Orthodox Texan said:

---

As modernity progresses many Protestant churches will fail or change so much that they really aren't Christian. This is inevitable to due to numerous reasons stemming from the reformation and 19th century German philosophy. Your church more than likely won't stand the storm of secular life that is advancing rapidly because most of you flow with it.

---

So...how much Russian history do you know?

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It just seems contrary to "once saved always saved" which to me means once justified that you are saved. No matter whether you fall away or not.

---

That's a conundrum in reformed theology. Usually too simplistically explained away as if you are of the elect, you won't fall away.

It loses the reassurance it is supposed to have when I have bad days, which are quite common.

---

Isn't that in itself a reassurance?

he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It just seems contrary to "once saved always saved" which to me means once justified that you are saved. No matter whether you fall away or not.

---

That's a conundrum in reformed theology. Usually too simplistically explained away as if you are of the elect, you won't fall away.

It loses the reassurance it is supposed to have when I have bad days, which are quite common.

---

And I thought about this last night. I am not sure it is conundrum of the reformed theology or a problem with how that theology is presented to us by Lordship salvation pastors. It even varies from LS pastor to LS pastor. All seem to have different "requirements" to prove one is saved.

They seem to make it much more complicated than it is. Certainly seems very different from the simple gospel preached by Paul.

Sometimes I think they are more concerned about theology than the Gospel.

---

faith without works is dead.

dermdoc: how many works? which ones?

94chem said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

As modernity progresses many Protestant churches will fail or change so much that they really aren't Christian. This is inevitable to due to numerous reasons stemming from the reformation and 19th century German philosophy. Your church more than likely won't stand the storm of secular life that is advancing rapidly because most of you flow with it.

---

So...how much Russian history do you know?

---

Plenty, what's up?

Jeez Driscol is out there

Driscoll sounds like Alex Jones yelling. I attended the church in the summer of 2012 as an intern in Seattle. I missed the incendiary stuff and remember some great teachings and a magicalSunday of a ton of people getting baptized. But man there was a lot of gross stuff that came out of that church and his Scottsdale church sounds even worse since he doesn't have oversight of a board of Elders like at MH

I know the bulk of the focus is on Driscoll, and rightfully so. But he was fueled by countless enablers in the complementarian evangelical circles. I just read a tweet about Denny Burk's endorsement of Driscoll's marriage book. Driscoll claims that a woman should never be able to say "no" if her husband wants sex, he grotesquely degrades women, etc. But Denny Burk's only real issue had nothing to do with that. It was that he disagreed with Driscoll on the subject of anal sex in marriage. Why? Because Denny believes it could lead to husbands having homosexual desires. But, all in all, he endorsed it because it was unabashedly complementarian.

So, Driscoll deserves the heat he's getting, but so do the evangelical leaders who enabled him.

PacifistAg said:

---

I know the bulk of the focus is on Driscoll, and rightfully so. But he was fueled by countless enablers in the complementarian evangelical circles. I just read a tweet about Denny Burk's endorsement of Driscoll's marriage book. Driscoll claims that a woman should never be able to say "no" if her husband wants sex, he grotesquely degrades women, etc. But Denny Burk's only real issue had nothing to do with that. It was that he disagreed with Driscoll on the subject of anal sex in marriage. Why? Because Denny believes it could lead to husbands having homosexual desires. But, all in all, he endorsed it because it was unabashedly complementarian.

So, Driscoll deserves the heat he's getting, but so do the evangelical leaders who enabled him.

---

Some of the guys in the 'complimentarian circles' also called him out but have been thrown under the bus by the same 'egalitarian circles' being interviewed for this circus. For example, John MacArthur (see thread):

A 🧵 regarding an ironic omission from @MikeCosper's telling of “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.”

Like many, I have appreciated @CTmagazine's podcast “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” It is full of rich lessons for all Christians, especially Christian leaders. 1/

— Alex DiPrima (@Alex_DiPrima) July 28, 2021

I agree with your assessment though. CT and egalitarians are using this to criticize complementarians.

Frok said:

---

They can't talk about Driscoll without mentioning John Macarthur. He was Driscoll's biggest critic. I'm not sure if his criticism was the start of Driscoll's fall but I remember the incident outside the Strange Fire conference that made Driscoll look ridiculous. Shortly after he was ousted from the Acts 29 leadership.

---

Yes, this is the bigger point. The podcast paints with a broad brush and drops a lot of assumptions without exploring them or framing them adequately and it takes us weird places like this. Complementarians didn't do enough despite, as you point out, ousting him and calling him out. Even the traditional evangelical idea of masculine and feminine roles being a product of the Cold War is just casually mentioned and accepted as true before moving on to criticize Driscoll and complementarians.

dermdoc said:

---

Do not like Driscoll but nobody criticizes other Christian pastors as much as Macarthur. And in a very condescending manner. No thanks.

---

Check out egalitarian Twitter then. They exists solely for that purpose.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Do not like Driscoll but nobody criticizes other Christian pastors as much as Macarthur. And in a very condescending manner. No thanks.

---

Check out egalitarian Twitter then. They exists solely for that purpose.

---

May want to steer clear of the theobros that make up complementarian twitter then, if this bothers you. Especially the Reformed Baptist world. Now that's a hateful bunch. I know their sycophants have come viciously after me before because I'm a trans woman. They were even passing around a picture of me within their bubbles, knowing I have most of them blocked at this point, openly mocking me (of course, this was only after they saw my bio which referenced being trans. Before then, they all correctly assumed I was a woman because of my picture).

They pale in comparison to anyone associated with Doug Wilson's church though. But you see it on social media and it's certainly not just one group or another. I notice more vitriol from one side, but I certainly see behavior that's not Christ-like from all groups. Then again, I also see a lot of great people, and am close to a lot in "egalitarian twitter". I try not to follow obsessively angry people though.

dermdoc said:

---

Do not like Driscoll but nobody criticizes other Christian pastors as much as Macarthur. And in a very condescending manner. No thanks.

---

I knew I was bat-signaling you when I mentioned MacArthur.

Frok said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Do not like Driscoll but nobody criticizes other Christian pastors as much as Macarthur. And in a very condescending manner. No thanks.

---

Check out egalitarian Twitter then. They exists solely for that purpose.

---

May want to steer clear of the theobros that make up complementarian twitter then, if this bothers you. Especially the Reformed Baptist world. Now that's a hateful bunch. I know their sycophants have come viciously after me before because I'm a trans woman. They were even passing around a picture of me within their bubbles, knowing I have most of them blocked at this point, openly mocking me (of course, this was only after they saw my bio which referenced being trans. Before then, they all correctly assumed I was a woman because of my picture).

They pale in comparison to anyone associated with Doug Wilson's church though. But you see it on social media and it's certainly not just one group or another. I notice more vitriol from one side, but I certainly see behavior that's not Christ-like from all groups. Then again, I also see a lot of great people, and am close to a lot in "egalitarian twitter". I try not to follow obsessively angry people though.

---

Stay off Twitter.

In general we are all bigger jerks online than we are in person, but Twitter is on another level. Most of those people would probably be nice in person.

---

Oh twitter has been such an enriching and amazing place for me. It's also a place that has connected with a community I would have never met in my town. That's the thing I've explained to my dad, who always says to get off social media. For many LGBTQIA people, especially LGBTQIA Christians, the only place to find a safe community is online because many of us are in communities without a safe place.

Plus, I can't even begin to count the number of closeted trans Christians who have reached out to thank me for being vocal. My wife and I actually help counsel several couples who have just begun this process. It helps people to see that one doesn't need to abandon their faith if they are trans. In fact, my faith has only deepened since transitioning, and I think it's important to let others see that.

I've even gotten to share part of my story for an upcoming book, and have been on a couple podcasts (one being Greg Boyd's!). So I think that visibility is important. Even though it means I'll have to deal with bigotry and venom. That just gives me an opportunity to show grace, even though I'm not perfect in that.

Last thing, I think who a person truly is comes through on social media, and it's irl that they don the mask. That anonymity reveals so much about a person.

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Do not like Driscoll but nobody criticizes other Christian pastors as much as Macarthur. And in a very condescending manner. No thanks.

---

Check out egalitarian Twitter then. They exists solely for that purpose.

---

May want to steer clear of the theobros that make up complementarian twitter then, if this bothers you. Especially the Reformed Baptist world. Now that's a hateful bunch. I know their sycophants have come viciously after me before because I'm a trans woman. They were even passing around a picture of me within their bubbles, knowing I have most of them blocked at this point, openly mocking me (of course, this was only after they saw my bio which referenced being trans. Before then, they all correctly assumed I was a woman because of my picture).

They pale in comparison to anyone associated with Doug Wilson's church though. But you see it on social media and it's certainly not just one group or another. I notice more vitriol from one side, but I certainly see behavior that's not Christ-like from all groups. Then again, I also see a lot of great people, and am close to a lot in "egalitarian twitter". I try not to follow obsessively angry people though.

---

Stay off Twitter.

In general we are all bigger jerks online than we are in person, but Twitter is on another level. Most of those people would probably be nice in person.

---

Oh twitter has been such an enriching and amazing place for me. It's also a place that has connected with a community I would have never met in my town. That's the thing I've explained to my dad, who always says to get off social media. For many LGBTQIA people, especially LGBTQIA Christians, the only place to find a safe community is online because many of us are in communities without a safe place.

Plus, I can't even begin to count the number of closeted trans Christians who have reached out to thank me for being vocal. My wife and I actually help counsel several couples who have just begun this process. It helps people to see that one doesn't need to abandon their faith if they are trans. In fact, my faith has only deepened since transitioning, and I think it's important to let others see that.

I've even gotten to share part of my story for an upcoming book, and have been on a couple podcasts (one being Greg Boyd's!). So I think that visibility is important. Even though it means I'll have to deal with bigotry and venom. That just gives me an opportunity to show grace, even though I'm not perfect in that.

Last thing, I think who a person truly is comes through on social media, and it's irl that they don the mask. That anonymity reveals so much about a person.

---

I think the topic of online community would best be explored in another thread. There's a lot to wade through even for those who seek 'healthy' engagement there.

Oh I don't really care what other's views of social media are. Twitter, Facebook (which is the most toxic imo), texags, etc... people can find healthy engagement. If you can, like I have, great. If you can't find a healthy place, then stay off. I was just explaining why it's important for historically marginalized groups.

PacifistAg said:

---

Oh I don't really care what other's views of social media are. Twitter, Facebook (which is the most toxic imo), texags, etc... people can find healthy engagement. If you can, like I have, great. If you can't find a healthy place, then stay off. I was just explaining why it's important for historically marginalized groups.

---

'Marginalized' groups is a broad brush that needs definition. Not all marginalization is bad.

In the context of which I'm speaking, as a trans woman and member of the LGBTQIA community, I think it's clear what I'm talking about. I'm not going to play this game though. Get off social media...stay on...doesn't matter to me. For me, I've found a community of Christians, and others, that's healthy for me. For people like me, social media is often the only place that type of community can be found.

It's clear what I'm talking about though, so y'all can debate endlessly about it if you want. I was simply explaining why "get off Twitter" isn't some broad brush solution.

curate your timelines folks

Yep. I have no problem blocking the toxic. I unfollow if people are too combative, and if I become combative, I have people who will DM me to hold me accountable. Curate, prune, etc. It can be a great community, but it just takes a little effort to shut out the toxic, but that applies anywhere, including here.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

curate your timelines folks

---

Since we're here this is part of the illusion though. You think you control whose posts you see but AI still curates it for you, even if it's latest posts first instead of most popular. That's what makes it so insidious. Curating also results in bubbles that self-reinforce, especially for people who find 'community' there. Even following people on both sides it learns over time who to display and who not to for engagement.

That sounds collaborative to me.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

That sounds collaborative to me.

---

I suppose if social media was designed to work for you instead of make money off of you it would be. Unfortunately

c-jags said:

---

AGC said:

---

The podcast paints with a broad brush and drops a lot of assumptions without exploring them or framing them adequately and it takes us weird places like this. Complementarians didn't do enough despite, as you point out, ousting him and calling him out. Even the traditional evangelical idea of masculine and feminine roles being a product of the Cold War is just casually mentioned and accepted as true before moving on to criticize Driscoll and complementarians.

---

Just finished everything up to this point. I got stuck on 35 for 4 hours in Jarrell the other day so it was podcast and candy crushing for 4 hours.

I completely agree with the statement made that they are painting with a broad brush. You can 100% tell the people making the podcast have an egalitarian view and they also quote numerous people that have an unbiblical view on homosexuality.

It's a hit piece, and to be honest (and to quote a friend who recommended it outside of TexAgs, there's no smoking gun. There's nothing there that is just blatantly disqualifying. He could be a bit of an A-Hole. I have a very hard time believing the secretary's story of just "he needs to have some older men challenge him" as all that was said.

THAT BEING SAID, obviously I don't agree with everything he said about sexuality and especially how he said it. I love sex as much as anybody but those jokes/messages obviously aren't appropriate.

THAT BEING SAID AGAIN, they completely gloss over how much he did to protect abused women and how he encouraged men to be strong leaders in the family. They showed a bit of their hand at that point that they just don't like his views on gender roles according to the Bible (his interpretation of it at least.)

Not saying that everything is bad or wrong about the podcast. I'm actually enjoying it a lot, but it's like the Lincoln Project reviewing the Trump Presidency.

---

The actually spent a fair amount about him protecting abused women.

Guy is still a sociopath. He excommunicated a family from his Phoenix church because the son kissed his daughter. The church called the police saying the family threatened the church (not true)

Saxsoon said:

---

c-jags said:

---

AGC said:

---

The podcast paints with a broad brush and drops a lot of assumptions without exploring them or framing them adequately and it takes us weird places like this. Complementarians didn't do enough despite, as you point out, ousting him and calling him out. Even the traditional evangelical idea of masculine and feminine roles being a product of the Cold War is just casually mentioned and accepted as true before moving on to criticize Driscoll and complementarians.

---

Just finished everything up to this point. I got stuck on 35 for 4 hours in Jarrell the other day so it was podcast and candy crushing for 4 hours.

I completely agree with the statement made that they are painting with a broad brush. You can 100% tell the people making the podcast have an egalitarian view and they also quote numerous people that have an unbiblical view on homosexuality.

It's a hit piece, and to be honest (and to quote a friend who recommended it outside of TexAgs, there's no smoking gun. There's nothing there that is just blatantly disqualifying. He could be a bit of an A-Hole. I have a very hard time believing the secretary's story of just "he needs to have some older men challenge him" as all that was said.

THAT BEING SAID, obviously I don't agree with everything he said about sexuality and especially how he said it. I love sex as much as anybody but those jokes/messages obviously aren't appropriate.

THAT BEING SAID AGAIN, they completely gloss over how much he did to protect abused women and how he encouraged men to be strong leaders in the family. They showed a bit of their hand at that point that they just don't like his views on gender roles according to the Bible (his interpretation of it at least.)

Not saying that everything is bad or wrong about the podcast. I'm actually enjoying it a lot, but it's like the Lincoln Project reviewing the Trump Presidency.

---

The actually spent a fair amount about him protecting abused women.

Guy is still a sociopath. He excommunicated a family from his Phoenix church because the son kissed his daughter. The church called the police saying the family threatened the church (not true)

---

Saying they glossed over it may have been underplaying from my perspective.

To be blunt, they seemed more concerned about the fact that he told wives to give oral sex to their husbands than they do the amount of women he helped or his call for men to be strong leaders (which is entirely biblical.)

I have never been a strong Driscoll fan and to be very honest; the only time I've listened to him at length was his interview on CNN or Fox News (don't remember) where he properly defended abstinence till marriage despite his failings before being a believer with his own wife.

My main concern is that the people they quote and give voices to, specifically on the sexual episode, have some incredibly unbiblical views.

I think my complaint is somewhat political in nature. I.e. Trump was a boorish fool often. I don't begrudge christians for not voting for him. I don't begrudge Christians for voting for Biden. I begrudge people that have intellectual dishonesty and say I voted for Biden because he's a nice guy and a Uniter. No he's not. He has a laundry list of divisive and hateful things that he's said and corrupt things he's done. And that fine it's politics. Just call balls and strikes both ways.

To relate that to Christianity Today, they had numerous people quoted that don't believe homosexuality is a sin. They also to this day have flowery articles about Peter Enns and Rob Bell who both have views counter to what CT was founded on. I'm enjoying the podcast, recognizing Mark's sins, but also realizing the source has a strong bias.

Regarding, the situation at his Phoenix church, I'm not familiar with it. So I can't speak to the veracity of the claims.

I will give an anecdotal story about the Village. What most of the public knows is that a children's pastor sexually assaulted a girl at camp and then they found out about it and tried to hide it.

What actually happened is the girl brought it up years later, the church asked if they wanted to make a statement about it or handle it privately. They said to keep it private then decided to blast the church and Chandler after the fact.

The dude spent years as a pariah and some in jail and then the victim dropped charges and said it may not have been him. Dude's life is ruined.

I have no idea what happened. I know there's abuses in the church. I'm just not rushing out to believe every accusation levied in today's age.


None of this is meant to be argumentative. Everybody has a different approach/denomination and life story that lead them to have the worldview and opinions they have.

The newest episode was people feeling bad that social media was invented and he used it to be popular.

So here in Birmingham there is a mega church "church of the Highlands" they have a habit of bringing in pastors that have been caught screwing around with members of their flocks and sending them through "ministerial Restoration". At least 3 different times that I know of.

I get trying to help these guys get on the right track and possibly save their marriages but I can not wrap my head around putting them in positions of leadership much less letting them preach on a regular basis.

The latest is a guy they brought down from Yakima. Of course they didn't really tell the congregation why the guy was brought to Birmingham. Well this week it came out that he groomed and developed a sexual "relationship" with a member of his previous church.


https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/church-of-the-highlands-cuts-ties-with-minister-accused-of-sex-abuse.html

Duncan Idaho said:

---

I get trying to help these guys get on the right track and possibly save their marriages but I can not wrap my head around putting them in positions of leadership much less letting them preach on a regular basis.

---

i am all about forgiveness. i know a lot of people that have cheated and then were able to save their marriages and have a blessed life honoring Christ afterwards.

However, that happens and you're out of vocational ministry forever in my opinion. That's a personal take and not necessarily a take i get from the Bible, but logically that just only leaves room for divisiveness and issues down the road. I know more than once where the affair from a new pastor at an old church came out after the fact and the church had a strong split because of it. it's almost always known by some and then hidden.

Not saying they can't be restored and continue doing ministry in other areas, but it takes a lot of arrogance to think you can get back in the saddle as a full time minister after that.

c-jags said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

I get trying to help these guys get on the right track and possibly save their marriages but I can not wrap my head around putting them in positions of leadership much less letting them preach on a regular basis.

---

i am all about forgiveness. i know a lot of people that have cheated and then were able to save their marriages and have a blessed life honoring Christ afterwards.

However, that happens and you're out of vocational ministry forever in my opinion. That's a personal take and not necessarily a take i get from the Bible, but logically that just only leaves room for divisiveness and issues down the road. I know more than once where the affair from a new pastor at an old church came out after the fact and the church had a strong split because of it. it's almost always known by some and then hidden.

Not saying they can't be restored and continue doing ministry in other areas, but it takes a lot of arrogance to think you can get back in the saddle as a full time minister after that.

---

I agree but there's nothing to stop pastors from doing it. All they have to do is win some people over or start a new church. Hence the almighty power of the individual in Protestant churches.