"I heard police or ambulancemen, standing in our house, say, "She must have provoked him," or, "Mrs Stewart, it takes two to make a fight." They had no idea. The truth is my mother did nothing to deserve the violence she endured. She did not provoke my father, and even if she had, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with conflict. Violence is a choice a man makes and he alone is responsible for it." -Patrick Stewart link
Mary Kassian, not surprisingly, recently wrote a negative review of Ruth Tucker's book Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife. Tucker's book dealt with her experience as an abused wife and her former husband's use of male headship authority to justify his physical and emotional abuse. Sadly, without an ounce of compassion, Kassian lays the blame fully at Ruth's feet for her abuse, hinting that she ignored *red flags* prior to the marriage. Kassian goes on to *prove* that Tucker continued to put herself in harm's way throughout the marriage.
1.
Besides his run-ins with educators, Joe has a history with the law. He was arrested for voyeurism – for being a “peeping-tom.” This sexual misconduct, he claims, was resolved through the mandated counseling process.
Joe plans to be a pastor. Ruth knows that his religious views are “fundamentalist.” They have a heated pre-marital spat about the science of a literal six-day creation, but the issue of wifely obedience never comes up (p. 37).
Because of the glaring red flags, Ruth’s mother strongly opposes the marriage. But to no avail. Ruth is in love.
2.
A few years later, a church elder and wife show up on Ruth’s doorstep with a local newspaper in hand. The paper reveals that Joe had been arrested for repeated theft of coffee and donut money at the county jail, where he had made weekly pastoral visits (p. 65). Joe hadn’t told Ruth about the arrest. She’s mortified.
To alleviate her “wretched shame,” Ruth pressures her husband to publicly confess: “He agreed (on my insistence) to preach the following Sunday night a sermon of deep contrition from Psalm 51— a sermon I practically dictated to him.” (p. 65).
Joe was dismissed as pastor. However, Ruth’s “behind-the-scenes maneuvering” opened doors for him to minister part-time at a church in Crown Point, Indiana, and for further graduate studies at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. (p. 57).
At this point, 9 years into their marriage, and staying home with a pre-schooler, Ruth decides it’s a good time to take in foster children. Thirteen-year-old Deana moves in. When Ruth finds out that Joe has repeatedly come into Deana’s room at night and sexually assaulted her, the rage she unleashes against him is “virulent and deep primal.” Yet she doesn’t report Joe to the authorities. She covers up the sexual abuse.
Having taken Ruth down for being obviously stupid, unlike Kassian who knew how to pick a good husband, she then proceeds to lower the boom. This has absolutely nothing to do with male headship. In fact, it is egalitarianism that is responsible for domestic violence.
Ruth’s experience led her to believe that the doctrine of headship promotes abuse. But my experience with abuse leads me to believe that women in egalitarian relationships are at a far higher risk than those with husbands who sense a responsibility to provide loving, protective headship. I could tell you dozens of heart-wrenching stories to persuade you that the further away a couple wanders from God’s pattern for marriage and the doctrine of loving male headship, the higher the risk of abuse.
So Ruth’s experience and my experience testify to the exact opposite conclusion. Which is why experience and emotions are an unreliable source for debating the veracity of a premise. It’s a sad day when reason is ignored and a conclusion accepted purely on the basis of who tells the best story and evokes the strongest emotion.
Kassian then says she will pay her way to meet with Ruth, and they will become the best of friends.
After her little take down, I doubt if such a pleasant, cappuccino type meeting is in the cards.
Ruth, we’ve stood on opposite sides of the woman’s issue for decades—since you first published on the topic in 1987 and me in 1990. I highly doubt whether CBE and CBMW would ever work together on this, though I can’t say for sure. At this point, my involvement with CBMW is peripheral at best.
So even though it’s unlikely that those organizations would come together to stand against abuse, it doesn’t prevent you and me from doing so. We could. You and me. Two Grandmas who love the Lord, love women, and deplore abuse. We could come together. We could do it for the sake of our daughters, grand-daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends.
I’ll fly anywhere in North America at my own expense to meet you. We’ll hash out a Ruth and Mary personal statement. I suspect we’ll really like each other . . . we’ll sip frothy cups of cappuccino, laugh and cry, share stories (and pictures of our grandbabies) and become friends. And perhaps that, in and of itself, will make a difference.
Besides believing that Kassian was a heel to handle the Tucker's abuse in this manner, I realized that Kassian is so entrenched in her iron bubble of frothy cappuccinos and glorious complementarianism that she is unable to question her rigid paradigm.
I have no doubt that my words mean little to nothing to Mary Kassian, who clams to be an author of the Danvers Statement. She also claims to have invented the term *complementarianism* and is a Professor at SBTS' Women's Institute.
“As distinguished professor of women’s studies, Mary Kassian brings an international reputation combined with deep biblical convictions and a tremendous ability to communicate, to teach and to share her passion for a biblical understanding of these issues.
“This is a great development for Southern Seminary and another representation of what God is giving us in this faculty. We look forward to having Mary join us in the classroom, on the faculty and as a part of the Southern Seminary family.”
Kassian will be teaching classes within Southern’s Women’s Ministry Institute on such topics as prayer, gender roles within the church and family, and feminist theology. Part of Kassian’s role at Southern will be to assist new Director of Women’s Programs Jaye Martin in developing a long-term vision for the school’s women’s program.
This Distinguished Professor of Women's Studies claims to have studied systematic theology on a doctoral level, but I could no mention of any theology degree. It looks like her only degree is in rehab medicine.
Mary Kassian is an award winning author, popular speaker, and a distinguished professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Seminary. She has published several books, Bible studies and videos, including: Girls Gone Wise, In My Father’s House: Finding Your Heart’s True Home, Conversation Peace, Vertically Inclined, and the Feminist Mistake.
Mary graduated from the faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine from the University of Alberta, Canada and has studied systematic theology at the doctoral level. She has taught courses at seminaries across North America She is a popular conference speaker and has ministered to women’s groups internationally. Mary has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, including Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, and Marriage Uncensored.
Your pastor, women's leaders, blog queens and theologians are sinners.
Kassian made it clear in her passive aggressive style (how it came off to me) that if only Ruth had married a "godly" complementarian this whole mess would not have happened. And this is where she is wrong. For years, the Deebs have pointed out how sinful men have used authoritarian-based complementarianism to abuse women emotionally and/or physically. In fact, right at the very beginning – in Genesis – which comps (I am using an abbreviation of this unwieldy term) use to prove the subordinate status of women, Adam blamed Eve for his transgression. This was a man who walked closely with God, and yet his own sin caused him to turn against his wife in order to protect himself from appearing guilty.
Why is this important? Women who do marry Christian men with no apparent red flags are not guaranteed the beautiful complementarian marriage to which Kassian alludes. People drift and change, even while attending Kassian approved *gospel* churches. Others conceal their poor behavior for a period of time, especially in the dating and early marriage years.
Authoritarian complementarianism is appealing to those who have a hidden abusive personality.
Kassian has a problem. Even the supposed "good" guys can turn bad. Years ago I knew a Christian couple that was well-loved and respected throughout the Christian community. I still remember people telling me that this couple had the best marriage they had ever seen. By this time, Dee was getting smarter. i remember thinking that only time would bear that out. Several years later, the husband took up with a sweet young thing, leaving his wife devastated. While married they did the whole complementarian thing – church (an official TGC church with a council member as pastor), Bible studies, men's and women's conferences with the approved leaders, etc. They had been married for over 20 years. So much for a complementarian marriage…
Then there was another woman I knew who was a well known women's Bible study leader. She was big into submission – her husband was head of the family, etc. They attended gospel™ approved conferences, a great church, etc. They had been married for about 25 years. I found out she had cancer and that it wasn't going well. So, I brought her a meal and spent time talking with her. Suddenly, she raised her arm and I saw bruises all over it. At first I thought it might be a result of chemotherapy, so I asked her about it. Sadly, her husband had been abusing her for several years, and she was covered in bruises in concealed areas. Of course, I got her some help, but it was an awful situation.
Needless to say we do not know what goes on in the homes of our leaders, self-declared or otherwise. So, for example, we have no idea what really goes on in Mary Kassian's home. One thing I do know. There have been one too many supposed *good* comp leaders who have been caught in sin. Abuse, unfortunately, is one of those silent sins. I happen to know that there are complementarian men, even leader types, who have abused their wives; however, no one talks about it. Yet, women like Kassian continue to deny that such a thing could happen since she only knows "good men".
Aimee Byrd: Authoritarian complementarianism and domestic abuse.
Thankfully, Aimee Byrd is one person whom Mary Kassian might listen to on a good day. Byrd is both Reformed and a complementarian. She wrote an excellent article Listening to Abused Women, in which she writes:
In my last article, I pleaded that complementarian men should respond to women with a listening ear and a resolve to better teach what headship actually means and what it does not mean. They should be reaching out to abused women, whose husbands and churches hide under the banner of headship and complementarianism, and call out the abuse and false teaching loud and clear. They should be working to help church leaders to recognize abuse and provide godly counsel and resources for those abused.
Could current trends in comp teaching enable abuse?
My point is that when you make authority/submission of Father to Son the distinction between the two in eternity (ex., Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 251) and make that the paradigm for male-female relations you risk developing a position where the Christological/crucicentric pattern of the husband-wife relationship is relativized or even sidelined. And you may well end up with a monochrome understanding of marriage which misses the need for the husband to sacrifice for the wife, as well as all of those beautiful, playful dimensions of biblical love and marriage as we find, for example, in the Song of Songs.
All of these things must be part of anything claiming the name of biblical complementarianism. The current reductionism, by way of contrast, may not cause but certainly enables the kind of abuse described here. It is a pity that, in the rush to defend the barricades, so many seem to have lost sight of the human side of this Trinitarian problem.
A true story of one marriage that started off well and ended badly.
I am going to make a guess here. I believe that this story is about a woman who believed in comp teaching, was Reformed, and may have been a leader of women. She cared about living a life of submission to her husband, who was a committed Christian when they married.
When I first met my husband-to-be, it was like a dream come true. We met on a missions trip. He was kind, considerate, actively serving in the church, spiritually mature, and handsome, too. Our friendship grew quickly and within months we were meeting with the elders to get their blessing on our engagement, which they gladly gave. My parents even consulted with mutual friends as to his character as a Christian, and he passed with flying colors.
But to top that, he confided to me that he received a prophetic word from God promising him a special blessing on this marriage. Who could resist that? I was in a different place theologically at the time, so I did not see extra-scriptural revelation as a problem. Rather I felt humbled and honored to be the person whom God choose to fulfill His promise to my future husband. This all but guaranteed to my mind that we would have a happy marriage.
Warning: In case anyone thinks that this prophetic word is limited to charismatic churches, think again. SGM has influenced many of the Calvinist churches in this regard. I know of one well educated, deeply committed, theology studying, ardent complementarian who attends one of the recognized Calvinista *gospel* churches and who gets prophecies on where he should go on vacation, whmo he should marry and which Bible study he should lead. His pastor, well known in comp circles, thinks he is one of the godliest men in his really big Calvinista church.
The wife tried to obedient, to no avail.
I wanted to be a good wife, so I was determined not to usurp my husband's authority. I deferred to him in just about everything. I trusted that if he was wrong, God would correct him in His time. My job was to be obedient.
… I think only perfection would have only satisfied him, not a normal, fallible human being. Even when the children disappointed or embarrassed him, it was my fault because I was not doing enough to raise them properly.
She felt she needed to hide this from others in order to *respect* her husband.
This is important. Many people who are abused suffer in silence.
The family continued to function normally at least on the outside. Not even the children suspected because we hid it from them. We hid it from our friends. I hid it from my family. I did not ask for prayer because it would be a sign of disrespect towards him, and the Bible told me that he could be won without a word. I was also afraid of what he would he do if people found out. Would it drive him further away or to divorce? So I suffered in silence and prayed with all my might that God would save the marriage. But things got even worse.
Her husband praised others while showering her with contempt.
He barely showed me any physical affection but was quick to hug the wives and daughters of our friends. He praised others. I got back-handed compliments. I tried to say, as gently as I could, that it wounded me when I saw him show affection to our friends. His response was to tell me to stop trying to control him. From then on I just kept silent as the contempt grew. He would work late, stay up late, and sleep on the couch.
Others viewed them as the perfect Christian family while things were falling apart.
After what seemed like ages, the blow fell when my husband said we should separate, telling me to move out and leave the children with him. I was crushed. I refused his offer and finally broke my silence. Friends and family were stunned because we seemed like the perfect Christian family. They talked to him and encouraged us to fight for the marriage. I was more than willing to do this. But he said staying married to me would be a slow emotional death, and he needed to be free to be himself. If I would not go, he would move out even though several Christian men confronted him on multiple occasions.
Eventually she found out that he had another honey who was God's will for him. You can read the entire story in which she describes how she was *gas-lighted* by her husband. The sad reality is that many people do not recognize her abuse because he didn't hit her. He merely manipulated her view of reality and bullied her in the process.
She discusses how the church and church members often give poor advice to the abused woman.
After reading Kassian's take down of Tucker, I can see how this occurs within the authority-driven complementarian churches.
Yet I have heard stories of women who were told to go back and submit no matter what their husbands did, while still maintaining a reverential attitude toward their abusers. There may have been some exceptions if there was a pattern of violence, but never permanent freedom from the abuser. And what makes a pattern? Once? Twice? How much was too much? They were told to stop being so emotional and exaggerating their situations especially if there weren't any bruises as evidence. They were told that God was for their marriages so they needed to pray harder. And wasn't she as much of a sinner as her abusive husband? If she deserved Hell, wasn't she getting better than she deserved? I was told that I didn't tell my husband I loved him enough. This is telling me I needed to give a narcissist what he wanted, which is like trying to fill a bottomless pit. This was also like a punch in the stomach from someone I trusted, so I felt betrayed all over again.
Wendy Alsup, also a Reformed complementarian, brings some sense to how gender roles are misunderstood.
I think Wendy hits on an interesting distinction.
Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware have linked ESS to the submission of women.
Wendy believes that this has corrupted the debate on the Trinity and ESS.
Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem in particular have cultivated the doctrine of ESS in direct response to modern evangelical feminism and use it to bolster their very real world views on gender, particularly submission of women. This teaching then filters down through books, conferences, and pulpits and has significant influence on how men and women are taught to relate to each other in their churches, marriages, and society at large.
Alsup believes that Grudem, Ware, CBMW, etc. have linked the subordination of women in eternity to the subordination of Jesus in eternity.
For the last six years, TWW has contended that this has been the reason for the ESS debate. Finally, a Reformed complementarian agrees with us!
Note the parallel language of the joyful agreement and support of the Son eternally to the leadership of the Father and the female's willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. If we are reading Grudem, Ware, and The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's position correctly, Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father and woman will be eternally subordinate to man in the New Creation.
Alsup believes that these groups and theologians are confusing gender distinctions with the roles of husband and wife – roles that will end after this life.
These leaders of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believe that this benevolent responsibility of man and joyful receiving from woman is the heart of mature manhood and womanhood – not roles for husbands and wives but the essence of the two genders, and they believe it holds still in the New Creation.
…Our earthly marriages—and the submission that happens within them—are but mere shadows of the one great marriage between Christ and His bride that will exist for all eternity. As our roles shift from being individual husbands and wives so too will the submission that flows from our individual relationships. As the collective Bride of Christ, we will all submit to Jesus as our Bridegroom. Christ remains the head of both man and woman. His supremacy (which Philippians 2 tells us is the direct result of his obedience to the Father) will govern our relationships with each other, male and female alike.
Alsup states that, in the here and now, we are not celebrating authority, but sacrifice.
In this life now, husbands and wives have an opportunity to give testimony, not to the subordination of women to men, but to the eternal truth that Jesus is a Bridegroom who loved His wife enough to leave His glory, descend to the earth, and fulfill His Father’s plan of Redemption. And this is what we celebrate when we celebrate the subordination of the Son. We do not celebrate authority. We celebrate sacrifice. We do not celebrate control. We celebrate the submission of our wills. It is this beautiful dynamic between the Father and Son, and eventually between the Bridegroom and Bride, that will set the world right.
Although I have some differences with both Alsup and Byrd when it comes to the role of men and women in the marriage relationship, I still believe that together they get this discussion right.
If marriages reflected sacrifice and submission of our individual wills to the good of the marriage, I believe that abusive behavior would more readily be spotted by those trapped in an abusive marriage. It would also affect how the church cares for those who have been abused. Women are not to be subordinate and abused in that position. They are to be sacrificially loved.
I believe that Grudem, Ware, Piper, CBMW and others are contributing to the silent abuse culture in today's churches. It is time to rethink how women are viewed by the church. In many churches, women are afraid to discuss domestic abuse because the teaching seems to tell women if they just submit enough, they, too, will have a beautiful comp marriage. When they don't, if must be their fault. After all, it is only good comp women like Mary Kassian who have *good* men in their lives, right?
Lowlandseer wrote:
In the New Calvinist works in my area, there appears to be a general mistrust of personal Christian experience. Indeed, the young reformers don’t talk much about Jesus! There is a lot of jabber about “God”, but the name of Christ is not lifted up as it should be (this from my monitoring of YRR sermon podcasts). Instead, the teachings of Calvin and today’s reformed icons get much more air time than the Gospels. Even the writings of Paul supersede the words of Jesus (which Paul would never agree with!). Testimonies of a personal relationship with the living Christ are never given in a reformed service (in the ones I listen to), but you hear a lot about propositional truths as the essence of faith. It just appears so upside down from the New Testament example of doing Church!
Tim wrote:
This statement strikes me. Literal readings of the bible have been used to justify all manner of abuse & intolerance. Complementarianism goes hand in hand with the child abuse scandals. When you claim a mandate from heaven to justify your subjugation, all cards are off the table.
Complementarianism is not sustainable & has no place in civil discourse. There is no way I would ever “live & let live” for this theology.
Look at the so called wife spanking brought up a few posts ago. That was enough to convince me.
Bridget wrote:
Speaking for myself, I never stopped to think about the connections Paul draws in his 1 Timothy arguments between Paul’s own history, the cultural context of the Ephesian religion, and the Genesis narrative. As a result, I could not understand the “saved by/through childbearing” part, so I just ignored it. I do not know if that is the case with Alan, but he obviously does not want to deal with it.
The ones who have to deal with it, like Schreiner, Kostenberger, and others cannot deal with it consistently because one term, “I am not allowing a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man,” must mean only one thing. Therefore, all the other terms must take values which make the entire argument fit. The problem is that they cannot do this while being consistent without coming up with transparently implausible values for the “childbearing” term. Nancy2 could explain this better. 🙂 They miss both the math and the poetry Paul is using because they are obsessively fixated on “no woman can teach authoritatively over any man.”
Alan House wrote:
Are you INSANE?? People who run a cult that way will not listen to the wives.
I’ve been trying to read all the comments before starting to add to the discussion, but Alan put me over the edge.
@ Lea:
NT Wright has said it is like thinking you can put Hebrew poetry into a software program and getting a literal meaning.
Alan House wrote:
What kind of “best modern translation committees” can’t tell the difference between a noun and a verb? You are defending incompetent exegetical “skill” which is no skill at all.
There are competent Biblical translation committees who have correctly translated that women will be saved by The Childbearing, a noun that refers to Jesus’ birth, and have not used the incorrect word “childbearing” (a verb) which is not in the original texts.
@ Gram3:
They also ignore chapter one which sets it up: false teachers/teaching. And, Those who are deceived out of ignorance (like Paul) and those who deceive on purpose.
Tim wrote:
Great point! And a great starting point is Kephale.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t remember where I heard this, but a number of years ago this passage was explained as an incredibly egalitarian truth statement. In a culture where women were considered a lower caste because they were not good for anything other than making babies, this passage says that in spite of their role in childbearing, women are give honor as full and equal partners in the new creation. It gives honor and dignity to stay at home moms, for example. It’s a statement affirming the “Gospel”(TM) value of doing the mundane chores required of raising children. It’s a statement that says it’s wrong to look down on women who bear children. I’m guessing that if that passage was addressed to stay at home dads it would have had a similar emphasis on establishing honor.
Gram3 wrote:
1 Timothy 2:12 has been worked, reworked, and overworked for 2,000 years by those desiring to subordinate women. Perhaps we should consider that passage in the cultural setting in which it was written. The New Testament church, which included saved Jews, followed certain Jewish practices of religious education. Women taught their daughters; men taught their sons. In church, older women mentored younger women; older men mentored younger men. When it came to religious education, women were not to usurp the role of men; men were not to usurp the role of women. The NT church understood this, no one is to usurp authority over anyone else in church! The prohibitions recommended by Paul were consistent with the practices of his day. Should the free Church of Jesus Christ, in which male and female are one, delineate the presentation of the Gospel by gender? Should we set boundaries on which saints should be equipped to do the work of the ministry or send all believers into the field to fulfill the Great Commission to preach and teach truth, without restricting their right to do so by gender?
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
There is a large segment of Christendom that believes certain people have to wait until eternity for very basic justice and truth because the caste system they bought into is most important on earth. They miss the larger point of the resurrection.
Alan House wrote:
So you don’t go to the original texts?
Lowlandseer wrote:
One of my son’s friends committed suicide because of the Calvinist teaching that was foisted upon him in his college ministry. That’s what “Doctrines of Grace” did to one young man who loved God with all his heart but thought that God’s grace was not sufficient for him because of what he had been taught by new-Calvinist youth leaders. Something is terribly wrong when the good news starts sounding like bad news. If your statement is true, that it flows from one’s direct experience of grace, then the Doctrines of Grace is deadly.
Gram3 wrote:
and it completely excapes them that Our Lord chose a woman to announce the Resurrection …
what people emphasize and de-emphasize in sacred Scripture is very telling and when the neo-cals dismiss the fact that Our Lord spoke and acted in the Very Person of God, remove Him as the ‘lens’ through which His Word is to be understood, and demote Him from the Second Person of the Holy Trinity to an ESS ‘subordinate’,
then their man-made ‘doctrines’ WILL crash against ‘Who Christ Is’ and shatter.
silly men, with their bloated senses of ‘male’importance … they got lost in ‘who THEY were’
wrote:
And the manipulative Biblical translation committees conveniently changed this passage as well. The original text says “the woman” (Paul was referring to one specific woman) and not “a woman”. Big difference.
That one woman was teaching one man error. Paul wanted her to stop, learn correctly, and then teach. The issue that Paul was addressing was about error, not about women not teaching and carrying The Gospel.
@ Max:
And another thing about “usurping authority”. In the early church (our pattern), there were prophetesses and deaconesses. I would think that when a prophetess was speaking, the men would sit quiet in the congregation listening to her expound on Truth, as the women were instructed to do when a prophet was speaking. Likewise, when a deaconess was serving the Body of Christ, I’m quite sure that the deacons allowed her that privilege by quietly serving alongside her.
Alan House wrote:
When two sincere believers disagree on how to interpret a particular passage, what is the best process to determine who is correct? Who or what is the final authority to resolve divisions caused by such disagreements?
Gram3 wrote:
I have watched math students do something similar to this with difficult math problems. They work through the problem, and find that their solution does not work when they test it. So, they go back to the algebraic steps and “tweek” the problem to make their incorrect solution work. Which, in the end, makes their solution even more wrong!
Gram3 wrote:
If you take that verse at simplistic (4th grade) face value, how can a female who has not borne a child be accepted into church membership? Most churches require at least a brief testimony of salvation and statement of faith before they accept a new member. If women are “saved through childbearing” ……….???
Jack wrote:
It is really weird. Soft comp was really sold to the seeker mega world as the way to a happy marriage. There was a subtle strain in it that men had been marginalized by successful women and needed encouragement. It was an extremely soft sell. People clamored for the conferences and seminars. Marriage is hard and they were selling a soft formula with a guarantee that God would bless it. It was so soft and subtle the middle and upper class educated types never questioned it. Women could be high powered executives, have nannies and still be a submissive wife. They did practical mutuality at home and wore the comp face at church. It was really more of a doctrine of talk than a doctrine of doing. Very fake. People got very caught up in the whole ‘love and respect’ aspects of certain verses as if we never had an Enlightenment or the evolution of individual rights. Seriously women are not concerned with being respected by their husbands? Eggerich made bank on that silliness.
But the doctrine is impractical in a self governing society. The only requirement for men is that they have the correct Plumbing. It is akin to being born into royalty. For much of the world’s history it was assumed those born in royalty were better and smarter than those who were not. We know that is ridiculous now.
And that thinking has absolutely no place in the body of Christ. If it does, how can Christ be my model?
Tim wrote:
(Excuse me for piggybacking off your comment, Tim. I’m addressing this to Alan, but the comment thread is hyu-normous now, and I want to do this quick before going to bed. Apologies to all if this has been said already.)
Dear Alan,
No, Paul did not write his letters to Rhodes scholars. But neither did he write them to modern 4th graders. And, strictly speaking, he didn’t write them to us, either. He wrote them to believers living in a time and place far removed from ours, speaking a different language, and dealing with problems that we don’t fully understand.
I admit that trying to understand Scripture from the perspective of its original audience requires some speculation. There’s always the possibility that we’ll speculate wrongly. But considering that the “clear meaning of Scripture” has been used to support and justify many atrocities, both large- and small-scale, it is incumbent upon us mature believers to try.
Comp teachings, as far as I can see, provide no solution for a woman trapped in both an abusive marriage and church. And there are far too many situations like that in modern Christendom — Ruth Tucker’s experience is only one, and might not even be the worst example. In light of this, I cannot accept your interpretation of the Bible. It is simply too cruel to women.
(If you have any questions for me, I won’t be able to answer for a while. Must sleep.)
Velour wrote:
In a church we formerly belonged to, there was a rather nasty business meeting. An elderly lady, whose father had deeded the property that the church was built on, stood up in the meeting to challenge a decision claiming that she might just have to take the property back! After cooler heads prevailed, the meeting was adjourned. On the way out, an old saint turned to me and quietly said “Son, that is exactly why you don’t want to give the Devil the microphone!” (Of course, his remark had nothing to do with gender, but the spirit behind the flesh).
Lydia wrote:
Absolutely, and that violates a *conservative* interpretive principle: context, context, context. Literary context, authorial context, historical/cultural context. It is classic proof-texting, which is *unconservative.*
Velour wrote:
Don’t most “modern translation committees” have an agenda?
Lydia wrote:
That is exactly what I believe Alan House was saying.
“If the men are wrong, just suck it up and deal with it, woman. God’ll get ’em on judgement day.”
Alan House wrote:
You have already proven here that is not the case. And that is because you have used 1st Corinthians in two separate examples and they totally contradict one another in the way you have interpreted them.
In Chapter 11 Paul has absolutely no problem with women prophesing to the body of Christ. The question is a cultural one ; do they cover or not. In chapter 14 you have Paul saying they must be silent in the church in order to have order. ( the Greek word for silence means not one sound not even singing)
A more plausible interpretation, because of verse 36 where he makes fun of that, is Paul is quoting the typical teaching from the Talmud. ( Corinthians is chock-full of questions that Paul answers. Some translators acknowledge that with quotation marks and others don’t)
So Paul is quoting something that is almost word-for-word throughout the Talmud and he refutes it totally and verse 36.
Your interpretation has Paul contradicting himself.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
This is a big point that has very scary theological implications for many people.
Nancy2 wrote:
This attitude floored me the most. In my opinion it is like spitting on the resurrection.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes, or they wouldn’t be adding another translation to the big pile already out there! Lord, we just need to pick one up – any of them (!), read it and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us to Truth and the ability to discern where the translation drifts into error. Of course, if there are enough believers who read and know Truth cautioning against a particular translation, we need to avoid it. For example, steer clear of the ESV Study Bible – it is loaded with Calvinist commentary! That would be an agenda.
@ elastigirl:
Well said elastigirl, well said!
Max wrote:
Hopefully all other men were able to serve alongside her, not just other deacons. 😉
Alan House wrote:
You did not state “Scripture is always the ONLY commentary on scripture.” Best implies there are other sources not quite as good. What are the other sources you use? How do you validate the adequacy of those sources?
Ken F wrote:
We live and let live. We don’t go to their camp with a club shaped bible. We dont repeat over and over: God hath said when we all know the individual is saying it.
There is no need for the Holy Spirit in many sectors of Christendom and a crying shame to replace with mere humans who benefit from what they insist is correct Doctrine.
Alan House wrote:
Always note what is said in the negative… there are clues there…
I posted it as one of many translations. I like to see what numerous translators have come up with.
Nancy2 wrote:
I was talking to a man the other day who belongs to an SBC church which was taken over by a young Calvinist who had lied to the search committee about his theological persuasion. As a non-Calvinist, he and a group of other like-minded folks, stayed after the church split when the young whippersnapper forced elder-rule upon them (by a manipulated vote). I asked him if he was still tithing there. He responded “Yes, I am. I don’t agree with their theology and what they have done to our church. If they are using my money wrongly, they are responsible for that.” To which I responded “No, YOU are responsible before God for what you give to rather than blindly putting your money in the plate. They have already proven to be wrong by operating in stealth and deception to takeover the church.” There is a psychology at work in these churches which is reaching a strange dimension.
Alan House wrote:
You don’t think you have ever advocated dominance. So it is possible you have.
Yes, it is an emotionally charged word. That is why comps couch it in different terms. The end result is the same.
Max wrote:
So true Max, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood…”.
And that’s precisely why we need old saints in the churches, for their years and all they’ve seen.
Lydia wrote:
Anyone who has doubt on this needs to read up on the puns in amos(?) that can only be understood in Hebrew.
Bridget wrote:
I’m sure they were. They did Church differently in the first century, than we do in the 21st century. For starters, a “oneness” prevailed, contrary to today’s church mess you read about in the blogosphere.
I think this sift comp may have started with “Promise Keepers” in the ’80’s.@ Lydia:
I’m back from protesting at the House of Driscoll. Todd Wilhelm came by and stood with me for a while before going in to hear Driscoll teach. I’ll be curious to hear what his report is.
Otherwise:
70 cars in the lot.
Plates from Arizona (natch), California, Illinois, Washington state and Oregon.
I got a couple of hugs from attendees. 🙂
I mentioned the church had been painted a white color within the last couple of weeks. I’m kind of slow on the uptake and it took me a while to figure out why this bothered me so much. Well, it’s because that cold, white color stands out against the warm tans, beiges and pale yellows in the housing and commercial property in the area. It’s like a sore thumb, actually.
And, in case you hadn’t heard, Driscoll sent an email out on Friday saying that they have purchased the property. Inquiring minds like mine have so many questions! Back in the day I worked in commercial real estate. If I could have five minutes with the loan file, I would learn *so much*…
Muff Potter wrote:
Agreed! We need the energy of youth coupled with the wisdom of age … young folks to speed things up, old folks to slow things down. Of course, gray hair doesn’t equal wisdom, but it helps.
Lydia wrote:
I agree with you. The question was for Alan. I heard a joke once about a man who walked into an outhouse and saw another man emptying the contents of his pockets into the pit. The first man asked, “Why are doing that?” The answer, “I dropped a quarter in there, and I’m certainly not going in there for just a quarter.” The that same thing happens with theological topics that shouldn’t otherwise cause division. The worst example is how Ken Ham logically lays out the argument that belief in an old earth results in a denial of the atonement of Christ. His argument is full of holes, but he is so set on supporting YEC that he has to tie it to essential orthodox beliefs in order to give it weight. I see Alan doing the same thing.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes they do which is why we have to check their work for ourselves against the texts.
Lydia wrote:
If you are stuck in a concentration camp or are a slave to an evil master and have no earthly way of getting out, that thought might be comforting.
If you live in modern day, that attitude being directed towards free people of the church who are being abused by others in the church is absolutely disgusting.
I don’t care what these men have to say, women should get out when they aren’t treated well. Be done with them.
@ mirele:
Good for you! I too wonder where those millions are coming from…
Ken F wrote:
That is so sad, Ken F. My deepest sympathies for everybody’s loss of such a wonderful young man.
Adding on to the weight of NeoCalvinism, its law and lack of love, its bondage, is this Nouthetic Counseling nonsense: That the Bible is sufficient counsel for everything, which my ex-NeoCal pastors have on the church website and adhere to.
What this means is that even people with serious problems (mental health, alcoholism, etc.) are “treated” with Bible verses by untrained, incompetent men who run their mouthes instead of referring those people to licensed, trained, educated professionals.
These pastors/elders engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, which can be prosecuted as a felony crime in my state, and they do much damage. They damaged many people at my former church and their families.
The same men who espouse this nonsense usually wear prescription eyeglasses and don’t throw Scripture verses at their vision problems.
Velour wrote:
Spiritual malpractice.
@ Max:
IMO Paul sets out a principle of interpersonal relationships: we should love one another as we love ourselves. The church is an extension of personal relationships. When we meet together, we should behave appropriately, with dignity, and with order. Order does *not* mean that one is above another, and hierarchy is not required for Christians to know how to conduct ourselves. If we need a hierarchy, then we have shown that we have already failed as people who are called to imitate Christ.
In Ephesus, the folks were coming out of a female-centric power cult and, IMO, they are not unlike other people who bring their cultural presuppositions into the New Creation kingdom. The New Creation is not like other kingdoms, however much the YRR and others want to retain aspects of the fallen creation. They are calling evil good.
Max wrote:
Oohhhhhhkaayyyy …… If he donates money to ISIS, who will be responsible?
Leslie wrote:
Eeeeekkk! Tony Evans!
Max wrote:
And the culture of the time was that there was a pagan temple devoted to a female goddess
(Artemus) and common practices that were followed there and in the community. Paul was addressing those pagan practices so they wouldn’t corrupt the church, not making an ultimatum about Christian women that was to last forever.
Here is Wade Burleson’s article on it (he’s the pastor from Enid, OK who is on E-Church on The Wartburg Watch here on Sundays): http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html
mirele wrote:
Go Mirele! Thanks for the report.
So glad that Todd could join you on his visit. He’s a good man.
mirele wrote:
So glad Todd could join you! He is one of my heroes. Looking forward to his commentary on Driscoll. 🙂
@ mirele:
that happily announced purchase is a reminder that just about three months ago and by the account of Team Driscoll the ink was still wet on a rental agreement for the same spot.
mirele wrote:
Pure speculation, but perhaps Robert Morris made an “investment” in Driscoll’s “ministry.” He apparently has a lot of spare cashflow, and he tried to resuscitate Driscoll’s ministry. To draw a big, regular crowd, you need a big, regular building devoted/sanctified to the “ministry.” It is aggravating how many scare quotes are needed when talking about the Usual Suspects.
Max wrote:
In my experience, it means that my hair stylist was not paying attention. 🙂
Lea wrote:
When the scribes and Pharisees wanted to stone the woman who was caught in adultery, did Jesus shrug his shoulders at her and say, “Oh well. If there wrong, they will face judgement for it.”
Ken F wrote:
Alan punts and calls it a field goal.
Victorious wrote:
Which makes the most sense if you let Scripture interpret Scripture. Some don’t want that though, they want it to mean “boss-of-life” relationships.
Velour wrote:
Which again makes the most sense, and incidentally is the simpler solution, because it does not require that significant passages elsewhere in Scripture be jury-rigged in order to make 1 Timothy 2:12 “stick” as binding for all churches at all times.
Alan House wrote:
That wasn’t ad hominem. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes!
Repeat 10x!
@ elastigirl:
Well, when you put it like that….
Bravo!
Alan House wrote:
That wasn’t ad hominem. You don’t know what you’re talking about.Alan House wrote:
I agree, it is a serious issue to negate a scripture, but does that have to do with anything? “Head” means “source”, as in, it was not Eve first, but Adam. Paul stresses this argument. I have negated nothing. But, if you believe that it is OK to take another meaning of the word head in English and transpose that meaning onto the scripture, then if it is a very serious thing to negate scripture, why are you doing it?
@ Gram3:
I don’t think that’s true. I’ve already mentioned that there is an openness to consider some of the newer interpretations.
Alan House wrote:
Absolutely no leaders were at said conference if they were leaders as you seem to be defining “leadership”. If there were any such leaders, they were in grave sin and misleading little ones and it would have been better for them to dive into the Galilee with a millstone round their necks.
There are no leaders like Moses today, there are only people submitting one to another, Jesus is the leaders and the head or source of all of us, having been the One Who created everything and died to reconcile it to Himself. The only ones who should be leaders are those older folks (i.e, elders), beyond the foolishness of ambition, who raised their families well and are thus dependable, who understand that they are to be the least and the last, back of the line, a servant of all. They are to recognize that in every single instance, without an exception, discipline is for the church as a whole to exercise, never for a private counsel of leaders. Most importantly, they are lead without exception by godly example and are never allowed to compel anyone to do anything, recognizing that they have no status above anyone else, all of us being co-priests and heirs, there being neither male nor female in Christ.
If you think otherwise, you negate the Scriptures.
@ Max:
That is why I prefer to think of them as pseudo-Calvinist, rather than new ones.
Gram3 wrote:
Unfortunately, there are many people who believe the world that the world cannot function without hierarchy. They read it into every area of life.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean, but if you can point me to a “Complementarian” who uses a consistent and conservative method of interpretation (and by consistent I mean the same method applies to clobber verses as other verses), then I would truly appreciate it if you would point me to that explanation of 1 Timothy 2:12ff. I do not know if you are a female subordinationist, but if you are, I would also appreciate a pointer to the verse where God commands males to exercise authority over females.
I have thus far been unsuccessful in my quest. That very question/challenge was enough to get me “keyed” out of my LocalChurch. I committed the Berean sin.
@ Ken F:
i imagine that there is more to the tragedy than that and it is a pity that you felt the need to use it as part of the discussion.
Gram3 wrote:
I have five. Is that enough? But maybe not. Most of my kids are now atheists because of how comp teachings played out in our home. My ex-husband is one more of those “Christian” men who used comp teachings to justify abuse. And you know what made it worse? He never hit me. Therefore many “Christians” will say that I/we were not abused. Never mind that the abuse was verbal, emotional, and spiritual.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Agreed LLS! As a traditional non-Calvinist Southern Baptist, I have worshiped alongside classical Calvinists for over 60 years. I have found them to be civil in discourse and providing a good perspective on certain Scripture. They have never demanded their own way, nor demonstrated arrogance, militancy, aggression, control, manipulation, and intimidation of others. This new breed may share aspects of reformed theology with their older brethren, but they are definitely more mean-spirited in belief and practice. Most of the YRR in my area would not be accused of being Christlike.
@ Gram3:
That is what I’ve done. The fact that I have come to a different conclusion from you doesn’t make me lazy nor does it make it wrong or less valid than yours.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I don’t understand why a real-life illustration is a pity to use in a discussion such as this. What am I misunderstanding?
Gram3 wrote:
Amen and Amen! The various leadership offices given to the Church were designed to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry together … not lord control over them!
Gram3 wrote:
This. So many in these theological camps have clearly never experienced abuse in their own lives. “Just appeal to the elders and have them talk to your husband.” Abusers lie and manipulate and historically the church is bad at seeing through it. When they think through the logical consequences of their theology it’s all sunshine and roses, but in the real world none of it actually works. Not only does it not work, it encourages the very thing they think it’s solving. They sit in their ivory towers not lifting a finger.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Emotional abuse and verbal abuse are soul acids. Regrettably, my extended family includes living proof of the absolute inability of most pastors and church people to understand abusive personalities and the people and systems which enable them to inflict the abuse.
I am so sorry about your children who have left the faith because of this false teaching and man-made fake gospel. I hope that, as they gain some distance from their bitter experience, they will again be able to see Jesus the Christ without the twisted and dark distortions they have seen.
@ Lydia:
Ken F wrote: “When two sincere believers disagree on how to interpret a particular passage, what is the best process to determine who is correct? Who or what is the final authority to resolve divisions caused by such disagreements?”
Lydia wrote: “We live and let live. We don’t go to their camp with a club shaped bible. We dont repeat over and over: God hath said when we all know the individual is saying it.
There is no need for the Holy Spirit in many sectors of Christendom and a crying shame to replace with mere humans who benefit from what they insist is correct Doctrine.”
++++++++++++++++++
very reasonable.
my next wondering is how to make sense of contradictory conclusions from multiple parties who all give place to Holy Spirit (with a certain amount of skilled discernment/sensitivity).
and my next thought-response is
-things in the bible are based on truth (whether a mountain in full relief, a poetic metaphor, a kernel,…)
-kernels of truth are small and mysterious enough to preclude uniform conclusions (thus conclusions A, B, C,…)
-truth on a God-level is so enormous, i can conceive of it somehow being at once A, B, and C. somehow integrating what seems contradictory to our minds.
-i don’t believe this ultimate truth level would incorporate harm to a living thing
-it’s not for us to resolve now; would require too much of our resources and be fruitless anyway; better to spend the bulk of our time/energy making the world a cleaner, healthier, happier, more peaceful place.
Ken F wrote:
Anecdotal? (Rolling eyes,here,)
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, there are various ways to terrorize people … such as using stealth and deception to takeover a church!
Max wrote:
Indeed, but I would add that old folks have a type of energy that the young have not yet developed. Many genealogists are retired. They will spend hours energetically scouring a library for a record. If they don’t find it, they will devote months and decades to the hunt, honing their skills and gathering more information along the way. This energy has endurance and resourcefulness as well as patience, mastery, attention to detail, an ability to hear old questions in new ways, and institutional or collective memory. Churches can use all of these qualities.
Max wrote:
This reminds me of Matthew 25:
For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The parable of the bags of gold is such an interesting one in light of the question of women using their gifts or burying them.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Well, I have read your comment, but it was quite long, and perhaps you connected the dots there and I missed it. Could you summarize how you get to “complementarianism” via 1 Timothy 2:12ff? Can you restate Paul’s *entire* argument in 1 Timothy 2 as you see it?
Kemi wrote:
That is literally the only solution they have. It’s all their theology allows in bad circumstances. And then when that fails, they blame the abused for not submitting better or winning their husband without a word or when all that fails making a poor choice of a husband (even though many of them encourage poor choice making through courtship and fond introduction of pedophiles as marriage material in some cases).
The don’t know what to do when things go wrong because they would be forced admit that a woman should leave, make her own choices, and take care of herself first. They cannot allow that – they would have to admit a woman is a full person with intelligence and reasoning powers. And then where would they be?
Kemi wrote:
They also pass by on the other side of the road from the beaten ones lying there. The pastors have important tasks to do and cannot be bothered with the wounded. Naturally, they feel very virtuous for the work they are doing for God at their little temples.
Lea wrote:
Mary Kassian’s critique on Ruth Tucker?
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes. And she’s not the only one.
Ken F wrote:
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Here’s another anecdote that may be germane. I ask forgiveness for posting it a second time, but perhaps it went unnoticed when the discussion was derailed:
This reminds me of a friend, who was married to a young athletic man who was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor. For awhile he was physically strong but very unstable due to the tumor. Because of his cancer, this formerly gentle husband repeatedly r#ped his wife, my friend. She went to clergy to ask permission to take birth control pills so that she would not get pregnant by her violent and dying husband. She was otherwise willing to put up with his attacks, voluntarily taking that on as part of her commitment to him throughout a long, deadly illness. Her concern was only for the safety of any baby she might conceive.
Clergy accused her of cheating on her dying husband and said no to the birth control.
For those keeping score at home, that was one less Christian. My friend got the pill from her doctor.
@ Nancy2:
How is your dog Allie doing today? I hope she is enjoying a nice rest.
Friend wrote:
I did see this. That is so awful. I think these are the sort of men who should be put out of the church, these clergy.
Friend wrote:
I saw it and appreciate the significance. For me, it hit too close to home. The idealogues will never see the tragedy-upon-tragedy because they know what you wrote is true.
Lea wrote:
Yes! And this is really why a “live and let live” approach to this theology doesn’t work. It’s like Elie Wiesel said:
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
Lowlandseer wrote:
This kid was one of the role models in the ministry. He was very active in the ministry, was reading all the YRR books, and was teaching the YRR doctrines to his friends. His suicide note highlighted the fact that he thought God’s grace was sufficient for others but not for him. That’s what the Doctrines of Grace did for him. Sure, there were certainly other factors in play. But if this horrific theology was not a significant part of his decision to take his life he would not have written about it.
This hits very close to home for me because one of my sons was being groomed to be just like that kid. That same theology wreaked havoc on my son’s faith and on his desire for living. I know it was the theology because I had hours of conversations with him trying to counteract what he was taught by that same ministry. I thank God daily that my son survived and did not attempt to take his life. The suicide happened not long after my son left the church. I shudder to think how close I was to burying my own son.
This is what caused me to investigate Calvinism with almost an OCD-level of interest starting more than a year ago. You can go to the open section to find my list of links to articles critiquing Calvinism if you want to repeat some of my research.
For those who have not yet personally experienced the practical outcome of this theology, you should drop to your knees and plead with God that you will never have to follow Calvinism to its logical conclusion. Pray with fervor that it can remain forever theoretical for you and your loved ones.
@ Gram3:
I don’t need to. You know the arguments backwards, I gather, as does everyone who reads what you write.
This is a bit of an issue I have with the whole Alan talk. I find that most of us here, either were complementarians in thought at one point (if not totally patriarchal and fundamentalist) and we researched and studied and faced our cognitive dissonance and are now well versed on both sides of the argument and are convinced that a more egalitarian doctrine is a biblically consistent hermeneutical approach that also protects “the least of these” ala WWW prime directive. The Alans of the world come into these conversations having only researched and thought about the complementarian side of things, so you bring up basic premise of scriptural interpretation and careful exegetical analysis (as many here have so patiently done) and it’s like “huh? never heard of that. must not be true/relevant”.
I see this on a lot of egalitarian sites as well, like Jory Micah’s. So my advice to Alan would be to do a bit of reading and research on egalitarian biblical scholarship, get educated on the basics, and then come back and have a conversation. I’d suggest Gilbert Bilezekian books, Why Not Women by Loren Cunningham, the Junia Project website and articles on CBE’s website, as a start. This may seem harsh to you Alan, but I feel like this conversation is going around in circles. We know your side, we lived it, and we’ve rejected it. Find out why.
Kemi wrote:
Best post of the day. The new-Calvinism is making inroads only because so many Christians are either too polite or too uninformed to do anything to resist it.
I must say that this is one of the most interesting comment sections I’ve yet to read at TWW. I wanted to comment sooner but couldn’t stop reading everyone else’s comments first. Now if only HUG were here to comment instead of being on vacation!
Ken F wrote:
Some follow the method of speaking authoritatively as if there is no question they are right. If they persist with that tactic I figure there is no engagement, there will only be talking past each other, and further discussion is fruitless.
Friend wrote:
Thanks for asking. Allie Gator is doing great – swelling gone, eating normally! She has scabs where the snake bit her, but aside from that, you can’t tell that she was bitten. I do hope that she, Lizzie, and Amos have learned something from their encounters, and that they don’t make the same mistakes with rattlesnakes!
@ Ken F:
I have and have survived. In fact I can testify that my faith kept me from harm. So please don’t continue to use the tragedy to make your case.
@ Friend:
“She went to clergy to ask permission to take birth control pills so that she would not get pregnant by her violent and dying husband. …Clergy accused her of cheating on her dying husband and said no to the birth control.”
++++++++++++
i saw this earlier. very sad. very troubling.
i have to say it’s a bit shocking that she felt she needed church leaders’ permission to take birth control pills. but after reading so much about how christian culture works these days, as well as following the story of Word Of Life Church in New Hartford, NY (2 teen beaten during church counseling session with pastor, one of them dying, at the hands of family and church members), my shock/surprise flames out right away.
my maxim is to own your own life, consult trusted friends and family for advice when needed, hold whatever advice from professional christians very loosely. We do our best, and ignore whatever siren song of perfection.
Ken F wrote:
Thank you, Ken.
Friend wrote:
A friend of mine had a similar experience with the RCC. Her husband beat her, badly and often. When she had to be hospitalized and child services took their children, she got a restraining order before she was released from the hospital. After she was released, she requested and was denied an annulment. When she filed for divorce, she was excommunicated !
Lowlandseer wrote:
Are you saying that personal experience is irrelevant to discussion such as this? It’s great that your faith has served you well. But I equally tell you “So please don’t continue to use the success to make your case.” I truly don’t understand your point. Are you still a Calvinist?
Lowlandseer wrote:
No, you do not. But do not expect anyone to take you seriously outside of a particular bubble. That is the way the real world works.
@ Sarah K:
I would add Philip Barton Payne to your excellent recommendations. The first and hardest step is admitting that something is not quite right.
Lowlandseer wrote:
No offense, but if you think reality is irrelevant, you are free to skip over Ken F’s comments.
Bill M wrote:
I agree with that, but also I try to keep in mind the lurkers who may just be tuning in for various reasons and who are trying to figure things out.
Gram3 wrote:
I’ll have to check him out! I know that there’s tons of great stuff out there, I just threw some stuff out there off the top of my head. 🙂
PS. Ruth Tucker rocks my world. A brave, smart, incredible woman.
Lowlandseer wrote:
We are to weep with those who weep. Please show some respect to Ken F.
Ken F wrote:
Great counsel Ken for any YRR wannabes listening in. They don’t tell you this in reformed indoctrination 101. They don’t advise you that the theology will confuse your mind until you hit the wall … that you won’t experience joyful Christian living … that the rules and regulations will wear you thin … that you will keep running into Scripture contrary to what you are taught … that the icons you put your trust in will fall from grace sooner or later (e.g., Driscoll, Mahaney) … that the whole ordeal will leave you empty and disillusioned. If that is you, young person, run from Calvin and turn to Jesus.
Gram3 wrote:
Understood and I respect your point of view, it is well thought out and supported, many of us missed you while you were on hiatus.
@ Nancy2:
Thanks for the update on Allie, Nancy2. Good to know that both of you are ready to fight snakes again this week! Of course, yours are the 2-legged variety which slither through church, but just as poisonous.
Sarah K wrote:
Well, thank you Sarah, but the book sure shows a shameful side of me.
Ken F wrote:
Ken F, thank you again for sharing this heartbreaking story about that young man’s death and suicide note. I am so glad that your son got out of Calvinism, that you had long conversations, and that you didn’t lose him.
I previously copied Ken F’s excellent questions about Calvinism and links to resources at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies etc. tab. There are other excellent resources stored over there in case anyone wants to refer to them.
Max wrote:
Amen, brother Max. Ditto it you’re a middle-aged person or a senior citizen who has fallen into the dark pit and lies of Calvinism.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
The fact that you openly share your entire story, is what is so powerful. You have reclaimed your life with your vulnerability and I daresay saved many people. Brava.
Bill M wrote:
I’m always curious as to HOW someone’s interpretation was arrived at. And it doesn’t hurt to try to understand any ways that the interpretation might impact the person’s actions and interactions with other people.
So someone sees a passage of sacred Scripture differently . . . the ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ dichotomy doesn’t help when it may be less a matter of difference and more a matter of what is being emphasized.
Darlene wrote:
Ha!
Conquer colonize plant/ some quote from a video game/ cause CALVIN! How’d I do? Lol
@ Alan House
As you said earlier, one cannot put aside any Scripture.
Scriptures clarify and enlarge our understanding. Actually, complement each other, if you will.
God is not divided, nor is He in contradiction to Himself. We fallen, yet HolySpirit-indwelt (albeit in cracked, broken, unpolished, faulty clay containers — which God goes about restoring and beautifying) folks miss His truth a lot in practice, but He keeps sanctifying us according to His will and promises.
All Scripture edifies, etc.
Be glad to answer your question. I’ll reply at the end of the previous (Wed.) thread so as not to hijack this conversation.
However, to be kind, I issue this:
**** SCREED ALERT ****
screed: A long monotonous speech or piece of writing
Ruth Tucker wrote:
Making your story public shows tremendous courage combined with humility.
@ Lea
LOL, LEA
you tried (I’m still laughing)
Ken F wrote:
New Calvinists paint a picture of a determinist God, whose character is contrary to the whole of Scripture. God’s Grace is available and sufficient through Jesus for ALL men. No one in their right spiritual mind would want to know the Calvinist God, who predestines some to salvation and many to damnation before they ever draw breath. What love is this?!
Christiane wrote:
I’m afraid that, far too many times, an interpretation is only a parroting of what one has heard from a pulpit.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
I have not yet read the book, but I think sometimes we are harder on ourselves than anyone else.
I did some stupid things last year but I’m not quite brave enough to tell the world. I very much respect that you are.
Max wrote:
That makes me so mad! Grace is not a doctrine. It is a gift, God showing mercy on us!
Nancy2 wrote:
Sometimes it’s basically talking points. Repeat them over and over again, and don’t let anyone pull you into a real and thoughtful conversation!
Velour wrote:
Agreed. Regardless of age, these folks need to put their behinds in their past! My primary concern, however, is with the multitude of 20s-30s who are falling for the smoke and mirrors of New Calvinism. I’m not so concerned about those ensnared by classical Calvinism – it’s harmless enough – but this new thing has disturbing beliefs and practices.
Nancy2 wrote:
then it wouldn’t be the PERSON’s real interpretation, I suppose . . . unless they had thought it through and accepted it as their own
Lea wrote:
In short, sounds like ‘debate’ is preferred by ‘true believers’ over ‘dialogue’ as a way to communicate, which really does cut down on chances to understand where the other is coming from …. ‘dialogue’ is more comfortable to people who are used to a healthy diversity in their faith communities;
‘debate’ seems easier for people who are more in a adversarial mode of ‘I’m right/You’re wrong’
FMax wrote:
Yes, at some point many of the 20-30 year olds are going to be disillusioned and then what? They will quit church altogether…
trs wrote:
You can also go to the right side of the page and use the Open Discussion thread.
Nancy2 wrote:
Lord, yes! That is certainly the case with New Calvinism! I’ve heard “sermons” which are mostly lines taken out of the mouth of a reformed icon – sometimes quoted, sometimes not. God is not too happy with this type of preaching:
“Declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me.” (Jeremiah 23:30)
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly.
I asked Alan what was “good and proper” about comp teaching and all he could say is it is “biblical.”
If it is truly biblical, we should see fruit that proves it so. Yet the best we can say about complementarianism is that some marriages succeed in spite of it. Unfortunately, it lends itself as a covering for all sorts of evil.
I think we would do much better to teach the full scriptures, letting them apply to marriage just as they apply to all of life. Let me just pull some examples from the word:
whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant… love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… love your neighbor as yourself… Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ… the greatest among you shall be your servant…. present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God… Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor… Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law… lay aside the deeds of darkness… make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts… we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves… All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable… Flee immorality… no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another… if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it… rejoice, be made complete, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace… Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ… if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself… walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace… Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you…. be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love… be subject to one another in the fear of Christ… Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves… if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth… no one is to act as your judge… abstain from sexual immorality… Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you… fervently love one another from the heart… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law…
In the light of such instructions, what is the meaning of “wives submit to your own husbands” and “husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church”? We have all already been encouraged to submit to one another and to love one another fervently from the heart, without reference to male or femaleness.
Deb wrote:
I’m pretty sure it IS Mr. Mary Kassian. That’s the city where they live. The three sons are Clark, Matthew, and Jonathan (See TWW post on 5/9/2012). The Facebook page for the Young Adult group (YAConnect) at this church has a photo of Mr. Kassian speaking to them.
I did some Googling. I also find it fascinating that they completely downplay Mr. Kassian’s REAL job…he’s the Executive Director of a physical therapy center in Edmonton. Every bio I’ve seen about Ms. & Mr. Mary Kassian refer to him as the chaplain of a professional sports team.
Nancy2 wrote:
Hooray! 🙂
K.D. wrote:
I’m seeing this already in my area. That has been my burden for years in regard to this darn movement – they are targeting our youth. If/when the New Calvinism dust settles, one of the greatest mission fields on the planet will be among those disillusioned by the message of the reformers. At the end of the day, it leaves you empty. My fear is as you note, will they quit church altogether? Who will reach out to them with the Way, the Truth, and the Life?
elastigirl wrote:
I have always been one to get involved and with few exceptions the typical form of the organization was “follow the leader”, one person taking the reigns and offering a vision. Yet I have found case after case where it failed, whether business, non-profit, or a local church. By failure I have witnessed bad judgement because dissent by groups members was not cultivated, a high rate of staff or member turn-over because they had too little input or ownership, hubris by leaders who came to believe they were indispensable, and finally abuse by an organization that lost its purpose as it became largely a vehicle for the leader’s ambition and pride.
There is so much emphasis on leadership but I don’t see mention of leadership in Jesus teaching except in the negative. Even in the apostles writings I don’t see leadership listed with either the roles in Ephesians 4 or the gifts in 1 Cor 12. My biggest issue with a single leader is it shuts down the Spirit. Jesus speaks of a body of believers, each bringing something of themselves, held together by the Spirit and his gifts. When everyone follows the lead of one man these people and their gifts are negated and the leader replaces the Holy Spirit. I not only witnessed this, I suffered this, it was a form of spiritual abuse.
I’ve read dozens of leadership and management books and I have been on more than my share of non-profit committees or business management groups and been president of a few. Looking back I found I gravitated to function more as a moderator/facilitator. The groups I now chafe with are the ones where everything revolves around a manager, director, or CEO and everyone else is treated as the rubber stamp committee.
Unfortunately even when “leadership” by one person is done right I believe it is the wrong model for the church. Jesus and his disciples spoke of a body with many moving parts held together and working in unison through the Holy Spirit, not a bus with a single driver and a bunch of passengers. A single male leader is also a waste of half the population, in a marriage or otherwise. None of it should not hinge on the capacity of one man. We are called to be servants, not leaders.
Bill M wrote:
This may sound a bit off the wall, but that made me think about that old commercial for Flex shampoo: you tell 2 friends, then they’ll tell 2 friends ……….
Weird association, I know.
Max wrote:
I almost worry more about high school kids being invited to church functions than to parties. I can guess what might happen at a party. At an unfamiliar church, alas, I’m not quite sure.
Kids going off to college also need guidance about sizing up campus fellowships. They have to develop the critical thinking skills anyway, so it’s a talk worth having–but what a shame that they can’t simply trust that activities in the campus chapel are safe.
siteseer wrote:
‘Subordination’ a.k.a. domination/submission is a strictly man-made way of living that does not even need to intersect with ‘love’ in order to exist.
The fact that there is so much pain and grief as a result of the subordination patriarchal model is proof that it was not nor ever could be a part of the way of grace in the lives of a Christian married couple.
Friend wrote:
I noticed a tactic that my ex-NeoCalvinist church employed: They started a Bible Study at the nearby elite Stanford University for undergraduates and graduate students. The whole aim of it is to get a few students involved, then get them to invite their friends. I think it is quite intentional for them to go after to these high achievers who have the potential to be high net-worth earners. My ex-NeoCalvinist church thumbed their noses at the poorer state university students (San Jose State).
Bill M wrote:
Correction: None of it should hinge on the capacity of one man.
Oy
Friend wrote:
Those days are over! New Calvinism has set up shop on most college campuses. If a campus minister is in his 20s-30s, there’s a good chance that he is reformed. Most “evangelizing” goes on in dorm room Bible studies and one-on-one coffee shop discussions. We actually moved to a town which has a Baptist college, thinking we would be exposed to great chapel speakers (as in former days when our daughter went to this school). However, by the time we figured things out, it became obvious that the new reformation had already set up shop there. And the college bookstore has more Piper books than you can shake a stick at!
Max wrote:
This is one reason I still go to church to worship and help out. I want the youngsters in my life to know me as a churchgoer. I returned to church after burning out, so this is a deliberate decision rather than an uninterrupted habit.
Whether or not we go to church, living by example is a powerful, powerful statement to the next generations. We don’t have to pass along the full theology, if we’re not up to the task. We can be good stewards of the earth. We can be kind and assertive helpers. We can teach, and live by, the Golden Rule and another verse or two (“Let not the sun go down on your anger”).
Velour wrote:
Sick, sick, sick.
@ Gram3:
Everyone has a bubble. It’s what Van Til called Presuppositionalism. So we are all in the same boat (but in different bubbles).
@ Friend:
AMEN!
Max wrote:
I sat next to a lovely lady in church this morning. She patted my hand and said that God was going to bless me. It made my day.
Max wrote:
I’m sure there’s a more systematic (pernicious) approach now, but my campus fellowship was quite toxic long ago. It was an official part of a freshman elective, and that’s how I got roped in. We good Christians spent a lot of time “making friends” with Jewish students, greatly upsetting them and the campus rabbi.
A few years back, the group was thrown off campus. It was overseen by a big-name campus fellowship organization that is viewed as mainstream.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I blew some soap bubbles for my 2-year old grandson the other day. Some broke quickly, others made it to my grandson who promptly poked his finger in them, most floated into the sky untouched. Lord, help me to be in a bubble that survives.
ishy wrote:
Jesus is sometimes disguised.
Ken F wrote:
I might have used the wrong example – this one could be better. Here’s a quote from John MacArthur’s monthly letter posted on the front page of gty.org:
“If you deny the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, you’ve undermined every major doctrine of the Bible, including the sovereignty of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, the depravity of man, and the gospel itself. If Genesis is not divinely, authoritatively, and inerrantly true and sufficient, all moral obligations to God are null and void.” (see http://www.gty.org/connect/johns-desk)
I really should quit periodically checking on on these new_Calvinist sites. I don’t know why I looked at that today, but the timing is interesting. In any case, it’s this type of polarized, undifferentiated teaching that is convincing our youth that there is no middle ground.
Ken F wrote:
And I should have added that he believes in six 24-hour days for the creation event. So if you are not a young earth creationist…
Christiane wrote:
It’s not even debate, when you don’t bother refuting points! Just assertions that ‘this is gospe if you don’t like it you hate the bible’. That isn’t debate or dialogue.
Velour wrote:
That’s not surprising to me, though I wish it was. The new Calvinists at the church I used to go to that split made a big deal about how certain types of people were “more gifted for ministry”. I ended up volunteering for a ministry just because I overheard several of the leaders in the bathroom talking about how they didn’t want certain less fortunate families in their group and mixing with their families.
Jesus picked from a completely different crowd. It makes me sad to think how many of these people who are thoroughly convinced they are one of the elect will stand before God one day, and Jesus will say He never knew them.
Lea wrote:
And that’s why it’s not even worth confronting on a one-on-one level. What is worth confronting is the hypocritical actions of these people. Because their claim to be the elect and representatives of God is often not backed up by the holiness and truth of who God is. The abuse scandals, the money scandals, the eventual heretical teachings….they have to come out eventually.
ishy wrote:
Good for you for volunteering for a ministry. How sad that your church’s leaders had such a bad attitude.
I’m with you about how many of these people will be in for a shock when they meet up with our Lord and He’ll say that He never knew them.
There is a point where the comp View becomes problematic. Since the husband is to represent Christ what is his function in this role? Since the husband is fallible what limits and boundaries are placed upon his role? Further, how does the wife who is to represent the church function in this role? What happens when the husband commit serious sin or make mistakes? What should the wife response be in such a case? And this is where I believe the rubber hits the road and the analogy breaks down. So when a husband wants to have a threesome with his wife we have instructions from Piper telling the wife to say, ‘winsomely’ of course, “Gosh, honey I really love you but I just can’t do this.” But be sure to walk on eggshells because after all he’s your Head. And then we’ve got advice from Elisabeth Elliot instructing wives that if their husband is about to blow the families’ savings on a foolish Financial venture, her place is to be quiet and pray but never correct him or stop him from making this mistake. Because she is a figure for the church and the church doesn’t tell Jesus what to do. And then when the family goes into debt, pray that God will use this as a chastisement to your husband. But it is not your place to speak about your husband’s mistakes to him. God has a way of correcting him that is far better than you as a wife could ever do. Yep, I heard this on a very popular local christian radio station. So according to the comp patriarch camp, when does a husband and wife stop role-playing and live in the real world? After the soap bubbles are rinsed from the dishes? 🙂
Sorry about the typos but I’m commenting with my phone for the first time.
Friend wrote:
Our Newman Club included a Jewish girl who played the guitar at mass. Carol was one-hundred percent Jewish and that was very much respected by us. She liked our group because we were active in tutoring in the ghetto and in ACTIVELY supporting civil rights marches and demonstrations. She was our friend, and we were hers and there was no proselytizing going on, no. Carole played a mean guitar and fit right in with all of our high-spirited endeavors.
Ken F wrote:
How did God create the sun and the moon in a literal day, when there was no actual 24 hour day until after he created the sun and the moon?
Ken F wrote:
This is an interesting point.
It reminds me of a couple other verses that I wonder how the “Christianity as power trip” folks see:
Matt 5:5- The meek shall inherit the earth. (Not the strong, not the leaders, not the authorities, not the powerful)
1 Corinthians 1:27- God has chosen the weak things of this world to shame the strong. (Does this mean God has chosen women above men, considering these guys see women as their inferiors?)
Christiane wrote:
Most people realise this, not all. But some people also want to to control the debate by asking that you answer more questions before they will respond to your questions.
Darlene wrote:
Nah. In the camp I grew up in, the wives straighten that stuff before the cast iron skillets cool off too much.
@ Lowlandseer:
Many have changed bubbles . . .
Christiane wrote:
That’s how it should be, in my view.
Ken F wrote:
The false dichotomy: only two choices are presented, as if that is all there is to choose from. One of the choices is so awful that the person feels pressured to choose the other.
I notice this group uses this tactic A LOT.
Nancy2 wrote:
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 Brilliant!
Ken F wrote:
In many cases, we are told that middle ground is the worst place to be 🙁
Nancy2 wrote:
“In the Sweet Bye and Bye,
You’ll get Pie in the Sky when you Die…”
— “The Preacher and the Slave”, old Wobbly march song
Bridget wrote:
That’s because none of them are there. It makes it a place of freedom for the sane thinkers.
Velour wrote:
Velour—I believe Alan is actually pressing a semantic point re: the word “original.” You are saying original, I think, in the sense of the oldest manuscripts we have in the original language. I am guessing that he is waiting to make the point that we don’t have the actual original texts… i.e. the actual parchment that the original letter was written on. Perhaps he will actually clarify instead of asking the same question repeatedly.
My recent comment was in response to Alan House’s comment way up thread to the effect that husbands need to learn how to be better leaders and wives need to learn how to be better followers. Well, me thinks for some people the roles could get to their head and they could start acting in some very unrealistic and harmful ways. Hey, come to think of it we’ve got all kinds of examples to that effect right here at TWW.
ishy wrote:
“All Animals are Equal
BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS!”
— G.Orwell, Animal Farm (remember his ethnic typecasting of those who were More Equal)
Abi Miah wrote:
When somebody — anybody — hijacks the thread into Semantics, WATCH OUT. It’s an abuser trying to sidetrack things into his home turf where HE has every advantage.
My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics…
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
Ken F wrote:
Well then there goes christianity down the drain. It looks to me like the height of idiocy to hitch one’s wagon to YEC, of all things. From their own mouths they are saying that if YEC proves not literally accurate then we have all been lied to about christianity.
I watched a great long thing on youtube in an interview of William Lane Craig who was discussing various philosophical approaches to the question of the existence of God. That is a specialty of his. At the end of a looooong discussion the interviewer mentioned that some christians are believers because they have had some (alleged) personal experience of God and he asked Dr. Craig which if any of the arguments for the existence of God was the reason that he personally believed, or was it experience. Dr. Craig said that he thought the arguments were good, some better than others, but that he believed because Jesus had changed his life.
If someone thinks that people believe based on the concept of YEC then I personally wonder if Jesus has changed their lives and if they actually believe in God or just believe in some poor doctrinal substitute for God.
Lea wrote:
…that’s Party Line Dogma.
ishy wrote:
The old ones often ‘know’ that which is experential knowledge, a sad knowing formed within the crucible of experience.
That kind of ‘wisdom’ comes when the years have shorn away a person’s rough edges and quieted their storms.
I hold this borrowed hope out for a reprieve from my own sharp edges when I come into my senior years:
“Let me stop being that thing against which anything, everything, can break.”
Nancy2 wrote:
Well since HUG isn’t here I’m going to say it. You can be the smokin hot trophy wife dangling off of his arm. Oh, and let’s not forget the role of Baker of casseroles pies and cakes for the church potluck dinner.
Nancy2 wrote:
Shhh. That question is too sciency! Just trust the unscientific menfolk.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, you’re Baaaaack!
Bridget wrote:
Yeah that’s what I was thinking.
@ Bill M:
“Jesus and his disciples spoke of a body with many moving parts held together and working in unison through the Holy Spirit, ”
+++++++++
thanks for your reply. much to comment on — re: this point, seems to me there will be a fair bit of mess, trial & error, and learning from it. but so what.
to me, there’s no better learning than hands-on, in the thick of a mess, and working together. so many different levels of learning and growing. personally, corporately, interpersonally, relationally, knowledge and skill and expertise, etc.
i think christian culture is close to being terrified of mess, of less than perfection, & of making honest mistakes.
(i don’t include moral failures with this — calculated decisions that are immoral and harm people are not mistakes)
Friend wrote:
Lea wrote:
It is an irritating curiosity of a 4 year old that I have never out grown …… That I refuse to out grow.
siteseer wrote:
I was interested in Alan’s pivot to ‘we must talk about specifics/you don’t know me well enough to judge’ after approx 100 comments of repetitious talking points.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, you shoulda been here yesterday!
The thing about debate that is to be respected is that both sides have an equal CHANCE to lay their arguments out and develop them.
When I was trained to debate, we had this technique that was a real eye-opener:
we had to prepare our whole assigned ‘side’ in teams, do the research, etc. etc., write up our cards, and practice.
So the day comes for the presentation. The coach (a fierce Daughter of Wisdom nun) told each of the two teams to SWITCH cards, study them for fifteen minutes, and then proceed to debate the OTHER side of the argument.
Christiane wrote:
This was actually Max and not me that said this, but I know that as I’ve gotten older, I’ve decided that the more vehement people are about things, the more they have tunnel vision. Being honest with yourself about how much you don’t really know really puts God’s power in perspective.
One thing I’ve always thought about hyper-Calvinists is that it really seems like their God is very small, despite how much they talk about God’s glory.
@ Nancy2:
HEADLESS, you were missed.
Darlene wrote:
If I’m a trophy wife, I don’t want to know what a penalty or a technical foul is!
Abi Miah wrote:
I think you’re right.
Alan holds in high esteem a Biblical translation committee who can’t tell the difference between nouns and verbs.
As I cited above, the oldest texts refer to the noun “The Childbearing”, a reference to Jesus’ birth and that people will be saved through Him. This was incorrectly translated to a verb “childbearing”.
These groups have manipulated the texts and intentionally changed words to achieve their own ends. Disgraceful.
ishy wrote:
This.
I completely agree. That’s been my experience. Their Jesus is very small.
Velour wrote:
In reference to I Tim. 2:15, Thomas Nelson KJV Study Bible says, ” …. the woman ‘shall be saved’ from having no role or significance in the local church. Her primary ministry is that of childbearing and the rearing of children ….”
So, once the kids are grown, or if we have no children, God has no use for us?
$ No Sale.
“I suspect we’ll really like each other . . . we’ll sip frothy cups of cappuccino, laugh and cry, share stories (and pictures of our grandbabies) and become friends. And perhaps that, in and of itself, will make a difference.”
Dear Mrs. Kassian,
You clearly do not know much, if anything, about the dynamics of abuse.
After having insinuated that your would-be BFF would not have been abused had she had your level of wisdom, your offer to become BFFs over frothy cappuccinos frankly reads like a set-up. You get in some jabs then attempt to make it look like you’re the one offering reconciliation, so that if she doesn’t take you up on your offer, your “team” gets to shake their heads and click their tongues at how you were willing to reconcile and she wasn’t. A two-fer!
The tactic is a form of gas-lighting, plain and simple. Gas lighting is when you do something mean (take jabs and essentially blame her for the abuse she suffered) and then pretend that all along you’re doing something nice by inviting her to be your BFF xxoo and you’ll foot the bill! Not only so wise, but so generous! That type of interaction makes victims feel crazy, puts you in the one-up position, and is designed to pull in observers to your side because you’re so “winsome” with the whitewash.
If you didn’t intend that, and can’t believe someone interprets your actions like that, then some education in-the-trenches learning from actual abused women is warranted before you “reach out” again in such a manner. You are doing more harm than good, not only to Ruth, but to all the other women who see that once again, other women will join the oppressors and they’ll be better off going it alone or with a very small group of support.
Nancy2 wrote:
I though it was implication is that “the Childbearing” refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus, who saves us all.
Lea wrote:
Which probably translates to, “We must talk about what I want to talk about.”
ishy wrote:
Same here!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Thanks HUG.
Yes, Alan couldn’t even discuss the difference between a noun (The Childbearing, referring to Jesus’ birth & salvation through Him) and a verb “childbearing”. Big difference.
Nancy2 wrote:
Ah, I get what you mean. Translators can be dumb.
I don’t trust translations, though research has shown some of the Greek manuscripts to be fairly well preserved. But if a Jehovah’s Witness can translate John 1:1 as “and the Word was -A- god”, I can surely believe that people can translate other manuscripts badly.
Besides, I studied under some pretty well known Bible scholars, and they used to come into each others classrooms and mess with each other about small points, just to be funny. To believe they agree with each other is silly.
Nancy2 wrote:
Apparently so. And according to these manipulative translators it would also apply to women who’ve never had children.
So did they tweak the passage about Mary and Martha? Did Jesus just write them off because they didn’t have children?
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ve also heard that in the culture of that time, women went to the temple to give sacrifices to the goddess for a safe birth of their babies (mortality rates for mom and baby were high) and Paul is giving an alternate path…in other words, “You will be okay giving birth, just continue on in your faith and good works in Christ.” Just thought I’d throw that wrench in the discussion 😉
ishy wrote:
FYI: two of the contributing editors were Jerry Falwell and Ed Dobson( BA and MA from Bob Jones University). You don’t want to hear the comments on Eph, 5!
Sarah K wrote:
I’ve heard that, too. But, given medical technology (lack of) at that time, I have a little difficulty buying that. Why would Paul make such a promise?
Nancy2 wrote:
I went to Liberty, so I can imagine. I don’t even know how many sermons on marriage I heard there.
Lydia wrote:
Whatever it means it cannot mean what it “plainly” shows in English or else thousands perhaps Millions of women will not be saved. Now, Alan and the Patriarchs might be okay with that but I’m certainly not – but then I’m only a derivative of the image of God. Snark intended. 😉
Nancy2 wrote:
The passage does seem very out of the blue when translated as a verb. Translating it as a noun (which it is) makes perfect sense.
But it does raise big questions about why we would trust modern translations so much.
Sarah K wrote:
that concept shows up a thousand years ago in the Church:
“from the moment of her fiat, Mary began to carry all of us in her womb” (Anselm of Canterbury)
Nancy2 wrote:
Not a clue, maybe keep the new moms from looking to the temple perhaps? 😀 I’m not personally invested in any particular rendering. I do think it’s fun to look at lots of possibilities for interpretation, but I’ve got that ambiguous, shades of gray type of personality that loves open-ended mystery 😉
Darlene wrote:
This.
Bridget wrote:
The trick is to jump from one bubble to another, before they break!
Christianity Today has reported that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. That’s a LOT of religious bubbles! Which one has a corner on the Truth?
Friend wrote:
Exactly! A+
Darlene wrote:
One definition of derivative is “a by-product”.
In math, the value of the derivative is completely dependant on the value of the independent variable.
Neither defn is acceptable for women!
ishy wrote:
http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/images/evemary.jpg
Max wrote:
Silly me! I thought the trick was to break somebody else’s bubble before they break yours!
; )
Ken F wrote:
Lord have mercy. My stomach is churning. As the mom of two sons, I am with you all the way.
Abi Miah wrote:
You make a good breakdown on Kassian’s “offer”. That it was done publicly also betrays the motive.
Bill M wrote:
And MK thinks that all of the John and Jane Publics are too dense to read between the lines.
dee wrote:
Yep, just like Spirit of Eve, the term used in my former Christian cult to shut women up. Because, you see, the Spirit of Eve is at work among all women and men must guard against being manipulated by that “maneuvering” woman. Hence, it wasn’t uncommon to hear men say to the women in that cult, “Are you trying to maneuver me?” To which many of the women would hang their heads in shame. The paranoia level got so high and the men were on such alert that single women were instructed to address single men at the beginning of every conversation by saying, “I would like to have your attention”. OR “May I have your attention?” And if the fella thought he was being maneuvered by an Eve Spirit, he would just ignore her. You can’t make this stuff up!
Bill M wrote:
Thank you for the encouragement. I appreciate the way that you are concise, something I will never be. 🙂
Does it bother anybody that obstetrical outcomes do not depend on any of the cited ‘if they continue in’ virtues? If that is what the author said (I am not reconciled to the majority opinion that Paul wrote that epistle, but perhaps) but if that is what he said he was not being accurate. This would be one more case of having to come up with ‘explanations’ as to how this could be in an inerrant infallible scripture.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2, this is good stuff! As someone else commented “Brilliant!” The most thought-provoking comment of the day! All that Calvinism debate pales in comparison.
And after He got the day length figured out, then God created Man and rested. Then God created Woman. Since then, neither God nor Man has rested. ;^)
Darlene wrote:
I mean, if you tell women they can’t be direct they are going to be indirect. These men should make up their minds!
(I know what they actually want is compliant silent sex toys but considering women aren’t robots they’re gonna have trouble getting that)
Max wrote:
The oldest of the YRR are approaching the time when they will have teenagers. We shall see how that theology and lifestyle holds up against the challenges that go with teens. Will the teens raised in this stay with it? Or will they seek another way because they have seen the fruit in their own homes?
@ okrapod:
I have also heard the opinion that this one was not actually Paul writing…
Nancy2 wrote:
No one is excommunicated for civil divorce. Your friend needs to see her diocesan judicial vicar. This simply is not Church Teaching. I have known abused women in these circumstances. I also am good friends with people from our diocesan tribunal. If your friend was told she was excommunicated merely for civil divorce, then she was told wrong.
Even the margin notes in my old pre-Vatican II Bible make this clear. Separation from bed and board and civil divorce to protect the abused spouse and children are completely permissible in these circumstances.
Good grief, y’all, we have entire religious orders devoted to running shelters and homes for battered women. I used to room with a Sister of Mercy who went on to head one of these homes.
Heavy sigh…..
Lowlandseer wrote:
I’ve not had great experiences with Van Til’s disciples. Some experiences have been awful. But Really Smart People like Van Til because no one else can understand him. I should have guessed.
Nancy2 wrote:
Judging by the tone on TWW the past day, maybe we need a penalty box:
https://youtu.be/l_uQj-Dolg0
Christiane wrote:
Beautiful, touching image. Thanks for posting it.
Max wrote:
Max I don’t know if anyone has told you but Alan is not a calvinist. As I’m sure you know rigid doctrinal propositions exist outside the Neo-Cal camp.
Friend wrote:
Oh that was funny. Those taunting fans in the green body suits. I’ll have to stock on those for Pound Sand Ministries (TM) online retail store.
Gram3 wrote:
The YRR teaching does a great job in pushing youth into the “Done” category. After being told for so long that only one extreme position is viable, they walk away from the faith, well inoculated.
Friend wrote:
To clarify, I have specific ideas about who belongs in the Sin Bin… 😉
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod, how could you have the audacity to others such heretical ideas? Scripture not inerrant? Why it’s without error down to every jot and tittle. Don’t you know that? Every single word every single letter every single comma every single apostrophe every single quotation mark every single…well you get the picture.
Bridget wrote:
Van Tilians are way too smart to ever need to do that. Being a Van Tilian means never having to say, “I wonder if…”
Darlene wrote:
I definitely know that. The non-cal rigid baptists are what brought me to TWW.
Friend wrote:
Oooooohhhh, yeah! Shatter that glass!
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
It felt surreal for me to tell my son to walk away from Christian fellowship. But it was causing him too much harm. I would rather have him alive with the opportunity to find God anew later than for him to be subjected to that kind of suicidal abuse. I kept coming across this site as I was doing research. I was not sure at first whether or not to trust what I found here. But I finally got the confidence to start commenting here a little more than a month ago. This site is helping me to process the last 15 months.
Darlene wrote:
Wow, I missed that in the thread! He would sure make a good one!
Yes, unfortunately doctrinal propositions exist throughout religion. That’s why I hope to live long enough to see religion’s funeral preached! Our Christian experience should be focused on a relationship with Christ, rather than religious precepts. Some of these teachings and traditions of men are deadly!
Darlene wrote:
you know, when I look at the ‘descriptions’ of Scripture by the inerrantists, I always wonder why words like ‘sacred’ and ‘Holy’ weren’t enough for them. ‘Without error’ is nothing compared to ‘sacred’. This is a mystery to me.
@ Abi Miah:
Ouch. Well said. Too bad Mary Kassian does not care, because she could make a difference if she really did care.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Some tribunals are *really* unkind to women, though. It depends on the diocese.
Gram3 wrote:
Nothing to forgive! I like forthrightness!
Velour wrote:
The story of the prodigal son dispels this myth that the YRRs promote so feverishly. The father shuns his glory by hiking up his robe to expose his legs (VERY degrading in that culture) to run to the son that completely shamed him. That’s the worst thing he could have done if he cared about his glory in that culture. The older, religiously-correct son despised his father for this inglorious display. But the father left the party to go also seek him. That father cared nothing about his glory; instead he cared intensely about both of his lost sons and spared nothing for them. One repented and came to his senses. We don’t know about the other one because the story does not tell us.
Gram3 wrote:
It is a very important part of growth to have your assumptions vigorously challenged.
Ken F wrote:
I got an email from a dear woman last week from the NeoCalvinist church that I was excommunicated from (any man or woman who questions anything, has any critical thinking skills, or wants to leave and go to a saner denomination is subjected to threats and bullying by the pastors/elders and “public discipline before all” church members on a Sunday service. That woman was very loving in her email. I could tell she is processing how I lived out my faith (the kindest and most thoughtful member to her and her husband, their cultural beliefs from another country and my respecting them and doing special things for them at church when no one else ever did) with the fact that I was excommunicated.
Lydia wrote:
Aw…come on Lydia, God could have chosen to damn every single person that’s lived. Instead he chose a few out of the multitudes of reprobates and not because of anything that they did or didn’t do. Of course I’m sure those reprobates would have a thing or two to say about that since they had no alternative other than to be what God had fashioned them to be before they ever took breath.
Nancy2 wrote:
I do not think he was making a promise about a woman giving birth. Ephesian Artemis supposedly was the goddess in charge of seeing women safely through childbirth, yet the Artemis cult also promoted childlessness and virginity as virtues.
If we consider that Paul may be addressing a contentious woman at Ephesus who was dominating the assembly (perhaps even her own husband) because women generally dominated in Ephesus, then another possibility for the meaning of the problematic Childbearing verse arises.
That contentious woman is introducing false teaching from the Ephesian Artemis cult into the local assembly. Addressing false teaching is the purpose of Paul’s letter to Timothy. Yet, perhaps she is deceived as Eve was and as Paul himself was according to his own description of himself in chapter 1. Nevertheless both Paul and this woman could be saved from their deception if they continue in their faith in the promised Seed of the Woman. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. That Childbearing is the one through which women and men are saved. There is no other way.
Taking the ambient culture of Ephesus into account also helps with another problematic verse where he wants the women to have children. That is not prescriptive for all women, but is rather a polemic against false elevation of virginity and childlessness that the Ephesian Artemis cult promoted. It was Paul’s corrective for that culture, but the application is that bearing children is a good thing, but not a necessary thing for each and every woman.
Perhaps if the people like Alan and Lowlandseer would spend some more time in Chapter 1 before they jumped to Chapter 2, verse 12 they might see some other possibilities that have a lot more explanatory power for *all* of the data.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Hi SKNJ,
I am not an apologist for comp teachings as we find them in current calvinista groups. But yours is a thoughtful and well written post.
@ Velour:
I’m very fortunate that our church has not yet gone new-Calvinist (there is a technical difference between neo-Calvinists and new-Calvinists, but that is a different conversation). Many in the congregation read stuff from the YRRs, but the elders do not seem to be going down that path, and they are not displaying they type of authority-abuse I’ve read about here. The pastor is very humble and understands and preached grace. It seems safe enough for now.
Max wrote:
Absolutely true. There are many other grids, as well. I am not a calvinist.
Max wrote:
This is a very good statement.
Lydia wrote:
And “common” grace for the reprobate who couldn’t do anything other than what God had predestined him to do before he ever drew breath.
Alan House wrote:
Where is Nick when I need his chatbot detector?
Gram3 wrote:
Very well expressed!
Christiane wrote:
In my experience I have run into the idea being taught that words like ‘sacred’ and ‘Holy’ are to be reserved for God and only God. Also, the term ‘righteous’ can be used as ‘God’s righteous law’ but never applied to a person or to a person’s behavior. This is a complicated issue which spills over into other areas, and the feeling which is part of it is also part of the rejection of many of the Marian dogmas and rejection of the idea of Saints as understood apparently by the RCC and the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church which has promulgated any such ideas. Also the idea of ‘sacred space’ or ‘sacraments’ are rejected as these things are not consistent with the idea of what they seem to be saying of a more remote God than other christian religious traditions may understand. In other words, any high approval (for want of more technical terms) which is given to anything or anybody somehow robs God of the glory due Him.
So, scripture can be inerrant, infallible and sufficient but to say ‘sacred’ crosses the line for some hard core fundamentalists.
IMO there is a profound difference in the understanding of grace between certain people and between the groups they tend to belong to. As in, or so it seems to me, as to whether God is stingy with grace seeing that He apparently has a limited supply(?) or is He generous beyond belief with grace. This difference is at the feeling level, not at the doctrinal level as far as I know.
Disclaimer: I have been wrong a few thousand time, but that has not stopped me yet, so you all just take this for what it is worth.
Tim wrote:
I agree.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes!
Ken F wrote:
Well that’s a relief, for now.
Lydia wrote:
I agree. But alliances have leaders.
Max wrote:
As if the two are not in agreement?
Nancy2 wrote:
Amen!
Darlene wrote:
That is wicked. All law and rules and no love. Where is the royal law of Love in any of this?
Alan House wrote:
You do realize she’s talking about an alliance of two not the rebel alliance, right?
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
And so we have the absurdity of a wife having to go to the elders deacons and pastors to get permission to listen to her conscience. So what if the husband wants to use his role as head, protector & Leader to spend the family’s savings on an unwise venture? And what if the wife is more gifted in the area of finances and recognizes the danger in such a venture? Well, according to comp views the husband is not obligated to listen to the wife’s ideas or input. If he does listen to her it’s from a place of a benevolent Master mindset. And in the end he still gets to make the FINAL decision. Hey, I’ve got a novel idea…how about the husband and wife who are two adults getting together and having a discussion about the direction of their finances? And if they don’t agree on every issue be willing to make compromises?
Lea wrote:
I think he’s thinking more of a king/serf alliance.
Lydia wrote:
There is no place for that among believers.
Bridget wrote:
I do not reject it in toto.
Darlene wrote:
Alan’s defn of a “blessed alliance”.
dee wrote:
Thankfully, I don’t use that phrase, either.
numo wrote:
You are right. It depends on the Diocese. But such harshness is completely contrary to Church Teaching. I think that may be the sort of thing Pope Francis is trying to reform — and getting flak from RC ultra-trads in the process.
bonnie knox wrote:
Christian men have the light of scripture to guide them.
Gram3 wrote:
Certainly no advanced (or otherwise) degrees here!
Gram3 wrote:
An interesting admission and viewpoint.
Gram3 wrote:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!
Darlene wrote:
At my former NeoCalvinsit church a godly Christian woman/wife/professional/middle-aged wanted to leave the church for a saner denomination. She thought there was something terribly wrong with this church. For her exercising her Christian conscience, the pastors/elders:
1) screamed at her in meetings;
2) the senior pastor went to her home and screamed at her;
3) the senior pastor and elders ordered that she be “disciplined before all” church members after a Sunday church service (she wasn’t present);
4) the senior pastor accused her of being “unsubmissive” to her husband (who remained at the church) before hundreds of members;
5) the senior pastor said that the pastors/elders had “worked with [her] for a long time to no avail” (translation: disrespected her adult authority and conscience and tried to abuse her in to compliance);
6) the senior pastor ordered that she be “pursued” by church members (basically stalked and harassed).
The wife responded by:
*disconnecting her cell phone
*disconnecting her email and
*moving out of the family home to an undisclosed location, not even known to her husband.
Just vicious. All of it.
This was a dear, faithful Christian. She had a special gift for evangelizing mentally ill adults in group homes and for evangelizing people in convalescent hospitals with another group.
Lydia wrote:
Very good!
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I appreciate your input. No Kidding!
Ken F wrote:
This is an interesting piece of input.
Max wrote:
Only if scripture enjoins us to.
Ken F wrote:
I think agreeing to disagree charitably.
Velour wrote:
I guess, by original texts, you mean one of the greek new testaments. I am not able to read greek. If you are, that is a wonderful advantage in some ways. Notwithstanding, each and every group within christianity has their highly educated greek exegetes and they disagree on exactly the same things as they do in the modern english translations. So, going back to what you refer to as the originals has not, to date, solved any of the divisions within the Body, actually, it reinforces them.
Alan House wrote:
There’s a tell.
Ken F wrote:
It is a popular saying among the clergy of the roman church that “someone they knew tried reading the bible for themselves and ended up committing suicide.” Anecdotal evidence is not a very dependable way to discern the meaning of scripture or the truth or error of any given doctrine.
Velour wrote:
Oh brother! That is a radical position!
@ Alan House:
Your response is callous.
ishy wrote:
I dislike the snobbism and elitism. Like the old mainline, people with business interests may be attracted to these churches, not because of the doctrine but because it is good for business. This is all too bad.
Gram3 wrote:
I have a niece who thinks it necessary she to respond to just about every comment in a discussion involving ten people, groan.
Alan House wrote:
David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite …..
Move along. Nothing to see. Anecdotal evidence.
Alan House wrote:
Yes, Paul was a radical guy!
Velour wrote:
Wade Burleson’s (pastor) article about this: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes, and it’s inevitable that a certain amount of people are going to be harmed because after all we’re just doing the best that we can and we are sinners so… But we’ve got to stick to our region system no matter what, refusing to consider that it’s the rigid system that’s the problem to begin with. Reminds me of the leader in my former Christian cult who was known for saying: “All wars have casualties.”. This was said in reference to all the peoples’ lives who were harmed by his harsh and cruel teachings.
b>Alan House wrote:
Let’s stop feeding this troll. This comment is lower than low.
Alan House wrote:
Except when any religion tells me subjugation is A Ok. I’ll call it for the crap it is.
Alan House wrote:
First, there’s a rule here on The Wartburg Watch. You have to go over to the Open Discussion thread to have the “who has the worse denomination” discussion, per our hostesses The Deebs (Dee and Deb).
Secondly, I am a Protestant. I was brought to Christ by an elderly saint who was Catholic and 97 years old. She died at 102 years of age. She and other faithful Catholics read their Bibles, teach Bible studies, love God’s word.
Thirdly, I think that Mother Teresa brought more people to God by simply loving them and being kind to them than all of the Bible verses, tracts, and lectures. She lived The Gospel and I love her for that!
Should you wish to express any more such sentiments, please move it over to the Open Discussion thread. If you do not, I will send in an email about you.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
@ Alan House:
I have decided to place you in moderation. This discussion has gotten out of hand and this is one way to slow you down. I am going to bed now.
Friend wrote:
Agreed.
When I replied to a comment earlier, the original comment wasn’t quoted, so I think that made things a bit confusing.
Anyway, Gram3, I also enjoy your comments. No, I don’t think Alan is a chatbot (nor, as one person suggested, a troll); he just has a different viewpoint.
Alan, my question about your comment was why you said Christ was the head of “Christian men” and not “every man” the way the scripture reads. I will second the recommendation of one of the other posters to read some of Gilbert Bilezikian’s writing on headship.
He says about 1 Corinthians 11:
“Sometimes, the word head in this text is carelessly infused with its meaning in the English language to obtain this hierarchical order: God head over Christ—Christ head over man—man head over woman. This top-down vertical ‘chain of command’ would then go as follows: GodChrist-man-woman.
“However, such results are obtained by manipulating the biblical text. In order to make the text say what the Scripture does not teach in this passage, its three clauses must be taken out of their original sequence and rearranged. The apostle Paul knows exactly how to structure hierarchies in perfect descending order (see 12:28, for instance). In 1 Cor. 11:3, he is not structuring a hierarchy. In keeping with the theme developed in the immediate context, Paul is discussing the traditional significance of origination. The sequence that links the three clauses is not hierarchy but chronology. At creation, Christ was the giver of life to men as the source of the life of Adam (‘by him all things were created’ Col. 1:16). In turn, man gave life to the woman as she was taken from him. Then, God gave life to the Son as he came into the world for the incarnation. When the biblical sequence of the three clauses is not tampered with, the consistent meaning of head in this verse is that of a servant function, as provider of life.”
One book I highly recommend is “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.” It has well thought-out essays on many of the issues being discussed here.
Ken F wrote:
You know, I just don’t understand where sexism against women comes from. It’s as old as time and involves just about every culture. Why? What gives? We’re just people.
bonnie knox wrote:
I’ll second Ron Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’s excellent book. From amazon:
“Discussions surrounding the roles of men and women–whether in the church, the home or society at large–never seem to end, often generating more heat than light. Such debate is still important, though, because this issue directly affects every member of Christ’s body. What we believe the Bible teaches on these matters shapes nearly all we do in the church. In addition, these questions deserve further thought and reflection because neither side has won the day. In an effort to further discussion, Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (general editors), with the aid of Gordon D. Fee (contributing editor), have assembled a distinguished array of twenty-six evangelical scholars firmly committed to the authority of Scripture to explore the whole range of issues–historical, biblical, theological, hermeneutical and practical. While dispelling many of the myths surrounding biblical equality, they offer a sound, reasoned case that affirms the complementarity of the sexes without requiring a hierarchy of roles. Contributors include Ruth A. Tucker, Janette Hassey, Richard S. Hess, Linda L. Belleville, Aída Besançon Spencer, Craig S. Keener, I. Howard Marshall, Peter H. Davids, Walter L. Liefeld, Stanley J. Grenz, Kevin Giles, Roger Nicole, William J. Webb, Sulia Mason, Karen Mason, Joan Burgess Winfrey, Judith K. Balswick, Jack O. Balswick, Cynthia Neal Kimball, Mimi Haddad, Alvera Micklesen, R. K. McGregor Wright and Alice P. Mathews. Here is a fresh, positive defense of biblical equality that is at once scholarly and practical, irenic and yet spirited, up-to-date and cognizant of opposing positions.”
About the Author
Ronald W. Pierce (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is professor of biblical and theological studies in the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He is the author of Partners in Marriage and Ministry.
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis is a freelance writer and editor. She is the author of Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism and Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality.
Gordon D. Fee (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He has written several books and commentaries, including Listening to the Spirit in the Text, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC).
Here are Dr. Pierce’s class lectures about same, I think it’s about 15-hours total.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTzThBTUXq0&list=PLYtrZmQ7NN0CRA-gWcqZOvB5nmUuJ6FNe
dee wrote:
I respect your judgement. I am a big fan of what TWW is doing to hold calvinistas accountable for their excesses. Even though you hammered me on theistic ev, I did not answer back. I am also open to your input with regard to anything I post that you feel is intended to hurt another participant. The idea of “we do not like anything about doctrine X so we are going to reinterpret scripture so that it renders doctrine X unsupportable” is one that is not worthy of being supported by earnest christians. The reason I wanted one of the participants to affirm that Mounce is reliable and authoritative is that Mounce renders Eph 5:22-24 in unmistakable language regarding marriage roles. Do not mistake me for a rabid complementarian. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is terrible excess in this area. But, the terrible excesses do not make the basic truth an untruth. This would apply to all manner of scriptural doctrines, right? I want to get along respectfully and happily with y’all and the other participants. I hope you will take notice that my posts are utterly devoid of anything like a personal attack on another participant. Even when being uncharitably attacked by some who are coming from a position supported by nothing more than their own personal feelings on the matter at hand. We are all entitled to our feelings, but when we declare that our feelings are good bible teaching and interpretation we should expect that there may be discussion relative to that. I have to say that I am a little taken back by the fact you are currently viewing me as a trouble maker. My desire is for us to think together about the application of scriptural truth in areas that mutually concern us. I am VERY concerned about typical calvinista doctrine, practice, and attitude. In general, I believe they are preying on a generation of young people who have almost zero PERSONAL experience in the scriptures. Everything they think they know they have read or heard from others. So, the best talkers, the most authoritive, the seemingly most logical peple they are listening to are the calvinistas. This is not going to work out positively for them.
I am very open to your thoughts. Thanks, Al House 972-370-8996
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Lol, my kids know that song. Didn’t Joe Hill write it IIRC? It’s a parody of a lovely old hymn, which Anonymous 4 included on one of their shape-note albums.
Velour wrote:
Yikes!!!! Was she ever able to resume a normal life with her husband?
This is beyond creepy. I’m no lawyer, but it sounds like it’s against the law.
Max wrote:
Doctrinally, I see no difference in old calvinism, new calvinism, classical Calvinism, Neo-Calvinism, whatever. I’m speaking here specifically things like the doctrines of grace, double predestination, regeneration precedes faith, & monergism – things All of the Above Calvinists agree upon. A Rose By Any Other Name…well you know the rest of it.
Except in this case it’s not a rose it’s a TULIP – and it doesn’t smell very nice.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
She and her husband almost divorced over it. They finally reconciled. I don’t know if it lasted. I am no longer at that church.
Actually, what the pastors/elders ordered is a criminal conspiracy in my state that they can be arrested and prosecuted for, land in state prison for.
They also have said that church members have to “obey” them and “submit” to them “in everything”, including not calling the police. Again, criminal conspiracy. Also in the United States you can’t contract for criminal acts and that’s illegal, including via the use of Membership Covenants.
I really think some of these arrogant pastors/elders, who think they’re above the law at my ex-church and other churches like them, should be arrested and prosecuted. That will send a wake up call.
Darlene wrote:
The differences I see involve honesty, civility, and aggression; not so much doctrine.
Alan,
If you’re really, truly interested in understanding egalitarianism, then you might do some research. Blog comments aren’t the best way to debate a complicated subject if you don’t know much about it. Two good books to read are Women and Leadership by Stanley Grenz and What Paul Really Said about Women by John Temple. Reading these and other egalitarian works (some are mentioned earlier in this thread) will help you see where egalitarians are coming from and will show you that egalitarians have their position because they believe it’s the most Biblically accurate one (as opposed to just lifting isolated verses off of the page).
Now back to our official topic of frothy cappuccinos and smug comps.
Sarah K wrote:
I agree. It is Redemptive.
Regarding anecdotal evidence, the Bible is replete with testimonies, for example, the woman who first saw the risen Christ (Mark 16) and then went and told the others. They believed her, or not.
1 John … what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
In research, anecdotal evidence is considered qualitative and presented as a case study.
Max wrote:
Well, I was thinking in much broader terms. Maybe get it down to 10-15 bubbles 😉
okrapod wrote:
HI OKRAPOD,
Thank you for explaining this. I am in my own way, very conscience of ‘the sacred’ within the whole Church, but seeing it through your description, for the first time, I think I can see just how much of a hit the concepts of ‘sacred’ and ‘mystery’ and ‘holy’ are viewed differently among the faith traditions.
Perhaps its in the ways people express what is ‘sacred’ to them, and how that understanding comes to be. How inadequate our human words are in expressing our awe of encountering the things of God for which there are no words. I often think of ‘The Convert’, a poem by G.K. Chesterton, this:
The Convert
‘After one moment when I bowed my head
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white,
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
The sages have a hundred maps to give
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.”
Thanks again, OKRAPOD
Darlene wrote:
Are the old Calvinists patriarchalists?
@ mirele:
House of Driscoll! So appropriate. So glad Todd came by.
Velour wrote:
Their arrogance will be their undoing. It’s just a question of time before the hammer (the courts) falls. No amount of motions to throw it out under a ‘religious freedom’ umbrella, or “we did our best to handle it in house”, will work, the big players will go down. It’s going to happen, bank on it.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
That does not mean there is not rogue priests out there doing awful things with people’s lives. It is no different than other religious denoms. Just because there are rules and guidelines, it doesn’t mean everyone follows them.
@ Law Prof:
The question cracked me up. We are talking about this radical happening 2000 years ago people were trying to sort as Jew and Gentile collide all over the regions. Yet, Alan is worried about who was in charge of it. A better question to ask is how those who attended died.
Lydia wrote:
I’m really resistant to calling it a “church.” Hence, House of Driscoll.
elastigirl wrote:
Bingo!
Muff Potter wrote:
Spot on.
mirele wrote:
Not only is it appropriate, I may also appropriate it.
@ Bill M:
Great comment! It mirrors my position.
Daisy wrote:
A lot of people give God major billing for their own intuitions. Unfortunately, there are also out and out liars. People expecting/demanding God give them information here and now can lean to presumptuousness.
I have only had a few such experiences in the many years of my Christian life. At times, it is just the feel of the wind against my skin or the blessing of seeing something truly beautiful and real. Strangely enough, when my husband was diagnosed with cancer and I thought he would not be coming home again, I felt God was very close. Other times I feel like I wrestle with God, trying to understand, and He gives no answers. I think it is all part of the walk through this troubling world that we share as believers. “Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.”
Lydia wrote:
What with ESS, it would seem that even eternity would not bring justice or truth. Very sad.
@ Abi Miah:
You nailed it perfectly. And people wonder why I won’t go near these “nice” types. Seen it over and over and over.
siteseer wrote:
When my husband’s health failed last year, and he was hospitalized three times, I experience a sense of ‘peace’ in the midst of the weight of what was happening. I credit God for providing for me in that way. I have no other explanation.
okrapod wrote:
I wonder this often, as well.
elastigirl wrote:
I think it is born out of the promise made by those in charge of churches that if you will just come to out church and do what we say, your life will be perfect. Messy isn’t perfect and is evidence of not having arrived at that having-it-all-figured-out-and-that-makes-me-on-the-in-crowd place of false security.
Gram3 wrote:
Very interesting point. It would explain things….
Velour wrote:
😀
Reading these blogposts reminds me of relatives who are very conservative Calvinists, and aspects of their theology I don’t liked. They seem unhappy for being happy (they feel “unworthy” ) , suspicious of motive if it doesn’t fit in their nice box of ideals ( like that ideal patriarchal/complementarian marriage), never sure that Gods loves them or condemns then for whatever reason, because their God by nature isn’t a loving God. So as they go through life feeling like worthless worms, where is there hope except for that salvation which may never be obtainable. They can never reach ideal goals, so why should they be in Gods good grace or loved by Him? My mother a very good woman, left Calvinism but always had the gloom of this background throughout her life. It manifested itself in depression. When my mother was elderly and in a hospice and needed to hear that God loved her, the Christians who told her that God loved her the most were not Calvinists but Roman Catholics. I am not Catholic, but I am so thankful they ministered to my mother before she passed.
@ Mark:
And they say that salvation is not through works? They are very much into works. Sorry, this is my impression. They are hypocrites.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Partly due to the fact that Vatican II was pretty much lost in the shuffle over the past 30+ years, prior to Francis. I find it very sad, having spent muc time with ecumenically-minded folks years back, including religious. It seems like Francis’ attempts at recalling people to what Christ actually taught are being met with a lot of resistance, though obviously, not everywhere.
My personal feeling is that tribunals are a relic of the past and i hate to see what they inflict on people, women especially. (I’ve known a few.) If taking a “conservative” line on this, better to go with EO procedure, where it’s left up to individual parish priests, in private consultation with the individual(s). I just… domeone in my family might have been facing a tribunal in order to get remarried. I’m glad they chose another route, especially given where they live. (I’d be more sympathetic to larger group consulatiins *if* there were women involved in the process, but i guess hell will freeze over 1st.)
I don’t mean to be uncharitable; these are just my thoughts/opinions. I’m a high church type myself, but we don’t have to go through all of this in my denom, for which I’m really grateful.
@ numo:
Consultations
@ Bridget:
Yes, exactly. The sad truth is that they do exist, not just in all denoms, but in all religions. (I’ve been following ongoing developments re. child sexual abuse in some Orthodox Jewish groups, and among some Buddhists, too. It all tends to play out in exactly the same way, no matter who is involved or what they believe.)
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Re. harshness, i think you’re talking about where reality collides with the ideal,in more ways than one. Sadly, too many do what is both personally and politically expedient, in all kinds of situations. I also believe there’s a great deal of prejudice involved, among certain groups of people, that gets turned against people with martial problems and/or people who are divorced. Which happens all the time among other groupsmof xtians as well. 🙁 (cf. Dana Carvey’s Church Lady, who 2as modeled on church ladies he knew when he was growing up.)
I am going to listen to audible version of Ruth Tucker’s book. Shame on Mary Kassian.
@ Gram3:
Coincidentally enough, I read through the whole of Ephesians last night and Timothy but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. The cult of Diana puts an interesting slant on things and as I’ve said before in the thread, a number of Reformed commentators have taken it into account when considering the meaning. Some have changed their view, others haven’t. I think it can be accommodated without changing the “traditional” explanation.
Here’s a Carmelite prayer for Independence Day
Eternal God, stir our minds and stimulate our hearts with a high sense of patriotism on this Fourth of July. May all that this day symbolizes renew our faith in freedom, our devotion to democracy, and redouble our efforts to keep a government of the people, by the people, and for the people truly alive in our world.
Grant that we may highly resolve on this great day to dedicate ourselves anew to the task of ushering in an era when good will shall live in the hearts of a free people, justice shall be the light to guide their feet, and peace shall be the goal of humankind: to the glory of your holy name and the good of our Nation and of all mankind. Amen.
Have a happy day
Nancy2 wrote:
In in an old line Calvinist denom right now and am learning a bit more about the nicer side of it. I don’t think I will ever agree but that seems to be ok. They very much stress a loving side of it that I don’t see from the new group.
But they are Not comps. I’m thinking that helps.
If you pledge allegiance to anyone but Christ….you are deceived.
Men need to give lives unto Christ…..women need to give lives unto Christ.
Women are not superior to men in their understanding of spiritual abuse (Jezabel and Athaliah were wicked). Men are not superior to women (Judas and Herrod are just some example of wicked).
Men are simply mentioned MORE in the bible as the transgressors than are women’s names……
Your ministry is not speaking the truth in wisdom, but with assumption that feminism and progressive ideals can fix problems. They do not and possibly lead to MORE abuse. Feminism results in bitter heart in women which causes women to dislike and hate men…..even disabled men.
Lowlandseer wrote:
How? Do you have a link to an explanation? Is it necessary to preserve the “traditional” interpretation which was formed with…presuppositions…which no longer are presupposed, e.g. females are inferior to males?
I did read Don Carson’s take, and he resorted to inconsistency.
Lowlandseer wrote:
A very simple point. Paul’s letter to Timothy was a letter written from one friend to another friend in order to address some problems Timothy was having at the church in Ephesus. His purpose was not to establish a hierarchy between male and female. If females were prohibited from teaching males, it seems reasonable to expect that Paul would have instructed Timothy in that rule way before things got out of hand at Ephesus.
What, in your opinion, is the reason that Paul prohibits females from teaching males? Order of creation? Women are more easily deceived than men? And where do you ground that reason in the text?
@ Lowlandseer:
Try Acts 19 and history to get a feel for how important and influential the cult of Diana was economically, socially, etc. The temple was a wonder of the world at that time. It fits in with the theme of false teaching set up in 1 Tim 1.
Darlene wrote:
Agreed – the root theology is the same. It’s the aggressive and militant behavior of the New Calvinists in their belief and practice that is causing such a stir! The Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and even Southern Baptists which are “old” Calvinists have been much more civil in exercising their faith. This new breed is out to do what the others have been unable to accomplish … Calvinize the rest of us by whatever means are necessary (stealth, deception, etc.).
Alan House wrote:
Would you counsel your wife and daughters not to share the Gospel with others?
Alan House wrote:
Certainly, Paul would be in agreement with Jesus! It’s the New Calvinists I’m worried about!
Alan, since you have stated that you are not a Calvinist, I won’t pick on you with this. But, here’s what I’m seeing in the New Calvinist ranks. I listen a lot to YRR sermon podcasts in my area. They have a particular fondness of camping out in the Pauline epistles, particularly selected passages of Romans and Ephesians (which they repeat over and over). They seldom exposit from the Gospels. If one keeps circling the writings of Paul, you might read Jesus wrong. But if you read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.
@ Gram3:
I put forward a couple of longer quotes yesterday which expressed my views better than I could. I read a few others that I didn’t include. One in particular was particularly good which, if I find, I will post here. I know you don’t like any kind of hierarchy and keep going on about it but I think there is -established in the Creation and still relevant today. Paul doesn’t forbid female participation in worship services but he does say there is a bar to them holding the position of elder. As I also said yesterday, you know both sides of the argument and you have made your mind up as to which one you think is right. So have I.
Lydia – I’ve read a lot about this and my view hasn’t changed.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Yes, and I will continue to go on and on about any supposed hierarchy of one class of humans over another class of humans because it is unBiblical and against the Gospel and contrary to the example of Jesus.
Where in the text do you find a hierarchy of male over female? Genesis? Because I’ve been looking for that magical verse or verses for quite awhile now.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t think these men in church would be so blase about this hierarchy thing if they thought they were in the bottom…
the best example of biblical ‘leadership’ we have involved the washing of feet.
Jerome wrote:
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Yeah, take a look at this:
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/alberta/court-of-queen-s-bench/2008/02/06/kassian-v-roy-2008-abqb-80.shtml
“She formally trained as an occupational therapist. She had worked as a full-time occupational therapist at Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital until 1984, then part time until 1992.
Her husband, a physiotherapist, runs the Capilano Rehabilitation Centre, the family owned business. Mrs. Kassian had consulted part time at the Centre until 1998, but continues to be involved in various administrative roles.
In 1997, Mrs. Kassian commenced a long-distance PhD program in Systematic Theology at the University of South Africa. She has not completed her dissertation or oral examination to date. She has also taught a number of short-duration courses at a Baptist seminary in Louisville, Kentucky”
Some pretty damning words from the judge in this whiplash? lawsuit:
“There were enough inconsistencies in Mrs. Kassian’s evidence to raise concerns about the veracity and credibility of her testimony, especially when combined with the admission that she is prepared to fabricate the appearance of a different reality in order to promote the sale of a product. This does bring her credibility into some serious question, particularly when those fabrications go to the very nature of the injuries and dysfunction she claims exists to the present day. Given these conclusions, I must treat Mrs. Kassian’s testimony with caution. I do not find her to be a particularly credible witness. I also recognize a significant risk that the evidence she provides may be fabricated, or exaggerated.”
@ wakeupcall:
You comment shows that you have not read this blog. next time, quote exactly what we said that led you to your assumptions or you will be put in moderation.
@ Gram3:
Keep looking. You’re in the right area. Meanwhile enjoy the rest of your holiday.
Lowlandseer wrote:
This is something that bothers me about comps. They often frame the discussion around mutualists/egalitarians beliefs as likes or dislikes, as if their view is about emotions and desires. Comps very seldom respond to egalitarians/mutualists with language that acknowledges this is what E/M “believe” Scripture teaches.
@ jerome:
This is fascinating evidence. I will look into it more closely. This is worth a post.
Thank you.
Lowlandseer wrote:
This makes it sound like Paul could have forbidden women to even worship God. What a bizarre thing to say, Lowlandseer. I guess women should count it all joy that Paul did not forbid women to worship God. This is so opposite of what Paul says in so many places about the gathering of believers. No one was excluded from any part of the gathering.
I am thankful for 1 Corinthians 14:26
jerome wrote:
Hmmmm … there’s too much of that going on in church these days!
wakeupcall wrote:
I never heard anyone here express this belief.
@ Bridget:
The emotion is not limited to comps when their view is called “sick” by the other party. As for me, I have acknowledged several times that different people here believe different things and that’s okay.
jerome wrote:
Hmm, maybe I can finish my masters there?
Lea wrote:
How odd that Jesus, who is God, lowered himself while these men who claim to be imitating him elevate themselves over others. Without any Biblical warrant for a hierarchy!
jerome wrote:
Wow!
Also, who knew all you needed to teach at seminary is a rehab degree and some ‘study’ that does not get near a degree (PhDs don’t have classes do they? So her study would have been completely whatever she did at home since she didn’t sit for anything?)
Lowlandseer wrote:
OK, I should just take your word for it? I don’t think so. If you cannot point to any support for your position, then we have no reason to take you seriously.
Bridget wrote:
Unless feminism means you consider women to be fully human.
Gram3 wrote:
I wonder if hyper-Calvinism appeals to people raised in the church but who are either too self-centered or too insecure to act as Jesus did. Most completely avoid talking about Jesus entirely, like they are embarrassed to confront the idea that God’s ideal leader was a servant by example. They use the word “gospel” all the time, but run fast away from any discussion of why Jesus acted the way He did.
wakeupcall wrote:
A balanced Biblical understanding of the roles of Christian men and women has nothing to do with feminism and progressive ideals! The writers and commenters on TWW have never taken that avenue in trying to convince others of Truth.
ishy wrote:
You have just articulated my underlying concern with New Calvinism. What happened to Jesus?! Gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that won’t cut it if Jesus is not in the center of it. Calling yourself a “Christ-Follower” is not the same as being a “Believer.” Worshiping “God” won’t be sufficient unless you come through Jesus. It’s a different world, this New Calvinism.
I found this in Themelios, Volume 20, issue 2, January 1995. It’s not the article I referred to earlier (which was fairly recent) but it essentially says the same thing.
“There are questions, of course, that can be raised concerning such a wide-ranging and thorough study of a relatively brief text. There is a lack of sufficient engagement with the work of other scholars who have also addressed this text and its issues. For example, the discussion of Dennis R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, receives only one brief mention. The landmark 1988 study (in New Testament Studies) of Leland Wilshire on authentein is not used at all in the long discussion of that verb.
The construction of the nature of the heresy in Ephesus against which 1–2 Timothy are written is worthy of study and reflection, but it is not convincing. The evidence amassed comes from such a variety of sources, places and times that it is doubtful that the constructs of pagan cults focused on women or that the gnostic/proto-gnostic teachings can be accepted as clearly established patterns of religion in late first-century Ephesus.
I have written in support of the view that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is directed against women deceived by the heresy opposed in 1–2 Timothy (see especially 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11–16; 2 Tim. 3:1–9). However, the evidence for identifying the heresy opposed in 1–2 Timothy with the construct of the Kroegers is not actually very clear. It may be presumptive to argue that 1 Timothy 2:13–14 is a refutation against an exalted gnostic/proto-gnostic view of Eve. Other alternatives are not sufficiently considered in the book. Further, although the discussion of authentein is fascinating, the evidence presented by Wilshire that the verb refers to violent action is much more convincing.
In summary, the Kroegers have produced an important contribution to the ongoing study of a difficult text. Their affirmation of the ministry of women is important, and they have shown that it is possible to interpret responsibly 1 Timothy 2:11–15 as other than a prohibition against women’s participation in ministry. All of their data and arguments are intriguing and worthy of consideration; some of the pivotal points of their own construction of the occasion and context and the Pauline response are to be questioned.”
Gram3 wrote:
“We”? “We” have no reason? Actually I take both of you seriously even at those times when I may not agree with what you all may be saying.
Max wrote:
The stuff I was reading from Al Mohler a few weeks ago used “gospel” repeatedly, but “Jesus’s saving work on the cross” didn’t fit at all in that context. What did work was “church” and “elect” instead of gospel. So I started reading a few other new Calvinist authors, and this seemed to be fairly consistent. A few exceptions, but I think they do have an entirely different theology.
Problem with this is that it definitely minimizes Jesus coming to earth to act as a substitutionary atonement. It also ignores God’s motivation, which is love.
wakeupcall wrote:
I, for one, do not believe that feminism and progressive ideals can fix problems. Neither do I believe that any ideology, like “complementarianism” can fix problems. Straw man.
okrapod wrote:
Good point. Everyone needs to make up their own minds about the evidence.
ishy wrote:
Exactly. You are seeing and hearing the same thing I am. We have to remember, that to the reformed mind, Calvinism = Gospel. Thus, any talk about “gospel” has this in mind. The problem with doctrinal presuppositions of any sort is that foundational things are presumed to be true when you filter them through a theological grid of choice. Religion is cluttered with groups that express beliefs and practices based on the wrong foundation. If Calvinism = Gospel, then Jesus’ saving work on the Cross for ALL men is not relevant to you … only the predestined elect fits your grid. In the world of Calvinism, Church = Predestined Elect, not baptized believers. It’s a different world, this New Calvinism.
Matthew 6:37
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Such as is the law of nature.
Those who have professed wisdom have brought us ESS. All in the reaction to secular movements such as feminism they fear were and are invading the evangelical church. They weren’t entirely wrong, but I do question if there wasn’t a political spin and demonization in all of this, just like what happens in the secular realm? I am egalitarian, but not a feminist or progressive in the sense that concerns proponents of ESS or Neocalvinism.
My impression is that Mrs. Kassian’s hiring by SBTS had nothing to do with qualification but everything to do with their having an effective spokesperson and yes person to the male leadership at SBTS. Also they would probably not want to hire a woman who actually had completed a seminary degree from a reputable institution. Mrs. Kassian may be a puppet with a token job and a trophy of celebrity in the Neo Cal firmament.
Don’t know Mrs. Kassian’s competence, but I bet Dottie Pattersons home economics class has a lot more substance. She could teach me a thing or two. Though she might not like to teach a man?
Max wrote:
Yeah. And so why I avoid any discussion one-on-one with hyper-Calvinists. Because we using completely different vocabularies, even though the words are the same.
Where the big difference comes in the output. Because an authoritarian group not surrendered to Christ through the Spirit will act very differently. They are not being obedient to God, but to other men. They close ranks, talk about their special place, and don’t do any of the things Christ commanded.
Muff Potter wrote:
Taking Paul’s words in Tim., etc., at face value, and applying them to all Christians for all time would mean:
Women must remain silent in the churches, period. I see no exceptions in his words for singing in the choir; communicating at church fellowship meals; even teaching children’s and women’s SS, for those classes are within the confines of the church. My, my we can’t even tell our children to be quiet during the sermon, for to do that, we would have to break our silence.
If we have any questions, we are to ask our husbands at home. If our husbands don’t have an answer, and are to embarrassed to ask someone else, (or don’t attend church …. And for single women) we’re hamstrung!
Paul does instruct women to teach younger women and children. However, he does not tell us to teach the gospel. He tells us to teach children how to behave, and to teach the younger women how to keep house.
I have heard men say, “Well, Paul didn’t mean blah, blah blah …” Really? Show the exceptions Paul gives; book, chapter, and verse, please.
I know I’m being snotty, but I’ve heard it until I’m sick of it.
wakeupcall wrote:
Feminism means that women are equal to men in value. Do you think that women are not equal? Thanks to feminism, women can vote. Do you think women should not be able to vote? Thanks to feminism, society’s perception of women has changed so that now women are considered smart enough and emotionally stable enough to have careers and make financial transactions without a male co-signor. Think of the women you’ve interacted with, a doctor perhaps, a lawyer, a professor. Think about what would happen if women were not allowed to have those positions. They can though, and you can thank feminism.
wakeupcall wrote:
By the way, what “progressive” ideals has this site promoted? Equality for all is the only one I can think of, and it seems to me that was also promoted by a certain group called the Founding Fathers.
(Equality for all as understood in their day. Our society today has just advanced this as logic dictates with women and people of color.)
wakeupcall wrote:
Our hostesses Dee and Deb are conservative Christians and not feminists. They have nailed problems in advance – everything from the epidemic of child sexual abuse to Mark Driscoll’s abuses at Mars Hill Church in Seattle when all of the big name men were a bunch of cowards who wouldn’t call Driscoll out on his un-Biblical behavior. John Piper was interviewed and said that Driscoll’s leaving Mars Hill was a “loss for the Gospel.” No, in point of fact its an answer to prayer. But what does John Piper know about anything?
Driscoll has yet to apologize to the lives he damaged at Mars Hill, such as Paul Petry and family. Mr. Petry, a godly Christian and an Ivy-League educated attorney, was an elder at Mars Hill who opposed Mark Driscoll’s un-Biblical consolidation of power. For that, Mr. Petry was viciously lied about, fired, and excommunicated. Ditto for another elder at Mars Hill.
Here is a website of apologies by former pastors/elders who have now apologized for their sins against Mr. Petry and his family, other elders, staff members, and Mars Hill Church members. Mr. Driscoll, of course – the coward that he is – has never made things right.
http://repentantpastor.com/
Dee and Deb have been spot on in issue after issue that they have written about here. They both have MBA’s and critical thinking skills. And they are both Godly Christians. If these men Christian leaders did their jobs, there would be no need for Dee and Deb to write these articles and to weep into their pillows about all of the abuses that come their way from abused sheep.
jerome wrote:
Wow! Damning indeed. He flat out called her a liar.
Nancy2 wrote:
It would also mean that Christ was wrong to have Mary M. tell the apostles about his resurrection since she would be teaching them. But of course, the neo-cals pay lip-service to Christ and then worship Paul.
Mark wrote:
Oh that is beautiful.
I was brought to Christ, and I’m a Protestant, by the most loving, elderly, faith-filled Catholic woman who was 97 years old. She was able to reach people from all walks of life, from cab drivers to doctors, people who were severely mentally ill, prostitutes. There wasn’t anyone that she didn’t show the love of God to. That love transformed all the people she came in contact with, including me.
She died at 102 years old. I love her for growing my faith in God. I wanted what she had.
ishy wrote:
I’ve learned you can’t reason with them. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” only applies if you are one of them. They are not teachable if anything you offer as Truth doesn’t fit their grid. The “hyper” boys can be particularly venomous if you tread on their precious territory. Sounds like God, doesn’t it?
Velour wrote:
Tying together a few of the other comments here, it was a loss for “New-Calvinism = the Gospel” We need to pray for more of those losses.
Ken F wrote:
Amen.
Nancy2 wrote:
What it means is that some people want to be the arbitrator so that they can declare what is permissible. And that also means that they do not have to give you a reason for their rule. Because Biblical.
Patriciamc wrote:
Crazy thing is Paul seems to have respected women in church leadership! So they worship Paul but skip all those passages where he commends women in the church and speaks of them with respect.
They read Paul through their own filter. Paul did not mean what they think he meant.
Gram3 wrote:
Edit: because Biblical (TM).
Storming in our area. We may be eating indoors tonight, sans fireworks!
: (
Velour wrote:
I would have loved to do a Vulcan mind-meld with her. Imagine all that experience all those memories and all that wisdom…
Gram3 wrote:
Speaking of this, I read a great post at the Lydia center this morning, “Eve Alone? The Curious Tale of the Missing Adam,” dealing with the fact that a certain phrase is often dropped from Bible translations https://lydiacenter.org/2016/05/19/eve-alone-the-curious-tale-of-the-missing-adam/
Perhaps one thing Jesus had in mind when he said we must become as little children is the fact that children have not had time to develop a lot of presuppositions to filter the things they hear and read yet.
Nancy2 wrote:
Ours is maybe/maybe not all afternoon. I think swimming might be out for sure but I have a feeling we will fit in the fireworks.
Muff Potter wrote:
It was so fun talking with her. She’d been a social worker and headed the graduate students’ at UC Berkeley’s training.
She knew writers and artists. Thornton Wilder (“Our Town”) was her father’s friend.
Mr. Wilder would come to their family home (California) for dinner. His favorite food was egg drop soup, made by their Chinese cook.
She’d taken flying lessons in Oakland and had seen Amelia Earhardt. She’d seen the building of the Golden Gate Bridge. She worked on the teams of Nobel Prize winning researchers.
Her father headed the UC Berkeley Press and was asked to print the first United Nations Declaration, and she had her father’s original copy. It was beautiful. We sent it to the university library for their collection.
She had tea every afternoon and delicious snacks. Anyone who stopped by was welcome. She went out for New Year’s Eve and had a glass of whiskey with her friends.
She believed in red meat, cream in mashed potatoes, salt, and butter. She loved See’s Candy and always had boxes of it around (well known here in CA).
She taught me to make Italian fudge and we made it every winter.
She taught me to say “yes” to life. I love her for that!
@Muff Potter,
Oh and she had style. When she was younger she had a red and black Porsche.
When she was 98 years old and I couldn’t find her, she’d gone off to The Gap at the mall to go shopping. She liked their jackets. She’d taken a cab and not waited for me to take her by car. She said I worried about her too much.
She was independent. Spry. Kind. Smart. Loving. Feisty.
wakeupcall wrote:
I’ve met a super-ton of bitter women who have been chewed up an spit out by the church’s bitter doctrine concerning hierarchy. T’was the church that produced the bitterness in them, not feminism.
I’ve seen these women respond in many ways.
~Some have turned atheist.
~Some have become the extreme left, man-hating feminists you fear.
~Others have became feminists that don’t hate men but realize there is a problem and want to change it (You appear to also fear those women. which is a pity).
~Some have turned to paganism/Wicca.
~Some have become agnostic.
~Some have remained Christian but hold all churches at arm length because they have their souls need time to detox from the last church they attended.
~Some women have switched to different churches or denominations.
~Some have stayed to fight for the church denomination that they love (these women are also accused of being bitter because they no longer toe the party line).
But all these women have been hurt by the false doctrine of male hierarchy.
I really doubt that there are more feminists who became bitter from feminism alone.
Perhaps instead of blaming man-hating feminism as the cause of bitterness, you should take a step back and realize that it is merely a symptom of a disease, a bitter doctrine, a root of bitterness within the church.
Also, it might behoove you to realize that the term ‘feminism’ doesn’t always mean man-hating. The sooner you get this one, the sooner you will be able to make real arguments that can be debated. Right now you are merely throwing around you ill-informed and misguided opinions.
@ wakeupcall:
Okey dokey
Gram3 wrote:
They can never cite you chapter and verse with any explicit proscription or prescription, only circular arguments, extrapolations, and weak inference.
Patriciamc wrote:
His words have interesting connotations in regard to her ministry, as well…
What, another comp defender? Are they falling from the sky now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk92xJFdLxQ
So, is “wakeupcall” one of Mary Kassian’s personal fanboys? Or just some random troll from the manosphere?
Velour wrote:
I would have A LOT more leisure time if these so-called Christian leaders conducted themselves in a Christ-like manner. Since we started blogging over 7 years ago, seems like the problems have gotten much worse in Christendom. 🙁
Mara wrote:
Feminism began with Women’s Suffrage ……. the rights to vote …. purchase/inherit/own property ….. testify in court ….. speak in public forums ….. the rights for women to be allowed to do everything in society that men historically claimed as their rights, alone. That is still what many of us call feminism. Just because we want the same liberties as men, it doesn’t mean we hate men.
wakeupcall wrote:
You’e misrepresented TWW, and you have also not cited any evidence to prove these assertions on their own. You are here to condemn and upset people, and I will not be drawn in. Our good, thoughtful readers and commenters have been taunted and goaded quite enough the past few days.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Maybe they are being thrown from the sky???
Nancy2 wrote:
I have this vision of Al Mohler standing on the top of a steeple tossing people down on the peons below.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
A+ movie reference.
@ Muff Potter:
As I’ve written here and elsewhere, this stuff is not more than 40-45 years old, and almost exclusively American in origin. Here’s what E.W. Bullinger wrote almost a century ago as a preface to 1 Timothy:
“To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and, as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant whatsoever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.”
Friend wrote:
I’m with you. Just as I was thinking this thread would start winding down at 1,000 someone comes in and accuses us of being a bunch of “new dealers”. I’ll have to tell my associates I’m a bitter progressive feminist, they need a good laugh.
1005 comments! That’s got to be a record. One of the more interesting things I’ve noted in this thread and elsewhere is that most of the complementarians seem much, much more concerned with making sure that women are kept in their “proper place” than they are with CBMW making up a new, heterodox, trinity. Priorities, priorities.
Deb wrote:
So it’s your fault. Now it’s a vast TWW-wing conspiracy. 🙂
@ Velour:
The priest gave my mother her last communion at bedside and spoke at my mothers memorial service. I don’t believe that the communion was something a priest would normally do because views of communion between Protestants and Catholics are different. The priest and my mother didn’t feel difference in views of Eucharist were important enough to exclude fellowship. It will be our secret.
Deb wrote:
I frequently pray for you, Deb, and for Dee. I can see the incredible work and sacrifice of time that you put in to this ministry and to addressing these serious issues.
You attend to all of the hurting sheep and to your own families. Dee is taking care of her sick, elderly relatives and her mother-in-law who is quite ill. I don’t see how you ladies do it.
With love and appreciation,
Velour
Mark wrote:
Ahh, that is sweet. The royal law of Love was followed.
I have to wonder, does being “transformed by the renewing of your mind” mean putting yourself into a little box that you are terrified to step out of? So many Christians live in fear of ideas. They see faith as something that is fragile and must be protected from challenge.
One time a JW came to our door and my husband was attempting to engage with her in conversation. She very much wanted him to take material to read and he offered to take it if she would also take some material from him and read it. “Oh no!” she exclaimed, “I can’t do that! It might damage my faith!” Well he just laughed at the absurdity of it. But what good is such “faith”? Is it even real faith? Or is it just prejudice?
I don’t know… questions I ponder…
Nancy2 wrote:
I tweeted to Mary Kassian yesterday that she was nasty in what she had to say about Ruth Tucker, I hoped she [Mary] would retire soon, and that she had nothing to offer. I also tweeted it over to Nate Sparks, Christian and blogger, who has written about Ruth Tucker’s book and her journey and this Comp nonsense.
Maybe I stirred up a hornet’s nest. I just think that Mary was low. And if she’s going to attack Ruth Tucker than I’m going to call Mary out on it.
Velour wrote:
I really think we need a TWW hashtag, but #tww is used by a number of groups.
Velour wrote:
More and more people of faith are starting to see what a steaming pile of horse poo-poo ‘complementarianism’ is and I think that Kassian herself is a bit surprised at the blow-back from people of faith who are no longer buying it.
I don’t say much in this regard, but Dee and Deb, you are also consistently in my prayers.
I have been through the loss of my parents and it was a grueling process, it has taken a long time to recover from the loss of my mom, especially, her deterioration from illness was very difficult. I pushed myself to do what needed to be done, only when there was finally a chance to rest did I realize how physically depleted I was.
I don’t know how you do it, Dee, but I am thankful for you. Take good care of yourself.
ishy wrote:
I always read it as ‘the winds of winter’ lol.
ishy wrote:
I will add a hashtag next time.
siteseer wrote:
This site has done a great job at exposing terrible trends. The discussions on “leadership” withing the church have been fascinating and have forced me to re-evaluate much of what I think. Regardless of whether or not there are supposed to be leaders in the church, I am very grateful for Dee’s and Deb’s leadership in taking on so many issues with this site. They’ve been doing a masterful job in exposing filth while at the same time exercising the needed leadership in keeping this forum respectful and engaging. This is what Christian leadership is supposed to look like. Thanks you, Dee and Deb!
ishy wrote:
#satin?
Bill M wrote:
At the risk of energizing an entirely new conversation, I’ve found that New Calvinists have a troubled relationship with topics with the word “social” in them, such as social justice, social gospel, social activism, etc. Given that Jesus said he will separate sheep from goats based on how people take care of social needs, it’s very interesting to read the strained discussions on the YRR sites. I’m still trying to sort through this myself, so I don’t have much guidance to offer.
wakeupcall wrote:
Standing up for basic human rights does not mean we’re bitter or hate men. I love men and even hope to marry one some day. If anyone causes women to be bitter and hate men, it would be the complementarians who say that women can’t teach or lead and can only stay at home and have babies (nothing wrong with staying at home or having babies. It is wrong though, to tell women that’s all they can do.). These are the same complementarians who excuse child molesters and tell women to obey the men who are abusing them.
Anyone want to bet Wakeupcall is no longer on this board, but was just a drive by shooting in order to spread negativity and un-Christ-likeness (that is now officially a word).
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep, daughters of #satin (sic) also known as daughters of #stan (sic).
I consider myself kin to The Deebs, thus I am a fabric too, here at TWW’s Coat of Many Colors.
Hugs,
Velour
Nancy2 wrote:
How about #tww16 going off the title? It’s still nice a short.
I’m just guessing #satin is already pretty popular.
Muff Potter wrote:
That is what I conclude since no one has been able to point to it/them. I imagine that if Ray Ortlund was reduced to “whispers” and “hints” of male hierarchy in his chapter (Chapter 3 fittingly) of RBMW, then the odds are pretty good that such grounding in the texts does not exist.
I’ve never been able to get any Female Subordinationists to just connect the dots, starting with their…presuppositions. 🙂
Max wrote:
Good evaluation, MAX
The writings of St. Paul cannot be read and understood apart from the Light of Christ. It would be like trying to read the OT and dismissing what we know of God from the revelation we have of Him in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Any evaluation of teachings in the OT or the NT must now align with Our Lord’s witness to ‘Who God Is’.
Patriciamc wrote:
Oh, I’m sure.
Even so, I respond just in case there are beaten down lurkers who have believed this rhetoric for too long and are now looking for some decent responses.
Those lurkers may not actually exist and I could be spinning my wheels.
But I have to respond. There might be one. And that one might need to see a response.
Bill M wrote:
Owen and Mary do not think you are masculine, and I know you are deeply troubled by that like Gramp 3 is. 😉
Gram3 wrote:
The only time Our Lord Himself was ‘above’ women on this Earth was when he was raised on a wooden cross.
It is profoundly sad that male Patriarchy has been crucifying the wrong sex all these years, if they really wanted to live in imitation of Christ.
@ Jeannette Altes:
sure ‘nuf.
boil it all down, and i think what’s left is professional christians’ need for revenue, fear of losing it, fear of jeopardizing their career, fear of losing social standing amongst their peers, fear of losing significance.
fear fear fear
sounds entirely mission-compromising to me. (& unhealthy. & miserable)
ishy wrote:
#KidsOfStan (sic) ?
Velour wrote:
“22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no Law.”
(from Galatians 5)
@ Gram3:
“I imagine that if Ray Ortlund was reduced to “whispers” and “hints” of male hierarchy in his chapter (Chapter 3 fittingly) of RBMW, then the odds are pretty good that such grounding in the texts does not exist.”
+++++++++++++
good grief. yeah, that’s the ticket! whispers and hints…. good enough! gentleman, we have our justification. let’s campaign for subjugating the woman half the world to the man other half!
what desperation. what remarkably fragile egos and fragile faith they must have. they must be utterly terrified of women. utterly terrified that the entire basis of their faith hangs on this one thread.
can any of them really deny that if male hierarchy is not biblical, then they potentially lose everything else they claim is biblical? this is the gist what they’re saying, right?
more of this fear fear fear.
(because if i repeat something 3 times in a row it makes it even more true)
(just couldn’t think of a word that amounted to fear to the 3rd power)
Mara wrote:
My thoughts, too, Mara.
First?
Christiane wrote:
Granted, but that still leaves the door open for considerable subjectivity.
@ Lowlandseer:
You have every right to your view. It is strange people buy into creation order as that puts humans below other creatures. :o)
@ ishy:
#wartwatch perhaps?
@ Joe:
Things are really rockin' here on Fourth of July. Must have something to do with Freedom in Christ. 😉
This is fairly recent from Al Mohler on the ESS topic: http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/.
“Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy. Their teachings do not in any way contradict the words of the Nicene Creed, and both theologians eagerly affirm it. I do not share their proposals concerning the eternal submission of the Son to the Father, but I am well aware that nothing they have taught even resembles the heresy of the Arians. To the contrary, both theologians affirm the full scope of orthodox Christianity and have proved themselves faithful teachers of the church. These charges are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them.”
Dated June, 28.
Deb wrote:
Martina McBride’s “Independence Day” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VPpAZ9_qAw
elastigirl wrote:
Terror? 😉
Deb wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
jerome wrote:
Thanks for that link to that lawsuit that Kassian was involved in. I just tweeted her and asked about what the judge said about her, copied Nate Sparks (Christian & blogger), and the hashtag #ruthtucker (since Mary Kassian attacked Ruth).
Ken F wrote:
“Violating”? How? It’s one collective statement of belief, not a set of laws.
He writes further:
Theologians almost never agree on every issue, nor is such agreement possible. What is required is absolute fidelity to Scripture and valid affirmation of the fundamental creeds of the Church, along with specific denominational and institutional confessions.
The first clause (“Theologians almost never agree on every issue”) is word salad.
The rest of it is word cole slaw. It sounds like he’s saying there should be separate, but equally valid, completely rigid systems of belief, ranked by denomination. How would these things come into being, without some initial discussion and disagreement? More to the point, how could anyone come to Jesus through questioning, doubt, and struggle? There’s a reason so many people love to sing “Amazing Grace,” but I don’t see room for it here.
@ Muff Potter:
“More and more people of faith are starting to see what a steaming pile of horse poo-poo ‘complementarianism’ is and I think that Kassian herself is a bit surprised at the blow-back from people of faith who are no longer buying it.”
++++++++++++
Mary Kassian says, “At this point, my involvement with CBMW is peripheral at best.”
a few years ago i remember noting that everything she was saying on her Girls Gone Wise website was being contradicted by others at CBMW (mainly the men). just when she’d make her points, people would point out how her peers and colleagues were in the process of or had already made statements in direct contradiction to hers. no matter how hard she tried, she just couldn’t win.
the visual image i had at the time was of earnestly, desperately trying to build something with dry sand. as soon as you pile it up, it starts sliding down.
since she had championed herself and her credibility based on “I was there” at the signing of the Danvers Statement and as one who coined the term “complementarian”, my feeling was that this was all quite insulting, humiliating. that it was a clear demonstration before her very eyes of the reality that even Mary Kassian, like all women, is viewed as a sub-peer, sort of negligible, by her male counterparts.
my intuition tells me she has purposely distanced herself from CBMW because of the insult, and because even she could see that it is an institution that is falling apart no matter how hard they try to keep building it up. i think it was simply too embarrassing and nullifying to not distance herself.
(and of course she has staked her reputation, career, and income on gender roles and male headship. she has much to lose, much to protect.)
@ Ken F:
Hi KEN,
I read Mohler’s words and I see a desperate, rather garbled, statement.
Is Mohler the current informally-recognized spokesperson for the SBC in matters of ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy’? If Mohler is speaking FOR the SBC, then the SBC doesn’t deserve to represented by such a comment, no.
Ken F wrote:
When you strip away the titles and the pretensions it is astounding to find the frivolous motivations in christendom. MK strikes me as a toady, the type of individual who would have fit right in with the court at Versailles, a grotesque extravagance surrounded by a suffering nation.
Christiane wrote:
Yes. Here’s another recent statement:
“Southern Baptists learned these lessons the hardest way, and we have paid the price of theological controversy for the sake of recovering that which was lost. By God’s grace, we have been granted a recovery, if we will keep it. Now, a new generation must take up this responsibility in the face of new challenges, knowing that these challenges, like the denial of biblical inerrancy, will require the full force of conviction to confront, and the full force of confession to contain. … We must look to a new generation of teachers who will gladly teach in accordance with and not contrary to all that is affirmed in our confession of faith, without hesitation or mental reservation.”
http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/03/11/the-integrity-of-words-and-our-confession-of-faith/
Sounds rather desperate…
Ken F wrote:
The hardest way? I don’t think so. To give but one example, England had a brutal civil war over religion, and through suffering arrived at a different conclusion. Instead of forcing everybody to demonstrate identical beliefs, the C of E found the via media, the middle way, between Roman Catholicism and radical Protestantism.
Rigidity causes and deepens conflict instead of preventing or resolving it. We all have different minds.
Ken F wrote:
Southern Baptists are losing more than 200,000 living members per year, fed up with these authoritarian NeoCalvinists. Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the nation of all denominations, when the nation-wide divorce rate has been plummeting.
They’re getting called out on all of their heresies. Mohler should step down. He’s done enough damage to enough peoples’ lives, to the cause of Christ, the name of Christ, and to the Gospel.
elastigirl wrote:
Good points.
@ Ken F:
Hi KEN,
in Mohler’s words, I seen how the word ‘inerrant’ is being applied, particularly in this portion of his statement:
“We must look to a new generation of teachers who will gladly teach in accordance with and not contrary to all that is affirmed in our confession of faith, without hesitation or mental reservation.”
I see no room for a healthy diversity in those words, and I think Mohler may have extended the meaning of ‘inerrant’ to include ‘our confession of faith’, which is clearly a man-made document (I’m assuming he means the 2K BF&M), and therefore subject to change at the whim of who has the power to do it.
Integrity would be better served if Mohler didn’t try to hold the ‘unity’ of his domain together at the sacrifice of the integrity of ‘Who Christ Is’ and the orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Trinity ….. his excuse of ESS doesn’t work because ESS crashes up against ‘si comprendis, non es Deus’ and falls onto the altar of masculine vanity which is far from ‘inerrant’.
siteseer wrote:
Daisy –
I found this a few years ago and it was so helpful during those times that God seems silent. I hope it will encourage you as well. It’s from “Streams in the Desert” if you are familiar with that devotional.
http://www.youdevotion.com/streams/february/9
———————–
Trust Amid the Silence
But he did not answer her a word. Then his disciples came and begged him, “Send her away, because she keeps on crying out after us.”—Matt 15:23 NET
The Lord your God is in your midst; he is a warrior who can deliver. He takes great delight in you; he renews you by his love; he shouts for joy over you.”—Zeph 3:17 NET
It may be a child of God is reading these words who has had some great crushing sorrow, some bitter disappointment, some heart-breaking blow from a totally unexpected quarter. You are longing for your Master’s voice bidding you “Be of good cheer,” but only silence and a sense of mystery and misery meet you —“He answered her not a word.”
God’s tender heart must often ache listening to all the sad, complaining cries which arise from our weak, impatient hearts, because we do not see that for our own sakes He answers not at all or otherwise than seems best to our tear-blinded, short-sighted eyes.
The silences of Jesus are as eloquent as His speech and may be a sign, not of His disapproval, but of His approval and of a deep purpose of blessing for you.
“Why art thou cast down, O…soul?” Thou shalt yet praise Him, yes, even for His silence. Listen to an old and beautiful story of how one Christian dreamed that she saw three others at prayer. As they knelt the Master drew near to them.
As He approached the first of the three, He bent over her in tenderness and grace, with smiles full of radiant love and spoke to her in accents of purest, sweetest music.
Leaving her, He came to the next, but only placed His hand upon her bowed bead, and gave her one look of loving approval.
The third woman He passed almost abruptly without stopping for a word or glance. The woman in her dream said to herself, “How greatly He must love the first one, to the second He gave His approval, but none of the special demonstrations of love He gave the first; and the third must have grieved Him deeply, for He gave her no word at all and not even a passing look.
“I wonder what she has done, and why He made so much difference between them?” As she tried to account for the action of her Lord, He Himself stood by her and said: “O woman! how wrongly hast thou interpreted Me. The first kneeling woman needs all the weight of My tenderness and care to keep her feet in My narrow way. She needs My love, thought and help every moment of the day. Without it she would fail and fall.
“The second has stronger faith and deeper love, and I can trust her to trust Me however things may go and whatever people do.
“The third, whom I seemed not to notice, and even to neglect, has faith and love of the finest quality, and her I am training by quick and drastic processes for the highest and holiest service.
“She knows Me so intimately, and trusts Me so utterly, that she is independent of words or looks or any outward intimation of My approval. She is not dismayed nor discouraged by any circumstances through which I arrange that she shall pass; she trusts Me when sense and reason and every finer instinct of the natural heart would rebel;—because she knows that I am working in her for eternity, and that what I do, though she knows not the explanation now, she will understand hereafter.
“I am silent in My love because I love beyond the power of words to express, or of human hearts to understand, and also for your sakes that you may learn to love and trust Me in Spirit-taught, spontaneous response to My love, without the spur of anything outward to call it forth.”
He “will do marvels” if you will learn the mystery of His silence, and praise Him, for every time He withdraws His gifts that you may better know and love the Giver. —Selected
@ Ken F:
Total spin. SBTS is immersed in it. Most of the over ripe boys don’t even know it as ESS. It is ingrained. It fits perfectly with the Penal in PSA.
Ken F wrote:
*Snort* As usual, Mohler confuses making assertions with telling the truth. This quote is one example of why I don’t have any respect for Mohler, and suspect that something other than Christianity is his raison d’etre. He is lying.
Darlene wrote:
The difference is the approach. The Neo Cals are like the Puritans who were like Calvin in that they want their “Geneva” to be their idea of the New Jerusalem.
Old and current mainstream Calvinists were/are tolerant. They are either frozen chosen or social gospel or somewhere in between. They were not trying to lure you into their version of authoritarian Geneva
jerome wrote:
Wow. Judge denounces Mary Kassian as a liar. Just wow.
Deb wrote:
or wbwatch?
@ jerome:
Oh my.
elastigirl wrote:
Great imagery. For as long as she says what she is supposed to say, she gets to be important *among the women* but she is still *among the women* and in an outer courtyard.
The fact is, as Mohler puts it, another generation will have to either take up their cause or, preferably, refute it and pick up the pieces that remain. Her place will be taken by the Courtneys and the GraceAnnas of the movement who will become the new princesses in the castle. If the movement survives.
As one of the inerrantists around these parts, I want to emphatically state that ESS and Female Subordination have exactly zero to do with inerrancy, though Mohler and the others want to weld them together in a desperate attempt at thought-stopping. They are human doctrines, and that is all they are.
Lydia wrote:
This is why some people are calling them “Neo_Puritans.”
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Mary Kassian has a lot of explaining to do. Look at what the Canadian judge wrote about her in the lawsuit.
“71. While Mrs. Kassian’s evidence on her direct examination was crisp and straightforward, on cross-examination, her memory seemed to be vague. Under cross-examination, she was evasive in answering straightforward and simple questions. For example, she could not recall how long it was that she went to the exercise class prescribed by physiotherapist Gordon Ariza, under the supervision of Julie Patan. Nor could she recall the details of the treatment she received at Nor-Med or that she was treated after complaints of lifting boxes and standing on her feet all weekend on February 4th, 2003. Nor that she was feeling much better and had noticeable improvement as documented in those records in 2003. In fact, it is recorded in Mr. Ariza’s July notes that she reported taking part in mountain rappelling for a video shoot, but she did not recall this under cross-examination. That incident deserves further commentary.”
“75. In July 2003, during the period where she testified she had yet to recover from her post-Accident injuries, Mrs. Kassian was preparing video and photographs of herself in a range of mountain climbing activities, all part of the video curriculum for her “Vertically Inclined” publication. When asked in cross-examination about these video materials and photographs prepared for “Vertically Inclined” in the summer of 2003, she identified the photographs of herself on page 154 of the workbook and the article from her website which talks about filming the videos where she describes herself as exhausted from a full day of filming, rappelling down the rock and dangling in the air while she gets the batteries replaced for her equipment, taking the crew whitewater rafting and “living for this stuff” as being “fabricated” for the purposes of selling the book. When asked in cross-examination, she admitted that she was not doing those things and that what was written and described in “Vertically Inclined” was not true. The photo from the shoot for the website, she testified, was “staged” in Nashville.”
“76.Either she went rappelling as she is noted to have told her physiotherapist Mr. Ariza or she was not telling him the truth. Or she was not rappelling and let her target audience believe she was, so she was not telling them the truth. Or, she is not being truthful in court.”
“79. During three out of the four days she was in the courtroom, I did not see the purportedly smiling, charming, and confident person that counsel told me I would see. Rather, Mrs. Kassian appeared sad and despondent. She was required to leave Edmonton on the next day to give one of her motivational seminars. Presumably she would present herself as a smiling, charming and confident person at such a seminar.”
“80. There were enough inconsistencies in Mrs. Kassian’s evidence to raise concerns about the veracity and credibility of her testimony, especially when combined with the admission that she is prepared to fabricate the appearance of a different reality in order to promote the sale of a product. This does bring her credibility into some serious question, particularly when those fabrications go to the very nature of the injuries and dysfunction she claims exists to the present day.”
“81.There were enough inconsistencies in Mrs. Kassian’s evidence to raise concerns about the veracity and credibility of her testimony, especially when combined with the admission that she is prepared to fabricate the appearance of a different reality in order to promote the sale of a product. This does bring her credibility into some serious question, particularly when those fabrications go to the very nature of the injuries and dysfunction she claims exists to the present day.”
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/alberta/court-of-queen-s-bench/2008/02/06/kassian-v-roy-2008-abqb-80.shtml
Thanks, Jerome, again for the quick research and sharing this link with us about Mary Kassian’s credibility.
Ken F wrote:
I have a problem with folks who keep dragging God into their agenda, who give God credit for something He hasn’t done. God by His grace granted a “recovery” through aggression, militancy, and rebellion?! God’s grace is energizing New Calvinists to lie their way into pulpits?! When you takeover a denomination through stealth and deception, you should never label it as a “God thing.”
@ Lowlandseer:
Gurus are the bubble makers. Stay away from following them, their movements and such and you can avoid the bubble life.
As we start looking at colleges we look for representation from disparate groups, ideals, etc. The last thing we want is an academic bubble world and many are totally devoid of any basic understanding of small government and/or self government thinking. Amazing! (Sad face)
Churches, denominations, etc. have similar problems and get rid of Those who might foster needed debate.
Ken F wrote:
This is propaganda statement designed to assure his true believers that warnings of danger are “baseless”. Everyone needs to go about there business, nothing here to see, move along.
Interesting Mohler doesn’t say why they are reckless. Generally if the critique of the ESS doctrine is so baseless he could simply ignore it, so instead he announces that everyone else should ignore it while at the same time giving credence to it with his poor answer.
Velour wrote:
Wow.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I think the Trueman-led exposure of the ESS heresy has them scrambling. Mohler “does not share” their ESS view but he provides the incubator for thousands of little apostles of ESS. In my most recent former church, younger people had no idea there was any other view of the Trinity. Older people could not believe that anyone could possibly believe ESS in the SBC. They certainly had no idea they were funding people like Ware and the others to promote it.
Mohler in his post on ESS, IMO, is asking what the definition of “is” is and is trying to have it both ways. Notice how he deflects by framing the issue as being whether the ESS guys are Arians, but Trueman blew that one up already.
Ken F wrote:
Hmmmm. Dr. Mohler appears to be taking the middle ground, just in case. If enough respected theologians counter Grudem & Ware on this, Mohler can profess “I do not share their proposals.” He is waffling on a critical issue that many New Calvinists hold dear to their hearts … an extension of ESS to the subordination of women. They expected the General to back them up!
Gram3 wrote:
‘incubators’ …. ah, the seminaries of course
Lydia wrote:
Alternate lyrics?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=born+in+the+usa+bruce+springsteen
Penal in the PSA!
I was Penal in the PSA!
Penal in the PSA!
I’m a long gone daddy in the PSA!
Penal in the PSA!
Penal in the PSA!
Penal in the PSA!
I’m a cool rocking daddy in the PSA!
Christiane wrote:
Amen Christiane. Education (indoctrination) does not produce one ounce of revelation. Unless there is a Christocentric interpretation of Scripture, you can read it wrong. Church history, with its diverse theological threads, has demonstrated this time and again.
I’d like to know HOW Mohler can possibly think that ESS is a ‘non-essential’ level of SBC teaching, that does not contradict orthodox doctrine on the Holy Trinity????
This, I don’t understand.
ESS so egregiously attacks ‘Who Christ Is’ and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as to immediately stand out as an attack on ‘essential’.
One of the photos of Mary all harnessed up for rock climbing that cost her big time in her lawsuit:
http://www.bpnews.net/18155/mary-kassians-ministry-to-women-from-bible-to-internet
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/alberta/court-of-queen-s-bench/2008/02/06/kassian-v-roy-2008-abqb-80.shtml
Christiane wrote:
Great question! A few years ago, Dr. Mohler proposed that a “Theological Triage” be employed to resolve SBC disputes over doctrine. He suggested that folks with opposing views on secondary matters of faith (like soteriology) should be able to still unite, as long as essential doctrines were held common, like the Trinity. ESS is a direct slam on the very person of Jesus and the oneness of the Trinity!
As a side-note, I don’t agree that soteriology should be labeled as a secondary doctrine in a theological triage. To me, God’s plan of salvation is an essential! The Calvinist and non-Calvinist views of salvation are distinctly different.
Christiane wrote:
Mohler has radically changed his mind about inerrancy, female ordination, and Reformed theology. In my opinion, the former denominational reporter knows a career updraft from a downdraft. ESS is definitely a downdraft. In fairness, I have radically changed my mind on some things, too, but I’m not a theologian who leads a seminary and is the de facto head of the SBC.
I am listening to Ruth Tucker’s book. Synopsis of complementarian view on abuse: woman are responsible for their own abuse in a marriage because they don’t properly submit to their husbands. This is a quote of Bruce Ware in 2008. My question for Bruce is if he would be willing along with Dr. Mohler to lobby for legislation exempting the men who batter their wives from the resulting injury or killing of wives because after all the unsubmissive women is to blame? Would Mary Kassian and Mr Mary Kassian be willing to lobby for such legislation In Alberta? If they are willing to make such pronouncements, as politically astute individuals they should be willing to put their action where their mouth is. They should lobby to protect abusive husbands from lawsuits and criminal courts; after all, death or hospitalization of the disobedient wife doesn’t matter according to them. If they can’t lobby, they have nothing to say, except that they are truly _______ people. Maybe we could meet for a cappuccino or latte and be best friends.
Jerome wrote:
Wow.
Max wrote:
There’s no way salvation is a secondary issue.
@ Jerome:
is it possible that one of Ms. Mary’s defenses was that she was under her husband’s headship?
IF in claiming that he had all the responsibility for her obedient compliance with his will, she would then have played the religion card, while also throwing her own husband under the bus in court
I sure would like to know if she sought such a ‘defense’ 🙂
(I’m not usually this snarky, but sometimes an opportunity presents itself, and the temptation is too great) 🙂
@ Christiane:
She can hide behind their husband. After all she is only being submissive to her husband and he is authorizing everything she does?
@ Friend:
Oh yes BUT
Mohler had no such grace or plea for those who signed the Traditional statement. He was cruel and insulting. Curious he now wants tolerance
@ elastigirl:
I agree with you. She’s in quite the pickle. And now with this embarrassing Canadian court dirt arising, she’ll be like a skier trying to outrace an avalanche. I wouldn’t wanna be in her moccasins for all the diamonds in South Africa.
Lydia wrote:
Indeed.
ishy wrote:
I agree. In the matter of soterology, the unity within the Body of Christ comes together on one great truth:
Whoever IS saved, is saved by Jesus Christ.
It’s within the many ‘details’ of our understanding of ‘HOW’ our Saving Lord accomplishes His mission that the important diverse differences of opinion begin to appear.
Ken F wrote:
Oooo – the great wizard has spoken; he of the largest stack of books has graced the lowly peons with his opinion. No need for further discussion.
Sorry Al, I also can read and have a mind. Seems to me some great trinitarian scholars views carry more weight than your opinion. And your screed sounds very similar to your defense of C.J. Mahaney. By chance have Grudem and Ware contributed $200K to your pitiful institution?
Stick to what you do best, planning conferences with your pals Mahaney, Dever and Duncan.
Mark wrote:
Hi MARK,
Yes, but how does it look for her in the great halls of the CBMW when, in the process of claiming she is obeying her husband and therefore HE has the responsibility for her misdeeds, she is at the same time shoving her husband under the bus in court?
something comes to me that we have seen this kind of thing before in Eden . . . the blaming of the other for one’s sin, only the genders were reversed
for me, this would illustrate that the whole ‘headship’ thing is a product of the Fall, and is certainly not a Christ-oriented way out of Eden afterall . . .
Christiane wrote:
Jerome, your fine research about Mary Kassian is now being tweeted. I sent it over to Nate Sparks. He’s tweeting about it. Dee is tweeting about it.
Hey Mary Kassian,
Driscoll’s church announced yesterday that they need a few volunteers to teach children’s Sunday School.
How about it? With your lack of ethics you should fit right in with Mark. And there are some great places for rock climbing around Scottsdale.
As an added bonus you will be able to enter into more litigation after Mark throws you under his new bus.
This is starting to be like a soap opera.
*is just munching dried fruit and watching on Twitter*
I’d eat popcorn, but I don’t feel like going downstairs and making it.
@ Christiane: Isnt this why some women might like complementarianism which is because they can hide behind their husband. Instead of saying the _____ made me do it, they can say my husband made me do it. Surprised we haven’t seen this legal defense already. Jezebel would like complementarianism. I pray this isn’t so, but women can be narcissists and psychopaths also.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
So what you’re saying, Todd, is that Mark Driscoll’s The Trinity Church is like hitting Class 5 rapids and therefore Mary Kassian can have her white water rafting experience/dunking too.
ishy wrote:
I made a blender full of smoothies just to enjoy the action. Blueberry-Banana-Ginger Root
Mark wrote:
I don’t know Mary’s legal defense, but it does seem possible that she would have at least considered playing her ‘headship’ card in court. She must have had counsel. I don’t know the law in such matters.
It’s just the irony of how when men want ‘dominion’ over their wives and something goes wrong, the women who WERE under their husband’s ‘headship’ might speak up in court that they just ‘did what they were told’ . . . but can a wife testify against her husband, even if she wanted to protect herself, IF she still clings to the ‘headship’ doctrine and her husband tells her ‘no, don’t tell the judge that I ordered you to do it’, thereby throwing his WIFE under the bus and preventing her from defending herself with the only defense that she may possibly have? It’s complicated. I’d like to bring in a group of my sixth grade students from the ghetto and have them explain to me again how the ‘code’ of not telling works. I suppose each broken culture has some sort of ‘omerta’ code of silence. (?)
Christiane wrote:
I like what the Omega Boys Club in San Francisco (run by Dr. Joseph Marshall, a MacArthur genius award recipient, Margaret Norris, and Coach) teach kids: The definition of a friend is someone who will never lead you to danger. If someone is leading you to danger, they’re NOT your friend.”
They came up with a list of the rules of the ‘Hood’ and then broke it down point by point and refuted it. Kids in kindergarten are taught the rules.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Omega-Boys-Club-reaches-25th-year-3979039.php
Considering Al Mohler’s continuing support of C.J. Mahaney, how does he dare speak about Dennis Hastert?
http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=meekinsf&date=160704
Oh wait, Hastert never donated $200K to Mohler’s institution.
Christiane wrote:
More from The Omega Boys Club/Alive & Free – Dr. Joe Marshall in San Francisco:
http://stayaliveandfree.org/about/the-prescription-to-end-violence-and-change-lives/
I’m glad I re-read the rules for healthy living. One of them – Friendship v. Fearship – reminded me of all of the problems we’re seeing in these authoritarian churches.
I was thinking this morning about how many in the Calvinista camp say that the church should handle matters of correction, but then why are they so quick to sue everybody outside the church?
Velour wrote:
Great club out there in Frisco! And yes, ‘fearship’ in authoritarian churches seems to have been most useful in the tormenting of some of the victims of ‘headship’ abuse. At some deeper level, all bullying everywhere merges together at its source in the darkness . . . I think your insight is spot on when you say ‘reminded me of all the problems we are seeing’
ishy wrote:
So much for Mary Kassian “turning the other cheek” and “taking a loss” as the Bible would say. Her husband can’t cook meals while she’s supposedly recovering from whiplash (but well enough to give motivantional seminaries, fly across the country, mountain climb, and go white water rafting)? For this she demanded money. She has nerve.
And its people like her who wonder why unbelievers scoff at Christians and the church.
Christiane wrote:
One of the risk factors that the club deals with is a “negative view of women”. Yep, just like the church and these NeoCals’ “risk factors”.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Carl Trueman posted Mark Jones’ Trinity bibliography if anyone wants to read further.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/
Velour wrote:
Velour wrote:
Yes, at its root, people who have to put others down while trying to build themselves up are desperate for some kind of control in the chaos of their own lives.
Mark wrote:
Indeed women can be just as evil and just as good as men. I think that “Complementarian” doctrine does provide cover–different kinds of cover–for men and women to sin while appearing virtuous within the system.
Christiane wrote:
Agreed.
Bill M
Unfortunately even when “leadership” by one person is done right I believe it is the wrong model for the church. Jesus and his disciples spoke of a body with many moving parts held together and working in unison through the Holy Spirit, not a bus with a single driver and a bunch of passengers. A single male leader is also a waste of half the population, in a marriage or otherwise. None of it should not hinge on the capacity of one man. We are called to be servants, not leaders.
Amen
Ken F wrote:
Conviction and confession will not take the day. What they need is evidence.
okrapod wrote:
I’m hoping the new generation Mohler is hoping for will be the “Dones” who discover authentic Christianty, so that they can undo this Calvinista mess.
Gram3 wrote:
Correct. Mohler uses inerrancy politically to cement power and bend the people to his will. Hence, everything required for full inclusion in the club becomes a matter of inerrancy, while other matters are not. This is why he can accuse one that believes in egalitarianism of abandoning inerrancy, while making no such claims of those who desecrate the Trinity. It is very transparent propaganda that won’t get past anyone who has read a book on the subject, but there you have it.
Delurking to thank Deb and Dee not on my own behalf…I walked away so long ago…but on behalf of a beloved friend beaten down by extreme complementarianism. Watching her become a shell of a woman was heartbreaking, and when she cut our once close connection, I resolved to be here if she ever wanted to renew the friendship.
Widowed, my friend reached out to me when she realized she was invisible at her church in her new solo status. It became worse with a sharp turn to the kind of bizarre pastoral/elder micromanagement of personal lives that came with…you guessed it…a stealth takeover.
You see…After years of emotional and mental abuse, my friend has found love with a fellow parishoner, a gentle widower who had for years watched her sacrifice and give and sacrifice again.
They cannot marry. My friend would lose her pension rights and her lover cannot support them on his SS. Both exist at the poverty line.
They lived in dread of discovery…and instead of the kind of ringing contempt that I once responded with, I steered them to TWW.
Now, hand in hand, they are searching for a church family that will see them married in the eyes of the Lord they both love.
This is not to say that anyone here could agree with their choices…but rather, that TWW has opened their eyes to the abusive nature of rigid fundamentalism, and given them hope that there is a God who would bless the union of a 62 year old woman and 70 year old man who cannot afford to be legally married.
ahunt wrote:
What a lovely post. You are a good friend.
My prayers are with your friend.
Here’s a Beatles song for your friends, performed by French music students at an old square in France…about LOVE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJQdo1kLiis
ahunt wrote:
I am glad they are finding freedom. And as a longtime Wartburger who has seen a few things, I fully understand their choice and say, “Blessings!”
Velour wrote:
What a great word!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Hard to believe, isn’t it? But true.
Nancy2 wrote:
Oh, I have a turquoise satin dress! It’s one of my favorites! :-p
From Dr. Joseph Marshall and the Omega Boys Club in San Francisco:
http://stayaliveandfree.org/about/
Risk Factors
Destructive Language
Guns
Drugs
Alcohol
Attitude: “I don’t give a ____”
Negative View of Women
Material Values over People
Destructive Family/Environment
Fearship v. Friendship
The Commandments of Violence
Thou shalt not snitch
Thou shalt handle thy business
Thou shalt do why thy gotta do
Thou shalt get girls
Thou shalt not be no punk
Thou shalt get thy respect
Thou shalt get thy money on
Thou shalt put in work
Thou shalt carry a gun for protection
Thou shalt recruit
Thou shalt be down for thy set/hood/crew
Thou shalt be down for thy homies right or wrong
Rules for Living
There is nothing more valuable than an individual’s life. (You can never kill an enemy.)
Respect comes from within.
Change begins with the individual.
A friend will never lead you to danger. (A healthy person stands alone.)
***************************
So much about how gang-life works is EXACTLY how my ex-NeoCalvinist, authoritarian, abusive church works (and these other abusive churches).
Velour….so sharing far and wide.. Thank you so much.
Jeanette…indeed! Those of us who have been around the block get that some rules need flexibility.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
That’s exactly what they are doing. They should be glad that God is not as angry and as they teach.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
ESS is indeed a desecration of the Trinity; just as complementarity is rife with error. Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of doctrines held dear to the church for centuries being Mohlerized. It’s like the spirit of Calvin has taken over his body and he is right while everyone else is wrong. I keep waiting for some highly respected non-SBC theologians to tell him to sit down and shut up; there is no one in SBC that can hold him accountable – he rules the roost.
ahunt wrote:
You are most welcome!
Max wrote:
I keep waiting too. I’m wondering if the case of the Exodus has bearing. God strengthened (hardened) Pharaoh to resist because if Pharaoh had relented too early the people would think that Moses and Aaron got the job done. Pharaoh almost gave up a few times, but God gave him the resolve to resist until the deliverance was overwhelmingly miraculous. Maybe God is doing something similar here. Maybe the cup is not yet full for them. Maybe the deliverance will be seen as truly miraculous.
Max wrote:
Of course, as I noted in an upstream comment, Mohler appears to be taking the middle ground on ESS, just in case. If enough respected theologians counter Grudem & Ware on this, Mohler can profess “I do not share their proposals.” The good doctor is a smooth actor.
Max wrote:
But I bet it’s not enough to kick Grudem and Ware out of the fold…
@ ahunt: they are in my prayers. I hope they find a church. There are many unconventional relationships that I don’t believe God frowns upon. And given circumstance your friends relationship is far from unconventional. It doesn’t matter what men think, not really. God bless you and your friends. They will find that church.
Bill M wrote:
^ This. ^ This. ^ This. ^ This. ^ This. ^ This.
This is the very thing I believe and am firmly convinced of.
We are to be a body, when we gather together we are to function as a body. We are each to be connected to our Head – which is Jesus Christ – NOT the guy in the suit, or Micky Mouse t-shirt, or clerical robes up in front, and often above us.
And from Him – that is Jesus Christ – with the gifts He has given each of us us, through the Holy Spirit we are to minister to each other as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
We are not called to be one man’s audience. Or one man’s kingdom. Or one man’s vision. Or one man’s disciple. Or one man’s student. Or any of these ‘positions’ to a man in perpetuity.
I don’t know which is more committed to protecting and promoting this false vision of church – the clergy ruling it or the laity content in being ruled.
Both are necessary for the status quo to continue.
The reformation appears to have done little more (in regards to this institution we call church) than to replace the priest with the pastor.
When He died on the cross, the curtain to the inner Sanctuary was rent in two.
No longer would there be a man on earth to stand and mediate between humanity and God – Jesus Christ Himself became our High Priest, our Mediator.
There will always be men who cry out “Give us a king!” And there will always be men striving to be king over others.
Whether it is the supposedly needed priest to perform the Eucharist, or the supposedly needed pastor to perform the Sunday service – both have placed themselves in a permanent position that God did not give them, and we have placed ourselves in a permanent position that God did not give us.
There WILL be leaderS.
There will be teachers. There will be pastors. There will be evangelists. There will be administrators. There will be mercy-givers. There will be prophetic warners / correctors. There will be financial givers. There will be see-ers. There will be wisdom givers. There will be disciplers. There will be missionaries. There will be healers. There will be helpers. There will be less presentable parts that still deserve our honor. There will be parts that might be a little bit embarrassing and God says that even those parts are necessary.
Messy? Oh, yes. So, much messier than sitting in your comfortable pew/chair as an audience to one man.
Just as there are stages of messiness for the infant, the toddler, the teenager – but, THAT is what growing up is like.
As individuals AND as a body we are called to GROW UP.
The institutional church, whether catholic or protestant and all stripes in between, is designed in such a way that its members – whether in the pulpit or in the pews – are severely hampered from ever growing up.
BL wrote:
This is helpful for me. I’ve been thinking through all the discussions about leadership and have been wondering what we are supposed to call it that “thing: of taking the initiative to manage various aspects of church life. For example, even in the most egalitarian group, someone at one point has to stand up and say,
hey, let’s do this.” And if there is to be a vote, someone has to take the initiative to propose it and to determine which side won. Or if a church wants to start something like a food drive, someone has to “lead/manage” the effort. Or if one is to start a blog, like TWW, someone has to choose what to blog about and what rules to put in place. I’ve always called that leadership, but I’ve been getting the impression lately that “leadership” is a bad word in the church.
I think what this is saying is that there will always be people in a healthy church exercising various types of leadership, but it won’t be a strict, nearly unchanging hierarchy. Am I understanding that correctly?
@ Mark:
I think they will. They will find a church home. I believe in a rational God. So far…God is on track. He has lifted a defeated woman, given hope to a healthy senior sweetheart of a man, provided resources via TWW.
These crazy kids are gonna be fine.
Just saw this on twitter.
How do Calvinists set off their fire works?
Predetonation.
Velour wrote:
Limited exlosion?
@ Velour:
Thanks Velour. That’s the only Calvinist-related thing I’ve read lately that made me feel like laughing.
Mark wrote:
The judge would laugh and tell her that she’s an adult and is fully responsible in the eyes of the law.
Ken F wrote:
I hate doing this on a phone. Limited explosion, and total destruction.
ishy wrote:
Oh no! They will stick together to the end (e.g., Mohler & Mahaney). And, oh how I hope this all ends soon.
Gram3 wrote:
I am still trying to wrap my head around the hijacking of the word “progressive”. Would that be similar to someone thinking they are insulting you with “outlier”?
But before we go there, we have to define feminist. My very SBC grandmother and grandfather were campaigning for the 19th amendment. Feminists?
@ Ken F:
I guess we are totally depraved, after all … but I wasn’t before New Calvinism came along!
Ken F wrote:
Actually, all the people will simply be functioning in their fittings. No need for hierarchy.
Bridget wrote:
Should be “giftings”
Ken F wrote:
Mohler cracks me up. “Violating Nicene”?
Seriously…. Baptists?
Only in his Founders Neo Cal world is that the ultimate insult.
Ken F wrote:
What confession? The BFM? Which now miraculously includes ESS, too, in addition to Neo Calvinism?
Bridget wrote:
With 4th graders getting the same voting rights on congregational issues as mature believers?
Lea wrote:
Thanks, Lea! 🙂
I wonder if that’s how “wakeupcall” sees himself (assuming he’s male — might not be the case). Maybe he thinks he’s one of the Three Amigos, storming the stronghold to take on the infamous “El Guapo” of feminism.
A Hero In His Own Mind.
@ Gram3:
What is really interesting is non of the now old CR guys want to talk about inerrancy as it pertains to Calvinism/Trad differences.
It is an interesting corner they are in over the rally cry that drove the CR. But at least they had a vote. The new inerrancy is all about stealth and deception.
Ken F wrote:
LOL.
@ ahunt:
“This is not to say that anyone here could agree with their choices…but rather, that TWW has opened their eyes to the abusive nature of rigid fundamentalism, and given them hope that there is a God who would bless the union of a 62 year old woman and 70 year old man who cannot afford to be legally married.”
+++++++++++++++
I am very happy for them that they have found love. how lucky they are!
for a church to frown & ring their hands over the absence of a piece of paper and ceremony conducted by a man in a dark suit (the only things missing are the wand and pointy hat) reduces them to superstitious magic practitioners.
Max wrote:
Welcome, Max.
I had a hearty laugh when I read it too.
@ Ken F:
What do you think a 4th grader would be gifted to do, Ken? How could they function in the body? We are not throwing wisdom out the door are we?
Patriciamc wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. According to Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, if a woman wears yoga pants or leggings she’s unfeminine, but Mary Kassian can go rock climbing? I guess we’ll have to give her a badge for ascending Mt. Hypocrisy.
@ Velour:
Nashville. Motivational seminar, publication. Wonder… did this have anything to do with SBC and marketing some publication for LifeWay?
https://www.amazon.com/Vertically-Inclined-Climbing-Higher-Member/dp/0633095257
Convention press published it?
Lydia wrote:
I think they have agreed to disagree. And that works as long as they agree on the really important issue of keeping the pulpit free of defilement. By women, that is.
Ken F wrote:
Yes! 😉
Different parts. Different gifts. Different functions. Different strengths. Different weaknesses.
Working *together*.
Not always *sitting* together nursing from a single milk bottle – for your whole life! And then showing up in your small/home group and eating the cheese made from the same bottle of milk you had to drink that Sunday.
ALL of the body *functioning* produces a healthy body AND produces health in the different parts.
Bridget wrote:
Not much. I’m just wondering how to get a functional body if there are no differing levels of structure. It seems that there has to be some minimal amount of leadership in various capacities to get things done. But this is off topic for this discussion. Anyway, it’s giving me stuff to think about. Thanks for asking.
Ken F wrote:
He must rescue the perishing male superiority.
Gram3 wrote:
Bingo.
However, I think Mohler is providing cover by saying he does not subscribe to ESS. I also think we will start to see more subtle and softer variations of ESS explained from that camp. The whole confusion shtick they use like ‘oh, that was referring to the Incarnation’ and such.
This is all very strange because he did not show this amount of concern over Mahaney and innocent victims!
Max wrote:
Yes!
@ Friend:
LOL!
@ Jerome:
Your research is fascinating. In her bios she is described as a distinguished professor at SBTS. The way the lawsuit described her relationship to SBTS was very different. :o)
Funny how people don’t connect dots. Pictures of her rappelling or even posing as repelling not wise in the middle of a court case for injuries sustained in a car crash. If she received disability (whatever they call it in Canada) that could be seen as cheating the system.
Christiane wrote:
That would be interesting considering the Judge was female. :o)
wakeupcall wrote:
What is your definition of feminism?
Gram3 wrote:
Very strange! Lots of Fred Saunders books… but no Kevin Giles on the subject? Is that because he is egalitarian?
Lydia wrote:
Apparently so.
ahunt wrote:
This ridiculous rules makes my blood boil. I hope they find acceptance.
Ken F wrote:
LOL! Good one!
@ Max:
It would send a needed message if he were fired. Of course his Clones are everywhere….
Lydia wrote:
If they’re in the U.S., we really need to get the laws changed so folks like them can marry and not lose their pensions.
BL wrote:
Exactly! It is so frustrating.
Lydia wrote:
Don’t know, but perhaps Giles is not considered a specialist on the Trinity?
Gram3 wrote:
I really had not connected the dots until a few years ago that female Subordination was the ONLY unifying issue in upper SBC caste circles.
Velour wrote:
Convention Press used to publish Baptist Hymnals. Hmm.
Max wrote:
A variation of “you search the Gospel diligently because you think that in it you have eternal authority – This is the very Gospel that testifies about Me!”
Ken F wrote:
HOW IS IT that Mohler once wrote this: “Well, Rev. Kostulias, that’s what the Apostles and the early chuch called the defining line between orthodoxy and heresy — between genuine faith and a false gospel. A denomination that cannot stand together in affirming the Lordship and deity of Jesus Christ is a denomination that has set itself against Scripture and the faith of the Christian Church. Where is Athanasius when you need him?” (June, 2005)
Well KEN,
Mohler asks “Where is Athanasius when you need him?” Well, here he is, Mr. Mohler:
“In explaining why the Bible speaks of the Son as being subordinate to the Father, the great theologian Athanasius argued that scripture gives a “double account” of the son of God—one of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, and the other of his eternal divine status.[90] For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.”
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/t/Trinity.htm
Kathi wrote:
This paradigm is apt to exasperate existing mental/emotional issues in BOTH parties, as well as to instill mental/emotional issues where they did not exist before.
The ancient Israelites set the stage in desiring an earthly King to rule.
Too many believers today are content to check their responsibility at the church door, allow the clergy to be the one to study theology, to seek the Lord, to be His mouthpiece.
Too many today are willing to step into this “esteemed” position as King, er, Pastor of their own little Kingdom, er, Church.
The Lord warned Israel that some kings would be cruel and dishonorable.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Sadly.
Lydia wrote:
Undoubtedly.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, this from Giles:
“In reply to the Arians’ appeal to the Bible, Athanasius argued that they had failed to grasp the whole “scope” of scripture and failed to recognize that Scripture gives a “double account” of the Son of God—one of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, the other of his eternal divine status.14 On this basis he argued that texts that spoke of the divinity of the Son and of his equality with the Father pointed to his eternal status and dignity, and texts that spoke of the subordination of the Son pointed to his voluntary and temporal subordination necessitated by him becoming man for our salvation. For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Athanasius had no problems with the many texts that spoke of the Son’s frailty, prayer life, obedience, or death on the cross. For him these texts affirmed unambiguously the Son’s full human nature temporally and voluntarily assumed for our salvation. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.”
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/trinity.htm
ahunt wrote:
Let them make a promise to each other with witnesses and draw up contract regarding their finances if there could be an issue in case of death. Their commitment is to each other, not the government.
Gram3 wrote:
Nope. Giles is an evangelical Anglican egalitarian who also happens to have devoted much time to Trinitarian studies.
Check out some of the books he has written.
http://www.amazon.com/Kevin-Giles/e/B001IXO4RS
“In his 2006 book, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity, Giles argued that complementarians had “reinvented” the doctrine of the Trinity to support their views of men and women, adopting a heretical view similar to Arianism.[4] In response, Wayne Grudem has argued that the eternal submission of the Son to the Father is a biblical doctrine,[5] while Dave Miller has argued that it is the historic doctrine of the Church.[6]”
On KEVIN GILES
from ‘wiki’
(my goodness, David Miller (SBCvoices) made it into WIKI )
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I have read 2 of his books on the Trinity. I would have included him in the category as a resource. But I am not a lofty Reformed theologian, either. :o)
I just thought it strange his were left off but then Giles is a mutualist and Trueman’s gang is not.at. all.
@ Christiane:
Back in the day not only was Voices/Pravda arguing for ESS but other pastor blogs like SBC Impact, too. Including Adrian Rogers son!
It really has permeated the SBC. And I think Mohler is brain gaming people with his opinion piece. My guess is his yes men trustees have never even thought about ESS.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Thanks for that. I know he has his hands full with the Sydney crew.
@ Christiane:
What blew my mind is Ware edited Anthanasius to make him fit ESS! These guys are scholars? More like scoundrels.
Remnant wrote:
Amen.
Lydia wrote:
Or, if they have thought of it, they have shrugged.
I expect an avalanche of nuancing is about to come regarding ESS from Ware and the others employed by SBC entities. They will say just barely enough to give people an excuse to give them a pass and, with Mohler’s airy yet indignant dismissal, all will go back to normal.
@ KEN F.
Mohler asked ‘Where is Athanasius when we need him?’
Athanasius is here:
“Deuteronomy 6:4; Psalm 50:1; 118:27; 84:7 (Septuagint); Micah 7:18). But the Son said to whom He would, ‘Your sins are forgiven you;’ for instance, when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the remission by His act, saying to the paralytic, ‘Rise, take up your bed, and go unto your house.’ And of God Paul says, ‘To the King eternal;’ and again of the Son, David in the Psalm, ‘Lift up your gates, O you rulers, and be lifted up you everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.’ And Daniel heard it said, ‘His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His Kingdom shall not be destroyed’ Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:11; 1 Timothy 1:17; Psalm 24:7; Daniel 4:3; 7:14. And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2817.htm
I think it won’t go ‘back to normal’ for Mohler and his crew. I think they have been outed. Something has changed. It may not be their smugness, but they are more visible now.
And I think they would rather not be under the microscope so intently. They are rattled…. you can hear it in their responses.
If Mohler wants to bring up Athenasius, okay. Yeah. Fine by me.
Lydia wrote:
In normal academic and business circles, this will get you flunked / expelled / fired.
Ken F wrote:
I’m not a Southerner so I need a little help getting the drift of Al Mohler’s closing sentence “and unworthy of those who have made them.” I take it this is some kind of Southern back-stabbing put down and to put us in our places?
Mohler is defending trinitarian heretics Ware and Grudem. The charges are founded, responsible, and worthy. It’s our duty as Christians to confront them.
^Sorry Ken F. I should have deleted your name as you didn’t write that quote, but it’s Al Mohler’s statement. Thanks.
@ Lydia:
Mohler is not going anywhere. He has SBTS trustees in his pocket; they adore him. The SBC trustee system is broken; you can’t trust the trustees to represent majority Southern Baptists.
Gram3 wrote:
The good doctor is a master at rope a dope; you can’t get him in a corner. He will retire comfortably from SBTS and will go down in history as either a great reformer or the man who destroyed a once-great denomination.
Velour wrote:
I suspect that the target of Mohler’s remark was Trueman and Co.
@ Christiane:
I think they have created their own religion, in their own image. Seriously. When you mess with the ecumenical creeds, you’re pulling out foundation stones. The roof is gonna collapse on them, i bet. I don’t wish them any harm, but there *are* consequences to actions…
Jerome wrote:
So revealing. So humorous! What a pathetic person! Hats off to the judge. Too many gems to mention. A must read, behind the scenes look, at what drives Mary Kashing-in!
numo wrote:
Hi NUMO,
no one wishes them harm … sometimes you want to reach out and stop people from hurting others and hurting themselves, but that is not an unkind intention, no
Lydia wrote:
He did that? That is the mark of an unsound scholar. At least he knew better than to totally reject Athanasius’ work on behalf of the Church in the battles with the Arians.
Velour wrote:
I am a Southerner (now a Midwesterner) and I also found this expression strange. Not sure what he is trying to say here, but it may have a condescending slant to those who have accused his brethren. Scripture calls Christians to reprove, rebuke, or exhort as the situation requires. Reproof of ESS doctrine and rebuke those who embrace it is coming from various corners, as it should. These folks have crossed a line; you don’t mess with the Trinity!
Ken F quoted Mohler thusly:
Mohler lost me right here. Which of these men could possibly be considered a “respected theologian”?
WayneGrudem-Go-WayneGrudem, with his Bran’ New Mishnah for Wimmen, complete with 83 Essential Rules for Ministry? Or Bruce Ware, famous for blaming domestic abuse on unsubmissive women?
Maybe in some topsy-turvy alternate universe…
Velour wrote:
Nah. Trueman and co. Trueman was one of them. Reformed, female Subordinatist, Mahaney exonerating, etc. His swing hurt- so Mohler insults his view as “unworthy”.
Mohler insisted those who signed the Trad statement as, ‘not knowing what they were doing’.
That is the kind of guy he is: arrogant.
Christiane wrote:
I agree. Prepare for either major spin or total silence if the Reformed non ESS types just back off and let the issue die.. It will go away.
@ Gram3:
The Trad pastors and scholars who blog have basically ignored the ESS issue –for years. I never understood that.