Complementarian Christians Do Not Think Women are of Equal Worth to Men – Case 2 – Christian Men Mocking the “Me Too” Sexual Assault and Harassment Twitter Tag and Bob Who Detracts (Part 1.3)

Complementarian Christians Do Not Think Women are of Equal Worth to Men – Case 2 – Christian Men Mocking the “Me Too” Sexual Assault and Harassment Twitter Tag and Bob Who Detracts (Part 1.3)

Part 1 | Part 2 | (Part 3)

Regarding the Tweets by a person named Bob‏ (Twitter handle: @JustBobThx) to Dee.

You can view several Tweets that Bob sent to Dee under Dee’s first Tweet (Link): here. I will be referring to those tweets through the remainder of the post.

In the midst of conservative, complementarian Christian men, such as (Link): Tim the Bible Thumping Wing Nut (his screen name) and Fred Butler mocking women sexual harassment and sexual abuse victims by way of the Twitter hash tag “Me Too,” and and (Link): Ricky Masuer  defending said aforementioned mockers, Bob jumped in to dress down Dee, who was responding to the sexist tweets.

Here is a text copy of one of his tweets:

Replying to @wartwatch (wartwatchis Dee) @JeffTheGK (JeffTheGK has been on Dee’s side in this debate)
Bob said:

Is that so. Here’s [he includes screen captures of other people’s tweets] 1 of ur many pro- LGBT buddies in ur “we stand against abuse” club. Waiting 4 ur outrage. Better get writing a blog 2 warn ppl. This is degrading, disgusting, & vile. Ur CONSTANTLY telling GOBC 2 call out their own-so go ahead & do it urself. @Biblethumpingwi ///

Bob is quite simply trying to change the subject.

(Bob later gripes and complains about gender egalitarian Jory Michah and rants about abortion).

The issue that initiated all this dialog was (Link): Tim (aka “Bible Thumping Wing Nut”) ridiculing the sexual harassment or sexual assault of women via the “Me Too” twitter tag.

The subject was not about LGBT topics or Christian gender egalitarian Jory Michah.

Bob, because he is sexist but probably thinks he’s NOT sexist, needs to read my (Link): Post 2 about Rick Mauser, as well, at least the portions of that post under the headings of

  • BIBLICAL PATRIARCHY
  • CHRISTIANS SEXUALIZE GIRLS AND WOMEN, NOT JUST SECULAR CULTURE
  • SEXISM EXAMPLES
  • SEXISM IN THE FORM OF UNCONSCIOUS BIAS

My Views

I have been a conservative over the duration of my life.

I have been pro-life on abortion, and I always voted Republican (though I am no longer Republican. In the last few years, I have come to realize that the Republican Party is either similar to the Democratic Party in some ways, or it has its own set of flaws).

As far as LGBT issues are concerned: I believe the Bible says that homosexual behavior is sinful, but, I’m rather “libertarian” on the topic – if two adults of the same gender want to get it on, it’s not hurting me, so I do not care what they do.

However, I do not generally support liberal, social justice warriors who want to do things such as sue Christian bakers out of business for refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings. (I am open to being persuaded otherwise on this topic.)

I do not support things such as LGBT people bullying porn actress women (Link): who refuse to have sex with homosexual men. Liberals definitely get some things wrong.

I am definitely not a liberal.

BOB’S SEXISM AND “PASTRIX”

Bob is sexist.

Bob uses the sexist derogatory term “Pastrix” (which I believe was coined by sexist radio Christian host Chris Rosebrough) to refer to women pastors, or to women who write blog posts about theology.

(I refer you again to (Link): Bob’s posts in this Twitter thread to see for yourself).

If you want to have a respectful dialog with someone on the subject of whether women should be allowed to be preachers in churches or not, that’s all fine and good, but there is no reason to use sexist, disrespectful terms such as “Pastrix” in the process.  Continue reading “Complementarian Christians Do Not Think Women are of Equal Worth to Men – Case 2 – Christian Men Mocking the “Me Too” Sexual Assault and Harassment Twitter Tag and Bob Who Detracts (Part 1.3)”

Preacher Tullian Tchividjian Possibly Involved in Another Inappropriate Sexual Relationship (March 2016) / Why Do Christians Not Have a RBGR – Reverse Billy Graham Rule

Preacher Tullian Tchividjian Possibly Involved in Another Inappropriate Sexual Relationship (March 2016) / Why Do Christians Not Have a RBGR – Reverse Billy Graham Rule?

Here is a story of a male preacher who allegedly cheated on his wife, possibly more than once, if the new report is true (links farther below). It makes me wonder: do Christians not have a Reverse Billy Graham Rule?

Normally, Christians adhere to this sexist idea that single women are sexual sex pots, temptresses, who will try to bed a man, especially if he is married.

Yet, I never hear these same Christians issue a “Beware of Christian Married Men Who Will Try to Sleep with Women” rule or advisement to single – or married – women.

Think about it. Married Christian men, including men who work as preachers, have sex with women they are not married to (see more examples (Link): here). Some of these married pastors who commit adultery will cheat not only with single women, but with women who are married to other men.

Yet – I never really hear of Christian women who insist on taking a chaperone with them when meeting any and all men, whether in public or in private.

I don’t hear Christian women insisting that an office door must stay open when they meet with  any or all men, all due to the percentage of slime ball married male pastors who do in fact take advantage of women.

I don’t see, in other words, most Christian women treating all Christian men as potential rapists or as sexual temptresses, but Christian culture sure does treat women in this manner:

However, it’s not women taking advantage of married men in the majority of these news stories, it’s quite the opposite.

Yet, there is no Reverse Billy Graham Rule in place to protect women from men.

I am not arguing in favor of a Reverse Billy Graham Rule, you understand, merely pointing out the sexist double standard held by Christians on this issue.

Preacher Tullian Tchividjian Possibly Involved in Another Inappropriate Sexual Relationship

This post is an update to this older one on my blog:

According to reports at Warren Throckmorton’s blog, Tchividjian may have been involved in yet another inappropriate sexual relationship with another woman.

You can read more about it here:

(Link): Tullian Tchividjian Out at Willow Creek Presbyterian; Majority of Liberate Network Board Members Quit

Excerpt:

  • March 2016
  • Tchividjian’s dismissal (Link): appears to be related to new allegations of wrong doing involving another inappropriate relationship prior to the affair which led to his resignation at Coral Ridge.
  • Also, the woman with whom Tchividjian had an improper relationship has accused him of owing money to her husband and of fooling his counselor while still pursuing her.

Continue reading “Preacher Tullian Tchividjian Possibly Involved in Another Inappropriate Sexual Relationship (March 2016) / Why Do Christians Not Have a RBGR – Reverse Billy Graham Rule”

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

(There is an update at the bottom of this post).

This involves a lot of back story I don’t want to get into because this blog post would be ten pages long.

I am blogging this primarily for adult singles who have felt marginalized or hurt by Christian denominations or churches that treat adult singles as though they have cooties.

I have a somewhat different motivation for blogging about this than other blogs do. There were a few other blogs who addressed the child abuse aspect of the story, that we have an adult (Hall) badgering a teen kid (Braxton Caner) on the internet.

J D Hall is a Calvinist preacher with a blog called “Pulpit and Pen,” a Twitter account, and a group of fan boys who follow him around online who actually refer to themselves as “Pulpiteers.”

At one time, Hall’s groupies were using the #pulpiteer (or “pulpiteers”) hash to follow each other around Twitter. I’m not sure if they still use the “Pulpiteer” label or not. I will continue to refer to them as such.

This group, and a few other people, have a long standing hatred of another guy named Ergun Caner.

Continue reading “Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature”

Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism vis a vis Pneumatology

Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism
———————–
Edited / I found a couple of pages with views about the Holy Spirit, and related topics, that seem similar to my own.

The authors of the following recognize the errors of “Pentecostal/charismatic/Third Wave tradition” in regards to their views and beliefs of the Holy Spirit and how, if, or when the Holy Spirit speaks to believers today, but they also feel that “hard cessationism is inadequate.”

The pages are:

(Link): Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? Preface and Abstracts

(Link): Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today

(Link): Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures? by M. James Sawyer
————————————————-
I exchanged a few Tweets with Pirate Radio (a.k.a. Fighting for the Faith) host guy Chris Rosebrough earlier today.

This is rather a follow up of sorts to my previous post:

I do appreciate Rosebrough tweeting me back, and told him so in a Tweet. He must be very busy, so it’s nice of him to take time out of his day to reply.

I hate debating with folks on Twitter, for one reason being, I have always been terrible at condensing my thoughts.

I suck rocks at bantering back and forth in a 140 letter per post format especially.

That is one reason I kept giving Rosebrough a link to a previous post on this blog about this issue (link is above). It would take me 243,567 Tweets to explain to him on Twitter what it took me a page to write on this blog.

Rosebrough asked me once or twice to cite specific verses or passages to prove my point that God speaks to people today.

CLARIFICATIONS

First, I’d like to clarify that I mean I believe that God speaks inwardly to people today in the form of personal warnings and the like.

I am not Charismatic or a Word of Faith person. I disagree with their views.

I do not believe that God issues prophetical views to people today, such as what we see in the book of Revelation, where it is described how the world will end.

Rosebrough used the word “prophecy” several times in his tweets to me, but my understanding of that may be different from his.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit, for example, warning a Christian woman today to not go down an alley alone – knowing she is will be mugged if she does so – is the same thing as “biblical prophecy,” that personal revelation (say about someone’s safety) is in the same category of God telling John in Revelation to “write what you see and hear” about the end times, the entire fate of the whole world.

I am not saying that all inward guidance of the Holy Spirit, or all visions, are on par with Scriptural (written) authority.

That would be a quasi-Roman Catholic view (Roman Catholics place their church tradition and Pope’s ex cathedra on the same level of authority as the written word, which I disagree with).

I do agree with sola scriptura.

But I also believe some Christians carry sola scriptura (and how they choose to carry out, or defend, “doctrine” whether they perceive it to be sound or not) to an un-biblical, even absurd, too-narrow level. (I refer to this as “hyper sola scriptura” in previous posts.)

I have gone on record in previous posts here on this blog as saying if someone feels they got a vision or a message from God, that if their impression, vision, word (whatever term) contradicts what God has already said in the Bible, their claim, word, etc, is wrong.

I do not believe that a personal word from the Holy Spirit to a certain individual for a specific situation is binding on all believers.

Rosebrough kept asking me to give him one single, lone verse that supports the notion that the Holy Spirit speaks to Christians today.

I do not recall there being any one, lone single verse that says that the Holy Spirit speaking to Christians would end with the first believers.

(The faith being delivered once for all to the saints, or 2 Tim. 3.16 is not addressing the topic on whether or not the Spirit speaks to people today. I discussed that a bit more in previous posts, so I won’t get into that here.)

As I told Rosebrough on Twitter, there is no such one verse or passage for my position. But, his position also lacks a single “gotcha” verse or passage.

There are plenty of examples in the Bible of the Holy Spirit speaking to believers (see citations in previous post).

I see no passage in the Bible that says that would be a phenomenon only for early Christians and not for Christians today.

DEMAND FOR LONE VERSE – Unrealistic Criteria

That Rosebrough keeps demanding a single passage for my position is something I feel is disingenuous, and that it is a somewhat intellectually dishonest technique.

Continue reading “Extra-Biblical Knowledge – My Thougts Expanded and Clarified – And: Christian Deism vis a vis Pneumatology”

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

I listened to this Rosebrough critique of Osteen’s sermon:
(Link): Osteen Proves That God is NOT Speaking to Him

I sometimes agree with Pirate Radio / Fighting for the Faith host Chris Rosebrough, but this is one of those times where I’m not in total agreement.

In the Osteen sermon portions aired on Rosebrough’s show (see link above), Osteen describes how, years ago, he got an inner feeling, or message, to start preaching at his father’s church. Osteen feels that this was God speaking to him.

That Osteen preaches in a style that Rosebrough disagrees with, or that Rosebrough believes that Osteen does not rail against sin and Hell enough, is proof enough for Rosebrough that Osteen’s inner prompting was not of God but of Satan – which I first of all find to be overstating one’s case.

I do not always agree with Osteen’s preaching style or focus of his messages, but I think it’s going overboard to attribute his ministry, or all his views, to Satan.

(As a side note, does Rosebrough grasp or not that two people can be sincere Christians but still have legitimate disagreements on some matters?

Sometimes I listen to Rosebrough’s show, or read his writings, and he makes it seem as though unless you agree with him 100% of the time on 100% of topics that you are an anti-Christ, or unsaved heretic.

Nobody but nobody (including Mr. Rosebrough) has across- the- board absolutely perfect biblically- related opinions, positions, or doctrine on everything – and that does not mean that person is unsaved, a pagan, or an anti-christ.)

Getting back to Rosebrough’s insistence that Osteen heard a prompting from Satan and not God:
I can see how a man can be a false teacher without necessarily being under direct Satanic control.

Some preachers are motivated by greed, control or power, not Satanic influence. Or maybe Osteen only thought he was hearing from God but was simply mistaken. Maybe Osteen’s inner prompting was due to emotions, feelings, and not from God. But Satan?

I mean goodness, Satan? We’re really going to go there? That’s pretty drastic.

I think Rosebrough is totally wrong on gender complementarianism (ie, women should not be preachers, etc).

How charitable would it be for me to accuse Rosebrough of being under Satanic influence, since his views on gender roles is so obviously wrong and unbiblical, and he is in error on this?

Secondly, whether Osteen’s claim that God prompted him to preach or not does not really prove or disprove if such a thing – God speaking to folks outside the Bible – is possible.

I also am not seeing a connection between these points:

1. Some Christians claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to them inwardly

2. Osteen is supposedly a Satanic or false teacher who believes the Holy Spirit speaks to him inwardly

3. Ergo, claim number one is supposedly false

That’s a bit like saying,

1. Some Christians say that two plus two equals four

2. Christian church piano player Mr. Hank Smith beats puppies for fun and says that two plus two equals four

3. Ergo, point one, that two plus two equals four, is incorrect

Sorry, but I don’t see how point 2 contradicts or disproves 1.

One point does not necessarily cause or lead to another, or the guy in point 2 being a heretic or puppy beater does not necessarily negate or disprove the claims, beliefs, and experiences of people in point 1.

What if I could find a Christian preacher who agrees with Rosebrough almost 100% on doctrinal matters, who preachers in a manner that Rosebrough approves of, EXCEPT for in this one area: that the preacher in question believes that God does speak to people today outside of Scripture?

This would make Rosebrough’s argument against Osteen rather moot, it seems to me.

As the Bible says, God did in fact communicate with people outside of the written word – sometimes audibly, through jackasses (literally; see Numbers 22:30), in or through burning bushes, and via angelic messengers in the Old Testament, and God spoke to humans via angels in the New as well.

God also spoke to people in dreams and visions – on record in both Old and New Testaments. Samuel heard God’s voice; Paul and John claimed to be taken up to Heaven and heard God.

Where is your verse saying these things are applicable to ONLY John and Paul? Where’s your one single verse or passage?

Bearing in mind that the first Christians already had the Scriptures: they had the OLD TESTAMENT. However, the New Testament records that the Holy Spirit spoke to them inwardly.

These first Christians did not always consult the written Old Testament to figure out what God wanted them to do.

The Holy Spirit spoke to some of the earliest believers; for example,

“2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

And,

“4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. (Acts 13:4)”

And,

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements… (Acts 15:28)”

And,

“I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. (Acts 20:23)”

And,

“Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” (acts 21:11)”

And,

“I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit … (Romans (9:1)”

He did not have his conscience confirmed by reading the written word of God, but by God speaking to him in his conscience.

Regarding the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts Ch 5),

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

(— end quote —)

Now, how did Peter deduce that this couple had lied, if the Holy Spirit did not tell Peter in his spirit or mind about it?

There is no Old Testament passage that explicitly says, “Ananias will lie to Peter about the money.” It’s not as though Peter could consult the written word of God (for his era, the Old Testament) to figure this stuff out.

Rosebrough kept asking for an explicit passage of Scripture that says that God can or will or does speak to Christians today, outside of the Bible, or in addition to.

I want to see the opposite: where does the Bible clearly state that God never, ever will, can, or does speak to believers outside the Bible today?

As far as I can recall, there is no single passage or verse that says, “After the time of Acts (early church), God will never speak to believers outside the written word, not ever.”

Because I don’t see any such passage.

I see no indication that God limited any of this only to Peter or Old Testament believers only.

2 Tim 3.16 only supports the importance of Scripture but does not say, “And God will never speak to people outside the written word.”

Continue reading “Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit”

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

Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

I usually blog about my views about singleness and marriage, but as I find myself questioning the Christian faith, I sometimes like to make the occasional posts about that too.

Even though I sort of find myself not entirely grasping the Christian faith any longer (I am somewhere between agnostic and Christian), my understanding of spiritual matters or the Bible tend to be consistent with an orthodox (note the little “o” – I have actually had people confuse “orthodox” with “Greek Orthodox” – no, I do not mean “orthodox” as in the “Greek Orthodox” church or denomination) and conservative views and understandings.

As far as that goes, I believe in sola scriptura – but not in what I have deemed “hyper sola scriptura.”

God sometimes spoke to believers in the Old and New Testaments via inward thoughts of the Holy Spirit, via angelic messengers, dreams, handwriting on walls, prophets, via creation (ie, nature, as the book of Romans mentions), etc.

I see nothing in the New Testament which says God halted using any and all extra-scriptural means to communicate with followers of Jesus.

I do believe that Christians should check their beliefs against the written word, and if their dream, vision, or belief conflicts with the written word, they need to really reconsider it. (I have written about things like this before, like in this post: (Link): Contemporary American Christianity’s Fascination with NDE Stories – and in one or two other posts.)

What annoys me are the “hyper sola scriptura” type of Christians who automatically brush off, or brush aside, the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let’s say you are a Christian who’s going through a tough time, and you prayed about it, and you felt God spoke to you inwardly and told you something about your situation, or God spoke some word of comfort. I believe something like that is orthodox and not un-scriptural.

I believe God the Holy Spirit can and does still communicate with people that way – but your hyper sola scripture-ist will scoff at that.

Many of the HSSs are probably tempted to chalk something like that up to superstition or believe it borders on WoF (Word of Faith) theology (I do not agree with WoF, by the way).

Do I think some Christians are too quick to attribute a thought or feeling to God, or that they don’t read the Bible enough, and that this can be dangerous or problematic and lead to Christians accepting false beliefs or teachings? Yes.

But it still remains God gifted believers with the Holy Spirit to guide them at times, because sometimes, the Bible is not always crystal clear on some topics, or does not explicitly mention others.

The Bible does not, for example, instruct people on which college they should attend, what they should major in, and what career they should pursue after graduating, and those are all fairly serious life questions.

You cannot flip to Galatians chapter 4 or Hebrews chapter 2 to find a ‘biblical’ answer to the question, “What career should I enter into?”

One of the things I find odd about HSSs (Hyper Sola Scripturists) is that they almost seem – like atheists – to deny the supernatural.

I mean, HSSs will admit to belief in supernatural events already recorded in the Bible, such as Jesus being born of a virgin and Jesus walking on water, but they behave as though God never, ever, interferes in a miraculous way in the world today, and I see nothing in the Bible that says He does not.

I’m not even talking about “speaking in tongues.” You have Christians today who fuss and bicker about “is that gift for today or not?” I don’t know if that gift is for today or not, but that sort of thing is not really what I am discussing in this post.

Continue reading “Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies”

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

Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

Biblical Balance in Teaching About Sexual Sin – don’t white wash and downplay sexual sin, but don’t continually beat people up over it

In this podcast (see link below), beginning around 17 minutes, Chris Rosebrough, the host, starts reviewing a video or podcast by some woman of a show called “Religish,” who is telling people how to get over the feelings of shame their conservative churches instilled in them about their sexual sin.

I have seen mostly the opposite problem in Christianity these days: people who have watered down the fact that sexual sin is bad and is, in fact, sin.

I too often see preachers on TV and every day Christians on blogs, and emergent / liberal Christians on their blogs (and even some supposed conservative Christians), take an attitude of “oh, everyone sexually sins, it’s not that bad, just forgive yourself for it, God does!”

Christian attitudes toward pre-marital sex, adultery, and homosexual sex is very laissez-faire to the point these people sometimes mock or ridicule sexual purity, and virginity (well, I suppose that is redundant, as I regard them as being one and the same).

There may be some quarters of the faith that are very legalistic and damming about sexual sins, but most churches and Christians these days are the total opposite, they are too, too laid back and accepting.

Some Christians today, especially the feminist Christians and emergents / liberals (and a few conservatives – makes me want to puke), argue that because teaching Biblical standards about sex – i.e., that pre-marital or homosexal sex is sinful – hurts the feelings or shames fornicators (or of homosexuals), that Christians should either deny these teachings, or stop mentioning them.

The woman on this “Religish” show also seems to take the position that you should not feel shamed over sexual sin if you have committed it, or, she seems to feel that there is not even such a thing as sexual sin.

Chris Rosebrough addresses those topics on this pod cast (starting at around 17 minutes into the show).

He also discusses how people who have been hurt by legalistic, conservative churches usually end up drifting into liberal theology or self made, cafeteria styled (pick your own beliefs) religion:

(Link): Attack of the Liberals (discusses how Christians and Non Christians address sexual sin)

    • Relig-ish Advice for Recovering Conservatives

I on occasion disagree with Rosebrough on some issues, but I think he’s pretty much on the money with that segement of the show.
————————-
Related posts on this blog:

(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

(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link):  Some Researchers Argue that Shame Should Be Used to Treat Sexual Compulsions

(Link): Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – Easy Forgivism

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

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

(Link): Married Christian Couples and Sexual Sin, More Examples – and Women and Porn

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Dude Arguing for Legalization of Prostitution Uses Same Rationale as Christians Concerning Celibacy and Sexual Purity

(Link): Married (Christian) People Aren’t More Virtuous Than Christian Singles

(Link): How Christian Teachings on Marriage/ Singleness/ Gender Roles/ Dating Are Keeping Christian Singles Single

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

(Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

(Link): The ol’ Christian myth that married couples are impervious to sexual sin but singles have lots of sexual sin

(Link): Gotta Maintain that Propaganda that Married Christian Sex is “Mind Blowing”

(Link): Book Review at CP: Sex, Dating, and Relationships: The Dating Friendships Alternative

(Link): Critique of Christianity Today Article: The Real Value of Sex

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): Criticism of Purity Teachings by Christians via a Woman’s Personal Testimony

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites * Irony Alert *

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog

The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog

I imagine I don’t get many regular visitors to this blog, but for anyone who visits regularly, I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record. I do tend to repeat myself. This will be another one of those occasions, I’m afraid.

I used to have depression. I was diagnosed with depression by a psychiatrist at a young age. I was not freed of it until a year or so ago.

Yes, Christians get depression.

“Being saved,” and being a devout, daily- Bible- reading- Christian who loves Jesus, does not keep a person immune from psychological or mental problems any more than it does physical issues, such as heart disease, diabetes, poor eye sight, or in-grown toe nails.

Despite the fact I accepted Christ as my Savior before I turned ten years of age and took the faith seriously, read my Bible, prayed to the Lord for a healing, etc and so forth, I still had depression.

I was listening to this Pirate Radio (aka “Fighting for the Faith”) radio show by Chris Rosebrough today (by the way, I happen to like the guy, though I do not always agree with him about everything):

(Link): Joel Osteen: Be Positive or Be Quiet

Before Chris R. discusses the Osteen sermon, he quotes from some guy’s blog over at the Gospel Coalition ((Link): There Are Only Two Kinds Of Sermons).

The guy Chris R. quotes, Collins, talks about how there are only two kinds of sermons: ones about the Gospel, ones about self-help.

Chris R. agrees with guest blogger, Collins, that it’s the Gospel that delivers people from depression, not sermons such as “a ten series sermon on how to cope with depression.”

Here’s a quote from the Collins blog that Chris R. agrees with:

When you get to church to find out that the preacher is in the third of a 10-sermon series on “10 steps to cure depression” get up and run out of there as fast as your depressed legs can take you.

It’s self-help, not the gospel.

Chalk it up to a well meaning preacher who hasn’t yet realized that our real hope is in God, in the sufficiency of his work on the cross and in the salvation that is not found in get-better sermons.

(— end quote —)

While I agree that sermons alone can’t or won’t heal someone of depression, NEITHER WILL THE GOSPEL, contra Chris R and Collins.

I wrote a similar post to this one several months ago, so I will direct you there – preacher Bayless Conley made similar claims about depression, and I wrote about that here:

(Link): Bayless Conley and Depression – Sorry, dude, but depression can’t be cured by will power & sometimes not even by faith

“The Gospel” doesn’t heal depression any more than it does asthma, diabetes, headaches, cancer, or broken arms.

Continue reading “The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog”

The Unchurched

The Unchurched

I am one of the unChurched. I’m also a little bit of the agnostic these days. But I don’t like most churches.

One reason is: most churches are too marriage and kid focused.

If you are in your early 40s and have never married or had a kid, such as me, churches do not feel welcoming. They feel alien, lonely, and strange.

I have other reasons I hate church now, but that is one of them.

Churches are completely irrelvant and even hostile to someone in my life stage, in my particular situation, with my needs. Some Christians, though, will go so far as to judge you and shame you and tell you it’s not okay to expect to have your needs meet at church – you’re supposed to attend church strictly out of obedience or something, to which I respond, “Up yours.”

I am a human being. I do have needs. That is never going to change. I cannot stuff my needs down and attend a weekly service out of mere obedience, or do all the giving while other members do all the taking.

While I don’t advocate that Christians all become as narcissistic as the Millennials, many of whom expect church to be 100% about them all the time, in every case, churches do nothing to help older never- married adults, even when they are confronted about it.

Here are a few links about the Unchurched.

This first page is interesting in that it points out that many of the unchurched are Christians, but its solution to those who have been hurt by churches is dismal, naive, and simplistic: it says for you to just forgive those church people that hurt you and return to church again. -Uh, no.

(Link): Millions of Unchurched Adults Are Christians Hurt by Churches But Can Be Healed of the Pain

I don’t know if I agree with this guy’s solution but his description of the problem is fairly spot on:
(Link): Why You’re Not Reaching the Unchurched

(Link): Myths About The Unchurched

I don’t know if I’m in complete agreement with all the points on this list – this guy seems more to want to blame the un-churched more than caring about how churches can change to draw them back in:

(Link): 10 Reasons We Have Not Reached the Unchurched

(Link): Number of Unchurched Adults Has Nearly Doubled Since 1991

Continue reading “The Unchurched”

Added Blogroll – A few words about the sites I’m linking to

Added Blogroll – A Word About the Sites I Am Currently Linking To on my Blogroll

I added a blogroll to my blog a day ago.

Word Press won’t let me add a link to this site for some reason:

(Link): World – News Site from a Christian View

Please understand I am not always in agreement with all sources I link to, and that includes links in my blog roll.

I have currently linked to the Christian Pirate Radio Show (aka “Fighting for the Faith” blog, whose host is Chris R.), and the Janet Mefferd Radio Show.

I do not agree with Mefferd on some topics. She is a gender complementarian – I am not.

Mefferd tends to fret a bit too much over topics such as abortion, homosexual marriage, the deterioration of marriage (i.e., people delaying marriage) for my taste. These topics come up regularly on her radio show.

I do not support homosexuality, homosexual marriage, or abortion, but, it is now my view that many other Christians need to spend more time “lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness.”

Get out there and help people, instead of ranting endlessly on radio, blogs, in books, and on TV shows, about how evil abortion is etc. and so on.

As far as the Pirate Radio show. I have so far listened to only about 6 or 7 of show host Chris R’s broadcasts. His shows are quite long. I will be listening to more in the future.

I have not confirmed it yet, but I take it that Chris R (the Pirate Show host) is also a gender complementarian (again, I am not).

While I am in agreement with Chris R. on some issues (such as: it’s not entirely good or proper for preachers to defer from the written word of God to make all sermons about themselves, or to turn all sermons into stand-up comedy routines; many mega church pastors are greedy and seeking to fleece people out of their money; preacher Ed Young Jr is shallow and his “Sexperiment” was tacky; and Mark Driscoll is a weirdo who needs to repent), I never- the- less depart with Chris R. on some points.

Chris R., in my view, is a bit of a “hyper- sola- scriptura-ist,” as many Calvinist types are (I assume Chris R. is Calvinist / Reformed).

If I remain a Christian (I have been flirting with agnosticism lately), yes, I do believe Christians should not accept or embrace doctrine that cannot be backed up by the written Word. I am there with Chris R. and guys like him on that one.

However, I believe many hypers (hyper – sola scriptura-ists) unnecessarily toss out any and every Christian report of hearing from God outside the Bible (i.e., the hypers do not accept “personal experience” or inward leading of the Holy Spirit).

I have discussed my views about sola scriptura vs personal experience a little bit (Link): here.

(In short, I believe God can and does communicate with believers outside the Bible today, but of course, if someone’s experience, if what they claim to hear from God, obviously contradicts the written word, their testimony should be rejected.)

The “hypers” seem to feel the Holy Spirit does not work in and through believers today, that we are to use the Bible only as a means of communication from God, or God limits His communication through the Bible alone (this is also a topic that comes up with various guests on the Janet Mefferd Radio show).

Out of the other Christian Pirate Radio programs I’ve listened to thus far, I would say there was one where the host was nit-picking the “Bible” mini-series, which was a turn of for me (see this post).

Not that I’m a huge fan of the Bible mini-series – I was rather “meh” about it, but I can’t understand the extreme critical spirit of the show by some Christians.

Continue reading “Added Blogroll – A few words about the sites I’m linking to”