“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.” ― Dalai Lama XIV link
<Update 5/27/17 : We have receive a comment that the Midrash was really called the Mishnah. I am very confused and will do some more research on the matter.>
Over the last decade, while studying the reasons why people choose. to *convert* to Calvinism, I have often read statements like the following.
My old church (non-Reformed) was legalistic and my Calvinist church is not.
When inquiring as to the type of issues that they mean by legalism, these may include, but are not limited to:
- Alcohol consumption
- An adherence to only one translation of the Bible
- Young earth creationism
- Women should wear dresses and skirts
- Men's hair should be above the collar
- A strict adherence to premillenial dispensationalism
- Christian teens must listen to Christian music exclusively
- A Second baptism by the Holy Spirit
- "Walk the aisle"salvation
- Restriction on which movies or TV shows one can watch
The types of churches these folks attended were myriad:
- SBC(not Reformed)
- IFB
- Pentecostal
- Assemblies of God
- non-denominational
I agree that the things mentioned above are legalistic. However, I believe that legalism infects all denominations of Christianity, including the Neo-Calvinism.
What is legalism?
Since my purpose in this post is to prove that Calvinists can be as legalistic as any other group, I thought it would be important to use a Calvinist description of legalism. RC Sproul wrote 3 Types of Legalism. Here are some excerpts.
Basically, legalism involves abstracting the law of God from its original context. Some people seem to be preoccupied in the Christian life with obeying rules and regulations, and they conceive of Christianity as being a series of do’s and don’ts, cold and deadly set of moral principles. That’s one form of legalism, where one is concerned merely with the keeping of God’s law as an end in itself.
The legalist isolates the law from the God who gave the law. He is not so much seeking to obey God or honor Christ as he is to obey rules that are devoid of any personal relationship.
The second form of legalism divorces the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. It obeys the letter but violates the spirit.
The third type of legalism adds our own rules to God’s law and treats them as divine. It is the most common and deadly form of legalism. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees at this very point, saying, “You teach human traditions as if they were the word of God.” We have no right to heap up restrictions on people where He has no stated restriction.
How basic OT commandments morphed into one huge mess.
The Ten Commandments first grew into a list of 613 commandment derived from the Old Testament (Wikipedia.) These are also known collectively as mitzvot or the Law of Moses. There is some minor controversy over the exact number but no matter the list, it was long. At the link on Wikipedia one can read the 613 commandments known as Maimonede List.
As our readers know, the Deebs are always asking questions. When a pastor claims to have authority, we ask what does that look like in practice and when/why should we submit to that authority. (We are still waiting for a definitive answer, by the way.)
It looks like the folks who believe the Old and New Testament have been asking the same sort of questions throughout the millennia. For example, what exactly does it look like to keep the Lord's day holy and rest from our labors? The Jewish religious leaders, over time, decided to answer what each and every one of those 613 commandments looked like in actual practice. These instructions were added to a book called the Midrash. The Midrash contained thousands upon thousands of minute injunctions that must be followed to be assured that one is truly following all of God's law.
Here is an excellent overview how on basic laws and commandments grew into serious burdens for the people of God.
Understanding the Midrash
The Midrash
While following 613 commandments would be hard enough, over time Jewish leaders began to slowly add to these laws in the Midrash. This additional teaching is basically an ongoing compilation of sermons and sayings by Jewish Rabbis meant to interpret the original Mosaic Law. The original intent of these additions was to clarify the law, but it ended up adding many layers of complicated regulations. This Midrash was already lengthy in Jesus’ day and continues to grow to this day. So for the Pharisees, they not only tried to follow the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law, but the literally thousands of new commandments that were created to clarify the original 613 commandments.
For example, in the Mosaic Law, one of the commandments is to keep the Sabbath holy, which means that Jews were not supposed to work on Saturdays. But to clarify this, the Jewish scholars created 39 separate categories of what “work” means, and within those 39 categories there are many sub-categories. So to follow the rule of not working on the Sabbath, there are literally thousands of sub-rules to follow, including how many steps you can take, and how many letters you can write on the Sabbath.
Here are a few of those Sabbath rules in the Midrash you might find interesting.
- It was unlawful to wear any jewelry or ornaments on the Sabbath, since this might be construed as carrying a burden.
- It was not permitted to wear false teeth on the Sabbath (that must have been a hit in the synagogue services).
- You were allowed to eat radishes on the Sabbath, but you were warned against dipping them into salt because you might leave them in the salt too long and pickle them and this was considered to be Sabbath-breaking. The Pharisees actually had discussions as to how long it took to pickle a radish.
- It was fine to spit on a rock on the Sabbath, but you could not spit on the ground, because that made mud and mud was mortar, and that was work.
- If a woman got mud on her dress, she was to wait until it had dried and then she was permitted to crumple the dress in her hands one time and crush it and then shake it out once. If that did not do the trick, then she had to wear it.
Jesus was most likely referring to the book of rules when he said in Matthew 23:1-4(Bible Gateway:)
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a]wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
He went on to speak strongly against the Pharisees in verses 13-37. Here are couple of verses.
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
There is no question that Jesus was not pleased.
Legalistic rules often develop around the *it* subject which today is gender roles.
Here are a few examples of this.
Tim Challies does not believe that women should read Scripture out loud in a public gathering.
Challies wrote Men, Women & the Public Reading of Scripture. In his explanation, he claims that vocalizing Scripture is considered teaching.
If you read through the article in which I described how we go about preparing to read Scripture, you will see that we expect those who read to understand that this is a teaching ministry. The preparation is meant to be preparation to teach—not just to read well, but to read in such a way that the reader is a teacher.
In this way we see the public reading of Scripture as being in the same category not as singing or praying, but as preaching. It is a teaching role.
I believe we stand on firm biblical grounds here. In 1 Timothy 4 Paul tells Timothy to devote himself to 3 things—3 related things: the public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching. This follows Paul’s instruction that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It is my understanding that this applies to all 3 of these things—reading Scripture, exhortation and teaching. These are 3 parts of the same ministry—that of exercising authority in teaching. So I see it explicitly there, and then I find it implicit in my general understanding of teaching, gender roles and complementarity.
There is nothing in Scripture that states women cannot read the Bible out loud during a worship service. The person who is reading is not teaching. They are reciting the words. The words are teaching since the Bible is the Word of God. If God did not want women to read Scripture in public, He would not have allowed them to speak the words which would become Scripture. Take Mary's words for example in Luke 1:46-55 Bible Gateway. Should God have hushed Mary since she was speaking Scripture out loud?
46 And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
John Piper: Women Cannot Be Police Officers.
John Piper has twisted himself into a pretzel, attempting to make sure that no woman will ever *press her authority* into his breathing space. He comes up with some confusing rules regarding women and their personal and directive influences. Read this carefully. It is obvious that his rule is that a woman should not be in a position to have direct authority over any man, including criminals.
Once again, he tries to claim that this is all from the Bible but it seems to me that he is making up Piper's Midrash.
So instead of a list of whether policeman is on the man job or the woman job list, instead of a list, I have tried to provide guidelines for men and women who sincerely want to be submissive to the Bible. And that really is the key. If a person approaches this question and just says, “I am going to do what I want to do,” then I don’t have much to say to them on this score. But if the aim really is, “Does the Bible have something to say here at the root level of my manhood and my womanhood that would affect the kind of work I do in relationship to the opposite sex?” then I want to submit to that and go for it, because that would be God’s best for me.
There is a continuum from very personal influence, very eye-to-eye, close personal influence, to non-personal influence. And the other continuum is very directive — commands and forcefulness — directive influence to very non-directive influence. And here is my conviction. To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order. To an extent, a woman’s leadership or influence may be personal and non-directive or directive and non-personal, but I don’t think we should push the limits. I don’t think those would necessarily push the limits of what is appropriate. That is my general paradigm of guidance. And you can see how flexible it is and how imprecise it is. So let me give some examples.
Owen Strachan does not think adult women should wear leggings because only kids wear leggings.
Owen, the inventor of the term sanctified testosterone-another made up concept, now has a new definition of maturity for women. In THE KIDIFICATION OF AMERICA: ON THE GOODNESS OF MATURITY, Strachan discusses his concept of maturity which by appealing to a Scripture verse that makes little sense in this context. Here is his text.
Theocentricity breeds growth. It occasions the killing of sin and death to self. It springs into motion the ongoing dynamic of maturity: we leave childish things behind and embrace adulthood. This is the ongoing work of the believer according to Paul: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways” (1 Cor. 13:11). What a text this is for a “Kidified” age.
Strachan applies this to the clothes that women wear, amongst other things.
We’re in the age of the “Kidification” of America. We adults watch comic-book movies, wear the shorts and leggings that seven-year-olds have traditionally worn, take our favorite games with life-and-death seriousness, show up late to the functions we attend, refuse to build a vocation in order to hold a series of jobs that we never truly commit to, spend above our means and thus incur heaping debt, opt out of our commitments on a whim, snark and blurt out a constant stream of commentary on social media, narcissistically whine about how hard life is (to people whose lives are demonstrably harder than ours), and act wounded when confronted with our faults.
Look at this sentence "wear shorts and leggings that seven year olds have traditionally worn…" Seriously? Clothing trends must now be biblically judged on what has been traditional. What constitutes traditional? For example, women in most urban centers throughout millennia have worn full length dresses. Little girls were sometimes allowed to wear shorter dresses. Does this mean that maxi-dresses must be worn since it is traditional for women to do so? Also, traditional for who? European women? Women who live in rural villages in Africa? Whose traditions?
Clothing traditions have undergone a major shift in the last few decades. Jackets for men are rarely required for men at restaurants. I have noticed that older women are wearing pants and jeans more often. Many women now wear exercise clothes as they run their errands and fit in some exercise in between times. My husband has noticed that a fair number of older women wearing leggings with tunic tops when they come for office visits. Not only are such clothes comfortable but are stretchy enough so that people who have medical problems do not have tight belts and unforgiving clothes pressing on uncomfortable areas.
I, too, wear leggings and skinny jeans that look like leggings along with loose fitting tops as do many women. I predict that in years to come, the causal and comfortable trend will continue. This has nothing to do with wanting to be a kid. Strachan must live in a bubble if he thinks that clothing trends should be mandated by a bunch of sub-rules that he and his dudebros make up.
The bottom line:
The Bible does not clearly state any of the above decrees made up by men who have their own biases on how to interpret aspects of Scripture. The doctrines of grace clearly do not protect the Calvinists from made up rules, no matter how much these men claim they are being Biblical. They are merely making up rules they like, just like everybody else.
First?
I wear black bike pants which look like leggings/yoga pants. Thanks to Owen S., I also purchased two t-shirts to go with my subversive-bike-pants:
*Smashing The Patriarchy Is My Cardio
and
*Cinnamon Rolls Not Gender Roles
(I ordered both tshirts from Amazon.)
I will wear my outfit in defiant glee, when the NeoCal Boyz with their Sanctified Testosterone (TM) whip themselves into a frenzy about the latest ‘outrage’ about the women folk.
Please keep those hurt outside the Manchester (England) arena (50 in number) and the loved ones of those killed (19 so far) in your prayers. 🙁
It appears to be a terrorist attack, but that has not yet been confirmed.
@ Deb:
I hadn’t heard the numbers yet. Awful.
Another ot: I don’t know if anyone is watching the keepers on Netflix, but it’s really intense. School abuse of young girls by a priest (and more).
“John Piper: Women Cannot Be Police Officers.” – Dee
I am finishing up an Administration of Justice degree, on top of the other degrees I have already obtained.
My department chair IS a woman with a long career in law enforcement. She is an excellent professional, supervises men who have had careers in law enforcement, runs a top-notch department, and trains many people for careers in law enforcement (federal, state, and local agencies). She is tough but fair. She is a credit to law enforcement and to education.
Law enforcement agencies come to her when they are seeking qualified candidates.
Deb wrote:
So sad. I am praying, Deb.
And I had just watch Pippa Middleton’s wedding festivities live over the weekend. Such a joyous time. And now this.
Challies wrote Men, Women & the Public Reading of Scripture. In his explanation, he claims that vocalizing Scripture is considered teaching.
Pastor Steve Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ teaches that women can’t even say “Amen” in church services since they are to be silent. Ugh!
Hear it for yourself….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/steven-anderson-women-silence_n_5035528.html
Yes, listening to updates on BBC. Praying.
Hm, leggings were developed in the 60s FOR ADULTS, and I seem to recall a very popular movie Funny Face in which the main character, played by the lovely Audrey Hepburn, wore leggingish pants for much of the movie. They definitely are at least comparable to the currently Calvinista despised yoga pants.
Not to mention that leggings were quite trendy for adults in the 80s. Oh, but he’s probably too young to remember that!
Most of the Calvinistas seem to get a few things right, but Strachan has yet to say one thing that even makes sense to me. The stuff he says is laughable, like he’s a 7-year-old just making up stuff. So much for thinking like a child…
@ DMZ:
Whoo hooooo!
I heard a pastor call such thing “convictionalism”…forcing one’s convictions on others. I think that is a fair description of much that goes on with these Neo-Cal examples.
“Tim Challies does not believe that women should read Scripture out loud in a public gathering.” – Dee
And I’ve noticed that Tim Challies is quite the coward when I recently visited his website.
He doesn’t take any comments on his articles.
If he were so confident in his positions than why doesn’t he want rigorous debate?
Or does he know that people would confront him about his ridiculous ideas so he just continues to live in an ideological bubble?
My hat is off again to The Deebs (Dee and Deb) for permitting comments of all kinds here at TWW. The ladies win yet again over the NeoCal boyz.
“John Piper: Women Cannot Be Police Officers.” – Dee
Yeah, I caught myself speeding through the subdivision south of where my mother lives, looked to my right and saw a female cop. I am sure that had the cop pulled me over, she would have not written me a ticket after I told her John Piper says women cannot be police officers. Riiiiight. In fact, I think saying that would have been like talking myself into more than just a moving violation.
(For the record, I was not pulled over. But I did slow down to 25.)
ishy wrote:
Leggings and leg warmers.
While it’s rather too hot to wear leggings here in south central Arizona, I have absolutely no problem wearing shorts. The only place I do not wear shorts is to work, and that’s only because the building (which also houses a data center) is kept bone-chillingly cold. It feels good walking outside after a day in the meatlocker that is my office.
Leggings are God’s gift to women to make up for all the other stuff.
And yoga pants.
Yoga pants also rock.
Don’t listen to those men who say leggings are bad or evil or childish. They’re jealous. They all wish they could get away with wearing leggings!!!
What would happen if Piper were pulled over by a female police officer? “I’m sorry, officer, I don’t recognize your authority over me. You are speaking too forcefully, and assaulting my masculinity. You are offending my good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controverting God’s created order. Could you speak to me in a more submissive tone?”
I would pay money to see what would happen next.
GSD wrote:
Obstructing an officer (in my state California).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OBvIcTj-vk
Seriously? These men are down to picking on leggings LOL piper is the village idiot that got kicked out of every village in america except for the He Man woman haters club……
Some of the “sins of fellowship” they changed all the time one needs a scorecard to keep up. The leggings thing falls in this category. Sins of fellowship are basically if you dont play by my rules I will take my ball (church) and go home or kick you out.
If women refused to attend these, *women hating*, churches, they would soon cease to exist. Getting out, is the only option, or women will slowly be emotionally and spiritually suffocated.
As for leggings….this grey haired gal has many health issues…beltless, button/zipper free, stretchy clothing is very helpful,when sitting in church or elsewhere.
Mae wrote:
I was kicked out of my woman-hating NeoCalvinist church. I’ve never been happier. There is freedom on the outside, and a real encounter with God.
I am having a party to celebrate another educational achievement/degree. Guests for my party include: atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, and Hispanic Pentecostal Christians. I couldn’t have had this party while going to my former church without any of those members ruining it and insulting people who were different than them. Sigh.
Velour wrote:
Velour, you rebel! But, seriously, Calvinists invent rules and find commands in the Bible on every page. Is it any wonder they are such a sad, confused, lowly worm, unhappy, sin-sniffing, unbiblical bunch? No.
Mae wrote:
Mae, you are right, and that has been happening for the longest time. Run from these “churches.” They will be the end of you somehow. The sooner these “churches” close down, the sooner more souls will be added to the real body of Christ.
GSD wrote:
The only thing funnier than that would be watching Tim Bayly after being pulled over by a female police officer.
Well, if we have to be traditional, then as my Celtic ancestors did before battle, I shall paint myself blue, and go to work naked. But I must conform to the laws of the land, so I will wear white pants, and a white hat. I may be getting confused with the Smurfs at this point…
Fundamentalists of all stripes yearn for a golden age that never was. In North America, for the evangelical churches I’ve been exposed to, that seems to be the 50’s of “father knows best” & “leave it to Beaver”. When things like child abuse & addiction were never acknowledged. When women were in the kitchen (at least fictionally) and all the other groups were in their respective closets and/or countries.
Like this “golden age”, neocalvinist provides a framework where everyone has their place. And it’s equally fictional.
NJ wrote:
Rule of three for humor: may I add Doug Phillips to the mix? 😀
Mae wrote:
I sadly believe these women hating men are not going to change and women are going to have to leave these places. What a sad state of the church IMO.
Jack wrote:
Don’t forget the pearls and high heels.
And look at the mental gymnastics Tim Bayly goes through when contemplating getting pulled over by a female officer.
Let me be clear, here: I am not saying that Christian men should
rebel against authority when, contrary to God’s Creation order, it is
exercised by woman. If a female police officer pulls me over and
tickets me, I’ll respect and submit to her, not because she has a gun
and a radio, but because she has been placed over me by God, bearing
the sword in His behalf.
Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s
creation order in the matter of sexuality, and it will grieve me
causing me, like Lot, to gnash my teeth. And this is how every biblical
Christian should view the exercise of authority by woman over man no
matter where it occurs. As the Holy Spirit said, woman is not to teach
or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, and then
Eve.
(From http://baylyblog.com/blog/2007/04/what-feminism )
He claims the female officer has been placed over him by God … but it’s contrary to God’s creation order. Okaaaaaaaay. I wonder how many bite guards he goes through in a year with all the teeth-gnashing to be done in today’s world.
Owen Strachan said:
“We adults… refuse to build a vocation in order to hold a series of jobs that we never truly commit to…”
I’m not sure what he means by “build a vocation”. Jobs you worked at for 30 years at the same place, and retired with a gold watch and a defined benefit pension are a little thin on the ground these days. Not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, either. Plus there’s only so many people who will enter some form of full time Christian ministry. He may be thinking primarily of millenials here, but they are facing an economic situation very different from the one older generations just entering adulthood faced.
Victorious wrote:
No surprise there…
The pastor holds no college degrees, is married with 9 children, and leads a family integrated church.
http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page2.html
That’s how they roll…
I was raised in a church that for many years had the legalistic views that were spoken about earlier. Women definitely could not wear pants. We didn’t go to see movies, but the teens did it anyway. We were supposedly limited in what we watched on tv. But times changed. I remember the first time I wore pants to church. I thought I would be ostracized. But the weather was extremely cold outside. I remember when the pastor’s wife first wore pants to an event in the church. Pastor didn’t like it, but so be it. As for as leggings and yoga pants go, yes, they are more comfortable for women with health issues and other things. If you want to wear them, more power to them. No one should tell you that you can’t wear them. I don’t wear shorts out in public because I don’t look good in them. But I surely do wear them in my own home. If you happen to visit me and I’m wearing shorts or leggings, and you get offended, then that is your problem, not mine. I live in a warm climate like many others here, and we wear shorts.
How would Piper feel if he had to have life saving surgery and the doctor that operated on him was a woman? Would he say “let me die. I only want a man to operate on me”. Does he know or realize that there are both male and females in the operating room. Does he understand the significance that women have made in the scientific and health world.
I don’t care what your gender is, your sexual orientation is, or your religion is when it comes to my health care. I only want the best for me. I don’t care if you are a female cop or lawyer, or any other female in a profession. My husband and the men in my family (most of them) will say the same thing.
With regard to Tim Challies stating his belief that women may not read the Bible in church due to his interpretation of scripture, he’s not the only one. A week or two ago, the Aquila Report linked to a blog post by Joey Pipa, the president of Greenville Presbyterian seminary. Pipa appears to be responding to the latest go-round in the PCA over potential women’s ordination to the diaconate. I found multiple problems in the article, but I will leave you with one particularly interesting quote.
http://josephpipa.com/leading-in-worship/
“Such teaching is not popular today, but we are ignoring an important biblical principle if we neglect to follow Paul on this point. A woman’s strength lies in her gentleness, compassion, and intuition. The family and the church need these things very much. But in her strengths, lie her vulnerability. God has not made her to exercise the kind of hard, judgmental discernment that is necessary in theological and Scriptural issues. By nature, a woman will more likely fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error.”
NJ wrote:
Yuck. Just look where the “judgmental discernment” of men is taking churches these days. If that’s how he supports men not being more prone to “mental and theological error”, then no thank you.
Girdles are taboo. They can cause a mid-rash.
Our former Neo-Cal YRR pastor pointed out that our previous church covenant contained a clause in it about “intoxicating drinks” along with a short list of other “dont’s” and he set out to have it changed and even preached a series of sermons about it. Granted, I don’t think that those items should have necessarily been in there either, however, the way he went about to change it brought a great deal of divisiveness and hurt into our fellowship.
At the end of the day, what’s really the weightier matter? Having a covenant with language we don’t particularly like (which we never really put much emphasis on anyway) OR alienating members in the church and causing our brother to stumble? As Jesus (and Paul) pointed out, it is far more important to live out the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it.
I can’t recall of it was this site or another that basically once said that it is better to have bad governing documents lived out by good people than to have good documents lived out by bad people. I believe this was one of those cases.
Although we have since revised the language in our covenant, (which, to me seems an extra-biblical document anyway–but that’s another matter for another day!) we emphasized what a believer should do in Christ rather than have a list of things they shouldn’t do. Romans 12 is a good place to start if you want to see what the church should look like, and we incorporated pretty much every one of those characteristics into our covenant.
Ultimately, I believe he wanted to change our covenant only to incorporate the heavy-handed “Big-Brother” approach of New-Calvinism. In fact, one of the covenant “samples” he showed the covenant committee was from none other than Mark Dever’s own Capitol Hill Baptist Church! 🙁
ishy wrote:
Strachen doesn’t seem to know much about anything. He doesn’t realize women have testosterone. He doesn’t know where leggings come from. Kid fashion is a kid version of adult fashion, generally. He should just stop talking about things he doesn’t know.
Challies tortured explanation of why a woman can’t read scripture is pathetic. And we’re supposed to think he’s a ‘moderate’?
Kindakrunchy wrote:
You can’t hardly find the yoga pant yoga pant anymore. They’re all leggings now!
drstevej wrote:
And Spanx are from Stan. Or Satin. Take your pick.
NJ wrote:
Ah, yes! It has been scientifically proven that women are stooooopid and men have much higher IQs! : (
ishy wrote:
Yeah, I’m not sure how he would explain Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware teaching ESS. Unless he agrees with it, which wouldn’t surprise me at this point.
Leggings (opaque) are much worn even under traditional clothing in Europe in the northern countries where people ride bikes a great deal (I’m thinking the Netherlands as an example) …. also the Scandinavian countries and the Baltic states wear opaque leggings frequently against the cold.
I’m not sure what Mr. Strachan is complaining about because I think our American ladies look NICE in their leggings and tunics ….. is possible some men are so fixated on ‘sex’ in their theology that they have developed ‘triggers’ to their condition so that they must now advise women how to protect themselves from being looked at by highly visually over-sexed theological types.
Most men like to see healthy women in comfortable clothing and would be surprised at seeing a nice-looking young girl swathed in a baggy long denim ‘skirt’ that was not suiting her or fitting well. I call these denim horrors ‘patriarchal burqas’. I just hope these denim horrors don’t expand to cover the whole female in a bubble of stiff denim with two eye-holes ….. but the way these people are going, it would not surprise.
Nancy2 wrote:
After I first read the entire thing, my reaction was to tell myself that if I thought he was right about the Bible, I would walk away from Christianity and not look back, based on the conclusion that this had to be a man-made religion after all, and I’ve just been fooling myself. Among other things, he’s talking about a god who purposely made women to be not just physically weaker but less intelligent than men. Oh, and much less able to discern spiritual matters through the Holy Spirit. Lesser than men, in every way. Heck, even our purported strengths turn out to be weaknesses, at least in comparison to the male sex. Women, the lesser form of humanity, forever. 😛
NJ wrote:
Men are supposed to be compassionate. And gentle. And intuition? That’s just discernment which we are all supposed to have.
There is NOTHING that says women will ‘fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error’. UGh! Did these people bother reading the non ‘submit woman’ parts of paul? They tell us all to be on watch for theological error. Who do they think is MAKING these theological errors? What is a ‘mental error’ anyways?
NJ wrote:
Yes.
Thankfully, he isn’t right. He’s just an idiot, led into ‘mental and theological’ error by his own sense of self worth and need to think himself better than someone else.
OK, for purely esthetic reasons and not religious legalism, in spite of living where we have vicious winters and blazing summers, I MIGHT give them a break on the leggings and shorts if my fellow women don’t develop some……discretion, lol.
We love going out for coffee every morning. We are treated to a constant parade of those goin to ski in winter or fish in summer.
Leggings are warm, and great under a decent length top. And shorts (yep, I wear these too)are great if chosen wisely.
But when literally your butt is hanging out below the bottom of the shorts in back, or I know if you *groom* or not by the length of your shorts in front AND back, I might be tempted to wish you dressed like the Duggar ladies.
And not every legging is constructed to be worn as pants. Some are most definitely more heavy panty hose. Seam construction will tip you off, as will a definite difference between the top and the legs. Those again require tops below your butt in back and your desert plodding animal area in front. No leggings look good even on Twiggy with a midriff revealing top. They were not meant to pair together.
But of course, we could also use the men to actually put on clothing instead of running in for coffee in pj pants sans underwear and tank type tees.
But these are fashion errors, not monuments to theological error.
Off to the show.
Aside from all of the problems that I have with their theology and biblical interpretation, I could never take men like Piper or Bayly seriously because it’s obvious that they’ve never had to function in the real world where you have to actually get things done.
Lea wrote:
I have mentally checked out of evangelicalism in large part not because dangerous simple-minded folks like Strachen say stupid things (you’ll find people like that identifying with every group), but because teaching like this is given a platform and praised for being more biblical than the rest of us.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Hail Satin, our soft and silky lord!
Speaking of fashion, I can’t help getting this stuck in my head…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrFG2iWz2Kw
I recently reread my daughter’s copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
“Don’t call them that!” Hermione said furiously, but Umbridge did not appear to have heard her. Still pointing her shaking wand at Magorian, she continued, “Law Fifteen B states clearly that ‘Any attack by a magical creature who is deemed to have near-human intelligence, and therefore considered responsible for its actions–‘”
“‘Near-human intelligence’?” repeated Magorian, as Bane and several others roared with rage and pawed the ground. “We consider that a great insult, human! Our intelligence, thankfully, far outstrips your own–”
He, he. Replace “near-human” with “near-male”, and I can empathize with the centaurs here.
@ NJ:
Great comment.
Don’t forget this dandy on church attendance by one of my favorite C.J. Mahaney supporters, Kevin DeYoung.
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/12/13/the-scandal-of-the-semi-churched/
DeYoung starts the article by stating:
“This is one of those posts I’ve wanted to write for awhile, but I wasn’t sure how to say what I think needs to be said. The danger of legalism and false guilt is very real.”
Say no more Kevin.
But he added this:
“Do you order your travel plans so as to minimize being gone from your church on Sunday? I don’t want to be legalistic with this question. I’ve traveled on Sunday before (though I try to avoid it). I take vacation and study leave and miss 8 or 9 Sundays at URC per year.”
So how many Sundays does Kevin deem I can miss and still be a Christian?
“Have you considered that you may not be a Christian? Who knows how many people God saves “as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). Does going to church every week make you a Christian? Absolutely not. Does missing church 35 Sundays a year make you a non-Christian? It does beg the question.”
Apparently if I miss 34 Sunday services I am still “in.” I haven’t been to a Sunday church service in nearly nine years. Here in the muslim world church services are held on Friday. I wonder if I could get a special dispensation from Pope Kevin for that? I also wonder how many people in this modern world have jobs that require them to work on Sunday or all night Saturday? I work rotating shifts and rotating days. Then of course there is an ever growing number of Christians who have ceased attending the “institutional church,” finding more meaning in small gatherings of like-minded believers.
Christiane wrote:
Love it!
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I almost included this great example on nutty legalism but it didn’t fit with my gender theme. Maybe I will write another post on legalism that makes pastors feel better.
@ linda:
There are always going to be people who dress poorly. However, looking around my current church I don’t see anyone that fits that description.
For many people who are impoverished and also struggling with weight problems, it is difficult to find comfortable and well fitting clothes at a reasonable price. Leggings are both comfortable and can be dirt cheap to purchase.My heart goes out to some of these folks.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep-gullible and easily deceived.
drstevej wrote:
You scored with that comment.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
You know, whenever people start a comment by qualifying it ‘don’t be mad, but…’, ‘I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but…’ or ‘the danger of legalism and false guilty is real, but…’?
That’s a sign you should not have said anything. That’s a sign you know what you’re about to say is wrong, but you can’t stand not to say it anyways. Oh Kevin. Put him in the list of ‘why are people listening to this guy again?’
I honestly don’t know what great gifts these men have that anyone listens. I don’t see it.
Harley wrote:
Talk about up close and personal. Maybe he would give it a pass because he was unconscious? Ah-the solution ….sedate all the men in the church when a woman reads out loud from the Bible.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Not to mention, that this is literally Kevin’s job, that the congregation is paying him to do. So he ‘only’ misses 8 or 9 sundays? Good for him. That doesn’t apply to the people who aren’t getting paid.
Mae wrote:
Bingo! Wy should we wear uncomfortable clothing? Is it just a tradition that one would be trussed up like a chicken to be seen?
@ Lea:
Let me repeat, Kevin wants to get spiritual bonus points for showing up to his job.
Lea wrote:
Yeah, he’s basically saying that men are not typically known for things like gentleness, compassion, intuition…..and perhaps love, joy, peace, patience, kindness…faithfulness, and self-control. Ok, maybe I’m overstating things. Too often in these circles though, it seems as though we women are both put on a pedestal and treated as the perpetual servant class for men.
drstevej wrote:
Spot on! Thanks for the chuckle.
NJ wrote:
It’s the spoonful of sugar meant to make the medicine go down.
They tell women they have these great qualities, but they are not qualities that they actually value.
NJ wrote:
I was reading how Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings frequently placed males and females together with ‘characteristics’ that were SHARED as ‘humane’, even if elven:
“Galadriel portrays both traditional masculine and traditional feminine qualities. She is first introduced as sitting “side by side” with Celeborn, the male Elven leader. “Very tall they were, and the lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful”. Describing both the male and female leader as ‘grave’, a traditionally masculine trait, and ‘beautiful,’ an adjective traditionally used for a female, suggests that both the male and female character are equal in status and that they both admirably share masculine and feminine qualities. ”
For a patriarchist to dismiss the fruit of the Holy Spirit as ‘female’ characteristics WOULD EXPLAIN much about the abuse going on by male leaders. But in the faith of Christ, the fruit of the Holy Spirit is a sign of the active Presence of God in a person’s life. So patriarchist males must choose:
self-worship as ‘male’ gods
OR the faith of Christ the Risen Lord
they must choose
NJ wrote:
Hmm. If true, it would certainly explain why the institutional church looks the way it does today. And why I stay away.
Deb wrote:
As of this morning 22 dead, some 60-odd wounded (normal killed/wounded ratio for fragmentation explosions), ISIS has claimed credit with their usual braggadocio.
NJ wrote:
Remember the definition of “Hypermasculinity” (type example, one A.Hitler, “Fuehrer” persona). Define masculinity entirely as violence, domination, and aggression (with a side of aggressive hypersexuality) and sear off everything else (“feminine”) with a white-hot iron.
Lea wrote:
Qualities that they deem Weakness.
(And “I Must Always Be STRONG!”)
Lea wrote:
I imagine that 7 or so of those missed Sundays are spent “serving” another congregation somewhere while collecting “gift funds” for “serving” well . . .
dee wrote:
Now that actually sounds like a plan.
Victorious wrote:
Is he willing to go all the way and castrate little boys to sing the high notes in the choir?
Or is that too Romish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
(That too was justified because “Women shall keep silent in Church”.)
Kindakrunchy wrote:
And toga no-pants. Gender rolls declare yoga pants are Just fine for women, but of Satin for men. I found this unverified assertion on the Internet: “In the fourth century, women in the Western world wore pants, which they adapted from the Persians. At that time, pants were considered effeminate.” Augustine, along with the TULIP, was born in the fourth sentry. Augie said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me. Some supposed Christians say men should wear robes like the patriarchs, prophets, priests, kings, and Jesus himself. They do rightly point out that only godless heathen men wore Stanic trousers throughout this time. But that was Old Covenant and Not-For-Today. When the soldiers gamboled for Jesus’ robe, New Covenant attire for manly Christian men was instituted. Paul, as a Roman citizen, wore a TOGA. Without leggings. He commanded commando men to “imitate me”. Some namby pamby teachers cave to the culture and say men only need wear tunics during assembling together as the local church to listen to expository preachers preaching expositorily on Sundays. This is of velour. Manly men must wear togas (commando) eight days a week. If it was good enough for Paul (and John, George, and Ringo) it’s good enough for me!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
What concerns me even more is the identification of logical, MENTAL strengths and a love for discerning truth, with masculinity.
@ Lea:
an eight-year old girl …. so young
NJ wrote:
I had to read this twice.
What is called ‘intuition’ in women is actual reason and discernment. I suppose that calling it intuitive is meant to be dismissive but it shouldn’t be considered so.
Lea wrote:
“Feminine intuition” has been a western trope since at least the 19th century. Men have things like logic and intellect, and women have intuition. You can guess which is considered more valuable.
@ linda:
Yes, there are fashion errors, even amongst the women in skirts and dresses, and the men with their bellies and butts hanging out of their chinos.
Still, not everyone will have the means to purchase good fitting clothing, or the skill to pull off a *good look*. I’d rather see people in church, unkempt or disheveled, then not at all.
Much of the legalism of all types springs from biblical literalism. “All or nothing” interpretation of the bible.
If we take the bible to be a history as well as inspired word, then that history reflects the culture of the people who wrote it.
For much of human history, life was brutal and short. War was conducted with no rules and no mercy. Many women died young – in childbirth, many children never saw adulthood.
A man was a man when he could raise sword or spear – anywhere from 12 to 14, a woman was a woman when she could bear children (again anywhere from 12 to 14).
If you saw 30 you were considered an “elder” hence the respect for Jesus at the tender age of 33 – he would have been considered aged for his time.
Death was a constant companion, everybody lost somebody.
So putting the bible in that context is all the violence, subjugation, “put to death” edicts a reflection of God or a reflection of us?
We moved on – mostly, there are places in this world that are still mired in war and injustice – and as far as injustice goes we know it’s still alive and well here in North America as well.
So taking the bible and boiling away the human excess – if we take the gospels to be “gospel truth” what was the most important take away message? “Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself”
Whether he/she wears girdles, yoga pants, miniskirts, leggings or dresses like a smurf.
Mae wrote:
I’d rather see them there than ‘the Church Lady’ any day.
Studying the orthodox Jewish rules for living is pretty much a deep hole of insanity. Like, just when you think it’s gotten pretty weird, it gets weirder, and then it gets weirder still. Read the wiki on Niddah practices, and checking the bedikah.
I grew up Assembly of God (I’m a skeptic and atheist now) and they were mostly fussy about things like going to the theater (or watching improper movies/TV at home), dancing, gambling, smoking, drinking, mixed-gender swimming, etc. Pretty much the typical stuff. I remember some folks would go *extra* hardcore and have a big problem with even playing cards. My ex-wife’s grandfather had been a pastor back in the old days, and he and his wife used to love to play Skip-Bo (a totally innocuous family card game). But they were worried that one of their old pastor friends would judge them for it, so they hid the fact that they played for 30+ years.
The problem here (in my opinion) is in taking a book (*any* book) and setting it up as being the main source of your morality. Once you do that, you can’t really just go back to reason – you have to justify everything according to the book. And the Bible is nothing if not inconsistent. If you look hard enough, you can justify pretty much *anything*. And that is why secular morality is better. Not perfect, but at least we can start off with, “Okay, how should we people in a society together behave, in order for things to turn out most positively?”
My personal opinion, not based on any religious ideas, is that if what you got to show is not worth showing, then don’t show it-including don’t encase it in tight leggings with no tunic and nothing but jiggly fat to recommend the outfit.
I mean, really? Are you (generic) saying that if you (generic) have to look at it then I have to look at it also? Or is it some sort of testimony that you (generic) are not legalistic while anybody who hates to see what you are displaying is obviously a legalistic hypocrite?
The LCMS school of which I speak frequently prohibits leggings for the kids unless they are underneath a dress or other top of the required length. The way the kids got to dressing was atrocious (h***ers in training) and it had nothing to do with not having the ability to make better clothing choices. So the school revised the dress code and leggings and some other things mostly got eliminated in the new code. Nobody is persecuting the poor in this particular situation. Nevertheless, some parents were furious at the new dress code. Sometimes you can’t win for losing.
Remember Polonius’ advice to Laertes. Loosely translated: do the best you can. And that had nothing to do with religion.
@ okrapod:
Muffin tops, camel toe, certain men’s bike shorts, etc. need to go away.
The only places I could find any decent shorts for my girls (one, anyway) have been at the second hand shops. At Wal-mart you will find capris, bermudas which are so long they might as well be capris, and then things even shorter than 70s hot pants, that allow one’s butt cheeks to hang out the bottom. Exercise shorts tend to still be very short, exposing most of the thighs. There is nothing in between. I am on the verge of heading to Joann’s again to look at patterns and fabric.
Dave A A wrote:
And don’t forget, Biblical men *must* wear sandals!
Mae wrote:
I stayed a long time in a “woman hating” church (which was also a “working woman hating” church), because I thought, I have no interest in leadership in this church because I carry a lot of responsibility in the workplace.
I didn’t realize that by attending, tithing and volunteering, I was enabling this very unhealthy church, and not improving it for the future generations.
Can you imaging Tim Challies and John Piper standing before the Great White Throne of Judgement and explaining to Jesus that they didn’t allow women to tell the whole world about Him?
Janey wrote:
I expect they will explain that ‘the bible’ was the reason they silenced women …. the same ‘bible’ that has Our Lord sending Mary Magdalene to be the ‘Apostola Apostolorum’ when she is sent to announce the Resurrection to the Apostles …… the same ‘bible’ that speaks of the time God tells Abraham to ‘listen to Sarah’, his wife
?
somehow I don’t think the boyz will get away with using ‘the bible says’ excuse, no
“We’re in the age of the “Kidification” of America. We adults…refuse to build a vocation in order to hold a series of jobs that we never truly commit to…”
I’m guessing that Tim is using his blog to complain about a person he knows, in a passive-aggressive way. But this is just nonsense. The world of work has changed, and we’re not going back to the 1950s when you could spend 30 years at the plant and retire with a gold watch and a pension. What jobs has Tim held? I mean real jobs, not just writing blogs, making up new rules for people to blindly follow and talking at people from behind a box on Sunday? Does he even know how the world of work has changed, that many people jump around and do different things in an effort to survive? I just have no use for these guys.
Velour wrote:
IIRC way back when I met “christ family” members (followers of Lightning Amen AKA Charles McHugh) they weren’t even allowed to wear sandals and went barefoot under their robes because sandals would violate their “no killing” commandment. Or was it “no materialism”? I forget.
NJ wrote:
1) WHOSE Truth(TM)?
2) That’s just the Intellectual Snob version of Hypermasculinity.
GSD wrote:
Actually, I’m managing to do that (30 years at my present shop accumulating 401K), but I’ve got a specialization that’s really hard to replace (and makes me unhireable most anywhere else).
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John, yet even the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
We have no more thorough description I all the Bible of manly attire than John the Baptist. I wanted to follow his lead, but I couldn’t come to grips with the camel’s sacrifice.
Thanks
Traditionally, few men wore suits on a daily basis and many of those who did weren’t considered all that many by society. Those who did wear suits daily wore mainly dark suits with conservatives ties. Interestingly enough, the patterned shirts and suits sometimes worn by this gentleman could only be found in the children’s department. Those considered manly bought their others at the same ace as their tools and many would have considered this gentleman a sissy. The closest he comes to John the Baptist is a camel hair jacket. Maybe he thinks Mohler-wear is biblical.
He’s dissected the Bible and missed the point.
Dave A A wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Mk7idVfcA
linda wrote:
For all our talk of lower limbs, we should not forget that in Paul’s day it was also considered effeminate for men to wear long sleeves. Wife beater shirts could perhaps be endured for a season.
Dave A A wrote:
“Lightning Amen”?
Move over Mo David, you’ve been topped.
Velour wrote:
Those that talk the toughest are usually the wimpiest physical cowards when things go down for real. Don’t watch out for the big bragging types, watch out for the quiet ones in the background.
@ GSD:
You nailed it….not use for this nonsense either.
Janey wrote:
Understand. We stayed too long in a church that was taken over by calvanistas. I was almost 55 before I started to really understand the freedom Christ offered to ALL who believe.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Because “the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning” and
“Surely I come quickly. Amen.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
If it is, it goes back to at least Aristotle.
Mae wrote:
Here’s an excerpt from a comment by “W” from yesterday’s Internet Monk comment thread:
Dave A A wrote:
Now that’s a real stretch…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was in that same position a year ago, HUG. I was the only person at a very large company that had ever had this job description. Then they changed a policy, and my department went away. So now I’m a company of One, doing much the same work, for some of the same people. But it’s really different. More opportunity, much less security.
And I realize that in the corporate world, job security is an illusion.
Some people talk about the “Gig” economy, where most workers are independent contractors who move from gig to gig, like a musician. And the displacement we all feel is probably the effect of being in the opening stages of the massive digital revolution.
Anyway, I don’t think Challies gets this. And I think a big part of his cluelessness is that he can’t distinguish between what’s Christian, and what’s cultural. He really needs to live in a different culture for awhile so he can make this distinction. Although it’s possible that with his level of indoctrination, it wouldn’t do much good.
I was reminded of an interview with a missionary kid who grew up in Africa, in an area where women wore little to nothing above the waist. To him, it was no big deal, and we was mystified with how American males were obsessed with… female anatomy. I get the feeling that Challies would go over there and try to get everyone to wear clothes that matched his definition of modesty, much like the Victorians did. African women in denim jumpers. I’ll bet it’s happened.
Enjoy your job. Keep your parachute packed.
GSD wrote:
It’s certainly easier shopping on Amazon than around town. What concerns me is the possibility of robots taking over wide swaths of the workforce, necessitating a universal basic income. Oh well, at least Challies didn’t argue for fathers working in home based businesses, after the fashion of some in the recent patriarchy movement.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think it went something like,
“You may be confused about whether I’m the real Jesus because I’m out here in the desert and I warned folks not to look for me out here. But when I ascended I went into the clouds and the angel said I’d come back the same way– so the clouds of confusion in your minds prove I’m really me.”
Dee wrote,
Tim Challies does not believe that women should read Scripture out loud in a public gathering.
After watching the video and reading Matthew 23: 1-4, I’m not sure whether Tim Challies’s beliefs about women reading Scripture out loud in a public gathering are legalistic. As Jesus said, 5 “Everything they do (Pharisees) is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. Unlike the Pharisees, who were concerned with the external appearance of keeping the Law rather than the inward spirit of the Law, Tim Challies may truly believe he is in accord with the inward spirit of the Law.
shauna wrote:
Well, let’s remember, this is the same man who had an online meltdown after seeing Baby Bear play with dolls on “Sesame Street”. Give him credit: At least he’s consistently ridiculous!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/02/the-gospel-is-for-baby-bear-on-sesame-street-and-gender-confusion/
For a blog entitled “Thoughtlife”, it’s amazing how little thought seems to have gone into Strachan’s post.
Long, flowy tunics over leggings = my casual outfit. IMHO it’s a very feminine outfit, similar to the Indian Muslim kurta and salwa, a sartorial pairing that goes back centuries.
For church I wear empire-waist maxi dresses. They cover a multitude of sins. 🙂
I’m a lector (lay reader) at my parish. Challies would have a cow.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I don’t guess Owen ever had a sister. Kids play with each others toys.
One thing I have noticed about Piper and his cronies….their main goal is to sell books. The way to sell books is to come up with something new. Therefore, “Piperology” is all just made up rules and standards from, puppet master, Piper. Neo-Calvinist can’t make money from selling Bibles in their church coffee shops and Sunday book sale, and must come up with something “new and improved” that the people will buy.
My old Bible is full of women who God used for His purpose. I think of Deborah, the prophetess, who led Israel to victory over the Canaanites. First of all, she was a prophetess…was she a mute prophetess? She led the nation of Israel….how does a little old gal led a nation without telling the boys what to do???
Men stating what they think or feel the rolls of women should be, just shows their lack of Biblical knowledge. Neo Calvinist boys, you need to read the Bible more, cause we girls sure do!
For HUG:
How to Predict If a Borrower Will Pay You Back
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/05/what-the-words-you-use-in-a-loan-application-reveal.html
Lenders can apparently measure the probability of loans being repaid based on language borrowers use when applying
You might think—or at least hope—that a polite, openly religious person who gives his word would be among the most likely to pay back a loan. But in fact this is not the case. This type of person, the data shows, is less likely than average to make good on their debt.
Owen Strachan does not think adult women should wear leggings because only kids wear leggings.
News flash for Strachan: leggings were all the rage in the 1980s – everyone from teens to adults were wearing them.
They’re not just “for kids.” I sometimes still wear them, under long shirts or sweaters. They’re comfortable and look good when paired with boots. I sometimes wear capri length leggings with sandals.
Daisy wrote:
In my experience, Polite = Sociopath.
Way too often for me to take the risk.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. From the article:
Someone who mentions God was 2.2 times more likely to default. This was among the single highest indicators that someone would not pay back.
I believe it. My NPD brother would always “Swear to God!” whenever he was doing the Big Lie. Near 100% correlation. Our mother had a folk belief that if you “Swore to God” you couldn’t lie, and he took advantage of that.
It’s a lot like Got Hard going “NO! NEVER! I NEVER! PERISH THE THOUGHT!” when accused of sexually harassing his ATI interns (in denim jumpers… with looooong… waaaaavy… haaaaair….), where the stronger the negatives in the denial the more likely to be a Big Lie.
GSD wrote:
Here’s another one we could expound on a bit, but alas, I’d be skating on thin ice again, and besides, it would never get through customs anyway.
@ Muff Potter:
🙂
similarities abound …..
Dave A A wrote:
That is interesting. I would posit that male sleeveless garments carry various connotations about cultural identity today, whether you’re talking about the wife beater undergarment, the t-shirt with sleeves cut off, the sleeveless athletic shirt, or the colorful tank top. But I digress…
Daisy wrote:
From the article: “Here are the phrases used in loan applications by people most likely to pay them back: debt-free, lower interest rate, after-tax, minimum payment, graduate.”
What this means to me, is that people who are actually thinking about the practical, nitty gritty stuff and have the sense to appeal to a loan officer using that are better bets. People who just start talking about God either haven’t had practical thoughts or think that they can snow the investors by appealing to religion. I’m not surprised those people are less likely to pay things back, but I don’t think it has anything to do with religion itself.
This is also why people you don’t trust people who try to convince you to use their services because they are a Christian, rather than because they are a good, say, mechanic, and charge good prices.
Actually, you can have an army without women. You can have a police force without women. But due to genetics, testosterone and masculinity, you can’t have an army or a police force without men.
Piper’s got a point.
Josh wrote:
Clothing in general is entirely cultural. What you wear say something about you. Even things other people think are tacky might just mean that you weren’t brought up the same way as someone else. We instantly pick out, and often pick on, people who grew up poor or have little money to spend on clothes. People whose grandparents didn’t teach them the same sorts of things about what was proper. We ought to have compassion for those people, and I’m not going to say I’m always there. What I do think is that we should interpret people’s choices through a filter of age, class, etc and try to see where they are coming from before we judge.
On leggings, though, there is a world of difference between the cheap, see through leggings worn with a top that’s too short and the tunic/thick leggings with boots look, and the I’m wearing lululemon to yoga class variety. They all say different things from a fashion standpoint.
Brent wrote:
LOL
Lea wrote:
Love it.
What happens is as follows: If you fail on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, you have to have some reason why your self-proclaimed religious authority over others is justified, so you start making things up, like: it’s a sin to drink alcohol, for a woman to be a police officer, to wear leggings, to read aloud from the Bible, etc.
It’s also a matter of setting out a path to “justification” that’s easy for you to follow. It’s quite easy to drive past a bar for most people, it’s quite easy to tell the little lady “No police academy for you, hon”. Those things are so easy to do. Those fruits of the spirit, loving your enemies, standing up for the truth even if it costs you your front row seats of honor at the T4G convention, your book deals, your substantial conference speaking honoraria, your reputation among your adoring crowd, the authority and honor you so crave, your very career–now those are very, very hard things.
So if you’re a coward, gutless as all Pharisees are, you don’t take a stand for anything much, you just point the finger at leggings and female police officers–there’s your “righteousness”.
Brent wrote:
Actually, you can’t have an army of men, without women (.)
Mae wrote:
Those of us who’ve lived a long life (I’m over 50, too) serving the Lord, reading and studying the Word, and praying, realize that these TGC characters have no intention of imitating Christ.
Jesus is an embarrassment to them. Not manly enough. Jesus gave us the example of disagreeing with religious leadership focused on leggings and tithing on spices rather than lifting the burdens of people, meeting their needs, and showing genuine love and compassion.
Brent wrote:
Women can fly fighter jets just fine, thank you, women can shoot guns like nobody’s business. Some of the most feared snipers of the Second World War were women. You could look it up (though based on what you say I doubt you look much up). I guess in your world and Piper’s, it’d have been better if all those Nazis sniped by those brilliant female markswomen had lived on to kill more Jews and Allied soldiers. Then maybe, just maybe, neither you nor I would be alive to be writing back and forth. Who knows?
(My apologies if you’re just being facetious and mocking the Piper fanboy type)
Brent wrote:
Are you saying is that women do not have the genetics, sanctified testosterone, etc so they are unnecessary. If so, I disagree. I believe, theoretically, that one could have an effective, all women police force. These days brute force is usually discouraged, Many women can learn defensive tactics along with instruments like tasers, to take down a man.
Also, wars and conflicts are increasingly managed via technology. Women are perfectly capable of learning war tactics and applying their knowledge to drone strikes, etc. There are a number of women who are excellent jet fighter pilots since, once again, brute strength and sanctified testosterone are not necessary.
Finally, by removing women from police forces, church leadership, etc., we are depriving ourselves of the unique talents of women. I contend that more women in the church leadership would have made domestic abuse and child sex abuse a priority a long time ago.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I am. so happy to hear that! Women can help serve communion, be ushers and read the Scriptures of the day.
@ Brent:
even since biblical times, army generals can’t fight progress:
https://eatwithjoy.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/precious-jael-resized.jpg
Law Prof wrote:
It’s not even like they are laying out some works based righteousness that they have to follow. They are giving a bunch of rules for women, knowing they won’t have to do any of them. And then patting themselves on the back.
@ Brent:
Inside the World’s First All-Female Special Forces Unit: Norway’s Jegertroppen
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-world-s-first-all-female-special-forces-unit-norway-n746041
Brent wrote:
You can have a whole world without women ……. but, how long will it last?
@ Brent:
Hi Brent,
Piper is a little man, isn’t he? I don’t think he like’s muscular women. Does he find them a threat to his ‘image’? I don’t know.
But you might appreciate that strong women CAN and ARE beautiful people in this world. Piper might even admire these ladies from Iceland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK8baring7k
Had a dr’s appt today. While I waited, I read a recent article on the Vikings and burial/archeological sites that have been found in the last few years. There are strong indications that some Viking leaders were women. Possions buried with the Vikings caused people to assume that all Viking Warriors were men, but recent DNA tests have proven that some of those buried attired in, and with items, indicating high-ranking warrior leadership were actually women.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, but knowing exactly where is a bit of a challenge.
We have women everything: deacons, priests, bishops not to mention lectors, lay eucharistic ministers and ministers of music and various staff ministerial positions which do not require ordination. But we also have had some actually ordained heretics, apostates, even atheists in positions of influence, both male and female.
I have mixed feelings about the issues of where to draw the lines.
Rich wrote:
And no sex – it could lead to dancing! 🙂
okrapod wrote:
can you give a specific example of what you mean?
@ roebuck:
LOL
that’s funny!
Bridget wrote:
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Christiane wrote:
Because they could fold him up and stuff him in the dumpster when he gets all Drama Queen in their face, and he knows that. So they must be kept down, so as not to threaten the 5’6″ wet noodle of God’s Chosen Manly Man.
Nancy2 wrote:
India’s on the verge of finding out. The hard way.
What is it with neo-reformers who think they know everything? My male relative today started to pontificate on the subject of depression (he says is caused by too much introspection) and gay men (they can pray the gay away, because he personally knows a gay man who chose to marry a woman).
Well, I personally suffer from major depression since childhood. I have my safety nets in place and take responsibility for my treatment-but my brother has bought into the whole nouthetic counseling deal. It is mindless and insulting.
We were on a “family” text thread when he starts in on gay men. Little does he know that one of our nephews is gay.
Since embracing Calvinism, he has gone from being a kind and sensitive man to an insufferable know it all. What happened to Jesus and love and walking beside those who struggle??
I just don’t engage him on certain topics and some of my siblings are backing off too. It is like he has been brainwashed by the “pod people”. He doesn’t understand how offensive he is and blindly accepts whatever he is taught. When he told me he was working his way through Grudem’s Systematic Theology, I felt sick.
How do I maintain a relationship with a sibling who is so blinded? This has been reenforced in him, because he is now an elder and this feeds his self-esteem and ego.
I am so thankful for this site, because I am able to recognize where all the crap he believes comes from. I wish I could sit across the table with ya’ll with a cup of coffee and vent! Also he has daughters and each one’s wedding ceremony was heinous. (Including giving his adult daughter’s chastity away). Sorry for the rant!!
roebuck wrote:
That’s what they say about us Baptists, too!
It has also been said,
@ GSD:
I remember a long-ago high school class where the teacher talked about some visiting westerners who were so disturbed by the topless African women, they went to tremendous effort to raise money to buy T-shirts for the women. The women were a bit puzzled but accepted the gift of the shirts–and promptly cut holes in the front to free up their … front parts.
@ Christiane:
Wow! They were awesome.
@ Josh:
🙂
It’s a wonderful female narrative that you don’t need men for war or for police work.
But it’s a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1jCOkyuzCs
Bottom line, women make lousy warriors. If there’s a fracas outside my house and I call 911, I want a guy to show up. If a woman shows up first she’s [ wisely ] gonna wait for the guys. Guys don’t have to wait for the women.
Everyday, policemen end up getting in wrestling matches.
The Army has amazing technology but sooner or later you need male boots on the ground.
When it comes to hostility and war – women are lousy warriors.
@ dee:
It’s a really inspirational video to watch before you work out 🙂
I think these ladies have an edge with their positive attitudes ….. they’ve got their ‘mind game’ down pat
StillWiggling wrote:
A preacher (my granddaddy’s 2nd cousin) I knew who passed away some years ago visited Africa a few times with missionary groups. He told this story: Some of the first-time American missionaries were embarrassed because many of the African women came to revival services topless. So, one of the experienced female missionaries went up to the African ladies and quietly asked them if they could wear blouses to services for the rest of the week. The African ladies didn’t know what blouses are, so the missionary told them blouses are the clothes you wear above the skirts. The next night, the ladies came to revival still topless, but wearing belts.
Brent wrote:
I don’t think anyone said that.
@ Brent:
Brent, if you really NEED to believe stuff like this, you have been indoctrinated by men who need to put women down to build themselves up. No one questions the testosterone advantage ….. but there is something far more important than physical strength: mental endurance under pressure and an adrenaline rush to save loved ones which when it kicks it, women can do the impossible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzb23873nA4
@ Brent:
So, what are you? A Marine? A Airforce pilot? A Navy Seal? A Green Beret?
I’ll bet on “none of the above”.
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, he’s sure not a Catholic:
St. Jeanne d’Arc was NOT a ‘lousy warrior’. All France honors her courage to this very day, the same France that is famous for saying ‘vive la difference’. 🙂 And if he’s of English heritage, he obviously isn’t aware of the great Celtic warrior queen Boudica who gave the Romans a good fight.
I assume he’s Christian, but he cannot know of Deborah whose general would not go into battle without her leading the army …..
Maybe he is a devotee of Piper and at his feet, Brent learned about the ‘weakness’ of women. (?)
Brent wrote:
Me thinks you are way wrong.
Brent wrote:
You are very uninformed and ill-educated Brent, behind the times.
On top of the other degrees I’ve already earned, I’m pursuing an Administration of Justice degree. The head of the A.J. department IS a woman, with a long and respected career in law enforcement. She supervises men instructors with long and respected careers in law enforcement.
When federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies need recruits…they turn to her to and ask her for referrals.
The women have to pass the same physical agility tests that the men have to pass.
Men supervisors in law enforcement like women law enforcement employees for several reasons that research has proven to be true over and over again:
*Women have FAR LESS complaints about their conduct on the job from the public than men
(and also far fewer lawsuits are lodged by the public about the conduct of women than men)
*Women LISTEN better to instructions than men
*Women are better at DEESCALATING conflicts by talking to people
*Women have better WRITING skills than men (and in law enforcement requires lots of writing skills because of all of the reports that are written).
And lastly, it’s the law of the land and federal anti-discrimination laws require the hiring of QUALIFIED women.
Nancy2 wrote:
They have found the same thing with cave paintings that were always thought to have been painted by men. The DNA extracted…is from women!
@ Christians, mot, & Velour:
A man who thinks like Brent does simply gives a woman the advantage!
Brent wrote:
I backpacked through Patagonia, Chile, at the very tip of South America (not too far away from Tierra del Fuego).
I met scores of women Israeli soliders on the trail in Patagonia at the national park Torres del Paine. I have never met tougher women than those women Israeli soldiers.
It is very common for Israeli soldiers to go on a backpacking trip of some kind after their finish their mandatory military service. Israel requires men AND women to serve in the military for a very good reason. All hands are needed in their little country from many foes.
Israel has proven John Piper wrong too about women in the military.
@ Brent:
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What do you do for a living?
How much education do you have?
It seems odd that the biblical man of “sanctified testosterone” is that concerned about fashion trends.
Nancy2 wrote:
+1
Velour wrote:
Do not know if Brent is a Baptist, but if he is he needs to read about Lottie Moon. The current women “haters” in the SBC try to downplay what she did for the SBC, but she was as great a person that there has been in the SBC IMO and guess what she was a woman.
mot wrote:
I think of her as the Baptist saint …. the Anglicans have given her a ‘day’ on their liturgical calendar to honor her work for the Church …. no doubt great amounts of hard-earned money has been donated in her name by Baptists for the missions, and the SBC big-wigs still use her name to bring money in. (I just hope they spend it on missions because I think that must be what donators intend it for)
mot wrote:
So true, MOT.
And I’m not even a Southern Baptist and I RESPECT Lottie Moon.
Velour wrote:
She would never be allowed to be a missionary today by the current SBC leadership IMO. They are afraid of strong women.
mot wrote:
And it is despicable what today’s SBC hate-filled men are doing to women.
Thank you for always doing the right thing, MOT, by women and for being such a stand-up brother in the Lord!
@ Velour:
Seems that poor little John Piper has yet to watch the excellent British itv programme Vera. But on a more serious note it could be that men like him come from a background of abuse from a female relative(?).
And please pray for Manchester, those affected by the bomb attack and for relations between the different communities in the UK not to become even more contentious.
clarissa wrote:
Yes, Clarissa, we Wartburgers need to do this.
Thank you.
clarissa wrote:
I suppose that some of these men could have developed their hostility to women via being abused by women.
On the other hand one of the things that I have noticed about these NeoCalvinist men is that the majority of them had: absent fathers, or abusive fathers, or alcoholic fathers/drug-addicted fathers, or some such dysfunction. They don’t know how to be men because they didn’t have it properly modeled for them. And they overcompensate by making up rigid rules.
There are, of course, some NeoCalvinist men who hold to these rigid beliefs whose fathers were perfectly fine and were present in their lives. Perhaps they just have rigid personalities and it is easier for them to deal with the world in black and white. It would be nice, however, if they admitted that black & white thinking is a shortcoming and not a virtue.
Should women teach men? Well, here is something I learned very recently. Gregory of Nyssa was a very important theologian who helped finalize the Nicene Creed at the Second Council of Nicea. He praised his sister Macrina as a great teacher. See https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1979-1/1979-1-07.pdf
Macrina was an exemplary teacher of the Word, respected by men and women, and by lay people and clergy alike. While as one would expect in a fourth-century work written by an orthodox bishop, Macrina exercises no sacramental function, but no one questions that she must be accepted as an authoritative guide in the philosophic life. So authoritative is she as a teacher that Gregory the bishop portrays himself as an admirer of, and learner from, this woman who was the “common boast of our family.” In his last conversations with her in the Life, Gregory appears as the one who is in need of comfort and instruction, and these he receives from Macrina. Within this context, note should be made that Macrina is explicitly a teacher of the Word; that is, Gregory presents her as an expert in expounding Scripture.
So the next time you recite the Nicene creed, think about Macrina’s contribution.
Janey wrote:
oxymoron
Ken F wrote:
I meant to blockquote this section from the link, but I messed up the formatting.
@ Ken F:
I have heard of St. Macrina. She seems to have been on par with her Cappadocian brothers according to New Advent’s article on her. She was interested in the renewal of all things in the life beyond this Earth.
@ Ken F:
Thanks, Ken F., for the well-researched comments and links. I copy and stash them at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, the Books/TV/Movies/ETC. tab so that people can read them in the future.
-Signed,
The Wartburg Squirrel
Just got back to the house after a few days fly-fishing. This post made me laugh! Someone needs to tell Strachan that skinny jeans should not be worn by preachers!
Max wrote:
Catch and release? Or catch and fry?
Max wrote:
And styling gelled spikes hairdos……
Brent wrote:
Are you trolling? I honestly cannot tell.
Whether you like it or not, those in secular authority disagree with you, and women are permitted to work in law enforcement and in the military (including combat positions now).
The world marches on, regardless of how you feel about women’s “proper” roles in life or employment.
Say hello to all your friends back in 1952. The rest of us are now in the year 2017.
Via CNN, Dec. 2015:
U.S. military opens combat positions to women
Via Wall St Journal, Dec 2015:
Defense Secretary says U.S. opening all military combat roles to women
Police Woman Fights Off Machete-Wielding Man [and wins]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3687688/Female-Chinese-SWAT-member-disarms-flips-knife-wielding-man-ground.html
Via Daily Mail, May 2015:
Woman uses karate skills to save herself from violent attacker
‘I have no doubt I broke his nose and ribs’: Karate black-belt turns the tables on skinhead rapist who attacked her from behind on a dark street… and urges ALL women to learn martial arts
…Taela Davis was attacked from behind near her home, in broad daylight …Ms Davis used her 15 years of karate training to knee him in the groin and ribs and head-butt him’
Via The Atlantic, May 2016:
The First Infantry Women of the U.S. Marines
‘The Corps has approved two women for roles previously open only to men.’
“The Marines have approved one woman to become a rifleman and another to become a machine gunner, The Military Times reported Monday. Both women requested the jobs.”
Interesting editorial via AlertNet, June 2013:
GOP Senator Inadvertently Explains Why Women Are Better Suited For Combat Than Men
‘Are young men just too hormonal for the battlefield?’
Via NPR, July 2014:
The Marines Are Looking For A Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women
Via Daily Mail, May 2015:
Trailblazing female Air Force pilot makes history as first woman to fly new F-35 fighter jet
‘Lt. Col. Christine Mau got inside the cockpit of the new F-35 Lightning II on Tuesday for her first flight’
Via New York Daily News, March 2016:
Miami 9-year-old girl finishes day-long Navy SEAL obstacle course race, trains for more extreme races in quest against bullying
Via Military dot com, March 2016:
First Female Navy SEALs Could Get Assignments in 2017, Plans Show
‘The first female enlisted Navy SEALs could be assigned to units next fall, and the first female SEAL officers could be in place by 2018, a newly approved Navy implementation plan shows.’
Via ABC News, Jan 2012:
Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It’s OK to Shoot
‘A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year’s Eve, less than a week after the baby’s father died of cancer.’
@ Brent:
I have a nice long list of headlines and a link or two currently unpublished to news stories showing the American military is now allowing women in combat positions,
News stories of women using karate to beat up would-be attackers….
And news stories of women living alone taking out home intruders with fire-arms…
A news report of a police woman who beat up a guy who came at her with a machete.
Just scroll back up the page to read those headlines over whenever it’s published, Brent.
Bridget wrote:
That’s true.
I don’t think anyone ever says a nation doesn’t need men in military or law enforcement capacities, only that if women want to and/or are capable, they should be given an opportunity to serve in those positions as well.
@ Velour:
Catch and release.
Max wrote:
Gotcha.
I’m a catch and fry kinda woman.
Christiane wrote:
Sorry I currently don’t have the time or patience to watch that entire video – but is that the same person as…
Teen girl uses ‘crazy strength’ to lift burning car off dad (Jan 2016)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/humankind/2016/01/12/teen-girl-uses-crazy-strength-lift-burning-car-off-dad/78675898/
I guess if Brent is ever trapped under a burning car, and a capable woman walks past, he would prefer she keep walking on by and call a man to come help him (and by then, it may be too late).
Velour wrote:
Me, too. With hushpuppies and slaw …..
Nancy2 wrote:
I used to have a Christian friend who believed strongly in traditional gender roles for women. He felt it was biblically-based.
Part of that was the idea it was up to a man to lead and to provide…
Problem as I saw it was that this friend of mine, in his mid to late 20s, was living with his grandmother, and she did all his cooking and cleaning, and he was not employed.
He later married and did eventually get a part time minimum wage job, but… his wife had a full time professional job and paid all or most of their bills.
I do not grasp how it is that some men who preach this traditional gender role stuff don’t even live it out themselves.
Also. I sent him a good book by a Christian gender egalitarianism once.
I could tell from his comments that he didn’t actually read the book, though he claimed he had. I pressed him on it, and he admitted he only read the back cover of the book, not the book itself.
mot wrote:
I think Brent’s a grenade tosser or a dude who just got dumped, maybe both.
Nancy2 wrote:
I catch & release trout, but catch and fry catfish (peanut oil). Throw some hand-cut fries in with those hushpuppies and slaw, with a slice of Vidalia onion. Wash it down with ice tea. Heaven!
To stay on topic, we won’t invite any skinny jean preachers over!
Watchman on the Wall wrote:
“Power sharing – setting up roles and sharing power in partnerships – one side of the story will no longer do.” Interesting interview with couple: Stephen Marche and Sarah Fulford. http://bit.ly/2rObwS5
Ann wrote:
Strangled by the Arrogance of the Predestined Elect, God’s Speshul Pet.
Christiane wrote:
Listening to every word with dewy eyes and trembling lips…
Nancy2 wrote:
I recall reading a few years back about an ancient tribe in the Ohio river valley. They were part of the Algonquin Nation. They reckoned kinship matrilineally. They didn’t give a rat’s rip who your father was, they wanted to know about your mother.
Their chiefs were male, but they could only serve at the pleasure of what they called the council of crones, wise women herbalists and healers.
They met in council every two years to review the current chief and decide whether or not he was fit to continue as chief.
Brent wrote:
Try telling that to the Russian women who fought and died on the Eastern Front (1941-1945).
Nancy2 wrote:
Me three. Lake Michigan perch (back in the day) slaw and fried potatoes.
Muff Potter wrote:
Several American Indian tribes were matriarchal and matrilineal, including Cherokee and Choctaw ……. until white men came and things got reversed.
Doesn’t appear that the Victorian Era in GB and the golden age of Russia under Catherine the Great had much influence on white men’s opinions on women……… to this day, in *certain parts* of society.
Muff Potter wrote:
Fried green tomatoes make a mighty fine side dish, too, when they are in season!
Nancy2 wrote:
I knew you were my kind gal, Nancy2.
I think we should add this to our list of activities when we have Camp Backbone in Kentucky. Catch & fry, with hushpuppies and slaw.
Max wrote:
We will, however, be shooting their Patriarchy books to smithereens with real ammo at Camp Backbone in Kentucky. Now that’s a sport I’m looking forward to!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL!!!!
Muff Potter wrote:
Thank you Muff. I’m 1/2 Russian. Dee is also Russian too.
Muff Potter wrote:
We are gonna have a mighty fine fish fry in Nancy2’s neck of the woods there in Kentucky when we have Camp Backbone.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Ann raises a very interesting point about the hatefulness of NeoCalvinists.
I was ORDERED to use hate speech against this group of people by women members at my ex-gulag, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley (9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite/NeoCalvinist/Patriarchy-promoting). I REFUSED. I was ordered to my face to do this.
Besides being crass and hateful, it’s also a form of unlawful discrimination at my job
and a firing offense in my state (California).
The two women who were most into this horrible speech didn’t work and didn’t have to deal with the real world. The older hater of the two, a retired nurse, used to work for our county hospital prior to retiring. I am sure that if she had let her hate speech be known on the job, she would have been fired.
Many of us women who are older know we are the leader of our clans. Ask our husbands, fathers, and sons. They’ll tell you who runs things.
Is that guy still here?
Women are slowly taking over the military-industrial complex
https://qz.com/988635/many-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-militaries-are-now-run-by-women/
Snippet:
Lincoln Ne. SWAT team
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/police/about/swat/pic/2015alley.jpg
Modernism, which denies and abolishes every difference, cannot rest until it has made woman man and man woman.
—Abraham Kuyper (1898)
Brent wrote:
Brent,
So you posted a picture of a conservative part of the nation and one SWAT team, all men.
Did you notice that they were diverse ethnicities (black, Asian, etc)?
It takes time for women to break the glass ceiling. But women in law enforcement are breaking these barriers and doing a terrific job. I personally know the woman police chief who used to head the women police chiefs of America association.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/06Rpolice.html
@ Brent:
Women on S.W.A.T. teams: http://www.officer.com/article/12143785/let-gender-neutral-women-in-tactical-units
@ Brent:
Utah woman law enforcement officer on S.W.A.T. team: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/one-of-the-guys-the-first-female-swat-team-member/article_1ba075db-2091-57ce-8fae-530153aa7e56.html
@ Brent:
Chinese woman S.W.A.T. team member takes down knife-wielding man in one motion:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3687688/Female-Chinese-SWAT-member-disarms-flips-knife-wielding-man-ground.html
@ Brent:
Sue Clark, law enforcement professional, from Omaha, Nebraska Police Department who qualified to be on the tactical team/S.W.A.T. team.
(She wasn’t chosen because her husband was already on the team.)
http://www.omaha.com/money/salute-to-labor-meet-nebraska-women-who-were-trailblazers-in/article_875e4d4d-3ec3-5e11-afc5-17d3229fd583.html
Brent wrote:
He was an avowed NeoCalvinist. And he was wrong about many things.
Life goes on. Things change. And no, the universe is not going to implode because of it.
Several conservative women have been on social media saying that NeoCalvinism and Complementarianism/Patriarchy are meaningless in their lives. One woman is a farmer. She posted on social media from her tractor. She farms thousands of acres. She is unmarried.
Another woman conservative followed suit. She’s a rancher and said same.
@ Brent:
Perhaps you missed my questions up the thread for you, Brent. I am curious.
*How old are you?
*What is your level of education?
*What kind of work do you do?
*What part of the nation do you live in?
@ Brent:
Philadelphia woman S.W.A.T. member and she’s AWESOME!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RazOVLWWBgU
Daisy wrote:
Brent: The issue is that QUALIFIED men AND women are needed in law enforcement and the military. (It’s also a requirement under federal anti-discrimination laws.)
Daisy: +1
Yes, he appears to be trolling.
And good research on your part refuting him.
Brent wrote:
“What a load of blarney” Jack 2017
C’mon everybody! Party like it’s 1899!
BTW, we’re into post modern existentialism. Modernism is sooooo 20th century.
Ann wrote:
Yeah, I knew one of those too. Didn’t turn out so well.
Brent wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Brent, but you know that’s not Pipers point, right? He doesn’t CARE if women are good at something or not. He just wants them to step aside for the men, regardless.
Lea wrote:
Who would you rather protect you:
a. the hapless, flailing John Piper, or
b. this terrific woman law enforcement officer who work for the Philadelphia Police Department S.W.A.T. team?
Philadelphia woman S.W.A.T. member and she’s AWESOME!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RazOVLWWBgU
Jack wrote:
Nailed it, Jack.
Brent wrote:
The deadliest people in history are always snipers and a good number of the deadliest snipers in history are women. So your point is false.
I think you need to start studying outside your little realm.
Velour wrote:
I can just hear my brother saying that female Marines could take any pastor. His best friend was his matron of honor and she is tough as nails.
Getting back to original post…. I like Dee’s title.. as my hair grays, and as i step back and attempt to objectively look at my experience with American, protestant, Christianity, each “flavor” ( i.e. Group/denomination/non-demoniantion denomaination/etc) has its own midrash/distinctives, which they try to “sale” at various intensities on how they are “true way”.
Mark Knoll, in the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, explained it by saying that since the State is not declaring what is the offical religion, it is up to each “flavor” to market themselves to get people in the pews…
Velour wrote:
i.e. The Drama Queen with the permanent case of the Pearl-clutching Vapors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRhovNlNck4
(Sorry, Rarity, but your fainting couch meltdown scene is just so appropriate…)
Brent – you’re a male and I’m a female. Have you ever personally had a baby? Have you ever been thru hours and hours of gut wrenching pain to deliver a child? Women are warriors because they go thru this. They have outstanding strength. My daughter turns 30 next week. She weighted a whopping 11 lbs, 9 ounces at birth. She wasn’t born by c-section either. Tell me I’m not a strong woman. Tell me that since I’ve gone thru over 50 surgeries on my body that I don’t have strength to win the battle. I’m a fighter to the end. I’m 2 months post-op from shoulder surgery. My physical therapists are amazed at my progress and how I won’t give up. Maybe you just don’t understand the human race as a whole. I hope that is so.
ishy wrote:
HA! I know that’s a true statement.
I could probably take Piper with one hand tied behind my back and I’m no marine.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
And it’s sad how the healthiest expressions of Christianity are passive about attracting followers, and the aberrant groups are dedicated marketers.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
With over 50,000 Christian denominations and organizations, I don’t think I have enough time left to taste each flavor! They have been cooked up by recipes based on the teachings and traditions of mere men. America is a smorgasbord of religion, ranging from fast food to buffet style. Each distinct group thinks they alone are serving up Truth, but are far from it … most diners leave still hungry.
Of course, there is only one Church. But finding where it is worshiping in Spirit and Truth in the 21st century has become a wearisome task. To go to church in America is to settle for far less than God has intended for you. At best, you might find the Church within the church … but that is like searching for a hidden treasure, the genuine amidst the array of counterfeit.
Janey wrote:
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
– Yeats, Poet and Prophet.
Max wrote:
That’s what keeps me in less-than-fantastic churches: the wonderful people who really love God and their neighbor as themselves.
In the past, I put up with toxic leadership in order to be with these special people. But having left my toxic home church, I’ve found another church where everyone — from top to bottom — is a lot healthier and happier. It makes a difference.
By the way, I found my new church by asking people who had left my home church 10 years before: “Where are you attending now?” If I hadn’t done that, I would never have found this church because it doesn’t do any self-promotion.
@ Lea:
Perfect poem.
Janey wrote:
That is a good sign that you might have just discovered where the Body of Christ is meeting in your area! The true Church does not promote self; it promotes Jesus. When you lift Jesus up, He will draw folks to Himself.
I often read in the ‘patriarchy’ writings how women are to be kept at home until their parents arrange a suitor for them …. no chance at education, or working in the world that could much use their God-given gifts ….
and I think about all the people my niece has helped over the years, in Iraq and in Haiti aboard the ‘USS Hospital Ship Comfort’, and in Afghanistan, and serving in Japan and at the military hospitals in the states.
Lindz had played the piano at an evening gathering, and an older gentlemen said to her father, my brother ‘it’s a shame such a beautiful girl isn’t married, she needs a husband to take care of her’, and so my brother introduces the gentleman to beautiful Lindz:
‘come and meet my daughter Lt. Commander _______.’ The older gentlemen must have also been a Piper worshiper, because he was very much surprised indeed (and we hope a little humbled)
dee wrote:
But he never manages to show up on his blog. That article had hundreds of comments over a 2-1/2 year period and DeYoung responded to NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Janey wrote:
You see the same pattern in Furry Fandom, where the aberrant no-lifes dominate the Who’s Who of Big Name Fans. Because they don’t have jobs or lives — only their Obsession — they can concentrate on defining/building/marketing their brand (and drowning/shouting out everyone else) 24/7/365 without letup. The Loud Crazies have a way of defining the public face of any movement, and these guys are LOUD. And DEDICATED.
Lea wrote:
ANYONE could probably fold Piper up and stuff him in a dumpster.
It’s why he has to pull a Handmaid’s Tale; like Womb Tomb Swanson, he’s an Omega Male trying to convince everyone (including himself) that he’s really the Big Strong Alpha. ANd with someone that weak, the only way to be stronger than others is the Zero Sum Game — make sure everyone else is weaker. This is also called “race to the bottom”.
Leila wrote:
Yup. In a similar vein, Deborah being a judge in the OT was a reflection of God’s curse (according to these men and their ilk) because of the people’s disobedience. Maybe because no manly men could be found to step up and be a judge?
Two people very patiently tried to explain this to me and make it sound logical, but I just couldn’t get it.
Janey wrote:
‘in silence, the Word’ 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know how I feel about this alpha/beta/omega male thing, but now when I see Piper all I can think of is that video where he’s talking about something lame, and then somebody starts talking about football or whatever and he goes strait to ‘we almost killed a guy’. That was crazy! Weird Male dynamics at work right there.
Back to the Title of this piece, I have heard certain fanfics compared to Midrash.
The idea is the fanfics explore the background world of the primary work, speculating and illuminating/interpreting things hinted at in the primary.
refugee wrote:
Because it’s stupid?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I did have an ex who told me I liked him because he was an ‘alpha’ and I thought that was deeply weird. Should have listened to that thought.
Lea wrote:
“Male Dynamics” as in —
“WE ALMOST BROKE NECK IN FOOTBALL! ME PART OF IT! ME BIG STRONG MANLY ALPHA! SEE? SEE? SEE?”
Root 66 wrote:
That doesn’t surprise me. The “membership guide” used in the church membership class, a couple years ago, at the church where my family goes was evidently taken from the membership covenant at John Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist church.
I suspect this because whoever put it together forgot to change “Bethlehem” at one point in the document to the name of the new church.
Lea wrote:
“When all men are paid for existing
And no one may pay for their sins;
As surely as water will wet us,
As surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
With Fire and Terror Return!”
— Rudyard Kipling, “Gods of the Copybook Headings”
(I’m much more into Kipling than Yeats)
Lea wrote:
Sounds more like “Legend in His Own Mind”.
This is probably one of those things where “Those who say they are, Ain’t”.
Christiane wrote:
You mean “until they are sold to their new owner”?
“She’s… Ovulating.”
— South Park PETA episode
NJ wrote:
You know, maybe they’re basing the whole “woman will be more likely to fall prey to the subtleties of mental and theological error” on their observation of the poor suckers they’ve managed to snow and put under their “twice the sons of hell” spells.
When all that’s really happened is they’ve managed to ensnare people-pleasers, for one thing. It may have started as a malicious game of seeing how many hoops they could make people jump through, and turned into a deadly serious power struggle.
OTOH, they might be sincere rather than malicious. I’m not sure which thought is more troubling.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Narcissist, I think maybe. Looking back.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Missed the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_the_Copybook_Headings
dee wrote:
Reminds me of the anecdote in one of Corrie ten Boom’s books about the Nazi who refused medical treatment or a transfusion from an inferior “non-person” after the war. It came off as pure, uncompromising hatred.
I never made the connection before, and it’s both astonishing and troubling to translate these men’s teachings to see them as “pure, uncompromising hatred” towards women.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I have been troubled by my lack of desire to go to church, to pray, to read the Bible.
Do these symptoms mean I never was really a Christian, or something else?
Lea wrote:
Besides, if people stop showing up regularly, pretty soon they might get the idea in their head that they don’t really need all this stuff, and worse, they might decide that giving (tithing) is really a voluntary, from-the-heart thing rather than an obligation set in stone (10% off the gross! minimum!).
Lea wrote:
Given that Piper says a woman should give a man directions in a submission manner and not look him in the eye, I think I could just cut Piper “a look” and send him running for the nearest rat hole.
NJ wrote:
Have you ever noticed how narrow the top of a pedestal is? It makes a very effective trap. You can’t move your feet, and the rest of you needs to keep quite still if you want to keep your balance and not fall down and get hurt.
refugee wrote:
I still study the Bible. But, I have no desire to go to church, but it’s not me; its church. I’m having difficult praying right now, but it’s not me; its church teachings.
The idea that women must submit to men ……. “A wife must submit to a husband as if he were God!”…… No one says it bluntly, but church strongly insinuates that women can never be as close or as useful to God as men are – just because ….. plumbing ……… Why would God listen to a woman?
If the church is right, why should a woman go to church? If the church is wrong, it’s teaching heresy, so why should anyone go to church?
Christiane wrote:
That thinking doesn’t work well for them. There is a demographic problem that no patriarch can overcome: There simply aren’t enough Christian men for the number of Christian women. It’s about a 4:5 ratio.
The more extreme rules your family has, the fewer acceptable suitors your daughters will have. Your family may have so many rules, no one can qualify.
Daughters need to have the courage to insist on skills and education to make a living.
I know a many homeschooled women who have never had a “rule-keeping” suitor or boyfriend, and they are very nice women in their 30s.
What will they do if Daddy doesn’t leave them enough money to keep a roof over the head?
Velour wrote:
I hear tell Muff’s got him a mini-gun squirreled away out in the desert. But don’t go spreadin’ that around…
Janey wrote:
Plural Marriage(TM)?
“That’s THEIR problem.”
— Daddy (“I’ll be gone by then, so…”)
Watchman on the Wall wrote:
They *do* read the Bible assiduously. It must take a lot of reading and thinking and more reading and more pondering to be able to twist the scriptures to say what they want them to say. As I mentioned a little bit ago, they point to Deborah, as well, and have this ready explanation for her being a judge that makes it sounds like sound shameful. Her being a judge was actually a judgment on Israel, according to these guys.
When a couple was trying to explain this concept to me, I kept saying back to them what I heard them saying (God was cursing Israel? Deborah was a curse?), and they kept replying, “No! That’s not what we said,” and then they’d explain it all over again, pretty much the same way they’d explained it before.
@ Nancy2:
Thank you, Nancy2. That’s a comfort.
refugee wrote:
it would be impossible to explain to them that THEIR despicable behavior towards women IS a result of The Curse ….
but they have no clue
Lea wrote:
Not to tar all homeless people with the same brush, but in our area, there seems to be one or more on every freeway offramp. A high percentage of their signs mention God in some way, along with other personal-sounding details. (“family of five” or “war vet” or “need money for food” and various renditions of “God bless you”)
I got disillusioned when I saw a “shift change” one day… One person handed off this personal-sounding appeal to another person, and walked off. Something clicked in my brain. The sign didn’t mean anything, really. It was just calculated to move someone to hand bills out their car window.
Lea wrote:
It also cuts the other way, with “christians” expecting others to give them a cut rate just because they’re “brothers and sisters in Christ”. So expect that hard-working mechanic or plumber or carpenter or roofer or whatever to work for half-price, or maybe even give their services away.
Law Prof wrote:
OTOH, if you’re R.C. Sproul, Jr., you might teach that it’s a sin *not* to drink alcohol.
Basically, the Bible says pretty much what they want it to say. At least, the way they teach it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, do you have some links for reading more about this? I admit to being clueless. *China* mentioned in such a context would not surprise me. I guess I don’t know much about India.
@ Ann:
Oh, Ann. I feel ya. I really do. I have experienced the same thing–a kind man who turned into more and more of a jerk the more he was exposed to patriarchal teachings.
Velour wrote:
I have said this before and I will say it again.
“Men and Women are Equal in every way”
This means that any job a man can do, a woman can do and vice versa.
And don’t bring the motherhood excuse. I pulled the night shift after the birth of our son, doing all the night feedings (we had a difficult birth – so my wife needed all the healing time she could get) plus I would get up in the morning and work. My wife worked evenings for years so yes a man can be a “mom” (I know at least one single father who did this role permanently).
I do not care what the bible says. That was written a long time ago in a different culture.
It really annoys me that there are those (like these neocalvinists – but you could add in all sorts of “traditional” faiths – including non-christian ones) who want to drag people back to the bronze age.
We’re all naked under our clothes – what you wear is irrelevant, how you act towards others is.
Brent wrote:
I will believe that modernism has made man woman when the first man makes it through pregnancy and childbirth.
Jack wrote:
I was listening to a podcast about dark ages (?) Britain and they mentioned that there were a huge percentage of single fathers because so many women died in childbirth.
Also, after reading your comment, I have ‘anything you can do I can do better’ stuck in my head!
refugee wrote:
There is a lady I have run into at least twice (and somebody at work mentioned the same thing) who keeps telling me her house burnt down. Months and months apart.
@ Jack:
Amen, Jack. A man can be a “mom” to kids as much as a woman can be a “dad”–as some have had to be, say, in single-parent families. Basically, I believe it’s called “parenting”.
God gives good gifts (talents and capabilities and capacities), but man (in the general sense, not the gender) demands that we bury those talents that don’t fit the boxes they want to stuff both men and women into.
Lea wrote:
LOL.
You would!
Janey wrote:
One well-known example being the Botkin sisters.
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2017/01/10-years-later-botkin-sisters-remain.html
I had lots of rules for my oldest daughter, who married and divorced young. My future ex-son-in-law went through pretty much the whole process– went to our church, had a “testimony”, got to know me before asking me for the OK to ask her out, and later for her “hand”. After about a year he decided marriage wasn’t for him, ran off to Vegas and disappeared, aside from an occasional arrest report. 16 years later she just finally remarried and the new SIL seems like a fine man, nearly middle-aged and a new grandpa.
I truly believe this is God pruning His church separating the wheat from the Tares by waking those of us up Todd. You have been taken out of your sleep and given spiritual truth by God because your heart desires truth. You recognized the injustice of what CJ did and would not endorse him or a church who supports someone that harbored child abusers by the selling of his books. That takes Godly character and His spirit dwelling in you to say No! I feel as you do. I believe you are like me and the rest of us. I love the church (Gods people) my brothers and sisters. I love even those who hurt us but I don’t like what they did or do nor will I stand by and support it through silence or permitting it by doing nothing. I don’t just grieve the loss of relationships at our former church but a brother in Christ an elder in another church put it this way. Maybe you feel the way you do because you were never really bound together as believers in your former church and of course it hurts your heart to grieve those losses but it’s a testimony that the Holy Spirit dwells with in you because you can still love them. I have to agree and sometimes loving others means holding them accountable. That is what I believe these blogs do. Because if the church will not do it within then the church outside those walls need to encourage, pray for, and hold them accountable with Gods word. I commend you Todd for taking a stand and you inspire me to do the same. How amazing would it be if we could all meet together at a location and have bible study/ church and fellowship through breaking bread together? Maybe TWW readers in each state can get together for bible studies and fellowship it’s an idea. refugee wrote:
Dave A A wrote:
Your daughter’s story is fairly close to mine. The Formula doesn’t guarantee a good marriage. Thank goodness I got a great guy the second time. I focused on character, not on following step-by-step rules. We’re very happy, but it caused some raised eyebrows.
Lea wrote:
Used to be a BS artist in Furry Fandom like that.
Every con, new disaster – robbery, burglary, heart attack, car stolen, house fire, tornado, you name it.
Guy became a running joke:
“What’s [name] like?
‘I’M [NAME]! I’M IN TROUBLE! GIMME YOUR MONEY! GIMME YOUR MONEY!'”
refugee wrote:
No links at this time. Entirely Verbal from source, his sources unknown (though I can check).
Went like this:
Traditional India has a dowry system where the bride’s family pays money to the groom’s family. Sometimes a BIG sum of money. (Like they’re paying the groom to take her off their hands.)
Result: Daughters are “dowry siphons”, draining money from the family. Sons are “dowry magnets”, bringing money into the family. If you have lots of sons and no daughters, much dowry flows into the family and increases your family wealth. (While families with lots of daughters and no sons get poorer and poorer.)
Add modern technology, i.e. in utero sex determination and on-demand abortion, AKA “search-and-destroy”. Abort all your daughters in utero and have only sons and “KA-CHING!” Your family gets very very rich from dowry.
Now there’s this thing called “Tragedy of the Commons”. The above get-rich-quick scheme works GREAT as long as you are the ONLY one doing it. (“KA-CHING!”) If everybody does it, everybody ends up with lots of Sons to bring dowry into the family with NO daughters to marry.
According to my source, when this was pointed out, the response was to smile and say “That is their problem. We will reap the benefits.”
Also according to my source, the sex ratio among Indian children (now entering marriageable age) was running four or five men for every eligible woman. (“Forty to one in some villages”, but I don’t how reliable HIS source for the numbers was.) Result is an explosion in “bridenapping into forced marriages” for rich men — pay the slavers’ fee and you get one. Also an epidemic in gang-rapes by men who figure “this is the only way I’m going to get any” as well as revenge on women for not being available. (And the connected epidemic in lynchings when the victims’ families get hold of said rapists.)
That is what I was told by my source. I can check on his sources next time I see him.
This is what happens when you introduce in-utero sex determination and abortion-on-demand to a Patriarchal society where only sons have value — NOT daughters.
Christiane wrote:
Because It’s Always HER Fault, Not MINE.
refugee wrote:
They honestly want to enslave men as much as women. They just trick men into thinking they are not enslaved. And most of these men believe them without much questioning at all while certain all along that only women can be deceived.
refugee wrote:
I don’t think the average man in a New Calvinist church reads much of the Bible. They are trained to mainly read Calvinista authors so they can “have a correct understanding” of the Bible.
And I think many of the people they read are phonies and only out to make themselves rich and powerful. So they might study the Bible, but they do so with the intention to deceive gullible Christians.
In other news, Zondervan has come out with the “NIV Lifehacks Bible” full of inspiring and surely propagandist notes from none other than Joe Carter.
I’m only using the original languages from now on. Maybe I’ll translate my own Bible.
ishy wrote:
Oh no! they’ve got the NIV.
See this is why I only use KJV 😉
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In addition to the dowry, there’s the Bad place known as “put”. Not sure how influential this is anymore.
“Hindus believe that all men come into this world burdened by a debt – the pitr-runa (pitr = ancestor; runa = debt). The only way to repay this debt is to father a male offspring. During funerary rites, known as shraadha, Hindu males are reminded of this debt. In the Dharmashastras, Hindu law books written between 500-1000 A.D., it is said that those who fail to repay this debt end up in the Hell known as Put where they suffer for all eternity. Since the birth of a child, preferably male child, liberates a man from his debt, the Sanskrit word for son is putra (deliverer from Put). The daughter or putri is also a deliverer from Put, but to a lesser extent.”
http://blog.drmalpani.com/2014/03/infertility-in-hindu-mythology-dr.html
@ Dave A A:
A number of things mentioned in that infertility doctor’s article remind me of American quiverfull patriarchy.
Speaking of men and discernment: https://texasmonitor.org/pastor-sues-byron-cook-alleging-fraud/
I tend to tolerate legalism and authoritarianism from Catholics and Orthodox because they have a reasonable claim to Apostolic Succession.
I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for this position among protestants, whose so claim to authority is the claim itself. The entire point of being protestant is that you can read the Bible for yourself and relate to God directly. These so-called pastors are self-appointed and have arrogated to themselves far more authority than their limited wisdom can justify.
The last time I was in a church (an Acts 29 church in San Diego), I was disciplined because of a rule the pastor made up based on nothing but a claim of his own infallible experience. Not only did I not sin against any brother (which is plainly required by Jesus for church discipline to occur), but he also failed to follow the process since he refused to state the charge to me in front of another elder, even when I demanded it in the presence of said elder. I left then and there and never looked back.
Within a year, no one who attended that church remained. The shepherd had lost all of the sheep. Now, 7 years later, I read that he’s just basically disciplined out their worship leader, a third of his new, larger church walked right out the door, and they’ll be out of money and in the street by next month.
By legalism’s fruit shall you know it.
Thank you for this site. While I believe that Calvinism is true, I believe it is incomplete. The universe is implemented by a God who stands outside of the spacetime continuum He created, so all is in fact pre-determined, however, this is merely the means He chose to give us all free will. Both Arminianism and Calvinism are true and incomplete without each other.
I agree with the author that legalism is endemic to all flavors of Christianity, and this is sad because it removes the Christ from Christianity and the Good News from the Gospel. However, it is a powerful means of control and useful for exploitation of the flock by the wolves leading Church, Inc.
I look forward to the day I am joined with a group of Free Christians in love with their Savior, like most of you. Thanks for hearing me out.
Much love,
hoodaticus
Addendum – the Acts 29 church that kicked me and many other innocent people out without Biblical authority – that church just took on Dave Maddox as a pastor:
Maddox is well-qualified to work at that church, given his extensive experience in using lies and false discipline to persecute those who dare challenge him:
http://www.ezzotruth.com/living-hope-evangelical-fellowship-dave-maddox.html
This is a great story for Wartburg – you probably already covered it long ago in fact – it involves lies and slander by a corrupt pastor who drove out people questioning his corruption, then attempted to excommunicate them after the fact with lies about their supposed iniquity. This harassment chased these believers all the way to their new church on the far side of the continent, where POLYGRAPH TESTS were administered and they passed.
So, this hire will end well. /sarc
hoodaticus wrote:
That’s exactly why a Christian should be neither an Arminian or a Calvinist, but simply a Biblicist. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Doctrines of men are … well … doctrines of men.
ishy wrote:
Now that is scary! And another good reason not to trust any NIV version of the Bible with a copyright date later than 1984.
ishy wrote:
The average New Calvinist believes the Bible only has two books: Romans and Ephesians.
ishy wrote:
You could release your version when we have Camp Backbone in Kentucky, in Nancy2’s neck of the woods.
ishy wrote:
They are positively allergic to the Gospels (except Matt 18). Such irony. They don’t have any use for Jesus except from Good Friday to the Resurrection. In my opinion, I don’t see much evidence of trying to imitate what Jesus actually did or said.
Jack wrote:
Spot on comment, Jack.
@ refugee:
“I have been troubled by my lack of desire to go to church, to pray, to read the Bible.
Do these symptoms mean I never was really a Christian, or something else?”
++++++++++++++++++
it means you’re a refugee, who i expect went through shell-shock and other PTSD.
no one comes through these things easily, quickly, or unscathed.
‘Christian’ is a franchise brand now — you’re better than that. i have no doubt that you are the apple of God’s eye & he takes great delight in you.
Owen has no business pontificating on adult behaviors, for he is not one. Nor can he speak to manliness, for the same reason.
refugee wrote:
What we have been taught about God and people makes a big difference. If we view him as a distant, smiting judge who cannot tolerate us because he is too pure to look on evil (and we are evil because we are totally depraved), and one who arbitrarily saves some and condemns all the others, then we won’t be very motivated to relate with him. Much like Adam and Eve in the garden after their fall – they lost site of who he is.
Going through what you describe could be a sign of spiritual health if it is helping you to discard a false view of God. I personally believe that Calvinism (both new and old) paints a horrific view of God that would be unrecognizable in the early church. If you came out of such a background, then it makes senses for you to to have no desire for prayer, church, and Bible reading.
refugee wrote:
To add on to what I just posted above, here is a wonderful tidbit from a sermon preached by an old Calvinist nearly 300 years ago:
Such thoughts do not give me any desire to know this man’s god.
@ Max:
You are exactly right, Max. There’s a reason these silly camps didn’t exist when Jesus was here, nor do they exist among the elder churches of the Catholics and Orthodox who both espouse both opinions.
Ken F wrote:
This God contradicts the God who made all things; the God who walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day; the God of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Deborah, Rahab, Ruth, David, Samuel, Hannah, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Esther ……… all the way to the God of Joseph and Mary ………. Matthew, Peter, John, James, Paul………..
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Someone call the burn unit!
Janey wrote:
I attended a New Calvinist church a few years ago on Easter Sunday. It was the strangest Easter service experience of my long life. The young reformed pastor had no message about the Cross of Christ or His resurrection. He simply continued his sermon series from Ephesians!
New Calvinists put more emphasis on the epistles of Paul than they do the Gospels. They preach a lot about ‘God’, with only occasional mention of Jesus, and hardly a word about the Holy Spirit. When I engage one of the young reformers, I tell them if they read Paul first, they might read Jesus wrong … but if they read Jesus first (the Gospels), the writings of Paul come into perspective.
Nancy2 wrote:
Makes one wonder how Jonathan Edwards was raised. How this became the most famous American sermon of all time perplexes me.
Max wrote:
I attended a Christmas Day service at a New Cal. church in 2013 (I didn’t know it was new cal. at the time). No mention of Jesus, Mary, or Joseph. The sermon was about Simeon, Anna, and Herod!!!
Brent wrote:
One thing I’d like to thank you for, Brent, is not even addressing my point about some of the most feared markswomen of the Second World War, not even having the courage to look it up and formulate a response. You are the very type: The gutless pseudo-man who no real man or woman would ever want as part of their army. I’d take any of my daughters, who have real courage, guts and fortitude, over a gutless wonder like yourself who not only can’t be trusted to carry a weapon in honor of their country, but who doesn’t even have the strength of conviction to address a point anonymously on a forum.
Congratulations!
Ken F wrote:
It showed up in my high school English textbooks because structurally it is a perfect essay, building to its point with imagery and focus without going off-topic.
Max wrote:
Not much different from the 3 1/2 book Bible of my time in-counrty:
Daniel, Revelation, the “Nuclear War Chapter” of Ezekiel (the 1/2), and Late Great Planet Earth.
Only their favorite/obsessive subject and NOTHING else.
Janey wrote:
And according to other accounts above, a lot of times not even that.
If Jesus is even mentioned, it’s only as the “John the Baptist” to CALVIN.
Who needs Jesus when you have Perfectly-Parsed, Truly REFORMED Theology?
hoodaticus wrote:
Everyone her DOES realize that is a level of “infallibility” far beyond any that has been claimed or even proposed by any Pope.
hoodaticus wrote:
So everybody walked and left Mister Infallible high & dry.
What was that definition of Stupidity?
“Doing the same thing over and over after it fails again and again”?
(“But this time We WILL Achieve True Communism!”)
@ Max:
Yes, agreed. The Pharisees knew Scripture back and forth, and Jesus said they missed the whole point.
Jesus is the only authoritative commentator on the Scriptures.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
True!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The NeoCalvinists even omit John the Baptist. They start at the Apostle Paul to Calvin, and of course frequently mention their favorite NeoCalvinist “authors” (if you can even call them that).
hoodaticus wrote:
@ hoodaticus:
I’m sorry for what you, and the other folks, have been through at this cburch. I spent years in this area and may have well passed through the doors of said church. I don’t attend a church at the moment as I can’t deal with the attitude of most leaders these days. Do you care to share the name of this church?
Velour wrote:
They start at their caricature of the Apostle Paul, not the living, breathing Paul who emphasized that no part of the Body of Christ is more important than any other, who emphasized mutual submission in the church, not one-sided submission to self-appointed leaders, who continually pointed to Jesus rather than church systems as the answer, who ripped the superapostles who acted–it would seem–exactly like these modern day abusers and primping pseudo leaders. The real life Paul might well have advocated giving them over to Satan and warned the church as a whole about them and their corrosive influence.
This is amazingly on-point:
(TRIGGER WARNING: NON-KJV EXCERPT BELOW. HIDE THE CHILDRENS!)
2 Colossians 2:20-22
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings?”
The answer, brother Paul, is that we don’t submit. Not anymore.
Bridget wrote:
I’m still coming to terms with it all honestly. It’s been years since I walked out on their botched excommunication attemnpt but I until recently still gave them offerings, so it’s still too soon for me emotionally to name names.
Staying away from all Acts 29 churches would be enough to protect one from them though.
I just remembered as well – the pastor says he purged the entire church a few years before I started there as well.
It’s like the biblical example of the good shepherd is the one who kills every flock he’s entrusted with or something.
Philosophical question: can you call yourself a Protestant if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, as the legalists described in the OP clearly do not?
GSD wrote:
Ah, yes, masculinity. The special snowflake of the complementarian world.
Law Prof wrote:
Spot on, Law Prof.
Yes, the NeoCalvinists give a caricature of the Apostle Paul.
Law Prof wrote:
The real Paul also spent a lot of time commending his sisters in Christ. If they decided to take after that paul it would be a different story!
Nancy2 wrote:
Whew! These guys avoid Jesus at every corner. In my conversations with the young reformers in my area (I like to pester them), I ask them why they claim to be “Christ Followers” without ever talking about Him much? When I discuss having a personal relationship with Jesus, some of them squirm. There appears to be a mistrust in folks who have had a personal encounter with the living Christ. They prefer to think of Christianity as rigid doctrines … preaching grace, grace, grace without a real touch of Grace. If Jesus is not at the center of your message, you don’t have much to offer in ministry. When the dust of New Calvinism settles (yes, this too will pass), one of the greatest mission fields on the planet for the Gospel of Christ will be among the disillusioned masses of young folks who have been attracted to the smoke and mirrors … ‘if’ you can ever get them interested in church again.
As we look at the many examples of Calvinistic legalism expressed here, it may be helpful to know the theological underpinnings of Calvinist clergy. A Calvinist is taught that God’s Old Testament laws, all 613 of them, can be divided into ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, a practice scripture never expresses. According to Calvin and the ancients he references, Christ lived a perfect life and died a sacrificial death to “fulfill” the law, clearly stated in scripture. However, Christ only fulfilled Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws; moral laws are still binding on believers. Essentially, the Mosaic covenant as expressed in the 10 commandments have NOT been fulfilled by Christ. Believers are STILL UNDER THE MORAL LAW, a direct contradiction with passages of scripture, especially in Hebrews and Galatians. According to the New Testament Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial death establishes a NEW Covenant, one who’s laws are written on our hearts instead of stone tablets. Is it any wonder Calvinist “pastors” swing legalistic, for they are still essentially living under the law? Scripture makes clear that if one obligates him or herself to keeping even ONE of the Old Testament laws, he or she is obligated to keep ALL THE LAWS, all 613 of them.
Rhonda Montgomery wrote:
I’ve never found anyone who’s been able to give me an acceptable explanation for how the laws are divided, so because it amuses me, I’m going to assume they make that determination by putting them under a sorting hat.
@ Josh:
LOL
Josh wrote:
Or “Which ones Personally Benefit MEEEEEEEE!”
Max wrote:
Why not? They have CALVIN and his Institutes.
CALVIN who has God All Figured Out.
Remember the mechanism behind vaccination: Expose the subject to a weakened or dead form or harmless imitation of a pathogen; then when exposed to the real thing, subject’s immune system will immediately and automatically REJECT it.
Rhonda Montgomery wrote:
What a wonderful setup for Righteous Moral Fury and “More Moral Than Thou” One-Upmanship…
My most blatant encounter with this was a sexual predator who copped a Righteous Moral attitude over others because he didn’t smoke.
He is not alone in that sort of convenient dualism.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Thank you, HUG. Sobering food for thought.
@ Ken F:
Dear god. Or maybe not-dear. Is that from “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry god”?
@ Max:
Reminds me of the Mother’s Day sermon that was all about Biblical sex.
@ Josh:
Even the sorting hat would be confused trying to put 613 laws into 3 categories. Harry would have ended up half Hufflepuff/half Slitherin. Is obeying the Sabbath ceremonial or moral (because it is the 4th commandment.) If it is ceremonial, Calvinist ‘pastors’ cannot insist on ‘church’ attendance. As for where Calvin came up with these divisions, I have read that he read what he called ‘the ancients’, largely Roman Catholic theologians…Augustine, Aquinas. Peter Ditzel writes, “The doctrines of grace are biblical, but much of Reformed theology is not. It is,in fact largely unbiblical and was fabricated by magisterial Reformers to help them retain the power the Roman Catholic Church had held in partnership with the civil authorities. The Roman Catholic church was never reformed by the Reformers; they went out from it to start all over, but in doing so they took a lot of Rome with them. Parts of Rome remain in all Protestant churches to this day…
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
But he can rap, and rapping is cool. So does the adult thing matter?
refugee wrote:
Yes. Most of the sermon is pretty much the same type of blasphemy.
There is so much hypocrisy in this article. Many complementarian men are quoted.
Here’s Tim Challies
(who Dee wrote above doesn’t think should be permitted to read the Bible aloud to men in church – “Tim Challies does not believe that women should read Scripture out loud in a public gathering.”):
Source-
Six Ways Men Can Support Women’s Discipleship
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2017/may/six-ways-men-can-support-womens-discipleship.html
Velour wrote:
Yep–and we know it both first hand, from hard experience!
Law Prof wrote:
Sigh, indeed we do Law Prof.
But I have started a blog about my ex-gulag. And people are reading it and using the information to leave my abusive ex-church. And for that I am grateful. I didn’t want people to be in isolation…thinking they were the only ones who thought something was wrong with that church.
Thank goodness for the internet and for free speech.
@ Daisy:
That would be the day my husband would,
“screen” my readings. Why would a women put up with this condescending behavior. My husband is my partner, not a father to a ten year old.
refugee wrote:
Any “pastor” that would deliver such a message on a day reserved to honor mothers has his spiritual brains stuck in his zipper! (please forgive my language, but I think more highly of mothers than that)
@ Max:
That was pretty tacky of him to do that.
Mother’s day, however, is a mixed bag because of what it does emotionally to women who have had fertility problems, women who never married, women with one or more problem children, women who resent the focus on fertility because they wanted to do something else with their lives but feel like they got pushed into domesticity by society/religion/family and who have about given up on themselves and their never-realized goals and dreams, women who feel trapped in abusive marriages because they have kids and no adequate vocational skills, women stuck in grinding poverty perhaps partly due to too many kids for their income to support-the list goes on.
That said, mother’s day is not celebrated as a part of the church kalendar or liturgy in my denom. Not to say that people don’t do their own celebrating and honoring or whatever on their own time-only that it is not officially recognized at church.
okrapod wrote:
Understood. I guess it’s just one of those traditions in SBC life that I hate to see abused by the young reformers. Oh, and they won’t celebrate Memorial Day either in YRR churches in my area – they don’t want to pause to honor men & women who gave their lives to protect the freedom they have to mess up the church.
Daisy wrote:
They’re all jumping on this because that Thabathia A. guy (I’m not looking up the spelling of his name, sorry) said they should read books by women.
Bah. Humbug.
I switched to a church that actually ordains women and its honestly night and day. Not perfect, but night and day.
@ okrapod:
I want to pursue this thing about mothers and mothering a bit, and about preachers who shoot their moths off about it.
The two hospitals here in my town are co-ordinating efforts in which some seamstresses make burial garments for little dead babies. They take donations of wedding dresses, prom dresses, other formal wear and they create precious little garments and wraps. There is a web link with pictures of what they do. It is so beautiful.
So RE has bundled up her seriously gorgeous wedding dress and as soon as it stops raining we are going to take it over there to the hospital and contribute it. Why? Why part with something that gorgeous? Well, partly because the marriage itself ended in disaster, but mostly because the one and only pregnancy of that marriage ended up in a baby-that-never-was-a-baby with residual trophoblastic disease treated with chemo which itself destroyed any further hope of pregnancy. So she is giving her wedding dress so that other mothers of little dead babies or other babies-that-never-were-babies can have something beautiful and made by strangers and donated with love for a burial garment.
In my opinion, any man (male human) who gets up in the pulpit and even opens his mouth about what is to be a mother and what it is to not be a mother-that man is an *ijit*. He is too biologically and experientially deficient to have a clue.
okrapod wrote:
That is beautiful.
Mae wrote:
Ten year old “with benefits” (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean)
That WOULD explain the pedo epidemic among the Comp Church crowd; if you treat your wife like she was a ten-year-old (“PAPA SPANK!”) except in ONE particular area, why not branch out to REAL ten-year-olds? Or wifey was married as a “beard” or “attempt at self-treatement” (like a do-it-yourself version of the Jerk with the Kirk in Moscow)…
Lea wrote:
Yes, I’m beginning to see this as my future. I will probably end up at a church with at least one woman pastor who teaches up front.
Lip service is all good and well, but if women really are created in the image of God, and “there is no longer male and female” then the majority of our churches are doing it wrong and keeping the gospel from being proclaimed by half the world’s population. Sitting in the pew and tacitly letting it happen enables the disrespect.
Daisy wrote:
But in his heart of hearts, he wouldn’t trust a woman to use her gifts, abilities, and wisdom in church.
As a Christian, I have always struggled with “extra-biblical” commandments. Once the pastor/elder/churchgoer would mention them to me, (coupled with a vague verse explanation), I would feel hurt and/or confused. Ironically, many of the ways I was shamed as a younger Christian have no footing in scripture. For instance, being told that if I wanted to get baptized, I couldn’t just ask a local pastor if he/she would do it, but I would have to join a church, become a member, go through an appropriate waiting period and then be baptized with the congregation pledging to help me on my spiritual journey. Guess what, I’ve read up on baptism in the Bible and when someone proclaimed to believe, they got baptized (with no questions asked by the apostles). In addition, they never were told they had to join a specific church first and then wait until others had decided they were spiritually ready to follow Jesus.
By the way, speaking of baptism, I’m still looking… Anyone know a good pastor (who is not big on adding commandments to the Bible?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ugh… never thought of it that way. You’re right though, this perpetual early adolescent behavior, by some women, fits right into a perps by dreams.
Sam wrote:
Where do you live? The flag next to your name shows Canada.
Sam wrote:
Sola Scriptura is only to be used when it is convenient.
My experience growing up Calvinist was that they were legalistic only when it suited them. For example, I remember some kids not allowed to work their paper route on Sundays but it was OK for their kids to hire the heathens to do it for them. But nothing was said about the parent’s parties on Saturday nights (not my parents). Evening the crazy parties of the youth group were winked at. Movies were no big deal and oh the mini-skirts! Even on the moms. This was early 70s and their underwear showed going up stairs. No man ever complained about those in the church. My non-Calvinist IFB school though had all those rules including no movies or rock-n-role. So with all that allowance at the Christian Reformed church in my area, I was shocked when my employer who was from the church called me into his office, and later my pastor into his office because they heard I had moved out of my house to live in an apartment (I was 19). They told me that I needed to stay at home under my dad’s authority until I got married and live the rest of my life under my husband’s authority.
Patti wrote:
Sounds about right.
Patti wrote:
Legalistiec when it was to their advantage to be legalistic and not legalistic when it was to their advantage to be not.
Like whether the SBC and/or Calvary Chapel is a monolithic denomination or independent churches.
Depends on which is advantageous at the moment.
Patti wrote:
i.e. Until Daddy sold you to your new Owner.
(Sansa Stark, anyone?)
For perhaps the most twisted example of “legalism only when it suits ME”, check out the “prophet” David Berg and his group. He taught that women should bare their breasts as much as possible, because it was wrong to cover up God’s greatest creation. But it was really just because he liked seeing women topless. He even wrote an epic poem about it, which I hereby nominate for Worst Poem Ever.
http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Mountin_Maid
ILoatheBadPoems wrote:
Well, this is the same Mo David who invented “Flirty Fishing”….
Check that face in the Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berg
WTF? HE was the guy who started the Comet Kohoutek Rapture Scare back in ’74?
(Like the JW-started Rosh Hashanah Rapture Scare of ’75, none of the Born-Agains who preached it would acknowledge the source.)