Love is NOT a four letter word! -Dee
Phirography of the Shepherd's Love-StefyMante artist -Wikicommons
"Labor Day Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country." Link
Labor Day is a time for me to reflect back on my Russian immigrant grandparents. They fled Russia, disgusted by the aristocracy and frightened by the communist insurgency. They had a dream to give their future children a better life. They arrived in this country, with barely enough money to survive. They settled in a Russian/Polish immigrant community in Salem, Massachusetts. My grandfather worked in the leather tanning factories and my grandmother did backbreaking work in the textile mills. They sacrificed comfort out of love of their children. My father, their son, became a physician and served the immigrant community of the North Shore of Boston as a family doctor.
At the recent RNC,(this is NOT a political statement,) Senator Marco Rubio said something that resonated with me as he spoke of his parents who left Cuba during the rise of Fidel Casto. Link
“He noted that his father, who lost his own mother at age 9, worked as a bartender and that his mother — a former cashier, maid and Kmart employee — “was one of seven girls, whose parents often went to bed hungry so their children wouldn’t.”
“A few years ago, during a speech, I noticed a bartender behind a portable bar at the back of the ballroom,” Rubio said. “I remembered my father who had worked so long as a banquet bartender. . . . He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.”
He added,
“We’re special because dreams that are impossible anywhere else, come true here.”
I had tears in my eyes as he said this because he reminded my of my own relatives.
A number of years ago I walked across the campus of Dallas Theological Seminary as I considered taking some courses. I remember thinking about my grandparents. It was their love for their family that would allow me to live in home with a television and magazine subscriptions that would one day lead me to discover that the Creator of the universe loved me. This love has transformed my life
My grateful response to this love has led me to share His love with others. In some respects, the image of my grandparents, George and Theresa Nalesnik (whose names are inscribed at Ellis Island), along with Marco Rubio’s parents, help me to understand the love of God. These family members, out of love for their families, left their homelands in order to give a better life to their children.
Jesus, seeing His people, crying in the darkness of their world, left His perfect home in heaven, to die on the Cross and redeem them. He was willing to endure unimaginable pain because He loves His people.
That is why the recent tweet link on August 31, 2012, from John Piper absolutely stunned me.
Be done with sentimental views of the love of God. "Behold, I am watching over them for disaster, not for good." Jer. 44:27
I do not understand the Calvinistas. I have been studying the latest "thing" in these circles in which the leaders appear to believe that they are gifted as Prophets, Priests and Kings. I kid you not!! Soon, I will be writing more about this subject, which appears to have originated with Mark Driscoll. Incredibly, they have all decided that pastors and leaders have been bestowed(presumably by God and/or Driscoll) with one of these three designations.
Folks, they actually spend time studying their navels and trying to figure out which one they are. As I will show in a future column, Driscoll has appointed the office of “Prophet” to John Piper. Other pastors like to announce to their congregations that they are now "kings!"
I have been following Piper’s increasingly dismal preoccupation with disasters. I totally disagree with his penchant for telling us his specific (prophet) insight into God’s purposes with each weather event or bridge collapse. It is a serious business to announce the mind of God to the world. It is even more serious to attempt to downplay the immeasurable depth of God’s love for His people and this universe.
Folks, this last tweet appears to be crossing a line that emphasizes Old Testament judgment over New Testament grace. John Piper is sounding more and more like an angry old man who is relishing God’s destruction of people more than His expression of love and care for His lost sheep.
If God had been presented to me in such a fashion, I do not know if the insecure, vulnerable teen that I was would have sought out this God of destruction. It was His love for me that made me fall in love with Him!
And, to ward off the expected criticism (must they be so predictable?), I know that Jesus will destroy the current earth and create a new heaven and a new earth. He tarries because He does not want even one to perish. He runs after even one sheep that has gone astray. He LOVES us!
Folks, love is NOT a four-letter word. In case you have been listening to these Calvinistas too long, I end with some Bible verses to hang onto as the current God of Destruction becomes the rallying cry for the King Calvinistas.
All Bible verses are from Bible Gateway link and the NIV (just to irritate the ESVO crowd).
Zephaniah 3:17
The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in his love he will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing.
John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
1 Peter 5:6-7
Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Psalm 86:15
But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.
1John 3:1
See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!
1John 4:7-12
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
Ephesians 2:4-5
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Galatians 2:19-20
For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 8 37-39
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.
Rejoice our friends. We are loved, really loved, and do not let any "authority drunk" King Calvinista tell you any differently.
In honor of the Piper tweet, we take a clue from that great American theologian, Tina Turner. She seems to be agreeing with Piper. I wonder, is she a prophet as well?
Lydia's Corner: Genesis 46:1-47:31 Matthew 15:1-28 Psalm 19:1-14 Proverbs 4:14-19
I think the problem is that some people are so wary of what they see as the modern predominant woolly view of love that they lean very hard in the opposite direction as a corrective. Unfortunately, in a boat or on a motorcycle, if you lean too far in either direction you’ll have an accident.
However I agree that we don’t hear very much about love from some of these folk.
The sad part is people are following him and hanging on his every word. I need more love to get me through every day no anger.
Kolya
I believe that people who truly experience the love of God are the ones who will less likely abuse it.
I am floored by Piper’s tweet!!!
Mot
I, too, am like you. It is the love of God that gives me strength and causes me to want to do more for others because I have been so blessed.
Dee, you know it is bad when your earthly parents sound more compassionate than our Heavenly Father as portrayed by the Calvinistas.
This is a natural progression of their definition of “God’s Sovereignty”. Instead of a just, loving and gracious God who gives us some free reign and choice, they hawk a god that controls every single molecule and ends up not far from the god of Islam…a determinist god who wants you to have a fatalistic outlook and forces you to believe in Him but does not give others the opportunity.
What I see in scripture is a God who has great power that He does not always feel the need to exercise but allows us choices whether for good or evil. He wants us to depend on Him, Abide in Him but He also wants to do good to others.
History is not on the side of Calvinism but I do see parallels with those who hate our freedom and want to control others. Both liberals and conservatives do this. One uses government coercian and the other, religion.
Hmm…like you, if it were not for the love God showed me, I would never have followed him. In spite of all the things I went through growing up, the spiritual, emotional, physical and sexual abuses, Jesus never wavered in his persistent love for me…his persistence in expressing that love to me in whatever form I was able to grasp, even when I was tiny. I know it sounds strange, but I do not remember a time when he wasn’t there. And THAT – his presence and LOVE are the only reason I even survived my childhood.
The teachings of the Calvinistas brings death, not life.
Dee,
I saw that Tweet by Piper as well, and I’m glad you have addressed it. Let’s see … The Bible says God is love. Whom shall we believe? That’s an easy choice for me.
Deb
I believe that Tina said it far better than he did. At least, with her, there is no pretense.
Dee, given that this came down in a tweet, are there any contextual clues to be found in previous JP statements than can give us insight into precisely what he means by “sentimental views of the love of God?”
I read something recently that said two groups ought not Tweet – pastors and politicians. I’m thinking that’s sound advice.
So now each and every pastor is personally either a prophet, priest or king? A couple thoughts:
1) I look forward to the fruits of your research with bated breath.
2) I thought we needed all three of those roles. Of course, if we stuck with Jesus we’d get the complete gift bag. But if our pastor gets thrown into the mix, won’t our congregation be incomplete if it only has a prophet? Or only a king? Does every church need three pastors now?
3) Mark Driscoll must be a king. You can tell because of his rippling pectorals, extra-tight muscle shirts, and frequent sexual activity.
SMG
No but I can guess at what he would say. He made an error in this tweet. He juxtapositioned sentimentality with destruction. He should have, instead, talked about true love of God versus sentimental love. When he used this phrase, while making waves with his the tornado was sent to destroy X, he did a grave disservice to the understanding of Biblical love.
The love of God that is known by me and many others here, is deep and profound. But, since I am not a Calvinista, perhaps that means I am sentimental as well?
A dear Muslim friend and I recently discussed religion. She has never read Douglas Wilson but she used his exact words when she discussed “the difference between rules and principles”. For Douglas Wilson, a principle is the supposedly Biblical command for young people to have a courtship rather than date. A rule might be where the courting young man sits at the table when he visits his girlfriend’s family. For my Muslim friend, a principle is the necessity of praying to Mecca 5 times a day. A rule is whether you are supposed to sit or stand while praying.
The rules are different in Islam and Calvinsta Christianity, but Calvinista Christianity and Islam are equally rigid because their principles sounding more like rules. Even the fruits of the Holy Spirit become rules. Instead the Holy Spriit blessing the Christian with contentment, love, kindness and freedom from anxiety, the Christian is required to demonstrate these traits to prove they are really Christians. If a disaster such as illness, losing a job or losing a love one befalls a Christian, he is reproved for not having the fruits of the Spirit if he feels sadness or anxiety. I was deeply hurt when my former friends, who are disciples of Douglas Wilson, reproved me in this way when I lost my husband.
Dee, you’re way too smart to issue political statements or be sucker punched by them. ===> (smiley face goes here)
And for me: Given a choice between listening to a big name preacher and Tina Turner, I’ll take Ms. Turner every time.
Went through some of his recent tweets to find the one you quoted (which is there) and to read some of the other stuff he has on there. Truly, he makes little sense to me. A lot about Moab and judgement. Little to nothing about Christ.
Thanks for bringing this to the forefront, dee.
So motion carried then… no more tweeting by pastors and politicians! 🙂
I’m also looking forward to Dee’s research. I had heard rumbles of this from a friend of mine. Really, I can’t imagine where they’ve got this idea of Prophet, Priest and King. Paul mentions teachers, evangelists and so forth, but none of these roles described here. The only person described in the NT as having these is the Lord Himself.
Driscoll’s little prophet-priest-king distinction posses as a Biblical distinction, but I say it’s all hogwash: He’s importing a business principle into the church and looking for a way to spiritualize it. It’s called playing to your strengths: People naturally gifted at and who enjoy administration should, for the good of the company and their own personal happiness, be given more of those type of responsibilities, and less of what they are not good at. These would be the “Kings.” Those good at leadership should be given the lead roles, and those gifted at speaking should be given speaking roles. This is all common sense in the corporate world. Go ahead, run your church strictly like a business. But don’t spiritualize it, call it Biblical, and demand the rest of us follow your example. Most Pastors in real life have to do all of the above.
That’s aside from the fact that people do not prophecy today. I’m sorry, Charismatics, but anybody claiming to be a prophet is speaking on behalf of God an is held to the same standards/scrutiny as scripture. God might inspire your ideas, sentiments, or words, but you are not quoting His mind verbatim like Isaiah did. And calling a pastor a King gives him WAY too much power (not to mention if he’s a prophet AND a king). As far as being a priest goes, given what Mark Driscoll means by it, apparently only some pastors are expected to do the king of work that all pastors have historically ben required to do. His theology of ministry is entrepreneurial, not pastoral.
I get what Piper is going off against: Too often this loving-affirming-accepting-teddy bear in the sky Jesus is toted around as somebody who is tolerant of wickedness, sin, and evil. This God of love is also a God of wrath, just as he is simultaneously just and merciful. Our minds can’t reconcile paradoxes like these so we tend to emphasize one aspect to the detriment of the other. I’d say that the wrathful God is politically incorrect these days, so I understand why Piper is miffed. Not to mention, the God that loves you also hates your sin. And he is Holy. In the words of C.S. Lewis, he may be a good Lion, but he is not a safe lion.
However, the reason that Calvinistas will always err with the love/wrath paradox of God is because they view Sovereignity as the primary attribute of God, and they go through the justice of the Father to get to the mercy of the Son. They have their theology backwards. The primary theological lens should be the suffering of Christ, as we go through the mercy of the Son to understand the justice of the Father. Their err is a Christological one: They try to formulate a picture of a sovereign deity without reference to a suffering, dying, and resurrected human. The whole point of the New Testament is, as NT Wright has said, NOT that Jesus is God, but that God is Jesus. If you want to know what God is truly like, read the four gospels. It is the most clear picture you will ever get, because Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God.
By the way, I love the artwork at the beginning of this thread. Is it charcoal on paper? No matter, for me it’s the Jesus who resonates on a deep visceral level. Not the big mean weenie in the sky conjured up by an Aristotelian linearization of Scripture. That one’s cold, distant, and very much like Zeus on Olympus.
Sigh.
What has the ‘sentimental’ love got to do with the scripture he posted anyway? Did he even read the chapter – or know the story he took it from?
The chapter speaks of idolatry, and the disaster that people would deal with due to them worshiping things that God states is not to be worshiped.
Sentimental Love for God isn’t any close to what God was referring too.
I guess I’m lost here.
These men do not emphasize wrath more than love. Love is nowhere to be found in the Calvinist doctrine. Indeed, the entire philosophy is predicated on a perfunctory disdain for all of humanity, and a disgust of the “flesh” that leaves no room for love. Why? People = flesh in reformed doctrine. Remember, any “good” you do is not you doing it, but Christ (gospel contemplation-ism). You CANNOT do it, therefore YOU, the person are despised. And even if these men knew who was elect and who wasn’t, it would make little difference. They would put both to the sword in defense of “sound doctrine”. If THEY warranted a reason, as divinely appointed “authority” over the “sheep”, the elect they would not hesitate to destroy to separate the Spirit from corrupt flesh; the damned they would destroy to speed them on their inevitable journey as Gods incarnate (standing in the stead). Mark my words, at the root of this doctrine is hate, not love in any sense. I wouldn’t even call what they say to be in defense of God’s “wrath”, for wrath cannot exist apart from Love. Since there is no love for man in their doctrine, what they preach is merely the doctrine of destruction for man’s spirit and his flesh. Their love has gone cold. There is no love; no wrath. Just cold, emotionless destruction.
“The whole point of the New Testament is, as NT Wright has said, NOT that Jesus is God, but that God is Jesus. If you want to know what God is truly like, read the four gospels. It is the most clear picture you will ever get, because Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God.”
That is a mouthful right there.
…
I’ve seen comp men talking about being prophet, priest, provider for their households, and that being their God-ordained roles. Why their co-heirs need a priest and they don’t is unexplained.
Miguel makes some very good points!
Miguel,
With all respect, there is no paradox. Paradoxes are few and far between with God; they are not so numerous as the stars as the Calvinists would like us to believe. Their doctrine is founded on a God who is an impossible contradiction at His core, not a paradox. They claim paradox because they cannot defend logically, theologically, or philosophically the impossible contradictions that are the seeds of their doctrine. So, they do what all false philosophies do: they create euphemisms to mask true meaning. It’s old propaganda, but it’s effective when combined with comprehensive arguments based on some seriously deft and intricately deceptive proof-texting of scripture. Hard to argue with “paradoxes” that are “biblical”. Often times, this problem is simply solved by people going back and just reading the whole book or chapter. It is as simple as that, and it’s not even so much the translation I’ve noticed, as it is just reading not just the verse but everything AROUND it, and then asking the Spirit to give you wisdom to understand the verse in its biblical context. Of course, this does involve a lot more time and effort than proof-texting, which is really just a way to get scripture to instantly arrive at whatever interpretation you’ve (not you, personally, Miguel…I mean that as a general “you”) already invented in your little reformed mind. It also involves the Holy Spirit, which makes it different, too.
God’s love is the beginning, middle and end of how he relates to man. It is why He created us, why He died for us, why He sanctifies us. This is why the greatest commandments all have LOVE at their root. “Wrath” for someone’s purposeful wickedness is a manifestation of God’s love for those who chose Him. That is not eternal judgment so much as it is, again, God’s love for His children against their enemies. Eternal “wrath” isn’t, at least to me, a conscious hate filled tormenting of unbelievers as it is a perfunctory outcome of not repenting for offending the Perfect ONE (i.e. sinning against Him…a sin against the eternal ONE warrants eternal judgment, I would say, by definition; the punishment fits the crime, which is why there is no “little” sin against the Perfect GOD) But, again, everything, and I mean everything…every motive, every thought toward man is predicated FIRST upon God’s love. God could not have created us without LOVE being the SOLE motivating factor. This is what we must understand. In the truth of man’s free consciousness lay the TRUTH that we could not be here if we were not intended to freely pursue HIM, because HE is the perfect objective for Himself and for everything He creates. Thus, all he does is in service to Himself and His LOVE for Himself is what drives Him on towards Himself so that He is both the WAY and the LIFE (the means and the end, as it were)…HE is LOVE, means that in order for Him to create us with the intention that WE would be created in service to the PERFECT objective, Himself, we MUST have been created in LOVE. Not wrath.
Is John Piper becoming Abe Simpson? http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg
The prophet-priest-king stuff isn’t new. I heard it in discipleship movement circles in the 70s and 80s.
However, since we didn’t have social media and blogs back then, it wasn’t so widely publicized. (Not to mention that egomaniacs like Piper and MD weren’t around yet…)
Who has time for relationships and love when they are having an affair with their doctrine?
@hannah. I was about to say the same thing. Besides, the Bible is full of sentimentality. The magnificat is one tiny example. I never understand why certain people like to pretend it is not. I guess you can’t be a serious Bible teacher if’n you don’t scare ’em.
@ Teri Anne — Im sorry for your loss, and for the additional pain you were caused by the insensitivity of your friends. Of all the times we should comfort one another, the loss of a loved one should be chief among them. God’s peace to you and your family.
numo, I’d say the big difference was David Keirsey’s best-seller hadn’t been published yet. 😉
Julie Anne,
About having an affair with one’s doctrine… aye, i’ve observed this many times.
Or an affair with one’s own spirituality, or with one’s involvement at church.
WTH – aha! Didn’t know about that… too much time spent on trying to figure out Who’s who in the NAR, methinks. 😉
More seriously, this does strike me as warmed-over garbage from the discipleship movement. I think Jamie Buckingham was one of the perpetrators, but I’d have to doublecheck to be sure…
WTH – d’oh!
you may be onto something at that… 😉
“What’s Love Got to Do With It?” Everything!
I think Piper needs to listen to the message Lee Strobel gave the Sunday after the tragic July 20th Aurora movie theater shooting. His church is located just 21 miles from the theater and also near the Colorado wildfires. His sermon, “Why Does God Allow Tragedy & Suffering?”, is one of the best responses I have ever heard.
Link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddFO6AAHD0
Link to printed sermon: http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/07/why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering/
Some highlights from his sermon (although I would recommend listening to it yourself):
“If you ask me point-blank, ‘Why did God allow the gunman to spray the Aurora movie theater with gunfire just two days ago?’, the only answer I can honestly give consists of four words – ‘I do not know.’ I cannot stand in the shoes of God and give a complete answer to that question. I don’t have God’s mind. I don’t see with God’s eyes.”
“And frankly, the people suffering from the Aurora tragedy don’t need a big theological treatise right now; any intellectual response is going to seem trite and inadequate. What they desperately need now is the very real and comforting presence of Jesus Christ in their lives. And I’m so grateful that so many churches and ministries of this community are helping them experience that.”
“God has existed from eternity past as the Father, Son and Spirit, together in a relationship of perfect love. So love is the highest value in the universe.”
“Moral evil is the immorality and pain and suffering and tragedy that come because we choose to be selfish, arrogant, uncaring, hateful and abusive. Romans 3:23 says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
“The second kind of evil is called natural evil. These are things like wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes that cause suffering for people. But these, too, are the indirect result of sin being allowed into the world. As one author explained: ‘When we humans told God to shove off, He partially honored our request.’”
“Points of light”:
1. “God is not the creator of evil and suffering.”
2. “Though suffering isn’t good, God can use it to accomplish good.”
3. “The day is coming when suffering will cease and God will judge evil.”
4. “Our suffering will pale in comparison to what God has in store for his followers.”
5. “We decide whether to turn bitter or turn to God for peace and courage.”
“God’s ultimate answer to suffering isn’t an explanation; it’s the incarnation. Suffering is a personal problem; it demands a personal response. And God isn’t some distant, detached, and disinterested deity; He entered into our world and personally experienced our pain. Jesus is there in the lowest places of our lives.”
This reminds me of the dark hole of confusion and despair that I fell (was pushed?) into about six years ago, thanks to Way of the Master’s radio show. Every day hearing Todd Friel and Ray Comfort telling me that God has no actual feeling or affection for any of us, even after we are no longer his enemies, really messed me up spiritually. They wanted me to believe that his love is cold and detached, expressed only in actions, and this toward beings he does not even like. This broke my heart, and I wrote Todd an e-mail, in total agony and desperation, asking him for help. He replied back with a short, very condescending and 100% unhelpful one-liner. Maybe it was a two-liner? Forgettable non-answer. I decided to attack the bible and analyze every single mention of the love of God that I could find, hoping to find proof that he loves me the way I used to believe he did.
My point in saying this here is to give a warning to any other unaware people who may need it – to stay away from two who echo Piper (Friel and Comfort) and hopefully prevent more despair.
Oasis,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to TWW! I am greatly disheartened that there are those who mischaracterize our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He loves us with a love that we cannot possibly comprehend. I hope those who listen to the Way of the Master will heed your advice. Blessings!
I truly believe that St Dismas (the repentant thief on the cross) is a symbol of hope in these hard times and that there is still a chance for us to accept Jesus as our personal lord and saviour even in the last minutes of our life – even in our darkest hours. If we read the story carefully, we can see that Jesus is willing to accept us into paradise even at the last stage of our life. However, if we can figure out a way to accept him before our last minutes in this life, we will discover that we each have a greater purrpose in life that gives us that sense of who we are and why we are. I hope that you will take the time to read more into this motivating story and find your place in the ranks of Jesus’s followers. If it takes you more then this, then please know that he will be waiting for you all of your life, even until you find him on the cross like St Dismas did. Amen.
Oasis,
Very good comment, and a very serious and helpful warning to us all. De-emphasizing God’s love is not how you emphasize His holiness. One wonders if these “teachers” seem to forget that when God says they’ll be held to a higher standard, He means it. And THEY are not the standard.
Liz
Such a great comment! “The second kind of evil is called natural evil.” This also goes down into our genes and is the reason my daughter had to suffer with a brain tumor. Our genes do not function perfectly because of the Fall. It gave me such peace to realize that God was not punishing me or my daughter. It was the simple, yet sad, effect of living in a fallen world. So, instead of expending energy trying to decide “what I had done wrong, how I had sinned” I simply went on to support and care for her, knowing that one day all would be made right.
I think people fear the love of God. They believe that love is soft. They want to control people because it is so much easier. We can give them rules to follow. Then we can “punish” them when they do not follow.
Love demands commitment . The love of God seems unfair. Why should he show love to all of these people who are such mess-ups? I think many of these so-called leaders fashion themselves off the older brother in the Prodigal story. He was the good boy. He followed all of the rules. And he could not understand the love the father had for his son who finally came home. That is the love that motivates me.
An understanding of God’s love does not breed a profligate lifestyle. It breeds a lifestyle of mercy to others, humility and devotion to the One who loves us.
Perhaps a good antidote to the Rev. Piper and his ilk would be “The Furious Longing of God” by Brennan Manning. Or anything else by Manning.
Liz and Dee –
The link Liz referred to has further explaination on love and “free will and love.” It is quite good. The pastor teaches a view on free will that I believe — you can’t love another being without free will. It wouldn’t be love. It would be stepfordish.
Oasis,
I don’t personally listen to Comfort or WTM. However, I have heard similar accounts to yours about the effect they can have on some people, like that dark despair and confusion you speak of.
If they are saying such things as that God has no personal feelings toward His creatures and that love is solely and exclusively an action, it is no wonder that the response they gave would be of that same character. If feelings don’t matter and have no place in love, then of course Todd isn’t going to consider yours in his response. What for?
As for me, I think the Bible demolishes the WTM view in 2 words: Jesus wept.
Only Christ is to be our prophet, priest, and king.
That said, I sometime wish we were more distict re calvinistas vs calvinists. I also wish we were more distinct re arminians vs sloppy sentimentallity.
So for the record, let me say many calvinists, 5 pointers all, believe in a God of amazing love and grace. That He should save any of our sorry souls is truly amazing. What are termed here as calvinistas are more likely the lordship salvation crowd run amok, confusing elder led with elder ruled.
And to be fair, not all arminians are sloppy sentamentallists. Some have quite a rigorous and demanding faith.
So while I think Piper is often basically nuts, I have to admit that sometimes we go too far the other way, portraying Christ as some lovesick romeo trying to woo us back without any repentance for our aldultery against Him.
@ Oasis:
That’s awful. I used to think WoTM and Todd Friel were okay, though I hadn’t listened to them much. I guess not.
That verse from Zephaniah in the article above struck me yesterday:
“The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in His love He will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing.”
1) So “rejoicing” and “singing” are “cold and detached” actions with no “feeling” component? Who expects anybody to believe that?
2) This verse should upset Mark Driscoll a lot. “Singing over” and “delighting in” someone don’t seem like things a manly-man, cage-fighting “Mighty Warrior who saves” should be doing!
3) Does anyone else here absolutely LOVE the fact that God is described as singing? How totally awesome is that?
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” — Hebrews 1:1-2
If Piper thinks he is God’s prophet, he better find a new line of work. He hasn’t been needed for about 2000 years.
There is a piece of choral music that quotes that verse about God singing in delight over our salvation. I could barely sing it for the tears of joy it brought to me, that He would care so as to celebrate me.
linda
You said” I have to admit that sometimes we go too far the other way, portraying Christ as some lovesick romeo trying to woo us back without any repentance for our aldultery against Him.”
I have been a Christian for a looooong time. I have never attended a church in which repentance was not part and parcel of the Christian message. One cannot read any of the NT and come away with a message of repentance-free faith.
I actually believe something else is happening and I am watching it fascination and concern. The Calvinistas are making hay on two points.
Pastors are the authority kings, holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven (as described by 9 Marks). They get to declare who is saved and not saved. (again, 9 marks)
For many of these, God’s love is characterized by his willingness to save us despicable creatures so it will glorify Him. It has little to do with His love and care. We are essentially bugs on the windshield of the universe.
For me, love is the key to Christ’s plan. He created us out of love and saves us out of love. He cares about us, our lives, our pains, our struggles.
And He loves us even when we do not repent. How do I know? The longer that I am a Christian, the more I realize that there are many aspects to my life and walk which are mired in self-centeredness. I discover things about myself that are in need of changing every day of my life. However, 20 years ago, I was not aware of things in my life that I would discover in the future. So, there were, are and will be things in my life that had not been repented of. Yet Jesus still loves me.
I believe the better way to say it is this. Living the Christian life involves the willingness to repent.And on some days, bad ones, I do not even care to do so. But Christ’s love for us is demonstrated that while we were yet sinners, He died for us. Not while we were being good church do bees, but while we were sinners. That is what is amazing about His love.
What better way to control people than to keep them in constant dread?
Piper is tyrannical…if you want proof, read his book, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, in which he claims that pastors are responsible for their flocks salvation. So much for the priesthood of believers…just listen to your pastor, or else God may bring disaster. He is CJ Mahaney with an education…
Julie Anne said
“Who has time for relationships and love when they are having an affair with their doctrine?”
Ok, that is really too funny….
Arce
There are many times I have teared up over the fact that God celebrates our coming home to Him. Some of these Calvinistas, however, seem to characterize such a thing as sentimentality. God, instead, is sitting there, shaking His head and wagging His finger at us, saying “It’s about time, loser.”
doubtful
The saddest people that I have met are those who are not quite sure that they are one of the “elect.” Therefore, they must prove that they are. They “prove” that they are so elect that they would have no problem if God sends infants to hell along with those who are handicapped, etc. Yes, on this blog, we have had it said that a man was not sure if God would save his handicapped children but that was OK with him because he trusts in God.
The Calvinista preachers have a stronghold over their people. If you don’t like what they are doing, you obviously are not one of the elect. If you do not serve them, joyfully, you are not one of the elect. If you ask too man questions, exhibiting the sin of asking questions, you are probably not one of the elect.
So, being “elect” is reduced to a set of behaviors that “prove” you must be one of the elect. It is a means of control that has nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency to prove election.
Oasis,
Any time I see someone’s name linked with Doug Phillips, I get extremely concerned.
Doug Phillips Interviews Ray Comfort
Thanks for bringing Ray Comfort to my attention.
Arce said: There is a piece of choral music that quotes that verse about God singing in delight over our salvation. I could barely sing it for the tears of joy it brought to me, that He would care so as to celebrate me.
This spiritual abuse stuff sometimes really messes with me (even long after I left the abusive church). Yesterday, my family had left to go to Sunday School and I was going to show up later for the service, but was really struggling emotionally. I did end up showing up late for the service and only heard the last song. It was a song with similar words – most likely from the Zephaniah words quoted earlier. As soon as I heard the first phrase sung, I melted. God speaks so intimately to me through music (I’m a musician) and finally it broke through the walls I put up because of trust issues resulting from spiritual abuse. Spiritual abuse really messes with your head. Shoot, tears are coming again. Maybe I need to start typing . . .
Mark Driscoll must be a king. You can tell because of his rippling pectorals, extra-tight muscle shirts, and frequent sexual activity. — Hester
Don’t forget his Kewpie-doll faux-hawk and MMA Gladiator Arena interest.
Some of these Calvinistas, however, seem to characterize such a thing as sentimentality. God, instead, is sitting there, shaking His head and wagging His finger at us, saying “It’s about time, loser.” — Dee
When He’s not roaring from His Great White Throne “BEGONE FROM ME, YE, CURSED, INTO EVERLASTING FIRE!!!!! JOIN THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS!!!!!”
as is shown in all those Chick Tracts.
Doubtful said: Julie Anne said “Who has time for relationships and love when they are having an affair with their doctrine?” Ok, that is really too funny….
The thought is funny, but when you are personally connected with this, it can destroy families/marriages/relationships. My negative Google review and blog opened up the world to me about what is going on and I’m seeing things through completely different eyes. I didn’t understand a lot of it. When I finally did understand the basics of it, I thought it was happening “out there”. Now I’m realizing that it’s not just “out there”, it’s very close to me and I am seeing/feeling the destruction. I thought it was just about my former pastor. I then thought it was about some high profile pastors who just didn’t get it when I was trying to share my story. No, it’s far more than that. I’m really angry and sad about what’s going on.
Dee said: So, being “elect” is reduced to a set of behaviors that “prove” you must be one of the elect. It is a means of control that has nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency to prove election.
Yes! And if you have one doctrinal hole in your theology, you don’t measure up and you will be treated like a less-than. Everything is based on you measuring up to their doctrinal standards.
I agree…not trying to downplay the tragedy of someone who has neglected family and friends because of their theology. It just struck me as a funny way of saying it.
But the reality is not funny…
However, the reason that Calvinistas will always err with the love/wrath paradox of God is because they view Sovereignity as the primary attribute of God… — Miguel
Not “Soverignity”, Miguel.
POWER.
The Biggest Boot Stamping on all our faces. Forever.
No, I understand, doubtful. No worries.
BTW, this picture on Paul Dohse’s blog creeps me out and especially read his words about Pastor Kings
Julie Anne
Most people here have been caught up in legalistic, doctrinally “pure” churches. These are precisely the churches which downplay grace and love because grace and love are free gifts from above and cannot be controlled by Preacher Kings.
The Calvinistas spend so much time talking about the sovereignty of God, how he has laid out the future in infinite detail, how we aren’t even responsible for our own salvation – it’s God’s random choice, that there seems to me no time or even point to talking about love.
Julie Anne –
I read that article and saw that picture a bit ago. It was nauseating 🙁 I don’t believe that many people would be coming forward every week unless something strange was being taught. A church would not have that many coming forward for salvation every week, maybe for prayer (but that doesn’t add up either). UNLESS only the prayers of the Pastor/King/Prophet are heard? UNLESS the church building is the only place that people can be prayed for or saved? UNLESS the people are not being taught that they have access to the living God and are cleansed and made holy by Jesus and not by the Pastor/King.
Julie Anne/Bridget
I am thinking about a fourth fee for service plan. I could appoint all of you to be prophets priests, and kings within the context of the E Church. I could also come up with other designations for those with different preferences. For example, I prefer to be called Mother Superior (accent on the superior). Numo could be Abbess. Dave is, of course, Apostle.
So, let me know what you would like to be? I will not charge you as we make you my test subjects>
Julie Anne,
You will be extremely encouraged by Wade Burleson’s upcoming message. I can hardly wait to post it this weekend! 🙂
Dee:
What about an associational DOM that want his churches to be doctrinally “pure” churches, but mostly only as it relates to women pastors?
Yes! And if you have one doctrinal hole in your theology, you don’t measure up and you will be treated like a less-than. Everything is based on you measuring up to their doctrinal standards. — Julie Ann
So your only choices are Yes-Man or Less-Than?
Absolute Purity of Ideology. Just like classic Communists.
Another thing on God not having feelings toward us. If His love is sans emotion, how could Jesus bear our griefs and carry our sorrows? How could He be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief?
Dee, I want to be the highest position in the church, other than Savior and Lord, and that is “believer”.
Hi Deb,
Re the quote from 9 Marks, could you tell us page number, etc? I take it you’re referring to “9 Marks of a True Church” by Devers?
Thanks!
Dee–geography is everything in church matters!
You haven’t encountered churches that fail to preach repentance.
I’ve encountered those that:
1. Once went 3 weeks without mentioning Jesus at all, not in preaching, Sunday School, or song. Yep, one of our faves :)–SBC.
2. Teach quite overtly that repentance is not part of salvation. I don’t mean the Lordship Salvation controversy, either, of whether or not repentance is agreeing with God that sin is sin or requires you to actually clean up your act.
3. One denom, big in the upper midwest and site of tornadic activity is moving away from repentance for sin and towards simple cleansing for guilt which we never should have felt anyway when we broke the big 10, cause God is love.
But I think I was unclear: my point was two fold. Not all who hold to reformed theology are the power hungry nut case type. Not at all disagreeing some are, but that doesn’t make calvinism bad or wrong. And at the same time, not all who hold to Arminiansim are sloppy sentamentalists, but yes, some are. Been there done that also.
Argo: That is a ton of broad generalizations for quite a diverse spectrum of Christianity. While I don’t really care to defend them from it, there are a few points I think are worth discussing.
I think your criticisms are more generally characteristic of Neo-Puritans than more classic, confessional groups like the Dutch Reformed or Anglicans.
I really like what you say about God’s love. I believe even his discipline is an expression of this love, even if it hurts a bit at times. And I’ll give you that many times a “paradox” is called as an easy solution when it really is not the case. Love/wrath are not necessarily paradoxical, but they do on the surface seem so drastically opposed to one another that they can be difficult to reconcile. I think the CS Lewis comment stands; some people will not be not he receiving end of this love, and that is a scary thing. Like I said, often side one is emphasized to the minimization of the other. I think we could agree that the neo-puritans seem to be erring on the wrong side.
I never considered the implication of double predestination was that it would mean God created some in wrath, which we know is a contradiction of his character. Nicely put. But as a monergistic Lutheran, I cannot accept that God loves those who choose Him. Rather, I believe he pursued me in love despite the fact that I have consistently rejected him, until he overcame my resistance. You don’t have to be a Calvinist to insist that God makes the first move.
Eagle: The New Calvinists are very legalistic, the Reformed have generally always been. They rightly love the law of God, but are under the mistaken impression that they can actually obey it since they are believers. But I would not call the OT legalistic, not unless I was comfortable with calling God legalistic, since I see Him as the author. There is grace written all over the Old Testament, in a hidden sort of way, which is brought out by reading it through cross shaped lenses.
But they are legalistic not because they deny the power of the cross. Piper’s “50 reasons Jesus came to die” demonstrates this enough. Rather, it comes from their “third use of the law,” whereby the Bible becomes an instruction manual for life, the divinely imposed to-do list. This does, though, essentially make the New Covenant feel and function a lot like the old. But its the same thing that feel-good prosperity preachers do when they use the Bible as a guidebook for solving your problems, or Roman Catholics when they teach our works play a role in our salvation: It’s preaching the law as if it were good news. It’s not that the law is not true, it’s just that it’s not good news, but merely good advice.
HUG: Sovereignty, power, control…. same difference. It’s called “euphemism.” You MIGHT be a heretic if you find yourself using euphemisms for God 😛
Oops–forgot.
It would require a whole nuther conversation, but I disagree strongly that God forgives even when we don’t repent.
Neither calvinism nor arminianism teach that.
Rather, I think both teach some form of repentance is necessary. That is, you cannot hold onto a sin, shaking your fist at God that you will neither let it go nor even admit it is wrong no matter what He says and expect forgiveness.
Salvation with no repentance is more universalism.
As to sins not YET repented of, or sins you are not yet aware of but will repent of when He makes you aware, kind of goes back to historic SBC teaching that when we were saved, all our sins, past, present, and future were forgiven.
But very dangerous waters indeed I believe to suggest folks can blow off the idea of repenting and just bask in the love.
As to keys of the kingdom–while I disagree strongly with 9Marks, holding a pre1979view myself, it isn’t all that far off from Lutheran teaching.
The saddest people that I have met are those who are not quite sure that they are one of the “elect.” Therefore, they must prove that they are. They “prove” that they are so elect that they would have no problem if God sends infants to hell along with those who are handicapped, etc. Yes, on this blog, we have had it said that a man was not sure if God would save his handicapped children but that was OK with him because he trusts in God.
The Calvinista preachers have a stronghold over their people. If you don’t like what they are doing, you obviously are not one of the elect. If you do not serve them, joyfully, you are not one of the elect. If you ask too man questions, exhibiting the sin of asking questions, you are probably not one of the elect.
So, being “elect” is reduced to a set of behaviors that “prove” you must be one of the elect. It is a means of control that has nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency to prove election.
This is very sad and unfortunately I think you are right.
Not only does it have nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency, I notice in this list of qualifications to prove election there is no mention of Calvary at all. There is nothing about election being proven by coming to Jesus (John 6:37), “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” (John 6:50, 51, 53-58) seeing the Son and believing in Him (John 6:40) (as your acceptable sacrifice before the Father) all of which have the same promise attached to them: that if they are true of you then you have eternal life and He will raise you up on the last day. But instead there is nothing about Him at all.
Dee wrote:
“…The saddest people that I have met are those who are not quite sure that they are one of the “elect.” Therefore, they must prove that they are. They “prove” that they are so elect that they would have no problem if God sends infants to hell along with those who are handicapped, etc. Yes, on this blog, we have had it said that a man was not sure if God would save his handicapped children but that was OK with him because he trusts in God…”
Other than having absolute power, what makes this God any different than Chemosh & Molech?
I’ve listened to em’ all from The Hierophant of Hippo (Augustine) to Anselm of Canterbury, to Lee Strobel of You Tube. In my opinion they base their arguments on presupposition, circular reasoning, and special pleading. I ain’t buyin’ anymore.
Hmmm, Dee I wonder if I could put in a request to become a Prophetess, Priestess & Queen. Ooooh, make that Gospel Priestess please, that’s my favourite. Unfortunately I have no beard – please tell me you saw this over at IM recently…http://bgospelm.tumblr.com/
God wooed me 21 years ago. I was 30. I had been wooed by the alter calling IFB type school my whole life and the Calvinist church. I rejected what I thought was God for 14 years after high school. But in one second of time God changed me one day when I told God that I wanted to know him. I had followed many alter calls as a kid at the school. I had tried to believe that I was elect from my church. But I was miserable. I do now believe that Jesus does call us like a love sick Romeo. But it isn’t until you know that love from him that you truly repent. There is a difference between regretting having sinned and really feeling sorry for and hating our own sin. Getting to know God has been more gradual than that one second born again experience which has never gone away. The only time it threatened to go away was within a year later when evil thoughts were dominating my mind. Finally one day at Bible Study I decided that the Calvinists must be right. That some of us are simply unsavable from the start. I was going to stop church and go back to my old life believing I was doomed to hell. I did not want to be a hypocrite. It was the love of God that morning when the Holy Spirit supernaturally led my group leader to ‘see’ what was happening in me. I knew nothing about Satan and his tactics. I had shared nothing of my struggle with the church ladies. God began to deliver me from the torment that day. About a year later I was struggling with what the Bible really taught about predestination. My brother-n-law Arminian pastor saying that I may have been saved but lost my salvation through rebellious years, the Calvinist upbringing saying my babies that I lost would be in hell if I am not elect. So I set to the Word to see for myself. While I was struggling with finding word for word concrete verses that would answer my question at God, I had a vision. I was looking into a bottomless jet black hole, the only illumination was on a little boy of about the same many years old as the one would be that I lost. He kept saying over and over “mommy, come get me!” I did not know whether this vision was from God or Satan at the time, I just knew I had to answer the question, what if God let’s babies go to hell. I kept saying “God wouldn’t do that” but I still had to answer. Anyway, I finally began to sing a song I hadn’t heard since VBS. I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back. I believe that this was my ‘Abraham/Isaac’ moment where my trust in the goodness and love of God was tested, because after singing a couple of times that song through sobbing tears and saying I have decided to follow Jesus , no matter what. I kid you not, the little boy in that vision turned into a demon like creature and ran away into the darkness. I knew at that moment where my babies are and then scripture opened up to me verses that tell me more about that.
Another time God showed me His wooing love was through a sermon that for the first time I heard about just how atrocious Jesus treatment was just even before the awful cross. There was one part of me that I was still holding back stubbornly from God due to the fact that He came to earth in the form of a male. How could He ever understand a woman. I so much as called Him a liar for saying that Jesus can be our perfect High Priest because he experienced everything we do. He can’t touch that part of me that was date raped by a Bible carrying man. He can’t touch that part of me that was denied so many things I wanted to do and be and was interested in simply for being a girl. I hated that he made me female for it. Oh but then in one second, in that sermon, I knew that He knew what I felt like and yet still forgive. And then of course I gradually found out the truth about bogus female and male roles. Oh, GOD DOES LOVE US! It is the Goodness of the Lord that leads to repentance!
I apologize for just sort of spewing all of this out from seemingly nowhere, but this wonderful blog site has been touching on so much of me these last few days. I love all of you who blog here. Thank you.
linda
He must forgive sins of which I have not repented or I would not be able to dwell with Him. I assure you, there are some of which I am not aware but there are others…
If truth be told, I have been convicted of sins and hung onto them for awhile before repenting. If I were to die in the midst of that, I believe I still go to heaven. Almost all of us are aware, to one degree or another, of sin in our lives that we don’t really deal with or semi struggle with.
Take, for example, gluttony. How many of us are overweight, are aware of the issue and sort of ,try to do something about it? How about self-righteousness? We are aware of it but kind of, sort of, deal with it.
I believe that we all are a bit of a mess. Most of us exhibit hypocrisy from time to time and we know it and overlook it because whatever it is, it is one of those “forgivable” and “understandable” sins.
I believe that this is what grace is all about. Not only does it take care of the confessed and repented sins, but grace covers the other stuff as well. I promise you that I am not saying that repentance is not part and parcel of the faith. If we are truly Christians, we will feel compelled to do so. But, due to our fallen estate, we will always be hanging on to some things that should be let go. Hopefully, we can admit to doing so.
linda
It is that grace that compels me to say “Thank God, in spite of myself, I am free at last.”
@Dee (re: Comment at 1:34 p.m.)
I would like to have my name put forward for Parking Valet of the Apocalypse.
Thanks.
Patti, that was such a beautiful testimony of God’s love for you!!
You and others here are so right, when Christ leads to repentance it is as the Prodigal son coming back to the Father whose arms are opened wide. He NEVER does anything to those who are His children in wrath. Yes, He rebukes and allows things in our lives to shape us and move us closer to Him- He chastens us, not beats us down; but His ways are certainly NOT like that of these charlitans who spew out false teaching of legalism.
I am tired of these men and do not want more unsuspecting baby Christians or those who have been Christians for awhile being pulled in by this abuse. Lord please bring them out!
Dee–thanks for being more clear.
We’ve both encountered the bad in the calvinist camp. Trust me when I tell you from my years in the Wesleyan-Arminian camp there is just as much abuse.
Patti–calvinists don’t disagree with you that God is just that loving.
But both calvinists through the doctrine of election and arminians through the doctrine of prevenient grace have a powerful God making it possible for you to turn to Him.
What becomes sickening is the portrayal of a powerless God, having done all He could at the cross condemned to unrequited love, with all the power in our hands to hurt and reject Him.
Neither system upholds that idea, but a whole lot of current CCM and charismatic televangelists portray Him in that way.
That is the sloppy sentamentalism to which some object.
One has Him enabling you to choose Him after He has chosen you. The other has Him choosing all who will choose Him, and enabling all to choose Him if they so desire. Both are portrayals of a powerful love.
Neither have Him the lovesick loser in the corner hoping and praying “she” notices Him but unable to do a darn thing to win “her.”
And for the record, not all calvinists believe some babies who die as babies go to hell. Some would see them all in heaven, but again based on God’s grace, not the baby’s supposed innocence.
Forgot to add: it is the extremes in each camp, calvinism and arminiansim, where the nuttiness and abuse take place.
We need to take care to point out the fallacies in both systems without assuming all in either camp are abusive nuts.
“…as NT Wright has said, NOT that Jesus is God, but that God is Jesus. If you want to know what God is truly like, read the four gospels. It is the most clear picture you will ever get, because Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God”
Amen. Wright nails it on this point. The Calvinists are so focused on redefining the Sovereignty concept they often overlook Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh. Sort of like Driscoll was always trying to reinvent Jesus to be some mud wrestling redneck becasue he was embarassed by him as described in scrpture. I think many Calvinista have the same problem. Perhaps becasue they think it maps to their own power as his rulers as prophet, priest and kings?
My experience when most Calvinistas is not the obvious demeanor of love. Just the opposite. They tend to define love differently, too.
@ Linda:
It was my understanding that Luther taught the keys to the kingdom belonged to every believer, not just to elders/pastors. This is also what I was told at my Lutheran church. You can see this in action in Lutheran rules about excommunication. In Reformed (or at least Presbyterian) churches, it’s my understanding that a church “trial” is held in which the alleged heretic is examined by elders. In Lutheran churches, the congregation votes on it after being given the pertinent information.
Addendum @ Linda:
And no, I do not go to a wishy-washy liberal Lutheran church.
@ Deb:
Was Ray Comfort the one who brought us that infamous incident involving a perfectly designed, hand-fitting banana? Or am I thinking of someone else?
@ Dee:
“So, being ‘elect’ is reduced to a set of behaviors that ‘prove’ you must be one of the elect. It is a means of control that has nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency to prove election.”
Have you ever read old Puritan books on assurance? If you haven’t, go do it. Now. They are your quote in a nutshell. Pages and pages of “good signs” and “bad signs,” evidences of “evangelical repentance” vs. “temporary repentance,” “surface-ploughing” vs. “heart work,” etc. The gazillion steps that (allegedly) precede and/or accompany a “true” conversion, all neatly laid out in binary trees and analyzed to death by our ruff-wearing friends in sable. The Christian’s Great Interest, I seem to recall, is one of the most extremely detailed. Below is the only one for which I have a link handy (“The Almost Christian Discovered”). TRIGGER WARNING: those of you who have come out of despair-inducing Reformed environments, DO NOT READ!!!
http://www.gracegems.org/28/matthew_mead.htm
Addendum @ Deb:
Yep, it was Ray Comfort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
I agree that it is normally the extremes of the both tendencies (Calvinist and Arminian) that tend to plunge into half-truth, ie ignoring important parts of the Scriptures. In extreme Arminianism God has no power to call: in extreme Calvinism the human has no responsibility or possibility of any action not ordained by God. Most Calvinists would call the latter tendency hyper-Calvinism.
I do believe that despite the sometimes lazy use of the word “paradox” which has been pointed out here, there are some paradoxes or, to use an older word, mysteries in the Scriptures. For example the Scriptures themselves are both fully human in authorship (not just simply typewritten) and yet fully divine; Christ in His Incarnation was both fully human (yet sinless) and fully divine; God is both sovereign (much-abused word, admittedly) and yet man has responsibility and is addressed as if there is freewill; God wills that all people should be saved and does not desire the death of any sinner, and yet elsewhere the Scriptures speak of those who reject the Gospel, and of the elect.
Was Ray Comfort the one who brought us that infamous incident involving a perfectly designed, hand-fitting banana? Or am I thinking of someone else? — Hester
Yes. The Infamous Ray Comfort Banana BJ Incident. One of the all-time classics of clueless unintentional slashfic setup. Where he PROVES Intelligent Design/Young Earth Creationism by illustrating that a banana is Intelligently Designed/Created by God to fit in the human mouth. And then demonstrates, unknowningly pantomiming oral sex with the banana-as-dildo while actor Kirk Cameron acts as his cheerleader. High Weirdness.
The funny thing is that Wright self-identifies as a Calvinist and consideres Calvin’s approach to the continuity between old and new covenant to be the more biblical and balanced approach.
Not that guys like Piper and R. C. Sproul have stopped seing N. T. Wright as dangerous because if you deny double imputation you lose the whole Gospel, really. Even though Wright is a Calvinist he’s got a few other views that make him the bad guy for a lot of folks in the new Calvinist set.
appropos of the prayer request about Michael, thanks for posting that.
“So, being ‘elect’ is reduced to a set of behaviors that ‘prove’ you must be one of the elect. It is a means of control that has nothing to do with love and is mired in human agency to prove election.” — Dee?
Sounds real easy to slip into a theology where the “set of behaviors that ‘prove’ you must be one of the Elect” becomes “Whatever *I* do that YOU don’t”. AKA “I Thank Thee, LORD, that I am NOT like that Filthy Publican over there…”
Hester,
I saw that video with Ray Comfort explalining the design of the banana earlier today. It drove me bananas! 🙂
Hi Everyone,
I could use a bit of help in practically demonstating the love of God to a man I know. I don’t know him nearly so well as I do his pastors. Does anyone know a good article contrary to the 9-Marks approach to church discipline and excommunication? If it’s Reformed, all the better. Specifically, how should pastors approach someone who is still an “official” church member persisting in immoral behavior, but has already left the church and seems to want to cut all ties? The whole church has been “told” from a Matt. 18 approach, and some sort of official I Cor. 5/tax collector-gentile deadline is soon approaching.
Apostle Dave thinks this is now an irrelevant and harmful step, watching over this man whom God loves for disaster and not for good, while some in the church might still have opportunity to demonstrate the (sentimental) love of God.
(Writing this, I think Wade may have something on his site, but time is short.) Thanks!
Dee: “Folks, this last tweet appears to be crossing a line that emphasizes Old Testament judgment over New Testament grace. John Piper is sounding more and more like an angry old man who is relishing God’s destruction of people more than His expression of love and care for His lost sheep.”
Yeah, kind of reminds me of Tzekel-Kan from Road to El Dorado
Look at him from the 5 minute mark in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UUG9_WE0ug&feature=relmfu
Hester,
I just read at that grace gems site. I see what you mean about trigger warning. I could see some of the points he was making, but wow. If you didn’t go in there with your assurance firmly planted on Calvary, I don’t know how you’d come out with it intact.
The banana design suggestion doesn’t work properly, anyway – the ‘grooves on each side’ only ‘match’ if you hold the banana in your right hand.
Or maybe the banana also ‘proves’ us lefties are tools of satan.
Pam,
We lefties have to stick together! I don’t even open a banana at the correct end, but I do love to eat them. My goal is to consume a banana a day. Today I had two! They were getting too ripe, so one went into a smoothie.
@ Anonymous:
“If you didn’t go in there with your assurance firmly planted on Calvary, I don’t know how you’d come out with it intact.”
You wouldn’t. Which is exactly the point. The Puritans considered a LACK of assurance to be a “good sign” of election/salvation. If you had a firm assurance (esp. as a new Christian), you were likely to be a hypocrite. This has been documented by historians. So the books allegedly written to build up assurance, are really be designed to destroy it and thus make you more “sober” and “spiritual.”
Has anyone here ever read about/heard of Michael Wigglesworth (author of Puritan bestseller The Day of Doom)? He epitomizes Puritan morbid self-examination – almost better than Arthur Dimmesdale.
So if bananas are rock-solid proof of YEC, shouldn’t pomegranates be rock-solid proof of atheism? They taste good, but they’re probably the most inefficient, time-consuming, hard-to-eat fruit on the planet.
@ Hester
Add macadamia nuts to your atheism proofs. Their shells are ridiculously hard. We had a macadamia tree next door to where I lived as a kid, and no matter what my brother and I tried – even attacking the shells with a hammer – we couldn’t get them open.
Hester,
I just skimmed The Day of Doom— noticed how full of grace is Wigglesworth’s gOd.
To the unelect infants, hE assigns an cooler spot in hell:
“You sinners are, and such a share
As sinners may expect,
Such you shall have; for I do save
None but my own elect.
Yet to compare your sin with their
Who liv’d a longer time,
I do confess yours is much less,
Though every sin’s a crime.
A crime it is, therefore in bliss
You may not hope to dwell
But unto you I shall allow
The easiest room in hell.”
Dave,
How about “We love you. Come back when you’re ready.”
J
Thanks, Juniper– really can’t do better than that!
Good evening TWW Community,
It’s been a tough couple days for me. Recently, I shared with a couple Christian friends from college about my engaging in aspects of Catholicism and they kind of flipped out. My experience in the New Reformed movement was devastating. I lost my marriage in part because of our involvement in these groups. All that to say once that happened I received so little grace from the so called Christians around me. I even had one pompous person ask me why I wanted to talk to him when I reached out to him. Anyway, as a result of all this and more I distanced myself from these types of judgmental and devisive groups. In what I like to think of as Divine Irony I wound up finding a Catholic parish where I truly felt I was encountering and being touched by God. Anyway, when I shared this with my friend they were upset and already has begun to distance themselves fro me. Anyway, I feel hurt, confused, frustrated and sad, but thought I could use some encouragement and prayers from the body I have experienced viaTWW.
Deb, thanks for the welcome! Been reading here and learning (and laughing) for months. I did comment one other time but I was too busy to reply back, and I really wish I’d found the time because there are some wonderful people here. Yes, the Doug connection is scary!
Argo, thank you and you make a really good point.
anonymous, I’ve wondered if any other people have been to that dark place after listening to Comfort and/or Friel, and though it’s not surprising at all, it saddens me that you’ve heard similar accounts… What you said about Todd’s response makes so much sense. I never thought of it that way. That is what I walked away with – for all of his talk about the love of God, he seems to know nothing or at least very little about it. I guess it’s only natural that he replied with what he did, because that was all he knew.
Hester, yes, and if at any time we find ourselves feeling happy and loved, because of the way God has loved us evil and completely unlovable beings through his actions, then, well, we must be misunderstanding his intentions. Because there is nothing warm or soft about his love. Or so I was taught.
It’s ironic that I had just told God that as long as I knew he loved me, I would be okay. I could handle anything in life, as long as I could hold onto and count on his love for me. His love was really all that mattered to me. Then, almost immediately my assurance was ripped away. In my mad search through the bible for proof that God loves me, or even likes me a little, what really started to break through to me was his love for Israel – his emotion, his yearning and agonizing over Israel. It’s obvious that he cares so much. I figured, maybe he loves all of his kids with the same love. Now he is shocking me all of the time, showing me how much he loves and supports me. It’s extremely amazing.
I just want to say that it makes me so happy to finally tell about the dark place WOTM took me, and even happier to read so much understanding and support! Thank you!
Such funny people here, you had me laughing for a good while, as I read tonight…
Reformed theology has a legacy of disaster because it is grounded in Plato’s presuppositions concerning mankind. If you remember that Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man, you will see that the very first sentence of the Calvin Institutes, of which the rest of the Institutes are framed,is based on Plato’s Two World metaphysical view. From Plato’s Academy, his view of social engineering became Communism in the secular realm, and Reformed theology in the religious realm. It entered the religious realm through Augustine, who was a Doctor of Catholicism, and the father of the Reformation. Luther and Calvin were followers of Augustine, and his Platonist metaphysics endeared him to both camps, and in fact, both doctrine are just two different ways of obtaining the same goal: the elite ruling over the ignorant masses. This philosophy set Europe on fire for 800 years, and they tried to bring their reformed show over here, but the founding fathers shut them down (but not before the Salem witch trials). So, none of this surprises me. Can you say: the Inquisition, the Peasant Wars, the 30 Year War, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd English Civil Wars, the Witch Wars (in some towns, the female population was totally eradicated), and the Levellers rebellion against Puritan Tyranny? America has not had one religious war; why not? Want to know what makes all of these guys tick? Look at Europe’s religious history. And this is how they run their churches–they are mini-Genevas–so, go figure.
Sincere observer,
My heart breaks for you. It’s amazing that a community of believers so focused on GRACE have a difficult time being grace-filled themselves. Together, we are shining the light in some dark places.
Rest assured, I will be keeping you in my prayers.
@ Paul:
“America has not had one religious war; why not?”
Hate to burst your bubble, but some “Christian Nation” types are now trying to recast the Civil War as a kind of “holy war” wherein the doctrinally sound, Calvinist South was forced to counter the “aggression” of the heretical, Transcendentalist North. Go read some of the Southern Presbyterian theologians who defended slavery (R. L. Dabney, etc.). You’ll see a lot about God’s ordained “order” for society (of which slavery was an integral part, of course). Doug Phillips at Vision Forum wrote a whole poem called “Hail, Dabney, Defender of the South.” (He also believes women should not have the right to vote.)
@ Dave:
The Day of Doom was so popular in Puritan New England that there are no surviving first editions (they were all destroyed through use). Also, from a Puritan site:
“[The Day of Doom] helped New Englanders to remember the doctrines of righteousness, and children memorized Wigglesworth’s doggerel along with the catechism. … Published in 1662, The Day of Doom became America’s first best seller, circulating 1800 copies during the first year. It has been estimated that at one time one copy was owned for every thirty-five people in all of New England; every other family must have had The Day of Doom on its parlor table. The poem went through ten editions in the next fourteen decades, four in the seventeenth century and six in the eighteenth.”
They really can’t bring themselves to just memorize the BIBLE, can they? First the catechism, now an epic poem about Judgment Day. But anyway, it’s funny how this Reformed site completely fails to mention Wigglesworth’s obsession with self-examination. This one does a better job.
http://college.cengage.com/english/lauter/heath/4e/students/author_pages/colonial/wigglesworth_mi.html
“Wigglesworth’s Diary records his thoughts and conversations with God during his tutoring years at Harvard, his marriage to a cousin, Mary Reyner, and his agonizing decision to accept a pastorship in Malden. The diary reveals the Puritan’s constant self-scrutiny and unceasing search for signs of God’s favor or displeasure. He returns again and again to his most unrelenting sins: pride, lack of affection for his parents, especially his father, and attachment to things of the world rather than the divine. With remarkable emotional intensity, he describes his worries about his sexuality and his frequent bouts of illness.”
Because those Puritans, man, they LOVED their diaries. They kept extensive ones to record their almost endless self-examination (which for historians is actually great).
Sincere
Welcome! I am angry at the body of Christ who treated you so poorly. So many Christians love to point out the sin in the lives of others but do not see the huge hole in their hearts.
I do not blame you for seeking comfort outside the Protestant tradition. The priests and nuns who lived and worked in the church and school on my street in Salem, Massachusetts, (St James Church to be exact) were very welcoming to me, a nonCatholic. They would allow my brother and me to ride go karts in their huge parking lot during the week and they often offered us snacks.
When I was about 11 years old, I wanted to find out what was going on inside. My friends who were members taught me what to say and do and I visited a confessional booth. i am sure the priest knew who I was, but he treated me with great respect. My friends walked me throug the Stations of the Cross. It was all surprisingly moving for the young girl that I was. I wonder if an Neo Cal pastor would have given me the time of day.
In short, I can see why you might choose to live out your faith in such a community. My thoughts and prayers are with you and I have no doubt that God is with you as well.
Paul
I am so glad you commented. Do you know what I did yesterday.?i spent about 45 minutes reading through what happened to you at your old church. i was stunned! I had planned to contact you today to ask if i might reprint a few things and do some running commentary on it-especially the letter from the elders telling your wife to divorce you. I have never seen such Biblical gymnastics in this area!
Apostle Dave
I have mentioned this incident at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship with Pete Briscoe several times but i can find it. Short synopsis. Church member dumps wife and kids and shacks up with honey. Elders, pastors and friends pursue him but he refuses to do the right thing. So, they quietly remove him from church membership. No solemn announcements at member meetings just a quiet, unannounced, private, not public, removal of membership. I was very involved at the church and heard nothing about it.
Elders, pastors and friends continue to pursue him-calling him, taking him to dinner, praying for him. All this over a year. Suddenly, man comes to senses, repents, and begins a slow reconciliation with his wife and children with the help of professional counselors and church leaders.
How do I know this? One Sunday Pete got up to talk about forgiveness. He siad his sermon would be the testimony of the husband and wife. They got up and told their story. You could have heard a pin drop.
These days it seems that church discipline is showy-big announcements, internet postings so the whole church can know about it, etc. It seems more about proving the “authority” of leaders than a deep desire for repentance and reconciliation.
Hope this helps.
Mother Superior
Deb
Humans share @48% of their DNA with bananas. So, going bananas may be more true than you can imagine.
Mara
Thank you for the smile. I think it was said well “That’s disgusting.”
Dee,
The two sites are eldersresolution.org and clearcreekchapelwatch.org or clearcreekchapel.com
….for you and all bloggers–full permission to reprint and comment. My email is pmd@inbox.com where you can also obtain my phone number. ALL court documents and financial records are available upon request that illustrate the blatant false accusations in their statements–especially those concerning finances. Also note that they literally held me hostage there for 4 months via threatening my reputation and thereby ruining my future as a pastor. Also note that PeaceMakers refused to get involved because even though the discipline was plainly bogus, they said they had to honor it due to elder authority. Also note that the evidence is irrefutable that they forced me to come back under threat of ruining my name after i left by letter and without any unresolved issues. Also note that one of the primary elders at CCC who was involved is a prominent Psychiatrist in the Cinn. area. Also note that prominent figures who are connected to CCC from MacArthur’s church refused to step in and save my marriage. Also note that CCC is a member of a fellowship of 25 reformed churches who were begged to intervene and save my marriage. To mention a few.
Has Ray Comfort ever been questioned or challenged publically by other Christians about the banana and sundry other ridiculous things he has said? If his opponents can’t make him away of his own silliness, then thinking Christians need to speak up.
*away = aware (somehow)
@ Hester,
I am writing a book this winter. Could you email me at pmd@inbox.com about some of the things you mention about the Civil War? One of the chapters is going to be on that subject in regard to how Calvinism was involved. Though it was not a religious war, it is clear that the Southern Presbyterians were licking their chops for a future theocracy. Some argue that the South was already just short of that to begin with. I find your comments concerning Doug Phillips in that regard–very interesting.
Deb
Humans share @48% of their DNA with bananas. So, going bananas may be more true than you can imagine. — Dee
Humans share over 40% of their DNA with E.Coli bacteria. That 40% seems to be basic overhead and “operating system” common code.
HUG
I feel a great put down coming on. “You, madam, are a second cousin to bacteria.”
Paul
Let me get this straight. Peacekeepers refused to get involved because of elder authority? That is most interesting. You see, they deny being beholden to the leadership of churches. TWW has claimed for awhile now that they are only interested in protecting the big boys in a congregation and have no concern for the membership. If this is true, I intend to expose them for this hypocrisy once and for all.
Peacekeepers appear to exist to give peace to the pastors. I recommend that no one in the right minds should participate in one of their session!
Paul,
Many of the old pre-Civil War Southern Baptists were Calvinists as well. A lot of them changed after 1865, believing that it could not have been God’s will that the godly South had been defeated and their ‘biblical’ understanding of slavery overturned.
A source on this is Bruce Gourley who has a Civil War Baptists blog.
For those interested in a positive spin on calvinism, one where love has everything to do with it, I suggest two books:
Putting the Amazing Back into Grace by Dr. Michael Horton.
Christless Christianity by same author.
Good reads both, and there are follow up books for those wanting to dig deeper into a reformed faith that focuses on the mighty awesome love and grace of God.
DEE,
A bacteria that lives in feces.
Dee – Have you read Paul’s book? He exposes some of these counseling groups as being intimately connected or part of Neo-Calvinism. And isn’t there some connection with Peacekeepers and Ambassadors of Reconciliation – the group that did the report on SGM and CJ Mahaney?
Hester–our experiences in the Lutheran church differ. Perhaps different synods? When we joined in ND we were told the keys meant unless you were baptized you could not be saved, and only the church could baptize. Also, church discipline, while virtually never practiced even when it clearly should have been, was said to be the action of “the church”, not the individual believer, and the church board’s vote was all that was required.
But my point was that from that point of view, a person could be declared “as an unbeliever.”
Same thing I saw happen in an SBC church and a Nazarene church.
Only difference was the SBC said the person had never truly been saved and the CotN declared the person to have lost salvation for smoking cigarettes.
So it isn’t only calvinists who decide to decide someone is lost.
Julie Anne-
Peacemakers/ AOR have been supported and promoted by CJ Mahaney/ SGM since the mid 90’s. CJ plugged Ken Sande’s Peacemaker book on one of it’s reprintings. I believe Dave Harvey has spoken at Peacmaker conferences in the last 3 years…so while their may not be a formal tie, there is certainly a lot of back scratching going on between the two. The reason SGM liked Peacemakers so much is because they almost always defer to pastoral leadership.
People need to understand this, if you are in conflict within a church and submit to a peacemaker process, you are not going into a neutral process. The process is skewed towards pastoral authority and pastoral privilege.
i.e. Peacemakers(TM) = Anointed Pastor’s Enforcers.
If you remember that Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man, you will see that the very first sentence of the Calvin Institutes, of which the rest of the Institutes are framed,is based on Plato’s Two World metaphysical view. — Paul Passing Thru
JMJ’s blog “Christian Monist” (and his book manuscript) make the point that Platonic Dualism was given way too much importance in Christian Theology through history, and the more importance it was given, the worse things got. And that a lot of both Islam’s and Evangelicalism’s current problems with abuse come from the Dualistic attitude (AKA “Spiritual Good! Physical BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!”)
HUG said: People need to understand this, if you are in conflict within a church and submit to a peacemaker process, you are not going into a neutral process. The process is skewed towards pastoral authority and pastoral privilege.
Ok, I’ve been dealing with issues regarding women and how they are treated in these environments and the same can be said for them. Not only do we have the problem of pastors as being on their thrones, but men are on the thrones in their family. This NC system has the set up that women are less-thans and so the same thing goes on there – if a wife/husband have conflict and submit to a “neutral process” which is skewed towards men “heads of home”. The woman will always lose because of the system that the husband is always over the wife. I’m pretty sure there was a situation where my former pastor told my husband that he needed to reign me in on something. I’m trying to think of what my sin was – – – I think it was going to my knitting group which happened to include my friends who attended another church. Pretty shameful, huh? knit, purl, knit, purl (and he thought we would gossip – – – and you know what actually went on – – – – we encouraged each other and prayed for each other) Cuz we weren’t “allowed” to have a ladies Bible study on our own. A man would have to oversee it.
@ Linda:
Were you Wisconsin synod? I currently attend an LCMS church but was raised (pre-gay marriage) ELCA. There are also a bunch of “micro-synods” that seem to have their own peculiar takes on things, like Lutheran Brethren.
The way our pastor explained the keys was in terms of the priesthood of all believers. One believer can offer forgiveness and consolation to another because Christ has already died for both of them, ergo, their salvation is settled and they are both ALREADY forgiven. He didn’t get into it from the church discipline angle at all, or from being able to declare whether someone is saved or not. So from that perspective, when I see the keys being given only to elders (ala Presbyterianism), I see the ability to comfort and forgive other believers being reserved for a special class of “super believers” – which is patently wrong, as we are clearly commanded to forgive and comfort one another whether we are ordained or not. It’s also awfully Catholic for a theology that takes such pains to distance itself from Rome.
I really do think that the keys theology contributes a lot to a church/denomination’s culture. The way my pastor explained it, all believers, whether ordained or not, are essentially equal. He’s not some “special believer” or “super believer,” and he (and the other Lutheran pastors I’ve met) emphasizes that fact. He’s just a normal believer who happens to lead our particular congregation. As a result, the bearing of Lutheran congregants I have observed toward their pastors is MARKEDLY different than the bearings of Reformed congregants toward their pastors. The Lutherans are casual and relaxed, while the Calvinists have a deferential posture, much more similar to (though not nearly as pronounced as) the attitude of a Catholic toward their priest. Maybe I’m nuts, but that’s what I’ve seen.
All the Lutheran churches I have been in have excommunicated by congregational vote. I do agree that most Lutheran churches could probably practice more church discipline, but given the current theological environment, I’d be afraid that if they tried, the only materials they could find would be wacko authoritarian Neo-Calvinist. And that’s almost worse than doing nothing.
Interestingly, every Lutheran church I have been in has also taught that any and all believers can administer the sacraments.
Julie Anne
I have been looking for proof that Peacekeepers is geared to protecting the leadership and not interested in helping the membership. Their income depends on it. I think Paul’s situation could be a nail in that coffin.
Peacekeepers is not unlike church covenants. These covenants were started on behalf of the leadership to cut down on potential lawsuits. They have been vetted by lawyers.Yet you are not told this when you sign one. If you notice, there are no covenants discussed in the NT. Yet the Calvinistas love them.Why? Don’t they do everything by the Bible?
The answer is “No.” The do everything by the Bible as well as everything that their lawyers say. The Catholics are not the only ones who allow oral tradition define the faith. So do Calvinistas.
@ Paul:
I don’t know a ton about it, as I just started researching it for the upcoming 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Read Mark Noll’s The Civil War As A Theological Crisis to get you started. It goes through the arguments for and against slavery that were commonly used, who many of the major religious players were, and also many of the contemporary reactions from European Christians (who had already ditched slavery decades before). I have to run now but I’ll try to think of more resources to point you toward in an email.
doubtful,
Yes, there are close ties between Peacemaker Ministries and SGM / C.J. Mahaney.
For those who are relatively new, I did attempt to CONNECT THE DOTS between some of these ministries and individuals.
Other posts we have written about Peacemaker Ministries include:
Peacemaker or Kingmaker?
Peacemaker or Kingmaker? Beware of Covenants
ARCE
Are you saying that a certain vulgarism has its basis in DNA? (You are full of it is a nicer way to say it.) Thanks for the smile.
linda
I like Michael Horton. Once again, we are not fighting Reformed theology, only the Calvinistas. Let me add some names to help you see: Driscoll, Mahaney, Mark Dever, etc.
Thanks Dee, but I’ve read them and do see.
I agree with you re these specific men, just as I agree with those in the arminian camp that point out the abusers in their camps.
But when you reread the responses (not your posts!) there are many that teach that all calvinists are abusers and that indeed reformed theology is a loveless theology.
It isn’t true, and if we allow ourselves to be sidelined into the arminian/calvinist debate we lose ground.
Our fight is with spiritual abuse, no matter the camp, or so I thought.
dee,
We were on to Peacemaker Ministries two years ago. I do hope people are paying attention.
Hester–we were also pre-gay issues ELCA, but yes our whole area was heavily influenced by Lutheran Brethren teaching, so maybe that is the difference.
But the Lutheran churches we’ve been part of were very much the kind that sees the pastor as priest.
Our experience with Reformed churches, both Baptist and Presbyterian, were more like it sounds about Enid and Emmanuel. The pastor was chosen by the church, was the servant of the church, and all members were seen as equals except for one in the John MacArthur Lordship Salvation camp.
The most abusive pastors we’ve had were arminian, one SBC and one in the Church of the Nazarene. Both of those would flat out tell you disagreeing with them meant that you were lost.
I think Wartburg Watch is doing a fantastic job of showing the truly colors of spiritual abusers.
But it happens in all theological camps and we need to focus on the abuse, not blame the camp.
Paul – I am far from being well-read on philosophy, but there’s no single flavor of “Platonism” – nor can I see how any form of Platonic thought led to Marx and Engels, let alone Lenin. (Though maybe it is there, somehow.)
Platonism
Neo-platonism – which is where the rubber hits the road re. influence on xtianity in the West, as well as on certain strains of Islam.
There are a lot of nuances to these things and I think it’s best to take a look for oneself… and there are *good* things re. Plato’s thought, too.
I have no doubt that the apostle Paul was well-acquainted with Plato, Socrates, etc., since he did know Greek literature and poetry well enough to be able to come up with appropriate quotes… cf. his speech in Athens.
Juile Anne-
I agree 100%..it is very much the same in most churches when it comes to counseling husbands and wives.
How dare you knit without a man to oversee you! 🙂
In all seriousness, it’s incredibly sad to see the absolute damage this does to couples when this dynamic is played out. It really is destructive when one person (the husband or pastor) is seen as more valuable than the other (wife/ lay person). “My way or the highway” is never a recipe for loving relationships long term.
GBTC – so you’re still flagging comments that have more than one link in them?
numo,
Looks that way…
Deb – thanks for clearing my comment! 🙂
linda – I’m ELCA, but from the mid-Atlantic states (and German, mostly), so “Lutheran Brethren” is new to me and I had to look them up.
Overall, it seems as if the Midwestern synods are much more varied than what’s found on our part of the East Coast, and not just because there’s a strong Scandinavian influence… I don’t think the Wisconsin Synod would stand a chance here. 😉 (Though I might well be wrong…)
Dee,
My wife and I were in counseling at Grace Covenant Church with Pastor Rick Wilson when the CCC elder covertly issued the outrageous 6-page letter to her. First, they declared me an unbeliever when I walked away from being literally held hostage there against by will by threat of defamation, and then used that to say that since they had declared me an unbeliever–I had no authority in her life and could not tell her where to go to church. They then commanded her to go back to CCC–and offered to pay for her housing and attorneys fees if she wanted to divorce me. Pastor Wilson’s wife, Deb, then suggested to Rick that he involve Peacemakers. Keep in mine that GCC is a companion church of CCC. Pastor Rick was a former associate pastor at CCC. According to Rick wilson, PM refused to get involved because, “WE ONLY HANDLE CASES BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, AND HE HAS BEEN DECLARED AN UNBELIEVER.” But, the discipline was obviously bogus, and such was documented. It was PM’s decision to honor the declaration regardless. Not long after the divorce, Robert Jones was invited to speak at CCC for their, get this, “Family Enrichment Conference.” I wrote Robert Jones a letter begging him not to go there as a representative of PeaceMakers after what they had done to me. I WAS IGNORED.
PEOPLE PLEASE LISTEN TO ME–I BEG YOU–ITS NOT ABOUT THE SHEEP–ITS ABOUT THE PASTOR KINGS.
I think that you will find that the prophet, priest, king nomenclature of spiritual gifts is not as scary as it initially sounds. (The technical name being used is “triperspectival.”) To be brief, prophets have teaching gifts, kings have administrative gifts, and priests are good with caring gifts such as counseling. One of the main reasons that these designations are used is to help guys in hiring staff. For example, my gifts are in teaching and caring for people, so when our church needs another staff member, we should probably look for someone whose gift mix is different than mind so that we are balancing out what we are doing.
Dee,
And by the way, both CCC and GCC are refusing to release my counseling records. Susan and I have an attorney involved.
Dee,
Oh, and by the way, My son in law, the ONLY pastor among at least 30 who tried to intervene, was at that time a member of GCC. When he performed a cross church discipline on CCC with the website being the “tell it to the church” part, he was threatened by elders at GCC. They basically told him that they would ruin his mission in PR. He also wrote a letter to the former pastor of CCC who was, and still is an elder at GCC (Mac)–begging him to intervene. Not. My marriage could have been saved by one phone call from any of these people.
Scott
Scary it is not. Bizarre, it most defintely is. When I read about a pastor who is trying to help his inner king to emerge, I feel like I am reading a fantasy novel.
There is no quesiton in my mind that these titles are being given to guys in order to boost up exceedingly fragile egos. I guess being called “patriarchs” is not enough. I cannot wait to write about this. I can assure you that most people will find it weird. Only in the church can we get away with this nonsense.
Now, back to finding my inner Mother Superior.
PS_-Can you imagine what a boss would sai if you told him he was a priest and you were a king? Human resources would bring in the shrinks.
@ Linda:
“But the Lutheran churches we’ve been part of were very much the kind that sees the pastor as priest. Our experience with Reformed churches, both Baptist and Presbyterian, were more like it sounds about Enid and Emmanuel. The pastor was chosen by the church, was the servant of the church, and all members were seen as equals except for one in the John MacArthur Lordship Salvation camp.”
We seem to have had the exact opposite experience in almost every way! Although, to be fair, the Presbyterian church I went to didn’t actually TEACH that the congregants weren’t equal to the pastor. There was just a palpable difference in tone, like I mentioned before – very deferential toward, not just the pastor, but also the elders. Verging toward subtle disapproval if you didn’t just agree with the pastors/elders immediately on a theological matter of any importance. We actually did get some real disapproval right before we left, when we told the pastor that we believed tithing was not required under the New Covenant. He was NOT happy when he couldn’t convince us otherwise. (Of course, he had also let a Reconstructionist preach from his pulpit a month earlier – that was the last straw that led to me becoming Lutheran again.)
We’ve been around very few conservative churches of any stripe that haven’t treated the pastor (subtly or not) as some sort of enlightened guru. The members are always dropping their names like, “Pastor X’s teaching is SO awesome” or “Pastor Y is such a great speaker,” as if they’re going to church to hear him instead of Jesus. (Heck, there’s even one IFB church in our area whose members go to church 4 NIGHTS A WEEK to hear the pastor teach. And their Sunday morning service isn’t called “worship,” but “teaching.”) And if they’re not dropping their own pastor’s name, they’re dropping the names of the newest hottest celebrity pastor who just wrote a book.
Amazing how experiences can differ so much.
This response is from NUMO- not DEE Dee had to post it due to technical difficulties.
@ Scott and Dee:
I don’t know – that prophet, priest, king thing still makes me pretty nervous. I don’t remember administrative gifts being described as “kingly” anywhere. Anyone referring to themselves as a “king” in the church would raise my hackles a lot – we only have one King, and He’s in heaven.
Hester wrote:
~ 3) Does anyone else here absolutely LOVE the fact that God is described as singing? How totally awesome is that? ~
Yeah, me Hester, I agree. I am firmly convinced that when the music dies, the flames climb high into the night and Satan laughs with delight.
Numo,
My book will be published this winter (“The Reformation Myth”). I devote a whole chapter to the connection between Platonism, Communism, Islam, and the Reformation. Some of my sources will be Karl popper:
“Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and its Enemies, sourced Plato as the inspiration of the Communist movement, and ridiculed Arnold Toynbee for arguing that Marxism was mainly inspired by Judaism.”
linda
I know this happens in all theological camps. We have done our share of reporting on other venues such as some SBC churches, prosperity churches, and wahteve the heck you call a church like Ed Young’s.
In each of these camps it is a theological problem. Pastors seem to be able to interpreet the Bible just as they darn well please and come to the conclusion that pleases them. Every church that i have been a member of, with the exception of one or two, had people of all theological stripes in the congregation. There was little controversy. Why? because there does seem to be some people who are smart enough to know that things are not as clear as they seem in this “inerrant” Bible.
Which raises the obvious question. If God really, really wanted us to get things like exactly how to do communion, you would think He would have told us in no uncertain terms. he didn’t. That must mean that some things are not as vital as we would make them out to be.
For me, i could be in a church that does infant baptism or adult baptism or both. I have my preference of those three but they are not a defining matter for me.
Dee,
My letter to Robert Jones: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxfTCRw_fZqtWGRoRk5RSFpXOFE
Dee,
Oh, and by the way, during the time that the CCC elders were excommunicating me, a member there sent me an email informing me that he/she was living with her/his boyfriend/girlfriend and the CCC elders knew it. So, while some members were living in open sin, they were excommunicating me and breaking up my marriage over a false doctrine. I excerpt the email on page 133 of my book: ” But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the people for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend] at one point and [elder’s name withheld] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.”
Paul – not sure that anything I can say would, at this point, add to the discussion.
Carry on…
Numo,
Ok, but I will add this: Platonist metaphysics is the crux of Reformed theology, especially Luther’s Law/Gospel concept. That is why in Reformed circles the Bible is a narrative for Gospel Contemplationism, and not instruction. The Gospel is the vision of the good, while law is the gateway to seeing our depravity in a deeper way and thus lending more understanding to the vision of the good. Susan and I sat not but 2 Sundays ago in a local church and listened to a New Calvinist elder preach the aforementioned.
Paul, I grew up Lutheran and did not get the kind of view that you ascribe to Luther’s thought. perhaps it has been modified by the church over time, but I would have to do a great deal of reading in Luther’s original works to be sure.
At any rate, I think it best for me to bow out here…
one more thing: Luther was not Reformed, even though many Calvinistas seem to view him as such.
Dee wrote:
“…Now, back to finding my inner Mother Superior…”
I think I still prefer you as ~Reverend Mother~ (after Frank Herbert’s Bene Gesserit Sisterhood) ===> (smiley face goes here)
I can’t even comment on Piper; he’s too annoying.
But can we agree that Tina had the most gorgeous legs!
Numo,
Thanks for the conversation.
paul
paul – thanks to you as well.
best,
n.
But Muff!!
I love the superior in my title. People will not know I am superior unless i tell them. I have learned so much watching some of these pastors. They insist on telling people they are in charge over them.
Hester–yes, I think geography has a great deal to do with what we’ve all experienced.
We just left the only Lutheran church in our town because if you don’t buy the line that nobody before the current pastor has understood this or that passage correctly…….well,you see where she is going.
Been there done that enough times due to frequent moves. Not going to drink the koolaide again.
And yes, ELCA here is quite….different from ELCA in ND.
Dee–you know in the upper midwest you wouldn’t be superior. Can we call you mother above average:) Gotta keep that humbleness growing, you know.
I have a term for those you call calvinistas. We are in ranch country, so I call them church drovers.
We need shepherds to go before us out on the narrow ledges in life.
These guys want to stay by the wagon and crack the whip.
RE: paulspassingthoughts,
We’ve never had a religious war here on these shores because the Founders were smart enough to confine religion to a sphere in which the damage it can cause is minimized. They were well acquainted with the wars of the Reformation and Cromwell’s barbarity in England. For them it was still fresh and hadn’t been that long.
To be sure, I think that the Civil War did have a religious component, but I also think it was ancillary and not a prime motivator. I wrote an undergrad paper (back in the Jurassic Age) about this very thing. I argued then as I would now that the Civil War was mainly about two very different economic models in collision, one hopelessly mired in the past, and one open to an ever changing future.
WTH, I find it interesting you say NT WRight is a Calvinist. Seems both REformed and Non Reformed have claimed he is the opposite. I have listened to and read a lot of his stuff adn think he does the same thing with Calvinism he does with the whole conservative/liberal Christian angle. He disagrees with both sides and points out what is right about both sides, too.
He teaches too much of the living the Kingdom now stuff to be a real Calvinist. He also does not teach total inability as defined by Calvin and Calvinists. So not sure where the label comes from. I have seen this questoin debated on other blogs. I did hear him once say, like a good Calvinist….I….” But he does that with both liberal and conservative, too.
If he is a self describd Calvinists then he sure teaches just the opposite of several tulip points.
“I argued then as I would now that the Civil War was mainly about two very different economic models in collision, one hopelessly mired in the past, and one open to an ever changing future.”
Bingo. And with all such conflict, people involved claimed God. Taht does not make it religous. Dabney is case in point as is Boyce, founder of SBTS who claimed God as decreeing slavery. Lincoln did not fire on Fort Sumpter to preserve a denomination or his divine right as a protestant king. The civil war was was nothing like the religous wars in Europe over doctrine and the right of kings.
A question on the prophet, priest, and king thing. Are these “gifts” specifically reserved for those in leadership, or are they the sort of “gifts” anyone can find the Spirit has given them, such as you see in a spiritual gifts inventory or something like that?
I mean, can Elder X say “I have the gift of priest” and non-leader congregant Y say, “and I have the gift of king”?
anonymous
Apparently, besides holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven, these dudes also hold the naming rights. If you are a lowly member, you probably are gifted with the titles of “Servant” and “Tither” to give your King time and money to sit around and decide who gets to be prophet.
“It isn’t true, and if we allow ourselves to be sidelined into the arminian/calvinist debate we lose ground.
Our fight is with spiritual abuse, no matter the camp, or so I thought.”
I totally understand where you are coming from. Both camps twist verses like Hebrews 13:17, etc. However, because of the Neo Platonic Augustinian/Calvin filter for ALL scripture and such definitions of total depravity as total inability, Calvinism itself lends to authoritarian government structure in church and society. You cannot read history and not see the fruit of this doctrine and it’s violence and tyranny. That basic premise that the masses are incompetent and a few are anointed to lead them is the root of its tyrannical base. It is inbred in the interpretation. Guys like Wade are the rare exceptions. Piper/DRiscoll/Mahaney/Mohler are the typical models for it today. And quite frankly, they sound like Calvin and model him with their love to lording it over others, church discipline for disagreeing, excommunications, etc. They don’t even bother to hide their tyranny like the seeker celebs always did, these guys are proud of it and their angry God.
I think that you will find that the prophet, priest, king nomenclature of spiritual gifts is not as scary as it initially sounds. (The technical name being used is “triperspectival.”) To be brief, prophets have teaching gifts, kings have administrative gifts, and priests are good with caring gifts such as counseling. One of the main reasons that these designations are used is to help guys in hiring staff. For example, my gifts are in teaching and caring for people, so when our church needs another staff member, we should probably look for someone whose gift mix is different than mind so that we are balancing out what we are doing.”
Scott, Kings have administrators. YOu are speaking of “servants” as we all are in the Holy Priesthood. Our “King” is Jesus. He is also our High “Priest”. Mere humans are simply trying to map lofty titles to themselves to elevate themselves as mediators on earth. No thanks.
I’m hoping to tackle the PPK as a Keirsey style job placement project later this week or next. Anon1’s right, it’s more mundane and HR-related than the jargon suggests.
It’s still wrong on some basic points about the roles of prophets, priests and kings as described in Deuteronomy 16-18 though but it’ll take time to get into that.
Mother Superior –
Been thinking on a title . . . never really did want one.
I’d just like to be known as a friend of sinners and saints alike . . . if that suits you, of course.
Bridget – since I’m an Abbess here at TWW, I can officially approve/second your request. 😉
Dear Wartburg Watch:
I find this post and the responses to be at once humbling, illuminating and frustrating.
First, I articulate our undoubted Christian faith with a Reformed perspective. The indefinite article ‘a’ matters for the reason that Miguel indicated so admirably; not all parts of the Reformed family are alike. Thank Yahweh for that!
I affirm sadly that many charges here and elsewhere leveled against ‘Calvinism’ are not without merit – as they relate to some or another part of the family. But must those aberrant theologies be set before all in the Reformed family?
I can usually tell where people have acquired their particular brand of ‘Calvinism.’ May I suggest that Mr. John Piper is a case in point? He like Dr. John Gill before him presents himself as a Calvinistic Baptist. I think that this is historically and theologically inaccurate.
It is certainly true that Dr. Gill and John Piper hold to the so-called ‘5 points,’ although Calvin himself never heard of these since the Synod which ratified the Canons of Dordrecht met only after Calvin’s body was 49 years in the grave.
Moreover, Dr. Gill [I don’t follow Piper] held to an intensified version of the doctrine of election in which means of grace are unnecessary. If I grasp Dr. Gill’s view, grace and election strike as an unmitigated bolt from the blue. No one knows when, where or whether it will hit.
This is where so-called ‘Calvinistic’ Baptists break with the Reformed faith theologically. This view of things has neither need nor any room for a temporal administration of grace. Since everything is settled in eternity past, all that remains to be done is to execute the decree. The sacraments can be reduced to mere ‘ordinances’ indicating that the divine decree has been executed in a person.
This has profound implications for many parts of doctrine, including [but not limited to] the doctrine of the sacraments [including infant baptism and the Eucharist], one’s philosophy of ministry, the nature of the Christian life, the role of ecclesiastical discipline, the church doctrine of assurance [understood as God’s perseverance for us, plus ONE covenant of grace from Abraham into the eschaton].
The question of ONE covenant is particularly important because it bears on the Gospel. The existence of multiple covenants supposes varied terms of admission under each respective administration. This raises the question as to whether justification by faith is a doctrine that is universally applicable to God’s people in all ages. Moreover, if the current dispensation gives way into something else, perhaps the status of all who are now ‘saved’ needs to be revisited.
This is where so-called ‘Calvinistic’ Baptists break with the Reformed faith historically. The famed ‘5 points’ were not intended as a ‘stand alone’ confession. For years, the Dutch churches availed themselves of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. The ‘5 points’ of the canons are mentioned or implied in these earlier documents.
Where they ARE mentioned or implied, the ‘5 points’ stand in very substantial agreement with the larger statements on the nature of the church, of God’s work in the world, of the ways, means and ends to and for which we receive God’s ministry. Now it is that broader, theological context [including but not limited to the doctrines that I above named] which give the famed ‘5 points’ meaning and power.
When those 5 points are divorced from their broader theological context, they mean very little indeed. I believe that both theologically and historically, there is sufficient ground for making the point that the Gill/Piper stream of ‘Calvinism’ is not a genuine expression of Reformed faith and life. This is not to say that our churches are free from sin, including some of those named on this page. For these, we continue to repent.
Two final words for this admittedly lengthy post.
1] Beginning points matter hugely. There are many who begin with the Bible. When you do, the great question becomes, ‘what does it say.’ This translates quickly into a fundamental drumbeat that booms far and wide: ‘LAW! LAW! LAW!’ ‘DUTY! DUTY! DUTY!’ ‘WORK! WORK! WORK!’ But others begin not with the Bible but God. When you do, the great question becomes, ‘who is God.’ This quickly opens up new questions: ‘what is God like,’ and ‘how can I/we know God.’ Here, the emphasis is on spirit, relationship and life. Now, we still go to the Bible for our answers. But because we begin NOT with a book but with a person [better, a community of three persons] everything changes about the way we HOLD this faith. It is around such things that the best of the Reformed faith continues to be shaped.
2] The stream from which some in the Reformed faith drink is very wide. Among my favorite theologians are Gustavo Gutiérrez, NT Wright, Moltmann, Yoder, Hauerwas, Brueggemann and more. Most recently, Wes Howard-Brook caught my attention with ‘Come Out My People!’ It isn’t heavy [in that it is accessible without Hebrew and Greek], but it is an astonishing rereading of the whole canonical text for our time. This is to say that some of us who speak our shared faith with a distinctively ‘Reformed’ accent are open to insights from the Continental Reformed and Anglican communities, the Mennonite and Methodist traditions, the Lutheran and Roman Catholic families. Nor does this exclude learning from the Orthodox Church [to which one time ‘Reformed’ Franky Schaffer has converted].
Christian Socialist
PS: I affirm God’s love for us all and for all that he has made.
Thank you Abbess Numo! 🙂
Now if we could just get those pastors and politicians to stop tweeting.
Julie Anne said: “I’m pretty sure there was a situation where my former pastor told my husband that he needed to reign me in on something. I’m trying to think of what my sin was – – – I think it was going to my knitting group which happened to include my friends who attended another church.”
Wow.
My knitting group includes agnostics and atheists.
I’m toast, for sure. 😉
Much thanks to: Paul for your excommunication comments. I just read your “New Calvinism and Church Disipline”–very comprehensive. If you missed it, I’m in a church with a discipline situation progressing right now. Any thoughts/experiences in cases where it would be traditional, I Cor 5 discipline, except that the “immoral man” already left the church? Where the elders only became aware of the immorality when they called to check on the non-attendance?
Thanks, Mid-Road Reverend Mother Superior for your example of what should/could happen in this case.
Thanks, Fosasa and Abbess for being Fosasas.
Hi, Christian Socialist,
Any opinions on the Puritans? Especially this “Almost a Christian” list from Mathew Mead: http://www.gracegems.org/28/matthew_mead.htm
Apparently one can be called AND ANSWER, have faith, be spirit-filled, be sanctified etc etc etc and STILL not qualify as a “Christian”. Or the Doomsday poem by Wigglesworth.
PS Our friend Muff here sometimes goes by the moniker of “Soshalist” 🙂
Dee,
And by the way again, Rick Wilson argued with the guy at Peacemakers saying: “Even if Paul has been declared an unbeliever, the Bible states that we are to be at peace with all men as much as it depends on us.” The argument fell on deaf ears. And by the way, Wilson is a prominent figure in that crowd. Bottom line: PM just didn’t want to get involved because it wasn’t for the sake of protecting a pastor.
Julie Anne and Jennie, how are we supposed to be the light of the world if we only associate with members of our church all the time?
“Lincoln did not fire on Fort Sumpter to preserve a denomination or his divine right as a protestant king.”
Huh? It was the South Carolina militia that started the shooting, not the U.S. military. And S. Carolina had been a hotbed of secessionist activity for decades, trying to start something, and just did not succeed until after Lincoln was elected and before he took office. The South seceded before Lincoln even took office over fear of what he might do.
I want the top title other than “Lord”, which in my understanding is “Believer” or “Follower (of the Way)” or “Disciple”. I would also accept “priest” since that is what Hebrews says all believers/followers/disciples are; so I am one of the priests in the priesthood of all believers. “Servant”, as of the Triune Most High God, the Father, Son/Savior, and Holy Spirit/Comforter, is also acceptable to me.
Y’all can call yourselves what you want. I follow Jesus.
Christian Socialist, interesting post. I believe John Gill’s name also came up in an article on hyper-Calvinism – would you describe him as such? Frank Schaeffer does seem to have changed his mind on things a few times since his father’s death.
Paul, I am deeply humbled and saddened that you were treated by your church in such a manner.
I think I would side with Numo rather than Paul on the issue of Plato’s influence, although that isn’t to say there is no merit in Paul’s argument. It’s true Plato was quite influential in the early church, and Augustine at times leaned in a neo-Platonist direction, though nowhere near as much as some of the Eastern writers such as Origen did. Part of Plato’s influence in the Middle Ages may have been by default as Aristotle was only rediscovered later on after preservation of his work by Arab philosophers – and of course the influence of Aristotle on the church via Aquinas was pretty considerable.
Re European wars in the Middle Ages and beyond, I think Paul overstates the case. If by the 1st or 2nd Civil War he means the English War of the Roses, this was mainly an old-fashioned struggle between two dynastic houses (read Shakespeare’s series of plays for a flavour!). Although the leaders of the Parliamentarians in the English Civil War were mostly if not all Puritans to a man, the issue largely hung on how much the king had in regard to parliament re things like raising taxes. Cromwell himself was an odd mixture of democrat and dictator whose barbarity was mostly imposed on Ireland, not England. However after just over a decade of monarch-free rule by the Puritans the people were welcome to ready back a king and a bit of relaxation of the austere atmosphere.
Plato’s “Republic” does come across as a form of proto-Communism and his idealist philosophy does spill over into or at least anticipate Hegel and Marx. However one could argue that Marx, as a materialist, just shed the religious parts of Plato (and Hegel) and kept the stuff about the dialectic of history or whatever. Plato’s political ideas about philosopher-kings were actually doomed to disappointment in his own lifetime.
Christian Socialist
Welcome and thank you for the wonderful explanation of your view of what it means to be Reformed. I like NT Wright and always recommend his books. The problem that we are facing in the “faith formerly known as evangelical” is the Reformed Baptist crowd is getting the press, is setting the agenda and is espousing the standards.
Until about 5 years ago, I had absolutely no problem with the Reformed tradition although I disagree with a few points. (In the end it doesn’t matter, we’ll figure it out in eternity).You know the canard “Some of my best friends are Reformed.” Now, the problem is loud, arrogant and all around us. In my community, many churches are now led by the YRR crowd, complete with emphasis on church discipline and an aversion to answering questions which is now known as “the sin of asking questions.”
The “normal” Reformed dropped th ball and allowed this new group, who we call the Calvinistas, to define the terms. How do I know? Ask the average “evangelical” and see who they quote. The crowd we are addressing at this blog is not the nice Presbyterian pastor down the street who would agree with you. and be gracious to any believer. We are going after the ones who would look at that Presbyterian and and make some snide comment about his “election.”
In order for us to address this crowd, we are stuck in using the terms that they use to describe themselves. So, if they say that are Calvinists, we use that term but add an “a” at the end to indicate that they are not your daddy’s Presbyterians. In fact, let me say this, i could attend a Presbyterian church like you describe. I could not attend any Calvinista church. I might disagree with a few aspects of the theology of such a church but that would be fine. I usually disagree with something in any church!
Again, thank you.
Arce
Priest, it is. I will be writing about this au courant trend in naming oneself a “king”, etc in the near future. However, have yoyu noticed that they are using the titles of: Prophet, Priest and King?” Whatr’s wrong with this picture? We are all supposed to be priests but in the Calvinista circles, priests are the dudes in charge. I swear these guys are following a different faith.
Laura
Many churches do not want us to be lights to the world. It might cause us to question the leadership of the church. Women are supposed to stay cloisterd and are allowed to evangelize their children. Then, if you are really drinking the Kool-Aid, you can evangelize those poor women who do not know how to be very, very submissive. The rest of the world is unimportant. Poor slugs-they are probably not elect. No need to worry-however. If they are meant to be in heaven, they will be.Someone else will take care of it.
Paul
There are two important aspects to your story that juxtaposition nicely (and sadly) with some of our concerns on this blog.
1. It exposes Peacekeepers for what they are. I want to write about this. Last time I did, I got some pushback from a Peacekeeper guy who kept disagreeing with my perspective. Now, I’ve got legs. We called it back then and this proves it.
2. The letter “explaining” why your wife could divorce you biblically is intellectually damaging to the leadership of that church.Mark Noll wrote a book called The Scandal of the Evagelcial Mind. Those guys are poster boys for the book.
I often contend that we can make the Bible say just about whatever we want it to say. That is why I believe that we should major on the majors in churches. This letter gives further proof of why we need to do this.
We can argue theology all day long. In the end, it boils down to a series of actions that may expose the weakness of any system. Frankly, that letter was astonishing. I am thinking about posting it and giving the readers a day to point out what is wrong in the letter before doing my usual “pontification.”
I would like to talk to you by phone if possible because I have a few other ideas but I do not want to tip my hand.
Arce,
Are you in leadership at your church? Because there is a question as to whether you may claim your desired titles, especially priest, unless you are an elder or pastor at your church.
As to your assertion of what Scripture says you are, well, if you are an elder or pastor then that’s fine. Otherwise your point is in question because Scripture only says what the leadership says it says. Your interpretation must be approved by leadership before it can be acted on.
And you cannot claim the title “believer” unless you have been approved as such by leadership.
As it is, you are showing an alarming amount of independent thought so all your claims are suspect. This is very dangerous. Next thing you know, you will be sinning through questioning.
You must repent immediately to the satisfaction of leadership by fulfilling the 902 demands we place upon you that indicate your repentance is genuine, should we decide to decree it as such. Failure to comply will result in placing you under discipline.
In fact, it is better just to place you under discipline anyway, lest the masses begin to think leadership has gone soft. Because, as you know, once word leaks out that a pirate has gone soft, people begin to disobey you, and then it’s nothing but work, work, work all the time.
anon1–can you explain why you see calvinism (as opposed to calvinista-ism)as a root that leads to all this authoritarianism?
I ask because geography had us many years in a Wesleyan-holiness area, quite thoroughly arminian.
Never encountered so much spiritual abuse as we did there. No one questioned whether you were elect or not, for sure, but boy howdy do one thing the local church boss disagreed with and you were sure called on the carpet for having “lost your salvation.” Have a thought that didn’t fit neatly in their theological system or framework and you were told to go get alone with God and find out if you were still saved, because you surely were guilty of the sin of questioning.
Had a friend who’s father died call me all in tears. Seems she had been so sure he was saved, but after he died they learned he smoked an occasional cigarette, so now had to cope with knowing he was in hell.
My personal take is that it isn’t an arminian/calvinist issue, but Lordship salvation run amok with authoritarian people thinking they are uber responsible for the world (thank you Finney).
Only peace I’ve found is in a mildly calvinist understanding that my salvation rests not on my good deeds but on His. Totally.
Linda: “salvation rests not on my good deeds but on His. Totally.” Totally!
I, too have seen constantly questioned salvation from both sides of the aisle.
Arce, Anonymous: Related to this, Deb’s preferred title of “Saint” comes to mind. If more PPK’s thought of and referred to “their” flocks as “saints” as did Paul, I wonder what benefits might accrue?
Personally, I’m thinking of changing my title from “aPostle” to “non-leader congregant Y”, with kingly gifting implied. Sounds much more humble! 🙂
Laura said: “… how are we supposed to be the light of the world if we only associate with members of our church all the time?”
Right! Many in the church take the ‘unequally yoked’ thing way too far and try to avoid unbelievers entirely. I’m knitting with pagans, for heaven’s sake, not marrying them! Some people need to lighten up a bit.
Dear Dave A A:
1] Wasn’t ‘Almost Persuaded’ a song? http://tinyurl.com/9chog92
But the theology doesn’t look one bit ‘Calvinistic’ or Reformed. Did someone miss that point?
2] I find your link rather humorous. Note these ‘gems’ from ‘Part III.’
‘The conscience of a natural man is subject to distress and trouble.’
I reply: ‘Right! No Christian ever suffered from a troubled conscience!’
Or this gem:
‘A natural man prides himself in his duties …’
I reply: ‘Yeah right! No Christian ever “puffed up” on his own labors!’
Perhaps the problem with gracegems is that it is all ‘gems.’ I suggest seeing the reformed confessions and catechisms for alternative views on these and other questions.
3] I spend little time in Puritantown. I’m torn between the desire to avoid it with an admittedly carnal desire to go there in order to tell everyone I see – WILL YOU JUST STOP IT AND GROW UP!!!’
Christian Socialist
PS: Thanks for the ‘heads up’ on ‘Muff”‘
Personally, I’m thinking of changing my title from “aPostle” to “non-leader congregant Y”, with kingly gifting implied.
This will require approval.
Please go to the office, get the necessary forms, and fill them out in triplicate. The forms must be accompanied by a 20 page written defense of your position, with full citations. You must do this for each elder in your church. Photocopies of the originals will not be accepted.
Failure to comply with protocol will make you subject to discipline.
Dave
We have a problem. When you add the “y” factor into the mix, we are getting into gender politics. Are you saying that you are kingly qualified due to the “y” factor?
Respectfully submitted
Mother Superior
Laura said: Julie Anne and Jennie, how are we supposed to be the light of the world if we only associate with members of our church all the time?
In this particular church, they prided themselves on their evangelizing methods and went door-to-door in neighborhoods, parks, showed up at other religious conventions, parades, you name it. They even went to the mall and were repeatedly told by security to leave. That did not deter them. They showed up in apartment complexes that said “no solicitors”, too. I, too, wonder how much light was really shown. This church also facilitates car washes in the summer for evangelism purposes. Imagine showing up for a “free” car wash and being surrounded by a group of proselytizers making you listen to the schpeel as your car is being washed? Your car is hemmed in by other vehicles. Is the light shining there? They seem to think so.
Dee said: Priest, it is. I will be writing about this au courant trend in naming oneself a “king”, etc in the near future. However, have yoyu noticed that they are using the titles of: Prophet, Priest and King?”
Are you acquainted with Kevin Oliver? He exposes church abuse on YouTube (in fact he sued YouTube for removing his channel and won!). His Channel is a href=”http://www.youtube.com/user/NotYourTypicalNegro”>NYTN (Not Your Typical Negro). He’s great. Instead of calling them pastors, he calls them a href=” http://www.pimppreacher.com/The-Lobby.html“>Pimp Preachers.
Mother Above Average,
Would Congregant XY be more egalitarian? Actually Congregant Y merely performs complimentary rolls with priestly Elder X. And Elder X does all the conquering and colonizing.
Bridget wrote~
“Now if we could just get those pastors and politicians to stop tweeting.”
Yes. Read this just now and asked myself, why? What purpose does this tweet serve?
From professing Christian “pastor?” Jared Wilson:
“jaredcwilson@jaredcwilson
“If Queen Latifah’s just standing around, Dallas might want to add her to their O-line.”
The insensitivity, coming from a professing pastor, leaves me speechless.
Diane – that is beyond awful!!!
But coming from Jared, it’s – sadly – not much of a surprise.
Numo-
I guess I am surprised…because I want to be surprised. I want to be shocked. I want there to be sensitivity and kindness in pastors. I do not want to see the name of Christ tarnished by such cruelty by a professing Christian pastor who has a church and people he is supposed to be caring for. I don’t get it. Someone has to make fun of a how a woman looks — (one who is immensely talented btw with many gifts)? Why? Does he have so little self esteem that he picks on a woman? It is simply shocking to me.
Diane –
Yikes!! That is rude and unkind. Those are the immature statements and thinking that I didn’t like hearing from my “children.”
From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks . . . 🙁
Diane –
Can you respond the his tweets? I would if I knew how.
@ Bridget~
I don’t have a twitter account so I do not know. Can you imagine an unbeliever finding that tweet and being shocked over the cruelty of it and wondering why/how a “pastor?” can tweet something like that when they are supposed to be caring for people and leading them to Jesus?
Diane – I have seen some of jared’s responses to commenters on his blog and that is why I am, unfortunately, not surprised.
and yes, he IS immature!
Would that Jared Wilson be the one from the Wilsons conquering and colonising kerfuffle a few months back? I guess his apologies for insulting language then were worth nothing.
Dear Kolya:
You write: ‘I believe John Gill’s name also came up in an article on hyper-Calvinism – would you describe him as such?’
I reply: ‘I don’t know what you mean by ‘hyper-Calvinism;’ but if you refer to Gill’s intensified view of election [as I have called it], then I have declared myself already. Moreover, the Canons of Dordrecht themselves can be hazardous for so-called ‘Reformed Baptists.’ Consider this:
‘In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God … God’s just judgment usually happens to those who casually take for granted the grace of election, or engage in idle and brazen talk about it …’ [Head I, Article 13].
Was the ‘cause to humble themselves’ part lost? And ‘brazen talk about it’ reminds me of the adage, ‘dishing it out but can’t take it.’
Or this:
‘Far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, this assurance of perseverance is rather the root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness … and of well-founded joy in God … incentive to serious and continual thanksgiving and good works`.’ [Head V Article 12].
Dr. Gill’s brand of ‘Calvinism’ produced not the preaching of grace but graceless talk about grace. Typically it has supported neither Christian mission nor Christian education. Nor can it offer a meaningful basis for assurance of salvation rooted in God’s covenant lovingkindnesses.
Lacking any temporal administration of grace, our children become, with a few, discrete qualification, little heathens. No covenant exists on the basis of which to teach and train them up in God’s ways. We cannot appeal to them or minister to them in terms of God’s promise to us and to our descendents after us. And still, there is no assurance. Gill’s view of grace and assurance cannot speak of God’s commitment a covenant community which is protected from the power of the evil one. Even membership in Gill’s particular Baptist congregation offers no assurance that I will not finally fall away.
This is a far cry from the grace and election of Calvin, of the Belgic Confession and of the Heidelberger. Here, we affirm that the Church, including our children baptized with the sign of the covenant, is by reason OF the covenant, supernaturally protected by God’s power. Satan is bound by the Gospel preaching so that faith cannot fail from the earth, however much he may roam and bestride the faithful.
It is true that the Canons of Dort and the so-called ‘Calvinistas’ show points of agreement. In so many words, I am saying that these are two, very different belief systems. Any similarities aside, the so-called Calvinistas’ ‘5 points’ most assuredly are not the theological system found in the confessions and catechisms of the magisterial reformers.
The attempt by ‘Reformed Baptists’ to find gratuitous credit for their theological system via identification with the reformer of Geneva is disingenuous at best. That brand of ‘Calvinism’ would have seen you bounced unceremoniously out of Geneva had you arrived there at anytime in the late 16th or 17th century. For ‘Reformed Baptists’ to claim to speak the doctrines of Geneva is less than full honest.
I suggest that this be pointed out to them.
Christian Socialist
Pam/All Re: JaredWilson Tweet
I just quickly went through Jared Wilson’s tweets and didn’t see the one to which people are referring but I was moving fast. Does anyone have a date? I am interested in following this.
Dee
It was Wed Evening in the midst of other opening-football-game-related tweets.
Dee –
Diane posted the quote. I have not gotten into the tweeting world . . . looks like I’m not missing much. I do get your tweets and must say that they are not of the discouraging kind 🙂
“I just quickly went through Jared Wilson’s tweets and didn’t see the one to which people are referring but I was moving fast. Does anyone have a date? I am interested in following this.”
Go back about 26 tweets. It was 5 Sep.
What do you all think?
jaredcwilson
@jaredcwilsonIf Queen Latifah’s just standing around, Dallas might want to add her to their O-line.
Re: Jared C Wilson’s tweet
I sent him a tweet back asking him if this is what he wants to send after the Doug Wilson incident. I’ll let you know if he replies. I think it might be helpful for a couple of folks to let him know that they found this insensitive.
Dee-
I do not have twitter, but if I can find an email addy I think I will send him one and let him know I found it insensitive, whatever that is worth to him.
What Jared REALLY meant was, “a woman could do a job just as well as a man”.
Glad he clarified that for us. Also, a man “conquering” and “colonizing” a woman REALLY means he serves and protects her. “One dark night in the middle of the day…..”
Dave AA~
I guess we misunderstood (reading comprehension skills again) his intent?
Maybe women are just more sensitive to comments about size. But wait, that’s not true because I showed this to some men who had the same reaction I did and my husband, upon reading it, shook his head and said, “the insensitivity…” so I know it’s not a “female being overly sensitive about size” issue.
For everyone’s edification (maybe I should email this to Jarred?) –
This is from my iphone dictionary:
“Word trends; Once invoking nothing beyond the sound of birds gently chirping, TWEET is a striking example of the influence the Internet has on language trends. Since the social networking service Twitter was set in 2006, ‘tweeting’ (posting short messages, known as TWEETS, over the Web) has become so popular that the frequency of the noun TWEET in the Oxford English Corpus has risen tenfold. The millions of people using Twitter may take themselves and their tweets very seriously, but the site’s name suggests otherwise: the Corpus shows that the majority of uses of TWITTER in the sense ‘talk rapidly and at length’ IMPLY FOOLISHNESS OR TRIVIALITY: I WAS NEVER ASKED TO SIT WITH THE CHEERLEADERS WHO TWITTERED AND GIGGLED THEIR WAY THROUGH EVERY LUNCH PERIOD | twittering on about the good old days.”
————-
So does the explanation above seem to fit perfectly with the actions of some of these men (pastors and politicians)? Or is it just my imagination?
On another note, do these men’s wives read/receive their tweets, and if they do, do they say somethings to them or are they not their husband’s “helper?” It just boggles my mind that a pastor would ‘tweet’ such an immature comment that can be seen by millions. It makes me wonder if Jared actually knows that the world can see what he says.
How would Wilson spin this one: “Which is flatter, Gwen’s stomach or her voice?”
Help me “see the gospel” in this one.
This twitter twitter reminds me of this story on larknews.com.
http://www.larknews.com/archives/4489
Tweeting Pastor Destroys A Wise Reputation
“The tweets became less about wisdom and more about what he was thinking at any given moment,” says one follower. “The quality went down fast.”
Just happen to have read that earlier this week.
Heather
Did Jared say that about Gwen Stefani?
Was Jared acting like a self-inflated, unkind, high school guy/girl when he made that comment? I don’t know how this fits in with the image of men being the leaders of their families in the complementarian world. Just an idea . . . maybe he should run all his tweets by his wife/love/helper before he sends them out. She might have some wisdom to impart on the subject IF she is allowed to use her gifts.
Dee, it is ten tweets earlier than his Queen Latifah comment, inbetween two comments about “Eli” so I am pretty sure it has to do with this:
http://www.eonline.com/news/343592/nfl-kickoff-mariah-carey-no-doubt-and-queen-latifah-launch-new-football-season
But, you know, I might be misunderstanding….
Perhaps there is hope for Wilson iIf he is reading this right now
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/09/the-clown-in-the-pulpit.php
as his twitter feed shows.
“What do you, preacher, strive after in the pulpit? Do you seek the titter or guffaw of the congregation? Do you simply want to bask in the warmth of people who find you amusing, who applaud your comic genius? Do you model yourself on the clowns and jesters of our age? Do you exhibit your own wit or do you exalt your Saviour?”
I cringe at all the negative opinions about Ray Comfort that I find here. I understand how some people might find him and other “hard line” reform type people harsh, but I must say that I don’t share the opinion. I see the good work he does preaching the Gospel on the streets to those who often get overlooked by modern evangelicalism. These “non-seekers” are people who desperately need to hear the truth that they are sinful and need to have the Forgiveness that God offers through belief and trust in Jesus. I think that the good Ray Comfort and company does outweighs the mistakes they have made, i.e. debating creationism vs evolution.
I can not speak to the idea that they make Christians feel unloved by God, because I have never heard any of that from them, not having ever listened to the WotM radio program, but I will say that I have found comfort in the way that Comfort points us to our sin and need for a Savior. His book God has a Wonderful Plan for Your Life has had a profound effect on the way I share the Good news of Christ.
Hester –
I thought the next paragraph was insightful as well. I have seen this played out in SGM, and at various conferences where CJ Mahaney speaks.
“And what do you, hearer, seek from your preachers? Do you want to have a good laugh? Have you confused a good show with a good sermon, the manipulations of a gifted comic with the operations of the Holy Spirit? Are you impressed with your preacher’s witty patter and comic timing or with his burning concern and consuming zeal? Though you may from time to time smile and laugh as he illustrates and observes, have you ever wept as he pleads and probes?”
TWW Readers
Jared Wilson and I are tweeing back and forth.I am hoping, after his first tweet to me, that he might reconsider and become more “gospel” in his response. i will let you all know!
Dan,
I can only recall hearing positive opinions of Comfort prior to these comments, mostly that he’s a great evangelist. This may be so. To find more for myself, I checked his blog posts for the last week. I noticed each one has dozens of comments, many of which are questions for Ray from unbelievers. I could find not one answer. He’s just not there for them! Yet he posts new articles daily. It seems a bit like armies “leafletting” a city, “Surrender or Die!” but refusing to discuss terms.
Today, Ray says that Christians “not only believe they (sic) Scriptures, they obey them.”
A commenter says,”And you don’t obey Scripture – it says there that whenever anybody asks you a question, be prepared to answer them, and you do not.”
Dave A A,
I first heard of Ray Comfort about 10 years ago. I have a copy Comfort’s book “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” and have listened to the tape and watched the TV programme which also presents Comfort’s teaching.
I was listening to Comfort at the same time that I was reading a lot about the Law and Grace at Bill Gothard discussion Group on Yahoo groups. Personal conversations, people being incredibly burdened by their own inability to effectively use Comfort’s formula, highlighted the problems I was seeing with Comfort and this critique sums up most of them.
http://www.searchingtogether.org/secret.htm
Thanks Heather. As usual, Mr Zens makes lots of sense.
Loved that Lark News article on the tweeting pastor – oh, how true!
Christian Socialist, thanks to the heads-up about Dr Gill. That would seem to fit in with the Wikipedia article on Hyper-Calvinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism
I’m no expert, but Dr Gill’s name also comes up in my Dictionary of Theology article on Hypercalvinism.
Best wishes
FYI – Here is my Tweet:
Interesting and helpful article by Zens as well.
@ Bridget:
I think that last comment was actually directed at Heather, who posted about clowns in the pulpit – but I’ll answer anyway because your response made me think of something.
“Are you impressed with your preacher’s witty patter and comic timing or with his burning concern and consuming zeal? Though you may from time to time smile and laugh as he illustrates and observes, have you ever wept as he pleads and probes?”
Insightful? On one level, yes. If the sermon is one big standup routine from start to finish, there’s most likely a problem. I’ve heard sermons like this. But on the other hand, if this is SGM and Neo-Calvinists we’re talking about – they may actually WANT you to be crying in the pews as they “sniff out” your (potentially made-up) sin. And in lieu of that, the pastor should be so caught up in his emotions about the sermon topic that HE should be crying. Happy that Jesus died for you? Cry. Grieving because you didn’t examine yourself enough this week? Cry. Angry about millions of aborted babies? Cry. It’s the solution to everything and a failsafe way to prove you are really REALLY sincere. It also happens to be the perfect way to manipulate your congregation.
(And oh yes – the sermon must also be a minimum of 45 minutes. Anything less than that and you’re probably becoming a liberal. In five minutes you’ll be accepting homosexuals.)
There are some of us who, no matter how convicting the sermon is, just will not cry in public. It’s embarrassing for us to do so. And I personally REALLY don’t appreciate it when I’m manipulated into being embarrassed. I appreciate it even less when some Christian author sets it up as some kind of litmus test for a genuine “heart” response to preaching.
Sorry if I sound cranky, but I’ve known way too many people who think I’m hard and unfeeling because I don’t cry at/over everything.
Hester,
Some of the best sermons I have heard were among the shortest, in the 20 minute range, and one was all of five minutes. Presented the text from the gospel, made it applicable to those present (vast majority believers), challenged them to live up to the commandments of Christ and brought home by examples that few in the congregation were doing so consistently, called for repentance and change, and gave an invitation. It was about Jesus’ command to love neighbors as ourselves, and was preached in a church in the South during the civil rights conflict. Powerful. Ended with something to the effect of “How can you claim to be a follower of Jesus and meet your black neighbor with hatred on your face?” Left the congregation more than fifteen minutes of silence to contemplate their own interactions in light of the command and to “choose you this day” between coming to the altar to confess and repent or leave by the back door as one refusing to obey the command of the Christ.
Hester –
I understand what you are saying about CJ Mahaney. I have seen him spend 10-15 minutes in comedy and then morph to tearful pleas by the end of a sermon. Some tears, or some comedy, I have no problem with. But when a preacher uses emotionalism as a means to gain a certain result, then I have a BIG problem. Now we have a preacher that is putting on a show and entertaining.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of bringing His desired results as Scripture is shared. CJ getting some “personal gratification” out of his performance is what I would be concerned with. Only he knows the the answer to the WHY. I do know that if the emotions that he evokes in people are not the result of the work of the Holy Spirit, then all the emotion and drama mean nothing and will produce nothing in believer and nonbeliever alike.
Bridget
Wanda and I went undercover to a church that had slotted Mahaney for a performance. Both of us were perplexed with his song and dance that went on and on and on about attending a football game with his friends. To be frank he was not different than Ed Young Jr in his intro.
He loves emotional manipulation as well. And ,by the way, this is NOT a humble guy in spite of his supposedly “expert” status on this subject. CS Lewis said that you always know when you are in the presence of true humility. you go away refreshed, like you have had a drink of cold water. Mahaney left me cold, not refreshed.
Julie Anne
😉 I believe someone(or a group of someones) just tried to “gospel” irritate me. What are they afraid of? I am merely a non-authoritative woman. Just a sweet, lovable, little Tribble (Star Trek, anyone?) This time there is no conspiracy theory. I have the goods.
Dee – Oh yes – God forbid a woman should have something more “relevant” – and accurate – to say.
And God forbid that a woman should dare to interrupt their Twitter feeds!
[/sarcasm]
I must say that I’m tempted to start a “fakejaredwilson” account, a la Stephy Drury’s (Stuff xtian Culture Likes) “fakedriscoll” tweets… 😉
Numo
The only way these guys think they can win is by shutting down other people. We do just the opposite. We all win when we hear and care about one another, even when we disagree. There are times, when I have been chastised by commenters that I have to fight the urge to retaliate in kind. I usually take a deep breath, try to see the person behind the comment and reach out to them. I try to hold onto my “reputation” with a very light hand. I let God fight that battle for me.
Numo
Now there is an upside to all of this. We have proved that there is an attempt to intimidate and shut various viewpoints down. There is an attempt to punish people who call certain people on the carpet for mean and weird statements. Instead of saying,”Gee. i am sorry” they wait until things grow out of control
I always wondered if Jared’s long awaited apaolgy in the last “incident” was heartfelt. This was a test of that, wasn’t it? What do you think this response shows?
Numo
I can see why you would. There is Fake John Piper and others out there as well. Warning: i think Jared will attempt to report you but you can stand firm. I read the policies on Twitter at length yesterday, looking to see if i did anything wrong and I didn’t. So long as you put the word “fake” in front of it, you are within guidelines.
Dee, I’ve seen jared be extremely rude to people I know (women, one and all).
So I have NO sympathy for him whatsoever. He never really apologizes, in my experience, at least.
He is an embarrassment, and I wish his church would wake up and smell the coffee…
numo,
Looks like Jared Wilson could be the poster boy for what Jeff Crippen is addressing in his letter to pastors. There is a serious problem among the self-talking Calvinistas.
Hester,
“And I personally REALLY don’t appreciate it when I’m manipulated into being embarrassed. ….
Sorry if I sound cranky, but I’ve known way too many people who think I’m hard and unfeeling because I don’t cry at/over everything.”
*****
Crank away. Nothing objectionable at all in what you’re saying and how you’re saying it. It is honest. It is not unfair or mean.
And you are putting voice to what oodles of people are thinking, anyway.
I think many a christian has gotten high on religious psychotropic second-hand smoke, where one’s mind believes that frank honesty is wrong (among other hallucinations).
(to be clear, i speak for myself here first, and then the many I observe)
That crying stuff makes me crazy.
I have seen it done to excess and I HATE it. On one particular day, I just about got up and walked out – wish I had!
The Powers That Be at That Church would *not* have liked that, but …
Elastigirl –
“I think many a christian has gotten high on religious psychotropic second-hand smoke, where one’s mind believes that frank honesty is wrong (among other hallucinations).”
Laughing at the drug induced comparisons . . . but, at the same time, it is sad. It is like seeing those who are “in a state” because of the so called “prescribed by a doctor” drugs. The good doctor is a big part of the cause of the problem.
Eagle,
I saw the report about the tornadoes, and I’m wondering the same thing. Hmmm… Isn’t Tim Keller’s church nearby?
The problems that I see as I read the blog is that the seminaries think that they are an authority to themselves as the trustees oversee. Congregations have an authority unto themselves as a whole it is not the men that come from seminaries from somewhere else. I mean when I read Puritan literature congregants would scrutinize and test elders. Fundamentalists..hehe..whatever they want to call them…..they need keep pulling the wool over the eyes, go back and loook at Scriptures and SEE that elders came from WITHIN a congregation not elsewhere. This would help to deal with a lot of the clergy abuse.
I mean quit pulling that is….
Christ, who is our life.
Hello,
If you be in Christ, and you believe that Rev. John Piper has somehow failed the body of Christ, in his calling, then freely forgive him as the Lord has asked, seeing his master is Christ, the Lord being quite capable of bringing rebuke where it is required.
More so, pray the Lord of harvest that he might raise up faithful laborers for those fields that are noticeably white with harvest.
Look, and see.
Those that say they are Christ’s shepherds, who’s actions speak to the contrary, simply pass them by. What is that to you? Did not the Father raise up Christ from the dead? Shall He not raise us up also, who place our faith in the finished work of Christ, His dear Son? Are we not hid with Christ, in God? When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we not appear with Him also in glory?
As the day draws near, evil will wax worse, as the scriptures faithfully reveal, until the Lord Himself shall smite with the sword of His mouth.
“Simon Peter, do you love me more than these?”
“Then feed my sheep!”
IronClad
The whole Kings and Prophets thing is part of certain personality profiles. There’s also Visionary and Servant I think. I’m not saying that’s what these guys are talking about, but it certainly could be.
That crying stuff makes me crazy.
I have seen it done to excess and I HATE it. — Numo
I’ve also had experience (outside of churches) with manipulators who could turn the waterworks on and off like a light switch. CLICK ON! CLICK OFF!
It just boggles my mind that a pastor would ‘tweet’ such an immature comment that can be seen by millions. It makes me wonder if Jared actually knows that the world can see what he says. — Bridget
People do dumb things all the time.
“But people are people, and the world is filled with tricks and twistiness yet undreamed of.”
— one of The Whole Earth Catalogs
“Stupidity is like Hydrogen; it’s the basic building block of the Universe.”
— attributed to Frank Zappa
HUG –
I can be as stupid as the next. What the problem seems to be is whether one can acknowledge their stupidity and stop hurting others publicly! There seems to be no problem making comments and being rude publicly in their idiocy 🙂
bridget –
if you keep an eye on his Twitter feed, i think you’ll end up seeing more of what i would characterize as immature statements.
twitter mostly reminds me of being in HS (again!), though of course, it is used for other, better reasons than trying to get attention for oneself, trying to be one of the Cool Kids, etc. it seems like many users are unaware of other option, though.
Numo –
Maybe some people are just stuck in HS mode. And I have seen that in life. Those who love the experience and just want to stay in it.
I was one of those who didn’t much care for that time in my life and couldn’t wait to move on. High school seemed a waste of time to me.
Bridget – re. some people and “HS mode,” well, yes… 😉
Listening to a steady diet of john Piper during my season of doubt almost led me to utter despair. These guys forget that the whole gospel is outside of us. It’s a constant preoccupation with gazing inward to determine if we are saved and they almost seem to relish in making people doubt there salvation. God is love. The gospel is not about election, soveriegnty and a God who begrudgingly saves sinners but an announcement that God is fully propitiated because of his Son’s death and is ready and willing to receive sinners as they really are, ugly and wicked.
You write: ‘I believe John Gill’s name also came up in an article on hyper-Calvinism – would you describe him as such?’ — Christian Socialist
I am sure this is not the same “John Gill”, but the name brings up one interesting association:
Deb or Dee (I forget which of you is the Trekkie):
Cross-index the name “John Gill” and original “Old Testament” Star Trek.
Much weirdness ensues.
Lame. It’d be hard to find a more loving dude than Piper. If taking 1 tweet to an extreme makes you feel better, then what does that say about you? What about the totality of Piper’s ministry? What about the, literally, thousands of times he’s discussed LOVE?
Lame.
Jason
We have written about more than one tweet of Piper’s. What about all the other times? Your comment could be considered lame as well.