“What would men be without women? Scarce, sir…mighty scarce.” ― Mark Twain link
Updated 8/25/16 to remove one reference that could be misunderstood.
Desiring God featured a concerning post by Mary Kassian called Women Teaching Men — How Far Is Too Far?. In this post, she says she wants to help women know when they are showing their love for God and His word by teaching within certain boundaries.
Who is Mary Kassian and why should her thoughts be taken with a grain of salt?
Mary is beloved by the Neo Calvinists who have decided that she is an expert on feminism in spite of only holding a degree in Occupational Therapy from a college. She is called a *Distinguished Professor* at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary because of her supposed expertise. Kassian claims to have studied *Systematic Theology* on a doctoral level but has not received her doctorate in spite of studying for many years. As far as we can tell, she has never studied feminism in any serious way, and she has not published any scholarly, peer-reviewed papers on the matter. Apparently, such studies are unnecessary in order to be proclaimed an expert by certain seminaries.
For further information on Kassian, refer to our post Mary Kassian, Distinguished SBTS Professor, “Is Not a Particularly Credible Witness. We believe that Kassian's lawsuit against a driver who hit the car in which she was a passenger indicates that she is not necessarily a straightforward and humble person.
What does Kassian have to say about herself?
Kassian's decided lack of academic credentials does not cause her to be particularly humble. She speaks into existence her expertise. In the Desiring God article she refers to herself as:
1. One who has the spiritual gift of teaching as well as being a *gifted* teacher.
as a woman with a spiritual gift of teaching
… I am a gifted teacher
2. A teacher on the history and philosophy of women's thought!
I have also accepted speaking invitations when the church-fathers have asked me to give an overview of the history and philosophy of feminist thought, speak about cultural or women’s issues,
All of this to say that Kassian, although beloved by the Calvinistas, is not someone who should be considered an expert on her chosen topics. Perhaps this is why the following discussion has enough holes to sink the Titanic.
Kassian begins by discussing boundaries of sexual behavior in order to better understand why women should place boundaries on their teaching.
She starts off by discussing that many women who want to honor God ask, "How far is too far?" when it comes to teaching. She then compares this to how far is too far in premarital expressions of affection.
(How women who teach) ought to honor male headship in the church has many similarities with the question of how a young woman ought to honor the principle of purity. In the former situation as well as the latter, God hasn’t given us a detailed how-far-is-too-far list. He’s given us a broad principle, a clear this-goes-over-the-line boundary, and the gift of his indwelling Holy Spirit to help us figure out the rest in the wisdom of community.
Kassian believes there is a clear boundary to teaching by women but claims that the Holy Spirit will work out the details.
Well, what if godly people in different churches hear the Holy Spirit saying something different than what Kassian proposes? Look at this sentence again.
He’s given us a broad principle, a clear this-goes-over-the-line boundary, and the gift of his indwelling Holy Spirit to help us figure out the rest in the wisdom of community.
Here is the fatal flaw. She claims that the Holy Spirit will help us figure out what women can and can't do in the wisdom of community. Here is the problem demonstrated by two churches which both purport to follow the Holy Spirit.
1. The title of this post always makes me laugh. Tim Challies: Can the Neo-Castrati Be Far Behind?
In Challies' church women can't even read Scripture out loud on Sunday mornings.
“Because of the importance of the Word of God, at Grace Fellowship Church we ask certain members of the church to be involved in a Scripture Reading Ministry—a ministry of those who are specially trained and equipped to read the Word of God and to read it well. We consider this a teaching ministry, which means that it is a ministry reserved for men.”
2. This is a post about my former church. My Former Pastor, Pete Briscoe, Smashes Stereotypes With Women Pastors and Elders
In this church, there are no limits to women teaching. This is quote by Denny Burk in that post.
Briscoe and the elders say that they intend to be a “conservative” church that maintains a tenacious commitment to the Inerrancy of scripture. That is something to be thankful for. There are many who join feminist readings of scripture to a more explicit repudiation of the Bible’s integrity and authority. Briscoe and the elders do not wish to do that.
Kassian has a problem, but she skips on along with her post, never addressing the differing views of the Holy Spirit in church communities.
Mary uses the term *church father* to refer to the men who lead churches because some churches actually have women on staff!
The biblical term for a church leader is elder or overseer. Churches today often call their leaders “pastor.” Some churches call every person on paid staff a pastor — even if that person is a female and not an elder. To avoid confusion over all the conflicting terminology, and to be clear about what I mean, I will call the men who occupy the biblical office of elder/overseer, and who govern and lead the church family, the “church-fathers.”
Mary defines the *clear boundary* as honoring male headship in the church and this is not open to the Holy Spirit and collective community wisdom if I am understanding her properly.
She says that this is the bottom line from which all questions regarding women teaching must come.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). That’s the boundary we must observe if we want to honor the principle of male headship.
She says that women should not speak to the doctrinal and spiritual direction for the church.
I believe the question of how to honor Christ through the exercise of my teaching gift revolves around the issue of whether I’m acting like a church-father. Am I doing something that is, or will likely be construed as, setting the doctrinal and spiritual direction for my entire church family?
She generally does not teach on Sunday mornings
Because I want to honor 1 Timothy 2:12, for my good and the good of the church, and because I believe it presents a fairly clear boundary about women teaching authoritatively in the local church, I generally turn down invitations to speak on Sunday mornings. The passage indicates that the doctrinal teaching delivered in the context of the regular church meeting is the responsibility of the church “dads.” The way I honor and treasure God’s model of headship is to remain quiet and let the church-fathers instruct the family.
For Mary's teaching, however, there is frequently an exception.
1. The Mothers' Day Gambit
Apparently, its OK to teach men in church so long as it happens to be about mothers and the church father gives the female teacher *special instruction* whatever that means. Why can women speak on this particular date and not others? Is it just because a country has declared a day honoring mothers but not honoring any other women? Aren't the men sitting there listening? Might they learn something? Why can't a *church father* give special instructions on any other Sunday of the year? Is Mothers' Day an official church holiday?
I once accepted an invitation to speak on Mother’s Day, when a church-father prefaced my talk with the qualification that he wanted to honor moms and have me give special instruction to the women on that day.
2. The "I'm the feminist scholar" expert and therefore specially qualified.
Once again, Kassian is no scholar on this subject. Even if she was, does being a scholar on certain issues negate the Sunday rule as shared by Kassian? Is she saying if women are experts (or pretend to be experts) they get an exemption?
I have also accepted speaking invitations when the church-fathers have asked me to give an overview of the history and philosophy of feminist thought, speak about cultural or women’s issues,
Mary Kassian declares herself a gifted teacher but says this is not the point.
Competence is not the issue and this is deeply concerning to me. Since men are supposed to set the direction of the church, we should darn well hope they are competent. And, if those men had any intelligence, they would consult with anyone who is competent, including a woman!
Arguably, because I am a gifted teacher, I could do a better job of interpreting the text and delivering the sermon than many church-fathers do. But that would miss the point. It’s not about competence.
Women cannot teach even under male authority. She claims this is like a church telling you to sleep with your boyfriend or view porn sites!
First of all, I never bought this *under the authority* nonsense. Either the person teaches what they believe to be true or they don't. The pastor saying they can teach does not give that person any more competence in teaching the material.
If a church-father asked me to preach and doctrinally instruct the congregation, I would seriously need to consider if he was asking me to do something that went against God’s revealed will in his word. Church-fathers cannot legitimately give someone permission to disobey the Bible.
…Can an elder or pastor of a church rightfully give a woman permission to disobey this Scripture text? Let me ask you the same question using a different issue. What if an elder told you that you could sleep with your boyfriend and live together without getting married? Or told you that you could cheat on your tax return? Or lie on the witness stand? What would you think if a woman at your church told you, “I can read erotica and smut and surf porn sites because my pastor has given me permission, and I’m under his authority”? You would dismiss this “permission” as ridiculous.
But Mary speaks on Mother's Day with special permission from the church fathers. She also speaks when it involves feminist history. I guess this is in the Bible somewhere as an exception.
Kassian ends her post by discussing further possible exceptions to her boundaries.
1. Older ladies who are mothers can teach 17 year old boys but not younger ladies.
Maturity: Mother. I have found that as I get older I have more freedom to instruct younger men as a mother instructs her sons. A middle-aged woman instructing a group of 17-year-old men is a far different situation than a young woman instructing them
2. National speakers have leeway.
Obligation: Voluntary. There is no obligation on the part of the listener to attend the address. It is totally discretionary and voluntary on his part (unlike the obligation of a church member to attend weekly church services and obey that teaching).
Constancy: Occasional. A one-time address (flying into an area, teaching, and then leaving) is very different than the ongoing corporate instruction in the context of a local church body (as it would be, say, in a Sunday school class).
3. Give grace to those who are not in the same stage of understanding as Kassian is. This is called the "Bless their little, uninformed hearts" exception.
And then there’s grace. Because of grace, I need to recognize that my Christian brothers and sisters may be in a different stage in their understanding of the issue. I need to humbly acknowledge that I don’t have a corner on the market of truth. I need to extend grace when they draw lines of application more tightly or loosely than I would.
I find it difficult to read Mary Kassian's material. There are several reasons for this.
1. She is constantly touting how gifted she is in the area of teaching. If she really is so gifted, people would recognize it without her constantly telling them that she is. It's called humility.
2. She continues to promote herself as an expert on feminist history and culture. Yet she does not have any academic credential to give meat to her contention. She needs to either finish up her PhD or stop proclaiming herself as an expert.
3. Kassian's boundaries are difficult to follow since it appears that she finds loopholes for just about anything so long as she is doing it.
4. To compare wonderful women who teach in churches because the *collective wisdom* of their churches allow this to sleeping with a boyfriend is demeaning and derogatory.
5. Fornication??? Good night!
I find that so many comps aren’t on the same page with this one. Without women teaching the whole operation shuts down.
I read the title of this post “Mary Kassian Compares Women Who Teach Men in Church to Fornicators”
and my first thought was ‘Oh, that is so sick.’
BTW, Denny Burk’s last two posts were ‘no comment’ permitted, which is a change for him (but maybe he is on vacation and this is his way of ‘keeping house’ while he’s gone) ???
He’s one person I don’t mind giving the benefit of the doubt, but I hope his new ‘elevated’ position doesn’t make him less ‘irenic’ than some of his more strident colleagues.
“Church fathers” is already taken as a description used in Christendom. Try again. //snark off
The contents of this post make my head spin. Golly!!!
That woman is ludicrous.
Kassian’s Law: “I never break Biblical rules that I make up as I go along.”
Maybe she has turned down some invitations to speak. However, the exceptions to the “rule” set out in 1 Timothy 2:12 (such as her decision to speak to a church congregation on Mother’s Day) seem conveniently carved out for her or someone identical to her.
PaJo wrote:
Exactly.
Let’s try “NeoCalvinist Church Dudes”.
So godly women sharing the Word of God is equal to “fornication” according to Mary Kassian?
What an affront to God! She is dishonoring the Lord, taking His name in vain with her ludicrous comparisons. She dishonors the Holy Spirit.
And the Apostle Paul to Timothy about one woman “the woman” in the Greek who was teaching one man error. Paul didn’t want to humiliate her, he wanted her to learn correctly first.
As Wade Burleson has written on his blog Istoria Ministries, the same would be true if it was a man teaching error.
Manipulative Bible translators changed “the woman” (a specific woman Paul was writing about) to “a woman” (writing something that Paul never wrote).
My grandmother died at 102 years old. University educated in science. Worked on teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers. She was also a Presbyterian.
In World War II she was asked to teach men college classes in Geometry so that they could fly their planes correctly in the war. She was the ONLY woman teaching math classes full of men (no women).
She knew, and introduced we grandchildren, to her equally talented Presbyterian women friends, such as women who were medical missionaries/doctors in remote villages around the world. They practiced medicine and taught villagers The Gospel, and they changed lives.
I got to see all of their wonderful photos and heard their stories.
For thousands of years women have taught men, including about God.
I will say this again: decent women and men should close their wallets and not donate their time and money to any of these bizarre churches.
If they don’t want to respect you as a woman, you daughter, your niece, your sister, your women friends…then let them not run the church with womens’ money, time, or help.
Mary, Mary, Flutter Eyes. Such a beguiling flirt. The Grand Madame of Complementarianism, the crafty hijacking Merriam-Webster sort.
So, she doesn’t believe women can teach men, and she teaches this in an post on what women’s role in the church should or should not be. And it’s clear that said post will be read by men, and that those men are the ones who will follow what it says and determine the roles (or lack thereof) of women in their churches. So she is without a doubt teaching and instructing men in this post. Simply by writing it and having it posted, she’s doing the very thing that she so torturously writes agains.
Ludicrous.
I…just…how does stuff like this even get published? Agree wholeheartedly with Velour. Just boycott these anti-christs.
And this is supposed to be professorial? I do think that what she is quoted as saying here is distinguished; that is to say easily distinguished from any relationship to scripture, tradition or reason.
Heck, I can recite the Lord’s prayer and play Amazing Grace on the Kazoo. Maybe I can get a job at SBTS.
>>Some churches call every person on paid staff a pastor — even if that person is a female and not an elder.
The only churches I see calling everyone on staff pastor tend to rather conspicuously leave women out of the designation. I’ve never see this with women staff being called pastor at a church that doesn’t have women in all positions.
By the way, Ken F. has raised these points previously. But if Comps like Mary Kassian are taking the Bible literally [Paul telling Timothy that “the woman” teaching error needs to stop, be quiet, an learn correctly first], are Christian men that Mary knows “greeting each other with a holy kiss”. I mean, I want pictures on Monday of churches across Canada and the US, 9 Marks, SBTS. As Ken F. has previously pointed out that men have to sweat while eating bread (it’s in the Bible you know), and have to toil for their own food (no more potlucks, home cooked meals, and eating out). Perhaps Mary Kassian will provide pictures of these men finally obeying God’s Word.
Oh yes. And Mary Kassian, please make sure the NeoCalvinist men-folk are wearing floor length dresses and sandals. After all Jesus did. It’s downright heathen for men to be wearing suits and ties, shirts and pants.
okrapod wrote:
You can be employed at Pound Sand Ministries. We will be having a flash mob at NeoCal *manly men* events like CBMW, T4G, 9 Marks, etc. I like the idea of Kazoos. We will be wearing SUBVERSIVE attire:
t-shirts that say “Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles” and a choice of leggings or yoga pants. That gets them really angry at CBMW and they tweet about the disgrace of it all.
Our camp, to be held in Kentucky, will be called “Camp Backbone”. Our fearless leader is Nancy2. We will be practicing our sharp shooting skills using Patriarchy books by The Usual Suspects as “targets”.
Oh, I forgot to sign off correctly.
Velour, Vice President of Online
Retail, Marketing and Consumer Surveys
Pound Sand Ministries (TM), proud sponsor of “Camp Backbone”
Short off-topic announcement. Billy in Texas needs to buy an expensive calculator for a math class and other supplies. The list is on the Open Discussion page.
Billy and his mom continue to need help with not only school supplies, but with
necessities like food, gas, electricity, car expenses, and bills.
The GoFundMe campaign that Dee started is still open for them. Thank you!
*****
Here is the GoFundMe account for Billy and his Mom.
They need help with school supplies, bills, and food.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Friend wrote:
lol Now there’s a good tweet.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Messed up my ending html. My comment starts at “This irks”
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Like my ex-pastor. He claimed he had a Ph.D. It’s not a bona fide Ph.D. that takes 8 years of work to earn from an accredited university. No, no, no. My ex-pastor got his Ph.D. for — $299 from a Missouri diploma mill. Their only “accrediting agency” was alas brought up on fraud charges by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and banned from doing business in Missouri.
His other “advanced” degree is also a fake, along with the Phony Degree (PH.D.). He is now claiming to do “post-doctoral studies” in English at no less than three different colleges in our state.
Former church members and I uncovered a whole string of lies. So where a person lies about one thing they are also lying about other things too, in my experience. And no, they aren’t to be trusted.
Dee wrote “Mary is beloved by the Neo Calvinists who have decided that she is an expert of feminism …”
And Ms. Mary loves the Neo Calvinists. They buy her books. They have given her power. She is using them.
As for the blog title “Mary Kassian Compares Women Who Teach Men in Church to Fornicators.” Perhaps Ms. Mary doesn’t recognize that seminaries are essentially an extension of church. In her capacity, she is teaching men.
I would like to point out that today “Fornicate” is used ONLY in Christianese, NOT mainstream English.
Velour wrote:
“THE woman” as in one specific troublemaker in the Ephesian church?
(And Ephesus — unlike the rest of the Hellenistic world — was home to a FEMALE-supremacist cult.)
Mary Kassian is the Judas Goat for the Comp slaughterhouse.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t think she was a troublemaker. She just had made a goof and was teaching some error.
I think it was Lydia who pointed out that the Greek words used in that sentence denote that the woman was teaching her husband. But Lydia is the expert on that part of it.
Velour wrote:
“An excessive sense of self-importance” is a symptom of a well known personality disorder. 😉
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Do we speaketh of Narcissism?
Ahh yes, one of the top 10 professions to have narcissists is the clergy.
Velour wrote:
Many Southern Baptist women missionaries have taught men on home and foreign fields; they have given their lives to deliver a Gospel which does not discriminate by gender for those who hear it and preach it. Many Southern Baptist women who teach both women and men in adult Sunday School classes across America are paying Ms. Mary’s salary as an employee of an SBC seminary.
Quote from the beginning of this blog post concerning Mary K. “she says she wants to help women to know when they are showing their love for God and His word by teaching within certain boundaries.”
Playing and preying on women’s relationship with God like this is disgusting.
She needs to get her flawed human fingerprints off of the hearts and souls of women. She needs to stop building her own kingdom by making fences and cages for women in God’s Kingdom.
Mary is beloved by the Neo Calvinists who have decided that she is an expert of feminism in spite of only holding a degree in Occupational Therapy from a school in Canada.
Really? Does Canada make her degree less valuable?
Max wrote:
Exactly, Max.
As many Baptists (I’m not one) have pointed out here that today’s NeoCal Baptists wouldn’t permit Lottie Moon to serve as a missionary.
Is the above mentioned “how far is too far” just the adult version of teenagers asking “how far is too far?”
(What if a women doesn’t “teach” but merely “suggests”? IS THAT TOO FAR?)
srs wrote:
Dee was stating a fact for the record, not making fun of Canadian education.
I keep on hoping that one day there will be a revival of prophecy – “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.” Because it’s something men and women can both do. I’d like to see both women and men strengthen the knowledge of others, encourage others to learn, and comfort one another when hard times hit. Basically, ‘prophecy’ will be teaching with a community-centric focus.
Complementarianism is nothing more the practice of Biblically discouraging people from following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Please spare us the mainstream English, much less the slang. We got it. Some of us probably did it. And most of us have worried that our kids might be doing it. We have soooo got it.
Velour wrote:
I’m old enough to remember (from my 60+ years as a Southern Baptists) when women missionaries at home on furlough were welcomed in SBC pulpits to not only tell about their journey, but to preach whatever God put on their hearts. Lottie Moon preached to men. Annie Armstrong preached to men. Bertha Smith preached to men. As did countless more women over the last 150 years in representing God as Southern Baptists across the world. Ms. Mary knows not what she knows.
The New Calvinist movement within SBC will greatly impact Southern Baptist missions and evangelism going forward. It already has … 1,000 foreign missionaries (primarily non-Calvinist) were recently called home because of a funding shortage. I wonder what theological flavor will replace them?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
sounds about right …. but you would think that the comp big boys at the seminary would have chosen a more academically qualified goat ….. a few clicks of the mouse, and we discover, my goodness, MK is NOT as ‘qualified’ academically as a respectable seminary would hire ….. she is a risk for them and they hired her based on her ‘books’ …… I would like to know the SECRET of how she got in on the Danvers pre-conferences in the first place, as they were supposed to have been ‘invitation only’ to participants.
There is a lot we don’t know about Ms. Kassian and the nature of her connections with the neo-Cal big-boyz.
Max wrote:
That is a wonderful history, Max.
You should email Deb and Dee and see if they want you to write it up on this whole topic of women teaching. I think it would be great.
From the OP: “Desiring God featured a concerning post…”
Some things just are as reliable as the sunrise.
Help me out people. So Mary says she can speak on Mother’s Day if she is told by and elder she can do so. So she’s making an exception. I’m really getting confused. Is she saying that “if an elder told you that you could sleep with your boyfriend” you should not do it—-unless it is on Mother’s Day? This post features a mind too jumbled for me to comprehend, especially when it’s past 9 pm here in Grand Rapids. I know I’m not going to be able to sleep tonight thinking about premarital sex on Mother’s Day.
Mary Kassian is full of it. A joke, etc. I better stop.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
How is Mary Kassian’s ability to speak on a Sunday morning different from church-fathers taking speaking engagements at other churches? Shouldn’t they be home fathering the flock?
I would guess that Driscoll loves her for calling pastors “church-fathers.”
Oh, my eyes are hurting from rolling so much.
@ srs:
“(What if a women doesn’t “teach” but merely “suggests”? IS THAT TOO FAR?)”
+++++++++++++++++++++
it depends on where she is standing. if she is standing behind the hunk of wood called a “pulpit”, then, no, absolutely not. without a doubt, a woman making a ‘suggestion’ in the “pulpit” will compromise the masculinity of God, Jesus, & every man present.
This is a bit off topic-ish for this thread, but goes with the blog overall.
I remember Dee has done posts about preachers who refuse to attend funerals and visit the sick in hospitals. Now, they are justifying why they don’t take people’s phone calls.
Why Most Pastors Aren’t Answering Your Phone Calls
http://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/august/why-most-pastors-arent-answering-your-phone-calls.html
Does it take 8 years just for the Ph.D. alone?
Or does that include getting the bachelors and the masters degree too?@ Velour:
Speaking of Kassian. She is still clueless or perhaps willingly obtuse in how complementarian beliefs and teachings undergird and/or perpetuate domestic violence.
Behind the Trinity Tussle by Kate Shellnutt
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/september/behind-trinity-tussle.html
From that page:
I think she must have said this some time after reading Ruth Tucker’s book, Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife: My Story of Finding Hope after Domestic Abuse ? If so, her attitude there is inexcusable.
And again, it’s very typical of complementarians to be arrogantly dismissive when confronted of the real word implications on very real lives that their gender teachings produce.
She was also relying on the “No True Complementarian” type of argument, once more. She thinks cases of complementarian men abusing women are abnormalities of complementarianism.
elastigirl wrote:
That is the logical conclusion of their beliefs, right? There’s a point where the eye rolling causes enough strain to blind people….
Kassian was one of the complementarians I’ve seen a two or two (in her blog posts or in guest articles around the internet) state that complementarianism does not teach women to be submissive doormats, does not teach women their only avenue in life is to marry and have children, and so on.
My understanding of the Bible, or the consensus of a lot of conservative Christians, is that one does not have babies until one has a husband
(i.e., sexual activity comes after marriage, not before.). Granting all that….
If Kassian is serious about complmentarians respecting all women equally…
But then goes on to say in this article that it is okay for churches to allow mothers (or women in general?) to sermonize on Mother’s Day in churches (presumably about motherhood??), where does that leave infertile women, or never-married ladies, married ladies who keep miscarrying pregnancies, or the child free women?
Complementarians like Kassian argue that complementarianism is not only about motherhood and marriage for women, but then she (and others like her) only give opportunities, respect, or “shout outs” to, you guessed it, married women and/or mothers.
Does Kassian not have any concessions to make for women who are not married mothers?
Does she say she thinks exceptions should be made for instance, for never married women, to permit them to sermonize once a year on some other holiday, like Valentine’s Day or whatever?
Her list is so arbitrary. There’s not much to back it up biblically. I think I said on an older thread her list of rules if basically just the female version of the Wayne Grudem ‘List of 83 Things Women Cannot Do In Church.’
Quoting Kassian from the OP:
I accepted Christ when I was a kid, so presumably, I have the Holy Spirit living within me. The same Holy Spirit Kassian has. And He’s not convicting me that complementarianism is true.
I’ve reached quite the opposite conclusion, actually, after having been a complementarian since I was a kid.
Kathi wrote:
I still want to see the pictures of the Complementarian males “greeting each other with a holy kiss”. I mean it’s in the Bible. Shouldn’t they follow it?
Ken F. pointed out a few months ago that they need to sweat when they eat bread.
Toil too for their own food. No more eating out, no more church potlucks. Sorry, fellas.
It’s all in the Bible. (Kathi, like like to camp out on a few key verses, even words.
They need to leave their Comp camp and go explore.)
***************
Posted by Ken F. on June 3, 2016:
Velour wrote:
Speaking of Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem’s semi-Arian heresy, The Eternal Subordination of the Son, Ken F. made this insightful post on May 25th here:
““Let me see if I understand Ware’s logic. Woman was made from man, which makes woman lower than man. Man was made from dirt, which makes man lower than dirt? No, wait, that won’t work. Ok, lets try this. Man was made after all the plants and animals, which means man has dominion over all of them. Woman was made after man, which means woman has dominion over man. No, wait, that doesn’t work either. What’s a poor complementarian to do?”
Another line of thought of complementarians takes the curse God placed on the woman as the norm: “And he will rule over you” becomes a normative mantra to support the their view that men are supposed to rule over women.
So let’s apply that same normative mantra to men from the other curses:
“In toil you will eat of [the ground] All the days of your life.” That means men are only allowed to eat from what they personally produce from the field. And only if it involves personal toiling. No more restaurants. No more grocery stores. No more pubs. No more home-cooked meals. I guess it even means no fasting because men have to eat on all days.
“And you will eat the plants of the field.” Same as above, but also say goodbye to all meat and dairy products. That will put a damper on potlucks. But on the bright side, it would force men to drink black coffee, which is the only manly way to drink it.
“By the sweat of your face You will eat bread.” No more air conditioning – all bread must be eaten while sweating from the face. This could also mean that it is sinful to live in cool climates, unless one can find a hot place to eat bread. I suppose one could create rules about whether or not sweating is mandatory while eating non-bread foods.
If we think that it’s ok to resist these other curses, then why would we in any way want to retain the curse of men ruling over women? I am so glad that my wife is strong enough to not need me to dominate her like that.
I thought some of you might enjoy this story, where the church women go on strike. It takes a little while to get the story going, but was interesting. It’s called The Strike at Putney.
http://www.classicreader.com/book/3575/1/
Regarding all of Kassian’s -is it a metaphor or allegory?- of comparing women teaching in church or teaching men in general to fornication…
I’m over 40 years of age and still a virgin because I’ve never married and didn’t believe in pre-marital boinking around. I still have my V-card. I’m not fornicating.
And yet, I’m no longer convinced that the Bible says that women cannot or should not be leaders in or out of the church, should not teach men, and I don’t think the Bible says that husbands are to be boss over a wife.
I would find it somewhat amusing (and rather hypocritical) if Kassian would still dub me, an actual, literal virgin, as a fornicator because I don’t share her views about gender and church roles.
I guess Kassian can have her very weird fornication-women teaching analogy, so long as I can keep mentioning how eerily similar complementarian rationalizations for this sexism is just like how white Christians used to defend slavery of black people or apartheid.
Like what is discussed here:
Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/justifying-injustice-bible-slavery
“Kassian begins by discussing boundaries of sexual behavior in order to better understand why women should place boundaries on their teaching.”
I don’t read Kassian, is there some type of shield to her articles where you have to prove you are not a man before you can access and read her posts?
Daisy wrote:
I wonder how many service industries could survive with this attitude. Go ahead and tell all your clients and customers not to call you. Good grief, some of these pastors are self absorbed.
okrapod wrote:
I’ve noticed that in all of the world’s religions, not just in Christianity, stuff of a sekshul nature is always theeeee most egregious of all infractions and peccadillos.
Regarding this Kassian quote:
Educational considerations aside, I don’t think she’s qualified to speak about feminism to anyone, because she’s too biased against (secular) feminism.
(And I’d wager she’s probably equally biased against Christian feminism / mutualism / egalitarianism.)
I’ve never been left wing or embraced newer forms of secular feminism.
However, in the last few years, as I’ve taken another look at some of my beliefs (which has included reading more of what opposing groups have to say), I’ve come to find out that liberal / left wing secular feminists are not the smelly ogres that my fellow right wingers or conservative Christians often make them out to be.
Are some of the secular feminists bonkers or wrong on some stuff some of the time? In my opinion, yes – but they do get some stuff right here and there.
I don’t think Kassian would grant that. She probably still projects an image of them all be man hating bra- burners when she gives lectures to Christian groups.
Perhaps Feminism is not the Enemy
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/perhaps-feminism-not-enemy/
The OP said, RE: Kassian,
“She starts off by discussing that many women who want to honor God ask, “How far is too far?” when it comes to teaching.”
And it is that (among a few other things) which keeps so many well-meaning, sincere Christian women (and some men) trapped in complementarianism.
They think they only have two choices (because this is how complementarians frame the debate):
1. Accept Complementarianism = be godly and a good Christian
-or else-
2. Reject Complementarianism = be a Bible-hating, secular, liberal feminist who hates God
Kassian said,
No, he has not. But complementarians are more than delighted to come up with a very long list of their own making. And they expect the rest of us to abide by it.
That was just like what Pharisees did back in the day.
“Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:13)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Californication?
srs wrote:
Yes, hopefully people will be too blinded to write checks to the churches that teach this Comp nonsense, look for bills in their wallet, and even…gasp…drive to their local Comp cult to listen to this drivel.
Velour wrote:
There you go again, hasn’t someone told you yet “touch not the self anointed 501c3 institutional religious leader”?
Bill M wrote:
Our friend Max made this comment before on another thread:
“Touch not my anointed” is not applicable in such cases, so let the rebuke fly! I don’t sense much, if any, anointing in New Calvinist ranks (their leaders are more annoying, than anointed).”
Velour wrote:
Are you still accepting product ideas for this (or were you ever)?
I have a new spin on an old idea for a complementarian product.
We should make a line of talking dolls and action figures, the kind that have a string that when you pull it, the doll says a bunch of stuff.
When you pull the string on one, it would say all the usual complementarian stuff, like,
-etc.
I don’t know if Mary Kassian would approve of a female doll, so I guess they’d all have to be in a male form.
I have no idea what to name them, maybe something like ‘Gender Roles Jerry’ or ‘Complementarian Chris’?
We could also have a “Complementarian Magic 8 Ball”, same concept. Here’s a link about the Magic 8 Ball:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball
For our Complementarian Magic 8 Ball, you ask a question aloud such as,
“Complementarian 8 Magic Ball, my husband is making more stupid financial decisions, leading to us becoming homeless. What should I do?,”
You shake the ball, and you can get one of several (utterly useless) answers on the die inside it, such as, “Submit.” Or, “Pray about it.” Or, “You can never divorce.” Or, “Read CBMW blog posts.”
srs wrote:
Does having a degree in Occupational Therapy make a person qualified to lecture or write on feminism, gender roles, or what roles women may hold in churches?
Bill M wrote:
My ex-pastor’s most recent email to hundreds of church members was that I was:
a) mentally ill
b) a malicious gossip
c) that all of the police departments in the area said that I was unstable
[actually two cops from two different departments are church members, one
is a deacon, and they DON’T speak for their departments; their Internal
Affairs’ departments have the email, from me thanks to an insider who
sent it to me]
d) that I was “aggressively harassing” members via text, email, calling, etc.
[curiously I haven’t contacted any church members in any form and he’s a liar;
I told police to have him write it up in a police report, then arrest and prosecute
him for filing a false police report, a crime in California. Ditto for anyone who makes those claims against me. Note: I did call a Christian school and told them NOT to rent their gym or facilities to my ex-church since they invite their friend a Megan’s List sex offender to volunteer with other peoples’ kids and on property owned by others…and tell no one and don’t let them decide. Creepy.
e) that for church members to pray to God for GBF’s protection [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley]
Anyway, how can someone who is mentally ill be a “malicious gossip”? They lack capacity to be malicious.
If someone were mentally ill why wouldn’t he get that person medical care and why would he send out a nasty email to hundreds of people?
(I’ve worked in law for years including on conservatorships, with
county attorneys, court investigators, doctors, and licensed social workers/court
appointed conservators) and we’ve always respected people who lacked capacity and their dignity.)
Anyway, my ex-pastor is showing his $299 Phony Degree (“Ph.D.” cough) from Bible College in Independence, Missouri, the finest diploma mill run from an old run-down building there. Their accreditor was even brought up on fraud charges by the Missouri Attorney General and banned from doing business in MO.
Daisy wrote:
Exactly.
And she’s “distinguished” in…what? Making a fool of herself? Lying according to the Canadian judge in the whiplash lawsuit.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
Or, (using Kassian’s logic), committing fornication would be acceptable, so long as it’s not an “on going” thing and is “voluntary”(*).
(*)Kassian’s rules:
Okay, so you can fornicate under Kassian Logic, so long as you’re under no obligation, it’s voluntary.
And if you want to say, have a one night stand, where you fly into a town, pick up some dude in a bar, then dump him the next day and fly back home.
Daisy wrote:
And under Kassian’s rule, a person would be ok to do this on a holiday, such as Valentine’s Day.
For Harley, a prayer
‘Protect us, Lord, as we stay awake;
watch over us as we sleep,
that awake, we may keep watch with Christ,
and asleep, rest in His peace.
Lord, in Thy Great Mercy, hear us. Amen “
Christiane wrote:
Amen.
Bill M wrote:
LOL
Velour wrote:
If I have my facts right, it was accredited by International Accrediting Commission which was closed down by Missouri and immediately reappeared next door in Arkansas as Accrediting Commission International and re-accredited all its former clients. It is a foul smelling synergy, corruption in education meets corruption in the church.
As with Ms Kassian and her questionable qualifications, it amazes me how these guys have no shame and even if finally exposed and brought down will re-invent themselves and reappear.
Dee Deb and everyone I wish to apologize I tried to find some posted videos with Mary Kassian to give some perspective or insight and I did listen to her. I tried so hard but I broke my desk with my head and could not continue. I also had to be restrained from attempting to powersand off my eyebrows. So I had to stop listening to her “teachings. 🙂
Seriously I think she really does not get just how damaging such teachings can be as for the church fathers an interesting caveat there is some evidence that the early church baptized full submersion in the well birthday suit. I wonder how that tradition would go over at a Comp or non comp church?
Bill M wrote:
The very same.
I contacted the Missouri Attorney General’s Office recently and said, “They’re baaaaacccccckkkkk.”
@ brian:
Dear Brian,
The community here at Wartburg Watch is an empathetic crowd. I’m trying to figure out how to classify John Piper, Mary Ka$$hingIn, and their ilk. Are they like poison ivy/oak?
Deadly snakes? Bad case of the flu? Chernobyl? Worst relative in the family?
I think it’s time if we invented a new bingo card for their classifications.
Speaking of Dangerous
https://youtu.be/-3TU6KPTt9o
brian wrote:
That would be a Rattlesnake Albino Mocassin
Daisy wrote:
As long as the male elder says it is okay. All you need to is submit to the elder or your husband. They are responsible for the decision, your responsibility ends with submission.
I just realized that should be unquestioned hyperbole but it isn’t, please don’t take me seriously. As much as I don’t like Poe’s Law, both sides are equally guilty, but dealing with CBMW folks is a textbook example of “it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing”. Soap bubbles anyone?
brian wrote:
Well there you go, the patriarchy crowd keeps Kassian around as their object lesson why women shouldn’t teach men.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, Sherlock Holmes on “Elementary” uses it; so does HOuse on “House.” —winky smiley— I guess I spend too much time watching abnormal main characters on tv.
We do need a new bingo card, I actually think they lack a strong faith like they seem to state. I have come close to losing my faith a few times and I have come to see that people who are right about everything or have a doctrine for every event in life seem to be terrified one of their cards in the house might not work and the whole edifice will fall down. To be honest I actually think some of them may not have the faith in all their particular doctrines / distinctive’s that they think all the rest of the ilk have and they are scared of being “outed”. I mean they have hitched all their wagons to many hobby horses and the bubbles are being popped, that can be truly scary. In that sense I feel for them.
Actually Bill I have the same reaction with Mr. Piper as well but it involves a car trunk and a large sludge hammer. 🙂
When I see Mary’s words, all I see is blah, blah, blah, blah. Mary wants to give boundaries. Who cares what Mary says? Christ came to set the captives freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
oops sledgehammer sorry.
brian wrote:
‘We learn to obey ALL of the scriptures’ . . . . . code for ‘no need to prioritize the Words and example of Christ when He was among us’.
This kind of thinking, much touted by Mohler, enables men to take even a single verse of Scripture out of the context of Jesus Christ Who gives it light. The Holy Spirit Himself points ONLY to Christ. Without Christ, there is only the darkness.
Someone needs to tell Dr. Mohler the truth of this.
Arrrgghhhhhh! (Note to self: breathe deeply, maintain self control ….)
“2. She continues to promote herself as an expert on feminist history and culture. Yet she does not have any academic credential to give meat to her contention. She needs to either finish up her PhD or stop proclaiming herself as an expert.”
So MK is an expert on feminist history, huh?
With my degree in Mathematics from a university in the U.S., I, Nancy2 do hereby appoint myself an expert on mental health issues. That being said, I diagnose MK with a terrible case of NPD and strongly recommend that she be committed to an insane asylum for women.
Once again, an attempt to codify exactly what comp women can and cannot do and once again a confusing, contradictory narrative that ends nowhere. Eventually they are going to wind up with a whole set of volumes on this subject.
For women stuck in the comp system, each one of these articles is like a new step in the game “Twister.” These poor women are already contorted into pretzels trying to adhere to all of these ridiculous, inane rules. But the contortions of the mind trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance is worse still.
My hope is that Kassian’s latest article is the final straw and women will come to their senses and just dump all of this stuff.
Matthew 11:29-30
“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
Bill M wrote:
Should she have a formal stamp of approval on everything she writes from her servant-leader? We need solid evidence that he is leading her. Where is he, BTW? Does he know what she’s doing?
@ Velour:
bloodsucking parasites?
brian wrote:
Careful on the hyperbole, some people get touchy. You may be onto something with the sludgehammer, the septic tank maintenance folks use it to deal with, um, the stuff that shows up in the septic tank. Maybe it can be adapted to filter Piper/Kassian et al.
Velour wrote:
If a woman shares the Word of God with a man, the man is sooooo obviously not one of the Elect!
If a man accepts Jesus as his Savior under a woman’s guidance, it would surely be a false salvation ……..
Velour wrote:
Moving from state to state like one of Lester Roloff’s homes?
Bill M wrote:
Bwa ha ha ha haa!
Velour wrote:
Spiritual lepers. They should be isolated to their own colony ~ no contact with the rest of the world, in any way, shape, or form!
Bill M wrote:
Is this it?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Accrediting+Commission+International/@35.078211,-91.8730687,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x6f35649bcb705a59!8m2!3d35.078211!4d-91.8730687
Impressive!
brian wrote:
Their lucrative careers are entirely dependant on promoting “Complementarianism “. What else can they do and make the same money, have all of the hero worship, and get all of the perks that come with this fallacy?
brian wrote:
I can’t do it, either.
I am recovering from a church that puts some pretty tight limitations on women. And, if I hear one more condescending remark about women come rolling off of a deacon’s tongue, I will without a doubt, without hesitation, and without regret, soundly embarrass my husband. So, I don’t go to church anymore.
Just reading MK makes me want to smash things!
Daisy wrote:
No, no it doesn’t. The Canada comment was an attempt at a joke. (It was funnier in my head when I was just about to leave work…. and now just looks dumb). My apologies.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
“But then what if she crosses the International Date Line?”
— George Carlin, “Class Clown”
Riley wrote:
That was entertaining 🙂
“To this day ministers and elders tell the story of the Putney church strike with sparkling eyes and subdued chuckles. It never grows old or stale. But the Putney elders are an exception. They never laugh at it. They never refer to it. It is not in the wicked, unregenerate heart of man to make a jest of his own bitter defeat.”
John wrote:
I wonder if she has sense enough to know that she has debased herself by comparing herself to “fornicators”?
a prayer from the Eastern Church for the sick:
‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us.
Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit;
Both now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.
Holy One, visit us and heal our infirmities,
for Your name’s sake. Amen’
brian wrote:
I think some of them (namely their theologians) have more faith in themselves and their doctrines than they do in God. Everything in their ideology benefits the most important men.
srs wrote:
Oh. Thanks for explaining.
I couldn’t see a twinkle in your eye, etc. so I thought you were serious, not joking.
Oh well. It’s happened to me too here. Little misunderstandings.
Good morning, Harley.
I and others here continue to pray for your healing from foot surgery!
Love and hugs,
Velour in California (Silicon Valley)
@ Christiane:
Nice prayer that you posted from the Eastern Church. Thanks.
siteseer wrote:
This qualifies for a square on our Comp Bingo card. Congratulations!
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2, “Spiritual lepers” qualifies for a square on our Comp Bingo cards. Congratulations.
Julie Anne Smith wrote:
Uhh oh. Sounds like you’ve done the Subversive act of reading your Bible on your own Julie Anne, without a NeoCalvinist man “covering” you.
Let me guess, you were wearing leggings too?
Mary says:
Just want to say I tried that with a pup or two, and the older woman thing was not an exemption from the “shut up and sit down and listen up, little missy” rule. I wonder what a relatively young mother is permitted to say to her 18 year old sons? Yes, sir?
Bill M wrote:
Cannot stop laughing. I think it may just be true!
Talking about limiting what women can do in church:
Somewhere I read that some group goes so far as to say that a woman alone, without her ‘head’ or ‘covering’ is not allowed to take communion with the exception that if her young son is with her he can get it and give it to her. It may have been something about the Last Supper being only Jewish males. Which made me wonder if they had to submit a medical statement that the young son had at least been circumcised but had stopped short of actual conversion.
That all makes sense to some people who use that as a reason for why women cannot be priests-Last Supper and all-they are not Jewish males. Or at minimum males. You know, I wonder if…..Don’t go there Okrapod.
I can’t remember where I read that, if anybody knows of this group let me know.
@ okrapod:
What you have described is characteristic of Family-Integrated churches. I believe Scott Brown still heads up an organization called NCFIC. We have written about them in the past.
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/cbmws-blog-series-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/
Daughter of the Reformation found hidden old posts on ESS heresy in CBMW’s website.
Bill M wrote:
Good one Bill!
When it comes to teaching men and women at SBC-YRR church plants in my area, the New Calvinists are very strict … only men “lead pastors” and elders can preach/teach from their pulpits. Likewise, only hand-picked men can lead weekly small group meetings. When it comes to women teaching women, this is also controlled. There are no women teaching women in local churches, but the “girls” are allowed to attend periodic conferences taught by women teachers who have been pre-approved by the patriarchy, such as Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer (and Mary Kassian, of course!). These particular women must not be a threat to complementarianism. The SBC-YRR churches here send bus loads of their girls (that’s what Chandler calls female church members) to Beth Moore simulcasts in the area … a rare chance for the oppressed to have freedom from the men for a night. When are the girls going to get sick of this?!
Velour wrote:
Officer Material, right there! ^^^
Hey Dee, you wanted me to remind you about the “Discernment Blogging” meme that I sent you, that said, “Get offline and get a Hobby!” I hope you’re resting well, and able to have some peace. <3
Velour wrote:
I was sitting here trying to come up with a word to describe this woman. Yes, ‘ludicrous’ will do! 🙂
@ okrapod:
Back in 2011 we discussed Family-Integrated churches. Here is the link to one post I wrote:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/09/23/ncfic-vision-forum-and-the-bottom-line/
If you’re interested in our other posts, just do a search on our blog or Google The Warthurg Watch and Family-Integrated Churches.
Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have since gone by the wayside.
The lack of credibility of this crowd is only match by their inability to make coherent statements… opps, I guess inability to make coherent statements is a sign of not being credible… never mind..
@ Deb:
Thanks, Deb.
@ srs:
Yeah, the Canadian school reference is stopping me from re-posting this article. Not that we Canadians are thin-skinned, but it does come across as though Canadian education is somehow lesser than…
Stan wrote:
Good. Don’t let them cover it up.
Although, I can’t imagine how they think this: “CBMW’s only blog post on the Trinity comes from its founder” was helpful in the first place. It’s only the FOUNDER of our organization that believes this heresy. It’s only a big part of the reason it was founded, by a man who thinks women are less than men.
Stan wrote:
One more thing on this post. One of the articles says this: “What difference does the doctrine of the eternal submission of the Son make in our hearts? It reassures a wife that her role in marriage is not ignoble or demeaning.”
Their logic is so crazy. You’re like Jesus! So don’t be sad you’re not allowed to have thoughts. [Of course, the bibles only actually draws a link between husbands and Jesus, and that only to say that husbands are to love their wives sacrificially, so that only makes their logic weirder. Jesus is the equal but subordinate, so women shouldn’t mind being ‘equal’ but subordinate, because reasons???]
Also, the tie in to this post is that when they yanked these articles from CBMW, they apparently inserted some Mary Kassian text instead!
Lea wrote:
I see it as the “solomon solution” they cut Jesus in half, one half is the example for men but not for women, the other half is the example for women but not for me. Men and women can never be fully Christ-like because they’d have to follow both examples – which leads inescapably to mutual respect and love and that is the greatest heresy of all to them – of women having leadership roles and men submitting to women.
I looked at the original article. I was relieved she didn’t carry the analogy to the point of delineating a “first base, second base, etc.” comparison of physical relationships and speaking in front of men. She does have continuum that she calculates based on an absurd set of criteria that appears to be a justification for accepting stipends for her appearances. I wonder how much her Mothers’ Day exception is driven by the knowledge that that is one of the highest attendance days of the year?
siteseer wrote:
Not only do complementarians try to come up with a Talmud of Permissible Behaviors For Women, but they blame women all the time for every thing.
I was astounded to see a blog post by a complementarian man who blamed (in his view) the wussiness of younger Christian men on… their complementarian mothers.
It’s like, nothing women do, not even complementarian women, is enough for these guys – and these comp guys seldom to never hold complementarian men up to personal accountability.
Someone else wrote a refutation of that guy’s post here:
A Response to Peter Jones’ “Conservative Moms & Stunted Masculinity”
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/response-peter-jones-conservative-moms-stunted-masculinity
There’s not much consistency in comp teachings:
They say men are in ultimate charge of family and church, but when a boy does not turn out masculine enough (in their view), they blame not the men who are ultimate authorities over these kids and the home life, but they blame the mothers.
If you’re going to teach that men are the heads (in an authoritative sense) of women and church, because God knows best,
And you are going to teach that having women in charge of anything leads to ruin, you can’t turn around and then blame women for men’s failures; it’s speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth, and complementarians do this often.
@ brenner:
Oh no! That was not my intent and I will remove it immediately. I have great respect for school in Canada. Some of the finest physicians in the world come out of McGill University.
I put that reference in there in case some folks wanted to look ups her degree, never thinking it could be taken in such a way.
I am so, so sorry. Please forgive me.
“Mary uses the term *church father* to refer to the men who lead churches because some churches actually have women on staff!”
Ok, this is weird for somebody who is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
“Is Mothers’ Day an official church holiday?”
No, it was never on any liturgical calendar, although you might think so here in the U.S. where Woodrow Wilson finally did what Anna Jarvis had been agitating for, for years. “St Andrew’s Methodist Church now holds the International Mother’s Day Shrine.” –wikipedia
Hey, a protestant church with a shrine!
Instead of a statue of the virgin Mary, you can see a statue of a mother with children. And because of this fine holiday, women can occasionally get away with speaking from the pulpit (I guess).
@ brenner:
I have updated the post.
“Updated 8/25/16 to remove one reference that could be misunderstood.”
Once again, I feel awful and promise that it was not my intent.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Regarding Kassian and Mother’s Day.
One problem with complementarians (or other conservative Christians) revering Mother’s Day and/or Motherhood as much as they do is that it excludes women who are not mothers, or not the “right kind” of mothers (in their opinions).
And stuff like this happens as a result (and lots of feelings get stomped on and hurt):
———————-
August 2014, letter to “Ask Amy”
http://www.denverpost.com/2014/08/11/ask-amy-gossip-transforms-teacher-into-terrible-teen-0812/
Dear Amy:
During the worship service at our church on Mother’s Day, special recognition was given to some specific mothers — the oldest present, one with the most children, one with most children present, etc.
But this recognition was specified biological mothers only, so this excluded several in the congregation who had mothered adopted children.
I’d like your comment on this restriction.
— A Bio and Adoptive Mother
srs wrote:
I am so, so sorry. That was not my intent.
This is what I said to brenner.
“I have great respect for schools in Canada. Some of the finest physicians in the world come out of McGill University.
I put that reference in there in case some folks wanted to look ups her degree, never thinking it could be taken in such a way.”
I have removed that reference from the post because I can see why you might have thought I meant that. I promise I did not.
Please forgive me for not realizing how that could be taken. I am so grateful to you and brenner for calling me out on this. It will teach me to be more careful in the future.
So, is this how she defines “winsome”?
srs wrote:
Oh. I thought you were seriously irate over that.
I felt the point of the comment was not anything about Canada, but that Kassian’s educational background, regardless of what nation it was in, does not pertain to feminism.
Nancy2 wrote:
Oh, but see, it’s okay for HER to sometimes teach in churches because it’s only “once in a while,” and attendance at her lectures are “voluntary”.
Her rules really only apply to other women.
Like I was saying on my last thread, some Christians are opposed to X until X happens to them.
Pastor Charles Stanley used to be against divorced guys being pastors UNTIL his wife divorced him, and then, all the sudden, he magically revised his views on that issue.
Daisy wrote:
I meant on ‘the last thread,’ not “my.”
Gram3 wrote:
Daisy wrote:
My formatting got ripped to shreds in that post. I’m not sure what happened.
I was just wondering if Kassian applies this “age and gender” rule to men also, or just women?
Would she be okay with a 17 YO lecturing a 17 YO girl?
@ okrapod:
I’ve also read books and blogs that talk about churches that invite families up (nuclear family, mom, dad, with kids) to light candles on altars during church services, or to take communion together…
So that meanwhile, all the infertile women, divorced people, widowers, widows, and never- married people sit there, unable to go up and participate.
Churches sure do like to make people feel unworthy and left out.
Daisy wrote:
Probably. Because men have magic knowledge, due to their plumbing.
Or if they don’t, competence isn’t important. We should just listen to whatever dumb things men say because they’re too stupid to know any better otherwise we’ll hurt their feelings bless their little hearts.
@ Lea:
We can pray that the men in our lives become less stupid, but we can’t actually inform them of anything that we know.
Unless we’re mary talking about feminism, I guess. Or it’s mothers day. Or ‘optional’.
Max wrote:
One thing I’ve heard about stuff like this that sort of drives me nuts are when the preachers implore the fathers in the audience to “babysit the kids for the night, so the little lady can attend the women’s conference.”
I just find so many layers of sexism in that. The assumption that a dad watching his own kid is not parenting but referred to as “babysitting.”
That a man should only occasionally watch their kids (the mom taking care of the kid is viewed as the default position or the norm).
The husbands having to be told or reminded to step up to the plate to give their wives a break…
Stuff like that.
I haven’t actually read any of today’s thread – busy here in Scotland – so this may or may not already have been said. But I came across a great quote on someone’s blog a few years ago. I’ve not been able to find it since, otherwise I’d attribute it, but the best I can do is say that I didn’t come up with this. It goes, as near as I can remember it, thus:
Where law is paramount, rules matter more than people; and Christians will hurt people in order to obey the rules. But where love is paramount, people matter more than rules; and Christians will break the rules in order to protect people.
Kassian says,
“The way I honor and treasure God’s model of headship is to remain quiet and let the church-fathers instruct the family.”
Leaving behind the fact that Kassian is not exactly “remaining quiet” except in a symbolic way, isn’t she describing idolatry? Treasuring and honoring a “model of headship” as opposed to treasuring and honoring Christ?
Wasn’t this the hypocrisy of the Pharisees? Their loyalty to the forms of religion caused them to reject Christ when he stood right in their midst.
Kassian says,
“Arguably, because I am a gifted teacher, I could do a better job of interpreting the text and delivering the sermon than many church-fathers do. But that would miss the point. It’s not about competence.“
The laughable self-promotion in the first part of this statement aside, to Kassian and her fellows, following the empty form of religion is more important than the substance. The formula is more important than truth! To this deluded group, it is better that error be taught using the approved formula than that truth be taught outside of it!
This makes me think of the passage in 2Tim 3 that speaks of those “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power.”
Or the 2nd chapter of Colossians-
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form… the substance belongs to Christ… If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to …the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body…”
It is such a subtle substitution, when legalism takes the place Christ. It’s almost undiscernable at first- but once you’ve moved off the true path, it takes you further and further away.
Kassian says,
“…Can an elder or pastor of a church rightfully give a woman permission to disobey… What if an elder told you that you could …lie on the witness stand?”
This is an interesting statement, given the fact that Mary’s credibility was called into question by the judge presiding over her case, when she was seeking disability pay.
I encourage anyone who has been sidetracked into this system to return to their first love- leave behind all these worthless trappings of religiosity and turn back to the person of Jesus-
“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:2)
@ Lea:
Their ‘Jesus-marriage-wife-submit’ analogies are really meaningless to everyone who is not married. From how they teach it, that is…
The Bible says any one who believes in Jesus, married or not, is part of the Bride of Christ.
And there is no marriage in the afterlife, according to Jesus.
@ Jamie Carter:
I’ve been saying for months now, complementarians have a “blue Jesus” for men and a “pink Jesus” for women.
But I don’t recall a verse any where saying women are to only emulate Jesus’ perceived feminine qualities, and men only the masculine aspects.
This confused me as a teen-ager.
My Mom was always asking me, “WWJD” (what would Jesus do), but in her mind, Jesus would only ever be a passive, sweet, doormat, but when I read my Bible as a kid, I saw it had examples of that same Jesus being assertive at times, and showing anger.
Complementarians do this same thing, they present an inconsistent Jesus: a meek, gentle, wuss to women, and a tough, Karate-chopping, He-Man, assertive guy to men.
Daisy wrote:
CREC Pastor Peter Jones on emasculating mothers:
“They function on fear. For some reason many conservative Christian woman in the 21st century are fearful of just about everything. How many things pushed by conservative women are driven by fear?”
Oh I don’t know, could it have something to do with the sort of preaching they keep hearing in the pulpit? The sort of politicians and talking heads who tend to be popular in your circles? The sort of rhetoric to be found on certain well-known pastor blogs? The propaganda of ‘christian’ fake historians? Could it be that you men need to take a hard look at the evangelical subculture you inhabit?
siteseer wrote:
If you think about it, this is pretty much insane. This ties into that whole trinity. It doesn’t matter if you are getting the actual BASICS of Christianity utterly wrong! All that matters is that you know women can’t be boss. Or talk. Or ‘lead’. This is what groups like CBMW are saying. This is what Mary is saying. (and I agree, the ‘I’m super awesome but Ima let the men folks take it anyways’ bit is pretty funny)
NJ wrote:
That is a good catch. A lot of these Protestant / Baptist churches that promote complementarianism do revere motherhood a bit too much… but they recoil at Roman Catholicism Marian devotion.
So, they’re OK with motherhood in general, but not Mary- mother- of- Jesus in particular. Odd double standard they have there.
Jamie Carter wrote:
I completely agree. It’s the only way to do Jesus = Husbands, and Jesus=Wives and have it not mean that we should ALL be doing the same things, ie acting with love, as Christ taught. Submitting to each other, like Paul said. And the 50 other ‘one anothers’ in the bible. And the bulk of the bible that is advice to ALL of us, regardless of sex.
Mara wrote:
In other words, if you love God you’ll do it Mary’s way.
Feh! Feh, I say!
Lea wrote:
Oh, that’s convincing… NOT!
Lea wrote:
This is one of the creepiest, most illogical, dumbest things I see some complementarians teach, and I have seen some of them teach this on their blogs, usually to married women.
Say you’re married and your husband is a financial idiot or totally irresponsible. I have seen comps advise the wife to not correct the husband.
Just let him mis-spend your finances without saying anything to him about it.
You’re supposed to stand by in silence and watch while your husband steers your Titanic into a big old ice berg.
I am so glad, for different reasons, I broke up with my ex. The guy constantly made ill-informed or plain bad choices to put it politely and mildly.
siteseer wrote:
All of your post was spot on, I just wanted to say something related to that part.
I hope this doesn’t sound crass to a Christian audience, but what Kassian’s view comes down to is, those most qualified to lecture other Christians are people who have ding-dongs, five o’clock shadow, and adam’s apples.
I actually think more men, even the ones who believe in complementarianism, would find that offensive.
I was watching a kid’s cooking show a few days ago. (This is pertinent).
On the show, if you leave out a mystery ingredient, you can possibly be disqualified (though not necessarily).
There were 3 kid competitors left, and 2 of them forgot ingredients.
The one kid who had not forgotten and ingredients said something like,
“I really do want to win this contest, but not by fact of my competitors forgetting an ingredient. I want to win because the judges really think my food is THE BEST, not because of some technicality!”
If you are a man who wants to preach or teach, I would think you would want to be allowed to do so based on criteria that really means something, such as skill, education, gifting, talent, etc., not merely for passing the bare minimum requirement (you’re not a woman!!).
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Excellent quote Nick about love v. law.
@ NJ:
He’s also possibly instilling fear into any compelementarian mother who reads his blog post: that in spite of how hard she may be trying to be the proper, biblically submissive doormat wife and mother, that she may STILL be failing at it, according to that guy. It’s ironic.
I really think what he’s doing is a form of emotional abuse.
I have people in my family who are rather like this. They criticize and nit pick at you, no matter how hard you try to please them.
I learned a few years ago to stop jumping through hoops for these types of people, because you cannot win, no matter what you do, not matter how hard you try to do things their way.
Maybe more and more complementarian women will arrive at this point with complementarianism? (One can hope.).
siteseer wrote:
I must say, when Kassian refers to the NeoCal over-ripe boys as “church-fathers”, it makes me want to throw up. As has been pointed up upthread, ‘Church Fathers’ has a meaning, and it doesn’t refer to today’s authoritarian whippersnappers.
But these people have zero respect for the meaning of language. Or the meaning of Scripture, for that matter.
XianJaneway wrote:
Captain,
I am deeply honored.
Regards,
Velour, Officer in Training
Basic Training to be held at “Camp Backbone” in Kentucky in Nancy2’s neck of the woods
(our opposing ‘camp’ to Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood’s 2017 conference)
siteseer wrote:
When one of the young Comp pups recently said in a video, “If you get Ephesians 5 wrong, you get The Gospel wrong.” I challenged his statement.
Then Gram3 said she agreed with him! You know that’s mischief in the making.
Yes, Gram3, said if “they get Ephesians 5 wrong they get The Gospel wrong!”
Well played, Gram3.
Bwa ha ha ha haa!
Lea wrote:
So, they took down one of their central, supporting doctrines??? Seems to me the Great Men and Great Minds of CBMW were…rather easily deceived, were they not? And to put the topper on their own deception and leading others into that deception, they continue to deceive by pretending they never were deceived and never did deceive others and that it was *not* central to their whole enchilada.
ISTM that the ethical thing to do if you have discovered you were deceived and so deceived others, that these Great Bible Teachers would explain *how* they were deceived, and then they would correct the record.
Which, of course, leaves them exposed on a central problem: how is one class of humans consigned to a subordinate status while not also being diminished as a human? They have lost the “But it’s not ontological, it’s functional” talking point. I don’t think they realize it yet.
@ Daisy:
Yes, Daisy, the hyper-complementarian treatment of women in some churches is nothing short of bondage. Men who allow their wives to submit to such aberrant teaching, treat their wives as lesser citizens of the Kingdom, and do not equally share in parenting their children, are a sorry bunch.
I think between the bizarre applications of “headship” and “covering” being applied to Christian women and the Pentecostal hair length rules, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 just might be the most abused passage of Scripture in the New Testament.
Daisy wrote:
I’m convinced that some SBC-YRR pastors come from homes that had domineering mothers. Taking on the role of “lead pastor” with a put-the-women-in-bondage ministry is a psycho, narcissistic way to strike back at their mamas. There is a young reformer at a church near me who definitely fits this bill – I’ve met his mother. However, that doesn’t excuse a preacher of the gospel to oppress others (but, of course, they aren’t preachers of the Gospel that sets ALL free!).
Robert wrote:
Some who post here have come up with new words to describe the NeoCalvinists’ Dark Ages views of women.
*Chrislam [more like radical Islam than Christianity]
*Shehad [She+had, sounds like jihad. This is for the NeoCalvinists’ “War on Women”]
Max wrote:
I know you’ve said that before, but absent evidence it just sounds like yet another ‘blame the woman’ perspective. I doubt you mean it that way, but I think there are a lot of reasons people become who they are. Family can be part of it, but it could as easily be the father as the mother, or none of the above.
dee wrote:
If I may provide some additional information to our Canadian friends, those of us who participated in trying to understand Kassian’s stated credentials discussed the differences in the Canadian and American systems as well as OT certification, so we have a context for the reference to a Canadian university. Maybe some of our Canadian readers did not see that discussion and did not have that context.
How refreshing to see your eagerness to clear that up without any defensiveness at all! That last sentence could be read as either a compliment to you because others do not do that *or* as implying that you are typically defensive and this is an exception. Wartburgers are sure which one is accurate. Context, context, context!
One of the things I appreciate here is the ability of commenters to express that they do not understand or have been misunderstood and the willingness of most of us to try to reach understanding, even if it still is disagreement.
roebuck wrote:
She also seems to be playing with definitions in her continuums. She justifies teaching men (which she says is un-Biblical) based on the context in which the church universal is gathered: “Is this local-church or is it not exactly church?”. Apparently the appropriateness of the speaking engagement is dependent on whether it is the church gathered in a certain time and building vs. another time and place. Such conditionalism sure blows her initial analogy out of the water!
Robert wrote:
I think so too; I’ve seen how the variations in interpretations and translations have created an array of possible meanings – https://holdssway.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/because-of-the-angels/
I’ve seen how little the passage gets questioned –
http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/christian-covering-videos/what-does-a-head-covering-mean
All it takes is one generation to teach the next – and I’m afraid both are going down the wrong path.
Lea wrote:
Agreed.
My ex-NeoCalvinist pastor who is a bully and a liar had a violent father. Many of these NeoCalvinist pastors (Mark Driscoll, Voddie Baucham) had violent, alcoholic, drug addicted, dysfunctional, or absent fathers. These sons seem to be struggling with how to be a man in the world, they are grasping at straws, and over-compensate.
Would it be safe to summarize MK’s view of male leadership in the church (referring to them as “church fathers”) as: Mary Kassian has daddy issues?
roebuck wrote:
Love it. Whippersnappers. (Tim Fall also uses that word, in a humorous way.)
Daisy wrote:
The advantage of making stuff up as you go is that consistency is beside the point. There is no anchor other than “Mary Says So” today or the Churchdaddy says so today but tune in tomorrow to see what the Truth is tomorrow. See the re-positioning of CBMW “We never were dependent on ESS even though two of our founders are mainly responsible for its propagation and another founder is responsible for our bedrock interpretation of Genesis 3:16 and pay no attention to the fact that said founder is female because she is an exception to the general rule that women are more easily deceived because we approve of what she said.” The pity is that they cannot see how transparently ridiculous that is. And anyone who has tried to reason with someone who is delusional knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Velour wrote:
I’m also convinced a big element of it is simple peer pressure. Some of these people are mostly normal and then they go to seminary, or join a new church, and internalize all of these things they had never thought before.
As someone new to this blog, what is a NeoCalvinist, and how are they different from regular Calvinists?
Burwell wrote:
Don’t know about that, but she definitely has some issues. Referring to some of the YRRs as “fathers” is a little bit of a stretch, IMO. Real fathers prove themselves over time by their self-sacrifice for their families. Just like mothers do. Or anyone who is responsible for another’s wellbeing does. I really think she is trying to borrow gravitas from the Church Fathers, and it is really a sign of desperation, IMO.
Robert wrote:
The Deebs (Dee and Deb) who are the authors at TWW offered this description in their page on TWW Glossary of Terms:
Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn’t agree with them is utterly wrong. They spend lots of time running around to conferences, getting together with other guys (women have no place in this discussion) who also agree with them 100%. In fact, they spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/about-us-the-basics/about-us-definitions/
Gram3 wrote:
Even if they keep that point in mind, in practice they contradict it.
You can tell me all day long that gosh golly gee, I, Daisy a woman am equal in worth to Billy Bob the man, but when you then tell me only Billy Bob can do X and I cannot Because Sex (M/F), you’re belying the very thing you claim to believe in.
Like the American whites back in the, what was it, 1950s or 60s, insisting blacks were equal to whites, but hey, guess what black folks, you can’t use the same water fountains white people do or sit at the diner counters with the whites.
(You’re kind of sort of equal but not really equal, not in practice. In theory, sure, but not in reality.)
Lea wrote:
Group think. I agree with that too.
Robert wrote:
For a lot longer description and analysis, here’s something I posted a few years back:
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
Not all who are Reformed-Calvinist-Puritan in their theology are “Calvinistas.” One of the key differences is that Calvinistas are basically far more hyper-five-point in their theology, militant in their stance toward others (though all buddy-buddy with those who are insiders), and typically talk a lot about grace without ever showing much of it to others. In short, it’s like a triple-shot of espresso made from charcoalized Calvinist beans.
As you compare and contrast conventional Reformed/Calvinist approaches with the more militant Neo-Calvinist/Calvinista approach, you’ll find a whole “Neo-Calvinist Industrial Complex” of thought leaders, authors, speakers, publishing houses, networks, denominations, etc. that keep it going.
@ dee:
Thank you, Dee. This is an article that I would like to post on FB, as I think it’s important for some in my circles to read. The reference that you removed would have been a distraction, I think. I appreciate your responsiveness!
Robert wrote:
I don’t call them neo-Calvinists because that can be confused with a school of thought within classical Reformed thinking. The Deebs call them Calvinistas. I call them YRRs. They are young men, for the most part, who have been converted *to* a form of Calvinism which primarily consists of the Famous Five Points while classical Calvinism is much more than that.
They are zealous to defend their new faith and to convert others to it. Their thinking pattern is similar to Political Correctness or Social Justice Warriors who cannot think outside of rigid black/white categories. They colonize institutions and individual churches who are not traditionally so rigid and relentlessly drive out older members who have seen a thing or ten and beg to differ with the New Regime. The dissenters are either driven out via “church discipline” or via more subtle pressure or dissenters may leave in disgust only to be replaced by young disciples of the Pure Faith.
The movement is driven by media and conferences and networks, both formal and informal, which are headed by (now) older men who have developed a following. The gurus include John Piper, Wayne Grudem, R. Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, Don Carson, and bloggers like Tim Challies and the various guys writing at The gospel Coalition or 9Marks or Desiring God.
Robert wrote:
I find that they’re big on things like being reformed, being a five-point calvinist, being confessional, being creedal, being covenental, believing in the five solas of the Reformation, believing in the sovereignty of God, it means to take seriously the Great Commission and to have a distinctly Christian worldview. It tends to mean that they affirm gender roles and distinctions; only men may hold positions of leadership and have leadership of their families while wives are expected to submit joyfully to their husbands. It seems to me to be all about knowledge, having the right beliefs, than putting the teaching of Jesus to treat others as you would want to be treated in practice. I find that words and meanings tend to get shifted – they use synonymns that mean the same thing to mean two different things; the more you see what sort they are, the better understanding you have of how they differ from traditional Calvinists who were able to worship side-by-side with Arminians without any quarrel.
Robert wrote:
As a final thought to that stream of info, many more moderate in their Reformed-Calvinist theology don’t want to be associated with the Neo-Calvinists who are “Calvinistas.” And unfortunately, there apparently was a movement within conventional Reformed denominations years back called Neo-Calvinism, so the family tree of all this is kind of messy. Which is part of why it’s important to be able to identify particular theological profiles and overall attitudes in order to distinguish moderate from militant “Neo-Calvinists.”
So, that’s all stuff to get you started, hope it’s of some help, Robert.
Robert wrote:
Having had a *tour-of-duty* of 8-years at a NeoCalvinist church, I would say that NeoCals are rabid and unreasonable compared to regular Calvinists.
NeoCals are big in to *authority* and remind members that they are in charge, many have their own churches and answer to no higher church authorities, they believe in
Complementarianism, believe in a Young Earth 6,000 years old, and anyone who doesn’t
agree doesn’t believe The Gospel. Nonsense. NeoCals also don’t believe in women teachers,
preachers, etc. They camp out on a few verses. In my experience NeoCals deny the work of the Holy Spirit in believers’ lives. It’s very *works based*. Many of the NeoCal leaders have sub-par educations. (Not to say that all who are called by God must even be educated. But these guys are ridiculous in their claims and lack of logic.) They are big in to abusive church discipline.
My grandmother was a Presbyterian (Calvinist) who died at 102 years old. She was university educated in science in the 1920’s. She worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers. She believed in an Old Earth as did the other researchers, who were Christians. There were women missionaries, including medical missionaries, who were held in high regard who taught and practiced medicine, changed entire villages and lives.
I only saw one sad case of “church discipline” as a child at my grandmother’s Presbyterian Church. A pastor had an affair and was fired. His case was brought before all. His replacement was hired from Scotland.
Velour wrote:
That term has been around for awhile. I remember seeing it online for a few years now.
Wiki says Christian apologist William Lane Craig came up with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam
I vaguely remember reading something about it years ago. There was some kind of push by either touchy feely conservative Christians who are big on ecumenicalism, or progressive Christians who wanted to build bridges between Islam and Christianity.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
So true, Brad. The most loveless bunch, all talk of grace and none of it.
Daisy wrote:
Thanks, Daisy for your research!
FW Rez wrote:
It’s like the story I read in a blog post by a women who is an ex-complementarian.
It finally hit her the complementarianism is bogus when her comp college that forbid women from teaching or preaching allowed well known woman authors to lecture at her school’s chapel, PROVDIED that the big, heavy wooden pulpit was shoved aside and a dainy, floral-painted table was put in its place for the lady speakers to stand behind.
It was little details like that which also caused me to start doubting comp when I was a kid.
Gram3 wrote:
YRR = Young, Restless, and Reformed — named after a book title of the same name that became a sort of manifesto for 20/30-somethings especially who adopted this theology and relational stance.
https://www.amazon.com/Young-Restless-Reformed-Journalists-Calvinists/dp/1581349408/
So, to identify this group, you may see any of these terms: YRR, Neo-Calvinists, Neo-Cals, Calvinistas.
Velour wrote:
Driscoll over-compensated by turning Jesus into a Chuck Norris Tough Guy.
And God the Father became Driscoll’s excuse to rationalize ordering wives to perform whatever sex acts the husband prefers.
(What wives want or prefer in the bedroom is never acknowledged by complementarians. They act like all women are a-sexuals.)
Burwell wrote:
To me it was just creepy. Especially, since many of these “men” would be younger than her . . .
Gram3 wrote:
This is an excellent response to Robert’s query.
Thanks to others who are also addressing Robert’s important question.
@ Burwell:
I have no idea. I do sometimes wonder how much these Token Complementarian Women, who do the lecture circuit and sell the books about home-making and submission, honestly believe in this swill they’re presenting, or is their real motive or interest in making a profit? ($$$)?
I was in Maranatha for a few years during the 1980’s. Aside from there being decidedly less emphasis on gender roles in Maranatha (although there was some emphasis on gender roles) it all sounds very similar. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.
I get why a bunch of college kids were attracted to it. What keeps adults with families in that kind of a system I don’t want to understand.
@ Gram3:
I agree with every thing in your post, which is a nice summary of how very inconsistent complementarians are.
They who claim to be sola scriptura, or deeply dedicated to what the BIBLE SAYS, but then they make their own gender rules up willy-nilly, based on what they find practical, or how they feel that day.
That does drive me nuts:
Complementarians will stick to stuff like Eph 5.22 on the wife submission thing, and the part from 1 Timothy about, “I forbid a woman from teaching”…
but they dump all that pretending- to- care what the Bible says stuff to make up other gender rules.
Where is Kassian’s Ephesians 5:22 equivalent that says,
“A 17 year old female is forbidden to teach a 17 year old man, but the Lord doth approve of a 40 year old female teaching a 17 year old man.” ???
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Oh, wow. Written in 2008 by the editorial director of The Gospel Coalition.
I’m sure it’s unbiased ~~ recommended by Tim Challes, D. A. Carson ……..
@ Robert:
You can check out the definition of terms on this page:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/about-us-the-basics/about-us-definitions/
Also, if you do a search on this blog (search box on upper right of the page), you can look up “NeoCalvinism,” and that will turn up a blog post or two which sort of explains what it means.
Robert wrote:
I was just looking at the comments for the book linked to on amazon and it seems that for some of them they weren’t taught anything seriously in youth group – when they went into church for the first time as college-aged adults, they liked the system being explained to them and they just believed it. Most of them really are young adults, millenials – I think as they grow up they’ll be challenged as to whether or not to keep on believing as they do. Now me, I’m the same age, but I was seriously taught in my youth group and came to see flaws in it. I saw how young women who were just as good of teachers as young men who were constantly sent back to the nursery or the kitchen or the sound board to be out of sight, out of mind. In my churches, only men served visibly in the worship of God except when it came time to sing the music. What the system teaches though, is that men and women have different levels of power and it just feeds into giving men more power by taking it away from their wives. When one person has power over another, it’s a recipe for trouble. Not long ago, there was a teaching in the shepherding movement that one person had to submit to another person over them – this was abused as the people with power took advantage and the people who were told to submit had no choice but to obey. Eventually it was discredited, but the same basic teaching remains in complementarianism. Even more, it exists as “Church fathers” or church leadership has power over the congregation who are expected to submit to them. Unsurprisingly, it too has been abused – when leaders protect their own at the expense of the people told to submit to them.
Gram3 wrote:
Oooh! This just reminded me of when I was a kid/teenager, one of the pastors at church told me he knew I thought of him as a father and I was like ‘what????’.
I have my own father. I never thought of him that way and found it deeply weird to hear him say it.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Great explanation! As I remember, the Christianity Today article Young, Restless, Reformed came before the book by the same title. The CT article was published in September 2006. I've written about this before, but I'll share it again. Dee and I both subscribe to Christianity Today. When this particular issue was mailed, Dee called me and said, "Did you receive your latest copy of Christianity Today? There's an article in it about Calvinists."
In the months leading up to this, we had been discussing Calvinism and how you don't want to get into a theological argument with them because they have all the answers. 😉 I read that YRR article and didn't get anything out of it. The only names I recognized were Al Mohler and John Piper. I set it aside and basically forgot about it.
Two years later Dee and I began researching this stuff like crazy! My daughters were in school (one in college and one in high school) and my hubby was at work. As a stay-at-home wife and mother, this became my obsession! After a couple months of intensive research, I went back and read that CT article on the YRR movement, and I recognized every single name mentioned understood the article completely. It was a "Eureka" moment for me. We launched this blog about six months later in March 2009.
Needless-to-say we have learned a lot since then. Recently, I learned from watching Jeopardy that Malcolm Gladwell believes if someone spends 10,000 hours learning something, then they have become an expert. I'm sure Dee and I have EACH spent in excess of 10,000 hours researching the topics we discuss here…
Daisy wrote:
This is sort of the same letter not spirit of the law kind of thing that made me reject the Baptist church – and in practice it makes you realize that the ‘law’ is really, really dumb.
For me, it was going to a Baptist church and seeing every man listed on staff as ‘pastor’ so and so, and then a few women listed as ‘director’. This is clearly about the letter of the law, or title, not function. And as I told our dear little visitor in the last thread, jonathan, separating from an abuser for life instead of just making it official and getting divorced is kind of the same thing. If you effectively abandon someone for 20 years, you are divorced whether you have a piece of paper that says so or not.
When the rules are stupid we get these silly ways to get around them when we should just accept that they aren’t actually the rules, or shouldn’t be.
Also, this is apparently old but someone just shared it on facebook: http://sixseeds.patheos.com/davewillis/the-truth-about-submission-in-marriage/
“4. In God’s plan of submission, MEN are actually called to submit MORE than women. (Read this WHOLE description, because this is exactly how “submission” can work in practical daily application.)
How this harmonious submission should look in practice is that wives should submit to husbands in areas of PRINCIPLE and husband should submit to wives in areas of PREFERENCE.”
See my post above.
Robert wrote:
There are some posts on this site about Maranatha, such as this one http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/02/10/maranatha-ministries-reconsidered-steve240s-new-blog/
The common denominator of many groups is authoritarianism, and it ends up playing out very similarly even if the exact doctrinal underpinnings vary. Wade Burleson did a good post on this- http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
I’d like to thank the Neo-Cal bros (& heck, the Neo-Cal women, too) for being the catalysts that turned me into a proud, full-fledged, feminist! Thanks! 😉
Lea wrote:
I do see a lot of complementarians who are fine and dandy with unofficial marital separation. Most of them are okay with a wife leaving her husband for 2 weeks or a month – like to go stay at a friend’s house or a motel – but then they tell her she must return to the husband.
So, is a wife married to a lout supposed to spend 30 or more years of her life ping pong-ing back and forth between her friend’s house (or a motel) and her lout of a husband?
I once read a blog post at an ex-Christian Fundamentalist blog that talked about this Fundy married couple who had been married for decades.
This couple hated each other, and I think they wanted to divorce, but because their church forbid divorce, they stayed married legally but apart physically.
The husband lived in an RV on the couple’s driveway, while the wife lived in the house.
So very inane. IMO, such a situation is not really a marriage per se, but some kind of weird business arrangement kept in place so as to keep up appearances with one’s local church.
If you’re not even on friendly terms with each other and living apart physically, (and you desire to divorce but stay married due to church pressure), it seems to me you might as well divorce, as you are already divorced in spirit, if not in a legal sense.
Daisy wrote:
Because, when pushed and pushed, they realize they actually can NOT just say go home and allow yourself to be murdered or beaten for the rest of your life. (although some more stupid/honest types will actually tell them that suffering is good for them)
They still have that magical thinking that things are bound to get better, though, so they refuse to say a spouse can actually get divorced. I prefer to deal with reality here.
@ Robert:
They market to them. Most of the YRR church planting groups like Acts 29, Sojourn, Baptist 21 and such target families. The irony is they use similar methods the seekers (who they declare have wrong doctrine) used for years.
Young families look for what they think are safe places and activities for the kids. It is not until they are totally sucked in that they might start to have red flags on some of the teaching and rules. There is a lot more to this….
In some ways I liken it to the attraction for some to Islam. Some people are attracted to the rules rules and formulas for life given to them by a “spiritual” leader. The YRR have revived the old Puritan model where every aspect of your life comes under the scrutiny of your spiritual leaders. Even down to bringing a brisket to a fellowship meal. Right, Velour?
The question we need to be asking ourselves is what is going to become of the children in these systems as they reach adult age who know no other God but the angry determinist who by default damns some? This sort of strict determinism tends to breed atheists in the long run when that is all you have been taught and it is the focus.
In my day, in my circles, you went away to college and questioned everything you were taught, were a backslider but most never ended up hating God. That door never closed. What I am seeing coming out of that movement as time goes on is something totally different. The more rabid they are for this angry God, the harder they fall.
An interesting bit of history is what happened to the descendants of the Puritans.
Daisy wrote:
I got my fill of this school of Sola SCRIPTURA during the Gospel According to Hal Lindsay. My favorite type example is the Plain Reading of SCRIPTURE regarding the demon locust plague in Revelation.
So we’re basically talking about a group of people barely out of their twenties (or worse, barely in their twenties) who think they understand everything there is to understand about the Gospel and combine that with an overly authoritarian view of church government? No wonder it sounds familiar. It cannot possibly end well.
I’m now in my fifties, and it “My Back Pages” by Bob Dylan seems more and more like the anthem of my life. “I was so much older then….”
Lea wrote:
But Ideological Purity always trumps Reality!
“I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”
— Mythbusters (but there it was said as a joke)
Lea wrote:
What he’s saying there is basically what Aimee Byrd was arguing a recent post of hers. She was saying that comp marriage is not only about tie-breaking votes, but oddly enough, she went on to pontificate quite a bit about HOW comps go about issuing tie-breaking votes in marriage.
She ended up by saying that in the area of small choices, whether a married couple wants to eat at Arby’s or McDonald’s, that the husband should defer to the wife.
But in biggies, the wife should defer to the husband (like on when or where to buy a new house).
I see all of this as a distinction without much of a difference and it’s still patronizing to women.
Oh gee, thanks, if I’m a married lady, I get to pick Hamburgers for dinner, but my husband gets to decide if we move from City Z to City X.
Overt sexism is awful, but this sexism that waters down that there is still male hierarchy at the core of complementarianism is still very off putting as well.
Sexism is peachy keen and awesome in complementarian land, so long as the husband practices it with a smile on his face.
Lea wrote:
Don’t these same guys always slam Catholics with “Be Ye Not Called Father”?
Daisy wrote:
The Rule 63 Genderflip of “Stay Sweet!”
(And in my experience, sociopaths are always sticklers about Being So POLITE…)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know that I’ve really heard that. I don’t recall discussing catholics much at all.
Robert wrote:
Hitlerjugend, Komsomol, Red Guard, whatever al-Daesh calls its young True Muslims…
Lea wrote:
Just in my day that was a favorite anti-Catholic slam.
(But then, Calvary Chapel dominated Real True Christianity(TM) in the local area. Raul Rees of CC West Covina was so rabidly anti-Catholic it was literally impossible to exaggerate it.)
Bridget wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(disambiguation) ?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think you might be a wee bit older than me 🙂
The only slams on catholics I heard as a teenager were related to rival high schools (although slams were not limited to the catholic school!).
@ Lea:
John 3:19-21. Said to Nicodemus, the great ruler of the Jews.
Daisy wrote:
I just read that and at the phrase “dainty, floral-painted table” I felt my testicles shrivel from the estrogen OD. (Just like that time years ago with the Webpage of Christianese Women’s Fiction book covers.) THAT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF A CARTOON! IT’S NOT JUST A CARTOON OF WIDDLE WIMMEN, IT’S A CARTOON OF ITSELF! KASSAN’S A CARTOON OF HERSELF! PIPER’S A CARTOON OF HIMSELF!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I heard that all the time from my mom.
Any time I showed anger at how someone mistreated me at school and came home ranting or crying over it, my mother would cut me off in her little girl voice, “Now, be sweet Daisy, be sweet!!”
(Translation: girls cannot show anger if they’re being rudely treated.) I even got that from her in my adulthood.
My sister and dad sort of carry a variation of that on in my life even now.
(I’m not supposed to express any emotion at all, because it’s shameful to have feelings, you see. I’m supposed to be tough guy, stoic John Wayne combined with an emotionless T-800 Terminator.)
Daisy wrote:
Isn’t Jewish tradition (I think in the Talmud) that if one woman gives birth to a child and another woman raises it, the woman who raises it is considered the mother?
Daisy wrote:
That’s not just “Stay Sweet” or for women only.
When I was growing up as a Kid Genius, the ideal for Superior Intellects was Mister Spock.
Robert wrote:
No, it is not going well and the big cheese leaders are desperately trying to rebrand. Ironically, like we have seen historically, they are going for a more social gospel to present a more compassionate image and win hearts and minds.
Daisy wrote:
My mother used to ask me to be quite so my brother could talk! Ha. But I think that was more about my being older and more argumentative/talkative and his being younger and quieter. I was supposed to be giving him a turn.
Lea wrote:
It does come up in Protetant v. Catholic debates.
When the Protestant confronts Catholics about the priesthood – Catholics sometimes call priests “Father” and invest the priest with a lot of authority (I think the Pope is sometimes called “the Holy Father”?), then the Protestant will usually quote the verse at the Catholic where Jesus said, “Call no man father.”
Lydia wrote:
I meant to respond to this earlier. I actually think this is a healthy process for a younger person not just with religion but also politics. It’s good to get perspective, and understand different views on things, and to question. It makes your opinions or faith much stronger at the end because you really understand.
I’m not sure what’s up with the YRR’s, I think they’re doing this questioning thing and going hog wild in the opposite direction instead of learning and filtering and coming out with more assurance. But they are being helped along by all the men they look up to, and being told they are super important as men, and their egos are being flattered. Maybe that’s the difference.
I never though I was susceptible to flattery but I learned last year that I really am, and it blinds you to things. I wonder if that’s the problem here.
Lea wrote:
Well, I certainly didn’t mean it that way! That wouldn’t make me any better than the comp bunch and I certainly appreciate the spiritual gifts and contributions of women in Kingdom work. However, I do know of two YRR pastors in my area who have adopted a ministry style in a get-back-at-mama oppression of all women – they have admitted as much. And of course, others enter ministry to be-like-pop by becoming an authoritarian overlord. It’s a sickness they have and evidence that they don’t need to be in ministry at all.
Deb wrote:
Gone down in a Commander-and-Handmaid Sex Scandal.
Velour wrote:
Rick Warren has been accused of leaning that direction.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
In the Old Testament, Sarah, Leah and Rachel had children through their servants Hagar, Bilhah and Zilhah – surrogacy was considered a viable alternative to childlessness – but it seems to me the children via the servants had lesser status as soon as the official wives had a child of their own.
In some of my churches another category was recognized: “Youngest mother” I’m surprised that one didn’t backfire more often what with teenage pregnancy occurring from time to time.
Daisy wrote:
I just realize something else about this.
My parents ascribed to traditional gender roles. My mother pressured me to be a stereotypical girly girl to play with dolls and wear pink dresses, but, I just realized,
My dad (at the same time) was kind of raising me to be a stereotypical boy / man (emotionally) – to repress my feelings, be stoic, tough, etc.
My Mom caused me further confusion by suggesting to me that I should emulate Jesus, but that only meant (to her) the soft, loving side of Jesus.
But as a kid, I’d read the portions of the Gospels where Jesus was bold and assertive, and yelled at people (like the Pharisees).
My mother politely, quietly pressured me to take more an interest in typical girly stuff when I was a kid (such as Barbie dolls) because I showed a greater interest in “boy” stuff (such as Ghost Rider comics).
I was made to feel that it is “wrong” for a girl to sometimes like stuff that some boys happen to like, too, that God would be displeased if I did not conform to the gender roles.
Talk about getting mixed message about gender norms and behaviors from my traditional parents!!
And gender complementarians insist that their teachings (which were about identical to what my parents taught me) is supposed to clear up gender confusion.
It doesn’t. It can create its own set of confusing messages in kids.
—-
I find this sort of post, at complementarian Desiring God site, to be disingenuous:
“When You’re Not a Typical Woman”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-you-re-not-a-typical-woman
I find that post disingenuous because complementarians for years – when I was growing up – did in fact promote a very narrow view of what being a woman means (typical woman to them meant ‘married women with kids who likes to bake cookies and doesn’t have a job outside the home’), and lot of them still do this, (such as Kassian), but deny that they do it.
Daisy wrote:
Makes perfect sense: If you want to keep a dog happy and obedient, you have to pat it on the head, throw it a Milkbone, and buy it a squeaky toy every now and then.
@ Robert:
@ Jamie Carter:
@ Gram3:
It should also be noted that New Calvinists talk a lot about “God”, with only occasional mention of Jesus, and hardly a word about the Holy Spirit. The young, restless and reformed actually talk more about the New Calvinist icons which Gram3 lists, than Christ. New Calvinism is a movement that borders on cultish.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’ve never heard of that before in regards to Judaism, but it sounds like a compassionate practice.
Some Christian churches or individual Christians don’t seem to care if they stomp on people’s hearts though.
If you’d like to read a similar letter – this was written by a church going Christian woman – that is just as bad:
“Sisterly Exclusion”
http://amydickinson.com/post/85115023030/sisterly-exclusion-makes-one-sis-a-horrible-person
This woman (again, a church goer) completely ostracizes another one (whom she calls “Wendy”), which causes heartbreak for the recipient, but this woman does not care at all. She buckles down and justifies her snubbing of the woman out the wazoo.
She manages to sound very judgmental too – Wendy is divorced with a kid, where as ‘Ms. Perfect’ (who wrote the letter) is a SAHM.
Lea wrote:
The irony is flattery is a deadly sin. All deception is. It is manipulation and the opposite of truth and sincerity. Most of us have fallen for it at some time. The young are extremely susceptible but so are adults. A lot of the flattery that goes on in church circles is done through love bombing to get people sucked in. Love bombing is pure flattery. It’s the old salesman play. Get people agreeing and then they tend to continue to agree.
The only thing that brings this out is time. And we tend to be a sound bite people in these days of instantaneous communication which doesn’t help!
Lea wrote:
I totally agree! We should be raising thinkers not conformist. But be prepared for teenagers who questioned everything you say! I love it and encourage it… but it is exhausting….:o)
Lydia wrote:
I’ve seen studies in the last 3 – 4 years that say that one thing that can get Millennials engaged in a local church is to do more Social Stuff.
(Like, I don’t know, do things like have your church make sandwiches and hand them out to homeless people in your area.)
Even before those studies, I kept seeing a lot of pearl clutching by Christians (especially ones obsessed with getting butts into pews) about how Millennials don’t go to church.
So the cynic in me wonders if what you’re saying – about the Neo Cals trying to rebrand as being lovers of social justice or promoters of a social gospel – is nothing more than just another ploy to attract more Millennials.
Max wrote:
Knowing John Piper’s history, does it make you wonder if this shoe fits him?
Lydia wrote:
Indeed, Lydia.
Yes, I was called at home by the Chairman of the Elder Board at my ex-NeoCalvinist gulag/cult. I was told that the elders had a meeting about me and that I had been
“too lavish” in bringing 10-pounds of bbq beef brisket to the fellowhship meal.
(The neighborhood butcher also gave me a sweet deal on brisket for buying the whole thing.)
The same chairman of the elder board chastized me, in front of other church members, for riding my bike to church in the summer in a dress. My retort, “It’s great how companies are making bike shorts that are thin enough to wear under a dress!”
And on and on.
So tired of being treated like children.
Lydia wrote:
After my excommunication/shunning from a NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church for having synapses that work and for asking questions, I ordered this David Hayward/Naked Pastor cartoon from him in Canada called “Held For Questioning”.
http://nakedpastor.com/2010/03/cartoon-held-for-questioning/
Lydia wrote:
I am not surprised. They don’t know the true Jesus.
Lydia wrote:
I think sometimes the YRR crew are flattered into thinking they are smarter than the rest – which is flattery that also feeds into their pride. So I guess that makes it doubly deadly!
Lea wrote:
It probably doesn’t help that the minions are super eager to flatter the bigwigs to get promoted.
I don’t get how they could ever define themselves as “counter-cultural”. They’re exactly like the culture.
Velour wrote:
When my daughter was 14 or 15, she was a teacher’s aide at VBS~ 3 and 4 year olds. One of the little brats shinnied up a tree in the church yard and refused to come down. My daughter climbed the tree and brought him down. No worries, she had shorts on underneath her dress. The class teacher started to rip into her, saying, “now listen here! Who do you think you are??? Ladies don’t wear shorts to church!” Before my daughter could unsheath her sharp tongue, our then-pastor’s wife intervened by saying to the teacher, “I would like to have seen you climb that tree and get that little boy down in your high heels and above the knee skirt!” Convo over, big laugh from all within ear shot! Nothing else was evah said about the way my daughter dressed.
For several years, I taught. Wed. night kids’ class. I had the second oldest group, another lady had the oldest group. Our classes were on the same schedule and mostly boys. At their 15 minute recess time, they wanted to play football in the field beside the church. The other lady and I always wore pants (often blue jeans) and casual shoes. There was no way we were going to supervise a football skirmish in dresses! No one dared say anything to either of us …… probably because no one else had the guts to try and teach our wild boys.
Velour wrote:
THIS.
I guess it is a small world after all.
While surfing this blog, I went from Mark Driscoll to Robert Morris to Gateway Church. Looking up Gateway Church I found my pastor from my Maranatha days.
@ Nancy2:
Good for your daughter, Nancy2. Just like her Mama.
And good for you and your friend teaching and supervising the boys.
Nancy2 wrote:
Jeans are very ‘American Woman’ clothing. I have stretch jeans, boyfriend jeans, bootcut jeans, jeans for scrubbing and painting ’round the house, gardening jeans, and Church jeans. Honestly, I don’t think jeans are ‘too’ casual anymore. They are just plain practical and comfortable. Cost? well, if you are like me: 12 bucks at Walmart does the trick for stretch skinnies and boyfriend jeans; a ‘little more’ for well-fitting bootcut jeans (talls).
A nice bigshirt (ususally white), and for dress-up, add a scarf (optional), and you are good-to-go ladies
People don’t complain about American women wearing jeans anymore. Need to dress ‘professionally’? Add some heels and a jacket, a little eye makeup, a nice well-cut dark jean work here, too.
Don’t even think about it. Just wear ’em. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
If we all knew the effort that goes into church marketing we would, hopefully, be appalled. Welcome to places like LifeWay research. I am out of the older “Madison Avenue demographic research type of church marketers loop” but it was big business even in the pre social media days. Mega’s don’t just spontaneously happen.
It is more age focused consumer driven than we think. Even 9 Marx. Which should tell us a lot about young adult consumers. Scary.
There is very much a knee-jerk reaction to church marketing because church is supposed to be a place you can trust. It works. But they have to be constantly recruiting.
Robert wrote:
Lol!
Robert wrote:
GAH! I have a friend who goes there and I’m not sure there is an easy to way to tell her her church is a problem.
Lea wrote:
Like Julie Anne posted at Spiritual Sounding Board in a recent article, the best we can do is be a loving, safe, supportive person free of judgment.
That’s what cult experts like Steve Hassan recommend too. Because love keeps the channels open and if we’re safe people in bad groups will eventually turn to us for help.
Lea wrote:
Yes. It is a culture which targeted youth which is why it is going to be a very hard ship to turn around. And I am mostly thinking of the thousands of young pastors that have been indoctrinated over the last 30 years in authoritarianism. It’s all they know. They view every single relationship and situation in terms of authority/submission to some degree. The YRR just made it worse.
Lydia wrote:
They really do and it is almost impossible to have a conversation about how that is really, really wrong because then they say things like ‘if you have three people and they have to decide what time to go to lunch how will they decide if no one is in charge!!
I mean, there is no answer to that then to say to just decide like every group in existence that is made up of equal adults decides.
@ brenner:
Thank you. I am relieved.
Nancy2 wrote:
Again I’m gobsmacked. Rather than thanking the Almighty and blessing Providence that the kid was alright and didn’t sustain serious injury, the teacher’s concern was for proper gender-specific clothing on the part of the rescuer?
Muff Potter wrote:
Yep. The teacher’s plan was to leave the little boy in the tree and scream for help until a man heard her and came running to,the rescue. What few men that were there were down in the church basement (what are the odds that any of them could hear her?), and maybe 2 of them were physically agile enough to climb that tree. The tree is a big oak in the edge of the cemetery -could have been deadly if the boy had went out on one of the tree limbs and fell. My daughter isn’t one to stand around and wring her hands until someone else comes along and does something.
Nancy2 wrote:
I couldn’t resist (please have your audio on so you can HEAR this frog):
Worlds Cutest Frog – Desert Rain Frog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBkWhkAZ9ds
Gram3 wrote:
This is a good list of characters to keep handy. I have checked a number of websites of questionable churches and lately have found no easily discernible theological leaning. However many still had a resource page and when I see these names headlined in the recommended publications their game is exposed. Velour’s prior church was one such site.
I wish I had kept better track of sites I visited in the past as I think a few have removed mention of their membership covenants, so I think some are becoming aware and are going stealth mode.
I just now read this post. Talk about a fraud. Deebs your research into Mary’s background is eye opening. Am curious if you all have any idea as to why SHE was picked while she was still a young woman in her twenties to be part of Danver’s statement. One would think a woman who was older (perhaps who had already raised her children) with an advanced theology degree would have been sought out.
When I read articles by these “cult of personalities” in the CBMW and other groups, my reflex is an automatic eyeroll. For the life of me I can’t understand why any adult would fall for this.
Jamie Carter wrote:
I’m surprised, too.
M. Joy wrote:
“Young Communist League members with minimal training and no experience but whose Loyalty to the Regime was total.”
— Description of second-line KGB “headhunters” in Third World War: August 1985 (future war novel)
Muff Potter wrote:
Purity of Ideology, Comrades.
ishy wrote:
“With a ruler, you can lay the flattery on with a trowel.”
— Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Victorian England
And sometimes — with a ruler like Comrade Stalin or Baba Saddam — laying the flattery on is literally a matter of life-or-death survival.
Velour wrote:
Funny… I can’t remember this Rabbi from Nazareth ever describing God’s Hospitality in terms of “The Chocolate Ration IS Ten Grams”. Just the opposite — a real blowout of a feast.
And speaking of feasts, anyone remember a movie called Babette’s Feast?
Nancy2 wrote:
If he was honest about it, I’d have at least SOME respect for the guy.
But “And for justification you make Long Prayers”?
So if women who teach men are called fornicators, what do you call men who listen to women teachers?
I’m not sure if anyone has made this point and I’ve missed it, but this is what baffles me.
When I taught both women and men and was confronted as to how I justified that I simply said, ” ask the men how they justify listening to me. They are free to leave”.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes. Wow.
OK,this is a joke right? The April Fool’s TWW got mixed in by accident. it’s OK mistakes happen. Now when is the real post going up?
Nancy2 wrote:
You raised her right, NANCY TWO.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Babette’s Feast. One of my favorite movies. If I win the Powerball or even the California Lottery, H.U.G., I will treat you all to a nice dinner/feast.
Mara wrote:
Her teachings are outrageous. Talk about raising a fist against almighty God’s creation.
What she espouses is way too cozy with Mormon doctrine.
Worse yet,it smacks of extreme fundamentalist, tenants… with a so called, christian twist.
She’s infected too many young women with this nonsense.
@ Mae:
And Mary ‘CCU22’ Kassian will be speaking at the upcoming True Woman conference.
CCU22 is short for Can’t Cook Until 2022 (per lawsuit settlement).
But she sure can take the stage.
@ Max:
Daisy wrote: “I was astounded to see a blog post by a complementarian man who blamed (in his view) the wussiness of younger Christian men on… their complementarian mothers. It’s like, nothing women do, not even complementarian women, is enough for these guys”
Max wrote: “I’m convinced that some SBC-YRR pastors come from homes that had domineering mothers. Taking on the role of “lead pastor” with a put-the-women-in-bondage ministry”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I THINK… that these kinds of men have a need for significance, to be ‘better than’.
it is an easier route to achieve this by putting women down, keeping women down (I mean, it is the default in christian church culture anyway, like cutting butter with a knife) than it is to attempt one-upmanship with one’s male peers.
i think it’s a matter of what is efficient and convenient. the shortest distance between 2 points. The path of least resistance from starting point to “at least there’s someone i can dominate and rule!”
as has been pointed out many times, they must be extremely insecure, very needy.
Jamie Carter wrote:
What a PERFECT definition!
Off-topic announcement. I just got an email from YELP taking down my insightful, 1-star review of my ex-church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. So I’ll be starting a blog devoted to GBFSV’s abuses since I have interviewed many former church members who were also horrifically abused by the pastors/elders there.
Thanks for those who reminded me that this would probably happen and to save my YELP review on The Way Back Machine website (I did weeks ago!), GBFSV’s website (I’ve done that) too.
Thanks to 38 people here who voted for my YELP review as “Helpful”. My review:
******************************
It was very disturbing to be a member of this church and to see the level of mistreatment shown by the GBF pastors/elders to adult Christians, an iron-fisted authoritarian control over adult Christians’ lives and demands for “obedience.” There were excommunications and shunnings ordered of dear Christians for any independent thought.
Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley is one of the growing number of authoritarian, NeoCalvinist churches spreading across the U.S. and it’s not *Biblical*.
*Heavy Shepherding. GBFpractices the 1970’s heavy-Shepherding movement’s un-Biblical control of Christians’ lives by the pastors/elders. The Florida founders repented for its abuses and un-Biblicalness. The GBF leaders have not repented and the damage is growing in the lives at GBF. GBFcopies Mark Dever’s (Capitol Hill Baptist, Washington, D.C.) 9Marks organization. It is a heavily criticized model, including by conservatives, who have said that there is only ONE Biblical mark of a healthy church: Love. The other 9Marks are un-Biblical and it’s the Heavy Shepherding Movement all over again.
*Membership Covenants. Members are told to sign them because they’re *Biblical* and back to a Biblical basic. In point of fact they aren’t Biblical and are used to exert authoritarian control over members’ lives. Jesus required people to sign how many pages to follow Him? Correct answer: 0 pages. (Don’t sign!)
*Congregational vote. GBF wants your money but doesn’t believe in a true Biblical church honoring the Holy Spirit’s work in Christians lives and giftedness. It is more authoritarian control exerted by a few yes-men over the Body of Christ, hobbling the power of the Holy Spirit to truly work. I will never go to a church again that is run like GBF. I will never give money to one again.
*Women. GBF pastors/elders promote Complementarian/Patriarchy doctrine that women are to “obey” and to “submit” and be 2nd class citizens. At GBF they live under the old Covenant and not the new one in Christ. GBF pastors espouse the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood which teaches a Semi-Arian Heresy by Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem called the Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son to justify the subordination of women. It is untrue and is trinatarian heresy. GBF has put this man-made doctrine on par with The Gospel. If you reject Comp you reject The Gospel. Nonsense. Read: Wartburg Watch blog for more info.
*Teaching. GBFSV does not permit Godly women to teach the Word of God. They base this on the writing of the Apostle Paul. Paul wrote Timothy about one woman — original text in Greek said “the woman” — teaching one man error. Paul wanted her to learn correctly first. The issue wasn’t her being a woman, the issue was error – and that would be true if it was a man in error. Manipulative anti-woman Bible translators conveniently changed the text to something Paul never said.
*Nouthetic Counseling. GBF leaders believe that Bible is sufficient counsel for everything. They have no training and licensing, do not follow Cal. law, and frequently cross over the line into the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine (a crime in California that can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony). This bogus form of non-counseling comes from the un-trained Jay Adams and his books. It is malpractice. GBF pastors/elders did not get an older woman alcoholic to the care of a physician to supervise her treatment and spent months with members discussing “gossip” and drawing pictures on the blackboard. In the end this woman, her adult children, and church members were harmed.
Additionally, the GBFSV pastors/elders held me responsible for the genetically inherited brain disorder – Dyslexia – of a woman church member who refuses medical care. She can’t remember entire events and accuses other people like me of lying. Dyslexia isn’t just a reading problem but a memory problem.
Excommunications/Shunnings/Stalking. A godly woman left GBF for a saner church and was harassed by church members on the orders of the GBF pastors/elders. A godly doctor was excommunicated for dissenting in private. I was excommunicated because the GBF pastors/elders blamed me for someone’s memory problems. A bizarre church!!!
*Credentials. Snr pstr’s *Ph.D*. is from a MO. diploma mill.
GETTING OUT: Don’t tell them. Send a certified/return receipt letter & resign, no details. Call 911 and contact an attorney if they bother you. Read: Wartburg Watch blog for details.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Women – call domestic violence shelters/support groups for help getting out. Call 9-1-1. Read: A Cry For Justice blog by pastor/cop.
BOOK: Churches That Abuse, Dr. Ron Enroth (FREE online).
SEARCH TERMS: Spiritual Abuse, Membership Covenants, Authoritarianism, NeoCalvinism, Homeschoolers Anonymous, Wartburg Watch, Spiritual Sounding Board,Steve Hassan
**************************
I learned that I know more than I thought I did & I will never listen to authoritarian men again!
Jamie Carter wrote:
I would extend that observation to the entire NeoCal phenomenon. Something weird is going on with these people, and it ain’t Christian…
If women teaching men in church are fornicators, what does that make Mary Kassian because there are evidently men who listen to her?
Mark wrote:
If what she says is true, she is a fornicator also. I am thankful for all the women who have taught me and especially the women who stood by me during my turbulent teenage years and who had much to do with me becoming a Christian!
Jamie Carter wrote:
I agree with others here that this is a brilliant definition for that accursed word.
When a theology depends on the ‘authority’ of ‘leadership’ minus the supreme role of a person’s conscience guided by the Holy Spirit, then that theology IS disregarding the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers.
Once these leaders attempt to become the ‘consciences’ of their ‘followers’, you can get some strange stuff going on.
First, they dismiss the Father as revealed to us best through the revelation of Our Lord in favor of their ‘God of Wrath’; then they dismiss Christ as the Light in the darkness and make Him ‘submissive’ and no better a reference in the Bible than others,;
and now they would have their followers take man-made directions rather than follow their God-given consciences, which are guided under the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
And what for? Control and power. A ‘kingdom’ of their own making where men treat women as lesser beings, and predators are allowed to prowl among the innocent, and the ‘gospel’ priority depends on ‘MALE’ domination, a form of idolatry which demands the suffering of others in sacrifice.
roebuck wrote:
No, it isn’t ‘of Christ’ is it? Not at all.
Why should Mary Kassian be taken with a grain of salt?”
The answer lies in a link from a link in your post. Because a judge presiding over her case in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta says so. http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/alberta/court-of-queen-s-bench/2008/02/06/kassian-v-roy-2008-abqb-80.shtml
.
Specifically, the Judge said that “There were enough inconsistencies in Mrs. Kassian’s evidence to raise concerns about the veracity and credibility of her testimony, especially when combined with the admission that she is prepared to fabricate the appearance of a different reality in order to promote the sale of a product. This does bring her credibility into some serious question, particularly when those fabrications go to the very nature of the injuries and dysfunction she claims exists to the present day.” And again later “Mrs. Kassian’s testimony at trial is to be given very little weight.
.
A JUDGE found Mary K to not be credible, during the course of a multi-day trial and concluded that she is willing to LIE to sell her products!
.
Another interesting point in this trial is that Mary K does not give ANY credit to God for inspiring her writings or videos. None. Mary K states, under oath “that the key to her success was that she had a great deal of creative energy, and that this is what set her apart from other unsuccessful writers. Her creative spark and energy allowed her to identify new and inspirational ideas that provide the core of her publications. These ideas were crucial to her professional success, and her ability to generate and publish inspirational Christian non-fiction.” NOTHING that Mary K writes is inspired by God the Holy Spirit. This may be the most truthful admission she has ever made.
.
Mary K contends in her own defense that “Sales of her works depend on their ability to inspire and affect others, and thus novelty is a crucial and necessary component of that capacity to inspire. Each of her publications required a seed idea around which the publication itself develops. Her “creative spark” provides those very seeds.” Her sexist nonsense is a NOVELTY folks. A novelty that is designed to inspire sales. Mary K’s underlying “novelty” is going against the grain of modern thinking. Just like burning bras was the rebellion in the 1970’s, going back to June Cleaver aprons and handing out dishrags on Mother’s Day is the new millennial rebellion. Just like Mark Driscoll, she is monetizing the Gospel by adding a counter-culture spin. It’s a gimmick folks.
.
Another bombshell disclosure is that she told her physio and her Christian audience that she was “exhausted from a full day of filming, rappelling down the rock and dangling in the air while she gets the batteries replaced for her equipment, taking the crew whitewater rafting and ‘living for this stuff'” as part of the promotional materials for her then newest “Vertically Inclined” video/printed materials. But in court it is revealed that all of this was “fabricated for the purposes of selling the book. When asked in cross-examination, she admitted that she was not doing those things and that what was written and described in ‘Vertically Inclined’ was not true. The photo from the shoot for the website, she testified, was ‘staged’ in Nashville.” Utter deception used to sell her product. What kind of Christian writer dupes their own audience in such a way? The women who end up going to these conferences end up feeling so small and inadequate in comparison to these “legends” they cannot possibly keep up with, as their rappelling and whitewater involves swing sets and toilet brushes. This isn’t just disingenuous it is downright mean.
.
The judge sites numerous other incidents of inconsistent testimony and falsehoods. If Mary K bears that much false witness under oath can you imagine what she is willing to lie about in her books, videos and speeches to make a quick buck?
.
That great “Christian” Mary K was seeking 7 figures in damage for a car accident that caused no damage to the other 8 people involved. She is driven by GREED (like some of her other Acts 29 contemporaries) and is willing to say anything, even under oath in a court of law, to get that money. She submits that back in 2003 she had to postpone a single speaking engagement that cost her $4,000. Speaking fees for Christian authors have gone up astronomically since that time. Imagine how much these Acts 29 churches pay her in 2016 to spew her nonsense? I bet she would say she was a Martian born out of a volcano by the seed of Xenu if she thought she could make more money that way.
.
We should take everything this woman says with a grain of salt because she appears to be Mark Driscoll in drag. Come to think about it, has anyone seen those two together at the same time? That woman is willing to say or do anything that is “novel” enough to turn a quick buck off of naive people looking for a better life. But make no mistake, there is collateral damage emanating from this charlatan.
.
And for the holy dishwashing mother of ironies… the Judge ends up dismissing most of her claims. She does receive $40,000 in pain and suffering and a certain amount for lost speaking fees for 3 years only, reduced by her own deliberate actions to not mitigate her damages. But the single largest settlement she received was….. she gets paid $5,278 a year until she turns 62 for her husband to cook meals 5 days a week now. It turns out all those soap bubbles and dishrags mean something in a court of law. Why do people support this woman?
Deb wrote:
Lol!
And her husband is paid by the lawsuit settlement to do the woman’s work of cooking for the two. I still cannot believe it. I can’t believe they asked for it and court took it seriously. What? Is he cooking from scratch?
@ LT:
Bingo!
* it was 8 people total in the car accident, so no damage was reported by other SEVEN people (not 8 as I stated. Sorry).
Christiane wrote:
It clearly is not, and it needs to be called out whenever and wherever. These people are getting away with a monumental scam, a monumental hijacking of vulnerable folk. Once you see this, you can’t un-see it. It makes me so sad…
@ LT:
She is a female grifter whose name could be Elmerene Gantry! Definitely a charlatan!
Mark wrote:
She’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
One fish, two fish
Five loaves of bread
From the Hand of the Lord
Five thousand fed 🙂
Confused wrote:
Laugh of the day.
Christiane wrote:
I just made tacos for dinner. Vegan. But I was thinking of fish tacos next. Yum.
Confused wrote:
Spiritual rape victims??? Surely they were groomed.
Maybe the point is that Mary Kassian bloviates rather than teaches. If she had something real to teach, then there could be a discussion about whether or not she should doing so in the presence of men. But if she is bloviating, then she is not violating any YRR standards. Maybe her post is some kind of admission that she is not a teacher and therefore not worth listening to…
LT wrote:
Giggle!
Like!
This is how it was explained to me by a friend who is good at sarcasm. When you go to the “church of crazy you need to remember that men have penises and that gives them an antenna to God. Women do not have penises and so therefore they do not have an antenna to God and therefore must remember to ignore all the scriptures that refer to women in the Bible, how Jesus treated women, and how all believers in Christ are equals. I hope this helps you to understand and convince you not to go to the “church of crazy”
Deb wrote:
And this is the woman we are all supposed to look to as a role model. I think not. I’m working my way through these blogs instead of reading all the complementarian baloney.
49 SERIOUSLY GOOD BLOGS FOR CHRISTIAN EGALITARIANS
http://juniaproject.com/49-seriously-good-blogs-christian-egalitarians/
LT wrote:
I missed this my first time through reading about the lawsuit. When someone approaches this level of personal corruption they become useful for their negative predicting value. How to determine the right path in life? Pull out your MK lodestone that points in the wrong direction, i.e. check Kassian’s position, and just go the other direction.
Ken F wrote:
“If you’re not a part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.” -Larry Kersten
But on a serious note, no matter what we might say about Kassian’s theology or platform, the bottom line is that her post is just dumb. At some point Christians have got to stop putting up with mindless stupidity among their ranks.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Thank you!
There is nothing else to do but poke fun at the absurdity. The fornicating Lottie Moon?
Bill M wrote:
My thoughts exactly. Trust becomes a joke.
@ bc:
And then there was Jael……
Hee Hee.
Lydia wrote:
Thank God that Lottie shared the gospel with men so they might have the opportunity to believe.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Not just putting up with it, but shelling out money for it! Boycott conferences, books, etc. Do not buy.
Velour wrote:
Except at garage sales. Camp Backbone target practice, baby! Target practice!
@ bc:
Lol!!
bc wrote:
That would be funny if it didn’t hit so close to the truth. And, I speak from experience in the “church of crazy”!
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s right. Camp Backbone target practice.
OK, folks–one exception as our fearless, green-eyed leader Nancy2 has pointed out:
It’s OK to buy these Patriarchy books at rock bottom prices for our target practice
(yes with weapons) at Camp Backbone. We will be holding that in Kentucky near
Nancy2’s place. It will be a competing conference with the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood’s 2017 conference.
bc wrote:
Oh, and a newsflash from rural Kentucky: my husband is attending the Local Baptist Associaton meeting tonight —> no gurlz allowed!
Nancy2 wrote:
What are they hiding from their wives?
Sounds like an organization run like the ‘MEN’S ASSOCIATION’ in The Stepford Wives.
Maybe next time your husband attends, you can slip a recorder into his pocket on the way out of the house. 🙂
I wouldn’t trust ‘stag parties’ or whatever they are calling them these days, no way 🙂
Bill M wrote:
Well put! Like an inverse compass.
One other thing I forgot to mention was that this case revealed Mary K uses contract writers, whom she does not give credit or attribution to, who write a significant amount of her material and receive a proportionate amount of her royalties – anonymously, of course. We wouldn’t want to think this particular little lady needed any help.
This made me wonder, is it possible that Mary Kassian is the “Betty Crocker” of the YRR? Is it possible that the real writers behind her fluff are men who realize that they need a woman cheerleader to get the ole ball and chains to buy into this and fall in line? Chances are she had men on her team coming up with the fake rappelling and whitewater rafting “staged” in Nashville, so how “real” is anything coming from her publicity machine?
If I was the head of YRR that’s what I would do. I’d find an attractive female (but not too attractive) who had decent communication skills and a formal education and then have my best writing team pull her stuff together to support my agenda. I would realize that both men and women could support such teachings more readily if an intelligent female “expert” was the front (wo)man giving her “feminist” approval to this agenda.
By using an Albertan, they also remove her from the day-to-day public scrutiny she’d be receiving in the US where she might have any inconsistent, non-subservient actions or words reported on by US bloggers. I also think that most Americans consider people from the Commonwealth to be more liberal minded and better educated, making her a near perfect long distance spokeswoman. She’s not some quiver-full Southerner on reality TV popping out a baby every year. She is gives off the appearance of an esteemed intellectual, yet her words could easily be coming from the Bates or Duggars. It just sells better coming from an educated woman with a lot of passport stamps.
It’s just a theory…. But as the Judge stated, Mary K is not credible as she is willing to “fabricate the appearance of a different reality in order to promote the sale of a product” And if God the Holy Spirit is not the one inspiring her “novel” creative sparks and she has unnamed outside writers putting this together? Who knows what or who is really behind this? Instead of Madison Avenue’s Betty Crocker maybe we have Mark Dever’s Mary Kassian. The YRR certainly are “missional” enough to concoct something like this.
Velour wrote:
You are welcome!
On what basis did they take it down, just wondering?
LT wrote:
“You don’t need any intellect to be an Intellectual.”
— G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries
siteseer wrote:
YELP said it violated their standards. It just means they got flak from Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley who has taken down every negative review.
I think my story will be posted here in the future. And I just started a blog as well.
Tonight.
@ Velour:
Good for you!
siteseer wrote:
Thanks!
I have to ask Julie Anne for advice.
But I got my first three articles up and running on Word Press.
Christiane wrote:
Oh, please. I’m more the type to crash the party!
The church we are in now is very male-centric. If women wish to speak in SS, we have to go to our segregated women’s classes. Women are not allowed to speak at business meetings. Official business meetings are on Wed. nights, but the Sun. nights before the business meetings there is a men’s meeting to determine what will be done at the business meeting. If the women want to hold an event at the church, have the church sponsor an event, or whatever, some of the women have to tickle the ears of some of the men. If it isn’t discussed and approved at the men’s meeting, it will never make it to the floor!
Now, ask me why I’m out.
Nancy2 wrote:
You’re out because you have a backbone!
@ Nancy2:
“Oh, and a newsflash from rural Kentucky: my husband is attending the Local Baptist Associaton meeting tonight —> no gurlz allowed!”
++++++++++++
i’ll bet they’re wearing funny hats.
Velour wrote:
I refuse to provide free catering, cleaning, and babysitting services to a boys only club.
My husband? Yeah, he knows not to push it. He has said that he doesn’t really notice the things at church that set me off, but he admits that it is probably because he’s a man.
I used this as a comparison for him: A couple of years ago, one of my mammograms didn’t come out well and I had to have a cyst removed (turned out non-malig.). Hubby went with me because we didn’t know if I’d be able to drive home. He felt so uncomfortable in the mammography waiting area that he left and went to another area of the hospital. Don’t know what his problem was …………
elastigirl wrote:
Fred Flintstone Royal Order Of Water Buffalo hats.
@ Nancy2:
I read this,along with the post & I find this very strange. Just out of curiosity, can you not go to that church? If your husband went alone, would it reflect badly on him? The reason I ask is that I ceased attending church with my wife when I could no longer stand it. We had some friction but we worked it out.
Nancy2 wrote:
I’m glad your health turned out ok. I’m sorry for that scare you had, though.
Yes, if the situation is reversed, I can see why the men-folk get downright uncomfortable.
And I really understand know why so many Comp marriages have ended in divorce. No surprise there.
Nancy2 wrote:
Goes along with that Young Earth Creationism that they’re now teaching that the earth is 6,000 years old. Otherwise known as The Flintstone Doctrine.
My ex-pastor – the one with the diploma mill “Ph.D.” (cough, I call it a Phony Degree)
for $299 – used to say from the pulpit that it was “a miracle” that the earth was only 6,000 years old. This coming from a man who couldn’t do the usual 8 years of hard work to earn a Ph.D. from a real university that was accredited.
My grandmother, who died at 102 years old, got her degree in science from a famous university. She and her women friends worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers at the university. (My great-aunt also had a degree in Physics from the same university.) My grandmother, a Presbyterian, and the Nobel researchers (also Christians) believed in an old-earth.
A guy with less education, less brains, less drive to work hard and earn high grades,
claims to know more than my grandmother with her science degree and background.
Un.Believeable.
Jack wrote:
Ha! I have quite a bit of wiggle room there. There is a deacon/substitue song leader in the church. He has a wife and children, but I’ve never seen them set foot in that church.
Besides, why can’t I turn the sexist tables: it’s almost a Baptist tradition for devout women to go to church while their husbands go fishing! Maybe I want to go fishing on Sundays. I am a bit of a tomboy, after all.
@ Nancy2:
Besides that, my husband knows that if I have to sit through one more Jezebel rant hear one more crude, insulting remark or joke about women driver’s, I’m will not remain silent in the church! My mouth would embarrass him far more than my absence:
Men can be Jezebels, too. So I assume we should use our boots to staighten them out, too. Bend over, please.
Perhaps my husband “allows” me to drive my own freakin’ car to church because he doesn’t suffer from a life-threatening case of “little man syndrome” like some of the immature boys here.
Velour wrote:
Somehow, this made me think of miracle whip – no, not the kind that comes in a jar….. more like a wagon whip!
; ^ )
My mind tends to go off on a tangent sometimes.
Nancy2 wrote:
Isn’t Kentucky the state where there is a law on the books somewhere where a husband must try on a hat his wife wants for herself before she can buy it? “Driving a freakin car”: they (religious zealots) have similar attitudes they enforce by not allowing women to drive cars. These men are nuts, but their attitude will bring about driverless cars which might be a good thing for people drinking that moonshine.
@ Mark: religious zealots being in Saudi Arabia……
Personally, I don’t believe in an “Old Earth” I hold to the validity of the evidence that supports the view that the Earth is approx 4.55 billion years old and that the Universe is approx 13.5-14 billion years old. I also don’t believe in “evolution” I hold to the validity of the evidence that supports evolution / common descent. I do agree that there is no firm understanding as to the origin of life I E how organic molecules arose etc. I am not a scientist but the evidence and the predictive value of cosmology and evolutionary biology cannot just be dismissed out of hand. An example lets take Ken Ham who is well Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis he does to science what Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill does to the historic Christian faith, though Atwill does a better job at faking it than Ken ever will. Look at The God Who Wasn’t There movie or bill Maher’s Religulous movie or even Dawkins the God Delusion, though written well was also a shallow critique if faith in general and the Christian faith in particular. Maybe Hitchen’s God is Not Great might be a bit better but they did not move me in the least as far as my personal belief in God. They basically said my belief is illogical even delusional, so, of course, we can’t understand God logically though we can catch glimpses of God. The one driving force that holds me to my religious view is the desire for ultimate justice and reconciliation for those I worked with and still do. Especially those I worked with in the institution I was at. For lack of a better phrase I call it the “Great Reconciliation”. Not to deflect from seeking justice on Earth and protection of the innocent etc. Just somethings can’t be reconciled or fully healed in this world, I think that is part of “the Fall” if you will.
I am not part of the historic Christian faith as I understand history and admit it but I do not teach, preach, nor say I hold any absolute truth claims that can be fully applied in this mortal existence, one reason I deny some aspects of presuppositionalism. I am not a very good writer but I hope that makes some sense.
Velour wrote:
It might be because it got a lot of upvotes in a short amount of time. I have several books on Amazon, and Amazon sometimes does the same thing to authors.
LT wrote:
I haven’t really observed this.
brian wrote:
I guess it depends on how you define the age of an “Old Earth”. My ex-pastor at the NeoCalvinist/9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church, with his two phony advanced degrees including a $299 “Ph.D.” [Phony Degree] from Faith Bible College in Independence, Missouri, whose ONLY “accrediting agency” (cough) was brought up on fraud charges
by the Missouri Attorney General and banned from the state, believes in a 6,000 year old earth. That’s it.
ishy wrote:
I’m sure that could be one factor. But my ex-pastors/elders at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley can’t stand the fact that I wrote the truth about my experience there and that of others who were excommunicated, shunned and abused. It’s all spin. Control the narrative.
My ex-pastor also sent out an email recently to several hundred church members saying that I was mentally ill, not to listen to me, that I was “aggressively harassing” church members [that’s an outright lie as I’ve had NO contact with anyone via text, phone, email, in person, etc.] and he listed ALL of the ways that I’d supposedly contacted members [ALL LIES], that three law enforcement agencies said I was “unstable” [none of the law enforcement agencies have said that and to the contrary have defended me; two members — a deacon and the church secretary’s husband — work for two police departments. Neither man speaks for their department. That email, which an insider gave me, is now in the hands of their Internal Affairs’ investigators. The district attorney also has a copy of it, I sent it up there. And our major newspaper in Silicon Valley and the major womens’ groups.
It’s all controlling the narrative.
Nancy2 wrote:
Your mind, blessedly, goes off on the right kind of tangents, Nancy2.
By the way, Amazon has now sent me my new t-shirt, “Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles”
which should be arriving soon. It was the ONLY good thing about being on the website to review some wretched book by one of John Piper’s fan girls that promoted Comp for children. Oh, I think you’ve seen that over on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board.
Mark wrote:
?
I cant imagine a time Kentucky men would have put up with that. Wait; maybe it was after Jefferson Davis Escaped the Confederacy dressed as a woman. :o)
Nancy2 wrote:
A gift for you, Nancy. A few things about Jezebel that completely escapes men bent on beating down women.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/search/label/Jezebel
Mara wrote:
I didn’t realize there were people who thought there was an actual ‘spirit’ as in demon when they said this! I thought it was just a figure of speech.
@ Mara:
Also from the article, if a woman has been abused and ‘hasn’t allowed god to heal’ her she is evil? Is that what this is saying? And they are conflating being abused with a whole lot of other things as if they are all the same. Sometimes I hate digging into this stuff, because it’s so deeply disturbing what some people think!!
“Jezebel is a woman with issues in her heart concerning male authority. She has probably been wounded by a male authority figure(s) in her past, and hasn’t allowed God to heal those inner wounds. A Jezebel is often a woman who has great disrespect for her father, either because he abused her, ignored her, or because he spoiled her by never confronting her immaturities as a child, and who let her run over him. Regardless of the why, she has nursed a deep disrespect for manhood inside her heart. . .”
elastigirl wrote:
As a pastor, in their search for significance, they should have found their identity in Christ before they were released on the church. American pulpits have some strange characters in them these days who needed counseling before pursuing seminary degrees. We have a generation of mixed up young pastors who are finding positions in ministry before they have found the Lord.
@ Mara:
Well! I reckon any woman that would have the gall to drive her own car when there is a licensed male available to drive surely must be possessed with a Jezebel Spirit.
Can we cook up something about women possessed with a Jael Spirit?
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes we can. And we need to be carrying Rachel Stone’s dad’s “Precious Moments” spoof of Jael t-shirts for Camp Backbone participants.
@ Mara:
This article is deeply disturbing! Women are evil if they try to fight back against abuse but here is the description for men:
“At the other hand, when a man seems to be using some of the same tools as the Jezebel woman does, it is usually not a Jezebel spirit, but a power hungry spirit that comes from being an extremely wounded individual who has most likely been abused in one way or another, and need to control and manipulate his circumstances out of fear of being hurt again.”
Poor Dears! Sheesh.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think they are possessed with the spirit of Dale Earnhardt.
roebuck wrote:
During my long journey on earth, I’ve noted a law in perpetual motion that you can take to the bank: every organization will eventually take on the personality of its leadership. You can apply this to homes, businesses, churches, and other institutions. The reason that the New Calvinist movement has something weird resting on it, is that the folks who are leading it are a weird sort themselves. There is very little going on in the new reformation that you could call Christlike. Spirits inhabit weird places and they ain’t holy.
Velour wrote:
The thought of a church full of women wearing “Jael Is My Home-Girl” t-shirts scares the living daylights out of me!
Nancy2 wrote:
And now: a radioactive hornets’ nest.
The oft-referenced “Jezebel spirit” prophecy-trope, that did the rounds a few years ago, has been so deluged in sewage from all sides that it’s lost much of the useful meaning it might have had. From blog posts listing 30 traits of the Jezebel spirit (THIRTY!!! – it covered just about every person on the planet… you’d think this thing was more omnipresent than God!), to people claiming it was nothing more than a conspiracy to infantilise and subjugate women, to being hijacked by groups who genuinely are openly conspiring to infantilise and subjugate women – it’s been a veritable carnival parade of bandwagons.
The particular characteristic of the OT-referenced person, named Jezebel, that was being referred to was that of someone who is not rightfully in authority but who controls the agenda by manipulating those who are. And yes, absolutely: this is as likely to be done by men as by women. It bears remembering that Ahab, whose strings Jezebel pulled, was a weak man. It might have been more effective to present this as “the spirit of Rehoboam’s young friends”, who – all men – did much the same thing to another weak man.
OK, everybody: help yourselves. I’ll be out for the next couple of days.
Ken P. wrote:
Ouch! A few months ago, we were studying I Kings ch. 21 in SS when our married couples SS teacher (who also happens to be a deacon) went on a Jezebel rant in class (women are not allowed to speak in that class, btw). He told the men that if you wife is a gossip, she is a Jezebel and you need to put a stop to it! Then it was wives MUST submit to their husbands. If your wife doesn’t submit to you, you have to do whatever you have to do to straighten her out – use your boot if you have to!
……. and so on!
I was so fighting mad that I couldn’t speak to or look at anyone. My green eyes are very expressive – the fiery glow of my Jezebel spirit might have blinded someone if I looked them in the eye ; ^ ).
Dale Earnhardt? Yeah. My car is a straight shift. When we left the church parking lot, I barked tires taking off, then again when I hit second gear, and did 70 mph going home on our hilly, curvy road! My husband never said a single word. I haven’t set foot back in that SS class.
Max wrote:
This is Rachel Stone’s father’s cartoon, a spoof on the Precious Moments, of Jael.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+stone%27s+father%27s+drawing+of+jael&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS500US601&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFw9WJod_OAhVB3WMKHTe2AZMQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=IQVqjOjl-hJYfM%3A
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Indeed, this is the correct way to look at the work of “Jezebel” in the church. It knows no gender. Anything – a person or a movement – which attempts to usurp the authority of Christ, who is Head of His Church, is functioning with illegitimate authority. For example, there is little evidence in the New Calvinist movement that Christ is in control of it.
@ Velour:
Whew!
Nancy2 wrote:
Heck, forget about the “Jezebel Spirit”, we need the “Nancy2 Spirit” to move in and clean house at some of these patriarchies!
Let’s make two lists, shall we?
List # 1 – all of the evil women mentioned in the Bible.
List # 2 – all of the evil men mentioned in the Bible.
Anyone care to make a guess on which list will be longer?
Men could be possessed with the spirit of: Cain, Nimrod, Lot, Korah, Saul, Absolom ………
“Ouch! A few months ago, we were studying I Kings ch. 21 in SS when our married couples SS teacher (who also happens to be a deacon) went on a Jezebel rant in class (women are not allowed to speak in that class, btw). He told the men that if you wife is a gossip, she is a Jezebel and you need to put a stop to it! Then it was wives MUST submit to their husbands. If your wife doesn’t submit to you, you have to do whatever you have to do to straighten her out – use your boot if you have to!
……. and so on!”
Nancy2, I hope either you’re now out of that church or he is. “Use your boot”?!? I seriously doubt I would’ve been able to keep my mouth shut and not cause a blowup. Unless I’m misinterpreting, it sounds like he was advocating domestic violence. What’s next, wife spanking a la McClintock!?
Max wrote:
The day our SS teacher went on that rant, I was wearing high heeled dress boots that zip up to the knee. When he said, “Use your boot if you have to!”, all I could do was stare at my black leather boots and tell myself, “No, girl. He’s not worth ruining a good pair of dress boots over. Don’t do it. Your boots are worth more than he is.”
NJ wrote:
I changed SS classes and went for a couple more months. Then we had this guest speaker ………
After the choir sang, his wife stood before the congregation to do a demonstration of American Sign Language to the words of a hymn. She stood there and stood there, and stood there…..
Then she smiled and said, “I’m sorry. I was waiting for my husband to give me direction. I look to him for direction in all things.” (Oh honey, just put a leash on her and tell her to “HEEL”!)
I couldn’t take any more. Too tempted to do a little sign language demonstration myself. Gotta flee temptation, doncha know.
NJ wrote:
Maybe John Wayne’s “McClintock!” was the predecessor to Farrah Faucett’s “The Burning Bed”.
@ Nancy2:
That is bizarre. She can’t start her presentation without asking her husband for the green light to do a sign language presentation?
No wonder so many sane people are fleeing our churches and that unbelievers scoff.
These Comps have added “heavy burdens” to believers and don’t want to lift a finger to help.
@ Max:
“As a pastor, in their search for significance, they should have found their identity in Christ before they were released on the church. ”
+++++++++++++++
hi, Max. Thanks for engaging.
i have a mental block where christian phrases are concerned. like a croquet mallet in the spokes of bicycle wheel.
can you define ‘find their identity in Christ’ as if you were talking to a martian (who understands english)?
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, Nancy2, with the condition the church is in today, I’ve been tempted to go on a rage and lose my Christianity for a while … ‘then’ tell God was I sorry.
Nancy2 wrote:
Ew ew ew!!!
Also, that was totally staged, right?
Lea wrote:
I’m sure it was. They have visited our church several times. I have been around the couple at fellowship meals, as well as more private situations at the home of mutual friends. The behavior in private does not support the public statement.
@ Nancy2:
“…wives MUST submit to their husbands. If your wife doesn’t submit to you, you have to do whatever you have to do to straighten her out – use your boot if you have to!”
++++++++++++++++++
holy smokes…. this sounds threatening enough, & coming from a person of influence, to get the police involved.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, did you actually read the article, instead of reacting to the title? I’ve read it, and it’s a good article.
elastigirl wrote:
And what these pastor/elders are doing is ordering the commission of criminal acts.
They can be arrested and prosecuted for Criminal Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting,
Accessory After The Fact (if it’s already occurred and they cover it up), and a variety of other crimes.
In my opinion, there is no difference between these “clergy’s” (cough) criminal orders and that of a criminal gang issuing same.
Darcyjo wrote:
Darcyjo,
I am trying to recall some of your posts on threads months ago.
Are you the person who has gone to seminary? (Are you the one that posted about
psychological testing of applicants? And it was good that Josh Harris was getting
a real seminary education in Canada?) I’m sorry if I have you confused with someone else.
I’m just trying to recall the author of those very good posts and I thought it might be you.
elastigirl wrote:
The best way I can approach that is to provide some Scripture:
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
“For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3)
“Put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24)
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27)
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Thus, regarding our “identity in Christ”, if Christians are going to carry His name, we need to do our best to look like Him. Just as we have a physical identity in flesh and blood, Christians have a spiritual identity. As we exercise our faith, spirit should rule our flesh. Many of the topics we discuss on TWW are examples of flesh ruling over the spirit in church, such as my-way-or-the-highway authoritarian church leadership and the subordinate treatment of women believers via complementarian teaching. Such behavior does not resemble Christ.
NJ wrote:
That anything like “WOMAN! DO AS I SAY OR I BEAT YOU!”?
Or like that Imam cited in one of these threads “Control your Wife by Beating her”?
Search either this blog or Spiritual Sounding Board for “Christian Domestic Discipline”, i.e. “PAPA SPANK! GOD SAITH!”
Max wrote:
I could get behind that.
Use the Precious Moments Parody Jael for the graphic.
Lea wrote:
You haven’t run into Spiritual Warfare Ministries, have you?
“DEMONS! DEMONS! DEEEEMONS! SHEEKA-BOOM-BAH! BAM!”
Nancy2 wrote:
So does mine.
All the time.
Fun, isn’t it?
“What a Long, Strange Trip it’s been…”
— The Grateful Dead
Velour wrote:
“YABBA DABBA DOO!”
People used to talk about Jezebel spirits during my Maranatha days, back during the 1980’s. It sounds like it has only gotten worse since then. It seems to me if people were trying to make Christians look bad they could hardly do a better job than these Christians are already doing.
Any idea why these organizations are beating the “women must submit” drum so loudly?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know. I read a lot of Frank Peretti as a kid.
But Jezebel was so obviously just a regular person who did a bad thing in the bible (which is not exactly uncommon, so I don’t know why that should apply to all women always but such is pseudo biblical patriarchal nonsense I guess), that I just never realized people were meaning it that way.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
ROFL.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Exactly.
Robert wrote:
It’s all part of the complete Authoritarian package that the NeoCalvinists are espousing.
Robert wrote:
Any person – male or female – who has met Christ has been set free, and is free indeed! Religious entities which have an unbalanced view of freedom in Christ for ALL believers, such as New Calvinism, must beat their drums loudly in an attempt to drown out the voice of the Holy Spirit. For a female trapped in that sort of bondage, it becomes a test to determine which voice she will yield to. Her destiny in church depends on which sound she follows – the loud percussion of aberrant religion or the small still voice of relationship with Christ.
When you noted how Kassian had to keep repeating how gifted a teacher she was it reminded me of Pastor Wade’s last sermon on desires and greed (specifically the part where he mentioned that when we find satisfaction in Christ and realize we are the apple of Our Father’s eye, all other desires subside.)
Now let’s take a look at the crowd that surrounds Kassian. Do you think she knows she is the apple of God’s eye? In a word, not a chance. The people she surrounds herself with tout the belief that women are deceitful, incompetent and constantly to blame for every mistake a man makes. As a wife, she must daily evaluate her behavior to make sure it doesn’t contradict anything the men around her say to keep male egos happy. That is why she gets to be an expert. Not because of knowledge, effort, study or spiritual gifting, but because she has been trained to readily accept the theories of the men around her. The more “facts” she reports that are in line with their way of thinking, the better her status improves. The more she attacks and shames other women, the more she is hailed as a truly “Godly” woman.
I honestly think things would be very different if Kassian lived with a husband who told her that God loved her and if she attended a church where “feminine defects” and “evils” were not the topic of every single sermon.
For example;
Pastor: “God created you with a weaker mind, weaker body and with innate abilities to deceive and mislead God-fearing men. In addition, you reading out loud from the Bible or coming into a Bible study class and saying “You know, I was thinking about what Jeremiah said and I thought…” is a way to lead the entire Church congregation into hell. By the way, Jesus loves you.
Would you believe that He loves you? Would you be at peace and exhibit the qualities of one who follows the Way?
No. You most certainly wouldn’t.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
At least tangents only touch the perimeter at one point! They don’t get sucked in to the center of a muti-point Piper TULIP circle.
Max wrote:
I would wear one of those t-shirts to the Jezebel SS class!
I just had a revelation. Paul wrote to Timothy that the older women are to teach the younger women. If Mary Ka$$ian isn’t banning “Christian” women that are older than her from her speaking engagements as well as from reading her work, is she a fornicator? Gasp, a homosexual fornicator!!!
What a Jezebel! ; ^ )
I guess my real question is why is this movement so misogynist?
My experience with “Jezebel spirit” beliefs is as part of a group that emphasized heavily spiritual warfare and word of faith. From what I saw new female members tended to get “delivered” from one of these things almost as a matter of course. I don’t remember hearing about it during the last years of my involvement. Maybe the fad had worn off. It sounds like as screwy as the whole thing was back then it is a lot nastier now.
“From what I saw new female members tended to get “delivered” from one of these things almost as a matter of course.”
Did they tend to be young, pretty female members?
“It seems to me if people were trying to make Christians look bad they could hardly do a better job than these Christians are already doing.”
One only has to check out Stuff Christian Culture Likes or Stuff Fundies Like.
Then she smiled and said, “I’m sorry. I was waiting for my husband to give me direction. I look to him for direction in all things.” (Oh honey, just put a leash on her and tell her to “HEEL”!)
*barf* (ok, not really) What was that Jesus said about not putting on displays of righteousness before men?
I couldn’t take any more. Too tempted to do a little sign language demonstration myself. Gotta flee temptation, doncha know.
LOL…
“The behavior in private does not support the public statement.”
Meaning they live like normal couples in private, or she Wears The Pants. That ridiculous performance you described though, sounds like something from Planet Gothard.
@ Darcyjo:
Yep, I read it, and most of it was awful.
He’s justifying why pastors cannot and should not take phone calls.
I’m fine with having boundaries (which he mentioned), but even he admitted that some of his (and other pastors) not wanting to take calls is based on pure laziness.
Pastors are looking for more and more excuses to not do what they’re hired for. All they want to do is sit in their air conditioned offices, write blog posts, and sip coffee.
Sam wrote:
The male complementarians who support her must think she is a human version of a parrot (she repeats everything they say or think).
It’s sad that due to sexism and suspicion of women that complementarians discourage original thinking in women. You can’t get their approval or get a platform with them unless you parrot all their beliefs about women.
Sam wrote:
About that. I was taught this sort of stuff by my mother and in some of the Christian books and magazines she would bring home or mail order (most of it had a complementarian flavor).
I did feel conflicted. My mother would tell me that Jesus loved me, but all the complementarian beliefs about women made me feel like he did not. Of course, none of this matters to complementarians, because they (like many other Christians) do not think feelings are important.
Robert wrote:
Good Question. I suspect the main reason is a backlash against this perceived ‘liberal’ stance in some churches on women that began in the 70’s ish…Is it protectionism? Maybe.
I suspect the blurring of political and Christian lines hasn’t helped. But they are obviously going WAY beyond reasonable here, and on that I do not know. I find it impossible to think like these men. I do not think in authoritarian lines. I do not relate to people as subjects or masters. I do not see any of that in the bible.
NJ wrote:
This was Maranatha, so everybody was young. What I recall is the “older” women, meaning mid-twenties all the way up to mid-thirties, usually of the self-proclaimed “prophetess” variety, would discern a Jezebel spirit on one of the new female members and pray for their deliverance from it. Such “discernment” would happen a lot. One time someone discerned I was under a curse of illegitimacy, despite my insisting that I was quite provably not illegitimate.
Looking back on it all it’s like we were all in some strange role-playing game.
Nancy2 wrote:
Quick as a whip, Nancy2. Your bark is just as BAD as your bite!
Robert wrote:
I think the men who founded have psychological issues. I also think that they have a lust to control others, and they found an affinity with Calvin, who acted much the same way, but then they took it even farther. The Calvinista’s absurd focus on complementarianism over Christ and other areas of theology is a testament to their values. It’s not about God; it’s about appeasing their own desires.
Robert wrote:
I came to Christ in a charismatic ministry, and had friends who were in similar movements. They judged everyone all the time on how spiritual they were, but often they had no evidence beyond wanting to feel more important than everyone else. Some of the things people said was just nuts. I didn’t stay in that movement for long.
It goes back to pride, once again. All of these movements are not centered around Christ.
Daisy wrote:
What a crazy title! Is it even true that “most pastors” don’t answer calls?
I have absolutely no trouble reaching clergy. None. Zero. They are the most reliable people I know.
The article was written by somebody who is clearly in the wrong line of work. Here are some attitudes I have not detected in my Bible:
– “Answering a phone call is reactive. It’s talking on your schedule, not mine.” (Yup, very Jesus-like.)
– “Sometimes we look at the name on an incoming call and just say ‘no’. Because we have personal lives that must be guarded.” (Please tell that to the woman with the issue of blood.)
– “I prefer texts, direct messages and emails to phone calls. Especially for an initial contact.” (Uh, how are people supposed to know that, Padre?)
– “All legitimate calls deserve a response. Either from us, or a surrogate.” (Pastors have surrogates now?)
– “Let’s face it, some people are a drain on resources.” (Please reread the story that includes the verse, “Jesus wept.”)
Friend wrote:
This just sounds like somebody who has been reading business school productivity books.
A pastor is absolutely going to have to react to some things, though. So are people in business.
Friend wrote:
I think that would be super awkward for some types of initial contacts! I would not text someone I didn’t know probably. Email, sure. But I wouldn’t put anything sensitive in email to a stranger.
Friend wrote:
For the love of God and all that is Holy. That is too sad for words.
Robert wrote:
I came out of a charismatic church. What you’re describing sounds like establishing a pecking order. I don’t remember the “Jezebel” spirit being used in my church, but older women frequently had “burdens” (often of an attitude nature) for younger women that they felt was their duty to minister to.
This stuff is so nuts. In the SBC of my childhood when the preacher couldn’t reach our country church or we didn’t have one any of the men would preach and any of the ladies might instead “bring a brief devotional” aka preach.
Even once when I visited a church with the moniker Sovereign Grace (not to be confused with the modern group)Landmark Fundamental Baptist Church (KJVO) the adult SS was taught (mixed gender class) by a woman.
This stuff is NOT a return to the 50’s. It IS a new Gnosticism.
Said with not an ounce of sweetness and a ton of bitterness.
linda wrote:
Same here. I’m still in a rural SBC church, and for the last several years, I’ve been watching our SBC churches mutate before my very eyes!
Robert, yikes! Sounds like a roleplaying game alright.
I was thinking a bit more on the concept of the ‘jezebel spirit’. I think this may actually be found in Revelation 2:20-25 which is part of Christ’s message to the church of Thyatira. Apparently there was a second historical Jezebel who fancied herself a prophetess, and spread false teaching that included drawing some of the Christians there into immoral practices, and God was about to bring judgement. The church’s tolerance of false teaching from her, instead of discernment and discipline, was affecting their witness. I think in order for someone to deserve such a moniker, they would have to be spreading false doctrine, encouraging immoral behavior, drawing people in churches away from Jesus with their made up religion, and refusing to repent. The first Jezebel was the same way, too.
Nancy2 wrote:
Wow, NANCY TWO, you go girl,
and people think that women shouldn’t be in combat
linda wrote:
Ahhhh, yes the good ole days when church was church! I have fond memories of an SBC life that is slipping away. “Testimony time” was a special fellowship where believers (male & female) were encouraged to “share what is on your heart.” Reminds me of a Scripture:
“So here’s what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight.” (1 Corinthians 14:26)
NJ wrote:
They behave like “normal” people, tit for tat. You know, that “false gospel” that Russell Moore complains about.
If preacher man and his little lady don’t practice what he preaches, why should the rest of us practice what he preaches?
Daisy wrote:
This, and what others said below. It’s SO straight out of the how-to-manage-your-life self-help books for business people. But pastors aren’t business people. They are paid to *care* for people. (Most of us just get to do it for free…)
It’s like having a product support person at a software company not answering the phone because it is reactive, not really in line with the time they want to spend learning about the software product, or coming in after hours when a bug brings the product down. That product support person would get fired.
If a person wants to BE a pastor and include that descriptor before his/her name, then do the job. I can understand boundaries and that they even vary by the person, but there is a difference between setting boundaries so you CAN do your job vs. setting boundaries in opposition to your job. You might set a boundary on a perpetual time-sinker, so you have time left for others. But to ignore the time-sink…that’s not part of the job.
And to touch on the most ridiculous of the points–the pastor’s preferred first-access method–and not to reduce the ridiculousness of it–if there is a reason for that preference, then put it in the ad or whatever it is that you have out there so people KNOW how to get in touch. “I’m hard of hearing, so text or email works better for me than the phone. However, if you are in a place where you can yell a little, go ahead and call.” Or, “I have dyslexia, so it is easier for me to talk on the phone, especially initially. However, if you text/email, I will certainly respond–just don’t hold me accountable for my spelling.” THAT would work.
That article astonished me.
@ Nancy2:
Fishing is a fine Sunday morning activity. My is better at it than I am. So are her friends.
It sounds like this church really burns you. If you don’t mind me asking, what does your husband get out of it? Comradery? My wife has a
“Take the good & leave the rest” philosophy. This isn’t something I can do. I can’t hang out with folks who judge me inferior because I don’t share the same belief. Much less take moral instructions from them.
Jack wrote:
Ugh
Phone phingers.
My wife is better at it…
PaJo wrote:
Thank you! Yes. This is fine to an extent if you work in an office, but if you have what are essentially patients it is a problem to try to stay away from them.
I think some of this gets to the heart of what a pastor is actually supposed to be.
Christiane wrote:
My husband is retired military. 24 years: 15 years in Special Forces (Green Beret). Now, he’s a part-time Baptist preacher.
He doesn’t push me or preach at me. He knows how mean and vindictive a good ole country girl can get. He also knows I’m right. I’ve heard him say that he believes a woman should be allowed to do anything a man can do —except preach. (uhm, somebody define preach, please. He’s a bit fuzzy on that!)
NJ wrote:
The irony of women who claimed to be prophetesses and detecting Jezebel spirits everywhere wasn’t lost on me, I assure you.
I think BeenThereDoneThat had part of it by suggesting it was to establish a pecking order. Since Maranatha practiced shepherding at that time the pecking order was very important. It was probably also a way to deal with women who were not sufficiently supportive of the organization’s teachings or practices.
I was once accused of accepting an accusation against the fellowship for the offense of not being sufficiently enthusiastic when meeting someone by chance. Looking back on that incident I can see all sorts of red flags there.
Jack wrote:
As a male, he is a full-fledged church member. He can participate in all discussions and activities, and attend ALL of the meetings. The marginalization of women in our church doesn’t register with him. In short, I think he has tunnel vision.
PS- we transferred to this church in Dec. 2013.
@ PaJo:
I agree with your take on that article, it’s how it came across to me.
I am very understanding of a pastor (or anyone) wanting to have healthy boundaries. I can see how one or two troubled people can be too taxing on a pastor, so you might have to be frank with such a person and tell them you are limiting your time with them to only an hour or two or what have you per week-
But a lot of the page read like one big rationalization of why he cannot be bothered being there for people when they really need him.
He sort of backpedaled towards the end. He tried to soften his comments prior to that by saying he does think preachers should be there for folks, but that is NOT how like 85% or more of his page came across, IMO.
Nancy2 wrote:
My perception of you is not that you are ‘mean and vindictive’ so much as that you are STRONG. It’s a GOOD strength you have, not one that tends towards ill-will. You just live right at that ‘juncture’ where one era for women is ending and another is beginning, and your heart is in the next era; and when you say ” He also knows I’m right”, you indicate that your husband realizes that there is something in the human spirit that goes beyond physical limitations.
How many of our soldiers have been wounded in combat and still fought on to save their fellow soldiers, maybe even carrying another wounded buddy out of harm’s way? How does this happen unless the SPIRIT of the young man empowers him to keep moving, even though his own wounds are disabling?
I think people are beginning to understand that what makes us STRONG lies more in our character and our spirit, and I wish there were a lot more ‘good ole country girl(s)’ in the Church right now to combat the abuses.
People in the SBC have been raising money off the reputation of a woman who had the courage to give her own food away to save the people she cared for who were starving to death. If that is not ‘preaching’, I’d like to know what ‘preaching’ is? Her LIFE, her death resonate with people who want to continue the great tradition of the missions with donations, even when it is difficult to give money. I’m over this business of dissing ‘Preach the gospel; when necessary use words’. Time people woke up to the fact that everything Our Lord DID and WENT THROUGH and ENDURED speaks to us still by His own example.
I believe Lottie Moon, of blessed memory, preaches the Gospel still.
Sorry for rant, but I feel better!
🙂 Proud of you, NANCY TWO.
Sam wrote:
This is an excellent point. The thing is, as a woman, you get indoctrinated into this stuff little by little, at face value the Bible appears to say so, and you get into a mindset, maybe, of feeling you need to prove your devotion to God, prove that you are sincere and obedient to the faith. I don’t know. I just know that when I watched Pete Briscoe’s sermon on how they had studied the scriptures and come to the conclusion that women are not forbidden from ministry, I sat here and cried. And I had rejected all of that years ago! but it just brought back all of the hurt from years of feeling “lesser than” coming from my Christian brethren, it made me realize how deep that wound really went.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXcAyP33rM
Lydia wrote:
Oh my. This is so funny. It is on the books or was on the books in Owenboro Kentucky a woman must receive permission from her husband before buying a hat….
@ Mark: I think Dottie Patterson would like this law….
Mark wrote:
Just Owensboro. Had to straighten that one out before y’all pass judgement on all of Kentucky!
Please don’t tell Dottie. I don’t want her to move to Kentucky!
Christiane wrote:
Like Popeye said, I yam what I yam. Thanks. There lots of people on TWW to be proud of, including you.
Lottie Moon …. I feel the same way.
Makes me so beyond angry that they force female missionaries to sign what I call submission contracts, and then flaunt Lottie Moon’s bravery, commitment, and sacrifice to raise money to support the men!
Nancy2 wrote:
These ‘men’ shame themselves.
Max wrote:
Oh, Max, it is so strange how different people react to the same thing. Back when-before baptists were calling themselves evangelicals much less calvinists, and I was a kid we used to have testimony time during Wed. night prayer meeting about once a month. My mother thought I ought to leap up and testify every time. I thought I had rather be boiled in oil than do that. She would jab me in the ribs with her elbow and repeat the line from scripture ‘let the redeemed of the Lord say so’. I don’t even know if that is in scripture and I don’t want to know. Anyhow I would stand up and stammer out something and hate myself for being so inept at testifying. Like somebody has said before, extroverts fare better in church, and I am not an extrovert.
Max wrote:
Max, this is great, it’s been a long time since I’ve heart teaching like this and I really appreciate it.
The first spiritually abusive church I went to was a super fundamentalist IFB. After I made my way out of there, it took a long time to process everything and regain my trust in God. I read Miles Stanford’s The Green Letters and it really helped me. One of the things he used to point out is that we become like the one we focus on. He would point out that if the people in a group focus on the leader, they become more like that leader, but when we need as believers focus on Christ, we become more like him. I think so many in the churches today are focused on their leaders, they absorb their attitudes and mannerisms and thought patterns, their values, they even start dressing like them. We need to get our focus back on Christ and find our identity in him.
@ siteseer:
*heard not heart 🙂
No wonder no one takes Evangelicals seriously. Their influence and numbers are dwindling; this is especially evident in the phenomena of young people leaving the faith.
okrapod wrote:
I feel you, Okrapod!
Patristics Scholar Lewis Ayres Weighs in on the Intra-Complementarian Debate
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/
Daisy wrote:
What the designers of this system continue to deny is that abuse is a feature of their system, not a bug. Their system has absolutely nothing to do with Christ, and everything to do with establishing and maintaining their own power.
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for link, DAISY
Jack wrote:
It’s not just young people. It’s people of all ages – including middle aged, senior citizens, married couples, singles, women (the bedrock of so many churches) and conservatives – fed up with NeoCalvinism, Authoritarianism, and Complementarianism and they are heading for the exits of churches. Can we blame them? This isn’t what Jesus had in mind for us to come together.
@ siteseer:
Max wrote: “…regarding our “identity in Christ”, if Christians are going to carry His name, we need to do our best to look like Him. Just as we have a physical identity in flesh and blood, Christians have a spiritual identity…”
siteseer wrote: “… but when we need as believers focus on Christ, we become more like him. … We need to get our focus back on Christ and find our identity in him.”
+++++++++++++++++
thank you Max, for taking the time to thoughtfully reply. I appreciate what you wrote, and what you wrote, siteseer. I do not disagree.
I wonder, though…. when we say “look like Christ” & “focus on Christ”, would that be Christ as in the God-man Jesus, as portrayed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John?
or would that be Christ as ‘channeled’ through Paul (& other NT writers) as he wrote all his descriptions and explanations and instructions and rules?
what are we aiming for here? does it include Paul’s talmudic list of things to do and not do?
I wonder if Jesus’ way of living life didn’t even match up completely with Paul’s have-to’s and must-do’s & methodology. I mean, i don’t think Paul even knew him. (I mean, Paul knew Jesus in the same way as anyone does post-ascension — how crazy this sounds — my agnostic friends & relatives would think i’m nuts if they could read this)
in short, in the past when i’ve heard things like “focus on Christ” or “imitate Christ”, it has seemed to me that the idea was really to “focus on what Paul and all the epistles have to say”. and i think things can get distorted.
like, i think that’s the reason we end up with things like CBMW and headship and the need to bring out ESS and a whole host of other anti-people things and rules-oriented things that are the antithesis of life-giving. and which twist & distort ‘faith’. faith in what? faith in rules, in the book. not in the invisible God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
elastigirl wrote:
This has been an issue for me all through my Christian walk. I tend to stick with the Gospels, with the words of Jesus Christ. I hate to say it, but Paul seems to have come out left field and coopted the whole project, if you will. And I’m not going to say another word, lest I be branded a heretic.
roebuck wrote:
You’re ok by me, Roebuck. I don’t think my former NeoCalvinist/9Marxist church was even aware the four Gospels existed. When they weren’t focused on Paul’s letters they were focused on Genesis. Thus explaining that church’s complete lack of love.
@ roebuck:
heretic schmeretic – who gives a flying fick! if you or i are brandished with that word let’s wear it with some pride and dignity.
at the very least, it means our brains are actually turned on.
elastigirl wrote:
We are followers of Jesus, first and foremost. And lastmost.
Velour wrote:
Something strange happened there in the early days, and I sure as heck don’t understand it. It’s got to be all about Jesus, and his words and wisdom, or it’s about nothing. To give primacy to Paul or the OT is missing the point, as far as I am concerned. The words of Jesus are very clear..
@ roebuck:
The words of Jesus are hard, but very clear.
roebuck wrote:
Amen. I agree entirely.
roebuck wrote:
well, St. Paul never meant to do that because he SERVED Our Lord with all of his strength (and he was a powerhouse of energy). . . I think St. Paul would have a thing or two to say to any neo-Cal who tried to put a spin on his writings that did not reflect reading them ‘in the Light of Christ’. Without Christ as central reference, people WILL wander off course in interpreting inspired Scripture. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit ONLY points towards Christ.
roebuck wrote:
Whether many have said it, many have likely thought or wondered about it. One of the things I like about this place, many things are proposed and discussed, you can get pushback but I don’t see the smothering judgemental “ooh, you shouldn’t be talking about it” that I get in almost any “church” setting I’ve ever been in.
Jack wrote:
oh dear, I do think people in the Body of Christ take evangelical Christians seriously,
but lately SOME of these evangelical Christians have begun to take THEMSELVES far more seriously than they do Our Lord and His teachings and His example,
and this DOES cause concern and IS apparently leading to all sorts of problems within their Churches.
roebuck wrote:
The thing is, Paul would agree! I have a much better appreciation for Paul since I have realized some things about the way he lays out his points. I firmly believe he would tell all these people they’ve gotten it firmly, utterly wrong.
okrapod wrote:
A good book, “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking”. I found it very helpful.
Bill M wrote:
We should never be afraid to talk about issues and ideas. If someone shuts down, that is a sure sign of fear. Fear of being wrong. Fear of other people not agreeing. Fear of uncertainty. Fear, fear, fear. Fearmongers trade in other people’s fear.
On the Paul vs. Jesus question, I hear that, and I would not say to Roebuck or anyone else not to think that Paul “came out of left field.” Because the way Paul’s teaching has been presented makes that a logical conclusion. It is difficult to systematize Jesus’ words. Paul is easier. Not to say that Paul should be systematized or is systematized correctly, but just that it is easier.
Here’s what I would say: Paul must be saying things that are consistent with what Jesus said and did if he is truly an apostle of Jesus Christ and if the words of the Bible are intended to convey truth. I think that is independent of a particular view of the nature of the Biblical texts, but I may be missing something. If Paul appears to be contradicting Jesus or even Paul himself at another point, then something has not been understood correctly about what Jesus was saying or what Paul was saying.
The founder of a company may have a very different function and approach than subsequent top management for a variety of reasons. The nature of the enterprise changes. External factors change. Internal factors change. To keep an enterprise viable requires adaptation. Stable is not the same thing as static.
I think it is a mistake to insist that Paul and Jesus say exactly the same things about everything that the other said. There are applications which arise as circumstances change. Jesus spoke primarily to the Jewish people. Paul functioned as an apostle carrying Jesus’ vision to the Gentiles in addition to the Jewish people. I would be surprised if there were not differences. But what are the nature of those differences? Can we find a way to reasonably reconcile apparent differences?
I believe in the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. If Roebuck or anyone else is a believer, then Roebuck and all the other people whose views are different from mine have access to the same indwelling Holy Spirit. I don’t feel called or qualified to do the work of the Holy Spirit. I think the Christian walk is a journey with a sure destination. That doesn’t mean everyone follows the same route or stops at the same places on the way or goes at the same speed or via the same means. We can each recommend alternate routes and places to stop and rest or enjoy the vistas along the way without insisting that everyone else follow our itinerary.
I guess that makes me a conservative liberal. Or something.
Bill M wrote:
I’m an introvert, and I joyfully submit and yield all extrovert functions to Gramp3. INFP loves and respects her ESTJ. We are—complementary.
@ Gram3:
This book has rocked my world. Would that I had read it years ago. For the sake of myself and my husband and my offspring.
May I come to the defense of St. Paul?
I think that the modern church and men (primarily) who seek their own ends have misappropriated the letters of St. Paul. When you look at St. Paul within the context of his times, his writings were completely out of the context of his time–as re: women, slaves, the religious elite, the privileged citizen…he was NOT what has been presented in the modern American “church” of power, ownership, privilege. His message was of freedom, liberation, equality and goal: that of Christ=likeness. The distortions are of modernity, not of Christianity.
The Gospels are primary and if that is where you stay, that is OK!!!! But St. Paul taught in a specific time, and his commentary is relevant in that time. AS IS OURS. But we must not confuse the comment of our time with the everlasting Truth. For that, lean HARD into the Gospels. And sincerely wrestle with what Christ says…which is not always plain or to our liking or understanding.
To be continued. (The barbeque calls.)
Mary Kassian + Distinguished Professor/Expert on Feminism…..
Doesn’t that equal a LIE? Ummm, last time I checked my Bible, liars weren’t inheriting the Kingdom of God.
All I can say is that there must be some big money being made here by those desiring celebrity status, and not by those truly desiring God/our LORD.
I too wish to come to the defense of both Paul and the other authors of Acts and the Epistles.
Part 1
Now, admittedly I like Paul. He gives reasons and arguments and I like that. But I am about to say some things in defense of the whole NT writings, including but not limited to Paul. I do not adhere to the concept of ‘only the recorded words of Jesus’.
For one thing, we have to note that Paul lived and taught and evangelized during the time when those apostles were still alive and active who had actually studied under Jesus (the 12) and the larger number including the 70 and who knows how many were still alive at the time. And we note that there were some little dust ups between the church leadership in Jerusalem recorded in the NT like the issue of eating with the gentiles. In my thinking we cannot just dismiss Paul and the other alleged writers of the epistles without asking ourselves how come some of the 12 did not take issue with him/them over some of the things which modern man may find difficult to deal with? Was it therefore the decision and testimony of the apostles to agree with Paul? We do have evidence that this was in fact the case in some things. If so, did the apostles base that agreement on what they had heard from Jesus himself?
Is that to our advantage? Is that what God intends us to understand? If we eliminate Paul we have to say, for example on the issue of divorce, that all Jesus himself actually said that is recorded is adultery only and no remarriage even then. To get around that we have to go back to the OT and say that Jesus was talking in context with the Law as they practiced it, and then we have said we will go back to the OT since Jesus did not condemn Moses but only limited people’s understanding of Moses. Which means, there is no ‘words of Jesus only’ when it comes to that issue in christian thinking, it would be Jesus + Moses or else Jesus + Paul or else Jesus + Moses + Paul if we limit our thinking to scripture. Or else, it is adultery only and no remarriage even then, which is of course the conclusion that some believe. This would land us smack into the denial of the importance of context or culture in understanding the words of Jesus, having eliminated both the OT and the rest of the NT. That is hyper fundamentalism writ large.
Not to forget that it is Paul who championed the idea that gentiles do not have to convert to Judaism; think circumcision and putting oneself under the whole Law, and the evidence that Peter and the other guys in Jerusalem went along with that, noting Peter’s vision and Cornelius. We have no recorded words of Jesus in the gospels to that effect. We do have the testimony of the acquiescence of the other apostles in that the Pauline argument won out later against the Judaizers concerning circumcision. I do not see recorded words of Jesus about the circumcision issue for the gentiles. As you can tell, I think that limiting scripture to ‘only the recorded words of Jesus’ is not the way to go. If we do that we essentially eliminate the teachings of the apostles and potentially place ourself under the OT Law, as understood and practiced by Jesus.
Part 2
I have still not got/gotten into the issue of what do we do in areas where jesus has said nothing that is recorded. Look at what we have. Some people say that the individual inner witness of the Holy Spirit is sufficient, but I have yet to hear a good idea as to why, then, we all seem to disagree so much about so much and so much of the time. If we say forget everything in the NT except only the words of Jesus perhaps one of the reasons we cannot agree on which way the Spirit is leading may be that whenever the Spirit tries to talk to us about something that is recorded in parts of scripture that we dislike we mostly just tell the Spirit to go away and talk to somebody else? That could be one possible problem. Or perhaps we have become so impressed with our own ability to hear the Spirit that we negate the idea that the Spirit may talk not just to individuals but also to the corporate body of believers, the church, and therefore possibly, just possibly, the corporate decision as to what constitutes the canon may have been correct in the first place.
And no, that opinion concerning the validity of the witness of the apostles cannot be dismissed merely because recognition of the witness of the apostles has been the practice of the church for centuries upon centuries including during which time the church got into some bad stuff politically and financially. The apostles were earlier than that, and they did not do that.
@ okrapod:
I think Paul was like a counselor going in to talk to a couple with specific problems. His advice to the alcoholic is going to be different from his advice to a normal couple. Or one with completely different problems. That doesn’t mean it’s bad advice, it’s just specific. We can read it and look at general principles and see what we take from it that applies to our lives and our church.
siteseer wrote:
Yes, indeed! As I noted in an earlier comment (can’t remember if it was on this thread), an organization will eventually take on the personality of its leadership. I’ve seen this play out in businesses, homes and churches. We are all focusing on something or someone. If our focus is not on Christ, we will find our identity in something else. Many YRR pastors are simply parroting what their idols are saying and transfer this to their church members, who become parrots themselves. When we devote our time to prayer and study of Scripture, particularly the words written in red, we are transformed (rather than reformed!).
siteseer wrote:
In the absence of Truth, error rules.
elastigirl wrote:
The God-man Jesus … the Living Christ … The Lamb of God … Jesus, whose name is above all names!! I think the reason the young reformers have slipped into error, is that they devote too much time to reading what other men think Paul is saying, rather than reading what Jesus has to say! It’s as if the only Bible they have are the Pauline epistles! I counsel YRRs in my area, when I get an opportunity, this way: If you read Paul first (his epistles), you might read Jesus wrong. But if you read Jesus first (the gospels), the writings of Paul come into perspective. I then advise them to shut out the noise of New Calvinist leaders for a season and prayerfully read the Word themselves, asking the Holy Spirit to lead them into Truth. Some have accepted my advice and found new freedom in Christ; others mock this old man and return to chasing their idols.
roebuck wrote:
I know a young man who became addicted to drugs. He was confined in a treatment center for several months. He picked up the Gideon Bible in his room and read it, desperately searching for hope. Now drug free for several years, he says “I read the red and prayed for power.” Perhaps most of us are just not desperate enough to read the Bible that way.
We should read the whole of Scripture, but never neglect a careful and prayerful study of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). As we look at other books of the Bible through that lens, we will see a scarlet thread woven through the whole fabric of Scripture in types and symbols of Christ.
Velour wrote:
Heck! They don’t even talk about Jesus much! “God” and Piper get more air time than Jesus.
Christiane wrote:
AMEN! I suspect that Paul will have that talk with New Calvinist leaders some day.
PaJo wrote:
AMEN! New Calvinists have distorted Paul’s words to make them fit the tenets of reformed theology. Jesus, Himself, warned us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. The sorry state of the organized church at large is a direct result of the church doing just that. Everybody is scrambling to hear what some man is saying, rather than leaning into that still small voice of Christ.
@ Karen:
“Mary Kassian + Distinguished Professor/Expert on Feminism…..”
“Doesn’t that equal a LIE? Ummm, last time I checked my Bible, liars weren’t inheriting the Kingdom of God.
All I can say is that there must be some big money being made here by those desiring celebrity status, and not by those truly desiring God/our LORD.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i’m still stuck on ‘distinguished professor’.
and how the standards at christian institutions must be so low.
or perhaps it’s just the standards for women.
it’s all so insulting.
elastigirl wrote:
It should be obvious by now that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is not an institution of “higher” learning.
Max wrote:
I’m not a Baptist. But I refer to it as Sunk Baptist Theological Seminary because of the tyrant who took over and drove out all of the good, dear, moderate Christian men and women. Decimated lives. Education programs.
Max wrote:
At my ex-church John MacArthur got more air time than Piper.
Max wrote:
Max, I am so glad that you frequently advise us to do that. It gave me great peace the first time you made that comment.
@ Gram3:
INFPs unite!
We used to be told in the SBC to read the OT for signs pointing to Christ. We were not under the OT law as believers and it wasn’t a science book, although it is accurate even there but only for what it actually says, not nutty interpretations. And we read Paul and the rest of the non gospels NT through the lens of Christ, the final arbiter of our faith. (Not some manmade timeless truths being the final arbiter.)
When you do that, you find Jesus all through the OT. And the writings of Paul and Peter, etc, understood that way do not conflict with the red letters, or explain them away. They rather point back to Jesus.
@ Gram3:
“It is difficult to systematize Jesus’ words. Paul is easier. Not to say that Paul should be systematized or is systematized correctly, but just that it is easier.”
+++++++++++++++++++
very true. one of the reasons i trip over the concept of ‘imitating christ’, ‘following christ’, ‘focussing on christ’. but then to imitate, follow, and focus on Paul as Christ’s surrogate results in this
https://www.google.com/search?q=contortionist&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=631&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHmbu6huLOAhVJ-mMKHfwbAZAQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=5cKKdkwH8X_TzM%3A
….but only for the commoners. strangely leaders seem to find loopholes.
—————————–
“Here’s what I would say: Paul must be saying things that are consistent with what Jesus said and did if he is truly an apostle of Jesus Christ and if the words of the Bible are intended to convey truth. I think that is independent of a particular view of the nature of the Biblical texts, but I may be missing something. If Paul appears to be contradicting Jesus or even Paul himself at another point, then something has not been understood correctly about what Jesus was saying or what Paul was saying.”
++++++++++++++++++++
no disagreement here. i think that word ‘truth’ is relevant. ‘truth’ in what sense? (not necessarily a question for you)
—————–
“The founder of a company may have a very different function and approach than subsequent top management for a variety of reasons. The nature of the enterprise changes. External factors change. Internal factors change. To keep an enterprise viable requires adaptation. Stable is not the same thing as static.”
++++++++++++++++++
for this reason, i take Paul’s stuff with that ‘grain of salt’.
———————-
“I think it is a mistake to insist that Paul and Jesus say exactly the same things about everything that the other said. There are applications which arise as circumstances change. Jesus spoke primarily to the Jewish people. Paul functioned as an apostle carrying Jesus’ vision to the Gentiles in addition to the Jewish people. I would be surprised if there were not differences.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
more grains of salt
—————–
thank you, gram3, for your thoughtful response.
@ okrapod:
you make some very good points, okrapod. thank you for taking the time. at the present my conclusion is to hold on loosely, take the general principles from it all.
if i could harness my unscheduled time better i would explore more into historical & cultural context to better understand what the writers and speakers (Jesus) likely meant, and how the original audience would have likely understood.
as far as choices for daily living, i don’t believe i could ever go wrong with treating people the way i would want to be treated, and acknowledging that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is/are. that they, with affection & power, are.
@ Max:
thank you, Max, for your thoughtful reply.
@ PaJo:
thank you, Pajo. no disagreement. i take great issue with making Paul’s jots and tittle a to-do list. if he’s observing all this through some interdimensional window i suspect he’s surprised/appalled at how people have turned his scribblings, some of them surely rushed and composed under duress, into a book of magic. procedures to conjur a result and appease the god for success.
i mean, i bet he’s almost chuckling at how silly people are. how superstitious they can be.
elastigirl wrote:
Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (He said that!). In His earthly ministry, He proclaimed truths about Himself and the Kingdom of God. As Christians, all “knowledge” must be filtered through Jesus, who is Truth. We should not be going to church to get more information, but more Truth. In the beginning was the Word and the Word will endure to the end. It is Truth, and nothing but Truth.
I’m reminded of Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus in John 18:
“So you are a king, are you?” returned Pilate. “Indeed I am a king,” Jesus replied; “the reason for my birth and the reason for my coming into the world is to witness to the truth. Every man who loves truth recognizes my voice. To which Pilate retorted, “What is ‘truth’?””
Scripture does not record that Jesus answered that question. He didn’t need to. He had just spent three years on earth preaching and demonstrating Truth. If Pilate didn’t see that, he wouldn’t understand any response Jesus would offer.
Spiritual Truth cannot be explained, it must be experienced. Here’s how I see it: Truth (the Word) + Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) = Revealed Truth. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Only a spiritual man can understand the things of God:
“But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters]” (1 Cor 2:14 AMP).
Gram3 wrote:
I try to keep people guessing. I found Roebuck’s point useful to bring up as a discussion point. I don’t toss out Paul but try understand what he says via the character and values of Jesus as revealed in the gospels. If something from Paul seems at odds, I don’t take it at face value but set it aside for further study.
I wish other disciples had written more. As it is Paul was so prolific compared to others that some have mistakenly given Paul too much of the credit for establishing the early church and some hold up Paul as our example more than Christ himself. It is what it is, likely my issue is with how Paul’s writings are used and not with Paul. Paul needs to be put in his proper place and he would likely be horrified by how some have carved out part of his writing and used it to bolster some pretty crummy teaching.
@ okrapod:
I cannot imagine what it must have been like to encourage new Gentile and Jewish believers in how to come together and do this new relationship centered around the risen savior. There were no rules. No polity. Nada. And people tend to like structure. Is one reason why we don’t see cookie-cutter counsel In each letter.
okrapod wrote:
you’ve struck gold here 🙂
@ Max:
I was listening to NT Wright earlier. He was asked some of the questions asked here about the place of scripture. He said that Jesus told his followers that all authority was given to Him. He did not say it would be the scriptures.
And he is a NT scholar who talks about the scriptures all the time. :o)
@ okrapod:
I remember a lady at church when I was a kid who used to say only that: Let the redeemed of the Lord say so. In her mind it wasn’t just talking about words but living. That was her testimony!
@ Mark:
That explains it. Owensboro is practically Indiana. (Hee Hee)
Lydia wrote:
He does, but I quit reading his stuff after about six months of digging into some of his thinking. I think he sometimes makes it up as he goes along. That used to bother me but in my researching into the whole anglican thing I have become increasingly comfortable with the reality that they are just all over the place in their thinking and apparently are more or less happy with that. I read on one catholic website that the C of E at its inception was not about doctrine like Luther and Calvin and such but rather was about holding things together in a time of political turmoil. And then I read on an episcopal website that the idea was not to build a community of people who agree on doctrine but rather to build a community on people who visualize God the same way and who see discipleship in the same way. But if anybody asked me exactly what that ‘alike way’ was I could not say.
That explains Bishop Spong I suppose, and while Wright is certainly not that far out he does venture a tad far from time to time.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, it’s increasingly clear that Jesus has almost no authority in the modern church! As NT Wright has noted, Christ was given all authority in heaven and in earth. Yet, in many gospel churches, He is little more than a symbol. He is not called upon nor consulted in the decision-making of the church. He has become a deposed King in His Kingdom. Man is on the throne, not Jesus. Only the remnant church still recognizes that Jesus has ultimate authority; the organized church has lost this thought entirely. So man sets up shop and does church without God and the authority of Christ to govern it. Yes, the Scriptures are important … but so is the Living Christ!! We can certainly read the Scripture for insight into what Jesus has said, but should never neglect seeking Him afresh to hear what He is saying now.
@ okrapod:
I agree about CofE. It makes them interesting, though. I think Wright was an ancients scholar before the theology and that colors a lot of it. While I certainly don’t agree with many of his stances (like church and state or sacraments, etc) I think he has an interesting grasp of ancient history that informs interpretation. When you find someone who gets it all correct, let me know. For me, it is about different angles. I have been inundated (my choice to study it) with determinism. Been there, done that. Ad nauseum.
I have also been listening to Krugar who is extremely interesting. But I am having a hard time seeing how he and Paul Young are NOT universalists as they insist they aren’t. Yet, in the same sentence, Paul Young shames people for not wanting to see everyone in the hereafter. As if we should all be universalists if we love people. A non sequitur at its worst.
So, I glean from them all bits and pieces because different views and aspects of theology interest me. Some listen to the radio, instead. :o)
@ okrapod:
There is an accompanist for one of my daughters secular choirs who quotes Spong all the time. Oy vey.
@ Max:
Because the peasants can’t know Christ without a human mediator.
@ Velour:
I suppose it’s possible that Yelp employees discovered that you were encouraging us, your supporters, to up-vote your review. Possible… although that is mere speculation on my part.
Debi Calvet wrote:
That’s not the case with my ex-church. Every single negative review, from me or other former church members in the last two years, has been removed. Even reviews that didn’t have other votes.
This is about the fourth review of mine that has been taken down. All a bit different.
The others had no votes or a couple of votes. My Google review had no votes.
Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley has had a pattern and practice of siliencing critics because the truth of what the pastors/elders do to upstanding Christians – men and women, young, middle-aged, and senior citizens, is horrific.
Nancy2 wrote:
Wow, just, WOW! That is just horrible. That “teacher” is despicable. Pretty sad that no men in that room had the, um, orbs to stand up to him.
Debi Calvet wrote:
I did tweet the situation to the CEO’s of Google and YELP. Very abusive ex-church and people need a fair warning/reviews. Buyer beware.
Most recently my ex-pastors got my Amazon reviewing privileges revoked. I wrote the CEO of Amazon about Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley and the litany of abuses that the pastors/elders have unleashed on dear men and women, for any critical thinking skills,
including the excommunication and shunning of a godly doctor in his 70’s on some trumped up chart. The CEO of Amazon restored my product reviewing privileges, since I’ve been a loyal customer for decades, bought lots from them, and had done nothing wrong.
^typo: “some trumped up charge.”
@ Darcyjo:
Hmmm, I read the whole article, and I didn’t think it was good. It had a few points that one might consider somewhat reasonable, but the overall tone seemed self-serving and arrogant to me, even the humbling-myself part at the end.
Nancy2 wrote:
He probably knew better.
@ Debi Calvet:
I read the article today and agree with you Debi.
@ Gram3:
Gram3, your wisdom almost brings me to tears at times. I thank God for you.
@ PaJo:
More wisdom! Thank you.
@ Max:
And yet more wisdom. I thank God for ministering to me through your words.
Deb wrote:
Same here.
Where’s the follow up article, “9 reasons why most church members don’t tithe”.
1). The church pastor is too holy to take personal calls.
@ Velour:
I probably should have said that Yelp employees “discovered (etc.)” after the church complained. I didn’t mean that they discovered it on their own. That simply wouldn’t be feasible or productive. *Still*, mere (and unimportant) speculation by me…
@ okrapod:
I really enjoyed what you wrote in parts 1 and 2—so well thought-out! Thank you. 🙂
Debi Calvet wrote:
No, that’s not the issue. The ex-pastor is a pathological liar. He lies about all ex-members and his yes-men elders follow along. Despicable of them all.
They want to control the narrative. That is what this is about. No negative reviews on Amazon, social media, review websites.
elastigirl wrote:
Yes 1000+++
Bill M wrote:
Exactly. And Roebuck got me thinking about that. From my childhood I was taught that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that some have made Paul and apostle of what they think Paul said. And it sounds like Roebuck has run into a lot of those people. They could learn a lot from Roebuck’s perspective, but they are not likely to want to hear it.
elastigirl wrote:
🙂
elastigirl wrote:
I think the grain of salt should be Jesus’ words and example. His specific applications of Jesus’ principles have been universalized and that makes his instructions not fit another specific situation. Paul said to test what he was saying, and I think that applies doubly to what others say he is saying.
@ Debi Calvet:
Thank you. I hope you sift it, though. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
I think it simply means that you are not confined to a box whose dimensions are strictly limited by a grid of measured data points. One which others can repeat and come up with the same dimensions.
Lydia wrote:
The topic of universalism is fascinating, and often misunderstood. I came into this with a disdain for it, but never put much thought into why I thought it was so heretical. I’m not sure where I land on this right now, but here are a few thoughts I’ve worked through (am am still working through).
– Calvinism and universalism are two sides of the same coin. Both assume that atonement equals salvation. The Calvinists looks at passages in the Bible indicating not all are saved, so they conclude limited atonement must be true. The universalists look at the passages indicating the atonement was for all, so they conclude all are saved. Both assume that people are saved against their will. I don’t believe either position is correct. There are other viable options. The real question is whether or not it’s possible that Christ could have died for all in a way the preserves free choice for all.
– I learned about a year ago that the Eastern Orthodox believe that heaven and hell are not locations, but more like states of being. They believe that the atonement applies to all mankind in the sense that all are actually raised to everlasting life. But our experience of God’s love will depend on what we believe about him. One analogy I found from an EO priest is running with or against the wind. When one runs against the wind it feels like the wind is against you (wrath), but when one turns around (repents) it feels like the wind is for you (love). It’s not the wind that changed, it’s the runner who changed. The two brothers in the story of the prodigal is a great example of this. The younger brother repented and joined the party, the older brother hated his father for being so gracious and refused to enter the party. That father had given everything he had to both sons and the party was for both, but only one was able to experience the love of his father for what it was. The other was too bitter and hard-hearted and ended up despising his father. I found that a very interesting perspective, and it seems to be what Kruger and Young teach (I learned about the EO perspective before I learned about Kruger’s perspective).
– I’ve recently started wondering why universalism is so offensive to many Christians. Why would we not hope for the salvation of everyone? The parable of he workers in the vineyard haunts me. The early workers were enraged at the owner’s generosity. Is it possible that we Christians are like those workers? Do we complain against God because he is more generous and gracious than we deem appropriate? Why do we believe that it is bad if everyone is saved. This is the question I am asking myself right now.
Ken F wrote:
I thought all Christians did have that hope because they pray for God’s Will to be done. (well, maybe some no longer pray the Lord’s Prayer, come to think of it)
Christiane wrote:
But the new-Calvinists claim that God’s glory is magnified by him choosing to send many to everlasting torment. They claim that if God only sent people to heaven it would mean people would have less appreciation for their salvation. It’s only by seeing countless unsaved people tormented in hell that gives the elect the full and proper appreciation for their election. Besides this being completely twisted, it has no support from the Bible. So much for that whole “sola scriptura” mantra…
Ken F wrote:
Here is one of many quotes proving what I wrote:
“So if I understand this passage, Paul is saying — and this is the key sentence — God endured for a season the unbelief and rebellion of those who reject him so that his wrath and power would be justly displayed in their punishment so that those who do believe will see the glory of his grace more fully in relation to the justice of his wrath.” – John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/if-god-is-so-happy-why-did-he-create-the-non-elect)
Ken F wrote:
Yes. Both are ultimately determinism. Both take human volition out of the salvic equation.
Ken F wrote:
My problem with it. is determinism and the lack of human volition/relationship in the salvic process.
Universalists always use the “you are mean because you don’t want everyone saved” silly argument when that is not it at all. (It is much easier to paint the person disagreeing as evil and cruel than to discuss implications)
It goes back to the meaning of the cross/resurrection. If everyone was always going to be chosen or whatever they call it…saved? then what was the point? It is the same question for Calvinism that claims some cannot be chosen through no fault of their own. They just were not chosen but passed over for some reason.
It is what these systems do to the very important relationship we are to have with Jesus Christ.
Where is relationship?
@ Ken F:
I don’t really like to bring the heaven/hell paradigm into this because I don’t think those concepts are taught correctly in most of Western Christianity going back to Augustine. Jesus did not talk about them a lot. There is not that much in the OT either. I think we miss the larger point of the definition of “kingdom” as it was understood which is there here and now as it was when it was written in the 1st Century. This is why “relationship” is so very important. It is key. Human volition is key.
@ Ken F:
Oh yes. I have had my fill of Piper for 15 years now. It is darkness.
Lydia wrote:
This is what I so much appreciate about Baxter Kruger’s teaching. He is very clear in pointing out the importance of relationship among Father/Son/Spirit as the foundation for our relationship with the Trinity and with others. Calvinism is built on an Aristotelian concept of God, which is logically very much like the Islamic view of God – absolutely transcendent and incomparable. This seems to be why Calvinists focus so much on logical abstractions at the expense of relationship. But the OT and NT concept of God is relational.
Lydia wrote:
I reject universalism for the same reason. But I don’t reject unlimited atonement. Neither Calvinists nor Universalists understand how a person can believe in unlimited atonement without being a Universalist.
As an interesting side note, all Christians are universalists when it comes to Adam’s sin impacting all mankind. I’ve not heard anyone teach that we must receive Adam in order to have his sin imputed to us. So why would Jesus’ atonement be less powerful and effective than Adam’s sin?
@ Ken F:
I am not convinced he or Young have totally thrown out the determinist piece. But here Kruger goes a bit deeper on why he is not a universalist
http://perichoresis.org/why-i-left-calvinism/
Ken F wrote:
Good arguement, Ken F., and well-reasoned.
^typo: take out “e”.
Lydia wrote:
Depends on who ya’ talk to. Some sects will claim that Jesus talked about hell more than any missive concerning heaven. Calvary Chapel is one such outfit. They cite Luke 16:19-31 as proof positive.
Ken F wrote:
For me it is when someone crosses the line and proposes not that the vineyard owner paid people who came late, but that he went out and paid people who didn’t even bother to come work in the vineyard at all. It oomes down to what is working in the vineyard.
Lydia–whether you agree or disagree with evangelical universalists, you might find they have considered exactly your thoughts. They come to a non standard answer. Many do believe in hell after life here. And some believe it will last through out at least this age, perhaps also the coming one (millennium?) They just believe that after enough hell all will want a deep, loving relationship with Jesus.
Some of them liken the God of Calvinism to a rapist, forcing His love on His beloved. They see Arminianism and Dispensationalism both as having a God Who gives up when His beloved rejects Him.
They see the God of universalism as a patient God, willing to allow all souls to reject or accept Him for as long as they choose. Willing to keep wooing. Don’t think stalking–ick. More like the Father of the prodigal son. Always keeping the door open. And they don’t see anyone made in God’s image as being so stupid as to prefer pain to God’s love, eventually.
Not everyone’s cup of tea, but not determinist either. More like a parent’s loving patience.
@ Muff Potter:
Tell me about it. At the same time, I certainly don’t have it worked out in any way at all.
Lydia wrote:
I’m not sure if I understand what you wrote. From what I’ve heard and read, Kruger and Young believe that every single human has been redeemed by Jesus’ atonement. But they don’t believe that every human will freely choose to receive/believe it. The latter will be like the prodigal son’s older brother: excluded from the party by their own choice. I’m not sure how determinism fits into that.
Here’s Kruger’s own statement on universalism:
“That Jesus Christ loves us all and has included us everyone in his life with his Father and the Holy Spirit, I consider to be an absolute, eternal fact. That every human being will come to experience this life fully, I consider to be a hope, but not a fact. It is a hope grounded in the astounding love of the blessed Trinity—in the endless fidelity of the Father, the complete and finished work of Jesus, and the redeeming genius of the Holy Spirit. I think we have every reason to hope for everyone to come to know the truth so as to experience salvation. But to make such a hope an absolute fact, or a conclusion, or a doctrine is, to me, a mistake. That would be to deny, theologically speaking, the authenticity of our personhood and our real freedom to participate. We are real to the Father, Son and Spirit, distinct persons within the life of God, with our own minds, hearts and wills, which will never be violated by the blessed Trinity. So there remains the possibility that in our distinctness, we will choose to live against our own beings. Such a violation of reality is as absurd as it is painful, but possible. It is not possible for the Father, Son and Spirit to morph into another God, with another dream for humanity. In this universe, and in all universes to come, the Father, Son and Spirit will never, ever give up their dream that we would all come to experience fully the trinitarian life together.”
@ Ken F:
Maybe he and Paul Young are not on the same page? I agree with universal atonement. It is a done deal. It is now up to the humans.
However, Young has used shaming on universalism in the past, too, as he did speaking with Kruger in the New Zealand series. It is similar to what Calvinists do. If you don’t agree then you don’t think God is sovereign. And….If you are not a universalist, you don’t want everyone to be saved. They don’t focus on the Human volition part just as Cals don’t mention the ones God damned.
Bill M wrote:
I think the workers in the vineyard who have worked all day represent the Jewish people of the Abrahamic Covenant. The workers who have worked only half a day I think are the Nations who did not have a covenant. Yet all who are In Christ received all the benefits of being heirs. I think the vineyard is the Father’s household.
Same with the Prodigal Son. The elder son had served his father faithfully. But he had a zero-sum conception of his father’s wealth and love. That is why he could not rejoice when his brother returned. There were some Jewish people who could not rejoice that the Nations were being called into the New Covenant.
That comes from the GSV Study Bible. 🙂
linda wrote:
Having lived long enough to see lots of prodigals in my friend’s lives and their children, I’m not sure that analogy works for universalism. Parents grieve when their kids make bad decisions and reject their parents’ values and choose things that will cause heartache for the kids and all who love them. But, those parents cannot make the prodigals return. They can hope, they can leave the lights on, but they cannot force them.
And if they could, the relationship would not be restored, and I think that God desires a relationship with his creatures. I don’t see how the universalist gets around that unless they embrace a God of Power who forces himself on every human. Which gets us back to determinism as KenF and Lydia have said.
I think the nature and purpose of hell is another issue, but the two get lumped together for what I think are emotional reasons. I don’t think hell is necessarily endless torment. It may be, but I don’t think Jesus’ references to Gehenna necessarily support the endless torment view. The fire in Gehenna did not go out, but that was because garbage and bodies were being tossed into it every single day. Those bodies and garbage were burned up in short order, but the fire itself was endless. Frankly, the idea of being separated from God is awful enough for me.
Lydia wrote:
Pretty much my sentiment too. To me faith is hope and not certainty.
Ken F wrote:
Interesting reasoning! BTW, I think you might find this description of ‘hope’ interesting:
““Hope is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart;
it transcends the world that is immediately experienced,
and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons
. . . It is not the conviction that something will turn out well,
but the certainty that something makes sense,
regardless of how it turns out.”
(Vaclav Havel)
linda wrote:
I do appreciate the explanation and find it interesting! What you are describing sounds close to the concept of purgatory, though.
I agree with Gram that the prodigal doesnt work for universalism. I find the prodigal much more complicated than the typical interpretations when one considers Hebrew inheritance laws, faithfulness, etc. But that is a topic for another day. And certainly dont have it all figured out.
Bill M wrote:
You just described universalism!
Ken F wrote:
In a general sense, yes. Death. But not all people molest children, murder, rape, etc. The only universal impact is death.
Only Adam “chose” death in your scenario. (Not saying others would not). So we live out the consequences for Adams sin. Not sure why it’s necessary to teach we can receive Adam to have his sin imputed to us?
His sin is not “imputed” to us. The consequence of his sin is death which affects all.
What am I missing? I don’t think Jesus’ atonement is less powerful. I think people have choices and I think most believers have failed to be the light of the world since the 4th Century or so and were duped followers of political systems.
What I would object to, if I was a student at a seminary, wouldn’t be being taught by a woman, but being taught by someone who clearly isn’t qualified to teach the subject at hand.
But then again, this does not seem to worry the current crop of professors and students too much.
If I may introduce a minute quantity of snark:
Mary K. admits to teaching men – but only under very special circumstances. And yet she compares the sin of women teaching men to that of fornication. If there’s a loophole for her to do the former, would she also see one for the latter activity – only under very special circumstances, of course?
Lydia wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. In my attempt to be brief I did not explain well enough. I was thinking about it from a Calvinist perspective. Calvinists believe in original sin, which is the belief that all mankind inherited a sin nature from Adam (some say we also inherited Adam’s guilt). But the Bible does not say that we inherited sin or guilt. It says that we inherited death. Heb 2:14-15 says it is the fear of death that holds us into bondage to sin. We all sin because of this, so each of us is responsible for our own sin (this is the Eastern Orthodox perspective).
So back to Calvinism. Calvinist believe in sin nature being universal because of the sin of Adam. We were born as sinners and there is no way to escape it apart from Christ. They don’t believe that one has to “believe and receive” Adam in order to have his sin imputed to them. And this is correct – we were born into mortality through no choice of our own. But they do something different with 1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” This verse is pretty clear that Jesus undid what Adam did for all mankind. Taking it at face value, it says all will be made alive, which means this is done for everyone whether they chose it or not. But Calvinists, out of fear of universalism, believe that Jesus only died for a few, and that one must believe and receive him in order to gain his imputed righteousness. But that’s not what the verses says. Also, they describe hell is eternal destruction without relief. It would take an imperishable body to withstand the torments of hell that Calvinists believe. IT would take the kind of imperishable body described in 1 Corinthians 15. The more I look at this, the more I am believing that the atonement raised all people to eternal life, but we get to choose how to experience it.
@ Ken F:
I should have known. It did not sound like you. Now I see you are rhetorically asking about the power of atonement from the determinist perspective.
They both leave human volition out of the equation and that will always result in a big problem.
David Hayward/Naked Pastor cartoon on Worm Theology.
http://nakedpastor.com/2016/08/how-i-made-worm-theology-work-for-me/
David Hayward/Naked Pastor cartoon on creation story and women.
http://www.nakedpastor.com/2016/08/the-creation-story-women-and-property/
David Hayward/Naked Pastor cartoon on a church’s promises of “freedom”.
http://www.nakedpastor.com/2016/08/are-you-enjoying-the-freedom-you-were-promised/
Gus wrote:
Well she’s gotta give it a sound. She’s gotta make it serious and horrific. And what better way to sully it than to make it just as bad as having sex without the magic sex license (marriage)? Which is theeeeeee most egregious peccadillo there is in all of evangelicalism.
Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher
NJ wrote:
Like the Neo-Cal MenaGAWD?
Muff Potter wrote:
Only if you don’t get caught.
Or you’re a Straight Male Pastor’s Pet.
Gus wrote:
Two Words: QUEEN BEE.
Gram3 wrote:
These days (and it’s a pretty good mind-stretcher) I start from the idiom of Gehenna being the Jerusalem City Dump and the image of a Discard Pile.
And that city dump was built on a place where human sacrifice had taken place.
Gram3 wrote:
Remember that knock-down-drag-out in the Book of Acts (later formally called The Council of Jerusalem)? The big fight there was “Should we let the goyim in?”
Muff Potter wrote:
I remember that. An integral and central part of The Gospel According to Papa Chuck.
Arminians also believe in a sin nature because of the sin of Adam. Wesleyans in particular are likely to refer to it as the sin nature. So do many SBC who are not Calvinists.
There are some really good reads available on most of these issues: hell, the atonement, sanctification, etc. The titles will have “4 views on_________”, pick your topic. They will have 4 respected theologians from different schools of systematic theology each give their side, with the other 3 responding. Don’t come to any conclusions but do give a wide perspective and plenty of room for thought.
linda wrote:
What about divine nature? And those who do goodness and mercy apart from the law? Nary a word from either camp, unless it’s to try and put some spin on it by claiming that there is no real goodness being done there.
One commenter on a previous thread said that Calvinism and Arminianism are kissin’ cousins. I agree, the alleged ‘differences’ are only cosmetic.
Muff Potter wrote:
I’m with you on this.
Agreed! Which is why I mentioned the Arminians and Wesleyans. This nuttiness is endemic, not just Calvinist.
Robert wrote:
At least you don’t have the local Mad God of Chaos taking over as DM.
I was thinking a bit more on the concept of the ‘jezebel spirit’. I think this may actually be found in Revelation 2:20-25 which is part of Christ’s message to the church of Thyatira.
The irony of women who claimed to be prophetesses and detecting Jezebel spirits everywhere wasn’t lost on me, I assure you.
It’s just the Queen Bee stinging all the other Queens to death, that’s all.
There can be only one Queen Bee in a Hive.
This is ot in the new thread, but I’m reading some old Kassian thing about sex in marriage and it is Wilson’s stuff, basically. So creepy!
Sex is the union of two complementary beings—a male, who God created with a physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual bent to lovingly and self-sacrificially bestow and give, and a female, who God created with a physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual bent to actively and joyfully welcome and receive.
Ew. Also, so wrong. Women don’t give in sex and men don’t receive? ReallY??
http://girlsgonewise.com/necessities-for-god-glorifying-sex/
Velour wrote:
This inspired me to write this when I was feeling bored today. https://dirtanddominion.wordpress.com/
Lea wrote:
“The man PENETRATES! COLONIZES! CONQUERS! PLANTS! The woman Lies Back and Accepts.”
What is Mary Kassian’s home church now anyway?
Her bio used to say she was “Women’s Ministry Consultant, Calvary Baptist Church, Edmonton.” Her husband was once an elder there too.
According to the SBTS faculty handbook:
“from the Fundamental Laws of the seminary written into its charter on April 30, 1858: “Every Professor of the institution shall be a member of a Southern Baptist church; and all persons accepting Professorships in this seminary, shall be considered by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down….”
http://inside.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/faculty-manual-2012-2013.pdf
But apparently Mr. Kassian has left the Baptist church for the Christian & Missionary Alliance (Heartland Edmonton)
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/07/02/reformed-complementarianism-and-abuse-aimee-byrd-and-wendy-alsup-get-it-mary-kassian-does-not/comment-page-2/#comment-264928
Is Mrs. Kassian not a member of the same church as her husband?
A. Farmer wrote:
Clever.
Mary Kassian should read this from Aimee Byrd and then apologise to the church and all those women who faithfully serve God.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/why-do-egalitarians-get-to-write-more-about-phoebe?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=b6d38d226d-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-b6d38d226d-119263361#.V8lg0ut4WrU
@ A. Farmer
You are wise beyond your years. Great piece of work over there at dirtanddomnion.wordpress.com/. Keep on a thinkin’ and a pen’n!
Growing a garden in addition to farmin’ keeps one very busy here in rural land, so there’s not much time to contemplate nor idolize gender bender theology, nor gender bender jobs/work. What Kassian, Piper, Driscoll, and others need to do, is to get their behinds out into the real world and experience life the way many of us lower laity sheep(us folks without out fancy degrees, pedigrees, and low life affiliations – meaning we are friends with pig farmers, cattlemen and women, truck drivers, and janitors) do! It’s easy to sit in a plush office, or speak grandiose words at conferences where their lofty vain wisdom is applauded and big money is to be made from their books, tapes and T-shirts, until you experience life outside of the religious industrial complex known as visible Christianity.
I often wonder when Jesus, our LORD and Savior, was crucified on that tree for the remission of our sins, if the real men stayed by Jesus’ side until the very end, or did they scatter. Seems to me, in understanding the context of our Scriptures, there were a few women and a few men who stayed with our Savior until that last breath. The rest scattered for whatever reason….possible the fear factor.
Life here on earth is not black and white as Kassian claims….what in the world would she do with women semi truck drivers? Or male nurses? Sorry folks, but these self proclaimed great (?) theologians make me sick to my stomach. Will go get my hands dirty now….in some real dirt!
Keep writin’ A. Farmer. You are spot on.
HOW TO AVOID TEACHING MEN- CONFUSION ROCKS THE WORLD OF EVANGELICAL WOMEN (SATIRICAL)
https://amyrbuckley.com/2016/09/02/how-to-avoid-teaching-men-confusion-rocks-the-world-of-evangelical-women-satirical/
Snippet:
—————-
A somewhat recent article by Mary Kassian, posted by Desiring God, claims that the Bible offers “clear” instructions and boundaries prohibiting women from leading men.
A girl is left wondering what to do with stories of strong women leaders reeling across the pages of the Bible.
Miriam, Rahab, Deborah, Abigail, Ruth, Esther, Huldah, Naomi, the Proverbs 31 woman—All made judgment calls and acted to benefit God’s purposes.
What about New Testament passages endorsing the ministry, teaching and leadership of women in partnership with men—Lydia, Dorcas, Priscilla, Tryphena, Euodia, Syntyche, Junia (among others)?
Though he could have specified which spiritual gifts are masculine versus feminine, Paul—an explicit writer and theologian—makes no such distinctions in the Greek.
Daisy wrote:
Well, Junia was handled by claiming she was REALLY a man named “Junias”…
In context, I understand 1 Timothy 2:12 to be Paul’s advice to husband’s and wives and how they are to conduct themselves in public settings. In other words, don’t disrespect or embarrass your husband in church by acting like you know more than they do or by being disruptive with too many questions, i.e., wait until you get home and then ask the questions. He was addressing an issue of disorder in the local congregation of believers. And back in those days, women were not educated so I’m sure they asked a lot of questions. Additionally, we should not ignore Psalm 68:11 which states, “The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng.” Some translations take out the word women but the correct Hebrew translation is “female messengers.” Additionally, we are all called to share the Gospel, male and female. No where does it say a woman cannot witness to a man. To share the Gospel with anyone and to disciple them is also teaching. So if women are not to teach men, then they are not to EVER share the Gospel or disciple them either. Are women exempt from sharing the Gospel? No, they have the privilege and blessing of witnessing to others without limitations just as men do.
@ Lydia:
Maybe there’s something to the idea of “choose you this day who you will serve.”