Does the Church Have Authority to Say You Are Not a Believer? The Majority of Christians Say NO!

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.-C. S. Lewis link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=38847&picture=coral-snake

A believer

Today, I am posting two shorter posts. This is Post 1.

A few years back, my husband met with an elder after we expressed concern about the way the church handled a pedophile situation. (Aside-thankfully that pedophile is in jail for a long time.) Here was the opening rejoinder on the part of this *leader.* 

Well, I don't question your salvation but…(diatribe about our thoughts.)

My husband said that it was obvious that he was questioning our faith or he would not have started off the conversation like that. Now, this church is a member of The Gospel Coalition and the pastor is on the council. Relationships have been established with folks like Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, etc. In other words, they drink the Kool-Aid.

To this day, I remember the moment in which I became a Christian during an episode of Star Trek. I remember the chair in which I was sitting, the television I was watching, my father's glasses sitting on the table, etc. Although my conversion was not the usual one, I knew something profound had occurred and that I was somehow different. I have never doubted that I was saved at that moment. I have struggled with faith but I remember that moment and it has sustained me. There is no one in this world that could ever tell me that I am not saved. 

This blog has written about the 9Marks and their obsession with holding the keys to authority which result in their being able to pronounce who is and who is not part of the kingdom. You can read one of our posts about this here. Here are a couple of excerpts.
 

*************

The church gets to decide who is a true confessor of the faith and who is a "citizen of the kingdom of heaven."

But, strictly speaking, I would argue that the exercise of the keys is the pronouncing of a judgment. It is a legal or judicial binding or loosing. It is a church’s decision about what constitutes a right confession and who is a true confessor.

In other words, the keys are put into practice whenever

a church decides upon a confession of faith that will bind all church members,
a church admits a member,
a church excludes a member. 

The holder of the keys—the church—is being called upon to assess a person’s life and profession of faith and then to make a heavenly sanctioned and public pronouncement affirming or denying the person’s citizenship in the kingdom and inclusion in the church.

9Marks in a post called Regulative Jazz says that the local church gets to decide what the gospel is and who is a gospel citizen.

The gathered local church is authorized in Matthew 16, 18, and 28 by Christ’s keys of the kingdom to make an international declaration about a what and a who: what is the gospel, and who is a gospel citizen?

************

I have news for 9Marks. I don't give two hoots about their keys. I know that I am a Christian. And guess what? It looks like I am not alone. A new post at Christianity Today asks the question Does My Local Church Have Authority to Declare That I Am Not a Christian? which was asked in recently completed survey by LifeWay for Ligonier Ministries (correction: RC Sproul) The results are bad news for the "we hold the keys" club.

But 9 in 10 self-identified U.S.. evangelicals told LifeWay Research—which just published a study on evangelicals' theological awareness—

That means 90% of Christians think this is bunk!  Finally, the sheep say "Enough!"

For good measure, CT decided to quote a few people who are not so happy about this survey outcome. In fact, my guess is that this will become the new "jam it down your throat" doctrine in the coming year. 

First we have the Al Mohler declaration followed by his equivocation. Apparently he wants to leave open the possibility that the Almighty might choose to exercise His options on the matter.

“Of course the local church has this authority. This is actually its responsibility, and it is exercised by every congregation that requires a credible profession of faith for membership—though the church cannot declare this with eternal certainty.”

Of course, Jonathan "Keys" Leeman weighed in. Never forget that he belongs to the 9Marks/Hotel California crowd that played games with Todd Wilhelm.   

“Church membership, made visible through the ordinances, is a public affirmation of someone’s profession of faith. Church discipline is the removal of that affirmation. The latter is not a denial that someone is a Christian; it’s the statement that the church is no longer willing to affirm someone’s profession.”

Can you imagine the likes of Driscoll and Mahaney, along with those who have supported them through the years getting to decide whether of not they will *affirm* your salvation? Just say no! Stay strong, Christians! You know in Whom you have believed. Do not let anyone tell you differently.

Next time some authority junkie questions your salvation, don't take them seriously. Send them a link to this video!

Comments

Does the Church Have Authority to Say You Are Not a Believer? The Majority of Christians Say NO! — 140 Comments

  1. Ligonier is RC Sproul.

    Mohler had to equivocate some because people in the SBC still read that mag and there are a few left who would not be pleased. Just a few, mind. so he threw in a plausible deniability clause.

    of course Mohler thinks CJ Mahaney is a good Christian and a “strong” Christian leader. I can’t figure out why anyone thinks he has any credibility on this subject.

  2. If Mohler thinks that God is going to turn to him when someone stands at the pearly gates and ask, “What do YOU think, Al?”, he is a fool.

  3. I don’t mind that a church sets its own standards for membership.

    Let ’em.

    But when that church thinks their standards for membership are the same as affirming or deciding not to affirm someone’s place in the kingdom of God, they are sorely mistaken. Jesus said it’s the Spirit who handles that. (John 3.)

    Just in case someone is wondering if they are living by the Spirit of Christ, though, I think came up with a handy guide a couple weeks ago: How To Tell If You’re Really A Christian. Not that this is the definitive answer, but it’s a lot closer to the scriptural passages on the subject than a church just saying they get to say so because they’re a church.

  4. Nobody who kisses up to MyHiney and the like has any business talking about whether anyone else is saved or not. Kissing up to those who pile psychological and spiritual abuse onto children who have been sexually abused, or on those who have suffered spousal abuse, clearly disqualifies them from any role in deciding who is or is not saved!

  5. recently completed survey by LifeWay for Ligonier Ministries (John MacArthur.)

    Just to clarify: Ligonier Ministries is R.C. Sproul, not JMac. John is listed as one of their *teachers*, though, along with just about every other reformed/neo-cal/TGC/T4G/9M guy we’ve ever heard of – four pages of them.

    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/teachers/?page=1

  6. What about Mohler’s actual point? Do local congregations not either affirm or deny the genuineness of someone’s Faith by agreeing to baptize or not baptize?

  7. @ Tim:

    That’s right, Tim. But it is a lot easier to sing in the choir than to love one’s neighbor, and helping with Wednesday night supper once a quarter because the test shows that one has the gift of helps, can’t beat that.

  8. Phillip Miller wrote:

    Do local congregations not either affirm or deny the genuineness of someone’s Faith by agreeing to baptize or not baptize?

    Which local congregations? The old SBC before the current SBC much less 9marks and mohler used to baptize “on profession of faith” but with no understanding that they were affirming anything. They would sit down and ask a few questions to see if the candidate “knew what they were doing” but the idea of determining whether that knowing was real/genuine/authentic/comprehensive or what–of course not. Only God looks on the heart while man looks on the outside.

    Do these people think they are God? Apparently they do.

    Of course, some of us belong to churches of denominations that also baptize infants and that consider baptism to be a sacrament, which is a totally different idea.

    Which brings up the issue, if baptism is not a sacrament and if baptism is not necessary for salvation, either or both, why try to use it as a weapon against people by refusing to baptize? What is the threat? We wont get you wet, which of course is basically nothing anyhow, but just saying we plan to withhold water because we can. Who are these people to whom this makes any sense?

  9. Phillip Miller wrote:

    What about Mohler’s actual point? Do local congregations not either affirm or deny the genuineness of someone’s Faith by agreeing to baptize or not baptize?

    They affirm that the person has made a credible profession of faith. That is not the same thing as affirming that a person *is* “in the kingdom” or “not in the kingdom.”

  10. Phillip Miller wrote:

    Do local congregations not either affirm or deny the genuineness of someone’s Faith

    How do they know how genuine the person is? They can only judge what they see outside but that does not mean they are correct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I bet they get it wrong a lot!

  11. I am feeling disoriented, reading about the funhouse mirror world that these people live in. They clearly want to appropriate one of the tsars’ titles to themselves, with a slight modification: Autocrats of All the Churches.

    It didn’t really work in Russia, and it won’t work for them, eithet, unless they have bands of Cossacks andmurderous secret police at their beck and call.

  12. Arce wrote:

    Nobody who kisses up to MyHiney and the like has any business talking about whether anyone else is saved or not.

    Preach it.

  13. @ Lydia:
    i was not thinking. I know that-RC Sproul of the nonReformed are “barely a Christian” controversy. I just corrected it.

  14. Marsha wrote:

    If Mohler thinks that God is going to turn to him when someone stands at the pearly gates and ask, “What do YOU think, Al?”, he is a fool.

    Of course he is. I’ve already got that job.

  15. On the irony front, I went to the underlying article on heresies believed in the church. The first one is Arianism. How ironic, then, is it that the Keyholders of 9Marks, SBTS, CBMW, T4g and TgC are the ones promoting the idea that the Eternal Father is the boss of the Eternal Son. Of course there is the usual illogical disclaimer that *of course* that does not meant that the Eternal Son is not equal in power and glory. Uh huh. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

  16. Just a quick scenario. A staff member of a church (pastor or otherwise) is counseling a woman and has sex with her. In some states that is a violation of the criminal law, even if the woman is of age of consent. The church learns of the matter and does not fire or otherwise severely discipline the staff member, thereby, effectively, by continuing employment without severe discipline, accepting responsibility as the employer for his actions in the course of his employment. The church then has also accepted liability for his actions as his employer, and has a civil liability for it. In some cases, the church will be liable even if it terminates the staff member, depending on the state law and precedent, and whether he was authorized to do counseling and did so through his employment, or whether his employment agreement with the church held him to a standard of behavior that would make having sex with someone not his spouse unacceptable or some other church leader was aware of his propensities. The tort liability of the church is independent of the criminal liability of the staff member, but the case for church liability would be enhanced by a criminal conviction, generally reflected in the size of any award.

    I am aware of churches having their liability policies canceled when they had a staff member that violated the teaching of the church regarding sex outside marriage, the insurer became aware of it, and the church kept the staff member on the payroll. Once you get canceled most insurers will either not insure you or will write an exclusion into the policy as a rider.

    As I have advised a couple of churches: If you want to keep that offender on the payroll, be prepared to sign over all of your assets to the next victim.

  17. @ Phillip Miller:

    Mohler isn’t quoted as saying anything about the local church affirming or denying the genuineness of someone’s faith by conferring or withholding baptism. He might have meant that, and perhaps that is how he and his friends demonstrate this principle, but that’s not what the article says he said. He is quoted as saying that the local church has the responsibility of exercising its authority by requiring “a credible profession of faith for membership.”

    Like Tim said above, local churches can have whatever standards they want for membership, just like the Mayflower Society or the Boy Scouts. They just can’t claim that their official church membership is equivalent to entrance into the kingdom of God. That’s presumptuous and ironic, since Mohler and friends are judging people’s salvation according to beliefs developed by guys who were excommunicated by the established Church of their own day.

  18. dee wrote:

    what constitutes a right confession and who is a true confessor.

    This is the only thing a “church” can do, as pertains to their particular brand of Christianity. If the issue is brand loyalty, then they are within their authority to admit or deny anyone they want into the brand loyalty club. But that is as far as it goes.

    What they fail to see is that there are millions of people who do not care to play their game. They don’t know who Mark Dever,is and do not care. It does not affect (or is it “effect”?) their faith what so ever.

    This was the precise point that God used to lead me out of Calvinism, where I languished for 25 years unsaved. There were millions of believers who did not know and did not care about these people, and my wife was one of them. Yet she thrived as a believer while I struggled with all kinds of issues. Then the light bulb went on.

    The local church can only administer their brand, that is all. Even the one I belong only has the authority I give it.

  19. The local church does have the responsibility to try to ensure the membership is composed of sheep and not a mixture of sheep and goats. This is sometimes easier said than done. In the end, ‘the Lord knows those who are his’, and we cannot always be sure much as we would like to be; the man with counterfeit faith will never fool God. Nominals who have never done any real business with God have a habit of falling away after 2 or 3 years.

  20. dee wrote:

    Nobody who kisses up to MyHiney and the like has any business talking about whether anyone else is saved or not.
    Preach it.

    Frequent reader when I am working nights shifts, only my second comment. Full disclosure: I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. My comment is that I find it inappropriate, no matter how much disdain you may have for an individual, to twist their name around to make it sound like a slang term for the buttocks.

  21. @ Preston Bennett:

    Have you read the Second Amended lawsuit against SGM? Really read it? Some of the stories are on the side bar. Perhaps you should do that before chastising people who have read and comforted victims in that SGM mess unlike your pastor who allowed Mahaney to run from his church, hide out and preach.

    Did you hear him? Smile at his humility? You know, I find it inappropriate that your church, and you as part of that church, would host Mahaney while there are those who have children who have been deeply hurt. I wonder what’s worse?

  22. Ken wrote:

    The local church does have the responsibility to try to ensure the membership is composed of sheep and not a mixture of sheep and goats.

    It is singularly unsuccessful in this endeavor.

  23. Preston Bennett wrote:

    Full disclosure: I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

    I’m wondering if you know why Mark Dever offered sanctuary to Mahaney when he fled the church discipline that Dever preaches. This is truly something I do not understand, just as I don’t understand the statement that Dever signed off on regarding Mahaney’s absolute innocence and the false assertion that Mahaney was only being accused because he had founded a ministry which benefited vast millions. This is a sincere question that no one from Capitol Hill or 9Marks has ever answered, so maybe you can help us understand since you were there. Why is there a double standard?

  24. I do not want to be in communion with Mahaney, or Dever, or Driscoll. If others in this group agree, I think that means we have “ex-communicated” them.

  25. @ Preston Bennett:

    I meant to say that it is to your credit that you identified yourself as a member of CHBC and that you left a comment here. My experience with men in those circles is that bloggers are dismissed as troublemakers and gossips.

    I’m also wondering how you feel about the slanders committed against people who disagree with Dever and his friends. How do you feel about the 9Marks and T4g view of women being deceivers and usurpers who are not created fully in the image of God but only derivatively and are created to be under the authority of and an accessory to men?

    Are you only concerned about disparaging Mahaney or are you concerned about everyone, including Dever and Mahaney and the others, who sin against other believers? I can understand from your perspective why you might object to a play on Mahaney’s name, but why don’t you object to covering up child abuse and the slandering of other believers by your leaders when they are challenged?

  26. Guys….the Deebs is quite sick. You see the Lord has given Dee the flu for writing about the Lord’s anointed. Do you not know that Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney are hand picked by the Lord almighty himself?

  27. @ Preston Bennett:

    Preston….my man! Do you want to meet and grab a beer? 🙂 We can discuss how the Lord's sovereignty is most glorified in the rape of a child. You see Preston hyper-Calvinists believe God actually foreordains evil, so all the molestation in SGM was devised and planned by the Lord. Think of it as "Gospel Centered Molestation" After all evil is now a form of worship, especially if God foreordains it. Isn't determinism fun? One could say that the Lord foreordained CJ Mahaney fleeing CLC and hiding behind Mark Dever's @## (ed.).

  28. I doubt Preston will be back..which is a shame.

    He finds fault in an immature (yet funny)turn of a phrase concerning Mahaney – yet seems unaware or unaffected by the sanctuary given to a man who is a liar, black mailer, and enabler of physical/emotional/sexual abusers.

    Please Preston, which is worse?

  29. Preston Bennett wrote:

    Full disclosure: I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. My comment is that I find it inappropriate, no matter how much disdain you may have for an individual, to twist their name around to make it sound like a slang term for the buttocks.

    Piffle!
    Pshaw!!
    PFUI!!!!!!

    Here, Preston: Myhiney, Myhiney, Myhiney.
    Put that in your pipe & smoke it, whilst you drink the Kool-Aid.

    Be thankful I don’t have a handy-dandy button to create BIG letters; I would have made them the size of a smallish Shetland pony.

  30. My comment as to why I used that sobriquet to describe Mahaney is in moderation. It was posted: Arce on Fri Oct 31, 2014 at 08:49 PM. I suspect because it refers to the relative value of various expository functions of humans and animals.

  31. And in another poll I read this past week, more and more people who call themselves Christians do not attended church…..
    And you can bet your bottom dollar these guys REALLY don’t understand why?
    Or maybe they do?

  32. Why is that we automatically have knee jerk reactions to immediately scoff at the idea that someone besides me and God have the right to question my salvation. Jesus himself gave everyone the right to question my salvation… He said, By this all men will know that you are my disciples, by your love one for another. Can the church determine if I am really saved? Yes. Can lost people determine if I am really saved? Yes. The determining factor is has my relationship with Christ changed me so that I really love. Does that mean I love perfectly? no. Does it mean that I don’t struggle loving some? No. Does it mean the overall pattern of my life is a demostration of love towards other believers? Yes.

  33. They certainly do not have the authority to determine my salvation status in a causative sense (I am saved or not because they say so), nor do they have the authority to require me to agree with how they may regard me or anyone else (I am to regard myself or person x as a/n believer/unbeliever because they say so). So I’m not really sure what kind of authority is meant here. Obviously everyone has the right/authority to make decisions about people and how we are going to relate to them. They are not uniquely privileged nor restrained in that regard. But I think they must mean something else here.

    As per usual the language sends mixed signals. On the one hand, they do not claim to have the authority to cause a person to be saved or not via their declaration, as Mohler alludes to in his “cannot declare with eternal certainty” statement. (If I understand him correctly. He could mean said person’s salvation status could be subject to change and therefore his declaration is not eternally permanent. I’m really not sure what he means.)

    Well then, what do they have the authority to do, and how far does that authority extend? Their “authority” to “declare” myself or person x a believer or not places no obligation on me whatsoever to agree with them and regard myself or person x as they think I/he/she should be regarded. So I’m not even sure what “authority” means in this context.

  34. Steve Davis wrote:

    Can the church determine if I am really saved? Yes.

    Which church? The one that hinted around I might not be saved because I told a firm stand on the church’s responsibility in a pedophile situation? The church that determined Julie Anne Smith was not saved because she critiqued a pastor well deserving of it? Mars Hill and those pastors who made some judgements on people who stood up to the despicable mess which was ignored by the celebrity Reformed crowd?

    I know you are new to TWW. Welcome. For over 5 years we have documenting the abuses of the evangelical church, focusing on how they treat their own. I have come to the conclusion that the church, in general, is not equipped to make a decision regarding the salvation status of anyone.

    Even RC Sproul says that people who are not Reformed are” Christians, but just barely.” Obviously he and his church are in no position to judge either.

  35. @ doubtful:

    I believe that Preston is trying to help us be godly “Hotel California” style (which is what I call 9Marks.) If you were a member of their church and they saw this “Hiney’ comment on Facebook, what do you want to bet they would go for your jugular? Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out if 9Marks and other controlling groups actually investigate their congregation via social media?

    Groups like 9Marks are part of the “good report” club which mandates that you only say nice things about people unless you report them to the enforcers who then get to deal with the bad reports. But, you little person, are not allowed to tell them anything negative about themselves. They are too busy judging everyone else on their faith and actions to have to deal with their own issues.

    This is the reason why all of them allowed Driscoll and Mahaney to go unchallenged. The recent events are unfortunate since it points out their utter inability to deal with serious sin in the church.

  36. K.D. wrote:

    And you can bet your bottom dollar these guys REALLY don’t understand why?

    They have a problem. Most churches are struggling financially because they have overbuilt. They committed to large projects based on “commitments” on the part of members who have not fulfilled their obligations. My guess is that those members have wised up and are tired of supporting mega pastors who view them as their own personal ATM.

    There are a few churches in the South who have hit the wall and are in deep trouble, some of them with well known pastors. One church has postponed, perhaps forever, building their magnificent edifice since the money didn’t come rolling in as planned and promised. There have been a tremendous number of bankruptcies in which churches have defaulted on loans. I read one article that said the Orlando area is littered with the massive hulks of unfinished mega facilities.

    Apparently banks are becoming a bit negative on building mega-sanctuaries because they are not easily converted for other usage which surprised me. In other words, when defaults happen, companies like Walmart do not find their facilities easily convertible.

    So, mega leaders have a problem. They are emphasizing their “keys” and people are rejecting them and with the rejection comes less money. Sit back and watch the game. Reality is beginning to hit.

  37. I honestly hope Preston comes back. These are discussions that need to happen. Its good to have…removed from our little and the CHBC bubble.

  38. formerly anonymous wrote:

    If I understand him correctly. He could mean said person’s salvation status could be subject to change and therefore his declaration is not eternally permanent. I’m really not sure what he means.)

    Neither does he, He wants the authority but admits that he doesn’t have it. So, they declare you are a “kingdom citizen, maybe.”

    They know they have a problem with this declaration. It goes back to the reason why their was a Reformation. The church used to declare that those who were excommunicated from the Catholic church were damned and that God agreed with them. You do know they excommunicated Luther who was then supposedly damned. They have pulled back from that in recent years.

    In the end, they are preaching doctrine that would fit in quite well with the church in the 14th century and deep down they know it.

  39. @ Steve Davis:

    Oh, my, Steve. I don’t know how old you are or if you were there “in the old days” when predicting damnation of the other folks was a major league game on the christian circuit, but that used to be really big. The biggest players numerically where I lived were the protestants vs the catholics, with each group considering the other totally reprobate and eternally lost-even put it in writing. Then among the baptists there were the IFB vs the SBC. and some of the IFB agreed that the SBC folks were probably suspect and did not show evidence of being saved. None of this served as a “witness” to anybody as to whether we were disciples of Jesus, even though the baptists loved the baptists and the catholics loved the catholics and everybody paraded that around. What it did do was that it made us seem combative and mean spirited and probably pretty mindless. Which, truth be told, we were.

    Now you seem to be recommending that churches turn on themselves and devour their own with accusations of who meets the criteria to love enough. That, BTW, at its best is only the second commandment, and only God who looks on the heart knows how anybody keeps the first commandment. Who is to put themselves in the place of God in this act of judging another? Not a good idea.

  40. formerly anonymous wrote:

    As per usual the language sends mixed signals… (If I understand him correctly. He could mean said person’s salvation status could be subject to change and therefore his declaration is not eternally permanent. I’m really not sure what he means.)

    Which is probably by design. I think some of Mohler’s statements come with a hidden disclaimer, saying, “This statement intentionally left vague.”

    After all, when a man tries to be a politician in this world, he needs that plausible deniability.

  41. Steve Davis wrote:

    By this all men will know that you are my disciples, by your love one for another. Can the church determine if I am really saved? Yes. Can lost people determine if I am really saved? Yes.

    I think you are mistaking the audience in the quote you cited. Jesus was exhorting his disciples to love one another. He was instructing them that their love and not their obedience to the laws would demonstrate that they belong to him. He was not authorizing any other human to judge whether or not anyone is in the kingdom, much less to determine whether anyone is in the kingdom.

  42. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Which is probably by design. I think some of Mohler’s statements come with a hidden disclaimer, saying, “This statement intentionally left vague.”

    After all, when a man tries to be a politician in this world, he needs that plausible deniability.

    Exactly.

  43. Power…that is why they make these statements. If you question them, they question your salvation. Which in turn sends you into a tailspin wondering “maybe I am not really saved? They are of course, trained in the bible. They are my spiritual authority…” It’s a head game. Trust me, I have been there.

  44. @ Preston Bennett:

    Your pastor will always be remembered as the one who provided refuge to C.J. Mahaney, who should have stayed at the church he pastored for 27 years and faced the music.

    Actions have consequences, and Mark Dever demonstrated that he is a double-minded man when he helped his BFF escape from CLC. 

  45. Deb wrote:

    Your pastor will always be remembered

    Also, he will be remembered for allowing UCCD to treat Todd Wilhelm, a man who stands up for the abused, as a pariah.

    Let’s see:
    Mahaney is a saint
    Wilhelm is a pariah

    Have I got that straight?

    Once again, how many people played kiss face with Mahaney while he was hanging around CHBC? Shame on them. And we are the ones to get chastised for a play on words? How screwy is that?

  46. dee wrote:

    Let’s see:
    Mahaney is a saint
    Wilhelm is a pariah

    Have I got that straight?

    Yes, you do have it straight using the logic in the 9Marks, CHBC, and other Gospel Glitterti bubbles within bubbles within bubbles. I have had more than a few conversations with folks from those groups, and they really believe that they have found the magic formula, the “key” to every door, and they need to propagate that formula.

    If you question them on the Mahaney fiasco or the abusive environment at SGM, they will deny that anything was proved, or that they might be targeted next by wicked women bloggers, or other talking points. If you question them about the abusive doctrines regarding male authority and pastor authority which underlie all of the current messes in evangelicalism, they say that they are not abusive, so what’s the problem? There may be some folks reading here who don’t believe they all use the same language (season, winsome, bitter, authority, transition, etc.) but I can report from the ground level that they do. It is eerie.

    In these conversations there has never been any indication of concern for the pewpeons hurt by these “leaders” but only concern for the supposed harm done to the ones who are “targeted” and, of course, to the “gospel.” They have absolutely no conception of or care for how outsiders view their hypocrisy and the damage that does to Jesus’ name and to the gospel message.

    I’ve left conversations wondering what had just happened. They look perfectly normal and godly and intelligent, but the way they think, or I guess don’t think, is bizarre.

  47. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m also wondering how you feel about the slanders committed against people who disagree with Dever and his friends. How do you feel about the 9Marks and T4g view of women being deceivers and usurpers who are not created fully in the image of God but only derivatively and are created to be under the authority of and an accessory to men?

    Are you serious? I mean, yeah, it goes along with their soft Arianism, but I had no idea they were that open about their utter disdain for half humanity.

  48. mirele wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I’m also wondering how you feel about the slanders committed against people who disagree with Dever and his friends. How do you feel about the 9Marks and T4g view of women being deceivers and usurpers who are not created fully in the image of God but only derivatively and are created to be under the authority of and an accessory to men?
    Are you serious? I mean, yeah, it goes along with their soft Arianism, but I had no idea they were that open about their utter disdain for half humanity.

    This whole bunch has such a poor view of females it’s disgusting.
    It’s like the entire purpose for females is make sure they are ” satisfied” and supper is on the table when they get home….the part that shocks me is that women sit in the pews and listen to this tripe.
    Once again, these ministers could not survive in the real world….I swear their world is even more protected than Ivy League professors.

  49. dee wrote:

    There are a few churches in the South who have hit the wall and are in deep trouble, some of them with well known pastors. One church has postponed, perhaps forever, building their magnificent edifice since the money didn’t come rolling in as planned and promised. There have been a tremendous number of bankruptcies in which churches have defaulted on loans. I read one article that said the Orlando area is littered with the massive hulks of unfinished mega facilities.

    It’s not just Orlando. A few days back, I got an oversized postcard for the grand opening of a church moving from one location to another here in the East Valley of Phoenix. I recognized the location as the site of an Assembly of God church which has gone through two name changes in the last decade. A little research and I found that the name-changed AoG has changed its name yet again and moved out to rent space in a charter school on the eastern edge of town. The new church is apparently leasing the space as the deed for the property still remains in the name of the AoG church. This is not a small church building–it is 60,000 square feet. In fact, the two megas in my neighborhood are 80,000 and 125,000 square feet, respectively.

    People are bailing. To quote Princess Leia: “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” The same can be applied to church members, except they’re bolting by the back door.

  50. I don’t agree with a church having the Authority(meaning given and agreed to by God) to declare a pronouncement on someones salvation status. Meaning, a church can’t vote to decide that you aren’t saved and therefore you show up at the pearly gates and you are turned away because of their vote..

    but…

    I do think there is a place for a church having a responsibility to speak to Truth regarding salvation. For instance, if someone was attending your church, they were a rapist and believed that God was a 4 headed monkey who saved us by accepting our blood sacrifices….the church would have a responsibility to speak with clarity and authority to this person about who God is and that what they are doing is diametrically opposed to the type of Holiness that children of God exhibit.

    Now I believe in the fullness of God’s grace to cover ALL sin, so perhaps this person is actually saved….but I can only respond to what I can observe. And rape/monkey worship are clearly out of step with Truth. If they said, I do these things, so I am saved, I would be complicit in their destruction if I was like, “Ehhh, who am I to decide what being a Christian is REALLLLLY about…”

    Obviously this is a silly and extreme scenario, but I believe the Church universal does have a responsibility to speak accurately to people on what is true. And, that there are things outside of that which are “red flags”.

    The obvious difficulty is wading through the enormous amounts of “grey” that people want to impose upon “appropriate” belief. I always appreciate Scoles(sp?) book “What is Christianity All About” that boils Christianity down to a very small set of non-negotiables. God, Exclusivity of the work of Jesus for Salvation, authority of Scripture….maybe one or two more that I cannot recall…. So, in my practice and experience, unless you radically disagree with these core issues, I don’t get to concerned on “saved vs unsaved”.

    In most cases where unrepentant sin is present the most I have ever done is to talk with someone, look in scripture where it is clearly instructed as being wrong. If there is no desire to change, the most I have the authority to do(and the most I think any other church should have in that case) is to remove them from leadership roles/voting membership. But as in a recent case of ongoing adultery, the individual was welcome to attend church, participate in the life of the community, meet with me at any time, etc. I never once felt a burden to say, “you know, I think you might not really be a christian…you better be worried!!!” If they claim they are a Christian, yet refuse to repent of sin, to me it becomes an issue of prayer for what is apparently a hurting brother/sister in Christ and an opportunity to continue to gently show grace and love to the individual while encouraging repentance.

    So in summation, You don’t need a 9marks stamp at the Pearly Gate, but, 9marks does have a responsibility to speak truth in opposition to error.

  51. Adam Borsay wrote:

    You don’t need a 9marks stamp at the Pearly Gate, but, 9marks does have a responsibility to speak truth in opposition to error.

    Yes, and they also have a responsibility not to go beyond what God has revealed. The Gospel Glitterati, including 9Marks, have gone way beyond the Gospel and made rules by which they judge the pewpeons. Church discipline recorded in the NT was for flagrant and notorious sin which brought shame on the church, the gospel message, and on the name of Christ. That’s not what is happening in the case of Todd Wilhelm, of people at SGM, and at Mars Hill. They have made up authority which they “exercise” arbitrarily and with double standards. But they are so puffed up with their own superiority and piety that they cannot see what is happening right before their eyes.

  52. mirele wrote:

    Are you serious? I mean, yeah, it goes along with their soft Arianism, but I had no idea they were that open about their utter disdain for half humanity.

    You have no idea how much I wish I were not being serious. The Woman was created for the Man in the sense of being to help him with *his* mission, not the mission given to them jointly. They totally ignore the actual description given of women in the Hebrew as a counterpart and strong and essential aid.

    They teach that the Woman was created to be under the authority of the Man because she was created out of his body, so she was not the firstborn and therefore was under the Man’s authority as the firstborn. She is under his authority because he “named” her. There are a half-dozen other ad hoc “reasons” they give to “prove” that the Woman was created under the Man’s authority.

    Bruce Ware takes the idea that woman is the glory of the man but man is the glory of God to mean that a woman’s imaging of God only comes through a man. He shows absolutely no knowledge of the meaning of glory or of the context of that reference. I find it difficult to believe that a man with a Ph.D. who is teaching at SBTS has no knowledge of shame/honor culture which is pretty much the pervasive culture outside the modern West. I conclude that he is deliberately obscuring the context in which the text was given and imposing a Western idea on it. It is another example of proof-texting for which they are justly notorious.

    It is as insidious as it is hideous. Most people inside the system think it is God’s good design, and they just will not look at the textual and historical/cultural evidence. The well is poisoned by accusations of “liberal” or “feminist,” and women are shamed because they are “daughters of Eve” who was a deceiver and usurper. Most women cannot or will not stand up against the spiritual blackmail inherent in that, so they remain quiet and go along to get along. Or worse, they fully buy into the system.

  53. Adam Borsay wrote:

    a very small set of non-negotiables. God, Exclusivity of the work of Jesus for Salvation, authority of Scripture….maybe one or two more that I cannot recall

    Of course serious and ongoing sin needs confronted–when it becomes a way of life (serial adulteries) as opposed to something done in desperation (Jean Valjean) then it is reasonable to assume this may not be a believer. But you have mentioned doctrine, and to link certain doctrinal beliefs as necessary for salvation is a totally different issue. Like “authority of scripture.” Baptists, Methodists and Catholics of course have a somewhat different take on what that means. So of those, who all is not saved because of which beliefs about scripture. And where does scripture itself require any such thing as for by belief in a certain doctrine about scripture thou shalt be saved? Here is the heart of the matter. Or the virgin birth perhaps where the baptists do not use the traditional creeds of the church (which do say conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary) because they don’t believe in creeds but Mohler wrote something about the requirement to believe in the virgin birth if one is a believer and meanwhile the catholics say that the protestants do not actually believe in the virgin birth because…So are people eternally lost if they don’t get it right about the v.b.? Here is the issue. Doctrines. Doctrines and doctrines.

    It sounds like saying “if you don’t agree with this brand of Christianity then you are not saved, by our determination.” That is just not OK. I think it would be more reasonable to say “you don’t agree with us on things that are important to us so we and you will be happier if you just move on.” But “not saved?” There is just something so wrong about that.

  54. @ Gram3:

    It seems to me that it would be difficult to at the same time adhere to a literal understanding of the Genesis creation stories, and believe in plenary verbal inspiration of scripture and tackle the difficult references to this male/female issue in the NT and still offer definitive contrary arguments that would destroy that whole line of thinking. I think the arguments fail because the assumptions fail.

    I have said ad nauseum that my background is not in religion but science, so understand that as I say this. Just because I want to say it. There is no evidence, I said evidence, that a male human came into existence as a solitary individual by special creation or any other method. If one accepts Genesis as literal (and I think the authors meant it to be literal and both Jesus and Paul referenced it as literal) then one has a huge problem arguing the male/female thing. One can say that it is not to be understood literally but rather as simply a story told by ancient people, that is a different issue. Perhaps that argument can be made, and there are those who say that. One can say that it was meant to be understood literally but that it is not correct and the “facts” are not true and accurate. Or one can go the route that the catholic church has taken in this matter.

    But holding together all three thoughts: Genesis is literal history; plenary verbal inspiration; it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean (leaving out the excesses); that approach does not seem to be working too well. I say that because of your comments about the difficulties of convincing people, not based on personal observation because I have different beliefs in this area. I hate it that people have to deal with this, but the issues are a lot bigger than just the meanings of certain words.

  55. @ Nancy:

    I said that wrong. Male humans come into existence as solitary individuals all the time–they get born. What I meant by solitary was an adult male as the first and only human on the planet. (The genesis story.)

  56. These men teach a literal interpretation of Genesis with a man and a woman as the two original individuals. I’m saying that they do not follow their own rules, yet claim that others are “liberals” or “feminists” or “rebellious” or whatever ad hom they can conjure up to deflect from their methodological failure.

    So I’m engaging them on their own field and saying that they are not even representing their own view properly and are holding people in bondage to a purely human system.

    When it comes to science, I have nothing to contribute. Ultimately, I see a lot of unknowns or provisional knowns, and we each need to figure out who or what we trust and why. I have chosen to regard the Bible as authoritative, but I also understand that others obviously don’t share that view. That’s OK with me because who am I to judge another man’s servant?

    I’m saying that these people are grossly misrepresenting the historically conservative approach to Bible interpretation and are imposing their own system upon it. There isn’t anything conservative about that since they are putting themselves in the place of the Holy Spirit. Their overall system of doctrine, including their anthropology, is not consistent with their own doctrine of Scripture. Or at least the one that they claim.

  57. @ Nancy:

    Sorry, Nancy. The last comment was a reply to yours. It’s either too much or not enough Halloween candy for me… 😉

  58. Adam Borsay wrote:

    You don’t need a 9marks stamp at the Pearly Gate, but, 9marks does have a responsibility to speak truth in opposition to error.

    Which they totally ignored when it came to Mahaney. He even taught there when he fled to Devers Arms. Mahaney had a rule at SGM that a pastor being “degifted” had to stay at the SGM church to be disciplined. The rules did not apply to him. Dever supported that.

    9 Marks has no credibility to be discussing or promoting this particular doctrinal stance.

  59. @ dee:
    Where churches fail in being mixtures of sheep and goats is to me an indication they are not preaching a very faithful gospel. The effect of the gospel is that those who want to be reconciled to God will believe, and those who don’t in the end will leave because church becomes irrelevant to them. Some believe and some become hardened. If, however, the church runs countless programmes and/or preaches a load of feel-good sermons a bit like modern management pep talks, they may want to continue because it does them good i.e. deceptively makes them feel good about themselves without leading to their conversion. Hence you get a mixture church with some ‘members’ having lives and ethics that are as bad as if not worse than the secular culture around them.

    I know a ‘pure’ church is unobtainable in this life, but where you cannot be sure of half of the congregation does indicate something has gone wrong. The form of religion but no power to change lives, all externals, no internal content.

  60. Gracie wrote:

    If you question them, they question your salvation. Which in turn sends you into a tailspin wondering “maybe I am not really saved? They are of course, trained in the bible. They are my spiritual authority…” It’s a head game. Trust me, I have been there.

    I’ve been there too and I am glad to be free of all that. Theirs is a fear based religion, their god (small ‘g’ intentional) a cruel and petulant despot, whom they copy at every turn and fall all over themselves trying to out-copy each other.

  61. Guys-

    Kevin Potts at Repeal the Bylaws on Facebook launched another effort to get Paul Petry and Bent Meyer exonerated before Mars Hill closes shop on January 1. This is what he wrote, and he included Dave Bruska’s email address. Maybe we can all send an email separately and labor n the behalf of Paul Petry and Bent Meyer and their families and stop the shunning.

    —-
    (Kevin Potts)

    I’ve just sent this email to Dave Bruskas in light of the announcement that the Mars Hill entity will be closing down by the end of the year. I encourage each of you to send him a message to daveb@marshill.com You’re welcome to use this text, identical to what I’ve sent him, if you want. Please, do not let them slide away from this!

    Dave, I just read your announcement on Mars Hill’s website regarding the future of the Mars Hill entity. I implore you, before our Savior Jesus Christ, and in His name and by His Spirit, PLEASE do not close down the organization prior to making a public statement rescinding the shunning of the Petry family and publicly acknowledging and apologizing for the wrongful, sinful firing of Paul Petry and Bent Meyer. This is your duty as a pastor, this is your duty as a human being, you have the power to rectify this last remnant of Mark Driscoll’s sins in these matters. You are the sole remaining individual identified with the previous body called “Executive Elders”.

    Please do the right thing, Dave.

  62. Gram3 wrote:

    They teach that the Woman was created to be under the authority of the Man because she was created out of his body, so she was not the firstborn and therefore was under the Man’s authority as the firstborn. She is under his authority because he “named” her. There are a half-dozen other ad hoc “reasons” they give to “prove” that the Woman was created under the Man’s authority.

    By that logic, then, Cain, Abel, and Seth, and by extension, the rest of mankind, are under Eve’s authority as she preceded and named her sons.

    I think there is such a preoccupation with gender identity that we forget that we are also Sons of Eve and Daughters of Adam, not to mention that if we are in Christ we are all sons of God.

  63. With Mars Hill disbanding I am curious to know whether William Wallace will still receive one year’s salary for severance pay.

  64. @ Eagle:

    I am a bit confused. Mars Hill shutting down IS an exoneration of Petry and Myers.

    unless I have misunderstood
    sometimes we see glaring evidence of just how cultic a situation is. That email seems to be an example.

    why would staff left at the helm of the sinking ship need to tell any passengers left not to shun people who were thrown off the ship years ago by the captain who recently escaped the sinking ship making sure he took ship money with him?

    Why? Because it has always been a cult of personality.

  65. Hello, I have been reading for a few years now and I appreciate the conversations here because they have helped me to wake up to many of the problems that come with elevating opinions over behavior. I didn’t realize how off the way of thinking was until I got out of it and started listening to people who had a more objective view of modern reformed theology. Over the last couple of years I have come to realize that the entire theme of the Bible is one of restoration and reconciliation between God and man. That seems to me to imply that the church should be seeking to bring people in not look for reasons to judge and exclude them. The early church had all sorts of problems, and yet Paul didn’t question their salvation he corrected their thinking and behavior. There seems to be a lot more in the New Testament about gentle and patient instruction than there is about exercising authority over others. I Peter 5: 2-3:
    2shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
    I think Romans 4:1-13 applies to this situation of how the church should handle a person’s profession of faith. Verse 1 and 4 seems to sum it up the best: Accept the one who is weak in the faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions… Who are you to judge another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand.
    Again it seems to me that a Christian’s attitude should be one of acceptance and putting a person out of the church should only happen in extreme circumstances, like the guy that was living with his mother-in-law, extreme. Even in that circumstance the goal was to have the guy repent and Paul told the Corinthians to accept him back in when he did. If restoration and reconciliation have always been God’s goal; shouldn’t that be the churches? I would not want to be responsible for discouraging someone for whom Christ died to stumble in their faith because their doctrine wasn’t perfect. I am afraid that the current trend seems to be more about appearing intellectual and successful, than it is about offering people help and hope. That is a really sad state to be in.
    Sorry, I don’t mean to go on and on, I am just trying to sort all of this out. Thank you for all of your hard work and research, it really does help people like me!

  66. Ken wrote:

    deceptively makes them feel good about themselves without leading to their conversion.

    Let’s say someone makes the mistake of buying into Joel Osteen’s theology. Perhaps it is the first time they have heard the Bible discussed and they believe the guy because he is successful. I look at the world, through time, and know that there have been many people who have presented a warped gospel and found followers. Does this mean that God is absent from the process? In other words, can people still find the Lord within the nuttiness?

    Look at me at the time of my conversion. I grew up in a family which was not religious. No teaching of any kind. I listened to a couple of Billy Graham events on TV. I tried to read through the bible when I was 16 and got stuck in Deuteronomy. Yet, at a moment in time, I believed in God and knew I was a Christian while not understanding a number of the basics.It was during an episode of Star Trek, for crying out loud!

    In the meantime, we have a bunch of yahoos like Ken Ham and 9Marks folks running around judging people’s salvation based on biblical™ methods. And they get it wrong as well.

    Don’t get me wrong. I dislike Osteen but I also dislike Driscoll, Mahaney, and 9Marks. But, I know there are Christians in all of those camps.

    I think we have to be careful in judging goats. If you had known me at the ripe age of 17, you would probably have looked at me as a goat.

    A friend mentioned a fantasy trilogy to me and I am reading them through. They are called The White Road Chronicles. Although they are not the most well written books ever, there is something that struck me. A number of the lead characters are deeply flawed individuals. They can’t even stay on a road that guarantees their protection.

    Yet, their Prince still loves them, smiling at them in the midst of their stupidity. He gives them total freedom of choice, even the freedom to not do what he has asked them to do. He then tells them he will love them just as much.

    Awhile back, someone made a comment which was not approved. He mentioned two people who comment here that I happen to love. He then made some sick judgments about their character. (Its not anyone currently commenting.) This individual does not see the work of God in their lives, setting himself as the judge of them. Basically he is saying they are goats.

    This man may have been in a position to make this judgment at a church at one time. How wrong he would have been. The sad part of the whole comment thing is that he did not see how his ruthless judgment pointed directly back at him.

    I can assure you that there are some people out there who would call me a goat. They would be wrong.

    Anyway-these are just some thoughts I have been working though…

  67. Denise wrote:

    Over the last couple of years I have come to realize that the entire theme of the Bible is one of restoration and reconciliation between God and man. That seems to me to imply that the church should be seeking to bring people in not look for reasons to judge and exclude them. The early church had all sorts of problems, and yet Paul didn’t question their salvation he corrected their thinking and behavior.

    Welcome to TWW. This is well said! Thank you.

  68. TW wrote:

    With Mars Hill disbanding I am curious to know whether William Wallace will still receive one year’s salary for severance pay.

    Can you imagine him not getting the money he believes he has been owed? I wonder if the reason they may be selling off stuff and firing people is so they can pay Driscoll and his good buddy *King* Turner.

    Also, the fact they are closing down business as usual, probably means we will never find out what happened to the Global Fund money.

    Rob Thain Smiths post at Musings From Under the Bus is the best analysis on this matter. I am hoping to tell his story in the near future. He is a wonderful man who formed an incredible company to help people in Africa. What Driscoll did should be told.

    I love the title of his post. Mars Hill Church Leadership Giving Members the Finger to the Very End.

    http://musingsfromunderthebus.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/mars-hill-church-leadership-giving-members-the-finger-to-the-very-end/

  69. Estelle wrote:

    By that logic, then, Cain, Abel, and Seth, and by extension, the rest of mankind, are under Eve’s authority as she preceded and named her sons.

    I think there is such a preoccupation with gender identity that we forget that we are also Sons of Eve and Daughters of Adam, not to mention that if we are in Christ we are all sons of God.

    Yes, I agree that it is absurd when you start taking their argument apart. In 1 Cor. 11 Paul tells all of us to stop talking as if men are superior to women because the Man was formed before the Woman, and he tells women to stop thinking they are superior to men because every man cannot be born apart from a woman. All of us come from God. We are equal and should not be lording over one another in any way.

    Yes, there is an obsessive focus on gender identity which I don’t understand, except to observe that the ones who are obsessed with male authority and power are the same ones who are obsessed with clergy authority and power. I don’t think that is coincidental. It appears to me to be all about power and influence and not at all about love and service to one another.

    Every one who is in Christ has their primary and overriding identity as one who is In Christ, not as a gender, just as Jews and Gentiles have their primary identity as being In Christ and not their ethnicity. Though every society has its social strata, still for those who are In Christ, it no longer matters if they are slaves or free, or rich or poor. Paul makes that clear in his instructions to the Galatians, the Corinthians and to Philemon.

    Paul tells us in his letters to stop acting like worldlings and to start loving one another and and considering others as more important than ourselves. We should start looking more like Christ who emptied himself rather than exalting himself as these men do by setting themselves over women or above the people in the pews. If they could stop looking into the mirrors they hold up for one another, they might just start seeing Jesus and his example.

  70. Denise wrote:

    I have come to realize that the entire theme of the Bible is one of restoration and reconciliation between God and man. That seems to me to imply that the church should be seeking to bring people in not look for reasons to judge and exclude them. The early church had all sorts of problems, and yet Paul didn’t question their salvation he corrected their thinking and behavior. There seems to be a lot more in the New Testament about gentle and patient instruction than there is about exercising authority over others. I Peter 5: 2-3:

    That is a beautiful summary. You definitely get it!

  71. I think maybe the 9Marks folks need to go back and read Matthew 13:24-30:

    Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew.

    “The farmer’s workers went to him and said, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds! Where did they come from?’

    “‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed.

    “‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked.

    “‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”

  72.   __

    501(c)3 church ‘membership’ is composed of ‘paying members’. All else is red ink.

  73. Sopwith wrote:

      __
    501(c)3 church ‘membership’ is composed of ‘paying members’. All else is red ink.

    Oh man, and you are ” badgered” into paying your membership ( tithes)….and I am sure these are the same fellows who preach against works for salvation….or maybe they do now….

  74. Steve Davis wrote:

    Why is that we automatically have knee jerk reactions to immediately scoff at the idea that someone besides me and God have the right to question my salvation. Jesus himself gave everyone the right to question my salvation… He said, By this all men will know that you are my disciples, by your love one for another. Can the church determine if I am really saved? Yes. Can lost people determine if I am really saved? Yes. The determining factor is has my relationship with Christ changed me so that I really love. Does that mean I love perfectly? no. Does it mean that I don’t struggle loving some? No. Does it mean the overall pattern of my life is a demostration of love towards other believers? Yes.

    I think Steve has a point here. Also, there are plenty of verses in the New Testament that warn us regarding “false brethren”. Seems to me warnings imply that it’s something we’re to be on the lookout for. I used to trust people in the church and who identified as Christians. I’ve come to realize that was naive of me, and that I should have paid much closer attention to my gut feelings, and to the behavior of people I was surrounded by, especially during my time in SGM. Looking back, I’m convinced many I assumed to be authentic Christians were actually frauds, especially the ones who have remained in SGM and faithful to MyHiney. And it is for this reason I have referred to the whole organization as a cult, because I think it was led and supported by a band of people who promoted and upheld a false gospel because they aren’t merely deceived, it’s because they themselves are deceivers, liars, and full of falsehood.
    If we’re going to judge angels, at some point we need to accept responsibility for making a distinction between true and false expressions of spirituality and not be so wishy washy about judging the authenticity of someone’s salvation. In fact, I think it’s important for us to do so considering the problem of false believers wrecking havoc in the church is at an all-time high. God, it would seem to me, is judging the church and people are being exposed for their falsehoods and are being removed. The most frustrating aspect to this process, imo, are those who immediately say that individuals like Mark Driscoll has “repented” and therefore, right away!, and thus ought not to be subject to heightened scrutiny, and that those who engage in further scrutiny are being “judgmental” – that it’s a matter between Mark Driscoll now and God.

    No, it’s not.

    And about Mark Dever. Has he repented of his support and endorsement of CJ Mahaney in the face of all the outcry against his having done so? Has he ever acknowledged how wrong and unbiblical it was to give the Mahaney’s a room at his CHBC Inn? It’s not like Carolyn Mahaney was the Virgin Mary. Far from it. She was pregnant with the plan she and CJ hatched together to defraud the church. Mark Dever provided the bed in which they kept cozy and secluded before giving birth to their illegitimate child in Louisville. So Mark Dever is in no place to be judging people for their Christian faith when it’s obvious his own judgment is severely impaired.

  75.   __

    How quickly these ‘religious’ 501(c)3 ‘churches’ have gone from ‘selling’ a ‘product’ to “your @zz is mine, and I’m da frick’in lawnmower” thingy.

  76. Sopy

    Great comment. It all disappears and he runs behind his the protection of the gates of his mansion and pretends he is under attack for his Christ like demeanor.

  77. Paula Rice wrote:

    Also, there are plenty of verses in the New Testament that warn us regarding “false brethren”.

    Actually, a quick word search reveals that there is not one verse in the NT that “warns us regarding false brethren.” Plenty about false teachers, but the being on the lookout for false brethren thing is a fabrication of modern Neo-Calvinism. It began with John MacArthur (maybe earlier, but I am not aware) and continues with his disciples who see the church as their primary mission field.

  78. Ken wrote:

    The local church does have the responsibility to try to ensure the membership is composed of sheep and not a mixture of sheep and goats

    Good luck with that…

  79. Doug wrote:

    Actually, a quick word search reveals that there is not one verse in the NT that “warns us regarding false brethren.” Plenty about false teachers

    You nailed it! It’s very telling that these celebrity preachers NEVER discuss the teachings about false teachers because, if they did, they’d end up pointing the finger at themselves – best to keep the sheep ignorant. Instead, these money- and power-hungry ‘preachers’ have turned this on it’s head to point it at congregants in order to silence them and keep them raising any questions.

  80. About questioning someone’s salvation and/or dividing the sheep from the goats.

    You all might want to check out the reports about the conference on marriage, singleness and homosexuality that the ethics and religious liberty commission (SBC) held just a few days ago. I checked both their web site and the web site of the christian action league of north carolina and advise that you read both because they are not identical. There are a number of very disturbing comments including some by David Platt.

    I am thinking that it is just a matter of time until some folks start dividing the sheep from the goats based on whether someone is married (Mohler has previously linked singleness and sin for some people) and, if married, how rigidly complementarian that marriage is.

    Certainly, the idea that someone’s belief about the authority of scripture (already mentioned as a possible identifier) can be linked to ideas about comp-ism. The next step would be a very short one.

  81. JeffT wrote:

    power-hungry ‘preachers’ have turned this on it’s head to point it at congregants in order to silence them and keep them raising any questions.

    So true! Every righteous movement needs it’s “bogey man”. The guys who tried to take over our church were constantly pointing out the false brethren outside the church, and by implication were accusing the people inside the church of the same heresies. I called it playing “pin-the-tail-on-the-false-Christian”. It got really old… And it only served to reinforce the holy huddle mentality. Us against everyone else. Until their jihad was exposed, and people woke up to who the real targets were that is. Praise the Lord that happened!

  82. @ Doug:

    I’m very much with Paula above on this one. The expression false brethren may not occur, but there are similar descriptions such as ‘men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith’, or ‘ungodly persons’ who have crept into the church. They often do have bogus ministries of false teacher or apostle I agree, but the descriptions can apply as readily to ordinary members.

    Without wanting to sit in judgement on others (judge not) the church has all too often abysmally failed to exercise discernment, judging in the appraising/examining/testing sense. Gullibility is not one of the gifts of the Spirit, so professions of faith do need a minimum level of a life to back them up to be regarded as authentic. Doctrinal tests are vital, but the doctrine needs to be ‘adorned’ with a lifestyle, and this over the longer term may often be a more reliable test. What fruit is being produced? People really can say all the right things and use the right jargon, but everyday life will sooner or later reveal what is in their hearts. I see this often where grandparents were believers, their children difficult to tell, and the grandchildren brought up with a religious background, even maybe still attending church, only knowing little more than all the right phrases and cultural Christian way to behave in church but otherwise it doesn’t mean anything to them.

    The fact a ‘pure’ church of only believers is unobtainable in this life doesn’t let the church off the hook for being complacent about its membership or its leadership for that matter. Church membership doesn’t equate with a living faith.

  83. So, these clowns want to take us back to pre-Protestant reformation?? One of the key concepts of the Reformation was/is the “Preisthood of the believers”, or the concept that we can go to G&d ourselves, not through the preist with the potential expliotation that implies. But now, these clowns claim they hold the “keys” and one does not folllow their current “rules” they withhold their current concepts of the “sacraments”. Well, well, I think a number of the reformers, especially those that lost their lives for the reformation, would turn in their graves if they knew that laters Protestants are trying to take us BACK!! I get the idea of local churches establishing rules for local membership, but claiming they hold the “keys” to heaven is blastphomy to me!!

  84. Ken wrote:

    so professions of faith do need a minimum level of a life to back them up to be regarded as authentic.

    Quantifying lifestyle as proof of genuine faith is a slippery slope than leads to performance based Christianity. God does not need any proof. He knows who are His own. The individual believer does not need any proof, she or he simply needs to believe in the faithfulness of God and His promise. The other believers do not need any proof, as they have enough to worry about with their own black hearts. The leaders do not need any proof, as they also have enough to worry about with their own selves.
    The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. Lifestyle can be faked. Do we need any more examples than are currently manifest in the church?
    All the local church can do is enforce brand loyalty. That is all. Anything more than that is outside of their scope of operation. It ain’t their church anyway.

  85. Ken wrote:

    Without wanting to sit in judgement on others (judge not) the church has all too often abysmally failed to exercise discernment, judging in the appraising/examining/testing sense.

    Btw, isn’t this sentence making a judgement on others?

  86. Ken wrote:

    Doctrinal tests are vital, but the doctrine needs to be ‘adorned’ with a lifestyle, and this over the longer term may often be a more reliable test. What fruit is being produced? People really can say all the right things and use the right jargon, but everyday life will sooner or later reveal what is in their hearts.

    Nope – got to disagree to some extent. I know of non-Christians (either at work or in the neighborhood) who have outstanding lifestyles. They are not trying to fool anyone.

  87. Hi Doug

    I appreciate your comments I’ve read, and the horrendous trial, challenge…
    That you are going through lately where you fellowship.

    I do have something to add when you answer Paula Rice and write…
    “Actually, a quick word search reveals that there is
    not one verse in the NT that “warns us regarding false brethren.”

    Because – I think your statement depends on which Bible Version you use… 😉
    Here’s a few **False Brethren** in *The King Jimmy.*

    Pro 6:19 KJV
    A **false witness** that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord **among brethren.**

    2 Cor 11:26 KJV
    In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers,
    in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen,
    in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea,
    **in perils among false brethren;**

    Gal 2:4 KJV
    And that because of **false brethren** unawares brought in,
    who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
    that they might bring us into bondage:

    And, Yes – There are, “Plenty about false teachers…”

    WE, His Called Out Ones, His Disciples, are also warned about…

    1- False apostles. ————— 2 Cor 11:13, Rev 2:2,
    2- Many false prophets. —– 1 John 4:1, Mrk 13:22, Mat 7:15, Mat 24:11, 24,
    3- False teachers. ————— 2 Pet 2:1,
    4- False brethren. ————– Gal 2:4,
    5- False Christ’s (false anointed ones). — Mat 24:5, Mat 24:24, Mark 13:22,
    6- Deceitful workers. ———- 2 Cor 11:13,
    7- Evil workers. —————- Phil 3:2,

    WOW – Lots of bumps and potholes on this path to Jesus… 😉

    Seems trusting in Mere Fallible Humans is dangerous to our health… 😉
    I had to learn this lesson the hard way – Ouch!!! 🙁

    Jer 17:5 KJV
    Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,
    and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

    Mat 24:4 KJV
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that NO MAN deceive you.

  88. Doug

    And there are self proclaimed “leaders” who cause folks to err, and be destroyed.
    And there are self proclaimed “shepherds” who cause folks to go astray.

    8 – Leaders

    Isa 3:12 KJV
    …O my people, *they which lead thee* cause thee to err,
    and destroy the way of thy paths.

    Isa 9:16 KJV
    For *the leaders* of this people cause them to err;
    and they that are led of them are destroyed.

    Mat 15:14 KJV
    Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.
    And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

    Seems lots of folks these days are falling into ditches
    following Mere Fallible Human leaders – who are blind… 😉
    ———

    9 – Shepherds
    THEIR shepherds – have caused them to go astray…

    Jer 50:6 KJV
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **THEIR shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
    ———-

    1 Pet 2:25 KJV
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Why follow Mere Fallible Humans as your shepherd? Your leader?

    When you can follow…
    The “ONE” Shepherd… John !0:16 NASB
    The “ONE” Leader… Mat 23:10 NASB

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  89. @ A. Amos Love:
    Thanks for your kind words, and the verses. Yes, I agree about translations. I found those verses too, but I think it is a huge leap to go from something descriptive, as in 2 Cor. & Gal. to what is often practiced which is often manifest as heresy hunting. If we are not careful, we miss the warnings pointed specifically at marking out false teachers, and turn brethren with doctrinal views that are more or less nuanced than ours into false teachers simply because the hold these more nuanced views.
    So I disagree that we are called to point out so called false brethren. False teachers, apostles, prophets, and Christs are an entirely different matter. That’s my reading of Scripture, KJV or otherwise.

  90. @ Doug:
    I think the church has mistaken not judging in the condemning sense with testing and examining, and failed to do the latter.

    I’m not an advocate of nitpicking over doctrine or endlessly watching over every foible and mistake the members of a church make. We’ed never get anything done. But it’s not loving to allow someone to deceive themselves (and others) with a false profession of faith.

    To give an example of failure to discern, are freemasonry (or practicing yoga, New Age mysticism etc etc) and Christianity compatible? I’ve been in a church where no thought was given to this lest the boat be rocked, the individuals concerned in the end I suppose will account to God and not me or anyone else about it. But at the very best this kind of spiritual entanglement must be damaging to the individuals involved, and at worst disqualifying?

  91. Ken wrote:

    To give an example of failure to discern, are freemasonry (or practicing yoga, New Age mysticism etc etc) and Christianity compatible?

    I can appreciate what you are saying, but reject the idea that any of these are salvation issues. They are for discipleship, not qualifications for eternal life.
    We are not invited to receive “probationary life” by the Lord, but rather eternal life the moment we believe. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit at that moment. After that, it’s all about the walk of faith, which is usually bumpy.

  92. Joe2 wrote:

    Nope – got to disagree to some extent. I know of non-Christians (either at work or in the neighborhood) who have outstanding lifestyles. They are not trying to fool anyone.

    I agree with you. I went to school with some people who were practitioners of a certain non-christian religion and they would put most christians to shame. And I have known believers who had a long way yet to go to live up to any awesome standards of conduct.

    Judging and evaluating ideas and behaviors is one thing. Translating that into who is or is not saved, that is entirely different.

    But what is the use of having a private club if not to exclude “them?” How do I know how great I am unless I can compare myself with “them?” Them, of course, being whoever dares to disagree with me about anything.

  93. Ken wrote:

    But at the very best this kind of spiritual entanglement must be damaging to the individuals involved, and at worst disqualifying?

    Btw, it was on this point that I was “brought up on charges” and put on trial. I had the audacity to define the word “believe” differently than the favorite son of the church did. So it wasn’t any great sin or apostasy or my membership in some subversive organization that was the spark. I was entangled with the “wrong dictionary”. Because of that I was considered “disqualified” to teach. These ideas have real world consequences. Fine in theory if you want to pontificate about it. But when someone actually acts it is very disruptive and painful.

  94. Ken wrote:

    To give an example of failure to discern, are freemasonry (or practicing yoga, New Age mysticism etc etc) and Christianity compatible?

    Oh good night! I thought the free mason conspiracy was long gone. I know a great deal about it. Most Masons are in it for a place for the guys to get together and share a few. Before you send me info, I used to be a Rainbow Girl and my father was a 32nd degree Mason. After I became a Christian and asked him about his beliefs in the matter, he had a good laugh. He did it to hang out with some guys and so did all of them. Said he got a cool ring out of it. Not everyone takes this stuff as seriously as evangelicals.

    As for yoga, there is no problem with it for Christians so long as they don’t think they are becoming one with the universe. Again, over rated.

    You know who gets me worried? Churches who cover up child sex abuse, preach a prosperity Gospel, or are control freaks. Now that is something of which to be afraid.

  95. dee wrote:

    You know who gets me worried? Churches who cover up child sex abuse, preach a prosperity Gospel, or are control freaks. Now that is something of which to be afraid.

    Amen!

  96. Ken wrote:

    The fact a ‘pure’ church of only believers is unobtainable in this life doesn’t let the church off the hook for being complacent about its membership or its leadership for that matter. Church membership doesn’t equate with a living faith.

    I actually agree with this – every church needs some sort of doctrine or profession of faith to bind itself together. But this doesn’t mean that differing views on many issues cannot be tolerated. In fact, discussion of these differing views is one of the things that contribute to our spiritual growth. The difficulty for any church is to determine those issues that are absolutely fundamental to the church’s faith and those where disagreement does not affect those fundamental beliefs.

    But what is happening today in so many fundamentalist churches is that the number of issues that have become ‘fundamental’ to their faith has grown exponentially, so that virtually every issue is now a ‘fundamental’ one. Moreover, just what the ‘right’ position is to be on these issues is not arrived at by discussion among the members, but dictated to the members by a so-called ‘minister’.

    Finally, it seems that virtually all of the issues that have caused members to be criticized, ‘disciplined’, and shunned have nothing to do with doctrine at all. Instead, they all seem to have to do with asking questions about where money is being spent and abusive behavior by church leadership.

    So it’s not at all about doctrine, it’s about the powers that be silencing criticism and retaining their unquestioned authority. This whole blasphemy about being able to determine others’ salvation is just one more dogma of church leadership pulled out of someone’s [place where the sun don’t shine] to suppress any disagreement from the congregation.

  97. Ken wrote:

    Gullibility is not one of the gifts of the Spirit, so professions of faith do need a minimum level of a life to back them up to be regarded as authentic.

    Gullibility? Need I mention the Christians involved in the Y2K scares, the Proctor and Gamble nuttiness, The Harbinger, etc. Gullibility is the hallmark of many Christians lives yet they are still Christians

    .Ken wrote:

    People really can say all the right things and use the right jargon, but everyday life will sooner or later reveal what is in their hearts

    I know a number of nonChristians who lives show more “fruit” than Christians.

    Ken wrote:

    Church membership doesn’t equate with a living faith.

    With this, I can agree.

  98. JeffT wrote:

    So it’s not at all about doctrine, it’s about the powers that be silencing criticism and retaining their unquestioned authority

    Right on the money.

  99. Joe2 wrote:

    I know of non-Christians (either at work or in the neighborhood) who have outstanding lifestyles. They are not trying to fool anyone.

    I agree with you.

  100. Jeff Chalmers wrote:

    I think a number of the reformers, especially those that lost their lives for the reformation, would turn in their graves if they knew that laters Protestants are trying to take us BACK!! I

    I have been thinking long and hard about this. I, too, believe that there are many people who want to go back to the days of control over the believer. Look at what happened to Todd Wilhelm when he made a stand against what he perceived to be injustice. I happened to agree with his point of view. What did that gain him? A trip to the security guards in the Hotel California of Dubai.

  101. @ Doug:
    I’m sorry you have had this hassle recently. I’ve been there too to some extent, though a very long time ago now. In my day it was the Holy Spirit who was the point of contention.

    I don’t believe in salvation by doctrinal correctness, though there must be a minimun to have passed from unbelief to belief. As always there is a balance to be had, avoiding both the need for an ability to explain justification by faith (with Greek if possible) in great detail on the one hand, and any vague anything goes providing someone turns up now and again on the other.

    Rash judgements as to who is saved should also be avoided, this kind of judgement should only be contemplated if there are real and serious grounds to do so. Nevetheless, a church where you really cannot tell where a chunk of the congregation stands makes me uncomfortable. The sort of church where there is little if any cost, and you can bring all sorts of things into the kingdom from you previous life if you so choose. Everybody does at first I know, but surely it cannot remain that way?

    The older I have got, incidentally, the more wary I have become of saying who is in and who is out.

  102. JeffT wrote:

    But what is happening today in so many fundamentalist churches is that the number of issues that have become ‘fundamental’ to their faith has grown exponentially, so that virtually every issue is now a ‘fundamental’ one.

    No kidding. Was I kicked to the curb because of a lifestyle problem or immorality or other flagrant sin? Nope. Are my grown kids in sin and not walking with the Lord? Nope. Are my grandkids not being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Nope.

    My sin was being a gender heretic, despite the fact that my actual life looks like it could have been scripted by Carolyn Mahaney and Dottie Patterson, D. Min. (I repent of crediting her previously with a Ph.D.) The problem with me is I dared to question the new orthodoxy on gender roles. And worse yet, do it with an open Bible.

    I and women and men like me are now considered the proximate cause of the collapse of Christendom by those enmeshed in the CBMW cult which now includes the greater part of the agencies of the SBC and much of the PCA and independent conservative churches. It is somewhat a moot for me, but I am worried about my daughters and granddaughters. It is sickening to hear the CBMW cult, as David Platt did at the ERLC conference, say that women must be under the authority of males or the gospel is somehow compromised. It is a mystery to me why these weak men despise women so much, and I wonder how more drunk on their power that they will get.

    The greatest sin among this crowd is questioning their authority and power. They will only change when the pews start emptying out. A decline in revenue has certainly brought changes to the Mars Hill empire, including at least some gestures toward repentance. Yet there is still no repentance from all of Driscoll’s and Mahaney’s enablers and apologists. That’s the kind of spiritual “leadership” we have today. Making up sins so they can feel superior and covering up real sin among their own number.

  103. Gram3 wrote:

    Yet there is still no repentance from all of Driscoll’s and Mahaney’s enablers and apologists. That’s the kind of spiritual “leadership” we have today. Making up sins so they can feel superior and covering up real sin among their own number.

    If I remember correctly, Jesus called people who did this white washed tombs . . . but the white washed tombs are unable to see their own plight.

  104. @ Gram3:

    I am so sorry that happened to you. I do think there is no winning with those people, because while they are presenting issues as doctrinal issues, the fury behind it is certainly power and authority. You could have the best arguments in the world and it would be useless with those in power. And you do have some good arguments, but as long as they choose the playing field there is no hope for anybody who disagrees.

    I am going to “preach” my favorite sermon here. There is better to be had down the road. They are not the only game in town. Shake the dust off and go on to the next place is an option. Wonder where I got that idea? For me, hang around and get self inflicted traumatic brain injury from repeated impacts between my head and the brick wall would not be my best choice, regardless of the importance of the cause.

  105. Ken wrote:

    I don’t believe in salvation by doctrinal correctness, though there must be a minimum to have passed from unbelief to belief. As always there is a balance to be had, avoiding both the need for an ability to explain justification by faith (with Greek if possible) in great detail on the one hand, and any vague anything goes providing someone turns up now and again on the other.

    Well, I appreciate your irenic approach to this conversation, but I still think you are mixing discipleship with salvation. John 5:24 answers your question of passing from death (unbelief) to life (belief). If it is true that salvation happens in a moment of time, then all lifestyle questions become discipleship questions after that moment. However, if salvation is not a momentary event, then you have a case for bringing questions of lifestyle into the discussion.
    What does Jesus say?

  106. Nancy wrote:

    For me, hang around and get self inflicted traumatic brain injury from repeated impacts between my head and the brick wall would not be my best choice, regardless of the importance of the cause.

    That’s some good advice! You’re right, they are not interested in the truth.

  107. @ Doug:

    Ken wrote:

    any vague anything goes providing someone turns up now and again on the other

    The writer of Hebrews 10:24-25 dealt with a situation of some who had poor attendance (no mention of how much attendance he was thinking about) but “some” were not showing up. The writer handled it as a discipleship issue (and that mildly) and not a salvation issue. No suggestion that he thought it was a salvation indicator even.

    I am thinking, though, that whether the passing from unbelief to belief is momentary or continual or both it is still mentioned as due to faith, not one’s attendance record, for example. Some large groups “require” a crisis event as an indicator of a salvation experience, and some large groups think that is a mistake and look more at a process. The statement recorded in John could be understood as the road to damascus or as more like the apostles apparently increasingly coming to understand and believe as time went on. If you have heard and do believe (as I understand the statement) does not spell out whether that process was instantaneous or gradual, only that it happened.

    So I think you guys (plural) are right.

  108. @ Nancy:
    The title question of the post, “Does the church have the authority to say you are not a believer?”, must be answered no based on the authority of the Scriptures.
    All a local church can do is admit or deny your entrance into their brand loyalty club.
    All the universal church can do is shun you or embrace you on an individual basis. Either one is based on subjective criteria.
    Being a “believer” means that you have believed God’s testimony concerning His Son Jesus Christ. Perhaps I misunderstand that definition, but that is what I am working with. Correct me if I am wrong.
    I believe ( 🙂 ) that you either believe or you do not believe. It is either an objective fact, or you doubt God in some way and therefore, by definition, do not believe. This question touches on the objective vs. the subjective aspect of faith. If faith is an event, then belief is an objective fact. If faith is a process, then it is subjective.
    In either case, the church is powerless to prove a negative.
    “You say I don’t believe? Prove it!” For every “x” action brought forward as “proof”, I can ask the quantifying question: How much or how little “x” is necessary to disprove belief? Where is the line I must cross? God told me I could know for sure if I was His child. Now you, church, are telling me otherwise. I say to you (rhetorically) prove it.
    We have just created an unanswerable conundrum. Using behavior, or the lack of behavior, to prove that someone does not believe is as much a fool’s errand as using behavior, or lack thereof, to prove belief.
    And it is to miss the point of Jesus death in my place entirely.

  109. dee wrote:

    As for yoga, there is no problem with it for Christians so long as they don’t think they are becoming one with the universe.

    So this yoga guy comes up to the hotdog vendor. The vendor says “what’ll ya have?” The yoga guy says “make me one with everything”.

    Ha ha!

    So the yoga guy gets his hotdog and gives the vendor a 10$ bill. He waits a while for his change, which doesn’t seem to be coming, so he complains “where is my change?” The vendor replies, “change comes from within”.

    Bada boom!

  110. @ Doug:

    I did not say that you do not believe, though I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you. I said that coming to faith can be fast or slow, instantaneous and dramatic or subtle and take a while. I also agreed with you about the discipleship aspect of behavior.

    But as to objective or subjective, it really looks to me like faith would be objective as seen by God but subjective as experienced by the person. Both, not either/or.

    As to being admitted into the brand loyalty club, you sure got that right. My concern is that there are way too many people who are forced to doubt their salvation because they cannot check off all the doctrinal and behavioral boxes, not in good conscience.

    Certainly, faith without works is dead. Just thought I would throw that in. But not all works-less people are without faith. Sometimes it is depression, sometimes it is circumstances, sometimes it it lack of knowledge. Sometimes people get too overwhelmed to function. The list goes on. Yes, faith results in discipleship, but discipleship does not always look just like the lists in the manual or the notes from the conference would indicate.

    I have enjoyed listening to you and Ken talking. Hope you all keep it up on other topics also. I learn a lot from you guys.

  111. Nancy wrote:

    My concern is that there are way too many people who are forced to doubt their salvation because they cannot check off all the doctrinal and behavioral boxes, not in good conscience.

    I agree with you, and this is my concern too. Somebody once told me that the difference between religion and Christianity was if there were boxes to check off at all. It could be that I am hyper-sensitive to this issue because of the recent struggle against the Neo-Cal takeover. I freely admit that I am not entirely healed, and may be suffering from a kind of Spiritual PTSD. I agree with your perspective, and I am not trying to be argumentative. Sorry for coming across that way.
    I just love the freedom we have in Christ. Freedom to fail is in there too, imo. I don’t have to worry about my status, and I sure don’t need some religious tool telling me that because I don’t measure up to his standard I am not a believer.
    I have never – and I mean never – had a woman tell me that I was less of a believer because I didn’t do something right or stop doing something wrong.
    I’d rather err on the side of grace & love, even with those who think they need to perform to be right with God. So when I say “you” rhetorically, I mean me too.
    Thanks for your grace.

  112. Nancy wrote:

    I am so sorry that happened to you.

    Wow, I realize how self-serving I made that look. At my last church there were many before and have been many since us who received their Reverse Altar Call and were dis-invited from fellowship for committing Berean Thoughtcrime.

  113. Doug wrote:

    It could be that I am hyper-sensitive to this issue because of the recent struggle against the Neo-Cal takeover. I freely admit that I am not entirely healed, and may be suffering from a kind of Spiritual PTSD.

    Please don’t diminish any PTSD you may be experiencing because PTSD is a real, emotional/spiritual/physical thing. While there is nothing positive about the circumstances that produced the PTSD or about the feelings it provokes in all three aspects, there can be a positive which comes out of it on the other side. You now have a heightened sense of the threat you have survived, and you are in a position to encourage and even speak up for others once you have had some time to heal. You get it when others may not.

    Ditto Nancy’s remarks to you and Ken. I have learned so much from the commenters and Adorable Blog Queens here.

  114. @ dee:
    I’d missed this one! I was talking about Masonry, New Age and yoga from actual experience in churches. I think you are in danger of making freemasonry more harmless than it actually is. I think it very difficult to square this (as it were) with NT Christianity. I have someone in mind whom I liked a lot who was in charge of the whole youth work of a church. Baptist yes, but who reacted militantly against anything to do with the Holy Spirit which is not a healthy sign. In fact, I got quite bogged down in learning about masonry and in the end had to renounce it as a form of occult enslavement, i.e. I realised this curiosity was itself a result of being drawn along (‘thoughts led astray’) by powers I had better have nothing to do with. I don’t say that lightly.

    I’ve also known of Christians who have used yoga for exercise only yet become entangled in it, can this ever been entirely divorced from the underlying religion behind it (Hinduism)? Similarly New Age practices which are blatantly occultic in nature. It was the charismatics believe it or not who woke up to the dangers of this kind of thing whilst the church slept on.

    A church which cannot discern these things, that doesn’t even want to think about them, that wants to avoid controversy*, is the same church that cannot discern the abuse going on in its midst. This isn’t an either/or situation, we need in a sense to discern everything.

    *I’m not trying to stir up controversy, honest guv, these examples are from experience rather than reading or the internet!

  115. Doug wrote:

    I just love the freedom we have in Christ

    Yes, I’ll happily stand together with on on that one. There is no shortage of people who will try to rob you of it.

  116. Ken wrote:

    I was talking about Masonry, New Age and yoga from actual experience in churches

    And so was I. i was a member of the Rainbow Girls and my father was a 32nd degree Mason. You don’t get more experienced than that. And I am saying that Free Masonry is another one of those Christian conspiracies. The guys in this group do it to hang together and have a few. Maybe you see the problems but that is for the zealous evangelicals who parse doctrinal stuff. Most folks are not thee proclaiming an anti_Christ world view. My dad, never one of secrets, showed me his ring and explained some of the “secret” stuff. Good night! It was nothing.

    Secondly, I know people who do yoga and are not merging as one with the universe. Most people use it as means of stretching and exercise.

    We have far more problems with men like Driscoll, Bill Gothard, etc.

    I have to admit, my conspiracy theory radar goes up with things like Free masonry, yoga, Harry Potter, anti-Halloween, Christian Zionism, and ardent YEC, moon landing conspiracies, etc.

    You are welcome to your views but I disagree with you on the matter.

  117. @ Ken:

    My father was a scottish rite mason for year and years. One day he came home, announced that there was something that concerned him and that he was resigning from the masons for reasons of conscience. He would not say what it was. The story went around to those of us not in the know that they would not let you resign. I don’t know, but he never went back to any meetings. When I was making the arrangements for his funeral the funeral director asked me if Dad was? or had been? a mason. I allowed that indeedy so, whichever or whatever it was that he asked me. It is difficult to think straight at times like that. Somehow the masonic emblem as a flower arrangement appeared at the casket. I don’t know who ordered it, but I did not and never found out who did. I though it was odd, but just thought that perhaps that is merely how they do, for old times sake or something. But later I thought that maybe they don’t let you resign. Or maybe he never resigned but only said he did. Who knows–the funeral is too late to find out.

    However when we went through the house after the funeral we found some stuff (not related to masons) that ought not be there, and it was evident that something had not been too good at that house or in his life for a long time. I have no idea of any relationship between any of it. It is just one of those things that will have to wait for explanation until whenever. I do have some theories, but they involve my father, not the masons as a whole, but I don’t really know.

  118. Tim wrote:

    But when that church thinks their standards for membership are the same as affirming or deciding not to affirm someone’s place in the kingdom of God, they are sorely mistaken. Jesus said it’s the Spirit who handles that. (John 3.)

    I would disagree. It seems when a local church admits a person to membership, they are doing exactly that. They are affirming or deciding not to affirm whether they believe, by whatever means they adjudicate the question, whether they believe that person to be a Christian. It could be a brief on-the-spot interview, to requiring a number of membership classes followed by a one-on-one interview as at my church, Capitol Hill Baptist in DC, or something in between.

  119. Preston wrote:

    I would disagree. It seems when a local church admits a person to membership, they are doing exactly that. They are affirming or deciding not to affirm whether they believe, by whatever means they adjudicate the question, whether they believe that person to be a Christian. It could be a brief on-the-spot interview, to requiring a number of membership classes followed by a one-on-one interview as at my church, Capitol Hill Baptist in DC, or something in between.

    Well Preston, then you have just added additional requirements to salvation. If CHBC is declaring that a person who does not meet their standards for membership is not a Christian, then they have added human merit as a precondition to receive eternal life. Can you see how this works?
    The Bible says that there is only one mediator between people and God, the man Christ Jesus. If I have to pass a one on one interview then there are now two mediators, not one. If the church sets itself up as a mediator, then there is no hope for anyone to be saved, because no one will keep the rules, or meet the criteria, 24/7/365. This is the problem with requiring keeping of the law in order to be right with God. And this is why Jesus died for you and for me. If we could keep the law, then there would be no need for Jesus. Because we can’t, Jesus fulfilled the law in our place. This is the heart of the Gospel.
    Please consider your membership in a church that put’s itself in between Jesus and anyone for salvation. I am sorry, but that is neither Biblical or Christian. (Christ following)

  120. Preston wrote:

    would disagree. It seems when a local church admits a person to membership, they are doing exactly that. They are affirming or deciding not to affirm whether they believe, by whatever means they adjudicate the question, whether they believe that person to be a Christian

    I think you are mistaken and this is not in the Bible. CHBC and Founders have made a huge deal out of church discipline when actually very little is said about it. Most of what Jonathan Leeman says on the topic is read into Matthew. The other instructions were regarding an instance of a group of believers ignoring flagrant sin that was bringing reproach (shame) on the church and the name of Christ. This is a recurring theme in Paul’s epistles, but it gets obscured by the legalistic applications that 9Marks and Founders make from the little textual data that we have.

    I encourage you to look into the actual texts, read in context, intertextually and canonically, without the filters you have been given by your teachers. The Bible is the word of God. The words of Dever and Leeman and Ascol are not. And, if we are reformational, then we affirm Sola Scriptura, so there can be no protestant popes.

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    Doug wrote:
    It could be that I am hyper-sensitive to this issue because of the recent struggle against the Neo-Cal takeover. I freely admit that I am not entirely healed, and may be suffering from a kind of Spiritual PTSD.
    Please don’t diminish any PTSD you may be experiencing because PTSD is a real, emotional/spiritual/physical thing. While there is nothing positive about the circumstances that produced the PTSD or about the feelings it provokes in all three aspects, there can be a positive which comes out of it on the other side. You now have a heightened sense of the threat you have survived, and you are in a position to encourage and even speak up for others once you have had some time to heal. You get it when others may not.
    Ditto Nancy’s remarks to you and Ken. I have learned so much from the commenters and Adorable Blog Queens here.

    Thanks for your kind words. I have found that the linger effects of conflict have found their way into the strangest places.

    This morning I was dreaming about the conflict and all the parties involved were sitting in a banquet hall discussing the issue when I woke up. I looked at the clock and saw that I still had 20 minutes to go before the alarm went off. So I promptly went back to sleep, and informed everyone that we had to stop the discussion because I had to get up for work soon! Thankfully, I didn’t tell them we could continue the discussion tonight. 🙂

    I appreciate you and all involved here too.

  122. @ dee:
    You surprise me a bit there. The Church of England did a report on freemasonry concluding it could not really be compatible with Christianity, and they are not renowned for going off the deep end or not giving such issues the thought and care they deserve. Its religious syncretism, the oaths etc., which I have all read a long time ago. I know some only regard as an old boys’s club or business network, but it does have religious connotations, and they are the problem.

    The freemason I knew in the Baptist church was an enigma. I caused a rumpus once by objecting to the youth group meeting at his house, as this was breaking the rule not to fellowship with an idolater (1 Cor 5). Didn’t go down a bundle, but what do you expect from an 18 year old suddenly starting to take the bible seriously. The church should have dealt with the subject if they didn’t want that kind of thing to happen. Serves ’em right! 🙂

    Years later after I had left, the issue was still rumbling on with the youth leaders, oddly enough. A policeman who was a member likewise queried it, and the mason threatened him in no uncertain terms that if he caused trouble over it, he would ensure this was the end of the policeman’s career (via other masons in the police force). That is simply not how christians should behave towards each other, and it raises the question posed in this thread as to how could someone like that really be born again. Mason first, Christian second if at all? I don’t know. In the end God alone knows. Even post-rumpus I quite liked the bloke and got on with him reasonably well to the extent I had much to do with him.

    The pastor told me he had discussed the matter with the mason who claimed that he had no trouble reconciling his membership of the lodge with the church, but then masons themselves are hardly sources of unbiased opinion on this!

  123. @ dee:
    As an epilogue on this subject, I know the handshake because my dad, who was not a mason, showed it me. In his business dealings he often experienced it, and would sometimes give the sign back as it made his opposite number be more cooperative!

  124. Ken wrote:

    You surprise me a bit there.

    I may not be conveying my thoughts clearly. I am heading out to a meeting. But let me try this.

    There are Christians who oppose their kids going to to trick or treat because they see Halloween as participating in the occult. The people who do it are just having fun and trying not to gain weight on the candy. It does not mean to them what it means to those who see the occult aspect.

    There are people in churches who mouth prayers and liturgy who do not actually believe it. They find the repetition comforting. To say they are Christians because they mouth liturgy might be jumping the gun.

    I am trying to say that many members of the Masons don’t give a rip about deep theological underpinnings and do it for the camaraderie.

  125. Preston wrote:

    whatever means they adjudicate the question, whether they believe that person to be a Christian.

    And they could be wrong. Whether or not they *adjudicate* anything doesn’t mean the Almighty agrees with them. i also believe that 9Marks has *adjudicated* stuff that indicates that their method of adjudication is quite faulty.

  126. @ dee:
    Thanks for the clarfication. Since I am not angling for an argument, let me say I agree with you in that some Christians can get super-spiritual (in Kenspeak) about things like Halloween and become unnecessarily fearful. Some charismatics go overboard on this. The meat offered to idols prinicple perhaps covers this angle.

    Nevertheless there are spiritual forces of wickedness found behind these things, and the opposite and all too frequent attitude of the evangelical cerebral doctrine dominated type church let alone liberal wishy-washy type is to be blind to this. Idols are indeed ‘nothings’, yet it is possible to ‘fellowship’ with demons, an ambivalence found in the bible itself.

    So the external activities may be in themselves harmless, but they can connect with an internal reality of spiritual wicknedness that can ensnare or oppress believers. I’ve heard testimony of this I would accept, even though these days I am a tad more wary of such claims.

    Masonry is a bit old hat. There is much more infiltation of doctrines of demons in the New Age type stuff that gained entrance to the church through gullible charismatics.

  127. Ken wrote:

    So the external activities may be in themselves harmless, but they can connect with an internal reality of spiritual wicknedness that can ensnare or oppress believers.

    I heard an excellent sermon on this once by a presbyterian pastor, not specifically related to masons but using this concept. He used the term that some things can establish a bridgehead for some bad stuff to follow.

  128. That is solo unChristian…zooey111 wrote:

    Preston Bennett wrote:
    Full disclosure: I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. My comment is that I find it inappropriate, no matter how much disdain you may have for an individual, to twist their name around to make it sound like a slang term for the buttocks.
    Piffle!
    Pshaw!!
    PFUI!!!!!!
    Here, Preston: Myhiney, Myhiney, Myhiney.
    Put that in your pipe & smoke it, whilst you drink the Kool-Aid.
    Be thankful I don’t have a handy-dandy button to create BIG letters; I would have made them the size of a smallish Shetland pony.

  129. The only authority a “church” has over someone only goes so far as one is willing to believe in its authority to do so. Salvation is between Christ and the believer and the personal relationship the two have. The church has no authority to condemn men…imo…

    This is my two cents worth…but do you have change for a $10?