Cindy K

Boy, how did I miss this discussion until now?

John,

Paula mentioned a blog further up the thread where pre-mil dispensationalists were called “nut-jobs.”  Reading this thread after it has been ongoing for awhile is pretty interesting, because I don’t have to get too engaged in it.  And it’s interesting to see the dynamics, reminding me a little of Irish Set Dancing/folk dancing that I used to do before I got asthma and my thyroid went on vacation…  But back to Paula’s comment.

Round about 2001 or 2002, Gary DeMar debated Tommy Ice regarding the pre-mil/post-mil eschatology debate.  What I found to be the most interesting about their discussion was not so much the subject matter.  (In many ways, I’m still just taking it all in.  I think I’m amillienial now, and just waiting to see how it all works out, as I don’t like the Dominionist tendencies of the post-mils and I don’t like the selling of hell insurance that the pre-mils fall into…)  What I did find most notable about the discussion was how cool and easy Gary Demar behaved and how worked up Tommy Ice became about nearly everything.  I listened to it, and it seemed that if I’d known nothing about the topic, I’d have been persuaded by Gary DeMar, just because he didn’t rattle.  I spoke to Gary DeMar about it, and he cracked the biggest smile and chuckled.  Out of all the many things he’s written on many topics, he says that he hears the same feedback about that debate.  I can never get past the human factor in it to really listen to the content.

I don’t mean to be abrasive or to be too critical, but some of what I heard in Tommy Ice some years ago comes back to my mind when I read some of your comments.  You seem, well, rattled.  For some crazy reason, I have the term ex cathedra on the brain, so it pops out here as I consider the approach with which you write here.  Everyone here has chimed in on most of the doctrine (I’m pretty stuck on the comment that the proto evangelian supports the idea of man as woman’s spiritual head myself!).  But I think that if you approached the discussion with more of an attitude of common respect, considering that you’re addressing fellow believers who hold to a very different perspective from your own that you would get much further.  You have an authoritative approach, and it just seems to me that you’re putting people on the defensive before you even make the first point.

It is one thing to say “On this blog, most of those who post here hold to position A, and we invite discussion on B and C, but we do not share those views.  So feel free to discuss them.” It’s an entirely different thing to say “On this blog, most of us hold to position A, but we thing anyone who is Non-A is a nut job.” And there are equivalents of the “nut job” comment, such as the approach that others are abhorrently wrong and that you have a corner on the truth.  And who knows?  Maybe you do!  But many will not bother to consider your arguments because of your approach.  And more obvious are the accusations that are also authoritative stating that those participating here are offering aberrant views for power motives.  How is it that you know the hearts of those here?  (Now that might be something to discuss!  I’d kinda like to know how to develop that ability to see motive, see trouble coming and avoid it.  But I don’t believe that you really can know motives like this, certainly not from only a limited discussion on a blog.)

Cheryl said above, earlier in the thread, that you are pressing buttons that you didn’t necessarily need to press.  The accusations about motives demonstrate an excellent example of what I believe she’s talking about.  A soft answer turns away wrath.

There are several ideas here that I do not hold in common with many who post here, mostly because I am not all that egalitarian.  But I feel very welcome here (and am listed with another (pretty soft) complementarian here as a blog in the sidebar.  Why?  Because I think that like me, the people who participate here and the blog host all are more interested in truth than they are in pushing an agenda.  Our differences are just perspectives — my view of the landscape from where I stand and what I’ve been taught.  But I believe that we are all looking and walking in the same direction — toward that of a deeper understanding of the truth of the Word of God.

I just wanted you to know that I’ve had a very hard time cutting through your attitude and what seems like offense to me to get at the meat of what you’re arguing.  And I think it would have far more of an impact and leave a far better impression on me if you refrained from the accusations as well as the approach that sounds so authoritative (as if no one else here could talk their way out of a paper bag).  It doesn’t help your argument at all.  And let me state that I know about this well because I’ve learned by doing the very same thing.  It’s almost like I had to get out of my own way.  You seem to me like you are very much in your own way, and you don’t seem to be resting in the truth (whatever we end up discerning that truth to be — good, perfect or acceptable).

I don’t want to be rude or anything, and you might not even realize any of this, but I can tell you with much confidence that, regardless of whether we agree on these doctrines, these are not any kind of people (Paula, Lin, Cheryl, Don, and anyone I missed like Charis or Arlene, etc.) who have ill motives or who have “personal fallen agendas” as you state with such full assurance.  The people here are not your enemies — we are brethren that disagree.

I think I met that Pastor Mener Better!

(My husband wants to add this to his list of silly aliases.)

Don,

Your statement is beautiful.  I really don’t understand the “my way or the highway” approach to some of these matters that some camps hold, and it applies to a great many different doctrines, not just interpretations of the Word concerning gender.  You’ve made points like this one before concerning the advanced Greek language that Paul used, one who was a trained expert in the Law and devotee to it before his conversion.   One need not know Greek to recognize how learned he was, even quoting secular poetry back to those he met at Mars Hill.

I thought I was so studious and dedicated when I embarked upon the study of NT Greek.  I approached it so that I could have fewer questions about doctrine rather than more.  Ha!

I did learn more, and my understanding of the Word and its impact on me did deepen tremendously in ways I did not expect.  But there were certain Scriptures which seemed to suddenly become far more complicated.  I also studied with someone who was raised as a Jew, and he added to that complexity of Paul’s Greek the added benefit of how much of the New Testament refers to the Law and to Jewish Tradition.  It left me feeling like little more than a snot-nosed brat who only developed a greater appreciation for how complicated some of these Scriptures and their exegesis can be.  Not to say that we can’t know what the Word tells us, but it drove home to me that one can’t rightly approach certain Scriptures with the idea that only your interpretation can be the only accurate option.

In many ways, that is why I fell back to a (very soft) complementarian interpretation from an egalitarian one concerning some Scriptures, because I’d rather not make presumptions.  This was especially true after I gained such an appreciation for Paul’s Greek that if I wanted to begin to approach certainty on many of the things I sought certain answers for, I’d better become a full-time Greek language student and plan on studying for about the next 10 years.  What translation, what Lexicon, what teacher, what grammar, what theology, what was the context, ect., ect…  For me, it had a quality of what Job or Habakkuk must have felt when YHWH showed up to answer their prayers and frustration.  Fear of the Lord and an appreciation took on new meaning for me.  (For me, that’s how the Holy Spirit leans on my heart right now.  To that I must be true and that is not the standard of another who might see things differently than I do.)

How remarkably gracious is God to tolerate us and allow us liberty as we learn to figure out exactly Who He is?  Jesus meets us where we are in our understanding just like Jesus meets us where we were in our sins.  That’s what differentiates us from those who followed the Lord in the Old Testament.  He lets us be wrong as He gently and lovingly transforms us, leading us and guiding us into more and more truth about Him.

And then we take that liberty and freedom, and turn to one another as believers to demand cruel accuracy in a demanding spirit of intolerance, bereft of love.  Apart from the Spirit opening our eyes to see the truth about what He’s really telling us in the Word, we aren’t much further ahead of the demons who know the Word of God well.  All I can pray is that God is merciful with me when I do stand before Him for my years of being sure of this doctrine or that one, some of which could drive me to put a bag over my head for the rest of my life because of embarassment.  (But we are not to cover God’s glory with our shame.  The real shame would have been to stay in my former ways of thinking.)

Some people twist Scripture, but some people are just still coming into a greater knowledge of the truth.  So much of this I just don’t get.  I think human fear rather than faith in God and love for one another accounts for far too much in these matters.   It breaks my heart, as for many, this is all just about winning the day.

Wait, Don!

Maybe it’s really Sayers who is naughty?  We should expect Sayers to be naughty, dissident that she was!

(Cindy with very large smile on her face.)

I don’t think that most of these men that come up with these theories have enough work to do.   My husband thinks that they all need to get jobs.

Don,

You are a naughty one!  Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Actually, I think the Reformation needs to Revolt!

Paula,

That’s what I’m praying will happen.  With the mass exodus of people from traditional churches and people that are fed up with all the legalism…  I’m praying that God is at work in ways beyond our understanding and will bring a mighty move of the Spirit for real repentence and revival.  It may take awhile for people to get a big, sour belly full of the advertising techniques and sound bites and the “thus sayith the little popes.”  Everyone is so obsessed with power and authority that I think either sects will split and destroy their earthly towers of sand.  Then people will go back to the Cross without the baggage.

Cheryl,

Alright, I’ve been waiting to see the DVD before I plug it on my blog, but it didn’t arrive yet.  I hope it comes today.  I wont have time to watch it until tomorrow, but I’ll get the excitement of knowing that I have it!

And I was wondering, after visiting Lin’s blog where she’s now posted a clip from WIM from YouTube, if you are going to put any video clips of the Trinity series online, too?

I can’t wait to get mine, either.  Guess I have to though…

I’m so glad it was so well received at the showing this past weekend!

I also found that the Christianity today link did not work, but I did find this summary of the debate on the Henry Center blog.

http://www.henrycenter.org/blog/?p=36

(It’s the same link that I posted on another thread.)

Also, Wade Burleson’s blog still has a pretty healthy discussion taking place in response to a letter from Dr. Curtis Freeman (a Baptist) at Duke Divinity School.  http://www.wadeburleson.com

Wade Burleson posted a follow-up post to a previous one on semi-Arianism.  It’s a very interesting read.  A professor at Duke Divinity School who is a Baptist from what I can ascertain stated that this doctrine (likely only meant to advance complementarianism) is like Unitarianism of the First Person of the Trinity.  Most Baptists, he observes, are more like functional Unitarians of the Second Person (Christ).

Anyway,  someone posted a link to Cheryl’s post discussing how one cannot rightly pray to Jesus in Ware’s world, and the discussion turned that way.

Someone wrote this nice comment there that I didn’t want anyone to miss.

Anonymous said…
After 9/11, when the government failed to investigate thoroughly, a valiant group of women went to Congress and demanded a complete investigation. These women were known as the ‘Jersey Girls’. They were widows of victims.

Cheryl: how is it that you remind me of the Jersey Girls? Thank you for your work and for your courage: you can only make things better for the women of the Church. Keep up the good work. There is a story out there to be told. You are on the front lines, as are others on this blog. Be of good courage. They have much to hide. We have much to find out. You serve a just and right cause.
God bless.
Sun Oct 12, 08:59:00 PM 2008

The Henry Center posted “live blog” notes from Ware’s debate at TEDS this past week.  I did not watch the streaming video and have not reviewed what is written here, but I’d thought I’d post the link to the blog.  I also have not figured out if they’ve posted the audio anywhere.

Here’s the blog post with a summary:

http://www.henrycenter.org/blog/?p=36

And this is all the more ironic and distressing if you consider, as I do, that it was Christianity that brought freedom to study to women to start with.  I see egalitarianism as a blessing of the New Covenant.  Our inconsistencies in this area do challenge our witness as the Church universal to the world.

Cheryl,

I grew up in Allentown, just about an hour south of the Blue Mountain.  I’ve spent many nights there for all sorts of gatherings, most of them Pentecostal gatherings that were standing room only.  And you’re going at my favorite time of year.  Go to Leiby’s and eat some ice cream for me and give Don Veinot a hug for me and tell him I love him (tear in my eye).  I have not been there for many years, but I loved to go and hear “Brother Chris,” a sweet man from Holland who was the adorable man who operated the place.  It is such a wonderful place, all set apart away from the world.

Don Veinot told me that a Jehovah’s Witness showed up there last year and left a believer.  I pray they come back and bring everyone they can entice to come.  May many, many more leave as believers this year.  I’m so excited for you and wish that I could be there.

I’m so excited to finally see people (other than folks like us) open up this discussion in such a widely read forum that is read by so many who hold this view.

God will not be mocked, and I am encouraged to see people begin to question as well as reject these teachings.  And the dialogue on Pastor Wade’s blog was quite respectful which is always a blessing.  As you know all too well, Cheryl, such is not always the case.

Glory to God alone!

Paula,

I glanced at that site (one I’m not familiar with).  I was happy to see a very broad perspective there, one that presents and links to a wide variety of approaches to the topic.  And it starts out with Scripture.  That’s always the best place to start!

I also glanced at an article that they link to discussing how social manipulation is used within the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In Christian circles, it’s been my experience that most people fail to look only at doctrinal issues, but the psychological ones are just as disturbing.  I will enjoy going back to read that article more closely that discusses how JWs are also emotionally and psychologically manipulated.

I think we all like to avoid that discussion because we realize that we are all vulnerable to manipulation when the conditions are right.

Thanks — I’ve got a new link to add to my growing list!

Cheryl mentions “milieu control” in this post, and the topic of what actually defines a cult came up on Wade Burleson’s blog discussing the same thing.

This is a comment I just posted (a little late to the dance over there) that I thought might be helpful to people who want to learn more about milieu control and the significance of it.

I just posted the following at “Grace and Truth To You“:

A few have expressed some concern over what actually defines a cult…

Dr. Paul Martin said that there were two kinds of fruit: that of the doctrine preached and that of the life lived. In that respect there can be two kinds of cults — those that teach false doctrine and those that use coercive and manipulative means to recruit and control membership.

In terms of doctrine, a cult denies the central teachings of Christian orthodoxy, primarily always denying the Trinity.

(Do we have anyone in the SBC arguing subordinationism in the Trinity? Hmmm. A comment for another day and another thread, but a reasonable one.)
In terms of behavior, a Biblical Christian church can manifest the characteristics of cultic manipulation and thus be considered a mind-control or thought reform cult while still claiming sound basic doctrine.

One can use a couple of different criteria for determining cultic behavior. One is the “Spiritual Abuse” model according to Henke, wherein a group demonstrates the following:
Authoritarian Systems and leaders over-emphasize authority
Image Conscious Maintains high standards to validate specialness to God
Suppresses Criticism No questioning of doctrine or leadership is permitted
Perfectionistic Blessings come through performance and noncompliance is punished.
Unbalanced/Elitist Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God

….

The other criteria generally used to evaluate whether a group demonstrates cultic behavior is Robert Lifton’s Thought Reform model:
Milieu Control — The control of information and communication, and generation of propaganda
Mystical Manipulation — The manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated
Demand for Purity — The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection
Cult of Confession — Sins, flaws and shortcomings (as defined by the group) are to be confessed to the group
Sacred Science — The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute
Loading the Language — The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand
Doctrine Over Person — The member’s personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group
Dispensing of Existence — The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does no

There’s plenty more to read on my blog and website if you want more information about this topic.

I’ve seen varying degrees of all these characteristics at work in the SBC in recent years. I’m still shocked to see it, and I rejoice that it is not true of all Southern Baptists. Sadly, sound doctrine does eventually get a person out of these groups and makes us less likely to get caught up into them, but we are all vulnerable to manipulation and these power of these group dynamics because they exploit both the good and bad aspects of human nature. Sound doctrine is not immunization against these ideas, otherwise I don’t think we would be hearing teachings that Jesus does not have the authority or either hear or answer prayer because He does not possess the Father’s supreme and ultimate authority within an ontologically hierarchical Trinity. I think that the social aspects of cultic behavior within the SBC have paved the way so that SBC seminaries are willing to allow these questionable views of Trinity to be entertained. Poor fruit of the life lived generally begets aberrant doctrine and vice versa.

Here’s a tangent question that really doesn’t have much to do with I Cor 14, but I always wondered about.

If Anna was a prophetess that went to live in the Temple after she was widowed (the one who prophesied over the infant Jesus), why was she in the temple if she could not speak there?  What did she do there?  Why go and live there — someone identified as “one who speaks” — and then not be able to speak?

If anyone is interested, I contacted the Henry Center and discovered that Ware’s debate on October 9th, 2008 discussing subordinationism will be both” webcasted” and recorded.  It will be made available at some point on the Henry Center/Trinity Evangelical Divinity School website.  So I don’t know if they will stream it live on Oct. 9th, but it will be made available eventually.

Yippie Yay, indeed!

I wonder what spin that the hierarchalists would put on this and how many paragraphs it would take them to communicate it?

This is all so plain and clear to me, that submission is functional or economic and not one of essence, I can’t even anticipate what arguments they will offer.   I can usually anticipate the arrogance with which the arguments are made, however.  Most all that I have heard assume a proud sense that they cannot be wrong and no other interpretation warrants any merit.

Hat Tip to Lin!  She found that blog post first!

Lin who responds here forwarded a link to the Who’s in charge? post.  If it were not for her and people like her keeping me informed of what goes on out there, I would have much less information to present. I am most grateful to those that do send me their personal accounts and links to good information, particularly pertaining to all these things pertaining to gender.  I feel like I’ve had a college education in some of these things, just studying what others have learned about the gender agendas through costly experience.  I’m grateful to all and I pray that the whole church can benefit from the lessons learned.

And this was a good blog post!

Can you elaborate?

Don,

From the comments here, I don’t think it sounds like it will amount to much more than a graduate student indoctrination session.  It sounds like these former students are actually admitting that there is an “arian” eternal subordination, with “hard” and “soft” interpretations.  Soft subordination is not heretical.   Note the comments on the thread.

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/trinity-debate.html

Be at peace for making the great effort that you did to live peaceably with all, despite the outcome.   And my God continue to bring us into the unity of the faith (not static uniformity under the law) through the love of God in Christ Jesus.  May the Lord have his way with all of us.

Matthew 27:12:
And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Proverbs 26:4-5

Hezekiah’s men did not answer the blasphemies of Rab-shakeh (II Kings 18:36)

Nehemiah’s response to Sanballat (Nehemiah 6:8)

I wrote:  As a once serious student of Greek, Paul is very complex.

I intended to communicate that, for a time, I was a once serious student of Greek.  And based on my studies, I was quick to note how complex Paul’s use of the Greek language can be.

Don,

I like your answer here.  As a once serious student of Greek, Paul is very complex.  He uses allusions and complex poetic devices.  He uses complex literary devices sometimes.  Other places he is very straightforward, but his style is quite advanced and very clever.

That’s another thing that just confounds me about this gender business.  People don’t talk about the context and often fail to consider the many things to which Paul alludes.  Ephesians 5:25-26 makes a reference back to the Hebrew word for holiness and it’s similarities to the word “married.”   Christ as our sanctification speaks of and alludes to Christ as the one who marries us, relating back to the Hebrew.  We have a more clear-cut example of how Paul used these types of references when he spoke at Mars Hill — using the people’s own literary references to open up a new perspective for them to see Christ.  Yet the significance of Paul’s skill and ability to craft these lovely literary devices is not taught as part of interpreting many of his writings in fullness.

Frankly, it does not speak well about the exegetical skill of those who frame out these arguments.  Aren’t all these complementarian teachers all supposed to be Bible scholars?  And in the process, we lose a beautiful aspect of appreciation for the Word of God as well.  It marginalizes the Word of God — Jesus, the Word made flesh.  But why does that not surprise me?

Okay.  Rant over.  Back to regular programming.

And I want to say that I appreciate Don for having appreciation for the lovely complexities that comes through the reading of Greek.  I’m no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but this honor for the Greek texts really shines through in his comments for me.  And all glory to God for it who has opened his understanding and his heart to receive it.  May the Holy Spirit work this into all believers and students of Holy Scripture.  I think that we tend to forget that it is Holy, Inspired and Effective.

Praying for you, Cheryl.

I see Rocky Marciano and a big Gospel Everready battery on your shoulder as you counter whatever powers, principalities and spiritual wickedness you might have to face.  I have several psalms in mind for your protection, care and deliverance.  I rejoice to see the Lord be yet again and always the glory and lifter of your head.

May God’s strength find you  as you contend against this zeitgeist of harsh rejection of fellow believers.  May you model love in a powerful way, demonstrating the difference between uniformity as opposed to Christian unity in the love of Jesus.

Wrap your arms around yourself and give yourself a big hug from me and know you are dearly loved.

Kick some aner?  ROFLOL!

Don,

I heard NOTHING of this gender business until the mid-nineties.  (I grew up egal and dropped back to “no women pastors or elders” to be conservative.)  I never had one clue that any Christian even took this stuff all that seriously.  Since then, I’ve only seen it increase, largely through my peer group and then into para-church organizations that never dreamed would ever take such a position.  People have always been legalistic about dress, and there are examples like Elizabeth Elliot (and George Elliot, for that matter) who were role models outside of my own denomination.  There have been women missionaries, etc.

That’s another reason why I don’t understand Stinson in particular, professing that this is all a late 20th Century perversion, or even one of Enlightenment thought (such as was suggested back on that Mere Christianity thread).  Why was I taught what is essentially now considered “egal” by both old men and women (Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic and Pentecostal) who were in their ’80s (back in the ’70s), teaching me what they had learned?  If these are all modern teachings resulting from late 20th century feminism and perhaps from women’s suffrage, who corrupted these men and women in their Victorian/Edwardian days and their Victorian parents before them?  Stinson uses some odd mathmatics and history.

On a previous thread, I referred to an audio download from Walter Martin that I had listened to that day:
http://www.spiritwatch.org/cultrise79.ram

I’m amazed at how much of what he said stuck with me.  The sermon centers around Matt 24 and defines what a cult is, and it was just a crystal, crystal clear message.  He applied Scripture to very contemporary issues in a manner I so rarely hear anymore.  The matter of intramural debate that he used as an example (in ’79) was that of eschatology, and I wonder what he would have to day about this issue and the implications of all the peripherals (such as the Trinity issue)?

Therein, he says that we had better get back to teaching the essentials of the faith and get away from all of this carrying on over the non-essential stuff, otherwise we would not have the love for one another in the Body and we would not be able to evangelize the lost. I could not agree more with him.

I guess this is why this whole gender thing irritates me so much — because it has been interwoven into essentials of the faith, as Lin aptly notes.  The preaching of Jesus Christ and the Cross has become much more about dresses and submission.  That is not the preaching of the Cross.

Someone wrote to me last night about how grieved they were over how Don was treated on that treadstone thread or whatever it was — and I just again heard Walter Martin quoting 2nd Corinthians 11:3 ~ “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”  (Do you think it does apply to this issue????  It almost makes me wonder if God was not looking right at us from his timeless perspective, moving Paul’s heart and mind to choose these very words.)

Now that I don’t even have to pull out my Majority Text and my Lexicon anymore, I went to Zhubert.com and looked up 2 Cor 11.  I was surprised that in addition to the word for “simple, singular and frank,” I looked and saw the “kai” (and).   It is not only just the simplicity of that is in Christ.  It says “and the cleanliness, purity and chastity” that is in Christ.  It’s straight and simple Greek there also, not always the case with the complex language of Paul.

(BTW, that was another side point of ignorance that was put to Don over there in that blog when someone clearly demonstrated that they had far less training in Greek than Don did.  Paul’s Greek is complex and as complex as James’ language.  Anyone who has taken upon the task of learning Greek learns very quickly that John is very comfortable conversation and that Paul and James are like advanced college level, both in language and in content.  That particular critic demonstrated his own ignorance in that particular comment.  But in 2 Cor 11:3, it’s straight and simple.)

God bless anyone who chooses to follow a particular course.  God bless those who eat meat sacrificed to idols and those that don’t.  Wear a head covering or don’t wear one and be blessed and rejoice.  But whatever my conviction and the Holy Spirit’s leaning on my own heart or one someone else’s, we are all called to liberty and love.  And we all get it wrong and we all mature as we grow, but the overriding goal and motive should be love for one another in Christ.  There was none of that on that blog thread.

I felt sick when I saw that someone told Don to be gracious as he was about to be eviscerated (gutted).  Every source was challenged (back to the well-documented paterfamilias and Roman secular law stuff again), his epistemology was challenged (which I found to be quite shocking), and in the end was called names — one of which I have not heard used seriously since I was in high school 25 years ago.  I felt better having read all the comments because Don was not eviscerated in any sense.  They didn’t have the goods to do it, so it degenerated into name calling.  Don didn’t seem upset at all, even in pointing out the name calling.

Bussell’s article got it right — they want uniformity through opposition (an article written in ’85?).  They certainly do not appear to want unity through love.  Christ’s love in us, freely shown to one another in liberty, is the ONLY way that it will happen.   Anything else, if it is not “cultic” or “thought stopping” to begin with will eventually end up becoming so.  And that is not unity but is rather static totalism and death to liberty.

It breaks my heart to consider what will happen to the church.  The whole body suffers — as if we have some raging infection.  At least that is my optimism talking, as the alternate means that we are not of the same body.  Only Jesus knows our hearts and souls.  Why are so many professing Christians obsessed with this?  Has it always been this way and I’ve been unaware?  Or is it worse and more widespread?