Evangelical Church is Weak and Womanly

“*     *     *

Pulpit Highlights – Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church on Vimeo.

In an earlier discussion on street evangelists (Is it Love or Not? Street Evangelists Defend Their Method), reader David  posted the above video in the comments section.  It’s just over two minutes long.  Phil is a great speaker and entertaining to this large group of men.  Here is David’s comment as it pertained to the street evangelist article:

I will just leave this right here. This kind of manure is not confined just to street preachers with loud speakers.

Debate 101: Strong language does not equate to strong argument. Just look at the press releases from North Korea and Al Queda. If you have strong arguments, you just let them speak for themselves. I know 2+2=4. There is no need to get all worked up about it and employe strident and color language to defend it. The proof is out there. Take it or leave it.

Yesterday was the first time I saw this video.  Some of you may remember that I have had a personal connection with Phil Johnson during my lawsuit.  We actually had an hour-long phone conversation where he heard my side of the story and he seemed to not only hear me and understand what I was saying, but also he identified with spiritual abuse telling me a personal story.  The conversation was positive and I publicly disclosed that.  Having that personal background with Phil made the video even more interesting to me.

Now this video intrigues me for a number of reasons.  First of all, this is published by the powers that be at Grace Community Church.  The video is from Shepherds Conference 2010.  It is a conference for pastors and church leaders and for men only.  I’m pretty sure my former pastor was in that specific audience.  Each year he takes a group of men from his church down to S. California to attend.  My husband went several years.  The men always came back fired up.  We heard glowing comments about the preaching.

One reason this video intrigues me is that it is labeled as “Pulpit Highlights.”  It is most likely posted as a teaser to get us interested in Phil Johnson’s full message.   Most every day I post a diverse selection of Christian-related articles (some I agree with, some I don’t) on my SSB Facebook page.  I post a link and then either add some of my personal words to highlight the article or take quotes from the article.  The purpose of that highlight is to draw people in and “sell” the article.  So, that thought came to me when I watched the short video – – that Grace Community powers-that-be thought that Phil’s message in that short clip was the selling feature of Phil’s talk.  They wanted to use that part of the video to draw us in and encourage us to view the full-length video.

Below this video, we can click on another link to see the full video.  I might do that later on to see where he’s going with this clip, but to be clear, this post is discussing specifically the Pulpit Highlights content.

Ok, so here is one of the first key phrases of the teaser that sets the tone for the highlighted video:

I think it’s an incontrovertible fact that the typical evangelical church of this generation  has become weak and womanly.   Church goers demand that their preachers be soft and dainty – especially when they are dealing with hard-edged truths.

I’m a woman.    Weak and womanly?  Soft and dainty?  Are all women weak and soft?  Do I seem weak and soft to you?  hahahaha  I mean, it’s not that I haven’t tried, but when I’m passionate about something . . . . just sayin’    And in the context, he sure seems to be painting women in a negative light.  The church is made up of an awful lot of women.  God created women and said it was good, right?  I’m pretty sure Adam liked Eve. I highly suspect if all the women in the world tonight left their spouses’ beds tonight, we’d be dealing with some whiney men because it is a known fact that men “need” women to take care of some of their ahem personal needs, yet in this context, being womanly is negative.  Ick, Phil.   It seems he could have said weak without the womanly part, ya think?  But instead it feels so demeaning.  Uh-oh, I said “feels.”  Yes, women feel.   Carry on.

Are there biblical references to the church being masculine or feminine?  Do you know of any?  Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any.  If there aren’t, then why is this an issue?

“Today’s evangelicals favor feminine themes:  emotional hurts, our personal relationships, our felt needs, we are hurting people. ”  (JA note:  Phil says this phrase with an increasingly pathetic helpless tone to exaggerate his point which brings the audience to laughter – – – let me be clear –  the all-male audience.)

Did you notice how he seems to equate emotions and relational issues as “feminine”?  Once again, Phil is taking something that God made:  feelings/emotions, seems to be ridiculing them and connecting them with women in a negative fashion.  He didn’t need to add the word feminine and actually when he did so, it seems to imply that only women feel and have emotional hurts, etc.  Ok, right there, any of you men who have ever felt emotions, ever had tears come down your cheeks, had personal relationship issues, felt hurt, you were  just put in that feminine class.  You need to Man Up (whatever that means).  Go ahead and take care of that before you continue reading.   I’ll wait.

Gary W. had a great response:

Just took a look at the Phil Johnson “manliness” sermonette. Wonder what he does with concepts such as binding up the brokenhearted (Is. 61:1)? Maybe I’ve had this passage wrong along. Maybe it means binding up as in putting them in chains. Yeah, that’s gotta be it. After you’ve driven them to the edge of the abyss emotionally and spiritually, make ‘em confess and repent and, especially, SUBMIT. Still, there’s that pesky passage about our God being the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. 2 Cor. 1:3. Nah, must be reading that one out of context.

Gary is absolutely right.  How much of Psalms is David crying out to God in pain and anguish?  Are those not emotions and feelings?  I think David was a guy/dude, right?

I think Phil’s real message is that pastors should not minimize biblical principles when preaching.  I get that.  But I think this feminization/emotion/personal relationship message is the wrong message.  Sure, it worked for a crowd of men, but was this a conference to build up mens’ masculinity or was it a conference to encourage men to rightly divide the Word?  If the real message is to stick to the Bible and not minimize important biblical principles, then say that.  How does a man who “waters down” scripture then become a woman, like a figure skater?  Fo real, Phil?  No, regardless of what you say, he’s still a man.  I’m sure if he checked his undies, he’d still find the same male genitalia which means he’s a man, right?   I mean, come on –  this really does not boil down to a man/woman issue, but an accurate interpretation of scripture.  Quit calling men/churches womanly, Phil.

And for the record, this woman thinks a man who can be for real and emotional is a REAL man, whether that is standing up for the truth in a strong way ready to kick someone’s butt or one who sheds tears when seeing injustices or suffering – you know, kind of like Jesus.  What a concept.  Jesus wept.  And he preached authoritatively and lovingly.  And he had compassion with shoes on.  Men who belittle men by calling them womanly and effeminate are not real men.  I salute my male readers who are real men.  I salute my male pastor friends who don’t resort to trash-talking specific genders, but respect all.

48 comments on “Evangelical Church is Weak and Womanly

  1. What amazes me is that these egotists that rant about ‘authoritative preaching’ think that they have some sort of real authority simply because they stand in a pulpit and preach. Sorry, but none of them have any authority to make me accept any of their words; I critically analyze what is said, and accept it if I agree that it is true and good. And I accept plenty of truth and goodness from women who supposedly shouldn’t be teaching me anything (unless they’re hidden from my eyes).

    I’m thinking that this guy is just the latest to jump on the Driscoll macho bandwagon. Give it a break, already; that stuff only appeals to men who are insecure about being a man.

    Like

  2. Exactly! IF you equate emotions/feelings with being a woman/ly and that no man wants to be equated with the fairer, yet weaker sex, then emotions can be written off as unnecessary, negative, and suspect. After all, men do not need emotions in order to stand for Christ or to preach sound doctrine–‘with any passion’. Being a real man, you can dispense with emotions or be thought ‘weak’. His apparently charming presentation is quite defensive! It may be that something else is going on and this is just a defense mechanism to divert attention.

    You can evade and avoid emotions and teach other men to do so–at their own peril. What they seem to be ridiculing may be exactly where many problems in the church lie.

    After all, Jesus came as a man, and he was not known for his emotions . . . NOT! It is just too bad that this beat just goes on and on and on and on in these circles.

    Like

  3. Julie Anne,

    You ask, “Are there biblical references to the church being masculine or feminine?” I would say yes, feminine. Or so I take it from the references to the Bride in Revelation 19, 21 and 22.

    The Church is feminine.

    Like

  4. I’ve been mulling over this “we’re not going to let emotion into our practice of religion, ‘cuz we’re MEN” concept for a while. Basically all that happens is that I run into mental blocks where I can’t understand how this animosity has any place in the church.

    Like

  5. I can’t stand these derogatory terms, and yet they say in the same breath – we are equal in dignity and worth. If they truly felt that they wouldn’t do these type of things IMO.

    Like

  6. YES, Hannah. Man speaks with forked tongue! Right on. It speaks of boys in a tree house mocking girls behind their backs–who want to join their boy club. Hugely immature.

    The whole feminine metaphor they use to describe their style of preaching and managing the church demeans women and is inaccurate when it comes to biblical motifs in the New Testament! It needs to be critiqued.

    Like

  7. forgedimagination said: I’ve been mulling over this “we’re not going to let emotion into our practice of religion, ‘cuz we’re MEN” concept for a while. Basically all that happens is that I run into mental blocks where I can’t understand how this animosity has any place in the church.

    These churches who practice this stuff must have removed portions of Isaiah, Job, Psalms, etc, out of their bibles.

    Jesus wept. Who dares to call him dainty and soft and weak? ’nuff said.

    Like

  8. John 11:35
    Jesus wept.

    I wonder if Phil would have told Jesus to “Man up”, or would that be “God up”, to quit crying like a weak woman? Who is this creator of ours that would shed a tear acting like this?

    Also, Jesus told us to be like little Children, for such is the Kingdom of God. But Phil would rather scare them with hell fire and brimstone, the hard truths.

    I wonder if there was any men in the audience that was laughing only because others expected them to laugh, but deep down inside were cringing in their hearts.

    Yes, David was full of emotion to God. So I am sure that Phil would have called David a woosy and counseling David to get out of his “emotionalism” worship.

    Like

  9. Exactly Gary, The church is the bride not the groom.

    This morning I read ‘Joan, Heretic and Saint’ by Georges Bernanos. It’s an almost poetic and very moving account of the trial of Joan of Arc, one woman, almost a girl, pitted against an ecclesiastical body, all men. They sentenced her to being burned at the stake, a sad example of spiritual abuse. I doubt many today would argue that these manly men with their manly arguments, a manliness demonstrated in an attack on one who had become defenseless, had more real authority than that young woman.

    Like

  10. The church is clearly the bride not the groom. I’m simply shocked to learn that Rev. Johnson has come out in favor of gay marriage.

    Like

  11. If I am correct in my observation that the Church, being the Bride, is feminine, several things would seem to follow from these men’s mocking of the (mischaracterized) feminine virtues: 1) They mock the Blood bought Church and Church and Bride herself. 2) They reject their own role in the many-membered and feminine Bride. 3) In reliance upon their supposedly superior male virtues, they are claiming for themselves a place of authority and headship over the Church and Bride which belong only to Jesus. 3) They fail to embrace, and possibly reject, that part of the nature of God which is imaged by the daughters of Eve.

    Like

  12. Well, I think all this preachers who diss women must be experiencing that thing that happens to men as we age. The macho types always see to be the ones who suffer a decline in certain masculine chemicals and need supplements to remain macho — you know, treatment for “low T” and that stuff they advertise with two bathtubs and hand holding couples. And this commenter is a 60+ y.o. man who needs neither, and thinks an emotionally uninvolved/unepxressive man is incomplete and has a severe disability.

    Like

  13. Just my 2 cents, but I’m not sure that references to the church as the bride of Christ are an indication that the church is feminine. It’s a metaphor. Or more accurately, Christian marriage is a metaphor or picture of the unity between Christ and the church. There are other metaphors for the church that could be viewed as masculine (e.g., we are the body of Christ, and HIs body is male) or neutral (e.g., we are the temple of God, and buildings are neither male nor female).

    Also, there are passages of Scripture that point to feminine aspects to God’s nature as well as masculine aspects. I don’t think we should be too quick to focus on aspects of our humanity that are material and temporal in nature when looking at spiritual and eternal truths.

    As to Phil Johnson’s message, I think he would do well to remember that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

    Like

  14. I was having some technical difficulties so I was unable to watch the video before commenting, but here is some food for thought…A book called “Why Men Hate Going to Church” by David Murrow.
    http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Hate-Going-Church/dp/0785260382

    I have not read the entire book but it’s ideas are worth considering. I don’t believe the church is either masculine or feminine, however the criticisms of the church becomming milquetoast are not new. Women could also benefit from some courageous stands being taken from the pulpit.

    Like

  15. My thanks to Another Tom for bringing some balance. Lisa mentions David Murrow’s book, “Why Men Hate Going to Church,” a book from which I derived a good deal of inspiration. Murrow went on to develop his thinking in interesting ways in his sequel, “The Map: the Way of All Great Men.” In this second book Murrow has one Gerasimos say things like, “As a man progresses through life, he must develop and balance the two sides of his nature: the soft, accepting, feminine side and the hard, demanding, masculine side,” and, “A man who would follow the path of Jesus must first go back in the feminine direction he has been fleeing his entire life.” See pages 79-81. More balance.

    I could doubtless, in the interests of balance, rework some of the ways in which I have presented my thoughts in this thread. Nevertheless, I shall exercise my maleness in holding firmly to my overall objection to the approach of those men who would seemingly pursue their vision of church as a male dominated, masculine only, ghetto.

    Like

  16. Thanks for focusing on this, JA. I’m so sorry to find out that Pastor Phil, who was so kind to you in the past, would sink to this kind of rhetoric.

    Chapmaned said above: “I wonder if there was any men in the audience that was laughing only because others expected them to laugh, but deep down inside were cringing in their hearts.” I know I was cringing, listening to this sexist nonsense. It infuriated me, and on so many levels.

    First and foremost, anyone who associates the world “womanly” with weakness, cowardice, or anything else derogatory is likely to lose my respect very quickly. The same goes for any implication that sensitivity, emotion or compassion are weak or “sissified” things.

    One final note: Is Pastor Phil suggesting that figure skaters are weak or sissy? Those are hard working athletes. I’d be willing to bet real money that any figure skater could beat him hands down in a race, and maybe even in a fight. I’m sure they could beat me.

    Like

  17. Serving,

    Keep in mind the video was 3 years ago. Phil talked to me last year so I would like to hope that he has changed. I just haven’t spent enough time digging around for more recent material. But this concept of authoritarian preaching vs sissy, watered-down preaching is definitely a popular topic.

    It seemed to me that Phil was making more of an attempt to stroke the male ego of the male audience members than say much of biblical substance. It frankly bothered me to think about the time/effort/$$ it took for men to go to these conferences. Taking a few days of vacation time away from family to have a men’s powwow? I know some mountains much closer where they could have saved gas money, time, and built themselves a little campfire and done their manly warrior dance.

    All of this negative talk about women – – – is he threatened by women?

    Like

  18. I feel honored to have given you a topic to post :). Just a couple of thoughts.

    Sternness, which a lot of men erroneously view as a sign of masculinity, is an emotion. Just because it happens to be associated more with males than females, it does not mean it is less of an emotion. It manifests itself in thoughtlessness and abuse which males tend to succumb to more than females. Surely there are certain emotions that women are more susceptible to, but we have our own that we are very vulnerable to as well. So let’s not pretend women are more “womanly.” Sternness is a sign of deep seated insecurity. Men are just as “womanly”

    Do you notice these conservative, Chuck Norris loving, freedom defending, touch as a nail, figure skating mocking men tend to get offended over the silliest stuff? They just call it “persecution.”

    Like

  19. Yeah, I think Phil was just jumping on the bandwagon of what was popular at the time (and still may be popular). I hope that he realizes that what he said was offensive and highly inappropriate and asks for that clip to be taken down. It is never right to stroke and stoke the male ego by diminishing the female, ever. It has no place in the Kingdom of God but is fleshly and carnal.

    This abhorrence of the emotional side of humanity and scapegoating women for it is something that I have called Christian Vulcanism. You know, from Star Trek. It is not pure Christianity but a variation that denies a part of what makes us human, created in God’s image. Perhaps they look at it as cutting off their hand because it offends them. But really, why does it offend them. And why must they scapegoat women over it.

    Again, I hope Phil realizes how inappropriate it is to think and preach this way. And I hope he modifies what he is trying to say and get across to men in such a way that he’s not tearing down women.

    Like

  20. There’s been a thread of concern going around about “Feminization of the Church” — the idea that we’ve watered down Church to be a comfort zone for women at the expense of men. This happens every so often (the last time being around 100 years ago with “Muscular Christianity”), but the latest cycle is best summed up in a book from a few years back titled “Why Men Quit Going to Church”.

    From the commentaries, this Phil Johnson guy seems to have taken the idea and ran with it, and he isn’t the only one. The Comp/Patrio movement is almost a “Communism-begets-Objectivism” reaction, where you flip one-eighty and get more extreme than the Other.

    Like

  21. Mara, Your comment is excellent. I wonder – where did that abhorrence of emotions come from? Why are expressing considered womanly? For some reason, my brain conjures up more men expressing themselves emotionally in scripture than women. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison.

    Like

  22. David – Thanks again for alerting me to the video. I think it is important to discuss these kinds of ideas/trends that crop up and spread around churches. How does it benefit the body of Christ? How is Christ being honored? Is it drawing people to Him or creating division? I think it is clearly creating division among genders – not only in a “we’re-better-than-women-because-we-don’t-rely-on-subjective-feelings,” but there is a sense that it elevates men over women. I feel for the women in churches where men tout this kind of junk. I would suspect a higher amount of emotional and spiritual abuse of women among these groups if it is not held in check.

    Like

  23. Thanks for laying out that timeline, Julie Anne. Sorry if I spoke out of turn at all, and I hope, as you do, that Pastor Phil has come to realize how these words sound outside the bubble.

    The Bible sure does show a lot of men expressing real, raw emotions. David, Job, and Jeremiah come to my mind. As to where the abhorrence (or perhaps fear) of emotions came from: One book I read suggested that it’s long been an undercurrent in Western culture, especially in the 20th century. No one in the culture ever gives a coherent reason for it — but men keep teaching boys that to be “real men” they need to cut themselves from off from feeling. Just because the same thing was taught to them. Because “that’s just the way it is” for men.

    With this phenomenon happening in church, what makes it so terribly tragic to me is that some pastors are actually trying to use Scripture to justify it. They don’t even say, “That’s just how it is,” and let it drop. They have to try (in vain) to prove it’s in the Bible. Ugh.

    Like

  24. Serving – No, you did not speak out of turn at all. I just wanted to make it clear just in case he has changed his tune. However, I strongly suspect he hasn’t based on the fact that they remain posted publicly.

    I’m no public figure like Phil, but even in my small audience, if I suddenly had a change of heart on some important matter, you would see it posted front and center on my blog. I’d spill it all out telling how I came from one conclusion to the other (and also disclose if I removed articles). It just seems like the right thing to do.

    Like

  25. Julie Anne, whether Johnson had a change of heart does not negate the fact that Grace Community Church embraces his attitude shown in the clip as you pointed out in the post. This kind of attitude is very integral to their worldview. I think that GCC not only condones, but endorses everything your pastor has done except for the lawsuit. He got his authoritarian ideas from the mothership. He just happened to go a little too far and caused a PR problem for GCC which is why Phil had no choice but to be nice to you.

    Like

  26. David C said:

    Julie Anne, whether Johnson had a change of heart does not negate the fact that Grace Community Church embraces his attitude shown in the clip as you pointed out in the post. This kind of attitude is very integral to their worldview. I think that GCC not only condones, but endorses everything your pastor has done except for the lawsuit. He got his authoritarian ideas from the mothership. He just happened to go a little too far and caused a PR problem for GCC which is why Phil had no choice but to be nice to you.

    I never wanted to admit the possibility that what you said is true, but now I believe it to be true 100%. Guess who went to the Shepherd’s Conference this year? Yup, CON and his entourage. It didn’t seem to bother them that CON accused one of their pastors of telling him to sue me.

    This is just another case of: if someone has the right doctrine (according to them), they can still easily overlook blatant sin and even abuse because their doctrine is the idol (as we have been discussing on the current post.)

    Remember that street evangelist video I posted of Tony Miano standing outside the abortion clinic arguing with the guy for 42 min. while continuing to use a megaphone and be recorded? Both Ken Cook of CARM and Tony Miano have 100% accepted CON. CON went to the recent CARM conference in Portland area. They went evangelizing together, they tweet each other, etc. Do you see the pattern? It’s the same pattern we have seen with CJ and The Gospel Coalition folks. They overlook CJ’s “minor flaws” because he has the right doctrine. Now I have seen it in my personal story. They overlook the fact that families are torn apart, that he sued 5 people, that he has an obnoxious blog against former members, that they hand out business cards about the “slander bloggers” because they believe his doctrine is right. Their specific form of doctrine is their god.

    This is sick, people.

    Like

  27. Julie Anne,

    I’ve seen this clip before. I get a kick out of @2:14 “Those sound like rules for figure skaters…” Figure skaters? You mean those olympic athlete types with crazy workout regimens who could probably kick Mark Driscoll’s ass? You mean those?

    Like

  28. That is a great observation, Julie Anne. Because CJ has the right doctrine, all his flaws are just minor and not much to be worked up about. He will address them when he has the time.

    This sermon by MacArthur titled The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood made rounds back when the Catholic church’s pedophile scandal made national headlines. MacArthur took the opportunity to declare the very founding of the Catholic priesthood biblical, suggesting that the rampant sex abuse scandal should not come as a surprise because of the Catholic church’s fundamentally false doctrine.

    Like

  29. @DavidC

    And as far as I know, MacArthur has never publicly written or spoken about the epidemic or child abuse and sexual abuse that is rampant in Independent Baptist Fundamentalism, with which MacArthur remains associated and has never broken ties: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/

    Like

  30. @Julie Anne

    I wasn’t aware of that. More and more it seems to me that the higher a Christian’s popularity and celebrity status, the less likely they are to do the right thing.

    Like

  31. MacArthur isn’t the only Baptist fundamentalist who took the Catholic clergy abuse and coverup scandal as an opportunity to criticize Roman Catholicism, but who has ignored Baptist clergy abuse and coverup. Many Baptist hypocrites did the same. Another is Richard Land:

    http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-talk-from-mr-so-called-ethics.html

    http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/10/hollywood-and-baptistland.html

    Now Land is a seminary prof. like Mohler, Patterson, and MacArthur.

    Like

  32. I meant that Land is a seminary president, like Mohler, Patterson, and MacArthur. I don’t think Land or Mac have ever been professors.

    Like

  33. Here is Phil Johnson’s opinion of the Mahaney scandal: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/10/evangelical-freakshow.html?showComment=1317731065780#c2097417836310647879

    He doesn’t think that it’s “even in the same ballpark” as Elephant Room 2. This shows where Johnson’s priorities are.

    Now I’ll be the first to call T.D. Jakes an evil conman who gets rich off the backs of the poor (like all prosperity preachers). But I’ll say this: a million T.D. Jakes put together could never be as evil as those who would commit child sexual abuse or those who cover it up.

    Like

  34. Thanks for that link, Nicholas. Ok, that was posted about a year before the filing of the lawsuit. The common consensus of Brent Detwiler was he was a whiny former employee out to get his boss. SGMSurvivor and SGMRefuge blogs would have been dismissed altogether as whiny complaint blogs (I have documentation on that as well). A lot of this has to do with Phil and his frame of reference at Grace Community. GCC has had its fair share of people coming out against them publicly. Their normal MO is protect and defend the pastors FIRST.

    Like

  35. Nicholas, I missed your comment above:

    CON was at a CARM conference? I wonder if Matt Slick is aware of it.

    You can be sure Matt Slick was aware of it. I have interesting history with CARM. Their headquarters are near me in Oregon. Ken Cook works very closely with Matt. Ken Cook went street evangelizing with CON and Tony Miano recently. They tweeted about it. You can look through CON’s tweets and see him schmoozing with big names. I think this, too, goes back to if you have the right doctrine, other trivial things like lawsuits, how you treat your church members, if you lie about Grace Community, etc, are all just minor character flaws. Having the “correct” doctrine is god.

    Like

  36. Nicholas said: I wasn’t aware of that. More and more it seems to me that the higher a Christian’s popularity and celebrity status, the less likely they are to do the right thing.

    I agree – – -and again, as I said in my last comment. The pattern I’ve seen with the folks with doctrine like JMac is if you have the right doctrinal beliefs (ie, if yours matches theirs), then you get a free pass. If yours does not match, then THAT becomes the issue. THAT issue would be blamed for their other indiscretions. If they had their doctrine right, they wouldn’t be behaving in such a way. Does that make sense?

    Like

  37. Having the correct doctrine has certainly become an idol to them, and for them it completely trumps doing the right thing according to Christ’s commands.

    They want to portray things as such that having the right doctrine will cause you to do good, while having the wrong doctrine will cause you to do wrong. This is why T.D. James is a big deal to them but Mahaney and CON aren’t. The latter two shatter the illusion, so JMac, TGC, etc. cover it up and ignore it, hoping no one else will notice.

    This is why MacArthur denounced the Catholic clergy abuse and coverup scandal and blamed it on the Roman Catholic religion, and why MacArthur has been silent on the clergy abuse and coverup scandals in SGM, IFB, SBC, and fundamentalism and evangelicalism in general. All the IFB preachers likewise harp on the Catholic church scandal, all the while equally abominable things and worse have happened and are happening in the IFB cult.

    The doctrinolators at GCC and TGC need to learn that being a Christian is a unity of belief and practice, creed and deed, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You cannot have the one but neglect the other. And contrary to MacArthur’s belief, good behavior does not result from merely holding the right doctrine.

    Like

  38. A hearty Amen to that. And I think I’m going to make a tweet out of your last sentence. It’s very good. I hope I have some characters left to tag 😉

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s