Saturday, November 22, 2014

SoS SGC Break

I will resume with the study guide critique on Monday.

But here is a good post from WTH concerning Driscoll's relationship with his wife, Grace. WTH pulls several things together to point out what most of us have already known. Putting it mildly, their relationship is not healthy.

Driscoll's policy on who can be friends with Grace?

Oh, Grace. If only you knew who you were in Christ. Then you would know when you were being abused and you wouldn't keep going along with your shyster husband's lame-brain plans.

Dear Grace, you really need to read my friend's open letter to you. You are so confused and clueless.

Friday, November 21, 2014

SoS SGC 1, The Bedroom Police

First off, before anyone wants to accuse me of thinking that I presume to be the bedroom police, let me clarify. I do not feel it is my job to tell people what is and is not acceptable in their own bedrooms. If people do strip teases or oral sex as part of their married sex lives, that is their business, not mine. My little critique of the study guide linked by cn0te1 has nothing to do with whether a sex act is right or wrong. My critique has to do with whether or not strip teases or provocative dancing is mentioned and maybe even encouraged in the Song of Songs.

Secondly, while I was debating this topic with cn0te1, he/she seemed to assume a great deal about me without even knowing me. He/She seemed to think that the reason I didn't like Driscoll's teachings was because I thought Driscoll was misogynous. He/She assumed that I hated Driscoll and that that hatred was blinding me to Driscoll's brilliance in explaining the Songs. He/She assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about and that Driscoll did know what he was talking about.

Another thing cn0te1 assumed was that he/she has the right to comment on my sex life and, in essence, be the bedroom police towards me. He/she tried to bring up what was going on in my bedroom and what should be going on that he/she assumed wasn't. He/She was convinced I had certain issues since he/she had determined that I wasn't obeying the sex laws that he/she and Driscoll believed the Songs had set up for all married couples.

Cause you see, the ones who really think they are the bedroom police are Driscoll, the Bedroom Police Chief, and all his little deputies like cn0te1. They have certain ideas of what it takes to make a happy bedroom and want to make sure those things are going on in the bedroom. Or at the very least, they want to make sure everyone knows about all those things and how important those things are to God. They push the notion that it pleases God for married people to carry out all sorts things in the bedroom. In fact, Driscoll is even caught on tape telling women that Jesus commands them to do certain sex acts that they may not feel comfortable with.

Driscoll, and those like cn0te1, also consider themselves judge and jury. They believe that they are the ones who get to accuse others of being insecure, prudish or some such rot if people point out that God might not be all that interested in that much variety in the bedroom.
And where the heck do they get such a notion that wild sex pleases God?
From a legalistic view of the Songs. That's right folks. legalism.

You see, instead of seeing the Song of Songs for what it is, a love poem in the Bible, something beautiful and descriptive, they see it as some sort of divine remedy, something prescriptive to a healthy sex life in marriage. They truly believe that the Song of Songs (their take on it) is the healthy-sex trouble-shooting section of the Bible. Their personally subjective, black and white thinking has pounded this beautiful piece of poetry down into the little mold of a modern day 'how-to' guide for sex. To them, this book is about sex, sex, and nothing but sex. And anyone who suggests that there might be a bit more to it than that is labeled as religious, insecure, unenlightened, uneducated, and a whole host of other ad hominem attack words.

cn0te1 has made a whole host of assumptions concerning me, labeling me stubborn and religious, thinking that because I don't use the Songs the way Driscoll teaches, then I must be a Puritan prude who blushes at the mention of the very word 'sex'. Talking to him/her became frustrating because of the wall of accusations and assumptions on his/her part. He/She engaged in twists, turns, circular logic, and name calling rather than face the truth that Driscoll's doctrine on sex is bogus. It became so frustrating that I had to bring his comment over here and dissect it here rather than in the comments at Throckmorton's.

Driscoll has been exposed for the shyster that he is so I no longer feel the need to call attention to that. But his bad doctrine is still floating around, damaging people and their perceptions of God and the Bible. Therefore, when I come across someone who stubbornly holds onto Driscoll's wrong teaching, I don't back down.

Now for a link to an old post from Virginia Knowles at Watch the Shepherd.
My Thoughts on the Sexualization of the Church (and other problems)
The sex police (Mark Driscoll and all) have forced sex into the face of the church for quite long enough. We've had enough of their demands. And we are no longer going to let them use the Bible to promote their twisted doctrine that invades the bedroom and defiles the marriage bed.*

*Again, what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. What is being discussed here is what Driscoll and Company says God is pleased with and in some cases commands

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Song of Songs Study Guide?

Really?

And just who exactly wrote this Song of Songs study guide (here after referred to SoS SG)? Mark Driscoll? Someone else approved by Mark Driscoll?

I'm trying to get an answer from the random person who copied and pasted it in a comment at Warren Throckmorton's blog. That anonymous person, cn0te1, copied it into the comment section to try to get me to shut up. His/her exact words were, "Please read educate yourself then be quiet." A comma would have helped for clarity. But I'm not here to critique his/her grammar, just his/her foolishness in embracing Driscoll's teachings on the Songs. This post will not contain critique, just his/her comment and perhaps some dividing and labeling for clarity. The critiques will appear in subsequent comments (here after referred to the SoS SGC).

Note: okay, just a little critique right here right now because this cut and paste job is really, really long. Do not feel obligated to read every word of it in order to follow along with my critique unless you want to and/or feel up to the challenge. One reason I suspect that this, so called "Study Guide" is written by Driscoll is because of the style. He goes on about stuff that is mostly innocuous to lull his audience into a false sense of security then throws in a bit of completely unsupportable conjecture. Then at the end, he throws in unsupportable flights of fantasy and expects his hack job to be taken seriously. He expects people to treat it as a piece of enlighten inspiration. The problem is there are people like me who don't trust him since he's a liar, a plagiarist, a cheat, and all around shyster (and yes, I know the German origin for that last word and mean it with all of my heart because that is what he has done to the Songs).

Anyway, here is the comment as it appeared over there, including the belittling, silencing tactic at the beginning from cn0te1 who has had quite enough of me at this point cause I won't stop pointing out that his/her idol is a fraud.
Also I have divided this long piece into 4 parts in order to better dissect this ugly dragon.

Comment from cn0te1:

*****
Please read educate yourself and then be quite!
SONG OF SOLOMON. 6:13

-----
(Part 1)
(7:1) Encouraged by Shulamith's unassuming answer, the daughters of Jerusalem now give utterance to an entreaty which their astonishment at her beauty suggests to them. 7:1 Come back, come back, O Shulamith!
Come back, come back, that we may look upon thee!
She is now (Song 6:10 ff.) on the way from the garden to the palace. The fourfold "come back" entreats her earnestly, yea, with tears, to return thither with them once more, and for this purpose, that they might find delight in looking up her; for b| chaazaah signifies to sink oneself into a thing, looking at it, to delight (feast) one's eyes in looking on a thing.
Here for the first time Shulamith is addressed by name. But hashuw' cannot be a pure proper name, for the art. is vocat., as e.g., yrw' habat , "O daughter of Jerusalem!" Pure proper names like shlmh are so determ. in themselves that they exclude the article; only such as are at the sametime also nouns, like yar|deen and l|baanown , are susceptible of the article, particularly also of the vocat., Ps 114:5; but cf.
Zech 11:1 with Isa 10:34. Thus hashuw' will be not so much a proper name as a name of descent, as generally nouns in î (with a few exceptions, viz., of ordinal number, haraariy , y|maaniy , etc.) are all gentilicia. The LXX render hshw' by hee Sounami'tis, and this is indeed but another form for hashuwnamiyt, i.e., she who is from Sunem. Thus also was designated the exceedingly beautiful Abishag, 1 Kings 1:3, Elisha's excellent and pious hostess, 2 Kings 4:8 ff.
Sunem was in the tribe of Issachar (Josh 19:18), near to Little Hermon, from which it was separated by a valley, to the south-east of Carmel. This lower Galilean Sunem, which lies south from Nain, south-east from Nazareth, south-west from Tabor, is also called Shulem. Eusebius in his Onomasticon says regarding it: Doubee'm (l. Doulee'm) klee'rou Issa'char kai' nu'n esti' koo'mee Soulee'm k.t.l., i.e., as Jerome translates it: Sunem in tribue Issachar. et usque hodie vicus ostenditur nomine Sulem in quinto miliario montis Thabor contra australum plagam. This placeif found at the present day under the name of Suwlam (Sôlam), at the west end of Jebel ed-Duhi (Little Hermon), not far from the great plain (Jisre'el, now Zer'în), which forms a convenient way of communication between Jordan and the sea-coast, but is yet so hidden in the mountainrange that the Talmud is silent concerning this Sulem, as it is concerning Nazareth. Here was the home of the Shulamitess of the Song. The ancients interpret the name by eireemeu'ousa, or by eskuleume'nee (vid., Lagarde's Onomastica), the former after Aquila and the Quinta, the latter after Symm. The Targum has the interpretation: h' `m b'mwnth hshleemh (vid., Rashi). But the form of the name (the Syr. writes shiyluwmiytaa') is opposed to these allegorical interpretations. Rather it is to be assumed that the poet purposely used, not hshwb', but hshwl', to assimilate her name to that of Solomon; and that it has the parallel meaning of one devoted to Solomon, and thus, as it were, of a passively-applied sh|lowmiyt = Dalo'mee, is the more probable, as the daughters of Jerusalem would scarcely venture thus to address her who was raised to the rank of a princess unless this name accorded with that of Solomon.
Not conscious of the greatness of her beauty, Shulamith asks- 1ba What do you see in Shulamith?

-----
Part 2
She is not aware that anything particular is to be seen in her; but the daughters of Jerusalem are of a different opinion, and answer this childlike, modest, but so much the more touching question- 1bb As the dance of Mahanaim!
They would thus see in her something like the dance of Manahaaïm. If this be here the name of the Levitical town (now Mahneh) in the tribe ofGad, north of Jabbok, where Ishbosheth resided for two years, and where David was hospitably entertained on his flight from Absalom (Luthr.: "the dance to Mahanaaïm"), then we must suppose in this trans-Jordanic town such a popular festival as was kept in Shiloh, Judg 21:19, and we may compare Abel-meholah = meadow of dancing, the name of Elisha's birth-place (cf. also Herod. i. 16: "To dance the dance of the Arcadian town of Tegea").
But the Song delights in retrospective references to Genesis (cf. Gen 4:11b, 7:11). At 32:3, however, by Mahanaaïm (Note: Böttcher explains Mahanaaïm as a plur.; but the plur. of mchnh is machanowt and machaniym; the plur. termination ajim is limited to mayim and shaamayim .) is meant the double encampment of angels who protected Jacob's two companies (32:8). The town of Mahanaaïm derives its name from this vision of Jacob's. The word, as the name of a town, is always without the article; and here, where it has the article, it is to be understood appellatively. The old translators, in rendering by "the dances of the camps" (Syr., Jerome, choros castrorum, Venet. thi'ason stratope'doon), by which it remains uncertain whether a war-dance or a parade is meant, overlook the dual, and by exchanging mchnayim with machanowt, they obtain a figure which in this connection is incongruous and obscure. But, in truth, the figure is an angelic one. The daughters of Jerusalem wish to see Shulamith dance, and they designate that as an angelic sight. Mahanaaïm became in the post-bibl. dialect a name directly for angels. The dance of angels is only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim, Isa 6.
Engelkoere angel-choir and "heavenly host" are associated in the old German poetry. (Note: Vid., Walther von der Vogelweide, 173. 28. The Indian mythology goes farther, and transfers not only the original of the dance, but also of the drama, to heaven; vid., Götting. Anziegen, 1874, p. 106.)
The following description is undeniably that (let one only read how Hitzig in vain seeks to resist this interpretation) of one dancing. In this, according to biblical representation and ancient custom, there is nothing repulsive.

-----
Part 3
The women of the ransomed people, with Miriam at their head, danced, as did also the women who celebrated David's victory over Goliath (Ex. 15:20; 1 Sam. 18:66). David himself danced (2 Sam 6) before the ark of the covenant. Joy and dancing are, according to Old Testament conception, inseparable (Eccl 3:4); and joy not only as the happy feeling of youthful life, but also spiritual holy joy (Ps 87:7). The dance which the ladies of the court here desire to see, falls under the point of view of a play of rival individual artistes reciprocally acting for the sake of amusement. The play also is capable of moral nobility, if it is enacted within the limits of propriety, at the right time, in the right manner, and if the natural joyfulness, penetrated by intelligence, is consecrated by a spiritual aim.
Thus Shulamith, when she dances, does not then become a Gaditanian (Martial, xiv. 203) or an Alma (the name given in Anterior Asia to thosewomen who go about making it their business to dance mimic and partly lascivious dances); nor does she become a Bajadere (Isa 23:15 f.), (Note: Alma is the Arab. 'ualmah (one skilled, viz., in dancing and jonglerie), and Bajadere is the Portug. softening of baladera, a dancer, from balare (ballare), mediaev. Lat., and then Romanic: to move in a circle, to dance.) as also Miriam, Ex 15:20, Jephthah's daughter, Judg 11:34, the "daughters of Shiloh," Judg 21:21, and the woman of Jerusalem,1 Sam 18:6, did not dishonour themselves by dancing; the dancing of virgins is even a feature of the times after the restoration, Jer 31:13. But that Shulamith actually danced in compliance with the earnest entreaty of thedaughters of Jerusalem, is seen from the following description of her attractions, which begins with her feet and the vibration of her thighs.
After throwing aside her upper garments, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vinedresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them. Her feet, previously (Song 5:3) naked, or as yet only shod withsandals, she sets forth with the deportment of a prince's daughter. 2a How beautiful are thy steps in the shoes, O prince's daughter!
.....

-----
Part 4
""Another view is that the word "return" is for "turn round;" that is, "Let us see thee dance, that we may admire the beauty of thy form and movements." This would explain the appropriateness of the bride's reply in the latter haft of the verse. Moreover, the fourfold appeal is scarcely suitable if the bride was only slightly indicating her intention to leave. She would surely not leave hastily, seeing that Solomon is present. The request is not that she may remain, but that they may look upon her. It would be quite fitting in the mouth of lady companions. The whole is doubtless a poetic artifice, as before in the case of the dream, for the purpose of introducing the lovely description of her personal attractions. Plainly she is described as dancing or as if dancing. Delitzsch, however, thinks that the dance is only referred to by the ladies as a comparison; but in that case he certainly leaves unexplained the peculiarity of the description in Song of Solomon 7:1-5, which most naturally is a description of a dancing figure.Verse 13b. - Why will ye look upon the Shulamite as upon the dance of Mahanaim? The Shulamite, in her perfect modesty and humility, not knowing how beautiful she really is, asks why it is that they wish still to gaze upon her, like those that gaze at the dance of Mahanaim, or why they wish her to dance. But at the same moment, with the complaisance of perfect amiability, begins to move - always a pleasure to a lovely maiden - thus filling them with admiration. Mahanaim came in later times to mean "angels," or the "heavenly host" (see Genesis 32:3), but here it is generally thought to be the name of a dance, perhaps one in which the inhabitants of Mahanaim excelled, or one in which angels or hosts were thought to engage. The old translators, the Syriac, Jerome, and the Venetian, render, "the dances of the camps" (choros castrarum, θίωσον στρατοπέδων), possibly a war dance or parade. The word, however, is in the dual. Delitzsch thinks the meaning is a dance as of angels, "only a step beyond the responsive song of the seraphim" (Isaiah 6.). Of course, there can be no objection to the association of angels with the bride, but there is no necessity for it. The word would be, no doubt, familiarly known in the age of Solomon. The sacred dances wore often referred to in Scripture. and there would be nothing degrading to the dignity of the bride in dancing before the ladies and her own husband. "After throwing aside her upper garment, so that she had only the light clothing of a shepherdess or vine dresser, Shulamith danced to and fro before the daughters of Jerusalem, and displayed all her attractions before them.""...Therefore performing a provocative dance!


*****


I can't wait to get into critiquing it. But I have to wait until I have more time on my hands.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Piper Pipes In

I have no idea what he has said since I have not heard this yet. I'm so busy with personal life that my blog seems to have become my 'Pinterest' today, pinning this little blip from Piper concerning whether or not he regrets partnering with Driscoll. I'm pinning it so I can find it later. Piper may redeem himself. Or not. I have know clue. I'll find out as I listen to it.

Do you regret partnering with Mark Driscoll - Piper

I'm not a huge Piper fan. But Driscoll... wow.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Mars Hill, the good and the bad

I don't have much time for blogging these days. But things haven't slowed down in popular Christian culture news. Especially at Mars Hill.

For those who want to keep on top of it, I suggest reading WTH's blog. He is in the know, both as a former MH member and as someone who is still in contact with people who go there. He is keeping track of all the inconsistencies and spin.

But on a more personal note, here is a thoughtful comment over at Warren Throckmorton's blog by a former member and leader on both the good and the bad of belonging to Mars Hill.

1John410's comment at Throckmorton's

Most things are not rigidly black and white. Even Mars Hill.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

"Pussified Nation" Says Driscoll (WTH)

I'm just going to link to this series under its label on Wenatchee The Hatchet's blog.

Driscoll fears the feminine and its great and magnificent power to destroy men (snark or eye rolling icon here).

He is so worried about the power of women to destroy men and manhood that he went on and on and on about it about it on some Mars Hill forum.

If you go down about half a page or more you will get to Page 1 of Driscoll's ranting against girly men (as defined by him) and the women who made them that way. Page 2 is below that.

But here is the link:

Pussified Nation (WTH)

Dang, Driscoll. Go get some therapy. You need it, dude.

Driscoll's Damaging Teaching.

Here is a link to Wendy's blog piece on Driscoll's damaging teachings on sex and marriage.

Harmful Teaching of Wives as Their Husband's Porn Stars.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

ExMH Employee and Misogyny at Mars Hill

Thanks to Retha for pointing this article out.

Mark Anderson, former 'Minister of Propaganda'* at Mars Hill apologizes for being a, quote, ''willing participant in a culture of Misogyny."

(*The term, 'Minister of Propaganda' is what he used to jokingly say his title was while working for Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. You can find that in his article that is linked below.)

He apologizes for a lot of things.
One of them is this:
"I want to apologize to women everywhere for being part of a culture that didn’t value you as equal to men."

You see, Mike pressured his "brilliant and hard-working wife to give up her dream of law school and have a baby and be a stay-at-home mom as soon as possible."

He says about this: "I allowed others to take verses from the Bible out of context and put a law on my wife and rob her of a dream. I only added pressure on her. It was wrong, and I’m terribly sorry."

The article that contains these quotes and a lot of other good stuff can be found here:

HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE, I'M A RECOVERING TRUE BELIEVER

Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill are guilty of misogyny. And worse than that, they are guilty of misquoting and misrepresenting the Bible to make it agree with their misogyny.
This is akin to taking God's name in vain.

This has been going on a long time. I'm glad that people are finally (after far too long) finally exposing this sin of misogyny for what it is in this broken and ill church.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Driscoll and Deception

Or should I say, 'Driscoll and Spin'? Or perhaps 'Driscoll and Delusion'? Any number of titles would work. And I could replace the word 'Driscoll' with 'Mars Hill'. It's all the same. Long and short, the Spinmeisters are at it again as displayed by the findings and screen shots of Wenatchee the Hatchet (WTH).

When WTH sent me an email with the link to these new and very incrimination findings, I emailed him back.
I'd like to share with you some of what I wrote.

I've known something wasn't right with the man for some time. 
Early on I found precious few people who agreed with me and 
felt utterly compelled to sound the alarm.

Now I've met you, TWW, and see the work of Throckmorton. I see 
that I'm not only not alone, there are more informed and more 
qualified people to speak on this.

I'm almost feeling sorry for Driscoll now. I'm sorry that he 
got away with so much for so long and now it's all falling 
down around him. He appears to have developed no quality tools 
to deal with this collapse in any reasonable way. It's just 
more of the same schtick. But this time nearly everyone is 
seeing right through the deception.

I'm saying all of this to let you know, I so appreciate you 
speaking out reasonably, informatively, and objectively. You 
have been a rock when I've thrown up my hands in a tizzy 
wondering what the heck is wrong with everybody, being 
schmoozed so easily by this guy.

I'm going link this because it is just 
another amazing example of the character flaws in Driscoll. 
These flaws should have disqualified him years ago. Yes, I 
blame Driscoll. I also blame Grace a little bit. She should 
not have just rolled over and let him do these things. But 
mostly I blame the church for have ZERO levels of discernment. 
We are to be a shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves. Not 
stupid and enabling as sheep who have had frontal lobotomies.

Now, to the link of incriminating evidence that proves, once again, that Driscoll should have never been allowed to pastor a church:

Driscoll LIES about who was doing the premarital counseling in the early years of Mars Hill.

Honestly, I'm really starting to feel sorry for him. This doesn't mean I give him a pass or think he shouldn't be called into account for everyone he has hurt. But gosh darn it. After a while, watching someone make so many bad decisions, it just becomes painful to watch and I'm about ready to look away now.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Problem with the ESV

Actually there is a problem with Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). And I found an article called Unpacking the Web of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Scandal. It looks like a pretty good, if rather involve, article.

But skimming, I found these comparisons between the ESV (English Standard Version) and the NIV (New International Version). Well, just let me quote the author of the article.

"Keller, Carson, Dever and Mohler (as well as other leaders I’ve listed above) are readily published through Crossway books. These men have been influential in popularizing the ESV Bible (English Standard Version) to usurp the popular NIV to become THE evangelical translation of choice.
But, it’s just a translation! you might say.
The best way I know to show the problem of ESV is to compare two passages that reveals a masculine bias NOT in the Hebrew, but present in the ESV (bold mine).
So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them. (NIV)
So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.(ESV)
Do you see the key difference? Consider how the subtle word “man” without “kind” sounds in the ears of modern men and women today.
The Gospel Coalition is also the loudest “evangelical” voice advocating for men’s spiritual priority over women, softly called “complementarianism” (Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is housed by STBS, Mohler’s school). See both the ESV bias and Crossway publications pointing in the complementarian direction.
Here’s how the ESV makes females universally silent in the church (bold mine, 1 Cor 14:33-34):
33) For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34) Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (NIV)
33) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
34) As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (ESV)
Notice how the NIV (and KJV) make orderliness the universal call.  The ESV sneaks that phrase over to verse 34 (I underlined it) to make women’s silence, not peace, the universal. Then, note the reemphasizing by capitalizing the word “Law.” (There is no such Law in Torah and scholars believe it was a cultural law in view… hence the lowercase.)
Having studied complementarianism extensively, the push for ESV appears to be a sly manipulation of Scripture to fit a powerful organization’s agenda. The Hebrew and Greek allow room for the way the NIV interprets these passages.
It saddens me that men will manipulate scripture like this in order to promote their agenda, one that includes oppressing women.

Jeremiah 8:8 says, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie."

 It was true back in Jeremiah's day. Now we see that it is also true today.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

The Problem with Promise Keepers

I've written on this before. I will probably do so again.

Bonding in the Bleachers

Promise Keepers promotes hierarchy as the answer to the issues of family. But when my husband came home he wanted to exert his 'authority' over me and it created more problems than what we had before.

The problem with Promise Keepers is that it has a problem with power. It has a un-biblical devotion to hierarchy that sows discord.