SoS SGC 2, The Lulling to Sleep

As I mentioned in the intro to this series, I am aware of Driscoll's tactic of front loading his messages with innocuous info to give his audience a false sense of security. He uses many words, with references and word studies at the beginning and middle of his messages to fool people into thinking that what he throws in here and there and then asserts at the end is also well researched, documented, supported and should be accepted. I saw him do this in the Peasant Princess series. I see this in the "Study Guide" as well. (Note: cn0te1 never did get back to me on where this study guide came from, even though he claimed that he copied and pasted it for my benefit, to educate me. He just thought throwing all those words with no footnotes, references, or sources should somehow be enough to shut me up.)

I started off counting paragraphs to keep track, but there are so many I've changed it to sections with paragraphs numbered in those sections.

The question is, does Song of Songs 6:13 refer to the Beloved doing a strip tease or some other sort of provocative dance?
Driscoll and cn0te1 claim that is does.
Here is the verse in question:
Songs 6:13 Come back, come back, O Shulammite;
Come back, come back, that we may gaze at you!"
Why should you gaze at the Shulammite,
As at the dance of the two companies?

Part one of the study guide goes into the Beloved's name used in the verse. That the name used, "Shulammite" is about where she comes from rather than her personal name. And the study guide asserts that she is Abishag, mentioned in I and II Kings. There is no proof or disproof of this. Some traditions believe this. Others don't. Then part one goes on more about names. It gets pretty long and confusing. But for the most part, seemingly harmless.

Part two gets into the dance of the Manahaaim which I touched on in my comment to cn0te1. The first two and a half paragraphs of part two go into the meaning of this word. But about three fourths of the way down in the third paragraph, an assertion is made. The author asserts that "the daughters of Jerusalem wish to see the Shulamite dance."
This assertion cannot be derived by reading the text, nor is there any supporting documentation that is so prevalent in the everything that led up to this assertion. It is just stated as fact, as though the text says so, itself. But it doesn't. All the text does is question why people are staring at her like at some angelic dance.
Don't get me wrong. She may very well have been dancing. That is neither provable nor un-provable. The word 'dance' is mentioned in the verse. But it is not certain that anyone was dancing, going to dance, or being requested to dance. There is simply mentioned "the dance of the two companies" which refers back to Genesis 32:2. And that dance had to do with angels. Not sex.

Paragraph 4 of part 2 gets into German words and Indian mythology, which I suppose the author found interesting. But one has to wonder why it is brought up here since it has absolutely no bearing on the verse in question. It seems to appear because the author likes to fancy himself intelligent or well-read. Or perhaps it is thrown in to further confuse people so that their defenses are down and they accept what comes next.

Paragraph 5 makes unsupported assertions concerning the verses that follow Song 6:13 in Songs Chapter 7. The word 'undeniably' is used in this assertion to try to give it credibility. Again. The verse may or may not be about dancing. And if it is about dancing, it still isn't proven that this dance is in anyway meant to be provocative.

Much is said to try to prove that there is dancing, which may or may not have been going on. And much is asserted as to what people meant or intended or implied by their words. The problem is that these things can be found in neither the plain reading of the text nor in any supporting work or documentation.

So here are a lot of words that seem to be legit (again, none of this is footnoted and given sources but enough is given a person could conceivably look them up themselves) ... anyway, there seems to be a lot of legit discourse on names and angels. But toward the end of several blocks of info there are little bits of unsupportable sex leaven sprinkled in. These little suggestions in the study are part of a sales tactic. The tactic is to plant little sex seeds in order to build up to the final flight of fantasy promoted by Driscoll (or whoever the author is) at the end of the whole spiel.

SoS SGC Break

I will resume with the study guide critique on Monday.

But here is a good post from WTH concerning Driscoll's relationship with his wife, Grace. WTH pulls several things together to point out what most of us have already known. Putting it mildly, their relationship is not healthy.

Driscoll's policy on who can be friends with Grace?

Oh, Grace. If only you knew who you were in Christ. Then you would know when you were being abused and you wouldn't keep going along with your shyster husband's lame-brain plans.

Dear Grace, you really need to read my friend's open letter to you. You are so confused and clueless.

SoS SGC 1, The Bedroom Police

First off, before anyone wants to accuse me of thinking that I presume to be the bedroom police, let me clarify. I do not feel it is my job to tell people what is and is not acceptable in their own bedrooms. If people do strip teases or oral sex as part of their married sex lives, that is their business, not mine. My little critique of the study guide linked by cn0te1 has nothing to do with whether a sex act is right or wrong. My critique has to do with whether or not strip teases or provocative dancing is mentioned and maybe even encouraged in the Song of Songs.

Secondly, while I was debating this topic with cn0te1, he/she seemed to assume a great deal about me without even knowing me. He/She seemed to think that the reason I didn't like Driscoll's teachings was because I thought Driscoll was misogynous. He/She assumed that I hated Driscoll and that that hatred was blinding me to Driscoll's brilliance in explaining the Songs. He/She assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about and that Driscoll did know what he was talking about.

Another thing cn0te1 assumed was that he/she has the right to comment on my sex life and, in essence, be the bedroom police towards me. He/she tried to bring up what was going on in my bedroom and what should be going on that he/she assumed wasn't. He/She was convinced I had certain issues since he/she had determined that I wasn't obeying the sex laws that he/she and Driscoll believed the Songs had set up for all married couples.

Cause you see, the ones who really think they are the bedroom police are Driscoll, the Bedroom Police Chief, and all his little deputies like cn0te1. They have certain ideas of what it takes to make a happy bedroom and want to make sure those things are going on in the bedroom. Or at the very least, they want to make sure everyone knows about all those things and how important those things are to God. They push the notion that it pleases God for married people to carry out all sorts things in the bedroom. In fact, Driscoll is even caught on tape telling women that Jesus commands them to do certain sex acts that they may not feel comfortable with.

Driscoll, and those like cn0te1, also consider themselves judge and jury. They believe that they are the ones who get to accuse others of being insecure, prudish or some such rot if people point out that God might not be all that interested in that much variety in the bedroom.
And where the heck do they get such a notion that wild sex pleases God?
From a legalistic view of the Songs. That's right folks. legalism.

You see, instead of seeing the Song of Songs for what it is, a love poem in the Bible, something beautiful and descriptive, they see it as some sort of divine remedy, something prescriptive to a healthy sex life in marriage. They truly believe that the Song of Songs (their take on it) is the healthy-sex trouble-shooting section of the Bible. Their personally subjective, black and white thinking has pounded this beautiful piece of poetry down into the little mold of a modern day 'how-to' guide for sex. To them, this book is about sex, sex, and nothing but sex. And anyone who suggests that there might be a bit more to it than that is labeled as religious, insecure, unenlightened, uneducated, and a whole host of other ad hominem attack words.

cn0te1 has made a whole host of assumptions concerning me, labeling me stubborn and religious, thinking that because I don't use the Songs the way Driscoll teaches, then I must be a Puritan prude who blushes at the mention of the very word 'sex'. Talking to him/her became frustrating because of the wall of accusations and assumptions on his/her part. He/She engaged in twists, turns, circular logic, and name calling rather than face the truth that Driscoll's doctrine on sex is bogus. It became so frustrating that I had to bring his comment over here and dissect it here rather than in the comments at Throckmorton's.

Driscoll has been exposed for the shyster that he is so I no longer feel the need to call attention to that. But his bad doctrine is still floating around, damaging people and their perceptions of God and the Bible. Therefore, when I come across someone who stubbornly holds onto Driscoll's wrong teaching, I don't back down.

Now for a link to an old post from Virginia Knowles at Watch the Shepherd.
My Thoughts on the Sexualization of the Church (and other problems)
The sex police (Mark Driscoll and all) have forced sex into the face of the church for quite long enough. We've had enough of their demands. And we are no longer going to let them use the Bible to promote their twisted doctrine that invades the bedroom and defiles the marriage bed.*

*Again, what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. What is being discussed here is what Driscoll and Company says God is pleased with and in some cases commands. 

Song of Songs Study Guide?

Really?

And just who exactly wrote this Song of Songs study guide (here after referred to SoS SG)? Mark Driscoll? Someone else approved by Mark Driscoll?

I'm trying to get an answer from the random person who copied and pasted it in a comment at Warren Throckmorton's blog. That anonymous person, cn0te1, copied it into the comment section to try to get me to shut up. His/her exact words were, "Please read educate yourself then be quiet." A comma would have helped for clarity. But I'm not here to critique his/her grammar, just his/her foolishness in embracing Driscoll's teachings on the Songs. This post will not contain critique, just his/her comment and perhaps some dividing and labeling for clarity. The critiques will appear in subsequent comments (here after referred to the SoS SGC).

Note: okay, just a little critique right here right now because this cut and paste job is really, really long. Do not feel obligated to read every word of it in order to follow along with my critique unless you want to and/or feel up to the challenge. One reason I suspect that this, so called "Study Guide" is written by Driscoll is because of the style. He goes on about stuff that is mostly innocuous to lull his audience into a false sense of security then throws in a bit of completely unsupportable conjecture. Then at the end, he throws in unsupportable flights of fantasy and expects his hack job to be taken seriously. He expects people to treat it as a piece of enlighten inspiration. The problem is there are people like me who don't trust him since he's a liar, a plagiarist, a cheat, and all around shyster (and yes, I know the German origin for that last word and mean it with all of my heart because that is what he has done to the Songs).

Anyway, here is the comment as it appeared over there, including the belittling, silencing tactic at the beginning from cn0te1 who has had quite enough of me at this point cause I won't stop pointing out that his/her idol is a fraud.
Also I have divided this long piece into 4 parts in order to better dissect this ugly dragon.

Comment from cn0te1:

*****

Please read educate yourself and then be quite!

SONG OF SOLOMON. 6:13

-----
(Part 1)

(7:1) Encouraged by Shulamith's unassuming answer, the daughters of Jerusalem now give utterance to an entreaty which their astonishment at her beauty suggests to them. 7:1 Come back, come back, O Shulamith!

Come back, come back, that we may look upon thee!

She is now (Song 6:10 ff.) on the way from the garden to the palace. The fourfold "come back" entreats her earnestly, yea, with tears, to return thither with them once more, and for this purpose, that they might find delight in looking up her; for b| chaazaah signifies to sink oneself into a thing, looking at it, to delight (feast) one's eyes in looking on a thing.

Here for the first time Shulamith is addressed by name. But hashuw' cannot be a pure proper name, for the art. is vocat., as e.g., yrw' habat , "O daughter of Jerusalem!" Pure proper names like shlmh are so determ. in themselves that they exclude the article; only such as are at the sametime also nouns, like yar|deen and l|baanown , are susceptible of the article, particularly also of the vocat., Ps 114:5; but cf.

Zech 11:1 with Isa 10:34. Thus hashuw' will be not so much a proper name as a name of descent, as generally nouns in î (with a few exceptions, viz., of ordinal number, haraariy , y|maaniy , etc.) are all gentilicia. The LXX render hshw' by hee Sounami'tis, and this is indeed but another form for hashuwnamiyt, i.e., she who is from Sunem. Thus also was designated the exceedingly beautiful Abishag, 1 Kings 1:3, Elisha's excellent and pious hostess, 2 Kings 4:8 ff.

Sunem was in the tribe of Issachar (Josh 19:18), near to Little Hermon, from which it was separated by a valley, to the south-east of Carmel. This lower Galilean Sunem, which lies south from Nain, south-east from Nazareth, south-west from Tabor, is also called Shulem. Eusebius in his Onomasticon says regarding it: Doubee'm (l. Doulee'm) klee'rou Issa'char kai' nu'n esti' koo'mee Soulee'm k.t.l., i.e., as Jerome translates it: Sunem in tribue Issachar. et usque hodie vicus ostenditur nomine Sulem in quinto miliario montis Thabor contra australum plagam. This placeif found at the present day under the name of Suwlam (Sôlam), at the west end of Jebel ed-Duhi (Little Hermon), not far from the great plain (Jisre'el, now Zer'în), which forms a convenient way of communication between Jordan and the sea-coast, but is yet so hidden in the mountainrange that the Talmud is silent concerning this Sulem, as it is concerning Nazareth. Here was the home of the Shulamitess of the Song. The ancients interpret the name by eireemeu'ousa, or by eskuleume'nee (vid., Lagarde's Onomastica), the former after Aquila and the Quinta, the latter after Symm. The Targum has the interpretation: h' `m b'mwnth hshleemh (vid., Rashi). But the form of the name (the Syr. writes shiyluwmiytaa') is opposed to these allegorical interpretations. Rather it is to be assumed that the poet purposely used, not hshwb', but hshwl', to assimilate her name to that of Solomon; and that it has the parallel meaning of one devoted to Solomon, and thus, as it were, of a passively-applied sh|lowmiyt = Dalo'mee, is the more probable, as the daughters of Jerusalem would scarcely venture thus to address her who was raised to the rank of a princess unless this name accorded with that of Solomon.

Not conscious of the greatness of her beauty, Shulamith asks- 1ba What do you see in Shulamith?

-----
Part 2

She is not aware that anything particular is to be seen in her; but the daughters of Jerusalem are of a different opinion, and answer this childlike, modest, but so much the more touching question- 1bb As the dance of Mahanaim!

They would thus see in her something like the dance of Manahaaïm. If this be here the name of the Levitical town (now Mahneh) in the tribe ofGad, north of Jabbok, where Ishbosheth resided for two years, and where David was hospitably entertained on his flight from Absalom (Luthr.: "the dance to Mahanaaïm"), then we must suppose in this trans-Jordanic town such a popular festival as was kept in Shiloh, Judg 21:19, and we may compare Abel-meholah = meadow of dancing, the name of Elisha's birth-place (cf. also Herod. i. 16: "To dance the dance of the Arcadian town of Tegea").

But the Song delights in retrospective references to Genesis (cf. Gen 4:11b, 7:11). At 32:3, however, by Mahanaaïm (Note: Böttcher explains Mahanaaïm as a plur.; but the plur. of mchnh is machanowt and machaniym; the plur. termination ajim is limited to mayim and shaamayim .) is meant the double encampment of angels who protected Jacob's two companies (32:8). The town of Mahanaaïm derives its name from this vision of Jacob's. The word, as the name of a town, is always without the article; and here, where it has the article, it is to be understood appellatively. The old translators, in rendering by "the dances of the camps" (Syr., Jerome, choros castrorum, Venet. thi'ason stratope'doon), by which it remains uncertain whether a war-dance or a parade is meant, overlook the dual, and by exchanging mchnayim with machanowt, they obtain a figure which in this connection is incongruous and obscure. But, in truth, the figure is an angelic one. The daughters of Jerusalem wish to see Shulamith dance, and they designate that as an angelic sight. Mahanaaïm became in the post-bibl. dialect a name directly for angels. The dance of angels is only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim, Isa 6.

Engelkoere angel-choir and "heavenly host" are associated in the old German poetry. (Note: Vid., Walther von der Vogelweide, 173. 28. The Indian mythology goes farther, and transfers not only the original of the dance, but also of the drama, to heaven; vid., Götting. Anziegen, 1874, p. 106.)

The following description is undeniably that (let one only read how Hitzig in vain seeks to resist this interpretation) of one dancing. In this, according to biblical representation and ancient custom, there is nothing repulsive.

-----
Part 3

The women of the ransomed people, with Miriam at their head, danced, as did also the women who celebrated David's victory over Goliath (Ex. 15:20; 1 Sam. 18:66). David himself danced (2 Sam 6) before the ark of the covenant. Joy and dancing are, according to Old Testament conception, inseparable (Eccl 3:4); and joy not only as the happy feeling of youthful life, but also spiritual holy joy (Ps 87:7). The dance which the ladies of the court here desire to see, falls under the point of view of a play of rival individual artistes reciprocally acting for the sake of amusement. The play also is capable of moral nobility, if it is enacted within the limits of propriety, at the right time, in the right manner, and if the natural joyfulness, penetrated by intelligence, is consecrated by a spiritual aim.

Thus Shulamith, when she dances, does not then become a Gaditanian (Martial, xiv. 203) or an Alma (the name given in Anterior Asia to thosewomen who go about making it their business to dance mimic and partly lascivious dances); nor does she become a Bajadere (Isa 23:15 f.), (Note: Alma is the Arab. 'ualmah (one skilled, viz., in dancing and jonglerie), and Bajadere is the Portug. softening of baladera, a dancer, from balare (ballare), mediaev. Lat., and then Romanic: to move in a circle, to dance.) as also Miriam, Ex 15:20, Jephthah's daughter, Judg 11:34, the "daughters of Shiloh," Judg 21:21, and the woman of Jerusalem,1 Sam 18:6, did not dishonour themselves by dancing; the dancing of virgins is even a feature of the times after the restoration, Jer 31:13. But that Shulamith actually danced in compliance with the earnest entreaty of thedaughters of Jerusalem, is seen from the following description of her attractions, which begins with her feet and the vibration of her thighs.

After throwing aside her upper garments, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vinedresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them. Her feet, previously (Song 5:3) naked, or as yet only shod withsandals, she sets forth with the deportment of a prince's daughter. 2a How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, O prince's daughter!

.....

-----
Part 4

""Another view is that the word "return" is for "turn round;" that is, "Let us see thee dance, that we may admire the beauty of thy form and movements." This would explain the appropriateness of the bride's reply in the latter haft of the verse. Moreover, the fourfold appeal is scarcely suitable if the bride was only slightly indicating her intention to leave. She would surely not leave hastily, seeing that Solomon is present. The request is not that she may remain, but that they may look upon her. It would be quite fitting in the mouth of lady companions. The whole is doubtless a poetic artifice, as before in the case of the dream, for the purpose of introducing the lovely description of her personal attractions. Plainly she is described as dancing or as if dancing. Delitzsch, however, thinks that the dance is only referred to by the ladies as a comparison; but in that case he certainly leaves unexplained the peculiarity of the description in Song of Solomon 7:1-5, which most naturally is a description of a dancing figure.Verse 13b. - Why will ye look upon the Shulamite as upon the dance of Mahanaim? The Shulamite, in her perfect modesty and humility, not knowing how beautiful she really is, asks why it is that they wish still to gaze upon her, like those that gaze at the dance of Mahanaim, or why they wish her to dance. But at the same moment, with the complaisance of perfect amiability, begins to move - always a pleasure to a lovely maiden - thus filling them with admiration. Mahanaim came in later times to mean "angels," or the "heavenly host" (see Genesis 32:3), but here it is generally thought to be the name of a dance, perhaps one in which the inhabitants of Mahanaim excelled, or one in which angels or hosts were thought to engage. The old translators, the Syriac, Jerome, and the Venetian, render, "the dances of the camps" (choros castrarum, θίωσον στρατοπέδων), possibly a war dance or parade. The word, however, is in the dual. Delitzsch thinks the meaning is a dance as of angels, "only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim" (Isaiah 6.). Of course, there can be no objection to the association of angels with the bride, but there is no necessity for it. The word would be, no doubt, familiarly known in the age of Solomon. The sacred dances wore often referred to in Scripture. and there would be nothing degrading to the dignity of the bride in dancing before the ladies and her own husband. "After throwing aside her upper garment, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vine dresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them.""...Therefore performing a provocative dance!

*****


I can't wait to get into critiquing it. But I have to wait until I have more time on my hands.

Piper Pipes In

I have no idea what he has said since I have not heard this yet. I'm so busy with personal life that my blog seems to have become my 'Pinterest' today, pinning this little blip from Piper concerning whether or not he regrets partnering with Driscoll. I'm pinning it so I can find it later. Piper may redeem himself. Or not. I have know clue. I'll find out as I listen to it.

Do you regret partnering with Mark Driscoll - Piper

I'm not a huge Piper fan. But Driscoll... wow.

Mars Hill, the good and the bad

I don't have much time for blogging these days. But things haven't slowed down in popular Christian culture news. Especially at Mars Hill.

For those who want to keep on top of it, I suggest reading WTH's blog. He is in the know, both as a former MH member and as someone who is still in contact with people who go there. He is keeping track of all the inconsistencies and spin.

But on a more personal note, here is a thoughtful comment over at Warren Throckmorton's blog by a former member and leader on both the good and the bad of belonging to Mars Hill.

1John410's comment at Throckmorton's

Most things are not rigidly black and white. Even Mars Hill.

"Pussified Nation" Says Driscoll (WTH)

I'm just going to link to this series under its label on Wenatchee The Hatchet's blog.

Driscoll fears the feminine and its great and magnificent power to destroy men (snark or eye rolling icon here).

He is so worried about the power of women to destroy men and manhood that he went on and on and on about it about it on some Mars Hill forum.

If you go down about half a page or more you will get to Page 1 of Driscoll's ranting against girly men (as defined by him) and the women who made them that way. Page 2 is below that.

But here is the link:

Pussified Nation (WTH)

Dang, Driscoll. Go get some therapy. You need it, dude.

Driscoll's Damaging Teaching.

Here is a link to Wendy's blog piece on Driscoll's damaging teachings on sex and marriage.

Harmful Teaching of Wives as Their Husband's Porn Stars.

Discerning Atheists

Just putting this here so I can find it again.

Mark Driscoll's House of Cards and How My Atheist Brother Was Right All Along

And here's a freebie at no extra cost.

My Take on Driscoll Stealing Women's Voices Nearly Five Years Ago

ExMH Employee and Misogyny at Mars Hill

Thanks to Retha for pointing this article out.

Mark Anderson, former 'Minister of Propaganda'* at Mars Hill apologizes for being a, quote, ''willing participant in a culture of Misogyny."

(*The term, 'Minister of Propaganda' is what he used to jokingly say his title was while working for Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. You can find that in his article that is linked below.)

He apologizes for a lot of things.
One of them is this:
"I want to apologize to women everywhere for being part of a culture that didn’t value you as equal to men."

You see, Mike pressured his "brilliant and hard-working wife to give up her dream of law school and have a baby and be a stay-at-home mom as soon as possible."

He says about this: "I allowed others to take verses from the Bible out of context and put a law on my wife and rob her of a dream. I only added pressure on her. It was wrong, and I’m terribly sorry."

The article that contains these quotes and a lot of other good stuff can be found here:

HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE, I'M A RECOVERING TRUE BELIEVER

Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill are guilty of misogyny. And worse than that, they are guilty of misquoting and misrepresenting the Bible to make it agree with their misogyny.
This is akin to taking God's name in vain.

This has been going on a long time. I'm glad that people are finally (after far too long) finally exposing this sin of misogyny for what it is in this broken and ill church.

Driscoll and Deception

Or should I say, 'Driscoll and Spin'? Or perhaps 'Driscoll and Delusion'? Any number of titles would work. And I could replace the word 'Driscoll' with 'Mars Hill'. It's all the same. Long and short, the Spinmeisters are at it again as displayed by the findings and screen shots of Wenatchee the Hatchet (WTH).

When WTH sent me an email with the link to these new and very incrimination findings, I emailed him back.
I'd like to share with you some of what I wrote.

I've known something wasn't right with the man for some time. 
Early on I found precious few people who agreed with me and 
felt utterly compelled to sound the alarm.

Now I've met you, TWW, and see the work of Throckmorton. I see 
that I'm not only not alone, there are more informed and more 
qualified people to speak on this.

I'm almost feeling sorry for Driscoll now. I'm sorry that he 
got away with so much for so long and now it's all falling 
down around him. He appears to have developed no quality tools 
to deal with this collapse in any reasonable way. It's just 
more of the same schtick. But this time nearly everyone is 
seeing right through the deception.

I'm saying all of this to let you know, I so appreciate you 
speaking out reasonably, informatively, and objectively. You 
have been a rock when I've thrown up my hands in a tizzy 
wondering what the heck is wrong with everybody, being 
schmoozed so easily by this guy.

I'm going link this because it is just 
another amazing example of the character flaws in Driscoll. 
These flaws should have disqualified him years ago. Yes, I 
blame Driscoll. I also blame Grace a little bit. She should 
not have just rolled over and let him do these things. But 
mostly I blame the church for have ZERO levels of discernment. 
We are to be a shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves. Not 
stupid and enabling as sheep who have had frontal lobotomies.

Now, to the link of incriminating evidence that proves, once again, that Driscoll should have never been allowed to pastor a church:

Driscoll LIES about who was doing the premarital counseling in the early years of Mars Hill.

Honestly, I'm really starting to feel sorry for him. This doesn't mean I give him a pass or think he shouldn't be called into account for everyone he has hurt. But gosh darn it. After a while, watching someone make so many bad decisions, it just becomes painful to watch and I'm about ready to look away now.

The Problem with the ESV

Actually there is a problem with Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). And I found an article called Unpacking the Web of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal. It looks like a pretty good, if rather involve, article.

But skimming, I found these comparisons between the ESV (English Standard Version) and the NIV (New International Version). Well, just let me quote the author of the article.

"Keller, Carson, Dever and Mohler (as well as other leaders I’ve listed above) are readily published through Crossway books. These men have been influential in popularizing the ESV Bible (English Standard Version) to usurp the popular NIV to become THE evangelical translation of choice.

But, it’s just a translation! you might say.

The best way I know to show the problem of ESV is to compare two passages that reveals a masculine bias NOT in the Hebrew, but present in the ESV (bold mine).

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them. (NIV)

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.(ESV)

Do you see the key difference? Consider how the subtle word “man” without “kind” sounds in the ears of modern men and women today.

The Gospel Coalition is also the loudest “evangelical” voice advocating for men’s spiritual priority over women, softly called “complementarianism” (Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is housed by STBS, Mohler’s school). See both the ESV bias and Crossway publications pointing in the complementarian direction.

Here’s how the ESV makes females universally silent in the church (bold mine, 1 Cor 14:33-34):

33) For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34) Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (NIV)

33) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
34) As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (ESV)

Notice how the NIV (and KJV) make orderliness the universal call.  The ESV sneaks that phrase over to verse 34 (I underlined it) to make women’s silence, not peace, the universal. Then, note the reemphasizing by capitalizing the word “Law.” (There is no such Law in Torah and scholars believe it was a cultural law in view… hence the lowercase.)

Having studied complementarianism extensively, the push for ESV appears to be a sly manipulation of Scripture to fit a powerful organization’s agenda. The Hebrew and Greek allow room for the way the NIV interprets these passages.

It saddens me that men will manipulate scripture like this in order to promote their agenda, one that includes oppressing women.

Jeremiah 8:8 says, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie."

 It was true back in Jeremiah's day. Now we see that it is also true today.

The Problem with Promise Keepers

I've written on this before. I will probably do so again.

Bonding in the Bleachers

Promise Keepers promotes hierarchy as the answer to the issues of family. But when my husband came home he wanted to exert his 'authority' over me and it created more problems than what we had before.

The problem with Promise Keepers is that it has a problem with power. It has a un-biblical devotion to hierarchy that sows discord.

The Problem with Power

Kristen nails it in her post concerning promoting hierarchy in marriage in her post:

Male Headship and the Problem with Power.

Reviewing Wilson's Views on Slavery

Tim's Blog - Just One Train Wreck After Another contains a review of Doug Wilson's infamous writings concerning the benefits of slavery in the U.S.

Here is a link to his article:
Doug Wilson Says Slavery Was Good For American Blacks

Remember, this is the Doug Wilson that Piper says is smart and that the people around him are dumb.
Not kidding.
John Piper on Doug Wilson

Patriarchy vs The Croods

I don't do movie reviews very often. For one thing, I can't keep up with the movies I want to see, let alone any others. So I'm not on the cutting edge here at all. In fact, this movie is a year old.

The Croods came out in 2013. I took a couple of my kids to see it. Then it was released on Netflix and I watched it two more times, the last time being Monday night the 21st of April, 2014. I have not grown tired of this flick yet and would watch it again with someone who has never seen it. The zany humor and pro-family theme combination make it one of my favorites of this decade.

Sadly, many Christians won't go see it because it is based on a family of cave people living in a prehistoric era. Many Christians are so concerned with their Young Earth Creation view that they will miss the symbolism in this movie.

Seriously, how many teenage daughters, hitting puberty, have looked upon their families as positively stone age. Conversely, how many fathers dealing with their daughters' puberty have wondered what happened to that little girl they loved. Those poor fathers can't figure out where this emotional/dramatic monstrosity evolved from.

Perhaps the reason this movie has captured my heart is that I watched it back during a time when my church was showing the "Courageous" movie put out by Doug Phillip's Vision Forum group. I didn't see Courageous myself, but did view the purity ring scene from it. You can find that scene at Spiritual Sounding Board:Who Owns a Daughter's Heart.

Contrasting the restrictive, controlling, push of patriarchy over their daughters with the struggles of the father/daughter relationship as portrayed in The Croods brought me to actual tears. And I don't cry much. Just ask my kids. They call me robot mom. I don't display a lot of emotion.

It brought me to tears for two reasons. The first reason for those tears was a deep anger and frustration over how Patriarchy is botching up families with their control and fear tactics.

But the second reason was because The Croods dealt with the subject matter of overprotective fathers and frustrated daughters with more charm and grace than anything the Patriarchy crowd has ever come up with.

Let's get into the review part.

As mentioned before, there is a character conflict between father Grug and daughter Eep. Grug wants to keep his family safe. They are the only family left in the area, since the other families were all taken out by various prehistoric dangers. And as Eep says, Grug has been able to keep them safe because he is strong. That, and they hide in a cave most of the time.

Eep can't stand the cave and wants to explore. But everything is dangerous and their family motto is: "Never not be afraid!"

Then enters the character 'Guy' who tells Eep that the world is ending, changing, and that the only way to escape it is to follow the sun. But Eep knows she can't leave her family and the safety of the cave.

However, the ground shakes, the cave is destroyed and the Croods are forced to venture into dangerous territory that is all the more dangerous because it is unfamiliar.

Along the way Eep meets up with Guy again and he joins their small group (whether he likes it or not) because they need his fire. Somehow, Guy convinces them all that they need to follow the sun. The presence of Guy adds tension due to his new ways of thinking that Grug sees as bad.  But it's his new ways that help them survive their trek Westward.

I was in a conversation over on Thatmom's blog with a gal by the name of Avelinn concerning the draw of the Patriarchy on the Evangelical movement. We came to the conclusion that the reason it was so enticing is because we are in a time of changing and it's scary. Patriarchy promises to keep our children safe, like Grug's devotion to the cave and rules kept the Croods safe for so long. But as we have seen, Patriarchy can't keep our children safe. And in fact, Patriarchs, like Doug Phillips, are dangerous wolves in sheep's clothing the prey on children. I had considered writing on The Croods and contrasting it to Patriarchy. Our conversation has convinced me to carry it out.

Because the conclusion of The Croods is far more satisfying than the conclusions the modern day Patriarchs have. The Patriarch's conclusion involve scandal, like Phillips, Mahaney, and Gothard.

Without giving too much away, we learn that it wasn't just Grug's strength that was able to save his family. It was also the power of Grug's love for his family that saved them in the end.

If you haven't figured it out, yet. I highly recommend The Croods if you are looking for family entertainment that actually builds up families rather than tears them down.

It is available on Netflix and DVD.

Katie Botkin on Phillips

Here's a good blog post by the niece of Patriarch Geoffrey Botkin. She brings up a pretty good point concerning Doug Phillips, his doctrine, and his sin against Lourdes. (hint: it has something to do with the Titanic):

In which Lourdes petitions for a lifeboat.

The Sins of Patriarchy

Patriarchy has a very dark and putrid underbelly.

The smiling faces of the model families featured in magazines and on websites are used to hide the sins of the 'patriarchs'. But the sins are there taking advantage of the very women and girls they claim to protect.

Doug Phillips, a chief patriarch and patriarchy pusher, used his position and his doctrine to sexually abuse a young lady for years in both her home and his.

Now she is filing a lawsuit against him for lying to her and using and abusing her sexually.

Pastor accused of 'using nanny as a sex object'

I hope this sends a message loud and clear to all the self-serving, self-important, and entitlement-assuming patriarchs out there. The false doctrine of patriarchy that you worship and serve is being exposed. It will not save you on your day of reckoning.

McDonald's Stepford-Elders

We're going to take a break from picking on Driscoll today.
I'm sure Driscoll is breathing a sigh of relief (yeah, right).

We are going to take a peek into the word of Pastor James McDonald, an accountability board member of Mars Hill church.

First let's listen to a Sound Cloud audio of him at the Real Men Conference.
McDonald's fleshly rant

Now let's take a look at those Stepford-Elders I was referring to.
Harvest Bible Chapel Excommunication (September 2013)

Besides those Stepford-Elders, the video also reveals McDonald's perverted understanding of authority in the church. He doesn't get it. And that is why he fails.

Accurately Handling Driscoll Info

I try to keep my facts straight.

There are a whole lot of them.

I also try to give Driscoll the benefit of a doubt in some fuzzy areas. I know it doesn't look like it. It looks like I'm out to get him. Well, okay, I kind of am because he's been out to get so many for so long he needs to stop his reign of control, manipulation, and in some cases terror over there at Mars Hill.

In all this, I still want the info concerning him to stay as accurate as possible. But I simply do not have the hours in the day to keep up.

Wenatchee the Hatchet has been doing a better job. Here he points out errors in a Salon article.
Overview of Factual Errors on a Salon Article.

Thanks WTH for keeping us up-to-date.

Driscoll Disses Jesus' Homegirls

That's reason one from an article called:

Four Reasons Why Jesus Would Not Call Driscoll After a First Date.

It's an older article but still relevant with all the info going back and forth concerning Driscoll.

Before it was known that he has probably broken the law, it was obvious that he had severe issues.

I only link this blog in case there are those searching who haven't read this one yet.

Did Driscoll Break the Law

Honesty, this discussion is going far beyond my pay grade.

Most of my concerns are about Driscoll's damaging teachings on Marriage and Authority.

But it appears there may have been illegal activity, the nature of which is beyond my comprehension.

But here is a link to a post concerning what he may have done that was illegal.

On Driscoll, it's called inurement, and it's probably illegal.

On this, I have to step back and let those in charge sort this out.

Comment from Former MH Volunteer

For several years I have watched the happenings at Mars Hill from a distance. I wondered how long this was going to keep going, how long could Mark weasel his way in the spotlight pretending to the world that he was an integrity filled pastor.

There was a comment on Throckmorton's blog on an old post that I think is worth looking at but I'm afraid it might be lost so I want to link it here.

InklingBooks comment on Throckmorton.


There are some interesting quotes from the comment.

This first one is about MH's claim to be a church reaching the lost. (Hint: It's not. At least not anymore.)

"On one Sunday a few years ago, they asked everyone who'd become a Christian through MH to stand. I looked around. Only about two or three people out of a hundred were standing. I never saw that asked again. The image and the reality had clashed, so conceal the reality. That's one of MH core ills."

And this concerning MD's cutthroat way of building MH:

"To grow MH, Driscoll was preaching and promoting MH is such a way that he was weakening other churches in the area and later in other cities."

And this concerning Driscoll's serious anger problem:

"Driscoll has mountains of rage inside him that seem to shift their targets over time."

And this concerning who Driscoll thinks the leaders in the church should be (Hint: Not Women):

"One of my frustrations with the children's ministry was that they put young (and often single) male interns over it rather that capable, experienced mothers."

I and several others have been sounding the alarm that all is not right with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. So many have tried to defend him and turn the tables on us saying that we were the ones with the problems, that we were jealous and getting in the way of the work of God.

There are still those defending him. But they are becoming fewer and looking more ridiculous all the time.

Driscoll's Spinmeisters

A behind the scenes look at the spin doctoring that went on to cover Mark Driscoll's sins. When he unceremoniously threw honest questioners under the bus, his spin doctors were hard at work making what he did sound spiritual, godly, and necessary.

Here is a link to Rob Smith's comment on Throckmorton's blog which is very revealing:
Words spun to the church

Again, thankful for those coming forward. May God bless and keep them.

Domineering, Forceful Marriages

Yesterday I linked an article by Jessica Abrams concerning Mark Driscoll stealing the voices of women. Today I want to link the confessional letter of her husband Luke Abrams. The reason I'm linking it is because of this quote from the letter listing of sins that he committed while participating at Mars Hill.

Sin #2 that he confesses is this:
"I lived out and defended the early MH years teaching about marriage, which was domineering and forceful leadership,"

I feel no judgment towards Luke for being part of the Mars Hill 'machine'. I've been a part of a 'machine' in the past myself and know how enticing it can be.

Rather, I feel relief that this is breaking and the machine may be grinding to a halt so that it might have a chance to become a church rather than a machine.

May more people come forward, confess, heal and bring healing. And may Driscoll himself be broken so that he can heal properly. I wish actual, Spirit-led healing on him.

Link to Throckmorton article with Luke's letter and confession in it:
Former Mars Hill Church Worship Leader Luke Abrams to Current Church Members

(Thanks goes to Gem who reminded me about this letter.)

[Blast from the past link from 2012 "Stolen Hearts and Stolen Voices"]

Driscoll Stealing Women's Voices

There is already a post on here concerning the stealing of Grace Driscoll's voice by her husband Mark Driscoll. And I have expressed elsewhere my concern over Mark stealing the voices of other women through his misguided attitude and doctrine.

Here I'm going to link another example of Mark stealing the vibrant and important voices of women from God, from His church, from their husbands and children, and from themselves.

First a few quotes from the link to whet your whistle.

Jessica Abrams: "What was I taught about the image of a godly woman? She prays, learns the bible, submits to her husband, running most decisions past him. Her life is dedicated to God, her husband, children and if there is time, other interests. She cooks, cleans, supports, encourages and serves. On a whole, she is entirely non-offensive. She doesn’t stir the pot, doesn’t speak out of turn, always weights her opinions against those of her husband and church. This was my experience."


Jessica Abrams: "She is, in essence, in the background, out of the way, playing a supporting role in the lives of others. This is called, by some, godly and good.
So the question is, how is this woman going to make an impact with her life, mobilizing her unique passions, abilities and insights, if she has passions and talents outside of the home, but is cast in a supporting role?"

Jessica Abrams:"In my opinion, the impact of the woman I was called to be was limited within it’s definition. And that is a big problem.
It’s a problem on many levels.
On one level, it is a problem because it sets up a system where the relevancy of her opinion is dependent on the approval of a male.....  It also set’s up a spiritual hierarchy wherein men are more capable of discerning whether or not something is good or beneficial. ."


Jessica Abrams: "On another level, her fundamental dignity and worth as someone who bears the image of God is being suppressed."
On this one please go to the article and see how she 'hashes' this out. It is very good. If you get a chance to go to the linked article, please do so.

The last quote from Jessica Abrams that I want to give actually occurs earlier in the article but I believe that it is a good stopping place for us:
"Our pastor spent the next few years detailing among other things, what it meant to be a godly man and woman, not just from the bible, but also from his personal assessment. Rather than challenging us to ask these formative questions of ourselves, he filled in the blanks and gave us the answers. And in accepting these answers and trying to conform to this very specific image of what it meant to be a godly woman, I gave something valuable away. I gave up the messy task of wrestling with life and finding myself through that and gave myself over to a tidy answer that sounded good."

Here is the link to this informative, first hand experience driven blog post by Jessica Abrams: On This Woman's Day

I have given several good quotes from her article, but in order to get the full impact and the grace that she delivers her message, again, please go to the original article in the link.

Driscoll's Scrubbed Scotland Sermon Found

He doesn't want you to know this. He doesn't want you to hear it. He doesn't want this sort of evidence out there along with all the other things concerning his sexocentric book "Porn Marriage" er I mean "Real Marriage". Because, you see, he wants to be taken seriously. He doesn't want people to know what was in his heart when he studied The Song of Solomon. He wants people to believe that he is a true Bible scholar and not a sensationalist attention seeker.

Well, folks. He is a sensationalist.

Here is a prime example:
Sex: A study of the good bits of Song of Solomon

I have yet to listen to this all the way through.
It really is too much for me to stomach.

Satire of Driscoll's "Apology"

This is wonderful and cuts right to the heart of the insincere of Driscoll's "Apology".

All Apologies by Jeff Breakfast.

Mrs. Mark Driscoll, the Voiceless

Great topic suggestion by my friend Charis/Gem.

She points out a paragraph in the Mark Driscoll's apology letter to his church concerning Grace.
And this paragraph, third from the bottom, is very concerning.

Here it is: "To be clear, these are decisions I have come to with our Senior Pastor Jesus Christ. I believe this is what He is asking of me, and so I want to obey Him. The first person I discussed this with was our first, and still best, church member, Grace. Her loving agreement and wise counsel only confirmed this wonderful opportunity to reset some aspects of our life. I want to publicly thank her, as it was 26 years ago this week that we had our first date. She is the greatest friend and biggest blessing in my life after Jesus. When we recently discussed this plan to reset our life together, late at night on the couch, she started crying tears of joy. She did not know how to make our life more sustainable, and did not want to discourage me, but had been praying that God would reveal to me a way to reset our life. Her prayer was answered, and for that we are both relieved at what a sustainable, joyful, and fruitful future could be. As an anniversary present, I want to give her more of her best friend."

The most concerning sentences are bolded.

As Charis states in a comment at TWW:
"I’m distressed by Grace’s powerlessness and lack of a voice in their relationship. She dare not tell him plainly that it is not working for her lest she “discourage” him. NO ONE corrects MD!!! NO ONE!!!"

Mark Driscoll's doctrine and Bully personality is bad.

It is bad for Grace. She is a voiceless appendage to the great and powerful mark driscoll.

It is bad for his church. Look at all the cleaning up and defending they have to do for him all the time.

It is bad for women everywhere. Now lusty Driscoll fanboys all want little voiceless Graces of their own and are mad at any and all women who will not kowtow and become nothing so these boymen can think more highly of themselves than they ought to.

It is bad for the church. It makes us all look bad when Mark Driscoll is held up as relevant and a true representation of the way church ought to be.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Driscoll let it slip. He has given us a glimpse of just how under his thumb Grace really is.

Christian Literary Agent on Driscoll

Chip MacGregor, experienced and respected literary agent, speaks out on the evils of buying your way onto the NYT bestsellers list.

What's wrong with buying your way onto the bestsellers list?

Edited to add...

I know, I keep pointing to WTH on the best, most uptodate and comprehensive understanding of all things Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill. But just in case people aren't taking me seriously in this light, here are are two recent MUST READs from his blog.

Remembrance of Things Past

And

Linked Titles Speak for Themselves.

Don't Throw Rocks? Really?

The master Rock thrower, Mark Driscoll, is pleading with people to not throw rocks at him.

Really?

You know, Driscoll. If you don't want people throwing rocks at you, you should have never started throwing rocks in the first place.
You don't have the right to throw rocks, throw elders and church members under the bus with no compassion, and then when you are caught, think that you should get some sort of special consideration that you never gave any of your victims.

Zach Hoag, who wrote the blog post that I linked above, asked people to chime in on Driscoll's plea.
Since doing so required that I make an account with disqus, I chose rather to deal with this topic here.
Zach said: "But I resonate with commenters who would rather see Mark repentant and reformed (no, not that kind of Reformed) than see him disappear. "

Mara talking here again:
Well, I'll have to be honest. Sure, if Driscoll could repent to the level that he needs to, that would be great. But I don't see this happening.

I may be in sin for feeling this way. But from all the damage I've seen, I think the best thing is for him to disappear and become an average joe Christian somewhere and to stop troubling the body of Christ with his harmful doctrine and wrong view of women.

It's comments like this from TWW that make me feel this way:
"Mark’s book did cause harm to the woman who read it first, she spoke to me about it and then I looked at it with her, I was able to share some scripture with her and our whole group got into the action of comforting her. But the real problem is the attitude and teachings that are coming out of this movement. Women are having their spirits broken with the doctrine of Driscoll, I am so angry about that. His book really seems to perpetuate a stereotypes, and further it is irresponsible for someone not trained to put himself out there as an expert in some sort of counseling when his advice or counsel continues to victimize those already wounded. Shame on him. And all those people who support this kind of tripe. This man could not counsel anyone out of a paper bag, period. He has no desire to understand the abused and suffering women in this country, and I sincerely hope and pray he continues to implode."

The comment is found here: rebeccalynn's comment

The thing is, even if Driscoll sincerely repented this would not mean that he would suddenly begin to understand what he's done to the voiceless victims still attending his church and bleeding behind his bus. His entire outlook concerning women and marriage is warped. He is not qualified to teach and minister to women. AT ALL. Nor is he qualified to teach husbands on how to treat their wives. Repenting from his national sins concerning plagiarism, buying NYT best-selling author status with church money, etc... Repenting from these sins, even deep sincere repentance, will not heal his sinful attitude toward women.  He needs to step down and be mentored by someone who does understand and care for the abused and suffering women in his church and in our world.

(sorry for the weird white background. sometimes blogger freaks out on me.)

Driscoll Needs to Step Down

Comp and not-Comp women agree.

First the Comp one:
The Line at the Mars Hill Communion Table

Then the not-Comp one:
Mark Driscoll and His Mars Hill "Advisory" Board: Time to step down

Also, don't neglect looking at Wenatchee The Hatchet's blog. He has the most thorough, objective, info on Mars Hill that is humanly possible. His is the place to go for those who want to know more.

L.A. Times & Atheists on Driscoll

First the L.A. Times:

Can bestseller lists be bought?

Now The the Atheist:

So That's How Mark Driscoll's book got on the Best Seller's List.

Things don't look just real peachy for Driscoll.
And in all of this, I really feel sorry for co-author, Grace.

Janet Mefferd/Driscoll. Shots fired.

Mefferd is at it again.

She takes on Mark Driscoll's fake, paid off, claim to the honor of being a NYT best selling author.

He doesn't deserve it. He bought it with a whole lot of the other people's money.

Janet Mefferd on Driscoll's NYT best selling status

When you get a time, give it a listen.

Nothing illegal. But definitely unethical.

They are calling it a "train wreck". I predicted the 'train wreck' part some time ago.

And even before the predictions I made back in 2012, I predicted the train wreck Driscoll was heading toward on a friend's blog back in 2009.

Driscoll -- Fake Best Selling Author

Driscoll bought his way onto the list. He didn't earn it. He paid for it with real money.

Unreal Sales for Driscoll's Real Marriage

Shame on you Driscoll. When you have to pay this much money to buy your way onto the New York Times best sellers list, then you are definitely NOT a New York Times best selling author.

Besides being a plagiarizer, you are also a fake.

John Piper Connected to BJU

The Crazy making behavior of John Piper has concerned me for some time. I often wondered what was driving his war on the feminine in public worship. Now I know. He is connected to Bob Jones University. Even though he considers Bob Jones to be the "crazy uncle" (Dr. Camille Lewis's words) he's still connected and deeply influenced. And as yesterday's post points out, the influence on BJU goes back to the Deep South slavery, patriarchy, and misogyny.

Here is Camille's comment over at TWW:

Piper linked to BJU

The plot thickens.

Gem from a Year and a Half Ago

Dr. Camille Lewis is making a splash over at TWW. Her guest post lays out the long history of abuse present at Bob Jones University.

While looking over some things written on her blog, I came across this gem on the rape culture and evangelicalism. I wanted to share it with people who might have missed it.

"It's not me, it's her isn't it?"

She touches on Jared Wilson, Doug Wilson, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, to name a few.

Patriarchy Is Rooted in Paganism

This has already been said many times, many ways and by smarter people than me. But I have stumbled upon something that is further proof that Patriarchy IS rooted in ancient paganism and NOT a 'biblical' law to keep or principle to uphold. And in fact, what I have found may actually show that Patriarchy is occultic.

Since becoming a Christian I have kept away from all things occultic since I was instructed to do so. But I do love ancient history and study it as an armchair enthusiast.

One of the things that I've come across was how ancient Tarot Cards are and the Schools of mysteries that they are associated with. In the program I was watching they brought up one of the Tarot cards that describes the doctrine of Patriarchy to a T.

The Key words used to describe the Emperor are:

Fathering — Stability — Authority — Power

Control — Discipline — Command — Common sense

Status quo — Order — Structure — Egocentrism

Tradition — Rigidity — Leadership — Experience

Inflexibility — Conservative ways — Organization

It also describing him is this phrase:
 He symbolizes the top of the secular hierarchy, the ultimate male ego

Perhaps if Christians understood the connection that Patriarchy has with the occult, they wouldn't be so pushy to make it 'biblical' doctrine.

At least the Tarot Card acknowledges that:
The Emperor’s power and apparent stability bring great comfort, self-worth, power. But the danger, as Minos discovered, is that we may gain a sense of personal entitlement beyond our actual rights. That way leads to corruption, material or spiritual.


And this is what we are seeing with the fall of Doug Phillips/Vision Forum, and the scandals surrounding Bill Gothard and Bob Jones University, and the many others who have bowed to the pagan and occultic god of Patriarchy. Yet as we watch these scandals and moral failings, the pushers of Patriarchy continue to assert that Patriarchy is part of the gospel.

While we are on the subject and as a bit of a side note. The Empress in Tarot Cards is called:
a fruitful mother of thousands: she is above all things universal fecundity and the outer sense of the Word,

She is also called a:
mother, a creator and nurturer. In many decks she can be shown as pregnant.

So much for militant fecundity being a 'biblical' principle.

The quotes above in blue all come from these two sources in Wikipedia:
The Emperor (Tarot card)
The Empress (Tarot card)

Some may look upon my little detour into occultic symbolism as a bit of a stretch. And perhaps it is.
But I'll tell you this much. Those who claim that Patriarchy is going against culture are completely ignorant of all history and culture, ancient or otherwise. Or they are lying in order to hold up their pet doctrine.

"Sexocentric Marriage" by Mark Driscoll

Also known as "Real Marriage" by Mark and Grace Driscoll.

Because, you see, according to Driscoll, lots of sex makes a good marriage in the mind of a husband. Sex is the center of a good marriage, hence the use of my clumsy, made-up, mock Latin word "sexocentric". Because it is Sexocentric marriages that Mark promotes in his book.

He says on page 164 that: "For a wife, sex comes out of a healthy relationship, whereas, for a husband it leads to one."


What, you say? Did I actually read the book to find this quote? No, I absolutely did not. I left that for the experts Wenatchee the Hatchet (WTH) and Wendy and Andy Alsup who, as former members of Driscoll's church, have kept and eye on him.

The Alsups state in their review on Mark's Sexocentric Marriage book that if for some reason Grace would become incapable of providing Mark with all the sex he needed or wanted or be incapable of any sex at all, "If that became the case, the majority of their marriage book would be useless to them."

I say all this for a reason.

I want to direct your attention to WTH's article discussing this in a bit more detail with the added information concerning Pastor Bill Clem who resigned from Mars Hill in 2013 and who also preached to single men on how to be able to love their (future) wives in non-sexual ways.

Mark Driscoll on Bill Clem leaving in 2013, Clem on ovarian cancer treatment and the need for husbands to love wives in non-sexual ways

C.S.Lewis and the Dangers of Pornograpy

I was searching Wade Burleson's blog for a different reason and bumped into this:

"Imaginary women are always accessible, always subservient, [give] no call for sacrifice or adjustment, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among these shadow brides, the viewer is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever made on his vanity.  In the end imaginary women become the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. The main work of life is to come out of ourselves, out of the little dark prison of selfishness we are born in, to know God in the center of our being and from that place to offer ourselves for the sake of others. All things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger of pornography is of coming to love the prison of self."
 ~ C.S. Lewis


Link to original post: Lewis & Porn

Divine Right of Kings in English Translations.

And I'm not just talking about the Kings of old. I'm also talking about the destructive force trying to make men into the prophets, priests, and kings of their homes over their lowly subjected wives.

Here is an excellent comment from Arce at TWW concerning study of the Greek NT and comparing it to the English translations that we have today. He claims that a "great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today."

Here is a link to his comment:
Arce speaks on English translations

And here is his comment in full that I don't want people to miss. It is in response to someone who is just sure the Bible give him the divine right to be the boss over his subjected wife.

And again: The English translation of the Ephesians passages has added words not there in the Greek, selectively. In particular, the word translated “submit” (not exactly the best translation of the Greek word, as it means something different in our culture) and the word “love” both get inserted in places where they do not appear in the Greek, selectively. Both words should appear in application to the husband or wife if we are inserting, b/c of parallelism. OR neither word should appear.

The verse that precedes about all submitting to all is the key. And then the submission of a wife is qualified — to her own husband, not to all the other men in the church.

And Gene, I have a Ph.D., a J.D., and a 800 plus volume of theological books, with multiple commentaries of each of the NT books and most of the OT books, in my home. I have been an evangelical Christian for more than 55 years, and a Baptist for most of those. As a teenager, I attended the adult bible studies my church held on week nights at least two months a year. I have taught adult classes in church, have served on the diaconate in several churches, and as chairman of major committees such as personnel and finance.

In addition, I chaired an extensive study of ALL of the verses that anyone raised as potentially relevant to the role of women in the church, including all of those verses that relate to the marital relathionship. We explored all of the verses in Hebrew or Greek as appropriate, in context, and reviewed the work of various Hebrew and Greek scholars.

And I can tell you that, there is a great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today. It relates to all of the issues around the words “head”, “submit”, etc. And you can choose to disagree with me if you wish. But the teaching of comp and the teaching of patriarchy in the church is not supported by the Greek NT, and it is contributing to the shrinking of the church as women, who have kept the faith alive in many places, are leaving the organized church that teaches what becomes the excuse for abuse and denying the equality of all before God.

Why the Need for a Boss?

On the heels of my "Who's the Boss?" post, TWW has a post concerning this question.
Comps are quite convinced that mutual submission is either wrong or impossible or rebellion or something. I seem to remember that there is a post on the the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site entitled, "The Myth of Mutual Submission". Yep. they are pretty much against.

Wade Burleson did a guest post on TWW last night that addresses the thought of Mutual Submission in Marriage. It is not nearly as 'Mythical' as CBMW would like you to believe.

Here is a link to that post:

Complementarianism verses Mutual Submission in Marriage.

Who's the Boss?

This question is very important to a lot of people.

Someone has to be in charge. If someone is not in charge, chaos will ensue, or so goes the thinking.

And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, if someone has to be in charge, there is a large number of men who will do whatever they can to make sure that it isn't some woman bossing them around.

Here is a quote from John Piper:
" And so I distinguish between personal, direct exercises of authority that involve manhood and womanhood because it's personal.  She's right there.  She's woman on man, and and I'm being directly pressed on by this woman in an authoritative way.  Should she be doing that; should I be experiencing that, and my answer is no.  I think that's contrary to the way God made us…"


Source for this excerpt is from TWW's TCC's 2014 Women's National Women's Conference.

Note that Piper says, "should I be experiencing (a woman's authority), and my answer is no. I think that is contrary to the way God made us..."

Piper wants to make sure that he never has to experience a woman's authority and he calls on his opinion that God agrees with him. He feels that God thinks Piper should not have to experience a woman's authority.

Piper and the other men who dread the authority of women go to great lengths to make sure they never have to experience this horrible thing. But someone has to be in charge... So they go to great lengths to make sure that they, the men, get to be that One In Charge.

Here is Shirley's second installment of her Desiring to be God series:

Desiring to be God-Part 2
(check out Part 1 if you haven't yet)

and here is a blog post examining the error made concerning Genesis 3:16:
Genesis 3:16 is not a mandate for husbands...it is a warning for wives...

So, who's the boss?

If you are a Christian, then it should be Jesus, not some mortal man somewhere that fears women.

Edited to add this blog post from a friend who gets comments from time to time from people obsessed with who the boss is and how much they want men to be the boss over women.
Submission, Obedience, and Authority
(Oh, how people obsess over this. It's unhealthy for the spirit life.)

And from another friend:
Was Sarah Bessey Right? (which goes into Denny Burk's Desire to be god over his wife, not in those words.)

There seems to be a pattern going on here.