As I walked the streets of my small midwest town praying for the people and the churches of the town, the words came to me, "Make bitter waters sweet." Those words made no sense at the time. Surely if those words actually came from God they weren't about me. I, the pastor's wife, had a life that other women in my church envied. Shortly after that, my life fell apart and the bitterness that lurked beneath the surface came to the top. But God did not leave me there. Just as He can make crooked paths straight, raise valleys, and lower mountains, so also could He make bitter waters sweet. This blog contains bits and pieces and large chunks of my ongoing journey from bitter waters to sweet.
In fact, I wanted to leave a comment on Sarah's blog about it but disqus and I have never gotten along. But I was going to link Unconditional Respect in a comment there. Oh well. Guess that's not going to happen.
Yep, He tried to side step, take the moral high ground, attack Mefferd... Whatever he could do to throw her off her confrontation concerning another allegation of Plagiarism. But he found she was way tougher than he bargained for. And she had the moral high ground from the get go. There was no way he could take it from her. So he just hung up before the interview was over. Quite the manly man, that Driscoll (snort).
Or perhaps a better way of saying it is... Greeks bearing gifts attacks... or Trojan horse attacks.
Because this is what American Evangelicals subject themselves when they embrace the little-by-little infiltration of groups like Vision Forum and men like Doug Wilson.
When American Evangelicals embrace VF, ATI, or Doug Wilson, they are receiving that which will destroy them and their credibility.
Thanks to A Woman's Freedom in Christ for the heads up on the comment I'm about to link. The comment highlights how overbearingly oppressive and unchristian groups like VF really are. So many are sweeping Doug Phillips indiscretions and resignation under the rug when they should be examining more closely the doctrine of his group that hands out oppression to women and children while setting men up as Lords and Kings in their home. There doctrine allows men to arbitrarily make life miserable or bearable according to their mode, personality, and disposition. And this doctrine forces women and children to stay in situations that are abusive and not fit for animals.
Here is the comment of someone who has studied these groups.
This is actually an old one. But I'm bringing it to the forefront and reposting it so that Ryan can see that Womanhood is being attacked by the leaders of the Evangelical movement.
Tim Challies is a respected leader among his subgroup of Evangelicals. And apparently he has seen something that he doesn't like. And in order to fight it, he has polarized it into gender forms, making the masculine good, strong, and right and what he doesn't like as effeminate (weak and accepting of wrong).
His polarizing and defining, making masculine good and feminine evil is another example of the war on womanhood being carried out everyday by those who are defending manhood from perceived attackers.
Still, I don't see a war on Manhood in any of this. But I do see a lot of men claiming that there is a war on it. These men get on the offensive and start attacking whoever they think they should blame, namely the feminine (again, like Adam blaming Eve) when really, it is a manufactured and propaganda propelled war.
Here is the old post reprinted out, complete with links to Challies and places that refute what he's saying. I originally wrote this post back in the days before I understood how to work the blogger linky thingy. Back then I just cut and pasted the links 'as is' into the post.
(Note: I was a bit upset back in the day I wrote this. I'm still not happy with Challies and his conclusions, but I'm not nearly as angry today as I was then. But I'm not ashamed of my back then anger. There is a reason to be angry with this war that men have declared against the feminine. It is wrong.)
The famous Tim Challies, who has caused a stir in the blog world by declaring that women cannot even read scripture out loud in the public assembly has decided to quote Horatius Bonar. In fact, he entitled and entire post "Soft, Effeminate Christianity" in order to quote Bonar. He says this about Bonar's quote that he reprints.
Tim Challies: "Bonar is warning against a kind of soft and, in his word, effeminate Christianity, that may come about when Christians are too afraid to fight for what is right and to protest against what is wrong."
Because of his hypocrisy and blatant hatred of the feminine. These pushers of gender roles force women down into a soft, submissive, subservient role THEN show hatred for such things in the church.
Well, let me tell you Tim Challies, who wants to turn women into little helpless lambs. Let me tell you this. You and your cohorts' relentless pursuit to dis-empower and bring into bondage, women, half or over half of the body of Christ... This pursuit is blowing up in you face.
More and more women are done with all the rules men keep making up for them.
These are mother grizzlies and lionesses who are not afraid to fight for what is right and to protest against what is wrong. And your stance on women reading scripture in the public assembly and your support of C.J Mahaney are both dead wrong. These women are not afraid to declare it. They are very feminine. But they are strong and powerful, able to preach and teach men of their wrong. And yes, they are able to prophesy in the name of Jesus. No amount of Scripture twisting by you and others is able to take away from them the promise of Almighty God.
The real problem in all of this is your refusal to hear about the wrong that you commit against all of your sisters and many of your brothers.
So Ryan feels attacked in his manhood, right?
And Ryan wants to know if I feel it's okay and God honoring for the mainline churches to attack his manhood.
Well, here it is. If manhood is truly being attacked, then, no, I don't feel it's okay or God honoring. The problem is, Ryan has offered no proof that this is going on. So I can't make a stand on this issue due to lack of proof.
Now, here is my question to Ryan.
Do you think it is right to, first of all, accuse everything you hate about certain worship services as being "effeminate" and then declaring that all these things are evil, thereby indirectly attacking the feminine and deciding that masculine rules while the feminine drools.
Also, Wilson is quick to blame anyone that he's mad at as serving the b!tch goddess of (fill in the blank as pertaining to whatever he's ranting about). This misogynist behavior is observed by Wenatchee the Hatchet in his "Doug Wilson almost channel's Eric Cartman."
Now, granted, the Wartburg comment thread is talking about Driscoll and MacDonald so one may wonder what the heck Doug Wilson has to do with any of this. Well I'm going to provide a link to a video of John Piper praising Doug Wilson while Chandler and Driscoll fist bump behind him. In the video, John Piper states at the 58 second mark (while Driscoll agrees with laughter and fist bump):
"Doug Wilson is one of the most careful and bright, reform, post millennial, objectivist, theologians around... and he's got people around him that are dumb. (laughter... fist bump... more laughter)"
So this is what Piper has to say about Wilson. That Wilson is brilliant and everyone else is dumb. Yet, as WTH points out, Wilson almost channels Eric Cartman (South Park) in his hatred and attack on the feminine.
I have proved that the feminine is being attacked in Evangelical circles.
What does Ryan have to say about that?
Is there anyone attacking 'manhood' in mainline denominations as vicious as Wilson hates and attacks the feminine?
I doubt it.
But I'm willing to see any proof Ryan can provide.
Yup, it's a firestorm. Yup, it's getting pretty ugly.
Nope, I don't want to get too involved except to say a thing or two and leave a couple links.
First off, those who have been with me, like, forever, know that back in the day when Driscoll was ranting and raving and raping The Song of Songs mostly unchallenged, I appreciated MacArthur's voice in the wilderness, calling Driscoll on his misused and abuse of Scripture.
I still appreciate what he has done.
But now, John MacArthur is ranting and raving and shooting off his mouth and pen with his book and conference called Strange Fire attacking Charismatics.
My biggest impulse is to back up and let the elephants trample each other while I figure out how to serve God to the best of my ability in my small corner of the world far and away from these mad men. And I think that is just what I'll do.
But first I'll link a few things here of those taking on MacArthur's unchristian, unfriendly fire.
Wenatchee the Hatchet has a lot to say about some of this stuff (this is just a link to his blog, not any one post because he has several today).
Wenatchee the Hatchet left a comment under one of my previous Mars Hill plagiarism posts.
Since it had been a while since I put up those posts, people interested n the topic might miss his comment and I don't want them to.
Wenatchee the Hatchet: What I find troublesome about Grace Driscoll's appropriation of Dan Allender's terms and concepts is not simply that she never gives him any credit, it's that during 2011 when the Driscoll book was in its run-up for promotional touring Mars Hill Graduate School changed its name to remove "Mars Hill". 2011 was also the same year that cease and desist letter got sent out. It cumulatively raises the question of whether or not Mars Hill leadership isn't a bit more cavalier about the intellectual property of other people than it wishes to be about its own content. I find the Mars Hill double standard about the sadness of others copying Mars Hill material while not acknowledging Grace Driscoll's clearly testified debt to the work of Dan Allender puzzling. All it would have taken was a single footnote or endnote, after all.
There doesn't just seem to be a double standard. There clearly is a double standard. If the Driscoll's want to freely borrow from others, then they shouldn't be so ugly towards others who appear to may have borrowed from them.