Good post Kevin. Do you feel you still carry scars? Jimmy

Driscoll, in 2008, was preparing a sermon series entitled “Ask Anything”, the intent being to set up a website where questions could be posted and voted on, with the top 5 questions (those that received the most votes) being the ones that Mark would build his preaching series on.

Why does this sound like a phishing expedition to smell out dissidents and thought-criminals?

HUG, MD and MH really freak me out.

I second Headless Unicorn Guy.

Thanks for the song. You know what I have been through personally lately, and it is a very encouraging message. Pastor Burleson’s post today was also very encouraging. Oh, that every church was led by people whose hearts overflowed with the love of Jesus. *sigh*

Just to be clear on who gets painted with the brush tarring Mark — though Piper and others at the Gospel Coalition have supported him in the past, I don’t think you are going to see that much more. He doesn’t listen when they confront him either and is writing off the entire reformed community, if you follow his tweets. He’s in with T. D. Jakes now. I wonder if Jakes will put up with his misogyny and control tactics.

Wow! You are smart. I never thought of that! I need you to sniff this stuff out for us! — Dee

“Fool on the hill,
Man of a thousand faces
Standing perfectly still;
See the sun going down?
Well the eyes in his head
See the world — Spinning round!”
— The Beatles, 1967(?)

“We can’t minister to others from our wounds, but we can minister from our scars.”
– Pastor Tim Dilena from Revival Tabernacle Church in Brooklyn, New York

Courtesy of Compassion International: http://blog.compassion.com/healing-emotional-wounds/#ixzz1lMekYFBl

Ed Young is crazier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGfpUsfz0kc

That’s not a cross on his gold necklace bling, that’s fo sho.

Dee on scars: “So do human scars. They strengthen the wounded area.”

Indeed they do.

Proof you’ve wrestled with God? You limp the rest of your life.

Kevin, You are brave. May the Lord continue to heal your wounds and bring you deeper into knowledge of Himself. Jesus is not like these churches.

Ed Young must be a nut bag. Hey is he a Calvinista also? I kind of doubt that one.

Allen your comments were spot on. It is clear to me that the Calvinistas are only worried about authority. So, could it be that one day the actual gospel becomes a secondary issue and keeping your family in line becomes the gospel? After listening to MD all week and hearing his visions, I think the gospel may be a secondary issue in some of the Calvnista quarters. Time will tell if anyone has the courage to address the madness. They didn’t with CJ so I doubt MD will present much of a problem with them either. BOO!!!!!!

Yes, friendship with spiritually like-minded people can indeed be found outside of “church”.

God is also very accessible on the outside. In some ways, more accessible. Or maybe it was me who was more accessible to God (once outside of “church”).

Kevin
I am glad. I too am struggling with formal church, I am attending somewhere but very informally and hoping to fly under the radar. I do not trust church people much, not even my friend’s from before MH, as they are excited about reading Real Marriage and many of them are “fans”, and so I don’t feel like I can talk about it with them or tell them about my blog.
I have no contact with MH people, except one woman, and I definitely don’t trust her as she is all in (married to staff), and the “don’t talk” rule is in full effect. In fact, I feel like 007 agent living a double life because I can’t be honest with anyone about this. I am going to a bible study and mom’s group at the new church, but am leery. I feel like I am walking around, trying to figure out who the Bereans are, and afraid of being wrong.
I agree, though, that God is good and gracious, and I will be darned if I will allow MD and MH to rob me of such a wonderful gift. I cannot stay silent either! It is hard for us though as we are in a town we just arrived in not long ago and then this happened.

Kevin Potts,

Thank you for having the courage to share your testimony. We are honored that you would allow us to publish it.

Please know that you are an inspiration to others who have been hurt in hyper-authoritarian churches. Now that some stories are trickling out of Mars Hill, perhaps more victims will speak out and say “Enough!”

I will be keeping you in my thoughts and prayers. Please be sure to read Monday’s post. I have been waiting to write it for three years, which I will explain.

God bless you, Kevin.

Sophia, there’s nothing wrong with struggling with the notion of a formalized church. Sometimes peoples’ faith grows to the point where there aren’t churches they can’t grow further in without becoming leadership, which they may not either want or just might not have a calling for. Remember that you’re a daughter of an almighty God who wants His best for you, and you are a beloved treasure to Him that He won’t let go for any reason. Remember what Jesus said in His prayer to the Father: “For I have lost none of those you have given me.” The Shepherd doesn’t lose sheep, He protects them and gathers them, and is anguished when they’re hurt. Pray for God’s mercy on Mars Hill, because the alternative, a horrifyingly angry Father, is a fate too terrible to contemplate.

Eagle: I still believe in God because He’s greater than the worst of His children. I keep coming back to a quote from Stephen King’s book “The Stand”, where someone said to Mother Abigail: “I don’t believe in your god.” She chuckled and said, “Bless you, that’s okay. He believes in you.”

He’s our Father, he’s our Protector, He is everything that is right and good in the universe, and when we’re at our most broken, He’s all we have to cling to, and how wondrous it is that He desires a relationship with us! He created EVERYTHING! How could I not take solace in that? I spent a lot of nights crying, yelling, bellowing, blaming Him, and all through it, He said, “Who are you? You are my child. I made you, I love you. Trust me when you trust no one else.”

If He won’t give up on me, how much of a wretch would I be to give up on Him? A friend of mine said “I love God, but I don’t trust His people very much.” For me, that’s the case. I’ve had more hurt and injury at the hands of Christians than blessing and healing and comfort, and that’s as it should be: I should be going to God for healing and comfort, not His children.

I know He exists, and knowing, how could I turn my back on Him? Satan and a third of the angelic host knew Him intimately, and turned their back on Him. How horrifying their punishment is, and how much worse to come.

I have faith because I realize there’s no alternative. 😉

@Numo~

I know, its just that I have “X” kids of various ages watching me…my teenager reads our blog and talks with us about it. I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. My younger ones love going and so it is hard to decide. We are going off and on, and I don’t feel bad about it. I have been waffling on the bible study I am doing at the church, especially now that I am blogging. But I also just got to this city and feel somewhat isolated, so having somewhere to go as a SAHM is nice. I don’t know. I will never become a member of any church ever. My husband and I are “free agents” for sure.
I am reading the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse…good stuff.

Here is what my pre-MH church wrote regarding church membership (I would site a link but that would threaten my anonymity, so I will take the risk here):

we have frequently been asked why we do not have “church membership” by those in the body who wish to be faithful to any pattern of church structure given in Scripture. I think that search is very noble, as we should test what we do against Scripture, and not simply traditions of men. It is for that very reason, that this particular church staff (myself included), has departed from “church membership” as it is traditionally defined, because we have deemed it an invention and precept of men. It is also my stance that this is a non-essential doctrine, that is, it is nothing to divide over, and if it weren’t for the honest questions that are asked regarding membership, I would have preferred to leave it be. However, it is an important issue for many people, so allow me to explain my position for your information:
First, I want to clarify what you probably mean by “church membership.” Many churches require those who call themselves a part of the local body to “become” members of that church, by going through a series of requirements, like a believer’s class, counseling, baptism, and then usually followed by signing a paper, in which they are then pronounced “members.” Whatever the process may be, we do not distinguish in this way for the reasons below.

1) We cannot find it instructed anywhere in the Bible. While it is clear that the Church is made up of “individual members” (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:20), nowhere does Scripture command us have anyone sign a paper, or have a membership system in place. So, our main reason is that church membership is not supported by Scripture, and therefore unsupported by this church body.

2) Church membership actually stems from the tradition of the Early Church. In the 1st century, Rome had associations that were legally recognized by the government, some of which were religious. The Jewish religion, for example, was recognized by the Roman government as a legitimate, sanctioned worship structure. Since Christianity came from Jewish roots, the Roman government included it under the umbrella of Judaism, and therefore offered its approval for it. However, this was put to a stop in A.D. 64, during the time of Emperor Nero. Christianity was soon discovered to be completely different from Judaism, and the protective covering was lifted. But what is REALLY interesting is that the Early Church began to mimic Roman associations and pagan societies who had a kind of “belonging” in their groups, and so they adopted church membership in order to bring that same type of belonging to their congregations. So that’s the history of church membership; it did not originate from Scripture, but from the influence of Roman associations and pagan societies.

Now, the last thing I want to address is the question of how we are able to practice church discipline without a membership in place. My answer is: quite well! Now let me first address the texts that deal with it: Matt. 18:17 and 1 Tim. 5:20-21. The latter text is addressed to Timothy in regards to handling an elder in the church who is sinning, so this text does not apply to members of the church. The first text does, and as far as I can see it, this text can be carried out with or without membership. In other words, membership is irrelevant. Allow me to explain…

Church discipline is an authority that is granted to pastors of the church who exercise it whenever the appropriate situation arises, and they do so by the authority of Jesus Christ. What that means is that we as pastors do not need to know beforehand that a congregant has signed a document, before we can exercise authority. To do that is to say that our authority as church elders, and our grounds for practicing church discipline comes from that written document! And that is entirely unscriptural. A pastor’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, who has commanded us to shepherd the flock of God among us, exercising oversight (2 Pet. 5:2,4), and it doesn’t matter whether the attendees are members or not. In fact, Paul the Apostle often exercised church discipline with churches that he had never been to. Why? He was given the authority to do so, by Christ Himself.

This makes me want to move back home 🙁

@numo

You know the funniest thing is that right after this happened with MH, a friend of my teenager’s mom said she needed to tell me her deep dark secret. I braced myself for what was coming…and she said “I am an ordained minister”. This confirms to me that God has a sense of humor. I said, “Umm…I don’t care, there are a lot of worse things you could be than an ordained minister!” She said it that way because she new I had been going to MH and she is Methodist. She is one of my good friends now.
I was raised Catholic (from which I am still recovering, no offense anyone), and so Episcopalian and some of the more traditional denominations are challenging for me. I am, for the first time in my life, pretty sure I have been sold a bill of goods in the name of doctrine, questioning the spin on scriptures I have been given (gender gospel), and probably the most open I have ever been to considering and experiencing how other people on the Christian spectrum see things. I actually want ALL the information, so I can decide for myself what my “doctrine” is. Pretty sure at the end of it all, I will be what my hubby and I have termed our new denom, Berean.
My grandma used to tell me that the church was full of a bunch of fatheads, while she read her bible every morning. By golly, I think she was right.

After all this news, I am still not theologically opposed to membership covenants on principle. However, I will most certainly read them VERY critically in the future. I think if they are used at all, they should be brief, simple, flexible, and fair. And I’m convinced that its possible.

A good resource for those who have recently, as in this lifetime, left an abusive church situation is http://www.barnabasministry.com/.

Specifically the posts under the “Spiritual Abuse and Recovery” link on the left sidebar.

The biggest encouragement is to see that you are not alone, that it is normal to feel like the bottom has dropped out of life. If you had thought lightly of the church relationship you would likely have left easily. It is the leaving with great difficulty and pain and hurt and disappointment that leaves us needing to do a lot of recovery.

Heather

NB: their theology is HIGHLY patriarchal as well.

Big, BIG red flag.

Miguel – one term I see used instead of cult: TACO, “totalist aberrant Christian organization”

“As for orthodox churches with the screens and satellites, I’m pretty sure Rick Warren and Tim Keller qualify on those points, but I could be wrong about the screens. I know they’re multi campus, but I wouldn’t be shocked if they were putting different preachers in each branch.”

A lot of what we see coming out of Reformed wing with celebrity pastors was taken from the seeker movement. From marketing to sat campi. And yes, they broadcast the celebrity out to other campuses. Otherwise they would just plant another autonomous church. It is about having followers. They are more the same whether it is Rick Warren, Keller or Driscoll. Some are nicer about it than others but it all goes back to celebrity and having lots of followers.

If you are still reading, go to the links in my blog roll and click on Friend’s Jewelry Store.

Thanks. 🙂

Virginia, you’re own the right track, but you’ll have to find a different word. My people are not going to give up one of our dietary staples for your theological terminology. It also happens to be the Japanese word for Octopus.

And… there is something VERY off about “Ultimate fighting Jesus” and MD’s characterization of the Christ worshiped in other churches as a limp-wristed sky fairy (etc. etc. etc.).

I don’t think church is supposed to = Fight Club.

LUTHERAN MEMBERSHIP: An article

http://www.firstlutheranlodi.org/First_Lutheran_Church,_Lodi,_WI/Covenant_Membership.html

Yep, if you think there are churches out there that do not have articles of membership you probably haven’t been paying attention.

Our extremely litigious culture has guaranteed that even a simple church must have membership bylaws – unless it doesn’t care whether or not it is destroyed by an angry person.

More and more lawsuits guarantee larger membership applications.

Isn’t satan having fun.

“I have faith because I realize there’s no alternative.”

Kevin, it’s been years since we’ve talked, but I praise God for this statement. Thankful you’ve emerged from all with your faith in tact.

Dee said: ” However, i believe that they must be honorable in how this is presented to the prospective member, including advising them that they are signing a document with legal ramifications.”

I’d agree with that Dee.

Here is a link to the ELCA Confession of Faith, with further links in the text.

No signing anything.

“Complimentary theology, by the way, has always been considered within orthodoxy.”

Miguel, I typically think bringing up spelling and grammatical errors is petty and a waste of time, but in this case I’d like to point out that for those of us on the second-class citizen side of the issue, “complementarian” theology is hardly “complimentary.” Just sayin’…

Final Anon. – I made the same spelling mistake a few posts up from Miguel’s, so don’t put the onus on him. 🙂

“I believe that contemporary complementarian theology arose in the 1970′s. George Knight III, I believe is credited with first making the analogy of a wife’s subordinate role in marriage to that of Jesus’ role in the trinity”

Dana, you are right. Knight’s book was in response to the culture where women’s rights had taken hold by the 60’s. A lot of youngun’s do not realize that most women had to get their husband to sign on for a bank account. While women had lots of freedoms, financial freedom did not really come about until the 60’s.

Comp doctrine was a response to all this. Before that, women were simply considered legally inferior to men. I could go into all the laws and unless you were a rich woman, things were not great for you if say, your husband died with no will leaving it all to you.

They claim it was a response to Gloria Steinham types. But those were a minority. So comp doctrine was a response to the “culture”. It has no basis in scripture unless you proof text it to death and ignore Greek word meanings and the modeling that went on in scripture. There are too many passsages showing the opposite of comp doctrine but are totally ignored or explained away using mental gymnastics.

Bottomline: There is NO law in the old covenant prohibiting women from teaching men. Yet, comps want us to believe there is a new law in the New Covenant. They actually teach the sin of patriarchy after the fall as virtue. It is insidious.

Numo & Miguel —

It’s a fairly common mistake. Just a pet peeve of mine, considering. I’ve probably read too many blogs today.

Dee wrote: Further statements by readers at 9 Marks regarding “authority”. Check out the latest. Heb 13:17 takes on monumental proportions, and I fear if I take it on over there, I’ll say something I might regret. This is because I’m trying to take the high road, hoping the post’s author might return to his blog soon and have some sort of dialogue about his article.
So if any readers here have a good, solid take on that most abused of verses, Heb 13:17, can you help me out over on 9 marks (link on Thursday’s TWW)?
BTW Dee and Deb. If you wrote a controversial post which engendered a boatload of negative comments here, would you just vanish from the thread after a couple hours?

Eagle
The comments take a really long time to show. Thanks for trying anyway, if you are being deleted. I always like the communist references from you and HUG. I’m working on a special comment honoring Lincoln’s birthday where I’ll try the communist analogy.

Some comments after being away since Friday afternoon:

1. Church polity is how we live out our theology with each other. If the polity does not match the “theology”, then the “theology” is only a smoke screen and not real for that entity.

2. Since the late 1960s, Catholic churches have adopted and used popular choruses and songs so long as the theology implied does not contradict Catholic teaching. Songs I was raised with as a child in an SBC church in the 1950s and early ’60s, started showing up in Catholic churches in the late ’60s and ’70s. The trend continues. The song in this post is one that we have sung in several Baptist churches for years.

Kevin,

You said,

“I have faith because I realize there’s no alternative”

Seriously? Of course there are options to having faith…and those options carry with the them support of logic and reason. They are supported by the evidence and are the domain of anyone who would claim a rational approach to living in this world.

Kevin,

I read your story on Friday and wanted to cry. All of the stories we’ve heard here have been incredibly sad, but there was an element in your story that seemed different to me, and it’s taken me until now to figure out what that was. I think what disturbs me so much in your story is the fact that those who interrogated you and attempted to exercise authority over you weren’t pastors or elders or even community group leaders [I’m not condoning abusive leadership by anyone; my point here is simply that, given what we know about how MH does their version of pastoral care, these are the people we would expect to hear about taking these actions] but lay ministry leaders (a/v team leaders). This is just really shocking to me–in healthy churches, such leaders would reasonably be expected to coordinate team efforts and maintain harmonious group dynamics, but would be taken to task for overstepping their authority if they engaged in the kind of tale-telling and pseudo-counseling you have described. If you are still reading, could you comment further on the lay leadership structure at MH? Did these leaders assume that their teams were community groups in their own right, and that they were, therefore, “responsible” for you? Did the MH leadership expect this kind of reporting by team leaders? Did they offer the lay leaders any sort of counseling training for moments like this? And the biggest question in my mind: just how many levels are there in the church’s hierarchy? How many different people in the church have “authority” over a given member (i.e., if I’m part of a ministry team and a cg, who is ultimately responsible for me? what if their advice contradicted each other?)?

Thanks for sharing your story. May God give you His peace.

Sophia,

A person may believe they have only one choice, they may honestly feel like there are no alternatives, but that is rarely if ever the case. I would argue that a rational, direct approach to reality is ultimately a healthier course of action than retreating into a world of your own design.

If your belief system is based on faith, in other words if what you believe cannot be objectively substantiated, than it is, by process of elimination, a world of your own making. How can retreating into that world, regardless of how comforting it may appear, be better than facing reality head on…taking what there is, accepting it for better or worse…and moving forward.

It seems to me that faith is no more than a retreat away from what is evident toward something more soothing and pleasurable, but which is ultimately lacking any substantive evidence.

Re. songs, etc.: Vatican II allowed people to start exploring, and one way in which that happened was the development of “folk masses” (with guitars, etc.) and songs that went along with the folk masses.

There were a fair number of people – some lay, some religious – writing new music in the RC church in the 60s and 70s. I have some LPs of some of the better stuff stashed here somewhere.

The thing is, there was more ecumenism in the wake of Vatican II *and* the charismatic renewal (which started in the late 60s in RC circles), and a lot of people involved in the renewal started hanging out with Protestants of all stripes – notably old-school Pentecostals.

I attended a prayer meeting (where everyone else was 60-ish but me and the friend who asked me to come) where the participants prayed like AoG members, because that’s who had “taught” them to pray after they became part of the renewal movement.

So yes, there was a lot of mixing things up, and I think – though can’t prove – that some of the folk mass-style songs actually migrated into many Protestant churches at that time (late 60s-mid 70s).

@ Amy:

If I wasn’t clear in my narrative, let me be now. The authoritarian approach that was taken with me personally was undergone at every step by actual pastors at Mars Hill. The “person in charge of technology” mentioned in the narrative was, in fact, an actual pastor, Mark Driscoll’s assistant who called me was (and remains) an actual pastor, and though I never found out the actual names of the three men who had concluded I was in sin (again, without ever speaking to me about it first to hear my defense), they were pastors. Mars Hill’s authority structure leaves power firmly in the hands of its pastors, though when they had at the time moved to what amounted to a “council of elders”, they’ve since rescinded that and consolidated power in the hands of Mark Driscoll and two others who each mimic what they feel to be the three primary roles Jesus fulfilled during His ministry (and it’s telling that Driscoll feels his role is mimicking Jesus’ roll as “prophet”, per his pastoral entry on Mars Hill’s primary website). Deacons at the church head up individual church ministries, and in theory retain some degree of authoritative power over those ministries and those serving in them, but they’re laypeople, men and women both, who still answer organizationally to the pastors of the church.

Kevin is correct in his assertion that the top two (or three) “pastors” at the organization have arrogated to themselves the titles of “prophet”, “priest”, and “king”.

See: http://marshill.com/2011/05/29/why-pastor-jamie-is-no-longer-the-lead-pastor-of-mars-hill

The organization, under the new strained philosophical mindset, departed from its humble beginnings to something that would truly be unrecognizable to its early members and those who gave of their time and talents believing that there was actually a biblical eldership model and that MD was accountable to a council of elders, as he often preached from the pulpit during the early years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgzsND0-K80&feature=plcp&context=C36d50d5UDOEgsToPDskIOAsqHZK0ZoW6s7xgtFW0s That is still the perception of many current members who still naively believe what MD preached during those formative years.

However, everything changed when the organization was “reorganized” by MD in 2007 and the elders voluntarily gave away their votes and abdicated their authority forever, in favor of the top-down hierarchical system which is embedded today. After the new structure was put in place, the “kings” broke covenant with all the members, cancelled all memberships, and demanded fealty to the new system. It is estimated that at least 1,000 of those dismembered members left after that breach of trust, which can no longer be swept under the rug by clever press releases that try to obfuscate the facts. The tragic stories about people like Kevin are now coming to light thanks to the internet – and that should give Kevin, and all of us, hope.

Kevin,

Thanks–I misunderstood and just assumed that he was a lay leader. Still, it’s no less disturbing: “pastor” means “shepherd,” not “vice pres. of [fill-in-the-blank].”

Wonder how long it will be before the PR guy is labeled “pastor?”

Sophia,

You are looking for ways to meet new people where you live. May I suggest a book club at your local library. I’ve met and gotten to know some nice people at mine.

No worries. I see “Pastor V” now. I’ll blame my faulty reading on pregnancy brain. Aargh…

On “complementarianism” vs. complementarianism:

The new women’s bible, CBMW, etc. call what they believe “complementarianism”, but that is a misnomer.

True complementarianism is a belief that men and women differ in their roles in society. It does not inherently place men in charge of women, or women in a subservient role with respect to men.

What is added to true complementarianism by many is MASCULINISM or PATRIARCHY in a HIERARCHICAL structure, NONE of which is inherently implied by complementarianism.

Now on a philosophical continuum, on one end is feminism, then egalitarianism, then complementarianism, then, masculinism, then patriarchy, then hierarchical patriarchy (e.g., some male adults are over other male adults.

Eagle you make me laugh! How many years were you involved with “Cru” and other authoritative groups?

Dee or Deb,

The patriarchal complementarianism as I will now call it basically says that man (males) are subject to God but women are subject to men. Am I correct in that statement? If that is correct then why should women worry about death and what happens to us when we die. What I mean is if we are subject to man (males) isn’t that the same as animals? Genesis speaks of man having dominion over the animals. If that is correct then animals don’t have souls. So, if women are not directly made in the image of God, only man then even if they have a soul is it the same as a mans? I mean you could argue that women have half a soul so maybe even in heaven or hell we will only experience half. I know I am being tongue in cheek but I am seriously trying to understand how this logic can ignore biblical references to the bride of christ being neither male nor female. The bible seems to suggest that as far as creation is concerned we are on equal ground with the males. I do believe we have distinct roles which truly are complementary toward one another but I reject emphatically the idea that men can just lord their authority over us in the way they would cattle.
I could be wrong with this logic and if I am open for correction but please don’t put give me church discipline via TWW! 🙂

Anon1: The Reformed Baptists can trace their heritage as far back as the Westminster Assembly, as many of them were present, though a minority. Their ideas were a fusion of puritan calvinism with the individualistic piety of the anabaptists. So Baptist of English heritage were originally Calvinist at least, while non-Calvinist Baptist movements sprung up in Germany. The European Reformation obviously was a bit earlier, but being contemporary to the Scottish Presbyterian church, they are close enough to the same period, albeit about one generation later. The only groups tracing back to europe are the Lutherans, Continental Reformed (who are no different from Presbyterians) and Anabaptists (Mennonites, etc…)

In our day, however, many baptists from non-reformed backgrounds (Piper’s denom comes from the German group, I’m pretty sure) are adopting Calvinistic soteriology and think that suddenly they’ve grown 400 year old roots. The TR’s are usually not a fan.

Calvin is not the determiner of what is legitimate Calvinism: All Reformed churches (except Baptists) adopted Presbyterian polity, which Calvin had not invented yet. Calvin also rejected most use of music in churches, a practice only very small groups have maintained. “Legitimate Calvinism” is defined by the confessions of the reformation era churches: Either the three forms of unity or the westminster standards. People like Mohler and Dever would argue that they stand in the tradition of the Westminster Assembly, which is probably why they’ve stayed with the Southern Baptist Convention. The non-denom groups like Driscoll and Mahaney want John Calvin club membership without the responsibility of denominational ties. I would say they are not legitimate reformed, but groups sticking with the denomination that goes back are. Dever and Mohler believe the same doctrine as John Knox (except for the normal Baptist-Presbyterian disagreements).

Glad you guys enjoy my ramblings. Much of how I learn theology has to do with arguing on blogs. Done rightly, it can actually be educational and productive. I find the history of theological ideas fascinating, partially because I spent the last three years trying to find a tradition to call home.

Eagle, as a Lutheran now I generally have a hard time with the vast majority of evangelical teachers. They deny that the Lord’s supper is anything more than a mental exercise, and I have become convinced that this is the root of all the circus craziness: When we are unsatisfied with the simple ways that God wants to meet with us (word and sacrament), we begin to invent substitutes: Entertainment, numbers, methods, hobby horses, niche theologies, etc…

Ignore list includes: Driscoll, Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, Piper. They’re all just so abrasive, and I’m convinced that Jesus was totally not. For my time, I’d rather listent to a person who communicates gracefully without prejudiced rhetoric. The only “reformed” voice I really listen to at all now is Michael Horton, but I would go hear Sproul, Keller, or Chandler if they came to my town.

Basically, most Baptists and evangelicals, reformed or not, reduce the message of the bible to either: 1. Here’s what you’re supposed to be doing, or 2. Here’s a simple way to have an easy life. It makes me want to puke, cry, and scream all at the same time, because it is a Christianity without Christ.

Dee,

Well, in my defense…it was The West Wing 🙂

Muff,

Grateful there were no wardrobe malfunctions. 🙂

Miguel – you left out Methodism. Started in England, after all…

RE: Bounded Reality on Sun, Feb 05 2012 at 02:58 pm:

I create an alternate world of faith not so much for the bad stuff that happens to all in this life, but for the continuation of the good stuff in the next. In short, I’m acting purely in my own self interest. Not out of fear of the medieval doctrine of hell, which I reject by the way, but because strict rationalism and pure reason have failed for me personally.

I applaud those who need no such alternate view of reality and who get by just fine without faith, but that path is not for me. Madonna put it better than I can when she wrote:

“…Life is a mystery, everyone must stand alone, I hear you call my name, and it feels like home…”

Dee,

you should do a post on the men in these movements that are being abused. I just read something on Imonk that made me think. The calvinista leave no room for the introverted male. I think there are introverted males within this organizations who earnestly want to be pleasing to God but because of their personalities, are being attacked. I could be wrong but this one is close to me because my dear father and husband are both introverts and if they were a part of these groups they would be odd man out. What are your thoughts?

Scars! Jesus’s scars represent injustice done to Him by Pharisees, Romans. He knows more about undeserved punishment than anyone of us. The bottom line of the gospel is that Jesus voluntarily bore the wrath of the Father God against sin.

To us who have borne injustices and the wounds those blows open, Jesus Christ’s scars are our comfort. He suffered and we fellowship in His suffering. We escape the Father’s judgement b/c we believe that Christ’s judgement on the cross is enough. Those who do not believe in the power of the Cross face God’s judgement at the end of their lives and the end of this world. “he has delivered us from the wrath to come”

The mercy that we have been shown in our escape from the judgement of the Father is why we show mercy to others. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. And we forgive b/c we are forgiven.

Mark Driscoll, CJ Maheny, Young, et al may or may not be destined for that final judgement. We do not know. They certainly seem to line up with the crowd of whom He says, “I never knew you.” If for no other reason than that they do not recognize Christ in the least of us. Their abuse of sheep is their abuse of the Shepherd so the text tells us. And we also know that is is not us they hate but Him though it often feels like us.

I said all that to say this. Great injustice was committed against me and my husband personally. We were used for MD’s gain and agrandizement however we consciously forgave and let it go knowing that Christ used it to for His good, to teach and protect us. And we count it a joy and an honor to suffer persecution for His name’s sake. And like those who cry from under the altar, “How long, how long?” We wait patiently on our God knowing He is faithful and just.

Eagle–

Also, I was “close” “friends” with an ex-Crusader. Talking about messed up. This girl is suffocated in legalism much like the couple you were talking about. Always obsessing over having negative or wrong thoughts. Always obsessing over praying about how to spend each and every moment of the day dedicated to God. Beyond a plethora of other issue, a real fundamental mess. Legalism and fundy thought will eat up your spirit and make you physically sick, even. The more this person performed and took on for the church, serving to no end, the more I saw them become sick and sicker. It’s interesting how some people think God wants every ounce of us in a way that we translate that to performance and works, that we become physically ill and mentally weak and unstable.

The discipled/shepherded folks in the 70’s told by their leaders when/how to have sex reminded me of the children of gOd led by “Moses David”, who instructed the young ladies to do “flirty fishing” of male converts, or FF’ing, leading to Escort Servicing, or ES’ing. They’d “show gOd’s love” and collect “donations” for the cult, while also producing a second generation of “Jesus Babies”.

Dee –

Chatty Cathy – hmmm. Seems we come from the same era!

Make a joyful noise with those pots and pans! Seriously, the clatter you make in your kitchen as you put it back in order using a God-given brain must surely delight our Father. What a blessing to have a new paint job, too!

It also makes God look like a mean kid with an ant farm who just can’t wait to burm em’ with a magnifying glass when they screw up.

I am soooooo glad to be free of all that horse crap.

NEW POST:
http://marshillrefuge.blogspot.com/2012/02/which-came-firstthe-berean-or-outcast.html

LOLZ 🙂

Dee- I had a Chatty Cathy doll!

Dee –

Put it someplace where you don’t see all those pesky crumbs that get left behind so, in turn, you won’t be tempted to worry about having “clean counters” – Ha!

Favorite saying of my grandmother and her mother as well.

It’s not enough for these guys to control your church attendance, money, what you say and think, how you believe noooo – now they have to control the most intimate part of life for people…. their sex lives. Is the bedroom not sacred anymore??? Can we not go in shut the door and enjoy the God given/blessed intimacy with our spouses without Driscol and others checking us off on all the things we’re doing right and wrong according to them??? And these guys have the gall to whine, complain and rail against people who question their motives behind all this and further wonder why people leave their “so called” churches or refuse to go at all!

…both seem to have this “we’re the only ones that know about sex and how it should be done” attitude – you’d think they were both Don Juan’s or similar who never fail in their ability to please their wives or themselves sexually in every imaginable way…

Maybe they are — in their own minds.

Number Please? “ACT29 Ad Nauseam?” *

HowDee YaAll,

Will the Mark Driscoll Rule Book or Acts29 Proper Christian Living Guide for the Seattle’s young ‘reformed’ work for America?  

Ahem! Will it work for the English speaking world?

Humm?

Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk!

There is nothing wrong with your Acts29 Satellite Viewscreen. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We control the content… We control the message… We control the reception…

What?

We will control your horizontal relationships?!?
We will control the vertical relationship with God?!?
We can enlarge the Driscoll image, make your heart flutter. We can change your mental focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal controlled Acts29 clarity. 

Humm?

Relax…

(For The Next Twenty Years Or So, Sit Quietly And We Will Attempt To Control All That You See And Hear And Do. We repeat: There Is Nothing Wrong With Your Acts29 Satellite Viewscreen.)

Oh! my…

You are about to participate in a great religious adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner-city of Seattle to the ‘outer limits’ of Mark Driscoll’s mind. 

Oh! e Oh, oh oh…

Enjoy your ‘journey’…

-grin-

hahahahahahaha ;~)

Sopy ♥,† 
___
“Lead Me, Lord…Cuz I Can’t Do This Lone!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAKBXBXz1fo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

“Snark Reality?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMc2S9Nriu0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

* ACT29 Ad Nauseam, is a Latin term used to describe a church process which has been continuing “to [the point of] nausea”.

I am a member of a PCA church, a Reformed church that has as our statement of faith the Westminster Confession of Faith, as adopted by our denomination (the part about the Pope being Antichrist were not brought over from the original document).

We also have a Book of Church Order — how things are to be done, including election and installation of officers, church discipline, etc. One thing we have is membership vows, which a person takes on joining a church in our denomination. A copy of the vows can be found here: http://trailblazerministries.blogspot.com/2010/01/pca-church-membership-vows.html (not my church, but found on a Google search).

These are vows made before God and the congregation one is joining — not a written covenant WITH THAT CHURCH body. Further, the church and its Teaching Elder(s) is/are accountable to a Presbytery and a General Assembly.

This differs a great deal from what is the practice of MHC, especially as has been seen recently in the case of “Andrew” and his ordeal with an ad hominem, pragmatic church discipline process that is bent on exclusion, not restoration, of a young man who made the fatal error of cheating on his fiancee, the daughter of an elder…who he also happened to be doing more with than sitting in a dating parlor playing checkers and drinking decaffeinated unsweetened iced tea.

I hate to say, though, MHC is not alone. The elders of a local church I used to attend, which has been influenced in part by MD and MHC, last year stumbled over themselves figuring out what to do about a good friend of mine who was part of the music rock band leading worship music — who appeared to be dating a woman who was an unbeliever, according to the statement of someone who left the church over something else and offered this as an “oh by the way” parting shot. The lady was a good friend. They later dated and became engaged. She was at the time NOT dating him and WAS a (new) Believer. The mere suggestion of something by a disgruntled former congregant that might seem to some to be inappropriate (gosh! hanging out with unbelievers and sinners! JESUS would NEVEERRRR do something as radical as that, would he?! How DARE His followers?!). He was removed from the “worship team” for a time, while elders (it sounds like there are now 5 members to ever elder, almost) came up with what to do. No BCO or book of discipline, so…pragmatic approach. Thank God for leading me out of there to a church that, though imperfect, is grounded in (gasp, another naughty word for the would-be-reformed) tradition AND Scripture.

Deb and Dee:

Thanks belatedly for another important article, as I work my way back through the TWW archive.

These actual covenants might be of interest.

The official Mars Hill membership covenant :
http://marshill.com/pages/membership/covenant

Member Commitments, Cornerstone Church of Knoxville, Sovereign Grace Ministries
http://www.cornerstonechurchofknoxville.com/mediafiles/cck-membership-commitments.pdf

Keep up the good work.

KJ

Kent Johnson,

How about this comparison:

FBC The Colony

“Q: Is the membership covenant a legal document?
A: Yes, any local church’s membership card is considered a legal document, just as is your current membership card.”

Mars Hill Member Covenant

“The member covenant is not a legal document or some sort of cultic rite. It is an affirmation, an agreement, and a source of accountability for both the church and its individual members.”

Hmmm…. Sounds like a good blog post topic.