|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Trouble at Mars Hill
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
So long as it isn't presented as a direct quote, don't see a problem. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Headline (on website "Deathandtaxes"): "Megachurch to close after pastor called women ‘penis homes'". The article was posted to Fark (sort of Reddit meets 4chan) with the same headline, has currently attracted 778 comments. The (tiny) Fark christian constituency is not doing too well on the thread.
You can see the problem here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I wonder how Driscoll explains 1 Corinthians 7:4
Apparently he preached on that in Edinburgh in 2007 and there's a transcript of the sermon here .
He says: "First Corinthians 7 says, when you get married, the husband gives his body to the wife, the wife gives her body to the husband. My wife said that to me once. I said, ―Those are my breasts. You just, you just carry them around. But those are my breasts. We traded. You got the hairy back and I got the breasts. We traded. First Corinthians 7 declares it to be so."
To which my reply would have been - well I'd like you to take my hands off your breasts please.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'll never agree with Driscoll's fundamentalist reading of the Bible, and the patriarchy and homophobia it spawned, but Mars Hill was connecting with the kind of strutting young guys that other kinds of religion would never get near. Driscoll was getting them to shape up and take responsibility.
For all my other disagreements, I can't take that from him, and I do hope he can get back to that place. 'Cause if he's driven from Mars Hill, Driscoll won't go away, he'll just set up shop elsewhere, this time with even less accountability.
Well I grant you that he connected wtih sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. But "People in conservative evangelical organisation quoted conservative evangelical authors with approval" is hardly news. I haven't met anyone who is a Driscoll apologist who has read Real Marriage or knows of anything that happened thereafter - and that includes all sorts of people you'd consider even more vilely aberrant than him.
Remember this sub-discussion started with "X organisation should apologise for ever quoting him AT ALL in their literature." If you think that's true, there's probably far more to offend you in said literature than the Driscoll quotes.
for what it's worth I think asking any organisation that endorsed Driscoll and Piper from the get go to apologise is futile, because likelihood is, it is not the sort of organisation that apologises for stuff.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Well I grant you that he connected wtih sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
This is the point I was trying to make earlier, only it's presented coherently.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The more I think of what Driscoll said to his wife, the more it irritates me. He said that her breasts, which are sexual parts, belong to him while his back, which is not a sexual part, belongs to her.
I suspect he thinks all of his own sexual parts and hers belong to him. She can lay claim to the non-sexual parts if she wants.
Moo
[ 10. September 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Well I grant you that he connected with sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
Bacchus? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
I agree with everything you say: I'm coming at it from a utilitarian POV. From that perspective, if the alternatives are deadbeat dads at best, rape charges at worst, it's preferable that fratbros marry and take responsibility.
The brute truth is that Alpha males demand privilege. This article, by liberal theologian Theo Hobson, highlights the problem:-
quote:
[Christianity] is pretty tough on the obvious male propensities: aggression, greed, cool scepticism, sexual pride. It encourages certain attitudes that contravene adult maleness: contrition, admission of vulnerability and weakness, empathy, and so on. [...]
A key part of evangelicalism's (relatively successful) strategy has been to privilege straight male leadership. The "unmanliness" of Christianity is balanced by an insistence that the church values traditional male authority. The young Christian man might be perceived as unmanly by his peers, for avoiding premarital sex, and singing about his devotion to Jesus, but there is something to compensate for this: he is handed a traditional male identity, a haven from the ravages of sex-related indeterminacy.
Now, I find that macho worldview repulsive (as, I'm sure, does Hobson), but it undoubtedly exists, and there's only so far its adherents are willing to go. It's not just a question of what's right, but what's possible.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I'd have to say that Hobson's quote accords with my experience of Sydney Anglicanism, the basis of which is male headship. That said, I see a big difference between evangelicalism that privileges men and what Mark Driscoll is on about. In Sydney, women's roles are restricted and men are lauded but women are still respected as more than sex objects and many women are in non-preaching leadership positions.
You might have to clarify the American context. I saw Driscoll's constituency as "frat bros", fairly middle class/lower middle class, not high school dropouts (cos don't you need to be in College to be a frat bro?) or deadbeats. Is Driscoll, really performing a social work function amongst the underclasses? That's interesting, as you say from a utilitarian POV, I need to think about whether the end justifies the means and whether in the long term the oppression of women isn't going to result in more problems. interesting.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The more I think of what Driscoll said to his wife, the more it irritates me. He said that her breasts, which are sexual parts, belong to him while his back, which is not a sexual part, belongs to her.
I suspect he thinks all of his own sexual parts and hers belong to him. She can lay claim to the non-sexual parts if she wants.
Moo
I think talking about women's "sexual parts" titillates his audience so that's why he does it. The key point to is that he TELLS her what she can lay claim to, more than a hint of porn with a dominance/submissive flavour. Whatever turns you on but let's keep it to the internet not the pulpit.
[ 10. September 2014, 23:57: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Driscoll targets Seattle hipsters, so pretty much a mix of college educated, upwardly mobile kids and West Coast counter-culture.
I'd say its less about socio-economic status than attitude: the "no means yes" thugs attended Yale! Driscoll often rants about immature young men who play the scene, sponge off their parents, and don't try to make anything of themselves.
He has preached about showing women respect (admittedly from his patriarchal worldview), but it's overshadowed and undermined by his crass machismo. That's why I said upthread that, sometimes, he has the makings of a great pastor; at far too many others, he has the makings of a egotistical prick. Less Jekyll & Hyde than Hyde & Bluto.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
jpm
Apprentice
# 14389
|
Posted
quote:
Patriarchy (I prefer not to give it the credit of the "complentarian" rebrand) is a vile doctrine.
Yes, and Driscoll has advocated not only patriarchy but also natalism (the advocacy of increased reproductivity, e.g. persuading wives that it is God's will for them to bear another baby, and to aim for larger family sizes) which is unhelpful ecologically - especially in the USA.
--------------------
J P McKeown, author of God's Babies: Natalism and Bible Interpretation in Modern America.
Posts: 3 | From: Tewkesbury | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Why specifically the USA, jpm? (just out of interest).
Welcome on board BTW!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jpm:
quote:
Patriarchy (I prefer not to give it the credit of the "complentarian" rebrand) is a vile doctrine.
Yes, and Driscoll has advocated not only patriarchy but also natalism (the advocacy of increased reproductivity, e.g. persuading wives that it is God's will for them to bear another baby, and to aim for larger family sizes) which is unhelpful ecologically - especially in the USA.
Yes, complementarian is a lovely bit of Orwellian double speak, At best it's hierarchical complementarianism.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The Seattle Times, the local mainstream paper had a headline on the first page of the Sunday paper for an article The rise and fall of Mars Hill Church
Not a lot of news, but not very flattering in the details.
[ 14. September 2014, 23:52: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
Of course not. Submission is a one-way street to folks like Driscoll.
The church I belong to is one block from one of the "campuses" Mars Hill is closing. We've had our problems, but we are still there after more than 100 years.
I'm praying your shack can be a place of refuge for the men, women and children who will be left reeling. That you will be a place of healing, where they will hear the truth of the gospel that really is good news for both men and women. The truth of the gospel that is truth, and life. The gospel that says, "when you are weak, that's when I am strong. And when you lose the life you thought you had made for yourself, that's when you'll find the very life that is life-- the life I created you for."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
They still have several Seattle Churches, so the congregations who have lost their local branch could simply move to another branch. That's how the Church is positioning the Seattle closings.
As for those who flee the overall Church, there are many options, even in somewhat secular Seattle. It would not surprise me to see other Churches move into the vacated buildings which I suspect are leased. The one near me was a Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist church before Mars Hill put a branch there.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
The problem with a lot of these preachers is that they are in essence Pharisees.
They load people down with more and more rules while extracting a very large wage from them. They gain control of their minds by the constant drip, drip, drip of sermons demanding submission, and use sexual guilt to focus listeners on their inadequacies to distract them from seeing the elephant in the room - the person with the most to repent from is most likely the one up the front.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
He's a seriously disturbed control freak with trust issues.
* think the non-macho argument is very good and explains a lot of things. 'Driscoll Christianity'™ may well be an appeal to the frustrated 'chav' in insecure males. Not sure what its attraction is to females. Judging by my wife's reactions, * would have thought many would find him creepy and repulsive. We agree on 'creepy and repulsive' BTW.
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it. His 'church' and his behaviour have drawn public criticism for over a decade and only now are those (at least here in the UK) that openly dealt with the man and his work beginning to question the wisdom of dealing with such foul creatures. This is one of the patterns that drove me screaming from the Evangelical world: there is almost no discernment. If you don't want deception, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and various kinds of spiritual abuse—stop dealing with these people. By accepting such destructive personalities under the guise of "well, we're all God's imperfect creatures… surely he can still work his magic through all this mess", we only facilitate misery for others.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it.
Oh my, yes. And on that note...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Yes, SCK, I saw that two; some wise words. There can be an obsession with 'leadership' in a variety of Christian cultures (and, of course, well beyond) and this is seen in the focus on The Man in Front (for it is usually thus) and obedience to them. 'The Lord told me', or ''the Lord gave me a picture' etc., creates a dangerous (and false) paradigm of the powerful preacher. The Quakers have a point! What kind of people are being positioned as 'leaders' in Christian culture? In parts of evangelical culture, the same absence of discernment is trying to convince its congregations that some very destructive personalities are 'great leaders'. Think of the big names that have come to the HTB Leadership Conference in the past few years:
1. Tony Blair. Seriously, positioned as a Christian leader? His lying to the public and taking us into a terrible and deadly war largely because on his own deceitfulness should have given Nicky Gumbel pause for thought (but of course, they don't). I can tell you from my own experience, Nicky loves celebrities and celebrity culture.
2. Joyce Meyers. I know, I couldn't believe it either. She owns her own private jet, but I don't know if she flew in it to London to share her wisdom like this.. She was eventually acquitted after a US Senate Investigation. This prosperity gospel charlatan has no business being invited to a C of E event.
3. Rick Warren. Right-wing homophobe, expert manipulator of his public image and frequent exponent of the 'deserved tragedy' (he paddled like mad to dig himself out of his notorious Columbine tragedy tweet). He doesn't seem a dangerous bully like Driscoll, but many have died as a result of Warren's 'ministry'. Who cares, right? That same attitude that gave us the the current Dricoll debacle. People accept abuse and destructive behaviour because "hey, we're all imperfect…".
4. Steven Furtick. Again, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that he was speaking. Another narcissistic millionaire and control-freak, the support groups for ex-members of his church have been popping up for years. The sunday school children at his Elevation church are brainwashed with his image in their colouring books. He was exposed for so many abuses: staging spontaneous baptisms, kicking out a disabled child for being noisy, and on and on.
I'll stop there. My point is this: if you don't want to support abusers and abusive behaviour—stop participating in it.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it. His 'church' and his behaviour have drawn public criticism for over a decade and only now are those (at least here in the UK) that openly dealt with the man and his work beginning to question the wisdom of dealing with such foul creatures. This is one of the patterns that drove me screaming from the Evangelical world: there is almost no discernment. If you don't want deception, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and various kinds of spiritual abuse—stop dealing with these people. By accepting such destructive personalities under the guise of "well, we're all God's imperfect creatures… surely he can still work his magic through all this mess", we only facilitate misery for others.
K.
Wait a minute... where do you think that "public criticism" has come from for over a decade??? As detailed early on in this thread, it has come from other evangelicals. The charge that evangelicals have been sitting back and twiddling our collective thumbs all this time is simply not true.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it. His 'church' and his behaviour have drawn public criticism for over a decade and only now are those (at least here in the UK) that openly dealt with the man and his work beginning to question the wisdom of dealing with such foul creatures. This is one of the patterns that drove me screaming from the Evangelical world: there is almost no discernment. If you don't want deception, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and various kinds of spiritual abuse—stop dealing with these people. By accepting such destructive personalities under the guise of "well, we're all God's imperfect creatures… surely he can still work his magic through all this mess", we only facilitate misery for others.
K.
Wait a minute... where do you think that "public criticism" has come from for over a decade??? As detailed early on in this thread, it has come from other evangelicals. The charge that evangelicals have been sitting back and twiddling our collective thumbs all this time is simply not true.
Correction accepted. Some evangelicals. Outside of evangelical circles, mega-church preachers and snake-oil salesman are simply ignored—at least until they break the law or they become social curiosities. Many other evangelicals simply carry on, happily associating with figures like Driscoll (there is a long list). He's not an isolated case.
What are you doing to stop people like Furtick, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, Bill Johnson, et al? I've already given evidence that one of the largest evangelical churches in England is doing the opposite—they are empowering scoundrels, liars and bullies just as they did Driscoll. That's my point. When will you decide to stop taking part? I was heavily criticised for even suggesting anything negative about Driscoll until he was in the papers for all the wrong reasons.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What are you doing to stop people like Furtick, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, Bill Johnson, et al?
You might like to visit this thread.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Thanks!
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There can be an obsession with 'leadership' in a variety of Christian cultures (and, of course, well beyond) and this is seen in the focus on The Man in Front (for it is usually thus) and obedience to them. 'The Lord told me', or ''the Lord gave me a picture' etc., creates a dangerous (and false) paradigm of the powerful preacher.
A Methodist friend recently (in casual conversation) referred to her pastor as "the man of God." I remember my TEC Grandmother using that term about clergy (she addressed him directly as "domine"). The idea that clergy are "men of God" - and by implication we aren't - that they are different, closer to God, to be believed and not challenged (fussed about privately but not challenged) is widespread in the denominations, nothing particularly Evangelical about it.
Only the wording (slightly) changes from "God gave me a word" to "I went to seminary, you didn't" as "proving the truth" of whatever the leader says. (Of course, seminary graduates disagree with each other about just about everything, so why believe someone solely on that basis any more than on the basis of claiming to have received a word from God?)
Is there something basic human about wanting to be able to absolutely trust the "leaders"? Sheep, we, mindlessly following the crowd except when we wander off mindlessly.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Think of the big names that have come to the HTB Leadership Conference in the past few years:
.. and HTB have come in for a reasonable amount of stick for their lionisation of particular celebrities, be it Christian or otherwise.
Of course, given the live and let live nature of the CofE, most of this has come from outside ..
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Is there something basic human about wanting to be able to absolutely trust the "leaders"? Sheep, we, mindlessly following the crowd except when we wander off mindlessly.
we all like experts ... they get to know stuff and think it through on our behalf
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Is there something basic human about wanting to be able to absolutely trust the "leaders"? Sheep, we, mindlessly following the crowd except when we wander off mindlessly.
we all like experts ... they get to know stuff and think it through on our behalf
And it's a difficult balance, because you see the opposite trend at play here as well among evangelicalism-- and anti-intellectualism that rejects "expert testimony" on things like climate change, vaccines, etc.-- or on, say, the formation of the canon or translation of the NT. Because "God's ways are not our ways" and "God rejects the prideful and loves the humble"-- stuff to that effect.
The tricky part is learning discernment-- when and how to read that "expert testimony" (which, btw, I'm struggling to think of any subject that I'd consider Driscoll an expert on other than frat-boy highjinks) and when/how to apply our own wisdom, experience and reason. So, yeah, what tends to happen instead-- among evangelicals but also among a great deal many other groups-- is we find a few people we trust (based possibly on some dubious criteria) and then accept their word on all sorts of things, even when they're talking way outside their frame of expertise.
--------------------
"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
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Dear God, people listen to this wanker !?!
Now come on, that's unfair...
He clearly said that hands aren't penis homes.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There can be an obsession with 'leadership' in a variety of Christian cultures (and, of course, well beyond) and this is seen in the focus on The Man in Front (for it is usually thus) and obedience to them. 'The Lord told me', or ''the Lord gave me a picture' etc., creates a dangerous (and false) paradigm of the powerful preacher.
A Methodist friend recently (in casual conversation) referred to her pastor as "the man of God." I remember my TEC Grandmother using that term about clergy (she addressed him directly as "domine"). The idea that clergy are "men of God" - and by implication we aren't - that they are different, closer to God, to be believed and not challenged (fussed about privately but not challenged) is widespread in the denominations, nothing particularly Evangelical about it.
Only the wording (slightly) changes from "God gave me a word" to "I went to seminary, you didn't" as "proving the truth" of whatever the leader says. (Of course, seminary graduates disagree with each other about just about everything, so why believe someone solely on that basis any more than on the basis of claiming to have received a word from God?)
I don't exactly agree. The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc. This is part of a strategy to put the 'great leader' into an unquestionable position of authority. I think the 'I went to seminary' line may be arrogant, but more typically it stops short of 'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture'. The latter is, perhaps, even more dangerous than the former. Also, you'll note amongst many evangelicals that they either resent/suspect/reject Theology as an intellectual study and/or create their own 'Theological centres' of some sort or another. The latter approach gives their particular take on things the veneer of intellectual rigour whilst being able to sculpt very carefully what the seminarians or students get to hear. There are, of course, many fine evangelical scholars in academia—but I can't think of many who fall for the 'God told', 'the Lord gave me a picture to share with you' line.
Groups like Mars Hill and Elevation (and some here in the UK too) follow this pattern. There was a thread on here a few years ago about Rick Warren's daughter (is that right?) regularly walking out of her theology lectures at university (was it in Chicago?) because her dad's crackpot theology wasn't taken seriously amongst theologians.
When your particular church (perhaps, rather than denomination) has its own theological training centre or seminary—run for the hills!
K.
[ 29. September 2014, 07:59: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc
This is dealt with by Paul in his advice to the Corinthians that they need to weigh prophecy. The key is making sure this is done no matter who has the picture (the danger is it isn't when a church revolves around one very dominant or charismatic individual rather than having genuine team leadership); given that even if this form of revelation can be genuine (I believe it can be)it is very subjective and its easy to be mistaken.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
quote:
The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc
This is dealt with by Paul in his advice to the Corinthians that they need to weigh prophecy. The key is making sure this is done no matter who has the picture (the danger is it isn't when a church revolves around one very dominant or charismatic individual rather than having genuine team leadership); given that even if this form of revelation can be genuine (I believe it can be)it is very subjective and its easy to be mistaken.
Sorry, where does Paul mention getting 'pictures' from God?
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Paul doesn't explicitly talk about pictures in any of his letters but he does talk about prophecy.
God talks to many of the old Testament prophets using pictures as well as in other ways so it is not too much of a stretch to believe that New Testament prophecy could include God communication via pictures as well as in more verbal/word form. Especially as Acts records God communicating with both Peter and Paul through things they saw (dreams and visions) rather than in just in spoken words. Peter in Acts 2 quoting Joel talks about sons and daughters prophesying, young men seeing visions and old men dreaming dreams when God pours out his spirit on all as if these are in synonymous (it reads to me like parallels rather than contrasts being drawn).
Are you disagreeing with the idea that God ever communicates using picture or disagreeing with the idea that this might be included in what Paul means by prophecy or asking a genuine rather than a rhetorical questions?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Paul doesn't explicitly talk about pictures in any of his letters […]
God talks to many of the old Testament prophets using pictures […]
And how do those work?
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
…as well as in other ways so it is not too much of a stretch to believe that New Testament prophecy could include God communication via pictures as well as in more verbal/word form.
I think it's too far of a stretch.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The vision of the man of Macedonia?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
K.
I think we've been here before ....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
K.
Actually, it seems to me EXACTLY like the "pictures" phenomenon-- at least when it is responsibly used. Because charismatic churches (not all evangelicals are charismatics) vary greatly, practices also vary widely.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
Actually, it seems to me EXACTLY like the "pictures" phenomenon-- at least when it is responsibly used. Because charismatic churches (not all evangelicals are charismatics) vary greatly, practices also vary widely.
Some people primarily think in pictures, so of course God would communicate to them primarily in pictures. A quick picture can convey a lot more information than a quick word.
Is the objection being raised about "pictures" about the method of communication or about whether God communicates to individuals at all?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My previous vicar had a 'vision' of vast church doors open to an English tree lined paradise. Access to the door was with a tiny key. The key had to be prayer.
...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Perhaps the objection is to the word "picture" rather than the word "vision".
"Vision" has more biblical pedigree but in the context of this discussion the advantage of people describing what they have seen as a "picture" is that it carries less authority; it seems to me more of an admittance that this is what I think God was saying but it was subjective and I admit the possibility it was my imagination.
While it shouldn't stop the weighing up happening using the word "vision" does suggest a greater confidence in what is being shared which perhaps makes it harder to reject.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Oh please spare me this nonsense again. As Twangist already posted, this has only recently done the rounds.
Person 1: So what happens at your church on Sunday?
Person 2: Easy. God selects one or two people (usually the vicar) in the church and gives some vague picture like a table, a field or a flower and then the Chosen One proceeds to tell us all that God has personally instructed him to tell us what this great mystery means. Some instruction or correction to our lives usually follows. Want to join us?
Person 1: You're joking, right?
K.
[ 01. October 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Has anyone ever encountered a ConCharEvo congo or any Char one that has realised that this is a zero-sum game and they can stop it? That their emperor is naked and it's OK to say that?
The troubles is, even they are sceptical, full of doubt, BUT the coincidence of looking in to a troubled woman's face and saying "It may be nothing but I'm seeing a tall dark stranger." and her bursting in to tears revives the stuttering ember.
And of course they have NOTHING but faith to fill the void.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Martin/Komensky if they are the best examples of how you have usually experienced this done I can understand why you reject it, if this is all I had experienced I would reject it to. My experience does differ from this however.
Although I do recognise the caricature that you are painting, it isn't anywhere near the whole picture in my experience and I would imagine that others who are open to God communicating in this way are so precisely because their experience differs from what you describe.
Given the link from Twangist and your exasperation Komensky at discussing a topic that you have obviously already debated to death (and which is clearly a tangent from the thread) I will leave it at that unless others have a real appetite to continue on this tangent.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Return to OP topic accepted.
My argument is that such talk of direct 'visions' (etc.) from God is not merely some benign acceptance that God might communicate with you, but that is actually dangerous and prone to abuse. Leaders can only maintain their position so long as their office and/or role is maintained by their followers. Beyond that, such roles must be enforced (as was common throughout Christian history). How can such narcissistic figures like Driscoll, Warren, Furtick, Meyers, et al [list chosen for its pseudo-diversity] maintain their positions? It's easy. First, they need to maintain a posture of power as either a conduit or dispenser of God's power. Their language is not one, for example, of doing things in hope, but the Great Leader is able to tell them in full knowledge—because God told them. The whole 'God told me' line then grants a false veracity to anything they say ('who could argue with God's holy will?'). The next step is to have some happy consumers endorse their power/salvation goods. "Pastor Mark prayed for me and now I don't masturbate", or whatever shite he gets them to say. This is an absolutely vital part of empowering the leader—their alleged powers must get consumer endorsements. (This is, by the way, a core ingredient of the Alpha recipe too.) The more this happens, the better. Almost as important are endorsements from other know 'authorities'. In pop-culture church, these endorsements can ideally come from some celebrity and/or pop star. The resulting religious environment can then easily become one of self-fulfilment—which can work so long as evil outside forces don't try to test anything going on there. Should that happen, the Great Leader can then point out that these outside agitators who claim to want the truth are Satan's foot-soldiers sent to test you (then you can quote the Bible that God shouldn't be put to the test and you're safe!). You'll hear phrases like 'this could be the enemy', or 'this is a test', or 'this is an attack!'.
The next step is make your universal truths and praxis (which, like 'pictures' or 'tongues' can be made up more or less on the spot) an essential part of their identity. This is the branding phase. Ideally you'll have all sorts of merchandise with your catchy logo on it—even better if you have your very own shop in which to sell it all! This shop must be described as having 'a variety' of books and music, when in fact the products all have the same ingredients, just with different wrappers.
These are merely the first steps in making more Mark Driscolls. The scary part is that he is far from the most damaging evangelical leaders out there. When will you stop helping make more of them?
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Martin/Komensky if they are the best examples of how you have usually experienced this done I can understand why you reject it, if this is all I had experienced I would reject it to. My experience does differ from this however.
IME visions are rare, I can think of one or two that weren't of the sort mentioned above that I have heard. Even in Acts, in a period including large amounts of use of spiritual gifts, we see maybe 3 genuine visions in the space of about 20-30 years.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
