"If people really feel they must be complementarians, they would be wise not to ground their views on such a very contentious re-interpretation of the Trinity."
Trinity Window – Prague Cathedral
In God's sovereignty, the debate over the Trinity is reaching a fevered pitch. Thanks to the internet, information on the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father (ESS) is being communicated far beyond the complementarian circle where it was promoted and applied for decades.
Better fasten your seat belt because we predict things are only going to get more turbulent in the coming months. Why? Because when the Evangelical Theological Society convenes in mid-November, the topic of discussion will be… (see screen shot below)
The leaders of the complementarian movement have much at stake in this debate, and we will do our best to monitor their responses to those who are challenging their doctrinal position on the Trinity. We have already published several posts on this controversial topic, which we encourage you to read (see links below).
Unorthodox Views on the Trinity – Round Two
This debate was sparked exactly two months ago by a post entitled Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination? over at Mortification of Spin (MOS). MOS is "a casual conversation from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals featuring Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and Aimee Byrd". That guest post was written by by Dr. Liam Goligher, along with a follow-up post titled Reinventing God. Here is a screen shot of Dr. Goligher's conclusion:
Dr. Goligher, who currently serves as Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, has ministered at churches in Ireland, Canada, London, England, and his native, Scotland according to his bio. Therefore, it came as no surprise that Christians across the pond are following this theological controversy.
ChristianToday (not to be confused with Christianity Today), recently published an article entitled:
Complementarianism and the Trinity: Is Wayne Grudem a dangerous heretic?
The article begins as follows:
The "complementarianian" view of male-female relations – that men and women are prescribed different, heirarchical roles which above all mean that women cannot preach or be church leaders – is a growing force in modern evangelicalism.
It further states:
Ah. But I thought the doctrine of the Trinity was pretty much settled?
It was, and most people would say it is. The idea that God is one, in three persons, is a core Christian belief that was thrashed out in the early centuries of the Church and expressed in the creeds that are accepted across all Christian confessions. A key component of this doctrine, established at the fourth-century Council of Nicea, is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished in their roles and functions (the 'economic Trinity', but equal (as the 'immanent' or 'ontological' Trinity'). Nicea was called in response to the threat to orthodoxy posed by the heretic Arius and his followers (the "Arians"). Arius taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father because he was created by him and homoiousios, "of a similar substance", a view rejected by the Council, which held they were homoousios or "of the same substance". So the difference between heresy and orthodoxy is a single letter, which is rather alarming.
Alarming is right! The article goes on to explain what kicked off the debate. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Goligher is highly respected by those at ChristianToday. (see screen shot below)
Thanks to publications like ChristianToday and the World Wide Web, this dispute is being widely circulated, and that's a very good thing! We are grateful to Dr. Goligher and the hosts at Mortification of Spin for challenging this entrenched position in the complementarian camp.
As you might imagine, Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, among others, have responded to this criticism, which is mentioned in the article. Since the majority of people reading this piece are not theologians, Mark Woods (the contributing editor) shares three important things we need to recognize:
First, while the proponents of homoian complementarianism, as Bird calls it, might argue that their views are consistent with historic Christianity, most scholars and theologians haven't expressed their belief in the Trinity like that and many experts in the field are pretty scathing about it. So it is, to that extent, a new way of talking about this doctrine that is, as Goligher says, open to serious criticism. We should be very slow to accept theological novelties.
Second, the Trinity is one thing and complementarianism is another. While some proponents of the new thinking might deny that they're linked in essence, in practice homoian complementarians have a social agenda. We should be very suspicious of any theology that rewrites millennia of tradition to serve the priorities of the moment.
Third, homoian complementarians are part of a very influential movement in modern theology and churchmanship. It's socially right-wing, deeply conservative and neo-Calvinist, with deep pockets, charismatic and successful figureheads and granite certainties. That doesn't make it right.
No doubt this discussion regarding the Trinity will play out for years, if not decades, to come as the article states. As Woods wraps up his article, he wisely writes:
But in the meantime, if people really feel they must be complementarians, they would be wise not to ground their views on such a very contentious re-interpretation of the Trinity.
Carl Trueman over at Mortification of Spin made the same point in a broadcast a few weeks ago.
Can there be any doubt that Wayne Grudem loyalists in the U.K. are beside themselves over this controversial headline regarding their hero of the faith. (see video below)
We will have much more on this important topic in the weeks and months ahead. While we are grateful that ESS [or whatever other variations it is called] is being more widely discussed, we hope and pray it doesn't linger on for decades. We want to live long enough to see it put to rest…
First!
That video is absolutely painful.
In the UK Grudem somewhat cooked his chips by aligning himself with the Christian Institute, a largely unsuccessfully and disingenuous attempt to create a UK religious right. Sure he has fan boys but mainstream UK evangelicalism is not enamoured of those who align themselves with right wing politics. It tends, as the Theos study a few years ago found, to be somewhat to the left of the country as a whole.
Did you know that Craig Keener, an egalitarian, also advocated the submission of the Son? Here’s a quote from the Reformation today site: “Craig Keener is also an interesting case: he is an egalitarian who argues for the subordination of the Son, and who observes–at the time of writing his article–that many other egalitarians he knows share that position, while some of his complementarian friends reject it as heretical”
Couple of things…. a few days back you can find the analysis of the Hawaii District of the Evangelical Free…and then there is this.
Sovereign Grace Fairfax changed their name to Redeeming Grace Church. The paint isn’t even dry on the sign, the website is only 3 or 4 days old. That said, there is a blog post following it now 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/sinfully-craving-a-new-church-name-sovereign-grace-fairfax-becomes-redeeming-grace-church/
“Third, homoian complementarians are part of a very influential movement in modern theology and churchmanship. It’s socially right-wing, deeply conservative and neo-Calvinist, with deep pockets, charismatic and successful figureheads and granite certainties. That doesn’t make it right.” – Mark Woods (the contributing editor)
Spot on.
And thanks to pastor Wade Burleson (Enid, OK. Baptist church; pastor here on Sundays on E-Church at The Wartburg Watch) who has written for years about this semi-Arian heresy,
the Eternal Subordination of the Son being used by Comp promoters in their social
agenda.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/09/growing-semi-arianism-in-sbc-and.html
Peter Lumpkins criticized Wade about this nearly 8 years ago. Wade was correct to stand his ground and I’m glad that the conversation is now taking place globally about
the Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son.
@ Dave (Eagle):
One of the things that Churches that Abuse by Dr. Ron Enroth notes is that abusive
churches..frequently change names.
I don’t know what’s behind the name change of the SGM church.
“Better fasten your seat belt because we predict things are only going to get more turbulent in the coming months. Why? Because when the Evangelical Theological Society convenes in mid-November, the topic of discussion will be…
The Trinity”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the turbulence should be interesting.
In TWW’s recent post “History of Complementarianism, Part 2, Wayne Grudem is quoted thusly:
“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
Dan Treier, a systematic theology professor at Wheaton who describes himself as egalitarian in some respects and soft complementarian in others, said, “Not only has there been an attempt to keep women off the board, but there has been an attempt to stack the board with complementarian males and to keep egalitarian males out of the picture.”
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.”
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/question-mark-over-my-head
———————–
comps seem to have taken Wayne Grudem’s recommendation to heart. they have played offense at the ETS, as a machine working at full force, with people who want to control it (ETS).
with recent challenges to ESS assumptions, maybe i’ll take a roadtrip to San Antonio, Texas this November and bring my ‘flailing-desperation-o-meter’ to take a reading.
@ Richard:
The Christian Institute is regularly portrayed as fundamentalist, right-wing and intolerant when it it is none of these things. Only recently they were part of a coalition of charities and individuals who successfully challenged the Scottish Government's proposed intrusion into the lives of its citizens (The Named Person Scheme). The highest court in the UK found that the proposals were a breach of Human Rights legislation and directed the government to amend them. On looking at their website the CI adopts what seems to me to be a conservative, reformed perspective on civil society. Theos as you say is on the socialist/liberal side. Interestingly both groups are of the view that "The Church" has a duty to involve itself in "The State", both to challenge and inform.
@ elastigirl:
Well, you have inspired me to investigate the Evangelical Theological Society. Thirty years ago Wayne Grudem announced at the ETS gathering that they were forming a group to discuss gender roles. What has happened in the aftermath? For one thing, female attendees at ETS appears to be at an all time low, and I mean LOW! Look for an upcoming post soon.
I am very hopeful that with all the current information coming out that Christians around the world will revolt against Comp and ESS. It is past time in my opinion.
The South African fan boys are also acting all defensive – it's pretty sad to watch. Keep up the great work ladies. Grace (in the real sense of that wonder) and Peace to you!
They are even trying to pretend it's consistent with Calvin's view.
Could you post your source? Thanks@ John:
@ Richard:
I am never sure what right wing means anymore. Would those who voted to exit the EU be considered more right wing than those who voted against?
Jbthebaptist wrote:
They would. South African Calvinists gave Apartheid its backing by Divine Predestination.
@ elastigirl:
Wow.
Lowlandseer wrote:
For now. The government people who came up with this haven’t given up. They’ll probably make cosmetic changes and try to reintroduce it. It’s “for the children”, after all. Personally, I think it’s a gross overreach of state power that would make being a parent a very risky enterprise.
Scary. Just scary.
@ NJ:
Government, like church, always knows best for us. Sigh. Those beliefs are alive and well even in this day and time.
Good deal. I hope the ESS heretics get global news coverage before this is over!
P.S. Southern Baptists, are you awake yet?
@Deb. In terms of some potentially intriguing parallels to this debate, it may be worth tracking the history of apartheid in 20th-century South Africa. It includes attempts to justify apartheid biblically — where “separate development” of the races ended up functionally as subjugation — dialogue, declarations of heresy, official suspension of adherents to the heresy, a change process. And I haven’t seen any suggestion that there was room in the Reformed tent for both views: apartheid and anti-apartheid.
Apartheid was declared heresy (and a sin) by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1982. It suspended the membership of certain pro-apartheid Reformed churches in South Africa. “In 1986, however, the Dutch Reformed Church denounced its own former attempts at the biblical justification of apartheid, and in 1989 it condemned apartheid as a sin.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dutch-Reformed-Church
So, FWIW, there’s a historical example with some principles that could be followed … and who knows — possibly every formal network (denominations, conventions, etc.) and informal associations (The Gospel Coalition, Acts29, 9Marks, etc.) *worldwide* which espouses or houses complementarians may need to consider the implications of these “theological novelties” which attempt to ground gender roles in the Trinity.
The video is idolatrous!
even before the great Councils of the Church, there were those who stated there was no ‘servitude’ in the Trinity . . . the Councils did not make this stuff up, it existed in primordial form since the early days of the Church. REASON: it would have been unthinkable for the strong monotheism of Judaism to even begin to imagine subserviant deities within God. The Great Tradition of the Christian faith is rooted in Judaism’s monotheism, in the Schema) To depart from that into ESS doesn’t flow from strong Judaic comprehension of God’s immanence.
“There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity”
(St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, 213 A.D. to 270 A.D.)
While I am interested to see these developments, I am loathe to comment on them in any detail because it would then become very clear how far outside the household of faith I am.
I have a few problems with the Nicene creed being used as the test of faith.
First, I am unconvinced that the earliest followers of Jesus and the early Christians had an idea of a triune Godhead. Judaism was well-known in the ancient world for being strictly monotheistic, which was considered profoundly weird to pagans and polytheists. Associating Jesus and the Holy Spirit to God the Father would have taken work and time, because of this strict monotheism. It was not something delivered straight out of heaven, it had to be worked out, and it took centuries.
Second, and this follows along with the first, I would point out that Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 2:2 that he resolved to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified when he was among the Corinthians. I think Jesus is the center of Christian faith, and Trinitarian theology is a way of trying to explain the unexplainable. I do not think people will be judged on whether they can understand the Trinity, because, by definition, it is not understandable.
And lastly, as a woman, I have a real problem with the male-oriented wording of the Nicene Creed. This is just my personal opinion, but using words like “Father,” “Son,” “Lord,” and the male pronouns “he, him, his” just reinforces over and over and over week after week after week (if you go to a liturgical church) that God is male. As a woman, I can’t help but feel othered and not in the image of God with that kind of language.
Now, with all of that out of the way, it’s clear I’m a heretic. I don’t ascribe to the Nicene Creed because I find it problematic. However, these promoters of ESS and complementarianism claim to be as orthodox as can be. If they’re going to hold to the Nicene Creed as the test of their orthodoxy, then they can’t be going around and trying to introduce a type of semi-Arianism into their beliefs to justify keeping women down. For that reason, I’m glad that people are taking Grudem and the rest of the comp crowd to task, even if I do, at bottom, think that some of this is like trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
@ elastigirl:
If the extreme comps succeed in taking over the ETS and adopt ESS, it should be renamed the “Evangelical Heretical Society”.
@ mirele:
And Jesus, the coming Messiah, is referred to as everlasting father in Isaiah 9. Me thinks people get hung up on the wrong things for different reasons.
Max wrote:
Max, where on earth have the Trads been on this issue? They have completely ignored it!
@Lydia
Isaiah 9:6 more correctly calls the Messiah “father of everlasting life,” or “father of eternity,” or “author of eternal life.”
Lydia wrote:
My take on this is that Trads also support the second class citizenry of women and are therefore afraid to speak out on this issue.
Patriciamc wrote:
Has anyone tried doing a mashup of that soundtrack to footage of a Nuremberg Rally or North Korean Official Media? During the 2008 Election craziness, I remember a Nuremberg Rally/Obama speech mashup and an Obama (fanboy) Children’s Choir “Hymn to The One”/North Korean Dear Leader mashup. Both were hilarious.
Arce wrote:
So ETS adopts ESS and becomes EHS — sounds like Microsoft documentation.
mot wrote:
I think so. The ideas of comp are no way necessarily dependent on any understanding of any doctrine of the Trinity. Grudem and Ware et al are getting sucked into heresy, but the ideas of male authority are not going to go away regardless of how that turns out.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Apartheid
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/justifying-injustice-bible-apartheid
Lowlandseer wrote:
I prefer that neither institution gets too cozy with the other. Whether the oppression comes from the church or the state, the religious government official, or the church politician, as long as they are at odds with each other they are distracted from harassing me.
mot wrote:
Perhaps that is why they did not bother questioning ESS? I am not sure they were even paying attention to it.
@ Virgil:
Not sure I understand. Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? What am I missing? It is the use of the word, Father, that is the focus.
Bill M wrote:
Amen!
Lydia wrote:
Yes, it is the use of the word father that is important. Whether there is a difference between eternal and everlasting, whether God exists outside of time, or merely for a loooong time (infinity?) or whether God exists outside of time in relation to himself but in time in relation to his creation-is all very interesting in the philosophical debates about God and time, but what the prophet did was use the word father for the messiah. Good point Lydia. Wish I had thought of it.
@ Daisy:
Just skimmed that article. Looks like an *excellent* summary of what had been used as the “biblical” justification for apartheid. Thanks for posting that, Daisy!
@ NJ:
You’re quite right. Things are strange in Scotland these days. With no effective opposition and a ruling party that tells its MSPs what to think and how to vote, within minutes of the Court decision, they were everywhere in the media saying they had won and that the proposals would be law soon.
okrapod wrote:
the ideas of feminine participation in the Church are not receding either:
not to forget the great matriarchs of the OT, we now have the ‘YES’ of Mary, given in perfect freedom; and in the Great Tradition of Christianity, we have the Apostola Apostolorum: Mary Magdalene, ‘The Apostle to the Apostles’ who is sent, by Christ Himself, to bring the news of her Risen Lord to the Apostles. And, in time, the great title of ‘Doctor of the Church’ would be given to three women for their teaching contributions to the Church. And the women ‘witnesses’, the earliest women blood martyrs, names of women, who are STILL mentioned at every service down through the centuries, since they were slain for their Lord’s sake: ‘Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia’; and on and on, the list of women whose names call up for us a devotion to Christ equal or greater than that of many men. These women aren’t going ANYWHERE but are firmly placed in the Great Tradition of the Church. Even now, in the lists of saints in the Anglican tradition, in blessed memory, is read the name of Lottie Moon, a Servant of the Lord in the missions in China, who has a day of remembrance in their liturgical calendar.
The point:
remove these women from the picture, and there is no picture as it is celebrated in the Church; these are the indispensable women of our faith woven into the Body of Christ honorably over millenia . . . it’s not about ‘power and authority’, it’s about duty and service that those in leadership of our Church are celebrated. There is more of the glory of God’s grace shown in ‘the little way’ of Therese of Lisieux than in all the trappings of the Borgia popes, and believe me, the Church knows this very, very well.
mirele wrote:
I subscribe to the tenets of The Apostle’s Creed and especially its supernatural claims (its gender specific components are only incidental in my opinion). It affords me a wide latitude of human and intellectual freedom. So much so that I’m considered heretic and anathema in traditionalist circles for my views on soteriology and justification (to name a few). You’re in good company!
I’ve only read the free portions of Chapter 1 from this book so far, but I feel that aspects of it may explain or illuminate the phenomenon of celebrity preachers we see so often today:
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking
https://books.google.com/books?id=Dc3T6Y7g7LQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chapter 1 of that book is partially titled, “How Extroversion Became the Cultural Ideal [in the United States]”
Reading that chapter on Google books, I was reminded of preachers such as Mark Driscoll, Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, and others – the loud mouthed, showy preachers.
The chapter explains how Americans used to value Character, but it later shifted to Personality.
People started taking classes and reading books on how to project themselves, how to be likable, and so on.
College admissions teams would look to accept out-going types, and didn’t care so much about their scholastic achievements.
Having a big, bold personality meant more to people than intelligence, competency, thoughtfulness.
Actually, the book has examples showing how people who are quiet and thoughtful were penalized or treated like weirdos.
It looks like some of the other chapters may also be somewhat applicable to today’s celebrity pastors.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, but in orthodox Trinitarian theology (which I have studied) Jesus is God, but Jesus is not God the Father. I do think that calling Jesus the “eternal Father” would be problematic under the terms of the Athanasian Creed, which talks about “confounding the persons” (number 4).
More here, if you can wrap your head around it (it’s just a link to an English translation of the Athanasian Creed): https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
I’m going to stick with “Jesus Christ and him crucified” as the basis of Christian faith.
Again, let me be clear: It is perfectly fine to go after Grudem and his gang for ESS and female subordinationism because they claim to find it in the creeds they ascribe to. However, it’s apparent to me that they’re clinging to a form of semi-Arianism, which is why the Nicene Creed was written in the first place. If they’re going to say they’re orthodox, they need to be orthodox and not try to invent new theology which flatly denies their orthodoxy. Otherwise, they can come and join me outside the charmed circle of the household of faith. But if they could just sit on the other side of the circle, please!
@ Daisy:
Daisy: that book is wonderful. I wish I had read it half a lifetime ago. Of course, it was not yet written. 🙂
mirele wrote:
Yes. This. I wish this were true in more cases than this one.
I’m glad to hear that ESS has been getting more criticism lately. It needs all the criticism it can get so that as many people as possible recognize it for what it truly is.
And maybe, if ESS is challenged on a large scale, comp doctrine will be too? I can dream, right?
When I saw this piece, I had a number of thoughts go through my mind. One was that while I may feel put down by comp doctrine/ESS and those who promote it, at least I’m in good company? I mean it’s awful that Jesus is getting this sort of treatment in ESS theology, but it’s also oddly comforting that he knows what it feels like to have people say he should be subordinate for all eternity, too.
@ brad/futuristguy:
You’re welcome. The same author wrote this:
Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/justifying-injustice-bible-slavery
Long before that author wrote those articles, I noticed that gender complementarian rhetoric about women, and their slogans (“women are equal in value but not in role”), sounded a lot like the past several decades in America where black Americans were told they were ‘separate yet equal,’ and the water fountains were labelled with “Whites Only” signs, things like that.
mirele wrote:
Perhaps, this may help some; it is said in my Church this about the parable of the Prodigal Son:
““The father who embraces his lost son is the definitive icon of God…. The merciful father of the parable has in himself …. all of the characteristics of fatherhood and motherhood. In embracing the son he shows the profile of a mother.”
In short, the ‘fatherhood’ of God cannot be compared to the earthly fatherhood of men. God as eternal ‘Father’ also wants to be like a hen, taking her brood under her wings, providing safety and shelter. The Father God who offers us sanctuary is also the ‘Mother’ God who comes out towards us with open arms.
Is the use of the term ‘Father’ confusing us in relationship to God? Only if we think in earthly terms. But Our Eternal Father’s most celebrated characteristic is that immeasurable ‘loving-kindness’ which can be found in the heart of any mother for her young.
mirele wrote:
Not that I disagree with that, just to add on…
Jesus did say that he and the Father were one (John 10:30) and that to see him, (Jesus), was to see the Father (John 14:8-10).
At the very least, I think most everyone who regularly posts to this blog can agree that the complementarians using any method – E.S.S. or whatever it may be – to argue that male hierarchy and oppression of women is dandy is awful. 🙂
@ PaJo:
I’m an introvert and would like to buy and read the entire book some day. Most people in the United States are extroverted and will try to “change” you into being like them if you’re an introvert.
They will act like there is something wrong with you if you’re not as out-going and talkative as everyone else.
But I did see some possible explanations in just chapter 1 of that book alone (I’ve yet to read the rest) for the rise of, or popularity of, the loud mouthed, gregarious preachers we read about all the time on this blog.
I guess most Americans prefer their preachers loud and brash with a cool wardrobe.
I’m the opposite. I prefer preachers who are more reserved and quiet. I don’t go in for theatrics or hipster wardrobes.
@ Christiane:
I am thinking that even if the RCC (or the protestants) elected a woman pope it would not make the ideas of male authority go away because those ideas are not limited to religion and certainly not to christianity.
The prophet could not have been saying that the messiah would be called ‘God the Father’ as opposed to ‘God the Son’ because he had no doctine of the trinity at all on which to even think that. The words are capitalized in english, I am thinking, because they are titles. So ‘father’ as used by the prophet would not be the same idea as ‘Father’ as used by trinitarian christians. Did not God himself tell Abraham that he would be the ‘father’ of many nations? So saying that here was an everlasting (or eternal) father would not have any impact as far as I can see on christian creeds. However, it might be a hint as to the divinity of the Son by using the word everlasting (or eternal). I doubt that the prophet thought that, but christianity ‘sees’ rather much in the OT that the Jews don’t see there.
@ okrapod:
I can see what you are saying, if the point of view is that ‘leadership’ involves ‘power and control’, yes.
But in the Kingdom of Our Lord, leadership takes on a VERY different form: to become a ‘servant of the servants of God’
if we would be leaders in the Kingdom of God, then we had better come to the place of humility where Our Lord meets us with grace …. you won’t find neo-Cal superstar mega preachers living in mansions lining up for that duty, no
I suppose it will be in which ‘Kingdom’ we aspire to lead, that will determine how our leadership roles find their meaning, n’est-pas?
Virgil wrote:
That does not help the case of the ESS Female Subordinationists.
@ Patriciamc:
What is it about these authoritarian leaders that inspire such crazy idolatrous songs? Ugh!
Daisy wrote:
I walk the line between being an extrovert and an introvert. But I don’t like loud, brash
preachers. I like humble servants.
I just scanned the first half of the Presentation of Papers planned for the San Antonio meet-up in November. Oh my word–so many sessions! They could fill a hotel with the speakers alone! (Not really criticizing; just surprised at how many sessions will be presented. It lets me know that there must be a LOT of people coming to attend this meet-up.)
I noted with a wry grin that some of the sessions on the Holy Trinity are moderated by women.
Also, while the main theme of the meet-up is the Trinity, that topic is less than 20% of the total meetings. I am not that up-to-date on who is who in the theological world; at most, I recognized 10% of the names, so others who are interested will have to make better sense of the gist of the meeting than I can. I did note that the only time I saw Dr. Mohler’s name was in the sessions related to gender dysphoria.
And while there were a few speakers from non-Baptist / Baptist leaning seminaries and organizations, it seemed to me to be largely a Baptist meeting. Like I said, I only scanned, and only got through half the document–I couldn’t believe how long it was, just listing the sessions to be provided. Life is too short to read the rest of it. 🙂
Anyway, I’ll pay more attention when the proponents of new dogmas (really, resurrected heresies) believe them enough to get slapped (as was Arius by St. Nicholas) or to die as martyrs for them, as did many of the early Christians. Today’s new dogmatizers (and too many who follow them) seem to seek larger salaries and faster video feeds. Not interested.
Lydia wrote:
I think the “superior intellect” of SBC’s New Calvinists have the Trads intimidated to challenge anything theologically. They obviously caved on the soteriology debate when the new reformers stepped into SBC life with their determinist God mumbo-jumbo. And they are probably confused on what to do about ESS since Pope Mohler weighed in with a neutral position on the issue. But if they wanted to pin them to the floor, they need to make their move NOW!
Arce wrote:
Yep, that would pretty well redefine “evangelical” and increase the Done ranks.
Max wrote:
And the Sunk Baptist Convention, with Captain Al Mohler at the helm charting a path of Destruction.
mirele wrote:
AMEN!
“Those who teach the ministry bear the greatest burden of accountability to the churches and to the denomination … It is with a single man that error usually commences.” (Albert Mohler)
@ mirele:
I realize they are creedal but I am not so I have a hard time with those boundaries. I view the whole “Father” thing as more metaphorical. A way to communicate something limited by human concepts. Who was Lord of Host Armies in the OT? that sort of thing….
But also the dangerous reason for ESS and even others who map genders to Christ and the Body in Ephesians 5.
Bruce Ware mangled the Orthodox Creeds in his book promoting ESS by editing Anthanasius quotes and suggesting what Anthanasius really meant. It’s just another step to plow through which is why I am not creedal.
Hope that explains a bit better where I was coming from and why I mentioned Isaiah 9 which the ESS guys totally ignore.
For anyone who would like to investigate, I propose Roger Nicole, recently deceased, as the bridge builder to right the course within the ETS
Dr. Nicole was a founding member of both the ETS and CBE!!! He was highly regarded within reformed circles – I remember him at the early Conferences for Reformed Theology held at Tenth Presbyterian, Philadelphia in the 1970s.
He was also a stalwart supporter of equality of gender. I’ll try to look through the CBE archives
Would a series of articles about how far the ETS has been sidelined from its earliest mission and founders, expose the new political mission of this group?
@ Max:
As Abba Eban said of another group: they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity!
Max wrote:
Al Mohler knows of what he speaks since he does this very thing.
@ Christiane:\
We are talking past each other. You are talking about christian ideas and I am not. I said nothing about leadership. Look at some of the family structures in other cultures. Look at the sexual issues of dominance and submission. Look at the pursuit of power for whatever reason. Look at politics. Look at who is saying that sexual slavery is permitted in their culture/religion/understanding. Male dominance/ authority did not suddenly develop originally as an idea within christianity and it won’t suddenly go away regardless of what christianity decides about it. That is what I am trying to say.
Serah wrote:
That is what the Non ESS types fear the most. I can practically feel the fear from Pruitt and Truman on that specific point.
The real problem is that the ESS academic guys like Ware were not challenged right away. ESS is pretty ingrained in certain circles like SBC seminaries and all their partners in academia and church planting. We have an entire generation or two of young pastors that this is all they know. They don’t even know it has a name.
@ okrapod:
Agreed. Human is as human does whether for good or bad. Cultural milieu or religious affiliation is only incidental.
Bill M wrote:
Think: Rome.
Christiane wrote:
But the Reformed (“NO POPERY!”) would rather be Borgia Popes.
Can we try to work with each other in these discussions? I realize that we all are coming from different places and I respect that. But can we give one another the benefit of the doubt? Can we just let some things go when we don’t quite agree? Can we agree to focus on where the majority of the followers of this blog are coming from?
The Deebs give plenty of space for commenters to ask questions, disagree, and to give differing views. I think we all grow from that.
I do get tired of every post being used by some to bait people personally. Can we all take a breath? In the grand scheme, the hostility taken by some here is maddening. Thanks!
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, the churches in question are built around and optimized for the back-slapping, glad-handing, smiiiiling Used Car Salesman.
A glimpse inside Grudem’s mind:
“The idea of headship and submission within a personal relationship did not begin with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1987. Nor did it begin with some writings of the apostle Paul in the first century. Nor did it begin with a
few patriarchal men in a patriarchal society in the Old Testament. Nor did the idea of headship and submission begin with Adam and Eve’s fall into sin in Genesis 3. In fact, the idea of headship and submission did not even begin with the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2.
No, the idea of headship and submission existed before Creation. It began in the relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity. The Father has eternally had a leadership role, an authority to initiate and direct, that the Son does not have. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is subject to both the Father and Son and plays yet a different role in Creation and in the work of salvation.”
(Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Wayne Grudem, http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781433532610.pdf)
Hmmmm … my Bible says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE that has been made … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son” (John 1).
That doesn’t sound like the Son has “no authority to initiate and direct.”
As Al Mohler once said “It is with a single man that error usually commences.”
Velour wrote:
I was hoping someone would catch that.
Lydia wrote:
I would think this would be headline news over at SBC Today!
@ Lydia:
The Trads are on higher ground with this issue – they will miss an opportunity for sure if they miss THIS opportunity! If you allow someone’s weakness to control your strength, they own you.
Daisy wrote:
It’s funny that you, Lydia, and mirele are actually making the case for Oneness. Now there is another “heresy” that has persisted for a long time. I’m really curious how the ESS crowd responds to the heresy charge. Popcorn, anyone?
Daisy, the quietest preacher I’ve ever listened to (plus a British accent, to boot) is Gervase Charmley. He’s the pastor at Bethel Evangelical Free Church in Hanley, somewhere in Stoke-on-Trent. It appears to be an independent congregation that subscribes to the 1689 LBC, albeit somewhat loosely, but he follows a lectionary and has a voice that could put some people to sleep.
Arce wrote:
The ETS statement says that the persons of the Trinity are equal “in power and glory” so I don’t see how ESS is compatible with that statement. Since ESS proponents have not been expelled, I think it is reasonable to say that the ETS as a whole has decided that they have nuanced ESS sufficiently.
I wonder if all the new Ph.D./PhD holders being cranked out of SBTS are being cranked out to generate votes at ETS.
okrapod wrote:
Agree! But it needs to stop . . .
okrapod wrote:
I see this. The ‘beginning’ of male dominance/authority, if we look at it through the Church’s eyes, does predate Christianity, yes. Allegorically, if you will, the Church takes it back to Eden as the result of primordial sin which affected our human nature as a serious weakness, so it WOULD show up universally, which in reality we do see (with the exceptions of a very few matrilineal societies, where women rule the roost).
There’s this reflection I like to think about:
AS WE WERE CREATED: “The image and likeness of God in man, created as man and woman (in the analogy that can be presumed between Creator and creature), thus also expresses the “unity of the two” in a common humanity. This “unity of the two”, which is a sign of interpersonal communion, shows that the creation of man is also marked by a certain likeness to the divine communion (“communio”). This likeness is a quality of the personal being of both man and woman, and is also a call and a task. The foundation of the whole human “ethos” is rooted in the image and likeness of God which the human being bears within himself from the beginning. Both the Old and New Testament will develop that “ethos”, which reaches its apex in the commandment of love.[25]
In the “unity of the two”, man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist “side by side” or “together”, but they are also called to exist mutually “one for the other”.
AFTER THE FALL, THERE WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE FOR THE WORSE:
” …when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of “being a sincere gift” and therefore living “for” the other:
“he shall rule over you”. This “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman,
whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation. whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”.
AND THE CONSEQUENCES: ” whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.” AND “the dignity of women is measured by the order of love, which is essentially the order of justice and charity.” (We know that the ‘submission’ of women to men is an affront to the dignity of women, yes)
AND THE HEALING: Redemption. The Paschal Mystery.
“Christ has entered this history and remains in it as the Bridegroom who “has given himself”. “To give” means “to become a sincere gift” in the most complete and radical way: “Greater love has no man than this” (Jn 15:13). According to this conception, all human beings – both women and men – are called through the Church, to be the “Bride” of Christ, the Redeemer of the world. In this way “being the bride”, and thus the “feminine” element, becomes a symbol of all that is “human”, according to the words of Paul: “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).”
(not exactly what neo-Cals want to hear, is it?) 🙂
reference: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html
Max wrote:
That is so true.
@ Formerly known as Elizabeth – not the shaming Elizabeth:
He got around. He was also involved with the SBC Founders movement! I am still trying to wrap my head around that one.
@ Formerly known as Elizabeth – not the shaming Elizabeth:
It might help if you give some clue as to what bothers you. I am clueless.
Bridget wrote:
And for my part as a woman, I will never give money again to a church that doesn’t respect women and the priesthood of all believers.
I learned my lesson after a tour-of-duty of a NeoCalvinist church that believed that women were second-class citizens and promoted that Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood nonsense. The most dishonest, unethical, abusive pastors/elders I have ever encountered were at that church. Countless horror stories from former members, all hauled in to meetings and screamed at. I wasn’t the only one.
Max wrote:
It didn’t seem like you to praise him, after all of the bad things that Al Mohler has done to so many upstanding Christians, including at the seminary, costing them jobs, and how his harmful teachings in the denomination.
mirele wrote:
Your ideas here are compatible with those of many inside the household. Trinitarianism is not the same thing as Christianity. Some Christians (Quakers) are not Trinitarian. And many denominations and traditions reject creeds.
I think Trinitarianism is not mandatory for salvation, just as I think creeds are not mandatory. I am now a creed-reciting Trinitarian, but I was no less a Christian during my long sojourn among the Quakers. My faith hinges on the Crucifixion and Resurrection, two things so magnificent that every other thing, however precious, feels comparatively small. The rest of faith, to me, is a matter of earnest study and lifelong service.
I love the variety of beliefs within Christianity. Although I don’t believe Trinitarianism is required, it is a real and ancient understanding of God. It can’t just be redefined without a frank admission of novel theology. To present ESS as the simple ancient definition of the Trinity would in fact be heretical among Trinitarian Christians.
@ Max:
Look at the year that book was published. 2006. Go to Amazon and see who endorsed it. Aside from his Reformed buddies, there is Paige Patterson! Ya think he read it?
I know some voices have spoken out as loud as they can on this years ago but were ignored like Cheryl Schatz who did a DVD series about the Trinity and exposing the error of ESS. She recognized it right away since the Mormons and JW;s have similar issues with the Trinity. She has a ministry to people coming out of those cults and was blown away when she saw ESS coming from places like the SBC.
Here is a link to a clip:
https://youtu.be/JLe-qF2nptA
Max wrote:
I am sharing that one with the kids!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I am not making a case for anything except the Trinity is on the same page, so to speak. and not a hierarchical caste system. The same will, essence, etc. God did not order Jesus to the cross as PSA seems to imply. The whole ESS argument spits on the cross. Even when you get into the resurrection, all three of the Trinity are mentioned in varying places as raising Jesus from the dead. Check it out.
I have no idea what having the same will and essence is labeled, btw. I have had ESS’ers try to pull the Oneness accusation on me before. I honestly don’t know enough about it to respond.
Former CLCer wrote:
“With a ruler, you can lay the flattery on with a trowel.”
— Benjamin Disraeli
@ Lydia:
I don’t see how complementarianism can survive without something like ESS.
It’s really hard to make some kind of argument that all women everywhere must always be in second status or in lesser roles to men based on their sex alone.
They need something like the eternal nature or relationship of the Trinity to ground female subordination in order to try to justify it.
Sex (male/ female) is in-born and permanent, but roles are, or can be, temporary, and should be assigned based on stuff anyone can achieve, such as education, skill, talent.
In the olden days, the complementarians of yore could fall back on widely held, sexist cultural stereotypes about women to rationalize keeping women out of influential positions or from being preachers or equals in marriages. Those arguments no longer work.
Lydia wrote:
Sounds related to “Tyranny of The Most Easily Offended”.
@ Gram3:
What would be the significance of controlling ETS? Is it considered the academic arbiter of theology?
If I remember correctly, Jim G, who sometimes posts here is presenting a paper this year.
Lydia wrote:
Please don’t think I’m trying to lay anything on you. Btw, I was in a Oneness church for 23 years. I don’t believe it to be a heresy. I was just following mirele’s comment, and yours and Daisy’s responses. Scripture’s like those are used to defend Oneness. That’s all. You’re right that the Orthodox Trinity, and also Oneness, are on the same page. There is no hierarchy in either of those views.
I actually am somewhat “outside the household of faith” with mirele. I don’t really fit in anywhere.
Daisy wrote:
Patriarchy survived just fine without it for thousands of years. Don’t forget there will always be plenty of women to support it now whether it is by objectifying themselves or as being needy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I am just now reading along in the free excerpts offered on another book site for that same book, and it mentions Rick Warrne’s Saddleback Church on page 65.
It gets into how some preachers are extreme extroverts. The book describes Warren’s church as being a Cult Of Personality.
From the book:
The author interviews a guy who is a preacher named McHugh who discusses in her book how difficult evangelical churches make being an introvert (starting around page 65-66). This guy later wrote a book about it, she says. I think I’ve heard of his book before.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Then I am in your club, too. I don’t fit in anywhere either. I am a woman without a tribe. :o)
It is funny how people label you with what they see as heretical. An ESS proponent calling me a Oneness heretic because I disagree with ESS. I was once kicked off a survivors blog for NOT being ESS or as they said, Jesus is eternally subordinate so I am a heretic. Oh well! I had no idea I did not visit that often!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse anyone. I don’t agree with Oneness or modalism.
@ Daisy:
It is all because our society values charisma and personality over substance. It is a HUGE problem that is coming home to roost in many places.
I am still waiting for the homely overweight bean counter, either male or female, to run for Pres…..
mirele wrote:
I’m finding the debate about complementarianism to be going into stranger and stranger territory. I don’t understand the Trinity one little bit but I really don’t understand the leap from how Jesus is subordinate to the Father therefore women are subordinate to men.
And I find the talk about “heretics” to be quite disturbing. This is what the Inquisition would say. We must act as souls are in danger! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
If God really thought I was that much danger, he would have handed me a clearer owners manual than the Bible.
Lydia wrote:
I guess I’m thinking more in terms of 2016 America, and particularly how American complementarians are trying to defend their views from rebuttals by Christian egalitarians.
@ Lydia:
The book discusses how a lot of people fall for style over substance.
A lot of companies, the book says, end up using bad ideas because the guy who pitched the bad idea did a stellar, smooth presentation. Presentation = Good, Actual Idea = Very Bad.
People are looking at the shiny pretty and not paying attention to the substance. I can see how all that is applicable to today’s evangelical / mega churches.
okrapod wrote:
I missed this earlier and want to say: Bingo!
Jack wrote:
I’m not very good at explaining it, but I tried a few posts above.
The usual, old arguments used by complementarians to repress women in church and marriage don’t hold up anymore.
So, the complementarians of today have to convince women that their being put in a role of subjugation to all men on earth in every sphere forever and ever, due to their biological sex (which is permanent and unchanging), is supposedly entirely justifiable, because Jesus is also eternally subjugated to God the Father, though he is equal in worth and being to the Father.
So see (complementarian reasoning goes), it’s really not unfair or sexist to argue that a person can have the same worth as you based on an unchanging trait (such as biological sex), but be relegated to a lesser role than you forever.
That is why comps love ESS and are defending it.
Jack wrote:
I am someone that uses the word “heresy” in describing Ware and Grudem’s Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son to prop up their belief that women should be second-class citizens. I don’t condone violence, however, because of differences in ideas.
Ware and Grudem went for too long with their bizarre ideas unchallenged. Ditto for the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood. They’ve all done enough damage.
Here is one session at ETS for you guys to ponder:
10:40 AM—11:20 AM
Jason K. Allen
(Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
As One with Authority: Biblical Preaching as an Intrinsically Authoritative Act
Oh.MY Word. It is even worse if you know Jason Allen’s pedigree.
Daisy wrote:
The confusion is all mine. 🙂 I was reading the comments as a whole. I didn’t mean to single you out.
Interesting factoid: the UPCI, the most well-known Oneness denomination, ordains women preachers.
@ Daisy:
Something else that really plays into this is the constant focus on “instant”. My brother used to always tell me he had to please his stockholders. I told him he best please the end user first. So many areas of life now think this way. Instant everything.
People are constantly pressured to report “success” and sweep failure under the rug. No one is learning anything from the failures which is vital. And it is now systemic.
Lydia wrote:
Pure Gibberish!!
Jack wrote:
It really is stupid. If one goes back far enough the word meant something like; factions who though differently. Then it morphed to burnings at the stake for thinking differently about something.
This is one reason it is wonderful to have the freedom to have many different denominations. We tend to forget that. The Good News is I don’t want Grudem burned at the stake. Just the freedom to disagree with him. Vehemetly. And encourage people to seek truth on their own :o)
Lydia wrote:
Thanks Lydia for the video link. Ms. Schatz makes a good case for labeling ESS as error, because it is the only case to make! As she notes “We need to look at ALL Scripture.” This darn verse cherry-picking by Calvinists to support their weak doctrines is getting old. When a theologian stands before a crowd and proclaims “We ought not to pray to Jesus” because He has lesser authority than the Father, he is treading on dangerous ground. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have stumbled over the stumbling block on this one. These boys have been hanging out in ivory towers for so long, they’ve lost their way. Just use your lies about the Son to subordinate your own women and leave the Body of Christ alone!
PaJo wrote:
Oh blergh. We’re probably going to hear some unpleasant musings on the subject. If it were up to me, I would introduce Dr. Mohler to my friend who was so distressed by her “gender dysphoria” that she tried to kill herself with a Civil War-era revolver, but you know, he just wouldn’t get it. And my friend needs to be protected from the likes of Al Mohler. Just my personal opinion, based on personal experience.
From ETS:
“Reimagining God as Sophia: What Happens to the Trinity in the Hands of Feminist
Theologians?”
Oh dear. What are we to do with the attribute of “Wisdom” as it is feministic!
http://www.etsjets.org/files/annual_meeting/Schedule_Draft.pdf
I have already skimmed 26 pages and am not even halfway. Too much! However, the baptists are dominating the sessions and moderator posts.
Lydia wrote:
I know more about it than I care to admit, both historical Oneness (thank you “History of Early Christian Doctrine” at university) and Oneness as it plays out today in some fairly obscure religious groups in the USA. My opinion about Oneness is that it’s untenable because the earliest Christian documents (Gospels, Epistles, Revelation) are pretty clear that God the Father and Jesus Christ are not the same Person. You have to engage in a lot of theological wordgames (far more than with ESS!) to get around something as basic as that. But it’s done.
(Also, I’m talking about Oneness, not Unitarianism, which is rather a different thing entirely.)
Deb wrote:
As a female with academic proclivities and strengths, my desire for academic community, dialogue partners, intellectual reflection, and warmth (key word: warmth) and academic hospitality is extremely high. My desire to attend or be part of ETS/EPS, however, is extremely, extremely, extremely low. The reasons for this are legion. Many women would rather spend their time and money if they have it at SBL. This should concern them, but it doesn’t.
@ mirele:
There can be bliss in ignorance. :o)
mirele wrote:
That’s very interesting. You’ve studied it far more than I have. I misunderstood your statements about Monotheism, since that is also one of the arguments used for teaching Oneness — that one God embodied in Christ would be more in keeping with Judaic beliefs about the one true God. But I’ve never studied early Christian documents as I suspect most Christians haven’t.
okrapod wrote:
Old saying in the Church, this:
” . . . the New Testament lies hidden in the Old
and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New”
(St. Augustine)
Emily Honeycutt wrote:
Interesting. I’ve liked what I’ve seen of SBL. Is there a problem I’m not aware of? But I also have little interest in ETS – it looks far too conservative for me!
Christiane wrote:
“There is a scarlet thread woven through the whole fabric.” (Max)
Ian,
I meant that it *should* concern them that many (not speaking for all) women don’t have a desire to attend ETS/EPS in general. I am including myself in women who would rather spend time and money if I have it on SBL.
@ mirele:
This is part of why I love these comment threads. I learn so much. Out of all the beliefs from my former “church,” Oneness is one I’ve held on to. Why? Well, mainly because it just make more sense to me than the Trinity did.
A few years back, Dee wrote something about how you’d get very different responses from people if you interviewed members from any random church about the Trinity as they were letting out on a Sunday morning. It’s not easy to understand or explain. And sometimes “It’s a mystery” just doesn’t cut it for me.
Now they’ve thrown ESS into the mix. I think I’ll let the theologians battle it out and go on my merry way.
@ Emily Honeycutt:
What is SBL?
Society of Biblical Literature
https://www.sbl-site.org/
Daisy wrote:
Comps and the Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son nonsense are also costing us our witness before unbelievers with “The Tarzan Gospel” instead of the real Gospel.
@ Emily Honeycutt:
Thanks. Will check it out.
Possibly of interest:
https://soundcloud.com/janetmefferdtoday/7-13-16-janet-mefferd-today
Interview with Carl Trueman
By a happy coincidence my bedtime reading is currently William Perkins on Galatians. As he is commenting on ch.4:4 (But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son…….), he digresses into a brief discussion on the meaning of God; how the Father sends the Son; was the Son sent of His own consent; how the Father can send the Son considering they are both one. It’s all wonderful stuff but the following comments caught my eye.
(In the context of the verses)
“God is The Father, the first person..and He is called ‘God’ not because He partakes more of the Godhead than the Son or the Holy Ghost, but because He is first in order of the three divine persons.”
“The Father sends the Son by His counsel and eternal decree whereby the Son was designated to the office of a mediator, and consequently to become man.”
“The Son is sent with His own consent because the decree of the Father is the decree of the Son and the Holy Ghost, because as they are all one in nature, so are they all one in will. All the persons then have a stroke in this sending, yet for order’s sake the Father is said to send, because He is first.”
“In the doctrine of the Trinity, nature and person must be distinguished. Nature is a substance common to many, as the Godhead. A person is that which subsists of itself and has a proper manner of subsisting, as the Father be getting, the Son begotten, the Holy Ghost proceeding. Now the Father and the Son are one indeed for nature or Godhead, but they are not one for person. Nay, thus they are really distinct. The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father. And thus does the Father send the Son.”
I’m also reading Titus at the moment. Paul tells Titus in 2:10 “….make the teaching about God our Saviour attractive”; then in 2:13 he talks about “the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Then in 3:4-8 he says “But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing and rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs, having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.”
There is no ESS in the Trinity. There is no ESS in Scripture. The Triune God saves us. And given that the peddlers of ESS are self-proclaimed Calvinists and lovers of the Puritans, it is surprising that neither Calvin, nor the Puritans, nor, most importantly of all, Scripture agrees with them.
@ L. Lee:
Yes, I listened to that interview and definitely recommend it.
@ Velour:
Agreed!
“If people really feel they must be complementarians, they would be wise not to ground their views on such a very contentious re-interpretation of the Trinity.” Quote from Mark Woods editorial on Christianity Today.
It is a dangerous precedent to tinker with the Trinity. It approaches a term I don’t believe should be taken lightly, which is ” blasphemy. ” And I hate this term more than Presbyterians because I am from a non magesterial baptist and free church tradition.
I feel very restrained on church discipline like others from my tradition, but Presbyters should be starting discipline hearing right away on the charge of “blasphemy.”
Sorry we can’t be euphemistic about it. It is what it is….
@ Daisy:
You’ve explained it fine. But the comp leap in logic still doesn’t make sense. Jesus wasn’t a woman. If anything Ess would teach my son that he is eternally subordinate to me as I should be to my father. So it’s really a parent/child thing. Unless you’re supposed to see your wife in that light. Eww.
Mark wrote:
Good point. But the SBC has adopted stringent church discipline under Mohler and Dever's leadership which makes me wonder about guys like Bruce Ware and Denny Burk who have been hawking ESS in the SBC.
Jack wrote:
That is what comp doctrine does. It promotes a sort of daddy/daughter relationship for a husband and wife. When you add in ESS it becomes even more sinister….if that is possible.
@ Velour:
Point taken but it seems that Dr. Goligher is concerned more about right thought than the injustice of female subjugation. If God is so strict that he would condemn those who have a certain belief in good faith then we're all doomed.
Lydia wrote:
The PCA, the Orthodox Presbyterians and their ilk must begin heresy trials against ESS proponents within their ranks, or they will face charges of heresy themselves.
The SBC is a separate issue. I would hope SBC congregations will begin separation and secondary separation against the Strachanists, Mohlerites, and the Ware followers. They need a poster with the indictment of ” Heretic and Compromiser” below. Shame on them!
And I am sounding like a fundamentalist and I hate this, but this is a very serious matter.
Jack wrote:
I don’t know anything about him and what he believes. Maybe someone else who knows can tell us.
And yes, for many of them it seems they are willing to debate “right thought” (Eternal Subordination of the Son) without ever addressing “the injustice of female subjugation.”
I am tired of the Comp crowd calling Christian women “sinners” for rejecting Comp teachings, which really started being heavily taught in the 1990’s. Christian
men who reject Comp are also reviled. All of the Comp’s cookie cutter recipes for a wonderful life, based on a few clobber verses from the Bible, keeps blowing up.
I think Tim Fall does a much better job of presenting a happy, healthy marriage on his blog.
@ Jack:
By the way, are you in Canada? A Canadian flag is showing up next to your name.
Harley lives in Texas and a Canadian flag shows up next to her name.
Mark wrote:
Oh my. Obviously I don’t know how this works for Presbyterians. I was just listening to Trueman on the podcast who said he only realized this was being taught 18 months ago when someone gave him some quotes. I find that one a bit hard to believe considering his hanging around with these guys for quite a while. He also dances around the topic of it being heresy but calls it “outside the bounds of orthodoxy”.
But in the end, he still sees women as second class humans in spirituality and every day life of marriage even though he says that is not patriarchal.
Velour wrote:
Yes, this and other scandals in the New Calvinist movement (Driscoll, Mahaney, Patrick, etc., etc.) are causing unbelievers to say “I told you so – there’s nothing to it.”
Lydia wrote:
I find myself saying “oh my” also. I wish I didn’t feel repulsed by this ESS, but I do. It makes me feel nauseated. And there are people pussy footing around this issue and giving ESS doctrine legitimacy by fellow shipping with ESS proponents and speaking with them at conferences and “praise the speaker” rallies. I call these people “compromisers” even though they may not claim ESS belief. ESS proponents aren’t being marginalized but are being praised as holy men, (and women). Why is this happening, and I ask “why, why, and why!” I will never get an answer.
Max wrote:
After my excommunication/shunning from a NeoCalvinist church on some trumped up charge, like the doctor in his 70’s before me and the woman C.P.A. before him, I was injured in an accident (not my fault). At the hospital emergency room, the doctors, nurses, and social worker wanted to know who I had in my life in the immediate area to help me.
I responded, “No one. My church’s pastors/elders ordered that I be excommunicated and shunned. I lost all of my friends of 8 years. People that I had been close to. The pastors/elders lied about me. Before me, they did it to a doctor. They told hundreds of church members to never talk to the doctor again, engineers who work for tech companies, Stanford University students. Before the doctor, there was the woman CPA who left for a saner church and was subjected to church discipline ‘before all’. The doctor and his wife accused the pastors/elders of lying. The CPA accused them of lying about her.”
You could have heard a pin drop in the emergency room. The medical team looked absolutely horrified. Mouthes agape. “What’s the name of the church?” Me: “Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.” Yes, there went a witness for The Gospel.
So help came to me from unbelievers who lived out of the area and came to help me,
atheists who helped me post-accident, a gay man who helped me, and Christian friends in Europe.
Christiane wrote:
Amen!!!
For me, Matt. 26 completely debunks ESS, or whatever they’re calling it now.
“Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Emily Honeycutt wrote:
🙂
When the Evangelical Theological Society meets in November to discuss “The Trinity”, Ware and Grudem will be scrambling to defend their position on three wills in the Godhead … because that is essentially embedded in their ESS teachings, whether they admit it or not. That heretical view – three distinct wills in the Trinity – would not be a hill to die on for such prominent theologians. And to think that Mohler has given his friends a pass on this!
I repeat: Southern Baptists, are you awake yet?!
@ Velour:
Whew!
Mark wrote:
Not going to happen in the PCA because Ligon Duncan. He’s on the study committee, so let’s guess how that is going to go. Tim Keller is a puzzle because he has unordained deaconesses, but he is also one of the Gospel Glitterati who are all in on Female Subordination. The PCA has shown remarkable restraint (or timidity depending on your POV) when it comes to heresy/error trials. The greenlighted Peter Leithart, and he is one of the brains behind Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision.
Trueman is OPC, IIRC, so maybe it will get some traction there. But the OPC is teen-inesy, so who really cares? Trueman’s voice as a church historian is valued way beyond the OPC, thankfully. But the SBC is many times bigger than the PCA and OPC put together. That is where the battle will be fought, and some Baptist pastors and seminary professors better start thinking seriously about what they are tacitly promoting. I think that was Trueman’s point. Trouble is, I don’t think those guys have any ability to consider the possibility that they have been wrong, even assuming that they care one way or the other.
Max wrote:
Indeed.
@ mirele:
“For that reason, I’m glad that people are taking Grudem and the rest of the comp crowd to task, even if I do, at bottom, think that some of this is like trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
heretic schmeretic
i agree with you. it’s plain as plain that the golden rule, gender equality without caveat, and what is life-giving win the day. if it takes punctilious ideological bean counting to put an end to this bull$h|t, then i’ll gladly provide all the snacks and drinks and fan them while they work it out. (sporting an ironic facial expression the whole way)
Max wrote:
The problem as I see it is the SBC leaders-National-State and Local will label anyone who does not support ESS as liberals. I give the Takeover folks their due they have created an atmosphere of fear that does not allow for dissent.
Lydia wrote:
Obsessed with their own “authority” and their lordship over others. What small, small persons these men are. They have made themselves into little gods, and they expect the rest of us to hang on their every word and bow to their authority.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t know about academic arbiters of theology, but ETS is the transdenominational organization for conservative theological academics (or those on an academic track.)
The personal significance of a takeover of ETS would be that Grudem and Piper would have the satisfaction of revenging their embarrassment back in the 1980’s. I hope that will not happen, but I never would have guessed that so many Baptist theologians would be swayed by this ideology. What I think may happen is that the Trinity issue will have the same effect that polarizing issues usually have: some go over to the other side because their side has become so ridiculous due to insularity, and the ones who do not leave double down.
Gram3 wrote:
I think you are exactly right about the SBC here. How would they explain ignoring it for so long right under their noses, for starters? Even Patterson endorsed Grudem.
Gram3 wrote:
Not sure I am familiar with this one. Was it their bizarre research on Junia as a man? :o)
Lydia wrote:
Did you know that they published a little-known addendum? Apparently Junia and his wife had a son, whom they named Sue. 😉
@ Lydia:
If I am not just totally recalling incorrectly, one of the reasons for CBMW’s existence is that Grudem found himself in the minority defending patriarchy at the 1986(?) meeting. He and Piper were afraid that ETS was trending egalitarian. I imagine that was a narcissistic injury. I am not a psy* but that’s how I explain to myself the obsession these men have with their manhood being tied to their authority over all women and most men.
@ Gram3:
Makes one curious how this is dealt with at Westminster. Trueman is backing off any claim to ESS being heresy. He was saying on Medford’s show it is outside the bounds of orthodoxy but also implying some may be teaching it from ignorance… which I found odd.
I am not familiar with Westminster at all.
elastigirl wrote:
Didn’t you tell us recently that you make pies?
@ Gram3:
Makes sense. They were in the minority at SBTS then, too. Amazing when you think about it. Like communistic totalitarianism , they have had a good run. Hee hee.
mot wrote:
I’m not a Baptist. But I’ve heard that they were already attacking fellow conservatives
in their disputes. True?
Gram3 wrote:
Grudem was a former president of ETS. These academics love to discuss jots and tittles. Most are scribes and pharisees with little spiritual insight of Scripture. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation.
@ Josh:
Lol!
Grudem and Piper together manage to conjure up some bizarre findings. One of the sources they quoted about Junia being male also claimed Priscia was male! Grudem and Piper conveniently left out that part from their source.
These men have no integrity. Much like Ware editing Anthanasius for his pro ESS book.
@ Christiane:
okrapod wrote: “the ideas of male authority are not going to go away regardless of how that turns out.”
++++++++++++++
but perhaps ‘male authority’ will end up being the new cigarette smoking. or the new lawn watering (at least in drought territory where i live). or the new fur coat.
———————
Christiane wrote: “the ideas of feminine participation in the Church are not receding either”
+++++++++++++
female opportunity and power is the way forward for societies all over the world.
(for starters, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm)
it is inevitable that CBMW, gender role-ians, & patriarchalists will continually look more and more ridiculous and irrelevant. they are the new powder blue stationwagon with navy blue vinyl interior.
Lydia wrote:
He was probably rushing for the plane to go on another African safari and didn’t realize what he was doing. Some of these SBC leaders are done, but they just haven’t quit yet.
@ Velour:
in the land of my best intentions i make pies that can broker world peace.
Max wrote:
Too many of them are still drawing some type of paycheck before they retire. They are riding the gravy train.
elastigirl wrote:
Do you live in Silicon Valley? If “yes”, I will be your official taste tester.
I will need to try various pies, plain and with toppings like vanilla ice cream
and whipped cream.
I will do this *sacrificially* to help you *broker world piece*.
Velour wrote:
Conservative is in the eyes of the beholder. Not to be conservative is to be a liberal and some of those claiming you are a liberal will turn against you and in some instances do all they can to see to it you lose your SBC position. I will call these people what they are–EVIL MEN!!
@ mirele, Lydia, & BeenThereDoneThat:
You guys are in good company, I don’t fit into a nice neat linearized box either.
mot wrote:
Yes, that’s what I had heard they were doing. So very sad.
Max wrote:
Maybe we’ll get lucky and some trophy hunter from deep space will stalk him the next time he goes on safari.
@ Max:
Can there be any doubt that Mohler already has Patterson's replacement identified and ready to go?
@ Velour:
as long as there’s a perfunctory yummy sound.
Lydia wrote:
Well now! If they can just find something saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a male. ………. they’ll have their male above female hierarchical claims settled, once and for all! Won’t they?
Velour wrote:
These guys protect their jobs. Just imagine ministers not trusting other ministers because of the fear of being reported to a higher power for not holding to the party position. I try to pastor my Southern Baptist Church with God’s help, but I do not socialize with other Southern Baptist ministers–I do not trust them. That is sad, but it is a true statement on my part.
Deb wrote:
He will be a Calvinist!
mot wrote:
The word has no meaning anymore. The Cals have declared the Trads are liberal when they won’t hire Calvinists. They start labeling. Then they turn around and adopt what some think are typically liberal causes. Does anyone know what you call people who create Chaos on purpose in order to control? Yep. Narcissists.
Lydia wrote:
I want to know how long the Trads will continue to finance the Calvinists. IMO the Calvinists want the whole SBC.
@ Deb:
They could lock him out of his office like they did Dr. Dilday to get rid of him.
Yes. Evil deceptive men.
@ Daisy:
“Most people in the United States are extroverted and will try to “change” you into being like them if you’re an introvert.”
+++++++++++++++++
don’t know the statistics on such things (& don’t know if i could trust them anyway [ken]),
but i reckon a good many of these American extroverts are closet introverts.
if they lived in another culture, another country (perhaps England? Scandinavia?) there would be no closet.
@ mot:
Yes, they were asleep at the wheel. Too late now, Pope Mohler controls most entities with his water carriers. Patterson is a finger in the wind guy who knows where all the CR bodies are buried.
IMO, the whole thing is totally corrupt.
elastigirl wrote:
I even do dishes!
mot wrote:
I think you are wise!
Lydia wrote:
Patterson and his lackeys created a lot of bodies. I agree the whole thing is corrupt and the SBC is going to die. They did it to themselves IMO!
mot wrote:
Sounds like a wise plan.
The more I have learned about so many of these leaders, since I am out a NeoCalvinist church, the more I realize just how unethical, immoral, and abusive so many of these pastors/leaders are across the nation. I don’t care about their books and articles
about how to *do church*. I want to see them doing it in their lives.
mot wrote:
Suicide, in sloooooow motion.
My hope in all of this mess is that we all will open our own Bibles everyday to feast on the manna He has given each of us and that we as His people can have the Biblical confidence to rest in Him.
Daisy wrote:
Maybe they are living vicariously through them?
Same here.
I once went to a church with a soft-spoken Greek professor pastor. I learned so much there. After he retired, the new pastor got up the first day and opened his mouth screaming so loud, I about got whiplash. I walked out of there that day and did not return.
@ Velour:
well, in that case, blueberry, cherry, or chocolate satin?
elastigirl wrote:
Chocolate satin, please.
For this I will award you The Pound Sand Ministries (TM) County Fair Blue Ribbon.
@ Muff Potter:
Ha! that’s funny!
@ Lydia:
“Trueman is backing off any claim to ESS being heresy. He was saying on Medford’s show it is outside the bounds of orthodoxy but also implying some may be teaching it from ignorance… which I found odd.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i don’t see how ‘ignorance’ makes anything less heretical. if one takes stock in that word.
Lydia wrote:
Have you noticed that some of the complementarians, the hard core ones, do the opposite with the daughters? They tend to sexualize the daughters with some of them throwing those “daddy daughter” balls, where the daughters shave the dad.
And someone on some blog reproduced quotes by some Christian patriarchal guy who said something about the purpose for daughters is so that men (the fathers of these girls) could have the admiration of a younger woman, because all older dudes supposedly need to feel that some younger women finds them hot (or however he put it, or implied it).
I can’t remember who said it or where I saw it (maybe quoted over at Julie Anne’s blog??), but it made my skin crawl.
Lydia wrote:
Considering that the men promoting it all have advanced degrees in various aspects of theology, I find this “ignorance” argument puzzling and disingenuous.
elastigirl wrote:
Is rhubarb in the offing too?
Lydia wrote:
The same errors, the same female subjugation, and the same fruit resulting from it.
There was a video the other day of a high school girl giving a speech on how badly growing up JW had wounded her, she brought up the same issues of male control, shunning of those who ask questions or don’t submit, rape and child molesting and abuse being swept under the rug… same old, same old… the dynamics are the same when the thought patterns are the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDvT_gYq-ls
Lydia wrote:
UGH.
No thank you, Mr. Allen, I will pass. Have a ball preaching to yourself, as far as I’m concerned.
Lydia wrote:
Even John Chrystosom stood up for Junia being a female apostle; considering the guy had a low opinion of women even by the standards of his day, that was really saying something.
Max wrote:
http://i1.wp.com/www.nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/the-theologians.jpg
Velour wrote:
What do predators eat after they’ve eaten all the prey?
Gram3 wrote:
“I’LL SHOW YOU! I’LL SHOW YOU! YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN *NICE* TO ME WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE!”
Lydia wrote:
“I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!”
— Sgt Schultz, Stalag 13
(Johann Banner, I’m getting soooo much mileage out of your best-known character’s tag line…)
Jack wrote:
Ideological Purity, Comrades.
Lydia wrote:
Try adding in how the woman must service the man whenever the man gets Urrges in his Aaareas — with both ends of the alimentary canal if need be — and it starts sounding incestuously pedo.
Lydia wrote:
“BUZZWORD BINGO!”
@ Jack:
I don’t see how you reached that conclusion. On 3rd June 2016 on the MoS website he said the following
“The inner life of the Triune God does not support hierarchy, patriarchy, or egalitarianism”
@ Lowlandseer:
I think Jack was pointing out he is still a comp even though he does not agree with ESS.
@ mirele:
I did not hear him name anyone teaching ESs so there is plausible deniability about the ignorance part.
What I heard in the podcast was a bit of walking back the cat. But then as I thought about it, maybe Truman is given too much credit. Aimee basically published the outspoken Liam stuff under her name and it went from there. Pruitt focused on turning comp to confessional.
In the end, as I think about it,bI think Truman is being very careful.
Don’t know if this has been posted yet, but June 28, 2016 blog post by Al Mohler on ESS. I read it and it seems he is saying “well, ESS isn’t scriptural and might be heresy, but please, please, please don’t throw out complementarianism with it! Anybody who is against comp is the REAL problem.” I don’t know for sure, but for this much traction to be taking place regarding ESS in the SBC, there must be a huge crack occurring.
Here’s the link http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/
@ waking up:
If you were to turn this on its head, with the Egalitarian leaning believers saying ‘Oh this scriptural stuff we base it on might be heresy, but don’t throw out egalitarianism with it’ Mohler would be dancing with glee & yelling about it. He’d laugh it out of court, as we should with this very feeble response.
Beakerj wrote:
That is a very good point. I really think this is about a group who are so enamored with power and the limelight, that they simply cannot tolerate when one of the boys is shown in grave error. They close ranks. And I would argue that in the SBC, it seems all the way down the ladder, closing ranks is what they are trained to do in seminary. Just my experience.
@ waking up:
Al Mohler is a man who came out arrogant and swinging his power around when the Trads dared to publish their non Cal beliefs. Mohler actually called for them to be “marginalized” and said they leaned Pelagian –which in his world is code for heresy. He was not humble or accepting of other views.
In this piece he is asking for humility in doctrinal differences! He is making excuses for a doctrine that purposely presents Jesus Christ as a lesser god. He needs to explain why non Calvinist were not welcome at SBTS but those Hawking ESS are admired and respected as brilliant.
Does this man forget about the internet that we can check? His hypocrisy is appalling and in your face.
I sure hope more Mohler admirers will start to see this man for what he really is and think twice about supporting his Shenanigans financially.
Lydia wrote:
Other than God–the only thing that will stop Mohler and the other Calvinists in prominent positions in the SBC is for the Trads to quit supporting them.
Lydia wrote:
It seems things work this way…”Alcohol…all bad. VERY bad. Alcohol is a sin.” “ESS? Well, hmm…prob not right, but maybe not all the way wrong…just don’t lose your comp love!”
Jack wrote:
I could, from what we know of God through the revelation of Our Lord, see that God would certainly take exception to beliefs that bore rotten fruit in the form of abuse of people.
Is so true that certain personality types will seek out ‘beliefs’ that permit them to act out their venom on others.
waking up wrote:
Lol. Very true.
@ mot:
Yep. Money is the key.
waking up wrote:
He seems like he is going defend his thesis that ESS is not heresy but instead but rests his case first of all his assertion that it is not heresy and secondly on the fact that the players involved say it is not heresy. He uses all kinds of history, rhetoric, and accusations to obfuscate the fact that he is not really supporting his position. It is, however, probably good of enough for his trustees not to call for Ware’s dismissal for promoting an unorthodox position on a central doctrine.
@ Daisy:
Reading about that a couple of years ago for the first time really creeped me out. That and the virginity pledges, in which daughters sign over their sexuality to their fathers until marriage, when, for lack of a better description, ownership is transferred from their fathers to their husbands.
Growing up around that culture, I didn’t think much about it, but now that I’m an adult, I realize how creepy it is. I have no desire to “own” someone else’s sexuality. Who does?
Serah wrote:
My brother my sil their daughter to the “Purity Ball” every year, but they have no clue what it’s all about. My sil just sees it as a social thing. ….. A chance to dress her tomboy daughter up as a little princess and show her off. Even if I told them about the basis for the ball, my sil wouldn’t care – it’s just a photo op for her.
My sil’s brother and his wife take their daughter, too. And, believe me, there is nothing ” pure about that couple. My sil’s brother is currently in jail!
FW Rez wrote:
And this is why it was so easy for me to walk away from the SBC decades ago. My takeaway from that article = because Mohler said so. I’m not well versed in this debate, but a quick google search on Subordinationism clearly shows it’s not orthodox. Why should I believe Mohler re Ware and Grudem?
Lydia wrote:
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that they weren’t challenged right away. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction.
I remember the first time I heard about other atonement theories besides penal substitution. My mind was blown, and I couldn’t help but think – are these other theories still Christianity? That’s how ingrained it was in my mind – I thought it was the only option. I had never heard of anything besides it. I went through a crisis of faith, and it was scary. But I’ve come to terms with the fact that the atonement is beautifully complex, far more than I originally thought it was. I’m not even sure which theory I agree with the most at this point, but hearing about the other ones (especially Christus Victor) really helped me gain a more well rounded view of what Jesus did for us.
I think it may be similar for some of the pastors who grew up with ESS, if they hear ESS challenged. They may experience confusion at first, and start deeply questioning their own beliefs. If ESS is all they know, then in their minds, what is Christianity without it? Having your faith rocked to the core like that is scary.
But that’s good – they need to hear about what orthodox Christianity has to say about the Trinity. And hopefully, they will realize that historical Christianity and ESS do not agree on this matter, and choose to side with orthodoxy.
Nancy2 wrote:
I mean, I guess it’s good that your brother and SIL are treating it like it’s just a social thing? Hopefully that means their daughter won’t absorb the ideology those balls promote in the meantime. But even if her parents don’t push it, she may pick up on it anyway.
I absorbed so many harmful ideas (about the supposed evils of dating, the dangers of emotional intimacy, the importance of virginity and sexual purity above all else, etc., etc.) not from my parents, but from books and articles I read as a teen. I think they’d be horrified to hear some of the legalistic stuff I picked up on. Real life experience, like friendships with guys and exposure to my happily dating peers, provided the wake up call I desperately needed, and I’ve been sorting through the fallout ever since.
Serah wrote:
Hopefully, yes. The Great Tradition of the Church (orthodoxy) is their heritage as well. ESS represents a form of an old heresy the Church fought years ago, and rejected. ANY Catholic or Eastern Orthodox who hear the ESS theory will immediately say ‘that’s not what we believe’, because it was NOT TAUGHT by the original Church in Jerusalem and the teaching DID NOT follow out into the five main areas of Christianity that were established out of Jerusalem. It’s just not there.
Any form of Christianity that does not celebrate Jesus Christ as its central illuminating figure, is NOT orthodox.
Lydia wrote:
CBWM has created some strange bedfellows. They are all over the place on the moral issues surrounding the events of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November not to mention disagreements over the doctrine of election.
I have a theory: What really motivated many of these in CBWM and BFM Y2K is the fear of seeing a woman in the pulpit. This is the hill they were really doing battle over. This is the one issue that the CR, YRR, CBMW, etc. all rally around. I don’t think many of them care so much how individual homes are managed (comp vs. egal) as they are not allowing a woman’s voice to be heard during the sacred hour. All of these other things they make noise about from the trivial things such as how a woman should give directions to a man and soap bubbles on the dishes to deeper issues such as ESS and who can teach language or church history in a seminary all support their prime objective of keeping women out of the pulpit, lest they be like those liberals over there. A misguided devotion to Authoritarianism is the root cause of their passion.
FW Rez wrote:
it looks like they constructed a theology around male authoritarianism, even kicking Our Lord to the curb and treating many Christian people poorly in the process . . . some people will do anything to gain power
I found something interesting. On the Wikipedia page for “Subordinationism” it says, ” Arian subordinationism is treated as heresy, while “relational subordination” is not.” Someone put a “citation needed” note after the “relational subordination” part. If you hover over the note it says “There are only 28 web hits and 5 book hits for the term ‘relational subordinationism. It seems to be a neologism.(June 2016).”
Is someone now making up words to try and validate their position? 🙂
@ Serah:
Sereh, you make a great point that only leads me to ask why church has become such an indoctrination center instead of a venue for learning and seeking truth. It is so controlling. It is strange to me. I was familiar with SA but the P blew my mind when I first heard it taught. It painted a God that was the total opposite of what I had known. Growing up we were basically told about three theories, Christus Victor, Ransom and SA.
Over the last few years, I have had occassion to visit several Jewish temples for concerts. I was blown away by all the opportunities to learn different views from different Jewish scholars and even debate them. This went on monthly, was heavily promoted and even open to the public! They seemed so open to differing views within their congregations. We could learn from that.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Oooh BeenThereDoneThat, nice catch! I’m glad someone wrote that note. It’s good to see relational subordination, whatever it is, is being challenged on Wikipedia.
Thank goodness for the internet. It makes it a lot easier for people to call stuff like this out.
FW Rez wrote:
BTW: If the council believed in truth in advertising they would trademark “CBMw”.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Of course they are. It is a proven fact. The word is”complementarian” to be exact ;).
Bridget wrote:
The word is “complementarian” to be exact 😉
@ Lydia:
I was exposed to Ransom with the Chronicles of Narnia a a kid, but that was about the extent of my knowledge of alternate atonement theories, and I didn’t even know it had a name. When I got interested in theology as a teen, all the books I read pushed penal substitution, and I thought that was how everyone saw the atonement. I really wish I had heard more about the other theories much earlier than I did.
I wish churches would be more like the Jewish temples you visited! Imagine the opportunities for growth and learning we could have if more churches encouraged open discussion and tolerated differing views like that. I think it would add a real depth and richness to our spiritual communities. If the truth sets us free, what are we so afraid of anyway?
FW Rez wrote:
Lol to the first part.
Yes. You are right about the hill to die on. Not only is it a sacred hour each week but there is sacred furniture on the sacred stage in a sacred building. When you boil it all down, it’s location, location, location. :o)
So I had to question for myself why being accepted there as a fully functioning co heir of Christ and His gifting really mattered? Is that really a hill to die on? To have a place behind the sacred furniture? They really do not have the power to shut up over half of the body of Christ unless we agree that location and furniture are sacred.
It is interesting to think about. I think of women like Emily who has been commenting here. I am excited to think of the ways these educated and clever young women will find to minister without such ridiculous limitations.
@ FW Rez:
Lol! Good one!
Deb wrote:
No doubt about it, Deb. He put Akin in place at SEBTS and Allen on the throne at MWBTS. Southwestern is next on his list as his Kingdom expands. Most of the heads at SBC entities have direct “family tree” links to Mohler. Patterson, a once outspoken anti-Calvinist, surrendered that debate to Mohler a few years back – probably because their complementarian wives are chummy and/or he just got tired of wrangling all the time. Patterson has spent most of his time in recent years hunting big game around the world, rather than hunting down SBC heretics.
Daisy wrote:
Elizabeth Smart, who was raised in the Mormon purity culture in Utah, was kidnapped from her home as a teenager and repeatedly raped by her kidnapper for many months. She said that because the purity culture teaches that if you have sex before marriage you are a *chewed up piece of gum* and *who would want that?* she felt even more worthless. Like who would ever want her? She has since said that children should be taught that they have value just because they exist, and not because of sexual *purity*.
Max wrote:
And quietly drawing a very nice paycheck and perks.
FW Rez wrote:
Amen! Wimmin are second class citizens and not really made in the image of God according to them.
mot wrote:
Yes, “conservative” means different things to different folks. It’s increasingly clear that SBC’s “Conservative Resurgence” was actually a “Calvinist Resurgence”. Some of the CR architects were blind-sided by Mohler and his crew emerging on top of the pyramid when they chased the moderates and liberals from SBC. The inerrancy war had more to do with paving the road to reformed theology, than protecting Scripture.
FW Rez wrote:
Yes these folks destroyed the SBC over a few women ever being Pastors in the SBC.
@ Max:
Absolutely! All the while, SBC membership keeps shrinking year by year.
I have posted the latest update on the open discussion page. Thank you all so much.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-7/#comment-273831
mot wrote:
I understand, Mot. I’ve done some lay-preaching in SBC churches and have been asked “What side are you on?” I always respond “On Jesus’ side!” but that doesn’t satisfy folks like it used to.
@ mot:
CBMw is right!
@ Max:
What do they want you to say?
Max wrote:
Is that not incredible that being on Jesus side is not enough for some folk? You can not trust some of these folks as far as you could throw them and so I do not engage them in idle conversation.
@ FW Rez:
Speaking of strange bedfellows ….. If you go over to Amazon and look at Gruden’s book about evangelical feminism, you will find an endorsement from non Cal Paige Patterson along with other leading Calvinists. This book is ESS all the way. So, do you think Paige Patterson actually read it? Is his adherence to subordination so strong he would actually blaspheme the Trinity to support it? One who endorses cannot feign ignorance without admitting he endorsed a book he never read.
Methinks a lot of chickens are coming home to roost. Years later.
Speaking of chickens, On another note, Aimee Birds review of Ruth Tucker’s book is interesting if you guys have not seen the update. It seems Bruce Ware contacted her concerning quotes of his she took out of Ruth Tuckers book to discuss. Keep in mind that I listened to his message at Denton Bible Church so I know he is playing fast and loose on this one. Denny Burk promoted that sermon on his blog back and then and it got over 1000 comments. Ware did not bother defending himself because Burk was carrying his water. And besides, he was operating with in his bubble and was totally protected. Now that’s some Presbyterians are questioning them, they are making more of an effort at defense.
Ware claims that the quotes were taking out of context so they were misunderstood. And as we all know we often miss understand them. (Rolling eyes) That doesn’t help his case at all concerning what he was teaching because it is still clear he does not get it.
So all these years later, they are now dealing with what they have been teaching and its long term effect. Without the Internet none of this would be possible. So many of them are now trying to walk back the cat and say we have totally misunderstood them. They are desperately trying to reposition their teaching.
Max wrote:
Aren’t seminary presidents hired by the trustees? If that is the case then I would think that the SWBTS board would be heavily influenced by Patterson supporters (presumably not neo-Cals) and there are some deep pockets there. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see Patterson get to name his successor. One last spoil of war for the great conqueror in the CR. Besides, who wants to go through the whole 4 or 5 point litmus test with the entire faculty again.
Whatever they do, I doubt that it is anything that would make me want to highlight my one year there on my resume.
@ Lydia:
Sorry for all the typos am using voice recognition.
She might be in the minority as speaker and attendee, but she continues to present at ETS in November (although some attendees might feel compelled to turn their backs as she speaks?):
“Dr. Mimi Haddad, President, Christians for Biblical Equality, will present ‘Reading Scripture through a Patriarchal Lens: How Masculine Christianity Distorts Divine and Human Ontology’ at the Evangelical Theological Society, Other Voices in Interpretation.
Paper Description: Christian teachings and traditions have repeatedly capitulated to patriarchal philosophy and culture. The result has been a formulation of ‘male’ as more godlike whereby males arrogate authority over females, a position from which females are deemed ontologically inferior. This paper will consider modern examples of masculine Christianity as it distorts not only the nature and purpose of humanity created male and female in God’s image, but as it also misrepresents the nature and purpose of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit…”
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I can hear the vows now.
“Do you promise to love, cherish and be relationally subordinate to Jared until death do you part?”
Muff Potter wrote:
We’ll stick together, Muff. 🙂
I know all of this particular debate is important because there’s another agenda behind it. But, after being a part of two very theologically different churches, I can say that neither are immune to a pathological lack of love.
@ FW Rez:
I know of one trustee who is all BFF with the Cals. Not to mention Patterson has spoken at Cal conferences. So has Floyd. The big push is unity. Never mind the last 10 years. My guess is they are all worried about money and Guidestone for their pensions. There is no way the money is flowing like it used to for many reasons.
@ Deb Willi:
She is an iron butterfly! Good for her!
Lydia wrote:
Yep–1,000 SBC missionaries called home. Little to no explanation from SBC leaders. I think if the truth ever comes out about these missionaries money will dry up even more.
@ waking up:
“They close ranks. And I would argue that in the SBC, it seems all the way down the ladder, closing ranks is what they are trained to do in seminary. Just my experience.”
++++++++++
looks like the only option is to be a yes-man.
now that’s a healthy organization! 😐 (ironic face, not bored face)
this closing ranks thing…. anyone see or read ‘Interview With A Vampire’? There’s a scene where a society of vampires all close in on one ‘victim’, and then…
eesh…
SBC — sounds like a terrifying culture.
@ Lydia:
LOL. Right? And what does that even mean? So, if I understand them correctly, Jesus isn’t functionally subordinate to God, He’s relationally subordinate. So does that mean wives aren’t actually functionally subordinate to their husbands? Another synonym for function is “role.” Are they even thinking this through?
@ Lydia:
” He needs to explain why non Calvinist were not welcome at SBTS but those Hawking ESS are admired and respected as brilliant.”
+++++++++++++++
a mental picture of protesters, signs, bullhorn outside SBTS. Like 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I mean, Al seems to think he lives in a White House of sorts. It comes with the perks. (perks for the plebes, in this case).
Lydia wrote:
Good points. I will now humbly return to my theory that it is all about keeping women out of the pulpit.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Now, are you sinning by questioning their teaching? (Lol!)
We are not to question or analyze meanings. Only they really understand it so if God did not give you the ability to understand, then that is on you. It is the same reasoning used when we dare question the cognitive dissonance of ‘servant leader’. God has not given us the ability to understand it’s deeper meaning.
Can you tell I have had actual interactions like this with Neo Cals? Truth is, they have no clue. One of their gurus taught it and they just parrot what they are taught.
One could lose their minds trying to figure this stuff out. It is platitudinous Christianity.
@ Serah:
“But I’ve come to terms with the fact that the atonement is beautifully complex, far more than I originally thought it was. I’m not even sure which theory I agree with the most at this point,”
+++++++++++++++++
Good. (me, too) These things are so God-proportioned they defy such categorization. it seems so foolish to think we can pin them down, like it’s biology or chemistry.
I don’t believe that our eternal destiny hinges on a proper understanding of the Trinity (we are not saved by being right, but by trusting and obeying Christ– otherwise we in our limited human understanding of God are all lost!) — but otherwise, they make very good points. I have contended on my blog that ESS implies three gods with separate wills, rather than one God expressed in three Persons. http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/01/bible-and-human-authority-part-3-great.html
Kristen Rosser wrote:
PS. – by “obeying Christ” I’m not talking about being saved by good works, either– I’m talking about putting faith in Christ and following Him.
elastigirl wrote:
That is so true. As long as you do not question anything you can keep your SBC job(s). If you question the leaders or do not speak the party line you will be in danger. Dissent is not allowe!
Mohler’s piece is formulaic PR crisis management. Has anyone seen DeMoss recently?
Mohler starts with Heresy Is Really Really Bad and I have been studying heresy my entire adult life. It is critical for the church to identify heresy. Conclusion? You can trust me when I tell you what heresy is because, see, I just told you that heresy is really, really bad and the church should be exposing heresy like those nasty Arians were teaching. Ware, a guy I oversee, and Grudem, a guy whose ST is taught at my seminary, are “respected” leaders, so who does someone like Trueman think he is criticizing their teaching!?!
Mohler thunders that the *REAL* danger to the church is calling something heresy which is actually just “false teaching” or theological error. Because then nobody will pay attention when *REALLY* dangerous heresy is being taught like Egalitarianism which threatens the Gospel itself, unlike ESS/EFS/ERAS/RelationalSubordination which merely places the Eternal Son under the thumb of the Eternal Father and so therefore has no effect whatsoever on the core of Christianity at all. Because I’ve studied this and I know and you should take my word for it. Besides, male Complementarians like Trueman, the church historian, are only raising the Trinitarian issue because they want to blur the genders and have female elders. Oh…umm…wait…Nevermind.
And beside all that, ESS is not essential to CBMW Complementarianism that was built on ESS and so, even if the Trinity is not an example of equal but not equal eternally but not ontologically because you can change your gender…Oh…wait…Nevermind. Females still cannot preach authoritatively because Plain Reading except for John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:19 and 1 Timothy 2:15 because Peter said John and Paul hard to understand. Or something. Path to liberalism!!! Feminism!!!
I’m going off of memory, but this is what I remember of his triangulation post.
@ mot:
“1,000 SBC missionaries called home. Little to no explanation from SBC leaders.”
++++++++++++++
investigative journalism, filmed interviews with speakers darkened or obscured, telling what really happened. broadcast somehow, where it can be broadly cast.
Lydia wrote:
Wouldn’t it be great! To finally be rid of teacher/teachee approach to Bible study and embrace one that allows for dissent.
Velour wrote:
One word/name: RAHAB.
elastigirl wrote:
As someone who has been in the SBC for 42 years plus I weep for these 1,000 SBC missionaries because IMO they were thrown under the bus by the SBC leaders. I refuse to believe that if the leaders of the SBC had made it known to us SB folk the money to keep them there would not have been raised.
Serah wrote:
Thank you. I spend time that I don’t really have trying to understand all of this. I may or may not have even caught it, except there’s a little box around it. The optics caught my attention, so I took a closer look.
That note was only written a couple of months ago. I wonder if a lot of people are noticing with the renewed attention on ESS.
mot wrote:
Do you suppose there is a possibility that a non-NeoCalvinist organization will arise,
competing with the NeoCal SBC, and that non-NeoCal Baptist churches will join?
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes!
@ mot:
there needs to be a safe venue where people can bring this christian corruption into the light. be transparent. if only 20/20, etc. would pursue it. missionaries aren’t journalistically glamorous, but if the nation’s ‘values bastions’ are as corrupt as Wall Street shenanigans, i see a very relevant story.
Gram3 wrote:
Excellent break down. Your carefully crafted filters provide the right perspective for understanding his article.
Velour wrote:
What little bit I know, I believe the Non-Cals will have to surrender many of the SBC assets to the Cals just as the Moderates had to surrender the assets that were taken from them during the FUNDAMENTALIST TAKEOVER. In other words I think a split will occur.
mot wrote:
And the non-Cals will be on the losing end of it!
mot wrote:
A split seems healthy as the NeoCalvinists/authoritarians have taken over the SBC.
Is there another Baptist group that the non-NeoCal churches could join?
What types of assets would the non-NeoCal churches lose? (I’d heard that Baptist churches
were independent. Does the SBC own their church or does the local church?)
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Principles of Newspeak, Comrade.
Bridget wrote:
The word is “ME MAN! RAWR! ME SAY FILL-IN-THE-BLANK! YOU WOMAN! YOU! SHUT! UP!”
FW Rez wrote:
Like Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas?
Nancy2 wrote:
What these folk did to the “liberals” they will receive from the Cals and it will not be pretty.
Serah wrote:
Because in many circles of Christendom there can be only one connect-the-heavy-black-dots-with-heavy-black-lines truth. There can be no dissent or toleration of different ideas. I know of what I speak. I spent almost two decades in the Calvary Chapel cult. It’s a fear based religion in which strong alpha-male chieftains wield the lash with skill.
Velour wrote:
I do not know of a group. The assets I am speaking of are the Seminaries, etc. that both the Cal and Non-Cal have funded.
@ Gram3:
I think you’ve nailed it, Gram. The sad thing is, there are many who WILL take his word for it because it seems like the easiest path.
mot wrote:
Got it. Thanks for explaining it.
@ Gram3:
Oh, you nailed it. Classic Mohler. The great deceiver.
Muff Potter wrote:
and yet these ‘cults’ claim to worship a Triune God bearing a diversity that pulses with love and generates all being in Creation ….
not possible: look at neo-Cal’s tried to warp the Holy Trinity’s integrity to suit their own man-made theology of male-dominance
these cults worship their male human ‘leaders’;
in them, fear is used to ‘control’ and for a while, it may work;
but SOMETHING deep in the human spirit, that is a gift of Our Creator will not die completely, and in time will find expression,
which is why cults don’t last: the hatred they generated turns inward and destroys them from within
@ elastigirl:
No missionaries will talk. They had to sign a contract to get their severance pay and pension. And part of that contract was to speak no negative about the whole thing…. What ever you want to call it. I call it the “SBC godfather deal for missionaries over 50”.
@ Lydia:
what if anonymity was guaranteed?
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, you may be a woman after my own heart. It has been an interesting year for us. I was saved in 1967 and became SBC in 1968, but am no longer. I cannot tolerate this jettisoning of real Baptist thought.
Add in studying family ancestry, both the monotheism of the Jewish side and the, gasp, shock joy of the PBU stream of thought. (Primitive Baptist Universalists.) Hardcore Calvinism in one sense, as God is seen as “sole actor” in salvation, and all humans as truly sinful, but also with that determined God eventually saving every last person. Some are pretty close to the oneness teaching regarding the Godhead. Good reads are “sinners in the hands of a happy God” and “here I am again Lord.”
Of course, the modern tendency to excuse sin or relabel it as not sin is thoroughly tossed aside, because until a person knows they are a sinner they will never turn to Jesus.
Also right there with you regarding who can speak, in what garb, behind what furniture, etc. That is so unBaptist as to make me vomit, but it IS what is happening in our churches today.
Nah, give me a front porch in the woods and my text only Bible and let Jesus teach me. And since I serve Him, not the local 501(c)3 or manohgawd neither can silence me 🙂
Good posts–preach it, sister.
Serah wrote:
As soon as one is drawing their paycheck depending on the support of followers, one has lost the ability to be truly objective/free. Or at least, a conflict of interest has been introduced. One thing that Jewish community has in its favor is that it is an ethnic identity, so disagreement doesn’t threaten membership the way it does in Christian organizations. I say this sadly because I, too, wish the Christian community could be open to difference and debate. The lock-step attitude in Christian organizations tends to produce followers who check their brains at the door, I wonder how many would even be capable or interested in a deeper examination of the beliefs they’ve committed themselves to?
@ elastigirl:
I have no idea. If I were them, I would not trust that. If you have not been around SBC pastor blog match then you would not know that anonymity is considered a huge sin. Remember Chandlers “narcissistic zero”? They all think like that and make such a big deal out of anonymity that the substance is lost. At this point I would wonder how many missionaries have bought into that ridiculous meme. Have these people never heard of the book of Hebrews or the Federalist papers?
Lydia wrote:
Is it not so sad that these missionaries are muzzled so that they can draw a paycheck?
they were bullied into this (of course). i have to think that now, after some time has passed, and the dust from the emotional kerfuffle of the whole thing has settled, that at least some of these missionaries can now see that they were bullied. And that there had to be something corrupt behind it all. and that a sense of injustice would prompt them to want to speak out.
@ Lydia:
“anonymity is considered a huge sin”
+++++++++++++
i have to think that at least some of these missionaries are thinking along the lines of “who cares what they think anymore!” They know they were betrayed.
Kristen Rosser wrote:
Nor do I. But I think that one’s temporal destiny and standing with other ixtians so inclined can be severely compromised. Isaac Newton (intellectual Titan of the Enlightenment and inventor of the Calculus) was not a Trinitarian and wisely arranged for his views to not be published until after his death. A contemporary of his, one Thomas Aikenhead, was hanged at Edinburgh Scotland for denying the Trinity.
We’ve come a long way baby, and bless Providence for it.
Serah wrote:
Brings this to mind which went viral awhile ago https://www.buzzfeed.com/terripous/this-brides-certificate-of-purity-is-causing-a-massive-debat?utm_term=.mbw3rE79d#.pqkp7XVRM
Really what sort of picture is this presenting to the world? Not Jesus Christ.
An article by Jonathan Merritt about “troubling trends in America’s Calvinist Revival”:
http://religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/
@ Muff Potter:
Servetus. He was a non Trinitarian.
in fact, this whole sh|tty non-disclosure-riddled SBC, Mars Hill, etc. culture…. there have to be many who are livid enough to speak out.
if their careers which they’ve cultivated and invested in (in good faith) have now devolved into being muzzled, they’ve all been betrayed and they know it. As far as the jerkfaces who did this magic trick of ‘anonymity is a sin’, i have to think there are a number of people bound and gagged who don’t give flying fick WHAT the party line is any more.
unfortunately, they need their paycheck and that is their price. but it doesn’t preclude anomynity.
Christiane wrote:
Which is how and why I got out. The human spirit is indomitable.
@ elastigirl:
Most of them are looking for church jobs. It’s what they know or go work at Walmart as greeters. Age discrimination is a huge problem right now in hiring for full time professions. Why do you think they targeted those over 50? It is going on everywhere.
@ Lydia:
yes, no question about the age discrimination. all the more reason to want to speak out. even in shadow.
@ elastigirl:
I agree. But It takes a willingness to possibly sacrifice the good of your family. Been there done that. Nothing changed except more animosity from those who support the movement, institution or gurus. I encourage people to think it through very deeply because many times you have actually no idea of the serious evil you are dealing with. And most people do not believe it until they have experienced it. Horrible evils can take place and even when people find out about them they still continue to go and support the place. It is beyond my comprehension.
The debate around the fundamental, eternal nature of the Godhead brings us nicely on to the subject of Cricket.
The Third Test between England and Pakistan at Edgbaston (not far from where I grew up, incidentally) is finely poised at the end of Day Three. Pakistan built a commanding first-innings lead thanks in no small part to a fine century from Azhar. But, rather unexpectedly, England are 120 without loss in their second innings, overturning a first-innings deficit of 103. With good weather expected for the remaining two days, this is an intriguing match in which all three results remain possible.
IHTIH
Daisy wrote:
It was Voddie Bauchman.
It is highlighted blue about one-sixth of the way down the page.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-was-all-that-stuff-about-voddie.html
Muff Potter wrote:
Amen!
Julie Anne, over at Spiritual Sounding Board, wrote a great article about
this subject over on her blog this week:
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/08/02/help-my-family-member-or-close-friend-is-trapped-in-a-high-controlling-church-or-cult-how-can-i-encourage-them-to-leave/
@ Nick Bulbeck:
You’re back from your birthday celebration, Nick. Thanks for the cricket update.
Former summer employee of Yorkshire Cricket in England,
Velour in California
Lydia wrote:
Slight tangent here, but I totallyGetThis.
The overwhelming majority of government (or any other) funding in the UK involving helping people into work, is targeted at the under-25’s. Now, please let me be clear: I wholeheartedly support the idea of helping the under-25’s into decent* jobs. For many reasons, they need all the help they can get. But ISTM that we need not do this to the exclusion of any other disadvantaged demographic.
Our Mad_Idea of “God’s Jobcentre” is just beginning to take shape here in central Scotland. One thing we’d love to do is get alongside some (e.g.) 50+-year-olds who’ve been made redundant, and create jobs for them that properly respect their decades of experience. Call me a charismatic crazy, but I believe God has an opinion on 21st-Century unemployment.
* To my mind, we’ve not truly introduced someone to the workforce until they’re earning at least the “Living Wage” – the amount independently calculated as what a person needs to live on with basic financial independence.
Velour wrote:
You are more than welcome!
mot wrote:
Is that really legal, holding someone’s check or pension hostage like that? I wonder if anyone challenged this.
FW Rez wrote:
Southern Baptists have learned in recent years that you can’t trust the trustees. The trustee system is broken. Mohler succeeded in putting Allen at Midwestern seminary, even though the trustees there are predominantly non-Calvinist.
Jeannette Altes, long-time TWW poster who was laid off from her job, is looking for work, and is being treated for a tumor, needs food and gas. She will also have monthly bills coming due next week. The GoFundMe campaign is still open for those who can contribute to her needs.
https://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp?viewupdates=1&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cta_button&utm_campaign=upd_n
Deb wrote:
Well, when they used to ask me that, they were concerned if I was conservative or liberal. Now they want to know if I am Calvinist or non-Calvinist. I think I will start answering “Done with religion, but not done with Jesus.”
Lydia wrote:
Bingo!
Marquis and her son Billy in Texas also need help with bills, food, and gas money.
A list of their expenses is on the Open Discussion thread.
The GoFundMe account that Dee started for them is still open, for those who can help them. https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Thank you. (And thanks for helping Jeannette Altes too.)
elastigirl wrote:
There are still millions of good folks in the pews, but the national leadership and an increasing number of local church leaders are bad apples.
Patriciamc wrote:
This is a problem. First, christian workers are often the last people to challenge something legally. Secondly, The laws that protect typical employees in non profits don’t always apply to religious organizations that operate much like a church. Thirdly, Who can afford to find out if they have a case?
This is my big warning to people who are thinking about going into ministry for a living.
okrapod wrote:
This has happened in some denominations. Women were ordained but given only limited clergy roles, allowing individual congregations to avoid them. Years passed, and the women clergy were accepted in more and more places. Women advanced in the denominational hierarchy, with broader oversight over many congregations. Then the few objecting congregations howled, “But we had a deal! You’re breaking a promise!”
I recall one local church locking its doors when a female bishop came by, on an established schedule, to do baptisms and confirmations. Ugly.
I get your point that misogyny is societal, but of course it does play out in the church when women are given new opportunities. I guess the good news is that women bishops are rarely locked out.
Kristen Rosser wrote:
I like your comment and I can appreciate it. In my Church we have this saying about the Holy Trinity:
“Si comprendo, non es Deus” (if you understand it, it is not God)
The concept of ‘mystery’ is very difficult for some people, but the deeper we go into that which is beyond our capability to comprehend, the more of mystery we must accept with good grace
I always liked this from Anne LaMott:
““I didn’t need to understand the hypostatic unity of the Trinity; I just needed to turn my life over to whoever came up with redwood trees.”
Kristen, I think your comment was humble and graceful, a blessing to read. Thank you. 🙂
elastigirl wrote:
I think that many of them would consider breaking their agreement to be a very serious sin. OTOH, if some of them “retired” without needing the pension or buyout, then they might let the rest of us know what happened. FWIW, I know of one missionary couple who came back home and they are not anywhere near 50. They were not pure enough for the new bosses.
IMO, the trouble with the IMB is the trouble that institutions get into. Lack of transparency breeds bad practice and bad decision-making and protects bad decision makers. No negative feedback is not a good thing unless one has serious personality disorder issues. Those who are wise value wise counsel from a variety of perspectives and appreciate those who raise red flags. The financial problem did not occur overnight, and the Trustees over those years, whoever they were/are, bear the responsibility for the managerial disaster for the mission as well as the personal disaster for some missionaries.
mot wrote:
There was plenty of money in the coffers to keep them on the field if the reformed church planting program had been shelved. During the same time that IMB called 1,000 veteran missionaries home (predominantly non-Calvinist), NAMB was planting 1,000 new churches in the U.S. (predominantly Calvinist) to the tune of $60 million per year.
Max wrote:
I guess that depends on one’s POV. They seem to be working really well for the well-connected insiders and for the Gospel Glitterati and their farm teams. For the pewpeons and the mission, not so much. I imagine if a Trustee departs from the consensus (which is usually framed as a variant of “God told us”) then said Trustee is not likely to be invited to the cool events with the really good seats next to the Important People. What we need are a bunch of Trustees who do not care for such things.
Slightly OT, but does the phrase “God laid it on our hearts” irk the livin’ daylights out of anyone else? When someone says that, I hear “Do not think about what I am going to say next and just agree with God/me.”
@ Gram3:
We know two families who took the VRI. One is over 50 with grown children. The other, in their 40’s with tweens. Both took it because they are not Calvinists and took the warning seriously that the next offer “probably won’t be so generous”…. in the words of Platt. They did not think the first offer was that generous, considering The time they had put in and The fact they only have a few months to make a decision. Neither family came back here. Who can blame them?
The way it was handled by the IMB was extremely unchristian and ruthless. And you will even find missionaries who took the VRI who will praise the whole thing. That is how you stay on the fringes of the inner ring and possibly get hired.
Josh wrote:
And Sue turned out to be very, very litigious, because Biblical names have metaphoric and allegorical significance. It’s Sue’s fault that we now have to have membership covenants. 😉
Gram3 wrote:
Mary Kinney Branson’s book, “Spending Gods Money” gives an inside look at just have broken the trustees system really is. It is based on her tenure at NAMB. Just reading her describing the preparations for what she called a trustee dog and pony show, was enough to put me off permanently. She felt like the trustees did not even know enough about the operations to ask the right sorts of questions.
But what really got to me were all the SBC employees who developed curricula and were making royalties off them! From VBS to you name it.
When ever I hear that phrase I think to myself, ‘God laid it on my heart not to listen any further’. I have a very low tolerance for people who claim such as it relates to influencing others. That is an extremely personal thing and by making it public and as a tactic to influence people, is quite serious in my book. They could very well be attributing something to God that is not from God at all. That is what ‘Taking His Name in vain’ is all about.
Max wrote:
One has no rules
Is not precise.
One rarely acts
The same way twice
One spurns no device
Practicing the art of the possible
One always picks
The easy fight
One praises fools
One smothers light
One shifts left to right
It’s part of the art of the possible.
Evita
Friend wrote:
Is Sue, suing singer Johnny Cash for royalties?
mot wrote:
Just like Les Hebertists, Les Dantonists, and Les Jacobins…
Lydia wrote:
Isn’t that how the neo-Cals victimize others: telling them mistakenly that their fate as ‘submissives’ is God’s will for them,
instead of the truth that domination/submission is the man-made result of the curse of Eden leading to destruction of God’s intended plan, the ‘communio personarum’ (the unity of the two in marriage)?
imagine: a whole theology of marriage built on a lie about God’s will,
and all for what? so ‘male authority’ can rule in a denomination that is shrinking by the year???
will someone not save these neo-Cals from themselves?
FW Rez wrote:
Yes, suing the estate for unauthorized use of the Sue brand. Sue is very upset about this… hotter than a pepper sprout (in a different sense). Suit was filed in Jackson.
/shutting up now tho I could do this all day
Lydia wrote:
It is difficult to bully and intimidate someone who is anonymous and those whom the anonymous one cares about.
@ Friend:
I was enjoying it! 🙂
Two more interesting reads: Pagan Christianity and The Sunday Morning Stickup.
Friend wrote:
What? You’re going to walk the line??
Thanks for the laugh.
Mary Kinney Branson’s book, “Spending Gods Money” gives an inside look at just have broken the trustees system really is. It is based on her tenure at NAMB. Just reading her describing the preparations for what she called a trustee dog and pony show, was enough to put me off permanently. She felt like the trustees did not even know enough about the operations to ask the right sorts of questions.
But what really got to me were all the SBC employees who developed curricula and were making royalties off them! From VBS to you name it.
When ever I hear that phrase I think to myself, ‘God laid it on my heart not to listen any further’. I have a very low tolerance for people who claim such as it relates to influencing others. That is an extremely personal thing and by making it public and as a tactic to influence people, is quite serious in my book. They could very well be attributing something to God that is not from God at all. That is what ‘Taking His Name in vain’ is all about.
THIS is what drives me nuts. The whole SBC “market” is a real thing. You get loads of catalogs to order the stuff from. I remember one year we were looking at VBS material from the music VBS guru from Lifeway at the time in 2012. This guy had left Lifeway to start his own VBS line and you could order a life-size cutout of him….just him. I mean, isn’t that what we all want for our VBS a life-size cutout of the exLifeway VBS music guy?
I look at just loads of these seminary presidents and mega/multi pastors and wow…they hawk their wares. I mean how about just give your book away as a pamphlet? How ’bout a free download?
Patriciamc wrote:
The courts are still squeamish about going after religious non-profits. Hopefully the laws will get revamped to where religious non-profits must abide by the same rules the others must adhere to. Sooner or later there will be a landmark decision to that effect.
Daisy wrote:
That was seriously one of the grossest things I heard from this crowd!
Gram3 wrote:
Those would be spiritual men and they are in short supply in the American church. Rare and endangered species they are.
Daisy wrote:
And that definitely wasn’t a Poe parodying the rest of the blog?
BTW – I am blessed with a very strong inability to give a ***t, and I’ll joke about a lot of things. But there’s a line even I won’t cross, and this quasi-incest is just filth.
Lydia wrote:
Unfortunately those just wanting to make a living can end up the victim of those trying to make a killing. “Ministry” can just make it easier to groom the victims. Sheesh, I’m starting to channel HUG.
@ FW Rez:
You say we’ve risen to a new age of truth
And you’re calling it a spiritual Godly pursuit
But I say, but I say
What if we’ve fallen to the bottom of a well
Thinking we’ve risen to the top of a mountain
What if we’re knocking at the gates of hell
Thinking that we’re heaven bound
And what if we spend our lives thinking of ourselves
When we should have been thinking of each other
What if we reach up and touch the ground
To find we’re living life, upside down
(Living Life Upside Down, Truth)
@ Velour:
Each SB congregation owns the church building and related assets. Of course, the newer church plants generally rent facilities and often have limited assets.
Max wrote:
Every time I type 1,000 Southern Baptist Missionaries called home I still can not believe this actually happened. The FUNDAMENTALIST killed a great missionary program IMO!
Patriciamc wrote:
But the FUNDAMENTALIST got rid of all the “liberals.” THEY have no conscience.
elastigirl wrote:
We would provide anonymity if any of these former missionaries would meet with us.
Lydia wrote:
It is mind boggling what goes on in the christian world. You will find little to no support when one is subject to these evil people.
Velour wrote:
As Deb pointed out, each SB congregation (there are 45,000+) own their churches. In the event of a split which left SBC in the hands of the New Calvinists, Southern Baptists would lose several seminaries, foreign and home mission agencies, the LifeWay publishing house, ethics commission and misc. other entities. All of this financed by non-Calvinists over the years, by the way.
Should the SBC split? Evangelist Charles Finney in the 19th century provided some thoughts in this regard:
“It is evident that many more Churches need to be divided. How many there are that hold together, and yet do no good, for the simple reason that they are not sufficiently agreed. They do not think alike, nor feel alike … and while this is so, they never can work together. Unless they can be brought to such a change of views and feelings as will unite them, they are only a hindrance to each other and to the work of God. In many cases they see and feel that this is so, and yet they keep together, conscientiously, for fear that a division should dishonor religion, when in fact the division that now exists may be making religion a by-word and a reproach. Far better would it be if they would agree to divide amicably, like Abraham and Lot. ‘If thou will take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, I will go to the left.’ Let them separate, and each party work in its own way; and they may both enjoy the blessing.” (Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion)
Of course, it is debatable whether or not the New Calvinists would enjoy a blessing after they are left holding the SBC bag, as millions of non-Calvinists and their pocketbooks say goodbye. Should they stay together? How can two distinctly different plans of salvation co-exist in a single denomination going forward? Not to mention divergent views on women believers, clashing church governance, and assorted other differences in belief and practice.
Deb wrote:
Thanks for explaining that to me, Deb.
Are there any moderate Baptist seminaries or have the NeoCals taken over?
Serah wrote:
I went through that same crisis about a year ago. On the interesting items tabs under books is a list of interesting links I found that do a pretty good job of exposing the errors of PSA. I think this link will take you there: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/#comment-253218. It was posted on May 17, 2016 at 2:10 AM.
Max wrote:
That’s a lot to lose, Max. I’m not a Baptist and I didn’t know that they owned LifeWay publishing house.
I reject NeoCalvinism and I didn’t even know anything about it until my *tour-of-duty* of a NeoCalvinist church. To me the whole notion of The Elect, that God knew in advance where everybody was going – Heaven or Hell – makes Jesus and the cross redundant. God didn’t need to bother if it was already planned.
I also believe in a respect for women (including in the church, marriage, society), congregational votes instead of authoritarianism by church leaders, the priesthood of all believers unlike the NeoCals.
@ waking up:
I don’t think people realize what a huge business it is. And worse, some of these guys have quite a few extra income streams from speaking gigs, personal Internet marketing schemes (Tom Ranier at Lifeway!), royalties from materials they developed on the job, etc, etc. there are some serious ethical breaches that are considered quite the normal. The perks of being a big cheese.
I have asked many times about the rules for SBC entity employees like Mohler who write books on OPM and OPT, speaking gigs, etc. At some of the Megas they had rules for employees but not for the big cheeses.
And frankly, I find much of what Lifeway sells in the stores as kitschy. Their VBS stuff is ridiculous. I can remember the joys of obtaining a refrigerator box from the appliance store that we painted and decorated to make a grand something out of. The songs were free and we had to learn them with real music sheets and our idea of a costume was a bandana with a straw hat. That was back when they took the ‘school’ part more seriously. :o)
Max wrote:
IMO Cals and Trads are incompatible. A split will have to happen.
Re the ownership of the building within the SBC fold: while independent churches are said to own their building, many state groups have a reversion clause if money has been borrowed from them on said building.
So if a church borrowed (mortgaged) through some state conventions, and decide to leave, they leave the building behind.
Which means many churches, having borrowed to build a new building or redo or reroof an older building now will lose them if they cease being a “cooperating church in the SBC, or state convention, or local association.” And you don’t have to leave willingly. Get kicked out and lose your building.
@ Velour:
The moderates were driven out after the Comservative Resurgence in 1979. The Neo-Cals have been driving out the Non-Cals, especially at the SB seminaries.
Deb wrote:
Hateful.
@ linda:
I have heard of this but have never seen it happen.
Friend wrote:
You reckon somebody’s a gonna wind up in Folsum Prison before they learn to Walk the Line?
Velour wrote:
The suspicion that exists in the SBC makes it almost impossible for work to be done on a cooperative basis.
mot wrote:
That is why you stay as far away from the Christian world as you can.
mot wrote:
Waving their Predestined Elect Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Cards.
mot wrote:
It wasn’t preaching the Word of CALVIN.
mot wrote:
Yes, from all that you and others have posted, the SBC NeoCals intentionally drove out
lots of decent Christians.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
No, it wasn’t.
Voddie “Beat the Shyness out of Fluttershy” Baucham, channeling Craster of Craster’s Keep.
Ken F wrote:
Thanks for that. I feel cross eyed after spending some time reading about the Trinity and comparing it to the ESS “nuances.” I need Advil and a nap. The reading on PSA will be comparatively lighter I think.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is what so many people are doing. People have enough problems in their lives without adding the problems that christians can bring into their lives. Satan has to be very happy!
mot wrote:
The interesting thing about that is that SBC has had classical Calvinists in its membership all along. I have attended church with some of them and for the most part they have been civil in their discourse, even offering some good perspectives on certain Scripture. Numerous SBC churches have had old guard Calvinists in their ranks and have peacefully coexisted with them, even though Calvinism has not been the theological default of the denomination for over 100 years. But this thing called “New” Calvinism is a totally different beast. It is arrogant, militant, aggressive, and mean-spirited. It is a different gospel that confronts the very core of SBC’s whosoever-will evangelism and mission, as it reaches out to a lost and dying world with the Cross of Christ. If it wasn’t for the “stuff” at stake (seminaries, mission agencies, etc.), I’m sure the national leadership would be looking for a way to effect an amicable separation. Stuck between a rock and a hard place fits here.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Maybe. It’s been an interesting journey as I’ve tried to discuss this with people. I’m finding that nearly everyone I talk to who believes in PSA has their mind made up and cannot see any other possibility. That puzzled me, so I put together a list of questions, which is posted just above the list of links mentioned earlier. I found one person (an elder in my church) who seemed to change his mind based on those questions, so that gave me a glimmer of hope. So a couple of months ago I sent it out to several prominent YRR ministries to see if anyone would answer the questions. Most either gave no reply or told me to listen to some sermons I’d already heard or articles I’d already read. I replied with more questions but got no further replies. But one of the big names actually engaged me in a pretty lengthy email exchange. I don’t want to give the name here, but he is very prominent in the YRR crowd and is a name that I think most on this site would recognize. It was a very respectful exchange, but it was clear that he was not willing to see any other possibility than PSA. And he avoided all of my questions, which tells me they have some weight. I believe that PSA is just as bad as ESS – both attack the essence of the Trinity. Here’s an article I found after I posted the list that looks at PSA from a Trinitarian perspective: http://perichoresis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/God-in-the-Hands-of-Angry-Sinners.pdf. He poses a great question about what was the Holy Spirit doing while the Father was pouring out his wrath on the Son.
Happy reading!
Max wrote:
Spot on.
Max wrote:
This is the spirit that the FUNDAMENTALIST brought with them from 1979 to now.
mot wrote:
If this is what ‘real’ orthodoxy looks like, I will have nothing to do with it. If this behavior is required to restore the ‘truth’ that the rest of Christendom has lost, they can count me out on the endeavor.
Hi Wartburgers,
Please pray for Tim Fall’s 92-year old father who had a fall, hit his head in the kitchen, had surgery, and is in the hospital ICU.
Please pray for Tim and his wife, and family.
https://timfall.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/head-and-heart-and-being-92/
Many thanks!
@ linda:
Thanks for the info about how the SBC can take away churches.
@ Velour:
Hi VELOUR,
i will pray for Tim’s father tonight. I left a message on his blog. Thanks for letting us know.
@ Velour:
Thank you muchly. 🙂
Christiane wrote:
Thank you, friend, for praying for Tim’s father & family, and for leaving a message for him.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
You are very welcome, Jeannette.
“He poses a great question about what was the Holy Spirit doing while the Father was pouring out his wrath on the Son.”
Now there is a question I never thought to ask!!
Lydia wrote:
When you’re in the grip of fear that the Almighty will exact his vengeance on you when you expire from this world if you don’t hoe the row the way you’ve been shown, you hoe the row the way you’ve been shown.
Gram3 wrote:
Arrgh yes.
God laid it on our hearts = we decided to do this
@ Velour:
Praying for Tim's father!
Deb wrote:
Many thanks, Deb!
mot wrote:
Satan loves church, doesn’t he?
@ Ken F:
Thank you for that link! How gloriously beautiful he describes the meaning of the cross! It made me cry with joy. For those who are beaten down with the wrathful descriptions, I highly recommend reading that link.
siteseer wrote:
Where is the spiritual leadership today? IMO it is absent in so many places it should be present.
Lydia wrote:
It did the same for me. I found a good number of podcast interviews with him on itunes. I’ve been listening to those while walking my dog after work. It’s been very healing for me.
Muff Potter wrote:
My personal opinion, I think that this is what drives the doctrine of eternal torment in hell rather than anything in the Bible.
mot wrote:
The tares seem to have taken the place of the wheat in so many cases.
Lydia wrote:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire —
And it follows too, it really does. Just ask Velour, marquis & Billy, Patrice, and a host of others too numerous to mention who’ve been on the receiving end.
@ mot:
“People have enough problems in their lives without adding the problems that christians can bring into their lives.”
++++++++++++++
oh my goodness, yes. since i’ve opted out of church, the stress level has gone way down, no more agitation, a sense of peace and the ability to relax & simply enjoy my life have gone way up.
So has my faith & spiritual productivity.
aside from giving the majority of my time and energy to the place, feeling exhausted from it, being ignored by christian men who wouldn’t dare (or deign?) give me eye contact, and finally being refused a bulletin upon entering one Sunday because, as I was told, “Your husband has the bulletin”,….it just wasn’t time well-spent. the leaders got my volunteer hours which helped them. It was a nothing experience for me.
ETERNAL SUBORDINATION OF THE SON AND BOOKS FOR WOMEN
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-and-books-for-women/
elastigirl wrote:
“time and energy to the place”, I’m with you on this one, my former church experience could be summed up as giving my time to the institution. The institution had supplanted both the cause of Christ and concern for people both in my time and my money. I have found I can work hard and exhaustion came largely from frustration but energy came from connecting with people and being able to make a difference.
“Your husband has the bulletin”, I’ve had the flip side of that one, my wife usually went in and sat down first. In your case it may have been patriarchy nonsense, in my case it was someone deciding for me the best use of ten cents of the church printing budget.
While you appear to be a “done”, I’m attending another church largely to see some of the other refugees who have similarly been ground up from being a drone in a corporate church experience elsewhere. I recognize that I will never give the time and devotion to an institutional church as I did for so many years. In my 60’s I’m assessing the possibilities and trying to figure out what to do with my life.
mot wrote:
“On the surface, manners are normally suave. Rudeness to one’s superiors would obviously be suicidal; rudeness to one’s equals might put them on their guard before you were ready to spring your mine. For of course “Dog eat Dog” is the principle of the whole organization. Everyone wishes everyone else’s demotion, discrediting, and ruin; everyone is an expert in the confidential report, the pretended alliance, the stab in the back. Over all this their good manners, their expressions of grave respect, their “tributes” to one anothers’ invaluable services form a thin crust.”
— C.S.Lewis, Preface to The Screwtape Letters
ESS is a serious issue — probably the most important theological issue facing Evangelicalism since the Unitarian crisis precipitated by former Calvinists in the 1700s and 1800s. It defines who Evangelicals are? Now I am taking down my partisan Free Church Baptist views down and extending this concern to my magisterial brethren. If Evangelicals don’t take a stand on this matter we will cease to exist and meld into a doctrinal strain no more valid than the JW’s or Mormons we have previously castigated. I may sound a certain stridency but we need to tread carefully on this ESS issue.
Here is food for thought as we are discussing Grudem and Piper. There was a great theologian named Origen . Origen was a heretic. Grudem and Piper have framed their whole doctrine on male leadership and female submission so much that it overshadows the whole of Scripture until it is bigger than even the central message(s) of the Word of God. It flavors everything until what is there, even Jesus the Christ is over shadowed by what is probably a culturally derived belief.
Grudem and Piper may be the modern day parallel of Origen. Please begin heresy trials soon.
Ken F wrote:
Certainly here in the UK, there’s a strong undercurrent in evangelicalism that has completely conflated PSA with the gospel of the kingdom itself. It’s almost the case that it doesn’t matter whether you like PSA or not – it’s an attribute of God (supposedly) and to reject PSA is to refuse to worship God, or to deny the cross, or the resurrection, or similar.
A few years ago, a laddie by the name of Steve Chalke published a book (he’s written several) in which he rejected PSA. He used the term “cosmic child abuse” in a context that allowed his critics to declare that he had “likened PSA to cosmic child abuse” – the reality was a bit more complex, but that’s how politics works and the damage was done. What’s not in doubt is that, as I say, Chalke rejected PSA. He was more or less declared a heretic in many quarters here.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have not read his book, but I noticed that PSA advocates almost always bring up the “cosmic child abuse” issue and why God is not an abuser. I found their logic faulty (flawgic), which made me realize it is nearly pointless to argue with them. Since all of the PSA advocates claim to have a high view of scripture and believe in “sola scriptura” I decided to pose my objections in the form of questions based on sola scriptura. Each of my questions pokes at where the Bible specifically or clearly states ideas like “God’s wrath must be satisfied.” No one has yet attempted to answer my questions, probably because they cannot cling to PSA and sola scriptura at the same time. Instead of answering those questions, the PSA advocates try to show me how much historical support PSA enjoys (as if historical support is more important than scriptural support), but their historical support dries up when they look earlier than Calvin. In the end, they either question my character, accuse me of heresy, or avoid me completely.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
IMO the lack of cooperation in the Southern Baptist Convention is what was a major reason for the 1000 missionaries being brought home. My goodness how did it ever get to this point. IMO the SBC leadership is incompetent.
@ Daisy:
Wow.
Their gospel truly is a gender gospel and has very little to do with anything Jesus did on the earth and on the cross.
And being another gospel, it is devoid of the light and life giving properties that the teaching of Jesus have.
Thank God this error is being exposed on a larger scale.
elastigirl wrote:
Oh my goodness, it was never ‘church’ you ran from, it was abusive, belittling, disrespectful treatment. And you were right to walk away from that abuse. But ‘Church’, you never left it. You are here in a blogging community of Christian people who pray for one another in times of sickness, and grief, and trouble; and who listen to the ones who have been abused; and there is Wade’s E-Church on Sundays which is so much more a blessing than people realize because it allows wounded people a chance to participate in worship even though they have left ‘formal’ settings out of desperation.
You have not left ‘church’, it left you. You are with the Church (Body of Christ) and the proof is this:
“a sense of peace and the ability to relax & simply enjoy my life have gone way up. So has my faith & spiritual productivity”
in time you may find your people in faith who have no need or will in them to abuse you or anyone
in the meantime, I think TWW offers a sanctuary for the abused and for those who care about them and want better for them in the Name of Christ, yes
@ Ken F:
Hi KEN
THANK YOU for the Kruger link on perichoresis. I love how he challenges the ‘God of Wrath’ thinking and opens people up to the understanding of the importance of the Incarnation as a part of the Paschal Mystery. I also like how he brought in so much of Christian thinking from the whole Body of Christ and relates it to the idea of perichoresis in a way that calls up the Eastern Church’s views on the importance of the Incarnation in salvation.
We in the West are not so familiar with the thinking of Eastern Christianity, but they also are a major part of the Body of Christ,
and their contributions of insight into the mystery of the Incarnation as a part of our salvation are something that we in the West will benefit from, if we would distance ourselves from the hateful rhetoric of the ‘God of Wrath’ teachings which reflect an old heresy more than the revelation to us of God in Christ Himself.
Good link! Thank you so much! 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Me too – I hate theatrics and appeals to emotion. That makes me feel like someone is trying to trick, intimidate, or manipulate me. I automatically resist anything like that. I can’t stand it when some preacher, business leader, celebrity or politician wants to draw me into their drama. No thanks, I want to be left alone and not have to deal with someone’s mostly negative energy.
I like the more liturgical churches for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is, since everything in the service has to follow a pattern, this gives less room for a clergy person to impose quirks or a personality cult.
Being “reserved and quiet” is pretty much seen as un-‘Merican. Growing up as an introvert was not too easy in some respects. On the other hand, since I did not have any crowd to “run with” I got to go to places where the crowd doesn’t get to go.
Jacob wrote:
sounds like you have a need to be ‘by the still waters’ and for the peace that restores the soul
yours is not an isolated feeling in the Body of Christ, no …. some of your brothers felt this way over a thousand years ago, like Aiden of Lindisfarne.
There is a beautiful tidal island called ‘Lindisfarne’ which the Vikings raided . . . one of the monks wrote a prayer saying ‘from the fury of the northmen, O Lord deliver us’.
It was the brother of Oswy, King Oswald, who sent Aidan to Lindisfarne as a bishop. There, Aidan brought the Holy Gospel to the people when the tidal bridge permitted him to do so. But he was also a monk, and he also treasured those precious moments alone with God in prayer, as do all clergymen.
In this stunning prayer, Aidan revealed his heart:
“Leave me alone with God as much as may be.
As the tide draws the waters close in upon the shore,
Make me an island, set apart,
alone with You, God, holy to You.
Then with the turning of the tide
prepare me to carry Your Presence to the busy world beyond,
the world that rushes in on me
till the waters come again and fold me back to You.”
(St. Aidan of Lindisfarne, called ‘Holy Island’)
written circa early 7th Century, A.D.
Christiane wrote:
I used to go to this magical place whenever I could when David Adam was the vicar there. (He has published several books of his Celtic prayers). I have many friends there still.
This is one of my favourite Adam poems
“I give my hands to you Lord
I give my hands to you
I offer the work I do Lord
I offer the work I do
I give my thoughts to you Lord
I give my thoughts to you
I give my plans to you Lord
I give my plans to you
Give your hands to me Lord
Give your hands to me
Let your love set me free Lord
Let your love set me free
Keep me close to you Lord
Keep me close to you”
@ Velour:
I know sometimes the flags are off but I’m really from Canada.
@ Mark:
” may sound a certain stridency but we need to tread carefully on this ESS issue.”
+++++++++
tread carefully?? i say get out the ion blasters and let’s be done with it once & for all.
then let’s lay the carcass out for a long time with the message “THIS…. THIS is what happens when insecure and needy people invent doctrine to cater to their shortcomings.”
@ Christiane:
thanks for your kind, thoughtful comment. but i think i’ll set my ion blaster on the word ‘church’, too.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Strange. I heard NT Wright liken it to child abuse, too. Chalke is not the only one from your side of the pond!
@ Mark:
“It flavors everything until what is there, even Jesus the Christ is over shadowed by what is probably a culturally derived belief.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
i’d say overshadowed by human nature at its most base.
(ridiculous. redeemed to caveman behavior. what a good idea! 😐 i can’t imagine how deeply needy ESS proponents must be)
@ Ken F:
@ Jacob:
There was a time I actually looked for a Quaker meeting in my metropolis. I could not find one.
I don’t agree with everything they believe but they seem to be very open and tolerant of differences. My big thing was the “quietness”. That was how worn-out I was from the “shows”, the control, the fake and cult of personality at most churches.
And it was before I accepted that it was ok to be a Done.
elastigirl wrote:
Tread carefully in embracing it for those fence sitters. Reallly consider carefully where you are going in embracing this theology.
Bring out the ion boasters for those actively militating for this change in Christian doctrine (ESS). I disagree with Gram3 when she says that a heresy trial by the OPC or ilk or conservative Lutherans wouldn’t matter because they are small. It would send a shock waves through the Evangelical world and would leave some exponents of ESS scrambling. I am begging for them to get involved because the baptists won’t do a thing about it. We will pussy foot around the issue in the interest of unity.
@ Lydia:
Sorry ken not sure how you got in there. Devices are touchy!
@ Deb Willi:
I’d love to hear her presentation. It sounds wonderful!
Jack wrote:
Oh that’s wonderful, Jack.
@ siteseer:
Somehow I missed that when it went viral. Yikes, the whole thing struck me as unhealthy – no wonder the response was so heated! This is one potential end result of girls and women believing that their virginity basically determines their worth and identity.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Good quote, H.U.G.
Thanks.
elastigirl wrote:
?????? Wow! That’s a fine way to show their appreciation for you. Especially someone who has volunteered their time.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I will NEVER give money to a church again where women are treated as 2nd class citizens.
Why should we support our own degradation and that of our sisters in Christ?
@ Ken F:
Thank you! Looks like I’ve got a lot of reading to do 🙂
@ Velour:
Non-NeoCal wouldn’t be adequate. The split needs to be non-Calvinist, because salvation matters the most.
Christiane wrote:
Yes, I am also enjoying it. And I too have been reflecting on different ways to view the cross, including those that my Russian Orthodox family members believe.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I hope they are. The more publicity this gets, the better.
Debi Calvet wrote:
Thanks for letting me know that. I guess some of our posters here have said that they went to church, including Baptist churches, with old-time Calvinists who were good Christians, kind, polite, and reverent and not like this new bunch of rabid, vicious, abusive
NeoCalvinists.
Debi Calvet wrote:
By the way, I found Calvinism reprehensible when I was at my former NeoCalvinist church.
The pastors/elders, and many church members, arrogantly talked about being among “God’s Elect”. Anyone who disagreed with them was “destined for Hell”. Ohhh puhhhllssseee.
They were proud. No Christian humility.
My thinking about Calvinism: If God knew in advance where everyone was going — Heaven or Hell — than it makes Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection completely redundant. God didn’t have to bother. Jesus didn’t have to bother.
@ Lowlandseer:
Nice Celtic prayer. Thanks for posting it.
Jacob wrote:
Same here. The old liturgical mainlines (in general) have a strong Federalist governance as it were. Its chief advantage is that it prevents alpha-male strongmen from accruing power to wield as they see fit. Such safeguards are virtually non-existent in sects which have only loose articles of Confederation so to speak.
Velour wrote:
How do these people know they are the ELECT??
mot wrote:
Apparently if they say it enough times, say it to each other enough times, it makes it all true.
My ex-pastor was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary, which people who’ve escaped these schools describe as cultic and highly controlling.
My ex-pastor would talk, from the pulpit, about when there was the end-times battle, that my pastor would be given a horse to ride from Jesus and he would be doing battle on behalf of Jesus.
I would sit in my pew and think, “A guy like you who has screamed at saints, bullied them, lied about them, ordered them to be excommunicated and shunned, you think Jesus would trust you with a horse? Jesus wouldn’t trust you with the manure in the horses’ stable!”
Debi Calvet wrote:
This is something interesting to ponder. One of the big problems with all of this is what the CR included as part of the Salvic process: inerrancy and comp doctrine.
then the Cals claimed Calvinism is the inerrant reading. (They have been subtly backing off off this and are now crying unity). And ESS was included until recently as they start to rewrite history and back off a bit.
My point is that inerrancy is a huge problem. The entire house of cards was built on it.
Lydia wrote:
Is that from the Chicago Statement and the signers in the 1978?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
The men behind it give me the creeps. They want to do away with the U.S. government and state governments, put their own friends in charge of government, have an Old Testament society, they have supported slavery, they believe that *non-Christians* should be enslaved (which is anyone I suppose who doesn’t agree with them), and they don’t believe the Holocaust happened, and have a hatred for Jews (even though Jesus was Jewish).
That group has no credibility with me.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Very beautiful prayer in the Celtic Christian tradition. Thanks for sharing this gem! 🙂
@ Lydia:
“We know two families who took the VRI. One is over 50 with grown children. The other, in their 40’s with tweens. Both took it because they are not Calvinists and took the warning seriously that the next offer “probably won’t be so generous”…. in the words of Platt. They did not think the first offer was that generous, considering The time they had put in and The fact they only have a few months to make a decision. Neither family came back here. Who can blame them?
The way it was handled by the IMB was extremely unchristian and ruthless.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the interest of bringing institutional corruption into the light for some accountability, would these people be willing to tell their story at TWW with guaranteed anonymity?
it was wrong. they were bullied. strong arm tactics. their options were stolen from them. it is not dishonorable to stand up to such things and the people who perpetrated them, even after the fact.
Lydia, FW Rez, Max, mot, Gram3, Ken F, Bill M, and others I might be missing, thank you for your wisdom. You encourage me so much in my faith struggles. God bless you!
@ Velour:
Not merely that He knew in advance, but that He predetermined that it would be so. Being forced to face that belief system in the OPC church plant I attended for a few months in Orange County, CA, deepened my more-than-two-decades-long faith crisis, just when I believed God was bringing me out of it.
@ Gram3:
“I imagine if a Trustee departs from the consensus (which is usually framed as a variant of “God told us”) then said Trustee is not likely to be invited to the cool events with the really good seats next to the Important People. What we need are a bunch of Trustees who do not care for such things.”
+++++++++++++++++
“trustees” — what a misnomer that one is.
‘yes, i trust you to look out for your own interests, comfort, & convenience.’
@ Gram3:
” I know of one missionary couple who came back home and they are not anywhere near 50. They were not pure enough for the new bosses.”
+++++++++++++++++
Same question as the one to Lydia.
In the interest of bringing institutional corruption into the light for some accountability, would these people be willing to tell their story at TWW with guaranteed anonymity?
it was wrong. they were bullied. strong arm tactics. their options were stolen from them. it is not dishonorable to stand up to such things and the people who perpetrated them, even after the fact.
Debi Calvet wrote:
Does “OPC” stand for Orthodox Presbyterian Church? If “yes”, I’ve heard how oppressive they are.
Oh yes, I forgot the whole “predetermined” language that NeoCalvinists use to describe themselves as The Elect. And when bad things happen in Christians’ lives they also
use the same language that God “permitted” this bad thing to happen and He knew it was going to happen. They would say it with a straight face. And I thought, “What is the difference between Hinduism, Buddhism, and this?” Fatalistic.
elastigirl wrote:
Just imagine what these people gave up to be missionaries.
Lydia, Gram, your missionary friends who were amongst the 1,000 or so recalled:
they were forced to sign the non-disclosure agreement under duress. there was nothing honorable about it. it is not an ethical breach to deprive it of pseudo honor now.
(lobbying here…)
@ mot:
i know. my grandparents were missionaries. i know what they gave up, what their kids were forced to give up and endure…. and how it has impacted the 3rd generation.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
He was quite clear in what he said, likening PSA with child abuse. Here is the quote.
“The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil”. (The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann p182-183).
He claims not to be “liberal” or “light on the Bible” but The Evangelical Times shows that what he says is nothing more than the old Socinianism in a modern coat.
http://www.evangelical-times.org/archive/item/879/Biblical-theological/Steve-Chalke-and-the-cross-of-Christ/
@ elastigirl:
(not that you disagree… i’m just providing the script)
@ mot:
and i see the white collared stateside denominational executive fat cats with their cushy paychecks and comparatively generous retirement all nice and secure….
if they only knew….
(maybe they do know — but they have their priorities and their price)
@ elastigirl:
I totally agree. But be mindful of what they might have to sacrifice. It’s the old whistleblower problem and in the case of 1000 missionaries, do you know how easy it would be to figure out the “anonymous” over time? There is a person I know from old blogging days who has contacted deeds to have lunch with me. This person comes off nice and balanced. They aren’t. They are two faced and looking for info to marginalize. I have seen too much. I don’t want them to find me. I happen to know that they play both sides for a reason.
Do you know how people win these days? They ruin those who disagree with them. This is where power and status come into play. The people with these things, win. It is a fact of life. One thing they do is try to win over people they think have influence before they go after their intended target. Sometimes they do it through love bombing. Sometimes they play both sides. I just don’t do clever anymore. Or platitudes. I saw too much of it.
I don’t ever castigate people who don’t want to go public –even anonymously. It can take years and years to get strong enough to even deal with what happened. This is especially true when evil or injustice is done in the name of Jesus Christ. So when we add their spiritual identity into the mixture, it gets very touchy.
I take protecting victims very seriously. And I know that many of them need years and years to work through what really happened and to become strong. The really sad thing is to see a victim totally deny that anything bad happened and even agree with the charlatans. And I can promise you that some of them will be in that 1000. And the charlatans will trot them out to marginalize those who dared speak up as bitter. Or the one who marginalized conveniently “repented” and we are mean if we don’t immediately believe it. One has to be very strong to survive these things.
Victims have to get to the point where they really don’t care what people think of them and are not beholden to the charlatans, financially. They have to get to the point where they are survivors, not victims.
@ Velour:
Yes, that’s the denomination. The language I’ve heard/read goes beyond God’s permitting bad things to happen (i.e., not preventing them from happening). It says that God determined in advance that those things would happen—that He made them happen—”for His own glory.” That’s what nearly killed my hope (again).
Debi Calvet wrote:
That is a sick teaching. Of course it will kill hope. God as our Enemy. God as the creator and approver of Evil. What an affront that teaching is to God, to His holiness, Love, and Mercy.
Lydia wrote:
I like NT Wright. In the past several years I have learned a lot from the books of his I have read.
Speaking of PSA, I found this interesting article and thread about the difference between the Reformed and the Catholic view (from a Catholic perspective). I am neither Catholic nor Reformed, though I lean Catholic on many issues:
@ Jacob:
I’ll try the link again:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/
@ Lydia:
God….. sobering.
perhaps there’s a way to tell their story in part, eliminating anything that could remotely identify them. an image of the non-disclosure agreement. what they were told. the timing of it all. their feelings. the realities of what it meant for them. what it’s been like to be at ground zero.
if anything, just the latter 3 things.
to put a human face to the executive decision made in an air-conditioned office, upholstered swivel chair, catered lunch…
mot wrote:
reminds me of the writings of CS Lewis in ‘The Last Battle’ about the followers of ‘Tash’, an evil lord, contrasted with those who revered and remembered Aslan:
“Emeth meets Aslan, Aslan tells him that “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me” and further explains that “no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him”. He explains that Emeth’s pious devotion, because it was rooted in a love of justice and truth, was really to Aslan rather than to Tash.”
may I suggest that the neo-Cals who claim to be ‘elect’ and who abuse others can be assured in the words of CS Lewis, “”no service which is vile can be done to Our Lord, and none which is not vile can be done to satan”;
if ABUSIVE pastors claim to be elect, they are not ‘elect’ by the standards of the Holy One, but by the culling of our kind by satan . . . look at their fruit and you can find the real ‘god’ they serve, and whom they really belong
@ elastigirl:
perhaps an attorney could assist somehow? one who cares about such things, in a pro bono way?
@ Jacob:
He is extremely interesting. He was an Ancients scholar before being a theologian.
@ Jacob:
Thanks! Will check it out.
@ elastigirl:
It looks like the Religious Right has its own Social Gospel, and this agenda takes priority over funding missionaries to preach the Gospel.
elastigirl wrote:
You know what is so heinous is people are often not emotionally ready to tell their story for years. And the evil ones know this and use that weakness against them.
And if they wait until they are strong By then it is often too late to effect real change or punish the evil ones effectively. I mean how many pedo Catholic priests did prison time, for instance? Talk about protection!
I have to check myself because I am more scorched earth now. I say, sue the Bastard’s at IMB just to get discovery!
And there should be no statute if limitations on child molestation!
But in the end, the telling… it is about the victims timetable.
That does not mean some brave missionary who survived the bush want come forward at some point.
Daisy wrote:
These dingbats need to ‘fess up and admit that they believe women do not have souls. We are nothing more than service animals that God made for men – the real “humans”.
@ Mark:
“We will pussy foot around the issue in the interest of unity.”
+++++++++++++++
ha, ‘unity’. now there’s a loaded term.
@ Nancy2:
Have you read Dorothy Sayers, “Are Women Human”? If not, you would enjoy it.
@ Nancy2:
Have you read Dorothy Sayers, “Are Women Human”? If not, you would enjoy it.
Here is one quote from her I particularly like and wish were true today!
“What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person”
Lowlandseer wrote:
The argument in that link is the same worn-out argument I’ve been running across by PSA advocates. Rather than proving PSA from a “sola scriptura” perspective, they go for the ad hominem approach by labeling the PSA opponents as liberals (whatever that means). They also confuse substitutionary atonement with penal substitution. The early church believed in substitution, but not penal substitution. That is the big difference. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy (making up the vast majority of Christians) have never accepted PSA. RC’s accepted the moral satisfaction theory proposed by Anselm, but the Eastern Orthodox rejected it. Anselm did not propose PSA, but he paved the way for it. The Moral Satisfaction theory has many of its own logical problem. Eastern Orthodox theology was locked down at the 7th ecumenical council in 787 AD, so their anti-PSA stance is at least that old (and it’s probably MUCH older). I’ve yet to see solid a pro-PSA argument that cannot be easily refuted. Isaiah 53 is their go-to passage, but this article does a pretty good job showing why Isaiah 53 may not be the best proof of PSA: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2013/10/punished-for-or-by-our-sins-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53-santo-calarco.html.
elastigirl wrote:
Why do you think we have allowed despicable persons like Al and others lord it over others, without question. We have acted the parts of syncophants far too long. We let these bullies take over all in the interest of peace, which is a piece of ______. We are a bunch of pansies and those who say something are bullied with hopes they will be silenced. “The war will be in the baptist church.” This is wishful thinking with our past negligence. “Baptists wake up!” This is wishful thinking. We have no passion except to be agreeable and “yes” people.
Lydia wrote:
1John 5:19
“We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
The same dynamics of fallen human nature come into play whenever power is pursued.
I have come to feel that the pursuit of power/position/gain is the antithesis of the pursuit of God. That it is done in the guise of pursuing God is evil but wherever there is power/position/gain to be gotten, there is the place where evil makes its home.
The only thing I know of that counteracts this tendency is transparency. For instance, in politics and state, the existence of a free press. In religion, we rarely see this kind of balance. The rules of the game go against it; one is to ‘have faith’ ‘be loyal’ ‘trust’ ‘not question’ God and so these traits are also applied to God’s supposed human representatives. The people invest their human leaders with their faith in God and so don’t want to see them questioned or exposed. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it,” within the church as much as outside of it.
elastigirl wrote:
Poynter, the journalism institute in Florida, also covers how to tackle these issues.
They have loads of information. http://www.poynter.org/
Christiane wrote:
Thank you for that quote. It must be C.S. Lewis day. You and H.U.G. have used quotes
and somebody else I think too.
elastigirl wrote:
Steve Hassan, therapist/author/cult expert, used Dr. Robert Jay Lifton’s (psychiatrist) ground-breaking research about the Communist Chinese Thought Reform process, to deprogram from a cult (Moonies) that Hassan had been recruited in at his college cafeteria. Dr. Lifton had originally worked for the Air Force and done research for the U.S. government.
Dr. Lifton had Steve Hassan meet him at Yale University and Lifton encouraged Steve to go in to psychology to help others get out of cultic groups.
In reading Steve’s blog, books, youtube videos, and Lifton’s work, these authoritarian churches calls for “unity” are really just another Thought Reform technique to silence dissent.
https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php
The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton
Brad/FuturistGuy, who comments here on TWW, has also written about Dr. Lifton and Brad thinks highly of his work.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-hunger-games-trilogy-5a/
Nancy2 wrote:
Sounds like another t-shirt for Pound Sand Ministries (TM) and our 2017 camp in Kentucky.
I am looking forward to your teaching us how to shoot at Patriarchy books as our target practice. I will listen very carefully and keep an eagle-eye on my target.
Lydia wrote:
YES !!!
for very young victims, a lot is repressed and emerges to consciousness only in later life
for DOROTHY SAYERS fans, I highly recommend her ‘Peter Wimsey’ series (the books are funnier)
here’s a sample:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOt-Z9H5_o
She was a brilliant theologian, and she was already on page 2 with women’s issues even in her day
Velour wrote:
🙂
“I always have a quotation for everything – it saves original thinking.”
Dorothy L. Sayers
Christiane wrote:
Too funny.
One of my favorite games to play with a friend or relative is to go through a bookstore and take turns, using the titles of books we come across, and make up a story. It turns pretty hysterical. Very creative.
@ Lowlandseer:
One thing that has bothered me the most from the Reformed world blogging scene is they were always trotting out some big word from the old days to label people.
I am a Pelagian, in case you did not know. I was labeled that by the Neo Cals long ago. But when I went to do research on Pelagius, do you know what I found? Very little by him, actually. Most of the information on him out there was written by his detractors and I wouldn’t put much stock in them anyway considering who they were and what they taught. I vehemently disagree with Augustine, btw.
There was one commentary on Romans but I am not convinced of its Pelagian provenance and it was much too expensive for my research purposes.
Yet. These Seminary educated boys were adamant I am Pelagian. I kind of liked it based on what little is out there. You see, I think his detractors were afraid people might think for themselves and had to shut him down. From what we know the poor guy was hounded everywhere he went, retracted then decided not to and so on. I have a lot of empathy for those sorts of underdogs. :o)
It as as Ken said, mostly ad hominem arguments for PSA. The one I heard often is if I don’t subscribe to PSA it means I dont believe in Gods wrath.
Huh? I think we choose Gods wrath! Yikes!
So calling one a Socinianists or whatever ‘ist’ just does not carry the weight it used to.
Lydia wrote:
I am lableled as a LIBERAL. It is only because of God protecting me that I am allowed to continue to Pastor in the SBC.
@ Debi Calvet:
I am glad you are here!
elastigirl wrote:
I can not begin to imagine how disillusioned these missionaries are today? The big boys in the SBC knew they were going to bring boat loads of these missionaries home and did little to nothing to stop this. It has to be part of their plan. I’m through financing their shenanigans.
mot wrote:
I am praying for you. I’m glad to know that you’re around and in ministry.
@ mot:
I label you: Brave.
Thank you for listening to Him.
Velour wrote:
Thank you very much! I know God opened the door for me to minister again in the SBC.
@ Mark:
no argument here. never been anything near the baptist persuasion, but this mindset is not uncommon in any variety of christian culture.
it seems to mirror commercial culture. product integrity erodes because of the need to be BIGGER! MORE MONEY! mom&pop shops dissolve as franchises move in and buy out their market share. Big moneyed big churches move in and steal all the parishioners. it’s so frightening to a church because in the final analysis their raison d’etre is to perpetuate itself. and so a church goes the franchise route, importing ideas, adopting what sells. adopting what manipulates people to participate so they tithe. independent thinking & product integrity dissolves. money & power, power & money. in the end, it’s the christian powerbroker equivalent of Mr. Wal-Mart, Mr. Target, Mr. Costco., & Mr. Home Depot.
i’ve got the solution: money completely compromises the church’s mission. take money out of the ‘church’ equation. volunteers, not careers. where there is revenue generation, it is for the purpose of sending it back out. nothing stays in house. no self-enrichment.
thought spew here….
@ mot:
I have family that got out after decades over the BFM2000. They were required to sign it or to get out. They offered to sign their Bibles but that was not accepted. they left.
First of all, they are not creedal but mostly while he was gone planting churches she was leading their first plant. She has an M.Div from an SBC Seminary in the late 70’s.
The Smart Ones got out back then.
mot wrote:
I will continue to pray for you, your family, and church. And for the denomination.
Have a *tour of duty* of NeoCalvinism — what an evil, heart-breaking, wicked teaching
it is. There is NO Jesus in NeoCalvinism. It’s merely lip service.
elastigirl wrote:
Amen.
@ mot:
you’re the diamond in the rough. the one standing tall amongst a bunch of soul sell-outs. the fragrant evergreen christmas tree amongst the fake ones. the vintage Boston-L hand crank pencil sharpener that sharpens like a champ amongst all the other plastic compromisers. you want more? i’ve got more….
Mark wrote:
It is not only that they are small but also that I do not think that either the OPC or the PCA have the gumption to actually prosecute and convict any of the proponents. Lig Duncan in the PCA? George Knight III in the OPC? I don’t see it ever happening. And I don’t see the Mark Deverites or Wayne Grudemites ever abandoning their personal heroes. Think Kevin DeYoung. No way he is abandoning Grudem and Dever. He’s just one example from the younger cohort of ESS proponents.
The PCA tried to convict Peter Leithart and his salvation-by-church-and-sacraments-alone-and-you-have-to-wait-and-see-if-you-are-actually-saved Other Gospel. There is no way that Peter Leithart’s theology fits with the WCF, but the PCA was still not able to convict him. Jeffrey Meyers runs an intern program for Covenant Seminary students that is similar to what Mark Dever does with his intern programs for SBTS guys. Dever and Meyers do not agree on much except that the church is the center of the faith rather than Jesus. The men who are charged to protect the purity of the church and the Gospel are way too comfortable in their positions to rock any boats.
elastigirl wrote:
I don’t think that they would want to do that, though I think it would be great if someone would blow the whistle.
Debi Calvet wrote:
Keep your eyes on Jesus and remember that he is the exact representation of the Father. What is the character of the Jesus we find in the Gospels? That is the character of the Triune God. He is our sure hope and firm foundation.
Gram3 wrote:
Amen!!
@ Lowlandseer:
@ Ken F:
Ken
I was quoting what Steve Chalke said when the word “liberal” came up. I didn’t call him that. There was nothing ad hominem about it. However I do know him. I was at Spurgeon’s College when he was there as was one of my friends who subsequently rose to giddy heights in the SBC.
Lydia
See my comment to Ken. What Steve promulgates is Socinianism and there is no ad hominem in it. I’ve been called a Calvinist for goodness sake but I’m ONLY a Christian.
Lydia wrote:
How that is not enough is beyond me!
Lowlandseer wrote:
So do you agree with the article? The article clearly called him a liberal, which is ad hominem. Are you saying that he rejects the Trinity, denies the pre-existence of Jesus, and denies the divinity of Jesus? These are all important tenets of Socinianism. Denying PSA does not make one a Socinianist. I have not read any of his writings, so I admit that it is possible that he is a Socinianist. But I would not draw that conclusion based only on his view of PSA. Do you know for sure that he has denied the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus?
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for recommending this book, I had not read it and it looks excellent. I found this post on it for anyone else interested-
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2014/03/are-women-human-by-dorothy-sayers.html
@ Ken F:
Please read what what he says before you come to your conclusions. And forget about the ad hominem on me.
Enjoy the Sabbath
The moon and stars they wept
The morning sun was dead
The Saviour of the world was fallen
His body on the cross
His blood poured out for us
The weight of every curse upon him
One final breath he gave
As heaven looked away
The son of God was laid in darkness
A battle in the grave
The war on death was waged
The power of hell forever broken
The ground began to shake
The stone was rolled away
His perfect love could not be overcome
Now death where is your sting?
Our resurrected King
Has rendered you defeated
Forever he is glorified
Forever he is lifted high
Forever he is risen
He is alive, He is alive!
The ground began to shake
The stone was rolled away
His perfect love could not be overcome
Now death where is your sting?
Our resurrected King
Has rendered you defeated
Forever he is glorified
Forever he is lifted high
Forever he is risen
He is alive, He is alive!
We sing hallelujah
We sing hallelujah
We sing hallelujah
The Lamb has overcome
We sing hallelujah
We sing hallelujah
We sing hallelujah
The Lamb has overcome
Forever he is glorified
Forever he is lifted high
Forever he is risen
He is alive, He is alive!
You have overcome
You have overcome
You have overcome
You have overcome
(Bethel Music)
Lowlandseer wrote:
I don’t know if you are questioning his character because you did not say whether or not you agree with the article. The article is definitely ad hominem. But that does not mean you agree with it. But you did post it for a reason.
@ Ken F:
No it isn’t but feel free to keep banging your drum.
@ Lowlandseer:
And I do know him. (Smiley face)
Velour wrote:
May God keep you in His peace, and away from the harm of the neo-Cal folks who do not have good will. Be a blessing to your flock. Do it for Our Lord always.
Velour wrote:
sounds like great fun 🙂
@ Lowlandseer:
I am always suspicious of those sorts of articles. He does not link to Chalke’s article he is referencing. He does not even quote him. Me thinks he does not want us reading it. Only to believe what he says. And it is chock full of ad hominem.
PSA is Greek Paganism. It is the angry big God punishing the lessor God.
siteseer wrote:
I got a good laugh at this again thinking of Martin Luthers ex nun wife, Katherine Von Bora, who ran their brewing business.
“There is one final point that I want to make. I have been feeling for quite some time that the “a woman’s place is in the home” is both a recent development in our culture, and also one that has a strong classist bent. (I hope to write a more extensive post on this in the future.) Sayers filled in one final bit of information that I hadn’t considered.
A common argument against women working in “masculine” professions is that one doesn’t see men trying to take women’s jobs.
As Sayers points out, “Of course they do not. They have done it already.”
She then goes through the list of occupations that used to be primarily female before the industrial revolution. Pretty much the entire textile industry. The brewing and distilling. Preserving, pickling, bottling. And, since many men were absent for long periods during wars or on business, women had to act as CEOs for whatever the family trade was.”
Lydia wrote:
Great point. To accuse him of Socinianism, as the article does, requires one to show that he supports the main tenets of it. But all the article does is show that he is anti-PSA. That alone does not make him Socinianism. Rather than deal with actual facts, the article dismisses him as a liberal theologian and labels him a Socinianist without providing adequate rationale. As if that is enough to claim QED. This is the same tactic I’ve found with all PSA-supporters so far.
@ siteseer:
You can see why I like her a lot!
“So, when evaluating how we speak of men and women, I believe it really is important to ask, “Am I viewing women as fully human, with ordinary human desires, or am I placing them in a category of ‘women,’ without regard to their humanity?”
Sayers doesn’t stop with the idea that class membership is the wrong way to view women, she also expands the idea to the whole of society.
A difference of age is as fundamental as a difference of sex; and so is a difference of nationality. All categories, if they are insisted upon beyond the immediate purpose which they serve, breed class antagonism and disruption in the state, and that is why they are dangerous.
…
To oppose one class perpetually to another – young against old, manual labor against brain-worker, rich against poor, man against woman – is to split the foundations of the state; and if the cleavage runs too deep, there remains no remedy but force and dictatorship. If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base it – not on classes and categories, for this will land you in the totalitarian state, where no one may think or act except as a member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick, and Harry, and the individual Jack and Jill – in fact upon you and me.”
Velour wrote:
Amen!
Bill M wrote:
I missed this earlier. Oh how I can relate.
@ Lydia:
Thank you. 🙂 I believe God led me to TWW.
Lydia wrote:
Some people can drain us and others give us energy. I do not need folk in my life that drain me all the time.
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you so much. I needed this reminder (kind of ashamed to admit that).
Ken F wrote:
I’d love to see your list of questions.
siteseer wrote:
I saved Ken F’s questions at the top of the page under the Interesting tab,
the Books/Movies, etc. tab. for everyone’s future reference.
May 17, 2016 at 2:08 a.m.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/#comment-253217
I also saved Ken F’s links of resources right after that comment.
Lowlandseer wrote:
This is an interesting debate though a little over my head. I confess though that I struggle much over the inconsistency between what we know would be right, godly, loving behavior as humans and what we accept as being God’s nature.
As an example, would anyone come upon their child innocently playing, doing no harm, and decide to smack him, knock him down, and beat him just so he can learn to be stronger? Would we snatch his toy out of his hand and crush it in front of him just so he can learn not to put too much value on his possessions? If a parent behaved this way, how emotionally messed up would that child be? Yet we attribute such behavior to God, the idea that while we are sincerely trying to live in a way pleasing to Him, having done nothing of offense, he will purposely bring calamity and loss upon us just to ‘teach’ us something. It’s hard for me to trust a Father like this. Am I the only one?
@ Velour:
Oh, thanks, Velour!
Lydia wrote:
Or they’ll say that “You don’t believe the Bible…” to which I reply:
Not true, I just don’t believe as you believe…
Debi Calvet wrote:
It happened to me several months ago. The conversations here have been both eye-opening and healing.
Velour wrote:
Thanks for both saving them there and finding the link today. There are two questions I would add to the list based on this article: http://perichoresis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/God-in-the-Hands-of-Angry-Sinners.pdf.
19) What was the Holy Spirit doing when the Father vented his wrath on the Son? Where does the Bible best describe this?
20) What was the state of the Trinity when the Father vented his wrath on the Son? Where does the Bible best describe this?
I used to think PSA was just bad theology that robs us of hope and joy. But based on Kruger’s article about the Trinity, I am wondering if PSA is blasphemy.
Ken F wrote:
Same here.
And the issues discussed here, knowledge shared, helped me understand my own abusive church experience and to nutshell it for others in my YELP review about my ex-church
in Silicon Valley (California). Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.
I gave them a 1 star review, because that’s the lowest YELP will permit a person to score.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale
Headless Unicorn Guy (H.U.G.) who posts here said mine was the sole review that wasn’t written in fluent Christianese.
Muff Potter wrote:
Exactly! Instead of answering the real questions, they go for the ad hominem attacks. It’s a sign that they cannot defend their position. It’s an admission of defeat.
Velour wrote:
I agree. Excellent review!
Ken F wrote:
I think it grows out of a literal interpretation of the OT, in cases where ‘the Ban’ is mentioned which should be taken allegorically.
I also think there is some strange connection to the old heresy that separated the God of the OT from Christ in the NT. This ‘duality’ in the heresy was extreme, but remnants of it can still be seen among the crowd that speaks about Jesus and then mentions ‘God’ when I always thought they meant ‘the Father’.
This group has difficulty understanding that Jesus Christ is the most authoritative revelation we have of what the Father is like (considering that they are two separate Persons within the Holy Trinity, but they share the exact same ‘essence’.
I think the PSA folks are badly confused about:
1. Who Christ is.
2. The nature of the Holy Trinity as ‘God’.
REASON:
PSA developed AFTER the time of the Protestant Reformation, and there was since that time splintering among groups of people, some of whom wanted to distance themselves from the Creeds where those two issues were resolved and defined in the face of the many heresies that attacked the young Church.
Given the Bible alone, they could sort out the questions, but just looking at the ESS group, we can see how so-called ‘bible-believing’ Christian people can fall into error, especially when they are enamoured of their own agendas (male domination).
siteseer wrote:
No. PSA paints the Father as a monster. But that argument does not work with PSA advocates. I suppose they think it’s cool that God is a monster – maybe because that belief justifies their own abuses. They come up with all kinds of flawgical explanations to explain how it works – of course “for the GLORY of Gawd-da”. But all of their arguments are based on theories and ideas that have very scanty support from the Bible. Once you ditch PSA you can much better appreciate the genius and greatness of the atonement.
Ken F wrote:
Thanks, Ken F. Did you cast a vote for me on it? Every vote counts!
Velour wrote:
How could I not? I found the review helpful, so I had to click on the icon.
Christiane wrote:
It seems to be an invention of Calvin, who was a French lawyer before he was a theologian. Only a lawyer could craft an explanation of the atonement that primarily involves law, guilt, and punishment. Luther probably did not believe in it. I know that Roman Catholics strongly oppose it. I am not RC, but I find Nick’s Catholic blog interesting: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/. Like TWW, it was one of the sites that kept popping up during my research. He has some very good stuff to say about PSA.
Lydia wrote:
I have seen what you describe here in an unrelated situation. Some former members of my “church” signed a petition stating that this church would never condone or cover up the sexual abuse of children. Problem is, I know at least two of the people who signed it were abused and nothing was done about it. When I asked one victim why she signed this petition, she said she hoped it would make things easier for her mother. I assume she meant that her mother might still be able to have a relationship with her? But, like you said, these signatures were “trotted out” to prove how bitter other ex-members are.
I’ve only been coming to terms with all of this for over 4 years. I can’t imagine having an awareness of things like this for an extended period of time.
@ Ken F:
where is this place to vote for VELOUR at? I want to support her, too.
Ken F wrote:
Thanks, Ken F.
Christiane wrote:
It’s in the link above posted on Sat Aug 06, 2016 at 09:41 PM.
Christiane wrote:
Thanks for your support!
My 1-star review is on YELP, here:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale
At the bottom of it you can vote that it was helpful. 11 people have voted for it.
Christiane wrote:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-sunnyvale
@ Velour:
Velour, you are now up to 12
I ‘yelped’, this means I ‘helped’ too 🙂
and I am very proud of you for telling the truth; may it be a help to others
Christiane wrote:
Thank you, dear friend. I so appreciate your kindness and encouragement.
I hope it will help others too.
I think that it will give people pause.
And I’m already being contacted by people who want out. They know something is wrong with that church.
siteseer wrote:
No you’re not the only one. Many are still in the closet about the nature of God and his relationship to his kids and wouldn’t dare and come out with anything that differs from conventional dogma, so they keep it private.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
It’s horrible, isn’t it? I have no words just experience.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I enjoy it hourly!
@ Ken F:
@ Muff Potter:
It seems like if people are focused on a God with punitive attributes, it could redefine their own concept of love to match it.
Gram3 wrote:
Then it may have to be baptists and a rag tag of Presbyterians who are standard bearers on this issue. There seems to be so little hope in this battle. And the baptists who might care about this may have little influence. They are being bullied by Neocals.
elastigirl wrote:
Unity means you agree with them or stay silent, not they agree or even listen to you.
Christiane wrote:
Be very wary of repressed memories, there has been a lot of quackery around it. There are other good reasons to extend the statute of limitations, primarily a child is ill equipped to bring an accusation against an adult.
Debi Calvet wrote:
What was the initial connection? For me it was a phone call about some used network equipment, it was a real answer to prayer, TWW not the network stuff.
siteseer wrote:
No, you are not the only one. I’d venture to say that many honest Christians struggle with this very thing—and with the idea of eternal torture.
Bill M wrote:
Within a day or so of walking out of the OPC church plant crying, after hearing them discuss predestination versus double predestination (semantics), I started searching online for information about the denomination. I can’t remember what my search criteria were, but it wasn’t long before I found TWW. I was hooked almost immediately. That was about a year and a half ago, but I didn’t start commenting until (I think) earlier this year, so I lurked for quite a while.
That OPC church plant was the first church I’d attended regularly for quite a number of years. My story isn’t one of abuse, nor is it particularly interesting. It’s just the story of a long-time Christian who entered a faith crisis in her mid thirties and who hasn’t gotten over it yet. But TWW is helping. I thought that church plant would, but no. Still, that did lead me here, so God does move in mysterious ways. 🙂
@ Bill M:
the so-called ‘christian’ understanding of unity means heaven will be a very lonely place because God is a persnickety pedant and only ‘me & mine’ & our rigid interpretation make the cut.
so unreasonable, so small-minded, so fabulously illogical.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean. The drum I’m beating is asking for hard evidence. Here’s one of my favorite memes: http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Credible-Hulk-634×434.jpg
elastigirl wrote:
I do not want to be a part of their heaven. I know that might sound harsh but these folk prove who they are every day by their actions.
Debi Calvet wrote:
TWW has provided a voice for many of us and a safe place to begin the healing process from past abuses.
@ Ken F:
The whole Trinity issue might just be the catalyst for some people to start questioning even more about all things related if they are inclined to question at all. . Like PSA.
I just don’t see ESS working without PSA. Although many who are not ESS subscribe to PSA. One can hope they will at least question the P.
Someone told me a long time ago that Calvin trained as a lawyer did not help. I am sure it was not just Calvin, yet, the entire legal/forensic focus is a problem.
Bill M wrote:
Which the predators well know because they groomed them.
Mark wrote:
I think there is hope, but I am pretty sure that change will happen only after the luminaries are deceased. Grudem’s recent political endorsement drew even more negative attention to his way of thinking (not to say that there are not theologians who make the same mistake for the other candidate.)
By the time the luminaries are with Jesus and explaining themselves there and offering an account for the way they taught others, Millennials will no longer be in the pews like the Greatest and the Boomers were. Boomers who caught on will have moved on, either to other churches or to glory. The YRRS will be middle-age with marriages in trouble and kids who have no clue why their parents thought males and females were separate species, for all practical purposes. Those kids will have seen the fruit up close. When they are adults, I think that many of the YRR’s kids will resent their parents for limiting their perspective and, in the case of girls, their skills which would afford them opportunity in life.
So, I say give this movement another 20 years or so of declining influence before the lights go out for it totally. I think it has already peaked.
Lydia wrote:
Since I am deprogramming from a *tour of duty* (8 years) in an authoritarian, NeoCalvinist, 9Marxist, John MacArthur-ite church could one or both of you (Lydia and Ken F.) nutshell the cross for me, what you believe, and the whole Penal Substitution thing.
I know can has a very good list of resources.
I found Calvinism and NeoCalvinism to be reprehensible. Here is my uncomplicated
reason:
*If God knew in advance who was going to Heaven (“The Elect”) and who was going to
Hell (the non-Elect) than it makes Jesus redundant, His birth, life, death and resurrection. Neither God or Jesus had to bother if that were the case.
^typo: should read “I know Ken F.”
@ Gram3:
I think it has peaked, too. You can always tell when some movement has picked when they are crying Unity. Is this like the tyrant suing for peace? :o)
Al I think the big cheeses are desperately trying to change the conversation, rewrite history and put the focus on unity.
There was no push for unity during the SBC CR. It was scorched earth and bragging there would be no compromises.
It was much the same during the calvinist Resurgence only it was done by pure deception. No need to suggest unity when you are too busy deceiving others.
Now they are using unity as a club. It’s just another tactic to save as much of the bacon as they can.
@ Gram3:
Your thoughts on YRR children are interesting to me. I have no stats to back this up but a recurring theme on the YRR blogs years back was many of them talked about growing up in a shallow seeker church.
I predict the YRR will raise a lot of Dones. Except the ones who have achieved big success. Most of their kids will go into the family business. There seems to be a pattern there and we could name names all day long.
@ Muff Potter:
“Or they’ll say that “You don’t believe the Bible…” to which I reply:
Not true, I just don’t believe as you believe…”
+++++++++++++++++++
hmmmm…. to say ‘You don’t believe the Bible’ to me sounds like ‘You don’t believe in the bible.’
i think it betrays a religion of bible worship, Bible = deity.
i believe in God. the bible informs my beliefs.
Bill M wrote:
This is an excellent reason, yes. And I am aware that some untrained and unscrupulous ‘counselors’ do also prey on victims who are dealing with repressed memories. My cousin Kim is a child psychiatrist in Massachusetts and sees victims of abuse. She has never mentioned, nor would, the specifics of a case, but she does express in general how severely wounded young victims can be and how difficult their lives are for them to bear. Their suffering doesn’t end with the abuse. The after-effects last a life-time, yes.
The law needs to catch up with the psychiatric science when it comes to justice for children who have been sexually abused.
Debi Calvet wrote:
I found it about the same time but am not a lurker by nature, I’m a verbal processor. Many posts and commenters here helped me process my exit from a dysfunctional church. Prior to stumbling across TWW I had not even considered the possibility of such an assemblage of voices, other sites were found to be one way propaganda or hangouts for commenters to hurl flame mail at each other.
Lydia wrote:
The probable NPD that took over where I was formerly attending went into the family business. What is interesting is that he was raised in one denomination that had democratic governance, yet sought ordination in a different denomination with very different doctrine but a particularly bad amount of centralized power given to the pastor, it was if that was what attracted him. Till reading the stories here I would not have made such an observation.
Velour wrote:
could one or both of you (Lydia and Ken F.) nutshell the cross for me, what you believe, and the whole Penal Substitution thing.
I think I am still de-programming. I’ve learned enough to reject PSA, and now I am in the process of rebuilding. I think I have a better understanding of what the atonement was about, but I feel like I have so much more to learn. At this point, I believe that Jesus rescued us from sin, death, and Satan by defeating them. Some people call this the classical view, others call it “Christus Victor” based on “Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement” by Gustaf Aulen and A. G. Herbert (I highly recommend reading it). Eastern Orthodoxy seems to follow this as well. I learned a lot by reading “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” Fr. Michael Pomazansky and Fr. Seraphim Rose. It’s a bit of a tome, but much less challenging than a typical systematic theology textbook. In any case, it seems like this is what the vast majority of Christians believed before Anslem in the 11th century came up with a new theory.
Yesterday morning I posted a link on this thread from perichoresis.org. I’m thinking that Baxter Kruger’s explanation of the atonement is worth exploring. He keeps going back to the early church, and his teachings seem very consistent with what I have been learning from church history. Here’s another good link from him that is on the shorter side: http://perichoresis.org/redeeming-genius/.
Many of the links I posted on TWW critiquing PSA offer explanations along the lines of the classical view. It’s a lot to take in.
@ Ken F:
Thanks, Ken F., for nuts shelling what’s wrong with PSA.
Part of my family are Eastern Orthodox Christians so I was also raised around, but not in, these beliefs. I will check it out later. Because yes, it’s a lot to take in.
Velour wrote:
EO theology is amazingly beautiful and logical. But I have a hard time with the church practices and structures. Too much patriarchy and hierarchy for me at this point in my journey.
Ken F wrote:
Same here.
another film that illustrates Christus Victor is Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino”
to fully understand the ending, you need to see the whole movie; but the ending is classic Christus Victor and it is stunningly realistic
Christiane wrote:
Good to know.
Lydia wrote:
I think you are correct.
Velour wrote:
You didn’t specifically ask me, but if I may:
Part of the problem with PSA is precisely that it attempts to stuff the work of the cross into one tiny nutshell. So: the exact mechanism whereby the cross achieved salvation is this, and anybody who reads anything else into the cross is rejecting the cross, blah, blah blah, blah blah.
I only have half a minute to finish the comment (need to dash off out) but the closest thing to a nutshell I can find in which to fit all the scribshers describing the cross is this:
The Cross is what proves Jesus worthy, beyond question, to be King; and to hold all authority in heaven and on earth, to the end of time, and of eternity.
Paul likens the cross to a battle / victory / triumph. This from Psalm 24:
The Cross underlines that Jesus is, in very nature, God.
Gram3 wrote:
A fascinating subsection within the academic studies of “cults” deals with the whole topic of “SGAs” (Second Generation Adults) — those who are reared in an authoritarian sociological cult, regardless of whether it is based in religious beliefs or not. In giving reasoned speculation to the outcome of SGAs in the YRR/Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan movement, it’s crucial to think about and create a “watch list” of indicators to see how things are panning out.
I think the things Gram3 already suggested make sense, for both the masses and for the elites. There are other trends afoot that the authoritarian Neo-Calvinists has no control over — paradigm shifts, cultural changes, and also the organic unfolding of the consequences of their “social experiment.” For instance, Gram3 suggested another 20 years before YRR implodes. I’ll suggest setting the timer for the year 2030, as that’s a round number that is an important marker: 2031 will be the year the last of the Boomers who were born in 1964 can start retiring at full social security benefits (which for them is at about age 67). So, what trends and unfoldings are likely to be in place between now and then?
Here are some additional things I think we should watch for that will affect the possible (actually, the probable) implosion of the YRR:
* By 2030, the academic critiques of hyper-complementarian theology will have been in place for 15 years. How do you think current controversy over the orthodoxy of grounding gender roles in the Trinity will play out between now and then? How will it be a potential hindrance to the broader YRR movement?
* By 2030, the Danvers Statement will have been around about 45 years. What impact do you think it will have in that future, and why?
* Given the current trends on push-back against authoritarian church and ministry leaders and their systems of control — and the willingness of survivors to publicize problems and even to engage in lawsuits — how might that affect the children of current Neo-Calvinist celebrities who might think about following “in the family business”? Do you think the current wave of lawsuits and *Spotlight* type investigations will act as a deterrent to celebrity dynasties? Or have other potential consequences?
* Where do you think survivor communities will be by 2030, in terms of their ability to report on abuse and pressure organizations to prevent toxic leaders from exercising power?
Anyway, those are just the first things that come to mind where some other kinds of important trends could intersect with the ongoing evolution/devolution of the Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan movement …
What other things do you think will affect how it unfolds?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thanks, Nick.
Lydia wrote:
True. He was a lawyer before he was a theologian. He was also trained in French humanism. It would explain his legal emphasis.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
There’s already a lot of damage from Comp teaching churches: high divorce rates, domestic violence, incest, and sexual abuse (non-family members). The teaching that women and girls are garbage gets them treated like garbage.
Churches are already losing members over Comp, authoritarianism, and NeoCalvinism.
The Southern Baptists have lost 200,000 living members a year who are fed up.
I think we’ll see that play out in other denominations and churches…loss of members.
With an increase in single Americans, including Christians, as Daisy reminds us of in her posts, I think that will make Comp promoting churches less attractive as they don’t do a good job of dealing with reality, with real peoples’ lives.
@ Velour:
In my understanding one can never separate the cross/resurrection. Ever. They must go together or we end up unbalanced. It was a shock to me when I learned Jesus was not the only young Jewish man to hang on a cross before and after Him. I am not convinced at the time they had any realization (except injustice) of what the cross really meant until the tomb was empty. And then He appeared alive to some of them. Go tell others….
Tell them what? That Gods anger has been appeased? That is the Good News?
The cross/resurrection is about New Life. It is so much more that fire insurance. And to not count His actual life walking this earth as part of the equation is a huge mistake. The total irony of Jesus Christ is that he was very tolerant and understanding with just about everybody except the religious leaders of his own tribe. He showed major contempt for the temple!
Now there is something to think about.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Churches special non profit status. This is a big one that affects local, state and federal reporting. Just locally, how much is a mega church taking away from the tax base when you consider property acreage, etc, tax free high income housing allowances for all staff pastors, etc.
I think just making them report like other non profits would be a step in the right direction. They can still hide a lot, though.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for explaining that, Lydia.
That’s been the direction that I’ve been going in after my tour-of-duty of NeoCalvinism.
It’s a bit of work, as you know, to detox from the whole hot mess that’s going on in those churches.
I just reject it. It’s ugly and can’t be true. I reject that whole notion of The Elect.
If that’s true, that God knew where everybody was going – Heaven or Hell, than neither God nor Jesus had to bothered. Jesus could have just stayed in Heaven.
NeoCalvinism is works based. Laws based. Rules based. They don’t need Jesus, they have themselves. The Holy Spirit doesn’t even exist.
^correction: “be bothered”
@ Velour:
My daughter had the bright idea of wearing empty tombs around our necks, too. :o)
Lydia wrote:
If you two could come up with a design, we could carry it in the online store at Pound Sand Ministries (TM).
Should that be a set – necklace and earrings?
Velour wrote:
I think it is possible for God to ‘know’ the possibilities that exist to happen; but not to ‘take over’ control of making things happen that He leaves up to that ‘choice’ He has given human kind. It is one thing to stand in an ice cream store and watch a toddler with a two scoop cone, and realize that the top scoop is going to fall on the floor, from the angle the child is holding the cone;
and YET not to ’cause’ the ice cream to fall. Or to ‘will’ it to fall.
That ‘choice’ thing? It means we are not robots, or puppets. We are not ‘toys’. We have been given a freedom to choose good over evil, to choose life.
We can watch something from a distance and ‘know’ what is about to happen; but not ’cause’ it to happen. This is an important thing to realize.
Velour wrote:
Seeing as it’d be a product of Pound Sand Ministries™, would it be appropriate to make it out of … glass? Just a thought… 😀
Josh wrote:
LOL.
For an additional *love offering* I will take each set to the nearby Pacific Ocean
and dunk them in.
By the way, it’s Sunday. It’s the day to make yourself the official frozen dessert of Pound Sand Ministries: Sacred Cow Sundae (Gram3’s™).
Velour wrote:
Welcome to being the Harriet Tubman of GBF.
AKA “Miz Moses of Silicon Valley.”
Velour wrote:
Notice the pattern:
All the Five-Star Reviews are in Christianese.
P.S. Velour/Miz Moses — do you recognize any of the Five-Star Reviewers?
Ken F wrote:
Some trace it to St Anselm in the 11th Century.
It’s probable that Anselm first proposed it, but it remained a minority opinion until Calvin made it a mainstay of his theology and became Al’lah’s REAL Final Prophet superseding all previous ones.
You see a similar pattern in the other two universal interpretations of Real True Evangelical Christians(TM), Genesis & Revelation — resurrecting a Minority Opinion and elevating it to God’s One True Way overriding everything else. (Isn’t this also characteristic of cults & heresies?)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I recognize 2 of the 5-star reviews. One was from a woman who moved out of state.
She was nice but lacked boundaries, from an alcoholic family.
Another 5-star rating was from a man who is very conservative. He said something very mean
to a mom I know who had a very sick kid in the hospital. He jumped all over her about one of her other kids (nothing the other child was doing was bad or a capital offense).
Anyway, he assailed the poor mom with Scripture verses like her other kid
was going be struck dead by God.
Yours truly,
Velour/Miz Moses on the Underground Railroad leading those enslaved in NeoCalvinism to FREEDOM!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That would be me. Hated by the slave masters at GBF.
Ken F wrote:
And like Daesh recruitment, it’s really KEWL to be the court favorites of such a monster, sharing in the monster’s reputation. “WE SO BAD##!” (ed.) (Above and beyond the cosmic sanction to do what is normally forbidden.)
Like Buttery Doughy Driscoll going to MMA cage fights –“I CAN BEAT YOU UP!” — and bragging about throwing his enemies under the bus. “ME BADA##! (ed.) RAWR!”
Or short and wispy Doug Phillips ESQUIRE gabbing tight the closest thing he has to a Title of Nobility as he coplays Highborn after Highborn. “ME BADA##!” (ed.)
Or the Jerk with the Kirk going “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!” (which would not sound out of place in the mouth of that better-known example of pathological hypermasculinity at the pulpit of a Nuremberg Rally) — “ME BADA##! (ed.) SEE? SEE?”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Origen (who was eventually considered a heretic) proposed the Ransom theory as a way to explain how all the payments worked out. It was one of the the prominent theories in the West until Anselm (the East did not buy into it). Anselm rejected it and instead proposed the Moral Satisfaction theory. He claimed that our sins are an infinite offense against God’s honor, for which an infinite sacrifice is required. He did not tie it to guilt and punishment. The Roman Catholics still support this theory, but it has many of the same problems as penal substitution. Calvin went beyond Anselm by proposing that our sin results in infinite guilt which requires infinite punishment. This is why I wrote that Anselm paved the way for PSA.
The most interesting aspect of the theories of the atonement is they were all developed by Western Christians (Eastern Orthodoxy never departed from the classical view) for purely intellectual reasons rather than to oppose a heresy. There are a lot of other theories out there, but for Calvinists PSA is the skeleton that holds all the rest together.
Ken F wrote:
Sounds like a Muslim honor killing to me.
Ken F wrote:
From what I recall, Jesus died once, for all, not infinitely. He is not still dying for our sins.
Ken F wrote:
I’ve heard of Origen.
One Weird Dude.
Said to have castrated himself to Mortify his Fleshly Desires.
Velour wrote:
Coming back (even if only by accident!) to the Trinitarian debate…
It strikes me that the Holy Spirit represents either the best, or the worst, of both worlds to the professing believer. Rather like the cross is either rank stupidity, or the epitome of God’s power to save, depending on your personal perspective. Those who carry a sense of calling to lead – in any kind of way – understand from the beginning that they are their to help everyone else hear and understand God for themselves. (You might say that their task is to make themselves redundant, and that they should be looking for every opportunity to give the limelight to others.) Those who do not feel any sense of calling understand, nevertheless, that they are every bit as responsible as the People_At_The_Front. Not just that they get to share in calling the shots, but that they continually discipline themselves to grow so that they do so with ever-increasing love, humility and wisdom.
To those whose mind is set on heavenly / eternal / invisible / etc things, the Holy Spirit is the best of both worlds. He is in very nature God, he searches even the deep things of God, and he is unlimited and everywhere. In the physical absence of the risen and ascended Jesus, he really is emmanuel – God_With_Us.
To those whose mind is set on earthly / temporary / visible / etc things, the Holy Spirit is the worst of both worlds. He’s God, so you’re supposed to do what he says. But you can’t physically see or hear him, which is the real bogdigger: not only do we have to learn a whole nuther way of interacting with the universe around us, using different senses than we’re used to, but to build any kind of church, we have to learn to do this collectively. I mean, WTF? You might as well ask us to be re-born and become like children again. It’s much easier just to have a handful of Annointed Big Cheeses to do all the hearing God for us or, better still, create a detailed set of rules that tell us what to do. The second option may be preferable because, although you’ve still got to have the Annointed Big Cheeses who get to write the systematic theologies, this way they’re hidden and we can all pretend we’re subject to “God”, whatever that means.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Good point, Nick.
I guess the operative word is “sense” of calling to lead. Many pastors, who say they were *called* to pastor, the people in the pews would beg to differ with them. God doesn’t call leaders who arrogant, bully, threaten, lie, control, and disrespect the saints. In the U.S. we have many *church plants* started by men who *called themselves* to pastor churches. They really seem to be in it for the money and the power and for no other reasons.
So true. And the Annoited Big Cheese have put themselves in the place of the Holy Spirit.
They resent when a Christian listens to the Holy Spirit and not to them.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Even back then, stuff of s sekshul nature was thee-most-egregious in the panoply of ‘sins’.
Velour wrote:
He never did. He never will. A witness to this from the early Church wrote:
““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.
And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.
For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.
Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”
St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
a Father and Doctor of the Church
Bridget wrote:
The logic like this: to slap a peasant on the face is a small crime with probably negligible consequencs, to slap a lord on the face is a much bigger crime with much bigger consequences, to slap a king on the face is an unimaginably horrific crime that could result in the death penalty. So to sin against an infinite being is infinitely offensive and requires an infinite sacrifice in order to satisfy the infinite moral offense. That’s basically moral satisfaction in a nutshell. Two main problems: 1) it’s not in the Bible and 2) it’s not possible for a finite being to create an infinite effect. And then one has to try to explain how an infinite being (Jesus) is able to offer an infinite sacrifice in an finite amount of time. No amount of mathematical mumbo-jumbo will make an equation that makes sense.
John Piper has many sermons and articles on his site that rely on the infinite offense idea. If he really believed in sola scriptura he would not appeal to a theory that has no direct Biblical support.
Christiane wrote:
Many of the writings of the early church theologians are available online. Here’s one example: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. It’s a bit daunting to know where to start because they were such prolific writers.
@ Ken F:
Hi KEN F.
thanks for the link … I checked it and looks very useful. Up until now I’ve been using New Advent for patristic writings, so now I also have this to use as well 🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
The timing is right – Islam came on the scene in 622 AD, Anselm lived 1033-1109. But Anselm’s theory probably had more to do with the feudal system in which he lived. Just like Calvin’s PSA was a product of the legal system from which he came.