Crazy Busy Kevin DeYoung Joins RTS Faculty While Continuing to Serve as Pastor

“We are thrilled to have him as an important part of the RTS [Reformed Theological Seminary] family. He will be a blessing to our students institution-wide.”

Dr. J Ligon Duncan III, RTS Chancellor and CEO

https://twitter.com/RevKevDeYoungKevin DeYoung- Twitter

Have you heard the news?  Crazy Busy Kevin DeYoung just got a lot busier.  Here is what he recently announced via Twitter (see screen shot below).

https://twitter.com/RevKevDeYoung/status/658660345469345792In case you're not sure why we described DeYoung as crazy busy, it's because he wrote a book by that title last year.  Much to our surprise, it won 2014 Christian Book of the Year (awarded by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association).  We wrote a post about it and were amazed at what a crazy busy life DeYoung actually has.  Here is a list of conferences at which he spoke, as noted in that TWW post.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/05/28/kevin-deyoungs-crazybusy-life-which-inspired-the-book-of-the-year/

Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III, who was appointed Chancellor and CEO of the Reformed Theological Seminary in August 2013 (see our post for more info), provided the following statement at the time the announcement was made:

Kevin DeYoung embodies the commitments and emphases that Reformed Theological Seminary commends to a new generation of pastors and church leaders who desire to serve the people of God faithfully and to engage the culture effectively. Kevin reminds me of a young R.C. Sproul or James Montgomery Boice. He is a theologian, churchman, writer, preacher,teacher and leader. He brings a rich pastoral experience to the task of theological education and a sharp theological mind to the work of seminary education.  We are thrilled to have him as an important part of the RTS family. He will be a blessing to our students institution-wide.”

Here is a screen shot of the announcement made by RTS.

http://rts.edu/site/newsevents/2015/deyoung.aspx

According to its website,

Reformed Theological Seminary serves the church by preparing its leaders through a program of graduate theological education based upon the authority of the inerrant Word of God and committed to the historic Reformed Faith. We invite you to browse through our seminary website to learn more about the programs available at our various Seminary campuses and our Global Program.

RTS has seminaries in a number of locations, including:  Jackson, Orlando, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Memphis, Washington, D.C., New York City, and Global. 

The church Kevin DeYoung has pastored since 2004 voted last November to leave the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and to affiliate with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The Gospel Coalition shared details about the vote in a post.  Here are the highlights:

At a special congregational meeting last night University Reformed Church voted 366-18 (95.3%) in favor of leaving the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and affiliating with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

Of the 384 votes, 335 (320-15) were cast at the meeting and 49 (46-3) by absentee ballot.

The 384 votes represent 91% of our communicant membership. University Reformed Church currently has 422 members and a Sunday morning attendance of around 650.

In a earlier post, DeYoung explained the reasons for leaving the RCA (see below):

Let me simply say at this point that our reason for seeking to leave the RCA is not one thing, but many things. From the adoption of the Belhar Confession, to the removal of the conscience clauses related to women’s ordination, to the growing acceptance of homosexual practice in the denomination, we believe the RCA has changed significantly in the last several years. The denomination has moved away from churches like ours. Our request is that we may be able to move too.

RevKev, as DeYoung is called by his peers, is a mover and shaker in the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement.  As you might imagine, he is crazy busy promoting the upcoming Together for the Gospel conference on Twitter as these two screen shots demonstrate.  It's all about recruiting…

Kevin DeYoung's Twitter

Kevin DeYoung's Twitter

And on and on it will go until next Spring…  It continues to perplex us that pastors like Kevin DeYoung, Mark Dever, and C.J. Mahaney, whose churches are relatively small in size, have so much influence over the YRR crowd. 

And speaking of Mahaney, let's not ever forget that he owes a debt of gratitude to Kevin DeYoung who 'objectively' found him fit for ministry.  This is what we had to say on the matter in 2011.  When DeYoung was selected to serve on the preliminary panel, he was not as well known in the blogosphere as he is now.  However, the DeYoung/Mahaney friendship was in full swing in March 2010, as DeYoung's post Monday Morning Mahaney shows.  It appears DeYoung's loyalty is paying off handsomely as he continues to be promoted by the Neo-Cal leaders.

Perhaps one of DeYoung's goals is to recruit RTS students into the movement.  We wonder whether they will receive course credit for attending T4G like students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary do.  With the early bird deadline fast approaching – 10.31.15 – can there be any doubt that Southern Seminary students in particular are making plans to attend?

As RevKev gets even busier in his new teaching role at RTS, as pastor of University Reformed Church, as a Ph.D. student, and in his leadership role in the Neo-Cal movement, it looks like his wife will have her hands full raising their six children.  As a stay-at-home mom who reared two daughters to adulthood, I can honestly say that I was crazy busy in that role.  And my husband's position required very little travel.  It will be interesting to see what the future holds for these YRR leaders, their wives, and their children.  The Neo-Cal (aka Calvinista) leaders are making great sacrifices for their cause…

ADDENDUM (10/30/15)

Max brought to our attention a video clip featuring Kevin DeYoung, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan which everyone needs to watch.  These guys obviously have ALL the answers. 

"Where else are they gonna go, who else is gonna answer their questions?" – Al Mohler

No wonder Mahaney calls his good buddy Al "the smartest man on the planet". . .

Comments

Crazy Busy Kevin DeYoung Joins RTS Faculty While Continuing to Serve as Pastor — 318 Comments

  1. Kevin wrote:

    I don’t get the gospel coalition

    It’s not a “gospel” coalition … it’s a Calvinist coalition! In reformed ranks, Gospel = Calvinism. For a glimpse inside the minds of New Calvinists, check out the video clip of DeYoung, Duncan, and Mohler talking about New Calvinism. King Mohler’s words are disturbing “Where else are they going to go? … if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed … there just are not options out there …” These folks are serious!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

  2. @ Max:
    Uhg! Mohler really does think he’s the Protestant pope, doesn’t he????

    So the sign-up deadline for T4G’16 is on Halloween? How appropriate!!! “Invasion of the Church Body Snatchers”???

  3. I would like to guest write a post on what the bible says about the “office”” of “pastor”, and how, if it really existed, would look nothing like what a “senior pastor” does. But now I get how these guys churn out so many award-winning books…the category is “accessible theology,” which means it can be written in 2 months by anyone with a working knowledge of the bible (and a ghostwriter, so they don’t have to sacrifice much time from their senior pastor duties.) Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…of course, it may be a distance-learning PhD that serves no purpose other than to confer the coveted title of “doctor,” which is totally inappropriately used by clergy for self-puffery. Also, how is it a father of 6 young children can pursue so many demanding avenues without calling into question his humanly constrained ability to pastor? Or partner in marriage? Or author? Or speak so prolifically at events? Or be a full-time student? And all at the same time? Has the Council for Biblical Manhood looked into this?

  4. Huh, I think it is odd that he is getting a position as professor without even having a doctorate. His PhD doesn't sound related to his field of teaching either, but perhaps it is.

    I am doing 6 hours of seminary classes with a full time job and 1 child, and I can't even imagine adding a busy conference schedule and second job! I really don't see how anyone could do justice to all of those obligations at the same time.

  5. Jeremy wrote:

    I really don’t see how anyone could do justice to all of those obligations at the same time.

    My guess, he has a lot of help and doesn’t really function in all the roles he claims. He does not live a normal life like the rest of humanity.

  6. I saw that DeYoung was going to do this, and I also saw (because I was bored and had nothing better to do than go over to the Puritan Board) that DeYoung is going to teach two or three short courses a year (a whole course over a week’s duration). That said, I still do not see how he can do this without having a whole staff to help him. Oh wait, there are 14 people on staff at University Reformed Church, including an associate pastor and at least one woman who can type up the great man’s words and turn them into the next “book o’sermons.”

    I suspect DeYoung is like the other great men of the TGC/YRR/9Marks/Acts 29 crowd. They have churches (or, in the case of Albert Mohler, a seminary), are married, and thus have a staff to help them out when it comes time to write their books, lectures, course materials, sermons, whatever. Of course, the wife gets to raise and take care of the kids while the Great Man goes out and makes the rounds and gets the plaudits and accolades. (I certainly hope Mrs. Kevin DeYoung has some help, six kids is a lot, and she’s not turned her older children into caretakers for the younger children, which is what Michelle Duggar has done to her children.)

    Every time I read about a Kevin DeYoung or an Albert Mohler or Mark Driscoll or John Piper, I’m reminded of how much these guys don’t live the lives that the average Joe or Jane Pewperson lives. They live in rarefied realms. I’ve said it before but it bears saying again, probably none of these guys have had to answer to a woman, not even their wives in their complementarian marriages, since they were in high school. So they can say a lot of things about how women are and what women should be, but they don’t interact with us as equals, and they do not want to interact with women in that way. We’re to shut up and obey. Oh yeah, and take care of the kids and make sure the great man has clean socks and underwear for his next flyaway to teach men aspiring to the Calvinista Celebrity Circuit.

    Yes, what I wrote is a bit snarky, but, as I said, I was bored today and found myself in parts of the Internet where I do not normally wander. I was at the website for Al Mohler’s cemetery, oops, seminary, and yes, they have a page specifically for women. Wives. Seminary wives. Of course women can’t be pastors or in ministry, so this is all a very poor substitute. There’s no classwork, just some get-togethers (http://www.sbts.edu/women/). John MacArthur’s “Master’s Seminary” doesn’t let women attend, but has a program for seminary wives, again, no credit, but you’d pretty much better go: http://www.tms.edu/semwives/ . The very conservative Greenville Presbyterian Seminary will let women take classes, but they’re very explicitly told the following:

    All women registering for courses at GPTS are required to affirm that they will not use credits earned at the seminary in future pursuit of any program leading to ordination to the offices of minister, elder or deacon in any church.

    http://www.gpts.edu/students/campuslife/womenandfamilies.php

    Of course, this is all of a piece with Nancy Guthrie telling women how to get a seminary style education without actually going to seminary over at the TGC website. (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/7-ways-to-grow-as-teacher-and-theologian-without-attending-seminary) I read through the seven ways and reflected, based on my law school experience, that her suggestions were rather like telling someone to read police procedurals and watch all the versions of “Law and Order” and that would be the equivalent of a law school education. No, seminary, like law school, is formation. However, in the case of any seminaries which might get the TGC’s seal of approval, it’s probably a good thing for women to stay well away.

    Sorry for the meandering, I’ve been all over the place today…

  7. I am sad for his children. It sounds as if they are going to grow up with an oft-absent father. Since we tend to take our cues about the Heavenly Father from our earthly one, are they going to grow up to regard God as distant and uninvolved?

    Is he going to have the most influence everywhere, except at home?

    While he’s busy pastoring and providing for all these other people, who (besides his wife) is investing time in those six precious souls?

  8. (Sorry, I just can’t help thinking of all the children of busy pastors who end up leaving the faith. But then, maybe the culprit isn’t mere busyness or neglect of the “little things” in pursuit of the “big things”, but flaws in the theology as well.)

  9. Janet Varin wrote:

    Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…of course, it may be a distance-learning PhD that serves no purpose other than to confer the coveted title of “doctor,” which is totally inappropriately used by clergy for self-puffery.

    I pretty much agree with everything else you said in your post, particularly about the “office” of pastor and our utter modern day perversion thereof, and while I sincerely doubt that Mr. DeYoung and I would both exit a room fully intact were we ever to enter one, just the two of us, I will defend him on this point and this point alone: Leicester is a darned good university, via distance model or otherwise. If DeYoung eventually receives a PhD from them, it will be legit.

  10. refugee wrote:

    It sounds as if [his children] are going to grow up with an oft-absent father.

    In some cases, that may not be such a bad thing.
    😉

    Sorry for the snark, but if anybody thinks they can do all those things and still be a pastor worth talking* and listening to, a husband worth loving and living with, a father worth growing up with and a teacher worth listening to, they must be deluded.

    I hope his children have good time management skills, so that they are free in their allotted time slot in their dad’s schedule. Same for his wife.

    *If a pastor is to be more than just the CEO of a religious NPO, then the most important thing he needs is time, time to listen, and listen carefully.

  11. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Max:
    Uhg! Mohler really does think he’s the Protestant pope, doesn’t he????

    So the sign-up deadline for T4G’16 is on Halloween? How appropriate!!! “Invasion of the Church Body Snatchers”???

    I love it!!

  12. @ Max:
    That video is so revealing, wow! “Where else can they go?” So, I guess, they must build that place! So heroic.

    These guys do seem to be working fast and furious. Can you blame them? They’re up against the tide. Each time they construct one of their little sand castles, in comes the water and washes it away. So, quick! Gotta get back out there and build those fortifications again. How exhausting and time consuming.

    Really, though. Who thinks these guys are building on the rock? If not, then what will protect their work and cause it to stand? If it’s up to themselves, well, then, they need to put it in hyper-drive because if they’re not busy defending, protecting and securing the walls of their beach castle, then who will?

  13. In his favour, at least he will not become divorced from real church life if he continues to pastor and teach in the rarified atmosphere of RTS. Against this is the time commitment – I have a little experience of this, and doing a full-time job and trying to help lead a church can be a strain.

    By chance I happened to listen to a speaker a couple of days ago saying if he had his time over again, he would have cut his ministry time down and spent more time with his three children, especially when they were young. Even in the semi-shepherding outfit I spent time in years ago the line was ‘your family is more important than your ministry’. Indeed it’s possible for ‘ministry’ to become a way of evading the chores of bringing up a family.

    With 6 children, I hope he won’t come to regret this in years to come. A worn out wife, and children who associate the faith and church and ministry with dad not being there for them. You can’t ever get that time back again.

  14. Russ Moore double dipped and look where he is now. It is all about building your brand. And to do that requires loyalty to the reigning big cheeses.

    Most pew sitters are proud of their accomplished and celebrity pastor. Otherwise it would not work.

  15. Bridget wrote:

    Jeremy wrote:
    I really don’t see how anyone could do justice to all of those obligations at the same time.
    My guess, he has a lot of help and doesn’t really function in all the roles he claims. He does not live a normal life like the rest of humanity.

    Agree…..smoke and mirrors.

    All the while, the congregation will be chastised as being lousy parents for not being in church enough, not giving enough, not disciplined enough etc.

  16. I took classes at RTS for many years, and attended many of these churches, so I have my theory about how he’ll pull this off…

    1) He could teach part-time, possibly only on weekend/holiday classes at one of the extension campuses (like DC).

    2) Pastors at Reformed churches, especially if they are Head/Teaching Pastors, tend to only show up for the Sunday sermon (which to their mind is the most important part of worship anyways), with a small window of “office hours” during the week.

    3) Never underestimate the added value of volunteer labor (grad students, deacons) and ghostwriters.

    All that said, I’d still wager he’s not spending as much time with his family and his flock as he should.

  17. It continues to perplex us that pastors like Kevin DeYoung, Mark Dever, and C.J. Mahaney, whose churches are relatively small in size, have so much influence over the YRR crowd.

    Their churches are small in comparison to evangelical megachurches, but in the Reformed end of the house they are the big fish of the small pond.

  18. Let’s all prayer for this brother in Christ that he would have wisdom in what he is doing and the humbleness to step away if he can’t. I have read a couple of his books and they are solid and have been a blessing to me. I have no doubt that he loves Jesus.

  19. @ Nancy2:

    They would say they are following Martin Luther's lead. Luther nailed the Ninety-Five Theses to a church door in Wittenburg 498 years ago.

  20. You know the biggest problem with this crowd? They are man-centered. I don’t just mean male (though that, too), I mean human-centered. I’ve written here about the first time I saw it in its nakedness at an outdoor public event staged by John Piper and a couple other locally semi-prominent pastors in Minneapolis in the 1990s. My wife and I experienced exactly the same feelings at the same time as we watched the three luminaries in front of the crowd of thousands taking turns bragging and boasting on each other, then taking turns responding with false modesty–it was obvious to us what was going on: arrogant men and their quid pro quo.

    Kevin is just another in a long line of YRR wonder boys upon whom the reformed crowd directs their attention and envy and idolatry. They love the big, flashy, bios, the hype and hyperbole (“Why I’m jus Crazy Busy, folks!”), the front row seats at the conferences, the big boys network and the glow of the inflated introduction for their talks, the fake modesty, the spotlight and the glow of the adoring crowds. They probably get tears in their eyes when they think of all the great things they’re doing for the Great Cause. Jesus seems more like a cover for their mutual admiration.

    In practice, it is a seductive and vicious lie.

  21. @ Law Prof:

    Hero worship indeed! And the young impressionable seminarians probably think they can be the next big YRR leader with a speaking gig and best selling book.

  22. @ Law Prof:
    I agree! I did research it before I commented and learned that to be so. What sparked my cynicism is that I have noticed in recent years the race to the title of “doctor” among clergy (and I can speak only of the reformed evangelical church which was the tribe to which I was absolutely loyal for years). I must question why that title is so crucial if your “call” from the holy spirit is to pastor God’s flock.

  23. Deb wrote:

    They would say they are following Martin Luther’s lead. Luther nailed the Ninety-Five Theses to a church door in Wittenburg 498 years ago.

    Laughable, but probably true!!!
    However, I seriously doubt if any of these pretty boys can drive a nail without smashing their thumbs!

  24. @ Paula Rice:
    Paula, these folks truly believe that they are on a mission from God to restore the gospel to the church that the rest of us lost! It is a misplaced passion. When Dr. Mohler says “there just are not options out there”, he is including the millions of Southern Baptists who are non-Calvinists. Clearly, in his mind, any Christian belief and practice that is not “reformed”, is wrong. Thus, he is out and about to change a once-great evangelistic denomination into the image of Calvin and he is doing that by indoctrinating a generation of young, restless and reformed to take SBC pulpits. Amazingly, Southern Baptist leaders representing the majority are letting him have his way, with little challenge! This thing has taken on a spiritual dimension that is being largely ignored … New Calvinism behaviors of control, manipulation and intimidation are not gifts of the Holy Spirit. If and when the dust settles from this madness, millions of confused and disillusioned followers of the reformed movement will enter the none or done ranks, with little interest to ever do church again. Whose plan would that be?

  25. Is he crazy busy?
    Or is it just his myriads of underlings that are crazy busy worshiping him and making him look good as he dictates what they should do?

  26. Speaking of Martin Luther, I wonder if Kevin DeYoung is going to wind up busier than he was? The Luther household was plenty busy after he and Katie started having kids, but Martin was largely there in the evenings, even as they always had boarders and/or guests.

    “…it looks like his wife will have her hands full raising their six children. As a stay-at-home mom who reared two daughters to adulthood, I can honestly say that I was crazy busy in that role. And my husband’s position required very little travel.”

    As a mom of 5 kids, including my autistic son who sometimes makes it feel like 6 instead, trying to imagine the burden I would be facing if were suddenly a single mom is both exhausting and terrifying. The closest thing that comes to mind would be if my husband upped our income by becoming a long haul trucker. (There is a prominent truck stop not too far from our neighborhood.) The money would certainly be good, but the price paid in lost time could not make up for it.

  27. Mara wrote:

    Is he crazy busy?
    Or is it just his myriads of underlings that are crazy busy worshiping him and making him look good as he dictates what they should do?

    Hmmm, as in they do the work, he gets the accolades? ( and all the perks? )

  28. Kevin wrote:

    Why in the world does anybody think he is someone worth listening to??? I don’t get it

    Why does anybody think Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Honey Boo-Boo, and Duck Commander are worth listening to?

  29. Max wrote:

    It’s not a “gospel” coalition … it’s a Calvinist coalition! In reformed ranks, Gospel = Calvinism

    There is no Christ, there is only CALVIN.

  30. mirele wrote:

    Yes, what I wrote is a bit snarky, but, as I said, I was bored today and found myself in parts of the Internet where I do not normally wander. I was at the website for Al Mohler’s cemetery, oops, seminary, and yes, they have a page specifically for women. Wives. Seminary wives. Of course women can’t be pastors or in ministry, so this is all a very poor substitute. There’s no classwork, just some get-togethers

    All of this stuff designed for women focuses on how women can better serve men ~~ The purpose of a woman’s existence is to puff up and stroke her husbands ego. It has nothing to do with women serving God. Women exist to support the men who serve God, and to teach other women to do the same.

  31. @ Law Prof:

    There are some great comments in this thread, but this one stood out to me as among the best. Having been enthralled with Calvinistic theology and the movement back in the late 1990s, before it was cool to be a Calvinista — thank you very much — I was more proud to be associated with “the great men of Reformed theology” than anything else. Sad, but true, this movement is entirely man-centered. For all their talk of Jesus, and “the Gospel”TM, the men, and I do mean men, of the YRR movement get the spotlight, not Jesus, not the true Gospel. (Rom. 1:16, 17)

  32. Janet Varin wrote:

    Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…

    Honorary Doctorate(TM) awarded by another Senior Pastor(TM)?

  33. Deb wrote:

    We have to keep sounding the alarm for those slumbering in the pews.

    Therein lies the problem in mainline Christendom. The pews are easy pickins’ for theological error. Prayerless and powerless they are. Apathy has settled in; full fledged apostasy is just around the corner. Blow a trumpet in Zion; the hedge is down – we have allowed it. Unless we repent …

  34. @ mirele:
    These RTS courses that are compacted into a week or several weekends are not really good ones. I’m surprised RTS is accredited when they use so many of those kind of courses.

  35. @ Law Prof:
    As for “Man-centered”–you bet! And they are always recruiting, recruiting, recruiting to get more people on board their bus. Tim Keller is really an outstanding person and pastor–I wish he were not part of the whole thing. His network plants other kinds of churches besides PCAs, which is why the Bayly Brothers get after him (and also because Keller believes in having woman deacons). And all these people (like deYoung) want to be part of something bigger than their own church, so they are thrilled to get a chance to participate.

  36. mirele wrote:

    there are 14 people on staff at University Reformed Church, including an associate pastor

    This prompted a visit to the URC site. I was actually looking for pastor:member ratio, wondering how a pastor as booked as Kevin and one associate pastor could truly know, and minister to the needs of, the individual members of the flock. I also wanted to see how many giving units supported a staff of 14, with tithes and offerings that, biblically, should be directed to the material needs of the flock.
    I didn’t find that info but I did find the following:

    1. Kevin welcomes outside speaking engagements but his 2016 travel calendar is full (9 events, 3 countries, 7 states). Travel expenses covered by…tithes and offerings?
    2. His staff bio lacks any testimony but has 8 links to Amazon to purchase his books. (Does this violate 501(c)-3 restrictions?)
    3. A little off-topic but I always check this one: the “Elders” page lists the many biblical references to elders, and with reference to church discipline, this:

    Discipline. Elders are to “exercise Christian discipline with respect to any who continue in sin without repentance” (BCO, 21; Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-13).

    Predictably absent is 1 Tim. 5:20, the biblical mandate to discipline sinning leaders quickly and publicly.

  37. William, I suspect that these guys see themselves as part of the next great reformation of Church history, especially with the 500th anniversary of the original one slowly bearing down on us. That can be a seriously heady thing, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they are secretly hoping to be part of the next famous fraternity of Great Men. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, Ursinus, Olevianus, Melanchthon, Beza, Bullinger,Oecolampadius, Farel, Cranmer, Knox, Chemnitz, Viret, Jonas, Martyr, Petri and Petri, and if one gets into early seventeenth century high Calvinism, the list gets even longer. Maybe, just maybe, they could go down in history being just as famous for saving orthodox Christianity. Every celebrity pastor from at least Chrysostom onward has had congregants who enjoyed having such a pastor or priest.

  38. @ Godith:

    This is true: I took one during college and regret it. I merely learned what I needed to for the big test and cannot remember anything from that class. Regret.

  39. @ NJ:

    Oh, yes, you are correct!!! For an excellent example, R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God, he begins to count noses as to how many among the Calvinist crowd (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards) are intellectually superior to those of the Arminian crowd (Pelagius, Arminius, Melanchthon, Wesley, Finney), to which I belong. Anyone who knows church history understands that ALL the church Father prior to Augustine and Jerome — theological heavyweights, were not Calvinists but anachronistic Arminians.

    Also, Dutch Reformed theologians Arminius, Episcopius, Grotius and Uytenbogaert were among the most brilliant of their time; and Wesley and Finney are nothing to sneeze at, even if one does not always agree with Finney. Frustrating.

  40. Law Prof wrote:

    Jesus seems more like a cover for their mutual admiration. In practice, it is a seductive and vicious lie.

    So true! Flattery is running rampant in this movement. When you listen to New Calvinist sermons, you hear a lot about “God”, only occasional mention of Jesus, and hardly a note about the Holy Spirit. I suppose the Calvinist God blesses them with the gift of arrogance and they find kindred spirits that will stroke their pride. In the meantime, Jesus gets second billing as they tout “Gospel-centered” this and that. I’ve never really had a problem with “Old” Calvinists – they’ve been harmless enough, but these “New” Calvinists are a totally different breed.

  41. Janet Varin wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    I agree! I did research it before I commented and learned that to be so. What sparked my cynicism is that I have noticed in recent years the race to the title of “doctor” among clergy (and I can speak only of the reformed evangelical church which was the tribe to which I was absolutely loyal for years). I must question why that title is so crucial if your “call” from the holy spirit is to pastor God’s flock.

    And Paul, who far as the Bible indicates never took the title (if it be right to even refer to it as a title) of “pastor” for himself, essentially considered trash all his religious academic accomplishments in becoming the most brilliant student of a rabbi who is still discussed with reverence in Judaism to this day (Gamaliel) who was in turn the most brilliant student of a rabbi also discussed with reverence in Judaism to this today (Hillel). Is there anyone alive among these little reformed deities and demigods whom anyone will even consider more than a footnote in 100 years?

    So why do these fellows so lust after and worship the titles and honors and accolades? Whom do they really worship? Who do they most resemble in Jesus’ environment in First Century Palestine?

  42. What’s ironic about their quest to be well-known in future world church history studies is that “The Gospel Coaliton” will probably be a paragraph hidden in a short chapter on United States 1990’s-2020 church history (because what even that moving is happening here especially in comparison to the power of the church in the rest of the world); a paragraph depicting “some shepherding movement with a reformed twist with generally mediocre to poor articles written mostly by people jockeying for position on social media and conferences or using church positions to leverage themselves” lasting only about 10-15 years as that is about the length of time their coalition will last. What’s more important, however, is the Church History book God holds, with most (maybe all!) of the prominent players and movers in church history being people we have no idea about. God’s view of influence and faithfulness is something *quite* different than what these men are trying to attain.

    Another thing that kills me, is I see these men quoting and tweeting Eugene Peterson all the time. Have they READ Eugene Peterson? Do they comprehend his writings? His view of the pastorate and ministry culture is pretty much the exact opposite of everything they do and promote. The lack of self-awareness is all too much.

  43. Max wrote:

    If and when the dust settles from this madness, millions of confused and disillusioned followers of the reformed movement will enter the none or done ranks, with little interest to ever do church again. Whose plan would that be?

    I know EXACTLY where you’re coming from and agree entirely, but here’s something hilarious: it just might be the Lord’s plan. Given what church is: fake niceness, the Body of Christ reduced to one loud, arrogant mouth and 50 or 500 or 5,000 butts on Sunday, perhaps the Lord is using these little men with big egos to drive His people out of that which was killing them.

  44. Nancy2 wrote:

    So the sign-up deadline for T4G’16 is on Halloween? How appropriate!!! “Invasion of the Church Body Snatchers”???

    Zooey already caught it, but this comment deserves to be lauded a second time! (I can’t help but imagine that you had in mind the not uncommon Neo-Cal takeover when you wrote this…)

  45. Janet Varin wrote:

    I must question why that title is so crucial if your “call” from the holy spirit is to pastor God’s flock.

    The title isn’t important if you are called to pastor. It is important if you are desire to be a Reformed Christian Celebrity.

  46. Max:

    “I’ve never really had a problem with “Old” Calvinists – they’ve been harmless enough, but these “New” Calvinists are a totally different breed.”

    Kind of like English honeybees vs. Africanized bees?

  47. Janet Varin wrote:

    Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…of course, it may be a distance-learning PhD that serves no purpose other than to confer the coveted title of “doctor,” which is totally inappropriately used by clergy for self-puffery

    I have an earned Ph.D. in physics. This took five years of absolutely full time commitment. The first half was course work and the second half was performing an experiment that was expected to lead to one or more refereed publications and the obligatory thesis. Between these there were written and oral examinations where the faculty made sure you knew you really didn’t know very much. In subsequent years I’ve known a number of pastors whose commitments to their calling approximate the effort I put into my graduate education. I don’t see how a legitimate doctorate can be obtained by a part time effort.

  48. Josh wrote:

    (I can’t help but imagine that you had in mind the not uncommon Neo-Cal takeover when you wrote this…)

    Exactly!

  49. @ Max:
    May I run this past you? Going by my own and others’ observations of the charismatic movement as it descended into Toronto and Brownsville we noticed the following.

    All three persons of the trinity are involved in our salvation. An emphasis developed on the ‘father heart of God’, it was all about love and being accepted. No-one would really argue about that. The main emphasis and more controversial, however, became experiencing the Spirit as power. So manifestations were sought, and Benny Hinn amongst many others would, when the “anointing” was upon him, point at people and a row of 27 would fall to the ground, supposedly ‘slain in the Spirit’. It was all about spectacular spiritual effects channelled by the preacher, so-called. (In reality another spirit was at work or this was the result of psychological manipulation or both.)

    Missing was the work of God the Son in salvation. This means facing our sin and need of forgiveness, repentance, change. Moreover we have to look at the cost obtaining this salvation entailed. The cross. Our rebellion. No warm fuzzy feelings of love or spectacular manifestations.

    I suggest that wherever the work of the Son is downplayed and replaced by love and/or power, you are looking at best people who have lost the plot and at worst outright frauds who are in the depths of deception. There is little change in the behaviour of those involved. Too often there was blatant immorality.

    Now I would have though a manifestation of Calvinism ought to be to lead a church back to sin and grace, going by TULIP. Or is the substitute this time not power, but a preoccupation with doctrine, preferably with the Greek, and the intellectual appreciation of it and those who espouse it?

  50. William wrote:

    Also, Dutch Reformed theologians Arminius, Episcopius, Grotius and Uytenbogaert were among the most brilliant of their time

    Hugo Grotius is regarded as one of the greatest legal thinkers of all time. His work is foundational to the law of countries with Roman-Dutch systems.

  51. I agree with OldJohnJ… and the “quality” of a “part time” Ph.D. is consistent with so much of the questions of the integrity of the “churches/para-church” groups discussed on this blog…
    To us academics, what the Ph.D. is “in”, and from “where” it is from is more important than having a “Ph.D.”… but to the pewpeons, it probably looks “impressive”

    OldJohnJ wrote:

    Janet Varin wrote:
    Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…of course, it may be a distance-learning PhD that serves no purpose other than to confer the coveted title of “doctor,” which is totally inappropriately used by clergy for self-puffery
    I have an earned Ph.D. in physics. This took five years of absolutely full time commitment. The first half was course work and the second half was performing an experiment that was expected to lead to one or more refereed publications and the obligatory thesis. Between these there were written and oral examinations where the faculty made sure you knew you really didn’t know very much. In subsequent years I’ve known a number of pastors whose commitments to their calling approximate the effort I put into my graduate education. I don’t see how a legitimate doctorate can be obtained by a part time effort.

  52. @ JohnD:

    So true. He is the founder of International Treaty and Maritime Law that most use to this day. What a shame that the YRR are not exposed to the broader Reformed tradition of the early Remonstrants. I’m trying to correct that.

  53. @ William:

    Then again, when the YRR leaders keep telling their converts that Arminianism is heresy, and keep affirming both the Synod and Canons of Dordrecht, as does Crossway, the publisher for the ESV (a href=”http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-canons-of-the-synod-of-dort-1619/”>link), then no wonder.

  54. @ William:

    I guess I didn’t do that right.

    Then again, when the YRR leaders keep telling their converts that Arminianism is heresy, and keep affirming both the Synod and Canons of Dordrecht, as does Crossway, the publisher for the ESV (a href=”http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-canons-of-the-synod-of-dort-1619/”>link), then no wonder.

  55. William wrote:

    @ JohnD:

    So true. He is the founder of International Treaty and Maritime Law that most use to this day. What a shame that the YRR are not exposed to the broader Reformed tradition of the early Remonstrants. I’m trying to correct that.

    I have admired your efforts for some time now.

  56. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    o us academics, what the Ph.D. is “in”, and from “where” it is from is more important than having a “Ph.D.”… but to the pewpeons, it probably looks “impressive”

    One of my big pet peeves are the some of the PhD’s in “Leadership”.

  57. @ Law Prof:
    And they have told me for the last 10 years my soteriology is “man centered” while quoting a guru, ST, creed or confession to prove it :o)

  58. William wrote:

    Then again, when the YRR leaders keep telling their converts that Arminianism is heresy, and keep affirming both the Synod and Canons of Dordrecht, as does Crossway, the publisher for the ESV … then no wonder.

    Chandler of Acts 29 gives the credit for his conversion to Calvinism to JI Packer so Packer’s material is eagerly devoured by the Acts 29 people of my acquaintance. Packer’s gross misrepresentation of Arminianism is unquestioningly accepted by them as truth.

  59. @ OldJohnJ:
    This is an ongoing convo I have with some friends on how dumbed down some doctoral programs have become. Knowing what they went through years ago to earn theirs, I can understand their concern.

  60. @ William:
    “Knowing God” was chocked full of cognitive dissonance, IMO.

    I wonder if these guys know the Packers attended separate churches because she believes in mutuality?

  61. NJ wrote:

    William, I suspect that these guys see themselves as part of the next great reformation of Church history, especially with the 500th anniversary of the original one slowly bearing down on us.

    The Next Great Mass Movement That WILL Change The World!

    Just like Naziism, Communism, HopeChange, Tea Party, Red Guard, AntiSmoking, Veganism, SaveThePlaaaaanet….

  62. JohnD wrote:

    Chandler of Acts 29 gives the credit for his conversion to Calvinism to JI Packer so Packer’s material is eagerly devoured by the Acts 29 people of my acquaintance. Packer’s gross misrepresentation of Arminianism is unquestioningly accepted by them as truth.

    “MOM!!!!! THERE ARE ARMINIANS UNDER MY BED!!!!!”

  63. Bridget wrote:

    Janet Varin wrote:

    I must question why that title is so crucial if your “call” from the holy spirit is to pastor God’s flock.

    The title isn’t important if you are called to pastor. It is important if you are desire to be a Reformed Christian Celebrity.

    They can always go with the Uganda System:

    “PRESIDENT FIELD MARSHAL DOCTOR IDI AMIN DADA!”

  64. NJ wrote:

    Kind of like English honeybees vs. Africanized bees?

    Yes NJ, one has a worse sting than the other.

  65. Law Prof wrote:

    perhaps the Lord is using these little men with big egos to drive His people out of that which was killing them.

    Yep, the New Calvinists might find out just how sovereign God is!

  66. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Cognitive dissonance — oh, my, yes! And, no, I doubt seriously they understand that. I think many of them swallow whatever the “leaders” tell them, even though they do not always agree with each other, which is usually downplayed as insignificant.

  67. Janet Varin wrote:

    This prompted a visit to the URC site….
    I didn’t find that info but I did find the following:
    1. Kevin welcomes outside speaking engagements but his 2016 travel calendar is full (9 events, 3 countries, 7 states).

    Great minds think alike, Janet. I checked out the URC website, too.

    I noticed that one of those travel events is a 6-week jaunt to the UK. I wonder if the wife and kids are going along or if the wife will be “cRazy buSy” at home without him. Either way, that kind of travel is horrible for the family. I, personally, managed to raise 5 closely spaced children to adulthood with a husband who traveled a lot. I was a stay-at-home mom and my husband wasn’t a very involved father. Yes, we had a “complementarian” marriage. There was enough money for some household help and for me to put the kids in a once or twice a week mother’s day out program when they were pre-schoolers. Even so, it was exhausting. Unless RevKev’s wife has live-in help she’s barely keeping her head above water. I just read an interview with the two of them. When it was written, she was 8 months pregnant with their sixth child and the others were 10, 8, 6, 4, & 2. The poor woman is probably young enough to pop out another baby or two if that’s what they decide to do.

    In my case, that “lifestyle” resulted in divorce. Four of my kids have no contact with their dad. They have no interest in going to church, either. Unless something changes, I’m predicting a bad result in the DeYoung household, too.

  68. Once MacArthur and Sproul convinced me of Calvinism, back in the late 1990s, I consumed the likes of Calvin, Edwards, anyone from Banner of Truth, Piper et al. I never questioned one word from these men — not one word. I see it in other YRR advocates. That is cult-like and dangerous.

  69. Lydia wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    And they have told me for the last 10 years my soteriology is “man centered” while quoting a guru, ST, creed or confession to prove it :o)

    I once was told by a 23 yr old YRR “elder” that I was “in idolatry” of congregationalism because I questioned the YRR pastor’s desire to have the elder team turn over absolute and utter control of the church to him. The 23 yr old “elder” was naturally in the throes of a serious man crush on the pastor, Paul Washer, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Al Mohler, John Calvin and any leader in the movement.

  70. I have an earned PhD too, and I work in higher ed. I find it a bit unusual that Mr. DeYoung is receiving a faculty appointment to teach at the graduate level without a PhD in hand. Our accreditation standards do not allow us to employ non-terminally-degreed faculty (i.e. no doctorate) at the masters level. RTS only does masters and DMin levels. Since the rule is a US dept of Ed mandate, I am sure RTS is to abide by the same standards as we do on this issue.

    Jim G.

  71. @ Law Prof:

    23 year-old elder Oy veh.

    Of course, James MacDonald, who infamously stated that congregationalism was of Satan, joined the congregationalistic Southern Baptist Convention. The irony is almost too much.

  72. Here is often the problem with these ” everyplace” guys….
    When I was in seminary, we had profs who pastored fairly big churches while trying to teach….the teaching suffered. They missed class. Didn’t grade papers. ” Gave ” easy grades….

    Now, some of these profs pastored tiny, tiny churches in rural areas and they actually were good teachers. And what I saw pastors. These guys invited us to their churches on Sunday…did the guys at the ” big” churches? No. It was like, the professors were ashamed of us…..

  73. After watching the video above, two items come to mind.

    First, when Mohler asks where will people go for answers, I can think of one place, the bible. God’s word. If I recall, scripture and even guys like Mohler, at least pay lip service to, searching God’s word and interpreting scripture in light of scripture. I guess being a Berean is no longer enough for these guys.

    Second, the arrogance that they have all the answers, which also shows hypocrisy since they at least sermonize that it is really the Bible that has all the answers.

    Therefore, I can only guess that while they believe all of the above, what they think of the pewsitters is that none can interpret the meaning, which negates the NT verse that tells us that the Spirit will guide us.

    If these guys weren’t so dangerous, this would be hilarious.

    If, as a few mentioned above, this is the way God cleans house, then I can’t wait to say what happens when it all blows up and guys like MacArthur and Dever show up on a Sunday to pastor and the church is only 5% full or the seminaries begin to dry up. Of course they will spin it as persecution or God truly pulling out His remnant. They always have their spin ready.

  74. @ Nancy2:
    Hi MAX,

    from the video of Mohler talking about ‘to whom else should evangelicals go’ in referring to the ‘new’ Calvinism,
    all I could think of was another voice in the Body of Christ saying ‘Lord, to whom else shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life’

    I suspect Mohler might not have realized what he sounded like on that video. And if, in retrospect, he comes to realize the truth of it, maybe he will come to regret the ‘hubris’ in his speech. . .

    seems to me there is a dreadful marriage of the ‘know-it-all’ attitudes, the mysogyny of patriarchal teachings, and the setting aside of Christ as the ‘lens’ through which sacred Scripture is to be interpreted . . .

    these men may be as well-meanings as they seem, but the give-away (red light) is their lack of humility, especially about seeing themselves as founts of knowledge to whom evangelicals should turn . . .

    have we seen this act before? and do we know how it ends?

  75. @ mirele:

    14 staffers plus DeYoung for a 450 member church? Seems excessive, but DeYoung’s got his name to promote and needs people to cover for him while he’s occupied elsewhere – which seems to be most of the time.

    It seemed pretty clear from the time his name first popped up that he was a pledge to the Gospel Glitterati Frat House and now he is a full-fledged member- wonder what the initiation ceremony was like?

  76. Lydia wrote:

    I wonder if these guys know the Packers attended separate churches because she believes in mutuality?

    Reference?

  77. William wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Cognitive dissonance — oh, my, yes! And, no, I doubt seriously they understand that. I think many of them swallow whatever the “leaders” tell them, even though they do not always agree with each other, which is usually downplayed as insignificant.

    I refer you to “The Principles of Newspeak” by G.Orwell;
    emphasis on “Doublethink”:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

  78. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I noticed that one of those travel events is a 6-week jaunt to the UK. I wonder if the wife and kids are going along or if the wife will be “cRazy buSy” at home without him.

    If not, that’s what a 16-year-old Pastor/Commander’s Handmaid is for.

  79. William wrote:

    Of course, James MacDonald, who infamously stated that congregationalism was of Satan, joined the congregationalistic Southern Baptist Convention. The irony is almost too much.

    doublethink, comrade, doublethink.

  80. JeffT wrote:

    14 staffers plus DeYoung for a 450 member church? Seems excessive, but DeYoung’s got his name to promote and needs people to cover for him while he’s occupied elsewhere – which seems to be most of the time.

    URC is directly across the street from the Michigan State University campus. Four of the staff members are directly involved with campus ministry. One to Internationals (which is huge at MSU) and three with the undergrad ministry. URC has had an outreach on campus as long as I’ve been aware.

    One staff member does the website and another one does the building maintenance.

    So while it looks like a lot of staff, it really isn’t when you start looking at what they are doing. We have plenty of churches where I live that have similar staffing levels.

  81. Christiane wrote:

    from the video of Mohler talking about ‘to whom else should evangelicals go’ in referring to the ‘new’ Calvinism,
    all I could think of was another voice in the Body of Christ saying ‘Lord, to whom else shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life’

    I think that’s the only reason I stayed in this continuing South Park episode that’s called “Christianity in America”.
    Who else has the Words of the Life of the Age to Come?

  82. I would also guess those involved in campus ministry are not fully funded by the church. I believe it was denominationally supported at some level. That may have changed with the denomination change, but most people in campus ministry raise support.

  83. Sallie Borrink wrote:

    So while it looks like a lot of staff, it really isn’t when you start looking at what they are doing. We have plenty of churches where I live that have similar staffing levels.

    But so many 501c3’s HAVE seriously padded their staff (gettin’ on the Gravy Train) that we’re automatically suspicious.

    “Nowhere do we corrupt so spectacularly as at the very foot of the altar!”
    — Screwtape

  84. @ Sarah:

    I’d appreciate a reference to that myself — would work great in a post I’m toying with. I didn’t know that about Packer’s wife — too juicy to just let that one sit quiet.

  85. “where else are they going to go?”

    Well if the bible wasn’t important to me and sound doctrine wasn’t important to me and I liked proud controlling people with quirky personalities, I guess I could go to one of their churches.

    But I have different views on God, man, sin, salvation, future events, hermeneutics… It would be foolish to think I could go to one of their churches and not have serious problems.

    It’s really sad because their are probably so many real Christians in this mess that I would like to fellowship with.

    The first thing I look for in an elder is humility.

  86. JeffT wrote:

    @ Sallie Borrink:

    That makes some sense, just seems like a lot compared to my experience with mainline churches.

    I can understand that.

    Three staff members for an undergrad outreach at a campus the size of MSU really isn’t that many. I would say it is on the small side.

  87. Well, much has been said about “working smarter, not harder.” One can be busy, but “much ado about nothing.” Keeping your eye (singular) on the bullseye is the key…the outter rings seem attractive but are a waste of precious journey time with Jesus! Selah…

  88. Law Prof wrote:

    I once was told by a 23 yr old YRR “elder” that I was “in idolatry” of congregationalism because I questioned the YRR pastor’s desire to have the elder team turn over absolute and utter control of the church to him

    Bwahaha! I was also told that I had an idolatrous view of Congregationalism! All because I believed the body should vote on issues.

    Were these YRR secretly educated in North Korea before cemetery/seminary? Where did they learn that Jesus hates a composite society?

  89. @ Jim G.:
    I have been wondering about this. I know that one seminary has non PhD teaching classes but the classes are listed under the name of a PhD prof. Sort of like a long term guest speaker?

    When the SGM Pastors college agreement with SBTS became known, I could not imagine what they had been smoking over there. Where is institutional accountability?

  90. Lydia wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    I once was told by a 23 yr old YRR “elder” that I was “in idolatry” of congregationalism because I questioned the YRR pastor’s desire to have the elder team turn over absolute and utter control of the church to him
    Bwahaha! I was also told that I had an idolatrous view of Congregationalism! All because I believed the body should vote on issues.
    Were these YRR secretly educated in North Korea before cemetery/seminary? Where did they learn that Jesus hates a composite society?

    Well, hubby and me were told, congregational polity, was an American invention, and as such, “unbiblical”.

  91. Lydia wrote:

    Were these YRR secretly educated in North Korea before cemetery/seminary? Where did they learn that Jesus hates a composite society?

    If so, how do you say, “Sayonara!” in Korean?

  92. @ Lydia:
    I suppose that is one way around it. I filled in for my major prof in two of his master level classes one week while he was out of town. As long as the prof of record has his PhD, I guess it is technically okay.

    The SGM thing at SBTS was not so much an accountability problem or even an accreditation problem as it was a slap in the face of SBC students. The fed govt has something called an “ability to benefit” (a2b) program, which allows up to 15% (I think) of seminary-level students to not hold bachelor degrees before pursuing a masters. The student has to be older (>35) to be eligible for a2b. I think SBTS was well within those parameters and had the bases covered with ATS/SACS and internal controls. The real diss was to SBC students. None of the regular students at SBTS could use any of their undergrad work for credit at SBTS, even those who were Bible majors at Boyce. Credit cannot be transferred from BA work to MDiv work. Yet the SGM folks got up to 30 hours of MDiv credit (1 full academic year at the masters level) for 9 months-worth of “unaccredited” bachelor-level work. That was the real rip off. I’m sure Boyce or even any other Bible college grants a superior BA than the 9-month SGM pastors’ “college” did. Yet no one who did it the right way could use any of their BA credit while the SGM folks could. If I were a 5-point SBTS student, that would have made me hopping mad, even if it had been ordained from the foundation of the world.

    Jim G.

  93. Lydia wrote:

    When the SGM Pastors college agreement with SBTS became known, I could not imagine what they had been smoking over there. Where is institutional accountability?

    God’s Predestined Elect (AKA God’s Speshul Pets) have no need of accountability.

  94. @ Jim G.:

    I bet they have another professor who will be the “professor of record” for the class until he receives his degree

  95. @ Jim G.:

    I think seminaries are different animals than regular higher education institutions on such matters. They are called “Professional” schools for a reason. An MDiv is still viewed as a terminal degree. So, I am not surprised that they are allowed to hire Pastor DeYoung without him having a Ph.D. in hand.

    I wonder–I don’t know–if business schools are allowed some leeway, similarly, in hiring practices in getting faculty with professional experience but without Ph.Ds?

    Just a thought.

  96. That video clip made me sick. Such arrogance! What about all the devout Lutherans who are definitely NOT Reformed–i.e. they excluded the Reformed theology into Germany at the start of the Reformation. That is a rather large stream that they are dissing. Plus, it does not respect other streams present as well like my heritage coming from Mennonite origins.

    What is further bothersome is how they are modeling arrogance to their followers. This is not humility to say ONLY the NEO-Reformed people are serious thinkers (essentially). It is downright divisive. And I have encountered such–you’ll be a grownup once you become completely Reformed in theology–mentality before. I do not think such an attitude comes from the Holy Spirit.

  97. The title and position of a Professor used to mean a dedication to academics – full time teaching and research in a field of study. That’s not how it’s used for this “Chancellor’s Professor” position though, from what I can tell.

  98. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Janet Varin wrote:
    Also, how is it possible a senior pastor has time to invest in a PhD program…of course, it may be a distance-learning PhD that serves no purpose other than to confer the coveted title of “doctor,” which is totally inappropriately used by clergy for self-puffery
    I have an earned Ph.D. in physics. This took five years of absolutely full time commitment. The first half was course work and the second half was performing an experiment that was expected to lead to one or more refereed publications and the obligatory thesis. Between these there were written and oral examinations where the faculty made sure you knew you really didn’t know very much. In subsequent years I’ve known a number of pastors whose commitments to their calling approximate the effort I put into my graduate education. I don’t see how a legitimate doctorate can be obtained by a part time effort.

    I’m also an academic, I know something about the British model, Leicester (which is a top 200 university in world rankings) is one of many British universities that follow it. Of course, it ought to take longer, all-in-all, than a full time resident PhD, but let’s not kid ourselves, many PhDs are earned part time and, even in the U.S., and become de facto distance PhDs. E.g., young PhD student, weary of grinding away with a paltry stipend goes on the market and bites on an offer for a lecturer position in another state, they stay in touch with their mentor, keep writing and researching, and eventually finish the PhD and make it on the tenure track while remote. That is not fantasy, that’s the reality for many, all the Brit model does is recognize this as a legitimate track and formalize it. Same for a PhD by publications. I don’t think we should be so culturally chauvinistic as to think the U.S. model is the only viable means of obtaining a terminal degree.

  99. I’ve got no feelings on Kevin DE Young as a human being, just wanted to give my two cents in:

    1. I did read Crazy Busy. As someone who struggles in this area, it was useful, particularly where he discussed pride as being a root cause of busyness. It was convicting. Either “I believe I am capable of doing all this” or “I don’t believe there is anyone better to do the job than me”. I hope Mr. DeYoung has people in his life telling him to re-read his own book.
    2. Although I have no doubts that Mr. DeYoung can’t do it all and probably has a tremendous amount of help, some people are faster at doing things than others. I have friends who can write a sermon in an hour. I can read a book in a day, write a review the next. I wouldn’t assume ghostwriters or “handmaidens” just because someone is prolific.

  100. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I wonder–I don’t know–if business schools are allowed some leeway, similarly, in hiring practices in getting faculty with professional experience but without Ph.Ds?
    Just a thought.

    There’s always room for leeway in academia. Elie Wiesel, sans degree, is a professor at Boston University; Einstein, not really a student in a formal sense, was a awarded a PhD essentially for his vast early body of research by the U of Zurich.

  101. Lydia wrote:

    Bwahaha! I was also told that I had an idolatrous view of Congregationalism!…Where did they learn that Jesus hates a composite society?

    Perhaps from their idols.

  102. @ Ken:

    You do know there are charismatic calvinists, right? Not just Piper either.

    I’m still Charismatic. There are some flaky people in the movement, just like any movement, honestly, but there are quite a few solid, loving, Jesus exalting folk as well. Of course if all I knew of people like me was what I saw on Christian Tv, I can understand some of the opinions expressed here. 😉

  103. Mae wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    I once was told by a 23 yr old YRR “elder” that I was “in idolatry” of congregationalism because I questioned the YRR pastor’s desire to have the elder team turn over absolute and utter control of the church to him
    Bwahaha! I was also told that I had an idolatrous view of Congregationalism! All because I believed the body should vote on issues.
    Were these YRR secretly educated in North Korea before cemetery/seminary? Where did they learn that Jesus hates a composite society?
    Well, hubby and me were told, congregational polity, was an American invention, and as such, “unbiblical”.

    Yes, distinctly American, that’s why Jesus, for example, spoke Matthew 18:17–which takes a distinctly congregational approach towards church discipline–directly to the Americans and Americans only.

  104. Oh, and I forgot to mention I left Calvinism in the dust several years ago. Don’t really consider myself Arminian either. When I get to heaven I will ask Jesus what I am but till then I don’t think it much matters as long as I am following Him.

  105. William wrote:

    @ Mae:
    Wow … I doubt the Dutch and English Anabaptists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries would agree.

    Pathetic, ignorant thinking for sure. Needless to say, we left that congregation.

  106. Saw the title of the video: “. What other option is there than being Reformed? ” This says it all in terms of arrogance. If I were Reformed I wouldn’t be in their camp.

  107. Haven’t had time to read comments yet, but I just watched the video. Now that’s what I call a real snoozer. Who needs Ambien when you can listen to that?

    These guys are really impressed with themselves, legends in their own minds. I say the emporers have no clothes.

  108. @ Divorce Minister:
    No, seminaries have to abide by regional and national accreditation if they possess it (RTS has both). The MDiv is not a terminal degree. In order to teach an MDiv course, a doctorate is required by all the regional accreditors, and the national faith based accreditors (ATS or TRACS). Seminaries can’t get by with it, but as Law Prof said, there are always some exceptions.

    Jim G.

  109. Ken wrote:

    With 6 children, I hope he won’t come to regret this in years to come. A worn out wife, and children who associate the faith and church and ministry with dad not being there for them. You can’t ever get that time back again.

    That’s what I was trying to express. You said it so well. Thanks.

  110. Ken wrote:

    … the work of the Son is downplayed … preoccupation with doctrine … and the intellectual appreciation of it and those who espouse it?

    Yes. New Calvinism is largely an intellectual pursuit of reformed doctrine at the expense of diminishing the person and message of Christ. Some very bright minds have been ensnared by this movement – always discussing and debating but never coming to a knowledge of the Truth (Jesus is the Truth). It’s not by intellect, but by the Spirit. There is an underlying mistrust of personal Christian experience and those who profess a relationship with the living Christ. New Calvinists have replaced this with a list of doctrinal propositions as the essence of faith, rather than an encounter with the living Christ. That’s why you hear so much coming from their ranks pertaining to the Word (cherry-picked passages), while not lifting up the Living Word (Jesus). One of the greatest mission fields for evangelism on the planet may very well be among an unreached people group called New Calvinists.

  111. @ Max:

    This is what I’ve been saying for some time. When I see the fruits, for the most part it appears that many either are such deluded Christians as to be those whom we ought to have little to nothing to do with, or are not Christians at all. Anyone can memorize Bible verses and doctrine, but it is exceedingly difficult to in a sustained way mimic the love of Jesus and the peace of the Holy Spirit. I see neither love nor peace with many in this movement. I’m not the final arbiter of another’s salvation or the final judge of fruits, that is left to the Lord, but I am supposed to be discerning of fruits, and what I see is rotten.

  112. I remember when I was in grad school, there was one time when my classmates and I were pondering about how our Mormon classmates handled the load when they were married and had infant kids. One of the PhD students who had been around longer pointed out that since us bachelors still have to take care of our own chores, errands, and food, they actually had more study time than we did.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    Were these YRR secretly educated in North Korea before cemetery/seminary?

    It is not just Reformed. The negative experiences I had are with more of the Armenian persuasion. Authoritarianism seems to be the unifying dogma of the various pastor schools. In forty years, I have yet to hear a message contradicting the “pastor is in charge” mentality.

  114. So Kevin was awarded the position of Chancellor’s faculty, a position which allows him to teach at multiple RTS campuses. According to the RTS website, their campus sites are in Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, DC, Tennessee, Texas and New York. To the best of my knowledge, none of these is is near East Lansing, Michigan. Did I miss something? Of course, he could be faculty at RTS Global, a 100% online masters level program, but their faculty page seems to indicate all faculty are PhDs: https://www.rts.edu/site/Global/academics/faculty.aspx

    Also, not to be be nit-picky, but according to Wikipedia, Dr. J. Ligon Duncan “completed doctoral studies” at the University of Edinburgh (which indeed is highly regarded), but the fact that his profile does not state that he was awarded his doctorate sounds suspiciously like he did the coursework but didn’t complete the dissertation, but I could be wrong. There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to verify it. But he might want to clarify it.

  115. @ Janet Varin:

    Here is Ligon Duncan’s educational info.

    http://www.rts.edu/jackson/faculty/bio.aspx?id=177

    Education
    Furman University, B.A.
    Covenant Theological Seminary, M.Div., M.A.
    University of Edinburgh, Ph.D.

    Bio

    Ligon Duncan is the Chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary and the John E. Richards Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology. Ligon was born in Greenville, SC, and reared in the home of an eighth generation Presbyterian ruling elder. A 1983 graduate of Furman University (B.A. History), he received the M.Div. and M.A. (Historical Theology) from Covenant Theological Seminary. He earned the Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, New College, Scotland, in 1995 (under the supervision of renowned Reformation and Patristics scholar, David F. Wright). While in Scotland he also studied Systematic Theology at the Free Church of Scotland College (now Edinburgh Theological Seminary) with Professor Donald Macleod.

  116. Law Prof wrote:

    Anyone can memorize Bible verses and doctrine, but it is exceedingly difficult to in a sustained way mimic the love of Jesus and the peace of the Holy Spirit.

    Well said.

  117. Law Prof wrote:

    They are man-centered. I don’t just mean male (though that, too), I mean human-centered.

    True, man or human-centered. Like, “Desiring God” is not focused on God but on the human desire – the man, the person and their desires. Self-focused. “Me” or “We” or “He” desiring… (God).

  118. Eeyore wrote:

    Pastors at Reformed churches, especially if they are Head/Teaching Pastors, tend to only show up for the Sunday sermon (which to their mind is the most important part of worship anyways), with a small window of “office hours” during the week.

    Maybe DeYoung does church like Mark Driscoll who, in the words of Warren Throckmorton, “He didn’t have to meet many people or know many of the lay people. He came in through a private entrance, he had a place to wait, he preached his sermon and ducked out the back.”

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/mark.driscoll.believed.his.own.hype.ran.church.like.a.business/44691.htm

    In the article, Throckmorton also referred to Driscoll as a ‘spiritual performer’, which makes sense if the stage is what these guys primarily take to as their point of reference, then zip out the back thinking their sermon fulfilled their leadership obligation to the church.

    Task oriented vs people oriented. It seems to me when these guys talk of “the gospel”, they do so like it’s a task.

  119. @ Todd Wilhelm:

    Carl Trueman is spot on in that audio clip.  I still don't understand why he agreed to speak at T4G in 2012.  Here he is rubbing elbows (literally) with the great one…

  120. JYJames wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    They are man-centered. I don’t just mean male (though that, too), I mean human-centered.
    True, man or human-centered. Like, “Desiring God” is not focused on God but on the human desire – the man, the person and their desires. Self-focused. “Me” or “We” or “He” desiring… (God).

    Or one of the seminal books in the movement: “Don’t Waste Your Life”.

  121. Law Prof wrote:

    Einstein, not really a student in a formal sense, was a awarded a PhD essentially for his vast early body of research by the U of Zurich.

    Indeed the doctorate was awarded in 1905 from the Univ of Zurich. 1905 was also Einstein’s “Annus Mirabilis” where he published four papers, any one of which would insure career recognition. He used the Brownian motion paper as the basis of his thesis. A second paper from 1905, photoelectric effect, was cited in Einstein’s 1921 Nobel Physics prize. A third paper was Special Relativity. It’s probably best not to use Einstein as a typical example of anything.

    Wikipedia has a basic biography. The Walter Isaacson one is much more informative about this portion of his career.

  122. bunny wrote:

    I’m still Charismatic

    I did once go to the Reformed Charismatics conference in England for pastors. The irony was I wasn’t really pastor and not sure just how reformed I was!

    The whole Toronto and NAR and shepherding thing led me away from all things charismatic, having previously been evangelical with fairly strong charismatic leanings. I’ve basically left all this alone for a couple of decades.

    I’ve recently revised my thinking on this back to a more charismatic position – actually going back more to what I used to believe – provided that you understand ‘charismatic’ with what Paul is discussing in 1 Cor 12 – 14 and a few other places.

    The even greater irony of this is that those who have driven me back in this direction are Teampyro, and Dan Phillips in particular, and John MacArthur. Once we have discounted the weirdos, the objection of these two go beyond a reasonable critique of just what God will give us today in the say of gifts if we ask him. some other agenda is at work. Man being in control, suppression of legitimate women’s ministries … there could be a variety of reasons. Neither of these are exactly the epitomy of humility when it comes to this subject. They’ve got to win the argument come what may.

    Dan’s mocking of DaGifts reminds me of RHE mocking the bible, and MacArthur’s sermon on Tongues was the worst I have ever heard on anything (I’m not exaggerating). He butchered the text of the NT to obtain the conclusion he wanted. I’ve know some really wonderful Christians to whom their criticism wouldn’t remotely be applicable.

    My daughter at university has encountered some sound evangelicals who expect the gifts, and it is no good telling her ‘this isn’t for today’. In this area it is as though I have woken up from a deep sleep!

  123. @ Daisy:
    Oh my gosh. John Stackhouse addresses the Pauline issues that have made me feel forever relegated to the outer court (as a woman). Acknowledging the dynamic tension between an evolving culture and an inbreaking kingdom reframes gender roles in a way that does not require an elaborate apologetic. Sorry for the off-topic post but I think TWW readership would find this really intriguing. Thanks for the info, Daisy!

  124. Eeyore wrote:

    Pastors at Reformed churches, especially if they are Head/Teaching Pastors, tend to only show up for the Sunday sermon (which to their mind is the most important part of worship anyways), with a small window of “office hours” during the week.

    You’ve just described the “lead pastors” at two SBC church plants near me. They only show up for Sunday morning services (no Sunday and/or Wednesday evenings in these works). They do their thing then fade away for the rest of week. They encourage members to be involved in weekly home meetings conducted by leaders who have been approved by the “elders” (the elders at these churches are in their 20s-30s). They call these home gatherings “LifeGroups” … it’s there that they are to be “ministered” to … no need to talk to the pastor. The lead pastor does not come off his throne to visit folks in hospitals or to counsel anyone – the elders do that. They do not have “office hours”, but you see them hanging out in local coffee shops tweeting their lives away … networking with the reformed who’s who in order to stay visible and move along to a bigger and better place.

  125. Deb wrote:

    He earned the Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, New College, Scotland, in 1995 (under the supervision of renowned Reformation and Patristics scholar, David F. Wright)

    Thanks for the clarification. I ended my research at the JLD wikipedia page because the source of my comment was footnoted thus: First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi. Retrieved 9 December 2011. I referenced an earlier church bio.

  126. Godith wrote:

    @ Janet Varin:
    They fly people all over the country to teach courses. They also do online courses.

    I wasn’t questioning whether it was done, only underscoring the additional time required to travel.

  127. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In tribute to the title of this piece:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD8RAhCAyt4?t=35s

    Paula Rice wrote:

    Maybe DeYoung does church like Mark Driscoll who, in the words of Warren Throckmorton, “He didn’t have to meet many people or know many of the lay people. He came in through a private entrance, he had a place to wait, he preached his sermon and ducked out the back.”

    Like most mega church pastors. Yes, spiritual performers is a good descriptor.

  128. Paula Rice wrote:

    Driscoll as a ‘spiritual performer’, which makes sense if the stage is what these guys primarily take to as their point of reference

    Performer for sure, but not spiritual (Holy Spirit, i.e.). New Calvinists possess an ugly streak of arrogance … they ‘must’ have a stage. Driscollites prop themselves up on stools center-stage under a spotlight. You won’t find prayer altars at their churches … if they were once there, they were covered with platforms for pride to strut its stuff.

  129. @ Ken:
    I don’t know about you, but I appreciate my experience in charismatic fellowships early on in my walk with the Lord. What I learned about the Holy Spirit, the Kingdom of God, our being in Christ, and the opportunity I had to exercise my prophetic gifting was invaluable. I privately pray in tongues frequently, especially when I’m driving. The Apostle Paul was said to have spoken in tongues more than anyone, so I think we can safely assume it was something he did all the time, every day.

    Being aware of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in me is the basis upon which my conviction rests that it is the Spirit that unites us to God and with one another. Knowing this helps me to recognize and avoid the pitfalls that commonly characterize Christian fellowship, where the Spirit ends up quenched and suppressed through man-made structures such as top-down, male-only authority models which, when employed, turn true Christian fellowship into something we don’t read about in any of Paul’s epistles, that’s for sure.

  130. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Here is a short youtube video I made 2 years ago concerning Kevin “Crazy Busy” DeYoung.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEKVXUvSFAs

    Not generally a fan of Mark Levin, but he’s right. The only people I know who are able to churn out a few books with even a modicum of quality in a year are science fiction and fantasy writers. And that’s the key. This is their job, they have to write or they don’t eat. And they’ve set up the universe, it is their fiction, and they don’t have to confirm with piles of books spread all over their kitchen table that their facts are right because it’s all in their heads. But even some writers don’t churn out stuff with abandon–fans of “Game of Thrones” [which, I confess, I could never get into] are terrified George R.R. Martin is going to kick the bucket before he finishes his magnum opus.

    It’s my theory that some writers recycle information from other things they’ve written. I’ve particularly seen Joel Osteen accused of this. I also suspect some writers mine their sermon series heavily for books. Not saying this is bad, some people put in a great deal of research and effort into their sermons. There’s a conservative Presbyterian church near me where the pastor posts his sermons, footnotes and all. However, it does take me aback when he approvingly footnotes Presbyterian theologian and Southern slavery defender R.L. Dabney.

  131. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Indeed the doctorate was awarded in 1905 from the Univ of Zurich. 1905 was also Einstein’s “Annus Mirabilis” where he published four papers, any one of which would insure career recognition. He used the Brownian motion paper as the basis of his thesis. A second paper from 1905, photoelectric effect, was cited in Einstein’s 1921 Nobel Physics prize. A third paper was Special Relativity. It’s probably best not to use Einstein as a typical example of anything.
    Wikipedia has a basic biography. The Walter Isaacson one is much more informative about this portion of his career.

    Didn’t know all that, but I’d always been told that Einstein’s PhD was quasi honorary.

  132. @ Max:
    You know Max, I just don’t get it. I just don’t get it. I mean, I get that leadership is important, but when did it become a thing in and of itself, where these guys turn it into a separate, full-time job that takes them gallavanting across country? I thought the gifts God gave to people was for the purpose of building up the Body, as in the specific organic group of Christians you’re joined to. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul composing a letter to “The Acts29 Franchise of Christian Churches Under the Leadership of Matt Chandler”? I can’t!

  133. Ken wrote:

    MacArthur’s sermon on Tongues was the worst I have ever heard on anything (I’m not exaggerating). He butchered the text of the NT to obtain the conclusion he wanted.

    We finally have common ground. A couple decades ago I read a MacArthur commentary on tongues, and was absolutely in awe of his monumental arrogance, cynical, shameless manipulation, want of integrity and general overarching stupidity.

  134. @ Jim G.:

    An M.Div is a terminal degree for sure. That’s what Yale considers it, at least.

    As to the accreditation situation at seminaries, it may be a matter of having a Ph.D. as the official oversight of the class. I remember that being the case when trying to do a reading course with a non-Ph.D. pastor.

  135. Daisy wrote:

    The complementarians seem hopelessly stuck in the 1950s.

    You won’t find any disagreement from me. I’m of the opinion that complementarianism (NOT A WORD!) leaves many adults out in the cold because we’re not married. We can live in perfectly appropriate ways as single adults, be sexually chaste, serve others in the community and do great things–but because we’re not married, we’re invisible.

    I wouldn’t be bugged by comp (not going to spell it out anymore) except that its proponents have made it a key part of the Gospel. I may be outside the household of faith, but I’m not stupid. This is really huge and deserves to be examined more in detail. What the proponents of comp are teaching is that the way married men and women interact with each other in marriage is so important, it has now become part of salvation. Obviously this excludes single people, but the proponents of comp are so into this and single people are so invisible to them that they don’t really consider us in their pronouncements.

    And then the comps came up with the doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son to justify their belief. ESS is, as Wade Burleson has pointed out, semi-Arianism and a heresy. In my undergraduate years I had to learn the Nicene Creed and be able to take it apart to explain WHY certain things were in it, and I am pretty sure the Nicene Fathers would be appalled at Wayne Grudem, Denny Burk and the rest of the proponents of ESS.

    Lastly, I had one of those shower thoughts and I’m thinking comp is a work. It’s no longer “justification by faith through grace,” one of the rallying cries of the Reformation, it’s “yeah, yeah, but you got to have this particular style of marriage in order for it to be truly Gospelly.” When you make comp a part of the Gospel, you’re putting a human set of actions into the Gospel, and that is, IMHO (and I’m no theologian, just an ex-lawyer, so take my words with a pound of salt), going right up against what the Reformation was about.

    Just some thoughts, but I’d REALLY like to see someone experienced take apart comp as a work and not part of the Gospel. There does seem to be some fear of doing that, because the proponents of comp are powerful, but this is a serious problem. Comp has the very real potential to mess up marriages and it pushes the unmarried into a closet.

  136. Law Prof wrote:

    Didn’t know all that, but I’d always been told that Einstein’s PhD was quasi honorary.

    I dunno, considering how important the work for which the Ph.D was awarded was, I don’t think it was very honorary at all.

  137. @ Max:
    This is sadly the truth. They are not shepherds,they don’t tend to the flock. I heard a Pastor proudly state he didn’t visit the sick in hospital, unless they were very faithful members who were literally dying. And, his reason, he was very busy with lectures at the local seminary. We have sick, spiritually terminal pastors out there for sure.

  138. @ Law Prof:

    Sadly, it’s not restricted to the YRR’s of this world. I started seminary at SEBTS while Paige Patterson was president, and he is decidedly anti-Calvinist/Neo-Cal. My wife was also a student there and we used to talk about how the first five to ten minutes of every chapel sermon was spent bragging on the speaker, who in turn would brag on Patterson/SEBTS. It was nauseating.

    However, I remember one professor (counseling, who was an actual licensed counselor, this was prior to the rise of Biblical counseling) preaching his last chapel message. He started off by taking several deep and pronounced breaths. Then he said: “Can you smell that? It’s pride.” What followed was one of the best, and perhaps only, messages I have ever heard on pride to seminary students.

  139. Paula Rice wrote:

    I thought the gifts God gave to people was for the purpose of building up the Body, as in the specific organic group of Christians you’re joined to.

    And you would be right to think this way … it’s the clear New Testament pattern of doing church! Every member has a part; every member has a ministry; no race, social status, or gender exclusions (Galatians 3:28). Leadership offices were given to the church to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4). If a church and its leaders are not following this pattern, they are outside the will of God for the Body of Christ. The New Calvinist patriarchal system we are seeing multiplied across America during this new reformation is an unhealthy division of the church, elevating pulpit far above the pew and stands in stark contrast to God’s plan for His people. In God’s design, there is no center stage. Paul exhorted the early Christians not to follow him, but to look to him as a model only insofar as his life reflected Jesus (1 Cor 11:1). Based on what we are seeing reported on TWW and other watchblogs, we can’t accuse New Calvinist “lead pastors” as having the same heart as Paul for ministry. The New Reformation says follow Calvin; it is authoritarian; and it is abusive in many ways. For readers trapped in this (if your church and its leadership do not look like the pattern described), put your behinds in your past, repent and pray for deliverance. Right now, your minds are being held in bondage to half-truth or down-right error … get your intellect and your spirit free of it.

  140. Daisy wrote:

    The complementarians seem hopelessly stuck in the 1950s

    It’s vastly worse than that. They seem to me to be stuck in the first century … 🙂

  141. Law Prof wrote:

    We finally have common ground.

    We probably have an awful lot of common ground.

    Going into a lay-by for a moment, your post reminded me of our near punch up on a thread a while ago. How are things going? I don’t know whether you saw my final reply, but I did actually pray for you and your daughter who was being hassled by some numpty in the YRR crowd. As I say, in what really counts, we do have a lot in common; not that I’ve had to face what you seem to have done, but I’d certainly react strongly against it if I did.

  142. Mae wrote:

    I heard a Pastor proudly state he didn’t visit the sick in hospital, unless they were very faithful members who were literally dying.

    Mae, my parents were members of Bellevue Baptist Church near Memphis, an SBC church pastored by Adrian Rogers. While it was a mega-church with 25,000 members at the time, Dr. Rogers found time to visit all members who were hospitalized and in nursing homes (they were not required to be at death’s door before he did so). My mother was the recipient of his prayers during her hospital stays. Dr. Rogers was a pastor. He was not a Calvinist. Apparently, they don’t make them like that any more in SBC ranks.

  143. @ Max:
    Amen, amen, amen! I agree, it’s not the same model. And somehow they’ve redefined apostle to mean CEO who jets around teaching, preaching, promoting his latest book while remaining loosely connected to people they’re “called” to reach. Or something.

    I’m all for missionary work and for planting churches, etc. What I don’t agree with is this motion that knowledge (advanced theological degrees) elevates you to the position of itinerant teacher/preacher who goes around defining how things should be done.

    Thanks guys but, um, that’s what the Bible is for.

    The apostles were in a unique situation right after Pentecost and the birth of the first Christian churches, to authorize doctrine and guide the proper operation and establishment of these churches. I think the gift of an apostle is something at work, but I do not think we’re seeing it at work in the ministries of guys like Mahaney, Piper, Mohler et al. I think they’re functionally more likelike professional busy bodies, to be honest.

  144. Paula Rice wrote:

    Can you imagine the Apostle Paul composing a letter to “The Acts29 Franchise of Christian Churches Under the Leadership of Matt Chandler”?

    Whoa! I would like to read that letter!! Paul would rip Matt a new one! He might begin by saying “Dear Matt, there ain’t no Acts 29! You would do well to memorize and do the the last verse of Acts 28, which requires you to proclaim the Kingdom of God and teach about the Lord Jesus Christ … not the teachings and traditions of Calvin!”

  145. Paula Rice wrote:

    And somehow they’ve redefined apostle to mean CEO who jets around teaching, preaching, promoting his latest book while remaining loosely connected to people they’re “called” to reach.

    “Promoting” or “Juicing onto the Best-Seller list with Tithe OPM”?

    Oh, and Awarding and Receiving Honorary Doctorates.

  146. mirele wrote:

    What the proponents of comp are teaching is that the way married men and women interact with each other in marriage is so important, it has now become part of salvation.

    Salvation by Marriage Alone.

  147. mirele wrote:

    I dunno, considering how important the work for which the Ph.D was awarded was, I don’t think it was very honorary at all.

    Einstein’s thesis was based on an important paper and was not in any way honorary. All four of the “Annus Mirabilis” papers would have made excellent doctoral theses and he published them in a single year!

    Perhaps any more on this subthread should be in the open discussion forum.

  148. Burwell Stark wrote:

    . My wife was also a student there and we used to talk about how the first five to ten minutes of every chapel sermon was spent bragging on the speaker, who in turn would brag on Patterson/SEBTS. It was nauseating.

    The irony is Patterson wishes he had Mohlers gravitas. Patterson was always one step ahead of the firing ax. he knew were all the CR bodies were buried was his protection.

    Mohler does not have to worry about such things. His doctrine ingrains a caste system of obeying leaders. Calvinism by its very foundation is authoritarian. You don’t even have to pretend in the equality of the priesthood.

    So the strategy was Get them young, indoctrinate and reward loyalty. You can easily track the career advancement of Mohler proteges. There are thousands of young men willing to spend their last dime to get to T$G. And to be in the presence of Mohler? That is the ultimate experience!

    Patterson tried by other means but he never had anything like what Mohler has built.

  149. Lydia wrote:

    Instead it is a movement of young Diotrephes’

    Yes, New Calvinist leaders certainly have a Diotrephes’ style of ministry in that they “love to be first among them.”

    I was reading in Acts 17 last evening about Paul’s encounter with the intellectuals at Athens. They loved to discuss and debate new things; they believed they alone had it right (sound familiar?). Paul was met with much resistance as he preached Christ, but he held his own. However, when he left Athens, he left no churches behind. He reported no significant move of God there, no widespread repentance, no great revival. There are no 1 Athenians and 2 Athenians epistles in Scripture. Nevertheless, the story of Athens closes with “a few believed” (even in the darkest places, the light penetrates). New Calvinism is a sort of New Athens … they love to discuss and debate things in Scripture that are not there. It’s all about intellect, not Spirit.

  150. Lydia wrote:

    There are thousands of young men willing to spend their last dime to get to T$G.

    They are not all young men. What kills me is that there are so many “experienced” SBC pastors/preachers who are gung ho T4G, Gospel Coalition, and CBMW. I’ve been a member of SBC affiliated churches since 1978. Over the past few years, I’ve come to realize that, although they are more than willing to put our names on the rolls, women are only pseudo-members in SBC churches.

  151. Deb wrote:

    @ Todd Wilhelm:
    Carl Trueman is spot on in that audio clip.  I still don’t understand why he agreed to speak at T4G in 2012.  Here he is rubbing elbows (literally) with the great one…

    I hear you Deb. His comments in that video clip you have are also really good, but time has proven that the gospelly boys basically ignored them. I don’t have a huge problem with him appearing at this conference because it seemed like he was attempting to advocate against Christian celebrities. What bothers me about the man is he signed his name to the document which stated C.J. Mahaney had done nothing to disqualify him from ministry.

  152. Burwell Stark wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    Sadly, it’s not restricted to the YRR’s of this world.

    No denying that. In my opinion the most manipulative, disingenuous, and destructive pastor whom I’ve ever personally known was a holiness Arminian, second worst was a Pentecostal, third worst a YRR neocalvinist.

  153. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    What the proponents of comp are teaching is that the way married men and women interact with each other in marriage is so important, it has now become part of salvation.
    Salvation by Marriage Alone.

    a.k.a. Mormonism lite

  154. Max wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    I heard a Pastor proudly state he didn’t visit the sick in hospital, unless they were very faithful members who were literally dying.
    Mae, my parents were members of Bellevue Baptist Church near Memphis, an SBC church pastored by Adrian Rogers. While it was a mega-church with 25,000 members at the time, Dr. Rogers found time to visit all members who were hospitalized and in nursing homes (they were not required to be at death’s door before he did so). My mother was the recipient of his prayers during her hospital stays. Dr. Rogers was a pastor. He was not a Calvinist. Apparently, they don’t make them like that any more in SBC ranks.

    Great example of a pastor who actually loved and cared for the flock. Thanks for sharing that uplifting testimony.

  155. Nancy2 wrote:

    They are not all young men. What kills me is that there are so many “experienced” SBC pastors/preachers who are gung ho T4G, Gospel Coalition, and CBMW.

    Sad observation. SBC pastors/preachers older than 40 who are opting into the reformed movement are either (1) closet Calvinists who decided the current theo-political climate was OK to come out, or (2) borderline non-Calvinists who are willing to compromise their theological leaning to be a part of the new SBC. Doing so would allow them to attract more 20s-40s members, keep their jobs, move up the denominational ladder, and protect their retirement annuity … at the same time, willing to give up the blessing for a bowl of soup and bring leanness to their souls.

  156. Eeyore wrote:

    All that said, I’d still wager he’s not spending as much time with his family and his flock as he should.

    The Pastor at my former church has said that his responsibility is to immerse himself in the Word, preach the Word and to train the elders in effective leadership. In so many words he has said that ministry to the flock is not his job, calling, or responsibility. It appears that it would be a waste of his time to do what other, less gifted, people can do. At a recent luncheon for a bereaved family he refused a request to come from his office to the fellowship hall- about a hundred yard walk – to pray for the family and bless the meal. He sent one of his underlings to do the menial task of comforting a grieving family.

  157. danlinrm wrote:

    At a recent luncheon for a bereaved family he refused a request to come from his office to the fellowship hall- about a hundred yard walk – to pray for the family and bless the meal. He sent one of his underlings to do the menial task of comforting a grieving family.

    That is a man (as in not a pastor) stealing from God’s Church!

  158. Nancy2 wrote:

    Please tell me your wife wasn’t enrolled in DP’s “Bachelor’s degree” homemaking courses!

    Nope. We were both enrolled in the M.Div program, so we both ended up transferring elsewhere.

    That reminded me that some students thought my wife didn’t need to be in the Divinity program. Some we’re concerned about her needing to take preaching classes. It turned out to be moot because of our transferring.

  159. I remember one day sitting in a coffee shop working on seminary assignments, and a local neo-Cal pastor (campus or associate pastor, not lead or head pastor) was talking with ease on his cell, and it seemed like he was talking about an upcoming meeting. He used the word “gospel-centered” at least ten times, and other trendy churchy words and phrases, and the whole tone of the message and his demeanor was exactly like that of a business man. It was like he was talking about shoes or a vaccuum cleaner, and gospel-centered and etc. was his marketing lingo. “Okay, yea, and well if we bring out that this is gospel-centered, and then present that we want to reach the nations” (stuff like that) There is no Holy Spirit or distinguishing marks of their tasks as being anything holy or anything to do with God. As people say, these Neo-Cals barely (if at all) directly refer to God himself in their language or sermons.

  160. Todd Wilhelm wrote:
    I don’t have a huge problem with him appearing at this conference because it seemed like he was attempting to advocate against Christian celebrities. What bothers me about the man is he signed his name to the document which stated C.J. Mahaney had done nothing to disqualify him from ministry.

    My opinion is that what happened was that CT’s OPC background worked against him, he failed to understand the significance of particular vocabulary and the way it can be used in charismatic circles, and so assumed that there was much more oversight than there actually was.

  161. Max wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    They are not all young men. What kills me is that there are so many “experienced” SBC pastors/preachers who are gung ho T4G, Gospel Coalition, and CBMW.
    Sad observation. SBC pastors/preachers older than 40 who are opting into the reformed movement are either (1) closet Calvinists who decided the current theo-political climate was OK to come out, or (2) borderline non-Calvinists who are willing to compromise their theological leaning to be a part of the new SBC. Doing so would allow them to attract more 20s-40s members, keep their jobs, move up the denominational ladder, and protect their retirement annuity … at the same time, willing to give up the blessing for a bowl of soup and bring leanness to their souls.

    I think the retirement annuity is the biggie. In all things, especially today’s church, “follow the money.” Be 50+ and these guys lose ethics, morals, whatever, especially when that retirement is within reach. …..that’s pretty sad isn’t it?

  162. Y’all just watching Al and J. Ligon’s body language while RevKev yabbers on and on is hilarious. . . . #justwaitinghimout #tryingnottolettheireyesglazeover

  163. Even wrote:

    As people say, these Neo-Cals barely (if at all) directly refer to God himself in their language or sermons.

    Why should they?
    When God(TM) is nothing more than a series of axioms in Calvin’s Institutes?

  164. Law Prof wrote:

    Law Pro

    He has been there two years (I left before he arrived.) His “takeover” has all the characteristics related by TWW week-in and week-out. They have a playbook somewhere. How else could they be so consistent in their takeovers?

  165. danlinrm wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Law Pro
    He has been there two years (I left before he arrived.) His “takeover” has all the characteristics related by TWW week-in and week-out. They have a playbook somewhere. How else could they be so consistent in their takeovers?

    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.

    This takeover included various techniques, such as

    1). A six week series of sermons on tithing, with the statement from the pulpit that “Jesus talked more about money than anything else in the Gospels”(!)

    2). A secret, inner circle “true elder” team including only the leader, his right hand man/brutish enforcer (who was willing to literally get physical with you if you failed to fall into line, e.g., after church one day he literally gave me the hard shoulder bang as we passed, just like a jr. high bully) and a young kid/pastor worshiper scarcely out of college (the much larger elder team with older, more thoughtful types was pure show for public consumption, it was also a way for the leader to get close to people and find out their true views on pastor’s authority so that recalcitrant elders could be purged or marginalized).

    3. A roll out of signed membership covenants (we left/were jettisoned before these were printed up);

    4. An elder’s meeting in which it was presented to the team that the new plan would be for the elders to have no say whatsoever in what the pastor did; the euphemism for this total turnover of power was “circle of friends”, as in, we’re all just friends here, why do we need checks and balances, don’t you trust pastor?

  166. Law Prof wrote:

    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.

    In fairness, there are plenty of Christian movements for which this is true. I’ve experienced everything you mention (apart from the membership covenants) in charismatic churches. In that case the membership covenants were not needed, because the pastor could claim that God had spoken to him – so you were automatically not with the will of God if you didn’t get with the program.

  167. @ Ken:

    “…the gifts… In this area it is as though I have woken up from a deep sleep!”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    any chance you woke up egalitarian this morning, as well?

  168. Law Prof wrote:

    danlinrm wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    Law Pro
    He has been there two years (I left before he arrived.) His “takeover” has all the characteristics related by TWW week-in and week-out. They have a playbook somewhere. How else could they be so consistent in their takeovers?
    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.
    This takeover included various techniques, such as
    1). A six week series of sermons on tithing, with the statement from the pulpit that “Jesus talked more about money than anything else in the Gospels”(!)

    I am telling you boys and girls, men and women, this entire mess is about money…..they could care less about souls, your’s or anyone else’s….Pitiful….just pitiful.

  169. Law Prof wrote:

    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.

    Kind of like “The People, The People, The People, The People” over and over in the old Soviet Union and its Third World copycats.

  170. Ken wrote:

    Dan’s mocking of DaGifts reminds me of RHE mocking the bible, and MacArthur’s sermon on Tongues was the worst I have ever heard on anything (I’m not exaggerating). He butchered the text of the NT to obtain the conclusion he wanted. …

    My daughter at university has encountered some sound evangelicals who expect the gifts, and it is no good telling her ‘this isn’t for today’. In this area it is as though I have woken up from a deep sleep!

    I don’t agree with RHE (Rachel Held Evans) on a few topics, but can you explain how she “mocks the Bible?”

    I think she respects the Bible but may interpret things a bit differently from you. Holding another interpretation from yours is not necessarily the same thing as “mocking” it – nor does it necessarily indicate that one is a “liberal.”

    You were saying again on the last thread that women are more easily deceived than men are (you cited this as one reason you believe women should not lead or preach).
    I addressed that here (and in a post right under that one)…
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-225861

    I take it that when women agree with you totally on theological / doctrinal matters you do not think they are deceived, but only when they disagree with you?
    What do you do when male Christians disagree with you, do you chalk their differing opinions up to them being “more easily deceived.” ?

    And you have a daughter? Mind blown that you hold the views about women that you do. I wish you could see how harmful, demeaning, and sexist these views are, and that they are disrespectful to your daughter as well. I cannot especially fathom how a guy who has a daughter could hold these positions (regarding gender).

  171. Chris E wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.
    In fairness, there are plenty of Christian movements for which this is true. I’ve experienced everything you mention (apart from the membership covenants) in charismatic churches. In that case the membership covenants were not needed, because the pastor could claim that God had spoken to him – so you were automatically not with the will of God if you didn’t get with the program.

    Sure, I’ve seen enormous abuses at charismatic churches as well as from an Arminian pastor.

  172. @ Janet Varin:

    I’m glad you enjoyed the link. I think the gender issue is similar to the slavery one.

    That ancient cultures practiced slavery and God gave the believers back then rules from which to regulate master-slave relationships did not mean God liked slavery or intended believers today to practice or defend slavery.

    Ditto on the gender stuff – God was giving instructions to societies way back then, most of which were already heavily sexist.
    God was not intending for believers today in 2015 to live out or under the same rules in a culture that has shifted in its views towards women.

    The Christian gender complementarians are actually causing Christ’s name to be under reproach by the current culture because they won’t let go of gender rules and attitudes intended to accommodate 2,000+ year old cultures.

    Even some Christian women have given up with the sexism in Christianity (mostly under gender comp) and are leaving the Christian faith to turn to New Ageism, Wicca, or other, more woman-affirming religions.

    Others just stop going to church and drop out. There is no place in the faith for women to fully use their giftings and talents.

  173. Chris E wrote:

    I take it that when women agree with you totally on theological / doctrinal matters you do not think they are deceived, but only when they disagree with you?
    What do you do when male Christians disagree with you, do you chalk their differing opinions up to them being “more easily deceived.” ?

    Men who are complementarians and patriarchalists are more easily deceived than a box of rocks.

  174. Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Those who claim that women in general are more easily deceived put me on tilt.

  175. @ mirele:

    I completely agree with what all you wrote. As HUG likes to remind people, someone at Imonk once said that the Christian view on this stuff is that “Salvation is by marriage alone.”

    I’ve never married or had children myself, and I’ve sexually abstained my whole life, and folks like us are definitely not considered or valued in many conservative Christian churches, denominations, and theological views.

    Most all gender complementarian content published or discussed by gender comps revolves around married parents. They don’t pump out near as much material defending or pontificating about singleness, the child free, the infertile, widowed, the divorced, etc.

    The comps are more caught up in “marriage and family” than the Bible is.
    They never deal with passages such as (and this is Christ speaking, from Matthew 10:37):

    “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

    I think the comps – to be really honest about what they care about and promote – should either change their name or view from “complementarianism” to
    1a. “Male hierarchy” or
    1b. “Female Subordinationism” or
    2. “We only give a hoot about married people who have children-ism”.

  176. Incredible… This stuff needs to contually be exposed, including names and locations…. Christianity is about “light”, not “darkness”, including transparency. What is continuing be exposed in WW is clear darkness..

    Law Prof wrote:

    danlinrm wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    Law Pro
    He has been there two years (I left before he arrived.) His “takeover” has all the characteristics related by TWW week-in and week-out. They have a playbook somewhere. How else could they be so consistent in their takeovers?
    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.
    This takeover included various techniques, such as
    1). A six week series of sermons on tithing, with the statement from the pulpit that “Jesus talked more about money than anything else in the Gospels”(!)
    2). A secret, inner circle “true elder” team including only the leader, his right hand man/brutish enforcer (who was willing to literally get physical with you if you failed to fall into line, e.g., after church one day he literally gave me the hard shoulder bang as we passed, just like a jr. high bully) and a young kid/pastor worshiper scarcely out of college (the much larger elder team with older, more thoughtful types was pure show for public consumption, it was also a way for the leader to get close to people and find out their true views on pastor’s authority so that recalcitrant elders could be purged or marginalized).
    3. A roll out of signed membership covenants (we left/were jettisoned before these were printed up);
    4. An elder’s meeting in which it was presented to the team that the new plan would be for the elders to have no say whatsoever in what the pastor did; the euphemism for this total turnover of power was “circle of friends”, as in, we’re all just friends here, why do we need checks and balances, don’t you trust pastor?

  177. Deb wrote:

    Carl Trueman is spot on in that audio clip.  I still don’t understand why he agreed to speak at T4G in 2012.  Here he is rubbing elbows (literally) with the great one…

    And they laugh like this is a joke…

  178. K.D. wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    danlinrm wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    Law Pro
    He has been there two years (I left before he arrived.) His “takeover” has all the characteristics related by TWW week-in and week-out. They have a playbook somewhere. How else could they be so consistent in their takeovers?
    I was an elder at one, a neocalvinist church, the takeover there was also right out of the playbook, all the same sorts of words and phrases spoken, e.g., “The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel, The Gospel”, over and over, also “The Mission” again and again, ad nauseum. Seldom did the word “Jesus” get spoken, except during the songs.
    This takeover included various techniques, such as
    1). A six week series of sermons on tithing, with the statement from the pulpit that “Jesus talked more about money than anything else in the Gospels”(!)
    I am telling you boys and girls, men and women, this entire mess is about money…..they could care less about souls, your’s or anyone else’s….Pitiful….just pitiful.

    That is because money fuels and grows the machine. The number one motivator is in the realm of recognition/power. It is all about being someone “important” with many admirers/followers. When even small time success is reached, money become the metric. This fits with ministry being in the top level of vocations narcissists are attracted to.

  179. elizabeth wrote:

    Y’all just watching Al and J. Ligon’s body language while RevKev yabbers on and on is hilarious. . . . #justwaitinghimout #tryingnottolettheireyesglazeover

    What happens when you put several huge entitled egos in one room talking for the camera. At least CJ knew his place as court jester on camera with them in T$G promos.

  180. Law Prof wrote:

    I take it that

    I didn’t quote what Law Prof wrote:

    I take it that

    I didn’t say the above – that was Daisy, and she was – I believe – reacting sarcastically.

  181. You guys do realize that by objecting to the Belhar Confession, Kevin DeYoung appears to be tacitly supporting apartheid (or at the very least, implying that he doesn’t think it’s appropriate to condemn apartheid?) Historically, that Confession was an important milestone in Afrikaner Calvinism since it was the first time any South African reformed church had proclaimed apartheid to be a sin.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belhar_Confession

    Apartheid-defending appears to be making a comeback among certain vocal segments of the political right in the USA, though. Perhaps DeYoung is on board with that. It’s particularly common among the so-called “neoreactionaries”, but it isn’t entirely limited to them. You have contemporary South Africa being portrayed as some kind of dystopia (with the implication that things were better off under apartheid) by a lot of supposedly non-racist conservative commentators these days.

  182. Crazy Busy …….. If RevKev thinks he’s crazy busy, he should trade places with his wife for 6 months …… 24/7!

  183. Nancy2 wrote:

    Crazy Busy …….. If RevKev thinks he’s crazy busy, he should trade places with his wife for 6 months …… 24/7!

    Comment of the week, no, of the year!!!

    Everywhere RevKev goes, he gets his ego stroked, but a woman's work (in this case his wife's) is never done…

  184. Ken wrote:

    In his favour, at least he will not become divorced from real church life if he continues to pastor and teach in the rarified atmosphere of RTS.

    I’m not sure that is the case. Between his conference circuit and full-time blogging he can’t possibly be doing the real work of pastoring. But this is a secret loophole that a few began exploiting and is now commonplace in evangelicalism – the “main” pastor is only responsible for delivering a sermon and/or running a company and building a brand. The rest is left up to others (some of whom are often pastors). In my experience, these kinds of pastors are already divorced from real church life.

  185. Debbylynn wrote:

    I actually think Pope Francis is more humble than all of these guys put together….

    I have to agree. Mind you, the comparison would, no doubt, have them frothing at the mouth….

  186. A little off topic, but looking at SovGrace’s belief statement, it looks like they are really “cafeteria Calvinistas”. They hold to the “major tenets” of Reformed doctrine, but not all. (sigh) #somuchforsounddoctrine

  187. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    You guys do realize that by objecting to the Belhar Confession, Kevin DeYoung appears to be tacitly supporting apartheid (or at the very least, implying that he doesn’t think it’s appropriate to condemn apartheid?) Historically, that Confession was an important milestone in Afrikaner Calvinism since it was the first time any South African reformed church had proclaimed apartheid to be a sin.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belhar_Confession

    Apartheid-defending appears to be making a comeback among certain vocal segments of the political right in the USA, though. Perhaps DeYoung is on board with that. It’s particularly common among the so-called “neoreactionaries”, but it isn’t entirely limited to them. You have contemporary South Africa being portrayed as some kind of dystopia (with the implication that things were better off under apartheid) by a lot of supposedly non-racist conservative commentators these days.

    This is so full of holes I don’t even know where to begin. The very Wikipedia link you provided indicated that the PCUSA failed to adopt the Belhar. They are hardly right-wing in their approach to most things.

    The decision to not adopt the Belhar as a fourth confession in the CRC was much more involved. To make blanket statements about denominations being pro-apartheid because they choose not to adopt the Belhar is misleading at best. There were many reasons why the Belhar was not made a fourth confession and NONE of them had to do with being pro-apartheid.

    You know, there are plenty of problems with TGC/T4TG/etc. Attacking them over things that are simply blatantly false or demonstrate a lack of willingness to read a bit more closely seriously undermines what TWW is trying to accomplish.

  188. Daisy wrote:

    Mind blown that you hold the views about women that you do. I wish you could see how harmful, demeaning, and sexist these views are, and that they are disrespectful to your daughter as well. I cannot especially fathom how a guy who has a daughter could hold these positions (regarding gender).

    If I chose to, I could take this comment as extremely insulting. I’m going to chose not to take it that way, instead you are once again stereotyping. You know nothing of my personal life. You should allow for variation within a general view, as is true of egalitarians and what motivates them.

    My eldest is wise beyond her years, is very intelligent and not likely to be fooled by a doctrine resulting from an agenda or idealogy being imposed. She has a great deal of discernment.

    She has also got into a pretty prestigious university and doing very well. And yes, I am proud of her!

    She has asked about this very theme. The gist of my reply could be summed up as this: ‘Gal 3 : 28 and 1 Tim 2 : 11-12 come from the same apostle and are both scripture. Taking their context within each book and the immediate surrounding context, they are both true. Don’t make either of them negate the other. You don’t need to reconcile friends’.

    We need to avoid the twin evils of sexism and feminism (that is, female secularism). I’m not sure anyone would claim this is always easy.

    I am very well aware that ‘we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness’. This cannot be an excuse to evade the issue or refuse to give information about it for her to think about it for herself. I’ve had a long time to mull this theme over, including input from women who did not see this as in any way as harmful or demeaning – and who would certainly have said so if they had!

  189. @ zooey111:
    FYI: I used to be in Covenant Life when CJ was the head pastor. I later converted to Catholicism and for a few years had a priest as my spiritual director. Never did he ever try to micro-manage my life and if I questioned Catholic doctrine seeking answers was as gentle as a lamb. #theseguyscouldlearnfromFather

  190. Ken wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Mind blown that you hold the views about women that you do. I wish you could see how harmful, demeaning, and sexist these views are, and that they are disrespectful to your daughter as well. I cannot especially fathom how a guy who has a daughter could hold these positions (regarding gender).
    If I chose to, I could take this comment as extremely insulting. I’m going to chose not to take it that way, instead you are once again stereotyping. You know nothing of my personal life. You should allow for variation within a general view, as is true of egalitarians and what motivates them.
    My eldest is wise beyond her years, is very intelligent and not likely to be fooled by a doctrine resulting from an agenda or idealogy being imposed. She has a great deal of discernment.
    She has also got into a pretty prestigious university and doing very well. And yes, I am proud of her!
    She has asked about this very theme. The gist of my reply could be summed up as this: ‘Gal 3 : 28 and 1 Tim 2 : 11-12 come from the same apostle and are both scripture. Taking their context within each book and the immediate surrounding context, they are both true. Don’t make either of them negate the other. You don’t need to reconcile friends’.
    We need to avoid the twin evils of sexism and feminism (that is, female secularism). I’m not sure anyone would claim this is always easy.
    I am very well aware that ‘we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness’. This cannot be an excuse to evade the issue or refuse to give information about it for her to think about it for herself. I’ve had a long time to mull this theme over, including input from women who did not see this as in any way as harmful or demeaning – and who would certainly have said so if they had!

    Wow wow WOW! Ken is criticizing some one for stereotyping. That is rich, that is simply astonishing. Ken, get out the mirror, baby.

  191. Law Prof wrote:

    Wow wow WOW! Ken is criticizing some one for stereotyping. That is rich, that is simply astonishing. Ken, get out the mirror

    I wonder if Ken has taught each his daughters from day 1 that she is predestined to grow up and be some man’s submissive underling …… that older women will teach her how to love her husband ……. that she will be saved by birthing children …. that her husband will be held more accountable than she, simply because she is the submissive female …… ???

  192. @ Ken:

    You should take it as extremely insulting, because your views, no matter how well intentioned, are, or will, hold your daughter back, and other women too.

    I have outlined to you in previous posts how even the “nice and warm” form of gender comp you preach harmed me personally.

    Defending and supporting gender comp is like defending and supporting racism, telling black people they are equal in value but not in role, so certain activities are closed to them, all on basis of their birth (ie, being born with dark skin).

    You’re doing the same thing with your daughter and women, only it’s gender at play, rather than skin color. I find that very troubling and insulting.

    You said,

    My eldest is wise beyond her years, is very intelligent and not likely to be fooled by a doctrine resulting from an agenda or idealogy being imposed. She has a great deal of discernment.

    That describes me as well. But I had suspicions from a young age that only grew that gender comp is not biblical – it’s a sexist ideology that oppresses women.

    But, I bought into it, and TRIED very hard to believe in it, to please the church, my traditional parents, and because preachers kept telling me and assuring me it was God’s intent for women, and to buck against it was me buying into secular feminism.

    Ken said,
    “We need to avoid the twin evils of sexism and feminism (that is, female secularism).”

    I am not a secular feminist. I have repeated this time and again.

    Gender complementarian is sexism under another name, however.
    A person can be a conservative and still see that the Bible teaches female-male authority, not gender comp (male hierarchy)

    Despite seeing what a mistake gender complmentarianism is, I remain right wing and a conservative.

    I did not turn into an abortion supporting, homosexual- marriage- supporting liberal who hates all men or right wingers.

  193. Daisy wrote:

    A person can be a conservative and still see that the Bible teaches female-male authority, not gender comp (male hierarchy)

    I meant male-female equality, not “authority”

  194. I teach my daughters that in Christ there is neither male nor female. I teach them that they can be a Proverbs 31 woman, out there in the marketplace as an entrepreneur, that they better be a Zipporah to their poor, benighted husbands, getting in his face and telling him what a piece of work he is, or else God just might kill him.

    I know the crowd who relegates half of God’s human creation to a junior partnership, and they invariably die at least a spiritual death. And they often take a family down with them. Seen it before.

  195. Nancy2 wrote:

    I wonder if Ken has taught each his daughters from day 1 that she is predestined to grow up and be some man’s submissive underling …… that older women will teach her how to love her husband ……. that she will be saved by birthing children …. that her husband will be held more accountable than she, simply because she is the submissive female …… ???

    Gender complementarians who are still sold into the system tend to be very blinded to the consequences of their teachings, especially how it negatively impacts women (though gender comp can hurt men as well).

    One aspect of the unintended consequences was spelled out in the following post
    (though I am not in total agreement with all views by the post’s author, but on the gender comp topic, I am in agreement with this guy):

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

    No matter how often the post author tries to explain the mixed messages gender comp presents women and how it leaves them open to being abused by men and attractive abusive men into their lives, the gender comp father in the post doesn’t “get it.”

    The gender comp father in the post is in denial and refuses to accept the ramifications of gender comp.

    I tell you, a lot of these gender comp guys (I used to be one too) see in black and white, or in “either / or” terms. You will sometimes see this in Ken’s posts about this subject.

    In gender complementarian thinking, either you are a

    1. gender comp, and hence, a true blue Christian who is loyal to God and the biblical text, or,
    2. you are a left wing, secular feminist who hates God, and who doesn’t take the Bible seriously.

    They really do not conceive there are other alternatives. But there are other alternatives.

    Rejecting gender comp, (realizing it’s unbiblical), does not lead to a person rejecting the entire faith, turning liberal, or becoming a secular feminist.

    From the blog post “Bible believing” pastors and the enabling of domestic violence” (author speaking to a gender complementarian, pastor father):

    “So your daughter grew up believing that a wife should be subservient to her husband. All of her life, she believed that the role of the Christian wife is to practice ‘sacrificial obedience’ towards her husband.”

    After a pause, the pastor said, “But I also taught her to have high self-esteem.”

    I waited for the screaming in my head to pass.
    “But surely you can see,” I said, “that, actually, you didn’t. You cannot teach a girl that she is, by virtue of the simple fact that she was born female, naturally and by the will of God subordinate to men, and at the same teach her to high self-esteem.

    “One half of the message ‘You were born inferior—but you’re great!’ is destined to cancel out the other half. You can’t have broken legs and win a foot race.”
    ————-
    Gender complementarianism contains many contradictory values like that.

  196. Daisy wrote:

    I am not a secular feminist. I have repeated this time and again.

    I don’t understand it. If we do not buy into Ken’s interpretation of the clobber verses does that mean we are secular feminists? (whatever that is)

  197. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t understand it. If we do not buy into Ken’s interpretation of the clobber verses does that mean we are secular feminists? (whatever that is)

    I don’t want to put words in Ken’s mouth, but out of the posts of his I have bothered to read, he will allude to secular feminists and how terrible he believes they have been for society.

    As I explained just above, I used to be a gender comp, and there is this “either / or” thinking, where in gender comps assume you are either a full Bible respecting conservative Christian or else a Bible hating, secular, liberal feminist.

    Gender comps have a hard time conceiving of a third way of viewing these topics, but there is one.

    Disagreeing with gender comp does not necessitate a person morphing into a secular, liberal feminist.

    Ken just said up thread,
    “We need to avoid the twin evils of sexism and feminism (that is, female secularism). I’m not sure anyone would claim this is always easy.”

    See, there is a very limited set of options there…
    You’re either sexist, secular feminist, or a gender comp.

    As I just said in a reply to Ken above, gender comp is in fact sexism. It’s the same thing.

    Gender comp is the same as secular sexism, only Gender comp seeks to ground and justify sexism and male hierarchy by pointing to cherry picked, misinterpreted Bible verses.

  198. Lydia wrote:

    that is, female secularism)
    what is that?

    Example: Women who believe that woman should be allowed to serve as police officers, and that they should get the same pay and the same opportunity at promotions as the male officers with the same training and experience.

  199. Nancy2 wrote:

    Example: Women who believe that woman should be allowed to serve as police officers, and that they should get the same pay and the same opportunity at promotions as the male officers with the same training and experience.

    I’d add that a lot of gender comps also read a lot of baggage into the term “feminist,” (one reason I don’t use the term myself and apply it to myself), such as…

    In many of their opinions, all (secular) feminists are-

    Democrats, liberals, sexual hedonists / promiscuous, support abortion, have had an abortion themselves, support legalization of homosexual marriage,
    do not love or respect God, do not accept Jesus as savior,
    do not take the Bible seriously, despise all men, support large government, hate kids/ family/ marriage, don’t shave their arm pits,
    believe that men and women are absolutely identical at every thing.
    ——-
    Many gender comps tend to make those assumptions about left wing, secular feminists.

    IMO (as a right winger), I’d say that some of those do apply to some feminists some of the time. But not all.

  200. Lydia wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    that is, female secularism)
    what is that?

    I think you meant this to go to Ken. Ken’s just obsessed with women and female secularism and women’s lib and radical feminism. What Ken won’t acknowledge is it’s the very sort of smug, condescending attitudes towards women and downright abuse of them, often in the name of God, coming from the sort of men who are emotionally, intellectually and spiritually inferior to the average woman, that in large part led to the very movements that he likes to demonize. Sad sort of blindness, but typical and not particularly surprising. Rather boring in its predictability.

  201. @ Daisy:

    My view is that “secular feminists” it is much too vague to describe as evil. I would view matriarchy as just as horrid as patriarchy. But it is rare, not institutionalized historically since Genesis, so not really a problem.

    I think Ken might be referring to a caricature of the radical bra burners of the 60’s-70’s? Exactly who is he talking about? What is the profile?

    My great gmother was a suffragette. She was in her late 20’s when the amendment was ratified. She did her part to get the vote for women. But it took MEN to make it happen including her husband.

    My other question is concerning the “secular” part of his evil feminist. Would he include egalitarian Christians? Or mutualists such as I am?

    I am trying to get an understanding of who are secular feminists. Would they be automatically labeled secular if they don’t agree with his view of the clobber verses?

    But lastly, I would like for him to show me where God prohibited women leading or teaching men in the OT. God was very clear about His laws. Where is that law?

  202. @ Law Prof:

    I was thinking “secular feminists” is stereotyping but am not able to put my finger on what he means. I would love some examples.

  203. Lydia wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    I was thinking “secular feminists” is stereotyping but am not able to put my finger on what he means. I would love some examples.

    My guess is he’s just parroting bits and pieces of phrases he hears here and there and not thinking too clearly about the language he uses. They’re code words, words that elicit a pavlovian response in certain circles. Don’t confuse the code words for thinking or rational or Godly thought, however. The concepts could not be farther apart. Many live off the pet phrases and words of the leaders and the closed groups, and so long as they string together enough of the appropriate nomenclature (e.g., “gospel”, “season”, “doctrines of grace”, “feminist”, “radical feminist”, “secular”, “secularist”, “egalitarian”) it will give them cred within the group. Sometimes one of the true believers wanders outside of the walls of the intellectual and spiritual prison in which they’ve imprisoned themselves and tries out their code words on the world or on garden variety Christians, both of whom seem to have enough common sense or discernment to hear it and say “Whaa?” The true believer is nonplussed that the tactics which elicit so many slaps on the back in his or her narrow circle are viewed with contempt outside it. They just don’t get it.

  204. Jeremy wrote:

    Huh, I think it is odd that he is getting a position as professor without even having a doctorate. His PhD doesn’t sound related to his field of teaching either, but perhaps it is.
    I am doing 6 hours of seminary classes with a full time job and 1 child, and I can’t even imagine adding a busy conference schedule and second job! I really don’t see how anyone could do justice to all of those obligations at the same time.

    The answer: They can’t do justice to all of those obligations. Somewhere, something is going to suffer. It may be his marriage, or his pastorate, or his new position at the seminary, but something will suffer. Being CRAZY BUSY like this is not a description of a faithful Christian. Eventually a human being under so much busyness will experience stress and burn out. Furthermore, being pastor of a church – IF THE PASTOR IS ACTUALLY A CARING SHEPHERD – is a full-time job in itself. The sort of crazy busy schedule of these popular YRR pastors is the sort of thing that can lead to crash and burn. But it’s all worth it in order to spread the gospel of Calvinism.

  205. @ Darlene:
    For a married adult who is a true Christian, the most important things in his/her life should be: God first, family second, and church third. IMHO, family appears to be at the bottom of RevKev’s priorities, if it is on his list at all.
    Church (the Neo Cal brand) seems to be more important to him than anything!

  206. Law Prof wrote:

    Ken is criticizing some one for stereotyping. That is rich, that is simply astonishing. Ken, get out the mirror, baby.

    My guess is he’s just parroting bits and pieces of phrases …

    This is the second time you have started going down this road. You had me stereotyped as YRR a while back. There’s no way I fit that description. I’m certainly no longer young, I’m pretty laid back about my beliefs, and am sympathetic to reformed theology but have problems with it if taken too far/the bible is made to fit it.

    Frankly, I was more generous to you in that regard once I realised what was actually going on than you have been to me.

    The problem is you are just guessing. Making assumptions, in particular that anyone who thinks a complementary view of the roles of men and women is more accurate to both the OT and the NT than an egalitarian view can only be a radical patriarch in the Doug Phillips mold or has some psychological hang up that necessitates putting women down (smug, condescending attitudes towards women and downright abuse of them).

  207. Lydia wrote:

    My other question is concerning the “secular” part of his evil feminist. Would he include egalitarian Christians?

    At least you have asked for clarification, though you have added the word ‘evil’ which I didn’t use.
    In defining the word feminist as female secularist, I had in mind trends outside the church in the world (which answers your question about egalitarian Christians).

    Feminism has two connotations to me, going by observations from life rather than the interet.

    i) Women who imo legitimately protest against being discriminated against in the areas of voting, occupation in the sense of opportunity or equal pay for equal work. Who do not wish to be treated as second class citizens.

    ii) The more radical element who either hate men or wish to be independent of them, assert that their rights over their bodies includes sending their unborn offspring up a hosptial incinerator chimney, spiritually a radical element who tend in the direction of paganismm – New Age, witchcraft.

    I think we are all, male and female, so indebted to God for our salvation that none of us is in a postion to assert ‘rights’ over against God. Even as believers everything we receive is a gift of grace, there is nothing we can claim.

    I don’t lke the words egalitarian or complementarian as they both have baggage. Regarding the former, the word ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ is virtually absent fróm the bible. Where it is mentioned, it is not something to be grasped. So whilst I do think God treats men and women ‘equally’ in the church in the sense of the basis of their salvation, baptism, the gift of the Holy Spririt and the ministries that flow from this etc, as I have said often enough, this does not obliterate God-given distinctions, and we do not have the ‘right’ to negotiate with God over this.

  208. Nancy2 wrote:

    I wonder if Ken has taught his daughters …

    Again, this happened before. You are speculating.

    Disagree with me, fine. Argue against my understanding of scripture, fine. But this is starting to go the way of snide personal comments (my family being used as canon fodder) as happened on an earlier thresd necessiting the admonition from the moderators to stop making personal remarks or attacks.

    I might have got things wrong, I’m not infallible. Perhaps the Patriachs (father rule) are right after all; or the MacArthur interpretation on ‘silent women in church’ is right. You can make a biblical case for this.

    Perhaps you have got some things wrong – maybe there are still some residual inequalities caused by living in a fallen world that will not finally be abolished until the end of the age.

    We not have attained the unity of the faith yet or there wouldn’t be the disagreements on this subject amongst others, but we should still make every effort to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

  209. Ken wrote:

    At least you have asked for clarification, though you have added the word ‘evil’ which I didn’t use.

    Twin evils?

  210. Ken wrote:

    ii) The more radical element who either hate men or wish to be independent of them, assert that their rights over their bodies includes sending their unborn offspring up a hosptial incinerator chimney, spiritually a radical element who tend in the direction of paganismm – New Age, witchcraft.

    Which brings a question. Do professing Christian patriarchal men hate females? Is it conversely the same type of sin except one does not use God to affirm their beliefs?

  211. Ken wrote:

    Regarding the former, the word ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ is virtually absent fróm the bible.

    God has favorites? The focus should be on God’s intention for His creation. This is another reason why anything other than human free will is so insidious.

  212. Ken wrote:

    Where it is mentioned, it is not something to be grasped

    So it is/was wrong for some to seek equality for others. I get the idea that scripture teaches it is selfish to want just treatment if considered unequal. That is the stuff of state!churches, Monarchies, Patriarchy, etc.

    The one who is “more equal” tells the one less equal if is selfish to desire equality.

    I call it just. You call it sin

  213. At the end of the day, Ken, I’m just trying to figure out what you think you’re accomplishing here. This is a forum primarily to support abuse survivors, it is led by two Christian women. Many of the people on this forum experienced abuse from people in churches who typically made gender complementarianism or patriarchalism a key point in their theology. That list includes me. Are you trying to convert the converted? Do you think we’re not believers? If so, you sure don’t say much about Jesus and you sure do fight a lot over gender.

    So, when you come here laying out the party line that was central to the systems that were the subject of so many people’s abuse, often word-for-word, expect pushback. It is in some cases triggering abuse survivors; it can be mean, even if you don’t intend it to be. I’m not sure if you really care about that or not, I doubt it’s even crossed your mind that by insinuating yourself onto this forum and perpetually picking a complementarian fight that you might be heaping a bit of extra pain on abuse survivors. But you most certainly are.

    And when you easily take offense and talk about that pushback as “extremely insulting” and “stereotyping” and throw around words like “factuous”, you, who are driving most of this, become very hard to take seriously. Have you ever considered that by coming here and repeatedly picking a fight over a secondary and nonessential issue, that perhaps you’re the factuous one?

  214. Ken wrote:

    I have said often enough, this does not obliterate God-given distinctions, and we do not have the ‘right’ to negotiate with God over this.

    Note the distinction. For me, it is about interpretation. For you, it is positioned as us negotiating with God. Do you not see how you position your beliefs against other believers? You also assume we are discussing physical distinctions and not cognitive or spiritual similarities. It becomes a penis/vagina discussion. Sorry but that is where this stuff comes from. There is no pink or blue Christianity.

    In any event Abraham seemed to negotiate with God. :o)

  215. Ken wrote:

    Perhaps you have got some things wrong – maybe there are still some residual inequalities caused by living in a fallen world that will not finally be abolished until the end of the age.

    Why should we accept that for others here and now? This was the thinking concerning slavery, too. ‘Gee, in heaven we will be equal but now, we must presrerve falleness’…..seriously? Thankfully there were folks who did not accept that thinking.

  216. Lydia wrote:

    ‘Gee, in heaven we will be equal but now, we must presrerve falleness’…

    Great statement, Lydia!!! In essence, that is what complementarians insist when they use I Tim., Epesians, and Corinthinans AGAINST Galatians.

  217. Law Prof wrote:

    Have you ever considered that by coming here and repeatedly picking a fight over a secondary and nonessential issue, that perhaps you’re the factuous one?

    Exactly. Thank you.

  218. Ken wrote:

    this does not obliterate God-given distinctions, and we do not have the ‘right’ to negotiate with God over this.

    The ongoing problem is that you have not supported this conclusion from the text. Further, previously you have defined such differences as including a female propensity to deception and a God-ordained gender hierarchy. You have also reduced the meaning of kephale to boss, and that is one of Carson’s famous exegetical fallacies, ironically enough for the Complementarian Carson. Those are the problems which you do not address. We are not bargaining with God. Were slaves who sought their freedom bargaining with God when Paul said for slaves to submit to their masters? Was God condoning slavery and commanding it with that admonition to slaves? Of course not. But you use the exact form of reasoning with respect to gender relations. IMO your main problem in these discussions is that you simultaneously defend the text while not really relying upon it.

  219. Ken wrote:

    I might have got things wrong, I’m not infallible. Perhaps the Patriachs (father rule) are right after all; or the MacArthur interpretation on ‘silent women in church’ is right. You can make a biblical case for this.

    Not so. But you can make a Talmudic case for such.

  220. Ken wrote:

    So whilst I do think God treats men and women ‘equally’ in the church in the sense of the basis of their salvation, baptism, the gift of the Holy Spririt and the ministries that flow from this etc, as I have said often enough, this does not obliterate God-given distinctions, and we do not have the ‘right’ to negotiate with God over this.

    But under gender comp, women are not being permitted to use their God given skills and spiritual gifts.

    Who said anyone wants to negotiate with God over this stuff? People like me are disagreeing with your interpretation of what you think God said or believes or teaches about this stuff.

    I haven’t had the time to read all the posts on this thread since I was last here, btw.
    I have a few errands to run this morning, so I don’t know when or if I can read the rest and/or comment on it.

  221. Ken wrote:

    But this is starting to go the way of snide personal comments (my family being used as canon fodder) as happened on an earlier thresd necessiting the admonition from the moderators to stop making personal remarks or attacks.

    I think you may have been the one to mention you have daughters?

    I am a daughter. I have a mom and dad who brought me up under this gender comp garbage, and it’s creating problems for me I’m having to work out even now in adulthood, Ken.

    I have no idea how or why you feel gender comp is beneficial to your daughter or to any other woman, when it produces so many problems and conveys the message to women they are not as valuable as men (despite protestations to the contrary).

  222. Lydia wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Where it is mentioned, it is not something to be grasped
    —–
    So it is/was wrong for some to seek equality for others.

    I really need to get off the computer soon and go do other things, but one thing I wanted to add now.

    If that is so, Christians in America would not have bothered to fight slavery of black Americans!

    I don’t recall off hand if the Bible contains the word “equality” or not, but the CONCEPT is there, like “Trinity,” “Rapture,” and I don’t think the word “Bible” is in the Bible, but it exists too.

    Anyway, if folks felt this way in the 19th century, white American Christians would not have bothered to free black Americans who were in bondage.

    Gender complementarianism has so many parallels with slavery. I wish Ken would grasp that.

    Defending gender comp is essentially the equivalent of defending slavery of black Americans.

  223. Lydia wrote:

    In any event Abraham seemed to negotiate with God. :o)

    In the OT, people seemed to negotiate with God all the time.

  224. Ken wrote:

    God treats men and women ‘equally’ in the church in the sense of the basis of their salvation, baptism, the gift of the Holy Spririt and the ministries that flow from this etc, as I have said often enough, this does not obliterate God-given distinctions

    So, women can be saved and baptized. But, we must accept the idea that women are more prone to deception and must be submissive to men because God gave men more wisdom and preordained positions of authority and control over us? Women must accept the fact that our souls are of equal value, but our bodies and minds are of lesser value? As long as we walk this earth, must women be subservient to men in order to be more Christ-like, or is it only men who can be Christ-like, given Paul the statements Paul made letter to the Ephesians?

  225. @ Nancy2:
    Nancy, what Ken is doing concerning ‘God given distinctions” is trying to map a pecking order to sexual organs. There is no way around this. They just don’t like to spell it out.

  226. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t recall off hand if the Bible contains the word “equality” or not, but the CONCEPT is there, like “Trinity,” “Rapture,” and I don’t think the word “Bible” is in the Bible, but it exists too.

    I am not sure what else “creating in His image” could mean when it comes to adult relationships. I do understand that many adults choose to marr the image of God part. Both men and women do this. It is humans who invented the caste system and divisions. Nor God. It is sin.

  227. Gus wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    In any event Abraham seemed to negotiate with God. :o)

    In the OT, people seemed to negotiate with God all the time.

    Abraham didn’t negotiate, he HAGGLED God down outside Sodom like a bazaar merchant.

    According to an old online essay by Rabbi Boteach, that’s the distinguishing characteristic of Judaism. Abraham haggled God down to “Ten Righteous Men”, Jacob broke his leg in a knock-down-drag-out, Job and Psalms and Lamentations argued every point yelling “WHY?” at God.

  228. Lydia wrote:

    This was the thinking concerning slavery, too. ‘Gee, in heaven we will be equal but now, we must presrerve falleness’…..seriously?

    I’ll take the Jewish idea of Tikkun Olam, that we are called to fix a damaged cosmos.

    “The Future — some assembly required.”
    — Babylon-5

  229. Lydia wrote:

    Nancy, what Ken is doing concerning ‘God given distinctions” is trying to map a pecking order to sexual organs. There is no way around this. They just don’t like to spell it out.

    Excuse me, but I have a tendency to be blunt and cut to the chase. I'll spell it out for them: men rule because they are the ones who the have scepters between their legs. Women have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

  230. Daisy wrote:

    Anyway, if folks felt this way in the 19th century, white American Christians would not have bothered to free black Americans who were in bondage. Gender complementarianism has so many parallels with slavery. I wish Ken would grasp that.

    male anatomy/female anatomy(ed0 instead of (literally) White & Black. But those born Holding The Whip never see anything wrong with the System. "Works just fine!"

  231. Nancy2 wrote:

    I’ll spell it out for them: men rule because they are the ones who the have scepters between their legs.

    And orders from Captain Bonerhelmet cannot be refused.

  232. Lydia wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Where it is mentioned, it is not something to be grasped

    So it is/was wrong for some to seek equality for others. I get the idea that scripture teaches it is selfish to want just treatment if considered unequal. That is the stuff of state!churches, Monarchies, Patriarchy, etc.

    The one who is “more equal” tells the one less equal if is selfish to desire equality.

    Remember who Eric Blair/George Orwell ethnically typecast for Those Who Are More Equal Than Others.

  233. Lydia wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Regarding the former, the word ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ is virtually absent fróm the bible.
    God has favorites?

    YES, say God’s Speshul Pets.

  234. Law Prof wrote:

    My guess is he’s just parroting bits and pieces of phrases he hears here and there and not thinking too clearly about the language he uses. They’re code words, words that elicit a pavlovian response in certain circles.

    Duckspeak.
    Reciting the Party Line without engaging any neuron above the brainstem.
    Stimulus –> Response, nothing more.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Duckspeak

    Don’t confuse the code words for thinking or rational or Godly thought, however.

    That’s the entire point of Newspeak jargon. To eliminate thinking completely, replacing it with Party Line Stimulus –> Response.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
    Just global string replace “The State” with “Pastor” or “Calvin”.

  235. Lydia wrote:

    I am not sure what else “creating in His image” could mean when it comes to adult relationships. I do understand that many adults choose to marr the image of God part. Both men and women do this. It is humans who invented the caste system and divisions. Nor God. It is sin.

    I find it a supreme irony that those most likely to create caste systems within Christendom, dividing people one from another into greater and lesser parts, and the ones quickest to play the “divisive” or “factuous” card when their methods are questioned. This is high comedy.

  236. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Max wrote:
    It’s not a “gospel” coalition … it’s a Calvinist coalition! In reformed ranks, Gospel = Calvinism
    There is no Christ, there is only CALVIN.

    Would that make it a “Gospel Calvinition”?

  237. @ Nancy2:
    Nancy, I bring it “down” to that level because the teaching is ” equal in essence” but unequal in function. They cannot make the spiritually inferior argument and be credible believers of Jesus Christ death/resurrection. Therefore they make it into a biological inferiority.

    In some ways it mirrors pagan worship of the body/form.

  238. @ Law Prof:
    Excellent. Well said.

    It does make one wonder what the motivation is in light of evidence to the contrary. What’s driving the position? I realize spiritual matters require light and revelation, but I believe if someone wishes to know the truth, the light will eventually dawn on them. So, what’s blocking out the light? Moreover, why is he throwing shade in the other direction?

    Valid points, Law Prof, deserving of a reply.

  239. Lydia wrote:

    Nancy, I bring it “down” to that level because the teaching is ” equal in essence” but unequal in function. They cannot make the spiritually inferior argument and be credible believers of Jesus Christ death/resurrection. Therefore they make it into a biological inferiority.

    Exactly! They go round and round in testosterone empowered exegesic circles!

  240. Ken wrote:

    I don’t lke the words egalitarian or complementarian as they both have baggage. Regarding the former, the word ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ is virtually absent fróm the bible. Where it is mentioned, it is not something to be grasped. So whilst I do think God treats men and women ‘equally’ in the church in the sense of the basis of their salvation, baptism, the gift of the Holy Spririt and the ministries that flow from this etc, as I have said often enough, this does not obliterate God-given distinctions, and we do not have the ‘right’ to negotiate with God over this.

    “Do unto others as you would have them to unto you – this sums up the law and the prophets.

    or this –

    “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.But you shall not be so:…

    Have you ever noticed that these fearless leaders who strive to establish an ever-firmer foundation of submission to their authority – invariably cut & run whenever a call for their own submission goes forth as a consequence of the exposure of their sin?

    Sin, which almost always is revealed to include years of spiritual, emotional, and mental abuse of those supposedly in their tender care?

    You inadvertently are biasing the discussion when you paint it with the word “right” as in “we do not have the right.”

    Changing your view from “right” to responsibility would perhaps impact your view.

    Negotiating? God didn’t seem that offended by it.

    Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, and even the daughters of Zelophehad.

  241. Lydia wrote:

    @ BL:
    I have a friend who calls them “The Calvinators”

    Heheh…You triggered an ancient SNL memory.

    Calvin!

    Calvie-Cal-Calvinator! Calmeister instituting!

    The Cal-ster! Cal-o-rama! The Cal-man!

    Calvinotello! Laying down the law!

    Cal-va-lav-a-ding-dong. Defining the doctrine!

    Captain Cal-ster – Consistory controller!

    The Cal-aytollah!

  242. Nancy2 wrote:

    In essence, that is what complementarians insist when they use I Tim., Epesians, and Corinthinans AGAINST Galatians.

    Ken said: The gist of my reply [to my daughter] could be summed up as this: ‘Gal 3 : 28 and 1 Tim 2 : 11-12 come from the same apostle and are both scripture. Taking their context within each book and the immediate surrounding context, they are both true. Don’t make either of them negate the other. You don’t need to reconcile friends’.

    Despite my dislike of the jargon I have also commented on here before along the lines of ‘if you treat the egalitarian verses as egalitarian and the complementarian verses as complementarian, you won’t go too far wrong’ which is much the same way of thinking.

    Would you like me to prophesy? This will garner the reply ‘Look, Ken has cognative dissonance’! 🙂

  243. Law Prof wrote:

    At the end of the day, Ken, I’m just trying to figure out what you think you’re accomplishing here.

    Let me answer why I post on this theme.

    Two personal reasons – I’m not sure I live out the ‘head’ aspect of what Paul is driving at, and one day I will have to give an account. This isn’t some Romans 7 despair, but sober reflection on what this concept means. It has been very beneficial to think this through again. The other reason is if we are to go to a local church again, they are all egalitarian. If that interpretation is correct all well and good, but if not … I have tried over the years to adopt an attitude of not getting hang ups about this, and have attended groups with female leadership including recently, but it has not turned out well, and yes the problem was and remains deception. The discussion is not academic.

    I am painfully aware of appearing to be posting to be contrary for the sake of it. I don’t think I have brought the subject up; usually a comment of mine garners half a dozen disagreeing responses, and it seems impolite at a minimum not to reply. You can hardly accuse me of not being willing to think through what I believe in the face of disagreement. I certainly never expected such an ongoing discussion. I’m not picking fights on this, and I’m no more obsessed with the topic that those who disagree. This site to its credit allows a variety of views, and my kind of complementarianism has a long and respectable history in conservative evangelicalism, at least on this side of the pond.

    I have never intentionally been insensitive to those who may have suffered abuse from bullies who use complementarianism to justify this, but it is irrational to expect me to know what others have experienced on an internet site in a different culture in a different country. I don’t take offence very easily, but I have to say that those who have suffered should not impute guilt by association to me, and personal snark shows more about them than me. I know what church abuse can be like first-hand, and you need to deal with it over a period of time. But surely this is no reason to put discussion of these subjects off limits.

    It does get very tiring having to repeatedly qualify everything or repeat statements perhaps for four or more times and still a commenter doesn’t get it because their view is immutably fixed. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with me, but it does bother me if in effect their problem is with scripture itself. In the end that is between all of us and God.

    In one sense you are right, this is a secondary issue, but it is not unimportant to the health of the church. Egalitarianism has its dangers too, just as authoritarian abuse of complementarianism can – in the trinity, in healthy church life, in attitudes to apostolic teaching, in sinning in a marriage relationship… But I’m saying no more on that because it would almost certainly end in fruitless strife and there is enough of that in the church as it is.

    I’m happy to continue with the subject on occasion, but I want to cut it back and have done for quite a while.

  244. Daisy wrote:

    I have a mom and dad who brought me up under this gender comp garbage, … it produces so many problems and conveys the message to women they are not as valuable as men

    The issue of who does or is responsible for what only applies to those who are married, which doesn’t include you. Now you may have seen this abused first hand or in others, just as I have seen normal marriages that work this out in a healthy way; for neither of is is our experience what counts. It’s what is written.

    We just don’t see eye to eye on this – I profoundly believe that the gospel is not about us feeling good about ourselves, the ‘building your self esteem’ of seeker-sensitivity. Perhaps it’s differing backgrounds, but why do we need to consider ourselves as valuable? I’m not angling for an answer to that question, merely using it to illustrate a difference in thinking and outlook.

    There is a similar difference in outlook over evangelicalism and slavery between the UK and the US. This doesn’t help communication where it is easy to talk at cross purposes.

  245. @ Ken:
    Daisy – my first sentence comes over as officious, which I didn’t intend. I’m not having a go at you, it’s just that if you are not married, the arguments about Eph 5 do not directly affect you. The same is true of my sister who is complementarian in thnking – but also single. My apologies for seeming crass.

  246. Ken wrote:

    , but it does bother me if in effect their problem is with scripture itself. In the end that is between all of us and God.

    We have been down this road with you many times. Some of us believe your interpretation is the problem. You ignore grammar, word usage of the time, historical context and the entire pericope whuch negates your interpretation in order to prop up your proof texts.

    Yet you insist the problem is we don’t like what scripture teaches. For me, I do not like the way it is twisted to prop up privilege for any group or elevation above others. It does not matter if the subject is pastor, elder, husband, etc.

  247. Ken wrote:

    The issue of who does or is responsible for what only applies to those who are married, which doesn’t include you.

    Ken wrote:

    Daisy – my first sentence comes over as officious, which I didn’t intend. I’m not having a go at you, it’s just that if you are not married, the arguments about Eph 5 do not directly affect you

    Good thing you straightened that out, Ken! In your first statement, I was under the impression that you believed Daisy is more responsible than and a bit above us married women.

  248. Ken wrote:

    We just don’t see eye to eye on this – I profoundly believe that the gospel is not about us feeling good about ourselves, the ‘building your self esteem’ of seeker-sensitivity. Perhaps it’s differing backgrounds, but why do we need to consider ourselves as valuable? I

    But that is exactly what comp doctrine does for men!

  249. Lydia wrote:

    Yet you insist the problem is we don’t like what scripture teaches.

    I have in mind occasions when someone has waxed lyrical on the nonsense comps teach, giving examples that are almost verbatim quotations from scripture.

    Imagine a discussion on shepherding/discipleship and someone saying ‘you know they are so obsessed with their privilege they will actually tell you to your face that you have to obey your leaders and submit to them!!’

    Well last 7 words are a verbatim quotation from Heb 13 in the RSV. Despite nuances in the Greek, even if some people have built a superstructure on this verse that it won’t really support, we are still expected to obey it.

  250. Ken wrote:

    I certainly never expected such an ongoing discussion. I’m not picking fights on this, and I’m no more obsessed with the topic that those who disagree.

    Ken, you may be the only one with this opinion of yourself on this forum. I can assure you that unless someone waves it in my face, I am not thinking about gender issues.

    But basically, what you’re saying, in so many words, behind all the rhetorical flourishes, is that you’re going to keep on coming to this forum and doing what you danged well please in spite of the admonitions I gave you. Sure, press on. Can’t say it surprises me. Says a lot about you, o brave defender of nonessentials.

  251. Ken wrote:

    …but I want to cut it back and have done for quite a while.

    I hope this is so, because I sincerely doubt you’re doing anything that does anyone any good. As far as the essentials go, we are presumably on the same page, which is the same page most who post here are on. So surely you’re not here to lead us to Christ (and even if you are, you sure have a strange way of approaching it through debating gender roles); so assuming you’re here to convince fellow Christians of the importance of patriarchalism and/or complementarianism in the church and the family (and the wonderful effect it has had on your daughter as evidenced by her success at an elite university), I’d assume that a reasonable, rational person would take note of the fact that he was getting precisely nowhere in this milieu.

    So I figured you might just drop it–unless of course, you just like a good fight and are not too concerned about collateral damage. Your call, though. One other thing: stop writing your danged posts in such a mealy-mouthed way as to convince yourself of your own goodness–be more direct; Jesus was always direct. Your style reminds me strikingly of the manner of abusive church leaders, just sayin.

  252. Ken wrote:

    The issue of who does or is responsible for what only applies to those who are married, which doesn’t include you.

    Gender comp impacts single women, too, Ken. I’ve explained why and how on older threads.

    And not to get into it here, but one reason of a billion I am NOT married (in spite of wanting to be) is due in part to gender comp.

    Gender comp negatively impacts a woman’s view of herself from the time she is a kid and as she grows up, and how she assumes Christian gender comp men (and men in general) view her – (which hampers dating, getting married, etc).

    Please see this page for another woman’s explanation of it, which is very similar to my experience:

    How Complementarianism Stole My Identity
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/how-complementarianism-stole-my-identity

    I don’t have to be married to see how harmful gender comp is to other women, including married ones.

    Gender comps assume single women like me are harlots, so they tell married men not to talk to or associate with single women.

    GCs won’t do normal gestures of kindness, such as give a single woman a lift in their car if her car is broken on the side of the road, etc.

  253. Ken wrote:

    it’s just that if you are not married, the arguments about Eph 5 do not directly affect you.

    I beg to differ. I may marry some day, who knows. In the meantime, I find the views offensive, unbiblical, and GC is sexist against single ladies too….

    And, most of GC (Gender Complementarianism) does not have a place for unmarried women.

    99% of GC cares only about married women.

    GCs do not minister to or care about infertile, child free, divorced, never married, or widowed women.

    That is a huge clue to you that GC is a false doctrine. GC only fits a narrow demographic of people, not the ENTIRE church body.

  254. Ken wrote:

    It doesn’t matter if they disagree with me, but it does bother me if in effect their problem is with scripture itself. In the end that is between all of us and God.

    What you believe about gender and marriage is not biblical.

    What you believe is your distorted understanding of what the Bible says, and you continue to read things into the biblical text that is not there, or to ignore the cultural time periods in which the text was written.

    I used to be gender complementarian myself, was one for years, but realized upon examining the Bible itself that the Bible does not teach or support gender comp.

    There are too many examples in the Bible of women leading, preaching, and teaching men, which conflicts with the gender comp interpretation of a select, small number of other verses.

    People who disagree with you about some doctrine are not necessarily “disagreeing with God” or not taking the Bible seriously, but are disagreeing with your interpretation of God and the text.

  255. Lydia wrote:

    But that is exactly what comp doctrine does for men!

    Yes. It’s funny.
    I keep seeing American gender comps put out “manhood” after “manhood” conference or podcast or blog page.

    Male gender complementarians are really alarmed that men are dropping out of church by the socre (women have been dropping out in droves more recently, but comps don’t care about that).

    Gender comp organizations and churches keep yelling that church is “too feminized” these days, and they feel that is what driving men away.

    So, they even explain in their fliers and web sites for “manly man” conferences and books that churches need to appeal to men, retain men, by making Christianity sound manly.

    Here is one example:
    “Lion’s Roar”
    http://www.lionsroar2015.com/index.php

    On their home page:
    — Start Quote —
    CHRISTIAN MENS NETWORK presents the GLOBAL SUMMIT ON CHRISTLIKE MANHOOD

    STAND STRONG with Christian men from 120 nations, and some of the world’s most influential leaders. Be enlarged. Be encouraged. Be equipped to train other men.
    WE ARE CMN. WE RESCUE MEN.
    — End Quote —

    Gender comp exists in part to keep men in charge and in power (and specifically in power over women), but also to apply balm to fragile, weak, angry, or worried male egos.

    Note the use of term “Christlike manhood” – How do they reconcile something like that with the opposite, “Christlike womanhood.”

    Would they suggest that Christian women emulating Christ picture Jesus wearing a frilly, pink, floral apron in some stereotypical 1950s American womanly pursuit, such as baking a casserole?
    Or, probably, they would hammer the “women must submit to men” shtick.

  256. Ken wrote:

    I have in mind occasions when someone has waxed lyrical on the nonsense comps teach, giving examples that are almost verbatim quotations from scripture.

    This is another problem with gender comp. Comps cannot agree on when, where and how to apply it in real life.

    I don’t see how you can think gender comp is biblical when even those who believe in it can’t carry it out or teach it consistently.

    This kind of gets back to this page, which addresses that issue:
    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

  257. Law Prof wrote:

    So I figured you might just drop it–unless of course, you just like a good fight and are not too concerned about collateral damage.

    I admit to being interested in the topic (ie, gender roles and the like), but when I’m on the other side of a topic, like YEC, I tend to stay out of YEC debates. I usually just scroll past anti-YEC commentary.

  258. Daisy wrote:

    don’t see how you can think gender comp is biblical when even those who believe in it can’t carry it out or teach it consistently.

    This used to drive me nuts on so many forums and blogs. But I got used to it and saw it as a huge problem for them. CBMW basically slid right into a sort of Mormonism trying to fix the problem. It is a huge distraction from the main thing: Jesus Christ.

    One thing I saw with egals or mutualists is that their application of biblical concepts was consistent when it came to Christian adults. My pet peeve with them was their ever present need for unity with comps by declaring the comp view was just another interpretation that was plausible. They did this for unity reasons. But the more I dug into it, the more I saw this as a problem. There is not one single prohibition in the OT from God about women teaching or leading men. Period.

    Of course Patriarchy is modeled in the OT. As is polygamy, murder, etc, etc. But we focus on God’s commands not how OT people carried them out… as our role models.

  259. Lydia wrote:

    It is a huge distraction from the main thing: Jesus Christ.

    Idols to which people cling tend to be huge distractions from Jesus Christ.

  260. @ Law Prof:

    To pick up on some of your points:

    you just like a good fight

    No, I like a good discussion. It seems many others do to. It is starting to go round in circles, but that is true of both views here.

    so assuming you’re here to convince fellow Christians of the importance of patriarchalism and/or complementarianism in the church and the family

    I think I represent a mediating position between two extremes that are deception and error, and from which I have tried to distance myself. RHE and Doug Phillips are not the only game in town. I hope you are not advocating the suppression of dissenting opinion re egalitarianism, or the comments here will end up the mirror image of abusive pastors who cannot cope with any critique of their practices. There are one or two blogs out there who have criticised TWW for precisely this.

    So surely you’re not here to lead us to Christ

    Where on earth are you getting this from? I haven’t once remotely intimated that those I have discussed this with here are not Christians, and I defy you to find this in anything I have said. You are the one earlier on in this thread who speculates the new calvinists may not be Christians.

    One other thing: stop writing your danged posts in such a mealy-mouthed way as to convince yourself of your own goodness–be more direct –

    You say that whilst simultaneously complaining I am insensitive to the abuse suffered by others at the hand of authoritarians. Which is it to be? Both criticisms cannot be ‘mutually’ true. You’re messed up on this subject, mate, you only emote. You need help, get yourself under a decent pastor who can sort you out. Is that how you want me to comment? I doubt it, somehow. Too personal, too argumentative … and pointless. Nevertheless, you may actually have got a point here, but it seems rude to be too direct about what you yourself say is not a salvation essential. Most of the discussion has been with other women here, isn’t a bit a chivalry and treating women with respect allowed, or is this sexist?

    But basically, what you’re saying, … is that you’re going to keep on coming to this forum and doing what you danged well please in spite of the admonitions I gave you.

    It is not your job to moderate this forum or dictate who should comment on what. I’m quite sure if Dee of Deb or any other moderator thought I was advocating an abusive system, they would say so, and quite right to. Their turf, their rules, and I have no problem with that. The very first comment I ever made on this theme – which I have been questioned on ever since – got a like from Dee, who the last time I looked was not a fan of abusive doctrines and practices. She may not have agreed with all of it, but it is within authentic evangelical thinking.

    The wisdom from above … is open to reason. Would you be willing to amend your egalitarinism if persuaded it does not always represent apostolic teaching?

  261. Ken wrote:

    …for neither of us is our experience what counts. It’s what is written.

    I disagree with this, Ken. Our experiences, and the truths found in other branches of knowledge, are invaluable to help us understand the Bible. I think that it’s not only permissible to allow experience to shape our interpretations, but necessary for the health of our faith.

    Otherwise, we run the risk of our beliefs becoming frozen in time — convinced that the sun goes ’round the earth, or that slavery is acceptable in the sight of God, all in the face of what countless people have observed or endured. And convinced only because “Bible Bible Bible, and God is never wrong”.

  262. @ Serving Kids In Japan:
    Yes and no!

    On the no side, bad experiences can warp our understanding of scripture. For example, someone who had an abusive father is going to have a hard time getting at what God our Father means in the NT until they get free of this.

    On the yes side, I agree that experience is hardly irrelevant to our understanding of scripture. To go by experience I think in my time I’ve seen enough of the charismatic gifts outlined in the NT to be able to say the blanket ‘this is not for today’ is false. But this is at best a confirmation of scripture, it cannot be a substitute for it.

    In the end it is scripture that is the measuring rod for discerning truth from error in spiritual matters, experiences can of themselves be false. Not everything that is supernatural or that ‘works’ comes from God, the spirits (sources of inspiration) need to be tested. There was the idea that experiences in church were ‘self-authenticating’ doing the rounds quite a while ago, and this led to the acceptance of all sorts of nonsense.

  263. mirele wrote:

    But even some writers don’t churn out stuff with abandon–fans of “Game of Thrones” [which, I confess, I could never get into] are terrified George R.R. Martin is going to kick the bucket before he finishes his magnum opus.

    There’s even a filksong about that which refers to GRRM as “The Great Bearded Glacier”.

  264. Pingback: My Homepage