Excellent!

Bronze maybe?

Somewhere in all the Twitter exchanges, didn’t he link to the TGC search results on “abuse” to prove they totally care? Because the fourth result is actually their rote dismissal of Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife.

And if Joe Carter is interested in exposing GLBT-affirmers, he ought to check the Redeemer City to City Network first.

Re:
3. He asked if I thought unrepentant homosexuals would go to heaven.

Does an unrepentant anyone go to heaven (unrepentant jewel thief, drug cartel member, liar, etc?)

Wow. Once again, the inability of my reformed brothers to speak with grace and humility and kindness leaves me saddened and embarrassed.

Coming from probably what you all would label as a fundamentalist, non-evangelical, and non-calvinist:

I’ve only recently been exposed to mainstream evangelicalism in the past few years or so and haven’t been that impressed. It has a sub-culture among the pastors and professors that is absent amongst the “average churchgoers.” Just walk around the SBTS campus and the elitist, semi-materialistic, and tradition-centric culture is evident.

When people get in their bubble of being “persecuted” it’s easy to get this tribal mindset of us vs. them. We are right, everyone else is wrong. A little leaven festers and leavens the whole lump. Money gets involved, luxury lifestyles, and other materialistic and power influences.

@ Law Prof:

🙂

I’m not a huge fan of labels either. But they serve a purpose. I could be real cheeky and say that Reformed is synonymous with follower of Jesus but that’d send the needle back to the red zone ha!

Grace to you brother.

Daisy wrote:

Does an unrepentant anyone go to heaven (unrepentant jewel thief, drug cartel member, liar, etc?)

Some people, like me, don’t think homosexuality is a sin.

I wish I’d talked more about Scientology’s version of excommunication, which is a complex blend of being cut off from services (and thus threatening your eternity) and disconnection (where your family and friends are threatened with being cut off from services, thus threatening their eternity). It can get unbelievably weird.

There’s currently a court case in federal court in Florida right now, where the judge is annoyed by both the plaintiffs and Scientology. Luis and Rocio Garcia want their money on account back from Scientology. Scientology says they have to go through arbitration (a process that has never been used in Scientology). The judge agreed with Scientology and forced the Garcias into trying to find three Scientologists in good standing who could hear the arbitration. Problem is, since the Garcias are now Suppressive Persons, there is NO Scientologist in good standing who would be on the arbitration panel for fear of disconnection. Such a person couldn’t even be in the same room hardly with the Garcias. This went around in circles for a year or so, but finally the judge got fed up and very recently said that HE was taking over supervision of the arbitration and asked Scientology for names of members in the Los Angeles area who were not in the Sea Org or otherwise “employed” by the cherch. And that’s where it’s at right now. That, on top of the very serious human toll of parents disconnecting from children and children disconnecting from parents so they can keep shelling out money to Scientology for “services” designed to get rid of body thetans (aka the spirits of dead space aliens blown up in volcanoes 76 million years ago). I think you get my feelings about that, too.

I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

ishy wrote:

I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.

I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

ishy wrote:

I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

Which is why I think they are the sins that hurt the church the most. Most abuse, or otherwise, is not about lust, but about power, and pride is the sin that drives it. Arrogance–driven by pride. Taking advantage of other Christians–driven by greed.

Groups like TGC would never go after those two sins. It would disqualify all of them.

ishy wrote:

ishy wrote:
I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.
Which is why I think they are the sins that hurt the church the most. Most abuse, or otherwise, is not about lust, but about power, and pride is the sin that drives it. Arrogance–driven by pride. Taking advantage of other Christians–driven by greed.
Groups like TGC would never go after those two sins. It would disqualify all of them.

The drive for power we see among so many such as Mr. Carter and others who share his passions for control is about lust, trust me. Just because one doesn’t have sexual lust doesn’t mean they don’t lust and aren’t in idolatry of what they list after.

Nancy2 wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
You left out pedophilia. But, a grown man attacking a little boy can’t possibly be as sinful to them as homosexuality. They’ve proven it by circling the wagons around a certain BFF.

If all you have is a raw lust for power, then sin is irrelevant, even the sin of covering up pedophilia, of destroying anyone who tries to stop you, of abusing and attempting to marginalize those who speak the truth. If your God is your power, right and wrong become irrelevant. The problem is when your followers still make some pretense about right and wrong, so you have to find some means of building a bridge to them so you can maintain your power: hence, pick on homosexuals, demonize them, always plays to the cheap seats. I’m curious, though, have they ever considered how much time Jesus spend discussing homosexuality versus the abusive tactics of church leaders? I forget the scriptures where Jesus called homosexuals “snakes” and “blind guides” and “sons of hell”. Where is that? Even Paul, who had some strong condemnations of the practice of homosexuality (with which I completely agree) seemed to spend a great deal more time condemning abusive church leaders.

What gives? Do these people read the Bible? Do they care what it says? Or do they just love their power and do what it takes preserve it, by any means, and if the truth has to be sacrificed, to heck with truth.

@ dee:

I wish I had some sort of profound answer. My opinion is that this kind of behavior is not rooted in Calvinism as such, because I see it coming from lots of different places, and not only religious ones. Political discourse is like this now too.

My best guess to answer your questions – insecurity rooted in immaturity. Too insecure to handle criticism, too immature to respond with any class, or to know when to just keep quiet.

One more lesson from my Dad: Son, you don’t need to defend yourself. Guard your character, and God will defend your reputation.
I’ve learned by experience that he was right, as usual.

Joe Reed wrote:

My opinion is that this kind of behavior is not rooted in Calvinism as such, because I see it coming from lots of different places, and not only religious ones.

I disagree.

The NeoCalvinists are notorious for their mean-spiritedness and arrogance. They aren’t at all like soft-spoken, accepting, gracious classical Calvinists.

@ Ryan Ashton:

Ryan,

Does Challies even take comments? I just went to his website (I never read the guy) and he has some note about a “letter to the editor” in lieu of comments.

If that’s a case, Challies is just another coward in his crowd.

Nancy2 wrote:

Joe Reed wrote:
I’m not a huge fan of labels either.
Labels, like …. Say….. Broken wolves?

Broken wolves…that term is so ambiguous as to mean whatever one wants it to mean. And that’s why Joe Carter’s article caused so much confusion. But I doubt, due to the prevailing TGC attitude that every time they write, God is speaking directly through them, that he has the wherewithal to recognize that he is the one who caused the confusion.

dee wrote:

Do they have to try to win every argument and when they can’t, start calling names?

Of course they do. This is what they do. This is what the current crop of Neo-Calvinists must do in order to remain respectable among their peers.

Nancy2 wrote:

check out the TGC photo in the article on http://sapulpamessenger.com/wolf-howls-loudest/

Nancy2 wrote:

check out the TGC photo in the article on http://sapulpamessenger.com/wolf-howls-loudest/

Oh my, the picture at the top of that blog article reminded me of an old song from the 60’s by Sam the Sham & the Pharoahs, Little Red Riding Hood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FA85RO89HA

Nancy2 wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
You left out pedophilia. But, a grown man attacking a little boy can’t possibly be as sinful to them as homosexuality. They’ve proven it by circling the wagons around a certain BFF.

Let’s not forget domestic violence aka spousal abuse, of which the larger percentage of victims are women – (another fact the Neo-Cals dismiss).

elastigirl wrote:

@ Joe Reed:
i’m surprised that you seem surprised.

Ditto here. If anything is true, it’s that the Reformed/Neo-Calvinist Camp has become widely known for their nasty, caustic, cruel treatment toward others. It earns them brownie points and respectability among their peers.

And this is a response to a Matt Smethurst question at TGC in 2015

What are you learning about life and following Jesus?

Unflinching, self-denying obedience to Christ is absolutely essential to the Christian life. I’ve been a believer more than 30 years, and for all that time I’d have nodded in agreement with that statement. But it was only during this past year of research and study that I truly began to understand and appreciate the role of obedience in the life of the Christian.

“Obedience is such a core theme of the Bible that I don’t know how I missed it for so long. And now I don’t know what to do with that realization. Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Yet we live in a culture where obedience is considered an optional add-on to faith and the Christian life.

I feel compelled to tell everyone I see that we can’t truly love Jesus and follow Christ if we are not keeping his commands. But too many people will dismiss that message as “legalism” and refuse to hear that the only appropriate response to grace is eternal gratitude and unquestioning obedience to the Lord of the universe.

dee wrote:

why this theologically assured men seem to get so bent out of shape when you challenge them that they strike hard ad mean?

Entitlement. Comes with the superiority or rulership [of men, in this case] theology. Sloppy positioning, weak argument, loose or careless discourse. As mentioned in the post, histrionic with hyperbole.

Oh dear Lord this guy is certifiable!!!!! The two most dangerous creatures are snakes and women according to this nut??? He then states that these two creatures got men kicked out of the garden!!!!!! How any man or woman who professes Christ would listen to this nut is beyond me much less give him a platform of any sort . I read the link below and Dee! Deb ! If you haven’t seen it you really need to take a look at it. He sums women up in that postLowlandseer wrote:

You might get a better idea of where Joe Carter is coming from if you read this early online article by him. (I hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but who knows?)

http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2003/10/my-large-wife-and-her-clothes.html

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
Does Challies even take comments?
No. But you can send him an email that he won’t answer.

LOL!

Who is this coward to lecture Dee & Deb at The Wartburg Watch and Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board? The gals are superior to the NeoCal crowd, all a bunch of big babies who don’t have the spine to permit comments, discussion, and even — gasp — criticism!!!

I just tweeted Tim Challies and asked him why he doesn’t permit comments on his website yet criticizes women discernment bloggers @Wartwatch @DefendtheSheep who permit comments, debate,a and criticism.

I told Tim to get a spine!

Darlene wrote:

The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

Well, and then there’s Mohler who does the same thing with marriage. Oh the broken wolves things suddenly all makes sense now. Absolute submission to your husband and pastor, both men. Or the entire Calvinista system will fall apart because these men literally cannot handle women having equal abilities or responsibilities. They would no longer be special snowflakes served on hand and foot.

And I wonder if deep down they cannot handle that many of these women in their lives are right about God, and they are not. Their whole theology is built on them taking God’s place, and as much as they talk about being biblical, they are not. You have to completely ignore everything Jesus says, and leave out a whole lot of other verses in the Bible, to come to the conclusions they do. Even deYoung said that they did yesterday: “What I mean is that false teachers have a tendency to let the big themes of Scripture silence specific verses.”

ishy wrote:

Well, and then there’s Mohler who does the same thing with marriage. Oh the broken wolves things suddenly all makes sense now. Absolute submission to your husband and pastor, both men. Or the entire Calvinista system will fall apart because these men literally cannot handle women having equal abilities or responsibilities. They would no longer be special snowflakes served on hand and foot.

A man recently left this YELP review about my former gulag Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley [9Marxist/NeoCalvinist/John MacArthur-ite]:

“This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”

At least his review stayed up! The pastors/elders had repeatedly scrubbed the internet of my criticisms, including at Google, on Amazon (pastor with the fake Ph.D. and my book reviews, and Google). I had to start my own blog to criticize them!

Deb wrote:

@ Velour:
That comment was cleverly done!

Wasn’t it?

He lives in Palo Alto, CA — near Stanford University. I wonder if he’s a Stanford student or graduate, as the church is constantly trying to get Stanford students to join.

Deb wrote:

Interesting tidbit over at the 9Marks website…
The column on the left – Popular this month – features an episode called “How to Leave Your Church Well”(https://www.9marks.org/interview/episode7/)
Kinda surprised they would actually admit that this is popular on their website.

Well, it probably has a stipulation about your elders picking your next church, because that’s a point in all their covenants.

Concerning Gays making it to heaven, as many sins as I have committed, I don’t have a prayer without Jesus. As a wise man once said, ” You really don’t know what God thinks, who’s saved and who’s not.”

Lowlandseer wrote:

You might get a better idea of where Joe Carter is coming from if you read this early online article by him. (I hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but who knows?)
http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2003/10/my-large-wife-and-her-clothes.html

In response, Joe Carter says, “There are only two things in the world that scare me – snakes and women. ”
Tongue in cheek??? I dunno……..

Hmmmmmm, My Large Wife and Her Clothes ……… I am sorely tempted to paste a link to that article as a comment on JC’s “broken wolves” article……… What to do, what to do?

@ Lowlandseer:

He will claim it is youthful humor but let’s put the shoe on the other foot. They would howl from the rooftops the wife was being disrespectful of her husband –with bad humor. Not to mention his premise is wrong about the events in the garden of Eden.

Lydia wrote:

used to muse a bit on Piper having to get a real job and report to a woman. It would be the ultimate humbling exercise. :o)

I would be happy if only a female police officer would pull him over and write him a ticket for a traffic violation!

@ Karen:
I am old, I guess. I never saw this level of an entitlement to micromanage people’s lives at church when I was growing up. The pastor had one vote like every one else at meetings. My parents would have laughed in their faces. Actually, the church would have sent them packing. Maybe their generation sacrificed to fight tyrants so they recognized the traits? :o)

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

I know this is a black hole but is all this predicated on the Garcia’s signing any documents with Scientology when they joined? You can see where I am going with this, right? Even if the arbitration has never been used, is it hinted at in any signed documents.

We should be concerned, too. Thanks for bringing this up.

People need to know what joining any authoritarian and closed “religious” group can mean for their future.

@ Ryan Ashton:

Ryan, he quoted Frank Turk!

Frank Turk simply says this: “Notice that Paul here instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town and not watchbloggers.

Why on earth didn’t Paul talk about bloggers, I wonder?

I will say if he considers blogs like this ‘entertainment’ maybe it’s because he has no interesting in fixing problems? A root cause analysis starts with looking intensely at what is wrong, not simply thinking good thoughts. After you know what the problem is, only then can you work on fixing it. These guys would rather pretend problems don’t exist.

Lowlandseer wrote:

You might get a better idea of where Joe Carter is coming from if you read this early online article by him. (I hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but who knows?)
http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2003/10/my-large-wife-and-her-clothes.html

I just pasted a link to this article in a comment on the “broken wolves” bahhhhhlony. In another comment, I posted the parable of the wheat and the tares.

@ Daisy:
Exactly! In the NT, homosexuality is one manifestation of humanity’s Genesis 6:5 plight. So are all the vices that Paul lists at the end of Romans 1. No one enters God’s kingdom without repentance and faith–no not one.

My link to the large wife has been removed. Apparently, Joe does not approve of being quoted.

Karen wrote:

When a pastor, elder, church board leader, or anyone who claims they know Jesus better than the rest of us, is called out on their aberrant rendition of our Holy Scriptures by those who are deemed as lower laity nothings (women for some reason are cast into this selective group by the apostate church system), the topic of homosexuality is always used as the trump card in trying to “win” the debate.

The issue of homosexuality is always used by wolves in sheep’s clothing (and yes, a pastor man can be the greatest wolf of all himself) as a deflection to take believers’ down another road of conversation in trying to defend his false theology.

I have seen this tactic used time and again by male preacher men/and male elder leadership who, themselves, are secretly engaging in immoral sexual sins of the grossest kind, desperately clamoring for another topic to dissuade the congregation. Another favorite of many preacher men, is the proverbial “jezebel spirit” theme which is popular amongst those who love to add additional experiential false scripture to their Bibles, so as to shut up those who are questioning the pastors’ immoral behavior.

Perhaps the pride of this life engulfs many a preacher man to the point of when they are questioned on their worldviews, ideology, and their perspective regarding their own interpretations of theology, it’s always the diversion of sins of another people group (homosexuals) that become the main topic of whether one is saved or not.

I have literally witnessed many a preacher man, yes, man, try to destroy the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (both women and men). And in the end, Jesus won! The gates of hell shall not prevail against the LORD’S ekklesia. Alleluia!

I have a perfect example of this:

Two months after my sons assault I was going to homeschool Billy. I could not fathom sending him to school with kids who had bullied him in the past and teachers did nothing but encourage it at times. So I get a call from the pastor asking me to come meet with him and the elders. Ok now I’m thinking at this time they are going to actually sit with me and go over how they were going to come along side me and Billy and actually discuss what just happened to my son. NOPE!!!!!
They get me in the pastors office and all the elders are there plus the man who heads the men’s ministry (all men). I’m not thinking anything of it I’m just relieved that they were going to help us through this terrible thing in our lives. So they ask how I am and I say ok then they ask what my plans are with my son in regards to school. Keep in mind school has been in session for a week already at this time. I expressed that I was homeschooling Billy. The men then begin to tell me how they don’t believe that is best for Billy and that he needs to be in school. At this point I’m confused because this church most kids parents homeschool or their kids are in private school. I would have thought they would encourage me to homeschool and offer to assist in any way. Instead there’s this big push to put him in school. Then in this meeting one of the men gives me a list a schedule on how he starts his day at 6am with quiet time and gets dressed has breakfast and so forth that I to should make a list and follow a schedule. He gives me his schedule as an example to follow. Not once do they mention what just happened to Billy but I’m so worked up about them pushing me to put Billy in public school that I’m no longer focused. The pressure gets more intense as they give me bible verses in managing my life and that they prayed about this and all came to the same conclusion Billy needs to be in school. At the end I’m still insisting that I will homeschool. During this meeting a friend walks by seeing me in there with all the men and she is furious that they had me in there like that. She stands by the door and yells out are you ok? I said yes the youth pastor at that time tells her she needs to leave and she refuses telling him after exchanging words “Get thee behind me Satan” and he shut up quickly. He was trying to get her away from assisting me and she believed from day one what they were doing was abusive. I still hadn’t seen it yet for myself because I was still stuck under the idea that I was to submit to their authority. I still chuckle to this day with her how she put that youth pastor in his place and said get behind me Satan. This woman is a strong Christian and boy did she ever go to bat for me and Billy when I look back. I admire her courage and her discerning mind she reminds me of Dee.
So after this meeting the head of the men’s ministry walks me out. He says “look Shauna when these men come together and pray about a matter I would TREMBLE,TREMBLE if they all prayed and came to the same decision and went against that”. He said ” you can do what you want but if you choose to homeschool him then your on your own”. I believed they would be done with me after that at this point I was scared. Then he went on to say “Shauna there are things going on in this church that you have no idea about but I really believe we need people like you here and I believe God is going to use you and your son to change this church “. I’m still confused at this point but felt I had no choice but to put Billy in school. I felt we needed the church more than anything at this point and I believed they cared but was confused as to why no discussion about Billy’s rape? Even still I didn’t realize what I have now to come know. I was hurt and confused about putting Billy in school and why he wasn’t good enough to be homeschooled like their children. Even Dee was confused by this. Anyways they used key people who had been involved heavily in our lives to influence my decisions knowing that I respected their opinions and trusted what they said. This is where manipulation of members is accomplished they use people in the church who you are close with to push those they want to submit to their authority even more.
Anyways I can attest to the fact that these men and those men around them believe they have direct contact with God in that He tells them what He wants done and if you disobey your out of the family of God

@ Nancy2:
Lol! No screen shot? Darn!

Lydia wrote:

Lol! No screen shot? Darn!

From my discus profile:
Nancy2 Barbara Roberts an hour ago. Removed
“Perhaps Joe Carter should have sent a private response to this man’s question: http://evangelicaloutpost.c…

Lydia wrote:

Weird. The pastors in churches we were in never chaired the meeting. It was a deacon.

That would work also. The way I saw it work was the pastor chaired the meeting and he in turn called on whoever had recommendations on which to vote in turn to present what they had to present. One would be the chairman of the board of deacons but also the SS Superintendent might have a recommendation regarding SS, and the WMU president might have a recommendation about something the WMU wanted the whole church to get involved with, and so on-the youth pastor might make a presentation for example.

It definitely was not a one man show for anybody.

@ ishy:

A few months back the pastor at my old church said from the pulpit, “I don’t care about lying or embezzlement; it is immorality that will destroy the nation!”

Sure enough, lying was a major vice there.

@ dee:

Sadly it isn’t limited to Calvinists. They went on about it at my old church, which was nondenominational Pentecostal/Charismatic. (They actually critiqued Calvinism from the pulpit.) Acceptance of homosexuality was seen as compromise, deception, and apostasy. In fact, they were freaked out that, when I got a Twitter account, I talked to bisexual feminists. But, they went on being sneaky and deceitful.

Let’s put it this way: when I found watch blogs and read descriptions of spiritual abuse, much of it resembled what the church did. And things my friends told me they experienced resembled even more things described as spiritually abusive. Oh yeah, we were taught to trust leaders over those who accused them.

@ okrapod:
My Aunt was Deacon Chair in her mid sized Baptist church in Michigan in the 1970’s. She chaired the meetings at her church. I remember because my cousin and I had to sit quietly with my Uncle until it was over. Things have changed so much and not all for the better.

@ Law Prof:

What I find interesting is that the church I was raised in would single out homosexuality, but they would go on lying and being deceitful, and claim to follow the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible spends a lot more time criticizing deceit than homosexuality.

@ Nancy2:
OH, and Baptists not being allowed to stay true to their faith by practicing misogynystic and homophobic discrimination in public venues.

@ Darlene:

“The litmus test in Joe Carter’s Neo-Calvinist world as to whether one is a committed Christian, is to first and foremost utterly decry homosexuality as being the most vile sin that exists, and if homosexuals are decimated in the process, all is well and good. They deserved it anyway. The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

seems to me these 2 issues are the primary threats to the comfort zone of the majority of men. that the likes of joe carter, TGC, etc. make these the litus test of whether or not one is a committed christian seems to me to be a measure of their self-centeredness.

also, i think it’s a convenient trap to lay for their perceived enemies, and other inconvenient people.

–the fact that joe carter and TGC would even desire to trap their perceived enemies and other inconvenient people using these issues (issues of human dignity, no less) is a measure of their cruelty.

–the fact that they actually lay such an artless trap is a measure of their stupidity. such a regrettable and embarrassing broadcast, revealing just how self-centered, cruel, and oafish they must be.

–sigh….. the fact that they don’t appear to regret or be embarrassed by it… is there a better word than oaf?

Darlene wrote:

The second runner up in that list of vile sins is Feminism, and by extension Egalitarianism.

Maybe that’s the difference between Neo-Cal types and places like where I grew up. They did not like feminism, but it seemed non-Christian religions, especially Islam, were seen as worse, or at least they denounced them more. (Though there were jokes about how they believed in submission, unlike Americans.) They did, however, think the Illuminati was behind both feminism and the interfaith movement, and the so-called Gay Agenda(TM).

@ Nancy2:

The place where I grew up, while comp and anti-feminist, didn’t oppose women’s preaching; in fact, the pastor’s wife preached as well. And, when her husband died, she became the senior pastor. It was actually while she was senior pastor that an elder expressed displeasure at my talking to bisexual feminists on Twitter.

dee wrote:

Joe was of the opinion that he could make some big announcement and half of TWW’s audience would run. He doesn’t get it. TGC is an either/or proposition. They do’t get love and mercy which transcends all human boundaries. I wonder when he lost the joy found in loving others, even those who disagree with him? he lives in a dark world of his own making.

It seems to me that they’ve made HOMOSEXUALITY™ the One and Only True Litmus Test Issue of our time, so would it be fair to say that he might be engaging in some projection of a psychological sort with an assertion like that?

Law Prof wrote:

ishy wrote:
I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.
I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.
It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.
I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

I share your views on the practice of homosexual behavior but at the same time I have compassion for those who are dealing with same sex attraction-and I cannot understand why so many Christians act so awful to homosexual people while at the same time ignoring the fact that they have their own pet sins that God is not pleased with-have they never read Romans 2?

So now homosexual people who do feel a tug from God wind up being treated like absolute crap by much of the church instead of us loving them and allowing Holy Spirit to help them- meanwhile we laud proud, arrogant leaders who care nothing for broken and hurting people only to hurt them more.

The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus knows our hearts and our struggles and even our sanctification is by faith alone and not by selfrighteous striving. I wish some of these church leaders would study Galatians for awhile and get the memo!

PS if Joe should be reading here:

I do not agree one hundred percent with anyone but Jesus. That would include WW. But I read here because they do care for hurting people who have been denied a voice elsewhere. I would be careful what I said about them. They are not perfect, but I believe they belong to Him, and He cares about them.

I know what it is like to be hurting, shut down, misunderstood, and told to be silent as a victim. I did what I was told. Those scars ran deep but I wanted to obey the Lord. Only later did I discover how Jesus really felt about what I was going through. For years there was a blockage between God and myself because I believed the lies I was told about Him. NO MORE!

dee wrote:

I sure have under about that myself. Do you know about the George Rekers story?

Yes, I am familiar with that incident, among others (including John Paulk getting caught in a gay bar at the height of his time leading an ex-gay organization). Beyond that, there was the time – not involving any improprieties – that Alan Chambers, former head of Exodus, testified that “99.9%” of the people he’d worked with had not experienced a change of orientation [1], on top of the scientific research by conservative researchers who came to basically the same conclusion [2] (although, in a somewhat dishonest manner, that’s not how some of the researchers went on to sell it to the “family” “research” groups).

[1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2012/01/09/alan-chambers-99-9-have-not-experienced-a-change-in-their-orientation/

[2] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2011/10/27/the-jones-and-yarhouse-study-what-does-it-mean/

Lydia wrote:

My Aunt was Deacon Chair in her mid sized Baptist church in Michigan in the 1970’s.

There we have a clue. I was never in a Baptist church back when that had women deacons. Apparently Michigan in 1970s was a tad different from that part of Louisville that I remember from the 40s. Or maybe her church was not SBC? Or perhaps there was a mistake and I was born a few generations too soon-I have actually rather wondered about that from time to time.

dee wrote:

I am deeply concerned about Denny Burk’s position. basically, you are screwed from the start if you are gay. They very thought that poi are gay is sinful-all of it. he even says those who adhere to celibacy are sinful if they ever have a gay thought. How absolutely draconian. I bet he doesn’t give a thought to himself if he looks at a woman and thinks she is cute.

Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

Nancy2 wrote:

Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

This is true.

Or maybe it’s deflection. Keep talking about that and you don’t have to talk about your treatment of women.

Bunny wrote:

NO MORE!

Amen, and congratulations on your “Victory in Jesus”, instead of men and their abhorrent teachings.

Lydia wrote:

@ Nancy2:
Joe has been a busy boy this morning deleting history.

As of now, Oceania has ALWAYS been at Peace with Eurasia, Comrades.
(And the chocolate ration has always been TEN grams…)

Josh wrote:

It seems to me that they’ve made HOMOSEXUALITY™ the One and Only True Litmus Test Issue of our time, so would it be fair to say that he might be engaging in some projection of a psychological sort with an assertion like that?

I do believe it would be not only fair to say that but even should be the first thing to be considered; and if it could not be ruled out then one ought not listen to him.

I remember when divorce was the big litmus test, and that was just before the whole nation took up divorcing as a national sport. I ask the question as to why ‘divorce’ was on so many minds before it became so popular? Maybe wishful thinking? Maybe insecurity in people’s marriages and fear that the spouse would leave? All I know is that the single issue matter should be held in suspicion until proved otherwise, whatever issue the single issue approach is about.

GSD wrote:

Carter’s bio on that article was interesring:
“Joe Carter founded Evangelical Outpost in 2005. He is the web editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. A fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran, he previously served as the managing editor for the online magazine Culture11 and The East Texas Tribune. Joe has also served as the Director of Research and Rapid Response for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign and as a director of communications for both the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Family Research Council. He is the co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicaton.”

1) I expected better from First Things.
2) Patrick Henry College (i.e. boot camp for Future Commanders of Gilead); why am I not surprised?
3) Defrocked Marine…
4) “Rapid Response” (Truth Squad? Enforcer?) for Huckabee? God’s Anointed Next POTUS who covered up for Jim-Bob Duggar?
5) “Argue like Jesus” reminds me too much of ex-debating team types, where Truth was completely irrelevant and all that mattered was to WIN the debate no matter how many you throw under the bus.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

Nancy2 wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

Then stay far, far away from San Francisco. That City of the Perpetually Offended overreacts to anything and everything.

Nancy2 wrote:

Homosexually really messes with their patriarchal/complementarian/ ESS/male-headship/submissive-women/men-made-in-the-image-of-God-women-are-derivatives mindset.

As well as planting the fear in their reptile hindbrain that a bigger, stronger, more manly man than themselves could use them exactly the same way they use a woman.
(i.e. “Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”)

okrapod wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
3) Defrocked Marine…

Say what? Other than honorable discharge? What?

No. “Defrocked Marine” is a colloquialism for a real jarhead who retains the full-honk attitude after he musters out. Like his inner R Lee Ermey role is constantly on and up front.

@ dee:

“I am deeply concerned about Denny Burk’s position. basically, you are screwed from the start if you are gay. ”
+++++++++++++++++

the last day my teen age son went to church was the day the youth pastor took the question “Will people who are gay go to hell?” and answered it with “Yes, they will.”

no qualification. that was his answer.

troubled my son so much he considers church to be a dangerous and harmful place run by fools. i can’t say i disagree.

imagine, what tender-aged person in that youth group who is attracted to his/her own sex must have felt upon hearing that news.

people take their own lives over something like this.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

No.

Oh good. I see okrapod already asked my question.

Lea wrote:

@ Ryan Ashton:
Ryan, he quoted Frank Turk!
Frank Turk simply says this: “Notice that Paul here instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town and not watchbloggers.

Why on earth didn’t Paul talk about bloggers, I wonder?

Well, John (in Revelation) talked about global thermonuclear war and helicopter gunships (with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded hippies), so why not?

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Thanks. Boy oh boy. People don’t need to sign anything or swear public oaths for any “religion”.

elastigirl wrote:

the last day my teen age son went to church was the day the youth pastor took the question “Will people who are gay go to hell?” and answered it with “Yes, they will.”
…
people take their own lives over something like this.

If anyone doubts you, they need only look up the stats for attempted suicide in the LGBT population versus in the general population. Now, in keeping with their long-held tradition of slandering LGB and trans* people, the standard conservative evangelical line is that this is evidence that “being gay” is a mental disorder (how they reconcile that with the simultaneous yet contradictory claim that being gay is a choice is their problem, not mine). With that said, Schrodinger’s razor, I mean Occam’s cat, I mean … whatever, you know what I mean … would say that the simplest explanation is that if someone is told that they’re intrinsically disordered, unnatural, and an affront to God by virtue of a propensity that they did not choose – and have often spent years praying to have taken away – then of course they’re going to feel like an unredeemable pile of excrement, and it shouldn’t be surprising if they treat themselves in that way!

@ Josh:
“Ode to Billy Joe”, the movie 1976.

https://www.emm.org/media/k2/items/cache/98ec0092d694f3f780e032d45228a0f5_M.jpg

A meme you might enjoy, as I couldn’t think of anything else to add to a wonderful discussion.
I found out, much to my horror, that my wonderful church somehow “joined” TGC when our new pastor came last year. So far, nothing seems off, but I am keeping my eyes and ears wide open.

@ Lydia:

Do you have any thoughts about the type of women who also buy into the neo-cal movement? I have a couple of ideas but no personal experience and no first hand observations to support any idea one way or the other.

Heather wrote:

The other links cut off most of the last paragraph. FWIW.

Ha! He already edited this, apparently. He took out the part about shopping, right?

A friends husband has tried to buy her clothes he likes better (although it has nothing to do with weight). She hasn’t exactly embraced them.

Seekeroftruthweb wrote:

A few months back the pastor at my old church said from the pulpit, “I don’t care about lying or embezzlement; it is immorality that will destroy the nation!”

Well, folks, you heard it here first: lying and embezzlement are perfectly moral.

Now, I’m a non-Christian (a never-Christian, I should say), so maybe I don’t get a vote on this. But I get *really, really cranky* about how, in Christianese, “morality” refers only to sexual matters. No, morality is MUCH broader than that. We make thousands of moral choices every year, and we’re fully clothed for well over 90% of ’em.

Conservative Christianity has a very impoverished moral vocabulary because it doesn’t acknowledge that. Also because it tends to make claims like “all sins are equal in God’s sight,” which — even if true, which presumably it isn’t because there’s an (unfortunately ill-defined) unforgivable sin — but even if it WERE true, it clashes violently with our innate moral sense… and with the believers’ own tendency to elevate some sins to the top of the seriousness hierarchy (like, oh, I don’t know, gay sex) and downplay the significance of others (like gluttony).

I’m getting wildly off-topic, though. And I’m also not acknowledging the stuff conservative churches do *right* (at least, good churches). And there’s a lot that they do! But TWW probably isn’t the right place to sing the praises of church ladies with casseroles. 🙂

@ Heather:
Now, can anyone find an article where Joe Carter rails against fat preachers, deacons or elders?

Heather wrote:

@ Nancy2:
From archive.org. The whole post “My large wife and her clothes”. The other links cut off most of the last paragraph. FWIW.
“october 22, 2003
My large wife and her clothes
Dear Joe,
I love my wife but I hate the way she dresses. She is a large girl and the clothes she wears are very unflattering. How can I tell her that her style of dress makes her look fat without it getting me into trouble?
D.J.
Dear D.J.,
There are only two things in the world that scare me – snakes and women. There are a lot of dangerous creatures on earth, but these are the two you really have to watch out for. They both have a menacing yet hypnotic quality. Both appear rather seductive, at least when viewed from a safe distance. And this may just be a coincidence, but they both get pretty riled up when you poke at them with a stick.
By themselves they are nothing to mess with. But put both together and things can get really nasty. The last time those two conspired they got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Clearly, they are nothing to mess with.
While it is difficult to say which to fear most, I personally would rather stick my head in a bucket full of rattlers than tell a woman she looked fat. If you don’t like the way she dresses take her shopping for a new wardrobe. Compared to an emergency room bill it will be a bargain. And for future reference, D.J, let me share with you a valuable insight: never, ever, no matter how many Twinkies she’s snorted, should you tell your wife she looks fat. You’ll have an easier time finding anti-venom than finding a good divorce lawyer.
Posted by Joe Carter at 07:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack”
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20040113131514/http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com:80/archives/2003_10.html

What a sad sad view of women. We are people. Treat us like people. The end.

Nancy2 wrote:

@ Heather:
Now, can anyone find an article where Joe Carter rails against fat preachers, deacons or elders?

No, because they’re MALE.

Women have to be built like in porn — supermodel-skinny except for the shapely hips and the two basketballs grafted to the chest. Perfect eye candy in every way — even after a dozen Quiver-kids. (Anyone else think this is highly unrealistic?)

But Manly Men? They can be bald spheroids missing half their teeth who’ve never heard of hygiene and that’s still OK. “WOMAN, SUBMIT! ME WANNA!”

Lydia wrote:

The young guys were very defensive about this and often complained on blogs the church should pay more. Right. First job. And they adored Mary Mohler. An invite to something Mary was putting on was coveted.

1) I’d complain too. I’d be looking for a partner, not a pretty parasite.
2) Mary Mohler = Serena Joy, Commander’s Wife?

Most of them were so shallow I have nothing to report. They pretty much parroted the comp party line. They lived to please their husband and obey him. They used social media to share lacy frilly syrupy platitudes.

Like the eyes of the Nazgul when Frodo saw them at Weathertop. No actual eyes, just two black voids opening into the no-interior of an empty shell.

Gram3 wrote:

Because they are deeply insecure and you are a threat to their identity. If their identity were truly in Christ, you would be no threat to them at all! But because their true identity is in their tribal identity, you are a true threat which must be destroyed. The worst of it is that you are a woman and you have continually shamed them, and they cannot bear that shame.

“with sword I wash my shame away —
Fate, bring on me what you may!”
— Arab or Persian couplet I remember reading once long, long ago

I came across an article today which was written in 2013. The title of it is “There’s a Wolf and There’s a Sheep and There’s a Difference. So How do You Tell?” by Donald Miller.

I believe Joe Carter would be, to borrow a phrase from his good friend C.J. Mahaney, “well served” if he were to read it.

Here are the last few paragraphs:

“Some Christian leaders make controversial statements in order to build a tribe. They’re looking for a downline of submissive people who will do what it is they want them to do. They sell confidence and security, rituals to perform, books to read and ultimately a sense that if they obey their rules, they will be okay. They use the name of Jesus to make themselves mini gods. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of status, fame, power, money and glory to be had by becoming a modern day pharisee. And those who are looking to put their faith in something tangible, like an earthly leader, rather than something intangible, like Jesus, are prime for manipulation.

Here’s the obvious key: Are the Christian leaders you follow known to be humble? Are they known to be gracious? Do they seek attention by making shocking statements? Do they interact with sinners and religious leaders alike with grace and kindness the way Jesus did? Do they insist on being the center of attention? Do they surround themselves with yes men and get rid of people who will not submit?

If so, you’ve got a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

http://storylineblog.com/2013/03/25/why-controlling-people-arent-tracking-with-jesus/

Ann wrote:

I have a younger brother who has become involved in a reformed SB church here in the south. He has always struggled with his self-esteem. Now that he has become an elder in his church, he has become very bossy and controlling.

Barney Fife Syndrome

okrapod wrote:

I would like to think that we are beyond that, but perhaps the Freudians were on to something.

I think Dr Freud himself was on to something, but he ended up taking his experience (upper-middle class neuroses of Victorian-era Vienna) as universal for all people in all times and places. (The man did have a tendency to go off on tangents — see “nasal sex”. Like I’ve observed in creative contexts, you have to be a little crazy to go outside the box but not so crazy that you can’t go back in.)

And then his followers followed a common pattern of being More Freudian than Freud, and Freud became established as Inerrant Dogma for a time.

Lydia wrote:

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Thanks. Boy oh boy. People don’t need to sign anything or swear public oaths for any “religion”.

Didn’t that Rabbi from Nazareth talk about “swearing public oaths” in that Sermon on the Mount?

Josh wrote:

Seekeroftruthweb wrote:
They did, however, think the Illuminati was behind both feminism and the interfaith movement, and the so-called Gay Agenda(TM).

Too much Alex Jones? He said recently that [a certain public figure] was having stuff put in the water to turn the frogs gay! It’d be hilarious if so many people didn’t take him seriously.

This is where Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory intersects/overlaps with The Big Lie.

dee wrote:

@ Josh:
Joe was of the opinion that he could make some big announcement and half of TWW’s audience would run.

“ABRACADABRA” = “I Speak and IT IS SO!”

Ego much?

(Plus echoes the Japanese Navy in WW2, whose elaborate battle plans depended entirely on the enemy acting/reacting exactly the way the Japanese battle planners wanted them to act.)

It’s been shown time and time again that the New Calvinists defend their own. They protect and cover to keep their icons on the throne (e.g., Mahaney), until the potato becomes too hot to handle (e.g., Driscoll). Anyone who voices concerns about the men and ministries which are part of the reformed movement are branded hateful liars. They don’t like the watchblogs because they illuminate the things they do in darkness. They despise the “discernment bloggers” who are standing up for other Christians, not bashing them (actually, discernment blogging is a good way to refer to TWW). Speaking of bashers, the New Calvinist elite put folks like Joe Carter into positions where they can bite and devour all dissenters. It’s a militant and aggressive movement.

Heather wrote:

let me share with you a valuable insight: never, ever, no matter how many Twinkies she’s snorted, should you tell your wife she looks fat. You’ll have an easier time finding anti-venom than finding a good divorce lawyer.

Well, that tells us a lot about how Joe Carter, the outspoken Complementarian, values and esteems wives, doesn’t it? Imagine how they speak about women privately!

@ Gram3:
We should all send Twinkies to Joe. Boxes of them. Hee hee.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ha ha. It was creepy. It’s all they talked about. I knew because I was on social media. But seniors in churches they took over were aghast at the constant focus and drive by gratuitous mentions in sermons. Then seniors are labeled as prudes. Uh no. The YRR did not invent sex but they though they did.

okrapod wrote:

At this point I wonder why the neo-cal proponents of female ineptitude don’t look at social structures and start talking about choices and who can afford which choices instead of talking about something allegedly innate to females. It seems to me that they are making the same mistake that you have observed that the Freudian minions did-applying something to everybody which would only be applicable to some-at most-and that only as a choice.

I am going to say again that Female Subordinationism is about money and status for the clergy class. In other words, Economics (and Pride)wins. That is why George Knight III invented ESS back in the 1970’s so that females could be kept out of PCA pulpits as the PCA was growing. If the exegetical arguments could not be sustained (and they cannot without 1 Corinthians 11 being hierarchical while being consistent), then the labor price of conservative clergy decreases due to the increased supply from females coming into the labor pool (sorry for being so unspiritual about this.) The SBC closed the implicit loophole which would have permitted “autonomous” local SBC churches to call female pastors with the revisions in the BFM2K. Not surprisingly, the most vocal female defenders of this are the wives of the men who benefit from the labor pool being restricted, including tenured professors at various institutions. There is nothing new under the sun.

Naturally, there is a lot of spiritual airbrushing that can make people think this is not what actually happened, but as someone who was on the other side of the fence when it happened, I kind of remember how it was sold at the time and how it turned out to actually be.

Lydia wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ha ha. It was creepy. It’s all they talked about.

This is a form of OCD commonly called “Thinking with your gonads.”
Or “Packing your brains below your belt.”

I knew because I was on social media. But seniors in churches they took over were aghast at the constant focus and drive by gratuitous mentions in sermons. Then seniors are labeled as prudes. Uh no. The YRR did not invent sex but they though they did.

Everyone open up your hymnals to a filk of Elvis:
“YOU AIN’T NUTHIN’ BUT A HORNDOG!”

Gram3 wrote:

I am going to say again that Female Subordinationism is about money and status for the clergy class.

It may be now, but how does one explain that the idea itself is as old as humanity?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Remember Ted Haggard?
Though I think another dynamic in play is preaching against it in an attempt to self-treat in secret; i.e. preaching more to himself than to anyone else. (After all, SSA is probably THE strongest taboo in that culture.)

To be frank, when I first brought up projection I was thinking in the less extreme sense of him viewing this as a hard line issue over which he would separate from, reject, and shun someone at the drop of a hat – and projecting that onto all of us Wartburgers. While it is true, inasmuch as the effect has been detected with physical measurements of arousal, that some homophobes appear to be afraid of something within themselves, this is not true for everyone. In that regard, I’m uncomfortable generalizing the self-hatred principle to this specific situation (or any other specific situation, lacking further evidence). He may be driven by his own internalized homophobia, or he may just be a straight guy who takes advantage of his position to bully others because he likes feeling powerful by putting others down.

@ okrapod:
Oops, I forgot the winky smiley face.

okrapod wrote:

the idea itself is as old as humanity?

I was referring to the doctrine. I’m pretty sure you know the answer to the question. 🙂

@ Gram3:
Frankly I had not thought of this. And that makes me disappointed in myself. Sigh. I knew the whole YRR thing was more about economics and power than doctrine for the big cheeses but women pastors?

Yep. Look at the women who were BFMed’ out at SBTS. It has been a domino effect. Taking WMU money. Getting rid of the Carver school, homemaking degree at SWBTS, etc. I can’t even remember the long list.

And they did not really announce all this with their intentions so some bright eyed young single women for ministry would come to Louisville and be gone in one semester rethinking their plans. This was a while back. My mom hosted some of them.

So it was- go to our new four year college, pay for a useless education and be a Gospel wife instead! That is where God wants you! God said so right there in the BFM. A Creed!

It would be interesting to look at stats on this since mid 90’s on in several areas like seminary, missions, etc.

Gram3 wrote:

I was referring to the doctrine. I’m pretty sure you know the answer to the question.

Oh, I do. And I mean the idea of male dominance and female submission/ subjugation. I think we retain it from our more primitive primate ancestors. I think that we can trace it in written history back to whoever wrote the genesis comment ‘he shall rule over thee’ which to me looks like they were making an observation as to how things are-not some edict from God, but that is an opinion. If we find an early civilization in which the males were not dominant and did not think they should be then I will take another look at the idea, but right now I have not seen such a thing discussed in antiquity. I note that it is a part of Islam which seriously predates the neo-cals, and FWIW I heard the idea of ‘the man wears the pants in the family because God said so’ long before there were neo-cals (to my knowledge).

Now this group plays it for money and power and whatever, but they did not invent the idea.

And issues about the status of Jesus in relation to the Father go way back also, which is one of the reasons for the earliest ecumenical councils. The word heresy was slung around on this issue some 1700 years or more before the neo-cals.

And the issue of women in teaching roles is discussed in scripture and has been an issue for the universal church from the beginning.

I am just not seeing any originality in what the neo-cals are doing. If that is not what you were saying, then I totally missed it, and I beg your tolerance for my going off on a tangent.

@ Nancy2:
Darn. I wish he had said moon pies. I once did sheep faces on them for a kids thing.

elastigirl wrote:

imagine, what tender-aged person in that youth group who is attracted to his/her own sex must have felt upon hearing that news.

people take their own lives over something like this.

Shows you just how unqualified the youth pastor is!!

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
We should all send Twinkies to Joe. Boxes of them. Hee hee.

LOL!!

@ okrapod:

It’s the level of enforcement based on interpretation, is it not? Piper said that a woman reading scripture aloud in a service was teaching men. Some think it’s ok for women to speak if they don’t font use the sacred furniture on stage. Some think women can give a testimony. Mrs Criswell taught a mixed SS class over 300 that was on the radio where many men might be potentially influenced by a woman teaching men. They claimed it was all under her husbands authority.

So the idea is as old as humanity but what does it mean and look like in application today?. The Neo Cals and others were only too happy to make it a Gospel issue.

@ Law Prof:
Friend, some of us use the term ‘Reformed’ as an indicator of not us vs. them (I.e. Reformed vs. Arminianism) but of our denomination. The Reformed Church in America is the oldest denomination in America and the Christian Reformed Church is an offshoot. Where I live, there are two churches only in many small towns. So, the Overisel Christian Reformed and the Overisel Reformed churches are literally across the street from each other.

It seems like this argument is ongoing between the two of you, but some of us are Reformed (pronounced correctly with the emphasis on the first syllable). Or Christian Reformed.

(And it should be noted that neither of these denominations look much like the YRR/calvinista crowd)

Thanks.

Ok first this guy wouldn’t draw a crowd unless it was a bunch of HEMAN women haters!
2nd joe carter get a real bible King James Version 1611 where the scriptures are translated 300/400 years after the original scrolls. Your verses are made up! Sorry dude I don’t recognize the dumbed down version. Dumbed down in the sense that words have been added to Gods holy word and they have been taken away. No wonder why this fool is confused. My opinion is all

Well said I agree Law Prof wrote:

ishy wrote:

I don’t trust anyone who constantly goes after what they see as a particular sin, but they never mention pride or greed as the worst sins hurting the church.

I’ll come right out and say that my view on homosexuality is orthodox, in that I believe the practice of it is a sin (and there have been shots fired over my bow on this forum over that). But…the general impression I get is that those such as Joe who fixate on this particular sin to the exclusion of others are blind guides, foolish, and only looking about for a scapegoat sin that they do not suffer the effects of. Of course they completely ignore the really ugly stuff like pharisaism, hatefulness, kicking those who are down, abusing those are on the bottom, smug condescension, lack of love, lack of kindness, etc.

It’s easy for one of the 97% of the population who are not homosexual to avoid having sex with someone of their own gender because they simply have no desire to do so. So what the Pharisee does is make that their sine qua non of godliness. Quite naturally they avoid discussing the fruits of the Spirit, though. Of course they do, because they don’t possess them.

I have no time for Joe Carter because I don’t think, based on his behavior, that he either knows the truth nor cares about it.

PS I’d point out that, at a time when virtually no one in my home denomination, The Episcopal Church, would pay attention to my complaints of abuse by my priest, Dee was one of the few people to treat me, and my concerns, with respect. For that, and her efforts to help all sides to my dispute to move towards a ceasefire (we’re still far from reconciliation, unfortunately), I will always be grateful.

How anyone could claim that peacemaking is hateful or divisive is beyond me,

@ Bridget:

mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?

Nancy2 wrote:

dee wrote:
You MUST read Vernick’s comment over at the post. Joe is obviously not pleased.
She pinned his ears back!

I have copied and pasted Leslie Vernick’s response to Joe Carter here.

GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

@ Velour:
Your link does not lead to the quote you’ve put up. Please give us a link to the comments by Leslie or we’ll need to take down your comment.

Hi GBTC,

I just double-checked the link and it is correct and Leslie Vernick’s quote is showing.

The Gospel Coalition website does not number comments the way TWW’s website does.

To see Leslie Vernick’s comment:

*Go to the bottom of the page of Joe Carter’s article

*Press the green rectangle that says, “Show Comments”

*Scroll down to Leslie Vernick’s comment (or do a search of her name and it will show).

Thanks!

@ Shauna:

I am sorry this happened to your son Shauna. I am beyond words, just tears. You sat amongst fools in your meeting and they will have to answer to Jesus one day for their unrepentant sins. Praying for your family.

The Divergent Series is alive and well within apostate churches.

This is a slight deviation from the topic of Joe Carter (whoever he is), but the mention of Twinkies segues into some pretty sweet double standards regarding the pseudo Christianese industrial complex.

I have heard it said within conservative, patriarchal quick-sand types of churches, that when “men are overweight, it is a sign of success,” but when “women are overweight, it is a sign of laziness.”

Yes. I have heard it said. I have also sat amongst church leaders who are obsessed with the condition of overweight women, who mock overweight women, and who judge and disrespect overweight women, all the while their bodies (the temple of the Holy Spirit) is equally and grossly out of shape. The double standards and the double mindedness just boggles my mind, which means according to the Scriptures, these men are unstable in all of their ways, not just one, but all ways.

Apparently, gluttony amongst men is not a gross sin, just amongst the women folk.

I have a feeling that Joe Carter (whoever he is amongst the ecclesiastical ranks), does not preach nor teach a clear, concise Gospel Message, pointing people to Jesus Christ.

Maybe its time Joe gets a real job like the Apostle Paul did to support himself so not to be a burden to the saints. Not my words, but Paul’s.

Don’t pay Carter and TGC any mind; they are selling and peddling a false gospel anyway; just forget them; they are of no importance.

Talking of which, what about Tim I-know-everything Challies: Does anyone recall the drivel he wrote a couple of years (?) ago about how to read the Bible in public and who is NOT supposed to read it in public (meaning the places they refer to as “churches”)? That was the funniest thing I’d read at the time coming from that false gospel camp. It was hilarious. Where can we dig it up again?

Velour wrote:

Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles? Yes, I’d like to see that article if you’re able to find the link to it.

https://www.challies.com/articles/men-women-the-public-reading-of-scripture

Happy reading!

Velour wrote:

Learn first, then teach.

That would pretty much shut down the gospelly coalition. No wonder they don't let women teach. How dare you point this out. 🙂

@ Velour:

Velour, this is actually the article I had in mind: It is hilarious. Who in the name of Beelzebub does this fake think he is? (Please comment on it, won’t you? Would love to read your take on it.) Truly, this one had me in stitches…

https://www.challies.com/articles/the-public-reading-of-scripture

The one Ken F gave is also funny and anti-Biblical.

Velour wrote:

Whaaaatttt? He said that folks couldn’t read their Bibles?

Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

Bridget wrote:

Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

Bridget, yes, that was part of it. Foolishness. I can think of 1001 reasons why we women can and should read the Bible ANYWHERE…and teach. God’s given us eyes and they’re not for looking after babies and pots and pans only (whaha). But enough of that lot now; they always make me sick after a conversation or two about them.

Boston Lady wrote:

But enough of that lot now; they always make me sick after a conversation or two about them.

I concur!

elastigirl wrote:

mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?

I can’t tell you who gave Joe his platform at TGC, but here’s who hired him.

http://erlc.com/resource-library/press-releases/erlc-hires-five-new-staff-members-during-trustee-meeting

Do you think Russell Moore had something to do with it?

@ Boston Lady:
From the Challies church contract:
“I also understand that if I am overtaken in any fault, I will be subject to biblical discipline which seeks my restoration. [12]”
Does this mean women can be disciplined for eating too many twinkles ?

Deb wrote:

We will soon revisit this topic of who can and who cannot read scripture in church. I seem to recall that Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist takes the same position.

Essentially yes. At BBC, the text reading just prior to the sermon is always done by a man (elder or BCS seminary student). Elsewhere in the service, occasionally a couple will read a text together (alternate verses), or the praise team will divide up a reading (so women, men, and the worship pastor leading will all read) — I suspect the justification is that in those forms, “headship” and “Biblical eldership” is still being modeled (wife under her husband, women praise team members under a pastor/elder).

Bridget wrote:

Well, actually, he said “women” couldn’t read scripture in church because that would be “teaching” and women can’t teach men . . .

Even 9Marks says women can read scripture in church, IIRC. How can there be so much confusion if this is such a critical issue?

Nancy2 wrote:

A 9 yo old boy can preach from the pulpit as a visitor, but and adult woman who is a so-called member can not speak or read a verse in SS class!

goodness mercy!
when people take something illogical to its extremes, we can far more easily see it for what it is: in the case you describe, I would call it male gender idolatry

Gram3 wrote:

How can there be so much confusion if this is such a critical issue?

Seems like all the “critical issues” cause confusion. So much confusion that they drive believers from the gathering of the saints!

Ken P. wrote:

I think I recall a passage in Leviticus saying that having a BMI over 24 is an abomination for women.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘There existeth not a barn that dost not benefit from a fresh coat of paint.'”

Deb wrote:

May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

I would think that these people would know that one of the ways to most deeply disrespect the humanity of another human being would be to tell them they weren’t fit to read aloud from Holy Gospels of Our Lord in community.
My goodness, we are all-of-us-who-believe to give voice to the Word together against the darkness. ALL of us sinners upon whom God has looked.
Yes.
Even the men. 🙂

Deb wrote:

May God have mercy on these men and women who are corrupted by such legalism as to who can and cannot read from the holy scriptures. Shame on them!

How can you be ashamed when You Can Do No Wrong?

Nancy2 wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Preach against Drugs and I’m number-one cheerleader for the DEA. But preach on CAFFIENE addiction and suddenly I’m gung-ho for Separation of Church and Starbucks.”

Don’t mess with my coffee ……. or my chocolate, or my dogs, or the bacon fat I put in my beans, or my ice cream, or my Kentucky Wildcats, or my Chanel # 5 ………

I’m married to a Kentuckian. I’ve lived in NC for over 27 years. Before that, back during the ’80s, I lived in Loozyana for three years.

Bacon fat in beans still makes me sick to my stomach. :p You can take the Boston Girl out of Boston, but you can’t take away her preference for plain, fresh, steamed vegetables. I don’t even want butter on ’em.

I’m with you re the Wildcats, though, but just for B-ball. For football, it’s “Roll Tide” all the way.

Lydia wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You are on a roll!

Making every blogger’s day more surreal since 1996…

Clarification: They wanted her to go to some special room, so yeah, she still would have been in the building or on the campus. Just not at the service.

___

“One Call Away?”

hmmm…

C.J. Mahaney ain’t got nothin’ on me, I know that Jesus is only “one call away…” !

(grin)

hahahahahahahaha

Do you?

ATB

Sopy
___
“One Call Away”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=APCrcw44ISA

🙂
—

@ Nancy2:
Oh, Derby pie and bourbon!

Velour wrote:

I always say to folks who are hung up on this issue, “Can you dictate another person’s hairstyle?”

More like “Not unless you’re Got Hard (in looong denim jumpers… with looooooooong… waaaaaaaaavy… haaaaaaair…)”

Bridget wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
@ Bridget:
mystery question: why do so many dickles get the mic in christian culture? who in the world gave jc a job with TGC & chooses to keeps him around?
Haven’t a clue who, and it is beyond my comprehension keeping him around. My “guess” is the “who” are like-minded. That is the conclusion “who” leaves me with.

Russ Moore.

@ elastigirl:
I thought politics were not allowed. Can we talk about the last one?

Of course Joe Carter called this a “lying hateful” blog. He is a lying, hateful man, and he projects his own lack of character onto anyone who stands in the way of his ambition.
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
“You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
Carter does not have the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Of course Joe Carter called this a “lying hateful” blog. He is a lying, hateful man, and he projects his own lack of character onto anyone who stands in the way of his ambition.

Bingo!

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Joe Carter called this a “lying hateful” blog.

He ought to either say with specificity what was a lie or face a libel lawsuit.

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Paul was referring to one woman (singular “the woman) who was teaching one man (most likely her husband) error. She wasn’t doing it intentionally. She was just not properly trained yet. Paul wanted her to learn quietly first. Paul did not issue an edict for all Christian women for all time to be silent.
The SBC sees this as an absolute command for all women in all churches for all time to “remain silent”. In my (almost former) church, women are not even allowed to speak in mixed gender SS churches. The church of my childhood is debating about going down the same legalistic path. I have come to the conclusion that women are not part of the church body.
A 9 yo old boy can preach from the pulpit as a visitor, but and adult woman who is a so-called member can not speak or read a verse in SS class!

That is so sad, Nancy2.

Ken F wrote:

One puzzling piece is why Carter’s post is still available on the TGC home page but DeYoung’s was only available for part of one day and then buried. It can still be found on TGC, but only by searching. It only has 16 comments compared to nearly 300 for Carter’s. Some of the comments are very good: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/

Most curious.

@ JYJames:
Doesn’t make it right.

Velour wrote:

What is this…a leftover of slavery where literacy itself was outlawed (and critical thinking skills and communication with it)?

I think it is a desperate attemp by insecure men to preserve their inflated egos and define themselves as being superior to some other group of people. Slavery is over. People other than free, white, male property owners have the right to vote. What else is left for them to grab onto, other than “God saith”?

@ Law Prof:
honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.
Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross, but nobody cares.

A nursing mother is providing her infant with needed protection until the infant is old enough to receive their first immunizations,
so it is a matter not just of nutrition, but also of life or death in the protection that the mother’s breast milk is naturally offering her infant. ‘Sexy’? WHO CARES!!!
People need to grow up. And stop the crazy. Infants NEED their mother’s milk, case closed.

Velour wrote:

Those guys are a *piece of work*!

Yes, that particular word choice gets your comment through customs with less trouble, even if not the most appropriate.

Velour wrote:

Ken F wrote:

One puzzling piece is why Carter’s post is still available on the TGC home page but DeYoung’s was only available for part of one day and then buried. It can still be found on TGC, but only by searching. It only has 16 comments compared to nearly 300 for Carter’s. Some of the comments are very good: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2017/04/25/what-can-church-history-teach-us-about-wolves/

Most curious.

I think I see why they buried his.

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
What is this…a leftover of slavery where literacy itself was outlawed (and critical thinking skills and communication with it)?
I think it is a desperate attemp by insecure men to preserve their inflated egos and define themselves as being superior to some other group of people. Slavery is over. People other than free, white, male property owners have the right to vote. What else is left for them to grab onto, other than “God saith”?

So true, Miss Nancy2.

elastigirl wrote:

he comes across as dull as a butterknife, out of touch, & skills-wise undermining his own communications & writing career (i’m not a little surprised at the ‘journalism professor’ thing). the whole thing makes him look bad. but all publicity is good publicity.

His college degree is from an online college.

There’s nothing like the rigors of the college classroom in person, meeting people different than oneself, having ideas challenged, that really gets the brain kicked into gear.

He seems to have lived a sheltered life.

@ Ken F:
Sorry Lea, I accidently included you in my above comment.

Velour wrote:

Those guys are a *piece of work*! Just nuts!

A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Those guys are a *piece of work*! Just nuts!
A *piece of digestive waste-product*?
I would put the word *dog* in there, put it would insult my puppies.

Spot on, sister!

Save a puppy that is put on the roadside for me.

@ Josh:
And we can leave them for the dung beetles.

Christiane wrote:

@ Law Prof:
honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.

They’re called “Mantits” or “Moobs”.

And flaunted with all the “I’m to SEX-AY for my Shirt” of Right Said Fred.

It’s the male version of body image dysphoria.

Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross, but nobody cares.
A nursing mother is providing her infant with needed protection until the infant is old enough to receive their first immunizations,

so it is a matter not just of nutrition, but also of life or death in the protection that the mother’s breast milk is naturally offering her infant. ‘Sexy’? WHO CARES!!!

People need to grow up. And stop the crazy. Infants NEED their mother’s milk, case closed.

Having “grown up Martian”, I find it not only weird but ridiculous that in this country the only Forbidden function of mammaries is their original biological one.
Eye Candy for guys? No problem.
Grab holds for guys? Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Breastfeeding her kid? AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAAGH! AAAAAAGH! FILTHY! FILTHY! FILTHY!

I had a thought. The Bible says that in the last days, there will be divisions in the church, and that false believers will be there trying to destroy and divide God’s people. So you would think that anyone who was a real minister called by God would been seeking to unite people, not looking for ways to divide. It seems to me that by their very actions of hard-heartedness,an d using smaller and smaller issues to push people away from each other, they are proving *themselves* to be the bad shepherds, rather than the people they’re pointing the finger at.

Christiane wrote:

honestly, a lot of the older men get ‘flabby’ in the chest as they age and they go topless at the beach regardless.
Of COURSE, it is not ‘sexy’. It’s just gross

Hey! I resemble that remark!!

Ken F wrote:

@ Velour:
When I get home later this week I will post the email I sent to him that he did not answer. This ilk stir the pot and run.

Here is what I sent to Challies in response to his article on Paul Young’s theology. I thought it was a fair statement. I did not get a response and Challies did not take up the challenge to review The Shack Revisited.

I was a bit surprised by your recent article titled “What Does The Shack Really Teach? ‘Lies We Believe About God’ Tells Us.” It sounded like you were trying to show how you creatively found the true theology behind The Shack. While I believe that you are somewhat correct in connecting the two, a much better source for the theology behind The Shack is Baxter Kruger’s book “The Shack Revisited” (see https://www.amazon.com/Shack-Revisited-There-Going-Dared/dp/1455516805/). Note that in the forward Paul Young confirms that this is the book that explains the theology of The Shack. In other places Paul Young states that it is the best book ever written about The Shack. If you wanted to critique this theology, it seems that this would be a much better source. Were you unaware of this book? It has been out since 2012, and it is apparently getting traction again because of the release of the movie. Wouldn’t that be a better book for you to review?

TGC has been going after Paul Young, but they really need to look at the theologians who work with Paul Young. I personally am finding the theology of both Young and Kruger to be very solid.

Gram3 wrote:

There is nothing Reformed about the Theopolis Institute

That’s what I was thinking when I first read the article. I was wondering if it was something I could get involved with, so I checked out their statement of faith. Here is what I found (see: https://theopolisinstitute.com/about/statement-of-faith/)

1. The Theopolis Institute is committed to historic Biblical Christianity. We seek to be thoroughly Biblical, comprehensively catholic, and true to our Reformation heritage. We affirm the historic faith as presented in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in the great statements of the Reformation such as the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic, Westminster Confessions, Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and Second Helvetic Confession.

The Westminster Confession is as reformed as it gets, and the Canons of Dordt is as 5-point Calvinist as it gets. This is why I said they are reformed but in a different sort of way.

But this is more concerning:

11. We affirm Biblical theocracy, affirming that Jesus reigns over every area of life. Since “all Scripture is profitable . . . for instruction” (2 Timothy 3:16), we believe that all Scripture is given for instructing all areas of life, including national life. We are also committed to the restoration of church government, since that is where Christ’s theocratic reign is concentrated and first manifest.

I’m not into the whole theocracy thing – too much like Calvin’s Geneva.

Still, the article is interesting in how it highlights the dis-unity created by the reformation.

Linn wrote:

https://www.emm.org/media/k2/items/cache/98ec0092d694f3f780e032d45228a0f5_M.jpg
A meme you might enjoy, as I couldn’t think of anything else to add to a wonderful discussion.
I found out, much to my horror, that my wonderful church somehow “joined” TGC when our new pastor came last year. So far, nothing seems off, but I am keeping my eyes and ears wide open.

Phase One of the Neo-Calvinist Take-over. If you stay, do so to watch and learn and warn others when you see disturbing signs.

__

“Encouraged Awareness Advised?”

hmmm…

Toxic doctrinal additives and the un-natural level of authoritarian behavior currently present in many Neo-Calvinist 501(c)3 corporate pastorship(s) (such examples as Acts29, 9Marks, and SGC come to mind) present a religological safety concern. Examples of documented abusive behavior are numerous and plentiful. Subscribers of these types of religious non-profit institutions are encouraged to beware.

🙂

—

Ken F wrote:

We are also committed to the restoration of church government, since that is where Christ’s theocratic reign is concentrated and first manifest.

That is 9Marks and Doug Wilson on steroids. Every time the Recons failed (and they failed every single time) they reinvented themselves. Theopolis is the newest iteration. Trace the names back a few decades. They believe in Big C Church that has nothing to do with Christ as the Head of the Church or the Holy Spirit. Their history is telling. If you don’t like Geneva, then run for your life.

Christiane wrote:

You need to buy a nice Hawaiian shirt to wear at the beach.

Mostly off topic– just got back from walking the dogs to the beach. About a dozen fisher-folk there clad in winter boots, flannel shirts, and hoods. No worries about any Hawaiian shirt let alone topless man. Where we used to live, with young kids, we drove miles for summer swims to avoid “Thong Man” on the nearby beach.
We followed a very large set of canine tracks, together with deer hoof prints. Likely a large dog, and the deer need not feer, but MY WHAT LARGE CLAWS YOU HAVE, GRANDMAMA. I needed to unzip my parka walking back home up the hill, so I am officially proclaiming today the first day of spring around here. It’s supposed to reach mid-60’s by Thursday! Yesterday it snowed most of the day together with a biting North wind, but nothing “stuck”.

Nancy2 wrote:

@ Nancy2:
Oh, Derby pie and bourbon!

And if you’re from Louisville, there’s kuchen and White Castles. (I’ll pass on the latter, but my kids and husband love them.)

I’ve got a comment that hasn’t passed customs yet, but for those of you who seem to think that the woman who wanted to feed her baby in that church was being mistreated….I call foul on that. I watched her video and I am convinced it’s a non-story. All a big ado about nothing.

Dave A A wrote:

Where we used to live, with young kids, we drove miles for summer swims to avoid “Thong Man” on the nearby beach.

Yikes. Southern Cali?

Gram3 wrote:

Their history is telling. If you don’t like Geneva, then run for your life.

Except instead of there being only one Geneva as in John Calvin’s day, now there are multiple mini-Genevas under the guise of Neo-Calvinist, 9Marx, independent, elder ruled and led church/gulags. And it may be that every month, or perhaps every week, new mini-Genevas are popping up all over the country. Heaven help us all!

*Credit goes to Velour for the term gulag to describe Neo-Cal churches. 😉

Christiane wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Alaska?

Nah they have “breakup”, not spring.

Sopwith wrote:

“20 Characteristics That Describe A 501(c)3 Religious Sociopath?”

Likely just 9 marks.

@ Nancy2:

i’m having to look up all these food items you keep mentioning, to see what in the world they are! Burgoo, a ‘hot brown’, derby pie….

Darlene wrote:

And it may be that every month, or perhaps every week, new mini-Genevas are popping up all over the country.

“Tomorrow Belongs To MEEEEEE…”
— Cabaret

Sopwith wrote:

__
It is important to recognize that when the SGM 501(c)3 church establishment decided to treat sexual abuse as an internal matter and did not report the abuse to the authorities, the SGM church effectively picked up the sword given to the state; hiding the wrong and delaying justice; whereas determining guilt and innocence before the law was not and is not a matter God had entrusted to the church; thereby effectively usurping authority divinely given to the state for it’s own purposes.
—

And Excellent observation, Sopwith!

May as well up the count to 360…
Somewhereintime wrote:

Do unrepentant pastors that protect child molesters go to heaven?

Are they of the Predestined Elect?

“Are they God’s chosen? Are they God’s chosen?”
— Gordon Dickson, “Soldier, Ask Not” (key flashback scene, both novella & novel)

Ken F wrote:

Apparently so if we are to believe a recent TGC post:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-pray-if-god-has-already-determined-everything

Most Calvinists believe in a form of determinism—that is, God has determined every single event. At each moment there is only one possible future: the future God has determined.

“In’shal’lah…”

And since Calvinistas also believe God predestines everything for His Glory and nothing else…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5m5mNFTaw
(If you’re not offended by really really sick joke videos about Jihad or 9/11 or suicide bombers, search YouTube for “allahu akbar vines”.)

Though I’m surprised nobody’s traced down my Gordon Dickson quote above.
Any Old School SF litfans in this thread?