The studio have always claimed that the ship is the star of the show, especially when they're renegotiating contracts.-Patrick Stewart link
Once again, the premise of my post is this. I do not like the word "covenant" because it ill does not define the underlying purpose of this device. The word evokes a promise between a loving God and His people. In fact, these documents are, at the core, legal, societal based contracts and I believe that I proved that point in my last post.Therefore, in order to truly discuss this matter, we should call them contracts which is what they are called in our society.
The problem with these contracts is that they are devised by sinful people which can, and have, lead to sinful results. Since these contracts are developed by the leadership of the church, and leaders are as sinful as those in the congregation, one can assume that such contracts will be biased in favor of the leadership. They will be developed to protect the leadership and the legally recognized church entity from lawsuits.
Such ill-defined contracts do lead to abuse by arrogant pastors and leadership. One only need to look at the firings of Paul Petry and Bent Meyer by Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill to understand that these abuses are rampant.
I dislike the following assertion which I hear on a regular basis. "My church practices church discipline." It is amusing to challenge that statement. Ask them what they mean. Push them on what sins need to be punished and how they would propose to punish such sins. The vast majority of people will not be able to give a coherent reply. They merrily sign the proffered contracts, never fully realizing that they are taking on a legal obligation.
What happens if your church decides to formulate and implement a church contract?
Atty Sande gives some advice at the blog, Life Together in a post (Atty) Ken Sande on Covenant Membership. Interestingly, he advises such a church to teach to Deuteronomy and the Law in the Old Testament.
Retrofitting requires a process that may take one to three years of educating the church to think more biblically about membership. I recommend preaching from Deuteronomy where there is a restatement of the Law.
He recommends that the following statement be proffered to the congregation. Please note, once again, the concern seems to be centered in the potential for lawsuits.
"Times have changed from years ago when you could have a loose relationship with the church. Our society and our laws have changed. It's time for us to renew and tighten up the covenant."
Note how the membership is advised of the new procedures, contract, etc. It does not say there is an opportunity to change it. There is only an opportunity for dialog. In other words, this thing is going to happen. I have seen this process happen in a number of churches. The vote is a mere formality.
Our people were very responsive to that because we took the time to educate them. We held a congregational meeting where revised bylaws and policies were presented, along with new procedures for accountability and conflict resolution. We met in small groups to talk personally, and over several months there was a lot of dialog. That culminated in a church meeting where the new policies and bylaws were accepted. At that time we handed out a new membership covenant to be signed.
Can you be obligated to a church if you do not sign a contract?
The answer might surprise you. Many churches are trying to make you subject to church discipline for merely attending a church! You will see the following sort of thing showing up in all sort of covenants these days. However, I bet that it would be very difficult to enforce this caveat in court.
The last thing we did, to make sure we had informed consent, was send out a letter to everyone who did not sign the covenant. It said, even though we have not received a written covenant from you, we will interpret your continued attendance at our church, beyond a specified date, as your affirmation and consent to these policies. We didn't have a single family leave the church.
So, what can be done in order to make church contracts equitable for all those involved?
Remember, you are signing a document that is in effect even if your church undergoes a change in leadership. So, the nice pastor and kind leadership, that is now in place, could change. Or your pastor goes off to a conference, falls in love with Mark Driscoll's Jesus with tattoos, and suddenly decides it is time to "tighten things up."
Atty Sande has developed a model "relational commitments" which he believe should be presented to all prospective members. I will discuss that in detail next week. It is fraught with concerns but I will give him props for prospectively outlining his church belief system. Today, I want to look at an attempt to answer this question by Jonathan Leeman of 9 Marks. In A Church Discipline Primer at the 9 Marks website. I will give him props for trying to address this issue but, once again, find the disciplinary parameters "fuzzy."
His first description is informal discipline between two individuals. He tries to put limits on such confrontation but he is unsuccessful. Note how he says "any sin" is subject for rebuke. The limit is fuzzy "Don't rebuke every single sin."
When should a church practice discipline? The short answer is, when someone sins. But the answer might differ depending on whether we’re talking about informal or formal church discipline, to use Jay Adams distinction between private confrontations and public church-wide confrontations.
Any sin, whether of a serious or non-serious nature, might elicit a private rebuke between two brothers or sisters in the faith. That’s not to say we should rebuke every single sin that a fellow church member commits. It’s simply to say that every sin, no matter how small, falls into the realm of what two Christians may lovingly raise with one another in a private setting, prudence depending.
There is a group of churches with which 9 Marks is friendly and supportive. SGM Survivors has done a good job documenting what said churches call "the observation." This is a euphemism for one person telling another person that they are sinning.Here are a few of the alleged "personal" sins that were confronted.
- An unbuttoned top button on a blouse.
- A kitchen counter that had "clutter" on it
- Sinfully craving answers to questions
- Not being a joy to the pastors
Leeman then attempts to flesh out what sort of sin would be eligible for the big Kahuna: church wide discipline
The sin should be outward.
A sin must have an outward manifestation. It must be something that can be seen with the eyes or heard with the ears. Churches should not quickly throw the red flag of ejection every time they suspect greed or pride in someone’s heart.
The sin must be serious.
… pursuing every tiny sin a church’s life will probably induce paranoia and propel the congregation toward legalism. Third, there clearly needs to be a place for love to “cover a multitude of sins” in a congregation’s life
The person must be unrepentant.
…formal church discipline is the appropriate course of action when sin is unrepentant. The person involved in serious sin has been privately confronted with God’s commands in Scripture, but he or she refuses to let go of the sin
Leeman also discusses when to move slowly on church discipline and when to speed it up.
What needs to be done?
He gives one example of serious sin which involves an unrepentant member admitting to, and involved in, sexual sin. But he does not go far enough. Take the following example. Perhaps Leeman is acquainted with such a circumstance.
A committed Christian in a 9 Marks church disagrees with the support 9 Marks gives to a pastor outside of 9 Marks. The person explains his concern, the church refuses to consider his concerns, so he resigns from the church as a conscientious objector. The church refuses to let him resign until he "joins another church" which is not written in their contract. Said member is now held hostage.
Once again, the lines drawn by this attempt at clarification continue to lead to fuzzy parameters which can be, and will be, exploited by arrogant leaders.
Towards a Concrete Definition of Rules
I propose that churches define, in detail, the types of behaviors that can lead to church discipline. In other words, if they want a legal contract, then define the behavior that warrants church discipline, church dismissal, and all church shunning, etc. Yes, there will be exceptions. Yes, this will be difficult and cumbersome. However, clearly defined parameters will help a prospective member to decide if they truly want to join such a church.
For example, several readers know people who have been thrown out of churches for divisiveness. What constitutes divisiveness? Is the "divisiveness" sin ever used by leaders who are threatened by incisive questions on the part of members?
However, I must admit to my cynicism. I do not believe that many churches and leaders will accept such a plan. There is too much to be power to be preserved by keeping the rules fuzzy. Until things change, I will be loathe to sign such a contract.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 24:1-25:28 Romans 12:1-21 Psalm 22:19-31 Proverbs 20:8-10
Employers have Employee handbooks that spell out the rules, so I guess it shouldn’t be too hard for churches to come up with a handbook of rules.
But, we know, there are really only certain sins that churches care about. They don’t really care that I’m 20 pounds overweight, had 2 beers last night, or yelled at my kids this afternoon.
What they are REALLY worried about are:
1. Sexual sin
2. Disagreement with the church leadership
3. Absolute submission
It should be a short handbook of rules.
“The church should be less like a cruise ship and more like a battleship, says Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries.” Do they even hear themselves? Hilarious!
Was it Peacemakers who was hired to make hash of resolving internal SGM problems?
@ Patrice:
Ha! Peacemakers wouldn’t take it on! And that after all the teaching and book selling into the SGM machine. Pretty sad in my opinion.
“… pursuing every tiny sin a church’s life will probably induce paranoia and propel the congregation toward legalism.”
Hmm…how is requiring people to sign a legal document anything but legalism?
You know what is missing from Leeman’s article – a statement that discipline must be consistently applied. In other words, pastors and elders (and their friends and families) must not be given special treatment. The Bible actually says that higher standards are expected of leaders. Also, in patriarchal (ie complementarian) churches, men are often treated more leniently than women.
so, what kind of expertise & professional training does Jonathon Leeman have to be able to authoritatively say what should and should not be done on this subject?
Jonathon Leeman, by chance are you here?
Romans 12:5
so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Ephesians 4:25
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.
Jesus as purchased and made every element of membership in the body of Christ that He intends to be in place. Our attempts to add or supplement or “make real” or formalize are pure “traditions of men that nullify the commands of God”. We are members of a spiritual body, not members of a human institution. Institutional membership is highly contrived. It adds nothing but a basis for human driven power plays which Christ condemned. It is all driven by a complete non-understanding of believers being members of an actual singular organism. Any attempts to appeal to the “local church” concept are merely perpetrating mens traditions.
The membership that Christ has made us into is far more powerful, intimate, reproductive, etc, than anything man can devise. Functioning as “members of one another” rules out pulpits and pews because no one another life happens in that setup. Only mutual, two-way, brotherly elements flow from “members of one another”.
it all reminds me of when I visit England with my husband. So many things you are not allowed to do. (I hope I haven’t offended the TWW community in the UK)
Cluttered kitchen benchtops are a sin? Oh the depths of my depravity!!!
And I thought that “craving” (what a bizarre word choice!) answers to questions was the spiritual gift of discernment, but obviously that’s far too rare and precious a gift for non-leaders to ever have it
Seriously, in what universe are these things sinful? But then, there’s no quicker route to getting people under your control than hitting them with guilt trips. I haven’t heard of these kind of covenants over here, but I would consider such a thing a very good reason to quit the place and run for the hills. I am an adult, I do not handover the control of my life to anyone less than God
Sande offers a fine example of why tighter contracts are needed. He says: an attending non-member was scamming members of millions but if church leaders “said something publicly and warned the congregation about his actions, they risked a lawsuit for slander and defamation of character.” Then “the church leaders finally asked the man to leave, but said nothing to the congregation. As a result he continued to scam people in the church for another year.”
I know, right? Because obviously there was no creative way to notify their best friends that they were being defrauded. For years. I too would have been helplessly paralyzed by the situation, and wouldn’t have said a thing. Lol
Forget about more comprehensive contracts—what they need are creativity classes! I’d be delighted to set up a curriculum for them. Throw in a class on the “Ethics of Social Relations”, “How To Win Friends and Keep Them” and cap it with a senior level course on the “Ways and Means of Courage”. Much more fun, twice as effective, and they can get a certificate to hang on their wall!! Eeeehawww
Also, why would a church base itself on Deuteronomy rather than the New Testament?
Patrice wrote:
Ever heard of the phrase “Admirals in Rowboats”?
Rob wrote:
Make that “1. Sexual sin (for lowborn Laity ONLY)”
Rob wrote:
And not necessarily in that order.
Lynne T wrote:
Now there’s a double standard: I doubt they’d give me, a single guy, much trouble over my messy kitchen. Of course, they’d be more likely to discipline me for the sin of selfishly depriving a young lady of a husband. What can I say, though? I have to keep my kitchen at least a bit messy to maintain the illusion of straightness (my design sensibilities already put me under suspicion, ha!). 😉
elastigirl wrote:
Of course not, but as a brief tangent out of curiosity, what are these ‘non-allowable things’ that stood out to you? Do you mean, for example, the ban on gun ownership?
@ Rob:
And even employers can be selective and imaginative on how they enforce the handbook. I had that happen to me. I reported something, in confidence, to a manager. To my knowledge, I phrased it as another coworker needed talked to and even found excuses for their behavior. What happened? Said coworker confronted me, yelled at me viciously,and I ended up with a severe panic attack. I reported the incident to the supervisor. A week later the manager I talked to in confidence, another manager, the supervisor I reported the incident to, the coworker I reported and myself ended up in a meeting were I was accused and written up for gossiping. I was made to apologize to the coworker and basically told that I had to take this kind of behavior and treatment because it was all my fault. Add to that that all the people in that meeting were men and I was the sole woman. I ended up with another panic attack after that meeting and a whole load of feeling that what I was reading on TWW in spiritually abusive churches could also apply to my workplace.
That particular incident ended up being one in a series of escalating incidents, harassment, and bullying that targeted me that ended up with me being fired back in May of this year. I now have to deal with this garbage again because the company is contesting my unemployment claim.
So believe me, employee handbooks can be manipulated into means of harassment and bullying. Gossiping wasn’t against our employee handbook but they used a line about conversations that were detrimental to the workplace to write me up for gossiping. They did it again later when they fired me for not wearing the uniform when I was actually wearing the uniform. Eventually, I was just so glad to be out of there and that horrible environment.
@ Lynne T: Because it is – or aspires to be – an authoritarian cult that would never be countenanced if they used a more accurate designation for it!
Lynne T wrote:
Because Deuteronomy and Leviticus give them a checklist of Righteousness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4zqtX6SH40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m93K5Ngml3k
@ Patrice:
Even having them take the Interpersonal Communications course ALL college freshman were required to take at my alma mater would help.
Ian wrote:
Ah, yes. But, there must be a hidden loophole that the victim, I mean congregant, is not readily aware of. All they have to do is include a clause such as the one I found in my former church’s contract. “I therefore commit to love, trust, and obey the noncoercive authority sent to me from God through this church.” Bingo. Non-compliant congregants can be disciplined for any reason. Sin not required.
@ Jeannette Altes:
🙂
Might also need to add “Theory and Practice of Personal Boundaries 101”, depending on the individual’s test scores. Whoop!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Really, BeenThere? That is in a genuine contract?
Patrice wrote:
Yes. It’s 138 pages long. And I’d been a member of this church for almost two decades before they required the members to sign this. Dee and Deb’s concerns about this are valid.
@ Rob: Excellent comment. What kind of beer?
Patrice wrote:
Long time friends with SGM. Did not do the “reconciliation” disaster. That is one reconciliation that will go down in history as the Hindenburg of peacemaking!
@ Bridget: However, TWW established some ties between the organizations in this post.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/08/26/ambassadors-of-reconciliation-lets-take-a-closer-look/
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Worth repeating.
Ian wrote:
Great comment. Can we say CJ Mahaney?
elastigirl wrote:
9 Marks clings to their authority. They believe that the local church has been given the keys to the kingdom. Pastors have the authority simply by being pastors.
Patrice wrote:
Think of how quickly rumors get passed around a church. I can assure you that I could get the word out with absolutely no problem.
Josh wrote:
Thank you for making me laugh!
pacbox wrote:
When a company decides they want you gone, you are gone. They use the same tactics in churches. I am so sorry for that awful experience.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Yep-the old “trust me, I’m a leader” garbage. Said leaders have a propensity to sin just like everyone else. That is why there must be checks and balances. And that is why I don’t sign these contracts any longer.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Good night! 138 pages. They thought up sins I could never imagine!
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Narcissistic little man announces to his friends: “I am the nice but firm God-made-visible and you must promise to love, trust, and obey me. Sign in blood here.”
Does a member sign at the bottom of the 138th page? Is that doc posted anywhere?
I am so sorry for the people who can’t see through this malarkey. It’s pain for them before during and after!! Ack!
dee wrote:
They have definitely covered their bases. They also include the “keys to the kingdom” beliefs in this covenant as you said 9Marks does. I have a feeling the spiritual abuse support blogs are going to see increased hits in the near future.
Patrice wrote:
We actually had to initial it in dozens of places and then sign. It’s not posted anywhere. None of us want this “church” coming after us.
dee wrote:
In the computer age, full of tedious EULAs* that no one reads, do you think any other church members read the 138 page
covenantcontract? We’re trained to CTRL+END and click “I Agree.” Heeding these warnings, I’ll never do that with a church EULA, ever.* End User License Agreement (Everybody knows what it is, but if you wondered what it meant, that’s the definition)
I resigned from my Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church after my friend was disciplined for separating from her abusive, law-breaking husband after he abandoned her and their children. It was very traumatic watching how terribly she was treated, and how much the church hurt her and her children.
It has been a year, and I have not returned to church. I decided to never join a church again, because I do not want to put myself in the power of another abusive pastor. I thought that I could just attend a church without joining, preferably a large church where I could just attend and leave before anyone notices me. But now I learned through this article that just attending a church will subject you to their harsh discipline. I think it is much easier to just avoid church altogether.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I had a dream that I was a pastor, once. I woke up shuddering but I can now see that God had announted me but I refused his call. Now I accept it, praise Him, and have the keys of the kingdom in hand, recognizing that I am God-made-visible.
My first formal act is to bring loving firm discipline to all US pastors who earn 75,000+ a year (now be honest: include all bennies). Each is required to leave their home, belongings, money and families, and live for an undisclosed time under the various bridges in downtown Detroit. Any who refuse to submit, I will lock out of the kingdom of earth and of heaven.
Love trust and obey me. Or conversely, look on me and despair. (Your choice!) I am the representative of God. I care about you. Sign here.
😈
@ Patrice:
Sounds like the makings of a good movie script. 🙂
Having been “disciplined” by Wartburg, I believe the ladies are exactly like the church leaders they criticize. Fall in line or get banned. Dissent not allowed (at least for very long).
Dee and Deb, how are you any different?
@ Josh:
CLEARLY that’s just more proof that you need to get married, Josh. Because as Steven Crowder recently informed us, all single men are incurable slobs who will eventually drown in their own clutter without a woman. You know, kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2zY8WvqYU8
😉
@ Teri Anne:
“It has been a year, and I have not returned to church. I decided to never join a church again, because I do not want to put myself in the power of another abusive pastor.”
How awful for you and your friend to experience that!
I haven’t attended a church regularly in a year and a half myself. I understand where you’re coming from.
The OP (what some churches consider sin):
How trivial. Church people who will correct you on that sort of stuff are are absolute busy- bodies.
If someone went off on me for a top button being undone at church, I’m the sort who would make a point of showing up to the next five church services in a row in fish net hose, a mini skirt, stiletto heels and a peasant blouse (worn down the shoulders, not up).
About being upset over the clutter on the kitchen counter… if Martha Stewart is your God, I could maybe see it. But I would doubt that the God of the Bible gets worked up over kitchen clutter.
The OP:
I don’t even know what either one of those means.
The OP
But didn’t Jesus actually teach against this view, to a point?
Jesus appeared angry or upset that Pharisees obsessed over outward compliance to religious rules, but their hearts were in the wrong place.
Jesus taught motive, word, and thought life meant as much to God as outward action (e.g., “Whomever looks at a woman in lust is guilty of adultery”).
I am not saying I think churches should necessarily get into the business of calling out every one over suspected guilt of an ‘inner’ sin, only that this view seems to distort Christ’s teachings.
One thing I’m learning from reading all this (and a little based on personal experience with certain Christians I’ve had) is that if I ever step foot into another church again, is that I should not open up or trust anyone.
It’s rather sad. In order to get close to people, make friends, it does require getting vulnerable and admitting your flaws and problems, but it looks like some Christians/ churches use your vulnerability against you, to punish you or sue you.
This means I would not be able to be transparent with other church members, which means there is little point in going to church.
@ Josh: 😉
Rob wrote:
Mmm, yes and no. I see some churches are quite legalistic about 5sexual sin, then there are ones who run around mouthing off about how anti 5exual sin they are but don’t really do or say anything about it.
Most sermons I hear in person (if I do attend a service), or blogs by preachers I see, or televised sermons, are very, very easy on 5exual sin, to the point I often wonder why I bother staying a virgin into my 40s, since everyone in Christendom today seems so accepting of pre marital or extra-marital 5ex.
dee wrote:
Because Dee their imaginations are obviously MUCH more depraved than yours!!
@ Teri Anne:
There are people on this site who attend lovely churches that wouldn’t think of proposing this kind of rot. ISTM, tracking down the good ones is a skill to be learned. I don’t attend church so I don’t know, but there will be advice available when others come back to this thread. I hope you find what you need!
Sadly too many ministers don’t understand the context on Matthew 18.It is not about the way to do all discipline. Most of the time Jesus addresses errors in the Pharisees assumptions on the Scriptures and the Torah. Matthew 18 deals with minor offenses not major ones that have their witnesses already.
Dee,
I actually DO like the word “covenant,” and believe every church should observe one. I also believe in “covenant membership,” and believe every church should practice covenant membership. But…
The “covenant” that should be observed is the “New Covenant.” Because we have the New Covenant, no other covenant is needed. At. All. Ever. Why in the world would we ever even consider any other covenant? It is, after all, a “better covenant.” It is a covenant based on the blood of Christ, not on some Stupid Piece of Paper Written by a Lawyer (TM)
Hey, they only said they were *practicing* church discipline. They didn’t say they’d gotten good at it yet.
<a href="#comment-110170" title="Go to comment of Josh
In the computer age, full of tedious EULAs* that no one reads, do you think any other church members read the 138 page covenant contract? We’re trained to CTRL+END and click “I Agree.”
Sometimes you can be surprised. I remember reading a EULA, on a beta for something (might have been a foem of antivirus, I don’t remember) and the guy went on and on about some piece of software he hated but also about th is girl he really loved. I remember laughing at it because he basically didn’t care too much about his own software but bashing the other software and his love for this girl. He might have had a song in th ere. So, yes I read those things maybe not th e whole thing because you just never know.
Ack! That wasn’t supposed to in bolded letters. I was quoting Josh (sorry Josh) and my tablet screwed it up. But yes, that incidentb did happen about a decade ago when I was in college and I had downloaded some software beta to try and the EULA was about bashing this other software and his love for his girlfriend.
dee wrote:
When a company decides they want you gone, you are gone. They use the same tactics in churches. I am so sorry for that awful experience.
Thanks. It was interesting to be reading about spiritual abuse here and then see these tactics played out in a secular workplace. It was helpful see that I wasn’t the only one going through this kind of thing even if it was in the workplace and not in a church. The other problem was that management was targeting good employees who had been there for several years, could do the job very well, and got along with most everyone. They kept people that were lazy, bullies, broke the rules, had no respect for anyone, etc. and prefered these people over the good employees. They just shot themselves in the foot. But it’s all about money. Probably the same with these types of contracts in churches.
“Retrofitting requires a process that may take one to three years of educating the church to think more biblically about membership. I recommend preaching from Deuteronomy where there is a restatement of the Law.”
Interesting in light of the fact that Thomas R. Schreiner, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, states in his book “40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law” that “When discussing Passover, I noted that believers are not required to observe the feasts, festivals, and special days of the Old Testament calendar. This includes the Sabbath, even though the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:8-11). Such a judgment surprises some, but it must be recognized that the entirety of the Old Testament law is abrogated in Christ.” -page 91.
Then, after further negative comments on the law Schreiner goes on to say “Nonetheless, a remarkable difference is evident between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament the evil person is put to death, for Israel is both a political entity and a spiritual people. In the New Testament, however, the evil person is not put to death but removed from the church of Jesus Christ. The law is both abolished and fulfilled. It is abolished for believers are no longer called upon to execute those who commit the sins specified in Deuteronomy, but it does not follow that the command to purge evil from the community has no relevance to the church. It finds its fulfillment in the expulsion of the evil person from the church of Jesus Christ.” -pages 92-93.
While not all 9Marks disciples march lock-step on this it is important to realize that many of them have attended SBTS and are huge fans of Schreiner. I know the pastor of the church I quit in March (but am still a member of) holds to Schreiner’s view of the 4th Commandment – that is that it has been abrogated. To an uneducated man such as myself it seems these guys want it both ways, depending on what suits their purposes. Is this possibly an example of eisegesis? (noun: personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas)
You won’t hear near the discussion from the 9Marks disciples on question 38 of Schreiner’s book “Should Christians Tithe?” In the summary Schreiner states: “Even though tithing is not mandated, there is no call in the New Testament to hoard one’s possessions or to live selfishly…. God is to be our treasure, and hence believers are to give generously and freely. For most believers in the West, that means giving more than a tithe. Still, the tithe itself is not mandated by Scripture, and Scripture is our rule and authority rather than a tradition that requires believers to tithe.” -page 221
I am still waiting for an explanation of how these views of the entire Law being abrogated sync with Matthew 5:17-19 and Romans 3:31:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
dee wrote:
Absolutely!
An example I personally know of: Young lady in the church has an affair – gets disciplined. Older man, a deacon, has an affair – no action.
I’m sure that Leeman believes in consistency, but doesn’t want to say so in case he gets accused of hypocrisy.
Another example of inconsistency (which I think you’ve previously highlighted) is saying that members shouldn’t leave churches, but letting pastors move on when they “sense a call” to another church (ie bigger salary).
Anne wrote:
Ditto – I’m also wondering what you mean, elastigirl. Do enlighten us…
I know this might be discussed on a different post, but on a related topic, I think it is interesting to note that Mars Hill claim their covenant is not a legal document. I am not sure whether this is misleading or not, but the gist from your posts would suggest it is.
Here is the quote – see last but one sentence – interesting sentence to analyse as well, since it seems to be also disarming the reader by using the phase it (isn’t) ‘some sort of cultic right.’
‘What is a “member covenant”? Can I read it before I become a member?
A covenant is a promise by which we obligate ourselves to one another in such a way that the obligation of one party is not dependent on the faithfulness of the other (Ezek. 20:44 36:22 Ps. 76:11 Hos. 2:19-20 3:1 2 Tim. 2:13). A covenant is what we would use to describe the vows between a husband and his wife, and between God and his people. We ask our members to sign a covenant so that we know that prospective members understand what it means to be a part of the church. The member covenant is not a legal document or some sort of cultic rite. It is an affirmation, an agreement, and a source of accountability for both the church and its individual members.
see: http://marshill.com/membership
sorry – also interesting misspelling of the word ‘rite’ in my comment – apologies.
I have often wondered why any reasonable person would be a part of a church that does this kind of stuff to people. In fact I have had some sympathy for people who in part “blame the victim” in some circumstances. Like, what did you think was going to happen? It just made no sense to me at all why people would participate in such mess in any way.
But, aha, in a post dated yesterday, Russell Moore talks about some things that shed light onto the thinking of people who may want such authoritarian pastoral behavior. It is worth reading. He talks about the fact that freedom can be frightening and notes the “seeming order of tyranny.” Let me be clear that he is not specifically talking about church structures, but is talking about how sometimes there is a longing for a strongman. About how the freedom of the kingdom is scary, and how the people with Moses in the desert wanted to go back to Egypt. He uses the current upheaval in Egypt as a starting point for talking about spiritual slavery. Good reading.
So I think I am starting to get it. If freedom is scary, and if you have been told that thinking for yourself is wrong, and if you believe that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the individual local church, and if you are not sure that you “belong” in a kingdom that is not visible as such, and if, and if, then such a structure based on legalistic moralism (with rules that can be one’s golden calf) might be hugely attractive. I am unashamedly using some of his ideas and mingling them with my own ideas, not attributing everything here to him nor claiming it for myself, so don’t say that I said that he said. You might want to read it for yourself.
I have benefited from the posts and comments at TWW, but I will not be joining the conversations at TWW for a while. This afternoon I will be having some rather gruesome and scary surgery for a recently diagnosed malignancy, It takes a while to get past that. So “bye” and “keep the faith.” You all do good and necessary work.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, I pray the surgery goes well and your recuperation is quick and easy. Please take care of yourself and come back when you can. I love reading your posts and what you have to say.
Eat plenty of chocolate and rest. 🙂 We’ll keep the light on for you.
@ Nancy:
God’s peace and healing powers be with you and the physicians performing the surgery. All the best to you.
@ pacbox:
Prayers for you, Nancy.
@ Nancy:
(I accidentally responded to pacbox) Prayers for you, Nancy.
@ TW:
I assume you’re not claiming that Christians are required to observe OT feasts?
Sorry if I’m being hypersensitive, but after dealing with SDAs, I have to ask.
@ Pacbox:
That’s an awful situation that you endured at work!
I can see the similarities with what is happening in churches. Many churches today are operating more like corporations. They are there to profit the shareholders and CEOs. Church members are a disposable commodity that are only useful as long as they can improve the image or increase the profits of the company.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
A “Hooliganism clause” like in the Russian penal codes!
Just like the felony of “Thinking Anti-Soviet Thoughts”!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Just like North Korea! Remember the Spontaneous People’s Grief over the death of Comrade Dear Leader? Including the subsequent mass “disappearances” of population units who didn’t demonstrate enough Love and Trust of Comrade Dear Leader (and his successor Comrade Beloved Leader)?
@ Nancy:
Take care, Nancy. You’ll be in my prayers.
dee wrote:
As long as you say it HUMBLY, of course.
Pacbox wrote:
And whose noses were well-browned.
dee wrote:
Question: Are 9 Marks also anti-Catholic?
Hester wrote:
No I am not claiming that we need to observe OT feasts. There are ceremonial laws and permanent moral laws. The Ten Commandments are permanent moral laws binding on all people whereas ceremonial laws are positive laws that are not a moral necessity. The prohibition on eating pork in the OT is one example of this.
My problem with 9Marks and more specifically Thomas R. Schreiner is that they want to say all the Law is abrogated but then turn around and say we need to preach from the book of the law (Deuteronomy) to convince people of the correctness or necessity of formal church membership.
BTW, what is SDA?
@ Pacbox:
I’ve written about this on older threads. I was bullied a lot in school and on a job or two I had, and there are similarities between what I’ve read about church abuse and what I experienced (and read about) concerning school abuse and work place abuse.
What I experienced, and books by experts on the topic confirmed it, is that businesses will protect bully bosses, not punish them or fire them. Employers will not protect the targets.
It’s the same with school yard bullying and it looks to be the same in churches that permit abuse. The victim is expected to leave, but the bully is allowed to stay.
Hester – Here is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith – with which I agree.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God
I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.]
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
BTDT — I agree, and I think the entire New Testament is realistic that this type of trend naturally happens in any human organization. Jesus, Paul, and James hammered away at churches/individuals who get preference to the wealthy and strong, and ignore the cries of the poor and powerless.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I love it when you make these comparisons between religious thought and political systems. Especially since Jesus specifically said “it shall not be so among you.” Pastors/Dictators reveal who they really emulate.
I realize the desire to have everything buttoned up and defined, but that cure, in my opinion, is worse than the disease.
It is inevitable that things are going to be undefined.
Unfortunately, we can’t legislate or describe in detail what consitutes common sense and good judgment.
It’s just one of those difficulties in life.
If people were disciplined for the sins you listed about – “not having a button on a blouse???” that church has bigger problems than defining the discipline procedure process.
@ Steve Scott: Well stated. I do want you to write a post. I am traveling and will contact you once I return.
@ Garland: Funny comment of the week!
@ TW: I think you might quote to them the famous Woody Allen line (sl. altered) I would never be a member of a church that would have me as a member.
TW wrote:
Yes, they do want it both ways. The only way to control people is to revert to the OT. So they play with words. I love the word “abrogate.”
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Wait, it’s 138 pages LONG? Seriously, there are billion-dollar contracts shorter than that. I wouldn’t sign it just on general principles!
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Oh, this is a document that is just begging to end up on an offshore server for the elucidation of the masses. (I’m remembering how, back in the day–1995–the placement of Scientology’s $00per $ekrit $akrid $kripchers on a Chinese ftp server practically destroyed Internet connectivity to China. The guy who ran the server removed the doc not because the Chinese government was so unhappy about it but because, well, no Internet connectivity into China. By that time, the doc had spread far and wide.)
Nancy wrote:
I am so, so sorry. I shall pray for you and ask our TWW readers to do the same. Please let us know how you are doing. Do you have people that can be of support to you during this time?
Nancy wrote:
People want assurance that they’re doing everything Just Right so the can be absolutely certain they’re saved and going to heaven. These covenant-loving predators love this craving for certainty.
Seneca wrote:
The fact that your comment, in spite of your history, is here.
Peter wrote:
Quite simply-he is either mistaken or he is full of baloney.
TW wrote:
Yep- and they use it for other things as well.
I have no problem signing a covenant (or contract- the words are basically synonymous). The one at my church now is less than a page and included the idea that the leaders at the church could only lead as long as they continued to earn the trust of the congregation. It was much more about the leadership’s promise to the congregation than restrictions on the congregation.
But my real answer is this: my church can only affect me as much trust as I give them. I give my church a lot of trust, but not total trust. I will never again totally submerse myself in a church. If I had to leave my current church it would sting, but I’d get by. I have key relationships elsewhere.
And the church that really did hurt me did not have convents or membership. When push came to shove, it didn’t matter. When I lost all of my friends, it still hurt.
Jeff S wrote:
At least you did not have to get permission to leave well like so many are required to do with other Reformed churches such as 9Marks, etc.
“Frightening Churchtales: Houses Of Worship That Go Bump In The Pew?”
-gump-
Who’s afraid of the big bad ‘religious’ 501c neo-cal church wolf?
What?
But surely there’s still a place for the frightening churchtales with wicked witches and hungry wolves, as well as matter-of-fact christian pastors that are suppose to offer reality. Literarily speaking, have christians gone too soft in the proverbial head?
huh?
Why are gruesome, gory neo-calvinist churchtales like SGM, Acts29, 9Marks, etc. , beginning to appear standard fare?
hmmm…
…frank, honest stories about difficult subjects, we’re discussing the bloggers topics who tell it like it is?
Screeeeeeeeetch!
When neo-calvinists knock on the neighborhood door, be somewhere else?
Whoa!
Wartburg, is that what you are saying?
hmmm…
“When you wish upon a star…”
hum, hum, hum…
(grin)
S“㋡”py
—
@ Nancy:
I agree Nancy, and I’ve asked pretty much the same question here on this blog on previous threads. How do otherwise intelligent and reasonable adults get hauled in with this kind of horse-you-know-what? I find it odd that Russell Moore would expound on such ideas as the dynamic of human tyranny, and how the weak need a strong man to lead them, or even worse, a professional clergy class to tell them what the Bible means, rather than taking personal responsibility for doing their own homework and deciding for themselves.
Anyway, may the Great Spirit watch over you and protect you from any and all bodily harm with your upcoming surgery.
@ Seneca:
Jimmy, it’s not the dissent per se, it’s the way you do it. In your case, you have zero compassion for the victims of religious abuse and are in no way sensitive to their plight.
@ Ian:
Hi, Anne & Ian.
I wrote from my general memory of times visiting in-laws, little things I noticed…
electrical outlets aren’t allowed to be in bathrooms (except for little ones that accommodate shavers);
when we helped my mother-in-law move, I remember encountering a number of things that weren’t permitted, a lot of rules that puzzled me (things in the house-selling/buying/getting the key/moving out/moving in).
I can’t remember everything, but I do remember the struggle with personnel in getting her new home functioning. People from TV, phone, electricity, water, trash collection, carpenters, plumbers… they were only allowed to do certain things at certain times. when we finally got someone to answer the phone, they couldn’t help because what we asked about wasn’t their job. they couldn’t assist in helping us track down the correct person because THAT wasn’t their job. When there was finally something they WERE allowed to do it was after the period of time they were allowed to do it.
@ elastigirl:
my general sense of many things not being allowed may come to social custom. I know my mother-in-law comes from an era of what seems to me to be a zillion social rules.
the environment/culture I’ve always lived in is very laid back, relaxed and easy going. no one really gives a flying fick what anyone else does or how they do it. As long as it’s not unkind, mean or violent, no one cares. you can wear what you want, or choose not to wear, hygiene or not, relate and interact as you want or don’t want, do what you want or don’t want, etc. as long as it’s not unkind.
@ TW:
Thanks for the clarification. I agree it is pretty silly to claim that the whole Law is abrogated and then five minutes later recommend that a pastor preach through Deuteronomy to get his congregation used to a different form of church government.
SDA = Seventh-Day Adventism. They follow OT dietary regulations and teach that if you don’t keep the Saturday Sabbath (i.e., have church on Saturday and not Sunday), you’ll receive the Mark of the Beast. I had a nasty run-in with an extremely strident SDA a few years ago.
So I suppose the only misgiving I have about this whole question is the idea of Christians keeping the Sabbath, which does appear in the 10 Commandments, but also seems to be equated with parts of the ceremonial law in Colossians 2:16. I haven’t made up my mind about that question yet.
Josh wrote:
Oops i better be careful! Do my lack of design skills and messy house mean I’m not really a “girly girl”?
dee wrote:
And of course no one can pick up the phone and call the state attorney general’s office or whoever the chief law enforcement officer is for your state. Or the insurance commissioner or the federal securities regulators – FINRA.
Tim wrote:
Yes! And I’ve been thinking about these passages:
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. Rom 14:19
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. I Cor 6:12
(KJV– purposely used for its choice of “power” even though at might not be the best translation)
I’m trying to put together a general theory or principle in these matters and maybe you all can assist. I want something which applies to all churches of all times, not just abusive ones. In other words– something which can’t be countered with; “But our church does it carefully, thoughtfully, lovingly etc– any good thing can be abused etc” For a provocative title I’m thinking of “CHURCH IS NOT AN ADJECTIVE”.
For the thesis, how about: When we use “Church” to modify powerful Biblical nouns like “Members”, “Covenant”, or “Discipline”, we rob them of their power.
Allow me a digression and then we’ll look at each of these nouns. We all use many phrases which aren’t specified in the Bible, and I’d put them in three categories.
1: No corresponding concept in Scripture, such as Stained Glass, E-Church, Bus Ministry, or Telescreen. We’re free to use such things and call them what we like to the extent that they make for peace, build one another up, are expedient-beneficial-helpful-useful-profitable and do not bring us under their power-authority-mastery-dominion.
2: Concept found or debatably found in Scripture, but term not specified, such as Trinity or Transubstantiation. We’re free to debate or use such things to the extent that they bring peace and mutual upbuilding, are helpful, and do not enslave us.
3: Concept AND term specified in Scripture, but modified with an adjective, such as “Senior” pastor or “Local” church. We should be careful with these, lest the Scriptural concept get muddied.
“Members” is a wonderful description of how believers are joined to Christ and one another in his Body, with each part gifted to supply various needs for up building . But change it to “Church” members and we are in danger of losing the real metaphor. “Local Church” members even worse– tending to divide Christ’s body in a location into various competing power-less clubs. (BTW, when I google “local church (my city)” what pops up is the Witness Lee cult, which believes it is the ONLY church in my city.)
“Covenant” is a wonderful description of God’s promises to and care for His people– especially the New one in Christ’s blood. But change it to “church” covenant and– well- there’s power, power, wonder working power in the blood, but in “church” covenants? Not so much. At least not for the sheeple.
“Discipline” is a wonderful description of how children are nurtured and admonished and brought to maturity– both natural children by parents and spiritual children by God. As Argo pointed out a couple weeks ago, it is never once used in Scripture to describe “one-anothering” amongst believers. It’s only top-down– from authority to “trainee”. Therefore, “Church” discipline is not an expedient-helpful-profitable phrase, and we’d do well to dump it rather than allow it the possibility of bringing us under its power. “Punishment by the majority or “Rebuke from the many”, which Paul uses in II COR 2:6 to describe the disfellowship process with the I Cor 5 fellow, would at least be a Biblical phrase. Not to mention “Gospelly”, since the fellow apparently repented and was restored to fellowship.
Apologies for this comment being a “drive-by” as I’m currenty driving home from “holiday” but I’ll interact tomorrow!
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
It’s good for my psyche to see people’s genuine reactions to this, even if I’m viewed as nuts for having ever signed it. (Though I was already thoroughly indoctrinated after being there almost two decades by this point. And it’s difficult to just turn around and walk away.) This “church” has acquired a fair amount of respect in our community, and has a lot of influential friends. So does Scientology. (Love your next comment) So does SGM. So did People’s Temple back in its day.
It’s because of posts such as this one that I’m learning. In the words of Maya Angelou, “You did then what you knew how to do, and when you knew better, you did better.” Believe me, I won’t sign another one.
TW wrote:
I think Hester is referring to Seventh Day Adventists.
This really happened to me. Several years ago I was attending a church run by a nut for a Pastor. I had been parking car in the parking lot for several years without any issues. Well the Pastor decided that he will get everyone to sign a 6 month covenant sheet to ensure that the volunteer would last the six months. Well I had been parking cars for 2 years and didn't have any plans to quit so I didn't sign a covenant sheet. Several weeks after the deadline for signing the sheets, on a Sunday morning in the middle of parking cars, the Pastor sent two of his thug ushers, both shaven heads and dressed in total black, to escort me from the parking lot. I was given a letter written by the Pastor stating that because I had refused to sign a covenant that I could no longer be able to park cars. I gladly walked into the air conditioned church. What makes this story really crazy is that my wife was working full time for this guy and never mentioned anything to me. When I met with the Pastor to discuss this matter I was told that the covenant sheet was not really for people like myself that were devoted to a commitment but he would still require me sign a sheet so he didn't lose control of those that needed to sign the sheets. You can read my full story of my what this Pastor did to me by going to Spiritual Sounding Board and read Paul's story under Personal Stories.
Anon 1 wrote:
Correct. And when my new church did ask them about me (after asking my permission to do so) they did not speak poorly of me. On the whole, I had a pretty easy time of it compared to others (and that church was far from Reformed).
I must confess, I don’t really understand the whole needing permission to leave thing. I always wondered who would stop me? But I guess I haven’t really experienced the hounding some churches do in the name of church discipline, either.
Daisy wrote:
I have observed this too. A teacher or similar authority figure turns a blind eye to a child getting picked on. But when the child retaliates (s)he is sternly rebuked and punished.
I presume the reason for the protection of bullies, in most settings, is that bullies are bold, self-assured and intimidating, or at least are useful allies (if not simply pals of those in authority). Whereas those they select as victims are so selected precisely because they aren’t.
@ Raymond:
Raymond. You were a parking attendant, like the mustached guy in this video? Pour vous:
Parking Lot Attendant takes Ferrari for a spin
😆
Jeff S wrote:
These churches are so weird about this, if I told them “I’m leaving,” and if they’re all, “We won’t let you,” I’d do my best Arnold impression and tell them (while putting on a pair of Ray Bans), “I’ll be bach. But I must furst find and tuh-muh-nate John Connor.” Maybe that would creep them out enough to let me go.
Or, if you stuck around and tried to be annoying as possible during every church service, if that would do the trick? Sing off-key as loudly as you could during the hymns? Eat stinky Limburger cheese during the sermon? They’d be begging me to leave after awhile. 🙂
@ elastigirl: SoCal vs. the UK! 😉
@ elastigirl: The East Coast might be culture shock-ish for you, too. (In all kinds of ways, though of course, there are tons of regional permutations.)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, I too have observed this very same thing with schoolyard bullies. When I was a wee lad so very long ago, I saw a bully get his nose bloodied by a much smaller kid who stood up to him. The bully of course squealed as they all do when their own blood flows. And the brave lad? He got a taste of the principal’s razor strop and was expelled.
Muff Potter wrote:
Moral of the story: BE A BULLY. ESPECIALLY IF YOU CAN TURN ON THE “POOR INNOCENT VICTIM” LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH. BECAUSE BULLIES ARE WINNERS.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
As I said above: BE A BULLY. BE THE BIGGEST BULLY AND EVERYONE — EVEN THE AUTHORITIES — WILL SUCK UP TO YOU. BECAUSE BULLIES ARE THE WINNERS.
Daisy wrote:
Because Bully Bosses GET RESULTS. And the bigger bullies they are (while carefully and HUMBLY brown-nosing their own superiors), the more results they get. (Fat management bonus, here we come!)
Daisy wrote:
You’ve probably come across the revolutionary Garlic and Limburger Cheese Diet. You don’t loose any weight, but your friends think you look thinner from a distance.
Hester wrote:
I’ve come across two of these in the past couple of years. One going door to door in my neighborhood and one trying to proselytize people headed to the parking lot after a Christian event. There are a lot of former SDA’s telling their stories now. And as I’ve posted elsewhere, back in the late 1980s, just before he passed away, Walter Martin, the founder of Christian Research Institute (the Original Bible Answer Man) said the SDAs had gone back to their heretical Ellen G. White teachings. Just look at the “Clear Word,” a Bible paraphrase published a couple years ago, with hundreds of Ellen G. White teachings sprinkled — without comment or even notation — right in the text. It should be a heads-up to any concerned Christian.
@ numo:
northern California, actually.
Maybe I missed a TWW policy note. Why are we not naming these churches by name and location? Why are we participating in protecting them? If they believe they are acting righteously, wouldn’t they appreciate the shout out?
A tangent:
Zack Hoag posted an interesting blog article on neo-Reformed pastors being the new wave of the religious right. He calls Christians to the traditional Anabaptist view (which happens to be the majority view of Christians 40-50 years ago).
http://www.zhoag.com/2013/08/15/new-religious-right/
@ elastigirl: ah… for some reason, I’ve always thought you were from the other part of the state – my bad!
btw, started watching BallyK and like it quite a bit. Have you ever watched A Fine Romance? (With Judi Dench.) That’s one of my old favorites – she and the male lead (am blanking on his name) have a wonderful rapport.
Raymond wrote:
Your story is shocking. I am so sorry for what you’ve been through. And I hope you are on the path to finding a healthier church. That pastor was an arrogant egotist. He cannot possibly hold himself up as an example of a good citizen much less a decent Christian. And hold the position of a pastor? No, I don’t think he’s spiritually qualified: He’s not above reproach. He’s basically a scammer. I cannot help wondering if your ex-wife was having an affair with him.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
As one who has been sued by a pastor: I don’t blame you. Good call. It’s not worth the drama. Trust me on that.
@ numo:
Hi, numo. Would that be Geoffrey Palmer? (As time goes by?)
Glad you like ballyk. I absolutely fell in love with it. Until father Clifford and assumption Fitzgerald were plotted out.
@ numo:
I adore Judi Dench! She’s one of my all-time faves.
Raymond wrote:
Here’s the direct link: http://wp.me/p31uOG-5D There are a lot of stories that make me cry or angry. I read this one and sobbed. Spiritual abuse is so destructive.
@ Elastigirl: Yes! I get titles mixed up – one of the channels on my Roku box is showing A Fine Romance, in which she also starred.
Hester wrote:
Hester,
2 books I have found helpful are “The Lord’s Day” by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and “From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law” by Philip S. Ross.
Both books are published by Christian Focus – christianfocus.com
I mention the publisher because they seem to be publishing many good books. Crossway has too, but I am getting nervous with them as they have forged a close alliance with the Gospel Coalition.
@ TW:
I agree with RC Sproul (Sr) on this one. I believe that we are no longer under any of the OT law, including the Ten Commandments. I also agree with Sproul that the distinctions between “moral” and “ceremonial” law are somewhat misleading. ALL law in the OT is moral law in some sense. That is, all of the OT law points to moral principles, which tells us what is pleasing to God. Sometimes this was done with ceremony which has been fulfilled in Christ and no longer has value to us as a practice.
But Sproul does not take an Antinomian view; The law still matters and informs us about what is pleasing to God. We ought not to act in disobedience to the moral aspects to the OT law. I know this is largely the same as what you are saying, but I would disagree with the idea that the Ten Commandments belong to the “moral law” and other commandments belong to the “ceremonial law”.
Regarding the Sabbath, the question is whether the observance of a day of rest is a ceremonial practice that points at a greater moral principle, or is setting a day of rest off something beyond ceremony that is interwoven in the fabric of Creation? I think the authors of the WCF believed the latter as they looked back to Genesis which predates any ceremonial aspects of the law.
@ Jeff S.:
Other interesting questions are:
1) Did Paul require new Gentile converts to observe the Sabbath? And if not, what did he tell them to do if there is a “day of rest” principle apart from the Saturday Sabbath?
2) How would a day of rest on which work is forbidden, work itself out practically given that the Romans did not view Sunday as a day of rest in their week? And if early Christians rested on Sunday ala later Christian practice, why are there no records (that I know of) mentioning conflicts with pagan masters when their Christian slaves refused to work on Sunday? Such conflicts should have been immediate and very frequent.
3) Can we just transfer Sabbath practices to Sunday – i.e., all Jesus did per the Sabbath was to change the day and nothing else (which is sometimes all Christians do in practice)? If so, why? Not advocating for Saturday Sabbath observance, just asking because the first thing you learn dealing with SDAs is that the terms “Sabbath” and “Lord’s Day” are not necessarily equivalent and you have to keep your terminology straight.
I don’t mean these to be belligerent, BTW. And I think you are right about what the authors of the WCF believed.
@ Hester:
For me, the issue of observing days and ceremonies etc. is answered in Romans 14. Don’t crack on each other for differing views on ceremonies and food and stuff – and don’t demand observance of your view as the only correct one. We are to deal with eachother like we want to be dealt with? I.e., deal with others where they are at, not where we think they should be (or wish they were).
@ Hester:
I don’t think you are belligerent at all. I am still coming to terms with what the Sabbath means today. I certainly do not agree with the WCF and the catechisms regarding the Sabbath, nor do many today. And in fact, the WCF view of the Sabbath is not the view of Calvin, who believed that recreation was allowable on the Sabbath.
Honestly, the Sabbath has always bothered me as something I haven’t observed, but I wasn’t sure what to do with it. Now that I’ve been (recently) exposed to some different views, I’ve felt that I’m at least in the ballpark of asking the right questions.
As a single father, one burning question I have is when is there ever a “day of rest”? Perhaps that sounds silly, but it’s a serious question. It’s not like I can turn off the work of parenting. And yes, I realize this will be an issue for ANY parent, but at least there can be SOME rest for parents who can relieve one another. But my suspicion is historically, women with young children probably never achieved a “day of rest”.
Jeff S wrote:
The understatement of the century! Though you’re in that role as well… not certain that *any* parents have a true “day of rest” until the birds have flown, and even then, there are always worries and concerns.
@ Hester: I don’t think you’re being “belligerent,” either.
As for the Sabbath, I think Jesus’ comment on the Sabbath being made for man – not vice versa – allows for a huge degree of latitude in practice and observance.
Muff Potter wrote:
Me too! So versatile.
If I might throw in a couple of scrippies on the “Christians and the Sabbath” question:
Colossians 2:
In Hebrews 3 and 4 (too much to reproduce in one comment here), Apollos (or whoever! 🙂 ) refers to “entering God’s rest” and compares it to Israel entering the promised Land and to our finding Christ.
The bible says other things as well, and I’m not the only person who’s ever read it. But the above summarises my reasons for not doing Sunday (or Saturday) as such. Adam’s first full day (whether symbolic or literal) in the creation account was God’s seventh day – he began, so to speak, on a day of rest, surveying all that God had made and acknowledging that it was good. So the Sabbath points to the finished work of Jesus, by which we not only don’t need to struggle for life but cannot do so, and must not try.
Oh, and maybe one more, from Romans 14:
Which I understand to mean that it is not my place to judge another believer about how they practice this. We mustn’t try to supplement the finished work of the cross with our own efforts, laws, bible-preaching, doctrinal bases or membership covenants, but other believers are in principle at liberty not to work on a Sunday if they don’t want to.
@ Jeannette Altes:
I reread my comment and it sounds harsh to me, which is not at all my intent. Just wanted to add my thoughts…. 😉
Has anyone read the latest in the SGM debacle….
Donations
Past Posts
SGM Documents
SGM Lawsuit Resources
Lawsuit Commentary
Has anyone read the latest in the SGM saga? See below…
SGM Council of Elders Commends C.J. Mahaney & Condemns Brent Detwiler
DateFriday, August 9, 2013 at 3:02PM
The Council of Elders is the national governing body for Sovereign Grace Ministries. It is comprised of one representative elder from each church unless a church has more than 500 adult members. In such a case, the church is granted two voting elders. 50 of the 62 representative elders passed the following statement while 12 abstained or voted against it. Two years ago, there were 107 churches in Sovereign Grace Ministries. Many have left the denomination.
Following is the Council of Elders Statement Posted on the SGM Website.
It can also be read directly here.
“August 5, 2013
The Sovereign Grace Council of Elders held their inaugural meeting May 23-25, 2013, in Orlando, Florida. In addition to approving a motion to form a Strategy Committee for International Missions and confirming Mark Prater as the first Executive Director, the Council of Elders also approved, by a supermajority, the following statement to be sent to every Sovereign Grace church and posted on the Sovereign Grace Ministries website.
As the Sovereign Grace Council of Elders, representing the elderships that govern local churches, we believe that Brent Detwiler has repeatedly and grievously slandered our churches and our leaders.[1] We denounce as sinful and unbiblical his determined effort to accuse our brethren.[2] Consequently, we urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to avoid giving audience to Brent Detwiler’s unbiblical speech until such a time that he repents of this ungodly pattern. Such harmful speech is ruinous to the church of God.
Furthermore, in contradiction to Brent Detwiler’s ongoing statements, we vigorously reiterate our support of C.J. Mahaney as a qualified minister of the gospel.[3] While we wholeheartedly support our reformation in polity, we also publicly declare our gratefulness for C.J.’s many years of service and commend his ongoing ministry of the gospel.[4]
——————————————————————————–
[1] This belief is based on the numerous public statements Brent has made accusing leaders of Sovereign Grace churches of lying, deception, hypocrisy, conspiracy, abuse, etc. without due process nor sufficient information and at times blatantly contrary to the facts.
[2] See Exodus 23:1, Proverbs 11:9,13, 20:19, 26:20, 1 Corinthians 13:7, Ephesians 4:29-32, 1 Timothy 5:19, Titus 3:1-3, James 4:11-12, and 1 Peter 2:1.
[3] Per Interim Board announcement on the review panels dated January 25, 2012 and Preliminary Panel Report dated July 27, 2011.
[4] C.J. serves as a pastor at Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville but does not hold a staff position with Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc.”
CJ just can’t understand why Brent won’t go away…
What comes to my mind is this: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 17) I think it’s quite possible that the modern Christian church is not of God…it is mostly a creation of man. So, when you place yourself into a man-made entity, then you’ll have to subject yourself to man-made rules, contracts and discipline.