35:

Preach it, Paula!

You know,  maybe these guys are so worried about being emasculated because they serve an emasculated Jesus?

I just put up a post on my blog, linking back to this post asking this question.  I embedded an old TV commercial of Robert Conrad daring you to go ahead and try to knock off an Everready battery from his shoulder.  Isn’t God’s will and God’s Word the same way?  What God do they serve?  I guess when you demote Jesus, this is what happens.

Why do I easily envision Cheryl Schatz with the Word — like an Everready battery on her shoulder (with all the theological punching power of Robert Conrad and Rocky Marciano), and I can’t dream of Stinson or any in his camp doing likewise?  In the end of things, it seems that all they really have is hierarchy.  Even the Word of God is subject to it.  This is their God?  He who speaks and the earth melts?

Cheryl,

I’ve been praying and praying for you as you prepare the video on the Trinity, but I will also pray specifically about this disappointing situation with Matt Slick, too.

I downloaded this old sermon of Walter Martin’s from the late ’70s when he spoke at Lee College (where about half of my Spiritual fathers came from).  http://spiritwatch.org/cultrise79.ram

As I listened to this wonderful sermon, not quite 40 minutes into the download, Dr. Martin talks about how he met and spoke with Rocky Marciano, the heavyweight champion of years gone by.  I was overwhelmed and started to cry as he talked about what Rocky had to say to him and I could think about nothing but you as he told this story.

Rocky apparently had very short arms.  If he swung at someone, they had to be close enough for him to get in one good punch, and he could knock them out.  But he had to take a lot of hits in the process, because he had to wait to get close enough to be able to make that one solid punch.  Dr. Martin said that this was an excellent analogy for the Christian life.  We have the goods.  All we need is that one, good shot, and we can win.

Matt is certainly not the enemy.  We all belong to Christ and we are on the same side of the battle, so it is the deception that holds him that you fight against.  And I don’t even see this all as a disagreement over gender at the root of this but the fact that Matt (as many like him) choose to deal harshly and cruelly with their brethren who disagree over intramural doctrine.   We should afford one another liberty under the bonds of the Holy Spirit and of love, not ridicule, strife and insult.

As I listened to this today, I was just overwhelmed with how I identified you with Rocky.  You have what it takes to pierce through this deception and all the miserable cruelty with God’s love, power, Spirit and truth.  There’s no doubt in my heart that you have the Living God, sound doctrine and a spirit of love behind your punch, whatever it is that you’re doing.  And you’ve been given an opportunity to face the same type of petty behavior and attitude that has taken over the very groups that I used to support.  In that sense, you’re in there fighting for me and for all of us who have watched this cruel arrogance invade the Church that is supposed to be known by our love for one another, not all of this adversarial stuff that has become commonplace among those who hold to Slick’s belief system.

So I hope that this encourages you today — maybe there’s something else in that message for you to hear as well.  But I’m just going to focus on you making one stand for truth and love in Christ Jesus against this commonplace cruelty for which so many areas of the Church are now known.  I don’t think you have to “throw a lot of punches” but you need only make one good stand to pierce through all of this junk.  Like Rocky Marciano, you’re getting close enough to take your appointed stand against this principality or power or whatever this happens to be — a light piercing through the darkness.  You only need one good shot.  And I have confidience now but will pray that you will have it when you go to pierce through this.  You’re not goint to miss.

Know you’re loved and be encouraged.  I don’t know what to expect for an outcome from this encounter with Matt, but you’re definitely going to hit the mark.  I believe and feel strong and sure of it.   Just like Walter Martin said we will do as Christians.

He also says in that sermon that all references to “saved” in the NT are eternal salvation, so I Timothy 2:15 are some kind of proof that women who are saved (generally) through their submissive act of childbirth.

And I was only joking when I said that a few weeks ago on another thread!  (That they would replace Eph 3:8-9 and Jn 3:16 with I Tim 2:15 for women only.)

Cheryl,

You will continue in our prayers as you continue to work on this vitally important project.   (Vitally important to me and my corner of the world, that is!)

Enjoy the rest!

This issue of Adam’s naming of Eve was offered by Bruce Ware in one of his audios on CBMW as well.  In that same lecture, he says that when Genesis says that Seth was found to be more in the likeness of Adam,  this means character and morality and in the full image of God because the language is similar to that found earlier in the creation account.  I guess the evil nature found in Cain came from Eve, but the good nature of Seth came from Adam.  (As if Cain, the evil seed, was made so by Eve, but that which was like Adam as found in Seth was good.  ????)  If you read the whole account though, Eve named the boys including Seth.

I think it’s laughable that he can use Adam naming Eve as an example, gloss right over the account of Eve naming Seth (having dominion over him?) and then jump to the eisegesis that Seth being found in the likeness of Adam means that men are more like God and that evil comes through the woman.

Horray!  What a wonderful relief!  I’ve been waiting for and expecting a good report!

Lin wrote: How many sermons have I heard the pastor say, the husband is the head and the wife turns the neck. See, the affirmation for her to manipulate? Or how about this one: Anything with 2 heads is a freak.

I must say that I now recognize how truly blessed I was to have not heard this stuff at all until I got involved in a shepherding-discipleship Christian/Bible-based cult. Perhaps this is why so much of this debate seems so outright silly to me. How two people can become one flesh and then shenanigans like this can be promoted is just beyond my understanding. Praise God that I was well into my marriage when I first heard this ridiculous stuff.

I asked him if this meaning was the true meaning of the verse why God would be prejudiced against men by not promising that they would be kept spiritually safe by remaining in their “roles” as husbands and fathers?

Cheryl,
Your comment #50 points out a really great example of how so many of these spiritually abusive and manipulative teachers take their words to create the illusion of a false dichotomy so that the listener can see only two alternatives or views of a given topic.  Especially in a congregation, all the influences of the environment and the setting reinforce this for the unsuspecting, earnest, trusting follower sitting in the pew.  You have minister who takes a passage of Scripture that actually falls within a number of possible interpretations that are within an acceptable, sound Biblical view, yet will use the pressure of the group and their own skill to promote only one alternative as correct.  They can also “paint the picture” so that not only is their view the only view, in matters of intramural issues in the church-at-large, they can promote these intramural issues as those that are not peripheral but central, critical, defining doctrines of the Christian faith.

People are especially vulnerable to this influence when they are in the moment in fellowship with one another.  The minister uses appeal to authority to his (or her!?) advantage, and can use homiletics in their favor.  The group pressure is strong, as it is our basic human nature to conform in group settings, particularly for the Christian, those that accompany reference for God’ house.  (If you disagree with the minister, it shows disrespect to the House of Prayer and God Himself if one were to protest then and there.)  The minister has cooperation of the congregants in the service, so they are willing to comply with expected behaviors, and this diminishes and competes with one’s ability to objectively evaluate the message, especially if the message is questionable.   Thought reform theory says that gaining behavioral compliance gives the speaker a foothold into one’s thoughts and emotions, so just by routine compliance with the group norm increases the power of their message.  Then add in there the social pressure and social mentoring influence when you might have doubts about what was said, but everyone around you nods and says “Amen.”  It is basic human nature to check oneself in these circumstances (basically designed for our survival and protection, but can work against us when we are being “led” to accept a false dichotomy).

I sit here tonight with part of mind saying “How could anyone not consider that this protection message for women through role performance not apply to men?”  But then I also consider my experience of having been in congregations wherein these many powerful pressures caused me to accept these false dichotomies and other doctrines that, under other circumstances, I would have outright rejected.

I’m so blessed by this internet discussion and other ones that give earnest people an opportunity to put the brakes on some of these processes by bringing attention to the holes in the arguments of some of these folks who have such rigid gender views.  In a forum where people are not wrestling with the immediate pressures that they would be when listening to a sermon or sitting in a pew, people can have more of their internal resources available to take a second look at the teachings.  I believe that’s what we are seeing now on the internet, and the powerful, agenda driven pontiffs aren’t too happy about it.  When people are given the support and opportunity to think things through like Bereans in a safe place like the one you’ve created here in cyberspace, many people figure out that they have an alternative to the “black and white world” that many of these teachers have created and manipulated.

I’m so encouraged by all of this at work this week, here and on other places on the internet.  People realize that they have choices and that even Jesus invited Thomas to examine His wounds so that he might believe.  Jesus wanted Thomas to have faith in Him and not faith in what he thought he should or had to believe.  I believe that the Word teaches that the goal of Christian living is intimacy with the Lord where we love Him with our hearts, minds and strength, not a goal of high-performance of man’s standards and a relationship based on “shoulds.”

Keep fighting the good fight and creating this place where people can hash out their thoughts and ideas concerning so many of these all or nothing alternatives posed in the gender debate.

http://www.EthicsDaily.com just published their second article this week about my patriarchy workshop and this controversy.  This article goes into their werid “militant fecundity” business and how it overlaps with ideologies held by powerful leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention.  It’s today’s headline article.  It makes you wonder when they will stop using John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 to witness and share the Gospel message to women in favor of I Tim 2:15 (women are saved through childbirth).  I had no idea that the ties were so strong between the SBC and the patriocentrists.

It’s been a blessing and amazing to me to see people come from out of nowhere to speak out against this stuff, especially nice after getting “disavowed” by the apologetics group that asked me to speak on the subject.  Cheryl has been such a great support and so validating to me.  Now EthicsDaily.com is plugging at this.

Dr. Wright,
Your comments here have been like a B-12 shot in the arm for me!
I so appreicate what you’ve written.
Thank you!

Everyone,

Ethics Daily contacted me late yesterday and posted an online article about this whole affair.

The Dallas Morning News Religion Editor has posted a blog item this afternoon asking for theologians to comment on the matter.  Denny Burk is over there posting.  Anyone game?

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/04/is-jesus-subordinate-to-god-an.html

Not to imply that these specifically relate directly to this situation or whether this reflects my position on the matter…  Just an offering for contemplation about how far people will go or why they will not go to any extent when their convictions potentially influence their ability to earn their sustanance.

Favorite Quotes on Authority, Employment, Livelhood and Basic Human Need  (paying the rent and putting food on the table):

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

Samuel Adams


“We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep.”

Fyodor Dostoevski

Thank you, Bob K. Wright!

Cheryl,

I too am baffled at how Bruce Ware can remotely and with any sense of good conscience quote Augustine (when discussing Christ being the Eternal Son of the Father — which does not in any way mean that Christ has non-supreme authority) when in my reading, he completely destroys Ware’s argument.  I can’t wait to study how the freewillism aspect plays into this, which is an ironic twist and pretty funny (likely as offensive to Dr. Ware as the term subordinationism proves for him).  It is frustrating to read Ware after Augustine, because Augustine was so committed to the same-ness of the power of each Divine Person.  I’ve also found two quotes from Tertullian that destroy what Ware suggests, yet the hierarchalists claim a long litany of church father’s that supposedly prove their point.  Actual reading of them, even including RL Dabney, strongly argue against their thesis, that which is presented as the most solid argument of doctrine in Christendom.  I was admonished to present my refutations of Ware online by the spokesman for the apologetics group that disavowed me, but it is very difficult to wade through on an emotional level.  If I put up only the quotes from Ware and others without calling the problems out that are so blatantly clear to me, I believe that people will miss the error, as they have done so all along.  The appeal to authority is a strong master for so many.

I’m re-reading some old stuff about the difference between social trinitarianism which prefers emphasis on the diversity of the Divine Persons which sees the Persons as each having very discrete and separate consiousness, intellect and free will.  This view is predisposed to a type of polytheistic tri-theism.  (Something Barth wrote quite a lot about, not that he elucidated all things clearly in orthodox fashion.)  This is opposed to an “anti-social Trinitarianism” that prefers the view and perspective that there is one God with a consistency or uniting of intellect and will that is in no way compromised by the Three Persons.  Anti-social Trinitarianism risks falling off into unitarianism or monism.

That is why, in Trinitarian matters, I always lean to Iraneaus and what I understand typified his perspective:  we must stay grounded in solid Christology which will keep us balanced.  We must stay committed to the historical Jesus and what we know clearly and absolutely from the Word based on what eventually would become a solid hermeneutic.  (I learn best with a grammatico-historical one and find that best for my brain as it makes its attempt to put things together in a meaningful way.)  I also come back to what Harold Brown says about heresy in his book on the topic:  it is the intent that one brings to the study.  Either one seeks out Scripture to confirm an hypothesis or one comes to the Scripture with the paramount interest to discern what what we know from Scripture, committed to discern the truth regardless of what we would like the conclusion to be.  That is what distinguishes heresy even from a misguided teaching — intent and motive.

I would like to throw this into the mix as well concerning motive and behavior such as the use of “I will pray for your misguided, errant soul” tactic.  I recently heard Dr. Paul Martin of the Wellspring Center in Ohio teach (at the unnamed apologetics conference where I spoke).  He pointed out that there were 210 Scriptures in the Bible dealing with false teachers, abusive shepherds, Pharisees, etc.  Of those Scriptures, this is what each verse is concerned with:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine

It’s hard for me to process the rebukes to ignore behavior, fruit and motive in favor of doctrine when this is exactly what the Word of God teaches us to do.  I believe that this politically correct Christianity is likely responsible for the mess in which we now find ourselves.

God have mercy on us all and give us abundant wisdom that we might discern just even the basics of the Word.  God help us.

Don Johnson wrote:  “hierarchical lenses.”

FYI:

This is taken directly from Ware, from at least 3 sources that I can name, one of which is his book on the subject.

That is,

10 people or organizations that are willing to make very public statements…  Why is not every apologetics minded Christian and group not speaking out?

Don,

What shocks me is that this is coming from the top levels of a Southern Baptist seminary (SBTS, in fact).   And that a whole seminary faculty can listen to this stuff and not be up in arms.  And that all but for about no more than 10 people (Cheryl and I included in that number!) say anything about it.  And the rest of the church marches on, asleep.

Though I grew up in the Pentecostal Church, I always had the utmost respect for the Southern Baptists and their dedication to the Word of God, the “people of the Book.”  I went to a Christian highschool that used ACE curricullum (basically Baptist), and it was so sound and good.  I attended a huge Baptist Church in Louisiana in the ’90s, and I was crushed to discover how Biblically illiterate most people there were.  Eighteen years later, if my experience there was anything like the state of affairs anywhere else, I’m not surprised that Ware’s teachings have gone unchallenged.

I’m deeply grieved at the state of affairs of the church anyway, but to witness all this in the SBC really disappoints me.  This is a very sad commentary on the whole Evangelical church.

But I have to wonder why there are only 10 or so people up in arms over subordinationism and not at least 10,000.  Maybe I don’t even want to know the answers.

Cheryl,

Thank you for this encouragement and validation.

God richly bless you for all the labor that you’ve put into this and may he heal the wounds you’ve sustained as you’ve studied this.  I know how difficult it is to read and read these things, and I have not done nearly the amount of work that you have in this area.  May God heal and restore you, making you stronger than you were before.  May God gird you with strength and make your way perfect!