Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[historian]

Started to read it, will definitely finish it later.

Wondering if you finished these yet and what your thoughts were.

 

[JettaKnight]

Wondering if you finished these yet and what your thoughts were.

Ha!

It's open in one of the plethora of browser tabs...

 

[HoughMade]

[h=1]What is QAnon? Why is it popular and dangerous? And how can Christians respond?[/h]
https://www.denisonforum.org/column...zyoKOzJP68YkX0dNs4Jzaz_b8O6LlgKX_TfFhdbUwUJdU

 

[JettaKnight]

What is QAnon? Why is it popular and dangerous? And how can Christians respond?


https://www.denisonforum.org/column...zyoKOzJP68YkX0dNs4Jzaz_b8O6LlgKX_TfFhdbUwUJdU

The fact that such an article needs to be published is saddening.

And reading that article makes me somewhat embarrassed about what my fellow Christians will fall for.


We need to be less connected with this world and it's politics.

 

[HoughMade]

The fact that such an article needs to be published is saddening.

And reading that article makes me somewhat embarrassed about what my fellow Christians will fall for.

We need to be less connected with this world and it's politics.

Indeed.

 

[historian]

The fact that such an article needs to be published is saddening.

And reading that article makes me somewhat embarrassed about what my fellow Christians will fall for.


We need to be less connected with this world and it's politics.

Ohhhh....So you read his articles!!!!


Yeah. Well, when you this world and the next one mixed up (or not mixed enough) this is what you end up with. People need to quit thinking that they can save the world.

 

[NKBJ]

Studying scripture as a Christian in today's world reminds me of sitting in the Cotton Bowl, watching Tom Landry strut up and down the sideline in his stingy brimmed hat as the hawkers yell "Programs, get your program here! You can't tell the players without your program!"

The game moves are in play. Without that program we couldn't have a clue.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ohhhh....So you read his articles!!!!


Yeah. Well, when you this world and the next one mixed up (or not mixed enough) this is what you end up with. People need to quit thinking that they can save the world.

Just some comments as I go...

My wife has openly complained to the pastor, "why are you always convicting the husbands, but treating the women with a velvet glove?"
"Well, I don't feel qualified to speak to women that way."

hmm.

It's much easier to talk about sins when it's more personal, and 99% of pastors are men, so...

And mark this as one few time I disagree with Al Mohler:

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

That's an invitation for sex to be used as a weapon; and that's very, very bad.




And, I'm kind of surprised, and happy, to say this, but reading that article makes me feel like my marriage is very healthy.
I also don't think men-bashing is as prevalent in the Christian community as this article suggest.

 

[historian]

I also don't think men-bashing is as prevalent in the Christian community as this article suggest.

Eh...Think about a mother's day sermon vs a father's day sermon. It is a very stark contrast.

 

[JettaKnight]

Eh...Think about a mother's day sermon vs a father's day sermon. It is a very stark contrast.

True - and my wife hates it.

(well, actually she stays home on Mother's Day - too much ache from not being a mother.)


However, to treat the two groups the same, fails to grasp how each is different in how they receive messages and what they need. Men and women are different, and to a degree, need a different sermon.

In the third article Peter Leinhart uses the word “Sentimentalization”, perhaps that's more fitting.


Continuing on...
"Side Effects" has some good material to refute anyone that has the biased opinion that Christianity is sexist.

 

[JettaKnight]

Carrying on...

I will say that Bill Smith is right - we've gotten to the point where men are expected to say, "Yes, dear" and "I'm sorry, it's my fault" as some sort of mindless mantra.


And I got confused by references to "Rollo Tomassi". I only recognize that name from the excellent movie, but I infer some dude adopted it as a pen name.

Many frustrations in Christian marriages can be traced back to the simple, biblical truths in which men are not being masculine. Because of this, their wives do not respect them as protectors and providers and, therefore, are not sexually attracted to them.

Looking back in my marriage, I can agree with that.

Now onto The Measure of a Man...

 

[historian]

Now onto The Measure of a Man...

I really liked the end of that article talking about how the church gets the demographics it desires.

[FONT=&amp]Men need saving. Saving takes resources. The church has resources. If men can leverage them, they will. If the social interest rate is too high, men will discontinue the church as their spiritual payment provider. Visa can run as many anti-Amex commercials as they want — they will never achieve 100% among credit card users, and neither will the church achieve 100% market share among men.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]When businesses lose market share, they don’t blame the clients — they take ownership and fix the problem. Why, when the church loses market share, does it bemoan the spiritual immaturity of the culture rather than taking ownership and fixing the problem itself? There are men to be gotten. Either you’re getting them or you’re not. There’s not a deep social force at place driving men out of the church. Jordan Peterson once said: “You get the spouse you deserve.” Likewise, the church has the demographics it deserves.[/FONT]

 

[JettaKnight]

People are exhausted by the issue of masculinity.

So true!


...and that's all I have to say for the last three essays.

 

[JettaKnight]

I really liked the end of that article talking about how the church gets the demographics it desires.

Yeah, but that only goes so far. I'm the sure author isn't implying that doctrine can change.


I mean, a business can change almost anything - including the name of their product if it means getting more money.


I dunno, I keep thinking about a sign, It was for a vegan support group meeting. Someone took a sharpie and wrote on a piece of paper beside it: "Meat eater? You're doing just fine without a support group."


I have no problem accepting that women are the weaker sex, and men should "man up." I'm not particularly keen on (white) male fragility.

 

[HoughMade]

So many weak pastors are afraid to preach the truth of the biblical roles of husbands and wives. They don't want to appear to be misogynistic, so they not only ignore biblical truth, but misrepresent it.

Example. I teach an adult small group in my church. Co-ed, ages about 30-50+. At some point last year we were in Ephesians 5. The teaching material took verse 21, in my opinion, out of context in order to "soften" verses 22-24.

Verses 15-21 (ESV)

15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

To me, it is rather obvious that these verses are speaking to members of the church (universal) as to how they are to act and, in verse 21, how we humble ourselves in dealing with other Christians.

However, the material I was teaching from extracted verse 21 from that context and used it as if it was a verse referring to the relation of husband and wife. Verses 22-24 state:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

See what happens when you divorce verse 21 from its context and use it in this way?

submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord....

It completely changes the import of how the family is to be structured...because whoever wrote that materials either had their own bias or was afraid of what the Bible actually says. Either way, it's not good.

(I did not utilize this passage in that way when I taught it)

There is no reason to become heretical in order to exhort men to be good husbands....all you have to do is teach exactly what self-sacrificial love looks like:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

...but just because husbands have a great responsibility does not mean the duty of submission can, or should, be ignored.

 

[JettaKnight]

Most of the guest on Theology in the Raw over the past year have been LGBT+ people (or better to say struggling with it). But, there's two recent one that are more INGO appropriate, shall I say.


It was good to hear Josh McDowell's son, and how he's carrying on. He discusses how apologetics has changed, and where the purity movement went off the tracks.
https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/theology-in-the-raw/722-sean-mcdowell

And A.J. Swoboda (whom I have never heard of) has a great discussion about Portland, BLM, moral relativism, etc., that's quite fitting with our culture here.
https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/theology-in-the-raw/722-sean-mcdowell

 

[NKBJ]

Biblical truth is natural truth and therefore perverting the natural (work of the creator) will always be a pursued goal until time is done away with.

As regards the stipulated hierarchical structure of the family, authority flows from above to below. Without imposed structure there is no imposed responsibility, a situation promoting chaos and confusion to favor the goals of the father of confusion.

 

[historian]

Yeah, but that only goes so far. I'm the sure author isn't implying that doctrine can change.

So many weak pastors are afraid to preach the truth of the biblical roles of husbands and wives. They don't want to appear to be misogynistic, so they not only ignore biblical truth, but misrepresent it.

YES! I'm a bit younger than you two (I'm pretty sure). Growing up hearing that men should be men, but they shouldn't act like men gets really frustrating and confusing.

Every time a family splits in the church, the assumption is that the man is to blame. Every. Single. Time. Either: 1) he did commit an egregious sin and did the leaving (in which he is to blame) or 2) he didn't run his household the way he should have and is to blame. It is never the wife's fault, even if she is completely at fault. They will hang him on the smallest of sins ("He should have prayed every day with his family") before they blame the wife. It tells every man there that they have to be perfect and that they can't be perfect. Schrodinger's church.

Just like the whole complementarian/egalitarian debate. Going with the "minimal viable product" rather than running with the complete product isn't good.

I keep thinking about how Paul almost always goes back to natural law in Romans. Basically, God won't destroy your society unless you go against natural law (Canaanites, the days before Noah, etc.). But, complementarians aren't wanting to support natural law (and, as awkward as it sounds, a patriarchy). That is why you end up with Beth Moore preaching a sermon on a Mother's Day Sunday at a conservative Baptist church and going, (paraphrasing), "The Bible says women can't be pastors, not that they can't preach." It seems like when you try to get that minimally viable product, you end up with the same thing as egalitarianism by just splitting hairs and playing with words.

So no, doctrine shouldn't change, but the church has twisted itself into knots trying to conform to the world and in doing so, drives away a prominent market share and then blames that market share.

I guess I feel it more because I am younger, but I totally understand why Jordan Peterson is popular. He doesn't ignore biology when it comes to attraction. He doesn't run around saying that "being a servant-leader is attractive." He knows it isn't and doesn't lie about it.

 

[HoughMade]

...I guess I feel it more because I am younger, but I totally understand why Jordan Peterson is popular. He doesn't ignore biology when it comes to attraction. He doesn't run around saying that "being a servant-leader is attractive." He knows it isn't and doesn't lie about it.

I believe in "servant-leadership"...but I think there is a misunderstanding of what it is.

Way back when, I had senior enlisted leaders and some officers I greatly respected. The served the men (well, we were infantry) by leading them well and with strength. Being a "servant-leader" in my mind isn't about doing what you are told for someone. It's about doing what is best for them. This requires strength.

Another analogy- I serve my clients as an attorney. Frequently this means I am giving them instructions they don't want to hear. Yet, I am serving them.

I am a servant-leader to my kids when I demand hard work...and often work along side them to complete a task.

I think sacrificing oneself for one's wife (Eph. 5:25-29) is a picture of servant-leadership, but not subservient or servile. There is no such thing as "servile-leadership".

 

[historian]

I believe in "servant-leadership"...but I think there is a misunderstanding of what it is.

Way back when, I had senior enlisted leaders and some officers I greatly respected. The served the men (well, we were infantry) by leading them well and with strength. Being a "servant-leader" in my mind isn't about doing what you are told for someone. It's about doing what is best for them. This requires strength.

Another analogy- I serve my clients as an attorney. Frequently this means I am giving them instructions they don't want to hear. Yet, I am serving them.

I am a servant-leader to my kids when I demand hard work...and often work along side them to complete a task.

I think sacrificing oneself for one's wife (Eph. 5:25-29) is a picture of servant-leadership, but not subservient or servile. There is no such thing as "servile-leadership".

Indeed. There is good in it. However, stating that it is a major factor in attraction is BS pure and simple.

Also, the church has pushed the "servant-leader" narrative so hard and far for so long, that they overextended it to make it a "sacrifice everything for the women." They turned women into vases and demanded that men be bubble wrap.