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.

Deconstructing from the Sin of Patriarchy

 The title above is a shortened version of what I wanted to have.

I wanted the title to be more along the lines of this. "The Evangelical Church needs to deconstruct itself away from its sin of Patriarchy before it completely dies. Because the Evangelical leaders have already made themselves quite irrelevant by clinging to this idol that they worship in vain."

Someone: "That's a bold move, Cotton, calling patriarchy a sin."

Me: "It's not nearly as bold now as it used to be. Now Evangelical Patriarchy is being exposed on many fronts for the sham it is and how it has lied to everyone including itself."

I've been deconstructing from the Evangelical's claim that Patriarchy is biblical for years and will link two posts about the two main lies (of many) that it has told it's women.

Lie number one id from June 2011: "I Heard It Said Once"

Lie number two is from September 2015: "The Patriarchs' Second Lie to Women"

Those familiar with my blog and the above two links won't need to follow them.

But I've said all of this to lead up to a way more important link. It is a discussion of how patriarchy works and how it truly hates women. The treatment of Beth Moore is used as evidence for the rotten fruit of patriarchy.

"Misogyny, the SBC, and Beth Moore"

Along with this link, I'll make another link to my friend, Cindy Kunsman. She will continue her exposure of a Bruce Ware's message eventually. But for now, she is enjoying a much needed respite as she meditates on how the leaders of the toxic patriarchy movement are passing away.

A Pause for Respite and Recollection

She was one who paid dearly for speaking out against men like Ware back in the day. Now, others are taking on the fight. But there are more of them and there is more support for them. Though people like Sheila Gregoire have also suffered, she has more support and there is more momentum carrying her and her message beyond some isolated area of the internet.

Patriarchy, your mountain top alter will soon be made low. And the women and children you thrusted down into the valley of abuse shall be raised up.

TGC Echo Chamber

 Unless you live under a rock, you most likely have heard about the ridiculous goings on at The Gospel Coalition, the Keller Centre, and Multnomah Publishing.

If, indeed, someone comes here not knowing, I will link three places to go for more information

Bare Marriage had a good post with lots of links to other opinions: My V@gina Is Not My "Most Holy Place": A Response to the Gospel Coalition.

Under Much Grace comes in with an overview of the history that has led up to this crazy outcome: The Spermeneutics of Spread Your Legs Theology

And I'll add Biblical Personhood's for good measure simple because I miss her voice in the blogsphere as she doesn't publish as much as she used.to and she had such good insight. (Hi, Retha, I see you!): The Gospel Coalition seemingly Endorses Phallic Worship -- And Inadvertently Makes the Case for Women Elders.

Poor Joshua Butler. He really stepped into it, didn't he? And TGC?

This is what happens when a bunch of men refuse to acknowledge the wisdom and concerns of women for years on end. This is what happens when they keep talking to each other about things they don't fully understand. They get weirder and weirder with no wise feminine input or push back. They get emboldened in their error. And out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Concerning the Proverbs Woman:

Proverbs 31:26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,

And the [q]teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

Too bad TGC and other Complementarianas fight so hard to shut women up and beat them down with twisted Bible verses. Too bad they judged women to be foolish and unwise. By doing this, they have shot themselves in the foot. They had told everyone that women are lesser parts of the Body of Christ. As a result women were ignored, used, abused and dismissed. And this has blown up in their faces.

Driscoll is Selling Sex Again

 yay. he's at it again. whoop, whoop.

(Huge eyerolling emoji here)

Here's a link to the story about it: Mark Driscoll Says He Wants to 'Heat Up Your Marriage"

One of the things that really helped Driscoll build his kingdom on sand in Seattle was his Peasant Princess series back in the day.

Discovering his warped and perverted view of the Songs is what put him on my radar in 2009. And not in a good way.

His series definitely put him on the map and made him a lot of money. Just like Hugh Hefner made a lot money off of Sex.

The fact the Driscoll exists is sad. What is worse is all the people who can't see through what he's doing and who support him.

People would be much better off supporting legitimate ministries that actually help people like Sheila Gregoire's Bare Marriage blog and podcast.

Edited to add The Wartburg Watch's post that includes info on Driscoll wanting to make money off sex again:

"... While Mark Driscoll Remembers that Sex Sells"