Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy

So I was watching Pat Robertson hosting the TV show “The 700 Club” show interview a woman (last name Flores) who was caught in a sex traffic ring years ago.  (You can watch/ read her interview online (Link:) here.)

I was not not paying close attention to this interview until one point, where Robertson happened to begin grilling the woman (who wrote a book about her experience called “A Slave Across The Street”), about specific details about her ordeals as a teen-aged sex slave.

Robertson actually asked her questions such as, ‘did the men use objects to penetrate you?’, and he felt the need to mention specifics, such as, “so the men had you bound hand and foot on a bed, spread eagle, where they raped you and then slapped you…”-  etc.

Really, I don’t think it’s necessary to go into extreme details on a so-called Christian show that airs at 9 AM, 2 PM, 10 PM during the day, to give us an idea of the hellish nature of her situation.

One reason I found Robertson’s prurient interest creepy is that he did find it so interesting.

He seemed to be titillated or entertained by her sexual attacks. (Please click the “read more” link below to read the rest of this post)

Continue reading “Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy”

Reviewers of Dobson’s book about parenting girls confirms it – U.S. Christians fixated on 1950s culture

Hmm. Maybe I should stop listening to Christian radio host Mefferd (her show is online here). The show title was “Mefferd speaks to Dobson,” with no indication of what the topic would be.

I clicked and listened. The show I listened to online is (Link:) here.

Most of her show topics are pretty interesting, but occasionally, she veers off into views I don’t agree with, or she interviews guests whose views make me want to puke.

As it turned out, Mefferd was interviewing Christian author Dobson about a book he wrote a few years ago called “How To Raise Girls.”

I’ve addressed in previous posts how most American churches and Christians are stuck in a 1950s time warp, where they continue to judge all behavior and culture by TV shows from the 1950s.

These types of conservative Christians look upon such television shows or the 1950s itself too, too fondly. I agree that the culture today is vulgar and coarse, and probably more so than it was in the 1950s.

However, and alarmingly, some conservative Christians consider 1950s American culture an ideal one, one to be emulated at all cost – they don’t hold Jesus Christ as the prime example to be emulated, mind you, but 1950s American culture.

Among other topics, I mentioned in the post “American Women Serving in Combat,” that one possible reason Christianity is failing today in the United States and church membership is lagging, is that American Christians spend more time wagging their index fingers at liberals and liberalism, and talking about the evils of contemporary culture (such as the existence of abortion and so on), than in actually helping people – specifically helping other American Christians.

If American Christians spent more time actually meeting the emotional and practical needs of other American Christians, instead of ignoring them in favor of pontificating on abortion, the legalization of homosexual marriage, concern about feminism, or on raising funds (for the billionth time) for rice and beans for starving orphans in Africa, maybe more Americans would find being a Christian more rewarding, practical, beneficial, and want to attend church regularly.

I listened to Mefferd interview Dobson concerning his book “How To Raise Girls,” and was completely turned off.

Gender complementarians (such as Mefferd and Dobson) over-empahsize their view that males and females differ.

Biblical gender egalitarians, such as myself, agree there are differences between males and females.

However, the older I get, I no longer buy the view that males and females are polar opposites across the board.

I think the genders have a lot in common, and both genders are expected by God to imitate Jesus Christ.

There is no “pink” Jesus for girls and no “blue” Jesus for boys.

Anyway, Dobson spent some time telling Mefferd on this radio show that Christian parents ought to raise their little girls to be “lady like.”

That term is rather sketchy and vague, and I don’t recall him clarifying what he means by it. Maybe he was more clear what he means by that term in his book.

I am going to assume for the purposes of this post that I understand what he was getting at with the phrase “lady like.”

I was definitely raised by a “June Cleaver” (1950s fictional television character) type of mom myself – all the way.

I crossed my legs when I sat down, wore panty hose under dresses, did not use cuss words, never wore pants to church services, didn’t sleep around, was never blunt or confrontational – I was a sweet, helpful little doormat who repressed all anger.

I can’t even begin to describe how being raised to be so “lady like” did so much damage to me, how many problems it created.

I am now trying to un-do the years of beliefs and behaviors I was taught was proper, godly, or lady like for a Christian female.

And it’s that very “ladylike” behavior that was so crippling for me (and other Christian women) that Dobson wants other girls to strive for.

There’s this assumption by these Dobson types – the ones who think little girls should be taught to be “lady like” – that if a female is raised to be a gentle, soft spoken, coy, compliant little thing, that this will attract men to her as she ages, and she will be able to get a husband.

I can see how that sort of thinking was true when my mother was a teen ager, but it’s not true for women like me who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s.

Being coy, passive, meek, modest, mild, self-effacing, totally selfless, nurturing, and compliant (“ladylike”) does not guarantee a girl a spouse any more, and is actually a lure for abusive men, which gender complementarians don’t seem to realize – or care about.

Being “lady like” also stunts a girl’s ability to become an independent adult.

After listening to Dobson’s interview with Mefferd about his book about girls,  I went to a book review site and looked Dobson’s book up.

I read reviews by people who read Dobson’s book, and they interestingly echo some of the views I expressed in my post the other day, over conservative Christianity in general.

You will see some of those views here, ones that I’ve brought up before about the state of contemporary Christianity, that these reviewers repeat about Dobson in particular, like how these reviewers notice that….

  • Dobson idolizes 1950s American culture;
  • Dobson, like so many other biblical gender complementarians, portrays un-biblical codependency as being desirable in a female, or mistakes codependency for being some kind of biblical standard for femininity;
  • spends more time complaining and bitching about liberalism than he does in actually dispensing useful parenting advice, etc:

From reviews of Dobson’s book “How To Raise Girls”

Review by Aaron Thompson

(who gave the book a 2 star out of 5 star review):

This review is from: Bringing Up Girls: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Women (Hardcover)

I’ll just say I’m not a fan of James Dobson, but I have a habit of reading books even if I don’t think I’ll like them. I got this for free, so I thought I’d give it a go.

True to what I expected, I thought the book was far too negative. The majority of the book is spent talking about how the world is terrible and getting worse by the second. He spends a lot of time recounting “the good ol’ days”, which I assume is when he was a young person. I think it’s safe to say the world was just as bad then, just in some different ways.

I also think he is far too old-fashioned. Call it what you will, but I don’t think it’s necessary for a man to walk on the street side of the sidewalk or order for his date. Those types of behaviors would drive me crazy. In general, I don’t agree with the 1950’s housewife idea he has for women. If a particular woman wants her relationship to work that way, fine. But many don’t.

And lots of men don’t want that, either.

And guess what? We are dedicated Christians. I do like a little romance to be sure, but if my husband acted the way Dobson advocates for, I would feel completely smothered.

Dobson also makes himself sound outdated by comparing piercings to self-harm, such as cutting, and saying that it means you hate yourself.

No, Dr. Dobson, I didn’t hate myself when I got my tongue, nose, lip, and whatever else pierced. I just liked the style at the time.

It had no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with God, and it did not mean I was sexually abused, drank alcohol/did drugs, or had promiscuous sex. In fact, none of those things were the case with me.

I also disliked his assessment on Disney Princesses. He’s a big fan. He says girls love them because they’re beautiful, have it all together, marry Prince Charming, have an unlimited wardrobe complete with fancy dresses, and everyone loves them.

They are the epitome of femininity and represent wanting to feel beautiful and loved as well as secure.

I don’t think those are very Christian attitudes, to be honest.

I would rather be focusing my life on whatever God calls me to, even if it’s hard. Even if it’s dirty. Even if it calls me to be lonely, ugly, poor, or unmarried.

I think the Princesses give the wrong idea that desiring security and beauty is more important than desiring God. Would I completely ban a daughter from playing with Princesses? Of course not. It’s fun to dress them up. But I do worry about her “looking up” to them.

Honestly, I don’t think Dobson includes enough scripture. When he does, the majority is from the Old Testament. That’s not bad, but I would like to hear the words of Jesus and his disciples. To me, the book (and Dobson, for that matter) is about Traditional America first, Jesus second.

There are a few things I found worthwhile in the book. Dobson had interesting information on warning signs to look for in teenagers with things like sexual abuse.

This is helpful, because my husband is a youth pastor. I also appreciated the ideas for daughters and fathers to strengthen their relationship. I know that a lot of girls don’t have fathers in their lives, or if they do, their fathers are distant, so I think this is a great thing for fathers to hear and possibly be convicted about.

All in all, I think there are far better parenting books, but in most books, you can find a few worthwhile things.

(Please click the “read more” link below to read the rest of this post)

Continue reading “Reviewers of Dobson’s book about parenting girls confirms it – U.S. Christians fixated on 1950s culture”

American Women in the Military – topic on Mefferd Radio Show

I’m a little puzzled by radio host Janet Mefferd’s views about American women in combat.

Janet Mefferd is a Christian radio host who appears to be a gender complementarian and Reformed in doctrine (she interviews a lot of Reformed guys and seems to agree with their take on doctrine – unfortunately.)

I did not even want to listen to this segment (so I did not plan on writing about it).

I tuned into Mefferd’s show to listen to her interview some guy over his lawsuit against a preacher who was harassing him (Link: “Bill O’Neil talks about the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit”).

I tuned in expecting to hear O’Neil but instead, Mefferd begins the show discussing the role of women in the American military.

In this show, Mefferd quotes a long piece by someone at Vision Forum approvingly. I believe that “Vision Forum” is into that patriarchy and (Link:) Quiverfull lunacy, if I’m not mistaken.

The piece Mefferd quotes from ‘Vision Forum’ mentions that women are the weaker sex, and she raised other points against the idea of women serving in the military (in combat positions).

I think Mefferd is forgetting that God placed a woman, Deborah, as a political and military leader over Israel. Deborah led the army of Isreal into battle (mentioned in Judges Chapter 4; and (Link:) you can read more about her here).

Another woman, Jael, drove a tent peg through the head of a sleeping Israeli enemy who sought her protection (see (Link:) Judges 4:21). If God doesn’t have an issue with women being violent, aggressive, and going on the attack (and He does not if the situation warrants it), I have no idea why Mefferd of gender complementarians do.

At one point, Mefferd says, “When you place women on the same level as men, men will begin to treat women like men.”

Well, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

For one thing, Jesus Christ sought to ‘treat women like men,’ if you follow the Gospels: back in His day, Jewish culture taught that women were inferior to men, rabbis should not teach women (I think women were permitted back seat access to temple services but that was about it), etc.

Notice that Jesus treated women as equals to men. He did not talk down to them. He taught them serious doctrine. Jesus treated them as moral and intellectual equals to the males of His day… and all of this behavior SHOCKED his Jewish disciples. It was scandalous.

In the book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve that an outcome of the fall (sin entering humanity) is that men will rule over women (which was not God’s plan), and that women will seek this out – they will seek to be ruled (and this is called codependency – meaning, women looking to human males to be their saviors, instead of trusting completely in God).

One reason I object to all this hand-wringing over females serving in the military is that there are situations where a woman is going to be alone and without male protection in civilian life, so the whole point of a female being shot and killed in combat is rather moot.

Some Christian women never get married. Such women don’t have a husband to count on, to financially support them, or to defend them.
Continue reading “American Women in the Military – topic on Mefferd Radio Show”

Jesus’ Family Values by Deirdre Good challenges conservative Christan emphasis on “family” (copy)

As a never-married adult Christian, I am disturbed by the undue emphasis American Christian culture places on “the family,” by which they mean the 1950s standard of man married to woman with one or more children.

Maybe conservative Christian groups are correct and secular culture is hostile towards the nuclear family, but the obsession they have with defending it means these Christians frequently ignore or exclude anyone who does not fall into the nuclear family demographic (married couples with children).

(I discussed this issue in previous posts on this blog, such as: Conservative Christianity Stuck in 1950s Leave it To Beaver-ville)

I came across this book review which also discusses the topic (copy of a post at goddiscussion.com; source: (www)goddiscussion.com/85000/jesus-family-values-by-deirdre-good/:):

Jesus’ Family Values by Deirdre Good offers challenge to conservative Christian views

[The book review opens by describing how some American Christian groups claim that the nuclear family is under attack, as do some European groups, such as the British “Christian Action Research and Education, or CARE for short”].

…. [I]t is quickly apparent that the family is viewed in exclusive terms as being two parents (of different sexes) and children. But the grandaddy of all advocates of the ‘Christian family’ is without doubt the the behemoth that is Focus on the Family a multimillion dollar ministry formerly headed by James Dobson whose aim is to “help families thrive.”

Anyone would think that the testimony of the Bible was unequivocal given the unanimity with which Christian marriages laud their particular vision of family as the very bedrock of civilization.

But, even excluding the First Testament with its references to polygamy and like exercised by God’s righteous the Second Testament is far from clear. To cite one primary example Jesus in Matthew 10: 35-37 makes the startling comment that his mission is not so much to establish Christian families that will form the basis of a Christian civilization but is rather to “set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (English Standard Version).

Deirdre Good in her book Jesus’ Family Values offers a succinct but powerful challenge to this conservative hijacking of ‘the family’ as being a mainstay of Christian civilization.
Continue reading “Jesus’ Family Values by Deirdre Good challenges conservative Christan emphasis on “family” (copy)”

Do Women Need Marriage Anymore? (copy)

I’ve been seeing lots of articles like this lately.

Source:

(www.) citibank.com/womenandco/article/do-women-need-marriage-anymore.jsp

Do Women Need Marriage Anymore?

The New York Times article, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside of Marriage,” really got us thinking about motherhood, money, and marriage. The story addresses the changing face of family in the U.S., and how illegitimacy no longer has the same stigma for young unmarried mothers—in fact, it is the new norm.

And while 59% of all women who give birth in the U.S. are married, it is the generation of young mothers under 30 who have tipped the scales the other way—with the biggest jump among white women in their 20’s. So, why are so many young women choosing NOT to walk down the aisle? Is it possible that men are phasing themselves out of their role in society and don’t even know it?

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

In the tradition of marriage, the notion that you marry for love is relatively new. In fact, it was not until the 1920’s that dating became a popular trend. Historically, marriage was a simple economic union between families. It was our human need to ensure our survival and better our position in society. And while most of us today shudder at the thought of living in a loveless marriage, the economic need for a woman to wed has typically outweighed that of men—that is, until now.

Gender Role Reversal
According to a Pew Research Center study, between 1970 and 2007 the education and income levels of married men and women have completely flip flopped. Until the last couple of decades, more men completed college and were the sole bread winners of the household. But today, the tables have turned.

The 2009 Labor Census showed that when the recession hit in 2008, 75% of the decline in unemployment was among men of prime working age, while the growth rate of women in the workforce actually increased. Plus, there are more women today graduating from college than men, and the dual income household is commonplace—with many women making more than their husbands. All of these changing factors have greatly increased the man’s economic need to marry while decreasing the financial motive for women.

Education and Marriage

That said, according to the studies, education—therefore income level—and marriage go hand in hand. The Times article and the Pew Research Center state that college graduates still “overwhelmingly marry before having children, turning family structure into a new class divide.” According to University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg, “Marriage has become a luxury good.”

Adding to the divide is the finding that educated men have been quicker than their blue-collar peers to give women equal authority and play the partner role. Therefore, the trend suggests that many young, lower income women are finding themselves having children with men who not only cannot provide financially for their family, they are not providing other partnership benefits that would make a formal union beneficial, such as taking on the non-traditional role of stay at home dad.

The New Economics of Marriage

Today’s woman is no longer faced with the inevitability of relying on a man for income. So when faced with the prospect of a shotgun wedding, it’s not surprising a new generation of young mothers are asking: what’s in it for us? And even though statistics show that children born outside of marriage are at greater risk to fall into poverty, fail in school, or suffer emotional and behavioral problems, many women will try living with their “baby daddy”, but refuse to marry him.

For lower income parents, when it comes to qualifying for government aid, sometimes it’s simply more economical to stay single. But it’s not always the motivating factor. Many of these working mothers have no interest in struggling to financially support their out-of-work boyfriends. In fact, they’d rather keep their independence than risk a failed marriage in the long run.

The question remains, what do the men think of all of this? If the traditional role of the man in the family structure is changing, what will his new role be?

Mark Driscoll and Other Sexist Preachers Would Probably Approve

I have a feeling sexist Seattle pastor and wanna be cool guy Mark Driscoll would give this husband’s actions a stamp of approval. Driscoll, and other complementarian gender guys pretty much believe a woman owes sex to her husband whenever and where ever and how ever he wants it.

They might toss in a few qualifiers like, “such- and- such a sex act should not be done if one partner is really against it,” or something, but from many articles I’ve read about Driscoll, comments he has made in sermons, and interviews with former members of his church, and based on comments I’ve seen about other Christian gender role traditionalists, they do pretty much believe that sex is one-sided: that sex is for a man only; a woman is obligated to give her husband sex whenever and how often he wants it, even if she’s not in the mood, or feeling sick, or is not comfortable with certain sex acts.

Florida man, refused sex, chops off most of girlfriend’s nose
(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/denied-sex-man-cuts-girlfriend-nose-article-1.1202726)

    Novemember 15, 2012, By Charlie Wells / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

    A sexually frustrated Florida man chopped off most of his girlfriend’s nose when she refused to have intercourse with him, cops said.

    Ricardo Salamanca of Plantation, Fla. has been charged with aggravated battery and is currently sitting in jail on a $75,000 bond.

    The twisted nose job took place on the night of Oct. 28, after Salamanca’s girlfriend left him at a local nightclub.

—–(end news story quotes)——

I can just see sex obsessed and sexist pastors such as Driscoll, Ed Young, and others thinking that is a great way of keeping wives in line: threaten to cut their noses off if they refuse sex, or actually cut their noses off if they don’t. I seriously think that some within the traditional gender role camp within conservative Christianity are remarkably and eerily like Muslim Taliban, who shoot girls in the head for attending school and wanting other girls to have educations. Most mainstream conservative Christians are not like that, but some on the fringe are that creepy and sexist.

Those Times When You’re Glad to be a Celibate, Single Christian – 1 Corinthians 7:28

1 Corinthians 7:28:

But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Skimming over a list of recent secular advice columnist Carolyn Hax columns recently, I feel happy with never having been married, and that I am a life long celibate.

Sometimes, I feel upset at having arrived in my 40s without ever married, but then I see things online or on the TV that makes me feel glad I am still single and not having sex.

Here’s a selection of just a few of Hax’s recent column headlines:

  • Carolyn Hax: History of bad partners; adulterer in their midst – OCT 17
  • Carolyn Hax: When to disclose you have herpes – OCT 16
  • Carolyn Hax: Boyfriend has anger issues, but he won’t go to therapy on his own – OCT 15

“When to disclose you have herpes.” –When to disclose your herpes?! Good grief. I have never been in that situation and likely never will be.

It’s hard being a celibate Christian over the age of 40.

We’re mostly invisible to the American Christian church at large, and get no encouragement or support to remain celibate.

I’m constantly inundated with pro-sex (and pro-marriage) messages and images every time I turn on the television, go to a movie, look at a magazine – and that’s just from “Christian culture,” not counting the mountain of sex messages and imagery I get from secular culture, not just in regards to sex, but the secular culture keeps up this facade that a person cannot be validated unless one is in a romantic relationship.

Regarding my point that the current American Christian culture is just as obsessed with sex as is the secular culture, here are a few examples: everything from pastor Mark Driscoll’s frequent kinky, perverted, sex-filled sermons (he even sexualizes non-sexual content, such as the book of Esther), and pastor Ed Young’s stupid, immature, weird, tacky “Sexperiment.”

You can read more about those topics here (I am not necessarily in full agreement with all views on all topics on blogs and sites I link to):

Ed Young’s Sexperiment, from Church Marketing Sucks

The Trouble with Ed Young’s Rooftop Sexperiment

Esther, Mark Driscoll, and using rape to control women

Profane Preachers Contribute to Killing the Conscience

This discusses how Driscoll and other pastors are obsessed with sex:

The Church of Sex

Older celibates get treated like weirdos or failures in and out of the church, by Christians and by secular people.

The hypocrisy from Christians is amazing on this point. They frequently lecture teen aged Christians, and the 20-something Christians, to refrain from sex outside of marriage, but when these Christians actually succeed in doing this, and remain unmarried and virgins into their 40s and beyond (such as yours truly), we get treated like second class citizens and freaks by the church. (click “more” to read the rest of the post)
Continue reading “Those Times When You’re Glad to be a Celibate, Single Christian – 1 Corinthians 7:28”

Article from The Atlantic: Not Wanting Kids is Normal

From The Atlantic (I’m not in complete agreement with all views on other issues by the woman who wrote this:)

Not Wanting Kids is Entirely Normal

Source:

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wanting-kids-is-entirely-normal/262367/

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

Snippets:

[Article opens by mentioning former Nebraska state law that allowed parents to drop off their children with no legal repercussion; was meant to protect newborns, but an age limit was not stated in the law]

….A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family — nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

….On November 21, 2008, the last day that the safe haven law was in effect for children of all ages, a mother from Yolo County, California, drove over 1,200 miles to the Kimball County Hospital in Nebraska where she left her 14-year-old son.

What happened in Nebraska raises the question: If there were no consequences, how many of us would give up our kids?

….Whether it’s because of hardship or not, many Americans are giving up on parenthood.

In February 2009, someone calling herself Ann logged onto the website Secret Confessions and wrote three sentences: “I am depressed. I hate being a mom. I also hate being a stay at home mom too!” Over three years later, the thread of comments is still going strong with thousands of responses — the site usually garners only 10 or so comments for every “confession.” Our anonymous Ann had hit a nerve.
Continue reading “Article from The Atlantic: Not Wanting Kids is Normal”

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”