|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: More bizarre news from Mars Hill
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I still don't understand how you define spiritual abuse in a way that distinguishes it from emotional abuse.
I think they would be very similar, but spiritual abuse would have the added twist of divine authority-- i.e. that the abuser is presenting him/herself as speaking for God.
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
While financial abuse is certainly one common type of spiritual abuse, I would not want to limit the definition just to that. Indeed, the financial abuse is the least disturbing allegation being leveled at Driscoll IMHO.
[ 13. July 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I still don't understand how you define spiritual abuse in a way that distinguishes it from emotional abuse.
I think they would be very similar, but spiritual abuse would have the added twist of divine authority-- i.e. that the abuser is presenting him/herself as speaking for God.
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
While financial abuse is certainly one common type of spiritual abuse, I would not want to limit the definition just to that. Indeed, the financial abuse is the least disturbing allegation being leveled at Driscoll IMHO.
Okay I’ll bite … Has there actually been any flat out accusations of financial malpractice? With evidence.
There’s a world of difference between the wage structures not being very transparent / concerns about a lack of accountability and someone lining their pockets through Christian ministry.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.
It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.
The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
Everything you say resonates, absolutely on the dot. You've identified the big problem with the no-accountability setups, the leaders come to take the place of God for the followers.
While no one would ever come out and say this directly, it's exactly what goes on. The leaders typically start giving Christ less and less consideration until such point that the service becomes about whatever axe leader chooses to grind rather than about Jesus. That axe at cultic churches like Mars Hill or New Frontiers is oft their personal right to authority over you. Driscoll has ground this axe often. When he first spoke at my church, the New Frontiers regional leader said "You must come under authority". He meant his personal authority as regional head elder, the authority of the local head elder, and Terry Virgo's authority. They did not mean the authority of Christ in any direct way. As they put it, you could not come under Jesus' authority without coming under theirs, even if the head elder, regional head, or Virgo told you to do something directly contradictory to Scriptures, you were to do it without question, understanding that God would honor it because you were coming under God's rightful authority by submitting to their's. Sounds a lot like Driscoll's schtick as well.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.
It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.
The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
Well isn't that fraud?
No. For it to be fraud, you would have to prove that the lack of transparency was intentional AND for personal gain or to damage another individual.
So for example – and I am not a lawyer - if you could prove that a head of a religious organisation was being paid wildly over the odds and the lack of transparency was designed to ensure they could avoid paying the correct level of tax, then there might be a case to answer.
I am a lawyer, at least licensed (teaching at this point rather than practicing). Pastors have gone to prison for tax fraud or misreporting earnings when they've used nonprofits to hide their true earnings. There's nothing per se illegal about the lack of transparency with a 501(c)(3), but as you rightly put, if used as a vehicle to evade taxes, can land you in federal prison. Happened a few years ago to an Alabama pastor, happened in the 70's to a well-known Texas tent revivalist. Jim Bakker, in defrauding the flock with regard to where donations were going, was sent to fed prison, so there is some precedent there for nailing those who use donations to fund an opulent lifestyle, though many of these prosperity outfits (I do not consider either Mars Hill or New Frontiers, which I frequently mention having had experiences with them, to be one of these) are so open about the gilded lives of the leaders that you'd have a hard time proving any manner of fraud.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
While financial abuse is certainly one common type of spiritual abuse, I would not want to limit the definition just to that. Indeed, the financial abuse is the least disturbing allegation being leveled at Driscoll IMHO.
Okay I’ll bite … Has there actually been any flat out accusations of financial malpractice? With evidence.
There’s a world of difference between the wage structures not being very transparent / concerns about a lack of accountability and someone lining their pockets through Christian ministry.
Tubbs [/QB]
That has already been well covered in previous posts, but the short answer would be no. The charge is lack of transparency/ covering up possible excessive compensation, which would be distasteful but not exactly abusive. Hence my comment.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Transparency is a Christian principle, though obviously not exclusive to Christianity. I guess it has a zone. For example, it does not apply to all information revealed in pastoral work. There, principles of confidentiality are very important and, as a result, accountability needs to work in a different way. I think that in general, though there are exceptions, vulnerable folks receiving pastoral support need to have confidence that disclosure will happen without agreement.
One of the hallmarks of a cult is that individual members are expected to be accountable to leaders for everything; their lives become open books. Whereas leaders are expected to have their zones of privacy, only sharing their 'wisdom and reasons' to the extent that followers need to know. Their 'wisdom and reasoning' come from 'above'. They have special access to 'the mind of God'.
From the POV of the cult leader, the ideal follower is like Boxer in Animal Farm. "Comrade Napoleon is always right." And "I will work harder".
Financial misconduct for personal benefit is one of the consequences of any organisation whose leaders have more power than is good for them. So are abuses of the members by the leaders.
All of this is, or used to be, well known. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I suppose for those of us who grew up in the immediate aftermath of WW2 the baleful impact of totalitarian regimes was all too clear. Sadly, perhaps, folks seem to need to learn these truths for themselves in every generation. "Princes" can and do persecute without a cause. And Jesus' "Not so among you. Follow me. I came not to be served, but to serve" words are not "take it or leave it". They contain principles for governance and accountability which protect leaders and followers alike. We ignore them at our peril.
It's a matter of great sadness when any church goes down the abusive road. Leaders who lose their way do very great damage.
[ 14. July 2012, 07:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the hallmarks of a cult is that individual members are expected to be accountable to leaders for everything; their lives become open books. Whereas leaders are expected to have their zones of privacy, only sharing their 'wisdom and reasons' to the extent that followers need to know. Their 'wisdom and reasoning' come from 'above'. They have special access to 'the mind of God'.
That nails it. Exactly what went on in New Frontiers, what I've heard goes on in Driscoll's outfit as well. At my NF church, they'd find out about you, as much as they could through small groups, "confessing sins one to another", then leaders would use against you if need be. One young fellow decided to leave the state and was ambushed by the elders team days before departure because he wasn't "leaving properly" "with the elders' blessing". They called him a "consumer Christian", told him they'd poison the water by telling his new leadership team at the church he chose how unsubmissive he was. When that tactic didn't dissuade him, they brought out some of his private and very embarrassing stuff before the group in a way of manipulating him into submitting. Fortunately, he managed to break free anyway--God bless him!
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From the POV of the cult leader, the ideal follower is like Boxer in Animal Farm. "Comrade Napoleon is always right." And "I will work harder".
Yep, noticed that also with Animal Farm, how very like a cult, which is also very like Stalinism.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Re the chatter about a secular law against spiritual abuse, I don't want courts deciding what is or is not correct theology! Historically, we've been there, not good. Still, I agree with the distressed sense of wishing for an effective way to deal with abuses like telling people to avid contact with their extended families or demanding certain amounts of money.
But what intrigues me about this discussion is while so many of our gentler churches struggle with gradual declining memberships, some of these seemingly abusive churches actually kick people out! Like they have an excess of members. How do they do that? Does abuse attract? Is there an initial appearance of "having it all together" or something?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Kicking people out forces those remaining to decide whether they should stay or go, and engenders fear among the followers - they might lose out on whatever it is they see the cultic leader as offering.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
how very like a cult, which is also very like Stalinism.
Sweet. That makes a nice change. It's usualy me who gets compared to Stalin whenever a discussion touches on modern day atheism.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "
Don't really need to add anything to this.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Re the chatter about a secular law against spiritual abuse, I don't want courts deciding what is or is not correct theology! Historically, we've been there, not good. Still, I agree with the distressed sense of wishing for an effective way to deal with abuses like telling people to avid contact with their extended families or demanding certain amounts of money.
But what intrigues me about this discussion is while so many of our gentler churches struggle with gradual declining memberships, some of these seemingly abusive churches actually kick people out! Like they have an excess of members. How do they do that? Does abuse attract? Is there an initial appearance of "having it all together" or something?
Some commentators say that having high expectations is attractive; it gives people something to strive for. This explains why a 'strict' church (abusive or not?) might lose fewer members than those that have more lax criteria for involvement.
There also tends to be a greater sense of family in very close knit churches where members have a high level of accountability to each other. Being in a very tolerant church, however, means that noone necessarily needs to get too close, because individual autonomy is more important than group cohesion.
One academic said that Pentecostalism (and presumably charismatic spirituality as well) is a highly postmodern form of church because it rejects the mind/body dualism that you find in historical churches. People are free to move their bodies, to shout, to express their frustrations through speaking in tongues, etc. By contrast, it's noticeable that the most theologically 'gentle' and inclusive denominations tend to be very controlled and very cerebral when it comes to the worshipping life of the church. Other people may be willing to tolerate a highly controlling form of church leadership in exchange for a greater sense of emotional and physical release in their life of worship.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "
Don't really need to add anything to this.
Jesus wept!
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "
Don't really need to add anything to this.
Come on, play the ball.
Wilson posted something stupid and has taken it down. Good call because I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way shape of form. I've not been following this closely but had heard he had apologised. I certainly hope so.
However, Driscoll has no editorial oversight for the TGC website at all so I don't see what relevance this has to this thread.
If you want to to draw the conclusion that this post comes from the same stable as Driscoll then fair enough. However, that then means that all Baptists are to be judged by Fred Phelps, Spong speaks for all Episcopalians, Benny Hinn for all Pentecostals ... take your pick for the RC and the Orthodox.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That quote from the Wilson book made me chuckle (I am assuming it is accurate):
A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.
This is just sexual fantasy. I suppose a lot of adolescent boys indulge in this; hopefully, they grow up and realize that women are people like them.
I don't know if this is characteristic of the 'complementarians' or not. I think one of their key ideas is the 'submission' of the woman to the man. No, no, no, the key to a good marriage is to do what she says, any fool, he no that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
how very like a cult, which is also very like Stalinism.
Sweet. That makes a nice change. It's usualy me who gets compared to Stalin whenever a discussion touches on modern day atheism.
Being a newbie here I don't know you George, don't know if you're a Stalinist by inclination, though res ipsa loquitur, you are a regular on a forum in which a very free exchange of ideas is de rigueur, therefore I highly doubt you're a Stalinist. The Driscoll/Virgo types, who are very much thought control Stalinists, never show up in places like this except to throw a few flames out then scramble back under the safety of their rocks.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
I read the posts, but I never could quite figure out what he was on about. I didn't conclude he was actually advocating rape or comparing it with "conjugal rights", it just didn't make much sense to me... come to that, neither did his apology.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "
Don't really need to add anything to this.
Come on, play the ball.
Wilson posted something stupid and has taken it down. Good call because I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way shape of form. I've not been following this closely but had heard he had apologised. I certainly hope so.
However, Driscoll has no editorial oversight for the TGC website at all so I don't see what relevance this has to this thread.
If you want to to draw the conclusion that this post comes from the same stable as Driscoll then fair enough. However, that then means that all Baptists are to be judged by Fred Phelps, Spong speaks for all Episcopalians, Benny Hinn for all Pentecostals ... take your pick for the RC and the Orthodox.
I'll buy your analogy except for Phelps, who is only "Baptist" in those most cynical-name-association-to-achieve-pseudo-respectability manner possible, not unlike the "People's Democratic Republic of North Korea". (by the way, I am not Baptist, just so you know)
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That quote from the Wilson book made me chuckle (I am assuming it is accurate):
A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.
This is just sexual fantasy. I suppose a lot of adolescent boys indulge in this; hopefully, they grow up and realize that women are people like them.
I don't know if this is characteristic of the 'complementarians' or not. I think one of their key ideas is the 'submission' of the woman to the man. No, no, no, the key to a good marriage is to do what she says, any fool, he no that.
Close enough, we're all supposed to submit one to another.
Why? We desperately need one another because we devolve into screaming, infantile, self-obsessed, spoiled brats without one another to be our checks and balances. And that perfectly describes cultic leaders, be they of the big-haired pentecostal variety or the phony tough guy Neo-Calvinist variety.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
The point is not the apology. Apologies are cheap and most (not all) are worthless--nay, most are less than worthless and positively deleterious, because they can provide effective cover for further crimes against the Body of Christ.
The problem is the evil heart that inspires the viciousness, such as what proceeds from the pens and mouths of Wilson, Driscoll, et. al. Unless there's true repentance--which is never cheap and easy--the apology's more likely just a clever strategy. How many apologies have beaten women and children heard from their violent drunken fathers? Less than worthless.
[ 23. July 2012, 15:05: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
The point is not the apology. Apologies are cheap and most (not all) are worthless--nay, most are less than worthless and positively deleterious, because they can provide effective cover for further crimes against the Body of Christ.
The problem is the evil heart that inspires the viciousness, such as what proceeds from the pens and mouths of Wilson, Driscoll, et. al. Unless there's true repentance--which is never cheap and easy--the apology's more likely just a clever strategy. How many apologies have beaten women and children heard from their violent drunken fathers? Less than worthless.
The point is that whatever ignorant and offensive views Jared Wilson holds about women, he is not, to my knowledge, a slave apologist. And that is quite an important thing not to be.
The further point is that Doug Wilson has not apologised. So you don't even have the decision to make in his case as to whether an apology is genuine or not.
I am no fan of either Wilson, nor of Driscoll, nor of any of the Gospel coalition types. I deplore their appalling theology. But it ill becomes us to conflate two separate writers and accuse one of the other's sins. Apart from anything else, that is slander.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Apart from anything else, that is slander.
I'm going to be picky pedant now: technically, it's "libel".
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.
I'm not all that knowledgeable, just my field is all. They mean the same things--defamation--for the purposes of the debate. I was just being a picky ass.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Maintaining the boundaries of who is in and who is out - that is one thing evangelicals/fundamentalists want to be good at.
Observing the boundaries is the Fool on the Hill (Beatles) - and perhaps (vanity, Ecclesiastes) interpreting and mediating the boundaries too.
Negotiating the boundaries are the people Jesus met in the Gospels and their ilk, people who want to be "saved" - inside and outside, but not as we know it (Star Trek and The Bible).
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.
I'm not all that knowledgeable, just my field is all. They mean the same things--defamation--for the purposes of the debate. I was just being a picky ass.
Just to clarify: I was actually thanking Cottontail for the clarification re: the two Wilsons. But a bit of a grammar/ vocab/ legal lesson never hurts either.
[ 23. July 2012, 22:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
I'll buy your analogy except for Phelps, who is only "Baptist" in those most cynical-name-association-to-achieve-pseudo-respectability manner possible, not unlike the "People's Democratic Republic of North Korea". (by the way, I am not Baptist, just so you know)
Whereas I am a Baptist, which is why I put Phelps first. Guilty by loose association is not a fair game to play.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]Guilty by loose association is not a fair game to play.
Especially so with Baptists given their polity.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, Driscoll has no editorial oversight for the TGC website at all so I don't see what relevance this has to this thread.
.. besides which Driscoll withdrew from TGC shortly after two posts on their website; one of which critiqued his interaction with TD Jakes, and other of which critiqued his handling of the interview with Justin Brierley (along with his followup post)
A reaction which sits uneasily alongside some of his other rhetoric.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. besides which Driscoll withdrew from TGC shortly after two posts on their website; one of which critiqued his interaction with TD Jakes, and other of which critiqued his handling of the interview with Justin Brierley (along with his followup post)
A reaction which sits uneasily alongside some of his other rhetoric.
I knew that he was on the the fringes of TGC now but hadn't heard that he had withdrawn altogether. Interesting.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.
*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:
Wilson apology
Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.
I'm not all that knowledgeable, just my field is all. They mean the same things--defamation--for the purposes of the debate. I was just being a picky ass.
Just to clarify: I was actually thanking Cottontail for the clarification re: the two Wilsons. But a bit of a grammar/ vocab/ legal lesson never hurts either.
Fair enough, just me and my tendency to overvalue my contribution to the community.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
