relatively* well within a system which is dehumanizing for various reasons that have nothing to do with the system itself. There are certainly “egalitarian” marriages that are very bad and unhealthy. “Complementarianism” is not a guarantee of good or bad things in marriage, and “egalitarianism” is not a guarantee of good or bad things in marriage.

    I am not a partisan in the egalitarian/complementarian fight which began, as far as I can tell, within the ETS for reasons I do not know either.

    As a human being I ask if the System respects people as the Image-bearers of God and what I believe that entails. And I could name several that are suspect in this regard whether religious or not.

    As a Christian, I ask if the System promotes attitudes and behavior which are consistent with the pattern set by Jesus the Christ.

    As a conservative evangelical, I ask if the System does all that and *in addition* is consistent with the written revelation that we have been given when it is handled in the way we have agreed to handle the texts. And that is because all authority resides in Jesus, and we believe that the Bible reveals Jesus and his intent for us.

    Our experiences inform how we evaluate claims, but they do not validate the claims themselves. So let’s assume that people can thrive within that System.

    That still does not answer the human or textual questions of whether the System is dehumanizing or whether the System is, as marketed, Biblical or whether the System requirements and teachings are consistent with the example and teachings of Jesus, the Christ.

    Even in our fallen Western world, we now recognize that females are equal though different from males and great effort is expended to ensure that is practiced. That has not always been the case here, and it is still not the case in much of the world. I am thankful that the Pakistani courts have ordered life sentences for the men who attacked Malala to prevent her from learning, a fundamental human right as image-bearers. They wanted to deny her that for the sole reason that she is female.

    In the West we have various protections so that one human cannot deprive another human of certain “rights” without just cause and without due process. That has not always been the case here. Because many people believed and taught that various classes of people are ordained to be rulers while others are ordained to be servants. Those were ideas that were just assumed to by true by many until those ideas were challenged by a few. And then by more people as they began to think through the idea that God had created some sort of a class system or an elite ruling class of humans.

    Life was not always easy for those who challenged deeply embedded cultural and religious beliefs and exposed those beliefs to scrutiny and who questioned whether those God-justified beliefs were actually God-justified or whether they were man-justified presuppositions. They were accused of being Godless because they rejected traditional human beliefs. They were accused of rebellion against God’s word. After much suffering, those “Godless” people were vindicated, and no one can plausibly hold that position in conservative evangelical churches, despite the fact that the opposite opinion was stridently taught by the conservative evangelicals who came before them.

    We no longer teach those beliefs about classes of people based on *current* understanding of “what the Bible plainly says.” Except about females. The female class is still set aside as a less-than class because that is “what the Bible plainly says” with no consideration that this viewpoint might not actually be grounded in the Bible at all but rather in human preferences and wrong beliefs and erroneous presuppositions. Or bare self-interest.

    But in our conservative evangelical churches, we are not allowed to question Authority regarding whether that Authority is representing God or misrepresenting God. We are considered every bit as Godless and rebellious as those who fought the last battle for a class of humans who had been assumed to be ordained to be ruled. The Authorities who control the System will not submit themselves to those who wish to be Bereans. Because they assume that God has ordained them as the rulers of the church. They will not allow any question of their assumptions and their assertions, because the pewpeons, even the male pewpeons, are lesser.

    That is not a position of strength for their ideas but rather one of profound weakness. If their System robustly Biblical, then it can withstand the tests. If it is not robustly Biblical, then it must be protected by other means. Any other means. And that is one of the many ironies of this issue. In too many conservative evangelical churches, this is a settled issue which may not be examined by faithful study of the texts using standard hermeneutics. Because the freedom that might bring is too threatening to some people, including some of the pewpeons.

  309. @js

    “We do not view it as hierarchical or abusive.”

    My father would say the same thing, but he never knew what me and my mother thought, because in maleheadship/female submission to men world, wives and daughters are suppose to think whatever husband and father tells them to think. Could I say daddy, I don’t want to be a slave like mama for a man like you when I grow up? Never, he would make me pay. My father died never knowing how sick he made his wife and daughter, but he did not care anyway.

    “Both function as leaders through sacrifice and service.”

    Please, it is the wives and daughters doing all the sacrificing and serving. And the fathers and husbands presenting themselves as gods/kings, saying females kiss my male bottom or be damned.

    “Just as I would not say because some politicians or police officers are bad we should not have police or other God-given governing authorities”

    This explains why most of the people I grew up with hated their fathers.

    “so I will not say because some people misuse complementarian views we should discard the view, because I believe it best accords with Scripture. ”

    How convenient you are the man and not the wife or daughter.

    “Every complementarian couple in our church I can think of except one seems to have a strong marriage, a happy family and much blessing through the relationship as they have tried to define it biblically.”

    Every one would have said the same thing about my family, my grandfather, southern Baptist preacher, father of my father thought we had the best family. We were fake, because in comp-world what daddy/husband thinks, feels, and wants matters. Wives and daughters are to smile and say thank you for being slaves. How wives and daughters feel, what we think, and what we want better damn well be what daddy/husband tells us we think, want, and feel. Smile, kiss male bottom, and keep your mouth shut, that is comp.

    “In the last ten years we have had four divorces in our church. None of them was among a complementarian couple.”

    Well in comp, men own their wives for life and wives have to live with it. If my mother and grandmothers had not been raised comp maybe they and their daughters and granddaughters would not have lived in pure misery/slavery.

    I wish my mother had divorced my comp father, but she could not because of comp, so me and my mother suffered, but that is okay, because the daddy/husband felt good, and that is what comp is all about, daddy/husband feeling really good.

    “I think we stand on shaky ground making the worst applications of the comp view the standard. ”

    I don’t, because I was a little girl victim of comp. It is traumatizing living in rape as a little girl who is being taught comp, men are boss, mens wants and opinions matter, you were created for men, be submissive to men. God did not give me as a girl any power because I was a girl, but he gave all of it to my rapist because he was a man. My rapist mattered because he was a man, I did not matter because I was a girl.
    My mother had no power, but my father had power. I felt like god was my pimp, and hated me. My father and rapist both hyper comp felt like a million dollars.

    My father and rapist would salute you for promoting comp, it was their favorite thing in the world.

  310. dee wrote:

    So, since we are all still functional sinners, is Robert Morris correct? We are all under some sort of demonic oppression?

    The traditional pattern of what Christians are up against is the world, the system that pulls us away from God; the devil which I take to mean the demonic/occult realm; and the flesh/sinful nature/old self following our autonomous desires of mind and body.

    Most of our problems are dealing with the flesh, our self-life that tends to rebel against God or want to go its own way. For this we are responsible. Most of the list of things Morris attributes to demons are very human sins and weaknesses. Pigs in the Parlour makes a similar crass mistake.

    Yet some of the sins of the flesh that Paul lists in Galatians do stray into the demonic realm.

    fwiw my understanding of the issue is that some ongoing blatant and serious sins can open the door for demonic infiltration, a bridgehead if you like. False doctrine likewise can tie believers up in knots.

    Basically I think Morris is wrong. You can’t cast the works of the flesh out, this requires putting such deeds to death, a more costly saying no, a life-long struggle between Spirit and flesh, the latter always being weak. It takes years of study of the NT to ‘realise our assets’ in Christ and for the truth to set us free.

    Morris might have a point in some circumstances demons become involved, in other words I wouldn’t rule this out completely. Of course being able to ‘discern’ demons gives such a man a great deal of power over the poor sheep he meets (unless they know better). Demonisation through failing to tithe is manipulation pure and simple, and imo itself a doctrine of demons. Far from delivering people from demons, if anything he is delivering them over to them!

    My favourite verse on this subject is this:

    He has delivered [completed action in past time] us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

  311. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    You were being flippant, which i did not appreviate.

    As for drawing lines, permit me to ro so as well – i will not be talk3d down to, so this exchange is over.

  312. numo wrote:

    I wonder if you would consider dropping the use of the word “unbelievers”? It is uncomfortably close to “infidel,” really.

    You brought this up once before and I answered the point, but I don’t think you saw it at the end of very long thread!

    In several years of usually good-natured interaction with self-identifying atheists, I have been repeatedly told that their view is not summarised in the statement “There is no God”. Rather, they claim to have an absence of faith in God (or gods). They really are very insistent on this as an accurate description of where they stand. Surprised how important this is.

    I have simply taken them at their word: absence of faith = non-belief = un-belief. So I think by their own admission unbeliever is an accurate description of those who claim not to have faith.

    It is also used by Paul in 1 Cor for those outside the church.

    I don’t think it is necessarily pejorative – certainly no more than caricaturing faith as ‘irrationally believing something for which there is no evidence or despite the evidence’.

    I find it interesting that rather than being justified by faith, atheists at the end of the age will stand before God having vehemently denied having the very thing necessary for God to have saved them – faith. It will prove to be the unforgivable sin.

  313. js wrote:

    But I am open to change. If you have one or two resources that represent the best of your views I would be willing to read them.

    My story reflects my preferred methodology. The tools that you need are an interlinear and some good Bible-study tools that you already have or certainly have access to. You need a willingness to be consistent in your method. I do not encourage people to read “egalitarian” arguments because it is my opinion that people need to be led by the Holy Spirit in their study of the texts. And I am not interested in refuting the System of complementarianism by promoting the System of egalitarianism to the extent that it exists. You need to ask hard questions like, am understanding this correctly? Is there another valid way of understanding this that is more consistent with the entirety of revelation? Does this argument make sense? Where does God actually ordain a hierarchy of any kind. That isn’t the same thing as obeying human governments or children obeying their parents. Teaching that one adult is always the Leader and one adult is always the Follower comes with the burden of a high standard of proof, IMO.

    The spirit of desiring to rule over another human created in God’s image that we see in this System is troubling. An instruction to people to submit (and much less the description of submissive attitude) is not a static grant of rule to the other party. I think there is much confusion on this point. It is an instruction to be like Christ in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

    In short, I think it would be wise to apply the same method you would apply if some other person were asserting a divine right to rule over you simply because you are male and they have some disputed texts to support that idea. I think you would want to carefully examine those texts to see if that is actually a reasonably sustainable position. I think, as a pastor in a position of influence, you would want to be very careful before you tell one person they are lesser than another, and that is precisely what this system is about. Then you might want to ask why it is that two businesspeople can have a profitable equal partnership without one *always* being the Leader and one *always* being the follower. If non-Christian businesspeople can do that, then why is it necessary to have a ruler in a Christian marriage? That is a practical question that leads back to to what I think is the most important textual question and is the one I posed initially: Where did God ordain this hierarchy and where did he change his mind or qualify the original equality and joint commission in Genesis 1? If 1 Timothy 2 is Paul referring to a Creation Order hierarchy instead of correcting a problem with Ephesian Artemis false teaching, what text in the Bible is he referencing? Where are these Biblical roles assigned, and where does he describe the boundaries of those Biblical roles? That supposed ordination of hierarchy is the foundation stone of the entire system, and no one has ever shown me where that is in the text.

  314. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nor do any of us realoy know anything much about each other, though i think it fair to say that you’ve had a lot to say in the padt about your beliefs, as well as about some difficulties you, Nick, have faced. I was not referring to Lesley or anyone else in your immediate family, so i am not certain why you mentioned her. It is you who comments here, after all.

    Again, though, i do not think it is wise to continue this. I will certainly admit to the lesp that you pointed out, but beyond that, i am not sure that anything productive eould come of further exchanges.

  315. dee wrote:

    Did you know that some of the Neo-Calvinists have been told to answer a person who asks if they are Calvinists this way. “I don’t know what you mean by Calvinism but i believe in grace, just like you do.” Bogus!

    No, Takkiyeh, ISIS-style.
    Lying is not a sin as long as it Advances The Agenda.

    “I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!”
    — Sgt Schultz

  316. Nancy wrote:

    Pseudo is used in medicine in another way, or another way also. Google the term pseudotumor cerebri and you will see how it is used. In that case it means that the symptoms and signs of increased intracranial pressure are consistent with what one sees with an intracranial tumor but actually this is a different condition and not a tumor. Nobody is suggesting that it is not real or not pathologic or not anatomic or not physiologic etc. It is merely that it looks like it might be one thing but in fact is something different.

    However, outside of the technical language of Medicine, “pseudo-” has the baggage of meaning “fake”. So use of the term does confuse the issue outside the medical profession.

    (I know of the medical use of “pseudo” because many years ago I had a “pseudomelanoma” — a benign skin lesion that fit all the descriptions of melanoma but was NOT cancerous.)

  317. @ Ken:
    Ken, “primitive” is yiur word; i think it might be fairer to say “pre-scientific,” though that isn’t true of the entire ancient world at the time of Chist. I do not think the people of that time were “primitive,” just that they had a very different understanding of many things than we do.

    Also, i am inclined to believe that we know less than we think we do, but i am not sure that any of us truly realize that.

    I do not believe there is any criticism implied in simply pointing out that the various texts that were brought together as the Bible were written in ancient times, often in literary genres that have fallen into disuse, and that they reflect understandingsnof many things that are vadtly different than our own. To my mind, that seems to be a good starting point, and can actually help us treat the writings in both the OT and NT with greater respect, not less.

    But i kind of fear that we are talking past eachmother.

  318. Bill M wrote:

    I’ve been offline for two days conducting an exorcism on a Windows server that was misbehaving. In the meantime a lot has transpired on this thread.

    I’ve worked in IT since late 1978.
    “Exorcism” IS the right word for it.
    I even have a CD of Mike Oldfield’s “Tubular Bells” for my work system’s WMP.

  319. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    So use of the term does confuse the issue outside the medical profession.

    It does indeed. In this case though pseudoseizure was being used as a medical term. That is why they ‘changed’ the term instead of simply discounting it as a lay term. Explaining a trade language is no small task. You should have heard the conversational disaster between me and the guy who installed my new internet cable connection. I had no idea what he was saying after ‘hello, the company sent me.’

  320. numo wrote:

    Laying aside partisan politics, it really is pretty well impossible to avoid talking about the fact that the NAR wants to “take dominion over” all spheres ov society and culture: science, finance and business, the arts, popular entertainment, and all aspects of goverment. They believe they have a divine mandate to do this, but they believe that they need to keep a relatively low profile and infiltrate all of these spheres via some kind of stealth takeover.

    Given these guys are also into Heavy Complementarianism/Taliban-level Male Supremacy and “No Constitution Except SCRIPTURE, No Law but Leviticus!”, I call them “Future Commanders of Gilead” or “Handmaid’s Tale For Real types” or “Just like Iran’s Ayatollahs, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

  321. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Yawn. It should be obvious by now that Piper lives in his own fairy story.

    I’d rather live with the Ponies in Equestria. At least the god-figure there is benevolent, approachable, and actually playful — unlike Piper’s Narcissus-God always sending down death and destruction Just Because I Can.

  322. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    A lot of women are high-ranking “prophets” in NAR circles, and from my own observation (admittely anecdotal, thus limited), lots of women are deeply involved in it. I do not think the hwrdcore patriarchal types are amenable to it, really, because the guiding principld in most Pentecostal and charismatic circles is taken from texts like the one in Joel, which describes people of both phyisical sexes – and of all ages – experiencing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as well as prophesying and so forth.

    Pentecostslism was very open to women from day one, and in many places, women are ministers and padtors of congregations. I think charismatics got conned into the comp thing, though, by slealth, influences frommGothardism, and via the authoritarianism of the discipleship movement, which was heavily comp before the word was dver invented.

  323. @ numo:
    Stealth. Though slealth might be an interesting thing, all on its own. Have to joke about my typos; it makes them a bit more bearable.

  324. @ Ken:
    Perhaps it is unwise to attribute more power to the devil than is actually its (yes, i think,it is impersonal) due? Jesus was very clear about it being that which originates in us thst harms both oursrlves and others. It is too eady to defsult to devil/demons in trying to explsin human evil, i think.

    I am not saying that i do not believe in Evil, merely that ee are the chief originators and actors in tetms of harmibg others as well as ourselves, whether it is through direct cruelty, refusing to be compassionate… there are far too many things to list, snd writing them down is hard, since it is painful to contemplate them.

  325. Guest wrote:

    Gram3 I love you, you are one of my heroes. Thank you for caring.

    Thank you, Guest. As I said, you have a face in my life. And what they told you is not true and is not what God said about you. It is not what Jesus said to little girls and adult women, either. Remember the time he broke the Rules and said that Mary had chosen the better part which was to follow him instead of observing the role like Martha was trying to do. He invited women into his life and into places where they had been excluded because he loves us.

    I’m not a hero. You are an encouragement to me, but it makes me happy to encourage you and to let you and others know that there are people willing and able to speak up for you and the others who have been used by the System and then silenced. As I have said many times, you are a precious daughter of the King, not someone who is lesser than anyone else in the Kingdom, no matter what they say. Galatians 5:1 is Paul’s word to women and others who are put under the false rule of humans.

  326. numo wrote:

    I think charismatics got conned into the comp thing, though, by slealth, influences frommGothardism, and via the authoritarianism of the discipleship movement, which was heavily comp before the word was dver invented.

    That’s how I remember it from my Pentecostal grandmother. Then later the charismatic renewal 2nd wave crossed over into Gothardite and IFB circles. My personal opinion is that there are people who will use whatever they need to use to achieve their personal ends, and particular doctrines will not stand in their way. At least that’s the way I’ve explained Scary Gary North’s infatuation with TBN charismatic dominionists. That said, I am still puzzled by the connection between NAR and the Reconstructionists beyond their mutual desire to Rule Everything.

  327. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I don’t know Nick, but I know someone who has some of the difficulties he faces.
    You mean, someone who’s trying to learn the Rach 3 ossia cadenza? The difficulties are indeed formidable..!

    Nope. That particular trial is totally self-inflicted, so so empathy from me. What I had in mind were some other difficulties you have described which, I assume, you did not bring down on your own head.

    For some reason I’m skipping over entire comments and entire words in my own comments, so I missed this earlier. Comment demons afoot.

  328. Gram3 wrote:

    I did not know about NAR, but when I read Brad’s stuff, it seemed very familiar because it is another form of Power religion.

    That is exactly what it is, and I have had it used against me. Others have had it used against them.

    I know I recently mentioned that an NAR advocate “pastor” literally pronounced curses (not that I believe in them) on me on two separate occasions. ON the 1st, he stated that all the curses of Deuteronomy would fall on me, highlighting the one that reads that “you will fear at the trembling of a leaf.” This was for assumed “disobedience” and supposedly lying about something that I hadn’t even done. (Long, long story there, it’s about my SSA disability claim.) The 2nd time, I was told that by using a cane (which I really needed at the time), my “days [would] be short.”

    These people can be very intimidating and vicious when it suits them, and they invoke imprecations in order to try to frighten people into doing what they want.

    Which, btw, is why I do not appreciate anyone suggesting that I am attempting to get them to agree with an “ideology.” These things are real, they are abusive, and those who advocate them would very much like to have a *far* wider area in which to operate – including pronouncing curses/imprecations on those people who are supposedly aligned with “territorial spirits.” (Which is to say, anyone who does not conform to the beliefs of the NAR types who go around rebuking and binding and supposedly making war against said territorial spirits. The disagreements can be moral, religious, political, or all three – take your pick.)

  329. @ numo:
    btw, this kind of cursing is not an isolated thing. Less than two weeks ago, someone who occasionally comments on a blog that I read (and comment on) frequently, and who is aligned with the NAR, literally wrote “I prophesy Ichabod over your ministry.” If you look up the meaning of the name Ichabod, you will quickly see that the individual who wrote this comment not only believes that he can prophesy and things will happen as a result, but that is it clearly an imprecation.

    The sad thing is that the person in question is not some fringe crazy; they seem quite normal when they don’t drop into their NAR mode. This is true of all the people I have met who thought they wielded Power and Authority in NAR circles. I cannot change that, nor the fact that I have seen and experienced it and had it used against me, and that others have had it used against them, but man, I do wish I could do *something* to make it stop.

    Which is why I do comment on what I have seen, heard, experienced, read, etc. Maybe it will help someone else who is reading these comments. I don’t know, but I do know that I feel pretty passionate about trying. And to some extent, I need to be able to say publicly that I was abused by people in the NAR, who used nasty, underhanded tactics against me.

    I mean, what if I actually believed in curses? Can you imagine what those imprecatory “prophecies” might have done to me if I did? As it was, I could not believe (literally) that the person I thought I had known for years was saying these things to me. It was as if I had never known them – and, in all honesty, I didn’t. They chose to appear friendly and charming in public, but there was a whole other side to them, and it was, I’m afraid, the real person that I saw in the moments when that individual was literally calling down curses on me.

  330. @ numo:

    I think their mutual desire to rule everything is their common cause.

    …which means they haven’t thought this through very well, because the minute either one of them (NAR or Recon) came to power, I expect all those theological differences would immediately resurface and be used as reasons to suppress to other side so they didn’t have to share. At least, that’s how this kind of thing has usually worked out in other cases in history.

  331. numo wrote:

    These people can be very intimidating and vicious when it suits them, and they invoke imprecations in order to try to frighten people into doing what they want.

    Well, this is another point of similarity. Doug Wilson and others in the Reconstructionist/Theonomist/Dominionist/Federal Vision circle pray imprecatory prayers against their enemies. Which, of course, conveniently correspond to God’s enemies. They also use war metaphors a lot which also corresponds to the NAR as I understand it.

    The first time I heard about imprecatory services I really thought that it could not possibly be true. Until…

    These are the right-wing authoritarians. I’m also afraid of the left-wing authoritarians. I do not like confusing faith with power, even secular faiths, but that seems to be getting harder to avoid.

  332. Hester wrote:

    the minute either one of them (NAR or Recon) came to power, I expect all those theological differences would immediately resurface and be used as reasons to suppress to other side so

    Historically it has happened among the Reconstructionist/Dominionists/Theonomists. Right now it is happening in Syria and also in Iraq, if I understand that situation correctly. A Syrian woman explained the who’s who in Syria and why. I really had no idea of how things work when Who Has the Power is the most important consideration. Now, what was really funny was when she started going on about the necessity for a liberal government. It took a bit before I realized she was using that generically and not conservative vs. liberal. Communication can be challenging sometimes.

  333. numo wrote:

    ON the 1st, he stated that all the curses of Deuteronomy would fall on me,

    Serious question Numo. Robert Morris has stated that his favorite book of the bible is Deuteronomy. He quotes from it a lot and really pings on his flock that these “commandments” must be obeyed in order to not disobey or disrespect God. Of course he cherry picks which commandments he wants fulfilled, otherwise, his daughter could not be married. This book seems to mainly deal with Mosaic rules directed at a specific set of people in OT times. What is it with the NAR set and their fascination with this book and quoting from it as though it applies to New Covenant believers?

    Second question, why do Christians believe that Deuteronomy applies to them. I really appreciate your insights on weird religious practices. I am glad you take the time, which is not inconsiderable, to share your experiences with others.

  334. @ Gram3:
    i don’t like authoritarians of any stripe. while their stated beliefs might differ, their methods and the resulting abuse are identical. totalitarian systems are notoriously abusive.

    there is such a huge difference between the ways in which many black churches and church folks engaged ub the Civil Rights movement (to gain basic citizenship rights, including the right to vote and the end of Jim Crow laws) and the way in which the NAR demonizes whole groups of people as well as individuals.

    As for imprecatory services, I have never been in one, but I have no difficulty believing that they exist, given the way some people were acting and speaking and sloganeering in late 2008 and well into 2009, using imprecatory bits from the Psalms against our current president. In stating this, I am not wanting to engage in partisan politics, but to show how this looks when applied to real people. We could have elected someone entirely different, and if the NAR folks had not liked them, the result would have been the same.

    It is real, it is abusive, and let me say one more thing: C. Peter Wagner’s people thought they had literally *killed* Mother Teresa with their prayers. That is a direct quote from their report. I could not make this up if I tried, because my imagination refuses to go there. They saw her as an opponent, they prayed, and bang! She died. Ergo, they killed her with their “prayers.” That they seem never to have given a second thought to the fact that they disagreed with her but that was OK is one of the scariest parts of this. They asked their god to kill her, and he did. And they rejoiced.

  335. @ Gram3:

    I have a reply to you that's on the back burner, so I hope you will check back. Basically, I think totalitarian/authoritarian systems and the people who run them might differ on paper re. their beliefs, but their methods and the results are the same.

    I also have a lot of observations about imprecatory "prayer" (along with an actual instance of it, alluded to in dee's posts about C. Peter Wagner's assault against the so-called queen of heaven "demon") that has very frightening implications, and is quite revealing as to how many of these folks think. As in, we ask our god to get rid of someone, and he does. Hallelu-something! (not "jah," since I do not believe they actually worship YHWH, but something quite other. They just haven't come clean about it yet, to themselves or anyone else.)

  336. @ Gram3:
    i keep trying to reply to you, and my replies keep ending up waiting for Dee to publish them, Please do check back, OK?

  337. @ LT:
    I have no idea why these things are as they are, except that Deuteronomy has a lot of scary stuff in it, and it’s in the Bible, and the scary quotes can be used to frighten people.

    And also because whoever is the one carrying on about the scary stuff is the person who either wants power, or is already in power and is hungering for more.

    I have not really followed Morris or others in his circle; my time around these folks was actually time spent with their immediate precursors, in the late 70s-early 00s, and in a totally different part of the country from Morris and many of the others. Culturally different, I should add, though the NAR uses the internet quite well in order to try and spread their beliefs, practices and ideology.

  338. @ LT:
    And hey – thank you.

    Your kind words are truly appreciated, and I feel like I need them right now. The post about the TJ situation is very depressing, and I am feeling fatigued from some of my recent exchanges here, too. (No blame, just stating a fact.)

  339. @ LT:
    also re. Deuteronomy, people use it to posit a system of “God’s government.” This is widespread, from the Rushdoony-Gary North types all the way to the farthest weirdly charismatic fringes of the NAR. All of them believe in a fusion of religion and state, and Deuteronomy is probably *the* book to use as a proof text for that.

    I do mean “proof text,” because any real study of the OT, and of the Torah, and of Deuteronomy, will inevitably show up the gaping holes in their proclamations, and in very short order, too.

  340. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I think the problem in Religious fiction is the same problem faced in religious movies. Heavy handed message delivery and completely skewed portrayal of people outside whichever particular faith or denomination the creators are trying to promote.

    Which has been explored in many ways on many blogs. But my favorite exploration happened on an Internet Monk comment thread on the subject many years ago:

    Coming from a church whose preferred way to flake out is “Mary Channeling”, I am normally skeptical of claims of “private revelation”, i.e. “God Hath Revealed Unto Me…” But years ago in an Internet Monk comment thread about “Jesus Junk” in the creative arts, I came across a claim that seemed credible.

    Said private revelation claimed that because of the abysmal track record of Christianese media, God was withdrawing his mantle from the entire Christianese media machine — “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uparshim” — and was bestowing it upon SECULAR writers and artists and moviemakers. Henceforth secular arts and artists would begin to say what God wanted said, because the Christian ones have dropped the ball so bad.

    Message fiction is boring for the most part, for example Galt’s monologue at the end of Atlas Shrugged.

    An epiphany I had several years ago:

    Atlas Shrugged and Left Behind are THE same story (apocalyptic escape/revenge fantasy) just pitched to different audiences with different fanservice trappings. But the appeal of both depends on flattering their target audience with “Just Like You, Dear Reader. You are RIGHT and THEY ARE WRONG, Dear Reader…”

  341. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Perhaps it is unwise to attribute more power to the devil than is actually its (yes, i think,it is impersonal) due?

    When the Spanish Inquisition rolled on a Witchcraft charge, that was the charge they actually brought: The Heresy of Attributing Too Much Power to the Devil.

  342. numo wrote:

    I know I recently mentioned that an NAR advocate “pastor” literally pronounced curses (not that I believe in them) on me on two separate occasions. ON the 1st, he stated that all the curses of Deuteronomy would fall on me, highlighting the one that reads that “you will fear at the trembling of a leaf.” This was for assumed “disobedience” and supposedly lying about something that I hadn’t even done. (Long, long story there, it’s about my SSA disability claim.) The 2nd time, I was told that by using a cane (which I really needed at the time), my “days [would] be short.”

    Talking about Witchcraft…

  343. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    btw, this kind of cursing is not an isolated thing. Less than two weeks ago, someone who occasionally comments on a blog that I read (and comment on) frequently, and who is aligned with the NAR, literally wrote “I prophesy Ichabod over your ministry.”

    AKA “I put a Hex on you!”

  344. @LT, to reiterate what I asked earlier (I typed on a mobile device at the time):

    GWInsida over at Warren Throckmorton’s blog has divulged the existence of a very serious “incident” in Robert Morris’ life that occurred roughly at the time of the newest church building project in Southlake ($100 million project, purportedly). GWInsida said this involved “life and death” and that Robert could have easily been disqualified from the ministry for this “incident”. In fact, I will post the full quotation here:

    “During the construction of the now over $100 million 114 facility, Robert had an “incident” in his life that could have easily disqualified him from ministry. It was/is very serious and involved life and death. I won’t say more for fear of GW shutting WT’s blog down. But it happened and a fair number of people know what happened and I was privy to first hand evidence of this, so it is not gossip or conjecture. I believe that when George found out about the incident he tried to approach Morris and get him to receive help and counseling and to take some time off for restoration – almost identical to what people wanted at MH for Mark Driscoll. What happened next was awful. To avoid any accusation of “gossip” I will just let you listen to the tapes of Robert Morris describe the “Jezebel” in his life and how he used three Apostolic elders, Jimmy Evans, Jack Hayford and James Robison to crush this man.”

    Any knowledge of this “incident”? GWInsida refuses to reveal this situation, as he fears his family members will be socially shunned and lose their jobs if he does. He also feels that Gateway’s legal experts would pursue WT’s blog in an attempt to discredit the assertions. What could be so serious that GWInsida feels Gateway will go to great lengths to hide it? Do you know anything about this?

  345. Hester wrote:

    @ numo:

    I think their mutual desire to rule everything is their common cause.

    …which means they haven’t thought this through very well, because the minute either one of them (NAR or Recon) came to power, I expect all those theological differences would immediately resurface and be used as reasons to suppress to other side so they didn’t have to share. At least, that’s how this kind of thing has usually worked out in other cases in history.

    When there are no more Infidels, start on the Heretics.

    What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?

  346. Gram3 wrote:

    A Syrian woman explained the who’s who in Syria and why. I really had no idea of how things work when Who Has the Power is the most important consideration.

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

  347. numo wrote:

    also re. Deuteronomy, people use it to posit a system of “God’s government.” This is widespread, from the Rushdoony-Gary North types all the way to the farthest weirdly charismatic fringes of the NAR.

    Obviously I don’t know about NAR, but Rushdoony and his heirs base their position in the supposed fact that the church is New Israel and is subject to the same laws as the Old Israel which was a theocratic state, so therefore the New Israel is also a theocratic state, with a few tweaks, of course. The vast majority of the P&R do not agree with Rushdoonyites on the meaning of the Law for the Church. Not all theonomists agree with the Recons, either, or with the more recent Federal Vision of people like Doug Wilson and Leithart and others.

    I think that the idea of God ordaining an authority structure that speaks and acts for him is attractive to people who fancy themselves as the elites, and that doesn’t require covenant theology at all. It does require some comparison of the church to Israel, but certainly not in the same way as covenant theologians traditionally have. I don’t think the systematics really matter.

    Let’s face it, it sounds more authoritative and Bibley to say God Says than it does to say I Think or I Say. Who can question God or his Word, so who can question me? It’s borrowing or misappropriating what belongs to God, namely his right to rule his people without the “assistance” or interposition of humans other than the God-Man.

  348. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    and totally lacking in compassion for people who suffer from actual physical illnesses, too. There’s more that I could say about that, but it’s a long story, and not a pleasant one. I am not up to getting into it here, now.

  349. @ Gram3:
    well, the NAR believes that they are to “reclaim territory for Christ,” which includes not only geographic areas but groups of people *and* all social, cultural, business and financial institutions – that this includes politics and government is a given.

    Again, I would like to refer you to Rachel Tabatchnik’s series on the NAR at talk2action.org Please don’t be put off by the political posts/views you might encounter there. It is far and away the single best series of articles + investigative (really digging deep) research I have seen on the NAR to date, though she had to pick and choose which people and groups within the NAR for the sake of being focused enough to write articles.

    if you tried naming all the disaparate groups (the ones that *have* names, that is) and diagramming them, I fear that the paper or computer screen would simply disappear under a mass of redrawn lines. The logistics of trying to do this are mind-boggling!

  350. @ Gram3:
    I’m not even sure that the NAR types have a thought-out theological position on these things. They Just Know that “God” Wants Them to Take Over the Entire World – For Him, of course.

    Try Googling “Seven Mountains of Culture” and see what comes up…

  351. @ Gram3:
    interestingly enough, Jeff Sharlet wrote an article for The Atlantic, back at the height of our involvement in Iraq, about the *many* Reconstructionist/Dominionist types who were both in high positions in the military sent to Iraq, as well as among the rank and file.

    If you go to The Atlantic’s site, search for “Jesus Killed Mohammed.” (Article title, taken from a slogan he saw painted on the side of a US tank.)

    If that doesn’t work, I’m pretty sure I have a PDF of it around here somewhere. I could ask Dee to forward it, but not until after the weekend, since she is doing this retreat.

  352. @ numo:
    It will not, maybe, surprise you to know that I was acquainted with a number of people in the military who thought in the way I just outlined, back when I lived in the D.C. area. Some of them went to the same church as I did, others didn’t. And by no means did all the xtian members of the military that I knew think in that manner, but some truly did.

  353. @ Gram3:
    From the website 7culturalmountains.org (this is from the front page; there is much more):

    “In 1975, Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, and Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission, had lunch together in Colorado. God simultaneously gave each of these change agents a message to give to the other. During that same time frame Francis Schaeffer was given a similar message. That message was that if we are to impact any nation for Jesus Christ, then we would have to affect the seven spheres, or mountains of society that are the pillars of any society.

    These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion. There are many subgroups under these main categories. About a month later the Lord showed Francis Schaeffer the same thing. In essence, God was telling these three change agents where the battlefield was. It was here where culture would be won or lost. Their assignment was to raise up change agents to scale the mountains and to help a new generation of change agents understand the larger story.

    This website is designed to help educate those who wish to become change agents in culture for Christian values and to connect like-minded men and women for a common vision.”

  354. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Atlas Shrugged and Left Behind are THE same story (apocalyptic escape/revenge fantasy) just pitched to different audiences with different fanservice trappings.

    I never thought of that, but that is spot on. Another thing the Left Behind “authors” ripped off from bad fiction. If you ever want a giggle, read Slacktivists review of the Left Behind books.

  355. @ numo:
    Yay! Someone else who’s aware of these people and their pursuit of political power. They’re spooky. I know they want to dominate culture, but in some ways the rank and file is so removed from the mainstream that I think they’ll always lose there. The political and military part are definitely something to keep an eye on.

  356. So let’s see. Here are these people with cultural and political ambitions. And there are the champions for christ people wanting to impact the culture. There was Kennedy running for president assuring the voters that the catholic church did not control him (some assumed they would.) And there has been Father S lecturing on the history of the CofE and its religio-political struggles. There was the holy roman empire. How far back can we go? There was Constantine and all that has been written about the unholy alliance of church and state. Sounds like the same tune played right on.

  357. @ Nancy:
    I think the Mass. Bay Colony, with its insistence that it actually was the New Jerusalem, is very much to the point.

  358. Nancy wrote:

    all that has been written about the unholy alliance of church and state. Sounds like the same tune played right on.

    Well, I certainly think we are hearing variations on a theme. As a practical matter, the state and religious people can help one another keep control of the masses. This isn’t just a Christian thing, either, because all you have to do is ask some people from India about the Hindu party’s activities. No need to mention Islamic countries.

    But in terms of Christianity, I think it is a result of a misunderstanding, for whatever reason, of the nature of the Kingdom, which Jesus himself addressed when he was on earth. And also I think there is not agreement about what it means to be “salt and light” in the world while being in the world but not of it.

    I don’t think either a particular religion or anti-religion should be enforced, but obviously as a Christian I think we would be a lot better off if everyone thought and behaved like Christ. That cannot be imposed from outside, and I don’t think it is plausible that humans will “bring in the Kingdom” as the various brands of dominionists seem to think. The issues and interests are complicated, as you have said more than once.

  359. @ Gram3:
    You mean the BJP in India?

    Also, i think it needs repeating that thete are msny Muslims who want nothing to do with the barbarism of groups like the so-called ISIS. there have bern many protests against them by Arab imigres, but mostly reported on in the French press, which is also important in ME countries like Lebanon (which was controlled by France for a good while). Believe it or not, most of the people vitimized by the Mudlim extremists who took (and have dince lost) control of northern Mali were Muslims who do not agree with the extremist group in question, or others lkke it. Many of them took steps to safeguard the rare – really, priceless – manuscripts held in the city of Timbuktu. The extremists burned the ones they could get hold of, but the vadt majority of texts (dating back to the early Middle Ages) had already bern removed from the city, in advance of the rebel capture of thecity. They are back there now, being cataloed by Muslim men and women who greatly value scholarship, learning, and the free exchange of ideas.

    Al Qaeda, ISIS and other such groups, evil as they are, are both very recent developments as well as being unrepresentative of the majority of Muslim countries and cultures, especialky those that were seats of learning -Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, and many others.

  360. @ numo:
    What I’m talking about is not ISIS but rather that political alignments are assumed to be determined by religious alignments. Or vice versa. It is the idea of a religion being identified with a political party or faction or an entire state and how those religious and non-religious interests are mutually supporting. That can take various forms, but it is the idea of linking religion with power for the benefit of the leaders or elites of both.

  361. numo wrote:

    Mass. Bay Colony, with its insistence that it actually was the New Jerusalem

    My word. I did not know they said that.

  362. Gram3 wrote:

    @ numo:
    What I’m talking about is not ISIS but rather that political alignments are assumed to be determined by religious alignments. Or vice versa. It is the idea of a religion being identified with a political party or faction or an entire state and how those religious and non-religious interests are mutually supporting. That can take various forms, but it is the idea of linking religion with power for the benefit of the leaders or elites of both.

    Absolute Power plus Utter Righteousness is a REAL BAD combination.

  363. @ Nancy:
    In fact, that’s what Winthrop’s “city on a hill” speech was about. Them.

    Any good, basic outline of their history and beliefs will make that clear. I do not think 20th c. callbacks were anything other than a very calculate move, either.

  364. @ Gram3:
    Ah. You know, this is not true in most Muslim countries, though some would like it to be. Other countries, like Algeria, are recovering from the devastation wrought by that kind of regime.

  365. Nancy wrote:

    numo wrote:

    Mass. Bay Colony, with its insistence that it actually was the New Jerusalem

    My word. I did not know they said that.

    Massachusetts Puritans are practically the type example of writing themselves into the Books of Exodus & Joshua. They hit all the bases, including:
    * Exodus from Egypt (England) to The Promised Land (Massachusetts).
    * Oppression in Egypt (England) under a False Religion (all-too-Romish Anglican Church).
    * Founding the Perfect Righteous Society in the Promised Land with only The Word Of God as a lawbook.
    * And Canaanites already in the Land who had to be Dealt With as Commanded by God in Joshua.

  366. numo wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    The political and military are what’s scary. You’re right about them and culture. It cannot work.

    But if you have the Political and Military, you can FORCE the Culture.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

    “We, The Party, control all books and records; We, The Party, control men’s minds. So We, The Party, control the Past, and thus We, The Party, control the future! Forever!”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

  367. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Atlas Shrugged and Left Behind are THE same story (apocalyptic escape/revenge fantasy) just pitched to different audiences with different fanservice trappings.

    I never thought of that, but that is spot on. Another thing the Left Behind “authors” ripped off from bad fiction. If you ever want a giggle, read Slacktivists review of the Left Behind books.

    Oh, I have. After taking the SAN los from Rapture Fever in the Seventies and Eighties, you think I’d miss a snarkfest like that?

    And there’s another guy on Patheos called “Daylight Atheism” who’s doing the same to Atlas Shrugged over at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/atlas-shrugged/

    Here’s the description of my epiphany that I posted on one of his comment threads:

    Atlas Shrugged is Left Behind for Objectivist Brights.
    Left Behind is Atlas Shrugged for Born-Agains.
    Both are Apocalyptic Escape/Revenge fantasies, both masturbate their target audiences with “You Are Right and They Are WRONG” fanservice flattery, and both have the same core plot. To wit:

    1) Initial Situation: Persecution of the Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) — A small number of The Righteous (Those Just Like You, Dear Reader) are outnumbered and oppressed and persecuted by the Unrighteous. In LB, the Righteous are the Real True Christians and the Unrighteous are Those Heathens (including Atheists); in AS, the Righteous are those Objectivist Captains of Industry, the Makers and Producers, and the Unrighteous are those Statist Moochers and Takers, parasites who leech off the Righteous. Though The Righteous are actually what makes the world function (LB, being the Faithful whose presence holds back the Wrath of God; AS, the makers and producers who actually get things done and keep things working) are outnumbered by the Unrighteous and Majority Rules.

    2) Escape Fantasy — A mysterious Messiah figure spirits away The Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) from the world to a hidden paradise of refuge to wait out the coming Armageddon. In LB, Christ Raptures them to Heaven and removes His presence holding back the Antichrist and the Unrighteous; in AS, John Galt takes them to Galt’s Gulch and its perfectly-Objectivist society, away from the Moochers and Takers.

    3) Revenge Fantasy — Without The Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) to keep the world going, everything goes to hell and Armageddon kicks off. In LB, God is now free to pour out his wrath (plague after plague) upon the Unrighteous; in AS, there are no more Producers to Mooch off of, no more Makers to Take from, and everything melts down — what do Parasites do when there are no more Hosts? While the Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) watch in safety from their hidden refuge.

    4) Final Situation: Triumph of the Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) — Once the Unrighteous have been thrown down never to rise again, the Messiah figure leads The Righteous (those Just Like You, Dear Reader) out of the hidden place of refuge to take possession of the world that should have been theirs all along. Forever. World Without End, Amen.

    Like Christian Apocalyptic with its End Times checklist, AS is plot-driven with minimal characterization. In Christian Apocalyptic, characters are little more than mobile points of view, witnessing the Checklist events go down then breaking the fourth wall to lecture the reader about “what we just witnessed fulfills such-and-such prophecy”. I don’t know that many details about AS, but the long chapter that’s a single run-on paragraph preaching Objectivist Ideology to the world (and to You, Dear Reader) does not sound out-of-place for the genre. And both attempt to proselytize the reader to the belief system of the Righteous (or flatter them if they already are of that belief system).

    So just like Communism and Objectivism are funhouse-mirror reflections of each other, so Left Behind and Atlas Shrugged are the same basic story with completely-different coats of paint, twins reflecting each other in total opposition while they fanservice their True Believers.

  368. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    unlike Piper’s Narcissus-God always sending down death and destruction Just Because I Can.

    To be fair, some of the portrayals of God in the OT sound this way, too. One of the things I lament about inerrancy (particularly the CSBI kind) is that it “flattens out” the texts. It would be much healthier, imho, if we were able to say, “Yeah, the psalmist said that, but that would make God a demon, so we are pretty sure David was just having a bad day when he wrote that Psalm.”

  369. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I see it as more of a Brave New World then a 1984. At least for the first world countries. Keep the citizenry distracted and just happy/distracted enough to not consider rebellion or terrorism a valid option. Costs less in wear and tear and you can sell the people their own distraction.

  370. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I see it as more of a Brave New World then a 1984. At least for the first world countries. Keep the citizenry distracted and just happy/distracted enough to not consider rebellion or terrorism a valid option. Costs less in wear and tear and you can sell the people their own distraction.

    We already have Soma.
    It’s called Social Media.

    Every weekday I take Metrolink and bus to work. I am the only one who is NOT staring at a smartphone and texting away. On the station platforms. On the train. On the bus. In the lunchroom at work. On the bus. On the station platforms. On the train back. All statues staring at the smartphone in their hands, thumbs & fingers working as they text text text to Social Media.

    If the model railroad project with Railroad Alex ever comes to fruition, I’m going to include a sign on the modules at the train shows saying “WE DID ALL THIS WHILE YOU WERE TEXTING”.

  371. numo wrote:

    Believe it or not, most of the people vitimized by the Mudlim extremists who took (and have dince lost) control of northern Mali were Muslims who do not agree with the extremist group in question, or others lkke it.

    Because to the Real True Pure Muslims, they were Heretics and Apostates.

    Many of them took steps to safeguard the rare – really, priceless – manuscripts held in the city of Timbuktu. The extremists burned the ones they could get hold of, but the vast majority of texts (dating back to the early Middle Ages) had already bern removed from the city, in advance of the rebel capture of thecity.

    Because if the texts agreed with the Koran (i.e. SCRIPTURE), they were superflous and could be burned; if they didn’t, they were Heresy and must be burned.

  372. Jeff S wrote:

    I didn’t read all of [Peretti’s] books, but it was leaps and bounds better than the other samples I tried.

    Not uncommon for not-so-good authors. They generally have 1 or 2 very good books, & then they turn out dreck for the rest of their careers.

  373. numo wrote:

    It is real, it is abusive, and let me say one more thing: C. Peter Wagner’s people thought they had literally *killed* Mother Teresa with their prayers. That is a direct quote from their report. I could not make this up if I tried, because my imagination refuses to go there. They saw her as an opponent, they prayed, and bang! She died. Ergo, they killed her with their “prayers.” That they seem never to have given a second thought to the fact that they disagreed with her but that was OK is one of the scariest parts of this. They asked their god to kill her, and he did. And they rejoiced.

    This raises the question (in my mind, at least): Just who or what IS their god? Because it isn’t the God of the Bible.
    Just saying.

  374. Ken wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    You mean, someone who’s trying to learn the Rach 3 ossia cadenza?
    You’re playing all the wrong notes …

    I take it you and I are both thinking of the same classic Morecambe and Wise sketch here?

  375. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    We already have Soma.
    It’s called Social Media.

    Every weekday I take Metrolink and bus to work. I am the only one who is NOT staring at a smartphone and texting away. On the station platforms. On the train. On the bus. In the lunchroom at work. On the bus. On the station platforms. On the train back. All statues staring at the smartphone in their hands, thumbs & fingers working as they text text text to Social Media.

    If the model railroad project with Railroad Alex ever comes to fruition, I’m going to include a sign on the modules at the train shows saying “WE DID ALL THIS WHILE YOU WERE TEXTING”.

    Buuuut – have you noticed that the buses and trains etc are now quieter? I’m catching public transport again after a four year hiatus and the explosion of smart phones. I see a big difference in that time in people’s conduct around me. Also I walked out of a mall this evening and made the same observation as yourself – every single person I sighted was distracted by a device and engaged in either texting/browing or talking. We are not ‘present’ anymore.

  376. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    What gauge model railroad?

    On30. I met Railroad Alex through RailBronies, and the idea is for a Royal Equestrian Railways set of exhibit modules — railroading in the world of My Little Pony. Right now he’s thinking of an operational logging line; I’m probably going to be involved in structures, bridges, and culverts.

  377. Haitch wrote:

    Buuuut – have you noticed that the buses and trains etc are now quieter?

    Except for the R2D2 beep-a-da-boops coming from the smartphones.

  378. numo wrote:

    It is real, it is abusive, and let me say one more thing: C. Peter Wagner’s people thought they had literally *killed* Mother Teresa with their prayers. That is a direct quote from their report. I could not make this up if I tried, because my imagination refuses to go there. They saw her as an opponent, they prayed, and bang! She died.

    “AVARA KEDVARA!”

  379. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    The manuscripts are on every subject imaginable.

    At which point they are SECULAR (not SCRIPTURE!) and MUST be burned.

  380. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    For the people who fid that, yes. For moet Muslims, it’s the opposite, though. And people in Mali are vety proud of the history and legacy of Timbuktu as a seat of learning.

  381. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    AB, I do O gauge. I’m a member of a train club in the DC area. I like to model and collect from the Milwaukee Road, Northern Pacific, Great Northern, and Montana Rail Link. Don’t ask me how much I have spent over the years!!!! I’m paying off a model right now of the Northern Pacific 2626

    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=northern+pacific+2626&view=detailv2&id=E56E9A6B49906BB980E58AE119E5BA8690FDB819&ccid=Z2EXLuiV&simid=608012085126561915&thid=JN.VXxpxfbrbuKEbvH6Z3CHTg&mode=overlay&first=1

  382. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    It is not just social media either. NC education folks have rolled out a Bring Your Own Device program in test schools in which the kids are told to bring smart phones, tablets or laptops to school for their own use. I am not talking about the actual computer classes, this is a do it at your desk instead of whatever it is that the kids were doing that needs eliminated–like learning? It is programming the brain and the habits of kids to stay plastered to the device.

    Just this morning I/we got the last bit of money delivered to the Lutherans so that the sixth grade smarticle particle can go to their school next year along with the third grader already there. They actually use textbooks, grade down for spelling errors, teach actual sentence structure, teach naked math, and throw you out of school for persistent bad behavior. They also teach a foreign language beginning in third grade. Imagine that. And you leave your devices and phones at home. Young daughter says that when she started teaching 20+ years ago that is how it was in the public schools, except for foreign language, but no more. Personally I am way past sick and tired of seeing or helping the kid do art projects to turn in for a science grade, like the papier mache planet she and I just made for a science grade. Great planet. I am good at this artsy craftsy stuff. So is the kid. Too bad about science, but who needs that anyhow? Right? Enough. It’s over. No more.

    Oh my mercy me. While typing this I just got a call from young daughter the high school teacher. She was just assaulted by a kid who stuck her with some sharp object. The school got the SRO and young daughter is pressing charges. The cops found the object–kid had several. Looks like he has been going around sticking people. Call is in to our health care provider. The biggest danger here is possible transfer of Hep C of HIV depending on who this kid has poked with this thing.

    We have got to find a way to get young daughter out of the public schools also. There is so much mess that goes on-you would not recognize it apart from some TV show. Many parts of our society are crumbling in both big and little ways.

  383. Nancy wrote:

    he biggest danger here is possible transfer of Hep C of HIV depending on who this kid has poked with this thing.

    We have got to find a way to get young daughter out of the public schools also. There is so much mess that goes on-you would not recognize it apart from some TV show. Many parts of our society are crumbling in both big and little ways.

    Nancy, I’m so sorry to hear that. I am not surprised, though, and I think your observations are exactly correct. I’ll be praying about your daughter’s health and her situation.

  384. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Haitch wrote:

    Buuuut – have you noticed that the buses and trains etc are now quieter?

    Except for the R2D2 beep-a-da-boops coming from the smartphones.

    Actually not hearing that – most folks apart from the occasional feral have their phones on silent or vibrate. It’s the new social code of conduct. (I’d like to give Nancy some hope that we’re evolving). Might be worth testing this out elsewhere and having a country-wide tour though…

  385. Haitch wrote:

    (I’d like to give Nancy some hope that we’re evolving).

    To the extent that organisms evolve partly by mutating, and the fact that most mutations (I think) are disadvantageous, this this may be evolving.

  386. @ Nancy:
    ha, I did think of that when I was typing – I thought I’d better put “evolving to something more higher/advanced” but I must have had a hunch you’d be so quick in response!

    Nancy I was a governess once with the School of the Air program we have here for rural/remote children. The curriculum is excellent, as are the teachers. It is run on a state-by-state basis. Children on fishing boats and those travelling overseas can also attend. Do you have something similar in the States that your daughter may be able to tap into? I’m trying to think outside of the box for her.

  387. @ Haitch:

    I don’t know but thanks for the tip. I do know that not too long ago they were looking for people to do educational videos for the distance learning courses they have. And there are specialty school for kids with learning problems, and that is one of her specialties. In fact, she taught in one of them some years back. Something will turn up. Especially since at least two, that we know of, of the high end schools have added special programs for kids with learning problems. I believe that is something they may be doing at this time because the economy may have hit them with perhaps decreased enrollment.

    I really think that the private schools will expand the worse things get, provided they can do it for a reasonable price. But and also there are groups of homeschoolers who home school some days and then gather together like one day a week and have people with special know-how come in to supplement the home curriculum. Read about that in the paper not too long ago. I do think there are options; we just need to find them.

  388. Nancy wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    It is not just social media either. NC education folks have rolled out a Bring Your Own Device program in test schools in which the kids are told to bring smart phones, tablets or laptops to school for their own use. I am not talking about the actual computer classes, this is a do it at your desk instead of whatever it is that the kids were doing that needs eliminated–like learning? It is programming the brain and the habits of kids to stay plastered to the device.

    I half expect a lot of these kids to fall over dead if ever separated from their devices. As in separated from the App to “breathe in… breathe out… breathe in… breathe out… breathe in… breathe out…”

    “Breathing… Is there an App for that?”

  389. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I half expect a lot of these kids to fall over dead if ever separated from their devices. As in separated from the App to “breathe in… breathe out… breathe in… breathe out… breathe in… breathe out…”

    “Breathing… Is there an App for that?”

    My brother once said I had a dog that was so dumb it needed prompts to “breathe in, breathe out”… Well, that dog loved me and that was all that mattered. Intelligence can be overrated sometimes.

  390. @ zooey111:
    Inprecatory prayer is awful.. What I find most shocking is they boasted about it. Really, because it is real to them, it is no different in attitude than killing someone. If you are praying something bad happens to someone, some other force than God is behind it. I was shocked when I heard a preacher say regarding a gay child that parents, in addition to shunning him, should give him over to Satan. So much for praying for and forgiving people? A noted conservative Calvinist theologian wrote that God is the author of evil. My God is not the author of evil.

  391. @ js:
    Well said. It’s sad that TWW has turned from being a voice for the victims to witch hunting. And any straw that can be grasped, no matter how flimsy, is sufficient to damn the accused.