# We need better champions against Wokeism (the Founders Trailer disaster)



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

Well, the Founders Ministries (Calvinistic Southern Baptists) has put out a short trailer for their upcoming film "By What Standard?" against the Woke Church that probably did more damage to their cause than their enemies ever could have. Now that I've seen the trailer, I sure won't see the finished film.


First, several pastors came out with statements that they were blindsided by the interviews. They thought they were talking about one thing, and then snippets were cut out about another subject. Basically, people were recorded for purposes for which they did not give consent to. If you want to talk about "justice" - you've got to at least act justly while filming about it. "Danny Akin, Jason Keith Allen, Albert Mohler and Adam Greenway featured in a video published by Founders Ministries, have expressed concerns that the edited footage does not accurately portray their views or the views of other Southern Baptists" says the Biblical Recorder.

Second, Founders and ARBCA have had a close relationship.

Third, they posted images of Rachel Denhollander as if she is part of liberal women preachers or were sent by the devil attacking the Church. Lots of people recognized her immediately from the blurred image.

ReligionNews covers this here: https://religionnews.com/2019/07/23...es-merritt-to-trojan-horse-of-social-justice/

"Owen Strachan, associate professor of theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and former president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, also appears in the video, arguing that “liberal Christianity” is invading the evangelical church and a spiritual battle is underway.

“We are always having the principalities and powers exert pressure on us,” said Strachan.

An image that appears to be of Rachael Denhollander, an abuse activist who spoke at the SBC’s annual meeting, is intercut with Longshore’s comments.

That angered Jacob Denhollander, Rachael’s husband.

He told Ascol and Founders Ministries on Twitter that their use of “my wife’s image in your video and the insinuation that she is part of the principalities and powers attacking the church is cowardly, grossly dishonest, and bearing false witness.”

“Please apologize and stop,” he said."



Then, fourth, when people began to object, numerous folks such as Doug Wilson the heretic and Marcus Pittman (who may have helped film and so has a dog in the fight) responded that not liking the trailer was evidence you were an egalitarian or that you sided with Woke Christianity. Not liking the trailer = you are an SJW. I.e. they were digging in their heels to cover for their shoddy work.

Then, fifth, they finally took out the images of Rachel Denhollander and said it was just an innocent mistake. As if it just fell into that spot in the trailer. Now, most film editors take HOURS to edit even 10 minutes of film. Their excuses just cause me to have more distrust of them.

People often apologize because they are caught; not because they think they are wrong.



Pastor Tom Ascol also recently wrote an article entitled, Southern Baptists, Sexual Abuse, and a far more Serious Problem." In this article, Ascol shifts the argument from the problem of sexual abuse to the problem of unregenerate church membership. This article rubbed me the wrong way. 

In the midst of a sexual abuse scandal, the writer changes the topic.

He says, sexual abuse is bad, but even worse is unregenerate church membership and lack of church discipline. We need to discipline more church members.

And then many Reformed Baptists then reshare this blog and say amen. Several folks have reposted this article and then a discussion ensued about how bad the doctrine of most Baptists are.

But, I'd like to point out - in many cases it was perfectly orthodox ministers who were abusing children or tolerating abuse in their churches. And then other pastors covering for him, THAT is, indeed, a doctrinal problem.

What is more, Ascol pushes for more church discipline, but it is not just the members of these churches so much that need to receive more church discipline, as the blog states…it is the leaders! These are largely pastors and youth pastors committing these sexual abuse crimes and covering them up. I am sure all of these abusers can voice very orthodox beliefs and defend their doctrine from the bible. They probably attend church regularly. But they are still abusers.

It is not that the members need to receive harsher discipline, it is that the pastors are often an untouchable elite that do not have to answer for their crimes. They merely hide it and cover for one another as the abusive pastor takes a new church.

The article is a change of subject that diminishes the heinousness of the sexual abuses that have been uncovered in many baptist churches. It's a tone-deaf "whataboutism" at its worst.




CONCLUSION:

The video is bad (at least the trailer).....it is like they are TRYING to make enemies.

I despise the “Wokeism” of the church and affirm that Critical Race Theory is fundamentally Marxist at its core and needs to be fought. As Voddie Baucham said, It is "Ethnic Gnosticism."

BUT,

(1) We need better champions to fight this battle. These guys are flubbing it.

We need men who are not tone-deaf and who have not aligned themselves with dubious pastors who have forsaken justice.

I just don't think the Founders and Tom Ascol are the people to successfully champion this fight.

(2) We need to make sure that addressing sexual abuse in the churches is not lumped into this same “Woke Christianity” that they are fighting against. We must fight for true biblical justice, which means that we address these #churchtoo cases of abuse in churches. Fighting against abuse in churches should NOT be included as part of "Woke Christianity" or women preachers.

This is NOT how to win a war. We need better champions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

Another point:

In the short clip, it begins with Pastor Tom Ascol stating, “This is God’s world, and he gets to set the rules.” “I’ve seen godless ideologies that have spread throughout western civilization over the last several decades, with a _vengence_….”

That is all well and good. But then just a minute later, a video clip of Pastor Matt Chandler from the Village Church is shown. The clip seems to be his apology or a discussion about how better to handle cases of sexual abuse in the church. In recent years it seems that the Village Church has mishandled 2 cases of sexual abuse in their church. Google the Karen Hinckley case where the wife left the husband because he was a pedophile and the Village Church then disciplined HER! (I kid you not). Of course, why Chandler was ever invited to speak as an expert on handling sexual abuse cases, I am not sure why, since he's failed twice now. 

But anyway.... in the clip, Chandler says, “Seek outside counsel. We’re just not experts in this.” 

This leads the viewer to contrast Ascol's words, "God's Word (presumably as interpreted by pastors) sets the rules, versus Chandler's wise (for once) counsel on dealing with sexual abuses cases, to "Seek outside help."

I believe the way the film is edited might lead some to believe, therefore, that churches ought not to report or seek outside help when they encounter abuse. God's Word...God's rules, after all. We have seen what a disaster it has been when largely Calvinistic and Baptist churches have tried to handle abuse cases internally. Not in a single one of these cases has justice been served when the church handled it. It wasn't until outside counsel and authorities were alerted that the cases were handled properly. 

The trailer is really just bad editing. I agree that Wokeism needs to be fought. But give the fight over to somebody more competent, please!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 25, 2019)

Just a couple of thoughts. 

First of all, of course the clips were edited, it was a three minute trailer. 

Secondly, if the SBC leaders denounced things like egalitarianism, the adulteration of the gospel, and the rising acceptance of homosexuality with anything close to the zeal with which they have denounced this trailer, I might take them seriously. 

Lastly, I don’t know the motives of the people who put together this film, or the trailer, but it is entirely possible that they may have edited the footage to communicate an uncharitable message, and if so, they should be rebuked. Regardless, there is no question that the SBC is heading in the wrong direction, and that the current leadership has allowed it to happen, and so they too need to be rebuked.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 25, 2019)

If they added an image of Rachel Denhollander in the trailer that was clearly wrong and I'm glad it's been edited out. The clip of Matt Chandler I took to being utilised as illustrative of a belief amongst evangelicalism that Scripture does not give us all the teaching we need for the church to operate. That we need "expert" opinion from the world. That is clearly wrong. Chandler said pastors are not equipped to deal with sexual abuse. Well it depends what he means. If he means as criminal investigators, then he's correct and Scripture nowhere gives that responsibility to pastors. If he means that pastors and sessions have *no* oversight role then he is wrong: a member of a church who committed such a crime shoud be tried and punished by the state *and *by his session as he has violated the laws of two separate (though connected) spheres. Civil and ecclesiastical law are distinct. But none of that means we should be going to the world for guidance or teaching. The idea that offences committed by members of the church which also violate the civil law should be only dealt with "in-house" is not Scriptural in the slightest. That erroneous view is corrected by being _more _Scriptural and not by turning to the world as if we are lacking something which only the world can provide. (As discussed in a previous thread there are mechanisms which are developed by the civil magistrate to help prevent such crimes which can legitimately be adopted by the church but that is quite different from going to world for advice or teaching.)

All that said the clip of Chandler maybe wasn't the best to use to make that point- if that's the point they intended- considering there has been a rash of sexual abuse cover ups and in that clip he was specifically addressing that.

The film itself looks interesting though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> If they added an image of Rachel Denhollander in the trailer that was clearly wrong and I'm glad it's been edited out. The clip of Matt Chandler I took to being utilised as illustrative of a belief amongst evangelicalism that Scripture does not give us all the teaching we need for the church to operate. That we need "expert" opinion from the world. That is clearly wrong. Chandler said pastors are not equipped to deal with sexual abuse. Well it depends what he means. If he means as criminal investigators, then he's correct and Scripture nowhere gives that responsibility to pastors. If he means that pastors and sessions have *no* oversight role then he is wrong: a member of a church who committed such a crime shoud be tried and punished by the state *and *by his session as he has violated the laws of two separate (though connected) spheres. Civil and ecclesiastical law are distinct. But none of that means we should be going to the world for guidance or teaching. The idea that offences committed by members of the church which also violate the civil law should be only dealt with "in-house" is not Scriptural in the slightest. That erroneous view is corrected by being _more _Scriptural and not by turning to the world as if we are lacking something which only the world can provide. (As discussed in a previous thread there are mechanisms which are developed by the civil magistrate to help prevent such crimes which can legitimately be adopted by the church but that is quite different from going to world for advice or teaching.)
> 
> All that said the clip of Chandler maybe wasn't the best to use to make that point- if that's the point they intended- considering there has been a rash of sexual abuse cover ups and in that clip he was specifically addressing that.
> 
> The film itself looks interesting though.



The trailer begins with Pastor Tom Ascol stating, “This is God’s world, and he gets to set the rules.” “I’ve seen godless ideologies that have spread throughout western civilization over the last several decades, with a vengeance….”

That is all well and good. But then just a minute later, a video clip of Pastor Matt Chandler from the Village Church is shown. The clip seems to be his apology or a discussion about how better to handle cases of sexual abuse in the church. In recent years it seems that the Village Church has mishandled 2 cases of sexual abuse in their church. Google the Karen Hinckley case where the wife left the husband because he was a pedophile and the Village Church then disciplined HER! (I kid you not). Of course, why Chandler was ever invited to speak as an expert on handling sexual abuse cases, I am not sure why, since he's failed twice now.

But anyway.... in the clip, Chandler says, “Seek outside counsel. We’re just not experts in this.”

This leads the viewer to contrast Ascol's words, "God's Word (presumably as interpreted by pastors) sets the rules, versus Chandler's wise (for once) advice on dealing with sexual abuses cases, to "Seek outside help."

I believe the way the film is edited might lead some to believe, therefore, that churches ought not to report or seek outside help when they encounter abuse. God's Word...God's rules, after all. That is certainly what several ARBCA/Founders pastors did in the case of Thomas Chantry; they knew about abuse cases and discussed this abuse for 2 decades but nobody EVER reported it to the police. We have seen what a disaster it has been when largely Calvinistic and Baptist churches have tried to handle abuse cases themselves internally without the help of law enforcement. Not in a single one of these cases has justice been served when the church handled it themselves. It wasn't until outside counsel and authorities were alerted that the cases were finally handled properly.

By the contrast in the Founder's trailer between Ascol's admonition, "God's Words, Gods rules..." and Chandler's apologetic counsel to "seek outside help" I believe some might lump advocacy to fight against abuse in churches with being "woke." But even "Un-Woke" people need to "wake up" to the abuse epidemic in our churches!


Protecting our children from abuse in churches is not part of the "Trojan Horse of Social Justice" invading our churches.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

P.s. I think SOMEBODY needs to make a film or documentary against the Woke Church. I just don't think it should be these guys after viewing their initial work. Get Voddie Baucham in there, maybe.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The trailer begins with Pastor Tom Ascol stating, “This is God’s world, and he gets to set the rules.” “I’ve seen godless ideologies that have spread throughout western civilization over the last several decades, with a vengeance….”
> 
> That is all well and good. But then just a minute later, a video clip of Pastor Matt Chandler from the Village Church is shown. The clip seems to be his apology or a discussion about how better to handle cases of sexual abuse in the church. In recent years it seems that the Village Church has mishandled 2 cases of sexual abuse in their church. Google the Karen Hinckley case where the wife left the husband because he was a pedophile and the Village Church then disciplined HER! (I kid you not). Of course, why Chandler was ever invited to speak as an expert on handling sexual abuse cases, I am not sure why, since he's failed twice now.
> 
> ...



I already read this when you posted it earlier. As you'll see in my comment I in no way disagree with you. And as you'll also see in my comment I was suggesting why they might have been using that clip of Chandler and as you'll also see in my comment I thought, if they were using it for the reason why I thought they were, it probably wasn't the best clip to use to make their point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I already read this when you posted it earlier. As you'll see in my comment I in no way disagree with you. And as you'll also see in my comment I was suggesting why they might have been using that clip of Chandler and as you'll also see in my comment I thought, if they were using it for the reason why I thought they were, it probably wasn't the best clip to use to make their point.



Ok. Sorry/

I hope maybe Founders will take heed of the criticism and check themselves and start anew with something better. The battle needs to be fought. And in the past Founders has put out some good stuff. But this is not good stuff. They need to improve and clarify their position and be better at how they argue lest they turn potential allies against them.

But of course, MAYBE they are playing to their most loyal base. I see comments online saying, "shots fired" and claiming that anyone who doesn't like the trailer is just a triggered SJW. That might pump up the home team, but it does not mobilize new fans.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Jul 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> P.s. I think SOMEBODY needs to make a film or documentary against the Woke Church. I just don't think it should be these guys after viewing their initial work. Get Voddie Baucham in there, maybe.


Voddie Baucham will be featured in the film.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

Santos said:


> Voddie Baucham will be featured in the film.


Good.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 25, 2019)

I don't know much at all about this stuff. But watching the trailer, it sets up Tom Ascol as the hero. The one man standing up. The man who has the answers; the man doing it right. Seems very dangerous to me. Seems to me from the trailer to be way too much about making much of Tom Aschol.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 25, 2019)

Voddie Baucham is the best guy to speak to these issues:
1. He understands the issues clearly.
2. He's black.
3. He moved to Zambia.

The cultural Marxists have no defense against Baucham.

If you haven't watched this lecture, you should:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> I don't know much at all about this stuff. But watching the trailer, it sets up Tom Ascol as the hero. The one man standing up. The man who has the answers; the man doing it right. Seems very dangerous to me. Seems to me from the trailer to be way too much about making much of Tom Aschol.


I noticed that as well. But of course, that is a hidden motive that I cannot prove.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Voddie Baucham is the best guy to speak to these issues:
> 1. He understands the issues clearly.
> 2. He's black.
> 3. He moved to Zambia.
> ...



I agree. He's their Kryptonite. His sermon on "Ethnic Gnosticism" was great.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 25, 2019)

Basic Problem: all the people trying to do Jesus' job.
Layered Problem: all the people chasing celebrity.
Additional problem: dependency on visual media.

Most "warriors"--of the SJW type, *or* of their counterparts, so... both/all sides--are focused on engaging combat with some _symptom _of a monster. It's so big, that when some of us glimpse the true outlines of something heaving into view, it takes our breath away. If it doesn't or hasn't, then you are fighting as a man beating the air.

We've got all these Rambos; and for each guy who breaks ranks or leaves his post (with or without _his fire team)_ the job that he/they was supposed to be doing is neglected, the overall work is weakened.

Give some guys a little more responsibility or (supposedly) more gifts than the average pew sitter, and they can't stay down. These kind want to be heroes in the movie that's playing in their mind. "Greatness" is not something they want thrust on them; no, they are going to "dare" to win.

Jesus is the King, the General. His marching orders are not too complicated for the men he has _called _to understand and implement. His battlefield doctrine is fully spelled out in the Manual. And if it's not in the Manual, it's not necessary, and it may be a Bad Idea.

Who are these people issuing various "rallying cries" from here and there? Who appointed them? Supposing one has a commission; how did that rank give him the authority to survey the whole front and determine a point of attack, or the tactic to be employed? To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

Today's church is swamped with hubris and a profound lack of discipline. The SJW set has come out of ranks, with claims to know where the church should be by now (or at least be heading!), and are clamoring for a following. And to challenge their noise and to redirect the grunts leaping out of their foxholes to answer them, _others have taken up a similar hue and cry._ Don't join that cause, join ours; but yea, you can't stay where you are.

Well, what if Jesus wants them to stay right there? These alternate voices (to the local pastor and elders) claim to be speaking for Jesus. You aren't doing _enough _for Jesus (do you feel bad about that?) so here's what you can do for the _good _that I feel strongly about. How horrendous when the pastor is either deaf to or confused by the siren-song, or taken by it!

Before the SJWs, there was DW and him raising his profile and seeking the limelight, putting out a magazine to go nationwide--not for the sake of a country-sized denomination (even a small one); but in order to _create _a "movement" (or more) with a certain party at the head of it. So, him chiming in with criticism in the latest brouhaha is really just more of the same from him.

People are not content to be told that most problems exceed their span of control. They also exceed the span of control of a church and most groups of people. Groups of people are either organized or unorganized, and organized groups are managed by leaders. These are people (sometimes down to one person) who want to leverage the power of many people to achieve some goal. They have to persuade people--usually by appeals to emotion, especially fear; helpfully with some hopeful goal, a vision of _the good.
_
Whence this vision? Is it Jesus'? How do we know? Why has this vision been obscured through time until now? Did Jesus need the internet? Did he need the findings of the science (art) of persuasion/manipulation honed in the 20thC, coupled with the power of supercomputers?

Or maybe these are all sophisticated smoke-and-mirrors (like the old smoke and mirrors) to move the church and individual Christians off their mission, and out of their defenses.

The "vision" is aided (like it ever was) by visual media. There are good uses, even teaching uses for visual media. History (story in general), or perhaps more accurately a _slant_ on history is tailor made for it, because it _imposes_ a first-person perspective on the viewer. You see what the camera eye (as it were) saw for you; you pay attention to what the director wanted you to see.

This present movie under discussion (OK, the _trailer)_ is a part of a self-conscious effort by a _group _to gain--even if in a genuine sense it _wants to gain *back*_--control of the direction of an even larger group, the SBC. Using the visual medium of a movie to influence, to teach not timeless doctrine but specific action in the present, is a page out of a particular kind of playbook.

Our religion primarily utilizes the _verbal medium_. We preach the truth, verbally proclaiming it, because (mainly) it has the promise of good effect, and I believe a greater effect _in the long run._ Visual media have a powerful immediate effect, which quickly tapers off. It leaves _impressions, _rather more than the _remains _which are the imparted content of the words that held/hold thoughts.

Trying to beat the opposition at their own game is folly. Just because someone is gaining a following by standing down front waving a banner or yelling in a microphone is no reason to aim at winning back those jumping up by doing the same. Formation of the MoralMajority was folly. Entertainment as worship was folly. Creating a "movement" in order to ride its wave to victory is folly.

Is the movie "folly"? I don't know, but the trailer sure appears to be.

The old paths, those are the ways, walk in them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 8


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I noticed that as well. But of course, that is a hidden motive that I cannot prove.


Here are some additional thoughts and questions as I reflect:

1) Has he personally gone to the people in his video to express his concerns about things they've said? Isn't that what we're told to do? So for instance he had Matt Chandler in his trailer, and put him forth as a "bad" guy. Has he talked with him in person? Has he gone to him as a brother, if he has concerns about things that he said, to express those concerns? Because if he hasn't, then the whole thing he's doing here is actually unbiblical; which is ironic, because the whole tenant of the video is: WE are the ones being biblical.

2) The whole thing has a spirit of pride and haughtiness. They bash others for I guess "false humility"? But actually when Scripture says to confront others with sin (real or perceived), to admonish others, it commands us to do it with a spirit of humility and gentleness. Sorry, I saw ZERO spirit of humility or gentleness in the trailer. And don't say: But we're standing for the truth so it doesn't matter. Humility vs. truth is a false dichotomy. Scripture says do both. So again, to correct someone with truth but not do it in a spirit of humility, love, charity, and gentleness is actually, once again, unbiblical. In the clips, he's laughing when he's interviewing others about the people that are teaching/doing the wrong things. Should he be laughing? What kind of spirit does that convey? Seems to me if anything he should be weeping.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 25, 2019)

As for an alternative movie, draft Les Lanphere who did _Calvinist _and should be done in a few months with _Spirit & Truth_, aimed at the YY&R crowd which maybe should be YYR&Woke?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Voddie Baucham is the best guy to speak to these issues:
> 1. He understands the issues clearly.
> 2. He's black.
> 3. He moved to Zambia.
> ...



I haven't seen anything with Baucham but I understand he's pretty good on this area. However frankly his being black and living in Zambia is kinda irrelevant. White men are allowed to talk about this stuff too and they're allowed to call out whites and blacks who are bringing heresy into the church.

I didn't see hubris in this trailer. I saw men who are very worried about what's happening speaking out. That has always happened in the church: God raising up men to sound the alarm about whatever particular heresy is infecting the church at a particular time. As men used the printing press and tracts in the past they use the Internet and social media today. I say good on them. The trailer itself may have been badly edited but let us wait for the actual film.

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church but once godly denominations can be pulled down and congregations in which the Gospel was once preached can become synagogues of satan and the undiscerning can be ensnared by the wolves in sheep's clothing. God has promised that there will always be a remnant but He hasn't promised it will necessarily be in America or Britain. We are called upon to fight the good fight and to stand up against the enemies without and within the church.

As to the refrain of "have they gone to Matt Chandler privately": these wolves are speaking publicly, leading many astray. They must be repudiated.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 25, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> However frankly his being black and living in Zambia is kinda irrelevant. White men are allowed to talk about this stuff too and they're allowed to call out whites and blacks who are bringing heresy into the church.


No doubt--his skin color and the fact that he moved to a third world country don't make his arguments any more or less true, and anyone can make arguments just as cogent as his.

However, the whole point of the SJW/cultural Marxist/Wokist movement is that there is a power play between majority groups and minority groups. When a white man argues against it, his arguments are dismissed as mere excuses for the oppressive majority group. They can't say that about Baucham. From a tactical perspective, there's no one better. No one can accuse him of being the enemy of minorities or the underprivileged.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## mvdm (Jul 25, 2019)

Might be wise to withhold judgment on the work of these men until after the movie comes out.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## mvdm (Jul 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> From a tactical perspective, there's no one better. No one can accuse him of being the enemy of minorities or the underprivileged.



Actually, to the contrary. The Woke® crowd accuses him of being co-opted by the "white man" to be an enabler of system of white privilege.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jul 25, 2019)

mvdm said:


> Actually, to the contrary. The Woke® crowd accuses him of being co-opted by the "white man" to be an enabler of system of white privilege.


How does one become an enabler of white privilege in Zambia?

That level of irrationalism is hard to debate. The only solution to the entire race issue is the Gospel and understanding that we are now one in Christ and that is our new identity. 

No need to get fancy with documentaries and brand names. Preach the Word, preach it well, and serve the Supper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 25, 2019)

mvdm said:


> Might be wise to withhold judgment on the work of these men until after the movie comes out.



Absolutely. The faux outrage being poured out by the evangelical intelligencia over this is ridiculous. The fact that so many are buying into it demonstrates why so few are willing to speak out on this issue. Is the trailer perhaps misleadingly edited? Of course. When was the last time anyone saw a trailer for any movie that wasn’t? That’s just the nature of a trailer, and for the record, most trailers aren’t even put together by the same people who made the movie. At any rate, these men should be commended for having the courage the speak out. Once the movie actually comes out, then we can all watch it and decide if it is fair.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Jul 25, 2019)

No need to get fancy with documentaries and brand names. Preach the Word, preach it well, and serve the Supper.[/QUOTE]

And guard the sheep, hold fast to the doctrine, and oppose them at every turn as Paul did. Both are necessary in every generation.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 25, 2019)

And to be clear: I agree with @Pergamum that some of the editing of the trailer was counter productive. Some pieces of evidence work against you more than for you. But that shouldn't mean we discard the whole work. Also from the trailer I think it looks like a promising film and look forward to it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jul 25, 2019)

People on Twitter seemed to be losing their minds over this. People on both sides. Twitter is not helpful for lowering the heat (though presbycast's trolling of this is humorous In my humble opinion).

I think it will be telling how Tom Ascol and Jared Longshore acknowledge this. Do they double down? Do they ignore it? Do they acknowledge, apologize, and move on? Are they working behind the scenes to touch base with the principal people impacted (it seemed like Tom was trying to get a hold of the Denhollander's https://twitter.com/JJ_Denhollander/status/1154062129189797888?s=20 )? I am withholding any sweeping judgment until I hear (or not hear) from them.

[Edit] And I am mostly interested to hear about Denhollander being included and the potential miscommunication between some of the people who seemed to be surprised by the direction of it. Hopefully they can acknowledge the mistakes that may have been made.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 25, 2019)

There will a couple of missteps with the trailer but the hysteria over it is designed to distract us from the substance of what the film is about. It's also telling that certain people are more animated over this than they are over the heresy which is being addressed in the film and which is causing serious harm to the church.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 25, 2019)

Reportedly someone associated with Doug Wilson’s ministry edited the video. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 25, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> presbycast's trolling of this is humorous In my humble opinion


I just dropped in there to take a peek--I'm being absolutely truthful here--I had no idea that there was commentary there criticizing the _visual _turn in evangelicalism (in light of this _visual media dustup) _that was posted not long before my comments here. Those comments and mine, being somewhat complementary, were not interdependent.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2019)

UPDATE: 

A pastor in the US has informed me that he has called Tom Ascol and that Pastor Ascol was very humble and apologetic. 

Ascol has called the Denhollender's and their pastor and apologized to them. 

The video was sent out to as many as 100 persons to get their input before being put forward and everyone approved it. So I was told that Ascol was taken by surprise at many who have backtracked since the tweets started, though he acknowledges mistakes were made that have contributed to causing this. 

Of course the pastor then urged me to talk to the person before posting things publicly, which seems to be a very common but strange thing that Christians urge, but the trailer being made public, and people being encouraged to watch it, doesn't really fit the context of going privately to a brother. It was a public fiasco and so deserves public discussion and commentary. It was not a private matter or marriage or family issue; no, they were spreading the video out publicly to be watched. Without a push-back, I don't think any remorse would have been shone. He must have surrounded himself only with people who affirmed the film and did not give him wise feedback. 

And also, this is a reminder that the folks on the "Social Justice" side have done some pretty dense things as well (calling Trump supporters Rednecks, pushing for reparations for slavery, etc), I would never in a million years listen to the sermons of many pushing for Social Justice, but Pastor Ascol has ably preached the gospel for many years.

My hope is that a lesson is learned so that future efforts are more successfully and that the true issues are not clouded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> There will a couple of missteps with the trailer but the hysteria over it is designed to distract us from the substance of what the film is about. It's also telling that certain people are more animated over this than they are over the heresy which is being addressed in the film and which is causing serious harm to the church.



Yes, some of the guys mad at the video have FAILED to be mad at Wokeism for the last several years. But of course, this doesn't make the trailer any better.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> And to be clear: I agree with @Pergamum that some of the editing of the trailer was counter productive. Some pieces of evidence work against you more than for you. But that shouldn't mean we discard the whole work. Also from the trailer I think it looks like a promising film and look forward to it.



With an early critique (and maybe getting a new editor), maybe the finished product will turn out to be something good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The video was sent out to as many as 100 persons to get their input before being put forward and everyone approved it. So I was told that Ascol was taken by surprise at many who have backtracked since the tweets started, though he acknowledges mistakes were made that have contributed to causing this.



Alas this is par for the course nowadays.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> A pastor in the US has informed me that he has called Tom Ascol and that Pastor Ascol was very humble and apologetic.
> 
> Ascol has called the Denhollender's and their pastor and apologized to them.



This doesn't surprise me. I've contacted him at least twice in the past. Both times it had to do with things he had posted that I disagreed with or things he/Founders weren't doing (such as denouncing Driscoll, who was causing problems for Calvinists in the SBC and leading young men astray) that I thought they should be doing. In the end we still disagreed but I found him to be a gracious man. Then as now, I was a "nobody" although I guess my reach as a blogger at that time made it seem to a few folks that I was a somebody. I've written to other "name" men in the past and have rarely gotten a response. 

That being said, if he hasn't already done so, he needs to issue some kind of public statement and explanation for the Denhollander image. And there still apparently has been no acknowledgement of the Chantry issue. I don't think that Tom is part of ARBCA. But some ARBCA men are part of Founders and have been from the beginning. The perception as well as reality is that there is sin in the camp and many will not be interested in what they have to say because of this. Some have denounced all #churchtoo stuff as being motivated by the SJWs and the Denhollander image in the video only reinforces the idea that SJW critics are on the wrong side of abuse cases in the church.


----------



## littlepeople (Jul 26, 2019)

Ironically entitled "By What Standard?"....well not by reputable filmmaking standards it appears.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> This doesn't surprise me. I've contacted him at least twice in the past. Both times it had to do with things he had posted that I disagreed with or things he/Founders weren't doing (such as denouncing Driscoll, who was causing problems for Calvinists in the SBC and leading young men astray) that I thought they should be doing. In the end we still disagreed but I found him to be a gracious man. Then as now, I was a "nobody" although I guess my reach as a blogger at that time made it seem to a few folks that I was a somebody. I've written to other "name" men in the past and have rarely gotten a response.
> 
> That being said, if he hasn't already done so, he needs to issue some kind of public statement and explanation for the Denhollander image. And there still apparently has been no acknowledgement of the Chantry issue. I don't think that Tom is part of ARBCA. But some ARBCA men are part of Founders and have been from the beginning. The perception as well as reality is that there is sin in the camp and many will not be interested in what they have to say because of this. Some have denounced all #churchtoo stuff as being motivated by the SJWs and the Denhollander image in the video only reinforces the idea that SJW critics are on the wrong side of abuse cases in the church.



If James White and other full-time polemicists would stop tweeting that the "Outrage Machine" is attacking the trailer because they are all pseudo-SJWs, I think the Founders may step back and re-evaluate and perhaps this might cause the film to be finished in a more circumspect manner than how it began. It seems apologies have been made. I trust these men are true gospel preachers and I am on their side.... so I hope they see the criticism as legit and not merely liberal outrage. 

I do agree that Founders needs to distance themselves from ARBCA.


----------



## Santos (Jul 26, 2019)

If more Christian men would step up and sound the alarm there would be no need for full time polemicists.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> If James White and other full-time polemicists would stop tweeting that the "Outrage Machine" is attacking the trailer because they are all pseudo-SJWs


See http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/07...-11th-commandment-and-the-ct-outrage-machine/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 26, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> See http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/07...-11th-commandment-and-the-ct-outrage-machine/



I'm sorry, but James and those who are accusing every single critic of the video of being SJWs and SBC company men are breaking the 9th Commandment. Trevor is not even in the SBC and has implored men and churches to leave the SBC over Wokeism. The idea that he and those of us who are too "purist" to even join a SBC church are objecting because we adhere to the "11th Commandment" (which does exist) is ludicrous. (AOMIN seems to be down right now. I'm going on some tweets that James has posted over the past day or two.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 26, 2019)

Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter. 
And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".

My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.

On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.

Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on _"our side". _

And doesn't this idea of needing to be a certain level of "outraged" at the correct things seem to be very much a "woke" or liberal argument? For example, "I'll take pro-life Christians seriously when they start having the same amount of outrage over poverty/single mothers/refugees/racism as they do about abortion". It's just whataboutism at its finest.

And finally, in response to James White and others who say that they'll take criticism of the film trailer seriously when the critics make as big a deal about the other problems in the SBC etc. I'll take that argument seriously around about the time when he and Founders actually distance themselves from Wilson and his heretical gang instead of uniting forces with him to slander actual faithful Christians like the Denhollanders.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 26, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> On the other hand, they are fine with quasi-alliances with Doug Wilson and his crew, despite their heretical teachings and various other failings, simply because they agree with them on these issues.
> 
> Founders' whole problem with the "woke" crowd or people who show them sympathy is that they put social concerns before the gospel. Except that's exactly what they are doing too. They overlook certain people's errors on the gospel but only if they are on _"our side". _



I have noticed this problem as well. On the one hand, Wokeism is undermining the gospel. On the other hand, we will argue against Wokeism by uniting with Doug Wilson to oppose it - even though he also undermines the gospel and does so much more overtly than those caught up in Wokeism.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 26, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter.
> And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".
> 
> My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.
> ...



Clark misses the point and, with all due respect, so do you. The issue is not that the liberals are putting social issues _before _the Gospel but that they are _substituting them for _the Gospel. That is what CRT and intersectionality are in the church context: a false gospel. This is not a battle over priorities but the very Gospel itself. The stakes cannot be higher.

I haven't seen the iatest Dividing Line but on Twitter at least White has gone a bit overboard but at the end of the day the problem with the trailer was a couple of dodgy edits *not *the substance.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 26, 2019)

Oh this thread comes across as a bunch of virtue signaling. It should be deleted.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Clark misses the point and, with all due respect, so do you. The issue is not that the liberals are putting social issues _before _the Gospel but that they are _substituting them for _the Gospel. That is what CRT and intersectionality are in the church context: a false gospel. This is not a battle over priorities but the very Gospel itself. The stakes cannot be higher.


I agree that many replace the gospel with social justice, but I think one of the other main problems is apparent here: it assumed everyone who disagrees to any extent is in the complete opposite camp.

This isn't just about "the liberals", it's clear that Founders are trying to point out where conservatives have accidentally mixed some CRT or whatever in. Again, this isn't wrong in itself, but they have been painting with far too broad a brush.

Doug Wilson also preaches a false gospel. That's also a battle over a false gospel is it not?

Or are you seriously claiming that anyone Founders or anyone else calls out as SJW must be teaching a false gospel? Do the Denhollanders? Do all the people who took issue with the trailer who are ridiculed as woke social justice warriors?

Does Al Molher believe a false gospel? Or has he just messed up his priorities? There are people out there who will criticize Mohler and TGC all the day long, but won't say a thing about Ol' Doug.

It's not just an editing mistake. It's very very clear in that trailer who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are even just based on visuals alone.

What if I made a trailer for a film about the Federal Vision and after a scary video of Doug Wilson in bright colours I added a blurred image of James White in the same style while talking about this false gospel? Is that not nothing less than slander?

Jacob Denhollander has made it extremely clear that he shares the exact same concerns as the filmmakers, but he is incredibly disappointed with the way they portrayed his wife. So many people chosen by Founders themselves for interviews are withdrawing their support from it. Are they all teaching a false gospel? Or are their priorities just wrong?

If you remove the categories of "messed up priorities" and just go "yup it's all a false gospel" then you remove any chance of discussion and will almost certainly start unjustly condemning brothers and sisters.

I think excusing people of slander by calling it "a few dodgy edits" just because they are on "our team" won't win us any favours. From what I've seen this is the main response to this. People agree with the central motives, like you do, but they just find the way it has been done is so terrible. Frankly it could have the opposite effect. It's likely to push people in the middle ground, if there is such a thing, further into the "wokeness". Criticizing this isn't capitulation to the liberals, it's what should be done.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> See http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/07...-11th-commandment-and-the-ct-outrage-machine/



Isn't James White a major cog in this "Outrage Machine"?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 27, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> 'm sorry, but James and those who are accusing every single critic of the video of being SJWs and SBC company men are breaking the 9th Commandment.





Pergamum said:


> Isn't James White a major cog in this "Outrage Machine"?


Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.

But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.
> 
> But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.



Some thoughts:

-Yes. SBC elites tolerate Wokeism for years and don't bat an eye over talks of racial reparations... but they lose their minds over the trailer. Mohler protects Russ Moore for years as Moore lies about Trump supporters, but is quick to express disappoint over the trailer. 

-BUT, that doesn't mean that the trailer DOESN'T stink. It stinks aplenty and needs to be fixed.

-It is a dishonest and stupid argument tactic to say that those who dislike the trailer are SJWs. 

Maybe if you debate for a living you become like a sophist and learn debate tactics that are really not ethical and learn never to admit a nuance or give any ground to their enemies. Professional debaters never say, "You've got a good point" or "That is partially true." Because of this I do not trust them to give a non-partisan judgment. 

-White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> BUT, that doesn't mean that the trailer DOESN'T stink. It stinks aplenty and needs to be fixed. It is a dishonest and stupid argument tactic to say that those who dislike the trailer are SJWs.


I think this is a valid point. I believe White was saying see the whole film before you judge. There is truth in that. But as you say a bad trailer is a bad trailer.


Pergamum said:


> Maybe if you debate for a living you become like a sophist and learn debate tactics that are really not ethical and learn never to admit a nuance


Agreed. Often when White attacks others he cannot see the nuance in their argument.


Pergamum said:


> White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.


Agreed. I have listened to White's radio show for about 20 years. I appreciate many of his shows. I have learned a lot. But there is a negative attitude to some parts of the Christian community that do trouble me.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> White was good when attacking atheists and other faiths, but now he seems to jump into every quarrel with other Christians. A lot of it is friendly fire.


I think what could cause a lot of this is that we know what atheists think, they're atheists. Same story with muslims. 

When it comes to Christians however, it could be that disagreements come across more as a stab in the back, or are potentially more likely to sneak errors in.

So I think we all tend to be a bit harsher on the brethren, or at least those who claim that title. 

While we can fairly criticise Dr White on this point, don't we all slip into this so easily? This could be where a lot of the anger around the trailer comes from. "Those Founders guys were on our side, why would they do that?" "Why are they criticizing the trailer? This a film about the centrality of the gospel!"


I think many of the reasons for outrage are genuine, but like you say we need to careful who we are directing our criticisms at, and perhaps even more importantly, we need to be clear and precise on what exactly is being criticized rather than just bringing down the sledgehammer.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I agree that many replace the gospel with social justice, but I think one of the other main problems is apparent here: it assumed everyone who disagrees to any extent is in the complete opposite camp.
> 
> This isn't just about "the liberals", it's clear that Founders are trying to point out where conservatives have accidentally mixed some CRT or whatever in. Again, this isn't wrong in itself, but they have been painting with far too broad a brush.
> 
> ...



Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?

As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.

You would need to identify to me those shown in the video who are targeted as promoting heresy of whom you think that is an unfair characterisation because I don't know them (genuinely don't know who they are). The ones I _did _recognise seem fair game to me.

As to Mohler specifically I'm not suggesting he's promoting a false gospel but he is one of the most prominent Southern Baptists with a very influential position (I'm assuming he's still President of the seminary?) and if he has been slow to condemn heresy but quick to come out against those who are condemning it- however clunkily- then he certainly has his priorities askew and should be called out for it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?
> 
> As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.
> 
> ...


My problem with most of the people in the video is that they are definitely not all as bad as each other, and it can be unclear what the exact nature of the problem is. 

For instance in the case of Matt Chandler, who is speaking about looking for outside help in the context of sexual abuse, I think the Founders take issue on that because they think either he is undermining the role of pastors and elders or that he is using unbiblical methods or something. The clip used though can be very easily misunderstood as them rejecting the need to get external witnesses or civil authorities involved. I don't think they meant that, but given the whole sexual abuse thing in SBC at the moment, it could cause problems.

Nadia Bolz-Weber the extremely liberal Lutheran pastrix is also shown for some reason, in strange off coloured lighting like something from a student horror film, presumably as a warning of where things could end up, but frankly not even Beth Moore is anywhere near that level of heresy, so it really just comes off as unhelpful.

Right after said liberal Lutheran, a blurred image of Mrs Denhollander appears on screen in the same sort of colouring. The association is clear. The Denhollanders themselves are confessional Reformed Baptists, 1689 the whole shebang. Very solid all around as far as I can tell. 

I think your caution is right though, naturally people want to use stories of abuse as ammunition in their latest volley against orthodox Christianity, but believe me, it's a good thing that it's Rachel Denhollander fighting against abuse. Can you imagine the potential damage if there was someone of a far more liberal persuasion in that position? Someone who wants to help abuse victims within the church should be seen as our ally. That of course does not remove them from criticism.

I just mentioned Al Molher because he's someone who is respected but has seen criticism on this sort of topic. I see no problem with challenging him on these things if it is indeed necessary, but of course criticising him is a very different thing from someone far more liberal.

I don't mean to suggest you do think he or anyone is denying the gospel, but just that we don't want to lump people with various levels of problems haphazardly into one giant pile and deal with them all the same way.

Again, I'm basically on board with your concerns, I just think the trailer hastily divided people into two groups rather than deal with each on their own terms. A lot of this comes down to the fact that it is just a trailer, but I think including less provacative and unwise clips would have helped things a lot. Hopefully the full film is more precise about the exact dangers of specific peoples' positions or their weaknesses. I am concerned because it is not clear to me how much Founders is deciding to apologise and how much they are doubling down. Ideally some kind of resolution will be reached.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think what could cause a lot of this is that we know what atheists think, they're atheists. Same story with muslims.
> 
> When it comes to Christians however, it could be that disagreements come across more as a stab in the back, or are potentially more likely to sneak errors in.
> 
> ...



Ah, good point.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I didn't recognise everyone in the trailer but of those I did recognise who appeared to be the targets there was Beth Moore, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler: all legitimate targets, all undermining the Truth in their so-called ministries. Was Al Mohler not one of the guys being interviewed by Founders?
> 
> As to the Denhollanders I have no idea what their theology is or where they lie in the landscape. But I've already said they shouldn't have used her image. But, again, I would say that they should be wary that they are not co-opted by those who might seek to use what happened to Rachel to further their own agenda.
> 
> ...



The Denhollenders are members of a Reformed Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky pastored by Jim Savastio. Pastor Savastio is talking to the Founders and messaged me this morning. 

So I assume her theology is sound and her speaking at churches has not been preaching but talking on a very specific topic of abuse in churches as a subject-matter expert. I believe God is greatly using her in this area and that she is a blessing to the church. 

As far as Chandler goes, I agree he is a legit target.....BUT not that clip. That clip is one of the better things he has said and he was advocating getting outside help in cases of abuse in churches, instead of covering up or doing an internal investigation, which invariably puts the name of the church as a priority and not the best interests of the victim. Even this use of Chandler in the trailer was a bad move. 

It is a terrible idea to tie in abuse advocacy with Wokeism. Some folks, of course, might blame "patriarchy" for abuse...and some forms of patriarchy may, indeed, lead to domestic abuse. But strengthening child safety policies in church and being better at reporting cases of abuse is not SJWism. It is not social justice, but TRUE and biblical justice. We have seen ample evidence that many churches - even churches with sound theology such as ARBCA - fail to report and even cover up child abuse. 

Also, we should talk about the ethics of how to interview somebody: Several of the other pastors interviewed by the Founders reported later they were blindsided by the interviews. They thought they were being interviewed about one thing and them BAM, the trailer uses their interview for another topic. 

Plus, we should talk about the effects and editing. off-light and weird colors and even a sort of shaky camera effect and even strange music like from a horror movie appears whenever these other guys are shown, whereas Ascol's image is clear and bright as if he were the hero. Like old Westerns where the bad guys wears a black cowboy hat and the hero wears a white hat. 

The Founders don't want to stoop to the level of "Gotcha" Journalists or propaganda films, do they?

Truthfully, I don't think ANY of the people shown are promoting "heresy" - for heresy is soul-destroying. Women preachers are bad and in error, but does not condemn one to hell. I am not ready to say Beth Moore ain't going to heaven because she thinks she can preach. Even Russ Moore seems to know and love the Gospel. Even if I get angered hearing talk of racial reparations, I believe some of these black race-baiters are saved as well, even Ron Burns. But it seems the approach of the trailer is heavy on the polemics and not very irenic. Or even fair.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2019)

Everybody's talking about the trailer and the movie.
"Free pub." "No such thing as bad publicity."
More people have watched a "terrible trailer" than were going to before.
More people know about the movie--and some will watch it--than without the trailer.

Some of this chatter may bother Ascol and a few others.
None of this bothers the makers of the movie or the trailer.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 27, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Friends, I simply posted the link for peoples interest. I did not say I agreed with Dr White.
> 
> But I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on Dr White's comments.


James White himself has said several times something to the effect of, "You can't do everything well," largely as reasoning for avoiding discussion on Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I respect that and wholeheartedly agree.

I think he and Founders should take the same tack on social issues. I haven't enjoyed his program very much since it has become a constant lament about "how awful things are." I actually agree that they're pretty bad, but others are much more insightful on these issues than White--often Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and even atheists. 

He, of course, can do as he likes on his show, but I truly wish he would get back to a more sustained focus on topics such as Islam and Textual Criticism, where I felt like I was actually learning from him (and Calvinism, which would hold true of the Founders as well).

As for the comments on his latest show, they seemed very much in the vein of "Come on, let's give the benefit of the doubt to _our _guys (but not _their_ guys)!"


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 28, 2019)

I’ve been thinking about the woke issue off and on for a while now.

My main 2 points:
- the white American cannot begin to understand experientially the history of segregation and all that comes with it felt by black men and women of former generations and its effects on the current ones.
- the wokist seeks a political savior to undo and overcome related injustices, much of it very real even today, some it perceived.

Both ‘sides’ can learn something.
1. There are many unregenerate Christians and even some who are regenerate that have perpetuated racism.
2. Many pro-wokists have returned hate for hate. Some black pulpits have taught it and like the Jews sought a political savior, not deliverance from sin and a sinful world.....


That video won’t help


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 29, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Some thoughts on this inspired by R. Scott Clark's recent thread on Twitter.
> And Dr. Clark is indeed no friend of "Social Justice".
> 
> My big problem with this whole thing is that on the one hand, Founders wants us to distance ourselves from "wokeness" and trying to appropriate Critical Race Theory, or even to learn from "Social Justice Warriors", which is pretty much right, but then they take to a level such that anyone who seems to be saying anything even vaugely similar or criticising their approach, or simply not being quite as outraged as they are get thrown under the bus.
> ...


The outrage is because they are taking a legit sin/issue, racism/prejudice, and are twisting the gospel and their own theology to address it and it is creeping into denominations like the opc, who rightly are not embracing Doug Wilson over the issue, so the concerns are becoming more widespread. The very gospel is at stake here. At least that is the (pretty legit) fear.

I believe woke theology is merely repacked liberation theology which is not a mere social issue but troubling to the core of the gospel and systematic reformed theology as it turns it on its head. James Cone was a disciple of Karl Barth.... So this is very much a theology issue and somewhat of a crisis/threat against sound doctrine. Racism is just a tool/excuse to get there.

That being said, I don’t think that trailer is helpful at all. Using Rachel DenHollander is completely unacceptable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 29, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> See http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2019/07...-11th-commandment-and-the-ct-outrage-machine/





Pergamum said:


> The Denhollenders are members of a Reformed Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky pastored by Jim Savastio. Pastor Savastio is talking to the Founders and messaged me this morning.
> 
> So I assume her theology is sound and her speaking at churches has not been preaching but talking on a very specific topic of abuse in churches as a subject-matter expert. I believe God is greatly using her in this area and that she is a blessing to the church.
> 
> ...



I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good *theory* as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.

His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst ostensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.

I have seen that some have accused Founders of "duping" them into appearing in the film. That is merely an accusation. What is their evidence for that? Are we to believe them, and not Tom Ascol who has said he would not get someone's involvement in an interview/film under false pretences? I would be inclined to think the disavowals are a result of the reaction to the trailer.

The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a shot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good *theory* as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.
> 
> His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst stensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.
> 
> ...



If 1 person said he was duped, maybe we should question who is telling the truth, him or Ascol. But there are 4 or 5 pastors who are all basically saying the same thing, that they were misled.

Also, didn't James White say something about the SBC being healthier in 1845 than now? You don't have to be an SJW to see that as a problematic statement since they were giving communion to man-stealers or those who profited from man-stealing.

I fully expect some feminists to use every sex abuse case to push feminism. But the Denhollenders are members of a solid 1689 church and so I would not expect them to fall for it. BUT, if the Founders are allies with ARBCA folks and Douglas Wilson, this also looks bad as well, if we want to be strict on judging folks by their allies.

And...it is really hard to judge anymore what folks mean when they say feminism, patriarchy, egalitarianism, and complementarianism. It has gotten to the point where we need to define these better or do away with these labels.

There are not just two sides here, people, the Founders or the SJWs and criticism of one does not mean total alliance with the other. It is more nuanced than that. And all sides have done a pretty poor job lately...


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 29, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> If 1 person said he was duped, maybe we should question who is telling the truth, him or Ascol. But there are 4 or 5 pastors who are all basically saying the same thing, that they were misled.
> 
> Also, didn't James White say something about the SBC being healthier in 1845 than now? You don't have to be an SJW to see that as a problematic statement since they were giving communion to man-stealers or those who profited from man-stealing.
> 
> ...



I didn't hear his comments about the SBC in 1845. Does anyone here seriously think our churches are stronger today than they were in 1845? The manstealer issue is a red-herring. There is a difference between those who had slaves in America and those who were involved in the slave trade. Dabney has a very good discussion on this in his book on the subject.

If one shares a platform with Beth Moore and Matt Chandler (and I'm only going on third party description of the panel I haven't seen it) then that is worrying. As I said there is nothing good that can come from associating with those people. I'm sure Denhollander's intention was very positive but people like Chandler and Moore should be avoided.

Many labels have become meaningless but it is clear what is being promoted by Beth Moore, Russell Moore and the like. I don't know what Beth Moore is even doing talking at these conventions, at churches nevermind what she's saying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 29, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a shot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.


The trailers ham-fisted editing makes it very clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Or are we saying that Nadia Bolz-Weber is portrayed the same way as Tom Ascol?

Every single time a clip of someone not on Founders side comes up in the trailer it has a filter over it. Usually adding a kind of gray effect, but in the case of Nadia Bolz-Weber and Rachel Denhollander it's a yellowish tone. Their clips also comes up at the same timing with the same scary sound effect in the music. 

All those in the interviews and the Founders themselves have clear lighting no extra effects or any nonsense. No blurred image of Tom Ascol flashes up on screen accompanied by scary music.

It's not just the timing of the words, it's everything about the editing. It is entirely lacking in style and subtlety. Frankly, anyone who can't see the message the trailer was sending via the effects and music has got to be kidding themselves.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 29, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> James White himself has said several times something to the effect of, "You can't do everything well," largely as reasoning for avoiding discussion on Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I respect that and wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> I think he and Founders should take the same tack on social issues. I haven't enjoyed his program very much since it has become a constant lament about "how awful things are." I actually agree that they're pretty bad, but others are much more insightful on these issues than White--often Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and even atheists.
> 
> ...



Well I think we _should _give the benefit of the doubt to men who stand up for Christian Truth and see no reason to give it to those who are clearly and deliberately teaching error and trying to undermine many Biblical categories and teachings.

CT, Intersectionality and Egalitarianism is where the fight is today. He has been heroic on this front. Frankly the less he says about Textual Criticism the better. He can't seem to do a show without finding an excuse to hurl abuse at KJV Onlyists who are of no consequence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (Jul 29, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I think we _should _give the benefit of the doubt to men who stand up for Christian Truth and see no reason to give it to those who are clearly and deliberately teaching error and trying to undermine many Biblical categories and teachings.
> 
> CT, Intersectionality and Egalitarianism is where the fight is today. He has been heroic on this front. Frankly the less he says about Textual Criticism the better. He can't seem to do a show without finding an excuse to hurl abuse at KJV Onlyists who are of no consequence.


Alexander, I’m curious whether CRT and intersectionality are prevalent in Britain, or is this simply an American phenomenon? I’m not speaking of feminism (which in the West is pandemic).


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 29, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> Alexander, I’m curious whether CRT and intersectionality are prevalent in Britain, or is this simply an American phenomenon? I’m not speaking of feminism (which in the West is pandemic).



I can't say how extensive it is over here. As much as I pay attention to what anyone in politics, media or academia over here says I would say the ideas are present in an amorphous form but one doesn't tend to hear the terms themselves in everyday speech, that I've noticed. At least not from our politicians, for example. Liberal media folk in papers like the Guardian will probably use them but as part of general conversation these terms haven't become popular. That's my impression at least. At the universities I'm sure it is being taught. Certainly we have a lot of talk about how our history is apparently racist and there is a drive to "decolonise" our education. So the currents are certainly here.

As for the church I really couldn't say. Thankfully my denomination is separate from all others in the country so we live in "blissful isolation". In Scotland the only major denomination I could imagine it being present in would be the Church of Scotland. Down south in England it's probably in the Church of England.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jul 29, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good *theory* as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.
> 
> His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst stensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.
> 
> ...



Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.

He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Jul 29, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.
> 
> He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20


I finally got around to listening to the DL episode and I thought it was excellent. I hope people aren’t so upset with the trailer that they close their ears to the points the movie is likely to make. Is it only me, or are these things (CRT, egalitarianism and sexual degeneracy) accelerating at a peculiarly rapid rate? I love how JW pointed out the ridiculous usage of the words misogyny and white nationalism. The more the public hears this language the more natural it sounds and reason flies out the window. It seems to me there is a strong strain of quietism among some reformed people, sort of, “let’s not involve ourselves in this unpleasantness” but unless faithful men take a stand in the church against these interlopers we will suffer the same fate as once orthodox denominations before us.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 29, 2019)

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

*About that Trailer*

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 29, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.
> 
> *About that Trailer*




Perhaps he doesn’t apologize, but he does indicate that he will remove the interviews with the people who objected from the movie.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.
> 
> *About that Trailer*



Personally, I think this ought to be the end of the matter until we see the full film, for fear of not giving our brother the dignity and charity of meaning what he says here.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.
> 
> *About that Trailer*


He also claims the trailer never misrepresented anyone's words. BUT 4 seminary leaders says he does.

Ascol writes:
"Some have accused us of misrepresenting the words spoken by certain people who appear in the trailer. We do not believe we misrepresented anyone’s words."

Ascol also claims, "Others have been pressured to withdraw." But he provides no proof. 

But...they did re-edit a portion of the trailer and maybe the uproar will cause them to be more careful on the final film. 

Again, a pushback against SJW-ism needs to be made. I just don't trust these people to do a good job of it anymore.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 30, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.
> 
> He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20



Yeah it's a shame, I liked his tweets. But I like people who pour gasoline on an already raging fire. Which is pretty much what he did in this case. He said on his show that he had managed to miss the initial blow up: well he certainly made up for lost time. I think he was unnecessarily heated over this issue considering Tom Ascol himself admitted some poor choices in the editing. His take on his show was a lot better.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.
> 
> *About that Trailer*



Very good statement. Can't wait to see the film, dv. (I wonder if we're gonna have to pay for it?) Also I need to watch that documentary _Battle for the Minds_!!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> He also claims the trailer never misrepresented anyone's words. BUT 4 seminary leaders says he does.
> 
> Ascol writes:
> "Some have accused us of misrepresenting the words spoken by certain people who appear in the trailer. We do not believe we misrepresented anyone’s words."
> ...



He said he interviewed them about the legacy of the Conservative Resurgence and the issues facing it today. The issues addressed in the trailer would appear to be perfectly in keeping with that. Plus, just because you gave an interview for a documentary doesn't mean you have editorial control over it. Each interview is just one piece of the argument of the film. The fact some of the men interviewed may not have spoken about each issue raised doesn't mean their interview can't be used. I'm inclined to think these guys have been scared by the reaction to the trailer. (Although it's also not surprising considering what seems to be happening at some of those seminaries.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> He said he interviewed them about the legacy of the Conservative Resurgence and the issues facing it today. The issues addressed in the trailer would appear to be perfectly in keeping with that. Plus, just because you gave an interview for a documentary doesn't mean you have editorial control over it. Each interview is just one piece of the argument of the film. The fact some of the men interviewed may not have spoken about each issue raised doesn't mean their interview can't be used. I'm inclined to think these guys have been scared by the reaction to the trailer. (Although it's also not surprising considering what seems to be happening at some of those seminaries.)



If these guys say they were misrepresented but Ascol denies it, then somebody is untruthful..... 4 seminary leaders, or Ascol. SJW-ism is a different topic than the Conservative Resurgence, which happened in the past. Sounds like a bait and switch to me. And while an interviewed person does not have total control over the final editing, being portrayed with hokey horror-effects music and off-lighting while Ascol is portrayed with none of these effects seems a bit much.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> ...these guys say they were misrepresented...



You keep saying this, but where have these four themselves accused Ascol of misrepresenting _*them*_? The only comment I can find is that Al Mohler says he is "alarmed at how *some respected SBC leaders* are represented," but he is not at all specific on who these "respected leaders" are. It seems like he may be talking not about himself, but men and/or women whom the video directly criticizes.

Where have these four men said that they themselves have been misrepresented?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You keep saying this, but where have these four themselves accused Ascol of misrepresenting _*them*_? The only comment I can find is that Al Mohler says he is "alarmed at how *some respected SBC leaders* are represented," but he is not at all specific on who these "respected leaders" are. It seems like he may be talking not about himself, but men and/or women whom the video directly criticizes.
> 
> Where have these four men said that they themselves have been misrepresented?



Here is an article: https://wordandway.org/2019/07/24/4...concern-over-founders-ministry-films-preview/

"Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, recounted via Twitter on July 23 that he had a brief interview for a documentary, titled “By What Standard,” being produced by the Founders Ministries, an organization founded in 1983 with a Calvinistic view of Baptist life and led by Florida pastor Tom Ascol.

Akin and three other SBC seminary professors took issue with the documentary’s trailer, or preview, of nearly 4 minutes now online.

Voicing his disappointment, Akin wrote, “What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm.”

Akin voiced concern “about what the tone, tenor, and content of the full documentary will be, and I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.”

“I hope my brothers will reconsider their strategy for communicating our deeply held Southern Baptist conviction that the Bible is our sole foundation and authority for all of life and faith.”

The Founders Ministries website does not list a release date for the documentary.

Akin was briefly shown in the trailer and it included a 12-second clip with R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; a five-second clip of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; and five clips ranging from one to 10 seconds of Georgia pastor James Merritt, a former SBC president.

Mohler, in three tweets on July 23, wrote that he is “alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented.” He has “long known and enjoyed the company of the folks who made the video and the folks offended by the video and I am hopeful that @FoundersMin will respond appropriately and in a way that affirms their intention to be a responsible voice in the SBC.”

The trailer, Mohler wrote, is a reminder “that HOW we engage and represent one another is as important as what we argue and who we engage. Let’s encourage one another to good works, good theology, and a good mood.”

The documentary, according to the Founders Ministries website, addresses “many unbiblical agendas … being advanced under the guise of honoring and protecting women, promoting racial reconciliation, and showing love and compassion to people experiencing sexual dysphoria.”

Twenty-five years after the Conservative Resurgence returned the SBC to “its historic commitments on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture,” the website states that “it seems like evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, are in danger of loosening their commitments to those basic, Christian commitments.”

“If we care about true justice — what God has revealed to be just — then we must stand against what is being promoted under social justice,” the website states. “If we care about the true gospel — the gospel revealed in the faith once-for-all-delivered to the saints — we must reject the agendas being promoted by godless ideologies.”

Jason Allen and Adam W. Greenway were the other two SBC seminary presidents voicing concern via Twitter about the documentary’s trailer.

Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Missouri, wrote, “This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that’s uncharitable & unhelpful. @FoundersMin has often played a constructive role in SBC life, but I’m afraid this video isn’t such an occasion. These issues demand we engage w clarity & charity.”

Greenway, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, wrote in three tweets, “@tomascol asked me to join other seminary leaders I respect like @albertmohler and @DannyAkin in being interviewed on the SBC Conservative Resurgence’s legacy. I will not, however, be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily.

“Undoubtedly there are important issues we must confront as Southern Baptists. But HOW we confront those issues matters as much to me as WHAT we are choosing to confront. Part of the SBC’s nature is our willingness to disagree charitably on matters outside our confession of faith.

“There are better ways to have the conversations we need to have as a convention of churches,” Greenway wrote, voicing his intent “to be a part of any productive engagement that will help to bring greater clarity and unity amongst our Southern Baptist family.”"

End of article.
---

So Ascol denies misrepresenting them and at least 4 of those interviewed are on record as claiming misrepresentation.

This doesn't even count a 5th person, Rachel Denhollender, whose image was removed because she, too, was misrepresented.

So somebody is wrong if we still hold to the law of non-contradiction.

Also, Chandler has not responded it doesn't seem, but I would say he was severely misrepresented as well, when he urged churches dealing with sex abuse cases to consult outside sources (contrast his words with Ascol's God's Word...God's rules...comments...), so I believe he, too, was misrepresented. I am no fan of Chandler's but the clips which were used of him were talking about consulting outside resources when you hear of cases of abuse in churches. 

Is Founders against that position?


So I count 6 probable misrepresentations.

I think it is clear Founders misrepresented at least several of the people, and now there is a backlash against whatever they do in the future.

Also, I believe they need to narrow their battle. Are they really going to address advocacy for sex abuse in churches as an SJW issue? Are they going to say that the #churchtoo movement is made up? If so, this is a losing proposition. Maybe they are going to say that handling abuse in churches is an internal matter? After all, they used Chandler's quote advising going to outside sources in a negative light. If so, that is extremely stupid in light of all the evidence we have of churches covering up sexual abuse, even ARBCA, who often have close ties with the Founders.

And of course, all the "bad guys" in the film have weird pixellation "horror-effects" happening to them as Ascol is portrayed in excellent lighting. If Ascol directed this himself, I'd say this is evidence of some narcissism since he is clearly portrayed as the hero. 

Listen, I am on the same side as the Founders. But they've simply done a bad job. And in giving only a muted apology and by claiming nobody was misrepresented, I have lost trust in Ascol. 

Again, we need better champions to fight this battle.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> So Ascol denies misrepresenting them and at least 4 of those interviewed are on record as claiming misrepresentation.



With all due respect, brother, you haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where any of these leaders have said that the trailer misrepresented _*them personally*_ (which is what you claimed most recently here). The article you posted above said the exact same thing I did. Namely, all anyone ever claimed is that "some SBC leaders" were misrepresented (Mohler), and that "important issues" were misrepresented (Akin). But I still have not seen any proof of any of these leaders saying _*they themselves*_ were misrepresented.

The reason why I think this is so important is not because I think Founders are right (I'm withholding judgment on that until I see the full film, which I think is the charitable thing to do), but because your argument is as follows:

P1) If someone says they have been misrepresented, they have.
P2) Four of the men interviewed in this film say that _*they*_ were misrepresented.
C) These four men were misrepresented in this film.

What is lacking is an explicit statement where any of these men have said that _*they themselves*_ have been _*personally*_ misrepresented. All I have seen is that one man says, vaguely, that "SBC leaders" have been misrepresented, and another says "important issues" have been misrepresented. If this is all that is being said, your argument doesn't hold, and we should move on to discussing what has been _specifically referenced_ as being misrepresented (such as Denhollander), and then discuss those issues as they were presented.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> With all due respect, brother, you haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where any of these leaders have said that the trailer misrepresented _*them personally*_ (which is what you claimed most recently here). The article you posted above said the exact same thing I did. Namely, all anyone ever claimed is that "some SBC leaders" were misrepresented (Mohler), and that "important issues" were misrepresented (Akin). But I still have not seen any proof of any of these leaders saying _*they themselves*_ were misrepresented.
> 
> The reason why I think this is so important is not because I think Founders are right (I'm withholding judgment on that until I see the full film, which I think is the charitable thing to do), but because your argument is as follows:
> 
> ...




Rachel Denhollender's husband said she was misrepresented. Ascol apologized and took away her image. So there is one case proved. So, yes, the Founder misrepresented people. 

Chandler I believe was misrepresented. The video evidence is there. I made a case above some posts back that I believe is convincing.

Danny Akin likewise says:
"As a Southern Baptist who has staked the whole of my life and ministry on the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, I was happy to share my convictions on the matter,” Akin said in a statement posted online hours after the video’s release. “Today I was disappointed to see the trailer for that documentary. What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm.”

So there's 3.

A number of those interviewed and featured dislike the trailer enough to have their clips deleted and not used and their photographs scrubbed from the promotions. 

I don't think they misrepresented Dwight McKissick(?) and Merrit in the clip. But it seems like Founders has acknowledged they've at least misrepresented some of those featured. 

But, I suppose you can call 5 or 6 people liars when they claim that the facts are misrepresented.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Rachel Denhollender's husband said she was misrepresented. Ascol apologized and took away her image. So there is one case proved. So, yes, the Founder misrepresented people.
> 
> Chandler I believe was misrepresented. The video evidence is there. I made a case above some posts back that I believe is convincing.
> 
> ...



Again, as Taylor says, I see nowhere where Akin himself has been misrepresented or is even claiming to have been personally misrepresented. He says he was asked to contribute an interview on the sufficiency of Scripture. That is what the documentary is about: the bringing in of unbiblical categories and ideologies and substituting them for Gospel (looking back at Ascol's statement I see that I conflated the documentary he mentioned about the Conservative Resurgence with the interviews with the various current SBC men). Now the trailer may have taken his words on the sufficiency of Scripture and connected them to things happening in the church and he may prefer that connection not be made (but that is the prerogative of the filmmaker, frankly). But it is quite a stretch to say that he has been misrepresented, something which he himself does not say but only that the trailer is "misleading...[and] misrepresents important issues".

Matt Chandler was not interviewed for the documentary and until we see it we cannot know if he has been misrepresented in it.

Al Mohler is an even more troublesome case since apparently he approved the trailer before it was released and only disavowed *after *the controversy. Did he or did he not approve it? If he did I can't take his disavowal as anything other than running for cover when he got pushback.

As to the other two Seminary presidents, again neither of them have claimed their contribution was misrepresented only that they didn't like the look of the trailer and the overall argument it makes. And because of the controversy they don't want to be associated with it. Fair enough. That doesn't prove misrepresentation (especially when they don't actually claim they were misrepresented) anymore than it proves they're running scared (which seems more probable). Now Tom Ascol has graciously agreed to remove their contributions. This does not concede their point. It is the Christian thing to do. Whether, legally, he would be required to do so I don't know. I can't imagine it is legally required that all contributors to a film sign off on it before it can be released but as I say I don't know.

The only person who can, as far as I can see, make a case she was misrepresented is Rachel Denhollander. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. They removed the image from the trailer. He has reached out to the couple.

So my tally is 1, at most.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Again, as Taylor says, I see nowhere where Akin himself has been misrepresented or is even claiming to have been personally misrepresented. He says he was asked to contribute an interview on the sufficiency of Scripture. That is what the documentary is about: the bringing in of unbiblical categories and ideologies and substituting them for Gospel (looking back at Ascol's statement I see that I conflated the documentary he mentioned about the Conservative Resurgence with the interviews with the various current SBC men). Now the trailer may have taken his words on the sufficiency of Scripture and connected them to things happening in the church and he may prefer that connection not be made (but that is the prerogative of the filmmaker, frankly). But it is quite a stretch to say that he has been misrepresented, something which he himself does not say but only that the trailer is "misleading...[and] misrepresents important issues".
> 
> Matt Chandler was not interviewed for the documentary and until we see it we cannot know if he has been misrepresented in it.
> 
> ...



You could literally make EVERY theological issue related to the sufficiency of Scripture. Quite simply, the people interviewed felt as if it was a bait and switch.

Also, concerning Mohler. Not condemning a film does not mean he approves of the film. Even if he did not like it, he might have just responded, ok....we'll see what the final film looks like. I think Ascol's "apology" is more of a justification, and it tries to accuse Mohler of dishonesty.

The way Ascol phrases it, he is basically accusing Mohler of lying or changing his position based on the responses of others. 

What is more, on Twitter, Ascol claims that the "uproar" about the film proves how important the issue is.... the guy can't see that he just simply made a bad trailer. His rationale is no way to argue. People are ticked off because we produced a bad product....wow, my finger must really be on the pulse of what is vital! We stirred up the SJWs! Well....there are a lot of people who were former allies who believe almost the same as teh Founders, like me, who no longer trust the Founders to ably defend this topic.

I have come away with all of this not only distrusting SJWs (the evangelical left), but sadly,. also distrusting Tom Ascol and the Founder.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> If these guys say they were misrepresented but Ascol denies it, then somebody is untruthful..... 4 seminary leaders, or Ascol.


"Misrepresented"? It appears you have made a wax nose of that word. Four seminary presidents did not claim they were misrepresented and there is no evidence that they were. Dr. Ascol has provided an explanation but you obviously believe he is lying. I have known him for close to twenty years and find such an insinuation offensive. But just keep beating that drum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "Misrepresented"? It appears you have made a wax nose of that word. Four seminary presidents did not claim they were misrepresented and there is no evidence that they were. Dr. Ascol has provided an explanation but you obviously believe he is lying. I have known him for close to twenty years and find such an insinuation offensive. But just keep beating that drum.


Well, Ascol is pretty much saying Mohler is lying in his "apology" so there's that.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I suppose you can call 5 or 6 people liars when they claim that the facts are misrepresented.



I never called anyone a liar. I have been speaking specifically and only of your claim that the four SBC men said _*they*_ were misrepresented. I never tried to argue that _no one_ or _nothing_ was misrepresented. Putting words in my mouth is quite uncharitable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You could literally make EVERY theological issue related to the sufficiency of Scripture. Quite simply, the people interviewed felt as if it was a bait and switch.
> 
> Also, concerning Mohler. Not condemning a film does not mean he approves of the film. Even if he did not like it, he might have just responded, ok....we'll see what the final film looks like. I think Ascol's "apology" is more of a justification, and it tries to accuse Mohler of dishonesty.
> 
> ...


Brother,

You don't appear to be coming "away from this" with distrust for Tom Ascol and Founders. It seems to me based on your OP and follow up comments that you came into this discussion with some dislike or distrust for Tom Ascol.

For example you included your dislike for an article having nothing to do with this film (on sexual abuse). And even if you did not like the article, it's tone, or it's conclusion it does not change the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with this film.

You also spoke of a close relationship that Founders and ARBCA have that you disapprove of as more evidence that they are not worthy of speaking on this topic. The problem with that is how do you quantify a close relationship? And if you really want to go there concerning mishandling of sex abuse, it would appear that the SBC has had around 300 separate instances of sexual abuse over the last 20 years, some of which have apparently been grossly mishandled ( …..Village Church ring any bells?) So, by this metric should you not also discredit/distrust the heads of these SBC institutions? And why do you just believe them since there are 4 of them? (Think Justice Kavanaugh) And should you not also denounce the SBC all together? I mean 300....It breaks my heart just thinking about it.

My point is you don't seem to be applying the same rules across the board and that appears a bit dishonest.

Grace and Peace,
Santos

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

Santos said:


> Brother,
> 
> You don't appear to be coming "away from this" with distrust for Tom Ascol and Founders. It seems to me based on your OP and follow up comments that you came into this discussion with some dislike or distrust for Tom Ascol.
> 
> ...



(1) I suppose one's own side disappoints far more than the opponents when they do a job badly. 

(2). Folks are saying to rally around this trailer. Or that they represent "our" side. But, if they want to represent "our side" they had better improve their game.

(3) Many are saying that any dislike of the trailer identifies one as an SJW. "They're Triggered" people are saying... This perhaps is my biggest reason for anger. It seems that no criticism is received as constructive...any criticism leveled at the trailer exposes you as a supporter of Social Justice. They double-down and so you've got to really push hard before they'll edit the trailer.

(4) It does appear that the trailer is sensationalistic and badly edited.

(5) Even worse, than 2 or 3 witnesses speak of misrepresentations. Folks are distancing themselves from this trailer and wanting nothing to do with it.

Several folks on the PB deny there are misrepresentations, it seems. Those interviewed assert that there are misrepresentations. Somebody, therefore, is lying. And somebody is calling other people liars, therefore.

(6). There are ARBCA churches within Founders. ARBCA has had a bad record in protecting abuse victims. Add to this fact with the trailer's treatment of Chandler's wise advise on abuse cases and on their omenous blurred image of Denhollender.

Here's how two internet pundits portrayed the "blurred image"

First, Jeff Maples:

"The following clip is a snippet from the trailer (under the fair use clause) that seemingly portrays Rachel Denhollander as a demonic entity — what the Bible calls a “principality.” You can see Denhollanders (blurred) profile flash in the middle of a statement regarding principalities.

The video has several evangelical leaders in shock that founders would dare portray the professional victim — the one who suggested at the SBC conference that the Bible was insufficient to speak on certain matters such as sexual abuse — this way. Even her husband, who is banking on selling her books and story to an audience, chimed in on Twitter, calling out Tom Ascol and Jared Longshore..."

Then Jordan Hall at Pulpit and Pen:

"During one part of the documentary, Owen Strachan – who has vocally opposed Beth Moore’s attempts to change Southern Baptist views on women in church leadership – was speaking about their ideological opponents while background footage seemed to show a blurry image of Rachel Denhollander, a woman who suffered abuse at the hands of predator, Larry Nassar. Denhollander’s husband, Jacob, has largely capitalized on Denhollander’s abuse and turned her victimization into his own cottage industry, and made a virtual career of it."

If these guys above are our "allies" we need to rethink our position.

(7) Above, in another reply, I have stated the juxtaposition of Ascol's words with Chandler's words in the trailer. Ascol first speaks of God's Words, God's ways.... then we see Chandler's words for churches to seek outside help when it comes to abuse cases. 

So, should we seek outside counsel if we encounter abuse cases in our churches? Or does this mean we don't believe in the sufficiency of Scripture? The trailer leads us to the second conclusion.

(8). Ascol's "apology" is more like a justification, and one that digs into Mohler and accuses him of either lying or being a coward by pulling support.

This is an important point. 

Ascol writes: 

"Dr. Mohler called me to express his concern. I was surprised since his previous response to the trailer (when I sent it to him 8 days earlier) had been a simple expression of looking forward to seeing the whole film. He told me that he would be issuing a statement about it later that day."

Ascol is subtly suggesting that Mohler, at first approved of the trailer, and then, for the sake of public image, expressed public disapproval later. And that is certainly what some people are now saing on Twitter, that Mohler was supportive at first and then later disapproved of the trailer after the public backlash, and so he gave a public statement to save his public image. Thus, Mohler is either a coward or a liar.

More likely, Mohler may have had reservations about the trailer but held back any verbal approval or disapproval. Until finally, Mohler felt he had to say something. 

(9). Founder's supporters are saying that people are distancing themselves from the trailer due to fear of man (the SBC Elite, etc), not because the trailer stunk. 


Now, on the other hand....

Aside from President Trump digging into Russell Moore's antics, I don't see SBC leaders digging enough at him, a man who does wonderful on Pro-life issues but so poorly on immigration and anything having to do with race or Trump. We need to dig into the Evangelical Left harder. BUT smarter.

The SBC on race has gone bonkers, talking about reparations and picking candidates based on race instead of qualifications.

I do agree there should be equal outrage. But, that doesn't change the fact that the trailer stinks.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> *It seems to me there is a strong strain of quietism among some reformed people, sort of, “let’s not involve ourselves in this unpleasantness” but unless faithful men take a stand in the church against these interlopers we will suffer the same fate as once orthodox denominations before us.*


----------



## Taylor (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Several folks on the PB deny there are misrepresentations, it seems. Those interviewed assert that there are misrepresentations. Somebody, therefore, is lying. And somebody is calling other people liars, therefore.



Brother, I do hope you are not referring to me, because that itself would be a misrepresentation.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

@Pergamum, I think you have become a little unhinged on the issue sexual abuse. You sound more and more like those professional agitators who assume to themselves the sole prerogative to either condemn or absolve in matters relating to sexual assault. And individuals or organizations not conforming to your inflexible and narrow views on sexual abuse must be condemned.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Here is an article: https://wordandway.org/2019/07/24/4...concern-over-founders-ministry-films-preview/
> 
> "Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, recounted via Twitter on July 23 that he had a brief interview for a documentary, titled “By What Standard,” being produced by the Founders Ministries, an organization founded in 1983 with a Calvinistic view of Baptist life and led by Florida pastor Tom Ascol.
> 
> ...


With the feet dragging and unwillingness of church transformationists (using matters of sin to uproot core doctrines) to have open, transparent discussions regarding these agendas (the sex abuse should not be included- as this is a very legitimate and delicate matter that needs to be properly addressed and accounted for) a divide is inevitable regardless of clumsy trailers. 11th commandment is ultimately the initial blow and the nail in the coffin for the SBC.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> @Pergamum, I think you have become a little unhinged on the issue sexual abuse. You sound more and more like those professional agitators who assume to themselves the sole prerogative to either condemn or absolve in matters relating to sexual assault. And individuals or organizations not conforming to your inflexible and narrow views on sexual abuse must be condemned.



We have ample evidence of a long train of failures in the area of sexual abuse in the church. Among Reformed Baptists, too. 

To throw around terms like "unhinged" and "professional agitator" doesn't really move this discussion forward. 

I do believe, with A. Joseph above, that the subject of sexual abuse should not be lumped in with the other issues. One of the weaknesses of the trailer is that the attacks are too broad....what subject are they really attacking? It would be much improved if they narrowed their focus and left the sex abuse issue out of the discussion for now. Lots of folks are playing the victim for advantage, yes....but there are also true victims, who need to be heard.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> these agendas (the sex abuse should not be included- as this is a very legitimate and delicate matter that needs to be properly addressed and accounted for)



Unfortunately brother, the #MeToo movement cannot be excluded from these discussions. There are godless, anti-Christian forces using the issue of sexual abuse the same way they have used issues like racism. They redefine it to suit their purpose and then use it like a club to bludgeon their opponents into submission.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

I believe the #churchtoo movement is very valid. 

Churches have consistently done a bad job in this area, to the hurt of many. Abuse in churches is a huge blindspot. I believe predators groom churches just like they do individuals because they know that churches are often very trsuting and gullible and will often not go to the lawful authorities. 

Just because unbelievers will leverage any and all controversies within the church to slander the church does not mean that the church does not need to improve its handling of abuse. 

It is definitely a losing battle to lump in #churchtoo with the other SJW nonsense happening in the church. It is a sure-fire recipe to lose support even from the Founder's base (of which I still consider myself). 

It is wise for the Founders to not go there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> We have ample evidence of a long train of failures in the area of sexual abuse in the church. Among Reformed Baptists, too.


That goes without saying. But the #MeToo movement is not about addressing sexual abuse. It's about using that issue as a weapon against anyone you want to take out. And there are godless, Christ-hating people who have and will continue to use it against the church. Acknowledging that fact does not mean someone is indifferent to sexual abuse. But refusing to acknowledge it is downright foolish.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That goes without saying. But the #MeToo movement is not about addressing sexual abuse. It's about using that issue as a weapon against anyone you want to take out. And there are godless, Christ-hating people who have and will continue to use it against the church. Acknowledging that fact does not mean someone is indifferent to sexual abuse. But refusing to acknowledge it is downright foolish.



I have never said the #Metoo Movement. I mentioned the #Churchtoo movement on purpose.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I have never said the #Metoo Movement. I mentioned the #Churchtoo movement on purpose.


They are not so neatly divided. Pick whatever hashtag you like. False allegations of sexual abuse or spurious claims of mishandling such allegations have been and will continue to be a weapon employed against the church by people intent on its destruction. You may not believe it, but you can take sexual abuse very seriously _and also_ call out those hijacking the issue for ulterior purposes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Satan is the Accuser of the Brethren. No accusation is more easily made or more difficult to defend against than a false accusation of sexual impropriety or abuse. If we collectively decide that saying as much is wrong and start automatically "believing the victim" when accusations are made, it will have devastating consequences for the church and the cause of the Gospel in the world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jul 30, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> Is it only me, or are these things (CRT, egalitarianism and sexual degeneracy) accelerating at a peculiarly rapid rate?



I do not have enough history to comment on accelerating, but CRT seems to me it is becoming more prominent, at least in its impact. And it also seems like the other topics are now viewed through a lense of CRT (e.g. women being oppressed by now being able to use their gifts to preach).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Unfortunately brother, the #MeToo movement cannot be excluded from these discussions. There are godless, anti-Christian forces using the issue of sexual abuse the same way they have used issues like racism. They redefine it to suit their purpose and then use it like a club to bludgeon their opponents into submission.



Regardless, that’s the one we need to own... especially children. Rachel Denhollender must be one of us, the way Rosaria Butterfield is. We can’t throw out they who are specific in their claim, and not seeking to compromise the gospel. We shouldn’t trade her for Doug Wilson. I’m not making that trade


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

More important than a hashtag..., so is racism, etc

Let them have their hashtags and we can keep preaching the gospel

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

My homework on DenHollander, and just DenHollander, her concerns and experiences with and in the church were very credible.... how she gets hijacked into this I have no idea. I’ve not followed, was she driven into the arms of the social justice crowd? Shame on us if it’s true


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Satan is the Accuser of the Brethren. No accusation is more easily made or more difficult to defend against than a false accusation of sexual impropriety or abuse. If we collectively decide that saying as much is wrong and start automatically "believing the victim" when accusations are made, it will have devastating consequences for the church and the cause of the Gospel in the world.



No crime also gets more easily over-looked than against innocent children who cannot speak or defend themselves. Nobody is saying to bypass due process. But the Church's poor response to child abuse gives unbelievers more fodder than any other issue in hating the church. AND...the world has often handled sexual abuse BETTER than the church has done, much to our discredit. It is truly straining at gnats and swallowing camels if we lump the sexual abuse crisis in the church in with #MEtoo and SJWism. The BY What Standard film's final edit should not go there.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Nobody is saying to bypass due process.


Yes they are. And that's serious a problem.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> AND...the world has often handled sexual abuse BETTER than the church has done, much to our discredit.


That's a ridiculous assertion. Complete nonsense with no basis but in propaganda. This is precisely what I'm talking about.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 30, 2019)

And please note, when you use the word "church" or "churches" I am taking that as being applied to true churches of Christ and not to the many synagogues of Satan that employ the term (Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline, etc.). Rome became a cesspool of sodomites and pedophiles precisely because of their false teaching. Same thing for the mainline denominations. When you begin to celebrate sexual deviancy and start openly welcoming sexual deviants into your congregations, the results are predictable.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 30, 2019)

I didn’t really mean trade Doug Wilson. I think we are all able to make mistakes in doctrine and life as long as we own them. I would like to see an open debate and discussion on these matters. Seems like too many rogue, political elements in the SBC. Sad to see these debates reduced to social media. Why not a true public forum debate.


A.Joseph said:


> Regardless, that’s the one we need to own... especially children. Rachel Denhollender must be one of us, the way Rosaria Butterfield is. We can’t throw out they who are specific in their claim, and not seeking to compromise the gospel. We shouldn’t trade her for Doug Wilson. I’m not making that trade


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 30, 2019)

Moderation. 

The thread has developed enough worm-holes to deserve a rest.

Closed. Feel free to start new threads to chase all the other topics, but this one is done.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

