ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, November 08, 2015

The wages of female "pastorship"

It is death for a church. OL writes:
Just wanted to let you know that the church-in-exile formally known as North Heights Lutheran have been given an excerpt of SWJAL. It is currently making the rounds as they come to grips with the fact that their church has been stolen. It is a textbook example of what happens when you try to play nice with evil rather then curb stomp it. Although it is really to late for them the lesson can be shown to those that will listen, perhaps on how to prevent this from occurring elsewhere.
Although I've attended North Heights a few times in the long-distant past and my parents were friends with the pastor, I didn't have any idea what happened there. This story is spun in the SJWs' favor, but if you read between the lines it's not hard to figure out what took place. SJWs invade, take over the decision-making high ground, chase off half the congregation with their anti-Christian social justice theology, then start shutting down churches to sell the land.
One of the state's original mega-churches is in trouble.

North Heights Lutheran Church in Arden Hills laid off half its staff in June and closed a satellite church in Roseville. That closure led half of the parishioners to split away and worship in a nearby motel -- and church loyalists are feeling betrayed.

The church faces a crossroads.

"We are either going to be reborn," said interim pastor Mindy Bak, in a silent church hallway, "or we are going to go through a slow death."

The combination of financial problems, downsizing and, some say, a female pastor has led to a schism in the church, threatening its future as recriminations fly back and forth.

The breakaway group is posting its complaints on a website called "Church torn apart.

"They accuse church leaders of being deceptive, even "satanic."

But most of their objections, said Bak, are related to her gender -- they don't want a woman to lead their church.

"If you carry that prejudice," Bak said, "how can you serve the community?"

Meanwhile, Sunday attendance has dropped two-thirds from its peak. 
Notice that "the community" is the SJW's concern. Not serving Jesus Christ. This is exactly what social justice convergence in the Christian Church looks like today; a deep concern for "the community" and "the world" and absolutely no concern for Jesus Christ, Christianity, or the Church.

Never permit female leadership in the Church. It will absolutely kill any church that is foolish enough to do so after seeing what has happened in every single church that has done so already. The sort of women who want to be church leaders are almost invariably SJWs; when appointing a female pastor you might as well put up a sign announcing that the church has changed denominations from Baptist or Methodist or whatever to Social Justice.

Notice how the invaders always end up with the buildings and the land. They don't give a damn about God or the congregation. "We are either going to be reborn or we are going to go through a slow death." What does that tell you? The one thing that isn't an option is for a successful Christian congregation to carry on as before, simply God in the name of Jesus Christ.

This phenomenon of the "stolen church" is not new. This is the third case of which I have heard and the second time it has happened to a church I personally attended at one point or another. Paul warned about this; most church leaderships have been absolutely derelict in their duty to police their congregations, and in particular, their elders.

UPDATE: it gets worse:
Just heard from my mother that the "vision" of the female pastor is to integrate Muslims and Christians in a new progressive church. They call it Chrislam.

Labels: , ,

156 Comments:

Anonymous Wyrd November 08, 2015 4:52 AM  

'Neither I nor others had realized until that that the burning of the bishopess was the best memorial we could offer to Bill Krat. But Mrs. Kraft was right. I could see him looking down and smiling, with the company of heaven rejoicing.

That said, Mrs. Kraft took the torch from the police officer, turned, and tossed it into the pile of faggots. The sticks were fresh pine wood, and they quickly blazed up in a tower of flame reaching well above the head of madam bishopess.

Exactly how Cloaca Devlin reacted to the flames neither I nor anyone else could tell. But the host of demons she carried within her took them badly. I doubt it was the temperature, given wher they came from. Perhaps it was the fact that this particular variety of fire, fire consuming a heretic judged by the Church and burned by a Christian state, had left them untouched for so many centuries. Its sudden return must have as an awful shock."

-Thomas Hobbes, Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation War

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 5:52 AM  

So save a spot for you at my ancestral Catholic Church in Boston, then Vox? No female priests for us. ;)

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 08, 2015 5:56 AM  

Vox for Pope.

Blogger John rockwell November 08, 2015 6:05 AM  

Even for the most "orthodox'' of women no matter their desire for leadership is denied by God from that position.

The church is an all-male led institution such is the decree of God himself.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 08, 2015 6:27 AM  

Paul warned about this; most church leaderships have been absolutely derelict in their duty to police their congregations, and in particular, their elders.


Another guy who could have used a copy of SJWAL...

...Pope Benedict XVI

Blogger Phillip George November 08, 2015 6:32 AM  

If men aren't preaching the gospel women will invent one. It's the vacuum of space. It has to be filled.

CS Lewis' men without chests can't preach the gospel.

Vox, every single day I scan the news for one item that will remind me Jesus is 1. Who He said He is 2. On time. 3. The Judge of all the Earth.

Jim Stone: "PROBLEM: Though there were war games scheduled, there was no missile launch scheduled (despite claims) AND HERE IS THE KICKER: According to the "experts" on various forums, Trident II missiles have a red flame, and Russian ICBM's have a stunning blue flame that leaves a huge blue trail long after the missile is gone. And this ICBM had a stunning blue flame that left a glowing trail in the sky for 15 minutes after the launch. AND HERE IS THE KICKER: ITS TRAJECTORY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ONE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT LAND IN SIBERIA. Figure the odds for that one. America would not test fire an ICBM on a trajectory for Russia!"

Question, Is there one woman in 10,000 who can actually fathom those words? Is there one woman in 10,000 who knows their best efforts goodness isn't a covering?

Blogger rumpole5 November 08, 2015 6:40 AM  

However, God has (and will) initiate and bless women leadership where men will not act in their natural role. Examples are Deborah and Joan of Arc. A prime feature of these instances is that the woman is reluctant to serve in this role and eager to relinquish it when a willing man shows up. Men, we need to reclaim the church militant, be strong and courageous, put on the whole armor of God, and storm the gates of hell

Anonymous TLM November 08, 2015 6:55 AM  

If i had a dollar every time some churchian defended female leadership in the church by citing Deborah I'd be rich.

Anonymous 334 November 08, 2015 6:55 AM  

@7.

True, but this situation is not that. Pastors do not hire themselves. Someone gave this twat a job, and I guarantee there were male candidates passed over in order to hire her. It's not that there are no men willing to step up. Vox is right. SJW entryism made the feminist pastor option more palatable than the biblical option to a significant enough portion of the congregation.

And it doesn't look like she'll relinquish anything no matter how many men show up, even if she has to burn the place to the ground. There's attitude for you.

Blogger Durandel Almiras November 08, 2015 7:02 AM  

Even in church's where female leadership can't happen, letting SJWs take over regardless of their sex will still lead to a death of a church. Catholic and a Orthodox will still see parishes die if an SJW bishop or priest takes over and no one stands in their way to SJ Convergence. Let's stop kidding ourselves that Pope Francis isn't a part of that SJW clique in the Catholic Church...and Vatican II speaks for itself in judging it by its fruits, which seemed to have been a gutting of its number of lay faithful and religious life. And men, what is a good ratio of men to women in our parishes here in the US? 2:1 women to men is considered impressive simply because the ratio is usually more imbalanced than that. And don't get me started on the quality of the men. Much of them are the hollow chested men CS Lewis spoke of. We need a masculine practice again. We need to see ourselves as the Church Militant again. Get rid of all the trappings and the twisted bs teachings of the 60's with it's feminine hippy peace and love communist Jesus, and go back to preaching the Christ the Apostles knew, lived, and died for.

It's always coming from a paticular generation. A generation who rebelled from God and civilization and wore that rebellion as a symbol of pride.

Blogger Wayne November 08, 2015 7:05 AM  

Infiltration by SJWs is a primary example of the world changing the Church, not the Church changing the world. I and many of my friends saw this coming in the 80's with the rise of Secular Humanism in the culture. It replaced God with man as the object of worship and the center of the moral universe. Humanism planted the seed and once adherence to doctrine was replaced with "what was right in their own eyes", the Church has become weaker and weaker to the point of being inconsequential. Now it is being destroyed from within and many believers in exile like myself see no reason to return.

Blogger Rantor November 08, 2015 7:19 AM  

As for the Lutherans, the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods continue to prohibit women pastors. My Presbyterian congregation prohibits women serving as pastors and elders. VD as is frequently the case, Vox is correct, churches that allow women to serve as pastors quickly devolve to allowing homosexuals serve as pastors and the introduction of feminist theologies, goddess worship, and as we have seen in Europe and America, sharing the church with Muslims to allow Allah worship.

I believe the Southern Baptists are still holding out in opposition to women pastors.

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan November 08, 2015 7:22 AM  

Steve TDNOM,
That Vox Pope has gay hair!
You entryist!

Blogger RC November 08, 2015 7:32 AM  

The denomination in which I serve has headed full-retard, most recently by participating in the government contracts to relocate illegal kids to the U.S. To watch your own church using donated funds to undercut the future of the giver and his offspring is without excuse.

The game plan with pastorettes here is the husband and wife "team," both in church leadership and, especially, in missions-oriented work. Their presentations are so predictable that it must be a formulaic approach taught in seminary. The loud-voiced wife starts, the beta-boy husband weighs in, then back and forth it goes, all scripted and totally ineffective. God help us.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 7:32 AM  

Durandel:

Basically, yes. RC has a problem, too; it's just a slightly different problem.

I used to say "We need to repeal the 60s," but then a German friend pointed out to me that we really need to repeal the Enlightenment.

Blogger Matt@Occidentalism.org November 08, 2015 7:53 AM  

A review of SJWAL from the perspective of a Mormon fighting SJW infiltration.

www.redgulls.com/2015/09/15/book-review-sjws-always-lie-taking-down-the-thought-police/

Blogger Stilicho #0066 November 08, 2015 8:03 AM  

Tom, don't go all wheeler on us. Which enlightenment? The one that led from Locke to the Declaration of Independence or the one that led from Rousseau to Madame Guillotine?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 08, 2015 8:09 AM  

Lifelong agnostic here, but from my interactions thru out my social circles I would say the majority of men I meet who attend would rather watch football. Those men who attend and actually enjoy it are there because they are allowed to be men, either being one of the church's big men on theology or what I consider a scam is that they help the third world out by building infrastructure for backwards villagers who then get enough money to move to America.

IMO the SJW latched onto the churches because of the natural proclivity to become women lead charities.

Anonymous Agent J November 08, 2015 8:18 AM  

And the surveys show church attendance in the US is down, and people wonder why.

My denomination is on the verge of schism due to same sex marriage (UMC). My church spent a whole service trying to convince parents to send their kids on a vacation--er, mission trip--to a Central American eco-paradise. We've got the whole Gaia-worship thing going as well. Our attendance is dropping in accord with national UMC stats. The solution, apparently: change to reflect the community; if that drives away the last of the long-time members, well, you know about eggs and omelettes.

Blogger APL November 08, 2015 8:37 AM  

"a deep concern for "the community""

Note, not the congregation.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 8:39 AM  

Stil, I am by no means convinced that the Declaration or the Constitution are creatures of the Enlightenment. Remember, our "revolution," presumed to have been progressive, was nothing of the kind. Rather, it was a conservative counter-revolution against a Parliament grown grasping, a Parliament trying to unilaterally change the previous understanding / deal, all of which is to say a progressive Parliament.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 08, 2015 8:43 AM  

The way it works in Catholic parishes is that the priest -- especially if he's one of the effeminate, progressive ones commonly formed in the 50s-70s -- becomes a figurehead who administers the sacraments, while committees mostly made up of women and a handful of female parish employees actually run the place. (Not nuns, by the way; they're all gone or retired. We're talking mostly married Boomers.) The same thing happens at the diocesan level, so even if you're lucky enough to have a parish priest who doesn't bow to the local matriarchy, they can appeal to the mostly female bureaucracy at the diocesan offices to discipline him. Things are only decent when you have both an orthodox, traditional bishop and priest, which is rare, or at a traditional parish that operates outside the whole mess.

So the male priesthood has slowed the process of SJW entryism down, but not stopped it. It also had the paradoxical effect of making the people complacent, assuming they were protected from such things, so the revolutionaries made great strides before most people had any idea what was happening.

Blogger FrankNorman November 08, 2015 8:45 AM  


Real Christianity has priests, not "pastors".


Real Christianity has Jesus the one High Priest.
And there is solid Biblical ground for "pastors" in the church. But it's only one of several different ministries.
The others being things like evangelist, teacher, prophet and missionary.
Turning a church meeting into a one-man-show and expecting that one man up at the front to do everything is part of the problem.

And if women want a role in the ministry of a church, there are plenty of Biblical ones for them - but they don't involve standing behind a pulpit telling other people what to believe.

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 8:45 AM  

(Sorry, somebody had to point out the elephant in the room.)

No, you're not sorry. And no, no one had to point anything of the sort out.

If you want to refight the Wars of Religion, go do it somewhere else. It is obnoxious to try to derail the discourse and it is not permitted here.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 08, 2015 8:50 AM  

#22 Friend of mine was married to a woman of top tier capabilities in her profession, all the credentials. Anyway they were both Catholic and one day she is telling me what her duties were at the church and it was basically taking money from the well off to put the usual types into upscale suburban housing for some stupid reason.

Of course she excelled at organizing this endeavor, but I mentioned that perhaps the church's first duty is to guide the parishioners souls to heaven thru JC and she basically gave me the don't be a silly Willy speech and then right back into her spiel on housing.

Blogger AmyJ November 08, 2015 8:53 AM  

We encountered a similar problem a couple of months ago. Apparently, a woman in our lifestage group had been leading within her small group on Sunday nights for some time, and then thought she needed to transition to Sunday mornings. My husband and I weren't there for the class she taught, but as soon as we sat down for worship, another woman told me all about it - with glee. She said they had gained approval from the elders and members of staff; I was still recovering from the shock that a woman was allowed to teach our class when she laid that one on me. But when we contacted an elder about it, he said he had no idea that had happened and that he absolutely did not approve of anything of the sort. He called an elders meeting, and it turned out all of them were vehemently opposed to the idea....except for one. And that had been the one elder that had been asked for approval. Their solution was to handle the matter privately and put an elder in charge of teaching our class. All well and good....except for the fact that the elder they put in charge is the same elder who approved of it in the first place. Perhaps they set him straight, or maybe he was deceived. We aren't sure.

While we're thankful our church doesn't have rot running too deep, we are concerned as this has been one of many cracks we've noticed popping up over the last year: celebrating mothers on mother's day while scolding fathers on father's day, the children's ministry catering to single mothers over whole families, attempting to purchase new sound equipment rather than pay off church debt (the church debt was concerning long before), as well as numerous SJWs that are within our ranks.

It makes me wonder where the breaking point is; at what point is your church too far gone to fix?

Blogger Stilicho #0066 November 08, 2015 8:58 AM  

Excellent point, Tom. That also takes Locke out of the enlightenment per se and makes him more of an apologist for the Rights of Englishmen. There is a continuum from Saxon to 1066 to Runnymede to Locke to 1776 when you look at it that way. The continental enlightenment was certainly a different creature; striving to use Catholic failures as an excuse to abandon God and using the Reformation as cover.

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 9:02 AM  

But when we contacted an elder about it, he said he had no idea that had happened and that he absolutely did not approve of anything of the sort. He called an elders meeting, and it turned out all of them were vehemently opposed to the idea....except for one. And that had been the one elder that had been asked for approval. Their solution was to handle the matter privately and put an elder in charge of teaching our class.

You need to talk to the elders and a) have the one elder resign and b) have the woman disciplined. She's a liar and an SJW. She cannot be permitted to continue in the church. If they won't do it, leave. They're going to go down.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 9:10 AM  

Cail: Although I think the Reformation was a better thing for Catholicism even than it was for Protestants, it hasn't done its greatest service to Catholicism yet. You see, one of the things I expect to happen is that, as one Christian denomination after another falls to the barbarians, each will schism, with a fair number of the conservative branches of those schisms returning to Catholicism and changing it back in the direction from which it should never have veered.

Superabimus!

Blogger Ann Kellett November 08, 2015 9:21 AM  

Those interested in a concise historical summary should go to scifiwright.com and search Restless Heart of Darkness. Truly profound!

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 08, 2015 9:27 AM  

Dear Kurgan -

That Vox Pope has gay hair!

The Supreme Dark Lord could take some style tips from the master of glorious hair.

Blogger ncartist November 08, 2015 9:37 AM  

@ 6. Phillip George
If men aren't preaching the gospel women will invent one. It's the vacuum of space. It has to be filled.

This is an example of why and how Churches get polluted with false doctrine: women go out of the church into the street and find their non-Christian bad boy or wallet and drag him back into the church; and who instructs that non-Christian in the "faith"? Wifey. If we're lucky he actually becomes a Christian; but in the meantime, he rises in the church hierarchy becoming a leader and elder; what doctrines does he uphold?: his wife's, not those of Jesus Christ.

Blogger Nathan Bissonette November 08, 2015 9:40 AM  

A few years ago, I attended North Heights as a guest of friends. No women pastors then. My friends quit going when the local congregation broke away from the national (a dispute over ownership of church assets maybe?) so I speculate this trouble has been long in the making.

My son married a Southern Baptist woman, converted to her faith, they're active in their congregation and so are their kids. No women pastors. I've never seen him happier.

Blogger Nathan Bissonette November 08, 2015 9:40 AM  

A few years ago, I attended North Heights as a guest of friends. No women pastors then. My friends quit going when the local congregation broke away from the national (a dispute over ownership of church assets maybe?) so I speculate this trouble has been long in the making.

My son married a Southern Baptist woman, converted to her faith, they're active in their congregation and so are their kids. No women pastors. I've never seen him happier.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 08, 2015 9:44 AM  

Tom, you could be right about that. It's true that there are Protestants that have a culture that looks more Catholic than you'll find in a typical diocesan cathedral, and have a greater appreciation for Christian history and traditional teachings than the current Vatican hierarchy. Some of the most traditional Catholics I know are converts, which makes sense: if you go to the trouble to become Catholic in this age when the Vatican says there's no need to, you probably want the real thing, not something that's been watered down to appeal to everyone else. So maybe they'll be the impetus.

Things are going to happen fast when the Boomers finally die off and lose the death grip they have on things, but I can't predict yet what will happen then.

Blogger ncartist November 08, 2015 9:46 AM  

17. Stilicho #0066

Tom, don't go all wheeler on us. Which enlightenment? The one that led from Locke to the Declaration of Independence or the one that led from Rousseau to Madame Guillotine?


The one that led from the Bible to Luther to Samuel Rutherford (Lex Rex) to Locke (who secularized Lex Rex) to the Declaration of Independence or the one that led from Rousseau to Madame Guillotine?

Fixed it for you.

Blogger CM November 08, 2015 9:47 AM  

I don't know if the church can EVER be safe from this... which is perhaps why Paul was so vehement about it.

Historically, the church has always been women heavy (they gave the most money according to Acts) and there WERE women in limited leadership/pastoral roles (Phoebe). It makes sense why - it was the first religion to say men & women were of equal value to God.

On top of that, you have our sinful natures battling it out in our marriages, confusion on what it means to put love in action or to be "relevant" (what does that even mean?) and an urge/calling to minister to our communities while being fearful of crossing some government-enforced boundary.

The modern church is very vulnerable in many ways. Some can be remedied with a good, solid group of Godly elders. Others will always be weak spots, but recognizing them as such may provide less vulnerability.

Blogger Doom November 08, 2015 9:51 AM  

Tom,

I like the notion you present. And, actually, I am seeing that already. The main problem, however, is much like when, say, New Yorkers move to a low or no tax state. Even if they have good intentions, they are so used to overbearing states that they really don't have an idea about how to put their foot down. Same with new Catholics. Many of them just don't have a notion about objective faith principles. Nor do many seem to honestly abide the full nature of the faith as noted in the creed(s).

Can't we all just get along? Fuck no! Yes, I am a convert myself. But I was chased out of the Episcopalian Church by the heretics and queers. No, I didn't see that coming because I really hadn't looked. I was, at the time (and continuing) afraid to join the Catholic Church. Confession, still gets me, but I try. I leaped (into Espisc.) before I had looked. My woman, at the time, was in there as well. (Though, thinking back, that should have clued me in.) I had looked at the Protestant churches, from when I had mostly been taught in my youth, and realized they were dead (queer and female "ministers", a hatred for Israel and Jews based on poor reasoning (they didn't murder Christ, all of our sins did, each of us... or no one), wealthy "ministers" (high pay), and such. I didn't get washed to shore for a few little things.

Just like the New Yorker in whatever state, many of those joining have absolutely no clue. Though, to be honest, half of the congregation, as is, voted for Zero. What was Vox saying about immigration being war? Yeah... Oh, and Mexican/South American Catholicism is not even Christianity, so that's doubling down on war. Bleh.

Anonymous Gordian12 November 08, 2015 9:57 AM  

@21, @27 : Locke is a moderate Hobbesian, his Leviathan is merely Legislative rather than Executive. Locke rejects the notion of a written constitution, he explicitly rejects revealed religion of any sort (in the language of "any sect which makes exclusive claims to truth"), and he rejects any sort of institutional check on popular sovereignty besides a set of platitudes about Natural Rights and a descriptive (not proscriptive) theory of revolution.

Insofar as there were sustainable principles in the American Revolution, they stem from the works of Sir Edward Coke and Ancient Constitutionalism, not from the Enlightenment. From the tradition of formal legalism, the same tradition which preserves the Churches. Locke is the same problem as SJW religion - placing abstract personal philosophic musing over a written legal tradition which has lasted centuries. Like the SJW, Locke talks about high principles of consent and rights, but his practical program in the latter halves of Second Treatise and Letter on Toleration runs counter to everything he said before.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 08, 2015 10:02 AM  

I don't know if the church can EVER be safe from this... which is perhaps why Paul was so vehement about it.

Well, naturally, since what we're ultimately talking about is sinful human nature, not to mention the influence of the prince of this world. We're never going to "win" in the sense that everyone will stop doing evil and revolting against God's will -- at least not before Jesus comes back and takes charge. But in the meantime we can win battles and take territory, and sometimes hold it for long periods of time.

Blogger Crude November 08, 2015 10:04 AM  

Can't we all just get along? Fuck no!

This is a lesson that many people have trouble learning - SJWs and conservative Christians alike. Try telling many people that person X or Y shouldn't be in the Church, and a lot of them - even the conservatives - will go wide-eyed at you with shock. The conservatives will plea that 'We need to save souls!' and 'At least when they're in the Church they're closer to God!' and 'If we kick them out they may lose their faith altogether!'

That used to move me. It no longer does.

The real turning point for me was watching many 'Christians' cheer with glee when Christian businesses started to get shut down for not wanting to serve a same-sex marriage. They were -delighted- this was happening, heaping scorn and sarcasm on the Christians in question. That's when I decided, to hell with these people - I don't want to 'agree to disagree' with them. I want them out of my Church, and I'd support anyone else who'd want them out of -their- church as well.

Blogger GracieLou November 08, 2015 10:05 AM  

From the Catechism: Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected...especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

So collectively SJWs are the anti-Christ or doing the work thereof.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly November 08, 2015 10:17 AM  

@7 Flip forward in your Bible a bit to Hebrews 11. Then come tell us more about "men that won't act" and how their lack of faith just forces the poor women into leadership roles that the simpering men won't do.

Blogger buzzardist November 08, 2015 10:20 AM  

It makes me wonder where the breaking point is; at what point is your church too far gone to fix?

Personally, I'd guess that your church is already too far gone, but I'd give it one last chance. The elders were posed with a situation in which they a) needed to discipline one of their own ranks for making a decision in secret against the will of the church elders, b) needed to discipline a church member who should not have been teaching, but who did anyway using deceptive means to gain the position, and c) needed to confess all of this publicly, admitting where the elders as a whole failed in their leadership and oversight. Instead, they kept the matter quiet and put the questionable elder who almost certainly should have been expelled from the eldership in charge of the very class that his actions helped to undermine.

(And "undermine" is precisely the term here. Look up what undermining involved in medieval warfare. It's exactly what the SJWs in your church are doing.)

The fact that the elders are sweeping the problem under the rug rather than taking it public is, to me, the biggest red flag that the church's leadership has been corrupted. This allows those who want to seize power to remain in the church, feel out their support and their opposition, and to try again. The current face of these people may be that of SJWs, but they are all one with those who bow the knee to Satan in response to the third temptation rather than to cast the devil away. They want earthly power rather than the kingdom of God. Your elders are permissive of this, if not actively part of it. Rather than shining light on the problem and rooting it out aggressively, they've helped keep the secret of the devil in your midst. Maybe that one elder did repent of his mistake, but this was a mistake that made a very public statement in the church by allowing in teaching that never should have been allowed. That public failing demands a public confession.

What to do? It would be wrong to flee that church without at least trying to accomplish what the elders should have done from the start, which is to make a public confession of the church's recent failings. With prayer and witnesses, confront the elders about these failings. Don't threaten at this point to leave the church. Stay focused on the sin that you've witnessed and on the need for the church to address it publicly. Do it all with witnesses, even to the point of taping conversations and meetings, lest they try to mischaracterize what was said later.

If they do not repent, do whatever possible to take this matter to the entire church body. Again, nobody should be doing this alone. Get good, faithful leaders involved. Stand together as witnesses.

If the elders use their positions to block a public call for repentance--if they insist on avoiding a public confession and a firm reiteration of biblical standards for fear that doing so might drive away a few apostate congregants--then there really isn't much left to do except to leave. Can you stage a rebellion from within the church to claw back power from the weak and corrupt elders? No? Then get out. Either find another church with sound teaching and leadership, or else find good leaders among the faithful at your current church who will lead an exodus to found a new church.

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 10:24 AM  

The fact that the elders are sweeping the problem under the rug rather than taking it public is, to me, the biggest red flag that the church's leadership has been corrupted.

SJWs ALWAYS try to keep things quiet unless they are the ones pointing-and-shrieking. That's a key tell; is the leadership transparent or not?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:35 AM  

Doom, the diff is that the lefty Prots can stay in their own decadent churches and be perfectly happy, while liberal workers in leftyland can't stay there lest they starve. Conversely, the conservative ones that may swim the Tiber will be self selecting for conservatism in religion, not for their daily bread.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:35 AM  

Oh, and no it \won't be perfect. I describe merely a likely trend.

Blogger Anchorman November 08, 2015 10:35 AM  

No wonder they want ti infiltrate the Catholic church.

They'd sack the church like barbarians and take the loot.

Blogger GK Chesterton November 08, 2015 10:36 AM  

@Cail,

"The way it works in Catholic parishes is that the priest -- especially if he's one of the effeminate, progressive ones commonly formed in the 50s-70s -- becomes a figurehead who administers the sacraments, while committees mostly made up of women and a handful of female parish employees actually run the place."

Exactly. The Orthodox have the same creeping problem. Get your brothers to join the council to the point that no women can or will run. Then help the priest grow a spine.

Blogger JDC November 08, 2015 10:41 AM  

When the SJW rears their little head you whack a mole.

In the last two years I had to whack a mole at our council meeting. One asked if we could open up a forum to permit women to serve as elders. I interrupted her, stated the request is inappropriate in that scripture forbids it as well as our church constitution and the guidelines from the LCMS.

Another (again, speaking at a council meeting), was protesting that our church has a Wild Game Dinner where guns are auctioned.

You must whack them with all your might, and be ready for the next to emerge.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burnin' Up! November 08, 2015 11:00 AM  

Women inherit the nature of Eve.

Women seeking leadership roles in the church (which equates to feminism) lower themselves while seeking to help. Women do not belong in leadership roles within the church to attain such is not appropriate or biblical.

Let the godly men lead, let the godly women follow.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burnin' Up! November 08, 2015 11:01 AM  

Never apologize for addressing a growing henhouse, the henhouse can be managed and subdued with proper methods such as correction.

Anonymous Susan November 08, 2015 11:07 AM  

I just wanted to say thank you to VD for opening this particular can of rancid worms. This can has needed opening for a long time, and I hope you hit it very hard with your usual style.

I realize you do not like to put yourself out in a leadership role when it comes to religion, but your strength of ideas and the fearless willingness to speak out from your blog give this subject a great forum and a necessary airing. It just needs to be said. It is a nasty part of the SJW legacy that needs a good curb stomp from the rest of us.

An idea for choosing a new church comes to mind. So many local churches maintain a presence on the internet that usually contains an audio library of their sermons. You can spend some time listening to those sermons in the comfort of your home. That should give most folks a good idea of where they are coming from when it comes to doctrinal belief and teaching.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 08, 2015 11:09 AM  

It's not feminine leadership in the church that is the problem.

It's feminized leadership. Example, a small (pop >50) CRC church my wife's folks went to had a problem. One married man and one married woman, (alas not to each other) started an affair. In fact used the church's daycare services to help conduct it.

When the news finally got out about this, the (male) pastor refused to confront the woman about this because he didn't want to, "hurt her spirit". So there she sat in a pew, not to far away from the woman whose husband she was sleeping with.

My father-in-law who was an elder confronted the minister about this and hurt his spirit. He burst into tears during the meeting.

Naturally they left. So did everyone else.

Today that church is now BBQ equipment store. A pretty good one. They sell Big Green Eggs.

Blogger Positive Dennis November 08, 2015 11:13 AM  

"We all tithe 10 or 11 percent," Bak said. "We have the goal of increasing that by 1 percent a year, so it will be 20 percent in 10 years."

Regardless of the tithing issue this is nuts.

Blogger Cecil Henry November 08, 2015 11:16 AM  


Thank the Lord other people see this problem with female pastors and leadership.

It is not leadership, it is among other things, people management and feeling manipulation.

The feminine devours its tail if left to lead.

There is a female (of a husband and wife team) pastor at my families church.

And the PC feel good rhetoric never ends.

As I tell my family:

Some churches worship God, some churches serve people. This church serves people.

I know the pastor would blindly smile at that statement. That;s unacceptable, and dangerous.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burnin' Up! November 08, 2015 11:17 AM  

In regards to claims of satanic actions or mistreatment did any women in leadership roles wear red before the altar?

Red is occultist or quite sorceress.

OpenID anonymos-coward November 08, 2015 11:21 AM  

It is obnoxious to try to derail the discourse and it is not permitted here.
'Derail'? I'm getting straight to the very central nerve of the issue. The reason Christianity exists is to administer the seven sacraments. Christ didn't write a book, and Christ didn't preach a gospel. Christ became man to found the Christian sacraments, a new covenant with man in a very real, physical sense.

Feeling shocked that Protestant churches are reforming too fast is a typical cuckservative position -- "conservatism is conserving the liberal values of my youth" -- and thus morally untenable.

Blogger J Van Stry November 08, 2015 11:24 AM  

Back in the '70s a guy did this on Long Island in NY. Started his own cult, took over the church with it, sold it all off (made millions) then moved everyone to a 'compound' further out on the island.
When it came out that he was a pedophile sleeping with the member's young boys, about half the congregation woke up and left - then lived in fear for years that the new 'militia' portion of the 'church' would hunt them down and kill them.
Had a family member who spent a decade there until the pedophile thing was exposed and they woke up and got out. So yeah, I've seen how people can come in and take over a church, and make a lot of money and power in the process. So what if you lose most of the congregation?
You still have power over all those who are left. And money. What more could a wacko SJW want?

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 11:35 AM  

'Derail'? I'm getting straight to the very central nerve of the issue.

We don't care what you think you're doing. You've been warned. You're off-topic.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 08, 2015 11:51 AM  

As I understand it, colonists enjoyed a higher standard of living than did fellow Englishmen in England, and Parliament bent over backwards to repeal the majority of that to which colonists objected. Rational explanations for the American Revolution are unsupported if this is so. Perhaps a better theory is offered by Socionomics, which notes that the schism came at the end of a bear market that began in 1720 with the bursting of the South Sea Bubble.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 08, 2015 11:56 AM  

My point is that the internal rot in many churches is inextricably connected to today's social mood manic high. It will inevitably reverse in tune with the inevitable bear market social psychology to come. There is no reason or rationale for these trends, they are natural tides in the complex system known as humanity.

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 12:02 PM  

Tom, don't go all wheeler on us. Which enlightenment? The one that led from Locke to the Declaration of Independence or the one that led from Rousseau to Madame Guillotine?

What essential difference is there between the two rebellions that sought to overthrow the yoke of monarchs?

Anonymous Scintan November 08, 2015 12:07 PM  

I don't care either. You can't "disqualify" me and you certainly can't thought-police the Holy Spirit.

His blog, his rules. He says you're off topic. If you can't respect that, feel free to leave.

Anonymous Discard November 08, 2015 12:18 PM  

I think it's important to note that the heretics end up owning the property. Their "clergy" will have well-funded retirements.

I have come to think that owning substantial property is a weakness for a church. Not only does it attract money grubbing SJWs, it allows government or free lance activists to threaten with lawsuits you for discrimination against homos.

Anonymous TLM November 08, 2015 12:27 PM  

VD eluded to the main problem, elders. If they are not iron-willed in their commitment to Christ and his word, they will crack. Too many elder committee searches, elections, whatever, become nothing but high school popularity contests. And many times the people elect 'business men' as elders which is a skewed method for identifying those that are gifted & anointed by God to serve as elders, versus 'We choose henry because he runs a successful IT business. I hate this saying, but garbage in, garbage out. Elder selection is paramount to a church's success in maintaining its love & devotion to Christ. There are also those that believe the pastor should not also be on an elder board which is not how all churches do it.

Blogger Jack Morrow November 08, 2015 12:36 PM  

The practice of liberals stealing churches has been going on for more than 100 years. The churches that are commonly referred to as "mainline" and inhabit old buildings are ones that were started by Bible-believers, but were invaded by wolves in sheep's clothing--and when wolves invade the flock, the sheep start disappearing.

Apostasy usually works from the top down--seminaries hire heretics, who then teach their heresy to the future pastors.

A top-down measure that's often used by liberal churches--or is a sign that a church is going liberal--is to steal the property of churches by using reversionary clauses. I know of one evangelical denomination in the U.S. that uses such clauses in the denominational laws to steal properties from local congregations, even if the properties have been entirely paid for by the local congregations.

My own denomination is starting to go SJW (to use the older term, "social gospel"), and that includes putting women in positions of leadership. First they relaxed their standards on divorced and remarried men in positions of leadership; now they're starting to ordain women (and the denominational leadership has been very dishonest about it); next they'll put non-practicing sodomites and lesbians in positions of leadership; and eventually it will be practicing sods and dykes. When a church starts putting women in positions of leadership, that's not an indication that it's going liberal; rather, it's an indication that it's already gone liberal.

The same denomination is also getting involved in sponsoring Syrian "refugees" in cooperation with the Canadian government, but there's nothing on their website statement on the subject to indicate that the "refugees" they're sponsoring are Christians.

North Heights provides an excellent example of SJW law #2--the offerings are down because so many people have left, so the remaining attenders will be pressured to double their offerings to prop up the sinking ship. Brilliant.

Blogger Rabbi B November 08, 2015 12:37 PM  

Far too many are afraid to let the Bible have its way and do its work.

It's a double-edged sword and when wielded with skill it cuts men's hearts and souls to the quick. I guess some are just a little more squeamish than others when the instrument actually does what it was intended to do.

The squeamish are not doing anyone any favors. It's the wounds of a friend that are faithful, not the goodfeelz.

Blogger Seneca November 08, 2015 12:44 PM  

Recently replaced, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church - K. Jefferts-Schori in full regalia.

http://www.internetmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/joseph.jpg,

During her reign, the Episcopal Church apparently spent about 22 millions dollars battling Episcopal congregations that wanted to keep their church but no longer be a part of the rapidly dying and wildly progressive denomination.

Women do like to dress no?

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 12:46 PM  

I don't care either. You can't "disqualify" me and you certainly can't thought-police the Holy Spirit.

True. But I can spam you. As I have done. Enjoy your comments mysteriously disappearing on every Blogger blog.

Anonymous BigGaySteve November 08, 2015 1:06 PM  

SJWs ALWAYS try to keep things quiet unless they are the ones pointing-and-shrieking. That's a key tell

They will also try to make it sound like its in your/everyone's best interest for it to be quite. A sure sign its a weapon against them.

"a deep concern for "the community""

Translation- None of that money donated by deceased members estates was going to Latrina's 28 crack babies. Those scholarships for members of the church only went to those who showed up, Skankadanka who is out performing services on streetcorners at 3am gets no benefit from them.

19 Agent J -My denomination is on the verge of schism due to same sex marriage (UMC). My church spent a whole service trying to convince parents to send their kids on a vacation--er, mission trip--to a Central American eco-paradise.

Tell them that feminists so destroyed marriage that only gold digging gays would want it. A gay divorce law firm opened up less than a month after the supremes ruled. Previously the worse thing you could do is co-sign a loan for a boyfriend, now you can lose 1/2 your stuff and pay alimony. Many jewish lesbians have said they wanted same sex marriage to destroy the institution so that STR8 YT people couldn't benefit from it. For the central American, concern troll them about kidnappings, about how to avoid Chagas & vaccines that would be needed. There is no cure for Chagas and it is spread by biting insects.

The Church is not a social club. <---- Never been to an MCC which is where you can send all of the rejects from your churches that want to partake in community.

Blogger AmyJ November 08, 2015 1:34 PM  

"The fact that the elders are sweeping the problem under the rug rather than taking it public is, to me, the biggest red flag that the church's leadership has been corrupted."

I'm afraid you're right. The elder in question is the son in law of our preacher and his family is very entrenched in our church. The most likely outcome of demanding his resignation is that we'd be asked to leave. It's what we should do anyway, but it's hard to give up on Family.

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 2:24 PM  

The most likely outcome of demanding his resignation is that we'd be asked to leave. It's what we should do anyway, but it's hard to give up on Family.

Choose who you serve. If you stay, you're no better than those that keep him as an unworthy elder because he is family.

Blogger Seneca November 08, 2015 2:25 PM  

Update link for Jefferts Shori Picture

http://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/vestments/schori.jpg

Blogger tuleesh November 08, 2015 2:38 PM  

Gracie Lou@42
That second paragraph hit the nail on the head. Gathering from the pre-election sermons I was able to read, many RC bishops voted for the "Chicago je$u$" both times. Regardless of the full-frontal assault by him him on their church. Of course, they didn't come out and say it outright. But, their meaning was clear when "social justice" took precedence over life issues and salvation.

Anonymous Anonymous November 08, 2015 2:42 PM  

In the SF Bay Area it's difficult to find a church not already totally infested with SJWs. Our former Lutheran church seemed to be the least infested so we finally became members a couple years ago. There were signs, like the openly lesbian elder and the pro gay marriage discussions that would crop up at bible study. I bit my tongue most of the time. But the most recent chain of events was something we could not tolerate. We discovered our pastor accepted an invitation from the Pacifica Institute to take a trip to Turkey, fully funded by them. Then more recently our pastor accepted a request from the Pacifica Institute to host events at our church, like dinners and such.

If you haven't heard of the Pacifica Institute it's basically a front to fund Islam extremism. They are very good at what they do. They claim to be an intercultural and interfaith organization, which is open to people of all faiths. But what they don't tell you is that they operate out of Turkey and most of the funds they receive (they are a non-profit) are channeled back to Turkey. For instance, they run hundreds of mainstream charter schools all Muslim staffed and all "donate" most of their very high salaries to the organization.

Anyway they have infiltrated the mind of our pastor and our church in general. We left.

Blogger Eric Medvich November 08, 2015 2:54 PM  

1st Great schism 1054, second 1415, since then about 40,000 "new types" of "Christianity". How can we be surprised that there would be more and more divisions? Remember: God unifies, Satan divides. SJW movement in Christianity = Satan having a fun time of it.

Blogger Desiderius November 08, 2015 3:04 PM  

Superb thread.

I've seen much of this first-hand, professionally, from the inside of the sausage factory.

It's how I came to be here, which is a long way, I can assure you, from where I began.

There are many refugees from the quiet war the SJWs have waged these two generations. Keep watch for us.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 3:12 PM  

d.c.:

Once they'd shown their political fangs, had tried to establish a strong precedent, and insisted on leaving in place any precedent at all, even while showing their military fangs, little things like repeal of most of the most obnoxious aspects were simply not enough. We knew what they wanted and intended, and knew the time to fight it was while we were still strong enough to do so.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 3:12 PM  

GJ, I already gave the explanation.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 3:14 PM  

GJ, I already gave the explanation.

Blogger maniacprovost November 08, 2015 4:39 PM  

Anonymous comments aren't permitted. Please choose a user name to pervert scripture with.

Blogger Miss Conduct November 08, 2015 4:58 PM  

In Texas the "conservative" (my shorthand for that side of the schism) Episcopal parishes, for the most part, kept the land and the "progressive" ones had to move to temporary quarters. It's been challenged in court but as far as I know that situation hasn't changed. No matter, the whole long messy saga has turned me off of the faith I was raised in. I am seriously considering the Orthodox Church.

Blogger Aeroschmidt November 08, 2015 5:02 PM  

Some women are able to lead other women or children effectively. It's when it goes past that when it becomes an unnatural act. Like buttsex...

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 5:05 PM  

UPDATE from the original emailer: "Just heard from my mother that the "vision" of the female pastor is to integrate Muslims and Christians in a new progressive church. They call it Chrislam."

Blogger Rabbi B November 08, 2015 5:10 PM  

@85.

We're all on candid camera, right? Has someone checked her forehead for the lobotomy scar?


Blogger haus frau November 08, 2015 5:15 PM  

@85 If nothing else the "lam" half of the new Chrislam sect will take care of the progressive female pastor problem rather quickly. Get this woman some refugees and a rape whistle and watch the games begin.

Blogger David-093 November 08, 2015 5:22 PM  

"Chrislam"

Reminds me of Tashlan from The Last Battle. Good job, heretics, you've risen to the level of a children's book.

OpenID Jack Amok November 08, 2015 5:29 PM  

This phenomenon of the "stolen church" is not new

This is the biggest reason I disagreed with Vox's call to end the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Churches (and businesses, clubs, media outlets, agencies, etc - all human institutions) will always be vulnerable to being stolen by entryists. The First Amendment (covering religion, association and speech) is really about preventing those who capture an organization from forcing the people to stay instead of leave to form their own competitor.

Best to stop them before they take over, but if they manage to anyway, then you need to be able to extract yourself and ideally your resources too.

Perhaps it's time to think about ways to deny the buildings and money to the SJWs when they take over. Not entirely sure how to accomplish this yet, but something along the lines of "when 2/3rds of the congregation leaves, the assets are liquidated and paid out to the (pre-exodus) congregation."

Poison pills... because they will come after the church you found after leaving the one they stole.

OpenID Jack Amok November 08, 2015 5:31 PM  

I believe the most accurate name of a religion that "integrate(s) Muslims and Christians" would be "Islam... with Christians paying tithes to it."

Blogger Daniel November 08, 2015 6:29 PM  

Get this chick a burka. She's not uniting two conflicting relighions: she's making a mosquery of both.

Anonymous redsash November 08, 2015 6:37 PM  

#82: Your examples of Deborah and Jael are indeed true. True but irrelevant. The Word of God has spoken clearly and plainly as to Church government. Elders who are godly men and fulfill the requirements as set forth in 1st Timothy 3: 1-7 govern the Church. For a new body of believers, elders are chosen by those believers, after that elders choose additional elders among those put forth by other elders or the congregation. Women to paraphrase the Apostle Paul in 1st Timothy 2: 11-15 are to SHUT UP.

Anonymous Leon November 08, 2015 7:52 PM  

"Chrislam". Vox, I think someone is pulling your leg. This has to be a joke.

Anonymous Ain November 08, 2015 7:55 PM  

@93, it's a thing.

Blogger MrA is MrA November 08, 2015 7:57 PM  

@93. Leon
"Chrislam". Vox, I think someone is pulling your leg. This has to be a joke.

Really?

LMGTFY ==> "Chrislam"

Blogger VD November 08, 2015 8:11 PM  

I think someone is pulling your leg. This has to be a joke.

They're not. I know some of the people involved. I had family members who attended there for years and my mother used to sing in the Christmas choir.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 08, 2015 8:18 PM  

This has to be a joke.

There are many people, most of them nominally Christian, who want to merge all the world's creeds into a single doctrine-free, man-centered Religion of Nice. The most surprising part of this particular effort is that they're only including two of them -- awfully divisive of them. Why do they hate Hindus and voodoo snake worshipers?

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 8:46 PM  

GJ, I already gave the explanation.
You've certainly asserted that US's rebellion was 'conservative', but even if the British Parliament was being 'liberal' it hardly follows that a reaction to that is necessarily 'conservative'.

Rather, throwing off the yoke of monarchs (amongst other changes) was precisely a new and liberal idea.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 9:02 PM  

What changed? We weren't ruled by the king, pre 1775. We were hardly even lightly rained on. Our colonies were essentially self governing, and only contributed to the British fisc when we were at war IF they came to defend us. And after the war? Same thing except they never came to defend us again. What did we fight for? New rights? Nonsense. We fought to maintain the rights of Englishman we'd always had. _That_ is conservative.

We could hardly throw off the yoke of a monarch who had no yoke upon us.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 9:03 PM  

Cail, it's probably that Hindus and snake worshippers don't hate Christianity enough.

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 9:29 PM  

What changed? We weren't ruled by the king, pre 1775….We could hardly throw off the yoke of a monarch who had no yoke upon us.
Then one does wonder what all that bitching in the Declaration of Independence about the king and his "Tyranny" is about.

One also wonders what to make of the royal charters and the governors appointed by the king.

Blogger Eric Medvich November 08, 2015 9:35 PM  

@99 "We weren't ruled by the king, pre 1775" Please clarify, since this flies in the face of history.

Blogger Eric November 08, 2015 9:38 PM  

Infiltration by SJWs is a primary example of the world changing the Church, not the Church changing the world.

That's what it boils down to. If your church changes its dogma in response to a changing society, it's not a church at all. It's a social club.

Blogger Eric Medvich November 08, 2015 9:43 PM  


'We fought to maintain the rights of Englishman we'd always had" In a sense this is true, except most of those "rights" weren't even an afterthought until after the Magna Carta, and even that had more to do with the nobility than the commons. Oh and the word you we looking for was "reigned" not rained.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 08, 2015 9:43 PM  

Interfaith dialogue. To me, it means berserker apologetics. To them, it means crypto-Progressive intellectually dishonest tea parties.

Anonymous Noah Nehm November 08, 2015 9:44 PM  

From Sacerdotalis Ordinatio:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren.We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 9:46 PM  

The Declaration of Independence was a mix of conditional declaration of war and propaganda. As such you expect it to adhere to the truth? And you probably ought look at where actual domestic power lay in the colonies, up until the UK and Parliament began trying to change the pre-existing deal. Try, too, following the money. Who, for example, had the power to tax within each colony, prior to the advent of the Stamp Act?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 9:54 PM  

I know what word it was, Eric. The idea of word play is foreign to you, is it? And, no, we were essentially self governing. The King barely gave us a thought before the troubles began. Also, since the Magna Carta preceded our advent in this hemisphere, and since the idea of the rights of Englishmen had expanded considerably since King John, I feel quite comfortable in stating that we had a strong idea of the rights of Englishmen, even here, pretty much since Jamestown. I invite your attention to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1760s, and his tracing out the evolution of the Rights of Englishmen, long before the 1760s.

Blogger Eric Medvich November 08, 2015 10:07 PM  

@108 Are you actually trying to claim that those who were charged with ruling the colonies were not doing so in the name of the King? I would find it hard to believe that the "King barely gave us a thought before the troubles began", since In 1764, Parliament passed the Currency Act, which prohibited the colonies from making their own currency. I would assume that the King of England might have a care. This is one example. I would refer you to pg 54 of A history of Money and Banking in the United States. And I'm not sure if it really was a play on words...but it was all in good fun anyway.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:18 PM  

I am claiming that they were largely figureheads. The important part, taxing and spending, lay not with them but with the colonial legislatures.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:22 PM  

I would not, by the way, tell you it was a play on word if it were not a play on words.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:26 PM  

The key to that is the word "on." One is reigned over, but one is rained on.

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 10:41 PM  

The Declaration of Independence was a mix of conditional declaration of war and propaganda. As such you expect it to adhere to the truth?
I must admit it's refreshing to see an American admit that the Declaration was full with self-serving lies.

And you probably ought look at where actual domestic power lay in the colonies, up until the UK and Parliament began trying to change the pre-existing deal.

Try, too, following the money. Who, for example, had the power to tax within each colony, prior to the advent of the Stamp Act?

All I need to know is that while de jure the King was in charge, de facto he was still in charge while allowing a significant degree of self-government. To rebel, attempting to change the situation radically by displacing even those that largely amounted to figureheads to achieve full self-government was still liberal.

And do pray tell, what was wrong with changing 'the deal' - that taxing and spending, lay not with them but with the colonial legislatures? Was there any agreement that this was always to be so?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 10:50 PM  

De jure, George was a constitutional monarch, albeit one with rather more power than the Queen has today. He felt himself to be and was limited by both law and custom, with parliament holding the overwhelming bulk of real power.

I find it odd that someone should demand a written and / or formal agreement with a country that has no written, nor really a formal, constitution.

It was not, in any case, liberal when the fight was to preserve what already was from change (unless, of course,you're using liberal to mean classically liberal, which is essentially modern conservative). Nor was it entirely clear early on that we would not create our own king.

Blogger Eric Medvich November 08, 2015 11:04 PM  

Ah, and who holds the reigns whilst the King reins? also, "Nor was it entirely clear early on that we would not create our own king." I would think that the King (or crown or whatever) never thought there would be another such entrant to the game. I would suggest that 1812 shewed that. "albeit one with rather more power than the Queen has today" I would say that this is not only purposely obtuse but hyperbolic as well. As we can tell from history, as soon as the King thought there was a serious challenge to the right of the English throne to rule over the colonies he made a very serious attempt to reign the colonies in. But to assume that it began in 1775 and just sprang out of the ether is like saying that magic dirt converts heathens.

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 11:13 PM  

De jure, George was a constitutional monarch, albeit one with rather more power than the Queen has today. He felt himself to be and was limited by both law and custom, with parliament holding the overwhelming bulk of real power.
That hardly alters the force of my argument; I can swap in 'British Parliament+King'.

I find it odd that someone should demand a written and / or formal agreement with a country that has no written, nor really a formal, constitution.
I demand nothing. You made much of the 'deal' being changed; one naturally wonders why it should have been maintained.


It was not, in any case, liberal when the fight was to preserve what already was from change

To resist a change in status quo might be conservative, so one might reasonably put resistance to the Stamp Act under such a category. However, to throw off the yoke of the existing British rule by rebelling is another thing altogether.

So again, how is this different from the the other rebellion?

(unless, of course,you're using liberal to mean classically liberal, which is essentially modern conservative).
It has always been the nature of the 'modern conservative’ to conserve liberal ideas.

Blogger GJ November 08, 2015 11:16 PM  

As we can tell from history, as soon as the King thought there was a serious challenge to the right of the English throne to rule over the colonies he made a very serious attempt to reign the colonies in.
A terribly liberal idea, of course.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 11:23 PM  

What is the name of the Great Unwashed does 1812 have to do with a possibility in 1776? No, it's not hyperbole, it's just accurate. The man had to go to Parliament to get a law forbidding members of his own family from marrying without his permission, for God's sake. If you look, you will find that George's Proclamation of Rebellion does not contain the word, "throne." It mentions "power," but that would be of the entire empire. It mentions "government," but as a largely constitutional monarch, that would be the entire government, not just his part of it. In any case, however, to proclaim something as true which was patently true can be done by anyone.

Ought of curiosity, are you deliberately trying to create an enemy for life by this - be it noted, second - insult to my integrity? I would say you're a fucking fool, if so.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 11:28 PM  

It doiesn't r\eally matter why it should have been changed. The question was conservative or liberal, not justifications.

When you rely on the argument of George as something like absolute monarch, it is worth demonstrating that he was no such thing.

If you do not understand at this point how it was different from the French Revolution, which really was a revolution, I am afraid it is beyond my meager powers to educate you further. Go in peace and in ignorance with my blessings.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 08, 2015 11:29 PM  

Out, rather

Blogger Desiderius November 08, 2015 11:57 PM  

"All I need to know is that while de jure the King was in charge, de facto he was still in charge while allowing a significant degree of self-government. To rebel, attempting to change the situation radically by displacing even those that largely amounted to figureheads to achieve full self-government was still liberal."

Bullshit.

It was Lord North's War, although his was following the popular sentiment in Britain, at least at the time of the Revolution, as Franklin noted when he was there. King George was a stand-in for that sentiment in the propaganda of the colonists. Noth (vastly) overplayed his hand, as Johnson later admitted.

Blogger Desiderius November 09, 2015 12:03 AM  

"When you rely on the argument of George as something like absolute monarch, it is worth demonstrating that he was no such thing."

His House was brought in exactly for the purpose of making sure royal power stayed effectively neutered. The Declaration of Right that brought in William and Mary was the final nail in the coffin of anything like absolute monarchy in Britain.

OpenID Jack Amok November 09, 2015 12:40 AM  

GJ, quit going full-fucking-aspie.

The parliament in London started throwing its weight around and pointedly told us colonials we weren't welcome to provide input, but we'd be expected to toe the line as soon as they told us where it was. We told London that wouldn't work for us. Not much more to it than that.

Blogger Jack Morrow November 09, 2015 12:43 AM  

A textbook case of SJWs co-opting Christianity, from the recent Parliament of the World's Religions:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=18470

Blogger Jack Morrow November 09, 2015 1:01 AM  

No, Chrislam isn't a joke; it's been making inroads for several years. See

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=13109

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=7108




Anonymous Takin' a Look November 09, 2015 1:44 AM  

-Jack Morrow

It is syncretism writ global....

Christianity can absorb ancestor worship, local ecological gods (heck, gloopscap the beaver is an awesome example) and many philosophical virtues....

It can never deny the "dying and rising God" avatar at it's very heart. It doesn't matter if Christ married Mary Magdalene or if (as very likely) she was just an old respectable fish-monger widow who was mentally ill/possessed and a financial supporter of Mortal God. Christ is sublime as no other avatar before Him or after Him has shown.

The closest examples outside of Christianity may be the Shia and the Ka'raim persecution-wise. Pagans and internectine Christian warfare exempted.

Blogger GJ November 09, 2015 3:15 AM  

It doiesn't r\eally matter why it should have been changed. The question was conservative or liberal, not justifications.
And if you want to go down this line of reasoning, I’ve pointed out that while resisting new taxation can be reasonably construed as conservative (i.e. trying to maintain the status quo), seeking to overthrow the existing order is simply not conservative at all.

When you rely on the argument of George as something like absolute monarch, it is worth demonstrating that he was no such thing.
As I have pointed out, the force of my argument is not changed by swapping in ‘Parliament and King’ for ‘King solely’.

If you do not understand at this point how it was different from the French Revolution, which really was a revolution, I am afraid it is beyond my meager powers to educate you further. Go in peace and in ignorance with my blessings.
So you mean to say that the American revolution was not “really” a revolution?

Indeed, it is beyond your meagre powers to sustain your argument. Good day.

Blogger GJ November 09, 2015 3:16 AM  

Desiderius: as I have pointed out in subsequent comments, my counterargument to Kratman does not lose force for being inaccurate in the details; overthrowing the order of government then was hardly conservative.

Blogger GJ November 09, 2015 3:18 AM  

GJ, quit going full-fucking-aspie.

The parliament in London started throwing its weight around and pointedly told us colonials we weren't welcome to provide input, but we'd be expected to toe the line as soon as they told us where it was. We told London that wouldn't work for us. Not much more to it than that.

Jack, while it is entirely understandable that you wish to swallow the propaganda whole, do let those who wish to examine the detail do so in peace.

Blogger NicBoffin November 09, 2015 3:43 AM  

I don't know how much any of you have been following the trumped up scandal with my church (Mormon) this week, but it would seem to be relevant here.

A church that has always opposed same-sex marriage announces that any member married to someone of the same sex is apostate (and that their children cannot be baptized until they are legal adults and not under such roofs) suddenly is surprising to people (mostly not even within the church) and some great terrible thing?

And this not long after a push to ordain women to the priesthood?

I'd wonder at the audacity to try such a thing in so conservative a church except for the likelihood that they are trying the same across *all* Christian churches.

Then again I must concede that there are already some such members within the church as well given how loudly certain quarters complained when the newest three apostles were called and they were all old white men. (As if the Lord cares one whit for PC PR concerns.)

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2015 5:48 AM  

And I keep telling you that the existing order was that the colonies were effectively self governing, especially to include in matters of taxation, that it was Parliament that was attempting to change that, and that to preserve that we rebelled.

In short, we were not overthrowing the existing REAL order, we were preserving it.

Now you're just being stupid. As I said earlier, your neutronium-dense skull and shitty grasp of history and reason have defeated me. Go in peace and ignorance with my blessings.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 09, 2015 7:05 AM  

A church that has always opposed same-sex marriage announces that any member married to someone of the same sex is apostate (and that their children cannot be baptized until they are legal adults and not under such roofs) suddenly is surprising to people (mostly not even within the church) and some great terrible thing?

The common assumption, based mostly on events of the past century or so, is that all churches steadily become more liberal and abandon doctrine, in a steady progression from strictness to kindness, from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" (as if that's not a false dichotomy"). So yes, it still surprises people when a church that has always believed X has an opportunity to back down to X-lite and says, "No, you know what? We're just going to keep believing X. In fact, we're going to re-declare X in starker terms so there's no more confusion about it."

Blogger Matthew Peak November 09, 2015 8:47 AM  

The Catholic Church is suffering the same. There is a deficit of men and priests and the cause is the compromise church leaders made in the 60s when they made many negotiable issues into expendable issues. The Catholic Church of old that made claims of exclusivity and held Latin Mass is the Catholic Church many love and revere (and many respect). The modern social-justice Catholic parish with its modern dumbed-down rites, gender-neutral language, and constant crying over the Syrian refugees breaks the heart and sours the spirit. Catholics have come to trust in their traditions and Mary to save them and less on the heavenly Father and Son who established them. Fortunately, there are rising up voices crying for a rediscovery of Jesus Christ, His Truth, and His Church.

Blogger Keith Glass November 09, 2015 9:35 AM  

I remember, back in the 1980s, when I still wore the Blue Suit, that I was church-shopping after I arrived at a new station.

As I was raised Lutheran, I tried the local Lutheran place first. Female Pastor. Preaching the Evils of Militarism and Why We Must Help The Poor. Zero mentions of God or Jesus. ONE mention of the Holy Spirit.

1986.

Ended up going to the local United Methodist. Then again, two of my college room-mates became UMC preachers, so I probably was pre-disposed to accept their doctrine (grin)

Blogger Sheila4g November 09, 2015 10:01 AM  

@83, Our former church (Episcopal in Texas) was one of those that left the national organization over homosexuality, and kept its buildings, but it still fell to the SJWs later on. Don't rely on that issue only (note I'm not presuming that you are). The priest later felt the need to publicly affirm that the church was not rejecting the children of members who were homosexual and wanted to ensure no one's feelings were hurt.

I believe a great deal of blame can be laid on the priest's wife (very much a flower child of the 60s) and the wife of a then assistant priest brought in. I was told I had "a great deal of anger" when I queried and then complained about all the names on the Christmas angel tree coming from the suburb's social services department. Suddenly the majority of "angels" went from Mexican anchor babies to non-Christian elderly Chinese. I also saw precisely to whom all the Thanksgiving food went (I had donated and helped sort for years) when I finally helped deliver.

Female priests were merely the most open symptom (something the priest had stated he was adamantly opposed to a decade earlier) but it was the final straw for us. I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Lutheran. I'm a classical Episcopalian without a home.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 09, 2015 10:15 AM  

Start swimming, Sheila, the Swiss Guard will toss you a rope halfway...

;)

Blogger Red Bane November 09, 2015 10:21 AM  

Why can't the congregation run these people out of town? How is ownership of the Church and lands legally structured?

Blogger Desiderius November 09, 2015 10:22 AM  

"There is a deficit of men and priests and the cause is the compromise church leaders made in the 60s when they made many negotiable issues into expendable issues."

That deficit is also directly traceable to smaller family sizes (often younger sons of prominent families were called to religious life) produced by another abandonment of doctrine among a prior generation.

Blogger Desiderius November 09, 2015 10:32 AM  

"being inaccurate in the details"

No, you are inaccurate root and branch.

The colonists leading the revolution were to a man good solid conservative Whigs in the tradition of Somers and Pitt. I think they can be forgiven for not indulging the British Tories in one of their periodic hissy-fits that so often threatened the constitutional order.

Anonymous bw November 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

Get with the program guys.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown November 09, 2015 12:56 PM  

Chrislam
"Full retard" doesn't do it justice. We need a new phrase for this next level level of stupidity.

Blogger SirHamster November 09, 2015 2:58 PM  

UPDATE: it gets worse:

Just heard from my mother that the "vision" of the female pastor is to integrate Muslims and Christians in a new progressive church. They call it Chrislam.



Burn it with fire.

Anonymous Anonymous November 09, 2015 3:00 PM  

I don't think it is right to judge all women pastors just because of a few bad ones.
God looks at the heart.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. " Galatians 3:28

Bill Cotton

Blogger Desiderius November 09, 2015 4:55 PM  

Bill,

We are not judging their hearts, not knowing them by name. We are judging their parts altogether and to what purpose those parts are best suited. In that judgement we concur with Scripture that leading men is not their calling.

Blogger Matthew Peak November 09, 2015 6:37 PM  

I don't think it is right to judge all women pastors just because of a few bad ones.

Bill, you've missed the point. "Bad" is synonymous "women pastors."

Blogger Matamoros November 09, 2015 7:22 PM  

@29 You see, one of the things I expect to happen is that, as one Christian denomination after another falls to the barbarians, each will schism, with a fair number of the conservative branches of those schisms returning to Catholicism and changing it back in the direction from which it should never have veered.

It appears that John Paul II and Benedict XVI believe so as well, what with the founding of the Anglican Use, renamed Personal Prelature of the Holy See to allow the escape of Anglicans/ Episcopalians who wish to retain historic Christian Faith by returning to the Church, but keeping the Anglican ceremonials - which come, after all, from the Catholic Sarum uses, etc., pre-Henry VIII.

Those coming as individuals from non-liturgical churches will simply come as they receive light and faith to return to their forefathers' faith.

I believe that this great incoming will provide the return of strength and manliness in numbers to regenerate the concept of Military-Religious Orders for the Defense of Christendom, and indeed a return to a return of manly Faith.

Blogger Matamoros November 09, 2015 7:40 PM  

@133

I agree with your statement. There is a real, at least in my area of the South, restoration going on. Churches are being renovated with altar rails, the tabernacles are being replaced to the center of the church, latin mass is back and the novus ordo is done traditionally. New priests are churning out of the seminaries, and are traditionally Catholic; and a new masculinity is evident in these priests.

Benedict XVI will be recognized as a saint at some point for "restoring all things in Christ"; for it is under his pontificate and at his direction this renewal has begun. May it continue throughout our benighted land.

Blogger Desiderius November 09, 2015 10:32 PM  

Matamoros,

How do I find one of these in my area?

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2015 9:32 AM  

Desiderious,
Where exactly does the Bible say this,
"In that judgement we concur with Scripture that leading men is not their calling."

Bill Cotton

Blogger Desiderius November 10, 2015 10:53 AM  

Bill,

As great as is the ilk's renown, they have not yet made it into Holy Scripture.

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2015 11:32 AM  

Then why do you cite the "scriptures" as the foundation for your belief?

Bill C.

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2015 11:34 AM  

Here are two links to articles that I believe clear up the women in ministry issue.

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/008_exploring.cfm

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Role_of_Women_in_Ministry.pdf

Bill C.

Blogger Matamoros November 11, 2015 3:02 PM  

@148 Desiderius How do I find one of these in my area?

There are several options. You can ask the chancery office in your diocese if there are any Latin masses in the diocese. If not, perhaps a surrounding diocese.

Here is a Latin Mass directory that should help: http://latinmass.com/latinmassdirectory.html

Blogger Matamoros November 11, 2015 3:05 PM  

@148 How do I find one of these in my area?

Call the Chancery office for your diocese and ask about Latin masses.

Here is a national directory of Latin Masses, I don't know how complete it is: http://latinmass.com/latinmassdirectory.html

Blogger Mindstorm November 18, 2015 8:09 AM  

@141 Gunnar: If you use nautical terminology, there is emergency "flank speed" after "full speed", but that sounds rather weird with retard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_speed

Blogger Jack Morrow November 29, 2015 2:57 AM  

It seems that this church has a history of false doctrine and unbiblical practices:

http://apprising.org/2010/08/21/lutheran-church-in-minnesota-offers-christian-fortune-telling/

And the "pastor" fits the classic profile of teh SJW:

http://www.churchcancer.blogspot.co.id/

http://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/mike-breen-3dm-playing-havoc-with_1.html#comments

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts