“You do not lead by hitting people over the head — that’s assault, not leadership.” – Dwight Eisenhower link
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him. But of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves.” – Lao-Tau link
Leaders are way up here. link
I was sitting in a church that I no longer attend. The speaker was a clone like many young, inexperienced men who are attempting to be "in spiritual charge" these days. He had the shaved head and attempted to dress like a hipster (fail), and exhibited an air that he was just a bit more with it than the people he was addressing. (He obviously wasn't.) The topic, of course, was submission and authority and his presentation was white bread Calvinista – all of his thinking emanating from the usual celebrity pastor sources without giving them credit.
As usual, I was thinking about the other potential churches in the area, planning my rapidly approaching departure, when I noticed something. He was discussing the typical yawner-*different roles but equal in worth." He mentioned the role of pastor and the role of the rest of the church. He kept repeating the phrase "equal in worth" but his hands illustrated a different reality. As he said, "the pastor", his right hand went up to the level of his shoulder. As he said "the members," his left hand was down at the level of his waist. I started to giggle and whispered to my husband, "We are so outta here!"
I am currently at the end of my vacation with my immediate family. Since everyone is here and able to pitch in, I have had some time to think and realized that I have overlooked a significant problem in the entire church membership conundrum.
The Incessant Insistence in Dividing *Ordinary* Members from Church Leadership
Four posts helped me to realize that this runs far deeper than the difference between those who go to elder meetings and those who do toddler Sunday school. In fact, it is so deep that I am not even sure that these writers understand what they seem to be implying.
Tim Challies: Who's on first?
The first was a post by Tim Challies No Man Left Behind.
As Christians, we are charged with caring for one another—the shepherds first and every church member after them. It brings all manner of joy, comfort and security when we affirm, and when we insist, that we will not leave even one person behind. We will guard them, we will guide them, we will pursue them, we will pray for them, we will love them, we will pursue them to the very end. No man will be left behind.
Even if I am charitable and assume he means that the "shepherds" are the ones who should first demonstrate caring behavior, why in the world does he need to make the function of love and caring in the church as a first/then proposition? Who are the shepherds? This usually means elders and pastors in church lingo. This leaves out a whole bunch of people, most notably women who cannot serve in those roles as well as men who are either overlooked or do not have the time to spend their evenings and weekends determining who has *authority*.
Jared Wilson: More bullies in the church membership? Women are causing trouble as well.
The next comment, which was even more troubling, came from Jared Wilson who wrote Is Your Pastor Happy to See You? This is one of a few posts that I have read recently over at The Gospel Coalition website which seems to point to an underlying dissatisfaction with the *flock*. This particular calling out of the church membership is even more dangerous.
Yes, there are some bad pastors out there. There are some authoritarian, domineering leaders out there. Too many, in fact. Some pastors are indeed bullies. These guys need to be held accountable and in many cases removed from their position of authority, as the biblical qualifications for the pastoral office forbid the quarrelsome, short-tempered, domineering man any part in church leadership (Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Peter 5:1-4). (I have written about the necessity of pastoral gentleness numerous times, perhaps most notably here.)
But can I be honest? In my entire life in the church, despite some negative experiences with a few pastors, I’ve encountered way more bullies in the pews than in the pulpits. There are just as many pastors victimized by graceless congregants as vice versa.
I have a pastor friend who said he once dared to preach on Hebrews 13:17, and he had no sooner read the verse at the start of his message — hadn’t even started preaching yet! — and a woman stood up and shouted, “We’re Baptist. We don’t submit to anybody!”
You may not be Baptist, but you do need to submit to your church leaders. The Bible says so. Argue with it, if you want, but know that you are arguing with God.
This post by Wilson has a number of flaws, not the least of which is anecdotal reporting. Wilson has limited experience in the pulpit, having served in a small church in Vermont for some years and then transitioning to a job as Director of Content Strategy(?) at Midwestern Seminary. Somehow, this means he knows that the majority of bullies sit in the pews.
He also provided us with a *real* story, minus any documentation, about some woman (of course it had to be a woman since they must always submissive) who disrupted a church service over some Bible verse. Seriously? If the Deebs were presented with such an anecdote, we would interview the pastor, then ask to speak to others who were present. We would then ask to speak to the women who was being accused. Was the service being recorded? What do we know about what happened? Was that pastor involved in heavy handed leadership? Did he decide to move the church from one doctrinal stance to another and not inform the congregation? Did this even happen?
But back to the subject at hand. Wilson is now in a *them vs us" mode and that, friends, is dangerous because it could slant all further reports in favor of the vast majority of incredible leaders to be admired.
Isn't there mutual submission so shouldn't it be a "we are all in this together" paradigm?
Of course not. Tim Challies prevents reasonable people from going down this road in Mutual Submission.
Wherever else the verb “submit” occurs in the New Testament, regardless of its form, it implies an ordered relationship in which one party is “over” and another “under.” And since the same understanding of “submit” fits well in Ephesians 5:21 and it’s context, there is no warrant to go beyond its usual semantic range and interpret it otherwise.CShouldn't church members point out injustice
Jared Wilson: Church members should let injustice go.
TWW presented Wilson's point of view on this matter in Jared Wilson at The Gospel Coalition: Shut Up About Injustice and Let. It. Go The following is an excerpt from that post.
Recently, Jared Wilson left his pastorate in a smallish church in Vermont, to become the Director of Content Strategy for Midwestern Seminary. He is now one of the leaders. He wasted no time in going after social media. Maybe it's a requirement for promotion? In an article promoted by TGC Why Not Rather Be Cheated Wilson sounds the alarm. Seemingly condemning anger, he states that good Christians should instead pursue the fruits of the spirit emphasizing gentleness, peace and self control. How nice. That child sex abuse stuff can be pretty darn yucky, can't it?
It seems he accuses those of us who do get mad about the abused of only doing it for our own personal reputation and influence. Can you imagine? We get to stick our necks out to defend the little guy and we are doing this because it helps our reputation? Good night!! That dog don't hunt.
When we become eager to enact God’s wrath through personal vengeance, it’s often because we distrust God’s ability to deal with injustice Himself. Or we distrust Him to do it in a way that satisfies us. When we lash out, fight back, take up zealous causes, angrily pontificate, feud on Facebook, tsk-tsk on Twitter, and berate on blogs, aren’t we, in essence, saying God needs us to set people straight? All too often what we’re really protecting isn’t God’s honor, but our reputation or influence.
In fact, Wilson seems to suggest that he wants us to shut up and wait until Jesus comes back.
The reality is that whatever wrath remains to dispense after the satisfaction of the cross will be dispensed by Jesus Himself upon His return.
Only Jesus should do this, not us.
But He does this, not us
So, stop being a pain in the butt of the church.
And honestly, that’s what some of us really need to do right now: Let. It. Go.
- It took a century for the church to reject racial segregation. Maybe we should have Let. It. Go.
- Reports on child sex abuse on the part of evangelical churches and leaders have sky rocketed. Let. It. Go.
- Some churches impose unjust discipline on their members. Don't warn other people. Let. It. Go.
- Some pastors are making enormous amounts of money and will not tell their contributors what they make. Let. It. Go.
- Some pastors revel in "taking over churches" and calling the ones that were made to leave "wicked and unregenerate." Don't defend those who were rejected. Let. It. Go.
Wilson said something curious.
aren’t we, in essence, saying God needs us to set people straight?
However, doesn't God use us to spread the Gospel, to bring food and medical care to the poor, plant churches, etc. He doesn't need us to do this, does he? Why don't we all just sit back at home, wait for God to work it and Let. It. Go? He could do it all Himself, right? (What are they teaching in seminaries these days?)
Segregation is the latest *thing* which separates the gospel leaders from the ungospelly sheep.
Here are some examples:
- Wayne Grudem's 8 Rules for Gospel Women
- Women cannot read the Bible or pray out loud at the front of the church
- Grace to You: The elders are the focal point of the church.
- Grace to You: Elders are not subject to any higher earthly authority outside of the local assembly
- Mark Dever passes out authority
- Kevin DeYoung: Only ordained pastors and ordained elders should administer the sacraments
Who's in charge and what does than mean, anyway?
The real problem appears to be the incessant need by the NeoCalvinists to prove who is in charge without defining what *in charge* actually means.
Let me point out the problems.
1. Important Doctrine: I do not have to obey the appointed authority when it comes to doctrine.
Let's say I join a church in which I agree with the doctrine as it stands. The new pastor comes and begins to implement hard line Calvinista stuff like women cannot read the Bible behind the pulpit. I then leave the church, after telling them that I don't do Piper. Where is their authority over me in this instance?
The only time that I see the church having any say on this issue is if I say I no longer believe in the essentials of Christ's death and resurrection. Then they have the right to tell me that I no longer can be a member of their church. Why would I want to anyway?
Also, many verses have varying interpretations depending on what theologian one reads. Who tells me which of the well vetted theologians I must read?
2. Secondary doctrine
I am an evolutionary creationist. If I find that my pastor is into Ken Ham and is pushing it on all levels, I have the perfect right to leave the church and find one more willing to allow me my secondary point of view. He cannot use his authority to force me to believe in a young earth, etc. So where is his authority except to enforce it on those in the church who agree or who don't care? This is *being in charge?*
It is also important to realize that most women who believe in an expanded role for women in the church for years have sat in churches that preach it differently. The pastor can preach *with authority*, but the listener is under no obligation to do more than be polite during the service.
3. The rights of conscience of the believer
Todd Wilhelm was confronted by an untenable situation when it came to his conscience. His 9 Marks church in Dubai was pushing books by CJ Mahaney. Todd believed and supported the victims of the sex scandal that rocked the ministry. He was told that the church leadership (aka the Magisterium) would not stop advocating that members read those books. So, he quit. Sounds right to most normal people. But it wasn't for the holders of the keys over there in Dubai.
The church then *out of concern for his very soul* claimed that if he did not immediately join another church, he was still under their thumb loving concern and care and was added to the infamous 9 Marks 'care list'. (Cue dark music). Todd, who is a dedicated Christian (and was being vetted for leadership in the church), decided to take his time and carefully weigh his options which, for most thoughtful Christians, is a Biblical stance. It took the authorities months to remove his impending "you are in trouble and we are embarrassing you in front of the whole church" status.
By the way, I asked Jonathan Leeman to consider doing a case study on this incident so that we could all learn about the limits and problems of authority. Todd Wilhelm was willing to sign away his rights to confidentiality in this matter. Needless to say, Leeman declined….
4. Behavior
I like a glass of wine (I am currently enjoying the blends of the 14 Hands label with my family). The pastor who is not an imbiber cannot force me to abstain, although I would never join such a church. So what authority does he have on the matter? He only has authority over those who agree with him on the matter. So, is that really authority?
What if I find out that my church mishandled a pedophile situation? What if they disagree and claim I am gossiping and slandering? What if I know that I am not? I can quit that church. I can also tell them to leave me alone and not pursue me to another church or we might involve earthly authorities. Am I obligated to sit in that church, knowing without a doubt that a pastor is not telling the truth but that, in the end, he is protected and there is nothing I can do about it? What authority does he have over my conscience?
Authority driven churches have a problem. They have precious little authority over me that I can see. I can pick and choose a church that I respect. I can leave a church that goes in a direction with which I disagree. I can decide whether or not the teaching is in accordance with various theologians. Where, folks, is their authority over me?
What does acquiescing to the leaders in a church really mean?
Here are a few examples:
1. As some of you know, Pete Briscoe of Bent Tree Bible Church was my pastor. I truly respected him, especially since he was open to reasoned critique. In other words, he actually listened to me as a woman.
He asked me to teach an adult Sunday school class (yes, it was co-ed). I felt unprepared; yet I knew the subject matter. I decided to give it a try, and I am so glad that I did. I would continue to teach until I left for Raleigh. It changed the way I thought about the role of women in the church.
2. One time, the church was overwhelmed with Christmas presents donated for children whose parents were in prison. Even though we were terribly busy, my husband and I drove for 45 minutes in Dallas traffic to spend a couple of hours wrapping presents. We wanted to help our church in their chosen missions even though I am the worst wrapper you have ever met. I do bags!
3. I listened carefully as Pete Briscoe, Joanne Hummel and others taught. I took notes and even discussed their messages with others. However, I never stopped checking out Scripture and thinking about what was said. Occasionally, I even thought differently about certain verses. To this day, I remember a number of examples that Pete, Joanne and others used when they taught us about difficult topics like sin and perseverance.
4. We signed up to lead a small group. As time went on, there was a need for more leaders for such groups. In spite of loving our group, we did what was asked of us. We figured out a way to get another couple in our group to lead and then we split the group so others could join. Again, we tried to be of help to our church. We didn't see this as a way to obey leadership in a wooden manner. Instead, we saw the problem and agreed to help. BTBF leaders had the uncanny ability to help us help the church without manipulating us.
5. Then, there came the time when I couldn't do what Pete Briscoe asked me to do. He asked me to head up the building campaign. I knew the church had a problem because the fire department would no longer allow so many people in the building, and the small lot we occupied did not allow for more building.
But, I hate to raise money. I see the need for it and support it, but I have a thing about never wanting people to think I am talking to them so they will give money. So, after thinking long and hard about it, I said "No". It was hard for me, but it was also the right thing to do. Pete did not try to convince me. The church found others to raise the funds so that they could construct their building on new land, and I am so happy for them!
At BTBF, it was truly "We are all in this together." There was no "them" as in "them leaders".
Leading by example, not by wooden mandate
During my years at BTBF, as well as at a few other churches:
- I never heard a sermon on "authority" except for the authority of God and Scripture.
- I never heard a sermon on one-way submission.
- I never heard a sermon outlining what women cannot do.
- I never saw the pastors as celebrities, but I felt a profound respect and love for them.
- I was encouraged to study the Bible, the church fathers, systematic theology, etc.
- I never saw these churches supporting the prosperity gospel or any other weirdness.
- I was never told I was a lesser Christian if I didn't believe a certain secondary doctrine.
Sadly, a leader I knew left one of these churches. Apparently forgetting these lessons we had all learned, he participated in the disciplining of Karen Hinckley at The Village Church. It's a small world after all… I reached out to try and understand how this change could have happened, but he refused to explain.
I am forced to make an educated guess. He left a church that did not stress the Calvinista penchant for authority and the love of gender rules. He traded it for male only leadership that stressed a wooden adherence to rules that easily forgave the male abuser, abused the female victim and blithely informed each and every one of the 6,000+ *intimately involved* church members. He role modeled for me the great danger involved in substituting agape love and freedom for division and authority.
Tune in on Monday when I plan to demonstrate further divisions being promulgated by the rule givers.
In it together with Jesus at the core link
When you think you have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the gospel that the rest of Christendom has lost … and you do whatever it takes to turn the church upside down to accomplish that mission … you certainly create a divisive Us vs. Them culture.
“NeoCalvinists in Charge” … Good Lord! The youth group is running the church!
SECOND!!
Until someone else’s comment appears before mine due to temporal anomalies…
Yes, BTW.
In practical terms, how are the Neo-cal’s any different than the Roman Catholic Church??
Their concepts of authority have always driven me crazy. It’s just baseless, scripturally. The Hebrews 13 verse is not given any context in how that’s supposed to look, nor do they believe in current-day apostolic leadership, but they still insist on their rule in the church. It makes no sense.
I wrote a about the concept of authority in my last blog post. I got little feedback or push-back, other than two pastor friends who actually loved it.
At the risk of sounding like I am picking at nits, there is a difference between Neo-Calvinism and New-Calvinism. This article gives a pretty good description: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/28/what-to-call-the-so-called-new-calvinists/. Wikipedia also has separate descriptions for each. The Gospel Coalition also notes this difference, but compares “Neo-Calvinism” with “NeoCalvinism.” They are both reformed, but for things like baptism, New-Calvinists are much more like Anabaptists than they are like Neo-Calvinists (or old-school Calvinists), which is ironic because it was the early reformers (including Calvin) who got the government forces to go after the Anabaptists. But that is another topic.
When we lash out, fight back, take up zealous causes, angrily pontificate, feud on Facebook, tsk-tsk on Twitter, and berate on blogs, aren’t we, in essence, saying God needs us to set people straight?
Man. What were all those prophets thinking. Not to mention Wilson’s apparently non-existent sense of irony…
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
There is much more grace in the Roman Catholic church.
I was thinking the same thing..
Ken F wrote:
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
I’ve had great conversations with Roman Catholics. Many RC’s don’t know their theology. But I’ve found that the ones who do are very gracious in discussing why they believe what they do. I might have a limited sample size, but compared to my discussions with New-Calvinists, I would much rather spend my time with RCs. I personally believe the Roman Catholic church picked up a lot of baggage over the years that would make it difficult for me to become RC. But they also kept so much of what the very early church believed. If the only choices were RC and Calvinism it would not be a contest for me. Fortunately, these are not our only choices.
Ken F wrote:
Which category would John MacArthur, his The Master’s Seminary in Southern California and The Master’s College, fit in? Neo-Puritan?
@ GovPappy:
So glad to see you, Pappy.
Velour wrote:
He seems to have some characteristics of both. With regard to gifts of the spirit, he is more old-school. But I don’t believe he supports infant baptism. Because of his support of the YRR crowd, his particular form of Calvinism may not make much of a difference.
@ GovPappy:
I miss you on Twitter, GovPappy.
@ Ken F:
Thanks Ken F. (My former abusive, authoritarian pastor was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary.)
Let. It. Go.
Gives a whole new meaning to Frozen Chosen.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I know!
Isn’t he, in essence, saying God needs him to set us straight about God needing us to set people straight?
LOL.
My home church was co-opted by Neo-Cal lay leaders who made secondary issues primary. They were anti-women, anti-Catholic, anti-science, and they bullied the young pastors into including the word “sin” in every sermon, whether the topic required it or not.
I found a Bible-believing church that isn’t into the culture wars. And I am so happy. Sure, it isn’t as big as my old dying mega-church, but it is more loving and caring.
I also do not think it is an either/or on the abuse question. Pastors experience abuse from the pews (or elders) and vice versa. Here’s a recent press release from the NAE highlighting the average pastor’s financial plight: http://nae.net/pastorresearch/
The focus ought not to be on control but on care in both directions. How are we moving towards Christ’s model of being a people marked by our incredible love for each other?
A Christlike leader is one who leads by example and not fiat (see Philippians 2). Abuse happens when people start controlling and/or “ruling” by fiat.
Dee – I am surprised you are writing when you’re on vacation, but good to hear your thoughts. Praying for you and your family in this difficult time of life.
Your church in Dallas sounds wonderful. It reminds me of my current church. A few weeks ago, the pastor announced he was going to preach a sermon on healing church wounds. I went up to him after church and told him I could give him some material, so he asked me to write down my thoughts. I sent an email detailing some of my experiences in CLC and also my previous church with the lying and gossiping pastor. Last Sunday as my pastor started his sermon, he proceeded to read almost my entire email. (I’d told him he could use the material anonymously.) I was so overwhelmed that he would use everything I sent to him, and felt very validated and heard. The message became a little much for me, so I walked out into the lobby and proceeded to have discussion with one of our female pastors. She said she knew it was me he was talking about, and we had a very good discussion about what’s occurring in the evangelical church today. It’s so healing to be a part of a church like this.
Yes, there are some bad pastors out there. There are some authoritarian, domineering leaders out there. Too many, in fact. Some pastors are indeed bullies. These guys need to be held accountable and in many cases removed from their position of authority, as the biblical qualifications for the pastoral office forbid the quarrelsome, short-tempered, domineering man any part in church leadership (Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Peter 5:1-4). (I have written about the necessity of pastoral gentleness numerous times…
Says Jared Wilson, noted supporter of Doug Wilson’s very gentle and pastoral view of marital intimacy. How much catastrophic damage to the body of Christ has been wrought by Doug Wilson, Jared? Is he gentle? Or is he rather remarkably and proudly pugnacious?
Why do these guys think that anyone who has any discernment at all should take them seriously? Submit to the authority of a pup who thinks that marital intimacy should be compared to something which sounds a lot like rape? No, I think I will let Jared and all of the other self-important pups go.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
well, let’s see
in the most down-to-Earth practical terms, neo-Cals have the Mahaney, who kisses up to powerful people, pays big money (‘contributions’) to gain access to the SBC, and brings in pedophile friends to prey in his ‘church’
the Catholics? they have someone called Francis who washes the feet of prisoners, hugs sick and deformed people, and brings Muslim refugee families to sanctuary in the Vatican
personally, I think from what I have learned here on WW, many top neo-cal leaders are more closely resembling creatures like cult prophet Warren Jeffs, the than someone like Francis
Max wrote:
And defining themselves as Highborn (THEMSELVES) and Lowborn (Everyone else).
And Highborn + Youth Group gives you lotsa King Joffreys or Young Lord Chuckleheads of the Vale who are obsessed with “Throw them out the Moon Door”.
Gram3 wrote:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
PARTY FIRST, COMRADES!
Ken F wrote:
As the original Western-rite Church, they’ve had a lot longer to pick up baggage.
Three times as long as the followers of Calvin. (Though the YRRs seem to be trying to close the gap FAST.)
Max wrote:
You create yet another Mass Movement that WILL Change The World.
Like Citizen Robespierre.
Like Comrade Lenin.
Like Ayatollah Khomeini, Mullah Omar, and/or ISIS.
The Perfect Omelette always requires cracking more and more eggs.
@ Gram3:
I’m with you, Gram3, I think those young pastors lack experience, wisdom and discernment. I don’t have much respect for them. Call it “ageism” (in reverse) if you like, but I don’t think they have much to teach someone who has walked with the Lord for 50 years. Their 2-3 extra years in seminary doesn’t entitle them to that much power.
@ Ken F:
Thanks for posting that link. It was an informative and helpful read.
Uh, no.
Abuse of another is wrong, no matter whether directed from the pews or the pulpit.
But in the above, he is just talking out of his hat.
The ratios are completely off on his assertion.
300 church members can abuse 1 pastor, and even then he will normally receive some support from the pewishioners.
But 1 pastor can abuse 3 or 300 pewishioners at a time – while not of them receive any support from other leaders or fellow pewishioners.
Janey wrote:
Sometimes the old woman who faithfully cleans the Church toilets has more of a ‘message’ of faith to share than these young whipper-snappers. Seems to me that there is REAL gold in them there pews, but it’s not the money, it’s the lived-out ingrained faith of humble Christian people who are not above cleaning the mess of our world and have no ‘ambition’ in the Church other than to serve in it and to praise their God.
I need to drop this somewhere, so I’ll drop it here.
I’ve been carrying this number around all week. It’s 58. That’s the number of cars which were in the parking lot at Mark Driscoll’s facility last Sunday (May 22) when I left 10 minutes after his “Bible study” started. I made an extra special point of carefully counting and remembering the number. Now, we can get an idea of the number of attendees if we say, oh, maybe there were six people in each car. Six. So that would be 348 attendees. That’s probably too many, but hey, I’m being generous here.
Driscoll wants to have two church services when he gets started up in about 9 weeks. He’s not going to have much of anything with a mere 348 attendees spread across two services. Maybe he’s counting on more families with children coming to the church, thinking, “You know, school’s starting, maybe we need to go back to church.” Who knows? But his maximum 348 people right now really isn’t going to be the “groooovy” Sixties church he wants to have. (Complete with “You need your husband to tell you what to do” vibe, I wonder?)
I do know that Driscoll did have at least one guest last weekend, an Arminian named Jerry Walls who apparently teaches at Houston Baptist University. I saw this on the Book of Face. Dr. Walls didn’t bother to come out to talk to me. How hard would that have been? I’ve considered dropping him a line. I used to live in Houston, I went to high school and law school there. So, you know, it’s not like we don’t have something in common.
I did have two other people come out to speak to me. One of the attendees gave me a bottle of Fiji water. Thank you, kind sir!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I wish they would have looked back further in history for the basis or reformation. They ended up basically keeping Anselm’s 11th century “moral satisfaction” theory of atonement, but pushed it even farther to become the “penal substitutionary” theory of atonement. Both theories started as theories of men. The idea of finite beings causing infinite effects makes no logical sense, but this is what men like Piper are continuing to teach. Look on the book section of the interesting items link on this top of this page for a pretty lengthy list of links debunking penal substitution.
Dee, do you believe that the men who follow reformed teaching are trying to compensate for other areas of their lives where they feel impotent? (And I am not referring to sex). 😉 I have a family member who has always felt insecure in his working situation (no logical reason that he should as he has worked for the same company for 32 years). He has led his family into a 9 Marks church and it seems the family has no life outside of serving the church. I think he likes the respect and authority he experiences in the church. His wife at times seems so worn out as he commits them to so many church activities.
It seems that reformed theology would appeal to people who think in black/white terms and don’t handle ambiguity well. I remember reading The Grand Inquisitor (from The Brothers Karamasov) by Dostoesvsky in college. Part of the story deals with the belief that most people will willingly abdicate their personal power to an authority figure in order to avoid dealing with the grey areas of life. (Along with being fed).
Have you or Deb noticed a trend in the types of personalities who are either attracted to the power that comes with being an “authority” figure, as well as those who prefer to submit to another’s power? You both are amazing women and I have learned so much from your site. You have also helped me cope with religiously rigid relatives! When life settles down for you, I still want to take you out to lunch!!
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
.
Um, I dunno. We papists let women teach. And some of those women are pretty tough cookies. (How many nuns do you know? I’ve actually roomed with a few.)
Also, we do not require membership covenants. Or hound people after they leave. Much less shun them.
We sure in heck don’t demand tithes. Or commandeer every moment of a member’s life. Or tell them whom they can marry, work for, and associate with.
But yeah, apart from all that, we are just the same. 😉
Ken F wrote:
I know Frederica Matthewes-Greene claims Anselm originated the penal-substitution nonsense, but even some of her co-religionists (e.g., David Bentley Hart) have shown that this is polemical nonsense.
Gram3 wrote:
Hahaha!!!
Velour wrote:
Ken F wrote:
Lol, thank you! As the '60s-vintage Baptist hymn puts it, they'll know we are Christian by our love. (We sing a lot of Baptist hymns at our parish. Our choir director went to Wingate.)
Ann wrote:
Ken Blue, a pastor, who wrote Healing Spiritual Abuse devoted Chapter 7 of his book to “Who Gets Hooked And Why”:
“What type of person is attracted to the abusive leader? In my experience, the victims have often been unwittingly groomed for such a relationship. That is to say, something in the background of these people predisposes them to submit to a manipulative, controlling style of leadership.”
So it’s not at all uncommon to find people who had abusive childhoods, ones with chaos, brokenness, abandonment, alcoholism, are vulnerable to joining abusive churches.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Did the Catholic church change their stance on marrying Catholics to non Catholics? I have never seen a nun or any woman teach from the altar. Has that changed? Can nuns/women hear confession? Can they serve communion?
Ken F wrote:
With the YRR getting their way right now, anything reformed is OK. The old guard Calvinists, like MacArthur, are enjoying a new gullible market for book sales! With T$G endorsing him, he is in with the YRR – even if he is not cool.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
That’s interesting. I’m no expert, so I cannot know for sure. So far, all the reading I’ve done has led me to believe that Anselm developed that theory as stated in “Cur Deus Homo.” But that point is almost irrelevant for this discussion. The main point is that the Roman Catholic view of the atonement is closer to what the early church believed than what Calvinists believe. In my searches over the last year I stumbled across Nick’s Catholic Blog. I’ve enjoyed reading his detailed analysis on a number of topics. Here is a very good article from him about Penal Substitution: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2015/04/penal-substitution-is-key-to.html. I am MUCH closer to the RC position than the Calvinist position on this topic.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
In many ways:
1. They appoint and anoint themselves. They “call” themselves.
2. There is no authority bigger than themselves, not in person nor in what has been the history of the teaching of Christians. They are free to make it up as they go, and no one can call them on it.
3. If you compare role of the pastor to the role of the priest, there are too many for me to list here, not because they aren’t there, but because I’m not willing to invest the time to list them, unless someone is genuinely interested.
mirele wrote:
I keep thinking of 666, but maybe I’m taking that too far?
Ann wrote:
Hmmm. This is interesting. I knew someone who was a wonderful person, kind, gentle, loved his family, and had zero social skills. It was a hindrance in his career, for sure, and even in making new friends…but once he made a friend, he kept him for life. A person of quality…with social engagement quirks.
He was a Freemason. He rose to the top as a Freemason. I don’t think he believed on smidgen of what they “taught” but I think that the fact that there was a PATH, a set of rules that if he followed them, he could advance, made him so happy to be a Mason.
He repudiated it all at the end of his life, but I don’t think the content was what he cared about in the first place. He just needed a way to find success, given his limitations, and the Masons gave him the path.
You thought has given me a lot to think about re: all these modern “pastors.”
Velour wrote:
My “disciplining” in college was through The Navigators. I still have a mixed reaction to that ministry because I know many of them who are very humble and loving. I learned so much good stuff, but also a lot of bad stuff. Because of that experience I can understand why people get sucked into authoritarian structures. I am grateful that I was not pulled into something worse. A couple of my friends from college ended up going to the Master Seminary. I lost contact with them over the years so I don’t know how that turned out for them. Back then (more than 20 years ago), MacArthur made more sense to me than he does now. I am hoping that is because I’ve grown in discernment.
Ken F wrote:
I would also say that there’s a much wider latitude of human freedom and conscience in post-modern Catholicism. Not so in fundagelicalism, reformed or non.
In those religions you are taught that you cannot trust your conscience or your internal moral compass because they’re so hopelessly sullied by sin.
It’s worth considering that perhaps pastors who feel “bullied from the pews” are in reality simply being held accountable by their parishioners for their behavior.
To an arrogant, insecure, control-freak, I’m sure that having a confident, assertive lay person call you out can feel as though one is being “bullied.” But that does not mean that bullying, in fact, has actually taken place.
Several years ago, when my family left our former Acts 29 church, we did so during a time in which the young, uneducated, untrained pastor and his (similarly young and untrained) “elders” were feeling bullied. So much so that the pastor decided to do a short sermon series on how the “sheep should take care of their shepherd.” We had already decided to leave at that point, but once we received the official “sermon handout,” we felt that our decision to escape that toxic, dangerous environment had been confirmed.
That was around the time when I first found TWW, and the wonderful Deb and Dee. I believe I even sent the ladies a copy of some of this ridiculous material, as my wife and I were still in the midst of grasping the reality of the situation, and we wanted a third party’s perspective to tell us if we were crazy or not.
If Deb and Dee are interested, I can dig up that old handout and reformat it so that identifying features are obscured, and they can post it as a real life example of how the Calvinistas have been pushing this codswallop for years. (Just email me if you’re interested, ladies!)
As Christians, we are charged with caring for one another—the shepherds first and every church member after them. It brings all manner of joy, comfort and security when we affirm, and when we insist, that we will not leave even one person behind. We will guard them, we will guide them, we will pursue them, we will pray for them, we will love them, we will pursue them to the very end. No man will be left behind.
Okay, so apparently it brings someone (who, is not clear) joy, comfort and security when church leaders (in this order):
insist they will not leave one person behind (from what?)
guard (from what? who? not pedophiles or abusers, from what we’ve seen)
guide
pursue
pray
love
pursue (again- pursuing must be important)
Well, at least they did get love into this list, albeit towards the end. But frankly this sounds like stalking to me. I don’t like this word “pursue.” It gives me the creeps. I do not see any respect for the individual in this list. It is not “we’re here for you” it’s more like “we will not allow you to leave.”
And what do they mean they won’t leave anyone behind? Is the church moving across town? or are they saying they have the power to save men’s souls?
I’ve been reading the Bible a long time and would have never come up with such a list of things being necessary or desirable.
Yes, there are some bad pastors out there. There are some authoritarian, domineering leaders out there. Too many, in fact. Some pastors are indeed bullies. These guys need to be held accountable and in many cases removed from their position of authority
Okay, Jared Wilson, how about starting on this project? I bet you know some names.
But can I be honest? In my entire life in the church, despite some negative experiences with a few pastors, I’ve encountered way more bullies in the pews than in the pulpits.
I’ve had the opposite experience, though I will grant there are bullies everywhere, but what is the message here? If bullies exist in the pews, it justifies bullying in the pulpit? 2 wrongs make a right?
Jared Wilson just said that there are “too many” bad pastors out there and now there are even more bullies in the pews. I guess I’m glad to just stay home!
Sorry for another post right after my previous one, but I forgot to add:
The concept of “gentleness” was referred to frequently at our old Acts 29 church. Long story short, when the pastors screwed up and mistreated someone, their go-to excuse was usually to say that they should have been “more gentle.” They never actually apologize for what they did, but rather simply how they did it.
Right before we left, I confronted the pastor about something horrible that he had done, and he was very defensive at first. After a few days, he called me and said he felt “convicted” and that he wanted to apologize. So, we arranged a meeting and, sure enough, he didn’t actually apologize! He simply said that he should have been more gentle, and less harsh.
Being harsh or gentle doesn’t negate the rightness or wrongness of the core action in consideration. If a KKK member takes a tray of cookies over to their Black neighbors, and very politely and “gently” suggests that they leave the neighborhood, is that any less disgusting than shouting at them while burning a cross in their yard? Of course not. In some ways, it’s actually more disgusting.
My family severed virtually all ties with our former Calvinista Acts 29 church. Over the years, I heard from friends that the core members of the church had left here and there, so that almost no one from my time their remained a current member.
I assumed (and hoped and prayed) that our former pastor and his “elders” would realize how ill-equipped they were, and would have a change of heart and would stop hurting people. Sadly, I recently had these hopes dashed when I discovered via Facebook that this former church of ours has actually merged with another Acts 29 church that was the subject of an expose here on TWW. When I saw that, and was able to confirm it, my heart sank. I had hoped that they would change, but instead it seems they have actually gotten worse.
One of local characters preached a sermon on “How to Care for Your Man of God.” I was expecting tips on how wives could keep their husbands happy. No. It was ways that the members could care for him. Mostly pay attention, take motes, give money. And don’t distract him before the sermon.
He’s not a 9 Marxist, by the way… far from it. Authoritarianism shows up in lots of different churches.
@ Ann:
I read in a book a few years ago – a book that referenced a study that appeared in yet another book (“Why Men Hate Going to Church” by David Murrow) – that this study, conducted by a human behavior specialist, revealed that 80-something percent of regular church-goers have “passive” personalities, as compared to 62% of the general population.
GSD wrote:
GSD, I thinking you should write him a note detailing how this “Man of God” can take care of you. Make sure you include him giving you weekly foot massages after the sermons, as long as you leave him alone before the sermon.
How old is Jared Wilson? I’m in my 60s and Ive seen a number of bad pastors. In fact I may have seen more bad pastors than I have “bullies in the pews”.
I roughly figure I have known about 100 times as many people in the pews than pastors so all things being equal I should have seen 100 times as many bad people as bad pastors but I haven’t. By my calculation bullies seem to be way over-represented in the pastor category. I also figure a bad pastor can cause 100 times the damage as the single pew sitter. So multiply the higher incidence of bullies in the pastorate by their power and you get a grim picture. Do the math, Wilson is spouting self serving nonsense.
So I have a question, Wilson says bad pastors “need to be held accountable”, so where is the track record of these bad pastors that Wilson has held accountable?
Bill M wrote:
Here is the link to Jared Wilson's bio, which features what I assume is a current photo. Take a look and judge for yourself. 😉
http://jaredcwilson.com/bio/
@ Mr.H:
We're interested!
Deb wrote:
I had already looked and noticed the grey hair denoting Wilson’s accumulated wisdom. When I checked out the web site of the local church in my community that recently aligned with 9Marks I noticed the same thing. The “lead pastor” must still be in his thirties.
In the business world, a subordinate cannot sexually harass his or her boss, because that boss has the power to stop it, to discipline or fire the employee.
In a church under the Calvinsta model, where all the authority and power resides in the pastors/elders, the powerless congregants cannot “bully” the men with all the authority. Dictators don’t get bullied by their oppressed subjects.
This seems to be more of the blame-the-victim type of arguing. “I don’t like to crack the whip on those dumb sheep, but they made me do it.”
RE: Financial Needs of Shauna and Billy; Dee has kept the GoFundMe Account open
Hi TWW Readers,
A slightly off-topic post from the subject, since everyone is reading here right now.
Dee has kept the GoFundMe account open for Shauna (mom) and Billy (son). They are in Texas. People here previously helped them. Shauna is a single mom. They were terribly abused at their church when a church member sex abused the son. (Dee has all of the documents and has covered this case.) The church members cancelled housecleaning jobs that Shauna uses to support her and her son.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
This is what Shauna posted about her needs tonight, when I asked here at TWW under the title that Dee has with their names:
“Sorry it took so long my Internet on my phone has gone in and out with all the storms and flooding here. Our needs are very basic and to most would seem like nothing but to us it is difficult to keep up.
Utilities
Trash service
Car insurance
Food
Rent
Gas
Water bill
Rent / I pay a difference
Clothing /shoes / school lunch whatever billy’s needs happend to be that month.
Car maintenance
Medical bills / from billy’s assault (I can’t pay much on that not enough income )
Tutor for billy
Counseling for billy not sure if I will pay or how much yet.
Billy is having difficulty lately sleeping. He is afraid lately of his recent flare up of nightmares.
Anyways this is all I can think of right now. Billy and I live very simple. I cut out the luxuries and I’m glad I don’t have them as it is not practical.”
After a certain size is reached and a certain momentum created, it starts being about control. When a person is making $10,000 to $25,000 a month (and this is the rule rather than the exception in well known large congregations)(plus liberal perks in many instances), it becomes very, VERY important that NO ONE (sheep, other elders, the scriptures, watchbloggers, the denomination, et al) up set the apple cart because there are only sooooo many apple carts out there that can throw off that much profit and the number is getting less all the time. Thus, the givers need a lot of reminders of who the leader(s) is/are and who is/are NOT the leaders. When you have found a great big bird nest on the ground, you tend to build an ever-increasing fortress around it. This is so predictable one wonders why it is even considered out of the ordinary. There are probably 500 or more churches in the US with this kind of mentality going on and these kinds of salaries in play. When a church is willing to pay way, way too much, they are going to be controlled by someone who is very, very good at controlling and perhaps marginal in other more important areas. Being able to give a (very) interesting 30min to 60min talk every weekend is NOT a reason to pay someone $100,000, or quite a bit more, a year. As long as the salaries stay unacceptably high, CONTROL will be the underlying issue driving every decision at the upper levels. If you really, REALLY object to controlling behavior, begin to DEMAND accountability with regard to all staff salaries, hiring, firing, perks, and expenses. If you are NOT ready to DEMAND accountability, you have only yourself to thank for being controlled. Controlling behavior is only the normal, expected fruit of letting the fox guard the hen house. What a terrible thing to say with reference to the church; but can you think of a better analogy? Honestly, am I the only person out here who can discern that mega-salaries = mega-control? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WILL NOT PRODUCE THE FINANCIAL FIGURES COMPLETELY BROKEN OUT? THINK!
Mr.H wrote:
Isn’t that how the Village Church “apologized” to Karen Hinckley?
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
One of the differences Protestantism has with Roman Catholicism is that Catholics believe the Church created the Bible.
When we compare the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism with that of New-Calvinism, and examine the mechanism they both employ in defining the Church, and the nexus of power their leaderships assume, I’d suggest that what we find there is the original substructure for Complementarianism – where the two are “separate but equal.”
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2009/07/02/why-do-new-calvinists-insist-on/
Paula Rice wrote:
What hit me most from this DeYoung article is how it confirms the premise of this topic:
“3. Complementarianism tends to signify a number of other important convictions. I don’t know any complementarians who don’t also affirm inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment (I’m not counting Catholics because though they don’t ordain women, the reasoning has more to do with their view of the priesthood than a complementarian theology of manhood and womanhood). In other words, if someone is a Calvinist and a complementarian I can generally assume a lot about their theology. These are not the two most important issues of the faith, but they are two issues that if embraced in our day, almost always include a lot of other important theological beliefs.”
This is how New Calvinists create a “Divisive *Us versus Them* Church Culture.”
Cricket:
It’s all happening in the Second Test in Durham…
… nah, just kidding. Some chaps are playing cricket, that’s all.
IHTIH
That said, Moeen was reprieved by a dropped catch as spectacularly bad as yesterday’s catches were spectacularly good. The Sri Lankan first-innings fielding is very much a game of two halves thus far… Moeen on 44, with Woakes (replacing the injured Stokes – both of them fine blokes) on 20. England 338-6, and in a reasonably strong position on a wicket on which Broad and Anderson will fancy their chances later today. As, for that matter, will Woakes – who sealed his England call-up by taking 9-36 for Warwickshire last weekend.
And a boundary from Woakes, who moves on to 31, brings up the half-century partnership.
That’s Moeen’s half century. With which, that’s me off for a run.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I once heard Cricket described as a cross between Baseball and sleeping…
GSD wrote:
They have created their own entitlement culture.
Bill M wrote:
That is a problem. If the church is authoritarian, there is no mechanism by which to remove a pastor/elder.
In most of these sorts of churches, it would be the elders and we know how that works. In many Neo Cal churches, the elders are even paid staff. Even in the ones where they aren’t, there is a boys club environment. In some mega churches the board are other celebrity pastors or yes men who might not attend there. Furtick, Young and Noble come to mind.
siteseer wrote:
Yes. People seemed overcome with the toothless apology. They even hinted at changing their process but it was basically, ‘we will be benevolent dictators’. I don’t think they have the capacity to think any other way. It’s all they know.
This is such a cogent post; as I watched the leadership team at my former church adopt a more authoritarian model, the us vs. them mentality was a primary evidence. Incessant whining from the pulpit about how hard it was to be in leadership (I wanted to stand up and scream each time the litany began: Resign!) I now regret that I did not. A minimum wage job is hard; every job I have had has been hard–it demeans the ‘Gospel’ to hear this supposed ‘sanctified whining’.
The responsibilities of leadership are to lead by example, not compel through bullying and intimidation. If the attitude of leadership toward a congregation or individual does not look like Jesus–it isn’t. Lack of love is a disqualifier for an elder or pastor. I do think leading is hard when one hates those being led; from the demeaning comments I have heard from leadership, both local and extra-local (think of Mohler’s joke at the last money-grab, oops, I mean conference), to the quickness to apply punishment, (oops I mean loving discipline), their behavior resembles that historically of a self-appointed aristocracy. The peasants (oops, I mean congregation), are to there to be manipulated for gain, tolerated at best, not elevated–they must know their place, and that will be reinforced at every opportunity. The emphasis on the vision of the lead pastor–usually much different than Paul’s vision expressed in Scripture–to present every person complete in Christ.
Ken F wrote:
As I see it, when the Church creates the Bible, then the Church also creates its Priesthood. Within this paradigm the Church also gives birth to its constituents, establishing the terms of their membership, their identity and role, and sets conditions on their participation.
Mr.H wrote:
This is actually quite common in New Calvinist churches, particularly church plants. Here’s the usual cycle based on observations in my area: (1) a young reformer rolls into town with church planting seed money from a parent church or denominational support, (2) someone in the community is approached to serve as the host for a home meeting to discuss the church plant (usually someone who is disgruntled from doing traditional church or who has noble aspirations to start a new work to reach the unchurched), (3) the host invites his friends and others from the community to a “Bible study” (= core group), (4) the group grows as the young reformer passionately talks about hills he would die on and a message that sort of sounds like the gospel, (5) after a few months, the group out-grows the host home and they look for a store-front to rent, school gym, off-hour meeting at another church (most commonly in yuppie areas), (6) the young reformer recruits a cool band and singers, (7) free coffee/donuts and the cool music begin to draw a larger and younger crowd, (8) the flock keeps growing (mostly 20s-40s), (9) the young reformer selects like-minded elders (young ones), (10) the original host of the core group gradually becomes less important to the young reformer – he gets wise to the scheme and leaves, (11) other core group members begin to feel left out as they become distanced from the cool pastor while others take their place as the new core – they, too, begin to see the deception and exit, (12) the old core group members are shunned in the community.
All sounds like God, doesn’t it?
Ken F wrote:
Hmm… can’t see where baseball fits into there, TBH. Across between structured systems analysis and sleeping, maybe.
I think a better analogy is that a cricket Test Match is like the Superbowl without the professional musicians. (I’d say “without the music”, but there’s usually a band of some sort in the crowd. Especially in the West Indies.)
Ken F wrote:
It’s no where near that exciting. (Sleeping is the exciting part of this combination, NOT baseball.)
Anyway, a lot really has happened since I went off running – Woakes went for 39 and Broad for 7, but Moeen got his ton – 135 n.o. the noo – and Finn’s in with him on 6. Unsurprisingly for a man who bats at number 8, that’s Moeen’s highest Test score. Sri Lankan heads have dropped a little – to give you some idea, they currently have 8 men on the boundary; they had someone at Cow Corner for Steve Finn’s first ball.
Moeen (pictured here has rather more hair on his chin than I do on my head.
As I write, Steve Finn’s just been caught at long off – so, can James Anderson stick around long enough for Moeen to get his 150?
@ Ken F:
If you ever hear cricket commentary, it definitely sounds like they have all day unlike say, horse racing or rugby.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
It’s ok. There is another conference/book that will supply the juice they need until the next conference/ book which is usually about 6 weeks away.
It’s not hard to see how the young and gullible fall for this. Of course all the while young arrogant leader has to put up with this while building his brand on social media hoping to be the next Jared Wilson promoted out of his small no where church into the inner ring with a very cool title.
@ Max:
A young man in part time youth work from my former Church got into the Acts 29 church planting game. Evidently when he left our church and took a members list. Keep in mind he is planting a church in Georgia where there is a Baptist Church on every corner. Evidently they were not the right kind of churches so he goes there to plant a a good church with a few other guys.
What really irks me is that I kept getting mailers and emails soliciting donations for their new church plant. How can that be? They were Acts 29 and NAMB sponsored. Why troll SBC members for money when they are already giving to the Cooperative program for such things?
Using the members list from his former church, which participated in the Cooperative program, to troll for donations is totally unethical in that situation.
Stunned wrote:
I remember attending an evening church service and apparently I distracted the guest speaker. I was saying “Amen” quite a bit and wasn’t even aware of it. I was so wrapt up in his talk. When I spoke with him afterwards to complement him, this is all I heard. Wow! Sorry!
Paula Rice wrote:
I don’t understand what this means. Are you saying that Roman Catholics “created” the Bible in a way different than what the Protestants came up with? With the exception of the “Apocrypha” we all use the same Bible, so it would seem that charge would apply to all Christians. The Apocrypha is a challenge to deal with because even the early church found those writings useful for public reading but not on par with “canon.” Protestants often tend to act like the Apocrypha is toxic poison to be avoided at all cost. But that is not how the early church viewed it. I’m wondering if quoting from the Apocrypha is along the lines of quoting from authors such as CS Lewis. Many pastors quote famous authors in their sermons. That seems to be how the early church used it.
Bridget wrote:
Goodness. Where to begin.
Catholics marry non-Catholics all the time. Yes, they were doing this even before Vatican II. For sacramental validity, you must get a dispensation from the bishop, but this is a rubber-stamp formality.
What do you mean by “teach from the altar”? I’m a lector (lay reader), and I read the Scriptures from the pulpit (conveniently located near the altar :)) on a fairly regular basis. During Sunday Mass. Only priests and deacons may read the Gospel readings during Mass, but I’ve definitely seen women doing some “teaching” from the pulpit. Including nuns.
As for “serving” Communion, we have lay Eucharistic Ministers, both male and female. Yes, they “serve” Communion.
Only priests can hear Confession. Lay men and women cannot. Deacons cannot. It is one of the two Sacraments only priests can do. As PaJo indicates below, there are reasons for this, but it would take too long to go into them, unless you are truly interested.
I think one thing people don’t understand is that a Catholic or Orthodox priest is not the same thing as a Protestant minister. Most of the things Protestant ministers do lay Catholics can do. Lay ministers, male and female, run tons of parish ministries. Nuns administer entire parishes in areas with a priest shortage. Etc.
Mr.H wrote:
Absolutely.
Just look at how quickly these leaders melt down, throw out the usual accusations, and huff off in a cloud of self-righteousness muttering “I was warned” whenever they have stepped out of the stage long enough to engage with the peasants on forums.
We’ve seen it here on TWW.
They will NOT participate long anywhere if they cannot control the narrative.
@ Ken F:
Yes, I mean Catholics believe the Church created the Bible.
To explain it another way, Catholics believe Protestants are in error for believing the Bible created the Church.
Alan House wrote:
So true. Without CONTROL, the system is unsustainable.
The level of unsubstainability is set, not just by the cost of salaries, but by the large physical plant that is often used just a few hours each week.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Lol! I am a huge P.G. Wodehouse fan. In *Psmith in the City* there is an extended description of a cricket match. I didn’t understand a word of it. I remember several “century” references.
So, do you have to get a PhD in Cricket in order to understand what’s going on? To be fair, I sometimes feel that way about American football. And I’m a big Alabama fan! #RTR
Paula Rice wrote:
It’s pretty clear that the New Testament church existed before the New Testament, and leaders of the Church produced the documents. This is worth considering.
Sola Ekklesia, anybody?
Paula Rice wrote:
I’m Catholic and I didn’t realize that Protestants thought that the Bible created the Church. I didn’t know anyone thought that. You learn new something every day.
Paula Rice wrote:
Since the Church existed before the Bible, you’d have to say they have a point 🙂
GSD wrote:
God’s Plan of Redemption began with God’s call to Abraham, when “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Righteousness has always been imputed on the basis of faith.
However, I believe the Church was birthed on the Day of Pentecost by the Holy Spirit.
Of course they are.
Ever heard of “Divide and Conquer”? “Divide and RULE”?
Besides, “CALVIN WILLS IT!”
Christiane wrote:
Ever heard of Verbal Plenary Inspiration(TM)?
i.e. the Bible was dictated word-for-word by God just like the Koran to Mohammed?
Except in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of Classical Meccan Arabic?
Word. For. Word.
Lydia wrote:
“Ours is a High and Lonely Destiny, Digory.”
My response to this post is enthusiastic hand clapping. This encapsulates so well what is happening
In my time attending an evangelical church I was told I was not Christian because:
– I don’t believe in young earth creationism
– I wasn’t baptized as an adult
– I was raised Anglican (“they’re just as bad as Catholics!” *gasp*)
– I don’t talk in tongues (nor do I believe that is God speaking – yeah, I’m aware that’s not all evangelicals, just pentecostalism)
-I don’t believe the bible is literal & inerrant.
Get told this enough times over the course of 4 years and you come to the conclusion that “Ok, I’m not a Christian” and cease to identify yourself as such.
Velour wrote:
“He who was born in a cage
Yearns for his cage;
With horror I understand
That I Love My Cage.”
— Yevgevny Yevtushenko, Soviet-era Russian poet
GSD wrote:
The *foundation* of the church is the prophets and the apostles, with Jesus as the Cornerstone.
When Jesus began His ministry He quoted from the Old Testament.
When Jesus confronted the Pharisees, He told them, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,”
On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted from the Old Testament.
The Scriptures, both Old and New testify of Jesus. The prophets testify that He was coming, and the apostles testifying that He came.
I wouldn’t say that the Bible created the church, but I also would not say that the Catholic church created the Bible.
Jesus repeatedly put a much higher premium on the written Scriptures than He did on the traditions of the Pharisees.
.
Christiane wrote:
HUMBLY(TM), of course (chuckle chuckle).
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
What would God ever do without Us?
BL wrote:
I’ve been Protestant my whole life and I don’t remember hearing either of these ideas until now. Protestants don’t like tradition, but if it were not for tradition we would not have a Bible (OT or NT). Early Christianity was based on OT scriptures and traditions/teachings handed down by the first apostles. They could not proclaim “Sola Scriptura” until well after the Christian church was already up and running.
Ken F wrote:
Spending time in some of the debate forums, you will encounter both ideas a lot.
While it might not have had a catchy name, appealing to the written word has been a practice since the earliest days of the church.
Christiane wrote:
It gets weirder. Fundagelicals believe the Bible created God.
BL wrote:
I guess I have not dived deeply enough into the debate forums. Interestingly, the early heretics were quite good at using the scriptures as proof-text for their heresies. The early church relied on ecumenical councils to combat heresies. Protestants typically don’t like that idea, but they act like they do when it comes to differences of interpretation. When there is disagreement it eventually boils down to “but that’s not what we believe here.” That kind of sounds like an appeal to a council of some sort (but local rather than church-wide). Or they appeal to a favorite teacher like Piper or MacArthur. That sounds an awful lot like having a Pope (but local rather than church-wide). Calvin opposed the RC Pope but then set himself up as the Pope of Geneva. It was not a nice place to live under Calvin. It’s looking to me like Christians have always been tempted to follow hierarchy.
Whatever else Challies wants to establish by the above, Jesus didn’t *imply* anything, but rather made it abundantly clear:
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.”
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.”
“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. Not so with you
And Peter:
“not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”.
And Paul the saints who are in Ephesus:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
In which, using Challies’ assertion, – all parties are “over” and “under” each other.
So, which should receive more attention? Challies’ “implication” of over & under, or Jesus’ directive that His followers should establish “overs & unders” amongst themselves?
.
BL wrote:
Oops. directive that His followers should NOT establish…
Ken F wrote:
The early church didn’t care for the ecumenical councils as much as you might think. Nor did the early churches agree with which councils were to be recognized or valued.
As a result – The Oriental Orthodox split in 451, and the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic in 1054.
Proof-texting can always be an issue, which is why individual verses must be put within the context of the whole Scripture AND which is why people should not build the totality of their belief upon a few verses.
When it all gets confusing, you can always recalibrate by coming back to what Jesus said:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
If more religious leaders kept the above in mind, we might have better leaders.
That is, if they took it at face value and didn’t start redefining things. As in loving your neighbor is redefined as “pushing them back under our care.”
That’s not care, and that’s not love.
roebuck wrote:
In a way the Church existed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but before then the Word was with God, the Word was God, all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“God is really good at being God, people are not. Don’t expect from people what you can only get from God.” Christine Caine
Max wrote:
I’ll add point 7(a): The pastors/elders decide to assign a pastor to “evangelize” at the swankest university in the area to get The Gospel to the “unreached” (not having “reached” into the wallets of graduate students and undergraduate students who have high-earning potential, may already come from monied families if they can afford to go to such a nice university). The plan is then to get them to invite their friends on campus to come to the Bible study, social events, and church. Lower socio-ecnomomic schools are bypassed.
Christiane wrote:
I’m guessing you’re familiar with the basics of what you believe, but lack a basic understanding of what Protestants believe and how that is different from your faith.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You were talking about baseball earlier and I see that you’ve wandered off into left field.
Paula Rice wrote:
Even further back. 🙂
Acts 7:38, speaking of Moses:
“This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:”
It is the same word “ekklesia” used throughout the NT.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Thanks, HUG. So true.
Jack wrote:
That’s terrible, Jack, that you were told that you weren’t a Christian by such small-minded, judgmental people. Reminds me of many members, and the pastors/elders, at my ex-NeoCalvinist church.
BL wrote:
My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics — specifically, the redefinition of words into their “diabolical meanings”.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
P.S. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the altar!
BL wrote:
“Overs & Unders” as in Doms & Subs, Tops & Bottoms, Kiss Up & Kick Down all the way to the bottom?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
At which point, they’ve gone into Socratic Atheism.
Because if the Bible created God, then who must be the greater God?
BL wrote:
For myself, I find it helpful to keep in mind that not everyone defines a word in the same way. The word “church” is one example. What one believes the Church is can make a big difference.
For example, if someone believes the Church gave birth to the Bible, then the Church, and not the Bible, becomes the source by which the Church is governed.
The RCC is centralized under the Vatican, which defines and governs its doctrine. As far as I know, Catholics are expected to believe the following:
The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
The Roman Catholic Church is infallible.
The Roman Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.
The Bible was created by men and granted inspiration through the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Bibles other than the Roman Catholic Bible are missing books and are incomplete.
These beliefs give special meaning to the word “church” among Catholics, but among Protestants the meaning of the word “church” differs.
For example, some Protestants believe that the Bible is created by God, is eternal, inspired by the Holy Spirit, synonymous with Jesus Christ, and has an authority that encompasses and transcends the and Church. The source of authority and life within the church never originates with a person – or a law, rule, regulation, tradition, policy, procedure, but only comes through Christ who is the head of the Church and our only Advocate with the Father.
Sometimes we may be talking about a topic, using the similar words, and without realizing it, we’re inhabiting different worlds.
Additionally, there may be times when a person knows they are in a different world, but purposely seek to inhabit a world contrary to theirs in an effort (whether consciously or unconsiously) seduce those in it away from what they believe. This can happen anywhere, but is especially prevalent in discussions regarding what the Gospel is, who Jesus is, and who’s in charge of the Church.
BL wrote:
Oh, yes, “ekklesia.” I get a little creeped out when I see this, only because I spent a weekend at a retreat where I shared an apartment with some people, one of whom used that word so often I felt like bashing my head into the wall. Not to mention she was super bizarre.
Memories.
But yeah, we definitely don’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine! If you’d like to know more of what I think about the church as being a new covenant creation, feel free to ask. But please don’t use the word “ekklesia” when you do, thanks! 😛
The neocalvanistas and the Evangelical Industrial Complex are working tirelessly together to undo the five “solas” of the Reformation.
@ Velour:
It’s not just people. It permeates the sermons. After a while you just keep quiet & stop caring. And here’s the kicker. I actually started seeing the Bible through their eyes so going back to the Anglican Church would have been an exercise in hypocrisy. I was considering going back but it just didn’t feel right. So I’m in limbo. Not quite a believer,not quite atheist. I did come back to commenting here, though. It’s a pretty safe place to speak up & I’ve learned a lot.
As to the title question: yes, they a solurely are creating an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. I’ve even had online discussion where they stated that they were doing it on purpose as it was a necessary part of preaching the Gospel. Really?! That was the point where I realized the discussion was fruitless and stepped out.sigh.
Sorry for above typos…phone and auto-correct.
Should say ‘they absolutely are creating…’
Well, here’s where I am today. Side hurting a little, as it does from time to time, but the tumor is still (ever so slowly) shrinking. I am working on ways to combat the anxiety that rises up, as the stress just feeds the problem…. I got notified of another county job opening that I qualify for so as soon as I get home, I will get online and apply for that. Stress there, too. Sigh. I was under-qualified for the graphic design job – they want someone with a degree. Financially, I lost elagibility for food assiatance, but can reapply in a month. I have $90 toward June’s rent – need another $475, which after GoFundMe takes out the percentage, would need to be about $520 or so. After that, starting on June 8, the monthly bills will start, totalling $500. But for now, I have food and an almost full tank of gas. Again, thank you all so much for caring and helping. Every piece adds up to keep me going. There is no way I can ever repay you. Love and peace to you.
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Ken F wrote:
Hi to KEN F and PAULA RICE
Ken’s comment is also my Catholic understanding of the beginnings of the early Church, founded by Our Lord Himself, and given strength at Pentecost. The work of the early Church was immense at a time when the Gospels had not yet been written down, and the oral tradition from the Apostles to their followers was being treasured and passed down. I had thought until I read Paula’s comment that most Protestants accepted the workings of the early Church councils, so now I’m back to square one about what some Protestants believe concerning the origin of sacred Scripture and the beginnings of the Church.
? 🙂
Paula Rice wrote:
Hi PAULA RICE,
I think if you want an authorized view of Catholic teachings, your best source is going to always be the ‘Vatican Catechism’. Here is a link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
there is a lot of mis-information out there, but sometimes people want to get passed that and understand each other by dialoguing, especially in our situation here on Wartburg Watch where Catholic people come to support the work of the Deebs who are trying to prevent more of the kind of abuses that have injured so many in the whole Church. I am sensitive to the important beliefs of others, and I sure do know that there is way too much misinformation on all sides out there. People like the Deebs are doing a holy work in my opinion. May they be strengthened and supported by our prayers.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Yay for Psmith!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
There’s an old saying “the Catholic church contains all that is true… and a whole lot else, besides!” 😉
Bridget wrote:
My husband was Catholic when we married (long time ago now, lol). I had to agree to a bunch of things before they’d let us marry in the church. I met with the priest and he was going over these things we had to check off a list, I was sitting thinking carefully about each one. He got a little impatient with me, looked up, kind of rolled his eyes and said in a bored voice “just say YES.” I was kinda disappointed really.
My mother in law was a devout Catholic and probably the most Christlike woman I’ve ever known. She could be the illustration of the fruits of the Spirit.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
Or the contempt that a con man feels for the suckers he cons?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You don’t know how close to true that is….
Ken F wrote:
It’s the world system. The church can’t seem to avoid following suit.
If the sheeple did not give as they do, most all the authoritarian pastors, leaders and underlings on the payroll would be out selling used cars or insurance (no negative caricature of car salesman or insurance sales people necessarily intended). But as one speaking from 40 years as a Christian, and seminary trained, their PhDs, honorary doctorates and accolades would not buy them spit in the real world, where the real world labors daily.
I know it's very cynical to say but many of these guys have found their 'shtick' and their own personalities and psychological make up reaffirm to themselves that they are 'called by God' to lead the flock and 'stay in the business'. After all where can you make six figures, assign your underlings the care of the flock, golf on Mondays, get free meals as your ministerial buds take you out, write books go tell other pastors how to do it, and spend precious little time really engaging the Word?
I remember what one person said on a blog a few years ago when someone asked 'What do theologians do for a living?' To which the reply came: 'They theologize'. That says it all when it comes to the latest crop of authoritarian pastors and their adoring sycophants: They lead by exercising the authority to pronounce right and wrong from the pulpit according to the perceived dictates of their own heart, informed by their own hermeneutical bias and justified with well chosen scriptures.
Perhaps I should not question their motives, lest I be guilty of judging wrongly as Christ forbids (Matt 5) but I often think that we Christians are more than suckers to a good sales pitch that this guy or that will steer us correct with God if we only listen to him. And even though we do our best to be good Bereans our own psychological and personal dynamics come into play and cause us to lean one way or the other.
I have had more than my share of experience with authoritarian pastors, even some with 'good hearts', but have come to believe that a Christian should really think and understand the personality of a pastor and his leadership style before they join a church and throw money in the offering plate. IMHO maybe the pastors personality outside his 'teaching ability' and 'correct doctrine' should be equally consequential before you hook your wagon to any church regardless of how orthodox they may appear. At least Ulysses had the sense to have his men tie him to the mast before he cane within range of the sirens call.
“Leaders are way up here. link ”
(and the picture of rising heights with soaring red arrow and a man going ‘wow! look up there! i am so impressed that I shall turn with my whole body, gaze and point at what’s up there!’)
+++++++++++
dee & deb — I really appreciate the extra effort you make to find visuals that match what’s in your mind’s eye.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
My experience out West is not with SBC or neocalvinist so sometimes the detailed history and names that get bandied about here strike me as “inside baseball” discussions. Now I see I had it wrong, it is cricket and not baseball.
@ siteseer:
My mother had to convert to Catholicism back in the late 50s. I’m sure there are wonderful Catholics just as there are wonderful men and women in every religion. I had not so good experiences with some nuns and some priests in my childhood. I left the Catholic religion as a teenager.
WillysJeepMan wrote:
Is that a problem? A believers life is not dependent on the five Sola’s, is it? Mine is not.
Jack wrote:
Thank goodness for TWW (ditto Spiritual Soundng Board). It has been a safe place for me too. I’ve been able to deprogram much of the nonsense that I was taught as well at an abusive, authoritarian (NeoCalvinist, 9Marxist, John MacArthur-ite) church.
theoscrimshander wrote:
Exactly. And what other job do you get to take vacations, *sabbaticals* after serving seven years, have people pass a love offering, pay for vacations for you and your wife, travel across the nation for “conferences” and to “preach” at countries around the world and do “missions” around the world?
Gram3 wrote:
I love this phrase, it is a prefect descriptor for their immature, unwise advice which is best unheeded. Also when pups get their new sharp teeth they can inflict quite a bit of pain – so also best avoided.
Bridget wrote:
The funny part about the five solas is that the only one that is specifically stated in the Bible is “faith alone” and in the Bible the actual quote is “not by faith alone.” So much for sola scriptura…
Christiane wrote:
I find few Protestants who know much about the early church or the early church councils. It’s probably because we are not encouraged to dive into pre-reformation history and theology. It can be quite disturbing for us Protestants to find out that many of our essential “Christian” beliefs were invented only 500 years ago. If one listens to the YRR “leaders” and compare their teachings to the church throughout history, one would have to conclude that there were no true Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It’s as if it took 1550 years to finally get it right. That conclusion is theoretically possible, but I find it highly unlikely.
As a Protestant I know I am supposed to believe that Roman Catholics are not saved, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the Roman Catholic church is Babylon, etc. But I’ve met too many Catholics who trust Christ, walk by the Spirit, and walk humbly with God. I am grateful for my Roman Catholic friends, even though I differ on some points of theology.
Velour wrote:
Yep, that’s happening in my neck of the woods. Being evangelistic and “missional” take on a different meaning in the New Calvinist world compared to mainline churches.
@ Ken F:
It’s interesting. I was given a book on the history of the church. It devotes a whole 2 chapters to the period from Christ to the reformation…and the first is just on Acts. So one whole chapter covering approximately AD 70 to 1500. Ugh.
@ Ken F:
“Back then (more than 20 years ago), MacArthur made more sense to me than he does now. I am hoping that is because I’ve grown in discernment.”
++++++++++
oh, i’m sure of it. college students are fun, but they would be astonished to discover that they are actually very shallow in their understanding of the big picture. on all things.
Christiane wrote:
Please let me know specially what I said that you found to be misleading, I’d appreciate it. Some things are black and white, and that can make some people uncomfortable who would rather “get passed that and understand each other by dialogue.”
Like I was saying earlier about how people approach a subject in different ways, depending on their working definitions of certain words…? So, too, I realize that everybody that participates here does so motivated by different reasons. Why I’m here, for example, may be very different from the reason you’re here. If that’s the case, I would expect there will be times you have difficulty with the way I approach a subject, or the style in which I participate, because it’s different from your own. And when you define the blog by saying it’s a place “where Catholic people come to support the work of the Deebs who are trying to prevent more of the kind of abuses that have injured so many in the whole Church,” and “people like the Deebs are doing a holy work…may they be strengthened and supported by our prayers” it sounded like you were describing your approach and your motivation for participating here. And I’m glad you felt free to say that. It did, however, come across to me like you’re on high ground. If you are, more power to you! Keep climbing! 🙂
theoscrimshander wrote:
After my bad church experience, I learned that I know far more than I gave myself credit for.
@ Paula Rice:
Hi PAULA,
My coming ‘here’ is to support the Deebs and their work. My Church has suffered terribly from those who abused children, and now we see this happening to others in ‘the whole Church’ and I will support any work by anyone who is trying to stop abuse and protect innocent people. If that’s ‘high ground’, so be it.
In offering the Vatican Catechism site to you, you will be able to check out what IS taught in the Catholic Church and compare it to what you meant when you said ‘as far as I know’ . . . so I was attempting to help increase understanding based on some authoritative info about what the Catholic Church really does teach. I hope it helps you to clarify any differences between your ‘as far as I know’ and the actual teachings of my Church. Giving you that website also affords an opportunity for us to return our attention to the work of the Deebs in our focus here. I can say you will find that website helpful as it is clearly written and well-documented, the best resource I can give you.
One thing I do know: Catholics love their Church. And we are heartbroken over the abuses that have occurred. And we don’t want to see other Christian people suffering and unheard and unsupported. So you will that many Catholic people reach out to those of other faiths who are trying to do what is right to stop clergy abuses. We know from experience how important the work really is.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I am so sorry to hear that you lost food assistance. Please call Second Harvest Food Bank and find out if you can use their services to stock your pantry.
All: Jeanette needs prayers and donations to pay her bills.
“When we lash out, fight back, take up zealous causes, angrily pontificate, feud on Facebook, tsk-tsk on Twitter, and berate on blogs, aren’t we, in essence, saying God needs us to set people straight? All too often what we’re really protecting isn’t God’s honor, but our reputation or influence.”
And when you (J. Wilson) write an article to put people who fight back, take up zealous causes and so on, in their place, what are *you* saying in essence? Aren’t you in essence saying that God needs you to set these people straight? So why the double standard then?
Boy, does studying logical fallacies help!
Bridget wrote:
So did I! Then, at age 19, I got “saved” by the Jesus Freaks. It was a genuine Grace-filled conversion, but it wasn’t enough. I fell in with some young Catholic charismatics, and by the Grace of God came home.
As a small child, I was taught by some of the meanest of Mean Nuns out there. Believe me, I can relate. Right now I know nuns from those very same orders (e.g., St Joseph Sisters) who are warm, wonderful, loving, caring people. I’m thinking of one in particular, who works with Hispanic immigrants who have been displaced from the furniture and textile industries here in NC because so many jobs have gone to the Pacific Rim. She is a sweetheart!
Y’all, my husband doesn’t let me give money over the Internet. I can’t give cash, but I can give (new) intimates and apparel. I work for a huge apparel company, and we have sample sales all the time. I just need sizes. Thanks!!
Christiane wrote:
I should clarify. In no way did I mean you’re caring about child abuse or abuse in any form, was a bad thing. It’s good, of course for all of us to be involved in taking a stand against abuse and the systems that hide and enable it. Commendable! What I meant is that within the of your comment to me, comparatively speaking, it sounded to me like you were taking the high ground. I was sure, but then you said what I quote above from your comment, which only served to reinforce my earlier impression.
I did say “as far as I know” before I listed some beliefs held in common “as far as I know” by Catholics. I did that to leave the door open for correction in the event I was wrong. I had, btw, done my research. And I asked if you would specifically quote me if I said anything misleading. You haven’t done that. Instead, you’ve directed to to a website “to increase my understanding” and to “clarify any differences.” I’m sure that you have a better understanding. And you mentioned dialogue. I seem to recall someone telling me once that Catholics aren’t allowed to discuss doctrine, that doesn’t so isn’t “kosher.” If you are constrained, then I won’t force the issue. But since you didn’t say I was wrong, and I had done my research, then I’ll assume there was nothing specifically objectionable, ok?
I’m glad you love your Church which, as you say, has “suffered terribly from those who abused children.” And now you say, you see this happening in the “whole church.” So, from “my church” to the “whole church.” But isn’t it true Catholics believe “your church” is infallible? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it become easier for you to engage in dialogue about the abuses happening in “whole church” within a context that simultaneously examines the structures and institutions that have hidden and enabled that abuse?
If the Deebs started dissecting the Catholic Church for its role that it has played in the abuse of children for centuries, would you still consider this a “holy work?” Or is it holy in as fantastic it doesn’t offend your religious sensibilities?
So, I’ll take you at your word here Christiane but I’ll be honest with you, it can look a bit like you’re jumping on a bandwagon, willing to participate in criticism directed at church bodies outside of your own, while maintaining the the innocence of your own.
And as someone who cares just as much about victims every bit as much as you do, there’s simply no way on God’s green earth that I’m going to exonerate your Church for all its atrocities committed against children. And if you’re a real Advocate, I’d suggest you raise your voice within your own church and help establish change too. And if you can learn something here from the way people feel free to speak out against groups like the Neo-Cals, who do not believe in institutional infallibility, then MORE POWER TO YOU!
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
That’s lovely.
Shauna and Billy live in Texas.
Jeanette Altes I think lives in Colorado.
Perhaps you could email Dee and Deb and they could make you offer known to Shuana and Billy, and Jeanette, as well as the sizes you need.
dee@thewartburgwatch.com
deb@thewartburgwatch.com
Hugs,
Velour
Typo alerts.
From 1st paragraph “I was sure” should have been “I wasn’t sure
4th paragraph “fantastic” should have been “far as”
Hi PAULA,
I can appreciate that you have very strong feelings about abuse of innocents, as we all do. No one I know of, including Pope Francis, is exonerating anyone in my Church whose actions have injured children. There IS no defense for any clergy who abuse innocents. None. Period.
As to respectfully discussing the important differences of doctrine, I am not opposed to that, but I do know that for it to work positively, people need to start from a place of good will and a desire for understanding;
and as to the time and the place for that, if you have your own blog, I would not at all be adverse to discussing doctrinal differences there, if you like. I do not have my own blog, or I would invite you there. Again, I appreciate your deep feelings for wanting to end clergy abuses.
Ken F wrote:
I once saw a 60 Minutes expose’ by Morley Safer (may he rest in peace) on British croquet. It was something like that.
@ theoscrimshander:
Great comment!
Monica wrote:
Excellent point, Monica.
siteseer wrote:
One of the many things that I learned in my mega church days was how much contempt they really had for pew sitters. In comes out over time in subtle ways behind the stage then great respect for them from the pulpit.
I was so naive. Of course they look down on the gullible. It was all a big show production.
@ Ken F:
Ken F:
“Back then (more than 20 years ago), MacArthur made more sense to me than he does now. I am hoping that is because I’ve grown in discernment.”
++++++++++
elastigirl said: “oh, i’m sure of it. college students are fun, but they would be astonished to discover that they are actually very shallow in their understanding of the big picture. on all things.”
+++++++++++++
i mean me.
i know when i was in college and for a while after graduating i felt i had all the answers, & all other generations of people were the unenlightened waiting for me to show them the way. (not much of an exaggeration, here).
all college students I’ve known since are more or less like this.
and then comes life, of course.
(graduating to SAVE THE WORLD!, only to enter the school of hard knocks)
@ Velour:
Thank you.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Welcome, sweetie.
elastigirl wrote:
That would be me too. I woke up one morning when I was 19 years old I knew EVERYTHING *snort*
@ Christiane:
Christiane – a lot of us do, along with the ecumenical creeds. But many people here come from churches where people simply don’t know about these things, even though they’d more ghan likely find no conflict in or with them.
As a Lutheran, i see things from a different perspective, and this is also true of TEC and many less liturgical mainline churches.
@ Ken F:
Well, you can only speak for your particular Protestant tradition, no? 😉
More seriously, by no means are all Protestants opposed to the RCC and especially not to ecumenical dialogue with Catholics. But then, I’m Lutheran, and we are much closer to Catholicism and certain relatively high sorts of Anglicanism than to most other Protestant churches. It can be like walking a tightrope at times.
@ Christiane:
You’ve done an admirable job of trying to talk past various barricades here, imo. Am genuinely sorry that it hasn’t gone as well as it might have. You add so much to discussions, here and on iMonk, and I’m sure glad you’re around.
I was Protestant for 50 year. Evangelical. And TWW has been a real eye-opener to me. I had NO IDEA all this … carp was going on in the name of church and Christ. I feel like God put a sort of Cone of Protection over me. Even when I rubbed shoulders with a Douglas Wilson cult–which sent me spinning–it wasn’t as creepy as what I read about on this blog.
One of the things that I want to say to Paula and to Christiane: when you talk about Protestantism, you really DO have to ask “Which Protestantism?”
I went my whole life until 50 without meeting up personally with the NeoCals, and I also went all that time knowing about but not buying into the Calvins/PuritanBoard version of Reformed.
I can’t remember who said it upthread, but the question was asked, “Are there really people who believe in the Five Solas as essential to salvation?” Yes. There are. (Google PuritanBoard.) And in real life, by my personal experience and knowledge of more than myself, they can be merciless to people who disagree with them. AND they can be completely affable people. Same with a lot of the NeoCals.
In my experience, it seems to come down to figuring out: “What is the Church?”
I will leave this comment with a short story about something that happened to me at least 25 years ago. I’ve told this story before; forgive me–it seems apppropriate to this conversation.
On a flight between Seattle and Denver, a young man sat next to me. In the pre-flight pleasantries, I asked him what he did. He said he was a student at a Bible college. I asked if he liked it–he didn’t. I was a little surprised and asked him why. He said he thought all the Christian stuff was “a load of bull____.” Those were his words, so I quote him. I was more than surprised and after I got my balance, I asked him why he wanted to go to Bible college. He said he had to learn the lingo if he wanted to be a pastor. “Why do you want to be a pastor if you think it is all baloney?” This is what he said: “Because that is where the money is.”
I wish I had asked his name, or if I did, I wish I had remembered it. I was so stunned…well, at any rate, it did away with any of that nasty flying-conversation, because I couldn’t think of a word to say.
People, that was _25_ years ago (or more).
There are so many problems with this, I don’t know where to start listing them, but the fact that a complete scoffer, and cynic, can go through Bible school to be a pastor, (and while I don’t know what actually happened it is not out of the realm of reality that he) can become a pastor of a church and rake in the bucks without any call, oversight, or submission to any authority other than himself (even as he claims it is The Bible) is really a lot of the problem in modern American Christianity. And it is a complete tool of satan, because people THINK they have seen Christian living, heard the teachings of Christ, aand they have quite sensibly stopped up their ears.
Well, that is my tirade for this 24 hours. Off to bed. May God bless all of us, soften our hearts, humble our minds to hear and obey His Christ.
numo wrote:
That’s a very good point. I’ve mostly attended churches that more or less follow this model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A. In my college days we were taught that all the mainline churches were “liberal” and were not advancing the true gospel. But since then I have attended many “high church” services over the years as we moved around. One of my favorites was led by a Lutheran pastor. I think the typical type of SBC or YRR church has done a great disservice by throwing out the old creeds and liturgies. In my limited experience, they just create new liturgies as week after week they use pretty much the same buzz words about “the shed blood of Christ” and similar phrases. I think it would be better to use the old creeds than to try to make up something fresh and new each now. Now that I’ve spent a bit more than a year investigating what is under the hood of Calvinism, I’m at a bit at a loss to know what type of church I should attend. But back to the point, I’ve found very few Protestants who can talk about early church history. It’s a shame.
elastigirl wrote:
That’s a pretty good description of where I was back then. It’s embarrassing now.
Neocal is creating division because it is a form of magisterial elitism: it creates a us against them mentality. Now onto the church bullies comment of Jared Wilson : I have seen more than a couple pastors ousted. One was a Piper disciple back in the early 90’s. His church voted him it because they didn’t feel he loved them. The second church across town attempted to vote a pastor out due to a hypocritical ideal on a deacon’s part of how perfect a pastor and his family should be. It had to do with the pastors daughter birthing a child before she was married. A couple weeks afterward, it was discovered the deacons unmarried daughter was pregnant through consensual relationship. A third one was my brother where the people who voted him out visited my brother who was in a critical care bed after the ouster and were very sanctimonious during the visit. People can be awful and church folk and pastors are no different. It is the story of being human. Even in Jared Wilsons and ilk’s model, this will not change. Only thing is: they are attempting to make baptists and other non magisterial Protestants, more like magisterial confessional Presbyterians, rigorous in their church order and discipline. This is most definitely an extreme change for free church baptists and it is not by choice, but by stealth.
@ Ken F:
Also the cultures after 500 years are just very different. It’s hard to describe unless you’re inside the RC Church. There can be a diffusion of authority with Rome rarely intervening. Benedict tried to reverse this and the younger priests and some bishops he got in are somewhat like your Calvinista guys. Francis is reversing that to the extent that he can.
@ Bridget:
You can marry non-Catholic, I have seen nuns and other women preach from the pulpit. We seem to be considering women deacons. The last would be revolutionary and good.
Ron Oommen wrote:
Now, add these YRR that are creating their own “worlds” that are only “accountable” to other YRR’s and one really begins to see the problems….. Has Piper , Mohler, etc all ever been in a system other than one “they” created??
theoscrimshander wrote:
P.T. Barnum was right….and sadly, the people sitting in the pews are just as big of ” ones” as all other people. I think many still deep inside their ‘ soul’ or ‘ being’ or ‘ whatever’ that throwing money in the offering plate helps to buy their way into heaven….
PaJo wrote:
It’s been much the same for me, PaJo. It’s often a shock reading stories here and on other survivor blogs. I feel so sheltered, but at the same time blessed that I haven’t had to face that kind of abuse, and in a place where everyone should feel safe.
Ken F wrote:
What about “Glory to God Alone”? They’ve thrown that sola out the back door in exchange for “personal glory alone”. And “Christ Alone” has been changed to “complementarianism alone”.
Monica wrote:
Does JW condem Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles for taking up zealous causes and fighting back?
@ Ken F:
“As a Protestant I know I am supposed to believe that Roman Catholics are not saved, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the Roman Catholic church is Babylon, etc. But I’ve met too many Catholics who trust Christ, walk by the Spirit, and walk humbly with God. I am grateful for my Roman Catholic friends, even though I differ on some points of theology.”
++++++++++++++++++
this is what it means to be protestant?? I’ve grown up in church, have been a longtime participant in 4 different churches. (no longer, though. enjoying my relaxed sunday mornings, thank you very much) I’ve never heard this implied or stated in any way. it was just another way of doing things, another approach.
in my town for a while there was a ‘ministerium’, as they called it — pastors from all the Christian churches came together regularly for common purposes. the priests from the catholic churches were as integral as any other person there.
(not that I didn’t snort, sneer, & roll my eyes at how these men took themselves so seriously. the ‘manisterium’, making much of the office of being male endued with power from on high. gimme a break)
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
PaJo wrote: “I was Protestant for 50 year. Evangelical. And TWW has been a real eye-opener to me. I had NO IDEA all this … carp was going on in the name of church and Christ. I feel like God put a sort of Cone of Protection over me.”
Serving kids in japan said: “It’s been much the same for me, PaJo. It’s often a shock reading stories here and on other survivor blogs. I feel so sheltered,…”
++++++++++++++
perhaps it’s just a matter of the focus of the busyness of life.
maybe like going to a good school in a good school district. you as a student (or as a busy parent of a student) are so focused on the constant routine & the tasks at hand, completing them one after another as they keep coming, that you don’t realize that there are schools and school districts in other areas that are struggling and without assets.
guess the take-away is the value of looking up from the grindstone & take the initiative to be more socially-minded (society beyond one’s inevitably telescoped world).
@ elastigirl:
…self-commentary, here. ugh.
elastigirl wrote:
And that was the power and zeal behind the Brown Shirts, the Red Guard, and ISIS as well. The Mass Movement That WILL Change The World! Into Absolute Utter Perfection!
“Oh, I was so much older then;
I’m younger than that now…”
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
“I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”
— Mythbusters (though they said it as a joke; True Beleivers are Dead Serious)
It doesn’t matter anymore. While I have become a ” Done” my wife still likes to attend. She works with children
Let me give you an example.
The local church ” we” are still members is voting today to call a new Minister of Music.
He was run-off from his last church as his choir stopped attending, he caused all sorts of turmoil.
The guy doesn’t even read music.
But due to friendships within the church leadership, he will be called.
This after the committee was given names and numbers of several people to contact concerning the man’s past. ( They contacted no one.)
No, it doesn’t matter. They care nothing about us….it is all about them.
Sport:
Nile Wilson won gold in the High Bar at the European Gymnastics Championships;
Sri Lanka are fighting to make England bat again in the second Test, although their second innings is vastly better than their first;
Katarina Johnson-Bomon-Thomson achieved Olympic qualification in Gotzis this weekend, though some way behind event winner Brianne Theisen-Eaton;
Andy Murray is two sets up against big-serving John Isner at Roland Garros; brother Jamie is having a day to forget, though, losing his third-round Mens’ Doubles match (alongside Bruno Soares) and being – at the time of writing – a break down in the first set of his second-round Mixed Doubles match alongside Hao-Ching Chan
IHTIH
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That should read Katarina Johson-Bomson-Thomson.
I have learned a great deal about religious child abuse from TWW, which I read almost daily. You may be interested in the story of a 13-year-old girl in Ohio who recently escaped from shackles in the basement of her mother’s former boyfriend, Timothy Ciboro. He was supposedly giving a Christian home-schooling education to the girl and two of his own younger children. I have posted two items about this at No Longer Quivering (a blog about recovery from various types of spiritual abuse), and I plan to post more:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2016/05/shackled-girl-escapes-basement-torture-alleged/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2016/05/shackled-girl-mother-jailed-on-unrelated-charges/
Thank you, Deebs, for allowing folks to post links of this kind.
elastigirl wrote:
I was not so lucky. I’ve heard various types of Catholic bashing for the last 30 years. All of the New Calvinists describe Roman Catholicism as heresy. For a good example go to John MacArthur’s site (http://www.gty.org/) and search for “roman catholic heresy.” I did it just now and it returned 1170 results. Pick any of them and you can see what I mean.
One of the bright sides of so many Protestants not knowing church history is they are not very aware of the rich history of Catholic bashing among Protestants. As an example, here is a quote from John Calvin: “Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist.” Charles Spurgeon said this in a sermon: “Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s gospel! And it is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it!” Both of these quotes are conveniently located in an article by John MacArthure: “http://www.gty.org/blog/B130226/exposing-the-heresies-of-the-catholic-church-the-pope”
Be glad you were spared.
@ Ken F:
“One of the bright sides of so many Protestants not knowing church history is they are not very aware of the rich history of Catholic bashing among Protestants”
+++++++++++
sad on both accounts. (the inhumanity, and the uninformation/ignorance)
numo wrote:
Look at what I just posted above about Calvin and Spurgeon. But this is probably a better source of quotes from the founding Protestants: http://www.the-bible-antichrist.com/what-did-reformers-believe.html.
Are there particular protestant traditions that did not spring from these early leaders of the reformation?
Ken F wrote:
It’s not surprising that many Protestants – especially the conservative ones (fundamentalists, evangelicals, NeoCalivnists) can’t discuss early church history and don’t care about it. They constantly accuse anyone not like them, especially Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, of not being ‘real Christians’, having beliefs that are ‘demonic’, and ‘not knowing the ‘real’ Jesus”.
Ken F wrote:
I do not want to enter any sort of protestant/catholic debate on TWW, it is not the appropriate place.
There were reasons for the protestant movement.
The Catholic church of today may not be the church it was in the past, when church and state were combined. Your statements regarding church history do not seem to be taking that into consideration.
If anything, the history of the church whenever it has joined with the state should be a eye-opening warning to all of us on exactly what happens when the two combine.
When the church commits adultery with the state, church discipline becomes a death sentence.
.
PaJo wrote:
Your seatmate could have been…Mark Driscoll or my ex-pastor, or lots of guys. Because lots of them are clearly in it for the money (and power, and even sex when they can get it).
elastigirl wrote:
I’ve read with some interest the Catholic-Protestant back and forth. This statement sticks with me though. We see the church through our “Western” (North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand) lens without realizing what goes on in the wider world.
In my wife’s home country the Catholic Church has been active in thwarting every effort at family planning to reign in a runaway population boom that country can ill afford. They’ve also been implicated in harbouring anti-government forces when it suits them to do so.
In Uganda evangelicals have been instrumental in the implementation of the so-called “kill the gays” law (thought I think that international pressure forced Uganda to commute it life sentences of hard labour). The Watoto Church there has been influential in that regard, the same folks who send out the choir to raise money. They’ve been to my former church a number of times.
Authoritarian institutions are at the root of much evil, people need to know what they support when they drop cash in the plate.
Even looking at the abuse documented on this website, beyond the damage done to congregations and victims there is a societal cost – police investigation, court costs, healthcare costs, counselling costs, in some cases removal of otherwise contributing members of society as they undergo treatment and are unable to work – or worst case losing those people completely to suicide. This costs all of us, Christian and non-christian alike.
PaJo wrote:
And may we all say ‘AMEN’
thank you for your thoughtful words of encouragement and blessing . . . to me that is what ‘the Church’ is all about, not the buildings, nor the framework, nor the ‘doctrines’, but caring people who are formed according to the mind and heart of Christ 🙂
BL wrote:
I certainly did not intend to start a debate. The point I was trying to make is that many Protestants still believe these things about the Roman Catholic church, as evidenced by the numerous articles and links on all the YRR sites. The YRR crowd is very anti-ecumenical even though so much has changed in the last 500 years. I think it’s very appropriate to highlight the historical facts because they have bearing on the current discussion. But it does not need to be a debate.
I think I’m a strange kind of Protestant because of my respect for Roman Catholicism even though I don’t agree with all of their theology. In my college days I attended mass with one of my friends. I took communion because I did not know I was not supposed to. What shocked me the most was the very “orthodox” teaching I heard there. I was shocked because I had been led to believe that RCs are all heretics. The last time I attended RC mass was a few years ago. This time I knew enough not to take communion. It was a very uplifting service, with no heresy. So I think my main point is that Catholics and Protestants today have more in common than we may think.
Ken F wrote:
I think it is sad because the truth is that ‘the Church’ transcends time and place as the Body of Christ, and the early Christians are a part of that Body and connected to us through Christ. Even a person who is a fundamentalist Christian should be able to enter an ancient catacomb in Rome where early Christians gathered for prayer, and feel a ‘connection’ to them that has no divisions in ‘doctrine’ or ‘denomination’. The heritage of the early Church belongs to ALL Christian people.
Ken F wrote:
Might be the circles you moved in. I was raised Protestant & never met anyone disrespecting another faith until much later in life.
@ Ken F:
Church history is extremely political, including the early councils, but few want to admit that. They get lost in the minutia of Doctrine and authority.
Personally, I am weary of the push to defend the various man made “systems”.
Ken F wrote:
There are major doctrinal differences, which can be examined without falling into polemics.
IMO, the issue, as it so often is, is the claim of religious authority. And the papacy has never repudiated their claim of religious authority over all who call themselves believers.
9Marks, Dever, Lehman, Acts 29, Driscoll, Shepherding, The Village Church, SGM & Mahaney, & the Papacy – have all made claims of authority from God upon which they have made demands of the pewishioners.
They have required unquestioned obedience, the right to direct pewishioners’ lives, to require subservience (beyond submission), public confessions of (supposed) sin, the right to public discipline of pewishioners who fail to submit to their claimed authority on any point, and question the christianity of any who are in submission to, and total agreement with, their doctrines.
And by that same claimed authority, they separate themselves from the pewishioners and put themselves above and beyond correction. They also acknowledge this great divide between leaders and those led, and grant this freedom from correction to their fellow religious leaders.
What the MacArthurs & Devers and other religious leaders don’t realize or acknowledge is that they have set up themselves with their own smaller version of the papacy without the benefit of some checks & balances developed over centuries.
Whatever the doctrine, whether correct or heretical – those who claim religious authority over others, in the way that these men have, will eventually cause destruction.
And woe to us all if they ever manage again to wield the sword of the state to enforce their ‘church discipline’.
.
Jack wrote:
Yes.
And those people who financially support utilizing the state (of any locale) as a stick for their particular religious hobbyhorse, should stop and think how much they would want to live under a government that is enforcing the religious standards of another denomination or religion that you currently deem heretical.
But, the people who funnel money and support for these purposes to religious organizations never ponder the possibility that they might find themselves on the ‘outs’ and dealing with the business end of the stick.
.
BL wrote:
Spot on.
PaJo wrote:
To see if the name was that of one of the Celebrity Megapastors with a Gigachurch of 20,000, NYT Best-sellers, and standing invites to all the Right conferences and preaching circuits?
Monica wrote:
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED!!!!!”
— Benny Hinn’s favorite clobber verse
BL wrote:
Isn’t that called “Take Back America To It’s Roots As A CHRISTIAN Nation”?
“GOD SAITH!!!!” (AKA “IT IS WRITTEN!” re Shari’a)
Velour wrote:
They have their own church history — the exact same church history I’ve found in Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and Seventh-Day Adventist literature:
1) The BIBLE — a mythologized “Holy History” way-back-when of the Time of the Apostles.
2) The Great Apostasy(TM) — where True Christianity was corrupted and paganized by (a) Constantine, (b) Babylon Mystery Religion of Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz, and (c) SATAN.
3) And all was Apostasy, Paganism, and Darkness for centuries under a False Apostate Popery. Until…
4) OUR FOUNDER (whether Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Mary Baker Eddy, or HUMBLE Head Apostle) was Touched By GOD to Restore the Original True Christianity for US and US Alone!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Rolling on the floor laughing, H.U.G. You’ve humorously summarized these groups.
Lydia wrote:
I find it very freeing that I no longer have to maintain the system. Whether it is 100, 200 or 1,000 or they close their doors, I am no longer burdened by the need to worry about the budget, make sure there are enough volunteers to run Sunday programming, resurface the parking lot …..
Don’t get me wrong, I’m busy and productive but I do it outside of the institutional church. So while I still have occasional bouts of weariness when I brush up against the bureaucracy I am more energized than when I was much younger and part of a stifling system.
Ken F wrote:
Well, you wouldn’t have been the first here if you had!
But I have to say that the comparing and contrasting of Roman and Protestant (and, occasionally, Eastern) perspectives here on TWW is both informative and uplifting. Keep it up, say I.
I don’t know if anyone else said this because I haven’t read the comments yet, but perhaps Jared Wilson & his Calvinist Comrades should take Wilson’s advice. Since He (God) dispenses wrath, perhaps you shouldn’t be so hung up on Church Discipline. God will take care of it in His time. Just: Let. It. Go. Think of all the folks that will be spared from men taking things into their own hands. Think of all the folks that will be spared from spiritual abuse!
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Off the top of my head, the Neo-Cals use more aggressive measures with regard to their authority than the current Roman Catholic Church. Seems the RCC has learned a few lessons from the misuse and abuse of authority.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Of course, then there’s the matter of the Calvinista pastors & leaders “taking up zealous causes” and pontificating on social media…… It’s just the guys & gals in their mother’s basements (some Calvinista spoke of bloggers like that) commenting on social media that are the problem.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3…..so good to see you back here commenting! I’ve been busy and haven’t commented on several of the posts this month, but for several months I was looking for your astute insight. Welcome back!
mirele wrote:
No!!!! Not Jerry Walls at Driscoll’s church (sic). A Ph.D. does not a common sense person make.
Darlene wrote:
An MIT grad told me: “Ph.D. stands for Permanent Head Damage.”
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
David Bentley Hart is not that popular in Orthodox circles. Now, if you had mentioned Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Behr, Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Fr. Thomas Hopko, John Meyendorff, Gregory Palamas….to mention a few.
Velour wrote:
No!!!!
A BS degree is just like it sounds – Bull Sh*t
An MS degree = More Sh*t
PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper
@ roebuck:
Now that is funny.
Velour wrote:
“A nudnik is an idiot. A Phudnik is a nudnik with a Ph.D.”
— Every Goy’s Guide to Common Yiddish Expressions
Velour wrote:
When I was growing up, the JWs stuffed a lot of Watchtowers under our door. And I read anything that was in print.
Then there was that old Seventh-Day Adventist End Time Prophecy book from an unknown source.
And secondhand accounts of early Mormon history.
And the Moonies.
There was a common pattern in all their church histories.
And those “splinter churches” I was involved with in my Jr College also followed that pattern.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It occurred to me that the NeoCalvinists and the JW’s seem to have a lot in common (although maybe all of the groups do): They are “The Elect”.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
As the number of comments in this thread continues well into the 200’s, may I point out that I answered the question very early on.
Since all my beliefs are rooted in the Biblescribshers, my “opinions” are no opinions at all. They are not my words: rather, they are the very Word of God. Feel free to fellowship one another, therefore, but please don’t feel that you need to continue the discussion: I have settled it for you all. (No need to thank me: I do but carry out the will of GospelJesus™ and need no thanks but those of God.)
This being clear, you all need to obey and submit to me (and, in particular, give me lots of money) so that I can continue to be a ServantLeader™ to you. Donations can be sent to Advance the Gospel-Gospel Ministries of the Gospel, Panama.
BL wrote:
Yes. I call them mini-popes and have dealt with too many of them.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, it seems like a schism is about ready to erupt. You see we here across The Pond have started a competing ministry: Pound Sand Ministries. For a generous love offering, our *Truly Christian* (TM) donors will get a t-shirt from the PSM online gift shop, which I am in charge of.
Lydia wrote:
I’m done.
Velour wrote:
Velour, thank you for taking on the burden of the logistics of merchandising for the burgeoning Pound Sand Ministry–I cannot wait to see the full catalog. Perhaps the outer wear can be modeled outside the T4G conference. Millions to be made…
Are you by any chance affiliated with Advance the Gospel-Gospel Ministries of the Gospel, Costa Rica? Because I have already given generously to them.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
You are so welcome. In honor of our first catalog of mechandise, and online store, I thought “Sand” would be an appropriate theme. So I scheduled the photo shoot in Hawaii. I will need you to sign off on this paperwork, right here, so I can be gone for this *important* (TM) *ministry* (TM) *work* (TM).
roebuck wrote:
Is that associated with the Advance the Biblically Winsome Gospel-Gospel Ministries of the On-Fire Gospel, International?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Papa Chuck was fond of that one too back in the day.
BL wrote:
Ain’t gonna happen. Not on these shores. Not ever.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Which question are you referring to? There are no less than 40 questions in the OP
Paula Rice wrote:
I think Brother Nick is referring to the question embedded in the blog title “NeoCalvinists in Charge: Are They Creating a Divisive *Us versus Them* Church Culture?” He answered “Yes” early in the comment thread … subsequent comments confirm he was right.
Velour wrote:
Consider everything signed; do I get free samples?
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
Thanks for signing off on my *ministry* paperwork.
Yes, of course you get free samples. First product “Smashing the Patriarchy is my Cardio” t-shirt with leggings or yoga pants (a truly devilish outfit according to the NeoCalvinists).
@ Max:
You’re right, I see that now. But the real question is what’s happening at Roland Garros? And who will win Wimbledon? 🙂
Paula Rice wrote:
At the top of the page here, under the Interesting tab, the Cooking tab, months ago I copied Nick’s Yorkshire Pudding Recipe (and gave conversions for US chefs). Enjoy!
@ Darlene:
Thank you for your kindness. I may be in and out, up and down, but it is good to be back.
@ Velour:
Who puts flour in pudding? The British.
I’ll tuck that idea away for a winter’s day. With temps in the mid to upper 80° I’m more interested in a cold beverage right now!
(As long as it’s not tea. Hot or iced. Ghastly stuff. Simply horrid. Right up there with floured puddings.)
Paula Rice wrote:
Paula, I’m not even a Protestant, but I think you’re mistaken if you think Protestants believe that “the Bible created the Church.” The Church was birthed by Christ, through His shed blood on Calvary’s cross.
@ Darlene:
Have you considered that the Bible and Jesus are inseparable from one another?
Paula Rice wrote:
I have considered that. I believe they are seperable. Jesus is much more than the Bible. He is God in the flesh.
@ Bridget:
Where do you find error in the Bible? Do you not think the revelation of God to us as revealed in Scripture is insufficient?
Correction:
Paula Rice wrote:
If you’ve studied anything about Bible translations, plenty of people have changed the meanings of words used in the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew texts to further their own agendas. Comps did that with their version of the ESV Bible.
Where Paul says that a woman (singular) who is teaching about God incorrectly to one man and is to stop, listen, and learn correctly – we now have an admonition by some against ALL women (plural) teaching.
Young Earth Creationists have insisted that the earth is only 6,000 years old based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, even though the Hebrew word “Yom” that is used in the Bible in the creation story has about 58 meanings (including “a long time”).
In the King James version of the Bible, there are words like “submit”, which aren’t in the Greek texts. The translators, however, were subjects of a king with power.
There is a lot that must be understood about the Bible. Context, history, translations, Greek, Hebrew, cultures, politics, motives of translators, and the spirit with which God means to convey something to us.
Just needed to add a couple of anecdotes to chew on. Though I cannot verify the veracity of the story. I presumed then that the reformed authoritarian pastor who told me it was telling the truth, especialy since he believed John Macarthur was probably the greatest preacher in the US, and in weekly Bible studies they used Johnny Macs books and ‘preacher boys’ were encouraged to attend JM’S The Masters Seminary for formal theo training. And in sync with JM he believed in what is termed Lordship Salvation.
Anyhow in a conversation where he was defending ‘strong exegetical preaching’ (strong, verse-verse preaching with heavey emphasis on sin, since most congregants erroneously ‘just thought they were saved’) he told me how a guest at one of Grace Community Church’s serviceS told an elder that they really wanted to meet JM. After the service the elder motioned to JM and he walked over. At which time the elder said “Mr. ____, let me introduce you to the nicest man you will NEVER meet in the pulpit”.
IMO people such as that elder don’t just come up with that stuff. It is part of an ethos of arrogance that pervades the atmosphere of some of these churches.
I often think back to what my boyhood pastor told me when I told him I was going off to a fundamentalist Bible college. “Theo”, he said, “I’m not telling you to get hooked up with group of academics or Christian leaders who doubt everything, including the resurrection, I’m just saying that you really need to think because I have never seen a group of people who are so right about EVERYTHING!.
The Neo-CalS IMO including MacCarthur, Sproul, Grudem, et.al fit this latter category, and because of this, though I still attend a church about half the time, I now consider myself a ‘DONE’.
@ Velour:
You sound very knowledgeable. I’m not sure what you’re saying though. Perhaps you could school me some more.
@ Paula Rice:
I’m saying trust but verify [from other sources, including the Greek, Hebrew, historical contexts, etc.].
theoscrimshander wrote:
I completely agree with your old pastor and with your experience. I saw it myself in my former NeoCalvinist church, headed by a JMac The Master’s Seminary graduate. I have never met a more hateful, arrogant, un-educated, prideful bunch than that group. I am sure there are others. But yes, they think they’re “right” about every thing.
@ Velour:
Here’s my original question in response to Bridget that you included in your comment to me:
Have you answered either question?
If so, I’m not getting it.
@ Paula Rice:
Hi Paula,
Yes, there are errors in the Bible. I gave some specific examples. Some of the motives were for those errors were intentional and others were unintentional (such as difficulty translating some Greek words in to English with accuracy).
@Paula,
I apologize if I misunderstood your question. (Perhaps it was about Jesus, not about errors in the Bible as a whole.)
Velour wrote:
Didn’t the JWs do the same with their Watchtower Bible?
And don’t the Mormon creeds claim “The Bible, INSOFAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY”?
(“Correctly” apparently meaning “translated to agree with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon”?)
Paula Rice wrote:
The Alien Invaders in that Monty Python skit, of course.
“They’re changing Englishmen into Scotsmen. They mean to win Wimbledon.”
Muff Potter wrote:
I’m not surprised.
Velour wrote:
Are you talking about errors in interpretation and/or application? Or, are you saying the Bible itself, taken as a whole, is errant, and therefore not trustworthy?
If so, I’m not sure why you would say “trust but verify” in your comment at 01:04 am
Do you understand what I’m asking?
We’re dealing here with a very important distinction.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Correct, H.U.G., every group seems to have done it.
@ Paula Rice:
Perhaps if Gram3 reads your questions she could give you a more thorough explanation.
I use a variety of sources to check a Bible translation.
I think the greatest revelation that we have of ‘Who God Is’ is Jesus Christ, Himself. Why? Because He spoke and acted in the very Person of God.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (St. John 21:23)
Is it possible for a person, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to find their way to Christ using a Bible? Yes, I do believe this. The sacred Scriptures testify to Christ, but they are not Christ Himself.
The confusion may come from the many similar phrases we all use such as:
‘the Word’, ‘the Word of God’, ‘the Logos’, and ‘the Word made flesh’, ‘Body of Christ’;
and it is very, very important to understand what we mean when we use these terms and in what context we are saying them according to our various faith traditions, especially when dialoguing about Our Lord Himself, and the sacred writings that testify to Him. Dialoguing should be a sharing, and it should be done respectfully for one another.
. . . some thoughts
Christiane wrote:
Out of curiosity, did you happen to read the statement from the Board of Elders entitled “The Future Leadership at Bent Tree” that you can find on the blog in the Post, “Women Are Free to Serve Without Any Restrictions at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship”?
It’s a very good read. May I suggest you look it over if you haven’t already? Especially since one of the errors you listed had to do with what the Bible says about women teachers.
I think this is especially relevant. (It’s from the Appendix pages 16-17)
Hmm, not sure how that happened, but the above comment was intended for @ Velour:
Christiane wrote:
This contradicts John 1:1-3
@ Paula Rice:
“Are you talking about errors in interpretation and/or application? Or, are you saying the Bible itself, taken as a whole, is errant, and therefore not trustworthy?
If so, I’m not sure why you would say “trust but verify”
++++++++++++++
hi-ho, i’ll just step in here… perhaps velour means something similar to how I see it — we can embrace the bible as good and reliable as the story of God saying ‘yoo hoo, here I am’, and people beginning to respond. And the journey forward.
it is inspired as well as filtered through human minds & decisions, sometimes politically motivated. we can verify things like how the original intended audience would have understood it, who wrote what and when and for what purpose and what was happening in their life & their world at the time. We can verify things like how the canon came to be, what was the criteria, in translating why were certain words decided on (when there are numerous possibilities), and are there other reasonable alternatives (in other translations, perhaps).
it’s a mysterious book, not a textbook.
I get the most out of it when I read it with kind of blurred vision, so to speak. going for the big picture shining through. except for psalms — full focus there. I love the words, the imagery.
this is how I see it.
BL wrote:
I’ve held off for the same reason and totally agree with you, BL.
As I noted above, my husband was raised RC. We studied and read *a lot* before deciding to go elsewhere; the teachings of the church, the catechism, the Bible, etc. The RC church produces myriad good works and there are many wonderful, Christlike believers in the RC church. I value the Catholics who post here and appreciate hearing their input, they are brothers and sisters in Christ and if they love their church, more power to them.
On the other hand, we don’t go into the issues of the RC church here, so the conversation isn’t necessarily balanced.
I think the authoritarianism of the RC church is downplayed because, in our parts of the world, and in our time, it’s much more moderate than in other times and places. However, the authoritarianism, the spiritual hierarchy, is still certainly there.
My brother in law’s wife decided she didn’t believe in marriage anymore and deserted him. He later married my sister. The RC church, even all these years later (their children are all grown), refuses to grant him an annulment for that marriage, so they are not allowed to take communion. They are denied what the church considers a sacrament, a vehicle of God’s grace, by others who are in a place of authority above them.
There are issues that could be gone into, from lack of assurance to purgatory to priests mediating between God and man to coverups of pedophiles to a man who believes he stands in the place of Christ on earth and issues infallible decrees on matters of doctrine, and, well, I could go on, but there is no point. As we know, the evangelical church is filled with serious issues of its own.
In my opinion, it is an error to give spiritual authority to human beings, to create a spiritual hierarchy, to grant that hierarchy any kind of real power over believers’ lives. I’ve come to the point of seeing every organized religion as an illustration. They each have their good works and they have their dark sides. And in the midst of them all are sincere believers who know and love Jesus Christ.
The beauty of the true church, the invisible, spiritual church which is made up of all true believers, is that we have fellowship in the Son and someday we will all rejoice together with Him.
Sorry if this has gone off topic. Let’s each, protestant or Catholic, keep our eyes on Jesus, be aware of abuses, and be voices for good.
When the Bible is striped of it’s full authority as the Word of God, then the path becomes a very wide and dangerous one.
Jesus warned us in Matthew 7:13, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”
Catholics actively engage here while their Church and their faith goes largely unchallenged, despite the fact the RCC is the largest institution on earth that has for centuries enabled the worst case of systematic child sexual abuse in the history of mankind.
There’s clearly an imbalance here for some reason. Their beliefs seem to be afforded special protection when it’s their beliefs and their Church that has caused the most harm, bar none. The abuses that have happened among the Neo-Cals, that the blog is singularly obsessed with, is a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to what has happened in the Roman Catholic Church.
Yet child abuse is a hill to die on here. Go figure.
Someone had to say it.
@ Paula Rice:
Christiane said: “The sacred Scriptures testify to Christ, but they are not Christ Himself.”
Paula said: “This contradicts John 1:1-3”
++++++++++++++++++
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
word = logos = spoken word (to be simplistic about it)
the way I see it, I don’t see how these verses could be intended to associate Jesus with the written word, something being written down. especially since the bible didn’t exist then.
more of how I see it:
-jesus existed in some form prior to it all being collected down into DNA & a human embroyo.
-creation was spoken (let there be light, etc.) and apparently it happened through him. in fact, he was the spoken word.
-I tend to think Jesus’ pre-human state was something like the essence or substance of the creative words which God uttered. the creative agent. God (the father) spoke the words, God (the son) was the creative reverberating power in the words (the sound, & more), generating all the elements and matter and organizing it all together into planets, sprouting flora, fauna, etc.
-but this is surely all speculative ideas in the fog. I think to John it was also blurry understandings of something inherently fantastically transcendent, impossible for humans to grasp and defying true & accurate human description.
@ elastigirl:
Besides John being “in the fog” and “fantastically transcendent” let’s not forget the Saul/Paul doll illustration you’ve used before.
@ Paula Rice:
no one denomination, church, Christian system, be it protestant, catholic, eastern orthodox, has it all down right.
there are many methods, approaches, perspectives. all have elements of validity and all have invalid craziness. everyone’s sort of on track with some things, and way off the deep end on other things.
I think God understands how difficult it is for us humans to put it all together. i don’t think he requires strict adherence to method, approach, perspective. i think this is what counts:
“you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
if not, heaven will be a lonely place, for sure.
@ Paula Rice:
john isn’t fantastically transcendent, it’s jesus and everything about jesus that is. your comment confuses me. you sounding bitchy, it’s starting to bug me.
Paula Rice wrote:
Paula, I’m going to wade in here. I think the issue lies with the belief that the Bible is The Word of God. Nowhere within the Bible does it refer to itself as that. John 1 is referring to Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist as we have it when John wrote his account of the Gospel. In the Psalms, David refers to God’s word often. He could not have been referring to the Bible as most of it hadn’t been written yet. I believe he was referring the the actual words God spoke to him, directly and through the prophets. When Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is God inspired and good for instruction, etc., he would not have been referring to his own writing, which comprise the bulk of the New Testament. I believe the Bible is a written account of God’s progressive revelation of himself to man for the purpose of leading us to Him. The Bible is not a part of God, it is an account of mankind’s relationship with God. It took me a while before I could remove the Bible from the divine pedestal that I had been taught it belonged on. And finally, I have come to the place where I belive that the Bible is not sufficient in and of itself. It is ink on pages without the Spirit of God bringing understanding and life into it. It has been modified and tweaked and adjusted so much over the millenia that is not inerrant. I have a copy of a Bible that actually states in one of the footnotes concerning a passage in I think 2 Kings, that the discrepancy in this verse compared to its corrisponding verse in 2 Chronicles is a “know error.”
I know how dangerous it feels to let go of viewing the Bible as part of the Godhead. But I have come to the place where I believe that the branch of evangelicalism that has elevated the Bible to being equal to Jesus has not followed that through to the place of realizing they are worshipping a book – something created – as equal with the Creator.
As to the passage in Matthew 7 that you reference, I believe Jesus is talking about following Him – the Way, the Truth, and the Life – rather than following a list of man made rules and do’s and don’ts. I believe the narrow way is the way of Life – choosing Life, daily, progressively, through a lifetime of learning His ways – ways that cannot be learned solely from a book.
Paula Rice wrote:
I was referring to the question in the title of the post (Are [NeoCalvinists] Creating a Divisive “Us versus Them” Church Culture?”). By_Gods_Grace™, I was able to give a definitive answer to this.
@ Max:
Sorry, Brother Max, I missed your reply there. You’re quite correct, and as you rightly said, God confirmed his words by the signs that followed.
#AreWeHavingFunYet?
@ Paula Rice:
There are no innocents in history. The religion I was raised in came about due to a king’s fit of pique. The purpose of the blog (anyone can jump in & correct me here) is dissecting Christian trends. One of those trends is hyper authority out of which many issues arise. The most egregious of which is child abuse. Indicting one faith or belief system is counterproductive. And yes, Catholics are Christian.
@ Paula Rice: When the Bible is applied with it's full authority, people die. Honest question that no Christian has ever satisfactorily answered. Did the loving God genocide the people of Jericho to last man,woman,child and apparently animal? No chance at repentance,no forgiveness,no mercy. They just happened to be on his chosen land. Or is it an account of bronze age warfare highlighting a brutality that we are trying leave behind as a society? Many ways to read the Bible. Oh and let's not forget (ed.) Leviticus & Deuteronomy. With all those penalty is death laws.
@ Jack:
Should have said “let’s not forget Leviticus & Deuteronomy…” small screen & big fingers
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I shall wade in alongside you, Jeannette. By the same token, nowhere does the Bible claim to reveal God perfectly to us, but instead repeatedly says that it cannot: no-one has seen God at any time, he dwells in unapproachable light, My face shall not be seen, etc etc. Whereas Jesus said: Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. All of which means that the Bible – the bits written before Jesus entered history, and the bits written after – points towards him but can never equal or replace him.
So, there’s the false equation that goes something like: the Bible is made of words inspired by God; when someone speaks solemnly about something then he is said to be giving his word; therefore the Bible is the word of God; Jesus is called the Word of God; therefore the Bible is Jesus.
Alongside this false equation, there’s a false antithesis which goes something like this: you must either deify the Bible to the point where you literally equate it with God and hold it to be God’s presence and self-revelation among us, displacing both the Holy Spirt and Jesus, or you have rejected scripture and consider it to be worthless, thereby rejecting God himself and his rule over your life.
“The key decision maker in keeping Yacyshyn in the pulpit is Bishop William Murphy, who is a vocal opponent of the Child Victims Act. Murphy believes the statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims should remain where it is, while many believe there should be no time limit on when a person can bring charges for child molestation.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/busted-catholic-diocese-with-history-of-cover-ups-caught-protecting-priest-accused-of-child-abuse/
Paula Rice wrote:
I did a bit of a study on this a while back and found there were refererences to “Scripture” or Law or named prophets in the NT.
The Word is referring to Jesus as God in John. “The word became flesh”.
This is probably one of the biggest misunderstandings in evangelicalism. Although I am not opposed to being proven wrong.
The pope announced last June he would be setting up a tribunal to investigate bishops who protected predators, but the tribunal hasn’t even been created yet.
The US Catholic church has poured millions of dollars over the past decade into opposing accountability measures for victims of clergy sex abuse.
Reformers have faced staunch opposition from business advocacy groups, the insurance industry, and, most publicly, the Catholic church.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/catholic-church-fights-clergy-child-sex-abuse-measures
Jack wrote:
This was my cousins experience in another country along with some bizarre superstitions that kept most people in line for centuries.
It’s why I don’t understand the need to defend any authoritarian system no matter how nice the head guy seems. I am sad it is about that.
As bishop of Ballarat between 1971 and 1997, Bishop Mulkearns facilitated the abuse of hundreds of kids by shuffling paedophile priests around the large diocese.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/child-sex-abuse-victims-outraged-over-catholic-church-plans-to-hold-memorial-mass-for-discraced-bishop-ronald-mulkearns/news-story/2e14267cdf4012a0fed528b9d8371112
The Catholic Church launches a PR campaign against pending bill HB 1947 in response to the increased momentum by child sex abuse victims and advocates to reform the statute of limitations.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/catholic-church-speaks-ou_b_10168928.html
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well said! One of the big problems I see with the YRR crowd is “Extreme Think.” They seem to have very little toleration for viewing issues along a spectrum. For example:
– The Bible is perfectly inerrant, or it is utterly untrustworthy.
– God specifically chooses exactly whom he will send to heaven and hell (“according to the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will”) with man having no ultimate choice, or man ultimately determines his own fate which makes man more sovereign than God.
– The earth was created six 24-hour periods about 6000 years ago, or everything was randomly formed with no design or forethought.
– Gender roles are as they teach them in complementarianism, or there are absolutely no meaningful gender distinctions.
– Etc. (this list goes on and on)
This type of thinking gets traction with the younger generations, which is probably why us older types are brushed off as irrelevant.
The big danger with this extreme think is what it does to people’s faith when they dig deeper. I’ve been told that seminary can be a faith-buster for young folks who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. When they learn about the messy process of canonization, that there is no authoritative Greek text of the NT, that the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity did not agree on what books should be included and rejected, that there are multiple scribal errors, that the writers left many passages somewhat ambiguous in the Greek, etc., their faith is hit hard. The question is not whether the Bible has been perfectly handed down to us, but whether or not it is good enough. The more I research this, the more I am believing that it is good enough and that the early church did a pretty good job of sorting out which writings to include and which writings to reject.
I think the point is that we are supposed to fix our eyes on Jesus, not the signs that point to him.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Good comment. An interesting comparison is how Muslims view the Quran. Do a search on “is Quran created or eternal” to see what I mean. At one point in Muslim history they were killing each other over the question of whether the Quran is created or eternal. That history should be a warning to us Christians. Should we be elevating the Bible to idol status in the way that the Quran has been in Islam? What are the implications?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/03/spot-n03.html?view=article_mobile
I was raised in a fundamentalist flavor, and the creation by “leaders” of these binary situations are very common….the posts below do a great job giving examples….While it makes for good arguements from the pulpit, it does not fit reality… For example, the trinity does not make “logical sense” … Does that mean it is wrong? Physical experiments show that an electron is both a wave and a particle…. Does that make “logical sense?”. Again, we could go on and on…. What it tells me is that there are limits to human reasoning…. But Fundamentalist/YRR need to have ALL the answers…. Goes with their need to be “in control/authoritarian”
I for one, realize there is great limits on my, and Mankinds, ability to understand things..
@ Ken F:
@ Ken F:
Ken F wrote:
There were earlier groups/men you might find interesting to research. The Waldensians (1100s), the Hussites (1300s), Wycliffe (1300s), Vigilantius (300s).
I love history, so have spent a lot of time reading about the history of the church over the years.
Also, a great source for reading is http://www.ccel.org/ – a vast amount of material, all for free! 🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In exchange for my ‘financial’ gift, will you be sending me a ‘prayer bat’ (cricket, of course) as a thank you for my contribution?
🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes. How could a book, even a divine inspired one, contain all there is to know about God? A verse that I get reminded of every time this topic comes up is Isaiah 45:5. I prefer the Message wording…
“So to whom will you compare me, the Incomparable? Can you picture me without reducing me?” No method (including the Bible) is adequate to fully represent God.
@ Ken F:
Precisely. Making an idol out of a book leads to all sorts of complications.
I know for me, one of the things that was hard to let go of was the certainty that we had it all figured out. It is actually much more peaceful to live I the knowledge that I DON’T have it figured all out and neither does anyone else.
Paula Rice wrote:
Would that include every single translator throughout history as inerrant? What about the books left out? I do sometimes wonder about Shoshana being left out. It is basically about treacherous leaders and a very wise young woman. Was the Canon formation inerrant? What about word meaning changes from history? What about translations due to political consideration like the KJV? And so on.
Even asking such questions is seen as totally dismissing scripture altogether. That breaks my heart!
The problem is binary thinking when it comes to Scripture which either dismisses it totally or turns it into a magic book that saves.
Why can’t it be an incredible collection of books passed down from oral tradition to written stories and accounts of God’s provision of Rescue for mankind? Within these books are all sorts of ancient literary devices of communication. Especially the OT use if hyperbole.
But the overarching theme: Gods Rescue. People were “inspired” to document it in their way and time, is most likely.
Muff Potter wrote:
I would hope so, but it won’t be from lack of trying.
Variations of Gothard’s materials have and are being used in public schools, prisons, police training, cities.
Google Cities or City or Communities of Character – these are local governing bodies that have bought and are disseminating Gothard’s “Life Principles”.
Some states have made it mandatory in schools.
Most people have no idea that this insertion into the secular world has happened. I had to renew my driver’s license the other day, and hanging on the wall was a Character First poster.
The NAR ‘apostles’ & ‘prayer warriors’ have managed to arrange meetings with several national political nominees, in which (among other things) they lay hands on the nominee and pray for them. I would hazard a guess that they have managed to partner up with even more political candidates at the local and state level.
There are several ‘streams’ of religious dominionism (as varied as Wagner & Rushdoony) who think they have a mandate from God to establish His kingdom on earth.
Under their benevolent rule, of course…
.
BL wrote:
I think I see why we were talking past each other. Technically, all Protestant traditions come from the Protestant Reformation, which was kicked off by Luther. This is why I wrote that Protestants have a rich history of Catholic bashing. The other important movements you mention are not technically “Protestant” since they came before the Protestant Reformation. But this might be an irrelevant point for this discussion since both Huss and Wycliffe also called the Pope the Antichrist. So I guess that means the rich tradition is not just a Protestant monopoly.
Thanks for the link – looks like a great resource. Here is another link that I’ve found interesting: http://www.christian-history.org/index.html.
siteseer wrote:
^^^ This.
This is what I also discovered in the different churches and different denominations I have experienced.
After several days in an ICU waiting room which contained different races, different denominations, different ages, different genders – I am sure that we could have spent the time arguing doctrinal differences.
Instead, we spent time praying for each other, praying for our family members recovering or dying, sharing Scriptures that had ministered to us, crying with each other, just listening & just talking, serving coffee and snacks – Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Vineyards, non-denoms.
As you said, ‘fellowship in the Son.’
siteseer wrote:
A friend of mine, her former husband, and their 3 children were Catholic. The husband physically abused my friend quite often. The last time, he beat her so badly that she had to be hospitalized. Before she was released from the hospital, she got a restraining order against him. Then, when she was released, she requested and was denied an annulment. So, she filed for divorce. The RCC excommunicated my friend, but they didn’t have any problem with her husband beating her to a bloody pulp.
My first husband was Catholic. He hadn’t attended mass in years (neither had his mother), yet his mother was insisted that we “had” to be married in an RCC church, or our marriage would not be recognized by the RCC. The priest was rude, condescending, and disrespectful towards me; everything had to be done his way; all I was allowed to do was sit and listen to the priest tell me what to do. The mother was 100% behind the priest. I finally said, “Fine! Just Let me know what time to be at the church!”, and walked out the door.
Last week, I found out that the priest who conducted my first husband’s funeral is being investigated for statutory rape accusations.
I know some good Catholic people, but I have no respect for the institution itself.
Ken F wrote:
It is funny how we tend to forget the Reformation was about “reforming” the Catholic Church. The 95 Theses were mainly about indulgences.
It’s not like the Reformers had a problem with most of the Catholic structure. They wanted that kind of power themselves. The Princes/Electors wanted the religious power. That is the main reason Luther succeeded at all instead of being burned. He eventually had protection.
The Radical Reformers, for the most part, had a problem with both the authoritarian structure and Doctrine.
@ BL:
And you have the other end where Western countries allow Sharia courts to operate under the guise if religious freedom. The religious tax exemption is for all religions. Even ones that subjugate women, keep them from inheritance and so on.
Very tricky scenarios are coming our way. Are we prepared for these conversations?
I was taught by fundies that such “fellowship” was WRONG….. In reality, I think what you talk about below is true fellowship, and the leaders that rail against it are threatened that such “fellowship” will take away their own “power/correctness/righteousness”…. That is why the more “cult like” they become, the more they want to isolate you from anyone that is not one of them…… The irony is that if this cult-like leaders really preached the true way, why do you need to isolate the pew peons?
BL wrote:
I was writing in an email to friends last night about my current extracurricular activities in Scottsdale regarding Mark Driscoll and was wrapping up with a thought that there are days when I just want to say, “Not my circus, not my monkeys,” when I had this depressing realization. And it’s this: If the church won’t deal decisively with the sexual abuse of children within its orbit, then why on earth should I expect that the church would deal decisively with people like Mark Driscoll? Why should I expect that?
Speaking of Driscoll, I was out there yesterday. There were 68 cars (with a 69th turning in as I was heading to the freeway). So, if we use the *generous* figure of six people per car, he had 414 in attendance yesterday. I rather believe that was high, because not every couple has four kids and there were more than a few people who were by themselves, including the guy with Bible and carpet samples in hand.
I also talked to a couple and their two daughters yesterday. I am going to rant here. They wanted to know my religious beliefs and I absolutely refused to discuss them, because I am out there for secular reasons: Driscoll is a plagiarist and has refused to account for misappropriated funds and his teachings on women have real-world effects on marriages. Well, as nice as these people were (and they were nice), they were quite judgmental of me and said, “Well you’ve answered the question” (as in, “you’re an unbeliever”). They absolutely expected me to be forthcoming with my religious beliefs. Folks, I’m an introvert. I absolutely hate calling people on the phone unless I know them real, real well. I surely am not going to volunteer information about my “it’s complicated” relationship with Christianity to a couple of strangers. And, as I said above, I’m not out there because I disagree with Driscoll’s religious beliefs (although I probably DO disagree on many points). I have tried to strictly go the secular route in pointing out why people should give Driscoll a close look before devoting their time, money and talents to propping up his massive ego.
And yeah, after that encounter and after explaining that I was out there because of Driscoll’s unfinished Seattle business, and getting that response from the couple, I was really thinking, “Man, not my circus, not my monkeys.” But I’ll be out there next Sunday, I’m sure.
@ Muff Potter:
But it is happening on other shores.
@ mirele:
You are a trooper!
I totally agree with you on their insistence upon knowing your beliefs. It is a deflection and one they use to make you the big sinner so they don’t have to think. It’s what they all do even subconsciously to reframe the conversation.
What ever happened to basic right and wrong?
@ Velour:
We can even go back to Genesis 3 and the translation of teshuqa from turning to desire by a monk named Pagnino in the 1300’s. Some claim the word change is better. Others claim it reframes the meaning of ‘turning from God to Adam” and adds a sexual dimension that does not belong.
BL wrote:
Ah, the Waldensians….Calvinists before Calvin…..wrote a paper on the Waldensians who immigrated to Uruguay in the 1850s….I wonder if I still have that paper someplace?
Lydia wrote:
Yeah, the ” insistence upon knowing your beliefs” is a trap. Just looking for a way to ” make you a heathen.’ They have already made up their minds on the topic. Totally blind on the subject.
Bridget wrote:
Paula Rice wrote:
I don’t understand why you are asking if I have found error in the Bible? That is a separate issue from what you originally asked.
As to your second question, “Do you not think the revelation of God to us as revealed in Scripture is sufficient?” Sufficient for what would be my question to you.
I don’t believe the bible saves anyone. Jesus can bring men and women to himself without them ever having laid eyes on, or heard words from the bible. I don’t believe the bible is equal to Jesus. The bible is sufficient for teaching and reproof about the things of God. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The bible is not.
I agree with you about the Catholic church and it’s abuses throughout history. Unfortunately, the Protestant church has not proceeded without the same abuses. It has just had less time to perpetuate it’s forms of hierarchy and abuse.
@ Bridget:
This is a response to Paula Rice.
Bridget wrote:
This is true. Unfortunately this thread has gone off topic from Christian trends to “who’s denomination is worse”. It’s circular reasoning. Go back far enough & everyone has wronged someone. Christians have always been fractious. Peter & Paul had their moments of disagreement. I think it’s time to put this one to bed. See you at the next post!
Nancy2 wrote:
I know of a number of similar situations myself. I have not kept up with how it may be changing today but the traditional Catholic view of women has been very alike to the comps, and was rife with domestic abuse. My husbands grandma, devout Catholic, was an abused woman. Her husband eventually deserted her for a younger woman leaving her with 3 children to raise. She never remarried- because that would have been “sin.”
My own father was raised Catholic. Something happened to him in the church as a young man that caused him to become an atheist, some kind of betrayal that left him with great bitterness, something that he would never even discuss.
My only point is, let’s resist the idea that the grass is greener in a different authoritarian system than it is in the one we were hurt by. The dynamics of control are universal and they cause just as much harm in one system as in another.
Those individuals who have found a church where they can worship God, be a part of fellowship with others, and feel safe- I envy them. My happiest times were the few short years I belonged to a healthy church. After all I’ve been through and all I’ve come to know about, I just don’t believe I could ever come to feel safe in a church again.
@ mirele:
hi, mirele. I always pay attention to your comments. you’re a champ. and i’ll add my 2-cent agreement — what does one’s religious party affiliation have to do with taking a stand on stark wrong and right?
(you see, 2 “yeah, what she said!”s wasn’t enough, it definitely needed me to make it 3)
i’m just struck & very annoyed by the scheming & disingenuous-ness of the couple you talked with. they were pleasant and smiley, weren’t they.
mirele wrote:
You have my admiration. I’d be curious about what religion they are consuming that they need to get it from a snake oil salesman.
Paula Rice wrote:
If Gram3, Brad/FuturistGuy, Lydia, Max and others read this…do you know the history of this statement made in American Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity? What man started it, era, etc. It is not in all Christian denominations in U.S. churches and it hasn’t always been around. Thanks.
@ Paula Rice:
Thanks for posting information from Bent Tree’s church in TX.
Nancy2 wrote:
Whether religion, politics, or just trying to do good in the world, once an idea becomes institutionalized, after a short time the institution itself supplants the idea it was created for. Instead of furthering the cause, the goal is subverted into furthering the institution. And this is before it may get hijacked by an NPD and then things really go crazy.
So I’ve read this blog for a while but have never commented. The comments towards the end of this are a bit disturbing, and I’m just wondering, if Jesus is not the Word of God then where is the basis of your beliefs? If the bible is not our “roadmap” then we can make up whatever doctrine we want, can we not?
Jesus is the answer to all the abuse, He is the ONLY way out of the damage that has been done in the church! Just my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
@ Bill M:
nice and succinct, there.
Paula Rice wrote:
Catholic Church child sex abuse cases have been covered for decades by another organization called S.N.A.P. (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). They are a nation-wide organization and quite active and do a fantastic job.
Child sex abuse cases in conservative evangelical churches have now exceeded those in Catholic Churches, according to the insurance companies that insure churches, and the
lawyers who write about it (Church Law & Tax website).
I am glad that The Wartburg Watch covers this tough subject.
“Yes, it was individuals who committed infanticide, fratricide, patricide, matricide and just about every kind of murder that can be imagined by the most depraved of minds, but, they did so with the blessing of the Church’s hierarchy, and within the framework of a murderous, hateful ideology, conceived and nurtured within the institution of the Church.
Any study of colonial era power structures in Rwanda, and throughout the twentieth century, until 1994, will find an inextricable link between the Catholic Church, and the state.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/201605300205.html
Jack wrote:
I agree. The Open Discussion (tab on the right) is for those topics so the thread isn’t derailed.
@ Velour:
Agreed. Please move the "whose denomination is worse" debate to the "Open Discussion" section of the blog. Thanks!
Lydia wrote:
In the U.S. there are a variety of laws, from community property states to Probate laws, that supercede religious beliefs. While sincerely held religous beliefs are generally protected under the First Amendment, that doesn’t extend to all realms. And in the U.S. there are also important tax reasons to follow the inheritance laws, such as including ones spouse, to protect an estate from taxation.
Paula Rice wrote:
One of my more recent issues with the Bible is that a lot of Christians, even those who purport to believe in sola scriptura, cannot agree with what parts of the Bible means.
Christians read basically the same text (that is, the different Bible versions, which can and often are translated from the translating committee’s doctrinal, denominational, and personal biases), but they walk away with wildly differing opinions on what that text means or says.
Such as, is it okay to baptize babies, or should only confessing adults be baptized?
Is speaking in tongues for today or did it cease years ago? (cessation debate)
Is God okay with women being preachers, or not?
Will “the Rapture” happen before, during, or after the Tribulation?
Does humanity have full free will or not (Calvinism vs Arminianism)
And on and on it goes. Christians cannot even agree on what the text says.
Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/unpublished-being-biblical-means-being.html
I am not meaning to get into the “debating who has the worst denomination” thing here per se, all I will say here on anything related to that is…
I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic “solution” to the issue, which is to declare one body (i.e., the magisterium) to supposedly have the final say-so in how to authoritatively, once- for- all, interpret the Bible or parts of it. I don’t think that is a wise, doable, or good solution, either.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The first half of that is actually true.
Lower textual criticism is used to reconstruct the readings that were in the autographs (which we no longer have). But the original readings can be put together by compiling and studying all the surviving biblical manuscripts.
Paula Rice wrote:
The usual position is that Bible translations / versions are accurate in so far as they follow the underlying Greek / Hebrew manuscripts.
Some Bible versions have a more literal word- for- word translation process, while other Bible versions opt for a more “meaning- for- meaning” sense.
(You can do a web search for Dynamic vs. Formal Equivalence regarding Biblical translations to learn more about that.)
Sometimes, people who work as translators on a Bible version filter their word choices -in how to translate from Greek or Hebrew into English- through their biases.
There are examples on this issue on various site on various topics.
By and large, you can trust most English-based translations, they pretty much accurately follow the underlying source languages, but you should be aware that some of them might contain biases held by the translators in some places on some topics.
@ Paula Rice:
I don’t see how it contradicts that verse you cited.
Jesus Christ is referred to as “the Word of God,” but he is not a literal stack of paper with printed ink on it, nor is he a papyrus scroll.
Jesus once likened himself to a narrow gate (Matthew 7:13) and a vine (John 15:5).
I don’t think he meant for us to take this hyper-literal, in assuming that he is actually a chain link fence or a plant.
Some Christians do turn the written word into a deity of sorts. King James Version Onlyists are notorious at this.
Let me see if I can find a copy of that drawing by KJVO Peter Ruckman, the one with the gold crown on top of a KJV.
Here’s a small copy of that drawing:
https://davidjosephhorn.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1611kjvcrown1.jpg?w=614
Deb wrote:
The most interesting part of this digression is how it so well illustrates the main point of this particular topic – the tendency to create an “us” vs “them” division. When it’s done in the name of God it can have devastating effects. Even more so when church institutional leaders can get the government in on it. Ironically, the tile of this post creates the same division: “Them” is the NeoCals and “Us” is the non-NeoCals.
John 17:20-21: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
It’s so easy for us to fall into the trap that our doctrinal “distinctives” (another new buzz word) will convince the world that Jesus came for us. But this Christian unity is hard stuff…
Paula Rice wrote:
Even under churches whose members claim to take the Bible as being the full authority of God – they disagree with other churches who hold that position.
Churches who subscribe to a very high view of the Bible never the less sometime cover up child sex abuse, or refuse to show grace to women who are being abused by their husbands.
I am not fully accepting of the liberal Christian position on the Bible, please understand, but folks who are conservative and who say they totally respect the Bible and take it literally also have their own set of problems – that believing in the Bible does not rectify.
@ Velour:
I’ll try to move this back on-topic. I have no idea of the origin of the idea of the sufficiency of Scripture. It has, actually, different meanings depending on who uses it. A long time ago in an evangelicalism far away, it meant that the Bible contains all that we need to know in order to believe in Jesus and be saved. Sometimes that was used to counter the RCC or the EO churches, and sometimes it was used to counter extra-canonical charismatic revelation.
I have been in or reasonably near the SBC my entire somewhat long life, and it is only since about the 70’s that the term began to drift in the direction of meaning “the Bible plus nothing” is all we need to know whatever we need to know, at least in the SBC I’ve been in contact with. It is my understanding that these ideas are quite common in the IFB and others, however.
The idea that the Bible is a textbook on everything is probably a reaction against ideas that the Bible is nothing important or significant. So we get overly elaborate accounts of how God created everything from some creationists. And we get ideologies like Jay Adams’ nouthetic counseling which is, pardon my French, bullfeathers. It is a curious and ungrateful response, in my opinion, to God’s common grace visited upon us in the form of modern medicine and technology and, frankly, ways of thinking that are based on reason rather than superstition, whether the superstition is religious or “non-religious.”
Curiously and probably not coincidentally, we have a new priestly class who treats the Bible much like a book of magic. There is a young person we know who is in a marriage with an extremely mentally ill spouse. Church people in *two* different conservative denominations have said that they both need to pray more and meditate on the Bible’s instructions for marriage. No need to consult highly-skilled and experienced professionals. I. Am. Not. Kidding.
IMO, that is an abuse of the Bible in that it makes the Bible something that it is not about at all. It is not a handbook or a reference text. And I say that as probably one of the most conservative commenters here.
And, in this thread, we are talking about one boisterous stream of New Priests who are strident and insistent that the Bible tells us all that we need to know and that *they and they alone* will tell us what the Bible says and means. Bereans are neither necessary nor beneficial. Practically speaking, that means that they are not teaching the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture but rather the doctrine of the Sufficiency of the New Priests. And that is not the same thing at all.
But my experience is not universal.
Paula Rice wrote:
I’m not going to debate Catholicism here per se, but if it makes you feel any better, I will say this much:
Over a year ago, some guy came by this blog who said he converted to the RCC because he had been deeply hurt by Protestant churches.
I didn’t have much to say about that; that was his choice, and that’s fine. I wasn’t going to argue him out of his RCC membership.
What got my goat is that the guy began taking numerous, pretty hostile pot-shots at all of Protestantism in general and also started criticizing some beliefs particular to Protestantism.
I challenged him pretty hard on that stuff. (I think he stopped visiting this blog for whatever reason.)
I just try not to argue about RCCism in and of itself when I stop by this site. I just didn’t care for that one guy’s extreme anti-Protestant commentary and regular Protestant-bashing.
Bill M wrote:
I really like that. 🙂
Jeannette Altes wrote:
LOL. Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.
“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures?”
https://bible.org/seriespage/father-son-and-holy-scriptures
ibelieve wrote:
What does that mean in concrete terms “Jesus is the answer to all the abuse”? At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marxist church, the pastors/elders brought in their friend a convicted Megan’s List sex offender/child pornographer, gave him church membership, gave him a position of leadership, gave him access to all church events (including ones in which parents brought their children such as Bible studies), invited him to volunteer for 5-days at a summer basketball camp the church put on…and the pastors/elders told no one. The pastors/elders told me in a meeting that their friend the convicted sex offender had “believed in Jesus” and was therefore “all better” (like a magic wand, like Christian pixie dust). The fact is that many predators come to church, know the manipulative Christian language to use, and use it to get access to more children to abuse.
I believe that comprehensive child safety policies should have been put in place:
*LifeScan fingerprinting/background checks for all who work with children (to identify those with convictions although many sex predators have not been caught)
*Rules prohibiting any adult from being alone with a child(ren) and multiple adults and being with children in activities.
*Ministry to sex offenders apart from the normal congregation. Vetting the sex offender with their supervising law enforcement agency, understanding their conviction(s), what’s expected of them, weaknesses, any therapist that they’re seeing for treatment should be included in the discussions.
*Glass windows to all classrooms so that everything can be observed.
*Unused rooms (closets, etc.) locked at all times so no one can use them to abuse a child.
*Monitors patrolling hallways and bathrooms.
*No adults permitted to spend time alone with children, including giving them rides.
*And lots of other child prevention protocols available from the major insurance companies for churches, such as Church Mutual, G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), Church Law & Tax’s website and information.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes, and there’s some kind of verse about “we see through a glass darkly now but in the future we will see clearly” (my paraphrase based on memory).
—–
I hope everyone (well, my fellow Americans) is having a good Memorial Day holiday today. Though it might be really rainy in some parts of the country today. 🙂
@ Paula Rice:
I think most everyone here is aware that there have been a lot of child sex abuse cover ups among the Catholic Church.
This blog did a series of posts about Roman Catholic child abuse cover ups, as a matter of fact, under their posts about the movie “Spot Light”.
Also, many months ago, after I posted a link by a Roman Catholic-sponsored site where the Catholic guys were saying girls should not go to college but only stay at home, marry, and have children, Deb and Dee did a post on that group a day or so later, calling them out on their kooky beliefs (which are similar to Protestant and Baptist gender complementarians).
I think a ton of media attention has been focused on child abuse and its cover-ups in the Roman Catholic Church for the last few decades-
To the point it has been very common for years now, in comment sections on news sites on religious stories, some Protestants and anti-theist atheists casually broad-brush all Catholics or priests as being child abusers…
But in the meantime, a lot of child abuse is also going on in and among Protestants and Baptists, yet, Protestant and Baptist Christians rarely acknowledge it, and it does not get anywhere near as much media coverage as the Roman Catholic scandals.
It’s probably easier for a child molester to hide out among Baptist churches these days than it is for a child molesting guy to hide out among Roman Catholic Churches.
Whether popular or not, he makes a good case vs FMG’s bigoted polemic IMHO. 😉
Darlene wrote:
@ Paula Rice:
Here is a news story about one or more Baptist ministers who were arrested for human sex trafficking (some cases involved children):
32 arrested in human trafficking sting operation, 2 pastors charged with trafficking
http://wate.com/2016/05/20/tbi-conduct-knoxville-human-trafficking-investigation/
Snippets:
———–
May 20, 2016
A children’s pastor at Grace Baptist Church and a volunteer creative pastor at Lifehouse Church in Oak Ridge were charged with trafficking
….Two of the men arrested were charged with tracking. Both were pastors.
TBI said Grace Baptist Church’s children’s pastor, Jason Kennedy, responded to ads for what he thought were girls under the age of 18. Grace Baptist’s website lists Kennedy as a pastor for birth through fifth grade.
@Siteseer — a fellow Wodehouse fan…woohoo!! He stands alone.
Daisy wrote:
Catholic Quiverfulls.
I’ve run into a couple here and there.
Daisy wrote:
Especially if he’s Pastor’s Pet.
“I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOORD, THAT *I* AM NOTHING LIKE THOSE FILTHY PERVERTED ROMISH PAPISTS OVER THERE….”
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks Gram3. I thought that this phrase started being used in the 70’s as well. Perhaps a group of us can research the origin of it.
I saw the incredible damage that dumb and dangerous men (pastors/elders), uneducated, untrained, unlicensed did via this form of “counseling”. They arrogantly ran their mouthes about things they had no training to handle and got it wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything from not getting an older woman alcoholic to a physician to guide her care to not getting a dyslexic with acute short-term memory problems to medical care…and on and on. Endless meetings and scripture verses that got no-where, were pointless, off-track, wrong, and ultimately did damage to people that needed medical care, their families, their relationships, and to church members.
So true. They are arrogant.
Yes, it’s quite common for them to be subjected to being threatened by pastors/elders, lied about to church members, and excommunicated for “not being one of us” for having an iota of critical thinking skills.
Spot on.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Certain interpretations of sola scriptura can be dangerous, such as the chuckle-heads who think Scripture by itself can and should used alone to treat stuff like P.T.S.D., depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, or domestic violence.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
That’s pretty much my position currently.
@ Gram3:
I found this article:
http://www.redletterchristians.org/the-bible-isnt-perfect-and-it-says-so-itself-innerancy/
and a link in the above article to this (while not my favorite reference tool, it is a starting point): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy
Thank you, Daisy!!!
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
I’m still campaigning for the use of Pew Potatoes rather than “pew peons.”
Because the phrase visualizes for me the scene of well-dressed spuds sitting in church pews with Mr. and Ms. Potato Head like noses and eyes. 🙂
@ mirele:
I for one appreciate your efforts. I bet you anything you are raising Driscoll’s blood pressure at least a little bit.
I think that couple you were speaking with are still inside the Christian-y Bubble.
I don’t think your religious beliefs or lack there-of are altogether relevant to whether or not Driscoll is a dishonest, arrogant, sexist weasel, so they should have been more willing to hear you out.
I do see your Driscoll updates here or on other sites, and I don’t usually chime in to say anything, but I do sit there grinning when I see them, I find them informative, and I appreciate what you’re doing.
Daisy wrote:
I would not be so sure. There is some concern not all predator priests were outed. Another concern is the backlash within the church over the horrible publicity. Die hard defenders could actually protect problems within. Anyway, this is what I am hearing from Catholics who were engrossed in working with victims in the early days.
These authoritarian top/down systems are a hill for some to die on to protect and defend whether Protestant or Catholic.
Daisy wrote:
I’m not sure that people who espouse Sola Scriptura have thought it through. For example:
1. It’s a self-defeating statement because the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura. So if we really believe it, we have to reject it.
2. The Bible does not say how the OT and NT canons were developed. One could argue for the OT from the basis of Sola Scriptura because Jesus affirmed all of the books of the OT. But nowhere in the Bible do we find a list of NT books. Those books were formed into the canon of the NT by the early church based on church tradition. So based on Sola Scriptura, we would have to reject the NT. And we would likewise have to reject the OT.
3. Teachers and authors who believe in Sola Scripture continue to develop commentaries, videos, sermons, and books. If they really believed in Sola Scriptura they would do nothing but read the Bible out loud.
4. People who listen to sermons, read books and commentaries, and listen to teachers, would reject all of these activities if they really believed in Sola Scriptura.
“Sola” is Latin for “only.” I’m thinking it was not the best word choice. But it makes for a nice buzz phrase.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I, too…
Gram3 wrote:
I know what you mean – prayer and Scripture are used like magic incantations.
They accept that a broken bone, a brain-damaging stroke, or a faulty endocrine system needs a doctor as well as prayer.
But it seems that they cannot accept that mental illness might be a physical and not just a spiritual problem.
Even though most adults are aware of the negative impact that a brain tumor, Alzheimer’s, traumatic brain injury, concussion, or drugs can have on personality.
People can’t ‘see’ that a pancreas is not producing enough insulin, initially all they can see are the external symptoms. People also cannot ‘see’ if brain chemicals or neural pathways are functioning properly, again what is seen are the symptoms.
But mental illness gives a percentage of churchianity the heeby-jeebies, because they either attribute it all to the demonic, to sin, or to a lack of effort.
But when it comes to mental illness –
Ken F wrote:
There you hit the nail squarely by the horns. No preacher believes in the sufficiency of scripture.
Daisy wrote:
I’m glad you get it, Mirele. Thanks for your wonderful efforts in AZ.
Even John Piper defended Mark Driscoll and thought the closing of Mars Hill was a loss for the Gospel and Piper called it “a Satantic victory”. Ohh puhhhlsssseee. It was an answer to prayer for many of us.
BL wrote:
I can certainly have an email explaining cricket sent to you and am confident that one of my unpaid skivvies will have personally prayed over it.
BL wrote:
As someone commented over on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board, these same men who say that the Bible is “sufficient” counsel for every problem, usually are wearing prescription eyeglasses for their own vision problems, not treating poor vision with Scripture verses.
In my opinion, that Jay Adams’ bunk that should be called what it is “practicing medicine without a license”, a felony in most states.
Lydia wrote:
I want to keep this kind of non-specific here to keep my identity a secret.
I applied for a job at a Christian- based organization not too long ago, for a full time professional position.
I have applied before for similar positions at other Christian-owned or based businesses and even at a church or two.
This one, though, was one of the few Christian places that asked some very nosy questions that were not relevant to the job.
I was asked on the internet job application if I knew Jesus as my savior, or if I drank, if I worked out, etc. etc.
I was not allowed to skip such questions; the internet application was rigged such that if you left those blank, the site would not permit you to go to the next page and complete and submit the form.
This particular position I was applying for has nothing to do with religion, or with how in-shape I may or may not be.
Now, it so happens that I do jog, bike, and walk regularly to stay thin. I don’t drink or do drugs.
I believed in Jesus when I was a kid.
But none of that stuff is pertinent to the skill set or career I’m in, or for the position for which I was applying at this place.
I cannot figure out why a Christian- based employer would give a rat’s rear end about that stuff, or why they think it’s their business.
I also thought it was illegal for employers to ask such questions they were asking of me on the form (or is there some exemption for Christian owned places??)
Even if I were a slobby, non-exercising, Richard Dawkins fan girl atheist, that has no bearing on whether or not I can do their job. I felt pretty miffed that I had to answer those questions to submit an application.
(I unfortunately live in an area that does not have too many jobs in my career field, so I cannot be too picky.)
About 4 months ago, conversely, I applied for the same type of job at a church (I don’t know if I should say what denomination).
Anyway, this church was great about it. They did not ask a single question on the internet job application -OR- in person (I interviewed with them at their offices in their church) about if I drink, smoke, believe in Jesus.
They did not care. They were strictly interested in my background in this career, which is, IMO, how it should be.
ibelieve wrote:
As a very wise (if, perhaps, catastrophically vain and egotistical) man commented upthread:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
What he said.
Paula Rice wrote:
You realize that Jesus Christ is the narrow gate –not scripture, right?
Here is why I have problems with the questions you were asking above. You do realize that for over at millennia the average person could not read and if they could they were not allowed to read scripture on their own. Everything was interpreted for them by a priest or such. Your view of scripture cuts out millions and millions of people from this for over a millennia. How can that be right?
Let’s go back further to the early church which included a lot of Gentiles. They had no access to the Old Testament Scriptures except what the Jewish converts told them. There was a lot of confusion which is one reason why I think the book of Romans was written dealing with all the questions that Gentile converts would have when the Jews who were banished from Rome were streaming back in including the converted c that Gentile converts would have when the Jews who were banished from Rome were streaming back again including the converted Jews.
Even the average Jew did not have scrolls in their dining room. They went to synagogue or temple to hear them read.
You are putting a lot of faith in a book that and millions and millions of Christians had no access to for over a millennia.
At the same time I believe it is a beautiful collection of books and I am grateful for those who wrote it down.
Daisy wrote:
Religious groups don’t have to adhere to the same anti-discrimination laws that non-religious do in hiring and firing. You can access some articles about this at the Church Law & Tax website (the rest of the content is for paid subscribers). The New York Times has also written extensively about this. Also there are employment lawyers who write about this.
Bill M wrote:
There are some Christians who have this attitude that even if you believe in Jesus, that if you don’t agree with them 100% on 100% of topics, you are a heathen.
Even had she told them she believes in Jesus as her Savior, if she never- the- less differed with them on, I don’t know, the the topic of, say, baptism (is baby sprinkling okay or should everyone do only adult baptisms?), they would’ve blown her off anyhow, most likely.
Cute
@ Daisy:
Velour wrote:
The “go to” statement on inerrancy for evangelicals is the Chicago Statement. It is an interesting read. The cognitive dissonance is interesting. With that said, I can go along with “Inspired” but find the word “inerrant” can’t mean what it means when they use it. It is one of those ‘redefinition of a word’ things for me.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
Lydia wrote:
Excellent post, Lydia. I thought the same thing about the illiterate who never had access to Scripture but were saved anyway. The thief on the cross, the woman at the well, the Canaanite woman.
If we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves than any person, without any education, can do those things.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ha ha! So true!
That was one thing I liked about the liturgical church we visited. They had people read aloud long passages with NO commentary!
Lydia wrote:
Hi LYDIA,
the ‘no tolerance’ model in any Church organization does need the reinforcement of civil authorities (grand juries) and news organizations to search out, confirm, and report any pockets of a religious organization denial or cover-up of actual abuse, and all cases of money paid to keep victims silent needs to be exposed publicly . . . that vigilance will always be needed because predators have found that certain jobs and places offer cover for their heinous activities. The latest in our area was sadly a school bus driver of a bus serving handicapped children. It doesn’t get much worse, but the mind-set of such predators allows them to seek out the most vulnerable in settings where no one would suspect or even think of the horror happening.
Daisy wrote:
Here is an article about military chaplains with PTSD and other emotional legacies of war:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/what-happens-when-the-military-chaplain-is-shaken-by-war/2016/05/29/4dd27dc8-237f-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Excerpt: “It’s normal to have nightmares, to cry when you listen to the news,” said [the Rev. John] Weatherly, a retired Army colonel who serves as rector at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Alexandria, has completed workshops on post-traumatic stress and now serves as a facilitator to others. “I know fear. I know what it’s like to be scared and yelling the 23rd Psalm at the top of my voice.”
I have volunteered with military chaplains, and some of them have cared for me when I was ill. They are oh so good at meeting people where they are spiritually, whether brimming with faith, seething with anger, stuck in doubt, immobilized by despair… They often ask permission before praying with a patient. This might at first seem out of place (Gee, padre, why do you think I called for you?), but two things happen as a result. First, the patient gets to control one tiny thing, maybe the only thing that he or she gets to control that week. Second, the patient gets to invite the chaplain’s prayers. So comforting, so unassuming, so restorative. So like Christ.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks, Lydia. Gram3 and I thought it was fairly recent. It was signed by 200 men (Jay Adams, Wayne Grudem, John MacArthur, to name a few) in 1978 at a hotel in Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think this is ok. What bothers me is the folks who scream “sola scriptura” the loudest are also seem to be ones who go the the furthest extremes in trying to explain their teachings. It looks like the early church relied heavily on what is now called “Holy Tradition.” They did not rely solely on the words written by the first apostles, but they also relied heavily on the oral traditions and practices of the earliest apostles. It seems like much of that early practice has been lost in background noise over the last 2000 years. I’ve looked a bit at Eastern Orthodox theology. What is very interesting about their theology is they never went down some of the paths that divided RCs and Protestants.
Velour wrote:
Avoid schism! I’m inviting Pound Sand to sell wares at my conference, with Nick as keynote speaker. Conference name tbd…
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
No! My conference! Mine! I’ll sell you the naming rights.
Friend wrote:
Is Pound Sand Ministries related to Pound Cake Ministries?
<
@ Daisy:
If they are a religious non profit they can. A Muslim non profit can demand women cover.
Be prepared for the “for profits” to start measuring BMI. It’s coming and we asked for it.
Lydia wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong here Lyds, but doesn’t the Chicago Statement deny the use of hyperbole as a valid literary device in Scripture?
@ Ken F:
I have a question for anyone who knows. Would the Russian Orthodox Church (pre Lenin) have been considered a variation of “Eastern Orthodox”?
Ken F wrote:
I think you are right about this. And what concerns me is that Mahaney is now formally SBC, thanks to his contribution$ to a certain SBC seminary. If you combine the ‘trying to explain the scriptures’ together with the SBC removal of Our Lord as the ‘lens’ through which sacred Scripture needs to be interpreted;
then that opens the SBC up to the total neo-Cal can of worms regarding ‘authority’ and ‘discipline’. Yes, I think you are right about extremism as fall-out from the people who yell ‘Sola Scriptura’ and then behave as though ‘Scriptura’ needs THEIR authoritative interpretation. Not good, this.
Ken F wrote:
Pound Cake Ministries (TM) is a para-church organization of Pound Sand Ministries (TM).
Lydia wrote:
Yes. It’s an interesting history that had roots in the breakup of the Roman Empire. Many of the links on posts in the open discussion and the “interesting items” tab refuting penal substitution and Calvinism are from various Orthodox sites. I was originally led to believe that they had a low view of the Bible, but now I am very impressed with how much they cite it in their arguments. And it seems to me that they have better interpretation than the Reformers.
Muff Potter wrote:
Article 13. And there is one on science…Article 12.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
Velour wrote:
So their sister ministries on the continent would be 453.6 Gram Cake Ministries (TM) and 453.6 Gram Sand Ministries (TM)?
@ Ken F:
I ask because I love Russian literature and some of it is very deep spiritually. I found that interesting considering the caste system.
@ Lydia:
@ LYDIA
my godmother’s family came from the Ukraine, and are Eastern-rite Catholics, not Orthodox separated from Catholicism. The term ‘Eastern Orthodox’ would include the Russian Orthodox Church, I believe. It did survive communism by much of it going ‘underground’ and it has re-emerged as a force for good in the East.
Might be good for Protestant people to examine the beauty and traditions of eastern Christianity. So much of faith shines forth from those who follow it. The writings of the Eastern Fathers of the Church offer some insight into that tradition.
Lydia wrote:
The Russian Orthodox Christians I knew from that era considered themselves to be Eastern Orthodox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Ken F wrote:
I need to defer to our fearless ministry founder, up the thread. I am simply in charge of online merchandise, marketing, and retail.
Friend wrote:
Did Nick make a generous “love offering” in order to be keynote speaker at your conference?
Ken F wrote:
A really interesting comment, Ken, which I’ve been pondering – hence the delay in replying!
Picking up, in particular, the bit about the faith of young black-and-white thinkers being hit hard when they discover a lot of complications they didn’t know existed. I think you’re right, and I wonder if – broadly speaking – there are two ways they can go from there. In the sense that, they can either grow, or remain immature.
On the one hand, they can take the hit on the chin, humble themselves, and really begin to learn. After a while, they have a faith that can respond to almost any situation they come across with grace, wisdom, compassion and love. Like Jesus when asked whether to pay taxes to Caesar, or whether an adulteress should be stoned, they somehow get to the heart of the matter without violating either truth or love.
On the other hand, they can harden their hearts, batten down the hatches, stop learning, and start judging. Quickly, they develop a faith that responds to almost any situation with clichés, cheap answers and a burgeoning list of excuses as to why it’s different when they “sin” (except they don’t, of course – you misunderstood them). Years later they have polished this into an art-form and appear erudite and learned.
There’s no fool like an old fool…
Christiane wrote:
One thing I especially appreciate about their theology is their acceptance of mystery. They don’t feel a need to explain it all.
Velour wrote:
Happy days! I feel a pseudo-denomination in the making here. What about calling ourselves “Together 4 the GospelGospel” – or, perhaps, “Leviticus 28”?
This is interesting:
Augustine Casiday states that Cassian “baldly asserts that God’s grace, not human free will, is responsible for ‘everything which pertains to salvation’ – even faith.”[37] Some other Orthodox, who do not apply the term “Semi-Pelagian” to their theology, criticize the Roman Catholics for allegedly rejecting Cassian, whom they accept as fully orthodox,[38] and for holding, as, in Casiday’s interpretation, that everything which pertains to salvation comes from God’s grace, and so that even the human consent to God’s justifying action is itself an effect of grace,[39] This position of the Roman Catholic Church and of Cassian as interpreted by Casiday is attributed by Eastern Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky also to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which, he says, “always understood that God initiates, accompanies, and completes everything in the process of salvation”, rejecting instead the Calvinist idea of irresistible grace.[40] Neither Cassian nor any of his teachings have ever been directly or indirectly called into question or condemned by Eastern Orthodox, as they are considered a witness to the Orthodox position.[41]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cassian
Cassian was pointed out to me by a scholar when the Neo Cals were calling us free will folks, Pelagians. It is interesting to read the article then the article on council of Orange. Of course, it is wiki so further research is needed.
I just cannot get past these councils and such as politically motivated for doctrinal positions. Just reading up on what Pelagius went through is quite telling!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Excellent summary. There is also a third way – give up on faith. I personally think one of the greatest tragedies of extreme think is it convinces many intelligent people that they are not real believers because they cannot shut off their brains and hit the “I Believe” button and consent to a bunch of teaching that they know is not true. So they walk away thinking that they have tried Christianity and found it wanting.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
As another Brit blogger friend says about them: they keep giving me answers to questions I don’t have. :o)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I will graciously accept all love offerings of Pound Cake and will consume them in my house built upon Pound Sand.
Ken F wrote:
Good point – I missed that one.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, and still is. It was not autocephalus until the 16th century, when it became the 5th patriarchate joining Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch & Alexandria (there are more now).
They were interwoven with the state for centuries and then persecuted, killed, property stolen as the state attempted to annihilate them.
But, they are still in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches.
Lydia wrote:
No matter what path of Christian tradition you look into, you will eventually find discord and dysfunction. Right now I’m thinking it’s because we all want to understand more of the mystery than what God has revealed. The “how” and ” why” questions are what tend to trip all of us up. The Bible describes quite a lot about the “who” and a decent amount about the “what” and less about the “why.” God did not seem to want to tell us much at all about the “how.” But this is the part that gets quite a lot of ink by theologians.
Friend wrote:
I will contribute my Pound Cheese and Lemon Sauce.
Make a basic bechamel sauce with 40g of butter and the same of plain flour
Add around this much milk
Once the sauce has thickened, add around this much cheese together with the zest of one large lemon and the juice of two large lemons
Crucially, add a generous pinch of salt
For just €995, you can attend my special training conference where you can learn the secret of exactly how much milk and cheese “this much” is.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
For three Love Bitcoins, you may offer your training at my conference.
/walking away now
@ BL:
They were also part of the state’s intense persecution of Jews, and the RO resurgence has, sadly, large pockets of open antisemitism today, both in and outside Russia.
During the reign of Nicholas II, church and state colluded on “the Jewish problem.” It was determined that fully 1/3d of all Jews should be killed in pogroms, 1/3d sent to the Pale of Settlement (many online refs. to this) and 1/3d of the men drafted for WWI, sent to the front lines of the front = sure way to use them as cannon fodder
You can see deep spirituality in writers like Dostoevsky, but also intensely antisemitic passages. It is an ugly thread that, unfortunately, runs throughout Russian history and culture.
@ Ken F:
Yep.
numo wrote:
Yes, I agree – another example of the horrors of church/state collusion.
As an aside, the ongoing persecution & attempts to annihilate the Jews over the centuries AND the fact that they have continued as an identifiable people even when scattered among nations during all that time, has been one of those foundational threads undergirding my belief in God.
@ BL:
BL, i hear you. When i wasn’t sure that i could believe in God (as a young person), the sincere belief of a number of Jewish people kept me thinking that maybe God really was there. It was like a beacon in the darkness to me. (This was not so long after the Holocaust, btw.)
@ Lydia:
Here is more information about the Chicago Statement (signed by several hundred evangelical Protestant leaders in 1978 in Chicago).
The group behind the Chicago Statement was International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in California. They were upset by all of the young Christians who had gone to Europe to study and earn Ph.D.’s and had acquired the Neo-Orthodox teachings of Swiss theologian Karl Barth, that the Bible was not inerrant. Barth’s ideas spread to American seminaries and churches.
The conservative evangelical Protestants believed that the *authority* of the church rested on the authority of the Bible.
http://www.reformation.net/Pages/ICBI_Background.htm
@Lydia,
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy started with a conference at a Christian retreat center, at the suggestion of R.C. Sproul. The ICBI asked Billy Graham Ministries to fund their opening and BGM gave them $10,000.
@ numo:
say, numo, did you spot the Esther Hamori book recommendation I posted in the open conversation section? Just recently finished it. It’s spendy but it’s worth picking up.
@ numo:
That is what I was wondering about. However, there was severe persecution of Jews under Stalin and later. Even after the wall fell, many Jews from the Ukraine emigrated here as soon as they could. Anti semitism had continued under communism.
Velour wrote:
Wow. I had no idea!
Christiane wrote:
This is a book that does just that: a Protestant looks at the faith of the Christian East. (Eastern Orthodoxy). He is still Protestant, in case that is of concern to anyone.
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Christian-East-Introduction-Tradition/dp/0830825940
Ken F wrote:
Which is why I have a problem with church tradition, answers to doctrinal questions from church history and the word, “Orthodoxy”. :o)
Lydia wrote:
Others have responded above, and they correct, so what I am saying here is additive, not corrective.
When Orthodox Christianity spreads, it adopts the language and even the music of the people in the different countries. So Romanian, Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, Jerusalem, Antiochian, Serbian, Japanese Orthodox are all the same services, all the same faith, but expressed in the language and music of the people.
Had Orthodoxy in America been established this way, there would be a single ethnic designation–but it was not. It was settled by immigrants from all these different places, and they brought their churches with them. That’s why it is confusing around these parts. Most of these jurisdictions have parishes that offer their services in English at this point, because as the families have settled, they realize they will lose their children if they try to be “from the old country” forever.
When Russia was under Communist rule, there was a certain amount of the State taking over the Church (that’s bad) and so Russians around the world formed another jurisdiction, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia…to provide Russian Orthodoxy outside the confines of the communist government.
At any rate, with very small variations, the liturgies, the practices of prayer and so on are the same for all the jurisdictions. There are small differences related to culture and so on, but it is the same faith among them all.
It’s complicated. 🙂 And it’s not complicated.
Some churches call themselves Orthodox but they have broken away from the canonical churches. In addition, the Copts broke away after the council of Chalcedon, but there is great hope that the rift can be repaired as it looks like a lot of it was caused by mistranslation and the resulting misunderstandings.
Anyway, more than you wanted to know I am sure, but I find it interesting so there ya go.
Lydia wrote:
I found myself thinking the same thing while wading through all that convolution. And like you’ve commented earlier, the cognitive dissonance gets to be unbearable.
Lydia wrote:
Me neither.
The I.C.B.I. disbanded and all of their papers are now at Dallas Theological Seminary.
They started a daughter group International Church Council Project, with the same leader. Dr. Jay Grimstead.
It seems they hold to some of the Reconstructionist ideas that Gram3 has talked about. Rushdoony’s son and successor, Mark, also supports Grimstead’s work. I did not know until today that Rushdoony (the father) had been divorced (1959) from his wife after sixteeen years of marriage and five or six children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_Rushdoony
Rushdoony remarried in 1962.
It’s always curious to me that so many of these great authoritarians and admonishers to others of moral codes to keep fail to live it out first in their own lives. “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Lydia wrote:
Let me clarify: The conference was RC Sproul’s idea to get the ICBI off the ground.
Grimstead created the ICBI, inspired by a book in the 70’s called The Battle for the Bible.
The only infallible, inerrant being or thing in the world is God.
All else fails.
If you go with inerrancy of the Scriptures, you have to deal with things like whether it was on the first or second day of Passover that Christ was crucified–because the gospel writers report it differently. Or you have to come up with convoluted timelines that claim that the feeding of the 5000 was two separate events, because the details are reported differently. Or did Judas hang himself, or spill out his guts?
And there’s a bunch of other stuff, but that’s all I can pull out of my head at the moment. Barbeque calls.
Lydia wrote:
I’ve heard the adage, “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I wonder if God is like that. He could have left us with a nice tidy religion. Instead, it’s a mess just about everywhere you look. I wonder if he did that on purpose so that we would have to step out in faith. Maybe it makes us wrestle with him. Maybe if it was as neat and tidy it would be worse. I don’t know how to explain this. But maybe that’s the point.
@Lydia and @Gram3,
Rushdoony’s first wife Arda filed for divorce from him in 1959 citing
“”extreme cruelty” and “inflicting mental suffering”. He sued her and was awarded the
five children, the house, car, etc. She got $1 alimony.
Rushdoony supported a white America, racism, Neo-Confederacy, and denied the Holocaust.
He believed that the death penalty should be imposed on people for moral crimes, even
though his own (Armenian) parents had fled the genocide in Armenia.
And we’re supposed to listen to anything this guy has to say? And coming through our conservative churches? Not me!
mirele wrote:
Scary. That means a 20% increased attendance from your report of 58 cars last week. Hopefully, there is just one person per car showing up. 🙂
PaJo wrote:
Good insight.
Lydia wrote:
New Calvinists, of course, claim that they alone are “Orthodox” with the one and only right belief. But, as we’ve learned, their orthodoxy (right belief, they think) doesn’t carry an orthopraxy (right action) with it … the conduct displayed by many of these characters is anything but right.
ibelieve wrote:
I agree, but how do we implement “Jesus is the answer?” How do we move from a slogan like that to what action?
Velour wrote:
Rushdoony was no conservative if you take that to mean conservative evangelical, though he was OPC, IIRC. He was a denomination of one, practically speaking. In that respect as well as their doctrinal agreements, he has much in common with Doug Wilson and the other Reconstructionists/Federal Visionists.
Check out the Coalition on Revival, and you will find your friend, Dr. Jay Grimstead. The 60’s and 70’s was the beginning of so much of what we talk about here, though the vast majority of the people I knew at the time were very well-intentioned.
PaJo wrote:
My thoughts as well. I don’t even get why scripture has to be infallible. It’s as if God himself isn’t good enough without those scriptures to back him up.
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks Gram3 for the additional information about Rushdoony, whose name I first heard here from you.
Found Grimstead’s other organization. Yikes. Taking over America in a 24-year plan. Start off with Christian elders across the country, get them to recruit others in their area, and take over everything.
http://www.reformation.net/Pages/Jay_Grimstead.htm
Do these people even deal with reality? The U.S. Constitution? State legislatures? Courts?
Bridget wrote:
According to their argument, *the church* doesn’t have *authority* (there’s that pesky word again) if the Bible is fallible.
Gram3 wrote:
He writes an awful law on his websites about wars, battles, etc. – conservative Christianity against everybody else.
We have how much suffering in this world, and the command to love our neighbor, to help widows and orphans and the needy, and this guy is wasting time on this drivel? And all of their arguments come back to “authority” (wanting it, getting it, getting it back).
Velour wrote:
I have news for them. The church does not have authority. All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus.
The problem is “they” want something that they have no right to.
Bridget wrote:
Yes!
Gram3 wrote:
Other COR members were Charles Simpson & Bob Mumford. Along with Larry Tomczak, Peter Wagner, Robert Weiner & Dennis Peackocke.
.
Bunny’s excellent comment from the new blog article here on TWW dated 5/30/16:
BL wrote:
As Gram3 would say, “The usual suspects.” I’m catching on to all of them. I was in a NeoCal church with their insufferable teachings crammed down our throats, without being told their names or *the why* of it.
Velour wrote:
The folks I knew who were into this were actually very concerned with government and with the Constitution. IMO they had a distorted view of the relationship between church and state, but that was largely, again IMO, because they saw Christianity being marginalized in the public sphere. In their view, the Constitution was being ignored, for all practical purposes, by the Supreme Court.
I am speaking of the pewpeons who were involved in this movement and similar ones like the Moral Majority, etc. I cannot speak for the leaders at the time, though it seems reasonable that some of them were well-intentioned, too. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade set this movement in motion, or at least that was my impression at the time. Rushdoony was a different breed, though he was very influential in those wider circles. Certainly wider than the OPC which is relatively tiny number-wise.
@ BL:
Wagner was the only one of those I knew about at the time, and that was only because someone I knew was part of his movement. Obviously, I have learned a whole bunch from the folks who were immersed in the teaching of those men you mentioned.
Gram3 wrote:
That seems to be it.
I just look at how Mother Teresa lived our her faith and esteemed she was by her very humility, and her lovely sense of humor.
^sorry it posted too soon and it doesn’t make sense. “She was esteemed”…etc etc.
Bridget wrote:
I find the whole “Scripture is inerrant” thought to be extremely manipulative. I just wonder if the phrase wasn’t created to boost someone’s ego by manipulating others to agree with him. I mean, if you say that you disagree with that statement, it’s like you’re saying that the Bible isn’t true (in their view)! We had a similar instance of manipulation here in TN recently. Someone in the state legislature recently tried to pass a bill making the Bible the state book of TN (the governor vetoed the bill). Now, if someone said that they didn’t think the Bible should be the state book, then others could boast that good Christians like themselves esteem the Bible, so therefore it should be the state book, etc. Really, this was just a cheap ploy for votes. Anyway, in regards to the Bible is inerrant thought, I just say that of course the Bible is inerrant, but interpretation and understanding of it can get pretty crazy and full of error!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Just now seeing this… honest question though, how do you choose which scriptures are actually the Word of God and which ones are not? I think it becomes sort of a slippery slope to take IMO. I also don’t believe that the Holy Spirit speaks contrary to the bible… I mean there has to be some basis for ones beliefs or you (or I) could just make it up as we go!
Max wrote:
I wouldn’t put it past them to encourage people to drive in separate vehicles.
Bill M wrote:
It’s also a holiday weekend. People may be home from college. In town visiting relatives.Traveling.
patriciamc wrote:
We’ve had a discussion up the thread about where it came from. In short, Jay Grimstead and a few others wanted the church to have *authority* and believed the church would have it if the Bible were “inerrant”. (R.C. Sproul proposed they have a conference to get Grimstead’s organizatiion started. Billy Graham Ministries gave the group $10,000 which they’d ask for.) Some 200 Christian leaders signed the Chicago Statement (Lydia posted it above in the thread and I did additional research today and posted some of what I found).
From what I gathered the men are authoritarians, and talked a lot about fighting, waging war, etc. Another doctrine of men.
ibelieve wrote:
As has been pointed out up the thread, for most a Christendom people have been illiterate.
They managed to believe without having Bibles. It was explained to them. For hundreds and hundreds of years.
So is your argument that people can’t have faith in Jesus if they’re illiterate? Don’t have Bibles? Pre-printing press…oh well tough luck?
How was the thief on the cross able to be saved and be with Jesus in Paradise without a tract and a Bible? The woman at the well? Countless others? They didn’t have Bibles.
How were illiterate fisherman able to be saved without Bibles?
Make it up as we go and not have some basis for your beliefs you say? It’s pretty simple. Jesus gave us a simple command: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. “All of the law and prophets hang on those two commands.”
Velour wrote:
“Just like Jihad, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Velour wrote:
This is where the “us” and “them,” as I see it, always comes in- there are those who seek God from sincere hearts and there are the grabbers of authority and power.
ibelieve wrote:
Before there was a New Testament, there were the liturgies (ways of praying) of the centers of Christianity that had spread out from Jerusalem where the Church was founded by Our Lord. Here is a example of an ancient prayer ‘made up’ by the Coptic Christians and used in their worship service to proclaim Christ as Lord:
“You are the life of us all, the salvation of us all, the hope of us all, the healing of us all, and the resurrection of us all.”
I don’t feel sorry for the early Christians not having a book to hold in their hands because they were the ones being taught by those who sat at the feet of the Apostles, and they were the ones who witnessed the deaths of the first martyrs for their faith in Christ. The bible wasn’t written down and collated in those earliest days because they thought Christ’s return would be imminent. The Good News was orally proclaimed. And witnessed as true by the deaths of the Christian martyrs who proclaimed Christ as they died.
@ Velour:
I am libertarian which I guess could be conservative in some ways– mostly economic. The first time I had ever heard of Rushdooney was about 10 years ago, online.
He seems oligharical to me. Not the type that thinks adults are responsible for themselves. He thinks much like the left to me: The “experts” or Leaders know best for you.
I have no idea what conservative/liberal mean anymore. The lines seem to being redrawn. I listened to a JFK speech not long ago. He sounded extremely conservative! :o)
@ Velour:
The people we allow to make rules for us usually exempt themselves. Congress is a perfect example. The question is really why people go along?
@ ibelieve:
A lot of people have made it up as they go throughout history WITH a bible. That is why there are thousands of denominations. Mainly due to differences in interpretation.
@ Velour:
The doctrine of inerrancy existed way before the Chicago Statement. They were debating it in Baptist circles in my mother’s time and probably in my grandmother’s time though she never spoke of it. The “battle for the Bible” movement was a reaction against liberalism in some conservative seminaries and colleges, so the ICBI seemed like a reasonable response *from the POV of those who hold to that doctrine.* My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the idea of inerrancy flows from the doctrine of inspiration by the Holy Spirit who cannot produce a fallible or errant book.
Obviously, even those folks like me who hold to inerrant original manuscripts need to face some truths which may be uncomfortable. We do not have the original manuscripts, so it is mainly a starting point for reasoning about the scriptures. Also, the Bible clearly has human authors, and I don’t think any of them were infallible. The words “infallible” and “inerrant” and what they mean exactly have been discussed well before my lifetime.
Just as obviously, God is not limited to saving people if he has not given us an inerrant book. I suppose I could make an argument that God saving people in spite of an errant canon makes him even greater. But I can make an argument out of anything. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
The “denial” in article 12 is ironic in the extreme given that the technology supporting the internet used to disseminate the Chicago Statement is based on the same science that leads to the current scientific “old earth” understanding.
Dee:
You and I have both been blessed.
You wrote of your time at BTBF:
During my years at BTBF, as well as at a few other churches:
• I never heard a sermon on “authority” except for the authority of God and Scripture.
• I never heard a sermon on one-way submission.
• I never heard a sermon outlining what women cannot do.
• I never saw the pastors as celebrities, but I felt a profound respect and love for them.
• I was encouraged to study the Bible, the church fathers, systematic theology, etc.
• I never saw these churches supporting the prosperity gospel or any other weirdness.
• I was never told I was a lesser Christian if I didn’t believe a certain secondary doctrine.
I am happy to say that after almost 24 years at my current church, I can confirm the same experience.
I feel very blessed.
Thankfully, there are churches out there like BTBF, even those that believe some of doctrines and have some practices that people on this blog might not agree with.
Anonymous wrote:
Glad everything has been peachy for you in church life. I spent 34 years in two different churches full of what you say you never experienced. So have thousands of others. What you experienced is NOT easy to find. There are not churches like yours out there in every city, small or large. I am glad you’ve had a wonderful 24 years. Please don’t make it sound like if we all just looked a little harder we would find “one of those” too.
Lydia wrote:
You are very blessed, then. Perhaps it an offset for having to live at Ground Zero all these years. 🙂
Velour wrote:
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER. And those who are too weak to have it.”
— Lord Voldemort
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among the powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984
“For the hearts of Men are easily corrupted, and a Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.”
— either J.R.R.Tolkien or the scriptwriters to the Peter Jackson adaptation
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks for shedding more light on the history of this *idea* in conservative Protestant evangelical churches. It is a man-made *idea* that came from someone(s).
Which Bible is *inerrant* if that is the claim? The English Bible that you have? The one that I have? The Greek texts? If they are *inerrant* why aren’t they uniform?
How about all of the translators who added or subtracted from the Scriptures based on their own biases? The ESV Bible translators intentionally mistranslated words to do with women in order to support their Complementarism agenda. When Paul wrote that “the woman” (singular) was not to teach one man error the Comps changed it to “women” (plural), forbidding them to teach. That’s not what Paul wrote.
The Comps have also said that women shall be saved through “childbearing” in their Bible.
The proper translation isn’t the verb they use, but a noun “the child bearing” [the birth of Jesus and salvation through Him].
King James Bible translators used English words about submission and authority who were subjects of the king, but not found in the Greek texts.
Others up the thread here yesterday pointed out other discrepancies.
Lydia wrote:
Ditto for the crop of authoritarian NeoCalvinist church leaders, exempt from the rules.
Bridget wrote:
So very true, Bridget. Many Christians don’t have healthy churches in their communities (taken over by NeoCalvinists, Comp-teaching, authoritarianism) that they can go to or refer other Christians to, including people that they evangelize.
Lydia wrote:
The rejection of hyperbole in Article 13 is subtle but it’s there. I think that the Chicago Statement is not so much about inerrancy as it is about a “plain reading” of Scripture. Once you remove the prospect of hyperbole there can be no wiggle room and the plain reading must prevail.
For example, Romans 3:10-12 states that none are good and none do good. In the real world we know that this patently false. Good either stands on its own as an independent quality, or it does not. C.S. Lewis argued cogently that it does, and by doing so (in my opinion) he lent a measure of credence to hyperbole as a valid literary device in Scripture.
Bridget wrote:
Ditto! I’d never heard of the “Five Sola’s” until I met Calvinists. And that was about 25 years after being a Christian. 😉
Velour wrote:
The original manuscripts from the pen of the human author or his assistant. None of the texts that we have are original, and obviously none of the translations are original. 🙂
Translation requires choices which are based on interpretations of what the author was intending to convey. No inerrancy in translations. So many people question the point of maintaining inerrancy. I would say that for me it is a starting point for how to think about the text. I do not say that it is a necessary starting point for anyone else, and I do not say that it can be proved or disproved because it cannot. Hope that makes some kind of sense.
I do believe that the concept is wrongly applied, though usually tacitly, to translations and also to interpretations. As we discussed under the topic of “Biblical” on another thread. Bottom line is I think that God is faithful and we can trust the Holy Spirit. Whose existence cannot be proved or disproved, either but is taken by faith. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Perhaps the Chicago Statement signers should amend their document to state that.
Velour wrote:
UGH! From this page:
At this period of church history, the Body of Christ worldwide is again engaged in a deadly, collision course with the forces of evil. It is becoming increasingly clear that each nation on this planet is being presented with an “either-or” choice wherein there is no neutral middle-ground, no “demilitarized zone” and no “fence-sitting.”
What a bunch of rot, designed to fill people with fear and mobilize them to “follow the leader.”
Matthew 4:8-11 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’” Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.
Jesus didn’t argue with Satan about his ownership of the kingdoms of the world. In 1John we read that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. Yet Jesus spent zero time on politics and government, he had zero interest in converting or controlling the world system. He told us to ‘be not afraid’ because he has overcome the world.
The world system has always been a mess, it’s nothing new. Christ has been saving individuals in spite of it all this time, we have his assurance he is building his church and the gates of hell will not prevail.
This is all an appeal to the old nature. To fear, to the desire for control and position. Here we are, living in the most free and blessed time in history, and instead of being thankful and enjoying it, he would have us burdened under a cloud of fear and impending doom.
Muff Potter wrote:
There are lots of problems with ‘plain reading’ of Scripture too. At my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church the pastors/elders taught that the earth was 6,000 years old. In the creation story in the Bible the Hebrew word “yom” has about 58 different meanings, including “a long time”.
I look at everything around me, including the mountains where I live, and I know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
Propinqua wrote:
And so say all of us…!
😜
siteseer wrote:
Agreed.
Velour wrote:
Hi VELOUR,
they start locally, with elections to school boards and eventually to city councils, they get on textbook committees for school districts, they find access to authority over public school curriculi (what is taught in civics and in science and history classes) You would be surprised what can be done at the local level, and unfortunately it adversely affects the chances of the children to get an education which can make them competitive at the national level for university placements and scholarships. It started years ago. It continues. People who care need to be very vigilant over their local governments. ‘Grassroots’ is a powerful movement, and dangerous in the wrong hands.
Christiane wrote:
True enough.
In that group that Grimstead heads I just don’t see anything of Jesus, love for one’s neighbor. What he’s proposing is akin, in my opinion, to living in a religious state under the likes of radical Islam. No thanks.
Bridget wrote:
Bridget:
Sorry for the awful experiences you have gone through.
I hope you can find a good place.
Velour wrote:
With himself as Supreme Aytaollah by the Will of Al’lah.
Velour wrote:
My example is The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay, where the plague of demon locusts were REALLY helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded hippies, according to the “plain reading of SCRIPTURE(TM)”.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, these boyz always see themselves as the Supreme leaders of the rest of us.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL.
An article about Rushdoony and the other Reconstructionists:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/nation-under-god
I know it’s from a liberal magazine, but the writing seemed cogent about the topic.
Bridget wrote:
I really think your position in the church has a lot to do with your experience within them. Perhaps Anon has some gravitas there.
Gram3 wrote:
I completely agree with point 1.
I had depression for years. I still deal with some anxiety. I was often to “Bible reading” as some kind of cure. I still see this today. I see preachers on TV or blogs telling people who have depression or other problems that are probably best served by seeing some kind of professional (psychiatrist, marriage counselor, whomever) told to “just read the Bible more.”
All the Bible reading in the world did not deliver me from depression or anxiety. And I did try it. (I also tried prayer.)
As to point 2. A lot of Christians can and do misinterpret the Bible. You have Christians going by Point 1 who also feel that their interpretation of certain passages or understanding of certain topics is the only “godly” way to go about them.
I think a lot of damage has been done to a lot of Christians unnecessarily due to these view points.
Lydia wrote:
I just saw this now, Lydia. I’m quite behind in reading the comments! The Russian Orthodox Church pre-Lenin is considered a jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, as are all the other jurisdictions, whether they be the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian O.C., the Orthodox Church of America, the Greek Orthodox Church, and on and on it goes. A church is an Orthodox Church, regardless of the description before the word “Orthodox.” I can participate in worship and receive the sacraments in any Orthodox Church, regardless of its jurisdiction. We celebrate the same liturgy and hold to the same tenets.
Lydia wrote:
Are you familiar with Dostoevsky’s “Brothers Karamazov?”
BL wrote:
BL, thank you for such an excellent explanation of the Orthodox churches. Various Orthodox Christians from different patriarchates settled in the U.S.A. and at first they were quite integrated. Then there was a period where basically only Greeks attended the GOARCH, Russians attended the ROCOR, Middle-Easterners attended the Antiochian, etc. In the last decade or so, there has been a movement to have one Orthodox Church in the U.S. – one jurisdiction. I think, however, that to reach such a goal will take time.
PaJo wrote:
PaJo, I am an Orthodox Christian but you explained the ecclesiology of the Orthodox churches far better than I. You got it right down to a T. 😉
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Once upon a time, not so many years ago, I was shopping in my friendly neighborhood superstore, buying food for the cats. Suddenly, I became aware of a disturbance at the other end of the aisle: A nun (in full habit, no less, was shaing her finger in a man’s face & telling him what he was doing wrong in the care of his cats.
She spotted me, & swept up to me, asking me the same questions she had been using on him. I said, ,”Yes, Sister”, “No Sister” as appropriate, & she beamed at me. “You are” she pronounced, “a very good cat person”. I said, “Thank you, Sister, I try to be, Sister”.
She went off, still beaming, while the poor guy still stood there looking nervous & a bit shaky. “How did you know what to say?” he asked me. “I told her the truth”, I answered. “No use lying to nuns; they know what you’re thinking before you say the words”.
Poor man may be there still, scratching his head & sweating profusely…….And me a Methodist!
Christiane wrote:
Amen to that!!
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Exactlt right!!
@ Lydia:
Some of that may be so, but at least people in and out of the RC are aware that there is a pedophile problem within the RC.
I don’t think the same can necessarily be said of Baptist and Protestant churches – except for those of us who regularly visit blogs such as this one.
@ Ken F:
My problem isn’t with sola scriptura, just to be clear.
I agree with sola scriptura – in so far as it’s correctly applied and interpreted.
I think the content of the (Protestant) Biblical canon is authoritative for doctrine and spiritual purposes, but I think when Christians try to apply all of its content to everything from how to treat depression to what color neck tie to wear they are going way out of bounds and possibly harming people in the process.
@ BL:
I hope my post doesn’t turn out to be too long, but I think some mental health problems may also be caused by psychological things only or primarily.
But even in those cases, the Bible alone won’t usually help the afflicted person.
I was diagnosed with clinical depression when I was a kid. I took anti-depressant medications for years, but the medications didn’t help (not that i am against other people using medication for depression).
My break through came when I realized that how I thought about myself, my life, anger, and a host of other issues were wrong.
I was raised by my parents to think a certain way about myself, and their opinions were echoed by various churches we went to, and in Christian articles and books I read while growing up.
A lot of those views can be found in gender complementarianism. For example, women should be passive, never get their own needs met, and not have boundaries. I was raised to think it was godly, proper, and lady like for me to allow people to take advantage of me, be rude to me, and never stand up for myself.
All that did was cause me to repress a lot of anger over a lot of years. Instead of telling people off who hurt me or angered me, I was taught to stuff those feelings down and never confront the person I was upset with.
All of that also made me depressed because it hammered away at my self esteem.
None of the psychiatrists I saw were clued in on any of that. I didn’t figure this stuff out for myself until years after my mother died, after I began reading a lot of books by psychologists about boundaries and so forth.
I actually had to read books by Christian and NonChristian psychologists to understand things. Once I read their books, I had my eyes opened to what the Bible really says on some of these issues.
Well, I had doubts as a kid. I noticed as a kid that Jesus boldly confronted people when angry with them, but my mother conveyed to me boldly confronting people is not something good or nice Christian girls do. I could not figure out why she wanted me to read the Bible but not emulate Jesus all the way. My mother (like a lot of gender comps) only wanted me to mirror the sweet, passive side of Jesus, but not the examples of him in the Bible where he was assertive and forceful.
But when I was older, and I read books by psychologists, I saw even more that the Bible does not call for Christians to be passive doormats. There is a delicate balancing act it asks for – there are times you should be loving, forgive your enemies, but other times when you need to get up into a person’s face and scream at them.
I think a lot of Christians (or people in general) are lazy thinkers. They just want a one size fits all policy on how to handle life’s problem, instead of weighing every incident on a case by case basis.
Anyway, I was liberated from depression by changing how I think about things – not from Bible reading (and not by taking pills for depression).
Actually, the way I was taught to interpret the Bible by my parents and other Christians is part of what kept me trapped in depression.
If you wear this filter while reading the Bible that presupposes that women should always be meek, gentle, mild, deferential to others, be passive, and lack boundaries, you can find many verses that seem to support that view, if you want.
Once you leave that way of viewing it, you can see there are also examples in there where the Bible is okay with women being tough, assertive and not taking crud off of people.
@ Lydia:
A lot of Scripture / stories about Jesus were repeated orally in the early years before it was written down.
Even when folks started writing it down, not everyone could afford a copy.
Before anyone freaks out over the oral transmission stuff, that was totally normal back then.
It did not mean that errors or fables crept into the orally spread info and then into the Bible.
There are entire books by Christian scholars who explain all that, if anyone cares to look into it more.
But something being written down after having been spread orally does not mean it contains lot of mistakes and cannot be trusted.
Anyhoo, my point being that not everyone back in the day had a written copy of the Bible.
Sometimes, one church might get a page or two from a bible book and would share that and then trade it for another page. They didn’t always even get the entire book.
Velour wrote:
Hmm. Does that apply to stuff about gender, age, sexual orientation, etc?
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
I can’t take credit for “Pew Potatoes.” I saw it on an online Dictionary of Christianese that I linked to on this blog once.
This might be it.
Dictionary of Christianese: Welcome!
http://www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/list-of-words-by-alphabetical/
Pew Potato
@ Lydia:
I don’t want to say exactly who this is, but it’s a Christian employer who does charge people to use their services, shall we say. They do make money for themselves off what they do. They are not a charity.
Ken F wrote:
I’m sort of in this group, but not so much the intellectual stuff.
I’m more like, I was taught from Christian books and sermons that the Bible promises X, Y and Z if you live a certain way, pray, and/or trust God.
So, I did X, Y, and Z just as I was taught, but God did not come through for me, the way so many Christians teach, and the way some biblical passages read.
Daisy wrote:
As far as science is concerned, I generally view science as the how and god as the why.
The interpersonal stuff, I think if you default to the most loving interpretation you will not be in error. And we know that love is patient, kind, etc…If the interpretation of a biblical passage as it applies to our daily lives is not in keeping with loving our neighbors or god, it is probably wrong.
I don’t know what that makes me as far as these things go, but if a thing is true, it is true. Bible or no. (say, old earth for instance-although I tend to view this 6k earth thing as an interpretation problem) If an action is unkind or evil, it is evil, no matter what twisted verse or bible interpretation I hear supporting it.
ibelieve wrote:
No one has the definitive answer for this. You’re in the same boat as everyone else.
I’m not sure if you are talking about the autographa or the formation of the canon.
If you’re talking about the original readings, you have scholars who study this stuff, and you might want to look into that subject.
The earliest (and what most believe to be most trustworthy / accurate) manuscripts omit John 7:53-8:11 (the woman caught in adultery story).
I’ve read some Christians scholars propose that although John 7:53-8:11 does not appear in the earliest dated mss, that the story may well have really happened and was an oral story passed down and was known, but for whatever reason not put in the autographa, but at some later date, in the later mss, the scribes put it down, and it got mixed into Bible versions.
Velour wrote:
There are still parts of the world today that do not have printed Bibles, and/or not ones in their native languages.
I learned this from watching shows on Christian networks that talk about how much Christianity may be growing in other nations.
Lydia wrote:
I said something similar up thread to another person
Having printed copies of a Bible is not a guarantee you’re going to have agreement and unity because everyone and his grandma interprets the Bible differently from other people who have copies of the same Bible.