I think the first paragraph that contains the complaint about William Schnoebelen is talking about Christine and maybe Jackie Alnor as well. The second is talking about Jackie Alnor (see screen shots farther down in the middle of this post here). I don't know that I personally would have used the gang rape metaphor, though I do think it fits and as you can see it made me LOL.
I would DEFINITELY use this metaphor however:
India: Women beaten in marketplace for sharing faith
The women, all leaders in the Gospel for Asia (GFA)-sponsored Women's Fellowship ministry, had been sharing with store owners and shoppers when one man demanded to know what they were doing. The assault began with a powerful slap to the face of one woman and continued to the others, one of whom was isolated and surrounded by five men.And actually when this (India) story came out, quite a while before I was made aware of this particular situation, I immediately thought of this tendency of these male bloggers to gang up on a woman and beat on her in a figurative sense, sometimes using violent metaphors themselves, and commented to that effect on the Facebook page of the one who posted it. I had no idea this whole Brannon story was going on at the time. But I also know these things seem to come at semi-regular intervals.
As you may have read in my previous post (which I actually started AFTER I started this one), Brannon takes issue with a certain blogger who uses his same reasoning about pagan symbolism in national symbols to make the case that Brannon is a Jesuit and/or a Mason. Brannon seems to think this is horrible reasoning but yet justifies his friend Chris Pinto who seems to be making the case that Christine Pack is still a pagan idolater after all because she didn't agree 110 percent with the way he was making his case. He made this case in his "Uproar at Ephesus" program that she and these other Christian ladies are only angry that the "pagan gods are being exposed" just like the Diana worshippers in Ephesus.
Pinto (and Howse by continually promoting him) both seem to think if you have any occult symbols anywhere near your abode or person, you are participating in occult or pagan worship. Well, since Pagans and occultists use symbols from nature and pull from everywhere, it'd be hard to escape any of us being labeled Pagans/Occultists/Idolaters. Hence, Brannon and Chris are both idolaters. I'm sure there's some pagan symbolism on the cars they drive, or in their houses. In fact, there's likely a five point star on every hub cap of their vehicles! And every tire is a Magick Circle! What about that steering wheel?? Daimler Chrysler uses a pentagon! Made up of five Illuminati pyramids! God save us all!
But, you know, using literary devices like irony and sarcasm to make a point tends to be lost on Brannon. When he uses it however, we should all understand perfectly and bow the knee to his superior judgement. Especially if you're a woman.
Perhaps he needs to take a few logic and English composition courses. Learning how to employ sound reasoning and at least beginning to understand literary devices could really augment his career.
In light of Brannon's latest kick on keeping women in their place, I found it amusing and ironic that Vic opened the August 20 broadcast with a story about a woman who told him on the phone (on the radio) about what is going on in the public schools and said "Mr Eliason, you have a voice, and if you don't tell people what is going on GOD IS GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE!" (a story, which, I am told, he's told a zillion times).
Brannon and Vic both chuckled rather affectionately at such boldness, but I am left to wonder why that woman was allowed to tell a "man of God" what to do? I guess ...because they agreed with her that time? That must be it. If you have the blessed y chromosome, you become the arbiter of what is right and can pronounce the statements of women true or false. I bet if you have two of them, it's even better!
I also got a note from a friend this morning mentioning what was on the show when she listened not too long ago:
A very pleasant sounding (as I remember) woman called in and raised up the case of Margaret MacDonald. She was the 14 yr old Scottish girl from the early nineteenth century who claimed to have prophetic visions of Jesus returning and removing part of the church and leaving others behind. Her 'utterances' were written down and thought to be a topic of conversation at the prophecy conferences that were held in Britain at that time - the same period that John Darby was formulating his system of dispensationalism.I would love to hear that one. So here we have one woman telling a man what he should do, and being praised, and other times, women are not allowed to do that. Brannon's Biblical standard is definitely a fast-moving target! Is it any wonder we women are confused?
The woman caller wasn't at all contentious and her question was actually a good one in keeping with the topic. Brannon blasted her for the question - ranted that Jimmie DeYoung has already debunked the theory in a past program. He went to a commercial break and must have realized how harsh he sounded. When he came back from the break, he tried to soften his tone and sort of apologized. I watched his fb page that evening because I was very interested to see what kind of comments would appear. Brannon never posted a link to that program on his fb.
Vic went on to complain about everyone's favorite whipping boy... or girl, as the case usually is, Unaccountable Bloggers, and Bloggers Who Gossip. But what about Unaccountable Radio Show hosts?
And then they went on to admonish us about 1 Cor 13 and how if you don't have love you are nothing but a clanging cymbal, etc... (Now, I'm sure Christine Pack and Chris White are feeling so much love these days from Brannon and Chris Pinto, aren't you?) They also reminded us all how the electronic Christian media is NOT the church, so you must belong to a real local church with real people to whom you are accountable. Cough cough...yeah. I do have to wonder what kind of relationship these guys have with their local pastors.
Speaking of unaccountable gossips: Vic also appears at about 40-45 minutes in, to have revealed the contents of a private conversation in the 1990s with David and Karen Mains when they were forced out of VCY, because of some things Karen taught in her book "Lonely No More." (Things like altered states of consciousness, some kinds of psychotherapy and stuff). While on the air, Brannon immediately surfed out on the web and found their resource site selling the book now and read Karen's endorsement of her own book (you can read it at link above) despite the controversy that it engendered. Vic then related that Karen told him "Vic, if it makes you feel any better, I've taken the book out of circulation" which Brannon thought was extremely funny, for some reason.
Now, I'm not sure if this was meant to convey that she was being disingenuous at the time, or what. But that's what Vic said. To me it would seem that if she did take it out of circulation, she changed her mind after getting out from under Vic's sphere of authority, and she wouldn't have had any reason to inform him of her decisions after that.
If she didn't actually take it out of circulation at that time, I'd have to question the reason to reveal that Karen said that other than to make her look duplicitous. (I would grant that she probably shouldn't have said that if she didn't believe it should be taken out of circulation. Too much conciliation with bullies only gives them more ammo.) But of course, without that leading statement, you could not get to the next statement that Vic revealed:
David Mains then exclaimed "KAREN!! That is a STUPID book and it should never have been written!"
Here is the clip for proof:
(fair use, 188 seconds out of 3692 seconds long podcast = 5.09 percent. I edited out a bit about Richard Foster that he brought up in the middle as an example of other people promoting such teachings.)
I do find it interesting how charitable he is about her writing a tell-all book that paints herself as struggling and unhappy because her husband was a workaholic. Wonder how charitable Vic would be about his daughters publishing a tell all book?
Now, is this husband/wife disagreement, assuming it is accurate, public knowledge? It is now, thanks to Vic. So, what gives Vic the right to reveal this gossip? What is the motive for revealing this except to make the Mains' look worse in everyone's eyes and make himself look better? Publicly exposing a disagreement between a married couple in order to boost his own self righteous purity of doctrine? There was no need. Vic is, at least in spirit, in violation of "those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder."
(Now, I would agree that the Mains' teaching isn't good and would not want them to be on my radio station either, but there was NO reason to reveal that little juicy tidbit to drive a public wedge between husband and wife. Just say we had a disagreement over the book and they parted ways. The rest is just tasteless, conscienceless, and petty.)