Showing posts with label southern baptists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label southern baptists. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Al Mohler Attacks The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PCUSA]

Al Mohler notes:
"Liberal Protestantism, in its determined policy of accommodation with the secular world, has succeeded in making itself dispensable." That was the judgment of Thomas C. Reeves in The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Protestantism, published in 1996. Fast-forward another fourteen years and it becomes increasingly clear that liberal Protestantism continues its suicide -- with even greater theological accommodations to the secular worldview.

The latest evidence for this pattern is found in a report just released by The Presbyterian Panel, a research group that serves the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PCUSA]. The panel's report is presented as a "Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2008." The report contains relatively few surprises, but it is filled with data about the beliefs of Presbyterian laypersons and clergy.
............
Back in 1994, a team of sociologists considered this phenomenon, looking particularly at the Baby Boomers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Dean R. Hoge, Benton Johnson, and Donald A. Luidens published their findings in Vanishing Boundaries: The Religion of Protestant Baby Boomers. They identified the phenomenon of "lay liberalism" in the PCUSA and throughout liberal Protestantism.

As they explained, "This perspective is 'liberal' because its defining feature is a rejection of the orthodox teaching that Christianity is the only true religion. Lay liberals have a high regard for Jesus, but they do not affirm that He is God's only son and that salvation is available only through Him."

The title of their report points to the quandary of liberal Protestantism. As the boundaries between liberal Protestantism and the secular culture vanish, there is little reason for anyone to join one of these churches.

That report explained that "lay liberals who are active Presbyterians do not differ sharply in their religious views from the people who are not involved in a church but describe themselves as religious. There is, in short, no clear-cut 'faith boundary' separating active Presbyterians from those who no longer go to church." The researchers also repeated their point that the defining mark of "lay liberalism" is "the rejection of the claim that Christianity, or any other faith, is the only true religion."

This abandonment of biblical Christianity is a tragedy of the first order. Churches and denominations birthed in biblical orthodoxy have been ransacked and secularized. The crisis has migrated from the pulpits to the pews, and recovery is only a dim and distant hope.

Evangelicals should consider this tragedy with humility and theological perception. If similar trends are allowed to gain traction among evangelical churches and denominations, the same fate awaits. The larger issue here is not the continued vitality of any denomination as an end in itself, but the integrity of our witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake -- in the end, vanishing theological boundaries will amount to vanishing Christianity. This report makes that point with devastating clarity.


Do you agree or disagree? What is this "Biblical" Christianity and what does it look like? Do men from the 1500's and 1600's get to decide what this so called "Biblical" Christianity looks like or how about the late 19th century to the early 20th century because they had an agenda---despite the fact that Christianity is much older than either of these centuries and the Christian tradition is much larger than either of these movements as well? Is Christianity a living tradition or not?

All questions aside---yes there are problems with the Moderate, Liberal and Progressive strains of Christianity as sometimes we allow too much of an equally devastating extreme. Sometimes we become just as fundamentalist as our Fundamentalist counterparts about our opposing ends. Sometimes we become so much about what we are against that we forget what we are for.

And what of the worldliness of Conservative and Fundamentalist Christianity? What about the secular ties of the Religious Right---how they are so closely aligned with the worldly and secular policies of the Republican Party? Aren't these paradigms just as equally concerning to Christians as the Moderate, Liberal and Progressive extremes? Oh how a large majority Conservative and Fundamentalist Christians love the worldly patterns of war and injustice; authority and power; greed and arrogance; theocracy and caesaropapism; slander and libel; idolatry and materialism; hate and division, etc.

What also of the worldly way in which the Fundamentalists hijacked and Talibanized the Southern Baptist Convention?

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Southern Baptist Robin Foster On Simply Being Baptist

Here is a good quote from Robin Foster from SBC Today:
I am a Baptist, pure and simple in the historical and biblical sense. I believe being a “good” Baptist means we are to be people of the book and that the truest form of a New Testament local church is a visible group of regenerate Christians who covenant together to practice believers baptism by immersion, carrying out the two ordinances of the church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (participants are to be saved and properly baptized), organized under a congregational system of polity, submitting to the Lordship of Christ, and propagating the gospel to the lost. As a “good” Baptist, one should uphold the doctrines of inerrancy, priesthood of all believers, and soul competency. Now, in a biblical sense, there is no one “good” but God. I am only borrowing the language used by both speakers, but also in a biblical sense I am under the strong belief that these doctrinal stands, working together, identify us as Baptists. I again revisit the question, “Why can’t we all identify ourselves as Baptists and be free to be a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist?” Why does identifying with Calvinism make one a better Baptist than a non-Calvinist? The answer, it doesn’t. Both groups have been instrumental in passing on a rich heritage to us. To classify us into a hierarchy based on our understanding of soteriology creates nothing but worldly division. Again, for all including those who distort Calvinism as the dreaded death knell to Southern Baptists, let’s be Baptist and be free to choose how we define our soteriology.

I would prefer to be known as a Baptist pastor who diligently searches the scriptures for God’s wisdom, shepherds the flock for which I have been given responsibility, and tells others about the love of Jesus for them. Pure and simple.


Might I add an amen---now if the rest of the SBC would follow suit maybe they could get back to the basics of being Baptist. A return to Liberty Of Conscience and Soul Freedom---the traditional Baptist virtues for starters would allow the freedom for one "to be Baptist and be free to choose how (they) define (their) soteriology" rather than blind creedalism. Even better---putting Christ at the center and as the main point of all things will eradicate "the worldly divisions" within the Body of Christ as a whole---for focusing on Christ and participating actively in His redemptive work eliminates the need to get caught up in the external trappings of religion and the non-essentials of faith.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

SBC Leadership Increases Abortion Rates While Gay Marriage Drops Divorce Rates In MA

Mainstream Baptist: Southern Baptist Leadership Causing Increase in Abortions---excerpt:
A story today from Baptist Press, the propaganda arm of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Board, features the headline "Rep.: Health care plan would lead to abortion increase." The article is part of an ongoing campaign against health care reform by the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Central to that campaign was the delivery of more than a million signatures to congress opposing health-care reform. The petitions were delivered by Richard Land, head of the SBC's wed-to-the-hip-of-the-GOP, tax exempt, political action arm. Undoubtedly, many of those signatures were a knee-jerk reaction to false information about "death panels" and abortions.

The sad truth is that the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention bears much responsibility for about 97% of the abortions that have occured over the past 30 years. They have long been at the forefront of the uncompromising pro-life people that caused former surgeon general C. Everett Koop to withdraw from the abortion controversy.

More than anyone else, C. Everett Koop, along with the late Francis Schaeffer raised awareness about the issue of abortion among evangelical Christians. Bill Martin, in his book With God on Our Side, quotes Koop's explanation for why he dropped out of the controversy:
If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother, incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing.

Before the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, the position of denominational leadership, like the position of the majority of Baptists today, was that we support abortion when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and when the fetus is known to have severe physical deformities such as anencephaly.

Had the moderate position prevailed, abortions could have easily been reduced by 97%. Instead, for 30 years the SBC fundamentalist "all-or-nothing mentality" has swollen the ranks of those who are uncompromising on this issue.
Interesting news and just another way Fundamentalist corruption destroyed the SBC. One Southern Baptist adds this to the issue though:
If we are going to lower the abortion rate it should come because loving SBC members are in the lives of teens and single moms. It's personal, it's relational, it's not meant to be public. Our convention should support the local church and unleash it to do good for the kingdom.
---so at least there is hope within the SBC itself. And I might add that I agree with the above statement.

On the other side of things, Massachusetts seems to be enjoying a decrease in divorce rates since legalizing same-sex marriage. Massachusetts Enjoying Decreasing Divorce Rate Because of Gay Marriage?:
We're not quite ready to say that same-sex marriage is "saving" straight marriage in Massachusetts, but when you put together two pieces of data, you might be able to reach that conclusion. As Rachel Maddow did. As she points out, when gay marriage was legalized there, the divorce rate stood at 2.2 people per 1,000. Now, it's down to 2.0, giving the state one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Meanwhile, as we've previously noted, the state of Florida currently bans same-sex marriage; Florida also enjoys one of the highest divorce rates in the country.
Here is an excerpt from a Huffington Post article on this fact:
Opponents of same-sex marriage reject it on religious and moral grounds but also on practical ones. If we let homosexuals marry, they believe, a parade of horribles will follow -- the weakening of marriage as an institution, children at increased risk of broken homes, the eventual legalization of polygamy and who knows what all.

Well, guess what? We're about to find out if they're right. Unlike most public policy debates, this one is the subject of a gigantic experiment, which should definitively answer whether same-sex marriage will have a broad, destructive social impact.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have all decided to let gays wed.

Actually, the "experiment" has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now. Over three years ago I wrote a story, "Christian Right Wrong on Gay Marriage", summing up the apparent non-impact of the then-2 year "experiment". Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Decides No Longer To Cooperate With CBF

Although, I wasn't at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina as I was at a CBF dinner with my mom, my grandmother went with a group from Campbell---so we heard bits and pieces from her and attendees of both events. Anyways, here's what Tony Cartledge had to say about the decision of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina to no longer give to CBF:

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008
BSCNC to no longer "tolerate" CBF
Encouraged to “pull out a can of spinach” and “put an end” to toleration of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), messengers to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC) annual session pulled out their ballots and approved a new budget structure that eliminates any option for contributing to CBF.

The action came Nov. 12, during discussion of a proposal to scrap the four cooperative giving plans the BSCNC has offered for more than a decade.

The initial proposal, from the Cooperative Program Giving Committee, would have retained an option by which churches could designate 10 percent of their gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).

Matt Williamson (right), pastor of Oak Forest Baptist in Fletcher, offered an amendment to eliminate the CBF option, saying the BSCNC should not partner with an organization that might send new converts to a church that does not teach inerrancy. “I will die on the hill of inerrancy,” he said.

Eric Page, of Victory Baptist in Columbus, said keeping the option would imply that the BSCNC tolerates CBF. Like the cartoon character Popeye, he said, the convention should “pull out a can of spinach and put an end to it.”

The proposal also called for funding for theological education at North Carolina Baptist divinity schools, budgeted at 10.9 percent of the current Plans B and C, to become a sharply reduced two percent option. The proposal was approved with that option intact. The BSCNC is currently in the middle of a two-year budget cycle, so the new structure will not take effect until 2010.

(Read More: Here).


Also, Big Daddy Weave had this to say:

The Demonization of Moderates: NC Baptists Oust CBF
Messengers to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina decided today that Churches will no longer be allowed to support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship through the BSCNC beginning in 2010. Check the Biblical Recorder for the story later today.

One NC Baptist fundamentalist had this to say about the decision over on his blog, Southern Baptists in NC:

The reason this amendment passed is that NC Baptist are Southern Baptist they are not CBF Baptist. (This statement is something the Baptist General Convention of Texas would do well to heed.) NC Baptist are trying their best to say that we do not want anything to do with CBF. If there are churches that desire to be CBF then have at it. However, do not try to tell the world that you are Southern Baptist and be part of an organization that was organized as a result of being disgruntled with doctrines Southern Baptist believed and held dear. What does this mean for BSCNC? It means that the churches that were bypassing the convention are now going to need to stop. It means that we are in this together and thus we need to support the budget together.

Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC. We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF. We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church.


And here is a response to the BSCNC's decision from a moderate North Carolina Baptist. The blog post is appropriately titled Demons.

I am sitting in my office after spending the last day and a half at the Baptist State Convention of NC. I witnessed a historical moment, and it breaks my heart.

The Baptist State Convention has, for about 18 years, provided 4 giving plan options for churches to contribute their missions giving through the state convention. One of those plans, plan C, provided for 10% of our total giving to the state to go to CBF national. For years now, the multiple giving plans have been under attack, with the primary focus being on plan C. In the last couple of years, the state had determined that the 10% apportioned to CBF would not count as NC Cooperative Program giving. Last year, the state formed a committee to investigate a single giving plan that would preserve multiple options. That committee brought its recommendation today. There would be a single giving plan, and churches could check a box on their giving form if they desired a portion of their proceeds to go to CBF. An amendment was brought from the floor to remove this check box. After a secret ballot vote, the amendment passed. After years of efforts, plan C was officially dead.

This isn’t what broke my heart. Anybody with a brain has been able to see this handwriting on the wall for years. There are going to be those who argue, as there were today, that churches can just send their money directly to CBF and negatively designate the SBC out of their missions giving. CBF churches are still welcome in the Baptist State Convention of NC, they will say.

They are lying.

Those who spoke in favor of the amendment based their arguments on 2 points: CBF doesn’t affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, and CBF isn’t true Baptist. There were calls for the convention to “take a stand”. And so they did. They thought they were taking a stand against some faceless organization. Instead, they took a stand against Christian men and women I serve and work with every day. They called me, my church members, and my peers in ministry enemies. They demonized us.

That is what breaks my heart. They made people I love and respect into demons in order to get what they wanted. I could have lived with a decision that said, “We are SBC, and we want a plan that says we are SBC only.” I would not have agreed with it, but I could have respected it. I can’t respect this. Especially when I know it is going to be followed by somebody saying, “We aren’t kicking you out. You can still send your money to us.”

When the announcement of the vote was made, there was no comment or response. A couple of folks clapped, though not as many as I honestly expected. The President just moved on to the next item of business. The convention moved on and left behind Christ-loving, Christ-serving people who had just been accused of not being true Baptist or even true Christians, people and churches who have been a part of the state convention for decades. I’m sure some will say it was just an example of the convention saying, “Get behind me, Satan.”

Funny, Jesus said those words to Peter, the rock upon which he would build his church.
To those CBF pastors, laypeople, and churches who winced at being made to feel like demons, my heart hurts with you and for you. My prayer for all of us is that we will be able to put aside the hurt and anger that rises in our belly at being called a demon so that we might fully concentrate on being the rocks upon which Christ will build His kingdom.


Texas Baptists should pay attention to the fundamentalist from North Carolina cited above and the actions taken today by the fundamentalists in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. What happened today in North Carolina is just one of MANY examples which demonstrate that Cooperation with Fundamentalists is not possible. It just ain't.

Fundamentalism by definition seeks power and control. First, the state convention cuts the CBF option off. Second, the state convention decides to tell its employees which Baptist churches are OK to attend and join. Power and Control.

We can be nice and drop the fundamentalist tag and just call 'em Southern Baptists - as if a good many of those Southern Baptists are not fundamentalists. That what some folks here in Texas are doing. They pretend that somehow moderates and fundamentalists can work together under the same roof. They pretend that somehow a Baptist organization can be supportive of both Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and George W. Truett Theological Seminary. They pretend that a Baptist organization can support programs which affirm Women In Ministry while also accommodating an institution that wants to keep women out the pulpit and in the home; baking cookies, cleaning, and birthing babies, Quiverfull style.

Naive? You Bet'cha. That's putting it charitably. Why any person who eschews fundamentalism would want a better relationship with a Baptist group completely controlled by fundamentalists is beyond my comprehension. Some Texas Baptists need to pay attention to what happened in North Carolina and Georgia this week. They need to read a book or two. A primer on fundamentalism is apparently needed. Or, just keep that head in the sand.

The ONLY Way to Cooperate With a Fundamentalist Is To Obey Him.

Labels: North Carolina Baptists, Texas Baptists

posted by big daddy weave at 11:17 am


I guess us "evil Moderate/Progressive/Liberals" are too leprous to cooperate with, because we may taint the Fungelical Pharisees with all this talk of female pastors, errant bibles, tolerance and Christo-centric social justice and what not.

Georgia Baptist Convention Says No To Female Pastors

Read more at That Baptist Ain't Right: That Baptist Ain't Right: Georgia Baptists Get Rid of Women Pastors.

Here is another Blog post on the decision:

Georgia Baptists target FBC Decatur
November 12, 2008 · No Comments

The Georgia Baptist Convention approved a policy restricting affiliation with churches who are led by women. At first glance this might appear to impact several congregations, but the reality is that FBC Decatur is the only one that falls into this category. Welcome to Georgia, Julie Pennington-Russell, from your Georgia Baptist brethren. This greeting really isn’t all that unexpected.

FBC Decatur has been part of the state convention for almost 150 years, so it is signficant that the state convention is severing ties. I’m sure that the church considered the possibility of this happening when they brought their new pastor to the state. There might be some sentimental reaction to this news, but I hope that the church will move forward with the Lord’s work through its partnership with the CBF. This is one of many congregations who have been faithful in building the SBC through its financial support and participation who are no longer welcome in the denomination.

One of the primary lessons taught through Baptist life is the autonomy of the local church, which means congregations can ordain whom they choose, carry out their mission and ministry without outside coercion, and call their own staff. Autonomy also relates to the concentric circles of Baptist involvement beyond the church, including the association, state convention, and ultimately the Southern Baptist Convention. So, it is not a violation of FBC’s autonomy for Georgia Baptists to say they don’t want this church in the fold any longer. FBC can still do what it wills, but it might sting emotionally that after all this time and years of support they are told their money is no good.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives' Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

Bruce Ware, Professor of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

This news is old, but since I'm late on the Blogging scene, I thought I'd repost this article by way of my friend, Christina Whitehouse-Sugg's Facebook note even if it has been Blogged about several times I wish to offer my response:

You've got to be KIDDING me!!!Share
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 10:34am
I heard about this last week but simply couldn't believe it...I should've known better. For those of you who haven't kept up to date on Southern Baptist theology lately, here's one of their most prominent theologians arguing that husbands beat their wives because the women aren't submissive as the Bible says they should be.

I feel sick to my stomach.

The text is copied below, but here's the link:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives' Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

Bob Allen
06-27-08

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.

In North Texas for a series of sermons at the church on "Biblical Manhood & Womanhood," Ware described his "complementarian" view as what "Southern Seminary as a whole represents."

Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve's curse in the Garden of Eden meant "her desire will be to have her way" instead of her obeying her husband, "because she's a sinner."

What that means to the man, Ware said, is: "He will have to rule, and because he's a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive--and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that--but here's the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say 'OK dear,' 'Whatever you say dear,' 'Fine dear' and become a passive husband, because of sin."

Ware said God created men and women equally in God's image but for different roles.

"He has primary responsibility for the work and the labor and the toil that will provide for the family, that will sustain their family," he said. "He's the one in charge of leadership in the family, and that will become difficult, because of sin."

Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women "shall be saved in childbearing," by noting that the word translated as "saved" always refers to eternal salvation.

"It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as--for the most part, generally this is true--as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men," Ware said. "Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."

Ware cited gender roles as one example of churches compromising and reforming doctrines to accommodate to culture.

"It really has been happening for about the past 30 years, ever since the force of the feminist movement was felt in our churches," Ware said.

He said one place the "egalitarian" view--the notion that males and females were created equal not only in essence but also in function--crops up is in churches that allow women to be ordained and become pastors.

Ware said gender is not theologically the most important issue facing the church, but it is one where Christians are most likely to compromise, because of pressure from the culture.

"The calling to be biblically faithful will mean upholding some truths in our culture that they despise," he said. "How are we going to respond to that? We are faced with a huge question at that point. Will we fear men and compromise our faith to be men-pleasers, or will we fear God and be faithful to his word--whatever other people think or do?"

Ware offered 10 reasons "for affirming male headship in the created order." They include that man was created first and that woman was created "out of" Adam in order to be his "helper." Even though the woman sinned first, Ware said, God came to Adam and held him primarily responsible for failure to exercise his God-given authority.

Ware also said male/female relationships are modeled in the Trinity, where in the Godhead the Son "eternally submits" to the Father.

"If it's true that in the Trinity itself--in the eternal relationships of Father, Son and Spirit, there is authority and submission, and the Son eternally submits to the will of the Father--if that's true, then this follows: It is as Godlike to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is Godlike to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority."

Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.

Copyright © 2002-2008 EthicsDaily.com


And here were my responses on her note:

Ben Currin wrote
at 1:21am on July 17th, 2008
Yeah, I just saw that on another messageboard---it seems consistent with the fundamentalist calvinazi thinking of today. Check out: http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/only-men-shine-with-the-direct-light-of-god-john-macarthur-on-women/, http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Extraordinary-Women-Shaped-Bible/dp/0785262563/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b or even worse: http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Women-Macarthur-Bible-Studies/dp/0802453082/ref=sr_1_63?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216270239&sr=1-63, http://www.amazon.com/Exemplary-Husband-Biblical-Perspective/dp/1885904312/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216271870&sr=1-10 and http://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Wife-Biblical-Perspective/dp/1885904088/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b .

Ben Currin wrote
at 1:26am on July 17th, 2008
Review of The Excellent Wife: A Biblical Perspective:

77 of 142 people found the following review helpful:
Quotes Scripture Out of Context - Unbiblical, March 6, 2002
By Caralen Haymans - See all my reviews

I'm a 24 year old single Christian woman who has been a Christian for about 9 years. I recently started reading books on a woman's role in the Christian life. I was very emotional throughout the entire book because of the poor women who read this book deserve something better. Most women probably don't read the Bible while they are reading this book, so they probably don't realize that the author is ripping passages out of context. One example: she believes that it is easier for women to sin than men by quoting a passage about Eve being deceived and Adam not.
She instructs women to do everything their husbands say, even in questionable circumstances. The Bible says that we are not supposed to sin against our consciences and that other Christians are not supposed to ask us to do so.
The book puts husbands at such a lofty level - way above friendship and companionship. I am afraid that women will think that they will have to "worship" him and walk on eggshells around him.
The book says that women will have to have sex with their husbands whenever (and however) he wants to whether I want to or not, and to just "grin and bear it" or, as the author puts it, "suffer for righteousness sake".
Ben Currin wrote
at 1:27am on July 17th, 2008

This book, I sincerely believe, elevates husbands too high - and makes him an idol. This book does NOT leave the reader with the idea that marriage is a partnership. It left the impression that the worth of a woman is somewhere in-between a child and a slave. Wives must ask permission to do *anything* (including how to dress and wear their hair) and must do *everything* a husband says unless the Bible specifically says not to. Even in questionable situations - because "the husband always knows best".
If this is what marriage is supposed to be (a union between a master and a slave), I want no part in it. I want my marriage to be a union between friends (who aren't afraid to speak differing opinions) and equals before God.
Also, I don't like to be accused of being a "weak Christian" or in "rebellion" whenever I disagree with the author.

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:26am on July 19th, 2008
http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund204.html

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:33am on July 19th, 2008
I read somewhere about some church that had to have male heads for female sunday school classes......crazy stuff.

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:57am on July 19th, 2008
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:kHnz-7b95jgJ:www.ethicsdaily.com/doclib/upload/Queen-Jimmy_Carter_Was_Not_Alone.doc+Pastor+Mike+Queen,+First+Baptist+Church+Wilmington,+North+Carolina&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us


Also, check out this site:

Mary Hollings Whitehouse (Raleigh / Durham, NC) wrote
at 7:53am on July 17th, 2008
http://talibanrising.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-men-married-to-brotherhood.html

We might all end up on with our names on a list for reading this one, but it makes some good points.