Guest Post by Nate Sparks: Thabiti Anyabwile and His Friendship With CJ Mahaney Appears to Overlook the Pain of the Victims

“Woe to the man who offends a small child!” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov link

IMG_0239

I will be leaving town with my mother in law tomorrow for 4 days. During that time I will take her to see her parents and sisters' graves as well as to provide her an opportunity to say good-bye to her nieces and nephews. She is beginning to decline and I would appreciate your prayers for her strength because this is so important to her.

At the top of the post are the 5 new eggs laid by my new bluebird family Arthur and Alice III. As I contemplate the coming death of Polly, I recently remembered what I told my kids when they attended a funeral for their 4 cousins who wre killed in a car crash. I told them that the death of a person was like an egg cracking open because the new bird wants to get out.

Right now, we only see the shell on the outside and we want to protect it from harm. But, someday, that egg will crack open and out will pop a beautiful little bird. When that happens, we are so excited to see the new life, we forget about that eggshell although we are glad that the shell nourished and protected the new life.

That is how I envision heaven for all of us. One day, this egg will crack and in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be in heaven. These eggs remind me of the new life that is coming one day.

However, I do have a minor problem with my computer. Due to my penchant for reading news articles like "20 incredible pictures of botched plastic surgeries" or "15 things the Duggars don't want you to know" I have screwed up my computer. The GBTC tells me this stuff is called click bait and it is notorious for putting bad things on computers. So, while I am away, my geek friend will play with my computer and get rid of the minor issues. Do any of you get sidelined by this stuff or am I the only weirdo?

So, I will be traveling and will be without my computer. I will not be commenting very much until next week but will keep an eye on things with my phone. 


Amy Smith posts the tweets between Thabiti and others in this conversation.

About a week ago, an interesting Twitter exchange occurred between Thabiti Anyabwile and a number of people, including me. He decided to open himself up for any question for a short period of time. I bet he did not expect a full course press on his friendship with Mahaney. It is important to realize that this discussion was spontaneous.

Thabiti is a well known pastor who is intimately connected with The Gospel Coalition and T4G. He considers CJ Mahaney a good friend. Thabiti is one of the friendlier members of TGC. He is also known for his concern for racial relations. We wrote a post on his discussion with Doug Wilson in which he pushed back on Wilson's views on slavery and the Civil War: What Doug Wilson Should Have Learned From Thabiti Anyabwile About Racism.

Amy Smith at Watch Keep has created a blog post which pretty much has all the tweets that occurred during this discussion. She put them all into a post titled Thabiti Anyabwile and C.J. Mahaney: A Twitter Tale of Willful Blindness.  As you will see, people were concerned about his relationship with CJ Mahaney and his seeming lack of concern for the many victims in this sad tale.

I would recommend that you scan some of the tweets to get a feel for the conversation flow. Then, read Nate Sparks open letter to Thabiti. It is well written and thoughtful. I think you will find his answers interesting. It should give you some insight how people justify their non-involvement in church abuse cases that involve friends.

One aside, I kept asking Thabiti if CJ Mahaney had ever given him money. He answered me right away but somehow those tweets, even though I was tagged, did not show up in my notification feed so I thought he had not responded. Have any of you ever had that happen?  I did apologize for asking the question so many times. However, I did get an answer. CJ had given $5000 to the church. I still have some questions regarding other possible payments for talks, etc but I did not address those in this conversation.


Nate Sparks: Silence: an Open Letter to Thabiti Anyabwile

Dear Thabiti,

I’m not sure if you remember me.  As part of an open letter to the council of The Gospel Coalition, I sent you this letter in January.  I was dismayed I did not receive an answer.

Injustice: an Open Letter to The Gospel Coalition

I had hoped you, or some other member of TGC council, would take the time to dialogue.  I asked many important questions which I don’t think are properly addressed by the maintenance of collective silence.  However, despite the discouraging silence I have this far received, I wanted to try again.

Specifically, I want to appeal to you.  The reasons for this are simple.

1. You have a reputation as a fair and gracious man who is willing to engage respectfully in difficult conversations.

2. You recently engaged in a Twitter conversation relevant to the topic I want to address: Pastoral Abuse.

As I’m sure you well remember, you recently tweeted the following:

image

What ensued was a barrage of tweets regarding your relationship with CJ Mahaney and Together for the Gospel (T4G).  You were hit with accusations from every side and asked many questions.  From what I can tell, you did your best to answer them.

Unfortunately, you seem to be in the dark here.  For someone who claims to be a close friend of Mahaney, you claimed to not know much about the accusations against him.  Along these lines you issued a number of tweets I think it important to discuss.  Because of the length of the thread – not to mention the number of sub-threads that developed – it would not serve us well to try to reproduce the conversation in its entirety.  Instead, I want to focus on a few specific tweets that caught my attention.

Before we get to the matter at hand, I want to be sure to note I am striving here to be charitable in my approach.  I will take you at your word, and unless context demands otherwise I will take your words at face value.  As such, I want to provide a link to the original thread here, to ensure you remember the conversation and so you can judge whether I treated your words properly within their original context.  If I should misquote or misrepresent you, please feel free to correct me.  As this is intended to be a dialogue, your response is obviously quite welcome

The Tweets

Each of the relevant tweets will be treated in turn, and relevant data will be added below to encourage discussion around the topic.

image

With this tweet, you answered whether or not you support CJ Mahaney.  It can be honorable to stand beside a friend in time of struggle, and it seems from your tweets this is your opinion of your actions.

But I do wonder how this support stands in juxtaposition to a post you wrote on September 21, 2015, entitled “The Cosby Conversation We’re Still Not Having

This post made some interesting and, in my opinion, relevant points.  I think the following quotes from this post must be considered as a lens for reading the tweets below.

1. “We can significantly impact the safety and well-being of women by breaking our silence, speaking against violence, abuse and sexual entitlement, and insisting on the prosecution of offenders. We must speak up if we ever hope to end this scourge.”

2. “Communities with weak community sanctions against abusive men, with community norms and values supportive of violence, and with a sense of male sexual entitlement are at risk of higher rates of sexual assault against women.”

3. “There are many working in the trenches, but comparatively their numbers are few. And I suspect far too few churches lend their voices to this cause. We are complicit in our silence.”

With these quotes, and their context in the post above, in mind let us consider some tweets.

image

I noted that twice above you noted the importance of silence.  You even went so far as to call it complicity.  I wonder then, is refusing to call out CJ’s sins not, by your own standards, complicity in his abuses?

Also, it is one thing to support a friend who has repented his sins from 20 years ago and moved forward.  However, I must ask, has CJ repented?  This is an important question because your statement above about his “troubles” that occurred 20 years ago occurred within the context of being asked about the cover-up of child sex abuse within Sovereign Grace Ministries, and especially at Covenant Life Church.

This statement seems to presuppose that CJ was, in fact, involved in such a cover-up.  Your stance seems to be not that he is innocent, but that he had repented from and learned from “troubles” he had 20 years ago.  Is this what you believe?  Or did you simply misspeak?

Given the implications of your words, how do you respond to the fact that CJ has specifically denied that he was even involved in any of the “troubles” that occurred beginning 20 years ago?

See this article from Christianity Today if you are unfamiliar with CJ’s words regarding the Sovereign Grace lawsuit.

CJ Mahaney Breaks Silence on Sovereign Grace Ministry Abuse Allegations

If these were not the “troubles” you meant, given the specific context of the conversation in which you were asked about the accusations that Mahaney has covered-up child sex abuse at Covenant Life Church, then what precisely were you referring to? Did you have different “troubles” in mind?

It seems to me, if you know CJ was somehow involved and you know he has not repented or confessed this, then in your silence you are complicit in the cover-up.

But as I said, perhaps I have misunderstood your words.  This leads to the next tweet.

image

It seems you are completely unaware of the situation surrounding CJ, why he has been sued, and precisely how the court case proceeded.  I have to admit I find this strange, as it has been so strongly reported by the news media.  But I understand you are busy and it can be difficult to keep up with everything.

With this in mind, I’d like to provide you some resources.  You have explicitly stated above that you see the failure to create an environment that combats abuse as a direct act of enabling said abuse.  Given that, I wonder how do you respond to the facts of the Nathaniel Morales case?

Are you aware that Grant Layman, CJ’s own brother-in-law confessed to actively covering up the Morales abuse?

Megachurch Pastor Confesses to Protecting Child Molester for Years

Isn’t CJ Mahaney, the man who set the tone for how Covenant Life Church treated these incidents, responsible for the fact that those directly under him saw fit to protect the image of their church instead of the victims of sexual assault?

Consider that Joshua Harris himself – once the darling of Conservative Christian Modesty culture – has repented of his role in covering sex abuse.  He has said that the atmosphere of Covenant Life Church was “Mom and Pop” and that no one was trained to properly handle these incidents.

Pastor Joshua Harris, an Evangelical Outlier, Heads to Mainstream Seminary

This is a significant statement.  As the head of both Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries when these abuses occurred, didn’t CJ Mahaney have a responsibility to create an environment where this could not occur?  Do you truly believe CJ Mahaney’s family and protégé could know about these abuses, but he was simply in the dark?

Given that you claim to not be entirely up on the details of the case, I encourage you to read these two articles:

Inside the Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse at Sovereign Grace Ministry

The Sex Abuse Scandal that Devastated a Suburban Megachurch

Despite your claim to know little about the abuse scandal, it seems you do have a few thoughts on the matter, however.  For instance:

image

This one perplexes me.  You say you trust the court’s decision, but the only decision that has been made in court is that the statute of limitations had expired.  In case you don’t know what that means, here is a helpful resource to help clarify the term.

The point is this, the court did not rule on the veracity of the charges alleged in the class-action suit.  The charges were not heard because it was determined that the crimes were committed in a time frame that stands outside the established statute of limitations for the state of Maryland.

This is important because, already, the charges against Nathaniel Morales have led to a criminal conviction for sexual abusing two boys.  Grant Layman, CJ’s brother in law both knew and covered up this abuse (a fact I already mentioned above).

Megachurch Pastors leave Reformed Evangelical Network Amid Child Abuse Scandal

It is also notable that, after the civil suit appeal was dismissed in 2014, SGM issued a statement in which they denied ALL claims of the civil suit that a cover-up or conspiracy existed.  These claims came despite the fact that Nathaniel Morales has been convicted and that Grant Layman and Josh Harris both admitted to such a cover-up occurring.

Who is telling the truth? Do you deny the testimony of Layman and Harris, and affirm SGM’s claim that no one covered up any abuse?

You seem to have answered this question with this tweet.

image

image

I want to free you of the perceived need to play judge by helping you see that you don’t have to adjudicate the claims.  Nathaniel Morales has been found guilty and Grant Layman has confessed to the cover-up.  The question isn’t if a cover-up occurred.  The only questions left here are:

1. How deep did the cover-up go?

2. How did the culture, created by CJ Mahaney at Covenant Life Church and through Sovereign Grace Ministry through his leadership, play into this cover-up?

Now let us consider these tweets:

image

image

image

image

These are red-herring statements.  The question here isn’t whether the law found CJ Mahaney guilty of anything.  It is (as stated above) whether he participated in the cover-up and how his leadership enabled it.

In answer to how deep the cover-up went, I ask you to read these documents.  I warn you, they are disturbing and graphic, but they are important to understanding the charges leveled against CJ Mahaney.

1. Grace Goe accusations

2. Second Amended Complaint from the class action suit (pdf).

I want you to notice that at the same time cover-ups were known to have occurred – a conspiracy again involving Layman, and in which Joshua Harris has been implicated – CJ Mahaney, Grant Layman, and Gary Ricucci were sent on an expensive vacation by Grace Goe’s father.  Do you honestly believe this a coincidence?

How do you feel about the fact that Ricucci remains in leadership under CJ at SG Louisville?  Are you aware that he has also been accused of covering upother repeated sexual abuse incidents over multiple years by a convicted child molester, David Adams?  Given that CJ Mahaney is the senior pastor of SG Louisville, do you think he has practiced Christ-centered leadership by allowing Ricucci to continue in ministry after these very serious allegations?

I also want to talk about a statement I cited above from your Cosby piece.

Communities with weak community sanctions against abusive men, with community norms and values supportive of violence, and with a sense of male sexual entitlement are at risk of higher rates of sexual assault against women.

Now, consider the following sermon from CJ Mahaney on lust and modesty.  How does the logic here not build upon male entitlement?  Do these ideas not excuse the abuses of men by placing the blame for their reactions on women?  Is a community which embraces these teachings not “at risk of higher rates of sexual assault…” against children?

Let us play devil’s advocate for a moment and assume that CJ Mahaney somehow did not know about the cover-up happening directly under his nose.  Let us even assume he is entirely innocent of the charges in the class action suit.  Is his leadership and message such that he is not at all culpable for the environment of abuse and cover-up that occurred within his own ministry?  Is he morally responsible for the ways in which his leadership contributed to this culture?

Now let us return to reality; CJ Mahaney has not repented.  Instead, he has allowed his ministry to issue false statements (as shown above).  Further, he has personally denied that the cover-up took place while continuing to put Gary Ricucci in a position of church leadership.  So I ask you directly,

Is CJ Mahaney morally culpable for the culture of abuse and cover-up that occurred under his leadership within Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries?

This leads me to a final set of tweets.  Within these tweets, you responded to questions you were asked about those identifying as SGM victims.

image

image

I honestly don’t know what you mean here.  Are you saying that no number of victims could away your opinion?  Are you saying that there isn’t a quantifiable number, but that if convinced you would stand up for it?  Or is there some meaning I’m simply failing to ascertain?  Since I do not know how to read these statements, I am hoping you can clarify this for me.

Some Closing Thoughts

I want to close with a final question and an appeal I hope you will consider:

If you continue to remain silent, are you not complicit in the abuses CJ Mahaney continues to perpetrate by denying the sins he facilitated and enabled?  Are you not even now working then so silence the victims?

Add a highly respected minister of the Gospel whom people look to for guidance, I urge you – as someone who considers has self-identified as CJ’s friend – to confront him regarding these sins.  Further, I urge to you either call for the removal of CJ Mahaney from Together for the Gospel and Sovereign Grace Ministries.  If your plea will not be heard, then you must – as a man of conscience – choose to disavow yourself of these ministries.

I close by reminding you of your own words once more:

We can significantly impact the safety and well-being of women by breaking our silence, speaking against violence, abuse and sexual entitlement, and insisting on the prosecution of offenders. We must speak up if we ever hope to end this scourge.

I sincerely thank you for considering my words.  I hope you can see I speak them with the love and respect due a fellow brother in Christ.  I hope you will join the few in the trenches and end your silence.

I bid you peace in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ of God.

Nate Sparks

**Cover Image from http://www.outreachmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/15-ThabitiAnyabwile-420-300×225.jpg**

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others. Thanks.

Comments

Guest Post by Nate Sparks: Thabiti Anyabwile and His Friendship With CJ Mahaney Appears to Overlook the Pain of the Victims — 150 Comments

  1. ‘Do any of you get sidelined by this stuff or am I the only weirdo?”

    I must confess, Dee, that I get sidelined from time to time. The other day I got caught up looking at Awkward Celebrity Prom Photos. I won’t send the link because I don’t want anyone to get a computer virus! Oh, and I’ve glanced through that site that depicts badly aging celebrities. Where must I be thinking? 😉 Have a safe and blessed time with your mother-in-law and her family. God be with you!

  2. I refuse to believe that Thabiti as imbecilic as his tweets make him look. Especially that monumental B.S. (ed.) about the courts "having their say". Which, you know, isn't actually true. I cannot see Thabiti as anything more than an empty and shallow celebrity who puts money ahead of anything remotely resembling character. A shame, but not unexpected. Birds of a feather and all that.

  3. @Dee … praying the next few days are meaningful for Polly and all of you who are her extended family, and especially for this trip …

  4. I’m a computer geek. Dee, your problem is Microsoft Windows.

    Microsoft Windows is a terrible operating system. It really shouldn’t be allowed to be on sale, because it is not safe for use.

    The solutions are either buy a Mac, or get someone to install Linux on your computer. The second is cheaper, but the first is easier and quicker.

    As to CJ, I’ve been following the Covenent Life debacle for a while. I think the real problem is a size 12 ego in a size 8 soul. Not very charitable of me to say that, I know. But based on the evidence, that’s my conclusion.

    I don’t think CJ will ever be able to understand the harm he is doing, unlike Joshua Harris, who seems to be trying to learn things that will help him going forward.

  5. Dave (Eagle) wrote:

    Here’s a post I got up last night on the Community Evangelical Free Church in Elverson, Pennsylvania situation. Members are trading an internet article that calls blogs public shaming and “Outrage Porn.” Is it “Outrage Porn” to discuss a church’s problems and issues?

    Jesus sure did seem outraged about abusive people within church leadership. Was He engaging in outrage porn? It would seems as if it’s so, by the standards of the circle-the-wagons, protect-the-church/bleep-the-people crowd. I want to get more involved in outrage porn, I want to be like Jesus.

  6. Praying for you Dee and your family… I hope this trip is full of God’s goodness for you all. Thank you for all you do, you make this world look a lot more like Jesus

  7. Wayne Borean wrote:

    I’m a computer geek. Dee, your problem is Microsoft Windows.
    Microsoft Windows is a terrible operating system. It really shouldn’t be allowed to be on sale, because it is not safe for use.
    The solutions are either buy a Mac, or get someone to install Linux on your computer. The second is cheaper, but the first is easier and quicker.

    Wayne

    I’m sorry but you don’t know what you are talking about. Let’s just drop it.

    GBTC

  8. Hi Dee. I’m praying for you, your family, and your mother-in-law. As for your PC, maybe we can do some laying on hands and some faith healing. I suggested that once at work. The help desk guys weren’t amused….

  9. From the post: “It should give you some insight how people justify their non-involvement in church abuse cases that involve friends.”

    The interesting thing about their so-called “non-involvement” is that they have this relationship with the guilty – that is, they are friends, and they vouch for their character, as witnesses.

    Like the neighbor of a perpetrator that is interviewed and proclaims over media: “He is such a stand-up guy, a pillar of the community.”

    NOT.

    Perpetrators groom witnesses to vouch for them – publicly and over the media. Witnesses in high places that have credibility.

    Credibility gone.

    “Hate evil, you who love the LORD, Who preserves the souls of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.” NASB Ps. 97.10.

    It’s a litmus test. Josh. 24:15. “Choose whom you will serve.”

    Talk is cheap. Make hard choices. James 1.27.

  10. @ dee:

    Man oh Manischewitz are those bluebird eggs beautiful! They’re putting me in a William Blake mood.

  11. JYJames wrote:

    Perpetrators groom witnesses to vouch for them – publicly and over the media. Witnesses in high places that have credibility.

    This.

  12. siteseer wrote:

    Godspeed, Dee. This post really touched my heart. My husband’s cancer recurred today.

    I am so sorry. I’ll definitely pray for him and for you.

  13. Dee…..

    Praying , wishing for your trip with Polly to be peaceful, cathartic for all.

    I too am guilty of occasionally viewing, * see how badly stars have aged sites,
    * or view these *hideous bridal dresses * etc.

  14. Your illustration on birds eggs reminded me of this:

    John Quincy Adams is well. But the house in which he lives at present is becoming dilapidated. It is tottering up on its foundation. Time and the seasons have nearly destroyed it. Its roof is pretty well worn out. Its walls are much shattered and it trembles with every wind. I think John Quincy will have to move out of it soon. But he himself is quite well, quite well.

    John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848)

  15. @ JYJames:
    Very astute comment. I was thinking of this the other day concerning Driscoll. There was enough public info and pattern of bad behavior in 2009 to stop promoting him but they (Piper, Mohler, Ezell, etc) just became more involved with him as if he were the greatest thing. They literally promoted him as a national brand. Now, they pretend like he never existed

  16. That modesty video! Ridiculously dramatic. Women lust too, guys. Women are not at fault for being attractive, either. Dresses, skirts, pants…it doesn’t matter. The problem seems to be that the men think ‘finding girls attractive’ is some terrible, horrible sin, one that is the fault of the women for existing.

    So sorry for you Dee! I have been tearing through you guys blog the last few months in horror. Maybe this is part of the reason I could not settle on a church (until recently) after visiting multiple places in the past ten years.

  17. @ Dave (Eagle):
    ” Outrage Porn ” ….find a perjorative slogan, with which to smear the offended, smear the victim.

    Sadly, this type of hype works. Congregants believe (or are told ) they’re sticking up for the *good* name of pastor, church, the “faith”, etc. The atmosphere mimics the present political circus.

    It’s very challenging these days to engage in opposing conversation or debate, with regards to issues in the church. One is labeled, rebellious, liberal, contentious, angry, and so on.

    Just last week a younger pastor friend about accused me of close to a ” reprobate ” for disagreeing with him on politics. He’s a Calvinist, I am not, that may also contribute to the above state of mind.

  18. Seriously, somebody needs to do a whole article about that modesty video. I know that’s not the point of this, but man.

  19. Lea wrote:

    Seriously, somebody needs to do a whole article about that modesty video. I know that’s not the point of this, but man.

    Agree. What’s next asking our *father* for a bag to wear?
    Most men, I would say, don’t struggle 24/7 with, debilitating lustful thoughts.And, if they do, they need professional counselling.

  20. Mae wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    Seriously, somebody needs to do a whole article about that modesty video. I know that’s not the point of this, but man.

    Agree. What’s next asking our *father* for a bag to wear?

    My dad is not a perv obsessed with purity. He would probably just say ‘you look nice’ or something no matter what I was wearing.

    I paused that video multiple times to see if I really heard what I just heard. The other part was about the girl who almost bought a shirt that she liked and then she thought ‘I should think of the guys in church’ or something and didn’t buy it. Huh?

    I just want to slap some sense into all these people.

  21. @ Lea:
    Their whole modesty meme is based on the same foundational prnciples as Islam’s: Women cause men to lust and it is their responsibility to prevent that.

    Men are reduced to being simple minded despots ruled by their member who must be protected from female Wiles.

  22.   __

    “Justice, Lost In Transit?”

    hmmm…

    Dee, You barking  up the wrong tree. But you can try….

    huh?

    No ‘amount’ of documented court prosecutions against these CLC/SGM/SGC perps will sway the opinion and allegiances of those calvinestas who permote John Calvin’s ” Institutes Of The Christian Religion” over the scriptures…

    What?

    But you efforts may sway the opinion(s) of the kind folk who attend these calvinesta 501(c)3 religious establishments.

    Calvinestas unite! All 4 One, One 4 All. The movement is all!

    Skreeeeeeeetch!

    Apostle Paul said to be careful on what foundation you build upon?

    bump!

    I guess ‘somehow’ with these big doctrine calvinestas that got ‘lost’ in transit…

    Krunch !

    Are T4G,TGC,9 Mark, Acts29, and SGC calvinesta 501(c)3 ‘religious’ communities  ’embraceing’ male entitlement, and a women and children last policy?

    could b.

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  23. Praying for you and your mother-in-law. And don’t worry, you’re not the only weirdo (trust me, I have clicked on my fair share of lists…)

    That aside, I will be praying for Thabiti Anyabwile as well.

  24. Lydia wrote:

    John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848)

    Great quote from Adams! Adams was an avid student of Scripture and it’s easy to see that the real life Book of Ecclesiastes became a reality for him as it does for us all sooner or later.

  25. @ Lydia:

    Agreed. It should cause a whole rethinking of human sexuality and its ramifications in the Christian religion. Not the flowery nonsense and ill-founded proscriptions along with the silly prescriptions, but a drastic re-think based on common sense and pragmatism. But sigh… that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

  26. @ Muff Potter:
    I love that quote. An old pastor friend of my mom’s (who was a poet, too!) stood hunched over his walker yet eloquently read it aloud at her funeral as a testament to her last years on earth.

  27. Dee,

    I’m sorry that the news isn’t better for your mother-in-law. Praying that the time she has left will be filled with love.

  28. That modesty video was shown in 2013 to the women entering SEBTS (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) as part of their orientation into the seminary. They have a session where they split up men and women. I am not aware if it was shown outside this one time.

  29. @ Mae:

    Its why one must push back. In parts of Christianity anyone who disagrees is labeled emergent or liberal. That is why more people must speak up.

  30. Yep. I am neither but have been defamed as such for having opinions outside of the prescribed boxes. Very difficult to remain a freethinker and associate with those who think in black and white… @ Dave (Eagle):

  31. Melody wrote:

    Yep. I am neither but have been defamed as such for having opinions outside of the prescribed boxes.

    When I tried to get people to think outside the prescribed boxes they began to look upon me as a man-hating, baby aborting, family-hating feminist.
    And I refused to be shoved down into that box.
    But it was either that or quit going to church.
    Since I was weary of it all anyway, it was easiest to just quit going.

  32. Dr. Moore called Melissa Kruger “brilliant” on Twitter, after someone tweeted her review. A tactic they use on women to keep them in the system and rewarded (use it on men too of course). Flatter them, keep them in, even though they’re only promoted because they don’t threaten anyone and have average abilities..her arguments are medicare at best…She would nowhere outside their bubble or in any place of scholarship be referred to as “brilliant”. They need to get out of their bubble more.

    It all goes to insincere flattery and gate keeping. It’s how CJ is walking around…It’s how they do anything. Nothing is reality based.

  33. @ Mara:
    We allowed the left and right to define for us. I am so done with it. Every single issue or position deserves to be debated without resorting to the either/or labeled positions. I don’t want my gov or my church thinking for me.

  34. Lydia wrote:

    @ Mara:
    We allowed the left and right to define for us. I am so done with it. Every single issue or position deserves to be debated without resorting to the either/or labeled positions. I don’t want my gov or my church thinking for me.

    I am so tired of group think. It makes me angry, and am determined not to allow group consensus, peer pressure, to determine my position on any given issue.

    It also got me shown the door of my last church….

  35. Lydia wrote:

    We allowed the left and right to define for us. I am so done with it. Every single issue or position deserves to be debated without resorting to the either/or labeled positions. I don’t want my gov or my church thinking for me.

    And what’s so sad about this is that it doesn’t hafta’ be this way. So what if different folks within a said group or belief system hold views and opinions that diverge from their respective norms? Above all, they can learn to get along in peace, and gasp!!… Learn to like each other? Yes, it’s entirely within reach. The years long friendship between Ginsberg and Scalia showed that it’s both edifying and possible.

  36. Nate Sparks wrote:

    Here is another prime example of how TGC has no idea how to handle abuse. They keep diverting attention and blaming victims instead of asking hard questions. http://natesparks130.com/2016/04/07/diversion-a-response-to-melissa-kruger/

    I wrote a somewhat similar blog post (and I just edited it to include a link to your post):

    Doctrines, Theological Views, and Biblical Hermeneutics Have Real-Life Consequences – Personal Experience Vs. Sola Scriptura
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/doctrines-theological-views-and-biblical-hermeneutics-have-real-life-consequences-personal-experience-vs-sola-scriptura/

  37. JYJames wrote:

    Perpetrators groom witnesses to vouch for them – publicly and over the media. Witnesses in high places that have credibility.

    Witness and Allies with POWER and CLOUT to make sure the Perp’s version of Truth(TM) becomes TRUTH. POWER and CLOUT to Reject the Victim’s Reality and Substitute the Perp’s.

  38. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ Lydia:

    Agreed. It should cause a whole rethinking of human sexuality and its ramifications in the Christian religion. Not the flowery nonsense and ill-founded proscriptions along with the silly prescriptions, but a drastic re-think based on common sense and pragmatism. But sigh… that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

    Sex not only makes people stupid, it makes Christians CRAZY.

  39. Mae wrote:

    Agree. What’s next asking our *father* for a bag to wear?

    Not “bag”. BURQA.

    Most men, I would say, don’t struggle 24/7 with, debilitating lustful thoughts. And, if they do, they need professional counselling.

    Most men have Lives.

  40. Mae wrote:

    Just last week a younger pastor friend about accused me of close to a ”reprobate” for disagreeing with him on politics. He’s a Calvinist, I am not, that may also contribute to the above state of mind.

    50-60 years ago, it would have been Communism instead of Calvinism.
    20-30 years before that, it would have been Fascism.

  41. AnonymousSBC wrote:

    That modesty video was shown in 2013 to the women entering SEBTS (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) as part of their orientation into the seminary. They have a session where they split up men and women. I am not aware if it was shown outside this one time.

    Ugh. I would be inclined to wear the skimpiest thing in the closet just for spite at that point.

    But then, there is a reason I avoided the baptist local school like the plague. I like my freedom.

  42. Dee, I definitely get sidetracked by that stuff…and the quizs….
    I will say prayers for you and your MIL and be thinking of you. Strength to you both.

    I have posted an update on the post you did for me on Feb. 18th.

  43. AnonymousSBC wrote:

    That modesty video was shown in 2013 to the women entering SEBTS (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) as part of their orientation into the seminary. They have a session where they split up men and women. I am not aware if it was shown outside this one time.

    Thanks for letting us know. I have been deeply disappointed that SEBTS has promoted C.J. Mahaney over the years in chapel services, conferences, and through this video.

  44. @ Darlene:
    I get sidelined by those crazy internet sites as well. And last night I stayed up watching “My Crazy Ex” and “I Love You But I lied” on TV, both of which portray very crazy true stories. Amusing, though.

  45. Amen! That polarization/stereotyping is worldliness of the rankest sort. And those of us who believe in the priesthood of all believers don’t need to waste time arguing with people who don’t care and are determined to misunderstand.
    @ Lydia:

  46. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Sex not only makes people stupid, it makes Christians CRAZY.

    My experience in the comp world it is about all they talked about in one way or another even with youth. I used to call it, “don’t think pink”.

  47. Lydia wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Sex not only makes people stupid, it makes Christians CRAZY.

    My experience in the comp world it is about all they talked about in one way or another even with youth. I used to call it, “don’t think pink”.

    Lydia, long ago I came to the conclusion that Christians are every bit as screwed up sexually as everybody else, just in a different (and usually opposite) direction.

  48. Okay, that modesty video is exceedingly creepy. I believe that people tell us what they are about, if we are listening. In this little talk he is telling us pretty clearly that he has an unhealthy obsession with intrusive sexual thoughts.
    And that he is way overly dramatic.
    Ewwe.

  49. siteseer wrote:

    I believe that people tell us what they are about, if we are listening.

    Disclaimer: I am merely using siteseer’s comment as a jumping off place for what I want to say. This is not aimed specifically at siteseer or at anybody else.

    Yep. The video was ridiculous. At the same time, however, let me say this. So what do the women who basically take too much off especially for the protestant high holy hour (and there are some who do) tell us regarding what they are about?

    They are not about how hot it is in church, because the particular body parts that they most often fail to cover up are not enough to cool the body down significantly.

    Some of them are not about trying to get a job modeling because some of what they let hang out seriously needs some dietary and/or surgical improvement for appearance sake.

    My thinking is that most of those who do this are putting out there one or the other or both of two messages: if you like what you see come and get it and/or nobody is going to tell me what to do no way and no how. Except of course for those who are fast approaching middle age and want to look 20 years younger, which of course only looks silly and pathetic.

    It should seem obvious at this point that I think this is not appropriate for church, not the clothing and not the attitudes. And the issue of modesty is mentioned in scripture. I am sorry that CJ made such a farce of the whole modesty argument, because there is such a thing as being appropriate for the occasion and he missed that all together. However, if people cannot get their clothing and their apparent attitude under control for a few minutes once a week or so, there may be a problem there that needs attention.

    And BTW this is the first time that I have heard CJ speak, and I see why people like to listen to him. His thinking is superficial and his delivery is emotional; that ought to sell well.

  50. okrapod wrote:

    My thinking is that most of those who do this are putting out there one or the other or both of two messages: if you like what you see come and get it and/or nobody is going to tell me what to do no way and no how. [snip]

    It should seem obvious at this point that I think this is not appropriate for church, not the clothing and not the attitudes.

    But they weren’t talking about church, they were talking about school.

    I suspect most of the people you are talking about are just following fashion, not saying ‘come and get it’. One of my major issues with this is how ill defined it all is. ‘Don’t wear something that will make a man think about you (or do things in the shower that you don’t want to think about)’. That’s the message most of this video sends.

    But what is that? What is ‘too’ short, tight, etc..? This is something people learn over time, first of all. This is also something that follows fashion. Early nineties girls were wearing baggy things (grunge) and men probably still thought those thoughts. During some time periods, cleavage was normal but ankles were taboo, so you had men trying to catch a glimpse of ankles. and so on and so forth.

    To pretend like any of this is women’s fault or responsibility is the problem here.

  51. @ okrapod:
    There are women,( and men ),who don’t know how to dress appropriately under any circumstance. Wonder around any grocery store, big box store,any public place really, and one will see people in: pajamas, bathing suit tops, jeans falling to the knees, etc.

    I am old, so this hails back to fifty 55 years ago, but young women were given etiquette lessons
    (public school) in gymn classes…..don’t laugh. Simple things were taught such as: stand up when an elder enters the room, give up a bus seat to the elderly or pregnant women, be professional at work, don’t show cleavage, don’t wear a white or black bra, with a white top, and so on.

    Today, fashion standards are all over the place. Newscasters show lots of cleavage, lots of thigh high dresses. It’s confusing for young women to get a handle on fashion, good manners.

    I have a younger women friend who has a 17 year old daughter, very athlectic, very pretty. She wears the shortest shorts to church I have ever seen. She excels in cross country and her running outfits are on par with her short church shorts. To the mother and daughter, the athletic, healthy body is a good example to set for young women.

    People have a variety of reasons for dressing as they do and not all of them are a *come on* to the opposite sex.

  52. @ Mae:

    Another thing that needs to be said, women dress for themselves or other women as much or more than they dress for men. Not everything in life is about men.

  53. Lea wrote:

    @ Mae:
    Another thing that needs to be said, women dress for themselves or other women as much or more than they dress for men. Not everything in life is about men.

    YES, agree!

  54. @ Lea:

    I hope you are not saying what it sounds like. Women let the girls hang out to impress other women? My word.

    You know, every single school and school system in this county has a dress code, and in the public schools violation of it gets the kid sent home from school but not before a parent is called and asked to bring appropriate clothing to the school for the kid. I am not sure how each private school handles the issue. Of the churches I know about (just a small handful) most are full of people who seem to be able to find appropriate clothing in the stores or on line. But, for whatever reason, SBC mega seems to have rather a lot of people who would be sent home from school if it were school. I don’t know what is going on, nor why at SBC mega, nor if it has anything to do with their sex saturated thinking comp style, but there it is.

  55. Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    Given the rate of pedophilia in his cult, I wonder if he has a similar message about lusting after children and making sure children dress modestly, as to protect the male population from very tempting children. Does he blame children who are abused for the abuse?

    Uuhhhhgggggg!

  56. @ okrapod:
    And therein lies the problem! At some mega churches back in the 90’s ,female enhancements were all the rage. Be thin, beautiful and rich. They had the money and opportunity for such and certainly were proud to exhibit their new additions. It was strange how prevalent this was!

    At the same time many of these churches promoted a purity culture for the teens. Which can be a good thing as long as it is not a litmus test for salvation. But it seemed to lean toward female responsibility.

    But the mixed messages were confusing: look great, show off your wares but be a virgin so you can be a stepford wife at church. I found only one link: it was all about the men. Men want endowed beautiful virgins.

    In soft comp churches the focus tends more toward sex than patriarchal pecking orders.Many of the rich, thin, fake endowed women were educated professionals.

    I have no idea how showing off cleavage and tight skirts worked in other churches. :o) And, it might have changed in the mega world as incomes have certainly not kept pace since then and I know of many downsizing their McMansions.. :o)

  57. okrapod wrote:

    @ Lea:

    I hope you are not saying what it sounds like. Women let the girls hang out to impress other women? My word.

    I’m not sure how much they ‘hang out’. I’m sure they are covered, or the important parts are.

    But women follow fashion. When fashion is a lot of cleavage, that’s what they wear. When fashion is buttoned up, that’s what they wear. When you get a little older you have (usually) figured out what styles actually fit your frame and search them out (although lord knows it is difficult if a thing is not in fashion. Try finding a midi skirts when mini’s are all the rage! A bit easier now with the internet – eshakti is really cool – but in the old days? Bah).

    But young women haven’t had time to figure this stuff out yet, so they wear what’s in fashion.

    And I went to public high school. Our dress code was ‘don’t be naked’. (and it was pretty much the same in college) And everybody was fine! No mass rapes in the hallway! Men were actually capable of holding conversations about things other than sex without having to listen to christian music over and over in hopes of making the bad thoughts go away.

  58. As for that guy who has such a problem with seeing even a sliver of a woman’s stomach, better hope he’s not going to be a missionary to India.

  59. Lydia wrote:

    it was all about the men. Men want endowed beautiful virgins.

    Along with this.
    When a woman is reduced to having only one place of strength or power or talent and that power is sex appeal, don’t be surprised when they flex their power. It’s all they’ve got in church.
    However, when women are given more places of authority in the church, places of ministry, places to use their talents, then they have more outlet for expressing who they are in Christ.

    Yes, it is all about the men, what they want women to have and what they don’t want women to have.

  60. @ Lea:

    I went to public school and public university also, and I don’t remember that we had a dress code. It wasn’t necessary at the time.

    But I do not think that ‘fashion’ is an excuse for christian young people, or older people either for that matter. Obviously you do think it is, so we pretty much have to agree to disagree on that.

  61. okrapod wrote:

    @ Lea:

    I went to public school and public university also, and I don’t remember that we had a dress code. It wasn’t necessary at the time.

    But I do not think that ‘fashion’ is an excuse for christian young people, or older people either for that matter. Obviously you do think it is, so we pretty much have to agree to disagree on that.

    What I think is that you are misreading what you are seeing. And I mostly doubt these girls are dressed particularly badly. And when they are, I attribute much of it to youth, and give them grace. Because it takes a while to learn how to dress for your body…women being so different in this regard (what looks fine/modest on one does not on another -takes time some times to figure this out).

    Which come to think of it is why older women are given the charge of correcting younger – not men. Because cjs advice is completely unspecific and focused on the men.

  62. @ Lea:

    More specifically on cjs ‘advice’ – if I were a young woman all I would have gotten is that if I wear something that causes a man to lust it is my fault. That every clothing decision should be based on this. So wrong. So unhelpful.

  63. Lea wrote:

    @ Lea:
    More specifically on cjs ‘advice’ – if I were a young woman all I would have gotten is that if I wear something that causes a man to lust it is my fault.

    Ayatollah Khomeini, Mullah Omar, and the Caliph of ISIS would be in total agreement.

  64. Mara wrote:

    When a woman is reduced to having only one place of strength or power or talent and that power is sex appeal, don’t be surprised when they flex their power. It’s all they’ve got in church.

    I think that is correct. In fact we have talked about it and one of my people thinks that these thirty somethings at church who are displaying their sexuality seem to be married with kids and large van. The theory my person follows is that the last time these women had any power was when they were in college and they could use their sexual power back then; and they are still trying to do so even after their bodies do not support their apparent ideas of what sexual power they may still have.

    But, all we have talked about is having sexual power in relation to men. So, I really don’t see dialing men out of the picture at this point.

    One thing I do disagree about, however, is that the power that women have to have to move on has to be power at church. There is a whole big world out there and why a woman would just hang around waiting for the church to recognize her and her-her what-entitlement to position and recognition? She better get beyond that because time is passing and re-do surgical procedures are not better than the first time around.

  65. @ Lydia:

    I am glad you said that, because I was wondering if my perceptions of mega-ville in this matter were wrong and if I was just so anti-mega that I was not seeing what I thought I was seeing. Would you believe that over here at liturgy central I don’t see anybody doing that. That was a pleasant surprise for me.

  66. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:

    And therein lies the problem! At some mega churches back in the 90’s ,female enhancements were all the rage. Be thin, beautiful and rich. They had the money and opportunity for such and certainly were proud to exhibit their new additions. It was strange how prevalent this was!

    “Female enhancements” as in boob jobs?

    I have never heard an account of a cosmetic boob job that ended well.

    But the mixed messages were confusing: look great, show off your wares but be a virgin so you can be a stepford wife at church. I found only one link: it was all about the men. Men want endowed beautiful virgins

    With HUGE TRACTS OF LAND!

    In the words of a little momento from classic Doctor Demento:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qDW9shiD8

  67. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yes! Secular society is just as screwed up. The big thing in middle school now is declaring your sexual attraction stance. Straight or gay. It is cruel. If a kid does not declare a preference, they are declared “bi” by their peers. It is what they talk about now.

  68. Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    I wonder if (like Driscoll’s Visions) we’re getting a peek into The Humble One’s sexual fantasies.

    “I have Problem X, so EVERYBODY ELSE MUST HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM!”

  69. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    I wonder if (like Driscoll’s Visions) we’re getting a peek into The Humble One’s sexual fantasies.

    “I have Problem X, so EVERYBODY ELSE MUST HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM!”

    I honestly think this is the VAST majority of the problem. Some of the statements are way too creepy to be normal…

  70. Mara wrote:

    When a woman is reduced to having only one place of strength or power or talent and that power is sex appeal, don’t be surprised when they flex their power. It’s all they’ve got in church.

    Sad, but true. They learn early that if they want some power or strength in order not to become invisible, they’ll resort to whatever means is available. And don’t forget the manipulation talent.

  71. Lea wrote:

    But young women haven’t had time to figure this stuff out yet, so they wear what’s in fashion.

    Ha ha. This made me think of my mom. When I was 11, I wanted to wear makeup. My mom let me pick out what I wanted and bought it. She said I could wear it around the house all I wanted for a while but not out in public yet. It was garish…blue eyeshadow, thick mascara as in brothel worthy! My dad never said a word and my older brother was warned to ignore it.

    The lesson was simple: let her get it out of her system and pray she tones it down before she goes public! :o). It worked. It was too much work so I toned it down. Had I gone out and people were rude about it, I would have been defiant. As it was, toning down was my choice.

  72. Lydia wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yes! Secular society is just as screwed up. The big thing in middle school now is declaring your sexual attraction stance. Straight or gay. It is cruel. If a kid does not declare a preference, they are declared “bi” by their peers. It is what they talk about now.

    I was a very late bloomer sexually; back in high school I was still practically “ace”, without much interest. Back then you didn’t get declared “bi”, you were proclaimed The School Fag. Beware Thou of the Mutant.

    Maybe I spent too much time in Furry Fandom, but back when it was coalescing into a separate fandom some time around 1990 (thanks to one dominant personality’s own sexual proclivities) being “Bi” (and acting that out as much as possible) was a point of pride and Great Prestige.

    The main difference with Christianese sexual screw-ups is that in Christianese it’s (usually) “Thou Shalt Not!” instead of “Yeah Yeah Yeah!” Otherwise the dynamics are real similar (and would give Dr Freud a field day).

  73. @ Lea:
    Disposable income is not what it used to be. :o). You can’t have a lot of expensive plastic surgery and keep the pastor rich at the same time.

  74. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Disposable income is not what it used to be. :o). You can’t have a lot of expensive plastic surgery and keep the pastor rich at the same time.

    Ha.

    But all this talk about enhancements kind of misses the point. I’ve known as many women who have sized down as have sized up. The point is dressing for the body you have, whatever it is.

  75. @ Lydia:

    Oh makeup! Makeup is even more confusing. I’m still terrible at eyemakeup, but I generally wear too little not too much.

  76. Victorious wrote:

    Mara wrote:

    When a woman is reduced to having only one place of strength or power or talent and that power is sex appeal, don’t be surprised when they flex their power. It’s all they’ve got in church.

    Sad, but true. They learn early that if they want some power or strength in order not to become invisible, they’ll resort to whatever means is available. And don’t forget the manipulation talent.

    And I’ve mentioned the fallout from that before:
    1) It trains women to be manipulators — Sweet Smiling Sociopaths.
    2) It trains their men into further hatred of women; like serial killer Edward Kemper, they dare not raise hand against She Who Must Be Obeyed (in secret) so they take it out on anything else without a penis or Y chromosome.
    3) It drives further wedges of distrust between men and women — if women are like that, the locked harem and honor beheading knife are the only way a man can be safe.

    Regarding the above, I remember reading in an encyclopedia some 50+ years ago an aside how this manipulative woman wielding power through p-whipped hubby was a stock villain character in Chinese tradition called “The Corrupter of Empire”; an Imperial Harem Concubine Sixth Rank who becomes Empress through her manipulative wiles and leads the Emperor into ruin and oppression. I also remember (some 40 years ago) reading this exact scenario happening for real in Turkish Imperial history, with Sulieman the Great and his harem favorite Roxana.

  77. okrapod wrote:

    Would you believe that over here at liturgy central I don’t see anybody doing that. That was a pleasant surprise for me.

    I did Episcopalian for Easter. I tried very hard not to think of Henry the 8th. :o)

    It was a pleasant change with a ton of passage reading, incredible music and only a 10 min talk on the resurrection.

    The Bishop in the fancy hat only spoke for 10 minutes on the meaning of the ressurection. It was not about him! Fancy that!

    That is a game changer for me. I am so sick of cult of personality pastors! It was a big old church downtown so the congregation was quite diverse.

  78. @ Lea:

    The only mega I have been involved with is the local SBC mega-not anything like Gateway. I was over there for way too many years as it transitioned to what it is now. I officially left about ten years ago, but some of my family continued over there until about three years ago and a family friend is still there. I have not been there since about a year ago and that was to investigate the school as a possibility for one of the grandkids. However, I continue to watch them via their web site and have listened to some but not all the sermons on line-this seems to be a form of grieving for what was and is no more.

    Anyhow, after some 70+ years of either SBC or FWB I completely bailed out of that tradition, first to become a methodist and now to be an episcopalian. And the farther away I get the more I cannot believe that I stayed as long as I did. That is just a personal statement, and it is mostly based on, of all things, doctrine.

    I hope you are right about mega-ville being better than what I have seen. I hope my memories are inaccurate and my informants are incorrect. But I don’t hope it enough to alleviate the disappointment at what has happened to SBC in the pursuit of persons on the pew and money in the budget.

  79. You know who a man of God is to me, IMHO? He is a brother in the Lord, old or young, who, no matter the apparel (or lack thereo), upon seeing a girl, a teen, a young woman, a growing older woman, sees a soul. A beautiful, innocent, soul.

  80. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The main difference with Christianese sexual screw-ups is that in Christianese it’s (usually) “Thou Shalt Not!” instead of “Yeah Yeah Yeah!” Otherwise the dynamics are real similar (and would give Dr Freud a field day).

    True. But Freud focused on the neurosis that came out of keeping up with the outward moral perfection from the Victorian age. He would be lost today in the age of personality disorders/narcissism as the widespread normal.

  81. @ Remnant:
    You mean seeing a human first? As in not seeing gender, race or socioeconomic level…. first and foremost?

    Gee, I wonder if Jesus was like that? :o)

  82. okrapod wrote:

    But I don’t hope it enough to alleviate the disappointment at what has happened to SBC in the pursuit of persons on the pew and money in the budget.

    Amen.

    And I do believe if people understood exactly what it takes to be a mega church behind stage….they would get out.

  83. Absolutely, @Lydia! Where, in the midst of the lusting, are men encouraged to get over themselves, turn away from their wicked thoughts and put on the mind of Christ?

    These men are being set up to be weaklings, not mighty men of God who will walk and talk honorably, full of strength and holiness.

    What is the saying? Courage isn’t the absence of fear….it is doing the right thing in the midst of fear.
    Couldn’t we also say that Holiness isn’t the absence of temptation to sin, but refusing to sin in the midst of temptation?

  84. Lea wrote:

    I’ve known as many women who have sized down as have sized up. The point is dressing for the body you have, whatever it is.

    There used to be a fat farm craze with those women. My SIL’s were part of it. They would go on ‘girl vacations” for a few weeks and eat sea kelp and tree bark while doing mud baths, exercising and Bible study, of course.

    The guys went golfing in Scotland.

  85. Remnant wrote:

    You know who a man of God is to me, IMHO? He is a brother in the Lord, old or young, who, no matter the apparel (or lack thereo), upon seeing a girl, a teen, a young woman, a growing older woman, sees a soul. A beautiful, innocent, soul.

    Yep! If you stop focusing on body parts, you might see the person behind the skin.

  86. @ okrapod:

    I checked out of sbc as well and I have some problems with Megas. At gateway you watch the sermon on a screen, because the pastor isn’t there! I find that downright bizarre.

    It’s just that my issues aren’t related to fashion.

  87. Remnant wrote:

    You know who a man of God is to me, IMHO? He is a brother in the Lord, old or young, who, no matter the apparel (or lack thereo), upon seeing a girl, a teen, a young woman, a growing older woman, sees a soul. A beautiful, innocent, soul.

    Yes! God bless.

  88. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And I’ve mentioned the fallout from that before:
    1) …
    2) …
    3) It drives further wedges of distrust between men and women — if women are like that, the locked harem and honor beheading knife are the only way a man can be safe.

    Like in the computer game “Star Control 2” (aka “The Ur-quan Masters”). After escaping decades of horrible slavery, the Ur-quan establish the Doctrine of Now and Forever: Enslave and imprison all other alien races, so that none can ever enslave us again.

  89. @ Remnant: Also, no specifically directed at your comment but it made me think of something… This example these guys like to give when talking about rape, of a woman walking naked down the street in the middle of the night? That hypothetical woman CLEARLY needs help. She is not trying to attract a man! She is either mentally ill, physically ill (fever, drugs, alcohol, etc), or has already been assaulted and needs to go to the hospital. In any of these situations, she is a woman in need of a help and a good Christian man should help her rather than deciding that she is asking for some raping.

    That particular example bugs the cr#p (ed.) out of me.

  90. Lea wrote:

    It’s just that my issues aren’t related to fashion.

    I don’t want to give the impression that my number one issue is clothing. I have been trying to stay on topic, and the topic of the video was how females dress. My issue with the baptists is deep and wide like the old song said on another topic. And it is doctrinal regarding such things as grace and salvation and ecclesiology and works and sacraments and little trivial?? things like that. And to be honest, while I do think that provocative dressing for church is way off base, mostly because it draws attention away from God and toward people, and people’s bodies to boot, I also think that provocative dressing is that worst of all social indiscretions, being tacky.

  91. Nancy2 wrote:

    Uuhhhhgggggg!

    There it is. Roger that. And a BIG BINGO! The chuckling one (Mahaney) is as off-kilter as they come. What else can you call it when and if two consenting adults get caught having sex outside the prescribed bounds, they’re put on notice, no if(s), no and(s), and no but(s). And yet for the pedophile in their midst? They’ll bend over backwards to:
    a)shield him from the cops
    b)’restore him’
    c) force the child to ‘forgive him’

  92. okrapod wrote:

    And to be honest, while I do think that provocative dressing for church is way off base

    I think people should dress more or less modestly for church, but standards for what is ‘modest’ are pretty broad.

    The video, however, was mostly talking about school. And I doubt anybody was dressed terribly badly, because these are the same people who blame women for everything. So I don’t trust them. Somebody probably wore a tank top.

    [(ed.) Whoops!]

  93. It has been my experience that most “flavors” of Christainty like to define their specific boundaries… If you are “within” the boundaries, your specific “sins” are not as “bad” as sins “outside” their boundaries..
    As is well pointed out below, this specific crowd apparently does not have problems with leaders that cover thing up and are abusive, and decide it is ok to cover up for child molestors, but heaven help us on the outside of the “boundaries” that raise these issues and question the leaders in the center of the circles….. We are worse than child molestors!

    Muff Potter wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Uuhhhhgggggg!
    There it is. Roger that. And a BIG BINGO! The chuckling one (Mahaney) is as off-kilter as they come. What else can you call it when and if two consenting adults get caught having sex outside the prescribed bounds, they’re put on notice, no if(s), no and(s), and no but(s). And yet for the pedophile in their midst? They’ll bend over backwards to:
    a)shield him from the cops
    b)’restore him’
    c) force the child to ‘forgive him’

  94. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    It has been my experience that most “flavors” of Christainty like to define their specific boundaries… If you are “within” the boundaries, your specific “sins” are not as “bad” as sins “outside” their boundaries..
    As is well pointed out below, this specific crowd apparently does not have problems with leaders that cover thing up and are abusive, and decide it is ok to cover up for child molestors, but heaven help us on the outside of the “boundaries” that raise these issues and question the leaders in the center of the circles….. We are worse than child molestors!

    I was thinking about this earlier today and trying to figure out why people like CJ and his friends give short shrift to very real incidents of child sexual abuse. I think they ignore and cover abuse up because it’s something that is really happening in their communities, as opposed to the big sins you most often hear about.

    Of course, that just goes back to how people like to condemn the sins they’d never commit, as opposed to the sins they either have or would commit, or which their friends have committed.

  95. Concerning the dress code in school.
    The girl’s not wearing short skirts I came to the conclusion was not to distract the male faculty. Do you know what it is like to have 6-8 girls in class in short skirts and you trying to teach? And sometimes, the girl is without under attire….I moved my podium around on a regular basis to keep from having a constant red face from embarrament…

  96. Lydia wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Would you believe that over here at liturgy central I don’t see anybody doing that. That was a pleasant surprise for me.
    I did Episcopalian for Easter. I tried very hard not to think of Henry the 8th. :o)
    It was a pleasant change with a ton of passage reading, incredible music and only a 10 min talk on the resurrection.
    The Bishop in the fancy hat only spoke for 10 minutes on the meaning of the ressurection. It was not about him! Fancy that!
    That is a game changer for me. I am so sick of cult of personality pastors! It was a big old church downtown so the congregation was quite diverse.

    Concerning Henry VIII and the Anglican ( Episcopal) Church… God works in mysterious ways….:)

  97. K.D. wrote:

    Concerning Henry VIII and the Anglican ( Episcopal) Church… God works in mysterious ways….:)

    Speaking of which, have you seen the latest about the Pope and divorced/remarried catholics? A few hundred years too late for the whole Henry situation though.

  98. Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    I think this is a perfectly fair assessment. I just can’t understand the world these people inhabit. I wonder if people like Mahaney end up putting wicked ideas and thoughts into the heads of people who otherwise would have remained innocent? Just wondering.

  99. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    I think this is a perfectly fair assessment. I just can’t understand the world these people inhabit. I wonder if people like Mahaney end up putting wicked ideas and thoughts into the heads of people who otherwise would have remained innocent? Just wondering.

    I think he’s messing up the boys by making them think being attracted to a girl is evil. They are 18-22ish. Of course they are going to have attractions to good looking young girls! There is nothing wrong with that, except for telling them it’s the girls fault.

    And K.D., I’ve seen pictures of my mom’s from the 60’s, I don’t think long skirts existed! Every one I saw was short 🙂

  100. @ K.D.:
    Hmm. Perhaps males of all ages should stop sexualizing girls and women, stop viewing them as nothing but sexual or as sexual objects.

    I manage to look at hunky shirtless men, admire their physique, but not have vulgar thoughts or fantasies about them.

  101. Lea wrote:

    I’ve seen pictures of my mom’s from the 60’s, I don’t think long skirts existed! Every one I saw was short

    I was in med school in the early sixties and we wore knee length skirts and were told to not wear slacks ever. One of my classmates got in trouble for slacks in class. Short skirts would have been unthinkable. I am thinking there must have been different rules for different situations and perhaps for different locations. When I moved to a different location to practice in the early seventies the nurses had been asking to wear pants uniforms on the job and the hospital told them when Dr.X gets here (I was the first lady doc) if she wears pants then you can too. I wore slacks unaware of the deal that admin had made with the nurses. And thus, I suppose, liberal depravity came to work with me in the eyes of some.

    That is light years different from scrubs and athletic shoes on the job. But we had no idea we were being persecuted; we thought we looked professional.

  102. Daisy wrote:

    Hmm. Perhaps males of all ages should stop sexualizing girls and women, stop viewing them as nothing but sexual or as sexual objects.
    I manage to look at hunky shirtless men, admire their physique, but not have vulgar thoughts or fantasies about them.

    Many years ago, a friend of mine and I were discussing how men look at women’s body parts. We decided to do an experiment by focusing on the male body parts as they were walking around to see how that felt and whether or not the men would notice where we were looking and how they might react. It didn’t take but a minute after the first or second try to see that we just couldn’t do it. It was just vulgar.

  103. Blessings on you Dee!!! I love the story of the eggs… Prayers and love to your mom in law…

  104. @ okrapod:

    Maybe this was the late sixties? Idk, but I saw pictures with probably 15-20 people at a shower and nobody’s skirt was long!

    But my mom also likes to tell me allow she led the charge at college to be allowed to wear pants. (Mostly because it was cold – which is the main reason I wear pants all winter because otherwise I love skirts).

  105. Lea wrote:

    @ okrapod:

    Maybe this was the late sixties? Idk, but I saw pictures with probably 15-20 people at a shower and nobody’s skirt was long!

    But my mom also likes to tell me allow she led the charge at college to be allowed to wear pants. (Mostly because it was cold – which is the main reason I wear pants all winter because otherwise I love skirts).

    In my neck of the woods, in the late sixties,early seventies,the mini skirt was dominant.
    I remember my mother complaining that even for the “mature” woman, skirts and dresses were all cut above the knee.

  106. Allow me to tell you about two separate incidents that have left a lasting impression upon me.

    The first happened just a few years ago. I found myself unexpectedly speaking with a very tall yet man. He was the youth pastor at a church, newly married. His 6 ft 6 inch frame towered over my 5 ft 5 inches. That day, I chose to wear a t-shirt that I hadn’t realized was low cut until I peered up into his eyes and was immediately self-conscious, realizing he had quite a view down my cleavage. You know how he handled the situation? He concentrated on our conversation, never once did his eyes waver from mine. Never did he shuffle uncomfortably. He was an adult about it and made it seem as if he didn’t even notice I was a woman, with (gasp!) breasts.

    The second occurred decades ago when I was in 9th grade in the early 70’s. No…late 60’s. Mini skirts were in. On this particular day, the male teacher called a female classmate to the front of the room. He asked her a question, “What do you see?” I don’t recall her verbal response but I havent forgotten the look on her face. He didn’t repeat the exercise because I imagine the other girls in the room got the same messiage as I did and altered their seating habits, too.

    It is important not to flaunt panties and breats, just as it is important for men to control their eyes and protect the modesty of unfortunate fails on the part of girls and women. Share the grace with one another.

  107. @ Mae:
    I loved the look of my mom’s generation. The tailored suit with knee length skirt. classic. Never out of style.

  108. Victorious wrote:

    e were looking and how they might react. It didn’t take but a minute after the first or second try to see that we just couldn’t do it. It was just vulgar.

    The comp position is that you could not do it because God did not wire your brain that way.

  109. Dee wrote:

    I am so sorry. How is he doing?

    Thank you, Dee. He is doing ok, sad of course, but we have to get more information about the treatment before knowing what to think. It’s an ongoing thing. Your story about the eggs really touched my heart. And my thoughts go out to you, it’s so hard to lose the ones we love.

  110. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I wonder if (like Driscoll’s Visions) we’re getting a peek into The Humble One’s sexual fantasies.

    “I have Problem X, so EVERYBODY ELSE MUST HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM!”

    That is my take.

  111. okrapod wrote:

    And the issue of modesty is mentioned in scripture. I am sorry that CJ made such a farce of the whole modesty argument, because there is such a thing as being appropriate for the occasion and he missed that all together.

    I do agree with you, Okrapod, that modesty is part of Christian character (though I think in the scriptures modesty was more referring to not flaunting money through our appearance). But I also agree that CJ made a farce -a weird farce- of the whole thing.

    Modesty is hard to define and best something taught from mother to daughter. Younger girls have no clue, they just want to copy their role models and look cool. I often think it’s around the 30’s we finally really get a clue. But CJ, I think he revealed more about himself than anything and I don’t think his kind of approach is helpful to guys at all. They need to get ahold of their emotions.

  112. Remnant wrote:

    You know who a man of God is to me, IMHO? He is a brother in the Lord, old or young, who, no matter the apparel (or lack thereo), upon seeing a girl, a teen, a young woman, a growing older woman, sees a soul. A beautiful, innocent, soul.

    Amen! God bless you!

  113. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I was a very late bloomer sexually; back in high school I was still practically “ace”, without much interest. Back then you didn’t get declared “bi”, you were proclaimed The School Fag. Beware Thou of the Mutant.

    Public school and the church often have one thing in common: there is one right way to be. A small group of people who happen to fit the theme come out on top and the majority go along feeling like failures or misfits.

  114. okrapod wrote:

    One thing I do disagree about, however, is that the power that women have to have to move on has to be power at church. There is a whole big world out there and why a woman would just hang around waiting for the church to recognize her and her-her what-entitlement to position and recognition? She better get beyond that because time is passing

    Read this a while ago and didn’t have the gumption to respond. But it kind of ate at me a bit.

    I think you have missed my point.

    (Some) Men have made themselves the gate-keepers of what are acceptable behaviors and actions of women. They have relegated women to second-class citizenship or lower in the Body of Christ. And by doing this, these men have ripped away from the body of Christ co-laborers, called leaders, and wonderful ministries.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. But I find it quite offensive that you use the term ‘entitled’ to describe women desiring to be a part of the Body of Christ and walking in full-citizenship, and to the full potential of their calling.

    I understand we could be talking past each other. But instead of pointing all women outside the workings of the church and canceling out their callings within the church by using words like entitled and such against them, the call should be for the ‘gatekeepers’ to come down from their entitled positions where they stand opposed to the movement of God within women.

    In all of this, I have only tried to point out that the ‘gatekeepers’ should not define biblical womanhood into such tiny and shallow boxes. Doing this may cause those women that are left within the church to use whatever surgical and fashionable methods necessary in order to fit into those boxes.
    Yes, it’s shallow and ridiculous. But it is the harvest that is reaped from the seed of teaching and doctrine that was sown over and over and over into the lives of the women in church.

  115. @ Mara:

    I am not ignoring you comment, but I have not been able to write a succinct and coherent reply that both explains what I am saying but is within the limits of space of this place.

    I don’t think we misunderstand each other, but I do think we disagree on some major issues. However since you have been offended by my thinking at this point I will be cautious.

    Let us get the offensive part over with. I do not think that the argument that if the men can do it so can the women is what I believe. I think the place to start is to question whether the men should be doing it in the first place. Peter Marshall wrote a sermon touching on this issue when he called women the keepers of the wells, and while his sermon was more about the culture of his day (my youth) and less appropriate for today I nevertheless think there is value in that thought. So what I am saying at this point is not specific about church but rather about the cultural idea the women are yes entitled, have a right, to do whatever the men are doing, and I think that idea takes people in the wrong direction, being based on the assumption that the men are correct in doing what they are doing.

    A second issue for me is that I do not think that the Body of Christ idea means some church organization. The Body of Christ of course includes organized gatherings, and it includes the people themselves quite apart from any organization, and it is the phrase used for the host in the eucharist. My issue is with confining that term to just some tax exempt organization and then thinking that limitation of what somebody can do within and with the approval of that organization is the same as denying somebody full citizenship in the Kingdom. It gives way too much existential power to mere mortals who ensconce themselves at organizations and hope that people do not notice the problem with that. No human can deny anybody else full citizenship in the Kingdom, and no lack of some recognized ministry function defines such membership as not-full-membership one way or the other.

    One example of how that works. I do not think that the idea of the priesthood of the believer (or of believers) is remotely limited to what goes on in some church organization. I think for instance that what Dee is doing for her elderly and dying family members is priestly. It is the sacrament of healing in everyday clothing. And if she dug out something like whatever uniform she used to wear in the hospital I would call it the sacrament of healing in vestments. There are a lot of ways to exercise a priestly role ‘out in the world’ and they are, in my opinion, more what the great commission is all about than is preaching to the choir over at the church house. So if you think I dissed women by saying get out into the world, not so and quite the exact opposite.

    So, I assume you see where I am going with this. If the church is oppressive then men and women need to take their time, talents, and especially their money and start following Jesus elsewhere than keep on trying to follow Jesus by empowering his competitors. Certainly. But that was not the topic of the conversation. The topic was women. So I am not going down that road right now.

  116. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I refuse to believe that Thabiti as imbecilic as his tweets make him look. Especially that monumental B.S. (ed.) about the courts “having their say”. Which, you know, isn’t actually true. I cannot see Thabiti as anything more than an empty and shallow celebrity who puts money ahead of anything remotely resembling character. A shame, but not unexpected. Birds of a feather and all that.

    I agree.

  117. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Okay. I listened to CJM’s “sermon” on modesty and lust. He’s sick. He thinks all males are sick. Men are just waiting to take advantage of or attack women. God is the only thing protecting men from women.

    I wonder if (like Driscoll’s Visions) we’re getting a peek into The Humble One’s sexual fantasies.

    “I have Problem X, so EVERYBODY ELSE MUST HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM!”

    Bingo!!

  118. Mara wrote:

    I understand we could be talking past each other. But instead of pointing all women outside the workings of the church and canceling out their callings within the church by using words like entitled and such against them, the call should be for the ‘gatekeepers’ to come down from their entitled positions where they stand opposed to the movement of God within women.

    The gatekeepers have no reason to change. The system works for them. As my very old step dad told me: women are historically the spine of the church, if they leave, it collapses. Can you imagine churches made up if mostly men?

    So my question had to be: why did I put up with it even in a soft comp environment? The answer caused me to leave.

    I am not big on movements but CBE has a great approach to this issue. They focus on giftedness not gender.

    Things will change for women when they withdraw their support of these voluntary systems.

  119. okrapod wrote:

    s. There are a lot of ways to exercise a priestly role ‘out in the world’ and they are, in my opinion, more what the great commission is all about than is preaching to the choir over at the church house. So if you think I dissed women by saying get out into the world, not so and quite the exact opposite.

    Yes!

  120. siteseer wrote:

    Modesty is hard to define and best something taught from mother to daughter. Younger girls have no clue, they just want to copy their role models and look cool. I often think it’s around the 30’s we finally really get a clue. But CJ, I think he revealed more about himself than anything and I don’t think his kind of approach is helpful to guys at all. They need to get ahold of their emotions.

    Modesty goes beyond physical attire. CJM and the T4G boys are far from modest. They strut around and show everyone how great they think they are. They are puffed up and proud of themselves.
    CJM has indicated that if a man behaves, or is tempted to behave inappropriately towards a woman, it is always the woman’s fault. I wonder if he thinks it is the child’s fault if a man has inappropriate thoughts or actions towards the child?

  121. Lydia wrote:

    They focus on giftedness not gender.

    Things will change for women when they withdraw their support of these voluntary systems.

    Exactly. Which is why I feel that it has nothing to do with ideas or notions of ‘entitlement’. Giftedness should be the coin of the realm, not plumbing received at birth, or promotion based on a stylish desire to right the wrongs of he past.