Thoroughly read all your contracts. I really mean thoroughly. -Bret Michaels link
TWW wants to thank Nikita for providing us with another concerning example of the application of church discipline by 9 Marks: this time at the mothership in DC. In case you haven't read Todd Wilhelm's (a TWW hero) treatment at the hands of a 9 Marks church in Dubai, here is a link to My, My Dubai: 9 Marks Played Hardball. This post is important because it shows that 9 Marks churches are taking orders from the "big house" which is Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC).
Folks, we cannot stress this enough. If you sign a church contract, masquerading as some sort of "tip toe through the tulips, let's all pray for one another" covenant, you are potentially signing away your right to act freely on your conscience without expecting consequences by a controlling leadership.
This means, as highlighted in both this story and in Todd Wilhelm's story, that a church can decide not to remove your name from membership or even tell the entire church that you are now under discipline, even if you no longer attend. This could even result in the church chasing you to your next church to "report" that you left under a cloud.
You can minimize damage in the United States by following the procedure that we outlined in this post called: Abusive Church Discipline: How to Recognize It and Escape. In this post is a letter which can be sent to a rogue church, alerting them that you will seek counsel if they continue to discuss you in public meetings after your resignation. It tells you how to send that letter and to keep track of it. That post has lots of great information regarding "Red Flags."
Folks, once again-be careful when you "sign on the dotted line" as you join a church. The latest trick is to have you attend a membership meeting in which they discuss the "rules" of the church. If they have you sign a document that says you were present at the meeting, and / or get you to read the *covenant* out loud, they can still treat it as a legally binding contract. Be smart!
(Note: Editor has highlighted portions of the post for emphasis.)
In writing this, I hope to encourage other believers who are attending authoritarian or manipulative churches to be unafraid to question. If not for TWW and Christian friends on the outside, I might not have found the courage to walk out of the safe legalistic prison I’d built myself with CHBC’s teaching – to date one of the scariest things I’ve ever done. I believe the leadership of CHBC is truly trying to do the right thing and follow Scripture as closely as they can, but that their legalism has blinded them and limited their ability to love others freely and trust the Spirit to guide individual believers. It is a church which needs prayer, and not for any of the reasons they think.
I was a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church for two and a half years, and for the first two years I thought it was as ideal a representation of Christ's body as you can get on this earth. As an overachiever, a rule follower, and an intellectual, I admired the structure of CHBC and its total reliance on Scripture as a basis for its organization – at least, so it seemed to me at the time.
For the first two years I lived about an hour from the church and found it difficult to connect with anyone at CHBC at more than a superficial level. When I did get together with people for lunch after church, as often as not we talked about the sermon. With all but one or two acquaintances, it seemed like a competition to see who had read the most Puritan theologians or who had read their Bible the most. I told myself that as soon as I could, I would move closer to the church and be able to get more involved, and then I would have those close connections and deep friendships I was hoping for.
I did move closer to the church about two years in – only a few blocks away. I went to Core Seminar (Sunday school for adults), morning service, and evening service as often as I could, even though I would be exhausted by Sunday night (and that’s not even counting Sundays when there are Members Meetings after evening service, once every two months). I taught English as a second language on Saturday mornings. I hosted lunches to get to know my CHBC acquaintances better. I wanted to join a small group but couldn’t find time to fit one into my busy schedule, and felt guilty about it.
Despite all this, people at church would ask me who I hung out with, and I wouldn’t have an answer for them. Countless times, I was asked whether I would be at Wednesday night Bible study as well or what small group I was part of. Slowly church became a list of activities to attend. As I became more drained I went to fewer commitments, dropping first Core Seminar and then evening service, and thinking I was horribly selfish and lazy to do so. When I expressed to a friend how tired I was, how frustrated I was that I had only one or two CHBC friendships that were more than superficial, I was told to give up my a cappella group so I could join a small group instead.
In service, I found myself constantly looking for a “to do,” some takeaway I could apply to my life and change myself and be a better Christian. I got tired of failing over and over again to meet CHBC’s standards, but at the same time I became proud, convinced that I knew the Hard Truth and didn’t shy away from the difficult tenets of the Bible. Any so-called Christian who neglected to follow Christ in the exact same way must be denying Scripture somewhere. With the very best but the most presumptuous of intentions, I quoted Scripture at hurting friends and absolutely crushed them with my legalism. It was so important that they be Right as I was Right that I couldn’t show them love without establishing that.
Last winter, my spiritual life was so dead, I was so completely devoid of joy, and I was so exhausted that I decided CHBC, while a great church, must not be for me. I remember sitting in church and crying for an entire service because it felt like I had chains on me that got heavier as the sermon went on. I tried to take a step back and attend only morning service, but I still came away exhausted and downtrodden – always more spiritual to-dos, and the grace preached at the altar didn’t seem to have any practical counterpart in the life of the church. I started to question doctrine I’d never in my life given second thought to, such as the role of women in the church – I now believe this was God setting the stage for my exodus, so to speak. The pastors’ condemnations of Catholics and the membership policy of excommunicating those who left the church without further communication struck me as repugnant.
After I began to disagree with CHBC’s approach to membership, I went on to question many of the teachings I'd happily swallowed about other doctrinal issues, and God slowly, gently opened up a whole new free perspective that showed me not only that I was trying to earn my own salvation by being a good CHBCer, but that led me trembling out of the safe prison of rules and dogma that I'd trapped myself in. My legalism crumbled. I realized I had no desire to continue being a member of CHBC – I couldn't go back to the bondage to legalism I'd been in, but I didn't know what direction I was headed in, either.
Because I was fully aware of how CHBC feels about letting someone leave if they're not going to an approved "gospel preaching" church, I delayed notifying them about my change of heart (and mind and soul and understanding of the depth of the gospel. Basically everything). After not having any desire to go to church for a month or two, then trying a couple churches that seemed to offer something very similar to CHBC but watered-down, I finally crept into the back of a United Methodist Church near me and gingerly sat down in the last row, ready to bolt out of there at the first sign of doctrinal heresy.
And lo and behold, God was alive and well there and used the sermon to speak to issues I’d just been struggling with! Over the next several weeks he did the same thing over and over again, faithfully. He was kind enough to confirm that I was in the right place, multiple times. Now, I should mention that this particular UMC body is part of the Reconciling branch, which affirms homosexuality. I’m still praying for wisdom and searching Scripture for how to approach this issue, and quite frankly the Methodist church’s views kept me away until I’d tried all the other potential churches in the area without finding what I was looking for. I didn’t set out from CHBC to find a church as little like it as I possibly could, and at first I was intending to visit the UMC only once to appease certain Methodist friends of mine.
I should mention that back near the beginning of this saga, I had discussed my frustrations with CHBC and questions about its doctrine with my landlady, whose husband is an elder. Then after I had started going to the Methodist church, at a seemingly innocent brunch, the elder himself – who is NOT the person I had originally spoken with and who is also MY LANDLORD – started asking me about my still-very-fresh and very painful spiritual struggles in front of my roommate and the rest of their family.
He expressed “concern” about the Methodist church (a recurring theme) and suggested sitting down for a “follow up conversation” after I’d been going a few weeks. When they had approached me about this follow up conversation, I said the UMC was teaching the gospel and I was not interested in talking it over with anyone from CHBC. They said they understood.
Here’s where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean ridiculous. After attending the UMC and occasionally another independent church for a month or two, I sent in an email to the elder in charge of membership at CHBC saying something vague like "I've learned a lot at CHBC but I am being called elsewhere, so I wanted to let you know so you could remove me from your membership list. Haven't settled on a church yet but am no longer attending CHBC."
At that point I had started reading posts on The Wartburg Watch, but I told myself CHBC could not be that unreasonable. (Editor's observation: Never, ever doubt your humble and adorable blog queens!)
I wanted to give them a chance to prove that the paranoia was mostly in my head, that we had doctrinal differences now but CHBC was not as controlling and authoritarian as other Calvinista churches. Right? Right??
To no one’s surprise, I got an email in reply asking whether I wouldn't mind telling them what churches I was considering?
Well I did mind, because it was none of their business and I had given them all the information they needed to remove me from their roster. I was clearly not struggling, suffering, or in need of care, having been forthright about no longer attending rather than dropping off the face of the earth. I did not reply.
A few weeks later, I got another email asking for further information, at which point I told them I was still deciding and to please remove me from membership.
They responded with a long email which quoted the membership “covenant,” a document I regret ever signing, and repeated "gospel preaching church" as many times as they could fit. I considered naming a few local churches I knew they would approve of, which would probably have kept me out of the position I’m now in, but for the sake of integrity decided to be honest and tell them where I was going.
I heard nothing further for several weeks and thought the issue was settled, relieved that CHBC wasn't quite as controlling and dismissive of individual believers’ convictions as I'd worried they might be. I was wrong.
In another few weeks I got a voicemail from a pastor I'd met only once, asking to meet within the next few days about my membership resignation so I could let them know if there was any way for them to care for me as they sent me out. I was a little wary, so I was still deciding whether and how to respond when the same person sent an email with the same message THE VERY NEXT DAY. At this point I was irritated and I decided not to answer until a few days later, if at all.
Half a week later, my CHBC elder landlord texted me to ask if we could meet. I decided I couldn't ignore that, so I agreed to.
I prayed about the meeting with this elder beforehand, and God was there with me the entire time. I have never been comfortable with debates, particularly theological ones and especially not face-to-face, but I was able to tell him how uncomfortable his involvement made me and to explain that CHBC's presumptuous insistence that I tell them what churches I was going to had driven a greater wedge between me and that church than any doctrinal issue ever could have.
However, the majority of the time was spent in him repeatedly stating why CHBC’s leadership was "concerned" and wanted to "warn" me not to attend a church which they believed had doctrinal flaws – that is, the Reconciling Methodist church’s stance on homosexuality. Not even central flaws – the elder admitted that the Methodist church preached the same gospel!
Partway through this conversation the elder said that the rest of the CHBC leadership would be more reassured about letting me go because I had chosen the UMC congregation despite, rather than because of, its stance on this particular issue, to which I replied “What if I HAD joined for that reason? What would CHBC do about it?”
To which he replied, “I’m not sure. This isn’t a situation we’ve ever encountered before.”
Right there, he admitted there was nothing they could do if I wanted to leave for this other church. (Side note: I can’t believe they’ve never had members leave over doctrinal issues before. This probably means that other people who have resigned were lying about their next churches.)
He continued to repeat himself about their doctrinal “concerns,” so I calmly told him message received, we’d have to agree to disagree about the severity of the issue. The shock on his face told me all I needed to know about the CHBC leadership’s confidence in its spiritual power over its members; he couldn't conceive that I could sit there and listen to his arguments and not be moved by them.
In the end he assured me this was the last time he would interact with me as anything but my neighbor and landlord (thank goodness), and said that the elders might not be able to advise the congregation to "send me off joyfully" at the next day’s Members Meeting, to which I responded that was fine and I'd expected it, assuming it just meant they would relieve me of membership with reservations.
Imagine my incredulity when the following Monday I opened my email to see a new message from yet ANOTHER pastor, informing me that they were not sure how to proceed with me because they had never had anyone leave for a church that they didn't believe preached the truth and therefore they had not brought up my resignation to the congregation. They told me they understood I wasn't going to attend anymore and didn't want to be contacted, but they have apparently kept me on the membership roster for the sake of determining how to send me off in a "biblical" way. They alluded to "church discipline" in the same email in which they acknowledged that I was de facto no longer a member, and assured me they only wanted to care for me in a Christlike manner.
I didn’t even finish the email before I started laughing.
I’ve copy-pasted the relevant parts of that letter below, leaving out his long LARGE FONT arguments in favor of CHBC’s view of homosexuality. They seem to have missed my point that I am not at this point intending to join the UMC, but am only attending. (As though I would ever formally join another church after being exposed to the abuse and manipulation in their membership process.)
In a single letter they simultaneously admit that I am for all intents and purposes no longer a member of their church while still refusing to let me formally leave, revealing their position on membership and local church involvement to be a complete farce. As pointed out in TWW’s post on abuse of the 9Marks membership system, they believe the church has more say in whether a member can leave than the individual does herself. They have entrapped themselves in their legalism and given themselves no way out but to enact “church discipline,” which I expect will be the next step, against someone who cut all ties with their congregation months ago. I hope the absurdity of their position has not escaped them.
That is my story to date. I hope the rest of it contains less cause for outrage and more understanding on the part of CHBC. The beauty of my situation now is that there is nothing they can say which I will care about and nothing they can do to injure me. I know from whence my salvation comes, from my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and not from Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
The Letter From CHBC
“I wanted to write and to let you know that the elders decided not to recommend that the congregation act on your resignation letter at our Member's Meeting last night. So we didn't bring it up at all before the members of CHBC. Certainly we understand that you don't intend to attend CHBC and we don't have any intent to bother you or try to talk to you if you don't wish to talk with us. But your resignation with your intent to join Capitol Hill United Methodist church has frankly put us in a unique situation that we need to think about.
As I'm sure you understand, just as you have a right to decide to leave a church, the church has a right and responsibility to decide how it removes someone from its rolls. Certainly if a member of CHBC (or any other bible teaching church) leaves to join another faithful church, they are simply removed in good standing. However, if a member were to leave to join a false church, like one that denies the Trinity or the gospel outright...a faithful church would likely removed them by "church discipline" to warn them of their danger. In this we simply follow the practice of most Protestant churches for centuries.
Your decision, however, has put us in a position that we feel we need to think about further.
[Arguments on specific doctrinal issues which are covered at other places in this website.]
All churches have errors as they are all composed of sinful men and women, and we know that CHBC is no exception. But how far and how deliberately a church can openly reject biblical teaching that's this clear and still remain a true church, is a question we will have to give serious thought and prayer. This is especially problematic since this question strikes at the heart of declaring who is and is not a Christian, and in a way that may cruelly lead sinners to Hell while assuring them they will inherit a heavenly kingdom that God emphatically says they will not inherit. Of course, we wish that you would reconsider and instead simply join a gospel preaching church that intends to obey Scripture, rather than to contradict it. But if you are intent on joining Capitol Hill United Methodist, and if we are correctly understanding their intentions, then we will have to give this more thought as elders to determine what would be the biblically faithful avenue to remove you from membership.
I'm truly sorry to have to write this to you. We wish you only the best. Please trust that we will endeavor to act in faithfulness to the Scriptures and with a desire for your eternal good. When we come to a decision, we will let you know. We will try to do so as quickly as we can. Certainly if anything changes in your plans please let us know. Otherwise, we don't intend to disturb you but will continue to pray for you to hold fast to the gospel and to all that God has given to us in his Word.
With warm regard for you in Christ.”
Dear Capitol Hill Baptist Church:
When someone tells you they are no longer a member, LEGALLY, they are no longer a member. What you did to this person could be considered harassment and possibly intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Personally, I think this “process” by CHBC is nothing less than abusive.
Question: Wasn’t it CHBC that Mahaney went through before he headed off to Louisville?
mirele wrote:
Yep-he hid behind Dever's skirts.
I really don't get this bs.
1. I doubt the UMC cares one way or the other about CHBC.
2. What could CHBC actually do to anyone that wouldn't be considered libel or slander?
3. Why would ANY organization want to hold on to someone who doesn't want to be a member. Wouldn't you be scared they might undermine your authority.
“White man wants everything in writing, and that’s so he can use it against you in court.”
— Billy Jack
nmgirl wrote:
“YOU! WILL!! RESPECT!!! MAH!!!! AUTHORITAH!!!!!”
— Eric Cartman, South Park
Yikes. Just…yikes.
Self important MEN on power-trips.
Nikita’s journey away from legalism has been an honor to watch. God is really moving in her life. (Even if at a few moments during the process I was ready to send in the black helicopters.)
Nikita-
I would email CHBC back and tell them that your precedent to flee a 9 Marks church was made possible by CJ Mahaney fleeing CLC. I would take the time and point out all the 9 Marks that CJ Mahaney violated. If that doesn’t work ask if you could be Mark Dever’s best friend forever. Offer to preach at T$G, publish 15 books through Crossway and bribe Jonathan Leeman or Mark Dever into a new church sign, AC system whatever. Remember…money talks in this crowd. A “Gospel Centered Bribe” can be good!
Eagle wrote:
Sadly, Eagle, Nikita is a she. So while money talks in this crowd, women don’t. 😉
You know one of these days in a middle of a CHBC service I should post a new Theses of 95 questions about 9 Marks, Puritan theology, Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Leeman, and the exact measurements of Mark Dever's waist to find out how big the skirt is that CJ Mahaney hid behind. Then in the middle of the service I would looooooooooooooooove to take a hammer and nail and hammer it to the front door of CHBC. I'm actually just around the block from CHBC as I write this. In the spirit of Wittenburg…I should give this a try!!
@ Caitlin:
Look at Carolyn Mahaney…look at what she has published. Nuff said!
My one question is if i nail a list of 95 questions to CHBC’s front door…will I be burned at the stake like Michael Servetus?
Jonathan Leeman have you persoanlly done a “Gospel Centered” execution?
So many commenters are “big” on accountability; except when they actually do hold you accountable – such as at CHBC. Then accountability is, apparently, bad.
_
But here’s a thing about CHBC. If you’re a member there and accused of SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ( child abuse?), are they going to let you slink off and take your fun and games to another church?
I don’t think so.
*
They’re serious about accountability, they actually walk the talk.
*
Mark Dever is a great guy BTW.
dee wrote:
Except he wasn’t hiding – Dever had CJ preach a sermon at CHBC while he was there. I thought Mahaney left SGM because he wasn’t fit to be a pastor and shouldn’t be preaching? Apparently not.
This sounds a lot like the medieval Catholic Church. Thank God for freedom of religion in this country or they’d have you on the rack. I don’t believe that any court in the country would find those ‘church discipline’ ‘agreements’ constitutional – they’re just a scare tactic used to control people. But what do you expect of an organization that has nine ‘marks’ of a ‘healthy’ church that includes church discipline as one of them, but not one of which is LOVE, which, according to my reading of the Bible, is the first and foremost mark of a Christian and all else flows from that. But maybe Jesus was misquoted.
As far as Mark Dever is concerned, he’s probably the smoothest of the neo-Cals. Like a serpent. In a garden. Talking about fruit.
Oh right, Seneca
Dever hid Mahaney under his skirt, then Mahaney slunk off. Real concern for child sex abuse.
I think it sounds like a cult – no ifs, ands or buts about it.
The attitude must be catching, as That Church (that booted me) is just a few blocks from CHBC and uses the same kind of tactics.
@ senecagriggs yahoo:
You’re dreaming, dude. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Eagle wrote:
She’s ROYALTY.
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
dee wrote:
"One Hand Washes the Other…"
numo wrote:
Dreaming and in serious denial of the inequity when using “church discipline” for members verses leadership buddies 🙄
@ senecagriggs yahoo:
seneca…you should be a marital counselor. I can see one of your clients walking in battered and bruised, and your response…”SUBMIT WOMEN!!!!” OR “OPEN THAT BARN DOOR!!”
BTW…Seneca who holds Mark Dever accountable? Who held Mark Dever accountable when he violated most of the 9 Marks when CJ Mahaney fled to CHBC?
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Let me remind you that being a member of a church is VOLUNTARY. What CHBC is doing is harassment and could be seen as abusive. This is not Geneva, as much as Mark Dever might wish it to be. Moreover,anything CHBC says about Nikita could be considered slanderous or libelous, PARTICULARLY since Nikita’s landlord is a member of CHBC.
The best thing to do is just for CHBC to let.Nikita.go, because she’s resigned and is legally no.longer.a.member. Only CULTS want to harass people who have said they’re leaving.
Oh really? Mark Dever let C.J. Mahaney come to his church when Mahaney was on his way to Louisville. I don’t believe that I heard Dever taking Mahaney to task or even ordering Mahaney to apologize to the men who were sexually abused by Nathaniel Morales, or their families. Nor was there restitution made to those people either for what they lost as a result of Mahaney covering up.
I’m sure he is, as long as you’re a man with something to offer him. Women and children, sexual abuse victims and people who simply want to leave a church that doesn’t fit them, not so much.
Since we’re talking about CHBC and Hyper-Calvinism I have a question to throw out on the table. Jonathan Leeman..please let me know if 9 Marks applies to this. I am just trying to figure out what a Hyper-Calvinist should do if this happened to them.
This afternoon my Nissan Sentra was hit. A person hit me in a parking lot. The damage is pretty good, and the question I have is this…if you’re going to be a Hyper-Cal this accident obviously was foreordained. So when I contact State Farm am I sinning and rebelling against the Lord? Should I leave the car broken as that is God’s will for me? 😛
When I spoke with an insurance rep who was a female….was I sinning in submitting to her questions? I submitted to her authority?
Jonathan Leeman…what does 9 Marks say about my Nissan? How should I deal with a female claims agent? What say you Jonathan?
Okay…I’m starting a gofundme account.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Senaca Joseph Smith was a great guy also! Charming, handsome, talkative, persuasive… Your point?
Mirele I love you. Thank you.
You know, it says volumes about some segments of the Evangelical Industrial Complex that they want to discipline someone for merely going to a church that welcomes GLBT people. I’m going to use some really harsh language here, but it really does expose the irrational hatred I’ve seen of GLBT persons among some evangelicals. Moreover, the idea that Mark Dever and his bunch can just stand in judgment of another church is breathtakingly audacious and appalling. It really is like Calvin’s Geneva at work.
Wouldn't church discipline only work for one who was actually a part of the local church body? I mean if you leave then doesn't that right there mean you are no longer a part of that church? It's all soooooooo strange.
I’m in the process of reading this, but I wanted to say that when we became members at our church (about 3000 in the congregation), we never had to sign anything. We acknowledged the beliefs with signatures but that was it, no lording over our next church we choose.
(finished reading now)
The obvious answer is this is how mega-churches claim they have so many members, they make it ridiculous for members to leave.
@ JadedOne:
But CHBC is NOT a mega church. Its a very small church from my understanding. I went there once, saw a few women wearing veils and thought to myself, “This isn’t Saudi Arabia”
I had heard that people who leave CHBC have converted to Catholicism.
I saw a picture on facebook last week of a horse tied to a plastic chair and not going anywhere with the caption of “Sometimes the chains that prevent us from being free are more mental than physical”. This is exactly what I think church memberships are. In fact, there is nothing a church membership can MAKE anyone do and I just laugh at them to be honest. It is nothing more than an honor agreement. As an adoptive parent, I signed one which stated I would send letters and pictures to birthparents. Well, it isn’t legally binding whatsoever, it is completely on your honor that you will do this agreement until the 18th birthday. It is not legally binding, just an honor agreement. A church membership isn’t even *that* binding. If you feel that your heart says something is wrong, you can leave. Period.
Quite honestly I don’t understand why people go through the ranks to answer the questions when choosing to leave a church (or wherever). Maybe it is my jaded nature that would just say, “because I want to, that is all”. Unless there is some egregious going on where I feel something needs to be in writing just in case of abuse down the road, I wouldn’t even bother giving a written explanation.
I have seen stories regarding LDS members trying to leave as well.
Money and numbers.
@ mirele:
When Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman start to burn dissidents at the stake THEN it will be like Calvin’s Geneva. Or it could be like Jonathan Edwards congregation.
Jonathan Leeman…if you read this I have one question. Have members from CHBC started to commit suicide like Edwards congregation did? Some way to have a revival eh?
Eagle wrote:
Is that Dever’s church? I thought it had over 3000? Isn’t that the number for mega? I was only going off what I assumed, if I am wrong on that point I apologize.
Eagle wrote:
Jonathan….OH Jonathan Leeman…..I am still waiting for what 9 Marks or Calvin’s Institutes would say about my Nissan. Since you guys know God’s will better than God, and obviously have private communication directly from God…I am awaiting a response! 😛
@ JadedOne:
I want to say Dever’s church has about 250-300 members. It’s small…
JadedOne wrote:
ok, I see between 900-1000 weekly. Still pretty big, not quite mega with over 2000.
Just a link on size: http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-welcome/what-to-expect/sunday-morning/
“I hope the absurdity of their position has not escaped them.”
Trust me, it has.
Thanks for sharing your story with all of us Nikita. I am glad you have moved on and I am confident our Lord will use this experience in your life for good. I have been down the same road as you and it has caused me to rethink much of what I was so smugly certain of. I read several of Brennan Manning’s books immediately after I left UCCD and I found them to be a salve for my soul. Here is one good quote:
“During his last discourse in the Book of Glory, Jesus says, “I give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples – when they see the love you have for each other” (John 13:34-35, The Message).
The truest test of our faith is the way we are with each other every day. When the primacy of love is subordinated to doctrinal correctness and orthodox exegesis, cool cordiality and polite indifference masquerade as love among theologians, biblical scholars, and faculties across the land. When absolute control and rigid obedience pose as love within the family and the local faith-community, we produce trained cowards rather than Christian persons.”
The Wisdom of Tenderness by Brennan Manning, page 46
There is a song I really love which I have posted on my blog – I think you might like it as well:
http://thouarttheman.org/2014/07/24/im-with-the-drunks/
Let’s forget about these heavy-handed authoritarian preachers and instead look to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith!
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2
@ mirele: indeed. Thank you for saying this, here.
@ Eagle:
oh no! The big bad Catholicism! listen, I attended CJ's church, was discipled, etc.
Now I am a Catholic and go to a priest for spiritual direction. He is so chill compared to the Mahaney-ites.
CHBC are wondering how to let Nikita go ‘biblically’?
How about: ‘May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you, may the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace’? (Numbers 6:24-26)And then leave it at that.
Looks to me like the Lord is doing just anyway. Peace to you, Nikita.
Nikita, I would love to meet you. You sound just like me–“the hard truth” etc. Amazingly similar spiritual experiences.
Well, this post officially got me worked up. (Sorry, Dee, I couldn’t help myself.)
Nikita, good for you! Bravo!
Eagle, I think if you do a GoFundMe, that would be sinful because you are not trusting in the Sovereignty of God. Wait . . I’m confused – – – maybe you need to say, “I’m believing for God to provide the funds.” No, that’s positive confession stuff. Hold on. I feel I need to think about this further because I want to be biblically faithful to you.
I’ll get back to you.
~ja
“But if you are intent on joining Capitol Hill United Methodist, and if we are correctly understanding their intentions, then we will have to give this more thought as elders to determine what would be the biblically faithful avenue to remove you from membership.”
++++++++++++++++++
omg, the pastors at CHBC need to GET OVER THEMSELVES.
exploiting the bible to come up with all kinds of reasons to have a meeting and another meeting and this responsibility and that one, endowing themselves with all kinds of power, authority and control that is as legitimate as monopoly money.
it’s like they’ve used the bible to create a game that they play with their members with all kinds of rules and trump cards reserved only for them. And they always win. Playing games with their members without them realizing it — until they lose and they realize how much it all cost them in real-life damages.
elastigirl wrote:
Reminds me of the Dilbert office’s pre-meeting meetings to discuss future meetings.
Please see this Dilbert comic strip:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-07-05/
I used to work for the female version of Dilbert’s pointy haired boss, and she loved meetings (I hated them). I’m so glad not to be there anymore.
I think the following words of Calvin put the likes of Mark Dever in his place.
“Indeed, because they think no church exists where there are not perfect purity and integrity of life, they depart out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful Church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked”. (Institutes, Bk 4, section1, para 13)
Calvin is here talking about schism but it can just as equally be applied to those who push their own brand of theology or liturgical worship as the only real deal in town. Calvin’s stated view is that a real church exists where the pure word is preached and the sacraments faithfully administered. And he leaves it at that. Neither Mark Dever nor anyone else can insist on 9, 10 or 100 marks being evidence of a true church, nor is there any scriptural warrant for exercising discipline when a member seeks to leave and go to another church.
New Calvinism is neither Calvinism, nor Reformed nor, most importantly, Scriptural.
I’m pretty sure no one HAS to join Capitol Hill. If you don’t like their approach to membership I’d certainly encourage you to go elsewhere.
Of interest, Dever and Nick Bulbeck attended the same English institution of higher learning – Cambridge. For all I know they were there at the same time.
Capitol Hill will NOT appeal to you if you like a lot of special music, emphasis on the worship team.
It is very much a church that emphasizes indepth Bible teaching. I think Mark Dever and the others who teach, often go an hour. Therefore due to time comstraints, the music part of the service is fairly limited. For that reason alone, I don’t think attendance will ever achieve Mega Church status.
*
However, if you like indepth exposition of Scripture, that’s a good place.
seneca
Of course they don’t have to join. I am making sure they understand what’s coming if they do. And, they didn’t understand what jerks the church would be if they decided to leave, I am helping them to leave. Once again, you show ZERO interest when someone shares their heart. I sure hope you are not in the counseling business.
seneca
Exposition of Scripture that leads them to welcome Mahaney who was on the lam from SGM? Exposition of Scripture that leads to the garbage that Nikita and Todd oput up with. You have a strange understandig of *proper*theology. Once again, try to conjureup, somewhere inside that heart of stone, some empathy.
seneca
PS-I am sure they would love you at CHBC,
@ dee:
I’ll do you one better. Nikita can go into this herself, but when she joined, she agreed with it. (Well, she never thought she’d actually have to use it). No one goes in (to anything, really) thinking “Man, this church is going to be a pain to leave when I no longer agree with them.”
Eagle wrote:
Hey Eagle, I’m still waiting for Jonathan Leeman’s responses to my emails regarding the farse (crime, actually) of my “9 Marks” “biblical” church discipline, since his chapter in Dever’s book was cited during the sermon describing me thus:
“A person walking in disobedience, someone the honor and the reputation of Jesus Christ needs protecting from, who has introduced impurity into the church, a prodigal, a rebellious, disobedient believer persisting in hardened, unrepentant sin, a hardened sinner, an evil influence, a rebelling believer who seems to be getting away with their sin, a sinning believer who refuses to repent, showing willful, sinful behavior without inhibition, going on in my disobedience, an unrepentant believer who is persisting in blatant sin, disrupting unity, hurting relationships, maligning people, slandering, professing to be a Christian but not living like one, showing obstinate refusal to listen to godly counsel, a wayward believer , a wayward one, a person so hardened they won’t even listen to the church, a stubborn sinner God is opposed to, a rebellious believer, a sinning believer who is mesmerized by the deceitfulness of sin I have fallen into, causing dissensions and hindrances, entangled in sin, a sinning believer.”
My sin was slander, actually tattling on the elders to the EFCA, with written permission to share everything I had said about their behavior with them, so in summary, holding them accountable for their abuse of power. Jonathan, bro, are you there?
*crickets chirping*
Eagle, I’ll email you later today. I love your comments. And sorry about your car! Hope you’re ok.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Why should anyone assume their interpretation is correct? From my view, they miss the entire point of Jesus Christ.
dee wrote:
Dee, I have no expectation that any church or any pastor/elder is perfect. I AM very cautious about making judgment predicated upon only one side.
*
Finally, I have significant empathy for people in a lot of really, really serious circumstances. You can continue to accuse me of being stone-hearted but it not actually true – as you should well know.
Nikita wrote:
He was hiding from SGM. Never forget that Dever, aware of the problems, had Mahaney come to his church. Dever appears to bend his rules only for his BFFs. He still has his 9 Marks churches, like the one or two in Dubai, hawk Mahaney’s books. There is something deeply wrong with a theology that leads to protecting the leaders and hurting the little guy.
JeffT wrote:
Believe it or not, some courts recognize them to a limited extent. The courts are loathe to interfere in church business. However, if a member wants out, then they have to play the game smart. They need to resign membership as outlined in our linked post. Then, they must threaten the church with the possibility of a lawsuit if they continue to harass them in public.
Already, there have been cases in which this approach has been upheld by the courts. However, the member MUST resign in writing and make sure it is documented.
Lydia wrote:
Well now that is exactly the point. Lots of times somebody will come along and offer to tell the “real truth” about this or that. (Politics, the stock market, the latest cure for something, and sadly religion.) It they are religionists they will propose to let people in on the special knowledge to be found only in “the deep things of scripture” and then the follower can become one of the special people who has the answers, and at that point some are hooked. Never mind the potential follower did not know what quick sand they were stepping into in the first place. Did not the serpent in the garden take the same approach? He offered to share his insight into what was actually going on in the mind of God? Come over here, I have information you need. They (God) are not telling you the truth, but just listen to me and I will tell you the truth. What makes it so dangerous and difficult is that it is a mixture of true and false.
Seneca
No, I don’t know.
dee wrote:
Sadly, my days consist of sitting in front of computer monitors, playing bad golf or reading cheap Kindle thrillers. Off and on there is T.V. Of course, dispersed through-out is the “honey-do” list.
Here is a link to the recommended books by CHBC. Note that Mahaney’s “The Cross Centered Life” is still recommended in spite of the lawsuit and the conviction of Morales. http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-provide/book-recommendations/
Bridget wrote:
This needs to be said over and over.
mirele wrote:
Dever is doing what many people did with Driscoll. Ignore the problems.
mirele wrote:
And, oh they wish they could have that power. They do judge and they have written number of article claiming that they hold the keys to the kingdom of authority and can declare who is in and who is out.
I am NOT exaggerating.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/08/07/if-you-must-demand-authority-you-dont-have-it/
Robin wrote:
Read their “covenant (sounds godly, right). They claim, a priori, that when you leave you must go to an approved church. if you don’t, then they go for the jugular. They hold “meetings” and you are discussed and prayed for. They weep crocodile tears as the bite you on the behind.
You must resign in writing and document it.
@ JadedOne:
I never noticed this before. The church service starts at 10:30 and ends at 12:45. I wonder if they have guys who roam the aisles, bopping people on the head if they doze? The Puritans did.
TW wrote:
Summed it up in a nutshell. In fact your entire comment is excellent.
elizabetta carrera wrote:
That sounds great! I have noticed that there are many priests who are laid back and enjoyable.
mirele wrote:
Amen!! Freedom of religion- 1st amendment right.
Caitlin wrote:
Same here. Boy have I changed
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Of course nobody has to join CHBC, but the whole purpose of this membership covenant nonsense is to exert control over people. And, of course, you’re still missing the point that church membership in the USA is voluntary. As soon as Nikita dropped her letter in the mailbox, she was no longer a member and at that point CHBC needs to just back off.
Seriously, this behavior on the part of CHBC is stalkeriffic. It’s what cults do.
When directly challenged about Mahaney re: sexual abuse enablement and CHBC’s hypocrisy, Seneca keeps a stiff upper lip and completely ignores it, talks about the mix of music vis-a-vis expository preaching there. This is known as misdirection, but it is a pretty paltry attempt; I’ve seen better from my five year old.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Did you read this article Seneca??
The entire point is that CHBC won’t let people leave of their own free will!
Law Prof wrote:
He does this whenever an article has anything to do with Mahaney and Dever — like clockwork.
dee wrote:
Oh, and this is another important thing: Nikita was a member in good standing when she decided to leave. She was in fact NOT under church discipline or hiding from a sin or anything like that. From the best I can tell, her “sin” is “deciding to leave our church.”
Unlike, say, Mahaney.
A lot of the 9Marks lit about “letting” people resign is about people trying to resign while in the middle of being disciplined. I think it’s Biblically unsupportable, myself, but I just want to highlight that it isn’t even the case here!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Reminds me of the end of the battle scene in Kenneth Branaugh’s Henry V- the music is Non nobis domine (not ours, but Your name o Lord, be glorified). Obvious irony being of course that the men there died for what they claimed was God’s will (for who would be king of France), but in reality was their own glory.
Deus vult indeed.
@ Law Prof:
It’s impossible to get an apology out of this crowd. Period. It’s just like dealing w/ personality disordered individuals. 🙁
“A person walking in disobedience, someone the honor and the reputation of Jesus Christ needs protecting from, who has introduced impurity into the church, a prodigal, a rebellious, disobedient believer persisting in hardened, unrepentant sin, a hardened sinner, an evil influence, a rebelling believer who seems to be getting away with their sin, a sinning believer who refuses to repent, showing willful, sinful behavior without inhibition, going on in my disobedience, an unrepentant believer who is persisting in blatant sin, disrupting unity, hurting relationships, maligning people, slandering, professing to be a Christian but not living like one, showing obstinate refusal to listen to godly counsel, a wayward believer , a wayward one, a person so hardened they won’t even listen to the church, a stubborn sinner God is opposed to, a rebellious believer, a sinning believer who is mesmerized by the deceitfulness of sin I have fallen into, causing dissensions and hindrances, entangled in sin, a sinning believer.”
……………………………………………
These are pompous words from power loving men.
James 3:8 “but the tongue can no man tame;it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.”
Calvinist Janeway wrote:
The Party Can Do No Wrong, Comrade.
Bridget wrote:
Drooling fanboy.
Mahaney & Deyer are his Personal LORDs and Saviors, and Can Do No Wrong.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You can do better than that Ken.
Tell me in what sense do “churches” like this NOT resemble a cult?
Bridget wrote:
Perhaps we should refer to a 9Marks church as "Hotel Calvinista".
Bridget wrote:
It seems so absurd, to talk about CHBC’s staunch policy of not allowing people to slink out on issues of sexual misconduct with children, when they seem to be known, in large part, for doing precisely that with the most nationally prominent person who was ever a part of their congregation. It’s like saying “Say what you will, folks, but at least North Korea has a good record on human rights issues.”
Could he be a very persistent troll?
@ Law Prof:
I have said on numerous occasions Seneca is nothing but a troll.
It’s probably been discussed, but I would really like to know what that contract said.
Wow. They are like a cult.
@ Janet Varin:
That whole transcribed paragraph was expressly about you??
‘Church discipline’ – “Gotta be cruel to be kind”
@ elastigirl:
Yeppers.
Mark Dever’s birthday is today apparently.
Caitlin wrote:
I’m wondering if what Nikita believed she was agreeing with was actually what CHBC was holding her to. IOW, did the words in her membership meeting and covenant really mean what she thought they meant? I have discovered, sadly, that words are used to obfuscate rather than clarify in these churches.
dee wrote:
This was a moment of clarity for me in a conversation I had with a person associated with New Calvinism. There was no concern expressed for the victims, only concern about the possibility of false accusation being made against a pastor and an implication that the lawsuits were about money only. It was a chilling moment that revealed the heart of the matter. Mahaney is untouchable for some reason.
Janet Varin wrote:
These are very broad categories that can be made to mean whatever is expedient to get rid of a problem member or to disparage a problem member and limit his or her influence. And by problem member, I mean one who is perceived as obstructing or impeding the agenda of the pastor, not one who is harming the body or the reputation of Christ. Once it is understood that it is all about the “leaders” and not about the little ones, the body of Christ, and the reputation of Christ, then many things make sense.
@ Gram3:
I’ll let her answer that. I know that for the first 2/2.5 years she was an attendee and member, I basically tried to avoid talking to her about the whole thing. If she had a problem, I’d talk it over with her, but I tried to not get into too many discussions of faith with her. (And this is after we had a 2 year and then some mentor-mentee sort of relationship in college- weekly meals to talk about life and God).
But I’m sure it wasn’t presented as “We get to control your spiritual life”
If anyone from CHBC is reading this, I would like to know if a member left to another church that believed exactly the same as CHBC except for just one difference, that one being an egalitarian church regarding women, would this same statement from the CHBC letter regarding the acceptance of homosexual people apply? I know I heard CJ Mahaney say that if complementarian doctrine is ignored that it could be a peril to the gospel. Does Mark Dever agree with that?
Forgot to post the statement: “But how far and how deliberately a church can openly reject biblical teaching that’s this clear and still remain a true church, is a question we will have to give serious thought and prayer. This is especially problematic since this question strikes at the heart of declaring who is and is not a Christian, and in a way that may cruelly lead sinners to Hell while assuring them they will inherit a heavenly kingdom that God emphatically says they will not inherit.”
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Sounds to me like you are saying that they fully understood what they were getting into and if they were naive enough to sign then “sucks to be you.” Now live in your self made prison. And where is the empathy you claim to have?
Patti wrote:
There are articles on the 9Marks site regarding how essential “complementarianism” is to the gospel. Do a search on “gender” and you will find them. You might find them enlightening, amusing, or infuriating. 😉
T4g and TgC both teach via their doctrinal statements that “complementarianism” is a gospel issue. Russell Moore says it has to do with egalitarians failing to acknowledge the fatherhood of God if they deny the subordination of the Son and the male/female relationship reflects that, and so if you deny that you are denying or at least confusing the gospel. Yes, I know that is gobbledygookish argle bargle, but there you have it.
Caitlin wrote:
No, I’m sure it was presented in much more agreeable and spiritual terms. Probably things like loving concern and care, etc. It just seems like bait and switch and a clever way to gain control over your life and even your thoughts.
JadedOne wrote:
“Age-wise, we are young.” I see a problem with that church right at the get-go on that page.
I would think, but don’t know for sure, that C.J. Mahaney was NEVER a member at Capitol Hill. He obviously did VISIT there for a brief period of time.
*
Perhaps some of you, like me, went thru a “season” visiting another church but did not drop your membership at the previous church or join with the new one being visited.
*
But I’m doubtin’ C.J. ever officially dropped membership at CLC and officially joined Capitol Hill.
Credendum: William wrote:
The best cults, meaning the most successful ones, provide an excellent counterfeit supply of whatever the target values. Most of us value love and community, a sense of purpose and meaning, which, in their more sinful manifestations of pride and self-importance, make any of us vulnerable to what they offer. That’s right. Any of us.
They don’t seem like cults going in, especially to people who are inclined to believe the best and who desire to serve God and please him. Just my own b*tterly b*tter perspective.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh yes. I’ve always been more or less the exact opposite of her in terms of what a church should look like/be/ etc. And we’ve talked a few times since about what made it seem so attractive (and why it would have sent me running even most lovingly couched). If I had a legalistic phase, it lasted a hot second, but however it was presented to her at the time (definitely with some “Biblical” and “Gospel” magic incantation words), it spoke to her legalistic tendency and seemed like a good idea. For someone who is very wrapped up in using the Bible as a guidebook, saying “This is how the Bible would have us approach membership” is not only attractive, but a source of pride. So that’s part of it.
Note: in law, there are sometimes these ideas that float around that if you use certain words, you’ll get your desired effect no matter what. The most obvious of which is “for good and valuable consideration” to create a contract. Well, turns out judges don’t buy the idea of magic words- simply saying “consideration” isn’t enough to get you out of having to actually pay something. Whenever I see calvinistas and their Biblical/Gospel laden language, I wonder if they’re trying to provide “good and valuable consideration.” Magic words.
Shannon H. wrote:
Right? And I say this as an almost 27 year old. I would never join a church that didn’t have a full range of ages obviously and well-represented.
One of the few churches in the DC area that a member of CHBC can transfer their membership to is Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington.
Yes this is the same Eric Simmons who had had his own history of serious difficulty. (ed.)
This is the same church that "Andrew White" professed to be so healthy while making a false accusation that could have destroyed me. I prefer to call this a "Gospel Centered False Accusation."
Eagle wrote:
Aaaand now I’m sick to my stomach at the thought of moving to the DC area….
Caitlin wrote:
I wish I’d felt the same way as a teen/twenty-something believer. I LOVED ministries that were “focused” on a specific age group. I felt like they were meeting the needs of a specific population. Then, when we all started having kids, it was like, “Sucks to be you! Get in the kitchen! The rest of us are going to evangelize…” (Not in that WAY of course, but it was heartbreaking to realize that our identities were completely lost, because being young and childfree meant “doing great things for Christ,” while being five years older, married, with kids meant, “submit and join the craft group.”)
dee wrote:
This is not an exaggeration for sure and the following is from the MacArthur camp, (Master’s Seminary, Grace Advance, Grace International, Grace to You and more). It’s not just Dever and his boys.
Crossway; John MacArthur (2010-08-10). ESV MacArthur Study Bible (Kindle Locations 104001-104011). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition
MATTHEW—NOTE ON 16:19 the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These represent authority, and here Christ gives Peter (and by extension all other believers) authority to declare what was bound or loosed in heaven. This echoed the promise of John 20:23, where Christ gave the disciples authority to forgive or retain the sins of people. All this must be understood in the context of Matt. 18:15–17, where Christ laid out specific instructions for dealing with sin in the church (see note on 18:15). The sum of it all means that any duly constituted body of believers, acting in accord with God’s word, has the authority to declare if someone is forgiven or unforgiven. The church’s authority is not to determine these things, but to declare the judgment of heaven based on the principles of the word. When they make such judgments on the basis of God’s word, they can be sure heaven is in accord. In other words, whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth is already “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.
Apart from anything else, the idea that someone cannot leave a voluntary organization is just plain silly.
Apply this to a nonprofit organization that is not a church. A group of people start an organization to develop and run rehabilitation programs for offenders. Time passes, there is a disappointing failure or two, and a member of board gets discouraged and decided that nothing can really be done to rehabilitate. Others feel that the results have been worth it. The discouraged board member resigns.
What good would it do to make him stay on the board? He is no longer in support of the mission. How about telling him he has to join another nonprofit providing rehabilitation programs? He won’t be of help to that group either. Will putting roadblocks in his path to resigning make him change his mind about what he now believes? No. Will being a pain in the behind to him make current members stay? No, because they are free to change their opinion, too, or even to lose interest and want to devote their time elsewhere. They might even leave in response to their observation of bullying behavior.
So what is the point?
Just read the last two sentences from the MacArthur Study Bible Notes on Matt 16:19.
“When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.”
Who is God in this picture? How dare we question those in “authority”. They not only speak for God, whatever they say, God will agree.
Scary stuff for the Sheeple.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
That’s true.
Now that I know they behave more like Star Trek Borg (“you will be assimilated”) crossed with The Terminator (who chased after John and Sarah Connor), and less like Christians, I’ll be sure never to join, if I happen to move to their area. I think that was one of the points of this post, to serve as a warning.
Even if I never join their church personally, I find this church’s behavior pushy, obnoxious, and weird.
The picture they are giving of Christianity is not entirely a bright, good one. Non Christians are supposed to find the Gospel a stumbling block, not a church’s membership agreement.
dee wrote:
I’m not an expert on Mormonism, but have read up a little on it in years past in books, blogs, and some of it by Mormon writers and some by critics of their faith.
They have had problems in this regard, in that they even keep dead people on their membership roles, or people who have left the Mormon church who want nothing to do with their church. Their church refuses to remove their names from their membership lists.
Then there are some Christians who are insisting that women will be submissive to men in the afterlife, and will remain married to their husband in the afterlife. This is also pretty similar to Mormon views on marriage and the afterlife.
There are some Neo Calvinists (or, IMO, “regular” Calvinists) whose views on God’s sovereignty and man’s “total depravity” sound so very similar to Islamic views.
I am finding it alarming and strange that some Christians are fine echoing and repeating teachings that are supported by Non-Christian faiths.
@ Daisy:
This is why as someone who almost converted to Mormonism in college I see a lot of parallels with the Hyper-Reformed camp. When I was being recruited to Eric Simmons former Sovereign Grace Church I told Andrew that Redeemer of Arlington is “Mormonism 2.0”
The only thing that is missing is the sacred underwear, temples and blood atonement! 😛
Regarding Mormon & Islamic tendencies, I have to agree. The whole Calvinist agenda seems like a Borg invasion of Evangelicalism. :(.
dee wrote:
Steven Furtick’s Elevation church wants to do that. They even made a video about it.
UFC Fighter Vitor Belfort Beats Up Distracted Churchgoers in New Commercial for Megachurch (VIDEO)
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ufc-fighter-vitor-belfort-beats-up-distracted-churchgoers-in-new-commercial-for-megachurch-video-110749/
“The commercial, narrated by the [Steven Furtick’s Elevation] megachurch’s creative pastor, c, shows the church’s new solution to dealing with apathetic [classic apathetic tendencies, such as dosing off, playing on their cell phones, checking their watches, or sneaking out of the service] churchgoers:
kidnap them from their Sunday service and dump them in a UFC ring with Belfort, who physically punishes them into being attentive and focused at church.”
Eagle wrote:
They already have their temples — they’re called Megachurch Franchises.
Blood Atonement (against all Heretics and Heathens) will have to wait until they Take Back America and establish a Truly Christian(TM) Nation. Then all bets are off and you can never fill too many mass graves.
Deb wrote:
I also like my Terminator and Borg analogies.
And roach motels.
My parents actually bought a few when I was a kid, when one house we lived in had a bug problem. “Roaches Check in but the Don’t Check Out.” The boxes had sticky stuff in the “floors” of the boxes, so that when a roach walked in, he got stuck and could not leave the box.
Some churches are bad in the other direction.
Once some churches find out you have some kind of problem or on-going sin in your life (depression, dirty web site addiction, whatever your problem or sin struggle may be), they cannot wait to show you the door, they do not want you in their church at all and will boot you out. I’ve seen that story on this blog a time or two, and others.
Daisy wrote:
Calvin fanboys always jump on me for this, but Calvin and Mohammed (and their theologies) have more in common than you think. Primarily Predestination, God’s Omnipotent Will trumping everything else (including God’s Benevolence), and an intricate and elaborate system that’s a wet dream to micromanager types. And a pull to establish their One True Theology as a micromanaging political system.
God/Al’lah is the eternal Cosmic Trump Card.
Calvinist Janeway wrote:
Especially if you don’t have a Y Chromosome or “outie” genitalia instead of “innie”.
Caitlin wrote:
The Shepherding/Splinter “Fellowship” that messed me up in the Seventies had “Elders” who couldn’t have been much over 20 and laity who were mostly around 18. Young enough to both not know anything and to Know It All. Lots of Reinventing the Wheel as well as “We are the First True Church since the Apostles Who Got It Right.”
@ Daisy:
Not sure if this has any impact on membership rolls per se, but Mormons will baptize dead people into the Mormon church by proxy too. It’s my understanding that this is part of the reason they’re so involved in genealogy. I know genealogists who won’t publish their family trees on sites like Ancestry.com for this reason. It doesn’t matter to me, because I don’t accept that it affects my ancestors’ religious status at all (which is sometimes quite prominent – in some lines I’m descended from deacons of the First Church at Boston in the 1640s), but some others don’t want them to be able to do it.
Kay wrote:
Just like the Ayatollahs, the Talibani, and ISIS/ISIL.
My writing partner told me the scariest Reconstructionist website he ever came across was titled “GOD HATH SAID!”
“Nothing’s worse than a monster who thinks he’s right with God.”
— Captain Mal Reynolds, Free Trader Serenity
dee wrote:
That made me have a good laugh this morning 🙂 I bet those that had that job loved it too! LOL!
Gram3 wrote:
This reminds me. A few months ago I posted elsewhere a news story I saw about a Calvinist Baptist preacher who exposed himself to a young girl in public.
(The article or two I saw about it expressly said that the guy was a preacher at a Calvinist Baptist church. This was not guess work on my part.)
I don’t even think I stated my opinion on the story (I may have but don’t think I did), I just put a link up about that story.
Soon after, a Calvinist guy sent me a note telling me I was making Calvinism look bad, that it was probably not the preacher’s Calvinism that made him expose himself to the girl. He went on and on like that, saying how my posting such a story would make Calvinism look bad.
I was amazed that this guy was more concerned with defending Calvinism, or Calvinism getting a poor reputation, than he was in agreeing that what the guy did was wrong in the first place.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
I’m at a loss as to how that makes any substantive difference, other than a purely technical one. CHBC welcomed a person who presided over and allegedly enabled one of the worst child molestation scandals in the U.S. short of the Roman Catholic church, he was welcomed, apparently as something of a hero, by CHBC, without having appropriately been released according to church protocol, by his previous fellowship. I’m having a hard time squaring what you initially said about their firm stand on child sexual abuse and not messing around with it with this clear and unassailable fact.
Kay wrote:
This is like papal infallibility.
Law Prof wrote:
Huge difference, particularly at Capitol Hill, whether or not your a visitor or a member. That’s a huge difference.
🙂
* *
*. *
*
*
__
“I’m free…”
huh?
“With a lit’l help from Jesus, N’ my Wartburg friends…”~ Nikita
*
♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ hum, hum, hum… I feel so broken by their dang legalistic rules,
kick this obstinate CHBC pastor to da curb,
said: Yo! pastor, take your religion and go home.
simply go home!
So I hoist up the sail,
See how the mainsail sets,
(fresh air!)
it’s time ta find a new church home…
a ‘real’ church home,
please let me go!
please let me go!
Why don’t these ding’bats pastors just let me go?
so pack up your religion CHBC, and simply go home…
and hey, leave my phone and email alone!
I feel so broken by their dang legalistic rules,
I told um ta go home…[1]
-snicker-
Sopy
P.S. When you find another church, ask Um’ for asylum. (grin)
__
[1] set to da Beachboys, “Sloop John B”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yon1hJ6HkMc
Comic relief: Melissa – “Here Comes da Son, Somewhere Over the Rainbow…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpPlLuJ_ESc
;~)
—
Shannon H. wrote:
That is not good.
Some quote of Driscoll’s was recently leaked where he told his staff behind the scenes he didn’t want some older elder guy on stage at a Mars Hill church because the guy was “a fat a–.”
Some churches have become too image focused, which usually means they only want to feature, or cater to, folks who are skinny and under the age of 40.
I also talked to a woman on some blog (maybe it was this one?) who said she went to one church who flat out told her she would not be a good fit at their church or welcome there because she was over 35 and single, and their church preferred married people.
Still another article I read had quotes from several ladies who said once they got to 35 / 40 years of age (and they worked as singers or piano players at their church for years), that their preachers told them one day, “you’re too old now, we don’t want you on stage anymore,” and these preachers got 25 year old women to take their place.
I’m seeing a lot of people over the age of 30 who are feeling disenfranchised by churches and leaving churches and even the Christian fait, but the Christian media is consumed with all the people under the age of 30 leaving church, and reporting about them. I think the coverage needs to be more even-handed.
Eagle wrote:
I guess most evangelical churches have opted to go for having in-church coffee shops instead. 🙂
Kay wrote:
Thanks for that reference. You all should really take a look at Leeman’s article on the keys. It is a good example of how an interpretation is assumed to be what the text is actually saying and running with that interposition of that into the text.
Nowhere is it mentioned where geographically this pronouncement of the Lord was made or the historical and cultural significance of that. Or the contextual significance of his instructions to beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees. Oh, the irony of Leeman totally missing that part!
Instead, Leeman and like-minded men *assume* what they wish to prove. Namely, that authority to bind and loose is vested in them as leaders of the church (though they would be careful to humbly say that the authority is actually vested in the congregation.) This is yet another example, like the whole “complementarian” narrative, of yanking a verse out of its literary and cultural context to “prove” what you want it to say so you can use the Bible as a tool for your own purposes while claiming to be under the authority of Scripture.
The funniest thing to me is that they are putting a protestant spin on a Roman Catholic interpretation. If you want to believe in papal authority, then just say so and go through RCIA. But don’t try to use their interpretation while denying the implications of that interpretation. And to make matters even more ridiculous, they then implicitly criticize Roman Catholics for being consistent.
Law Prof wrote:
“All Animals are Equal
BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”
— G.Orwell, Animal Farm
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I agree, HUG. I see some similarities between Calvinism and Islam in some areas, and I’ve seen some Calvinists get very bent out of shape that I (or others) feel this way.
The Calvinists who get upset about it jump up and down and swear that the God they are preaching about is not the same as Allah, but they sound pretty similar to me.
Gram3 wrote:
Because those Romish Papists have a much longer continuous historical trace.
“NO POPERY!” = “NOW I GET TO BE THE NEW POPE! ALL BOW BEFORE MEEEEE!!”?????
@ Hester:
That does sound familiar. I had probably read some of that before but had forgotten. Thank you for the information.
——-
As to my posts about Calvinists above. I wanted to clarify that I do not hate Calvinist people.
I disagree with their theological beliefs on several points, but I don’t hate the people who hold the beliefs.
Though I may harbor a dislike of the arrogant behavior I see in some, the Calvinists who act like anyone who is not a Calvinist is a heretic or an idiot.
I have met a small number of nice Calvinists on the internet in years past, so I don’t mean to say all of them are like that.
Law Prof wrote:
More so.
Papal Infallibility actually has some pretty stringent limitations. The Pope is Infallible only when making a binding decision on a specific matter of Faith and Morals, consistent with a consensus of bishops, and which cannot go against established precedent (AKA the Bible and accompanying oral Tradition).
But these guys? It’s Caligula demanding The Moon, Idi Amin proclaiming himself King of Scotland, or Kim Jong-Un decreeing two plus two equals five — anything goes, no limits. No Right, no Wrong, only POWER.
@ JadedOne:
I have been told that the membership is well under 1000
Gram3 wrote:
CHBC would have to carefully add “congregation” since they have the mix of elder rule along with congregational voting in their governance structure.
However, not so with MacArthur/all things Grace. Their congregations do not vote. They are elder rule.
@ Kay:
But I wonder if there is any practical difference. I’ve been in churches with all kinds of polity, including both of those, and only in one instance has either the elder board or the congregation gone against the senior pastor. I think that the emphasis on congregational authority is just whitewash for what they really are about.
I keep coming back to my conclusion that the real difference, setting aside appearances and outward structures, is between those who actually believe that the Holy Spirit equally indwells and empowers every believer and those who actually or practically believe that certain elites are given more indwelling or empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Gram3 wrote:
This is what I kept emphasizing to Nikita: God gives YOU the wisdom through the Counselor, to figure out how to behave. You don’t need 50 million rules and a Phd in Ancient Greek to follow God.
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
F
Seneca, I’m really trying to see what you’re point is. My understanding is that CJ fled the *process* of leaving CLC and was sheltered at CHBC by Dever. Further, the *process* that CJ fled at CLC was the same *process* which he insisted others complete. And my understanding is that CHBC, as described in this post, requires a *process* similar to the one at CLC from which Dever protected CJ. This *process* is considered by Founders, of which Dever is one, to be essential to recovering an authentic church.
If you are trying to make the point that elders/pastors should be exempt from the *process* or that elders/pastors have the authority to grant special dispensations from the *process* of leaving a church on good terms, then just say so.
You can supply helpful counterpoints or correction, or you can be merely a troll. In this case, you have, so far, chosen to be like a troll by evading the clear point that Dever at CHBC and all of the enablers at SGL’ville are employing double standards of the most obvious sort and are behaving hypocritically.
Kay wrote:
With the Elders being the Yes-Men of the Anointed Pastor/Dictator.
Caitlin wrote:
But going it alone with just “ME & God” also has its drawbacks.
Reinventing the Wheel, for one.
No sense of history or learning from those who came before, for another.
One True Church of One, for still another.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Not “ME and God” but not so… focused on the Bible as the alpha and omega. Because they weren’t really any more interested in, say, St. Ignatius or what a woman from Sub-Saharan Africa would have to say about God either.
A question: It is my understanding that Calvinists believe that god has already decided who is “elect” and who is not. Is that correct? and only God knows who these people are. Correct? It appears to me that these so called TRUECHRISTIANS have decided that they are DEFINITELY ‘elect’ and therefore have the right (obligation) to tell others how to live.
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks you Gram. I’ve been around for a few years now, I’m not a troll because I am quite willing to engage on the points. Commenters call me a troll because they have trouble with what I’m saying.
*
This post is about the membership issues of Capitol Hill. OTHER people dragged C.J. Mahaney into it. I’d bet my bottom dollar he was never a MEMBER of Capitol Hill so this post doesn’t apply to him.
*
Gram, I’m thinking you don’t actually know what passed between Dever and Mahaney during the time he visited the church. I DO appreciate Mark Dever’s willingness to get involved when a fellow pastor asked for help. Other commenters believe Dever should have never talked to him. So be it.
_
I’m pretty sure there’s no double standard for elders at Capitol Hill. It would be even HARDER for you to leave if there was an issue you needed to deal with.
*
I’ve never seen anything to suggest Mark Dever isn’t a good man, has a pastor’s heart for his people and attempts to honestly expound the Word of God. I have no idea what his relationship with Mahaney is like, I’m thinking you don’t either.
*
So, as I’ve said more than a few times over the past several years of interactions on this board, can we hold off the hanging until guilt is established?
( BTW, as far as I know Mahaney himself has never been accused of sexual indiscretions. One other point, it seems like Mahaney took a leave of absence BEFORE the whole sexual abuse thing became a court issue so the timing of his interactions with Dever would appear to be not related as to what was going to become. And finally, unless Nate Morales was paid staff, and I don’t think he was, no SGA pastor that I’ve heard of has had charges filed against him for sexual abuse.)
Gram3 wrote:
I agree. The Elder rule only guys just skip the step of even claiming congregational authority, but in reality I’ve seen little difference between the Mac and Dever guys when dealing with the authority issues.
Gram3 wrote:
Both Mac and Dever and their trained shepherds teach the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for every believer. I’m not sure that the distinction is that they are more indwelled or empowered, but that they are the authority with those keys (which by the way many biblical scholars say is speaking of the Gospel, not authority), they have the seminary degree, they might even be ordained! and that makes them automatically an elder. Then the work of the Holy Spirit in every believer’s life becomes secondary or even ignored, because they love to take on the role of the Holy Spirit.
When researching the Pulpiteers and their online presence, I found this comment from one of them.
“It is am (an) awesome thing to understand when you are in the pulpit that you are part of the unbroken 2 Timothy 2:2 line”
On the surface, maybe there is no red flag here. It is in scripture. However, combined with his other posts and where he comes from, he is a proud, key carrying authority who can say “it is so” and God will agree.
Daisy wrote:
Thanks you Daisy.
Gram3 wrote:
Please forgive this inexcusable spelling lapse by my rogue keyboard. And I have no idea what the significance of “F” is.
__
“Of Lawful Oaths and Vows”
3. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act; and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. [1]
__
Reference:
[1] WCF, 1788 American revision; Chapter 22
http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html?pfriendly=Y&ret=L2RvY3VtZW50cy9XQ0Zfb3JpZy5odG1s
—
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
I have never heard any one on this blog say that they hate Calvinists. Why would that need to be clarified for anyone? To disagree with what some theologians/pastors/elders/teachers teach does no mean that they are hated.
I would like to go to CHBC this Sunday and bring a tape measure…when I see Mark Dever I will start to measure his waist. If he inquires I will tell him, “I just want to see how big the skirt was that CJ Mahaney hid behind” I mean….we’re talking about a “Gospel Centered Skirt”. And this was after he practiced his “Gospel centered Blackmail” and bragged about his pregnant wife hugging the “Gospel Centered toilet” after which she was forced to have “Gospel Centered Sex”. Now…speaking of the “Gospel” I am going to by a “Gospel Centered pizza” with extra “Gospel Centered Mushrooms” 😛 Who here is sick of hearing the Neo-Cals talk about “Gospel Centered?”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You’re right, the pope is only qualified to speak ex cathedra within narrow parameters. Had a Catholic friend set me straight on that one years ago.
Kay wrote:
They don’t understand that Jesus was referring his disciples to the Religious Authorities of the Temple System who claimed to have the ability to bind and loose. Jesus told them that he would give them the true keys to the Kingdom–he would provide the way into the Kingdom by being the Door himself.
That would be the gospel proclamation that the King had come and would be the Atoning Sacrifice. He told them this at a pagan site for human sacrifice. I’ve been there, and it is truly a creepy place. The King had come to overthrow all of the false religions, including the Temple Religious System as well as the various pagan systems. The radical message is that the King is also the Sacrifice for everyone whether Jew or pagan Gentile!
But the Gospel Gang can’t see the gospel in this section of Matthew’s gospel because they are so obsessed with some having power and authority over others that power and authority is all they can see. It is tragic for them and for all they lead into this snare.
Kay wrote:
Wow, who knew that the Pulpiteers were Landmarkers? 🙂
Sopwith wrote:
When you take into consideration the reason the WCF was instituted in Britain and Scotland, the statement itself is hypocritical. Residence of these countries were required to adhere (memorize and swear to it starting at age 9) to the WCF or risk shunning and loss of family, friends, and business. Refraining “in good conscience” was not acceptable. I’m sure that the WCF holds to some truths, but I would never swear to it (either) for any reason.
Eagle wrote:
I’m waiting for Calvin’s Gospel Transmogrifier.
@ Gram3:
. . . the ‘unbroken 2 Tim. 2:2 line?’ Who do they think they are anyway?
Sopwith wrote:
“34But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”
Matthew 5:34-37
Bridget wrote:
Well, it sounds to me like Landmarkism or apostolic succession. Not sure I’d want to hang my hat on those pegs, but I’m not a pastor due to lacking the requisite genetic configuration. And, let’s just say that my last interaction here with one of the Pulpiteers did not end well, so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be interested in my opinion except as guidance for what not to believe. Experience has relieved me of the burden of certainty I bore at their age, so maybe the same will be true for them.
@ roebuck:
Yep. Pretty simple 🙂
Here is my take …
1) WHY do churches believe that one needs to sign ANYTHING? Please show me where that is in the Bible.
2) I understand the need to help and have concern of someone attending a church that permits and accepts sinful behavior as stated in scripture. To me, it would be a VERY DANGEROUS church and I would want to warn individuals to stay away from that church. So from that perspective, I would agree with individuals and pastors discussing the topic with Believers and/or members.
3) I find that the Neo-Calvinist churches, and many other evangelical churches in the US and the world, have incorporated many worldly aspects of how to operate and run a church. Many in the United States run them as one would run a company. I’m pretty sure that the Lord didn’t intend a church to be ran like IBM. Membership? Voting? Top-down leadership? Pastor-led and controlled churches? … whatever happened to the Holy Spirit? Whatever happened to Spirit-led individuals. Do churches need structure? Sure, the New Testament shows excellent structure and leadership … the problem is that today’s church has taken the reigns from the Holy Spirit and have done it on their own.
4) I have NO intention of ever becoming a member of a church ever again. I attend a church every Sunday, I tithe and I am starting to get more involved in activities. However, I do not see the need to have to join and be a member. Heck, I love shooting rifles and guns, but I will not be joining the NRA.
I recently saw a trailer for a BBC series. Haven’t seen the show and it looks pretty intense, but I couldn’t help laugh a bit and think the character prep might have included reading the authority abuse stories dicussed on TWW.
The young lady here must have been a member who joined their cult and had earlier shared her secret. She probably is trying to leave their church. Of course, “We’re just here to shepherd you.” Not sure what the significance of the 45 rpm adapter could be. =) The shepherds are shipping her to Seattle (Mars Hill maybe?) and they leave the “9”(Marks) calling card. Fits pretty well – Intruders.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/intruders/videos/can-you-keep-a-secret/
Senenca
You get into trouble if you do not join in a timely fashion.It makes no difference to them and you know it.
Seneca
You are being disingenuous on this matter and I am getting really tired of you twisting the large amount of information that has been provided on this blog. NO ONE here has said that Mahaney personally abused kids and you know it.
The lawsuit claims he covered it up. Either doing it or covering it up is despicable. Those who cover it up are morally responsible and reprehensible. Dever took on Mahaney and continues to support him by pushing his book. Mark Dever-what a guy! What a pastor’s heart!
Don’t worry. Mahaney and Dever have probably read this blog and know how much you loooooove them. So, be honest nd straightforward and stop trying to poison the well.
Here’s the weird deal about all these hyper-control churches.
They have the best/only/right Bible teaching in the world. You sit under their teaching for years. You do/believe everything they say.
But, you’re still considered too incompetent to make a decision for yourself.
Rob,
It’s ALL about control. It has nothing to do about grace, love, care or Christ.
Rob wrote:
That’s true. It’s about you obeying the traditions of men that they entertain.
Interesting tweet/quote from Master’s Seminary 2 days ago.
Master’s Seminary @mastersseminary · Aug 26
Classes begin today. “A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of God.” -Spurgeon
Janet Varin wrote:
Are you sure he wasn’t talking about C.J. Mahaney?
Rob wrote:
Great observation. I know of a church where an inductive Bible study of a book of the Bible is taught using an approved book about that book of the Bible rather than using readily-available study tools and the text of the Bible itself. Really, you can’t make this up. Hellicopter-pastoring.
Gram3 wrote:
I swear on the ESV that was a typo committed by my Arminian keyboard.
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Gram. I did wonder about the rogue F
Gram3 wrote:
Aren’t these items considered contraband in the hands of women?
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Well, it appears that you are troll. A winsome troll, but a troll nevertheless.
Would you care to respond substantively? I’m guessing no.
Rob wrote:
If a woman has her Blue Book and her husband, I think it is OK. But all questions and all remarks should come from a male person. That is my understanding, but you should really get an authoritative one from an approved Male Authority Person. 😉
Eagle wrote:
Can I bring the Gospel Centered Old Grandad? I think I need it, just to get through all the Gospel Centered [censored]these guys keep babbling about…..
I have to tell you a story about when I joined the UMC:
I was arriving from a church which I knew was never, not in a million years, “allow” me to leave them, & expressed this concern to my local UMC pastor. He advised me to “not worry, [he] could handle it.
A few weeks later, he called to tell me that I was being received as a member “by letter” the coming Sunday AM. (FYI: the UMC writes to the church the memeber is leaving, politely requesting a letter in response which declares the person is a “member in good standing”; the member is transferred on the basis of said letter). I was startled, since I KNEW that no such was forthcoming, but after church that next Sunday, I was greeted with coffee, tea, and/or punch, and cookies were passed. I finally cornered the pastor, & asked “HOW did you get a letter out of them?” To which he cheerfully replied:
“Oh, they didn’t send the letter; I knew they wouldn’t. I wrote asking for one, & when they didn’t answer, I wrote them another one. When they didn’t answer the 2nd letter, I wrote “letter lost in mail” in my records, & entered you as transferred. I do it all the time with churches who don’t act like they OWN their members. They don’t, you see, so it’s the easiest way for everybody.”
I dunno…..those guys at That Unnamed Church are probably still foaming at the mouth, decades later….but it does them no good; it just messes with their blood pressure.
I pass this bit of advice along to others; it worked fine for me. 😉
“act that they own; not don’t act like”.
I can live with most of my lousy typing, but can someone PLEASE fix the noted above? I sound more confused than I can bear!!
@ zooey111:
That is such a delightful story. I needed to hear something good about something ‘churchified” about now.
__
roebuck,
Hey,
Thanx for the response!
Scripture is always good.
Please consult your family attorney as to when and where lawful oaths, and vows are necessary in modern society.
ATB
Sopy
—
Gram3 wrote:
Quote from Thabiti Anyabwile:
“The apostle understands that shepherds should smell like sheep. The sheep’s wool should be lint on our clothes. Our boots should be caked with their mud and their mess. Our skin ought to bear teeth marks and the weather-beaten look of exposure to wind, sun, and rain in the fields. We belong among the people to such an extent that they can be called on to honestly testify that our lives as messengers commend the message. We should be so frequently among them that we smell like them, that we smell like their real lives, sometimes fragrant but more often sweaty, musty, offensive, begrimed from battle with the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Our people should be able to testify that we ‘lived among them for their sake.’ Our living with them is to benefit them. We should be welcomed among the people because our presence means spiritual gladness and profit (Hebrews 13:17). The goal of all our living is the blessing of all our people. That’s why we come and dwell among them.”
Oh Dee – did you remember to wish Mark Dever a Happy Birthday?
Twitter:
Thabiti Anyabwile @ThabitiAnyabwil · 10h
Praying The Lord blesses and encourages my dear brother @MarkDever on this the day of his birth! Happy birthday bro!
🙂
* *
*. *
*
*
__
Bridget,
Hey,
Thank U, 4 your response!
Yes, ‘The Westminster Confession of Faith’ is a certain ‘legal’, historical, governmental, and corporate instrument, ‘forged’ in the crucible of war.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/wescon01.html
Please allow me to expand upon my purpose of this specific reference.
Simple. 🙂
–> Be careful ‘where’, and ‘when’ you give your word, or solemnly affirm anything.
Also, this post is about CHBC and the Nine Marks 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization; therefore it important to gain a proper understanding as to the ‘why’ of this insidious CHBC legalistic delema injuring so many kind folks.
(sadface)
As you know, certain documents can assist in this understanding. WCF (what ever version) is only one of them.
*
Thank-You for your faithfulness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzsf72lYLo0
ATB
Sopy
__
Inspiration: Connie Talbot–“Somewhere Over The Rainbow”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaGJ3Vv4lJQ
🙂
—
Kay wrote:
Wow. Wonder where they come from? Do they dwell among us like Immanuel did? Gods with us?
So, they smell like sheep because we sheep make them smell and not because they are sheep themselves?
This is creepy.
Gram3 wrote:
It really is.
So is that twitter post from Master’s Seminary.
Master’s Seminary @mastersseminary · Aug 26
Classes begin today. “A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of God.” -Spurgeon
Okay class of future elders, you are an awful weapon in the hand of God. Now act like it! We will train you and declare you are elders so you may go and dwell among those smelly sheep.
Gram3 wrote:
Go back, you’ll find my response.
zooey111 wrote:
This is commonly called a “workaround”.
Smart UMC pastor.
Eagle wrote:
Think you can get past The Anointed One’s Armorbearers(TM)?
If so, better have the number of a bail bondsman and the up-front cash for the bond. Because a lot of Armorbearers/Enforcers are moonlighting cops.
Gram3 wrote:
That’s nothing new. I remember Bible studies from the Seventies where the ONLY book in use was Late Great Planet Earth. Only Bible texts were proof-texts from LGPE.
Gram3 wrote:
Isn’t apostolic succession ROMISH?
nmgirl wrote:
Amazing how arrogant you can get when you have a Get Out of Hell Free card signed by God before the foundation of the world. You were Predestined by God as His Speshul Pet to rule over others, In’shal’lah.
Gram3 wrote:
……………………………..
Wacky too. Are they taking upon themselves, the mantle of Jesus, THE shepherd? How sporting of them to smell us…..GAG.
@ zooey111:
I love this story.
Bridget wrote:
Because I was afraid it may be construed in that manner. Sometimes criticisms of Calvinism or Calvinists can turn pretty heated.
I think this is also the thread where someone wondered earlier, prompted by the story in the original post about the church that was unhappy with the lady transferring to a homosexual-marriage- endorsing UMC church, why evangelicals “have a problem with” or “hate” homosexuals.
Just based on what I saw in the original post, I don’t think the church in question hates homosexual people, but that they don’t regard homosexual behavior and/or homosexual marriage as being biblical, which IMO, is a perfectly standard, Christian view (and not hateful).
That church holding that position is being interpreted by some who frequent this site as the church detesting homosexuals.
Sometimes even on sites such as this, where most participants strive to be sensitive, if someone holds to a different position on some topic or another, they will be considered hateful for it anyway.
So I wanted to be clear that while I disagree with some of Calvinism’s tenets, I don’t hate the people who believe in it (though I admit to taking issue with the Calvinists who behave arrogantly or rudely towards people who don’t agree with Calvinism).
Dee & Deb – in the face of all your critics, I have a couple of quotes for you.
The first is, perhaps, how every post should start… 😉
The second is my general response to all the ‘pastors’ who think they ‘understand the bible’ better than anyone else….
—–
[1] C S Lewis ~ “The Essential C S Lewis: Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”
@ Jeannette Altes:
Thought I footnoted both quotes – they are both from the same essay.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, I was trying to be uncharacteristically charitable by not pointing out their utter disregard for the authority of the text of Scripture. I refrained from the embarrassing our Pulpiteer by refraining from observing that 2 Timothy 2:2 is misused in this instance by the Pulpiteer, unless this particular Pulpiteer is actually a Pulpitette and means that they are in an unbroken line of faithful people of the Word.
Alas, I am all but certain that this Pulpiteer was boasting about being a faithful male pulpit person in an unbroken line of faithful male pulpit persons, thereby demonstrating their very low view of the text of Scripture. Or perhaps that they do not understand gendered languages, which you among others here do understand.
If our beloved Pulpiteer is using that verse correctly, then he must also loudly proclaim that it is only appointed to male humans to die once and be judged, and salvation has come to all male humans but not to female humans. Obviously, they are in rebellion against God’s word and anti-gospel! Don’t they believe the Bible?!?
All this talk about sheep…
Some random thoughts regarding sheep and shepherds:
As someone who has kept a small flock of sheep (the actual woolly kind) for many years, I must say that there have been times when the Biblical metaphor of sheep and shepherd has been somewhat off-putting – I mean, it’s not really all that flattering, is it? And other times when it seemed totally apt, in a sort of “duh” way.
Sheep are, shall we say, ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray – but how smart do you have to be to hunt grass? When you are standing on a pasture made of grass? And they will do the same stupid things over and over and never seem to learn (sound familiar?).
Your sheep actually do get to know you, and the sound of your voice. They are social animals, and belong in a flock. When danger (real or perceived) threatens, the first thing they ALL try to do is be in the middle of the flock – don’t stand out, whatever you do! (Sound familiar?)
This is how my border collies are able to control them – they ball up, and can be moved about as a unit. Except, of course, for the one that bolts off. In the wild, that would be called “wolf food”, but in a domestic flock you just have to go get ’em. I believe there is a Biblical story about that as well 🙂
And yes, sheep do have a strong smell – lanolin. If you touch one, you smell like lanolin. If one brushes against you, your jeans smell like lanolin. Some people can’t stand the smell of sheep. I don’t particularly enjoy it, but it doesn’t bother me all that much either. It’s a bit of residual lanolin that makes wool garments so water resistant and warm…
The Bible is full of sheepy metaphors, and I reckon that in those times, in those contexts, people knew exactly what the point was that was being made. If you have never managed a flock of sheep, it might seem a bit strange. But if you have, the metaphor makes all kinds of sense.
As for me, I know who my Shepherd is…
Jeanette
Great quotes!
roebuck wrote:
Roebuck, good reminder!
I think others would agree we do not want to discount the Scripture, it’s metaphors and teaching using sheep/shepherds. There are beautiful passages and great word pictures regarding sheep and especially the Lord as Shepherd.
What some here are reacting to are the words from these so called pastors, in some cases, self proclaimed shepherds. Their words ring hollow and give their own offensive stench when compared to the example Christ gives in Scripture. They have revealed their true selves by their actions and edicts.
Only cults won’t let people go.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck…it’s a duck
Kay wrote:
Oh yes, I understand – believe me, I had the same reaction.
Just wanted to get the focus back on the Bible, and the real source of these metaphors…
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Anglican, too.
@ roebuck:
Have you ever checked out the sheep clicker training and agility vids on YouTube? I think they might be a pl asant surprise!
numo wrote:
I have done a lot of clicker training over the years with dogs, and I even got my big old draft horse (that’s her in my ‘avatar’ picture) to fetch a Jolly Ball, to the amazement of my Vet. I actually won a bet on that one – long story 🙂
But I will have to be honest – it never occurred to me to try it on a sheep. I will look for some vids on YouTube…
Gram3 wrote:
“I AM A PHARISEE, THE SON OF A PHARISEE…”
In a genealogy extending back to Moses…
roebuck wrote:
Beautiful.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Humbly, of course…
@ Kay:
” When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.”
I cant believe they said that. it reads that the church has more power to loose people from sin than God does, that He waits to do that until the church acknowledges it. Jesus doesn’t need the amen of any church anywhere to loose me from sin, Jesus does it by His blood shed at calvary. the cross where apparently none of these pastors has been or seen or even maybe heard of.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“They already have their temples — they’re called Megachurch Franchises.
Blood Atonement (against all Heretics and Heathens) will have to wait until they Take Back America and establish a Truly Christian(TM) Nation. Then all bets are off and you can never fill too many mass graves.”
don’t know if you were joking, but Joel’s army via Todd Bentley is saying exactly that for reals.
sam h wrote:
It is sometimes very hard to believe what some of these characters say. And one wonders just what they’re playing at? Do they honestly think that they have some sort of power over God? That’s a dangerous game, it seems to me.
If only it weren’t for all the people that get caught up with this, and get hurt…
sam h wrote:
I hear ya!
sam h wrote:
Amen!
Numo
I think a few sheep have surprised some modern day pastors! I heard on mega pastor in our area talk about dumb, egotistical sheep. Maybe there are a few smart ones after all.
roebuck wrote:
Yes! That’s where we need to focus, on the real source. Thanks!
Guess I’m going to have yet another long post with all my comments at once. Hopefully you aren’t all tired of reading what I’ve written by now.
1. Thank you, TWW, for being supportive. Special thanks to TW for your post and the Brennan Manning quote! I’m writing that one down.
2. CHBC membership is around 900-950.
3. Caitlin is right – I completely agreed that CHBC had the right way to do church membership when I joined, never expected that I would fall under their hatchet. I agreed with them! How were these clauses (“entreating and admonishing one another as occasion may require…when we depart from here, we will as soon as possible join another body where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant…”) supposed to hurt me?
CHBC’s structure leaves no room for individual relationship with Christ or a person’s ability to hear the Spirit. Hence we are talking about someone who agreed and then changed their mind, Seneca, not some thought-up straw man who is silly enough to join an organization they don’t agree with.
4. As Caitlin also points out, I was a member in good standing when I first emailed the church to let them know I was moving on. This was not a case of running from church discipline. Just wanted to clear that up, since some people seemed confused.
5. I’m not judging Mark Dever’s intentions here, or trying not to. I met the man only once, very briefly, and I think he really is trying to portray the Gospel as faithfully as the box he’s built around himself will allow him to see it. I can say from experience that one of the most hurtful things other Christians have done to me is harshly judge the intentions behind my actions, so I try not to do that. I had to be broken out of a very similar box by Jesus and His grace. I’m just saying that Dever’s church is messed up, and they’re all too blinkered to see any other way of doing things.
6. CJ Mahaney never did join CHBC, but that is a non sequitur. He was running from the same rules at his own church and CHBC provided him shelter. As others have pointed out, if CHBC were being consistent, they would have turned him back to SGM.
7. Re: hitting people who fall asleep in church, I once received a “How to Listen to Sermons” pamphlet from CHBC, which included helpful suggestions such as “get a good night’s sleep and be well rested.” Apparently the sheeple need basic lessons on living as adults.
8. The difference between total elder rule and congregational voting on things is negligible, because the congregation just votes the way the elders recommend every single time. I never saw it play out otherwise.
9. Don’t be afraid to move to DC, Calvinist Janeway! There are real Christ followers rather than just sheeple here. We exist, I swear!
Hey Dee and Deb,
Here is a conference you may not want to miss, and it’s even in your neck of the woods!
http://www.9marks.org/events/9marks-southeastern-0
@ roebuck:
“Some random thoughts regarding sheep and shepherds:”
thanks for the sheepy reminders, I have also heard that if a sheep falls over it cannot right itself but the shepherd must do it, is that true? cause I’m not wise but the bible says not many wise were called, and I’m not always able to get up out of my backsliding but Jesus always rights me.
here is the prophecy of Jesus being the only One Shepherd, and also how He said we are to view ourselves in regard to having authority over others:
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. Ezek 37:24 (KJV)
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:15-16 (KJV)
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Matt 23:5-8 (KJV)
I think the first red flag I get with certain ministrys is when they call themselves shepherds or apostles or things like that instead of brethren that follow Jesus the One Shepherd. also I have never heard a self appointed ‘apostle’ boasting about how many times his ship wrecked or how many times he was hungry afraid or robbed or beaten, the only true sign of an apostle given in the bible lol 2 Corinthians 11:22
TW wrote:
Bringing out the big boys — ha!
Nikita wrote:
Nikita, thanks for clarifying that point–it resonates with me. I especially appreciate your comment about CHBC leaving no room for an individual’s relationship with Christ. That is insightful. It is good, I think, that your believe that the folks at CHBC are acting in a way that they consider biblical though they are mistaken.
From your post (hoping the html renders):
The first bold quote is troubling on so many levels, but especially the part about “declaring who is and who is not a Christian.” I have no idea where they get this from the Bible and how they ground the authority they claim.
The second bold quote is just odd, it seems to me, for the flagship church of a movement that promotes this teaching. Have they really never encountered a situation where a member decided to withdraw to attend a mainline church? It seems to me that they would have thought through all sorts of scenarios (and possibly encountered them previously), and it seems they should be prepared to offer a timely response to you that is well-supported by Scripture. If it is so unclear in this instance, maybe their entire view of church membership and leadership authority is not as clear as they teach that it is.
Nikita wrote:
Thank you for the clarifications you provided in this post. Actually do hope you’re doing well.
Rob wrote:
Reminds me of a conversation Neil Cole (author of “Organic Church”) described between himself and the pastor of a church that was in the process of appointing one or more new elders, or similar. Cole was asking the pastor why he had brought in some professors from the local seminary to vet the candidates’ teaching, when the congregation could have been doing that themselves. The pastor answered that the congregation wouldn’t be able to tell whether the men’s teaching was good or bad. The conversation then went roughly like this (and I paraphrase):
Cole: How long have you been pastoring here?
Pastor: I’ve been 23 years in the ministry!
Cole: So after 23 years – more than a thousand sermons – and your people still can’t tell good teaching from bad?
Pastor: [silence]
Cole: How many years do you think they would have to sit under your ministry before they could tell good from bad teaching?
TW wrote:
I was listening to Christian radio yesterday afternoon and heard the president of the seminary advertising this event.
How sad that I have a conflict that weekend. 😉
@ Nikita:
Thanks for responding to some of our readers. I really appreciated this:
A few years before we started blogging, I used to attend SEBTS chapel services regularly (sometimes once a week). Dr. Akin taught through the book of Jude over two semesters, and I was there for every single message. I was so interested in what he had to say because of a terrible conflict that occurred at my previous church, of which Akin was fully aware. He came weekly over a period of about four months and tried to straighten out the awful mess. I was loyal to him because of his sacrificial efforts.
When I finally realized that the seminary was heading in its current direction – toward what I consider to be patriarchy – I could no longer attend chapel services.
I continue to be a conservative Christian, and I realize that this group has become so rigid in their interpretation of scripture that they have forced me out of fellowship with them. As a woman, I feel I am unable to exercise my spiritual gifts in their little corner of Christendom.
Nikita wrote:
I’d mail CHBC a pamphlet entitled “Brevity: the Soul of Wit.”
@ Gram3:
I went from Baptist to UMC, and there really is a huge difference in what the two groups consider to be authority on which to make faith decisions. This leads to noticeably different responses to a number of issues. The current popular issue is sex/ sexuality (and it is more complicated that just being or not being gay affirming) but there are other issues as well. If some church sees issuing a “letter” as a statement of approval of the other church, then no, CHBC probably does not approve of the move. However, if the “letter” is considered merely of a statement of “what was our experience with this person while they were with us–for what that is worth” then there should be no problem.
IMO, the whole issue of a “letter’ needs re-examined.
Now, asking for a certificate of baptism is quite a different issue since a decision has to be made whether or not the candidate will be baptized at any new church they may affiliate with in the future. In my case, the UMC church were I more or less am just took my word for it, since way back in the day the baptists often did not issue baptismal certificates in order to emphasize their belief that baptism is not essential for salvation. The local SBC mega, however, issued a COB to each grandchild in turn, so I suppose that other practice is out of fashion right now.
This whole area of thinking is so messed up and inconsistent in some areas of protestantism.
Nancy wrote:
As far as I can tell, the UMC standard for receiving communion is: can you walk to the altar? If not, we’ll give it to you in the pew! My church growing up even had a separate communion service for children (in the chapel while “Big Church” was happening- there were costumes and puppets). Four year olds, getting communion.
Quite frankly, out of all of the things about the UMC, this is to me the most important and the most Biblical. Who can join in fellowship with God through Christ’s sacrifice? Anyone who wants to. Their level of understanding or commitment or anything else is irrelevant.
Gram3 wrote:
Bwhahahaaaaaa
Jesus would be overturning tables by now.
I’m glad to see so many nice things about animals in this thread.I’m giddy with relief this afternoon after a needle biopsy has shown that my younger dog Linus, a curly canine comedian, is much more likely to have Lyme’s disease, or similar, than lymphoma. Blood test Monday.
I wanted to query the ‘soulless jackals’comment – how could they possibly know a jackal has no soul? What kind of unsubstantiated nonsense is this? How can this be taken seriously as a criticism?
P.S. Gram3, you are slaying me today. SO funny.
Caitlin wrote:
My UMC church is more liberal in this issue than my children’s/grandchildren/s episcopal church. Either way, I have not seen any “communion police” checking IDs at either place.
_
“What Drives Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s ‘Apparent’ Abusive Behavior?
hmmm…
Why does Capitol Hill Baptist Church appear to stock, and or harass certain CHBC departing members?
What is this church’s motivation?
Is it Calvinistic doctrine or its mis-use, that ‘drives’ this behavior?
Is it an inflated sense of responsibility?
Is this behavior hyper-authoritarian, and a mis-use of scripture?
Where in the scriptures is it given to officers of the christian church the right to harass, stock, or otherwise purposely disrupt kind folk’s lives after signaling departure and termination of said christian local body church membership?
When does church ‘support’ turn into ‘disturbance’ ?
Again, what doctrine or other motivator drives this unwholesome behavior?
(sadface)
Sopy
—
@ Sopwith:
Great questions!
I have one more to add? Do these obsessive leaders really trust in God's sovereignty?
senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
Didn’t find it.
__
Does a member, preparing a membership resignation letter to leave Capitol Hill Baptist Church require the assistance of an attorney? If leaving/departure is for cause, is this advisable? When is legal representation advisable as well? —
Nancy wrote:
That’s one reason why I prefer the UMC – they’re belief in open communion so that your eligibility for communion is only between you and God. There are no gatekeepers to determine if you are the ‘right kind of Christian’ to participate in communion with others at that church.
Most fundy churches, on the other hand, seem to practice closed communion (they often call it “close” communion only so it doesn’t sound as bad, but it’s the same thing). In order to receive communion at that church you not only have to be a Christian, but the ‘right kind of Christian’ as well. The details can vary as to what the tests are for determining but but, for example, the Roman Catholics only allow Roman Catholics to take communion at their churches. Many fundy churches are the same – congregants of a WELS church (Lutheran Wisconsin Synod) not only don’t allow non-WELS individuals to take communion, they tell their members they are prohibited from taking communion at any non-WELS church.
It just seems to me to be wholly against the purpose of Communion and being ‘Christian’ when churches refuse to allow any other Christians to commune with God with them except those with their own narrow beliefs. Maybe I missed something in the Bible, but I don’t recall Jesus saying “take, eat, but only if you belong to XYZ denomination”.
Sopwith wrote:
In the SBC there is a group of Reformed 1689ers called Founders. They are concerned about churches that have rolls which are inflated by baptisms of very young children, by members who no longer attend, and by false professions born of a decisional theology. In short, their concern is a very “Baptisty” concern since one of the main Baptist distinctives is a regenerate church membership.
Mark Dever is/was a Founders member. He is the intellectual and pleasant face of the Founders movement in the SBC. Since they are 1689ers, it is not surprising that they view Arminians with great suspicion, and they will characterize Arminians as being very man-centered because they do not share Founders’ view of the way God exercises his sovereignty.
Their solution to the problem of church rolls being inflated by non-believers is to create barriers to entry and exit. Entry barriers because they want their church to be pure, and exit barriers because they don’t want to endorse a non-believer to another church. I do think that they are genuinely concerned about the spiritual welfare of their members, although they pursue that in an obsessive way rather than letting the Holy Spirit work.
Their solution is very man-centered, ironically, because it involves the judgment of men and the erection of man-made rules that obscure the point of their concern. For example, 9Marks churches, at least the ones I know about, do not baptize children until they are basically grown and able to make an adult profession. This is clearly not the biblical view of baptism and lacks even one example of this practice in the Bible.
They overvalue membership in the visible church (to use Presbyterian terms) and undervalue membership in the invisible church. Because they staunchly deny good influences from either the Anabaptists or The Great Awakenings, they have a prior commitment to an essentially Anglican view of the clergy/laity relationship which is vertical rather than horizontal.
They do believe in a particular view of God’s sovereignty, but they also view themselves (the elders) as his faithful stewards and instruments. I don’t think they allow room for the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers, and I think they rely too much on rules and regulations. And that leads, inevitably, to a focus on behaviors rather than heart attitudes which, in turn, produces a plasticky synthetic-feeling church where appearances are what is important and people hide who they really are in order to seem to fit the model of a “True Christian.”
Unfortunately, Founders and 9Marks view themselves as the Faithful Remnant, and so they are unable to see the legalism they have put into place or that it is the same thing that the Pharisees did to Torah. It also means that they only trust their leaders/mentors and cannot hear, much less listen to, the voices of their friendly critics. At worst, it leads to ends-justify-means practices like quiet take-overs of churches (which they consider recoveries.)
@ Gram3:
As someone who was until very recently a member of Southern Baptist churches for forty years it breaks my heart to see the condition the SBC is in today. But if you talk to the rulers of the SBC all is well. In their minds it is extremely simple you are with them or against them and you should leave.
Deebs!!!!!!! If you want to attend I’d love to go to that 9 Marks conference! I’d love to ask Jonathan Leeman what good are 9 Marks especially since CHBC giving refuge to CJ Mahaney and violating most of the 9 Marks showed how its basically useless. The last time I played stump the chump was when I was in the College Republicans and I asked and stumped the head of the Democratic National Committee in front of several hundred people when he visited and spoke at my college!
Who here want to join me? Let’s “slander!” (Meaning let’s ask honest questions!) 😛
More happenings at Mars Hill:
Nine Current Mars Hill Pastors Tell Mark Driscoll To Step Down from All Ministry
(UPDATED) While megachurch’s rules ‘greatly restrict our authority, we believe we must act like elders none-the-less,’ write 9 of 65 pastors.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/august/nine-current-mars-hill-pastors-tell-mark-driscoll-step-down.html
Deb wrote:
Sadly, Deb their response is they do not care and you should go use your spiritual gifts elsewhere.
I was just this very morning talking with my wife what I believed would happen if she told her pastor she felt called of the Lord to preach. I am not sure my wife believed me but since my wife is a member of the SBC; I am not, her church would most likely not affirm her.
Somewhereintime wrote:
Not sure I’d agree it’s *ALL* about control and *nothing* about grace, love, etc – or else people would see through it faster than they do (me included…took me years of being thrashed and mashed). There is a mixture – not all of these guys are on the same point in the continuum of control. Some of them are genuinely good guys, imo., though the control often times makes a higher percentage of the pot.
When I met with the pastor the other week (Covenant Life sent out to start a church plant in my area) I asked him his thoughts about the role of membership. He simply said that signing the covenant signified the member is as equally committed to the elders as they are to him. I tried not to gasp when he told me this. It was obvious any further discussion would have been futile.
Eagle wrote:
If you go and ask that question, I predict that the tables will be turned on you with a question, “Don’t you think Mark Dever should support his friend during a crisis?”
Then, if you object that you are asking whether Dever has employed a double standard, you may get, “Pastors are the objects of false accusations all the time, and do you want fruitful ministries to be destroyed?”
And this little game will go on with questions being answered with table-turning questions or talking points.
And you will be surrounded by a gaggle of fanboys who cannot think anything except the thoughts that are put into their heads. Not all of them, of course, but an alarming number of them seem unable to think critically and will view the questioner as the problem rather than a “pastor” who covered up child molestation and another “pastor” who broke his rules for others and shielded the first one from the rules he ruthlessly enforced on others.
roebuck wrote:
One of those nine pastors was dismissed yesterday. Sigh.
9. Don’t be afraid to move to DC, Calvinist Janeway! There are real Christ followers rather than just sheeple here. We exist, I swear!
Good point, Nikita.
@ Gram3:
That is a really elegant explanation of a lot of stuff. Where do you get all this information? And what got you started down this path, if that is a good question to ask?
singleman wrote:
And now their outside Public Relations ‘consultant’, Mark DeMoss, has apparently taken over the role as spokesperson for Mars Hill. Double sigh.
singleman wrote:
That is grim. *sigh* is right…
JeffT wrote:
It has now obviously become all about protecting the brand. Nothing Christian to see here people – move along. *triple sigh*
@ Gram3:
That is so upside down. Russell Moore is making an idol in the image of man. The male man that is. Father just means progenitor. God is spirit. God has no gender. He should become Mormon if he thinks God is human. All the important emphasis on Jesus Christ is that he took on humanity, not that his maleness was so significant. The fatherhood of God is that everything exists because of God, again, not because God is a male man. These leaders don’t understand how close they are to phallic worship.
Patti wrote:
Ever heard of Priapus?
Or Min?
Here’s an article by Jonathan Leeman in the 9Marks Journal that says that hierarchy is essential to the gospel message:
http://www.9marks.org/journal/contextualiing-gospel-egalitarian-world
As a fun bonus, the article starts by quoting extensively from Mark Driscoll!
Here are a couple of quotes:
and he expresses his concern about the “tendencies” of egalitarianism:
So, here we have their view that hierarchy in the church and home and even in the Godhead itself is essential to a complete gospel.
There is no indication in the article that I could find how he made the logical leap from the voluntary subjection of Christ during his incarnation to the Son’s eternal subjection to the Father. They can only conceive of the Father-Son relationship in terms of authority and hierarchy and not in terms of mutual love and honor. Funny how the Jewish leaders knew that Father-Son means that the Son is equal to the Father and how they were repulsed by the idea that “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”
@ Gram3:
I still would like to see someone be so bold as to actually answer my question though that statement in the posted letter about homosexuals going to hell also applies to egalitarians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that gays reading here are going to hell, but since I'm not gay, I just want to know if I'm still in the same boat they have assigned to gays. I just want to hear them actually say it without the gospelly roundabout lingo so at least I know what to do with it.
Gram3 wrote:
“We could turn Susie into a bowl of chowder if we could just get her in the Transmogrifier…”
“Leave me out of your life’s plans, you little creep.”
Gram3 wrote:
“NO ONE in People’s Workers’ Paradise has EVER chosen Capitalism over Communism, Comrade. Ees Party Line.”
sam h wrote:
This Tatted Todd with his Pet Angel Emma and sidekick Shaking Stacy?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Me thinks you have hit the proverbial nail. I wish I didn’t google it to remind myself of who that character was. I think that may be the demon of the hour in evangelicalism, like Yoni for so long in Catholicism.
roebuck wrote:
You can tell by the liveried Armorbearers blowing long trumpets before him to announce how Humble he is.
Nancy wrote:
I talk to lots of people and ask lots of questions and do lots of reading. A couple of particular issue arose a number of years ago which made it imperative to figure out what in the world was going on and, more importantly, why. I’d rather not go into details since the issues involve other people, but lemming-thought and spiritual abuse, and stalking are very personal to me.
God planted a big “why” in my head. Plus life experience is worthless if we don’t look for lessons learned.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Well, it obviously needs to be pointed out – otherwise people might not notice…
@ Gram3:
Oh if Mark Dever and CJ Mahaney want to cuddle and be best friends and support each other that is fine. The trouble is when they use their position for personal power, gain, and ultimately…fraud. And that is what I would come back and say. A Pastor is not an entitled individual, or a member of a cast that rules as a despot over others. If they can’t follow what they expect others to follow then they should get out of the pulpit and turn over the reins to someone else. We don’t need Spiritual Stalins, Mao’s or Idi Amins who look at their position for personal gain for themselves and their friends. Last I checked Christianity is not about cronyism. And if Mark Dever really were a friend to CJ Mahaney he would confront him and call him out, not enable him. Who knows maybe Mark Dever and CJ Mahaney can start NA “Narcissists Anonymous”
Patti wrote:
Oh, Tatted Todd was THE Big CELEBRITY for a while with that Lakeland Revival of his. Until he went down in a sex scandal and messy divorce.
When he was in the midst of his 15 Minutes of Fame, I remember all the screaming back-and-forth between his fanboys (“IT’S THE ANOINTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! ANGELS! ANGELS! ANGELS!”) and the Witchfinders-General (“HE’S POSSESSED BY A DEMON! THE JAPANESE DEATH GOD EMMA! DEMONS! DEMONS! DEMONS!”).
My main writing partner of the time (the burned-out preacher and trained stage magician) viewed the guy’s YouTube footage. His conclusion? No Angels, no Demons, no Woo-Woo, “What I saw was a con man working an audience.”
And his sidekick Shaking Stacy? (Whose footage got mashed up into a GREAT music video of The Cars’ “Shake It Up”.) What both he and I saw was No Kundalini Serpent Demon, but a woman working herself into an emotional frenzy and cutting loose all at once.
One more thing to add to this set of an incredibly well-written post, and witty comments:
The phrase, “leaving well”, can get a little tiresome. I was in a major faith crisis about 3 years ago, in terms of I was doing a fair amount of unappreciated volunteer work for the church, and came to the realization that my best friends there were the 5 year old’s in the Sunday School.
Being socially shunned over time had done a number on me.
I had wanted to leave quietly because I was so angry that I did not feel comfortable meeting with anyone – a deep feeling of being duped was welling up inside of me. Now I think I could meet with the leaders in a calm manner and gently tell them a few definitions of spiritual abuse to think about.
My homegroup leader admonished me to leave well. So I did meet with one of the head pastors. He was more worried about his reputation that he had failed me, than about my spiritual condition. Oh well. We all are human. We all fail.
But being more concerned about a church ministry or a church pastor’s reputation, over the state of a hurt congregant, gets kinda old.
End of rant. Please continue this beautiful discussion.
Gram3 wrote:
You Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip — NOTHING in-between.
I remember a little aside from “Anna and the King of Siam” about how in Medieval Thailand all paths were only wide enough for one. Because no two Thais were of the same rank, when two met on the walkway the inferior had to stand in the mud while his superior walked the paved path.
Eagle wrote:
I agree. Unfortunately, we do have cronyism and we could no doubt have an entire thread devoted to examples. For some reason, these men in gospelly organizations do not see it as cronyism. I don’t know why that is so.
When I think of Mahaney and the others, I think “one of these is not like the others” so why are they so tight?
My hypothesis is that they each provide what the other lacks and each realizes at some level that the whole is greater than the sum of their individual parts: Mahaney contributes a talent for building a religious empire from scratch and Dever contributes intellectual gravitas and a D.C. location. Mohler brings access to the substantial numbers and money of the SBC along with control of a seminary that cranks out the next generation of pastors. Duncan brings an irresistible southern accent. DeYoung is young and nerdy-cool while Dricoll is not-so-young but edgy-cool. Carson is just, well, Carson who occupies another sphere. Keller is the PCA whale and cultural guru who somehow connects with New Yorkers. Etc, etc. Oh, and I forgot manly-man Owen who is a rapper, so there’s that, too.
@ Gram3:
We must go to the same church. Us lowly folk can’t read, understand, or discuss the Bible without elder-approved training wheels.
@ Gram3:
For propaganda to be effective it must be changed, subtlety introduced, and redefined. As a former history grad student I actually used to see how things like genocide, ethnicity, etc…would be redefined. For example some nation states would commit horrific atrocities but they rationalized it on the fact that the race being exterminated, or people group being displaced were not the “correct” ethnicity, homogenous, or a “threat” to the ruling ethnicity. But here’s the catch you never call it genocide, a holocaust, etc you do what you do and dismiss, redefine, etc. so that people can be fooled or in denial. For example, Turkey played a major role in the genocide of the Armenians. To my knowledge Turkey refuses to acknowledge that Armenians were massacred and has denied this. This holocaust was the basis for Germany killing 6 million Jews. Likewise I would suggest that Mark Dever and CJ Mahaney are doing the same thing Turkey has done. Deny, re-write, and redefine cronyism. Personally I don’t give a rat’s %^$ as to what they say it is…it’s still cronyism. They can say what they want but their %^&$ stinks and I am just calling it as such. Its like the other day Kerrin who was to be an Elder at Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington claimed that Eric Simmons would deny that Redeemer has links to the shepherding movement. I don’t care; of course he’s going to lie and deny that Redeemer has links to the shepherding movement. I had this song and dance in Mormonism and I see this crowd – Eric Simmons, Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney doing the same thing.
@ Gram3:
The most dangerous think you can do is give people information. I think one of the most degrading things about this movement is that it approaches people like they are stupid, controls the information, and feeds them what they need to be fed so they can be controlled. Information is power, and any information whether it’s the BBC being broadcast into East Germany, western internet access being posted that can be accessed in Eastern Ukraine, or a totalitarian church is threatened by competing information – is going to have problems. Now I don’t feel threatened by this crowd because I am informed, knowledgeable and on top of things. However, if you had read my story I had one person who placed so much pressure on me to attend Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington that it led to a lot of conflict. Andrew White’s behavior and the ultimate false accusation that he made taught me why the institution he is associated with struggles with rape and sexual assault.
Beakerj wrote:
It is a wagon load of manure. Around the turn of the century I came to reject the Western theological notion of the soul as a separate entity from the body. I now subscribe to the Jewish view (pre-Hellenism) that body and soul are an integral unit and that no such bifurcation exists. When my little dogs crowd onto my lap on the sofa and I see the love in their eyes for me, even more of Western theology turns into you know what and I’m glad to be free of it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, I knew Todd Bentley when he was a boy back when I was growing up in Gibsons, BC, Canada. He lived a couple of blocks from me and was a violent bully, a criminal, and an alcoholic as a teen. When he was 15 he was convicted for sexually assaulting a young boy, whose parents were friends of my parents. He tried to physically assault me on a couple of occasions. IMHO, he was a dirtbag and still is.
Eagle wrote:
I don’t know Eric or anyone at Redeemer. But if SGM is not shepherding, then I don’t what is. I did know shepherders back in the 70’s, and CJ fits the bill. In fact, I think that shepherding concepts were incorporated into the thinking of New Covenant theology so well that no one recognizes it. The fact that the shepherders of the 70’s were discredited probably explains why the current ones don’t want to acknowledge their theological lineage.
Eagle wrote:
Yes, it is, and they know it. It is no different than Tyndale and Wycliffe wanting to make the Bible accessible to those who were not of the elites. Those in power knew that their power was supported on very thin textual grounds, and they wanted to keep the non-elites from finding out that salvation was in Christ and not in the Church and the Church’s officers. If the masses found out about their freedom, how could the elites compel their obedience and financial support?
What is truly sad today is the sheer number of translations and study tools that are available but which are not used. The elites still dictate what should be believed by curating what goes into print via their official media–Crossway, Lifeway, Safeway–ok, maybe not the last one. That is why they rage against our humble, cackling, sycophantic jackal blog hostesses and others of like mind.
Let’s not forget that Al Mohler was a reporter for a baptist newspaper before he became the World’s Greatest Theologian and Culture Warrior. It is no accident that he knows how to use words, and I would argue he has done so masterfully. And CJ and Dever are in D.C., the mecca of the propaganda dark arts. Words are tools, including the words of the Bible, to be used in their interests.
Gram3 wrote:
My Dear Wormwood,
Remember my previous epistles on semantics and use of words.
Nowhere do we corrupt as effectively as at the actual foot of the altar!
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
Gram3 wrote:
Kind of like those two Perfect Storms of Pulp Villains in 1917 St Petersburg and 1933 Berlin.
Eagle wrote:
Veils? Really? Just when I thought things couldn’t get any more weird….
Sopwith wrote:
Considering some of these two-bit Pastor-Dictators, I’d lawyer up.
They lawyered up to draw up those Membership Covenants(TM) they had you sign.
Darcyjo wrote:
It’s because of the dystranslation of 1 Corinthians 11. The actual text says that the woman have authority over/on her head. But the dystranslators “knew” that Paul could not possibly have meant what is actually in the text–a woman cannot possibly have authority over herself–so they helpfully added “symbol of” to “authority on her head” thereby making Paul say exactly the opposite of what he was saying.
These ladies, like two I know of from two separate churches, are putting on an outward symbol of their inward attitude of submission to their husband’s authority. That’s right. We have gone all the way back to the functional equivalent of long tzit tzits and humongous phylacteries. Missing the whole point of the New Testament.
Keep in mind at all times that these men and women are the ones who claim to hold to a high view of Scripture. BTW, there is a website devoted to the headcovering movement. Very entertaining if it were not so sad.
And they are also the ones who say we are in rebellion if we don’t just take 1 Timothy 2:12 at it’s literal word (but don’t ask for a coherent explanation of vs 15.) They are the ones who say we should use a strict grammatical-historical hermeneutic except when it does not yield the required result. In which case we remove or alter the historical and/or grammatical context until we reach that required result.
These are the guys who are shrieking that we’re the ones who are on the road to liberalism and are deniers of Biblical authority and are in rebellion against God’s word. I say they have bad cases of pope-envy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I blame that woman, Victoria, who should never have been in authority.
zooey111 wrote:
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I LOVE being a Methodist pastor! 🙂
BTW my new series on the Botkins’ book So Much More started yesterday.
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/so-much-more-p-1-13-part-1-he-who-defines-wins/
Caitlin wrote:
We have an open table. In other words, all are welcome. When I speak to the congregation before they come forward to receive, I use these words: “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” It is not now, and never has been, my job to read your mind and your heart as to whether you’re smart enough or good enough to receive the sacrament. You come forward, and I will serve you. And part of that has a lot to do with our understanding of what a sacrament (only two for Methodists, communion and baptism) is: a means of grace, and an act of God towards us. If we don’t get it all right, that’s okay–God always gets it right.
Kids can receive, people from other church traditions can receive, people with learning disabilities can receive. And sometimes, God reaches people using communion.
I love being a pastor. 🙂
The theory of the Six Degrees of Separation might have to be renamed using some number less than Six, because once you start researching these guys, it’s amazing the connections you quickly find within these ministries.
At one time, some in the Grace leadership were pretty close to CJ. He was in MacArthur’s pulpit at least one time and a regular participant in the Resolved Conferences while Rick Holland was on staff at Grace. Holland left, Resolved was stopped and I don’t think Mahaney was back at Grace in a speaking capacity, although MacArthur has been on stage with him since in a different venue.
Eagle wrote:
I might have found an explanation to why they think it was okay for CJ to leave his church and go to Dever’s.
Researching a Pulpiteer led to Grace Advance (JMac’s version of Acts 29) to their leader Lance Quinn (sadly forever linked to Borat/Bruno in probably what is now a “Why did I ever agree to this interview” moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LazrAzBP_0I) and in a search on Lance Quinn this article came up:
“Counseling People Who Desire to Leave Their Local Church”
http://www.gracecovenantbaptist.org/media/Quinn.pdf
According to Lance Quinn, there are only three reasons why you should leave a church. I wonder if they would say CJ’s reason would be somewhere in #3.
3) The Providence of God in moving someone away from their local church. What about leaving a local church for reasons of providence? What might that look like? …There are possibly many reasons like these, which might be right reasons to consider moving from your present church ministry and involvement. (James 4:13-17, Acts 17:28, Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 20:24, Proverbs 16:9, Matthew 6:26-33)
Maybe we should try using that explanation when confronted.
@ Darcyjo:
High five, Methodist pastor! I’m getting married next Saturday (not tomorrow) by a female UMC pastor. She’s a year out of ordination and only a year or two older than us and adorable. Also a loving, compassionate, wonderful person (she helped me with some pretty heavy emotional stuff earlier in the year unrelated to weddings.)
@ Caitlin:
Congratulations on your wedding, sweetheart! And I’m happy that my clergy sister has been a blessing to you. God bless you and your soon-to-be husband for many years to come!
@ Darcyjo:
You know my heart breaks for Nikita’s story, and she left in good standing. However, one of the problems going on is the following. These people abuse the word “emergent” , and they look down on woman and all other denominations. It’s part of the reason why they are Pharisees in many ways. However in the end a person leaving a place like CHBC and going to a church that has a more liberal view of homosexuality also contributes to the problem, and here is why. They can write it off and say, “She doesn’t believe in the Gospel, and she never did.” Now what would have thrown a wrench in the system and this is what I am hoping to read more of in another story soon is a person that leaves a church like CHBC and doesn’t go to a Lutheran, UMC, or some liberal denomination; but someone who leaves CHBC and migrates to a conservative evangelical church that is not Hyper-Calvinist or 9 Marks. THAT would challenge their nature of discipline and the infamous “care list”. There are a number of churches out there that are plenty conservative that if Nikita left and went to, CHBC would be in more knots. Leaving a Hyper-Cal church and migrating to a church that is liberal in homosexuality feeds and plays to their ego, especially given how CHBC and the Hyper-Cals wage and engage in the culture wars in Christendom.
@ Eagle:
I hear you, brother. But I’m not sure that they’d ever accept any church, be it ever so conservative. Over the last several years, reading and listening to these people has convinced me that they see themselves as the One True Church, and even if the new church was as theologically conservative as can be, they’d HAVE to find something wrong. Take it from a person sitting on the sidelines of the Reformed/Arminian wars.
(This is one of the few places on the web that I’m not concerned that someone is going to savage me for being Wesleyan/Arminian/Methodist.)
When I include links in a post, does that put it in moderation?
In case people’ve not seen it, Bent Meyer who has written here at TWW, put up an amazing post on Joyful Exiles:
http://joyfulexiles.com/2014/08/28/new-disclosures-by-former-mh-pastorelder-bent-meyer/
Kay wrote:
‘I think’ it might. Even more so if there is more than one link.
Bridget wrote:
Thanks. And I’m guessing if they are approved they get buried in their original spot.
Kay wrote:
Yes. They do. Deebs mentioned that moderation will be a bit slow this weekend as they are both out and about.
Darcyjo wrote:
Or, if you are very conservative and you try to make them play by conservative rules and show that they are breaking their own rules, then they play the “divisive” card or they turn the tables to make you the problem because “Rebellious Woman.” And they feel absolutely no responsibility to back up that charge with facts from the text. It only aggravates the situation to point out plainly and clearly how they violate their own rules.
It looks a lot like a political game that has nothing to do with either the Bible or the Christ of the Bible.
Many of them confuse Arminians with Pelagians. No, really. And the ones who know better act as if they believe that. I never actually ever heard one say that Arminians have cooties, but…
Gram3 wrote:
Us Wesleyans have cooties. Comes from being Bible Moths.
@ Eagle:
Eagle, that is a contradiction in terms. 😉
Caitlin wrote:
???
Muff Potter wrote:
A hearty ditto to this, Muff. When I started recognizing the Greek Pagan Philosophy in so much of Christendom, things really changed for me.
@ Jeannette Altes:
I confess NA is a contradiction of terms but I couldn’t resist! :-p
Caitlin wrote:
???
I was traumatized a long time ago by being beaten over the head with Susannah’s example a long time ago. By a semi-Calvinist. 🙂
@ Gram3:
Please disregard the double post due to an intervening phone call. Cannot multi-task anymore.
Lydia wrote:
You all are singing one of my songs. It gets complicated, though, because just saying where some idea apparently came from does not really address the issue of “is it true or false.”
Nancy wrote:
Nancy, Lydia,
You guys are getting into some really interesting and important stuff here…
@ Gram3:
Back when John Wesley was a student at Oxford, he lead a bible study. The other students in his college derisively called them Bible Moths, presumably because they flocked to it like moths to a light source.
Caitlin wrote:
I had never heard that. Complimented by an intended insult!
🙂
* *
*. *
*
*
__
“Every ‘Breath’ I Take…”
hmmm…
Skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!
(bump)
Krash!
— > Why would ‘anyone’ go to house of worship where its legalism is so thick that it robs you of your ‘joy’; then won’t let you goooooooo, when you want ta leave?
Yuck!
…breath, Sopy, breath !!!
Blinded ta see da cruelty of the Nine Mark Beast; the darker side within it’s ‘hollowed’ walls?
hmmm…
—> If it be that the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells within you, -He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give ‘life’ to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who doth make His abode within you!
Hope deferred is a sickness, Oh my heart, don’t fail me now!
(sadface)
♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ hum, hum, hum…When the Holy Ghost is found,
He will lead us to tomorrow,
Sounds of His freedom makes me want to try…
(freedom, freedom, freedom)
I need the ‘breath’ only He can bring!
The whisper of His wind make me wanna try… [1]
Fill me, Lord, with You!
Yeah!
I Make my ‘cry’ to Thee O’ Lord!
Hear me!
Sopy
__
[1] Parody adaptation, Within Temptation – “Sounds Of Freedom”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGQ6Z7Je_c
Songwriter(s): Rob Westerholt, Robert / Den Adel, Sharon J. /
Spierenburg, Martinus J.E. ;
http://www.metrolyrics.com/sounds-of-freedom-lyrics-within-temptation.html
Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, Royalty Network ; All rights reserved, U.S. Title 17 copyright infringement unintended.
;~)
—
Caitlin wrote:
At my UMC, the choir receives communion first. Then the choir members take communion to those who were unable to come to the altar. Showing up at choir rehearsal & helping others to receive communion to those in the pews are THE big requirements for being in th3e choir, now that I think about it…….. It’s a kind of warm feeling, whether you are on the giving OR the receiving: “We are your brothers & sisters, & if you can’t come to get it, those of us in the purple robes will happily bring it to you”.
Beakerj wrote:
Yes, and how would anyone tell the difference between the Soul-less Jackals and the Ensouled Jackals? That’s my question.
JeffT wrote:
A church not an hour’s drive from here requires people to turn in a copy of their baptismal certificate a week before taking communion. They match you up with it before you are allowed to receive……I don’t even want to THINK about what I think that sounds like to me……..
Darcyjo wrote:
It’s also why I should have skipped the spiritaul roaming, & headed to the UMC in the first place. Especially since my grandmother started attending what is now my church, the 1st Sunday after she moved to this town over a hundred years ago.
Gram3 wrote:
Other examples:
Christian (possibly invented as an insult by the non-christian population of Antioch)
Friend of sinners (most definitely intended as a dismissive judgement)
Kay wrote:
I’ve been reading the document from the head of Grace Advance (link in previous post). He has 3 “Legitimate” reasons why you may leave a church and 22 “Illegitimate” with lots of scripture references and much more narrative. Here is a summary.
“1. Biblical/Doctrinal disagreement or defection
2. Doctrinally questionable or immoral church leadership
3. The Providence of God in moving someone away from their local church
If the elders deem that I am making a wise and judicious decision to leave that local church-based upon any explicit or implicit truths gleaned from God’s Word, then this should really be classified under the banner of God’s providential direction.”
Illegitimate Reasons (22 of them) for Leaving a Local Church (shortened them into one group summary)
Some are not true Christians making decisions based on flesh, lack of commitment to Christ, love of self and desire for worldly things choking out desire for Word of God, tares among the wheat, dull of hearing of the Word, sluggish with regard to spiritual matters, lack genuine diligence, exhibit pride, arrogance, boasting, secret sins like sexual immorality, spiritual immaturity, habitual forsaking of worship because of their sin and sloth, unbelief, general disobedience, desire ear-tickling, imprecise, or aberrant teaching in accordance with their own unskilled definition of proclaim God’s Word, involved in factiousness/strife/division/dissensions/quarrels/grumbling/disputing, follow men and their programs rather than God through His appointed leaders, apostasy from the faith, to avoid accountability or church discipline, flaunt liberty in Christ, claim church is legalistic, desire to live in antinomianism, refusal to defer to or prefer one another’s interests above their own, involved in partnerships with unbelievers, employ unjust, unfair and unbiblical evaluations of spiritual leadership, disdain God’s truth and His truth-tellers, refuse to seek or grant forgiveness or both.
Seneca
One comment not approved. Until you get who you are talking to on this blog, we will be banning more comments. C’mon. You are smarter than this. Make some effort.
@ Nancy:
I agree. And I think one of the problems is we have cast off our Jewish roots sort of positioning our Savior as a Gentile first and foremost. I know that sounds weird but our Savior was an Israelite, a Jew and it would behoove us to go a bit deeper with what that is supposed to mean even if the Jews got it wrong in the OT. Even to understanding the big problem with the Israelites is they often took on pagan thinking and practices which Yahweh abhorred. They were to influence. Not become like them. I think we often read the OT backwards.
IOW, God chose a people to be the light of the world through Abraham. They weren’t. Now we Gentiles can also be the light of the world. Dualistic thought keeps us from that it so many ways.
It is a tough topic and hard to discuss in blog posts. I agree with Muff concerning soul/body and think that dualism has effectively wiped that understanding out of Christianity.
Kay
That is such an awesome comment that I plan to do a post on it. Thank you.
Lydia wrote:
It really is. I bet, though, that bits and pieces could be mentioned from time to time until there was some interest. Roebuck has mentioned an interest. It does not take a lot of people to have enough ideas to be a worthwhile addition to various discussions when appropriate. Up front I will say that some of my thinking in this area is heavily influenced by N T Wright and his ideas about what exactly did God promise Abraham and how did that and/or is that working out, if at all. He makes, I think, a good contribution to thinking in this area.
roebuck wrote:
I think so. Kind of like fertile but poorly plowed ground. Maybe you can hitch old Dobbin there and we can all turn over some soil, so to speak.
The document Bent Meyer posted is a worthwhile read. The maneuvering for power, intimidation, ambush meetings, refusal to put things into writing, etc. is deja vu all over again. Lust for power and authority and control brings us right back to the OP about Capitol Hill’s basic model.
Driscoll’s letter that was written as a preface to the elders’ explanation of the 2007 coup is simply astonishing (starts about page 80.) I don’t remember reading it before, but wow. He’s seriously disturbed, and the way that his “elders” deferred to him is frightening.
The other thing that reminds me of CHBC circles is the syrupy language. Letters from elders/pastors were signed, “Joyfully in Jesus.” Seriously, does anyone past Junior High actually say things like that? Yes, they do. In SGM/CHBC/SBC they use this kind of gauzy Christianese. But that is what you get when your system is based on showing the correct external signals of righteousness rather than having hearts that are being renewed by the Holy Spirit.
And what’s with the obsession with calling a pastor “Pastor Firstname” instead of just “Firstname” (or like a long time ago “Brother Firstname”.) Why the need to emphasize rank within the body?
It is painfully obvious that our Big Name Leaders have been seriously derelict in their duty to protect the flock. They and their disciples are too busy building their own kingdoms to say anything in defense of the sheep.
End of incredulous rant.
Kay wrote:
That is seriously good information. I am going to make a copy of this for my file. It looks like the good ole boys have left themselves vulnerable by doing this. I want to seize that opportunity to say the following.
How nice of them to spell it out, and in writing no less. So in leaving one can just tell them what they want to hear and there should be less of a problem than if one were actually trying to be “transparent.” Never underestimate the power of a good story/alibi/excuse. What? Am I suggesting that somebody work the system to their own advantage? Of course. If that is how they want it, do it, and move on. Especially if one’s story plays on the ego and power hunger of the church leaders.
Stories do not need to be lies. In fact lies will be found out and will trip people up and mostly are not necessary. (One rarely has to lie about hiding Jews in the attic, for example.) But stories do need to be clever.
We all need to keep reminding ourselves that it is a thinking error to automatically assume that somebody is a “brother in christ” just because he has some leadership position in some church. If one makes that assumption in error, and proceeds as if one were dealing with a Spirit-led spiritual sibling when that is not the case, then lots of pain lies in that direction. However, if one makes the opposite assumption, that said leader may be a pure-T heathen, even if that turns out to be incorrect, then no harm is done since both a heathen (if that is the case) and a brother (if that is the case) ought to be able to handle that. (And, yes I know, some of the heathen are decent people–that is not what I am discussing here.)
Grace Advance has graciously (or inadvisedly) but certainly conveniently spelled it out. It is never the whole story if we try to be “innocent as doves” and forget to be “wise as serpents.” I think somebody said that?
@ Nancy:
I came to it a different route but when I started listening to/reading Wright I picked up on it a lot– to my surprise. He seems to come at it from a different angle and I always get the feeling he is holding back from just saying so definitively and out loud.
But your comment, “because just saying where some idea apparently came from does not really address the issue of “is it true or false.”” is making me rethink that about him to some degree.
Gram, did you read the SGM Wikileaks docs? It is basically a cheesy, convoluted cultish treatise on how grown men can have way too much power, time and money on their hands.
@ Kay:
Second Nancy’s commendation. You have a gift for research.
ISTM that #3 can be interpreted however the elders at CHBC want to interpret it. So, I don’t really think that it does mean anything if it can mean anything. They can justify sheltering C.J. from his own rules and still feel AOK about it. Even righteous.
Similarly, ISTM that the elders of a departing member can pick one of the illegitimate reasons which are also vague and thereby make any member’s departure illegitimate and ungodly.
So, for all their words we are back to “Because I/we say so.” But which group of elders is decisive in the C.J. case–OLC or CHBC? Did they agree that C.J.’s “move” to CHBC was OK with them? Maybe we need an evangelical Sanhedrin to rule on these matters.
I’m going to check your link to see whether they use the Bible to ground their idea of a believer being bound to a particular gathering. I definitely missed that part if it is there. A few years ago Pyros did a short series on this that made my teeth curl a little bit.
@ Gram3:
OLC=CLC
Lydia wrote:
I didn’t read either those or the lawsuit. Not enough brain bleach on hand for that. I’ve seen quotes from C.J. and some videos of him, and I’m still processing how he got to be a primary spokesman for manhood, Biblical or otherwise. When I see/read him or Piper or Owen (not John), I have the feeling I’ve just eaten an entire box of Krispy Kremes and my pancreas has gone into terminal spasm.
@ Gram3:
You are wiser than I am. Once you read it you cannot “unread” it, if you get my drift. If that was not enough for some folks, nothing would be. It was like descending into an alternative universe which is exactly what cults are.
Gram3 wrote:
Someone needs to do a twitter intervention on Piper. “Stop him before he tweets again”!
Seneca is now saying we are a hate sight. He is beginning his decline once again.
I comment no approved and most likely many more.
@ Lydia:
See, here’s the thing. When I see these masculinely manly men talk about masculinity, I just do a mental Photoshop and put them in an actual situation. Like, for example, Guadalcanal. Or Bastogne.
Imagine those scenes for a moment, and ask yourself if you can see any of the usual suspects there. Grudem, Piper, Keller, Owen (not John), Ware, Driscoll, Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan, Carson, the entire faculties of SBTS and SEBTS, and fill-in-the-blank because I don’t want anyone to feel left out.
It’s easy to talk like a manly man when your biggest threat is an incompetent video editor or a competent Crossway editor. And it’s really easy when your enemies are threatened by girlish gesticulation and sparkly pink prose and spiritual blackmail.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my word! I do, too! They remind me of what one Colonel (who was a front line guy whose name I cannot remember) called “Perfumed Princes” who cannot get their uniforms dirty but are great at giving orders from their armchairs. And I often compare them with all my “Christian” Uncles all of whom were either at Guadalcanal, the Bulge and Africa. There is no comparison. As my late father would often say: If one has to keep telling you they are the leader, they aren’t.
My mom once warned me about pastors who have a “pet doctrine” they harp on. She said it was usually because they struggle in that area for some “other” reason than what they present.
Gram3 wrote:
You’re right Gram3. Perception is everything. Perception is what enabled a nation of rice farmers to defeat the most powerful military force the world has ever known. And the usual suspects as you’ve described them still don’t ‘get it’. They’re losing the war of ideas no matter how hard they try to inflate the body count of faithful pew sitters in their enclaves of worship.
@ Muff Potter:
I propose that Biblical manhood is being a man who is in Christ and looks like Christ, and Biblical womanhood is being a woman who is in Christ and looks like Christ.
Of course, that assumes that the Holy Spirit actually indwells each believer and that the Holy Spirit is omnipotent and good. These guys, if you listen to them or read them, rarely talk about the Holy Spirit. It is always the Authoritative Father and Submissive Son. I guess the Holy Spirit is the little kid that no one pays attention to in the Trinity family. Very little is said about mutuality within the Trinity. ‘Cause we don’t want the Eternal Son getting uppity, now do we?
But the big hitch in my thinking is that it just doesn’t fill conference seats or sell books or garner pageviews. And nobody gets to be in charge of writing the Big Blue Rulebook or gets to wear the authoritative striped shirts and blow the authoritative whistles. Nobody gets the fawning worship of “vast millions” as the infamous T4g statement on Mahaney describes them.
Nah, my idea would never work.
@ Kay:
Just read the paper. No grounding from the Bible for being bound to a local gathering as opposed to gathering with believers regularly. But there is a lot of proof-texting to justify a preordained conclusion. More than ten pages!
Thanks again for the link and I’m looking forward to the post on this topic.
@ Kay:
Kay, thank you for finding and posting this. Although it was a bit triggering I read the whole thing. Bottom line: no one is a believer unless these guys say they are, and no one’s thoughts or actions are biblically legitimate unless these guys say they are. Even the three legitimate reasons Quinn cited have caveats.
The whole Grace Advance website is interesting reading.
From “The Need” page:
I’m trying to give these guys the benefit of the doubt that they actually want to do what is right but have serious blind spots. They don’t realize that they are mishandling God’s flock. They preach freedom in Christ then snatch it away! If “knowledge and understanding has always been the bedrock of a healthy assembly”, why do they rely on fear and intimidation to control their churches? Why bother diligently teaching people biblical discernment if you don’t trust them to think for themselves? Looks like the Holy Spirit has left the building.
@ Gram3:
After reading a bit of Bent’s files, and knowing what I know about the SGM system, it seems to me that Driscoll was in fact mentored by Mahaney. What the mentoring seems to have been about was how to set up a leadership structure/system whereby all roads lead to the top man. By the time any mentoring took place, Mahaney would have been at it for some years already. Mahaney was also known ejections from the bus along the way.
Bridget wrote:
Should be . . . “known for ejections. . . “
@ Bridget:
The reason I didn’t need to read Brent’s files is that I saw shepherding *and* the worst of the charismatic crazies during the 70’s. I had no reason to believe anything had changed for the better.
What did shock me was when I found out that respected leaders in the SBC and the PCA *who should know better and are without excuse* were cozy with Mahaney. *That* was what I could not understand since Mahaney’s schtick was so obvious and dated that I really could not believe he was so popular with young, conservative Christians.
Then I learned he was BFF with Dever, but even then I thought that Dever would be a good influence. Not that I agreed with Dever, but you couldn’t get much more loopy than CJ. What I now believe is that CJ brought a proven market concept, Dever brought his British Ph.D. cachet, Mohler brought the numbers and money of the SBC, and Duncan brought the intellectual tradition of the PCA. They put it together and created a very profitable enterprise that is too big to fail and too powerful to question. None of them dare criticize any of the others.
That takes care of the conservatives that are Covies and New Covies of one stripe or another, and even brought in some Dispies, because MacArthur was included in the conferences and in turn included The Big 4 in the Shepherds Conferences. Well, until he made them mad.
One of the main foci of Dispiedom is Chicago from whence comes James McDonald (MacDonald?) Chicago is home to Moody as well as TEDS. If you look at TgC, you see more of this cast of characters plus Keller to round things out. It is not an accident that Bruce Ware and James MacDonald are Driscoll’s mentors.
What I’m trying to say in a roundabout way is that this cancer of authoritarianism is absolutely pervasive in conservative evangelicalism, and it crosses traditional theological boundaries. It is what unites Dispies, Covies, and New Covies. They are about power and influence.
That is not to say that there are not many in all of these camps who are disgusted by all of this, but the Big Names on the Council and all the conference speakers totally own Driscoll. They came with him to the prom in the same limo. He has embarrassed them by his dance moves, but he learned his moves at the same dance school they did.
Piper’s appeal is a total mystery to me, but he is like ether flowing through the whole mess, and Grudem is their ST guy. Together they produced the two Blue Handbooks for doctrine and practice of their religion.
Gram3 wrote:
I have read some of Piper’s stuff now, and I too am baffled by his popularity. Let me mention this and see what you make of it. I read Piper’s book about does God want everybody saved. Then I read Sam Storms “rebuttal” of one idea of Piper’s in the book. I noticed that Piper will go ahead and say some seemingly outlandish things, maybe he will say some things the others think but don’t want to come right out and say. At least Storm’s rebuttal sounded like “well, I wouldn’t exactly go that far.” Maybe Piper serves one purpose of being a point man for getting some of the more radical ideas out there while the others do not get blamed for some of it quite so much. That would be one way of attracting the more radical bunch to the pack while all the while not being the one to blame is some radical went too far. “I never told him that.”
dee wrote:
Dee, that will be great! I’ll look forward to your post. I noticed a new title while searching the Grace Advance Church plants. Example: At the Anchor Bible Church in Cali, they have a Grace Advance Academy grad as pastor and they have 3 “Elder-at-large” leaders. (Chris Hamilton, Phil Johnson, and Lance Quinn.) Some of their other plants have “Off-site elders” and these are Grace Community Church (Cali) elders. Eldering from a distance?
Nancy wrote:
I did the same. I had some time to check into this paper a little more. Grace Covenant Baptist who provides the link is not a Grace Advance church and the paper itself is not linked in their menu options. I found a message by one of their guys titled “When is it Right to Leave a Church” and clicked the audio. The speaker starts by saying in addition to the Bible, his main resource will be the paper by Lance Quinn and it’s pre-Grace Advance days.
I found a CD for sale at ACBC (Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, formally NANC). It is titled the same as the paper and is from Lance Quinn. It appears to be an audio version. Oh and Lance Quinn is on the Board of Directors for ACBC (NANC). Still have not found any six degrees of separation with these guys. =)
Gram3 wrote:
Right! Interesting too that Lance Quinn, a TMS grad, a staff pastor for 10 years and personal assistant of JMac at Grace Community, leaves to pastor The Bible Church of Little Rock for 15 years and gives his farewell sermon on 5/15/2011 before moving back to Cali to take the helm of Grace Advance. I wondered why he would leave his church as senior pastor after 15 years and take a position to train pastors (a bit out of the spotlight, behind the scenes position). I checked the dates of the Borat/Bruno fiasco, but it is in 2009. I imagine that incident was not good PR for his church or their ministry to the gay community. All speculation that might have been a factor, but it’s interesting the shepherds can leave anytime or as you mentioned, shelter a CJ, but the sheeple best not try.
Jenny wrote:
Jenny, it really is. Did you see the map? Those brown markers are the church plants, the green are fellowship member churches. Some of their plants have failed, but they do a really good job at keeping it all nice and quiet and cleaning up any mess. I’ve been told the plant pastors have regular group call in shows with Quinn and staff to get counsel and share information. (It’s not gossip when you are the shepherd.)
@ Kay:
Good grief, woman. I am debating with myself whether you are a military intelligence officer or whether there is some other explanation for your skill at this.
Kay wrote:
More like “Interlocking Directorates”.
Google the term sometime.
Nancy wrote:
Only explanation is recognizing names, looking for keywords in their online presence and piecing it together with the help of Google and Wayback, checking their websites, facebook, twitter – it’s pretty amazing what is on the internet. If you check Grace Advance, their facebook and twitter have been pretty quiet these last couple years. After 4 Academy summers, they have only 23 plants. But some of their grads like to make noise online, like the pulpiteer(s) among them.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
For sure! I think if someone were to diagram the connections of these ministry players, it might look like the illustration on wiki’s “Interlocking Directorates”, possibly more intertwined.
Eagle wrote:
When I sent an email to CHBC listing the churches I’d visited and was thinking of attending regularly (a mistake – I now wish I’d stood my ground and insisted it was none of their business), I listed the UMC congregation and another small, independent church I’d visited with a friend. That church is also more liberal in its social programs but doesn’t specifically list its stance on homosexuality on its website. The elder I spoke with afterward (my landlord) said the independent church would have been fine because it didn’t “go against the gospel” by talking about its beliefs on sexual orientation on the internet. The elders had visited both churches’ websites and made a decision about which they were okay with based on a precursory scan. Having visited the independent church, I’m sure its stance on GLBT folks would be similar to the Methodist congregation’s, they just chose not to post about it. My main takeaway was that the elders at CHBC really had nothing substantive to go on in making these decisions.
Nancy wrote:
My take on Piper is that Piper is all about bringing attention to Piper by using God’s glory as the reason Piper is talking about whatever Piper is talking about. It is a neat trick that a lot of these guys use. How can anyone disagree with bringing God glory?
The thing is that he is seemingly indifferent to the venue or the nature of his audience or who he presents to his audience. He can be at Passion or Catalyst or Desiring God or TgC Women’s Conference or wherever. He can have the usual suspects but then he throws in a Rick Warren or a Doug Wilson. Just. Because. He. Can.
My conclusion is that the only thing that all of these other things have in common is John Piper grabbing whatever real or metaphorical microphone and stage so that he can talk about whatever John Piper thinks about whatever and what John Piper thinks everyone should think about whatever. He’s an attention hog from all appearances.
I’m not familiar with Sam Storms’ writing except for a little blog dustup where he demonstrated a bad attitude. And generally I like to supply all of the bad attitude. 🙂
Kay wrote:
You might look into the circumstances at BCoLR. There is some drama in their history, just like most churches. We got that from some folks who were associated with the church but not the drama.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You are such a cynic. These are men with mature and godly mutual support systems who are trying their best to be Nehemiahs building the Kingdom for Jesus while holding off the secular hordes. That is all this is. Are you against them being mature or godly or mutual or supportive? Are you against the Kingdom? Are you for the secular godless hordes?
For the church world, this is nothing to be alarmed about. It’s totally Situation Normal etc. Light a gospel vanilla candle and sip a cup of gospel herbal tea.
@ Gram3:
Gram3, I hail from MacArthur’s neck o’ the woods. Can’t swing a dead cat ’round here without hitting a TMS grad. My family and I have been gas-lighted by the best of them. As long as you’re a good little sheep, doing what you’re told and $upporting the mini$try, it’s all smooches and cuddles. Start asking questions or hold them accountable for abuse of authority – or worse things – and the lovefest is over. No more vanilla candles and herb tea for you!
@ Jenny:
Guess I need an irony tag. Sorry, it’s my second language. I was kidding HUG in a gospelly way because he has a way of summarizing very concisely. Plus bonus quotes.
Gramp3 and I have seen interlocking boards of directors and elders, nepotism, cronyism, and just about every dysfunction possible. No brag, just whine.
Know exactly what you mean about gaslighting, love-bombing, and other control-freakery. Just wnat
@ Gram3:
??? My keyboard and the script-behind-the-curtain are conspiring to add weird random letters to the end of my comments.
Jenny wrote:
Jenny, sounds awful. Sadly, I think you have a lot of company and it’s not just in California. With GCC, GTY, Grace Advance, Grace International, TMS and Master’s College in the mix, there are more and more stories coming to the surface.
dee wrote:
A hate sight or a hate site? I’ll take either, TBH.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
P.S. You’ll have to excuse me – we’re just back from my parents, whose wedding anniversary is today, so we all shared an excellent (though I say it myself) pot-roast shoulder of lamb in red wine sauce, together with a bottle of Moet that Lesley was given at work. Hence, I’m in a somewhat chilled and playful mood. Apologies to those for whom this jars.
burp
Gram3 wrote:
Five contentious and controversial claims there, Grams.
You’ll be telling us God actually exists next!
Jenny wrote:
Jenny, given your own experience with this group, your earlier comment quoted below is not just an observation from reading information, but first hand knowledge, up close and personal. You have hit on something here. It sounds very familiar and very unsettling.
Jenny wrote:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I believe in God more than I do in John Piper or Wayne Grudem. Even though they have anointed themselves and usurped the Holy Spirit. It’s going to get interesting when they start sorting out which one of them gets to play the Father and which the Son now that they have removed the Holy Spirit from the Trinity.
Gram3, not Grams. Even though arguably I am big enough to be plural.
Gram3 wrote:
Adding an “s” to a shortened form of someone’s name (e.g. “Beakerj” becoming “Beaks”, “Dee and Deb” becoming “Deebs”) is a standard term of endearment in many parts of the UK. However, if you consider this to be over-familiar, or you just don’t like it, it is of course your call; I shall refrain henceforth.
nick Bulbeck wrote:
It is common over here as well. It carries with it a sort of casual warm fuzziness with a bit of a grin. Speaking of: over here there are pronounced regional differences in communication styles (style, not just vocabulary) as well as generational differences–at least around here there are. It gets quite frustrating sometimes.
@ nick Bulbeck:
Sorry about the confusion I created, Nick. My understanding is just as Nancy said, so I was playing off the informality and making a little joke about myself because it is all about me, of course. Please don’t refrain from anything, since I would say just about everything you have said. Well, except for the lemon cheese sauce, but I was soundly corrected about that, too. 😉
P.S. I’m about as informal as can be, although I do insist on starched paper napkins.
Gram3 wrote:
I have often wondered what is going to happen to a generation that bought into this. We are already seeing the fall out but not in the massive numbers that is still buying into it. There is a “cultural” Christianity feel to it if these “believers” treat the leaders/pastors as their Holy Spirit. I have seen it upclose and personal a lot. There is no way to explain it or point it out they are ready to hear. One moves on.
Lydia wrote:
Me too, unfortunately, and from many perspectives. I have tried calmly and gently reasoning from the text, and all to no avail. Sometimes it has felt like trying to have a meaningful conversation with an animatronic parrot where facts don’t have any significance.
@ Kay:
It occurred to me long ago that they’ve replaced the Third Person of the Trinity with the Bible, and not just the Bible, but their own particularly narrow interpretation of it. Part of my healing has been returning to a thoroughly Trinitarian tradition. It’s going to take a while …
Lydia wrote:
It’s more than congregants idolizing their leaders. It’s the leaders believing that they themselves have a special anointing that makes them superior to the congregants. I’ve had an elder claim such sitting at my own kitchen table! The teaching gets all wonky after that, and you end up with a church full of grown adults who know the Bible inside and out but won’t take a new job or buy a house without consulting an elder or pastor about it first. It’s a spiritually symbiotic but unhealthy relationship: leaders have their self-importance puffed up by the congregants’ dependence, and the congregants avoid the risks of decision-making by letting the leaders do their thinking for them.
And you’re right: until the leaders and congregants are ready to hear and accept the truth, nothing you say to them, no matter how lovingly you say it, will get through. Moving on is the only sane choice one has.
Gram3 wrote:
I’ve appreciated reading (and agree with) many of your sentiments, but on this one feel you are taking it too far, and being uncharitable. Do you know JP personally? The absoluteness of your statements is what bothers me – making JP nothing more than a complete hypocrite. Now, if JP’s wife came out and said he is “all” about himself in these ways, then I’d listen a little more carefully.
Having said that, I agree that there is something wrong (unhealthy) with leadership constantly allowing themselves to be in the lime light. This doesn’t seem to fit Paul’s description of being and remaining a “fool” and “weak” for the sake of Christ and his Gospel.
BTW: are you third generation offspring of a Graham, as in Billy? 🙂
Jenny wrote:
I agree. MD’s latest repentance video has him clearly stating that the pulpit is “sacred” ground. If that’s the case, then what does it make the person utilizing it? As my friend says – sacred cows make the best burger. 🙂
@ ken:
The way you copied from the Gram3 comment makes it look like I said the things about Piper that you are concerned about. I wish you all would not do that.
To clarify, the only thing in that quote that I said was: “I noticed that Piper will go ahead and say some seemingly outlandish things, maybe he will say some things the others think but don’t want to come right out and say.”
All the rest of that was what Gram 3 said. It is a matter of opinion as to whether some of what he says is outlandish, but I never accused him of anything other than that. Please people, do lets try to not make me look any worse than necessary.
And people, please do flip back up to the actual comments from Me and from Gram3 and verify this for yourself. Like I said, this is not a good day!
Jenny wrote:
Jenny, I can affirm your comment word for word based on observations and experience, not only ours but others we have been made aware of, all TMS/Jmac men in these cases.
Such pervasive pride and elitism, with connections to all things Grace (JMac), and in some cases the odd companion of jealousy for JMac, combined with the Shepherd/Elder’s zeal to blaze a trail bigger and better than JMac, mix in the ego and hunger for power…what a mess!
Honestly, the ones we know who have elevated their MDiv, ThM, et al to “expert in all matters of life”, have nothing past or present in their personal lives that would qualify them to give extra biblical advice, one example being, financial advice to a sheeple.
Behind their practice of controlling people and playing Holy Spirit, is their own lack of reliance on the Lord to build His church. It’s not enough to faithfully teach and preach the Word and trust the Holy Spirit to work in each life. Controlling the people is the way they feed their entitlement mentality and perceived superiority. Their longevity and “success” is dependent on their control of the people.
…and the people who are loyal to the abusers… so incredibly sad.
ken wrote:
I think it is quite possible that Noel Piper said something just like that, given that JP took many months off to work on his marriage and “a species of pride” IIRC. I was basing my conclusion on his own behavior, which is rather bizarre at times, including his infamous tweets.
There are many people, if not most, in my theological area who think JP cannot be questioned. Of course they would deny that, but just try to suggest that Piper is less than a modern-day prophet.
Of course you’re right that I don’t know his heart. But neither does any juror in a criminal case. The state of mind of the defendant is inferred by the defendant’s actions and other evidence. That’s how I get to my conclusion. I cited the evidence the leads me there.
Just to expand on one example: Doug Wilson has nothing in common with John Piper theologically except patriarchy and what both of them call reformed theology. Those who pay attention to Doug Wilson know that he is not reformed at all, but preaches his own religion which is a law-based reconstructionism. Wilson is a misogynist. Piper is a misogynist, too. Piper’s religion is law-based, though not as explicitly so as Wilson’s.
Given that, why would Piper invite Wilson to Desiring God and confer on him his blessing, thereby commending him to Piper’s crowd? Certainly not because Piper is concerned about preserving the purity of the Gospel, because Wilson does not proclaim the Biblical Gospel.
I don’t think you are a woman, so you may not get how Wilson’s views are so poisonous. And you may not be in a theological circle that worships Piper as their guru. But I am both, and that is why I find Piper so alarming.
@ Gram3:
And I would not want Nancy to be blamed for my lack of charity toward these guys. I’m out of charity toward people who call others rebellious against God because someone rebels against their man-made system.
Nancy, I hope your day improves. Nothing makes for a bad day like pain inflicted on your kids and grandkids.
Billy Graham, I’m sure, would not want to be placed in the same family with me. 😉
Kay wrote:
Totally agree. Believers who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are treated as infants. And if you dare to question their interpretations, using the Greek text and their own hermeneutical methods, then you are still wrong. Because authority. Which they themselves have usurped from the Holy Spirit.
@ Kay:
I’m beginning to wonder, Kay, if we might know each other IRL. 😉
Jenny wrote:
=)
I would almost guarantee that if we don’t know each other (I’m not in JMac’s neck of the woods), we know some of the same people. It’s probably like two degrees of separation. =)
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, this. They really hate it when their own argumentation methods are used to blast holes through their own arguments. Definitely no herb tea for you! 😉
@ Kay:
It IS a small world, isn’t it? 🙂
One of the Grace Advance guys is getting special attention over at Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounds Board.
He tweeted “We don’t “join” a church, we submit to a church.”
Surprise – there are 9Marks and Acts 29 (formally Driscoll) connections and Lance Quinn (at least in July of 2014) is their Off-Site Elder.
Jenny – sometimes the world is really small. =)
@ Gram3:
Gram, I think Piper is a shock jock. His demeanor keeps more people from seeing it. That is what having Doug Wilson and rick warren to teach at DG was most likely about. Gain attention. I think so. That is what all the convoluted tweets are about. We could go back years and see it in what is Now seen as normal, sadly: christian hedonism, the scream of the damned and much more.
Do you know how many YRR were shocked to hear from us old timers on blogs about Wilson’s book, “Slavery as it was” .? They have no clue. And still they firmly believe Wilson must have changed for Piper to confer his blessing.
You are right about the marriage part. He goes all over the country teaching people how to have the proper COMP marriage then announces a sabbatical to work on the ‘garden of his marriage’ due to neglect. Too bad all his followers cannot afford to do the same after implementing patriarchy in their marriages.
Wow people never connect the dots with Piper I will never understand.
(Am on kids iPad and it is making all sorts of mistakes–wink)
Lydia wrote:
Gramp3 and I would love to have a few months paid vacation to travel the world all expenses paid to glorify God while working on our marriage. Although, I gotta say if either of us started talking about the “garden of our marriage” or “losing our joy” the other would probably start looking for alternate living arrangements. Or a caregiver. Or both.
nick Bulbeck wrote:
Following in the vein of Nancy’s “bless you”, you can take the warm fuzzies even further and say “Beaksy, Deebsy, Gramsy or “Nicksie/Nicksy”…
Or add ‘les’ onto the end if you want to be slightly charming or chiding, eg “well, dear Nickles”…
Haitch wrote:
Gramles is what my upper arms do when I wave.
@ Gram3:
heh, and then there’s the ‘gramsicle’ – it sounds like a boil that needs to be lanced or something.
Now, this would be a more refined insult: “The Deebsicles – soul-less jackels of the internet”. I guess I’m still trying to imagine a jackel with a soul, which would be infinitely more pleasing to those who believe in animals as sentient beings. Like pug dogs for example.
Gram3 wrote:
One has to wonder if they actually talk that way at home. Big ugh factor :o)
Haitch wrote:
Nope. That’s one of the dark chocolate hearts on a stick that Gramp3 brought me from a NY chocolatier. He was working on the garden of our marriage.
Gram3 wrote:
Does the “garden of our marriage” have anything to do with Genesis 1:28? or maybe that’s an orchard. Anyway, those guys probably like the part about having rule over every living thing that moves. =)
Nancy – my apologies for not catching that before I posted. I’m not too blog literate at times.
Gram3 – you said “I think it is quite possible that Noel Piper said something just like that, given that JP took many months off to work on his marriage and “a species of pride” IIRC. I was basing my conclusion on his own behavior, which is rather bizarre at times, including his infamous tweets.”
Thanks for the feedback, but that’s a rather big and unfair assumption. Possibilities aren’t facts. His wife’s take on the situation could be totally different than what you suggest.
I don’t get much out of Wilson’s perspectives, though I had a friend who was a pastor about fourteen years ago down the road from him. Wasn’t good as far as how he was being treated by Wilson.
I agree and don’t understand JP’s bizarre behavior at times and think he ought to be questioned, but am not convinced there is enough evidence to conclude that he is about nothing more than himself (ie, utilizing a “trick” to maintain the attention of the masses).
Kay wrote:
I get the feeling that there’s actually a bigger bus than Driscoll’s being driven through the Church and over the sheep today. Lord, have mercy on us.
Jenny wrote:
Indeed so. And not just through the church, through the nation. And not just through the nation, through the world. These are difficult times, and that is an intentional understatement.
FWIW Kris on SGM Survivors reported that not long after it happened she received a copy of a letter that C.J. Mahaney sent to CLC Leadership. In this letter was basically C.J. Mahaney stating that he WAS TRANSFERRING his membership to Solid Rock Church (another SGM Church lead by John Loftness). This happened after Mahaney fled CLC as others have commented about and spent some time at Capitol Hill Baptist.
Mahaney felt he could tell vs. ask about leaving. I guess the rules only apply to common members and not leadership?
Steve240 wrote:
That’s certainly how it looks. But after all, these guys teach that submission, in principle, only goes one way. There must be a separate set of 9Marks of a good leader since the current set only applies to members.
Gram3 wrote:
Here are the links for the 9Marks Answers for Pastors
http://www.9marks.org/answers-for-pastors/
Another section: “Quick, before you make another move, pastor, read this 9Marks Journal!”
http://www.9marks.org/journal/pastoral-moves
A couple excerpts from this section’s articles.
http://www.9marks.org/journal/leave-your-church-well-interview-michael-lawrence
9Marks: What are some sufficient reasons to leave?
ML: Maybe the door has been closed to ministry. Maybe your gifts are not being given good scope and freedom to be used, and so there’s a stewardship issue. That was the case with me. I wanted to preach full-time which obviously you cannot do as an associate pastor. Maybe you’re no longer in accord doctrinally with the church. Maybe the church is not able to adequately care for and support your family.
http://www.9marks.org/journal/prepare-church-next-guy
6. Clean up your (and your predecessor’s) messes
Here are a few crucial areas:
a. Membership: Clean up the membership rolls such that the membership closely aligns with those who regularly attend. The membership rolls (should) represent sheep. Remove wolves as well as you can, and take non-attenders off. Help the new guy get off to a good start by knowing exactly which sheep he is called to shepherd.
Appreciate the insights on TMS — I’ve tried to read up on them online but haven’t found much. My pastor of a few years is a graduate from there, and I’m now seriously considering leaving the church that I’ve attended and loved for nearly three decades. That’s how bad it is. I swear, if I have to sit through one more sermon that basically boils down to this —
Good morning.
Catholics are the worst.
No one should be a Catholic.
Everyone should be a Protestant.
Aren’t you glad you’re a Protestant?
So am I.
Let us pray.
— I am going to lose it. Absolutely LOSE IT.