Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan

    Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

    It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).

    This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.

    One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”

    It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.

    I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.

    Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.

    But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).

    Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.

    Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.

    And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”

    This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.

    These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.

    Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”

    This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.

    Continue reading “Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)”

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY

Another common thread I see on forums for spiritual recovery sites (or ones by ex Christians, liberal Christians, etc), is a rejection of

1. Biblical literalism
2. Biblical inerrancy

This is all so much intellectual dishonesty in another form it makes me want to throw up.

I spent years studying about the history of the Bible, Bible translation, and so forth.

I came away realizing that the Bible is inerrant and yes, we can trust the copies we have today; the Bible is not filled with historic blunders and mistakes, and all the other tripe atheists like to claim.

It is not entirely accurate for critics to paint the Bible as a purely man-made document, that contains mistakes because it was copied and re-copied numerous times over the centuries.

While there is an aspect of truth to that description, the end conclusion, or how that description, impacts the NIV or NASB Bible version you have sitting on your coffee table right now, is not how critics of the Bible paint it.

Atheists and ex-Christians who are critical of the Bible are disingenuous and duplicitous in how they paint some of their arguments against the Bible, and they should be ashamed for it, as some of them claim to be truth lovers.

Not too long ago, an ex-Christian woman at another site was declaring that Christians cannot “trust” the Bible because the originals (called the Autographa) do not exist.

Oh please! I pointed out to her that is not so: as far as the New Testament is concerned, scholars have many thousands of copies of the Autographa (some dating within decades of the originals), and by use of lower textual criticism, they can reconstruct the READINGS of the Autographa.

It is not necessary to have “the biblical originals” themselves to know what they said, as she was dishonestly arguing (but she later accused me of being dishonest!).

I pointed this FACT out to her (about it not being necessary to have the autographa to know what the autographa said), where upon she shot back the falsity that one cannot trust the translations anyway because they are done by “conservatives.”

Oh, but she is willing to grant liberal scholars or liberal theologians the title of un-biased, as though they do not have an ax to grind against the Bible and dating its documents and so forth?

Because the liberal scholars do in fact start out their examinations of the Bible from an anti- Christian bias.

The woman with whom I was corresponding on this matter doesn’t seem to understand that the practice of lower textual criticism is a science – a liberal who uses that methodology would come to the same conclusion as the conservative who uses it.

So here we have an example of one type of ex-Christian I am talking about:

This woman claims she was a Christian at one time, now fancies herself atheist or agnostic (and some kind of expert on the Bible), but who now spews inaccurate or untrue things about the Bible, because she disdains all of Christianity in general.

My view: Do not lie about the Bible’s history, accuracy, and textual evidence just because “Preacher Fred” at your old church was a big meanie to you X years ago (or insert whatever other emotional baggage you carry against Christians that now colors all your other views about the faith and Bible here) – please!

Give me a freaking break.

I am genuinely compassionate towards people who have been hurt by churches, but not to the point I cover for their dishonesty about how they discuss church history, the biblical documents, etc.

Because some of these folks claim to have been hurt by Christians in general, or a particular denomination, or what have you, they feel fine now rejecting biblical literalism and inerrancy.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings”

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (PART 1)

This will be a series of posts where my thoughts wander in and out and all over, and it rambles, but there is a point or two behind it.

Since I’ve been in a faith crisis the last couple of years, somewhere between being an agnostic and a Christian, I have noticed I don’t fit in anywhere. I reside in No Man’s Land.

(Even before then, when I was a total, committed Christian, and politically, I was, and am, right wing, I still didn’t fit in at most blogs and forums, including political ones, and including ones for right wingers!

I tend to be one of those personalities who annoys or angers everyone, even those on “my side” of an issue, except a small number of people, who are either on my side of a topic or not, who “get me” or who appreciate where I’m coming from – again, this is true for even the ones who disagree with me on whatever topic we are discussing.)

I am in this really weird place now, where I am critical of some aspects of conservative Christianity, and see where conservative Christians get some doctrines and other things wrong, but, too, I am not fully on board with militant atheism (I find the New Atheists to be arrogant, vile, hateful and rude), and I don’t even care for lukewarm atheism.

Nor am I in the camp of anything and all things liberal Christianity, except where I think they get the occasional point correct (such as their rejection of gender complementarianism).

Since drifting away from the Christian faith more the last few years, I more often began frequenting forums or blogs for and by atheists, ones by liberal Christians, ones by ex Christians, or by Christians who were abused by a former church who remain Christian but who dropped out of Church, or who now are on a crusade to expose abuse by preachers or the absurdity and harm of current evangelical gimmicks.

THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

A clarification: when I say I have been visiting atheist forums and blogs more often, I am very picky about which ones I regularly visit.

I do not like the frothing- at- the- mouth, extremely bitter, biased- against- Christians- type atheistic communities.

The bitter atheist groups sound like a bunch of irrational, hate-filled loons who reject Christianity for emotional reasons, but who lie to others and themselves and say, “Oh no, it’s purely intellectual.”

But their unrelenting, insane amount of hatred at any and all things God and Christian, is just a total turn-off to me, so I try to avoid such sites.

These angry, always-ranting atheists are really nothing more than Fundamentalist Atheists or Taliban Atheists. They are just as dogmatic about their atheism as Muslims are in their Wasabi Islam or Baptists are in their Neo Fundamentalism.

Really, those types of atheists are just as bad as the religious groups they claim they hate, but they don’t seem to spot that they are. It’s ironic – and it’s hard to stomach the day in, day out anger and hatred, so I try to avoid their sites.

HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

Also, you have to be honest with yourself, which I do not find militant atheists to be, by and large: not every single Christian is a hypocrite, jerk, idiot, dullard, or complete jackhole.

I say this as someone who is very fed up with Christianity and Christian persons myself these days.

But your average militant atheist will never admit that some Christians are in fact okay and not being hypocrites.

I have known and met a few Christians who were sincerely trying to live the Christian faith out, such as my mother, who is now deceased, and her mother before her (my grandmother).

I’ve met a few honest, sincere Christians online who do help people and show compassion to the wounded.

So it’s not fair to completely dismiss the entirety of Christians and their faith or treat them all like jerks because some are liars, mean, or abusive.

Which is not easy for me personally, because at the same time, I do keep noticing that a lot of self-professing believers do NOT live out what the Bible says.

Many self professing Christians today, for example, do not protect victims, such as young church members who have been sexually molested by preachers.

Nor do many church goers today hold accountable preachers who bilk their church goers out of millions to buy big mansions and jets.

These idiots, these lemmings, actually defend their greedy pastors online, which I’ve written about here: (Link): Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why.

Then you have a conservative or evangelical culture, which claims to care deeply that people preserve sex until marriage, but if you actually find yourself 40 years of age and still single – and therefore still a virgin, such as myself – these same churches and Christians do not offer you any support.

You either go ignored, or preachers and talking heads of such groups “run down” and insult celibacy as well as older, celibate adults. Churches treat single (and especially celibate) adults as though they are flawed, lepers, weirdos, or losers.

Churches wrongly counsel abused wives to return to their spouses – this is particularly true, again, of churches or Christian groups who buy into “biblical womanhood” (aka “gender complementariansm”) or “patriarchy.”

Churches and average Christians also remain ignorant or callous about matters pertaining to mental health issues, from P.T.S.D. to depression and anxiety attacks.

Some Christians wrongly and insensitively teach that “real Christians” can never get depression or other mental health maladies.

Or, some Christians believe and teach that prayer, faith, service to the poor, or Bible reading alone can cure one of mental illness.

Still other Christians (or the same type) will shame and guilt suffering Christians for using anti-depressant medications, or for seeing secular or Christian psychiatrists and therapists (see this link for more, “Over 50 Percent of Christians Believe Prayer, Bible Reading Alone Can Cure Mental Illness (article) – In Other Words Half of Christians are Ignorant Idiots Regarding Mental Illness”).

Yet other Christians are incompetent at, or unwilling, to provide more ordinary, “every day,” run- of- the- mill comfort to other Christians who are hurting, such as a Christian who is stressed out over a job loss, someone who is in mourning for a deceased loved one, etc.

Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

And this failure, this huge failure, causes life long Christians like me to look long and hard at the faith and wonder if it’s true at all.

It causes even someone such as myself to ask if the faith is true, because

  • it doesn’t appear to be working,
  • it doesn’t make a difference in people’s life who profess it,
  • most who claim to follow Christ don’t actually do what he taught,
  • and some Christians refuse to hold Christians caught in bald faced sin accountable but excuse them for the sin,

~ and it makes you wonder “what is the point, then.”

I find this discrepancy between confessed belief and actual practice shocking, because I myself sincerely tried living out the faith since childhood.

Also, my Christian mother was a role model for me, and she genuinely, consistently lived out and by biblical teachings, including getting up off her ass and actually HELPING people (giving them money if they were in a bind, cleaning their homes for them when they were sick, listening to them cry and rant about their problems for hours without judging them or interrupting them, etc).

I am not seeing most other Christians do any of this. They say they believe in those things but then they do not do them.

BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

Before I actually get into this topic (which I discuss more in Posts 2 and 3), here is some background leading up to it.

As far as the sites I have visited by liberal Christians, ex Christians, atheists, as well as sites by Christians for the spiritually abused:

By and large, these have been wonderful, supportive sites and groups to visit (the ones run by Christians for hurting Christians).

I have noticed, though, that there are problems even within these types of communities, and I don’t entirely fit in at them, either.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)”

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)

Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing

If I see one more “Christian” writer blogging or podcasting about how Christians need to abandon virginity- until- marriage (a.k.a. sexual purity or celibacy) teachings and standards, which are biblical, I may puke.

It has become quite de rigueur in some Christian circles to bash virginity and celibacy these days.

Oddly, Christian emergents, such as Rachel Held Evans, post-Evangelical or ex-Christian writers, and some spiritual abuse bloggers, who usually try to be hyper-sensitive to people’s feelings, who will twist themselves into pretzels to defend homosexuals or homosexuality, will hypocritically often give no thought to trampling on the feelings of adult, Christian hetero virgins.

I would imagine that adult, Christian homosexual virgins might be offended by some of this same rhetoric aimed against celibacy sexual purity, and virginity as well; there are some Christians who have S.S.A., same sex attraction [homosexual leanings], but who have chosen to stay celibate.

How do you suppose the rants against sexual purity teachings and the whole-scale acceptance of homosexual behavior by fellow Christians makes them feel? I guess their feelings do not matter because they don’t neatly fit into the little politically correct box of the Christian homosexual agenda pushers?

I have a lot of respect for Christian homosexuals/SSA who are abstaining from sexual activity, who are celibate, due to allegiance to biblical teachings about sex. (And they do exist. I periodically come across an interview with Christian homosexual/SSA celibates on Christian podcast shows or in blogs.)

Some emergents and theologically/doctrinally liberal Christians go so far as to defend fornication (both homo and hetero varieties) and to advocate it, never mind bashing virginity and celibacy, such as:
(Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

I recall reading a small article several years ago in a secular paper about secular culture. The author (and I’ve no idea what her religious views were), said part of the problem with American (secular) culture is that we have lost our sense of shame. I agree with this assessment.

The author said one reason we see so much trash and vulgarity in the media, why we see pop singers dancing around half naked on music shows, is that people have lost their sense of shame – and that is not always a good thing.

I portend the same thing has happened in Christian culture the last five or more years, especially when it comes to sex related sin.

Some Christians have been arguing on their blogs, books, magazine articles, in pod casts, and on radio shows, that Christians should cease from upholding biblical teachings on celibacy and virginity because such teachings (and the standards themselves) make people who have engaged in pre-marital sex (aka fornication) feel ashamed, guilty, bad, or flawed.

As a 40 something, hetero virgin -I chose to remain a virgin until marriage- I find this most puzzling.

I have managed to do what most Christians assume is the impossible: stayed a virgin into my 40s; obviously, I prove a person can live without sex.

No, I do not have a low libido; no I am not fat and ugly; yes I have been engaged to a man; yes, I have been flirted with and hit on by men (I am not ugly and fat).

I’m having a hard time seeing why Biblical teachings on sexual ethics should be tossed aside or ignored, merely because some have not lived up to those ethics, or that some who fornicated feel shameful or guilty when they hear such ethics taught.

I can just imagine if people who claim to be Christ followers used that criteria in other areas of life and sin:

    “Hi, my name is John Doe. I enjoy being a serial killer! I love strangling women to death. Every time I hear a Christian preacher mention that murder of humans is a sin, it makes me feel so guilty and ashamed. I think we should all just accept that some people like to murder, they cannot help it, and well, you Christians should drop that teaching to accomodate me and my feelings. I was born with these urges to kill. I have a need to kill. Respect my inclination to murder, and don’t judge me or make me feel ashamed for it.”

If your guilt or shame over murdering another person – or stealing, or having sex before marriage- compels you to cease such behavior, then I think that is a plus, not a minus.

God, if He exists, says in the Bible that He gave humanity consciences, so that when and if you do something wrong, yes, you will feel guilty and ashamed over it.

(Disclaimer: I am not saying someone who commits a sin and repents should feel guilt indefinitely. I’m not talking about “false guilt,” and that carried over a lifetime. These days, I see the opposite: people, including Christians, sadly, who try to hide away from feelings of guilt, shame, and condemnation at all costs.)

Instead of telling homo and hetero singles to go right ahead and feed their sexual desires, why not encourage them to hold on and remain virgins or celibate?

The Bible talks about Christians encouraging other Christians to hold on, hang in there, and complete the race.

The Bible does not tell Christians to tell other Christians, “When the going gets tough, just give up, and give in. Stop the race, go sit on the sideline. Being a virgin is so hard, so cave in, stop fighting it! Everyone else is having sex, so join them.”

However, many emergent Christians are basically carrying the banner for this “Just cave in and do it, then don’t feel guilty or shamed for it!” approach, which seems to be nothing more than the Least Common Denominator Approach, the Low Expectations Approach, or the Quitter Approach, rather than the the Over-comer, or Winner, or I Know You Can Do It approach.

Here is an editorial on the topic of shame:

(Link): Shame Can be Healthy When We Violate God’s Standards

by Trace Embry

There is a common belief among the politically correct “intelligentsia” that shame is not something our kids–or anyone else for that matter–ought to experience.

Even many Christians have bought into this idea.

Scripture; however, seems to make a different case. God has made us, and our kids, with the capacity for many emotions– shame being just one of them.

Confusion about this subject comes when someone attempts to force someone else to feel shame for something that God did not call shameful–like when a young child spills his milk or fails to control his bladder.

Even then, there comes a time and age when even these acts become inappropriate–perhaps even shameful– particularly if done with reckless frequency and without legitimate excuse, i.e., such as a physical or mental condition.

To remind an unrepentant child that he ought to be ashamed of himself for committing some blatant act of foolishness, abuse or other sinful activity can often be just good parenting. Or in the case of two adults, just being a good friend.

Proverbs 27: 6 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted; but, an enemy multiplies kisses.” Besides, aren’t there things that we should be ashamed of? The Bible doesn’t have much positive to say about a generation that does not even know how to blush.

Shame is often a component of true conviction which is fundamental to repentance. Shame is a legitimate emotion when God’s standards are violated. We need not be ashamed of who we are, but rather for what we do.

Confusion can also come in when we are made to be ashamed of who we are. Knowing that we are created by God in the image of God should remind us that we should never be ashamed of who we are. As the saying goes, “God does not make junk!” What God has created; however, can create junk–junk that we should be ashamed of creating. And sometimes it takes someone else to remind us that we should feel ashamed for creating it.

When Nathan the prophet told King David, “You are the man.” I doubt he expected David to feel like a winner in that moment. David’s emotions were completely appropriate for that moment.

Shame is actually a good emotion; for, like pain, it is an alarm that tells us something is not right.

And, like pain, it is also a motivator to start heading in the right direction. Feeling no shame is how our society has arrived at its current moral condition.

Pop psychology–not Scripture–is where this notion of shame being a naughty word came from. Views on psychology are continually changing, while God’s Word remains trustworthy through the ages. So, remember that anyone who shames you into believing that shame is a shame is a sham.

————————-
Related posts 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 Progressive Christians Are Ineffective and Unpersuasive by P. Heck – Also: How Liberals Can Avoid Turning Off Right Wingers

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

(Link): Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

(Link):  CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

(Link): Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

(Link):  Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

(Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

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

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

(Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Dan Navin [who is a Christian homosexual celibate]

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

(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

(Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

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

(Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

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

(Link): Students Discuss Dissatisfaction with “Hookup Culture” [Casual Sex, Fornication, Pre Marital Sex]

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

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

(Link): Rare Reminders from Christians on Recent Broadcasts that Fornication is Wrong and That Older Celibates Exist

(Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

(Link): Confessions of a 25-year-old Christian virgin (article) – and related info

(Link): CDC Reports Rare Lesbian HIV Transmission Case

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming
———————————————
Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.

Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

About two weeks ago, after Thabiti Anyabwile of the Gospel Coalition published a blog page going on about how homosexual sexual acts are (to paraphrase him) “gag worthy,” Christians, particularly emergents, went into an uproar over it, saying how insensitive Anyabwile was being.

A few atheists, whose pastimes include commenting on Christian culture online, also wrote about it to condemn it. Here are a few examples:

(Link): Gag Me – by Michael Kimpan (identifies as Christian)

This is by an atheist (I will not link to his page because I do not want a track back link to appear):

1. Christian Pastor: If We Describe Gay Sex to People, They’ll Turn Against Homosexuality!, by Hema Mehta (identifies as atheist).
The URL is
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/21/christian-pastor-if-we-describe-gay-sex-to-people-theyll-turn-against-homosexuality/

2. (Link): Responding to homophobia in the Christian community – Rachel Held Evans
(Evans identifies as Christian; she typically blogs against sexual purity / virginity teachings for hetero people, and in favor of showing sensitivity, that in my opinion, borders on full- on acceptance and celebration of homosexuality; I am unclear if she supports homosexuality itself)

3. (Link) Your Gagging Isn’t Loving , from “Alise Write” blog

The current “Alise Write” blog link is not working; try the Cached Page (“Your Gagging Is Not Loving”)

I assume that Alise considers herself a Christian, and she seems to self-identify as “gay affirming.”

There are two issues I take with all the hand-wringing or outrage over the Anyabwile blog page, or any time the liberals and emergents have a fit over any Christian who says or writes anything about homosexuality in less than fully glowing, supportive terms.

First of all, the Bible calls all unmarried people to refrain from having sex, so whether hetero or homosexual, if one claims to be a Christian, one should not be having sex outside of marriage anyway.

Ergo, I’m not sure how pertinent it was for Anyabwile to go into detail about homosexual sex acts (and you bet your sweet bippy he sure did), but it was also not very relevant for the emergents or “gay affirmers” to spaz out over it, either.

I read Anyabwile’s page only once, but so far as I recall, he did not condemn anyone for having SSA (same sex attraction) or homosexual urges/ attractions, but only seemed to criticize them for acting upon those desires (e.g., men actually having anal sex, for instance).

As Christians have believed for centuries that sex outside of marriage is wrong, since that is what the Bible says on the topic, why would anyone disagree with Anyabwile for supporting celibacy for unmarried people, or, to state it in the converse, for not supporting sexual acts outside of marriage?

You can read the blog page that started the kerfuffle here:
(Link): The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage” by Anyabwile

Anyabwile wrote a follow up here (which I have not read yet):
(Link): On Homosexuality and the Conscience: Responding to Criticisms

My second point.

What I continue to see are emergent, liberal, or overly sensitive, politically correct, conservative Christians clucking in concern over hurting the feelings of homosexuals, but these same groups are fine with attacking virginity among hetero Christians, or virginal Christians themselves.

See, for example, (posts 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): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

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

I have yet to see an emergent Christian, liberal Christian, or sensitive conservative Christian, support virginity until marriage as concept (for anyone who is still a virgin past age 25 – 30), or to actually support actual Christian virgins themselves (e.g., churches encouraging families to “adopt” older singles for the holidays so they don’t have to spend holidays alone; spending as much money on singles church services as they do for youth; there are no sermons about singleness, but many on marriage, etc).

On the contrary, the emergents and others – who claim to be Christian – routinely write blog pages criticizing biblical, sexual purity and virginity teachings and morality, blathering on about how “hurtful” they are to women. 🙄

As far as I am concerned, it is a double standard and hypocritical for Christians to clutch their pearl necklaces in concern that a homosexual’s feelings might be hurt over a blog post that talks about “gag reflexes,” or that mentions homosexual acts are sinful, but then sit around, as they do, offending me (an older Christian virgin, who is hetero) by repeatedly stomping all over biblical sexual ethics, and saying virginity means nothing, is over-rated, or is a judgmental concept that Christians should rid themselves of.

This gets into the general problem I have with Christians and hypocrisy in the realm of compassion:

Just as some Christians will only show empathy for starving African orphans or homeless crack addicts, but will judge and condemn the “Average Joe” Christian who is going through a nasty divorce, a cancer scare, or a death in the family, the emergents and touchie-feelie-for-homosexual Christians (sometimes they are one in the same), only extend compassion and respect for one group – homosexuals being criticized by Christians – but show none for mature virginal Christians who are and have been criticized by Christians. I have written about this before:
(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

Here is a thoughtful response that critiques Rachel Held Evan’s post (by Jeff G.):
(Link): Rachel Held Evans – Is the gag reflex a legitimate moral compass?

I agree with Jeff G’s critique in that RHE was incorrect in hers to suggest it is wrong to define an entire group of people based upon their sexual acts, when in fact, that is what many vocal homosexuals in the “rights” groups have been doing to and for themselves for decades now. Quoting Jeff G:

    Again, if Anyabwile were really saying this it would indeed be problematic. Nowhere does he suggest that copulation fully defines homosexuals any more than it defines heterosexuals. Ironically, it is the GLBTQ community itself that has posited sex acts and sexuality as the basis of identity differentiation.

As for the homosexuality debate itself, I do not trust or respect the militants. Please note I used the term “militants.”

I don’t have a problem with ordinary homosexuals who simply live out their lives quietly like the rest of us, but I am talking about the intolerant ones who are consumed with forcing their views and sexuality on to other people.

Here are a few reasons below why I do not support, respect, or agree with the militant homosexuality supporters or the movement itself; has Rachel Held Evans, the Friendly Atheist, or any other “gay affirming” emergents condemned this sort of behavior by homosexual activists? If not, why not?

(Link): NSFW photos, adult males nude engaged in sex acts in public – Folsom Street Homosexual Fair in San Fran, from Zombie’s blog
(NOTE: the link I am giving you above will send you to a “warning” page that asks you to click a certain link if you are age 18 or above; there is no nudity on that particular page itself)

(Link): Gay Couple to Sue Church of England to Force It to Perform Gay Weddings (Coming soon to America?)

(Link): How “Gay Rights” is Being Sold to America

(Link): Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Dan Savage is a homosexual activist:

(Link): Anti-bullying advocate Dan Savage wishes cancer on Sarah Palin

(Link): It gets better? ‘Anti-bullying’ bully Dan Savage bashes ‘batsh*t’ Bachmann; Heal thyself, dude

(Link): Stand Up to Dan Savage’s Bullying

(Link): Dan Savage Bullies Christian Teens in Speech at Anti-Bullying Conference, Says to Ignore “Bull****” in the Bible
——————–
Related links this blog:

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

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position
—————————————-
Related post, off site:

(Link): Same-Sex Marriage and the Single Christian – How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving singles like me in the dust.

‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement vis a vis Abortion / Porn other issues

‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement

‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement was mentioned in a CBN report about abortion (there is commentary by me about all this much farther down the page, under the link to a video):

(Link): Man Up! Men Urged to End Abortion’s War on Women

    Women may get abortions, but without men, there wouldn’t be any abortions — or sex trafficking, or pornography. These are almost exclusively areas where male users create female victims.

    …Paul Cole leads the Christian Men’s Network, which specializes in mentoring men. He says many abortions happen because of men who refuse to step up and father the lives they’ve created.

    Brian Fisher, president of Online for Life, says abortion is the perfect convenience for such boyish men who desire to satisfy their sexual urges with no danger of commitment. “Abortion is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for men who want to be sexually promiscuous,” Fisher stated.

    Cole pointed out, “The vast majority of abortions are paid for by men. Why is that? Because they don’t want to accept responsibility for what they created.”

    …According to Fisher, that means “men can sleep with whoever they want to and if the woman gets pregnant, not only does the man have no responsibility, he has no legal right to have responsibility.”

    ‘Man Up and Get Off the Porn’

    In his book, Abortion: the Ultimate Exploitation of Women, Fisher advocates “manning up” to fight abortion. One major way may seem surprising.

    “Get off the porn,” Fisher said.

    The author points to decades of research that show the results of pornography.

    “Multiple sexual partners, adultery, wrecked marriages, issues with long-term commitment,” Fisher stated. “All those things have been extremely well-documented. Well, those are all the seeds of unplanned pregnancy.”

    Cole cites research that shows for every 10 men in the average church, five have a major problem with pornography.

    He believes mentoring young people and teaching young men to be sexually pure and responsible can help control this sexual chaos.

    …Cole shared how a program tied to his ministry slashed the 33 percent AIDS rate in Uganda.

    “They began to train young men and women, 11, 12, 13, 14 years old, what it is to be sexually pure, what it is to be married to one person,” Cole said. “They began to meet in all the churches, all the schools.”

    This program introduced all over Uganda is called Glovimo: the GLOry of VIrginity MOvement.

    “Today in Uganda, the rate of AIDS is 6.4 percent,” Cole pointed out. “It is the only nation in the continent of Africa that has reversed the rate of AIDS.”

Here is a video about the group (which I think is based in Africa?) – I have not watched this video myself:

(Link): The Glory of Virginity Movement

    “The amazing story of a message on a videotape that changed the culture of Uganda and brought the rate of HIV-AIDS down from 32% in 1989 to 6.5% in 2011.”

(Link): Video: Glory of Virginity Movement

Edit: I have just watched part of that video which contains a sermon by a preacher who holds men equally accountable in sexual purity – he (I’m para-phrasing here; this is not a direct quote) mentions God expects MALES to remain VIRGINS too not ONLY FEMALES – a point I have raised several times on this blog.

Both males and females who discuss sexual purity and modesty teachings rarely address MALE RESPONSIBILITY in these contexts. Only females are expected to remain chaste, pure, and covered up, and then the feminists, liberal Christians, and emergents go on and on about how sexist or repressive they find this.

Even the feminists, (secular and Christian and emergent), who hate “sexual purity and modesty” teachings only address females in conversations about sexuality purity, modesty and virginity, never males. This is sexism (ironically).

Everyone is holding only females accountable, or paying attention to female sexuality alone, but the Bible says God holds males equally responsible in matters of sexuality.
—————————-
Related posts, this blog:

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

(Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

(Link): Are Christians Tossing Out Prohibitions Against Pre Martial Sex (radio show)

No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity or Sexual Purity or Modesty

When doing a search for the phrase “does Christianity idolize motherhood,” several post headings by more liberal Christians, or secular critics, or emergents, popped up with the heading, “Do Christians Idolize Virginity.”

I looked over several of these pages.

The consensus by most of these bloggers and other writers is that yes, Christianity idolizes virginity, especially for women.

No, no, I’m afraid Christian culture does not idolize virginity, not for males or females. Far from it.

Conservative Christians pay a lot of lip service to celibacy and sexual purity, but most, including famous preachers, don’t live it out (look how many get caught having affairs and so forth; (Link): (see examples, or see this link for further examples) and do nothing to assist or encourage any Christian virgin past the age of 30.

I made this post so that anyone doing a search for “Do Christians idolize virginity” would find this, so I can direct you to my previous post on this blog -please see the following post:

(Link): The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity – Christians do not truly support celibacy or virginity let alone idolize either one – especially not for anyone over the age of 30

I’m a Christian virgin at age 40+ (I had hoped to be married by my mid 30s; staying single this long was not a choice) and Christian literature and many churches actually treats me, and those like me, as a freak, as a failure, and we older virgins don’t feel welcome in churches, because most of them worship marriage and family. Just visit my blog post linked above to read more.

The flip side of all this, is that some churches are paranoid about sexual sin and end up teaching younger -and even older- Christians to fear the opposite sex, to avoid any possibility of fornication, which means, Christians don’t date each other and eventually marry. I have written posts about that, too – see the categories off to the right of the blog page, “how Christians are keeping Christian singles single,” and “Christian teachings about dating.”

But, contrary to Rachel Held Evans, other emergents, liberals, and anyone antagonistic towards Christianity, there is really no idolization of sexual purity and virginity going on in Christian circles, not in most mainline, normal Christian denominations: the opposite is true; most preachers and denominations expect you will eventually fornicate, and they also preach an “easy forgivism” of sexual sin.

Remember, I said ‘normal’ and ‘mainline.’ I realize there are a few small, aberrant groups that claim Christianity who do go crazy with legalism over virginity and sexual purity. I’m not talking about those kook, hyper legalistic, fringe groups, but rather, the more common, run of the mill, conservative evangelical, Southern Baptist, and fundamentalist groups and churches.

See my previous post for more on this topic:

(Link): The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity
________________________________________

Related posts, this blog:

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

(Link): Conservatives Have Now Abandoned All Pretense of Advocating For Sexual Abstinence and They Actually Lament the Lack of Fornication – The Bradford Wilcox Piece, 2019

(Link): Stop Telling Adult Singles and Adult Virgins That Their Virginity and Singleness is “For God’s Glory” – just stop it already

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

(Link): A Day In The Life Of An Abstinence Ed Teacher by S. Gomez

(Link):  Gonorrhea Super Strain Becoming ‘Untreatable’ (in the UK; may ben heading to the USA) – 2015 story

(Link):  CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

(Link):  Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Annie Murphy’s Sex and Relationship Column Gives Some Fantastic Advice About “Losing Your Virginity” by Princess Weekes

(Link):  Churches No Longer Teaching that Pre-Marital Sex is a Sin

(Link):  An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

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

(Link): Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

(Link): Joshua Rogers of Boundless / Focus on the Family Attacks Biblical Teaching of Virginity Until Marriage

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

(Emergents, Sexual Abuse Victims, some Feminists, and Liberals attacking sexual purity teachings and virgin until marriage teachings mentioned in the following post):

(Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

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

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

(Link): Church Postcards That Would Keep Me Away From Church (Re Marriage and Family Vs Singles and Childless / Childfree)

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

The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc

(Please click the “more” link to read the entire post)

I found a blog called “The Wartburg Watch” about a year ago while doing a web search on some topic or another, and then forgot about it, until I found it again about a week ago.

Here is the link to the Wartburg Watch blog:

The Wartburg Watch

In this post, I discuss (sometimes only very briefly), Reformed Theology (Calvinism), gender roles (complementarianism), Young Earth Creationism, Christian speaker Beth Moore, New Evangelicalism (i.e., how important is “secondary doctrine”), spiritual abuse in churches, and other subjects, and how they are addressed at the WW blog.

Areas of Agreement

I do agree with many of the positions taken on the blog by Dee and Deb, who started the blog.

I agree with them on many of the topics they post about, such as authoritarianism and Neo-Calvinism are problematic in Christianity; that the very un-loving tone Christians take towards others can at times cause other Christians to walk away from the Christian faith; and that patriarchy and gender complementarianism are unbiblical and sexist teachings that are doing damage to many women and to the doctrine of the Trinity.

I also agree, to a point, with the blog owners that some Christians wrongly make issues that most would consider secondary into primary- level concerns, which can lead to needless divisions among Christians. (On the other hand, I sometimes get a little bit nervous by Christians who start saying love always trumps doctrine).

The blog owners are also very concerned about spiritual abuse in churches and how to prevent or rectify it, and they are also rightly concerned with the sexual abuse of children by pastors and priests.

So on those fronts, I do recommend their blog.

Areas of Disagreement

I do however, have one or two concerns or disagreements with the ladies behind that blog.

Deb and Dee seem concerned that Christians should be respectful and loving towards other Christians, even when disagreeing on secondary issues – which is a fine and laudable goal.

Young Earth Creationism

However, I don’t see them fully demonstrating that philosophy in regards to secondary issues such as YEC (Young Earth Creationism).

Repeatedly at their blog, I see much disdain for YEC. And I don’t pick up that the disdain is due to their assertion that some YECs are trying to push its relevance.

They claim that some YEC advocates conflate YEC with salvation or the Gospel itself, which I have not seen (though I am not denying that some YECs may do this, but I don’t think it’s as rampant as they make it appear – I have never personally seen or read of an occasion of a YEC saying “Agreement with YEC = necessary for salvation”).

About the only name I have seen them cite as far as YECs, especially famous YECs, who elevate YEC to salvation-level proportions is Ken Ham. (Ham’s site, Answers Outreach)

I’ve read Ham’s material before and have seen him interviewed on TV shows about his views on evolution and creation.

I have personally not seen Ham equate YEC to the Gospel itself.

I have only seen Ham make an argument along the lines that questioning YEC (which usually involves denying a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or allowing a secular / naturalistic-materialistic worldview to color one’s reading of the Bible, including the book of Genesis) can lead people (young people in particular, who are immersed with secular views on evolution during school and college) to question other portions of the Bible.

That is, rejecting a literal, six- day creation interpretation in turn can, or may, ultimately lead them to question if the Gospel is true and accurate, or cause them to wonder if other aspects of the Bible are true.

I think Ham actually has a decent and legitimate point there, and I don’t see that as necessarily “equating YEC to the Gospel,” or to making a belief in it a requirement for salvation.

In one thread on one blog page at Wartburg Watch, one of the blog owners seemed to ridicule or mock YEC Christians who believe that dinosaurs may have existed at the time of Noah and that dinosaurs were led on to Noah’s Ark, or that this could have been a possibility.

This is not the specific thread I am thinking of, but is close to it in content and tone:

The Fred Principle Fundamental Evangelicals Rejecting Reason (Wartburg Watch blog post)

As a YEC, I and other YECs do not “reject science,” we do not “reject reason,” and we are not “anti science,” as we are so often depicted as (including in the Wartburg Watch post above, sadly).

Most of us YECs merely disagree with other people over scientific topics, or how to approach scientific topics.

Disagreeing with someone else on the topic of evolution or the age of the earth does not mean we YECs are “anti science” or “anti reason.” To keep saying we YECs are “anti science” is a strawman and is mischaracterizing our views and beliefs.

In the discussion on YEC, one comment from the Wartburg Watch says (which is again at this blog page):

“No matter what the anointed would have us believe, the age of the earth, complementarianism, the size of our church, and the governing structure of the church are not primary issues. Folks, we have been given a brain. We need to use it.”

I do not believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old or that God used evolution to create and change life forms.

From this blog person’s comments at Wartburg Watch, one would assume that those who do not agree that the earth is millions/billions of years old have not been given brains or do not use their brains. I’m unsure if the bloggers mean that, or if it was an unfortunate choice of words.

(I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some Christian Old Earth advocates and believers of theistic evolution who make the age of the earth or evolution a primary issue, who tell YECs they are unsaved and going to hell.)

This comment is from a blog owner of Wartburg Watch (at the same page)…

“So what was his [the YEC person] solution [when confronted with material that disagreed with YEC views]? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because ‘he couldn’t take it.'”

…Was somewhat uncharitable. Not all YECs are “afraid” to look at the opposition’s view points nor do all YEC advocates recoil in horror, in disbelief, or go into denial after having read work critical of YEC views.

I have read arguments for both sides of the evolution and age of Earth debates in the past, and I remain a YEC.

I was subjected to years of secular macro-evolution education in public schools and a bit in college and was told as a student that the earth is millions and millions of years old, but I still remain unconvinced for old-earth or macro evolution beliefs.

I have listened to Christian scientific personality Hugh Ross, who believes in theistic evolution (or some variety of it) and in an old earth, many times on Christian shows over the past fifteen years, arguing in favor of an old earth view (Hugh Ross’ site, Reasons To Believe).

Ross seems like a very nice man (and very intelligent, too – though he can, in my view, get a bit prickly or condescending at times when debating YECs), and I have no doubt he believes in Jesus as much as I do, but I disagree with him on these particular issues.

I did not find the “old earth” arguments, or arguments in favor of evolution, by Ross or by other Christians, journals, blogs, or TV shows I’ve read or watched compelling, nor was I convinced by secular sources who argue for old earth and for Darwinism.

I am college-educated and made mostly straight A’s while in college, so I am not a hick or a dummy. I made a “B” in a math class (college algebra), a “B” in one science class, and a “C” in one science lab course – everything else, I got an “A” (including one or two other college- level science courses).

I have read material that questions and criticizes the YEC and Intelligent Design view, both by Christians (who believe in theistic evolution and an old age of the earth view) and by atheists – and I am still a YEC.

There seems to be a belief held (and it is condescending), by Old Age proponents, that if only a YEC is confronted with criticisms of YECism by old-earth proponents, we will abandon our views of YEC, because, by golly, Fact, Science!, and Truth are so obviously on the side of the intelligent, educated, old-earth proponents…

And that further, it seems there is also a belief, or attitude, that simple-minded, doofus, red-neck, inbred, wrongly- paranoid- of- liberal- tinged public school system education Young Earth Creationists (who also watch NASCAR, marry their first cousins, have only one tooth, and keep broken washing machines on their front lawns, next to the pink, plastic flamingos) simply cannot challenge or refute anti-YEC teachings, or we are so weak minded, we will faint upon hearing them.

If the situation about the origins of life, creation of the earth and of mankind were as simple as all that, there would not be an old-earth / young-earth / evolution debate at all; all Christians would have converted to old-earth / theistic evolution perspectives many years ago. Obviously both sides have excellent points, intelligent people, and facts to back up their positions.

Dee and Deb of the Wartburg Watch blog may not be questioning the salvation of a Christian who believes dinosaurs co-existed with Noah, but in my view, it is no less alienating, or uncharitable to imply people who do believe that way are rubes, out- of- touch, un-scientific, anti reason, ignorant, or that all YECs everywhere equate YEC to the Gospel – and I do pick up that tone in some of the posts at the WW blog on this issue. I find that baffling, since both ladies usually seem very sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns.

I am a YEC myself. I do not believe a person has to be YEC or agree with it to “be saved.” (Click the “more” link below to read the remainder of this post…)

Continue reading “The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc”