|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mars Hill & Bethel
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I'm not sure you can draw that sort of conclusion, Gamaliel. I seem to recall Rowan speaking at HTB, but I don't see them going Liberal neo-orthodox, or however you would see Rowan's theology, any time soon. What is true is that there were people queueing around the block to get in.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Seekingsister,
They were over here, according to Nicky Gumbel, for Worship Central, a worship conference under the broad umbrella, as I understand it, of HTB. Whether there were any other engagements, I'm not sure.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
They wouldn't be absorbing Rowan Williams's liberal neo-orthodox (paleo-orthodox) theology because they wouldn't understand it in the first place ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As for people queueing round the block to get in to hear some representatives from Bethel, so freakin' what ...
Just shows how credulous too many people are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Now, actually, to be fair, some of them would understand Williams.
No, the reason they'll plump for Bethel or a Bethel-lite approach is because it gets bums on seats.
It's a purely pragmatic decision.
HTB and its ilk is very much run on a business-model. If something works - like the Alpha course - they franchise the guts out of it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Interestingly, I was at HTB last Sunday, where Brian and Jan Johnson (from Bethel) were leading the sung worship. My impression accords exactly with that of Truman White. That is, more tedious than transformative. Lots of people around me tweeting or on facebook, etc. Maybe it was because most of the songs were new to me, but I found it quite hard work, and it doesn't usually take much to get me "lost in wonder, love and praise." I just felt they were trying too hard, and that communicated itself.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
To be fair Gamaliel, I attended an HTB service (admittedly a good 10+ year's ago) where Rowan was preaching, and it was a) packed and b) very warmly received. Though I did get the impression he was, if not dumbing down, certainly modifying his usual scholarly way of talking (which meant I had no trouble following his gist). The message was absolutely not dumbed down. I can't speak for Bethel and their ilk as I've never had the remotest urge to listen to Johnson et al, I suspect we're on a similar page there.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The news that Bethel's firmly in with HTB is discouraging. It makes me even more inclined to avoid the charismatic scene within Anglicanism.
Is nowhere safe from infection?
Tend to agree. Seems to me that the charism of spiritual discernment is sadly lacking. Admixture seems the order of the day.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Jack the Lass, I don't doubt that ... nor do I doubt the integrity or good intentions of the HTB crowd.
I suspect, though, that it's precisely these good intentions that make them vulnerable to the likes of Bethel, which I regard as less than benign.
It makes the kind of 'admixture' that daronmedway's mentioned that much more likely to adhere ...
There's no easy answer to any of this. None of us can seal ourselves away hermetically from infection from dodgy sources ...
And I'd posit that were such a thing even possible it would not be an appropriate strategy.
No, the way through it all is to develop our immune systems. Paradoxically, of course, we can't do that without exposing ourselves to the bugs in the first place ...
Or, at least, going out armed with disinfectant ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the risk of banging an old drum, it seems to me that lack of rigour is the problem here.
Our vicar once said to me that he'd rather have duff prophecies than no prophecies at all ...
Which rather begs a few questions.
Because that immediately introduces the temptation to let things through on the nod or to set the bar at such a level that almost anything purporting to be a prophecy or 'word from God' can get through ...
That's what'll have happened at places like Bethel and Mars Hill in the first place. Sure, they are very different but I would posit that both have their cult-like elements.
If they were full-on, immediately identifiable cults then there wouldn't be an issue. Because the tendencies are more subtle than that then they pass muster ... at least for a time.
There's a hidden cult within any church you may care to mention. The issue is how we manage things so that it doesn't emerge and take over.
The horse has already bolted at both Mars Hill and Bethel as far as I'm concerned.
Bethel ought to be quarantined, not encouraged.
Their tactic of drawing alongside leaders who have been hurt in some way is a devious one. 'Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly ...'
I fully expect the cults of the future to emerge from groups like Bethel unless they take remedial action.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...The reason they'll plump for Bethel or a Bethel-lite approach is because it gets bums on seats.
It's a purely pragmatic decision.
HTB and its ilk is very much run on a business-model. If something works - like the Alpha course - they franchise the guts out of it.
Hmn, not sure how this sits alongside "not doubt(ing) the integrity of the HTB crowd". It seems pretty dismissive.
Are the Bethel crowd benign? Well, I haven't seen any evidence that they are not, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think there is a case to answer that they are probably over-credulous, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are deceitful, manipulative or otherwise lacking in integrity; over-trusting, at times, maybe (like the Brazilian (I think) "resurrected"), but foolishness isn't confined to any one part of the church. I'm not sure to what extent the cultural differences between SoCal and the UK affect our judgements on this.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Well, I think the evidence against Mars Hill is out there, in a way that it isn't for Bethel. You know the sort of thing, controlling leadership, boundary violations, financial unaccountability, a history of religious abuse. I don't care how much you dislike Bethel, you could hardly put them in the same category.
quote:
Their tactic of drawing alongside leaders who have been hurt in some way is a devious one. 'Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly ...'
Have you any grounds for such an accusation. Why assume a dark motivation for a policy which, on face value, is wholly in accord with Christian values. Are abused leaders to be denied love and support because of suspicions which appear groundless (unless, of course, you can cite any evidence to the contrary). This seems close to bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters.
I repeat, I carry no particular flag for Bethel, and suspect they probably are a bit naďve, but they seem a decent lot, trying, like all of us, to be obedient to the light we have been given.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Wait and see.
On the empire-building side of it ... well, lots of church groupings go in for that.
I may come across as cynical and suspicious but I think there are grounds for that given Bethel's proven track-record in not coming clean until they absolutely had to when 'called' on some of the more overblown claims.
I know it's just gut-feeling, but I don't trust Bill Johnson. I've heard people say good things about him and could cite examples from people I know who have benefited from his personal concern. I don't doubt that.
But from I've seen on his videos, he gives me the creeps.
If that counts as bearing false-witness, or going by gut-feel rather than actual evidence, then perhaps ... but we'll wait and see.
For the record, I don't have a great deal of time for many of the prominent names and pulpit personalities that could be mentioned in these contexts.
The Mumfords, for instance, are all nice and cuddly but the late, lamented Douglas McBain, a prominent Baptist renewalist - was able to cite instances of them passing on all sorts of exaggerated stories without bothering to check the facts.
If I'm suspicious and wary, cynical even, it's because I know what sort of thing these type of people are capable of.
It genuinely grieves me when well-meaning charismatic Anglicans and Baptists and other mainstream types lower their guard and admit whole piles of supperating crap that they would be better advised to filter out before admitting it into their own circles.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In more moderate mode ... fair enough about Driscoll and Mars Hill having better documented evidence of abuse.
I suspect though, that unless there is something of a restraint on the credulity pedal ... that it is only a matter of time before Bethel either hits the buffers big time with some kind of claim/putative healing etc that goes badly wrong or people start to bale out with horror stories.
I understand that there are already groups of ex-Bethelites online ... but that can happen anywhere and everywhere.
I must admit that I can't cite chapter and verse - I don't go around looking for evidence of Bethel's misdemeanours.
But the conditions are there and the conditions are ripe for cultic behaviour. Of that I have no doubt.
And the more credence they are given by more mainstream groups the greater the likelihood of that happening - if it hasn't already.
I suspect it has.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I think the evidence against Mars Hill is out there, in a way that it isn't for Bethel. You know the sort of thing, controlling leadership, boundary violations, financial unaccountability, a history of religious abuse. I don't care how much you dislike Bethel, you could hardly put them in the same category.
Yes, but what they are being accused of is something quite different - in the main.
They aren't being accused of being controlling - so much of making stuff up and then refusing to deal with it when things are pointed out (the Brazilian resurrection stories, the stories of miracles in their local superstore, Kevin Dedmon claiming that his son walked on water, Bill Johnsons claim that angel feathers and gems appear in his service).
At the same time they are coming up with novel ideas (such as their Holy Spirit Treasure Hunts and their school of prophecy complete with mantle passing), that are not being evaluated in the light of them being fairly unreliable witnesses in other ways.
The fact that there are no groups of ex-Bethelites does not necessarily mean that critique of them shouldn't be pointed - it may merely be that their abuse takes a different shape.
[ 10. November 2013, 16:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm told that there are groups of ex-Bethelites online but it's not something I've researched. It could well be that these are more general groups for ex-extreme charismatics rather than Bethelites in particular.
As far as the suggestion that I might be 'bearing false witness' goes, whether I am or not, I think that tag might well apply to how Bethel has presented some of its claims and dealt with the fall-out.
I have many faults. Getting up on a platform and declaring that my kids can walk on water isn't one of them. Claiming that miracles have happened in my local Co-op isn't one of them. Coming up with innovative and untested Derren Brown style techniques and teaching them to people through a School of Prophecy isn't either ...
That doesn't get me off any hooks in terms of sinfulness nor a get-out-of-jail free card in the overall scheme of things.
I'm sure that the Bethel folks are lovely. I'm sure they mean well. I'm sure that they do genuinely offer support to leaders who have been hurt in various ways ... and that they extend their influence and network in so doing ... (both/and) ...
But, and I'm sorry to put it in such terms, I also believe them to be carrying a virus ... the virus of over-egged claims, extreme credulity, dangerous innovations and potentially cult-like developments.
I wouldn't open an email from a suspicious source that looked like a virus or scam.
Bethel should be quarantined until such time as it learns to handle the scriptures more accurately and review some of its dafter schemes.
I don't see that happening any time soon.
These people are nice and smiley but they carry a health-warning, they carry a virus.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
There are lots of reasons to despise what the Bethel lot are up to, but one of the most compelling reasons is they are demonstrable frauds and liars. In Christian Culture there is no critical inquiry, only tacit acceptance. Should you raise your head above the parapet, you'll likely get a predictable response; namely 'I'll pray for you' [Evangelical speak for 'fuck off'] or 'we need to encourage our Christian brothers [more rarely this might include 'sisters' too], not discourage them. Do you think that a single person at HTB asked one of the Bethel worship leaders if they could walk on water? They should have, because that's what one of them claimed (there's a video of it one YouTube). When will CC stop believing in lies? The answer is 'never', it is now a requirement for membership to the wackier end of Evangelical movements. I think Nicky's heart is in the right place, but I'm less sure about his theology.
I was very plugged in an HTB until about 8 years ago. Part of the thinking back when Rowan was around was an ecumenical outlook of Nicky's. This meant inviting Catholics and fringe loonies like Johnson and others. The hope was to find points of unity. Part of the actual effect was (on both sides) to question the doctrinal integrity of Nicky. How do you justify inviting known charlatans and liars like Bill Johnson? It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted. On the very conservative end of HTB, there was a strong anti-Catholic reaction to Nicky inviting Catholics to preach too. So, there is two-way traffic to consider.
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.
K.
That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.
K.
That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.
I'd agree - though in practical terms people are often uncomfortable enough with being seen to be critical that the consequence is that while some things will be played down, they won't really be critiqued until there's an explosion of some kind.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.
K.
That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.
I'd agree - though in practical terms people are often uncomfortable enough with being seen to be critical that the consequence is that while some things will be played down, they won't really be critiqued until there's an explosion of some kind.
True. But is that really unique to evangelical churches? I would imagine that would be true of most Christian churches, just as it's true of a great many organizations and corporate structures. Most of us tend to be conflict-avoiders and people-pleasers. That has it's good side as well as the obvious drawbacks noted above.
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
True. But is that really unique to evangelical churches? I would imagine that would be true of most Christian churches, just as it's true of a great many organizations and corporate structures.
To an extent. What gives it added potency in evangelical circles are the spiritual overtones it takes on. 'Touch not the Lord's annointed' the 'Wisdom of Gamaliel', 'taking the good' etc.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
True. But is that really unique to evangelical churches? I would imagine that would be true of most Christian churches, just as it's true of a great many organizations and corporate structures.
To an extent. What gives it added potency in evangelical circles are the spiritual overtones it takes on. 'Touch not the Lord's annointed' the 'Wisdom of Gamaliel', 'taking the good' etc.
I think you'll find that sort of thing is true of only a small subset of evangelicalism. But where you do find it, it's disturbing-- verging on spiritual abuse at times.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.
K.
That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.
I have been in churches where critical assessment is considered negativity or cynicism. It's disturbing. However I've encountered this in both evangelical and non-evangelical churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm quite interested in the more general question of conflict resolution within churches. I guess that a culture which stresses the needs for unity and obedience without recognising the hard work involved in resolving difference with love and respect is not likely to be very good at it. And some leaders do seem very sensitive to criticisms or perceived challenges to their authority.
But I guess you could say that about many churches in many denominations. I agree with Jade; it doesn't strike me as more prevalent in evangelical churches.
Here's a link to the Willow Creek approach. Willow Creek is a very large evangelical church. In recent years, Bill Hybels seems to me to have moved quite a lot into the "listening" camp. I heard a very good talk by him about the dangers of top down leadership, coupled with a quite open acknowledgment that he'd been guilty of it. No doubt Willow Creek has had casualties; I doubt whether there is a church anywhere which hasn't.
In general, I think that all churches benefit from encouraging feedback from "the pews" about what it's like to be governed. Whingeing and backbiting and undermining thrive much more in an atmosphere of perceived oppression.
--------------------
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
Mea culpa: 'no room' was an exaggeration.
The restriction on critical assessment is a particular problem in evangelical circles because of the frequent lack of core doctrine—all the so-called 'Spirit-led' stuff is believed to come from God (this then often leads to modalist problems too). When someone says 'the Spirit' or 'God' or 'the Lord' has 'put this image on my heart', etc., suggesting that whatever happened next was anything short of divine revelation is tantamount to blaspheming. Of course, as was mentioned, you will bump up against authority in the RC, Lutheran or CoE churches too, but then it is more likely to be an issue of doctrine and theology, rather than the so-called 'Spirit-led' whims of the 'pastor' or 'leader'. The Driscoll paradigm is an extreme right-wing one and the documentation trail that has been exposed online and in the press is growing evidence of his 'Napoleon' complex.
Directing this back to the OP, it is vital that right-thinking human beings (this could even include Christians) denounce fraud, deception and abuse whenever and wherever they find it. Bill Johnson is (to paraphrase Spinal Tap) 'treading water in a sea of retarded theology' and is a teller of outright lies. The Bethel recovery groups are full his tales of deception and worse. It is a very black spot indeed on the reputation of HTB that the Bethel lot were invited into the Anglican fold, which at least gives the appearance of acceptance of demonstrably dishonest claims and behaviour and confused theology. When will Christian Culture stop accepting abusive behaviour as OK? When? Sure John Piper advocates that women should accept being beaten by their husbands because it's 'biblical' behaviour—but hey, 'he's a brother in Christ', right? Nicky Gumbell has a lot to answer for with all the crackpots he has invited to HTB—either unaware or uninterested in the human cost, all the lives in ruins, because of the charlatans with whom he wants to share a stage. Shame on him.
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Sure John Piper advocates that women should accept being beaten by their husbands because it's 'biblical' behaviour—but hey, 'he's a brother in Christ', right?
I'm fairly confident that John Piper doesn't advocate any such thing. I'm also reasonably confident that you couldn't provide any evidence that he does either. In which case, you really should retract the statement or clarify that you are engaging in some ill-advised form of rhetorical hyperbole rather than plain old slanderous defamation of character.
quote:
Nicky Gumbell has a lot to answer for with all the crackpots he has invited to HTB—either unaware or uninterested in the human cost, all the lives in ruins, because of the charlatans with whom he wants to share a stage. Shame on him.
K.
I too wonder why Nicky Gumbel, whose daily bible reflections I read and am convinced are reasonably sound, is prepared to give credence and a platform to certain people, particularly the prosperity crowd.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Piper clearly advocates that wives endure abuse from their violent husbands at least 'for a season'. Read all about his misogynist claptrap here.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
If you can bear to watch the video, watch just how funny Piper finds the subject of wife beating (he bursts into laughter when the subject is raised). This is just another brick in the wall of Christian Culture. No matter how sick, how violent and destructive, the 'great men' and their crackpot ideas must be defended.
[ 15. November 2013, 11:19: 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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I too wonder why Nicky Gumbel, whose daily bible reflections I read and am convinced are reasonably sound, is prepared to give credence and a platform to certain people, particularly the prosperity crowd. [/QB]
It's part of his larger ecumenicism. That is, to try to draw together a large variety of denominations and sects based on common ground. Seems like a nice idea, but there is a cost. Surely there is a way to encourage ecumenism without getting too cozy with hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
--------------------
"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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Piper clearly advocates that wives endure abuse from their violent husbands at least 'for a season'. Read all about his misogynist claptrap here.
That is a lie. He says that verbal abuse is something that can be endured for a season. He doesn't lay down any guidelines and he certainly doesn't 'advocate' it. He says that physical abuse is unacceptable and that the local church should protect women from violent behaviour in the first instance and then exercise church discipline against the perpetrator. By inference, this would include legal recourse if the perpetrator has committed a crime, such as rape or any kind of harm.
[ 15. November 2013, 11:23: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".
How can you live with that?
[ 15. November 2013, 11:32: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".
How can you live that?
I can live with what he says, not your perversion of what he says or that of the blogger to which you've linked.
He is being asked a question about complemenarianism. The question is designed to test his theology and the pastoral application of that theology. What he basically says is this: a woman is only called to submit to Christlike behaviour in her husband. If a husband tries to coerce his wife into becoming complicit in sin she is to say no to him because Christ would not coerce her into sin. In other words, a husband has no right to expect his wife to submit to anything in him which is not like Christ, including joining him in sin.
However, Piper also mentions situations of abuse. The first situation he addresses is verbal abuse. He says that this type of abuse is endurable, for a season. This is a mere statement of fact, not of principle. Piper is clear that such behaviour is sinful and therefore unacceptable. But with regard to physical abuse Piper says that an abused woman should seek the protection of the church from her abusive husband who would then come under immediate church discipline, which would include recourse to law.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.
Agreed. My point in raising Piper as an example is to show another example of the intractable resistance in Christian Culture in confronting destructive behaviour from Christian speakers (or 'leaders' or 'pastors' or priests). I can remember when Todd Bentley was being discussed behind closed doors at a major evangelical church in London and none of the 'leaders' were willing to call a spade a spade. Between the lines, it reads more like "let the patterns of abuse and deception continue! To hell with the human cost, that's not our concern! Our job is to maintain our phoney-baloney facade and Christian Culture! God can use this! Even if it is destructive, God wan work through it, to work his magic!"; and so on.
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".
How can you live that?
I can live with what he says, not your perversion of what he says or that of the blogger to which you've linked.
He is being asked a question about complemenarianism. The question is designed to test his theology and the pastoral application of that theology. What he basically says is this: a woman is only called to submit to Christlike behaviour in her husband. If a husband tries to coerce his wife into becoming complicit in sin she is to say no to him because Christ would not coerce her into sin. In other words, a husband has no right to expect his wife to submit to anything in him which is not like Christ, including joining him in sin.
However, Piper also mentions situations of abuse. The first situation he addresses is verbal abuse. He says that this type of abuse is endurable, for a season. This is a mere statement of fact, not of principle. Piper is clear that such behaviour is sinful and therefore unacceptable. But with regard to physical abuse Piper says that an abused woman should seek the protection of the church from her abusive husband who would then come under immediate church discipline, which would include recourse to law.
Nice try. Sucker please.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
My apologies—we're getting off topic.
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Agreed. It was a silly example to use.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Mea culpa: 'no room' was an exaggeration.
The restriction on critical assessment is a particular problem in evangelical circles because of the frequent lack of core doctrine—all the so-called 'Spirit-led' stuff is believed to come from God (this then often leads to modalist problems too). When someone says 'the Spirit' or 'God' or 'the Lord' has 'put this image on my heart', etc., suggesting that whatever happened next was anything short of divine revelation is tantamount to blaspheming.
Your attempt to remedy your error only made it worse. Again you are engaging in egregious hyperbole and stereotyping. There are segments of evangelicalism, particularly charismatic evangelicalism where a "lack of core doctrine" may in fact lead to the problems you cite, but it is far from the norm or even a "frequent" characteristic of this very broad and diverse movement.
Again, I think the problems you and others are raising owe more to the common tendency among many groups of people to be people-pleasers and conflict avoiders.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.
Agreed. My point in raising Piper as an example is to show another example of the intractable resistance in Christian Culture in confronting destructive behaviour from Christian speakers (or 'leaders' or 'pastors' or priests). I can remember when Todd Bentley was being discussed behind closed doors at a major evangelical church in London and none of the 'leaders' were willing to call a spade a spade. Between the lines, it reads more like "let the patterns of abuse and deception continue! To hell with the human cost, that's not our concern! Our job is to maintain our phoney-baloney facade and Christian Culture! God can use this! Even if it is destructive, God wan work through it, to work his magic!"; and so on.
K.
Nonsense. Both Piper and Bentley-- to say nothing of the insufferable Driscoll-- are discussed and criticized openly and explicitly within evangelical circles all the time, and have been since the very beginning of their regrettable ministries. Your attempts to justify your extreme over-generalizations continue to just make things worse.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If it's any consolation, and it's not meant as justification, I've also been guilty, Komensky, of over-egging things when I've raised criticisms or concerns about particular emphases or personalities who appear to be tolerated within evo-charismaticdom.
It's counter-productive.
I'm trying not to do it as much as I used to.
It's a bit like the boy who cried 'Wolf!' If you're not careful, you might end up undermining your own case ... not with present company (both cliffdweller and daronmedway would be as critical as you are when it comes to Driscoll and Bentley, Bethel etc) but more generally ...
I'm not carrying a candle for Piper, but I wouldn't put him in anywhere the same categories as the Driscolls and Bentleys of this world.
The point you raise, though, is a very valid one. Evangelical charismatics are far too prone to countenance or defend the indefensible until the shit literally hits the fan.
But then the same holds true in other Christian traditions and confessions over different issues.
I know it's not exactly the same but I could show you Orthodox discussion boards where people bang on and on about Clinton being a war-criminal for ordering the bombing of Belgrade or accusing Obama of favouring Muslims over Christians yadda yadda yadda ...
Ok, so none of them - so far - have tried to pretend that Milosovic or Ratko Mladic were anything other than heinous war-criminals - but I wouldn't expect it would be that difficult to find some xenophobic Orthodox who would.
Each tradition has its strengths and weaknesses.
Hyper-credulity and a lack of theological rigour is a weakness within the evangelical charismatic scene. Granted. But it's a big step from that to saying that evangelicals and charismatics don't engage their critical faculties at all.
I can certainly sympathise because I've seen more than my fair share of bollocks over the years but I'm not naive enough to see bollocks as a purely evangelical charismatic characteristic.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
… until the shit literally hits the fan.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
