After spending over two weeks in a medically induced coma, on Saturday, May 4, 2019, Rachel Held Evans passed away. She leaves behind a husband and two small children to wrestle grief that I cannot begin to comprehend. Many expressed sadness and shock at the unexpected turn of her young life as news began to spread that morning.
As quickly as the those who mourned her loss spoke, so did those who expressed their warnings of her lost life. Pulpit and Pen led the charge by posting two articles within hours of her passing. The first, “How Do we Respond to the Death of an Apostate? The Untimely passing of Rachel Held Evans” in one breath notes Rachel was an apostate and the fate of her soul is very clear:
In that light, how do we respond when a person like this passes into eternity, by all biblically reasonable accounts, apart from the saving blood and knowledge of the true and holy only begotten Son of the living God?
We should certainly not shrink from the realities that such a situation confronts us with. Only God Himself can pass final judgement on a human soul, however He has given us His word whereby we are to declare His revealed mind on all things, including the standards by which yes, we ARE to judge the state of others when it is this clear according to the evidence their life has shown us.
And in the next breath offers insincere condolences:
It is in the spirit of both of these biblical principles that Pulpit and Pen expresses it’s sorrow and regret at the passing of Rachel Held Evans. Both for the loss of her soul and for the unbiblical and further soul damning treatment that her already tragic death will inevitably give occasion to.
In the second article, “Heretical Author, Rachel Held Evans, Dead at Age 37” reminds readers that Rachel’s loved ones cannot mourn with hope:
Rachel Held Evans was a heretic. While she was not a professional theologian or clergy person, her influential writings no doubt led many sinners astray or, at the very least, provided false assurance to those living in sin that they stood justified before God. The Lord takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. The death of Rachel Held Evans is not an occasion for joy but for mourning. We should be in serious prayer for her family and loved ones, who have to mourn without assurance that they mourn with hope.
And tells readers to learn something out Rachel’s passing:
It’s very likely that the Christian readers of this article know at least one person a lot like Evans. As a fellow evangelical native Tennesseean, I know I do. Let’s take the time, while they are still with us, to provide a gospel witness to our doubting and erring friends and family members.
Instead of offering compassion and empathy to Rachel’s family, Pulpit and Pen declared her to be an apostate and heretic (something they already have done) and sent a very strong message that they know she is in hell. They could have simply said, “While we did not agree with Rachel’s theological beliefs, we offer our sincere condolences.” That would have been the kind thing to do.
Pulpit and Pen’s message carried over on their Facebook page where readers commented with blessed assurance that Rachel was learning that God is a man and in fact was not saved. An attempt to reason with a commentor left me banned from the page.
Thankfully, Pulpit and Pen received lots of push back. Wade Burleson wrote an excellent piece. This led to JD Hall doubling down today with “Rachel Held Evans and the Rightness of Post-Mortem Discernment“:
Pulpit & Pen ran two articles over the weekend about Rachel Held Evans, one by Greg Smith and one by Seth Dunn. Both pointed out that (this is my paraphrase) she was an apostate, is probably in hell, that we should mourn the loss of her soul, and pray for her family.
And,
Some of the Survivor Blog women with whom Evans’ feminism resonated so well, sent me messages asking us to refrain from commenting for the time being. They were already too late with their request at the time of publication.
Well, thanks for trying, Julie Anne.
Essentially, this is nothing but spiritual bullying by people who think their “truth” is the only truth. And, if you don’t believe this truth, then you question God and the Bible. Never mind that there is a wide depth to Christian practices. If you don’t believe this way, then you are a heretic and apostate, and will face the same soul-damning fate. There is a reason why Pulpit and Pen chose to place the word “polemic” in their tag line. Their spirit resonates this word so well.
My heart remains heavy for those wounded by leaders whose arrogance use the Bible as a weapon to harm instead of to heal. I’ve been on the receiving end of that arrogance and it is not pleasant. The Bible is God’s story of redemption, salvation, and freedom from oppression. It’s not a story of slavery and damnation. The gospel is the hope that comes from the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, not the torment of a fiery pit of hell.
In the end, I understand where Pulpit and Pen is coming from. I don’t agree with them, but I understand because they have stated before their thoughts on Rachel Held Evans. This time, what hit the hardest was the timing of the articles which showed a lack of respect to those grieving the loss of a loved one. I don’t think JD Hall and the writers at Pulpit and Pen can understand this because their theology is more important. At this, all I can say is that empathy and compassion goes a lot farther than condemnation.
Ecclesiates 3: 1 – 8
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Mark – re the tone policing thing (which is getting boring). Jesus told us we will give account for our speech, Paul instructed the Ephesians in avoiding profanity, James wrote a whole chapter on the damage the tongue can do. Were they tone policing, or setting standards of speech Christians should aim to follow in their lives?
My objection to Hall was the timing and content of his piece. If he had used profanity, I would have stopped listening. That would tell me more about him than the person being critiqued. Legitimate criticism of celebrity or bullying pastors containing profanity or nastiness will result in those who need to stop following/funding them not listening, and I would contend that for this reason those who advocate saying what the expletive expletive expletive/course joke/hell they like about them don’t actually care about the damage such pastors are doing.
Tell the truth, unvarnished and tell it bluntly. But don’t use your tongue to curse.
It’s interesting that when the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit, the first thing he did was get hold of their speech. And it does not say ‘they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to swear and curse’!
LikeLike
Mark (again!) – I’ve found my comment on RHE which was addressed to Fred Butler some years ago. (His attitude rankled.) I’ll get back on some of the things I think her theology etc was off later when I have a minute.
“I’m afraid I think you may be being a bit uncharitable towards RHE. I read her piece ‘The Real Evangelical Disaster’ and had to agree with her statement “Start preaching the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord and Caesar is not”. There is a very real danger of lining up the bible with a particular political philosophy or economic view – whether of the right or the left, and this can do great damage to the Christian cause, particularly if that philosophy sanctions economic exploitation.
Political programs are never going to bring in the kingdom of God on earth, everyone probably agrees on that, but they are also most unlikely to spread Christian values and ethics in a society that has largely rejected them.
RHE might think she is going to be salt and light by her govt involvement.
Now you don’t need to tell me how off RHE is in her theology and ideas. She is sadly imo a case study in what 1 Tim 2 was intended to prevent. She doesn’t understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, there is clear deception here, the very thing Paul warned against. The salt has lost its savour.
But even with her, I am a bit wary of judging whether she is a Christian but in deception, or not really a Christian at all. She has put herself in the limelight and her blog should be subject to discernment as with anything else in the Christian scene, but I’m not sure her political affiliation has much to do with how she stands before God.
I wish someone who has her ear would get her to take seriously the warning in Heb 3 : 12 (Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God).”
I still think this was fair comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, “She doesn’t understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God”
And the likes of P&P are who get to decide what unrighteous is? Does SGM decide what unrighteous is?
I think your comment could have been just as easily applied to Jesus. Isn’t that exactly what the Pharisees meant when he was hanging out with Samaritans, sinners and tax collectors? While I believe that LGBTQ is an unrighteous lifestyle, I’m not going to be the first one to throw a stone because I know what is in my own heart. Jesus knew the unrighteousness of the woman at the well, and he offered her living water. Jesus knew the unrighteousness of the Pharisees and he offered them Hell. Are you really on the right side of this equation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
With respect to tone policing. What I’m saying is that you listened to P&P and understood the point – the argument he/they were trying to make. You refuse to hear the arguments from victims here because you don’t like certain words they use. That is classic tone policing, meaning that whether you listen or not has more to do with your acceptance or rejection of the person than the arguments or the content of speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read a thing once that said anger often results in truth telling. If you can’t listen to people who are angry, you are going to miss truth.
But I mostly think tone policing is used to pick and choose what and who to listen to. If I were going off nasty tones, I would never read a word from the P&P crew, profanity or not their words are dripping with venom. It is a very strange way of defining ‘tone’ if you simply pick words you don’t like and ignore content.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you know? KAS just had to weigh in with his ‘not a REAL Christian’ comment – what an asshat, just like the ones at P & P. Do you know how many ‘Nones’ you are creating with crap like that, KAS?? (The P & P crew doesn’t seem to realize it either)
Oh, and by the way. Thanks for demonstrating that it takes compassion and kindness to be a nice person; being a christian obviously isn’t a prerequisite.
LikeLike
Carmen wrote: What do you know?
I am about to tell you.
KAS just had to weigh in with his ‘not a REAL Christian’ comment
In the context of this sad thread, which is about Rachel Evans and P&P, I have stated that I do not think it right to pronounce her an apostate, nor to make a judgement on whether she was a Christian or not, where she stands in this regard. Furthermore, this has been a consistent position for some years now.
Not only so, but when this same nonsense was brought up earlier, I specifically pointed this out:
The earlier comment: If a person says she is a Christian but does not agree with all of J D Hall’s, KAS’, (or insert name of whatever other conservative Christian here), that person is said to be apostates or un-saved.
But KAS had said, quote: I have, incidentally, argued with a well-know blogger (several years ago) against declaring RHE an apostate, and thereby assuming to know where she stood before God. Unquote.
what an asshat, just like the ones at P & P
I don’t agree with P&P. Obviously.
Disagreement with someone, including me, is fine. Making up or assuming something and criticising it is being a bit of a … I think you can supply a suitable epithet. The exchange rate for the truth is a lie. A crassly insensitive pastor has weighed in where a husband has lost a wife and children their mother. I don’t find making snarky comments about me very fitting. It’s not about me.
LikeLike
KAS quote,
— start —
Mark – re the tone policing thing (which is getting boring). Jesus told us we will give account for our speech,
— end —
You keep doing it. If you’d stop doing it, people would stop calling you out for it.
And Mark is right – you are hypocritical about WHEN you Tone Police.
You give MEN you agree with a pass on the tone of their commentary so long as you agree with their theology.
That is a double standard.
Jesus did not Tone Police people.
When they came to him hurting or angry, he listened to the substance of their comments.
He didn’t tell them to talk more nicely when stating their views or concerns.
LikeLike
You are partly right in your response, KAS. I went to the blog site this morning and your comment was the first one (I missed that there were earlier comments). Since I missed your other comments, I jumped to conclusions too quickly. For that, I apologize.
However, your comments still have that, “MY interpretation is the correct interpretation (of scripture)”, to which I immediately react; not always diplomatically. I think it was Daisy who pointed out (in earlier comments, which I have now perused) the wide-ranging interpretations of scripture, which keeps most people from relying too heavily on their own to pass judgement on others.
It seems to me that the only reaction to the passing of a lovely young woman like RHE should be, “What a complete tragedy”.
LikeLike
KAS, “My line then, and it doesn’t change because she has now died, was that she had gone into very serious error, more than enough to make you question her original salvation.”
“I have, incidentally, argued with a well-know blogger (several years ago) against declaring RHE an apostate, and thereby assuming to know where she stood before God.”
Where exactly is your line there? You’re just arguing against people so presumptuous as to connect the two dots you drew?
“She doesn’t understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God”
You sound just like the scribes and the Pharisees.
LikeLike
indeed mark.
Says X.
Asserts that he would never say X.
I suppose he’s saying you can ‘question’ her salvation but not ‘declare’ her apostate when the only decent thing to do right now is grieve for her family and leave it be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Years ago I had a wise pastor who never assumed he knew where a person ended up when they died. During the funeral, he concentrated on the hope of Christ and paid attention to the living.
LikeLike
I supposed there is a line between strongly hinting and actually stating… at least in terms of the Evangelical do without doing dance.
Reminds me of someone else…
LikeLike
@Mark:
Tone Policing is a WEAPON, nothing more.
When the Other is right and you are wrong, force the issue into HIS Tone, HIS Perceived Attitudes, HIS hidden-agenda, and Semantics to discredit the Other and force him on the defensive. While he’s defending himself, he isn’t attacking you and you have breathing room for your next attack. This also sidetracks any debate onto Semantics and “What’s YOUR Problem” hidden motives where you now have a home-field advantage. (Twirl those pens!)
LikeLike
KAS quote:
“My line then, and it doesn’t change because she has now died, was that she had gone into very serious error, more than enough to make you question her original salvation.”
—end quote–
What are those “serious errors?”
Please cite examples for us.
The only “serious error” that can cause one to go to Hell upon death, the Bible says, is rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Being “Pro LGBT” or ant-Complementarianism, as RHE was (and I suspect that is what you think her “serious errors” were) are not criteria to send someone to Hell.
The Bible says it is sin is what sends people to Hell, not belief in Q, R, X, or Z, or not holding theological belief Y or G.
So, KAS, please cite for us when and where RHE ever said she rejected Jesus as Savior?
LikeLike
KAS said,
“She doesn’t understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God”
—end quote—
Jesus said, “Who is good but God?”
People in Old Testament days could be considered “righteous” if they followed the rules, had faith in God, e.g., Job. That was in the days prior before the Cross.
But the Bible also goes on to say nobody is truly righteous.
All people are sinners.
The Bible says that is why humanity needs a Savior. Duh.
If someone accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, Jesus’ righteousness then covers that person’s sins, EVEN IF that person rejects complementarianism and your other, pet, favored doctrines.
LikeLike
HUG said,
Tone Policing is a WEAPON, nothing more.
When the Other is right and you are wrong, force the issue into HIS Tone, HIS Perceived Attitudes, HIS hidden-agenda, and Semantics to discredit the Other and force him on the defensive.
While he’s defending himself, he isn’t attacking you and you have breathing room for your next attack. This also sidetracks any debate onto Semantics and “What’s YOUR Problem” hidden motives where you now have a home-field advantage. (Twirl those pens!)
—end quote-
And yet, KAS does it repeatedly, and it’s very tiresome,
AND he has the audacity to say it’s “boring” for us to point out that he does it.
Easy solution, KAS – stop doing it!
LikeLike
BTW, about any time Julie Anne or Kathi makes a new post here along the lines of
“Pastor Rat Face Today Did Thus And So Obnoxious Thing,”
and I see “KAS” pop up under “Last Comments By”
on this blog’s home page…
I already know, nine out of ten times, before I even click to read it…
That KAS’s post is going to be in support of Pastor Rat Face…
And I also know before even reading KAS post he will be scolding us all in a patronizing Tone Policing manner at us in the comments box,
that we are being too “mean” in how we discuss Rev. Rat Face…
…and, KAS will say that we should state our complaints about the good Rev. Rat Face in a more genteel fashion.
But, KAS will say even though Rev Rat Face may be a dastardly weasel, there is never- the- less a wonderful, huge grain of salt of Truth in Rat Face’s theology, so we should really give Rat Face a break.
Then, one of us (usually Mark) will call KAS out for defending the Rat Face (there is no defending what Rat Face said or did),
and KAS will claim he’s not defending Rat Face,
… even though he’s gone on to make ten more posts defending Rat Face.
LikeLike
Carmen: “Since I missed your other comments, I jumped to conclusions too quickly. For that, I apologize”.
I quite happily accept the apology. I didn’t want to overreact, but having words put in your mouth by those who don’t read what you say on their own admission – there is one person in particular who does this – does get a bit wearing. Claiming you have said the opposite even more so! I’ve done the quoted claim versus what I actually said (But KAS said ….) several times to see if it would stick; it never seems to!
Carmen “MY [KAS’] interpretation is the correct interpretation (of scripture)”, to which I immediately react; not always diplomatically”
Anybody giving an interpretation will by definition think they are right, or they wouldn’t give it, but I defy you to find anywhere where I claim my interpretation or understanding is always correct or remotely infallible. I’m not the pope posting ex cathedra!
If I refer to the bible I either quote it verbatim or closely paraphrase, and you can decide for yourself if any comment on it makes sense or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Daisy’s point was that, with so many different interpretations on a single passage, how could anyone be right – about anything in the Bible? Please remember, KAS, that MEN wrote the Bible – different men, in different times, with different translations, and many portions intentionally taken out over time. You must know by now that I do not share your reverence for anything written in it. Perhaps it has also crossed your mind that the men at P & P are arguing every bit as vociferously – from the same text – that they are right in their toxic interpretation and their suggestions about RHE are staunchly defended as being the correct ones. A sad commentary as to the minds of the indoctrinated. What a mentally unfit ‘team’ to be on. 😦
LikeLike
Mark – since you’ve asked twice. But I’d prefer to keep this if possible more general rather than personal to an individual.
It is reasonable to wonder if someone is drifting away from the faith when they start affirming that being LGBT etc in practice is compatible with being a Christian. The few I have read bothered by the direction RHE was going in have seen this as a line being crossed. It is certainly going into deception.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Come on Mark, I quoted this verbatim regarding RHE above, it’s not remotely sounding like a scribe or pharisee. It’s Paul, speaking as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do not be deceived; Doesn’t need interpreting, and you don’t need to know the Greek – and what follows is a list of things not to be deceived about:
neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It is a serious error to start inverting righteousness as God defines it in scripture with unrighteousness. To claim he has changed his mind or we have moved on. To exchange truth for a lie. It’s not justified because sections of the evangelical church have loused it up so often.
The Corinthians had been (past tense) guilty of these things. There is no hint they could carry on with them as a way of life. There is widespread deception that God condones these things in believers, including immoral pastors.
What would Jesus say to the Jen Hatmakers or Jory Micahs who are denying this? I would suggest Remember Lot’s wife. What kind of society did Lot escape from, and what kind of judgement occurred when his wife hankered to remain in it? Cf Luke 17.
Starting to pray to God as mother is imo idolatry. I’d be too scared to do this. Not because God is male, but Christianity is a revealed religion, and we are not to change it. It is to drift from the faith delivered to the saints.
What about Christians following the world down the ‘white male privilege’ road? Critical theory and victimhood? Becoming woke instead of waking up. Following a leftish secular agenda. Needs to be kept out of the church. Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
What about those who are effectively denying the reality of sin, or at least reinterpreting the bible to remove some of them? RHE seemed to me to be ambiguous on this. (A British blogger wondered this.)
What about mocking the bible? The bible is not God, but it is the word of God, and God is not mocked without consequences.
Do these things mean someone is in deception? Yes. Does it mean they are apostate? I think only God can know that, it is not our job to judge, but it is right to discern and warn against. It’s an observable phenomenon that those who go down this direction do indeed sometimes end up in complete apostacy. Does persistence in such beliefs mean someone is not saved or forfeiting their salvation? Again, in the end only God alone knows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL @ Daisy – “Pastor Rat Face” has a nice ring to it
LikeLike
I think you miss my point. if “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” then who will?
How do you approach salvation? By first getting people to clean up their acts so that they can be good enough to be saved? That’s what you seem to be saying. If no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God, then why do we reach out to them with the gospel? If no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God, then why reach out to the guy sitting on the curb with a bottle in his hand? Why have prison ministry if no immoral, or thief or robber will inherit the kingdom of God?
Legalists put the cart before the horse. They say, God can’t save a lesbian. She must first turn from her lesbianism, so that she is somehow able to be saved. But, that’s backward. God loves the lesbian and offers her a new life – one where she has the Holy Spirit to help her work through sin.
Maybe Paul is big on sexual purity, and that’s okay, but look at what Jesus rails against. It’s domineering, spiritual abuse, hypocrisy. I think those should hold equal or greater weight since we follow Jesus first, not Paul. So, why does the Evangelical church turn a blind eye to those sins, which are rampant throughout the church, and instead focus on trying to exclude people who are “sinners”?
The SBC knowingly protected child molesters and put them in positions of church leadership, while at the same time taking a hard stand against LGBTQ even becoming members. SGM told members whose children were molested not to cooperate with police investigations. SGM lawyers advised pastors not to report molestation despite the fact they were mandatory reporters. And your theology says that guys like CJ Mahaney should be presumed to be on the path to Heaven while people like RHE should be presumed apostate?
LikeLike
And I can quote scripture, too. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
LikeLike
Mark – I think you miss my point. if “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” then who will?
I am starting to suspect you are willfully misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’ve answered this already: The Corinthians had been (past tense) guilty of these things. There is no hint they could carry on with them as a way of life. If you want the quotation:
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
You can stay in your sin, or you can have the Lord Jesus Christ and his salvation: you can’t have both. But it is good news: you can be forgiven anything and everything – except unbelief.
Whilst on this theme it is noticeable that those caving in on this issue do so after disobeying Paul’s earlier instruction:
But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber — not even to eat with such a one.
You can understand that, when thinking of immoral or verbally abusive (‘reviler’) pastors as an instruction to leave their church. Avoid their company. If that’s their way of life, get out!
I would question the salvation of such abusers, with the same proviso in the end God is judge as to where they really stand.
I don’t know whether the SBC is trying to obey Paul on not fellowshipping with those whose lifestyle is antithetical to the gospel or whether they are trying to keep ‘the wrong sort of people’ out.
This putting Paul against Jesus is simply theological liberalism. Paul is rooted in both the gospels and the Old Testament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re still missing my point. I’m saying that this is what the church (and you) are doing, but they are picking and choosing even within Paul. They embrace the reviler and reject the homosexual. They embrace the greedy, but reject the drunkard. They embrace the child molester, but reject the molested child. They embrace the abuser, but reject the victim. They embrace the powerful, but reject the powerless.
While I agree with Paul, I think you are missing many things:
1) You are making righteousness a prerequisite for salvation. That is a rejection of the gospel and agreement with the Pharisees. Jesus came to heal the sick, not the (self-)righteous.
2) By doing so, you are watching the coats of the people who are disrespecting and hating certain classes of people, who are still made in the image of God, people for whom Jesus died to save, and people who should be respected and loved.
3) By claiming salvation while rejecting it for “sinners” you are essentially claiming that YOUR sins are not so heinous in the eyes of God than THEIR sins. Yet, Jesus spoke love to the adulterers, tax collectors and Samaritans while speaking hatred to the religious elite.
4) By cutting off the gospel for people with “THOSE” sins, you are also hardening your own heart towards the work of the Holy Spirit. Your sins are covered and forgiven, but they are still sins. You will probably die with unconfessed sins, and even sin patterns that you hold on to. By judging that homosexuality is an “unforgivable” sin pattern, you are making light of the very sins that you still cling onto, because they aren’t that bad.
Didn’t Jesus claim this over the Pharisees?
“Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts. To do righteousness and justice Is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice. Haughty eyes and a proud heart, The lamp of the wicked, is sin.” (Prov. 21:2-4)
LikeLike
Mark said, “They (the c’hurch organization) embrace the reviler and reject the homosexual, They embrace the greedy, but reject the drunkard. They embrace the child molester, but reject the molested child. They embrace the abuser but reject the victim. They embrace the powerful, but reject the powerless.”
Well said Mark. I believe these facts should be written on parchment and nailed to the doors of every c’hurch building that was ever built, brick by brick, mortar by mortar;. Your paragraph is the bread and butter of the institutional c’hurches that love the doctrines of men, thus are losing ground within visible evangelicalism.
Many a “reviler” is actually a pastor man leading up his own following of whom he really cares nothing about, yet adores the worship and praise, and the cushy living/income/benefits of all those “little people” he looks down upon. Many a narcissistic personality loves the religious titles and the praise of man, non-gender inclusive. These individuals never do “anything wrong/sin,” and they are always “right,” going to extremes to prove their opponents wrong.
How many of us have heard sermons from the “jesus knowing pastor man- after all, they are the first to tell you how much they “love” jesus, railing against homosexuals, and later, are “caught” in sexual sins of their own….pornography, having affairs with the women they counsel, destroying the marriages of women they counsel to have them all to themselves, lusting/flirting with the “pretty women” in their congregations, showing “obvious favor” towards those women they “like,” etc. BUT, damn those homosexuals for they are an easy target and a diversion tactic against their own sexual sins……….and little to no repentance from the pastor man when they are “caught” in their immorality. Oh no, the “spiritual leadership” takes up a collection begging for money to buy the pastor man a “motorcycle.” Not kidding here.
So we are to now embrace the pastor men who say that Rachel went to hell because of her false doctrines. Does that mean I am going to hell as well, because I do not follow the ‘comp view’ of the Scriptures, nor do I sit under or worship a pastor man, reverend, pope, priest, elder board, deacon or any other religiously titled and entitled person?
Since coming out of the harlot c’hurch system, the Holy Spirit has led many of us into more truth than we received sitting under the vipers whom Jesus called out in His day. One of me best friends in high school was a homosexual; I learned this long after he graduated and knew that he was “different somehow,” but wasn’t familiar with homosexuality at the time. My friend was kind, loving, very well liked and respected by his peers, talented, and just a great guy to be around. Us gals loved being around him as he never made the “moves” on us, nor tried to “get in our pants on group dates.” He was literally safe to be around, unlike the conservative pastor’s son I once had a date with…….he wanted sex on the first date and I said “NO WAY! Is that what you expect from the nice gals you choose to go on a date with? Seriously?!!!?” This was a “Pastor man’s “son.” He never asked me out on a date again……the answer would have “NO, are you INSANE?”
When c’hurches call out certain sins, and yet neglect the important things of Jesus Christ, you shall know what totalitarian legalism looks like and how it sucks the “life blood” out of the individual, all the while living the hypocrisy and double standards secretly hidden behind closed doors. When the Baptist c’hurch pastor man and his leadership minions protect the rapist, and call the victim “whore, slut, drunkard,” (as experienced in me former abusive baptist c’hurc) then you shall know that every kind of sin/unrighteousness that Jesus hates, lives inside of that c’hurch building, and that you must “come out of her – harlot c’hurch.”
Mark, you nailed it! Blessings to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen said
I think Daisy’s point was that, with so many different interpretations on a single passage, how could anyone be right – about anything in the Bible? Please remember, KAS, that MEN wrote the Bible – different men, in different times, with different translations, and many portions intentionally taken out over time. You must know by now that I do not share your reverence for anything written in it. Perhaps it has also crossed your mind that the men at P & P are arguing every bit as vociferously – from the same text – that they are right in their toxic interpretation and their suggestions about RHE are staunchly defended as being the correct ones. A sad commentary as to the minds of the indoctrinated. What a mentally unfit ‘team’ to be on. 😦
— end quote —
Yes. There are many different (valid) ways of interpreting the Bible,
and of interpreting different verses / stories, etc., who is to say which is the correct one?
Even conservatives disagree with other conservatives on how the Bible or certain topics within the Bible should be understood, it’s not a purely Liberal Vs. Conservative issue!
Christians cannot even agree on the most BASIC of doctrine on the Bible’s central them, about being a sinner in need of a Savior.
They cannot agree on who gets saved, is salvation permanent (can it be lost), how does God go about saving (the nuts and bolts of it). I could go on and on.
So KAS, J D Hall, and guys like them, have a lot of nerve condescendingly proclaiming who and who is not saved, or to imply someone is not saved,
and all because the person has this or that doctrinal position or opinion on how to understand this or that Bible verse!
Link to You Tube channel below –
-If I recall correctly the guy behind this You Tube channel was a Christian for many years,
but he noticed that Christians cannot agree on anything in the Bible,
and he became Agnostic as a result:
_Christian Diversity_ -on You Tube
KAS should read this:
_Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant_
– (link on Experimental Theology blog)
Excerpt from that page (the entire page is good):
— start —
People who claim to literally interpret the inspired and inerrant Word of God do not agree on what the bible says.
Christian Smith calls this “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” And this pervasive interpretive pluralism isn’t just found among progressives and liberals. It is found among evangelicals and fundamentalists, among the very people who claim that they are reading the bible very, very literally. Pervasive interpretive pluralism exists among biblical literalists.
Which brings us to the problem at the heart of Protestantism.
The problem at the heart of Protestantism is that the bible is unable to produce consensus. This isn’t a theological claim. This is an empirical fact.
—end–
LikeLike
Correction of my last post,
“the Bible’s central them” – should be THEME, not “them”
DAVID M. SHERE said,
LOL @ Daisy – “Pastor Rat Face” has a nice ring to it
–end quote-
And you can always count on KAS to defend Pastor Rat Face in the comments box. 🙂
There’s also Pastor Weasel Face, Pastor Dirt Bag, etc.
Julie Anne has covered them all at one time or another, and there is KAS -and guys like him- in the comments telling us all to be Nice about that Pastor.
LikeLike
Mark said to KAS,
I think you miss my point. if “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” then who will?
…Maybe Paul is big on sexual purity, and that’s okay, but look at what Jesus rails against. It’s domineering, spiritual abuse, hypocrisy.
— end quotes–
The Bible says belief in Jesus is the only thing necessary for salvation.
The Bible does not say that intellectual assent or agreement with sexual purity, complementarianism, or whatever else are necessary ingredients.
Also. KAS is adding to the Gospel if he’s teaching people they must make themselves Sinless before they can be saved.
The Bible says only Jesus can make people sinless, if they accept him as Savior.
The Apostle Paul chewed out people in the New Testament who added ANYTHING to the Gospel (Gospel = belief in / acceptance of Jesus as Savior).
The Jewish believers back then were telling the Gentiles they had to be circumcised, avoid eating ham sandwiches, etc, if they wanted to be saved. They were adding steps and rules to the Gospel, and that immensely ticked Paul off.
KAS is doing the same thing in regards to other behaviors, beliefs, and rules.
LikeLike
Mark said,
— start quote —
“They embrace the reviler and reject the homosexual, They embrace the greedy, but reject the drunkard. They embrace the child molester, but reject the molested child. They embrace the abuser but reject the victim. They embrace the powerful, but reject the powerless.”
— end quote–
Dee at the other blog has long pointed out that the SBC (and other churches) will embrace, cover up, and protect known pedophiles or wife beaters in their midst
but de-fellowship any of their churches that permits a woman preacher.
Clearly, their priorities are terribly messed up.
LikeLike
In the BIble, Jesus was shown constantly correcting the Pharisees for them placing “correct doctrine” above the welfare of people.
That is what KAS and J D Hall are doing, placing doctrine above people.
Jesus healed people on the Sabbath and got yelled at by the Pharisees for doing so,
Because the Pharisees taught it was “correct doctrine” to not help people on the Sabbath, because it would be “work,”
and they assumed that “no work on Sabbath” meant or included “do not help sick people.”
And, Jesus pointed out, the Pharisees did not even always have their doctrine correct,
they had twisted what God had meant in the Old Testament to mean its opposite.
Why are you doing what the Pharisees did, KAS, the thing that Jesus corrected them on?
Instead of healing on the Sabbath, with you, it is if someone is pro gender egalitartian or pro LGBT.
You, KAS (and J D Hall), have simply swapped out one so-called “correct doctrine” litmus test for another one.
LikeLike
Carmen – I think Daisy’s point was that, with so many different interpretations on a single passage, how could anyone be right – about anything in the Bible?
I think there is more agreement on the content of the bible than you might think, especially in the essentials as summed up in the creeds. I’ve been in various broadly evangelical churches and it was the same faith expressed in different ways. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things in there hard to understand, and of course the amount of effort put in to acquire knowledge of it varies, as does intellect and maturity. But I think ‘three Christians, four opinions’ is over the top.
The usual argument about interpretation in my experience is because people have found something in it they don’t like or don’t want to do. Added to this are false teachers who bring in destructive false teaching and practice.
I came out of the sort of liberal theology (give or take) that RHE was going into.
I have never lived in a country which had what you would designate as fundamentalists.
There comes a point when you have jettisoned so much of the bible what you are in is no longer recognisable as authentically Christian. There is nothing new in this.
When you start taking the bible seriously, you’d be surprised at what can start happening!
It is the bible that imo acts as a restraint on what P & P are saying. They are correct in trying to expose error, but both their timing and especially judging where someone else stands before God do not seem to me to have biblical sanction. It points its finger at all of us to see where we stand, rather than others.
I’m not on the same team as P & P. I don’t as a rule read them. I didn’t agree with their kind of approach to RHE 3 or 4 years ago, and I don’t now.
[Regarding Daisy’s opinion, I now generally avoid interacting with her. If you want to know what I think, read me – her opinions are usually fantasy. You will see this in the posts following yours above if you care to, she’s still trying to tie me in with P & P and as a defender of abusers. I’m not going to react to this, as RHE’s sad death and the need to confront Hall will be forgotten – and I don’t need to insult your intelligence by spelling out where the focus of attention will shift.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS – “The usual argument about interpretation in my experience is because people have found something in it they don’t like or don’t want to do.”
That’s the classical Evangelical argument. That’s where the pastor says it’s okay to slam Christians who have studied the Bible and found different interpretations because they are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”.
For Evangelical pastors, preaching the gospel is about shame and guilt. That is, we cannot interact with an unbeliever without constantly reminding them of their shame and guilt before God. That is the definition of love. The street preacher who pronounces shame and guilt and Hell is really deeply loving those around him. If my relationship with a “sinner” is not primarily one of reminding him of guilt and shame, then I’m not “salty” enough. If I have an actual friendship with a nonbeliever that doesn’t have conversion as its central driving purpose, then I’m disobedient.
That’s much of my guess as to why RHE is being labeled all sorts of things – she saw the outcasts as people – people worthy of love and of rights and even people worthy of the offer of the gospel, and because of that, the Evangelical machine declared her liberal and a heretic. Just as the Pharisees did with Jesus!
How many pastors have you seen found guilty of domineering? Do you think that domineering maybe a truth pastors “suppress in unrighteousness”? If you believe they do that, don’t you think that there might be a common system of authoritarian doctrine that is a “suppression of truth in unrighteousness”?
LikeLike
Mark 1 – They [institutional church] embrace the reviler and reject the homosexual. They embrace the greedy, but reject the drunkard.
I don’t know what sort of churches you have been around, but for me Paul’s list – which is not exhaustive obviously – simply defines sin, rebellion against God. There is no possibility of choosing between them as far as I am concerned, and nobody is guilty of all of them.
One thing I liked about RHE was that she rattled the cage of the US Evangelical establishment. Clearly got to them, you could tell. Significantly overweight pastors berating the immoral – such pastors should perhaps also be looking at how much control they exercise over their food intake (gluttony?) before condemning others for their sexual lack of control.
Fine as far as it went, but she went on imo to totally undermine her own critique.
You [KAS] are making righteousness a prerequisite for salvation.
Where on earth are you getting this from? That’s cart before horse. There was an old song that started “Jesus take me as I am – I can come no other way … “. That’s how everyone enters the kingdom. You cannot do otherwise, you cannot clean up your life first. That would be salvation by works of law. ‘The vilest offender who truly believes that moment from Jesus a pardon receives’.
This ought to have been abundantly clear from the reference to the thief on the cross. If I believed what you claim, I would be obligated to claim the thief couldn’t possibly be saved, because he had no opportunity to clean his life up. But I said he was the first man justified by faith. Which means it wasn’t by works! The rest of what you said following this consequently doesn’t follow.
I think you are seeing scribes and pharisees lurking behind every bush.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark 2 – For Evangelical pastors, preaching the gospel is about shame and guilt.
No, it isn’t, that would only be part of it, that is the bad news, but the gospel is good news concerning forgiveness, reconciliation, eternal life, grace …… But you can’t embrace this if you don’t see your need for it. Most of the rest of what you said doesn’t follow as far as I am concerned.
In fact I have been taught precisely the opposite. Just make friends with unbelievers without trying to convert them. Do good, be helpful. Good neighbours. Have a laugh. Do your job well and don’t pilfer. Then they might, as opportunity presents itself, listen to you when it comes to Christian things.
How many pastors have you seen found guilty of domineering?
None.
That doesn’t mean it never happens, but often the problem is with a control freak or someone with an agenda or member of a longstanding ‘leading’ family within the congregation. It’s true that the shepherding/discipleship error was exported to the UK, but even there it was watered down. People were hurt in some cases, but it never really took root.
Out of the many ministers I have known or known about, the word domineering doesn’t come to mind. Some other things, yes ….
You are talking about a significantly different culture. For example, I have never heard any conservative evangelical denigrate women’s rights. Even where total depravity is actually taught, no-one would ever claim it continues after salvation. That’s nonsense. Denies the new birth. You are a new creation, albeit not yet made perfect.
Even where British evangelicals agree theologically with their US counterparts, US evangelicals seem to go off the deep end, or build a superstructure on a doctrine it won’t support. Taking it to an extreme.
The British scene is often the opposite of the American. If you want Laodicean lukewarmness complacency and compromise, the UK is the place to come for it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, then perhaps you are just blissfully ignorant of what is happening on this side of the pond. Virtually all the pastors I had and many elders could be convicted of domineering. Virtually all of them preach that Total Depravity continues after salvation. I can quote sermons where the pastor said that small groups are wrong because each person brings “their” interpretation of scripture to the group and not the “true” interpretation heard from the pulpit. Where the pastor said that if an elder confronted you with your sin, you must believe him because he is spiritually gifted to discern sin. There is a continual minimization of peoples intellect and discernment and a continual praising of “God’s gift to the church” leaders.
And that’s why I think that RHE is being called a heretic – primarily that she was part of a group (women) that could not possibly be able to discern truth in Evangelical eyes. Not because she didn’t hold to the gospel, but because she didn’t treat certain classes of people as beyond redemption. That’s what I thought you were trying to say re: Paul’s list of sins.
In the US, being in one of those classes, or at least the ones that Evangelicals are concerned about, you will be shunned by Christians. That has actually pushed me to the opposite side of many of the Evangelical agendas. I’m pro-life, but not when pro-life becomes and excuse to abuse and invade women. I’m for the death penalty, but not in a nation where justice is based on which race you are.
LikeLike
Speaking of Evangelicals and Paul, Franklin Graham has flip-flopped again. Apparently for Democrats, what happens in the bedroom is important, but Republicans… not so much. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/franklin-graham-and-the-high-cost-of-the-lost-evangelical-witness/
So, is Graham staunchly defending Paul, or is he looking to get “his” candidate in the office for more control and financial gain?
I think this is the sort of hypocrisy that RHE is calling out. As a flagship Evangelical minister, is Graham really opposed to adultery and homosexuality, or is he just opposed to it when it’s convenient?
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said,
– “The usual argument about interpretation in my experience is because people have found something in it they don’t like or don’t want to do.”
— end quote–
Like how complementarians don’t want to seriously wrestle with egalitarian books, web pages, etc, that supports egal and points out flaws in the comp position.
Because comp men want to have power and control over women.
But even putting that aside…
Sometimes well meaning Christians look at the same text and disagree.
Some Christians believe babies should be sprinkled with water, while Baptists say no, only adults who profess belief should be baptized, and at that, in a full tank of water (not a sprinkle).
One of my Christian friends is a “Mid Tribber” regarding the end of times.
Other Christians are “Pre Tribbers.”
So no, KAS, not all disagreement over intrepretation is due to people simply not liking a rule in the Bible and trying to weasel around it.
That may be true for some people or groups, but not all.
KAS, the problem remains.
People as equally conservative as you do look at the same Bible passages you do and arrive at a different interpretation.
And you all claim to take that Bible literally and to treat it with respect.
But you still arrive views that are totally at odds with one another.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy, I’m jumping past some of the other comments because this jumped out at me.
We don’t talk nearly enough about who is and is not ‘safe’ to be around. Physically. Emotionally. Sexually. Spiritually. I feel like the P&P types are not really safe, whereas a person like RHE would likely be quite safe. That’s important.
LikeLike
There was an article from Tim Keller in which he accused women who see an egalitarian viewpoint of being biased in favor of…their humanity or something. Because it is to their benefit to believe themselves equal. Then acknowledged that men might also be considered to be biased in their interpretations (which really moreso, since they don’t even try for equality but put themselves on top!), but that doesn’t count as bias. Or something. You’d think that would make him stop and think for a second but….nope.
LikeLike
It’s not a Kynge Jaymes Englyshe version of the Koran, dictated word-for-word from the very lips of God in one long session. Not a Spiritual Engineering Checklist.
It’s the Old Old Stories of ancient Jews encountering God, how they reacted, and what happened. Eventually edited into a somewhat coherence, with many interpretations in its original culture. And current Judaism encourages multiple interpretations — “here’s Rabbi A’s take on it; here’s Rabbi B’s, here’s Rabbi G’s…” NOT a single Word-for-Word Party Line.
LikeLike
@Daisy:
Don’t forget “Pan Tribber”:
“Don’t sweat the details, It’ll all pan out.”
LikeLike
I thought it would be nice to say something positive about US evangelicals.
With regard to the topic here, Denny Burk and a conference of CBMW had been praying for Evans at their conference (with a very obvious difference of views), Dr Michael Brown from the charismatic evangelical constituency was also very gracious towards her following her death, but without disguising differences, and I read some evangelical somewhere complaining at the lack of love being shown in some quarters – I suspect P & P, but I don’t think this was mentioned by name. It made him ashamed to be an evangelical if that’s what people are like.
John Stonestreet’s piece in CT was also good, and I think it a pity it was withdrawn, I didn’t see anything offensive in it. It is not insulting to someone’s memory to acknowledge real differences over non-trivial issues.
So the story is not all bad. It is possible to have very real disagreement with someone and still be gracious with it, and put aside these differences in the face of illness and untimely death.
LikeLike
Quoting:
… There is a huge difference between believing the Bible is God’s Word and interpreting the Bible as God’s Word.
None of us is God.
God doesn’t stutter when He speaks, but we’re often at a loss when we listen. “He that has ears to hear let him hear,” Jesus said. The problem is us, not God.
If I don’t think I can make a mistake in interpreting God’s Word, then I have a problem with pride. I’ve placed myself in the position of God, telling you that you better believe what I say. God doesn’t like pride, and pride will always lead to a personal fall.
That’s why we all better be humble about telling others what God is saying. We may actually be misunderstanding God’s Word. To believe God’s Word is infallible is a confession of faith in God and God’s Word. But to believe my interpretation of God’s Word is infallible is a confession of faith in myself and my abilities.
So Christians have a simple job as fallible people who follow Jesus Christ.
We are to always make sure we don’t confuse our interpretation with God’s inspiration.
_Source for the above_
LikeLike
KAS, “John Stonestreet’s piece in CT was also good, and I think it a pity it was withdrawn, I didn’t see anything offensive in it.”
Yes, I had a lot of respect for him in that, and he said that someone in the family was offended by something he said. When he read it, he understood why it could be seen as offensive and he decided it was best to take it down. I respect him even more for that – he could have explained the misunderstanding or apologized for their misinterpretation, but he respected the family’s wishes.
re: Daisy – “If I don’t think I can make a mistake in interpreting God’s Word, then I have a problem with pride.”
KAS, “neither the immoral…”
I do want to deal with this honestly. The fact that it is a prooftext just thrown out without context or explanation rubbed me the wrong way.
In one sense, God zaps all our sins away when we repent. We are justified declared legally innocent. Yet, we still have indwelling sin – the old man – the flesh, whatever. These are not in contradiction. So, in one sense, a person who is living a homosexual lifestyle and becomes a Christian may or may not repent of the homosexual lifestyle, but is still justified. Just as there are greedy, gluttonous, idolatrous Christians. They are justified, but not sanctified. Sanctification is a process by which we are continually convicted of our sins and brought to repentance and righteousness.
So, Evangelical hypocrisy says that greedy person or a proud person or gluttonous person or … can be a Christian, but a homosexual is living a lifestyle that is somehow incompatible with Christianity in a way that pride, greed and gluttony are not. Seriously?
So, on the one hand, I say, if homosexuals cannot be justified, then who can? On the other hand, if I say that someone cannot be simultaneously a Christian and a homosexual, with the expectation that the Holy Spirit will bring recognition and repentance for sin, then what hope is there for the proud, the authoritarian, the gluttonous?
I heard a story from a missionary couple. In India there was a new convert. When the missionaries visited him a month or two after he was saved, his house was full of idols. After the visit, they tried to figure out a way to suggest to him that it was not okay to have idols all over the house. A few days later, they came back to talk with him, and all the idols were gone. God had done the work himself.
LikeLike
Mark – yes, the immediate context of Paul’s declaration that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is an instruction not to use the law against fellow believers, even putting up with being defrauded (Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?). You can imagine the Corinthian reaction to this, and he then warns the unrighteous – including greedy and slanderers – won’t inherit. You can’t sin and get away with it.
Clearly there are large numbers in modern churches who don’t know this, and are deceived, which is why Paul warns against this. Unfortunately the issue of homosexuality is one of them, compromise and caving in to the surrounding culture all too often being the order of the day. This is certainly happening in the UK.
The ‘immoral’ would include predatory clergy abusers as not inheriting. Some consistency amongst evangelicals on this would be welcome.
When Paul says all those who formerly practiced such things have been justified and washed, this isn’t all NT says about this. It struck me there are other passages which detail the daily struggle to live this out, to get free of the grip of such things. Putting to death the old man. Not sinning that grace may abound … .
I’ve read what is to me legitimate criticism of the reaction to Evans’ death by her followers (Blaspheming St Rachel …). She was well on the road to compromise.
If you or anyone else wants the antidote to P & P, see Adrian Warnock’s piece (sorry he’s a Brit!), which contains quotations from her writing that ought to make anyone think twice before assigning her to unbelief and being lost:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2019/05/rachel-held-evans-is-with-jesus/
It’s long but worth reading. And look at the ugly face of American evangelicalism in the form of the first comment by Ed Dingess!
LikeLike
KAS, “Clearly there are large numbers in modern churches who don’t know this, and are deceived, which is why Paul warns against this. Unfortunately the issue of homosexuality is one of them, compromise and caving in to the surrounding culture all too often being the order of the day. This is certainly happening in the UK.”
I used to think all this stuff was obvious and then I started seeing articles about how certain words were translated differently, based on the context. An obvious one is “angel”. Angel means “messenger”, yet translators insert their own interpretation as to whether the messenger is human or supernatural. That generally is not a big deal, but sometimes leads to erroneous conclusions. For example, is John writing a letter to spiritual beings in Revelation? That’s what the translators seem to think – “to the ‘angel’ of the church at …. write”. Wonder what the postage cost!
That is just one interpretational difficulty. I’ve read some of the scholarship around this issue – from a scriptural inerrancy perspective, mind you, and while I’m not convinced, I don’t think the issue is quite a slam dunk. For example, in Genesis and Judges, are we to be more repulsed by the homosexuality, or by rape? Not surprisingly, the church has decided the former. Yet the commentary on Sodom is not about homosexuality: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.” (Ez. 16:49). There’s also an argument that “homosexuality” would be more akin to pedophilia in Greek society – that is, involving a lack of consent.
The arguments aren’t convincing to me, but they are still from a place of inerrancy and trying to understand what Paul meant based on the cultural context.
Where I think the problem lies is in picking one of Paul’s words against the others. Not that we should ignore homosexuality, but that we should extend the same grace as we do with the other sins, which are given the same emphasis. A church that accepts pedophiles, tax evaders and software pirates is welcomed, but a church that accepts homosexuals is “compromised”? Really?
LikeLike
Mark – Not being serious, do you think John writing to the ‘angels’ of the churches was a way of saying it was being sent by air mail? ….
It’s interesting that in the revisionist interpretation of the texts on homosexuality, they quote the verse in Ezekiel 16, but ignore the following verse: They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. Abominable is the same word used to describe a man who lies with a man as with a women in Leviticus. Something detestable in more modern English.
The Greek translation of Leviticus is I think the best explanation of where Paul coined the term translated ‘homosexual’ in very recent versions in 1 Cor 6. The RSV uses the less exact ‘sexual perverts’, which indicates at the time it was translated it would have been understood what was meant. The following term, malakoi, in my understanding refers to the effeminate, in modern parlance covering transgender. Men in soft raiment. But that is an interpretation and therefore not infallible but up for discussion.
Incidentally, the first person to be sacked, a female accountant, has recently occurred in the UK for not accepting a transgender ‘woman’ as actually being a woman. A tribunal will later have to decide whether this is in fact a sackable offence. Christians need to have really thought about where they stand on this, because standing by scripture on this is going to cost.
A church that accepts pedophiles, tax evaders and software pirates is welcomed, but a church that accepts homosexuals is “compromised”? Really?
No! I see the inconsistency you are getting at, something RHE also recognized and many an evangelical opponent of hers had no argument against but to shout her down for her failures, but I am reminded of Tozer on this that such churches are ‘no more churches than eleven dead men make a football team’.
If you deny the grace of God to forgive any set of sinners, you deny it to all.
LikeLike
KAS, “I see the inconsistency you are getting at”
That’s all I wanted. RHE was just calling out that sort of hypocrisy and trying to love the people the church felt beyond redemption.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RHE was a heretical reviler of God and his children who denied the power of Christ to deliver us from sin. She was a hateful, self-righteous hypocrite of leftist, statist thug, full of blaspheme and condescension. Unless she repented before she died, she is in hell, the same place her followers are headed unless they repent. Period.
LikeLike
Michael – I haven’t read much of her stuff, but I did see her interact on Twitter and she is nothing like you described. I think God is the one who determines who is in hell, not you. Take a chill pill.
LikeLike
Gee, what a sweetheart. I bet you’re a fun guy to be around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael said,
RHE was a heretical reviler of God and his children who denied the power of Christ to deliver us from sin. She was a hateful, self-righteous hypocrite of leftist, statist thug, full of blaspheme and condescension. Unless she repented before she died, she is in hell, the same place her followers are headed unless they repent. Period.
—end quote–
I didn’t agree with RHE on everything (I think she could’ve been a lot more charitable about people with differing political views from hers.), but she was 100% correct about complementarianism being un-biblical.
I can tell from your hateful attitude you’ve never been “truly saved.”
You need to repent. I think you may end up in Hell, Michael. Christ will say to you on judgement day, “I never knew you, depart from me.”
I don’t think RHE had “followers.” Most who agreed with her views would probably tell you they follow Jesus of Nazareth.
I bet Micahel is a “hit and run” poster.
These types of people like to drop in, leave one or two nasty posts, and you never hear from them again (or it’s pretty rare for them to come back and reply to any replies they have received).
LikeLike
Right Carmen? So glad that his view of religion has made him such a loving person!
LikeLiked by 1 person
cue – “You’ll Know We Are Christians By Our Love!”, Lea 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
ha!
Seriously, the moment you start being this mean about a total stranger who has done you no personal wrong is the moment you need to sit down and evaluate your thoughts and feelings on this point. Sometimes anger is truly justified (people who have hurt you, or others you love in a very personal way, for instance, might deserve such anger), but in this case it really doesn’t sound like it at all.
Religion can be a good thing, but it can also be a terrible thing. ‘The best lack all convictions while the worst are full of passionate intensity’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My late mother used to have a name for people like Michael-“god, Jr.”-self-appointed, of course.
LikeLike
Great comment Linn. Around these parts, we call them “god’s police force,” and they come out by the droves, like worm slithering out of their holes on a rainy day!
It appears that a host of “discerning complementarian/patriarchy ministries” have condemned RHE to hell and are “proud” of it. I can imagine a few scenes where the “religious folks” in the Scriptures were condemning Jesus to hell and secretly plotting His death, all the while He literally saw the state of their hearts and minds, and in some instances, He called them out on it.
I’m sure thankful that mankind is NOT in charge of Jesus’ Book of Life. Pretty sure He knows all of the names listed there. 🙂
LikeLike
Jesus told the woman at the well to sin no more. If some are going to say Jesus was angry at the Pharisees it did not mean he did not correct those lead astray He most certainly did on a regular basis. It’s not that people are angry at her points regarding feminism or homosexuals it’s last she doesn’t suggest repentance from sin but desires the churches to give special dispensation based basically on modern political and social viewpoints. Please allow stop making it sound as if your desire reasonable pragmatism and compromise. You desire victory and until that is achieved you will continue to label those who disagree with you as hate mongers
LikeLike
Jesus did NOT tell the woman at the well to sin no more.
He told the woman about to be stoned and was caught in adultery to sin no more, but not the woman at the well.
LikeLike