Interesting piece, IMO.
As I noted in the first post in this series, complementarians used their trusted position as defenders of conservative christian culture to dismantle the defenses against the feminist attack. This is the same strategy Christian gay activists are using as well. On their face they seem to be protecting conservative Christianity from the charges of hate and bigotry, but their real focus is on dismantling the defenses. This is true for both the defenses protecting theology and the church as well as defenses of the family, with a special emphasis on children.
Rev Thomas Littleton at the blog Thirty Pieces of Silver describes this in ERLC Family Conference Redefines Family As The Inclusive Church:
ERLC and Russell Moore advocate redefining family and promote gay priest who wants to babysit your children.
View original post 1,487 more words
Another reason for Christians, especially of the Reformed variety, to reject John Piper and all his works… As with Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, and many other celebrity ‘Reformed’ pastors, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
Yesterday I described how complementarians used deception to replicate in conservative churches what feminists had already accomplished in liberal churches. With their feminist victory in the final mopping up stages, several prominent complementarians have started switching their focus to pushing LGBT acceptance in conservative churches. Key to the complementarian approach in both cases is to pretend they are really there to protect the church from the assaults of the culture war. Complementarians know that if they become the defenders of conservative christian culture they can use their trusted position to dismantle the defenses.
Dr. John Piper was one of the two primary leaders in creating the complementarian movement. In 1991 Dr. Piper and Dr. Wayne Grudem edited the book that spelled out the theological position of the newly formed Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW): Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism The book was…
View original post 1,672 more words
The following article provides an example of a ‘threat narrative’ – i.e., in this case the threat that chivalry is departed or dying, thus putting women “in danger” in a myriad ways.
The ‘Chivalry Is Dead’ trope has been wheeled out by every newspaper and media outlet for the last two centuries, on a weekly basis. If romantic chivalry is taking hundreds of years to die then it must be the slowest death on earth!
However the intent appears not to report accurately on chivalry’s demise (which doesn’t appear to be valid), but to reinforce protection of it as an article of dogmatic faith; the more one feels chivalry is under threat, the more one protects and upholds the institution.
To be sure there have occurred alterations in the way gynocentric chivalry is acted out on the contemporary scene, but the basic convention is still very much alive.
View original post 17 more words
Go on; take up Dalrock on his challenge if you can, DW partisans! 😉
I have been accused by at least one reader of treating Pastor Doug Wilson unfairly, and think it is only fair that I dedicate a post to allowing Wilson’s defenders to defend the positions I’ve criticized. Commenter BJ says I have labeled Pastor Wilson “a raging left wing feminist”. I am certain that I have written no such thing, but if I have I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to correct such an obvious misstatement.
More broadly, I would appreciate it if readers would point me to a post where I have either criticized him without specifically quoting what I was criticizing, or where I have misquoted him or misrepresented what he wrote. If you find an example of this, please provide a link to the post along with quotes of what Wilson and I both wrote, along with your explanation. To make the search easier, here is a list
View original post 519 more words
And they would be right…
I find it funny that, amidst decrying freak shows, America still airs them as “reality TV”.
What was considered a freak, anyway?
Imagine if the Victorians we judge could see this time period.
I think time travelers would assume something went gravely, gravely wrong.