Divisive..

“Leaders want us to appear blameless to the “world.” The world, on the other hand, knows we are not guiltless. After all, we are just as sinful as the next guy, but we have the forgiveness of Jesus.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

somehow…. somehow i’m not impressed with the us vs. them, simply because we said some magic words and sport the equivalent of an “I Voted” sticker on our lapels.

I observe my friends and family who are agnostic, atheist, muslim and hindu have great remorse and contrition when they do wrong. it troubles them greatly. they make a pact to do better next time.

surely… surely that counts for lots.

elastigirl: surely… surely that counts for lots.

I believe it does too.

II . Prayer.

Those who continually sent up prayer-book prayers, Scripture chunks, even (genuine) tongues, were probably helping save an innocent person somewhere, unbeknownst.

Maybe a nun in Rwanda prayed for you without even hearing of your existence and that’s why you’re as good as you are now.

My God is not too stupid to know how to allot the treasure of His relationship in my life, to anybody’s benefit, at His discretion, without my micromanaging Him.

(Dallas Willard called prayer God’s power-sharing arrangement.)

Prayer got weaponised, it got regarded as a superstition, it got made ad hominem; and finally it has been cancelled as an inconvenience, embarrassment, and contrary to “evangelicalism” ideology.

Voila! The huge “advantage” now is that there is no longer an obstacle to laissez-faire religion.

For as long as there have been groups of people coexisting, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in competition, the different parties have struggled to control the narrative to their advantage.

I recommend breaking these words down as they are used in different contexts. In this case, I use four categories: Legal, moral + ethical, social, and biblical.

-Social – People talk. We talk about themselves and we talk about others. It is just what we do.
– Moral + ethical. At some point, this social talk can have moral and ethical implications. Am I being honest? Am I being hurtful? Am I being malicious?
– Legal – Under certain circumstances, gossip (which is just talk) can cross the line to slander(verbal) and libel (written) communication, which causes defamation. Defamation is a complicated legal term that means someone was harmed as a result of false statements.
– Biblical. I’ll leave it to the experts to say which verses apply and why.

My possibly cynical experience has been that church leaders use biblical references against gossip to quash legitimate criticism against themselves and their behavior.

When that happens, I try to apply moral and ethical definitions. Is what I am saying true to the best of my knowledge? Have I weighed the positive and negative impacts of what I am saying? Am I being malicious or vindictive? (I personally have a temper which I need to work on to keep in check)

As a blogger who deals with Sexual Assault, Dee has additional ethical and legal considerations. How does she handle privacy issues? Are religious leaders public figures for whom slander and libel standards differ?

I share Dee’s concern that the current trend of Christian leaders using terms like gossip and slander to dissuade legitimate criticism is harmful.

For many young women, 15 years of memorizing Bible verses and singing Kumbaya in Sunday school are undone every time Robert Morris opens his mouth and the leadership of churches like Gateway releases a statement like, “Shush now y’all, let us menfolk handle this.”

“What other words are misused in today’s evangelical morass? Add them in the comments, and I will try to cover them in the coming weeks.“
++++++++++++++++++++

Love

Care

Gospel

Empathy

Equal / equality

Servant leadership

Beautiful

Flourishing

Feminist

Heretic

Sin

“I’m just sayin’…”

:…..

I believe that inquiry should be the constant work of the human spirit, individually and collectively.

Inquiry.

To be inquisitive.
Filled with curiosity and loving attention, as well as skepticism.

Asking questions
Collecting data
Interpreting
Acting
[Repeat]

These other words, these other methods of sifting the truth, are unreliable and mistaken.

But don’t take my word for it.

And this is Luther’s take on the subject –

“ He gives the name “peacemakers,” in the first place, to those who help make peace among lands and people, like pious princes, counselors, or jurists, to people in government who hold their rule and reign for the sake of peace; and in the second place, to pious citizens and neighbors, who with their salutary and good tongues adjust, reconcile, and settle quarrels and tensions between husband and wife or between neighbors, brought on by evil and poisonous tongues. Thus St. Augustine boasts that when his mother Monica saw two people at odds, she would always speak the best to both sides. Whatever good she heard about the one, she brought to the other; but whatever evil she heard, that she kept to herself or mitigated as much as possible. In this way she often brought on a reconciliation. It is especially among womenfolk that the shameful vice of slander is prevalent, so that great misfortune is often caused by an evil tongue. This is the work of those bitter and poisonous brides of the devil, who when they hear a word about another, viciously make it sharper, more pointed, and more bitter against the others, so that sometimes misery and murder are the result.

Luther, Martin. 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 21: The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.”

“… often slander takes the form of deceptive inferences …” (Trevin Wax)

That’s hard to take from a leader within a tribe (New Calvinism) which practices stealth and deception to take over Southern Baptist churches! Numerous accounts have been given in the blogosphere (facts, not gossip) of young reformed pastors lying to pastor search committees about their theological leaning in order to capture the church for the glory of the NeoCal movement.

“… deliberately crafting a preferred narrative out of conveniently edited facts.” (Trevin Wax)

How about putting words in Paul’s mouth and distorting his epistles to support NeoCal belief and practice?! The Word of God is “fact”, but your edits are not. Yep, when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you, Mr. Wax.

The opposite of gossip is silence, I suppose.

Scripture exhorts us to speak out against wrong, while exercising wisdom to remain silent when we should. But if we remain silent, failing to act upon the knowledge we have in hand, James calls it sin:

“Any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

Gossip? Slander? No, if you see something, know something, experienced something … say something! Shout it from the rooftops, folks! (Matthew 10:27)

The New Calvinists want your surrender, submission and silence. Don’t let them get away with it.

dee: believe that God is blessing them because they have fog machines

I just can’t come to grips with a church believing they are blessed because their pastor wears skinny jeans.

Samuel Conner: Such “repentance” is a form of godliness that lacks substance.

“repentance” is not genuine repentance if there is no fruit of repentance (a demonstration of a change of heart) … (Matthew 3:8)

Elastigirl,

Good list. I would add “Godly” and “Justice” to the list.

dee: I often see little of that in megachurches, which appear to believe that God is blessing them because they have fog machines and climbing walls for the kids.

Don’t forget the on-campus amusement parks and “Just Like Starbucks, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)1” onsite coffee houses.

“Just like fill-in-the-blank, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!” is never a good sign.

Max:
“Unity” is another word misused in evangelicalism to control the masses.

Yes, unity is what they say when what they really want is uniformity.

Two other words that are overused and often misapplied:

Authenticity

Transparency

Hidden should read this !

Fellowship

This can weaponized to be “we are in fellowship” (one of the crew) or “not in fellowship” (the other – not one of the cool kids)

Nobody wants to be “disfellowshipped” – I have seen this non-word actually used in a sentence.

nmgirl,

how are you? i know you had surgery last week. I hope you’re comfortable… feeling ok…. i dunno, i have limited experience with surgery. nurses are great….

dee: Because they have redefined slander as “telling others about the terrible things I am doing.”

Anne Lamott’s quote seems appropriate here:

“If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should’ve behaved better.”

FreshGrace: unity is what they say when what they really want is uniformity

Exactly. Sit down, shut up and get with the program is not unity. The New Calvinists demand uniformity to their teachings and expectations from the pew, at the expense of unity in Jesus’ name.

Just my opinion, but I think that the moral status of a true report could be questionable, depending on the motives of the one making the report (to echo the prior post: “why did he do that?”).

A true report, prejudicial to the reputation of a wrongdoer, that is made out of a motive of vengeance is more morally questionable than one made out of a motive to protect others from the wrongdoer by alerting them to the wrongdoing.

Burwell Stark,

Nice post..

Two churches, two adulterers, two different outcomes.
Church A-everyone, including the board, knew about the pastor’s relationship with the youth pastor’s mother. However, nothing was actually done until the visiting missionaries arrived early to prep for the evening service, and they found pastor and the ypm making whoopee in one of the pews. The pastor was allowed to disappear and go out of state (where he found another church to continue with the ladies), and the church disintegrated because of the gossip and lack of trust in leadership. The church, while still in existence, has never really recovered. Lots of directions were given not to gossip, but most people were so confused they had to discuss the situation and whether they could ever trust the leadership again. More than half of the congregation left in disgust.
Church B: an elder was found to have had multiple affairs. His wife and adult children were naturally distraught. It was handled by the elders-no more leadership role, family counseling outside the church and paid for by the church, and a members’ meeting called by the elders. The situation was explained (thoroughly), we were told to pray for the elder and his family, to be supportive, but not to press for details. We were never told not to gossip, but we were told to encourage the family (wife in particular) as they worked through the healing process. As a whole, the church didn’t gossip, but did encourage and help as needed. We didn’t need to gossip because the situation was thoroughly explained and the leadership focused on the family instead of engaging in a cover-up. The church has continued to grow, and we respond well to our leadership because they are transparent with us. The couple did move on to another church (less awkward, I think), but they visit often because other family members still attend. The couple feels welcome.

I think transparency and best Matthew 18 practices really make a difference in how congregations respond to issues with leadership. There will be issues, but denying its presence, excusing the behavior, or jumping to quick confession and restoration, do not solve the problem.

Discernment

If you have discernment and you use it in the church setting it’s counted as having a judgmental spirit.

Gaslight, deflect, and make me think I’m sinning for “judging” the fact that you’re a wolf with a slick tongue in a fancy suit. Personal experience with that one

Yet those same people have zero problem gossiping about others, including those they know nothing about. I was visiting a church some years ago, and had only been a few times, and I had the pastor’s wife (!!) tell me I was being gossiped about and all kinds of things were being said. Mind you, I had revealed almost nothing about myself to that point. I put a review describing the incident on their FB page, and out of that church of at least a few hundred people, only one person – not her – said anything to me about it. I wouldn’t even go to a church after that for some time.

I somehow seriously doubt anything would have been said at all had I been part of that cute young couple with school aged kids. Sad that those same considerations aren’t extended to single people.

Arlo: Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of what the modern day variant practice and believe would be very much frowned upon by the Calvinists of yesteryear?

The “Calvinists of yesteryear” are very much alive on planet earth. Classical Calvinists (“Old” Calvinists) don’t typically hang out with the New Calvinists, so probably are not too thrilled with some of the beliefs and practices of the young reformers.

Within SBC, The Founders Ministry (Old Calvinists) put up with the New Calvinists since they have a common mission to “reform” the Southern Baptist Convention – to take it back to its pre-Civil War theological roots (Calvinism). Many SBC Calvinists at that time were slaveholders (including some pastors and deacons). They firmly believed that sovereign God was on their side during the Civil War until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. Following the War, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from their theological roots and remained distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice for 150 years until the New Calvinists showed up to drag them back to their beginnings without asking millions of non-Calvinist members if they wanted to go there!

EW66: If you have discernment and you use it in the church setting it’s counted as having a judgmental spirit.

Because today Discernment(TM) means sensing DEMONS in every closet, under every bed, and possessing everyone you don’t like.

Lowlandseer: Well said. J G Vos’s Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism devotes several pages to the 9th Commandment explaining in great detail what is forbidden. Mr Wax barely scratches the surface. He has also moved away from the Reformed viewpoint to the extent that he has criticised his one time companions for holding a Calvinist position on the Atonement.

Sounds to me that Mr. Wax and his fellow dudebro Neo-Cals in the SBC are once again picking and choosing their Reformed theology only the bits they like or gives them some sort of advantage. Which is why I call them posers and frauds. Much like all those posers in nerd culture who suddenly jumped onto the Marvel bandwagon once the movies came out. I am also sure Mr. Wax holds to a memorial view of the Lord’s Supper as well (as opposed to spiritual presence view (Presbyterian and Continental Reformed)).

Max: The “Calvinists of yesteryear” are very much alive on planet earth.Classical Calvinists (“Old” Calvinists) don’t typically hang out with the New Calvinists, so probably are not too thrilled with some of the beliefs and practices of the young reformers.

Within SBC, The Founders Ministry (Old Calvinists) put up with the New Calvinists since they have a common mission to “reform” the Southern Baptist Convention – to take it back to its pre-Civil War theological roots (Calvinism).Many SBC Calvinists at that time were slaveholders (including some pastors and deacons).They firmly believed that sovereign God was on their side during the Civil War until early Confederate victories turned to defeat.Following the War, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from their theological roots and remained distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice for 150 years until the New Calvinists showed up to drag them back to their beginnings without asking millions of non-Calvinist members if they wanted to go there!

Max,

I am sure the old-school Calvinists like the continental Reformed (Dutch Reformed) and the Presbyterians are also also less than thrilled at these Neo-Cal posers.

Burwell Stark: I see that Max has already replied, but I will try to add my two cents. There is incredible diversity within the Reformed movement, which might sound strange because it is difficult to see from the outside, especially when Calvinist soteriology (i.e., single and/or double predestination) and Reformed theology are viewed as one and the same. To be sure, most Reformed theology includes “the doctrines of grace” but does not stop there; the heart of Reformed theology is the sovereignty of God and the idea of the covenant (Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace). Calvinist soteriology falls within the covenant of grace, but Covenantal theology goes well beyond the means and method of salvation.

Returning to the diversity within the Reformed family, there’s Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, German Reformed, French Reformed, Scandanavian Reformed, Danish Reformed…all of which have different emphases. Think of the differences between John Calvin, Herman Bavinck, Karl Barth, Soren Kierkegaard, etc. for example. It quickly gets pretty complicated, and I haven’t even introduced the Presbyterians.

All that is to say, in America when most modern New Calvinists/YRRs claim to be Reformed, they are referring to the Old Princeton crowd: BB Warfield, Charles Hodge and his son A.A. Hodge, and even J. Gresham Machen. They may have read some Bavinck or Geerhardus Vos, maybe the more daring have worked through Barth, and all likely own one of the many editions of the Institutes, but I don’t think that many of the old guard would acknowledge the current crop as genuinely Reformed. The main reason for my opinion is that most New Calvinists/YRRs do not fully embrace Covenantal theology and its implications for worship and life; instead, they approach it in that truly American style – the “meat and three” – where they can pick and choose what looks good and pass by the less appealing aspects such accountability, the regulatory principle of worship, etc.

I apologize for the essay. Maybe I should have simply written “I agree with you” and moved on, but I wanted to work out for myself why I agreed with you. Hope this helps.

My point exactly. I also bet that Old Princeton would be appalled by the these Neo-Cal posers.

Ras al Ghul: Sounds to me that Mr. Wax and his fellow dudebro Neo-Cals in the SBC are once again picking and choosing their Reformed theology only the bits they like or gives them some sort of advantage.

Indeed! Their spin on things has eternally subordinated the Son into silence … they are in complete control of the wheel. If they can subordinate Jesus, they can subordinate you into submission to their theological error. If you can’t hear Him, you will hear them. It’s the stuff that cults are made of.

Max,

The bottom line is that posers and frauds and bandwagon riders ruin EVERYTHING. They do it by degrading and besmirching the terms and historical, technical characteristics definitions – by taking the name and applying it to themselves.

The Neo-Cals did it with their “Reformed” theology. The vast majority of the so-called “Christians” and “Evangelicals” in the US. The “GOP” and “conservatism” of Trump and his supporters. And so on. I use quotes because even though they use those terms to describe themselves, they sure as H**L are NOT. Frauds, poser, wannabees all of them. To H**L with all of them.

Ras al Ghul: Much like all those posers in nerd culture who suddenly jumped onto the Marvel bandwagon once the movies came out.

The word for them (dating back to 1980s comics fandom) is “Marvel Zombies”.

Max: But when I am asked about the New Calvinism, I will say just basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is gonna answer the questions? Where else will they find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect?

This is a really good question but maybe not in the way intended. Where are people going to go? Perhaps somewhere that it’s safe to ask questions and leaders will make an effort to answer them (rather than locking you out of the kingdom or putting you on a care list)?

Where are they going to find resources on church issues that don’t view everything through the lens of authority & submission, with a heavy emphasis on gender hierarchy? Maybe in some church community that values love and encourages connection above the other supposed marks of a healthy church?

Headless Unicorn Guy: The word for them (dating back to 1980s comics fandom) is “Marvel Zombies”.

I read Marvel comics in when I was a kid and into my mid-teens. I still have the whole Secret Wars and Infinity Wars series when they first came out. Even picked up some of the more significant Bronze and a couple Silver ages comics when was in my late 20s (like Hulk 181, X-Men 94, etc.).

Burwell Stark,

Aack! *fewer. Using fewer words. And to think I referenced Struk and White in that response.

Lowlandseer: The pretend Calvinist’s of the modern generation don’t really see the need to consult the old dead people. Although this article is from 2018, I think it lets you see that they reference only themselves.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/top-125-influences-gospel-centered-movement/

That is an absolutely horrible list in the sense that it is very self-referencing. Wow. There are a few (very few) solid names included – J.I. Packer, Sinclair Ferguson, Michael Horton – who have provided steadfast leadership and haven’t pandered after fame, fortune, and conference fees.

Wilson wrote:

With the exception of the recently departed R.C. Sproul, Jerry Bridges, and Elisabeth Elliot, I have only included still living figures. So you will not see highly influential Puritans or Reformers or other key figures in church history, both ancient and recent. No Luthers, no Spurgeons, no Calvins, no Edwardses, and no Stotts, no Lewises, no Martyn Lloyd-Jones.,/blockquote>

I wonder why, though.

I am surprised, but probably should not be based on what we see in the NT, at the number of apostates on that list, too. Funny how a few years can make a difference. Like the old saying goes: when the tide goes out, you see who is swimming without their trunks.

Arlo: ‘You just don’t understand it’ and ‘You’re misrepresenting Calvinism’

What they are really saying is that you aren’t smart enough to understand the tenets of reformed theology. After all, it is a system which speaks to the intellect not the Spirit. Those who are students of the “whole” of Scripture, rather than cherry-picked passages, see it for what it is.

Gossip? Slander?

“Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:4)

See something … say something! Let them call it gossip and slander, but use your words to rescue the abused and oppressed.

nmgirl,

The cross and crown of thorns are emblems of Jesus’ suffering, his “obedience even unto the death of the Cross” as hymned in Phil 2:6-11.

Somehow, me thinks that publicly asserting royalty on the basis of the doctrine of adoption does not do justice to the spirit of Paul’s Phil 2 command, that we have in us the mind of Christ.

nmgirl,

“With a cross and the crown of thorns, it said: I’m a princess because my Father is a king.
Then I saw the same thing on a license plate holder.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++

yes, bugs me, too. gory imagery of an execution with a glib response of “I’m a princess”…. jiminy

advertising to everyone that “I’m a princess and you’re not because I’m a christian and you’re not” is the intolerable message of class-based religious society

where christians are the exclusive members-only first class that looks down its nose at the goblins (everyone else)

elastigirl: where christians are the exclusive members-only first class that looks down its nose at the goblins (everyone else)

I have yet to see that dynamic in the Lutheran Church I attend.
I think you’ll find that plate of horse-poo-poo mostly at the ‘independent’ fundagelical outfits.

Ras al Ghul: Neo-Cal posers

I think we need a new term to replace “Neo-Calvinist” and the first “R” in “YRR”. Whatever one thinks of Calvin, the group termed “Neo-Cal” differs from him in so many (and, I think [I’m an outsider, but with significant exposure] from Reformed point of view, such important) ways that they are really their own thing and not a mutation of this historic strand of Protestantism.

It seems to me (looking from the outside) that the primary similarities are 1) elder governance within individual congregations and 2) predestinarian soteriology.

But there are major differences. Most profoundly, they have, I think, a dramatically different theology of the church. For Reformed (better-informed correct me here, please, if this is a mischaracterization or simplification), a local congregation is a collection of families in covenantal relationship, through Christ, with God. Because it is a collection of families, it is appropriate to regard children as members of the covenant community and to baptize them. For most “Neo-Cal” and “YRR”, a local congregation is a collection of converted individuals, and if one cannot credit a person’s conversion testimony (as in the case of young children), that person is not a candidate for baptism or for membership in the local congregation.

Also different, in the conception of “the Church”, is the relationship of the local congregation to other like-minded congregations. It appears to me that most “Neo-Cal” congregations regard themselves to be autonomous and unaccountable to any visible authority other than themselves, whereas classic Reformed and Presbyterian congregations exist within an accountability structure of higher-level bodies of some kind or other.

Differences in the understanding of the meaning of communion have already been alluded to in this thread.

I invite those more familiar with the structure of Reformed thinking to add to this list.

“Neo-Cal” should not be thought of as a mutation of Calvinism or of Reformed theology. It is a mutation of Baptist theology, mutated through “pick and choose” addition of certain features found in Reformed theological system, but without the internal coherence of that system.

I think the name assigned to this movement should reflect this.

Returning to the point that one of the few strong similarities of “Neo-Cal” to Calvin is “predestinarian soteriology”, I submit this proposal for a more descriptive term:

“Predestinarian Baptist”

or, shorter,

“Predo-Baptist”

This proposal is offered only half in jest.

dee,

Don’t take any wooden nickels.

dee: I plan to get a photo of me at Wartburg castle.

That will make it official!

Ras al Ghul: X-Men 94,

Was X-Men 94 the Dark Phoenix one or the reboot issue into the X-Men I was familair with during the Late Seventies/Early Eighties?

dee,

The new pope belongs to the same order as Martin Luther.

Also, people commemorated in HUG’s parish window lived at Wartburg!

Headless Unicorn Guy: Was X-Men 94 the Dark Phoenix one or the reboot issue into the X-Men I was familair with during the Late Seventies/Early Eighties?

It was the latter (the introduction of the new team). Also Thunderbird was introduced in X-Men 94 as a member of the team and was killed (permanently) in X-Men 95.