Doctrine as Idol, J.D. Hall, Pulpit & Pen blog, Spiritual Abuse, Spiritual Authority, Spiritual Bullies, Women and the Church

Response to Pulpit and Pen and the Death of Rachel Held Evans

-by Kathi

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.

My patience with wearing thin anyways….

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.

161 thoughts on “Response to Pulpit and Pen and the Death of Rachel Held Evans”

  1. Kathi, this is so good, and important. I’ve been going back and forth with JD for a while now. In fact, when I first heard of Rachel’s passing, I sent JD Hall a text shown here in this tweet.

    Like

  2. In my household, I’m the only one affected by this because nobody else has paid attention to the situation. I have a friend, however, who was going to take her daughter to see Sarah Bessey and Rachel at a conference.

    I’ve started two other responses and have felt lead to not submit them because they were too much opinion.

    Let’s just leave it at… “I mourn for the loss of Rachel as a prophet to the Christian world. I mourn for her husband’s loss. I mourn for the loss of a mother to two young children.”.

    With regards to the article, I guess being a pastor in some communities means you have the right to be a jerk.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I have just published a book called “Beyond the Grave: A Christian Dilemma.” In this book I say “I wanted to believe what my faith denomination said about heaven and hell, and I wanted to believe that the Christian faith knew what it was talking about. This was my first indication that it did not.” Christians believe everything from A to Z about heaven and hell, so how Pulpit and Pen can know anything is beyond me. Scholars don’t agree and have changed their minds down through the years. We are seeing God in a new way through people like Rachel Held Evans.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Thank-you for responding here at SSB to the loss of Rachel Evans and the sincere mourning and praying for her husband and family, friends, and all those who loved Rachel. It is so important for folks here, to show the true picture of what our Master, our LORD, our One and Only Pastor/Good Shepherd, and our Only Savior looks like to the world because the world is watching and taking careful notes.

    Kathi, and Julie Anne, appreciate you showing us what compassion and empathy looks like from a Biblical standard and are contending for the faith of the saints in doing so. When Jesus spoke of the “least of these,” this means Rachel’s family who are suffering deeply at the loss of their precious loved one.

    From a personal perspective, I have heard the name Rachel Held Evans, but never followed her teachings/books/conferences, so I did not know what she stood for, until yesterday when I did a little research via the internet. It appears that the patriarchal/complementarian (this word is not found in our Holy Scriptures and is anything BUT complementarian) police force of god’s ordained boot camp, literally hated Rachel Held Evans, for she apparently did not submit to these important religious folk’s teachings.

    I wonder what Jesus will have to say to all of these so called “men” on that very day when He decides of their eternal fate/destination….perhaps “you spoke of Me with your mouths, but your hearts/mind/soul were far, far against Me, depart from Me for you never knew Me.”

    I am observing more prayer, compassion, empathy, and true Christian love regarding Rachel’s family from the non-conservative, non-evangelical believers in Jesus Christ, than those who claim to know a jesus (of their own making) better than the rest of us.

    My sympathy, tears, love and prayers go out to Rachel’s husband, children, parents and extended family, and all of those who loved Rachel, during this long period of mourning. So, so very sorry.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Just read Wade Burleson’s post in responding to the hate mongers; brought me to my knees in tears and brings Glory to Jesus. Thank-you for referencing it here, for it gives all of us warnings to ponder.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I don’t think Pulpit and Pen and Blog and Mablog have a leg to stand on. For some reason, they’ve forgotten or ignored that Jesus’s hatred was directed at the Pharisees, who held the outward appearance of being righteous, yet used the Bible as a reason to do unspeakable evil.

    Having read Pulpit and Pen a few times and having seen the works of Doug Wilson, I think they are the ones deluded (I’m being charitable here) and heading towards destruction.

    I read a few things from RHE and while I think sitting on the roof is a bit far-fetched a reading of the OT law, underneath it was a very valid point, that so-called Evangelicals arbitrarily pick and choose what they want to obey in the Bible and ignore or diminish the rest.

    I remember when I was wrestling with certain doctrines how I would think ‘the Bible is abundantly clear’ when explaining one view, but then say ‘this has to be carefully interpreted’ when explaining another, and I realized that ‘careful interpretation’ was another name for explaining away. I remember how my church was “open to questioning and searching”, but it was only when the questioner took the pastoral answer as the gospel truth. I think people like Rachel are considered dangerous heretics simply because they do not buy into the Evangelical pastoral idolatry.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. It’s the Pulpiteers channeling God Himself.
    DID YOU REALLY EXPECT ANYTHING OTHER THAN GLOATING AND CROWING IN TRIUMPH FROM THESE F’ERS?

    Like

  8. @Shy1:

    If you think you’re the arbiter of who is and isn’t going to be welcomed into heaven, you most definitely aren’t.

    God is SOOOOOOO lucky to have Pulpit & Pen sitting at the right hand of the Great White Throne on J-Day, whispering in His ear like Grima Wormtongue about who’s REALLY Saved and who’s not…

    “ME SHEEP! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! …”

    Like

  9. Jordan/JD and I are still at it this morning on FB:

    Me: I understand everything you do/say is through the Calvinist viewpoint. I give you credit for consistency. I hope one day you have the opportunity to really examine Christ and His grace and truth through a different lens. Just remember – Biblical scholars have been debating these issues for years. You may not have it all right.

    JD: Julie Anne I’d doubt, if I were you, that I’ll view this through anything other than the lens of good theology.
    I went to leave a comment on Kathi’s post, but wasn’t signed in to wordpress. It was going to be, “This is an accurate assessment of our position…theology is more important.”

    Like

  10. The first, “How Do we Respond to the Death of an Apostate?

    This is the absolute worst. That site is the worst. They have terrible taste, opinions, and manners.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. 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

    Where is the citation where we are supposed to sit around judging people who have just died and telling the world our opinion???

    waiting

    Do they want to hear my opinion on the state of their souls? Because it ain’t good.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. RHE started writing not too long after we left church. I found her to be a breath of fresh air. Her thoughts were challenging and valid not only to the church, but to those who left the church. And, that’s where the problem is.

    Some within the church can’t stand to be challenged and it only makes them double down harder on their beliefs, no matter the cost. No worries, though, she had a greater impact on those who left the church and their beliefs because they took the time to reconsider faith and the Bible. Those who disagreed with her the strongest view the ones she impacted with the same lens. Their salvation is not secure because of their beliefs.

    And here is where my anger kicked in. The arrogance that has been displayed is appalling. The timing, mere hours after the announcement of her passing, felt like they were drafts that only needed to have the button pushed to post. Unfortunately P&P isn’t the only place where empathy and compassion is lacking. Lori Alexander offered the same on her FB page. If the tables were turned they would be telling a different story. Now, having been called out and asked to reconsider, there’s no going back. They’re in too deep so keep up the narrative.

    The impact by P&P has been done. Was it worth it to strengthen the resolve of those within their same belief system? Were they trying to reach those who are “lost?” If so, this was a poor attempt. My hope is that the writers will take the criticism seriously and step back to reevaluate their motives, intent, and impact.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. The problem is that Calvinist theology must be understood through the lens of the context of the day, just like the Bible. Calvin was a breath of fresh air to the heavily authoritarian Catholic doctrine. The church of the day said that the Priest and the civil magistrate must be blindly obeyed, because we mere mortals did not have the wherewithal to understand whether they asked us to sin or not. Calvin, on the other hand, said that we were not just free, but we were obligated to obey Christ rather than man. He explained people’s free moral agency. That said, it was just a stepping stone across the river to our actual freedom in Christ not to be spiritual and moral slaves of other men. Calvin was more right than his contemporaries, but he still missed that authority itself was bounded by God. It wasn’t until later, for example, that there needed to be a discussion between the authoritative bounds of the civil magistrate and the church.

    That said, the spiritually abusive wolves see Calvin, not as a light shining in the darkness, but as the pinnacle of Christian theology. That is, of course, because Calvin did not understand nor did he comment on the limits of authority, or abuse of any sort. Generations later, Westminster still acted as if the pastor had no authoritative bounds.

    So, Wilson/Jordan/JD see Calvinist theology much like my discussions with many Southerners. On the surface it sounds like honest concern about “states’ rights” and federalism gone awry, but at some point you get this creepy feeling that this is all just a smoke screen for justifying the perpetuation of their racial hatred.

    “Calvinism” and “good theology” are just smoke screens for justifying and perpetuating their desire to sit in the seat of the Antichrist. That is, to be honored and obeyed instead of Christ.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. JD “This is an accurate assessment of our position…theology is more important.”

    Mark’s bit about picking and choosing is right. They are all about Paul when they think he supports putting women down, but when he goes on a length rant about how love is more important than theology? Crickets.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Well said Julie Anne! I really came to admire her when she went up against D. Wilson re: the creepy quote, “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants, etc…”. I was bracing for the hateful comments but was dumbfounded how fast the comments came. Wow, their version or “right doctrine/belief” really trumps love of one another with this crowd. How they treat and think about those who disagree with them has been displayed very clearly. It’s an “us vs them”, “in vs out” mentality and they think they’ve figured it all out. They’re of course “in” and the elect. Wow, just SMH.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I was not a great fan of all things theological with Rachel Held Evans, but NO ONE has the right to decide where she is right now. That is for God alone. We don’t know what happens in that mysterious place between life and death when the soul is separated from the body. What we do is that Rachel left a husband and two small children who need our support and prayers.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Modern-day Pharisees have redefined important words and concepts. “Heresy” has become “any belief that does not fall within my narrow (Calvinist) perspective.” “Apostate” has become “anyone who questions my narrow perspective or dares to ask questions.” It will be a happy day when faithful followers of Jesus Christ rise up in large numbers and push back against this kind of rhetoric. It’s a shame that there are so many unqualified men (in a literal sense, males) who have such an innate need to judge those who dare to speak up (particularly women). I’m over being angry with the guys at Pulpit and Pen; I feel terribly sorry for them in their ignorance. May others see through it.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. JD “This is an accurate assessment of our position…theology is more important.”

    Purity of Ideology, Comrades.

    Like

  19. @Bystander:

    Modern-day Pharisees have redefined important words and concepts. “Heresy” has become “any belief that does not fall within my narrow (Calvinist) perspective.” “Apostate” has become “anyone who questions my narrow perspective or dares to ask questions.”

    My Dear Wormwood:

    I refer you to my previous epistle regarding Semantics, specifically the redefinition of the Enemy’s words into their “diabolical meanings”.

    Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
    Screwtape

    P.S. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the Enemy’s altar!

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Jule Anne, I’ve been reading your dialogue with JD Hall on Facebook. Kudos to you for your patience with somebody who frankly deserves repeated punching in the mouth, but there’s something far more fascinating at work here.

    To be blunt, in reading his responses to you it comes across like even JD doesn’t believe his own bulls##t. It is, quite frankly, comical. He’s afraid of his own nutjob apocalyptic conspiracy whacko in-group, and he has a stance to disseminate and a market share to prop up. That’s all this is.

    Like

  21. @HUG, Funny you mentioned that. I was thinking today about 1984 and “Newspeak” – with the idea that in Reformed/Evangelical churches, the main problem with the Pharisees is not spiritual abuse or domineering, but essentially revising the law incorrectly to make legal loopholes for themselves. How “grace” means discipline in one direction and forgiveness in the other. How “anger” is righteous in one direction and not in the other.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. David said: “He’s afraid of his own nutjob apocalyptic conspiracy whacko in-group, and he has a stance to disseminate and a market share to prop up. That’s all this is.”

    That’s actually quite funny, David.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Julie Anne – JD told you this morning that he wanted to comment on here, but wasn’t logged in. So, I’ll follow up with this:

    JD, I really do find your love of theology over a human being very sad, especially knowing that you are a pastor. I’m also curious about why you think it’s appropriate to call a woman a bulldyke. The only other pastor that I know who talks like this is Doug Wilson.

    I find your attitude toward people (in this case women) and choice of words confusing because I know that you have cared for abused women. In one breath you uphold women and in another breath you condemn women because they do not align with your theology.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. I’ve been so busy with my extended work schedule that I hadn’t heard of Rachel’s passing until reading this post How very terrible for her loved ones.
    I am sickened and disgusted at the lack of empathy from Pulpit and Pen. Such arrogance.

    Like

  25. P & P (Pulpit and Pen) quote:
    — start quote —
    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.
    — end quote —

    So, he’s saying that nobody can really know the person’s final destiny, but he goes ahead and takes a shot at it anyway.

    As far as I understand it, the Bible does teach that you can pretty much tell if someone is really “saved” or not – Jesus discusses it in his speech about good trees giving good fruit and so on. There are externals one can check to determine if someone is really saved or not – judge their behavior over time is one of them.

    But the thing that kills me here is this Complementarian Doofus is so sure of his interpretation of the Bible being correct, he’s basically equating it to the Gospel itself.

    I’m assuming that he may also be objecting to some of RHE’s other views? I think she was pro-LGBT? And/or she agreed with theistic evolution(?)

    As most Christians cannot agree with most other Christians on even the fundamentals of the Christian faith (such as who is saved, when, and how, and can a person lose his salvation), if I were Mr. P&P, I’d show a lot more humility over this issue.

    Other than flat-out denying the Christ and that Jesus is the Christ (and accept Christ as one’s Savior), I don’t recall the Bible saying that one has to hold correct doctrine on every topic to be saved?

    That is, I don’t recall the Bible saying, “If a person rejects the complementarian interpretation of the Bible, then one is un-saved and will go to Hell upon death.”

    Was RHE robbing banks, killing puppies for fun, and molesting children? I don’t think so. She professed Christ.

    That this P&P dude didn’t like some of RHE’s political or theological views does not mean she went to Hell when she died. The ego of that dude. The arrogance.

    I don’t agree with 100% of RHE’s views myself, but I don’t have any reason to believe she wasn’t “saved.”

    Like

  26. Re this comment by Kathi:

    — start quote —
    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.
    — end quote —

    The older I get, I tend to look more at behavior and how people treat people, vs what they claim, vs. what they say about themselves or their beliefs.

    The P&P guys can claim all live long day that they, and only they, have correct doctrine and everyone else is wrong… but…
    the Bible they appeal to also emphasizes love, and how people treat each other, and the Bible says showing kindness matters.

    The Apostle said (paraphrasing) something like to have doctrinal truth but to lack love is to be a clanging symbol – it is worth nothing.

    What I’m trying to say is I actually look at arrogant, overly judgmental people like the ones at P&P and think they are the “un-saved” ones.

    I think they will stand before Jesus on the judgement day and say,
    “But did we not write blog posts condemning progressives and RHE, and did we not defend correct doctrine as we understand it?,”
    and Jesus will reply to them, “Get away from me, I never knew you.”

    I don’t think it’s going to be RHE in Hell. I would expect P&P writers to be there instead.

    (And I’m not even a progressive saying this. I’ve been a conservative since youth.)

    Like

  27. P and P quote,

    — start quote —
    Some of the Survivor Blog women with whom Evans’ feminism resonated so well,…
    — end quote —

    I don’t go by the feminist label.
    But you know, the P and P sexism of complementarianism didn’t resonate with me at all.

    So I rejected it years ago, before I had ever heard of a RHE.

    Like

  28. Quoting Kathi,
    — start —
    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.
    — end —

    I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not.

    When I first heard that RHE had passed away, I did think to myself,
    “I bet one of the uber- conservative personalities or bloggers is going to use RHE’s death as an excuse to pass judgement on her, and say how awful her theology was and even imply that she’s in Hell”

    and that is exactly what happened.
    I just wasn’t sure who the culprit would be.

    Those types cannot resist using the death of a theological opponent to trash that person and that person’s views. It’s like moths to a flame.

    I blog about the issue of grief on a regular basis on my Daisy blog.

    As I’ve said here on this blog (and over at mine) for years now, 99% of Christians are abysmal and horrible at ministering to those in grief.
    (Like I discuss it in _this post_ in my blog, among other posts).

    The P&P guys should be offering words of encouragement and hope for the surviving family of RHE’s to see, instead, if they see the P-and-P post, it will compound their pain.
    I find what P-and-P has done appalling and a painful reminded of how Christians treated me after my mother’s passing years ago.

    Christians are great at doing that (compounding pain) when you are in grief over a loved one dying, how they love to pour salt into an already gaping wound.

    You will get everything but what you need from Christians when you’re in pain over the death of a loved one and instead get judgement, and/or platitudes, or other insensitive comments.

    (And what you need during your grief is non-judgmental emotional support, and perhaps help in the form of people bringing over casseroles, or mowing your lawn for you, and doing your dirty laundry – that kind of thing).

    Also on my Daisy blog:
    _Grief Support Gone Wrong: When You’re Beyond Second Chances_

    Like

  29. P.S.
    Where I said,
    “Those types cannot resist using the death of a theological opponent to trash that person and that person’s views. It’s like moths to a flame.”

    It’s sort of like every time a natural disaster happens in the USA, a tornado or flood hits and area and kills a bunch of people,
    your Christian spokes-heads and TV personalities, such as John Piper and Pat Robertson, have to immediately insert foot into mouth (or blog or podcast) by saying something like,

    “Yep, God sent that tornado to kill all the residents of Town X, because three months ago, Town X voted Yes on legalizing gay marriage.”

    They are so sure of themselves. I feel it’s very presumptive and haughty for any Christian to sit there and say, “With 100% certainty, I know all those people died in that flood / hurricane / tornado, because God was ticked ff at them.”

    No, you don’t know that for sure.
    The entire book of Job is one big lesson in “sometimes God permits bad stuff happen to good people.”

    Jesus also taught that in the NT – sometimes people die in accidents and natural calamity because we’re in a fallen world, not because God is like Zeus and striking down those with whom he is displeased.

    These guys need way more humility.

    Like

  30. Mark said,
    — start —
    Having read Pulpit and Pen a few times and having seen the works of Doug Wilson, I think they are the ones deluded (I’m being charitable here) and heading towards destruction.
    —end–

    Great minds think alike.
    I just said the same thing, but I wrote my post before seeing yours.
    I too doubt that Doug Wilson, P&P writers, and guys like them are saved.

    Like

  31. quoting JD Hall:
    — start —
    “This is an accurate assessment of our position…theology is more important.”
    — end —

    But that’s not what the Bible teaches, LOL!

    Quite the opposite.

    There were many times opponents of Jesus were putting correct doctrine before how they treated people, and Jesus told them they were in error for that behavior and mindset. Apostle Paul also touched on that subject in his epistles.

    Does J.D. Hall actually read the Bible, or has he ever read it?

    Like

  32. Something about Kathi’s May 7, 2019 at 7:45 AM post made me think of this:

    If J. D. Hall and Pals are Calvinists, there is really no room for them to complain about RHE, her behavior, or views, since they believe God predestined RHE to reject complementarianism and write against it, yes?

    Like

  33. My first reaction to this news was shock, followed by a gut-wrenching feeling that a husband and as it turns out two children have been left without a mother. Dying at 37 cannot but get to you.

    The second reaction was to have to consider the response of P & P and Hall. I couldn’t bring myself to actually read this, it’s not truth spoken in love, although in the end I did listen to him on youtube. He wasn’t quite as bad as I feared. One thing that you cannot miss is his belief that Evans is ‘now in hell’ or similar. It is not for us to make this judgement, we do not and cannot know in the end where any individual stands before God. It is to God that we will all give an account.

    I know Doug Wilson is hardly appreciated around here, but on this occasion he said something right: When someone like RHE dies, and the first thing that some among the orthodox want to do is score some doctrinal points off of it, this reveals that there is a rot within that orthodoxy. We often don’t know the spirit we are of. I wonder if this was intended for P & P and similar.

    There seem to be two kinds of doctrinal point scoring going on. Hall as above, which I think illegitimate. (If Hall died next week, it would also be wrong to speculate on his eternal destiny.)

    There is also an assumption that you can fall away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, yet all will be well in the end. A presumption on God’s grace and kindness. Whilst Evans was alive, I have read those who appealed to her to give up the road she was going down, which was more than just doctrinal disagreement, it was serious religious error, and be reconciled to God if in fact she wasn’t. This kind of judgement, discernment, was in order. We should all fear lest any of us go down that road.

    I don’t know where Evans stood before God, and nor does anyone else. An unbeliever or a believer gone astray? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right (or justice)? We can only trust that God, who does all things well, will be absolutely just with her.

    Like

  34. If you go to P&P’s Facebook page, the first thing you’ll notice is a Patreon button and P&P t-shirts, merch and podcasts for sale.These people are literal money-changers, profiting off of their doctrinal stance. They’re no better than Joel Osteen or Creflo Dollar or any of the other “prosperity gospel” nitwits. IT’S A CON. They’re using controversy to market themselves by being as nasty as possible.

    Now, this means that either Jordan Hall is very, very stupid and he’s incapable of seeing his own laughably obvious con-artistry, or else he’s so blitheringly evil that he’s literally demon-possessed and he’s sitting over there behind his computer with glowing eye-sockets and a forked tail and horns coming out of his forehead, rubbing his hands together counting his internet profits and cackling at all the morons who think he’s selling a legitimate doctrinal position.

    I think “Pulpit & Pen” should rebrand themselves as “Bullets & Bulls—.” It would be more honest, and I bet they’d make a thousand times as much money. They could offer a whole new flagship product, the “9mm Parabellum Bible: When Scriptural Authority Isn’t Enough and you just Have to Bust A Cap”

    Like

  35. you think it’s appropriate to call a woman a bulldyke.

    OMGoodness Kathi! JD did that?

    These people are just mean. That’s really all their is to it. Maybe (or Definitely) they don’t need to be pastors, they need to go to yoga or meditation or something and figure out a way to not be so angry.

    Like

  36. What is a “bulldyke?” I have never heard of that word before.
    I do know however, the “names” Jesus used for the religious leaders of His day and they weren’t to complementary either.

    Can someone enlighten me.

    Like

  37. Katy, it’s basically an ugly or masculine lesbian, is my understanding. Often used to shout down women someone disagrees with. So…basically misogyny.

    Like

  38. Lea – JD’s post starts off talking about Nadia Bolz-Weber:

    “As in her life, Rachel Held Evans was surrounded by heretics and applauded by apostates at her death. She was ‘anointed’ with oil in the hours before her passing by the self-professed “profane bulldyke” and mannish, self-graffitied, vulgar blasphemer, Nadia Bolz-Weber, who better personifies the Grim Reaper than perhaps anyone in a clerical collar. It’s hard to believe that anyone ushered into the world to come by Bolz-Weber would be ushered into the right world.”

    Let’s forget about the fact that JD doesn’t agree with NBW’s theology. I get that and that’s not the point at the moment.

    Let’s look at the fact that NBW was at least by RHE’s bedside before she passed, maybe even at her death. Again, instead of offering condolences to a person who lost a friend, he decides to rip her apart. And, states that RHE was not ushered into the “right world.”

    JD’s article starts off hitting hard. If his intent was to warn others about the fate of their soul if they believed like RHE, he started off on the wrong foot. All it suggests to me is that he’s playing to his audience of listeners. And, that was evident in the comments on the other articles (I haven’t looked at the comments on this one.). Here is where I have a hard time with theology trumping humanity. These articles all lacked common courtesy and decency when it comes to death and grieving because their “gospel” was more important. It really is a shame.

    Like

  39. Thank-you Lea…..it’s an ugly or masculine lesbian…..hmmmm, interesting. And so called “religious folks, like the ones to claim to know a jesus-like figure, are hurling those names/labels/insults/filthy lucre at others?

    Is calling a woman “bulldyke”, then, one of the bullet points of “biblical manhood?” And especially during a time like this, when a deeply sorrowful family should be comforted and loved, instead of mocked concerning their loved one.

    Perhaps those who stoop to these hellish word levels have had their consciences seared with a branding iron (I Timothy 4:2), so their souls are not impacted with the reality of what is right or wrong during a time like this. What a horrible, shameful word to call someone.

    Like

  40. Lea – JD’s post starts off talking about Nadia Bolz-Weber:

    Ah, the context is slightly different as she was ‘self described’? I can see how NBW would not be the sort of woman JD would approve of.

    But this is a very strange thing to say:

    “It’s hard to believe that anyone ushered into the world to come by Bolz-Weber would be ushered into the right world.””

    Like

  41. The likes of P&P seem to think that the entrance to Heaven is guarded by a 100 question exam on Calvinism.

    And while I think Wilson’s tone is far superior, it still rings of sanctimony, saying that perhaps RHE found Jesus in her coma. The thief on the cross confessed Jesus, and that was enough for Jesus to declare his eternal destination. I don’t think Wilson and P&P even understand the gospel if they claim that having perfect doctrine is essential.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. The likes of P&P seem to think that the entrance to Heaven is guarded by a 100 question exam on Calvinism.

    I keep saying this Mark, but it’s more than that. They don’t like my brand of Calvinism, and they’re probably pretty chummy with non-Calvinist misogynists.

    What they really want is control and specifically over women. They use the bible as a club to do that.

    Like

  43. Mark wrote The likes of P&P seem to think that the entrance to Heaven is guarded by a 100 question exam on Calvinism.

    There is always going to be a fine line between the truth that we are not justified by doctrine, and the fact there is a minimum level of doctrine, of Christian truth, necessary to believe in order to exercise saving faith. The words of Jesus himself show this: You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. The scriptures lead you to a person, they are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Some evangelicals have a blind spot when it comes to this. They treat others as objects of doctrinal scrutiny rather than as people.

    A British church leader compiled a list of reasons as to who and why anyone should end up in hell (and by parity of reasoning not end up in heaven). It makes for interesting and sobering reading, not least for evangelicals:

    Whoever says “You fool!” to his brother (Matt 5:22).

    Israelites who reject Jesus (Matt 8:12).

    All causes of sin and all law-breakers (Matt 13:41-42).

    Those who are evil (Matt 13:49-50).

    The man who enters the wedding feast without proper clothing (Matt 22:12-13).

    Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites (Matt 23:29-33).

    The wicked servant who presumes the master isn’t returning, and beats other servants and gets drunk in the meantime (Matt 24:48-51).

    The worthless servant who buries his talent (Matt 25:24-30).

    People who see the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick or imprisoned and do not help (Matt 25:41-46).

    Those who do not take sufficiently drastic action to get rid of sin (Mark 9:43-47).

    Those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (Rom 2:8).

    Those who persecute believers, don’t know God and don’t obey the gospel (2 Thess 1:6-9).

    Whoever deliberately keeps on sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth (Heb 10:26-31).

    False teachers (2 Pet 2; Jude).

    The beast and the false prophet (Rev 19:20).

    The devil (Rev 20:10).

    Death and Hades (Rev 20:14).

    Anyone whose name is not found in the book of life (Rev 20:15).

    The cowardly, faithless, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars (Rev 21:8).

    Like

  44. KAS, “There is always going to be a fine line between the truth that we are not justified by doctrine, and the fact there is a minimum level of doctrine, of Christian truth, necessary to believe in order to exercise saving faith.”

    What would the thief on the cross say about that? Or John the Baptist who was regenerate in the womb? Are you saying that they did not have saving faith?

    When Reformed-types start making theological agreement the litmus test for salvation, they are missing the core of salvation and focusing on the minutiae. As Jesus said, they are straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. While we have the expectation that those who express saving faith join a trajectory towards correct theology with the help of the Holy Spirit, I think there are very few doctrines that are declared essential.

    In fact, in your compiled list of reasons, where is the “minimum level of doctrine” requirement you claim?

    Like

  45. When I saw KAS name in the “Latest Comments by” side bar on this blog’s home page, I knew it wouldn’t be good.

    By KAS:

    “He (J D Hall) wasn’t quite as bad as I feared…”

    Yes, KAS, Hall really is that bad.

    KAS said,
    “we do not and cannot know in the end where any individual stands before God.”

    -Did she or did she not publicly confess Christ?
    -Did her life bear evidence of good fruit?

    Like

  46. KAS said,
    — start quote–
    “There is also an assumption that you can fall away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, yet all will be well in the end. A presumption on God’s grace and kindness. Whilst Evans was alive, I have read those who appealed to her to give up the road she was going down, which was more than just doctrinal disagreement, it was serious religious error, and be reconciled to God if in fact she wasn’t. This kind of judgement, discernment, was in order. We should all fear lest any of us go down that road.”
    — end quote–

    And there KAS, you just said what J D Hall said,
    you’re only sugar coating it to make it sound nicer.

    I myself don’t agree with RHE on 100% of everything, but nothing she believed in makes her profession in Christ void.

    You always manage to do more damage to hurting people than help. You always side with the hurtful, yet you claim in previous threads to “care about victims.”

    I already rejected complementarianism years ago, so according to you and J D Hall,
    my profession of Christ as a kid means nothing and I’m going to Hell,

    because the Gospel consists of not just accepting Jesus as Savior but agreeing with all your doctrinal positions,
    such as complementarianism.

    But the Bible does not teach that at all.

    Like

  47. David S said,
    “They’re using controversy to market themselves by being as nasty as possible.”

    That could be true. I wonder about the types of people they attract, and who would buy their t-shirts and so on?

    These are not the types of people I’d trust or phone first if I was hurting and going through a tough time in life, that’s for sure.

    Like

  48. Lea said to Kathi,
    “These people are just mean. That’s really all their is to it.”

    These guys act as Christ-repellents.

    They are sure not going to convince some of us to stay in the Christian faith (not even threats of eternal Hell Fire can get some of us to stay),
    and they’re not going to win over Atheists or anyone who is unsure about religion, deity, etc.

    As I said previously, I doubt that J D Hall and guys like him are saved (they are probably wolves in sheeps clothing the Bible warns about),

    ..but I wonder if they will get a severe penalty in the Afterlife (if there is one) for all the people they drove away from believing in Christ with their cruel beliefs and attitudes.

    Guys like this, and KAS, don’t care that their attitudes or doctrinal beliefs (that they value more than people) keep people away from Jesus, or drive them away.

    They’d rather have doctrinal purity than people make it to Heaven in an afterlife.

    Like

  49. And P.S. to this,
    “Guys like this, and KAS, don’t care that their attitudes or doctrinal beliefs (that they value more than people) keep people away from Jesus, or drive them away.”

    But appreciate the irony.

    KAS has repeatedly lectured us on this blog over the last year that our attitudes and words will never win over the pastors we’re upset with,
    so we should try to Catch More Flies With Honey Than With Vinegar.

    We should be Nicer in how we air grievances with jerk faced pastors, KAS thinks.

    KAS and J D Hall and those like them should take their own advice on that.

    KAS and J D Hall are not going to win converts to Christ, or keep them, if they keep making arrogant claims and insisting that only THEIR doctrines are the “correct” ones, and also teaching that holding Incorrect ones sends a person to Hell.

    -That is NOT being “nice,” or stating their views nicely.

    Like

  50. Katy said
    “What is a “bulldyke?” I have never heard of that word before.”

    I think it’s referring to a “butch” lesbian.

    A lesbian who doesn’t go out of her way to look girly girl, who wears military boots with a shaved head, who is outspoken.

    The opposite of everything sexist clowns like J D Hall, KAS, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, teaches under their puke-worthy complementarianism, thinks a woman should be and carry herself.
    The opposite of a hyper feminine, submissive, quiet, docile, wears pink frilly dresses type of woman.

    Like

  51. Kathi quoting JD Hall:
    — start quote–
    “As in her life, Rachel Held Evans was surrounded by heretics and applauded by apostates at her death. She was ‘anointed’ with oil in the hours before her passing by the self-professed “profane bulldyke” and mannish, self-graffitied, vulgar blasphemer, Nadia Bolz-Weber, who better personifies the Grim Reaper than perhaps anyone in a clerical collar. It’s hard to believe that anyone ushered into the world to come by Bolz-Weber would be ushered into the right world.”
    — end —

    Hall’s Guilt – By- Association tactic is un-biblical.

    The part where Hall says (paraphrasing):
    “Because Weber knew and got along with RHE, surely means RHE is in Hell today.”

    (He’s also incorrectly using “holding correct doctrine” as he sees correct doctrine as being part of the Gospel. It is not. The Bible says belief in Christ is the Gospel, not that God is going to Quiz you on your doctrinal position before he admits you into Heaven upon death).

    Jesus of Nazareth often hung out with people reviled and held in contempt by the religious leaders of his day such as prostitutes and tax collectors…

    And because Jesus did so, the Pharisees (the J D Halls of their era) questioned Jesus’ holiness, and if Jesus really knew God or not.

    J D Hall is using the same play book as the Pharisees.

    Has J D Hall ever actually read the Bible?
    Because it doesn’t sound like it.

    Like

  52. Other than rejecting the belief that Jesus is the Christ, I don’t see where the Bible uses doctrine to judge salvation- level- matters, as J D Hall insists upon doing.

    Off the top of my head, the New Testament almost always tells Christians to look at behavior, not at belief (doctrine).

    For example, in the NT, Paul tells Christians to dis-fellowship from the guy who was having sexual relations with his Mother-In-Law.

    Paul didn’t say kick that guy out because the guy believed in the doctrine of baby sprinkling vs. adult immersion.

    Paul didn’t say kick that guy out because the guy was an Arminian and not a Calvinist.

    Paul didn’t say kick that guy out because the guy believed in a figurative Hell, not a “literal” Hell.

    Paul was more about behavior than doctrine.

    Like

  53. More on this quote:

    Kathi quoting JD Hall:
    — start quote–
    “As in her life, Rachel Held Evans was surrounded by heretics and applauded by apostates at her death. She was ‘anointed’ with oil in the hours before her passing by the self-professed “profane bulldyke” and mannish, self-graffitied, vulgar blasphemer, Nadia Bolz-Weber, who better personifies the Grim Reaper than perhaps anyone in a clerical collar. It’s hard to believe that anyone ushered into the world to come by Bolz-Weber would be ushered into the right world.”
    — end —

    What is “mannish”?

    I’d like guys like Hall to define and explain that.

    Complementarians and sexists (but then, I’m repeating myself), such as J D Hall, always go with secular sexist gender stereotypes of what they think a woman or man should be,
    then they insist they see those delineations in the Bible, when they’re not usually in the Bible.

    The Bible does not say that things like having short hair, being assertive, enjoying watching NFL football, being a leader, being bold, being decisive, being courageous, etc, are masculine-traits only.

    Those are human traits.
    Those are traits that God grants to both male and female sexes.

    And my disclaimer:
    I sure do not agree with Bolz Weber on everything, especially her particular brand of Anti-Purity Culture advocacy,
    but her being wrong, IMO, here and there, doesn’t make J D Hall correct,

    …nor does it mean she is wrong on everything she thinks or says.

    Like

  54. Mark said
    “I don’t think Wilson and P&P even understand the gospel if they claim that having perfect doctrine is essential.”

    Yep. That comment right there.
    Nice summary of the situation.

    A lot of the religious people in Jesus’ day – who studied the Scriptures regularly – got doctrine wrong all the time, the ones who thought they had correct doctrine.

    Jesus had to constantly remind the Pharisees and other that they may study the Old Testament a lot, but they totally misunderstood parts of it, like,
    They were unable to recognize their Messiah standing right before them,

    And, they kept treating people like dirt and God was not, Jesus said, OK with religious people putting “correct doctrine” above how they treated people.

    Jesus putting a person’s needs above “correct doctrine” example:

    _Luke 13:10-17 – Jesus Heals a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath_
    – on Bible Gateway’s site

    Like

  55. Lea said,
    — start —
    I keep saying this Mark, but it’s more than that. They don’t like my brand of Calvinism, and they’re probably pretty chummy with non-Calvinist misogynists.

    What they really want is control and specifically over women. They use the bible as a club to do that.
    — end —

    Good point.

    I’m kind of reminded of the extreme branches and schools of Islam.

    Your Sunni and Shiites are always at odds with each other, because each feels that their denomination is the only “correct” version of Islam. They will even murder each other over this.

    Like

  56. Kas</b said,

    There is always going to be a fine line between the truth that we are not justified by doctrine, and the fact there is a minimum level of doctrine, of Christian truth, necessary to believe in order to exercise saving faith.
    — end quote —

    Belief in Jesus as Savior is all.

    Agreement or Disagreement with Complementarianism is not one of them.

    But you, and guys like J D Hall, keep trying to elevate your personal preferences and biases and pet peeves into Gospel-level belief.

    Or, you want to hint or claim that if someone rejects Comp, that is a “clue” that can possibly tell us if that person is “saved” or not.

    The Bible never uses topics related to gender or gender roles to suss out if someone is saved or not.

    Like

  57. Regarding KAS comments about “falling away from the faith.”

    Who even knows what that phrase means if it can be applied to salvation?

    Years ago, I did a lot of reading of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) Vs Conditional Security.

    Christians on both sides cannot agree on any of this.
    They make appeals to all the same Bible verses but cannot reach an agreement on it.

    If you believe a person who accepted Jesus at some point will and can never lose her salvation, there are Bible verses to support your position.

    If you believe a person who accepted Jesus at some point will and can lose her salvation, there are Bible verses to support your position, too.

    It’s so cute that KAS thinks that his position on all this is 100% correct and settled.

    continued in the next post…

    Like

  58. I find KAS’ feigned concern over my (and for others) eternal destiny a joke (as he’s done on older threads),

    when he doesn’t care about my CURRENT welfare,
    and he doesn’t care to accept the fact that Gender Complementarianism (among other Christian teachings and behaviors)
    hurt me terribly and is one thing driving me away from the faith.

    No, his “correct doctrine” (which is actually INcorrect and false doctrine) and how it harmed me and other women and causes us to reject the faith is of no concern.
    Your priorities on all this are terribly Effed Up, KAS.

    You also “pooh pooh” a person having boundaries (on older threads).

    The Christian faith (especially under Complementarianism) discouraged me from having boundaries, which contributed to the years of depression, suicidal ideation and anxiety I’ve had.

    You don’t care about that, though.

    Like

  59. Speaking of Correct Doctrine and Belief and salvation.

    I’ve been thinking of doing a post at my blog about this…

    I’ve done a lot of reading about Sociopaths and Psychopaths, and I’ve watched documentaries about them.

    I had to study them back in an Abnormal Psych class years ago, too.

    I don’t know how any Christian of any denomination or theological bent can explain how it is some people are un-savable…

    Except for maybe some Calvinists, who would say it’s possible God fore-saved some sociopaths / psychopaths(?), so yes, even sociopaths and psychopaths can be saved.

    That aside, from what I have learned about sociopaths and psychopaths – they are incapable (because their brains are biologically different) of feeling remorse or empathy.

    Any acceptance they might give of the Gospel would have to be purely of the intellectual variety,
    because they don’t respond to emotion and emotional pleas,
    and they are incapable of having empathy.

    Which means, if you tell them Jesus died for them on the cross for their sins, they are not going to feel “sorry” for that, weep, and then throw themselves on an altar begging God to forgive them.

    They’re only capable of accepting the Gospel purely on intellectual grounds.

    But the Bible says that will not result in salvation (Bible verse about (paraphrasing), “even the demons in Hell believe in Jesus but they are not saved”)

    Like

  60. I’m married to someone who thinks and speaks just like Pulpit and Pen authors, except with an added dose of verbal and emotional abuse thrown in, and the way he responded to RHE’s death was equally heartless. I don’t agree with her theology, but according to P&P I must be a liberal feminist because I would like to mourn with those who mourn, right?

    Like

  61. I think Evangelicalism got caught in the “minimum level of doctrine” trap. There are a lot of helpful doctrines, but doctrinal error becomes equated with unrepentant sin in Evangelicalism. There are wars over baptism – in the “credo” churches, someone who was infant baptized must be adult baptized to be a member of the church (i.e. saved). In the “paedo” churches, parents who are not convinced and don’t have their children baptized are excommunicated (i.e. declared unsaved). Pretty much any doctrine can be traced to some tenant of the “minimum level of doctrine”. That is, many paedo churches trace credobaptism to a “rejection of the covenant” and thus an essential error with respect to the “minimum level of doctrine”.

    And… while I think Federal Vision is a perversion of the Gospel, what concerns me most about Doug Wilson is that he has repeatedly sheltered the wolves and punished the sheep. He sat next to the confessed abuser in court and left the victim to fight for justice alone. He married off a pedophile (which to Wilson is for the purpose of procreation) despite the fact that the court decision mandated that the pedophile not be in the presence of a minor without an approved chaperone. Consider how Wilson’s complementary teaching interfered with the pedophile’s wife’s ability to be a chaperone. In fact, her approval as a chaperone was revoked by the court when they discovered that she allowed him to fondle their child. So, Wilson knew that he was putting the wife in a situation where she would likely have to choose between obedience to the state and obedience to her husband (any question where Wilson would stand on that after he counseled the victim’s parents not to cooperate with authorities?)

    Like

  62. @Mark:

    When Reformed-types start making theological agreement the litmus test for salvation…

    They are playing the “I’m SAVED and YOU’RE NOT!” one-upmanship game.

    It’s been my working hypothesis that More-Reformed-Than-Thou types are secretly afraid that they’re not Really one of the Predestined Elect and are always grasping for PROOF! of their Election. After all, didn’t Calvin write about God sending “false assurance of Election” to the reprobate? So how can you REALLY know?

    Once that PROOF was “material blessings”, i.e. getting filthy stinking rich (which spawned the Prosperity Gospel).

    Now it’s Perfectly Parsed, Utterly Correct Reformed Theology. (AKA Ideological Purity, Comrades.) Let the Game of More Elect Than Thou Can you Top This One-Upmanship begin.

    Like

  63. @Daisy:

    I find KAS’ feigned concern over my (and for others) eternal destiny a joke (as he’s done on older threads),

    Daisy, it’s been my experience that NOBODY oozes Concern and Compassion(TM) like a Sociopath. It’s part of Appearing as an Angel of Light.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. @David:

    It is, quite frankly, comical. He’s afraid of his own nutjob apocalyptic conspiracy whacko in-group…

    I’ve had some experiences with “nutjob apocalyptic conspiracy wackos”.
    After a while (with rare exceptions) they all sound alike.
    What makes this bunch’s “nutjob apocalyptic conspiracy” unique?

    Like

  65. Kathi quoting JD Hall:
    — start quote–
    “As in her life, Rachel Held Evans was surrounded by heretics and applauded by apostates at her death. She was ‘anointed’ with oil in the hours before her passing by the self-professed “profane bulldyke” and mannish, self-graffitied, vulgar blasphemer, Nadia Bolz-Weber, who better personifies the Grim Reaper than perhaps anyone in a clerical collar. It’s hard to believe that anyone ushered into the world to come by Bolz-Weber would be ushered into the right world.”
    — end —

    Sounds like he’s either channeling or plagiarizing that other genius of wit, Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant Wilson.

    Like

  66. DAISY: Hall’s Guilt – By- Association tactic is un-biblical….Jesus of Nazareth often hung out with people reviled and held in contempt by the religious leaders of his day such as prostitutes and tax collectors…

    It’s like they’re not even reading what they claim to be preaching.

    Jesus would have been at either of these women’s bedsides in death, and JD Hall would have condemned him. Maybe he should have a good long think on that.

    Of course, that would be assuming he actually cared, which I don’t really much believe or he would have changed his tone massively by now, considering his history.

    Like

  67. @HUG: “It’s been my working hypothesis that More-Reformed-Than-Thou types are secretly afraid that they’re not Really one of the Predestined Elect and are always grasping for PROOF!”

    I think there is a lot of truth in this. In the Reformed church, Total Depravity is used to beat the rabble into submission by saying that their intellects are tainted by sin and that only those called by God into ministry are able to discern the truth. However, there is this awkward grooming that happens between being a worthless teen making the altar call at a church conference, and graduation from seminary/ordination where you are God’s gift to the church. I think that the more sensitive tend to fall into the lacking assurance camp, while those who will do anything for power and control don’t really care.

    So, I think there is a natural codependency between the two camps – the one camp that is desperate to hear someone gifted tell them that they really are going to Heaven and the second camp that is desperate to surround themselves with sycophants and grow their power base.

    For example, I look at Paul Tripp as one who seems to be constantly trying to associate himself with the big guys to score points.

    Like

  68. When you remove the Lord Jesus Christ as the focal point in Christianity, all you are left with is a mean spirited, nasty cult obsessed with doctrine, theology and what sins others are committing. This is not the first time Pulpit & Pen has demonstrated this. JD Hall harassed and bullied 15 year old Braxton Caner online for the sins of his father up until the young man’s suicide. Latter he delighted in spreading rumors concerning problems within ERGUN’s marriage and has pursued the personal destruction of people that disagree with his convictions & beliefs.
    Now he is in a near state of celebration over the death of a young mother and wife. What about this is even acceptable human behavior ?

    Like

  69. Unfortunately, social media is an effective means of communication for bullies. They can shout and rant. Sometimes I think the more we engage the worse they get.

    Like

  70. Yes, and not surprisingly, an OPC (shooter’s denomination) theologian’s introspection as to whether the church had any systemic issues that might have encouraged it was brief and fruitless:

    In the case of the OPC—a denomination of around 30,000 people—a single killer is one too many, but hardly a sign of widespread, anti-Semitic radicalization among our youth. The path to becoming a racist murderer and an attempted mass shooter is likely very complicated and, until more details emerge, it is inappropriate to apportion specific blame to anyone or anything but the killer himself.

    I do not know this alleged shooter, and I do not know what led him to commit such a terrible crime. But I suspect the anger that sadly characterizes so much of contemporary public discourse, and in which too many of us Christians, right and left, indulge, did not help.

    This is not a moment for blaming “them” for what has happened. It is a moment to grieve with the family that has been destroyed by this senseless action, to examine our own part in this fallen culture, and to ask ourselves how we can truly represent something better to the watching world.

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/april-web-only/whos-to-blame-synagogue-shooting-orthodox-presbyterian.html
    So, there you have it. It wasn’t the OPC’s fault. Let’s instead blame our divisive culture and if that doesn’t work, we should blame ourselves.

    Like

  71. Mark wrote: While we have the expectation that those who express saving faith join a trajectory towards correct theology with the help of the Holy Spirit, I think there are very few doctrines that are declared essential.

    That, I think, sums it up brilliantly. You ask about a minimum of doctrine in the list, I think it is there at least implicitly in some cases. But to reiterate, doctrine doesn’t save but it does give us the knowledge necessary to ask.

    As for the thief on the cross, we can make too much or too little of this. This was a unique event, but serves as a warning to those evangelicals who over complicate the idea of conversion. Those who worry about the wording of your testimony.

    On the other hand, the thief recognised his own sinfulness and that he deserved punishment. He must have seen something in Jesus that he wanted or needed – we can only assume he might have heard something about him due to his fame, or speaking with those about to crucify them. How Jesus reacted might have impressed him. His righteousness. But in the little information given, there is the gospel in embryo. He was the first person justified by faith.

    The thief though does not justify the apostles then and us now from a clear understanding of repentance (and maybe deliverance), faith, baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit and continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and good works.

    Like

  72. Mark wrote: While we have the expectation that those who express saving faith join a trajectory towards correct theology with the help of the Holy Spirit, I think there are very few doctrines that are declared essential.

    That, I think, sums it up brilliantly. You ask about a minimum of doctrine in the list, I think it is there at least implicitly in some cases. But to reiterate, doctrine doesn’t save but it does give us the knowledge necessary to ask.

    As for the thief on the cross, we can make too much or too little of this. This was a unique event, but serves as a warning to those evangelicals who over complicate the idea of conversion. Those who worry about the wording of your testimony.

    On the other hand, the thief recognised his own sinfulness and that he deserved punishment. He must have seen something in Jesus that he wanted or needed – we can only assume he might have heard something about him due to his fame, or speaking with those about to crucify them. How Jesus reacted might have impressed him. His righteousness. But in the little information given, there is the gospel in embryo. He was the first person justified by faith.
    The thief though does not justify the apostles then and us now from a clear understanding of repentance (and maybe deliverance), faith, baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit and continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and good works.

    Like

  73. Scott1253Scott. I am aware of the Caner controversy and Hall’s conduct in it. Julie Anne will know more about this as I never followed this closely, but I understand Hall was approached on this and eventually admittted his conduct was wrong, and as far as I know tried to put it right. So yes he was wrong, but in this instance he was willing in the end to put things right.

    His insensitivity on Evans’ death might be another case where with time he will come to see his actions were wrong.

    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. 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. She was very public with this, with potential to lead others astray. I fear for her, I really do. My attitude then and now. But falling way from nasty evangelicalism is not necessarily the same as leaving the faith, and I didn’t then and I don’t now like anyone pronouncing a judgement that belongs only to God.

    Discussing her views and legacy is legitimate and necessary, and criticism is not of itself nasty, but this is not the time for hit pieces.

    Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

    The irony is Hall has done this, and is now being judged himself – people are questioning his salvation.

    Like

  74. Daisy, Thank-you for providing additional information pertaining to the definition of the word “bulldyke.” Short hair on a woman means that she is a lesbian; am I understanding these insane bullet points correctly?

    You stated, “A lesbian who doesn’t go out of her way to look girly girl, who wears military boots with a shaved head, who is outspoken.” This is a “bulldyke,” which so called Christian authoritarian theologians use to label their perspective women targets? So in our ‘Christian culture (???), any woman who has her hair cut short, wears boots, is outspoken in drawing good and godly boundaries to protect herself against evil onslaught, and is blessed with the Holy Spirit indwelling in her soul fully able to rightly divide the Word of God (apart from any other religious authority lording it over her or others)……..is considered a “bulldyke?” Should many of us farm folk (I do not “look like a girly woman when I work in the fields, oh NO!, to the contrary!) be insulted by ignorant individuals who claim to love the LORD and yet, have skewed views of what us women should look like as well as what our speech patterns should be (many a man would love it if women didn’t vocalize truth, facts, thoughts or opinions…..as in remaining silent in all spheres of this life.)

    Since the “bully pulpit” has effectively moved from the pagan pulpits of church buildings(church buildings by the way, are NOT any holier than my kitchen floor), to the screens of the internet for the world to see, is all glory given to Jesus Christ and His Gospel, by having titled and entitled “ministers, pastors, reverends, seminary graduates, popes, bishops, cardinals, nuns, priests, denominational “presidents,” deacons, deaconesses, elder boards, church boards, or any other important religious person”, call another human being a “bulldyke?” I am trying to picture me Savior, right about now, calling that Samaritan woman, all sorts of derogatory, insane, wicked and evil names, in order to “win her over” to the Gospel and eternal salvation, of course, with an angry and bitter love. Nope, can’t see that in Jesus’ Ways.

    There are times when toddlers are more mature and exhibit MORE fruits of God, the Holy Spirit, than those individuals who speak insanity using the LORD’ S Name in vain to do so. Pouring gasoline on the wounds of a hurting soul/heart never ministers to the world during the loss of a loved one, and the 501. c 3 corporate c’hurch does a bang up job of inflicting more pain and suffering, rather than effectively praying and caring for the least of these during personal loss.

    And also, Daisy, I sure do appreciate you posting those articles on “Grief and Grieving” over at your blog, for they ministered to me own heart during a family loss. It is my hope and prayer that Rachel’s husband and family are surrounded by healthy, loving, and comforting individuals who truly know the Jesus of our Scriptures in “being there” as they move on and heal in the days/months/years to come.

    Like

  75. OPC person: The path to becoming a racist murderer and an attempted mass shooter is likely very complicated

    I’m pretty sure this guy was one of a lot of young men marinating in racist and misogynistic filth online. That part isn’t actually all that complicated.

    Like

  76. Katy said,
    — start —
    Daisy, Thank-you for providing additional information pertaining to the definition of the word “bulldyke.” Short hair on a woman means that she is a lesbian; am I understanding these insane bullet points correctly?

    You stated, “A lesbian who doesn’t go out of her way to look girly girl, who wears military boots with a shaved head, who is outspoken.” This is a “bulldyke,” which so called Christian authoritarian theologians use to label their perspective women targets? So in our ‘Christian culture (???), any woman who has her hair cut short, wears boots, is outspoken in drawing good and godly boundaries to protect herself against evil onslaught
    — quote —

    More or less, I do think that is how a lot of people understand the term “Bulldyke,” but especially men who are sexist / complementarian.

    Take the reverse of their idea of what a “feminine” woman is – a woman with long hair, who is passive, soft spoken, deferential to men, wears dresses all the time, etc, – and you’ll get their idea of a “masculine” woman (a.k.a. a “bulldyke”).

    The word “dyke” has long been slang for “lesbian” in secular culture.

    I have a post on my blog with links to articles about a Christian school that was going to reprimand one of their girl students for being a tom boy; the girl had short hair and didn’t conform to other Christian ideals of what it means to be a “biblical girl.”

    (That post can be found here:
    _Christian School Complains Eight-Year-Old Girl Isn’t Girly Enough – They Shame, Reject Christian Tom Boys_)

    Girls and women are not accepted for who they already are if they attend a complementarian school or church.
    Which is funny, considering a lot of Christians like that altar call song with the lyrics of “Come to Jesus just as you are,” or however it goes.

    If you are a woman, you are taught by authoritarian churches / complementarians that you cannot come to Jesus just as you are, you must change yourself first to make yourself acceptable to Him.

    Like

  77. Katy said,
    — start —
    I am trying to picture me Savior, right about now, calling that Samaritan woman, all sorts of derogatory, insane, wicked and evil names, in order to “win her over” to the Gospel and eternal salvation, of course, with an angry and bitter love. Nope, can’t see that in Jesus’ Ways.
    —end quote–

    Yes, I don’t see the “J D Hall manner of evangelism” winning anyone over.

    If any atheists were to see his hideous take down of Rachel Held Evans, I don’t think they would be compelled to consider Christianity. I feel that would be doubly true for any Non-Christian women readers.

    Complementarianism, arrogance, and authoritarianism are Jesus-repellents to many people.

    (And KAS is always spewing concern on this blog that we don’t talk nice enough about sexist, rude, or hateful preachers in the comments box.

    KAS has no concern with the reverse: mean, cruel, rude, hateful pastors and obnoxious Christian teachings that hurt people and drive them from the faith.)

    Congrats to the jerk-faced Christians out there for turning away many people from Christ. If their intent was to also turn away believers from the faith into sliding into non-belief, they’ve done well at that as well.

    Like

  78. Katy said,
    — start —
    And also, Daisy, I sure do appreciate you posting those articles on “Grief and Grieving” over at your blog, for they ministered to me own heart during a family loss.—end quote–

    I am glad you found the links on my blog about that helpful.
    I had to learn first hand a lot of Christians range anywhere from incompetent to heartless in how they minister to people going through the grieving process.

    I don’t see too many Christian sites, blogs, or forums where that subject is discussed very much.

    Like

  79. @Katy:

    Daisy, Thank-you for providing additional information pertaining to the definition of the word “bulldyke.” Short hair on a woman means that she is a lesbian; am I understanding these insane bullet points correctly?

    You do, Katy.
    “Lesbian” can also mean “she won’t let me into her pants”. When I met my ex-girlfriend, she was the target of such a gossip campaign.

    And for a type example of “bulldyke”, there’s the Feminism-spouting Feminist(TM) character in Left Behind Volumes 1-12, MS Zee (MS Zee = “Missy”, get it?). Slacktivist’s page-by-page snark quoted her description when she first appeared in Volume 1 or 2; when I read it, my first thought was “Hello… Central Casting? I’d like to order one obnoxious bulldyke.”

    Like

  80. @Daisy:

    I have a post on my blog with links to articles about a Christian school that was going to reprimand one of their girl students for being a tom boy; the girl had short hair and didn’t conform to other Christian ideals of what it means to be a “biblical girl.”

    Note the location of said Christian school:
    LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.
    Place name sound familiar?

    Lapsing into Bronyspeak, she’s a G4 Rainbow Dash and God’s spokesholes only want the G3 version.

    For illustration, here’s a common Brony mashup video on the subject — G4 Dash (a fiercely-competitive tomboy of a Pegasus mare) reacting to footage of her sweet/winsome/shallow G3 namesake:

    Like

  81. KAS, “more than enough to make you question her original salvation”

    Can you be more specific? I haven’t read anything of hers other than a few blog posts, and my wife says that her salvation is being questioned “because she supports Women’s and LGBTQ rights”.

    Ironically, there were groups much like that in Jesus’s day – the Tax Collectors who were so hated that they could not legally testify in court, the “sinners”, and the Samaritans, who were presumed to be Israelites who intermarried with pagans who were brought in during the Syrian exile.

    Jesus’s salvation was questioned specifically because he related to those people and did not hate them like the Jews of his day. Imagine the likes of JD today when Jesus preaches about “The Good Queer”. Would they not question his salvation? What if Jesus invited himself to Nadia Bolz-Weber’s house to eat?

    Like

  82. KAS, “He wasn’t quite as bad as I feared. One thing that you cannot miss is his belief that Evans is ‘now in hell’ or similar.”

    This is an example of why you are continually called out for tone policing. When someone agrees with your foregone conclusions, you are much more likely to look at their tone charitably, but when someone disagrees, you are much more likely to nitpick the tone. That is the classic definition of tone policing – using tone as a reason to preemptively discount a line of argumentation.

    As we can all see, you are looking past the tone and dealing with his argument, whereas your knee-jerk reaction when seeing someone here harshly call out an abusive pastor is to ignore the argument and focus on the harshness.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. The way I see these men is they want attention and they don’t want to work for a living.
    Whining about people you don’t like on a radio show is not work.
    Being a preacher isn’t work.

    Divas do the work to get their attention but these men act like divas without the work.

    They want women in their lives but they hate women. Christianity tells them they deserve to have women and can trash talk women at the same time.

    Two things that seem to be the most import things to these kinds of Christians is having the right to hurt people. Hurting people brings so much pleasure to these men. They hate people who attempt to not be hurt by them.

    Rachel did not do what they wanted her to do so now they make themselves feel better saying she is in hell. Just because JD Hall says something does not make it true. It is just something a hateful child is pretending is true.

    The second thing that is so very important to these kinds of Christians is always believing and declaring his or her self superior to everyone else. Christians are the best people and the most important people.

    This is how they sound.

    I am a Christian and it is your job to hurt to make me feel good.
    Don’t don’t don’t blame me though. Blame my god.
    See, our god always takes the blame off of us.
    You don’t have a problem with me. You have a problem with my god.
    I am a Christian, so I am better than everybody else on the planet and deserve special privileges.

    This is also the same way pro sharia law thugs sound.

    Liked by 2 people

  84. BTW: My specific objection with the OPC theologian was here: “but hardly a sign of widespread, anti-Semitic radicalization among our youth”.

    Whether or not there is specific “anti-Semitic” radicalization, the larger question is one of radicalization and demonization. For example, Kevin Swanson was a pastor in good standing in the OPC, despite a pretty clear legacy of demonization. So, perhaps, one may say that the overall demonization within the OPC is not specifically directed at those of Jewish heritage, the OPC has not taken any sort of stand against radicalization and demonization of other groups deemed heretical.

    Like

  85. @ Katy and Daisy

    Something so many of them do; my father did it.

    If a woman or girl will not flirt with them they declare her an unsubmissive feminist.
    But, if she flirts with their church buddy she is a feminist wh*re.

    The woman or girl is dmned if she does and dmned if she doesn’t.

    I will never believe a woman who takes her daughter to church loves her daughter.

    Liked by 1 person

  86. CH: “Hurting people brings so much pleasure to these men.”

    I think it’s more about control. They want to be in control and anyone who offers a narrative that says anything different is the enemy. They demonize those who don’t blindly obey their authority so that those they want to manipulate won’t follow in their steps. On the other hand, they praise and groom women like Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth and Aimee Byrd who proclaim their message of subjection.

    The hurt they inflict is a warning to those who might stray. That is a typical pattern I’ve seen. If people get hurt and leave, they church hints that they couldn’t handle the righteousness necessary to remain. If people get hurt and fight, the gloves come off and it’s an all-out war to make an example of them before the flock.

    Like

  87. Mark said to KAS,
    Can you be more specific? I haven’t read anything of hers other than a few blog posts, and my wife says that her salvation is being questioned “because she supports Women’s and LGBTQ rights”
    –end quote.–

    That’s it right there.
    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.

    Guys like J D Hall conflate agreeing with THEIR interpretation of the Bible, their personal preferences, and their pet doctrines as being necessary to salvation.

    Sometimes, the far left (progressives) do this as well.
    I’ve often seen them question, the last three years, the salvation, or religious bonafides, of anyone who voted for a certain, orange-colored Republican politician, for example.

    I had a conservative, sexist pig Christian man do this to me the other day on Twitter. Even though I’m a conservative.

    But because I was not agreeing with him on Complementarianism, he made some comment like,
    “Oh, you deny biblical marriage roles (complementariansim) but you still want a seat at the table.”

    He clearly associates being comp with being a “real” conservative. I’m considered a “fake” conservative or not “conservaative enough” if I don’t agree with him on that subject.

    Because I don’t support conservatives on their views about sexism on their political blogs (when I participate), they almost always assume I am a liberal.
    Or, if they believe me when I say I’m a conservative, they act like I’m a heretic.

    Both sides (left and right, many Christians and atheists) expect you to walk in lock-step with the overall positions for either camp,
    and if you do not, they either confuse you with the enemy, or doubt you are a “true” liberal / conservative / atheist / Christian, (whatever label).

    Like

  88. I really see this title of “heresy” thrown around too much. As far as I know, RHE was Episcopalian and believed the historic creeds (Nicene and Apostle) which set parameters for orthodoxy and heresy (and you’ll notice there’s no ECT in the creeds either). Have they added to the parameters for orthodoxy?? I think so. I think they might want to be careful there. She was not a heretic.

    Like

  89. I had to learn first hand a lot of Christians range anywhere from incompetent to heartless in how they minister to people going through the grieving process. I don’t see too many Christian sites, blogs, or forums where that subject is discussed very much.

    Daisy, my church has a monthly lunch with the topic of grief. I understand it is very well done and needed. I know it was helpful for a family member who, like you, suffered the death of a parent.

    Like

  90. “Oh, you deny biblical marriage roles (complementariansim) but you still want a seat at the table.”

    Seat at what table, Daisy???

    Honestly, these people have driven me completely away. I grew up conservative, but I am not lesser because I’m a woman and I’m not interested in staying anywhere or with anyone who thinks I am. Period. Life is too short.

    Liked by 1 person

  91. Lea,
    — start quote —
    Seat at what table, Daisy???

    Honestly, these people have driven me completely away. I grew up conservative, but I am not lesser because I’m a woman and I’m not interested in staying anywhere or with anyone who thinks I am. Period. Life is too short.
    — end —

    I don’t know if your question was rhetorical.

    The way it was asked and in the context of the conversation, he was saying that I still want to be considered a conservative even though I no longer agree with complementarianism.

    I sent him links to about three of my blog posts where I explain more about my views on comp, and he retorted that if I kept “self promoting” that he would block me.

    The guy’s attitude just put me off. I was behaving myself with him, too, being polite (KAS would’ve approved!).

    I told him I’d save him the time of blocking me, and I blocked him instead.
    I do try to be polite and kind to people up front, but once they start being obtuse, obnoxious, rude, arrogant, showing no willingness to hear me out, I don’t put up with them. I stop being Nicey Nice with them.

    Anyway, that guy doesn’t think I passed the Conservative Litmus test, because on his test, you must agree with Complementarianism to be a “real” conservative.
    You see this sort of thinking among a lot of Christians too, such as the J D Halls of the world.

    Like

  92. 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.

    Mark – I’ll try knocking up a couple of brief replies to your (fair) question and (not so fair) comment later!

    Like

  93. “Anyway, that guy doesn’t think I passed the Conservative Litmus test, because on his test, you must agree with Complementarianism to be a “real” conservative.”

    I think it’s body parts. Even Beth Moore who is pretty staunchly comp got her chair kicked out from under her when she dared raise the issue of pervasive and blatant disrespect shown her by pastors.

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s