My interaction with Brad Littlejohn on this pink hair business is going to have to proceed very careful lest the whole thing turn into a love fest. I think we have established that we largely agree on the principles, at least at 30,000 feet. The issue remaining, as I understand it, is how much of a gap or jump is there between the scriptural principle and the application of that principle. And more to the point, do preachers making such applications even acknowledge the existence of such a gap? Is there a diminution of authority, in other words, by the time you get down to the modern implementation? And if so, shouldn’t the preacher make his applications a little more cautiously?
But before getting to that—which is a most interesting point—I need to correct and tighten up my language. I initially said:
“But left out of this equation is whether the pastor is correct, and whether the believer would be right in thinking what he now does based on what the pastor says. And this goes back to the clarity of the scriptural teaching.”
However later on in his post Brad had addressed that, as he pointed out in his follow up.
“Of course, if the rebuke is according to the Word, if the minister does indeed accurately proclaim and apply God’s wrath against a certain kind of behavior, then it may be worth the risk of such responses; something will need to be said, although one still needs to be wise in when and how it is said.”
His qualification was there and I missed it—so apologies to Brad on that front, and my statement should have read differently. My point would have been better made if instead of saying “left out of the equation” I had said something like “not being given its due weight is the question . . .”
So turning to the question of the authority of a preacher’s “pronouncements,” here are just a few random thoughts. Take them as paragraphs arranged around a general theme, and in what follows I am not interacting with Brad point-by-point any longer, albeit with thanks to him. I have officially slipped the leash and am off on my own.
The reason my thought experiment selected 100 women from each group is because I know the variability of human motivation and the wild card of individual circumstances. In other words, I know that the sweetest Christian woman ever might highlight her hair with a touch of color that is like nothing on earth, and do so in a way that doesn’t have me calling for the elders to bring her up on charges. And some other woman could be defying the neon rainbow and all its works with a demeanor that violates every Pauline exhortation for women ever written. Take a look at the two pictures to the right—the cute girl (don’t get your egalitarian back up, you know which one it is) is much closer to what we want in our churches than the other. But if we stop reasoning carefully on this subject, what we are going to wind up with is the Carrie Nation version, only with hair dye. That might be good, if for no other reason than that it enables us to see her coming.
So I know there are eddies here and there, places where the water moves upstream. But I also know which way the river is going. I am happy to acknowledge the existence of exceptions, and am happy to be careful to make room for them.
When a preacher generalizes, he is not offering a proposition out of Euclid. Triangles have three sides and men are taller than women are both true, but they are not true in the same way. If a particular point in the sermon stung someone, it is not to the point to find a Pharisee who isn’t a whited sepulcher. Pastors are shepherds of flocks, and they are dealing (all the time) with group dynamics. The Bible—over and over—requires this sort of pastoral admonition. “A Levite passed by on the other side . . .” (Luke 10:32). “Why a Levite? I know plenty of Levites who would never do that . . .” As D.L. Moody once said, if you throw a rock into a pack of stray dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
To say something is a sin in a parishioner is not to say that “the wrath” of God is necessarily headed our way because of it. Many times, and particularly on subjects revolving around this theme, we are talking about people who are just sad muffins, trying to make their way in a world that bewilders them, surrounded by sweet Christians who lie to them—which always makes it worse. It is not always about some high rebellion. When I see a miserable woman in Christian circles in some godforsaken outfit, I would be willing to bet that at least three people told her it was “cute,” or that they “really liked it,” or something else suitably mendacious and affirming. And my conclusion is that there goes a person with no real friends, nobody who really loves her enough to tell her the truth.
At the same time, that doesn’t mean the wrath of God couldn’t ever be a factor. Looking over the past twenty years, we are much closer, palpably closer, obviously closer, to tolerating attitudes and behaviors in the conservative church that are beyond appalling. We actually are on the threshold of, and in the process of, becoming the Cities of the Plain, and we have throngs of Christians who think that if a voice is raised against what is actually happening, that voice must belong to a stodgy preacher in an eighties movie about the fifties, arguing that poodle skirts were going to be our ruination.
In the meantime, I do acknowledge the existence of the gap between exegesis and application. I believe that pastors and preachers have a responsibility to be measured, careful, and humble as they seek to connect the Word of the first century to the world of the twenty-first. But this is not to be measured by the responses of the people in the problem group in question. In other words, pastors are far more likely to be aware of the perils of “the gap” than are the teenagers in their congregations who are busy enough being catechized by Netflix. Yes, I would say to the parishioners who are being admonished for their unreflective cultural choices. There is a challenge here, but your pastor is likely far more aware of the nature of the challenge than you are.
One last thing. It is not the case that pastors need to leave such issues for the women to deal with. It might seem like prudence to leave it all untouched or, if touched, to make the word gingerly seem ham-handed. But one of the great problems underneath all of this is the large-scale abandonment of pastoral care for women. There is a long tradition within evangelicalism that equates the feminine touch with the Holy Spirit, and that tradition has been turned into the service of egalitarianism and the rule of feminine sensibilities. It begins with a great deal of flattery, but it ends in frustration and despair. It continues because pastors are too cowardly to say what needs to be said.
“One last thing. It is not the case that pastors need to leave such issues for the women to deal with.”
That’s rather reassuring, since our hands are already full just trying to deal with all the broken Christian men that seem to greatly approve of punching young girls in the face.
Is it acceptable to you to condemn both the woman and the man in that instance?
No. The “man” in this case is much older, has been to war and also to prison, and is claiming the name of Christ or at least standing behind those who are wearing Christ’s name on their jackets.
All things are not equal in the world. A Christian is held to a higher standard than a non believer. A grown man is held to a higher standard than a teen age girl. There is also the size difference and who threw the first punch.
Memi, the guy you mention is a problem, but in my opinion, the Hugh Hefners, Jon Edwards and Bill Clintons are an even bigger one. : – 0
Once again, the fact that you would include John Edwards of all people in that list, as opposed to Donald Trump, is really getting beyond ridiculous. Especially after our last conversation where you tried to assume that he’s been faithful to his wife, and then just laughed it off when shown otherwise. ;-)
J’, while neither are good, sin and hypocrisy have separate aspects. If one sins and tries to hide it, as John and bill did, they are adulterers and hypocrites, whereas if one sins and does not hide it, one is not a hypocrite on that particular issue. While the Donald has not been a pure man in his sex life, he has been more open about it than Bill or John. ???? After that, Hef has likely done more damage than all of them.???? As to whether or not the Donald is faithful to hi current wife, I just don’t… Read more »
Not only is Trump obviously a hypocrite…
The third name in your list was Hugh Hefner, who is far less a hypocrite than Trump. Meaning that at this point you’re just making up excuses after the fact.
Principles exist in service ideology or pragmatics, they arent true priors.
Also: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/04/the-ideology-is-not-the-movement/
He never said Hef was a bigger hypocrite. He just said he’s done far more damage. I agree…it’s hard to underestimate the “Playboy effect” on culture, especially in the 50s (when it came out) then into the 60s/70s Sexual Revolution and beyond. The Playboy mag at your friend’s house or hidden in the woods was yesterday’s online porn.
Strangely, I never had friends with porn. Which is weird, because I wasn’t a very good kid nor did i have particularly moral friends on that subject. I don’t think I ever saw a Playboy until college. But I do agree with you on the horrific role of Playboy on culture. And the mythos of the “Hefner lifestyle” with the Playboy Mansion and wild parties and a harem and such, is also damaging in the ideal it portrays for men. Now, take the point you just made. Take the fact that Trump is close friends with Hefner, often visited the… Read more »
My brother had two or three Playboys under his bed. And I can truthfully swear that I did read them only for the articles. That’s where I first discovered Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley.
When Trump acted in a Playboy porno flick, did he look better than he does now?
You decide:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full_mobile/public/57eee44f1a0000f3045b6276.png?itok=oi-WW9s3&mtime=1475291831
J’, perhaps your childhood friends, did not show you some things, because they were not up for the big, long lecture?! ????
(Hope you thought that was funny!)????
Well played, “A” dad. Bonus points for getting Jonathan’s upvote.
Thanks fp!
J’, however does get points for passion, as always, it’s a matter of how it’s directed.
At least he and I are capable of a functional conversation!????????????????
As usual, you are much more charitable than I. I find it difficult to have functional conversations with people who do not deal in good faith. Jonathan, like many leftists, is presumptuous and a liar whose deceit is frequently by omission. He’s also overly verbose, which leads me to believe that he subscribes to the “if you can’t beat them, baffle them with bull” philosophy. Also, and this is a pet peeve of mine, he overuses the word “literally”. For a guy who was supposedly a teacher, you’d think he would have better command of the language. In short, he… Read more »
Well, let’s keep talking, on this blog, and make each other better! That has certainly happened to me, even via non-functional conversation!
Offensive things may be said on blogs, but offense does not have to be taken.
For example Memi and Jilly don’t tussle as much as they used to.
They have gotten more use to each other.
Croucho and I also do better than we did in the past!????????
Yeah, some bad faith is out there. How do we overcome it and replace it with more salt and light? Stay cool and keep talking!????????????????????
Beautifully said. And if he’s still a teacher, it’s surprising (or not) that he frequently has time to post thousands of words on here (and on many other sites, according to him). Maybe those public school teachers aren’t so overworked and underpaid after all.
Helen Gurley Brown’s “Sex and the Single Girl” in the mid-sixties was pretty lethal for the culture. She went on to become the editor of Cosmo. When at ME’s invitation I wandered over and had a look at PUA sites, that book is what I immediately thought of. A detailed plan on how to be attractive to guys–not for the purpose of finding a husband but for ensuring an abundance of casual sex.
Again J’, you misunderstand. All of those guys have had moral lapses, which most people do not condone. John and Bill tried to deny theirs. Where by comparison Trump has admited lapses.
Then Hef, like Bill, tries to make the case that infidelity is not wrong at all.
I think they all know that their behaviors are wrong, the only difference is how readily they admit it. I have not made excuses for any of them. They all have been lounge lizards, Hef at a minimum, still is.
But of course Trump tried to make the case that infidelity wasn’t wrong. He BRAGGED about it in his books, on radio shows, and, as we now know, to random journalists he just met. And then, when it became politically expedient, he DID try to hide it. I gave you the concrete case of the ten-month affair with the Playboy actress while he was married to his current wife. Then you have all the women who say he did to them exactly what he bragged about doing, with some of the accusations having been voiced twenty years or more before… Read more »
J’, you are not listening or hearing. Here, again is my position:
“They have all been lounge lizards, Hef at a minimum, still is.”
Where we may differ, is what happens after anyone sins, and why.
And that, my friend, is a pretty wide spectrum.
Paul made out ok, Jezebel, not so much.????
Yes, that’s your position… after multiple attempts to claim that Trump is not as bad as the other guys, including your ridiculous assumption that he’s been faithful to his current wife.
Nope, they are all lounge lizards which is bad for all of them.
Beyond that, strenuous denials are bad too!
As for current faithfulness, we should assume innocence, until guilt is proven, even for blog commenters!????
Hiding a sin is hypocritical. But it shows that at least you understand the behavior is wrong. If someone (not necessarily Trump) brags about their sin instead of trying to hide it, does that necessarily make him a better person? Couldn’t it show that (1) his conscience is so dead that he doesn’t recognize anything as sinful, (2) he thinks so well of himself that he doesn’t care that others might disapprove, or (3) he is so narcissistic that he thinks everyone understands that moral rules don’t apply to the rich and powerful. People talk as if flagrant sin is… Read more »
Jilly, my thought here is more that if someone admits a “foul” rather than denying it, on some level, the initial foul is not compounded by an added denial.
That is the limit of my point, which stands, even with your points, and may not even exclude Jonathan’s.????
I agree with you that the sin becomes more serious if you are asked about it under oath and you deny it. But I think being caught in any serious lie should probably rule a person out for future public office. And definitely if the lie is given under oath.
Jilly, in these types of discussions the “rules” for crime vs. sin often get conflated. Still, the principle is similar, if not the same. Lying (denying) about a sin or crime is an additional wrong.
I would also say that while “social” lies are serious, they are not criminal. Lies on affidavits are criminal.
Re my three stooges, I am not aware that Don or Jon lied on affidavits, but I am pretty sure Bill did, and paid that $50k fine.????
In purely moral terms, I have to quibble with that. Except for the first Mrs. Trump, his wives had to know what they were getting in return for houses that out-glitter Versailles. If he is a snake, he comes equipped with an audible rattle. Mrs. Edwards trusted her husband, and he abandoned her while she had cancer. I find that really deplorable–and equally deplorable when a Republican does it. (Just to cover all my bases, I think it is just as awful for a wife to divorce a cancer-stricken husband.)
Unlike the men in the jackets, Nathan Damigo doesn’t claim the name of Christ on his website which I actually spent an hour reading, then wished I hadn’t. At least there is that. It looked like the usual stuff. Whites are too smart to be expected to live with nonwhites. Decent nonwhites should see this for themselves and go back wherever they came from. White intelligence is fabulous, but Jewish intelligence is a very bad thing and is not to be tolerated. Some of the Identity types find Jesus okay only if he is cast as a semi-mythical Teutonic warrior.… Read more »
So many people in prison seem to get radicalized by books from the prison library (Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, white supremacists, sovereign citizens), it makes you wonder who’s stocking the shelves.
The FBI?
Could be. Do you think that most of the extremist groups on the left and right are pretty well infiltrated?
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I was saying that rather tongue-in-cheek, but there are those who theorize that those groups are largely FBI.
Or Southern Poverty Law Center. They seem overly interested in “domestic terrorism”.
Not to mention that the SPLC, has our host here, down as a bad guy!????????
The SPLC is extremely biased and selective. It’s maddening because domestic terrorism is a real thing… but they could care less about domestic terrorism.
Southern
Poser
Liberal
Cabal?
????
Their leader is a real work and probably a pedophile according to his divorce papers. If the IRS and other Feds went after them like they have some conservative organizations, I’m convinced they’d find enough to keep them busy for a long time.
See! Now you and Memi do have at least one thing in common! Let’s hope for more!????
“all the broken christian men that seem to greatly approve of punching young girls in the face”?
Memi, really, how many more than one? ; – )
Well, in that other post there are at least ashv, eagle, and mkt. Then we could proceed to several other blogs and the thousands of comments by so called Christian men. Then there is the media, the conservative talk shows. So, rough count from just the tiny circle I see, a few thousand.
Where did I approve of punching a young girl in the face? Once again (for the thousandth time?) you’re lying. I never said that. I simply pointed out your lies (that she was unarmed, that she was somehow innocent or “better” than the other side, etc.) Your heroine bragged about scalping people before the event and was seen using both a bottle and weighted (weaponized) gloves. Only a delusional, hypocritcal misandrist would think there was anything worth defending there. In addition, she was holding the freaking bottle WHEN she got punched. http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/robert-zerfing/antifa-girl So after getting pelted with M80s and other… Read more »
Shameful behaviour merits shameful treatment.
And Jesus coming on the mountain saw a woman in dreadlocks and wearing tattoos coming his way in a threatening way. Then he saith unto his disciples, “Quick, puncheth that harlot for shameful behavior doth merit a punch in the head!”
Yeah…. don’t think that is a very Christian attitude you have there ashv. But very little of what you say is Christian so no surprises there.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
Always, or only in church? Are you saying that the girl got punched in the face because she was attempting to exercise authority over a man? Or are you saying that ME shouldn’t be expressing an opinion here?
I think you are wrong to include mkt in that category. But there were still three – ashv, eagle eyed, and Farinata degli Uberti. And, as you say, thousands of others as well.
Not some random young woman. This young woman, who was a violent felon. It astonishes me that you don’t seem to find that relevant.
“thousands of comments by so called Christian men.”
If you’re going to throw numbers around, show me the “thousands of comments” or it’s yet another lie.
And again, none of said we “greatly approve” of the punching. We just pointed out that after many assaults, someone finally decided to protect the demonstrators and all anyone wants to talk about is the Antifa Thug Queen getting hit. Are you still trying to defend her now that it’s known she was carrying a wine bottle as a weapon along with her gloves?
Would it have been better or worse if Moldylocks had been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned?
I saw allegations that she does porn on the side.
How worldly of you to check that out.
I said allegations and I didn’t go looking for that.
If the character and history of one side is relevant to the conversation, then it goes for the other side as well.
Thanks for twisting my words so to try to take some sort of moral high ground, Histo.
Not sure the character of either side matters. Big strong guy cold cocking a small woman is not a very good thing no matter what.
Histo, do you dwell in a universe that revolves around you?
Would it be okay for a small woman to cold cock a big strong guy? Or, for that matter, any woman to cold cock any guy?
I think it would be a lot less of a problem. Women have much less upper body strength and generally cannot hurt a guy too much with a punch. There is a reason why Christian parents tell their boys not to hit girls but do not give quite the same stern lecture to girls.
Boys and girls are not the same.
I am not saying that a woman hitting a man is good, just it is on a different level (a lower one) of bad.
I agree with you, although weapons can equalize the differences. But good Christian parents also warn girls not to hit boys. It’s not simply that’s it’s wrong but it’s also dangerous. Adrenalin and anger can knock out gentlemanly self-control.
Of course. But notice why we teach what. We teach women so they will not be the victims. We teach men so that they will not be the victimizers. Big difference.
Would it have been better if laws were followed and fair trials conducted?
I love how you think the rhetorical answer to that is ‘no.’
As usual, you do not know what I actually think nor do you display interest in finding out.
I have showed enough interest to read your comments and have long discussions with you. I know plenty about how you think and have learned that you have a very unbiblical (not to mention illogical and insular) view of the world. That is why I give you grief.
But on that comment, did I misrepresent what you were saying? Did you not offer a question rhetorically that indicated you thought everyone would assume that the situation would be improved if the laws of the land were not followed?
Yes.
Ok, what did you mean by that comment?
IF ME isn’t interested in discussing it, neither am I.
There’s nothing to discuss. Your tribalism and gender loyalty trumps all morality. You also get a certain amount of perverse pleasure watching a skin head punch a girl in the head. It is what it is. Wilson has also made it quite clear that what he cares about the most in the world are the sins of women, specifically around immodesty. And both of you are the reason why feminism exists. I would have no chance of getting a fair hearing, or even of being heard in front of either one of you. The issues that concern women are not… Read more »
On the other hand, Donald Trump is known for giving women a fair and sympathetic hearing, if all men were like him feminism would never have existed, the issues that particularly concern women are his highest priority, and none of the men who voted for him think at all in terms of tribe or gender loyalty, right? I only ask because you voted for him. ;-)
I did vote for him. I’d rather deal with ten Donald Trumps than one, hypocritical, self-righteous Christian guy who thinks just like Trump, but hides it all behind alleged virtue and perverted theology.
That’s probably why so many women voted for him. He’s honest about who and what he is.
Who and what does he tell you he is?
This is projection. Don’t blame me for what gets you excited.
You lie to yourself.
“Wilson has also made it quite clear that what he cares about the most in the world are the sins of women, specifically around immodesty.”
Yeesh.
“And both of you are the reason why feminism exists.”
So, all beliefs and behaviors arise from and exist solely in opposition or resistance to others’ beliefs and behavior? I think that is a simplistic explanation with little foundation. Of course, it’s convenient to use that premise to place blame on others.
Haha. You do not want to discuss it because you meant exactly what I said you meant. Just like when you claimed Russia was an example of a country that never went liberal! Haha.
Speaking of fair trial, do you think this guy will get the Dylann Roof treatment? And why is this only getting about 0.02% of the same media coverage?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/suspect-charged-3-counts-murder-fresno-rampage-225324961.html
“Muhammad told investigators that learning he was wanted for that slaying led him to try to kill as many white people as possible before he was caught. Police say Muhammad, 39, laughed as he explained in police interviews how he shot men sitting in a utility truck, carrying a bag of groceries and waiting for a bus in the same neighborhood on April 18.”
Hi mkt, do you think there were problems with Dylann Roof’s trial? Do you think they should have considered an insanity defense?
My main point is the the DoJ got involved almost instantly and it was all we heard about for weeks on end….in addition to making a huge issue over the Confederate flags, monuments, etc.
Why are we not hearing at least a tiny chorus of the same thing about Muhammad? How many people (other than new junkies and a handful of conservatives) have even heard about it? The double standard is beyond comprehension.
Probably because he’s a mentally ill homeless guy with a drug problem and he only killed three people, not nine.
And, of course like Jill says, the church angle. And the fact that Dylann Roof appeared to be a normal sane kid motivated purely by a hateful ideology and showed no remorse whatsoever for his crimes.
I don’t see sane. I think he had the deadest-looking eyes I have ever seen. He looked to me as if his soul had been sucked out and replaced by something inhuman.
Seriously? You know by now I hold no brief for white supremacists, great or petty, and I have no problem with Roof’s trial, but how far backward are you really willing to bend to try and draw a distinction between hate motivated (as if there’s any other kind) murder of black people and hate motivated murder of white people? And why?
If a 20-year-old Black kid had killed 9 White people in a Bible study, and a psychotic homeless White man had killed 3 Black people in the streets, the killing of the 9 White people would have gotten a LOT more publicity than the killing of 3 Black people. There have been NO killings of 9 or more people in this country that didn’t get massive publicity. The fact that it happened in a church Bible study, and that it was done by someone who had been radicalized by racist ideology on the internet, just made it even bigger. There… Read more »
Do we agree that the race of either the perpetrator or the victim shouldn’t really matter to the way we look at murder, that it is murder either way? Can we agree further that the existence of white racism that shrugs at the likes of Dylan Roof shouldn’t cause anyone to respond in kind when it is black men murdering white people? Does it really make a difference to the way we should think about the murderer that “he only killed three people, not nine”? That statement in particular is what struck me Jonathan. Only three. Is that what we… Read more »
I am merely explaining media coverage, John. mkt didn’t bring those murders into the conversation in order to grieve the victims, he did it to attack the media as part of his larger ongoing agenda against what he believes to be a Black campaign of violence against White people. There are 13,000 murders in America each year, and millions more others who die, whose deaths are grieved just as much. No one is shrugging over those. It’s a simple truth that only the most sensational acts are going to get attention in national media. Dylan’s killings were especially sensational because… Read more »
I think one of the things that made Roof’s crime such big news was that he did it in a Bible study to people who had welcomed him. I was touched that some of the victims’ relatives didn’t want him to get the death penalty.
I find it absolutely laughable that you’re hinting a Black man who killed White men might get it at all easy in trial. Study after study has shown that Black men who commit murder are much more likely to receive the death penalty than White men who commit murder, and that Black men who kill a White victim are FAR more likely to be sentenced to death, as in many times more so, than White men who kill Black or other nonwhite victims. And the reason he gets half the coverage is numbers. Mass shootings are so common today, that… Read more »
I could be wrong, but he is probably talking about the level of media attention not the actual outcome in court. I have trouble believing that if a troubled white man with clear racial motivations killed three black strangers it wouldn’t generate more news.
Your case of the disabled torture cases are different too. In one case it was filmed and posted and racial motivation was easy to establish. The other case is much fuzzier and there wasn’t a video to generate widespread outrage.
Dude, how about working on your reading comp instead of writing so many sophomoric, multi-paragraph comments? My point was about the media attention and the fact that Obama’s brown shirts (the DoJ) rushed in at a moment’s notice…just like they did in Ferguson. And no, this guy won’t get the hate crime charges that Roof did. Just answer this…when did Obama’s DoJ ever invade a town to investigate a black-on-white hate crime? If you don’t see the double-standard, you really need to take off your progressive glasses and go live in the real world….where some of us have to run… Read more »
Do you think that Roof shouldn’t have faced hate charges, even in view of the manifesto? Or do you think, as some people do, that the law should focus on the action and not on the motivation? Should the federal government leave this kind of prosecution to the state?
Hate crimes should not exist. The crime is the hate. If there are mitigating circumstances (such as infidelity) then let them be presented. But the idea that a murderer should be treated more harshly because he claimed to hate his victim compared to one who does make that claim is nonsense. The victims are both dead. Crimes against person or property are crimes of hate.
What do you feel you gain by insulting my intellect? Do you do it for me, for yourself, or for the crowd? I hope you realize that the Obama DOJ is not in power anymore, and thus cannot have a double standard on this case. Also, the FBI continues to be run by a registered Republican. And he’s White. The chief of police has already declared that the shootings were hate crimes. But seeing as the perp was already declared psychotic and deluded by a psychiatrist before any of this happened, had been hospitalized in a psych ward twice, and… Read more »
What troubles me about Roof is that he did not seem mentally competent to direct his own defense. His manifesto made less sense than the Unabomber’s.
To be fair, Ted Kaczynski went to Harvard. Of all the manifestos written by murderous terrorists, his *should* be the best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CClOsC26Lw
This reminds me of when someone here (you?) tried to bring up the Chicago torture case as some sort of racial bias because the authorities paused a day before declaring it a hate crime, when it turned out that there’d been a similar torture case of a disabled kid in Idaho, with a Black victim and multiple White assailants singing racist songs and using racist slurs, and the perpetrators not only didn’t get charged with a hate crime at all, but didn’t spend a day in jail despite punching the kid unconscious and raping him with a coat hanger.
Not sure of your question. Are you asking if I think that Muhammad should get a fair trial? Yes. He should. Are you asking if I think the media is biased and unfair? Yes I do.
“… if you throw a rock into a pack of stray dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.”
There’s been a whole lot of yelping from predictable sources in the comments recently.
So you are saying the picture on the right is NOT you at Easter sunrise service a few weeks ago?
Doug, at issue really is this vintage idea that preachers are pastors.
Sure, they should be.
But come on, you know that not 1 in 10 is.
They think their sermonizing carries the weight of their responsibility.
But Doug, you’re encouraging this when you identify the gap as that line betwixt 1st century Word & 21st century world.
The Word has been imminent since & through creation.
To send preachers on a goose chase through the limited scope of words written (albeit trustworthy, reliable, and authoritative words) invites mainly dweeb types to lead the army.
PerfectHold, I’ve seen you around here for a long time, and I can tell that you’ve apparently had some bad experiences with churches (based on your strong opposition to church membership and the things you regularly say about pastors). But to say that not 1 in 10 preachers are also pastors simply doesn’t fit my experience at all. I would be careful of painting ministers with too broad a brush, when it seems like you’re just speaking from your own limited experience. My pastor, for instance, has been the preacher at the church I go to for 16 years, but… Read more »
Hi Rick Very pleased you’ve had a good experience. Consider: what would your imput be if I were accurate, despite your own blessed personal experience? Secondly, ask around to get perhaps a wider scope of vision. Thirdly, perhaps rethink the criteria by which you’re judging. Let’s take for example your last point. Now I love a good teacher. They can have a remarkably important and influential impact on our lives. Doug is that. What’s more, how he has organized the enterprise called Christ Church is a blessing for so many. It is an indirect but fully pastoral endeavor. But it… Read more »
Is natural revelation not enough to pastor people? If Scripture is not essential to know and follow God, why are the attentions of a church officer so important?
Natural revelation is entirely sufficient to pastor folks.
Does a father naturally give his children stones to eat until the Bible informs him better?
The attentions of church officers qua officers can be, and often are, counterproductive and negative.
But the loving touch of an attentive pastor is a balm for the soul.
Compare:
The Pharisee showing off his robes vs the robes of Jesus sat on by the child.
“decent minimal attention” Seriously, why the cynicism? When I called him a teacher, I didn’t mean in a formal class or group setting. I have learned the most from him just in ordinary conversations. Over coffee, with him and other guys over breakfast, at his home with his family, in counseling. When I was in college I was in his house basically every week. He regularly has people over to his home and is regularly in the homes of people in our church. There is no sense that his job is only to preach from the pulpit or be involved… Read more »
Rick
Sounds like you had a pastor being a pastor!
You think he’s generally the rule?
Why cynical?
What was our Lord’s experience with pastors?
Re 36 churches, I am not a monogamous attendee but am capable of participation in lots of fellowships regularly.
I do plant myself mainly in one place.
Those main places have totalled an average of one every 5 years or so.
Some I was told to go elsewhere because I could not comply with signing their membership document (PCA, RCUS, Lutheran) or was barred from communion because I didn’t sign.
It’s also foolish to judge and reject as wanting the level of oversight in a community when you are not willing to submit yourself to whatever level of oversight is actually there, as opposed to constantly moving on or dabbling in the church’s life.
Presumably there’s a minimum level of participation such that, below that level, one is now dabbling in the church’s life. So I axe this serious question: What is the minimum level? Reason: In the Baptist world, Sunday School, Sunday worship, Sunday evening “Discipleship Training,” Sunday evening worship, Wednesday night Bible study, Thursday visitation and choir practice used to be pretty much standard. Add to that the week-long revival meetings that occurred (depending on the church) annually or even quarterly. We eventually determined that was way, way, way too much involvement. So now I’m actually-factually, no-kidding questioning what the right level… Read more »
Well, I agree with all that. But PH is self-reporting that he’s hanging around in a bunch of churches while being a member of one that he’s “mainly” involved with. While it’s hard to count the number of hairs that are required to make a beard, I think it’s possible to distinguish between being committed to a church body, and treating a bunch of them like your regular rota of favorite restaurants. IOW, I don’t have a direct answer for your question, but I recognize the problem, and I’m far from demanding an “every time the doors are open or… Read more »
Huge congregations and a shortage of clergy can make that impossible. My parish has two priests and 15,000 people. Of course they can’t call me or visit my house! Outside the confessional, I could easily go years without speaking to a priest other than saying hello. And the priests are insanely busy just staying on top of baptisms, marriages, burials, visiting the dying, and helping families in real emergencies.
Do you think this expectation of having a personal relationship with your pastor is a more Protestant idea?
Lay pastors in the church wouldn’t cost a dime and would enhance people’s experience.
Catholic priests as a whole touch more of their parishioners than do their protesting counterparts
I think some parishes have deacons, and a few lucky ones have nuns. Trained lay pastors would indeed be helpful, and they could specialize into areas of need. Where I live, newly arrived immigrants and the poor need a lot of help. I kind of hope that one day priests will allowed to get married, and that would solve the shortage. It’s tradition and not doctrine that calls for a celibate priesthood. When Anglican clergy convert, they become married priests. Of course, a married clergy does cost more.
A lot of capable and qualified folks will work for free
Uh, the Bible does command that more mature women teach younger women how to love their husbands…not saying ladies teaching hasn’t been overdone here and underdone there, but it does have a place. (Andrew, husband of Wendy)
Right. Not “women shouldn’t be involved at all,” but “women should still have the benefit of pastoral leadership and direction on these issues.”
How certain are we that “poodle skirts” are innocent? ; – )
They were a milestone on the slippery slope. It would be quite a slog getting back up there. It’s easier to just wait and see what’s ahead the way we’re going.
This appears to anticipate tea cup poodles on mini-skirts.????
“There is a long tradition within evangelicalism that equates the feminine touch with the Holy Spirit, and that tradition has been turned into the service of egalitarianism and the rule of feminine sensibilities.”
Welcome to the red pill. Next up, the curse of Eve, hypergamy, and the feminine imperative.
Just because the red-pillers are saying it doesn’t mean it’s not true. There’s a whole evangelical contingent that is ready to say explicitly that a man refusing to listen to his wife (read: obey her) is closing his ears to the Spirit.
And that it’s perfectly fine if she wants to a have a sexless marriage for….well, however long she wants. But heaven forbid the husband not meet her ever-shifting “needs” (whatever that means).
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7
A man who refuses to listen to his wife really is closing his ears to the Spirit. Even worse, his very prayers will be hindered.
Remember, I said that to some modern evangelicals, “listen to her” means “obey her as the voice of the Spirit”. That is, the husband is not free to listen to her opinion, consider it, then do something else. You come perilously close to saying this yourself.
Just for my reference, are you comfortable being considered the “weaker vessel”? If you are, is it possible that your opinion may be wrong, and that your husband may need to ignore it?
Sorry, Mark, I don’t understand. Are you asking ME if she’s NOT comfortable being considered the weaker vessel? Isn’t her opinion more likely to be wrong if she refuses to accept weaker vessel status?
I’m not sure what it means in a religious sense, other than accepting St. Paul’s teaching about women were created second and are therefore subordinate in marriage and the church. Does it mean weaker intellectually or creatively or spiritually or emotionally? Or does it simply mean accepting the creation order without drawing conclusions about male and female relative strengths and weaknesses?
I was probing whether ME was willing to take seriously everything in the passage she quoted. I am firmly convinced that “living with her according to knowledge” means knowing, listening to and understanding one’s wife (and I will refrain from any wisecracks here). But some shades of modern evangelicalism go much further. ME: “A man who refuses to listen to his wife really is closing his ears to the Spirit.” That’s not evident in what the passage is saying, and if by “listening” she means “obeying”, it’s not at all what Paul means. Continuing on in the passage, many –… Read more »
Ahem. I seem to recall one famous incident where a husband listened to his wife instead of God and caused a great deal of trouble… something about fruit, I think?
I think that a husband should pay attention to his wife’s concerns, that is the wise path.
But if a husband hears his wife and chooses against her better judgment, that will not hinder his prayers. Mistreating his wife is what does that.
Pastors are shepherds of flocks, and they are dealing (all the time) with group dynamics…. I believe that pastors and preachers have a responsibility to be measured, careful, and humble as they seek to connect the Word of the first century to the world of the twenty-first. But this is not to be measured by the responses of the people in the problem group in question. The periennial problem with qualifications. The people that need to hear it think that the qualification excludes them, and those with over sensitive consciences dig into every recess of their soul. “So some of… Read more »
When I see a miserable woman in Christian circles in some godforsaken outfit, I would be willing to bet that at least three people told her it was “cute,” or that they “really liked it,” or something else suitably mendacious and affirming. Such a female temptation. Always to be affirming. A good strength but unchecked a terrible weakness. One doesn’t need to be blunt but a comment that an outfit is not really my style, or noting a minor flaw; and for repeated offenses meeting up to give some helpful advice in private—say trying on outfits at a store and… Read more »
I’m confused as to the point you’re making with that claim. Well, the larger point is clear (that someone can die their hair pink without being offensive), but I’m utterly confused about why you’re directly stating a preference between those two particular pictures. Is it just the hatchet? Grumpy face? Hair covering? Fashion that’s long out of style?
The word countenance comes to mind.
I think the main point is “be born attractive”.
Matt wrote:
Matt strikes out again. Both women are significantly adorned; neither is merely relying on what they were born with. However, they are clearly adorned for different ends.
If all that we had to go on was this one picture of each, which one is advertising contentment? Which is advertising a vigilante spirit?
Can we reach a final conclusion based on just one photo? No. But the suggestion that we can’t read anything at all from the adornment is just a self-imposed blindness.
Knowing that the old lady is Carrie Nation about to smash liquor bottles with her hatchet makes it harder to see her objectively. Her clothing is conventional for her time, and the hatchet, although a little anomalous given her outfit, is capable of an innocent explanation. “What enabled you to survive in the wilderness? My Bible and my hatchet.” Minus the hatchet, she could have been any of my great-grandmothers. People did not usually smile for the camera in the 1800s; professional photography was expensive, and people adopted a serious pose. I think the contrast would have been more effective… Read more »
As I was saying: Can we reach a final conclusion based on just one photo? No. But the suggestion that we can’t read anything at all from the adornment is just a self-imposed blindness. Someone of jillybean’s creative ability won’t have any trouble concocting a semi-plausible counter-narrative to explain neon hair, or even an ax. However, her exercise of imagination is irrelevant to the point. Exceptions don’t invalidate a generalization. Is jillybean suggesting that a pastor should just assume that every ax-wielding congregant has a perfectly benign heart motivation? If not, then she agrees that a timely investigation is warranted.… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Is it just the hatchet? Grumpy face? Hair covering? Fashion that’s long out of style? Jonathan plays dumb and confused, but the lack of imagination seems self-imposed. Jonathan names some of the external datum, but implies that nothing deeper can be inferred from any of them. Apparently, for Jonathan, not even an ax in the hand can advertise anything about the heart, neither can a calm smile reveal anything concerning contentment. Of course one photo is not conclusive of anything, but the idea that nothing is being advertised, that nothing can be distinguished, or that nothing deeper can… Read more »
Of course we can infer from outward appearances. I think what people have been questioning is the tendency to infer too quickly or too widely. The pretty girl’s calm smile can reveal a gentle spirit. But models have lovely smiles which may conceal perfectly hideous natures. And the grim-faced woman might (minus the axe) have spent the morning helping crime victims and hearing tales of hopeless depravity. Of course I would rather have Pretty Girl beside me in the pew. But not because her sweet smile is a guide to her disposition. In fact, I have often been warned that… Read more »
jillybean wrote: Of course we can infer from outward appearances. I think what people have been questioning is the tendency to infer too quickly or too widely. No, this isn’t what people have been questioning. Jillybean just isn’t being candid here. The argument is not with Wilson’s pace, but rather that he thinks anything at all can be inferred or signaled through hair color. That’s why he has been chastised. If jillybean was really only concerned with Wilson’s pace, she would have needed to cite some example of his actual (rather than hypothetical) hastiness. Instead what she has objected to… Read more »
FWIW, my counter-examples were not meant to defeat generalizations, but rather to point out that something can be valid as a generalization without being absolutized. It didn’t think it was sufficiently clear (at the time) that a generality, not an absolute, was intended. If I didn’t make this clear before, all my objections were friendly, not hostile, to the main point.
“Why are folks suggesting that pastors should be dull and slow rather than alert and quick to pick up on such signals? Are folks just assuming that the pastor will ignore any contrary evidence that he finds, or that he won’t even look for it first?”
We don’t trust authority.
We won’t submit to those God has placed over us.
And we certainly won’t allow anyone to question what we are doing.
If the answer is “the frown and the hatchet”, then please, by all means, he can just reply “the frown and the hatchet”. The ridiculous gloss on my character is quite unnecessary. Of course, I’m not sure it’s just the frown and the hatchet. Chesterton and Churchill are famous for posing for some quite grumpy-looking photos, and Wilson admires them quite a bit. And men of war are frequently praised here, so its hard to see how someone would find fault with a mere symbolic hatchet – there are Biblical and extra-Biblical characters who are depicted with far worse. In… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: In fact, you have explicitly stated that you cannot judge someone has having non Christ-like character simply because they are holding a weapon. Indeed. I’ve never advocated that we judge anyone simply by the presence of an external, whether that be neon hair, or holding a weapon. However, refusal to leap to a conclusion at the first signal doesn’t mean that we should just ignore such signals, or avoid reaching any conclusions, or refrain from any further inquiry. It doesn’t follow that we must ignore neon hair and weapons as genuine barometers of trouble. They both have a… Read more »
After reading and admittedly skimming or scrolling past many of the comments in these posts, I would like to pose this thoughtful question which seems may have been left aside. Regarding the altering of one’s appearance, temporarily or permanently, which is not considered merely maintenance (as in hair care), to whom is the glory being ascribed? If the color in question is not one God has chosen for you, why choose another? “Painting the barn” (needed maintenance) in this case is not the same as “artistic expression” (supplanting the architect, builder…or painter). Is it a lack of contentment? And please… Read more »
“I happen to be grateful for the platinum which is lately, naturally, reminding me of the season of life through which He presently leads me. And I believe one can display loveliness simply.”
Beautifully stated.
This whole thing reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8
And now can we finally talk about poodle skirts? They are back in style, and I need guidance on their appropriateness.
If I asked my darling aged mother if I should get one, she would say, “Oh, Jilly, just too much of a hint of mutton dressed as lamb.”
If you dyed your hair pink you could pull it off.
Sure. Very, very old looking mutton dressed as lamb.
Jilly, I was going to say something about skirts with feline images on them, but when I thought about synonyms,
I just had to stop!
????????????????????????
“nobody who really loves her enough to tell her the truth.” In the words of Pontus Pilot, What is the truth? What was the truth God gave to the woman at the well? Did he give her some tips to clean up her act, dress more appropriately, and learn to keep a man? Did he point out the “godforsaken” (interesting choice of word here, considering God does NOT forsake outfits) clothes of any woman at any point? What about Rahab, I ask? The truth the lady without friends needs is the Gospel. She needs to turn away from sins of… Read more »
Not bad in the prudence department Prudy!
Still, the words of the wise are like goads, poking sheep in the right direction!????????????
(Through that really thick wool!)
Wilson isn’t arguing for mere hair conformity, while ignoring the deeper heart issues. Wilson is saying that neon hair is a significant cultural warning sign, a symptom of potential trouble, and that pastors need to be paying attention to such signs, especially when they are showing up inside the church. Wilson is saying that actual love will investigate these warning signs, and a pastor or friend may even need to admonish a real heart problem that is simply manifesting as neon hair, tattoos, etc. There is a group who wants to say that neon hair (and other adornments) is completely… Read more »