* * *
BREAKING: Janet Mefferd Removes Tweets and Blog Material Regarding Mark Driscoll and Alleged Plagiarism
* * *
Ok, I just got home and something is going down with Mefferd regarding the allegations of Mark plagiarism by Mark Driscoll in several books. Dee of Wartburg Watch tagged me in a tweet that Mefferd removed all of her tweets and blog material related to the Driscoll/plagiarism situation. I also received an e-mail that Mefferd was going to be saying something about this on her show today.
I found the following tweets. The top tweet is the most recent. As I find more information, I will update.
My gut response is that someone is forcing her to do this and that is not sitting right with me at all.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Lydia,
On the one hand you share your suspicions of what might be going on based on your first-hand experience of and victimization by the evangelical powers that be. Alex, on the other hand, comes a preachin’ and a lecturing on the basis of no (stated) experience inside the world of big name, bigger money, Gospel-for-sale evangelicalism. You speak on the basis of the observed fruit of a demonstrably rotten tree. He speaks on the basis of . . . Well, he speaks on the basis that he has no facts, on the basis that he is ignorant.
What’s worse is that he comes to us as one with superior Christian virtue, as though it is more virtuous to remain silent in the absence of “convincing evidence” than to speak and act according to such facts as are known. I wonder what standard of proof Alex would deem convincing? Proof beyond a scintilla of a doubt?
Maybe his heart is good, I don’t know. He surely intends no such thing, but much of what Alex writes comes across to me, at least, as just so much sanctimonious cant.
Plus, it all just absolutely ignores the real issue, which is whether or not plagiarism was in fact committed by an author who holds himself out to be writing as a Christian.
LikeLike
Gary, it worked. Mefford became the issue. And because they were able to make her the issue….. her apology now serves to exonerate Driscoll. That my friend is how it works. And so any speculation know is Sin. It is a strategy that works like magic. All you need is a lot of powerful people around you
LikeLike
Lydia, that in a nutshell is the present state of affairs. You summed it up completely.
LikeLike
And the judges are believing the perjured testimony, blessing the lying perpetrator and damning the truthful witness who is forced to recant.
LikeLike
Lydia
If you feel comfortable announcing what you speculate was Mefferd’s real motives in the absence of fact at the moment I cannot say I find much, if any, such room by way of what we are taught as believers.
As to your consulting me, you could but really you might want to avoid warrantless condescension here. It is not my advice but one from Scripture. You don’t have to agree with me as to what battles to pick but reacting as if introducing such a consideration is ill-will? Eh?
I am not your enemy. I am not indifferent to the things you have gone through but no matter our past it behooves to argue merit and not simply dismiss differing opinions.
Gary
I realize your acerbic reaction to my comments where you claim to know I believe I have a superior Christian virtue and I am ignorant, thus I am sanctimonious, couldn’t possibly be sanctimony itself but it might be come off that way to some.
In truth, you really don’t know what I have been through and who has or has not crushed me. So you have no justification for attempting to speak as if you do. However, you’d be surprised but it isn’t about me which is my next point.
No matter what I or anyone elde has been through (and even though there are similar properties on the surface of the events of others and our special event(s) that hurt us), our suffering does not license us ethically to transfer our event onto other events and assume all things are parallel or if only suspicious, voice those suspicions as if they are fair conclusions and base further accusations against at whatever party with what there may be conflict.
Yes, the issue of plagiarism still stands. But, as Mefferd directs, there is a proper approach for resolving this, a principles not that involves steps with discretion first.
LikeLike
Alex,
I have to agree with Lydia here. With everything I’ve read and heard on this issue, this apology and retraction (of sorts) by Janet Mefferd just stinks to high heaven.
I, for one, have heard plenty from both Janet and Driscoll (and far more than I like from Driscoll). Enough to be convinced that Marky D. is more than capable of trying to bully a journalist into backing down, and would be more than willing in this case.
That’s just what bugs me about this, Alex. It is very, very hard for me to trust that these words are coming from a journalist without coercion. Every journalist wants the truth to be known. Every journalist wants the public to discuss and debate issues of public interest. That’s part and parcel of the job. So, no, I won’t respect this request of Janet’s, because I don’t think it’s coming from her.
You say that all of our “dissension” is “unbecoming”. I don’t think that there’s much we can do to make this situation anything less than yucky. Unless you suggest that I stick a sock in my mouth, which I’ve no intention of doing. In the eyes of the public, the reputation of evangelical Christianity is probably half in the toilet already. And it’s not the fault of Christians who want to get at the truth, and discuss their opinions to do so.
LikeLike
AlexGuggenheim,
The only thing that I have to add to this is:
1. Pattern of behavior
2. If it walks like a duck…, well, we know the rest of that saying.
I, myself, do not buy into a “discretion first” policy. If one is discussing “Normal” working practices, then there is a proper approach for resolving issues. But this isn’t one of the “Normal’s”. This is a journalist doing her job. And it is extremely obvious that she is being strong armed. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out. It is a pattern of behavior that we have seen time and time again in all sorts of journalism strong arm tactics. If Mefford is a Christian, and I believe that she is, then truth was told the first time. Backtracking is a sign that someone coerced Mefford, that someone who has a love for money, power, dominance, etc. coerced her to backtrack. We have the right to discern, based on many factors, and not limit our scope.
This is no longer just a plagiarism issue. It is much more than that now. Who strong armed Mefford is now the added story, and why?
Ed
LikeLike
Get to the truth, by all means. But at least do some investigating and vetting of suspicions so that you can have facts upon which to base your public assertions.
Saying something “stinks to high heavens” is not a speculation about a the issue, it self, whether one is guilty, and to that I have no complaint. But going beyond that and saying “it stinks to high heavens” and then “here is what is making that apparent smell” when you have nothing in hand to prove it is a step beyond.
You won’t respect Janet’s request because you don’t believe it is coming from her but you have no proof, just suspicion. There is a word for that and it isn’t a good one. You can have all your suspicions but until you have just evidence to question Mefferd’s integrity and her sincerity, you are simply running with an open license to justify whatever based on suspicion.
I have listened to the original event and the apology. I did not sense any large issue other than Mefferd might be doing further investigation before coming public with a confrontation in the manner she did. I would not be surprised to hear more from her later or someone else. I simply saw her as believing she engaged too soon to the degree she did without doing some due diligence beforehand.
LikeLike
Ed
And what proof do you have to demonstrate this claim? I see nothing but assertions. That is not what we are called to as ethical witnesses.
LikeLike
Ed – I’m not sure this is as squeaky clean. I see Mefferd as having strong moral convictions. See, I think she could have been legit on the part about thinking she should have gone to the publisher first – – i.e., go to your brother in private. I also believe she could have been legit on the part about how she handled the interview (I was uncomfortable with the tone and the continued questioning, too, as I’ve said before). Those issues are very, very minor in the bigger scheme of things, but we as Christians do look over events and see how we could have done things better, right?
Ok, but the other side of the coin that I mentioned earlier is this: if she had gone to the publisher first and got nowhere, then didn’t she have a moral responsibility to do something more public about it? That statement bugged me and didn’t seem right at all for a journalist to say. I can’t imagine a journalist saying that.
Another point: She could have legitimately been sorry about the tone or behavior, but there was NO reason to remove the blog posts/pdfs. Her tone/actions in getting the interview had nothing to do with the issue of plagiarism – those are 2 separate issues. So, the fact that she removed all of the alleged plagiarism material only convinces me further that she was strong armed to do it. And the thought of that makes me sick.
LikeLike
Alex said:
And what proof do you have to demonstrate this claim? I see nothing but assertions. That is not what we are called to as ethical witnesses.
My response:
Proof? Proof? Are you kidding me? I highly disagree with your “ethical” witness routine. Pattern of behavior is my answer. Pattern of behavior has been tried and true throughout history.
It’s early in the morning, and I have much to do today, but I could definitely bring some bible verses into your ethical realm that states that we can use our own mind to discern things without taking things to a court of law.
Beware of this, beware of that, etc. Don’t believe the Pharisees, don’t believe this, don’t believe that, etc.
Should we first hear out the Pharisees in order to make a determination? Come on Alex. No wonder atheists make fun of us when they say that Christians don’t have a mind to reason.
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I’m a staunch Fox News fan. Big time. There are many Christian journalists on that channel. There are many spirited debates, and the journalists are not afraid to challenge anyone. I’m not buying into the “tone” thing. What does “tone” have to do with any of this? Was the interview supposed to be in a lovey-dovey tone? Besides, who really considers Mark to be their “brother-in-Christ?, so as to take your brother aside? I see that reference of the Bible to be someone who is your friend in Christ, not someone to whom is a person who is contrary to Christ. I do not see Mark as a victim here.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed – As a parent, if my kid steals something and I have an unloving angry/harsh response, I am still responsible for my angry/harsh response which is unrelated to the issue of my kid stealing. That’s what I’m trying to say. If she felt she was over the line in her way of going about things (not going to the publisher first or her tone), that may in fact be something she is holding herself responsible for. Again, it doesn’t dismiss the other issues of alleged plagiarism and pressure she seemed to have gotten to remove the material.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
While I highly respect your case here, I’m not buying it. I do not believe that she felt that she was over the line. I feel that was a coercion for her to reveal how “oh, so sorry” that she was.
Journalists should never be sorry for revealing the truth, and they are not bound to reveal any sources whatsoever. They have that protected right in the constitution, called “Freedom of the Press”.
Some journalists have spent time in jail, all because they refused to reveal their sources. They have that right.
Ed
LikeLike
Christian Post article: http://goo.gl/FyVaWF
This article is especially good: http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2013/12/i-told-you-this-was-no-boating-accident.html
Feel free to discuss this situation. This story has gone viral and the comments that I deleted here were copied and posted elsewhere. I was told that Ingrid Schlueter gave Warren Throckmorton permission to post the comments, but was unable to verify that.
LikeLike
This from Alex:
Oooh, I’m shaking. 😉
Seriously, though, what word would that be? Perhaps, “gossip”? Or your oft-used “speculation”? Frankly, neither word impresses me much. The accusation of “gossip” is used too often in religious settings to shut people up. And when dealing with public personalities, “speculation” is not a sin, at least not from my reading of the Bible. If you had another word in mind, please spell it out.
And I’m not questioning Janet’s integrity or sincerity. What I suspect is that she has become one more victim of spiritual abuse. If so, I have every confidence in her and in the Lord that she will also be a survivor.
In parting, I will accept no interpretation of the Bible that muzzles my right to free speech, when I think people are being stomped on by the powerful.
And with that, sir, I must leave you for a while. It’s past my bedtime here.
LikeLike
Mark Driscoll got savaged late yesterday by the website Jezebel:
http://jezebel.com/worst-guy-ever-alert-beware-of-horrible-hipster-pastor-1477472909
Worst Guy Ever Alert: Beware of Horrible Hipster Pastor Mark Driscoll
Plagiarism is NOT mentioned.
LikeLike
Alex Guggenheim (12/6, 1:56pm) Well, I don’t believe in the word “becoming” except as a verb defining my daily walk towards the way that God originally made me. “Untoward” means going away from “becoming”, of which I’ve not seen anything here.
As to speculation, which you have called “inappropriate”, “unacceptable”, “suspicion”, “folly”, “shame”, “frenzy”, “rushing in” (and all in one comment! How hyperbolic!), if the leaders of the Evangelical community would quit acting like the world, indulging in a plethora of activities under cover, speculation wouldn’t be an issue, would it? Transparency, my man, a value sorely needed in our society! One would think that it could at least be readily found in a community that says it prizes integrity, honesty, and truth.
You wrote: “And even if I am naive and the worse thing happened behind closed doors, I am still left with only one option with regard to voicing my view which is that I have no other evidence and speculation is not accepted by God as an appropriate substitute.” You are naïve, which is a conundrum considering the wisdom you bring on down from high, even to lining up your chiding with God Him/Herself. But it seems your naivete goes even further because you consider only one option, forgetting the depths to which humans can fall, of which leaders are of same species. And if humans do so, wisdom would indicate that their systems are also liable to same.
Moreover, I have not heard anywhere that God say that we must not speculate. It is part/parcel of physics, for eg. I like physics! Therefore, I propose you are incorrect.
As to your insistence that you don’t like abuse or strong-arming and that you believe Lydia’s story, it is difficult to trust the sincerity of that insistence since you are indulging strong-arm tactics on this comment thread.
Peace of the Lord, indeed!
LikeLike
Well, if they the article would have mentioned plagiarism, I would have included in the storify (http://storify.com/DefendTheSheep/janet-mefferd-removes-blog-posts-and-tweets-relate)
too bad!
LikeLike
Seen in a comment at First Things.
http://salem.cc/testimonials/tyndale-house-publishers/
Tyndale Publishing and Mefferds boss Salem Radio are business partners? hmmmm
LikeLike
LikeLike
Alex wrote (6:28am): “Yes, the issue of plagiarism still stands. But, as Mefferd directs, there is a proper approach for resolving this, a principles not that involves steps with discretion first.”
So lets say that it would have been better if Janet had left it to the publishers. An honest publisher would have been obliged to make a recall of all those books, or to at least make repeated statements regarding certain aspects of those books. This immediately brings it….public. You know why, right? Because it was a wrong done to the public as well as to the persons plagiarized. It was misinformation. Also because it involves physical books floating around out there, in the public domain, it is impossible to evade.
This is why the self-righteous insistence that it should have been done privately ala over-used scripture is mere subterfuge. And since you treasure Scripture so deeply, Alex, I don’t see why you aren’t angry that people are using it for mercenary and disreputable purposes.
LikeLike
Patrice reminded me of something that even John MacArthur has referenced. He’s absolutely fine when someone critiques him publicly because he has a public ministry. So I think the same thing applies here. The books are public, so now I’m thinking that even though going to the publisher in private could have been a gesture of courtesy, there was no obligation for Mefferd to have done so because this was very public to begin with.
If this was a pressure issue to the extent that job security was on the line (and her husband is employed by Salem Radio Network), then that is a huge family sacrifice. Would the Christian community have been willing to support the Mefferds if that was the case?
LikeLike
Julie Anne, someone on TWW thread said that Tyndale was a privately funded company whereas Salem was public, thus the relationship is tenuous. Just a mo—I’ll track it down.
LikeLike
Never mind, I misread your comment. I didn’t know her husband was also employed there. Would’ve left them out in the cold, absolutely. Ach! I have little confidence in the community helping out. Do you have any idea approx what portion of the Evangelical community are supportive of Mefford? I mean, just from reading around?
Anyway, here is the comment I read from Janey (Fri, Dec 6, 6:05pm) on “Important!….”: “Tyndale is “substantially” owned by a private foundation. Salem is a publicly traded for-profit company. They don’t have common ownership. “ But Deb/Dee have left the overlap idea on top of their page.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree that Mefford was appropriate doing it publicly. It’s a no-brainer. If we had a better sense of journalism, it would not occur to us as an issue. But since people like Alex like to pontificate on it, I thought I’d point out how it makes no practical sense from within the framework.
LikeLike
As I said before, attempting to go to these people ‘privately’ is a lost cause. Many have tried. So it must be done publicly, and even then, we don’t get anywhere because they hold the power. It’s wrong, plain and simple.
LikeLike
I’m doing a background personal research on Driscoll and came across this testimony. It says a LOT about Driscoll:
Click to access jonna-mhc-story-29.pdf
LikeLike
Allow me to be a bit more clear, when I speak of Mefferd going in private, first, I don’t even have Biblical precedent in view with respect to Matt 18, I have purely professional ethic in view. I think that she believes that she should have done more due diligence before “60 Minuting” Driscoll.
And I do not believe such confrontations are not warranted as a journalist when uncovering truth, even a Christian journalist. But it isn’t quite as neat and easy to simply say, as a Christian and within the Christian body and under Christian principles of related, “Oh, now I am just a journalist”.
Now, Patrice, while you wish to have a dialog, your imagined self-empowering one liners such as “people like Alex like to pontificate on it” don’t help, they alienate. Yes, we get it, you are separate from Alex, you are at a distance, not in my bad periphery so much so I am reduced to being called “people like”. Got it. Drop some rain from up there when you get a chance, the desert is hot and dry down here.
Why am I not angered “that people are using it for mercenary and disreputable purposes”. If you can give me unquestionable evidence, I certainly would find that detestable.
Finally, it seems you do not understand why speculation involving human behavior and guilt is removed from that of physics. Physics does not involve the damage to a person if you are in error. Thus, it is not a sin, but if so with a human, you have both damaged their person and sinned, hence, it is not appropriate and unacceptable as Christian conduct.
I believe I have made my point. I understand you and a handful don’t value it. Got that and I don’t spend a great deal of time wrestling with people already committed to a narrative. Maybe along the way something else will be said that appears a bit more receptive to my point.
I will state that Julie did represent my intent earlier, thank you.
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2,
Yes, I’ve read that story about a year or so ago. Very sad situation that they had to endure.
Ed
LikeLike
It IS sad, indeed. 😦
LikeLike
Alex,
How many times do we here Obama state, “Let me be clear”? Having said that, what is the professional ethic of a journalist? You stated a “60 minuting” as if it is to a reference to a journalist from 60 minutes that was recently let go in regards to her journalistic ethics. I don’t know if that is what you had in mind, but if it is, the jury is still out in regards to that, as it is alleged that Obama supporters are trying to bad mouth her, and that she is receiving unwarranted backlash, that she was silenced.
Do you know what the professional ethics are of journalists?
First, we have the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. No one is discounting that this journalist is a Christian. Therefore, if she is lying, and you believe that she is lying, please, so state. Otherwise, all this talk about professional ethics is nothing more than sweeping the truth under the carpet.
Ethics is speaking truth to power. Besides, Matthew 18 would be directed at those attending the same church, which is why if all else fails, you bring it to the church, not someone else’s church.
I think you have a skewed concept of Christian Conduct.
Ed
LikeLike
Regarding the views of Alex G.
Mefferd’s behavior with Driscoll were not mean, rude, or inappropriate.
I was just discussing this at the TWW blog. Christians often mistake being tenacious, forth right, and bold for being “mean” or “rude”.
Driscoll was condescending and patronizing towards Mefferd.
Driscoll owes Mefferd an apology, and he also owes the authors he ripped off an apology.
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
You had said:
“Driscoll owes Mefferd an apology, and he also owes the authors he ripped off an apology.”
My response:
Including a dollar figure.
LikeLike
JA, Had Mefford gone to the publishers or Driscoll prior, that show would have never happened.
There was no reason to do that anyway as it is a public book on sale.
I have not been a big fan of hers and the past. I do think her views on authoity/submission might have played a part in her apology
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
You and I are on the same wave link, I think, based on your last paragraph. Where does she get her views on those topics? Whatever that answer is, I believe it was that answer that was the basis of her apology. I am being cryptic here…for a reason.
A woman challenging a man, then the woman apologizes. Why? Because a man told her to. Discernment is easy in this.
Ed
LikeLike
Very interesting (discusses Driscoll and Mefferd):
This Was No Boating Accident!
LikeLike
I said the previous, because I do not think that any of this has anything to do with her journalism ethics at all…period. It has to do with a religion that believes that women are subservient to men. What religion is that? Hmmmmm.
LikeLike
@ chapmaned24
That could play a part, but I think a bigger issue is money. Ca-ching!
If you want to know what I mean, please see my post right above yours and please listen to the podcast, “This Was No Boating Accident!”
LikeLike
Lydia:
You guys – – I’m slow here. I think the lightbulb just went off. Wow – on both 1st and 3rd paragraphs.
LikeLike
I’m listening to it as we speak. In regards to money…Mark is the one who is making money on his books. In regards to the apology, a religion influenced her apology. There is no doubt in my mind. Religious coercion, not professional ethics based on her own conscience. Besides, I don’t see Lutherans interviewing Driscoll, nor do I see Catholics interviewing Driscoll…well, maybe a Mormon does, but not anyone of a non-denomination would ever consider to interview Driscoll.
Ed
LikeLike
Ok, I’m still stewing about this and it’s making me angry – – – it’s bringing back all of those times some of you have challenged men who have asked me: does your husband/pastor give you permission to blog? ACKKKKKK!!
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Exactly. That was my central point.
LikeLike
Mefford is a committed comp. That doctrine is based on strict pecking order in all relationships including the Trinity.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
You might want to listen to the podcast I linked to about 4 or 5 posts above, “This is no boating accident” hosted by Chris Rosebrough.
He discusses what he thinks went on behind the scenes over the Mefferd/Driscoll situation.
Anyway, I guess you are already aware of this, but Janet Mefferd is a gender complementarian.
Mefferd interviewed that guy on her show a couple of months ago, and she is sympathetic towards his stance. (The guy who is against woman “open air” preaching, who I think is the same one who asks people for Wal Mart gift cards. I keep forgetting his name.) JA adds: That would be Tony Miano.
Mefferd consistently speaks out against secular feminism on her show, she interviews Christian authors who are against “mushy” gender role stuff (mushy meaning, people who do not prescribe to narrow roles, such as women should wear pink, dust furniture, and bake cookies; men should wear blue, wrestle bears, and watch football), which they believe leads to homosexuality, women not wanting to be mothers, an explosion of promiscuity/abortion, and transgenderism.
Mefferd also did a show speaking out against American women serving in combat months ago. She is opposed to women being in the military (or at least in combat roles). She thinks it’s un-womanly or un-feminine or something for a woman to serve in the military (or again, at least in combat, or in positions that might cause them to get shot at or whatever).
I happen to like Mefferd on a personal level. She seems like a decent, sincere person who wants to do the right thing.
However, I am disappointed she remains a gender complementarian. I wish she would take the time to read Christian gender egalitarian books and blogs, such as “Christians for Biblical Equality” (site).
I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church by a mother who believed strongly in “traditional gender roles,” (what is called today “gender complementarianism”), and I tried very hard to believe in it myself, and I did, until around my late 20s, and I finally saw the light in my mid 30s (due to seeing the Bible support egalitarianism, not gender compism).
I also began reading books by Christian gender egalitarians. I realized that one can abandon gender comp views but remain a biblical, conservative Christian. I understand the mindset of gender comps, as I used to be one.
I’m afraid folks like Mefferd assume that giving up gender compism means automatically having no choice but to embrace abortion, homosexuality, etc, and it does not.
You can still believe in inerrant Scriptures, that men and women maintain some differences, and that pre-marital/ homosexual sexual acts are sinful.
Giving up gender complementarian views, realizing they are false, and that there is another way to view biblical passages that discuss women, does not lead to embracing abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, paganism, or secular feminism whole-scale.
I can guarantee you that one huge reason women such as Mefferd continue to embrace gender comp is they fear that ditching it leads to having to accept paganism, fornication, abortion, biblical errancy, etc.
(They also see the rejection of old fashioned gender roles as one reason the nuclear family fell apart, divorce rates rose, we have more out of wedlock births, etc. Gosh golly, if only Americans would embrace 1955 June and Ward Cleaver roles once more, America would instantly transform into a paradise – this is the assumption they hold.)
I know such women will tell you, and on one level even really believe, no, they adhere to gender comp because they believe ‘the Bible teaches it.’
However, deep down, their real basis for clinging to gender complementarianism (aka “Biblical Womanhood and Manhood”) is that they fear abandoning gender comp for gender egalitarianism will cause them to have to agree with, or accept, abortion, homosexuality, and other social concerns they don’t agree with. That is the real motive why they keep clinging to gender complementarianism.
LikeLike
Daisy – – if you were to have told me this a year ago, I don’t know that I would have believed you. But now after doing much more research on this topic, I believe you.
A couple of thoughts: people do not agree on the definition of complementation and especially don’t agree on women’s roles in the church (Wayne Grudem says woman can’t teach men, but they can teach deaf men – say WHAT?!!!!)
I can’t find the dividing line between complementarianism and Patriarchy. Is there a dividing line? Some comps don’t like the term comp and would rather be called Patriarchs.
I don’t get why egalitarian = feminism. How does wanting voting rights for women and equal pay for equal work so evil?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I think that is one of the biggest weaknesses with gender complementarianism, that those who claim to adhere to it cannot agree with what exactly a woman’s role is.
One gender comp church will not allow a woman to teach a mixed gender role Sunday School class, but another gender comp church will. -Stuff like that.
I find it funny and suspicious that gender comps are usually only preoccupied with what WOMEN do. You seldom see them get their shorts in a bunch over what MEN do.
One of the few exceptions I’ve seen to that:
1. Anything Mark Driscoll says about men (he keeps defining manhood by a caricature of a man who crushes beer cans in one hand, and this offends people);
2. When some comp guy (Owen Something?) wrote a blog post about a year ago mocking the idea of little boys playing with stuffed toys and watching Sesame St, and either he or another gender comp guy got into hot water for ridiculing men who are “stay at home dads.”
I think one of the only reasons we see gender comps go off a little bit more about a “man’s role” in the last several years is because our culture has come to widely accept homosexuality, and this causes panic among social conservatives / gender comps.
When I was growing up in the 1980s, the culture was still pretty much not accepting of homosexuality, and during that era, I don’t remember Christians being too concerned with what MEN do, they only went on and on about women’s roles.
It’s only with the perceived threat of homosexuality (and the rise of the legalization of homosexual marriage) the last few years that gender comps are now starting to address men’s roles a bit (which entails, you will notice, railing against anything they consider as making a man more girly or feminine, or dare I say, homosexual), and I think that’s based on their fear of homosexuality taking over culture.
But still today, the vast majority of the time, these gender comp guys mainly want to discuss and define
1a. womanhood,
and more specifically (and this is another huge weak area of their):
1b. married women who are also mothers
When and if the gender comps catch on to point 1b. as being a huge weak area in their doctrine and realize there are middle-aged ladies like me online pointing out how gender compism is only about programming young women to marry and make babies and being submissive to a spouse…
You might start seeing them panic and start doing blogs, books, You Tube videos, and conferences addressing (at long last) “biblical gender roles for never married, childless women.”
Right now, I think most gender comps are immensely ignorant of this gaping hole in their ship.
I was raised on this stuff. I was taught to believe by my mother and Christians that I would marry and have a baby in my 20s or 30s and that was my only calling in life… but it did not happen, and I notice gender comps don’t give a moment’s thought to a woman who did not marry or have children.
If you are a never married, childless woman past your 20s, gender comps don’t give a fig about you or your part in life.
If gender comp does not and cannot speak equally to ALL women, regardless of marital status and age, I don’t see how they can claim it as being biblical.
And if a 20 year old Christian woman is reading this right now and realizes she might end up single and no kids by her 40s (like me, and I had wanted to be married), or,
if she chooses deliberately to be single and never have kids, she will realize from reading the testimonies of women such as me, that gender comp churches will not support her in her life circumstances (or choices), so it might cause more and more young women to give up gender comp for that reason (plus seeing it is not biblical).
Seriously, you won’t see gender comps giving a whit about older, never married, childless women such as myself, until it smacks them in their faces that by not supporting women like me now, they are causing younger women to leave gender compism.
If it does hit them, I bet we will start seeing blog pages, conferences, and books by them for a la, “Biblical Womanhood for Mature, Unmarried, Childless Women.” It’s far too late for that, though.
I think that the only difference between gender comp and patriarchy is willingness to live consistently by what they say they believe and to admit to it.
When push comes to shove, most gender comps do not live by what they really believe about gender roles.
You will see gender comp males admit this in blog comment sections: they admit they and their wife “believe in” gender comp roles, but their marriages are egalitarian in practice.
Some gender comp guys admitted this and published comments that indicated, as a matter of fact, they now want to be referred to as “patriarchalists,” to be consistent with what they really believe.
I think RHE talked about that here:
It’s not complementarianism; it’s patriarchy
Why these guys want to revert back to Old Testament relations, rules, and laws when Jesus Christ came in part to correct that very thing, I will never know.
Julie Anne said,
Egalitarianism does not equal (secular) feminism, but I suspect that gender comps find it easier when debating egals to shoot down egal concerns by claiming that egals have been influenced by secular feminism.
It’s easier in their heads to hold biased views against egals then to stop and really listen to their side.
Some of them may even sincerely believe that egals have been influenced by feminism, because they cannot conceive of how it is possible to reject the gender comp interpretations of certain Bible verses and NOT become feminist, pro abortion, pro homosexuality.
(I am proof that yes, you can totally reject gender compism and still remain a social conservative.)
I always find it laughable when gender comps use that canard, that gender comps have been influenced by feminism, because, since my teen-aged years, I have been staunchly right wing, I vote Republican, I vehemently disagree with Democrats and the political left on most everything.
I never did like most secular feminism, not even as a teen or college student, and still do not.
So I find it amusing when gender comps say about women like me that I was mesmerized or suckered by secular, left wing, man- hating, pro- abortion feminism.
I arrived at the egal position largely from reading and re-reading the Bible and observing that egalitarianism fits better with the big picture of the Bible than does one or two verses (ie, the ‘husband is the head’ and ‘I forbid a woman to teach’ verses. There are so many more verses that show God treating women as equals to men, they out weigh the one or two about ‘head’ and “I forbid”).
LikeLike
When an abusive so called pastor attempts to shut down questions and discussion, it’s because he has a monetary or power and control stake in the matter. Now Alex comes along using all the usual abusive ploys to try to shut down those who would shine the light of truth.
Alex, I’m not asking you to identify yourself, but how do you earn your living? What positions and titles do you hold? Do you happen to be a pastor? Are you in any way associated with one or more publishing or other media organizations? If so, which ones? Are you or anybody close to you in any way associated with Mark Driscoll? If so, how?
LikeLike
Alex,
Have you seen Jonna Petry’s up testimony of her family’s up close and personal experience with Mark Driscoll? Waitingforthetrumpt2 linked to it at 12:06 today. Here is the link again:
Click to access jonna-mhc-story-29.pdf
Does Ms. Petry have enough personal, first hand knowledge to satisfy your demands for convincing proof? Is it O.K., in your judgment, for Ms. Petry to have published her testimony of horrific treatment of people by Mark Driscoll?
LikeLike
Alex (7,12:34pm) Ah, so you didn’t much enjoy the condescending tone. I didn’t either when you used it. So let’s call it off, yes? You know, such as those new little digs about “imagined self-powering” and that I am trying to demonstrate that I am separate from you. (Really? Have you been reading psychology lately?)
Just lay out your viewpoint and we can agree or disagree and that’s that. All the extra baggage merely annoys people for no reason at all.
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
I really wish that Christians would stop labeling and just live life.
Since realizing what religion came up with the saying, “Smokin Hot Wife”, while at the same time identifying themselves as “conservative Christian”, I have no choice but to distance myself from those who claim to be conservative Christian, whose main goal is to shut the smokin hot wives’ mouth, but to display her as a trophy. Mefford was fine until she challenged a man…a powerful man.
I cringe every time I hear the term, “conservative Christian”. I am a Christian, and I am conservative, but I am not a conservative Christian, concerned about labels, i.e. comp/ega/patri.
Ed
LikeLike
Daisy, I like what you say and how you say it. You speak with clarity and help people to see the issues involved. You have come to valid and reasonable conclusions through your own life journey. I do not tire of your reminding people of these important concerns. They can’t be stated enough times. I am thinking that I would like to nickname you ‘Miss Tiger Lily’ since you have the roar of a tiger inside of you that needs to be heard! Keep shouting it out!
LikeLike
Patrice
I never disagreed that people can disagree, that is rather obvious when there is debate. Your condescension is not a matter of like or dislike, it simply makes you smaller and if you wish to have an audience aside from immediate self-affirming companions, that won’t get you far but it is good you recognized your abuse toward me.
I do believe my voice and those like them are being heard. More articles are coming out acknowledging that speculating without facts and assuming much is both potentially damaging to true culpability in the matter which is still unknown both in why the apology and the nature of the alleged plagarism (for example in the 1&2 Peter material, was it an assistant editor issue and not Mark himself since books have a number of editors as well, the implication of it being deliberate seeing that the Carsn book it came from was cited elsewhere in the Driscoll book).
And more so a few newer articles are addressing the inappropriateness of such speculstion before hearing the whole matter and it’s negative testimony on the whole of people who lack deportment and discretion until certainty can be achieved.
LikeLike
Basically, Alex is saying, “Woman, shut up and learn your place!!”
Ed
LikeLike
Alex said:
Really, Alex, “abuse?” A heated debate = abuse? That’s pretty insulting to those who have experienced real abuse. Actually, when rereading that paragraph, it seems like you are doing what you are accusing her of. Let’s knock it down a few notches, please.
LikeLike
I find it amusing that it is not enough of a’ fact” for Alex That Driscoll’s name is on the book as the author. Even if it was ghost written….. His name is there as the author of the book. Now that is a fact.
LikeLike
Alex, (8, 4:11am)
Ahahahah You are a real card! I might have to pick on you more often if you occasionally come around (if Julie Anne doesn’t nix it), just so I can read your responses. They are dark and mean but verging on genius.
Your opinions don’t affect the quality/size of my being, but as long as there are other people liking yours, I’m sure you will remain intact and the exact size you prefer. w00t
LikeLike
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2013/12/this-was-no-boating-accident.html
terriergal, that Chris Rosebrough link is helpful. Mark Driscoll’s words around the 60 minute mark:
“I am all about blessed subtraction. There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus (chuckle), and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done…. You either get on the bus, or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options. But the bus ain’t gonna stop. There’s people who get in the way of the bus, they gotta get run over.”
How arrogant is this “mouth-piece of God” bus driver! Let’s all watch Mark kick people to the curb & run over them, as he himself puts it? That’s God’s grace? Wrong! That’s what arrogant punks & bullies do, not men, not Jesus. Has Mark set himself up for disgrace by making the fatal mistake of surrounding himself with only yes men? Has he set himself up for a steep fall by putting blinders on with his own hands? What has Mark’s response been since the Mefferd show? Nothing?
My advice to Mark: You need to start loving yourself, because what you’re doing to yourself looks like hate. Jesus commands us to love others as ourselves. Your actions are far from loving yourself, no wonder you seem to have problems loving others. It’s time to fix things & make some changes for the better, & you can if you want to & do make the effort. Jesus is the only one qualified to drive HIS OWN bus.
BTW, I don’t agree with Chris that good works, not sin, send people to hell. I don’t agree good works are filthy rags. I don’t agree apart from Jesus people are totally depraved, created with nothing good in them. God created us in HIS OWN IMAGE! People are created with good: conscience, knowledge of right & wrong. I know people that do great, loving things that aren’t Christians. Let’s be truthful & stop insulting those we say we love & proselytize. Who’s creating the “war”?
LikeLike
We can be pretty sure many, on a regular basis, get thrown under the bus by Mark Driscoll, based on his own words about how he will treat anyone who gets in his way, IMO. Speculation or more like a foregone conclusion. Ed put it another way – if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. In this case the duck has already told everyone it’s a duck!
Why is Alex Guggenheim sullying his own name by defending such a person? Abusers throw people under the bus & then run them over.
Amnesia? Memory loss, Alex? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
LikeLike
Mark Driscoll wants people to know there’s a pile of dead bodies behind his bus. And he promises there will be a mountain more if he can help it. Get on the bus or else.
What more is there to discuss?
Well, there is one question. Why is he still a pastor? Speaks volumes of his peers. And followers.
LikeLike
A Mom,
You ask, “Why is Alex Guggenheim sullying his own name by defending such a person?” I don’t know the answer to your question, but I do find it interesting that he has so far failed to answer the following questions I put to him last night:
“What positions and titles do you hold? Do you happen to be a pastor? Are you in any way associated with one or more publishing or other media organizations? If so, which ones? Are you or anybody close to you in any way associated with Mark Driscoll? If so, how?”
He has posted since I put those questions to him, so Alex can’t claim he hasn’t seen the questions, or that he hasn’t had the time, etc. In view of his failure to respond to these questions, the burden is now on him to provide convincing proof that he is not motivated by self interest in one form or another.
LikeLike
Gary, he won’t argue with a men with wit. I’m sure that he thinks pretty low of women, so he’s not man enough to man up to a man. Inferiority complex, I would suggest. Low self esteem, etc. Classic stuff, really.
Ed
LikeLike
I found another interesting website about Driscoll:
http://www.driscollcontroversy.com/
Check out each of the tabs at the top of the site page.
LikeLike
Well, what do you know? I found something I agree with Alex G. on, if he in fact is the same person who left this comment on Internet Monk:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/be-afraid-be-very-afraid
“If you delight in what is true and good you won’t have inappropriate dispositions towards others, otherwise you are delighting in arrogance.” Yes, I would agree with this.
So, how is this consistent with: I’ll throw you off the bus & run over you, by God’s grace?
Now it’s important to note that head-knowledge is thought that doesn’t go anywhere. We must ALSO choose actions that walk in step with what we know IF we claim to believe it.
This is a big problem with pastors, their peer friends & even laypeople today. Seeing a huge disconnect between what they believe & what they choose to do.
It is NOT okay to tell non-Christians to skip over our actions, but just listen to what we totally depraved, unable, sinful, broken, no good (but if there’s good it’s still bad) people have to say. But yet they are the evil ones & we must protect ourselves from them, war on? Calvinism reduces people to schizophrenic machines, IMO. Don’t get on Mark’s “bus”. Remember there’s a pile of dead bodies behind his bus… AND COUNTING. He said it, not me.
LikeLike
Ed,
You may be on to something, although I note that Alex did address me yesterday at 6:28 AM. I came across one instance where he addressed you, if briefly. Regardless, whether or not Alex is somehow viewing women as “less than,” the women here are putting him to rout.
LikeLike
Oops. I made a mistake & need to apologize. I in no way want to disparage those who suffer from schizophrenia. Sorry. Poor choice of words on my part.
What I mean to say is Calvinism says we are machines made with tons of programming bugs, defective from the get go. What does this message say about the maker, creator of supposedly worthless machines?
No. God lovingly created each of us, every single one, special & unique, with incredible value. Each one of us then decides what we will do, what we will believe, how we will live our life. Value your life. Don’t go anywhere near the bus. Don’t waste your life. Don’t go near anyone who brags about piling up dead bodies. It’s unlikely they understand the value of their own life & unlikely they will respect your life. I pray Driscoll will discover the value & meaning of his life. That would be something to rejoice over.
LikeLike
A Mom, if you’d like me to reword it, just put up a new comment and I’ll delete the old one.
LikeLike
Thanks, JA. It stands. I made a mistake. I hit post & then felt uneasy after in my spirit about it, realized what was wrong, wanted to do the right thing, apologized & corrected it.
I messed up. I want to be upfront about it & so glad I caught it myself. And I dearly don’t want to make that mistake again!
LikeLike
Love your honesty, A Mom.
LikeLike
A Mom (8, 9:44am) wrote: “BTW, I don’t agree with Chris that good works, not sin, send people to hell. I don’t agree good works are filthy rags. I don’t agree apart from Jesus people are totally depraved, created with nothing good in them. God created us in HIS OWN IMAGE! People are created with good: conscience, knowledge of right & wrong. I know people that do great, loving things that aren’t Christians. Let’s be truthful & stop insulting those we say we love & proselytize. Who’s creating the “war”?”
^^Word^^
LikeLike
Julie Anne (7, 7:50am) I understand what you mean about the way that Janet ran the interview with Driscoll. My observations, FWIW:
I haven’t heard a lot of her interviews (I disagree with too many of her views) but those I heard weren’t adversarial. She seems unskilled in it, unfamiliar with the twists/turns that inevitably occur when confronting an arrogant, defensive interviewee.
Plus, although Mark offered half-hearted admittances, he kept following them up with little digs or take-backs. I heard Janet repeatedly attempt to bring it to resolution but Mark wouldn’t, so it went in circles.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with Janet’s intellect, but she lives in a world that views women as second-rate. And she agrees with it. That kind of belief damages people. It cuts them off from some kinds of learning/practice and would show most obviously in conversations that require boldness and sophistication with men.
So IMO, her only fault was lack of skill at a time when expertise was imperative. And we can be fairly certain that no one in the system will allow her to become more skilled at adversarial journalism. Which is sad, because it might have eventually shown her how artificial and degrading complementarianism is.
My two cents.
LikeLike
This was just posted today:
http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/richard-bartholomews-take-on-the-mark-driscoll-plagiarism-affair/
LikeLike
I’m just shaking my head
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/church-or-cult/Content?oid=12172001
LikeLike
Barb Orlowski said,
Thank you.
Sometimes I worry I bore people or annoy them be being repetitive or making long posts.
Some of these subjects just really bother me, and I don’t see too many Christians raising them in the mainstream. I also figure maybe there’s a Christian out there (or a Non Christian?) who may be helped by what I’ve learned. I’d rather someone learn through my experiences than have to learn them the hard way (live through them!)
I do not intentionally set out to make real long posts by the way, I have always just had a hard time being concise and to the point. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Patrice, regarding
your post of DECEMBER 8, 2013 @ 2:05 PM
While the gender role thing can be partially responsible for how and why Meffered acted as she did (I don’t know), I think another issue (which several people and myself talked about at length in recent posts at Wartburg Watch blog) has to do with Christians believing they must always be real, real super nice and lovey-lovey all the time, no matter what.
Many Christians get uncomfortable when other Christians get blunt, confrontational, or direct.
A lot of them don’t seem to understand that being confrontational does not necessarily mean the same thing as being hateful or nasty, but so many Christians interpret boldness, being frank, etc, as being mean or unChristian-like….
Over at TWW, several of us have had our straight-forward manner, or edgy sense of humor, misintepreted by more than one person the past two weeks as being “irritable,” “hateful,” “snarky” and so on, and they’ve asked us to act more sugary nice.
Women, Christian and Non Christian, more so get hit with the societal (and church, if they are church goers/ Christian) messages to always speak sweetly, never disagree, to back down if things get heated, etc.
Someone at TWW (forget who) used the phrase “Tyranny of Nice” to describe this situation, when Christians are so eager to be sugary nice and insist everyone else act equally sugary nice, that real issues get hidden, glossed over, never really discussed.
This also, IMO, plays hand in hand with other problems I see, Christians being too naive, or unwilling to face evil head on. They’d rather pretend everyone is sugary sweet all the time, and think they live in a world where everyone else is sugary sweet all the time, too.
This is in part, IMO, why Christians don’t notice, or go into denial, over things such as child sexual abuse, or domestic abuse, or or assorted problems in churches.
Anyway, it seems to me that Mefferd’s bold, take-charge tenacity, not take any crud or game playing off Driscoll (which is perfectly fine in my book), was misconstrued as being “mean,” or it made the “sugary sweet” Christians uncomfortable.
I thought it was great Mefferd was being tough (but fair) with Driscoll. It is really disheartening to see so many Christians chide her or claim she was not being “Christian” enough, or that she was supposed to treat him with utmost kid gloves.
LikeLike
chapmaned24, labels don’t really bother me.
LikeLike
@ A Mom,
If you want, there is a shorter version of just the creepy Driscoll “bus” speech on You Tube, it’s shorter than the Rosebrough / Fighting for the Faith clip:
Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2 posted a link on Dec 8 at 2:33. Thank you for noting this, WFTT2. It set off a chain of links with important insights to consider! I started with your article and then see what happened …
http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/richard-bartholomews-take-on-the-mark-driscoll-plagiarism-affair/
So I read that intriguing post which *summarized* Richard Bartholomew’s insights. And that article cited/linked to Bartholomew’s complete article here:
http://barthsnotes.com/2013/12/07/tyndale-house-doubles-down-on-support-for-mark-driscoll/
And while I was reading the original material there, I also checked out the comments, particular the first one by “wyclif,” who quotes Professor James Duncan on the alleged Mark Driscoll plagiarism cases, and cites/links to the article he used by Professor Duncan who, among other things, notes the evidence for plagiarism in the specific situation of Mr. Driscoll’s book on Peter that has come into question, and talks about why this kind of plagiarism is not only unethical, but illegal. Read the Professor’s entire article here:
http://www.pajamapages.com/on-driscoll-its-a-straight-red/
Sidenote: I am, among other things, a research writer. Hopefully, this trail of texts shows why accurate citation is important. When you know the correct originating link, you can work backwards from that source to even deeper, prior sources — both primary sources (those that present original material) and secondary (those that round up, quote, paraphrase, synthesize, and/or interpret primary materials). And it wasn’t all that hard to create a citation trail leading to Pajama Pages where there is important primary material from a professor of communications who teaches at a university and quite apparently knows his stuff on plagiarism and deals with it all.the.time.
LikeLike
missdaisyflower, yes, you are correct. sugared Christianity is another layer that I should have added. When I think about it, it’s amazing that Janet did as well as she did.
And not just her. I’m also amazed by women commenters such as yourself, and of course, the many honest bloggers, including those who host us. I left the Christian community for decades and shook out the goo, but you all have managed to arrive at clarity while remaining inside.
But anyway, it wasn’t Janet’s boldness that I thought awry, merely a little lack of skill in bringing it on home. A minor issue (easily reparable with experience, if allowed) compared to the outrageous wrongs being done by those surrounding her: the plagiarizer, the publishing house, loads of bloggers, a large portion of the public, and whoever was actually behind the retraction of materials and that carefully read apology. It’s a travesty.
I wish Janet and her assistant producer lots of support and generosity. Does anyone know if they are receiving that? I don’t want them alone.
LikeLike
Off topic….I just had to call 911 for my neighbor. His live-in lady friend ran down to my door (we live in the same apartment building, 2 doors away from each other) and begged me to help her. I ran down to the neighbor’s living room door and found him collapsed on the floor with his face covered in vomitus. Apparently food poisoning. They’re both Arab and eat some strange food.
LikeLike
spiritualsb@ gmail.com
LikeLike
Praying for your neighbors, WFT2 – – thanks for sharing here.
LikeLike
My daughter, a nursing student, thinks it could have been a heart attack. Praying. His name is Kaiser.
LikeLike
MissDaisyFlower,
The only label needed:
Acts 11:26
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The rest is just smoke filled coffee house cr….wait, coffee houses are smoke free now. Well…need a new saying…lol
Ed
LikeLike
He died. It was a heart attack. 😦
LikeLike
Oh, how sad. Praying for Kaiser’s family and lady friend 😦
LikeLike
Daisy (‘Tiger Lily’ 🙂 ),
“Some of these subjects just really bother me, and I don’t see too many Christians raising them in the mainstream.”
Yes, ‘these subjects’ really ‘bother’ a number of us!!!
That is why people who know their stuff can shine a light on these topics and inform others. There are valid reasons to support reasonable perceptions–and people should be exposed to them whenever possible.
“I also figure maybe there’s a Christian out there (or a Non Christian?) who may be helped by what I’ve learned. I’d rather someone learn through my experiences than have to learn them the hard way (live through them!)”
Exactly! You and others have an opportunity and a responsibility to tell it like it is with clarity and passion. You Go Girl!!
LikeLike
WaitingFTT, Sorry to hear of that sad outcome. That was rather shocking for everyone. Glad that you were there for them.
LikeLike
I’m numb right now. He was my friend. We were the same age. I used to wash his laundry for him, and he would share food he grilled for me, and I even borrowed his SUV yesterday to take another neighbor to the store on an errand.
LikeLike
Oh, no … I am so sorry to hear that, Waitingforthetrumpet2. Praying …
LikeLike
I’m so sorry Waiitngforthetrumpet2.
LikeLike
Mourning for those you love is never easy. I’m sorry for your loss. May God comfort you as you mourn.
Ed
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2,
I am very sorry. May you and all those grieved at the loss of your friend be comforted as only He can comfort.
LikeLike
Thank you, guys.
LikeLike
See, this is what really upsets me. His lady friend (she says she’s his wife…supposedly, they got married) knocked on my door an hour ago, asking me to come sit with her in their apartment. She’s all dressed in a black burqa. Both are Arab Muslims. She is totally lost, doesn’t know what to do, has no idea if he even had life insurance or money. Since she’s merely a female, she knows nothing. His son, from a previous marriage, is the one making all the arrangements. His funeral, I think, will be tomorrow. His son looks like he’s only 21 years old, yet he is now the patriarch of the family. The wife is still a nobody, chattel, clueless, helpless. She has no idea what to do or where she will live next, once the rent comes due again. I guess she thought she could live in the apartment rent-free indefinitely. WHY can’t Middle-Easterners teach their women to become self-sufficient and knowledgeable about managing affairs of this type? I hate this!!! I feel so bad for her, and so helpless to do anything for her.
LikeLike
WFTT2 – – What you are describing could be what we are dealing with in some strict Patriarchal families in the Homeschool Movement, too. Some Patriarchs assume all responsibility of the money and don’t share a thing with their wives. The situation you describe is very sad. Perhaps she can be referred to local social agencies who can provide assistance. She’s going to need to get informed on how to take care of herself pretty quickly. Good for you for taking the time to care, WFTT2!!
Imagine going through grief and also learning all of this at once. Poor thing.
LikeLike
You can do much for her by sharing the gospel.
I know that doesn’t seem practical at a time like this.
I’m sorry but that’s the first thing that came to mind.
Forgive me if that seems insensitive.
LikeLike
It seems that Jesus met people practically right where they were. If they were hungry, He fed them.
LikeLike