I was just thinking that the Fellowship of the Wounded (FOW) at TWW just “planted” (I know how you all love that word) its first blog 🙂

Can you imagine if there were magistrates backing these guys up? And we wonder why they love the “Reformation” so much. The “elect” were forced to attend church.

Wow… there is a LOT to make me gag in this article. The snippet below is just one of the more smelly parts.

3.Churches’ governing documents (constitution, by-laws) should reflect the fact that individual members do not have the unilateral right to terminate their membership. Instead, that prerogative belongs to the church.

Yes, I’d agree that since this kind of protocol is NOT specified, or even imagined in the new testament, then, yep, spelling it out in the oh-so-friendly by-laws will be a necessity. Making those by-laws actually STICK in the real world (without a horribly expensive class action suit) is another thing. So which is worse: the fact that there isn’t really a shred of NT support (I mean, Heb.10 gives a church THAT kind of authority?, are you serious ?) or the fact that it is so bone headed and egregious, that even bible thumpers are not wont to go there ?

General rule: the LESS real scriptural support an idea has, the MORE you will have to lean on heavy handed extra-biblical protocol, and the manipulation that goes with it, to pull it off. The whole thing is so….. mormon. Temple recommends, anyone ??

@Eagle: so you’re not falling for “give up your guns/blogging rights…. and all will be well…..” eh ?? Yes I admit to being a hack amatuer at calling out what is, and isn’t LDS practice, I should leave that one to Eagle and Co.
As was said (maybe Aaron ???) on IMONK: thin gospel = bad church practices. Bet on it.

Gospel Coalition comment deletion is pretty normal. For an interview Mark Driscoll gave where he talked about how he was reformed no less than 22 comments (literally all of the comments made on a particular article) got deleted. Why? Well, because for folks who come from actual Reformed church backgrounds they pointed out that there’s nothing “Reformed” about Driscoll’s views on anything, he’s just a Baptist TULIP. As some posters here have noted some of the GC guys are more lenient about permitting dissenting opinions than others.

It’s situations like this that leave me, as a seminarian, caught on the horns of a dilemma.

First, while interning for a church once upon a time, I made it a point to personally speak (either by phone or in person) with any members that dropped off the map, so to speak. It wasn’t to badger or harass them, but to see what had happened. Too often people in the church are hurt by something (many times unintentionally) and the church officers never get the chance to make it right. If I or any other elder had done something to wound one of Christ’s people, I needed to know! I never wanted someone to just leave without giving me the opportunity to repent if that’s what was needed. And I also understood that sometimes our church just wasn’t a good fit for some folks; if that was the case, I had a handy list of other local churches that I was aware of (many that didn’t share all of my theological commitments) that I was happy to refer them to.

On the other hand, I have to say that given the heavy-handedness of many authoritarian pastors, having an “exit interview” is a horrible idea. If that describes the pastor of your church, just run – and don’t look back!

Second, on the question of church discipline, I get tied in knots. Almost 5 years ago, a young gentleman joined a local church I worked for. Almost immediately we discovered that he had fled another local body to avoid a discipline proceeding. At the time, the staff thought it was another case of a young, creative guy who was getting shafted by another church. (Keep in mind that at this congregation, we jokingly called ourselves “The Island of Misfit Toys”. Imagine a church of 200 made up of folks that comment here at TWW. Every single member had been horribly hurt by the church at some point or another.) Our determination to overlook the “discipline situation” is something that I still regret to this day.

This young man, whom we’ll call “Nicky”, was trouble from day one. Almost immediately he started giving us trouble. Then his kids started showing up to church with bruises. Then his wife did, too. The senior elder and I sat down to counsel him. After 10 minutes, we called the cops. He then threatened to sue us for breaching confidentiality. He couldn’t have won, but he kept us tied up with attorneys for 2 years. In the mean time, he left our church, and in the space of 2 years blew through 5 others. In 3 of the 5 he was the primary force behind subsequent church splits. In the other two, there were threatened lawsuits.

“Nicky” was the one case where I wish we could have kept him from resigning, and protected other churches from the unmitigated evil that he spread in his wake.

I really like a lot of what Mark Dever has written. But I have thought that there was an over-emphasis on discipline.

We helpled plant 2 churches last year. They were in charge of drafting their own charters and bylaws etc. The first draft I saw had lots of stuff relating to discipline. I asked about it and said that it seemed strange, and that if I were looking for a church, I would steer clear of a church who’s founding documents had so much about discipline. I asked what it was they were really afraid of.

They kept it in because it’s all the rage these days. They have had no discipline problems, nor do I expect that they will. They are easy going, balanced guys. It’s just that their bylaws and such made them look strange on this topic.

I understand the need for the traditional Baptist Church to address discipline. There wasn’t any for 150 years.

But the remedy has been worse than the problem in some cases.

Also, I like the fact the pastor and congregaton take some responsiblity for the souls under their care. If someone leaves, there should be an effort to help that person and help them transiition to another place.

But to argue that a person cannot volutarily associate or quit an organization, that is going beyond the pale.

When we were looking for a church several years ago, we looked into a Reformed Baptist church. It was a depressingly somber service even for someone like me who prefers a more traditional and quiet service. But the real kicker was the membership requirement that if you were going to miss a service you were REQUIRED to call your elder to tell them not only that you would be absent but WHY you weren’t going to be there.

I don’t think so. I’m not a child.

Deb –

You might consider adding something about what I’m about to say to your article above.

WHAT THE FLIPPING HECK – How can Dever support what is written about church membership in his own books when AT THE SAME TIME he let CJ MAHANEY (a truly errant sheeple-BTW) run out the backdoor of Covenant Life Church and into HIS WAITING and apparently ADORING ARMS?? I’m blazing mad. I hate hypocrisy!

Dever, by his own actions, is saying it is acceptable for CJ Mahaney to blackmail the Tomczak family AND it’s acceptable for CJ Mahaney to leave CLC for another church (Dever’s church) without permission from his own church.

Sorry – but these guys are all wacked!

Update at 9 Marks,

Bobby Jamieson has posted the following comment in response to the numerous commenters who have challenged him:

Bobby Jamieson | 2.2.2012

“For those of you who have raised questions about the legal propriety of my counsel, I’d refer you to Ken Sande’s article on our website about informed consent, and to the relational guidelines Peacemaker Ministries has drafted to enable churches to practice discipline in a legally protected manner.

Here’s a link to Sande’s article: http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/informed-consent-biblical-and-legal-protection-church-discipline

Thanks,

Bobby”

If a Christian’s first response is “Let’s go to court,” I’d be very concerned.

I think, if I can remember, that I’m older than Bobby, BTW. He’s a nice and ambitious young man. Was kinda newly married and then new father. Anyways, regardless he drinks the Aide… But means well, for whatever that’s worth.

Bridget2 – are you familiar with the provision re. membership in SGM that states that if you leave “under discipline” and go to another church, the SGM Powers That Be will inform that church about you (if they find out) and more or less demand that they not allow you to attend new church but be sent back to SGM?

I cannot believe anyone would willingly sign an “agreement” that cedes complete control to SGM, but… otoh, I belonged to several churches that come from the same discipleship movement roots as SGM and that employ similar methods…

I remember growing up in the traditional Baptist church setting and the youth group may visit people who had not been in a while to tell them that we hoped to see them again. It was never high pressure and if anything we were just making contact.
Also, before mega church mania, pastors visited their flocks on a regular basis. I remember pastors coming into our homes at least once every six months or so. Maybe more. All of that to say, growing up in that very traditional setting, no one every acted as if someone left they had to be given permission. I remember my parents left a particular church and the pastor came to visit them in order to see if something could be reconciled. I can’t really remember all the circumstances since I was nine but, no resolution was made. However, he did make the contact and they parted company. No one from the previous church attacked my parents. In fact, many years later one of the deacons from that church was my parents realtor and they had quite an amicable relationship.
I don’t know when this attitude began but, I know of no church denomination that acted like this unless they were actually not a denomination rather a cult. The disturbing thing is the Calvinistas beliefs on the trinity and such do not have the marker of a cult; actually quite to the contrary yet, their polity is scary. It seems really cold and calculated. It seems that it is written in such a way that the leaders always have the upper hand and the lowly member is the punching bag.
One thing that troubles me about church leadership especially in these churches talked about on TWW is the emphasis on preaching doubt to the Christian lay person about his or her salvation. Notice everything they emphasize has the belief that if you don’t agree with it whole heartily, you probably aren’t saved and they aren’t talking about what is recited in the Apostles Creed. I wonder what would happen if someone preached doubt day in and day out in the ears of the leaders? Would they quake in their boots or say “that only applies to the congregants because I have been bought by the blood of Christ.” ” I am a leader ergo I am the elect.” It troubles my heart greatly and makes me leery about joining any new church plant.

Here’s my response I posted on 9 Marks site. I wonder if it will get deleted:

At best, I find this entire post laughable. I can’t believe Christians who actually have a Bible in their possession are this far off vase from Scripture. Proof text all you want, Bobby. But this is completely what Scripture warns us against–those wishing to exercise control and authority over us.

The interesting thing is that a person who has the Holy Spirit can decide for themselves what is best for them. They do not need the local churches blessing or affirmation or confirmation about their standing in Christ. You seek to replace the judgement reserved for God and the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and it is wrong.

I am so glad I left your church when I did. I saw you heading down this path and it has become the very thing that I saw. Christ came to set the captives free; to set those free who were enslaved to bondage. And yet, your interpretation and view of Scripture seeks to undo the victory already won for us.

I hope all churches like yours make this information clearly known, as you are doing now. It will help the rest of us who seek to know Christ in a community of free believers that much more easier.

Dee–
When I signed, it never crossed my mind that these covenants and contracts are drawn up this way. It just shows the intent of the drafters as well as the fact that above all else, they want to be sure to cover their own asses if they eff up and jack you over. They want to be sure that you cannot old them liable.

Church, IMO, is just unsafe. The actual leaders behave like swindlers, scallywags and scumbags and boy are they clever and strategic with their motives.

Numo –

I am still in a church related to SGM. I have been there for 13 years. We were never asked to sign a membership covenant and I never would if asked. The pastor at that time had a saying, learn about us and take your time joining.” They required four two-hour classes so you knew the basics about what we believe and what you are joining. If you made a commitment to be a part of the body then you came to the front one Sunday and introduced yourself and your family, then we prayed for the new members. If you wanted to leave, the leaders asked that you come have a conversation to make sure there were no offenses and you were free to go. I never saw any policy for church discipline – don’t know how that was/is handled. I don’t recall hearing of any former members being harassed. There were some relational problems that weren’t resolved between some parties in our church. One of the parties did not stay. That was very unfortunate. My church is not in the hub of SGM central. We don’t know how or if a relationship will continue with SGM. I’m seriously doubting a continuation at this point. If our church decides to continue on with them, I will leave the church. I won’t be part of anything being led by any of those original board members. They should not be leading anything. They may yet repent, which would be good, but trust is gone and they have character issues that disqualify them in my book.

Trina –

I’m so sorry about the way you were treated at your former church. I hope there are believers in your life that you can have fellowship with. Church is not a place you go, but it is who you are. But, then, you know that I’m sure. I’ll be praying for God to bring you sweet fellowship with believers who will just love and respect you where you are at in you walk. Bless you!

Back on 9-29-11 Bobby posted a question about how pastors should relate to ex-members who are attending new churches– not so bad as those resigning “into the world”, i suppose.
On 10-1 Michael McKinley posted what I presume is the official answer, including point number 5
” When I  run into “ex-members”, I try to  be gracious.  Unless there is unrepentant sin, I generally ignore the church issue and simply try to seem warm and kind.”
I commented, ” Michael, I hope you misspoke in #5 and you try to BE warm and kind, not SEEM that way.”
He had a friendly reply, but hasn’t edited his post.

Trina

“Just like Driscoll, Mark has a lot of young men around there who are trying to be little Marks…”

Why do you think they call it 9Marks?

Can you imagine if there were magistrates backing these guys up? — Anon1

No need to imagine. Just ask anyone from the Islamic Republic of Iran or anyone from Talibanistan. “Magistrates” as in Shari’a Courts.

And we wonder why they love the “Reformation” so much. The “elect” were forced to attend church. — Anon1

Again, Talibanistan. Except it was mosque instead of church. And the alternative was usually death.

Reg. Sande’s article: meh…. Imagine new members-to-be considering the possibility that THEY are squarely , and ‘justifiably’, in the bulls eye as UNREPENTANT SINNERS if they leave for ANY reason whatsoever… yeah, RIIIIIIGGGGHHHHT. Do you think most courts will connect those dots ?? Yeah, I don’t think so. Like the gov’t in Utah circa 1850’s and polygamy, anyone playing this whacko “discipline” card is going to have the courts/gov’t saying to them what Brigham heard: change your mind or we’re coming for your stuff, hahaha. And BEHOLD, Brigham got his holy self a new rev-eh-lay-shon….. amazing. I’m thinking Sande/Bobby will change their revelation as well.

Here are some disjointed thoughts on this issue. It’s probably tl;dr, but there may be some nuggets of truth in here.

1. Guinn. As a precedent, the case is only truly on point in Oklahoma, but good attorneys from other states will take note of it and mention it in their own cases.

2. Mormon excommunication. There was a time, up until the late 1980s, where the only way you could get your name removed from the Mormon church records was to be excommunicated. Period. Then a guy in Arizona, who simply didn’t want to be a member any more, decided that he wasn’t going to play that game, because here in some Arizona communities, getting excommunicated is like the social kiss of death. He had done NOTHING to deserve excommunication except that he didn’t want to be a member any more. So he filed a lawsuit. As a result, the Mormon church came up with the current system where one sends in a resignation letter. The stuff about how the resignation is effective with the sending of the letter came later, after some bishops and stake presidents thought that it didn’t legally matter if the person wanted out, but they found out that it did matter. It also helped that some people who were subjected to heavy-handed action by these bishops and stake presidents were less shy about letting the press know that the local church leaders were up to these shenanigans.

Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote this up for one of the reports of the Mormon Alliance, and for her work on spiritual abuse, she ended up excommunicated. I can’t find the report online.

3. Church covenants/contracts/whatever in general. Not that my opinion matters for much, but I wouldn’t sign one for love or money. They are not for your benefit, they are for the benefit of the church. It is strictly a one-way street. No church is worth that.

4. Abused kids or other lawbreaking. You don’t need a church covenant to deal with that nonsense. Just drop a dime. That’s all there is to it.

5. Tortious interference with contract. Just thought I’d point out that some aspects of church “discipline” could constitute a tort if they interfere with a business relationship. Courts are absolutely loathe to get in the middle of a religious dispute, but business contracts that go bad because some pastor tells party A that he can no longer be in business with party B because party B is under church discipline can open the church up to lawsuit. Even if there isn’t an explicit contract, ruining someone’s business because the pastor says that Brother X is no longer your brother and you can’t patronize his place is really opening the pastor and church up to a no-win lawsuit. No covenant is going to protect a church in a situation like that. And it’s not that a lawsuit is all that winnable, but the publicity can be killer.

6. Scientology. Do you really want to be compared with the cult of greed and power? Here’s a contract story that is going to court today, Friday, February 3, 2012.

a. Debbie Cook, who was, up until January 1, 2012, a member of Scientology and formerly “captain” of Scientology’s Flag Service Organization in Clearwater, sent a letter to fellow Scientologists complaining about how things were going south in Scientology. She cites her version of scripture, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. (Letter and story: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/debbie_cook_scientology_rocked_by_allegations_of_greed.php )

b. Scientology goes absolutely crazy after this letter escapes from the people Cook sent it to (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/is_scientology_imploding.php also the Tampa Bay Times). Other Scientologists start cutting Cook off because she’s a Suppressive Person and being connected to her could endanger one’s own eternity. (See also: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/debbie_cook_scientology_enforcer_whistleblower_homophobia.php and http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/scientology_in_3.php)

c. Scientology sues Debbie Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, for violating an agreement she made with Scientology when she left Flag. She and her husband were both paid $50K each for signing this agreement. (In light of the fact that she headed up an organization that took in over a million dollars a week, year in and year out for Scientology, $50K is pretty paltry, but more than the $500 that most Sea Org members get for leaving.) Tampa Bay Tribune article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

* Here’s the original agreement (pdf): http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/PDFs/scientology013112/3144_001.pdf
* Here’s the lawsuit: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/PDFs/scientology013112/3143_001.pdf
* Here’s a Tampa Bay Times editorial on the lawsuit and First Amendment protections. It’s probably as close as the newspaper (which has never been friendly to Scientology) is going to come to declaring war on the cult: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/scientologys-first-amendment-rights-and-wrongs/1213244

d. Oh yeah, I forgot, there’s this temporary restraining order that Scientology got to keep Cook and Baumgartner from talking. According to Cook’s Texas lawyer, the TRO would prohibit her from discussing the case with her husband or her lawyer. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/debbie_cook_fil.php) The case was scheduled to be heard next Thursday on this TRO, but her attorney is taking the bull by the horns and there will be a hearing today to dissolve the TRO. Go Texas attorney!

e. My opinion? Ms. Cook’s practicing Scientology, as much as I might disapprove, and the courts should just butt out and tell Scientology to take their non-disclosure agreement and fold it into a … you get what I’m saying.

f. If you’re trying to figure out how this applies to a church covenant, imagine a covenant that doesn’t let you (for example) start a church in the same town….

(So yeah, do you REALLY want to be like Scientology?)

Like I said, tl;dr.

As a Pastor (retired) I can tell you that the 9Marks article only encourages pastors to abuse. It is nothing more than a power grab and it will end in the ruin of many lives.

having lived through the “Shepherding Movement” of the 1970’s, this is clearly a move to revive such a heresy.

randall, agreed about your comment on 2 11:20 at Phoenix Preacher.

“For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!”

And earlier:

“Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things. Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge?”

Of course Paul advised that though it was not a sin to marry it was still better for the unmarried to remain unmarried if they could exercise self-control and be as he was. Meanwhile somebody has claimed to not merely be an apostle (as though it were humility to say it with a small ‘a’) someone just said he’s more a prophet than a politician (which shows what he doesn’t know about Nathan, Gad the seer, Samuel, or just about any other prophet working in the vein of what Deuteronomy 16-18 prescribed).

Psychologist Roy Baumeister once wrote that the usual “bad-ass” is someone who takes that stance so as to avoid fights, not so as to prove his mettle in fights. The actual fighters don’t necessarily advertise it because they know which fights they will and won’t win. The “bad-ass” trumpets his prowess at fighting, paradoxically, so he doesn’t have to fight most of the time and lets his reputation speak for him.

baumeister also did research and wrote to the effect that the most violent men are those who have a very high but unstable self-esteem. They are legends in their own minds but they can’t back up the talk to a point where people agree to the hype. When this happens, you guessed it, they resort to physical and verbal violence to stabilize the attack on their self-perceived competence and influence.

When I’ve seen pictures of Mark Driscoll on this and other blogs (especially the close-up bust shot with the fauxhawk that reminds me of a Kewpie doll), I COULD NOT GET THIS SONG OUT OF MY HEAD! Now to inflict it on you!

This is very scary. The first abusive church I came out of was a Christian International Ministries church. I think the ministry is based in Florida, but there are numerous CI churches in the US and other countries. I was a member there for a year and a half, and during that time, things got more and more bizarre. When I began complaining about all of the messages and hand-outs on submitting to and serving the pastors (a married couple), I was brought in for church discipline and accused of having a “spirit of pride”, “spirit of rebellion”, and “spirit of independence”. Eventually, I was told that to leave the church, I had to submit a request in writing and be granted permission. It was my first experience away from Southern Baptist Convention churches, and I’d never heard of anyone having to be granted permission to leave a church. There was serious brainwashing and control that took place there, and I believe I was vulnerable because I was a single woman going through a divorce from an abusive husband.

Fast-forward several years, and I’m remarried with 4 children and an active member of an SBC church. I’ve told this story here before, but in short, I exposed a licensed minister/deacon/SS teacher who was sexually abusing one of the church’s youth. Over and over, I asked the pastor and leadership to refuse to allow him back as long as his victim remained in the church. I explained that the girl cannot heal, as long as the abuser continues to come to church to torment her with his presence. I also asked him to discuss the issue with other families in case there were other victims and to look into his minister’s license (since that would allow him to easily move to the next church and prey on other kids if he eventually left the church). NONE of that happened, and in fact, the pastor and deacon chairman lied to me numerous times. Then they just kicked my family and me out.

At the last meeting I had with the pastor, he mentioned that he thought the abuser would eventually stop coming to church anyway. He said that the abuser had written a letter asking for his church membership to be revoked. Then the pastor said, “… but we can’t take anyone off the membership rolls in this church even if they want it, because of the way our by-laws read. The only way we can remove someone’s membership is if a sister church asks for the membership to be transferred to their church.”

That REALLY troubles me. My husband, our two girls who were baptized there, and I will always be members of the church that kicked us out (since we’ll most likely never join an SBC church again).

@Dee; one slight historical correction, before Eagle does it for me: it was Wilford Woodruff, NOT Brigham (who was, i think mostly dead by this time), who repealed the polygamy thingie, with the now famous 1890 Manifesto. Wiki can give anyone at least a bare bones recap, if interested. SO, ooops, wrong guy and I was off 40 yrs, but HEY IT”S FRIDAY PEOPLE !!

Reg. Sande and pastors’ referral….well, what do they say about living by the sword, and …what’s that last part again ?? Some careless Pastor Dewfuss is going to totally bet on the wrong pony (wrong metaphor….my bad) and think that Sande’s book lernin lawyers have this air tight…. lights fuse… and .. yeah, THAT. It won’t take long for church’s , even heavy handed ones to at least forgoe the written (and legall damning) document, OR, just not follow up so stridently the sheep who wander to greener….ahem.. I mean STAGGER INTO DEEP SIN. People will still be abused, maybe not as explicitly, IMO.

FWIW: I’m faily sure, for now at least, that guys like Sande are well intended. But that doesn’t make it right when they step on your foot… or your throat, while dancing. Also, I’m pretty convinced that the great majority of pastors of EVERY stripe do NOT want the kind of legal contracts/entanglements that he is pushing. Most brothers and sisters can smell “going over the pale” or to put it in NT-speak, “exceeding what is written”, when they smell it. Or at least I’m hoping so.

@Eagle: you’ve asked the “where are the Bereans” question a time or two..or three, and it is a very good question. But I can assure you, having been down the shepherding road a few times myself (as the sheepie in need of submission and MORE authority ..pleez) that there ARE Bereans out there. Let me ask you kindly what your expectation might be: after the inevitable confrontation(s), do you expect the errant leaders to topple like the Berlin wall, or the tank to stop in its tracks a la tiennamin (sp?) square ?? No…. my friend, guess what happens to GOd’s mouthpiece (very often at least) when confronting leadership gone bad ?

Pick an OT prophetic book…. skim quickly and the verdict is: Wrong leaders typically go rolling along (for awhile) and the Berean either gets thrown out, or walks out (I guess with Sande’s lawyers trailing, sniffing for billable hrs 🙂 )

My point: GOD HAS, and will continue to raise up MANY Bereans, they HAVE spoken, and GOD , being the Father of mercy and truth, is giving foolish leaders, and GregR, MORE TIME to repent. Weird, huh ?? Not very tidy, but GOD has this tolerance for ugly messes… apparently.
Does this help ?
GregR

The thing is, the Bereans are not in the spotlight…but we are here…probably similar to the disciples…My dad & uncle were commercial fishermen, and so I was raised around many of the sort. They are a salty bunch, not who you would expect Jesus to call along side him and use. And while we may not be the chief priests (who would want to), we speak out, and we are rejected and isolated and kicked out of church. But still we speak, and I believe, even if the masses don’t hear us, that some people hear what we are saying and meet the real JESUS for the first time.
The saddest part of the whole thing, is that many well intended people are missing the very free gift of GRACE that He gave. They are jumping through hoops, minding their P’s & Q’s, all to fly under the radar and perform well. 🙁

Just a Friday word of THANKS that GOD was so carefully ambiguous about so MAnY things in the Bible, yes I said ambiguous: not that HE doesn’t know or care, but that HE wanted, and wants, love to remain the highest of all summits to climb, the brightest testimony of WHO HE is. It’s one thing to believe and enact an exact plan of church polity, church structure, even church practice, it’s another to tighten the screws and make sure that YOUR sheep do it THIS way, 24/7, and other parts of the Body of Christ are viewed with suspicion for following a differing interpretation of scripture, the voice of reason, and the voice of experience.

GOD sure knows how to major in the majors.
“In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, diversity, in ALL THINGS, charity” Augustine.

@Eagle: your last paragraph sounds like a tune off of the IMONK “Coming Collapse of Evanglecalism” CD. You might well be right about BOTH 1)the collapse 2)the benefit to the world considering “it needed to happen”. HMMMM…. maybe just some really serious pruning from a Gardener Who knows better ???

I know in my situation, my off the rails leader WAS confronted, and his house of stained glass cards DID come down, but it took a decade or so. Shoot , with the LDS it’s been since 1828 and on it goes, 8 to 14 million strong (depending on who you ask, 🙂 )
My point is only that what you are asking for IS happening, it’s just that the results are not always neat and tangible and what we’d prefer.

Some call this the “now” and “not-yet” of the Kingdom. Some of this stuff is filed under “not-yet”, but GOD is still doing HIS Kingdom thing, now and always.
Glad to see you loving mercy, and doing justly over here @ TWW…. an agnostic spin on Malachi….. go,Eagle, go.

As the lust for litigation has increased in these United States, the need for legal type memberships contracts has, sadly, also increased.
Church discipline is clearly pointed towards in the New Testament.
Forget the issue of adultery or sexual sins. There are many people who have attempted to destroy individual churches for their own ends. Without a discipline policy, how would you stop them. Big problem. So there is a need for church discipline (as there is a need for courts and judges). We are fallible humans and we require restraints. But church discipline can also be used unjustly. That has been true through-out the church age.
Are you really shocked to find church discipline at times used sinfully? I’m not. But churches still need it and the New Testament still affirms its validity.

Dee wrote:

“…Funny thing about this…the church uses attorneys to draw up documents then the pull the “the Bible says you can’t sue your brother”verse when a member wakes up to the issue.Naughty, naughty!…”

Fortunately, we live in a nation where secular law derived from 18th cent. humanism (Enlightenment) trumps various “Biblical” laws or laws from the Qu’ran. Freedom of religion and latitude of conscience is one thing, but it ends where it attempts to infringe on the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness enjoyed by others.

Dee rightly said: “Do not forget that there will be some who think they are Christians while they are in fact Pharisees. I don’t think God will allow that to pass either. Why speak of the condemnation of the agnostic without speaking of the condemnation of the Pharisees? Do you like them better?”

I hate Pharisees (though I see their shadow in my own being). But does God accept excuses if you willfully turn from him (and blame it on some Pharisee)?
[ Quick answer: NO ]

There will always be the Pharisees; a new generation pops up every day. But some one else’s sin doesn’t excuse mine.

As R.C. Sproul said in answer to the question: “Will the innocent native be condemned?” His Answer in 2 parts. 1) “, No, the innocent native will not be condemned.” 2) “There is no innocent native.”

James–

You really continue to speak from both sides of your mouth. Either God will have mercy and compassion for the oppressed or he won’t. See, in your mind you seem to envision this excuse being “Oh Lord, but they hurt me and so I chose to turn away from you.”. I can’t help but to wonder if you even understand or have experienced deep enough suffering that either challenged your faith or ever caused you not to believe, even temporarily? You see, your life isn’t yet over and you may one day be the one struggling in tis way. Most Christians never expect that one day they just might not believe… That something so life altering can happen in ones life to challenge and destroy that belief. It’s apparent to me that you’re not there or have not been there. Because if you had, you would understand the mercy and compassion that I’m talking about, the depth of it, the profound awesome power of it. It seems to me that you speak from your theological framework but yet have not experienced God and unbelief in this unique way.

I imagine tha there will be many who stand before God as ones who turned away whose responses will be Lord, I trusted and believed in you. I had given you my heart and And in your name I was abused, abandoned, shunned, etc… And I trusted that to be who you were and what you wanted…

Again, there are many people whose only experience of God has simply NOT been him at all. I think you’re completely wrong. And I think what you consider a mere excuse, as in sorry mom and dad but the dog ate my homework, is the pain, grief, suffering and brokenness of a soul… THAT God will never despise. You would benefit to soak in Scripture that shows Gods overwhelming love towards his Creation. I hope that you don’t have a life altering circumstance that will teach you the hard way and have you begging for mercy in order to understand. But many here have and know what I speak of.

Funny, Romans 3:23 doesn’t make me feel damned at all. It humbles me and reminds me we’re all in the same lost state without His Grace. It points me to Him. It’s the great equalizer of verses. As for damning?

“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.” Romans 1:24-25.

I think God giving up on me would be the most damning thing that could happen. May I never exchange the truth about God for a lie.

GregR said; “And yes, though it’s problematic, I DO believe in some form applying church discipline even in the 21st century. Let’s just be sure that the “cure” of how we apply that process is not worse than the disease. And speaking of disease: we need to be just as wary, or moreso, of unchecked abuse of power as we do the sinful situations of SOME of the sheep. Authority run amok (and I would point to these ridiculous DETAILED contracts as just that) is no small thing, and entirely biblically not defensible.”

I agree

Jimmy is right in the sense that we all stand condemned without redemption in Jesus. However, until the day of judgement Christ’s time on earth was not one of judgement rather of mercy. He came to save those lost sheep not mow them down with an AK-47. Church discipline (if I understand it correctly) is to be used as a way of bringing the sheep back into the fold so to speak not isolate them in a corner and then turn a gun on them. I would like to see an example of a church that handled appropriate discipline and what the results were of such discipline. It seems that many people are leaving churches such as MH due to heavy handed tactics and manipulation. Let’s think about this for a bit, if you read Andrew’s story, for example, and you are a part of an organization such as SGM, MH, etc., are you going to be open about your sin with your “care leaders” or are you going to cover it up and hide it? I think that I would probably turn into the biggest pharisee on earth because honestly I don’t think I couldn’t handle the “gospel shame”. It reminds me of Jesus’comments to the pharisees concerning their converts. I can’t remember the verse but he tells them you travel throughout the whole earth to make converts and you make them twice the children of hell. When someone is in a religion that forces them to hide their sin, fears and doubts, that said religion will eventually cause a person to combust. When that occurs, that person is DONE with the stupidity of that institution and tells God no thanks. We all seem to have a hard time seperating mother church from the triune God. When the church burns us and those within those walls throw rocks at us instead of showing mercy, we seem to conclude that God did those things to us. Before we jump ship totally, might I suggest we find someone who will preach the gospel to the bruised reeds and smoldering wicks. God have mercy on us all because there are so many of us smoldering barely hanging on. Thank God in Isaiah, God tells us he won’t snuff us out even if some crazies that form new churches try to!

“KEEP AN EYE ON THE BACK DOOR. So pastors, just as you pay careful attention to the front door of your church, keep a close eye on the back door, too. Make sure that the sheep can’t simply open the gate themselves and disappear from sight….

Build a Berlin Wall so they can’t get away from your Workers’ Paradise One True Church.

thanks Jimmy.
I have spent the past two years of my life working out what I believed. I was one of those pretending for too long because I was too scared to come clean. When someone finally gave me the gospel that in Christ we are reconciled and for free! It was the most beautiful thing I had ever heard.

sorry disciplines

Mars Hill and Capital Hill Baptist are going to look more like Pyongyang, with a DMZ and in a few decades some dead bloated corpse stuffed like a deer on display(or Dear Leader) where the neo-reformed can sob hystrerically about…

OUR DEAR LEADER HAS PASSED!!!! — Eagle

Re Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, there was a news item from there about two-three weeks ago. People’s Internal Security had mass-disappeared all traitors who did not grieve enough at Comrade Dear Leader’s passing.

Wu’s Pigs are eating well in the DPRK.

Dee,

It sounds to me like Lewis didn’t fully buy into classical (hellenist) and or medieval theology. True? Not true? I must investigate for myself though. ===> (smiley face goes here)

Haha! Come on iPad!!! Cooperate! You weren’t cheap!!

Anonymous… Not Ananymous!

Dan
I’m up with indulging in a little intelligent discussion in the light of scripture. We can’t talk in such manner about something we’ve not read, but we could do so about Bobby’s article at 9Marks. What do you think about troublers in scripture, for example, as I commented last night? Or church discipline? On the prior post I asked how many cases of excommunication are specified in Acts 1-28 churches, and who carried them out? (double meaning to this last phrase)
Dave

dee: I felt compelled to wrote about this at my blog http://aputtinginmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-quiet-revival-of-heresy/

Hope you don’t mind my posting it here. Grace and peace…

MRRev Dee. Hmm searching the goggle must not have searched hard enuf not finding those covenants
If Dan doesn’t answer my excommunications in Acts1-28 churches question by tomorrow evening, feel free to– especially the “who carried them out” part.

Sophia wrote:

“It’s not just sin, it is a pagan worship act to a demon god.”

It’s kind of like that argument I heard pitched in chapel at the religious college I worked at 20 years ago, where the professor told the students that they were married to every person they’d ever slept with. I don’t know that it changed any minds about sex before marriage. If it did, it was not permanent, rather like the Texas Department of Health’s VD slide show in the mid-1970s. The pictures of diseased body parts put people off sex for a little while, but caused no permanent decline in the amount of nooky going on.

He should also know that the general church covenant-which is online as well-is renewed by creepy chant (haha) every communion Sunday with the members of the congregation. It says NOTHING about someone NOT allowing one to leave at free will. What it does say is something along the lines of entreating one another and admonishing as occasion may require as becomes the members of a healthy church… And then further to say that should I decide to depart from this place that I should endeavor as soon as possible to unite with another body of believers.

Dan’s hypothetical “reasons” for their “covenant” aren’t even identifiable by Dan beause apparently HE was NEVER a member of CHBC, and neither has read or signed such agreement. Therefore, he should remain silent…permanently.

Dan should also know that In light of Scripture there are NO church covenants and the only covenants that exist are between The Creator and His People; which cannot be broken, mind you. Otherwise, let your yes be yes and your no be no. So Rev. Dee would not have to closely examine such a covenant to determine that for whatever “reason” it exists, that in light of Scripture, it is wrong and unnecessary.

Sorry Dawn, but your boy gets no respect here with that type of ridiculousness.

Sophia–

Um wow!!! That is a very good explanation. I’d agree.

@numo

Oh I am sure it has, can and does. I guess I was saying I never heard of anyone being put on blast church wide, and in 5 years and heavy involvement. In a small town, I never once heard the term church discipline…can’t say they did it perfectly, I don’t know, but I will say this viewpoint worked well

Sophia – the place that booted me (That Church) had/has a way of “doing” so-called church discipline – privately – that’s pretty much the same thing as shaming people publicly.

Especially when lies are told to other members about what is actually going on with you – no, you haven’t been booted; no, nothing you’ve tried to tell a handful of friends is true; yes, it’s really very benign and you’re just dragging your feet and kicking and screaming about the “tough love” process.

And no, you haven’t been booted; and NO, nobody was told to shun you – even though they actually were. (And told you themselves; felt really horrible about having been ordered to do it, etc. etc. etc.)

Spin, spin, spin!!!

One of the major ironies: I didn’t officially join because I was wary of doing so, for the reasons discussed in recent posts.

Of course, it’s easy enough to overlook all of that if your goal is to intimidate, and they did both.

*

Re. being raised Catholic: makes sense re. liturgical churches, but you might also be surprised by the differences between most Protestant liturgical churches and the Roman Catholic church. (I don’t mean to cast Catholics or Catholicism in negative terms; imo, there are serious problems, but also a lot of good, faithful believers in the church – and I have a lot of admiration for those who’ve put up such a fight against clergy/hierarchy abuses, in the US and elsewhere.)

@Eagle, Thanks. I didn’t say it was him just that it could be and the right year of birth. The offense at PDI/SGM had to be huge since Justin’s father walked away from a successful ministry that he co founded.

I often use that example from the Last battle. It is one of the reasons that CS Lewis has fallen out of favor for some Calvinistas! Did you know that Calvinistas are God’s helpers in the judgment? — Dee

What would God do at the Great White Throne without a Calvinista on his right hand like a Secret Police Informant to tell Him who is REALLY Saved and who is not, pointing out “Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! etc”?

He should also know that the general church covenant-which is online as well-is renewed by creepy chant (haha) every communion Sunday with the members of the congregation. — Trina

(Why is Danny Elfman’s “No Spill Blood” running through my head when I read that?)

At my church, we instead “creepy chant” the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Nicene Creed. Guess we’ve been doing it all wrong for the past 2000 years.

Never read HUG and drink hot beverages at the same time, just sayin’

Yvonne–

There is a post over at SGM Surivors sometime early last year when all the info came out about CJ Mahaney blackmailing the Tomczaks regarding their sons sexual sin. If I recollect accurately, the incident(s) were never reported to the police beause leadership convinced the family not to take legal action. They did not and so no record was ever made. But if I remember correctly, another incident happened when the family had moved to a new church as well. But there is a lot of discussion and facts on the matter over there that you should check out if you want to know more about it. HTH

I do see Eagle’s Mahaney comment still, right above my plea for Bobby to talk with me about his post.

Dave–

I really enjoyed your comments over there. Each post you wrote I was like BAM!!!

Dee:

Sorry to hear about that experience. I have suggested a series of signs for our church, if we ever get a sign at our church.

One of them was, “We prosecute, not protect, child abusers at this church.”

That would be a good sign, I think.

Eagle
No. What makes you ask? Or did the other Dave say something?

Eagle,

About an hour ago, I was over checking for new comments on Bobby’s 9 Marks post. I saw John’s 2/6 response to your Mahaney comment. It jumped out at me because he spelled C.J.’s name as “Maheney”. He said something along these lines: extortion is a serious charge and if you have information about this, you should report it to the authorities or notify Mark Dever. I laughed because I’m sure Dever knows all about how Mahaney blackmailed Larry Tomczak. If John was being sincere, he is absolutely CLUELESS!

Anyway, I switched to another website and called Dee to read her John’s comment. Within a matter of minutes, John’s comment and yours VANISHED!

As the Ergun Caner impersonator said so well, they are “GONE!”

Dave,

I saw your reply to John (as cited above) over at 9Marks, and I copied and pasted it into a Word document along with the one that Eagle wrote, which was also promptly deleted.

Here is the comment I left over at 9Marks which has not yet been published. I’m saving it here for our readers.

“To Whom It May Concern:

Comments are being deleted on this blog, and we are taking notice. John responded to Eagle’s comment about “Maheney” (which he spelled incorrectly) blackmailing Tomczak by saying that it is a serious charge and that he should notify authorities and /or Mark Dever.

Within five minutes of my reading John’s comment, it disappeared along with Eagle’s comment (and possibly others).

What are you so afraid of?”

It actually looked like I might be able carry on some reasonable conversation with John regarding our differing ideals of healthy church. But the powers that be deleted us both. I think the M-word must be considered the ultimate profanity.

Reading the case as a whole, I now understand what the OK Court is saying. It’s not that the individual can assert a First Amendment claim, rather it’s that the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t shield the tortious behavior of the Church. A church, as a private organization, doesn’t violate an individual’s !st Amend. Rights; but illegal or tortious conduct can open it (the church) up to Govt. regulation provided that any such regulation or law is one that is neutral and of general applicability (e.g. prohibiting invasions of privacy, slander, etc.).

Go Team Jacob!!

Part 2.? Oh no… Well guess I’ll need to read it in prep for my post, “Posters, don’t let your peeps mind the fort while you vanish” or my serious topic “Friends, don’t let your friends resign into thin air”.
Just before our conversation got deleted, I actually had hope John might start conversing with me and Eagle, instead of just name-calling and “obey your leaders”.

Eagle
I’m thinking you should play the Jude 22 card “And have mercy on some, who are doubting”. Those disobedient to this command are living in serious, unrepentant sin. And of course, any mention of the forbidden M-word will be deleted immediately now. The big guns have been brought in. It reminds me of the Mormon elders who came to my door. The (even younger) protege was a bit flummoxed by my resistance, so the next time, the elder elder brought along a still elder elder, like Mr Carpenter who’s taken up the battle now. Good questions you asked here which I’m thinking about.

My post on the 9Marks blog:

Individual Christians are members of the Church universal as well as any local body. And if 2, 3 or several people get together to share and worship together, that constitutes a church, a local body, in that place and time. Many, many local churches have been started by 2 or 3 getting together and saying that they will be church together, then going out and seeking others. It is how most first century churches came into being in the homes of people, particularly as those saved at Pentacost returned to their hometowns.

Individuals who feel called to leave a congregation and worship in a different location are not bound by the fact of an earlier affiliation with a particular local body, either spiritually or contractually. A church that attempts to constrain those leaving is abusive, by that very effort, and not acting in a Christian manner.

Interesting: I could not bother to read the rest of that stuff Johnathan Leeman wrote. I find it interesting that it appears that bobby couldn’t handke the fire so big bro came in and fended for him but also moved the blog topic to the GC site and took it over. Accordingly, they will get far more backing nd favorable responses there.

It’s interesting that their theological harshness is acceptable and their disciplinary actions backed by Scripture but any strong arguments countering theirs as well as asking uncomfortable but blatantly honest and necessary questions that show their hypocrisy is being seen as bullying.

Basically, dude talked junk at school, got jumped after school and went and got his crew who brought the fight into their territory so that they could win, knowing the other guy has no real chance on their side of tthe racks.

Amen

As of this time, I was not deleted!!!!

for what it’s worth, the conversation , so far, with Jon Leeman has been cordial, respectful, and (I hope) helpful. GregR

Greg,
Just read your last post. Jon certainly SEEMS to be taking a more moderate view than Bobby, but he’s his boss, and approved everything entirely in advance.

Btw I and my immediate family spent years of “unrepentant sin” in home worship groups as well.

@Arce
Any other covenant may be a contradiction of that Covenant in the blood of Jesus, and hence heretical.

“heretical” may be too strong, but I do think, AT A MINIMUM they will compete, and you end up with what some have called “a thin gospel…” meaning strong on LAW/agreements etc and weak on grace and the finished work of CHRIST. I think that thousands of yrs after the days of JESUS walking the earth, we STILL want to go back to some kind of old covenant relationship, without calling it that, of course.

Dee,

Yeah, baby!!!

And I don’t think “heretical” is too strong.

“the church’s representative authority in Christ’s kingdom is seen most clearly in its ability to remove a person from citizenship in Christ’s kingdom”

Oh, how they love that word, “Authority”. Oh, how they love to own the things that belong only to God. Poor saps really believe that they have the authority to remove a person’s citezenship from Christ’s Kingdom. What an extraordinary display of delusion.

“the church’s representative authority in Christ’s kingdom is seen most clearly in its ability to remove a person from citizenship in Christ’s kingdom”

How odd to pick this one thing out of all the things we do as ambassadors for Christ. Showing someone to proverbial door is more Christlike than anything else you can do ?? Even if I believed in their form of church discipline, this would still be a bizarre statement.

Greg: just poured myself a cold frosty amber-colored beverage– cream soda — to drown my sorrows. If these folks had been around in 1517, they’d have told Herr Luther– wir haben die KEYS KEYS KEYS yust obey der Fuehrer (leader)– Das POPE
OK gonna shut up now lest I become like a certain “John”

I see that Jon tried to clear up that this is assuming there is good leadership. I don’t agree with his argument that regardless of bad leaders, these rules we are not to disregard. For them, it’s more about keeping to the traditions of Scripture and the “truth” as they see it, rather than to examine the truth they believe in light of the fruit it produces.

@Trina: conversation is bogging down a bit over @Mark9. I might make some sort of summary comment, and leave it at that. I think your comment about “truth” weighed against “fruit” is spot on. It’s one thing to know a dozen verses about love, it’s another thing to have an awareness if our day to day activity and behavior is gathering for us what we are preaching. Interesting that Jesus never said: “You shall know them by their well thought out theologies…” Hopefully, well thought out theology produces fruit, but to know that, look at your life,not just your words.

My impression of Jon L. is like yours: I think he is very pastoral in heart, with a theology that actually works against him. I think he will figure that out over the long haul. LOL: maybe find a counseling niche in an ELCA church down the road. 🙂

Greg I agree. Not sure if he so intended, but Jon L’s actions in deleting civil conversations like one I’d just begun with John C certainly promoted the “bogging down”. Speaking of whom, I tracked down John C’s church website and listened to a sermon. He likewise seems to have a pastoral heart toward his congregation. Only one very odd thing– on the home page, where you’d expect a picture of Pastor John, is a video by Mark Dever!

Does your theology trump love?

Change this to “Does my theology trump love, and how can I change that ??” This is a great daily self-examination, IMO.

Jon: one problem , among many, with their interpretation is that by making such a general statement about the nature of the church’s authority, and about what constitutes “the keys”, you can justify really everything and anything. They never got around to looking at the rest of the NT to see how this was applied, with the exception of 1Cor 5 , where the sin in question was about as severe as one could imagine. Then, to make matters worse, they extrapolated out from that horrendous example, as if Paul would have corrected anyone for just about anything , based on what he did in Corinth.

I’ll repeat what I said to Trina: I think Jonathan does have a pastoral heart, he cares for people, but the theology here is weak and will not produce what he, and we, want: solid disciples.

Thanks
GregR