Insecurity, and the ‘MANHOOD’ race that breeds it

Culture is a very powerful thing no matter where you live.  I mentioned that last time I wrote when I spoke of India’s Daughter.

 

It’s very hard to speak about the dangerous aspects of culture, because ‘this is how it is’ type of statements are used to shut down the conversation.

 

What they refuse to do is acknowledge that YES you can change aspects that harm your society, but it reminds me of the saying ‘you can’t fight city hall’ at times.  Their insecurity wipes out all common sense.

 

In India proving your womanhood is accepting your second class status, and revering the authority of men.  They are much more upfront about this second class status, whereas here in the states places like CBMW tend to use women mouth pieces like Mary Kassian to get a blunt as they are.

 

Both places tend to enrich insecurity in men by asking them to prove their manhood.  They need to learn to display it, prove it to the world around them.  That is the only way they keep their ‘authority’.

 

Greg Hahn started to blog recently, and he spoke of some statements that John Piper had made.  I encourage you to read his post – its very good!

 

When you listen to what John Piper is saying about how people can’t explain to a little boy what biblical manhood is – or little girl about her role as far as that goes….it seems to come down to authority.  That is the only difference.  If Egalitarians can’t tell a little boy about his manhood in terms of his authority…they can’t tell that little boy how to be a man….biblically.

 

Insecurity

 

“Most American men know perfectly well the qualities they must display to be considered fully creditable as men: power, competitiveness, and toughness.”

That’s the prize, right there. You have to be “considered fully creditable as a man”. And the unspoken understanding of many is that you don’t just get that from having X and Y chromosomes and reaching adulthood. You have to earn your manhood, so as to be seen manly by those around you. If you can feel it, all the better, but in the very least you need to be seen that way.

 

I quoted part of Greg Hahn’s article, because he makes a great point here to me.

 

To me culture within certain faith communities, and YES that includes complementarianism are individuals having to prove our ‘gender hood’ constantly.  They play into fears – of secular culture – in order to raise your insecurity.  Most of the time they love exaggerating these fears about culture as well.  That way you drive even harder to disprove the misconception.

 

Men are always told how to show their ‘manhood’, and women in this circle are shown how they can prove they are not a FEMINIST!

 

If you have read enough of the complementarian model you know authority within manhood is very important.  Yes, they claim this authority is based in Christ-like servanthood.  Yet, if you listen to the messages this servanthood is based in the ‘this is how it is’ model.

 

It’s similar to India’s viewpoint towards their females:  She should not be put on the streets just like food.  The ‘lady’, on the other hand, you can say the ‘girl’ or ‘woman’, are more precious than a gem, than a diamond.  Its up to you how you want to keep that diamond in your hand.  If you put that diamond on the street, certainly the dogs will carry it out.  You can’t stop it”   - Attorney for Rapists

 

The man is constantly proving his manhood, and if the woman steps out of ‘this is how it is’ mode?    It’s ultimately the man’s fault for not treating his gem or diamond as he should.  He placed her out of the street, and let the dogs carry her out.  The women should know their place in the home – where they are safe from the dogs.

 

In India, if you are out after the time some man feels you shouldn’t be?  If they think you are with a man that is NOT a family member?  They teach you a lesson by rape.

 

They seem to feel they are taking their authority, but there is no true authority there.  Its just cockeyed.

 

This is what happens when you don’t follow my authority.

 

Women are told to make sure their men ‘feel’ their manhood, and men are constantly having to show their manhood. 

 

It’s not really manhood they are speaking about, but authority if you want to get down to it.

 

You also notice it’s a never ending race to earn your manhood, and yet you are told you are ‘wired’ that way.

 

It really makes no sense does it?

 

If your woman doesn’t show the ‘this is how it is’ model of biblical womanhood it reflects badly on your manhood or authority.  This lack of authority within his household helps feed the insecurity, and the threat of him having a feminist within his home?  You need to MAN UP!  (I hate that term!)  This normally leads to cruel things happening in order to teach her a lesson.

 

The insecurity over his threat to his manhood is the justification.  Its similar to India’s justification of rape we read about above.  This is what happens when you don’t follow my authority.  Heck, they will take it a step further – for dramatic purposes – stating she emasculated him.

 

When people are taught that is how you treat a gem or a diamond?  It reflects the sense of worth they truly have towards the other gender, but you are told you don’t get it if you point this out.

 

It seems to me that they breed insecurity in men, and when you have an insecure person – be it man or women – they tend to lash out.

 

Insecurity leads to contempt

 

Insecure people also tend to use stereotypes, and project irrational fears that they want to come across as normal.  Owen Strachman shows this when he speaks about Baby Bear, and how he think boys playing with dolls is foolish.  He wants to speak about, ‘God-encoded truth about sexuality and gender’!  Yet, we are talking about a preschool kid playing ‘Daddy’.

 

Yes, it’s a great example of ‘this is how it is’!  Yet, its not in reality.  As Greg said, “You have to earn your manhood, so as to be seen manly by those around you. If you can feel it, all the better, but in the very least you need to be seen that way.’'

His father feels shame, because there maybe something in his son that isn’t ‘manhood’ enough.  So, they encourage him to tell his son only girls play with dolls.  You don’t want to be a ‘girl’ do you?

 

His son’s innocent playtime wanting to be a ‘Daddy’ now turns into a show of how the father isn’t teaching his son properly, and Dad’s (manhood) authority is threatened.  You don’t earn your manhood stripes by allowing your son to play with DOLLS!

 

Why people can’t see that is a major brain fart in the realm of common sense is beyond me!  I also don’t understand why they can’t see their reaction as dishonoring women. I mean that is authority gone haywire!  They also – like India – turn women or femininity into the realm of ‘them’.

 

Then you are reduced to ‘them’ contempt isn’t far behind.  Contempt is also a byproduct of insecurity.

 

Culture is hard to change.  Society is learning to accept, love, and grow in diversity..and moving away proving your gender. 

 

Let’s pray that ‘this is how it is’ goes away, and we finally learn to live with the here and now.  Yes, lets turn this around to:  That is how it was.  No fake show of authority needed, and no pressure to earn your manhood that comes from those fake needs.

 

Learning to love and respect humanity just as Jesus did.

Use Silly Examples for the 'you don't get it' Generation?

I started reading CBMW’s new e-book they released online.  If you read the Foreword by John Piper it seems this is a introduction to the NEW group of complementarian leaders of our future.  ,

 

I’ll begin with the first chapter of their new e-book. 

 

Owen Strachan is continuing the theme of humans being ‘confused’ by their gender.  How if you allow him to show you the truth about gender and God?  Things just magically work I guess.  WELL at least you are doing it the biblical way anyway right?!  Problem is they are taking the same approach as the past leaders, and using scenes, stories and descriptions in a way that only their ‘group’ can relate to.  Sadly, not their intended audience.  Isn’t that whom they are trying convince…I would think right?

 

Owen Strachan spoke about a movie scene in ‘Juno”, and it made me realize they just plain see things differently compared to how they truly play out.  They read things into circumstances that might not even be there, and apply assumptions that totally miss the mark.

 

Owen Strachan’s description of a scene from the movie, “Juno’. 

The lips of the young woman quivered. Tears rolled down her face. Her angry father stared at her. “I thought you were the kind of girl who didn’t get into this sort of trouble,” he said. She looked back at him confused and adrift: “I guess I don’t really know what kind of girl I am.”

This exchange came in Juno, a poignant film made a few years ago. It’s a quick scene, but it has stuck with me ever since. In this young woman’s reply, I heard the confusion of an entire generation. So many young men and young women don’t know who they are.

Now you can see the scene in question online, and you just google Juno telling her parents she is pregnant.  Otherwise, just click my highlighted link.

 

There was no lips quivering, tears rolling down her face – no an angry father telling her he didn’t think she was that type of girl.  It was a pretty matter of fact scene, and I’m not going to say her father wasn’t disappointed.  He was indeed disappointed.

 

Juno announced that she found a couple that would adopt her child, and pay for all her medical expenses.  Dad wanted to come with her to the meeting to make sure she wasn’t taken advantage of. 

 

Then he says to her, “I thought you were the type of girl that knew when to say when”.  Yes, she did indeed say she didn’t know what type of girl she was.  In the very next scene, the father felt the blame was clearly on his shoulders.  Was he NOT a good enough father?!

 

Her sense of confusion is NOT what he describes – or approaches within this chapter.  He just plucked out, and used it.  Sadly, that’s what’s confusing.

Women: The indirect, mediated and derivative of Male?

I wanted to talk about the Petition that is on Change.org (I was told this site has issues with FireFox), and I wanted you to know WHY I signed it.  It has nothing to do with the debate over Egalitarians versus Complementarians.  Its about the meanings behind the teachings I see that are presented much differently than most seem to think.


I have no doubt some may find the language rather harsh, but when I researched some of the messages of their mantra (CBMW) – equal in worth, but differing roles – I found it to be very deceptive.   I found it ugly and insulting, and I can’t believe in this day and age people truly have this starting point of belief towards their fellow humans.  It’s the not ‘differing roles’ so much as their definition of ‘equal in worth’.  We will discuss today what they mean by that.

First, lets start out on a positive note!

I heard a very inspiring video this morning by Pakistani educator Ziauddin Yousafzai.  He stated in the video that in his country men are known by their sons, but in his case he is known by his daughter.  For this he is proud.

"Malala used to be known as my daughter, but now I’m known as her father," he said to the crowd. "In patriarchal societies, fathers are known by their sons. I am known by my daughter and proud of it."

Its true that people around the world know his daughter's name, and were shocked when she was shot in the face a point blank range just for going to school.  Most people know who Malala is.  Unlike many from her country this girl is a sense of pride for her family.

As you listen to his video you realize how badly women are viewed, and they are not looked at as a fellow humans.  Their society teaches girls from a very young age that their main responsibility is obedience.   They must be silent, meek and submissive.  She is not allowed to be an individual, because she will be looked upon as disobedient.

If she crosses some imagery line its perfectly acceptable for the men to kill her to save their honor.  Her obedience is her reflection of worth.  Lack of that obedience brings dishonor, and justification for the harm that comes to her.

If you think about that for a moment?  They must do some major mind gymnastics to view her as something other than 100% human.  If they can't view her as subhuman?  They may not be able to do the things we read about that happens to women in that part of the world.  They are able to separate the humanity in her, and that not only harms her…but everyone in her life and society.

Thankfully,  in my part of the world this cultural mindset is not acceptable.  Her father is a breath of fresh air, and I have no doubt his daughter is also proud of him.

What I do object is in my part of the world is being told that I am a derivative form of human.  I may have equal worth, but due to my derivative form I have differing roles in life.  Obedience to that teaching – we are told – is within God’s will. 

If I can NOT accept their teaching of my creation I am labeled;  Feminist, Jezebel, Harlot, Witch, etc.

I am told that I don’t know the difference between male and female, and that I wish to melt the genders together to have an genderless society.  That is perfectly okay for the male not knowing how to be male, and woman not knowing how to be female.  Yeah – okay then.  We are after genderless blobs right?

No.  That’s not it at all.  I don’t wish to be viewed as some indirect image of God, and some derivative form of male. 

I know what your thinking!  WOW, Hannah that is kind of out there isn’t it?  Yeah, it is OUT THERE yet that is what is TAUGHT!  Let’s look at a quote off their website, and the speaker is Bruce Ware:

It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion. So while they are both fully image of God, there is also  God intended priority given to the man as the original image of God through whom the woman, as image of God, derived from the male comes to be…Bruce Ware in his lecture Building Strong Families in Your Church

When you can view the other gender as a byproduct of yourself?  An indirect, mediated, derivative form of human?  That is how its perfectly acceptable to say some of the awful things we hear, because it is taught that the male is the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) of the human race. 

Being the OEM the – direct, unmediated form of human – its easier to view the Non OEM partner as they do.  Yes, they say but the OEM and Non OEM are both loved equally by God.  Yet, you need to remember that God intended priority to the OEM…not the derivative.  That’s according to quote above.

Let’s look at a couple of verses from Genesis 1.  This was before God took the rib out of Adam.

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
or
Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

Notice the language in Genesis I states “US” not me.  Of “THEM” not male, and his indirect, derivative form of helper.

Just like in Malala’s country when you are brought up from cradle to grave under the belief system that females are NON OEM brand human compared to males?  You can be justified in thinking you have headship and authority, because you are told you have PRIORITY over others. 

In this way, you can justify in your mind that obedience to your biblical role acknowledges your worth.

Ziauddin Yousafzai said he taught girls to ‘unlearn’ the lesson of obedience, because of their meaning of the word and all it entailed.

Today, I pointed out the meaning of the phrase ‘equal in worth’.  You need to make the decision yourself if that definition of ‘equal in worth’ is acceptable.

Please consider signing the petition on Change.org.  (The website I am told has a hard time with the firefox browser, so please use other one.  ie: Chrome, Internet Explorer, etc) Add your name to list of humans that want the world to know that female is not the NON OEM brand of human.

In closing, a quote from Ziauddin Yousafzai:
People ask me what is special is in my mentorship which has made Malala so bold and courageous and vocal and poised? I tell them, “Don't ask me what I did.  Ask me what I did not do.  I did not clip her wings….and that's all.

Additional Reading:
News Story about this Petition:  Petition asks gender-role group to repent
Petition to Demand for an Apology from CBMW – by Shirley Taylor
Why Protesting "Equal But Subordinate" is Not Just Me Having a Problem with Authority
Petition CBMW for an Apology Along with Me, for the Sake of Liberty and Love

Headship in Heaven–Part two

When I wrote to you last time about an article CBMW put up regarding ‘Headship is Heaven’?  People from all over the internet were talking about how the article went offline after some serious criticism of the opinion given in the article itself.  It wasn’t so much that the website no longer showed the article, but the substance within the article that was seriously troubling.

Since that time Associate Baptist Press took up the story, and went into more details about the troubling nature of the content of the article.  The fact that the article was taken down?  It was more of a side note, as you can read for yourself in: 

Pastor says male/female roles will continue in heaven

 

Owen Strachan, executive director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) responded finally to the uproar over the article.  Unfortunately, he didn’t address the concerns about the article itself.  Instead, he complained that it was website glitch, and mentioned a ‘standing tendency on the part of a small group of anti-CBMW folks to misconstrue our motives’

 

Below are the bullet points he felt were ‘misinterpreted’

1st paragraph: “…article posted online recently…” (His point was the article is rather old, and was reprinted)

2nd Paragraph: “A 7,000-word article… apparently was taken down” (website glitch)

5th to last paragraph: “the group’s executive director said in a blog post…” (He was saying that week’s article had nothing to do with the website glitch, and yet that wasn’t the context of what Bob Allen said either.)

3rd to last paragraph: “Denny Burk, associate professor of biblical studies and ethics at Boyce College, is the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood editor.” (His point was Denny Burk wasn’t even there at the time the article was written.  Bob Allen never said he was, and again took what was said out of context.)

 

So for whatever reason he deflected the controversy over to something that really had nothing to do with it.  The Bob Allen of the Associate Baptist Press wrote a follow up article, Director of gender-roles council denies scrubbing article.

 

Shortly there after the article in question was back online, but concerns about the article itself?  Still go unanswered. 

Twitter / ostrachan: Unfortunately, @abp_rh relied ... via kwout

Headship in Heaven–According to CBMW

What is 'Sameness'?  I read a paper written by pastor Mark David Walton that tends to have complementarian leanings, and I have a REALLY hard time wrapping my mind around where he comes up with some of the 'conclusions'. 

He needed to start by pointing out the differences between his way of believing, and of course egalitarians.  As you might have guessed the ‘sameness’ concept came up.

The pastor wanted to present his opinions on, Roles and Relationships in New Creation.  Yet, it seems CBMW decided they would take the article down, and my picture above is what you find now. 

NO fear!  Hannah grabbed a ‘cache’ shot from the internet, and its STILL available.  Here you GO!  At the beginning of the article he mentions a previous one that he wrote, and I guess this article is a follow up for it.    Here is the original article.  What We Shall Be:  A Look at Gender and the New Creation  By: Mark David Walton

What was he discussing?

Will there be ‘headship’ in heaven?  Will the roles still be present?  WELL – according to them – OF course there will be!

Since we will be in the presence of God – the ultimate authority – it would seem strange as too WHY this portion of their role would even be needed if we were honest about it.  (sarcasm mode on) I guess they don’t feel God would take this away from them in Heaven like they feel today’s feminist’s have! (end of sarcasm)

Below is a quote from the author, and the BLUE text is a source he quoted from.  His quotes are from a man named, Randy Alcorn.  I haven’t figure out how to ‘double quote’ within Windows Live Writer yet!  Sorry about that!

Feminists, both secular and evangelical, define equality in terms of functionality rather than ontologically-on the basis of being. They err by effectively reducing equality to "sameness,"11 and in so doing embrace one of liberalism's foundational concepts, namely, that parity is the social ideal.12 We can be certain, however, that the new creation will be characterized, not by sameness but by incredible diversity-diversity of abilities, diversity of gifts, and diversity of rewards. Alcorn, addressing the question of equality in the new creation, merits inclusion here:
All people are equal in worth, but they differ in gifting and performance. . . . Because God promises to reward people differently according to their differing levels of faithfulness in this life, we should not expect equality of possessions and positions. . . . There's no reason to believe we'll all be equally tall or strong or that we'll have the same gifts, talents, or intellectual capacities. If we all had the same gifts, they wouldn't be special. If you can do some things better than I can, and I than you, then we'll have something to offer each other. . . . diversity-not conformity-characterizes a perfect world.13
The new creation will, indeed, be a place where equality reigns-but not as feminists define the term. It will be equality as biblically defined, equality that has its basis in divinely established human worth.

I have yet to run into one human that felt equality was:  equally tall, strong, everyone having the same gifts, talents or intellectual capacities.  The blue quote is from Randy Alcorn, whom is another person that has rather out there views of Egalitarians.  I will get to him later.

So I was a bit perplexed as to what 'feminist' he has ran into, spoken to, or read their material that stated that humans must be the above in order to have equality.

You notice the man doesn't reference any 'feminist' that stated this either.   Nope!  If you check the footnotes in the above quote?  They all come from the same source – CBMW authors, and friends of the complementarian belief system.

It always amazed me that people could 'grasp' the concept during civil rights movement that minorities wanted people to acknowledge that all humans are equal.  One race of people did not have more 'worth' than they other.  That one race shouldn't be barred from something due to their race.  There were many other issues, and we all know them.

The point is it has nothing to do with this author's definition of 'sameness'. 

If I were guessing?  Chances are pretty STRONG this man understands what the civil rights definition of equality is, and how it had nothing to do with 'sameness'.

Funny, when it comes to 'women' in the church wanting a sense of equality?  These men pretend to be morons.  They are just incapable of making the connection due to their 'mental age'.

JUST to be clear what my definition of the word moron is?  I'll quote from a dictionary online:

"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull"[4] (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp" (see also: oxymoron)), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.[5] It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including, "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists.[6]

I have to be frank here!  I have a feeling this 'moron' state is pretty conditional, because I have no doubt in my mind their mental age is higher than 8-12 years old.  Yet, for some reason they feel the need to lower it in order to make their point.

WHY that is the logical or a rational approach to presenting your point of view?  Your guess is as good as mine!

I mean anyone with a brain can figure out that 'sameness' per his description isn't humanly possible.  Everyone with the ‘same’ everything?!

I mean it doesn't even make sense.

As far as 'ontologically"?  Let's define what Ontology means. 

1:  a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2:  a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

So, I would gather that the author seems to feel that when 'humans' (correction - only FEMINST humans) speak of equality they only refer to 'functionality' – per his ‘factual’ footnotes.  Remember the ones from CBMW.

They (Feminists, both secular and evangelical) don't use the same dictionary?  (shrugs) I guess not.  No footnote for that source? OH well!  I guess being a ‘biblical authority’ we should take his word for it right?!

I mean where is the common dictionary that defines this as 'the study of functionality'?  He didn't link to it, and he should to support his point.

Here is another thing!

I have no idea how that ties into the concept of everyone being 'equally tall' or 'equally strong'.  Feminist or not it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't possible. 

Call me crazy but what has tallness or strength have to do with 'functionality' anyway?  Can someone connect the dots for me?  I'm lost.

I have no doubt there are some that will buy into what he has to say, and are completely baffled by 'those' that think like this.  Honestly?  I would be too.  It doesn’t make any sense.

I suppose if I tried hard enough I could go out and find someone that thinks like that.  Yet, since they are not mainstream I don't see the point of wasting my time.  The bigger problem as I see it is the claim this type of person IS mainstream!

Where is the evidence of this?  WELL besides their footnotes to CMBW, and other complementarian sources? None.

I mean I could pick some whack a doddle that is complementarian, and present it as 'mainstream'...but it doesn't make it so!

Sadly, what it really shows is the 'agenda'.  Below is a quote from an egalitarian after hearing Randy Alcorn tell you about ‘egalitarians’. 

Aside from Randy Alcorn’s blatant misrepresentation of biblical egalitarians (Good grief! No biblical egalitarian claims God the Father submits to God the Son! The issue is whether or not the Son is eternally subordinate or temporally subordinate to the Father during his incarnation.), this buffoonery is inexcusable from otherwise educated men!

I took that quote from this blog,   He was commenting from a brief video presentation from YOU guess it ‘friends of CBMW’!

What they do NOT understand is its not that hard today to seek out their 'claims' towards the other side of the debate.

They only thing they count on is from most people?  Is to NOT check it out for themselves to see if it is true.  They pretty much expect that since they present themselves as the 'biblical authority'.  If you get down to the footnotes – which most people won’t – they might be surprised as to WHERE they are getting this information from.  Yep, their preacher buddies!

I have to be frank here.

When people feel the need to be so disingenuous, and also to outright misrepresent the other side of things?  It makes me leary of them, and quite frankly trust is throw right out the window.

Its sad, because on other fronts they are extremely knowledgeable...and you can indeed learn from them.

Yet, when they act so childish towards others?  You are less likely to read anything they have to say at all. 

The strange thing is that I have heard some of the extremists from that side state they would LOVE to sit down, and talk - instead of throwing barbs back and forth.

I honestly think that would be very hard to do when they don't even seem to grasp what egalitarians actually stand for, believe, and what their definition of equality means.

I mean I just can't see them admitting they have misrepresented things first, and they would have to before any discussion starts.

This is why I feel the debates within the Christian community don't seem to happen so their can be some sort of reconciliation. 

If you can’t get past this?  There is NO WAY they can convince me – or any other rational person that there is ‘headship in heaven’. 

Yes, his theory is very disturbing.  Below are other links actually discussing the articles:

A letter to our sisters, on biblical womanhood in heavenly places

Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?

Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

Olympic Lesson or Spiritually Correct Rudeness

I read something on Desiring God that to me seemed like nothing more than a propaganda piece, and it truly shows how some will only see what they want too.  In the meantime, WHY not throw a couple of barbs towards the other side just for good measure.

It has always amazed me how some can come across as so soft and sweet on the surface, and then you feel their whip of mockery towards others as a show of some TRUE gift they feel they have.

As you read the piece, you learn why it is so hard to speak to them.  It also reminds me why I find it so hard to trust, or even respect their views at times as much as I try. 

To me quite frankly…they aren’t safe people to be around.  I don’t care how much they use the word biblical, or Godly to describe the individuals that represent them.  When you read articles like this?  Its so far off the ‘biblical’ map that is quite amazing that they don’t see it too!.

My parents always taught me that individuals that take time out of their day to tear you down just so they can feel uplifted…aren't’ decent people you should spend time with.

It reminds me of the political realm we have presently within the United States.  You question one portion of what the other side is proposing, or how they are approaching it?  You labeled a hater of the group of individuals that the program was drafted to help. 

They all do it today, because it seems popular within the atmosphere we have presently. Is it any wonder why its almost impossible to find that middle ground somewhere?  They have too many excuses that they allow themselves…not too.  Then WE The People get to live that reality.

Below is example of this that I truly felt was off color.  Groups of Christians are labeled with what they TRULY stand for…well in their eyes of course. To me, it would hard to explain how this in any way shows, “Mature Masculinity’ of the benevolent kind.

It’s an Art Form

They do not fight for equality on the ice; they possess it as a given. They are not jostling about fairness. They are focused on doing their part well. No one yells, “Oppressor!” as he leads her around the arena, lifting her up and catapulting her into a triple spin. No one thinks she is belittled as she takes her lead from him, skating backwards to his forward. No one calls for them to be egalitarian. “She should get to throw him into a triple Lutz half the time!” They complement each other in their complementarian approach to becoming one majestic whole. No one, least of all him, minds that the roses and teddy bears, thrown onto the ice when they have collapsed into each other’s arms at the end, are for her. It is his joy.
This is a visible model of what male leadership and female support are all about. It’s an art form, not a mandate. It’s a disposition, not a set of rules. When it’s done well, it’s a welcome sight in which both partners are fulfilled in themselves and delighted in the other.

If this is all the author has heard from the Egalitarian position?  I feel like I’m in the political arena, and the other side is purposely ignoring things so ONLY their opinion can be heard.  In this case – he is speaking to his base.  Sadly, whipping up the show of mockery that seems acceptable to them.

Look at us compared to THOSE people…Its just so Christian right?!

We have all seen it!  The Politian telling their audience THIS IS what my opponent ‘really means’.  This is what they REALLY said.  This what they REALLY stand for!

Then they go on to point how they have never offered up anything of substance.  How WE are the ones that truly represent you.  It really doesn’t matter what side of politics you are on – they all say pretty much the same thing.

Then they go off to Washington, and they have to play their game there as well.  We at home get to roll our eyes at all the silly politically correct stuff that never truly matches reality…they just try to convince us it does.

Today, it seems popular to be ‘Spiritually Correct’.  View your fellow Christians that don’t view things as pink and blue, and turn them into those 1960’s bra burning feminists.  Its perfectly acceptable to belittle their women, and mock their beliefs.  I mean it’s the Spiritually Correct way.

God gifts us all  - everyone of us.  We learn from scripture that God is pleased when we use these gifts to gloried him.  If you are Christian this is truly something you wish to do as well.

God made us all just a little different.  Some may have the same gifts, but the way they use that gift is different.  People may have similar styles, but there is always a uniqueness there as well.  It seems to me like God made everyone like that.

If we look at leaders?  We can find some very effective ones in history, and yet their styles are unique just to them.  They may use tactics, forms of speech that similar to past leaders that they admire…yet they are never EVER the ‘same’ or interchangeable. 

If we look at teachers?  Encouragers?  It’s the same thing.  Their unique gift is all their own, and they use it to Glorify God in their own way.  To me this is a good thing.

In reality of the Olympic Pair Skaters?  Their coach is the leader, and both individuals come together with their gifts, strengths, and work ethic to put on a performance that is awesome to watch.  They follow the lead of the coach if you truly wish to get down to it, and rely on their partner in more ways than I guess this author can comprehend. 

When you look closer?  You have many other staff members that work with the skaters, and the energy goes into each individual skater themselves – strength, athletic ability, etc. is honed even before they are paired together.  There is so much to see in their performance that is outside the realm of leader and follower.

If being an egalitarian to this author is all about, “She should get to throw him into a triple Lutz half the time!”   Its clear he didn’t take the time to listen. 

In reality that isn’t a show of MANHOOD, or leadership, authority, headship or any of the other labels you need to use to identify yourself in your ‘role’.  It just shows to me anyway your lack of capacity to hear what other’s have to say.

I realize that is the 'SPIRITUALLY correct way, but it really doesn’t show to anyone outside your ‘group’ the traits you claim is there. 

Quite frankly, its rude and shows a completely lack of understanding and compassion for others different than yourself.

You want to speak of the oneness we all saw?  That’s great!  We all saw it!  Heck I bet we would even agree there! 

You want to use that as a weapon towards others because some strange beliefs you have about how ‘those’ people believe?  That’s isn’t okay.  It shows an ugly underbelly.

An Olympic Lesson for Husbands and Wives?   Hardly.  You do get the Gold Metal for rudeness.  Congratulations!

Mary Kassian, the Beta Boy Husband, and the gaslight SPECIAL!

Mary Kassian wrote an article about Alpha Woman and Beta Boy: She is pointing out once again how to avoid the mindset that is:  celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.




Mary Kassian article though tends to contradict the teaching itself, and is also short on facts.   To me is seems like a good example of gaslighting!


Her teaching speaks about women breadwinners turning their female role into a position of the Alpha power seeker, because of the unnatural balance of income generated.  So don’t make more money than your partner, because it shows your possible usurping of his headship.  Why?  Less income makes the Beta Boy!

(Where do they come up with this stuff??)

Now, she does say woman can have jobs, and make a decent living.  Yet, they have to be OH so careful.  Then uses examples off another article where even myself felt the women were rather short sighted, and self centered.  It seems to be a norm in her examples.  She doesn’t like to use everyday women to make her point, but searches out examples most never come into contact with.

Yes, she found a feminist to use as an example of how everyone else lives, believes, and does life outside the complementarian belief system.  Its just not realistic for most people, but she uses it anyway.

Mary Kassian’s article is called, “Alpha Woman and Beta Boys’.  Her beginning paragraph makes you think she is basing it off a Pew Research Poll based on Breadwinner Moms.  The study was based off the rising numbers of women’s incomes, and goes into many factors that are a reality in this world. 

Yet, its not based on any power grab that Mary tends to present as the true message, nor interchangeable roles.

According to Pew Poll nearly two-thirds of homes where women are the primary or sole breadwinners are homes headed by single moms, while the other one-third percent are homes where a woman earns more than her husband. Both of these groups have grown dramatically over time. 

So, actually the majority of the women in this study?  Don’t have a beta boy or husband, so it’s a little misleading.

The second article Mary Kassian was referencing was from a successful older woman, that has a retired husband.  I did a little reading about the author herself, and sounds like she was pretty independent for quite a while.  She also started her family late in life.

What the author found is even as the bread winner of the family she still finds herself responsible for most of the domestic work around the house as well.  Cooking the dinners, planning the Birthday parties, etc.  I, myself would also find that rather odd if my circumstance was the same.  I mean what does he do with his retirement time?

Now, remember we are speaking of a one third that would be considered having a partner, and we still may not even know their circumstances (disability for example).  The ladies the second article references seem to be professional women on the higher ranks of their profession.  Most of us – don’t fill that description.  So, again it not really relatable.

So using them as a ‘see what I mean ladies’ type of example is rather silly.  They aren’t the norm here after all.

Its quite a spin!

Income doesn’t make a person ‘Alpha’

The “Alpha’ personality is normally something people are born with, and its cultivated in life.  They naturally tend to take charge, are outgoing, and seek solutions without ‘blaming or whining’ about others not giving them the affirmation that certain people claim they need. 

Don’t get me wrong its always nice to hear affirmation, but they don’t ‘need’ it in order to be an Alpha Personality.   Their personality is normally that of confidence.  They tend to be risk takers, and are successful in life. 

Income in that sense may follow of course, but that doesn’t make them the Alpha.  The natural confidence is normally the key trait. 

That is NOT to say it doesn’t have its negative side, and people don’t push their confidence into power hungry positions.  Yet, it doesn’t automatically happen that way either. 

From what I have seen in life those ‘power hungry’ positions normally have enablers that hand over this power to them.  It can quickly turn into arrogance and conceit. 

This is one of the biggest issues non complementarian’s have with their belief system.  Yet, one comp’s will claim isn’t present if you ‘do it right’.  Forget human nature and all that. 

Could be why God doesn’t’ encourage his followers to seek this power to begin with.

Don’t make your husband the Beta

As much as the Complementarians don’t wish for others to view their lists of traits of gender roles in a negative light, and not entirely ‘biblical’?  Its not that hard to put the puzzle pieces together with their descriptions, and articles that they write such as this one.. 

To be perfectly honest?  Mary Kassian herself tends to have some ‘alpha’ traits herself, but I doubt she would view that part of her as non feminine.  Yet, it’s quite the opposite of what they claim to be feminine.  There is nothing wrong with her Alpha traits, because that is how God made her.  Its just kind odd if you compare that to what they present as the proper lady.

No doubt her diversion in response is that her husband is the breadwinner.  Yet, that doesn’t make any sense in light of the reality of many pastors within their group aren’t the bread winners. Also, it doesn’t address their stereotype of women that goes against her VERY nature (I mean that is what teach right?).  It also has nothing to do with Alpha Traits.
 
The opinion that Mary Kassian takes is that the ‘breadwinner’ status places her in the man’s role, and her husband then must be in the ‘Beta’ role (using the second article as the prime example).  Yes, pretty much the role reversal they whine so much about. She uses the professional women in the other article to prove her point.  Yet, realistically?  The point wasn’t made.  They are in the minority.  Also, bread winner women don’t all act like this – remember the Pastor wifes!

I believe a more realistic example is needed.  I have friends where the husband is in construction for example, and his work is seasonal.  She does customer service, and works all year round.  Now depending on the construction season?  She may or may not be the ‘bread winner’. I mean in his off season he does find work, but it can be hard to find at times.

What Mary never mentions is that MOST people are able to be realistic about these arrangements. 

What Mary Kassian hints at is: If she makes more money she will have a hard time dropping her ‘Alpha’ mode when she gets from work, and it makes things even harder in the bedroom.  He on the other hand is placed automatically in the ‘beta’ mode.  OR she wants him the beta mode, and he is only allowed to surface to Alpha mode in bed only!  Notice it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with personalities types, but job incomes.  Income makes the ALPHA right?  In reality, NO.

Heck, I have seen beta males that were bread winners….never mind that doesn’t fit here!

Conflicting Messages about the Alpha

In our present day most mature couples view supporting the family as a JOINT effort, and they are both doing their parts to help the family unit as a whole.  The way this article is presented is that men should be almost threatened by the woman’s part if she happens to find a job that generates more income.  She is at risk of stepping over that imaginary line, and turning into the ladies in Mary’s second article!

No acknowledgement of any kind that this is a sense of insecurity that is very unhealthy for his sense of self….nope!  It’s a threat to his manhood!  Yeah, That's common sense and a healthy outlook right?!  Sigh.

This is NOT a healthy elevation of the husband, but playing games in life to make him FEEL his role.  Notice the ‘emotional’ component there.  It also doesn’t prove their ‘male-female roles are interchangeable’ fear either.

I think the part that really eats at me is the negative, and almost doomsday opposing views in response to this disagreement.   The Christian Post had an article about this issue, and showed opposing views even within the complementarian realm.

What does the bible say about men being the breadwinner

"The American man is struggling – I think we will have a monument for the modern 21^st Century man, and he will be on a couch, etched in stone, playing an X-Box," said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and assistant professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Kentucky's Boyce College. In an interview with The Christian Post on Wednesday, he argued that "men are called by God to take responsibility for provision for their families."

Notice the women will be like the professionals that Mary Kassian pointed out in the second article, and the man will be like Owen Strachan describes above – The Xbox professional. 

Notice once again the ‘emotional component’ they use to WIN their argument.   Your suppose to ignore all the real life examples that tend to go against their stereotypes they have presented.  That’s not persuasive, but the use of rhetoric we see to often today in politics.

Now, the second pastor in the article on the Christian Post?  I may not agree with whole heartily, but you notice his definition of ‘headship’ isn’t so hard nosed and unrealistic.

"I think the man should be the head of the house, but a wise 21st century position would be consultative leadership," the pastor said. He referred to I Chronicles 12, when King David consulted with the heads of tribes after becoming king. "He consulted with them because they had functional authority because of their experience, their knowledge of warfare – he was wise enough to get help." Jackson argued that a wise man would "utilize a wife who may be a medical doctor with a multimillion earning potential."

Quoting Ephesians 5, Jackson argued that the order for wives to "submit to your husbands and to the Lord," is a military term, which means for a wife to align herself to the strategic goals of her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is told to love his wife as his own body. The pastor argued that this means "he's going to have to take into account her career, her passions, her desires, and put them on at least the same level as he would put his own career and personal aspirations."

This opinion of course sent Owen Strachman into a tizzy! (Tizzy Definition:  a state of nervous excitement or agitation.)  Owen feels that he doesn’t need to take her into account, but remind the world of their roles – and his account.

Most mature couples I know look at income generated as ‘our’ money, and there isn’t any power grab that Mary and Owen concentrate so much on.  They can say what they will, but their definitions of ‘roles’ in their presentations do reveal this.  Owen no doubt feels the power struggle is from Genesis, but has a hard time some realizing people find ways of moving past these ‘curses’ he uses to justify the roles.  To him?  It has to be there!

Yet, these types of articles and teachings that Mary Kassian and Owen Strachman tend to encourage this type of stinkin thinking!  It encourages the THREAT to power structure they claim they are against, and then hand you a boogey man reality in its place.  Their logic just doesn’t follow reality.  I mean you are suppose to go WITH the ‘curses’ of Genesis – not work against them!  Its only natural right?

Addendum To Add the Interchangeable Pastor Wives

Mary Kassian’s final note in her article about the Alpha Women and the Beta Boys was rather telling to me.  It seems she heard from Pastor’s and their Wives, and because of HER salary.  So Mary attempts at the end to change the tone:

Note:  I’ve heard from several complemententarian pastors who say their wives must work and do out-earn them. However, they also tell me that though this is the situation, they don’t feel it’s ideal. They wish they earned more, and wish that their wives didn’t have to bear the burden of being primary breadwinner.
It’s not “wrong” for a woman to out earn her husband. That wasn’t my point. My point is merely that such a circumstance can and often does put an unnatural strain on relationships, and that a woman in this situation needs to take care to make sure that her higher wage doesn’t cause her to usurp her husband’s headship in their home.

Hmm.  How sad.  Their churches don’t pay their pastor’s enough so their own families don’t have an ‘unnatural strain’ on their marriage.  Leaders within this belief system are to busy writing books, having seminars, and push teachings that their own pastor’s don’t even have the luxury of living.  Wow.

Somehow I think we all know that isn’t the reality for these couples.  He was called to do God’s work, and she is doing her part to support him in this call.  They live their life’s against the roles they preach, and if she believes in his work?  No doubt its not such a heavy burden for her in that sense – even though its ‘unnatural’. 

So, as their pastor’s live life is in this ever present ‘danger’? The families that attend their church live this as well.   That’s the reality of it from their viewpoint.  I will never understand WHY they feel this ‘think the worse’ about aspects of life like this are in anyway encouraging. 

Think about it!  She hints in her article that the greater salary from the wife creates the Alpha Woman whom is: celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.


Yet, ends her article with an example of those who do make greater salaries WHOM I would assume she states is NOT the Alpha Woman with her Beta Boy.  They are living the feminist/egalitarian male-female interchangeable roles in life…but really aren’t.  Why?  She takes great care in making sure her salary doesn’t usurp his authority. 

Okay Then.  Sounds like gas lighting to ME!

Mary’s article:  Alpha Women Beta Boys

C.S. Lewis describes that kind of alliance—a real partnership/a deep friendship—as he lamented the death of his beloved wife Joy.

“For a good wife contains so many persons in herself. What was [she] not to me? She was my daughter and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my subject and my sovereign; and always, holding all these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress, but at the same time all that any man friend (and I have good ones) has ever been to me. Perhaps more.... Did you ever know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left?”

Fascinating Womanhood Review: feminine role vs. working wife

He's my friend! The rinse and repeat excuse used by Celebrity Pastors.

Boy oh BOY is there a huge BREW ha ha over Mark Driscoll, and Janet Mefferd recently.

It reminds me of the gaslighting that victims get when they approach the church about the abuse in their homes.  You know what I mean…it never really happened.  It was all in your mind.  You just want to be mad, etc.  We see nothing, and you are making a big deal out of nothing.  NOTHING here to see!

He is my friend!

Mark was to be interviewed about his new book, and he was called on some publishing errors that Janet saw.  He first attempted the pollyanna response (He is my friend, and I love him, etc.) that is common with celebrity pastors, and then Janet Mefferd pushed harder.  He answered again with a hint that maybe she needs to hush with a snark about how he should have taken notes during dinnertime with the author…and footnoted it for Janet Mefferd.  She was firm, but nice and drove the point home again -  he wasn’t having it.  He did the ‘biblical’ drill, and she is just being nasty by continuing the conversation.

Mark to me is trying to be the ‘cool’ pastor on the block, and he seems to have quite a following.  He is more what I was term a Celebrity Pastor, and he seems to feel at times his opinion is best presented with the LOUD factor.

Yet, in this interview with Janet Mefferd?  I’m sorry it reminded me of the old Southern Belle approach of how he just doesn’t understand what she wants from him today….we suppose to talk about my BOOK after all.  I told you he is my friend, and I love him…and if I had small error in my footnote – I say to my friend ‘sorry’.  Driscoll is no Southern Belle, and he got called out on it – drop the platitudes and answer the question.  Mark objected and got nasty because she didn’t go with the ‘biblical’ game that celebrity pastors use when they get busted.

Today if you have a pastor that is popular in some circles, and he is complementarian?  They seem to include him in their little ‘inner’ circle.  They promote themselves in the other’s conferences, promote each other’s books, and generally parrot the old ‘he is a Godly man’ deal.  You have to admit their marketing is working.

Mark Driscoll is accused of plagiarism. His inner circle is more upset over her being ‘rude’ to him.  Oh boy!

Prior to my edits here on 12/7/13 - Janet Mefferd has taken down some of the material about this case.
Ingrid Schlueter Resigns From Janet Mefferd Show Over Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Controversy

Fallout From Radio Show Host's Allegations That Pastor Mark Driscoll Plagiarized Includes Deletion, Apology and Producer's Resignation

Although it is not clear why Mefferd removed her content regarding the accusations against Driscoll or whether she was pressured, the Christian Post learned that Tyndale House has some sort of media partnership with Salem Radio Network and Mefferd's radio show is a member of Salem National, a subsidiary of Salem Communications Corporation.

So some of the links below have been removed by the author.

Other Examples of, “He is my friend”

Problem is when one of the celebrity pastors fall?  They tend to circle the wagons, and go in for the kill towards the accuser.  I have to tell you I caught the business when I posted John Piper on Youtube when he spoke on Desiring God, “Does a woman submit to abuse.”  Now keep in mind the website stated you could copy the material to share, and that is what I did on youtube along with my opinion’s of his viewpoint on my blog.  Well that video took on a life of its own, and to this day he still refuses to admit that what he said was awful and dangerous.  I no doubt didn’t take the junk that Janet Mefferd is taking from the Mark Driscroll crowd, but I can sure empathize with her position.

They did the same thing when it came to CJ Mahaney, and the sexual abuse circus that went on within his network of churches.  They all love him, and don’t believe a word of it – since they are ‘friends’ and all that don’t you know.  Throw in a couple of  “Godly” this, and “Biblical” that and everything is all better now.  I mean when some of the cases were thrown out because of the statue of limitations (took to long to come to trial) that means the cases had no merit – according to the celebrity pastors.  Your suppose to believe that now!  Yet, that isn’t entirely true is it?!

Celebrity Pastors seem to get a couple of passes they certainly shouldn’t be getting.   I guess they seem to feel if one falls the rest will fall like a house of cards?

Anyway, here is the start of the timeline:

She is a journalist, and she did need to ask about the lack of ‘piety’ he showed at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire by crashing it to give out his ‘newest’ book.  When he was asked to leave?  He tweets that they confiscated his books, and yet they have video of him offering them UP as a gift to the church.  Creating that type of ‘buzz’ isn’t generally considered proper, or above board.  He attempts to skate past all that.  Its an inner circle deal, and your suppose to overlook it.

Mark got a pass on the Strange Fire behavior in the interview as far as I’m concerned. No doubt he was a bit embarrassed by his childish behavior, especially when he was there to speak at a ‘Act Like Men’ conference on the other part of town. (giggles) Think about that for a moment huh?

Janet Mefferd Interviews Mark Driscoll

The interview was going nicely until the alleged plagiarism came up.  As I said the pollyanna approach was attempted, and he snaps back by telling her she is being grumpy, accusatory, and not Christlike when the approach was rejected.  I realize it was uncomfortable for him, but he does preach how you are to be humble in response to error.  He blew that.

I mean how dare her hold his feet the to fire like that?  I had to roll my eyes at the “I love you as a sister in Christ’ speech as well.  Please.  Seriously?  He was to busy telling her he dines with the gentleman that his material sounds like, and how he is a good friend of his.  That doesn’t answer the questions, but I guess it should. 

Then it happened…. The end of the interview to ME at least sounded like a call drop.  You know how cell phones are.  I didn’t take it as a hangup myself.  .

Well – insert drama here – did he hang up or didn’t he?  A second audio of the interview surfaced to show that he didn’t.  The second audio to me seemed a bit fishy, because the audio quality is different.  The seconds that pass of silence was different as well.   His publishing house (Tyndale) came back with a rebuke of Mefferd after listening to a recording supplied by Mark Driscoll of the interview.  They apparently didn’t like her tone (which others didn’t either), and stated that the book correctly footnoted Mark’s source.  Janet supplied screenshots of the material in question. It certainly doesn’t look like he footnoted by the lawful standardized practice, but I’m no lawyer.

Notice!  Janet is clear as a bell as she is in the studio on the first version (video above), but on the second version of the interview ending she sounds like she is also on the cell phone.  It clearly isn’t the same recording at all.  Did Mark hit his mute button by mistake while he was also recording the interview?  Who knows, and quite frankly who cares. 

It wasn’t the big issue anyway.  Yet, you wouldn’t think so by the buzz all over the place.  I saw it as a diversion from the bigger issues.  It was all about how Mark was treated rudely, and accused of hanging up on the interview when he didn’t.  WELL at least from his ‘circle the wagons’ friends.  I still don’t really know what happened there, but something did.  If you look at the comment section of Spiritual Sounding Board you will see ‘tweets’ from the inner circle telling others not to do interviews anymore with Janet Mefferd.

Own it, Correct it, and Move ON!  Friendship doesn’t cut it!

I have had to deal with my share of media in the past due to a business officer position I held once upon a time.  We had the media hounding us over a personnel issue, and we couldn’t discuss it contractually.  The person was charismatic, and we got loads of phone calls about it.  Yet, we had to handle it some how.  We had some drama as well, and you need to stay calm, direct and to the point. In our circumstance everything was above board, and we would have LOVED to include the parts that we legally couldn’t. 

If you are asked questions again – like Driscoll was?  You rinse and repeat your response.  I guess my point here is if a everyday person can do this on occasion?  Driscoll in his position he really has no excuse.  He just doesn’t.  The Pollyanna approach isn’t what was needed here, and it sounds like the alleged actions may not be so above board.  Is that why he relied on friendship in this case?  I don’t know.

If the alleged plagiarism was indeed an error, and it was overlooked?  You shut the interview down right away by admitting it.  You rinse and repeat your response as needed.  You can do it in a way without having your pants sued off, and he knows it.  You should have heard repentance (if he felt there was a possibility of error)…and you heard defensiveness and he is my friend (which has nothing to do with it). 

You sound sincere and firm, because mistakes happen.  The last thing you do is get defensive, and give this impression on how dare you attempt to take authority over ME.  For goodness sakes you sound fishy, and up to something when you do that.  You try to act all ‘street wise’ preacher guy the rest of the time!  Legally? They should care less if the man is your friend, and you had dinner with him…and all that jazz.  It wouldn’t hold up!

Janet did a follow up, because of the backlash. 

Janet Talks about what happened with Mark Driscoll

Honestly?  If Mark Driscoll was a man of integrity he would stop the wagons that circled him, and say, “Your right!  I acted like a Jerk.  I’m sorry.”  Then you finish it up like you should.  Being called on a alleged crime – 14 pages of material after all – is pretty serious.  If it was dumb mistake why not admit it?  Is there a lack of faith in forgiveness? 

Quite frankly, admitting the error to me it would go far.  He acted like he was above all that, and no one is…not even a celebrity pastor.  Friendship doesn’t apply in their circumstances.  He did attempt to admit it, but also ended it by making excuses for himself.  That is why he got additional questions from her.  He tried to wiggle out of it. 

He has an out here he could use – blame the FLU!  We all get grumpy when we don’t feel good.  Save face and use it for goodness sakes!

Yesterday Janet Mefferd spoke for the last time for now about this issue, and also posted online screenshots of the material in question.  She also added to the list where he alleged plagiarized in another book.  The publishing houses will not return her calls or emails.  You can listen to how she has been treated since this time, and how she has uncovered the possible reasons WHY the publishing houses are refusing to talk to her.  Big surprise…Money!

I know my readers have felt ‘gaslighted’ when they have approached their churches about the abuse that is going on in their homes.  If anything this circumstance should validate your life experiences in a way.  Mark was trying to pussy foot around this interview, and she was strong enough to not let him.  Most in you in your circumstance – at the time anyway – were NOT strong enough to do what Janet did.  Your too beaten down by life, and sadly that is what they count on.  Well in my opinion anyway.  The bigger issue?  We shouldn’t have play those games. 

Does ‘He is my friend’ work?

Will this circumstance blow over?  In my experience due to their status – it will.  I hope Janet Mefferd doesn’t let go of this, and she shouldn’t. When you look close enough it all comes down to cash.  The cash they make from these celebrity pastors, and how they are investing in publishing the cash cows in the future. The alleged source material he plagiarized?  He took it from the inner circle, and they won’t push it legally.  That’s the reality of it.  Remember they cover for each other, and this practice may magically stop or disappear in future printing of the books in question.  They will not go as far as admitting any wrong doing.  The publishing houses will cover their behinds as well.

No.  Its not us – its them.  It’s the lofty and haughty attitudes that know so much better without even giving the consideration of a true listening ear.  The muscle of the machine will make the circumstances disappear, and the diversions will belittle the reality of it.  They are ‘friends’ after all.

They seem truly afraid to be held accountable, and sadly tend to stick together like some high school clic.  Sigh.

Other points of view:

Janet Mefferd  She speaks again about this after the Scott Walker interview – about the 19 minute mark.
Mark Driscoll and Janet Mefferd: Plagiarism, Tribalism and Paganism
Plagiarism? Examine for Yourself
If the Top Men take over, who will ask the hard questions?
Janet Mefferd presents documentation of Mark Driscoll's work to work by Peter Jones and Don Carson