It’s all about the money today for these guys….capitalism and Jesus….only in America…

Birds of a feather…

What’s with all the Reformed luminaries continuing to defend and work with the unrepentant C.J. Mahaney? Does Mahaney have pictures of some of these guys (ed. ) ? What a brood of vipers.

As if it’s needed – further evidence of the incestuous relationship between the celebrity conference speakers and the book publishers – I just saw this comment on Crossway’s Facebook page:

“Why should I come to CROSS if I don’t feel called to missions?” Trip Lee answers: http://cway.to/1aDvBN1

We have had a few leaders and journalists calling these guys out, but we need more! Time for a concerted effort to drive the money-changers out of the temple.

JeffT wrote:

(ed. )

Whoops, got a little too carried away again. Sorry.

Seriously, I just can’t understand why so many of the Reformed big shots defend and promote Mahaney. It’s dumbfounding.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In other news:

India’s Mars Orbiter Mission probe has, as far as I can gather, successfully completed a 23-minute engine burn which has placed it in a Hohmann transfer orbit – in layman’s terms, it’s caught the train to Mars. At a cost which, as a fraction of India’s GDP, is about equivalent to me driving to the Isle of Skye for a day’s hillwalking. Good luck, guys…

Thank you for sharing this, Nick! This is much better news than the same ole, same ole circle the wagons and let’s make money for our friends.

@ TW:

You know what I don’t get…. There is a Survivors blog for Sovereign Grace, Acts 29, Mars Hill Seattle, Harvest Bible Chapel, and the Patriarchy movement. I’m baffled that there is not a Survivors blog for Capital Hill Baptist Church or 9 Marks. The stories are there… I wonder how long it will be before there is a blog dedicated to the problems associated with CHBC/9 Marks.

Mr.H wrote:

At this point, what new content are they even coming up with?

Mr H, you have the position in a nutshell. The Gospel whereof they aim to speak is not a set of theorems on the nature of God, but a set of hearts that (impossibly) love both their neighbours and their enemies as only God can.

Eagle wrote:

… MacArthur has lost all credibility with his teaching

Depends on with whom. But having read a few things of his, I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that he and I place our hopes for relationship with God in completely different things. (Which is a roundabout way of saying that we follow different faiths/religions.) I believe God became a Man; he believes God became a book.

What God thinks about John MacArthur, on the other hand, is not within my ambit. My faith doesn’t need him to go to hell, certainly.

This is all big business with Jesus stamped on it. Stop buying what they are selling and read the only Book able to save your soul.

@ Eagle:

Eagle, what is the Harvest Bible Chapel survivors’ blog called? A good friend of mine is attending one of their churches and I am concerned for her – it appears extremely conservative and legalistic.

@ Eagle

hmmm…

It is readily apparent that Mark Dever is (more than likely) the proverbial “Gríma Wormtongue” (1) who seduced, ahem! overture’d DaCeege away from his “charismatic” persuasion(s). ; possibly to jump in bed with the Neo-Cal’s as well. Looks now like Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler were in the wings as well, seeing the birds of a feather connections in retrospect. Subscribing to the Westminster Confession Of Faith, (their form of christian orthodoxy) each of these “God Fearing” men believed/believes they were/are doing “the right thing”, – a grand rescue effort, as it were. Once committed, they needed a new encapsulated delivery system to make their “brand x” religion more palatable to the christian masses. Reverend Charles Joseph Mahaney could simple be “Reformed” progressively “in place”. They were/are not responsible for ‘the predicament’ PDI/SGM was in, just the progression to Reformed Orthodoxy. It is believed that they hedged their bets with Pastor Mark Driscoll, later with the current Acts 29 leader, Matt Chandler. Others possibly as well. It is all win-win with these guys. Column Right, March!  One, Two, Three, Four…your left, your left, left right, left…”We know what we believe…”

-snort-

___
note(s):
(1) Gríma, called (the) Wormtongue, is a fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings”. He appears in the second and third volumes of the work, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, and his role is expanded upon in Unfinished Tales. He is introduced in The Two Towers as the chief advisor to King Théoden of Rohan and henchman of Saruman. Gríma serves as an archetypal sycophant, flatterer, liar, and manipulator. The name Gríma derives from the Old English or Icelandic word meaning “mask”, “helmet” or “spectre”. It is also possible to link the name to the English word “grim”, which among other characteristics means “ugly” in Old English. ~WikiP
Reference:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%ADma_Wormtongue

—

@ Meaghan

Amen!

Mr.H wrote:

just poking fun at the Calvinistas’ overuse of the term that has made it virtually meaningless

I had this conversation with a fellow student at SBTS. I’m not sure how the gospel became a brand, but we both agreed that within 20 years evangelicals will be avoiding the word gospel in much the same way as modern evangelicals avoid the language and marketing of the 80s.

@ Anon:
Oh, well, according to them CJ did nothing wrong and was victim of a smear campaign. Wasn’t someone on TWW who said psychopaths are adept at getting people to pity themselves?

@ Eagle:

Eagle give it time. The 9 marks thing just took over my old church unbeknownst to the congregation. I was around serveral of my fellow parishoners and they were in tears about how bad things have gotten. The arrogance wafting off the pastor now that he has been programmed with the elder board at CHBC is staggering. Many people feel like the church they have gone to for 20+ years no longer exists and they feel like they are strangers in their own church. I am glad I jumped ship when the sermons slowly changed and started to piss me off.

Val wrote:

@ Anon:
Oh, well, according to them CJ did nothing wrong and was victim of a smear campaign. Wasn’t someone on TWW who said psychopaths are adept at getting people to pity themselves?

If you read the book titled “The Sociopath Next Door” you will see this as one attribute.

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828

Using this author’s definition of what a sociopath is, IMO C.J. Mahaney is a sociopath. Just hearing some of what C.J. recently has taught on in light of his past actions indicate this. One commenter left this at the above link:

As Stout (The Myth of Sanity) explains, a sociopath is defined as someone who displays at least three of seven distinguishing characteristics, such as deceitfulness, impulsivity and a lack of remorse. Such people often have a superficial charm, which they exercise ruthlessly in order to get what they want.

That sure sounds like they are talking about C.J. Mahaney.

When ministry becomes big business it ceases to be ministry. We are to be sold out for the Gospel, not sell out ourselves for profit. Any man who seeks financial gain at the expense of the Gospel, is a hireling. Jesus said that the hireling does not care for the sheep. Apply displayed by these men begging for money while living in million dollar homes. There will be an accounting. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. God have mercy.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I believe God became a Man; he believes God became a book.

Which makes one wonder why JM has no problem publishing God’s book with his own name printed twice as big as the word “Bible” on the cover.

__
@ Nicholas

T4G videos:
http://vimeo.com/t4gonline/videos

Q: What is the Gospel?

Plug this into YouTube:

For example:

Mark Dever “the Gospel”

this example rendered:

Mark Dever: The Gospel…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfCrf9BK5o4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(you can do this for the rest of the folks listed on the Together For The Gospel website, results may vary)

—

In other news: Manchester United’s opponents (who, for today, are Spurs) have just scored. Though the second half is yet young, I think that’s something we can all be pleased about.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Lol. Try being a West Ham fanatic in a country that barely knows what real football is. And I’m not sure which is worse: Glazier ownership or public ownership on the very American NYSE.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Nick: “I believe God became a man. He believes God became a book.”
+++++++++++++++++++

Yes that IS a great line! I’ll have to remember that one. Keep it in my back pocket. Very handy.

@ April:

April….keep drinking the kool aid!! The less you think for yourself the more the theology makes sense. Just as Jesus drove out the money changers this bull%&*% also reeds to go. But April keep buying their stuff CJ needs people like you to subsidize his trips to Disneyworld!! The “happyiest place on earth!”

April wrote:

can you not see that you are presuming to judge people’s hearts and motives?

We are judging them by their actions. We are knowing them by their fruit. Their fruit is rotten. Their water is bitter. Though I hear their Kool Aid it quit sweet. You would do well to stop eating and drinking at their table.

Where is my post from earlier? Certainly not censored I hope. It does seem others have been posted since then.

Eagle wrote:
@ TW:
You know what I don’t get…. There is a Survivors blog for Sovereign Grace, Acts 29, Mars Hill Seattle, Harvest Bible Chapel, and the Patriarchy movement. I’m baffled that there is not a Survivors blog for Capital Hill Baptist Church or 9 Marks. The stories are there… I wonder how long it will be before there is a blog dedicated to the problems associated with CHBC/9 Marks.

Eagle, and others reading here,

First of all, Eagle, congratulations on your recent baptism! When I read that you were going to be baptized, I rejoiced about it and posted a short comment at TWW, but up to now, I had not congratulated you personally, so I want to do so here! Thanks be to God for His loving work in your life and for your witness to His love.

As to the point in your post above– believe me, brother, I have wondered the exact same thing. I’m a former member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, *and,* after my time there, I was a member of another, similar, 9 Marks-affiliated church in another state.

From my understanding, the 9 Marks ministry was founded as a sort of “para-church ministry” to encourage “healthy, Biblical churches”– BUT it was founded by Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, so whenever one reads official “9 Marks” material, one is basically getting the thinking that one finds articulated at CHBC. This link is helpful: http://www.9marks.org/about/who-9marks/

Being a member at CHBC, I was basically at Ground Zero for “9 Marks thinking” on theology, preaching, eccesiology, church discipline, etc. At the time, I thought it was wonderful, because it was being presented to me and the other members as “This is simply what the Bible teaches about these matters. It’s not ultimately about our *interpretations* of the Bible. It’s about being faithful to what the Bible teaches.” For better and for worse, I bought into and accepted those claims, for reasons that I will describe below.

Mark Dever is a very gifted preacher, and his general approach is that of verse-by-verse exegetical preaching through entire books of the Bible. I didn’t simply accept whatever he said at face value; I listened carefully to his preaching, and, at the time, it seemed to be consistent with Scripture, or, at least, with what I *understood* of Scripture. (I now think that I *misunderstood* some important things in Scripture during those years, but that’s another, much longer, story). The other elders preached quite often too, sometimes on Sunday mornings instead of Mark D., and, more regularly, at the Sunday evening services (which members were strongly encouraged– all but required– to attend, and I did, willingly and happily). Their preaching was basically along the same lines as Mark’s– verse-by-verse and exegetical. There was a seemingly solid (at the time, to me) Biblical basis for everything that was taught, so I accepted it.

When I first came to CHBC (from a more broadly evangelical Baptist church), I didn’t realize it, but in a good bit of that “strong exegetical preaching,” I was hearing, and taking in, some specifically anti-Catholic interpretations of Scripture. Again, I thought that I was simply hearing “what the Bible teaches,” and I loved the exegesis that seemed to be so careful, because through it, I thought that I was coming to know more about God and what He has revealed to us in Scripture. In many ways, even now, I would say that that was true. I *did* learn a lot about God and Scripture at CHBC. Much of what I learned was/is accurate and positive. Some of it, though, I now see as mistaken– sincerely mistaken but still mistaken–, and the anti-Catholic exegesis and the exegesis regarding Scriptural passages on “church discipline” are some of the most profoundly “off” examples.

Prior to coming to CHBC, I had not been strongly anti-Catholic. I had actually been a Catholic convert, at one point earlier in my young adulthood, from a largely Godless background, but I did not have the best catechesis in my conversion process, and I ultimately left the Church for despairing agnosticism. Later, I came back to God as an evangelical Protestant. I had had my bad experiences with the Catholic Church, but I would not have dreamed of saying that Catholics are not Christians. I would have said that Catholics believe in some Scripturally inaccurate things, and that some of their practices are “Biblically off,” but I would not have said that they are not *Christians*, period. It was not until CHBC that the concept of “The Catholic Church doesn’t teach the Biblical Gospel” was introduced to me. Over time though, Mark and the other elders’ exegesis of Scripture convinced me of that very claim. I then became the “former Catholic who wanted to Catholics to hear the true, Biblical Gospel.” To my very serious regret now, I remained in that “exegetically driven” anti-Catholic mode and way of thinking for years– including after I left CHBC and moved to New Mexico, where I soon joined another 9 Marks-affiliated church where CHBC and its thinking were highly respected.

For about a year and half, I was a happy, enthusiastic member of this congregation in New Mexico. I became highly involved there, to the point of spending many, many hours volunteering at the church, all completely of my own volition. I continued with my attempts to “share the Gospel with Catholics” and with many other people too. Along with the Bible itself, Mark Dever, John Piper, Michael Horton, and Mark Driscoll, and others of a Calvinistic exegetical bent comprised the reading material of my pastors/elders, myself, and many other members of the church, including the younger Reformed men on staff there.

However… some of these younger Reformed men were taking classes, long-distance, from a Reformed seminary, and as part of these classes, there was mention of reading some of the “early Church Fathers.” This was a bit unsettling for me.

At CHBC, we had basically been exposed to the Bible (in the preaching and teaching of the elders, and in our own study) and to Reformed authors. There was very little mention of the writings of the early Church Fathers, other than to say that some of them were more “Biblical” (i.e. CHBC-like!) in their thinking, on certain matters, than others– but the clear impression was sent to us, as CHBC members, that basically all of the early Fathers were not as “consistently Biblical” as Luther and Calvin and the Puritans… and their contemporary theological heirs, such as Mark Dever, John Piper, R.C Sproul, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, and so on. Therefore, almost all of the CHBC members, from what I could tell, simply stuck to reading the Bible and Reformed books. I certainly did so, both while I was a CHBC member and at the subsequent church in New Mexico. My time at CHBC had been so strongly focused on Biblical exegesis (with a Reformed slant, but, again, I didn’t see it for what it was then) and on the “great Biblical heritage of the Reformation” that I didn’t even realize I was not being exposed to most of the Christian thinking of the 1, 500 years *before* the Reformation! It seems crazy to me now, but I pretty much looked at the pre-Reformation church, after about 100 A.D., as being basically lost to “unBiblical heresy” until the Reformation. Lamentably, my earlier, pre-Protestant catchesis in the Catholic Church had not prepared me well to address this sincere but mistaken view… Thus, I continued in it.

I was even so disconcerted by the fact that some of the “seminary guys” at the church in New Mexico were reading the early Church Fathers– and, gasp, openly *blogging* about it, which was a scandal to my CHBC-formed “Biblical” mind!– that I talked to some of them about it. They patiently explained to me that they only accepted the aspects of the Church Fathers’ writings which were “Biblical” (i.e. in line, seemingly, with the exegesis of our Reformed heroes). I was comforted by this but still read little of the Fathers myself. The entire period of Christian thinking and writing from approximately 100 A.D. until the Reformation was a largely unknown entity to me– although I heard, from time to time, that many of the Fathers tragically accepted “Catholic heresies,” as opposed to our “faithfully Biblical” theology and ecclesiology. I continued to champion this thinking, because I thought that, in doing so, I was faithfully serving God by being true to what the Bible teaches.

As of December 1, 2013, I have now been back in the Catholic Church for over three years. Whoah, some of you might be asking! 🙂 How did you go from believing that the Catholic Church doesn’t even teach *the Biblical Gospel* to actually being convinced to *return to* the Catholic Church??? It’s a very long story– much, much longer, even than this comment!–, and it doesn’t really fit the mission and purpose of this site, so I won’t go into it here.

I will say that I have lost most of my friends from CHBC. The reaction from those quarters, has been, largely, shunning. The reaction from the church in New Mexico has actually been less severe, even as they “disciplined” me in a process that began as soon as I announced my intention to return to the Catholic Church. To their credit though, they did *not* shun me. This is important. They earnestly engaged me, because many of them truly believed that I was on a path to damnation. Even after I moved back to the D.C. area, the elders and some other members continued to be in discussion with me, even after I had been back in the Catholic Church for some months. Finally, I was warned of my “apostasy from the Gospel” and exhorted to “return to a Biblical church,” and I was officially removed from their membership roles. I don’t mind that the elders proceeded as they did, because I know these men, and I know that their actions were out of a sincere and earnest concern for my soul. To this day, some of them still engage with me on Facebook. They believe that I have made an eternally grievous mistake, and they tell me so– but they do care about me. That is actually why they are so brutally honest with me. It’s partially an intuitive thing, on my part, but I can tell that they truly care.

My experience (re-acquaintance) with the CHBC world has been less warm. Out of all of the elders and members there, three people have contacted me to express concern for my soul– and none of them was an elder. Mark Dever unfriended me on Facebook without one word to me, privately or publicly. A few of the members, still on my friends list on FB, have talked to me, on very rare occasions, on Facebook– never calling me a “brother,” which at CHBC, is common language for “fellow Christian” (yet never mentioning my Catholic “reversion,” which is surreal to me, given that their church preaches that the Catholic Church’s “Gospel” is a false, damning one!). At least they have talked to me though. Those few have not shunned me. From all of the CHBC elders though, and most of the members, I have been either received utter silence, or FB unfriendings, without a word. Many of the silent ones are still on my friends list. I can’t bring myself to unfriend them– because I still care about them, even with their shunning of me. I still hope that one day, they will see that shunning is unBiblical.

The ironic thing is, shunning is not even taught as being part of “church discipline” at CHBC! Mark Dever taught me and the other members that if a Christian seemingly “abandons the Biblical (i.e. Reformed Protestant) Gospel,” his/her fellow Christians and church members should earnestly engage him/her in love and concern for his/her soul. However, Mark Dever himself didn’t do that, and very few of the CHBC members did that… to this day, years later.

To be clear, I was in New Mexico, well out of the geographical area of D.C., when I returned to the Catholic Church. I was still friends with Mark Dever on Facebook though… and I never heard from him. Just an unfriending. Maybe, in his thinking, I was under the pastoral care of the elders in New Mexico, and he needed to be attending to his congregation in D.C. Yet I had sat under his preaching for years. I had had mutually enthusiastic, affectionate conversations with him, in Christian brotherhood, as a member of CHBC. I had recommended his writings and talks to so many people. His silent unfriending of me still hurts… not least because it is inconsistent with the “loving, concerned engagement” which is preached at CHBC. Again though, perhaps, in his mind, I’m not a member of his congregation anymore, so my return to the supposed “false gospel” of the Catholic Church is not his problem. Apparently, to most of my old (former?) CHBC friends, it’s not their problem either, because only a few even have mentioned it to me, and most of the rest have just been completely silent to me… even while their church teaches that I am on a road to Hell. I truly don’t understand it. If they care about my soul, why the silence? It’s not even a part of what their elders teach about how to engage with “apostates.” (For the record, if I still believed their claims about the Catholic Church and her teachings, I would not returned to the Church. A deep and agonizing time of Biblical and church-historical study and re-examination eventually compelled me to return. That’s not for this site though.)

April wrote:

log in your eye, speck in theirs–can you not see that you are presuming to judge people’s hearts and motives? Only God can do that.

With all due respect, April, I think you’ve taken Jesus’ speck/plank analogy out of context. In Matthew 7 Jesus is cautioning against self-righteous judgment of others, not against humbly holding brothers accountable. I’m not a trained bible scholar, so anyone here who is one please feel free to correct me on this.

To the best of my knowledge, the men being discussed here have been privately and publicly corrected by many brothers and sisters in Christ. They have not apologized, they have not made amends, they have not turned. Scripture is replete with instructions as to what we the Church are to do with such men as these.

I agree with you, April, that we do occasionally wade into deeper snarkiness than we should when we discuss those who are fleecing God’s lambs. I confess to you that I have done this, especially when discussing the leaders under whose authority I once sat. However, our tone doesn’t negate the fact that these men are complicit in abuse within the Church, they are preying upon the fears of the flock for profit, and they have not repented. In such cases, as far as I can tell from Matthew 18 and other Scriptures, it is proper to tell it to the Church. We’re not judging their hearts – we’re holding them accountable for their actions. Woe to us if we were to remain silent in light of what we see.

@ April:

What seminary training did CJ Mahaney have April? From my recollection he didn’t even finish high school. I have an advanced graduate degree in History from a prestigious university. Can I recommend removing the IV…you’ve had enough kool aide.

April wrote:

To many, you come off as ridiculously more evil than those you seek to vilify (and to many others, as a bunch of theologically illiterate [and grammatically challenged] whiners).

You are seriously comparing the posters here, and ladies who own this blog, to…
child sexual abusers, or
greedy preachers, who basically swindle church members out of their money, or
egotistical preachers who feel it’s fine to plagiarize?

How does one ‘villify’ a child rapist, plagiarizing preacher, or greedy preacher, or church people who excuse child sexual abuse and domestic violence?

Perpetuating abuse against people, or covering it up, and other such topics discussed on this blog, are already evil, one does not have to make those things look evil.

It reminds me of the time my sister told me a few years ago that she asked her vet for advice how to get one of her dogs to stop eating all the other dog’s poo (and the cat’s poo).

He gave her a bottle of liquid stuff.

My sister asked, “What is this for? Do I feed this to the dog?”

He said, “No, you pour it over the dog / cat poo to make the poo unappetizing and to taste bad to the dog.”

My sister to me:
“Isn’t poo ALREADY unappetizing???? Why would you have to make it look or taste bad, it’s already bad to start with???”

“Grammatically challenged”. Yes, I own that one. My subject- verb agreement has always sucked lemons. 😆

“Theologically illiterate.” No, I don’t accept that label.

I don’t know how you approach theology. Are you a Neo Calvinist? Many of them I’ve seen tend to assume all other Non- Neo- Cal- Christians are theologically ignorant.
————–
I bet this post ends up in moderation. 🙂

Surely some word in here, such as “poo,” will trigger the mod function, which isn’t my intent. I’ll be surprised if this post go through the first time is all 😆

April wrote:

Yes, Christians are called to judge other Christians, but only after taking the very big log out of their own eye–and part of that log is the pride of passing judgment from a position of relative ignorance. And, Daisy, your “we can do it because others did it first” just sounds childish.

No, there’s nothing childish about my point. You contradicted yourself, and I pointed that out.

Jesus warned against hypocritical judging… I myself don’t molest children, swindle people out of money, and I don’t cover up abuse or plagiarize material in books I sell for profit.

April said,

History is not theology. Most in the Reformed camp have multiple degrees from a variety of solid schools.

I’m not impressed by how many degrees they have, or from what schools.

The Bible says that all believers are priests to God, and that believers should be as little children when approaching God. The Bible does not say God respects people more based on how many degrees they hold and from what colleges, nor does the Bible teach that one must hold multiple PhDs to enter the kingdom. Several of the Apostles were not educated… they were fishermen.

God is not opposed to education, certainly, as a few of the biblical writers apparently were educated, such as Paul and Luke. But God does not require a higher education of those who follow Him.

dee wrote:

Did you read about the baptism?

Maybe I will be wrong, but I feel either this person is trolling, or…

If given she is serious (and not trolling), she’s out to crucify everyone at this blog no matter what.

No matter how many instances you point out of good that has come from this blog, it won’t register with her, or she will be hesitant to concede it, because she is on her own witch hunt, all the while accusing this blog of being on a witch hunt.

April,

I don’t take pleasure in hearing (or writing) about the sins of any Christian leaders (whether those sins are “public” and widely known, or “private” and lesser known, or somewhere in between). Writing about my experiences is painful, and I wish that there was no need to do it.

People should be warned, though, about what actually happens, down on the ground, in *some* (not all!) “9 Marks-friendly churches.” They need to be warned, at the very least, that on certain matters of “church discipline,” the practice *may* contradict the preaching.

@ April: Solid by whose definition April? If Carson overlooks Driscoll's plagiarism as a tenured prof …then the academic quality of Trinity is suspect. What about the SGM Pastors College? That's not even accredited. Current reformed theology is corrupt and it reeks of the corruption you'd find in a militaire junta in Africa or some Noriega like dictatorship in Latin America. All this corruption does is destroy faith and give atheists like Dawkins an issue. How could people who so claim to love the Gospel destroy so many people in the process?

dee wrote:

Anyway you can get them to change the term “complementarianism?” It is way too long and often misspelled.

Yes, I wish they would change their label to something else. I hate typing out “complementarianism.” 😆

One of my posts above is in moderation.

My link in that post is not appearing in preview…

Where I said, “label to shut down all discussion (referred to as ).”

The “referred to as…” should be followed with a link to Wiki’s page about “Godwin’s law.”

Eagle wrote:

Just thinking…but since Mahaeney is a high school dropout and my family’s German Shorthair Pointer has finished obedience school and graduated …can one say the dog has more education than CJ ? Just asking…

Yes, yes, you can! 😆

April wrote:

Still no response to my question about the biblical call to love and seek reconciliation. Telling, indeed.

You haven’t responded to a few points I raised with you above, but you did respond with… snark. And vast amounts of condescension.

In order for there to be reconciliation, the sinning parties would have to make amends for their sins, apologize, acknowledge them and so forth. I don’t see that happening with many of the guys discussed at this blog. Driscoll so far has not owned up to his Plagiarism, for example.

__

April: “I remember just camping out Thanksgiving weekend at what appeared to be an Anti-T4G blogsite and smacking them with a word editor until my fingers were blistered and bloodied, I felt nothing….Absolutely nothing.”

;~)

—

@ Daisy:

I also wanted to add that sort of word nit- picking reminds me of the old days when I used to talk to KJVO (King James Version Only) IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

I remember telling one KJVO IFB one time,

“So you’ve never actually read an NIV yourself, you are just trusting what Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman’s characterizations of it?
“I bet if you actually read one for yourself, you’d see that the NIV is not a Satanic Bible version that omits stuff that the KJV has.”

The KJVO IFB reply?

His reply was along the lines of,

“You said ‘bet.’ You bet? You support betting? You gamble??? Gambling is a sin, missy!”

Yes, I suppose it’s very handy to focus on minor details in someone’s word choices to let their main point fly over one’s head. 🙄

Of course my use of the phrase “I bet” had nothing to do with gambling proper and was just an expression I was using to convey my idea.

The KJVO guy chose to focus on the “I bet” in my post and blow off my thoughts.

Jenny, amen and amen, on all that you wrote, sister.

After personally experiencing both 9 Marks-style “church discipline” *and* shunning (which are actually contradictory in theory, but which sadly can coexist in practice!), I was convicted about how I could have reached out more lovingly to CHBC members whom I had witnessed undergoing the church discipline process, when I was still a member of that congregation. I didn’t go completely silent on them, but I could have reached out much more. I was wrong. Mea culpa.. Kyrie eleison.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Try being a West Ham fanatic in a country that barely knows what real football is.

Try being a Liverpool fan (who remembers the 70’s and 80’s) in any country. It’s like following England – it’s not the despair that kills you, it’s the hope…

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Good six-pointer for the Hammers yesterday, though!

dee wrote:

Pastors jump up and down, asking for us to notice them. They do not get to tell us what we notice. I look and tell you what I see. They are a “light” on a hill but sometimes that light is flickering.

“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1

These pastors/authors/conference speakers/showmen cannot say they weren’t warned.

In exposing crimes of child sex abuse & injustice within churches, sadly, April’s attitude is all too common. It’s this misguided view of “don’t judge others” that perpetuates the silence and enables the abusers and those that cover up the abuse. Protecting kids is a public matter, a public mandate in fact. That’s why there are mandated reporting laws to report even the suspicion of abuse. Pastors, churches and Christians are not excused legally because they feel they shouldn’t point out the “speck.” If you saw someone get mugged in a church parking lot, what’s your first response? Call the pastor and request a meeting to discuss the sin of the robber and how the church should handle it? Heck no! You call 911 because you saw/know about a crime. Crimes of child sex abuse by clergy should not be handled by church authorities. These are not spiritual matters. These are crimes.

So speak out, blog, write and expose the darkness to the light of truth. That’s the best disinfectant. (Justice Brandeis)

Deb wrote:

dee,
I wonder why this post in particular struck a nerve…

Well . . . there are eight names on that book to defend 😉

John A wrote:

I frequently attend one of the largest Acts 29 churches but I won’t name names because that Pastor does not need me to defend him. Everything is about the gospel there…

… which is great. I have no issue with those who are content to pastor the church sub-groups where they work. And even Driscoll’s “pastoral” methodology is ultimately the responsibility of the Mars Hill leadership and wider membership.

This blog, however, was not started to comment on those who are content to pastor where they are, but on those who are not content to do so. That is, those who either abuse (and not all abuse is sexual) and prey on those entrusted to them, and then try to silence them; or those who want authority over the entire body of Christ.

I will be glad to learn whatever I can from you while you’re here; but I do trust that you and April (with whom you seem to’ve formed a team of sorts) will start to prioritise more important things than grammar and seminary training. At least one of them has proven to be a development area for both of you. Besides which, some of those who actually authored the New Testament demonstrated a conspicuous lack of learning. If, like them, you have been with Jesus, it will show.

@ dee: I live in a dairy farming area, and smiled at the image of stepping on a cow, if only because it’s a lot easier for them to step on us than the other way ’round!;-)

John and April,

The “judging motives” shitck is getting old. It might work in the cults but not here for the most part. There is plenty to discuss with the very public words and actions of what passes for “servants” in Christendom these days.

Perhaps like many in these cultic followings of the gurus you are outraged that any would dare to have a serious problem with your favorite guru. I get that. It is everywhere. Lots of following man out there instead of Christ. Wjy on earth did He promise the Holy Spirit if your guru is acting as HS for you?

The biggest danger to your soul in drinking the kool aid is enabling evil. When you support T4G you spit in the face of those who were molested at SGM and say they do not matter. You are endorsing blackmail and also making bank off Jesus. And yes, we will answer for that enabling evil big time. You have been charitably warned.

April, John, appreciate your comments.

I’ll share a bit of my experience and how TWW is having the opposite effect it strains for on me.

Until quite recently I was part of a church that was a very conservative church in a liberal denomination. A few weeks ago the church went into discernment to see if we should do something expressly forbidden by God in the Bible. The thinking there seems to be that we get to pick and choose, and if we think God didn’t have all the facts 2000 years ago, or if we think what God said is “unkind” we just dispense with it.

We left, unwilling to do that and amazed anyone would think that way. Now, disagreeing about what the Bible says is one thing, just chucking it if we have a better idea (we think) is another.

So today I was in one of those overtly conservative Wesleyan Holiness churches. Wonderful people, truly serving God. And then came the sermon. UM, really, dude? Telling us NOT to use scripture passages with seekers that actually give the simple gospel? Not to tell them all of us are sinners and need saving from hell because “most people today find that offensive?” Just invite them to come to church, be our friends, and join the church?

It hit me like a ton of bricks between the eyes what many of those branded “evil” on TWW are talking about. Oh sure, some of them may be just plain nutso but so are some Arminians, believe me!

But ignoring the nutso folks on both sides, we seem to have only the Reformed crowd still unwilling to bow to “keeping everyone happy.” I’d rather hear the truth–even if it hurts and offends me–than wind up in a sinner’s hell.

And that, in a nutshell, seems to be the issue. TWW started out with noble intentions to aid victims of toxic churches and spiritual abuse. It has morphed into just about the most toxic and abusive site around in the comment stream. The noble goal of letting all have a fair say has become a site where so many seem to want to top the others in just plain old rank meanness.

I wonder how many would stand and read their comments about others to Christ?

But TWW has done something wonderful for me: it has pulled off the blinders, challenged me to study harder than I ever have before, and shown me the Reformed crowd are the ones, IMHO, getting it right. When we buy the idea salvation is not ALL of God and His grace, we soon get caught up in trying to be popular with everyone. We try to happy them into heaven.

UM, no. We aren’t so gosh darn neato God owes us a place in His heaven. We are truly vile in comparison to His holiness and have nothing to plead except the shed blood of Christ.

And that Christ did indeed tell us that what is in the heart comes out of the mouth. Frightening thought if that includes sarcastic, cynical, snarky comments about people we have never met on internet websites.

But I’m grateful for the eye opening!

@ linda: I was unduly sharp in my reply to you yesterday, I think.

sometimes the best thing is to agree to disagree and follow one’s convictions. I genuinely wish you well.

@ linda:

I, too, wish you well in your walk with Christ. Glad we could help in some small way.

__

“Watz Da Beef?” (Live@7)

hmmm…

Deb: “I wonder why this post in particular struck a nerve…”

Bridget : “Well . . . there are eight names on that book to defend.”

____

Proverbial summary:

The Wartburg blog seen as Having Singled Out C. J. Mahaney For Harsh Treatment.

The Wartburg Watch blog seen as Having A Disappointing Attitude(s) Toward(s) The Reformed Crowd.

The Wartburg Watch blog seen as Presuming To Judge People’s Hearts And Motives.

The Wartburg Watch blog is seen as Da Sin Police While Sitting In Smelly Poo…

The Wartburg Watch blog is seen as Just About The Most Toxic And Abusive Site Around In The Comment Stream.

(Fill in the blank…)
(Fill in the blank…)
(Fill in the blank…)
(Fill in the blank…)
(Fill in the blank…)
(Fill in the blank…)

-snicker-

*

Whew! (did somebuddy say burgers…I’ze a hungry!)

—> praying for ‘healing’ for da church victims, ‘justice’ for dem peskey pastoral offenders, and ‘mucho grace’ and ‘splendid mmmercy’ for all of ‘rest’ of us?

Yehaaaaaaaaa!

*

and now for da Sports…

(grin)

hahahahahaha

Sopy

—

@ dee: but they get (and generate) more media attention than 99 & 9/10ths per cent of the rest of us, so they *must* be right! (by the Almighty Market’s standards, anyway…)

/sarcasm

@ Sopwith:
You are far too clever for me but I get the feeling you take issue with something I wrote. Your gonna have to spell it out for me a bit more clearly. I don’t speak or read “sop”.

numo wrote:

I think you might be misunderstanding most of us here – and maybe what was being said at the church you visited today

How kind of you to only suggest that she MAY have misunderstood something considering the fact that you weren’t there! I think this is progress and a great example for much of the WWW group. I mean you almost gave her the benefit of the doubt!

King David is a perfect example of a biblical leader who had great theology and a rotten life: cover-up artist, liar, adulterer, murderer, etc.

God raises up prophets who stood tall against the kings in the Bible, both the good ones and the bad ones, to hold them accountable. David got an earful from Nathan and did the right thing, but his life went downhill from that time on. There aren’t a lot of inspiring sermons on David’s old age, loss of “abilities,” and death.

In the Bible, we see a lot of leaders who started with great intentions and did not finish quite so well.

The Lord knows that leaders cannot be given carte blanche. It’s clear in both Old and New Testament that we must speak up and hold them accountable.

linda wrote:

It hit me like a ton of bricks between the eyes what many of those branded “evil” on TWW are talking about. Oh sure, some of them may be just plain nutso but so are some Arminians, believe me!
But ignoring the nutso folks on both sides, we seem to have only the Reformed crowd still unwilling to bow to “keeping everyone happy.” I’d rather hear the truth–even if it hurts and offends me–than wind up in a sinner’s hell.

Linda, I’m curious– do you think that all Christians necessarily must be either “Reformed” or “Arminian”? From your comments above, that appears to be your view. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

I am neither Reformed nor Arminian. I have actually been each at different points in my Christian life– first, an “Arminian” Baptist, and then, a “Reformed” Baptist. However, there is a very big world of Christianity outside of the categories of “Reformed” and “Arminian.” Those are specifically Protestant categories, and many, many millions of Christians, in America and around the world, do not fit into those categories– and those Christians, too, believe that salvation is “all by God’s grace.”

As a Catholic, I believe that salvation is all by God’s grace. The Catholic Church teaches it. I was told otherwise as a Reformed Baptist. I was told that the Church teaches Catholics to “trust in their own righteousness to save themselves,” and for a long time, I believed what I was told. However, I eventually learned that I had been given misinformation (by pastors whom I choose to believe don’t know any better). There is a big, big world of Christianity outside of the “Reformed” and “Arminian”– and that world is *not* completely comprised of people who are just teaching what itching ears want to hear. My priest is definitely not doing that.

Janey wrote:

King David is a perfect example of a biblical leader who had great theology and a rotten life:

David wrote Psalm 51 after that incident. I’d suggest you read it.

John A wrote:

David wrote Psalm 51 after that incident. I’d suggest you read it.

John A,
I’ve read that Psalm many times. What’s your point?

King Dav

Okay the meatloaf from Wegmans is in the oven.

Linda, April, John A…. I would say that the mess in The Neo-Reformed camp is awful. Its sad because it could have been something helpful, authentic and beautiful. SGM could have been a healthy magnificent ministry. Many Acts 29 churches could be helpful and beautiful. Plus…the spiritual condition of the country is a mess. You have networks like Trinity, false faith healers, and then you also have the Emergent crowd. So the faith system is a mess. Trust me on this…I spent years as a raging agnostic (some say atheist) talking about how Christianity is a cancer. I went to the Reason Rally on the National Mall and listened to Hermant Mehta(Friendly Atheist) Greta Christina and Richard Dawkins to name a few.

But lets be honest. The reformed camp has blown it! BLOWN IT! What could have been beautiful and healthy instead became the Reformed Industrial Complex. You have pastors who plagiarize (Driscoll) and others who led an organization who covered up sexual abuse with a history of blackmail. And when it comes to the sexual abuse please don’t give me the CJ didn’t know crap. He ran CLC and SGM in the same way that Brigham Young ran Utah. In both situations you couldn’t tie your shoe without his permission.

My recommendation for you guys is to save face and confess. None of the Reformed leaders have a Nathan. Actually what has happened due to the lack of a Nathan is that corruption has become enabled and a sacred cow. At least in Kenya, Bolivia, Mexico, Afghanistan, etc… when corruption is practiced its transparent. You don’t see the President of Kenya claiming how much he is sanctified while engaging in some aspect of corruption.

So you could have had something beautiful, refreshing, and healthy. Instead you have something ugly, corrupt and decadent. In my good conscious I can not overlook the rape of a child just so I can be around a few cool people my age. Likewise I can not overlook spiritual manipulation and abuse. The stories of repeated and horrific abuse at SGM Survivors is unbelievable. And to the Happymoms, Noels, and others…I will not be their Judas.

But before you guys engage culture and the faith…why don’t you clean up your house first. Harvest Bible Chapel, SGM, etc.. should not be run like Tammany Hall or Mayor Daley’s Chicago. Act like Christians and mature. I would have a difficult time being involved in a faith network which was founded by a guy in a prolonged 30 case of puberty. Mark Driscoll needs to grow up. He’s a fraud…just like Mark Dever and CJ Mahaney.

When I was in agnosticism/atheism your camp is what I thought of when I raged about Christianity being a cancer.

@ linda:

It hit me like a ton of bricks between the eyes what many of those branded “evil” on TWW are talking about. Oh sure, some of them may be just plain nutso but so are some Arminians, believe me!

FWIW I don’t remember anyone here ever claiming that there was no such thing as a nutso Arminian and only Calvinists are the problem. Granted neo-Calvinists are the focus here, and there’s a legitimate problem in the comments with pile-ons on Calvinists. But no one’s ever said that Arminianism had no problems.

We aren’t so gosh darn neato God owes us a place in His heaven. We are truly vile in comparison to His holiness and have nothing to plead except the shed blood of Christ.

True, but all strains of orthodox Christianity teach this, even classical Arminianism (note I said classical Arminianism, not the “Jesus-shaped-hole-in-your-heart” version). I second the commenter above who issued the reminder that Christendom is not divided into Calvinists and Arminians.

But TWW has done something wonderful for me: it has pulled off the blinders, challenged me to study harder than I ever have before, and shown me the Reformed crowd are the ones, IMHO, getting it right. When we buy the idea salvation is not ALL of God and His grace, we soon get caught up in trying to be popular with everyone. We try to happy them into heaven.

Glad you’ve come to your own conclusions, but what happened to me in the neo-Calvinist-influenced Reformed church was that I discovered you couldn’t beat and guilt people into heaven with a cat-o-ninetails, either, and over secondary issues at that. After 3y of that, I seriously needed to be told that Jesus loved me and died for me, which is something I never doubted growing up in the Lutheran church. When your church makes you question whether Jesus loves you, it’s time to find a new church. Which is exactly what I did (went back to the LCMS). (And BTW I grew up ELCA so I get where you are coming from on that front, if the issue you alluded to above is the one I suspect.)

Not sure I can get behind the idea that the neo-Calvinists are the only ones not bowing to culture, and I think “toxic and abusive” is going too far, but maybe YMMV. Personally I think the comments section has improved greatly since the filters were put on. TWW has pointed out lots of valid issues with these guys, it isn’t all just snark. Not saying TWW is perfect, not by a long shot. But the legitimate issues cannot be ignored.

There is also the perennial problem (on both sides) of “snark” and condescension being in the eye of the beholder, depending on who’s being criticized. If anyone, on either side, can propose a solution to this or a surefire way to discern the difference, then you will win the genius prize of the universe.

@ John A: You misconstrued that comment. I have been trying to “talk” with Linda for many months now, but we never seem to get anywhere. My mention of the ELCA is part of that ongoing conversation.

which you, not having been here, did not know about.

Chinese, that is.

@ Eagle: I have thought several times of starting a Capitol Hill Baptist Church blog to warn those who might get sucked in there and to encourage those who have made it out by the grace of God and those who need to make it out by that same grace. However, I’m just one little lady, and I wouldn’t know where to begin… Thanks for your thoughts, by the way!

i appreciate your post- thanks for sharing!@ John A:

@ John A:
Oh, John, snarky, rude, condescending AND with acronym mistake as well as missing punctuation. We need April back to remind you of those things on which you completely agreed with her earlier in this thread. April? Paging April!

Funny thing, being human, isn’t it?

@ Eagle: I’m new here- sorry for my green, but I’d love for any input as I am trying to find an online place for me right now. Online in the sense of a community much like this one (SO glad I found you all!!!). I’ve heard of SGM Survivors, and you mentioned a couple others in these posts, but has anyone heard of a group or blog for survivors of the current Together for the Gospel movement and all of its branches (including 9Marks, etc., etc.)- survivors who would still ascribe to what often passes as reformed theology? No offense intended to any of the posters here, and I’m watching myself to make sure I don’t sound condescending (because, believe me, I’m *probably* for real the chief of sinners), but I interpret the bible in a way that probably most aligns with evangelical, paedobaptist, reformed believers …. Yes, a lot like Ligon Duncan and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), but I’m very distressed at his extremely uncritical continuing association with Together for the Gospel folks. In fact, my ideal church would be a combo of the PCA and an evangelical Anglican church, but I really digress (sorry). Anyway, so yeah, if anyone on here can suggest outlets for me as someone who would love to work from within a generally reformed perspective to try to “reform” the supposedly “reformed”, please let me know. Blessings to all, and thanks for your consideration!

JeffT wrote:

Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn’t agree with them is utterly wrong.

“In the Devil’s theology, the most important thing is to be Absolutely Right and to prove everyone else to be Absolutely Wrong.”
— Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil”
http://thegroundoffaith.net/issues/2008-10/Merton.htm

Also contains this gem (remind you of anybody?):
“The devil has a whole system of theology and philosophy, which will explain … that God created evil and that He directly wills that men should suffer evil. According to the devil, God rejoices in the suffering of men and, in fact, the whole universe is full of misery because God willed and planned it this way.”

John A wrote:

I know some are tired of the argument but you cannot judge the hearts motives or intentions of these men with such a broad brush approach.

Some judgment of motive may come in play. But mostly it’s judgement of wrong actions and shady dealings.

I do not believe that the recent new commenters missed all of the commentary here on Furtick and the earlier comment on Young, Jr., neither of whom are reformed, Calvinist or neo-Calvinist! TWW is equal opportunity. Dee and Deb publish posts on malfeasors and misfeasors in all stripes of Christianity, wherever abuse occurs, whether it is “If you don’t agree with my theology, you’re going to hell.”; tolerance of sexual abusers of children, mistreatment of abused children, abuse of “church discipline”, abuse of the church budget to create a life-style like the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies for a controlling pastor (btw an oxymoron — if the person controls the church, they are by biblical definition not a proper pastor!!!), and, finally, “if you don’t agree with my understanding of scripture, you don’t believe the Bible”, which is arrogant, unChristian, and contrary to the teaching of the Savior.

And Dee and Deb, as well as commenters here, have all welcomed those who disagree, so long as they are polite and don’t condemn people for disagreeing. There are few Christian blog sites that allow for disagreement. Check out the TWW blog section on “my comment was deleted” which applies to blogs that refuse to allow comments that disagree.

So exercise the freedom that TWW provides, within some rules of decorum — don’t condemn people for disagreeing, and don’t defend pastors who abuse or coddle abusers and expect not to be challenged over what flavor of kool aid you have been being served by such abusers/coddlers of abusers.

mimi wrote:

group or blog for survivors of the current Together for the Gospel movement and all of its branches (including 9Marks, etc., etc.)- survivors who would still ascribe to what often passes as reformed theology?

mimi – You sound a lot like me-me! 🙂 Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. As a former SGM’er and most recent drop-out of a 9Marks knock-off in Dubai I would say you have probably found the place.

I would also like to mention that I can second what Christopher Lake stated earlier in his dealings with 9Marks/Dever. Much of what he wrote sounds eerily familiar to me. I emailed the elder board at United Christian Church of Dubai in early March 2013 advising them I was resigning my membership due to issues of conscience having to do with their continued support of Mahaney. Prior to that email I had frequent email exchanges with the senior pastor (a former associate pastor at CHBC) and met him for lunch several times. Since my resignation I have had zero communication with the senior pastor, he has dropped me as a friend on FB and he has avoided me in public. Perhaps this type of behavior is taught by Dever to his interns??? Similar to what Mr. Lake encountered, I still have a few friends from UCCD, and am happy to see our friendship had roots that couldn’t be severed by my church choice. I also found it disturbing that it took 6 months for UCCD to remove me from their membership roster. They take membership very seriously, but apparently not so serious that they bother notifying you when they finally get around to approving your removal. I received word of my removal from a friend who was at the membership meeting – to date nobody on the church staff or elder board has told me! I am now attending an Anglican church and find it refreshing. It is evident the pastor loves the Lord. If I were in the USA I would probably be attending a Presbyterian church as my views of polity and baptism have evolved into the positions they hold, but there are no Presbyterian churches in Dubai. I am quite soured on the whole “membership” thing as portrayed by 9Marks devotees. I believe in the importance of being part of a local body, but not membership as portrayed by 9Marks. And I should add that Dever and Mahaney both push formal membership, one of the reasons is for accountability and church discipline. We saw a clear demonstration of how that plays out when Mahaney fled his church and was embraced at CHBC. A classic example of do what I say, not as I do.

@ John A:

numo: I think you might be misunderstanding most of us here – and maybe what was being said at the church you visited today

John: “How kind of you to only suggest that she MAY have misunderstood something considering the fact that you weren’t there! I think this is progress and a great example for much of the WWW group. I mean you almost gave her the benefit of the doubt!”
++++++++++++++

John A,

why so mean? you don’t even know numo. i’m a bit taken aback. you seem polite in some comments, but to show up out of the blue with something like this?

i somehow think you’re better than this.

@ Eagle:

eagle — one of the biggest surprises of my life was to discover that people who practice no religion or other religions are kinder, better at friendship, more honest, more generous, are much better at being contributing citizens of their communities, have happier marriages than those who go to church and call themselves Christian.

dee wrote:

Still trying to figure this one out. Acts 29? SGM?

SGM/Acts29 are like tweedledee&tweedledum to me, I’m sure because I’ve never been a member in either group, nor known any who were until I met TWW and commentariat. These two have the manner of Seneca.

In my book, condescension is never ok and it’s inherent in hierarchical belief systems. Bah

linda wrote:

. A few weeks ago the church went into discernment to see if we should do something expressly forbidden by God in the Bible. The thinking there seems to be that we get to pick and choose, and if we think God didn’t have all the facts 2000 years ago, or if we think what God said is “unkind” we just dispense with it.

They went into “discernment to see if we should do something expressly forbidden by God in the Bible”?

How does a church ‘go into discernment’? What on earth did they decide to do?

__

  T4G is implying by their blatant actions that their Scriptural criteria is subjective, unverifiable, exaggerated, and absurd.

What?

…tired of the arguing for the ‘truth’?

huh?

  Supporting C.J. Mahaney (AS A PASTOR OF THE BODY OF CHRIST) is no longer scriptural. This support is a blatant violation of Holy Scripture. 

  You can determine these ‘so-called-proverbial-T4G associated pastors by their actions; that they have missed the proverbial scriptural boat by their support of ‘those’ pastors who blatantly violate the sensibilities of Jesus, and His written word; with His Father in Heaven concurring; – also by His written word. 

  Dr. Devil may give these proverbial-501(c)3-snakes-in-da-bloomin’-grass, a free-pass-o-sortz, but God’s written Word simply and equivocally, does not!

(…ask JonnyMack, he will tell you!)

(sadface)

Sopy

—

Another good post by Carl Trueman:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/11/nietzchean-evangelicalism.php

@ Anon 1:

Good comment. I feel a litter better about my once in a while condescending tone. It seems that when I ever do it in return to the leaders in question it seems the that the lesson I learn is that condescension is only wrong on my end because I don’t have the ‘authority’ to use it.
Speaking of condescension someone commented that they think TWW is acting the part of the sin police. I think that TWW discusses those who claim to be the sin police. TWW to me discusses abuse, a type of sin of course. I believe ALL human beings no matter what the religion should be abuse police.

Eagle, Jenny, TW, and mimi,

It’s interesting.. I still have *some* good memories of my time at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and I still care about the people there, as much as their shunning of me hurts… but the more that I reflect on certain things that are taught and/or lived out there, I’m coming to see that there was (and maybe still is), at least sometimes, a cult-like mentality at CHBC.. When one finds oneself being utterly ignored (or even “unfriended”) by supposed friends, because one has had a sincere change of theological/ecclesiological conviction, after a time of serious prayer and study, that is not a good sign. I know that, in their eyes, because I am Catholic, I am just as much of a “mission field target” as a Muslim or an atheist, but in a way, that makes my point. If they truly love me, shunning is not the answer. I would rather have conversations in which I am strongly challenged than to be shunned. Challenge, and even rebuke, can be forms of love (sometimes)… Shunning is just unloving, especially when I haven’t harmed any of them. Why not engage the poor lost Catholic “revert”? (I joke, but I’m only half-joking.) Perhaps one answer is that some of them don’t want to have to be faced with a Catholic who knows the Bible, and has studied church history, and who can challenge *them* on certain aspects of *their* belief and practice? I don’t know… but I wonder about it sometimes.

Jenny, it absolutely blows my mind that so many of your old friends would drop you because you became *Anglican*! I have never heard anyone say that Anglicans are not Christians… what an extreme viewpoint! So sad.

Everyone, I’m going to be out of town for most of this week and may not have much access to the internet. Take care, and I’ll try to catch back up when I can! Have a good week! God be with you all!

Patti wrote:

It seems that when I ever do it in return to the leaders in question it seems the that the lesson I learn is that condescension is only wrong on my end because I don’t have the ‘authority’ to use it.

Bingo. They are big on “authority”. Without it, they have no doctrine over people. And let’s face it, when one trots out the bible as their authority, one is merely saying ‘my interpretation’ or my guru’s interpretation.

No, the key is the indwelling Holy Spirit that puts love for people first, always. And Justice is loving. And we CAN have justice here and now for those who have been spiritually abused and for those children molested at SGM. Where are those who hate such things instead of sweeping them under the YRR rug? Where is the love for those so used and abused by the great ones?

Note that in their dogma it is believed that those children who were molested at SGM were just as big of sinners as the molesters. That is the fruit of this movement. In fact, note what some of the commenters here really think: speaking of these evils is more sinful than the evils done to others. How about that one. I hear this all the time at ground zero.

Driscoll was honest enough to call it “sinning by questioning”.

@ TW:

So, you think Truman is trying to rehab his image after proclaiming Mahaney fit for ministry? Why not just admit he was wrong publicly?

@ Amy Smith:

Amy, It is a shame Jared Moore has not the integrity to ask Mohler or even Mahaney “a few questions”. But he would not dare. They get the YRR pass.

Anon 1 wrote:

@ Amy Smith:
Amy, It is a shame Jared Moore has not the integrity to ask Mohler or even Mahaney “a few questions”. But he would not dare. They get the YRR pass.

And it’s a shame no one among the SBC buddies of Jack Graham will ask him any questions either about Langworthy and other perps he has failed to report. Peter needs to apply the same standard to his SBC buddies as he does to Mahaney. Or is this not really about wanting to protect children? There are many stories of abuse within the SBC, not just with SBC ties like SGM.

From SNAP:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/mo_abusive_baptist_preacher_goes_on_trial_snap_responds

At least four girls say Rev. Travis Smith of Stover (near Jefferson City) molested them. Smith goes on trial today. We hope his victims get justice and we hope Smith is convicted and imprisoned so that kids will be safer.

http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=978162#.UpyPe8RDuDp

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/fate-of-baptist-pastor-accused-of-abuse-is-in-the/article_f4f2f71c-b0cf-555f-94b1-76d79cc191c3.html

Shame on the misguided and reckless members of First Baptist Church of Stover who are choosing, despite four alleged victims and six felony charges, to keep Rev. Smith on the job. This is stunningly callous behavior. It’s also a severe misreading of the notion of forgiveness. We can forgive wrongdoers without putting others at risk.

Forgiveness is a private decision. Paying a credibly accused serial child molesting cleric is a public act, and one that is inexcusable. The two should never be confused.

Anon 1 wrote:

So, you think Truman is trying to rehab his image after proclaiming Mahaney fit for ministry? Why not just admit he was wrong publicly?

Anon – I don’t know. I like what Jeff said in the comment just above this. Trueman has a very sharp mind and I love what he says on most things, but I too have problems with his taking part in that panel of three and the ensuing declaration that Mahaney had done nothing to disqualify him from the ministry. I certainly wish he would never had signed on to that and I wish he would revisit the issue now.

JeffT wrote:

Everything that he’s said on these subjects is excellent and very worthwhile advice. Yet in declaring CJ Mahaney to be fit for the ministry is completely contrary to everything he has said on the topic and makes him look like a hypocrite.

Rank Hath Its Privileges.
Especially when you factor in Correct Doctrine (i.e. Purity of Ideology) and Predestination.

@ dee: Your friends are right, and you’re wise to let these sort of commenters stew in their own juices while you get on with your life!

@ dee: It’s really odd for someone from a Lutheran background to divide up the world into Calvinists and Arminians. Looks like Kool-Aid drinking is involved.

numo wrote:

@ dee: It’s really odd for someone from a Lutheran background to divide up the world into Calvinists and Arminians. Looks like Kool-Aid drinking is involved.

I don’t deal well with that dichotomy at all. It seems to be a way to frame the convo/debate. You HAVE to be in either camp. It is myopic to say the least.

@ dee: Hitting people over the head with Chick-tract-like discourses on eternal damnation doesn’t strike me as typical of Wesleyan approaches to telling people about the basics of the Gospel.

In fact, I’d venture to guess that maybe the church in question was attempting to get people to back down from that kind of thinking, but hey… I could be wrong! 😉

Anon 1 wrote:

@ ken:
Ken, read the book. I think you can find it for free online. Most likely Founders website. If Chapter 4 does not bother your sense of integrity then we have nothing to discuss further. I had heard the brothers had a huge falling out.
And most Neo Cals preach/teach/believe total Sovereignty controlling every molecule 24/7 but then say they don’t when questioned closely saying we just do not understand. We were not given the decoder rings to understand them.

Found and read chp 4 online, like you said. Thanks. Brought back memories (bad and good) of when we were in that circle.

I was several years into questioning that style of leadership at the time (had gotten all of Searching Together’s back issues), and remember asking John at lunch about how leadership in Scripture seemed to be very different than what the Reformed Baptist taught and practiced. His response was something along the lines of “there will always be a pecking order and a big dog in the family of God”. Now, he didn’t come across as being a big dog by any means, but, imo, a lot of the people he associated with did (in their own circles of fellowship).

Thankfully, I can look back now and see how that deviation from the truth wreaked havoc on body-life in many of those churches. Yes, it was often “my way, or the highway”. Lots of people got the life sucked out of them. Lots of form without life. Lots of bruised egos of those in leadership.

Having said that, I still am thankful for the years we spent there with John as we grew more in love with Christ in more ways than one. We were just a handful of misfits getting together in order to know Christ more.

ken wrote:

His response was something along the lines of “there will always be a pecking order and a big dog in the family of God”. Now, he didn’t come across as being a big dog by any means, but, imo, a lot of the people he associated with did (in their own circles of fellowship).

Thanks for sharing your experience, Ken. I fear what you wrote above became the most important thing in that movement all these years later. And worse, deception became institutionalized in that movement if you read the counsel of chapter 4. Deception FOR God. Think of it. The blasphemy of it.

@ A Fellow Brother:

Thank you for your comment. We are here to proclaim the truth to the very best of our understanding. It has not been easy, but Dee and I believe with all our hearts that we are doing what God would have us to do. She and I could be doing so many other things, but we believe our Heavenly Father has called us to this task.

@ Deb:

Deb/Dee – please know that there is much gain from what you are doing. You may not receive much thanks, not that you are looking for it, but it is my opinion that your intentions are pure in trying to serve our God. It is certainly not always pretty, and there have been a good array of cringeworthy comments, but I have come to realize that it doesn’t have to be pretty to be useful – in fact, it’s usually the opposite. Truth is hard sometimes, and we are all so good at constructing idols that we hate to see destroyed.

I pray that Christ is at the forefront of our discussions – thank you for your dedication to His children.

@ Anon 1:
I think it’s forgiveness. I’m not saying everybody should immediately advance to the same level or forgiveness I have reached regardless of what they have suffered through. I do understand how it could be perceived that way and to Fellow Brother’s point I will be more sensitive to those who are hurting. I do think we are called to forgive, even if the offender doesn’t apologize. Forgiveness is a process but “vengeance is mine says the Lord”. If I somehow have that wrong please explain.

@ A Fellow Brother:

“It is certainly not always pretty, and there have been a good array of cringeworthy comments, but I have come to realize that it doesn’t have to be pretty to be useful – in fact, it’s usually the opposite. Truth is hard sometime”
++++++++++++++++++++++

a Spinal Tap moment:

“We’re very lucky in the band in that we have two visionaries, David and Nigel, they’re like poets, like Shelley and Byron. They’re two distinct types of visionaries, it’s like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.”–Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer)

–Derek Smalls has many philosophical companions in Christian culture. i’ll take fire and ice any day.

@ Eagle: Eagle, this post by Chaplain Mike (a summary of a chapter in a book by Gordon Lathrop) is something that might make it clear why many of us are either back in liturgical churches or moving from evangelicalism to that part of the church:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-pastor-waiting-tables

The pastor waits on the table. Literally.

moelastigirl wrote:

I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.”–Derek Smalls

I think he also said he is the glue that holds the moving parts together. Most people don’t get that one, I love it.

BTW the nice thing about being in moderator prison is I get a chance to correct my typos. Post this version and not the previous one please : )

Anon 1 wrote:

And worse, deception became institutionalized in that movement if you read the counsel of chapter 4. Deception FOR God. Think of it. The blasphemy of it.

I must be extra slow today, but deception as it relates to his ideas and teachings of “reforming” a church? Sorry I missed it. I appreciate your insight.

dee wrote:

You continue to make comments without examples. You claim TWW is judging the motives of people. If I did, then tell me so I can apologize because I have no idea why someone does wht they do. When I ask for an example, I do so with a purpose. I tire of generalized criticism. When I write, I give specfics along with links, etc. You did not give us any-just expressed “feelings.” You are guilty of what you say we do at TWW.

I do expect an answer to my questions. This is a moderation rule. I don’t do it to embarrass you. I do it because I am concerned about your comments. If you do not wish to give me the answer, then there is little reason for you to continue to comment.

dee, I’m sorry but if you want me to name his name I won’t. He deserves a better defense that what I could provide. I’m not gonna drag his name into the mud.

My comments are not necessarily directed at you, I am mostly referring to some of the posters. However,I think the “calvinista” criteria is one example of judging the motives of others. Much of the criteria is subjective and impossible to know or verify.

I also saw a recent post that used the term calvinista then proceed to name conference speakers. Although that article is highly critical of only 2 specific pastors it does not say anything positive about any of the other guys and guilt by association seems implied. I hope these examples are specific enough. Going forward I will be sure to point it out as I see it.

dee wrote:

It happens alot. A pastor is hired on, denying he subscribes to a particular theology and then proceeds to endorse said theology.

I’m familiar with that scenario (which I would call deceptive as well), but am pretty sure it’s not what being promoted in this case.

Eagle wrote:

So what happens if you like preaching, or that style of worship but you find yourself in a manipulative, harmful church that forces you out the door? Or puts you in a situation where you have to choose between staying or leaving? So this situation is created that results in people leaving maybe a form of worship they like for something they may not enjoy as much. Or perhaps out the door to practice nothing.

Eagle, first let me say how happy I am to see what the Lord is doing in your life. May the love, grace and peace of Christ be with you always.

I actually made a 360-degree journey over 30 years. A balance between liturgical tradition and rigorous Bible teaching suits me now, but YMMV. I don’t feel like I was ever forced to settle for an inferior worship practice. I think God allowed circumstances that prompted me to discern, evaluate and adjust accordingly.

Anon 1 wrote:

Patrice wrote:

In my book, condescension is never ok and it’s inherent in hierarchical belief systems. Bah

I don’t know Patrice. Sometimes it is the only language some understand. In my experience at ground zero, it is the language of the YRR/Calvinista crowd coming out of SBTS. It is all they know and understand. It is how they have been indoctrinated.

I’m all for solid witty snark when civil disagreement doesn’t suffice. And occasionally, plain rudeness suits perfectly, especially as a response to cruelty or blatant aggression.

But I don’t think I’m superior to others, even when I see them acting foolish, ignorant or nasty.

I refuse condescension from others and I refuse to indulge it myself. Some people come here truly believing they are better than the rest and I simply will not accept that, not anywhere from anyone.

It’s a personal peeve.

@ Anon 1:
While perusing Chap 4 of Reisinger, I read this, “Oh, how I thank God for the “buts” in the Bible. We were by nature children of wrath…” and I remembered when my sibs and I were young, our church had a (now rewritten) form for infant baptism that contained this statement, “We are conceived and born in sin and therefore are children of wrath.”

After a baptism, we would arrive back home before Mom/Dad, and rampage through the house, yelling that phrase at the top of our lungs and then follow it with “Indubitably!” (another word in the form), which would plunge us onto the floor in giggling hysterics. At bottom, none of us believed it…or maybe we simply had a wild hope that it wasn’t true, not sure.

What other way would normally healthy people want to accept such a harsh god except through subterfuge and fear, really?

@ Patrice:

Patrice, that makes me want to weep. I was told I was beloved by God and he wanted me for his own precious child. What a contrast. It was not until I was much older I started hearing about us all being children of wrath….mainly out of SBTS starting in the late 90’s. They sure can take metaphorical language of man talking to God and make it into a doctrine that turns God into an unloving meanie.

I pray for my children that God will protect their hearts from lies about Him. And, I read something very interesting the other day from a Rabbi who was saying the Hebrew in the commandment is “not to carry God’s name in vain” and it means not to do evil/wrong hiding behind God’s name. Sometimes I am overwhelmed with the lies about God and Who He is. He has gotten a horrible rap throughout history. Makes me quake and want to be very careful not to even accidently attribute evil to Merciful, loving Yahweh.

IF you read the chapter you know it is recommended they NOT tell the church their beliefs up front. They should not use certain words to give it away, etc, etc. It is all there. Total deception. And all because they think people are ignorant. The goal is to take the church Calvinist without them realizing it for a long time.

They are teaching deception as a virtue from God. They believe God wants them to do this because they consider it His truth. Yet they have to deceive to teach truth. They are recommending evil in the Name of God. It is ok, Ken. I don’t expect you to see it.

Why not be honest and say they are Calvinists who believe in a determinist god who chose some but not others for salvation. Cals don’t like it when you speak the end result of their beliefs. No wonder Quiet Revolution (ergo the name fits the teaching in teh book) recommends stealth take overs.

Anon 1 wrote:

IF you read the chapter you know it is recommended they NOT tell the church their beliefs up front. They should not use certain words to give it away, etc, etc. It is all there. Total deception. And all because they think people are ignorant. The goal is to take the church Calvinist without them realizing it for a long time.
They are teaching deception as a virtue from God. They believe God wants them to do this because they consider it His truth. Yet they have to deceive to teach truth. They are recommending evil in the Name of God. It is ok, Ken. I don’t expect you to see it.
Why not be honest and say they are Calvinists who believe in a determinist god who chose some but not others for salvation. Cals don’t like it when you speak the end result of their beliefs. No wonder Quiet Revolution (ergo the name fits the teaching in teh book) recommends stealth take overs.

Ok, you have to realize that you’re dealing with someone who often needs to read a book 6 times before he really understands the author’s perspective.

So, I’ve read chapter 4 approx. 3 times and skimmed the rest of the chapters. BTW, I didn’t realize Ernie was key in creating the Reformed Baptist element of the SBC.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any clear evidence of him recommending deceiving a church by hiding one’s doctrinal stance. He seems like he felt he was dealing with multitudes of unsaved individuals in the SBC. Have you read it recently? If so, could you copy and paste the portion, please?

Here’s the section you referenced above under “Clarity” :

“In the pulpit, don’t use theological language that is not found in the Bible. Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.”

I take that as him saying don’t speak “Christanese” or else they won’t understand the concepts you’re trying to teach. Granted, I realize you don’t agree with what he’s teaching, but to imply he’s trying to deceive the people in keeping the real concept from them seems to be your wrongful projection of his motive.

If Ernie was as full of integrity as his brother John (to the extent that I knew him), then I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and be charitable here. Most of the time when I’ve read someone’s books or articles and had issues or wanted clarification, I’d contact them and ask if I could visit and chat over the phone or in person….has taken me to all sorts of places in the States and Canada.

In fact, I think I remember meeting John for the first time at a restaurant after I read through his “Abraham’s Four Seeds” book (multitudes of times). He was in the middle of a move, but was very gracious to take the time out to meet up and chat (with a nobody). 🙂

I think if you were able to spend some time with John, you’d most likely come away with different ideas – you speak blanketly of their theology, namely “Cals don’t like it when you speak the end result of their beliefs”. Seems like you’ve possibly have got him pigeonholed.

@ ken:

“..blanketly…”
++++++++++++++++

but you have neat words!

@ Patrice:
Thanks for your thoughts! We’ve headed in a different direction than the RB circles we were in as far as what constitutes “church” and leadership. Still hold to what they refer to as the “doctrines of grace”, but the Lord may tweak that as sees fit – he has allowed my wife and I to drop a lot of baggage from the past. Feels good! 🙂

@ ken:

Ken, I do not know anything about John and am only referring to Ernie’s book. As I understand it, they had a big falling out as brothers. I know NO details. Just that they did. Whether they are nice or not as personal acquaintances has nothing to do with what he teaches in the book about taking over churches to make them Reformed.

You and I simply have different standards for what is considered deception. If a new pastor comes to a church with the goal of making it reformed when it is not, I believe he is a deceiver if he did not tell them that UPFRONT. And yes, it would most likely mean he would not get the job. So be it. Honesty and integrity are still virtues even for Christians, right?

John A wrote:

The fact that your comment is so "pastor-centric" indicates that your church is less about the gospel than you realize.

Sorry last comment was in response to this post.

John A wrote:

I appreciate the stance this blog takes against clergy sexual abuse but I must say I am disappointed in the attitude expressed here towards the Reformed crowd. I frequently attend one of the largest Acts 29 churches but I won’t name names because that Pastor does not need me to defend him. Everything is about the gospel there, I know sorry some of you seem to hate that “buzzword” but I believe it’s true. I believe that Pastor is first and foremost concerned with shepherding his local congregation and leading people to authentic faith. In short, I trust him based on what I have observed up close, not from afar. The group on this site seems to have grown very critical, cynical , and even self righteous. Reading through these posts I am amazed at the confidence with which any of you reveal the motives and intentions of others. Only God knows the heart. I’m not saying don’t judge but I am saying many of you take it too far when you state as absolute fact things that nobody can know. I’m not a great writer and I’m sure someone will pick apart my words to expose some apparent contradiction or hypocrisy. That seems to happen whenever I post like this on a blog and especially on this topic. Bottom line, the tone of this thread and this site do not glorify God in my humble opinion.