204 thoughts on “Whining”

1. Seems like a “soldier in the army” a “laborer in the field” a “brother in the Word” has nothing better to do than attempt to re-invent the paper clip

2. Is it me or does he look like the kind of guy who likes pizza? 😉

   1. …and pasta and pork chops and meatloaf and pot roast and baked beans and shrimp gumbo and hot dogs and green beans and potatoes and oh don’t forgot the Fried
      Chicken! and macaroni and ham and… 😛

3. That chin is Marsupial. I wonder if he was born that way, or if he used to dip with the entire can when he was in high school? Maybe he was a missionary to Ethiopia, dabbling in the Mursi practice of lip-plating. THAT is somebody mocking you, Brother Doctor Travis.

   Brother Doctor Travis’ jowels have me thinking. I still haven’t heard a good explanation for the IFB’s obsession with all things exterior, EXCEPT for being fat. Being a fat glutton is a wink-wink, joking matter. It is universally accepted that hair must be off the ears, there must be no facial hair, women must be in 55 gallon trash bags, wine is devil-juice, etc. I spent 18 years, 3 times a week, hearing preachers literally beating the pulpit with their fist talking about how all of those things made us Baptists seperate from the world. THOSE were the most important things. I could never find any of that in the Bible, except from the Pharisees. What is axiomatic in the Bible is that gluttony is a sin. And, almost every Sunday there was a joke from an obese pastor about going to the buffet after church, shutting the place down, making them go bankrupt, etc. Always met by laughing, and hearty “HAY-MENS!!”. What’s the difference between gluttony and smoking crack? I would bet that if Brother Doctor Travis joked at a conference…”After this service, I’m gonna go smoke a giant rock in the parking lot. I know Brother Philip will be there. Who else? Amen?” he would probably hear crickets. He, and his giant red flag, would instantly be on their way back to Ohio. Maybe I’m wrong. When you read this Brother Doctor Travis, I’d like you to use scripture to prove to me why it’s ok for you to be fat. Let’s debate that.

   1. I hear this, sister/brother Afterlow. I too was under the cover of a rotund pastor who liked to preach sermons on tight pants and swimsuit modesty.

      1. Mine did that too – there was no shortage of sermons about women’s attire and what their jobs were supposed to be (in the home, of course). Meanwhile, HIS attire was hanging on for dear life lest a button let go and shoot off at the speed of sound, taking out someone’s eye.

   2. LMAO!!! I couldn’t agree more and I have talked about this many times – my former pastor was on a first-name basis with the staff of the local pizzeria and was always guffawing about it – and yes, he was 100 lbs overweight if he was an ounce. In my former church the food joke was that “we’re Baptists, of course there’s a potluck with fried chicken!” It was always, “absolutely everyone’s going someplace to gorge after the service is over!” Most of the members, actually, were significantly overweight. The hypocrisy in that church was breathtaking.

   3. I had the surreal experience of a Fundy-Type having a go a me for having tattoos, but but I found it hard to take him seriously because this guy was about 80 pounds overweight, ate too much, never exercised (except for running down other Christians)was under constant stress, and about 10 years overdue for a heart-attack. He said my body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit – his was the Colosseum

4. I like that he is against slander and “human reasoning”. He does seem the type to place more trust the reasoning of lemings or goldfish.

5. I called. He is out of town until next week. I left a detailed message explaining that your gentle humor is allows many people who have been deeply wounded by these groups to keep their faith. I explained that while you could not get me into a church with a crow-bar and gun, those whom you minister to through humor and catharsis are often able to return, although God only knows why.

   You, I explained, are a better option to me. My humor would be far more biting, and I would simply call them out over, and over, and over for their failure to police themselves, for failure to stand against the rape and abuse of women and children. Your “scorn” is infinitely preferable to the indictments I and so many like me would level. You hold out a hope that Christianity could redeem itself. Most days, I hold out very little hope at all.

   Btw, the guy who answered the phone was very kind and polite. He had no idea the pastor had posted the phone number, and he seemed genuinely moved by my calm but insistent recitation of the sins of IFB and other fundie groups.

   When he tried to deny that his church was a part of the problem, I asked how many times his pastor had preached a sermon against sexual harassment. He stammered that the pastor preached many sermons against lust. I then asked about rape or date rape, or drug-enhanced raped. He went back to the lust thing, and I explained that while lust was a sin against God and self, forcing oneself sexually on another is a very serious sin against another person. To preach about homosexuality and not about rape, is to make rape or sexual abuse of a child only slightly worse than lust or adultery but far less of a sin than consensual homosexual activity. I asked how many sermons had been preached against the evil of a child abuse, not a cautionary side-note on the way to telling parents how to “discipline” their children. I asked how many sermons had there been about spousal abuse, especially when compared to submission/headship sermons. Of course, there have been none of the sermons that would actually defend women and children and plenty that would put them in jeopardy.

   I explained that their failure to preach against sin which are clearly and obviously rampant in IFB churches is allowing the sort of “sin in the camp” that makes them worthy of any scorn you might show and worthy of my rejection.

   I asked for an apology from that church, on behalf of their breathern whom they would take to task for a doctrinal “heresy” but not for rape or molestation or for child abuse.

   He apologized, and seemed genuinely moved by what I had to say. I doubt I made any real impact, but I can hope.

   And for the record, you may heap a little scorn, but it is not for the “gospel of Jesus Christ.” It is is clearly for behavior that is so abusive and obviously evil that it would not be tolerated in the “wicked” environment of a university or a federal office. For a group meant to be the salt of the earth, they are proving to be the arsenic of the earth.

   1. Wow. I’m curious to know what his reaction will be when he gets back.

      I find it funny that he posts that and then goes out of town.

   2. I’m glad the guy who answered the phone seemed to listen with concern and empathy.

   3. I see where you’re coming from, Christine, but in all honesty (and the spirit of equality), in the many years in a southern baptist church – I never heard a sermon dedicated to rape or sexual harassment.

      I did hear him condemn it from the pulpit, but never an entire sermon. On the other side of that coin, I have heard IFB preachers condemn rape and sexual harassment, as well.

      Asking any one church for an apology because of the sins of others is as bad as asking all black men to apologize because we have an idiot for a President. It’s just not logical.

      In any case, that’s just my two cents: an observation, not an attack. I do hope you read it in that spirit. 🙂

      1. I would be willing to bet that you are one of the few who has ever heard a sermon in an IFB church in which the ethic of mutuality and consent, above all other sexual ethics, was preached. If you actually heard a sermon in which it was taught that date rape is much worse than pre-marital sex, and that sexual harassment is much more serious than flirting with a married person, and that no means no regradless of where you are in the sexual process, and that no woman can ever “make” a man rape her through what she wears or how she flirts, then I would say you are among the very, very, very rare.

         1. And I am asking that churches which would not hesitate to call each other out for even the slightest doctrinal deviation, issue equal denouncements for churches in which say…even just child-rape and severe abuse… was a serious problem. And for any church that “fellowships” with another church in a situation where they would not hesitate to sanction another church for doctrinal issues, but fails to sanction for abuse – that church has committed a grievous sin. Jack Hyles, until the day he died, owed me a person and heartfelt apology because he knew that our youth pastor was raping girls and did nothing to stop it.

            Gary Gulbranson of Westminster Church in Bellevue, Washington, on the other hand, deserves accolades that never end. When a very popular local pastor was abusing young men, Pator Gulbranson got together a collection of other local pastors, none of which were in a formal association, they confronted the pastor and held him in a prayer meeting until he resigned. Gary Gulbranson did the RIGHT THING! And anyone who cannot or will not live up to what Gulbranson did owes victims in every church that they are even losely affiliated with, an apology.

         2. I think fundies sometimes assume everyone knows certain things are wrong so they ignore those issues, instead focusing on biblical distinctions like no pre-marital sex. The problem with that is that young people raised in these churches never do hear the basics taught, especially since IFB churches and schools are very uncomfortable discussing sex. So people do begin to get a warped perspective as you mentioned.

            I think pastors, teachers, and parents should never assume “of course, the teens know THAT already. We don’t have to talk about THAT.” It’s important to talk about these things, otherwise teens grow up hearing the fiercest invective against, for example, women who wear pants and nothing at all about men who prey on underage girls. I think this tendancy of not being willing to be frank and discuss truly evil things has caused a lot of problems among IFB churches.

         3. Christine. Thanks for taking the time, who knows, you may have got one person thinking….I support all of your comments, spot on.

         4. “And I am asking that churches which would not hesitate to call each other out for even the slightest doctrinal deviation, issue equal denouncements for churches in which say…even just child-rape and severe abuse… was a serious problem.”

            Christine, you have nailed it on the head. This has become my new litmus test for a decent church. A church that will separate over music standards, dress codes, Billy Graham, New Evangelicals, going to movies, mixed bathing, social drinking, or any other item of Christian liberty had better be willing and eager to separate from abuse, people who cover up abuse, and anybody who doesn’t condemn abuse. If they don’t, I will not give them the time of day.

         5. As other readers have commented, thank you for taking the time and sharing your story. I am in no way defending the actions (or in this case, inactivity) of churches or pastors who turn a blind eye to issues such as you mentioned.

            I was merely trying to decrease the broad swath of the brush with which you were painting. I am guilty of doing the same across the board and I find myself trying more and more to avoid massive generalizations (regardless if they are IFB or not). Still, you hold very valid points, and all Christians could learn from them. Thanks.

         6. I don’t think you can say that sexual harassment is much worse than flirting with a married person… either way you’re hurting someone terribly, in the latter case, the spouse of the married person.

         7. Greg – of course sexual harassment is a much greater sin, and the fact that you don’t know that is not your fault; it is the fault of the people who taught you sexual ethics.

            THE PRIMARY ETHIC OF ALL SEX MUST BE CONSENT!!! Violate that, and your sin is very, very grevious. Sexual harassment, by definition, is non-consensual. Flirting, even if it hurts the other spouse is not the violation of a person’s consent. All sex which in any way violates consent or which takes advantage of a person who cannot consent (date rape drug, too young, etc) is the most sinful all of all sexual sins – begining – middle and end!

      2. pixelmaker: “an idiot for a president”? really?

         1. I don’t see why all black men should have to apologize for G.W. Bush. Most of them didn’t even vote for him.

         2. @Sue: Yes, I think he’s an idiot. I’m still entitled to my opinion. You missed the point though, for principle’s sake, let’s go with Big Gary’s pick and say that all white men should have to apologize for George W. Bush being an idiot.

            Either way, the shoe fits, and the point is still made.

         3. I was at a conference once an RB Oullette 😕 was recounting his visit to Willow Creek in Crystal Lake/Schaumburge IL area. He said at one point in the tour a girl stopped and said, “see that person there, their entire job is to make sure no one on staff is sleeping together.” The audience chuckled RB said “I thought that was just assumed.” 😯

            I thought “what the heck is wrong with that? Why mock that? I think IFB churches should hire people and say…see them that persons entire job is to make sure the pastor is not steeling money, molesting kids, running a sex ring in the church, or raping anyone…isn’t that good.” ❗ Accountability don’t pastor without it.

   4. ^+1000

   5. And while we are on the subject, it is not a problem with the emphasis that pastors place on certain sexual sins. The problem is with their sexual ethic. The primary sexual ethic must be consent. Pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual you name it, must come after the primary sexual ethic of consent – full and enthusiastic consent. To be blunt, most fundies demonstrate through their sermons and behavior an appallingly bad sexual ethic.

      1. Consent isn’t even on fundamentalist radar. Consider the argument that if it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, sooner or later it will be legal for a man to marry a duck or a vacuum cleaner. The underlying assumption is that a man marries a woman the way a woman mops a floor: the floor doesn’t mop back. Woman is in the category “thing marriage is done to” and she is the only member of that category because everybody knows that’s the way people were created. If a man, that great active force, can sink into this category, then–then the natural laws of the world become meaningless! Anything could end up as the object of marriage!

         I have never heard anybody explicitly make this argument, but it explains why the obvious objection that a duck or a vacuum cleaner couldn’t sign the marriage license never seems to come up.

         1. This is not isolated to IFB, unfortunately. I recall the very evangelical book that made a point of saying that a Christian husband could pay to get his cooking, cleaning, and laundry done by someone else and not be in sin, but sex was the exception to that. Seemed a very demeaning way to refer to a wife’s “duties” and not at all what I expect Paul meant in I Corinthians 7.

            PS – Christine, thanks for stating it so plainly. My brain is still fighting all the paradigm shifts I have to go through having only left fundy-land a little over a year ago. I need plain and simple speech sometimes. So thanks.

6. By his own definition of “scoffing”, I’m pretty sure he’s guilty of scoffing this website and its readers. In fact, I move that you rename this entire post from “whining” to “scoffing”.
   

7. Okay, go read this post from Burke’s site: http://cozaddalechronicles.blogspot.com/2011/04/yes-this-really-happened-to-me-in.html.

   It will make you cringe at first (“I had the privilege of serving on the staff of Dr. Gerald Fleming, now in Heaven, and the great Dayton Baptist Temple”), then laugh really hard (you just have to read the story!), then nearly cry at the end (recalling the dictatorial nature of IFB SPs). Seriously.

   1. I have a slightly different take: Use and destroy church property, or personal property loaned to the church, and ignore and forget it. Take no personal responsibility until its discovered. My husband was chief trustee at our church and this happened many, many, many times. Notice I said ‘was’.

      1. Right. That too. I just can’t get over the picture of this Man of God stepping into the water and having his waders fill up! What a great way to deflate some of that fundy pride.

8. Please, my 8 year old daughter could clean his clock.He just would not know when he has been beat.

9. Aww, are we a wittow upset because someone dared to have a different opinion than us? How sweet.

   What I’d like to know, brothers and sisters, is what one of his congregants was doing reading this evil, evil website! Clearly they are backsliders, almost as bad as those who use Facebook.

10. Heaven forbid we actually use human reasoning.

11. One must wonder why, when an individual feels challenged, they then ask the other person to come talk to them instead of coming themselves…

12. The late great William Spooner would truly call Travis Burke a “Shining Wit”

Comments are closed.