Household Codes Podcast

 I haven't listened to it yet so I can't vouch for it at this time. But I am putting it here so I can find it again when I have more time

This Is a Great Mystery

Edited to add this as well. I may need this later.

Deeper Conversations on Purity

****

One of my favorite old links is broken

 There used to be a blog called "That Mom" that I loved.

And she used to have a blog post called "The Suffragettes and a Woman's Right to Chose" that I would often link when dealing with frothing at the mouth misogynists who blame feminism for abortion and the decline of modern civilization as we know it. And it claimed that Susan B. Anthony was pro-life but that she railed against a culture that put women in the position where abortion seemed the best option.

I am heart broken over the loss of this article so I decided to search for anything else that might explain this.

My search is not over. But I did find this article called "Marriage and Maternity" in "The Revolution" a weekly newspaper run by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. And it is this article that my friend at That Mom was quoting.

I am going to leave it here, mostly for myself, but also for any curious passerby-ers who come along. I wish to read it more fully when I have more time. While things have changed a great deal between the time the article was written (July 1969) and now, there are still things to be gleaned from this article for today.

The Revolution, July 8 1969

The reason I'm going back to this is because of a conversation that I had with a pro-life friend who wanted to make our conversation about, "it's always wrong to kill a baby" and that this was a separate issue from the rape culture we live in. 

I on the other hand agree with the author of "Marriage and Maternity" that "Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe with the writer of the above mentioned article, that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. "

So, since my friends wonderful article's link is broken, I'm left to do my own research. Such is life.

Response to Viral JD Vance's Twitter Clip

 Okay. To clarify. A clip from 2022 is flying around Twitter

JD Vance, a senator from Ohio said some stupid things about the sexual revolution making divorce too easy so that parents can change marriages like people changing under ware and how this is hurting kids even if the marriage might have been violent.

Due to this 2022 clip going viral JD Vance has come out to say that what we heard was not what he meant.

He said people took it out of context. 

So, okay. Whatever.

Here is some context from the article

From what Vance said: "'Maybe it worked out for the moms and dads (to divorce), though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages,' Vance said to the moderator. 'That’s what I think all of us should be honest about, is we’ve run this experiment in real time. And what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy.'"

Hhm. So what is he basing this on? Not my life

Senator Vance, I did it your way. I followed your social experiment. I stayed in a relationship that was not physically violent. But it was emotionally, spiritually and sexually abusive. I stayed with the narcissist because I believed the things you are preaching. I heard the men saying back in the 90s and 2000s that feminism was bad and that the sexual revolution was bad and that I needed to stay married.

And you know who has suffered the most?

My children. Yes, I also suffered. But my children, every single one of them, suffered more than me.

They are grown and trying to live their lives. But they are suffering even now and have all been to therapy. One even needs psych meds.

So you are wrong. It is your experiment that is defunct if we are truly being honest here.

I know because my children and I are living it in real time. We are paying a very high price for your bad advice.

Driscoll, MacArthur, and the Jezebel Spirit

 So, back in the day, when my mind was being blown away by the fact that Mark Driscoll was Raping and Pornifying The Song of Solomon (hither to referred to as The Songs), I was looking for someone, anyone with any kind of platform to confront these crimes against Scripture.

And I did find a guy. I linked to him and his series and thanked him on this blog for confronting Driscoll. He was John MacArthur.

However, little did I  know how much MacArthur is NOT a friend to women. I knew he was Complementarian. And really, I thought that would make others take his rebuke of Driscoll more seriously.

But John MacArthur Shamed and Excommunicated a Mother for Refusing to Take Back Her Child Abuser Husband. AND shortly after this came to light A Prominent Elder Resigned from MacArthur's Church claiming that the church was failing to protect women from abusive husbands.

Even though I was disheartened by the knowledge of how awful MacArthur is to women, I left up my posts about him confronting Driscoll. My reasoning was this: I was on a journey. I learned awful things about the Evangelical movement and Neo Calvinists. And my blog is as good a record of that journey as anything else. I am imperfect, am not omniscient. and I'm bound to make mistakes. And I did in that area out of ignorance.

So, anyway, fast forward to the last few weeks. As I watched the crazy words and behaviors of Mark Driscoll and John Lindell and what a lot of people were saying about it, I was reminded of my frustration with praising MacArthur for protecting women from Driscoll when people need to protect women from MacArthur just as much.

I read one guy's tweet that said something along the lines of, "If we need Driscoll to call out sin in our conferences, we have fallen so very low."

Now, note. I don't know that Driscoll was in the right to call out the sword swallowing act. I do know that him associating it with anything Jezebel was way out of line. And I do know that he is in no way qualified to make such judgement calls.

Please see Wenatchee's Mark Driscoll is in a strange position to opine against church leaders and cultures influenced by the Jezebel spirit when he mentioned clear heels 17 times in 13 sermons preached between January 2004 and February 2008. 

Near the bottom of this blog post Wenatchee quotes from a CBMW post (a firmly complementarian site) concerning Driscoll's Real Marriage book:

"Another problem with the way the Driscolls treat pornography has to do with the reality that many people will be guided to pornography because of their book.  Make no mistake: men and women will be introduced to pornography because of this book.  For almost my entire ministry I have been talking to at least one person a week who struggles with pornography.  I do not live in some sheltered ministry context away from people with perverse struggles.  As true as that is the Driscolls taught me a lot about pornography I wish I never knew."

With this blog post, I feel Wenatchee firmly proves that Driscoll is not qualified to define or call out sexual sin.

Mark Driscoll, World Class Attention Surfer

 As I watched the train wreck over the last week, I heard people speculate that this whole thing with Mark Driscoll stirring up crap at the Stronger Man Conference was preplanned and scripted. I even heard some say that John Lindell was in on it in order to help Mark become more likeable/platform-able. 

None of that really set well with me. But I didn't feel in the position to say any different early on. I felt confident enough to call him a World Class Attention Seeker. And while this it completely true, even that term didn't feel strong enough to describe what I was watching unfold.

When these things happen with Driscoll, I have a tendency to bounce ideas off my internet friend WenatcheeTheHatchet to get his perspective since he was at Mars Hill in the early days before things started getting askew. And Wenatchee said in a comment under his Lindell/Driscoll Coverage post,    "I don't think there's any evidence the conference stunt was staged or scripted. The accounts of how and why Driscoll crashed Strange Fire from the CT podcast and Turner's accounts don't suggest to me that Driscoll has become more calculating. It seems he's becoming more impulsive and more unpredictable."

And this confirmed what I had been thinking. As I read his comment and thought about things, the idea of Driscoll being and Attention Surfer seemed to fit better in describing him.

He goes to the places that he thinks will make the biggest waves like the Stronger Man Conference Beach or the Strange Fire Cove. And he tries to catch the biggest wave he can,

At Stronger Man, he saw a good wave. Some performer using a pole in an act. He decided to try to catch that wave and ride it but was disqualified by the officials at the event so he tried to leave as fast as possible, just like he did when his Mars Hill Wave was no longer carrying him and giving him his attention seeking thrill that he lives for. 

The officials tried to patch things up with Mark and he seemed to be willing to do so on a shallow level. Just as he made shallow apologies for Mars Hill (Mistakes were made.)

But then, when he saw a bigger wave on the Evangelical World Stage where his baby-fan-boys were supporting him, he took down his picture with Lindell. And he went to catch that newer, bigger wave not caring, perhaps even hoping, that it might be a tsunami. 

It makes me think of the scene in "Don't Look Up" where the Jennifer Lawrence character was asked by a new friend about the 'conspiracy' going on behind the scenes. She told him that it was worse than conspiracy theories. She said that they didn't know what they were doing except trying to control the narrative and looking good to the public. Or something like that. It's been a minute since I've seen that one. 

It also reminds me of a house plant that I have call Mother of Millions. That plant makes babies like crazy and sends them into the void in hopes that they will reproduce. My nick name for it is Opportunistic Little Bastard because that it what is seems like. And that is what Driscoll is.

Saying that Driscoll is an attention seeker on steroids would not be wrong.

But I think a better better way to look at it is, Driscoll is a Steroid Enhanced Attention Surfer.

He is an opportunistic little bastard that is going to get that attention. It doesn't matter who he hurts and who he betrays (looking at you Lindell as his latest victim). It doesn't matter who he has to throw under the bus. He is going to ride that wave.

Dear Pastor John Lindell

 Dear Pastor John Lindell,

You sowed to the wind, which was Mark Driscoll.

Now you are reaping the whirlwind.

When Driscoll was rightfully held responsible for his sins in Seattle, you disbelieved all those elders and decided that the liar, Mark Driscoll, was telling the truth. So you helped him. You gave him a platform to speak. And now you are paying for it.

Mark Driscoll is a snake who lied about being a snake. So you picked him up. And he bit you.

I am sorry that you are bleeding. And I hope the death threats from all the little, worthless Driscoll fan boys stop soon.

But you brought it on yourself and your family and on your church and the church as a whole by supporting that lying, brawling, cowardly, controlling, abusive bully.

Signed, 

Mara Reid

P.S. For those of you who have come by here and have no idea what I'm talking about, I will leave two links to bring you up to speed.

Mark Driscoll has John Lindell Going Scorched Earth

John Lindell Urges Mark Driscoll to 'Repent' for 'Trying to Destroy' His Church

Don't know where this is going or how it will end. But I do know that this drama among Narcissistic Mega Church Pastors has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And since Driscoll is so fond of trumping up misogyny by accusing people of having the Jezebel spirit, I'm going to say something about him that is even more inflammatory. I'm going to say that Driscoll may be embodying the spirit of the Anti-Christ. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I am going too far by saying this. But is he representing Jesus Christ? I think not. Nor is he representing the spirit of Elijah as he tries to trump up hatred for things he personally loathes and labeling them Jezebel.

Oh.

And btw. Dear Grace Driscoll. I hope you and your children are doing okay while your patriarch is raging and coming unhinged. I hope the money he is making as a false prophet and lying grifter is enough to make up for whatever hell you are living in. See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Misogynist Mark, World Class Attention Seeker

 So a thing happened this weekend.

If you are on Christian Twitter you already know.

For those who haven't gone down that time-consuming rabbit hole, here are a few links from other sources on the event.

From Baptist Global News (Egalitarian)

From Underdog Theology (Complementarian)

From The Wartburg Watch  (Not completely sure)

I shared these links with WenatcheeTheHatchet and he put in his two cents worth.

okay, fine, I'll briefly discuss a thing

Long and short, Mark Driscoll was kicked off a stage at the premier Tough Guy conference in Springfield, Missouri.

That's right, faux tough-guy Driscoll postured too big and too controversial for his friend, Pastor John Lindell of James River Church in Springfield. But it was Lindell who shut Mark down when Mark started dissing one of the circus acts presented, calling it something, something, spirit of Jezebel something.

For a video of Mark's shenanigans go to the Underdog Theology link above and start at about the 13 minute mark.

My blogging friend, Wenatchee, does not think misogyny is involved. which is I respectfully disagree with. While I often defer to Wenatchee on all things Driscoll because he actually went to and ministered at Mark's Mars Hill in Seattle, I can't agree on this one.

I tend to lean in the direction of Wendy Alsup (Complementarian) who also went to Driscoll's church and was part of the women's ministry there in Seattle back in the day. She had this to say about Mark's rant.

So Driscoll is at a testosterone infused giant grunt fest with a bunch of other guys. Somewhere that you think would be right up his alley. And he still manages to stir up controversy (because what better way to draw attention to yourself) and to blame women and their sexuality in the form of the Jezebel Spirit for some entertainment he didn't like.

Whether that entertainment was appropriate or not (probably not) I won't get into.

But rather, I want to point out that, for men like Driscoll to build power, he has to have an enemy. He has to vilify someone. And for him, the easy target is women who don't kowtow to him.

As far as the Jezebel Spirt is concerned, I've said this before, I'll say it again.

If you look as the Jezebel spirit as representing a controlling, manipulating, dominating person, Mark is the most guilty man I know of displaying the Jezebel spirit.

If, rather (or in addition to) you look at the Jezebel spirit as being about sexual immorality, again, Mark Driscoll is the most guilty man in the room, whatever room he is in. HE is the one who raped and pornified The Song of Solomon. HE is the one who was telling women that they needed to do strip teases and perhaps even pole dancing for their husbands. He is the one who instructed women that Jesus commanded them to service their husband's orally. He is the one who worked tirelessly to convince women that their primary job was to be personal porn stars for their husbands.

Yes, I have strong feelings about this. Besides anger, I have a great sorrow over how masterfully Mark manipulates and finds opportunity to promote himself and his books (yes he has a book on Elijah and Jezebel where he fancies himself as Elijah). I have friends who have been taken in by his charm and charisma. I am wary of what I will find them saying on Facebook. I am not looking forward to seeing how they have been deceived by his treachery.

But I am thankful for the voices that continue to point out who and what Driscoll is, which definitely isn't Elijah.

[Note #1: I don't get into this calling out spirits of Jezebel and Ahab business. I'm just tired of men with agendas doing it. The post above is just me lamenting Driscoll's terrible log/splinter problem. He has no basis, authority, or credibility to do so. But he's too determined to be front and center in the lime light to do anything else other than stir up controversy and betray friends at their own conferences in front of thousands of people. He can't help himself.

Note #2: I understand Wenatchee not wanting to go there concerning calling Mark a misogynist. He's never been on the receiving end of misogyny and so it's just not a priority. He also steers away from terms like narcissist for his own good reasons. I still respect and seek his insight because it is always well thought out.]

Josh Howerton: Disqualified as Pastor

 He's disqualified on so many levels.

Rather than rehash the basics I'll link a few blogs/podcast here to catch up anyone who has missed how Josh perpetuates the bad Evangelical teachings on Christian married sex. Then underneath that, I will explain why I feel Josh doesn't meet the basic requirements for being anything more than a baby Christian and has no business being a pastor.

Podcast: Why Evangelical Honeymoons Go so Badly

When Evangelical Misogyny Goes Viral

Josh Howerton's awful marriage advice (Podcast)

So, anyway, this has been going on for weeks.

Josh has been called out for giving bad marriage advice. And instead of taking correction and doing better, he's accusing people of misrepresenting him and not being able to take a joke.

Then, to add insult to injury, he goes online to instruct women on how to receive correction. You can find this bit of 'teaching' in the "Josh Howerton's awful marriage advice" podcast linked third above at the 26:40 mark in the video.

So, long and short. Josh absolutely cannot receive correction. However, he feels entitled to instruct women on how they need to receive instruction. He says that pastors must be bold in their message and not be afraid to correct women even if they get a backlash for it. He quotes Proverbs and says something about how the wise heart receives correction.

But this is for women. It's not for him.

He wants to be able to do to women something that he doesn't want done to him.

He is disqualified from the pastorate because he is a heavy weight champion at breaking The Golden Rule given by Jesus. You know that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," part of the gospel that so many men throw away when it comes to relating to women. (Looking at you Driscoll and Emerson Eggerichs!)

He cannot obey the most basic, 101 level, Christian principle out there.

He wants women to respect him. But he cannot respect women or their voices enough to hear them and understand his sin against them.

And it's sick.

There is a sickness, a cancer in the body of Christ and Josh Howerton is part of that cancer.

He is disqualified as a pastor because he doesn't care about the hearts, minds, or bodies of Christian women.

How Dare Mark Driscoll

 How dare him for thinking that he is a pastor and teacher

How dare him for using women as props to justify his bad sermons.

How dare him for pornifying the Song of Solomon.

I have two links concerning Driscoll's defense of his "How Dare You" sermons.

One if from Underdog Theology where Dean addresses Mark's defense called "Mark Driscoll Gives 'Reason' He Screamed 'How Dare You!'" Dean doesn't start talking about Driscoll until about 15 minutes in.

The second link is from Wenatchee The Hatchet pointing out several other things, including that this sermon was no where near the level of controversial that Driscoll has displayed in the past:

Mark Driscoll revisits what he says was his most controversial moment in his public career.

Wenatchee makes some good points and brings up history about Mark that we should not forget including his infamous Scotland sermon and other pornifications of The Songs. And his time blogging as William Wallace the second.

How dare you, Mark Driscoll. While you claim to be a defender of women, in reality, you use them just as badly as any other unregenerate man. You are just better at manipulate and gaslighting than your average joe.

Edited 3/23/24 to add:

Mark Driscoll Tries to Justify "How Dare You!" Sermon

Another good one with lots of evidence like Wenatchee's post.

Edited 4/1/24 to add this link because of comments below:

Driscoll's Narcissism on full display

"Mark Driscoll is a brawler" at the 1:55 mark. And also mentions that he got physical with people, choking them, etc. in church during baptisms during Mars Hill days.

Do NOT Quote Driscoll on Social Media, Part 2

So, here is the outline the I made in order to explain to my work friend why Driscoll should not be shared on her Facebook. I started way back with my relationship with The Song of Solomon in order for her to see why I found Driscoll's take on The Songs to be so wrong, ungodly, and unholy.

*****

 I was born again in 1982 through the charismatic renewal that was happening at the time. It hit many of the mainline denominations including Catholics and Lutherans.

We sang two songs that came from The Song of Solomon (hitherto referred to as The Songs) which established for me a connection to the long tradition of reading The Songs as Allegorical in nature of our relationship with God. The two songs were "We Will Rejoice in You and Be Glad" and "His Banner Over Me Is Love."

My family moved onto another church that was pastored by a Narcissist (though we didn't know it at that time. that word was not even used yet.) I won't get into this particular thing even though it is relevant to the story. But it was there that I met and married my husband (1987) and we were given the book "The Act of Marriage" by Tim and Beverly LaHaye. This book used The Songs as a physical guided to married sex. So this established the use of the Songs in this manner in a way that greatly overshadowed my previous/limited exposure to the allegorical side of the book.

Fast forward to the mid 90s. There was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit happening at a missionary organization in (name removed to guard my anonymity). During one of the sessions a frail, skinny, redheaded, young woman was in deep worship. She was responding to the intense outpouring by saying several things including, "We enrapture your heart, oh God," several times. As I stood to the side listening to her, my internal dialogue went something like this: "That's very nice sounding. But my Bible doesn't say that about us/me." But later when I looked it up in The Songs, it was there. And my next conclusion was that it might be in The Songs but that doesn't mean it should absolutely be taken allegorically like the redhead was doing. It was then that I felt impressed by God to start meditating on The Songs. But I resisted thinking that The Songs were just too racy for this small town girl. However, God shut up the whole Bible to me, even the parts that could prompt the greatest worship within me. Reading the Bible became like reading a phone book. The only scripture that I read during that time of resistance, the only Bible verse that sparked anything thing inside of me was Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, that He may not be angry and you perish on the way...

So I relented and began reading and meditating on The Songs. And what a blessing it was. It was an antidote and emotional protection from the shallow and self-serving love that I was receiving from my husband. It was also a healing balm for a previous and devastating rejection from a family of origin member.

I spent a decade meditating on The Songs and decided to look on-line to see if anyone else was getting so much healing from this book in the mid 2000s. This is when I stumbled upon the outrage and controversy caused by a message preached by Mark Driscoll in Scotland. The sermon was something about "The Good Bits" from The Songs. He was preaching an overly sexualized and, I would say, even pornified version so the Book. But the part that enraged people and felt like pig's blood in the Holy of Holies to me was when he told the women in that congregation than Jesus commanded them to get on their knees and service their husbands orally. It was a hard slap in my face for someone to take a healing book and use it to invade the privacy of the bedroom and command women to do an act that some women might find distasteful. Pun intended.

I got involved in on-line discussions concerning this and how far out in left-field Driscoll had taken his teaching on sex in the Bible. In these conversations, Driscoll apologists would show up, be rude and obnoxious, challenge us, call us prudes, and said we were squeamish over what the Bible "clearly teaches". They would also point out how smart and well read Driscoll was and that we were just jealous of his amazing teaching and preaching. One fellow, who was more polite than the others, agreed that the Scotland sermon was over the top. But he insisted that Driscoll was a great teacher and handled the book more graciously in his "Peasant Princess" sermon series.  He linked to an episode of the series and challenged me to go see for myself.  I went ahead and watched it. And while it was more toned down than the "Shock Jock Preacher" antics he engaged in Scotland, I was still dismayed by what he did to the Book.

Without getting into all the gory details, I'll point out a few major issues with his handling of the book. First off, he mocks, scorns, and ridicules the long standing tradition of looking at the Songs as an allegory of our relationship with God. Then, he seeks and "finds" symbolism of explicit sex acts under every rock and tree in the book. He also takes this poetic book, written mostly from a female point of view and about what made her feel loved and safe and morphs it into a pornified male-centric monstrosity mostly concerned with what a husband is owed from his wife in the bedroom. People who have left Driscoll's church had many complaints. One particular complaint was that Driscoll was trying to force women into a tiny submissive box everywhere but the bedroom. And in the bedroom, he was trying to force women into their husband's personal porn stars and nymphomaniacs, complete with stripteases and pole dancing. 

[I stopped at this moment to let my friend know that I actually didn't care if people had stripteases and pole dancing in their bedrooms. That was their business. My concern was with Driscoll making up commands concerning sex acts and deciding certain symbolisms in The Songs simply had to be about stripteases when this was highly unlikely.)

I wondered how this man was declared one of the top 50 pastors in the United States. So I took a closer look. Turns out that, besides using the Bible as a sock puppet that always agrees with him, he also has issues with rage, bullying, and fostering a cult-like atmosphere at his church, Mars Hill, in Seattle. While I was watching him and researching about him, he was credibly accused of plagiarism and of buying a spot on the New York Times Best Sellers list.

When his elders in Seattle tried to hold Driscoll accountable for his bullying, raging, and misappropriating church funds, he fled Seattle and went to Phoenix and started a new church there where he is in charge and answers to no one. No elders to get in the way of doing whatever he wants. He continues to "pastor" and "teach' and is hustling hard to be a huge, Christian online Influencer.

As you can see, I am unhappy with Driscoll, his history, and what he continues to do. However, abusers are gonna abuse and grifters are gonna grift. I am way more upset with the men who have propped Driscoll up, past and present, and have given him a platform. Christians, especially Christian "leaders", are woefully lacking in wisdom and discernment. Many Christian leaders may also be as lacking in integrity as Driscoll. They just aren't as blatant about it as he is. But God's sheep are paying dearly for the neglect of true pastors and shepherds..
 

*****

So this is what I told my friend at work. And if you have been watching Driscoll as long as I have, you know that I haven't listed half of his blatant misogyny and sins.

Twitter is all abuzz with talk of Mike Bickle of IHOP fame, and what a flaming Narcissist he is. There are also portions of Twitter (yes, I know it is X now. It just looks better typed out as Twitter) taking on Doug Wilson. There are too many Narcissists in the pulpit. And it's not going to change unless the rank and file step up and scream "ENOUGH!" and take their tithes and offerings elsewhere.

Do NOT Quote Driscoll on Social Media part 1

 As mentioned in my 2/24/24 post, I was triggered by a friend who put a Mark Driscoll quote up on her Facebook. I knew that she did it not have a clue about Driscoll being an over-the-top abusive grifter. If she knew this, she would have never put up the quote. Because we are co-workers and interact at work, I let her know that when we had time, I would explain why Driscoll is not a good person. Since work has been insanely busy lately, I felt like I should create a streamlined and abbreviated timeline for her and I wrote it down so I wouldn't ramble, get sidetracked on the many, many stupid tangents that make up Driscoll's reprehensible history.

As I revisited my history with both The Song of Solomon and Driscoll's rape of the book, I realized two things. One thing was this: It was therapeutic for me to give this testimony out loud and in person to an understanding sister in Christ who then promptly deleted her Driscoll quote. When she looked at it again, she saw that a cousin of hers had commented under the quote saying that she would never follow this guy (Driscoll).

The second was a reminder to me that, while I still meditate semi-consistently on The Songs due to their healing properties, I haven't really dived in and immersed myself in the book for a long time. Deep and immersive meditation in The Songs, besides being healing, also brings me closer to the heart and nature of God, something I've been a bit distant from. So now, I'm spending more quality time with the book along with my regular (or irregular) scripture reading and am better for it.

And then, over the weekend, something else happened. I saw a tweet from someone.

And this made a whole lot of sense. They (Christian Leaders) made a podcast about it. But now they are done. They did their due diligence. What more do we want from them?

Well, I guess it was the grass roots movement that brought him down. So, I suppose it will take grassroots resistance to keep reminding people why Driscoll has disqualified himself as a pastor or any kind of church leader both in the past and in this present.

I did my grassroots job with my friend and so did my friend's cousin.

Where the hell are the supposed Christian leaders crying out against Driscoll. I guess they are too busy protecting their own kingdoms to give a flying flip about the Kingdom of God.

The "Taking God's Name in Vain" Diversion

 A few Sundays ago, I was at church. The pastor was away and ended up being away one Sunday longer than he planned. So the children's pastor was presenting with the help of her children's church, They were talking about the Ten Commandments at one point and was asking the adult congregation what each one meant. When they came to what "Taking God's Name in Vain" meant, I raised my hand. She called on me and I said it means, "Saying that God said something when God had not actually said it." She was taken aback and responded, "Oh, that's good."

Why was she taken aback and responded thus? Well, I believe that it is because it has been beaten into our heads from the pulpit that the actual meaning of "Don't take God's name in vain" means don't use God's name as an expletive or swear word. I think most preachers, teachers, and authors do this innocently enough because they don't know any better. But I am sure that some preachers, teachers, and authors teach this on purpose to distract from the real meaning of the command. They want to make sure that this is what people think when, "Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy GOD in vain" comes up. They want people to think that this is referring to Joe Blow who hit his thumb with a hammer and is JCing and GDing all over his garage holding his injured digit. These unscrupulous preachers don't want people to realize that the greater sin of taking God's name in vain is saying that God agrees with them on some wonky doctrine, opinion, or idea that they claim is "biblical".

That Sunday mornings presentation along with the Bare Marriage's podcast on "The Problems With Lies Women Believe" put together with a quote a friend put on Facebook from Mark Driscoll has made me think again about this diversionary tactic concerning taking God's Name in vain.

First, let's look at the Bare Marriage podcast on Nancy DeMoss Wolgemoth's book concerning what Nancy refers to as lies women believe. Sheila and her guests come to the conclusion that it is Nancy who believes lies about God's attitude towards women and marriage. They did not go so far as to say that Nancy was using God's name in vain to convince women that God agrees with Nancy. But that's where my mind went. Does Nancy take God's name in vain when she wrongly uses scripture to warp God's love and nature against His daughters? When she uses the Bible to support her beliefs in a false narrative that the Bible does not actually support is she breaking that commandment? If she truly believes her lies to be true, is she then not held accountable for supporting her lies about God? I don't know. She may use these lies against herself just as much as against other women.  So this is between her and her Lord. He loves her. She is in His hands.

Now let's turn to what, in my view, is closer to taking God's name in vain. It is something Mark Driscoll said back in 2007.

The only reason I'm thinking of this now is because a friend and co-worker recently put a Mark Driscoll quote up on Facebook. It was very triggering for me to see this sold-out-for-Jesus, Celebrate Recovery Christian quote Driscoll. In order to help her understand why Driscoll is not a good person to quote, I laid out for her an abbreviated list of reasons in chronological order (that I may post later on this blog). Going through that list of things, I dealt again with the 2007 quote from Mark Driscoll's infamous sermon in Scotland where he claimed that Jesus commanded women to sexually service their husbands in a certain way. He was taking God's name in vain, issuing as command to women something that God never commanded. The bad part of that sermon is also mentioned in the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill episode entitled The Things We Do To Women.at the 34 minute mark.

People were appalled at what Mark said in that sermon. But it never came up that he was taking God's name in vain. It never came up that when Mark told those women in Scotland that Jesus commanded them to service their husbands that he was breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And I don't know why people are so squeamish about calling out this sin and naming it for what it is.

I guess I'm just tired of Christians getting all up in arms about people using God's Name in Vain when they don't actually realize that preachers do it all the time, passing off their own opinion or interpretation as the very oracles of God.

So why am I so ready to say that Driscoll uses God's name in vain over Nancy DeMoss. Well, it has to do with what each gets out of their lies. Nancy's lies hurt herself along with other women. Driscoll's lies are all about propping himself up, serving him, and putting women down. He also labels his opinion of Bible interpretation as a literal "Command" from Jesus. So, yes, I would not be surprised if the judgement against Driscoll would be stronger.

But long and short, they both hurt women and lie about Who God is and how He feels about His daughters. I would not want to be in either one of their shoes come Judgement Day.