Isaiah 2

You, Lord, have abandoned your people,
    the descendants of Jacob.
They are full of superstitions from the East;
    they practice divination like the Philistines
    and embrace pagan customs.
Their land is full of silver and gold;
    there is no end to their treasures.
Their land is full of horses;
    there is no end to their chariots.
Their land is full of idols;
    they bow down to the work of their hands,
    to what their fingers have made.
So people will be brought low
    and everyone humbled—
    do not forgive them.

Must read: White evangelicalism is white nationalism.

Fred Clark nails it. Please go read the whole thing.

And then read his other posts on biblical inerrancy that are the foundation for his claims about how inerrancy came to be. It is well sourced.

Yesterday, white evangelicals again voted for white nationalism. They supported a candidate who explicitly and unambiguously made white nationalism the centerpiece and driving passion of his campaign. The fig-leaf for this support was abortion. And once again we are asked to believe — after centuries defending slavery, segregation and Jim Crow — that it was only about abortion, and that the 100-percent correlation between this anti-abortion politics and white nationalist politics is just an unfortunate and unforeseen coincidence.
That’s not believable.
White evangelicalism is white nationalism. That’s how it came to be. That’s what it’s for. If you can’t see that after yesterday, you’re choosing not to see it.

Ezekiel 16: 48-50

As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Look carefully for what’s missing.

Smokin’ Hot Conversations: Amy Martin on Attraction | The Nuance

I’ve got a lot of mixed feelings about this piece, but it is worth a read.

I venture to say the problem is shame, and our inability to look at it. Shame, at its core, is the fear of being unworthy of connection with others. Because connection is so fundamental to human well being, it’s a powerful and manipulative social tool. The smokin’ hot wife phenomenon is most rampant in a particular subset of Christian culture where shame is used for purposes of control and conformity, where men are expected to be manly and dominant, and women are expected to stay quiet and submissive. If you’re not these things, you’re not worthy of connection with those who are. In one way or another you’re shamed for these differences.

It’s also a culture where attraction is synonymous with lust, and where beauty and mystery are often seen as dangerous. How are these dangers controlled? Shame, of course. So I call balderdash on the smokin’ hot meme for a couple of reasons: One, in a shame-fueled culture, it too easily appears to be manly dominant men posturing over property value, and two, it puts women in an impossible double-bind. Her (quiet, submissive) beauty is both expected, (to find a husband and keep him from cheating) and vilified, (because her existence might lead men astray in action or in thought). A public proclamation of her smokin’ hottness puts her in the awkward social position of having her beauty publicly approved by her husband, (good) while also potentially making other men lust, (bad). What’s a girl to do?

Full piece:

‘Biblical’ views on marriage are diverse

So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.

This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of “biblical” marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. For example, the famed Reformationist Martin Luther wrote a letter in 1524 in which he commented on polygamy as follows: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not oppose the Holy Scriptures.”

Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.


Via James McGrath: Gentiles, Gays, and Animals

I had someone comment on a post I wrote about homosexuality, making the tired but nonetheless common non sequitur that, if one views same-sex relations as acceptable, then one must also embrace bestiality.

I found myself wondering whether the apostle Paul faced the same sort of ridiculous objection from his contemporaries. I can imagine his opponents saying, “Paul, if you allow uncircumcised men into the people of God, then you cannot logically exclude animals from it.


John Piper: wives should let themselves get smacked before getting help

Yep, that’s almost an exact quote.

Apparently, this is a pretty old video, but it’s new to me.

Piper has since attempted to clarify his remarks … but they ring hollow most of the way through, and at other times are downright despicable. To be fair to John, I suppose I should recommend that you read the whole thing, even though I’m not sure a guy who advises women to let themselves get slapped deserves defense.

But recourse to civil authorities may be the right thing for an abused wife to do. Threatening or intentionally inflicting bodily harm against a spouse (or other family members) is a misdemeanor in Minnesota, punishable by fines, short-term imprisonment, or both. Which means that a husband who threatens and intentionally injures his wife is not only breaking God’s moral law, but also the state’s civil law. In expecting his wife to quietly accept his threats and injuries, he is asking her to participate in his breaking of both God’s moral law and the state’s civil law.

Okay, “may” be the right thing for an abused wife to do? May as in maybe? It is always the right thing to do, no exceptions.

To make matters worse, Piper doesn’t say that an abused wife ought to call the police to protect her own safety. Nope. You call the police because if you’re being abused and you don’t report it, you’re complicit in the crime of spousal abuse. So, you’re a victim, and you’re a criminal.

And it doesn’t get any better.

Rather than rehash all of Piper’s nonsense, I’ll close with my simple opinion:

If you are the victim of domestic violence, call the police first, call reliable family/friends second, and call the church third.

Yes, the church may be a place for emotional and physical healing, but the church has no authority to stop a violent man from harming a woman.

And stop listening to John Piper when it comes to marriage, especially if your’e a woman.