Did a Mars Hill Pastor Attempt to Enforce the “Can’t Talk Rule” on Social Media?

"The can't talk rule has this thinking behind it: 'The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change; so it must be protected behind walls of silence (neglect) or by assault (legalistic attack).  If you speak about the problem out loud, you are the problem.  In some way you must be silenced or eliminated."

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse (p. 68)

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=39308&picture=ne-prihlasitNo Sign

No doubt social media has revolutionized the way we communicate.  Gone are the days when the 'powers that be' controlled what was being said.  This appears to have played out earlier this week on both Facebook and Twitter.  In case you missed it, here is what happened… 

A Mars Hill pastor named David Fairchild decided to use his Facebook account to address 'disputes between brothers'.  On July 6, 2014, Fairchild posted the following passage from the Bible on his FB timeline.

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!   1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)

Immediately following these verses, Fairchild wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/L.David.Fairchild?hc_location=timelineScreen Shot of David Fairchild's July 6, 2014 post on his timeline

So the Apostle Paul would rather have us 'suffer wrong and be defrauded than air our grievances before a technological tribunal'?  One has to wonder why this Mars Hill pastor isn't practicing what he is preaching.  Shouldn't he just remain silent?

It didn't take long for former Mars Hill member Rob Smith to weigh in about Fairchild's Facebook commentary.  On his blog Musings From Under the Bus, Smith wrote:

http://musingsfromunderthebus.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/on-his-facebook-page-pastor-david-fairchild-argues-against-airing-grievances-on-social-media/#comments

So now comes another Mars Hill pastor, David Fairchild, using social media (Facebook) to chide those who use social media to argue their case against Mars Hill Church.

This is similar to Anthony Bradley, who also posts a lot on social media, publicly chewing out Rachel Held Evans for publicly chewing out Mark Driscoll (link).

I have met both these men. They are men that I like a lot. They are actually quite bright. Somehow they missed the big “E” on this eye chart. Clearly they do not believe what they are posting, or perhaps they are not as bright as I thought they were.

I enjoy both these men, not only for their contribution to my life, but because they have shown care for the things that I care about. David and I have traveled together more than once to Africa, and I love the passion that Anthony Bradley shows for the oppressed.

I know David well enough to know that he does not truly believe that posting public grievances on social media is equivalent to filing a civil lawsuit against a brother. If this were the case, then why did he post his grievance against bloggers on a social network, while he works in a public church that has been built largely through social media?

Furthermore, David suggests that the proper approach is that the bloggers follow Matthew 18. Well, you can count the number of bloggers on two hands. Each, including me, are easy to reach. If David has an issue with us, why is he not picking up the phone and beginning to work through Matthew 18 with us if he has a problem?

The truth, already well documented, is that the so-called “Board of Advisors and Accountability” (BOAA) has no interest in any communication with bloggers. Some of us became bloggers because following Matthew 18 is impossible (link).

A commenter wrote an excellent response to David Fairchild.  See screen shot below:

Screen shot 2014-07-11 at 11.32.31 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The conversation then moved to Twitterdom, with Shaun Nickerson asking David Fairchild in a Tweet whether he had a response to Rob Smith's July 8th post.  The exchange got pretty lively between Robert Fleming, David Fairchild, and our very own Dee Parsons. You can read the commentary here.  I am including my favorite part of the discussion in the screen shot below:

Screen shot 2014-07-12 at 12.16.49 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The commentary under Shaun Nickerson's Tweet came to a halt after Warren Throckmorton entered the fray (see screen shot below):

Screen shot 2014-07-12 at 12.23.58 AM

Yes, David Fairchild had one parting remark, then the Twitter conversation abruptly ended. Warren Throckmorton will likely never have his questions answered regarding the Global Fund numbers. 

The next day Rob Smith wrote a follow-up post entitled MHC Pastors to hurting members – “quit social media and agree to be defrauded and abused.”  This excellent article ends with the following words:

I am saddened that pastors like David Fairchild and Brad House are willing to allow the abuse to go on and then tell the abused member to be defrauded and act in a way that pours coal on their own heads.

Their perspective is callous and abusive. It protects the abusers and not the sheep that these pastors are supposed to care for and protect.

These social media exchanges appear to demonstrate that the Mars Hill leadership is imposing the can't talk rule.  Was David Fairchild sent to do Mark Driscoll's bidding?  After all, Driscoll has kissed social media good-bye for now.  Wonder how long his hiatus will last…

We continue to find it both perplexing and amusing that a ministry which built its reputation in large part through the internet is trying to control the way that others are now using it.  We are grateful that more and more Martians and former Martians are coming forward and sharing their Mars Hill testimonies.  Please know that we are here for you should you wish to share your experiences in this forum.

The Mars Hill casualties also include some who have never even been members of Driscoll's church.  Over the last couple of years we have heard from a number of grandparents who have been completely cut off from their grandchildren simply because they do not endorse Mars Hill Church.  Why would any parent keep grandparents from seeing and enjoying their grandchildren?  How cruel!  This alone demonstrates to us that something is terribly wrong on Mark's Hill

We leave you with a song that in some ways reminds us of Mars Hill.

Lydia's Corner:  Hosea 6:1-9:17   3 John 1:1-14   Psalm 126:1-6   Proverbs 29:12-14

Comments

Did a Mars Hill Pastor Attempt to Enforce the “Can’t Talk Rule” on Social Media? — 116 Comments

  1. "We ought to speak words of comfort and counsel, while commending our trust rests with a God who judge justly and will bring every hidden thing to light."–David Fairchild

    +++++++++++++++++ This David Fairchild…

    I don't know if he's more like Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap ("I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water") or a Swiss Banker.

  2. I am only responding to the question, “why would any parent keep grandparents from enjoying their grandchildren?” In my case it is because every time my parents have had access to my children without me or sometimes even with me, they are telling my kids that what I have taught them about grace is wrong and that they need to be baptized in their church and not sing with instruments and lots of other “religious preferences.” We were at Mars Hill for 5 years and I could see my parents saying we weren’t allowing them access to their grandchildren when the truth is they can’t have them alone until they are mature enough to recognize the falsehoods my parents spew. However, it is nothing to do with us being a part of Mars Hill, as we left 3 years ago. Before you throw that fact out, I would make sure you have the whole story. There could also be spiritual, physical or even worse abuse on the grandparents side that they aren’t mentioning.

  3. “And it requires a humility which can only come from the Spirit illuminating the glorious benefits of the gospel.”

    Huh?
    Do normal people really speak like this?

  4. @ Kristi:

    We have been in touch with grandparents of current Mars Hill members. Since you are no longer there, this obviously doesn't involve your family.

    BTW, why did you leave Mars Hill?

    In general, I believe grandchildren should have a relationship with their grandparents, even if the visits need to be supervised.  How sad that some don't.  🙁

  5. @ Kristi:
    Imagine the opposite happening. We are aware of a few situations involving Mars Hill people who will allegedly not let the grandparents see the grandkids unless they meet with, get this, Mars Hill pastors who will assess if they are fit to see the grandkids.

    Now, if you know anything about meeting with Mars Hill pastors, can you imagine that meeting?????

  6. Kristi wrote:

    I would make sure you have the whole story. There could also be spiritual, physical or even worse abuse on the grandparents side that they aren’t mentioning.

    We do. In fact, we have been in long time discussions with these families. We cannot say more about each of their situations because we do not want their identities to come out.

  7. I created a blog about my abusive church experience. I pressed the “publish” button after over a year of prayer and waiting for God’s timing. I weighed every single word knowing that if I erred in anything i said, my restitution would have to be more widespread (and personal) than my blog. After my former pastor and elders determined that I had “slandered” them in my emails to the EFCA (which I shared with no one within the church, but did give the EFCA written permission to share with the elders) about a mediation matter which the elders totally botched and refused to acknowledge, Matthew 18 was implemented against me. One elder came to my home and presented a list of 5 allegedly slanderous statements I had made (all were 100% true). I was told I had to sign a statement saying i had lied and that the elders had done nothing wrong. Then I would have to sign a document saying I would never discuss the matter with anyone.

    I refused to sign anything. He then told me that he and the pastor would return the following week with the same demands and if I didn’t sign these two documents at that time, then the matter would be taken before the church. On the advice of the EFCA (Evangelical Free Church of America, my former church’s affiliation), I elected to not participate in this bogus discipline process. (The EFCA did NOT say to submit to my elders, they spoke to the pastor and then said to get the heck out of there).

    When the pastor and elders met with the congregation, they skipped step 3, which is involving the church community. The pastor’s reasoning was that since the apostle Paul skipped it in dealing with the Corinthian church (totally flawed theology), then he would too. In an unrecorded meeting after the sermon about me, the church was told only that I was a slanderer and to have nothing to do with me. They actually agreed to an old fashioned shunning.

    I responded in a biblically-mandated fashion, Mr. Fairchild. I took along a witness to meet with the elders regarding their sins against me (before my expulsion), in which they offered a lukewarm apology but later told the witness that he didn’t know “the rest of the story.” After my excommunication, I tried to enlist three elders and two pastors from the community to meet with me and my former pastor to effect a true reconciliation. ALL deferred, citing discomfort, or the fact that my former church was an independent church (all EFCA churches are independent, just so you know, before you become a member). The EFCA did not involve itself beyond counseling me to leave because they said they had no standing to tell this church what to do.

    I then practiced the third step of church discipline properly, telling it to the church, by sending this letter to the 38 families I had done life with for seven years at this church. The elders and pastor then met privately (again, unrecorded) last month to tell them to ignore my letter and I believe to suggest that i am mentally “off” to quote someone in attendance.

    This is the letter I sent: http://ikissedchurchgoodbye.org/my-letters-to-the-congregation-of-cornerstone-community-church-atascadero/

    I remember finding TWW a couple years ago when I was searching for information about what had just happened to me. I advised Dee that I was going to proceed with Matthew 18 done properly, and her response was basically, “Great, let me know how that works out for you!” Apparently you guys had been around the block a few more times than I. I was actually convinced that God’s way would yield peace, love, and reconciliation. The bitter lesson I learned is that those in power will always use it to protect their power, no matter the collateral damage.

  8. Janet Varin wrote:

    The bitter lesson I learned is that those in power will always use it to protect their power, no matter the collateral damage.

    Sadly, this is usually the case.

    Thanks for sharing your testimony here. Our desire is that no one else will be hurt, and that is why we continue to write about these things.

  9. TedS. wrote:

    “And it requires a humility which can only come from the Spirit illuminating the glorious benefits of the gospel.”

    Huh?
    Do normal people really speak like this?

    It’s called Newspeak.
    Ees Party Line, Comrade.

    Remember the old Doonesbury strip from 1976-77 where Phred the VC gets reactivated?

    He asks the driver of the oxcart he’s riding in why he got reactivated and the oxcart driver recites a word balloon that fills the entire rest of the page consisting entirely of Marxspeak buzzwords and phrases. (With every fourth or fifth word being “The People’s”.)

    Last panel is a thought balloon from Phred:
    “Wow. I’d forgotten we talked like that.”

  10. dee wrote:

    Imagine the opposite happening. We are aware of a few situations involving Mars Hill people who will allegedly not let the grandparents see the grandkids unless they meet with, get this, Mars Hill pastors who will assess if they are fit to see the grandkids.

    Now, if you know anything about meeting with Mars Hill pastors, can you imagine that meeting?????

    Enlightened Self-Criticism before Party Commissars?

  11. Janet Varin wrote:

    The bitter lesson I learned is that those in power will always use it to protect their power, no matter the collateral damage.

    “The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting suffering upon the Powerless. The future? A boot stamping on a face — Forever.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

  12. Mark Driscoll is such a coward. He makes bold pronouncements on Scripture and puts them on the Internet and in books for the world to see, then hides in a bunker when called on them for being plagiarized or just plain ridiculous, and sends his lackeys out to defend him or try to silence his critics. Same with bullying and abuse of his staff and congregants when they make his actions public or attempt to learn where the money donated to the church is going.

    One would think that a testosterone-laden leader full of machismo would have the guts to stand up and explain his beliefs and actions, but no, he hides and sends others out to defend the indefensible. The true mark of a bully – run when confronted.

  13. I do believe Kristi’s comment is extremely important to consider in general. Now Deb and Dee do such great background work so this is not geared towards them. However, when dealing with an obviously toxic environment like MH, critics do need to be careful. Mark Driscoll and other leaders are doing plenty to hang themselves so it is crucial to not generalize or make blanket statements. Fortunately Deb and Dee have the info to back their story, but that in no way discounts Kristi’s experience. It is important for us to keep in mind the difference between the evil MH is doing to their members and bad things that happen to a particular member which may be do to circumstances not connected to the church. (All people have problems in life outside of church circumstances).
    I am so glad the abuses at MH are being exposed. I think Kristi’s warning remind us to not get lazy with facts, stay intellectually honest, and consider why a MH member remains in a toxic church. Some people never break the cycle and go from one abusive church to another. Dee and Deb provide a good example as to how to expose evil practices in a clear-eyed manner, without depending on gossip as a source of information. This keeps the church from creating a straw man to distract from the real problems. Thank you guys for keeping your post factual and clear of “hear-say”. This gives this blog a lot of credibility . As a result, MH can not accuse you of false claims. They continue to stay on the defensive and hopefully will burn themselves up by their abusive behavior.

  14. dee wrote:

    We are aware of a few situations involving Mars Hill people who will allegedly not let the grandparents see the grandkids unless they meet with, get this, Mars Hill pastors who will assess if they are fit to see the grandkids.

    Good post, Deb. Good comment Dee. This is a lot bigger issue than just Mars Hill, and it is significant to lots of families, in my limited observation.

    I have to be careful here how I say this so as not to unnecessarily offend too many people. Back in the day this thing of some church groups strongly advocating that grandchildren be isolated from the grandparents (and family friends etc) over religious reasons was popular enough that we all knew that some people did that sort of thing and which denominations encouraged the practice. I am not sure that it was all that uncommon an idea, actually. I could name the groups that I knew did this, but I am very carefully not naming any particular groups so as not to offend people. But in my lifetime I have run into right many folks who still advocated this approach even up until the present time. By that I mean the idea of forsaking one’s family of origin over minor religious difference, and for sure not letting the children be contaminated by un-censored religious ideas. And I am not talking about cults, here.

    In fact, I have personally been rather nastily criticized by some of the more righteous among us that neither I nor my family thought it either wise or good to isolate ourselves or our children from “other ideas” in the larger religious world. Or for that matter, isolate ourselves from non-religious or even anti-religious secular ideas. That seems to just bug the uber-righteous to death when people cannot be bullied into playing by their rules.

    Let me add, our approach has turned out a lot of people who can and do function in the world without being heathens, and who can and do work on the job with a large diversity of people without falling to fighting, and who do not have such fragile “consciences” that we suffer affront every time we turn around. And nobody who runs crying to mama because somebody disagreed with them.

  15. Warning– Poe alert–
    All the commenters who comment on this blog are like flies, vultures, toadstools, and buttercups. No one should comment on this blog. Instead, they should just sit down and shut up– er uh– pray.
    I do not mean here to imply that I endorse Park Fiscal– nor do I mean you do!

  16. @ Dave A A:
    In other words: Never use social media! Please share this via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Smoke Signal, and Carrier Pigeon!

  17. @ Ann:
    Ann, the way you complimented Deb and Dee could have been written by me (but not in such a beautiful way).

    They both have my utmost respect for their credible reporting.

  18. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    In other words: Never use social media! Please share this via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Smoke Signal, and Carrier Pigeon!

    Love this one, too!

  19. Nancy wrote:

    By that I mean the idea of forsaking one’s family of origin over minor religious difference, and for sure not letting the children be contaminated by un-censored religious ideas. And I am not talking about cults, here.

    Nancy, a light bulb went off when I read this. My own son has abandoned me over the years after much counseling. I couldn’t believe a counselor would ever advocate doing such a thing since we (my son and I) get along wonderfully. But his wife definitely has a problem with me and for well over 10 yrs. hasn’t spoken to me. She has never told me why.

    It’s all been such a mystery to me, but perhaps it’s the “leaving the family of origin” counseling that’s behind our estrangement since I’ve heard my son mention that term before.

  20. @ Nancy:

    Sometimes Christians can get into congregations where the ‘church family’ replaces the ‘family of origin’. It puzzles me that churches which profess to be ‘missional’ can sometimes encourage members to distance themselves from ‘family’.

  21. Yo, Mars Hill pastors: Trying to shut people up is what cults do. Scientology does it too. Scientology tries to get exiting members to sign documents which may or may not stand up in court as a condition of “routing out” of the Sea Org. I wonder if you’ll go that direction next to stem the tide of bad news rolling out of Seattle?

    And, as noted in the comments, you’re also telling your members to practice shunning. Scientology does that too–it’s called disconnection and it’s horrible. If you want to see just one of many examples of the awfulness that is Scientology’s disconnection policy, just search out “Lori Hodgson” “Scientology” “disconnection. There you’ll learn the sad story of how Lori’s children, Jessica and Jeremy Leake, were ordered to disconnect from her after she left the cult. (Lori does not mind this publicity, she wants people to know what Scientology does.) Lori’s managed to sneak around the disconnection order a couple of times, but she wants to be reunited with her children.

    Mars Hill Church–looking more and more like a cult with every day that passes. I hope the comparison shames you back into good behavior but I’m not holding my breath.

  22. Sorry, everyone, but we’re just back from a day’s mountain biking and I haven’t caught up with the serious comments in this thread yet.

    And now: Sport

    Joe Root and James Anderson shared the highest last-wicket stand in Test history at Trent Bridge today, putting on an astonishing 198 between them. Anderson was out for 81, with Root unbeaten on 154.

    If you’re not already into cricket, it would probably be pointless trying to explain why any of this matters.

  23. dee wrote:

    get this, Mars Hill pastors who will assess if they are fit to see the grandkids.

    Considering what all I’ve read of Mark Driscoll over the years, I feel the opposite may be in order. People should not allow their kids to be alone in his company, and maybe adult women shouldn’t be around the guy too much, either.

    He has some troubling, off-kilter views about sex and women, imo.

  24. TedS. wrote:

    “And it requires a humility which can only come from the Spirit illuminating the glorious benefits of the gospel.”
    Huh?
    Do normal people really speak like this?

    ARGH! I’m so with you there. I challenge anyone to actually define what this goobledygook means.

  25. We aught to weep and pray for those feel wronged

    What? How does that accomplish anything? If you are not pursuing justice, does it matter how emotional you get or how fervent your prayers are?

  26. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    We ought to weep and pray for those who feel wronged

    “We” translated ……………………………………. “Leaders”
    “ought to weep and pray for” translated……….. “ought to exercise authority over”
    “those who (only) FEEL wronged.” translated “those dumb sheep.”

  27. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    – Lord Voldemort

    I’m not as good with the quotes as you are, but let me try one.

    “What do men with power always want? More power.”
    – The Oracle, in The Matrix

  28. JeffT wrote:

    Mark Driscoll is such a coward. He makes bold pronouncements on Scripture and puts them on the Internet and in books for the world to see, then hides in a bunker when called on them for being plagiarized

    He has claimed before he was stalked, people were vandalizing his home. He wrote about it here:
    “The Hardest Part of Ministry” by Mark Driscoll
    theresurgence.com/2013/10/26/the-hardest-part-of-ministry

    He says,
    “Last year I came home from a day at the office to find an enormous pile of human excrement on my front porch. Not in a bag or shovel in sight, someone apparently dropped their drawers to leave a “gift” on my porch.”

    He talks about getting disgruntled or grumpy letters from prisoners.

    He essentially compares being a mega church pastor in the suburbs of Seattle to people leaving bags of excrement on his front porch to Apostle Paul getting death threats in the ancient world.

    He also wrote,
    “Add to this the safety issues posed by technology. I cannot fathom allowing my two teenagers to be on social media for fear of the venom they would receive. When my kids have to report on current events at school, they’ve learned to ask before they click on to news sites, since I never know who is saying what about me where.”

  29. Deb wrote:

    Sometimes Christians can get into congregations where the ‘church family’ replaces the ‘family of origin’. It puzzles me that churches which profess to be ‘missional’ can sometimes encourage members to distance themselves from ‘family’.

    I certainly don’t condone that, I don’t think churches should encourage the breaking up of the family unit, but the Bible also says, and Jesus taught, that your spiritual family is to take precedence over family of origin (eg, as in Matthew 12:46-50).

    I think part of the reason for that is that women back then, if they had no sons and no husband (if the spouse died), they were very vulnerable, they did not have a means of financial support. This also carries over today.

    The reason I mention this is that some people are alone. I’ve never married, and I don’t have kids of my own to rely on for help.

    I’m not on good terms with a few of the living family I do have left. The rest pretty much ignore me. When I went to local churches seeking companionship and help, I got lectured, criticized, or ignored some more.

    There are Muslim converts who become Christian, and their families ostracize them, leaving them totally alone, unless a local body of Christians (who are unrelated by blood to them) becomes a “second family” to them.

  30. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    We aught to weep and pray for those feel wronged
    What? How does that accomplish anything? If you are not pursuing justice, does it matter how emotional you get or how fervent your prayers are?

    Excellent comment. It’s nothing but a token gesture. With no real interest or concern for those who ‘feel wronged’. The other thing that matters, as others have said, is power.

  31. mirele wrote:

    Yo, Mars Hill pastors: Trying to shut people up is what cults do.

    I have noticed it’s not just Mars Hill that does this (and is being more overt about it), but over the last year, I’ve seen several different blog pages discussed at spiritual abuse blogs, where the authors on the blog pages being discussed “chide” and shame and scold Christian for topics such as “gossip,” “being cynical” and being negative.

    There’s a mindset that church goers should never, ever say anything the lest negative or critical about any church, preacher, staffer, at any time for any reason.

    It’s like these people who are so vehemently opposed to Christians ever uttering a negative word about anything have never read Psalms in their Bible, or the book of Ecclesiastes, which is chock full of verses about despair, anger, depression, complaining, and negativity.

    It also reminds me of toxic work environments I had to endure, where one or more bosses were being abusive to other workers and/or myself, but you were expected to show up to work each day with your “happy mask” on and not draw attention to the elephant in the room, you could never say anything negative about the horrible work culture or abuse by the one boss.

  32. Deb said,

    @ Nancy:

    Sometimes Christians can get into congregations where the ‘church family’ replaces the ‘family of origin’. It puzzles me that churches which profess to be ‘missional’ can sometimes encourage members to distance themselves from ‘family’.

    Deb, my educated guess here is that they are twisting what Jesus said about how if a man didn’t hate his father and mother, etc. he was not worthy of following Him. Remember “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”? Or the one where Christ said that those sitting around listening to Him were His brother, sister, and mother.

  33. @ NJ:

    Actually, in my original comment I included not only grandparents but also family friends. Perhaps I was again not saying things clearly. Cutting people off from outside influences, whatever they were, seemed to be the issue, the closest and likely to be one of the most influential influences being family of origin. I did not see anything that looked limited to “family of origin.” Apparently that terminology has taken on a life of its own since then, and I stumbled into it unwittingly.

  34. “The can’t talk rule has this thinking behind it: ‘The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change; so it must be protected behind walls of silence (neglect) or by assault (legalistic attack). If you speak about the problem out loud, you are the problem. In some way you must be silenced or eliminated.”

    I don’t disagree with the above quote, but in all the recent scandals of Christendom I’m seeing something else going on as well. There seems to be a pervasive belief among many in Church leadership today that public exposure of really bad sins and crimes must be prevented at any cost. Why? Because if that happens, it is thought that this will damage the Christian witness to the point of irreparably harming unbelievers’ willingness to hear the Gospel. The irony, of course, is that if churches dealing with difficult situations caused by wolves, hirelings, and sinning Christians would boldly step up and do the right thing without equivocation–I think they’d be surprised at the positive response from the watching world. It is not terrible sin itself that ruins reputations (except for the perpetrators), it is serious mishandling of the aftermath by those in Church leadership.

    Bad theology through selective twisting of Scripture is also coming into play in these scandals, as they almost always involve leaders who are not part of any established denomination and never went to seminary. Without functional accountability, lay Christians really have no choice but to go public in our modern day forums, so everyone can vote with their wallets and feet. It’s a damned shame that some believers are having to even cover their backsides legally, what with unbiblical non-disclosure agreements and threatened lawsuits. Frankly, that reality needs to be thrown in the face of anyone bringing up the verse about lawsuits between believers. The Bible says that God is not mocked; a man reaps what he sows. I think we are seeing that now regarding despotism in the body of Christ.

  35. Nancy,

    Fair enough. I believe that in addition to things like love-bombing, gradually cutting off the new recruit from all previous influences (including family) that don’t agree with the new religious group is one of the recognized signs of a cult. I would also include the scenario of members trying to get around parents’ authority by going directly after their kids, telling them their parents are wrong, etc.

  36. @Nancy, Victorious & NJ

    What you speak of is practised in part of my family (Lutheran background, now Baptist). Initially as to separation, I think the ‘leaving from mother/father and cleaving with wife’ thought was prevalent, as was ‘be ye not of the world’. It extends to only having Christian literature and music in the house, and the only art is framed bible verses. The children are in a Christian school. There’s no socialising in the home with non-Christians. I’ve learned not to send corrupting birthday or Christmas presents such as Asterix books or Tintin books, they are opened to check beforehand and not given to the children.

    However if their children are intelligent and they want them to be anything more than a storeman/woman & packer, I see a problem with this insular living around the time the children hit university, if not before.

    And it’s actually really hurtful trying to relate to them, because their way of life is superior, naturally, they’ve got their God on their side, whereas I’m in the not-on-board questioning secular heathenist “flies, vultures, toadstools, and buttercups” category (ref Dave AA).

  37. Haitch,

    What, no Tintin?? Bummer!

    “However if their children are intelligent and they want them to be anything more than a storeman/woman & packer, I see a problem with this insular living around the time the children hit university, if not before.”

    That has become a huge issue in the neopatriarchal homeschooling community as the first generation of graduates are often stuck without much earning power if they never went to college. In some cases even the young men were exhorted to forgo higher education in favor of home based small businesses or farming. Makes it kind of difficult to be sole providers for their ever expanding, quiverfull families. If they even managed to run the gauntlet of father-led courtship and playing 50 questions. And never mind about college for the young women…

  38. Dingletoo wrote:

    Have you folks considered psychological counseling?

    Hmm. Nothing of substance to say in rebuttal, just a lame attempt to belittle – are you Mark Driscoll?

  39. JeffT wrote:

    Hmm. Nothing of substance to say in rebuttal, just a lame attempt to belittle – are you Mark Driscoll?

    Probably not.
    He hasn’t ordered his Armorbearers to beat you up.

  40. NJ wrote:

    “However if their children are intelligent and they want them to be anything more than a storeman/woman & packer, I see a problem with this insular living around the time the children hit university, if not before.”

    As I understand it, the boys can become Fundy Cult Leaders and the girls Quiverfull breeding stock.

  41. Daisy wrote:

    There are Muslim converts who become Christian, and their families ostracize them, leaving them totally alone, unless a local body of Christians (who are unrelated by blood to them) becomes a “second family” to them.

    You find the same dynamic in a lot of fandoms. The fan is rejected and/or abused by their family, and gloms onto the fandom as a second family.

  42. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    We aught to weep and pray for those feel wronged

    What? How does that accomplish anything? If you are not pursuing justice, does it matter how emotional you get or how fervent your prayers are?

    I learned the first time I encountered hard times that “I’ll Pray For You(TM)” is Christianese for doing nothing and patting yourself on the back for doing nothing.

    “You have a saying: ‘Knowledge is a three-edged sword.’
    We too have a saying: ‘PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!'”
    — Babylon-5

  43. Haitch wrote:

    There’s no socialising in the home with non-Christians. I’ve learned not to send corrupting birthday or Christmas presents such as Asterix books or Tintin books, they are opened to check beforehand and not given to the children…

    And it’s actually really hurtful trying to relate to them, because their way of life is superior, naturally, they’ve got their God on their side…

    How long do they plan to keep up that kind of sheltering? How long do they imagine they can? They’ve got to let those kids out into the world at some point. And then how will they be equipped for what they face? So short-sighted…

    Reminds me of a song from “way back” in the 80’s. Especially this part:

    Quoting God as you discuss
    What is right or wrong for us
    You inundate us with your views
    You take away our right to choose

    Show me what should I see
    Make my mind up for me
    Show me what should I see
    What should I see?

    — “Should I See”, by Frozen Ghost
    For the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crv_9sX5YRM

  44. Dingletoo wrote:

    Have you folks considered psychological counseling?

    For what? Seeking transparency from self-styled leaders? Or would you consider that “sinfully craving answers”?

  45. @ Serving Kids in Japan:
    Those verses are so spot on….
    “How long do they plan to keep up that kind of sheltering?” I guess as long as they can. And as they have captured their minds from birth, within the bounds of a supposed loving God and loving family, psychologically being captive to this thinking can continue for a long time, if not for life (I’m also thinking of my own ongoing deconstruction here). The irony is that what is taught is under the guise of critical thinking. It really is possible to live with cognitive dissonance for a very long time.

  46. Dingletoo wrote:

    Have you folks considered psychological counseling?

    Actually, I think the Deebs already provide psychological counselling to those who contact them and require it. So, TWW is not in the realm of considering it, they already provide it. That was what you meant wasn’t it? (heh)

  47. @ Dingletoo:
    I would absolutely loooooove to seek counseling from a psychiatrist named Dr Dingletoo. I would actually pay money to say that I was consulting with Dr Dingletoo.

  48. Dingletoo wrote:

    Have you folks considered psychological counseling?

    Although I suspect your comment was facetious, I’ll answer for myself. As a divorced mother with a special needs child, the two years of shunning, sudden active non-contact with those I believed to be family, and the verbal pummeling and false accusations against me by men who claimed to be my shepherds, I finally saw a therapist to help me learn to better parent my increasingly disabled adolescent. My own private sessions revealed severe depression as well as PTSD. I don’t share the PTSD diagnosis with many, as I never experienced nor witnessed physical violence and I didn’t think it was fair to claim a diagnosis I felt was deserved only by those like our wounded warriors.

    However, I realize that the degree of “violence” perpetrated against an individual depends on their baseline of fragility. It wouldn’t be difficult for a group of men to isolate an emotionally fragile person and give them a verbal beating that would never leave them the same, would it?

    Does this answer your question? Do you have any professional advice for me? By the way, my former church is seeking certification as central California’s premier biblical counseling center. This concerns me, as it attempts to supplant legitimate, competent, evidence-based, data-driven treatment.

  49. Deb wrote:

    Janet Varin wrote:
    The bitter lesson I learned is that those in power will always use it to protect their power, no matter the collateral damage.
    Sadly, this is usually the case.
    Thanks for sharing your testimony here. Our desire is that no one else will be hurt, and that is why we continue to write about these things.

    It is often true of people in power, even in Christian communities. I will be honest I am a very cynical person but I have not found this to be true of the Christian rank and file. I have found that some in the rank and file may turn a blind eye or believe the best, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I have to admit I like Christians as people, even very conservative Christians. I find them, for the most part, to be very compassionate. The Christians I am really starting to really trust are those that question and are willing to allow free dialog and accept decent. The authors of this website, Spiritual Sounding Board Phoenix preacher, etc. So thank you. Brian

  50. NJ wrote:

    There seems to be a pervasive belief among many in Church leadership today that public exposure of really bad sins and crimes must be prevented at any cost. Why? Because if that happens, it is thought that this will damage the Christian witness to the point of irreparably harming unbelievers’ willingness to hear the Gospel…
    Bad theology through selective twisting of Scripture is also coming into play in these scandals, as they almost always involve leaders who are not part of any established denomination…

    I think you’ve touched on an important matter there, NJ. (BTW – I hope I haven’t lost any of the substance of your point by trimming the quote there – I wanted to quote as much as possible as briefly as possible, if that makes sense!)

    I’d go further, and suggest that these organisations that refuse to repent of serious sin have nothing of Jesus in them at all. It’s simply that “Jesus” is the brand they proffer, having learned that it (the brand, as distinct from the Person) sells product. Everything, therefore, depends on their own reputation and that of the brand; the “churches” are not being built by Jesus at all, but by the marketing ability of motivational speakers and their PR teams.

    For this kind of organisation, “Jesus” is a bit like the “Big Brother” of Orwell’s 1984 – the point being that there is no such person as Big Brother. He’s just faked photographs and video clips, and ghost-written articles. Meanwhile, the Inner Party rule in his name and do so in a way that consciously seeks power entirely for its own sake. A “Jesus” whose image needs protecting through dishonesty, the unrepentant hiding of sin, and other ungodly methods is not Jesus at all.

  51. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Amen, Nick. And the NT scriptures teach us that this will happen, and that we must be on the lookout for those in “leadership” who seek power over Christians. In fact, “power” or “authority” is antithetical to being a Christian elder (which is a pre-condition to every other place of service in the church).

  52. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    er – help me out here? (We dinnae hae’ basketba’ in Scotland, you see.)

    Not helping you out here. This is a breath of fresh air, not to hear anything about L*Br*n J*m*s.

  53. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    mirele wrote:

    Yay! A sports report without mentioning a certain basketball player!

    er – help me out here? (We dinnae hae’ basketba’ in Scotland, you see.)

    It’s okay, Nick. I have no idea what that comment refers to, either.

  54. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    On reflection, the BBC were like that a while back with S*r A**x F**g***n. You’d get Radio 5 Live reports along the lines of, “Manchester United didn’t play today. We interviewed S*r A**x F**g***n anyway for no reason at all, and he had the following to say of absolutely bugg3r all interest to any sentient life-form: ….”

  55. Nick,

    “For this kind of organisation, “Jesus” is a bit like the “Big Brother” of Orwell’s 1984 – the point being that there is no such person as Big Brother. He’s just faked photographs and video clips, and ghost-written articles. Meanwhile, the Inner Party rule in his name and do so in a way that consciously seeks power entirely for its own sake. A “Jesus” whose image needs protecting through dishonesty, the unrepentant hiding of sin, and other ungodly methods is not Jesus at all.”

    I agree, though the difference between this and Christ’s church is that there is a real Jesus, and one day these men will suddenly find themselves having to deal directly with Him whose name they were blaspheming. They’re not going to like that one bit.

  56. OK, I’ve finally read the post – though not all of the comments, so apologies if I’m about to copy what 50 of you have already said…

    I’m sure this teaching was most difficult to receive by those who felt they were wronged… Yet here we have it. Public besmirching (justified or not) is a loss for the church. Instead, we ought to weep and pray for those who feel wronged. We ought to speak words of comfort and counsel, while commending our trust rests [sic] with a God who judges justly and will bring every hidden thing to light.

    Is it harder? Yes. Is it godly? It is. And it requires a humility which can only come from the Spirit illuminating the glorious benefits of the gospel.

    I would be curious to know why Mr Fairchild was not thrown under the bus when he, presumably, attempted to press this sage advice on Park Fiscal when he publicly besmirched Messrs Petry and Meyer when they so grievously offended him personally.

  57. NJ wrote:

    I agree, though the difference between this and Christ’s church is that there is a real Jesus, and one day these men will suddenly find themselves having to deal directly with Him whose name they were blaspheming. They’re not going to like that one bit.

    No, they’re not. Personally, I’d rather not be in the immediate vicinity (whatever that will look like) to see that.

  58. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    In some places at the time, being “first” among the church (pastor or bishop, was also to be first in the arena. Doubt he was seeking to become lion feed. Wonder what Piper would do if that were the case here and now.

  59. I believe that a lot of the Piper-type statements about God being behind disasters in order to punish some poor soul are violations of that one of the ten commandments about not taking God’s name in vain.

  60. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    No, they’re not. Personally, I’d rather not be in the immediate vicinity (whatever that will look like) to see that.

    Nope, me either. I’ll be hiking or filing library books or organizing my heavenly sock drawer. Anything, really.

  61. Deb wrote:

    Dingletoo wrote:

    Have you folks considered psychological counseling?

    Didn’t you mean ‘biblical counseling’???

    Haha…touché. Good one.

  62. Caitlin wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    No, they’re not. Personally, I’d rather not be in the immediate vicinity (whatever that will look like) to see that.
    Nope, me either. I’ll be hiking or filing library books or organizing my heavenly sock drawer. Anything, really.

    I’m thinking of a nice tea party with Teresa of Avila myslef. (You are invited).

  63. zooey111 wrote:

    I’m thinking of a nice tea party with Teresa of Avila myslef. (You are invited).

    Thanks. I’ll bring the jasmine tea I had in Chester.

  64. Hi y’all! This month is going by so fast! :O I’ll be moving in a couple of weeks, so prayer and traveling mercies would be great.

    In other news: Like I had suspected, the WotW devotional at Crossway is a bit of a marketing thing. See here: http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ffca6be08f8a9a360d66dd42b&id=e7559aa1df&e=42c26f033a

    Don’t get me wrong. I did sign up for the devotional, and it’s very much meaty. I wonder, though, if the content in Jen’s book differs much from the other Bible study books out there (like the classic How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth). Why buy a Women’s Devotional Bible when I can learn the same via study, reading the Word in community groups, or, shoot, even cracking open the ESV Study Bible they all rave about? (most underwhelming Bible I’ve owned!) Through the power of the Holy Spirit, of course.

    In other, other news: Between Brazil’s epic fall from grace, and Argentina losing to Germany, I’m very satisfied at the Cup’s wins.

    In historical terms, Argentina might be very much like some of these churches that sweep scandal under a rug. I’ve been reading about the demographics of Argentina, and how the powers that be did their best to almost get rid of the minority presence of people of African descent. Fascinating stuff. Alas, the truth comes out, but there are Argentinians who still believe, “There are no black people here. There have never been…” Umm, go check the origins of the Argentine tango. Very much an African diaspora contribution.

  65. Deb, the MH pastor’s complete misuse of 1 Corinthians 6 in order to curtail conversation among Christians is appalling. 1 Cor 6, like Matthew 18, concerns personal disputes between believers, not matters of doctrine and practice, as you have covered quite well in this and other posts.

    The pastor’s misleading use of 1 Cor 6 is also hypocritical. He says going on the internet to point out problems at MH is bad because non-believers might read this and think poorly of the church. But don’t some of the pastors extolled by MH write books that also point out bad doctrine and practice? I imagine non-believers might read those too.

  66. In other news 🙂

    The Church of England has voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time in its history.

  67. @ Tim:

    About this 1 Cor 6 thing. In reading that I think I “hear” Paul saying three things that never get mentioned, and I am not sure why.

    First is that he seems to be on board with a religious court system, like some churches/denominations have but baptists do not.

    Secondly, he seems to be assuming that the problem with the secular courts is that the judges are “unbelievers,” so I am assuming that one’s religious beliefs might affect how the judge ruled to a larger extent perhaps than our system, not to mention the idea that judges are heathen which he seems to assume. This seems to me to interject a cultural difference which needs considered.

    And thirdly, Paul advises, but he does not command or demand. “Would it not be better” is an attempt at persuasion, it seems to me, not an order or edict.

    Where is my thinking amiss in this, in your opinion?

  68. May wrote:

    In other news
    The Church of England has voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time in its history.

    And the arguments against women priests (who have been ordained in the C of E for 20 years, and more in some other countries than England itself) are interesting. They have often centred around, not “biblical” gender roles, but on whether a woman can represent Christ at the altar and therefore consecrate the bread and wine so that they become (or at least stand in for) his body and blood.

  69. “The Mars Hill casualties also include some who have never even been members of Driscoll’s church.”

    Especially including thousands of current and former Acts 29 members. In spite of Chandler’s efforts to make it appear otherwise, it must be remembered that Acts 29 churches are essentially Mars Hill satellite campuses, built on the foundation of Mars Hill ideology and designed and run according to the Mars Hill template.

    Hence, the ability of many of us Ex 29ers (just invented that term?) to read reports out of Mars Hill and say, “That sounds just like my Acts 29 experiences!”

    It’s also why I, as an Ex 29er, feel invested and involved in the process to root out the corruption at Mars Hill and hold offenders accountable so that they cannot hurt others in the same way I and my family were hurt.

  70. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    May wrote:
    In other news
    The Church of England has voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time in its history.
    And the arguments against women priests (who have been ordained in the C of E for 20 years, and more in some other countries than England itself) are interesting. They have often centred around, not “biblical” gender roles, but on whether a woman can represent Christ at the altar and therefore consecrate the bread and wine so that they become (or at least stand in for) his body and blood.

    Has the C of E changed its belief surrounding communion? (But I disagree that priests are necessary for communion at all.)

  71. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    whether a woman can represent Christ at the altar

    So what was the chain of reasoning by which they went from “no, they cannot” to “yes, they can.” This in light of the fact that this is the same issue/argument they gave us in RCIA for the RCC position on women priests, along with that the 12 were all men. And the RCC sticks with the “no, they cannot” position.

    I ask this in the light of my children and grandchildren now occupying the pews of a church which says that it is “an episcopal church in the catholic tradition.” Which, as you can see, I find confusing.

  72. Nancy wrote:

    Secondly, he seems to be assuming that the problem with the secular courts is that the judges are “unbelievers,” so I am assuming that one’s religious beliefs might affect how the judge ruled to a larger extent perhaps than our system, not to mention the idea that judges are heathen which he seems to assume. This seems to me to interject a cultural difference which needs considered.

    the cultural thing that jumps out at me is that it would not be wise to go before a court that would throw Christians to the lions if they disagreed! Perhaps the warning was that the believers that went to court thought they would get a just verdict before a judge that appeared just because of his position, but actually was biased and ruled not by fairness but by personal and political gain. Today, in that context, it would be better to go before the churches online in the world-wide-webchurch than to take a matter before a judge that would judge matters unfairly and only for his own personal and financial gain…like the current leadership of MH.
    the most hypocritical part of this whole thing is that Mars Hill has said by written contract, that if a pastor/elder violates the non-disclosure statement that they will be held liable, (hence the contract)which would have to be brought before a public court to enforce. also if a pastor/elder was to attempt to start a church a block away from Mars Hill, they would be taken to court. the lawsuit which is at their convienance used, is condemned if someone else uses it, same with the public opinion online usage.
    since all of that is happening I think we must look to motive. some perhaps have used the web to air hate and grievance against mars hill, most have used it to try for reconciliation, to bring the leadership to repentance out of love, and to warn other non suspecting sheep that they ought only to go there aware of the sin in leadership lest they be deceived and hurt.
    The motives of Mars Hill in using the web has been…

  73. Another misuse of scripture for the purpose of manipulating people to get them to do what you want them to do. Very sad.

    Social media has been a great blessing to people. I hope it continues and expands. I am always distressed to hear people criticize it.

    Can people misuse social media? Sure. In the case of people talking about churches, the standard should be – no slander or libel. Be accurate with respect to facts. Opinion is another matter. Everyone has one.

    This pastor’s attempt to shut down expressed thought is obvious and sad.

    He would have done better to have said something positive about what Mars Hill is doing.

    The proper response to speech you don’t like is – more speech. Not trying to shut down someone else’s speech.

  74. I don’t think Mr. Fairchild is aware of the Streisand Effect. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Streisand_effect This is why people really, really need to take the time to learn about how the internet works, not just mechanically but socially as well. The internet is crazy, fun, amazing, and usually distracted like a kitten on ADHD meds, but stuff like this makes it focus like a laser. His post is so full of fail.

  75. Nancy wrote:

    About this 1 Cor 6 thing. In reading that I think I “hear” Paul saying three things

    I see those same three points, Nancy. And on your second point, one reason Paul might be suggesting adjudicating these within the church is that the church will be able to craft remedies that the secular courts might mot have available, and will certainly be working toward reconciliation in addition to whatever remedies are provided for wrongs done between people.

  76. Tim wrote:

    Deb, the MH pastor’s complete misuse of 1 Corinthians 6 in order to curtail conversation among Christians is appalling. 1 Cor 6, like Matthew 18, concerns personal disputes between believers, not matters of doctrine and practice, as you have covered quite well in this and other posts.

    Every time I’ve ever read of 1 Cor 6 and Matthew 18 being raised by a church leader it’s ALWAYS been in the context of trying to silence members from asking legitimate questions where the leaders have no interest in addressing the members’ questions and have absolute control over any ‘reconciliation’ process so that it amounts to no more than a kangaroo court.

  77. JeffT wrote:

    Every time I’ve ever read of 1 Cor 6 and Matthew 18 being raised by a church leader it’s ALWAYS been in the context of trying to silence members from asking legitimate questions where the leaders have no interest in addressing the members’ questions and have absolute control over any ‘reconciliation’ process so that it amounts to no more than a kangaroo court.

    Has someone in the commentariat ever used Matthew 18 “legitimately”? By that I mean, have they ever had a problem solved through that method? If so, were you doing it deliberately or did you look back at how it unfolded and said “Yes, this is it.” Was it with leadership or between individuals? What kind of relationship did you feel like you needed to have with this person to use Matthew 18?

    Basically, I’ve never even seen a situation where someone was going around sinning blatantly, though I’ve known a lot of people with some pretty deep sin in their lives. (Except that I know a lot of people for whom pride is a major failing. I’d love to know how you get around that particular catch-22!) However, I only learned about these sins after things exploded, as they are wont to do. I certainly wasn’t in a position prior to the denouement to confront them in any sense of the word, since I didn’t know about it.

  78. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    usually distracted like a kitten on ADHD meds

    Now now now Alberquerque Blue, if that kitten is ON it’s meds its attention is better, & it can concentrate on kitten essentials such as the ball of string. I love to get right to the heart of the issue 🙂

  79. sam h wrote:

    off topic– 25 pastors arrested in may for pedophilia
    http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com/shocking-pastors-on-the-prowl/

    hope its ok to post here, it just makes me sick. it also makes me thankful for this wartburgwatch blog for starting the conversation and getting more people listening.

    I thin it’s really important that everyone does post stuff like this – thanks. Hopefully the powers that be will catch on to the idea that they need to be on the look out in their own backyards. What a litany of evil & misery that list represents.

  80. @ Caitlin:

    My wife and I tried but the process fizzled. We were spiritually abused by the pastor of our former church. I confronted him but he didn’t listen. I did it again with witnesses, and he sort of apologized but not really. Refused to address the deeper problems. I tried a third time, and he basically dug in and issued a church-wide proclamation (no joke) emphasizing the very ideology and methodology that led to the abuse in the first place!

    At that point, we gave up. I suppose the next step would have been to try and take it before the whole church, but conveniently for the pastor, his “proclamation” prohibited critique of leadership. So we decided to just get out of there ASAP. (Huge thanks to Deb and Dee for the comfort and guidance offered to us during that time! They, and many of you on this site, have played a crucial role in our escape and ongoing recovery.)

  81. The really irrational thing regarding Dingletoo’s comment about psychological counseling is that there wasn’t a single previous comment that even a fervent Mars Hill supporter could rightly call crazy or indicating the commentator had mental health issues. I could understand if posters went on crazy rants or spewed bile, but that wasn’t going on. Not even close.

    The most I’d think even Driscoll himself could say about this thread would be “We disagree strongly with you and believe your mention of our alleged sins on public fora is sinful and contrary to Matt 18.”

    I think it boils down to just common playbook activity from groups like MH, SGM, etc. They accuse you of being insane. Once when I was involved with a destructive cult and once sat as elder under an extremely destructive church leader of a generally non-cultic church, when I opposed the leaders directly, I was accused of being crazy, clinically insane. That was the narrative. It seems you cannot oppose a cult leader without being accused of insanity by either the leader or their more benighted followers. It is pure ad hominem, a way of dismissing an argument without having to confront it. It isn’t what Jesus or any of His disciples did.

  82. @ Mr.H:

    I’m glad you were able to get out. This is definitely my gut-instinct on how these processes go down.

    I’m just curious how it could be actually applied and actually work. See, once I became an adult, people haven’t been “confronting” me with my sin. That’s not to say I haven’t had any or that I’ve been ignoring all sin. God has put things on my heart that I needed to repent of and quit doing. Directly, you know? Like…. Not through some human vector. Most of the time, no other human could have known what I was up to.

    But if it never works, why is it in Matthew?

  83. Caitlin wrote:

    But if it never works, why is it in Matthew?

    Of course I don’t know, but I see some similarity with something we do here in divorce cases. First, of course, the people work out what they can for themselves, one on one. Then the second step is a required meeting with a mediator if there is a custody determination to be done. This is whether or not the people have their own attorneys. Then, if it is settled at mediation the court signs off on it. If it is not solved in mediation then there is the issue of the opponents going to court. That three step process looks similar in basic idea to the Matthew process. Maybe that idea, first one on one, then with a third party, and then going public is just a general good idea and the church was trying to do something like that in house back then.

  84. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    And the arguments against women priests (who have been ordained in the C of E for 20 years, and more in some other countries than England itself) are interesting. They have often centred around, not “biblical” gender roles, but on whether a woman can represent Christ at the altar and therefore consecrate the bread and wine so that they become (or at least stand in for) his body and blood.

    In Christ there is neither male nor female, unless it comes to a ritual act, then one must have the proper equipment or the Y chromosome. Do people not even think about how that sounds to women? It’s like, YES YOU ARE INFERIOR, LIKE IT OR LUMP IT.

    *shakes head violently*.

    I’ve often wondered if the Catholic church has ever considered not even giving the Eucharist to women, considering that no women were at the first Eucharist, if one goes by the biblical account. I know that argument was used by popes to keep women from the Maundy Thursday footwashing ceremony. As we know, the current pope put paid to that just a scant few days after he was elected, when he washed the feet of foreign women in a prison.

  85. Beakerj wrote:

    Now now now Alberquerque Blue, if that kitten is ON it’s meds its attention is better, & it can concentrate on kitten essentials such as the ball of string. I love to get right to the heart of the issue

    *looks around for the kitty pictures and sees none* *pouts*

    Seriously, I love cat pictures, especially funny ones.

  86. @ Nancy: it sounds like their church is part of the Anglo-Catholic subset of the Episcopal Church. Most of those here in the US are more Catholic than many Roman Catholic churches.

    The C of E (and the worldwide Anglican Communion) is a mighty big tent with all kinds of subgroupings, from low church Calvinists to ultra-A-C and everything in between.

    It can be a mess, but also far better in some respects to maintain unity in diversity. Certainly a difficult balancing act, though!

    As for who is at the altar, I think they need to be human, not male.

  87. Caitlin wrote:

    @ Nancy:

    Makes sense to me. Your example though is between private individuals, not leadership.

    matt 18 wasn’t directed at leadership, it was Jesus saying, “If your brother trespass against you..” the example I see in the bible about how “leadership” dealt with issues was that they (being filled with the Holy Spirit) prayed and fasted until they were clear about the Lord’s will, not their own. Its my opinion that MH leadership is using business strategies to try and keep the business alive, I think they hired a p.r. person and someone experienced in “spin” recently. Using scripture to justify their actions seems to have been the M.O. the whole time that MD has been there.

  88. sam h wrote:

    Using scripture to justify their actions seems to have been the M.O. the whole time that MD has been there.

    Does “using” scripture in this context really mean “abusing” scripture, as in twisting its meaning and application to something other than the intent of the original writer and the ultimate Author.

  89. In response to Mirele, Nancy and Bridget re the C of E on women priests:

    The C of E does not, as far as I know, formally hold to a belief in transubstantiation. On the other hand, it is a “broad church” – there are many shades of opinion and theology represented at a General Synod! In my younger days I used to hold this in a certain amount of prideful contempt (of which I am no longer proud). Now, of course, I see it as a great strength of the C of E, provided obviously that they continue to love one another and give preference to one another in honour. So, the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church does include many people who believe in transubstantiation; to them in particular, it would be problematic having a woman priest because then the wine and wafers wouldn’t transubstantiate (if that exists as an intransitive verb…).

    But that argument wasn’t the only argument against women priests, and I guess that some Anglicans who believe in transubstantiation might not think that it requires a priest who is male. Another major argument against women priests was straightforward tradition: people don’t like change. It’s easy to ridicule that, but we all – myself included – have our touchstones that we want to keep static and familiar. And at the same time, there were obviously many arguments presented for women priests – that’s why there are women priests!

    The C of E is a sacramental denomination, in that it does hold to the belief that you have to have a priest to bless the sacrament. No priest, no sacrament – you can share bread and wine, but it’s not holy communion; it’s a love feast (a phrase taken from, for instance, Jude verse 12). Interestingly, I read of an Anglican congregation that had planted a new church locally but who did not have an ordained priest to officiate at the daughter-congregation’s services. Those members who committed to the church plant found that to be a significant sacrifice, because they weren’t receiving regular communion and thereby believed themselves to be going without spiritual nourishment.

    I don’t personally believe in sacraments either, nor a priesthood-within-a-priesthood. But I will say this for the C of E. It’s true that there have sometimes been scandals involving priests, or people who should never have been made priests. But there is no process, doctrine or mechanism whereby a parish priest in the C of E can become a local uber-Pope or demigod with sole charge of the vision, the money, and the organisational chart. If anything, the reverse is the case – a congregation can sometimes become the private fiefdom of a few influential parishoners, and if anyone is thrown under the bus, it is as likely to be the priest as anyone else.

  90. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But there is no process, doctrine or mechanism whereby a parish priest in the C of E can become a local uber-Pope or demigod with sole charge of the vision, the money, and the organisational chart. If anything, the reverse is the case – a congregation can sometimes become the private fiefdom of a few influential parishoners, and if anyone is thrown under the bus, it is as likely to be the priest as anyone else.

    The synod and diocese provides a board of accountability to priests, but I think another factor is that in the UK there are very few mega churches. I used to attend the third largest Anglican church in the country and it had a congregation of 1200. Average congregation size in England is just 84.

    Source: http://www.eauk.org/church/research-and-statistics/english-church-census.cfm

    My thoughts as to why smaller churches are harder to control are that 1) there is a greater feel of family since its easier to meet and befriend most of your fellow attendees. So churchgoers are more likely to look out for each other than split into sections of “followers” and “dissenters”. There is a greater unity of thought in a smaller group. 2) if there are dissenters, an authoritarian pastor would have a hard time throwing them under the bus without a significant percentage of the flock knowing about it, knowing the person and possibly raising eyebrows, possibly getting upset because he’s throwing out “family”. He simply wouldn’t have enough people behind him to get away with it, even if it’s most of the flock. Easier to shun someone you never met in such a huge crowd, than to shun someone you shared coffee with in the tiny foyer after service.