Note: This is in response to “Fundy’s” comment under my ‘About’ page and to his two posts on his site, dated 4/20/09, and 7/17/09.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your apology and new tone (I hope it sticks), and at the same time, I am curious about your motives… You had been exceptionally harsh, as you mention in the above, in your original post on your site:
“My Former Church Is A Cult” Blogging
And I am wondering what brought about the change of heart so to speak. Exposure? Embarrassment? Social pressure? Conviction? …just curious.
For me to engage in conversation with you, I need to firstly cover some ground regarding some of the things you had written in your two posts. Much of this will answer or respond to your comment here. And after reading the following, if you remain unsure as to my “gender equality” beliefs, you seem to have access to EC (Equality Central)
so I would invite you to further explore those conversations in that forum as well as to look up Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
First, my response to some of the content in your blog post, dated 4/20/09:
“My Former Church Is A Cult” Blogging
You wrote about my site and others like it, “…However, these blogs that I’m talking about, see no good in their former church.”
I’ve stated several times throughout this blog that I have appreciated SOME of Driscoll’s messages when they are truly accurately from Scripture and when God’s heart is revealed therein. It is only recently when I’ve come to the conclusion that Driscoll is a “package deal,” meaning that since there is so much poison interspersed with his overall teaching and domineering, flip attitudes, I cannot embrace any of his teaching, and am now against “all things Driscoll and MH.” Currently, I think there is too high a price to pay in spiritual and psychological health in trying to glean any “good stuff” from MD. For me, to try to remain open to some of Driscoll’s teachings amounts to remaining open to any aberrant church’s or cult’s messenger’s, it is just too harmful overall.
And yes, you were extremely harsh in that first post, stunningly so. You stated that since I am in the mental health field I was “highly unethical” and open “for a lawsuit” based on the content of my blog in which I am pretty consistently stating, “It would appear, it seems to be” and inviting others to compare MD’s actual words and behaviors to various descriptions of dysfunction. Contrary to your assertions, I have not attempted to diagnose Driscoll. You also seemed to mock or dismiss the list of symptoms of church abuse posted in my ‘About’ page which is based on experts in the field as I compared these to MH and MD (comparing and considering possibilities does not a diagnosis make).
Additionally, you seem to have some reactivity toward a person (especially a woman?) who holds a Scriptural Egalitarian view… You named a woman who had been tormented by an abusive husband “incredibly selfish” for sharing her hurts and the terror of that situation and her way out. You came across as so heartless and closed minded, I had no desire to converse with you. So now, I would ask, what are your motives in communicating here? If it is truly to understand Egalitarianism, which you state that I nowhere define (see post #29, it is defined there), I welcome you. If you want to tell me how wrong I am and try to “reform” me, save your time and effort.
I used to be a Traditionalist (call it Complementarianism if you wish) and I’ve done my research. Having looked into some of the original Greek, I’ve come to understand that many of the interpretations of key, cherry picked verses about women being silent in the church and not teaching men were actually mistranslated and usually misinterpreted.
Here is some more information for you if you are truly wanting to understand my stance (and other egals’) on biblical gender equality:
Fleming’s “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered”
and “Why Not Women?” by David Joel Hamilton.
I have also been told that a very good read on Biblical Equality would be:
“Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry”
Stanley J. Grenz
Another recommendation was:
“The best and most thorough teaching I have seen on this is Cheryl Schatz’ DVD Women in Ministry. You can watch some clips on
“Her blog is a big help, too. Here are some posts on 1 Corin 11
Cheryl covers everything from Genesis to the NT scriptures that the comps use to restrict women.”
On the scholarly breakdown of 1 Tim 2:12, I was directed here:
When you had stated you had not seen “sufficient reason to accuse Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll of being ‘spiritual abusers’,” this tells me you have not looked at the information presented throughout my blog, information which had largely been available in my former blog site– posts 1-16 were there, and I think these alone substantiated many of my claims.
You ended your original post (4/20/09) with:
“Much of this ‘My former church is a cult’ blogging is done by persons who fixate on a handful of issues that they believe their former church is wrong about teaching. Some of the people who do this have little to no understanding of the theological issues that they are handling, and attack the issues from their cultural point of view, rather than a Christian point of view. I’ll have to look in this particular blog more, and look into Mark Driscoll’s teachings as well, but so far, I haven’t seen sufficient reason with evidence to come to the conclusion that Mark Driscoll is a cult leader.”
I appreciate your stated willingness to look into this more. As to the first part of the above paragraph, if you had considered what the experts define as church abuse and if you had read more thoroughly the many accounts and specific quotes of Driscoll’s in my blog, then, by way of using your analytical skills you would have seen that A aligns with B in many ways. And, from an egalitarian standpoint I could say that you, a Traditionalist “have little to no understanding of the theological issues that they are handling, and attack the issues from their cultural point of view, rather than a Christian point of view,” your cultural view being patriarchy, male chauvinism, and misogyny.
YOUR RECENT POST ON YOUR SITE:
My Former Church Is A Cult Blogging Pt 2
Regarding me you stated very firmly in bold, “I would like for her to make a response, because I sincerely want to know what exactly her position on ‘gender equality’ is, because she never made it clear on her blog, only that she wanted gender equality.”
Again, please see my post:
29. Men, Women & Biblical Equality
which begins with:
“I am posting this to provide biblical reasoning as to why I believe Driscoll’s views, sermons and treatment of women are oppressive, anti-biblical, and appear to cross over into abuse as well. The following in its entirety is copied by permission from CBE (for more info go to bottom of page) and captures my understanding of Scripture regarding…”
Also, for other issues you touch on, please see:
My ‘Mars Hill’ page, asking readers to compare MH and MD to what the experts have written about church/spiritual abuse, please see ‘Misogyny’ sub page under ‘Mars Hill’ page to read MD’s quotes about women and try, if you are able, to tell me how any of these are at all Christ-like and truly Biblical (in the whole scope of the Bible).
I appreciate your efforts in your paragraph saying that physical abuse “may be cause for biblical divorce…” but then you go on to drastically minimize emotional abuse, saying it is a “fuzzy area” and “not clear.” Well, as a woman who has been severely psychologically, emotionally and verbally abused by a predator who never physically abused me, a trusted ‘professional’ no less, allow me to set you straight a bit: TO THE WOMAN BEING THUS ABUSED, THIS KIND OF ABUSE IS NOT FUZZY OR IN ANY WAY LESS REAL THAN PHYSICAL ABUSE. To the one being tormented by a controlling, manipulative and cruel abuser, such abuse is, well, abusive! In fact, when a woman suffers abuse wherein there is no black eye or bruises or cuts on her physical body, the world and the church brush it off as not really being abuse—see Danni Moss’s site on Domestic Violence in Christian homes and Sexual abuse by clergy.
Also, cult leaders and controlling pastors of aberrational churches often do not beat their parishioners (although several do and have). The scars on the spirit are probably even more damaging than the physical scars. Domestic Violence victims will tell you that the actual hitting is not where the deepest agony came from, but rather, it was the gradual soul murder, bondage and terror which they consider to have cause the most damage. The same holds true about a sexual predator in the helping professions (clergy, therapist), in that the final act of sexual assault, intercourse, isn’t usually what causes the greatest damage, but rather, the calculated grooming, the insidious descent down the slope of boundary violations where trust is betrayed and the soul is so deeply scarred. Again, I know this one by experience.
So, in re: to the woman I’d written about who was abused by her husband and left him, whom you referred to harshly and called her “incredibly selfish,” would you continue then to do the same if she had not been punched in the face by her husband but had instead been demeaned, manipulated, shamed, confused, controlled, made to think she’s the crazy one, enslaved, terrorized, intimidated, isolated from others, oppressed…?
In this second post you wrote regarding me, “I would like to say to this woman, whom I know only as “freedom4captives”, that I do apologize if my tone seemed overly harsh, or if I was incorrect in my account of things. I came to my conclusions about her blog at a time when she was evidently in the process of moving posts over to her new blog.”
Again, I do appreciate your apology, Will, and your new tone. I accept your apology.