After I learned that the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem and the other Comp/Patriarchists were so upset by the Today’s New International Version of the Bible I knew I had to get myself a copy which just arrived. Thank you Amazon.

I truly mean no disrespect to anyone but I say this because I care about people who are under Mr. Piper’s “teaching”. I think he has some serious mental health issues that he is struggling with, that is just my opinion and I am not an expert it is just what I see in his public persona. I hope he gets some help if he needs it. Thank you for the well written / researched article.

“God has used a once-fledgling outfit to lead many Christians and many churches to health, and we trust this work will only continue and grow by his grace.” – Bruce Ware

A defender of Bruce Ware was recently posting on Tim Fall’s blog, calmly defending Bruce Ware, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, and Comp. I was so angry at the defender’s posts, that I couldn’t read over there and post any more. I got to live through and see the real damage of CBMW at my ex-church.

I saw:

*Women told point blank by the pastors/elders that they were NOT permitted to protect their children from child abuse and that they must ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ to their husbands in all things, including placing their children in the hands of dangerous felons who prey upon children. (That’s a crime in my state for the mom and also for the pastors/elders.)

*Women (including middle-aged, professional women) were literally screamed at by the pastors/elders and told to ‘obey’ and ‘submit’.

*When a middle-aged, professional woman left my church because she thought they were nuts, the senior pastor went to her home and screamed at her in person.

*The senior pastor/elders ordered that several hundred church members “pursue” this woman, because they had ‘worked with her’ and she ‘hadn’t obeyed’ them or her husband (who was still a member). Basically the senior pastor/elders orchestrated criminal harassment/stalking of a grown woman. She responded by moving out of the family home, disconnecting her cell phone, disconnecting her email, and making sure that even her husband didn’t know the safe location she was living at.

*The senior pastor harmed the reputation before hundreds of church members of this beautiful Christian woman, a kind and generous person who has a special ministry with the mentally ill in group homes and with the elderly in convalescent homes.

*Women were under oppression at my ex-church and men were arrogant and abusive.
If they thought they could scream at women who were church members, what went on behind closed doors in the pastors/leaders’ own homes?

*Many leaders’ wives were under a yoke of oppression and even men friends from Europe who watched my church’s activities online commented on this (and they’re long time Christians 40+) years.

*Daughters, including college graduates, were told to obey and submit.

*Women, and many men, went to inferior colleges like John MacArthur’s The Master’s College which doesn’t really offer a competitive education and critical thinking skills. It’s just more of honing Stepfordish/cultish behavior.

*Young marriages, including of Stanford University graduate and undergraduate students, didn’t seem like they’d survive Comp. They were already burdened down.

*Comp has now lead to the highest divorce rates in the nation (Barna study) when the nation’s divorce rate has been declining.

*Comp has led to sky-rocketing domestic violence rates.

*Comp has led to sky-rocketing incest rates.

*Comp had led to sky-rocketing sexual abuse rates (non-relatives).

*And Comp has caused countless people – including children – to leave the faith.

*The Comp promoting SBC has lost a whopping 200,000 living members a year, fed up with NeoCalvinism, Authoritarianism, and Comp.

*Comp has cost us our Gospel witness to unbelievers whom don’t want the shackles and burdens of this.

*Conservative Christian women have sent Tweets and Facebook messages saying that Comp has no place in their lives. One woman tweeted from her tractor, where she farms thousands of acres. Comp is meaningless in her life. Another woman tweeted from her cattle ranch and said same.

*Men – we’ve seen plenty of them here and the husbands of women who post here – have also expressed dismay and outrage about Comp teachings.

How a couple chooses to conduct their marriage, based on the personalities, skills, gifts, that’s their business. But it’s NO ONE else’s business to tell them a formula for success and that it has to be “this way”.

He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

Do we need to remind him this is America?

I almost thought to remind him we have all sorts like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc, but then I remembered….. they all agree with him!

Nancy 2, your comment regarding how “the subjugation of women” unites all flavors of Christians reminded me that my extensive reading here and at other blogs and websites has been so very beneficial to me in many ways!

Not only has it benefited me personally, in helping me realize that God did indeed make me fully equal to my husband, it’s helped our relationship become one of greater respect and equality.

It has been of incredible benefit to me as I observe and interact with other Christians in my day to day life. The “subjugation” term reminded me of how much I have learned. I never hear hear that term used. I didn’t think anyone really used it any more, mostly because they couch the same idea in a softer frame of words, like “complementarity”. But I heard it used in a discussion class last week.

The topic was ”what does it mean to be made in the image of God?” The passage was the one in Genesis 1 (or 2?) that states God made man in his own image, male and female. Now that was a nice discussion, at least until someone mentioned God given roles of men and women, followed quickly by a retired pastor referring to how God ordained the “subjugation of women”. I heard one of the older women give a little gasp-laugh, as if to say, “you are joking about that! Right?!”

The conversation went on, except I did something the former, younger, meeker Tree would never have done in a mixed group of well over a dozen. A group that included the older retired pastor and his wife, three middle aged or older men who are long-time elders (male, of course), and a new, young elder. The new Tree calmly but deliberately stirred the pot.

Before it was all said and done, and thank God we had to adjourn due to preset time constraints, I had contradicted every one of the above mentioned men and the “proofs” they cited. Not for “subjugation”, only the old guy voiced that, but for the idea that God established principles of male headship, male-only leadership, wives always submitting to husbands, Biblical women’s roles and Biblical men’s roles, etc. I am sure I was being “winsome”. I am also sure those men thought I was being a rabble-rouser, which is what the young elder jokingly called me. Except I think he was not-so-jokingly reflecting the opinion of all those men!

I even had to address a comment about how sometimes women HAVE to do a man’s job, because God can’t find a man to it, like he did with Deborah as a judge of Isreal. God simply couldn’t find any available men, you see. I wish I were kidding. Nods and murmurs of agreement from the key men. The rabble-rousing pot stirring woman said, now the scriptures don’t tell us that. They never say “why” Deborah was judge of Israel, but that she WAS. It never says that no man was available to do the job. Were there no men? At all? God used some unlikely men to be judges. Samson was no paragon of virtue and morals.

One of the men (not an elder or any kind of church leader) affirmed a point I made. When I later thanked him for speaking up, he said he appreciated thoughtful discussion as an excellent way to learn and encouraged me to keep being a contributor. Pretty sure he was the only man with that opinion! But a number of the women later told me that they quite enjoyed the discussion, appreciated my points, and hoped I joined them again.

Regardless of what anyone thought of me, I felt satisfied with my participation in a large-ish group, especially when I knew I would be a lone voice. I have TWW and the many contributing commenters to thank for helping me develop not only the knowledge but the confidence to speak up. That was even…dare I say it?…fun!

brian wrote:

They have this high-minded apologetic but the application of it in real life just does not pan out too well.

“You will know them by their fruit.”

@ Deb:
True, I forgot ESS. But still, no Amen from Jesus.

Tedious and lengthy comment 1 of 2

I believe I’ve used this analogy before, but:

For a stage illusionist to pull off a magic trick, he must do something right in front of the audience without their realising it. For instance, to pull an object from a hat, he must do two things in the following order:
1) Put the object into the hat;
2) Pull the object out of the hat.

To make this look like magic, he must appear to eliminate step 1. There’s more than one way he can do this. But in each case, there will be one part of the trick that is the crux – the part that takes the practice and preparation.

Method A: Preparation
1) Put the object into the hat before coming on stage
2) Show the non-empty hat to the audience in such a way that it appears empty [CRUX]
3) Pull the object out of the hat

Method B: Misdirection
1) Show the empty hat to the audience
2) Put the object into the hat in such a way that the audience doesn’t realise it’s happening [CRUX]
1) Pull the object out of the hat

An actual magician reading this would undoubtedly be able to refine my descriptions and probably add some other methods. By the same token, a real magician wouldn’t tell, of course… anyway, the point is that in nearly every stage or close-up illusion, at some point the audience is carefully watching for a switch of some kind that has already happened while their attention was elsewhere. Either they weren’t watching the trick at all, because all the hard work went into the clever design and preparation of the props, or their attention was cleverly directed away from the working of the trick.

Tedious and lengthy comment 3 of 2

So, where am I going with all this? My point is that there’s an important reveal in the claims that

The issue of manhood and womanhood has become one of the focal points of a much larger controversy over whether the Bible will reign supreme… [and] the larger realignment in the entire evangelical world between those for whom the Bible is still the ultimate authority and those for whom it is not.

Before the C”B”MW ever convened and held up the mis-directing sock-puppet of gender roles, they had already pulled the crucial switch behind the illusion. It’s about cutting off the Head from His Body, and persuading people to join themselves to a spiritually lifeless corpse held together by legalism. The “evangelical world” they postulate, in which the Bible is God – bolstered by the utterly false but beguiling and seductive claim that anyone who disagrees with them has rejected the Bible and God – is already a counterfeit, apostate, blasphemous caricature of God’s Kingdom, built in opposition to and rebellion against Jesus.

Gone is the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead – the living, speaking, active Person of the Trinity making Jesus tangible in His church. Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk. Now, it’s a simple matter to use politics and showmanship to place their own puppet-monarch (gender-roles, literal translations of ancient texts, and the like) on the throne so that they get to call the shots.

Nick, WOW! I’ll say that backwards, WOW!

I’m beginning to understand how these neo-Cal gurus took over language and re-defined commonly-used terms in new ways to serve their agendas.

Coming from my background, any use of the word ‘gospel’ in any other context than as ‘the Good News’ is a red light, and I am seeing red lights everywhere when I read “CBMW has played a formative role in helping numerous denominations and organizations promote gospel-driven gender roles”

‘gospel-driven gender roles’?????

They use the word ‘gospel’ in this reference without example, without context, and without clarification; in a way that ASSUMES everyone will see the word ‘gospel’ and accept the nonsense that follows as ‘biblical’ (ANOTHER word that is thrown around for shoring up un-Christ-like teachings)

I would say that the initial ‘defining of terminology’ was a heads-up that heavy manipulation of the sheep was going forward on a mammoth scale, especially with the co-opting of the buzz-words ‘gospel’ and ‘biblical’. Controlling the dialogue is over half the battle.

And they were ‘surprised’ by push-back?????

Christiane wrote:

I would say that the initial ‘defining of terminology’ was a heads-up that heavy manipulation of the sheep was going forward on a mammoth scale, especially with the co-opting of the buzz-words ‘gospel’ and ‘biblical’. Controlling the dialogue is over half the battle.
And they were ‘surprised’ by push-back?????

I have noticed on Twitter and on blogs that people are figuring out they mean “Calvinista” when they say “gospel” or “biblical”. I don’t know that it’s getting out to churches, but it is getting out on social media.

I don’t know if they are really surprised. Maybe some of them really do believe everyone would be so dumb as to believe everything they said, but I don’t think they’d be pushing the contracts if they really believed it.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

You are, of course, correct. None the less that is a hard sell. People do not want a God they cannot control; they want a God who speaks only when spoken to, who ‘moves’ only in response to human petition to do so, and who is not much of a potential threat to any of their ideas or plans.

The bible can be controlled. How so? Well, they preach the bible as the ultimate authority, but that does not answer the question as to whether they mean the KJV which the lone individual studies in private while forming his own opinions, or the bible as understood through the magisterial traditions of some officially organized religious group, or the bible as explained by the ‘anointed’ preacher in the local pulpit, or any other innovative approach they can think up. Therein lies the way to manipulate the concept of the bible as supreme authority, aka ‘the bible says.’ In this way one can say that the bible is the supreme authority while all the while the actual supreme authority lies comfortably in the hands of humans.

Of course nothing that is said about God (think Bible) is a higher authority than God himself. But do people really want to have to deal with God himself; because when one does that there is no escaping that God is God and we are not God. It is much safer to worship the bible.

Keep up the good work, Nick. Also known over here as ‘preach it, brother.’

@ Harley:
Hi Harley,
I know you’re in Texas and you mentioned your daughter’s friends husbands going to the Baptist Bible college. By that are you referring to Baylor? I’m just concerned because my husband and I are sending our son there in August. We were warned of a church in Waco that has some pretty weird ideas. What I have learned is that they are extremely Comp and authoritarian. Still looking for a good church that teaches The Word without all this Calvinista/extreme comp garbage.

Christiane wrote:

the ‘two parts’ already exist separate enough to where they are so sharply distinguished in their ‘apartness’ that there is no room for melding or blending or sharing or ‘completing’ of anyone. It’s just the opposite.

That right! What about the single people? Not everyone is or wants to be married. Are singles somehow less Christian than those who are married? I think not!

Jan wrote:

That right! What about the single people? Not everyone is or wants to be married. Are singles somehow less Christian than those who are married? I think not!

They say we’re either in training to be married or actively sinning against God by refusing to be married. Some of these people who’ve informed me that I was still “in training” were a good bit younger than me.

okrapod wrote:

Of course nothing that is said about God (think Bible) is a higher authority than God himself. But do people really want to have to deal with God himself; because when one does that there is no escaping that God is God and we are not God. It is much safer to worship the bible.

The more I think about all this, the more I come to the same conclusion. All this other stuff, including complementarianism, is a distraction to keep people’s focus off Christ.

“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” -2 Cor. 4:4

ishy wrote:

They say we’re either in training to be married or actively sinning against God by refusing to be married.

So what about Paul? I wonder how they would explain away the fact that he wasn’t married?

has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts? and then labeled the arrows that connect according to HOW they connect (ie. ‘agreement’, exchange of money for credibility, mutual benefit of book sales, partnerships promoting ‘workshops’ that are profitable $$$$, quid pro quo and what’s the ‘quid’ and what’s the ‘quo’????

Socio-grams can be really interesting to track who is connected to whom and, when the connections are analyzed, socio-grams can yield a mountain of data.

Example Line from Mahaney to Mohler, labeled ‘contribution $$$$$’, Line from Mohler back to Mahaney, labeled ‘credibility granted to join SBC with my support’

Just a thought, for any of you sociology majors out there with some time to play with this

I got the idea from how murky the group was that came together to begin the CBMW …… and also how very, very ‘thin’ Mary Kassian’s creds are to be in a teaching role at a Baptist seminary;
so OTHER hidden connections are at work in this strange convoluted world of neo-Cal-ism,
and unraveling the Gorgon knot might prove to be very revealing 🙂

Tree wrote:

Before it was all said and done, and thank God we had to adjourn due to preset time constraints, I had contradicted every one of the above mentioned men and the “proofs” they cited. Not for “subjugation”, only the old guy voiced that, but for the idea that God established principles of male headship, male-only leadership, wives always submitting to husbands, Biblical women’s roles and Biblical men’s roles, etc.

Brava! Standing ovation.

Christiane wrote:

these men cannot have ‘abundant life’ by draining it out of their wives …. these men ‘have hold of the wrong’ sacrifice (to paraphrase Flannery O’Connor)

Deb wrote:

@ Christiane:

Bait and Switch. 🙁

Hi DEB,
Yes! Only this time, it cuts very, very deep and cannot be ignored or glossed over:
these neo-Cal men refer to ‘gospel-driven gender roles’;
but we only have one sacrifice in our faith that yields for us abundant life and resurrection: the willing sacrifice of the God-Man Jesus Christ on the Cross, done out of God’s love for the salvation of His broken world

The neo-Cals ‘have hold of’ the wrong sacrifice. (The paraphrase is from Flannery O’Connor’s famous line: ‘I believe that there are many rough beasts now slouching toward Bethlehem to be born and that I have reported the progress of a few of them, and when I see these stories described as horror stories I am always amused because the reviewer always has hold of the wrong horror.’

the neo-Cal ‘leadership’ are not willing to accept the life-giving sacrifice of Christ the Kyrios; instead they look to the draining of the spirits of healthy, vibrant women to shore up a view of ‘male headship’ that is a cultic expression of the idolatry of maleness.
Yeah, the neo-Cals have hold of the wrong sacrifice, and it is a hollow blood-letting of the spirit of women, abusive, and extremely corrosive to the spirits of all involved

The verse: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” from Galatians is called the Magna Carta of the Human Race, because it gets the perspective right.

The life-giving sacrifice of Our Lord has no pale imitations in forced submission to ‘authority’ at the cost of the destruction of a woman’s dreams. The men have hold of the wrong sacrifice and need to get off of their headship pedestals and return to their first love, the Lord of Life.

JYJames wrote:

Velour wrote:
they were NOT permitted to protect their children from child abuse
When a victim finally puts together the words to tell a responsible adult what happened to them, the first question in response should NEVER be: Have you forgiven your perpetrator and built a bridge of love and grace and forgiveness with the perpetrator?
Rather: Are you safe now with a wall of protection around you so you never have to go through this again?

Yes.

And I think picking up the phone and calling 9-1-1, getting an investigation, professional therapy, and even prosecution of the perp belongs at the time of the list.

How will this child and other children be safe if the perp isn’t stopped?

From the article, quoting Mr. Grudem’s Personal Reflections as the source:

(3) Try somehow to ensure that institutions and organizations have some public accountability on this issue—that their constituencies know what is going on—and that there is a price to be paid for adopting evangelical feminist policies and positions. I’m concerned about future trends where an institution can become more and more egalitarian and there is no public price to pay, no public accountability to its supporters or members.

I find this intriguingly prophetic, since the accountability clause has boomeranged back on CBMW. The past few months, Mr. Grudem and other theologians in CBMW are being pushed by their academic-level peers toward that same “public accountability and price to pay” that he himself advocated for institutions that embrace “evangelical feminism.” The perspectives, practices, and destructive impacts of CBMW leaders and celebrities have been brought into the light and are being challenged — particularly for those who are proponents of ESS/EFS/ERAS: Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS), Eternal Relationship of Authority and Submission.

It must be uncomfortable for CBMW Council members and others to have their appearance of orthodoxy legitimately picked apart and, where the analysis is accurate, shown to stand outside the stream of Nicene/Constantinople Trinitarian orthodoxy.

It must be uncomfortable to be point-blank asked publicly to either stop saying you hold a pro-Nicene view of the Trinity when you do not, or to renounce your view and embrace what the Church has held as orthodox for 1,650 years.

It must be uncomfortable to have resumes, publications, lawsuit documents, public statements, blog posts, non-degreed studies, and various miscellaneous claims put under the microscope and scrutinized to the enth degree for all to see.

But I guess that is the irony of Mr. Grudem’s own calls for accountability, when turned inward. It’s a mess of their own making because of the precarious emphasis of some that promotes the Danvers gender-role view, or an underlying view of ESS that misuses the Trinity to justify patriarchy, into what is functionally a first-level requirement to prove one’s supposed orthodoxy/purity/maturity.

On the origin of the word “Complementarian,” in the video included in the post at 3:08, John Piper says:

I don’t know who thought it up, but it came into being.

Well now, well now, what of this!?

Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.

Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?

If Kassian is being honest, and her claim is true, I can imagine why Piper happened to “forget,” can’t you?

John Piper needs to add to his list of “don’ts” for women. Here’s how I’d imagine he’d say it:

I, John Piper, Doctor of Theology, declare, that no woman may invent words that are spoken by men and used to define theological concepts.

We, as men, take fill credit for defining doctrine. The ESS is an example of how accurately we are able to handle the Word of God.

Upon our oath as men and rulers, we must not acknowledge the contribution of women in the realm of theology, especially as regards concepts men, exclusively, teach and preach. Use of words invented by women negate the premise of a teaching, for who can build on a foundation laid by a female?

We must not allow the use of words invented by women to flourish, even in the slightest! For what male among us can claim their existence itself is derived from that of a woman? I dare say none of us!

Lydia wrote:

He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

He also has placed himself in the role of the Holy Spirit in peoples’ lives and he wonders why it’s gone so terribly wrong.

Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

@ On the Healing Journey:
You hit the nail on the head! We are free indeed.

I like your name! I, too, am on a healing journey

On the Healing Journey wrote:

The Old Covenant (Testament) was full of rules and regulations. It was also full of male kings of Israel and Judah who did evil in the sight of God and led God’s people astray.

Men have misled people? Surely that has never happened where a woman was not to blame, right?

Adam would never have sinned if Eve had not given him the fruit.

Cain would not have murdered his brother unless a female wood nymph had not whispered the suggestion in his ear.

Lamech would not have initiated the practice of polygamy if women had not been so darn cute.

Moses would not have struck the rock unless he had been provoked by a woman who nagged him to do so.

Ahab would have stopped coveting Naboth’s vineyard if Jezebel hadn’t egged him on.

David would never have done it with Bathsheba if she had just skipped her shower that day.

And the list goes on. Clearly there’s always a woman to blame which is why men only should preach and teach.

Joseph Smith started a cult only because his wife sent him out every day, ordering him to dig up some gold to feed his family.

Mohammed robbed and murdered people because his wife was bored and she needed him to come back home with more interesting stories.

R. Ron Hubbard decided to create Scientology because he figured then, and only then, the ladies might find him attractive.

If men fail in application, a woman is also to blame!

What bothers me most about the Grudem quotes is how uncharitable he is to the other side (egalitarians). That whole implicit assumption that they make the Church impure by their views. This isn’t as clear an issue from Scripture, and he–above all people–ought to know that.

As a young(er) minister, I used to agree totally with Grudem on complementarianism. However, I have gained more life experience and find that position more and more troubling in light of all the unhealthy power dynamics that seem intrinsic to such a position.

Plus, I certainly do not think God is honored in these matters when one set of Believers points vitriol at the other side as if they aren’t trying to honestly follow the Bible as well.

@ brad/futuristguy:

P.S. Be sure to read the comments on that article. Some not-so-surprising parallels to the bad fruit from the hyper-complementarian/patriarchal/eternal subjugation of women doctrines.

@ Jamie Carter:
Russ Moore is actually doing the opposite and he is a Mohler minion. The article linked to Mohler on the last thread is typical Mohler deflection. A ruse.

Christiane wrote:

has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts?

Sounds like you just volunteered! 😉

wrote:

On the Healing Journey

Also, one must remember that love apart from marriage is about equality, but the second that marriage band is slipped on the finger, love becomes a matter of roles and who’s the boss!

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

You can’t pretend that God is good while teaching that he is a vindictive murderer and not go crazy.

This concerns me about the entire movement for the near future.

I think it works for the young for quite a while who don’t question what they are taught in youth group or Seminary. They are not exactly turning out deep thinkers. Yet, some will eventually think about it. I have already seen a few who were rabid Calvinistas become rabid atheists and leave ministry. The sad irony being atheism is deterministic, too.

@ Tim:

Of course. But the problem comes in determining what the original author meant in the context of a particular statement and the context of what the overall teaching was and the context of the culture and language of the time and the context of what the author could reasonably believe that the target audience would think he meant.

So, the comps can think that the context was one thing and the egals can think that the context was something else, and this way we seem to keep getting back to where we started. I absolutely agree with you about what translators should do when they can, but I am not at all convinced that we know as much as we need to know in order to achieve a reliable level of accuracy in doing that in all instances.

@ Deb:

This is a review of Knight's work by Grudem in December 1979 in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. It's about a third of the way down.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/22/22-4/22-4-pp373-379_JETS.pdf

@ okrapod:
Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

@ Deb:

You’re a star, deb!

thank you so much.

@ brad/futuristguy:

Great points. As we have seen over the years, the accountability was to have flowed up their human food chain starting with a “proper” local church, elders then on up to the academic gurus. A systemic control operation. Many denominations have some variation of this sort of hierarchical form of accountability for practices.The SBC was a problem because they did not.

So, depending on the issue, SBC churches are autonomous or a denomination. We know that some local SBC affiliated associations kicked out SBC churches for having a woman pastor. When it comes child predators or leaders who protect them, SBC churches are autonomous. The inconsistency has caused many a debate over the years. Mohler has worked hard to use autonomy by planting his indoctrinated minions in SBC entities and churches.

@ Velour:
They are actually doing the opposite. Is no one paying attention to Russ Moore, the official political spokesman for the SBC? He has gone public many times questioning the salvation of those Christians who would dare vote for the male on the ticket. He is in line with the liberals on this issue! The old lines of left right, liberal conservative
are gone.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Christiane wrote:

has anyone ever done a ‘socio-gram’ of the neo-Cal world and its contacts?

Sounds like you just volunteered!

I’m on pain meds from surgery, so I’m out. But it’s a great idea. 🙂 So i offer it for someone who knows a lot more and has their head on straight. Actually, I think it would be a HUGE project, because the ‘tentacles’ reach out everywhere, and not all of them are visible because of all the secrecy (and where there’s secrecy, you’ve generally got a lot of hidden malarkey)

Nice ploy, Doctor, but nope.

Deb wrote:

@ siteseer:

Please don’t allow this man to negatively impact you.

Totally agree. Let’s keep exposing their faulty reasoning and interpretations and their faulty methodology which is not conservative at all. They claim to be bound by the authority of the Bible, but really they use it as a tool to advance their real agenda–their own authority.

Tim wrote:

Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

YES.
This is true in my tradition, which celebrates the dignity of the human person as made in the image of God and is worthy of respect for that reason alone.

Tree wrote:

One of the men (not an elder or any kind of church leader) affirmed a point I made. When I later thanked him for speaking up, he said he appreciated thoughtful discussion as an excellent way to learn and encouraged me to keep being a contributor. Pretty sure he was the only man with that opinion! But a number of the women later told me that they quite enjoyed the discussion, appreciated my points, and hoped I joined them again.

Many people have never heard anything but this Party Line, so they assume it is true and Biblical. They really do appreciate discussions which are not exchanges of groupthink. Those who are insecure in themselves or their beliefs cannot tolerate Bereans in their midst, and that shows the weakness of their position.

Attagirl, Tree!

Lydia wrote:

But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia

Not just “over a millenia”.
Exactly 1611 years, until the reign of Kynge Jaymes.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ okrapod:
Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

God’s Word is wonderful, but it is more complex than meets the eye. If our English versions were ‘clear’ than why do we have to study the meanings of the texts in Greek and Hebrew? Why do we have to put them in their contexts and learn about history?

The word “yom” in Hebrew, in the creation story, has 58 different meanings, including “a long time”. How can we have a “clear” understanding of the English Bible if we don’t understand the Hebrew meanings?

The Greek texts say that a woman will be saved by “the Childbearing”, a noun, which refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus and salvation coming through Him. Bible translators changed this word to a verb “childbearing”. Big difference between a noun and a verb.
Many people are, rightly, confused by this passage in English Bibles and it makes no sense. And they’re right. Because it’s supposed to be a noun.

Paul wrote to Timothy that there was one woman (“the woman”) teaching one man error.
Paul didn’t want to humiliate her, he wanted her to learn correctly first before she taught someone else. (That would be true of a man teaching error as well.) Paul’s sentence in the Greek text, referring to this one woman and not to all women for all time in the Christian church, was changed by Bible translators: “I don’t permit a woman to teach.” Paul NEVER wrote that.

Paul didn’t want women wearing pearls and elaborate clothing in the church. There was a temple in the community to a pagan goddess and it was commonplace as part of that tradition for women to dress up with pearls. Paul didn’t want those pagan traditions to be part of the church and for those women to leave that behind. He wasn’t saying that women could never dress up, never wear pearls.

The Holy Spirit does guide us in understanding God’s Word. But a ‘clearer’ understanding of God’s Word is also obtained through study.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

How can one believe that tornados are God’s angry judgment on middle-America without turning themselves into a flake? You can’t pretend that God is good while teaching that he is a vindictive murderer and not go crazy.

Doublethink, Comrade, Doublethink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

“We are for the withering away of the state, and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of the state which have existed up to the present day. The highest development of the power of the state, with the object of preparing the conditions of the withering away of the state: that is the Marxist formula.”
— Comrade Stalin, Dictator of Russia

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lydia wrote:
But wouldn’t this mean that God would have to also completely control every translator for over a millennia
Not just “over a millenia”.
Exactly 1611 years, until the reign of Kynge Jaymes.

You would think God would have determined they not kill each other over who was in control!

@ On the Healing Journey:

I just wanted to say I love this comment!! The ot authority didn’t work, Jesus showed us a new way of freedom. These men are trying to claw it away from us and we can’t let them.

@ Deb @ dee:

“I’m gonna keep hammering the comp crowd from as many angles as possible.

These manipulators MUST BE EXPOSED!”

A hearty Hoorah!! Yes, keep that hammering going!!

Yes, this junk, crap, error, heresy–needs to be continually exposed. It sounds soooo smooth and biblical, but alas, it is a cunning snare to beguile the unwary. It works at dismantling Christ’s Kingdom principles and replaces it with falsehood, distress, and disaster!

Each of us has our task at hand–to continue to do our part to dismantle the foolishness of man with the truth of the Real Gospel!

@ Jack:

“I don’t think that this is the “end” of Christianity but they will find their organizations diminished and disconnected.

This will lead to smaller membership and in turn greater need to control to prevent defectors and the cycle will continue.

Eventually there will be a reset or backlash but by then many will have left the faith.
I speak from experience that once you cease going to church and remove religion from your life, it’s hard to go back. It just doesn’t have a place anymore.”
+++++++++++++++

the end of christianity? far from it. The vine and the branches are alive and well ex-institution.

Deb wrote:

The SEBTS grad they called has been at the church for less than ten months, and he is already beginning to sneak this stuff in. His latest move is to offer a bi-monthly Bible study on Sunday evenings that will span two years (meeting in the fall and spring).

And which study did he choose to do with those willing to participate?

Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith — a condensed version of his Systematic Theology.

How refreshing would it be if they started digging into the actual Bible text in their Bible study! Can graduates of SEBTS even do that? Can they derive their doctrine through studying the Bible or do they have to use Grudem to bottle-feed the congregation the approved infant formula?

Zla’od wrote:

Still working on my crossover fanfic, “Complementarians of Gor.”

DO IT
DO IT
DO IT…

Lydia wrote:

Latin only in Mass in medieval Germany as one example?

Gosh Lydia, I grew up with the Latin mass (sermons in the vernacular, though).

I still sometimes pray the old prayers in Latin (a little bit in Greek), without even realizing it. And yes, I do know the ‘meanings’. It all changed with Vatican II. No more carrying missals (prayer books) to mass. No more veil head covering. (I still have my chapel veil from high school.) The old ways in the old people die hard.

Zla’od wrote:

Still working on my crossover fanfic, “Complementarians of Gor.”

I really wish I didn’t get this. Really, really….really…

Paula Rice wrote:

Men, on the other hand, are, I guess, like the Father, who is submitted to.

Except when they are supposed to be like Jesus to their wives, then he’s in charge again!

“I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years.” (Wayne Grudem)

Dear Wayne, the New Calvinist movement has precipitated a lot of controversies! The blogosphere is abuzz with your antics. I’m sure you and your colleagues thought you could slip in under the radar and conquer mainline Christianity within ten years, but some of us got in your way. Don’t fret too much though, you have largely accomplished your mission in SBC. I think you will find that TWW and other watchblogs are onto your schemes and will continue to push back against the new reformation because it is wrong in both method and message.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ okrapod:
Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.

You are supposed to be listening to the Holy Spirit for that to work, not piper, or grudem…

ishy wrote:

After all, we have to give an account for how we followed God, not how we followed other men.

Yes!!! Even Paul said to follow him as he followed Christ. I have always taken that to mean that if what he is doing does not seem to line up with God, then do not follow him.

But if Paul has preached and gone before us in the right way of following Christ, then he is someone to be persuaded by toward our own following of Christ, which is a much more accurate leadership translation of Hebrews 13 which authoritarians ignore.

@ brad/futuristguy:

“There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.”
++++++++++++++++

never thought about it like that. but yes, true.

i see an ever-growing prudence in paring down doctrine in quality and quantity.

my doctrine, at ground zero:

*God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are as available as air
*treat people the way i want to be treated

Lea wrote:

Except when they are supposed to be like Jesus to their wives, then he’s in charge again!

Yes, because the man takes on the form of a servant like Jesus did, empties himself sacrifically on behalf of his wife, is then risen from the dead, seated on his throne, and restored to his position of reigning over her. Amen?

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Gone is the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead – the living, speaking, active Person of the Trinity making Jesus tangible in His church. Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk. Now, it’s a simple matter to use politics and showmanship to place their own puppet-monarch (gender-roles, literal translations of ancient texts, and the like) on the throne so that they get to call the shots.

A heartfelt amen and applause from this old sod Nick!

@ ishy:

You bring up another point. God has the power to have preserved the originals. All of them. He just does not operate that way. That is on US, not Him.

I am not endorsing this guy in the video below but I think he makes excellent points on the overall subject of scripture. In my view, turning the pre enlightenment scripture into the Holy Spirit, literal club or manual has taken away from it’s timeless beauty and our ability to grapple with it. When we dive into the different literary devices the ancients used to communicate across a 1000 years, we discover the very important larger theme of Gods Rescue.

https://vimeo.com/86521708

OT, but this is too good not to interject: pigs are flying, hell has frozen over, aaaaaand Tim Bayly is seriously considering voting for Hilary Clinton. And it’s not the Onion. http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/07/first-blast-trumpet-monstrous-regiment-women

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority – conveniently, because it doesn’t talk unless men like them make it talk.

Permission to shamelessly plagurize this?

Muff Potter wrote:

Now “The Bible” is the ultimate authority –

Yes, that is correct, the bible is the ultimate authority in which exists nary a verse that is unreliable to the beliefs and practices of the true Christian faith.

It is only when you find people straying from the truth, as revealed in the bible, do you discover every form of error and false teaching.

@ Christiane:

You do understand I was speaking of history and scripture and the masses involved as a response to lowlanders’ view on the authority of scripture. Lots of people left out of the equation from early on by both Catholics and later the Reformers. No need to be offended. It is a historical fact. We are now free now to buy our own bibles and study them! Praise God!

Lydia wrote:

He cannot accept the fact there will be religious institutions that do not support his bible interpretations on gender roles? He fears there will be no accountability?

Do we need to remind him this is America?

Do we need to remind him that God gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us unto all Truth, not Wayne Grudem?! Dr. Grudem filters selected Scripture through a systematic theological grid to make it fit the tenets of Calvinism – that’s all he knows to do. He has theo-political blinders on and is missing what God is saying to His church about the issues he writes so extensively about. Sad to see such a smart man waste his life chasing this stuff. God could use him in His Kingdom.

ishy wrote:

Hey! Not all of us are Calvinistas!

That’s a relief!

siteseer wrote:

I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man. I clearly see now the role that power seekers, controllers, and political Machiavellians with ulterior motives have in its translation. Thanks a lot, Wayne Grudem.

He’s just a man, who will pass away, but the Word of God abides forever. Don’t let a guy like that shake your faith.

“The LORD’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.” Psalm 12:6

siteseer wrote:

I am close to losing faith in the Bible because of this man.

Faith (certainty) in anything other than the very person of Messiah is easy pickins’ for a well place charge or two of C4 to its support members.

@ Muff Potter:
The Messiah and the Word are synonymous. Diminish one you diminish them both together. That’s what the Bible teaches us in John chapter 1.

But hey, if the Bible isn’t your guide, you can pick, choose, or add your own interpretation. Mormons have done it, for example. And anyone can become their own man-made religion, walking around with their glamorous designer faith they flatter themselves with as if they’re full of imagination.

Gram3 wrote:

They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived.

Okay. I give up. Please explain it to me why Paul was not referring to the creation and fall stories in Genesis by that statement? I mean, how more plainly could he have said it?

@ On the Healing Journey

“I’m curious–What do the Comps do with “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21)?”

Yah. Like the husband and wife give up membership in Christ’s Body when they marry? i.e. the “one anothers” (previously posted here) don’t apply any more in the marriage relationship?

Not.

@ Lydia:
Funny, then, how the preaching of it is to coupled with signs and wonders. Funny how that’s supposed to work. Now, why would that be?

@ Paula Rice:
Are you suggesting that no one can be saved without the preaching of scripture?

@ Paula Rice:
I am further confused about early Gentile converts for whom the Jewish scripture meant very little. The Judaizers were concerned about that, too, ironically as they had their own interpretation of such.

@ okrapod:
What about the masses of illiterates who had to have the priest to interpret meaning? Even Martin Luther admitted he rarely studied scripture as an Augustinian monk and majorly changed his mind when finally studying Romans.

@ Paula Rice:

Oh dear. Which translation is best for those signs and wonders to occur?

@ Lydia:
The Jewish Scripture? Not sure what you’re referring to. The law?

Judaism, by the way, was a fairly new religion in Jesus’ day. It wasn’t the religion of Abraham, Moses, and the 10 Commandments, etc. It was based on the traditions of the Scribes and the Parise especially who, incidentally, wanted Jesus DEAD.

Romans says a righteousness APART from the law was revealed in Jesus Christ. That’s what made the Gentiles dance and sing, Lydia – and the Judiazers mad as h#ll.

Piper is incoherent in the video. He acknowledges the Gospel proclamation by women in China and the global South, but says that Gospel proclamation will be harmed in the long term unless there is a male voice proclaiming the Gospel. ???? He does say that Female Subordination is an essential, but then says that the Gospel needs protections like Female Subordination. The church which is the “pillar and bulwark” of the Gospel will “malfunction” without it. So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

Lowlandseer wrote:

I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear.

He might have done so. We don’t know, as we don’t have original texts. We do know that man has had his hand in transcribing the texts for centuries.

okrapod wrote:

Please explain it to me why Paul was not referring to the creation and fall stories in Genesis by that statement?

I believe he was referring to the Creation narrative. But what is not clear is how he connects that to his ban on females doing whatever they were doing while teaching at Ephesus.

If he is saying that they cannot do that because the Man was created first, then we should expect to find some indication in the Creation narrative that God appointed the Man to be the Teacher/Leader. But that is not what we find in the text of Genesis.

If he is saying that women should not teach/lead because the Woman was deceived and fell into sin, then I think that is a non-sequitur unless we assume it is more damaging to sin due to deception than to sin intentionally and knowingly.

That is the problem in my view. I don’t think Paul is appealing to the supposed Order of Creation nor to the idea which others infer from his statement that women are supposedly more susceptible to deception. Paul used Eve as a type of all people–male and female–who were being deceived in the church at Corinth, so it seems unlikely to me that he sees Eve’s deception as being typical only of women.

Lydia wrote:

@ Christiane:

I am unclear on how your comment disproves my point about scripture as final authority not being historically problematic?

Hi Lydia,
I was sharing some history as I understood it, but I wasn’t ‘disproving a point’ …. technically, we don’t have the original autographs, and we are all dependent on what we do have that, even when taken together at ‘biblehub’ site, we can see that there are differences in translations that are significant.

In my tradition, we do believe this one MAJOR point about sacred Scripture: that there is within Scripture enough information for people to be able to find God and salvation, even if the translations of the translations of the translations are a bit mangled . . . something remains, and that something can bear fruit

I honestly don’t know what Protestant people do to resolve the ‘authority’ issue regarding a much-translated Bible as reference. I do know my own Church’s teachings, but that does’nt ‘cross over’ into communities of faith that do not have teaching magisteriums.

I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came. I’m not sure there are any answers, unless it’s consensus. ‘Consensus’ is a more workable way to examine Scripture within the whole Body of Christ. But is ‘consensus’ always ‘inerrant’????? I don’t think so, no.

But there remain some challenges, and I would encourage younger pastors and scholars who support CBMW in the following ways:

(1) Play offense and not just defense. ETS is an excellent place for many young scholars to do that…” –Wayne Grudem
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I found this article on CBE. Very thought-provoking.

A Question Mark Over My Head
Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting

From page 11:

“David Howard, a complementarian professor of Old Testament at Bethel Seminary and the 2003 ETS president, explained that the nominating committee process has become “somewhat of a coordinated effort” and “somewhat more politicized.”45

Another male complementarian who has been in leadership explained what he saw at play: “There are very strong complementarian forces that prevent women from getting on the nominating committee. . . . This subculture, this machine, is working at full force. These people want to control it.”

My opinion? Complementarian pastors and ‘scholars’ has taken Wayne Grudem seriously on this point of his. Wayne Grudem has prompted the creation of a society of male supremacist theology dix.

okrapod wrote:

@ Christiane:

Yes, and one must not forget that Latin was not only the ecclesial language of the Church but was also the language of the universities and the language/vocabulary of both law and medicine. The Vulgate was a translation into the common language (vulgar language) of the time.

I know. My godmother is of Russian (Ukrainian) descent and they pray using a Byzantine liturgy (not in Latin). There are at least sixteen ‘rites’ within the Catholic Church, only one of which is the Latin rite, so there is quite a variety representing all of the five major centers of the Church as it spread out from Jerusalem. I think the most beautiful of all the liturgies is that of St. John the Divine, which is Eastern.

The Church my godmother grew up in did not pray in Latin, but it was a Catholic Church …. just of Russian heritage in its ways of praying.

ION:

Setting aside the secondary issues of fundamental human rights and humanity’s eternal destiny before its Creator, and moving onto Cricket…
Joe Root’s commanding double-century has given England every chance of salvaging a draw from the second Test at Old Trafford. In reply to England’s 589-8 declared, Pakistan were 57-4 at the close, 332 runs from saving the follow-on.

For newer Wartburgers who are unfamiliar with Cricket, the follow-on occurs when the second team in are bowled out for more than 200 runs less than the first team in got before getting out (or, in this case, declaring so as to put the second team in before they themselves were all out). This saves the first team in from having to guess how long to stay in for the second time before trying to get the second team in out, also for the second time. Thus, when the first team in are in for the second time, they can press home their advantage from the first innings because they know exactly how many runs they have to score and how long they have left in which to score them, in their second innings.

IHTIH

elastigirl wrote:

The peaceful beauty of life as a result of PLASTIC.

This somehow fits, at least as a handy-dandy caricature of an egalitarian (or feminist evangelical) marriage being prolonged by plastic: 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L432YALGvJU

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

For newer Wartburgers who are unfamiliar with Cricket

Yes, because the purpose of TWW is “Dissecting Cricket Trends.” 🙂

@ Daisy:
There is a school of thought that Paul was a widower. Since he had been a member of the Sanhedrin marriage was one of the requirements.

okrapod wrote:

So, the comps can think that the context was one thing and the egals can think that the context was something else, and this way we seem to keep getting back to where we started. I absolutely agree with you about what translators should do when they can, but I am not at all convinced that we know as much as we need to know in order to achieve a reliable level of accuracy in doing that in all instances.

It’s not subjective in many cases. There are portions of the Scriptures where the underlying language is in fact referring to BOTH sexes, but male biased translators go with the masculine only, even though the original language is referring to men and women collective, not just men.

There are other male-biased translation of other words in the text, too.

Rethinking Male-Centered Translations of the Bible
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/05/04/rethinking-androcentric-translations-of-the-bible/

Patti wrote:

I am curious. Is there anyone here who was once convinced by their own reading of scripture and/or upbringing that egalitarianism is biblical, that changed to an interpretation of hierarchy?

I had the opposite experience.

I used to be a complementarian but the more I looked at the Bible, the more contradictions I saw in it by using a complementarian understanding.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

There are always personal, emotional, social, and spiritual consequences to doctrine … *always*.

Definitely.

But most complementarians (maybe outside of Aimee Byrd and one or two others) don’t want to acknowledge that fact, or, they continue to place doctrine above people, even when they’ve been shown and told repeatedly that the fruit of that doctrine is bad.

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

Christiane wrote:

I honestly don’t know what Protestant people do to resolve the ‘authority’ issue regarding a much-translated Bible as reference……I once asked, if two members of the same Church, see a passage of Scripture in a different light, how does this get resolved. But no answers came

Well, I don’t want anybody to be lacking in answers so I will supply some. As to the first question the answer is that they do not resolve the ‘authority’ issue. As to the second question the answer is they do not get it resolved.

This is not to say that there are not a lot of proposed solutions, but it does mean that agreements are not reached either by authority or by consensus. Individuals continue to hold differing opinions and continue to believe that the have the personal inner witness of the Holy Spirit for whatever that opinion is.

Something is amiss about this process.

Curious as to why there are no ‘receptive’ women on the panel who can vouch for the beauty of complementarianism as they too, live it out!! How is it that only men can speak to this? This makes me nauseous, couldn’t watch the whole thing! I’ve tried to speak to this in my church, but male leadership refuses to take me seriously. We are not even SBC

@ Christiane:
Sorry, for length. Pain meds are working. Overtime. Tomorrow I will behave. Love to all. 🙂

@ elastigirl:

Regarding Wayne Grudem’s effort to incite an offensive (and let’s be literal about it: an attacking military campaign) at the ETS:

Again, from the A Question Mark Over My Head
Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting:

“The 2014 annual meeting attendance comprised seven percent women, which included all three levels of membership, exhibitors, and spouses.”

A female who attended the ETS Annual Meeting remarked, “If a huge majority of ETS theologians hold to the view that women are complementary to men in God’s design, then they should be troubled at the prospect of looking at the text without female eyes. . . . This is the key word. You can’t have seven percent women and say [she started chuckling] we believe in the complementary relationship.”

I think the complementarian militants haven’t have a logic problem. They haven’t really thought things through.

(at least not with their minds & brains… maybe with some other body part, i dunno)

@ Paula Rice:

chill out, please

Daisy wrote:

But most complementarians (maybe outside of Aimee Byrd and one or two others) don’t want to acknowledge that fact, or, they continue to place doctrine above people, even when they’ve been shown and told repeatedly that the fruit of that doctrine is bad.

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

This is one of many thought-provoking quotes I found in your post, Daisy:

Complementarians indulge in use of personal experience and personal anecdote quite a bit, yet they will condemn non-complementarians who mention their own personal experiences to illustrate an idea or argument.

The bottom line still remains true, whether complementarians like it or not: doctrine can and does have real-life consequences on people. Our personal experiences, our lives, are influenced by what we believe and what we are taught.

In the current dialogues where those who are Reformed/Calvinists are challenging the hyper-complementarians, there seem to be at least two lines of inquiry. One is about pro-Nicene/Constantinople orthodoxy in Trinitarian theology, versus attempting to justify human gender roles with Eternal Subordination of the Son and related doctrines long rejected as non-orthodox.

The other is about orthopraxy. In the long-noted absence of detailed commandments or descriptions in Scripture of how complementarianism is “supposed” to work, there’s been a trail of attempts to fill in the abstractions with personal stories. However, there is also sufficient evidence from the narratives available to at least conclude there are some severe problems in practice with CBMW-type teachings. So, proponents are being called out on their apparent ignorance, denial, and/or deflections related to how hyper-complementarian doctrines create a direct line to various forms of control, abuse, and violence toward women and girls especially — and how it diminishes the humanity of men and boys as well.

As one writer put it in way back in the 1980s, “Ideas have legs.” Or, as I would say, Our worldview leads to our world-do. Doctrines have real-world consequences.
It seems the hyper-complementarians, or whatever they are choosing to call themselves, have not been doing so well in responding to either of those two lines of challenge in recent days …

ishy wrote:

And no one Christian has any more Holy Spirit than someone else, whether they listen or not. After all, we have to give an account for how we followed God, not how we followed other men.

I have learned more from Sojourner Truth, who had been a slave, about God than I have ever learned from Wayne Grudem & Co.

Velour wrote:

I have learned more from Sojourner Truth, who had been a slave, about God than I have ever learned from Wayne Grudem & Co.

you will love this:

“TRUTH: stronger than fiction 🙂

An excerpt from “Ain’t I a Woman” by a woman six-feet tall

“There were very few women in those days who dared to “speak in meeting”; and the august teachers of the people were seemingly getting the better of us, while the boys in the galleries, and the sneerers among the pews, were hugely enjoying the discomfiture, as they supposed, of the “strong-minded.”

When, slowly from her seat in the corner rose Sojourner Truth, who, till now, had scarcely lifted her head. “Don’t let her speak!”gasped half a dozen in my ear. She moved slowly and solemnly to the front, laid her old bonnet at her feet, and turned her great speaking eyes to me. There was a hissing sound of disapprobation above and below. I rose and announced“Sojourner Truth,” and begged the audience to keep silence for a few moments.

The tumult subsided at once, and every eye was fixed on this almost Amazon form, which stood nearly six feet high, head erect, and eyes piercing the upper air like one in a dream. At her first word there was a profound hush. She spoke in deep tones, which, though not loud, reached every ear in the house, and away through the throng at the doors and windows.

“I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me!

And a’n’t I a woman?

I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear de lash as well! And a’n‘t I a woman? I have borne thirteen chilern, and seen ’em mos‘ all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And a’n’t I a woman?

“Den dat little man in black dar, he say women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wan’t a woman! Whar did your Christ come from?” Rolling thunder couldn’t have stilled that crowd, as did those deep, wonderful tones, as she stood there with outstretched arms and eyes of fire. Raising her voice still louder, she repeated, “Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him.” Oh, what a rebuke that was to that little man.

Turning again to another objector, she took up the defense of Mother Eve. I can not follow her through it all. It was pointed, and witty, and solemn; eliciting at almost every sentence deafening applause; and she ended by asserting: “If de fust woman God ever made was strong enough to turn de world upside down all alone, dese women togedder (and she glanced her eye over the platform) ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now dey is asking to do it, de men better let ‘em.” Long-continued cheering greeted this. “’Bleeged to ye for hearin‘ on me, and now ole Sojourner han’t got nothin’ more to say.”

Amid roars of applause, she returned to her corner, leaving more than one of us with streaming eyes, and hearts beating with gratitude. She had taken us up in her strong arms and carried us safely over the slough of difficulty turning the whole tide in our favor. I have never in my life seen anything like the magical influence that subdued the mobbish spirit of the day, and turned the sneers and jeers of an excited crowd into notes of respect and admiration. Hundreds rushed up to shake hands with her, and congratulate the glorious old mother, and bid her God-speed on her mission of “testifyin‘ agin concerning the wickedness of this ’ere people.”

Source: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda J. Gage, eds., History of Woman Suffrage, vol. I (Rochester, N. Y: Susan B. Anthony, Charles Mann, 1881), 114–17.

Narrative of Sojourner Truth”;
a woman who said ‘womens is ‘comin up’ and they bringin the mens up with them’ 🙂

Velour wrote:

I worked for Yorkshire Cricket in England…

Bah goom!

Velour also wrote:

I’m in California

NotCerne Abbas? Gosh. You learn something new every day.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Paula Rice:
chill out, please

Yes, please.

Divorce Minister wrote:

As a young(er) minister, I used to agree totally with Grudem on complementarianism. However, I have gained more life experience and find that position more and more troubling in light of all the unhealthy power dynamics that seem intrinsic to such a position.

Nicely said.

Christiane wrote:

@ Christiane:
Sorry, for length. Pain meds are working. Overtime. Tomorrow I will behave. Love to all.

Praying for you friend. Feel better.

Gram3 wrote:

It is really quite amazing that they are sure that women are prohibited from teaching men but they do not know what “saved by/through childbearing” means other than it does not mean what it plainly says. They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived.

Looks like not only “the Woman” has been deceived.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Velour wrote:
I worked for Yorkshire Cricket in England…
Bah goom!
Velour also wrote:
I’m in California
NotCerne Abbas? Gosh. You learn something new every day.

I did look up the Cerne Abbas village yesterday. Quiet lovely and the carvings in the hillsides.

I didn’t have a glamours job at Yorksire Cricket. I sold their merchandise to fans
from the mobile shop.

I don’t have a complete grasp of cricket, yet. But I do have a complete grasp of the lovely food and tea times that I had there.

trs wrote:

Also, I’m wondering if maybe an indirect reminder of the angel Gabriel’s message to “highly favored” Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Luke’s Magnificat is the most beautiful and comforting thing I’ve ever heard. It is good news that stands on its own sans all baggage. No other holy book on the planet even comes close for gut resonance and sheer hope for all people.

Further,

I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 does not in any way apply to relationships within the Body of Christ. Rather, Paul is disputing a type of governance that completely controls people.

From what I can tell, “authenteó” (in that verse) refers to a form of extreme authoritarianism — the kind without any accountability.

(The Inquisition and John Calvin are a couple of examples that come to mind.)

Imo, in English, the sense of the sentence is more like:
I do not permit any woman either to teach or to practice (this godless, pagan form of extreme authoritarianism which may even involve killing human beings).
OR

“I permit a woman neither to teach nor to practice (exercise) authoritarianism, (i.e. complete control over another person).”

Imo, a person can’t understand what Paul is saying here without understanding what authenteó means.
~~~~

Here’s a context for this verse that works for me.

Imagine if a non-believer had been present during the Ananias and Sapphira incident. Not understanding the working and power of the Holy Spirit, a person could conclude that the Apostles had complete control over the disciples — even to the point of ordering their deaths.

What if outsiders witnessed women and men worshiping Christ together as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians — through the Spirit-empowered gifts of the Holy Spirit.

They attributed the power and authority of the Holy Spirit to the participating individuals instead of to God (Whom they could not see).

Perhaps the women were the focus due to the pagan cults that operated in that city at that time. Maybe cultists wanted to know how they, too, could exercise that kind of power and “control” . . . maybe especially over men.

So . . . Paul, in the context of the passage which is about worship, inserts a disclaimer which is verse 12.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve been delving into the “women keep silent” assumptions and my brain just comes up with this stuff, which obviously needs refinement and reality checks.

And this place is GREAT for that — for thinking and civil feedback, that is.

Apologies for the length.

@ Velour:

Any job connected with Yorkshire Cricket is glamorous in its own way… As regards not having a full grasp of cricket – well, that’s fine of course, because neither does anybody else!

I won’t lie – I know very little about Cerne Abbas, though I used to like Dorset (my grandmother lived there a while back). It was the first place that came to mind whose initials were “CA. 🙂

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ Velour:
Any job connected with Yorkshire Cricket is glamorous in its own way… As regards not having a full grasp of cricket – well, that’s fine of course, because neither does anybody else!
I won’t lie – I know very little about Cerne Abbas, though I used to like Dorset (my grandmother lived there a while back). It was the first place that came to mind whose initials were “CA.

Yorkshire Cricket. Yes, I learned from fans that any job connected to it was glamorous. I also had to have people tell me, “Do you know who was just talking to you?” Anyway, I had just chatted with some world famous cricket star and had no clue who they were. It was all in good fun. I told them I was from California…and I had no clue what it was all about, but I’d do my best to follow along and learn.

The C.A. village looks lovely. How nice that you were able to spend time in that area when your grandmother lived there.

Judy wrote:

Curious as to why there are no ‘receptive’ women on the panel who can vouch for the beauty of complementarianism as they too, live it out!! How is it that only men can speak to this?

Allow me to represent the complementarian perspective for you, if I may.

Why were there no receptive women on the panel, you asked?

Women weren’t on the panel because that would have been an invitation for them to speak on a subject involving biblical interpretation, coming dangerously close to teaching and preaching in the presence of men.

Complementarianism is about ontological identity. God created men and women to be different in who they are because their bodies are different.

Complementarians believe that men and women are fundamentally different, and those differences affect our roles in life. They believe who you are dictates what you do.

As an example, Complementarians will point to how they believing baby-making should occur, and that the way this takes place should be a reflection of the different roles men and women play. In the act itself, it is the man who gives and the woman who receives; the man who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated.

The same holds true for panel discussions, and why women shoul sit and listen in church.

When a woman speaks, you see, she is penetrating the conversation, which is not her role. When a woman offers speaks during a panel discussion with men, it causes a great deal of confusion, and men are as intimidated as they would be if she initiated sex.

Moreover, people watching and listening would wonder who the man is and who the woman is, resulting in mass pandemonium. This would disrupt God’s order and bring disgrace upon the gospel because it’s not how He created things to be.

In order to preserve the gospel, women should be both silent and unseen during panel discussions, which is why they are nowhere present on T4G stage along with the men.

@ Velour:

I believe we are of the same mind here. Putting it another way:

If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: … etc etc

 Did satan quote from the scriptures? Yes, actually.
 Did satan bring the word of God? Well… if he did, Jesus didn’t respond to it.

Similarly:
Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book [or any other, because the world would not contain the books that could be written]
 Is most of what Jesus did, found in the Bible? No.
 Does that mean most of what Jesus did was not of God? (Well… maybe it wasn’t of God. That being the case, I’m in trouble, because I’d rather pinned my hopes on him!)

I.e., you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

Deb wrote:

I swing a hammer pretty well, and I’m left-handed.
In all seriousness, I HAVE FLAT OUT HAD IT! (And yes I am yelling!!!)
For the foreseeable future, ALL of my posts will be laser-focused on the Comp crowd.

We have our own 21st century Jael!

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ Velour:
I believe we are of the same mind here. Putting it another way:
If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: … etc etc
 Did satan quote from the scriptures? Yes, actually.
 Did satan bring the word of God? Well… if he did, Jesus didn’t respond to it.
Similarly:
Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book [or any other, because the world would not contain the books that could be written]
 Is most of what Jesus did, found in the Bible? No.
 Does that mean most of what Jesus did was not of God? (Well… maybe it wasn’t of God. That being the case, I’m in trouble, because I’d rather pinned my hopes on him!)
I.e., you can quote/preach/whatever scripture without bringing the word of God. And you can bring the word of God without quoting/preaching/whatever from scripture.

That will preach, brother Nick!

Amen.

Velour wrote:

There are two branches of my family that are polar opposites

Yes, well, there are polar opposite views. Some people are uncomfortable with this reality and attempt to find ways to marry things together. For example, as I’ve mentioned before, Protestants believe God created the Bible, whereas Roman Catholics believe the Church created the Bible.

Polar opposite views. You can’t have it both ways.

Some things don’t work both ways.

This is an important issue to come to terms with as someone who professes Christ. Sooner or later it becomes obvious where you stand.

Jesus said it best. He prefers we be hot or cold. When we attempt to mix the hot with the cold, the result is lukewarm. “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” Rev 3:16

Nancy2 wrote:

a woman…. a soldier…. big boned ….5’9, maybe 5’10. She was armed, and wearing a bullet proof vest, as well as a wedding ring set.
I’d say that if Piper and Grudem tried to double-team her, she’d lay a first-round smack-down on the duo.

ROFL.

Paula Rice wrote:

Jesus said it best. He prefers we be hot or cold.

Jesus preferred that we be hot or cold about Him, not a book.

The Bible hadn’t even been created for a long time. There weren’t printing presses.
People were poor and the vast number were illiterate. Yet God chose those times
to be born, live, die, and be resurrected. He didn’t wait until now. He brought people to faith…without a book.

Our way today is not the only way.

Sam wrote:

It’s funny how Grudem encourages others to publish in order to outnumber egalitarians and feminists, as if their were many egalitarian resources available at most Christian institutions. From my own experience, when I first encountered complementarianism and patriarchy, I honestly thought those were the only two biblical options. Christian radio stations gave them airtime, Amazon carried all the books, I found blogs by the dozen where women actively spent time writing posts which contained profuse apologies for the “evils” of the female sex and glorifying husbands actively.

This is especially true in the pre-internet days. Most everything I was ever exposed to growing up was pro- complementarian.

And comps do present the situation as though there are only two options:

1. Be Complementarian (which is associated with being godly, biblical, conservative, holy, etc)
or
2. Be Feminist (reject God, the Bible, be a liberal)

They did not present any third alternative. That was one thing of a few that kept me stuck for a long time in complementarianism.

<a href="And comps do present the situation as though there are only two options:
1. Be Complementarian (which is associated with being godly, biblical, conservative, holy, etc)
or
2. Be Feminist (reject God, the Bible, be a liberal)

This is just your basic straw man argument. It’s a logical fallacy, and therefore, false.

dee wrote:

Grudem and others look at the Bible through their own lenses which appear to include the submission on all women in eternity.

Jesus knew that men would do this sort of nonsense and warned us about it.

Step back from the ever ridiculous parsing of verses on the Trinity- as if mankind could ever fully understand such a being. Instead, focus on His love and his willingness to forgive us all and fight on!

I know I brought this up on the last thread, but I cannot figure out why complementarians see complementarianism as a tool, or THE tool, to fix what they see as wrong with people or culture.

The NT never instructs Christians to clean up culture.

Secondly, where the NT (and Jesus) talks about humanity’s problem, it always goes back to sin.

Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”

But Jesus (and other portions of the NT) said things like this:

Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated?

18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man.

19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander

And:

What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you?

2 You crave what you do not have. You kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask.…

There is nothing in any of that saying women, feminism, or a supposed desire for women to usurp a man’s authority, are to blame for things gone wrong in the world.

Complementarians are using the wrong tool to fix a problem that doesn’t even really exist.

@ Deb:

Thank you. And I restrained myself and didn't mention anything about Pen#$ Homes (ed.) 😛

Gram3 wrote:

ishy wrote:
Their biggest flaw is that 90% of their core theology is based on about 5 verses.
—-
(Gram3 said)
And they are not sure about the meaning of many of the clobber verses and their contexts. It is really quite amazing that they are sure that women are prohibited from teaching men but they do not know what “saved by/through childbearing” means other than it does not mean what it plainly says. They cannot say what Paul means by his statement/rationale that the Man was created first and the Woman was deceived. It is really quite astonishing once you actually start to test what they are saying.

On the flip side of the coin is how most complementarians ignore or water down all the examples in the Bible that refute their gender views.

All the Deborahs, Junias, etc, are explained away or ignored.

@ ishy:
Um, I’m not a complementarian.

Now I know how to sound theologically competent to the Reformed crowd. That I am a “convictional egalitarian”

@ ishy:
Btw, if you got the idea I was a complementarian from my response to Judy, go back a re-read that, and do so knowing I was being completely sarcastic.

Paula Rice wrote:

The Messiah and the Word are synonymous. Diminish one you diminish them both together. That’s what the Bible teaches us in John chapter 1.

I think you’re conflating Jesus The Word with the written word.

trs wrote:

Isn’t it just like fallen nature to develop a doctrine of male entitlement based on
1. “I’m the oldest/first-created.” 2. “I sinned second.”
3. “She’s the second.” 4. “She sinned first.”
Therefore: Men rule everywhere, in every way, at all times, forever and ever, Amen. God said so.
~~~~~~~~~~
Missing the whole message of God’s SALVATION here, much . . . . Kids?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature.” 1 Corinthians 14:29

Their perspective also tends to overlook:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

And:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

No man played a role in the conception and birth of the Messiah.

ishy wrote:

Also a straw man argument, which coincidentally didn’t even relate to the point they were making.

It completely relates to the point. I’m not the one here whining about the fact the Bible personifies God’s revelation to us in that it has been something that has not taken place in one sitting, but rather it unfolded over time, as we see in the development of the Bible.

That, apparently, is a problem for some people who think it should have been written like a Stephen King novel, by one guy, over a short period of time.

So, I’m just sorry that God has let these people down in how He choose to unveil himself to us over a period of time, using countless authors. Maybe the Bible should have been titled, “The Great Scandal”.

Gram3 wrote:

So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

I know; it’s sad. People ask him questions as if he has answers, and all he has is a collection of random word associations. He reminds me of the final scene in That Hideous Strength (an ironically female subordinationist manifesto), where the bad guys become unintelligible.

@ Paula Rice:

What version of the Bible do you use? Do you read the Bible in its original languages, or an English translation?
Do you you know the history of the Bible, how it is we get our English translations?

Those are some of the points people here have been trying to get across to you, I think.

They are not attacking the Bible or saying they don’t believe in it or trust it, as you seem to think they are doing.

@ Paula Rice:

I don’t think Jesus is the same thing as the book I have with ink printed on paper that says “Holy Bible” on the cover.

@ Daisy:
1. He is the Spirit of Truth, who leads us into the Truth, who inspired the Scriptures to be written, and “Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17).

2. People can be dumb. Complementarians are a good example of this.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Such a man of mystery. Must I be forced to pursue you? Why such an onion? You make me weep, having to work, peeling off all the layers.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

That was a good link. Thank you.

The Low Sparrow wrote:

Now I know how to sound theologically competent to the Reformed crowd. That I am a “convictional egalitarian”

Excellent.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:Daisy wrote:

They are not attacking the Bible or saying they don’t believe in it or trust it, as you seem to think they are doing.

I do prefer to read the Bible in English, since it is the only language I speak and understand.

Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

Is Daisy your real name?

A brief tangent, before I go to bed:

How do you escape from a locked room, using only a sheet of paper?

1) You tear the paper in half.
2) Put the two halves back together again to make a whole.
3) Put the whole in the door.
4) Climb out through the hole in the door.

“Hole” and “whole” sound the same. So they must be the same.

okrapod wrote:

A side angle to this is that it creates a huge industry for books, lectures, one more seminary or bible college, one more mega church with a little different take on things, etc. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained through disagreement.

I can’t remember if it was this blog or another site I was on, but a week or two back, I saw someone online say that complementarians create all these gender problems and problems in marriages, then they write books with purported solutions to the problems they have created, and they try to sell these to the rank and file who believe in comp or who attend comp churches.

I do often wonder why God didn’t preserve any original manuscripts. I suspect that He knew we would probably put them behind glass in a temple and worship them.

Likewise, I find it interesting that Jesus Himself never wrote anything down, that we know of. Imagine how we might worship something in His own handwriting!

Still, I still find the Scriptures, and how we got them, fascinating.

Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.

Bridget wrote:

And the book did not exist when Jesus spoke those words.

That is true.

Even when Christians started writing the letters down and copying them when Christianity started out, not all churches had the whole New Testament.

Some churches only had a single book, or one or two pages from a book.

@ Paula Rice:

You sure do read a lot of stuff into people’s posts that isn’t there.

GSD wrote:

Completely off-topic: My job of 12 years is ending next week, somewhat unexpectedly. There is severance, and some good freelancing leads, but it has been extremely stressful. If you have 10 seconds to fire up a request for provision, I would appreciate it.

Praying that God will see you through this transition period in your life.

Paula Rice wrote:

That, apparently, is a problem for some people who think it should have been written like a Stephen King novel, by one guy, over a short period of time.
So, I’m just sorry that God has let these people down in how He choose to unveil himself to us over a period of time, using countless authors. Maybe the Bible should have been titled, “The Great Scandal”.

Your tone here was very rude, as it has been in a few other posts on this page and ones in the past.

You’re the one who has behaved through this thread as though the Bible was written in one day by one guy.

Several of us here have tried hinting or straight out discussing different aspects of the Bible, such as
-the fact that some of the earliest Christians did not have copies of it, or that
-how you got your English translation today is a product of textual criticism, which is based on scholarship.

Nobody here has said they feel “let down by God” in how the Bible arrived in its final form. That is a peculiar accusation to make.

trs wrote:

The cells that God took from Adam changed into something else, as did the same mud that God had used to form Adam, when God formed Eve. Likewise did the spirit/Spirit God breathed into Eve to give her equal-but-lesser being.

Yup. The first Petri dish clone was done in the Garden of Eden. God intentionally left some critical cells out in order to make woman a little less hu-MAN.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

“Hole” and “whole” sound the same. So they must be the same.

I see what you did there. 🙂

@ Lowlandseer:

“Call me old-fashioned with my high view of Scripture, as opposed to ‘Scribsher’, but I always thought that God would ensure that the meanings were clear. Sometimes I think we have not only a low view of the Bible, but also of God it’s Author.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

how do you explain 41,000 different denominations and organizations throughout the world?

if God does, in fact, ensure that the meanings are clear, why 10s of thousands of variations, full of disagreement with each other?

who’s right?

Tim wrote:

Regarding gender language: if the original language uses a word or phrase that technically says “man” (or similar) but in context refers to both women and men, then in English we need to use language that makes clear the reference to both men and women. That’s what good translators do.

Well, when Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” he was oviously only speaking to the menfolk. What man would want to be treated the way these comps insist that women are to be treated, even in the most ideal comp world?

BJ – Baylor is quite a long ways from Dee’s church. Several hours to be precise. My daughter went to Texas A&M College, in College Station. College Station is about an hour’s drive south of Baylor. Very pretty area. We have driven past their new football stadium several times. There are several really good churches in Baylor, but I don’t know which ones. I will have to ask her. She went to a big Baptist church in College Station. When I lived there for 3 mos, I went to it with her. Those young men who go into the ministry from A&M and Baylor, will often go to the Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth. My son goes to church with several of these young men. He stays away from the ones that are comp. Even though he feels women shouldn’t preach, he’s not a comp, but an egal.

Much of the Bible is the history of the Israelites. Let’s set aside the historical parts of the Bible for a moment and focus on what God tells his people to do, what Jesus tells his followers to do, and Paul’s sections on gifts. Now, let’s take a black Sharpie, and mark out all of those thing that comps say women can’t do, what’s left? What is really left from the Bible that actually applies to women? Almost nothing!

@ Christiane:
Are you suggesting there was never a time when the Catholic Church banned Scripture reading for the non clergy ….which was part of the larger original point before you deflected with the typical Catholic platitudinal rah rah sell job.

If Scripture is the final authority how did that affect early converts and even during the state church time when Scripture was often regulated for so many. That is the topic. No need for deflections.

I think you guys are great. I am all about freedom of worship and even those who want exclusive tribes. This is just a convo.

Velour wrote:

At the end of the day, I watch for the fruit: Does this person show the Royal Law of Love toward others no matter what denomination of Christianity they follow.

Bingo

Lea wrote:

@ Velour:
Your story made me cry. Beautiful.

Thanks, Lea.

It was an amazing night. We have an amazing God.

@ Lydia:

Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate? Are you saying that the scriptures were not read aloud as part of the mass such that even the illiterate had access to scripture? I thought, and I am not any authority on this, that one of the early issues in determining what was or was not scripture was what was being used and what was being approved for reading aloud during worship. I don’t know if that is true, but we do have Paul giving instructions to have his letter read to people, which I assumed meant that someone in the congregation who could read would do so for the benefit of those who could not.

One of the issues with imagery and iconography has been that the message can be relayed in more ways than just words on a page, or speeches from a preacher, or for that matter words of any sort. I am just not seeing that the universal church (that would be the church before the great schism) was in any way trying to deny people access to the message of scripture. Now they certainly did and the RCC still does retain the authority to interpret scripture to the magisterium of the church, but that is a different but related idea.

BTW, I read a history of Ireland, and what I read is basically what Christiane said. The Irish with all their huge history of poets and history of putting their own history into poetry were an oral society which, when given the opportunity of reading and writing took it up with the same enthusiasms that they had previously directed toward memorization of the poetry and history of the people. And took up Christianity enthusiastically. They combined the two and Irish monasteries produced large amounts of copied documents. At one low point in Christianity on the continent, or so the book said, the Irish sent missionary monks to re-evangelize the continent. Allegedly the monks had good success with the people partly because they did not live behind monastery walls while on mission in Europe but rather in hermitages among the people while they interacted with them and re-taught them Christianity.

This just does not look like some plot by the Church to keep everybody in the dark. It does look to me like people struggling against huge odds and persevering the best they could.

Paula Rice wrote:

You seem to be suggesting something here like the bible isn’t necessary and we don’t need it because there have been times when it wasn’t complete and because that was the case back then it’s the truth we’re to apply now, or something.

Well, let me offer you an apology.

I’m sorry that there were times when the Bible, as we know it today, wasn’t fully completed, and that this has led you to have doubts regarding the efficacy of God’s Word, and the amazing unfolding of His revelation to us over time, as wonderfully and miraculously revealed to us in the Bible.

Paula, was it the determinist God revealed or the free will God in this Word of God. You would think even that would be clear.

Why approach the Bible as an “either/or” proposition? Why assume I have doubts about what it is. I dont. I think your view actually takes away from the beauty of this collection of books over 1000 years and it’s overarching theme of Gods consistent provision of Rescue.. I don’t think God forced anybody to write. I think He inspired them to do so. And we see some inconsistencies and we can start with the law that became less and less important as we read through the Old Testament past Torah. And who decided which books would go into this collection? Did the “Word of God” decide? If so why are some left out of some traditions?

We are meant to read it, study it, discuss it and ponder it. I think it is amazing it exists at all. But it is not Jesus Christ.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
Basically the senior pastor/elders orchestrated criminal harassment/stalking of a grown woman. She responded by moving out of the family home, disconnecting her cell phone, disconnecting her email, and making sure that even her husband didn’t know the safe location she was living at.
What a terrifying world this sounds like. And in our country and in this millenium. It has ‘cult’ written all over it.

Indeed it does.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:
Well now, well now, what of this!?
Mary Kassian claims she came up with the word “Complementarianism”.
Could it be John Piper is being dishonest here? Could it be he knows Mary Kassian proffered the word but refused to acknowledge her?
Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular”.

Look at this wonderful woman – 80 years old and body builder: Ernestine Shepherd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATMByqkeM94

@ Lydia:

This conversation seems to have shifted from the idea that the church denied people access to scripture, which I think is how it started, to this now which is about whether people misused scripture. Those are not the same issues.

Of course people misuse and misapply scripture, Jesus even accused the teachers of the law of misusing and adding to the law to the detriment of the people. When did that ever not happen? And of course it is often involved with politics. For example, the current social and political situation in the US. For that matter there is a certain large religious persuasion right now undergoing right much uproar on an international scale–not just Christianity. None of that is what I am addressing. I thought you were saying, were you not, that the church was denying people access to scripture. I think mention was made of not letting laity have bibles, and mention was made of the use of Latin. So I talked about bibles, literacy, reading scripture in mass, and the use of Latin in some aspects of the culture other than just the church, and the production of copied manuscripts as an aside based on what Christiane brought up. This is what I have been talking about.

^Correction. There shouldn’t be a word above. I don’t know how that happened.
I was replying about the story I wrote of seeing a dying young man during the Christmas season one year.

“When you did this for the least among Me, you did it for Me.”

Daisy wrote:

On the other hand, I find it funny how some patriarchalists / complementarians cannot stick to their own convictions, or are not consistent.

I have to say I am surprised by the Baylys on this. It’s like they’ve gone all Two Kingdoms when we weren’t looking.

Daisy wrote:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

This falls into the same category as Ephesians 5:21. It cannot possibly mean what it plainly says, because “head” must mean boss, and this part of 1 Corinthians 11 makes it seem like Paul is talking about origin or source instead of authority. Nothing to see here or Ephesians 5:21. Move along to Authority and pay no attention to the context.

Gram3 wrote:

Daisy wrote:
On the other hand, I find it funny how some patriarchalists / complementarians cannot stick to their own convictions, or are not consistent.
I have to say I am surprised by the Baylys on this. It’s like they’ve gone all Two Kingdoms when we weren’t looking.

I don’t keep up with the Baylys and have only heard about them every few months.
What are they doing now?

@ okrapod:

When people study scripture they often come away with different understandings such as the case with transubstantiation, baptism, Free will, Calvinism, OEC, YEC, etc. Historically, There was an attempt to keep many people ignorant and illiterate to control them by the very political church state systems. And later, in a “free” country we did this with slaves. The SBC was founded on this shameful belief.

Just look at the explosion of denominations, sects and such when average people were allowed to be educated. I understand the need to defend a persons tribe but not at the expense of historical truth. The Popes, Princes, Kings and Electors were about power and the church was used to keep people under control. It seems rather disingenuous to pretend the magisterium were big cuddly teddy bears who wanted the best for people while they lived in palaces high above the teeming poverty stricken illiterate masses who were convinced to spend what little they had on indulgences in order to build more splendor in Rome. And just do a bit of research on the punishments meted out for daring to disagree with the church. Where there good types who tried to help people? Of course. Thank God. They often worked around the system in place, though.

All this goes back to the main discussion on a collection of books being the final authority for a believer. For over a millennia the average person could not get near the collection of books- scripture. What could they do but believe what they were told or keep their mouth shut if they disagreed?

Could they know Jesus Christ? I say, yes.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Keeps the WOMAN from becoming too “muscular”.

Haha I’ve enjoyed your comments today; spot on 😉

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?
I know; it’s sad. People ask him questions as if he has answers, and all he has is a collection of random word associations. He reminds me of the final scene in That Hideous Strength (an ironically female subordinationist manifesto), where the bad guys become unintelligible.

I need to see that film. Piper and random word association! This is so true! Like the Exodus 22 tweet asking if was God mooning the Pope. You gotta wonder how many retweets there were for that one.

I think there are some potentially hilarious SNL scripts with the way these guys communicate and their enthralled listeners. It is scary, though.

Lydia wrote:

Just look at the explosion of denominations, sects and such when average people were allowed to be educated.

Well, denoms have proliferated along with ideas. So when we look at that what can we say? Maybe the bible is too confusing for anybody to understand, for whatever reason, and no agreements can be reached. Fault of scripture. Maybe the people were not as ‘educated’ as they might seem. Fault of the people. Maybe unscrupulous leaders saw an opportunity to create their own little empires and convinced people to follow them. Fault of the leadership. Perhaps some of this is due to the mix of religion and culture in various nations and subcultures. Fault of cultural diversity. Maybe some secular power people took up the cause, like the german princes(?) with Luther, and it is mostly political. Fault of power politics. Maybe the people never were converted in the first place, regardless of which side of what fence they were on, and they just never could construct stable and workable conditions for church building. Nobody’s fault, just a sad situation.

I never said, and you know this I think, that the universal church was some cuddly teddy bear. But now I am saying that neither has been the divided church some cuddly teddy bear either. It is a crying shame on christianity, but there is enough blame to go around on this one.

Gram3 wrote:

Piper is incoherent in the video. He acknowledges the Gospel proclamation by women in China and the global South, but says that Gospel proclamation will be harmed in the long term unless there is a male voice proclaiming the Gospel. ???? He does say that Female Subordination is an essential, but then says that the Gospel needs protections like Female Subordination. The church which is the “pillar and bulwark” of the Gospel will “malfunction” without it. So, what is happening in the global South and China is a malfunction, John? Seriously?

We must consider the source. John Piper thought it was *a tragedy* for *The Gospel* that the abusive Mark Driscoll was fired. Piper cared not one wit about all of the firings, excommunications and shunnings of good and godly people at Mars Hill, the wrecked lives, marriages, and family.

For me, the firing of Mark Driscoll and the closing of Mars Hill was an answer to fervent prayers that I pounded God in Heaven with…to stop that horrible man his destruction.

Daisy wrote:

@ Velour:
If you follow Gram3’s link name in that post back up to mine, someone earlier in this thread (who I quoted) linked to a thing on the Bayly blog – it appears as though one of the Baylys may be voting for a woman candidate (Hillary) vs The Donald.

Knock me over with a feather.

Paula Rice wrote:

If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith?

That’s a really good question. I would think that my faith has multiple anchors. One is that I had an experience with something (or someone) transcendent that changed my life, and I haven’t gotten over it yet. The Bible informs me about that experience. IF I read it correctly.

The challenge is interpretation. We see everything through 21st century Western lenses. But the Bible is ancient literature, written primarily to people in a very different world, in a different time, and a different language. And to paraphrase Peterson, what it meant to them, is what it means. There is an objective reality that can only be grasped when we read the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When we start pulling verses out of context (as if the Bible was written with verses) and filtering them through our cultural lenses, we get the sort of weirdness that we see in the Calvinista/Comp movement.

To be a proper anchor, the Bible needs to be stuck in the contextual seabed of history, culture and language.

(Typed with one finger, on my ohone.)

Is the question (Paula Rice’s) that is being raised also rooted in the differences between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

Anything else.

Maybe the heavy-hitters Gram3, Max, Lydia, and others can weight in on this and its history. Sola Scriptura hasn’t always been around. It’s from the Reformation period.

Harley wrote:

This is what comp teaching does to the young. Ruins lives and marriages.

Harley,

My ex-NeoCalvinist pastor also was a control freak, along with his hand-picked yes-men elders, who called any question from a thinking adult “gossip”.

Like you, I’ve seen NeoCalvinism/Comp destroy lives. The whole thing makes me so angry I couldn’t even properly read or comment over on Tim Fall’s blog when some man was over there calmly defending Comp and its proponents.

Velour wrote:

Are you quoting that group from the late 1970’s that met in that hotel in Chicago and signed that statement?
“Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement

I am not sure if Paula Rice was referring to the Chicago Statement (signed in the late 1970’s at a hotel in Chicago in this discussion about the authority of Scripture). I believe its proponents were Grimsted and Rushdoony. I believe that their plan was to have the United States modeled after the Old Testament and to Reconstruct that period, having a theocracy.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/general.htm

It’s also from the Shepherding Movement, of course.

They seem pretty out there. Supporting slavery. Supporting slavery for non-Christians.
Saying that slavery in The South was a good thing. Denying the Holocaust.

Supporting Patriarchy. Women as second-class citizens. Profound racial prejudice toward the Jewish people. (And to think our Lord was Jewish, his parents on earth were Jewish. His family was Jewish. His disciples were Jewish. The people He evangelized were Jewish.)

No thanks. These men behind that Chicago Statement have horrible beliefs and they manipulated a few words to make themselves seem plausible.

Paula Rice wrote:

It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations, more or less. Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

It does not leave me following the crowd. I have not thrown the Bible out with the bath water. But I do follow the Holy Spirit as best I can, and I am not ashamed of that, nor should anyone be even if you mock them for it with your “flower power” remarks. If you read Scripture carefully, you’ll see that God worked with and through people in same strange ways. Since God is one . . . I wouldn’t expect much different from the Holy Spirit.

I have lived in Silicon Valkey my whole life. I am going to go check out Grace Bible Fellowship.

@ Paula Rice:

Yes, the bible contains truth. There are a number of ways to interpret many passages. I’ll make an informed decision on how I interpret them. My faith is anchored in a number of things, the bible being one of them.

Paula Rice wrote:

If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are)

Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

Leslie wrote:

I have lived in Silicon Valkey my whole life. I am going to go check out Grace Bible Fellowship.

It was so sad what happened there. All of the dear saints who were so mistreated.
I have never seen anything like it.

Many ex-members told me that they and their families fled due to the rising Authoritarianism of the pastors/elders, the legalism, and the fact that they had overstepped Biblical bounds. These were families and couples who loved the Lord.

I just laugh at what a hot mess that place is. My ex-pastor claimed to have has a pastoral job at John MacArthur’s church that MacArthur said was a lie and that he was only a volunteer, like scores of others. Teaching credential he claimed to have, and all of the stories he claimed around that, the State of California Teacher Credentialing said was a lie and they’d never credentialed him. Ph.D. he claimed he had is $299 from an online diploma mill in Missouri.

Oh well, I’ve come out the other side of it. I’ve learned here and elsewhere about Comp, about the heavy-Shepherding Movement from the 1970’s (9Marks is this all over again), and on and on.

Pride goeth before the fall. And what a fall he and the other pastors/elders are going to have with the level of pride they have.

I’ve heard so many horror stories, from so many people, all ages of the horrible way they were treated there, hauled into meetings.

A lovely family told me that they were going to join and the husband said the Holy Spirit warned him in prayer, “No.” A wife’s uncle toward her “no” (they have no outside authority, they answer to no one). Others received similar warnings from discerning Christians.

I feel so sorry for all the damaged lives from those false teachings.

Lydia wrote:

All this goes back to the main discussion on a collection of books being the final authority for a believer. For over a millennia the average person could not get near the collection of books- scripture. What could they do but believe what they were told or keep their mouth shut if they disagreed?

Could they know Jesus Christ? I say, yes

Yes, they could know him. The tragedy is that in spite of knowing him, they could be kept in bondage, weighed down with many strange and terrifying teachings with no way to ascertain for themselves whether these things were actually found in the scriptures.

@ elastigirl:
Yes! A mighty wind!

GSD wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:
If not the Bible what, pray tell, anchors your faith?
That’s a really good question. I would think that my faith has multiple anchors. One is that I had an experience with something (or someone) transcendent that changed my life, and I haven’t gotten over it yet. The Bible informs me about that experience. IF I read it correctly.
The challenge is interpretation. We see everything through 21st century Western lenses. But the Bible is ancient literature, written primarily to people in a very different world, in a different time, and a different language. And to paraphrase Peterson, what it meant to them, is what it means. There is an objective reality that can only be grasped when we read the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When we start pulling verses out of context (as if the Bible was written with verses) and filtering them through our cultural lenses, we get the sort of weirdness that we see in the Calvinista/Comp movement.
To be a proper anchor, the Bible needs to be stuck in the contextual seabed of history, culture and language.
(Typed with one finger, on my ohone.)

Maybe this is one reason NT Wright is so interesting. He was an Ancients scholar before he studied theology.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Are you saying that having access to written scripture, had that been possible, would be an advantage to people who were illiterate?
It’s called “Magic Book-ism”.

I wasn’t actually playing the magic book card at all. I was saying it is easier to control such people who are dependent in a church state culture and encourage believe all sorts of superstitions, etc. However, I do believe in the Holy Spirit.

Daisy wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:
Nobody here has said they feel “let down by God” in how the Bible arrived in its final form. That is a peculiar accusation to make.

I think we are extremely blessed to be alive right now. We are, for the most part, a literate people and have many translations, study tools, interlinears and such at our fingertips. We can study Greek and Hebrew. When I think of what Catherine Bushnell had to go through to write “Gods Word to Women”, I count my many blessings even more. We really have no excuses!

Yet, the bible does not save.

okrapod wrote:

One of the issues with imagery and iconography has been that the message can be relayed in more ways than just words on a page, or speeches from a preacher, or for that matter words of any sort. I am just not seeing that the universal church (that would be the church before the great schism) was in any way trying to deny people access to the message of scripture. Now they certainly did and the RCC still does retain the authority to interpret scripture to the magisterium of the church, but that is a different but related idea.

One of the problems that I see is that the teaching of eternal torment in hell was given a great place and embellished to keep people in fear and obedience. I do not see the concept of hell treated in the same way in the scriptures at all.

@ siteseer:
Beautifully and thoughtfully written!

Lydia wrote:

It seems rather disingenuous to pretend the magisterium were big cuddly teddy bears who wanted the best for people while they lived in palaces high above the teeming poverty stricken illiterate masses who were convinced to spend what little they had on indulgences in order to build more splendor in Rome. And just do a bit of research on the punishments meted out for daring to disagree with the church. Where there good types who tried to help people? Of course. Thank God. They often worked around the system in place, though.

Hi Lydia,
well, there are no excuses for the abuses by powerful people in the Church, no. So, I can read your thoughts here and agree with much of your frustration with what went on. But yes, when the Church Catholic became too worldly, there WERE good types who ‘wanted to help people’. And, in their simplicity of soul, they were more powerful than all the bejewelled ‘princes of the Church’, yes. That’s the beauty of the Body of Christ. When it works well, it comes to the aid of those who have gone too far in the wrong direction, and points them back to Our Lord, but gently, yet firmly, by example, by the way of grace.
So many ‘good’ people all down through the ages of the Church. So many.
I think of Francis of Assisi who changed the Church …. one person, one reformer, no earthly power, no ‘wealth’ (he gave all of his money away), and yet he carried the peace of Christ to those who had lost their way.

I think of Damien of Molokai and how he was much unsupported by the powers of the Church, but still, he changed the Church through how his life and death reflected Our Lord’s example.

Lottie Moon was not Catholic, and yet she is embraced by the Body of Christ and her work is celebrated formally in the Anglican Church. She struggled ‘as a woman’ to answer a call to serve and received little encouragement from the powers that be, and yet …. not one of these ‘gated community’ mega-pastors can come near her for how she brought Our Lord to others, even in the end perishing from starvation for love of her Chinese people.

‘good people’ …. they reside in Christ, and are not bound to or separated by denominations …. they can, by their own example in imitation of Christ, re-direct a forlorn and discouraged Church. Their power is not of this earth, nor is it even ‘their’ power, it belongs to Our Lord working through them …. and He will keep sending these good people until He returns.

Max wrote:

Lottie Moon’s ministry continues to serve as a model of how to do it right on the foreign mission field. She was a tremendous Gospel teacher, preacher, and evangelist. When she returned from China on furlough, she was welcomed in Southern Baptist pulpits to preach … something that SBC’s new reformers would frown on – it just wouldn’t be the complementarian thing to do. However, they are thrilled to receive funds from the annual Lottie Moon offering to finance their “new and improved” mission effort under Calvinist leadership. Mission and evangelism is defined differently in the world of reformed theology … harvesting the “elect” is not the same as reaching the lost “from every nation, tribe, people and language.” Lottie had a burden to carry the Gospel to China, rather than a theology.

Max: I once shared in a sermon that Lottie Moon preached and the Associational Director of Missions and his wife were in the audience. I wish I had a picture of the two when I said this–the Director of missions looked extremely angry and his wife was smiling.

For better or worse I think I went on this Director of Mission’s list to be gotten rid of from this church and association. You see my saying Lottie Moon preached made me a LIBERAL!

@ siteseer:

that was really great, siteseer. so honest, & heartfelt. thank you for taking the time to write this.

@ mot:

that Associational Director of Missions is a small-minded git.

elastigirl wrote:

@ mot:

that Associational Director of Missions is a small-minded git.

I can never prove it but IMO most of the ministers in the Association follow the party line so they can keep their church. I just can not live my life that way.

okrapod wrote:

It is a crying shame on christianity, but there is enough blame to go around on this one.

I don’t think the average person had much of a choice in those days unless they were willing to give up their life. Many did just that.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:
looks like we’re both up very late and up very early…. frustrating as far as sleep goes. but TWW is a great diversion for those hours.

It was hot at night. I’m up with the windows open, cooling off the house, drinking coffee.
Some time I pull those blue ice packs (used for injuries) out of the freezer and wrap them in pillow cases and sleep with them. I was too tired to do that last night. My bad. It would have helped me sleep better.

Have a great day.

@ Velour:

one thing great about where we live — cool mornings & nights (except when your home absorbs the heat of the day). don’t you just love that marine layer, every few days?

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:
one thing great about where we live — cool mornings & nights (except when your home absorbs the heat of the day). don’t you just love that marine layer, every few days?

Indeed.

Not today, but another weekend I am planning to drive to Capitola. Have a meal at Gayle’s Bakery (so good). Go to the beach.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Velour:
marianne’s, too? (Ocean St, SC)

Oh yes!

I used to live in the Seabright neighborhood of Santa Cruz.

Paula Rice wrote:

I can’t help but wonder as to why you’re all so comfortable here with promoting this view if yours of the Bible that is at odds with mainstream Christianity.

The Blue Parakeet – Rethinking How You Read The Bible, sample chapters:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VclJg79MDGoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

mot wrote:

I can never prove it but IMO most of the ministers in the Association follow the party line so they can keep their church.

That would explain why SBC’s 45,000+ pastors (mostly non-Calvinist) do not have “family talks” to inform their congregations about the proliferation of New Calvinism in SBC ranks. That exercise would be too little too late at this point. If New Calvinist leaders are sinful enough to bring back ancient practices of shunning and excommunication, they wouldn’t have a problem with black-listing dissenting pastors. All sounds like God, doesn’t it?

elastigirl wrote:

don’t you just love that marine layer, every few days?

Haven’t had one in about a week. Hope it comes tonight 🙂

Paula Rice wrote:

But it begs the question. If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are), yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative, used to judge between truth and error, then where does that leave you?

It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations, more or less. Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

You clearly are misreading my views on this, and I think the views of several other participants on this thread.

You said,
“…yet do not rely upon Scripture as authoritative”

In so far as I remain a believer, I do regard the Scriptures as authoritative.

However, I don’t hold an uninformed view of the English Bible translations we have in the present that they just fell out of Heaven one day, already completed.

I am also not under the illusion that everyone approaches the biblical text with no prejudices and biases (including the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek into English), because everyone does.

YOu said,
“It leaves you following the crowd or trusting in your own inclinations,”

You’re doing that very thing, too.

You are filtering your understanding of the Bible and its purpose (and related issues, such as biblical inerrancy and sufficiency), through your own set of biases and preconceptions – but mocking everyone who doesn’t share your particular understandings and preconceptions down to the last jot and tittle.

You said,

Or in your own concepts of who the Holy Spirit is, and how the Spirit works in and through your life.

Once more, you’re in the same position as the rest of us. Who says your concepts of the Holy Spirit is any more correct than anyone else’s here? Because you read the Bible?

-Well I’ve read the Bible too, as have most others on this thread, and their interpretations of the Bible may not be the same as yours.

Unless, maybe you are completely denying that the Holy Spirit does anything for believers today (other than supposedly point people to the Bible).

You said,

Let’s call it Flower Power, then, shall we? And maybe if I change my name to Sunflower or Peony, I’d seem less “rude” lol

I’d now add condescending to the list.

I’m not, nor have I ever been, a hippy dippy, Flower power, touchy feely, liberal, either.

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Is the question (Paula Rice’s) that is being raised also rooted in the differences between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?
I might should look into that Prima Scriptura view some more.
I think Sola Scriptura is pretty good, in- so- far as Protestants / Baptists don’t go nuts with it and misapply it, which they often do.
(Like the sola- scriptura- believing- Christians who yell at depressed Christians to “read the Bible more!” and discourage them from seeing a psychiatrist and go on anti-depressant medications, for example.)

As for me, I am not listening to anything that came out of that Chicago Statement/Inerrancy of Scripture.

The proponents of it are sick and twisted men – advocating that the U.S. forms of government and systems be abolished in favor of an Old Testament model, that their special little group take over our country, that have supported slavery and said it was a good thing, they have advocated that non-Christians be slaves in our times, they have denied the Holocaust, and they have made vile, hate-filled attacks on the Jewish people (apparently it’s lost on them that Jesus was Jewish).

Why did anyone listen to them for a single second? They are nutcases.

I’m not a crafts person, but if I was — I’d fold them tinfoil hats. Those guys have wires loose!

@ Bridget:

too long!

i really don’t get all that weather talk… high pressure, low pressure, off-shore flow… i don’t the weathergirl & -guy really get it either. they just know the words, corresponding gestures, and of course perkiness.

i’m bored right now, you see…

elastigirl wrote:

@ Bridget:
too long!
i really don’t get all that weather talk… high pressure, low pressure, off-shore flow… i don’t the weathergirl & -guy really get it either. they just know the words, corresponding gestures, and of course perkiness.
i’m bored right now, you see…

I took meteorology in college. That was a fascinating class and I learned so much!
I never thought I’d like it. For you and me – here in Northern California/Silicon Valley when our fog rolls in it’s because it’s really hot inland. Nature is trying to balance things out, exchanging cool air with hot air.

There’s so many other fascinating concepts. I am so glad that I took that class.

Lydia wrote:

That is the go to statement on inerrancy and scripture as authoritative. What they were really advocating was THEIR interpretations– whatever they may be. (Oh the irony this statement was crafted long before the YRR movement had its tentacles everywhere)

Yes, I was on to them.

elastigirl wrote:

Yes, the bible contains truth. There are a number of ways to interpret many passages. I’ll make an informed decision on how I interpret them. My faith is anchored in a number of things, the bible being one of them.

Regarding this part:
“Yes, the bible contains truth.”

If she is anything like the KJVOs I used to run into years ago (and maybe she’s not, but if she is), that phrase will set her teeth on edge.

It’s not enough to say or believe the Bible “contains” truth…

You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.

But even if you stick a group of 100 Christians into a room who all agree that the Bible is THE truth, and they all ascribe to a literal translation, inerrancy, etc., they will all still disagree on some doctrines.

They will still interpret it differently. They may occasionally agree with each other on some topics, but not all.

Which does rather make me wonder what is the point in having a holy, infallible book if its readers cannot agree on what it says.

I once had a web page bookmarked that discussed some of this stuff.

I’d like to link you to that, but I cannot find the page at the moment. I’ll keep looking for that page.

In the mean time, here’s another good one:

Not everything in the Bible is Biblical!
http://www.marcalanschelske.com/not-biblical/

Gram3 wrote:

Maybe arguing about denominations or parsing the Chicago Statement is like those who argue that males bear the image of God directly but females only indirectly (9Marks, Ware, Owen) or that one sex is somehow superior to the other (rarely stated that directly.) Maybe God made two sexes because it pleased him to do that….
Maybe that is why cranky conservative inerrantist Gram3 carefully reads the comments from people here who are not any of those to try to listen and learn from what they are saying because I know I have been very wrong about some things I believed very firmly.

You’re lovely, Gram3.

You know what today is? It’s the day for our favorite frozen dessert: Sacred Cow sundae (Gram3 TM).

Thanks for helping, along with others here, to teach me to a Berean. To look at the men behind these movements and their motives.

@ Gram3:

Brava, Gram! Amen.

@ Gram3:

“Maybe God is interested in the process of building Christ’s church, and that process is messy. Maybe God likes some variety of expression just like I like a mixed bouquet much better than one flower and a fruit salad better than one fruit.”
+++++++++++++++

this is how I see it. also, i think God is so multi-dimensional that some things which to us seem contradictory (hence all the religious variety) are at once true.

even so, may crickets of all kinds infest the bedrooms and bodies of those who exploit it for their own benefit.

@ Daisy:

“You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.”
+++++++++++++

as long as your interpretations agree with theirs.

their logical heaven will be lonely, for sure.

Nancy2 wrote:

You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.

So, it’s enforced unity? Some unity that is, LOL.

Reminds me of the phrase “Mandatory Fun.”

Daisy wrote:

You must affirm it is THE TRUTH, wholly, every part, and that is is your “final authority” in all matters of faith. etc. etc. and so forth.

I don’t feel beholden to these groups that meet at hotels and draft statements about *pressing issues* to suit their own agendas and expect all of us to adopt their language, go along with the program, or that we’re heathens. They really are self-centered. “Because we said so.” Snort.

The Chicago Statement group wanted their own special little group to take over the United States, run the government and its institutions (they planned for this to spread locally, state-wide, and nation-wide and expected the rest of us to roll over and play dead), have a theocracy, and institute slavery of non-Christians (which they have defended in previous years of our nation as a *good thing*, I guess because it wasn’t them and their children enslaved. Sojourner Truth would beg to differ with them, were she alive having been in slavery and seen all of her children sold.) The proponents’ attacks on the Jewish people are likewise hideous.

@ Gram3:
One thing that is never wrong is to stand against spiritual abuse that comes in so many guises –some quite heinous.. There are so many who want to sweep it under the rug and never do the tough task of analyzing how such things could operate for so long in these systems. If I had a dollar for every time someone has said there are no perfect people or churches I would be rich. I have never understood what perfection has to do with not harming children, for example. I have never understood the idea that since this happens everywhere else why not church?

It is interesting to think about what causes spiritual abuse to be able to not only happen but to become the normal in some groups for so long. Maybe the answer lies there and I think we touch on many of the reasons quite often without attributing them.

My view of scripture is a bit different. I think there has to be freedom in interpretation but that also means there are groups I won’t feel comfortable with I won’t be comfortable with the cheap grace crowds or those that include comp in the Gospel. I am not an inerrantist because I don’t think the word fits. I believe scripture was Inspired. I have a more conservative view in how the Kingdom operates when it comes to obvious intent with right and wrong.

If Christians love their tribes (and there are many) more than the lives of innocent children, we are in big trouble. Actually, I don’t view it as Christianity.

Max wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
You must agree to protect church unity by submitting to the elders.
But what they really mean is “You must agree to protect church leadership by submitting to the elders.” Coerced unity is not genuine unity. At best they are striving for harmony; harmony is not unity. Requiring agreement and accord with patriarchy is a way to ensure its survival.

You must agree to protect Authoritarianism.

My ex-pastors are so out of control on these issues, feeling it is their right to control other adults’ lives, that as they spin more and more out of control they are facing arrest and prosecution (including for Criminal Conspiracy, Aiding & Abetting, Obstruction of Justice, Stalking, Intimidating a Witness, not adhering to mandated Child Abuse Reporting laws, the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, and on and on).

I think they need to be humbled with handcuffs, Miranda Rights read to them, prosecution, and a tour-of-duty of jail or prison time. The rights they allege they have via Membership Covenants and their *authority* are all criminal acts in my state (California), just like if they were a gang. And at this point they are a gang and they haven’t had anything in common with Christ.

Daisy wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.
How does such a view line up with (I believe this was written to believers):
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

Don’t misunderstand me because I don’t agree with Paula’s assertion but this is a perfect example of how static literal interpretations can become a problem and why we have to be thoughtful about the whole authoritative scripture business.

Later in 1 John he says:

“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”

So we see here the problem with an either/or approach to scripture. And using the either/or approach means we often miss the larger meaning that is so very beautiful and encouraging. We also have challenges defining sin. Some scholars say it is missing the mark of Gods perfection which means we are stuck until we die. Some say it is missing the mark of bearing His image which seems more plausible to me.

Practical Effects of [Biblical] Translational Bias
http://www.wholebible.com/Translational_Bias.htm

@ Gram3:

Something else your comment reminded me of was my utter frustration (back when I was still around the system) of the myopic devotion to Paul instead of Jesus Christ. I had not viewed Paul as an enemy of what is good and just until being immersed in it.

It broke my heart. I felt like he was not only maligned but elevated to Christ status and he would be appalled! I used to imagine him writing a scathing plea to beg them to reconsider this.

Ken F wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.
Does behavior define identity? I once looked up every instance of “sinner“ in the NT to see if believers are called sinners. The result surprised me.

Great question. There have been debates that good fruit denotes correct doctrine or what some present as orthodoxy. I tend to think it denotes behavior. I also looked up what believers are called and was also surprised. It is not ‘sinner’. Saints, brothers/sisters, friends, etc.

BJ wrote:

By that are you referring to Baylor? I’m just concerned because my husband and I are sending our son there in August.

We had an exchange student from Brazil who is like a daughter to us. She went to seminary at Baylor. You don’t have to worry about that school being 9Marxist/authoritarian/Calvinista. Roger Olson was one of her professors and he definitely does not subscribe to their views.

Nancy2 wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:

If you’re all such sinners (for those that believe you are)

Ah, so you are the one who believes that once a person is saved, said person is no longer a sinner.

I’m glad you made mention of this so I can explain. And Im glad you brought this up here, under the post about Complementarianism, because what I have to say here not only lies at the heart of the Gospel, but is the reason why Complementarianism is an anti-Christ teaching.

It all has to do with our ontological identities.

So, laying aside how each we identify the Bible as being (what you believe the Bible is – a very important component of the Christian faith), and the Trinity (what you believe about who God is – another primary component of the Christian faith), I want to address how each of us identifies ourselves as being, and its’ relevancy to the Gospel, and the debate surrounding Complementarian.

There is a battleground here. To fight, we must know who we are in Christ. Knowing our identity helps us to identify our enemy, and to recognize the nature of the force we’re warring against.

We have an enemy, the Accuser of the Brethren, who sows seeds of doubt, fear, and unbelief into our ranks, seeking to disrupt our relationship with God, and cause division among us.

To guard against these attacks, we must clothe ourselves with the weapons of our warfare. Additionally, we have a responsibility to discern the work of the evil one in our lives. We’re all charged with being Watchmen.

Our faith in Christ Jesus goes well beyond the promise of a future in heaven; it affects the here and now. Our acceptance of the Gospel radically changes our identity. Our lives were buried in baptism raised with Him in newness of Life. The old man of sin was cut off and we have been we have made new creations in Christ. The old is gone, the new has come!

There’s a tension in the Christian life between what is and what shall be. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that the reality that awaits us is fundamentally different from the reality we live in today.

Complementarianism is focused on this very thing. At its core, it seeks to redefine us in our essential being, and to accomplish this, it sought to redefine Christ in His essential Being. The two must be addressed together in order to resist and rid ourselves of this invasion, because Who Christ is has a direct impact upon who we are in Him.

Who you are in Christ Jesus affects your whole, entire identify. You are no longer estranged from God, living under His wrath, under the power and dominion of sin. As His dearly beloved, fully accepted in Him, your righteousness is not your own that you earned through good works, rather your righteousness is His righteousness that has been imputed to you. It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, which is not of ourselves – it is a gift from God.

When God looks upon the believer in Christ, He sees us washed, cleansed, and forgiven of our sin. Sin was what had separated us from God prior to our conversion. We no longer stand guilty before God because our sins have been atoned. Nothing now can separate us. We are the Redeemed of the Lord.

We are not yet as we will be, but that doesn’t change who we are in Christ. The choice to sin remains, but we are no longer “sinners”. Our status and identity has been transformed through our faith in Christ Jesus, and due to the imputation of His righteousness to us.

Our primarily identity, that supercedes all others, is Christ, who is our life. Other identifiers like gender, race, class, nationality, etc. are all transcended. What unites us together is Christ.

Knowing Christ, and who we are in Him, is key to our spiritual warfare. A key piece of our equipment is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, which we must not neglect or minimize its importance.

We must stand fast, knowing that Christ has untangled us from the yoke of sin, and lay hold, by faith, the newness of life that is ours in Christ Jesus! All of this, the Bible says, is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God!

Complementarianism is a lie. It lies to us about who we are, and who Jesus is. It’s a heretical doctrine that must be resisted and it’s teachers exposed. Know your rights as a citizen of the Kingdom, and fight to defend your freedom!

@ siteseer:
I appreciated your testimony and how you came to faith in Christ through your reading of the Bible.

I noticed you referred to it as a book. Yes, it’s a book, but what sets it apart from all others is the fact that it’s fully inspired unlike any other book.

The inspiration contained in the Bible is intended to be transferred to us, producing in us, as temples of the Spirit, spiritual transformation. The Bible is for us, the singlemost source of the Christian life, whereupon we receive our knowledge and revelation as to who God is producing in us the faith we need to live by.

Yes, it’s a book. But it’s contents are intended to become fleshed out in us, as they were fully realized in Christ Jesus – the Word who became flesh, and lived among us.

Gram3 wrote:

try to listen and learn from what they are saying because I know I have been very wrong about some things I believed very firmly.

That’s kind of the position I’ve been in the last 2, 3 years. I’m more willing to consider I might be wrong about stuff.

About this:

Maybe God likes some variety of expression just like I like a mixed bouquet much better than one flower and a fruit salad better than one fruit.

If God liked nuts in his fruit salad recipe, I might be one of those nuts. 🙂

@ Paula Rice:

You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

Paula Rice wrote:

One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Several people here have brought up the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not take the place of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our help and impart power to the believer.

Lydia wrote:

It also under girds sin leveling and a perfect example of which we saw at SGM.

And I have to disagree with you here. SGM emphasized consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum, that we were sinners.

CJ Mahaney consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum emphasized that he himself was a sinner, and the worst sinner he knew.

This emphasis was something he intended to be imparted. He wasn’t just speaking for himself. The “Savior” of SGM was a guy who was stuck, nailed to the Cross, who never triumphed over sin.

In fact, he’s still there, hanging from those nails. Someone needs to go rescue that poor, pathetic false Jesus from the crucifixion CJ Mahaney inflicts upon his false god, day after day!! Call 911!

@ Paula Rice:

I’m not sure where you are going with your various arguments on this thread. Your arguments seems to fit points number 3, 4, 5, 6, and maybe 18 of this link: http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

If that’s not your intent you might want to consider taking a step back and considering whether or not you are writing in way that could be misunderstood. I don’t believe you are malicious in your intent.

@ Max:
O generally point out at this point that Catholicism and the Orthodox churches are the last large defenses among orthodoxy (small o, basically Nicene Christianity) but it occurred to me that denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree

Lydia wrote:

@ Paula Rice:
You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.
—-
(Lydia replied):
Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

I was one of those people.

I asked her a time or two where the Holy Spirit is in her worldview, since she is so heavily a Biblicist she appears to make no room for the Holy Spirit, only seeming to say he points people to the Bible and that’s all he does or is good for(?) (Unless I misunderstood her earlier comments)

@ Paula Rice:

i do appreciate you taking the time to so thoroughly summarize these things. For the most part, I’m in agreement.

Paula Rice wrote:

CJ Mahaney consistently, repeatedly, ad nauseum emphasized that he himself was a sinner, and the worst sinner he knew.

1) Then why’d this guy get up on a Pedestal/Altar and stay there?

2) This also sounds like “Utter Total Depravity” plus “Can You Top This?” Unlike the usual Church Lady types who glory in their own Righteousness, these guys glory in their own Utter Depravity. (Like the Comte/Marquis de Sade?)

DW wrote:

@ Max:
O generally point out at this point that Catholicism and the Orthodox churches are the last large defenses among orthodoxy (small o, basically Nicene Christianity) but it occurred to me that denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree

I don’t know. Missouri Lutherans have been involved in the CBMW since I believe J O O Pruess was on the board of reference of this organization. Missouri Lutheran scholars have studied at the reformed SBTS. You have to turn to the more conservative Lutheran bodies who are very cautious towards the Reformed to find some of the real bulwarks of orthodoxy. This being said, the Book of Concord does contain the Nicene creed. My suspicion is some elements in Missouri will fall away to ESS but most will stay orthodox. The fall out will be much less in more insular separatist Lutheran denominations such as WELS or ELS. We will wait and see how this plays out.

Daisy wrote:

I see people in the news who say they are Christian, but they’ve been arrested or found out for swindling hundreds of thousands of dollars off senior citizens over the years, or repeatedly hiring child prostitutes for years – I have a hard time seeing how such a person is really a believer or follower of Christ.

Then, though, you have some Christians who act as though accepting Christ translates into immediate full sanctification right here and now in this lifetime, which I don’t see as being right or true, either.

The two go together.
The second provides cover for the first, as well as forcing Christians into a double life. Since everyone (including themselves) expects them to instantly become “a new creature” utterly without sin, they have to hide anything & everything that could possibly indicate their salvation didn’t “take”. Or “Sanctify their Sin” with a coat of God-paint like Driscoll’s “I SEE THINGS…” Either way, it trains in deceit and deception until (like in that old Twilight Zone episode) the Mask becomes the Face.

Lydia wrote:

@ Paula Rice:

You wrote: One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Not true. Several People have consistently brought up the holy spirit throughout this entire discussion on biblical authority.

Maybe Paula has a different Holy Spirit?
Like the Bible? Or Neo-Cal Pastor/Guru?

Paula Rice wrote:

@ Bridget:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

Velour wrote:

My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill. Snort. He is a piece of work. (Church insiders give me the emails. They said he’s losing it and is so abusive and they want out.)

Keep dropping those dimes, Velour.

Maybe Pastor will lose it to the point he drives everyone away (except maybe his pet pedo) and ends up screaming from the pulpit to an empty building.

Or gets in the news some other way — either as a perp or YouTube spectacle. You did say three police agencies and the State AG have been alerted.

@ Gram3:

Mark wrote: Don’t know where this places me.
Gram3 wrote: In good company. 🙂
+++++++++++++++++++++

in a place where only the broadest labels apply: human, believes in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit

elastigirl wrote:

i personally dislike religious language, including “sin”, “sinner”. because the load they carry in baggage far outweighs the meaning. as i see it, we all do wrong at times, for which there are consequences in our lives/relationships.

“You give yourself too much credit. The world has always been broken.”
— Chief Bogo, Zootopia

Velour wrote:

The rights they allege they have via Membership Covenants and their *authority* are all criminal acts in my state (California), just like if they were a gang. And at this point they are a gang and they haven’t had anything in common with Christ.

Like Boko Haram and Daesh, “A bandit gang operating under cover of religion.”

Bridget wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:

One thing I notice, that is often neglected in conversations like these, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Several people here have brought up the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not take the place of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our help and impart power to the believer.

“Saint John Chrysostom likewise observed that the New Law was promulgated at the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the day of Pentecost,
and that the Apostles “did not come down from the mountain carrying, like Moses, tablets of stone in their hands;
but they came down carrying the Holy Spirit in their hearts… having become by His grace a living law, a living book”

The ‘power’ of the Holy Spirit is very little comprehended today outside of circles that interpret Scripture in the context of tradition,
but this ‘power’ is like NOTHING earthly, and it will be available to us until the coming of Our Lord, as we are still in need of it in this strange and alien land.

What IS this immense power of the Holy Spirit? well, here it is illustrated in the context of one Christian tradition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZND53eM-Ks

Mark wrote:

I am uncertain presuppositions influenced by culture don’t sometimes corrupt interpretation.

Oh, for sure!

I’ve been meditating on the subject of wisdom. In Proverbs, wisdom is personified as a woman, crying out in the streets. This is what she says:

“How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?

How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?

Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.

The fear of the Lord is the “beginning of wisdom” and we’re told to ask and keep on asking, to seek and keep on seeking, to knock and keep on knocking.

The Kingdom of God, Jesus said, is like hidden treasure; a pearl of great price; a net that catches all kinds of fish. It’s something we are to desire and seek after, and if we lack wisdom, we’re invited to ask, and we’re told it’s something God desires to generously give us.

So, we’re on a treasure hunt. I’m glad it’s like this, but it can be frustrating when we go through the deep, dark valleys where the lights go out and our faith is really put to the test.

seems to me labels are for sorting, for other people to sort us. the more labels a person wears, the more their lot or plot is reduced. the more their freedom of perspective is reduced. the more people define who we are, instead of we ourselves defining who we are.

each of us is so multi-faceted, having been forged through pressure and challenge. why should we let people label & label & label us back down into a lump of coal?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Since everyone (including themselves) expects them to instantly become “a new creature” utterly without sin, they have to hide anything & everything that could possibly indicate their salvation didn’t “take”.

Or “Sanctify their Sin” with a coat of God-paint like Driscoll’s “I SEE THINGS…” Either way, it trains in deceit and deception until (like in that old Twilight Zone episode) the Mask becomes the Face.

Under this sort of thinking, Christians aren’t permitted to have problems in life, either.

I’ve tried opening up to other Christians in real life, and it resulted not in receiving emotional support and encouragement, but shaming, judging, and criticism.

I’ve received the message from a lot of Christians that it’s Not okay to have problems, hurt, and to talk about any of that.

@ Gram3:
Lol!

Velour wrote:

My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.

It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

Daisy wrote:

Ken F wrote:
I’m not sure where you are going with your various arguments on this thread.
Your arguments seems to fit points number 3, 4, 5, 6, and maybe 18 of this link: http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
I would add #17 too.

That was an excellent article.

Velour wrote:

That was an excellent article.

My wife found it somewhere. As she was reading it to me last night I could not help but think of the Calvinistas. Do they fail to hit any of the 20 points?

Bill M wrote:

Velour wrote:

My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill.

It goes with the territory, if you find yourself a sane person in an insane organization you get labeled as the nut by the other inmates.

well, getting ‘labeled’ when you are in difficulty instead of helped is one way you KNOW you are not with fellow members of the Body of Christ . . . in the Body of Christ it is true that when one member is hurting, all hurt but all also surround and aid the hurting person. And in the case of ‘nuthood’, I have read (somewhere) that it is a really good thing that in the Body of Christ, we are not all nuts on the same day.

(frankly, I LIKE nuts, if they are well-meaning, kind nuts who are marching to their own drummer and unafraid to be different and joyfully eccentric ….. it’s the people in our lives who ARE different from ‘everyone else’ who have something to offer back and share . . . salt and light.)

Lydia wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:

@ Bridget:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Paula Rice wrote:

@ Bridget:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed because it’s not something you’re sensitive to. But, believe me, I’ve seen it time and time again. And I’m fine if you refuse to take me at my word.

To clarify any misunderstanding. My view is we are to interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

Totally agree! They play down and ignore his respect for Phoebe and the fact he had no qualms starting the first church in Europe in Lydia’s home. Junia! There is more as you well know.

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
That was an excellent article.
My wife found it somewhere. As she was reading it to me last night I could not help but think of the Calvinistas. Do they fail to hit any of the 20 points?

They hit them all.

Daisy wrote:

Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”

Augustine, the father of the western church, did say that. Sin entered the world through a women’s corrupted soul.

Orthodox theology is based on his teachings, not the Bible. Yes the bible is part of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy interprets the scriptures through Augustine.

So in opposition to your thought, subordination-ist would say Eve is to blame, and the world will be redeemed through men.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:
My ex-pastor recently sent out an email to church members telling them that I was mentally ill. Snort. He is a piece of work. (Church insiders give me the emails. They said he’s losing it and is so abusive and they want out.)
Keep dropping those dimes, Velour.
Maybe Pastor will lose it to the point he drives everyone away (except maybe his pet pedo) and ends up screaming from the pulpit to an empty building.
Or gets in the news some other way — either as a perp or YouTube spectacle. You did say three police agencies and the State AG have been alerted.

I think my ex-pastor is really ticked off because I’ve asked the Seventh Day Adventists, whom they rent from, to ban from the all SDA properties given the level of abuse they’re doing and the damage to peoples’ lives, as well as the demands for criminal conduct, not protecting children.

Lydia wrote:

God sees us exactly as we are.

I believe God sees us in Christ, not as if to turn a blind eye to our struggles, but because that is where we are seated.

It’s not God that has a problem with His sight, His vision. The challenge is for us to come into full agreement, through faith, with God’s reality, and for us not only “see” who He is, but to realize who we are in Him.

More than anything, this is what the Good News of the Gospel is about. The Gospel doesn’t change anything about God because God wasn’t the problem and God does not change.

The problem was us. We needed to change, and we have been changed through our faith in Jesus Christ!

Gram3 wrote:

DW wrote:
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might be a large orthodox body that can resist new Calvinist forces within Protestantism, given the distinct Lutheran theological tradition. I am wondering if people agree
Some of us are Baptists to the bone, and we just want our SBC, EVFree, and non-denominational free churches back from this mutant strain of Calvinism.

Amen! Who would have thought this would be happen? I don’t like where this is going.. This is becoming a religious war. Makes me want to go a direction many of our tradition have done in past and that is separatism. I hate this. I don’t like to shun people. We have already seen this where a baptist association didn’t allow a YRR church to join that association. I believe this was in Kentucky. And then there is a shunning of Calvinist leaning seminaries and their graduates. If I were in a church considering such a candidate I would make it difficult if it were in my power to speak at a business meeting. Lord help us!

Lea wrote:

I think Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because so many people misuse his words to do harm. I actually think he respected the women in church, including ones teaching and in leadership, as he commends them by name. I think he has been misread.

He would be the first to tell us we shouldn’t worship Paul!

I agree! They major on only a very few of Paul’s statements, which I believe they take out of context and twist to fit the narrative they are pushing. As Peter even wrote-

” just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” -2Peter 3:15-17

@ Max

Mea culpa!

@ Paula Rice:
In my view, scripture is teaching We have only been changed through Jesus Christ if we “choose” to have faith, repent and strive to be image bearers. You seem to be walking back the cat on imputed righteousness. I am only engaging this because these differing interpretations are miles apart especially in how we view Gods character and that speaks to the issue of the bible as the ultimate authority and its practical application in daily life.

Lydia wrote:

God sees us exactly as we are.

I was in a Bible study once with a fellow who said that when God looks at us, all He sees is Jesus standing in front of us hiding our sin. He went on to say that if Jesus were here today, He would be sitting around the campfire with His disciples telling jokes and drinking beer. To which I responded “Nonsense!” and told him a thing or two about the real Jesus. This is typical of a shallow belief in Christendom (e.g., New Calvinism) that God does it all and we can do nothing. Taken to the extreme, it produces followers who never repent of their sins and stretch Christian liberties beyond their Biblical bounds. God does see us exactly as we are … saved by faith in Christ or lost and undone without God or His Son.

nathan priddis wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Jesus did not say, “It is from feminism or females that all sin came, and if only women will submit to men, all problems in society will cease.”
Augustine, the father of the western church, did say that. Sin entered the world through a women’s corrupted soul.
Orthodox theology is based on his teachings, not the Bible. Yes the bible is part of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy interprets the scriptures through Augustine.
So in opposition to your thought, subordination-ist would say Eve is to blame, and the world will be redeemed through men.

Not meaning to be a pedant, but I did want to note that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach this. Little-o orthodox in the Western church, with would probably mean Roman Catholicism, might have more to say re: this assertion, but the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach this. The same words get used to mean different things, so it can get confusing.

@ Bridget:
I’m glad there’s some common ground between us.

@ Nancy2:
I just want to reiterate, that regardless of what most SBC churches claim, women are not full blown church members. We are basically “honorary” members. Just compare what male church members can/cannot do to what female church members can/cannot do.

Paula Rice wrote:

I’m addressing those who identify as Christians. The blog “dissects Christian trends”. The problems discussed here, with few exceptions, deal with issues involving biblical practice and interpretation.

I didn’t make up the Bible nor invent the Christian faith. As a believer, my task is to follow it. If that’s an area you’re obviously struggling in, take it up with its Author since you’re clearly not open to me.

As you can see, we’re quite the eclectic bunch here at TWW. Some of us here, myself included, do not believe as you believe on all points considered, and yet still consider ourselves Christians. And yeah, I have taken it up with my creator, and by way of reply he said:

…Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy mango juice and perrier with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest…

And I’m at peace with that.

@ Lydia:
Allow me to explain, in part, what I mean by “Imputed righteousness”.

When I use the term, I am always referring to the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

Jesus did more than just die for us. There was an exchange that took place. His death paid our penalty, yes. The Bible says “the wages of sin is death,” and because we were all under bondage to sin, Jesus, our High Priest, made to be human like us, and offered up His own body and blood as a sacrifice for our sins. His sacrifice freed us once and for all, something the blood of bulls and goats was unable to do.

Christ removed our sin and simultaneously granted us right standing before God. That righteous is not our own because we never earned it. His right-standing becomes our right-standing just as his death became our death. So, when we approach God, we do so on the basis of his righteousness that is imputed to us. In him, and through faith in him, we may now approach God with freedom and confidence.

That what I think of when I use the expression “Imputed Righteousness”.

Paula Rice wrote:

Allow me to explain, in part, what I mean by “Imputed righteousness”.

Here is an interesting article from an Eastern Orthodox perspective: http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness. I found this when I was once looking for articles describing the difference between imputed and imparted righteousness. It opened my eyes to a different way of looking at the issue.

Velour wrote:

My sister and others have wondered if my ex-senior pastor might be a pedo

Did you see the link I put in the Open thread here?

It might be applicable to your ex preacher:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-11/#comment-270721

Muff Potter wrote:

As you can see, we’re quite the eclectic bunch here at TWW. Some of us here, myself included, do not believe as you believe on all points considered, and yet still consider ourselves Christians.

OK Muff, as you say, you’ve made your peace with God, and from what you’ve shared about mango juice and Perrier, it sounds like something you’ve devised based on your own terms.

I hope, however, that I’m wrong about that, only because the terms are not ours to mess around with, nor conform to meet our own standards. It’s all laid out in the Bible.

Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map, what prevents you, then, from just saying you acknowledge the teachings of Christ, but have a way of your own that departs from that of Scripture?

Personally, I would find that to be a more genuine way to describe your faith, especially since you’re unwilling, to would seem, to describe where your fundamental differences with me, for example occur.

You say you’re a Christian. I say you’re a Christian. Your beliefs differ from mine. You’re at peace with that, but I wouldn’t say you’re at peace with me, at least not in terms of unity. Does saying you’re at peace mean also that you don’t care about differences or divisions amongst those who proclaim the Name of Jesus? Because, here’s the thing – that’s a very important concern of God’s.

Additionally, I’m sure you’re well aware of schisms amongst Christians. We’re been discussing the ramifications of Complementarian doctrine, and the divisions and disruptions that it’s caused. The history of the church has been characterized by conflicts involving heresy and heretics. Does that concern you, or have you simply adopted a live and let live approach to it all, a laissez-faire type of attitude to it all?

Anyway, just curious. Whatever the case, I’m glad for you that none of your views are regarded as hostile to the faith shared here as mine have been. Enjoy your Perrier! I’d choose sparkling over still water anyway.

@ Paula Rice:
Paula Rice wrote:

it sounds like something you’ve devised based on your own terms.
I hope, however, that I’m wrong about that, only because the terms are not ours to mess around with, nor conform to meet our own standards. It’s all laid out in the Bible.
Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map

You claim to be a Christian, and you approach the Bible and its purpose with your own biases, assumptions, and perceptions, making you no different from Muff, or anyone else posting here.

You have also devised the Bible and its use based on your own terms but don’t stop to consider that perhaps you are incorrect on some of these things.

@ Daisy:
Well, this is interesting, because you’re admitting you’re questioning the Christian faith. You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith. And now you’re using me as a reason why you’re considering departing? That’s rich, Daisy. Like I suggested before, turn your hostility toward God. If your faith stands or falls on the behavior of people, especially someone like myself, it’s understandable why you’re on such shakey ground. I’m not your scapegoat, sorry. You’re the one here who’s angry, and that’s your responsibility to deal with.

Paula Rice wrote:

Does saying you’re at peace mean also that you don’t care about differences or divisions amongst those who proclaim the Name of Jesus? Because, here’s the thing – that’s a very important concern of God’s.

Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

I think things like love and behaving well towards each other are much more important, apart from believing.

There is a ton of biblical support for that position.

Paula Rice wrote:

Well, this is interesting, because you’re admitting you’re questioning the Christian faith.

You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith.

And now you’re using me as a reason why you’re considering departing? That’s rich, Daisy. Like I suggested before, turn your hostility toward God. If your faith stands or falls on the behavior of people, especially someone like myself, it’s understandable why you’re on such shakey ground. I’m not your scapegoat, sorry. You’re the one here who’s angry, and that’s your responsibility to deal with.

No, I’m not angry.

You personally are responsible for turning people away from the faith due to your behavior – this is a responsibility you need to accept.

Even the Bible says,

“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, … As Scripture says, “God’s name is cursed among the nations because of you.”

I don’t see you displaying any of the qualities the Bible says one should or can expect to see from a Christian, such as,

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

You said,

“You gave impressed me on repeated occasions as being prone, looking to contend with me over the faith.”

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

As I’ve said numerous times, in- so- far as I remain Christian and understand your views correctly, I have agreed with the substance of much of what you have written about Jesus or the Bible.

I have stated many times here on this blog (long before you began posting) that I’ve been in the midst of a faith crisis for a few years now, so this was not some secret. The long time readers of this blog were already aware of that.

If I’m contending with anything, it’s been your rude, hostile, and condescending attitude and behavior. I may in the future scroll past your posts without reading or replying, as I don’t see anything productive from corresponding with you further.

Lea wrote:

Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

Would that be the doctrine of “Doctrine before ~ and more important than ~ salvation”?

Max wrote:

Velour wrote:
I think that convention should be renamed.
There have been recent movements within SBC to rename the denomination and distance themselves from “Southern”, since it ties the SBC to its Civil War racism roots. Names such as Great Commission Baptists have been suggested, but that doesn’t really fit either with the poor shape the denomination is in in fulfilling that Biblical mandate.

They were founded on the principle that slavery was a good practice according to the Bible, so they should keep this name so they can forever be reminded of their origin and beliefs of the SBC founders. Didn’t they also support Jim Crow? There was a time during the conservative resurgence when Adrian Rogers said slaves did not have it so bad. It should be a unforgotten mark on the SBC. I may not sound nice, but it is also wrong to sugar coat and deny history.

Daisy wrote:

I may in the future scroll past your posts without reading or replying, as I don’t see anything productive from corresponding with you further.

Please do.

@ Paula Rice:

Paula wrote: “Because of this, you can see why I would have concerns with someone like yourself, who claims to be a Christian, yet has determined his own approach to the Bible. If the Bible determines the Way and marks it out for us, and you’ve added your own map, what prevents you, then, from just saying you acknowledge the teachings of Christ, but have a way of your own that departs from that of Scripture?”

Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

I have come to the conclusion our unity is not around the finer points of doctrine but around what we do with the truth of Jesus Christ by seeking to help our little corners of the world be a better place because we are in them.

@ Lydia:
I appreciate the way you communicate your differences and focus on the subject. I think we’re able to agree to disagree. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and interest in these things.

Lea wrote:

Do you really think God cares so much if two believers differ on some minor matter of doctrine?

That is essentially the position Dr. Mohler takes with his “theological triage.” In addressing some of the doctrinal differences within SBC, he suggests that Christians should be able to get along on secondary and tertiary issues of faith (method of baptism, open or closed communion, etc.), as long as they can unite around the essentials (deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.). The problem with his proposal in this regard, when it comes to New Calvinism, is that he characterizes soteriology as a secondary, rather than an essential, doctrine. Reducing God’s plan of salvation to a non-essential doctrine in a theological triage doesn’t sit well with majority Southern Baptists which believe the message of the Cross of Christ is the main thing! In the context of this blog topic, Mohler would also argue that complementarianism is a secondary doctrine and we shouldn’t be fussing about it. The problem with that, however, is that they justify subordination of women by first eternally subordinating the Son! When you do that, you are messing with the Trinity, which is an essential of Christian faith. New Calvinists are messing with the foundation to support the new reformation – and the building will collapse upon itself.

Lydia wrote:

Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

If Paula knew the personal history of some of the commenters on here, she would realize that she is only rubbing dirt in some deep wounds. …….. at least I hope she could see that.

@ Ken F:
ah . . . Christus Victor

for those who don’t ‘get it’, watch ‘Gran Torino’ with Clint Eastwood …. the ending, yes

Lydia wrote:

Paula, how can someone be at peace with you after reading that? You have your own approach to scripture, too. is it that some are departing from your understanding of scripture? Why have concerns about Muff? He is not harming anyone or promoting sinister groups or anything like that.

I’m not saying he’s harming anyone or promoting anything sinister. He’s entitled to his beliefs and opinions as we all are. But surely, surely you understand, that when one places themselves under the umbrella of Christ, professing to be a Christian, there are certain beliefs that go with the territory.

It’s not like you can say, “I’m a Christian but I reject the Bible” or “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in the Resurrection” or “I’m a Christian but I also am an Orthodox Jew.”

Im not saying these are things Potter believes, btw. I’m using them as examples.

And it depends what the issues are, doesn’t it?

For some people, alcohol is a big issue, that’s pretty much a central part of their Christian faith.

Others might say the Apostle Paul was a misogynist. He hated women.

Another might say the Bible was written by men and isn’t reliable; it’s full of errors.

Yet someone else believes complementarianism is an essential expression of the Gospel, that God created men and women to be so completely different, that it means we must assign gender roles and live within them in order to fulfill God’s design.

Things matter. Differences matter. But look at what can happen. Since men and women have “different” bodies, people have decided those differences must mean something, and tried to resolve those “differences” by actually widening the gap, causing division.

So, yeah, differences are important to understand and address. And the Bible, for the Christian, should be the thing we use as the basis for our agreement, and the source for settling any disagreements we may have in regards to doctrine and practice. But this is where some here disagree with me.

@ Paula Rice:
For someone who cannot subscribe to “scripture as the ultimate authority”, I sure have spent a lot of time there. :o)

Doctrinal differences don’t bother me unless they are shoved down people’s throats, are used as weapons against people, used to shut down over half the body, used to spread human authoritarianism or to hide, deflect from or sweep evil deeds against others under the rug. Sadly, all those are very common today.

Paula Rice wrote:

It’s not like you can say, “I’m a Christian but I reject the Bible” or “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in the Resurrection” or “I’m a Christian but I also am an Orthodox Jew.”

In my case, what makes us ‘Christian’ becomes a mystery when the one you realize is the most Christian person you know is also an Orthodox Jew.
It isn’t about ‘doctrine’, no. It’s something more.

Paula Rice wrote:

So, yeah, differences are important to understand and address.

And the Bible, for the Christian, should be the thing we use as the basis for our agreement, and the source for settling any disagreements we may have in regards to doctrine and practice.

But this is where some here disagree with me.

I find it odd and off- putting you are so deeply concerned with “right belief” and defending the Bible but don’t bother to abide by the most basic of Scriptural instructions on how to treat others who you believe may disagree with you.

You don’t care at all that how you mistreat people is causing them to doubt the faith more.

Is this not in the Bible that you say you so ardently believe in?:

1 Corinthians 13:1,2
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.…

@ Paula Rice:

Based on your comment, it might be easier to have atheist friends! I am a baptist, we rarely had unity on biblical interpretation. :o) And it was perfectly normal. Iron sharpens iron and all that. Back in the good old days, we had soul competency drilled into our heads and were very serious about the priesthood of believer. (Not anymore)

You wrote: But surely, surely you understand, that when one places themselves under the umbrella of Christ, professing to be a Christian, there are certain beliefs that go with the territory.

Yes, Jesus is the Christ. The promised Savior. Beyond the basics, isn’t it more about how we, as individuals first, then as a body, live out that truth?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Jan wrote:
@ Lydia:
Lydia, this is the first time I have watched a Piper video. Drama queen fits him very nicely.
Anything like this?

Yes, I almost had the same reaction!!

Nancy2 wrote:

Adrian Rogers is quoted as saying, in reference to seminary profs, “If we say that pickles have souls, they better teach that pickles have souls!”

How reassuring, huh?

Yep–Rogers and the other were the dictators and the others were just following orders. These folk were so militant the “moderates” just did not seem to know how in a Christian way respond to their nastiness and it cost them the Denomination IMO!

@ Daisy:
Thanks for pointing us to Lydia’s brilliant response. And it is the truth. They are just starting to see the results of letting women be educated in theology at conservative institutions. Funny how it took the Big Boys so long to obey Paul’s command to Timothy in verse 11 which occurs right before the clobber verses: Let the women learn.

Bonus for Lydia and Max: I wonder if the Calvinistas who are so insistent upon a plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2:6?

Bonus for Mary Kassian and other Queen Bees of Female Subordinationism: Do you obey the plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:9?

Yikes. Should be: I wonder if the Calvinistas who are so insistent upon a plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:12 also believe the plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2:6?

My keyboard is obviously still reeling in horror at the mention of Spanx.

@ Daisy:
Daisy, look, first take the log out of your own eye, ok? Then you’ll be able to see clearly so you can go after the speck in mine.

@ Gram3:

I just cracked up when the poor guy called complementarian an “historic” baptist belief. It’s not really funny. This is how history gets rewritten by tribal indoctrination and they know nothing else and then teach it to others as historical fact. It’s a made up word with a definition that does not fit its doctrinal teaching. Yet, it is historical.

@ Lydia:
I reread what I said in response to your comment. I apologize. What I said didn’t really apply, my mistake, you’re right. I misinterpreted something you said by reading too fast and I wasn’t being careful.

Barb Orlowski wrote:

@ Paula Rice and Responders,
It seems a shame that the topic of this post and the conversation around the seriousness of this biblical error has been diverted into some internal issues about the Bible and what it means to be a Christian. I am really wondering if this is helpful.
It seems that extra topics might be better discussed elsewhere, Open Discussion maybe?? Or is everyone happy to continue to try to explain themselves to one another on this thread? Again, the internal differences expressed, clarified, and then re-clarified could go on and on. Wouldn’t it be a better plan to keep to the topic at hand and focus around this heresy in the church??

Thanks, Barb. You read my mind on this.

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:

I just cracked up when the poor guy called complementarian an “historic” baptist belief. It’s not really funny. This is how history gets rewritten by tribal indoctrination and they know nothing else and then teach it to others as historical fact. It’s a made up word with a definition that does not fit its doctrinal teaching. Yet, it is historical.

I do not think they teach the real Southern Baptist history in seminary or in the churches anymore. Wonder what the teachers are afraid of?

Thank you TWWer’s for giving some funds to Shauna and Billy’s GoFundMe account.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

It has enabled them to buy food. Billy is a young man and they eat a lot. He wants to eat fruit, but his mom has to limit his snacks as they can’t afford a lot right now. She cleans houses, and is a single mom. Their Texas church terribly abused them, and cost her house cleaning jobs, after Billy was a crime victim by a church member.

Dee covered that heartbreaking criminal case here.

They have more expenses coming up. And Billy needs $145 per month for driver’s education at the school. (He also wants to go to college in a few years and study engineering.)
Please pray for him about this.

Also, Billy needs a computer for his schoolwork and some other supplies that his Mom can’t afford. Does anyone have an extra laptop they could donate to him? I thought I’d ask because you just never know…

Please keep this little family in prayer. More discussions on the Open Discussion Thread.