Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Beth's memoir was one of the best things I have read in years. I think so highly of her after reading it.. And kind of want to try Anglican church too lol.

As someone who has just left the Anglican church beware...it has the same problems all the evangelicals have right now...patriarchy, not believing women, abuse of power. I'm brokenhearted over leaving but from now on if a church doesn't welcome women at the top or gays to be married it is a glaring RED FLAG for me.

Also, the Anglican church had a beautiful liturgy, sense of artistry, and the music was incredible. Such a shame it is led by wolves in sheep's clothing.

I'm not sure I see the logic that moves from "there were problems with the Anglican church I was a part of" to "every church needs to embrace progressive views for me to be a part of it." The second thing doesn't automatically follow from the first unless it's already the direction you were headed anyway. It's the same direction Jen Hatmaker chose.

There are so many churches and denominations that are gay affirming. I will never understand why people will purposely choose to attend a “traditional marriage” church, then complain about it. If you want a progressive church, pick one. Leave the rest alone.

In some respects I agree with you...don't be mad a church for declaring what it believes and if it doesn't align with personal beliefs...find a church that does. However, I will say that even after attending the 'membership meeting' to learn about church history and background, polity, and structure, this was NEVER mentioned. I was also never noted their stance on gay marriage or women ordination. Furthermore, it was never explained that the ACNA came out of a break with the Episcopal church. They leave out a lot of clarifying details when describing the church's values and beliefs, unless you really dig. Sadly, I did not learn details about this years in. They certainly veil their beliefs by the "all are welcome" banner, leaving out some pretty important distinctions about who and HOW all are welcome.

If this is your personal red flag, it’s literally as simple as asking. In the membership meeting would have been the perfect time. “I noticed you didn’t specifically mention gay marriage. Does your church welcome and officiate same sex marriage ceremonies?”. Or, “I see you have no women on staff as pastors. Is this because you do not allow women to become ministers in your church?”.

Your words are “this was never mentioned”. If it’s important to YOU, YOU should mention it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Beth's memoir was one of the best things I have read in years. I think so highly of her after reading it.. And kind of want to try Anglican church too lol.

As someone who has just left the Anglican church beware...it has the same problems all the evangelicals have right now...patriarchy, not believing women, abuse of power. I'm brokenhearted over leaving but from now on if a church doesn't welcome women at the top or gays to be married it is a glaring RED FLAG for me.

Also, the Anglican church had a beautiful liturgy, sense of artistry, and the music was incredible. Such a shame it is led by wolves in sheep's clothing.

I'm not sure I see the logic that moves from "there were problems with the Anglican church I was a part of" to "every church needs to embrace progressive views for me to be a part of it." The second thing doesn't automatically follow from the first unless it's already the direction you were headed anyway. It's the same direction Jen Hatmaker chose.

There are so many churches and denominations that are gay affirming. I will never understand why people will purposely choose to attend a “traditional marriage” church, then complain about it. If you want a progressive church, pick one. Leave the rest alone.

In some respects I agree with you...don't be mad a church for declaring what it believes and if it doesn't align with personal beliefs...find a church that does. However, I will say that even after attending the 'membership meeting' to learn about church history and background, polity, and structure, this was NEVER mentioned. I was also never noted their stance on gay marriage or women ordination. Furthermore, it was never explained that the ACNA came out of a break with the Episcopal church. They leave out a lot of clarifying details when describing the church's values and beliefs, unless you really dig. Sadly, I did not learn details about this years in. They certainly veil their beliefs by the "all are welcome" banner, leaving out some pretty important distinctions about who and HOW all are welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Beth's memoir was one of the best things I have read in years. I think so highly of her after reading it.. And kind of want to try Anglican church too lol.

As someone who has just left the Anglican church beware...it has the same problems all the evangelicals have right now...patriarchy, not believing women, abuse of power. I'm brokenhearted over leaving but from now on if a church doesn't welcome women at the top or gays to be married it is a glaring RED FLAG for me.

Also, the Anglican church had a beautiful liturgy, sense of artistry, and the music was incredible. Such a shame it is led by wolves in sheep's clothing.

I'm not sure I see the logic that moves from "there were problems with the Anglican church I was a part of" to "every church needs to embrace progressive views for me to be a part of it." The second thing doesn't automatically follow from the first unless it's already the direction you were headed anyway. It's the same direction Jen Hatmaker chose.

There are so many churches and denominations that are gay affirming. I will never understand why people will purposely choose to attend a “traditional marriage” church, then complain about it. If you want a progressive church, pick one. Leave the rest alone.

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather poke my eyes out than have dinner at her house.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, "When you sign up at the $250/month giving level, you get access to one ticket! If you sign up at the $500/month or more giving level, you can bring a guest!"! So for just $3000, you can go to her home and have dinner outside with others that have committed to giving her Legacy Collective $3000 per year.....

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, we are now at the time of the year where she begs people to donate to her "charity" so they can get to come eat at her house and use a porta-potty, if I remember some of the comments from the last dinner on the grounds correctly..... UGH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did y'all see Sarah Bessey's post today which I think is addressing her extreme weight loss. She finally tells us how she did it... Nourishment. Yes nourishing and feeding herself more. What the hell?

What-- Nourishment? I need to understand exactly what she means (and did she include a crazy amount of exercise too??)

She looks great. I had assumed she was in a season if life where she could better care for her health.

Evolving Grift.



She is crediting everything but the Ozempic. Come on Sarah, be freaking for real.

It's probably part of her spiritualized influencer schtick. She's selling some kind of vaguely spiritual self-help "evolving" faith thing. Just saying it was the Ozempic is ordinary and boring, and not what her audience wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did y'all see Sarah Bessey's post today which I think is addressing her extreme weight loss. She finally tells us how she did it... Nourishment. Yes nourishing and feeding herself more. What the hell?

What-- Nourishment? I need to understand exactly what she means (and did she include a crazy amount of exercise too??)

She looks great. I had assumed she was in a season if life where she could better care for her health.

She is crediting everything but the Ozempic. Come on Sarah, be freaking for real.

It's probably part of her spiritualized influencer schtick. She's selling some kind of vaguely spiritual self-help "evolving" faith thing. Just saying it was the Ozempic is ordinary and boring, and not what her audience wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did y'all see Sarah Bessey's post today which I think is addressing her extreme weight loss. She finally tells us how she did it... Nourishment. Yes nourishing and feeding herself more. What the hell?

What-- Nourishment? I need to understand exactly what she means (and did she include a crazy amount of exercise too??)

She looks great. I had assumed she was in a season if life where she could better care for her health.

She is crediting everything but the Ozempic. Come on Sarah, be freaking for real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jen in 2015. Happy marriage with a big, rollicking family. NYC bestsellers. Show on HGTV. Cultural relevance. Fame, $, all of it.

Jen in 2024. Indifferent boyfriend states away. A “roommate” who she can barely tolerate. No real book in years. Occasional 5 minute appearances on random daytime talk shows no one watches. No relevance anywhere. No fame, no money, constant shilling. Vagina bibles and purple dildos.

I still have no idea who she is. Sounds bad.