Is ECFA Irrelevant?; Mark Dever Endorses Mark Dever & CJ Mahaney; @TheGospel™Corp

“Carpe per diem – seize the check.” – Robin Williams

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=22268&picture=fan-of-dollarsFan of Dollars

Too much to write so I am squeezing a few things into one post. If you want to laugh, read the last entry first!

1.  Should you trust the ECFA ( Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) seal of approval? I don't.

A few years ago, TWW was shocked to learn that ECFA didn't care that Franklin Graham was making $1.2 million in compensation. Here is what they said to us in a letter.

ECFA standards are based on the principles of good governance, accountability, integrity and transparency, and do not place dollar limits on the compensation of its members' leaders. 

Good night! So, after many years of believing that ECFA would keep things in check, I came to the realization that they didn't give a hoot how many millions a pastor or parachurch organization leader makes so long as they have "good accountability."  What in the world does that mean? Rob Smith decided to question whether or not ECFA really cares about accountability, good governance, integrity and transparency and uses current day Mars Hill which still bears the ECFA stamp of approval. I kid you not!   

Rob Smith, at Musings From Under the Bus, wrote Where is the credibility of ECFA?  He is concerned that ECFA continues to *bless* Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll with their increasingly suspect "seal of approval."

…Will the ECFA* have any credibility left after staunchly standing by Mars Hill Church?

…What sort of financial scandal has to become public before the ECFA decides that it will no longer give its once esteemed stamp of approval to Mars Hill Church?

….How is it possible that the Mars Hill Global Fund deception has been clear and obvious to many church members, ex-members, news reporters and bloggers, yet not to the ECFA? This includes the hasty repackaging of the Global Fund by MH leadership stating that the Global Fund was never a fund that was intended to fund overseas mission work in places like Ethiopia and India, but rather a fund that could be used for any purpose that the top leadership at Mars Hill Church desires, including the general fund.

…In the light of this latest revelation of financial shenanigans at Mars Hill Church, will the ECFA choose to keep its stamp of blessing on the church, like it did despite knowing of the deception by church leadership using $210,000 of church funds to hire a company to “game” the system and buy books in a manner intended to deceive the New York Times bestseller list

…Such blatant deception.

…Such planned exploitation of poor Africans. Such an intentional suckering of donors.

….Yet the ECFA still creates the deceptive illusion that there is transparency and accountability of the finances at Mars Hill Church by putting the ECFA stamp of approval on the organization. If Mars Hill Church qualifies for ECFA approval, then ECFA approval is meaningless. Every church which bears the ECFA stamp of approval becomes suspect of financial shenanigans.

Here is the question that must be answered.

What does the ECFA stand for these days? Surely their approval is losing its value. 

Rob, let me answer that question. Unless ECFA acts, their "seal of approval" will become irrelevant.


2. Mark Dever Endorses Mark Dever and CJ Mahaney: Humility at the Hotel California 

Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 1.33.14 PM

I saw this picture tweeted by Mark Dever last week and sent it on to Todd Wilhelm in Dubai along with a quick note: "This one's for you!" For those of you who do not remember here is a link to Todd's story. Todd (who was in line to be a church leader) asked his church, run by Mark Dever's BFF, John Folmar, to stop selling C.J. Mahaney's book in the UCCD bookstore in light of the controversy surrounding the SGM lawsuits alleging the cover up of child sex abuse victims and perpetrators. 

They said  "Not gonna happen." So Todd, a man of integrity, quit the church. But, with the 9 Marks "You can check in but you can never leave" policy, he was told he had to join an "acceptable" church before he could be removed from the roster. In other words, rights of conscience do not apply when you have made the mistake of joining 9Marks, aka "The Hotel California of the Calvinista Glitterati".

Surely, after Grant Layman's testimony, certain groups would be more circumspect in their endorsements. That does not appear to be true for 9Marks and, as I shall demonstrate later this week, neither does it apply to The Gospel™ Coalition.

This week, Todd wrote another insightful post Dever Calls Out Osteen But Continues to Promote Mahaney’s Book. He refers to the January/February 2014 9Marks Journal which deal with the Prosperity Gospel. In that journal, 9Marks calls out one of Joel Osteen's books, Break Out.  Now, the Deebs do not like Joel Osteen, finding his version of the faith similar to playing the game Candyland over and over. The review is not surprising.

Joel probably is America’s pastor. Sadly, Break Out! pastors people to be narcissistic, biblically illiterate, and theologically confused. In other words, Break Out! tells you to suspend biblical discernment and enjoy your day at Disneyworld.

However, here is where it gets interesting. It appears that 9Marks believes that abuse and rape are negative occurrences. They take Osteen to task for overlooking or de-emphasizing negative issues and sins.

Osteen’s twisting of Scripture to encourage and inspire greatness comes at a great cost, the cost of truth. The truth is, I cannot be my best. If I cannot be my best, and therefore do my part, what hope can I have that God will do his part?

These present sufferings do include abuse, rape, terminal disease, tragedy, accidents, personal bankruptcy, miscarriages, corrupt officials, and being persecuted for the faith. Joel has no message of hope or comfort for people in these. 

However, when Todd sought to remove a book by an author who has presided over a ministry which has been associated with the cover up of child sex abuse, which is also a form of rape, Mark Dever appears to have turned a blind eye. Grant Layman, Mahaney's brother-in-law, has testified under oath that he did not report knowledge of child sex abuse. This negative activity went on under Mahaney's watch and, at the minimum, the buck stops with Mahaney. Clue to Dever: this is called overlooking the negative, just like Osteen.

Dever, in a public tweet (this means it was for the general public and not just for his church members) endorsed C.J. Mahaney's book, along with his own books. One of the other books is written by a 9Marks pastor (Leeman) while another is written by a person closely associated with 9Marks (Stiles). Mahaney is in "inner circle" company. Frankly, in this instance, Mark Dever reminds me a bit of Joel Osteen.

Todd leaves us with a quote by Matt Redmond. Todd suggests adding C.J. Mahaney's name to Mark Driscoll's name.

“Criticizing Joel Osteen is the theological equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. I assume this is part of the reason why there are so many high-profile pastors going after him. There is no risk. He is outside of their theological camp. The risk comes when you don’t just step away from men like Driscoll  but publicly rebuke just as you promoted.”
-Matt Redmond

How embarrassing. One thing is certain. Dever knows he is right and that is a very good reason to be very, very, very, very careful before becoming a "signed on the dotted line" member of any 9Marks church unless you are C.J. Mahaney. Then you get a pass to come and go as you please. Caveat Emptor.


3. The Gospel™Corp responds.

Hoo boy, there are some really stodgy old Calvinistas out there in Twitterland.  Life has become too serious when you can't laugh at yourself or on behalf of your BFFs. I grew up in a family made up of immigrants from Russia and a few from Poland. How we would howl at Russian/Polish jokes. My friends from Italian immigrant families would have their own jokes. Good night, Calvinistas! Laugh. My husband says it is really good for your heart (that is if you have one.)

What is particularly funny about this response is that it refers to the the books that Mark Dever endorsed in the above post. It appears that our satirist(s) have similar thoughts to Todd and the Deebs.

I have a feeling that the keepers of The Gospel™ Corp will not mind me repeating this awesome explanation called 9 Things You Should Know About the Gospel Corp. Hint: Even the title is a spoof but I will let you figure who is being parodied. 10 points if you know and can write a response using " 9 Things You Should Know About…. (fill in the blank.)"

An accomplished Internet theologian recently called us out on Twitter as being elitist, mocking, hypocritical, anonymous cowards, and in one tweet even implied that our salvation should be questioned. And for this, we are grateful. He’s caused us to reflect and say, “We know what we’re against. But what are we truly for?” The following is a list of nine essential things you need to know about The Gospel Corp:

1. After giving the issue of anonymity some thought, we agree it is time to reveal our identities. We are Isaac Bickerstaffe and MB Drapier of Anytown, USA. Now that that’s out in the open, we look forward to promoting ourselves and developing our personal brands. Who knows? Maybe we’ll even get some speaking gigs on the conference circuit!

2. Satire is unbecoming of Christians, and we’re done with it. Many of the leading voices in Evangelical Christianity appear to have no sense of humor, so we are obviously in the wrong. From here on out, we’re only quoting obscure Puritan authors and retweeting sanguine Christianity Today links.

3.It’s no secret that we began the account as a parody of  The Gospel Coalition. What you may not know is that we have tens of thousands of unpublished tweets in our Drafts folder ridiculing every single word and action of all 52 TGC Council members AND anyone who has ever posted a blog on thegospelcoalition.org. Unfortunately, our strict curatorial guidelines prevent us from publishing more than ten tweets a day.

4. We just scratched #2 off the list.

5. Our critic charges that we single out certain people for criticism and then refuse to criticize others for doing the same things. And he raises a good point. We have come up with what we believe to be an exhaustive list of 10,044 Christian personalities, groups, and subsets to lampoon. If we average one unique critique for each day of the year, we will have worked through our list by the end of 2041. And surely by then, we will have added many more names to the list. Job security!

6. We have resolved to become a kinder, gentler Gospel Corp. When we see a well-known pastor promoting two of his books in a list of eight “good short books to disciple with,” we promise to never again question whether that is self-promotion. Because the definition of self-promotion certainly is not “elevating your product on Twitter.” (And to prove we’re serious about being inoffensive Christians, we have already followed @maxlucado!)

7. One day we hope to be fortunate enough to kiss Tim Keller’s ring.

8. This one may come as a surprise to some of you, but our favorite dessert is an Every Square Inch brownie with a scoop of gospel-centered vanilla ice cream on top.

9. This one may come as REAL surprise to some of you, but we’re not always right.

Long Live The Gospel™ Corp!

Comments

Is ECFA Irrelevant?; Mark Dever Endorses Mark Dever & CJ Mahaney; @TheGospel™Corp — 117 Comments

  1. First!

    The Gospel Corp. blog is a new site I’m going to have to check every once in a while. I left a comment suggesting John Piper as suitable material.

  2. Well, I’m pretty certain that The Gospel Corp. will not run out of material soon. Of course the Gospel Glitterati have no sense of humor. The apples do not fall far from the Puritan tree. Everything is dour and down and depraved. They don’t have any joy, for all the talk of “joy” one hears. It’s all rules, checklists, fretting, examining, comparing, etc. It’s hard to be joyful when one is exhausted and frustrated by endless failure to measure up.

    These guys really need to get over themselves. About two decades ago.

    They have no concept of the Father having delight in his children’s delight. I’m pretty sure if Jesus were a young child today, he would have the absolute best knock-knock jokes and would be able to make awesome monster faces and other delightful boy stuff. Speaking as the grandmother of the most amazingly brilliant grandchildren who have a very silly Gram and Gramp.

  3. Gram3 wrote:

    The apples do not fall far from the Puritan tree. Everything is dour and down and depraved. They don’t have any joy, for all the talk of “joy” one hears. It’s all rules, checklists, fretting, examining, comparing, etc. It’s hard to be joyful when one is exhausted and frustrated by endless failure to measure up.

    “The one in a hundred of the Elect predestined to walk the cold, hard, drab, joyless path of Salvation.”
    — James Michener, Hawaii (background of his New England Missionaries to “Owhyhee”)

  4. Dee wrote:

    10 points if you know and can write a response using " 9 Things You Should Know About…. (fill in the blank.)"

    I'll refrain from answering the question, but I would like to provide a clue for our readers.

    S(he) shares the same initials as our Lord and Savior. 😉

  5. Daisy wrote:

    I didn’t know that F. Graham makes 1.2 million a year. That’s a lot of money.

    I did some checking to see what Franklin Graham currently earns from these two organizations.

    He now makes a combined income of $537,165 (for the year ending 12/2012).

    It breaks down as follows:

    Samaritan's Purse: $437,255

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4423#.VDM0F-d944B

    Billy Graham Evangelistic Association: $99,910

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3367#.VDMz0-d944A

  6. Dever says Osteen wants people to be narcissistic, biblically illiterate, and theologically confused.

    OTOH, Dever and the Gospel Corp. have all the right answers. You won’t have any need for biblical literacy. Just parrot back the right answers to the catechism of the Gospel Corp. All theological confusion is avoided because there is clearly only one clearly right theology which clearly all clear-thinking people can clearly see is clearly the right theology. It’s all right in their books.

    As for narcissistic, well, that’s just a fat hanging pitch at belt level right down the middle. Way too easy, because that really would be shooting fish in the Gospel Corp. barrel. To mix some metaphors…

  7. Not that I have any affection for Osteen and largely agree with Dever about him. He does have pretty dazzling teeth.

    I suspect, from the point about kissing Keller’s ring, that there may be some PCA experience at the parody site. There is no truth to the rumor going around that all are required to genuflect before approaching him, however, so let’s try to keep things in perspective.

  8. For parodies of Piper, I think the Gospel Corp. needs to publish twice as much. Because Piper does all the parody work himself. It is only fair.

    Also, I think that people at the Gospel Corp. need to Stop Slandering Christ’s Bride, which was Joe Carter’s post where Joe sacrificed the lives of uncounted pixels to say “Shut Up.”

    Maybe Shut Up could be a category of posts at the Gospel Corp.

  9. Gram3 wrote:

    suspect, from the point about kissing Keller’s ring, that there may be some PCA experience at the parody site.

    I suspect that Dever is feeling left out that is why he recommended his own books. Frankly, that is one of the funniest things I have seen tweeted in a long time.

  10. The Gospel Corp is now followed…love it!

    @Gram3, I just want to say, I really love your posts. I am really learning a lot from TWW and its community, especially you.

  11. I am so grateful to the Gospel Corp for calling out behavior “unbecoming of Christians”. If they didn’t say this, who else would have the guts?
    Seriously. That made my day. Rofl

  12. RE: Good short books to disciple with

    You mean to tell me regular peons still shell out their hard earned dinero for this drivel? Marx was right on the money when he wrote:

    “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.

  13. Just need to ask a question here. Dever has suggested some short books to “disciple with.” Suppressing my inner grammar Godwin Person who is silently shrieking in horror at that tweet, let me just ask if there might be a significant omission from the stack.

    Isn’t there a somewhat large book, consisting of a few dozen smaller books, which is very widely distributed and readily available to use for discipleship and which is generally considered a discipleship classic?

    Which, of course raises another question. Who is the model for our new disciples?

    Surprise x 3 that Crossway has made a good showing in the stack.

  14. Gram3 wrote:

    Surprise x 3 that Crossway has made a good showing in the stack.

    Because Cro$$way does not get any $$$$ from that somewhat larger book in the stack, especially if they “stoop” to use the KJV, which is free for all.

    I once again wish I could see the contracts these people have with their publisher. My suspicion is that it would explain much of the behavior we see.

    Judas “the Hammer” Maccabeus

  15. @ Gram3:
    The Puritans wrote extensively on joy and it is a common misapprehension that they were drab and dry. For example, Thomas Goodwin writes “All those delights which we, like bees, do but lightly touch in other things, we in a super-eminent manner do find and taste in God, who alone can fill and satisfy the various desires of our minds, and who doth indeed fill them; the enjoyment of Him is the fullest and most satisfactory blessedness of our souls, for this enjoyment of himself is alone full, and sufficient to his own happiness from all eternity.”(‘Of Joy in the Holy Ghost”, Works, vol.8).
    Or consider Jonathan Edwards who says “Peace and pleasure are also the portion of Christians in this world. Their peace and joy in God begin in the present life, and are no less excellent than the glory with which He invests them, and the honour to which He advances them. Their foundation for peace and joy is in their safety and in their riches. They have ground for peace because of their safety. they are safe in Jesus Christ from the wrath of God and from the power of Satan. They have a foundation of unspeakable comfort and joy, because of their riches. They have true and infinite riches. They are the possessors and heirs of something real and substantial, and that is worthy to be called by the name of riches. The things they possess are excellent, more precious than gold and rubies; all the desirable things in this world cannot equal them, and they have enough of it. The riches that they have given them of God are inexhaustible. It is sufficient for them; there is no end of it.”(works, volume 2, p 889).

  16. @ Gavin White:

    I have no quarrel with the project the Puritans in England undertook to purify a putrid church. Totally agree with that.

    Also totally agree that our joy is ultimately found in God. But that is because everything good comes from God.

    Gramp3 and I have several grandchildren in whom we delight. They delight in our company because they know we love them. We provide them with good gifts which they enjoy, and we derive great joy from their delight. Their delight in the good gifts we give them does not diminish us. It increases our joy. They really have nothing to give us except their love. We can give them our love and also good gifts. I think God’s relationship with his beloved children is something like that.

    Now, if they only get “joy” from the good gifts we give them and love the gifts more than the giver, then that is a serious problem. Or if they feel entitled to more or better or different gifts than the good ones we give them, then that’s also a serious problem.

    Now, where I believe the Puritans got off track and gained their reputation is that they have focused primarily on the negative. They got out of balance by focusing on exterminating sin rather than promoting conformity to Christ. Of course we need to do both, but exterminating sin alone is not sufficient.

    It is a natural human tendency to create systems which substitute for a good relationship or compensate for a deficiency in a relationship, in this case a vital, organic relationship with Jesus Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is the problem with the Neo-puritans. The systems which in this case manifest as endless conferences, books, celebrity gurus, and “networks” that promise all will be well or at least better and we will please God if we follow the system. Even books of the Bible which are written specifically about life in the Spirit have been contorted into systems of behavior. This is exhausting. Life in the Spirit is invigorating.

    Perhaps I should have painted with a somewhat smaller brush. But, the fact remains, if one is in a position of teacher, one needs to accept responsibility for the implications of what we are teaching. In the case of the Neo-puritans, they have overlearned one aspect of the Puritan impulse and have created a fake “joy.” You can’t see it at first, but when you get to know people in this system well and they start to open up, it becomes pretty clear.

  17. Judas Maccabeus wrote:

    Because Cro$$way does not get any $$$$ from that somewhat larger book in the stack, especially if they “stoop” to use the KJV, which is free for all.

    I once again wish I could see the contracts these people have with their publisher. My suspicion is that it would explain much of the behavior we see.

    Yes, I’ve made that same observation myself while trying to figure out why the celebs protect Mahaney so fiercely. I suspect there is some clause in their contracts that requires all to support the others in the Crossway stable. Doug Wilson is a Crossway author, so I think we can safely put to rest once and for all that idea that Crossway is about the purity of the Gospel.

    Actually, Crossway and Grudem took the RSV, which is in the public domain, and tweaked it, copyrighted it, and released it as the ESV. So, they would make some money if Dever had included it. Pretty sure Dever’s network is ESV only, so Dever’s success contributes to their bottom line either way.

  18. @ Gavin White:

    It was probably “joyful” to be a Puritan leader. Not so much for Quakers, women and others who dared dissent from their strict doctrinal standards like Roger Williams and many more. Many of their writings are all about going deep with sin (instead of living a redeemed life) making dates with Satan to focus on such in others.

  19. Gram3 wrote:

    For parodies of Piper, I think the Gospel Corp. needs to publish twice as much. Because Piper does all the parody work himself. It is only fair.

    Yes, he does all his self-parodying single-handedly. What an accomplished man! And to think I used to like him!

  20. @ Deb:

    I thik it is relevant to know the definition of “compensation” used by Charity Navigator. The inclusion of expense accounts for persons who travel widely for the charity is relevant. Also, in my small use of expense accounts in business, as a manager, I often pay on my account some of the expenses of people who travel with me; it seems likely this increases the expenses reported to the IRS.

    per Charity Navigator: “Compensation:
    Based on the data found in each charity’s most recently filed Form 990, we include salary, cash bonuses, and expense accounts when we measure a CEO’s compensation.
    We do not include contributions to benefit plans or deferred compensation that is allocated to be paid in later years. Deferred compensation is often accrued over many years and then is paid as a lump sum in one year. As such, we do include deferred compensation as part of the compensation figure in the year in which it is actually paid out to the employee and/or when it is expensed per the 990.”

  21. raswhiting wrote:

    Deferred compensation is often accrued over many years and then is paid as a lump sum in one year. As such, we do include deferred compensation as part of the compensation figure in the year in which it is actually paid out to the employee and/or when it is expensed per the 990.”

    From the donor’s perspective, wouldn’t it be better for Charity Navigator to show the deferred compensation accrual in the year it is accrued rather than the year in which it is paid out? I’m presuming that the deferred compensation is with some other financial entity which ultimately pays out the compensation. I may be wrong about this, however. Also, wouldn’t it be better to break out the expense account from the salary and other personal benefits?

    If you can mix and match between cash and accrual, it leads to confusion about what is really going on.

    Most corporations give their employees the cost of their benefits package. Shouldn’t donors have information on the benefits package of the highly-compensated charity employees so that donor’s can decide if it is reasonable?

  22. @ raswhiting:

    Just to clarify my previous comment to you, I was not questioning your information but asking for your opinion about the Charity Navigator reporting methods. Thanks.

  23. Gram3 wrote:

    Now, where I believe the Puritans got off track and gained their reputation is that they have focused primarily on the negative. They got out of balance by focusing on exterminating sin rather than promoting conformity to Christ.

    Slacktivist theorized the same thing as an origin for Kirk Cameron’s Excessive Scrupulosity — that he had been catechized in a church which defined “holiness” entirely in negative terms, i.e. sniffing and avoiding sin.

  24. Gus wrote:

    I used to like him

    This is my standard question for Piper fans, present or past: What is it about Piper’s thinking that you find or found so compelling? I’m trying to make some sense out of Piperism.

    It helps me to think about how to guard myself against my own natural tendency to follow “leaders.” We each have different vulnerabilities, so I find different perspectives helpful. Thanks.

  25. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Kirk Cameron’s Excessive Scrupulosity

    I don’t know much about Kirk Cameron, but it makes some sense that you react most strongly against the greatest problem you have seen. In unHolywood, there is no doubt a lot of sin which would have repulsed him as a believer. So, in that sense, it is understandable where excessive scrupulosity might seem like a reasonable reaction.

    Their disgust with what they saw in the Church of England may have resulted in a reactive excessive scrupulosity as well. Maybe that is why the YRR are so attracted to Neo-puritanism, too. They see chaos all around them and want to avoid that at all costs. Reflexive reaction is understandable but usually not wise.

  26. TWW was shocked to learn that ECFA didn’t care that Franklin Graham was making $1.2 million in compensation.

    ECFA’s actions may possibly be influenced by the individuals who organized and started the ECFA. There could be a conflict of interest. Do you know who they are?

  27. OK, dumb question from an outsider: If it’s “the Bible Alone,” then why do we need all those books that the Gospel Industrial Complex keeps churning out?

    (Of course, if it’s “the Bible Alone,” and the Bible is supposedly “perspicuous” to the Elect, then why do we need The Institutes? But let’s not go there….)

  28. Isn’t there a somewhat large book, consisting of a few dozen smaller books, which is very widely distributed and readily available to use for discipleship and which is generally considered a discipleship classic?

    LOL. Gram3 stole my thunder.

  29. raswhiting wrote:

    Deferred compensation is often accrued over many years and then is paid as a lump sum in one year. As such, we do include deferred compensation as part of the compensation figure in the year in which it is actually paid out to the employee and/or when it is expensed per the 990.

    Interesting, so if the employee leaves the organization on December 31 and the deferred compensation is paid the following year the “compensation figure” consists only of the deferred compensation. It would seem to make more sense to report the amount of the deferred compensation accrued each year along with the earnings on the deferred compensation balance for that year.

  30. Catholic Homeschooler wrote:

    If it’s “the Bible Alone,” then why do we need all those books that the Gospel Industrial Complex keeps churning out?

    Humor intended:

    Because we need the gospel™ boys to tell us what it means! Wait….isn’t that what the RC says?

  31. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Kirk Cameron’s Excessive Scrupulosity

    Um, really? Not just mentally ill but excessively mentally ill? Now I am curious. What did he do? I am aware of who he is, think he has some strongly held opinions that are controversial, but that is about all I know about him. Now, his buddy Ray is a case of something, but that is a different though related issue.

  32. @ Catholic Homeschooler:

    Probably for the same reason(s) their ilk made one commenter (on a previous thread here at TWW) jump through so many hoops to get food when she was down on her luck, rather than just follow St. James as Catholic charities do.

  33. @ Lydia:
    I suppose it depends on your own point of view. For example, here is another description of the Quakers and Williams,
    “[Roger] Williams spent much of his final decades in protracted debates with Quaker missionaries and refugees to Rhode Island, and what caused him to be so exasperated with his Quaker opponents was primarily their violation of [the] aspect of civility, the need to conduct public conversation respectfully. …Williams was taken aback by his Quaker opponents’ boisterous behavior and abandonment of common courtesy during the debates. He vehemently objected to their habit of interrupting his arguments, shouting him down, attempting to humiliate him personally with name-calling and ridicule, misrepresenting his convictions, and displaying a noted lack of truthfulness in their own arguments. …[To Williams] this behavior was not, as the Quakers insisted, an acceptable exercise of free conscience. Instead it was a moral violation of the basic requirements of civility, a signal of deep disrespect and a transgression of the procedural rules for public deliberation that Williams held with the highest esteem, so much so that he was willing to entertain the possibility that violators of civility like the Quakers should be subject to legal restrictions.”

  34. @ Gram3:
    I think that the fountain of their joy was God Himself and that their desire was to glorify Him in all things, relying on the Holy Spirit.
    To me Neo-Puritans are much like Neo-Calvinists, they are neither Puritan nor Calvinist.

  35. Catholic Homeschooler wrote:

    Of course, if it’s “the Bible Alone,” and the Bible is supposedly “perspicuous” to the Elect, then why do we need The Institutes?

    Once, in an idle 15 minutes, I downloaded a complete english translation of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion into Pages, then deleted a large quantity of forewords, appendices, end-notes and such. I was left with over six hundred thousand words.

    To be fair, this is somewhat fewer than are in the Bible itself (around three-quarters of a million, depending on translation), but many more than are in anybody’s translation of the New Testament. In which, one might say, Jesus – with final authority – instituted the Christian religion.

    But this, of course, is the fundamental bait-and-switch of any man-made religion. God commanded you to do X. But you must understand what that means: learned authorities have declared that it means Y. The Bible says X, and clearly in order to accomplish this you must do Y. Suddenly, if you want to be right with “God” you must do Y. We have set aside the commands of God in order to observe the traditions of men.

  36. I kind of figured the ECFA had different standards of ethics when the Ligonier financial scandal broke back around 07.

  37. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Regarding Calvin’s Institutes …

    Wonder what the word count on Jesus would be?

    Maybe the fact that He didn’t say all that much actually says a lot!

    Meanwhile, it also strikes me that if what you’re actually going for — whether you understand it or not — is an “inerrant theology” that perfectly captures all subject areas upon which God has spoken, then of course it’s going to be wordy wordy wordy. But then, isn’t this kind of linguistic-philosophical perfectionism one of the main aims of the “Enlightenment/modernist project”?

    To me, this search for the exactly right wording on theology is just another indicator that the Western Church has succumbed to syncretism with a too-limited epistemology (way of processing information). So, it gets some things right, but has major blind spots due to its extreme either/or thinking, from whence we get an overabundance of rules and regs on men versus women, old versus young, leaders versus laypeople, “first among equals” versus the rest of the elders, insiders and outsiders, resolving problems among the saints in-house instead of going to civil authorities about broken laws because we’re citizens, etc.

    And then we are right back into some of the core problems at Mars Hill Church, and 9 Marks, and New Calvinism, and CBMW, and ESS, and a bunch of other labels and acronyms.

  38. Gavin White wrote:

    abandonment of common courtesy during the debates. He vehemently objected to their habit of interrupting his arguments, shouting him down, attempting to humiliate him personally with name-calling and ridicule, misrepresenting his convictions, and displaying a noted lack of truthfulness in their own arguments. …

    IOW, what the Neo-puritans do to anyone who disagrees with them now. Oh, they may coat it in syrupy church dialect and piety, but a similar tactic.

  39. @ Gavin White:

    I’m interested in your opinion about what caused the authoritarian impulses and actions of the New England Puritans. How do you see Neo-Puritans being distinct from New Calvinists? Not Neo-Calvinists who are/were a different kettle of fish, although sometimes they swim in one another’s ponds.

  40. @ Gavin White:
    Reference?

    And I have never suggested that Roger Williams was all fluffy snowflakes and candy canes. Have you read “The Bloody Tenant”? My mentioning Roger Williams was in reference to his banishment over doctrinal disagreements with his Puritan brethren. I am trying to figure out how his being banished means that he was automatically in agreement with Quakers or found them charming folk to chat with.

  41. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know much about Kirk Cameron, but it makes some sense that you react most strongly against the greatest problem you have seen. In unHolywood, there is no doubt a lot of sin which would have repulsed him as a believer. So, in that sense, it is understandable where excessive scrupulosity might seem like a reasonable reaction.

    I suspect he was an adult convert who came in with a load of baggage. Add to that a sin-sniffing “catechism” concentrating on keeping your nose squeeky-clean to pass the Great White Throne Litmus Test and…

  42. Nancy wrote:

    Um, really? Not just mentally ill but excessively mentally ill? Now I am curious. What did he do?

    Such behavior as:
    * Only appearing in CHRISTIAN(TM) productions.
    * Requiring his RL wife to be the stand-in for ALL kissing scenes “to prevent committing Adultery”.
    * Barricading himself in his trailer on the set of Left Behind when he heard there were Heathens(TM) on the crew.
    This sounds neurotic even by Hollywood standards.

    “Excessive Scrupulosity” is not a mental illness per se, but it’s usually considered a form of OCD obsessing on internal sin-sniffing and fears of committing any sin and losing your Salvation. 17th Century Massachusetts Puritan journals are full of it.

  43. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Once, in an idle 15 minutes, I downloaded a complete english translation of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion into Pages, then deleted a large quantity of forewords, appendices, end-notes and such. I was left with over six hundred thousand words.

    At standard manuscript (and mass-market paperback) rule-of-thumb of 250 words/page, this comes out to 2400 pages. A book so thick we used to call it “The Murder Weapon” (as in “Colonel Mustard! In the foyer! With a copy of the Institutes!”).

    Some comparisons:
    * In the 1950s/1960s, your typical genre paperback novel (such as SF) ran 55-65,000 words.
    * Currently the minimum for a novel is 80,000 or so, with a lot over 100,000. And I’ve seen Trilogy Components that run around 200,000.
    * Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is somewhere between 600,000 and a million words.
    * Stacked on the bookshelf, 600,000 words takes up around five-six inches (12-15cm) of shelf space, more if hardback.

  44. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But this, of course, is the fundamental bait-and-switch of any man-made religion. God commanded you to do X. But you must understand what that means: learned authorities have declared that it means Y. The Bible says X, and clearly in order to accomplish this you must do Y. Suddenly, if you want to be right with “God” you must do Y.

    And if you want to be even MORE Right with God, you must do Z as well. Then AA, then AB, then AC, then AD, then AE, then AF….

    “CAN YOU TOP THIS?”

  45. Lydia
    If you google the paragraph you will be directed to the reference(s). My understanding was that Williams, who arrived in the second wave of Puritans found the first wave to be too much like the Anglicans of Merry Olde England he had left behind which led to disagreement. I dont know how the example I gave can lead you to make your other remarks.

    Gram3
    I agree with your assessment of the similarities between the example I quoted and the actions of the Neos today.
    I don’t know why the New England Puritans acted as they did. I don’t see any difference between the New Puritans and the New Calvinists. To me, they are the same people who have hijacked the name but not adopted the principles and spirit of the originals.

    Nick & Brad/FuturistGuy
    I dont think a comparison of the Institutes with the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) is necessary. Only one is inspired and commands obedience. Precision in terminology in the history of the Christian church is necessary to clarify and explain in order to address issues that arise over the course of time. Hence the various church councils. I see the Institutes as an attempt to address the various failings in the church at that time and to explain the position of the Reformers.

    But all this is a long way from the financial accountability exercised by the ECFA.

  46. Gavin White wrote:

    Nick & Brad/FuturistGuy
    I dont think a comparison of the Institutes with the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) is necessary.

    Neither do I and neither, I’m sure, does Futuristic Brad, which is why we weren’t making one. The word-count was incidental to my point. Six hundred thousand words setting out one’s theological position is an emphatic statement that Calvin, at least, rejected the notion of the perspicuity of scripture. But I will take you up on two of your points.

    That only scripture is inspired and commands obedience, whereas the works of Calvin, or A.N.Other, do not, is a nice idea. In practice, the Official_Interpretation of scripture is (in every meaningful sense) entirely on a par with scripture. As Servetus – among very, very many others – was made aware, the battle to own that particular high ground is frequently a vicious one.

    Secondly, I kind of get what you mean about precision in terminology. But I think it’s a lot less necessary than the Church has often made it. Not least because it is impossible to achieve, because it’s a near-infinite regress: to precisely define a term, you must also precisely define the terms you use to define the term, using words that must also be precisely defined, and so on. This is one reason for the drift in certain circles towards sin-sniffing, where ever-more-trivial behaviours are classified as sinful. Or, in the Legalistic Resurgence, the elevation of minor issues into primary (or “gospel”) ones.

  47. Gavin White wrote:

    Nick & Brad/FuturistGuy
    I dont think a comparison of the Institutes with the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) is necessary. Only one is inspired and commands obedience. Precision in terminology in the history of the Christian church is necessary to clarify and explain in order to address issues that arise over the course of time. Hence the various church councils. I see the Institutes as an attempt to address the various failings in the church at that time and to explain the position of the Reformers.

    But all this is a long way from the financial accountability exercised by the ECFA.

    Understood. While it appears my riff on Calvin and Jesus is a long way from financial accountability and the ECFA, the overall context of the post is about Mars Hill Church, which embodies something I see as akin to searching for the “inerrant theology” and falling prey to an seemingly unassailable leader. And another part of the context is 9 Marks, which I keep seeing in connection with Acts29, which was co-founded by Mark Driscoll. And The Gospel™ Corp, a parody of another TGC which has a number of New Calvinists along with Reformed and Calvinists of other sorts and of which Mark Driscoll was one of the earliest Council members.

    These are some hot-button people and organizations in spiritual survivor communities, and granted, I got a little testy about 600,000 words from Calvin. I didn’t say earlier, but when I pictured those volumes of the Institutes, I was reminded of how the Mosaic Law ended up expanded and explained in the Mishnah, a sort of similar expounding in Judaism as Calvin’s Institutes in the Reformation tradition. When and how does the “hedge” around the core truth start getting treated as if it were the core?

    I’m not against church councils, not against Christian theological writings, not against working toward clear descriptions and understandings of Scripture. But I’m not for treating the *products* of our thinking as equivalent to the level of Scripture itself. Nor am I for thinking that any theological authority is unassailable, even if authoritarian. Nor am I for functioning from an assumption that Western philosophical and theological traditions are the only correct presuppositions from which to develop those reflections.

    FWIW, for instance, in my opinion, there are guilt-based (judicial), shame-based (relational), and fear-based (powers/spiritual warfare) aspects of salvation — but Western theology has over-elevated only the judicial aspects, which is a reflection of our usual cultural bias. This does not contextualize well in shame-based cultures of the East, nor fear-based and animist cultures that dot the globe.

    And how many theological descriptions and “secondary issues” that are supposedly not a boundary on the content of orthodoxy, have been so emphasized by some of these movements that they are, in effect, elevated to the level of what I called “inerrant theology”? Kinda bugs me … so I said something that I hope (both times) was worth reflection.

    P.S. As a trained linguist, words and definitions matter to me, as does the cultural context in which they are used. And, as a spiritual abuse survivor, the misuses of words to perpetrate falsehood are just as grave a concern as well.

  48. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    And how many theological descriptions and “secondary issues” that are supposedly not a boundary on the content of orthodoxy, have been so emphasized by some of these movements that they are, in effect, elevated to the level of what I called “inerrant theology”? Kinda bugs me … so I said something that I hope (both times) was worth reflection.

    P.S. As a trained linguist, words and definitions matter to me, as does the cultural context in which they are used. And, as a spiritual abuse survivor, the misuses of words to perpetrate falsehood are just as grave a concern as well.

    Totally agree. The fact that these men, and all abusers of language are abusing the language which God has inspired, as would all say, makes it all the worse.

    I’m thinking about a few other things to ask you, but need to process the thoughts a little more. Thanks.

  49. Gram3 wrote:

    From the donor’s perspective, wouldn’t it be better for Charity Navigator to show the deferred compensation accrual in the year it is accrued rather than the year in which it is paid out? I’m presuming that the deferred compensation is with some other financial entity which ultimately pays out the compensation

    There are very special rules about deferred comp. According to the law, it is not a real cash item until paid out. The reason is taxability. it is not a tax deduction to the corporation (salary or benefits) in the year accrued and it is not taxable income to the recipient in the year accrued. There are pages of pages of rules about deferred comp in my CFP manuals.

  50. @ nmgirl:

    That makes sense from a tax accounting perspective. But is the annual accrual info not available to Charity Navigator? My basic point is for Debby Donor to look at annual salary and benefits plus accrued benefits for that year so she can have some basis for judging the reasonableness of the total compensation package.

    I’m not seeing why that report would necessarily need to correspond to the recognition of the expense and income for tax purposes. Not intending to get into accounting weeds, but just wondering if that particular info might be compiled somehow, possibly from internal sources.

    Some years ago we tried to encourage a non-profit affiliated with a church to voluntarily file a 990, for purposes of transparency and donor accountability, and I don’t remember exactly what was on it. It just should not be this difficult to get transparency for donors.

    I’m just recovering from changes to CRUT reporting classifications, so I get the pages and pages…

  51. Gram3 wrote:

    Gus wrote:

    I used to like him

    This is my standard question for Piper fans, present or past: What is it about Piper’s thinking that you find or found so compelling? I’m trying to make some sense out of Piperism.

    I never was a fan, didn’t know him long enough before I discovered sites such as this and links to some disturbing statements.

    But I guess I liked that he seemed to be genuinely humble (not as brash as some other preachers I won’t have to name here), that he seemed to really be about the gospel, not himself and/or his “ministry”, and that he really seemed to show love for God and people in the first videos that I saw.

    You could say I was taken in by his avuncular persona and friendliness – maybe. But then again, I was not taken in for a long time. Actually, after seeing a few videos that I liked I came across this site when I was looking for more information about him. So TWW really WAS doing its duty and fulfilling its purpose. 😉

  52. And this thread reminds me of why I’m proud to be part of this community…I learn new stuff every day & someone always cracks me up, HUG we would so be friends in real life. Your institutes crack is going to amuse me all day.

  53. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Well, here is the thing. None of that is outside of certain religious subcultures, and he/his lifestyle seem to have won him a large following in a highly competitive field. I fail to see that it is “pathologic” or that it has hindered his functioning, which is what it takes to throw a “diagnosis” on somebody.

    The reason I am bringing this up is that there is a lot of throwing around of diagnoses, like the “scandal” of ADD/ADHD being overused as has been brought up time and again even in the secular press.

    I can see where you might not like what he is doing, I can see where I might think it is extreme and find it uncomfortable to be around him. But then I would have found it difficult to be around most of the official catholic saints that I have read anything about. I am just not good with so much labeling of people as seems to be currently popular, be they dead or alive and be they catholic or protestant.

  54. Let me open this up for consideration, and right here is as good as any place to do it. I could quote some comments, but that would accomplish nothing and would probably be an injustice on my part. So just let me say that I get “a feel” of something that, if I am correct, could be a problem.

    Perhaps there is the idea floating around that “anything” a church or religious organization does is apt to be incompetent, abusive, perhaps illegal and certainly ill advised. My problem is with the “anything” part of that. Certainly there is poorly done and even bad stuff associated with religious leaders, religious organizations and religious thinking. I fail to see that it is all bad, however. It rather seems to be a mixed bag.

    Perhaps there is the idea floating around that “anything” that can be handled by some secular practitioner or authority or organization is apt to be, at minimum, better than if the “church” had been involved. I spent my whole professional life in “secular” work, as did the generations of my family before and after me, and there is so much @#$% out there in the secular world that it is not wise to place much hope in some really good solution from those sources either. It is not all bad and not all good. It is a mixed bag.

    I think I see a tendency in humanity to want something that can be basically trusted to “be correct and do the right thing” whether it is inerrant theology, or whether it is “the church” or whether it is “the secular authorities.” We seem to need something which we can blindly trust without having to worry about it. Nothing like that is totally available to us. We still have to think for ourselves and protect ourselves and our own to the best of our ability, and we still will get hurt in the process to some extent whatever we do. The world is just that “lost” inside or outside of religious circles.

  55. Gram3 wrote:

    OldJohnJ and Nancy could be called as expert witnesses.

    Don’t look at me. I don’t even know what you all are talking about. But hey, I am losing it big time. We went up on Pilot Mountain to picnic over the weekend, and I forgot that is is cold up on any sort of a mountain. Well, it wasn’t in July, right? So, only a light weight jacket in October and up on a mountain? Stuuuuupid there.

  56. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    The facts suggest otherwise Nick. When he first wrote the Institutes, it amounted to only six chapters, which the editors say was equivalent in length from Matthew to the end of Ephesians. Calvin himself referred to it as a “small” work and expressed surprise that it had been so well received. It’s final form in 1559 was equivalent to the length of the OT and the Synoptic Gospels. What we tend to read nowadays is that plus all the addenda and footnotes that scholars and editors have added for our benefit.
    Calvin gives his own reasons for writing the Institutes. He saw his life work as ” having no other purpose than to benefit the church by maintaining the pure doctrine of godliness” observing “Yet I think that there is no one who is assailed, bitten and wounded by more false accusations than I”. (Some things never change, it would seem). The other reason he said is “It has been my purpose in this labour to prepare and instruct candidates in sacred theology for the reading of the divine Word, in order that they may be able both to have easy access to it and to advance in it without stumbling.”
    None of that is to say or warrant saying that he was trying to impose his version or interpretation of Scripture on people. The opposite is the case. Again, hear his own words. “Credibility of doctrine is not established until we are persuaded beyond doubt that God is its Author.”(Institutes, Book I, ch vii, paragraph 4 – which is titled ” The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof”).

  57. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    As a matter of fact, being up very early (about 4 a.m. on the West coast of the U.S., it got to start watching the “blood moon” at a strong point where the tint was a sort of brick red pinkish color. Checking in periodically, now the the moon is two-thirds back to full and bright, with the arc of dark shadow at the bottom third. Kind of spectacular. I can imagine how frightening that could’ve been in the era before the internet, and other paleolithic epochs.

  58. @ Nancy:

    FWIW, I think a partial answer to the underlying problems is that to “do good plus do no harm” — along the lines of the Golden Rule — requires us to be *intentional* in our learning, discerning, and decision-making. We need to (and can!) figure out some of what inflicts damage in our world, and work to fill in the gaps of negligence and ignorance, and file off the excesses of overzealousness and self-centeredness.

    I believe people of good will might actually be willing to do these kinds of things. It’s not saying everything religious is bad and secular is good, or vice versa. Just an eyes-open view of reality and how damaging we all can be to ourselves and others, but also of hope — engaging the “prophetic imagination” of individuals and groups to make a difference.

    I work with some groups where this is the overall framework, of a quadruple bottom line that benefits: people, planet, profit, and personal and social transformation. Or if you prefer to be non-alliterate and rhyming instead, community, ecology, economy, and spirituality.

    This isn’t universalism or nice-ism. I see this as being missional, living out Christlike character in social situations to be salt and light in the world.

  59. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    This isn’t universalism or nice-ism. I see this as being missional, living out Christlike character in social situations to be salt and light in the world.

    That is a great way to see things. And I think that is the correct way, and I think probably that God himself may think that way. I, however, have long lost the niceties of vocabulary and imagination, and I see it as shoveling some of the s— out of the hen house, (reverting to the duties of my childhood).

    I love reading your comments, by the way, and hope you keep commenting here.

  60. Gram3 wrote:

    Just to clarify my previous comment to you, I was not questioning your information but asking for your opinion about the Charity Navigator reporting methods.

    You raise good accounting principle questions and I am not really acquainted with the expert arguments about these issues. Charity Navigator may be limited by what is reported in the 990 filings baased upon IRS requirements, and what is reported in any audited financial statements.

  61. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I think you are correct and have said it well.

    Gavin White wrote:

    I see the Institutes as an attempt to address the various failings in the church at that time and to explain the position of the Reformers.

    That was then and this is now. What can be seen now is not only the problems with the catholic church (then and perhaps now) but also the problems with calvinism (then and perhaps now). Saying “but in the beginning nobody intended it to be this way / get this complicated” may be all true, but this is not “in the beginning.” In comparing at least one thing between the catholic church and calvinism I note that even as we speak the current pope has convened the bishops in Rome to discuss some issue regarding the family that may need some further looking at. I admire their procedures of having counsels and such and ongoing authoritative statements related to current situations, even when I may not agree with their decisions.

  62. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    This isn’t universalism or nice-ism. I see this as being missional, living out Christlike character in social situations to be salt and light in the world.

    Thank you! There is a strange understanding of this among evangelicals that it means “works” salvation. It follows along with the assumption that we cannot help but treat others wrongly (sin) and it is to be expected because we are sinners. That is where I think the “intentional” part you mention comes in. When we are so busy parsing perfect doctrine are we missing the main point of Jesus Christ?

  63. Nancy wrote:

    I love reading your comments, by the way, and hope you keep commenting here.

    Thanks, Nancy. Kind of you to say so, and i am really glad that something redemptive has come out of some horrific situations of spiritual abuse I’ve endured. I hope to keep dropping in on threads here when I can, as i have here on TWW for the last 5 years or so … I’ve lost track … but have had to disappear a lot lately (and likely in 2015 also) as I am *finally* nearing the end of a 6-plus-year-long writing project, to develop a curriculum about social transformation from the kind of missional perspective I mentioned in my earlier comment — to Do Good Plus Do No Harm.

    I started volunteering in the community 40 years ago, started studies on the cultural context of this 25 years ago, and deeply into the dark side of toxic organizations 7 years ago, so this really has become my life’s work. I’ve seen a lot of good and a lot of bad in both church and community, so I hope my approach is realistic and relatively balanced — which is the missional and contextual side of things — plus being hopeful — which is the futurist side of things … helping people imagine a positive future that is different from what otherwise seems inevitable if no one dreams, no one prays, no one works, and God doesn’t providentially provide.

    I suppose all this is scandalous to those who are on the strictly conservative or strictly liberal end of the theological spectrum. Which is probably, hopefully, a good indicator that it’s closer to the biblical paradox of a holistic paradigm …

  64. Lydia wrote:

    the assumption that we cannot help but treat others wrongly (sin) and it is to be expected because we are sinners.

    Yep, and a step further is the assumption that when/if we treat others wrongly it is always sin. Who says? Sometimes, perhaps lots of times, we treat others wrongly because we do not have all the information we need (about their situation, for example) to do differently. That is not sin, it is just doing the best you can because we are human and limited by human-ness. Sometimes we do bad stuff because we ourselves have been so damaged by prior experiences that the bad we do does not seem bad at all, compared to what we ourselves have been through. This is not sin, it is sad. Of course, sometimes it is sin, just not always.

    The thinking that if we “do bad” it is always sin is based on the supposition that humanity is capable of perfection and that anything less than that is sin. It is to say that He knows our frame and remembers that we are dust in not actually true and needs taken out of scripture. It is, in my opinion, having too high an opinion of humanity and too low an opinion of God. If a human being were perfect, what would that perfect person be? It would be a perfect human being, not a god. Even in perfection we would still not be God. Why hold humans to some supposed standard of god behavior, when the scripture plainly does not require that, and has so stated?

    But if we could have all the comprehensive answers to all questions and all the understanding of all doctrine and could both identify and avoid all sin, well, could we then be God? It looks to me like some people seem to think so. I am not one of them.

  65. Lydia wrote:

    Thank you! There is a strange understanding of this among evangelicals that it means “works” salvation. It follows along with the assumption that we cannot help but treat others wrongly (sin) and it is to be expected because we are sinners. That is where I think the “intentional” part you mention comes in. When we are so busy parsing perfect doctrine are we missing the main point of Jesus Christ?

    I really think that classic liberalism and classic conservatism theologically are both broken halves of a biblically holistic paradigm, each of them attempting to force us to see only half the picture all the time, as if it is the whole. (Though I’ve spent twice as many years in the more conservative side of things than the liberal, I think I’ve got a sufficient base in both to draw conclusions like that.)

    No matter which side of that spectrum we find ourselves on, it really does take intentionality to move onward and upward, to do something and become something — to engage in transformational processes. Otherwise we end up in entropy, constantly sliding downhill and settling at whatever place we happen to land.

    I’m for the both/and, not the either/or when it doesn’t need to be there. So, it’s both recognizing our flaws and failings, and finding empowerment of the Spirit to overcome them and/or the consequences thereof while we also learn to express those reflections of the image of God in us like desire for justice and kindness. It’s important both to develop sound doctrine and to develop Christlike lifestyles. It’s important to engage in all of this as both individuals and as communities.

    I just think there are a lot of both/and issues where mostly well-meaning people with major blind spots are trying to get us to see things their either/or way. But even those well-meant sentiments can still lead to abuse, hence we are here trying to hammer out a more balanced perspective and practical correctives.

    Oh! 7 am out here on the West coast! I think it is time for a little dialog session with Mr Coffee …

    Onward and upward, indeed.

  66. @ brad/futuristguy:

    Hmmm. I guess I had to be awake at the end of the nightly cycle to see the blood moon. By that time the moon is hidden by coastal hills and coastal fog from my view 🙁 Didn’t realize you were also a left coaster.

  67. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I just think there are a lot of both/and issues where mostly well-meaning people with major blind spots are trying to get us to see things their either/or way.

    Absolutely. I refer to these as “either/or questions to which the answer is Yes”.

    Interesting things happen when two people on opposite sides of the “either/or” meet. Sometimes, one or both of them will call the other’s position “unbalanced” and declare that “you need to be balanced [by me]”. Overlooking, of course, the fact that a see-saw swings both ways and if you are unbalanced without me, then I am just as unbalanced without you! Sometimes, however, it can be something of an epiphany for both; they both realise that Life, the Universe and Everything – and God – is bigger than they’d thought and they grow from the experience. It does happen…

  68. Nancy wrote:

    Don’t look at me. I don’t even know what you all are talking about

    You could testify whether the blunt-force or crush injuries could have been caused by the Institutes, and OldJohnJ could do the force and other calcs. It was lame, but HUG’s comment was really, really funny, because I loved the old Clue board game, and it just made me think of you and OldJohnJ.

  69. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Sometimes, however, it can be something of an epiphany for both; they both realise that Life, the Universe and Everything – and God – is bigger than they’d thought

    So true. And I think God is beyond our imagining, so it is a big mistake to try to systematize him. And that can amount to making his nature into our personal image of his nature while insisting that we have the only true understanding of him.

  70. The issue of child abuse and the various civil and criminal statutes governing these are being discussed now on CNN because of Stephen Collins’ alleged confession.

    Interesting because this has some relevance to the SGM/C.J./C.J. enablers.

  71. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I suppose all this is scandalous to those who are on the strictly conservative or strictly liberal end of the theological spectrum. Which is probably, hopefully, a good indicator that it’s closer to the biblical paradox of a holistic paradigm …

    When you’re taking friendly fire from both sides, it’s usually a sign you’re on the right track.

  72. Gavin White wrote:

    None of that is to say or warrant saying that he was trying to impose his version or interpretation of Scripture on people. The opposite is the case.

    But what about his fanboys down the road?

    More Calvinist than Calvin, like the Taliban’s More Islamic than Mohammed?

    Near the end of their lives, Karl Marx said “I am not a Marxist” and Darwin “I am not a Darwinist”. I wonder if Calvin could have joined them with “I am not a Calvinist”?

  73. Sam Laskey wrote:

    Jesus had money. He had a treasurer and therefore had to have money for the treasurer to keep up with. My Lord owns it all and He wants me to have a slice of the pie too. Being poor ain’t being holy- My God wants me Blessed! I tithe and I drive a 2013 Volvo and live in a nice house and I ate out tonight at Outback…God is good!!

    Great sarcasm! Ever hear of “Supply Side Jesus”? Sometimes I think he is the “Jesus” that many of our churches follow.

    If you wonder how attached Jesus was to money, his treasurer was stealing, Jesus knew that full well, and left him as treasurer.

    Judas “The Hammer” Maccabeus

  74. Judas Maccabeus wrote:

    If you wonder how attached Jesus was to money, his treasurer was stealing, Jesus knew that full well, and left him as treasurer.

    I wonder if the wealthy women who contributed to Jesus’ ministry kept a watch on how the money was spent. Wasn’t one of them the wife of Herod’s steward, or am I confused about that. Anyhow, the women got the money somehow so they knew something about money matters, and I am thinking they may have been a stabilizing force for the guys from the background.

  75. Nancy wrote:

    But if we could have all the comprehensive answers to all questions and all the understanding of all doctrine and could both identify and avoid all sin, well, could we then be God? It looks to me like some people seem to think so. I am not one of them.

    Hmm…reminds me of something……if we have all knowledge and understand doctrine perfectly but do not love, we have nothing… (to paraphrase). I think that is the thing missing from most of Evangelicalism/fundamntalism…..there is, IMO, no way around the idea that love is foundational to following Christ. On this thing – love – hang all the Law & Prophecies…..and without it, all the spirituality and religion are just grating noise that push people away….

  76. Nancy wrote:

    Anyhow, the women got the money somehow so they knew something about money matters, and I am thinking they may have been a stabilizing force for the guys from the background.

    You hear the same from those Microloan projects in Third World countries; they keep saying that the women have more money sense than the men, that’s why they microloan primarily to the women.

  77. Judas Maccabeus wrote:

    Great sarcasm! Ever hear of “Supply Side Jesus”? Sometimes I think he is the “Jesus” that many of our churches follow.

    Recently I’ve been reading one of my writing partners’ latest manuscripts, a non-fiction collection of stories handed down in his PA Dutch family. Including a section on spooky stories and local folk-magic traditions. He mentions as an aside that most ritual magic grimoires he’s seen were all about summoning and controlling spirits and supernaturals to force them to give you goodies. His comment was “Ritual Magick is just a glorified call to Room Service.”

  78. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    In that case you deal with the fanboys. As for Calvin, who knows what he would say if he were alive today? Speculating about it would probably only tell us something about ourselves.
    As for the Marx quote, here is the source
    “What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]”

    Engels, Letter to Eduard Bernstein (1882)

  79. TO OUR READERS

    A link to a petition asking ECFA to deal with the monkey business known as the Mars Hill Go Fund is found at the top of our home page. That area will not allow us to link so it will need to be copied and pasted.

  80. @ TedS.:
    I linked it at the top of our page. And, of course, I signed it. If ECFA does not act, they will soon be known as ineffective and irrelevant.

  81. @ dee:

    I already think they are irrelevant and inneffective. I wouldn’t trust anything on their site. I would investigate for myself.

  82. @ dee:
    If you use the chrome browser, highlight the address, right click and choose go to ….

    That’s a great petition, I hope quite a few people sign it. I don’t think it will do anything, but it’ll be very useful in the long term as evidence of problems with the ECFA. Community pressure is going to be best at changing this behavior. Perhaps a better, rival organization with similar goals, but better and more consistent practices will rise up.

  83. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    [The petition will] be very useful in the long term as evidence of problems with the ECFA. Community pressure is going to be best at changing this behavior. Perhaps a better, rival organization with similar goals, but better and more consistent practices will rise up.

    Could a new form/agency for certification be reaching a “fullness of time” moment …? I’ve heard suggestions about this come up increasingly in the past five years — not that there were ever very many back then, but now it seems like more.

    It’s disconcerting that an ECFA member can supposedly pass muster on financial issues, but still, in reality, be abusive. I have wondered several times over the past few years whether it is time for a new standard of “certification” that includes true transparency and accountability in finances, PLUS a few crucial commitments and the required follow-through necessary for implementing and sustaining a “safe”/abuse-prevention church, ministry, or non-profit. For instance:

    * Regardless of whether your state has a mandatory reporting law for child abuse, you commitment all staff and volunteers to report known/suspected crimes (child abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, etc.) directly to civil authorities immediately and not do anything that would prejudice testimonies of victims or witnesses, destroy or taint evidence, attempt to “handle it in-house,” etc.

    * Train all staff and volunteers in awareness and prevention for the full range of forms of abuse, and have outside certification people conduct testing and on-site inspections.

    I’m sure a lot of survivor communities plus agencies like G.R.A.C.E. would have ideas and resources on potential certification.

    During the #IStandWithSGMVictims Twitter campaign in May 2014, I put together a series of suggestions for personal restitution and organizational renovation that dealt with some elements that would make sense to be part of a certification process regarding sexual abuse. But I think the general ideas here are also applicable to other types of abuse. Here are some of the “slate of eight” elements, along with a link to a guest post I wrote that has two paragraphs of description for each of the items.

    #4 We ensure the church we lead institutes & follows preventive practices against sexual abusers & abuse.

    #5 We require prevention, interception, & intervention training on abuse by all paid & volunteer leaders.

    #6 We teach regularly on & demonstrate God’s care for those made victims by the misuse of power by others.

    #7 Anyone w/ culpability in enabling abuse, but refuses consequences, is fired & whole church is told why.

    #8 Any culpable church, ministry or agency refusing their responsibility should be decried & dismantled.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/zhoag/2014/05/17/brad-sargent-my-slate-of-eight-restitution-suggestions-for-sgm-clc/

  84. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    Anyhow, the women got the money somehow so they knew something about money matters, and I am thinking they may have been a stabilizing force for the guys from the background.
    You hear the same from those Microloan projects in Third World countries; they keep saying that the women have more money sense than the men, that’s why they microloan primarily to the women.

    The other reason for microloan banks lending primarily to women is that they lack access to conventional banking. Men can get access to conventional banks, women typically cannot. I don’t, however, dispute that the women that were around Jesus had much better sense than the men, particularly Judas. The women would have held out for far more than 30 pieces of silver.

    Judas “The Hammer” Maccabeus

  85. @ Deb:

    I’m glad to see the correction and to know that Franklin Graham only makes just over $500K working for those two organizations.

    Of course that “just over” is about what I make in a year.

  86. @ Matt Redmond:
    Note the link to our original post. Graham was making over $1.2 million. he received an norms mount of bad press when it was revealed. That is why we wrote to ECFA in the first place. Due to the outrage, he the reduced his salary. So, he did make $1.2 million. He no longer does due to “discernment” media.