Jesus didn’t call out the Romans.
Instead, he spent his life calling out the religious leaders of His day. He left the Romans pretty much alone.
But what do we do?
I have seen far too many pastors, and too many best-selling authors, making their main talking point how evil the world is, and how we have to fight against it. The emphasis is: they’re bad OUT THERE. The OUTSIDE WORLD is a threat to us. The OUTSIDE WORLD is out to get us.
Jesus didn’t do that.
Jesus instead called the religious people to more
He focused his energy and time teaching what the kingdom of God should look like within the family of God—so that that family could be salt and light to the world.
Here’s where we’re at:
- 50% of evangelical married men are currently using porn, even if just intermittently (read more about this in The Good Guy’s Guide to Great Sex)
- 25% of marriages are abusive—and more in hyper-complementarian circles (think IFB, Doug Wilson, John MacArthur)
- 20% of teen girls are abused or assaulted in church, half of them by adults (read more in She Deserves Better)
- Too many sexual abuse scandals to mention
Instead of becoming a community where we care for each other and those in our midst, churches encourage parishioners to give 10% of their income so that we can create basically glorified country clubs with celebrity leaders.
I have seen far too many big books and pastors sound more like the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, where we proudly say, “thank God we’re not like the evil world!!! And not enough big books and pastors saying, “we have to address the problems in our midst. We have to clean up our own act.”
Why do we aim our criticism at the world?
Because railing against “the Romans” gives people a common enemy to unite around. We can feel morally superior to those “out there”, which is, quite frankly, a great feeling.
Railing against the sins of “the world” allows us to keep the status quo. And a lot of people benefit from the status quo. We make it pretty acceptable to use porn (”all men struggle with lust after all; did you give him enough sex? You know he has sexual needs”.) Men get unconditional respect and sex on demand without having to actually love their wives.
We create a subculture where certain pastors and authors can get really rich (evangelical industrial complex!) and popular and have a ton of status, without actually having to have good character.
Okay, but Sheila, you may say: what DO we do about the world? What about all the threats to the fabric of our nation?
Here’s the thing: Jesus had an answer for that.
It’s called being salt and light.
When we truly act as children of God, we become loving. We become a healing and welcoming community. We become a safe place.
And BECAUSE OF THAT, we influence the world.
That’s the order God set for us
- Become sanctified by God
- Love each other and become a safe place
- Influence the world about the kingdom of God and about Jesus, and see the kingdom of God expand
Too many people are jumping right to #3, and figuring we can influence the world by telling them all the things they’re doing wrong—all while ignoring our own sexual abuse scandals, marital rape scandals, porn apocalypse, greed, and more.
(Now, I’m not arguing about voting here. I think we all have a civic duty to vote, and to think about which candidate will live out Jesus’ priorities the best. But there is such a thing as creating a church culture where we see politics as the answer to how to keep our place at the table, rather than recognizing that we change the world as we ourselves are changed).
Let me tell you a story to show you what I mean.
This one involves a young woman named Samantha Killary, who deserves our empathy.
We told this story on yesterday’s Bare Marriage podcast episode, but it deserves more attention.
Samantha was abused by her father when she was a child, and others knew about it at the time. She had a legal case working its way through the courts in Kentucky, where she wanted to be able to sue those who knew and did nothing, even if the statute of limitations had expired.
Her case had nothing to do with the SBC (the Southern Baptist Convention).
Yet Al Mohler, Bart Barber, and other SBC leaders entered an “amicus brief”—a legal filing as a “friend of the court”—AGAINST Samantha Killary. They argued she shouldn’t get justice because of the greater good.
Why did they do this?
Because there are so many cases against the SBC right now working their way through the courts, where children were being sexually abused, SBC leaders knew about it, and no one did anything.
They want the courts to rule AGAINST Samantha (and the courts did) so that these same courts would also rule against SBC sexual assault victims.
She Deserves Better!
Because we all deserve a big faith.
Your daughter deserves better than what you likely grew up with in church.
What would it look like to prepare the next generation without toxic teachings about modesty, sex, or consent, and instead set her up for a big faith?
Al Mohler is the head of the flagship SBC seminary.
He also recently endorsed a book that warns against “toxic empathy”—how in our quest for justice, real justice can be subverted. And this endorsement is featured prominently advertising this book.
So let me ask you: Does Al Mohler seem like he cares about real justice? Or does he seem like he cares about protecting institutions?
Does Al Mohler seem like he understands empathy?
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
My heart plea is that instead of focusing on the sins of “the world”, we start calling Christians to actually act like Christians.
Yes, that will mean sacrifice. It is hard to repent. It costs us something.
But believe me, our problem is not that we have too much empathy, or the wrong kind of empathy, when it comes to what is happening within evangelical churches.
It is that we have nowhere near enough.
Don’t be like the Pharisee, thanking God you’re not like those “out there.”
Let’s clean up our own house, because that’s what Jesus did.
Those who condemn victims and protect abusers remind me of a phrase from Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil”
How lovely to see you here!! I’ve missed your insight and have thought about you often. I hope that this finds you well. ♥️
Is or was John MacArthur abusive towards his wife??! It’s implied here or is it a case of him knowing abuse was going on in his church and he ignored or redacted. (Eileen and David Grray debacle)
Or, let us remove the plank from our eye, THEN we can rail against the specks in the eyes of others
There should be no “collateral damage” in the kingdom of God. We don’t sacrifice “the least of these” for the “greater good.” The ends do not justify the means, ever.
The way these religious leaders are acting reminds me of a famous quote from Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
I agree! That’s not at all how Jesus taught He wanted His kingdom to be advanced on earth.
But pastors say that wives have to listen to husbands, but they don’t need to listen to Jesus. He didn’t really mean it.
They teach that the sermon on the mount was all a set up so you’d be primed for Paul’s message of salvation by faith alone and grace alone.
Or they learn in seminary that gentiles don’t need to pay any attention to Jesus, only to Paul. Jesus’ words were for a prior dispensation of the law, while Paul’s words are for the dispensation of grace. Jesus’ words in the flesh were for the Jews who were under the law who heard Him in the flesh. Paul’s words from the ascended Jesus were from the spirit and for the spiritual, the gentile church.
Before there were rotten fruits, there was a root of bitterness. No, John Piper, a root of bitterness doesn’t mean a victim who is insufficiently forgiving who speaks of an abuser’s sin in the church, causing division. A root of bitterness is a heresy.
What? What is this heresy? Really? We don’t listen to Christ but rather to Paul? Why Paul? Why not James? Or Peter? Or John? Or Whoever From Hebrews? Why not Random Guy at the Megachurch? He’s got a cool wraparound microphone and a backup band.
And Jesus’ words are only for the people who heard Jesus in person? Why did we write it down? Why did he rise from the dead? Why are we Christians and not Paulists?
I have never, in all my Christian life, heard such nonsense…for which I suppose I should be grateful. Heresy is not too strong a word. It might be the only word.
You can read here about examples of slanted Pauline preaching:
https://jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/708-slanted-pauline-preaching.html
And read here about examples of Paulinism defended:
https://jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/200-paulinism-examples.html
Just last week a guy on twitter insisted that Ephesians 5:23 was a command from God.
I assured him that it was neither a command, nor was is said by God. It’s instruction from Paul to a church.
I then proceeded to point out that the heavens did not open up above Paul and the voice of God did not say about him, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him.” I assured the guy that Paul was not a law giver. That position was reserved for Moses and Jesus.
Well. OK. I suppose there must be some satisfaction in ripping 5-7 verses out of context and building on them an entire alternate religion that is, in effect, no alternative at all but rather a repetition of the unjust, unequal, and oppressive systems every human society has managed to come up with on their own. I guess you can keep the status quo and have “God” on your side. It’s depressing as all get out, though.
Had a chance to sleep on this.
I would like to know which denominations and seminaries are teaching that we are to listen to Paul rather than Jesus.
I want to know so that I can warn others of this heresy and double down on memorizing, using, and applying the things both Jesus and Paul said that demolish this foolishness.
So good, Sheila. Thank you.
Just because we can’t sue doesn’t mean we can’t make names public. If someone assaulted you, speak up and make his name public. If someone protected the perpetrator instead of you, speak up and make his name public. If someone turned his back on you while you shared how you were harmed, speak his name out the next time you tell your story. These guys need to know that they won’t be protected from others’ knowledge of what they’ve done. Maybe when they realize that they won’t be able to conceal their sin any more, they’ll start to deal with it appropriately.
We are not obligated to keep their secrets.
And maybe the next step of the #metoo movement needs to be NAMES. Like maybe we say, “#metoo .” They don’t deserve to remain anonymous.
And for some reason that comment did not publish my whole statement. It should have read, #metoo, NAME OF PERPETRATOR. I hope this is clearer!
I completely sympathize with this sentiment and agree in principle, but due to the current layout of legal options for survivors, publicly accusing/exposing a perpetrator is unfortunately often just as dangerous to the victim due to the common social and class advantages that abusers often have.
Look at what happened to Samantha WHEN she had evidence.
I think a better course of action would be to call for further funding and utilization for mental health, legal assistance and recovery programs for survivors so they have a safe and secure environment to process their trauma and begin drafting plans of what is necessary for their healing process and what true justice would be to them.
You are probably correct. However, these abusers need to be named and exposed. Their names need to be out so that others know to avoid them. The habit of silence only helps the abuser to keep his position and social standing. This should not be.
Amen!
Sorry! My “Amen” comment was intended as a reply to Lisa John’s comment.
“That’s the order God set for us
1. Become sanctified by God
2. Love each other and become a safe place
3. Influence the world about the kingdom of God and about Jesus, and see the kingdom of God expand”
Amen to this!
But how will the church be able to do this when Pauline epistles are preached 13 more times on average than the Gospels are? Jesus said the messenger is not better than the one who sent him.
The conservative evangelical churches have left their first love. They have adulterated their preaching with Platonism that came in through Paul, to Augustine, to Calvin, to neo-Calvinism and headship doctrine.
In Platonism, guess what evil is? Is it the absence of love? Nope. It’s usurping authority and control. It’s dualism. Spirit over flesh. Man over woman. Reason over emotion. (And in most times and places, also: Master over slave. Aristocrat over peasant.)
Does this sound familiar to you? If so, there is a reason for it. We aren’t listening to Jesus, who said to beware the leaven of the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ education consisted half of Greek learning, according to Josephus. Greek learning means learning about Platonism.
The leaven of the Pharisees has been bubbling away in all the neo-Calvinist churches – and in every church where neo-Calvinist para church organizations have attained some influence.
Remember, the leaven of the Pharisees is about favoritism and authority, not about love.
There is a deeper problem than a “women must be silent” problem. There is a “Jesus must be silent” problem.
Jen: “There is a ‘Jesus must be silent’ problem.”
Well then I guess it is our job to point out to these false teachers that they have rejected the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ, just like the Pharisees of old.
I have done this many times and in addition pointed out that they have build their house of cards on a foundation of sand.
They don’t like it when I say that.
But guess what? That’s too dang bad. Imma keep saying it over and over and over. Because we preach Christ and Him crucified. They don’t have any business telling women to not preach when they don’t even preach and teach the right things without the True and Righteous Foundation.
Matthew 7:26 But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Very well said, and not only that, but I’m inspired by your boldness and steadfastness.
I was just reading your blog last night. It got my attention, the part about turning bitter waters sweet. It meant something to me.
https://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2010/07/sin-in-camp.html
The story of Joshua and the “Sin in the camp” that had to be taken care of before they could move on in victory and take the Promise Land.
We cannot overlook the sins of those in our own camp and expect God to move on our behalf. This is a basic principle that is completely lost on those who cover sin.
Beautifully insightful. I’ve been having similar thoughts, but I hadn’t developed and organized them so well yet!
You are the on above that said that seminaries are teaching men to ignore Jesus and focus on Paul?
I asked above. But in case you miss it, I’m going to ask again down here.
What denominations and seminaries are promoting this false teaching? I want to know. I want to name them by name and warn others in the body of Christ.
I also want to focus more on scriptures from both Paul and Jesus that blow this B.S. doctrine out of the water so I can be better armed when I deal with these fools.
This would be a good question for the pastor at the Jesus’ Words Only web site.
https://jesuswordsonly.org
His name is Douglas Del Tondo. You can email him at jesuswordsonlystudies@gmail.com
This article, Pauline-based Division, will give you an overview:
https://jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/431-pauline-based-division.html
I’ve read extensively at his web site, and I don’t think he has a whole list of denominations, but I gathered the impression that the Methodists and Pentecostals and the mainline Protestant churches have had a tendency to filter Paul through Jesus rather than filtering Jesus through Paul.
The Orthodox and Catholic churches have a doctrinal foundation that is based far more on Jesus than Paul. Over the years they have added traditions of men that have undermined it. The Catholic church has done so to a far greater extent than the Orthodox church.
Then there are the Radical Reformation denominations that tried to get back to a pre-Constantine version of the faith. That includes Unitarians, Anabaptists and others.
There are no perfect churches, and I’m struggling and researching, myself. I don’t know which denomination to join.
But to answer your question, my impression from thoroughly reading through the Jesus’ Words Only web site is that the conservative Evangelical churches are the most Paulinist churches. They say they have the highest view of scripture, but in practice, they put Pauline passages on a pedestal above the rest of the Bible. Then they filter the rest of the Bible through the pre-suppositional theology that they based upon Pauline passages.
My impression, too, is that most theology is actually Pauline. 🙁
But I’m still learning.
I know that this is not what you want to hear but the KSC made the correct decision on the facts of this case. A few years ago the KY legislature extended the time that a victim had to file suit in a sexual abuse case. Due to First Amendment protections the law could not be retroactive. It had to apply to cases from that date forward. It couldn’t apply to cases prior to that date. Unfortunately this girl’s case was prior to the law being amended.
As for the SBC Amicus brief, they got some really stupid legal advice. This case was always going to be dismissed due to the First Amendment argument. The Amicus brief only made the lawyers money The PR fallout from their actions is going to be a lot worse than if they had done nothing.
It’s past time for the SBC to just shut up and do the right thing. As Nixon found out it’s not the crime that gets you. It’s the coverup.
Yes, to me it’s not really about the Kentucky court decision, but rather that the SBC decided to intervene. That showed us who they are.
Mara I’ve tried to share this twice in the comments. Usually I don’t get a message that my comment is awaiting moderation. I wrote some lengthier replies including a link to this site. But for now I’m just sharing this to see if it goes through.
https://jesuswordsonly.org
Wow.
Thanks.
I wonder why I’ve never seen this site before.
Might be because, while I do consider the words of Jesus to be the words of God and the most important, that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate things Paul and the other apostles say.
And perhaps the reason I challenge men who ignore Jesus to obey their twist on Paul is because I DO respect Paul. And I know that he would never want people to make his words the cornerstone and foundation, throwing away Jesus and His words.
Thanks again for the link.
I hope that your more lengthy replies come through.
I’d like to read them as well.
Let’s put it this way. You know that tie-breaker thing that complementarians teach? If the husband and wife disagree, the husband gets the final say?
The Jesus’ Words Only principle is that when Paul and Jesus disagree (or seem to disagree) then Jesus gets the final say (or gets to filter Paul insofar as Paul is interpreted).
In practice most church denominations have tended either to filter Paul through Jesus or to filter Jesus through Paul.
I like your phrase about seeming to disagree, because where there seems to be conflict in the Bible, then we need to be questioning our interpretation of what we are reading. I don’t see any conflict between Paul’s letters and Jesus’ teaching – but I see an awful lot of conflict between fallible human interpretations of those words. The guy who called women his ‘fellow workers’ and who spoke of being ‘one in Christ Jesus’ regardless of gender, nationality or social status was NOT the misogynistic, hierarchy-obsessed control freak he is so often portrayed as.
Pauline epistles zig zag a lot. Some scholars think he was quoting other people frequently. Some think he was arguing Stoic style by anticipating objections and then answering them. Most scholars outside the evangelical seminaries and fundamentalist colleges think the Pauline epistles have been heavily interpolated.
Regardless, these documents are just letters. Reading them is like having an email reply, but not the email that was being replied to. If these documents were interpolated, then it’s like having an email thread, without having the original email that triggered all the replies.
There is strong writing that is inspiring and insightful. There are confusing run-on sentences. There are zig zags back and forth that can leave one feeling quite disoriented. All kinds of writing can pop up in the thirteen Pauline letters. Emotional outbursts, baffling tangents, spurts of poetry. It’s all there.
Interesting and valuable church historical documents, absolutely. A good foundation for introducing new doctrine that was never found in the Old Testament or the Gospels? Absolutely not.
Jen, I have really appreciated reading your thoughts lately, and in general I appreciate the comments on this blog because I encounter a lot of people who both know the Bible and also consider it very thoughtfully and are willing to think outside the “acceptable” church answers.
Regarding the website you shared, I ask this not as an argument or objection, but as someone who is literally questioning everything that I have believed or been taught: the JWO site presents the idea that Paul did not encounter the true Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that Paul was a “ravening wolf,” a false teacher whose teachings were actually in opposition to the message of Christ, the most prominent being “salvation by grace alone.”
I have never heard this argued before. Do you agree? Do you think the writings of Paul are actually false teachings that lead people away from Jesus?
My head is kind of swimming from everything I’ve just read on the JWO site. A lot of new, I would even say radical, ideas to ponder.
All I know is that we can’t go wrong if we are following Jesus and listening to Him. It’s okay to dare to treat His words as if He really meant them. Can we Christians really do that? Really? I felt scared to! It meant paying a price and taking a risk, but He met me when I did. He led me out of the labyrinth and back on the path.
Yes, the criticism of Paul on the site is a lot to process. I waffled over it for weeks and months. I read other Paul criticism and tried to learn who or what the real historical Paul was and what his original writings were. I gave up, because of so much ambiguity. I softened my stance while remaining highly skeptical. So now I just don’t see the letters – and that’s all they are – as being “inerrant.” They just don’t get to be put on the same level of authority as Jesus’ words.
When you think about it, if Paul can be inerrant while introducing new doctrine, it’s the same as the idea of papal infallibility. But Jesus said that the messenger is not more important than the one who sent him.
People have lost their faith over calling Bible inerrancy into question. But it’s not about a book. It’s about Jesus. It’s about having a relationship with him. This guy’s blog explains it very well:
https://www.searchingtogether.org/sola-scriptura/
It’s been said that the quickest way to become an atheist is the read the Bible. Fundamentalist and Sola Scriptura ideas have lived past their usefulness. We need to be putting Jesus at the center of the Bible. He alone is the Prophet of Deuteronomy whose every word was given Him to say by God the Father. The Bible contains God’s words, but every word in the Bible is not inerrant.
To return to the original subject, I wonder if part of the problem is the doctrine of federal headship. Doug Wilson uses this doctrine as the excuse for husbands to rightfully control wives. After all they will be judged for their wives’ sins. Pastors can use this as an excuse to control the people in the church. They will be judged for the parishioners’ sins. The same principle applies to the nation. The nation will be judged for its sins. Therefore if we will all be judged together, it’s only right that we should be able to stop sinfulness in our nation as much as we can.
Calvinism goes hand-in-hand with it, because Calvinists think whatever the government does, it’s God’s will one way or another. But if the church gets control of the government, then it must be God’s will, and whatever the church does with that government control must be God’s will, too.
On the other hand, if the liberals control the government, it’s an Antichrist system that must be resisted. The Revelation card can always be played in such instances. And only liberals can be Antichrist if they abuse government power. Otherwise, if Bible believing conservative Christians abuse government power, the end always justifies the means, because of the federal headship type of thinking. (I can be judged for your sin, so it’s only right that I get to control you, so the thinking goes.)
I’m trying to wrap my brain around what “toxic empathy” would look like… The term “toxic masculinity” has been under attack yet it isn’t a phrase meant to claim that all things masculine are toxic- it is about the stereotypical, worst behaviors being toxic. I cannot think of a situation in which true empathy could be toxic.
If Jesus had not been empathetic, He would have:
Railed against the unclean woman who touched the hem of His garment because she would have then made Him “unclean.”
Thrown the first stone at the woman after saying, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Chosen to not be convicted, beaten, and crucified for *our* sins.
Not forgiven Peter for denying Him 3 times.
I wonder why empathy is only considered toxic when directed toward people who have been “othered?”
I’m a high empathy person, and I’ve had to work on being less codependent and enabling. When I read about what toxic empathy is, I understand it. But I just don’t understand the extreme blindness as to bias in selecting examples of it.
It seems to me that the marriage advice books critiqued by Sheila are always enjoining abused wives to toxic empathy for their husbands. It seems to me that the abuse cover-ups in churches are showing examples of toxic empathy for abusers.
And the people who believe in toxic empathy say that affirming the sins of people who continue in their sins is not loving. Then if they really believe that, they should stop defending the sins of their favorite politicians. Because that’s not loving.
This will provide a little more moral clarity. Following Jesus means serving the well-being of all people, but not the will of all people. It means serving God’s will. God’s will is for people to serve the well-being of other people.
The empathy should be directed toward serving the well-being of people but not the will of people, whether they are “us” or “them” or strong or weak.
The exception is babies, who need to lay a foundation of trust and security. There is no such thing as spoiling a baby. When young children really need discipline, you’ll know it. They’ll test boundaries and make you respond. You can’t miss it. (It’s quite amazing how many people are more sensitive to adults than they are to babies. These things ought not to be.)
fwiw, I wasn’t actually looking for an explanation of what toxic empathy is… as an empath, I find it disturbing that the people that claim toxic empathy simply mean it as they do. True, healthy empathy isn’t toxic or bad.