Abusive Church – Guest Post by Todd Wilhelm

“The older I get the more I believe it is not the strong with the answers who we should be listening to. But the weak who’ve had to ask all the hard questions in search of strength beyond themselves.”
-Matt Redmond

1freedom

“Nowhere in the New Testament do we find anyone ‘submitting’ to a pastor, tithing their money at weekly Sunday services, asking permission of a spiritual leader in order to engage in ministry, or being told that unless they have a ‘church home’, and are under the authority of pastors and elders, that they are not being obedient to the call of Christ.

All of this, and much more, is the fabrication of the human ego, desperate to maintain security and control over the human resources of the masses. It is a serious and historic tragedy. It has reduced adult believers from living confident lives in the understanding of their spiritual identity, to stumbling along like toddlers, always needing the helping hand of the spiritual parent, from whom they must never stray.”
The Glass Pastor

Patrick Zukeran has written an excellent article titled “Abusive Churches: Leaving Them Behind – A Biblical Perspective.” It can be read in its entirety here.

After reading the article I was left wondering if perhaps Zukeran is a former member of the United Christian Church of Dubai; in the section titled “Discerning Good from Abusive” he describes John Folmar, senior pastor of UCCD,  to a tee.  Following are some characteristics Zukeran describes of abusive church leaders:

First, does the leadership invite dialogue, advice, evaluation, and questions from outside its immediate circle? Authoritarian pastors are threatened by any diverse opinions whether from inside or outside the group. Group members are discouraged from asking hard questions. The rule is, don’t ask questions and don’t make waves. A healthy pastor welcomes even tough questions, whereas in an unhealthy church disagreement with the pastor is considered disloyalty and is virtually equal to disobeying God. Spiritual language is used to disguise the manipulation that is going on. Questioners are labeled rebellious, insubordinate, and disruptive to the harmony of the body. Attempts are made to shut them down. The only way to succeed is to go along with the agenda, support the leaders, scorn those who disagree.

Second, is there a system of accountability or does the pastor keep full control? Authoritarian pastors do not desire a system of accountability. They may have a board but it consists of yes-men whom he ultimately selects.

Third, does a member’s personality generally become stronger, happier, and more confident as a result of being with the group? The use of guilt, fear, and intimidation is likely to produce members with low self-esteem. Many are beaten down by legalism, while assertiveness is a sign that one is not teachable and therefore not spiritual.

Fifth, does the group encourage independent thinking, developing discernment skills, and creation of new ideas? Abusive churches resort to using pressure to have followers conform, and there is a low tolerance for any kind of difference in belief (of a non-essential nature) and behavior. There is a legalistic emphasis on keeping the rules, and a need to stay within set boundaries. Unity is defined as conformity. These leaders evaluate all forms of Christian spirituality according to their own prescribed system.

Finally, is there a high rate of burnout among the members? In order to gain approval or prove you are a “true disciple,” abusive churches require levels of service that are very taxing.

If these are character traits of the group you are attending, you may be in an abusive church and should consider leaving the organization.

Zukeran closes with some good advice:

When you realize you are in an authoritarian church, it is best to leave and make a complete break. Many members remain, thinking their presence will help change the situation, but this is highly unlikely. In fact, remaining may perpetuate the existence of the organization.

…Renew your walk with God again. Admit that you acquired a distorted picture of Him, and focus on regaining the proper biblical understanding of His attributes and character. Don’t give up on the true church despite its imperfections. In fact, I encourage you to visit numerous healthy churches. It is refreshing to see how diverse the body of Christ is, and that there are many different ways to express our love and commitment to Christ.

Those who find themselves in authoritarian churches often remain despite the difficulties because there is an underlying hope that the church can change. Even after they leave they often remain keenly interested in the affairs of the former church because they hope restoration will still occur.

Can abusive churches change? Although with God all things are possible, it is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that this will happen. Although a few have, they are the exceptions.

Why is change in these organizations so difficult? One reason is that change usually begins in the leadership. However, the leadership structure is designed so that the leader has control over the personnel. Although there may be a board, the individuals on the board are ultimately selected by the authoritarian leader. He selects men and women loyal to him, who do not question him, or hold him accountable. Therefore, he insulates himself from dealing with difficult issues or addressing his unhealthy practices.

One major take-away I gained from my time at the 9Marks United Christian Church of Dubai is that I will never again join a church that requires a “membership contract” or “membership covenant.”  You will find these covenants are being pushed by organizations such as 9Marks and are becoming ever more prevalent among evangelical churches.  I do not believe that they can be justified biblically. The main purpose of these contracts seems to be to discipline members who have fallen out of the good graces of church leaders.  They particularly like to utilize the clause “We will, when we move from this place, as soon as possible unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s Word.” I have had this used against me when I quit UCCD over issues of conscience.  UCCD church leadership did not want to remove me from their membership roster because I chose to attend an Anglican church.  I was told by a UCCD elder that the Reverend of the local Anglican church was not even a Christian and therefore I was not in compliance with this clause!  In the end common sense prevailed and they backed down from this crazy accusation.  However, I have another friend who asked to be removed from the membership roster of UCCD because he no longer believed the institutional church was biblically correct.  He chose to go to a home church.  It boiled down to an issue of conscience.  UCCD excommunicated him, essentially proclaiming they have the right to bind a man’s conscience.

A friend and fellow blogger wrote an excellent critique of membership covenants which can be found here. I encourage all to read it.

My friends at The Wartburg Watch have also written a great article on the problems with membership contracts which can be found here.

8“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. 9And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. 10And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you must be a servant. 12But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
-Matthew 23:8-12 NLT

Lydia's Corner:    Hosea 10:1-14:9   Jude 1:1-25   Psalm 127:1-5   Proverbs 29:15-17

Comments

Abusive Church – Guest Post by Todd Wilhelm — 145 Comments

  1. We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God's man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.

  2. “A healthy pastor welcomes even tough questions”

    Jesus openly fielded yes/no questions where a “yes” answer meant he would be put to death by one angry mob, and a “no” answer meant he would be put to death by the other angry mob.

    Why is answering questions such a problem, again? If we are Christ-like, shouldn’t answering questions be the norm?

  3. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. The problem with authoritarian pastors is that they haven’t met Jesus and don’t understand what he demands of them.

  4. Deb and Dee,

    When TWW comes out with new articles, like this one, would you start posting them to the Wartburg Watch facebook page too? That way they can be easily shared and their impact multiplied as they go viral.

    BTW, anyone reading this should go to the Wartburg Watch FB page and click “Like”.
    Amen?

  5. Anon wrote:

    Deb and Dee,
    When TWW comes out with new articles, like this one, would you start posting them to the Wartburg Watch facebook page too? That way they can be easily shared and their impact multiplied as they go viral.
    BTW, anyone reading this should go to the Wartburg Watch FB page and click “Like”.
    Amen?

    Actually, Anon, recent changes on Facebook mean that many people who “like” a page do not see the posts. FB is not a very effective marketing tool any more. OTOH, you can share the link to this page on your own facebook feed which will help spread the information.

    I just shared this post in one of my private Facebook groups. I noticed that when I shared the link, there was not a preview of the post or any kind of graphic that showed up. Adding those would help get more readers.

  6. This is an excellent article that I found the other day while surfing the net. It talks about when church discipline is sin. It is written as a rebuke to 9 Marks. My favorite part is in the comments when an Aussie puts Jonathan Leeman over his knees and spanks him! Leave it to the folks from down under to have more common sense than Mark Dever and Capital Hill Baptist Church.

    http://teaminfocus.com.au/when-church-discipline-is-sin/

  7. By the way…if you are ever facing church discipline make arrangements to flee to Capitol Hill Baptist Church. CJ Mahaney set the precedence. Mark Dever took him in…what does that mean. Most of the 9 Marks is just BS. Mark Dever undermined his own theology when he let CJ Mahaney hide behind his skirt.

    For arrangements to stay at CHBC…contact Jonathan Leeman! 😛

  8. There is one thing on my mind that has been bugging me since reading this. And I write this as I reflect on a greater issue…in authoritarian churches questioning is squashed, you are taught to follow the line, etc… Many Christians are confused about what grace is anyway. Just like Christians don’t know what forgiveness is. But are members of the US military (Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard) more vulnerable to this authoritarian churches? Do these churches duplicate the top down structure of orders, and towing the line? Are these churches more military centric in their thinking than Christian? As a result do these churches draw members of the military?

    My analysis here and I would appreciate some perspective from those who have been in the US military or even officers. But I have noticed a trend and heard stories of people in the military attracted to 9 Marks or Sovereign Grace style churches. Then the other day I was reading the web and found this blog about one woman’s horrific experience in an Evangelical Free Church in Atascadero, California. When I research the church I noticed that the Senior Pastor who fostered the abuse, created the culture that kept it going was a graduate of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

    http://ikissedchurchgoodbye.org/cornerstone-community-church/

    I’m just throwing that out here. It would be a fascinating to gets ones hands on 9 Marks, Acts 29, SGM, style churches and find out how close are many of these planted to military communities. And what is the make up of the members? Just some thinking….

  9. __

    “The More I See…”

    hmmm…

    “She don’t know, 
    She don’t know, 
    That the fighting church religious bullies run ragged,
    The range of Christ’s love.

    The music is loud, 
    She is beyond hypnotized,
    The greater the reach, 
    The deeper the pride,
    The more she’s gonna get sucked ino this spiritual void.

    The more I see,
    The less love I experience,
    Yet more and more the planting of the weeds.

    But I thought the Master was patiently sowing wheat for His barns, 
    For His barns?

    She don’t know, 
    She don’t know…” [1]

    *

    Are the righteous, those who love the Lord,  forced to beg for  ‘true’ spiritual bread… In a dry and weary church where there is no water?

    (sadface)

    Mine eyes shall look to the LORD our God, until His graciousness to us is poured out…forever faithful are You, O’ Lord!

    *

    …pass da salt…please!

    Sopy
    __
    [1] Copyright – Sopy Productions, Ltd. (c) 2014.
    *
    Inspirational relief: Antonio Vivaldi – “Summer” from his “Four Seasons”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g65oWFMSoK0

    ;~)

  10. @ Eagle:

    Kip McKean, who lead the International Churches of Christ and has now started the International Christian Churches (both with roots in the Churches of Christ) is the son of a Navy Admiral.

  11. This is an excellent point, Steve. When no one is allowed to ask questions, everybody walks in lockstep and there is no growth, only stagnation. On another note, I posted a link to this article on my twitter page in the hope that more people will learn about spiritual abuse.

  12. Eagle:

    Eagle wrote:

    I’m just throwing that out here. It would be a fascinating to gets ones hands on 9 Marks, Acts 29, SGM, style churches and find out how close are many of these planted to military communities.

    Yes. Having lived within the original 1930’s fundamentalist movement leadership as they aged. I was struck how many of the IFB colleges attracted first WWII vets and then militant anti-commies/cold war military folks. People who want rigid rules and are attracted to hierarchical control are attracted to both the military and the dominating church (I think this also applies to Neo-Calvanists as well).

  13. Attorney

    We had a discussion on a previous blog entry. We were talking about the 3 tithes that were imposed in the OT. Do you have any links that show this?

    I find what you stated contrasts with the link I posted for the pdf about “Eating Your Tithe.”

    Nice blog post Todd.

  14. @ Eagle:

    Eagle, I think that people who are in the military LIKE highly structured organizations. They wouldn’t be happy in the military otherwise. But there is another problem. As the MRFF has demonstrated many times, being the RIGHT kind of christian can also be key to promotion.

  15. Eagle wrote:

    But are members of the US military (Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard) more vulnerable to this authoritarian churches?

    I come from a military family. I don’t see how or why military personnel or their dependents would necessarily be more vulnerable than anyone else.

    Having read books about co-dependency, one said a personality study of the average joe pew sitter said that I think it was 80% or so of Americans in the church has a passive personality style (compared to a lower figure for the culture at large), they are afraid of conflict and rocking the boat.

    Co-dependents (passive types, doormats) are far more vulnerable to being pushed around and are easier targets for abuse, being hoodwinked, conned, etc, and even the ones who recognized they are being bullied are too afraid to speak up and confront the bully. They suffer in silence.

  16. nmgirl wrote:

    Eagle, I think that people who are in the military LIKE highly structured organizations

    The Jesuits (who were organized in a paramilitary heirarchy by ex-soldier Loyola) also attract a lot of ex-military. To the point they’re called “The Vatican Marine Corps” or “The Vatican Green Berets”.

  17. nmgirl wrote:

    I think that people who are in the military LIKE highly structured organizations. They wouldn’t be happy in the military otherwise.

    There are definitely people who function more comfortably in structured and hierarchical organizations, as well as those who find such situations oppressive. In my personal family we have people who thrive in structured situations. Understand this, that the military is not the only structured and/or hierarchical situation in our culture. All, that would be all, of the adults in my immediate family do best in structured situations, some in one way and some in another. One of us is a Lt. Col JAG in the Army National Guard, and the military folks like him and he likes them. At the same time he also works in one area of the federal government which is hierarchical, his sister works in education and both his parents worked in health care areas which are hierarchical. (Not all education and not all health care is all that hierarchical, but some is.)

    We all prefer organized and structured situations, but I do not think we feel about organization and structure like those who prefer more unstructured situations seem to think we feel about it. I do not think that it “affects” us the same way. I have watched both daughter-in-law and son adapt to a specific new church situation and they adapt differently to the same situation. He finds enough of what he needs (somebody has the situation under control and it does not have to be his problem so he can relax a little) and she finds enough of what she needs (opportunity to participate, and they hand out printed information that is adequate so she understands what is going on-that aspect is under control) and off they go.

    But among us structure-lovers I do not see what the non-structure lovers think they see in us. I think there is a real misunderstanding of each other among the different personality types. I see among us a lot of high-dominance people who are not all that threatened by other high-dominance people or situations. I see among us quite a few people with high levels of feelings of responsibility, and the feeling that if things are not under control in some way then it is our potential responsibility to get in there and do something about it, and who can relate if everything in life like that? So when the situation is already under control we are more able to relax and not worry about it. And I think we also feel more comfortable with other high-dominance people primarily because they are not forever getting their feelings hurt by us in some way. They are easier to deal with.

    None of this remotely lessens our own sense of individuality or our own goal-driven behavior patterns or incurable tendencies to think for ourselves. We seem to have a huge sense of “that is them and this is me so how is that my problem?” And “step over it an go on.” There is always “work the system” and ”take what you need and leave the rest.”

    But, be careful when saying that somehow unstructured is more “christian” than structured. God is love and also God is sovereign. Neither statement about God is un-christian. But this is another topic for another time.

  18. @ Nancy:

    What’s funny is that I’m *such* a high-dominance person that I won’t like authoritarian (or whatever the non-negative word for authoritarian is) churches at all. Or maybe I just have trust issues. Probably trust issues.

    Well, maybe I *do* like hierarchy- I like to have some institutional gravitas bestowed on the leaders of my church. I like to have fail-safes. Checks and balances. But to me, the control is focused on the leadership (be it pastors or laity), not on the members. You start telling *me* how to do things and I will walk away, happily.

  19. __

    Q. “How do I ensure I am aware of abusive church ‘airspace’ irrelevant to a successful walk with Jesus Christ?”

    hmmm… 

    For many, the experience of “doing church”, has become a nitemare, a ‘Night Gallery’, a ‘Twilight Zone’ ?

    A game of religious thrones, perhaps?

    Enter into thse religious 501(c)3 ‘restrictive’ airspaces, and you are immediately barraged by ‘their rules’; you can be forced down at any turn, at any time, or worse?  They say their authority comes from the bible, and possibly their ordination certificate as well…

    huh?

    …the church abuse goes on,
    the church abuse goes on?

    Better cover your @zz and watch your children, huh?

    could b.

    Got ta be abused if you wanna sing da church blues,and ya know ‘it don’t come easy’?

    What?

    …these proverbial religious charlatans coming in Jesus’ name perhaps, and misleading so very many?

    (gump!)

    Danger!, Will Robinson, Danger!

    (sadface)

    “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. ‘I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing,..” ~ Jesus

    (smiley face goes here)

    Sopy

  20. An Attorney wrote:

    We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God’s man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.

    Not sure how you’re squaring the above with instructions, qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable.

  21. @ Andy:

    To be (s)elected to serve the congregation in a function is not to be in authority over others, but to be a servant to them. Those (s)elected to serve are to be accountable to the congregation and to God, not to some individual or hierarchy.

  22. @ An Attorney:

    Humans and power are complicated things. (I think it’s relevant that the attorneys are coming down on this side of the debate- a more cynical group you’ll never meet). God knows this. He warned the Israelites about kings. Only One being in the universe has actual power and authority, only One being in the universe has the ability to use it properly. Jesus tried to explain this to us- real authority is being willing to serve, to die for your underlings.

    Humans don’t do that, because humans are only the image of God, not God Himself. So instead, we have to be very wary of humans that we put in power. I’m an organized person, *someone* has to be in charge. But those someones should:
    A. Think of it as a burden, not a blessing
    B. Make themselves as small as possible
    C. Be under multiple layers of scrutiny, especially from those *below* them
    D. Cannot eclipse the power of conscience within an individual believer (aka the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in that person) under ANY circumstances.
    E. Cannot seek fame or fortune or anything that goes with it (I thank you all)

    Sound like fun? Sound like your average “I just founded a church because reasons” sort of pastor?

  23. Andy wrote:

    An Attorney wrote:
    We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God’s man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.

    Not sure how you’re squaring the above with instructions, qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable.

    I’m trying to figure out how a person could ignore the words of Jesus regarding authority and claim that the “instructions about qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable” would be equivalent to having authority over other believers? I’m not sure where you stand on any of this so no accusations being thrown around on my part.

    The qualifications of deacons and elders does not transfer to having authority over other believers. Qualifications are there to make sure someone is of good character and able to “serve” in a way that will be profitable to the church. Likewise, “teachers of the word are to be held accountable” is instruction to the teacher to be quite careful of what he teaches because God will hold the teacher accountable for what he teaches to the church (other believers). The instructions were not meant to infer that believers are under elders, deacons, and teachers. And, yes, all this makes all the difference in the world. We have one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

  24. The conversation about the connection between being in the military and accepting authoritarian churches is interesting. But I think another concept is at work in those situations.

    I can think back over my church experience and something I have seen many, many times is that a human structure like the military, education, business, being wealthy, etc., often seems to trump “being filled with the Spirit”.

    A new person is first evaluated and valued by their degrees, their experience, who they know, how accomplished they are, etc. Too often these are reasons to suggest them for “leadership” in the church club.

    I have seen military officers, company presidents, PHD candidates, health care executives, and yes, the seminary graduates, be lauded and pursued as “leaders”. Even in youth groups the focus is on which student could be a “leader” based on, it seems to me, how outgoing, musically talented, academically advanced, they are.

    I have made it my practice to look for the person who doesn’t fit those profiles. The person who is kind, serves freely, waits for the little kid, all that kind of stuff. And when I see them I often see Jesus.

  25. @ Caitlin:

    There is also how the different types of church structures teach about God. What they say about God from the pulpit and the sunday school. Which scriptures they choose to emphasize and which they tend to ignore. It is, yes, a partly about the people (leadership and non-leadership) but and also it is about the ideas and concepts and ideals and behaviors and such.

    I don’t go to church for the people but rather for what they do and say about the things of God. My children are hugely concerned about what is taught their children, what they come to believe to be true. How are they catechized? What goes on in formation? What kind of people does this help them to become? I have met just a whole lot of people like me.

    And I want to emphasize that offices (job descriptions) and functions (who is in charge of/ultimately responsible for what/ where the buck stops) and hierarchy (I thinking on the job here, not church) does not mean letting some control freak get loose on the ppl. It does say something, however, about how the system functions. These are two different issues entirely. The type of system, on the one hand, and what bad people can do in any system if they are not controlled.

    Applying this to the church issue this is one reason I disagree with the doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. Somebody keeping an eye on the pastor and somebody to whom the congregation can appeal looks a lot better to me.

  26. @ Nancy:

    I agree with you there. My parents told me few, but poignant, things about God, most of my “nitty-gritty” education came from Sunday school.

    And yes, I don’t like autonomous local churches, unless you are only defining local church to mean “The Temple of the Holy Spirit” that is each individual believer. When you gather a bunch of believers together, sure, you’ve got a gathering of the Body. But you also have a gathering of bodies. And therein lies danger.

    I am willing to put cash money down saying that abusive churches cause infinitely more harm than undisciplined sin (of course within “abusive” church I throw in any church that perpetuates the victimization of those who have been assaulted by members or leaders, whether in domestic violence or the sexual abuse of children, or whatever- to allow those sinners free access to the lambs of God is the height of abuse). Cash. Money.

    You really think nonbelievers are looking at churches and thinking “Wow, all those divorcees who got remarried!” Or are they thinking “Wow, all those child molesters…”

  27. Bridget wrote:

    Andy wrote:
    An Attorney wrote:
    We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God’s man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.
    Not sure how you’re squaring the above with instructions, qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable.
    I’m trying to figure out how a person could ignore the words of Jesus regarding authority and claim that the “instructions about qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable” would be equivalent to having authority over other believers? I’m not sure where you stand on any of this so no accusations being thrown around on my part.
    The qualifications of deacons and elders does not transfer to having authority over other believers. Qualifications are there to make sure someone is of good character and able to “serve” in a way that will be profitable to the church. Likewise, “teachers of the word are to be held accountable” is instruction to the teacher to be quite careful of what he teaches because God will hold the teacher accountable for what he teaches to the church (other believers). The instructions were not meant to infer that believers are under elders, deacons, and teachers. And, yes, all this makes all the difference in the world. We have one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

    What is your reading of Hebrews 13:17 Bridget? 1John3:9-10 speaks of such men who are abusing their pastoral authority as well. It seems as though there is a dispute that there is not an authority structure within the church which, according to scripture, would be false.

  28. @ Nancy:

    One more thing (until I think of one more after this). Let us take the situation where there is no system, no assigned or assumed functions for individuals, just a bunch of people who get together. Example: there are several folks and their kids who all like to go to the pool together with my daughter and her family. So they all go-to the pool. What could be more unstructured, in theory at least. But it took only a very few minutes on the first day they did that this year for a clear hierarchy and structure to become evident, and now they check to see who is doing what and when, and who is taking their own food and who is buying at the pool, and what time is everybody going and leaving, how how have they decided to deal with a certain other person who goes over their half naked in front of the children and on and on.

    What we have is that everybody is in control of everybody else, actually, and there is not one faint shred of do your own thing and who gives a flip about any of it. This is what happens when people get together. There is no such thing in human groups as lack of dominance or lack of structure of some kind. It is rather pick your poison as to which you can best deal with.

  29. Caitlin wrote:

    Is it weird that in my opinion the solution to abusive churches is *more* oversight, not less?

    I think the proper term would be “undersight” — that those who act as “leaders” are consistently and totally responsible to those who accept them in that position. As in, “if we the people put you there, we the people have the right to remove you, to discipline you, etc.” Then put the process into place to do that.

    At one time, many, many Baptist churches had “annual call”. That is, the pastor had a one year contract and the church would vote each year on who the pastor should be for the coming year!

  30. Nancy wrote:

    But, be careful when saying that somehow unstructured is more “christian” than structured.

    I don’t think anyone said this.

    FWIW, I fall on the more structured, organized, order is the rule of the day side of the spectrum, along with often speaking my mind. I can see how peoples’ gifting in these areas can lead some people to be authoritarian leaders. I have unintentionally run over people because of what you say here, “And I think we also feel more comfortable with other high-dominance people primarily because they are not forever getting their feelings hurt by us in some way. They are easier to deal with.” I’ve had to learn to temper my tendencies according to the circumstances. Mainly, my goal is to use my tendencies to help the weaker among us and not let those like me and those with authoritarian leadership tendencies to run over others.

  31. @ An Attorney:

    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    I’m comfortable with something slightly less than “every year we decide whether we like you” but I spent 4 years at a church plant with only the oversight of three elders who were hand-picked and I never again attend a church like that. There weren’t even any problems while I was there (that I was aware of) but the potential alone was alarming. Sadly it was in a very church-starved area and I had no choice.

  32. Caitlin
    I am radically democratic about the church. That is, in general, the pastor should not be involved in church business, but should be involved only in the preaching and teaching functions, and stay totally out of the business issues. The business issues should stay with the congregation. And, unless invited, the pastor should not speak, and then limit his talk to encouragement of the congregation to work out their own solutions to the business issues of the church. I was a member of a church like that, vice chair of deacons (who were ministering to families, not business), chair of personnel committee (making personnel recommendations to the monthly business session), and otherwise active. Spouse served on church council (coordinating programs to avoid conflict), led women’s organization (elected by the women), and nominating committee (all non-paid service–committee members, teachers, etc.). It had a great spirit and there was a great deal of love among the members. Every decision occurred in general business session each month, often on recommendation by a committee elected by the business session. Great organizational structure.

  33. Andy wrote:

    I’m trying to figure out how a person could ignore the words of Jesus regarding authority and claim that the “instructions about qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable” would be equivalent to having authority over other believers?

    Can we start with what Jesus said about authority and servanthood first and build from there? What are your thoughts about Jesus’ instructions.

  34. The big check and balance against authority being misused in the church is the bible itself. It comes with the authority of God himself, and when men get above themselves as is their wont, disobeying them is fine, indeed right, if at the same time we are obeying God. It’s a question of who has the greater authority.

    I still remember a message from one of my favourite bible teachers on the subject of authority in the church, who said ‘if the elders start interfering in areas that are none of their concern, tell them to get lost’. A very liberating phrase!

  35. @ An Attorney:

    I like that, and the other churches I have attended are fairly similar. The Staff-Parish committees are in charge of the church, and the staff is really just there to provide input. It’s partly because I’m UMC, and our attitude toward our pastors is that their career is with the UMC and the churches that are UMC are their own things that operate before during and after a particular pastor works there.

    When I say that I want oversight and hierarchy, I’m mainly talking about on a theological level. I don’t need to be able to read Greek to set up a budget and I don’t have to have an MDiv to start a homeless ministry. But I’m not comfortable saying that I or a bunch of other lay members could catch and call out dangerous teaching. Some, perhaps, but I don’t trust the lay expertise on that issue. So I want my pastors to come with the Official Seal of Approval from outside.

  36. Nancy wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    One more thing (until I think of one more after this). Let us take the situation where there is no system, no assigned or assumed functions for individuals, just a bunch of people who get together. Example: there are several folks and their kids who all like to go to the pool together with my daughter and her family. So they all go-to the pool. What could be more unstructured, in theory at least. But it took only a very few minutes on the first day they did that this year for a clear hierarchy and structure to become evident, and now they check to see who is doing what and when, and who is taking their own food and who is buying at the pool, and what time is everybody going and leaving, how how have they decided to deal with a certain other person who goes over their half naked in front of the children and on and on.
    What we have is that everybody is in control of everybody else, actually, and there is not one faint shred of do your own thing and who gives a flip about any of it. This is what happens when people get together. There is no such thing in human groups as lack of dominance or lack of structure of some kind. It is rather pick your poison as to which you can best deal with.

    To me, this is simply people functioning in their natural gifting, but it does not need to, nor should it, look like dominance or hierarchy. When dominance and hierarchy become apparent is when things go bad. And, to me, it is mainly the people with the leadership gifts that need to make sure that “dominance and hierarchy” do not creep in to their leading, organizing, and structuring.

  37. Bridget wrote:

    I don’t think anyone said this.

    In his original statement, Eagle was talking about military people and authoritarian churches and what relationship might there be. In that comment he said, “Are these churches more military centric in their thinking than Christian? As a result do these churches draw members of the military?” clearly contrasting authoritarian and hierarchical churches on the one hand and christian (churches? attitudes?) on the other. I have taken exception to that sort of characterization of hierarchy, also in the light of previous discussions on TWW about whether there is actually such a thing as an “office” in the church at all.

    Some of the previous opinions from the more non-structured advocates have been a lot more forthright than that, but I just picked up on that particular allusion from Eagle. Especially in light of the military connection in our family.

  38. Ken wrote:

    The big check and balance against authority being misused in the church is the bible itself. It comes with the authority of God himself, and when men get above themselves as is their wont, disobeying them is fine, indeed right, if at the same time we are obeying God. It’s a question of who has the greater authority.

    I still remember a message from one of my favourite bible teachers on the subject of authority in the church, who said ‘if the elders start interfering in areas that are none of their concern, tell them to get lost’. A very liberating phrase!

    I agree with this. It does however take a very strong and confident Christian to tell off leadership. The flipside to humanity’s lust for power is humanity’s lust to follow. Loki in the Avengers movie got it right: we want to be led. Our thirst for power is a corruption of the aspects of our roles as image-bearers of God and our thirst to follow is a corruption of our role vis a vis God the Ultimate Authority.

    While my own conscience might remain clear if I say “This is none of your business and also unBiblical” I can’t support a system that does not protect the most vulnerable, the young Christians, the less-informed, the cowed.

  39. Caitlin wrote:

    It does however take a very strong and confident Christian to tell off leadership.

    Yes, it does. But in the old timey baptist churches (I had to say that) I have seen the time when the Board of Deacons, which had been invested with a level of authority and responsibility, “ran off” some misbehaving preacher when it needed done. If, however, the deacons (or lay elders in some denominations) have no “authority” this leaves the vulnerable more helpless, it seems to me. And there is some economic and social pressure on the deacons / lay elders to act for the welfare of the people in such a system, since they tend to be local residents with local jobs and businesses and reputations and such. You mess up on the Deacon Board in the old days and the word got out and you had not done yourself any favors.

    Now, personally I had rather have a bishop or district superintendent for such purposes, but I can’t see where doing away with all authority in all forms helps anybody. It just leaves the wolves free to consume the sheep without interference.

  40. If the sheep are organized and know their stuff, then the wolves have little chance. My father was a deacon in a church that was in the process of seeking a new pastor. After his morning trial sermon, the candidate met with the deacons, and basically said that he would run the church if employed. They said, well, we know you were to preach tonight, but under the circumstances, you should leave town now. And we will visit with the congregation about your statements. He came highly recommended, but would be in control. Not appropriate for a congregationally governed church.

  41. My husband has always attended independent churches and I have always attended denominational ones so we have often discussed this issue.

    A concern I have with independent churches is where do you go when the whole church goes off the deep end? Of course rational people can and do vote with their feet but who helps the more naive members who are being hurt?

    One of my guilty pleasures is true crime shows and I watched one where the assistant pastor of a church murdered his wife (actually there were three of these shows). Before it got to that point though, the church had clearly gone off the beam. A woman was allowed to ‘prophesy’ things like predicting one woman’s miscarriage as if God could possibly have any purpose in such a thing. Her status as Prophetess was insured when the woman’s difficult pregnancy did end in a miscarriage. A subsequent prophesy that the asst pastor’s wife would die and the ‘prophet’ would marry him apparently sealed his desire to get rid of the wife he no longer wanted. He was asked to do marriage counseling and the senior pastor ignored the fact that the younger man was seeing the wives separately in very private settings (and seducing them). It just seemed to me that this whole situation could have been short circuited if the members of the congregation had a regional counsel to go to with their concerns.

  42. Marsha wrote:

    My husband has always attended independent churches and I have always attended denominational ones so we have often discussed this issue.
    A concern I have with independent churches is where do you go when the whole church goes off the deep end? Of course rational people can and do vote with their feet but who helps the more naive members who are being hurt?
    One of my guilty pleasures is true crime shows and I watched one where the assistant pastor of a church murdered his wife (actually there were three of these shows). Before it got to that point though, the church had clearly gone off the beam. A woman was allowed to ‘prophesy’ things like predicting one woman’s miscarriage as if God could possibly have any purpose in such a thing. Her status as Prophetess was insured when the woman’s difficult pregnancy did end in a miscarriage. A subsequent prophesy that the asst pastor’s wife would die and the ‘prophet’ would marry him apparently sealed his desire to get rid of the wife he no longer wanted. He was asked to do marriage counseling and the senior pastor ignored the fact that the younger man was seeing the wives separately in very private settings (and seducing them). It just seemed to me that this whole situation could have been short circuited if the members of the congregation had a regional counsel to go to with their concerns.

    If members don’t recognize that there is a problem, then they won’t go to a regional counsel with their concerns, nor will they stand up and walk out from false teaching in an independent church. Congregations need to be as discerning. If leaders are unwilling to mature young believers, then they shouldn’t be leaders. Many leaders simply want followers, but are not interested in helping to mature young Christians. Conversely, some people just want to follow. They then risk finding themselves in bad situations.

  43. Nancy–agree with your posts.

    I’ve been in healthy Baptist churches, unhealthy Baptist churches, and non Baptist churches both healthy and unhealthy.

    Whatever the structure, there always is authority. In the healthy churches, that lies in the statement of faith or creed. You may not agree with it, which means that church won’t be a good fit and you better find another one, but it is pretty black and white, cut and dried, and out in the open. Want women’s ordination? Forget RCC, LCMS, SBC. Want gay marriage? Might like ELCA. That sort of thing is healthy, and it is silly and unhealthy to pick a group you radically disagree with and then try to change it around to your way of thinking.

    In unhealthy churches, there is no set standard of doctrine or behavior or what have you–just a constant power struggle. Pastor wants his way, some pew sitters want their way, and all sides are in a constant turf war.

    As for us, our beliefs are somewhere between Wesleyan Holiness and traditional Southern Baptist. We attend occasionally at a CotN, and mostly at Baptist churches.

    But join? Not on your tintype nelly until this pastoral authority thing comes to an end.

    As old time SBC, I have one Lord and He is Jesus. I cooperate with a local church for the furtherance of the gospel, but neither the pastor nor the church is in authority of my soul. I believe in soul sufficiency.

    Time was the SBC did too.

  44. Nancy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    I don’t think anyone said this.
    In his original statement, Eagle was talking about military people and authoritarian churches and what relationship might there be. In that comment he said, “Are these churches more military centric in their thinking than Christian? As a result do these churches draw members of the military?” clearly contrasting authoritarian and hierarchical churches on the one hand and christian (churches? attitudes?) on the other. I have taken exception to that sort of characterization of hierarchy, also in the light of previous discussions on TWW about whether there is actually such a thing as an “office” in the church at all.
    Some of the previous opinions from the more non-structured advocates have been a lot more forthright than that, but I just picked up on that particular allusion from Eagle. Especially in light of the military connection in our family.

    I guess I just don’t see those two questions as characterizations. They seem like legitimate questions to me. I have been in a church that was run like a military installation. If one didn’t agree with the pastor (there were no elders) they were a problem and dismissed from the pastors mind as not worth his time and effort 🙁

    On the other hand, I was secretary to the lead pastor of another church who was in the military for many years. His military leanings and habits served him very well in the areas of time management and production. I have never seen a pastor accomplish as much (had a large family as well). Yet, I know he had to work hard to not let that training, ability, natural gifting to overpower other areas of his character that were needed to function as a pastor/leader. (You know . . . our strongest asset could also be our downfall?) What impressed me most about his character was that he responded to an observation I brought to him concerning his mistreatment of a paid service provider. I was young, a newer Christian, his secretary, yet he didn’t dismiss what I shared. His conscience was not seared. He came to me later and said he called and apologized to this person. There were times he brought things to me as well 🙂

  45. Eagle wrote:

    There is one thing on my mind that has been bugging me since reading this. And I write this as I reflect on a greater issue…in authoritarian churches questioning is squashed, you are taught to follow the line, etc… Many Christians are confused about what grace is anyway. Just like Christians don’t know what forgiveness is. But are members of the US military (Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard) more vulnerable to this authoritarian churches? Do these churches duplicate the top down structure of orders, and towing the line? Are these churches more military centric in their thinking than Christian? As a result do these churches draw members of the military?
    My analysis here and I would appreciate some perspective from those who have been in the US military or even officers. But I have noticed a trend and heard stories of people in the military attracted to 9 Marks or Sovereign Grace style churches. Then the other day I was reading the web and found this blog about one woman’s horrific experience in an Evangelical Free Church in Atascadero, California. When I research the church I noticed that the Senior Pastor who fostered the abuse, created the culture that kept it going was a graduate of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
    http://ikissedchurchgoodbye.org/cornerstone-community-church/
    I’m just throwing that out here. It would be a fascinating to gets ones hands on 9 Marks, Acts 29, SGM, style churches and find out how close are many of these planted to military communities. And what is the make up of the members? Just some thinking….

    Surely some of the things that military people prefer, such as structure and clearly-defined authority relationships, would attract some to churches like SGM and 9Marks. But in the military, there’s also a sense of justice, honor and accountability, from lowest to highest. Patton had to make a public apology to a private whom he’d slapped and Eisenhower effectively removed him from command for a year. The rules tend to apply top-down. There’s some sense of legitimacy in the authority in a military environment, senior command typically comes after decades of hard work, sacrifice, training, and often education in one of the elite academies (that are, unlike the SGM pastor’s “college”, about as selective as Harvard). It does not come to ambitious 20-somethings without education or talent for anything other than ingratiating one’s self to the leader. And if my experience living for years on a military base is any indication, soldiers do not follow anything like a “don’t talk” rule with regard to their opinion of their leaders, they tend to be free spirits and opinionated.

    There might be something to superficially draw the average military man or woman, but once inside, they’ll see a world utterly foreign to military life.

  46. Andy wrote:

    An Attorney wrote:
    We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God’s man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.
    Not sure how you’re squaring the above with instructions, qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable.

    I’m trying to figure out what Andy’s getting at. What in the world do any of the qualifications for teachers of the Word, deacons and elders have to do with anything An Attorney said? In fact, I’d think everything An Attorney said nicely dovetails into these qualifications. Andy, you really have to explain yourself here.

  47. Todd, that list of characteristics for authoritarian church organizations looks like it also fits what I read about North Korea. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter where you find it.

    And as for some church trying to hold anyone to a signed agreement about membership, I wouldn’t give it a second thought if it were me. Then again, I probably wouldn’t give it a first thought either. Then once again, I’d probably never have signed such a “covenant” agreement in the first place.

  48. Andy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Andy wrote:
    An Attorney wrote:
    We are all priests. Even in authority, even in access to God through Jesus Christ, even in responsibility. Jesus said that his followers are not to be in authority over other followers or to allow anyone to put them in authority over other followers. To claim to be God’s man on earth is to violate the commandment not to take His name in vain.
    Not sure how you’re squaring the above with instructions, qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable.
    I’m trying to figure out how a person could ignore the words of Jesus regarding authority and claim that the “instructions about qualifications for deacons and elders or how teachers of the word are to be held accountable” would be equivalent to having authority over other believers? I’m not sure where you stand on any of this so no accusations being thrown around on my part.
    The qualifications of deacons and elders does not transfer to having authority over other believers. Qualifications are there to make sure someone is of good character and able to “serve” in a way that will be profitable to the church. Likewise, “teachers of the word are to be held accountable” is instruction to the teacher to be quite careful of what he teaches because God will hold the teacher accountable for what he teaches to the church (other believers). The instructions were not meant to infer that believers are under elders, deacons, and teachers. And, yes, all this makes all the difference in the world. We have one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.
    What is your reading of Hebrews 13:17 Bridget? 1John3:9-10 speaks of such men who are abusing their pastoral authority as well. It seems as though there is a dispute that there is not an authority structure within the church which, according to scripture, would be false.

    Andy: No, not an “authority structure” at all, except inasmuch as jesus is the authority, the only mediator, and that we all are to follow Him, without an intermediary. Hebrews 13:17, the favorite of cultists to twist, is a pretty poor argument for you.

    If you take it as you presumably wish to take it, it is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in Matthew 20 and 23, what Peter said in I Peter 5, or pretty much what the whole of the New Testament says about authority, submitting “one to another”, last being first. The ESV (also a favorite of cultists, at least of the neocal variety), translates that straight up as “obey”, but that’s a poor translation, a difficulty with the English language, like the use of a single word in English, “love”, to indicate what you feel for the Lord, your fellow humans, your spouse, and the four slices of pizza you just ate, whereas as we all know the Greek is much richer on this point, using a number of words to connote those concepts. The word that the ESV and some other translations roughly translate as “obey” would be more properly rendered “allow yourself to be persuaded by”, “follow”, or “be persuadable”. Quite a bit different from where you’re wanting to take it, no? And when taken in light of what Jesus said about authority in the Church, a perfectly absurd take on that single verse, a non sequitur.

    Go ahead and have it that way at your church if you want, but please, if you do so, stop calling it a church, it has little or nothing to do with a church.

  49. @ LawProf:

    Part of me feels as though adding to your very clear and content-rich reply would be gilding the lily, LawProf. But here goes anyway… there are, of course, many leaders and others who must have hierarchy in the church because the only alternative they can imagine would be anarchy. I suspect this shows, more often than not, very little experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    It is a desperate weakness of western Christianity that so many aspects of the Christian life have become private and individualised. Even in church settings that do allow the Holy Spirit in, he is often only allowed to give some pictures, tongues and prophetic words before being told to sit in the corner with the coloured paper and plastic safety-scissors. As a result, too few believers have any real exposure to the corporate leading of the Holy Spirit, where he speaks not to a select few at the top of the hierarchy but to all the members of a congregation – or at the very least a large and strongly representative sample.

    To my mind, hierarchical church structures are rooted in unbelief, and spiritual naivety masquerading as management skill. Jesus can’t really build his church, and God’s kingdom can’t really work that differently from men’s kingdoms.

  50. LawProf wrote:

    The ESV (also a favorite of cultists, at least of the neocal variety), translates that straight up as “obey”, but that’s a poor translation, a difficulty with the English language

    Are you referring to the 1 Peter 5: 1-5 section about the “obey” thing? ESV does not contain the word “obey” there. But look at what it does say. It tells “elders” to shepherd the flock and exercise oversight, and then explains how that is to be done with three qualifying statements (not under compulsion, not for shameful gain and not domineering). And then this: 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

    If there are not supposed to be elders, or they are not supposed to shepherd or exercise oversight what on earth could this mean? If there are not “those in your charge” what then is it saying. If the younger are not to be subject to the elders, what does this mean? I think it means that these categories (elders) and these functions do exist but are not to be abused, as opposed to saying that neither these categories not these functions should exist at all. I just don’t see that in this passage.

    1 Peter 5 English Standard Version (ESV)
    Shepherd the Flock of God
    1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

  51. One thing about the authority in my old church…they practically forbid you to attend another church’s events, meetings, special programs etc. because “they allow women to teach, they speak in tongues etc” (please don’t turn this into debate, just using an example). But they want you to invite as many people as you can to their events. Hypocrtis.

  52. There has to be authority, or the pastors aren’t taking care of the congregation. But there also has to be accountability of the pastors. Is leaving a church with bad leadership really the best thing to do? It depends on one’s personality and gifts, to be sure, but sometimes a single dissident can crack an organization wide open, and rescue everyone within it.

  53. You just described the Catholic Church I left a few years ago. I did not read the comments so I don’t know if other Catholics chimed in. It is quite a journey recovering from a church you were at for 20 yrs. It did not start out that way. Over time things evolved and it beca me very unhealthy

  54. The tension for those in church leadership is the balance of effective and healthy structures without becoming overbearing and unhealthy. As a pastor who personally likes structure(because of my tendency towards ADD structures keep me focused) I was thinking, “Why don’t I worry that I could become a dictator?”

    A humorous answer struck me, and I think it could be a protective measure for all churches to adopt.

    Like many people I ended up doing commission based sales work after college. I was a terrible salesperson. I barely eeked by. Why was I so bad? Because for the life of me I can’t be pushy. I was too laid back to try to get people to answer. All the sales training stuff talks about how to get people to say “yes” and when you boil down their advice, it basically is psychological manipulation(although they present it in much more positive terms because you of course are trying to do them a favor by helping them put the worlds best widget into their home!)

    My natural inclination and interest in individuals and my ongoing relationship with them precluded my ability to think of them as a robotic consumer I was trying to put through a system to get them to respond appropriately.

    So my solution for training and selecting church leaders….Make them work as salespeople for a year or two….if they are too successful, RED FLAGS….

    PS–No offense intended towards anyone who happens to love sales….

  55. @ Adam Borsay:

    Sounds good. One of the things that was a biggie for me in leaving nursing and going into medicine is that I have no ability to or interest in supervising other people’s work. I hate it. I have no patience with it. It is so wrong for me. And yes, I tried it for a while. That is probably one of the variables in the fact that I can function better in more structured churches. Nobody is going to need me to organize or facilitate or supervise anything at all. The people who want to do that seem lined up ten deep at every opportunity–wanting to be “in charge” that is. And at my church there seem to be a gracious plenty people who can do it well and like to do it. I have different skills entirely.

  56. @ Bridget: You can have a structure and hierarchy without dominance and authoritarianism. It depends on the character of the leader, or the “alpha” if we’re going to consider this behaviour natural (which it is). If the alpha leads by force you have a problem. If they lead by example, not so. I read in a paper that the “ideal” presence of a good leader is one that gives off a mixture of strength and warmth. A good leader is someone who can fix problems when they arise, take control when need be, but are caring enough to let the followers do their own thing and help them where needed. A good leader cares about the welfare of the group as a whole and for each individual in it. All with a common goal of course.

  57. @ Adam Borsay:
    You must have had very different sales training to me. I’ve been taught that pushy sales are bad sales, being laid back is better than being persistent ( for the obvious reason that no means no), that the people who are attracted to the product are simply that way. You just got to find them. Yes presentation is key, but like Zig Ziglar said, everybody sells even if they’re not in sales. Everybody. Think about it.

  58. @ Adam Borsay: Oh, and viewing the customer as a robot is completely the WRONG thing to do. Treat them like people, have fun with everyone without worrying about results. With your natural inclination, if you’d worked for a different company chances are you’d have done very well.

  59. Anon wrote:

    Deb and Dee,

    When TWW comes out with new articles, like this one, would you start posting them to the Wartburg Watch facebook page too? That way they can be easily shared and their impact multiplied as they go viral.

    BTW, anyone reading this should go to the Wartburg Watch FB page and click “Like”.
    Amen?

    didn’t know there was one

  60. EV wrote:

    Eagle:

    Eagle wrote:

    I’m just throwing that out here. It would be a fascinating to gets ones hands on 9 Marks, Acts 29, SGM, style churches and find out how close are many of these planted to military communities.

    Yes. Having lived within the original 1930′s fundamentalist movement leadership as they aged. I was struck how many of the IFB colleges attracted first WWII vets and then militant anti-commies/cold war military folks. People who want rigid rules and are attracted to hierarchical control are attracted to both the military and the dominating church (I think this also applies to Neo-Calvanists as well).

    I think that the reason I fell for the spiritual abuse in a church is because I was in an abusive controlling marriage and didn’t see it for what it was. the rigidity and rules of the church were the same and I didn’t know it was abusive, it was normal to me

  61. Yes, TWW is on Facebook but we don’t do anything with it. The blog keeps us so busy we never get around to it. 🙂

  62. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It is a desperate weakness of western Christianity that so many aspects of the Christian life have become private and individualised. Even in church settings that do allow the Holy Spirit in, he is often only allowed to give some pictures, tongues and prophetic words before being told to sit in the corner with the coloured paper and plastic safety-scissors. As a result, too few believers have any real exposure to the corporate leading of the Holy Spirit, where he speaks not to a select few at the top of the hierarchy but to all the members of a congregation – or at the very least a large and strongly representative sample

    I loved this quote so much I made it into a ratio on my left bicep. No, but really, good stuff!

  63. @ Deb:

    I’ve found that so many people are afraid to comment on Facebook about “hot topics”. I created a Facebook group that is private, and that gets a lot of discussion. But my public posts bring out the crickets.

  64. Todd, you are awesome, and you already know how I love and respect you! I have your poster in my locker, right next to Bono. 😉

    I’d just like to add that http://www.churchanarchist.com has some outstanding animated videos about church hierarchies. Don’t be put off by the name. The creator, Richard Jacobson, is a super nice and responsive person.

  65. You know, the Orthodox Church is in some respects authoritarian, in that it has a hierarchy of bishops ruled by a Patriarch, and these bishops preside over the priests, and it has the sacrament of confession, but I have never seen any intimidation or coercion in my time within it. The idea of a membership contract is alien to us, for when we join the church through the sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation, we are sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and membership is permanent; even if excommunicated, an Orthodox Christian is still a member. This does not preclude one leaving, it simply means that a Bishop cannot capriciously drive out someone who annoys them; in the rare cases where such abuses have occurred, one can simply move to another Orthodox jurisdiction.

    Interestingly enough, when heresy has arisen in the Orthodox Church, it is most often the laity who fight it off. There are legends of armies of old ladies smacking down the iconoclasts to save the icons during the Iconoclastic heresy in the 8th and 9th centuries; in like manner, Russians abandoned the Soviet-instituted Rennovationist parishes in the 1920s and 30s, and instead worshiped with traditionalist clergy in the catacombs.

    The biggest problem with abuse remaining in our church today is within the Moscow Patriarchate. During the Soviet Union, to advance in the church, you had to cooperate with the KGB, which meant abusing the sacrament of confession to gain information on potential troublemakers, in the manner of Scientology or Mars Hill. Under the canons of the Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, that which is said in confession is absolutely private; a secret shared only between the penitent, Christ, and the priest, who acts as a witness and agent of Christ in pronouncing the absolution. The priest cannot tell his Bishop the details of a confession without the permission of the penitent. Yet the clergy of the official Russian church violated these sacred canons with impunity, and will have to answer for it at the dread day of judgment. We should pity them, while at the same time lamenting that the current Patriarch of Moscow, Kyrill, is a former KGB man who has not repented of this heinous crime, as are many of his top bishops, and a culture of corruption still lingers within that church.

  66. @ Nick Bulbeck: There is some concern, at least within my denomination (The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), that the apparent demonstrations of the Holy Spirit one sees within many Pentecostal churches have less than holy origins. I would say a bigger problem than the lack of a proper respect for the Holy Spirit is a lack of proper discernment; we have fallen into the state of delusion that in Russian spirituality is referred to as prelest. I myself joined the Orthodox because I liked the liturgy; I stayed because of the Philokalia, which is virtually a manual on how to avoid self-deception, spiritual delusion, and pride, the obvious traits of the corrupt pastors that this blog exists to fight. The Philokalia is an anthology of Patristic writings spanning a period of about 1,200 years, from the third century through the fifteenth, compiled in the late 1700s by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain; it contains the works of theologians such as Ss. Gregory of Nazianzus, Abba Macarius, John of Damascus, Isaac the Syrian, and Gregory of Palamas. Unfortunately, translations of it are expensive and not widely available; it is my wish every Christian should own a copy along with their Bible and a good prayer book; if such were the case, then churches like Mars Hill, SGM, and the Calvary Chapel would simply not exist, for the people would be able to clearly recognize the conceit of these deluded pastors, and avoid them.

  67. Deb & Dee,

    Thanks for posting Todd’s article. It is excellent.

    This paragraph by Zukeran:

    …Renew your walk with God again. Admit that you acquired a distorted picture of Him, and focus on regaining the proper biblical understanding of His attributes and character. Don’t give up on the true church despite its imperfections. In fact, I encourage you to visit numerous healthy churches. It is refreshing to see how diverse the body of Christ is, and that there are many different ways to express our love and commitment to Christ.

    is one of the most profound published on this topic. Profound is not a word I use lightly. It is both gentle, and encouraging one to take action.

  68. Eagle wrote:

    Dee Parsons!!!! You’re late!!!

    Dee is never late. Nor is she early. She arrives precisely when she means to 🙂

  69. Caitlin wrote:

    The flipside to humanity’s lust for power is humanity’s lust to follow. Loki in the Avengers movie got it right: we want to be led. Our thirst for power is a corruption of the aspects of our roles as image-bearers of God and our thirst to follow is a corruption of our role vis a vis God the Ultimate Authority.

    I think that this hurt the Lord’s heart greatly:
    Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
    1 Sam 8:4-7 (KJV)

    My friend Zoanne Wilkie was speaking once about a church that was amiss and had a very popular preacher that was great at business but didn’t seem to know the Lords heart or will. He had a big church and the people loved him. Zoanne said “they have taken the robe off of Him who is worthy and placed it on a man they have chosen instead.” breaks my heart that I also sometimes seek a person to tell me what Jesus wants me to hear instead of going to Him. When I seek Jesus for my answers in this life, then He fills my heart with peace and answers sometimes through others, like last weeks sermon on here, but it is different than me going every sunday to a service to hear what the Lord’s will is because I don’t want to take the time to sit at His feet and hear from Him.

  70. sam h wrote:

    My friend Zoanne Wilkie was speaking once about a church that was amiss and had a very popular preacher that was great at business but didn’t seem to know the Lords heart or will. He had a big church and the people loved him. Zoanne said “they have taken the robe off of Him who is worthy and placed it on a man they have chosen instead.” 

    Your friend’s name is familiar to me, though I don’t think I actually met her. I believe I know the church and pastor she spoke about!

  71. @ sam h: Sometimes I find it easier to digest words from another person than to listen for the voice of Christ. I read a lot of material by Graham Cooke, but the reason why is that I can feel the Holy Spirit moving in me when I dwell on his writings. That is my litmus test: if it stirs up the spirit of the Lord, they are helpful words for me to hear. Sometimes God does use people and their message to touch others where maybe going to scripture or seeking he voice of the Lord isn’t enough. That said, I do not “follow” Cooke (except on Facebook :P) and I know my healing/deliverance/guidance does not come from him but from God. Graham’s writings are just an aid in my journey.

  72.  __

    “Toxic Church?”

    hmmm…

    Many troubled souls have to leave ‘church’ just to survive ‘the faith’?

    What’s up wit dat?

    (sadface)

    Clearly, ‘these’ churches want to represent Jesus Christ, God’s precious only Son, right?

    huh?

    Krunch!

    Jesus said to be part of what He is doing, one would have to keep His commandments which He said were not really grievous.

    ok.

    so…

    Q. “What did Jesus ask of His followers?”

    …lets review, shall we?

    *

    (the following stuff is simply taken from the four new testament gospels wit da help of some kind folks on da Internet…)

    Jesus’ summary:

    “If ye love Me, keep my commandments ” ~ Jesus (John 14:15, KJV).

    “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” ~ Jesus (John 14:5-7). 

    Q. “What is the greatest commandment of Jesus?”

    Jesus said it was to: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. Matt 22:36-40 (Amp)

    …’everyone’ knows dat right?

    Q. “What is Jesus’ ‘Golden Rule’?”

    So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. ((Matt 7:12 NIV)

    ok.

    Q. What were some of Jesus’ other individual commandants? 

    Ans.

    “When you stand praying, forgive…”

    “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.” (Mark 11:25-26 NIV)

     “You must be born again…”

    “You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.” (John 3:7 KJV)

    “Remain in Me and I will remain in you…”

    When you ask Jesus into your heart and He becomes your Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit actually lives in you, and you in Him. Here Jesus uses a grape vine to compare our relationship with Him. “Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” ( John 15:4 NIV)

    “Let your light shine before men…”

    “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. ” In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matt 5:14;16 NIV)

    “Settle matters quickly with your adversary…”

    “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” (Matt 5:25 NIV)

    “Get rid of whatever causes you to sin…”

    “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”(Matt 5:29-30 NIV)

    “Do Not Swear at All…”

    “But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matt 5:34-37 KJV)

    “Do Not Resist an Evil Person…”

    (Turning the other cheek.)

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:38-39 NIV)

    “Giving More than is Demanded…”

    (Going the extra mile)

    “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matt 5:40-42 NIV)

    “Love Your Enemies…”

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matt 5:43-45 NIV)

    “Give to Please God, Not to be Seen…”

    “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matt 6:1 NIV)

    “Pray Privately, Not to be Seen of Men…”

    “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.” (Matt 6:5-7 NIV)

    “This, then, is how you should pray…”

    “This, then, is how you should pray: ” ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’

    For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matt 6:9-15 NIV)

    “Fast Without Fanfare…”

    “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” (Matt 6:16 NIV)

    “Do not Store up Treasures on Earth…”

    “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt 6:19-21 NIV)

    “Do not Worry about Your Needs…”

    “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (Matt 6:25-26 NIV) Commandments of Jesus

    “Do not Worry about Tomorrow…”

    “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matt 6:34 NIV)

    “Place God First…”

    “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matt 6:33 NIV)

    “Do not Judge…”

    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matt 7:1-2 NIV)

     “Guard what is Sacred…”

    “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matt 7:6 NIV)

     “Ask, Seek, and Knock…”

    “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” (Matt 7:7 NIV)

    “Care for Those in Distress…”

    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matt 25:34-36 NIV)

    “Enter Through the Narrow Gate…”

    “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13-14 NIV)

    “Watch out for false prophets…”

    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matt 7:15 NIV)

    “Exercise Spiritual Power…”

    “He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.” (Matt 10:1 NIV)

    “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.” (Matt 10:8 NIV)

    “Do not Despise Childlike Believers…”

    “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Matt 18:10 NIV) Commandments of Jesus

     “Do not Exalt Yourself…”

    “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matt 23:8-12 NIV)

    “Settle Disputes Between Believers in this Manner…”

    “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”(Matt 18:15-17 NIV)

    “Do not Oppose Other Christian Groups…”

    “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

    “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40 NIV)

    “Have Complete Faith in God…”

    “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” (Mark 11:22-24 NIV)

    “Do as the Good Samaritan Did…”

    “The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him.’ Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37 NIV) 
    (In reference to the “Good Samaritan”) 
    (See Luke 10:30-35)

    “Love One Another…”

    (This commandment summarizes all the others.)

    “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” (John 15:12 KJV)

    “Do this in Remembrance of Me…”

    “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.'”
    “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'” (Luke 22:19-20 NIV)

    “You Should also Wash One Another’s Feet…”

    “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.” (John 13:14 NIV)

    “Be Merciful…”

    “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36 NIV)

    “Go and Make Disciples of All Nations, Baptizing Them…”

    “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20 NIV)

    “Obey What I Command…”

    “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15 NIV)

    “You Must be Ready…”

    “You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Luke 12:40 NIV) Commandments of Jesus

    *

    Separating da sheepies from da goats and keeping da big bad wolves in she eps clothing at bay?

    SKreeeeeeeeeeeetch!

    (bump)

    do these things and they will be a pile of miles behind…

    Bountiful BLESSINGS?

    yep.

    Hope dis was helpful.

    –> Every plant which Jesus’ heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

    (gump)

    “Let them alone”, Jesus said; …”they are blind guides of the blind, and if a blind individual  guides a blind individual, both will fall into a pit…” 

    (sadface)

    In their greed these blind teachers will exploit you with tall fabrications. Believe them not. Their actions have long been questionable, and their deeds have not escaped Jesus’ notice. Beware of them as you faithfully ‘follow’ and ‘do’ these sayings of Jesus!

    Bless’ins!

    (His lit’l sparrow)

    hum, hum, hum…Jesus loves me dis I know…

    Sweet.

    Sopy
    __
    Exit music: Georg Friedrich Handel – “Concerti Grossi Op 6 N 1-12”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqksy-991sI

    *

    Reference(s): 

    http://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Commandments-of-Jesus.html

    http://www.loveallpeople.org/pearl-thecommandmentsofjesus.html

    ;~)

  73. William G. wrote:

    translations of it are expensive and not widely available;

    I checked it out on amazon, and they seem to have it in several volumes and in paperback at very reasonable prices.

  74. All this talk of abusive churches squelching questions has got me thinking. I’m trying to work through an experience I had at a church a few years back (I’m no longer at that church), and I was wondering if others on this thread have thoughts about it or could help me process.

    I was in a situation where leaders were very open to questions, and gave a lot of lip service to being “sharpened” by church members with differing opinions. However, although they allowed questions and challenges regularly, they didn’t ever change as a result of them.

    There was a small group of leaders who were very similar in their beliefs about how to approach faith and how to run a church. We noticed that the leaders would act on the “sharpening” and correction from each other, but not from members who held a few more differences in theology. They would entertain and seriously engage with questions from anyone, on a regular basis, but it was like talking to a wall…unless you were one of the few in the inner circle.

    I have the impression that the leaders were unaware of how they “shut down” the opinions of those who were different from them. They believed themselves to be very open-minded, and would often point out the differences between themselves as proof that the leadership team was diverse (even though, as I’ve said, their approach to faith and their beliefs about how to run a church were virtually identical). They also believed that they were free of any kind of “framework” and that they were just following Jesus…even though it was clear to anyone raised in an Arminian tradition that these people were heavily Calvinistic in their approach and theology (nothing wrong with Calvinism, I’m just pointing out that they were not operating in a vacuum as much as they thought they were).

    I eventually left the church when I felt socially awkward and pressured for holding different beliefs. It became exhausting, and I was happier after we left.

    Do you think that leadership qualifies as abusive, or were they just really deluded about their own shortcomings? It’s worth mentioning that they looked up to a few mega-church pastors whose church models I consider troubling, and I’ve often wondered if my former leaders were just well-meaning people who bought into a church model that they didn’t realize would be harmful to members.

  75. linda wrote:

    Whatever the structure, there always is authority. In the healthy churches, that lies in the statement of faith or creed. You may not agree with it, which means that church won’t be a good fit and you better find another one, but it is pretty black and white, cut and dried, and out in the open. Want women’s ordination? Forget RCC, LCMS, SBC. Want gay marriage? Might like ELCA. That sort of thing is healthy, and it is silly and unhealthy to pick a group you radically disagree with and then try to change it around to your way of thinking.

    I don’t think it is a matter of personal choice or shopping for a church that fits. For example, if one church approves of gay marriage and another views gay marriage as a sin, they both can’t be correct. It’s either a sin or it is not a sin. Their position may be out there in the open in the statement of faith, but that doesn’t make their statement of faith correct or their church healthy.

  76. sad observer wrote:

    a few more differences in theology.

    It all depends on what a few more differences in theology means. Any church leadership will and should hold the line against outright heresy on major issues. But if they “hold the line” on really minor issues and on mere preferences and on the private details of people’s lives, and demand that everyone do the same, that is abusive in my opinion.

    It also depends on who was differing on theology, some mature and stable christian or some unstable person who seems to just live to challenge everything including the water cooler. And by “unstable” I mean actually mentally unstable. I am not using unstable as a pejorative term for every dissenter.

    And there is the issue of the chronic troublemaker whose actual goal is to seize control themselves in a situation where control is everything. I am thinking of one particular couple in a local church that I am aware of. So the professional troublemaker needs to be dealt with before too much disruption happens.

    So, it all depends. If somebody is saying that they think a certain passage of scripture might be taken metaphorically instead of literally, that sounds like being honest and thoughtful. If someone repeatedly and aggressively insists that baptism is necessary for salvation and is doing this in a baptist church, that is a different issue.

    You mention Arminian vs Calvinistic. If by that you mean Free Will Baptist vs Southern Baptist I can give an example. The FWB practice foot washing as a part of the communion service. The SBC do not. An FWB sitting on an SBC pew would not have to hide the fact of difference on this issue. (Been there done that.) On the other hand, the FWB do not believe once saved always saved but rather believe that apostasy is actually possible. That is a hot issue dealing with salvation and the FWB should either keep quiet about that or find another church, if they do not want to start a doctrinal forest fire over it. The leadership of an SBC church would almost certainly deal differently with these two different issues.

  77. William G. wrote:

    The priest cannot tell his Bishop the details of a confession without the permission of the penitent. Yet the clergy of the official Russian church violated these sacred canons with impunity, and will have to answer for it at the dread day of judgment. We should pity them, while at the same time lamenting that the current Patriarch of Moscow, Kyrill, is a former KGB man who has not repented of this heinous crime, as are many of his top bishops, and a culture of corruption still lingers within that church.

    This is nothing new. Before the KGB it was the Ohkhrana and after the KGB it’s been the FSB. The Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch of Moscow has always been too cozy with and eager to please the Autocrat of All Russia, whether the Autocrat’s title has been Tsar, Soviet Premier, or President.

  78. Caitlin wrote:

    While my own conscience might remain clear if I say “This is none of your business and also unBiblical” I can’t support a system that does not protect the most vulnerable, the young Christians, the less-informed, the cowed.

    I agree with this in turn! Both elders (or whatever name they go under) and members are under the authority of scripture direct, and of Christ himself direct – he is the head of every man individually as well as the church collectively. The submission to leaadership required in e.g. Hebrews does not overrule this. The problem with say patriarchs is that they are not themselves submitted to the word of God, the sacrificial love bit as counterbalance to the submitting wife bit gets lost, and they end up playing God, as do leaders who think they have authority vesting in themselves.

    I’m glad I heard teaching on submission to authority very early on that included in very clear terms the limits to authority built into scripture. Didn’t stop me making mistakes or being prone to let others control my decision making (which has been a long term weakness), but I have never fallen for the abject submission to others that has sadly blighted the lives of other believers.

    It’s one thing for a pastor to have authority to implement the word of God in a believer’s life, but I think there is something wrong with someone who actually wants to exercise authority over someone else’s life. We see this enough in the world, but it should be the last thing a Christian should want to do.

  79. sad observer wrote:

    I was in a situation where leaders were very open to questions, and gave a lot of lip service to being “sharpened” by church members with differing opinions. However, although they allowed questions and challenges regularly, they didn’t ever change as a result of them.

    You state that they didn’t ever change as a result of questions and challenges by church members. Did you ever ask them to explain or give their reasons why they didn’t ever change as a result of questions and challenges by church members? If you didn’t ask, why?

  80. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Before the KGB it was the Ohkhrana and after the KGB it’s been the FSB. The Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch of Moscow has always been too cozy with and eager to please the Autocrat of All Russia, whether the Autocrat’s title has been Tsar, Soviet Premier, or President.

    Actually, the Moscow Patriarchate was suppressed by the Czar following the disastrous liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon. The duties of the Patriarch were assumed by the Holy Synod, a government bureaucracy of which the Czar was chair. This resulted in a drift towards a sort of Russian-flavored Catholicism in the 18th century, but a sharp reversal occurred thanks primarily to the prayers and service provided by monks at Valaam, Mount Athos, the Lavra at Kiev, and so on, which restored a functioning spirituality to the Russian church in the 19th century. The majority of people would not confess in detail to the formal priests, but rather to monks or elders in the community known as starets; those who, while in some cases members of the priesthood, were of exceptional holiness. The greatest of these was St. Seraphim of Sarov, who was a wonderworking starets, affiliated with the Old Ritualists, who brought peace and comfort to tens of thousands of people at dark moments in their lives. Other great saints of that era included St. John of Kronstadt and the anonymous author of the Way of the Pilgrim. The rich spirtuality present in the writings of Dostoevsky, particularly within the Brothers Karamazov, is reflected in this; and within that work one sees both a delightful demonstration of the virtuous nature of the Orthodox Faith itself, and also a criticism of those corrupt members of the government-run hierarchy.

    After the Tsar was deposed, an emergency synod of the Russian church appointed Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. He refused to cooperate with the Soviets and strictly forbade his priests from doing the same; some disobeyed, of course, but for this he was tortured and ultimately martyred. Before being rendered incommunicado by the Soviets, he instructed all foreign Russian churches to begin autonomous operation and to disregard any instructions from Moscow, thus creating the ROCOR, of which ROCA is the surviving element, that continues to have no contact with the Patriarch. As a result ROCA churches in Russia are routinely vandalized or subject to arson attacks, but we are far more fortunate than the poor Syriac Christians who are at immediate risk of mass genocide at the hands of the Islamic State; right now about 30,000 of them are crowded into the Monastery of St. Matthew. They need are prayers, and frankly, that issue is more important to global Christianity than anything involving Mark Driscoll or other random heretics.

    My view is that to find the real Church, one must go where the persecution is, because there you will find Christ. Of course, Driscoll and his ilk, the repulsive 9 Marks churches, do persecute and torment their own members, and for this they will have to answer at the dread day of judgment. I was particularly horrified by an article on 9Marks that essentially applauded the Islamic persecution of the Orthodox in the Middle East on the basis of the fact that the Orthodox and Catholics were “alcohol-drinking, pornography-watching, sexually promiscuous, picture-worshipping,” as if that justifies 1,400 years of religious discrimination, brutality and genocide.

    The link, to 9Marks effectively aligning itself with Islamic Fundamentalism, is here:

    http://www.9marks.org/journal/putting-contextualization-its-place

    On that basis alone, in my mind, every church that is a member of 9Marks ought to be subject to potential asset freezes via the USA PATRIOT ACT and should be considered terror organizations. 9Marks should also be listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

  81.   __

    “At The Threshold Of A Religious Dream, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    “I have a dream,

    … that all God’s lit’l children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the ‘color’ of their ‘doctrine’  but by the ‘content’ of their religious convictions… [1]

    “I have a dream,

    …that men and woman all over this great land would, once again, rise up, learn the words of Jesus, to do them!

    “I have a dream!

    (grin)

    ♩ ♪ ♫  ♬ hum, hum, hum…Why do we never get an answer,
    When we’re knocking at the church door,
    With a thousand million questions,
    About the christian religion, about faith, about doctrine, about God’s love…

    It’s where we stop and look around us,
    There is nothing that we need,
    In a church of victimization, That is burning in it’s greed,

    Why do we never get an answer,
    When we’re knocking at the church door?
    Because the truth is hard to swallow,
    That’s what the words of Jesus are for…

    It’s not the way that you say it,
    When you do those bad things to me,
    It’s more the way you really mean it,
    When you tell me I am no longer free to follow Jesus, His words making  me what I want to be,

    want to be…

    And when you stop and think about it,
    You won’t believe it’s true,
    That all the love you’ve been preaching,
    Has all been meant for you.

    I’m looking for someone to change my life,
    I’m looking for a miracle in my life,
    And if you could see what it’s done to me,
    To lose the the religious faith I knew, that could safely lead me through…

    Between the silence of the mountains,
    And the crashing of the sea,
    There lies a church I once worshiped  in,
    And she’s no longer there for me…

    But in the grey of Sunday morning,
    My mind becomes confused,
    Between the church service I’ve been attending,and the words of Jesus,
    And the path that I must choose…

    I’m looking for someone to change my life,
    I’m looking for a miracle in my life,
    And if you could see what it’s done to me,
    To lose the religious faith  I knew, that could safely lead me to,
    The religious faith that I once knew,
    To learn as we grow old the words that save our souls…

    It’s not the way that you say it,
    When you do those bad things to me,
    It’s more the way you really mean it,
    When you tell me the words of Jesus no longer make me free…

    …make me free? [2]

    (sadface)

    Sopy
    __
    [1] Words  ‘respectfully’ adapted from Dr. King’s speech.
    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
    [2] Words reflects original lyrics parody adaptation. Moody Blues – “Question”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5QFJHrjnLk
    ; Songwriter: Jonna Emily Lee;
    http://www.metrolyrics.com/question-lyrics-moody-blues.html
    lyrics  © Universal Music Publishing Group, EMI Music Publishing Group, T.R.O. INC. ; sung by  The Moody Blues. , All rights reserved; U.S. Title 17 copyright infringement unintended.

    ;~)

  82. Joe2 wrote:

    If you didn’t ask, why?

    I am not “sad observer” but I think he/she probably did not ask because he/she is an observer, not necessarily a combatant. (Or perhaps he/she tried to ask but got brushed off, either way he/she obviously did not pick a fight over it.) I think you sound like somebody who throws himself into situations with intent and purpose. A combatant or potential combatant. Both are valid ways of being. But if observers are discounted because they are not combatants, that is unreasonable. Many a time the observers among us pick up on the nuances that the combatants miss.

  83. Nancy wrote:

    LawProf wrote:
    The ESV (also a favorite of cultists, at least of the neocal variety), translates that straight up as “obey”, but that’s a poor translation, a difficulty with the English language
    Are you referring to the 1 Peter 5: 1-5 section about the “obey” thing? ESV does not contain the word “obey” there.

    I should’ve been more clear, I was referring to the “obey” in Heb 13:17, the verse Andy used to support his church hierarchy/leadership authority over other believers model.

    The word translated as “obey” (“peitho”) in the ESV and some other versions is not quite accurate, but the problem is if you did give an accurate rendering it’d involve about a half dozen words or so additional in English, e.g., “Have a persuadable attitude regarding the ideas of your leaders” or “be persuadable when dealing with your leaders” rather than the more tidy “obey your leaders”. Of course the translators could’ve used one of those longer versions, would’ve been accurate, certainly would’ve given less ammunition to the abusers and out-of-context quoters who like to ignore the entire balance of what the New Testament says about not lording it over others, being a servant and slave if you wish to be a leader, never leading by anything other than Godly example, etc., so that they can focus their entire premise on one poorly-translated (but understandably so) word in a single verse to the exclusion of all others, including the direct words of Jesus.

    But then again, one can’t really blame translators for these issues, for if they produced a fully-nuanced version in English (assuming such a thing is even possible, as there are always understandings that one culture has that cannot quite be translated to another), adding in all that additional verbiage, they’d likely end up with an unwieldy several thousand page multi-volume set. And frankly, who would imagine that someone could be so downright stupid as to take one simple word in one verse and read it wholly without regard to the mountain of evidence in the NT that clearly refutes everything these domination and hierarchy thugs are saying?

  84. @ sad observer:

    “We noticed that the leaders would act on the “sharpening” and correction from each other, but not from members who held a few more differences in theology. They would entertain and seriously engage with questions from anyone, on a regular basis, but it was like talking to a wall…unless you were one of the few in the inner circle.”
    +++++++++++++++

    a number of different takes on what, why, & how in christendom. all believe theirs to be correct above and beyond all others. it’s all taken so seriously, it’s so dire.

    they can’t all be right.

    lots of crazy paranoia, “watch out! don’t cross this line! oh, no, you’re getting a little too close to the precipice. i’m afraid we’ll have to part company. I know it means your support systems will disappear and important relationships will be cut off. but there isn’t room for compromise, slippery slope & all.”

    makes me think that perhaps the future of “churches” in general is getting over that gosh darn slippery slope, stop taking ourselves so dang seriously and taking down the barbed wire parameters, and stop being so afraid of everything and everyone.

    I think moving away from the typical high-strung panicky response to sex drive is a start.

    easy for me to spout off my ideas here…. not nearly as easy to work out in the real world. but prioritizing people over principle isn’t that hard. (annoying alliteration allowance here)

    I mean, do we really think God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are fussy prudes? Heck, they understand full well “we see through a glass darkly”, and we can only perceive and understand so much.

  85. Big thanks to Todd for sharing his thoughts and observations. Very helpful.

    @ sad observer:

    It doesn’t sound like, for you specifically, it reached the level of spiritual abuse, but that the church culture and leader were/are definitely in a danger zone and perhaps poised to get there soon. And perhaps, while you managed to escape relatively unscathed, others actually were abused and you simple were/are not aware of it.

    It’s great that you were able to sense the weirdness and awkwardness, and you had the wisdom and maturity to get out before it progressed to anything more.

  86. Adam Borsay wrote:

    The tension for those in church leadership is the balance of effective and healthy structures without becoming overbearing and unhealthy. As a pastor who personally likes structure(because of my tendency towards ADD structures keep me focused) I was thinking, “Why don’t I worry that I could become a dictator?”
    A humorous answer struck me, and I think it could be a protective measure for all churches to adopt.
    Like many people I ended up doing commission based sales work after college. I was a terrible salesperson. I barely eeked by. Why was I so bad? Because for the life of me I can’t be pushy. I was too laid back to try to get people to answer. All the sales training stuff talks about how to get people to say “yes” and when you boil down their advice, it basically is psychological manipulation(although they present it in much more positive terms because you of course are trying to do them a favor by helping them put the worlds best widget into their home!)
    My natural inclination and interest in individuals and my ongoing relationship with them precluded my ability to think of them as a robotic consumer I was trying to put through a system to get them to respond appropriately.
    So my solution for training and selecting church leaders….Make them work as salespeople for a year or two….if they are too successful, RED FLAGS….
    PS–No offense intended towards anyone who happens to love sales….

    Interesting you mention sales. Many years ago I spent some years in business-to-business sales. I had moderate success. Psychological manipulation is wrong all the way round, but I do believe one can succeed in sales without it, persistence and honesty can work well also.

    But I found that there were certain people who will never buy from you if you deal honestly with them. There are buyers who will not purchase from anyone other than a scoundrel, liar or full-blown sociopath. That sounds ridiculous, but it’s true.

    I came up with my own pet term for them: “weak buyers”. They are mentally weak. If you tell them the straight up truth, such as “Our product is a solid product, one of the best on the market, but of course, no relationship’s perfect, they do break down, but we will do a good job of supporting them when that happens” they will never give you the order. They will instead give the order to a pathological liar who tells them “We’re the best ever, our product will save your company millions per year, it’s guaranteed never to break down because of our super patented lithium space ship-grade titanium construction (which doesn’t exist and was made up on the spur of the moment by the sales rep), and if it does, we’ll give you double your money back”. For example, one common lower-end sales manager (Tim K.) from a small-time dealer in the market to which I used to sell would tell buyers he was the Vice President of the entire huge corporation, then use that as leverage to make them think he was offering them some special deal and that they were important enough to warrant such extraordinary attention. He appealed to their vanity and to their desire to follow superior authority. Tim K. was extremely successful, though no one with a shred of sense would’ve bought a thing from him.

    Some people won”t believe you unless you lie to them.

    My theory is the ones I call weak buyers are also those who commonly attend authoritarian cults. They want to believe the impossible, the magical, they don’t want prosaic fellowship with fallible human beings, submitting one to another, with leaders who assume no special revelation or authority, but just have their leadership status recognized by the others because they’re the ones willing to be the most lowly and slave-like. That’s the way Jesus put it.

  87. Anna wrote:

    @ Bridget: You can have a structure and hierarchy without dominance and authoritarianism. It depends on the character of the leader, or the “alpha” if we’re going to consider this behaviour natural (which it is). If the alpha leads by force you have a problem. If they lead by example, not so. I read in a paper that the “ideal” presence of a good leader is one that gives off a mixture of strength and warmth. A good leader is someone who can fix problems when they arise, take control when need be, but are caring enough to let the followers do their own thing and help them where needed. A good leader cares about the welfare of the group as a whole and for each individual in it. All with a common goal of course.

    I have to disagree with you. Structure without dominance and authoritarianism, yes, hierarchy without dominance and authoritarianism, no. If we look at what hierarchy means, we find that ranking and authority are part and parcel of a hierarchy.

    “A system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.”

    As far as I can see from reading the NT, we should not find hierarchy, authoritarianism, or dominance in Christianity at all. Jesus advocated against these ideas when teaching his disciples.

  88. Joe2–no, I didn’t say both could be right or both be healthy as churches.

    What I said is that if you fervently believe the scripture teaches gay sex to be a sin, the ELCA is not the place for you. You will not change it. And if you fervently believe scripture teaches gay sex is just dandy, the SBC is not the place for you. You will not change it.

    Of course all theological views cannot be right–but until heaven, we do the best we can with the knowledge we have.

    What is unhealthy is multi sided. It is very unhealthy when church leadership assumes the Holy Spirit’s job. It is also very unhealthy when church leadership assumes a “whatever hays your wagon” attitude of anything goes.

    It is also very unhealthy to just be sheep willing to be led anywhere. Equally unhealthy is expecting every church you choose to attend to change all of its traditional teaching just to suit you.

    So if your understanding of scripture forbids women’s ordination, why join and try to change the RCC, the SBC, or the MSLC? Why not instead opt for the Episcopal, the ABC, or the ELCA?

    I believe we are to follow Christ and the Scripture. If I find myself in a place with which I fervently disagree, seems to me the healthy thing is to beat feet and leave. Today however we seem to be a nation of “church of me-ism” that expects everyone else to do things to our taste or else we are gonna howl.

  89. I think someone here said on an older thread she was an English major (was it Deb?). My posts must make any English major cringe. 🙂

    Anyway, for any English major out there, or anyone who likes a good parody, here is the new song by Weird Al parodying Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines.”

    It’s called “Word Crimes,” and it is “G rated” (unlike the song and video it is spoofing).

    “Word Crimes” by Weird Al
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

    “Get it together / Use your spellchecker / You should never
    Write words using numbers / Unless you’re seven /
    Or your name is Prince”

  90. There are some reasons I can think of as to why some church leadership would invite questions in that way as described by sad observer.

    Inviting questions would let them spot ideas they wanted to stamp out, nicely of course by teaching and such, but stamp out nevertheless.

    It would also enable them to see which ones in the congregation were not “on board” with the vision or whatever. In other words, the potential “problem people” got a chance to stand up and self-identify.

    And it could act as a steam let-off valve for some folks who just want to get it said, whatever it is, and then feel better about it.

    On a more upbeat note, maybe if there were several questions in the same area they wanted to do a sermon series on it to keep people’s attention and keep people on the pew by addressing issues of interest to the congregations. Nah!

  91. linda wrote:

    Today however we seem to be a nation of “church of me-ism” that expects everyone else to do things to our taste or else we are gonna howl.

    To a point, I agree with that, but a lot of churches get things wrong, so they should be open to reconsidering their positions on some issues, or how they handle the issues (depending on the subject).

    For instance, one of my pet peeves are churches that have so idolized the “family unit” (or marriage) that they ignore anyone who is not married- with- two- kids.

    Anyone who is divorced, widowed, or still single, infertile, or just chooses not to have children, is not even addressed. Most church funding and social events, and most sermons, are aimed at that small demographic, which I do not believe is loving, ethical, or even biblical.

    I do not expect Southern Baptist or evangelical churches to cater exclusively to single adults and/or childless adults 100% of the time, and start ignoring the married- with- kids group.

    However, it would not harm such churches to stop spending the majority of their time and attention to that demographic and begin spreading the love around a little more evenly. 🙂

    People who fell totally alienated from a church or denomination will stop attending, or may turn their backs on the faith altogether. Jesus did not set out to make a social club for only married- with- kids couples, but that is how man churches today are set up.

  92. Nancy wrote:

    It would also enable them to see which ones in the congregation were not “on board” with the vision or whatever. In other words, the potential “problem people” got a chance to stand up and self-identify.

    “On board”. Oh yes, I remember that one. I was once asked to be part of a fairly new church’s newly-formed elder team. It was put together by a brand new pastor who’d come to us directly from SGM (this was before I’d heard of them). The team of prospective “elders” consisted almost exclusively of 20-somethings, newer believers, and the SGM pastor’s best friend, also formerly of SGM. There were a grand total of two of us (against 8) who were not either a veritable child or the pastor’s best SGM buddy. The main person with elder qualifications (50-something, had known the Lord for decades, married 30 years, educated, university administrator used to managing dozens, served the church in everything from mowing the lawn to cleaning the building, all without being asked or thanked for his service) in this new church hadn’t even been invited to the first elder’s meeting.

    First thing the new pastor did was go around the room, asking us one-by-one, with all eyes upon us, if we were “on board” with pastor’s vision, which he referred to as “The Mission”.

    Second thing he did was ask for full and uncontested control of the church, where the new elders would have no authority to override his decisions, even if they were unanimous. He said “We don’t need to have all these disputes and controversies, we just need to be a circle of friends trusting one another.” (Why that didn’t extend to him trusting us was unexplained).

    I know all about being “on board”.

  93. Nancy wrote:

    @ LawProf:
    So did you stay on the elder team?

    Nope. I told them what I thought heir polity was not a good idea, but I did so in polite but blunt terms, talked about checks and balances, everyone having struggles with sin whether pastor or not, iron sharpening iron. I was immediately told that I was “in idolatry”. (of what, checks and balances?). Some months later I was having dinner with my wife and a young friend of mine in the church (not an elder) and he asked me why in the world I wasn’t at the elder’s meeting. That’s how I found out I’d been dropped for, I suppose, sinfully asking questions.

  94. Nancy wrote:

    It would also enable them to see which ones in the congregation were not “on board” with the vision or whatever. In other words, the potential “problem people” got a chance to stand up and self-identify.

    Self-identify as Traitors and Thought-Criminals for the Purge.

  95. LawProf wrote:

    That’s how I found out I’d been dropped for, I suppose, sinfully asking questions.

    Not “dropped”, LawProf.

    Purged by the Inner Party for Thoughtcrime.

  96. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    LawProf wrote:
    That’s how I found out I’d been dropped for, I suppose, sinfully asking questions.
    Not “dropped”, LawProf.
    Purged by the Inner Party for Thoughtcrime.

    Well put. “Thoughtcrime” defined as anything that failed to serve the interests of The Leader. It felt very much like a totalitarian regime, like 1984 or Brave New World. People informed on one another and engaged in genuine idolatry of The Mission. Thank God that church is no more and most got out, though some are still addled years later and some, like me, have opted out of church (not Jesus) altogether.

  97. In answer to those who discussed why I did not confront leadership about their reluctance to change….well, it’s hard to explain. Conversations with them tended to get very confusing. You could explain that you had seen A, B and C happening, but they would say “Oh, but we don’t believe in acting that way!” as if that somehow proves that therefore they WEREN’T acting in those ways. It was also, at the time, EXTREMELY difficult to put into words why we were feeling discomfort. It’s taken years to verbalize it. So it was hard to describe to them why they stressed me out.

    The other problem was that they would give lip service to wanting a change based on the conversation, and then nothing would happen…leading to the same conversations over and over. Hence why I decided I’d be healthier somewhere else. Thanks for feedback, all.

  98. @ Eagle:
    Eagle, this may have already been mentioned, but your link goes to a blank blog post. Was it deleted, or did I miss something? THanks for all you do.

  99. Daisy–agreed, churches do get things wrong at times and it is healthy to speak up.

    On the other hand, I cannot get my head around Eucharistic Adoration. So it would not make much sense for me to enroll in RCIA, join the RCC, and then spend all the rest of my days complaining about that doctrine.

  100. linda wrote:

    So it would not make much sense for me to enroll in RCIA, join the RCC, and then spend all the rest of my days complaining about that doctrine.

    I kind of see what you are saying, but I still don’t know if I totally agree.

    I was raised as a Southern Baptist. It’s all I know.

    I would feel weird attending a different church or getting involved in a different denomination. I may never go to any church ever again, SB or no.

    Some of the issues I see as being problematic (such as, churches ignoring adult singles, supporting gender complementarianism, etc) seem rampant in all churches, not just SB.

    I would not feel comfortable attending churches that are theologically or social liberal, or not to a large degree (e.g., saying the Bible has mistakes, is all meant to be taken allegorically).

    Even if I did decide to go back to church, I don’t think there is a church that fits my views.

    If SBs would do things like drop the gender complementarian stuff, stop ignoring (or in some cases impugning) adult singleness, and stop trying to force Calvinism down everyone’s throats, I might consider going again.

    I think SB are losing a lot of members precisely because of some of the things I have mentioned here. Every so often in the Christian press, I see articles where the Big wigs in SB keep freaking out over the drop in members and baptisms.

    If you are that concerned with losing members and want to draw them back, you might want to examine what is driving them away and reconsider some of your positions on some teachings, or how you are enacting them, if the very people who have left have told you those things are the reasons they have stopped going.

  101. @ William G.:
    William, have you read the recent book on Russians’ memory of the year 1990? There is an interesting chapter on the Russian Orthodox church in there.

  102. @ Daisy:

    This is a thing I’ve never understood. The church I grew up in and the church I attend now…. the only time sermons say anything that would assume (let alone be targeted toward) married with kids is the occasional mention at Christmas to remember to focus on Jesus, not on gifts.

    Otherwise, every sermon I hear is geared toward…Christians.

  103. @ sad observer:

    I can definitely sympathize here!

    Our old Acts 29 church was not overtly abusive – the dysfunction was very much covered up and hidden, so that we often “felt weird” about certain things but had a hard time putting our finger on it. That’s partly why we stayed as long as we did (almost 3 years). It took a “FUBAR” situation (pardon my acronym) to make the dysfunction clear enough for us to make our exit. Even now, almost 2 years after we left, we are still processing and discussing our experiences, and we are just now beginning to be recognize in detail what happened.

  104. @ Caitlin:

    Do you have many single Christian friends, ones who are over 30 especially who have never been married, or 40 year olds who divorced at 30 and still single?

    Trust me, adults singles are (it depends on the particular church), either 1. ignored 2. slighted.

    The slights are not always overt. Often times, married couples pay no attention to the lady or man who is standing alone in the pews, or, they will glance them over but not think to befriend them, but only chat up other married couples.

    And it’s not just in a brick and mortar, but in televised Christian programs -who are forever having “marriage experts” on, in all the books and blogs for marrieds and about marriage (there is not nearly as much content for singles over 25 years of age).

    Make it a point in the future to ask never-married adults who are past the age of 30, or who have been single for over a decade (say because their spouse died or divorced them) what their perception is on how preachers, lay persons, and Christian culture (TV, radio shows, etc) attitudes and treatment of singles are, you will get an earful from most.

    Married people almost always claim ignorance of singles mistreatment, “Oh, my church treats singles just swell.” Are you sure? Married folk tend to be blinded to it.

    Except for the ones who become single again. I read a story about a man whose wife died, I think he was about 50 yrs old, once she died, his church treated him differently. They also ceased allowing him to teach and lead (only wanted a married guy for that).

    Another guy I saw on a blog, said he got divorced around 35, was single again until he turned 40 or 41, and he said when he was single and in church, he started to notice the differences in how singles are overlooked or put down.

    As a married guy, he had been oblivious to how horrible churches treat singles until he became single again himself.

    Some churches put their anti singles prejudices on full view when they start wringing their hands in worry over the fact that most people today are not marrying at all or do not get married for the first time until they are 30 or 40 years old.

    That is very concerning to conservative Christians who want people to marry at 21 and have 3 kids a piece.

    They view the delayed age of first marriage to be some kind of nefarious plot against marriage by anti-Christians, or something, so some of them (e.g., Mohler) write very bigoted anti-singlehood editorials on their blogs or spout off anti singles nonsense in radio interviews.

  105. sandy wrote:

    I think that the reason I fell for the spiritual abuse in a church is because I was in an abusive controlling marriage and didn’t see it for what it was. the rigidity and rules of the church were the same and I didn’t know it was abusive, it was normal to me

    I think this is an awfully good point. I suspect that this is the reason that a lot of people don’t recognize the signs of abuse in any part of their lives: If you have been conditioned to think that something is normal, you are probably going to accept it in other parts of your life, as well.
    This is, of course, the reason that a charismatic political leader can blind followers who come from an authoritarian home; if you grow up being tyrannized, it seems like a comfortable place to be. Sure, it can be chancy, but once you learn the rules, you just follow them.
    I recall a conversation on the old Johnny Carson Tonight, when Peter Ustinov was a guest,something got “bleeped” & Ustinov opined that “we Russians seem to need lots of rules or we fall into anarchy. That’s why we went from the Czars to the Communists; we like having someone running things. I am never entirely comfortable in the United States because this country is so free, I never know what I’m allowed to say”.
    So while there may seem to be a fair number of military folk drawn to abusive churches,its not some horrid effect of having been military . Rather, SOME folk are drawn to the military because they like to have someone else running things, & these same people may well also be drawn to a church with a power-hungry leadership–for the same reason. They don’t like being “so free [that] they don’t know what they can say”.

    And now, there will no doubt be a deluge of angry Russians demanding this Zooey person’s head off, sooner rather than later.

  106. Mr.H wrote:

    It took a “FUBAR” situation (pardon my acronym) to make the dysfunction clear enough for us to make our exit.

    ROTFLMAO.
    There, that’s two of us!!

  107. @ William G.:

    It is so good that you are saying these things here. Most of us know next to nothing about Orthodoxy or about the situation in Russia. Im my town there is a successful and very public Green Orthodox congregation, but what most of us see is the issue of being Greek, and the issue of their business enterprises here, and the Orthodoxy tends to looks mostly like something cultural that can be passed over if one is not careful. We need to learn more about the things you are talking about.

  108. sad observer wrote:

    In answer to those who discussed why I did not confront leadership about their reluctance to change….well, it’s hard to explain. Conversations with them tended to get very confusing. You could explain that you had seen A, B and C happening, but they would say “Oh, but we don’t believe in acting that way!” as if that somehow proves that therefore they WEREN’T acting in those ways. It was also, at the time, EXTREMELY difficult to put into words why we were feeling discomfort. It’s taken years to verbalize it. So it was hard to describe to them why they stressed me out.

    This is exactly what I experienced with the church led by ex-SGM guys (who supported Acts 29 churches). It was the same vague uneasiness. They might generally be saying the right words, throwing Jesus out there, quoting the Bible, but there was something false and tinny about it, like they didn’t really mean it. They’d go out of their way, however, to tell you their church was “All about Jesus”. “It’s all about Jesus, all about Jesus, all about Jesus.” But you always felt like Jesus wasn’t around or invited.

    Private conversations were some of the most frustrating I’ve ever experienced. Sometimes the leader would say X, then turn round and say non-X, then when you pointed it out they’d deny the contradiction, or tell you you hadn’t heard what you’d heard. Your mind would reel. You’d try to pin something down and they’d change the subject, if you persisted, they’d question your integrity or salvation.

    They’d take passages from the Bible and make the most bizarre extrapolations. I spoke one-on-one with the leader (after months of uneasiness), and he said there had to be a single head of a local church and head among elders because Paul had told Titus to appoint elders. I wondered what in the world that had to do with there being a single head in the first place and him being it? But he just kept repeating his point and getting more angry with me when I refused to acknowledge it.

    You’d go round and round in circles, and they frankly seemed incapable of rational thought. Unless you ultimately agreed with them on all points they thought substantive, they would dismiss you as divisive, and that was the true end. Then you’d find out how many true friends you had at that church. We ended up with 3 out of about 60 after all the pieces came crashing down. But at least they’re real friends, unlike the others, who were phony ones.

  109. sad observer wrote:

    In answer to those who discussed why I did not confront leadership about their reluctance to change….well, it’s hard to explain. Conversations with them tended to get very confusing. You could explain that you had seen A, B and C happening, but they would say “Oh, but we don’t believe in acting that way!” as if that somehow proves that therefore they WEREN’T acting in those ways. It was also, at the time, EXTREMELY difficult to put into words why we were feeling discomfort. It’s taken years to verbalize it. So it was hard to describe to them why they stressed me out.

    Isn’t that called “Gaslighting”?

    And as for “hard to describe”, I refer you to “The Principles of Newspeak” by G.Orwell. The purpose of Newspeak is to restrict thought to the Party Line by constricting vocabulary. If there are no words to describe the Thoughtcrime concept, there is no Thoughtcrime idea. Eventually, all ability to think is constricted out; there is only doubleplusgoodthink and doubleplusduckspeak — stimulus, Party Line response, stimulus, Party Line response.

    (Incidentally, Orwell spent WW2 working for the BBC writing wartime propaganda. Though 1984 is primarily a political cartoon on Stalinism, he also mixed in a lot of digs at his pointy-haired bosses at the Beeb. Control freaks are the same all over.)

  110. LawProf wrote:

    Hebrews 13:17 and ‘obey’

    Thank you for a trip down memory lane on this verse! It is a classic example of where anyone teaching it needs to get to grips with the original language. If you have never learnt it (I haven’t) then good commentaries and Vines Dictionary can help, providing you avoid a pretense at scholarship you don’t have.

    It is difficult find one word to represent the Greek word where there is a nuance of meaning. I wonder if in this case ‘heed’ might be better than ‘obey’, and I even quite like the NIV here – ‘Have confidence’.

    Avoiding at my age Serious Eye Strain versions, I still use the RSV. Despite some liberal influence on the translation I prefer it, and I’m not always happy at newer conservative translations where the rendering tends to eliminate problems in the text. The rather wordy NASB interestingly enough used to be popular in the UK for those who wanted to stay in the KJB tradition, but weren’t happy with the RSV.

    At least the RSV pre-dates some modern controversies where the translators might be tempted to nudge the text in a particular direction. A variety of English versions is best to avoid this if you need to do a bible study on a passage.

  111. LawProf wrote:

    Private conversations were some of the most frustrating I’ve ever experienced. Sometimes the leader would say X, then turn round and say non-X, then when you pointed it out they’d deny the contradiction, or tell you you hadn’t heard what you’d heard. Your mind would reel. You’d try to pin something down and they’d change the subject, if you persisted, they’d question your integrity or salvation.

    You’d go round and round in circles, and they frankly seemed incapable of rational thought. Unless you ultimately agreed with them on all points they thought substantive, they would dismiss you as divisive, and that was the true end.

    What you wrote reminds me of the experience I had when purchasing my last new car. The salesman would respond to my questions with questions of his own, then switch the conversation to financing, then deliberately say something which was a non sequitur, then pretend to get a phone call and leave, then return having selective amnesia and then act like there is something wrong with me for not jumping on board and buying the car. It’s all done to wear the customer down and to maintain control.

  112. Mr.H wrote:

    @ LawProf:
    Great post, great insight.

    zooey111 wrote:

    sandy wrote:
    I think that the reason I fell for the spiritual abuse in a church is because I was in an abusive controlling marriage and didn’t see it for what it was. the rigidity and rules of the church were the same and I didn’t know it was abusive, it was normal to me
    I think this is an awfully good point. I suspect that this is the reason that a lot of people don’t recognize the signs of abuse in any part of their lives: If you have been conditioned to think that something is normal, you are probably going to accept it in other parts of your life, as well.
    This is, of course, the reason that a charismatic political leader can blind followers who come from an authoritarian home; if you grow up being tyrannized, it seems like a comfortable place to be. Sure, it can be chancy, but once you learn the rules, you just follow them.

    My experience with those who populate these churches are their backgrounds generally fall into two categories:

    1). People who had sadistic, personality-disordered parents (these usually end up being the leaders, enablers, and true believers), and

    2). People from fairly normal backgrounds just looking for Christian fellowship who find themselves perpetually confused (how can a Christian do THAT?)

  113. Joe2 wrote:

    LawProf wrote:
    Private conversations were some of the most frustrating I’ve ever experienced. Sometimes the leader would say X, then turn round and say non-X, then when you pointed it out they’d deny the contradiction, or tell you you hadn’t heard what you’d heard. Your mind would reel. You’d try to pin something down and they’d change the subject, if you persisted, they’d question your integrity or salvation.
    You’d go round and round in circles, and they frankly seemed incapable of rational thought. Unless you ultimately agreed with them on all points they thought substantive, they would dismiss you as divisive, and that was the true end.
    What you wrote reminds me of the experience I had when purchasing my last new car. The salesman would respond to my questions with questions of his own, then switch the conversation to financing, then deliberately say something which was a non sequitur, then pretend to get a phone call and leave, then return having selective amnesia and then act like there is something wrong with me for not jumping on board and buying the car. It’s all done to wear the customer down and to maintain control.

    Then they usually say: “Let me go ask my manager.” At which point they go into the sales room, watch 15 minutes of Wheel of Fortune, then come back and tell you about the “great deal” they just swung for you.

    But I’d rather spend a day with a room full of used car salespeople with comb overs and in cheap windbreakers with the company patch on it than spend one hour having my mind twisted into a pretzel by an pseudo-Christian church leader.

  114. Isn’t that called “Gaslighting”?

    It’s pure gaslighting. And it sure isn’t like dealing with anyone who truly knows Christ.

  115. @ LawProf:

    The example of the car salesman was a key part of a class on negotiation. My first question of the sales person is this. Does any deal you and I make have to be approved by someone other than you or me. If so, I will not buy from you. Take me to the person who can make the deal without someone else approving it. I will buy, or not, from that person, and from no one else.

  116. An Attorney wrote:

    @ LawProf:
    The example of the car salesman was a key part of a class on negotiation. My first question of the sales person is this. Does any deal you and I make have to be approved by someone other than you or me. If so, I will not buy from you. Take me to the person who can make the deal without someone else approving it. I will buy, or not, from that person, and from no one else.

    Yep, pretty worthless to deal with the front person when they have a shadow partner. I’ve taught a couple courses on negotiation at the uni level…and yet find myself being regularly destroyed in negotiations by my wife and children.

  117. @ An Attorney:

    That is great. I took my son with me the last time I bought a car. Mostly because he knows a lot about cars, and partly because he has the bargaining advantage of being male. What I got, however, was priceless. I got to watch him get the deal he had told me beforehand he could get, and nobody ever said anything ugly or hostile. He had lots of facts and figures he had gotten from somewhere about every item on the bill of sale and its original cost to the dealership and such. I don’t know how he knew this, but they acknowledged that he was correct. Then the sales manager would say something phony, and young son would swat away the comment like one swats away a fly. It was beautiful to behold. Wish I knew how to do it.

    But I did refuse to sign an operative permit recently until the surgeon corrected the wording to correspond to what she had stated verbally. There were a whole passel of nurses crowded into the pre-op cubicle to see the show, but it went perfectly smoothly and everybody started breathing again Maybe that was negotiation, I don’t know. But sometimes people and situations can be dealt with if the person has some knowledge of the issue to start with, I am thinking.

  118. @ Nancy:

    That is also one of the things taught in negotiation: the party with the information advantage generally gets more than the party with an information disadvantage. So rectify the disadvantage if at all possible. Discovering the reality behind the other side is a key strategy, and there are tools that enable that, which it appears you son knew regarding the car dealership. He was thus empowered.

    Another tool is to know the motivating factors behind the other side or your audience. Prior to law school, I created and ran an environmental consulting and education business. The most fun was working at the upper level of management, including a couple of times at the level of the board. A part of that was educating them about environmental laws and regulations in a quick, global sense. But a key for me was knowing who was on a board, what they had said in the past about environmental and safety matters, and educing from that their own values. Some truly wanted to avoid permanent environmental damage, some to avoid adverse publicity, some to avoid legal entanglements, some to improve corporate image, some bottom line long term profitability, some short term, etc. And I was usually able to sell risk reduction programs (usually cost saving as well) regardless of whatever the motivation would be. Often asked, what a Ph.D. in psych contributes to environmental management, and that is it — getting the right message to motivate a decision maker based on his/her buttons.

  119. LawProf wrote:

    You’d go round and round in circles, and they frankly seemed incapable of rational thought. Unless you ultimately agreed with them on all points they thought substantive, they would dismiss you as divisive, and that was the true end. Then you’d find out how many true friends you had at that church. We ended up with 3 out of about 60 after all the pieces came crashing down. But at least they’re real friends, unlike the others, who were phony ones.

    It’s more fun when it’s your mother. She’s in her 80s and wonders why none of her children want to have a relationship with her.

  120. Daisy–one place we differ is that I was forced, by geography, to attend outside the SBC world if I wanted to attend church at all. Just simply not that many of them in the far north central USA.

    Assuming–and it is, I know, a huge assumption!–that you have a the proverbial plethora of churches from which to pick, I always found it helpful to jot down exactly what I believe, then find the local church that came closest and try it. Sometimes they proved unhealthy, sometimes I found a really good fit.

    And a couple of times I’ve had to either not attend church, thus missing the good they might offer even if I disagreed a bit doctrinally, or be a bit flexible.
    ,
    Right now our ladies’ Bible study has SBC, AoG, RCC, UMC, Presby, ELCA, Nazarene, and maybe a few more I don’t know about. We stick to the basics that we agree on–surprisingly huge amount–and ignore our differences.

    Marvelous!

  121. Anna wrote:

    @ Adam Borsay:
    You must have had very different sales training to me. I’ve been taught that pushy sales are bad sales, being laid back is better than being persistent ( for the obvious reason that no means no), that the people who are attracted to the product are simply that way. You just got to find them. Yes presentation is key, but like Zig Ziglar said, everybody sells even if they’re not in sales. Everybody. Think about it.

    You apparently were never employed by some Christian bookstore chains. Minimum wage clerks being given a quota to upsell pre-orders and sell clearance items, and if you didn’t make those quotas, you were written up, would get your hours cut, etc. To the store manager, no never means no, it means ask a different way.

  122. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ LawProf:

    Part of me feels as though adding to your very clear and content-rich reply would be gilding the lily, LawProf. But here goes anyway… there are, of course, many leaders and others who must have hierarchy in the church because the only alternative they can imagine would be anarchy. I suspect this shows, more often than not, very little experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    It is a desperate weakness of western Christianity that so many aspects of the Christian life have become private and individualised. Even in church settings that do allow the Holy Spirit in, he is often only allowed to give some pictures, tongues and prophetic words before being told to sit in the corner with the coloured paper and plastic safety-scissors. As a result, too few believers have any real exposure to the corporate leading of the Holy Spirit, where he speaks not to a select few at the top of the hierarchy but to all the members of a congregation – or at the very least a large and strongly representative sample.

    To my mind, hierarchical church structures are rooted in unbelief, and spiritual naivety masquerading as management skill. Jesus can’t really build his church, and God’s kingdom can’t really work that differently from men’s kingdoms.

    I 100% agree with that analysis, Nick, even though if you pin me down I’m a technical cessationist.