More needs to said about the idea of cultural justification. Apart from an understanding of this, there is no hope of grasping the deep divisions that the debates over same sex mirages are revealing. Note that I did not say that these debates are creating these division, but rather that they are revealing them. Same sex mirage is the earthquake; different approaches to cultural justification are the tectonic plates.
Justification is of course a theological category. For those who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. When God looks at believers, what He sees is the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our federal representative and head, which means that He is the appointed face of the new human race, the appointed face of the new humanity. And when God wants to communicate with that new human race, He addresses us to our face. All that righteousness, that goodness, that obedience, is credited to us, imputed to us, declared to be ours, and bestowed on us by a verdict grounded in the everlasting wisdom and kindness of God.
Now a man can be in this justified group and be guilty of three murders, and a man can be outside it and be guilty of none. Notice that there are two aspects to this. There is the status, justified or not, and there are the standards, which run alongside the justification but are not foundational to it. We are not justified by works — not in the biblical form of justification, and not in the pagan knock-offs. Works are always evaluated in the light of justification, not the other way around.
God governs human history in this way, and we either submit to His government (which is part and parcel with being justified), or we seek to wrest control of that governance from Him, and try to institute our own pale, etiolated forms of justification. Our forms of justification are just as sharp in their divisions as God’s justification is, but they are not nearly as successful in maintaining the imputation of righteousness over an extended period of time. At some point they have to collapse into a smoking crater of manifest iniquity.
Now with regard to this social or cultural justification, if a group is under condemnation, there is nothing that group can do, apart from ceasing to exist, that can put that group right with the larger society. And if a group is justified, there is nothing that group can do that will cause them to be ejected from the favor of that justification. Say an enviroloony drives some railroad spikes into trees so that loggers will have their chainsaws kick back on them. If this comes up at a press conference at the campaign headquarters of some soft green congressional candidate, he will say something like, “While I don’t necessarily approve of such extreme tactics, we do need to keep this behavior in context. By opening up this wilderness area to logging, the government has put the native habitat of the gray tufted titmouse in grave peril.” In other words, the loonies are justified, even if it is granted that their sanctification needs some work.
And say that there is a Tea Party rally on the Capitol steps, and someone leaves a crushed and empty pop can behind. This perfidy will be taken as representative of the general wickedness that the group represents. They will not be able to win for losing. They are not justified, and so their “sanctification” doesn’t matter.
This phenomenon is often described as being the result of a double standard, which is actually more of a description than an explanation. It is an accurate description, as far as it goes, but it does not account for why it is happening. Why the double standard? If you take virtually any of Obama’s executive orders, and ask yourself what would have happened if George W. Bush had done that, and ponder the answer, which is that virtually every media outlet in the Eastern Time Zone would have come unstuck, followed right away by the Left Coast doing the same thing, the fact of a double standard is obvious. But why? The answer is that Obama is justified and Bush is not.
This justification is affected by elections, but elections do not control it.
Now justification (or condemnation) is pronounced by the god of the system. That god may have majority support or might not. What matters is whether the decrees of the god of the system are honored when made. I make a distinction between agreeing with the decrees of this god, which cultural opponents do not do, and honoring the authority of the decrees, which such opponents almost always do.
So suppose some Christian — take me, for instance — said something derogatory about how the homos have launched their homo-jihad. Using homo as a prefix is pushing it, with or without the hyphen, but putting it out there all by itself as a makeshift collective noun is a shameless bit of right-wing effrontery. This commonly causes, in one of Melville’s wonderful phrases, a prodigious sensation in all directions. The thought control machinery operated by the god of the system — in this case administered by the Department of Pure Thoughts — moves into action, and I am told that my use of language in this instance was deeply hurtful. But instead of being suitably abashed, I reply with a horselaugh. I am never going to be justified by the god of this system, I might as well get used to it. It would be futility to attempt it. I don’t want the approval of the god of this system.
But enter moderate Christians, and their moderation is seen at just this point. Their compromises are a wonderful emollient. They want to grant the status of “justified” to the secularists, but they still want to maintain the particular standards of Christianity for themselves. They want to say that homosexual acts are without a doubt in a certain sense sinful, certainly, which is a conclusion we must come to if we are to wrestle authentically with the text. We wish we could say differently — oh, how we wish — but for the time being our hermeneutic and our donor base, but mostly the latter, will not allow us to depart from acknowledging a substantial heterosexual bent to human thriving. Had they been in charge of the operation, the Cities of the Plain would have been buried under a mound of pink cotton balls.
So back to the question of double standards. In every forum where equity is a natural requirement, there must be no double standards. If one team has to go 10 yards for a first down, the other team should have to do the same. A Troy ounce of gold sold to one man should weigh the same as another Troy ounce sold to another man. If independent confirmation of guilt is required to convict a man of justified ethnicity, the same should be required when a man of unjustified ethnicity is accused. You may fill in the blanks as you please – Serbs, blacks, Jews, or white cops. These are places where double standards are an abomination.
In the realm of the antithesis, the division between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is the foundational divide with regard to justification. In the biblical worldview, the seed of the woman is justified and the seed of the serpent is not. In the high revolt of unbelief, the seed of the serpent is justified and the seed of the woman is committing iniquity simply by breathing God’s clean air.
How do these two areas relate – one where justification is inescapable and the other where equity is demanded? This is actually one of the ways we can identify which justification is the true justification. When the truly justified are recognized as such, one of the results is genuine even-handedness in all the places where it ought to be. Putting this another way, making necessary adjustments, justification is never “fair” and sanctification always is.
When you read about some incident, or see some appalling footage on the tube, and you immediately start thinking in terms of approved and justified groups – congratulations, you’ve just been ejected from every sane jury pool. You were applying the categories of one realm to the other one, and the seed of the woman are always called to keep them distinct and separate. It turns out that the racist needs to know that not every black person he knows is a looter, and the libertarian bigot needs to know that not every cop is like that thug captured on video in his Facebook feed. Individual court cases are important for this reason. Those who greet every incident with loud shouts of glad generalization are revealing far more than they realize.
So then, back to same-sex mirage. The central issue is that we have a culture that rejects justified status for God’s people, and who have therefore assumed to themselves the right to remake humanity in their own image, in full accordance with their own collective wet dream. They have consequently said that they do not want to accept heterosexual Christians as embodying the justified presence of God’s people on this planet, living out the beauty of the gospel as Paul so wonderfully depicted it. That being the case, their only alternative is to come up with some other kind of justified humanity. Since they have to bend everything out of its creational shape, the result is the sexual mayhem we have been witnessing.
What would Josh Duggar have to do to be justified? Well, he would have to become something like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski. What would Woody Allen have to do to be justified in the eyes of believers? He would have to confess his sin, turn in true evangelical faith to Jesus Christ, and be put right with God. And if he actually did that, he would lose everything that the world has granted him up to this point. As long as he is saying “the heart wants what it wants,” he is justified. As soon as he said “oh, wretched man that I am,” he would be rejected as one of those people who think they’re better than everybody else
What could Josh Duggar do to be justified by the world? Well, he could have been the same kind of horny bastard as Jeffrey Epstein, that guy who flew Bill Clinton back and forth from Lolita Island. We could call that plane the Jailbait Express, except that these are the cool kids. No jail in their future. They are justified.
Try to imagine the scandal over the Duggars being crowned by Josh Duggar’s wife announcing she was going to run for Congress. You will then have some sense of how much work the world’s justification can accomplish. If you can justify Clinton levels of corruption, you can accomplish quite a bit. At least for a while.
And here’s where we see the true efficacy of true justification. In order to accomplish it, the Son of God had to die. Jesus was crucified with our sin, was buried with all our sin, and rose again from the dead without that sin, and He did this for our justification. God’s justification – the ultimate double standard – required the blood of the Son of God in order to be just. The world’s justification is arbitrary and unjust. It is in no way lovely or learning, and so it is necessary to cudgel into submission anyone who points that awkward fact out. And hence the fines, hence the sensitivity training, hence the bullying. The world declares no condemnation over its favorites, and therefore has to pummel anyone who points out that, actually, the wrath of God remains on such (John 3:36). Clearly a firm hand is needed for such a hate theology.
Not your clearest bit of exposition but important and true. Please be prepared to take another whack at it. Maybe break it down into smaller chunks.
Yes. More like a cowpath rather than his usual expressway.
My my what a doozy. But incredibly insightful and helpful. We get so tied up in the battles we forget the defining reality of the great war that has already been won. And yet, despite the fact that we are condemned by their god, that doesn’t mean that we are to quite fighting right? Doesn’t this talk of justification and condemnation point to a certain futility in our efforts in the war over culture?
Very helpful. Thanks.
“What would Josh Duggar have to do to be justified”
Tell his victims to “put some ice on that”?
Yes, the Clinton/Duggar example illustrates cultural justification quite well.
No, what Josh Duggar would need to do to be justified in the eyes of the world would be to stop talking and acting as if everything is about him, and instead focus on the damage he did to his victims. Has he offered to pay for their therapy? Has he offered them compensation? Has he actually listened to them describe the pain he caused them? Without doing those things, he’s engaging in what evangelicals call cheap grace. You don’t get a second chance by saying, “Oops, my bad,” you get a second chance by fixing the mess you made.… Read more »
Eric, not that I think I need to say this, but nothing above is intended as a defense of any molestation. My point is how groups process information, not how good the information is.
Doug, I would never accuse you of being soft on molestation. I have no doubt that you have the same opinion of molestation that I do. I don’t think, though, that Duggar to Bill Clinton is an apples to apples comparison. Duggar marketed himself as a family values guy; Clinton never did. If Clinton had run for office as a family values guy, then his career probably would have fizzled when the first wave of women came forward. That’s why Democratic politicians are more likely to survive sex scandals than Republican politicians are. It isn’t the sex; it’s the hypocrisy.… Read more »
Like he said it is how people process info….
Bill Clinton claimed to be a born again Christian and was at one time a member of a Southern Baptist Church (maybe still is for all I know). The reason Clinton is not branded a hypocrite by the left is that hypocrisy is deemed okay for their team if it advances the agenda, …or maybe its just another wink of the eye to such an obvious lie.
Perhaps, for utilitarians, Bill Clinton is being measured purely by the scale of “advancing the agenda”.
Bill Clinton’s confessional speech at a prayer breakfast where after praying about it he admitted that he had sinned by diddling Lewinski?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFnpYPdkVwI
Super good point. We should be a lot less concerned with the world double standards and concerned with the churches response to these kind of issues.
Eric,
Every Christian sins. Some of us commit very great sins. Duggar will never be justified in the eyes of the world until he repents of his Christianity; When he has done that, he can join Roman Polanski and the child rapists in England as paragons of pagan virtue.
Timothy, this may surprise you, but the world mostly has the same opinion of Roman Polanski that you do. This is one issue on which Hollywood is completely out of touch with most of the country. I’m an atheist, and if I’d been the judge I’d have given him ten years. I suppose one might argue that since he did manage to evade American justice, should he be permitted to make a living in his chosen field. I don’t necessarily think that people should lose their ability to earn a livelihood because they’re bad people. But that’s a far cry… Read more »
Eric, You have witnessed how quickly ‘world opinion’ can change so an appeal to “most of the world …” bears no weight. Also, “you” are not the center of the moral universe. The world doesn’t care what you think. It will move on without you and be here after your atoms have begun to disperse, so to base my moral reasoning on such an arbitrary thing as “what Eric” thinks is highly illogical. The key then is first principles. What things govern these behaviors throughout human history? Why are they wrong? Are they wrong? Who says they are wrong? Why… Read more »
Timothy, your original comment was that “the world” honors Polanski. My response is that that’s not so. Your rejoinder is, who cares about world opinion. Please make up your mind what it is that we’re arguing about.
To Katecho, BJ, Jane Dunsworth, Moore, Bethyada and sundry others who find me somewhat intelligible at times. I thought my points to Eric the Red where straight-forward and easily understood and before engaging him here and clarifying if needed, I ask you if my points are as unintelligible as EtR finds them.
Eric, I want to await feedback before answering you directly.
Timothy, fair enough, but the problem isn’t that you’re unintelligible I usually understand you quite well. The problem is you’re changing the subject. Your original point was that the world considers Polanski and the child rapists of England (not sure who they are) to be paragons of virtue. You then changed the subject to world opinion changes, so who cares what the world (or I) think about any of this. I understand both points; my question is which do you wish to discuss?
FWIW, here’s my attempt to summarize Timothy’s point and the conversation: T said: Polanski they have loved, Duggar they have hated. EtR replied: Um, they actually don’t love Polanski. At least, not outside of Hollyweird. T counters: Well, regardless, “the world” has no first principle by which their respective love and hate are decided, so even if Polanski isn’t loved in a way that makes my point, the fact remains that without God’s guidance on such matters, the winds of social and cultural change are all we’re left with to determine who and what to love and hate. EtR: So…which… Read more »
If Timothy and I are using two different meanings for the word “world”, fine. That then leaves three questions on the table: (1) Is the world treating Duggar differently than it treated Clinton and Polanski; (2) If so, is that because of a double standard or because the cases are factually quite different; and (3) what is the extent to which world opinion (however “world” is being defined) matters. I’ll simplify (3) by re-wording it as what is the extent to which non-Christian opinion matters. With respect to (1) and (2), I’ve already stated why I think the cases are… Read more »
Your definitions of “the world” don’t seem to be the issue to me. Rather, it looks to me like Timothy is trying to get you to admit (for the umpteenth time) that your worldview is lacking in first principles capable of authoritatively adjudicating right and wrong, in and out, righteous and unrighteous, etc. You have already tipped your hand here (and countless times elsewhere on this blog) regarding your utilitarian perspective, and have heretofore doggedly maintained it. Timothy has proven himself to be a relentless adversary to your worldview (perhaps second only to Katecho), and I find myself in the… Read more »
Moor, for reasons I’ve given in other threads multiple times, I consider it to be complete and total nonsense that utilitarianism is unable to authoritatively adjudicate right and wrong. I’ve explained why so many times that I see nothing to be gained by repeating myself for the fiftieth time. Further, even if it were true, it would be completely irrelevant, so that conversation takes us nowhere productive in any event. And frankly, I think it’s a deliberate distraction; the real reason that Timothy and Katecho keep pursuing that dead horse is that they know they can’t win on the merits,… Read more »
Eric the Red strikes a new low.
Eric the Red wrote: “As a secularist, I need no reason beyond human empathy to support the Clinton, Polanski and Duggar victims and to excoriate the abusive behavior. Claiming that that’s not enough is to essentially say, “I am unable to feel human empathy unless I have a Deity standing over me telling me I have to.” That’s a fairly horrible admission to make. If I were unable to feel human empathy except under heavenly duress, I’m not sure I would admit it in public.” This kind of comment is why I increasingly doubt Eric the Red’s intellectual integrity. I’ve… Read more »
Katecho, of course I acknowledge the possibility that you have a “genuinely converted heart that truly loves what (your) Creator loves,” though I would use different words to characterize it. But that’s not the point. The point is that your central point is that with no Creator, you have no reason to behave well. Whether your motivation is love or fear doesn’t impact the bottom line: You can’t be a decent human being just to be a decent human being; you need a Divine mandate. And that’s a declaration of moral and ethical bankruptcy. And as far as moral compasses… Read more »
Certainly my point is that, “with no Creator”, I have no reason to behave well… and, by the way, neither does Eric. Eric seems to think that complete moral dependence on God is something that we should be ashamed of. However, if God is the origin of moral meaning, then looking anywhere else for morality is fruitless. This is the issue that Eric needs to engage with. Eric seems to think that he can find morality under any rock that he turns over. (Aside: If Eric actually acknowledges the possibility of a genuinely converted heart, then why does he trot… Read more »
I don’t recall ever saying that Christians are compliant only because they are strong armed by God; if I did say that, please point me to where and when I said it. And I’m not shocked and offended that anyone would question being decent; it’s the rough equivalent of questioning gravity so my actual response is more of the eye-rolling variety. And I handled it the same way I would handle someone who doesn’t believe in gravity: The first time someone asks how I know gravity exists I answered the question; by the tenth time I’ve given up on the… Read more »
Never mind, I just saw what I said that would make Katecho think that I said that Christians are only compliant if they are strong armed by God. That wasn’t what I intended to convey, but in re-reading what I wrote I do see how Katecho could reach the conclusion that that’s what I think. So I withdraw my comment immediately above asking Katecho to show me where I said that.
Eric admits what he said, but I don’t see him retracting it, or qualifying it. I guess he stands by his misrepresentation of us. I’m still looking for some integrity from him.
And I already said that I didn’t intend to convey that Christians are only compliant if they are strong armed by God. That comment was illustrative rather than exhaustive of how not having a basis for morality without God might play out.
Illustrative? Didn’t intend? This is full blown intellectual dishonesty on Eric’s part. Eric specifically tried to shame timothy and myself with a made-up charge that we, by name, only put on an act, and only do what is decent because of a threat of punishment from God. Eric wrote: Candidly, the argument is a declaration of moral bankruptcy on the part of Katecho and Timothy. They are basically admitting that they don’t find human empathy a sufficient reason to act like decent human beings. They only act like decent human beings because they have a Deity standing over them threatening… Read more »
Katecho, if the shoe were on the other foot — if someone had written something about me that might be interpreted worse than was originally intended, but which was then clarified — I would be inclined to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, because all of us are occasionally guilty of not writing as clearly as we might. That is, unless the original interpretation struck a nerve because it was dead on accurate. The fact that my comment obviously struck a nerve with you, to the point that you can’t accept my explanation and let it go, makes… Read more »
Katecho’s reaction is appropriate. Your statement was clear and doesn’t need any twisting to justify the response you received. Accusing Katecho of projecting to avoid responsibility for your statement is at best a red herring. Ironically, you are likely the one projecting as you accused Katecho and Timothy of a position that better represents an atheists generic understanding of Christianity than the view held by those most likely to participate in a Mablog discussion, as I’m sure you well know from past discussions. A high view of God’s grace does not result in obedience motivated from fear, a concept well… Read more »
Wherein EtR makes Doug’s point for him: …I’ve already stated why I think the cases are different, and in any event I don’t think Clinton’s and Polanski’s misconduct enjoys any real support in the secular world either. Clinton and Polanski’s flaws are overlooked because they’re both very good at what they do, Now, let’s play fill in the blank Duggar’s flaws are not overlooked because….[ ___] “The World” will put some reason in the brackets, it matters not what it is as whatever it is is not the issue because for every reason we can find a worldly counter-example where… Read more »
Timothy, keeping repulsive people employed because they are good at what they do is not the same as approving of their repulsiveness.
That’s true. That is the point. The repulsive people have been given a ‘special justification’ by “the world” due to their ‘saintly’ status within that system. The same acts commited by people who are not dispensed that ‘special justification’ by “the world” because of their ‘apostasy’ before it. The key is who dispenses justification. An interesting distinction between “the world” and Christianity is the universality of the penalty for sin. Under Christ, both Duggar and Clinton are guilty of sin and neither can be justified without His atonement for us at Calgary. Under “the world” only Clinton can be justified;… Read more »
Hi Eric, I have not yet read the responses by others to my request; I will do so after plopping down this comment. While on reflection I thought that “the world” as used in Christian circles could be the source of confustion, I must confess for the first time since you have posted here that I had the thought that your purpose is to derail discussions–i.e. that you are a type of Internet troll. It I was a disheartening thought. I will assume you are not trolling this thread. “The world” is a very common phrase in Christian circles. Yesterday,… Read more »
No, not trying to troll; we were just on different pages as to the meaning of the world. I probably should have been more clear in my initial response to you; my apologies to the extent that my lack of clarity may have derailed the thread.
We seem to have the Christian usage of the term “the world” clarified. Furthermore, Pastor Wilson described the divide in this post thusly : “In the realm of the antithesis, the division between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is the foundational divide with regard to justification. In the biblical worldview, the seed of the woman is justified and the seed of the serpent is not. In the high revolt of unbelief, the seed of the serpent is justified and the seed of the woman is committing iniquity simply by breathing God’s clean air.” In… Read more »
EtR. I suspect that Timothy uses “world” to predominantly mean “current secular world opinion” ie. the gatekeepers, but “most of the world” (being a rephrase of what you wrote which was “world mostly”) means most of the people in the world; which it seems to me is what you probably meant. That being said, “most world” here is still probably only the Western world.
Hi Bethyada,
I sensed the same thing, but I don’t think EtR is ignorant of the term, which is why I have begun to suspect that he is a troll who is out to ‘drain the topic of discussion’ by introducing tangents with no bearing on the subject matter.
I will see if I can find the name of the troll type for you.
Well, when we go off on a tangent that drains the topic, nine times out of ten it’s you or Katecho claiming I have no basis to discuss morality, and I’m not the one who sends us off on those tangents. This time, however, it was an honest misunderstanding of the sense in which you were using the term “world”.
Honest misunderstanding? What about this bit from Eric?: “Claiming that that’s not enough is to essentially say, “I am unable to feel human empathy unless I have a Deity standing over me telling me I have to.” That’s a fairly horrible admission to make. If I were unable to feel human empathy except under heavenly duress, I’m not sure I would admit it in public. That’s an honest misunderstanding? Please. That’s Eric the Red actively misrepresenting us. And his attempt to blame me is yet another low. Eric had already jumped to steer the topic well before I even got… Read more »
Perhaps you could address whatever antics you think I’m committing within the context of staying within the subject of the thread rather than repeatedly hijacking the thread from whatever we were talking about to your obsession with the idea that I don’t have a basis for morality. I’d like to have a conversation about double standards, which is what we were originally talking about, if you could stay on subject.
The subject is “justification”
It is a subtle, dense subject and I look forward to returning to it. Unfortunately, as seems to be the pattern, we are back in the pattern of “Topic Dilution” where the original point is forgotten as the comment thread grows.
Eric, As I understand it, the debate here isn’t quite as it has been framed, at least not in this current thread (I have no doubt that what I’m about to say has been articulated numerous times in the past). You said, in seeking to summarize Katecho, that “the point is that your central point is that with no Creator, you have no reason to behave well.” This is not, however, the case. The point is that without a Creator, there is no possible way to authoritatively define what we mean by “behave well”. Your answer seems to be that… Read more »
Moor_the_Merrier wrote, in summary of utilitarianism: … the definition of “good” is socially constructed and that societies have generally done an adequate job of arriving at workable definitions of good and bad I’ve heard variants of this from Eric the Red. I’m sure he would prefer to go there, but he can’t consistently embrace this without validating all of those theistic societies at the same time. Eric the Red would abandon any rational basis to object to, or judge between, the majority of theistic societies that have arrived at their own definitions of good and bad. Worse, he’d have to… Read more »
Bingo. My disdain for Utilitarianism is its lameness when contrasted with more virulent philosophies–men who would kill EtR for being a Utilitiarian as his Utilitarianism is but an obstacle to the greater good. I am thinking of men like Lenin, who, quite properly (assuming the non-existence of God and the “fact” that morality is a social construct) removed every obstacle to obtaining power (Whitaker Chambers writes of his wrestling with this necessity in his book ‘Witness’). To hear a mere-Utilitarian bleat about “it just is” or “because it is right” brings a grin to my face. He is the boxer… Read more »
Quibble noted, though I don’t believe we’re actually in disagreement here. What I meant by that parenthetical statement (which, ironically, I’m working to expunge from my writing) is that utilitarianism appears to work well as long as the definitions of good and bad further the aims of those in the majority. In this way, though I can’t assert this with certitude for lack of in-depth analysis, utilitarianism appears prone to the tautology that the “good” is always and only defined by what those with the most current power say it is. I am also, by the way, trying to expunge… Read more »
What I meant by that parenthetical statement (which, ironically, I’m working to expunge from my writing) I see what you did there! Well played. (; I don’t believe we’re actually in disagreement here We are not; I agree with you. utilitarianism appears prone to the tautology that the “good” is always and only defined by what those with the most current power say it is. Agreed. But there is a problem for a ‘Smart Utilitarian’ vs the “Honest Utilitarian’ that can be demonstrated thusly… The Roman mob is in power and the consensus is that adult/child sex is a good… Read more »
No, I don’t think “good” is a social construct, except on those issues that are completely a matter of personal preference, such as whether to have apple pie or chocolate cake for dessert. Evolution has equipped us with pleasure and pain as instructors to push us in the direction of beneficial behaviors and away from detrimental behaviors. Further, the fact that we evolved to live in community means that some behaviors necessarily have to be fostered and others suppressed; a community that really did have no standards and in which everything goes would not survive very long. Happy humans are… Read more »
Eric the Red seems to enjoy lecturing us on the same ground that we’ve already refuted (multiple times). Today he says that he doesn’t think moral “good” is a social construct. Today he thinks it’s an evolutionary construct, as if evolution was some sort of purposeful constructive agent, rather than just an ex post facto label for “whatever happens to be”. Eric says: Evolution has equipped us with pleasure and pain as instructors to push us in the direction of beneficial behaviors and away from detrimental behaviors. First of all, notice Eric’s religious language. He describes evolution as if it… Read more »
Mother Evolution, red in tooth and claw…
I am reminded so much of the truism that Atheists like Eric want all the bathwater of a Judeo-Christian West without the baby Jesus. Eric the Red, a question: do you seriously not see the critical flaw in your worldview? I’m concluding, as I have before but then reopened for the sake of giving you another hearing, that you are either too dumb to see the obvious flaw that Katecho consistently and articulately points out, or too scared to look it full in the face. Sadly, my hunch is that threads just like this one, including those where you play… Read more »
First off, a hearty congratulations on the complete absence of parenthetical asides in your comment! (:
I think it is important that we start paying attention to Eric’s past behavior of disappearing from the comment thread just when things start to get a tad to deep for him to handle. The latest example happened on a evolution thread where David (one of the PhD’s in biology that read this blog) raised a major killer of the Darwinian worldview and ‘poof!’ EtR was gone. I hope it does not happen here as I am earnestly curious if Eric will grudgingly raise katecho’s C-minus to a B-minus based on the merits of katecho’s rebuttal. I am also genuinely… Read more »
Ah, here we go:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/the-gentlemans-guide-to-forum-disruption/
The type is under “Topic Dilution”.
No, he did pretend otherwise.
He claimed to be a fighter for women’s position in society, then he had sex with a woman who was his subordinate, then, having gotten himself elected to a position where he was supposed to uphold the law, perjured himself about it. Meantime, it was all about him in the press.
I mean, Josh Duggar should retire from public life for a considerable time, maybe permanently. So should Bill Clinton.
And all the process of trying to obstruct justice for another woman who was so far below him in hierarchy that “subordinate” hardly covers it (i.e. Paula Jones.)
Which is what I find most disgusting of all. I can’t remember which of the Clintonistas said, “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” in regard to one victim’s testimony, but it was a defining moment for me as a former Dem. The utter contempt for women who lacked the Clintons’ advantages, the sneering willingness to discard them as trash.
Doug said: “Using homo as a prefix is pushing it, with or without the hyphen, but putting it out there all by itself as a makeshift collective noun is a shameless bit of right-wing effrontery.” Hey Doug I reckon you should be okay, since they have unwittingly legitimised the word. How? By coining the term Homophobia. What does that mean? As a student of Latin and Greek, you will know that it could mean either “a fear or hatred of man” or “a fear or hatred of the same.” But apparently they don’t mean that at all. So what? There… Read more »
Pastor Doug,
Would love for you to comment on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGk6DktoXa8
Profound.
I will have to re-read this several times over the course of several days, but before I do I ask…
Is the source of our justification fundamental? or are there other things that are as foundational?
I think the former, but I have not delved into this topic.
God bless.
t
“But instead of being suitably abashed, I reply with a horselaugh. I am never going to be justified by the god of this system, I might as well get used to it. It would be futility to attempt it. I don’t want the approval of the god of this system.” That’s actually a great argument against Calvinism. It’s also a good argument against treating political disagreements as religious schism. Politics is built on coalitions, and in order to build a coalition you have to actually convince people of something, which you can never do if you constantly declare them evildoers… Read more »
How is it a great argument against Calvinism?
And whatever gave you the idea that Wilson is interested in political coalitions?
The whole point is that you can’t be justified by man if you are justified by God. If you have bowed the knee to God, then by definition you will be an enemy (unjustified) to those who will not.
He may not be interested, but that is nevertheless how you win. He seems interested in winning, though maybe not; there are a lot of right wingers who relish the thought that it’s all going to collapse one day.
In Matt’s view, it seems that he thinks there is no victory apart from a political victory. In other words, Matt seems to think that change should come from the top down, political style. The foolishness of the Gospel is, apparently, foolishness in Matt’s eyes. I suspect, like the world system, he won’t even see it coming.
I doubt if Wilson is worried about winning as God has already taken care of that.
I hate to break it to you…but apparently he hasn’t. One good question for right wing christians: If god is on your side, why do you keep losing?
God loves trite plot devices, cliffhangers especially.
You seem to be missing the point. I don’t expect to win. But I belong to the One who already has won. Even if you can’t see it. Maybe you would prefer to be alive 2,000 years ago?
If God is on our side and we keep losing, why do we persevere?
You mean why do you keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it doesn’t seem to be working? That’s what I’d like to know. God helps those who help themselves, or so they say.
yes, I want to know why you think we persevere.
I can think of a few reasons
because right wingers have a lot of their identity wrapped up in the Cassandra idea that they were Right All Along and They’ll Be Sorry!
because dividing up the world into good people and bad people essentially puts you in a bubble, unable to accept any feedback from anyone not in your tribe, or make any useful allies with same.
because of needing an outlet for the resentment stemming from the loss of privilege.
I could go on, but as you can see it’s not very flattering.
Please go on.
It was an honest question and I seek honest answers.
thx
Hi Matt.
I am repeating my request that you continue. I am trying to understand your position with the hopes that I can repeat it back to you in terms you agree with.
thx
I have not re-read Pastor Wilson’s post, so my apologies if this has been covered. In a comment reply to Eric, I wrote: “Now, let’s play fill in the blank Duggar’s flaws are not overlooked because….[ ___] “The World” will put some reason in the brackets, it matters not what it is as whatever it is is not the issue because for every reason we can find a worldly counter-example where it will be over-looked..” Contrast this overlooking by ‘the world’ with Christian behavior. Can anybody who is in Christ overlook Duggar’s behavior? Isn’t the Christian view that Duggar himself… Read more »
But this post sounds like a lot of self-righteous whining….the world always gets away with their shenanigans, but us poor Christians are abused and mistreated – innocent victims that we are. Since when is anything in this world expected to be fair? Solomon knew that. “I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking on foot like slaves.” And in the end, nobody gets away with anything. Not Woody Allen nor Josh Duggar. But here’s the rub. Woody Allen and his ilk don’t profess to know God. They aren’t held to a higher standard. Josh Duggar and the homeschooling, fundamentalist,… Read more »
Hi Darlene.
I was wrong
Your first comment (the one I am replying to here) is spot-on. I agree completely with your analysis and my quibbles with grouping “..the
homeschooling, fundamentalist,” with “Gothardite, Patriarchal camp ”
are un-important given the larger context of your comment.
Darlene, thanks for summing up my own thoughts as I read Pastor Wilson’s post.
It seems like he is proudly resorting to “an eye for an eye,” rather than humbly accepting the criticism that we’re told we should expect.
Yes, similar to a tu quoque. The abuses and injustices that unbelievers commit should not have any bearing when Christians do the same. As I have said elsewhere, Christians are held to a higher standard. Actually, to the HIGHEST standard. And when Christians fail as in the case of the Duggars, and such Christians are in the public spot light for being representatives of impeccable Christian values, then they bring reproach upon the name of Christ. The disdain and anger from unbelievers isn’t persecution, but judgment for being poor representatives of Christ.
Eric the Red said, “Duggar marketed himself as a family values guy; Clinton never did.” Exactly. When you’re out there publicly promoting Christian purity (TLC channel anyone?) and then the skeletons in the closet come forth, don’t expect folks to be well, golly gee, I guess we’ll give him a pass. And make no bones about it, this cuts to the real problems within the particular strain of Christianity to which the Duggars belong. Namely, the Gothardite, homeschooling, fundamentalist, Patriarchal movement within Evangelicalism. But as the representatives of this cultic movement fail – Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, and now the… Read more »
Legalism, especially legalism that outwardly succeeds for a significant period of time, leaves a long tail of destruction in its wake. Self-righteousness always stands on a mound of publicans’ skulls, but that mound is never a stable platform in the end.
How does virtue lose when men fail at it? Duggar has fallen–we have a host of examples from Scripture of men who have sinned grievously–and yet we are not to champion virtue because of our failings?
The solution seems to be that virtue is overrated, or is too hard, and therefore Clinton.
Note carefully that this is the difference between falling short (which is common to all, and to which God has prepared a solution), and stopping short. Both Judas and Peter betrayed Christ. Both fell short. Only one of them stopped short and did not come back to Jesus.
Neither Rachel Shubin nor Darline Dufton Griffith mention Christ or the Holy Spirit in their analysis.
I don’t want to go down a feminist rabbit hole, so I will bow out of this tangential discussion.
cheers.
I think Darlene’s point here is not one so much about the legalism of the movements she references (although that is a problem as well) as it is about how this type of behavior can result from the outworkings of some particular underpinning Biblical assumptions and arguments. Here are the two clearest articles I’ve found connecting up the philosophical/theological arguments with the resultant rationalization for the behavior. The first one is written by a lawyer who grew up in Gothard’s organization and has handled cases very similar to the Duggar one. His article is the most thorough and relevant one… Read more »
EtR is not telling the whole story as Clinton does claim to be a “values guy”, he just claims a different set of values. And has failed at living consistent with the values he claims. Clinton and his posse claim (in spite of being anti-child and anti-Christian) to hold the moral high ground of being for the oppressed, weak, and otherwise mistreated. Call it “under-dog values” instead of “family values”. The double standard is that Christians who fail to live consistently with their stated values are castigated but non-Christians who fail to do so are praised or at best guided… Read more »
Doug, re. secular knockoffs of “justified” and “unjustified” classes:
I wonder if you would consider doing a piece sometime soon (for Veteran’s Day, perhaps?) re. the secular justification accorded “the troops”? (Or, for that matter, the cops.)
Rachel Shubin said: “I think Darlene’s point here is….about how this type of behavior can result from the outworkings of some particular Biblical assumptions and arguments.” Well Rachel, you hit the nail on the head. Those “particular Biblical assumptions and arguments” within that Movement instruct girls early on to be QUIET and to learn submission. That means even when they are in a precarious situation. So when a guy crosses boundaries who are you to tell him that he’s wrong? Females have no rights to their own thoughts because their thoughts are subject to deception. Furthermore, it just might be… Read more »
Thanks, Darlene. :)
“Neither Rachel Shubin or Darlene Dufton Griffith mention Christ or the Holy Spirit in their analysis.” Ah….you must have found the Bogeyman! I suppose referring to Scripture isn’t sufficient. But I’ll oblige in this case because Christ had something quite specific to say about this particular kind of sin. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” Mark 9:42. Because the effects of this kind of sin – specifically the perpetrator – will… Read more »
Ah….you must have found the Bogeyman! Look at your first comment; I do not see any references to scripture. I see references to people and sects and issues that I am not familiar with. What I do see is boilerplate feminist thought, which I find incredibly boring. From your immediately prior comment you wrote: Well Rachel, you hit the nail on the head. Those “particular Biblical assumptions and arguments” within that Movement instruct girls early on to be QUIET and to learn SUBMISSION. You must be new to this blog. The women here are anything but quiet and the respect… Read more »
Timothy, First thanks for welcoming me to the blog. Secondly, I think you’re hearing things the way you want to without actually listening to what I’m saying. Thinking objectively might help you actually hear what I’m saying. You said, “Look at your first comment; I do not see any references to Scripture.” First of all, I have noticed many comments on this site on various threads where Scriptures are not referenced or mentioned by posters. Secondly, you’re wrong. If you read my *first* comment, you will notice that I referenced two Scriptures, one from Ecclesiastes and one from Romans. But… Read more »
I think the thing that probably triggered timothy’s feminist radar was the lumping in of complementarianism, which (loosely speaking) is the conviction of the author of this blog and most of the men and women who comment here (as well as the Bible’s teaching), with all the rest of that mess you described.
Hi Jane Dunsworth On a re-read Darlene’s first comment was pretty good. I posted a retraction immediately underneath it. It was her second comment I was responding to. I stopped reading her first comment when I saw the word “homeschooling” in this sentence fragment*: “Gothardite, homeschooling, fundamentalist, Patriarchal movement within Evangelicalism.” Since, homeschooling is an un-abashed good and since the word “Gothardite” has very negative connotations for Darlene I read the phrase* as “(Bad!) Gothardite, (Bad!)homeschooling,(Bad!) fundamentalist,(Bad!) Patriarchal movement within (Bad!) Evangelicalism.” At which point, my eyeballs glazed over and I assumed “here come the rad-feminists’ who, frankly, bore me.… Read more »
I homeschool, and have only recently read about Gothard-homeschooling. It deserves its infamy, I believe. Also, there’s patriarchy, and then there’s Patriarchy.
Yes, Katie, and there’s soft Complementarianism, hard core Complementarianism, and then there are the Crackpots. But we won’t go there….. :-)
Hi Darlene, I do not own a t.v. and I know three things abut the Duggar’s: 1. They had a lot of kids. 2. A daughter of theirs recently married. 3. Their laundry soap recipe* So, I am not involved and have nothing to say. There is some very stupid ‘christianity’ out there that I too consider downright evil and a missapropriation of Scripture. I too hate it. Doug Wilson is not that sort of christian. I know nothing (nor do I care to learn) anything about this Gothardite stuff. I have other dragons to slay and that ain’t my… Read more »
Timothy, We have 1 t.v. in our home. I seldom watch it. My main source of news is the Internet. “I think of feminism as I do Freudian-psychology–a dead intellectual movement that has wasted the brain cycles of multitudes and one I will not waste mine on.” Just as there is, as you say, “stupid ‘christianity'” out there – such is the case with feminism. But I owe a great deal of gratitude to brave and sensible feminists (the Suffragette Movement) whose hard work paved the way for women to vote. Even more importantly, I am grateful for the work… Read more »
I look forward to your presentation of the scriptural basis for your positions; I agree that these discussions should wait for a different thread.
God bless.
t
Darlene Dufton Griffith wrote: And make no bones about it, this cuts to the real problems within the particular strain of Christianity to which the Duggars belong. Namely, the Gothardite, homeschooling, fundamentalist, Patriarchal movement within Evangelicalism. But as the representatives of this cultic movement fail – Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, and now the Duggars – and fail at the Very Thing that they claim to have right – well, their whole movement rings hollow. When a new visitor to the site drops names like Gothard and Phillips, “and now the Duggars”, it can indeed come across as very, well, opportunistic.… Read more »
“When a new visitor to the site drops names like Gothard and Phillips, ‘and not the Duggars”, it can indeed come across as very, well, opportunistic,” Katecho, actually, this was not my first time commenting on this blog. Truth be told, I’ve read many entries here at Blog and Mablog without commenting. However, with the reference to the Duggars in this particular blog post, I thought to address the problematic issues of the Duggar’s belief system. Would every new visitor commenting here that has a view different than you be considered “opportunistic?” “If Griffith sees ths “cultic movement” only through… Read more »
Perhaps Pastor Wilson will start a new post with a new thread addressing this issue. I am very interested in you developing these themes and ideas.
Griffith wrote: suffice it to say that the real rub is how such Scriptures are lived out in reality, not just quoting a text. This is something that I can finally agree with. Husbands can trumpet the Scriptures about their authority in marriage all day long, but there is something more important than just being right about the text. The guy has to actually live out the spirit of that text in love. Give the way that Griffith carries on about “cultic movement”, Patriarchy, homeschooling, quiverfull, etc. One eventually wonders what her alternative really is. Is it Matriarchy, with one… Read more »
Hi katecho, Sorry I haven’t been around to jump in. I wish Disqus emailed notifications when someone follows up on a comment I’ve made. That would make it much easier to keep up on things (busy week; been making jam). Anyway, Darlene seems like she’s doing a bang-up job explaining things, so I don’t have much to add to that. I did want to comment on one thing you said here though: “I’m sure Griffith is aware of very clear passages regarding obedience of children to their parents, and obedience of the wife to her own husband as her head.”… Read more »
Thank you for the link; Time permitting, I will give it a study.
I’m familiar with attempts to get around the hierarchy of authority (and accountability) between husband and wife. It seems to be a discord (a scratchiness) that is anticipated all the way back in Genesis, just after the fall. I would certainly grant that no husband is absolute in his authority, and the wife is authorized to disobey him if he abuses his authority and compels her to follow him in sin. However, Scripture is abundantly clear about the nature of the hierarchy of authority, comparing the direction of submission explicitly to the relationship of Christ and the Church. There is… Read more »
Let me add that we men must submit to Godly authority as well. The submission is not a mindless thing and the hand of a loving God has ordained it for our (men’s) well-being.
Do I want to submit to a schmuck like John Roberts? Hell no! Will I submit to a schmuck who is clearly reasoning from solid scriptural/Godly bounds? yes.
Hey, Disqus did notify me that you commented! How grand. As I mentioned initially, my response was directed specifically at your usage of the word “obey” relating to wives in your comment: “obedience of the wife to her own husband as her head” and linked to an explanation of the utter lack of Scriptural support for that usage (I assume from your response that you didn’t read it, which is fine). As far as your assessment of the analogy of Christ and the church goes, I think you are missing something there. If you are referring to Ephesians 5, Paul… Read more »
Here are some online concordance links to ‘submit’, ‘obey’, and ‘head’ so that we can follow along as Rachel makes her case.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=submit&t=ESV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_1
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=obey&t=ESV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_3
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=head&t=ESV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_7
The attempts to wrestle the Greek to render an obedienceless submission are arguments from silence and utterly misguided. Imagine if the Church said to her Husband, “you told us to submit to You as Head, but You didn’t actually say that we had to obey You using that specific word, so we didn’t”. Does anyone think that Jesus would be impressed by such arguments from the Greek? Much better to recognize the tone and attributes of the godly wife as presented by Scripture as a whole, before trying to interpret Scripture toward a preconceived goal. Husbands are no more qualified… Read more »
Too tired to think, but let me throw this out there.
Scripture clearly tells slaves to submit to their masters. No modern Christian would tolerate slavery and rebellion rather than submission would be encouraged.
Since society has clearly changed from the strict hierarchy of master-slave, by what principle is the husband-wife hierarchy excluded from similar changes?
As we now consider it the captive’s duty to rebel, should not the wife?
Rachel Shubin, thanks for the up-vote but my question answers itself.
God made us free. The master-slave relationship was/is not ordained by God (among humans).
Marriage is of God. He created it a certain way for our happiness and our well-being and His glory.
Oh my gosh, you called me a feminist! The horror! The apocalypse! Help meeee, I’m meltingggg!!!” There, is that the response you were hoping for? ;) You can call me whatever you want. What I am is your sister in Christ. Now that that’s out of the way… Yes! Let’s look at the tone of how a Godly wife as presented by the Scripture as a whole. That’s a great idea. Where would you like to start? How about Sarah? She’s a good one. The only usage in the New Testament that does actually use the Greek word for obey… Read more »
Thank you for posting this. It shows much more than your comments on previous blog posts that you linked to. I have only scanned it and I love your focus on what I call the dynamic synergy between man and woman in marriage. The union of the man and wife is clearly greater than the sum of the individuals and both individuals are clearly more than they would be alone. This ‘yes-and’ dynamic of God is wonderful. Now, let’s talk about submission and obey by using the metaphor of our relationship to God through Christ. Isn’t it the same sort… Read more »
Even if you do think that the head’s job is to make all the decisions
and the body then follows, that’s not how people in Paul’s time saw it.
They had no understanding of the brain or how it worked, and saw
decisions as coming from the heart. Paul repeatedly uses this model in
his writing
You are correct in that the heart was seen the centre of the will, but you are mistaken about the head not being associated with leadership. Throughout the OT “head” is a frequent metaphor for leader.
Not so much when Paul is using “head” as part of a body metaphor though like he does in Eph. 5:21-33 (this is why it’s problematic to only look at verses 22-24; you miss the complete thought). Compare the Ephesians passage with I Cor. 12:12-27, Rom. 12:3-7, and even the sacraments of both baptism and communion in which we are described as being of one body with Christ and partaking in his death and resurrection. Those passages use the same type of language as Eph. 5 to describe unity within the body every time. In Col. 2:19, Paul describes the… Read more »
Except headship is closely related to leadership thru-out the OT. Paul frequently alludes to the OT and it in the warp and woof of his teaching. If Paul expanded the head metaphor to include the body there is no reason to think he would drop the leadership component. Your passage from Colossians says Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head [Christ], from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and… Read more »
I have copied your comments and have just started the process of organizing your (and my) argument. First, a prelude to my questions…. We know that Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisee’s. We know that Paul used OT arguments in defense of NT realities. The prior as a forbear of the latter and that these ‘things’ changed with Christ. (The book of Hebrews is what I have in mind here with its repetition of “how much moreso ” Second, my questions 1. Do we have OT descriptions of marriage ‘as it ought to be’ ? (not as we screwed it… Read more »
A Christian cannot justify one’s sin by justifying oneself. Pagan’s do. I arrived at the previous sentence by the following exercise: I think the following needs to be clarified as I will (attempt) to explain after the quote from the post. Pastor WIlson wrote: Now a man can be in this justified group and be guilty of three murders, and a man can be outside it and be guilty of none. Notice that there are two aspects to this. There is the status, justified or not, and there are the standards, which run alongside the justification but are not foundational… Read more »
To Katecho, BJ, Jane Dunsworth, Moore, Bethyada , David, gfkgzdds and sundry others*. I think it is important that we start paying attention to Eric’s past behavior of disappearing from the comment thread just when things start to get a tad to deep for him to handle. The latest example happened on a evolution thread where David (one of the PhD’s in biology that read this blog) raised a major killer of the Darwinian worldview and ‘poof!’ EtR was gone. In this present thread, it appears that EtR is out-of-his depth when he deigned to give katecho a C-minus and… Read more »
Eric, I am pretty late to the post but I hope you will still respond: First, I think maybe an example that could fit describing the atheistic cultural is every young man in the 70s singing Lynard Skynard, “What’s Your Name…” Pop musicians are idolized in our culture, and they tend not to restrict themselves to age appropriate liasons, as fat-bottom girls have long been told. Secondly, you wrote that utilitarianism with empathy is simple, and I honestly would like you to flush that out for me. I have empathy for Mrs Duggar as a mother, empathy for the girls… Read more »
Hi Jane,
A quick comment:
I honestly think that cancelling the show will do more harm than it was doing good
A show that showed Christians dealing with this sin in a Christian way would be an important thing for all.
I believe that comment was actually addressed to Carole, but I’ll put in my two cents: we need to remember that the show was a commercial product of a TV network, not an educational initiative of a Christian ministry. It seems that viewed as a business decision, which is probably the only appropriate way to view it, it makes perfect sense. The purpose of the show from the standpoint of TLC, whatever the hopes of Duggars may have been, was never anything other than selling advertising. If that business aim is likely to be harmed by this situation, and I… Read more »
I do understand that people may have derived real benefit from watching this series. But it is, as you say, a commercial enterprise in which any genuine missionary zeal is entirely subordinate to maintaining ratings and profits. I believe there is a huge market for programs that show Christians dealing with problems and sins in a Christian way, as Timothy said, but I personally think such programs should be fiction. Scripting the lives of real children in order to amuse a viewing audience is really problematic, I think.
This is a very important point. In some ways the Duggars were the only success of reality TV, or so I thought… I hope this does change that format which has been a disaster on all fronts. This was the only American TV I still watched because it did show a Christian family, but I hope it signals the end of “real” families on television.
Absolutely, Timothy. What most people aren’t going to hear is how the Duggars did deal with the situation. This is the very thing that helped Josh to turn his life to Christ. Timothy you have spoken openly here about being a slave to sin and how Christ has saved you from that. This is the good news! Every time you write it, I am encouraged and pray others are. How many young men could Josh’s experience help if we were able to see it all the way through? Morally speaking, I do not think more people will be helped by… Read more »
Carole….how the Duggars dealt with the situation? Read my comment to Timothy. They waited 9 months to report Josh’s sexual abuse, thus putting each and everyone of their daughters at risk. And in that interim, Josh sexually abused again. “This is the very thing that helped Josh turn his life to Christ.” I think you need to read the evidence. There is a video out of him making a joke – an incestuous one. That was after he had molested his sisters. This kind of abuse isn’t cured by a simple apology or even some claim to repentance. Rather, it… Read more »
Darlene, neither of us personally know Josh. All I can say is that I am a fan of the show and from that I have seen a Christian father and husband and an employee of a Christian organization. He states he was honest with his wife prior to marrying her, as well as her parents. He immediately admitted to the media his sin as soon as it was uncovered and has not attempted to lie about it. And there have been no more vile acts in 10 years. Considering how most offenders of this crime behave, I think he is… Read more »
Timothy, The timeline indicates that the Duggars started the show already having the knowledge of what Josh Duggar had done. They went forward representing a brand of Christianity claiming that it works and is successful. They deemed themselves the mouthpieces of a Christian Purity Movement knowing they had skeletons in the closet. And along these lines, evidence has now surfaced that Josh Duggar when he was 19, sought his crimes to be suppressed so that they would never see the light of day. Evidence also indicates that the rehab and therapy he received is very questionable. On top of it,… Read more »
Darlene, Since I am not familiar with the Duggar’s, these movements, etc I will not get caught up in the controversy until (if ever) I am. I know that the resolution to this problem will not come from the world, it will come from God. Regarding hypocrisy, remember Jimmy Swaggart, Bakker (husband of Tammy Faye) ? Both where hypocritical christians. Is the gospel discredited because of their sin? Are God’s laws against adultery and homosexuality moot because those two men where slaves to their lusts and did not deal with it with God? The answer is “no”. God loves men… Read more »
Darlene, Honestly I find it ironic that you are criticizing the way the Duggars handled this. The recidivism rate of molestation is estimated to be between 70 and 99%, yet here we have someone who has not committed a similar act in 10 years and never as an adult. Shouldn’t we be modeling the approach rather than attacking it? What would you do it your 14/15 year old child came to you and confessed that he had terrible temptations and gave into them? A parent’s worst nightmare is presented to you: what would you do? Would you march the boy… Read more »
“…yet here we have someone who has not committed a similar act in 10 years and never as an adult.” I am hesitant to take Josh Duggar at his word. Statistics show that people who commit this kind of crime are very good at lying and deceiving others. They are very good at showing remorse, although it be a phony remorse. And statistics show that they are quite good at committing the same offense again and being crafty at hiding it. The nature of the crime of incest and sexual abuse against children is a particularly base sin – much… Read more »
An interesting point of double standards as well is the lack of apology from the reporters who made this “news.” They have done untold damage to these girls and their families, for what good? None of the girls or their parents came forward to report this. That would indicate to me that they wanted it to be kept private. The reporters won’t be fired, rather I imagine a bonus will be coming their way. Yet, no apology needed. And more magazines sold. What does that say about the values of the atheistic culture?
Carole: The values of the atheistic culture? First of all, the “atheistic culture” as you call it, doesn’t claim to have the same kind of values as Christians. The Duggars were the ones who claimed to adhere to a certain value system of morals and THEY are the ones who have been disgraced by proving themselves to be hypocrites. The secular culture, the media, the atheists – what Christians might call bastions of wickedness – aren’t trying to sell values. In this case it was the Duggars who were selling values, and pointing to themselves as successful advocates of said… Read more »
…they aren’t trying to sell values.
heh.
That’s right, Timothy. Carole stated, “What does that say about the values of the atheistic culture?” They don’t claim to have some high moral ground. That is the mantra of the Right-Wing Republican Party, although they have failed in this regard. And it is the Conservative Christians, ones like the Quiverfull Movement to which the Duggars belong, that claim to have a superior Value System to the secular culture, a system that is supposed to prevent sexual abuse. Let me put it this way. I have often said that I would much rather work with unbelievers, those who don’t claim… Read more »
That’s right, Timothy. Carol stated, “What does that say about the
values of the atheistic culture?” They don’t claim to have some high
moral ground. T
heh. I am sorry, this is so wrong I am doubting your competence in this area.
Rachel Shubin has kindly provided a link where I can familiarize myself with background information. Time permitting I will read it and get up to speed.
No problem, Timothy. Read away. By the way, I don’t claim to be an expert in this area by any means. The gist of it is that Christians – and I’ll state in this case more specifically, Conservative Christians, do claim to hold to a very high moral value system. This is why many on the opposing side, i.e. normally classified as Left Wing Liberals, are worried about a Christian Theocracy complete with Christian values and morality, taking over if the Republicans win the Presidential election. (ha ha,,,as if that would ever happen)
Darlene,
I see. That is tragic and I am sorry you were entangled in that sort of experience. ;It must be very painful to recall. Some of your posts seem clearer to me now upon hearing it, though so thank you.
I hope your experience here will be as rewarding as mine has been. Pastor Wilson has great insight and solid teaching. His sermons are available and are a great resource.Also the folks who post here are incredibly knowledgeable, intelligent and helpful. Clearly though not everyone agrees on all issues.
Blessings.
Darlene, I am having trouble following your argument. One, Josh was 14 when he touched his sisters. He went to his parents and told them. Arkansas Child Advocacy recommends talking with all the children involved when inappropriate touching is going on to see if the children are upset about it, if it was exploratory, etc. If there is a gap of 4 years between the children then the older child needs to be taught it is inappropriate according to their homepage. I take child abuse/sexual abuse/rape very seriously. But you seem not to want to account for the ages of… Read more »
Carole, here’s a link that deals with the Duggar case fairly. I think that should you read it, you will be informed of the ways that Josh’s parents, the elders in their church, and the cop, who was a friend of Jim Bob and later arrested and imprisoned for child abuse, all mishandled this case.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-josh-duggar-police-report.html
Darlene, Jillybean filled me in on my misunderstanding. I believe I have been misinformed to how things happened. I understood that Josh confessed what he was doing before the girls even knew. It appears that is not what happened, quite the contrary.
So, I apologize for discussing this with incorrect facts.
All of our past experiences influence and inform our current perceptions. My glasses indeed may be rosy when it comes to some situations, but I still suspect yours may be a bit dark.
Blessings,
“My glasses indeed may be rosy when it comes to some situations, but I still suspect yours may be a bit dark.” Carole, let’s just say I am no longer surprised in hearing about immorality and deplorable behavior within the Christian community. I am no longer shocked when a scandal comes to light about Christians behaving badly – even to the extent of attempting to justify such behavior. As you have said, “All of our past experiences influence and inform our current perceptions.” Having once been a member of a toxic Christian cult, and having witnessed and become privy to… Read more »
“…but your hatred for them is where I am lost.” Carole, this reminds me of certain Obama supporters who think that addressing this administration’s gross errors and incompetency equals “hatred.” I don’t hate the Duggars. I do find Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s inaction and neglect to report their son’s sexual abuse to the proper authorities reprehensible and inexcusable. Not only did they put their own children at risk, but the children of other families as well. And in the end, their inaction directly caused the sexual abuse of more young girls, not all of whom were Josh’s sisters. “I… Read more »
I’m afraid I have to disagree with Griffith again. I’ve found just the opposite in my own experience, particularly with atheists. Secularists do claim to hold a superior morality. For example, we see it here on this blog with atheists claiming that we Christians are only moral because God might punish us, while they are free to be moral simply because it’s the right thing to do. They actually think that the Christian God is immoral and wicked, and that they have a much better handle on justice than Christians.
And this is the play, would you agree, that we see run over and over again. Liberals are the “nice” guys, where as the mean Christian conservatives who claim to be nice, are the meanies who molest their children, commit adultry etc…Somehow, when liberals commit adultery, molestation, it is no big deal since they are still the “nice” guys to gays, working women etc etc And they somehow aren’t hypocrites….it is a brilliant move, how have they pulled it off? If your wife is a feminist, like Hilary, does it make it okay to commit adultery? Maybe it won’t hurt… Read more »
Darlene, Of course the atheists are selling us a value system…think about how we must now speak, act and make laws about homosexuality in our culture today? That is a value system and everyone has one. As Christians, remember what we claim is that we are sinners. We are sinners who by grace can be saved. Mrs Duggar consistently talks about her sinful life in the past as a bully, having an eating disorder etc then shares that through Christ her heart was changed. They reveal their family to us warts and all. Here is an opportunity for the world… Read more »
Carole, whatever the value system of the atheists may be, it is not a standard of morality or values that Christians claim. Further, you speak as though everyone in the secular culture and media claim to be atheists. This is not the case. Some are agnostics, some believe in God, though that God may be quite different than what Christians understand Him to be. It’s never good to broad brush in this way. As far as the Duggars are concerned, we will have to agree to disagree. They didn’t reveal their family to us “warts and all.” They permitted a… Read more »
Darlene, The fact that you are instructing me not to use a broad brush is hilarious since you are doing it with Christians, homeschoolers, patriarchal families, the list goes on and on.You are being very silly at this point and I have serious doubts that you understand what being a Christian is. We are sinners. We know that left to our own devices, we choose to sin every time. We are only kept from sinning by the grace of God. Darlene, Have you ever even watched the Duggar’s show? What episode did they claim to be morally superior to folks?… Read more »
“The fact that you are instructing me not to use a broad brush is hilarious since you are doing it with Christians, homeschoolers, patriarchal families, the list goes on and on.” Carole, if you noticed I said many times their “particular brand” of Christianity. The Quiverfull Movement. The Quiverfull Movement which subscribes to a twisted version of gender roles that they call Patriarchy. And if you’re not familiar with this brand of Christianity, just read Vision Forum and Bill Gothard’s teachings. You know, the teachings that were promoted by Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips, both who had to resign because… Read more »
con’t…. ‘Your analysis of this situation is so illogical and confused, I honestly don’t have anything else to say.” Carole, you have the prerogative to disagree, but to say my analysis is “illogical and confused” reveals your inability or your unwillingness to deal with the facts of this case. I have presented a clear case of the Duggars being irresponsible in reporting a crime within a timely manner to prevent further abuse, negligent with regard to the law according to that very state’s laws, and due to their negligence to report the crime in a timely manner, were directly responsible… Read more »
There is a woman named Lena Dunham who was recently in the news as having recounted in her book how she sexually abused her younger sister.
Was she a Duggar? A Gotharbite? A Patriarchy sort of gal?
The non-religious blogger Instapundit has a meme “Teach women not to rape!” where he notes the incidences of women raping school-children in the public schools.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=%27teach+women+not+to+rape%27
What brand of Christianity should I blame for this?
timothy, this whole exchange, in which I have had to really reexamine my own human idolatry, ends up being a great reminder to me, that sin is everywhere. I think in some ways Darlene and i are both reacting from planes of idolatry. I am reminded that I want to believe that if I raise my children in certain ways, I can keep them from such and such sin… But I know, that there is only One who can keep us from sin. One of the reasons I homeschool is because I knew some of what went on between teachers… Read more »
Carole, “I think in some ways Darlene and i are both reacting from planes of idolatry.” Ok Carole…..I’m taking a deep breath here….first, what do you mean by this statement? Secondly, I caution you about including me in this statement because you don’t know me personally. At least be willing to *ask* me if this is the case, along with defining exactly what you mean. I must confess that in conversations with various Christians on line and elsewhere, I’ve come to recognize there is a lingo which is familiar within certain camps, denominations/church communities if you will, which is quite… Read more »
I thought I did explain myself. As much as we all want to control our lives and our environment and protect our children, we ultimately don’t have complete control. Believing that we do, I think in some ways is human idolatry. That is what I meant. I was not speaking in some sect lingo we have going on here…I am just a sinner desiring God and to live my life as I believe the Bible instructs us to. I find good teaching from Pastor Wilson and often listen to his sermons, read his books etc. But I haven’t left him… Read more »
Hi Carole, Scripture admonishes us to raise our children in the ways of the Lord; and from your comment it appears you have done that. If they are in Christ now, then the devil himself cannot pry them from His loving hands. Robert Novak, in a discourse with his unbelieving/agnostic daughter wrote that our relationship with God is a personal thing, meaning that nobody else can do what we must do for us. Its like falling in love. It cannot be faked and it takes courage to love another. What I have found is that Christ makes integrity and forthrightness… Read more »
Timothy, As to your example, none. My point is that in the case of the Duggars there is substantial evidence to point to the cultural mores along with their specific teachings on sex, patriarchy, gender roles, as contributing to the problem. In other cases of incest, child molestation, sexual abuse *other* factors can be pointed to as the cause. Here’s a link that explains quite well what I’m doing my best to express. This man is a lawyer who specifically works with clients who have been physically and sexually abused. He understands the inner workings within particular Fundamentalist structures that… Read more »
Timothy, Something else I wanted to add to this conversation. In case studies on serial killers, there might be common underlying causes at to why these perps do what they do. However, there are also differences and circumstances that are unique to that particular serial killer – what it was that motivated them in particular to kill. So it is that there are the generalities that can be applied, but the specifics must not be overlooked as well. Things are seldom Black and White in this world, but rather, shaded with nuance and gradation. The reasons and underlying causes as… Read more »
Hi Darlene, I read the post earlier when Rachel Shubin linked to it. I was not impressed then, I am not impressed now. The genre is standard boilerplate social-twaddle that says nothing of depth. I did revisit he site and ran the following searches: 1. Jesus 0 results 2. Holy Spirit 0 results 3. Christ (as part of Christian and the context is always in analysis of and not reference from within I have years of experience of listening patiently to this sort of tripe and I am done with it. On Serial Killers, here is Son of Sam (David… Read more »
Whoa, Timothy! Anger on steroids much? None of my communication with you deserves such a vile, and repugnant response. Mention of Christ out of one side of your mouth, and acerbic, foul, abhorrent speech from the other side is quite the contrary of how a Christian should conduct themselves. “We are to HUMBLE OURSELVES before HIM and NOT the other way around.” Your admonition to be humble rings hollow by the inexcusable manner in which you have expressed yourself. You act as one who is blind-sided by their passions, all the while sending rebukes in my direction. As Job said… Read more »
Darlene, you ignorant twit.
Remember that sand I had my head in? Go pound it.
Timothy,
Sadly, you are the rudest Christian I have ever met online. Why such a foul temper and downright nasty demeanor toward me? Nothing I have said to you, NOTHING, warrants such an attitude from you. If this is any example of how you treat others who disagree with you, I would suggest you remind yourself of Christ’s second commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Darlene,
You are a boiler-plate feminist. I have zero patience for you mindless twaddle.
It is not love to humor a fool in his folly.
Nehemia 5:6
Exodus 11:8
Hold up there, cowboy. Ain’t no way to treat a lady.
Wait a minute Jill, If we are going to make comments on this interatction I would like to point out that if “feminists” are going to belittle, speak rudely, dismissively, aggressively etc, then they should expect to receive it back, we can’t then say they should be treated like ladies. The tone here has been very rude and aggressive! I doubt this is the first time such a response came back!
I agree with you, Carole. Except that Timothy, whom I have come to like and admire very much over the years, is a Christian gentleman who is held to a higher standard!
Jillybean, if that is the way a Christian “gentleman” speaks, then call me perplexed.
“…I would like to point out that if “feminists” are going to belittle, speak rudely, dismissively, aggressively etc, then they should expect to receive it back…” Carol, are you even daring to compare the manner in which I have addressed Timothy as anything near the outright obscene, vile denigration that he sent my way? Since when is using obscenities to excoriate others an acceptable practice among Christians? Where have I “belittled or spoken rudely” to Timothy? I may have disagreed with his opinions, but I’ve not been insulting, demeaning or obscene toward his person. If you think this, then please… Read more »
Carole, One more thing I wanted to add, is that it isn’t a matter of being able to *handle* Timothy’s misguided and uninformed correction. I’m no powder puff and don’t expect to be treated like one. Having worked in the public school system and in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation, verbal threats and insults were hurled my way from high school students and clients bent on proving their point. On occasion physical threats came in my direction as well. Really, it’s just about expecting to be treated with a certain amount of human decency. After all, this isn’t… Read more »
Darlene, If you would sincerely like me to help you to see how your choice of words are stirring up division, I would be willing to show you, but I am not interested in engaging in any further inflammatory or bickering arguments. The fact that recovering alcoholics and highschool students have threatened you in the past, highlights my point of suspecting you incited angry responses before. Verbal and physical threats to a teacher are not typical, nor has it been my experience that they are in rehabilitation facilities. Please take time to reflect on why this happens, sister. The topic… Read more »
“The fact that recovering alcoholics and high school students have threatened you in the past, highlight my point of suspecting you incited angry responses before.” Carole, where do I even go with this? Have you ever worked among this population? “Verbal and physical threats to a teacher are not typical, nor has it been my experience that they are in rehabilitation facilities. Please take time to reflect on why this happens, sister.” I must ask, have you ever worked in the public school system with a population that abuses drugs, where a large number of students are on parole, and… Read more »
Darlene, Yes, I have worked extensively in both of those populations, one area you may have heard of where I was employed as a teacher was South Central LA. We had two full time policeman, one was shot outside the front gate from a drive by. We also had metal detectors at the school’s entrance. I was never verbally or physically threatened by a student nor were any of the teachers I knew well. I apologize if I sounded condescending to you. It was my earnest prayer prior to writing to be sincere and helpful. I can see that I… Read more »
Carole, Though you may never have been verbally or physically threatened by a student as well as any of the other teachers in your place of employment, does not prove that I brought on the verbal and physical abuse where I worked. And as you’ll notice, I said “on occasion” physical threats came my way. As I said, all the other teachers experienced what I did. Perhaps in your school, the administration was supportive of the faculty and support systems were set up in which proper procedures were put in place to discipline wrong behavior within the student body. Such… Read more »
Darlene, I did not call you rude or aggressive, I called you a dimwit and a twit and a boilerplate feminist. Until I have reason to believe differently I will stand by those comments. Titus 1:9-16 Replace ‘Cretans’ with ‘Feminists’ and you may begin to see the outline of why I responded as I did. Pay particular attention to vs 12 and 13. for the Biblical basis for my sharp rebuke to you. Note also that my rebuke was milder than what I routinely dish out to stupid and dishonest men. I can be and often am much more severe… Read more »
Timothy, “I did not call you rude or aggressive.” I never said you did. That is a quote from Carole, what she said to me. Although I did say you are the rudest Christian I have met online, and I stand by those words until I have reason to believe anything to the contrary. There’s no talking to you. You’ve got me figured out in your own mind, and yet no where can you provide a quote of mine that proves your assertions. You continue to call me a feminist – but your assertion is fueled by anger without substance.… Read more »
I hope you recall that I said I am not a Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan feminist. In case you don’t understand, look them up
No. I have no interest in wasting my time with a tree that yields such rotten fruit.
Timothy, I asked you to show proof of what you assert, namely, that I am a feminist, and you have not done so thus far. You made the following statement about me: “If you insist that God did not create men and women differently with different natures and roles, then I will treat you like a man.” So that you will understand this clearly, I never said such a thing. And I asked you to show me where I did and you cannot. That amounts to lying. You mentioned the Anglican Church, a feminist version of the Christian church. I… Read more »
A bit of clarification is in order. In most of the world, and in the U.S. in particular, “Anglican” typically refers to the branches of the Worldwide Anglican Communion that are resisting feminism and other liberalizing and heretical influences. Only the Church of England and The Episcopal Church in the U.S. deserve to be tarred with the “dying, feminist” brush.
Darlene. First, thank you for showing some backbone and refusing to back down. I am beginning to think you have some real Christian character; that is a good thing. Search this comment section for where you posted that you are a proud feminist of the ‘suffragette’ kind; if you cannot find it, I will find it for you. It is not my fault that I took you at your word. Your rhetoric, up until this last comment of yours, was boilerplate feminist drivel with no argument from Scripture; I treated you as I treat most feminists, with contempt (there are… Read more »
Timothy, As a history major, I can tell you that the Suffragette Movement was nothing like the Feminist Movement of the 1960’s or the current Feminist Movement that has morphed into something quite disastrous. That is where you made your mistake. Women being granted the right to vote or working toward changing laws that defended the right of the husband to beat his wife are not poisonous feminist directives. Those women would not even be able to relate to the current Feminist Movement at large just like the Democrats of my parents’ generation would not be able to relate to… Read more »
If you disagree with my analogy, then you need to have a better understanding of history. It is your ideology that has the marketing problem and I am under no obligation to do your work for you. I am a software engineer and a pilot who was forced to listen to the drivel of feminists both in college and in corporate. I do not tolerate it any longer. I despise it. I clearly stated I was not a Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan feminist. I don’t care. There is a subset of Marxism named Trotskyism. Its defenders always point out… Read more »
Timothy, I’ve got a couple questions for you. Please answer them as clearly as possible. Do you think it was/is wrong for women to work through the political system to gain the vote? If no, explain why you think women should not have the right to vote in the political process. I urge any other women here to listen to Timothy’s response. Do you think that the law which permitted and supported men hitting their wives was just? Do you think it was right for men and women to speak out against such a law and work through the political… Read more »
heh. You are annoying. Do you think it was/is wrong for women to work through the political system to gain the vote? If no, explain why you think women should not have the right to vote in the political process. I urge any other women here to listen to Timothy’s response. I did, I am now having second thoughts as I am seeing good arguments on how the intrinsic differences between men and women result in different policies. The arguments seem sound. Paraphrasing, men are ‘outward focused’ and will take risks that women will not as women will ‘protect at… Read more »
Ok, so if i understand you correctly, you think there is now evidence that shows women should not have the right to vote? At least that is what I understood from your response. “If you are referring to what Hoff-Sommers debunked in her book “Who Stole Feminism” then you have a credibility problem.” I’ve never heard of the book. “Why is it that ‘civil law’ is so important and has replaced the human interaction of the Pentecost?” I would answer your question if I understood what you were asking. What specifically do you mean by “human interaction of the Pentecost?”… Read more »
“When a woman identifies as a feminist my eyes glaze over.” I get it…will blindness would be the legal term.. Because in your book, there is only ever Black and White according to the Timothy Paradigm. Rewrite ‘Black and White’ as Spirit and Flesh and yes, there is only that. There is ‘of God’ and ‘not of God’ . When I identify a thing as being of one or the other, it radically effects how I deal with it. When God says to look, I look. When the devil says to look, my eyes glaze over. I must congratulate you… Read more »
Timothy, What you continue to assert is untrue. I’m left wondering if you are either unable or unwilling to hear me out. One way or the other, you have not dealt reasonably with what I have said to you. You call me a feminist because you think I don’t believe God created men and women differently for different roles and have different natures. I respond quite clearly that I think women and men are created differently and each have unique roles. You continue to assert that I believe what I don’t believe. Therefore I can only conclude that you prefer… Read more »
I get it, your not that kind of feminist even though you behave, write and screech like that sort of feminist, it is my fault that I fail to see your eloquence, brilliance, cogency and deep insights and will not take the time to ponder the incoherent minutia that makes your sort of feminism a oh so very special sort of feminism. Did I mention feminists make my eyes glaze over? Did I mention that you are an idiot? If not, let me mention it now. You are an idiot, a feminist, twerp. You have no influence on me. I… Read more »
Timothy, I don’t recall you ever calling Eric the Red a f*cking moron or anything similar (I could be wrong). Is there something about apparent feminism that seems more dangerous to you than confessed unbelief? I’ve seen you attempt to interact with EtR’s ideas without resorting to “the big guns” as you might call it. How do you gauge which people – or which brothers and sisters in the Lord – get decimated?
Hi katie.
My vigor is always in response to an attack on the Body of Christ. An argument for incorporating Eric’s Humian Utilitarianism and its consequentialist approach to ethics into Scripture would be met with equal rage.
hth
t
And you’re certain that Darlene is arguing for incorporating feminism into Scripture?
Hi Katie, I prefer the comments on literature as well, but I will say what led me to believe Darlene was promoting a form of feminism was when she said the Duggars practiced a “twisted view of gender roles, as well as things like “their teachings on patriarchy led to sexual and physical abuse.” She also implied that sons were preferred to daughters in patriarchy and Patriarchy or with fundamentalists… as I am one of those crazy women who submit to her husband’s leadership (not to mention I believe Christian children have no place in public schools (one of the… Read more »
Thanks Carole. From the very little that I know of the teachings of Bill Gothard and his homeschool culture, I want to keep my distance. I embrace “wives submit” and “husbands love” because my God said it. I homeschool classically because I love learning and want to share that with my children. Darlene’s critique of the culture the Duggars are a part of doesn’t seem to warrant attack. Her word choice didn’t seem any more flippant than Doug’s often is. Sometimes that’s part of the fun!
Yes, I know what you mean about Doug’s command of the language, it certainly is fun, but it is not directed at a person in conversation even from what I’ve seen of his debates. I think one of the things that most amazed me about his gifts was when he went to the Indiana college to discuss gay mirage. Those kids were shockingly rude and aggressive, clearly believing the opposite of the our Lord’s word, but he was an amazingly patient teacher! So in conversation, I think being snarky and dismissive here toward a Biblical perspective, and toward an individual… Read more »
That’s something I was just thinking about – Doug’s offensive language is addressed towards groups of people, and not individuals. Maybe that’s a silly distinction, but it seems to me that in attacking a group one can attack the idea that group holds, whereas in attacking an individual the idea they hold to doesn’t take the hit, but the person does. That’s where, in my opinion, Timothy goes off the rails. As a brother I wish him nothing but good, strangers though we be.
But not just timothy is where I guess you and I, sister, are disagreeing. When I read what he wrote, I heard frustration but the choice words toward the person, were actually very mild. At any rate, I would love there to be peace amongst us. When I am well enough to be here, I prefer the typical discussions. There are so many brilliant folks gathered into one place, it’s inspiring. And I always miss jillybean when i am away!
Carole, mild? Are you sure you have read Timothy’s actual responses to me? If so, I am a bit puzzled by your perspective.
Darlene, Honestly, how long is this to go on??? Did you ever for one second, think it might be you? Could it be that there is any truth to you being a feminist? Do you work for someone other than your husband? Do you take on the management of your home and children as your primary duty and responsibility? Do you believe the Bible instructs us to submit to and respect our husbands? Do you believe that we are weaker than they are and that we were made from them and for them? Do you raise your children in the… Read more »
Carole, What puzzles me is that you still continue to defend Timothy’s false accusations and his rude and vulgar responses toward me. I can also surmise that no matter how I may answer your questions, you will perceive “evil feminist’ in the response. That you can judge Christians as “not following God’s commands” because they send their children to public school, reveals a lack of mercy on your part. That’s judging a whole lot of Christians! You don’t know each and every circumstance in every Christian household. That is wonderful if you homeschool. Our daughter was homeschooled for 2 years… Read more »
Darlene, this is how I get frustrated. You asked me my belief regarding education. I told you that based on the Bible (Eph. 6:4) that I believe we are required to give our children a Godly education. That is told to the fathers, and it is my job in our house, to manage it day to day. Yes, we homeschool and we first became aware of Pr Wilson’s through his writing on Classical Christian education which we embrace. However, homeschooling is not the only option, there are a growing number of great schools available. I do not believe that the… Read more »
Darlene,
If you would be willing to describe/explain what you believe are the God ordained roles of men and women and their roles and purposes in marriage and child rearing, I would like very much to hear.
Thanks
Good morning, Carole. I am cutting in here with a question that arises from our Gaudy Night discussion. Do you remember that in Busman’s Honeymoon Harriet insists on promising to obey in the wedding ceremony even though Peter seems lukewarm about it? We see her as a “wifely” wife and a “motherly” mother in the short story about the snake in the bed (one that I have to skip huge chunks of) even though there are clearly lots of servants, nursemaids, and so on. But doesn’t Sayers make it clear that Harriet will continue her writing career? Assuming she is… Read more »
I think about the same things and I hate to respond quickly because I imagine these are the kinds of questions I will continue thinking about for a long time. One thing is being equally yoked of course. And marrying a man whom you can truly respect. I think for truly brilliant women that is a challenge and it is better to stay single than to marry a man they cannot respect, end of story. I think writing from home is good! A brilliant scholar wouldn’t necessarily need to work at a university would she? I can’t see why an… Read more »
I will forever be the Boilerplate Feminist no matter how I may protest otherwise. To highlight a text in bold text use the ‘b’ tags as described here: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_b.asp To highlight a text in italics text use the ‘i’ tags as described here: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_b.asp ALL CAPS going forward will be treated as boilerplate feminist screeching. The men and women of this blog are good people and do good work building up the Body of Christ. I have reread our exchanges and frankly I am surprised at how restrained I was towards you. I meant every word I said. Your motives… Read more »
“So in conversation, I think being snarky and dismissive here toward a Biblical perspective, and toward an individual isn’t cool, especially when someone is trying to understand the argument.” Carole, first of all, I have been reading this blog for some time and it isn’t as though people use flowery sweet language with each other. Some of the comments on this blog are out of the ballpark as regards being harsh and insulting. As far as being dismissive, you must be thinking of Timothy. I have been forthright and direct in answering him. On the other hand, I have asked… Read more »
Another example of controlling rudeness is telling people how many words they may use in answering questions…I truly cannot imagine any circumstances in which Pastor Wilson would say that to his peer.
Carole, your comment here is misleading. Perhaps you read wrongly. Yes, I told Timothy to answer my questions with a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ I also told him to give explanations as to why he believes the way he does. There was no attempt whatsoever at trying to “control” how many words he used in his responses to my questions. In fact, I wanted him to answer my questions as thoroughly as possible.
“Darlene’s critique of the culture the Duggars are a part of doesn’t seem to warrant attack.”
Katie, I have read quite a bit about the Quiverfull Movement and its practices. Also, there are many who have come out of that movement exposing its dangers. I hope you read just some of the descriptions of the kind of Patriarchy the Duggars, and by extension Bill Gothard and Vision Forum believe and practice.
“Her word choice didn’t seem any more flippant than Doug’s often is.”
Which causes me to wonder if such word choices are only acceptable for some and not others.
“…I will say what led me to believe Darlene was promoting a form of feminism was when she said the Duggars practiced a “twisted view of gender roles, as well as things like “their teachings on patriarchy led to sexual and physical abuse.”‘ Carole, I stand with a myriad of Christians, many of whom are Evangelicals, that also believe the same thing. Since you said that you are familiar with the Quiverfull Movement, then you must be aware of the teaching taught to the young girls as little as 4 years old. They are told that they must completely cover… Read more »
Darlene, In our conversation we were speaking about the Duggars. The Duggar’s daughters do not completely cover themselves. There are daughters in the family who are old enough to, but have not married and work as nurses. The daughters and sons chose their courtship boundaries….at least these are things that they claim and act out on the show. I have read Mr Phillip’s books, bought many toys from the old catalog and had the pleasure of hearing him speak at conferences. I did have as many children as God would give me. Otherwise, I believe that men are the heads… Read more »
I do not know. I will answer that question after (when/if I get the time to) I examine Rachel Shubin’s exegesis in her (very good) comment. What I expect is the all-to-human desire to bend God to our ways instead of us submitting to His ways but I am genuinely open to the idea that there is good theology to be had in what she writes. I am very interested if there is something of scripture that I have been missing. Frankly, I have no idea if Darlene has even made an argument as I have not considered it worthwhile… Read more »
If you don’t know what (or even if) she’s arguing, I’d suggest reversing the order of your “ready, fire, aim” tactics. Apologies for butting in here! Just felt like breaking up the fight before another barstool got thrown.
Hee hee!
Thanks.
Good night.
It’s called shooting from the hip and ask questions later.
“…throw in THE OCCASIONAL ALL CAPS TO ITERATE A POINT as another marker, along with presumed moral superiority masquerading as confidence and that was reason enough to dismiss her as a typical annoying feminist.” Timothy, as I said elsewhere, such logic would not fly in a course on rhetoric or philosophy, which by the way, we know Doug Wilson has a high regard for. I hope you read my reasons for using caps, as I don’t know how to use italics or bold for emphasis. But by your reasoning, as I said elsewhere, I could say that your frequent use… Read more »
Katie, good question. I posit that Timothy has to save face at this point or apologize for being wrong. Which one will he do? It is my hope that he will do the latter.
Keep hoping.
My comment to katie is below.
Katie, Timothy has heard my replies to the contrary many times over, but refuses to back down from his accusations against me. At this point, it reminds me of that movie from quite some time ago. The lawyer refused to put his client, who was on trial for murder, on the stand for cross examination. He advised his client that the more he protested that he was not a murderer, with each and every protestation he would be confirming to the jury that he was indeed a murderer. It seems the more I assert that I am not a feminist,… Read more »
“My vigor is always in response to an attack on the Body of Christ.”
Timothy, show where I made an attack on the Body of Christ. Please be sure to include actual quotes.
Good questions, Katie. But I’m not buying Timothy’s justification for doing so.
Settle
No bethyada.
It is important that this stuff be confronted head on in frank terms. It is a mistake to engage this crap using the tone and language of the typical HR department.
warmly,
t
“You are a boiler-plate feminist.” Timothy, you have no idea what I am in this regard. You see something that makes you think I am what you deem to be insufferable and then react, with vulgarity (since when is using the F word to excoriate others acceptable to Christians?) and unsubstantiated and vile invective. “I have zero patience for you mindless twaddle.” So you deem that if someone disagrees with you, you have a right to give them an obscene, verbal whip lashing? Is that how you evangelize with unbelievers? Timothy, you come off as a loose cannon – in… Read more »
Thhhhpppppt.
“They have done untold damage to these girls and their families…” The untold damage began with the Duggars. They knew the serious nature of the crime their son had committed. And they refused to report it for NINE months to the authorities. This amounts to protecting criminal behavior. IF they had reported Josh Duggar’s crime to the authorities immediately, he would have been taken into custody and then put in a facility where his sisters could be SAFE. IF they had reported his crime immediately, he would have been able to receive counseling and help sooner. Hiding his crime sent… Read more »
Hi Carole, This is a truly horrible story, and heaven knows it is certainly divisive. I have been thinking about it quite a bit, not–I hope–out of schadenfreude or morbid curiosity, but because it raises such terrible dilemmas. I read the police report, and it sounds to me as if the son did not spontaneously confess but was reported by one of his sisters. It also sounds as if there was more than one episode, and the youngest child may have been five or six. I do see this as seriously troubled, and criminal, behavior. I understand the feelings of… Read more »
Well said. Sexual curiosity is a very fine line among children, and overreacting can potentially lead to as many, or more, ruined lives in the other direction. I don’t envy any parent who has to make a decision on such a grave matter. In this case, it appears that the repeated incidents were eventually disclosed by the family to authorities. The family knew that others could, and had, publicly called attention to the incidents. Given that, it would have been much wiser to address it directly before accepting any position with a family-based organization, or, as jillybean says, simply decline… Read more »
Thanks Jillybean, I did not know the particulars and have not read the report. I am so saddened by the whole thing, I am sure there is some truth to wanting to hide my head in the sand. I agree with your assessment completely about his employment. In light of the girls coming forward and their ages…that changes my original ideas as well. I have to only say I am grateful that I too have never been in this situation. I pray for the entire family and as always wonder how people without faith manage to get through life. Thank… Read more »
“Sexual curiosity is a very fine line among children, and overreacting can potentially lead to as many, or more, ruined lives in the other direction.” Katecho: Agreed. And sexual curiosity among small children is natural and normal. “In this case, it appears that the repeated incidents were eventually disclosed by the family to authorities.” But not soon enough by any means. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s failure to report the incident to the authorities in a timely manner lead to more sexual abuse. They are directly responsible for those incidents of sexual abuse that followed and should have been held… Read more »
Hi Darlene, Like you, I feel pretty strongly about the sexual (or any other) abuse of children. My overall feeling is that the parents ought to have told social services/law enforcement even though I recognize that I would have struggled with this myself. Do you believe, however, that current mandatory minimums and registration requirements make it more difficult for parents to turn their young teens over to the law? I was reading about a case today of a 13-year-old who served three years in prison for molesting his younger siblings, and will spend the rest of his life on an… Read more »
Jillybean, First, I want to thank you for being a sensible voice in this discussion. It is an issue that is close to my heart due to what I experienced in a Christian sect/cult many years ago. The leader/elder was an abusive man and physically abused his son in front of me. I was quite young at the time and fearful of speaking out due to peer pressure which would result in being ostracized. After that, I witnessed the same man publicly beat a child that was not his own with a board. It was outright abuse and everyone in… Read more »
So, Katecho, Jill and Timothy, do you agree that the double standard is arbitrary, or do you think it is related at least in part to political persuasion? I am thinking of the power of teacher unions as one of the biggest examples of this double standard. Like Timothy mentioned, the incidents of child molestation between teacher and student are staggering far beyond that of Catholic priests. The entire Catholic church was criticised for the offenders whereas we hear very little if anything regarding public school as the core problem. Just as here we are hearing that patriarchy is the… Read more »
I think the existence of the secular priesthood ‘the justified’ of the secular world is the interesting thing and no, I do not think it is political. To bring politics into this is to trivialize and distract from it, in my opinion. It will take some time for me to process this idea as it is, if not fundamental, it is very close to the spiritual condition that underlies it. It has the feel of eschatology to it, or of a ‘temple’ or ‘worship’. It is a recurrent theme among the secularized to bring the latest ‘political’ fad–power relationships–into any… Read more »
So, if they can use it as an attack on our Lord, then it won’t be justified…period and that is the decision basis? Ultimately it is the fight against Christ and everything else is arbitrary?
I don’t know yet. There is a principle involved, I just haven’t isolated it yet. It could take days, weeks or months. Here’s a brainstorm…let’s see where it goes What are we looking at? What is this thing? Well, it is high rebellion. I giant ‘piss-off’ to the almighty God. It is more than high rebellion, it is “High Rebellion” or “The Church of High Rebellion” (CHR) The Church of High Rebellion (CHR) has its hierarchy and these ‘justified’ in the CHR are elders; men and woman who are damned, know it at some level, and are having fun doing… Read more »
Hi Carole, Maybe it is simpler? What do we do when we sin? Don’t we often attempt to justify it to ourselves? to God? I know I have. Thinking back to my life before I was transformed, when we see somebody who has/is doing the same sins we want to do we can point to them as a model of how things will be when we do the same things. They are ‘role models’ . Maybe that is the clue to this. Where not the Duggar’s role models? Yes, I think they where/are. Maybe we should explore along those lines?… Read more »
Yes, that could very well be it, tear down the oppositions role models and leave ours intact sort of move… I know you don’t think there is a political element, but in the early eighties I lived in West Hollywood, went every Saturday to Marianne Williamson, often as one of the only women, all my friends were male homosexuals…I was lost with a large dose of father hunger balanced by fear of heterosexual men,, anyway, there was a lot, and I do mean a lot of talk about the power that this class of folks could wield as they got… Read more »
While the tangential discussions are interesting and important in themselves, several comments make it seem as if the readers do not understand what Doug is trying to say in this post. *There is no justification for child sexual abuse in general, or justification of child abuse by specific people. *There is no comment about whether or not abuse has long-term consequences (it does as does most sin) *And there is no comment about whether God expects more from Christians that non-Christians. Doug used Duggar because he corresponds to Polanski. Note this sentence Now with regard to this social or cultural… Read more »
He is not just telling how it is; he is having fun doing so. Doug is a joyful christian. Can’t have that now, can we?
Carole, it is complicated because different people hold to different
perspectives, and the US has Christian heritage (some background common beliefs). So most people hate
child sexual abuse. But many are not against using a scandal for their
own purposes. Hate the church, blame the whole church; love public
schooling, blame the individuals. But there is an antagonism toward the
church.
But isn’t this the problem that Pr Wilson is getting us to notice. SUDDENLY, the world has Christian values when it comes to kids, but the Bible is “fantasy” when it comes to others eg homosexuality, feminism…) Are they arbitrarily choosing? Choosing based on political power, choosing based on popularity…what is their backbone/standard? In one breath it is our Christian heritage in the next it is….what?
I don’t know anything about the Duggars, what I have read here and what I have read in the ever reliable wikipedia. So it is difficult to comment about this specific case. But in general I find some responses by Christians to the issues of pedophilia and child sexual abuse somewhat secular. First a disclaimer (which should be obvious). While this covers a range of behaviour (from childhood sexual exploring to infant rape), much of this sin is grievous and abhorrent, and can cause decades of distress for the victims. Despite this, it has become in the eyes of some… Read more »
When we get to the place where we “forgive” some sins by legitimising
such behaviour, and some sins remain unforgivable, then we have
abandoned Christianity.
Which, for some is the point.
Discussing the Duggar matter and how that relates to those in the secular world who commit the same offenses has lead me to thinking of some of the resultant scenarios. Folks on both sides of the aisle – Left Wing & Right Wing alike, are prone to weigh in on this case. Politics in the United States has become an exercise of emotionalism and sentimentality. Reading the comment sections in any political arena it becomes readily apparent that a polarization has occurred. From Right Winger’s (RW) comments, one might deduce that Obama is Evil Incarnate. From Left Winger’s (LW) comments,… Read more »
What I hate is that all of us seem to be expected to fall into lockstep with very little room for nuance, tolerance, and compassion. I don’t altogether blame those gays who, having never even thought of molesting a child, feel some pleasure in the downfall of a confessed molester who has, through his position at the FRC, attributed to gays sins and crimes which he committed himself. It is not a pretty part of human nature to feel that pleasure, but I understand it. And I understand the grim pleasure felt by Christian conservatives when hypocrisy is detected in… Read more »
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to… Read more »
Jillybean, excellent observations. I will have to think on a lot of what you said. Wise words.
Darlene, this is my issue with some of your previous comments however. You seemed to be using this incident of evil from Josh Duggar to take down, a “particular branch” of patriarchy, homeschool, conservative Christians… I understand since you were once a part of a cult that you want folks to be on the look out for any groups you think may be headed to cult like behaviour, but in this case It does seem like you too are using a sad sad incidence to further your cause claiming, passionately, that there is “objective” evidence to show the two are… Read more »
Carole, There’s so many angles from which to critique the Duggar debacle. The more I have thought about it, the more I try to examine my own attitudes in all of it. I will say that having read more about the incident within the last day, I don’t subscribe to all the vindictive against Josh Duggar that the media is putting out there. He had little to no choice in how his inappropriate sexual advances were handled by his parents, the elders of his church, and the corrupt cop that his father knew. I do think that if he had… Read more »
Darlene, I am well read on the quiverfull ideologies, on patriarchy, Patriarchy, homeschooling, etc. Thanks anyway. I think you will find that assuming folks here are not well read is a faulty presumption.
Carole, You said I hadn’t provided any objective evidence. That’s the reason I gave a link. I wasn’t assuming anything about folks here. My response was directed to you and you alone. I referred you to a site that addresses a direct link, i.e. evidence – between the Quiverfull Movement and the Duggar case. I had no idea what you did or didn’t know about the Quiverfull Movement. So, if you do understand the teachings of Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips, it puzzles me how you don’t see the seriously problematic and damaging teachings of said movement. If this is… Read more »
In fact, some people here are freakishly well read!
Mirages? You mean marriages?
Nope, they definitely aren’t marriages. :)