Friday, April 27, 2012

Lynne Explains TULIP

Lynne from Australia left comments on The Wartburg Watch concerning Calvinism that I want to preserve here for myself and whatever posterity that is interested in it.
She starts off by responding to Jedidiah who asked about what reformed doctrine was:

"Jedidiah, like most code words, “Reformed Theology” has a special meaning. (Otherwise it would just be protestant theology, since all forms of Protestantism have their roots in the Reformation. No, Reformed in these circles refers specifically to Calvinism, and fairly “high” Calvinism at that, i.e. a form of Calvinism that puts a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty as His most important attribute (as a non-Calvinist I would say it was His love). It is very important to them that nothing in any way should limit God’s absolute rule, so they believe strongly in predestination and that salvation is 100% of God and 0% of man’s free will. Hence the acronym TULIP commonly used to summarise this position:
T–total depravity (man in his wickedness cannot save himself
U — unconditional election (God chooses who He wants to save on a completely arbitrary basis)
L — limited atonement (Jesus only died for the ones that God has chosen to be saved)
I — irresistible grace (when God chooses to save you, you’re saved — you have no power to refuse
P — perseverance of the saints (you can’t be un-saved, once you’re in you’re in)
hope that helps, I’ve tried to be fair,"

Then later she talks about her history with Calvinism:

"I spent 20 years in a Calvinist church (Presbyterian Church of Australia) Mostly I encountered ‘soft’ Calvinists, who were very nuanced in their application of these principles. The internet Calvinistas tend to be a different breed — much fiercer and less nuanced, and much more likely to take the sovereignty of God all the way to a reductio ad absurdum (i.e. take the trajectory as far as they can push it, no matter how silly their end point is. Very sad.Soft Calvinists tend to be human and compassionate, hard Calvinists are very scary.
Having said all this, the point where I finally broke with Calvinism was when I went to the funeral of a new born baby, and the whole sermon was on the perfection of God’s ways, without a word of comfort for the grieving parents. That, for me, was the beginning of a massive rethink, and basically turning away from over-systematised theology."

I like her views and her insight. And I think that I'm also repelled by the "over-systematised" aspect of Calvinism theology.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

BJU, Tina Anderson, and Glee, Oh My!

Bob Jones University used to have Tina Anderson's pastor was on its board of Trustees until a senior with a conscious and a strong sense of justice* took up the cause to get the man off the board. To read more and watch a video go to:

BJU Senior Expelled for Watching Glee

(*Christopher Peterman has a strong sense of justice. Bob Jones University seems to lack even a decent sense of justice. Mamas don't let your children grow up to go to Bob Jones!)

Put Away Childish Things

I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; When I became a man, I did away with childish things.

The Toddler Property Rights that I posted on Monday display a childish, even infantile, mentality. Toddlers are going through the 'adolescence' between infancy and childhood. They are old enough to express their demanding, self-centered infantile mind but not quite mature enough to learn basic things like "sharing" and "empathy" and respecting another's "boundaries". It is a stage that children go through that is natural and expected.

But an adult behaving according to the Toddler Property Rights is not natural or expected. It is unacceptable and shows the adult to be childish and in no condition to have authority or responsibility.

The opposite of the Toddler Property Rights is found a few verses above I Corinthians 13:11.

Verses 4-7 goes like this: Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek it's own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

You just can't get more opposite of the Toddler Property Rights. Anyone wanting to obey the law of love and yet hold onto the toddler property rights mentality are sorry out of luck because "it does not seek it's own" pretty much does away with any idea that person has a right to take something away from another person.

Looking at it another way, thieves live by Toddler Property Rights law #3: "If I can take it away from you, it's mine." But God's law, even in the Old Testament states: "Thou shalt not steal." So what is a thief to do if he wants to grow up and stop being a toddler? He must put away childish things.

Ephesians 4:28 He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need.

In other words, rather than taking, consuming, and hurting others with his childish self in mind, a thief needs to learn to be a producer, giver, blesser. And in this way, the thief changes his way and no longer imitates the devil who comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but begins to imitate God who is a Producer, Giver, and Blesser.

So, in essence, putting away childish things is rejecting selfish, hurtful, worldly, and satanic reasoning and taking on, or accepting giving, creating, blessing, and godly reasoning.

Simple to explain. Much harder to bring into practice. At least that's what I observe because I see a lot of Christians, including those in leadership, who still embrace the Toddler Property Rights mentality.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Doug Wilson Loves Esau and Hates Jacob

Alrighty then.

When someone else writes a better blog post on some issue that really bothers me, I don't get jealous. I really like it and want to make sure others are aware of it, if they aren't already.

"Esau" Christianity? Douglas Wilson Needs a Bible Study by Chaplin Mike is just such a blog post.

God bless thoughtful men who truly are secure in their manhood and feel no need to go around trying to marginalize the feminine in church, home, and society.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Result of Striping Women of Their Power

Women have many powers. One is (along side men) reproduction. Another is her sexuality.

Apparently men in churches fear these powers and try to control them. Some to a greater degree than others.

Personally, I have always felt in control of and in power over my own body and sexuality. Fortunately, I have always believed that if and when I had children, they would be just as much mine as my husband's.

But I'm seeing that my experience is not what all women have experienced. And I get shocked all over again whenever I see the damaging effects of striping women of their power, their boundaries, and of their very personhood in the name of God.

Bedroom Submission, Birth Control, and Tokophobia by Sierra is just such a shock to my system and reminds me again why I blog.

Some women are actually trapped in the name of God, by men who want to control and abuse. I get so tired of God being portrayed this way. I, along with many others, can't stand by quietly and allow the goodness of God to be continually smeared by evil, self-serving men.

(will get to the toddler property laws, hopefully soon.)

Monday, April 23, 2012

Toddler Property Rights

Toddler Property Rights.
This has been around a while so I'm pretty sure most of my readers have seen it at one time or another.
I've seen this in action because I had toddlers. They are hoot and I enjoyed parenting them.

 1.  If I like it, it's mine.
2.  If it's in my hand, it's mine.
3.  If I can take it from you, it's mine.
4.  If I had it a little while ago, it's mine.
5.  If it's mine, it must never, appear to be yours in any way.
6.  If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
7.  If it looks like it's mine, it's mine.
8.  If I saw it first, it's mine.
9.  If I can see it, it's mine.
10.  If I think it's mine, it's mine.
11.  If I want it, it's mine.
12.  If I "need it, it's mine (yes, I know the difference between "want" and "need"!).
13.  If I say it's mine, it's mine.
14.  If you don't stop me from playing with it, it's mine.
15.  If you tell me I can play with it, it's mine.
16.  If it will upset me too much when you take it away from me, it's mine.
17.  If I (think I) can play with it better than you can, it's mine.
18.  If I play with it long enough, it's mine.
19.  If you are playing with something and you put it down, it's mine.
20. If it's broken, it's yours, (no wait, all the pieces are mine.

Yes, there is a reason. And I'll get to it when I can.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Doug Wilson is a Misogynist

No newsflash there. The newsflash is that I'm even uttering his name on my blog. Doug Wilson is so far gone over the cuckoo edge that I rarely talk about him. I leave that to the blogs that deal directly with outright, blatant patriarchy.

But Wenatchee the Hatchet has a good piece concerning someone's response to Wilson's blog post on rooting out feminine expression in worship.

WTH's posts a link to John's response to Wilson's accusations against the feminine. To get directly to Wilson's accusations, go to the link at the top of WTH's post and find the link in John's piece to Wilson's misogyny and tireless effort to condemn and marginalize all that is feminine.

Skimming Wilson's words and seeing the beginning of "The D'Vinci Code" the other night got my brain moving and I left a comment on WTH's comment thread that I'll repost here.

"I saw the beginning of the "D'Vinci Code" again the other night.

Yes, I know. I absolutely don't agree with the author's conclusions about Mary Madeline (a different Mary) and her relationship with Jesus.

But I use it as an example of what happens when men work so hard to press the feminine out of church history and worship.

Mary M. was a disciple of Christ. And Jesus loved her as such. And there may have even been some jealously on Peter's part concerning their close platonic relationship.

However, men reducing her to a prostitute and striping away any 'inner discipleshipness' from her sets our culture up and makes it ripe for stupid conclusions like the "D'Vinci Code".

Men, like Doug Wilson, hate the feminine so much that they, first accuse the feminine of whatever they don't like in church, then try to eradicate it from Christian expression.

Stupid, stupid men. Then they wonder why both women and men reject off-balanced, over-testosteroned Christianity for something a little more balanced, like Atheism or Paganism.

Sorry, you probably didn't write this to get this kind of response, but watching the D'Vinci Code so recently, then reading this post and glancing at D.Wilson's misogynist blog was too much of a temptation to not bring it up."

Anyone else have any comments concerning this stuff.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Calvinist Taking Over SBC?

SBC Pastor, William F. Harrel thinks so.

At this writing, there are over 150 comments under his post.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Driscoll's NC Position=Unconditional Acceptance?

Concerning the ongoing drama of Driscoll speaking at Liberty University, a Southern Baptist pastor asks:
But, why does Mark Driscoll seem to get a pass, particularly on issues which non-conservative pastors would most certainly not be allowed to skate by? One answer might be because of his Reformed/Calvinistic theology. I don’t know how many times I have read something along the lines of, “Well, I don’t agree with everything that Pastor Mark preaches, but he preaches the Gospel.” That in itself gives me pause to question what they mean by “Gospel.” I didn’t realize that preaching the “Gospel” automatically exempted leaders from the Biblical standard of “being above reproach,” including with those outside the church. As one who is an inconsistent Calvinist in my theology, surely we can find better Reformed role models for students in our colleges, universities, and seminaries to emulate than Mark Driscoll.

Hhmmm. You would think.

To read the rest of what Howard Scott has to say about the Driscoll Machine go to:

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Happy Easter!

I'll just link one song.
It's an oldie but goodie.

It also has personal significance to me. My husband used to sing this one at Easter back in the day when he used to love Jesus.

Happy Easter!

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Driscoll Is Anal

Okay, if you aren't interested in reading about Driscoll's take on certain sexual acts, stop reading now.

Driscoll used to be known as the cussing pastor. I'm thinking that he should start being known as the anal sex pastor. And that's the nice way to say what he promotes.

Anyway, I've already linked the petition requesting that Liberty Universty drop Driscoll. Those who have gone there have seen that Driscoll condones anal sex on page 186 of his book.

Well, Jenny left a comment. Her signature is number 244 on the petition.

You can go to the link I provide below and find her words for yourself. But for convenience, I'm going to copy and paste them here:

My husband went to Liberty U. as an undergrad and has always spoken highly of it. He learned much there about walking in biblical truth and being a man of God. I went to a very secular university and lived the typical "wild child" social life prevalent at my school. I engaged in things I shouldn't have. Imagine my awe at God's grace when He saw fit to give me in marriage to this man--a man I most certainly did not deserve. This honorable man who loves the Lord and walks in His ways. This man who, even after 12 years of marriage, makes me feel like a precious jewel every day. He says to me in all ways, by his actions, his love, and his example: "I love you because our Lord trusted me with your care and well being. I would never dishonor you. I would never debase you. I would never take advantage of you or require of you anything that you don't give to me freely." Imagine again what it was like for us during the 3 years we were members at Mars Hill Church, where, back 8 or so years ago, Mark Driscoll was teaching at the men's retreat all the same things that are in his Real Marriage book--that the wife's duty is to pleasure her husband, that when she is menstruating or pregnant, she should offer up her (backside entry) so the marital bed could be strong. We were shocked, yet we remained in this church because Mark spoke truth in so many other ways, and so profoundly. We didn't realize that we were proverbial frogs in slowly boiling water. We discovered too late that we were so steeped in Mark's twisted teachings about "secondary" matters--which actually became quite Primary in Mark's teaching--that we could no longer open our Bible without seeing anger and condemnation in it. We could no longer bring ourselves to read a book of the Bible that Mark hadn't commentated on in sermons or writing, because we couldn't trust our own interpretations. Mark crippled our faith and our joy in the Lord when HE became our "holy spirit." We finally left the church, but too late. We suffer still, so greatly. We have not been able to trust another pastor or church, and we are trying really hard to trust God again. But God is faithful, and He is healing us. And to this day, my husband would never debase me or require one thing from me in the bedroom that I would not freely give. He honors me as Christ honors His church. Mark debases his wife (and then brags to the world about it, debasing her publicly) in the same manner with which he debases the body of Christ. Liberty University, I ask you, how do you regard the body of Christ? Now is your chance to let us know.

And Here's the link to the petition:

Friday, April 6, 2012

Driscoll and Liberty University

I'm putting these up mostly for myself so I can find them more easily. But anyone who wants to check them out that hasn't seen them yet, they are here for you too.



A lot going on these days.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Stolen Hearts and Stolen Voices

This week seems to be all about bringing up oldies but goodies for those who might have missed them. Lewis Wells at "The Commandments of Men" has observed how patriarchy has stolen away the hearts of its daughters under the guise of protecting their hearts:

My observations on Freedom's blog have to do with Mark Driscoll stealing away the voices of women with his false doctrine concerning roles and human/culture authority.

The comments I'm taking from Freedom's blog are my own. I'm reposting them here for those who have not seen them. But please note, Freedom's comments are just as good and probably better than mine. So if you haven't already, feel free to explore her blog. There is much wisdom on it and she has done some good research even if the blog isn't particularly active right now.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Notes on Christian Baal Worship Today

I was checking the Archives of "The Commandments of Men" blog and stumbled on this written back in July of 2010. Now this is in relation to the patriarchy movement that has swept through the home school movement and which is now making it's way into main stream Christianity.

Please note that while the stark example of patriarchy given by Lewis is pretty extreme, the more subtle, softer patriarchy and chauvinism/misogyny promoted by Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill is just as destructive, perhaps even more so due to the fact that it is only about half as extreme as the expression Lewis describes.

But still, the worship of Baal (Master) is there. Women are not allowed outside the box that their masters, or Baals (the men, Mark in particular) have built for them. Women not submitting to Baal worship or worship of men are called Satanic.

Some may call this connection a bit extreme. All I have to say is that Christian teaching that promotes the fear of men or puts men's cultural preferences over and above the freedom offered by Christ,... calling that teaching Baal worship once in a while might get someone's attention and help them realize the severity of the issue.

We are to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. We are not to add our own prejudices and cultural preferences to it and call that part of the Gospel. In doing this, we mix in bitter waters to the Living Water and contaminate it.

Monday, April 2, 2012

My Prediction Concerning Driscoll on 9/9/09

Back in the day, it seemed that there weren't very many people talking about Driscoll and the abusive nature of his doctrine and attitudes on authority and women.

I did find one really good friend and we spoke back and forth quite a bit on her blog Freedom For Captives Blog. We were comparing notes on a particular thread and I compared Driscoll to a former pastor (This man is now divorced, no longer pastoring, unrepentant, and blames everyone else for his own failings). I compare watching Driscoll and his shenanigans to watching an impending train wreck.

I will link the prediction below. But first, a note. Even though things look pretty bad for Driscoll, this doesn't mean it's the beginning of the end for him. He could slip through this somehow and land on his feet. But he won't be able to do it forever, not as long as he insists on riding the rails he has chosen.