A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages 

Before we get to the post by J D Hall:

Background:

  • The Village Church (TVC) of Texas has placed Karen, who was once a member of theirs, under church discipline because she did not, according to them, abide by the church covenant she signed.
  • Instead of conferring with the church on what to do, Karen, on her own, sought an annulment from the state of Texas, once she discovered her then-spouse, Jordan, was a pedophile.
  • Karen said she spent about 50 days conferring with other Christians (not from the TVC), and in prayer, mulling over what to do, before seeking the annulment.
  • This action of hers has ticked off TVC leadership, because Karen did not get their permission to get the annulment.
  • Matt Chandler is the lead preacher of TVC.

You can read additional reporting of this situation here (additional material is at the bottom of this post):

Here is the page I am responding to:

(Link, off site): A Rational Response to the Criticism of Village Church  by  J D Hall, Pulpit and Pen blog

The covenant that Hall is so rigorously defending – TVC’s membership covenant – here does not even mention annulments.

As Karen explains (off site Link, Source):

  • …it is worth noting here that although The Village Church claims [in their e-mail] that “We see an annulment as a subcategory of what Scripture defines as a divorce in Mark 10:9” …, this cannot be found anywhere in their Membership Covenant or Bylaws.
  • In signing their Membership Covenant shortly after my 24th birthday, I had agreed to nothing in regards to the possibility of annulment should I come to realize that my marriage had been a complete sham from the beginning.
  • There is a vast difference between a divorce and a marriage that is voided on the grounds of fraud, and I had no way of knowing that the leadership of The Village Church would respond to it in this fashion.

Continue reading “A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages”

Is Jesus Too Sexy? Too Sexy for His Hat, Too Sexy for His Shirt? And What About Salome in Movies? / Re: Actor Diogo Morgado and Depictions of Jesus in Movies – Including Son of God

Is Jesus Too Sexy? Too Sexy for His Hat, Too Sexy for His Shirt? And What About Salome in Movies?

Some Christians think that the actor, Diogo Morgado, who plays Jesus in the movie “Son of God” is too smokin’ hot and that this will distract audiences from the movie itself.

Some of them apparently caught on to the fact that females find the man attractive after a female journalist interviewed the actor in the past couple of weeks and kept gushing about what a sexy sex pot he is. One wonders, had this female journalist not harped on the actor’s looks, would Christian and Fighting for the Faith pod cast host Chris Rosebrough have noticed, or would preacher and Christian blogger Wade Burleson have noticed?

Usually (as I’ve blogged about a MILLION times before) males, especially Christian males, live in fairy tale land where they believe only men are “visually oriented” and only men like sex and want sex. Rarely is female libido and the female gaze acknowledged or even assumed to exist.

(Link): Audio: Fighting for the Faith: Vidal Sassoon Jesus is an International Sex Symbol? (Feb 24, 2014)

(Link): The Ugly Side of the Son of God by Wade Burleson

Excerpt:

    by Wade Burleson

    Isaiah the prophet says Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God was physically unattractive. There is no mistake in what the inspired prophet meant when he described the physical looks of the Son of God. Listen to the prophet’s words:

    “…like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” (Isaiah 53:2).

    The new Hollywood motion picture entitled Son of God is definitely not faithful to the Scriptures in the physical presentation of the Son of God. Jesus on the screen looks like a cross between Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. Watching “Son of God” in a theater might make young ladies wish to “Kiss the Son” (Psalm 12:2) physically, rather than to embrace Him in faith. In our literal society, where the visual visceral always seems to trump eternal realities, one might walk away from the move Son of God being more enraptured with the good looks of Jesus than the good news of Jesus’ Kingdom.

How often, I wonder, do male Christian pundits worry that the actresses who played Salome in various screen adaptations of the life of Jesus were too sexy and come hither?

Salome
Salome

The Salome character, in her thick eye liner, harem costume, and sexy dance routine, has been in two or three of the TV or movie productions about Jesus Christ, including the 1970s mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth,” (directed by Zeffirelli) and 1961’s King of Kings, and I don’t ever recall a Christian male writing concerns about the Salome character being too attractive. Why is that?

(Link): IMDB: Son of God

(Link): #HotJesus: Must He be sexy?

(Link): Diogo Morgado Inspires Hot Jesus Hashtag; Actor Playing ‘Son Of God’, May Be Too Sexy

    Have depictions of Jesus gotten too sexy over the years?

    The actor playing Jesus in the new ‘Son of God’ movie has inspired the #HotJesus hashtag that is taking Twitter by storm and causing some to wonder: Why does Jesus have to be sexy?

    In a witty op-ed, CNN anchor Carol Costello raised the issue of why a divine but still incarnate historical figure must be portrayed as handsome, buff or “physically perfect.”

    We actually don’t know what Jesus looked like. We do know he was a carpenter, so perhaps Jesus was buff. But, I don’t think when the Biblical Nathaniel asked, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” and Phillip answered, “Come and see,” they were talking about Jesus’ beautiful face or chiseled abs.

(Link): CNN’s Carol Costello Has a Problem with ‘Sexy’ Jesus

(Link): CNN’s Carol Costello Skeezed Out By Sexy Jesus In ‘Son Of God’ (Video)

    “’Son of God’ is generating a lot of heat because Jesus is, um, so sexy!” Costello exclaimed. “He looks like Brad Pitt… The question for me became must Jesus be sexy too?”

(Link): Jesus: I’m too sexy for my cross

(Link): Diogo Morgado Puts the Carnal in Incarnate, But Was Jesus Really A Babe?

    Hollywood gives the son of god chiseled cheekbones and buns of steel. But what if—based on anthropological study of first-century Galilean males—Jesus had the build of a teenage girl?

Below the Right Said Fred video below, see some more links about how Christians – yes Christians – sometimes sexualize Jesus Christ and friendship and infant girls.

Right Said Fred singing “Too Sexy”

—————————————
Related posts this blog:

(Link): The Sexualization of God and Jesus

(Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Article: My Savior My Spouse? – Is God or Jesus Your Husband Isaiah 54:5

(Link): Dating Jesus / Oh No I’m Single! (videos) – for single unmarried Christians

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Christians Who Sexualize Female Infants and Who Have Wacko, Weird, Unbiblical Gender Role Views They Actually Believe are Biblical / Re Botkins

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Self Professing Christian Guy, Closeted Homosexual, Apparently Killed His Wife (or had her killed) – Also: Christian Group IHOP Sexualizes Jesus Christ and God

(Link): Researchers measure increasing sexualization of images in magazines

(Link): Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

A Preacher Who Actually Reminds His Congregation that “Family” in the New Testament is Not Referring to Nuclear Family, Encourages Them to Include Non Relatives

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site

This is one of the few times I have heard a preacher remind his church members that Jesus Christ put Himself above nuclear family, and spiritual family (other believers in Christ) before flesh and blood relations.

I only listened to this sermon one time, last night, and on Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting For the Faith show, so my memory may not be the greatest, but if I remember correctly, preacher Hamel quotes Christ’s words of (Link): Matthew 12:46-50.

Hamel reminded his congregants to include people in their families who may be lonely, who may be widowed, or so forth. In other words, Hamel was asking them to do what God asks of them in the Bible.

I am surprised that Chris Rosebrough ripped this Hamel guy to shreds over it.

You can listen to Rosebrough pulverize Hamel here (after the commentary about Furtick, Rick Warren, and so on):

(Link): Fighting for the Faith podcast, DECEMBER 16, 2013, Chris Rosebrough, host

    Sermon Review: Netflixmas — Christmas Vacation by Dan Hamel of Southland Christian Church

I like Rosebrough on a personal level. He seems to be a nice guy, and while I do agree with him that a lot of seeker friendly sermons tend to be fluff and light on substance, I do not share his conviction that unless a sermon explicitly mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus and repentance that it is an un-biblical, stupid one worthy of ridicule or condemnation.

Not even Jesus Christ sermonized on repentance every single time he opened his mouth – please see the Gospels for examples.

Sometimes Jesus spoke about people’s earthly concerns, such as divorce, religious hypocrisy, anger, politics, hatred, sexual sin, physical sickness, worry, financial matters, and so forth.

If Rosebrough were to be consistent, he would need to get into a time machine, go back to tell Jesus after hearing Jesus deliver, say, for example, (Link): Matthew 6:33-34,

    “Jesus! Shame on you! You need to repent!
    You did not mention yourself ONCE in that discussion! You did not talk about repentance, salvation, propitiation, or hell!

    All you talked about was God meeting people’s needs! Repent, Jesus! Talk more about yourself next time!

    More soteriology, less pragmatic, earthly concerns discussions! You’re being too seeker-friendly, Jesus, repent!”

If it’s peachy fine acceptable for Jesus to occasionally veer off the ol’ “repent and be saved” sermonizing path, why is it suddenly wrong for a preacher today to do so?

And I can tell you that the church needs MORE of these Hamel-type sermons where they are reminded to stop worshipping their relatives. There are a lot of Christians who are widowed, divorced, never married, who are childless, and their relatives are dead or estranged, and such people should be invited over by the married couples of the churches for dinner, for fellowship.

I have tweeted Rosebrough before about how a lot of churches today have turned marriage (and having children) into an idol.

Some churches teach that marriage is another sort of “gospel,” while some Christian preachers teach that unmarried Christians are not fully in God’s image, while some surveys revealed that a large chunk of Christian women consider their family more important than the Gospel.

There are many un-bibical, weird, awful things Christians are teaching about marriage and singleness out there. I would hope at some point Rosebrough starts to discuss this on his show and/or blog once in a while.

Here are some links from previous blog entries I’ve made (I have many more blog posts about it, these are only a few):

(Link): Creepy: ‘Barna: [Christian] Women Value Family Over Faith’

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Conservative Christian Think Tank Says: “Preach the Gospel of Marriage”

If Rosebrough is upset over Drisocll’s plagairism (and he was, and he called Driscoll to repent over it), I would think he would also be upset, and want to devote some time, to discussing the new trend in Christianity: attacking virginity / celibacy/ singleness, such as (and again these are just a few posts, I have many others on this blog):

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Southern Baptist Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

All those people need to be told to repent of their nuclear family, pro-creation, and marriage idolatry. They need to be told to repent of marginalizing singleness and of putting nuclear family ahead of the Gospel and ahead of helping non-relatives.

So, please, give that Hamel guy a break.
Hamel was reminding Christians to follow Christ’s words of (I mean, dude, a butt load of Christians today are regularly in GROSS VIOLATION of these teachings of Christ, it is NOT legalism to remind them of this),

    (Matthew 10:37) [Jesus speaking],
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

and

    (Matthew 12:46-50)
    He [Jesus] replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
    49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
    50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus said,

    Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6.46)

And (this is Jesus speaking),

    “If you love me, obey my commandments.” (John 14:15)

If you are an unmarried person reading this, you might find Hamel’s sermon a refreshing change of pace from the usual “marriage is so teriffic, you’re less than whole if you are a single!” sermons we hear all the time, so consider giving it a listen.

(Link): Christmas Vacation: Searching for a Family – sermon by Dan Hamel, on the Southland Church web site

Sex, What Is the Meaning? (podcast from Mortification of Spin, an Evangelical Group)

Sex, What Is the Meaning? (podcast from Mortification of Spin, Evangelical Group)

I personally found this broadcast (see link much farther below) a bit on the dull side, but anyone visiting this blog might find it interesting.

It’s a podcast with two, Christian male hosts and a male Christian guest (Denny Burk) who yak about sex and sexual sin.

They only discuss hetero, pre-marital sex very briefly, spend the lion’s share of the show yakking about the widespread acceptance of homosexuality, which perturbs me a little.

I mean, have you noticed that when Christians do talk about sex (especially fornication), it’s never to address the circumstances of the adult virgin who is over 30?

Evangelical (as well as Baptist, fundamentalist, and Neo Reformed Christians) discussions about sex is always contextualized in or around things such as, “Ideas on how to keep teeny boppers from Doing It,” or, “Oh, what a shame so many people today are so accepting of homosexuality these days!”

The show guest and the hosts also mention how some preachers (such as sleaze bucket preacher Mark Driscoll) disgracefully turn the biblical book ‘Song of Songs’ into a Porno Manual and get all salacious and tawdry when discussing sex in books, blogs, sermons, and in television interviews. They condemn that approach and believe preachers should show some decorum when talking about sex (I agree).

They also discuss how societal views on sex have changed over the last 30 – 40 years to be very permissive.

You can listen to the interview here:

(Link): (Podcast, audio file): Sex, what is the meaning?

—————–
Related post this blog

(Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?