"The decision now to create the Permanent Text of the ESV was made with equally great care—so that people who love the ESV Bible can have full confidence in the ESV, knowing that it will continue to be published as is, without being changed, for the rest of their lives, and for generations to come."
The first time I ever laid eyes on the English Standard Version of the Bible was around 2003, just two years after the ESV was first published by Crossway. My Sunday School teacher, who taught English at the College at Southeastern, had a copy that looked just like the one pictured above, and he would often read from it as he taught the lesson. I was intrigued and came close to buying my own copy; however, in fairly short order my husband and I ended up switching Sunday School classes, and the desire to own this version of the Bible faded. Divine providence perhaps? My pastor at the time preached from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), so I stuck with that one.
It wasn't until Dee and I began doing internet research in late 2008 and early 2009 that we learned the ESV was the Bible of choice for those who identify as Neo-Calvinists (aka New Calvinists, or Calvinistas as we call them). According to the ESV website:
The English Standard Version (ESV) is an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors, the ESV Bible emphasizes "word-for-word" accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning.
The ESV is essentially a revamped version of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. When I graduated from Duke many years ago, I was presented with a navy blue RSV Bible from the university, which I still treasure.
According to information provided by Wayne Grudem:
In 1997, Crossway Books, an evangelical publisher based in Wheaton, Illinois, obtained the rights to use the 1971 update of the RSV as the basis for a new translation in the KJV tradition, to be called the English Standard Version (ESV).
A footnote at the bottom of Grudem's article The Advantages of the English Standard Version (ESV) Translation reveals the following:
A recent Christianity Today article indicates that the ESV had been gaining ground since it was first published 15 years ago. The CT article states:
By most counts, the ESV is the third most popular Bible translation in America, after the KJV and the New International Version (NIV). More than 100 million printed copies have been distributed since the ESV was first published in 2001, including 30 million last year.
Hopefully, those who use the ESV are aware of this recent announcement:
Here is the complete list of word changes that have been incorporated into the 'Permanent Text of the ESV Bible'.
The Christianity Today article highlighted wording changes in Genesis with which many complementarians would agree (see below).
These are significant changes that are in direct contradiction to the wording in most (if not all) other versions of the Bible.
Scot McKnight wasted no time in sharing his concerns about these changes and how the translation committee went about making them. In his post entitled The New Stealth Translation: ESV, McKnight begins with this:
McNight then states the following (with which we agree):
Denny Burk, who succeeded Owen Strachan as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), recently published a post entitled: Five Quick points on the ESV's rendering of Genesis 3:16. In that post he addresses Scot McKnight's concerns this way (see screen shot below):
The ESV version of Genesis 3:16 has gone from this…
to this… (screen shot)
So what do you think about these significant changes to the ESV?
First?*
*Or, “Last”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html
Recognize any names, like maybe Wayne Grudem, Paul House, J. I. Packer. …… ?
Then there’s the advisory committee: Al Mohler, R. C. Sproul………
This is the YRR Bible.
@ Nancy2:
John Piper, Alistair Begg. ……..
Paige and Dorothy Patterson …..
Second?
Imagine if it was decided that the current edition of the Merck Manual should be made permanent! No more changes, additions, updates, revisions. What would medical professionals do with newer knowledge of illness, medicines and health?
Surely they cannot have decided that all that needs to be done with translation work is finished and they can sit back and relax? The mind boggles!
@ Estelle:
I took too long to type my comment!
@ Estelle:
Too many revisions before clicking post!
Thank you for this post. I kept hearing “permanent ESV” and wondering about it…
How “convenient” to introduce this new wording and then lock it in for all eternity. (Such hubris.)
Really, it stinks of pride. I wonder if these people have incurred divine wrath and sealed the fate of their movement with this move, sooner rather than later. (One can only hope.)
It rather reminds me of the KJVO people, you know, the ones who say that the KJV was the inspired Word, typos (“Thou shalt commit adultery”) and all.
Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses with their own translation of the bible, meant to bolster their arguments. The proponents of the ESV would call the JWs a cult or false teaching…
p.s. the “new” and “improved” and *throw confetti* “permanent” ESV (somehow that word makes me think of leaves of grass) is not a book I’ll be buying soon. I have not been able to open my once-beloved ESV Study Bible for some time now. It was the preferred version used by our former church, and I cannot read scriptures in that version without experiencing PTSD symptoms.
I’ve had to go back to my old, battered, well-worn NASB. Somehow it does not induce revulsion, nausea, and difficulty breathing the way the ESV does.
@ refugee:
…by leaves of grass I meant Psalm 103, not Walt Whitman. Sorry if I misquoted.
@ refugee:
Speaking of what it reminds me of, I also thought about the parable about the man who had such a big harvest that he pulled down his barn and built a bigger one.
There’s probably an even better parable to go with establishing a “permanent” man-made translation of the Word that incorporates certain traditions of men and tries to set them in stone as if they were the 10 commandments… but I can’t think of it.
Thanks for putting up with my spate of comments. I’ll sit on my hands now and let someone else talk.
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this. Usually footnotes are supposed to help clear up a word, phrase, or meaning. Right? The 2001 translation has a footnote attached to the word “for”. You’d think it would be a help in understanding the phrase. But instead, it gives you the opposite meaning. So is Eve’s desire “for” her husband or “against” her husband? For or against?
It looks like all they did in the new 2016 Eternally Superior Version is switch which idea was footnoted and which was primary, and wordsmith the primary choice more pointedly. Now Eve’s desire, which was “for” her husband, is “contrary to” her husband, with the opposite meaning footnoted, “toward”. So her desire is contrary to her husband. Unless her desire is toward her husband. Which it surely cannot be. So why did they even bother to footnote that? Make up your mind. Eve’s desire is either contrary to and against her husband, or her desire is for and toward her husband. How can there be a possibility of both?
I must surely be missing something obvious here. Are other translations footnoted on this with opposite words? My copies of the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, and the Amplified do not have footnotes. They all use some version of “for”.
We are incredibly fortunate (sarcasm) to finally, after many centuries of blatantly incorrect translation, to know what God ordained from the foundation of the world: women are contrary to men and men must rule over them.
I’m having a hard time not wondering what kind of personal relationships the translators have with their wives. I’m trying not to imagine that they think their wives are contrary to them whenever they don’t see eye to eye. I’m diligently not thinking that they believe their God ordained mission is to rule that wifely female contrariness right out. Nope, not thinking about it, not thinking about it…
One more thought. Is the “permanent” ESV supposed to evoke the unchanging nature of God, or is it something more like the “unsinkable” Titanic?
When I heard that Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood decried the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) and that the Complementarians/Patriarchists tried to get it quashed, I promptly ordered one online.
Short answer: NO! It completely twists the meaning, only to support their male dominance doctrine.
As Wayne Grudem said, “I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years.”
I suppose they thought the ESS would be accepted by now, they’d slide this new ESV into place and then just sit back and gloat.
Another perspective on why this translation of Gen is wrong, https://claudemariottini.com/2016/09/12/the-permanent-text-of-the-esv/
@ Velour:
Where did you find one, Velour?
@ Nancy2:
As far as I’m concerned, these have all tainted their names being involved with this travesty.
My gosh, now they’re just making things up.
And these are Christian scholars? Yes, this is what passes for Christian scholarship.
They seek to immortalize their prescriptive teaching on a descriptive passage that actually means the opposite! As if Adam had been right up there on the same page with God.
The irony? They, too, manage to “turn” the attention and focus from the Great I AM to ……..mere men.
So, if I have a desire for ice cream, am I really saying that I want something contrary to ice cream?
Surely, we must relearn the English language. Most of us know not what we say!
“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over thee.”
They have claimed that “he shall rule over thee” is prescriptive, basically what God has commanded. If that’s the case, wouldn’t a wife’s desire to be contrary to her husband also be prescriptive, a commandment from God? : )
This is ridiculous! A great example of ‘Their will be done’.
My first known experience with an ESV bible was while unknowingly (as in I hadn’t done my research at that time) attending an Acts29 church in DFW. There was an ESV located under every few chairs, and the pastor consistently encouraged the attendees to pick it up and use it. I was used to taking my own bible, and my DH would often read from his phone if he’d forgotten his. There were several times I didn’t bring mine from home (not ESV, more than likely NRSV or NIV) so I grabbed the ESV.
The pastor would often comment about them being free, take them home, give them to others, etc etc. In hindsight, I did not like the ESV and noticed discrepancies over time. For lack of a better term, I felt wrong using that version.
Fast forward to leaving the church around the time of the Driscoll fiasco and waking up to, “oh, it’s not just a southern Baptist church after all.” And, “not all churches are created or taken over equally.” I’m currently a done as I’ve mentioned here in the past.
We moved homes this past May, still in DFW. While packing up the old house, I came across a few ESV bibles I had taken from the church. Because, remember they were “free”. And I’m sure I had initially intended to give them away to persons in need. Well, I gave them away alright. To Goodwill. I couldn’t bring myself to keep them, and I couldn’t bring myself to throw them in the garbage myself… hopefully Goodwill did.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes. The “Sesame Street” approach works well here – “one of these things is not like the other.” If one would take every statement from the curse and do the same thing, it would create a lot of prescriptive nonsense, such as the requirement for men (not women) to only eat bread while sweating from the face, etc. But if one wants to get technical about the actual words, the curses only apply to “to the woman” and “to Adam,” not to all of humanity because the actual text does not specifically say that it is an enduring curse for all generations.
J I Packer was associated with the ESV, which always make me pause before condemning it out of hand. However I wonder if he agrees with or even knows about this “permanent text”.
The latter concept strikes me as dangerous, not least because language does evolve and translations that once were contemporary eventually become dated. The translators of the KJV recognised this and emphasised that it made no claims to be a perfect translation.
Finally, if they have made the former footnote the official text, have they included the former official text as a footnote? If not that would suggest to me an underlying agenda.
I will be reverting to using the NIV and NASB bibles. My mind was made up by a culmination of events, the final straw being this latest change.
Several years ago I watched this video and was disturbed by the committee changing “slave” to “bond servant” because of what mainly seemed to me to be social acceptance rather than the plain meaning of the Greek text.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx06mtApu8k
Then when I found out that C.J. Mahaney supplied a bunch of money to Wayne Grudem to enable his sabbatical which allowed Grudem work on the ESV translation I was further repulsed.
So…is burk really admitting they just straight up moved the interpretation into text? Because I didn’t think that was the purpose of translation!
Nancy2 wrote:
I have trouble making this make sense even from their perspective. They think the curse on eve was that she wouldn’t want to be a docile little doormat after the fall? Do they think she was before? If so where do they get all this other stuff about her being the great deceived temptress?
Also, sins desire is contrary to you makes no more sense and sin is not a personal relationship so obviously the usage in Song of Solomon is a bit closer and sure doesn’t mean contrary to!
I’m really starting to hate these people because of the way they are teaching little girls lies. Probably I’m a Jezebel for it.
Melissa wrote:
My only esv is the kindle bible I have because it was either cheapest or free.
NASB is the best–if you read it, you’ll be blessed!
Lea wrote:
I usually use my tablet because I’m terribly nearsighted. I just bought the largest print Bible I could find, and it’s still hard for me to read. I wear reading glasses, but often they don’t help enough.
I often use the NLT, but I’d like a TNIV. I always go back to the original languages for a more complete meaning. Translations are not God-breathed–that’s only reserved for the original manuscripts. If all translations were “preserved”, then we’d have to accept the Jehovah’s Witness translation, too, and that is definitely not a good translation. I am not going anywhere near the ESV 2016 ever again.
Even if this terrible translation of Genesis 3 was arguable, it’s still at the curse, which means it was removed at Christ’s death, when the veil was torn. Christ is the solution to the curse!
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Genesis 3:15
Perhaps their complementary natures are the reason why, since men are on God’s side, women must be contrary because it’s impossible for men and women to be the same or men to be contrary.
Once again, if this was a Arminian leaning or Egalitarian leaning group doing this there would be tsunami of blog posts,magazine & newspaper articles, ‘learned’ journal articles etc about how absolutely unchristian this was.
Beakerj wrote:
There actually has been quite a bit of criticism, and I’m betting the scholarly criticism isn’t all in yet, since it was just announced.
Nancy2 wrote:
Broccoli?
siteseer wrote:
Amazon.
The one I bought is published by Zondervan and cost about $20 (hard back).
Patriciamc wrote:
That’s the problem. They’ve ALWAYS made things up. This is just more of the same.
Pride goeth before a fall, and what a fall they’re going to have.
Melissa wrote:
I just toss mine in the paper recycling. I rip them up so that no one can re-use them. Ditto for Patriarchy and NeoCalvinist books. All gone. Purged. I just don’t want them falling into the wrong hands and I won’t give them away, to charity, or even for the Friends of the Library book sales.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Exactly, Todd.
Velour wrote:
Burning them in the woodstove would be my first impulse.
“prescriptive teaching on a descriptive passage”
Exactly.
Before my former church was taken over by YRR, we noticed every young person was carrying the ESV to church services. Little did we know back then what a red flag that was.
Anyway, since that time, I have avoided ( like the plague ) reading from the ESV. Even seeing one carried by someone, makes me suspicious to their POV, in regards to doctrine. If I see them turning up in our present church, I’ll be heart sick.
Mae wrote:
I confess burning them was my first impulse, too. But then I chickened out. There is SOME truth in the ESV… But I do wish, in hindsight, I’d have put them in the recycle bin like Velour mentioned above, along with books by Mark Driscoll, Mahaney, et al
Beakerj wrote:
Absolutely!
@ ishy:
Hoping more Christian scholars who are not drinking from the YRR well will chime in.
@ Melissa:
Probably more environmentally considerate to place them in the recycle bin. Just hate the thoughts of some naive soul reading, Driscoll, ESV, etc.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2016/09/5-things-women-who-love-jesus-and.html
Patty in Massachusetts wrote:
Bingo.
Reading comments on one of the articles listed and I had to stop after I read a long drawn out explanation of all the internal gods good creation reasons men are supposed to be in charge. None of it actually came from Genesis.
Do these men have any clue how disgusting some of this is to read as a woman? I am so sad that these people are in positions of power and using these things to prop themselves up, but I am even more sad that they can’t seemingly even hear what they are saying.
Lea wrote:
They do not give a d a m n about women!! As a man these men disgust me with their interpretation of the scriptures.
Mae wrote:
Of course. There’s an option. Alas, where I live I don’t have a wood stove.
All translations suffer from a sort of bias. It is sad when the bias taints the translation.
I would say that all of the translations mentioned above are fine and usable, including the ESV.
This episode clearly exposes the bias of the translators in a way that will create serious questions regarding the confidence of the translation. Much in the way that the rendering of I Tim 3:16 reveals the bias of the RSV, or the fuss over the TNIV’s desire to create more of a gender neutral bible.
I have never been a big fan of the ESV. I do not believe it reads well.
I believe the net effect of this will not be good, and may result in making the Holman Christian Standard Bible a “go to.” That was the original concept since the Lockman Foundation boogered up the ability to reprint with ease the NASB, which is excellent, except that it too was not very readable, hence the NIV.
Look to see if LifeWay can get permission to use “Christian Standard Bible” and drop the “Holman” part. If that happens and the ESV declines in popularity because of this, Holman and LifeWay will do well.
As for me, I really like the NLT. It reads so well and you don’t have to spend so much time explaining the English language and syntax just to get to the point.
I use the NLT every time I preach or teach at church. It doesn’t bother my pastor, but I suspect it may bother some.
Melissa wrote:
I compare ‘some truth’ in the ESV Bible to a story on the internet about a father teaching his children about tainted things in their lives. He made some brownies and told them that they were fine to eat as he only added ‘just a little bit of dog poo to the batch. It’s really fine to eat. Honestly, kids.’ No takers. He made his point. I don’t know if it was a true story or an internet legend. But point made. The little bit of bad can ruin the whole batch.
mot wrote:
Spot on!
One further thing.
I cannot really imagine a group claiming to have made a translation permanent and also assuming it will be used far into the future.
Language changes. As modern languages change, which will happen, there will be a need to change translations. That’s just a fact of life.
@ Nancy2:
Saw that post. Excellent!
Are many Southern Baptist using this version of the Bible?
Velour wrote:
Nope. Kale.
Velour wrote:
Though I agree with this in theory, I also agree with what anonymous posted above:
All translations suffer from a sort of bias. It is sad when the bias taints the translation.
I would say that all of the translations mentioned above are fine and usable, including the ESV.
For me, the little bit of bad in the ESV ruined the whole thing. So to answer the question of the title of this post, IMO the ESV overall cannot be trusted.
Not purchasing the ESV – EVER!
Deb wrote:
+100
mot wrote:
If they’re NeoCalvinists they are.
So they might fool some people into believing this hogwash, even more so the next generations who will grow up with this grotesque perversion of a bible and who are not taught the ancient texts.
But they will never fool God.
I wonder why they keep forgetting that God sits on his Throne and sees what they are doing to Him?
You all might find this interesting.
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/lect/scriptver.aspx
“A recent Christianity Today article indicates that the ESV had been gaining ground since it was first published 15 years ago.”
The young workers at the Christian bookstore in my area have spiky hairdos that Driscoll popularized and/or pointy Calvin-type beards. They have moved all the New Calvinist books to a stand front and center at the store entrance. When someone is shopping for a new Bible, they push the ESV like drug dealers across the street from the high school. If this is typical across the country – young Calvinists promoting reformed products – it would contribute to the ESV gaining ground.
I recognize several names on the Who’s-Who for this translation and The Gospel Coalition.
Anonymous wrote:
I like it too. I used it this year to read through the bible.
Off-topic. Prayer request and social media requests.
Uncle Dad (aka Wayne) who comments here on Wartburg Watch recently posted that his neice is missing in Maine.
Would you please pray for her, her family, and if possible spread the word/poster on social media. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/MtnShepherdess/status/777108548782133248
Commenter from The Wartburg Watch blog posted that his niece in Maine is missing. Please pray for Valerie Joy Tieman and her family and spread the word.
MISSING PERSON
Valerie Joy Tieman
MISSING SINCE: August 28, 2016
LAST SEEN: Fairfield, Maine
HEIGHT: 66.0 to 68.0 in SEX: Female
WEIGHT: 135.0 to 155.0 lbs EYES: Brown
HAIR: Brown
SCARS/MARKS: Small linear scar on right cheek.
Linear scar left side under arm.
Linear scar near navel.
Contact Fairfield Police Department at 207-453-9322 with information.
Case #: 16Fai-989-OF NamUs MP #: 35202
Kolya wrote:
J.I. Packer has retired from teaching and preaching due to various health issues, including losing the ability to read and write because of macular degeneration. I have no idea whether he was involved in the changes to the ESV.
I looked at the list of translators and advisors. Yes, there are some names readily identified with the YRR movement, but there are other respected evangelical leaders and scholars on the list. Besides Dr. Packer, there’s Andreas Kostenberger, Erwin Lutzer and John Yates. And Rev. Yates has two female clergy on his staff.
Nancy2 wrote:
Definitely! You will see NO other versions carried by leaders at SBC-YRR church plants. It’s definitely their sword of choice and a sign to visiting prospective church members that “We are reformed.” Of course, a visitor will pick up on that fairly quickly when the “lead pastor” quotes Piper, etc.
Nancy2 wrote:
Many of these same characters were on the advisory committee and/or writers for SBC’s “The Gospel Project” Sunday School curriculum … which should be more appropriately named “The Calvinist Project.”
Kolya wrote:
While Packer is a respected theologian in both Calvinist and non-Calvinist circles, there is no doubt that he holds to reformed theology as ‘the’ orthodox default. In addition to his General Editor role for the ESV, he serves on the advisory board for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; he is a classical complementaraian Calvinist. The new reformers love to prop the 90 year old up at their conferences.
mot wrote:
ALL SBC church plants in my area use them. But, of course, ALL SBC church plants in my area have YRR pastors.
singleman wrote:
I wonder if their “unanimous vote” left out much of the committee or was voted on by another group? I can’t imagine Dr. Kostenberger voting for a clearly bad translation of Genesis 3.
What more can is say than *Baloney* to the ESV translators. They have been looking for a way to keep women from having ay significant say in the running of conservative e churches. Adding to that, they believe they have discovered a way to keep women from having any significant influence in eternity.
God’s Word gives us guidelines for living our lives. Sometimes those guidelines are difficult yet we try to live in a way that is glorifying to the god who created us. Why must they dream up new rules? There is great freedom in Christ and these are the modern day Pharisees dreaming up ways to lay further burdens on the people. Within the church women make up @60% of the population.
I am not a happy camper today regarding this translation.
Some would argue that the standard ESV is harmless enough, except for select passages (such as the Calvinist rendition of Genesis 3:16) and a spattering of other verse revisions which would fit a reformed grid. However, the ESV Study Bible is the real bad boy – it is loaded with Calvinist commentary designed to indoctrinate. Any serious YRR will be carrying that one and/or John MacArthur’s Study Bible. Although MacArthur is viewed as a more classical Calvinist in his interpretations of Scripture, than popular New Calvinist teachers.
singleman wrote:
Andreas Kostenberger is a Female Subordinationist.
To make matters worse, I was really friendly with Dan Wallace and his wife, Patty, in Texas. We used to talk over dinner, etc. he always seemed to respect me and even came to the class I taught at Bent Tree Bible to talk to us about Bible translation. One of these days I will write him a note when I am less irritated to ask him his view on proscriptive (which is not what I believe Genesis 3 is talking about) and descriptive (which I believe that Genesis 3 is talking about.) That makes all the difference in the world and I know Deb will continue to discuss this.
ishy wrote:
Well, he has written a *lot* of things that are plainly made up. On the Woman issue, some men and a few women lose the ability to reason and apply sound interpretive principles consistently. When a particular conclusion is mandatory, then it is permissible to bend the rules that others must play by.
And then there are some of the Lutherans.
http://steadfastlutherans.org/2009/07/why-is-the-new-lutheran-study-bible-an-esv-translation-instead-of-a-niv-translation/
Can we talk $$$ ?
How much was paid to use the RSV?
Is there a clause in the contract with RSV restricting others from using the RSV as a springboard for future translations? (Since this latest ESV is the ultimate of all English translations, I guess there is now no need for any other English translations. Ever. But still, I wonder if the ESV people now hold an exclusive on the RSV.)
Who pockets all the $$$ being spent on this version? (Nice gig – calling one’s own work as the final English version so that millions of minions are duped into purchasing this pentultimate translation.)
I kind of makes me gag thinking of people becoming rich off the blood of the Lamb.
Max wrote:
Yep!
When you think about all the fuss and commotion these same people made about the gender-neutral NIV, it makes their hypocrisy even more evident. They can make their translation fit their agenda, but woe to any others who do that.
I think that the Elder Statesmen of the Complementarian movement are approaching the end of their careers and their lives, and they want to cast their legacy of Female Subordination in stone.
Gram3 wrote:
He didn’t used to be quite so bad. It’s unfortunate. And he was a stickler for being correct.
I agree with you. People are losing their ability to reason to hold to a theology of self.
@ Gram3:
Careers are at stake. There isnt much academic freedom.
refugee wrote:
perhaps more it smells of a pitiful insecurity, as though somehow this shallow statement of ‘eternal permanency’ will upgrade and add ‘unquestioned authenticity’ to what the creators themselves have openly presented as an ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATION changing critical verses currently accepted by New Testament scholars as reasonably authentic translation of sacred Scripture. When I use the term ‘critical verses’, I mean that these verses are KEY to the new theology of the Bible’s creators who are presenting ‘another gospel’ of ‘male headship’.
The ‘creators’ have touched on something sacramental and they have done it with the contempt of people intent on their own purposes. I pity them.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes. And this started with the absolute most successful propaganda campaign against a translation I have ever seen. Now you can barely find a TNIV.
I have been reading the Mirror Translation which would put me in their “we must burn her category”. But I find what NT books du Toit has translated from the NT fascinating to read.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Since I cut my teeth on the KJV, that’s the version which is in my head. I tend to start with that version, go to Greek after that and then look at more modern versions if I have a question.
However, this use of “bond servant” instead of “slave” in the ESV is just as bad as slipping male supremacy in various verses. “Bond servant” gives the impression that the servitude may someday end. One of my first ancestors here in the US colonies was an indentured servant and his term ended. However, “slave” makes it clear that the ownership was perpetual until the slave was freed. It should be noted that in the Roman world, this actually did happen quite a bit, as there was a significant class of “freedmen” in society. (As opposed to the slavery of the Southern US, where slavery was very much intended to go from generation to generation and the children fathered by slaveowners upon slave women were very much intended to be slaves.)
We know that some of these very conservative people who are into complementarianism also have some very weird ideas about slavery. If it’s in the Bible, they think, it’s OK to have now. Way out there is the late R.J. Rushdoony and his reconstructionists/theonomists, but Douglas Wilson, who is still cited approvingly by Calvinistas including the “Desiring God” website, also has odd ideas about slavery.
Jory Micah posted on her Facebook page today and it’s worth repeating in light of this discussion:
So, no, it’s totally unsurprising that Wayne Grudem’s ESV would waffle on naming slavery for what it is, when he and his fellow comp theologians are trying so very, very hard to enshrine male supremacy even in the Trinitarian relationship. *rolls eyes*
(N.B. I am not a theologian. I was trained as a lawyer and have since become a systems analyst. I have read lots of very complex theology, including Calvin’s Institutes and Karl Barth when I was in my 20s, but I am currently of the opinion that complex theology detracts from the basics of Christianity, which is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. So take my opinion as that of a relatively well-educated layperson. Thanks.)
Lydia wrote:
And publishing contracts. I hope all the money and fame is worth it to these men, because it certainly looks like that is all that these men are interested in.
Max wrote:
The quid pro quo with Crossway. Take a look at the books they publish. No one can tell me there isn’t two agendas. How come Mohler isn’t expected by the SBC to promote the Holman? Because he is now the SBC Pope.
@ Anonymous:
Based on many factors, translations should be getting better and more accurate. There is no excuse for such blatant “bias”. Historically, they have usually been for political reasons. The ESV carries on that tradition.
I don’t accept the label, “gender neutral”. When “Brothers” mean both males and females, how should it be translated?
dee wrote:
I dunno, dee, I think I’d just cut to the chase and ask Wallace, or Grudem, or any of these comp-following, ESV-loving types if they think Jesus died to remove the curse from women, or if we’re cursed eternally. I’d really like an answer.
Sometimes, what I hear from the comps regarding women feels like the opening lines of Patti Smith’s “Gloria”, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine.”
Lea wrote:
I can’t figure out if creation of woman is considered to be God ordained slavery, or if they just believe women are two-legged Labrador Retrievers that can be used for the propagation of the male human species! If we’re labs, I haven’t had my rabies shots. If it’s slavery, that’s illegal, so it would explain why they push male headship as “God’s good design.
Here’s what I do believe: With the abolition of slavery and the push for equal rights for women, a group of men suffering little man syndrome got together. They started taking everything they could out of the Bible (and then some) and throwing it against the wall to see what would stick to protect their wounded little egos and prove that they are superior to somebodies. Due to legalities, women in marriage and church were the only targets they had.
Remnant wrote:
I don’t know how much money was used, but I understand only a one-time payment was made.
What’s more interesting to me is that the vast majority of the ESV is actually the old RSV, with the real changes in the various “clobber verses” to emphasize the reformed, Calvinist, complementarian positions, which are a minority of the text.
The reality is that Grudem and company didn’t do much in the way of translation. The ESV is a really lazy translation in that respect and very ideologically based, IMHO.
Melissa wrote:
Satan uses the ‘some truth in it’ a lot to trap people unawares. So do sales people and politicians. The ancient enemy has always provided inspiration for those who would manipulate unsuspecting and trusting victims. This time, the ancient enemy, working through the pride and hubris of the ‘male headship’ crowd, attempted an attack on sacred Scripture’s integrity, so we will most certainly also see satan’s hand in what results from the ruse.
Jamie Carter wrote:
That’s exactly their twisted logic.
@ Kolya:
Did you know Packers wife is egalitarian. They did not even attend the same church.
Lydia wrote:
Check out Amazon. I looked this morning. They have dozens available both new and used. They have quite a few used that you can get for less than $1 plus a few $$ shipping.
I wrote this recently. Its been one of my most read posts and deals with Wayne Grudem, the ESV and more.
wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/wayne-grudems-un-orthodox-view-of-the-trinity-and-the-question-that-must-be-asked-can-the-esv-bible-be-trusted/
Tina wrote:
Didn’t I read something about dog poo upthread?
Lydia wrote:
Lydia: are you reading this in paper or on a tablet or computer reader? I’ve been interested in getting a copy, but I prefer to read on a computer these days (and it shows, my optometrist told me yesterday I needed specific computer glasses for that habit!) and I was wondering about the formatting if you read it on a tablet or Kindle.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Posting this again because the clicky link didn’t come through and I didn’t want people to be confused…
Christiane wrote:
Is this the same principle as “eat the meat and spit out the bones”?
@ mirele:
I like the way you connect the dots, Mirele. A long time ago, I got it that there is that dreadful connection out there between dominionism and politics and the trappings of religion. And the work of the neo-Cals with the resulting ‘victims’ who have suffered shows me that they are connected up with a network that is larger than themselves, and far more injurious to the freedom of us all in this country.
Stay vigilant. Connect the dots whenever you can confirm with evidence and conviction that connections really do exist. All that is evil converges and eventually joins up at some point.
@ mirele:
I downloaded the app on my iPad which is about 16 NT books. It was only 5.99!
Here is my question….is Wayne Grudem the new Joseph Smith? What’s next….polygamy?
@ Christiane:
Yes, dominionism is the taking away our choices and the government oligarchy deciding for us… while exempting themselves from the same mandates. Oops. That has been currently going on.
@ Ken F:
The original?
mirele wrote:
Yes!!!! It WAS lazy but hailed as scholarly.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
How about the new Muhammad? The way the ESV has been frozen in time and space appears to be how the Quran is treated by many Muslims, as an inviolable text given by the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad.
Let me be clear, I think the biblical text is important for study but I find inerrancy of the text to be unacceptable (for me) given what we know about the text and textual variants. I also don’t believe the text is prescriptive for all time but rather descriptive in many things. In short, I think the text should be handled carefully. These are things that put me out beyond the charmed circle of the the household of evangelical faith.
But to go back, I really do think this move of Crossway to turn the ESV into a permanently fixed translation does smack of a new type of textual inerrancy. No translation is perfect and insinuating the Permanent Edition of the ESV is that perfect translation needs to be resisted.
For the record, Mark Driscoll uses the ESV. Surprised? I’m not.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t know. Publisher is Zondervan. There are quite a few to choose from.
mirele wrote:
Well said. The distraction is for a reason. They want followers of themselves. This goes back to Diotrephes. Calvin and the Popes were particularly successful at forcing allegiance to themselves.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you! That’s just what I needed to know!
Patriciamc wrote:
Imagine the poison that this injects into the marriage relationship. The husband is taught that his wife is *by nature* set against him. The wife is taught that God designed her to be her husband’s subordinate who should *joyfully* submit to his fallen judgment because she, as a woman, is *by nature* more easily deceived than her husband is. If there is a difference in judgment, then the husband must rule over her judgment because he is the male.
This is a toxic doctrine that has nothing of the true Gospel in it. It sells to weak men and weak women who do not find their identities in the Risen Christ but rather in idolatrous abstractions of “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” or in human idols who promote those idolatrous abstractions.
A Biblical Man is one who emulates the Risen Christ. A Biblical Woman is a woman who emulates the Risen Christ. The Good News is that in Christ men and women can live in harmony rather than in enmity. The true Gospel brings reconciliation, but this false gospel creates suspicion and fear where there should be trust and unity.
CBMW, ESV, Crossway, and the Gospel Glitterati do not grasp the very heart of the Gospel. Rather they want to perpetuate the consequences of the Fall and call it “God’s good and beautiful design.”
Tina wrote:
well, we’ve had the neo-Cals themselves openly bragging about THEIR changes to the text …. so I’d say the meat itself is now tainted
Ken F wrote:
They made some conciliatory changes trying to stay alive. I want the original. I checked Amazon several times but was not convinced the sellers knew the difference.
Maybe when the copyright is over some brave soul will put it online in the future.
While not a Bible translation, some precious soul came across Bushnell Gods Word to Women and had it republished after many decades. That missionary medical doctor woman did her homework and is more of a scholar than all the current crop combined!
mirele wrote:
Excellent point. They do seem to be implying that the ESV is now somehow perfect for all time and is, for all practical purposes, an inerrant text.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m not familiar with Dr. Kostenberger’s views on complementarianism, but I was quite impressed when he wrote strong rebuttals some years ago in response to Debbie Maken’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7. Maken wrote a book, Getting Serious about Getting Married, in which she condemned the trend toward extended singleness and advocated for a system which amounted to courtship on steroids. Maken interpreted 1 Corinthians 7 to essentially mandate marriage for Christians unless they had a specific gift of celibacy. While stating that he considered marriage the norm, Dr. Kostenberger cited what he considered to be some errors in Maken’s exegesis of that Scripture passage.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Have you come across a YRR who does not act as if they believe that Wayne Grudem is a prophet for our time? I have not, though they would deny they regard him as a prophet.
singleman wrote:
It’s good that he did that because her position is just another kind of bondage. It is regrettable that he cannot see that Female Subordination is just a different kind of bondage for both men and women. If he ever does, he will be out of a job.
@ mirele:
I am not a big fan of Kindle because of formatting issues. But now we can download to tablets so what is the point? And I did not want another book to keep track of, either. I am still culling books. But I might need special glasses, too!
I figure he will get all the NT on an app at some point. I don’t have Matthew, Mark or Luke which I look forward to.
I am just starting with it but it is fascinating to read. I encourage folks to check out examples on the Mirror bible website.
I found out about his translation from Baxter Kruger.
@ singleman:
You can search for his name + 1 Timothy 2 and get his take on Female Subordination. You have made me curious about his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7!
I prefer the only agenda in translation would to be accuracy but people have their own agendas. Likely every translation betrays the beliefs and prejudices of those producing it, maybe it is the internet now but the personal agendas in this “final version” strikes me as more blatantly obvious.
Gram3 wrote:
They choose to live in the Old Testament and totally ignore the Jesus of the New Testament.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly. It should be obvious to Southern Baptists by now that the good doctor is accountable to no one within SBC, as he conducts his rebellion against denominational majority non-Calvinst belief and practice.
mot wrote:
no they didn’t ‘ignore’ Him, they attempted to ‘demote’ Him in their ESS doctrine, and their BF&M2K, and in their claim to ‘inerrancy’ interpretations that override the Royal Law of Christ, and in their use of Him as the ‘model’ of ‘submission’ that women need to follow by submitting to their own god, their husband; and finally them of the Driscoll type have attempted to use Him as a model of a ‘He-Man’ strongman type full of hubris for men to copy.
In short, there is little in neo-Cal world that kneels before the Lord of the Cosmos, no. It’s all about bowing to male-headship. They now have such small gods.
Nancy2 wrote:
Guilty.
Gram3 wrote:
I think this attitude falls in line with their belief that they are not to be questioned. And sadly many of their first tier followers (pastors) do not think for themselves so these sorts of tactics work. The pastors take this attitude to the pulpits and are not questioned or challenged. And so it goes….
Gram3 wrote:
I’d suggest Googling his name together with Debbie Maken’s. The discussion took place 10 years ago but seems quite relevant today, especially now that Joshua Harris is reconsidering his views on courtship.
mot wrote:
Mot,
I would say that some SBC churches are. Southern, Southeaster, and Midwestern seminaries are turning out a significant number of students each year, and the churches that call them may find that those young pastors and staff members may use it.
But on the other side, when the Lockman Foundation became so difficult to deal with on the NASB, LifeWay and Holman decided they needed to commission a new translation that was really similar to the NASB, but they wouldn’t have to deal with Lockman. Hence Mohler’s comment at the time, “We need a translation that we can control”, which was obviously a reference to publishing rights, but those living in the fever swamps took to mean “rewrite.”
I don’t know exactly what happened, but somewhere along the way, Holman’s product, The Holman Christian Standard Bible, didn’t find new found fame. I know the name was a clunker, but “Christian Standard Bible” was already taken. I understand that Holman is working to get that name.
Now I understand the ESV is a Crossway product. So you have a competition between Crossway and Holman. I don’t know how significant that is in real terms, but it seems significant to me.
Also, the product that Mohler was originally in favor of – the HCSB, fell by the wayside, and Mohler, Dever and others quickly got on Board with the ESV.
It may be strictly and academic matter. I have known forever that the RSV used a great set of manuscripts and was supposed to be strong in that regard (maybe superior to the HCSB, but I can’t say). So I think when they negotiated the deal to do the ESV, the evangelical world was thrilled.
So there you have my limited understanding. Whether the SBC will be more LifeWay/Holman brand loyal to the HCSB which may become the CSB, or more loyal to the personality brand favorite of Mohler, Dever and others – the ESV, is yet to be seen.
I will say that every time I go to the SBC annual meeting or go in the stores it is still amazing to me how many KJVs are still out there. I love it, but when speaking to a younger crowd, it’s harded to get through it.
This is nothing new. Over the millennia, making the Bible say what you want it to say has been done by pretty much everyone.
I have only 2 bibles, both given as gifts. Today’s English Version & king James. When I’ve gone to the Bible, it’s the tev that I read. Don’t know if it’s a ‘good’ one or not.
Lea wrote:
No, sadly they have absolutely no clue.
Anonymous wrote:
Agree with you there, I think we have yet to see a translation with no gender bias at all, but I disagree that this is merely translation bias. This is adding their own words to the scriptures. This is as bad as the Jehovah’s Witness Bible where they added the word “a” so that it says Jesus was “a god” instead of “God.” They have changed the word of God to fit their doctrine rather than fitting their doctrine to the word of God.
Anonymous wrote:
What an insult. I guess questioning his insistence on adding an “s” to the priesthood of believer in the BFM 2000 means we are living in the fever swamp.
After all these years it would be stupidity on steroids not to question everything Mohler has said in the past which led the SBC to where it is today. Of course he has had a deceptive agenda. Why wouldn’t the ESV be an eventual part of it? We know the man has no character or Integrity — that has been proven by his own words and actions.
@ Beakerj:
“God, thank you for not making me like this evangelical feminist…”
Anonymous wrote:
Nice spin.
Another thing I will say – it is really hard to find a lot of New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs.
They used to be all over the place back in the 70s, in all kinds of translations.
If you look for one now, they are mainly little KJVs. I got a leather bound ESV because that was the only other one I could find.
If someone can direct me to a NLT New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs, leather bound, and NOT tiny, but mid-sized, let me know. I will buy you dinner!
Lydia wrote:
Spot on.
I was a newbie and blind-sided by NeoCalvinism about ten years ago. I read Mohler’s articles about Biblicalness, having no idea that he had betrayed and abused countless dear Christians, including conservatives, cost them their jobs, etc. at seminaries. If he’d only added a disclaimer about his lack of personal ethics, I wouldn’t have wasted time on his articles.
@ Stan:
Lol! Summed up nicely.
singleman wrote:
If I was one of these and I had no part in the change of language in Genesis, I would want my name OFF of there.
siteseer wrote:
Oh they have a clue, alright. But the reality is…they DON’T care! They want prestige, power, and authority.
@ singleman:
Will do. The shorter version of Kostenberger’s view on 1 Timothy 2 is that women who wish to be “saved” from Satanic deception need to keep to their role of marrying and bearing children. Since the Man was created first, all males rank above all females who are supposed to be assistants to the males who have the Creation Mandate. Naturally he expends a lot of words to say that, but it boils down to “what the text plainly says” in 1 Timothy 2. Now that the ESV text “plainly says” that females are naturally wired to resist male authority, the discussion is over on that count as well, I suppose.
Lydia wrote:
How should it be translated? That depends.
Brother/s is difficult. It can mean male siblings, and some have used the text in which ‘brothers’ of Jesus are named and ‘sisters’ are mentioned to say (1) that Mary had more kids both male and female and (2) that brothers in that context means males.
Brothers can mean non-sibling or non full sibling relatives, and some have used that understanding as in keeping with the belief that Mary did not have any other children.
Brothers can in some contexts mean a mixed group of even non-sibling males and females, or so they say. I don’t have an specific or certain example of that but I take their word for it.
Brother, along with mother and sister can mean ‘whoever does the will of my Father (Jesus)’.
So what I am saying is that IMO there is no substitute for telling people all that instead of playing with the translation of ‘brother’ since any specific translation in any specific situation could be in error if the context were misunderstood.
Anonymous wrote:
Crossway is a “partner” with the various Gospel Glitterati and their organizations, and the “partnership” benefits all parties. The HCSB was not going anywhere outside the SBC, IMO, and there was no value in Mohler’s endorsement of it outside the SBC. Every attendee at a GG conference becomes a marketing ambassador for Crossway with all the “free books” they get. If you deviate from the party line, there are no publishing cookies for you (generic you.)
As I’ve said so many times before, I believe there is a lot of explanatory material in the publishing contracts between Crossway and the Glitterati.
Nancy2 wrote:
I really think they don’t realize that women are human. So they expect us to have no opinion or emotion or thought? Because Jesus? Really?
Pass.
Anonymous wrote:
Crossway Publishing is the go-to place for all things Calvinist. A visit to their website will show a listing of books they publish for the who’s-who in New Calvinism, in addition to works by classical Calvinists.
Anonymous wrote:
Well, certainly. They needed a new sword to go with the new reformation.
Gram3 wrote:
Time to bring out Ken F’s excellent, logical arguments countering Comp. I stashed his good comments at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab.
“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.”
Anonymous wrote:
I like a challenge. I took a look through Christian Book to see what they’d have.
I don’t think this is going to fit what you want, because it’s thinline and not fullsize and PINK, but here goes:
http://www.christianbook.com/nlt-thinline-testament-proverbs-imitation-leather/9781414337548/pd/337548?event=EBRN ($9.99)
This is described as hardcover and runs $9.99.
http://www.christianbook.com/nlt-vintage-collection-devotional-testament-proverbs/9781414339665/pd/339665?event=EBRN
If you scroll down on the page you’ll find “Hope” and “Love” versions (different devotionals, I would guess).
After that price point, they start in with the cheap full Bibles at $10.99.
Gram3 wrote:
ARGH. These men read the Bible as prescriptive for all time and forget that women are only in our child-bearing years for a certain period, not forever.
I’ll gladly resist this male authority, because it says NOTHING to me as a single woman. And it’s not the way my father, a conservative man, raised me to be.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
I don’t think that’s a facetious question at all.
@ Max:
The real question from that venue us why the Holman ‘went by the wayside’. Pope Mohler could have easily decreed it’s use at SBTS and promoted it like he does the ESV. So why not?
(Note, I am not promoting the Holman but speaking strictly from the brand POV. Holman is the SBC brand. Mohler is an SBC entity employee)
@ Gram3:
Yes. The Holman would not benefit Mohler in any way.
@ okrapod:
That was the whole point of the TNiV to correct the appropriate context for such wording. There is no word for “siblings” in Greek, as I understoodd it. I heard Gordon Fee speak on this years ago but my memory is a bit fuzzy on the particulars.
Also, as an example, there is no one English word for the meaning of “authenteo”, either. So some translated it as “authority over” yet some older translations used “domineer” which is a bit closer to what was subsequently found in its use from archeology digs.
Word choice in translation is very political, IMO.
But ESV is literally adding a different meaning for the text.
mirele wrote:
Such a great comment. I have been in many meetings regarding safeguarding both children & vulnerable adults recently & the vast majority of practitioners are women of a certain age…ignored by the church & sexualised society, but the backbone & the conscience, as well as the hard grafters of our society.
mirele wrote:
A great argument for polygamy or a “legal wife” and a “spiritual wife” as in Tony Jones.
Hmm…this saddens and angers me on many levels. Down the line, with their children (or followers), there will come a point when the truth about this translation will break through and I guarantee it will shake their faith. It may even destroy the faith of some.
As has been already noted by others, every translation has errors and biases. It would serve the body well if this were something that was dealt with honestly. For me, growing up, the go to translation was the Amplified. I received one for my 16th birthday and NOW I was a grown-up Christian (eye roll). I was taught that it was okay to look at other translation, but the CORRECT one was the Amplified. The cracks began forming in that foundation when I was doing a time line study on the kings of Israel and noticed a discrepancy in the accounts in Kings and Chronicles. I was doubting my eyes, then I read the footnote and it said that this was a due to a known transcription error in the Hebrew texts. Oh. Okay. Move along. But over time, this niggled in the back of my mind.
Then I ended up in a cultis church where I was introduced to the Message….then the pastor went down the road of KJV is the ONLY accurate word for word translation (which is false on all levels)….
So, when I escaped from that place and began the process of reassessing what I actually believed, this became a difficult issue. Because of how I was taught growing up, it felt like if no translation can be trusted to be accurate, how can we possibly know the truth? Is it all hogwash? Shifting to the position the there is no such thing and an inerrant translation or even transcription was a difficult faith issue.
I think if we are honest about this with our children / congrgations, it would strengthen rather than weaken faith…teach that it is good to read and compare many translations and compare and ponder what is consistent among them and what is not.
I think the stakes are pretty high for these guys. To go to the place where they actually reverse the meaning of the Hebrew words to fit their doctrine and then set those changes in stone and teach there students / children / congregations that it is the ONLY valid translation is nothing more than a new attempt (using an old method) to control and rule. May it quickly go the way of all such schemes.
Christiane wrote:
2 Peter 2:1
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them“
@ Melissa:
“I confess burning them was my first impulse, too. But then I chickened out.”
++++++++++++++
it’s ink on paper, enriching the publisher and ideological factions. God is far bigger than these things. it will burn quite nicely.
siteseer wrote:
From Dr. Mariottini:
“By translating the preposition ’el in Genesis 3:16 as “contrary to,” the ESV interjects a radical tension in the relationship between man and woman. The expression “contrary to” communicates the idea that everything the woman desires is contrary to what the man desires. If the word “desire” in the ESV is to be understood as sexual desire, then the Permanent Text of the ESV “communicates the thought that only the woman desires to be with man—sexually or otherwise—and that man has no real need or desire to be with woman” (Schmidt 2000:87).
“It is no secret that many Christians use Genesis 3:16 as a proof-text to defend and justify the subordination of women. The revision proposed by the ESV, in a sense, requires a woman to be submissive to an all-wise man, since her desire is contrary to man’s desire. This means that only the man’s desire is correct and the woman must follow his desire because all her desires are “contrary to” her husband’s desire.”
siteseer wrote:
When I read this stuff, I feel like a good half of Christianity seems to be being slowly taken over by a cult.
Bad enough the proof texts, but they happily read things into Genesis that are literally not there at all (Adam sinned because he didn’t exercise headship is Simply Not There – some guy at one of the linked articles said men are days 1-3 which is organization and leadership or something and women are days 4-6 which is fluffy lesser girl stuff – where did that come from???). Now reading in isn’t good enough so they had to write it in.
Maybe I should just start saying ‘Get thee behind me Satan’ when I see it.
This really disturbs me.
I’m a teacher. My passion is for people to know and love the Lord through the study of Scripture. That women would be hindered by an agenda injected into Holy Writ…not cool. Not cool at all.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
We used kjv in my christian elementary school (or maybe nkjv?) and I still love it for the language. It just sounds poetic and bibley. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect or the only one! How silly.
Lea wrote:
Ooh! I just realized if I ever start a take back Christianity for women org I’m gonna call it Day Eight.
@ Lea:
“…reasons men are supposed to be in charge. None of it actually came from Genesis.
Do these men have any clue how disgusting some of this is to read as a woman?
I am so sad that these people are in positions of power and using these things to prop themselves up, but I am even more sad that they can’t seemingly even hear what they are saying.”
+++++++++++++
some are too wrapped up in their own power and ego and have too much to lose to consider anything else. they are exceedingly corrupt. their sense of right and wrong has been corrupted. their moral compass is spinning around. it can no longer sense true north.
others are too wrapped up in the ideology of their “tribe” and belonging to it with a modicum of significance. they can’t help but come across as dumb, stupid, & oblivious.
what morons, all of ’em.
@ Lea:
There is an argument to be made that it is often quoted or referenced in great literature. The non Christian producer of the Shakespeare festival here pointed that out to me years ago. :o)
NJ wrote:
Ugh, perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but I could see this as a justification for non-consensual marital relations..
Lydia wrote:
I think that’s a decent argument. I love the kjv, I just don’t think it’s inerrant. I have no problem with man used for mankind so long as people are bright enough to realize that’s what it means and don’t throw nonsense at me for proof texting.
mirele wrote:
They think man should make all the decisions, whether father husband or sometimes pastor/elder. If women are not allowed to consent, how can it be consensual? Only when men and women (rightly) ignore the real meaning of these things which they probably generally do.
@ Lea:
Or rather if women are not allowed to disagree they cannot fully agree.
I’m not sure if they don’t think through their logic, agree and then ignore, or are really that messed up. I think it’s a mix.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
There is a movement to legalize polygamy even now.
If anyone doesn’t think they would take advantage of it, they are dreaming.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/10/heres-why-people-are-arguing-over-whether-polygamy-is-the-next-gay-marriage-debate/
On another complementarian-related issue, I’m seeing articles show up today about some recent ETS meeting. Here is one of them:
Alarms in ETS about a Complementarian Conspiracy
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/16/alarms-in-ets-about-a-complementarian-conspiracy/
Snippets:
———-
Stan’s [Stan Gundry] intelligent suggestion that there are reasons to think this set of resolutions was part of a complementarian conspiracy:…
Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
-ease out biblical egalitarians,
-exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
-let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
-shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
-marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
“pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
-question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
-propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
@ Daisy:
And there’s this:
Whence and Whither ETS? An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/whence-and-whither-ets-open-letter-members-ets
@ Lea:
I did not grow up with any sort of translation snobbery. My mom read from many and most were marked up. I treasure them today. We weren’t politically correct I guess. She would buy cases of “Good News For Modern Man” to give away to people. I liked the illustrations as a kid. o)
mirele wrote:
What I thought of was Abigail and Nabal, plus Ananias and Sapphira. The view of relations between men and women being carved in stone in the permanent ESV cannot account for situations like these.
Estelle wrote:
Once you have Utter Perfection, any change is for the worse.
Just ask Citizen Robespierre, Comrade Kim Jong-Un, and Mullah Omar.
Lea wrote:
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1950’s version.
refugee wrote:
You mean the time that Rabbi from Nazareth said “He Who Dies With The Most Toys Is Still DEAD”?
@ Daisy:
I read all that! The comment that related what the ETS big cheese did to some of the Open Theists who presented at ETS was triggering and immature for someone in that position. I wish people would name names but I get why they don’t. . I have seen the exact same type of disrespectful and insulting behavior from other big cheeses in similar venues mainly Neo Cals. The seeker big cheeses did it behind backs. They are masters of flattery.
There is a promotion of group think and peer pressure that says to followers, I had best be in the accepted camp or my possibilities are limited. I have seen it over and over.
What exactly does this ETS big cheese think “image of God” means, anyway?
Refugee wrote:
I like the term “Eternally Superior Version”.
After all, didn’t Calvin Himself use the ESV?
Velour wrote:
Treat them as you would high-grade nuclear waste.
Anonymous wrote:
The Gideon’s used to hand out NT + Psalms & Proverbs. If you know any Gideons, ask them about the NT Vivles they use to give away. I have 2 copies, from my school days.
@ Nancy2:
Oops, typo x 2 : Bibles, not Vivles!
Velour wrote:
I remember hearing of it as a sermon illustration (teaching “Separation from those HEATHENS”) long before there was an Internet.
And there was some Victorian-era anti-Catholic rhyme with a similar plotline — don’t remember the details, but it involved Arsenic in Communion Wafers to disprove Romish Popery.
Velour wrote:
Upon pain of Eternal Hell?
@ Daisy:
Excellent article!
Max wrote:
“Just like Dake’s Annotated Bible, Except CALVINIST(TM)!”
The end-of-the-world shepherding cult I got mixed up with in the Seventies pushed the Dake’s Annotated very heavily. Nobody I knew of actually read the KJV text in the central two columns, only Dake’s commentary in the (wider) outer columns. And that commentary was Wack on Steroids. I can’t help thinking the same dynamic is in operation with this one.
mirele wrote:
I actually believe that Genesis 3:16 is talking about marital relations, at least in one respect. God said that he would greatly increase the Woman’s pain in childbearing, including death in childbirth. *Nevertheless* and *despite that* she would still desire or long for her husband, though a moment with her husband might cost her life. IMO, that is what the text “plainly” says. It is only with late 20th century Western eyes that childbirth has become routine. Without easy contraception, anesthesia, antibiotics, and sterile delivery environments (including surgery when necessary), bearing a child was dangerous. It would be totally rational for women throughout history to assess the risks of marital relations and say, nope, not worth it.
Obviously, that thought does not occur to these exceedingly manly men who only want authority so that they can serve.
Gram3 wrote:
Like Shari’a?
“GOD HATH SAID!” for All Eternity?
Lea wrote:
A spin on Acts 29?
Lea wrote:
At my ex-church the pastors/elders ordered women like me into meetings and screamed and yelled at us for making our own decisions, choices in friends, having critical thinking skills. We were constantly told to “obey” them and to “submit” to their authority. Their authority is not of God and is a figment of their own arrogant imaginations.
Then they would tell the entire church that they “had worked with so and so” to no avail and that you were never to speak to that person again. Excommunication and shunnings.
Liars and lunatics those pastors/elders, as scores of Christians have said that they were subjected to vile abuse behind closed doors.
Christiane wrote:
JUST LIKE THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ VERSION!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
+100
Gram3 wrote:
I have referred to it as ” Invasion of the Church Body Snatchers”.
@ Lydia:
I have a nkjv, a precious moments bible (not idea what that translation was) and two nivs for some reason.
@ Gram3:
This is interesting as it follows “be fruitful and multiply” before the fall. Maybe that was oversold by patriarchy as a command separate from the fall –considering the consequences and subsequent barbarity? I don’t necessarily read Genesis as literal but that is interesting to contemplate.
Lea wrote:
Sometimes I feel the same way (most of the time, actually).
Flip side: if we are not human, we don’t have souls. Given that, what should we care how we behave. God said “submit”? So what?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
🙂
Regarding the one ESV translation from Genesis of “for” to “contrary to”, what does that even mean?
The “contrary to” (in my mind) suggests something totally opposite from what the underlying text is saying.
If my understanding of that verse is correct, how is that accurate biblical translation?????
Daisy wrote:
They do not need to be accurate or correct. They merely need to convince people that they are right.
@ Gram3:
Bingo.
Nancy2 wrote:
And Lydia’s post right above yours. Okay, it’s not just my imagination or me mis-reading it, some of you are apparently viewing it the same way I am….
Changing the verse from “for” to “contrary to” makes it sound the total opposite of what it was previously.
Nancy2 wrote:
That's a pretty good observation.
Besides that, wouldn't maybe the Neo-Cal position on this be that God pre-ordained all women every where to be "contrary" to all men and/or husbands in general??
Anonymous wrote:
How ’bout the NKJV? I have that version along with the KJV, NASB, NLT, NIV, and probably others.
mirele wrote:
This is what I don’t get as well. No matter how you translate the passage, it was the curse! Are we still under the curse today or not? Not!
Bridget wrote:
Preach it!!!
I have a really good question.
What NOW is the NEW neo-Cal definition of ‘inerrancy’?
Daisy wrote:
My take is that they have taught the “contrary” position for decades and now they have codified it in a translation.
It is about a nervy as you can get. But it is not a new teaching. If one is promoting the ESV, they don’t have to explain the plain meaning anymore! Ha
Jamie Carter wrote:
Why do complementarians say that the sexes are complementary when they go around in a lot of their teaching saying that Men Are From Mars, Woman Are From Venus.
They simultaneously teach women and men pair up well together (because their differences go well together like PB and Jelly)
but they also teach women and men are so totally unlike, one wonders how any men or women anywhere ever marry??
Dictionary defn of “contrary”:
opposed; in opposition: contrary to the rules
opposite in nature, order, direction, etc.; altogether different
unfavorable: contrary winds
inclined to oppose or disagree stubbornly; perverse
Origin of contrary
Middle English contrarie ; from Old French contraire ; from Classical Latin contrarius, opposite, opposed ; from contra, against
How can a husband and wife be “complementary” when the wife’s desire is “contrary to” her husband and he has to “rule over” her?
Christiane wrote:
From everything I can tell, it’s whatever Wayne Grudem says.
I don’t think they claim inerrancy out of scholarship. I think they do so just to support their cult.
In the ESV, marriage is defined as more of a conquest of man over women than a one flesh union.
Daisy wrote:
I wish someone in the SBC had had that kind of backbone!
Lydia wrote:
Do you reckon the New Calvinist who’s-who have a deal worked out with Crossway … that if they promote the ESV in their spheres of influence, Crossway cuts them a deal on publishing costs for books they author?
interesting, found by way of Wiki:
http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/
Nancy2 wrote:
“PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”
Nancy2 wrote:
Exactly. They have sanctified the Battle of the Sexes. Baptized the Lockhorns. How sad their view of the marriage union is.
They will say that the Man’s benevolent “headship was corrupted at the Fall, not that it began with the Fall. However, there is a huge exegetical and logical gap that is papered over with assumptions, circular arguments like the appeal to 1 Timothy 2, and eisegesis. That canyon of a gap is that there is *no* textual basis for asserting male “headship” as either a creation ordinance *or* as universally prescriptive. Grudem’s famous ten reason for male headship is purely a delusion propagated enough times by enough of the “right” people that many believe “it has always been so.”
Nancy2 wrote:
doublethink, comrade, doubleplusdoublethink.
Bridget wrote:
Some of them seem to think the curse part is that desire of woman to disagree with her man that they made up? And the ruling over her is just how it’s supposed to be.
I don’t know what kind of crazy patriarch glasses you have to put on to see that though.
Daisy wrote:
Mars (Ares), God of War for the sake of War & Slaughter;
Venus (Aphrodite), Goddess of Sex and Fertility;
Need I say more?
Daisy wrote:
Which is why they have to be kept down.
Nancy2 wrote:
Completing each other is defined solely as the wife obeying and the husband leading. That’s completing each other! If anything goes wrong, it’s just because the woman hasn’t submitted properly.
I’m totally shocked why this leads to abuse!
Daisy wrote:
Which is why you have Christian Courtship(TM).
So the woman has Absolutely NO Choice in the matter.
After all, a MAN needs the Wife Appliance to breed Legitimate Sons (and to satisfy the URRRRGES in his AAAAAAAREAS which MUST be Gratified Immediately).
Ken F wrote:
OH NO! Now I can’t get that song out of my mind…. 🙁
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Pagan influence in neo-Cal marriage models? YES. Their model certainly does not fit the early Christian description of marriage by Tertullian, writing to his wife. I know that the ‘model’ for a sacramental Christian marriage is based on the authority of Christ, and not the male spouse. Even from early days in ancient Church, Christ was celebrated as the One to Whom both spouses looked for guidance:
From a letter by Tertullian, an Early Church Father, to his wife, ca. 202 A.D.
” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.
Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”
Grudem and Ware would not approve! 🙂
Christiane wrote:
Hmmm. I’ve been looking for the rationale for the absolute necessity of making the change from “for” to “contrary to” but have not been able to find it. Seems like the urgency of that particular change might have been apparent in the 15 or so years since the first ESV was published. Why now?
Deb wrote:
It is my favorite translation for simply reading. I have an early NIV Study Bible, an RSV given to me by my church back in the 60’s (!), a KJV, and for certain kinds of study, a totally new translation of the NT from the Greek by an Orthodox monastery out in Colorado, full of translation notes and references to the Church Fathers. They use a translation philosophy that tries to convey the feeling of the Greek verb tenses – nobody ‘does’ anything, they ‘are doing’ it. It somehow gives a new angle on a passage.
A few years ago I was looking into getting an ESV, but happily realized that I already had an RSV 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
I have been asking this question as well.
Lea wrote:
Denny is in a bit of a pickle, as far as I can see. He already had the albatross of ESS hanging around his neck, and now he has this blatant change of translation to explain away. He says it is a justifiable translation, but not the one that he favors, which is the original ESV translation.
OK, Denny, so why did they make the change? Denny agrees with Susan Foh’s interpretation from 1975. How delicious is it that these mighty and manly men are hanging their Female Subordinationist translation hats on the scholarship and teaching of a…female?
ishy wrote:
Sorry, couldn't resist. 🙂
Deb wrote:
You should be sorry… 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, I’ve heard it said that a lot of the endtimes rhetoric we heard during the 1970s came straight from the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, filtered through Hal Lindsey, of course. But you’re the first person I’ve ever known who owned a Dake–I’d really like to know more about your experience with it.
Gram3 wrote:
So there you go. Men are NEVER to stoop so low as to be taught by a woman. It's shameful they took instruction from Susan Foh.
Gram3 wrote:
well, with the doctrine ESS under attack, this is a good time to change the subject
I don’t think they thought this one through. The changes are too obvious. These guys aren’t so smart OR else they think people are stupid. In either case, switching the chairs on the Titanic keeps them occupied, I suppose. How ‘self-important’ they must feel to claim such eternal status for their newly created ‘bible’. It would be funny if it weren’t so pitiful.
And disgusting, when you think of the contempt for God behind the fact that they had no problem messing with Scripture anymore than they had difficulty in trying to apply heresy to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And for WHAT?
Right now it doesn’t make sense. Something more is coming. Maybe soon I can see a pattern or connect some dots, or someone ‘important’ will say or do something so ‘revealing’ that a crack will form in their stealth shield. (?)
How DARE they change the meaning and intent of sacred Scripture so obviously and openly? How DARE they?
I don’t get it.
Deb wrote:
This is so weird, two of the most important “doctrines” for some parts of evangelical Protestantism appear to have come from women. There is an argument made that the origins of the dispensational premillennial rapture teaching were taken from a dream by a Scottish woman named Margaret MacDonald, then filtered through Edward Irving, John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield down to Hal Lindsey. Now we have this complementarianism in Genesis 3:16 which appears to have been pulled from a 1970s paper by Susan Foh.
Here’s a criticism of the Foh paper by evangelicals trying to awaken the church to abuse in its midst. I don’t have the education to say whether this is right or wrong, but just putting it here for the record.
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/04/15/what-is-the-womans-desire-how-susan-fohs-interpretation-of-genesis-316-fed-steroids-to-abusers-pt-1-of-2/
Gram3 wrote:
You won’t be able to confront him on his blog as he has shut down the comment section at this time.
No reasons given. But that’s interesting, too.
Max wrote:
I am not a fan of Bibles with built in commentaries. It elevates the thoughts of some person to the level with scripture and opinion gets so intertwined, it’s hard to separate. The commentaries often become dated or your opinion or understanding of scripture changes over time and then, there it is staring you in the face when you open the Bible. I’m not against commentaries, but I like keeping the Bible separate, in a class by itself.
Nancy2 wrote:
Isn’t that what David Bayly once said in a 2006 post about how a wedding is the groom conquering and triumphing over the bride and her father?
Gram3 wrote:
I agree, Gram. It seems so obvious to me that it boggles my mind that anyone sees anything else there.
Daisy wrote:
As long as they only use it as a proof text and no one actually reads the whole account with any reading comprehension, it doesn’t matter, I guess!
Deb wrote:
I’m going to go hide in my closet in terror now.
And I’d like to change that one line to “He’s a heresy inherent”, please?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Recent article from PBS on forced marriages in the US
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/uncovering-problem-forced-marriage-u-s/
NJ wrote:
Well, that’s just dumb. All she has to do is say, “No.” It works very well, especially when followed by, “If you don’t leave me alone I’ll report you as a stalker and make sure it gets into the newspaper.”
Christiane wrote:
If I may be so bold, they DARE because they believe themselves to be among God’s Elect while everyone else is predestined for Hell.
Velour wrote:
‘God’s Elect’ phooey
they are just evil G.O.A.T.S. (Guys’ Over-Active Testosterone Syndrome)
Christiane wrote:
http://images.clipartof.com/Clipart-Of-A-Red-And-White-Male-Boer-Goat-Wether-On-A-Giant-Spool-Royalty-Free-Vector-Illustration-10241264211.jpg
Lydia wrote:
Not all contrary opinions are crazy.
And Mohler has said stuff that is fair game.
But in that instance, when Mohler was clearly referencing being able to publish and print reliably, as opposed to dealing with a difficult copyright holder, to turn that quote into a stated desire to rewrite the text is beyond the pale.
It’s kind ok like when Paul Pressler used the phrase “going for the jugular.”
Some people can’t process the English language or metaphors
Lea wrote:
Yeah…conveniently ignoring the “plain” text that says only the serpent and the ground were cursed.
Anonymous wrote:
I don’t read minds and neither do you, right? I am processing information and history since 1993 of patterns of behavior and Words.
You keep leaving the Holman translation out of the scenario. Mohler is an SBC entity employee. I realize a lot of SBC people see him as more of a pope than an employee, sadly.
Slight off-topic announcement. I just learned from a former church member that Jonathan Leeman at 9Marks wrote an entire article based on my bad church experience at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, which I had documented in an Amazon review.
https://9marks.org/article/dont-be-a-9marxist/
^One correction: Leeman said the reviewer was a man (“he”). No, it’s a “she” (me).
I use the Douay-Rheims for devotional purposes. I pretty much only read the Gospels and Psalms anyway.
So McKnight can add Douay-Rheims is the Bible for really old Roman Catholics.
Deb wrote:
Maybe you remember John Piper’s baffling thoughts on this topic. He said that it is acceptable for a man to read a commentary written by a woman, unless at any point they sense that their male authority is being challenged in some way- in that case they should stop reading immediately
To my great surprise and disappointment, I saw today that Biblehub.com already has the Permanent Version (ESVP?) uploaded and in use on its site.
Velour wrote:
I skimmed through that article this morning and was wondering if you had written the review in question. If you liked that article you will really enjoy this one: https://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-crucial-discipleship/.
I’ve gotten in the habit of making daily rounds of sites like 9Marks, Al Mohler, TGC, Desiring God, CBMW, Founders, and Desiring God to see what they are posting (I guess it’s morbid curiosity). TGC and Desiring God are the most prolific. It’s incredible how many articles they put out daily. 9Marks used to add new material every few weeks, but lately they have been adding new material every few days.
siteseer wrote:
Grudem certainly is doubling down on promoting his own special heresy, isn’t he? As far as I can tell, he is still going forward with his talk at ETS: “Why a Denial of the Son’s Eternal Submission Threatens both the Trinity and the Bible.”
@ Ken F:
Thanks Ken F. I guess you’ve heard my story enough times, the details, that it is rather distinct.
The very things wrong with 9 Marks (authoritarianism, a re-tread of the abusive heavy-Shepherding Movement’s tactics from the 1970’s), Leeman was unwilling to acknowledge in the article. It was somehow outside churches’ misunderstanding of 9 Marks and not something wrong with 9 Marks itself.
He tipped his hat toward congregational votes (the brakes on many abusive systems, albeit not all) but didn’t state that Mark Dever wants to do away with congregational votes/Baptist polity.
And Mark Dever came across as a nice guy when we know from posts on this blog and comments that many Christians have NOT had their consciences respected but have had to deal with Dever’s heavy-handedness over their lives, choice of churches, leaving.
I get the distinct impression that 9 Marks is feeling the heat.
Burwell wrote:
Grudem is an absurd twit. Most of these Neocalvanista stars are clearly idiots. I simply do not understand how they got any traction at all. But there is so much that I don’t understand about the whole celebrity pastor/megachurch/neocal/complementarian weirdness. To me, ‘mega-church’ is an oxymoron.
Velour wrote:
I hope this is true. They need to know about the wake they are leaving behind.
Edward wrote:
That still boggles my mind, as if male-authority is sacred or something.
@ Velour:
When Denver or Lehman are talking about Congregationalist or baptist polity I think they are referring more to the Puritan Separatist type definition. When it comes to these guys you have to discuss definitions. It is exhausting.
Ken F wrote:
Just a repeat of their tired refrain about Comp. I’ll let Daisy and everybody else (you, Gram3, Lydia, Ishy, HUG, Harley, etc.) dissect the problems with the article. It makes me want to SCREAM.
Lydia wrote:
That’s so true, Lydia.
@ Velour:
Wow. You hit a nerve!
Lydia wrote:
Because they wore on my last raw nerve like a dental drill with no anesthesia!
Velour wrote:
Wow! Not just 9, but 15 marks in his reply! I’ll read it when I feel up to it. Which book did you review? He says he got his Don’t Be a 9Marxist title from another commenter who’s not me, and I believe myself to have coined the term. But they already had a seminar at T$g by that name…
Lydia wrote:
Ha! He started by clarifying that 9marx isn’t a denom, so it can’t be a 9marx church. lol.
Also, when ‘don’t be a 9marxist’ began to need to be a regular column/video series/etc? maybe you should rethink your grand idea.
Christiane wrote:
I like it!
Dave A A wrote:
Remember those 9 things we told you before? Here are 15 things that are the exact opposite. Have fun kids!
@ Lea:
Lol! No, not a denomination but they have a list of member churches on their site. Maybe a coalition of propaganda churches?
Lea wrote:
But they have a church search tab to identify 9Marks churches. I hate to say he is lying, but…
Dave A A wrote:
I reviewed Dever’s 9 Marks of an [un] Healthy Church.
My former church pastors/elders at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley were so ticked off with my candid reviews of their abusive church that they persauded Amazon to revoke my customer reviewing priviledges, despite the fact I’ve been a customer of Amazon’s for years, spent a lot of money there for things for myself and for gifts for others, and have given most products 4-5 star reviews.
My ex-pastors/elders can be very manipulative. I wrote the CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos about Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, their abuses of any Christian man or woman, the excommunications and shunning for the slightest dissent (doctor in his 70’s, woman in finance, me) and the Megan’s List sex offender. Mr. Bezos RESTORED my customer review privileges.
roebuck wrote:
Which one is this? I’ve been considering getting the Orthodox Study Bible, but the one you mention sounds like a different one.
Dave A A wrote:
Yes, I think you started using the term and then others adopted it. Now it’s widespread across the internet. Good job.
@ Velour:
And a 9 Marxist column was born! This just cracks me up. It is like a memo to little pimply faced tyrants to be gentler nicer pimply faced tyrants.
@ Dave A A:
You should have trademarked it. Oh well……
Lydia wrote:
There was a comment that said basically ‘thanks for this! I disagreed with some stuff at church but now I know I should just trust my elders’??!!!
Honestly folks. It’s like they’re all little sycophants. I find it nauseating.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly.
Lea wrote:
They are a cancer that needs to be stopped now.
Lea wrote:
And at my ex-church the senior pastor is NOT trustworthy. A job he claimed he had at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church as a youth pastor/children’s pastor MacArthur said was not true and my ex-pastor was ONLY a volunteer like scores of others.
A “Ph.D.” that my ex-pastor claims he has and a Master’s Degree he claims that he has are fakes according to the U.S. Department of Education and are from the unaccredited Faith Bible College in Independence, Missouri. A Ph.D. is $299 and some “life experience”. A bona fide Ph.D. from a real university is 8+ years of hard work to earn.
The only “accrediting” agency was brought up on fraud charges by the Missouri Attorney General and banned from doing business in the state.
My ex-pastor claims on the church website that he’s doing “post-doctoral work” at three different colleges no less.
How can someone who NEVER earned a Ph.D. being doing more work after that?
Most recently my ex-pastor sent out an email to hundreds of church members lying about me, per usual. He said that I was mentally unstable, was aggressively harassing church members (I’ve never contacted anyone in any form and he’s a pathological liar and master manipulator), that three police departments ‘said so’ (two police officers – the church secretary’s husband and a deacon – work for two police departments and don’t speak for their departments. I did turn them in to Internal Affairs for this with copies of the email that was sent to church members, that an insider gave me).
“[Blindly] Trust your elders”? That person is not using the brains God gave them.
Trust is earned by being trustworthy!
Remnant wrote:
The National Council of Churches was about to go belly up in the late 1990s; they needed cash immediately, so the NCC accepted $ 625,000 (ed.) from Crossway up front:
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-90989211/new-funds-boost-ncc-news
“Financially strapped, the NCC was dealing from a position of weakness. But through cost-cutting measures and, most recently, a $500,000 grant from the Lilly Endowment and a $625,000 advance royalty check from a conservative Bible publisher, the National Council of Churches has balanced its books”
“The $625,000 check from Crossway Books received this summer carried with it a bit of irony….That publisher edited “a derivative” version for a theologically conservative market–the English Standard Version….Rather than stringing out royalty checks over the term of the ten-year contract, Crossway negotiated a large advance payment. It’s a Win-win situation for us both,” said John Briscoe, NCC director of development. The sum in turn enabled the NCC to erase a debt owed to Church World Service arising from their organizational separation last year, said Briscoe.”
Where did this $625,000 (ed.) come from, and where did it go?
Grudem assures that “no funds from the sales of ESV bibles go to the National Council of Churches.”
Are these weasel words from Grudem?
Did Crossway have a pile of cash to give away to the NCC without ever recouping it from ESV sales?
Or did the Crossway deal consist of paying off a creditor of the financially struggling NCC, allowing Grudem to claim that (technically) ESV buyers’ money did not go (directly) to the NCC?
Sorry, $625,000 not $650,000.
Lydia wrote:
Some versions say “brothers and sisters” in the text, with a footnote that says something like “Gk ‘brothers’.” I think that’s ok, given that Paul’s writings, for example, mention women as well as men in various churches. Preaching and teaching as well as individual study should enable people to understand.
@ Jerome:
You are a wealth of info! I had no idea….
“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over thee.”
Hmm…..I see a totally different interpretation of this updated version….men are generally openly rebellious to God, so of course, women are contrary to that. Because of this, men will make every effort to rule over and silence the voice of Godly reason in women.
In this game of making the bible say whatever we want, how did I do? 😉
@ Friend:
I get that. I have a problem with the term as in why is gender important from a spiritual pov unless the context needs it? If the context has a mixed audience and brothers and sisters is used or siblings, etc, why is that gender neutral?
The whole TNiV debate took place before social media bloomed so the guys with the biggest pulpits framed the debate. I think it might have made it today. And I think the ESV guys know that.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Brilliant! But considering that I am an openly rebellious man, my vote might be fatally flawed.
Lydia wrote:
So they have to lock in the ESV for all Eternity.
Didn’t Mohammed do the same with his Koran?
Given the controversy this permanent ESV is stirring up, shall we make predictions on when it will be changed?
@ Ken F:
Well, the first step is always recognizing the issue, so I think your vote will be accepted…. 😉
Lea wrote:
“Now do I get my dog biscuit and pat-pat-pat on the head from Pastor?”
Velour wrote:
And Net Business types often have this THING about Free Speech and attempts to silence it.
Lea wrote:
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…”
Jerome wrote:
I vote for weasel language. It looks like Crossway had some cash and a marketing plan. It’s marketing all the way down, IMO.
@ Jerome:
I hope I made the proper corrections. 😉
@ Jerome:
Meant to also thank you for the research you contribute here. Much appreciated.
roebuck wrote:
Khristian Kardashians.
And don’t forget GIGA-Churches — When Mega-Church is too small for Pastor’s Ego.
Edward wrote:
Flutterhands Piper has baffling thoughts on EVERY topic.
You’d think he was at the N.I.C.E. banquet when Merlin unloaded the Curse of Babel or something.
Maybe he’d better move into that trailer by the river where he can watch the teen boys and girls walking sadly back from the river while hiding from those Muscular Women…
Velour wrote:
Amazing what a personal “Get Out of Hell Free” Card signed by God before the foundation of the world can do. You can Get Away With Anything — ANYTHING!
Lydia wrote:
I may be totally missing the boat here, but I don’t care for the term “gender-neutral” and prefer something like gender-inclusive where such is warranted. In some cases, I think that rich theology can be lost by using gender-neutral language, for example the “adoption as sons” we have received. There was meaning in being adopted as a son to the original audience. I am not sure how those kinds of things should be resolved or highlighted or noted or whatever…
Ken F wrote:
I predict that will not happen before Grudem explains to Jesus about why he spent his life working to subordinate half of Jesus’ Bride. Not to say I will not have lots of explaining to do, but I think all of the Female Subordinationists will be considered “men of their times” sooner rather than later.
@ Jerome:
So excited that you found public info on this! Thanks!
Nancy2 wrote:
Thanks, Nancy. I have one or two of those also. They are small and KJV.
I would like something a bit larger in leather and NLT.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Honestly, we could write a whole explanation of Genesis about how Eve is Human 2.0 (with all the kinks worked out) but we used to talk about these things as actual jokes while now they are making them text! Insanity.
Gram3 wrote:
Certainly if it’s clearly meant for a mixed sex audience and the meaning is clear in the original language that should be obvious in the english text. As I said, I wouldn’t mind man for mankind because I’m kind of old fashioned except that some people seem to be too dense to understand what is being said and I think that’s part of why we have modern day language translations to began with because just because I love thee’s and thou’s doesn’t make them necessary.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, they do.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You’ve been mentioned Merlin a lot lately it seems like! Makes me feel like I need to pull out the Crystal Cave again.
refugee wrote:
Refugee, I fully understand. Me, too. My new pastor uses the NIV as do I when she preaches. For personal study, I get out my well-worn NASB.
Anonymous wrote:
I’ve mentioned here before that a lot of the SBC discussion strikes me as “inside baseball”, I don’t have the history. So help me out, Mohler “takes control” of the translation, insert your own meaning. Later the translation is changed in a significant way that aligns with his agenda. How is the implication Mohler had a double meaning in his prior statement uncivilized?
Anonymous wrote:
Amazon sells NLT, leather, larger print.
Life Application Study Bible NLT, Large Print (Leather Bound)
by Tyndale (Producer)
$50-$55 new from various sellers on Amazon.
mirele wrote:
Mostly that Dake’s study notes/commentaries were BIZARRE.
I haven’t looked at a Dakes in over 35 years, but here are some of those points:
* One of the More Elaborate Dispensational charts I have seen for a centerfold.
* All the Parables were 100% True Accounts of Actual Events seen via Christ’s Omniscience, because God Cannot Lie.
* Heaven is an actual planet located somewhere in the Northern sky.
* God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all Male, all Angels are Male, all “Spirit Animals” in Heaven are Male, and the female was a special creation solely to allow animals and mortals to reproduce.
* God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Angels, Demons, and “Spirit Animals” (like the horses of Elijah’s Chariot) ALL have bodies made of “Spirit Matter”.
* “Seven Proofs Antichrist Will NOT Rule over America and Will NOT be a World-Wide Dictator” (only remember the title, not the list).
* Something about a “Pre-Adamite World” before the Six Days of Genesis 1.
With all these notes and commentaries in fine print covering every square millimeter of page other than the two KJV columns, as dense as Francis E Dec’s schizophrenic scribblings.
Much later, I found this Wikipedia entry on Dake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finis_Jennings_Dake
Turns out he went down in a sex scandal in 1937 — like Polishing-the-Shaft Schaapf, he really liked Jail Bait. “Bait a trap with p—y and you’ll catch a preacher every time.”
Tree wrote:
Yes. The woman’s desire cannot be both CONTRARY TO and FOR her husband.
They switched it to contrary to because they thought CONTRARY TO was the most likely translation. Or the majority of their translation committee thought that. Who knows WHO made the decision? We will not be told, that’s for sure.
Oh, yeah. Dake returned a lot to “God’s Law of Segregation” to where I suspected he hailed from one of the Confederate States; turns out he was from the border slave state of Missouri.
And there were some who took every one of his comments as SCRIPTURE(TM) Truth.
Did I go crazy, did they go crazy, or did everyone else go crazy?
The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship, and a call to bystanders
is my contribution to this debate.
Find it here: https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/09/14/the-change-of-genesis-316-ess-the-colonial-code-of-relationship-and-a-call-to-bystanders/
Burwell wrote:
UGHH
Threatens the all male club, he means.
Gram3 wrote:
Excellent catch! You are spot on.
The complementarians have a fit when or if they assume that non-complementarians may be tampering with a Bible version, just by making it gender appropriate, but they themselves are okay with making deliberate changes in translation to prop up their views of gender roles. It’s certainly a double standard.
They justify the woman’s desire being CONTRARY TO (or against) her husband by using the interpretation which Susan Foh put forward in 1975.
In this article I explain how CBMW promoted Foh’s interpretation everywhere they could — and the immense harm this has done to women:
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/04/15/what-is-the-womans-desire-how-susan-fohs-interpretation-of-genesis-316-fed-steroids-to-abusers-pt-1-of-2/
Velour wrote:
And membership is no big deal!!
“Admittedly, a church might require a few things unspecified by Scripture. Our church requires membership classes and interviews and signing a statement of faith to join the church, for instance. It’s our judgment that these are prudential forms for implementing the biblical element of church membership. You have to adopt some form, after all. The Bible doesn’t quite say how to join a church. But beyond these few things, I cannot think of anything else we require not required in Scripture.” J. Leeman
siteseer wrote:
I think denial threatens Grudem’s reputation as a ‘scholar’. And it should. I’m thrilled that some ‘name’ Calvinists are now confronting ESS, but I am unsure why they didn’t speak up sooner (the cowards).
What I never got over was how the ESS advocates were pushing their doctrine as ‘orthodox’. The first time I ever heard about it was an SBC blogs. I asked a Baptist-raised friend (not SBC) if she had ever heard about it as a child, and she said ‘No. My Church believed in the Trinity.’
Anonymous wrote:
Very different indeed. The Orthodox Study Bible is basically the NKJV New Testament, with a new Old Testament translation from the Septuagint.
This thing is a new translation from the Greek by the good people at the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, in Buena Vista, CO. Should be easy to google up. It is a fascinating work…
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Great!!
@ Barbara Roberts:
Thanks for all your hard work! You have helped educate us about Susan Foh and her interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
Bridget wrote:
We have to require unbiblical things to make sure we get biblical church membership!!
Remnant wrote:
I can answer that slightly. They were paid $625,000 as an advanced Royalty Check. As part of a 10 year contract. This helped keep the more theologically liberal National Council of Churches solvent. The CBMW/Complementarians and NCC make strange bedfellows.
See this article excerpt:
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-90989211/new-funds-boost-ncc-news
Also, if you want to read the dishonest history from one of their own, here’s a link:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/03/more-documentation-origin-esv
Funny, it was born out of a reaction to the gender neutral NIV (TNIV) yet they had no problem considering buying the rights to the gender neutral NRSV and just undoing the gender neutral language. And then they tried to deny its roots being tied to the debate. I think their order of preference is cash (E$V), snookering Evangelicalism into making it the Bible of preference, by having the celebrity pastors push it, and then bam inserting their minsogynst agenda permanently into Genesis.
I prefer to think of it as the Revised Revised Standard Version since it is not a translation of its own. And in honor of their preference to be associated with the King James Version, and their permanence ruling for the 2016 edition, I think we should call it the Authorized Revised Revised Standard Version 2016 Edition.
Lea wrote:
Biblical trivia time.
Question: How many pages of Membership Covenant did Jesus make people sign to follow Him?
Correct *Biblical* answer: 0 pages.
According to Mark Dever/9 Marks that the early church had to have membership, was taking attendance, because…”their numbers were growing.” Oh, puhhhhhllllsssseeee boys. That’s the best you can do with that verse of Scripture? You don’t see God working, but rather it’s all about Membership and Attendance?
roebuck wrote:
Here is the link: http://holyapostlesconvent.org:8081/hacwebstore/searchresults.zul?categoryID=2
Velour wrote:
such a terrible impatience …. so much insecurity, and the reaction to it is to attempt to over-control what they are insecure about…
‘oh ye of little faith’ (sigh)
Gram3 wrote:
BIngo! I learned that one from my sister and thought it makes a lot more sense then what I’ve been taught! Rather simple, but the Pharisees of our day sure have twisted it beyond recognition to oppress.
Velour wrote:
And another link with more Orthodox products: http://dormitionskete.org:8081/dswebstore/index.zul
@ Christiane:
Yes. They are very impatient and really display immaturity.
@ Gram3:
Christiane wrote:
“Why Now?” is a good question.
Possibly the ESV translators are getting older and don’t want to keep working on the ESV, tinkering with it, and don’t feel they can trust any of the younger generation to hold the flame so they have decided to call it quits and make this the PERMANENT version. (fossilize it).
Possibly they were trying to draw attention away from the ESS controversy. But they have failed.. The ESS controversy and the #ESVpermanenttranslation are STRONGLY RELATED. I would suggest they the two most important foundations on which CBWM dogma is being upheld.
The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship and a call to bystanders.
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/09/14/the-change-of-genesis-316-ess-the-colonial-code-of-relationship-and-a-call-to-bystanders/
P
Lea wrote:
It would seem so if the translators are striving for as much accuracy as possible. I don’t have a problem with “man” or “mankind” standing for “people” because all people come from the Man, including the Woman. I suspect the furor is really about limiting who gets to stand behind the sacred pulpit in the high place and receive double honor while being obeyed.
Sister wrote:
Yep. E$V. Snooker the church into making ESV the Bible of preference by having celeb’s push it. And then—bam—insert the misogynist agenda permanently into Genesis.
I think you nailed it 🙂 I’m gonna tweet this.
Lea wrote:
My favorite was the video Mark Dever made about not implementing all the Biblical requirements all at once. So, I guess it’s OK to defer being Biblical if it helps to hide the actual agenda. It is critical to be Biblical except when it is inconvenient. Or something.
Sister wrote:
Once upon a time, that was the common understanding though it was not preached that way because Decorum. I think there is an additional aspect to the Woman’s turning or desire, and that is that she turned away from God when she listened to the Serpent. A consequence of that sin is that she would turn toward her husband but he would fall short of being to her what God was to her before her sin. Another view is that she would turn toward and stretch out toward her husband in pursuit of the one-flesh union that had been ruptured by sin in untold ways. I’m no Hebrew scholar, but it seems to me that there is a lot of word-picturing and metaphooring going on in the Genesis narrative.
IMO, any or all of those are preferable to the “painful” sweat and labor these guys put into cramming Genesis 1-3 into their tight little dogmatic box while maintaining with a straight face that it is the “plain reading of the text.”
https://twitter.com/NotUnderBondage/status/777336099362381825
Gram3 wrote:
Great sci-fi flick! Far ahead of its time.
Sister wrote:
Suggest that you seriously consider adding Gospel-centered or Gospel-saturated or something. At least we know that with a Permanent ESV we will not have an ESV that exists only for a “season.”
I think you have outlined the basic relationships well. Zondervan had a category killer in the NIV. Crossway was ambitious. Celebrities need to sell books and for that they need a publisher. Publishers need to sell books. Printing a book is relatively inexpensive, but marketing a book is *very* expensive. So, give away books at the YRR conferences and have the attendees become an unpaid sales force. It is brilliant, especially now that retail Bible bookstores are essentially gone. But every single YRR church I’ve been in has a bookstore/bookrack/bookstall that sells the approved books by the approved authors.
Crossway will market Doug Wilson’s books or any number of books promoting ESS but will not market a scholarly book defending a non-Female Subordinationist viewpoint written by an inerrantist conservative. That is bizarre, IMO.
I haven’t read this article yet, nor listened to the audio on the page, but it looks to be related to the topic of the OP:
Why Crossway Stopped Translating the ESV
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/september-web-only/why-crossway-stopped-translating-esv.html
singleman wrote:
She has some rather far out views about marriage, IMO.
To a point, she is sympathetic with how churches do zip to help singles get married, but from what I remember of some of her views, she also sort of blames singles for being single, too.
@ Lea:
From a recent Tweet I saw:
“This just boggles the mind! Male church leaders voted on whether or not women are human.”
https://twitter.com/XanaMcC/status/776358109468065792
Daisy wrote:
To describe Debbie Maken’s views as “far out” would be an understatement. Here’s an example from Boundless’ website:
http://www.boundless.org/adulthood/2006/rethinking-the-gift-of-singleness
I should note that Maken took down her blog a few years ago and returned to obscurity, where I hope she stays unless she’s willing to join Joshua Harris in apologizing for her first book.
Deb and Dee, I apologize if my bringing up Debbie Maken, and Andreas Kostenberger’s response to her, hijacked the thread.
Gram3 wrote:
This doesn’t totally work out for them, even in this scenario.
There is no specific Bible verse commanding un-married women to submit to any man in particular.
The only Bible verse these guys can appeal to about a woman submitting to a man falls in a verse or two about marriage.
If a woman never marries (or divorces or is widowed), she doesn’t have to submit to a man’s authority. Certainly not a personal, daily level.
Why would it supposedly be God’s design for all women every where to submit (under a male head, i.e., a husband), but then not create some fall-back rules for women like me, who never marry? Or for widowed women, or the divorced?
If I am a woman who doesn’t have a husband to submit to, it matters not either way if I do in fact have an in-born tendency to “resist male authority or rule.”
Then there are other problems. Jesus commands in the Gospels that his followers are not to “lord authority over” one another and elsewhere sends the message Christians are not to seek power, control over, create hierarchy, etc.
(As someone above asked, I think)
– if complementarians (especially the guys behind this version of the ESV) believe one result of the Fall is that women resist male authority – they are arguing that the sacrifice of Jesus saved men from consequences of the Fall, but not women?
Jesus was powerless to fix the situation for women? That seems to be the result of their thinking and Bible translation.
If they don’t believe that, then they would have to say that God designed women from the out-set to resist male authority…
So women who resist male authority are only being “biblical women,” so what are they complaining about? We would be fulfilling our so-called roles if God designed us to resist this complementarian nonsense, and they’re the ones who insist women should follow their gender roles.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I would think if they assume it’s part of God’s intent and plan, it’s a good thing and should be encouraged. Who knows, I find Neo-Cal complementarian reasoning so convoluted it is hard to follow at times.
Gram3 wrote:
It’s not bizarre if they want to indoctrinate people to their views instead of teach and trust the the Holy Spirit to work. But, I guess that is a risk to them!
Velour wrote:
I left a snarky remark:
I don’t know if anyone has brought up Genesis 4:7 yet but it is pretty convoluted, too.
“[Sin’s] desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
is now:
“[Sin’s] desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
If sin’s desire is contrary to the man, doesn’t that mean the man is intrinsically good?
If he is intrinsically good, what happened to the other Neo-Cal doctrine, total depravity?
Am I missing something here?
Burwell wrote:
I’d just point out that the premier statements of Trinitarian doctrine, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, do not refer to the Bible. In fact, I’m going to state that I do believe far too many people put the Bible first in their Holy Trinity and kick out one or another of the Persons to make room. Far too many churches (I know, I’ve looked) put their beliefs about the Bible first prior to their beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.
I’d also point out again, just in case Wayne Grudem is reading here, that educated secular people can see through his nonsense. If they know what the Nicene Creed is, and I then tell them about the Eternal Subordination of the Son, the response is, wait, back up a sec, I don’t believe this, but isn’t what these guys teaching, uhm, *heresy* by the terms of the Nicene Creed? Why yes, yes it is. You can’t fit ESS around “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father.” [quoting from the Nicene Creed]
When even secular people can see through your crazy, you know you’ve got a problem.
Barbara Roberts wrote:
Thank you, Barbara, I read this today. I appreciate your hard work on this issue at Crying Out for Justice!
Daisy wrote:
That was in the year 584. And here we are, still dealing with the same kind of nonsense.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, I like the way you construct your arguments.
mirele wrote:
Thanks Mirele! That’s wonderful you left a comment over there (and tracked down my Amazon review). I just saved 9 Marks aticle’s web page over on The Way Back Machine website, just in case it does disappear. You never know with these guys.
Good luck at House of Driscoll. You are a trooper.
Daisy wrote:
Wow.
@ Gram3:
Gram, the logic on this is that if you believe women are fully human and not meant to be subordinate to men, you are no longer conservative. (Apparently pro slavery is fine)
QED.
Lea wrote:
Sadly, I think this is exactly what the COMPS believe. I am a barely Southern Baptist and I have seen my denomination change in its views in my lifetime I often wonder why women even attend this male chauvinist denomination.
siteseer wrote:
That one makes no sense either. It was poetic before. I’m convinced part of the problem with these guys is that they don’t understand words and literature because they are banging the inerrant drum so hard.
Lea wrote:
Yep according to the Southern Baptist 2000 BF&M I am a bleeding heart liberal because I am not on board with its views about Women.
@ siteseer:
I also want to say that something being ‘contrary to’ you in both of these instances is just plain bad writing. Inelegant.
Somewhat like the word complementarian
Lea wrote:
mot wrote:
And we have so many women (myself included) who are rebellious slaves !
Unfortunately, the separation of church and state doesn’t separate the church and state enough to keep true slavery within church and marriage from being a criminal act.
Ergo, clobber verses.
Nancy2 wrote:
I wish the internet would have been around when the SBC was being taken over by the FUNDAMENTALISTS. I believe more women like you–“rebellious slaves”–might have saved this denomination. IMO this denomination is dying everyday.
Velour wrote:
Thanks Velour!
mot wrote:
I have wondered if some of the ring leaders in the takeover ( Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Paige Patterson ……) believe in ESS. They have certainly spoken of hierarchy ……. a wife should submit to a husband as the Son submits to the Father, and so on.
I’ve been a fan of the ESV since I learned it translated the Malachai verse commonly mistranslated as “God hates divorce” much better, with a compelling argument (I think maybe the new NIV followed suit, though?)
But yeah, after this latest change to Genesis that is very weak on justification and clearly fits an agenda, I’m done forever with the ESV.
Gross.
@ Deb:
I would be joining the laughter on the Grudem parody, if the YRR didn’t ‘really’ put so much stock in his “intellectual writing” as truth.
“Those who teach the ministry bear the greatest burden of accountability to the churches and to the denomination … It is with a single man that error usually commences.” (Al Mohler, 1993 convocation address, Southern Seminary)
roebuck wrote:
Welcome, Roebuck. Thanks for letting me know about this website. I was raised, partially, in the Russian Orthodox Church. The other side of the family were Presbyterians.
I liked the RO traditions. The Eastern church is sweet in many ways.
mot wrote:
So true, Mot.
Barbara Roberts wrote:
Abuse by Doctrine.
Velour wrote:
I often wonder what these men will say to God when they face him face to face.
Max wrote:
The SBC leaders would rathern turn the SBC over to the Neo-Cals than allow women to be allowed to use their God given gifts. i keep wondering when the SBC will given an honest explanation why over 1000 foreign missionaries were called from the field almost a year ago.
Having been to seminary and taken intermediate Greek and Hebrew, I can tell you that all English translations have some kind of agenda, even if that “agenda” is simply to recognize and compensate for the biases of the translators and readers. But I do have a few reservations about the ESV. First, there is no such thing as “essentially literal” and “word-for-word”. It is make believe. That is like building a boat that is “essentially submersible”. Anyone who is remotely familiar with translation work knows this, and even the fundamentalist seminary i attended didn’t pretend otherwise. The foundation of the fallacy lies in bias control – the idea that the actual words are somehow a safeguard against inserting too much of the translator’s own biases into the translation. Unfortunately, that is not how language works, so these attempts end up being nothing more than confirmation bias. I am convinced that this approach has more to do with marketing than scholarship – this is a translation marketed strongly to neo-fundamentalists. This would also explain the “permanent text” nonsense. A “permanent text” is essentially a confession that the translation committee is unwilling to learn or grow. There are good reasons for that – like if a translation is just not worth building off of any more, or if the money to continue updating isn’t there – but the ESV cites none of these. One more marketing move. HSAT, the Genesis thing doesn’t bother me (although I find it hilarious that Burk feels the need to defend it). There is plenty enough that is flat out wrong in the more important NT texts to worry about.
mot wrote:
The NeoCalvinist pastors/elders that I’ve been exposed to are, not surprisingly, quite arrogant. They constantly talk about being among God’s Elect. And of course, everyone else is going to Hell.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I have not seen or heard any discussions about the NT translation issues, and I not doubting you, but can you point to any discussions/writing about these issues. I am interested.
Lea wrote:
They change the words and meaning of scripture and and then pronounce inerrancy is the only acceptable belief concerning scripture . . . that is rich. They are forcing people to believe what they want them to believe. They have become gods in their own eyes. It is revolting.
Velour wrote:
They’ve got everything else backwards. They probably have Heaven and Hell backwards, too.
@ siteseer:
I saw that, too. That has been an on going challenge to make” teshuqa” fit both passages without the concept of “turning the wrong way”. “Desire” can work and most people have no problem with it because it is the normal. But when you dive into ancient renderings it is quite shocking how it was changed from the concept of turning. They communicated in idioms, hyperbole and such so it’s a bit more complicated to our black/white, literal minds.
Here is a chart tracking the historical progression of translating that Hebrew word:
http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Just reading history shows how translations often came from political or power motives like the KJV or the Geneva. Calvins protege, Castellio, wanted to do a translation and was banished into poverty for daring to try. Without permission. King James needed to prove his Protestant bonafides. There are other examples. An interesting read is the long preface written by the KJ translators. It is online. You get a sense from it: one does what the King wants.
@ mot:
I always think of Matthew 7
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
He is not talking about the unbelieving Roman occupiers here!
mot wrote:
With the New Calvinists now at the head of most SBC entities, they don’t have to explain anything they do. They will stick by International Mission Board “funding shortage” until the cows come home as the reason for recalling seasoned missionaries. But wait and see what theological flavor replaces those evangelistic veterans when funds are restored. If SBC ‘really’ wanted to keep those folks on the field, they would have diverted $60 million annual dollars from the U.S. church planting program to preserve the foreign mission effort. Of course, those new plants – 1,000 per year – are more about planting reformed theology than Gospel churches. SBC priorities are changing and the “giving units” in the pews ain’t got a clue.
Velour wrote:
There are 7 comments there so far. 6 are definitely critical of 9Marks, the other it’s hard to tell.
Ken F wrote:
Thanks for the update, Ken F.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
After decades of mind-numbing King James Only controversy, I cannot imagine why the publishers of a translation would want to walk into the “permanent, unchanging text” beartrap. Crossway actually cites the final KJV revision in 1769 as inspiration- do they not realize that this may be a negative example?
Have you wondered why the YRR who tune into TWW haven’t been screaming with “conspiracy theory” comments regarding the extensive use of the ESV as an indoctrination tool in SBC church plants and elsewhere? Because in their heart of hearts, they know it is true.
Nancy2 wrote:
Preach it, sister!
@ siteseer:
Another thought because I think you have hit on big problem for the Neo Cal ESV: Total Depravity/Total Inability. They are going to have to jump through even more convoluted hoops to deal with their adding new words and meaning. They are insisting that God declares it sin to be “contrary” to the totally depraved male? Are they suggesting males are not as totally depraved now? Or, that women are by nature more totally depraved than males?
It is one thing to teach the above twisting scripture and quite another to agree to codify it permanently in scripture.
Lydia wrote:
Logic is not their strong suit.
Lydia wrote:
Uh oh, don’t give them any ideas.
Velour wrote:
I got a chuckle reading Leeman’s post, he says: “9Marks talks a lot about authority in the church” No kidding Sherlock. Too bad he is unable to connect that primary trait with the abuse you describe. Instead he takes the position that his authoritarians should be more sensitive.
Max wrote:
And probably approve.
mot wrote:
Once upon a time, I bought into the thinking that being conservative was automatically more correct and more holy that being liberal was. A few rounds around the block later, I see that conservatives are every bit as flawed as liberals are in the church. In fact, if you get past the schtick and really look at the teachings of Christ, being a bit liberal is the way to go (not so far as to deny Chrst, but you know what I mean).
Daisy wrote:
LOL, good points. After all, God does control every single thing, right? Good job throwing their own logic back at them.
Max wrote:
Agree.
Hopefully, some churches are becoming astute, at identifying the neo calls red flags, before the invaders take over their church.
Velour wrote:
There is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks. When some of the “elect” appear before the judgement seat of Christ, they are going to be amazed at who were elected and who were not. In the red hot fires of evangelistic preaching, multitudes are still getting elected into the Kingdom, while some self-proclaimed elect continue on their journey to eternal fire.
Patriciamc wrote:
Both are incomplete and out of balance.
“A fanatic is someone who has one piece of a pie and thinks he has the whole pie.”
— Pope John Paul II
mirele wrote:
Well said. In my Church, the Nicene Creed is a portion of the liturgy and is said aloud with reverence to affirm our belief in it. I have often wondered how someone like Grudem or Ware developed their own understandings of the Trinity, and what road they followed. I have wondered about their earlier influences and their earliest writings. What roads did they travel to get to the place they are at so far from orthodox Christianity?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes. I do think liberal/conservative politically are not good things to map on a church. It quite easily misses the point.
But I also think right now too many conservative churches do not feel safe. It’s not that either is without error, but that you have to pick the error you can live with.
I was raised a Jehovahs Witness before I came to know Christ as my Savior. What I can say is that this ESV is no different than the JW Holy Bible.
These men are so arrogant they take away and add to the word of God. It is clear to me and anyone else who takes the time to look.
Now we have these peddlers that call themselves pastors and they peddle these ESV ( doing Lucifers bidding )bibles to Christians (sheep and I mean Christs sheep) purposefully letting the wolves in.
I believe that these men are the wolves in sheep’s clothing it is heresy to change or add to the word of God and Christians need to call these men to account for it! Don’t buy or use them.
Be vigilant be on gaurd because the pastors have either dropped the ball or these men are counterfeits! I had no idea until tragedy hit and I really started studying and coming here just how incidious it is in what they are doing.
Find a pastor who preaches the word and I mean one who is disowned by the rest and tells the truth. If we are Christians here our spirit will testify with their spirit the truth of God!!! The bible tells me so and if we walk in the light as He is in the light we will have fellowship with one another and the truth of God will show in us. I hope I got that right!
I have spent time listening to Pastor Charles Lawson out of Tennessee. All I can say is that when this man preaches I can see the Holy Spirit working and I’m fired up. My desire is to be more hungry for His word and I want to shout AMEN along with the members in that little church. He is not a popular pastor but I can say he is preaching truth in my opinion. My spirit testifies with his (holy Spirit indwelling in my heart). Anyways
I feel I have been awakened and the more I listen and study the more I see that I am a stranger here and the term being the salt of the earth reveals to me what that means. So back to this ESV get it out and bring in a bible that stays as close to the Greek and Hebrew as possible. I read out of the KJV 1611 it was translated only about 400 years from the original Greek /Hebrew text.
Lea wrote:
And that is why they simply do not know what to do with someone who makes arguments against their position using their own assumptions about the nature of the Bible and their own conservative interpretive methods and using sound logic. And that, I think, is why they must resort to ad hominem thought-stoppers.
mot wrote:
I was reading Catholic studies of early Christian women who were Roman slaves and how they had to handle some of the ‘commands’ of their ‘masters’ that were absolutely against the teachings of the Church. I have to say that the ‘contrast’ of that document and the plight of wives in male ‘headship’ situations has a very pitiful similarity …. the word ‘slavery’ is more appropo than you realize
AND the plight of women Christians in slavery in early Rome was one REASON St. Paul wrote “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
so that it would be understood by Christian Roman slave owners that they were not to treat their slaves with contempt. And so the doors of ‘demands’ on women slaves that were attacks on their dignity as Christian women were closed to these masters.
Goodness, neo-Cals need to take another look at Roman history, the early Church, the slavery of Christian women in early Rome, and the verse Gal. 3:28.
It is possible that the slave women of early Rome whose masters were Christian received better honor and status than the plight of some neo-Cal wives of today in modern America. I believe this after seeing how many women are coming out of male head-ship with reports of having been held in contempt and abused.
Gram3 wrote:
1. As I said, logic is not their strong suit and
2. These men are not nearly as smart as they think they are. If they were, they wouldn’t have to resort to ‘thought stoppers’.
Lea wrote:
Let me take liberties with the new improved Mark 1:
‘As someone who has written several books on church membership and discipline……….
“Wait a second, does the Bible require this?”’
Bill M wrote:
See Matt Chandler’s “confession” about insufficient sensitivity in handling Karen Hinckley’s “care.” What else can they really say if they are unwilling to examine the possibility that their obsession with Authority might be…wrong?
Velour wrote:
Beautiful ancient liturgies (ways of praying), beautiful icons, the music so undeniably reverent, and an openness to the Holy Spirit and to the mystery of God that reveals and acceptance of His mystery rather than the dreadful paths that led neo-Cals to the heresy of ESS. The Eastern Orthodox are an awesome Christian community, yes.
Christiane wrote:
My speculation is that they started with the necessity of affirming male-only authority. If you start with that presupposition, then 1 Corinthians 11:3 must be read as Christ being subordinate to God. The overarching concern is that kephale must never be allowed to mean anything other than authority over. If you read 1 Corinthians 11 with Eternal Generation in mind, then kephale takes a meaning more like “source.” That cannot be permitted, and making the Eternal Son subordinate to the Eternal Father is the price they are willing to pay to keep kephale from meaning anything other than “authority over.”
Gram3 wrote:
100% agree!!
Dave A A wrote:
That is so hilarious. Once Keys Leeman starts down the road of “does the Bible require this” he’s going to have a lot of re-writing to do at the 9Marks site.
The curses in Genesis picture and expose an assault, or a derivation or absence from the blessing of creation as intended before God. We can discern the blessings by looking at the curse, and we can anticipate the curse by looking at the blessing. If female identity in curse form is now defined primarily in relation to men, the assertion would be that her identity before was mainly embedded in response to man.
The translation before implied that in breaking her own personal bond with God, she now turns it into a codependent relationship with man, “the desire for him and he shall rule over you.” Before, she was directly tied to God. In general, it seems complementarians and egalitarians interpret and apply that translation differently. Now, in this translation for woman, her main source of identity is identified in relation to man not God.
The logical and relational problems with this translation are far reaching. At its base, this interpretation continues to dissociate women from their conscience and soul freedom in response to God. A woman’s response to God is now otherwise valued in how it changes in response to so and so male human or groups of male humans. Her virtue and viciousness is measured by men and groups of men, and not directly in response to God.
Her personal association and process of knowledge and how she formulates belief (her human given ability for conscience, obtaining wisdom, epistemological rights inferred by God for any human being, etc.) and kingdom life – (her character transformation, integrity, and personal responsibility before God and others) – All of this and more is then measured not by transcendent norms derived from God’s persons, identity, intention, and nature (as exemplified, embodied in Christ), but is now confined to virtue reliance on virtue-confused, misidentifying, sinful prone bodily and time limited men in a local, historical context. (No offense to men, women also have the same problems and limitation.) And, are women only half-accessible to the Holy Spirit? Are we perpetually in the waiting room of God’s throne, only permissible to approach, hear, discern and be moved with a man to do so on our behalf?
Christ is the only one who can embody that mediation and representation for women – and for man as well – only a “God man”, not mere man, could do and hold to and carry out such a thing. In contrast to a human man, the God man Christ is the Word of God made flesh, virtue embodied, the transcendent coming into bodily limitation and human form to overcome and restore humanity. He entered a local, historical context – but his eternal act transcends human time and death.
I recently left the SBC for various personal reasons, but the Trinity conversation over the summer and issues surrounding women was my final sign I needed to leave and find a better fit.
Max wrote:
How do they know they are God’s elect?
Emily Honeycutt wrote:
There is no place for women in the SBC. They have turned it into an all-boys playground.
Emily Honeycutt wrote:
I’m going through that battle now ……. weighing the pros and cons of leaving the SBC, and my husband is a part time preacher.
It seems that so many truly believe the husband is the prophet, priest, and King. Men stand between women and God. ……… because the Apostle Paul saith.
I’ve watched the changes over the past 12 years or so, and, as a woman,I don’t see how I can continue to be a part of a religion that teaches this garbage.
If anything brings down the SBC as it is now ruled by ‘leadership’,
it will be any fruit they generated that showed contempt for the Royal Law of Christ.
What started early days with the treatment of women in the SBC after the ‘takeover’ has increased and found new expression in the formation of a new cult of male-headship. It’s history involves the brutal treatment of people like Dr. Klouda and her family, and continues with the abuses of women in Churches that disrespect their dignity as full Christian persons. Too many of the male headship gurus have lost their ability to see women in their full status as Christian persons with dignity in their own right, having souls, and made in the image of God. And so ALL of their followers suffer the consequences of that blindness.
mot wrote:
SBC is an acronym for Sanctified Boys Club.
mot wrote:
The Eastern Orthodox would certainly ask this question of any arrogant person who claimed such a status BECAUSE it is known that the signature mark of a Christian person is their humility before the Lord, and their humble service to others, a mirroring of the loving-kindness of their Creator done in His honor.
Max wrote:
This giving unit will not be helping them.
@ marquis:
Yes! They do have more in common with JW’s and Mormons than we might think. Years ago, Cheryl Schatz, pointed this out. She had a ministry to people who left JW and Mormonism and she picked up on it right away. From comp doctrine to ESS. I had very little understanding of either group so it was a real wake up call to start recognizing some of the similar teaching.
Nancy2 wrote:
I agree with Katharine Bushnell, the Apostle Paul said no such thing…
Christiane wrote:
I’ve seen this before, the mystery of God, and I’ve always quoted it and thought I knew what it meant, until I actually thought about it. So, what is this saying, that we don’t always understand how God works and that we’re supposed to be okay with that even in the face of horror and tragedy? If so, that can be pretty cold comfort. (That sounds grumpy, but I don’t mean it that way! 🙂 )
Patriciamc wrote:
in the face of tragedy? I think the mystery of God find us best at these times, when we trust in Jesus Christ, and receive the peace that has no earthly source, and we know we have been blessed
Example: this man’s first effort at building a coffin was for his own child, I’ll let him speak for himself
https://vimeo.com/65019294
Lea wrote:
“Two Plus Two Equals Five — Ees Party Line!”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Better a wife should follow the Light of the World than a husband who sees ‘through a glass darkly’, yes.
The logic in male-headship is lacking indeed. And so out of step with sacred Scripture’s deep reservoir of wisdom.
mot wrote:
Actually, there are:
Cookers, cleaners, breeding stock, Urrges-in-the-Aaareas receptacles, eye candy, trophies, and panting flatterers of Real Manly Men.
Velour wrote:
Leeman might say this is the real problem — leaders failure to follow the 15 new marks or over zealously following the 9. So this doesn’t mean anything’s wrong with the 9.
My former 9 Marks church was, I think, far more typical than yours. Generally caring pastors– little overt abuse– many good things despite, not because of the unbiblical, ungospelly system… It wasn’t until a man who’d already left the church got Matt 18ed and then, just a week later, I Cor 5ed, that I left. My last service was when the pastors felt obligated to do an official excommunication ceremony to turn him over, in absentia, to Satan.
Gram3 wrote:
i.e. POWER. Who Holds the Whip and Who Feels the Whip.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You are right, Hug. I should have worded my comment my better than I did.
marquis wrote:
Confirmation from an Insider.
Don’t the JWs also teach their own version of ESS?
And wrote it into their Bible translation?
Lydia wrote:
The same King Jimmy of whom Kipling wrote:
“He claimed that all Kings were Divine —
And left a son who proved they weren’t!”
Gram3 wrote:
Whenever I hear “plain reading of the text”, I flash back to The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay and HIS “plain reading of the text” of Revelation. With that of Dake’s Annotated Bible a close second.
With that one-two punch in living memory, you get VERY skeptical about any claim to “plain reading of the text”.
Dave A A wrote:
So happy you are back to handle the 9Marks duty. IMO, this sounds like junior high boys. Or girls, for that matter. So, when you left, did you “leave well” or did you just leave?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Their use of “plain reading” is actually not a conservative method of interpretation or even a conservative Dispensational method. It’s really just pious special pleading. Authentic conservative methods take account of history, metaphor, genre, audience, speaker, etc. Naive “plain reading” proclamations are more about a particular ideology than conservative scholarship. That was part of the problem at my most recent former church. What do you do with someone who makes you play by your own rules? And who shows you *plainly* when you are not playing by your professed rules! Why, you bring out the Keys, of course!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
‘plain’ reading of the text????
well, two parts of sacred Scripture would question a human person’s ability to fully comprehend the depth of sacred Scripture’s riches ‘plainly’
the first is this from the Holy Gospel, the 24th Chapter of St. Luke:
“45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.”
and then this from St. John’s apocalyptic Book of Revelation, Chapter 5:
9And they sang a new song:
“Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”
Be very careful about people who claim they ‘know’ the full ‘plain’ meaning of the sacred Scriptures. That role is given to Christ alone.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Whatever men feel they are too good to do is what women must submit to doing.
Dave A A wrote:
They were totally ignorant of the fact that we humans don’t have the authority to turn anyone over to Satan.
Dave A A wrote:
Oh my word! They had a ceremony to excommunicate and turn him over to Satan? I hope you weren’t the only one to never go back.
You know, it is not enough that someone leaves over dissent or whatever. They have to stalk them with a twisting of Matthew 18 and then make a show of it with a twisting of 1 Corinthians 5. It is a love of authoritarianism.
Christiane wrote:
Yeah, sorry, but these are just empty, meaningless words to me. This is something I have to work through; I don’t mean to derail the thread.
Patriciamc wrote:
Are you working through the grieving process now?
Dave A A wrote:
I don’t think that any church is healthy that excommunicates and shuns people on trumped up charges, even though on the surface it seems fine to most members.
I’m glad you didn’t go back.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, they do hold a closed door church service usually at these churches and hand you over to Satan for the destruction of your flesh. They tell hundreds of people to never speak to you again.
Christiane wrote:
Here’s another great example from 2 Peter”
“Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
One of the marks of a healthy believer is to be on guard so as not to be carried away by false teaching.
I think Paul’s writings would have been much easier for us to understand if he did not write in long run-on sentences that are difficult to translate. This is one of the reasons it is difficult to translate his thoughts into tidy sentences that make sense to people in our times.
The neo-Cals who ‘re-wrote’ sacred words of Scripture to their ‘own understanding’ have revealed the truth of an old saying:
sometimes you read the Bible,
and other times,
the Bible reads you
I think the Bible itself has revealed who these charlatans are who would so blatantly and openly attempt to change its inspired wording to gratify their own man-made doctrine, and THEN try to carve their man-made ‘revelation’ in stone as ‘eternal’.
In times like these, the Bible serves us well. 🙂
Christiane wrote:
It’s okay if you don’t answer this. The truth is I am working through it now and I can’t talk about it or write about it. I am at peace, but I grieve deeply. One revelation of ‘the mystery of God’ is that Christ’s peace IS present in our suffering, yes. We are not left comfortless. Or alone.
There is a saying in my Church:
““Jesus did not come to explain away suffering or to remove it. He came to fill it with His Presence.”
The hollowness of ‘male-headship’ teaching is that it does the opposite of the work of the Holy Spirit, Who points ONLY at Christ. When women are turned from kneeling before Christ to being submissive to their husbands instead as their spiritual guides, that can lead them into the darkness.
A prayer for all who have been or who are now at risk of being abused through the male-headship heresy:
“. . . after our blindness seeing now that Light,
by our understanding Jesus, whom we see in our soul, we follow . . . . Let us see whither He is going, and let us find our way by following His footsteps.”
(From St. Gregory’s writings based on Holy Gospel of St. Mark)
Patriciamc wrote:
In response to the post and the question of tragedy –
ESV, 2 Timothy 1:8:Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God…
NASB, 2 Timothy 1:8:Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God…
Perhaps two worthy translations, however, how pastors and teachers and biblical scholars define “gospel” and “suffering” will make a big difference in how this would play out in the life of a congregation, (i.e., the false interpretation that a woman must endure an abusive husband for the sake of the gospel).
In Systematic Theology, Volume 2, by Paul Tillich, he discusses suffering and eventually makes the point that no one can correctly define or explain another’s suffering. We come into this world as a onesie, die as a onesie, and Tillich says at some level suffering is a singular experience only correctly defined and described by the sufferer.
In my experience, when those empathetic are kind, however, while I am suffering, it makes all the difference in the world – a couple that hosted me for dinner often when I was a new widow, for example.
Gram3 wrote:
Still it is striking how they talk and write so prodigiously on discipline and authority. That alone should warn people away.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have a family member who seems to have swallowed this garbage and it has made him far less kind and polite then he used to be. He has also become very arrogant about it. It wasn’t till I started reading here that I really connected that to his change in behavior but now I think it’s most definitely linked.
Apparently learning how to be the ‘priest of your home’ and big manly man makes you ignore a whole lot of the rest of the stuff in the bible.
I left the SBC before I heard about this stuff, but I think I was picking up on it.
Emily Honeycutt wrote:
And this is the really damaging error I see and why it seems they cannot define women as fully human – because they do not see her as a sole entity. They only see her as an accessory to man. Also, fantastic comment all around.
Nancy2 wrote:
And then some manly man on an internet comment section will ask you if God only wants you to be in that position, WHY ISNT THAT ENOUGH? Why aren’t you ‘godly’ enough to accept your role. Ugh.
It would never be enough for them.
Gram3 wrote:
Let’s look at Mark 1 of 9 — Expositional Preaching. Now I have nothing against it as I do “membership”, BUT if the Bible requires it, then Christ and the apostles missed the mark– almost all preaching being situational or topical.
Gram3 wrote:
Neither. I made the pastors mad, brought up more issues than I needed to, and then met with a pastor to officially “leave”.
Dave A A wrote:
In all of my years of being an evangelical Christian, I had never personally heard of anyone being excommunicated from a church until these last few years.
Patriciamc wrote:
Well, Paul told one church to do it in I Cor 5:5. A question modern churches need to ask is whether or not they meet his three conditions in verse 4: “So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present…”
siteseer wrote:
Would you like some autographed memorabilia from those of us who have been “keyed out” (Gram3’s TM)? Gram3 and Gramp3 can you give autographs. I can give you my autograph.
Yes, it’s quite a stunning experience to be excommunicated. I built relationships with people for 8+ years…and poof they were all destroyed on the whims and dictates of the pastors/elders.
Lydia wrote:
Well, my family. Mostly people or families left 1×1 and for unknown reasons. Only the 1 man was excommunicated after leaving.
Velour wrote:
Me too. I found a good and very different church immediately, though it “failed” and I’m a none for now. The charges in this case weren’t trumped up — the excommunicated man may have qualified according to Paul’s list– IF he hadn’t already left and cut off contact. But otherwise sensible pastors couldn’t leave it at that because “Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Vanish Into Thin Air”. At least if they’re gay.
Velour wrote:
This is another reason I won’t go back to church. I wasn’t officially keyed out but I still lost all the friendships I had, save one. Now if I walk into a church and see all those nice, smiling faces, I know- that however great of friendships I may develop, however many great experiences we may have together, however many years we may “do life together,” if the day comes that I have to disagree or ask questions of the leadership, it will all evaporate. I just can’t put the work into relationships like that anymore.
@ siteseer:
All that to say, I understand how painful it is to be shunned. It’s a devilish thing.
Dave A A wrote:
For the love of God, that’s just hateful. So much for being known for the truly “Biblical mark” — Love.
I tossed out my NeoCalvinist books in recycling and ripped them to shreds so no one could read them. I thought long and hard about what Jesus said when He was asked what was the greatest command: Love God and your neighbor, all of the Law and the Prophets is summed up in that.
siteseer wrote:
I cannot understand this idea at all. The shunning, or transient friendships. Not to be confused with people you just lose touch with, which happens. But friendship shouldn’t be dependent on where you go to church. That’s not anything I can see coming from Jesus or the bible. I know that it happens, but it’s not right.
Dave A A wrote:
Oh no… 🙁
It seems like this newfound discovery of the power of excommunication has gone to the heads of a lot of these guys.
siteseer wrote:
This is the problem. Even if you are not excommunicated you are excommunicated.
Bridget wrote:
If you think about it, neo-Cal males have silenced women in the Church, excluded them from meetings and votes, and refuse to allow them the dignity afforded to themselves …. all in the name of Christ?
Dear people, these men have already been using a form of the ‘ex-communication’ process within their own Church targeting the women of the Church.
siteseer wrote:
Try 40 years, it is like being a man without a country. If I had moved across country they would greet a chance encounter elsewhere, now for most, I don’t exist. They have so much invested in the institution and forgot the reason.
Dave A A wrote:
One problem I see, is that in the church we left, the elders would have been confident that all three conditions were met. And yes, that church excommunicated people.
Gram3 wrote:
Is there such a thing as “leaving well” or is that just an authoritarian construct in an attempt to maintain control?
In our old church the attitude seemed to be that when you met with the elders in an attempt to leave well, they would try to convince you that it was your desire for sin that was pulling you away. If you just turned around and repented of your sin and turned to Christ, there would be no reason to leave.
Therefore, “leaving well” involved putting yourself back under the elders’ blessing. The only way to “leave” with their blessing would be if the husband’s job transferred him more than an hour or two away (not the wife; a working wife was unbiblical, after all, and if both were working because of necessity and a lack of faith that god would provide through the husband, then the wife’s job counted less anyhow). Less than two hours away is still “Sunday driving” distance, so it wouldn’t be an excuse for not continuing to attend that church.
Oh, and part of the leaving was transferring your membership to a church that the elders found suitable in their statement of faith and practice.
refugee wrote:
A 2-hour drive to church? That is absurd, like so much else about these ‘churches’. Church is where you meet up with friends and neighbors, It’s a community thing.
As far as the elders vetting any new church you might want to attend – ha ha ha! What control-freakish clowns!
@ roebuck:
I wonder if any of these ‘elders’ are themselves driving ‘within a two hour’ journey to Church.
we are supposed to bear one another’s burdens, not add to them
why is it that so much of this control thing is in opposition to basic human kindness? It’s not like they even want good for people. Where’s the good will?
@ refugee:
What you describe is exactly what I had in mind with “leaving well” with the exception of the two-hour commute. “Leaving well” means leaving on their terms, however arbitrary those terms might be. One of the first red flags I saw at our most recent former church is a member who moved away to a different region of the country. She also left the SBC for an unacceptable denomination, so the elders “pushed her under their [long distance and unwanted] care.” At the time I wondered what that was all about. Due to other circumstances at the time, I didn’t look any further into it. So, I was an example of “if it doesn’t affect me personally, it doesn’t matter.”
Lydia wrote:
Too bad we don’t have a good word in English that means “spiritual sibling” the way “child of God” covers that relationship.
Gender references really have changed in our lifetime. I recently picked up a 1970s business management book that was all “he,” “him,” “man at the top,” etc. The writer didn’t even use “manager” to steer around the issue. Book felt very obsolete just because of this.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The true visionary will go straight to planting a terachurch. Right out of seminary.
Friend wrote:
I think the work ‘Christian’ was meant to be gender-neutral and, in the context of the Body of Christ, stand in the place of ‘spiritual siblings’.
I also think ‘human person’ or ‘human’ indicates a unity of relationship that is gender neutral, certainly prior to the Fall, and most definitely after the Incarnation when Our Lord assumed humanity. But that may be a teaching that is not found outside the Great Tradition.
Christiane wrote:
What? Your paragraph started out “I think” and ended with the above sentence. I really didn’t see a specific teaching in your comment. But, of course, “human” or “human person” would include both genders.
Velour wrote:
Ees OK! As of Friday, dey gots dat one covered with Mark 12 of 15 in da improved set!”Love the church more than its health.” Of course if youze defines “love” and “church” properly, no needs ta change a ting!
Gram3 wrote:
I agree that inclusive is a better term than neutral. What an interesting point about adoption as sons. NRSV says “adoption as children” in Galatians 4:5. The passage comes across as not male vs. female but minor children compared with slaves: both lack rights. Adoption gives heirship. “So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (v 7). What’s lost is comparing the Son of God with those adopted as sons, as well as cultural context.
I guess we really need to study the Bible, huh? 😉
Christiane wrote:
Sorry, I was engaged in the spiritual exercise of buying mums and light bulbs at Home Depot. These are ideas just always in the back of my mind. Am I grieving? Well, I had a traumatic experience at work about three years ago (current job is fantastic) and maybe grieving what I perceive as the death of my greatest desire. Anyway, like I said, this is at the back of my mind along with how God is good, and I believe he is good, but… but I think his definition of good and mine are drastically different. I mean, can you really depend on God to help in a crisis, I did and he didn’t. Did he help the Christians in the area? So, these are the thoughts I don’t dare say in small group. In small group, you smile and tow the party line because small group can handle only so much honesty. Also, people will just quote scripture back, and frankly, I get numb to scripture. Anyway, I sympathize with whatever you’re going through.
@ Friend:
Yes. That is it. I am thinking of 13 year old girls reading the scripture who have been schooled on gender specific language. Language changes and evolves.
refugee wrote:
Well, no plan is perfect, even if it IS spelled out in the Bible.
Patriciamc wrote:
And I with you. My journey with the ‘long goodbye’ will like last a lifetime, but I am peaceful. Your trouble sounds a lot like going through a grief, especially when a career goes awry.
My husband was laid off many years ago from a fairly high-paying job. We moved to the city where my parents lived and I had my daughter start at the local university. I wondered to God ‘why’? because the timing seemed so wrong for our family, but I soon saw something that made sense out of our situation: within six months of moving, both parents were hospitalized, one for kidney stones, and the other for major surgery.
If we hadn’t been there for them, I can’t think how they would have coped. But we were there, and it was good.
It is said we can’t see that far down the road for a reason, maybe we can’t handle it, or God has something in mind that shows up eventually …. but I now get it in my own life that ‘trust’ and ‘hope’ are meaningful.
One more thing: I have learnt to become thankful, even in small ways. It has come hard to me this awakening to be thankful, but I’m glad for it.
siteseer wrote:
Well, back in 584, probably the voting bishops were more than 30 years old. Today’s young elders would have seen clearly that women are not human. It says so in their special permanent Bible! 🙁
@ Friend:
Yes, and daughters were *not* heirs. For that reason, I don’t care for “child” or “children” in this instance because it obscures the fact that all who are in Christ are now heirs regardless of their status in the world. I cannot imagine how that must have sounded in the first century to slaves and women and the low-born. Regrettably, not a single translation committee has requested my opinion on this. 🙂
Friend wrote:
I went and read the site. People were requesting a citation for this text. Not sure if it is real or not.
@ Bridget:
“‘human’ indicates a unity of relationship that is gender neutral, certainly prior to the Fall, and most definitely after the Incarnation when Our Lord assumed humanity”
The teaching I’m referring to comes from this:
“what is not assumed has not been healed” and it is a relatively complex orthodox doctrine that evangelicals may in some in part, or some completely, or maybe some not all believe in. Here’s a reference:
https://enlargingtheheart.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/benedict-xvi-gregory-nazianzen-what-has-not-been-assumed-has-not-been-healed/
Lydia wrote:
Another language issue that Americans tend not to think about: the royalist language (Lord, King) in the KJV apparently trips up people from severely oppressive countries and from places that have broken away from colonialism. I think this is one reason we tend to say “God” and “Jesus” more nowadays: there’s no equivalency between God and a human lord or king.
@ mot
“How do they know they are God’s elect?”
Exactly my question for RT folks, which I have yet to get an answer to.
Not to be doing a verse battle here, but, to me, here’s the puzzle.
Jesus says, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.” John 3:15
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” John 6:28
and similar statements.
So, Jesus says we are to believe Him and trust Him and know Him.
RT (to me, anyway) says one CAN’T know, trust, and believe Jesus personally. That is, no one can personally know that what Jesus says is true for that person. You can’t live with the assurance that you are chosen and right with God.
So, RT seems to be telling people to not do the very thing that Jesus says TO do in order to have eternal life.
Jesus says, “Believe,” while RT (especially neo-cals) say not to believe. (And, to add insult to injury, they say that’s the way God has set things up.)
Diabolical.
@ Patriciamc:
The problem of suffering has been a huge issue in religion(s) and and an issue in many people who have drastically changed their ideas about God from what they were taught as a child.
For example, in the history of obstetrics medicine had to battle religion in whether or not anesthesia was permitted, since God had ordained suffering.
The matter that Jesus healed masses of people, or so the scripture says, has led people to think one thing, while at the same time Paul was not relieved of his thorn in the flesh has led people to think something different.
When the official investigations were being done regarding Mother Theresa, one of those who represented the negative by saying why she should not be canonized brought up the issue that she thought suffering was good for people and thus did not lean toward pain relief for the dying.
A Sikh orthopedic surgeon with whom I worked drilled holes in somebody’s tibia for anchoring an external fixation device with either no or insufficient anesthetic. The nurses criticized him for that, and when he told me about it he said that in India suffering is thought to be good for people; he was indignant that we in the US used pain killers like we do. (I was appalled that he was telling me this, actually, in this day and age.)
When I was an intern I got a call at night from a floor nurse for an order for some pain killer for some patient, which I did order and for which I notified her attending physician. The next day in rounds I learned that the hospital chaplain (a priest who was not a physician) had refused to let the med be given since he thought that some suffering would be good for the patient. There was a hullabaloo over that, as you can imagine.
I had a short conversation with one of my children (who, BTW did an undergrad major in philosophy and religion) who has quit believing that God loves people, this in the aftermath of the death by drowning of the two year old child of a friend. I said that since John said, or Jesus said, depending on where you put the punctuation marks, that God loved the world, then we have to use the word, but probably we do not remotely understand what that means.
Personally, I believe the weight of the evidence is that Jesus healed. So should we. And when that does not work out? We live in a fallen world; we should do the best we can; we should not let culture or religion stop us from that pursuit.
Friend wrote:
I’m pretty sure that ‘royalist language’ long predates the KJV.
@ Max and “Holy Disgust” prayers
Matthew 18:19
I agree you and anyone else in prayer for God to neutralize that calvinista strong man (according to HIS understanding of what that means) and to snatch away all the ensnared souls.
(Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, Luke 11:21 – 22)
Gram3 wrote:
Oh man, what would you do if they rang your doorbell? I think I’d dive behind the couch!
Bridget wrote:
It’s either real or not, according to St. Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_M%C3%A2con
@ Christiane
re: your 1:32 pm comment
(The copy function on this computer is not working.)
I would like to understand this comment more. I’m being brief because computers are closing down.
If God says I’m forgiven, am I truly being humble to not believe Him? If God says He remembers my sins no more, how am I not being audacious to keep reminding Him about them?
I ask this of myself, because I can dwell on my transgressions from middle school, like lying to my best friend.
If a KING tells you you are pardoned, come out of the jail cell. I’d think staying in the jail cell would be more of an insult to the king than an act of humility.
Gotta go…… Thanks for your engagement with my question.
roebuck wrote:
Agreed, thanks.
trs wrote:
Hi trs,
I think you were referring this comment:
Christiane UNITED STATES on Sun Sep 18, 2016 at 01:32 PM said:
mot wrote:
How do they know they are God’s elect?
The Eastern Orthodox would certainly ask this question of any arrogant person who claimed such a status BECAUSE it is known that the signature mark of a Christian person is their humility before the Lord, and their humble service to others, a mirroring of the loving-kindness of their Creator done in His honor.”
I am Catholic so I don’t know your theology very well. But I do know at the heart of the Orthodox concept of Christian humility, you will find this ancient prayer:
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
It is biblical in origin and is also the inspiration for the ‘fish’ sign of the early Christian people, which stood for Our Lord.
I can tell you that trusting in Jesus means more to people who value humility than claiming ‘they are the elect’ and ‘they are glad they are not like those other sinners’;
and that this also has its roots in the Bible. Of course I speak of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.
As for sin and its forgiveness, if you were to CONTINUE that same sin repeatedly, you would need to ask forgiveness again. And it would also be considered ‘an occasion of sin’ if you were to place yourself in temptation’s path where you might be tempted to commit that very same sin again. Stay away from places and people where you might be tempted, yes.
I don’t know from Calvinism’s predestination, and election, and all of that, except I don’t believe in Calvin. So I follow another way. 🙂 But if you have made confession to God about a sin, and you are sincerely sorry and do it in Christ’s Holy Name, you can be at peace about God’s forgiveness for that particular incident, unless it is the sin of contempt for the Holy Spirit. That is another story.
I hope this helps some.
Bill M wrote:
This was a different translation, the HCSB.
The one that we are discussing that has been changed is the ESV.
Dave A A wrote:
Oh amen! I was thinking about this today. Expositional preaching is mostly foreign to the New Testament, IMHO.
Friend wrote:
Ha! Who knows. Reading under this section “False reports on ‘women’s souls’ issue” was not terribly helpful.
@ Bridget:
I expect considering ‘sources’ and ‘agendas’ might help when looking into the Councils of the Church. Actually, it might be really difficult for the Church to abandon women as ‘human persons’ with souls, since a key portion of Scripture affirms the humanity of women WITH souls:
“46 Then Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!” (St.Luke 1)
@ Christiane:
Is there some neo-Cal guru trying to put it out there that women are not ‘human persons’ with souls ??????
I wouldn’t surprised by anything they do after they finagled with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and with the Bible itself. They have lost so much credibility just on those two actions.
Christiane wrote:
It is actually in the article that a counsil considered it.
okrapod wrote:
Amen and Amen.
mirele wrote:
So is cuss-itional (or cuss-itory?) preaching, but that doesn’t stop a certain Scottsdale fellow.
@ Friend:
I have done a bit of research on this but the church state caste system seems to be where the word “office” comes from. It was added by translators.
Anonymous wrote:
Got it, but I still don’t grasp why it “is beyond the pale” to infer that Mohler’s “take control” may have had a double meaning.
Bill M wrote:
Bill, my take on the situation:
The SBC did their own translation, the Holman, in order to cut down in royalty payments.
Anonymous said that the Holman “fell by the wayside”. I took issue with that. Mohler has had enormous power since 1993 (you should hear some of the things he had the power to do to long time employees when he was just 33). He had totally consolidated that power when the Holman was published.
If Mohler had said that SBTS was using the Holman or even promoted it like the ESV when it was published..around 2003, it would not have fallen by the wayside. That is the total irony of the situation.
Anonymous was painting what I think is a false picture of why Mohler became an ESV fanatic as if the royalty free Holman was not an option.
I think it was purely for personal gain for him and his Neo Cal comrades to hook up with Crossway.
The irony is Mohler had access to a free and official SBC translation AND a publishing arm of the SBC! So why Crossway?
Note: I am strictly speaking in terms of power politics and am not promoting the Holman translation.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/correcting-an-error#.V99DA0kpDqA
“There are already attempts going on to rewrite history (“Our organization never promoted ESS!”). Those who came out swinging when MOS first began posting challenges to ESS, having noticed the clear consensus of scholars, are remaining largely silent on the issue of late.* That is wise. It’s never a good idea to continue to press for something which has proven to be inconsistent with Scripture. The problem is that while seminaries quietly try to get some of their professors up to speed on Christian orthodoxy and publishers revise books on the downlow the errors continue to fester in the soil of many churches and parachurch ministries. ”
It is amazing the deceptive lengths “Christian” leaders will go to in order to hide or delete their words. If I had not seen it myself too many times, I would not believe they had the nerve. After deleting the gas- lighting begins.
Lydia wrote:
Fascinating! And then “the office” got its own TV show, set at a paper company in Scranton. Might there be a Dunder Mifflin Bible? 🙂
More seriously, I wonder if the introduction of “office” also has something to do with the cases of Greek nouns. NRSV uses KJV “office of bishop” in some places, but removes the word “office” and says “serve as deacons” in others. (1 Tim 3:1, 10, 13 if you’re curious.)
@ Lydia:
Thanks for that link. I had not yet seen Todd’s latest post. I agree with him – “To promote doctrinal error is sin…”
@ okrapod:
Suffering is good for you huh? Whether it’s said by John Piper or the Sikh surgeon you spoke of, it’s still a lie from the father of lies (in my opinion).
Christiane wrote:
https://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-crucial-discipleship/
Johnathan Leeman.
My summary: God doesn’t have much use for women. He just made us to serve men.
Nancy2 wrote:
Hi NANCY TWO,
I think that post is horrible. This part made me sick:
” here’s what the elders of my church tell couples in pre-marital counseling: According to Genesis 1, the man and woman should both focus on bringing God’s Lordship and dominion to the earth. But according to Genesis 2, they have different ways of doing that. The man is oriented to the Garden, while the woman is oriented to the man and being a suitable helper to him. She’s to employ her entire resume of gifts and talents to promote the work of his administration. He, in turn, is to steward her gifts to maximal effect and not bury them in the ground, like the unfaithful steward.”
They are way ‘out there’ on a limb when it comes to the theology of Christian marriage. They demand the sacrifice of a woman’s gift TO HER HUSBAND. Good grief. That does not bode well for a good marriage where people live in service to one another out of love. They are SO wrong and it’s extremely destructive to the human spirit of the women they ‘control’.
Nancy2 wrote:
That article is too much!!
@ Christiane:
@ Bridget:
Yup. 9Marxist want to talk about keys ……. It’s blatantly obvious that they believe only men can have keys, and women should be kept on the wrong side of the lock!
@ Nancy2:
PS: they push the ESV, too!
https://9marks.org/article/genesis-gender-and-ecclesial-womanhood/
Owen Strachan’s article. Yeah, it get’s worse.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks Lydia, I value your judgement. The denomination I escaped from was a smaller pond than the SBC but it had sharks of the same species.
Christiane wrote:
I noticed the word “dominion” came up. Are they getting into dominionist/theocratic ideas like Rushdoony taught? I seem to remember back in the 80s that was a big deal to the more extreme Calvinists – setting up a theocracy and disciplining everyone to somehow make them perfect. I didn’t follow what they were saying in great detail because I was not a Calvinist but it seemed creepy and cult-like back then.
@ okrapod:
Okrapod, that is horrible that some people would actually prolong someone’s suffering on purpose. It’s unconscionable. A person with empathy has a difficult time seeing someone else in pain. To willingly cause someone pain makes me wonder if these people are sadists acting under cover.
I have suffered a lot of pain in my life and I’m here to say, pain is a horrible thing. Maybe God is able to bring good out of it but it can also be trying and discouraging to go through. There are people who end their lives when pain gets too unbearable and prolonged. The person who relieves pain is an angel to the sufferer. Jesus had compassion. Jesus healed, indeed.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yeah… except when it doesn’t…
There is something seriously wrong with these guys. Somehow they got way off track and are unable to see it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
All I can say is that their Holy Bible ,there are many verses that are changed. I was 15 turning 16 when I received Christ.
@ siteseer:
(That was a quote from the article, didn’t come out very clearly.)
Jacob wrote:
Hi JACOB,
actually the quote is from this link:
https://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-crucial-discipleship/
Johnathan Leeman
Christiane wrote:
They are thieves, robbing God of what is rightfully his.
Jacob wrote:
I think you are reading it correctly.
Jacob wrote:
Dominion was a topic much more recently — it’s the kind of thing that our former church taught, and we haven’t been gone all that long. If I’m not mistaken, it was also a theme of Vision Forum, wasn’t it? A lot of the patriarchal types preached and believed in dominion theology.
@ refugee:
I remember groups like the moral majority & Christian coalition trying to gain ground in US politics. Even Pat Robertson made a run for the presidency. That doesn’t seem to have been as successful as planned.
I think that’s what’s driving this push to Calvinism. Now the focus is controlling the churches. It’s become more appealing to think in terms of being an ‘elect’
refugee wrote:
Gram3’s post on 5/24/16 about the roots of Patriarchy that we are seeing in Christian churches, NeoCalvinism:
I would add to BradFuturist that Rousas Rushdoony was the fount of Reconstructionism (the Reformed version of Dominionism) which led to Federal Vision which plagues many PCA churches to this day. Federal Vision is Doug Wilson’s theology, though it is taught by Peter Leithart who is still inexplicably tolerated by the PCA.
Dominionism was also promoted heavily in charismatic circles via TBN and other outlets. The connection between the charismatic form of Dominionism and the Reconstructionist version was Gary North who is Rushdoony’s son-in-law.
Reconstructionism is a perversion of standard Covenant Theology. Some consider it merely an extreme form of Covenant Theology, but I disagree. As Brad said, they wish to establish a theocratic state modeled on the OT theocracy. They take that as a pattern for how we should do government and church and family. This includes the idea of Patriarchy.
Federal Vision shifted the focus from establishing a theocracy to establishing a church that is the center of everything. There is much talk of priests, fathers as priests of their family, etc. Rather than a focus on individual conversion, the FV focuses on baptism and communion. One becomes a Christian by being baptized and one is baptized because one is born into a family headed by a Christian man.
The word “covenant” is plastered all over a lot of different things, and I think it is important to keep those things separate lest we blame people who hold to standard Covenant Theology for the weirdness.
I think a lot of Reconstructionist baggage got ported over to the YRR by guys reading Greg Bahnsen who was an affiliate of Rushdoony. He was a brilliant guy who was highly respected as an apologist in the Van Til school as was Rushdoony.
Gothard is another thing entirely, as far as I know. Wheaton in the 60’s was not a Reformed stronghold. I believe that Gothard’s views were primarily shaped by a fundamentalist mindset in reaction to a liberalizing culture. The answer was more laws and rules rather than an emphasis on regeneration and the internal work of sanctification in the individual believer. He began his work helping parents who were frustrated with their teenagers’ rebellion. Any of us who have raised teenagers can identify with their desperation for answers, and Gothard offered a System for that just like our current Female Subordinationists offer a System which supposedly produces happy marriages and families.
I think there was a lot of cross-pollination among these various streams of thought back in the 60’s and 70’s to get us where we are today. The Christian homeschooling movement is another place where ideas crossed over. Rushdoony decreed that homeschooling is the only Biblical way.
The bottom line is that people will use whatever means works if what they desire is to rule over others. We have all been useful idiots, but typically in the present it is much easier to see when other people are being useful idiots. Retrospectively, some of us have been able to realize that we were useful idiots.
That’s enough for a comment box. If you Google these names and movements, you will find a wealth of information.
@ refugee:
Posted by Brad/FutuistGuy on May 23, 2016:
I thought about some key indicators, and remembered that a lot of them are in the lists for this post I wrote on “Calvinistas” a few years ago. Although Shepherding-type authoritarianism isn’t only in Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan or Pentecostal settings, there is a common paradigm of thinking that always separates things into classes and categories, and that similarity goes far deeper than the doctrinal differences.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
FWIW, here’s a bullet list of some of the items on those lists, and I’ll leave the descriptions of them over there.
* Dualism
* Reductionism
* Perfectionism
* Patriarchalism
* Totalism and Authoritarianism
* Dominionism
About the only other thing I think I’d add to this is something having to do with the ways these groups tend to “collaborate.” If they engage in ministry partnerships at all, it’s like to be where there is high overlap on those other essential approaches to thinking processes, systems, personal growth or behavior modification, authority and subservience, and stance toward culture. And the rest of the churches-theologians-Christians are labeled as either non-gospel, heretical, etc.
@ refugee:
Posted by BL on May 27, 2016, Part 2:
refugee wrote:
What would you say were the 9 (or whatever number) marks of the shepherding movement? Is there a way to sum it up? I can’t seem to get my head around it. I don’t know if there is a CliffNotes version, or not.
Part 2:
The discipleship leaders were initially involved with a ministry in Florida whose leader committed sexual sins. In response to this ministry’s failure, they sought protection from such failure by committing to each other for accountability.
So, we had a large number of on-fire Christians going from one meeting to another, one denomination to another, caravaning to other cities for some traveling evangelist, spending hours reading books or listening to teaching tapes, as well as talking to and teaching each other.
The men, Mumford, Simpson, Prince & Simpson (Baxter joined later) thought that the burgeoning charismatic movement needed to be accountable to someone and that someone needed to oversee it in order for the people to grow and mature.
They named themselves Christian Growth Ministries.
And in no particular order – they emphasized the importance of:
Restoring biblical church government.
The local church.
Covenant.
Spiritual authority, spiritual covering, delegated authority.
Male authority.
Accountability.
Spiritual covering (everyone had to have a personal shepherd).
Unquestioned obedience to your shepherd.
Wives’ submission & obedience to husbands.
Honoring & serving leadership.
Not gossiping, no negative speech, no spreading strife.
This church – Elitism (we’re the ones who are doing it right).
Not making any decisions without your shepherd’s approval.
Unity (with no place for dissent or disagreement.)
Small shepherding groups.
Obeying your shepherd even if he is wrong & trust God will fix it.
Leaving this church and your are leaving God.
Shunning anyone who has left.
.
I’m sure I’ve overlooked some aspects.
@ Velour:
That’s a great list.
Deb wrote:
I squirrel away the really good comments, things that teach me and help others too, at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books, Movies, etc. tab.
H.U.G. is on to me. I told him, for his cooperation, he could go to the nearest See’s Candy store and ask for a free sample! LOL.
I have posted an update on the open discussion thread. Thanks.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-14/#comment-283464
Nancy2 wrote:
They let that idiot post on 9marxists website too?
siteseer wrote:
And when Adams manly masculine strength and ‘leadership’ are used to hurt eve? Crickets.
Woke up this morning with the thought that those who “follow” – however that looks – the new ESV, are now no longer “cult-like” but “cult.”
Then I noticed that Headless Unicorn Guy and Marquis had that discussion yesterday.
Lea wrote:
Of course they did. Owen is one of their ‘kind’.
On the other hand, scores of us have been blocked from viewing Mark Dever, Chief 9 Marxist, tweets. I’m blocked, Todd Wilhelm is blocked, Dee is blocked, Amy Smith is blocked, Nate Sparks is blocked, Coach O is blocked and on and on.
I have never even tweeted to Mark Dever!
We must really be getting to the Boyz for them to be blocking us.
I think I can see both sides of the gender neutral vs gender inclusive argument. It looks like each is a step in accomplishing some goal-but not the exactly same goal. There is a heretical idea that has been floating around since the beginning, something that Jesus allegedly said to Mary Magdalene, that she could follow him (as an equal to the male disciples apparently) by becoming a man herself, or perhaps that following him would facilitate her becoming a man. Anyhow, it is garbage in my thinking, but I sometimes get the same feel perhaps from people who seem to want to remove any identifying femaleness or maleness from either people or terminology. In that case, saying men and women would tend to emphasize that both males and females bring something to the table without becoming gender neutral and/or non sexual in the process, whereas the concept of simply offspring would not so much emphasize the inclusivity of the entire species as it presents itself in both male and female.
Now, some people apparently have been so injured or alienated that in fact the very mention of sex/gender says something quite different to them. I get that. I don’t know to what extent it is wise, however, to let that impact vocabulary and thinking and to what extent that should happen.
What I see in the inheritance of ‘sons’ walks a thin line. If we say ‘sons’ then we are closer to the impact of the statement as it would have been understood at the time of the original document, but if we say ‘sons’ now we lose some of the impact of current american english while alienating some people. Thank God for footnotes.
There is something which is very different between different strands of christian tradition when it comes to women, and the ideas that I hear from the calvinists seems to be perhaps influenced by this.
In protestantism there is the role/position/circumstance of the preacher’s wife. In some traditions this can be a man and wife ministry team in which she has an opportunity much like some to the rabbi’s wives in more conservative aspects of Judaism, while in other traditions it is mostly that she takes care of just about everything concerning the family in order to free him for ‘the work of the ministry’. The classic picture has been that he preaches and she plays the piano. How many young girls have dreamed of being the preacher’s wife while practicing the piano, or at least this was so in my youth. When one of my kids was at Liberty she was pursued by one young preacher boy wannabe who told her at length what he alleged they were being told as to what to look for in a wife such as to achieve the ‘ministry team’ idea. For some women this is very appealing, especially since it carries with it a certain level of respect and even second hand authority. One is higher on the pecking order at the very least.
In catholicism the priests do not have wives, and that specific avenue of ministry is not open to women. However, they have traditionally had consecrated celibate women who live in community and who have done a tremendous lot of the actual work in schools and hospitals and social agencies. I saw what seemed to be a shred of this when I was in africa in for example the teacher’s group at one of the baptist schools in which the women all lived together is a structured (apparently functionally hierarchical) unit. They did not seem to be a particularly happy lot, and they had to listen to being called ‘unclaimed blessings’ based on the fact that there were not married; not exactly a term of respect.
That said, the concept of enabling a man’s ministry as a vocation for women is more a protestant idea, while consecrated celibate community living is more a catholic idea. I am loathe to criticize either one, though communal celibacy would not be my choice for myself.
And yes I know about the traditions of Paul’s female co-laborer(s) and the mother/daughter team who took care of Jerome and there was of course Monica. I am not saying that these ideas are exclusive to a particular tradition nor am I saying that these are the only two options in either traditiion; I am saying that they are more characteristic of one or the other tradition at this time.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I have no idea why the HCSB has not caught on. But it hasn’t. It could be some financial thing with Mohler and others. I don’t know.
And I lament the decline of the NASB. It had great prominence, but has lost that spot since the mid 70s. I understand that it’s because of Lockman, but I don’t know any particulars.
Bill:
I don’t think it’s good to infer double meanings when the logical explanation is staring us in the face.
If Mohler had gone on to try and exercise unwarranted and biased changes in the HCSB, then there would be some proof to go on. But that never materialized to my knowledge. I have not heard a raft of criticisms related to bias in the HCSB, though there could be that and I am not aware.
okrapod wrote:
This is where footnotes and study bibles are really useful, imo. They can explain the historical context. My NIV study bible has many passages about the history (although now I’m tempted to see if it has any comments on that part).
I like elegant language, personally, so I would like the language that best reflects reality in the prettiest way. Which is maybe not a proper translation mentality, but whatever. If brothers and sisters sounds prettier than siblings, say that. But I don’t take the gender stuff to heart so much.
Very interesting about Mary becoming like a man. There was a podcast I listened too that talked about transgender issues in the middle ages (I think) and they mentioned a woman who went into a monastery and was thought to have become ‘like a man’ and was praised for it. Because a woman who becomes a man has elevated herself. One would think we had gotten past that thinking…
mirele wrote:
Yes, this is true. The running joke/commentary about Southeastern (and by default, Southern, 9M, etc.) is that the Holy Trinity is now comprised of Father, Son and Holy Scriptures.
Nancy2 wrote:
He quotes Ware: “there is a priority given to the male as the image of God, for she is created as the glory of the man who is himself the image and glory of God.”
WTH???!!
Christiane wrote:
I read an article recently about Eve being created a helper suitable for Adam. It claimed that the Hebrew word for “help” in that sentence is the same one used in Psalm 46 and other places to describe God, as in “God is a very present help in trouble.” What this implies is that the woman was not created to assist the man, but in a sense to rescue him from loneliness and isolation.
Anonymous wrote:
You lost me. What would that prove?
@ Robert:
Carolyn Custis James did extensive scholarship on Ezer. It is worth a look.
What I don’t get is what these people hope to accomplish. What they are promoting is not what most other Christian groups think is part of the gospel, nor is it in the direction the culture is moving. If they want to reverse the past 100 years of gender politics in this country, well, they aren’t going to. (I suppose it’s possible to convince some other evangelical groups to adopt female subordination, but that would only result in those groups losing any cultural relevancy they have remaining.)
So is this about propping up their own empires, or maybe convincing their own congregations?
siteseer wrote:
That’s because the new reformers journeyed back 500 years to dig up Calvin’s archaic practices of shunning and excommunication as mechanisms for controlling their flocks.
Robert wrote:
I actually think this is part of it. Adam alone was the only part of gods creation pronounced as not good.
And even in English ‘help’ doesn’t mean lesser. I can help my boss or I can help someone at my level or I can help a child. Help is not hierarchical!!
Robert wrote:
I think they want to go against culture to the ‘way things used to be’. When men were in charge. They never think that maybe the men weren’t doing such a great job of things and they never think about how power corrupts and giving a bunch of imperfect humans power over others has literally NEVER not been abused. Never.
And they certainly never think about how Jesus’ strongest criticisms were for the religious leaders who lorded it over everyone else, or how he repeatedly taught that his followers were not to be authoritarian.
@ Lea:
God is described or referred to as an Ezer. :o)
@ Robert:
And worse, it would not work if women did not go along.
okrapod wrote:
As long as Bruce Ware or Wayne Grudem aren’t writing them. :o)
mirele wrote:
While there is certainly room for exposition of both OT and NT Scripture in today’s church to frame God’s work in the affairs of men, it would do 21st century preachers well to take a closer look at the preaching “style” in the 1st century church. Jesus preached effective topical sermons – He painted vivid pictures with hard-hitting Truth. The Apostles, including Paul, followed His example by quoting Scripture (not verse by verse), coupled with life illustrations, to bring home Truth to their hearers in time and place. Certainly, Paul commanded Timothy to preach the Word – you need the Word to support what you say – but the disciples were not challenged to be verse-by-verse expository preachers. Yes, today’s church needs to reexamine the preaching style of the first church. God’s Word, if it’s going to be life-changing, needs to be combined with a clear and practical application to a person’s life.
Don’t get me wrong, there is room for a careful study of the Bible involving an examination of verse-by-verse in the whole context of Scripture. Lord knows the New Calvinists are making a living off of “expository preaching” which takes the text out of context to support reformed theology (e.g., complementarianism). You’ve got to know the whole of Scripture to identify their error. But, we’ve got to bring preaching/teaching back to meeting people where they live – communicating God’s Word in a manner which will transform folks into Christlikeness. Topical sermons are not to be viewed as lesser methods of the delivery of Scripture if they can accomplish that!
Bottom-line for me, is that the only “good” preaching, whether it be topical or expository, is that done under the power of the Holy Spirit in a faithful man’s life. And that, folks, is the missing ingredient in our churches … the anointing that breaks the yoke.
Then there is the concept of marketing a unique and identifiable product to appeal to a slice of the market. I do think that we see that there is a slice of the market to which the calvinista gender politics appeals. Personally I think they go too far, but I also think that some of the ideas on the opposite end of the gender politics continuum go too far. I do think that it is a defensible position within christianity for a church to have a woman pastor, while at the same time I think that it is a defensible position within christianity for a church to not have a woman pastor. If I am correct in thinking that either conclusion can be arrived at while still being within the limits of genuine christianity, then I would think that there would continue to be a slice of the market for people who take either position.
Which would mean jobs and royalties and professorships and designated schools and speaking engagements and all that we see going on.
Max wrote:
You have to wonder if they have secret fantasies of burning people at the stake…
@ okrapod:
I agree. I think there is room for genuine disagreement and healthy debate of Scripture that sharpens iron. If only Christians would be honest about their intentions. Such as deceptively phasing out women deacons at my former church. If they are honest upfront, they would not be hired.
As far as gender the issue goes, both extremes of the continuum feed off each other and demand to put people in strict categories. We see this in secular culture concerning gender issues, too.
In my Christian circles, I have been surrounded by soft comps who lived like egals. And that was fine until Russ Moore invaded the landscape with his “comps are wimps” shtick and interjected a lot of confusion and vitriol. Even in non SBC circles! It became a salvic issue.
And that is the problem. It is not a “Gospel” issue. It is not a hill to die on.
However, I think the good news is that women will function as they are led within the Body of Christ– which most likely means outside the institutions. It is probably more effective that way, too.
@ roebuck:
I thank God for our influential and eloquent non Calvinist Founders!
Robert wrote:
A few years ago, my husband’s truck broke down in Alabama on a Friday night. We live in Kentucky. My husband didn’t call another man. He called me. I had never been to Alabama, but he knew I have a good sense of direction, I’m good with maps, and I would move Heaven and Earth to go get him, no matter what. With Nashville traffic on a Friday night, it was about a 5 1/2 hour drive. ……. I rolled in behind his truck a little after 1:00 am on Saturday morning. The slave cylinder had gone out in his truck, so we had to find a garage mechanic on a Saturday that would fix it.
I didn’t get back home until Sunday afternoon, so I missed church. The next Sunday, everyone wanted to know why I missed, so we told them. I could not believe how many of the women said that they never could have driven that far alone – they would have had to have called another man to go get their husbands!!!
Why? Fear of the unknown ……. the stereo-typical opinions about women drivers >>>> woman’s inability to read a map and follow directions ……. inappropriate for a woman to take off alone in the middle of the night. ….. a litany of excuses.
That’s when I began to realize that so many churches teach women to be helpless and dependant. I am a rebellious woman because I don’t think and live the way they do.
If it was only about the role of women in the church I would understand it a lot better, but it isn’t. They are also talking about the woman’s role in the family, and they are doing it using some pretty strange interpretation of scripture.
I’m not familiar with any of the people being talked about in this thread, but anyone who talks about his “male authority” feeling “threatened” is someone I can’t take seriously.
okrapod wrote:
Insecure men?
Nancy2 wrote:
Where do people get this??? I really have never been like this so I guess I don’t understand. I was thrilled to get on a plane and fly 1000 miles by myself at 18 but a family member was very nervous about it at 50 something.
Jacob wrote:
IMO dominion is a perfectly good way to describe the mandate God gave to the Man *and* to the Woman before the Fall. However, the Female Subordinationists teach that the Dominion/Creation Mandate was given only to the Man with the Woman as his assistant. Dominion Theology takes it further and says that the visible Church is, in some sense, the New Creation which has a mandate to take dominion over the Fallen Creation. Such a view works better with Covenant Theology because the Covenant of Grace unifies the OT and the NT, but there are non-Covenantal Dominionists, primarily certain types of Charismatics.
Lea wrote:
Someone should screenshot all of the ESS and Female Subordinationist articles from 9Marks before they disappear. They had an entire 9Marks Journal devoted to “Complementarianism” last year, I think, which was very interesting reading. Possibly the year before that.
Gram3 wrote:
I have an honest question. Why do these folks think woman was created at all? If only for children, we could have had a form of asexual reproduction leaving earth with only manly men, not tainted half men like women.
I fear a cage wrote:
I confirmed with a 9Marks pup that they actually do believe that females are created to be the glory of men and are created with a derivative image of God. Naturally, they mangle this text because it must be made prescriptive rather than descriptive and must be put through their Authority distortion filter.
Robert wrote:
I have heard that as well. Another way of looking at the “strong rescuer” is to look at that as prophetic statement of the means by which humanity’s rescue would come. If God knew the Fall would happen (and I believe he did) then calling the Woman a “strong rescuer” accords with the Seed of the Woman prophecy and also the birth of Jesus from Mary.
Gram3 wrote:
That makes sense. Our former church was into covenant theology, as well.
roebuck wrote:
I overheard some of the more “sold-out” people in our hyper-calvinist church seriously discussing the biblical command to stone rebellious teens, among others.
That was the point at which I started to question, but it took years to peel away completely.
I think the veneer of civilization is thin in spots, and they might have such an impulse to control that they could have pipe dreams about going back to days of blood and fire. Not so different from ISIS, as some have pointed out.
Lea wrote:
I think they would say that the Man needed a helper to carry out the Creation Mandate, and one of the primary Roles of the Woman is/was to bear children and fill the earth. Hence Quiverfull.
Another Role for women is to be the Man’s assistant as he fulfills the tasks God has given him. Helping the Man is the task God has given to the Woman. Basically, if you think of their theology being centered on the Man rather than on God, it will make more sense.
The real Original Sin in their theology was when the Woman usurped the Man’s authority and spoke to the Serpent. The Man’s real Original Sin was permitting the Woman to speak to the Serpent and not defending the Garden from the Serpent. When they miss the entire point of disobeying God and insert their Theology of Gender into the Genesis narrative, they get this very man-centered view of Original Sin.
In my (concise) Hebrew lexicon, I can’t find any mention of a meaning like “against, “Contrary to,” etc. for the preposition “el.” To, toward is the basic meaning and so “for” makes sense: your desire is for your husband’s approval, direction, etc.
In general, I’ve found the ESV to be far too theological and not enough translational. Especially on issues of gender, the translators seem to bring a lot of preconceptions that lead them to translate ambiguity out of the text and leave the reader with only one possible meaning that supports complementarian / patriarchal ways of doing theology.
I was amazed when I read through the NRSV’s translation of the Old Testament at just how foreign and ambiguous the text often is when it isn’t translated through conservative evangelical theological lenses. I’ve also heard good things about the NASB from conservatives and liberals alike, a good sign I think.
Nancy2 wrote:
And also insecure women. But to some extent I think both men and women who need a more structured society for any number of reasons, and also some who are uncomfortable with the degree of individualism that our secular society increasingly represents. And I don’t know what all else, since I have never been in that sort of church and not had the opportunity to observe the actual people all that much.
Gram3 wrote:
This is it in a nutshell. Everything else is supposed to convince us they are not really man centered. :I)
refugee wrote:
Whew! These folks must have the spirit of Calvin possessing them!!
Wesley wrote:
Just out of curiosity I checked the pew bibles yesterday and this is what we have. (not a comp church)
Lydia wrote:
Equal in ‘worth’, but only to God. Sort of. But not even then, if you listen closely.
Max wrote:
They would be proud to think that.
Velour wrote:
Not to mention that retirement is clearly prohibited, as are vacations, weekends, and sick days! Otherwise you are not toiling all the days of your life!
Velour wrote:
These men had a substantial influence on PDI/SGM/Mahaney. Charles Simpson spoke at Celebration ’88, I believe.
Lea wrote:
I am curious as to where Lehman and Strachan stand today on these issues in light of the current ESS discussions. Those articles are 6 years old. Since Strachan is gone from CBMW I’m thinking he is just dandy with ESS. Grudem is teaching on ESS here soon :(. I assume Ware is on board with Grudem. Wondering about the rest of the Gospel Gliterati . . .
Wesley wrote:
Says the ManaGAWD in his Furtick Mansion surrounded by bodyguards who only works (if you don’t count book tours and conferences) a couple hours on Sunday.
Lea wrote:
I have often thought the same thing. Asexual reproduction fits much better with Young Earth Creationism; sexual reproduction fits much better with Evolution of complex life. Because sexual reproduction shuffles the DNA deck with each generation (allowing for much more generic variety) while asexual reproduction clones exact DNA copies. You Don’t Require Sexual Reproduction for YEC, you DO for Evolution beyond single-cell bacteria.
Nancy2 wrote:
Good grief!! I’ve driven all over the country. I love to drive . . . go down a road just to see where it goes 🙂 On trips, I drive as much or more than hubby. I realize everyone isn’t like this, but to see most women in a Church afraid to go out of their state is odd.
roebuck wrote:
I don’t wonder. I’m sure of it.
After all, CALVIN did it so We Must Also. “GOD HATH PREDESTINED IT!”
Velour wrote:
there it is:
the command of men to ignore your OWN conscience and OBEY your leaders unquestioningly
when you see that teaching, you will know that you are no longer in Kansas anymore; and since there is no ‘time machine’ you have not traveled back into Nazi Germany
welcome to the alt-right and may God have mercy on us
Lea wrote:
“But This Time We WILL Achieve True Communism!”
Burwell wrote:
And in the next phase the Father and Son go away….
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Right? I mean, if you don’t care about science anyway…
okrapod wrote:
Global Replace All string “man” with string “person”?
KMD wrote:
These folks assume an ‘authority’ greater than the US military would have over its own troops, because there is a rule in the military that a man does not have to obey an unlawful order . . . .
I think when people are asked to ignore their own God-given consciences, you are looking at something satanic.
I also hope that our military will always be honorable and law-abiding, as I believe they are now. Aside from some recent extreme political rhetoric, I have no reason to fear a change for the worse from anything my military family members have mentioned.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
They are already working on the son.
It’s also super weird how they treat the spirit almost like it is the baby of the father and son. IF you are mapping this all to humans, it would make more sense father, spirit as mother and then son. Instead, they take Jesus as child, map the child parts him to woman, and throw out spirit altogether. And they do that, from the passages that map husband to Jesus! It’s a really bizarre theology.
Jacob wrote:
i.e. Dominate like the Draka.
Christiane wrote:
In their world your (generic your) conscience is too hopelessly sullied by ‘sin’ to be trusted. I’ve heard the same spiel by card-carrying Arminians too. I think it was Dr. Fundy awhile back who said that they’re (arminians & calvinists) really just kissin’ cousins. I agree.
KMD wrote:
I remember CJ Mahaney’s name from Maranatha. Nothing specific, but I think he must have spoken at Maranatha conferences. Maranatha was big on the “dominion mandate”, meaning a top-down transformation of society by taking power over it. It’s contrary to the gospel.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was baffled by Bruce Ware’s beliefs that women are the derivative image of God whereas men are made in the image of God. (So much for the ‘plain reading’ of Genesis that we are ‘made in the image of God’.) A belief in Asexual Reproduction might explain Bruce Ware’s thinking. His mother was a derivative image of God, got pregnant with Bruce Ware and gave birth to him, and Bruce Ware is made in the image of God.
These men seem to hate women, including their own mothers.
Muff Potter wrote:
If the neo-Cal and related groups are banking on The Fall to have killed human conscience as an effective gift from God, then they’ve got their biblical timing wrong.
There is the freedom of a working gift of conscience implied in this great Scripture:
“19”I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, ” (Deut.30:19)
There is mention in the book of Jeremiah 31:33 of the presence of conscience in this form:
“”I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts.”
I think the neo-Cal and associates are ‘lost’ when they claim the right to have human persons ignore God’s voice in the depths of their own consciences and instead TRUST a human ‘leadership’ who sees through a glass darkly and whose fruit is ever more rotten.
At best, you have a cult forming, at worst, you have possibly a connection of forces and entities that seek control eventually at a dominionist level.
Thank God for the gift of discernment from the Holy Spirit.
Nancy2 wrote:
I WOULD be concerned about driving a long distance at night. That said, I would make sure I locked my car doors, didn’t pick up any hitchhikers, keep my cell phone charged, and just take reasonable precautions!
Velour wrote:
These groups that are so anti-women and rely on peculiar interpretations of scripture and are obsessed with rules and human effort to make oneself pure and perfect, these groups seem to have a lot in common with the old Gnostics.
@ Tina:
I wouldn’t place ‘concern’ and common sense precautions in the same category as the ‘fear’ that the neo-Cal world is promoting. The ‘Leadership’ is banking (literally) on the fear and dependency of women for its own purposes. You won’t find them preaching about the strength of Deborah and Jael and the great matriarchs of Israel, no. Bad, bad dudes, these bums. Bad.
@ Christiane:
I think that you are entirely missing the point. These people are forming new churches out of people who have already formed their own opinions and impressions about this or that from various sources. The leadership is now attempting to re-form people’s thinking into new patterns. It is a process of conversion to a different set of beliefs. You seem to think that people are being asked to reject something good for something which is bad. Probably it is rarely that drastic. People are being asked to reject certain things that they have been previously come to believe, things which they have internalized and which may be part and parcel of who they perceive themselves to be and which they may be calling ‘conscience’. And they are being asked to reprogram this thing that they may be calling conscience to coincide with a different set of beliefs. I believe that the RCC may call this ‘formation’ just like we speak of the formation of christian character. And I believe that the RCC would expect a protestant convert to catholicism to reprogram certain aspects of their thinking including to train their conscience in catholic ways of belief. This is the same idea when protestants do it.
Example: how many of us have heard this drivel about ‘the Lord has assured me that this particular adulterous relationship that I am in is okay because He wants me to be happy.’ Now here is a person whose ‘conscience’ does not bother them about adultery. You seem to be saying that this person should follow his conscience even in matters like this. Another example: my former husband has stated that his conscience does not bother him about certain of his previous behaviors for which scripture is explicit in the negative. So-hey then everything is good as long as his conscience does not bother him? I think not.
So, I stand where I stand. The scripture and to some extent the teachings of the church take precedence over ‘conscience’ when conscience is poorly formed and inadequately understood and used as an excuse for sin.
Jacob wrote:
And like Exhibit A – Josh Duggar (ultra conservative Quiverful family on tv show) there is a high rate of sexual abuse and sexual acting out in these groups. All of the books I have on spiritual abuse noted that particular sickness in these high-control groups.
okrapod wrote:
I must have touched a nerve. Sorry.
Wesley wrote:
Makes sense to me.
Tina wrote:
Doesn’t that apply to both sexes?
Lydia wrote:
That when Mohler said we need a translation we can control that he was not referring to publishing and printing issues, but the ability to rewrite the text. If there were an example where Mohler and others at the SBC were trying to rewrite the text, that would be good proof that Mohler had some other meaning, other than the stated, obvious context.
roebuck wrote:
I think they honestly do have sick, violent fantasies.
At my former church the abusive Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley the senior pastor (Cliff) asked us in Adult Sunday School if God could kill gays. I was the first to respond. I said that God could kill any of us and I quoted various Scriptures.
My (ex) senior pastor corrected me before some fifty adults in Sunday School and with a smile on his face said that, “God could kill gays.” Oh. My. God. A *pastor* talks in such despicable language. The Christian walk has come down to…wishing people dead? Seriously? We’ve got widows to help, orphans, the disabled, the elderly, the poor, people from all walks of life…and instead of using our energy on the things that God calls us to do, we’re just supposed to coast and wish some people would die.
I found the whole thing chilling.
I wondered if there was ever some nutcase listening to that if they would commit violence/hate crimes based on the tacit approval and encouragement of that pastor.
Christiane wrote:
Why make this emotional?
I do believe in listening to your conscience. I think what okrapod is getting at is that it’s very easy to rationalize things away that we want to do. Also, some people don’t actually care if they hurt others – maybe their conscience is faulty.
As with most things, there is a happy medium somewhere between listening to what is in us and the spirit and balancing that with scripture. It’s when we try to unteather the two or massage them to fit what we want that we really run into problems.
Velour wrote:
More info re: Bill Gothard and reconstructionism in this article
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2015/05/28/victim-of-bill-gothards-teachings-speaks-out-about-josh-duggard-scandal-mike-huckabee-bill-gothards-dangerous-agenda-and-influence-in-political-arena-and-society-at-large/