Membership Bible Training: Session 2 — Part 1

Written By Celeste Irwin

Introduction

This is part of a series discussing Membership Bible Training. Previous sessions:

This post covers Part 1 of Session 2 of Membership Bible Training (MBT), as taught by former staff pastor Landon Nagata at Vista Church (San Luis Obispo, California). It was taught on February 3rd, 2020. This article has four sections.

“What is Creation” is the main topic of Part 1 of this teaching.

  • Intro: Description of the audio

    • Length, topics, date, and speaker

    • Disclaimers are largely recycled from my article on MBT Session 1, but please read them if you haven’t before. There’s an additional note there this time on why I’m only sharing part 1 today.

    • The audio and transcript

    • A Table of Contents

  • Rhetorical Highlight: A highlight of a key trend: “We see…”

  • Special Topic: A deep-dive on the subject of young staff pastors

  • Content Analysis: A chronological, but not fully exhaustive, analysis of the points taught

    • This post only covers the first topic, “What is Creation”, which gets into deep into science and complementarianism.

I have already fully drafted Part 2 (“What are Angels and Demons”) and Part 3 (“Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage”). I will be publishing those this week unless something goes wrong.

About the recording

The audio is an hour and thirty-five minutes of teaching, over 15,000 words. It’s the second of seven sessions. This session covers the following major topics:

  • What is Creation?

  • What are Angels and Demons?

  • Cultural Issue: Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage

Date

Nagata had previously taught this same session in 2019, though I do not have the audio for that. Vista Church taught MBT first in 2019, and then again in 2020. It was not held in 2021 and I do not know if it’s been taught in 2022, and Nagata would not have taught it in 2022 even if there was.

The audio is easily dated to 2020 instead of 2019 by two marks:

  • Nagata references a “fridge in the back”, which indicates he was in the Vista Office, not the Vets Hall where 2019’s training was held.

  • Nagata references the worship leader (Ken) coming to lead worship after he finishes small group. In 2019, all small groups were canceled so that people could attend MBT.

About the Speaker: Landon Nagata

Landon Nagata was a member of the church plant team. He was brought on staff as a pastor, if memory serves correctly, sometime in 2017. He was, as with most pastors, young and lacking in many traits a church might normally hire for. Lead Pastor Luke Williams made Nagata a small group leader no more than a few months before making him a pastor. His character was uneven and his biblical knowledge was weak. The weakness of the Biblical knowledge persists at time of this teaching, more than two years after becoming a pastor.

Nagata was removed as a staff pastor, moved into an “administrative role”, in a move that was announced in late 2020 at a Team Vista (and no other announcement). He left the administrative role within a few months after that and started working outside the church. This was never announced to the church. The church did not share a reason for Landon’s removal as a staff pastor, but he told me it was for two incidents of alcohol consumption to the point of “buzzed”, and failure to tell Williams about it. You can read more about that in my previous article, which has been live for nearly four months and I have not heard any refutation or correction of it.

Nagata is still a Small Group Leader at Vista Church.

Nagata is teaching this under the leadership of Lead Pastor Luke Williams. Williams is one of the six members of the Network Leadership Team, according to Leaving the Network. He is believed to oversee the churches on the west coast including Blue Sky Church (Bellevue, WA), Hills Church (Pullman, WA), Summit Creek Church (Eugene, OR), and Valley Springs Church (Corvalis, OR).

Disclaimers

Broadly the same as MBT Session 1, if you already read those, but please read if you haven’t previously.

  • Transcription errors (or other feedback!) can be reported to not.overcome@outlook.com.

    I’ve used a transcription service to create the original transcription, and then I’ve hand-edited it to improve accuracy Transcribed teachings always lose something from the delivered version — speaking is a different art than writing — and this is no exception. The transcription is provided as an aid, not as the authoritative record, and undoubtedly contains errors. That said, I hope it’s helpful. A couple things you will see as you go:

    - A lot of doubled words or phrases – this is actually a pretty normal thing for people to do, and I don’t judge Williams for it. I suspect a public speaking coach would want to work on it, but it’s pretty natural. Most verbal pauses are automatically removed by the transcription service, so you won’t see too many of those in the writing (um, uh).

    - A few times you will see me use square brackets [like this]. You can effectively read right over those – they are places where either I couldn’t understand, Williams misspeaks a whole phrase and starts over, or something similar.

    - I do not guarantee the accuracy of this transcription, and encourage people to listen to the audio of any section they find interesting, particularly if you intend on taking any kinds of actions based on what you find here.

    - Timestamps are provided throughout the transcription, in general at least once every two minutes, and I’ve tried to use them to delineate new sections as well.

    - Punctuation is difficult in transcription precisely because it’s not actually spoken. I’ve done my best, and added quote marks, but somewhat inconsistently. You can probably infer most of it, and I’ll get better at it as I do more transcriptions

  • In this article, I’ve extracted a number of specific clips so that you can play them inline as you read my comments. In most cases, they are uncut clips. If I splice more than one clip together, I insert a sound effect (whoosh) to mark switching from one clip to the next, and noted it in the transcription of that clip.

  • In the full audio and clips, the only editing I have done is to clean up the sound quality:

    - equalizer for voice clarity (this is a matter of preference, but I’ve attempted to use settings that made it easiest to understand, while still sounding very much like Nagata’s natural speaking voice).

    - background noise reduction

    - volume leveling applied consistently start-to-finish – I have not attempted to normalize Nagata’s volume segment-to-segment or do anything that would otherwise affect his content or tone.

  • Why Full Audio: In my reporting on The Network, it is my view that recordings like these are in the public interest, for those who are in or out of The Network, and am sharing them for that reason. I would only share the clips, like a book review, except I believe it’s important for people to be able to hear the entire thing, to know that I’ve shared all relevant context. Not to mention, others will undoubtedly notice important things that I have missed.

    In this post I am only sharing the audio for the portion I am providing notes about in this post. I’m doing this in part to help the reader, in part to ensure that each part can be discussed on the reddit, and in part because there is context from Vista Church that helps interpret the views shared. This is in contrast to the Small Group Topics or “Series” notes that I shared which appear to be universally used across the Network.

  • I’m not a Biblical scholar or Theologian. Any and all Biblical insight below comes with a caveat that I recommend doing your own research. My main point is to show that there are other viewpoints, where Nagata might claim to be stating the only valid one. Some critiques below are style, others are substance, and some are both. Please pay attention to which is which.

    I’m not a perfect writer - corrections and feedback are welcome on either the reddit or by emailing me at not.overcome@outlook.com.

Listen and Read

Here is the first 24:11 of the teaching, in audio form and transcript.

Rhetorical Highlights

Network pastors use a lot of rhetorical devices. These are speaking tools that can make an argument sound more persuasive without actually being more persuasive. I’m highlighting the ones I see over a series of blog posts.

Previous Highlights

See Rhetorical Highlight #1, “The Bible is very clear” in MBT 1.

Just for the record, Landon uses “clear” or “clearly” 19 times, “actually” five times, and “true”, “not true”, and “truth” at least 43 more times. That’s over once every 90 seconds as Nagata is teaching. In a later part of this session, you’ll see one example where he uses “certainty-driving” words or phrases eight times in eighty seconds before finally stating his point.

New Highlight

Rhetorical Highlight #2: “We See”

I’m going to add a new one to this: “we see”, which Nagata uses a 48 times, or roughly every other minute. Typically, it’s used as “we see here that…” or “We see this in passage …” or even “we see our culture…”

The rhetorical device introduces a “royal we” here to change the speaker’s own observation into an assertion that everyone sees what he sees. Why does this matter? Because studies have shown that people are highly unwilling to object if they think the group around them will not go along with it.

Imagine for a moment that Nagata replaced every occurrence of “we see” with “It looks to me…” or “I see…” I think that would sound quite a bit less powerful, but also more humble. If he further limited the scope of his assertion to be something like, “I see it like this, but I understand that others might not,” that would be an assertion of the agency and intellect of the listener. Also, he could just say “Paul says in Romans…” rather than “We see here in Romans…” That actually goes to one of the other things in how they talk about the Bible - it’s usually “It says” or “the Bible says” instead of actually naming the real author (where possible - some portions of the Bible have unknown authors, like the book of Hebrews).

The Asch Conformity Experiment is an investigation into this, and I’d encourage you to watch that video (four minutes), and potentially this explainer of it as well (also short). In it, participants were asked to determine which of three lines was the closest in length to a fourth line. Key highlights:

  • When on their own, participants could get the right answer 99% of the time.

  • But when put in a room with multiple “actors” who answered incorrectly first, participants got, on average, only 8 out of 12 correct.

  • 75% of participants openly admitted answering “wrong” at least once just to go along with the group.

If people will go along with the group on something as simple as “which line is the same length”, imagine how much more powerful this effect is when the question is so much more difficult to answer like “what are the right roles for men and women in the church” or “how should Christians think about the poor.” Those aren’t “length of line” questions, they are deep and complex. The conformity experiment found that people answered wrong for two reasons, both of which I can state that I consciously did while at Vista:

  • Don’t rock the boat: Some participants knew they were giving the wrong answer, but didn’t want to upset the group. I did this when I defended the church’s views on a mandatory 10% tithe and prohibitions on yoga and tattoos. I always knew that biblically there was no real rationale for that. But I also did not want to cause any issues. Interestingly, because I planned to tithe and abstain from yoga and tattoos regardless, I lost nothing of my own interest when I defended these. In a healthy church, people know how to have respectful disagreements, and know that they are united in Christ, not every little piece of belief.

  • I must be wrong: This one, which falls under the topic of what Wade Mullen calls “dismantling”, causes you to think “I must be wrong about this if they all agree.” I’m guessing this is more common when the true answer is less objectively clear (e.g., interpretation of a Bible verse, instead of “which line is the same length”). I did this when I defended poor teaching, the lack of women’s ministries (“um, we don’t do programs”), the lack of alternate times for small group for people who can’t make the normal times (“um, are they really dedicated to Jesus?”) or the lack of help for the poor (“um, I guess Brian Schneider wrote a paper?”). In each case, I really had to make myself agree with The Network, because I was affected by the answer (or my family and friends were). So if I hadn’t agreed, I’d have had to try to address that. Whenever I disagreed with Luke Williams, I usually spent weeks trying to figure out how I was wrong, and did so successfully multiple times. I’d talk with my wife, with another small group leader, and do “research” (read Grudem, scour the internet) to try to find support for what Williams’ had said. Some of this is healthy, but there’s a point where you’re effectively denying everything you know to be true. Not only that, but again - questions and disagreement should be allowed. I should not have had to live in fear of disagreeing with Williams about a matter like the meaning of “demonic possession”, believing (rightly) that such a disagreement could cost me many of my most significant friendships.

Shortly before we left Vista Church, a close friend told my wife and I that they had concerns about Vista. This was prior to the movie Encanto coming out and turning “We don’t talk about Bruno” into a Billboard #1 hit. (And yes, Encanto is about a group of close-knit people who casts out and lies about the one person who is trying to tell them the truth that something is very wrong and their world is in trouble but that the leader won’t acknowledge it. Sound familiar?) That person, I kid you not, actually said that it was hard for them to think through their concerns because, at Vista, “You don’t talk about Vista.” (lest the grammar be confusing, “you” here is the universal “you,” like “one”, not a direct statement at me and my wife). This person was a member of the plant team, and I protected their identity as I left. They haven’t spoken with us beyond a few texts since the day after we left Vista, despite having told us then that they would not ghost us because they needed us in their life.

Deep Dive: About Young Pastors

Before I get into the actual content, I want to preface it by talking about this fact: Landon Nagata should never have been asked to teach this.

The fault for the poor teaching you’re about to see is that of Luke Williams and Steve Morgan.

Nagata has little skill as a public speaker, which you will hear. Could some public speaking classes have helped? Absolutely. And I know that Vista had its worship leader taking voice lessons, so it’s not out of the question. But poor speaking skill does not disqualify someone from being a Bible teacher. In fact, we see Moses describe himself as “slow of speech.” (Exodus 4:10)

Much more importantly, Nagata has no formal training in the Bible. He makes basic errors (you’ll see) in even what the Bible is, let alone what it says. To me, each argument he presents comes across as though someone gave him a page of notes and told him to teach it, rather than someone who is expert in the subject and could talk for hours on any given piece of this. Nagata even seems to acknowledge as much right from the start.

Nagata never should have been asked to teach something like this (or at all), but Williams had him do it anyways (and again - this is the second year that Nagata taught this session).

The qualifications for elder (overseer) are rigorously followed when it comes to The Network’s views (disputed by many, which I’ll come back to in a future post) that an elder must be a man. But the qualifications also include (1 Tim 3:1-7, ESV):

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Quick Aside: this is one of the passages that is most controversial in the ESV translation of the Bible. All of the male pronouns in this passage are not in the Greek. The translators have inserted all of them, as I talked about in my analysis of Session 1. However, that’s immaterial to our use of this passage for the moment, and I’m using the ESV because that’s what The Network uses and I want to evaluate them on their own terms.

So this passage, in the view of The Network, is sufficient to rule out women entirely. “Not a drunkard,” seems to be enough to remove Nagata as a pastor (read his story), even though he didn’t actually get drunk. So why are we ignoring those three little words, “able to teach.” This qualification is practical: one of the primary purposes of an overseer was to equip the church through teaching.

The Network's Bar

So is my bar too strict? Does Williams think Nagata is a good teacher? I believe the following audio clip from Steve Morgan’s teaching in 2019 sheds light on what Morgan thinks of these guys’ teaching ability as he describes his hopes for the leaders he is speaking to, and their long perseverance through difficult things.

  • For some of you, that you'll get to the place where you say, "No, I'll send my friends. I'll send them on a — people need Jesus, I'll send my friends. I'll send my kids. I'll send my parents. I'll, I'll send my whole small group. I'll send another pastor. I don't care. I'm gonna have 50 or 60, Discipleship Community pastors, by the time this is all done. I'll support a new new young guy that can't teach his way out of a wet paper bag. I don't care. I don't care. Raise up another one, Lord. Train another one, Lord. I don't care. I won't criticize him. I won't evaluate him. I won't critique him. Lord, Lord, raise up another one.

Morgan describes a “new young guy that can’t teach his way out of a wet paper bag.” (The definition for that idiom says: “A phrase used to emphasize that one is particularly dim-witted, unintelligent, incompetent, or unable to do something basic, simple, or straightforward.”)

He’s fully aware that the men they are appointing as pastors cannot teach - a violation of Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy. I’ve not often seen a pastor state so brazenly that he has no intention of following the Bible. That’s what Steve is doing here. He’s just openly stating that this qualification does not matter, and that it’s wrong for those in the room to care about it.

No Critique

And then he goes on to say that not only can they not teach, but that the right response to that failure is three fold:

  1. Don’t care about it.

  2. Don’t criticize (or critique) him

  3. Don’t evaluate him

So don’t even think about whether or not they’re good. Don’t worry about it. Just be excited about God raising up “another one.” Morgan’s instructions to avoid any criticism or even evaluation insulates Nagata (and other pastors) from any kind of feedback of any kind. But Proverbs 12:1 says:

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Those are God’s words, not mine.

The Small Group Leader Training (Part 4) actually says that a leader “Must refuse to engage in criticism or gossip.” (emphasis mine). Not “unconstructive critcism”. Just criticism of any kind. Have you ever wondered why your Network church has no formal feedback mechanisms? This is why. Sándor Paull likewise teaches that your voice and opinion “doesn’t matter” in his 2018 teaching on unity and obeying your leaders in all things. Remember, he’s training leaders in this. He’s teaching everyone that the person above them should not care what they think.

  • And the truth, is on many things, your voice and your opinion doesn’t matter, if Jesus hasn’t put you in that role of responsibility.

Jesus says that leaders must be servants (Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45). What kind of servant tells the person they are serving “you better not give me any feedback on my serving.” The Network loves to point out Hebrews 13:17 to justify thinking like this.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

But why should it impact a leader’s joy to hear someone say, “Hey, in that teaching, you said something that wasn’t quite right - here’s some resources that might help.” Priscilla and Aquila do exactly this with Apollos in Acts 18:24-26:

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Luke (author of Acts) is writing here that Apollos knew his stuff, but he still needed to learn more. Priscilla and Aquila explain and Apollos learns.

Even the teaching of Paul and Silas is tested against the scriptures by the Jewish Bereans in Acts 17:10-11, and are called noble for it:

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

You’ll see neither of these passages taught in the “right response to leaders” small group topic that most Network churches went through over in the last few months. The study guide for that topic is here.

Youth and Preparation

Let me talk for a moment on the age and preparation of pastors. The Network would undoubtedly point to 1 Timothy 4:12, where Paul tells Timothy, “let no one despise you for your youth.” First, on a verse like this, it’s always worth asking, “Why would Paul need to say this?” Paul doesn’t say “Let no one despise you for having five fingers on each hand.” It seems to me that Timothy’s youth was an anomaly, which makes sense given that the word Paul has just been using in the previous section is “elder” (in another teaching, Williams explicitly states that Vista prefers the word “overseer” because “elder” can make people think that the leader should be older, which is of course exactly what that word means).

First, estimates for Timothy’s age at this range widely, with one resource I found saying that the Greek word translated as “youth” applied to any man under forty. The NIV Study Bible note on 1 Tim 4:12 says “Timothy was probably in his mid-30s or younger.”

But more importantly is that Paul is not saying “You are qualified because of your youth.” In fact, he’s saying “despite your youth, you are qualified.” Here’s the full text of 1 Timothy 4:12:

Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

Paul is fully confident that Timothy will be able to “set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” That’s a lofty expectation. Why does Paul think Timothy is up for this? In 2nd Timothy, Paul writes two more facts about Timothy:

1:5: I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.

3:14-15: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (this is followed by the famous “all scripture is breathed out by God”)

Paul is saying that Timothy has been learning the scriptures since childhood, having had excellent teachers in the form of his grandmother, Lois, and his mother, Eunice. He’s saying that Timothy’s youth should not be held against him precisely because he’s unquestioningly qualified. Paul doesn’t say, “don’t let anyone despise you because of your youth - remind them that you’re young and growing and to be patient with your inability to teach.” The Network instead says that they want young guys who “can’t teach their way out of a wet paper bag,” who have either little background in the faith or a bad experience with it. Many of the pastors openly talk about how their fathers failed them as spiritual leaders. There is nothing about this background that matches the situation with Timothy, which was, again - an anomaly.

Here’s my rough (and definitely extra-biblical, especially given that I’m combining two letters) paraphrase of what Paul may be telling Timothy:

“Timothy, I know that I just used the word ‘elder’ to describe the leaders you’re going to appoint and work with in Ephesus. And I know that word doesn’t apply to you yet. But don’t let that bother you. Don’t let others hold it against you. (left unspoken in 1 Tim, but added in 2 Tim: Because of your great upbringing, the instruction and faith of your mother and grandmother, not to mention your time with me), you have everything you need to lead well, unlike most men your age. You can do this.”

Contrast that with The Network in which it’s seen as better for pastors if they did not have a solid prior experience in Christianity.

Sam Menzies

Consider the story of Sam Menzies, which comes from Network Leadership Conference 2019, Session 6, taught by Network President Steve Morgan, who is also the Lead Pastor at Joshua Church in Austin, Texas.

  • (@ 1:14:10) About 15 months ago, a young man named Sam Menzies walked into Joshua church one Sunday. He had moved to Austin, from Wisconsin for his work, he worked for 3M. And so he's in a new city. He grew up not really churched, kind of kind of in church. And he was lonely and adjusting to this new place, and he decided he needed to find out if God was real. He went to three churches and left all three of them saying, "God is not real." And I think, "Oh, isn't that isn't that sad." He comes into Joshua church and worship started, and Sam began weeping from the beginning. The Holy Spirit was on him. He was undone that first week. Our people were so gently and respectfully building friendship with him from the very start getting to know him. And, and it wasn't very long. He was doing his sales stuff with 3M in the car, and all he could do was listen to worship music. And it wasn't very long a matter of weeks. And Jesus made him new. He saved him. Amazing to watch and to listen to Sam, and what had happened in him. We couldn't keep him away from anything, worshipping non-stop, he's in everything. I'd go to - He was in a Men's Clinic I did that spring, and I'd go to teach them something new and Jesus would tell him about it before I could even teach him. He'd already dealt with it. Because Jesus was was leading him. So beautiful, so amazing. You know, his dear parents who I love very much, uncertain of what's happening to him. "He's so different. I don't know if I like this. What's happening? I don't know if I like it." And he just, with a kind of respect and kindness to them, explaining and talking and yet holding his ground. He belongs to Jesus now. "Oh, Mom and Dad, I don't do that anymore. I don't do it anymore." And about six months ago, he became one of our pastors at Joshua church. And you think, "isn't that too fast?" Well, yes, it is. [room laughs] And I love it when Jesus goes fast, because a lot of times he goes slow. And it's just fun and exciting to have him go fast now and then. You think, "Okay, Lord, let's do it. Let's go."

    You, man, guys, when you get to be a part of stuff like that, when you get to be Brian Schneider, who was at the Super Bowl party, where Sam after being disappointed at three services, first heard about Joshua Church, and one of our pastors, Jeff Brian's (?), sitting on the couch next to him when Sam says, "Why are all these people from Seattle?" [room laughs] He didn't, he was just going to a Super Bowl party. [room laughs] And Brian got to open his mouth and tell him. And then he came.

People should really think about this every time their only argument for something is “Jesus is leading.”

The math is a little tricky, since the Super Bowl in 2018 was actually in early February, so Morgan is teaching this almost 17 months after that. But this means that Menzies was made a staff pastor (Facebook says January 1st, 2019) absolutely no more than 10 months after becoming a Christian, and if Morgan’s recollection and math are correct it’d be only eight months. My understanding is that Menzies started dating Morgan’s daughter later in 2019, and they are now married. 1 Timothy 3 tells us that an elder, “must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” I can’t make Morgan’s decision here make sense by what I see in the Bible. Morgan openly admits it’s “too fast”, but then says it’s what Jesus was doing. Blaming Jesus for it has the effect of completely avoiding any scrutiny of this decision, even though the actual Word of God (The Bible), which became flesh in the form of Jesus (John 1:14), says that Menzies should not have been made a pastor.

In another comic drawn by David Hayward, we see a use of “Google Translate” that translates the “Christianese” phrase “I feel the Spirit leading me to do this.” It translates to “I want to do something inappropriate and maybe even unethical so I need to convince you that God is making me do it.” I can’t tell you the number of times in The Network that myself or someone else did something that scripture called unwise, but we went forward because, “Jesus is leading.”

My wife says, “If the words that God wrote say ‘don’t do that,’ why would Jesus be doing that?”

Ern Menocal

We also see Ern Menocal’s bio at Hills Church:

Ern started Hills Church in the summer of 2012 with a team of 21 adults and 6 kids from Blue Sky Church, in Bellevue, WA. Formerly, Ern helped plant Blue Sky in 2004 right after graduating from Southern Illinois University with a BFA in Industrial Design. Ergonomic and anthropometry skills don't easily translate to church planting! Regardless, Ern's responsibilities at Hills include casting the overall vision of Hills Church, teaching and preaching, overseeing staff, and leader development as the church grows.

My rough translation: “Ern Menocal has no qualifications that would make him a natural fit for church planting, but we gave him all the power here anyways.”

Young Pastors: Summary

There’s nothing about the promotion of “young guys who can’t teach their way out of a wet paper bag” that’s Biblical, and in fact everything about it is unbiblical. Landon Nagata should never have been asked to teach this, or be a pastor. He was likely 5-10 years younger than Timothy in the Bible, and with none of the upbringing or discipleship by someone as undeniably qualified as the Apostle Paul. The quality of the teaching on display here is the inevitable result of having put someone so unqualified in that position, and then telling everyone that they can’t even give him feedback (remember, he’d taught the same session a year earlier, presumably with similar issues or even more).

And before someone points it out - yes, this whole section could be thought of as the same type of rhetorical priming that I’ve said the Network does. I’ve just told you to expect a teaching of poor quality. That’s why I wanted to say this: please evaluate Nagata’s words yourself. Judge for yourself if you think I’m too harsh. But know that it’s Network policy, from Steve Morgan himself, that “able to teach” is not a qualification they require of a new pastor. This is unbiblical.

Content: Introduction

Ok, finally, we get to the actual content. Landon Nagata starts with a few introductory statements.

The Goal of MBT

  • (@ 0:25) So these seven sessions are important for us, because for us, as Vista Church, we want to equip you guys, as people that are attending Vista Church to know Bible truth and Bible doctrine and theology. We want to make sure you guys are effective members, ideally, as you guys attend the Membership Bible Training.

Nagata gives the goal of MBT and it’s a good one! I remember when Steve Morgan introduced the concept of MBT at Blue Sky Church in 2014, and I was so excited because it meant that we’d be getting something beyond the basics taught in the Series, which I’d been feeling like was missing. Teaching the Bible is a good goal.

"Inherent" Word of God

  • (@ 0:52) Obviously, we have to start with those points. That's the foundation before we can dive into any other topic of "What is the Bible?" Do we hold it as, like, profitable for teaching, inherent Word of God?

I hate that this is the very first thing, because it’s an embarrassing error by Nagata, but I’m trying to hold to chronological order. Landon Nagata refers to the “inherent” Word of God. He means “inerrant” word of God. I’d forgive it as just misspoken, but he does it again near the end:

  • (@ 1:33:04) Now if this person you're talking with is a professed Christian, or has maybe had some church background, where they understand the basics of the gospel, and just need some reaffirming words about Bible inherency and truth, that's would be a great route to go in and talking about, "hey, well, do you hold to the Bible? What do you think about the Bible?”

Before you ask: No, he does not use the correct word “inerrancy” at any point in this teaching. So, he’s saying this is “the foundation”, but literally gets the word wrong. And he’s been a pastor for over two years at this point. The phrase “Bible inherency” is wrong enough that Google returns just 39 results (vs. 15,000+ for “Bible inerrancy”) and Bing (yes, I worked at Microsoft) actually just goes ahead and includes results for “Bible inerrancy”, correcting your search for you. (these results true when searching in late May, 2022, as I was authoring this).

This is just basic stuff - there is no reason Nagata should not know this, except that The Network does not value their pastors knowing this stuff, and insulates them from all critique.

"You guys actually all hold to the same thing."

  • (@ 1:45) I remember someone talking with me, who visited Vista Church think shocked, he's like, "You guys actually all hold to the same thing," as if that's unheard of in other churches. And that's what we want to hold to as Vista Church is to be a united church that believes the Bible. And hopefully can communicate that, well. I don't want us to be a church that just picks and chooses what we think is true and what we don't think is true, and be disunified in that. So Bible unity is important.

A few things to note here. First, another relevant comic by popular cartoonist, artist, and former pastor David Hayward. In it, one man hands another a box, and say:

Welcome to the faith! Now, here’s our complementary box, outside of which you should never think again.”

Nagata is making a strong statement here about unity of beliefs, and again conflates Vista’s beliefs as being the same thing as “believes the Bible.” It’s not. No church can make that claim. There are hundreds or thousands of churches that each has slightly different beliefs, and there’s simply no reason any one of them should believe they have the “best” theology. That’s arrogance.

Second - that’s actually a strange anecdote. How would someone who “visited Vista” actually be able to tell if “you guys actually all hold to the same thing”. Maybe “visited” was understated. But by this time, Vista was still well over 200 people on an average Sunday, and had been even bigger. “Same thing” is unclear - what does that mean? The verbiage is also highly reminiscent of Williams or Nagata, including “hold to”, which is borderline Christianese (phrases common among evangelical Christians but not the broader culture, like “doing life together”), and Nagata actually uses it himself later in this story. I suspect this is a paraphrase of what the man actually said, not an exact quote, and I do wonder what they originally said.

Third, “as though that’s unheard of in other churches” - this is a way of implying, “we’re better than all those other churches,” by appealing to an unnamed man who might not even have meant this as a positive. Terry Virgo, the founder of the New Frontiers network of churches, spoke at the 2012 and 2019 conferences. He apparently found the uniformity in The Network concerning (see comment by u/EricHarhausen and replies). This comic, which appears to be drawn by Saji George, hits on the “we’re better” angle of this. (Which I also touched on in Session 1 with Sándor Paull’s clip of him saying, roughly, that the Network is the best group of churches on the planet).

On the danger of such “unity”, pastor Ryan Ramsey writes:

A shrewed & self-assured faith leader surrounded by a group of deferential workers signals neither unity nor divine blessing.

It reflects a system highly vulnerable to exhaustion, manipulation, & relational wreckage in the name of ministy.

Finally, “So Bible unity is important,” is again conflating Vista’s beliefs with being the actual Bible. But it’s also stated as some conclusion to the previous sentences, in which Nagata has not really explained why it’s important.

Side note: Nagata also pronounces important as “ImporTant”, using The Network’s affinity for over-emphasis on the “T” sound. He grew up in Hawaii. The point here is that Nagata is assimilating to a speech pattern that is not authentically his.

Topic 1: What is Creation?

The first major topic is “What is Creation"?”

The Power of Words

  • (@ 5:13) So once we see here, and these verses, God created everything that exists out of nothing right. And God spoke creation into existence, "let there be light," and there was light, he spoke creation into being. And, you know, it's hard for us to understand scientifically because once again, we are not God. We don't say, "let it be," and then it appears. But for God that does happen. And I would say, speaking thing into creation is, is very subtle reminder for us and how we speak things into creation, how we speak, like, in how we use our words, I would say. What comes out of our mouth is a very important. It has the power to either destroy, and hurt, or build up and encourage. And frank, I'm just starting to say your words are powerful here. And if sometimes we can forget that how you speak to your spouse, how you can speak to your roommates, how you speak to your parents, has a right gravity and weight to it. And for us, as Christians, I want us to understand that we should teach ourselves not to curse, not to have crude joking not to have foul language, not just the sake for for right and wrong, but because it has a profound effect on people. Even if you're alone, you think, Oh, well, if no one hears it, then it doesn't have any effect, it does have an effect, specifically on you. So our words are vastly important and how we use them matters.

Nagata leads by saying that God has a power here that we don’t. But then he uses that to say that we should be mindful of that power. I agree that our words are powerful, but the fact that God can speak things into existence is not evidence for it. As Nagata says, “we are not God.” It’d be much better to use something like James 3, which is actually on the power of speech.

The rest is just kind of a strange aside, including a number of phrases that are meant to sound eloquent but don’t really fit, or Nagata uses them wrong. “Has a right gravity and weight to it” would be much better without the word “right” - but “there’s a right gravity” is a phrase Williams uses somewhat frequently in other contexts. “Not to have crude joking” is true, but Williams would regularly share a somewhat crude joke from the pulpit, before saying, “Ok, I’ve gotta get my filter back on.”

While he mixes up his words on “just for the sake of” (he says “not just the sake for”), I like that he says “not just the sake for for right and wrong, but because it has a profound effect on people.” He then focuses on the effect to the speaker, but the view that our sin affects others is underemphasized in The Network, and I appreciate that he at least nods at it here.

Here I’m going to introduce two words you might not be familiar with:

  • Exegesis: Exegesis is where someone draws a point from the Bible that is backed by it well. It’s what good Bible teachers do.

  • Eisegesis: Eisegesis is where someone “reads into” the Bible, effectively adding meaning to it or pretending like meaning is there that is not there. This is theologically considered bad practice, because it means we’re forcing the Bible to say what we wish it said.

In this case, Nagata has done eisegesis by extrapolating the power of God’s speech to be a “very subtle reminder” of the power of our own. In this case, the power of our speech is well supported elsewhere in the Bible, but not supported at all by the power of God’s own speech. Be looking out for eisegesis as you work through this or any other Network teaching, I believe you’ll see it somewhat frequently.

God's Authority over our Lives

  • (@ 6:27) Humans are the only creations or creatures excuse me, made in the image of God. This is made an image of God it's meant to be like God, and meant to represent God. Genesis 1:31, we can see, "and God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." So gives right specifically God the right to require whatever he wants from us, right? Whatever he chooses, he's the creator, we're the creation. And he created us and everything that exists. Thus, God has the ultimate authority and say, of how we live our lives.

Nagata is jumping around here, logically, and there’s nothing before or after this that’s related. It’s unclear how Genesis 1:31 is related to either the point before or after.

Second - he seems to flow straight from being image-bearers to God having rights over us. That’s a strange bridge, and he’d be better off by not tying these things together. Certainly God has authority over things are not image-bearers as well.

There’s a lot loaded into Nagata’s point about God having ultimate authority, but I generally agree with it. Romans 9:19ff would be a strong addition here. A counter point is that parents do not retain authority over their children during their whole lives. Much has been written on this subject, and I won’t try to settle it here.

The Bible and Science

  • (@ 7:25) In your book, Christian beliefs, page 44. It says here, "when our observations of the natural world seem to conflict with our understanding of Scripture, we should look again to both seeking to find where our limited understanding and imperfect knowing of either could be wrong." So in your book, Grudem uses this example of Christians at one time believed the Earth was flat. And after some time of people actually looking at the Bible, the Bible never says that the Earth is actually flat. So it's an assurance to know that okay, science believed one thing. The Bible never explicitly said that. So therefore, the Bible is still correct. Science is changing and adapting in that way. Another example, many Christians at one time believe that the geocentric model, which stated that the earth was the center of the universe, but later discovered, right that the Earth rotated around the Sun heliocentric. And there is no ultimate conflict still, between the Bible and science, once again, science ultimately will prove the Bible, and the Bible, and them are going to be congruent with each other.

Grudem’s point in this is that sometimes Christians have held beliefs firmly, only to find that the Bible doesn’t actually say that, so accepting the science is ok. Nagata seems to be confused when he says, “Science is changing and adapting in that way.” Instead, Nagata’s examples should encourage humility on the part of today’s readers of the Bible, to understand and be aware of their own biases. Christians have committed great harm over the years defending views that the Bible never demanded of them to begin with. What’s strange is that Nagata then does exactly the thing that those earlier Christians did.

Evolution and Determinism

  • (@ 9:08) So talking next, I'm going to talk about microevolution and macro-evolution. It addresses it in your book microevolution appears true, biblically and scientifically, right? There's small changes within one species. That's micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, would state that everything was made from chemicals, which formed single cell life that mutated into complex creatures. And we would say the macro-evolution is not biblical. It's against what the Bible says. And we continue to state that, "everything created by random mutations. Everything was just created by chance," is against what the Bible says. And we don't believe that. The reason - because once again, we look to the Bible, we see God created everything that exists. It was not just random chance that you and I happen to be here on a Monday night sipping tea, and coffee and hearing the Bible taught. It's not just random chance. God had a plan and it He created us. He's very intentional with how he did that.

First, on macro-evolution, Nagata uses a straw-man, where he paints macro-evolution as everything needing to be by chance. But there exists a view called theistic evolution which says that macro-evolution is correct, but that God had a hand in every step along the way, so that the emergence of new species was not random but chosen by God. I’m not saying what to believe, but Nagata’s reduction of macro-evolution into “anti-Bible” is disingenuous at best.

Second, Nagata drops in a whole other theological point here with saying that it wasn’t “random chance” that people would be there, sipping tea, hearing the Bible taught. This is a view known as determinism or hyper-calvinism. This view says that literally everything that happened was because God wanted it that way. There are Christians who hold that view, but there are many who don’t, preferring a view in which God is capable of intervening at any time, but chooses not to much of the time, letting things unfold of their own accord. In this view one could say that God “allows” something to happen without “approving” of it, in the same way that a parent may watch their child do something that will definitely be a mistake, but wants to respect the child’s agency and also give them an opportunity to fail.

Again - it’s not for me to tell you what to believe, but hyper-calvinism is a doctrine that has all kinds of implications, and for Nagata to introduce it and then move on in the pace of four sentences, with only creation as a back drop, is really quite reckless.

Age of Earth

  • (@ 10:16) There's two different theories that are out there. Old Earth would say that the earth was, or the life of the earth right now is 4.5 billion years old. And young earth would say that no, the Earth is about 10 to 20,000 years old. Now, the Bible does not tell us exactly the age of the earth. And I hope we can live with that. And I think that's perfectly fine that the Bible doesn't necessarily address that. The word in Hebrew that it uses to talk about a day is "Yom." And it's sometimes used to refer not just a literal, 24 hour period, but a longer period of time. So we see that in Second Peter, chapter three, verse eight, "But do not overlook this one fact love that with the Lord one day is as 1000 years and 1000 years as one day." We see in Systematic Theology, you can see over there Grudem was bigger volume, he says, on page 308. "Although our conclusions are tentative at this point, in our understanding, Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest, but not to require, a young earth view, while the observable fact of creation seem to increasingly favor an old Earth view. Both views are possible, but neither one is certain. And we must say very clearly that the age of the Earth is a matter that is not directly taught in Scripture."

    [transition marked by “whoosh” sound]

    (@ 12:45, 1:30 in above clip) So whatever side you guys might lean on, I don't want the room to be just physically divided. But, you know, it's it's not meant to be that we would fight over this or cause random disagreements about this. But it's we should be spurred on to say, "okay, that's something we don't understand." Someday we'll know. And that will have clarity in that, but not today.

Nagata points out the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean multiple things, and then gives an example in 2nd Peter. The problem? 2nd Peter was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Like I said - Nagata is not well-equipped for teaching this.

Next, contrast this statement with macro-evolution. On macro-evolution, Nagata has a firm stance of “no.” And members are expected to agree with everything taught in MBT. Here, he specifically teaches that the thing you have to agree with is that “we don’t know.”

The Hubble Deep Field, released in 1996 was a revelation to astronomers, essentially serving as a final confirmation of the big bang. Fun fact: I’ve heard that the Big Bang was originally disliked by secular astronomers because they thought the theory implied that the Biblical creation narrative was correct, and that the universe didn’t need a beginning.

He is basing this on the first edition of Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which came out in 1994. That’s quite old to be relying on for science-related questions. For example, the groundbreaking Hubble Deep Field image wouldn’t be released until 1996. Grudem’s Second Edition of Systematic Theology came out in late 2020, after Nagata taught this session. But it says, in the introduction,

“Did you change your mind about anything?” is the question people often ask me about this second edition.

The short answer is, “Very little,” but there are a few changes…. (3) I now think that the scientific evidence in favor of an old earth (4.5 billion years) and an old universe (13.8 billion years) has become overwhelming, with the result that I now advocate an old earth position, though I still believe that both old earth and young earth viewpoints are valid for Christian leaders to hold toay (chapter 15).

Grudem basically changed his mind about three big things. The first has to do with God’s impassibility”, and I don’t understand it. The second has to do with the Trinity, discussed in Session 1. And then here, Grudem is now advocating an Old Earth view.

Side Note on Wayne Grudem

It’s worth noting, that if Wayne Grudem were a member of Vista Church, he would not likely have been allowed to advocate for such a thing. I suspect that MBT now (assuming that the Network’s leaders have seen this part of the update) teaches that Old Earth is “better” in some way. Second and more importantly, here’s what Grudem writes about the Clarity of Scripture on page 127 of the Second Edition of Systematic Theology, talking about the Role of Scholars:

These four (above listed) functions benefit the church as a whole, and all believers should be thankful for those who perform them. However, these functions do not include the right to decide for the church as a whole what is true and false doctrine or what is proper conduct in a difficult situation. If such a right were reserved for formally trained Bible scholars, then they would become a governing elite in the church, and the ordinary functioning of the government of the church as described in the New Testament would cease. The church’s decision-making process must be left to the officers of the church, whether they are scholars or not (and in a congregational form of church government not only to the officers but also to the people of the church as a whole).

Grudem is effectively saying to not treat him the way The Network does. I suspect that he would have a significant problem with this photo, found on the Vista Church “Beliefs” page. Also worth noting is that this entire stack is:

  • The ESV - Spearheaded by Wayne Grudem

  • The ESV Study Bible - Wayne Grudem as General Editor

  • Systematic Theology - Wayne Grudem

See a pattern? But Grudem says not treat him like some kind of infallible oracle.

In a healthy church, Old Earth and Young Earth would be an issue over which people could discuss and disagree in healthy ways, but in no way should it jeopardize fellowship.

In this case, Grudem, who previously had biased toward Young Earth, instead now says he finds the evidence for “Old Earth” to be “overwhelming.” Why didn’t The Network see the same? Why were they dependent on Grudem to announce his shift as more and more evidence came out over the prior 25+ years?

Also, Grudem’s Second Edition is the last he will write (he has Parkinson’s and has said he is nearly done with planned writing). Will this become basically some stone-etched God-like addendum to the Bible, as the picture on the Vista Church “beliefs” page implies? Or will they find someone new? They are over-reliant on one person. And when they disagree with Grudem, it’s typically to follow the views of Steve Morgan, rather than some other Bible scholar.

Male and Female

A little after the 13 minute mark, Nagata makes a point about “male and female” and transgender people. Since some points overlap, I’m going to cover that when I discuss the last part of his teaching, which centers on homosexuality.

Forming of Animals

(@ 15:34) "Then the Lord God said, 'it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him a helper fit for him.' Now out of the ground, the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens,

[transition marked by “whoosh” sound]

(@ 17:00) “with Adam, he didn't speak him into being like he did all the other creatures, right. He formed him from the dust and from the ground”

See the problem there? In the first clip, He reads from Genesis 2, where it says the animals were formed out of the ground. And then he says that Adam is uniquely made from the ground.

Nagata is confusing the two creation stories told in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, everything including men and women is “spoken” into existence. In Genesis 2, we see that creatures and Adam are created from the ground. Only Eve is not, being formed from one of Adam’s ribs. This is just a basic error.

"Helper Fit"

(@ 17:12)We can see here too, that woman was created as a, "helper fit for him," is what the Bible describes it as.

[transition marked by “whoosh” sound]

(@ 17:31) First Corinthians chapter 11, verse eight, through nine and 11, through 12, "For man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Just hearing that alone, guys, will offend everything our culture says, about men and women. Right culture will say there is no distinction between men and women, there is no distinction between roles. Women can do exactly everything that men can do. And that's true to a fault. Yet it is still the Word of God. So, nevertheless, in the word of, "in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman, whereas woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman, and all things are from God." So Paul's trying to explain the nature of husband and wife here. And the interdependence, specifically, of husband and wife. He concludes, "and all things are from God." He's saying, "Guys, trust me. Listen to what I'm saying."

Ok, we come now to the core of “complementarianism,” (link is to wikipedia if this term is new to you or you don’t know its history, which is relatively new) which I’m still going to leave mostly for a future post. As I’ve said, I no longer hold to complementarianism, having spent a lot of time over the past year looking at the topic. But there are a couple things I have to call out that don’t matter whether or not you hold to complementarianism.

First, I have no idea how Nagata interprets Paul saying “and all things are from God” as meaning “Guys, trust me. Listen to what I’m saying.” That’s a whopper of an interpretation, and Nagata uses Network Pastor Voice to deliver it (again, note how similar Nagata’s voice is to other Network pastors). Apparently next time I want to tell people “listen up”, I should just say “all things are from God!” There’s a pattern here - Nagata appears to be almost stringing together Network phrases and hoping they make sense. Again - he’s been set up to fail.

It’s even a little bit of a stretch to say that Paul is talking about “the nature of husband and wife” here - the point of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 appears to be on how prayer should be conducted by men and women in the church (In chapters 10-14, Paul seems to be discussing practices of orderly worship). James Pruch writes about the passage here, I think convincingly.

Next, remember that a primary goal of the ESV is to defend complementarianism. The words “Helper Fit” is ezer kenegdo in Hebrew. Ezer is “helper”, but connotes strength, or even rescue. Kenegdo is roughly “corresponding to”. The NRSV, for example, translates it, “I will make him a helper as his partner,” with “partner” implying an equal standing. EzerKenegdo.org (which I just found and cannot really vouch for them, but this part seems legit) helpfully found all 21 uses of ezer in the Old Testament.

  • Two references (both in Genesis 2) to woman (I’ll come back to this in a minute, one is saying what’s needed, the other is saying that the newly created woman is up to the task).

  • Three references to nations that Israel turned to for military aid

  • And 16 references to God himself.

Whatever you do with complementarianism, know that “helper fit” is not meant to be some weak assistant. That’s simply not the word here. I’ve seen some go so far as to give this word a “warrior” meaning (see below). That’s the thing that I really want to say here and have high confidence in. This isn’t a “helper” like when your kid “helps” you build a project. This is a “helper” more like Leia has in mind when she says, “Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you’re my only hope.” Important: Leia is not some damsel in distress here, she’s smart, strategic, and courageous, even as evidenced by her making this message and hiding it in R2-D2. Obi-wan Kenobi is a potential ally, partner - not someone to do everything for her. Just making sure we don’t accidentally take this too far and start advocating for matriarchy instead of patriarchy. My sense is that the “ezer” part implies power, but “kenegdo” tempers it to be similar to the power of Adam, but I could be wrong.

Second, I’ll talk briefly on the substance of complementarianism itself. Kara Angus does an amazing job highlighting something I’d never seen before, which is the order of the verses in Genesis 2. Specifically, in the second version of the creation story, we see events happen in the following order:

  1. Verse 7: Adam is created

  2. Verse 8: God plants the garden. He then plants trees in verse 9. Note that this is the first plantlife in this telling. Verses 5-6 tell us that no bush or plant existed before this.

  3. Verse 15: God puts the man in Eden and sets him to work.

  4. Verse 16-17: God tells the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

  5. Verse 18: Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” God sees a problem, and sets about trying to solve it.

  6. Verse 19-20: God create all of the animals, and brings them to Adam to see what he’d name them, and, presumably, whether or not they were an ezer kenegdo. “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.”

  7. Verse 21-25: God creates woman from Adam’s rib, and Adam starts speaking in poetry, saying, “at last!” (Interestingly, this meant that he had unfulfilled desires prior to the fall, meaning one can desire something without sinning).

Kara Angus writes on Instagram:

Illustration by Kara Angus

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an Ezer Kenegdo: a (warrior) with strength corresponding to his as his partner”. She is not a simple little assistant but is in essence a lifesaver and a strength equal to him. She is created to rule and reign with man.

Adam naming the animals was not a task to prove he was the ‘leader’. It was a confirmation task. He named all the animals and realized that they were not his suitable partner. The God-appointed task officially settled that Adam needed an equal partner. He joyfully confirms this when he sees the woman for the first time: “This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. Man and woman stand side by side as co-laborers and God’s image bearers

I’d never noticed that before - God says “Adam needs an ezer kenegdo.” So he tries making creatures, but none of them are up to the task. So he makes a woman, and finally, we have our ezer kenegdo.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the mandate to have dominion over the earth given at the end of Genesis 1 was given to both man and woman. And then that the first time any kind of power of the man over the woman is shown is after The Fall, as God is describing what’s now going to happen. I personally see no hint that wives submitting to their husbands is part of the created order.

Here’s my point: if Nagata was attempting (as he appears to be) to make a case for male headship, he simply did not do it. He’s misusing verses and leaving out important context.

Quick Additional Complementarian Notes

Nagata continues on through other common verses, making similar errors. I’ll just highlight a couple things to finish this section.

Biblical arguments can be made for complementarianism. I’ve made them in the past. Nagata just doesn’t make them here.

Missing Ephesians 5:21

At 20:02, Nagata points to Ephesians 5:22-33, but like the ESV translators, does not include verse 21, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Some other translations start this section at Ephesians 5:21 (See NIV, CEB; whereas the NRSV and CSB agree with ESV)

On Distinctions Between Genders

(@ 17:44) Just hearing that alone, guys, will offend everything our culture says, about men and women. Right, culture will say there is no distinction between men and women, there is no distinction between roles. Women can do exactly everything that men can do. And that's true to a fault. Yet it is still the Word of God.

It turns out that very few people hold this to be true, and that was one of the biggest surprises to me when I started learning about egalitarianism. Egalitarians don’t say that men and women aren’t different, in the same way that they don’t say that a 6-foot tall person and 5-foot tall person are the same height. They just believe that there should be no exclusion, no mandate that women or men be precluded from any given role or given any special power solely “on the basis of sex”. That’s it. Most of them acknowledge that men, for example, tend to be stronger and faster. Most of them acknowledge that women tend to have more empathy. In fact, the support of transgender people amongst the generally egalitarian progressives shows that they assume gender distinction. If they believed there was no distinction, the idea of gender transgender would be nonsensical. Also, it’s a subtle thing, but look at the part where Nagata disagrees with, “women can do exactly everything that men can do”, not “men can do exactly everything that women can do.” This is what takes it from complementarianism to just plain patriarchy. His bias in his teaching is that there are things women can’t do that men can, not the other way around. That’s not complementarity, that’s inequality.

And especially if you listen to the clip, the closing, “Yet it is still the Word of God,” is such a manipulative statement here. He doesn’t actually make an argument - he just says “nope - GOD SAYS.”

And Nagata completely leaves out maybe the single most important verse on this, Galatians 3:28:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Using the Word "Girls" instead of "Women"

(@ 19:21) If any of you girls are wondering, “what should I look for in a guy?“ Those are the things you should be looking for, honestly.

Statements like this are why representation matters. There’s a lot of people over the last several years who have really emphasized that adult women (over 18 for sure, and perhaps younger), should be called “women”, not “girls.” Nagata would not have said “If any of you boys are wondering…” The lack of inclusion of women and ability to give feedback means that Nagata infantilizes women, probably without even knowing. In Untangled Faith Episode 41, podcaster Amy Fritz interviews author Sheila Gregoire about her new book, “The Good Guy’s Guide to Great Sex”, which is a follow-on book to a book Gregoire wrote in 2012 titled “The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex”. Early in the episode, they discuss the title of the original book, and Gregoire says she does wish they’d named it something else. I’ve personally been working on this habit myself over the last few years - it’s taken a lot of conscious effort, but I’ve been amazed at the subconscious change it makes in how I view the women in my life. I see them as having much more agency and maturity, just by getting the word right.

The tone of the “Those are the things you should be looking for, honestly” is highly reminiscent of the more experienced pastors in the Network. There’s so much authority in the inflection, and not an ounce of uncertainty.

Marriage as Trinity Analogy (again)

(@ 22:12) “So, God sees two distinct persons, but joined together to be one flesh. And he made it that way, just as like Luke was describing a beautiful reflection of what the Trinity is, it's meant to be this interdependent responsibility in marriage.”

I discussed this in my analysis of MBT Session 1. Marriage is not an image of the Trinity, but Nagata teaching this illustrates that it wasn’t just a one-off erroneous teaching by Luke Williams. I challenge someone to find a prominent protestant pastor who believes this is accurate. I actually did a poll on twitter, and found the following results:

How this Affects Views of Women

Ok, one last thing. When the live action movie “Aladdin” came out, I spoke with Nagata about it. He quickly jumped to being upset that (spoilers) Jasmine is made Sultan at the end, saying that he was worried that the movie was teaching that adherence to tradition is bad and seemed to imply he had a problem with a woman being made Sultan because of either that or his views on gender roles generally (I’m not sure which).

I had to point out to him that we, as complementarians, do not believe that women can’t be leaders in any way, but rather just the pastoral role and in marriage, and we should stand against unjust traditions.

He kind of let it go, I don’t recall him truly agreeing. But this type of thinking is, it turns out, not unique among complementarians:

Please note - John Piper was a co-founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (this is an article in which the author blasts complementarianism for failing to be true patriarchy - I obviously disagree with the author’s viewpoints on the merits of patriarchy). It is impossible to say “no true complementarian would believe that” with Piper - he is one of the co-creators of the word itself.

Singleness

  • (@ 22:55) I love how Paul even is bold to say, "it's better to remain single," right? Because you can spend all your time serving Jesus and His Church, and glorifying God that way, if you're single, it's a great blessing to be single.

    [transition marked by whoosh sound]

    (@ 23:31, 0:13 in clip) And to be completely about the work of what Jesus called to do to call us to do to make disciples.

Nagata affirms singleness here, which I applaud him for. I know so many times that was missed in The Network, and marriage held up as an ideal, with very rare teaching to echo 1 Cor 7 where Paul says it’s better to remain single. That said, look at how he defines the blessing of singleness: “spend all your time serving Jesus and His Church… and to be completely about the work of what Jesus called to do to call us to do to make disciples.” I missed this the first couple times I listened through, because it’s so egregious that I wasn’t looking for it. But this is one of those things that Nagata says out loud that I think Williams might keep quieter. The Network’s teaching is that if you are single, you should be spending all your time serving “Jesus and His Church.” No time for leisure, rest, loving your neighbor, or anything else. And of course by “His Church”, it seems likely that Nagata means “Vista Church.” This is a common behavior of a high control group.

What's Next?

If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading, and as always feedback is welcome at not.overcome@outlook.com and you can join the discussion over on the r/leavingthenetwork subreddit. That’s less than 25 minutes of the session, and close to 10,000 words that I’ve written (plus quotes from them), so we’ll stop here.

I’ve already drafted the following, and will be sharing them over the coming days:

  • Part 2: Angels & Demons

  • Part 3: Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage

Celeste Irwin
Previous

Membership Bible Training: Session 2 — Part 2
Next

Small Group Topics