Pastor Phil Johnson Shows His Heart toward Domestic Violence Victim

Domestic Violence, Phil Johnson, Grace Community Church, John MacArthur


***

This post needs little commentary. Pastor Phil Johnson is Pastor John MacArthur’s right-hand man at Grace Community Church. I am sad that a man in his position would so carelessly tweet this insensitive, uncaring tweet. I fear for women at Grace Community or any church connected with the teachings of John MacArthur that may be in dangerous relationships. Is this the kind of caring shepherd you’d want to go to if your life was in danger?

 



Now it’s been over 10 hours since Phil’s tweet. His tweet still remains. He made no comment to my comment challenging him:



Ironically, here are a couple of recent tweets from Grace to You Twitter account. Phil is the executive director of Grace to You.



Ugh! What is so difficult about being a caring and compassionate person? Is it that difficult, Phil? Strong godly men don’t behave recklessly toward injured and people in harm’s way. Please pull it together, for Christ’s sake!

 


Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 9.19.09 AM

117 comments on “Pastor Phil Johnson Shows His Heart toward Domestic Violence Victim

  1. This poor girl. How could she have possibly known that her boyfriend was such a creep?

    The first time I saw this, I missed that she was PREGNANT. So, Phil, does the baby deserve this too?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. P.S. I have a post on a sermon MacArthur gave recently, coming to my blog on Monday. It has a portion that shows scoring off other people’s misery is something MacArthur engages in as well at times.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I grew up in a home permeated by domestic violence. My mom finally got up the nerve to move out when I was in high school. My dad was a psycho in a business suit. Phil J. doesn’t understand that the most respectable person can turn out to be a violent, abusive partner. As for the lack of sensitivity, I experienced enough of that when I was growing up in the the days of “fix him a steak and give him a few beers, and he’ll get over it.” He never did get over it, and I had nightmares for years about what went on in our home.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. WHO IS THE BIGGER CREEP ? A guy with obvious mental problems that tattooed his face or an “adult ” , experienced pastor with ZERO compassion, common sense or class ?

    Horrifying that some clergy have become so cold & hard that this is something to poke fun at. Did this show concern for this young lady’s self esteem, mental health, physical well being and the LIFE of her baby ? Where is the concern for why she was with this guy and not being protected ?

    This is 100% reflective of the growing problem of unqualified men in positions of ministry JUST TO HAVE A OVER PAID JOB. De-fund the church, maybe that will wake them up.

    Answer to above question: Phil Johnson you are one creepy bastard.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. scott1253 — Exactly!! In my experience, the worst kind of evil doesn’t tattoo its face and look scary and mean. The worst kind of evil poses as light. Satan has done his best work when acting like a Christian–so much so, I don’t even like that term any more.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This post needs little commentary. Pastor Phil Johnson is Pastor John MacArthur’s right-hand man at Grace Community Church. I am sad that a man in his position would so carelessly tweet this insensitive, uncaring tweet.

    GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH.
    Julie Anne, you have answered your own question.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Oh, and why does Phil Johnson spell his name with more diacritical marks than written French, German, Pinyin Chinese, and Vietnamese combined?
    Heavy Metal Umlauts gone Quiverfull?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. @scott1253:

    WHO IS THE BIGGER CREEP ? A guy with obvious mental problems that tattooed his face or an “adult ” , experienced pastor with ZERO compassion, common sense or class?

    Tat-boi looks like a creep and Pastor acts like one.
    And Pastor’s more insidious because he doesn’t visibly advertise.

    But then, does anyone expect any different from GCC?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Tat-boi looks like a creep

    But this could just as easily have been the ‘hottest mugshot ever’ guy, and he would have been just as dangerous.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. The pastor’s inference is, “Well, look at the guy. How dumb can she be?”

    Pastor, all of us as abuse victims have been trained – even indoctrinated by people like you to love our enemies and forgive seventy-times-seven and believe that our gentle, quiet spirit will ultimately win over our tormentors.

    If anything, the church has enabled domestic violence and emotional abuse in the body. If things are to change, the church needs to wake up, identify abuse and rise up to protect its victims. (But in the 16 years since I left my abuser, little has changed.)

    Liked by 5 people

  11. In my experience, the worst kind of evil doesn’t tattoo its face and look scary and mean. The worst kind of evil poses as light.

    Bingo!!! Not only what Phil does is victim blame. He is shaming her. It’s like he’s saying, “Duh, you are the one who knowingly got into this situation, so suck it up!”

    But not only that, he’s bringing others into his bully mentality of victim blaming. It’s one thing for Phil to think about how she should not have connected with such a guy, but it’s a whole other thing for Phil to broadcast his arrogant and condescending thoughts to a wide audience. How many likes and retweets are there? Those are people who are saying, “yep, we agree with you, Phil.”

    Did we read anything from Phil about the perpetrator and his responsibility (except his tattoos by implication)? Nope. Did we read about his bully and manipulative behavior that most likely drew her into the relationship? Did we read how the abuser probably enticed her, treated her well, wooed her into a relationship, and then once he got her, he changed into an evil monster who abuses?

    When studying about abuse dynamics, you know that bullies seek out the vulnerable. Why was she vulnerable? What events in her life left her in a weak position? Who has been her support? Who has come along side her when things have gotten rough? Certainly not Phil Johnson. I’m just so upset about this. Phil is masquerading as a person of light, of truth, supposed to represent the Gospel of Christ, yet he bullies with his words and thoughts, and promotes unChristlike behavior. Shame on you, Phil!

    Liked by 3 people

  12. I’m just so upset about this

    Just went to Twitter and I don’t blame you! All the men ‘helping’ this poor girl with HER ‘sin problem’!!!

    When let’s be honest all they want to do is rip on her face tattoos and they’re using her pain to do it. And then trying to pretend this is somehow ‘biblical’. Pathetic men. When they pull out the condescending sweethearts we all know what they’re about.

    Like

  13. If the girl should have known better because of his tattoos, then we should all know better that Phil Johnson won’t show compassion because he’s a Calvinist. Sorry if there’s nice Calvinists out there but, the more I meet such as Phil, the Bible Thumping Wingnuts and JD Hall and their ilk, the less I have any faith they are capable of showing love and compassion to those that need it.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Interesting comment, Christina. I just had 2 big Twitter debates with people defending Phil. They were both of the mindset that the woman needed to be shown where she was sinning. In fact both of them used the term “tough love.” Can you imagine – – -spiritual tough love on a victim of domestic violence? That is absolutely cruel!

    Oh, and the 2nd guy took the conversation to the Bunker and was talking about me there. @@

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Grace Community Church……..
    Grace towards men who neeeeed their egos stroked. Grace to men who abuse women and children …….. No grace at all for women who are abused physically or emotionally, or for women who are physiologically beaten into submission with Bible verses. Nope. Only harsh judgement, disdain, and more abuse for them!
    This church need a couple more words in it’s name: Grace Community of Men Church.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Julie Anne you said, “They were both of the mindset that the woman needed to be shown where she was sinning”. That to me, seems to be a Calvinistic mentality. And I don’t mean to tar ALL Calvinists with the same brush, I do know a few (but it’s just a few) who are genuinely nice people. But the Phil Johnsons, James Whites, Paul Washers and JD Halls of the world seem so focused on sin (which, by the way, they say we’re predestined to commit, and no one can repent unless God lets them, so…. yeah, let’s blame the sinners for that….) regardless of the circumstances they can’t understand that adults can be programmed as children in abusive environments to behave, yes, sinfully, and they need a gentle Shepherd to lead them, not JD Hall with his Bazooka machine gun to abuse them even more. Whew, run-on sentences, sorry about that!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Christina, I’m of the mind that the neo-calvinista thing is men who use that theology to not care, but who are also very much of the fundamentalist/anti-women mindset already and they just warp the theology to fit.

    It helps that I know that there is a whole calvinist denom that is really not like that.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. All of this makes me angry and sad at the same time. I’m sad to know that there are people who will be harmed by this thought and talk and angry that a “pastor” is more than willing to lord over others.

    Like

  19. I haven’t read all the comments so maybe someone said this already. In his comment, Phil Johnson is blaming and shaming the victim. “Poor girl” doesn’t mean he cares one hoot about her welfare. He doesn’t have an ounce of compassion for this person. If she had come to him for help after being assaulted, he would blame her for being complicit in the boyfriend’s crime because of her poor choice of a partner. Implicit in his comment is that she deserved it for not having the common sense to avoid this guy.

    For these Neo-Calvinist, Fundamentalist types, it comes down to being Culture Warriors. They hate what they see as a depraved culture/society all around them to the point that their hatred exceeds any kind of compassion for the people who are in that culture/society. It is rank self-righteousness slapped with a Jesus label on it.

    The Scriptures say of our Lord Jesus that: “When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep with out a shepherd.” Phil Johnson shows by his comment that he is ignorant of our Lord’s compassion. Their rigid belief system has no room for people who offend their religious sensibilities. Having once been a frequent reader of the Pyromaniacs blog that Phil Johnson started, I can say that one thing he and his ilk are adept at is acting like sanctimonious Pharisees.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Interesting comment, Christina. I just had 2 big Twitter debates with people defending Phil. They were both of the mindset that the woman needed to be shown where she was sinning. In fact both of them used the term “tough love.” Can you imagine – – -spiritual tough love on a victim of domestic violence? That is absolutely cruel!

    Oh, and the 2nd guy took the conversation to the Bunker and was talking about me there. @@

    This makes me so angry and down right sick to my stomach. Reminds me of the Tina Anderson case. A MARRIED deacon rapes her when she is 14 and the pastor’s wife asks her if she enjoyed it. Asked if she had an orgasm. Then her idiot husband Pastor Chuck Phelps explains how she would have been stoned in the old testament, showed her verses in the OT. Then they take away her baby (from the rape) and send her away to live with a family far away. Sound like cover up ? Latter there is a successful prosecution of the rapist regardless of the attempted obstruction of justice by the church. Oh and the lawyer for the church & pastor Phelps, David Gibbs.

    Is it just me or does this all sound so very familiar to you folks too ?

    The whole case was on 20/20 and is still on youtube , just search: IFB 20/20 and it will pop up.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Look, these Neo-Calvinist, Fundamentalists wouldn’t know grace if it knocked them in the head with a 2×4 wooden stud. The love and compassion of God only extends to the Predestined Elect within their camp. This is the ethos that permeates their environment.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. First thought upon reading the tweet: Phil J. believes what happened to her is “all her fault” for not knowing that this was a dangerous man. Blame and shame the victim. Where can female domestic violence victims go for emotional support? Don’t go to Grace Community (for men) Church, you won’t find safety (or comfort) there either.

    Like

  23. I just went over to look at Phil Johnson’s Twitter feed. In April of this year he, along with his Dudebros, JD Hall and Mike Riccardi will be preaching at a Baptist church in Saskatoon. Guess what the theme is? Recovering The Gospel. Well, because it’s been lost and only the Neo-Calvinists have found it. What arrogance.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. JD Hall routinely reaches out to Christian event organizers to warn them about speakers he doesn’t like (he recently tried to get Dr. Karen Swallow-Prior removed from a speaking engagement). Taking a page from JD’s playbook, we should flood the Saskatoon church with polite messages concerning JD Hall and Phil Johnson. I’m sure the pastor of the church in Saskatoon where this is being held has no clue about how these two men behave on social media.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. When approaching Calvinistic pastors for help with abuse, I was told that “we all sin” and that no one just abuses someone for no reason. When counsel like this is given, the abused will search their own behavior and try to do whatever they can to stop being abused, while the abuser keeps abusing without empathy. It’s a dance with a bad ending. All sin is NOT the same. Police should be involved when a crime has been committed. Going home and making a pie, does not end violence.

    Like

  26. “Poor girl” doesn’t mean he cares one hoot about her welfare.

    In that context, ‘poor girl’ was sarcasm.

    When approaching Calvinistic pastors for help with abuse, I was told that “we all sin” and that no one just abuses someone for no reason.

    This is so wrong. This is not about being Calvinists, this is where their hearts are. They don’t have any true compassion or understanding, and they couple that with pride and (generally) dislike/distrust of women. Deadly.

    I have to say, the church I joined (mainline calvinists) is the first place I have ever been where they openly prayed for victims of abuse in church. And where women are truly treated as equal. Their is something that is so comforting about this, and I didn’t even know it was missing before.

    Like

  27. Wow, sure wish I had so much time to split hairs and judge irrelevant issues about upstanding people like you self righteous women do…Phil Johnson, REALLY? You are petty and judgmental. So glad to unsubscribe from your pettiness.

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

  28. @Lea:

    But this could just as easily have been the ‘hottest mugshot ever’ guy, and he would have been just as dangerous.

    Like I said above, “even more so because he doesn’t visibly advertist.”

    And if that mugshot isn’t on The Smoking Gun website, it should be.

    Like

  29. Phil has been reading the blog, or at least somehow he came to the conclusion that y’all are a bunch of slanderers. Wave hi to Phil, everyone:

    Like

  30. a house of slander

    This is an awesome name for a blog.

    most of these guys think ‘slander’ means ‘saying stuff I don’t like’. By that definition, Phil is a super slanderer!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. “Slander” means criticizing pastors/leaders in the Neo-Calvinist camp. As long as those in that camp intend to keep on acting like obnoxious, arrogant, uncompassionate dunces – they will get push-back. If they make foolish statements on on social media in the public arena, they need to learn to deal with opposition.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. My I can think if a group of pastors that have entire conferences people may call slander. Then they write books and run blogs that are constantly criticizing others. If that is your definition of slander.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Ok, everybody let’s cut ole Philly a break. Gospel racketeers like him aren’t used to being exposed to the light of common decency & compassion for an assault victim.
    In a word, Phil has the mentality of a street thug. If that young lady he mocked was my niece, he would have huge problems right now that he can’t begin to imagine.

    Like

  34. Slander? Really? Maybe Phil should take a look at 30+ years worth of negative feedback about their ministry and the bully pastors it puts out.

    I remember listening to John MacArthur’s radio program in the 1980s thinking MacArthur knew absolutely nothing about grace. Others I knew at the time felt the same way. So I am confident Phil and his predecessors have heard negative feedback for years.

    Many of MacArthur’s followers have the same legalistic arrogant attitude he does.

    A spiritually abusive lay leader at my home church was a big John MacArthur fan. The guy was a gossip. I’ll never forget the day that I discovered he’d gossiped about me for 8 years, while all those years I was praying for him down on my knees before I went to bed at night. I hope the Lord will finally break through his cold cruel heart.

    Big hypocrites in that camp. When I find out someone is a Master’s Seminary grad, I put up my guard. They aren’t all that way, but a shocking number are, in my experience.

    Like

  35. In Phil’s retort to Julie, I noticed that he referred to his original tweet as “harsh.” Now if only Phil would notice that his tweet was harsh….

    Like

  36. Pingback: An Abuse Survivor’s Response to Pastor Phil Johnson’s Insensitive Tweet on Domestic Violence | Spiritual Sounding Board

  37. Christina, my heart really goes out to you. I’m glad you were moved to write out your story and I am fairly certain that your story will resonate with others.

    I don’t understand why some of us have to go through abuse and pain, but I’m convinced that God can use our pain and experiences in a way that can benefit others. I take comfort in that.

    2 Cor 1:3-5 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. I saw part of a Twitter conversation yesterday, in which someone accused you of criticizing a “sitting ruling elder.” I’ve been in church my entire life and have never heard the phrase “sitting ruling elder” or even “ruling elder” used to describe any pastor or leader in any church I’ve attended. So that phrase is completely foreign to me, but it reminded me of what has happened in a large segment of evangelical Christianity – it’s become a hierarchical power structure. A relatively small group of men has created a system in which they and their friends control all knowledge, information and resources. They are the arbiters of everything, and no one may criticize them except another “sitting ruling elder.” And certainly no criticism from a mere woman is allowed.

    But because they rarely criticize each other, bad behavior and bad theology often go unchecked. And anyone outside the leadership clique who dares to speak up is attacked – swiftly and harshly – because that person threatens the hierarchy and the power structure.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. So that phrase is completely foreign to me, but it reminded me of what has happened in a large segment of evangelical Christianity – it’s become a hierarchical power structure. A relatively small group of men has created a system in which they and their friends control all knowledge, information and resources. They are the arbiters of everything, and no one may criticize them except another “sitting ruling elder.” And certainly no criticism from a mere woman is allowed.

    Hi GC – I apologize about the delay in posting your comment. I found it in Spam.

    Your comment is excellent and you nailed exactly what is going on. Phil is not very happy that women bloggers are challenging him publicly. He’s holding hard to his foolishness. He refuses to learn from those who have a much greater understanding of abuse dynamics.

    I have heard many stories of these guys taking over churches and changing them into high-controlling churches. Spiritual abuse will not be going away any time soon with hierarchical teaching so prevalent.

    It’s also important to keep in mind that in their school of thought, there is no such thing as mental illness. It’s all about sin. Even a domestic victim is culpable because she has sinned in some way and those sin-sniffing pastors will identify it.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. I gave up on Pyro a long time ago, although I quite liked Phil’s contributions for a while. I’m very definitely not a card-carrying Calvinist having moved away from this interpretive grid, although I respect those who sincerely hold this view.
    I think Phil can legitimately be criticised for sounding patronizing using the expression ‘this poor girl’. His description of the bully as a creep is hardly a good character reference or endorsement of his behaviour.
    I do, however, think he is treating women with more respect than his detractors. He seems to think that women should be expected to have the savvy to see through a bully, to take note of warning signs, and therefore be able to avoid getting into this situation in the first place. Whether such signs were available in this particular case I don’t know, there is too little information.
    I don’t think Phil is blaming the victim, but he is expecting some level of responsibility not to ask for trouble. Not to be foolish. That holds true for everyone.
    His critics view of women in effect is that they are inevitably vulnerable, easily manipulated and helpless. The ‘weak women‘ of 2 Tim 3? I think the apostle here is highlighting a certain vulnerability, but hardly excusing it when they are unwilling to learn.
    The response to Phil seems to me to be emotional and irrational. On the one hand, women are seen as strong and capable and ought to be leaders in the church (see any discussion of this on a non-comp blog for evidence), whilst simultaneously being helplessly weak over against Patriarchal men or pastors who lord it over them. Which is it? It can’t be both.
    If Phil is wrong on this, he is not going to be persuaded by insults and slander. Calling him an obnoxious, arrogant, uncompassionate dunce, street thug and creepy bastard isn’t going to achieve anything. I’m not surprised he isn’t listening.

    Like

  41. MacArthur and his shoeshine boy Johnson; false teachers and false preachers, chucking up a false gospel. Do we really expect anything from these fakes other than the darkness they spread? NO.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I think Phil can legitimately be criticised for sounding patronizing using the expression ‘this poor girl’.

    This was not patronizing, it was SARCASTIC.

    If Phil is wrong on this, he is not going to be persuaded by..

    Anything. He is not the persuadable type. If he were, he would have said ‘oh you’re right, that was harsh. I’m sorry’.

    BTW, I said elsewhere but what Phil is doing here is ‘kicking someone when they are down’. That is bad form, christian or no. He is a grown man who knows better.

    Like

  43. Hi, KAS. It’s been a while seen we’ve last heard from you. Sadly, you don’t seem to have educated yourself much on the dynamics of abuse during that time.

    He seems to think that women should be expected to have the savvy to see through a bully, to take note of warning signs, and therefore be able to avoid getting into this situation in the first place.

    If abusive or sociopathic people are clever enough, they can fool anyone, whether male or female.

    And even if warning signs were there (in the case that Johnson cited), it’s entirely possible that this woman felt she deserved no better than the felon that she married. I don’t know anything about her upbringing, but if it was abusive, she might be convinced that she’s worthless, and that no better (or other) man would ever love her or take in her kids. It would explain why she apparently keeps going back to him.

    His critics’ view of women in effect is that they are inevitably vulnerable, easily manipulated and helpless.

    Wrong. That’s most certainly not my view, and I doubt anyone else here holds it.

    My view of wounded people is that they are often vulnerable, desperate for relief from their pain and in need of healing. And people — both men and women — who have suffered severe trauma are often easy prey for the callous and clever.

    Dash, who sometimes comments here, has spoken on the subject, based on his own horrific experiences. From him, we can learn what trauma and abuse can do to any of us. How (in his own words) it can mess with the wiring in our heads. How it can teach us that we’re worthless, or convince us that violent behaviour from parents or spouses is “normal”. In that state, any of us can fall into the trap of a bully or abuser.

    The response to Phil seems to me to be emotional and irrational. On the one hand, women are seen as strong and capable and ought to be leaders in the church (see any discussion of this on a non-comp blog for evidence), whilst simultaneously being helplessly weak over against Patriarchal men or pastors who lord it over them. Which is it? It can’t be both.

    Seriously, KAS? Is that really what you think is being discussed here? People on this blog have been through too much — and know too much — to take a straw man like that seriously. If you want argue for gender comp or patriarchy or whatever you espouse, you’re going to have to up your game.

    Liked by 4 people

  44. My view of wounded people is that they are often vulnerable

    Yes.

    And also, viewing this youngish girl who just got chased around with a knife and beaten up while pregnant isn’t so much thinking of “women” as vulnerable but recognizing the reality that this particular woman is obviously vulnerable. And that picking on her is not kind.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. KAS – If you’re accusing someone of slander, you’d better be prepared to back that up. A correction: what you’re discussing is called “libel” in the United States when it’s written, not “slander”, both under the general category of defamation; further, it’s not defamatory if either it’s true or (in most cases) when the person making the statement has a genuine belief that it’s true, particularly when discussing the actions of a public figure such as Mr. Johnson.

    In short, unless people here are lying intentionally about Mr. Johnson, spreading untrue statements about things he has done, they are not defaming him.

    In fact, unless you can demonstrate something that was said here was specifically a lie, you are the only one engaged in defamation. So go ahead, what here is defamatory? Specifics, please, or do something that Mr. Johnson apparently does not have the integrity to do: take back your statement.

    Liked by 3 people

  46. KAS said:

    The response to Phil seems to me to be emotional and irrational. On the one hand, women are seen as strong and capable and ought to be leaders in the church (see any discussion of this on a non-comp blog for evidence), whilst simultaneously being helplessly weak over against Patriarchal men or pastors who lord it over them. Which is it? It can’t be both.

    Sure, it can. Women who are used to being abused do not always have the capability to make the best decisions for themselves, especially when they are being manipulated and coerced by abusive people who are masterful cons.

    If Phil is wrong on this, he is not going to be persuaded by insults and slander. Calling him an obnoxious, arrogant, uncompassionate dunce, street thug and creepy bastard isn’t going to achieve anything. I’m not surprised he isn’t listening.

    He is wrong in this. And he won’t be persuaded because he is too proud to learn from women. I’m not doing this for Phil’s benefit, although if he changed, that would be wonderful.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Law Prof: You are not the first to hide behind the legal definition of slander under US law. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about this:

    Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice

    Also translated as evil-speaking; abusive language, speech reviling someone’s reputation.

    Or this:

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither … nor revilers … will inherit the kingdom of God.

    Reviling, injuring another’s reputation by denigrating, abusive insults. God obviously from this passage views this very seriously, he won’t have this in the new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells. He even tells believers not to associate with any professed believer who is guilty of this, it’s an issue to break fellowship over. That’s true of nasty blog commenters and nasty pastors who do this from the pulpit.

    Excluded from this is unmasking genuine wrong-doing or abuse, or making a reasoned critique of someone’s religious views or the effect they may have on others. Telling the truth based on reasonable evidence, preferably first hand. Included are bitter, angry and malicious statements – all those ugly words used above seem to me to hang together. Often more speculative, and often very obviously malice directed at the person. From people who almost never say anything positive.

    Would you like some specific examples? Aided and abetted by my friend google, I reckon I could give you half a dozen examples of this every day for the remainder of this year – but who’d want to read all that? The constituency this would include covers not just some survivor blogs but also a variety of others who are critical of say the gospel coalition sector of evangelicalism.

    It was Phil Johnson in the first place who described so-called survivor blogs as insulting and full of slander probably with the above passages in mind, and he is not alone in that. Now why is that? Could he possibly have any justification for this?

    Like

  48. So, KAS, do you fancy yourself as this blog’s Contrarian Mascot?

    Almost every time I see you comment in a thread on here it is to side with whomever the post in question is critiquing.

    In this case, that would be Phil Johnson, who thinks it’s perfectly fine to ridicule and victim-blame a domestic abuse target, all because she married a guy who had face tattoos.

    But you’re fine with that. Your issue is with how those here discuss Phil Johnson. I’ve told you about Tone Policing before.

    And yet you still insist on coming here and condescendingly lecturing us here about it, and siding with jerks.

    Liked by 3 people

  49. “I do, however, think he [Phil Johnson] is treating women with more respect than his detractors.” – KAS

    Really???

    Then you obviously don’t know much about John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church in Southern California. Adult children who start attending are told to cut off all ties to their parents! (Ditto for those in the Master’s College and the Master’s Seminary.)

    An evangelical Christian mother in the Los Angeles area blogged about her daughter started going to JMac’s church, where Phil Johnson is the right hand man, and ordered her mother to stop doing volunteer work with Catholics for the needy in the community. The mother persisted with her volunteer work, called by God to do so as she had been faithfully doing for years.

    The Grace Community Church daughter disfellowshiped her own mother on the commands of GCC!

    Respect? Whom are you kidding??

    Where is the “respect” for this Christian mother?

    JMac runs a cult. Ditto for his schools. It’s all Thought Reform techniques (like the Chinese Communists used to also get peoples’ compliance). It really is no different than Scientology.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. “Reviling, injuring another’s reputation by denigrating, abusive insults.” – KAS

    OK, I work in law too. And LawProf is correct.

    Are you going to accuse Jesus of being a slanderer (gasp, oh no!!) because He confronted the pharisees and called them on their hypocrisy?

    If ever word that Phil Johnson said about other people, his vile, unloving mouth and words, his vile tweets and Facebook posts, were tattooed on his skin for the world to see…would he even be a handsome man?

    Phil Johnson should take the log out of his own arrogant eye first.

    Like

  51. JA: Women who are used to being abused do not always have the capability to make the best decisions for themselves, especially when they are being manipulated

    I’ve recently had a woman mid-forties, married with children, who was a colleague over many years confide in me she has fallen in love with and is seeing another man who is single. I’m almost certain ‘seeing’ is a bit of a euphemism.

    Now I’ve seen albeit briefly how he treats her and how she responds. I sat and mulled this over for ages and came to the conclusion if she leaves her husband and marries him it won’t last. When I told my wife she instantly said ‘it won’t last’. Female intuition, which I respect!

    I would like, if I get the chance, to say to her first if she contracts a marriage with the new guy it will not put this right in the sight of God – the second marriage in these circumstances is ongoing adultery against the first husband. Second, the damage this will do to her children, especially her 6 year old daughter. Thirdly, my conviction the relationship will not last (She gives and he takes). Oh the need for wisdom!

    Another colleague she has confided in, who is not a Christian, was horrified that the new boyfriend would be willing to be party to a divorce involving children, and asked me if I had had chance ‘to talk some sense into her’.

    I fear she is going to get hurt, have her hopes dashed, and end up a single mother, though of course I can’t know this will happen. Or should I mind my own business and look the other way? At the very least I hope I can persuade her to get some marriage guidance counselling of some sort, involve an objective third party.

    Enter Phil Johnson. In these circumstances, he might tweet ‘didn’t the silly girl not see the writing on the wall, the likely outcome of this’. That would be fair comment, she’s allowing her emotions to override her head. (I’ve noticed indications her conscience isn’t entirely clear on what she is doing.) This does not absolve her from personal responsibility.

    Yet it would also be true she is someone has been foolish, got hurt, lost her first marriage on the basis of a relationship never likely to succeed, and damaged her children as a result. It would require compassion, would it not. Straight talking that she will reap what she has sown, and getting alongside to try to actually help move on from this and cope. To show mercy as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    I think regarding Phil’s actual tweet he was right as far as it goes (in asserting women need to take responsibility), but has failed to show mercy as well, and cannot complain at being criticised either for lacking or appearing to lack compassion.

    Like

  52. Daisy – criticising the language used by critics of the evangelical establishment when it gets corrupted or authoritarian is not the same thing as siding with this establishment. In fact it is the precise opposite. The big celebrity names will not listen to slanderous accusations (in the biblical sense) and I don’t blame them. I will never understand the monumental blindness of commenters who cannot see how counter-productive venting bitterness is to getting ministries to actually change, and the blindness of commenters to their own faults.

    I’ve not sided for or against Johnson, but my view is currently the last paragraph of my reply to Julie Anne. Feel free to disagree with it. I hope also from that post you will see that domestic abuse or manipulation is not fine with me.

    Velour – you’ve not read what I said. I agree with you about taking logs out of eyes, but that applies to all of us, including you. Let me give you one example I have found where you commented on Piper:

    Maybe John Piper is all of the above:
    twisted, tormented soul
    *needs psychiatric therapy (and psychotherapy)
    *needs meds
    *and I still say the guy sounds like he’s done lots of drugs – pot, LSD, etc.
    I don’t think he could pass a drug test.
    *I’ll watch youtube and figure out how to make him a tinfoil hat, my *free gift
    to him for his insufferable chatter and inability to be a decent human being on every topic under the sun (domestic violence victims, sexual abuse victims, spiritual abuse victims, victims of Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill, Comp doctrine and on and on).

    I think Piper is saying increasingly bizarre things to say the least of it, but this kind of response is never going to get him to listen, let alone change. Neither will epithets like an obnoxious, arrogant, uncompassionate dunce, street thug and creepy bastard when applied to Johnson.

    Please do carry on exposing evil, I’d stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that, but do it in a righteous way or you won’t achieve anything.

    I doubt if I would last a week in MacArthur’s church, for several reasons.

    As the editor would say, this correspondence is closed, since I do not want to get into any more disputes about words. I’m sure JA wouldn’t want that, and I respect that.

    Like

  53. @KAS,

    I stand by what I said about John Piper, and I was being ‘kind’. He is a bizarre man who never belonged in the pulpit. He is a deeply troubled person who has foisted all of his bizarre stuff on other people.

    I don’t expect him to listen to me, or frankly to anyone else. He is too arrogant and full of pride to listen to anyone.

    He has said horrible, hateful things about countless people and his comments, writings, and videos are all up for public debate.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. @KAS,

    My comments, by the way, about John Piper have been in horror that he would defend the potty-mouthed Mark Driscoll and his savage temper, mowing over and destroying godly Christians right and left with his ‘bus’ theology (i.e. you’re either on Mark Driscoll’s ‘bus’ or under it). He destroyed the lives of countless godly Christians and ordered the excommunication and shunnings of people like the Petry family. Just a disgrace.

    And John Piper’s answer to all of this? John Piper thinks the closing of Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church in Seattle was ‘a loss for The Gospel’.

    No, it was actually an answer to fervent prayers from people like me! Thank you Jesus for prayers answered!!!

    Like

  55. @KAS,

    By the way, were you raised in an alcoholic family? (Or another kind of seriously dysfunctional family?) You use “no talk rules” to try to silence people from having honest discussions.

    You quote Scripture verses out of context and try to use them as “clobber verses.”

    It’s very unhealthy on your part. How old are you? Why haven’t you matured?

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Dear KAS,

    After leaving my last abusive church, I engaged in a Bible Study for myself on the exact topic you quoted, “The Reviler.” In understanding reviling from a Biblical perspective, may I dare say that in many cases, those who bring up the term are in fact, revilers themselves, causing pain and dissention wherever they go, especially in the public arena of religion. Our Scriptures clearly state that a double minded man (or woman) is unstable in all of their ways. It is clear to me, how pastors, preachers and teachers, and those make the claim of “speaking for god” can do the same…..

    “speak about others; their problems, their mistakes, their sins, their lifestyles, their “everything”, from the pulpits, in their secret church board meetings, in their so called Bible studies, in their blogs, on their radio programs, on stage at ‘their’ conferences, in their classrooms, etc., about other people, often using their experiences as an example without the permission of the confidant, mind you, and more often than not, not citing the example in the complete context in which it was said (lying by omission), then turn around and criticize and condemn others for slandering, lying, bearing false witness, gossiping, and having a “jezebel spirit.”

    Since Jesus said that his house should be a “house of prayer,” I personally would expect a man of the cloth (perhaps sack cloth is needed here), to say, “We, as the true Body of Jesus Christ, need to humble ourselves in prayer for this woman, her situation, and her well being.” Did we see Phil Johnson encouraging prayer for this woman and her situation?

    It is amazing, what is deemed as wisdom within the religious industrial complex is actually dust in the wind. I believe the priesthood of believers has far more compassion than those who hold “the office of the pastor or priest.”

    And just another small side note: “The reviler never sides with the victim, always the perpetrator.” Just sayin.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Telling the truth based on reasonable evidence, preferably first hand.

    A tweet from a specific individual is ‘first hand’. He said what he said. All the tone policing (as Daisy points out) doesn’t change that.

    Ultimately you think it’s ok that he said it, but not ok that we pointed out that it was deeply unkind. You generally take a long time to say it, but that’s always the point at the end.

    Liked by 2 people

  58. this kind of response is never going to get him to listen

    None of these people are going to listen to us, one way or another.

    a. Because we’re women.
    b. Because we aren’t in their little pastor clique.
    c. Because they don’t hear correction at all, no matter how it is said. You go tell Phil he should be kinder in a ‘winsome’ way (and maybe with a female profile, just for control purposes) and see what he says.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. The big celebrity names will not listen to slanderous accusations (in the biblical sense) and I don’t blame them.

    They’re not going to listen to anyone, KAS. They’ve already demonstrated that. As far as I’m concerned, they’re blind guides and I don’t care whether they get offended by the truth. Jesus sure didn’t care how he offended the Pharisees.

    And “slanderous (in the biblical sense)”? How cute. Never mind, of course, that Paul doesn’t actually define, in any of his letters, what “slander” or “reviling” means. So if we want a “biblical definition” of these words, we can only guess. For my part, I’m sticking with Law Prof’s definition. At least it allows me to follow Jesus’ lead, and call these bullying fools out for what they are.

    Liked by 2 people

  60. To KAS part 1.
    KAS said

    Daisy – criticising the language used by critics of the evangelical establishment when it gets corrupted or authoritarian is not the same thing as siding with this establishment.

    In fact it is the precise opposite. The big celebrity names will not listen to slanderous accusations (in the biblical sense) and I don’t blame them.

    I will never understand the monumental blindness of commenters who cannot see how counter-productive venting bitterness is to getting ministries to actually change, and the blindness of commenters to their own faults.

    I’ve not sided for or against Johnson, but my view is currently the last paragraph of my reply to Julie Anne. Feel free to disagree with it. I hope also from that post you will see that domestic abuse or manipulation is not fine with me.

    You’re pretty blind to your own counter-productive behavior.

    I’ve observed JA’s interactions towards PJ (Phil Johnson) on Twitter, and she was polite to him the entire time. She had the patience of a saint, considering the man behaves like a jack-a55.

    You condescendingly lecture folks here on the tone they use when discussing preachers.

    You’ve already brought this topic up a time or two on older threads, so it’s not necessary to keep doing that.

    I am not convinced that some of these preachers or Christian authors that JA critiques here are even actual Christians. Wolves in sheeps’ clothing are never going to care about the flock they are fleecing, no matter how nicely JA talks to them.

    Even if they are actual Christians, some have huge egos and care more about fame, money, and power than helping people.

    All of this means, no matter how nicely and politely folks here state their grievances against Phil Johnson or Pastor Famous Dude, it will still fall on deaf ears.

    These types of guys critiqued on this blog (such as Phil Johnson) are not fully open to listening to criticism, no matter how that criticism is expressed – whether it is harsh or very polite.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. To KAS part 2
    KAS said

    Daisy – criticising the language used by critics of the evangelical establishment when it gets corrupted or authoritarian is not the same thing as siding with this establishment. In fact it is the precise opposite. The big celebrity names will not listen to slanderous accusations (in the biblical sense) and I don’t blame them.

    I will never understand the monumental blindness of commenters who cannot see how counter-productive venting bitterness is to getting ministries to actually change, and the blindness of commenters to their own faults.

    I’ve not sided for or against Johnson, but my view is currently the last paragraph of my reply to Julie Anne. Feel free to disagree with it. I hope also from that post you will see that domestic abuse or manipulation is not fine with me.

    What I find ironic and hypocritical…

    You lecture people here on their tone, because you feel that Preacher X would not be receptive to “mean sounding” rhetoric.
    Meanwhile, your pleas are not being listened to here because of YOUR tone and your pitch with us in the comment section.

    I’ve told you in the past you’re not going over well here and won’t be listened to because of YOUR tone, and apparent lack of concern for the victims.

    You defend the pastors (or Christian personalities, whoever they may be), as though THEY are the victims. I never see you write a post saying how awful it is that person X was hurt by pastor Z.

    But have you taken that into consideration, that your tone and your approach needs to be tailored, because as it stands, it’s only offending people like me here, it’s not persuasive at all.

    I find you rather smug, too (your writing style), which is a huge turn off, and makes it difficult for me to “hear” you.

    You may refrain from using profanities and out-right name calling in your posts on here, but you come across as very arrogant, unfeeling, and condescending, never-the-less – and you also come across as being on the side of Phil Johnson or whatever pastor/ personality is under discussion, whether that is your intent or not.

    You show no concern for the victims.

    You may deny that you are for or against PJ (Phil Johnson), but…

    But spend all your time defending Phil Johnson by trying to side-track discussions from the point of the post (which is, somewhat well-known Christian personality publicly shaming Domestic Violence victims).

    PJ is one of those incredibly arrogant types who won’t listen to other people because he is so arrogant, he only considers men authoritative (so will basically brush off women such as Julie Anne who try to talk to him), and he won’t listen to anyone who does not walk lock-step with this theological views.

    I don’t know if JA’s goal is to persuade PJ to change his views or not, but at least posts like this may be of help to women who are domestic violence victims, who find this blog via a Google search, to show them that some Christians are safe to talk to about it, unlike people like PJ.

    We’re not all going to victim blame domestic abuse victims or act cavalier about abuse, the way PJ does.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Lea said (in response to KAS),

    ((Telling the truth based on reasonable evidence, preferably first hand.))

    A tweet from a specific individual is ‘first hand’. He said what he said. All the tone policing (as Daisy points out) doesn’t change that.

    Ultimately you think it’s ok that he said it, but not ok that we pointed out that it was deeply unkind. You generally take a long time to say it, but that’s always the point at the end.

    What Lea said there, a billion times over.

    Very succinctly and well put, Lea. You’re exactly right on all that. 👏🏻

    Like

  63. I wrote and published my first two posts today (April 6) before seeing the ones by Serving Kids and Lea’s – looks like we had the same thoughts. Had I read your posts first, I probably wouldn’t have written mine 🙂

    Like

  64. I can see from KAS’ comment at APRIL 6, 2017 @ 1:06 AM (to Julie Anne) and this comment,

    The response to Phil seems to me to be emotional and irrational. On the one hand, women are seen as strong and capable and ought to be leaders in the church (see any discussion of this on a non-comp blog for evidence),
    whilst simultaneously being helplessly weak over against Patriarchal men or pastors who lord it over them. Which is it? It can’t be both.

    And… sample comment by Kas at APRIL 6, 2017 @ 1:06 AM


    I think regarding Phil’s actual tweet he was right as far as it goes (in asserting women need to take responsibility), but has failed to show mercy as well, and cannot complain at being criticised either for lacking or appearing to lack compassion.

    I can see that KAS does not understand issues such as codependency or the dynamics of abusive relationships.

    Gender Complementarianism (and Christian patriarchalism), which is taught by many conservative Christians, teaches by default that ALL women are weak, stupid, incapable, irrational, and so on, and that they need men to lead them and make choices for them.

    Gender comp does not permit for differences among women, but treats women as though they all came off an assembly line in a manufacturing plant somewhere.

    Gender complementarians teach that God “designed” all women to have X, Y, Z, traits, strengths, and interests.

    It’s not mutually exclusive, KAS.

    All women in general can be thought of as strong and capable, while, at the same time, it may be true that a particular woman in a particular phase of life is, or can be, easily victimized or passive or weak.

    The same can be said of children targeted by pedophiles, or senior citizens targeted by scammers who seek to swindle them out of their retirement savings.

    The same can be said for a man who is under-going a major life stress. Some men are easily duped by a cunning woman, like a gold-digger type who is only after his bank account.
    I do not deduce from this, however, that men in general are all easily deceived all the time, or that God designed men to be prone to being duped, and that God designed all men to be under female leadership.

    That some kids may be fooled or manipulated into allowing a person to fondle them, or that some elderly people may be duped by con artists, does not mean that all children or all elderly in general are stupid, incapable, or weak.

    I’m not going to treat each and every male and female adult over the age of 70 as though they are weak, incompetent ninnies just because a small percentage of them are victims of phone or internet scams every year.

    Girls and women have the capability of being just as emotionally strong as any man

    (actually are arguably more so, given how men turn to women for Emotional Labor),

    but for females brought up in abusive families and/or churches / homes that teach gender complementarianism, females may become codependent.

    Being codependent (or coming from an abusive family as a child) may entail a female not even recognizing she is being abused when she is being abused.

    I was verbally abused by several family members as I was growing up.

    My sister to this day continues with that sort of abuse, but I did not even recognize it as being abuse until a few years ago, because for the duration of my life, it was NORMAL, and it felt NORMAL, to be yelled at and put down regularly by her.

    I had to do a lot of research and reading to finally realize, no, that is not normal. A loving, wonderful sister should NOT be verbally abusing me – I had to learn that from books by psychologists.

    Secondly, as to Christian women, or women raised in other conservative religious backgrounds, women are often conditioned and taught to think it’s normal, right, and godly, to be subjected to abusive treatment.

    Most gender complementarian Christians and organizations basically tell women that they have no right to divorce their abusive husband.
    These women will be told by such Christians that their only hope or solution is to stay and pray for the guy and submit to him more.

    Of course, staying, submitting, and praying won’t usually change an abuser, but are merely behaviors that will enable the abuser.

    So, you have females who would otherwise be tough, strong, and capable, but their Christian pastors, parents, or churches, teach them to be the opposite, under their idiotic “gender role” teachings, which equates being a “biblical woman” to being codependent (being a doormat).

    — The bottom line for me in reading over KAS’s comments is that he is terribly ignorant about domestic violence abuse dynamics and needs to do some serious reading up on the subject. —

    He’s likely one of those people who will fault a woman for staying in an abusive marriage and ask, “But why doesn’t she just leave the jerk” or “she must be partially to blame because she should have seen the warning signs,” or get into some other victim-blaming thought processes.

    I am assuming KAS is a man?

    If so, he, like most men, has been socialized totally differently from most women. He doesn’t get it, unless maybe he makes an effort to learn and understand.

    Most women in our nation are socialized to be passive doormats (being passive is associated with being feminine) and are penalized if they are not..

    Where-as most men have been socialized to be self-reliant, independent, assertive, and take-charge – qualities associated with masculinity which will get a woman “shot down” or criticized if she expresses them herself.

    Not all abusers give off warning signs or red flags during the dating phase, by the way.

    Like

  65. And hey, KAS:
    Out of the ton of reading I’ve done about Domestic Violence and related topics, the many case studies I’ve seen, indicate that a portion of abusive men do not start behaving abusively until AFTER they have married their wife, and so the woman have no warning signs to go by while dating the guy.

    (That is also something Phil Johnson needs to learn. Having a face Tat does not automatically equate to “this guy will abuse any woman he marries.”
    Face Tat Guy might have treated the girlfriend like pure gold while they were dating, prior to marriage, for all we know.)

    While dating, these guys behave in a polite, friendly, non-controlling manner, and it’s not until at the honeymoon, or within weeks of the wedding, that they start exhibiting their controlling, violent natures, which takes the wife by surprise.

    Some abusers do give off warning signs, so I think girls and women should be taught what to look for, but not all abusers do.
    Some abusers don’t regard their sweetie as their property to “boss around” until after the wedding day.

    Such women are not given warning signs… so no, KAS, it’s not the woman’s responsibility if she ends up with an abuser, as you were implying or indicating in one of your posts above
    (as you said here:
    “in asserting women need to take responsibility [for marrying abusive men, for being able to spot the man is an abuser]”

    KAS said,

    I think regarding Phil’s actual tweet he was right as far as it goes (in asserting women need to take responsibility), but has failed to show mercy as well, and cannot complain at being criticised either for lacking or appearing to lack compassion.

    Yeah, Phil did lack compassion, and he failed to show he felt any.
    The content of his Tweet was to suggest the woman in question was to blame for walking into an abusive marriage because the guy she married had a tattoo on his face.

    From the fact that guy had a Tat on his face, PJ automatically assumed that

    -the the guy must be “creepy”,
    -that the woman must have KNOWN just from looking at the Tat guy he was creepy.
    -and therefore should have known he was also abusive,
    and lastly,
    -she deserves to be blamed and mocked for marrying the abuser

    And yes, KAS, that all demonstrates a lack of compassion by PJ.

    You even admitted as much when you said his reply did “not show mercy.” You’re just quibbling with semantics, probably because you enjoy “stirring the pot” and trolling.

    You just showed a lack of compassion above for saying a woman is to blame (“should be held responsible”) if the guy she ends up marrying is abusive – what a repulsive attitude. Very victim-blaming and shows complete ignorance of how some abusers operate and manipulate the women they date.

    Like

  66. Velour to KAS,

    Phil Johnson should take the log out of his own arrogant eye first.

    KAS later accused you (or folks on this blog) of that very thing, in some other post below.

    He was all, “Everyone needs to check for a log in their own eye.”

    Maybe so, but I’ve never in my life ridiculed or blamed someone for marrying an abuser, just because their abuser had a face tattoo, or whatever.

    Not all sins, social faux pas, or infractions are equal. Not all of us go out of our way to be insensitive jacka55es to folks who have been hurt.

    That KAS likes to equate two things in this manner is very gross.

    That he insists that a bunch of “Average Joes” on a blog criticizing the terrible behavior of big-name pastors or other Christian personalities to be just as bad as a quasi- famous Christian (i.e, Johnson) ridiculing or victim-blaming a Domestic Violence victim on a public Twitter account… is deplorable.

    Some of us here pointing out the harmful or sexist teachings of John Piper, Phil Johnson, or whomever, and in whatever manner (whether we are being super nice about it and up to KAS Standards of Commenting), is not comparable to what PJ did in his Tweet.
    Not the same in the slightest.

    Also, look at the positions of the targets:
    Famous and wealthy Christian pastors and speakers vs. a domestic abuse target

    I would assume that the D.V. victim referenced in PJ’s Tweet is not famous and wealthy. (She probably doesn’t have two dimes to rub together.)

    But by all means, let’s pretend and feign indignation that a few harshly-worded blog comments or posts directed at or about Phil Johnson is somehow just as icky and wrong as P.J. blaming, shaming, and ridiculing an abuse victim, and in public.

    BTW, based on PJ’s subsequent tweets to Julie Anne (and I think to Dee) in the context of this dust-up that I read, the man holds victims and the entire concept of victimization in contempt (which speaks ill of his character).

    While, on the other hand, the Jesus of the Bible had the utmost concern and compassion towards those who were exploited or victimized by those in power above them, or for any one who was used or mis-used by someone else.

    To be consistent, Phil Johnson (and KAS) would have to mock and criticize those to whom Jesus showed compassion and lecture Jesus he was in error for helping folks, rather than holding them personally responsible for their actions or mistakes in life.

    BTW, to make clear, I am not against the concept of taking personal responsibility or encouraging others to do so.
    However, there’s a time and place for it, and you better be very careful when and how you hit someone over the head with that concept.

    Use the concept of taking personal responsibility to help people better their lives – not as a weapon to beat them up with, or to shame them with, if they have been wounded by someone or something in life.

    (Ditto on the Bible – use the Bible to help folks, not a weapon to bludgeon them with.)

    Like

  67. Aw, Hi Daisy!

    I wanted to say, not that its important, but that guy could have gotten that face tattoo after they were already together.

    I guess she could have left him then, even if they had kids together. No idea if they were married, but most of the types of churches Phil probably supports would not consider ‘got a neck tattoo’ or ‘attacked me with a knife’ as ‘biblical’ reasons for divorce.

    Liked by 2 people

  68. Also, look at the positions of the targets:

    Man v. woman.
    Old v. young.
    Christian v. ?.
    Known Quality v. Stranger.
    Wealthy v. poor (likely).
    Family background, middle class v. poverty/similar family situation?

    She is other. Easy to make fun of. Easy to put down.

    Sad, since her very position should elicit compassion. If you see a pregnant woman has been attacked and chased with a knife and your first response is to point and laugh at her mistakes there is something amiss. I don’t care who you are.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. I’m sorry to do so many posts in a row. One other thing I wanted to add.

    Christian television host “Pat Robertson” is also pretty bad about blaming women who marry abusive men.
    On Robertson’s show “The 700 Club,” he almost daily takes questions from viewers, who ask him for advice.

    Almost every week, Robertson seems to get at least one question from a woman who will write and say something to him like this:

    “I’ve been married for X number of years.
    My husband is verbally (or physically) abusive every day
    (-or the woman will say the husband is having serial affairs, or looks at dirty sites every day, or visits prostitutes-).
    Can I divorce this guy, or what should I do?”

    And almost every single time I’ve seen Robertson respond to such a letter from a wife, he has to start by victim-blaming.
    (Not always – a few times, I have seen him tell abused wives they are in the right to divorce the louse.)

    However, on other occasions, Robertson is quite victim-blaming.

    Robertson will tell the woman she has the “discernment of a slug”
    (yes, you can see this yourself in _this video on You Tube_, it’s the second letter on the video),
    and will tell her because she chose to marry the guy, she has to stay married to him, or she’s at fault for being married to a louse.

    (Robertson also calls the woman in that specific letter/video I linked above “blind” or “blinded” and “crazy” to marry the man.
    Yes, he tells her she can divorce the guy (at the very least), but he has to sit there and insult her first.)

    Robertson will also say to such women, basically, “You should have know the guy was going to be this way in marriage, so why did you marry him.”

    You know a lot of women stay married to abusers due to that very mindset.
    One reason my maternal grandmother stayed married to her abuser (my grandfather) rather than leave him is because she because subscribed to the rationale, “I made my bed, now I must lie in it.”

    Er no, with all due respect to my late grandmother: it’s okay to divorce an abusive guy. You don’t have to stay married to an abuser just because you decided at one time in your past to marry the guy.

    The victim-blaming drives me nuts, because as I said above, not all abusive men show their abusive sides while dating the lady (it’s also unsympathetic)!

    Some men wait until after they’ve married the lady before they start mistreating her, or else …
    they keep their dirty- site- viewing habits hidden, and it’s not until after they’ve been married for X number of weeks or years that the wife accidentally stumbles across the husband’s naughty internet viewing browser history, (or his penchant for using prostitutes, or whatever thing he’s doing that is gross).

    Sometimes there are “red flags” a woman can look for while dating, but NOT ALWAYS.

    Some men keep their nasty or abusive habits or behaviors hidden during the dating phase.

    I don’t think the vast majority of women WANT to marry an abuser or prostitute- or- dirty- magazine- addicted- louse. If a woman could know up-front that the guy will turn abusive after they marry, I doubt many would go through with a marriage to the guy.

    Most of us women want to marry a sweet, considerate, thoughtful, and romantic “Prince Charming” who will treat us well.

    I know I for one don’t sit around fantasizing, “I sure hope I get married to a guy who will beat me up, or call me names daily, or who likes to have multiple affairs! What a catch!”
    So shame on Pat Robertson and Phil Johnson for blaming women for being married to abusive creeps.

    Like

  70. Lea said,

    Aw, Hi Daisy!

    I wanted to say, not that its important, but that guy could have gotten that face tattoo after they were already together.

    I guess she could have left him then, even if they had kids together. No idea if they were married, but most of the types of churches Phil probably supports would not consider ‘got a neck tattoo’ or ‘attacked me with a knife’ as ‘biblical’ reasons for divorce.

    That is a good point. It’s possible he didn’t have the Tat prior to their marriage.

    Your other point is excellent too-
    Many of the Phil Johnson types won’t give their permission to a woman to divorce, no matter what her husband is doing to her, and whether or not the guy has a face tattoo or not.

    Personally, so far as dating is concerned, I go for clean-cut type men who have short hair, so my chances of dating a guy with long hair or a face tat is about zero.

    But one other thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older is you may want to take time to get to know someone before assuming right away that they’re creepy or are an abuser over having a Tat.

    An older guy at my dad’s church got a tattoo on his arm when younger. When this guy was older, he became a Christian and cleaned up his life.

    The folks at Dad’s church mocked him and teased him over the the tattoo he had gotten while younger, so he stopped going to church. (My Dad continued to be this guy’s buddy, though – they would go fishing together.)

    I had a friend who hates Christians, though her mom is one, and she loves her Mom.

    But when she and her mom were down on hard times – the husband (her step dad) was abusive and the Mom had to dump the guy, they had a hard time paying rent for awhile, etc – church people wouldn’t help her or her mom.

    However, (for reasons I do not recall), the mom was friends with a biker gang. (The Mom of this friend of mine was a church employee and a clean-cut type with traditional values, not a biker herself.)

    The biker gang wore leather, had scruffy beards, had tats up and down their arms, looked tough, were tough, but my friend said they were the nicest group of people you could ever meet. They helped her and her mom out. They could be quite friendly and supportive.

    So you never know. Someone with a tat might be dangerous or bad, maybe not.

    You might want to get to know the person first before just assuming they are pond scum. And as it’s been said by others, plenty of Christian men who are clean cut, who lack tats, who attend church weekly, who wear suits and look like professionals, are abusive.
    You cannot always tell by looking at someone what a person’s character is – sometimes maybe, but not always.

    Like

  71. Velour: By the way, were you raised in an alcoholic family? (Or another kind of seriously dysfunctional family?)

    Come on – can’t you think of anything more original than assuming someone with whom you disagree must be stoned out of their mind on drink or have a mind fogged up by drugs? Why the ad hominem?

    You use “no talk rules” to try to silence people from having honest discussions.

    You mean things like my view is currently the last paragraph of my reply to Julie Anne. Feel free to disagree with it

    Or excluded from the biblical definition of slander I said Excluded from this is unmasking genuine wrong-doing or abuse, or making a reasoned critique of someone’s religious views or the effect they may have on others. Telling the truth based on reasonable evidence, preferably first hand

    Or Please do carry on exposing evil,

    That’s a very strange way of silencing people.

    And finally, You quote Scripture verses out of context and try to use them as “clobber verses.”

    Try reading the whole chapters surrounding these verses and see if it makes any difference to the theme of not letting unwholesome talk come out of your mouth. It’s about, is it not, how authentic Christians should behave, how they should be different from the world around them, how they show they are new creations in the process of being changed, and I think such verses make sense largely on their own, though of course they are always better read in context.

    I would be wary of dismissing any scripture as a ‘clobber verse’, it usually means the verses contain something the objector does not want to accept or obey, for example, how gay revisionists treat the specific references to homosexuality. However immature you think I am, I’ve wised up to that one!

    Velour, on a personal note, I you had known what has gone on in my personal family life over the last 10 days or so, you would never have written that post. Please be aware of what ‘spirit’ you are of, and that you are not inadvertantly showing the ‘wisdom that is earthy, unspiritual, demonic’. Could just be coincidence, but I doubt it. I almost scrapped the whole reply just ot say that, in case it looks like self-justification.

    Like

  72. Has the girl herself here complained about Phil Johnson’s tweet? It’s starting to look to me as though this is a proxy war, a turf war between the American evangelical celebrity ministers circuit and their critics. Lobbing verbal hand-grenades across the trenches at each other.

    Six of one and half a dozen of the other, and actually none of my business.

    Like

  73. Personally, so far as dating is concerned, I go for clean-cut type men who have short hair, so my chances of dating a guy with long hair or a face tat is about zero.

    The last guy I dated had long hair, but that was kind of an experiment in going against type. (he also had a tattoo but then that’s typical of ex military).

    Has the girl herself here complained about Phil Johnson’s tweet?

    I highly doubt she is plugged into who any of us are, Phil Johnson, JA or anyone else. This was a ripped from the headlines to rip on the girl thing prompted by Phil. That doesn’t mean anyone isn’t right to call him on his attitude.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. “Velour: By the way, were you raised in an alcoholic family? (Or another kind of seriously dysfunctional family?)

    Come on – can’t you think of anything more original than assuming someone with whom you disagree must be stoned out of their mind on drink or have a mind fogged up by drugs? Why the ad hominem?

    You use “no talk rules” to try to silence people from having honest discussions.”- KAS

    I didn’t say you were a drunk or high on drugs. Asking a legitimate question about your upbringing does not constitute “an attack on the person”.

    I asked you if you were raised in an alcoholic family since you exhibit all of the classic “no talk rules” and are constantly trying to shut people down from any kind of honest discussion.

    You also omitted answering my questions. How old are you? Why are you an adult and so immature? What’s that all about?

    Liked by 1 person

  75. Velour – could you please give me a quotation or two where I have tried to silence anybody having an honest discussion?

    Like

  76. KAS said,

    Has the girl herself here complained about Phil Johnson’s tweet?

    Why would that be relevant?

    Johnson is fairly well known in some Christian quarters, he publicly tweeted an obnoxious comment (shaming a D.V. victim), and the public likewise has a right to criticize his insensitivity and ignorance towards, or of, domestic violence victims.

    Like

  77. KAS to Velour

    Velour – could you please give me a quotation or two where I have tried to silence anybody having an honest discussion?

    You do so in an indirect method with the constant Tone Policing.

    That is, we cannot or should not criticize the likes of P.J. unless we are super duper Genteel and Demure about it, and secondly, when you imply so by asking things like, “Does the girl herself know about his Tweet or is she offended by it?

    (Implied in that question: ‘Probably not, so why is anyone on this blog talking about it, you should stay silent, this is a non-issue.’)

    I suppose you think you’re being clever or stealthy, but your agenda is clear to anyone who reads your comments.
    You just prefer beating around the bush rather than come right out and say what you think and mean.

    Like

  78. Velour – I have given three quotations to demonstrate I am not ‘silencing’ anyone, yet you ignore that. It’s hardly unreasonable for you to show that I actually mean the opposite of what I said there before expecting me to give the family history.

    My dad did drink alcohol, and one one occasion did hit me several timesover the head with a broom stick. (I’m not making that up.) But I fail to see the connection between that and wanting to silence anyone, let alone a connection with Phil Johnsons’s infamous tweet.

    Like

  79. Daisy – My only ‘tone policing’ is to comment that when making criticisms of others, you don’t sin. That’s it. It’s simply no-one is exempt from Jesus’ strictures echoed by the apostles on refraining from foul or malicious language or unfounded accusations.

    You don’t have to be genteel and demure if you don’t want to – you can say exactly what you like. But you can’t then complain at what Phil Johnson says or the way he says it.

    To the extent this is a turf war between American celebrity evangelicals and so-called watchbloggers where you are expected to take sides, I don’t think either side gives a monkey’s about the victim, she is merely the occasion to argue. Johnson’s approach to say C J Mahaney is nothing to do with this tweet, yet it gets brought up because there are those who want to have a go a Johnson for this. It’s taken on a life of its own, starting out as a harsh tweet and growing into shaming the victim and how awful MacArthur is.

    From what I have read, the victim in this instance is ‘still in a relationship’ with the perpetrator, so I can’t imagine is bothered by what Phil Johnson says nor his detractors.

    Like

  80. “Reviling, injuring another’s reputation by denigrating, abusive insults.”

    I’m not hiding behind anything, KAS. Slander has a real meaning in this culture and as you can see, I teach law for a living. If something is true, an honest opinion based on the facts at hand, then it is neither slander in the legal sense nor the Biblical sense, and if the truth denigrates someone’s reputation, then it should be said and it is not slander. Otherwise, Jesus committed slander with great regularity, as did Paul when he opposed Peter to his face, or James, John, etc., etc. etc.

    Or KAS, would you prefer it if we referred to Phil Johnson as a “snake”, “son of a snake”, “whitewashed tomb”, “son of hell”, “blind guide”? Or when Paul referred to abusive evangelists mockingly as “superapostles”, and literally comparing them to Satan. Are those denigrating? Insults? Was the reputation of the subject injured?

    I guess Paul and Peter were slanderers by your definition. I guess your main problem here is with Jesus, and I’ll just leave it to you to work that out.

    Liked by 2 people

  81. “You just prefer beating around the bush rather than come right out and say what you think and mean.”

    This is precisely true. Have watched KAS for some time now. He loves to dance around, always has. Either he’s: 1). a committed troll simply attempting to infuriate, 2). he thinks he’s clever but isn’t quite capable of pulling it off, or 3). fundamentally a dishonest person who, like C.S. Lewis described in Mere Christianity, is the sort who is always shifting the field and playing games and probably just isn’t worth engaging.

    Liked by 3 people

  82. Johnson’s approach to say C J Mahaney is nothing to do with this tweet, yet it gets brought up because there are those who want to have a go a Johnson for this.

    Were you thinking of my comment (on the other thread)? If so…

    Excuse me, KAS, but you were the one who opened the door to that. On that thread, you claimed (without proof of any kind, btw) that Johnson “obviously abhors abuse when it occurs”. I decided to rebut that, by demonstrating how it is far from obvious that Phil Johnson cares about victims of abuse. Actually, it seems quite plain to me that he cares nothing about those who suffered under Mahaney’s tenure at SGM, not even when they were camped right outside the venue where he was speaking.

    And yes, I think Johnson’s callousness to the SGM victims has everything to do with his tweet mocking a victim of domestic abuse. To me, it shows a pattern of indifference and contempt towards those who suffer. And that pattern shows through not just with Johnson, but with MacArthur and plenty of others. (My thanks to Tim Fall for highlighting a very recent example from MacArthur himself.)

    From what I have read, the victim in this instance is ‘still in a relationship’ with the perpetrator, so I can’t imagine is bothered by what Phil Johnson says nor his detractors.

    Of course not. She’s struggling to survive, trapped in a horrific situation and apparently with no idea how to get out. No, she has no idea how callous Johnson was towards her plight, and I doubt she would care. She has more important, immediate problems. That doesn’t mean he was right to make that tweet, or that we’re wrong to call him out.

    In a sense, you’re right that this isn’t about her feelings — at least, that’s not what’s foremost on my mind. It’s about those who are actually under the care of a pastor like Phil Johnson. Who are likely to receive, in person, exactly the same contemptuous attitude if they ever seek his counsel regarding sexual or domestic abuse. These are people that he could really hurt, and it’s important to warn him (and those who might trust him) before he does.

    Liked by 3 people

  83. Meanwhile, Johnson is still busy tweeting out his message of “grace”. The latest is understandable — more of the same. But in a prior one he retweets a Doug Wilson tweet, and he and Fred anticipate “the usual band of screeching busybodies.” Really I hope no one responds there. But my problem is– I figure Wilson is mocking a woman in his tweet, but I don’t “get” the supposed joke. Maybe someone can explain without making it worse.

    Liked by 2 people

  84. I don’t understand why these folks get so upset when they are tweeting on a public platform with gazillions of followers. If someone had hacked into their private e-mail account, I’d get the pushback. But, if you want to interact with the public, be ready to interact!

    Liked by 2 people

  85. “My dad did drink alcohol, and one one occasion did hit me several timesover the head with a broom stick. (I’m not making that up.)” – KAS

    Hi KAS,

    So would you say that your father had a drinking problem? Or he was an alcoholic?

    I’m sorry he hit you with the broomstick over the head. That’s terrible.

    My point was not about Phil Johnson at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. My point was about you and how you handle life. You have ‘no talk rules’, try to silence others, have bad boundaries (people with good, healthy boundaries let other people have their say and don’t have the need to shut down conversations), and you lack respect for other people.

    In case no one has ever suggested it to you before, please think about going to some Adult Child of Alcoholics meetings and/or Al-Anon meetings. (A good therapist for one-on-one sessions can also be helpful along with group work.)

    As they say about the family of drinkers, they don’t ever have to pick up a drink to have taken on the characteristics of the drinker.

    Thanks for the honest discussion and your transparency with me.

    Like

  86. Velour: To prevent anything getting out of hand, let me explain my family history.

    My father brewed his own cider. He never once got drunk, never even got tipsy. But unlike so many Baptists, he wasn’t completely teetotal.

    He did indeed hit me over the head with a broomstick: I was wearing, at his request, a World War 2 tin helmet designed to stop shrapnel separating you from your brains during the battle of Britain</&i>. It didn’t hurt a bit.

    Now doesn’t that put the whole thing in a different light?

    If I’m honest, I was getting annoyed at your guessing my ‘problem’ and the implications of your comments about my family. I hope rather than getting annoyed with me in turn, you take a minute to reflect on this. Jumping to wrong conclusions based on inadequate evidence. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data! (Sherlock Holmes)

    I hope you will forgive me if you feel I have been underhanded with you, but I have not said anything that, strictly speaking, is untrue. You are seeing someone, or something that isn’t there. Perhaps I remind you of someone else. I don’t come from a dysfunctional family, quite the reverse, and I am not trying to silence anyone. I have no desire to. If it matters.

    I know people do suffer from such families and treatment, I could give you a name or two, and this is no attempt whatsoever to make light of that.

    I appreciate the concern you have shown thinking the worst even though, I suspect, you don’t exactly like me. I hope you will re-direct it to where it is needed, heaven knows there are enough people around who do.

    Like

  87. Serving Kids in Japan

    My comments on Johnson and SGM/Mahaney were based on a link from a link posted here. I think he is entitled to withhold judgment on Mahaney’s guilt, and was right to oppose him being a speaker at TGC 2014(?) in the light of the allegations made against him. Johnson is absolutely right to stand for the presumption of innocence, a right and privilege being eaten away at by Internet ‘trials’ which tend to assume guilt.

    I briefly read around some of the tweets and disputes. I don’t know whether his ‘heart’ is really being revealed here, I only know one close friend who worked with Johnson for a while and who thought he lived out his Christianity in private when he told me about this.

    Johnson does seem aware of the potential hardness of heart his tweet could appear to show, and he is entitled to his opinion of what is actually going on, and whether the woman concerned here is a victim and serial-enabler of abuse or not. I’m not sure his critics have made much effort to read the news reports on the incident, he may be right on that.

    Even if he did apologise, if the response to Frank Turk’s repentance is anything to go by he wouldn’t be believed anyway. Despite that, I wish he would and enable the whole thing to be put to bed.

    Like

  88. KAS said,

    (Part 1a.)
    Daisy – My only ‘tone policing’ is to comment that when making criticisms of others, you don’t sin. That’s it. It’s simply no-one is exempt from Jesus’ strictures echoed by the apostles on refraining from foul or malicious language or unfounded accusations.

    (Part 1b)
    You don’t have to be genteel and demure if you don’t want to – you can say exactly what you like. But you can’t then complain at what Phil Johnson says or the way he says it.

    Addressing Part 1a:

    You need to stop the Tone Policing. You’re not being heard on this blog when you do it, as I said above.

    Jesus regularly chewed out his opponents in very strong terms.

    From Matt 23, Jesus speaking to the religious leaders:

    “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

    There is a time and a place for this sort of thing.

    To be consistent, you’d have to tell Jesus himself,
    “You don’t have to be genteel and demure if you don’t want to – you can say exactly what you like. But you can’t then complain at what Phil Johnson says or the way he says it.”

    As to Point 1b.
    What we’re doing int his blog is reacting to the damage and hubris initiated by guys like Phil Johnson (who publicly claim to be Christians) – we’re not instigating anything.

    I am not out there on Twitter willy-nilly insulting PJ or other Christian celebrities.

    Phil Johnson puts out a nasty tweet where he’s victim-blaming and mocking a woman who is being abused by her partner, and a normal, compassionate person is going to be outraged by that and may likely cuss, scream, yell, and throw tables across a room.

    Phil started it. Not us.

    If PJ doesn’t want folks insulting him and cussing him out online, or saying nasty things, he needs to stop publicly saying cruel or insensitive things on his Twitter about things like women who are being abused by their spouses. That’s on him, not on anyone who is responding to him.

    I am not the one on Twitter who is ridiculing or mocking DV victims, KAS.
    That would be Phil Johnson doing that.

    And anyone who ridicules or mocks a DV victim for being a DV victim is a P.O.S. (go Google it if you’re not familiar. I’d be delighted to type it all out and use even more crude put-downs of dirt bags such as Johnson, but due to the high Christian readership of this blog, I’ll censor myself a bit).

    Yep, P.J. is a P.O.S., and a really big stinking pile of one at that. Nope, not gonna be genteel and demure about it.

    Old Phil brought that reaction from me on himself, by his actions and disgusting attitudes. He needs to take personal responsibility for his public commentary.

    You’re totally off mark and in error to condescendingly lecture anyone for how they react to dirt bag behavior from Christians who are behaving like dirt bags in public.

    Like

  89. KAS said,

    To the extent this is a turf war between American celebrity evangelicals and so-called watchbloggers where you are expected to take sides, I don’t think either side gives a monkey’s about the victim, she is merely the occasion to argue

    Oh so wrong.

    I genuinely care about the victims of domestic violence, and I am infuriated to see “Christians” such as you and Phil Johnson who either ridicule or victim-blame women who are being abused by their spouses or boyfriends, especially when it’s incredibly obvious to me you’ve not read so much as one article by an expert on DV (Domestic Violence) about DV.

    I come from a family where my sister was a DV victim, and so was my Mom (by way of her father, my grandfather) and her Mom before her as well.

    The toxic teachings of “Christian Gender Complementarianism” played a role in some of that abuse in my family.

    So, I have some personal stake in this. It’s not just an abstract or intellectual exercise for me.

    Like

  90. KAS said,

    From what I have read, the victim in this instance is ‘still in a relationship’ with the perpetrator, so I can’t imagine is bothered by what Phil Johnson says nor his detractors.

    As I said above, you need to start reading up on abusive relationship dynamics, because you don’t understand how or why women stay with abusive men, that is pretty obvious.

    You seem to be implying in your comment that because the woman has stayed with the abuser, she’s not really being abused, or, she’s complicit in her own abuse, and/or she must feel okay with being abused.

    If you read books and blog posts by domestic abuse experts, they explain why women stay with abusers, and it’s not because they like the abuse, invite it, are “okay” with it, or are to blame for it, etc.

    Like

  91. KAS said,

    Johnson’s approach to say C J Mahaney is nothing to do with this tweet, yet it gets brought up because there are those who want to have a go a Johnson for this.
    It’s taken on a life of its own, starting out as a harsh tweet and growing into shaming the victim and how awful MacArthur is.

    Sometimes an original topic is brought up in the OP (Original Post), and those in the comment box see similarities between the issue or persons discussed in the OP and previous, similar stories, issues, or persons.

    There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Phil Johnson (and his tweet) which were the initial topics of this post, personally reminds reminds me of all sorts of other self-professing Christian slime-balls out there who mistreat people and/or who spew toxic teachings that have hurt people, such as Mark Driscoll, Frank Turk, Doug Wilson, and a million others.

    It’s okay to note similarities and to see how so many of these Wolves in Sheeps’ clothing operate.

    There’s a meta-level from which to consider all this and analyze it, rather than focusing only on one individual or story at a time. People have a tendency to notice patterns.

    P. Johnson is getting rightly dressed down for an insensitive Tweet he made about Domestic Violence.

    Well, John Piper is known for his moronic, weird, or insensitive Tweets, too. Nothing wrong with bringing Piper up in this context, either.

    I don’t think you care at all about victims, KAS.
    God knows you never show any emotion – anger, compassion, or sadness on their behalf – or by dressing down those who say or write insensitive things about them or to them.

    My gut feeling is that you just like to harass or aggravate folks who post to blogs such as this one.

    I figure either you’re a troll, or, in all seriousness (yes, I’m serious, this is not some ad hominem attack), I wonder if you may have a severe case of _Asperger syndrome_,
    and therefore and don’t know how to properly socialize with others and are (ironically) incapable of reading tone / emotion as well as social settings and interactions.

    In the future I may scroll past your comments and not read them, if I can.

    It’s sometimes hard in a blog-like format to skip past a comment you don’t want to read.

    Liked by 1 person

  92. I’d also like to make this other observation or two…

    KAS said,

    To the extent this is a turf war between American celebrity evangelicals and so-called watchbloggers where you are expected to take sides, I don’t think either side gives a monkey’s about the victim, she is merely the occasion to argue …

    A lot of people who visit and post to a blog like this one are in a raw place.

    We (I would include myself) have been hurt before by churches, Christian teaching, and/or Christians.

    So it’s quite understandable you’re going to see a lot of fury, outrage, and critical commentary in the comments section, and to see it directed at various public Christian figures (such as preachers).

    There is something very wrong with the contemporary church. More and more people have been dropping out of churches in America and are referred to as being “Nones” or “Dones” in various studies and polls that cover this.

    A lot of people do not want to be known as “Christian” but as “spiritual,” or they identify themselves as “None” on religious surveys when asked “what religion or church do you belong to.”

    These “Nones” are seeing how guys like Phil Johnson (self-professing Christians) behave, and they reason to themselves, “If P.J. is what passes for a Christian, a guy who mocks victims, I don’t want anything to do with Christianity.” (And I don’t blame them)

    We have at least one self-professing atheist who visits this blog, Carmen. (Carmen are you there?)
    I’m not sure how she’d react, but I would be willing to bet she’d be more willing to empathize with us in our outrage over P.J. mocking a DV victim than with P.J. himself.

    If anything would turn Carmen away from Christianity, I’d say it would be more likely PJ’s mocking Tweet, not those of us here in the comments box criticizing said Tweet. (Carmen may correct me if I’m wrong).

    The vibe I’ve gotten from other atheists on other sites, and some atheists have said so, is they are turned off to Christianity in part due to behavior such as Johnson’s in his Tweet, and NOT BY people or Christians who strongly push back against Johnson or Johnson’s attitude.

    It’s interesting and sad to me that intellectually honest, open-minded atheists grasp what we’re doing here in the comments on this blog (or on other “watch blogs”), but you, who I assume professes Christ, do not grasp it.

    A lot of the pastors in churches today are the false teachers and wolves Jesus and Apostle Paul warned Christians about.
    The false teachers and pastors are greedy, selfish, and more concerned about fame, and money, or sexually exploiting women, than they are in helping people or teaching about Jesus.

    That should make you outraged, not complacent or concerned with appearances.

    That should make you infuriated, not hold this mentality that,
    “We should be nicer when critiquing false teachers and/or Christians such as PJ who are behaving very rudely or insensitively towards victims, and treat guys such as PJ with kid gloves and speak to them in soft, gentle tones.”

    Like

  93. Velour, I get the point you’re trying to make about conversational style and silencing tactics.

    I think KAS is playing deliberately obtuse about your point.

    KAS doesn’t like for anyone here to discuss problems in the church, or to discuss problematic pastors or famous Christians who are behaving badly, but if they insist upon doing so, they must, he feels, only do so in a “KAS-approved way” (with lots of meekness, showing no anger and not using strong language).

    Oh. Is KAS aware that a lot of Watch Blogs, like this one, attract Non-Christians?
    Some Non-Christians have much more lax rules and ideas of behavior and language than most Christians.

    They’re not going to be up to “KAS-standards Of Genteel Talking,” or as into “Conservative Christian Demure Conversational Styles.” And don’t think they should necessarily be expected to, depending on other factors.

    KAS further equates (in a post to me, above) that lashing out in anger over awful comments by someone else to be just as bad as the original nasty comment that caused offense…

    A view with which I don’t completely agree, and not at all in the specific case of a Christian guy who has publicly ridiculed a Domestic Violence victim on his Twitter page.

    Anyway, there were similar dynamics in my family, in controlling how the family interacted and what we were allowed or not allowed to discuss.

    My mother was very codependent. She came from an alcoholic family – her dad would get drunk and beat her and her Mom (my grandmother) up on occasion.

    If KAS is reading this post, he needs to keep reading…
    I suspect that is one big reason my mother behaved as she did when I was growing up: she raised me to believe any and all conflict is bad, to be avoided, and it’s “wrong” for anyone (but especially for Christians. and above all .Christian females) to show or express anger.

    I was taught to brush problems under the rug, don’t deal with the “elephant in the room.”
    Any time my two older siblings (when they were teens) would try to argue things out with Mom (as teens do – like to stay out past their curfew on a Friday night), Mom would start to cry quite easily.
    If my father was there when this sort of thing happened, he’d tell the siblings to, “Leave your mother alone, you’re making your mother cry.” So all conversation would halt instantly.

    So, we (my siblings and I) learned from that sort of dynamic as we were growing up, the message we got, is that one should not argue on one’s behalf for anything. Do not speak up and say what you really need or think, because it may upset someone, some where.

    We were not allowed to have boundaries or test them out growing up, not with Mom (or with other people), because Mom would start to cry, and Dad would yell at us.

    Plus, our Mom taught us, and role-modeled for us, that having boundaries and speaking up to assert one’s views, needs, or beliefs was not loving or “Jesus-like.”

    If we absolutely had to speak up on our behalf, our Mother (like KAS)
    -wanted us to be super wishy-washy, indirect, and genteel about it, and,
    -Above all, Mom taught us, do NOT hurt the feelings of the other person, even if the person in question was being highly verbally abusive, rude, or mean,
    -and even when or if the abuser instigated the abuse or fight and we were just responding to what the other started.

    It looks like KAS may have a similar mindset to that of my mother.

    The Bible actually instructs its readers not to live in that manner (“let your yes be yes, your no be no,” “go and speak directly to your brother if he has wrong you,” “don’t let the sun go down on your anger” etc.), but KAS is defending an indirect or wishy-washy method of communication.

    There is a time and place to be very kind and respectful in discourse, but there’s (as even the Bible teaches) a time and place to speak forcefully, strongly, and even harshly, even if doing so comes across as looking “rude,” or makes folks like KAS uncomfortable.

    You have to take this stuff on a case-by-case basis.
    So many Christians, especially evangelicals, want a list of hard and fast rules to live by. They don’t want to stop and think and make decisions.

    (Just look at the stupid “Billy Graham Rule,” as but one example. It makes me want to puke that some of the folks on the other blog have been defending BGR).

    Liked by 2 people

  94. Just found this page after a moment of web surfing (the page contains a minimum amount of “adult” language but is worth the read):

    Silencing Tactics and You

    Four Common Silencing Tactics

    Tone Policing

    I think most people are familiar with this one, but just in case you aren’t: this is the one where you’re too angry, shrill, or mean. Where if you were just a little bit nicer that people might listen to you. The way you spoke is given over the substance of your message. Too often, the focus becomes your emotion and not your content.

    It is not possible to say difficult or uncomfortable things in a way that will be quiet enough or nice enough for people inclined to police your tone.

    The ultimate goal of this strategy is to redirect and refocus the conversation in such a way to silence the speaker. It also suggests that people distance themselves from their emotions–and yet being able to do that is, in and of itself, a privilege.

    Calls for civility and calm are nearly always disingenuous attempts to control the conversation.

    Being able to consider a subject a “debate” or being able to play “devil’s advocate” is also a sure sign of privilege and incoming tone policing.

    On that page, see also:
    Moving the Goalposts

    Like

  95. Please please Daisy, forget I exist. Very little of what I have posted has you in mind. Put it out of your mind, ignore it, think about something else, substitute something you find positive that will bless you.

    Like

  96. KAS, the only “slander” I see is the 3-day-old carp that you keep spewing

    I’m not going to rise to the bait.

    Like

  97. Yesterday I listened to an interesting podcast by Dr. Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101. If you don’t know him, he used to be a Calvinist. He has a ministry now of refuting Calvinism, and is (of course) hated by Calvinists such as Phil Johnson, JD Hall and James White, because of it.
    Anyway.
    In yesterday’s podcast here https://www.facebook.com/soteriology101/posts/2271803073045022 Dr. Flowers mentioned that Calvinism appeals to young, scholarly, outspoken men, which is probably why when you say “Calvinist”, that type of person instantly comes to mind. And ironically, these men are lacking in the very GRACE that Calvinism is supposed to be famous for.
    Another thing.
    Dr. Flowers said that because Calvinism appeals to those types, it’s possible to agree with the Calvinistic theology and not be saved. After all, isn’t the mark of a Christian, that we’d be known by our LOVE, as well as display the Fruits of the Spirit? So many of these Calvinist leaders do not display love, or the Spiritual fruit, so it’s fair, that while we aren’t supposed to judge the salvation of another, to at least ask, “are they even saved?”

    Like

  98. Christina, I highly recommend Leighton Flowers stance on soteriology and that site, there is also a professor that comments there that is very good, Brian Wagner.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. Hi Q,

    Yes, I’ve listened in to a few of Dr. Flower’s podcasts. I love how he remains humble in the face of so much Calvinistic arrogance and opposition. I’d have lost my cool a long time ago. He really is a model of grace to be emulated.

    Like

  100. Christina – to say Johnson or White ‘hate’ Flowers is a bit over the top, isn’t it? White has worked with Michael Brown, even though the latter is both Arminian and sensible charismatic. They disagree with each other.

    Some people – like me – drift into Calvinism as a reaction to a sentimental, weak God propagated by so much modern evanglicalism. I was never entirely happy with it, and have ‘drifted’ out of it again. I spoke recently with an old friend who used to work with John MacArthur for a while, and he has made an almost identical journey.

    He found the attitude and language used to describe charismatics at the Strange Fire conference too hard to take and resigned from GTY. It was, to use the expression I’m being given grief for, slanderous, or if that is not quite exact, expressed contempt if not malice. You cannot reach people that way, all they see is the rudeness and will ignore what might be legitimate criticism.

    I have allowed that constituency to rob me of some of God’s blessing for too long now. My friend said he still respects MacArthur, whom he said is much more gracious when you meet him personally as is Phil Johnson, but he was tired of being the ‘frozen chosen’, and having a God who was not so very loving, gracious and approachable. That kind of Calvinism produces a kind of hardness, it’s too cerebral and sees everything too black and white.

    My own trip out of it was occasioned by the long-term attitude problem I saw at Team Pyro, and realising some biblical passages just don’t make much sense if you insist on putting a calvinist grid over them, for example, the Hebrews warning passages, and Rom 9 – 11.

    It’s certainly true that not all calvinists display a hardness of heart – I’ve met charismatic calvinists for whom the doctrines of grace really had produced a gracious heart, I think because they had also been filled with the Spirit.

    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