"Some life highlights so far: wedding day, birth of my kids, 1st published book, & the day I spent 10 hours with @CJMahaney #Rezolution2013"
American Idol Logo (Wikipedia)
REMEMBER THE WOUNDED
In light of ongoing plaintiff depositions in the SGM lawsuit, we believe this story is apropos. We will do a post on Bill Gothard tomorrow.
Several months ago I discovered there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in South Africa regarding C.J. Mahaney's upcoming visit. Some believed his conference appearances to be imprudent given the pending class action lawsuit in which he is a named defendant. I decided to write a post called A Resolution Against Rezolution – A Calvinista Conference.
This conference was recently held in a number of South African locations, along with other related events (i.e. 9 Marks). It seems that some were mesmerized by Mahaney and gang (Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Kevin DeYoung, and Bob Kauflin), hence the logo above. These men appear to be American Idols to Calvinistas (Neo-Calvinists) around the world.
One such groupie is Clint Archer – teaching pastor at Hillcrest Baptist Church (located on the outskirts of Durban, South Africa). As his Tweet above indicates, hanging out with Mahaney was extremely significant. Perhaps Mahaney's sermon at his church – Called, Loved, Kept (you know, the canned one delivered at Resolved 2011 link, Capitol Hill Baptist Church link and other places link link link and featured on The Gospel Coalition website link) – really resonated with him. (Updated with links – 4/26/13)
Archer and a few colleagues with connections to the Masters Seminary have a blog called The Cripplegate. Check out "The Team" here.
Archer wrote about his conference experience in a post entitled: Big in Africa: Evangelical Bigwigs hit Rezolution 2013. The blog post begins as follows:
"Last week, I while I was hanging out with CJ Mahaney, Mark Dever, and Kevin DeYoung…
OK, so I confess I didn’t know where that sentence was heading, just that I wanted to use it sometime this week. For all my disdain of Evangelical hagiolatry (see that snarky rant here) I succumbed to the malady like a giddy schoolgirl with a backstage pass to a Justin Bieber event. The Rezolution
ConcertConference first brought John “I practice karate kata while I preach” Piper to Africa in 2010. This year it drew an unprecedented line-up of Reformed heavies."
Reformed heavies? Archer then wrote:
"Let’s face it, these are articulate, educated leaders with corpulent personalities, well thought out positions, more degrees than Celsius, and impassioned opinions about pretty much anything anyone has ever wondered about. And yet, they were able to focus on the needs for the church in Africa in ways that were immeasurably beneficial.
These are influential men for a reason: they have a life worth emulating and a message worth listening to…"
It was fascinating to see a few commenters challenge him about labeling Mahaney as "educated". In response to this post, Diane wrote:
"Can you please share why you think CJ Mahaney is an Evangelical Bigwig? What makes him one? Does he have an education I am not aware of? You stated, "Let’s face it, these are articulate, educated leaders with corpulent personalities, well thought out positions, more degrees than Celsius,…". I can understand viewing some of the others as such.
Do you consider him an "Evangelical mover and shaker" as well, and, if so, does the fact that 20 plus churches have left his family of churches in the midst of horrible allegations and that fact that his own ministry is undergoing much turmoil affect your opinion?
Thanks for your article. I am very interested in what is going on in SA."
Clint Archer responded to Diane with this comment:
"1. The great thing blogging vs writing a dissertation, is that I can just say who I think is a biwig without needing to cite evidence in the footnotes.
2. I'm pretty sure the guy can read, so he must have had some education we are unaware of. There is a difference, I'm sure you recognize, between being degreed and being educated. Just ask the Apostles and Spurgeon.
3. Allegations are sometimes false; if it were not so we would not have the book of 2 Corinthians. St Paul was considered a mover and shaker in his day, in the midst of heart-breaking accusations. The Bema Seat judgment day will vindicate the faithful. (There's a book I recommend on the topic called "The Preacher's Payday.")
4. Thanks for the fair wording of your question, Diane. I had to delete an unChristian comment earlier, but I believe yours is sincere."
Diane responded:
"Thanks for your reply. Of course you can say who is a big wig without a reason. You do not have to tell me, although I would like to know. You seem to greatly admire these men-using the phrases giddy schoolgirl and cling-on groupie, so I just wanted to know what it is that draws you to one man in particular.
You are quite complimentary towards them in your post using such words as movers and shakers, big wigs, and called them influential men with lives worth emulating. I was just wondering what it is that you see in Mahaney that you would emulate?
Yes, I did assume Mahaney could read and write 🙂 but I felt from the post you were including him in the post high school level of education category with the rest of the men: seminary, bible college, etc.
Allegations are what they are, but if one takes the time to read the civil suit, one comes away with more than allegations…"
Clint then wrote the following to Diane:
"The reason I like these men and consider them "movers and shakers" is because of their global influence for the gospel. Jesus said to go into all the antions and make disciples. These men have all written excellent books about how to understand and share the gospel and/or how to apply it to your life and church. For example, CJ's book on the Cross Centered Life has helped many people I've met in various countries. Dever's 9Marks material is the best out there for helping churches become more biblical. DeYoung effectively killed one of the most destructive trends in ecclesiology with his bestseller "Why we are not Emergent"
What so impressed me about CJ, after 10 hours with him, was his obvious humility, deep concern for complete strangers, his pastoral heart and care for my church and for me personally though we had never met before, and evidences of integrity and wisdom. Everyone I know who knows CJ well says he's the real deal, which explains why discerning and cautious men like Mohler, Dever, Piper, and others are willing to stake their reputations on backing him up amidst these allegations.
I hope that fleshes it out a bit better for you. Thanks for your interest."
Sometimes you can gain more insight from comments than from a blog post… This guy must be very perceptive if he can discern someone's humility after spending just 10 hours with him. So everyone Clint knows who knows CJ well says he's the real deal? I am so glad he went on the record with these words:
"discerning and cautious men like Mohler, Dever, Piper, and others are willing to stake their reputations on backing him up amid these allegations."
In the comment section, Jesse Johnson (Clint's blogging colleague) indicates that a portion of Diane's comment was deleted because he deemed it "off topic". Interestingly, Johnson wrote a post when Mahaney first stepped down. He called it: "My thoughts on the CJ fiasco". A lot has happened since he wrote this post back in 2011.
Johnson is the teaching pastor at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Virginia, so he's a lot closer to the SGM situation than his blogging buddy Clint Archer. Both Johnson and Archer did their training at The Master's Seminary, and they blog along with Mike Riccardi and Nathan Busenitz (who is a professor of theology at The Master's Seminary). As you can see, The Cripplegate is directly tied to the seminary which John MacArthur oversees. Did they become Mahaniacs (Mahaney fanatics) because he spoke at every single Resolved conference? And, of course, now he's speaking at "Rezolution", which is an outgrowth of Resolved.
The Cripplegate bloggers deleted a comment from Paul, who posted the same comment over at SGM Survivors (#602 under the Discernment Bloggers post):
"Just posted this on cripplegate: we’ll see how long it lasts.
With respect Clint, I think you are missing the point. CJ Mahaney graduated from High School and attended college for a few months but dropped out without getting any kind of degree. Maybe you consider that to count as “educated” but I don’t (and I think most people in CJ’s own country of the USA would agree with me and not you).
The issue is not whether “allegations are sometimes false”. The issue is whether the allegations against CJ Mahaney are substantially false. I am a complete outsider but I think it is very likely that the allegations against CJ Mahaney are substantially true. First, neither CJ Mahaney nor Sovereign Grace have ever denied that the substance of the allegations is true. If you read the Sovereign Grace press releases about the lawsuit, you will see that they do not say anything like “these allegations are a pack of lies and we look forward to proving that in court”. Instead, the Sovereign Grace press releases say words to the effect of “what we did was legally protected by the first amendment”. In my mind, that’s basically admitting that the allegations are substantially true.
I may be reading the tone of your response to Diane incorrectly, but to me, it seems flippant. Frankly, that’s not an appropriate tone when discussing child sexual abuse (which is what this is about, in case you didn’t know).
FWIW, I agree that CJ Mahaney is an Evangelical Bigwig but again, the issue is whether he should be, not whether he is one"
The next day Paul's comment has been deleted on The Cripplegate blog, as indicated by this comment at SGM Survivors (#611 under Discernment Bloggers):
"Shockingly, my post at cripplegate was deleted and I got an email telling me my post was “sinful”, “slanderous” and “bearing false witness”!!!!"
What must those who have been wounded while in SGM think about all of this breathless adoration for Mahaney and gang? The motto of the church where Clint Archer pastors is "Where Truth Matters". Well, as we see it, the truth is that as the Young Restless and Reformed movement has evolved, it has taken on the appearance of a cult of personality which "arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and, at times god-like public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise."
In fact, those who are enamored by the Calvinista leaders remind us so much of this adoring fan of an American Idol (who won an award for the best impersonation of his idol).
REMEMBER THE WOUNDED
Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 15:1-16:23 John 8:1-20 Psalm 110:1-7 Proverbs 15:8-10
Okay, evangelical trivia fans: how many of you recall Clint Archer’s blog post from a couple of years ago when he wrote about being traumatized by John Piper, who had embarrassed him publicly by pointing to Clint’s soul patch and declaring, “Now see — this is just ridiculous.”
I guess the spelling “Rezolution” is cooler than “resolution”?
I am so disgusted with these men. I feel sick.
“Silence and apathy on the part of Christians, or any member of society, towards allegations of sexual abuse are reprehensible and contribute to the continued prevalence of sexual abuse.”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2013/04/sa2.jpg
Kevin DeYoung recently wrote a blog entitled “Thoughts on the Trip to South Africa” which can be found here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2013/04/25/thoughts-on-the-trip-to-south-africa/?comments#comments
In light of the fact that he runs around the globe to conferences (Seemingly unaffected by the moral character of those he shares the stage with.) and seems to pump out books faster than rabbits reproduce I found his last sentence to be more than a bit ironic: “If only publishers would consider more than profits and furthering “conversations” when they send their books out into the world.”
If you read the Sovereign Grace press releases about the lawsuit, you will see that they do not say anything like “these allegations are a pack of lies and we look forward to proving that in court”. Instead, the Sovereign Grace press releases say words to the effect of “what we did was legally protected by the first amendment”. In my mind, that’s basically admitting that the allegations are substantially true.
Yes! Exactly! That is not “we didn’t do it” or even “we are sorry for our mistakes”; this is “we know we have done this thing we are being accused of but we feel justified in our own eyes.” Shame, shame on those who are defending them!
One bit of context is that a notorious pentecostal faith-healer called Todd Bentley is currently holding “revival” meetings near Durban which God TV is broadcasting to the world. Bentley, quite frankly, is one of the most unsound and dangerous people in the church right now.
If that is going on in your country and being puffed up as a work of God, you would welcome anything that presents an alternative approach. And whilst I do not agree with Calvinism, it is infinitely better than Todd Bentley’s deception.
Nicholas wrote:
All the cool kidz love neo-Calvinizm!
Where’s Simon Cowell when you need him?
“Rezolution?” – should I change my name to “Daizy” ?
Corpulent personalities?
Corpulent:
Large or bulky of body – stout – portly – obese – fat – plump – pursy – fleshy.
The hyperbole is really something.
As Ian notes, South Africa is currently hosting Todd Bentley. There is a lot of hyperbole similar to Mr. Archers about Bentleys visit also.
This is ironic, because I consider Driscoll and preachers with his view on gender roles to be the nags (always nagging women on how he thinks they should behave, dress, etc): Mark Driscoll Criticizes Nagging Wives in Sermon on Marriage Some men can be nags. I was engaged to one. He'd bug, bug, bug me about whatever he wanted me to do until I caved in to do whatever it was.
The page summarizes Driscoll’s remarks as:
Again:
Is there a specific Bible verse that mentions husband are to "take responsibility for their wives"? Even if there is one (I don't remember it), I don't think it means what he thinks it means. Driscoll does occasionally rip on men (this page mentions that he rips on men in this same sermon), but his sexist views on females is so obnoxious and dangerous, I don't believe the corrections to the males cancels it out.
With the possible exception of any non-Christian readers who’ve never been interested in the Bible (I know there are some ex-Christians here), I think you all know the following wee scrippie:
I can’t escape the implication, not just of this tiny fragment of the NT, but of thousands of others that make up the warp and weft of the whole of the Biblical story. (Of course, that story itself boils down to one, and only one, thing: what would God be like if he were human?) That is, Jesus seeks out and identifies himself personally with the small, the poor, the downtrodden, the despised… I could extend the list, but you get the point.
So this is my problem with protestant hagiography, as we might term it. The admired and exalted personalities are always famous, influential, powerful and prominent figures; leaders, not followers; rulers, not ruled. Also, they are usually pretty rich and successful spiritual entrepreneurs who have enormous freedom over how they pursue their careers from day to day and week to week. You almost never hear someone sing the praises of a believer who doesn’t talk about his humility in a best-selling book but lives it out by quietly serving in obscurity before an audience of One.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Fantastic comment! Thanks Nick.
@ Deb:
Thankyou for your kind words, Deb… though it’s all part of a thought-process I and my own pastor/mentor are going through regarding how we can all be the Church. It’s inevitable that some people will become well-known, and that’s not necessarily wrong – Paul wasn’t exactly obscure, after all. But all of this points out the need to have fellow-believers to emulate who are not famous and do not have regular access to a pulpit or a microphone.
Ian,
I also have a BIG problem with the charismatic chaos John MacArthur condemns, but there are serious issues within his own camp that he appears to be ignoring.
Silence is not golden, and MacArthur should have spoken up before now about what is going on among his colleagues.
I believe that window of opportunity is now closed.
No doubt the subject of your excellent post will be relishing this attention. He was the cause of great spiritual hurt to me and my family and the reason we are now Nones.
@ Sergius Martin-George:Easy comeback: So, when are your going to tell the women here not to get “muscular.”
@ Nicholas: So cool, so very cool.
TW wrote:
I am beginning to wonder if the only ones reading their books are them.
Desley wrote:
You are most perceptive. Their latest missive is interesting. I believe they actually sound a bit nervous. Hang on – the ride is about to get wild.
Eagle wrote:
Aren’t you glad that you met us? You need to stay in DC so I will have someone to visit when I come up to go on my Segway tour.
Ian wrote:
This has nothing to do with Calvinism. I believe that the worship of Mahaney is no different than the worship of Bentley. Both are equally damaging to the cause of Christ. That is why TWW is an equal opportunity offender.
Daisy wrote:
It has a certain charm….
Bene D wrote:
I think people just try too hard to sound “intelligent” whilst drooling over their subject. It ends up sounding really weird.
Daisy wrote:
You should read how he has “taken control” of his wife. He scans her emails before she reads them. This is one scary dude and people need to keep an eye on him.
@ dee:
Well said!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
It’s all words. Just like they write they are “against” pedophilia. So, they will pretend they care about the least and spend time drooling over CJ.
rubytuesday wrote:
I am so, so sorry for your pain. I want you to know that “Nones” are really loved at TWW. We get you and we are here to support you.
Eagle wrote:
I don’t know, but it must taste pretty foul as evidenced by the looks on these South African faces:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.interviewmagazine.com/files/2010/09/17/img-die-antwoord-6_12550734691.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.interviewmagazine.com/music/zef-lessons-dave-navarro-interviews-die-antwoord&h=194&w=259&sz=1&tbnid=evhzw4dI3PRThM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=200&zoom=1&usg=__AVrZ6SvQa57kDntDlewQoN211Zs=&docid=V0LtW7J_RxFOdM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=9m96UaiEGYKd2gWer4C4Cg&ved=0CIIBEPwdMAw
Having directly experienced great pain and grief through the actions of the pastor in question, this post hits me close to home. And I can say this: having this kind of publicity is EXACTLY what he wants.
@ dee:
Thank you Dee… your response brought tears to my eyes. The love and support at TWW are palpable 🙂
@ Mara:
So, so sorry for the length of this link.
@ Eagle:
Loved this!
Now, in honor of South Africa and the road they have had to traverse to find peace, and as an “I’m sorry” for the bondage that the Calvinista’s are trying to import into their counrty through the guise of supposed-humble, yet man-created, cult-of-personality religion, I offer up this scene from Invictus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozhZHuAcCs
I really am sorry, South Africa, for these men coming to your country from mine, and for what they are doing.
I will never understand what it is with these guys.
This Clint Archer person (I’ve never heard of him) is just nasty. They all of them carry this tone of delicate, covert, “white collar” nasty with everything they say. Even their compliments of each other are nasty because you feel like you’re being manipulated: driven verbally into a mental cage where you HAVE to see things their way. Mahaney’s “obvious” humility? They’ve written “excellent” books? Dever’s way is “biblical”? Well, I guess that’s just the way it is then.
And how Paul’s comment was in any way “sinful, slanderous and bearing false witness” I cannot begin to see.
Or this right here:
Everyone I know who knows CJ well says he’s the real deal, which explains why discerning and cautious men like Mohler, Dever, Piper, and others are willing to stake their reputations on backing him up amidst these allegations.
What is this, ad copy? “DISCERNING men chose Mahaney!” CAUTIOUS men like Mohler, Dever, and Piper invest with MAHANEY! Where do you invest?”
I always feel like these guys are manipulating and never get any sense of actual humility from them because of the way they use words. And they do it all the time.
LG wrote:
He may not want this over time as revelations continue with his preferred American Idol.
anonymous wrote:
Do you have any idea how often I heard this about mega celebs? It is funny because the ones I knew were NOT the real deal at all but carefully crafted and maintained stage personas. There is this need to propagate this thinking simply because they ARE insulated celeb personalities in that world so how do you “Christianize” them for mass consumption? So the hearer is supposed to think, oh, they are really unreachable to me but I will trust what others say about them. I will admire and listen to them from afar.
I am always amused by these young guys who spend a day with a celeb and think they know them inside and out. They simply do not understand how it works.
Think about it. People magazine exists because people want to know about the personal lives of celebs. The thinking is no different in the minor market niche of Christendom. The people we should be worried about are the unthinking star struck followers. They have no clue and are easily deceived.
Sergius Martin-George wrote:
What is a soul patch? Am I really that uncool that I don’t know?
I believe, based on following this the last 5 years, Mahaney has no conscious. It is real easy for folks to get totally enamored with someone like that because they do not understand he is a grand actor playing a role. They stake their futures on them and then find themselves cast out or even stuck and so lie to themselves. It is amazing the havoc those types can wreck on so many people as they rise to power and then must maintain it or hold on to it at all costs.
In this unbelievable scandal, I am watching the big names and the smaller names that are silent or promoting him. And I am seeing the cult tactic loud and clear: Doctrine over people. Nevermind that Mahaney’s doctrine is wacked out. He is Reformed and that is all that matters to that movement.
Anon 1,
Shame on you for not knowing what a soul patch is! I confess… I didn't know either. 😉
You've seen it often but just didn't know the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_patch
Anon 1 wrote:
If you’ll forgive my trotting out another well-known scrippie: Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. You can’t gauge a person’s humility by the softness of the tone of voice they use to read out a rehearsed and unchallenged statement that Rob Bell is a heretic, nor how they behave when surrounded by friends and admirers. You tell how humble they are by how they respond to criticism they weren’t expecting and didn’t ask for.
@ Anon 1:
I’m clueless on that one too. Maybe Sergius can kindly enlighten us.
The problem with these pastors who worship each other is that they really DON’T know one another. You don’t get to know others by spending hyped up conference days with someone. You get to know someone living everyday life together. In that respect, I think very few of them “know” each other. Most celebrity preachers live in seclusion from their peers and “over” their congregations.
Bridget,
See my comment at 10:09. 🙂
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, They actually go out of their way to distance themselves from all but a few in their circle using various methods….in mega circles they had ‘walkers’ who were with them when they were walking through the church before and after service. The ‘walkers’ job was to tell them they had to go when people stopped them to talk. Many times the walkers were body guards. Some were policeman off duty dressed as a typical church goer. Many have listed home numbers that go directly to a voice mail but an unpublished number for a few. The listed voice mail number is managed by secretaries. There is this whole seclusion thing that most folks have no clue about.
That is how the persona is maintained. Then they tell “stories” about themselves in their “talks” that make them appear like one of us. It is all carefully crafted.
You live like that long enough and it is inevitable you start having an entitlement mentality. You are surrounded by yes men, secluded from real people whose only job is to pay you and hang on your every word. It does something to the soul that is not very pretty.
Deb wrote:
Yes, I have seen them quite a bit. I called them a lower Hitlerstash. :o)
CJ thrived for years on having others portray him as “authentic, humble” and the “real deal.” Clint Archer believes these descriptors and doesn’t realize, like so many others have, that they are clever cover-ups. And since Clint doesn’t believe CJ uses a cover to hide his real self, he then doesn’t believe CJ would be involved in any other cover-ups.
Archer is obviously bias and presumes all the allegations against Mahaney are slanderous accusations. Surely such an authentic (honest) man would never be involved in anything dishonest. He’s such a great representative of Jesus Christ (the real deal) that surely the naysayers are the bad people because CJ is so good (humble).
(ed)
To those wondering what a soul patch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_patch
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That is why everything is carefully crafted. Do they take questions? Yes but they are vetted in a Q&A format situation. There is no such thing as spontaneous. Too much riding on it.
And it is not because they are too busy either. They have people doing things for them that free them up in ways we all dream of. Remember, there are no labor laws for churches here. :o)
http://www.cbeinternational.org/
This wonderful Christian organization is making some progress combatting misogyny among Chritians in Africa, just in case anyone is interested in supporting them. They are very inclusive of different denominational beliefs. They are having a conference in Philadelphia is summer. The one I went to in Seattle a coupke years ago was fantastic.
Just and FYI on the comments that cripple gate posted.
The last part of Diane’s comment was deleted:
Avatar
•
Diane Clint◦−
Thanks for your reply. Of course you can say who is a big wig without a reason. You do not have to tell me, although I would like to know. You seem to greatly admire these men-using the phrases giddy schoolgirl and cling-on groupie, so I just wanted to know what it is that draws you to one man in particular.
You are quite complimentary towards them in your post using such words as movers and shakers, big wigs,
Avatar
Diane Diane
cont…
and called them influential men with lives worth emulating. I was just wondering what it is that you see in Mahaney that you would emulate?
Yes, I did assume Mahaney could read and write 🙂 but I felt from the post you were including him in the post high school level of education category with the rest of the men: seminary, bible college, etc.
Allegations are what they are, but if one takes the time to read the civil suit, one comes away with more than allegations. Personally, for me, the first ammendment defense, and their statement regarding this from the SGM website saying that allowing courts to second guess pastoral advice would hinder families from seeking spiritual direction in dealing with trauma relating to any sin, including sexual abuse, would not be something I would want my pastor to emulate. Sexual abuse is not just a sin…but a crime and one which I would hope all people report, for children’s sakes. Thanks!
In addition, these comments were also deleted.
Avatar
Diane Jesse Johnson•a few seconds ago •−
• ◦Flag as inappropriate
Thanks, Jesse, for your article. I thought it was good, but I am not sure why you brought it up.
I did not address the Detweiler docs in the part of my comment that you deleted after the word allegations, nor did I bring it up in my first comment. Your topic (Detweiler) and my topic (current sex abuse civil suit/first ammendment defense/sex abuse is a crime to be reported not only a sin) are not the same thing. Thanks anyway.
And here was my comment that was deleted:
Avatar
Dawn Jesse Johnson • a few seconds ago •−
• ◦Flag as inappropriate
That was a really good post about the Detwiler documents. I would agree with so much of it. My question is what about the current allegations of covering up sexual abuse. Shouldn’t there at least be some sort of administrative leave until the legal troubles are over? I’m just thinking it looks really bad to call out the Roman Catholics about the sex abuse coverups but ignore SGM. The world is watching.
AND this is how the page looks now:
Jesse Johnson Mod > Diane • 3 days ago −
Hey Diane. Thanks for your interaction here. I deleted the part of your comment that I thought was off topic. Here is a blog post I wrote on this topic before: http://thecripplegate.com/my-t…
I hope that helps.
△ ▽
•
Share ›
Avatar
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Clint Mod > Dawn • 2 days ago
The authority of the local church is the biblical way for Christians to determine whom to treat as in good standing or not. Matt 18 and 1 Tim 5 have instructions on how to deal with allegations against believers and leaders respectively. Administrative leave is up to the local church leaders, not the conference organizers. And no one is accusing anyone of an unrepentant or disqualifying sin (i.e. no one has ever accused CJ of sexual sin, for example, which would be a DQing sin acc to 1 Tim 3′s requirement of being above reproach).
Evie wrote:
Evie, this is not something he is going to walk away from and now he has RBD in his corner staying silent (how can they admit they were wrong?). This is all CJ knows how to do. It is who he is. I hate to say this but my guess is that he will be vindicated in the lawsuit. They have to prove he was the authority pulling the strings and not calling authorities was policy. That is very hard to prove and we are already seeing an attempt to paint SGM church plants as totally independent.
My guess is that some who chose to follow Mahaney will be the ones who are the lawsuit scapegoats. Another reason to never get involved with such people. I saw it all too often.
Wow– my comments. 🙂
I assumed my comment would instantly be deleted or ignored at Cripplegate. It was more than I expected to receive a response from Mr. Archer. I was glad for the interaction instead of immediate deletion. I believed such over the top praise (giddy schoolgirl, cling on groupie, movers and shakers) needed some specifics. Assuming such specifics would be right on the tip of Mr. Archer’s tongue and he would be glad to acquiesce, we received vague responses instead–books, global gospel kingdom advancer (even though 20 plus churches have left this kingdom advancer’s corporation), cool conference speaker, humble because others say so–in addition to–it’s my blog and I don’t have to be specific.
Mr. Johnson did not care for the part of my comment that was deleted after the word allegation, and he responded with his article from 2011 about Detweiler’s documents. It was, imo, a deflection. If it was not, then he really should not have responded to my comment because he does not appear to understand the difference between the current civil suit and documents that are almost 2 years old that do not address the civil cuit. When I brought that to Mr. Johnson’s attention, that comment was deleted as well with no reply.
The deleted part of my comment was actually about the current civil suit, alleged cover-ups of abuse and alleged failure to report abuse to law enforcement. (Never mentioned Detweiler.) I asked if that would be something a pastor should emulate. Cripplegate rule: straying “off topic” WILL result in deletion, pastoral replies excepted. Their replies reveal their mental responsiveness and awareness.
@Anon1 & Bridget:
Here is the LINK to the original blog post.
Link text.
Jesus had groupies, too. But he gave them hard sayings and they left from following him. Imagine that, Christ rebukes Christ followers for following Christ.
@ Diane:
Diane, the whole article was just a pink piece of TMZ fluff IMO. I actually burst out laughing at some of the nonsense that Clint had written. You mentioned them in your comments…giddy school girls and Justin Beaver (giggle, I know that’s not his real name). Then when I noticed that comments were changing and disappearing…basically any comment that even mentioned the sex abuse coverup law suit or anything that wasn’t a glowing prophetic comment of praise about that group of pastors, specifically CJ Mahaney, I decided to save the comments. I never do that. I don’t know why I did this time. I guess there’s a first time for everything.
SMG,
That link you provided is exactly what scares me about this movement. They really do think like that. This guy was immature enough to write it down for public consumption.
Steve Scott wrote:
Steve – to be scrupulously pedantic, it was actually: Christ rebukes Christ groupies for… er… groupying Christ.
😉
I am going to this conference! Anybody else? @ Patti:
That one line put me over the edge. Bearing FALSE witness? IT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE! Holy h*ll, a church is in a very bad way when their pastor runs around saying “Truth! Truth!” but refuses to recognize it when he sees it, preferring to cover it up to promote his favorite “version” of it. Lord have mercy. Call a thing what it is. Speak the truth and shame the devil.
@ anonymous:
I like this comment, Anonymous, especially this statement: “driven verbally into a mental cage where you HAVE to see things their way.” You hit the nail of my struggle on the head!
Did someone mention that what CJ and his gang are pushing is just as dangerous as the Charismatic chaos that Todd Bentley is promoting? I can’t find the comment, but I feel like I read it here…But this is so very true. Pulpit Pimps (not a phrase I coined, but I love it!) that push the Prosperity agenda and the craziness that is the Todd Bentley sort use language in much the same fashion. They imply that if you are not on board with what they are doing you are opposing God, quenching the Spirit, etc. Who wants to oppose God? That sounds downright scary! Spiritual manipulation at its worst. I see very little difference between that is what the New Calvinist crowd does when they couch their critiques of some and praises of others in who’s being “biblical”. Dever’s way is “blblical” (to quote you): so, if I don’t agree with Dever, I am being unbiblical? The implication is there…and this is what makes me nauseous about this new Calvinist push.
Thanks for your post, Anonymous – I resonate with you on so many levels here. Blessings!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I apologize for writing to a US audience. 😉
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1, I agree. Like you said, "It is who he is." As for the lawsuit, it should be interesting. You know SGM is going to attempt to escape justice through any legal loophole they can find. My guess is CJ is spending a lot of time studying the case, looking for ways he can outwit the law and stay ahead of the lawyers, focusing entirely on his own defense. Loftness will be the scapegoat. He's not a relative….(ed) bigtime drawbacks in the SGM world. Mahaney and Ricucci will use him like a Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey game. Loftness has spent most of his life courting CJ's favor backed by his biddable wife, all in the name of "serving God." Such a bitter end for John. To have finally risen to the heights of SGM leadership on the merits of his faithfulness & loyalty, only to discover his folly in having been both. That is, if he ever realizes his folly. With friends like Gary Ricucci and CJ Mahaney – who needs enemies? But I do think this whole process of uncovering the corrupt nature of SGM and its leadership – something Mahaney & Co. worked hard to prevent by inventing and perpetrating a false image – is, indeed, an act of God's Sovereignty. I think the timing has been nothing short of impeccable. The trap was laid and it's a good one. If it weren't for the obvious manifestation of God's hand on the whole unfolding of this case, I would have doubts about the outcome. I think the court case is part of His will, and I trust it will not end in vain. I say that based on Isaiah 55:11, "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." I don't have full faith in the outworking of the criminal justice system, per say, but I do have faith in the outworking of God's will. Regardless of how much CJ Mahaney invokes "the Savior's" grace & kindness and denies the reality of God's manifest wrath toward the offenses against His Word, His children, and His Kingdom – those that know the true Jesus understand that better days are not ahead for the false-apostle CJ Mahaney and his supporters. SGM is trying to minimize everything, but this is far from over.
Because I have some Calvinist friends who make the same complaint, I don’t mind confessing my welcome of the soon death of New Calvinism — the New Calvinism of the Gospel Coalition variety that tends toward discord rather than unity.
Who is “together for the gospel”? Calvinists are together for the gospel. No other group is brought in to be together for the gospel except Calvinists. They are among the most congenital of all Christian groups — exclusive, inbred, inwardly-focused.
But by reading the very brief Wikipedia article on the New Calvinism, one would garner another opinion, one that quotes Mark Driscoll identifying it as “open to dialog with other Christian positions.” Please, tell me, where is this open dialogue being held?
Moreover, they are the most conference-obsessed Christians I have ever witnessed. Every time one blinks one’s eyes they have conscripted the most popular Calvinists for yet another Calvinist conference. These New Calvinists seemingly run from one conference to another, from one video interview to another video interview, like running on a treadmill and getting nowhere. Who are the speakers? Calvinists: and this is what I mean by inbred, because only Calvinists are included to being “together for the gospel.”
Mahaney and humility? When he once spoke at Southeastern BTS (Wake Forest), one of my Calvinist friends commented that he viewed him as narcissistic and arrogant; he could hardly believe his ears — Mahaney wrote a book about humility? Oh, the humanity!
Since there are so many like-minded believers here concerning the SGM case, what about gathering to pray? Good idea, bad idea? Any ideas about how that could be effectively facilitated?
@ William Birch:
Well said!!
Steve Scott wrote:
I gotta say, this is the thing I regret the most about staying so long in SGM. Rather than seeing this kind of thing was systemic, I attributed this constant dynamic between leadership and members as a form of immaturity among some. I knew the better you knew God, the less enamored you were of people. In fact, to put people up on pedestals was dishonoring to God. But the fact is, SGM leadership (including the leader’s wives) helped create and perpetuate this dynamic. They wanted to be worshiped and obeyed. I observed it, but I still got tricked by always being told to focus on my sins, and that it was a sin to dwell on theirs!
This need to follow someone, to be in the “in” crowd, to have spent a whole 10 hours with a famous person … it’s so middle schoolish. Never mind the adult behavior of holding off praising someone because you know you don’t really know them till you’ve known them a long time with real ongoing significant interaction, where you’ve seen how they react to criticism, inconvenience, antagonists, actually being wrong, the abused, the weaker and less prominent who do not improve your image, etc….
Every spiritual leader I’ve ever known for an extended and fairly involved time frame, has shown their human side. There’s always a less than pretty side to all of us, given the right circumstances. The key is how one responds when they realize this less than pretty side is showing through.
Of all the spiritual leaders I’ve known, it’s usually taken around 5 years to really get past the veneer, and this includes the truly evil ones I’ve known. They are very good at what they do.
P
Proverbs 27:14 English Standard Version (©2001) “Whoever blesses his neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as cursing.”
Miguel wrote:
Hear ye, hear ye!
@ Sergius Martin-George:
Thanks for the link. I know what the fuzz hair is called now 🙂
The article solidifies the scary immaturity of young (and some old?) men. The article sounded like something I’ve read on teenage girls’ FB pages.
@ Just Sayin’:
You’re welcome. 🙂
I don’t know what these guys learn in seminary about pastoring but they sure do seem to learn a lot about propaganda.
Just Sayin’ wrote:
Perhaps it was my comment just after 7 am. I was talking about MacArthur’s book Charismatic Chaos; yet he has nothing to say about the harm that is being done by those in his own camp!
We are doing our best to sound the alarm.
@ anonymous:
I attended the seminary that was the birthplace of TGC. Very academically rigorous institution – which is good. We do want to strive for excellence. But can also be dangerous. It can become a great temptation to “believe your own press” – i.e., trust in your own intellect versus the power of God in that environment because you are lauded for academic achievement above everything else. There is a disconnect between academia and the ‘real world’ when you are in that environment. And while CJ may not have come from that world, he has been immersed and accepted into it and has become just as insulated.
@ Deb:
Yes!!! I knew I had read something about charismatic chaos! And I couldn’t agree more re: John MacArthur, although I kind of misquoted what you said and inserted CJ instead of JM. Sorry about that. I consider them all in the same “camp” so to speak. And I am grateful for your alarm sounding! 🙂
Anon 1 wrote:
I agree.
Archer’s Mahaney worship is pretty appalling to me, as is his defense of his position. But as someone with a family member who is deeply entrenched in the MacArthur camp, I can’t say the rigorous defense is surprising. In my experience, there is spiritual elitism and utter insistence on the rightness of their positions in the MacArthur crowd that is way, way over the top. My family member has defended as “Godly” and “Biblical” actions that were clearly wrong and even abusive, and dismisses and demeans anyone who disagrees with or opposes them. I believe there are cult-like social and identity elements present in the MacArthur crowd that lead to a real sense of spiritual elitism. It’s not healthy, and I believe it will come back to bite them sooner or later.
Deb wrote:
My friend, John, and I were wondering why you haven’t done a story on McArthur and his tribe out in california. Stories I hear about him are eyebrow raising to say the least. How come J. McArthur gets a pass?
Scooter’s Mom,
Yes, it looks like we need to do a post on John MacArthur soon. In our defense, we have focused on the Resolved conferences in the past. 🙂
William Birch wrote:
Me too! My Calvinist friends are appalled at this movement. But I am also seeing some reluctantly join it because that is where the action is and the jobs are. However, I do think this resurgence is more of a trend and it will be a bloody mess by the time it is over. There will be tons of indoctrinated young men with no ministry jobs. But Mohler, Piper and those guys will have already milked it for themselves.
William Birch wrote:
The first time I ever heard of Mahaney was a few years back on a T4G promotional video. I thought he came off as the court jester to Mohler/Duncan/Dever. He was the most giggly adult man I had ever seen. I was startled at how popular he was among the YRR set. I thought he came off rather silly as I watched him some more.
Then I went to an SBC Convention a few years later and was astonished at how many young men had shaved heads. You could pick the hero worshippers out: The Driscoll followers, The Mahaney followers, Piper followers, etc, etc. They congregated. Guys like Russ Moore had a group following him around the whole time. What is it with these guys and their entourages? Rock stars?
@ Eagle:
Yep, I’m referring to Trinity. I have been gone now for about seven years, and have done everything in my power to disengage from them, but I can say that even while I was there Calvinism had a major stronghold on the general theological drift of the seminary. On paper, of course, there is no hard and fast “Calvinist” bend in the EFCA doctrinal statement, but the lens through which most of the professors read that statement is decidedly Calvinist. There was only 1 Wesleyan Systematic Professor there when I was a student, and I’m not sure he’s even still there.
The students that are being sent out of Trinity are deeply influenced by that, as well as the saturating presence of all things TGC on campus. They carry it with them when they graduate and begin pastoring or planting churches. It’s not an overt campaign to “Neo-Calvinize” all of EFCA. It’s more of an organic movement.
@ Anon 1:
A seminary friend of mind at SEBTS was not a Calvinist until a four-point Calvinist professor took him under his wing and complimented him. Enamored by the praise, he began studying Calvinism (via James White — don’t even get me started), and shortly thereafter, Boom!, he was a convert.
Perhaps there is something emotionally and psychologically affirming when high-profile people in the Calvinist clique give “outsiders” some attention. So they think to themselves, “If I’m to be noticed and taken seriously academically, then I had better check this Calvinist theology out.” Before one knows it, he is a four- or five-point infra- or supralapsarian, complementarian, ESV Study Bible, verbal plenary and inerrancy-toting, cage-stage Calvinist.
William Birch,
I know a number of professors at SEBTS, and your friend’s experience makes me sad. After doing over four years of research on these topics, I can’t say I’m surprised. 🙁
@ Daisy:
My original point about this quote (which was accidentally deleted)
is that there are a lot of preachers today who do nothing BUT discuss and argue about sexual things, gender, and marriage, so why Driscoll thinks it is the opposite is beyond me.
@ dee:
“Daizy” makes me sound like a rap singer. 🙂
Eagle wrote:
Eagle, you said you ‘wonder what point does it serve’ and I think the answer to that all depends upon your starting point as it relates to prayer. What is your starting point for how you see yourself, and how do you approach God? Do you see yourself near to God and fully accepted within a functional family where you are free to pray about anything and everything, or like someone who’s been acquitted like a criminal by a far-off judge you are not personally restored to, and living with a constant sense of moral indebtedness?
I know you weren’t in SGM, but I know you get the picture from your own experiences including Mormonism. The Good News of the Gospel is that we have been relationally restored to the Father through Christ, which included the forgiveness of our sins (because it wouldn’t have been possible without that). And now “where He is I am also.” The love that Jesus had with the Father is available to us right now – not some far off distant day in our perfected state – but right now. So the issue becomes what is your identity as a son of God? Do you see yourself as an entirely new creation in Christ? Someone who is seated with Him in heavenly places? Someone who is completely accepted in the Beloved?
SGM and Mormonism are structures that support the mentality that we are criminals living on parole rather than dearly beloved sons and daughters. Their psychological ploy is to keep people living in a constant state of insecurity, needing to be watched by the Wardens who have authority over you (funny how in the LDS, you’re part of a “Ward”). And since you are a criminal who needs to always focus on your sinful heart, you are never afforded functional personhood to actually question an authority figure. If you do ask a question, you will be criminalized again: “You’re a gossip, you’re a slanderer. You should never question those in authority over you because they are always right and you are always wrong.” You are controlled by a constant sense of indebtedness.
But the truth is we have been set free and we are new creations in Christ. One of great joys of being a Christian is that our sin-awareness and indebtedness to God has been washed away and replaced with a consciousness of Christ. He is our life. He is our acceptance with God. He paid the price. And we will never overcome sin by focusing on sin because the “strength of sin is the law.” Christ bore the curse of the law and we are set free from the law of sin and death and we are able to approach His T
@ dee:
Now that you mention, I do remember hearing that before (that Driscoll reads his wife’s e mails and controls other aspects of her life). That is controlling behavior indicative of an abuser.
At the very least, it is not healthy.
Isn’t it interesting that God gives people more freedom than some of these preachers do?
God may know all your doings, goings, and thoughts, and He doesn’t need to crack open your e-mail account to read it (since He already knows what’s in it), but what I mean is God does not control people as close as Driscoll is doing, and not in the name of “protection” or whatever rationale Driscoll is hiding behind.
God allows you freedom to make whatever choices you want, even if He may not totally approve or agree all the time.
oops hit submit too soon!
!
…we are able to approach His Throne with confidence anytime 24/7 and pray, knowing we are fully accepted and loved!
(sorry it was so long, meant to go over and shorten/edit!)
@ Deb:
Of all the Calvinist professors there I was privileged to meet and get to know, I only had one scuff after class with one of them, and it was over his embracing of John Piper’s “two wills in God” theory, and a comment the professor made during class about people having to answer to God for what they believe (which, of course, if Calvinists are to be consistent with their theology, was *decreed* by God).
On a good note: two overtly Calvinist professors complained in class about the Gospel Coalition inbred mentality and exclusion of anyone not Calvinistic. One Greek professor said, “Together for the Gospel? What is their definition of ‘together’?” The other said, “Together for Calvinism: I’m not impressed.”
William Birch wrote:
LOL!
Anon 1 wrote:
Soul Patch = goatee type facial hair.
I would think Piper would be for it, not against, since facial hair would surely be considered “manly” and Piper is all about men being stereotypically “manly.”
@ William Birch:
That's encouraging. I am wearying of all this 'togetherness' while I feel completely left out due to my middle of the road position and gender.
Daisy wrote:
Especially if you spell it Day-Z. 😉
@ Anon 1:
That is mentioned in a book about why people are not going to church anymore, it is one factor of many, that preachers (at least usually at very large churches) cut themselves off from their congregants. You have to make appointments to see them, they don’t visit people. When they do visit people, they only go after powerful and wealthy. They ignore and stay away from the hurting and those without a lot of money.
lilyrosemary wrote:
LOL! 😀
@ lilyrosemary:
LOL. It does sound like Jay-Z. Maybe he and I can go on tour. 🙂
“The reason I like these men and consider them ‘movers and shakers’ is because of their global influence for the gospel. Jesus said to go into all the nations and make disciples.” –Sycophant Blogger
Jesus said something else: “”Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” (Matthew 23:15)
Status-obsessed globetrotting conference hoppers are not the same thing as missionaries. I suspect that speaking at these conferences doesn’t cost these men much in terms of actual sacrifice — and yet how much do they gain in terms of ego?
All the words in the world do not add up to integrity. Good character is lived, not talked about.
God save us from “movers and shakers.”
Evie wrote:
Mac Davis sings “It’s Hard To Be Humble”
Daisy wrote:
In the Godly Golden Age(TM) of the 1950s, American custom was for men to be clean-shaven. Maybe a little pencil mustache, but that was it. No beard was manly back then.
In the Sixties(TM) the COUNTERCULTURE types were known for growing beards and generally lots of facial hair.
Daisy wrote:
Which tells everybody that God is only for the Rich and Powerful and all the rest of us (the 99%) can go to hell. What’s wrong with this picture?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
This explains why Piper wouldn’t sport facial hair. It wouldn’t be consistent with the Leave it to Beaver era.
Evie wrote:
Just like Stalin & Trotsky.
Anon 1 wrote:
truer words were never said….
Also, I can’t believe Todd Bentley is back…isn’t he the guy who punches people in the stomach to “heal” them?…I thought this charlatan was gone for good
@ DebbyLynn:
Yes, he’s the one. I’m starting to realize these charlatans never go away if they can help it; their egos and their pathologies don’t allow it. It seems shocking when these disgraced celebrity pastors keep coming back for more, but some people will do anything for fame. Look at reality television. (I am NOT trying to give Mark Driscoll any ideas!)
2 really picky criticisms of the Cripplegate blog.
From the My thoughts on the CJ fiasco, “… I believe in elder lead churches…”
I’m seeing this so much recently that I’m beginning to wonder if past tense of “lead” (rhymes with feed) is now “lead” (rhymes with dead). Yesterday I feed my dogs so they they wouldn’t become deed!
From “A guide to our series” I found “A warning about losing sight of the importance of the Sunday morning sermon: Church-planting and pulpit priority.” The fifth and most serious consequence of insufficient emphasis on Sunday Morning Pulpit Exposition is… Wait for it…”a personality-driven ministry. In other words, you will build a ministry centered more around the pastor than the Savior.”
When I see either “personality-driven ministry” or “the Savior”, guess who comes to my mind? Rhymes with BK.
I’m still scouring my Bible for ONE solitary command for, suggestion of, or example of a Sunday morning sermon (unless they gathered Sat evening in Troas and when Paul dialogued on past midnight, that became one).
But I know this is super-important in some Protestant TRADITIONS.
In order to avoid ministry centered around the pastor, doncha know….
@ Evie:
“Loftness will be the scapegoat. He’s not a relative and his own child has implicated him; bigtime drawbacks in the SGM world.”
Where did you see this about Loftness and his child? I had not heard that, unless I missed it along the way somewhere.
–
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Clark Gable!
Good for Don Draper on resisting that trend while his younger colleagues run around now with big beards, mustaches, and – do mutton chop sideburns come later?
Spongebob and Patrick: “Becoming Men” (sung after they get sea weed mustaches)
.
Dave A A wrote:
That appears to conflict with some of Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 3
Bridget wrote:
Hey Bridget 🙂
There’s an interesting little footnote on page #5 of the “Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motions Alleging Pleading Failure” (filed March 27, 2013) which reads,
You can read the Opposition here. Again, I direct you to the footnote on page 5.
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/storage/documents/Plaintiffs%27%20Opposition%20to%20Defendants%27%20Motions%20Alleging%20Pleading%20Failure.pdf
Bridget, I just realized I was thinking it was about Loftness’ own child, but after looking more closely at the wording, it may not be the case. Sounds to me like it may be talking about his own child though, similar to the allegation against Larry Tomzcak by his child (I assume).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: goatees were hip among those trying to emulate the Beats, though (50s and early-mid 60s).
@ Daisy:
I may not have made clear that the author DOES think personality-based ministry a BAD thing. His solution– more emphasis on “the preaching event” (as SGM Louisville calls sermons from pulpits Sunday mornings). IMO, the solution doesn’t solve the problem.
@ Daisy:
Day zee
@ lilyrosemary:
“God save us from “movers and shakers.””
And from these wannabe movers and shakers!
“The word we study has to be the Word we pray. My personal experience of the relentless tenderness of God came not from exegetes, theologians, and spiritual writers, but from sitting still in the presence of the living Word and beseeching Him to help me understand with my head and heart His written Word. Sheer scholarship alone cannot reveal to us the gospel of grace. We must never allow the authority of books, institutions, or leaders to replace the authority of knowing Jesus Christ personally and directly. When the religious views of others interpose between us and the primary experience of Jesus as the Christ, we become unconvicted and unpersuasive travel agents handing out brochures to places we have never visited.
In his famous 1522 Christmas sermon, Martin Luther cried out:
“O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the Scriptures alone and to the pure word of God! You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurable difference between the word of God and all human words, and how no man can adequately reach and explain a single word of God with all his words. It is an eternal word and must be understood and contemplated with a quiet mind. No one else can understand except a mind that contemplates in silence. For anyone who could achieve this without commentary or interpretation, my commentaries and those of everyone else could not only be of no use, but merely a hindrance. Go to the Bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, tastes, and abide in the simple and pure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion.”
-Brennan Manning, “The Ragamuffin Gospel,” pages 32-33.
@ Evie:
Thanks, Evie. I hadn’t seen that. I wonder if this is what prompted Loftness to suddenly resign from his position on the SGM board?
John and Scooter’s Mom:
The MacArthur phenomenon isn’t isolated to California. Here is a map of where in the world TMS graduates are leading churches, missions and schools. If the map only shows the U.S., zoom it out to see that TMS has exported authoritarian neo-Calvinism to every continent except Antarctica.
http://www.tms.edu/AlumniMap.aspx
I know many TMS graduates, and to be fair not all of them conduct themselves in an authoritarian and elitist manner. Some I know are genuinely humble, gracious and loving men. In my experience, however, they are the exceptions.
“What must those who have been wounded while in SGM think about all of this breathless adoration for Mahaney and gang? The motto of the church where Clint Archer pastors is “Where Truth Matters”.” – Deb
@ Miguel:
“Shockingly, my post at cripplegate was deleted and I got an email telling me my post was “sinful”, “slanderous” and “bearing false witness”!!!!”
“That one line put me over the edge. Bearing FALSE witness? IT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE! Holy h*ll, a church is in a very bad way when their pastor runs around saying “Truth! Truth!” but refuses to recognize it when he sees it, preferring to cover it up to promote his favorite “version” of it. Lord have mercy. Call a thing what it is. Speak the truth and shame the devil.”
Sadly, Clint Archer and his ilk can’t handle the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA
NickBulbeck wrote:
I type this with fear and trembling, knowing the disdain for his complementarian views. I also know, however, that Dee and Deb are fairminded..
I am in John Piper’s church. And as some of you know, he is not rich. He drives an old car. He lives in what is considered the hood in Minneapolis. He mixes with the people in his neighborhood, and he does not use them as sermon illustrations. You have to ask him directly about his personal involvement in people’s lives in his hood.
He gives away every penny he gets from his books, to his foundation, yes, which funnels it back to giving away resources. Some may consider that self-serving. I do not.
He has never profited from his books. In 2010 that was about $380K. I saw a link here to the IRS 990 form that reported Desiring God income. He could be rich. If you watch him, he does not buy new clothes. He had to borrow on his house to send his last son to college. He adopted an African American girl at age 50. He is absolutely accountable to his elders for how he uses his time. He speaks at conferences, yes, but it is limited. He has stayed in the downtown of Minneapolis for 33 years when every other church left for the burbs.
I am not an adoring fan, merely recounting what I see as some redeeming qualities, given his disdain here, from what I have read, mainly to his complementarian views, but most recently for his support of Mahaney. Oh, and I saw a question a few weeks ago about his speaking fees. He gives those directly to Bethlehem Baptist. He has never kept one.
And these things are not the things he talks about. Listen to his sermons. I have for years. In all that time, only one time do I remember him talking about what he does with his money. I had heard from a friend who had been on staff that there are not two John Pipers. He is who he is in public and private. I rarely remember him talking about his interaction with people in his neighborhood. He walks to the church every day, and it is a rough hood. He relates the difficulty he has in personal evangelism and relationship building, being an introvert. But he also admits that he has struggled for years to make himself go out of himself to minister to people.
I say all this to say that, complementarian views aside, and support of CJ aside, I believe he is genuine. I really believe that he lives his life out before the audience of one, albeit under a microscope.
I know there will be a lot of mocking of my statements, calling me an adoring fan, a Calvineesta, or that I approve of his comments on wife abuse, which I do not, and I publicly have stated that those statements were not well thought out or helpful. But I have watched him for years, fairly close, and I do not think I have overstated these things. I am emailing Dee some reservations I have, so that she can look into them herself. You can email me and I will answer questions. rjmeredith3382@gmail.com.
Jenny,
Thanks for sharing that map, which I have never seen before. I just had a strange experience. The first balloon I clicked on showed the name of the only person I know who graduated from The Masters Seminary. Time to do some digging…
John wrote:
We have a lay leader in our church who is a JM clone. In front of large groups he comes across humble, but in small group studies, he interrupts people, is rude, and refuses to let people finish a sentence if doesn’t fit his beliefs perfectly. Have you seen the long thread about JM on the Rick Ross site?
@ Bob M: I am away and can only write a short comment. I have stated on this blog that I know Piper lives a modest lifestyle. We have had several people who have given the info u have shared.
My concern with Piper includes his odd views on women, his unwavering support of SGM and CJ Mahaney in spite of the pain that has been shared by many, many people, his support and love for Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson, his interpretation of disasters in which he purports to know who God is punishing, etc. I have no problem with Calvinism and am not an egalitarian. We have regular readers who are comp in their perspective, and I am concerned that you started this comment with words such as “disdain” to include all of our readers.
And as for the circuit conference riders, many have made a great deal of money.. Piper is best buddies with all of them, and it does not surprise me that he is painted with the same brush. And as for the folks in the “hood” – I wish he spent some time with the victims in SGM instead of propping up those who have hurt many.
Bob,
Being described as ‘fair-minded’ by someone in Piper’s tribe is quite a compliment! Thanks.
When I read Nick’s commentary, I must say that John Piper is not the leader who came to mind. He does, however, rub elbows with the ones I did think of. I admire Piper for not allowing power and prestige to go to his head. Sadly, that cannot be said of some leaders in his camp.
I am looking forward to seeing how all of this plays out. The YRR movement (popularized by the technology of the internet) may be reaching a tipping point given all of the problems with Mahaney and SGM. We will definitely be watching.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I appreciate your perspective. Your thoughts are always welcome here at TWW. Blessings.
Dee wrote:
Thank you. I did not mean to lump everyone in the statement using the word disdain. I apologize.
@ Bob M:
Bob M, First of all, what Dee said that you quote.
Second, I have always had the feeling that Piper was, all in all, an honest and decent fellow. That is why it is so frustrating when dealing with him.
When I talk about what irks me about Piper, the very first thing is his blind acceptance and promoting of Driscoll. Because of their relationship, members of Driscoll’s church called upon Piper for help, to be a mediator to work some things out and to help Driscoll see where he was sinning against his elders and church members. Piper turned a deaf ear. He would not get involved even though he promoted Driscoll.
Equally, his support of Mahaney.
But enough said on those two guys.
It’s Piper’s blind support of clergy over and against those that the clergy have sinned against that devastates me. The fact that he’s actually not like them, but the real deal just makes his support of them all that much worse for me.
@ Deb:
I know someone who graduated from there also, but not well enough to say if he fits John’s description above. He guest spoke at our church once. I hadn’t seen him for years, since before he went to Master’s (I didn’t even know he went to Master’s) and knew him only by name and sight when I did know him.
His sermon, as I recall, was OK. I’ve heard worse. He himself was impressively polished. In fact, that is the main thing I would say about him — polished to the point of being impeccable. And his family also was impeccable. Just too perfect seeming for my taste. Though that is not to say I got the impression they necessarily strove for that. I don’t know. But I was uncomfortable with them because they were just too…if you know what I mean. But for all I know he was always that way.
In any case, I do know someone who attends his church. I have seen her a few times in the past few years. I knew her years ago from another church. I have to say she has changed from what she used to be. She used to be more relaxed and comfortable. I found her to be uptight and constricted now. It mostly came out in how she talked about matters of the faith. It was like there was a hyper-carefulness and a sort of insecurity, like she would get in trouble or something if she said what she wanted to say wrong. The same “her” is still there, but altered a bit.
I have seen some people’s personalities change (temporarily, thankfully) after spending time reading or listening to MacArthur. But others don’t. But if there is change it is always in the same direction and it’s not for the better.
This with John’s account above gives rise to some questions for me. Is it that the seminary (or maybe MacArthur in general) attracts that kind of person, or do they create that kind of person? If they create that kind of person then it would seem to affect susceptible individuals and some people are immune, given what Jenny said. What would make the difference there?
Also, if they create this kind of person, is it the faculty or the student population that has this effect on other students? Or both? What/who is responsible for the ambiance that gives rise to it?
And finally, are there those who go in with John’s description but come out better instead of worse?
Mara wrote:
I don’t know that it is blind support. If you know anything of him, he rarely says much about other men. Yes, I know he preached at Mahaney’s church, and I do not understand that, but I have not asked him about it. I do not know him personally. He just does not go public on all his reasons for what he does. That can be frustrating. But I can be sure of this, it is not blind. When he decided to have Warren at his conference, it was controversial, because Warren and he seem to have different methods, however, he researched, interviewed and then publicly spoke about why he invited him. In this case, it is concerning Mahaney’s involvement in the SGM mess, and I do not have first hand knowledge of all this, other than what I have read here and at Brent Detwiler’s blog, and Brent seems to be a little overboard in his criticisms of all things Mahaney. I am not defending Mahaney. I am not sure.
LG wrote:
That’s what really bothers me about these mesmerizing yet biblically uneducated preachers. Rarely do they respond to criticism of their theology by engaging in a biblically-based discussion of why they believe the Bible leads them to that position and why opponents have interpreted it wrong.
Instead, if you read or listen closely, their primary response is to simply claim they are being attacked by those that are atheistic, liberal, Satan-inspired, God-hating and/or heretical, and that they are being martyred by this hoard for their faith. The message being that you are a ‘real’ Christian only if you unquestioningly stand with him against this infidel onslaught.
Daisy wrote:
Maybe it’s because Piper’s mom had one?
I know, cheap shot, but it’s really the only type of response Piper’s comment deserves.
Bob M wrote:
Bob, this is the biggest problem in that world. I know this from lots of experience in the mega industrial complex backstage. You don’t really know him. And you trust others to know him personally for you and vouch for him.
It is one of the saddest things to happen to much of Christendom. I grew up where we were constantly in and out of the pastor's home and his family in ours….no matter what church and we were in tons because of music ministry. We really do not know the guy on stage. How does he interact with his wife outside the venue? It becomes very easy to pick up on: Do as I say not as I do type of things. But impossible when they are a persona on a stage.
Real life compared to the venue when he is “on”. That is why I would be very leery of vouching for someone you do not know personally. Agreeing/disagreeing on doctrinal points is not the same thing as vouching for them personally.
People would be fools to suggest Piper is in it for money. (I know a young family that went there to work with him and study under him about 15 years ago after Wheaton and they came back not better people but arrogant and demeaning). But it would be premature to try and say Piper does not like the fame or notoriety. His actions speak differently, even to the detriment of his marriage. His words, there.
He is filled with contradictions in his teaching and actions. Appearing to be modest is important to him, but flying to Geneva to do to mount a professional promotional video is not an act of one who is concerned about how one spends OPM especially since it was to promote his new ministry.
There are so many contradictions in Piper's words/actions, it could fill pages.
I sincerely suggest you know him personally before you defend him. I wish all the folks involved with the celebs would promise this to themselves. And get out of a church where you cannot know the pastor personally. It is not healthy.
Bob M wrote:
Bob, the way it comes across to me is that guys like Piper have given Mahaney their support. It would call into question their judgment, would it not, if they were to discover after all this time that they had been wrong about him? Aren’t these leading men of God in the Body of Christ supposed to be involved in caring for the welfare of the sheep that flock to hear them speak week after week? If these guys have been unguarded in whom they allow into their inner circle, and have in turn promoted a man of questionable integrity to thousands of God’s people, what does that say about the quality of their pastoral care? And what is purpose behind all their on stage performances and messages if not to promote the welfare of God’s people? And what has been their response to Mahaney?
It seems to me their (Piper, Mohler, Duncan, Denver, Bridges, et al) response indicates a greater commitment to their careers as professionals instead of commitment to the Lord and the care of His sheep.
There can be no mistake between the correlation Jesus made between feeding the sheep and loving the sheep. “Do you love Me? Feed my sheep.”
Piper wrote a book entitled, “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals.” What was the point of that if he is not fleshing out the gospel? If his main energy is spent on preaching at people and then turning a blind eye to the things men do that are harming and injuring the sheep, men he has promoted, it would seem he’s more of a professional preacher and less of a man in touch with people’s lives – which is not at all how Jesus modeled His message.
Evie, Piper is a sheep, too. They forget that. They think pastor is a noun.
I am often confused who Piper thinks he is preaching to. In conference venues, he is preaching to large rooms full of young pastors. But his words sound like he is preaching to the unsaved. Many of his videos come across the same way. That is the part of his progressive justification (duel wills of God stuff) that really concerns me. That is why he can be two different people and it not be hypocrisy, I think.
@ JeffT:
In all honesty, Piper seemed to be using the facial hair to make a point about culture. The problem was how the young pastor turned the event into an idol worship session in a blog article. That is what was scary. It’s also interesting to note that I don’t recall reading or hearing these famous, or “in the spotlight ” believers who get the adoration say anything to disuade men and women from putting them on a pedestal. And I’m not referring to writing a book about humility or acting the humble part.
What about the “celeb” responding to the person who writes the silly article telling them they shouldn’t be putting men on pedestals like that. Celeb could ask the writer to write another article to clear up their former adoration rant. If the writer refuses, the Celeb could write his own response to the adoration article.
I know, you might think I’m living is a dream world . . . but that’s what real humility and a desire to not lead people astray would look like to me. It could help some of the well knowns and adorers to stay more grounded if the Church saw this happen.
@ Bridget:
. . . it would help the Church.
Bridget wrote:
What’s really so ironic about these guys that go about preaching about their humility is their handling of the issue of whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). Virtually all conservative evangelicals believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. However, there are a number of difficulties that must be confronted if you take this view, not the least of which is that Deuteronomy 34:5 describes Moses own death.
Now, to the point I was making (finally 🙂 ) Numbers 12:3 says “Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth.” And the argument is that if Moses was so humble, he wouldn’t have written that about himself – Every conservative evangelical I’ve heard talk on this issue agrees with this statement, therefore, they go to great lengths to explain how Moses did write the book but wasn’t the one who said that about him.
Now, if it’s unthinkable that Moses would not say such a thing if he were truly humble, why is it OK for CJ Mahaney to get away with it?
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes! If my denom saw leadership like you suggest, my sibs and I wouldn’t have been as abused in the parsonage, and there would have been recourse when it happened. We lived in an isolated bubble and it was awful.
@ Bob M:
It’s been a while since I looked into the Piper-Warren situation, but I just re-read some of the transcript of his interview with Warren, and I’m amazed again at the softball questions. I recall that when it finally came to nitty-gritty theology, Piper asked questions that could be answered “yes” or “no.” It seemed that he was making it as easy as possible for Warren.
At one point, Warren affirmed unconditional election. Why, then, didn’t Piper ask him about the part of “The Purpose-Driven Life” where he wrote that a person might go to hell because the reader didn’t speak to him/her about God? Piper claimed he read the book with a fine-toothed-comb, wrote 20 pages of notes, and found nothing troubling about it. Mind-boggling.
Piper barely touched on Warren’s penchant for tailoring his message to his audience, one of Warren’s greatest faults.
I’ve learned from Piper, and admire his modest lifestyle, but he seems to be two different people. The “bad” Piper makes loony, sometimes irresponsible statements, greatly elevates the importance of male-female relationships, sucks up to powerful guys like Warren, and unconditionally supports Mahaney despite so much evidence against him. He’s a mystery.
Patrice,
I am so sorry for what happened to you at the hands of your pastor-father. I appreciate your insights on these important matters.
JeffT wrote:
Not sure I agree with that statement at all. I know many conservative evangelicals who do not believe that for one minute. Most of the conservative evangelical scholars I have been around believe it was written either during or after the Babylonian exile. The SBC I grew up in that was the typical understanding and we were surrounded by seminarians in my neck of the woods. Perhaps it was different for me than others?
Now, I did hear that taught from stage in a huge non denominational seeker mega where the pastor only had a few years of bible college under his belt but was a celebrity.
JeffB wrote:
Exactly. What about the whole love affair with Driscoll and “loving his theology” all the time knowing about the Petry’s, vulgarity, and Driscolls sex saturated talks where he even taught sodomy and porno divinations? Driscoll was Reformed and that is all that mattered to Piper? But notice how they all went silent on Driscoll? Of course they would never admit they had no discernment.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice, this is so very very true! I cracked up at my then 7 year old daughter who came home one day after playing with our pastors daughter and said she saw his underwear on the kitchen table. I enquired a bit deeper and learned he was folding the family laundry in the kitchen! Ha ha.
Nothing beats real life nitty gritty relationships. Not this stage persona fakery that passes as Christianity.
I paid real close attention to the Piper/Warren DG deal. I think Piper was doing one of his shock jock deals. He is real into them. From “Scream of the Damned” to Christian Hedonism, etc, etc. I really do think he seeks attention with his flowery verbosity, arm waving, shock jock euphemisms and so on. Now he is going to be a jet setting global apostle, the 21st Century John Calvin. To spread Calvinism around the world.
Not long ago I heard two young YRR guys who were so disappointed in that announcement on that video. They expected their hero to go into the darkest corners of Africa. They never really connected the dots on Piper.
@ Deb:
Thanks, Deb. His name was Arie Leegwater and he was Christian Reformed pastor. He adored being called “Domine”, an old Dutch term for Reverend. Blech (There is an Arie Leegwater, a cousin who was a prof at Calvin College and a good man as far as I know.)
@ Deb:
I know about that map because it is frequently used by MacArthur followers when making relocation decisions. Seriously. I personally know people who have turned down job offers and refused to relocate to help an aged parent because there wasn’t a TMS graduate-led church close to the job/aged parent.
Anon 1 wrote:
I did overstate the case, but it is dogma in a number of conservative evangelical circles which include seminary professors within them who teach it to their students.
I do not know of this Archer guy. But his reaction to negative posts on his blog about Mahaney indicates that he himself is probably not confident in Mahaney’s narrative or that Mahaney’s position as a perceived leader in the Evangelical world is secure.
Therefore, he has to defend Mahaney and say some pretty silly things in the process.
I am not putting any of my eggs in the basket of Mahaney is in trouble – “if” the lawsuit shows that.
Lawsuits can succeed and fail on lots of points.
SGM and Mahaney, as SGM’s Apostle, are already exposed as poor leaders/churchmen. There is no question that child molestation occurred at SGM churches. No one disputes that. Also, I don’t believe there is any statement from the defendants saying – “No. Wait. We DID call the police.”
I think that it’s pretty evident that the churches and the pastors did NOT call the police because that is what they believe the church should do – handle such things internally.
So, unless one of those points is proven to be untrue, the verdict is in. The churches and leaders did not pastor the injured people well, and they did not report evil doers to the civil authorities, as is required by the NT.
Liability in the lawsuit will turn on lots of important matters, but they are matters in addition to the above. So for me, what is know already is enough.
I was in a meeting recently and I made reference to the need for church leaders to have a base level of education (undergraduate and seminary from an accredited institution), and that should be a non-negotiable. I mentioned that without that you get situations like Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll and C.J. Mahaney, men who apparently had significant religious experiences and interests, but who did not have the basics of education that would have helped them be minimally qualified and would have helped them be spiritually mature and not head off in silly directions.
No one said anything directly, but I was wondering what they thought about what I said. I know they like me, so that’s not a problem.
The problem seems to be that Evangelicals seem to treat education in spiritual matters as a liability many times, and they do not connect the theological dead ends that many churches follow exist because of a lack of knowledge of the history and theology of the church. Most of this stuff we see has been around before, and if we know that, it can have a very good effect.
Janey wrote:
No. Haven’t seen that. Would be interested though. Can’t say the behavior surprises me too much, unfortunately.
“. I mentioned that without that you get situations like Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll and C.J. Mahaney, men who apparently had significant religious experiences and interests, but who did not have the basics of education that would have helped them be minimally qualified and would have helped them be spiritually mature and not head off in silly directions.”
Not a Bell fan but wondering what he has done compared to porno divinations, protecting molesters, etc that puts him in the same catagory as Mahaney and Driscoll?
Driscoll and Mahaney got a pass from the Reformed movement because they had “correct doctrine”. Bell was called a heretic by them. So what was his behavior that puts him in the same category as Driscoll and Mahaney? I am not aware of any scandals such as firing elders to take over the church or blackmailing ex partners.
@ Janey:
TMS grads aggressively insist that their teaching is The Only Truth. When confronted with the fact that they teach New Calvinism, they deny it and say they’re merely teaching sound Christian doctrine. Since they do not recognize any other doctrine as sound – or even Christian! – they do not recognize their own doctrine as neo-Calvinistic. To them, theirs is truth and everything else is error. You can’t convince them otherwise. Believe me, I’ve tried!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/mark-driscoll-compares-nagging-wives-to-water-torture-94647/
Oh this is rich.
Anon 1 wrote:
….said the man who had 700 wives and 300 concubines. lol
Victorious wrote:
Exactly!!! Somehow they always forget that part about Proverbs.
This was published recently on Christian Post (I have not read it yet):
Has God Predetermined Every Tiny Detail in the Universe, Including Sin? by John Piper
Anon 1 wrote:
I put that same link in one of the threads a couple of days ago.
I would never take any sort of relationship advice from Driscoll, nor listen to anything he has to say about gender (as in, take it seriously).
@ Anon 1:
Nagging wife = Chinese water torture? Doug Phillips did that too.
1. What is a “corpulent personality”? I’m not sure I would want any part of me described as corpulent. Certainly not my mind, as a corpulent mind would be out of shape, flabby and useless just like a corpulent body. So I honestly don’t know what he’s getting at here. Maybe my brain is too “corpulent” to figure it out! ; )
2. “The great thing blogging vs writing a dissertation, is that I can just say who I think is a biwig without needing to cite evidence in the footnotes.”
Funny. Except for the introductory posts, all my blog posts have had footnotes and links so far. Just because it’s blogging doesn’t mean you can shoot your mouth off and say whatever you want without any obligation to back it up when asked.
3. What are these guys gonna do if it turns out all those SGM allegations are true?
I appreciate all of your comments. I have a meeting with John that I set up in a few weeks. I will ask him some questions.
“And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.”
(Galatians 2:6 ESV)
Do we not read our Bibles anymore? Not only do we have this plain statement from Paul, rejecting all kinds of “christian” idolatry, but many other Scriptures with the very same warning:
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV)
There is not only something radically wrong with Christians who play into this man-worship, but there is even more of a stench hanging on the big names themselves. Even the ANGELS immediately tell human beings to get up off their knees and worship God alone. Human beings who permit themselves to be worshiped are defective. They need to withdraw and go into the wilderness for 40 years or so.
Jeff,
Thank you for those wise words. Shame on these leaders for allowing themselves to be fawned over. They know exactly what they are doing.
I do hope that at some point in the future these young bucks will recognize the folly of idol worship and repent.
Bob M wrote:
Bob, I really do wish you the best. I also remember those days when people had to set up appointments to meet with the pastor (and other leaders in the mega industrial complex). It was considered a real honor for them to meet with people. It could take weeks to get the appointment as they are so busy and important and everyone wants some of their time.
I think he will be very irenic with hard questions and it will be very plausible to you. If you have any dissent you will never know the subtle workings to marginalize you that take place later. The whole process can take years and people never know what it was precisely.
Do you not find it ironic you have to set up an appointment to finally spend a bit of time with the man who has been teaching you within your local Body of Christ?
But now he has gone full time with his own ministry, Desiring God, which he built up while working for Bethleham. This is now normal practice in those circles.
Jeff Crippen wrote:
I think it is amazing how scripture is read with such filters than can ignore larger truths. These celebrities will tell you THEY are not worshipped. They will not conceed that premise even though it is so obvious. I fear for them as they are convinced they are doing great things for God. They see their lives as a living sacrifice.
Anon 1:
I was not comparing the deeds of the various persons.
I was comparing their lack of education.
Rob Bell is as uneducated as the rest of them. He had a “corpulent personality” as these others. He has gone off the deep end theologically.
The modern world is such that anyone today can start a church, and if they are talented and assemble the right people around them, they be successful and develop a following.
This is particularly dangerous in the case of uneducated, young people.
In Bell’s case, it takes the form of looking like a teenager trying to “find” oneself. You have taught all of these people under your care for years one thing – then you wake up one day and say, “That was all wrong. Now it’s this way.”
The particular expressions of weirdness may differ, but lack of education is a commonality.
Education doesn’t fix everything for sure. But Evangelicals should give it more respect and insist on it in as a necessary qualification for leading significant ministry that affects many people.
Evie,
Just catching up on reading here and wanted to say that your encouragement to Eagle on Friday at 5:51pm was awesome.
@ Anonymous:
Peter was “uneducated”. Matthew was a tax collector…..The educated Jew, Paul, was sent to the Gentiles who cared less about his Pharisetical education.
I would not call what is coming out of SBTS right now “education” but indoctrination which is not the same thing.
The issue is about the “kingdom of God” right now. It was never meant that we would follow man as we see all through history. Where is Christlikness in these men’s lives? Does Driscoll really represent what the indwelling Holy Spirit would look like in a person after years of intimate relationship? Mahaney? Mohler?
What if that were the comparison? How would Bell fare compared to Driscoll and Mahaney? I don’t know as I do not follow Bell at all.
Anonymous, This topic fascinates me. I have a friend, an agnostic, who is a devotee of Hegal. He believes that education is the key to a moral and just society.
If I follow what I think you are saying…. that because Driscoll and Mahaney are not seminary educated, we had these problems coming from them. But that would not explain the problems with a host of arrogant mean YRR who crave power who are seminary educated. Nor would it explain Ed Young, Jr, Perry Noble or Steven Furtick or even Mohler and his penchant for power and control. The list is long of the seminary educated who have serious issues.
Perhaps in some instances what we think is ‘education’ IS the problem?
Anonymous and Anon 1,
Bell may well be getting pretty far off theologically, but compared to people like CJ and Mark, his Love Wins book shows that he is much closer to the troth about God’s love. I suspect that maybe Rob didn’t test all the spirits that came in the name of love according to 1John, but neither have Mahaney and Mark tested some of their ‘doctrines of demons.’ The proof is their wayward theology also.
@ Hester:
I’ve always read that Proverb as an exhortation to the man to stop giving the woman so much to have tonnag about.
Bob M,
Did I read that you are going to meet with John Piper?
I appreciate that you do not agree with his teachings on women.
Please keep in mind Ezekial 3:20 when you speak with him.
Thanks
Anonymous wrote:
I see Rob Bell as someone who is genuinely questioning traditional beliefs and values. He has the guts to say out loud what many have been thinking and wondering about but are afraid to say so because of fear of what others may say. I’m sure that a lot of my former friends from my former church associations would say that I have “gone off the deep end” if they knew how I am questioning, deconstructing, and figuring out what I really believe about God. They might even label me a “heretic”. But I think I’m in a good place – a much healthier place mentally and spiritually that I was when I blindly accepted everything that those I viewed to be in authority over me told me to believe.
http://youtu.be/i2rklwkm_dQ
A link to Bell which is very interesting. I hope Argo sees this cos Bell talks about somethings Argo has discussed concerning actual ‘days’ and dimensions.
Watching this made me realize why he would be more popular in certain circles.
I realize there are segments of Christendom that think if you dare even listen to a Bell talk your salvation is questionable or you are an idiot. That only makes me want to check him out. I think Piper actually helped Bell sell more books with his “Farewell Rob Bell” statement which was extremely arrogant as Piper is not God.
I spent an hour listening to this cos I am not real up on him these days. Some of his Nooma vids I saw years ago were pretty good. I am concerned he teaches universalism which like Calvinism makes the Cross a moot point as it is also a form of determinism. Or redundant, as it were.
I agree with Marge he is questioning traditional thinking which is always popular with me cos I am weary of all the man made stuff being elevated to pure truth such as ST, Creeds, etc. I want out of the man made box. However, there are basics that have to be protected and I get that.
Bell most likely has been affected by celebrity so I take that into consideration. But I do find him interesting in that he walked away from the mega church like Chan did.
But this talk was very interesting where he discusses science and the spiritual. Pretty good for an uneducated guy.
@ Happymom:
Thank you! 😀
Anon 1:
Education, or the lack of it, is not the ONLY issue.
You are right. Education can bring other problems.
But the lack of it is a common thread in many Evangelical disasters.
Marge:
Thanks for the comment. I wish you the best.
It’s one thing for a lay person to continue to question and figure out what they believe.
But for the church to promote teachers who are still in such “process” is not a good thing. It really hurts people.
One of the purposes of theological education is for students to learn about history, the Church, different viewpoints that may have been around for a thousand or so years.
I would not want a guy pastoring a church of 2000 people who is young and uneducated. It’s very easy for a guy like that to launch out in crazy directions or to be so immature that he doesn’t enough background of depth to understand who he is or what he believes.
In these type situations people really get hurt. It’s often very sad.
But I am not talking about you or people like you.
Anon 1:
Be careful. Don’t get led astray!! (just kidding.)
Bell is no more scientifically sophisticated than he is theologically educated. He must be a great entertainer – can speak on any topic in an entertaining fashion, even if he has very little experience with the subject.
I had heard he was going to get a gig on ABC to cover religion or something, but I haven’t seen that.
If you wait a few years, he’ll probably morph again.
I heard that he came out in favor of so-called “gay marriage.”
Bill Wallis also came out in favor of it. But Bill Wallis has been this way for years and is predictably consistent. He’s older etc.
Anonymous, I think your problem is you want to “protect” people from what you see as error. I totally understand that. But what about the determinist god error? That is a huge one with a trail of blood and police states behind them, to boot. Who wants a Reformed police state church? Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Mahaney….all the young YRR so desperate for power and position.
The point is not how brilliant of a scientists Bell is. The point is he is talking about things people are wondering about. It really is that simple and the Reformed mvoement can only respond: God is Sovereign. And any other thinking means one does not see God as Sovereign. They have painted themselves into a corner now that folks won’t burn for talking back.
Listen to a Mahaney sermon and all you hear are sports, sex with his sick wife, what a huge sinner he is (we should have believed him) etc, etc. Read Mohler and it is all about a culture war. Listen to Piper and it is about women knowing their place and his pink and blue Christianity. Listen to Dever and it is about the authority of leaders in the church. These are our “experts” in theology? The educated “experts”?
They attempt to redefine concepts such as humiltiy, love, salvation, etc, into a definition that will keep them in power.
To be real honest with you the whole movement is simply man centered. It is really about them and they do this with B issues that are of no salvic importance yet they elevate them to be.
I am looking at this pragmatically after hearing Bell talk about science and Spirituality. And I am no Bell fan…. as I said I fear he is a universalist which is just another form of determinism…. which makes the Cross moot.
But seriously, things have changed. Social media has opened up a new world and those seeking power and control over others in a church/movement venue now have a ton of competition for the hearts and minds. It is no longer one way communication that they controlled for so long. People can learn Greek online and study for themselves. They are frustrated with the culture war, the Talmudic rules and roles that are the heart of this movement. They are sick of pretense and they would like more relationship between believers which is hard to do with a guy far away on a stage who is too busy being a celebrity for real interaction.
I can sense you really do not like Bell and that is ok. And he probably will morph again but you cannot say the same has not happened in the Seeker or Reformed movements either (or other parts of Christendom). Jesus was not “damned” on the Cross. Nor is there such a thing as Christian Hedonism. The Body of Christ is not about human heirarchies but is relational based on spiritual maturity not a title. Nor is there a hierarchy in the Trinity as SBTS was trying so hard to sell a few years ago to support their ESS teaching. Or their attempt to integrate FIC in many departments at SBTS. Oh, there has been so much “morphing” it is not funny. Lots of Jesus + stuff.
In other words, there are problems everywhere in what passes for Christendom. More and more I am finding nones and others leaving evangelicalism altogether OR for “ancient” faiths such as Eastern Orthodox. they know something is very very wrong in evangelicalism here in the US. And there IS something very wrong. And these are serious sold out believers! The ones I trust and love. The real thing. They cannot stomach what they are witnessing and are concerned they are enabling abuse, evil, etc.
It is a business now and it is about building empires, making celebrities and following man.
So the more you guys trash Bell, the more who will listen to him. He is certainly more interesting than most of the guys who want so bad to have large followings and control people. Sometimes I think those in Western Christianity forget we live in a free country. So all they have is the ability to shout heretic and try to convince folks to sign a membership covenant after love bombing them.
The game has changed. It is more and more becoming about dialogue not being “indoctrinated” by some guy on a stage who tells you what to believe in order to be “in”.
There will always be people who follow men. But it will always be a cycle and they will have to continue to find new recruits to indoctrinate and manage.
The best we can do is clean up our own corner of the world and invite people to know the true Jesus Christ.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous, People really get hurt in YRR churches where the pastor is seminary educated. This happened recently to a young couple I know whose baby was born dead at 9 mos gestation. They were told by the pastors (it is always plural in those SBC funded churches even though the amount attending does not warrant that many pastors) it was God’s will. They told them some other things I won’t repeat because then they might know whom I am speaking of and those things set themselves up as little gods knowing why it happened and what they are to do. This was originally an Acts 29 SBC church plant which is now SBC and funded by NAMB since it cannot manage without help.
We could spend hours discussing why that thinking is so sicko but we would probably disagree.
People really have to check their brains at the door to attend most churches these days.
These are the “experts” you are talking about?
Anonymous, thanks for both of the comments above. Well said. @ Anon 1:
I agree with most everything you said except that I’m not so sure that universalism is wrong. I really hope that it is true. Now that would truly be good news!
I meant to say this to Anon 1. So confusing! @ Marge Sweigart:
Thanks, Anon 1. Lots of good comments.
Eagle – sorry to be so "jacked up!" I was just commenting on the need for education in the Evangelical community. That expresses itself in so many ways. But the comments are now veering into "this guy's not as bad as that guy because …"
Of course we are all fans or detractors of different people based on our own beliefs and experiences.
@ Bob M: I know you didn’t. Read you email and will get back to you shortly.
@ TW: I love so many of your comments and quotes. Thank you so much.
anonymous wrote:
Loved this comment. When we become hyper about super-exacting doctrine we are on edge because there is always someone who is going to correct you. We have the minute heresy brigade monitoring our brothers and sisters, calling them heretics if they do not say it precisely the way popular theologian du jour says it.
Bob M wrote:
I think you will be far more certain if you read a lot and keep you eye out for more revelations.
Anonymous wrote:
I am no fan of any of them. I thought your idea that education was the answer to ridding us of the Driscolls and Mahaney's was a bit of a stretch. There are many just like them coming out of seminaries. In fact many "educated" seminarians think both are wonderful and seek to emulate them. So Christian education did not help them at all. And it was a bit weird to add Bell in with Driscoll and Mahaney. It was mixing doctrinal concerns with the pure evil of porn divinations, sodomy, protecting child molesters, black mailing partners, firing elders, degradation of women, etc, etc. Why would Bell fit in with the above?
@ Eagle:
Yes, yes, yes: I am with you 100%. And might I add that Rob Bell has demonstrated far more grace than most high-profile preachers who adhere to the so-called “doctrines of GRACE.” I realize that is an off-handed and unsubstantiated comment, because I’m not offering any proof of such in this brief comment. But I will tell you that this has been my experience over the last 17 years as a believer, a former Calvinist at that.
Anon 1 wrote:
Well stated.
Bridget wrote:
Great suggestion. Who knows? One day….
Marge Sweigart wrote:
That happens to me on a weekly basis. We can form a club.
Just saw a tweet from Driscoll. At first I was thinking Driscoll was being a bit arrogant, but then I started thinking about the destruction of families by Patriarchal dads and think he may be right.
For good or for ill, in his presence or absence, dad is the most powerful spiritual influence in the home.
https://twitter.com/PastorMark/status/328579352050663425
As Driscoll tweets go it’s a mainly accurate generalization that parents influences our lives. It might be like someone like Bill Buckley saying that when rand’s ideas were good they were unoriginal and when they were original they were bad. 🙂
Wondering how many people took the bait on the dripping faucet/water torture stuff. Chris Rosebrough has proposed that the recent fracas smells kind of manufactured.
WTH, that is my view. Driscoll misses being in the spotlight.
Eagle wrote:
Just hope you didn’t cause any of your brothers to stumble, Eagle.
Want to add a few thoughts to this conversation:
Some of the greatest pastors I know personally lack a seminary degree…granted, they have taken their own self education seriously through studying, reading, praying, and most importantly… Allowing the Spirit to guide them..
I think for many pastors it is not an issue of education/or the lack thereof.. It is a lack of dependency on the Holy Spirit… This causes them to walk into dangerous territory..(as discussed on this blog)..
Sometimes I think it is rather tempting to place too much of a value on old/experienced/seminary educated pastor rather than placing a value on those who walk by/depend on the Holy Spirit..
I am not anti-seminary. I certainly think a pastor can have a seminary education AND depend on the Spirit…but lack of education, young, etc should not be a disqualifier IMO..
As far as Bell, I have read all of his books BUT Love Wins.. I have also listened to his podcasts a time or two.. I would like to catch up on his latest book soon, but IF Bell is drifting towards universalism this concerns me a bit..Could this teaching cause some people to lack a serious response to Christ through believing in Him?
This teaching may not seem as damaging as Driscoll’s visions and all the other stuff we have seen from some teachers, but I think it has the potential to damage, just in a different way… Of course, Bell spends more of his time asking questions in his books than answering them, so maybe Love Wins was blown WAY out of proportion… Haven’t read it, so can’t really say..
I had some time today so I listened to his interview on Unbelievable with Justin Brierly (whom I am starting to have a crush on) and Adrian Warnock. Bell was getting all deep in the Hebrew/Greek meanings for eternity, etc, when he was not answering a question with a question. (He has a very stilted demeanor)
Listen, his doctrine concerns me greatly. But even back when I was watching Nooma vids he was real into the whole rabbinical meanings and quite frankly it was a bit refreshing cos the Reformation guys seem to present a Christianity that started in the 1500’s.
But here is where I am coming from …many of these guys trot out Rob Bell as a heretic but Driscoll isn’t? Mahaney isn’t? No, in fact, they give them a huge pass and with Mahaney, they actually protect him. I mean, we could trot out some of their teaching and go to town on it. Teaching that calls evil good cos they say so.
It is the whole doctrine over people cult tactic that really bothers me.Piper basically alluded that Bell could not be saved with his “Farewell Rob Bell” statement. So Rob Bell cannot be saved but Mahaney is according to the Reformed brand?
I will say Bell has responded with stoic grace toward his detractors. Detractors that put those that protect child molesters and use the 1st Amendment to hide behind it and have porno divinations, on their stages.
BTW: Bell has a Bachelors from Wheaton and an M.Div from Fuller.
Eagle:
No problem. I wasn’t offended!
Sounds like you are having an awful time finding a place to fellowship.
Good luck.
BTW some other Wheaton alumni besides Rob Bell includes Bill Gothard, John Piper, Bart “Jesus Interrupted” Ehrman, Phillip Yancey, John Ortberg, A. W. Tozer and of course Billy Graham. This town is a crazy place to live.
Anon 1: Thanks. I am glad to know that Bell is educated. Seriously, I am glad to know that. He can now come off the list of weirdness that would have been helped by education. He can go ON the list of weirdness that comes from educated people.
@ Eagle:
I’ve read about how a single male called Driscoll up once, at 2 or 3 A.M., crying and saying he had just looked at a dirty movie.
Driscoll told him (paraphrasing), “looking at naked women is a great thing, go get a wife so you can look at her naked all day, and never call me again, I am not your accountability partner.”
I myself am an unmarried person, not easily susceptible to dirty sites/ dirty photos and what all (yes, I have a libido but am pretty good at self control), but then you think of Driscoll’s sermons, blog posts, and books that he tells his congregants to read/view/listen to, some of them contain very explicit descriptions of sexual acts, and so on.
What if you have some lady or guy in his church or audience (who watch his video sermons) who struggles with sexual sin? How can they sit through a Driscoll pod cast/ blog/ sermon and not fall into temptation with hearing all the detailed descriptions of sex acts/ sex positions?
Then you have guys like Ed Young Jr who goes on and on frequently from his church stage on Sunday mornings about how great sex is (married sex), while some in the pews are single.
Young Jr and his wife even got into a bed together on the roof of their church to kick off their week long, or two week long, “sexperiment” sermon series. It’s like going on and on about how great chocolate cake is in front of a group of Weight Watcher members.
Anon 1 wrote:
It is not funny. I undertand why. And Desiring God is controlled by the church he pastored for 33 years. He did not do much to build it at all. All he did was give them the rights to all of his writings and sermons and audio materials and signed over all of hsi royalties on all of his books to them so they could give materials away free to anyone who asks. And they have never changed that policy. When it was housed in the church foyer, the bookstore had a self pay box and a sign that said “if you take advantage of the pay as much as you can policy, please drop us a note telling us how much you took.
I meant “ironic” not funny. Stupid George!!!
Eagle wrote:
@Eagle,
Thank you for your reasoned and honest response, as far as I can tell. I am having a hard timme responding. Whenever I try and type a response, the box I am typing in scrolls back to the top of the quoted text so that the words I am typing disappear below the bottom of the box. So I have ot type either very slowly and methodically or copy and paste everything into and then out of a Word window. S, I am trying the first, and if I spell things wrong, forgive me. You said a couple things thaht bother me. Piper’s unqualified approval of Douglas Wilson? I do no know what he has said aout Wilson regarrding slavery, but Doug Wilson’s pamphlet on slavery is deeply disturbing to me. I have not read it, but have read excerpts. I will get it and read it and reply later. Please give me some time.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1. I understand your desire to remain anonymous, but for all I know you could be Greg Boyd trying to get me to say something in defense of Piper to make me look like a sheeple. I am not. I have two Master’s degrees in Theology from accredited universities. I am a health care serrvice professional, not a dr, but I serve Doctors and nurses. I say those things so that you will be aware that I know my bible and I am not looking for recognition or validation from association with him. I feel that my identity is as a Christian who is a health care field servant, helping serve God through my vocation and through my vocation. I have a very close friend who does know Piper personally, and I have spoken to John personally on at least 3 dozen occasions. Not as a friend, but as a church member, and that says a lot when you consider that there are 4500 weekly attenders at bethlehem, and 3332 members of the church. He of course resigned on March 31, so he is no longer pastor, but he always makes himself available to people in the pew for prayer and discussion after every public service, and as he has said hundreds of times, and I have seen him do dozens of times, “I will stay here as long as you may need at the ned of a service.” I have seen himm stand there and talk to people for over 2 hours while his wife and daughter walk home. He has never brushed anyone asside. There have been several street people who regularly wander into the church, and stood in line, or just walked past everyone to him, and he patiently talks to them and listens to them and prays with them. He gives his time t people , and yet he speaks publicly in many venues, having necessarily spent much time in preparation. If you have ever heard him, you wouuld know that he does not repeat sermons. I have never heard him repeat one, and I have looked at almost every printed resource and much of his audio stuff .
My general disagreement is with your statement that I must know the pastor personally in order to stay in the church. You may believe that the small church is the only way to carry out the Bible’s demands for minister to people, but I see a different model in Acts. The first church was so large that the apostles had to appoint people to ministet to widows. Acts 6. And yet they still stopped in their ministry work to speak to and minister to people, like the man in Acts 3 who had been lame and they healed. So, my conclusion is that they had a large congregation and also met in smaller grouups in homes as evidenced in Acts 12:12ff. again, please forgive me for spellingerrors as I do not have the time to copy and paste and spell check it all.
I’m wondering, was it orange, grape or cherry kool-aid that Clint Archer drank? Was it one huge glass that did it, or was it a series of small Dixie cups? Had he been developing a taste for the stuff for a long time, or had CJ served it once every hour over the 10 hours he met with him? And how many packets of kool-aid was he given to distribute? Because there’s no doubt his tweet reflects he was under the influence, and is now out there dealing, hoping people will buy his lines!
But we’re not buying it Clint Archer because we know it’s poison!
Bob M wrote:
“Out there” bloggers don’t make rules against use of commenter pseudonyms or question the integrity of a commenter’s words simply because pseudonyms are used. And this, even though theirs is a much bigger, wilder, and woollier world. When I recently started reading Christian-world bloggery, I was surprised and saddened by the amount of fear that christians feel. It’s hard not to become paranoid in such a context.
Re big churches/pastors: I think that one needs to differentiate between the pastorate and those who are on the national scene because of books or academics. The pastorate functions well only when it is as Anon 1 says–or else there are problems such as this post addresses (and that includes abuse inside the pastorate-bubble of which I was victim.)
Making a career of concentrating on over-arching Christian issues can be helpful and lovely, but those who do so have an extra need for fellowship inside a congregation, rather than taking additional leadership. Putting aside their need for spiritual nurture, the pride that too easily slips in, and a tendency among some to look for heroes, there’s the simple fact that no person can do both well. The jobs are simply too big. A person who thinks it possible might be showing us that pride has already slipped them up.
By the way, I wish you well in your conversation with Piper. It is honorable to ask him directly. I hope you’ll be able to hear the truth of the matter, whether from his words or between the lines. I don’t feel very confident that much will be clarified, but I wish it so for you.
Patrice wrote:
Question. Do you think that it will not be clarified because of my spinelessness in asking hard questions, or because he will waffle on revealing his heart?
“Anon 1. I understand your desire to remain anonymous, but for all I know you could be Greg Boyd trying to get me to say something in defense of Piper to make me look like a sheeple.”
What? Poor Greg Boyd. I often wonder if burning were legal he would already be burned by the Reformed guys. Well, calling him a heretic enough only made me curious so I started listening to him. Yes, he is an open theist. But it is refreshing to hear someone preach that believers are actually responsible for their sin and it is not God making them sin or excusing it.
The funny thing is that after listening to him for quite a while I kept waiting for him to trash the folks who ruined him at Bethel. He disagrees, obviously, but is much more irenic than the Pipers of this world in disagreement. Now, if you can send me a link to Boyd trashing Piper, I would appreciate it.
I have no shied away from admitting that I find the determinist Augustinian/Calvin God totally wrong and impugning God’s character. So I find it very interesting when the Reformed movement is running around calling people heretics because they don’t agree with that interpretive filter or that a Sovereign God can create beings who have the ability to say no to Him.
I think you paint Boyd unfairly unless you can give me something to show he trashes Piper.
Bob, We have different paradigms when it comes to the Body of Christ. I believe it is relational not hierarchical. Standing in line to talk to the guy on stage you listen to week after week is, to me, quite telling.I realize it is the norm for many. It used to be for me, too.
I say this as one who came from the mega industrial complex. And we used to always sell the “Acts shows the Jerusalem church was mega church story”. Too bad we did not do our homework first. Truth is much more complicated. Since the crucifiction happened on a major Jewish holiday, Jerusalem was packed with diaspora Jews. They would pitch tents anywhere they could and were even outside the city gates. They would travel and stay for several months.
This is how awesome our God is that these diaspora Jews would travel back to their homes and tell of what they saw in Jerusalem.
“Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
Where did these particular Jews come from? They were diaspora Jews come for passover.
So to claim the Jerusalem Body of Christ after Pentecost remained in number from that period of time is to not understand the historical context, which is typical with Reformed thinking. Where do you think those Hellenistic widows came from? Jerusalem?
Yes, it was a large Body by standards of other areas but to claim it remained a “mega church” is to ignore the historical context and what happened not long after, too. But it is amusing to hear a Reformed church use the same Acts/mega church teaching as the seeker mega’s did.
@ Bob M:
Huh?? Strange response to her wishing you well.
@ Bob M:
Hey, Bob. I have no idea what kind of person you are or what gifts you have, right? I only know that you came onto a critical blog, openly reading while presenting it as you see it. I respect that. I have no idea whether you are good at getting to fundamentals in debate.
I don’t know Piper, either. In fact, the only way I know him is through some of what he’s written and by the friends he keeps, and towards those I am critical. His thought is sloppy and his doctrine is authoritarian. He keeps friends that I don’t respect.
It is very difficult for someone who believes in hierarchy to give up a position of authority. It is only slightly less difficult for that person to admit self-error. I met only a few who have taken authority without eventually slipping into arrogance, and through that arrogance, hurting many. This is one reason why I believe a hierarchical view of the world is flawed from the bottom up (or in this case, from the top down 🙂 ). So while I hope that Piper will take the occasion to do a thorough review of his ideas, I feel no confidence.
When you wrote that he gives much away and lives simply in a low-rent neighborhood, I was glad. I begin to suspect he must have some deep conflicts. I respect a conflicted person more than someone who thinks he knows it all. For that reason, I also want to have hope.
One of the weird things in this world is that someone who does wrong can also do good. That was a lesson I learned when I attended my abusing pastor-father’s funeral. But wrong needs to be called out where ever it shows itself. Piper is not the only one who can do the good that he does. God manages all Goodness and He/She is not interested in mixing it up with evil.
Patrice wrote:
I don’t know if Piper’s ever said why he does this. I have wondered if maybe his reason for this goes back to his friendship with Ralph D. Winter who was big on living with a “wartime lifestyle” of simplicity for the sake of funding the Great Commission.
Eagle,
As far as Mark Batterson goes, you might be interested in looking up his Circle Maker book, I don’t think the prosperity edge he is teetering on is so subtle. I think he is playing with an occult concept.
@ Bob:
Good luck on your talk with Piper and I hope your questions are cleared up. Also glad to hear from someone in his church that Piper lives more like an “average guy,” which I had heard before elsewhere.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
IS MARK DRISCOLL MANUFACTURING CONTROVERSY?
.
Bridget wrote:
I admitted my spinelessness and asked a question.
anonymous wrote:
Yes, he has, many times. Listen to the message “Doing Missions when dying is gain.” He does it because he believes that people in the neighborhood will give mmore credibility to the pastor who lives and stays in the neighborhood, and doesn’t drive in from the suburbs.
Eagle wrote:
Amen and amen. I think a lot of these guys should read the Gospels — and only the Gospels — for a year.
@ Eagle:
Eagle, I attend IBC, and I’d appreciate it if you could refrain from comparing our leadership to the Klan. Believe me, I have my issues with some of the people there, and I’m really not happy with much of what Jesse Johnson has said about SGM and CJ, but there are some very good and decent leaders on that staff, and a KKK comparison is completely unfair. Thanks.
@ Eagle:
Excerpt from the article:
“For some reason the legal principal “innocent until proven guilty” has been adopted as a default moral standpoint, which unfortunately can be very problematic in cases that involve rape and sexual assault. In such cases, where survivors have taken steps to break the silence and confront the perpetrators, the presumption of innocence on the part of the alleged perpetrators means that the alleged victims are presumed “lying until proven innocent”. This seems more like a pre-judgment than viewing the situation from a neutral stance and raises questions regarding the ways leaders in Christian communities are respected and trusted by mere virtue of their being in positions of authority.”
Excellent point!
@ rubytuesday:
This is an excellent point, and I don’t think there are simplistic solutions to it. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” was not designed to demonise victims of sexual abuse but to protect individuals from all walks of life from predatory allegations or malicious prosecution – but also, from well-intentioned but misplaced allegations.
When dealing with such an emotionally-charged subject as child sexual abuse, we must be extremely careful to avoid black-and-white or emotive attribution of meaning. The presumption of innocence is a legal term and does not, in its proper context, mean that we presume the accuser is lying: it means that the accused cannot be punished for a crime until it is proven they have committed it. After all, bringing a false accusation is itself a crime, of which the plaintiff is also presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Into the soup of complications, next, comes the fact that “presumption of innocence” can be used outside of its proper context, and that’s where the problems begin. In an ecclesiastical culture that reveres the pulpit and those who occupy it, and that espouses the clergy/laity divide (in whatever language), then those bringing charges of sexual abuse typically do get presumed guilty, as we have seen. They may be dismissed as “wounded people” whose statements are not to be taken seriously, or even admitted as evidence in internal church “disciplinary process”. My wife and I came up against this one when expelled, in our absence, from a previous “church” on the grounds that we were “divisive”; our accuser was the senior leader and, with honourable exceptions, church members attributed vastly more weight to his words than to ours. Indeed, any attempt we made to refute the accusation was merely taken as evidence that we were indeed divisive. A bit like denying charges before the Inquisition was proverbially said to condemn you because it was tantamount to denying the infallible authority of the church.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I believe this will always be the case when someone attempts to call out abusive leaders – the congregants who dare to question authority are labeled as "divisive". Is it any wonder that Christians are fleeing the organized church? I always appreciate your insightful comments!
I met with Piper. I asked him abuot Driscoll and Mahaney. He said that he believes that the church needs the Doctrines of Calvinism, and so that if a man holds to those views he gives him a lot of slack in other areas. That was not the purpose of the meeting, so that portion was right at the end of our time, and he said that he doesn’t listen to criticisms on the internet much, since he doesn’t have time to go out there.
@ Bob M:
Thank you for your integrity, and for this update. I respect how direct John Piper was with you. As a Calvinist myself, I could not disagree with his perspective more strongly. If I am understanding what he meant to convey correctly, it is, indeed, a terrible and dangerous perspective. It violates the Scriptural (not to mention Calvin’s own) principles of maintaining impartiality when judging others (no free passes for one’s own tribe members), and judging the integrity of other ministers not just on the basis of the words they use, but their character and ethic and the presence of LOVE in the whole of their lives. Getting the words right does not a godly minister make.
Bob M wrote:
So in other words: If your doctrinal beliefs are the same as mine, you get a free pass to avoid the civil responsibility of reporting sex crimes. That just isn’t important enough for me.
Gag me.
Well said. pcapastor, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Bob M wrote:
The same internet he has used quite well to build his Desiring God brand and distribute his expensively produced video from Geneva announcing he is going to be the jet setting 21st Century John Calvin global apostle.
Yes, it is all about spreading Calvinism. Too bad that is not the same as Jesus Christ.
Bob M, I have no doubt that these guys get a pass from him. If you read the Petry’s docs from Joyful Exiles, you will see they contacted Piper…after all…he was mentoring Driscoll and even had a promo video saying he “loved Mark Driscoll’s theology”.
And we understand that he thinks the Doctrines of Grace (Cavlinism) are much more important than molested children. We do get it. Have for years.
@ Deb:
“Fleeing the organized church” is an interesting choice of words, and in many cases you may be right. It may well be that, in some settings, followers of Jesus are realising that local para-church organisations calling themselves “churches” are simply not healthy places to gather. Bob M’s comment above, if indeed a fair reflection of John Piper’s approach, would support the idea. It would explain why so many prominent evangelical leaders are so tolerant of peers who boast about the bodies crushed under the wheels of their organisations – particular doctrines really do matter more to them than people, and theory matters more than love.
There’s a truly marvelous, life-altering and world-changing article here (well, OK, it’s mine – end of ironic humour…) dealing with the divisive nature of leaders who build followers into themselves.
Here in the UK, the older denominations very rarely produce controlling and aggressive local leaderships, so people tend not to have to flee from them in the same sense. In fact, they deserve some credit for the way they quietly got on with their jobs during the explosive growth of the house-church movement in the 1970’s, and are still doing so now that the latter has peaked if not declined.
Hmm… I seem to’ve been moderated. Firefox seems to have inserted an “http” in my website address – wonder if that registered with The System as a dissimilarity?
Time will tell, as I’m still studying and praying.
Anon 1 wrote:
Amen. Jesus is an embarrassment to them. All that grace stuff…offered before people actually repented. Clearly Jesus needs to be mentored a bit.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In all seriousness, I agree! That very article has been open on my tablet most of last week, as I reread it and thought of those to whom I might recommend it. So I recommend reading to any Wartburgians who’ve not yet done so.
@ pcapastor:
This sums up perfectly why so many have been spiritually damaged by the leaders in these reformed/Calvinistic churches.
pcapastor wrote:
I don’t think he gives free passes.
Anon 1 wrote:
I don't think you are representing him correctly.
Anon 1 wrote:
this is a misrepresentation of john Piper. I have sat in his church for many years, and he preaches Jesus Christ as the center of life and eternity. He does not hold to some brand of Calvinism that leaves out Jesus Christ.
@ Bob M: I am confused. I did like (and teach) Piper’s Desiring God many years ago. I respect that he lives a modest life as well and have never thought of him as being in this to make money. He is a true believer in his doctrines and perspectives and I do not believe he compromises those.
So, I have some serious problems with CJ Mahaney, Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll-all of whom he has heartily endorsed and all of whom I believe are deeply problematic. If these guys are held up as the “role models” of awesome theology, then, out of respect to Piper and his consistent theology, I have to ask “What’s up with that?”
dee wrote:
I do not know. You will have to ask him. Email him at john.piper@desiringgod.org.
Bob M wrote:
I understand you don't think that as do many young men which is why he gets by with it. He is responsible for those whom he promotes and protects. For him to say they get a pass because they adhere to the Doctrines of Grace is to promote an ST over the very basics of what Christ taught should be the RESULT of what we believe…and is truth. I realize that many think their brand of ST is more important than actual people. I get that.
Bob M wrote:
Not trying to argue over words, so I withdraw the overstatement about Piper giving “free passes,” and just let his own statement (as reported by you) that he “gives (fellow Calvinists) a lot of slack in other areas” speak for itself.
If he was explaining, with REGRET, that this is what he knows that he does (we are all weak and frail and subjective and biased, etc. etc.), then I commend him. But if he was giving this as a JUSTIFIABLE EXPLANATION for his loud and constant and public support of men like Wilson and Mahaney….that dog don’t hunt.
“he was explaining, with REGRET, that this is what he knows that he does (we are all weak and frail and subjective and biased, etc. etc.), then I commend him”
I do not understand that view. He has had them to speak at DG conferences and promoted them even when he knew the problems and their positions. So we have to assume by ACTIONS that adhering to Calvinism is more important to him.
@ Bob M:
A lot of Calvinists would say that they believe in and teach Jesus, but from what I have seen of many of them online (not all, but quite a few), is that they place so much emphasis on John Calvin, or on Calvin’s theology, that they do seem more interested in upholding that particular brand of theology than they do in the Gospel, while I’ve seen some equate Calvinism to the Gospel.
There is even a site called http://www.calvinismisthegospel.com/ There’s even a Facebook group by that name.
Many of them are more focused on God’s sovereignty than on anything else, as though it’s His only or most important attribute.
And it’s not only the “cage stage” Calvinists, either, but some who have been Calvinists for years who hold these types of attitudes.
@ Anon 1:
Agreed. Just trying to give him a lifeline if he wants to take it.
Bob M wrote:
As if you would ever get a response from Piper himself.
@ Dave A A:
Very gracious of you, Dave – what I actually deserved was some reciprocal ironic humour!
“Some life highlights so far: wedding day, birth of my kids, 1st published book, & the day I spent 10 hours with @CJMahaney #Rezolution2013” Tweet by Clint Archer
Ten hours with CJ Mahaney rates alongside his wedding day and the birth of his kids as one of the highlights of Clint Archer’s life? I feel sorry for his family and the church he pastors because he has shown where his priorities lie – he openly indulges himself in his gushing adoration of CJ Mahaney but is unable to empathize with the plaintiffs in the SGM lawsuit. If it were his own children who alleged they were the victims of such crimes, would he have sung a different tune?
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/05/14/sovereign-grace-ministries-2nd-amended-lawsuit-a-house-of-horrors-graphic/#comment-97769
Hello, all,
I have been reading posts on your site for close to a year, but I’ve been hesitant to comment thus far, as this is a Protestant site, theologically and ecclesiastically, and I am a Catholic “revert” who spent years in Protestantism, heavily committed to the “5 Sola’s of the Reformation,” and convinced that the Catholic Church does not have the “true Gospel” and that Catholics are pitifully trying to “earn their salvation before God. Whew, that was a long sentence! 🙂
I have some deep history with 9 Marks-affilated churches, but I have been hesitant to comment here, knowing that more than a few people might well see me (as a Catholic and former Protestant) as an apostate non-Christian in need of hearing about “faith alone through Christ alone.” Believe me, I know Reformed teaching well. I agree with “Christ alone,” and even “faith alone,” in a careful sense, but I
digress!
Anyway, I used to attend one of the most well-known “9 Marks” churches. Every year, we would send many people to the T4G conference. Our senior pastor (or “main preaching elder”) gave talks at the conference (and still does).
I simply want to say that there is a *huge* disparity between what is *officially taught* about church discipline, and what is *practiced and lived out* in at least some “9 Marks churches.” Our main preaching elder taught us that if a brother or sister appears to be in serious sin, or to have even “abandoned the (faith alone) Gospel,” we should still reach out to him/her. We should not act as if everything is fine, or even that we are still brothers and sisters in Christ, if there is apostasy (I no longer believe Catholicism to *be* apostasy, of course, or I wouldn’t be Catholic!), but we should still at least *talk with* that person. We should not shun him/her. That is what I was taught, as a member of a very well-known “9 Marks” church.
At least in my experience, the leaders and members of that church have not lived out what is taught from the pulpit. At the time that I returned to the Catholic Church, I had moved to another state and become a member of a different, less well-known 9 Marks-affiliated church. *This* church and its leaders did practice a more *Biblical* form of “church discipline with me. I was not shunned. I was warned of my “apostasy” and exhorted to “return to a Biblical church.” I disagreed with that assessment of Catholic theology, and my actions relating to it, but I got what was meant with the exhortations. I was “only” unfriended by a few of the church members on Facebook, hehe! By and large, again, though, I was not shunned.
That was better than how I was treated by most of the members of the church in the previous state– the more “high-profile 9 Marks Church.” The senior pastor/main preaching elder never, ever contacted me at any point before my Catholic “reversion,” even though he had heard, through the grapevine, somehow, that I was pondering it. He never contacted me at all. However, he did unfriend me on Facebook without a word. This man has written a good bit of the material for 9 Marks. He writes that we are to exhort and plead with fellow Christians who “abandon the Gospel”– such as me, supposedly, as a Catholic–, but he never even attempted to do so with me. I know, from what he writes and teaches, that he believes that this was more the responsibility of the church that I actually left at that time– but still, as my former pastor, just an unfriending on FB, without a word? Seriously? When you are a well-respected, widely read, Reformed pastor? Some members of his congregation also unfriended me without a word. Most of the ones who continue to be my “friends” on FB have not called me, written to me privately, or commented on anything that I have posted on FB in *years*. Is this “church discipline”? I don’t think so. It is definitely not Christian love… but they are obeying the *actions* of their “main preaching elder,” although not his words, in print or in the pulpit.
To be clear, I have forgiven all of these people, including those who have unfriended me. I love them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, even as many of them are not able to reciprocate and see me as a brother. I am still deeply grateful to that main preaching elder, for all of the good Biblical teaching that I did hear from him as a member of his congregation. I have to say, though, that in my time as a Catholic, I have actually encountered much less legalism in the Catholic Church, in the official theology, and in how I have been treated by (most) other Catholics….
Christopher
You do not need to worry here. I have no doubt that Catholics are Christians which puts me in someones heretic corner.
I just returned from a conference in which Luis Palau spoke. He said that the new Pope is a deeply committed Christian and he admonished everyone who might say otherwise. The Pope had Luis lay hands on him and pray for him when he became archbishop. So, you have a friend in Deb and me.
In fact, Deb can share in your story. She, too, was unfriended by her pastor’s wife.
I am sorry for your experience with your former church and rejoice that you have found a home in the Catholic church. The way things are going in the post evangelical world, I anticipate that you may find more disaffected 9 Marks folks hanging around the confessionals for the foreseeable future.
Thank you and God bless you, Dee. I am not ashamed (and am very happy) to say that your gracious reply has brought me to tears of joy. Thanks be to God for our fellowship in Christ!
Christopher,
My BFF and her husband are Catholic and lovely people who live out the Kingdom now. I have never understood the whole shun/unfriend thing over points of doctrine (or calling out evil in the church). it is not like you became a Buddhist and renounced Christ. But that is how they seem to view it. It has all become so narrow and intolerant. But the 9 Marks guys have the keys to the kingdom, you know.
This authoritarian focus on discipleship coming out of 9 Marks is going to produce a lot of fall out eventually. My concern is for young folks who will leave the faith because they are in a venue that says, if you are not one of US, you are not of Christ.
I have more and more friends who are leaving what they call the Evangelical circus and going Eastern Orthodox or Catholic where it is not “program of the week” or “guru of the month”. But they tend to be middle aged. I do worry for the youngens and pray a lot for them who are caught up in the circus.
dee wrote:
I am very sorry to hear that. It is not a brave world anymore, is it?
Anon 1,
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you– the “shunning/unfriending” behavior of at least *certain respected people* in the “9 Marks of a Healthy Church” movement is very strange (especially when that behavior doesn’t even cohere with what is actually taught about church discipline in the 9 Marks books and articles!).
On the “renouncing Christ” issue, I also agree with you. I still trust in Him, and Him *alone* as a Catholic. The Pope doesn’t save me. Mary doesn’t save me. (I love her and honor her, as the mother of my Savior, but she doesn’t save me!) Christ saves me. My trust is in Him.
However, to many of the people in my former churches, embracing an articulation of justification that is the *least bit different* than the literal, verbal articulation of “faith alone” simply *means* renouncing Christ Himself. I know where my (former?) friends are coming from– I used to believe exactly what they still do. I thought that Catholics were/are trying to “save themselves by their works.” I see it very differently now, but when one is in a strongly anti-Catholic environment, it can be hard to think outside of that paradigm.
To any “9 Marks” people who are reading here, you may not agree with me, but I trust in Christ alone. I trust His work upon the cross for me. I simply also see that work as being *ongoingly applied* to me through my faith in Him *and* through the Sacraments of the Church. If I refuse to avail myself of those Sacraments, it is not a failure of Christ to save me in any way. It is my failure to accept His work and the benefits of it. His work is sufficient. I know that these Reformation debates are 500 years old, and they won’t be resolved in a comment box. I just wish that more of the “Truly Reformed” would at least *consider* that perhaps what they have been taught about Catholicism by their pastors *might* be incomplete (and/or, perhaps, unfairly presented in some way).
One last thought. For my brothers and sisters in Christ who love the verbal articulation of “faith alone” so much that, in your understanding, Catholics *must* be trusting in their own works, and not Christ, I ask you to ask yourselves, “Am I unconsciously trusting in my faith in, or my ability to understand and espouse, the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone to save me?” Whether we are Catholic or Protestant, it is Christ and His work and God’s grace which saves us, not our trust in a verbal articulation of how that saving “works” (no pun intended!).
Christopher, I read a lot of YRR pastor blogs to get a feel for what they teach/beleive. One of the debates that surprised me the most is they try a make a case from proof texting that God has to give you faith in order for you to believe. Man has absolutely no part in the matter. It is a sort of forcing you to believe and be saved.
It would also mean that we cannot do anything good in sanctification with the indwelling Holy Spirit without it being forced. There is no synergism. Only God controlling every molecule.
Not long ago, I heard a testimony by a man who grew up in a horrible dysfunctional abusive home with no thought of Christ. He was sent to Catholic school where his only peace was found in a statue of Mary lovingly holding her son. The SON. At age 6 or so, he saw in her a loving mother that he longed for. He prayed to her all the time. He went through many different experiences but eventually wound up as Greg Boyd, pastor of Woodland Hills. (I don’t agree with everything he teaches but he certainly understands sin, evil and God’s great love)
God meets us where we are and uses the strangest things to draw us to Him. Ask Dee. For her, it was a Star Trek episode.
Blessings to you!
Anon 1,
On the issue of God “giving us faith,” or what may seem like “forcing us to believe and be saved,” I feel that I should say, that is not how the Reformed see it. No Reformed person whom I have met or conversed with would say that God forces us to be saved in any way. They do believe that God has to give us faith in order for us to believe, and actually, the Catholic Church agrees that this is what Scripture teaches! In and of ourselves, given that we are sinners, we will never have faith in God unless He gives it to us.
However, we must also *accept* that faith and remain in it. Both of those necessities, too, are by God’s grace (just as is His initial gift of faith!), but His grace does not destroy our ability to reject it.
Calvinists believe Scripture teaches that fallen, sinful, non-Christian humans are *so* fallen that unless God transforms our hearts, through regeneration, we *cannot and will not* come to Him and trust in Him. Therefore, when He does choose to save some, it is not so much, from the Calvinist POV, that he is “forcing them to believe” as that He is giving them a gift which they would not, and cannot, accept otherwise. Again, this is not actually *too different* from what the Catholic Church teaches from Scripture. There are some differences but not many. (The T4G people should check out the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas!)
However, the Catholic Church also teaches (we believe, from Scripture) that even *after* God transforms our hearts and minds, we still retain the ability to choose for or against Him *in terms of decisively rejecting Him eternally*. In other words, Catholics believe that even a true Christian can turn away from God and lose his/her salvation. Calvinists do believe that after regeneration, Christians can choose for or against God, in terms of *individual sins*, but *not* in the sense of rejecting Him forever. More precisely, Calvinists believe that a true, regenerated Christian *would never* reject God eternally, because God has transformed him/her so deeply that he/she would never *want* to reject God forever.
Catholics firmly believe that Scripture teaches otherwise. I understand, of course, that this is unthinkable to many Protestants, from their interpretation of Scripture. However, there are some Protestants who have a similar view, such as Methodists, Nazarenes, and some Pentecostals. I have to wonder– if the “truly Reformed* still accept those people as brothers and sisters in Christ, why not Catholics…?
That is a very interesting story about Greg Boyd! I’m definitely not an “open theist,” as he is, but it’s an interesting story!
Blessing to you too!