“Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers met together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become 'unity' conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.” ― A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God link
This is a two for one post day.
1. 9Marks Thinks They Might Could Let Their People Go-Maybe
Some history on leaving a 9Marks Church
Jonathan Leeman/9Marks recently wrote What to Say When People Leave the Church for Bad Reasons. This group seems to spend an inordinate amount of time parsing the gospel™ rules dealing with the comings and goings of church members. That observation alone should raise a red flag or two.
This article was posted at The Gospel Coalition which heartily endorses all things 9Marks. (Don't deny it, guys.) Before I begin, please let me refer you to some articles written by TWW about the reason why we call 9Marks "The Hotel California of the Gospel Gliteratti." (Special shout out to Gram3.) It is the opinion of TWW that 9Marks is hesitant to allow members to freely leave their churches even if their conscience demands it.
Once you sign that confounded contract, you must always leave their way or you could find yourself the subject of discussion on whether you should be disciplined.Their decision could be announced to the entire church who gets to vote on why you, thoughtful Christian person, should be put *under discipline.* (Say this with an *oh-so-serious,* sad face with a dirge playing in the background.) This is a word to the wise. If you do not want to be trapped, do not sign these legally enforceable documents.
9Marks has a strict church discipline contract (covenant, whatever) which they will apply if you do not agree with them on an ill-defined number of discipline worthy acts. We have spelled this out in Todd Wilhelm's (the guy from Dubai) situation: My, My Dubai: 9Marks Plays Hardball, Capitol Hill Baptist Church/9Marks: The *Hotel California* of Church Discipline, Jonathan Leeman/Mark Dever: The Keys Are the Key to Understanding Their Words, Is Mark Dever’s View on Church Membership More Painful Than a Root Canal? and several more.(Just search 9Marks or Mark Dever at TWW).
A new missive on how to deal with people leaving your church.
For those of you who already know this or haven't got time to read our documentation, leaving a 9Marks/CHBC type church can be fraught with peril as your gospel™ authority figures step on in to let you know that you are not doing things correctly. So, when I saw this new piece by Leeman, I read it with great interest. Could it be they are loosening up on their restrictions? If they are, they ain't talking and, instead, appear to be attempting to present an image of reasonable accommodation.
Jonathan Leeman is a pleasant fellow, and I am sure he means well. But the following statement caused me to choke on my kapusta (pronounced kah POOS ta – a lovely Russian/Polish cabbage dish that I make frequently).
Bad response: “You’re not allowed to leave.”
Jesus did not give churches authority to keep people from leaving and joining another church. He did give them the authority to discipline a professing Christian for unrepentant sin, but unless your congregation is ready to discipline, I don’t think you have the authority to insist they stay. That said, I do think it’s legitimate to say “no” to resignation when an individual has no plans to join another church. That is a case of walking into unrepentant sin.
Better response: “Unless the church is moving toward discipline, you are free to leave.”
You don’t have to tell a person leaving for a bad reason that he is wise to do so. But I do think we must remember that it’s allowed.
It may not work out the way Leeman claims.
It is my opinion that 9Marks races faster to implement church discipline than Tulip, our pug dog, runs to chase our nightly visitors, the raccoon and possum. You need to understand this before you ever sign one of those doggone church contracts. Read Todd's story above. He was in line to be a deacon at UCCD. He found out their bookstore was pushing CJ Mahaney books. Todd has been a consistent supporter of the SGM victims and was a former member of an SGM church. He said that he could not, in good conscience, support the church selling Mahaney's books. Well, for sure, that wasn't going to change since Mark Dever is BFFs with Mahaney. So Todd, asserting his right to conscience, quit the church.
Except, they wouldn't let him. You see, you must immediately join a 9Marks approved church or you will be put on their *care list*. Snort when you hear that phrase. The care list means they are moving to discipline you if you don't get your act in gear.
These next comments by Leeman are even funnier.
…I don’t think you have the authority to insist they stay.
…But I do think we must remember that it’s allowed.
Yeah, he's got that right. If they don't let them go, it will be considered a *hostage situation* and could involve figuring out how to deal with a SWAT team in a gospel™ manner.
He also says
I do think it’s legitimate to say “no” to resignation when an individual has no plans to join another church. That is a case of walking into unrepentant sin.
Not so fast. Todd was planning on joining another church but he wanted to do some deep thinking about that. He also wanted to make a statement that he was leaving over what he believed to be an unjust situation. That is not allowed once you sign away your rights of conscience in their *gotcha coming and going contract.*
Also, in the above links you will find one woman who may get the retroactive boot in DC because she is now attending (hasn't joined) a Methodist church in which she is healing from the pain of 9Marks. But, that is not allowed. It is the wrong church with the wrong doctrine, and she must join an approved church. We will watch the results with interest.
Crazy little thing called love
Now Leeman offers some excellent advice, and I truly wish that 9Marks/CHBC/ UCCD/Mark Dever would actually take the following to heart. It has do with a crazy little thing called love. As hard as I try, I see precious little love in the way Todd and others have been treated.
… Help them to see that God’s Word prioritizes things like preaching the Word, centering everything on the gospel of Christ, and wise and loving leadership.
…If people are leaving for immature reasons, you might encourage them to reconsider; but you also might affirm your love for them, tell them they’re welcome to come back, and bless them as they go.
Continuing to choke on my kapusta, I howled at this comment that was left by a true believer. I am sure Todd is reading this. Todd, did you do this when they were keeping you on the *care list?*
Let's see, people have left the church over a right of conscience issue and they should still give them the money? I find that a fascinating insight into what really bothers some churches when people leave.
Finally, one guy in the comments succinctly summed up the best piece of advice in this whole missive.
2. David Moore challenges The Gospel Coalition.
I highly recommend that our readers look at this post A Few Thoughts For My Friends in The Gospel Coalition.
Moore has some pointed comments directed at TGC. First, he introduces himself and comes up with a term for which I have been searching… Consensual Christianity
Theologically, I have sympathies with a “Calvinistic” understanding of salvation, but a deeper commitment to the “consensual Christianity” that theologians like Wesleyan Tom Oden have written about. This is the Christianity which finds its anchor in “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” I am a graduate of both Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Towards the end of my time at Trinity, my thesis adviser, Wayne Grudem, asked me to be the first executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I was honored to be asked, but turned Wayne down.
I am pleased that he turned down the job with CBMW where he would have learned that it is just another TGC redux. I am thrilled that he defined a phrase that Christians, both Calvinistic and Arminian, can use in order find common ground. However, common ground finding is not allowed in TGC unless you are one of the approved gospel™ men.
Moore brings up the dead silence of TGC during many of the years that Mark Driscoll's antics were being observed by many. He quotes Tim Keller who said:
He was really important — in the Internet age, Mark Driscoll definitely built up the evangelical movement enormously. But the brashness and the arrogance and the rudeness in personal relationships — which he himself has confessed repeatedly — was obvious to many from the earliest days, and he has definitely now disillusioned quite a lot of people.
I would like to remind our readers of another example of gospel™ silence…CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. Tim Keller was rather quiet during both Mark Driscoll's rise and SGM's debacle. Moore is also perplexed that John Piper was, and still is, supportive and silent.
I find it perplexing why John Piper has no regrets for Mark Driscoll being invited to speak for the ministry of Desiring God.
Moore says that TGC and its members have:
the penchant to either not answer valid criticisms and/or marginalize those who raise serious concerns.
His first example is Carl Trueman
Carl Trueman used to be one of the most quoted people on blogs and twitter accounts sympathetic to the Gospel Coalition. Now his name rarely comes up. If you don’t pay attention to these sorts of things it is because of Carl’s writings on Ref 21 and in First Things where he detailed his own concerns about the ways in which the Gospel Coalition seemed to mishandle various matters.
Here is a link to one of Trueman's critiques.
Then he points out how Tim Keller is never critiqued by TGC .
Denny Burk approvingly linked (Dec. 6, 2014) to a Doug Wilson post. In that post, Wilson detailed several criticisms with the Biologos Forum for its less than biblical understanding of origins. I decided to raise a question on Burk’s Blog:
I truly would appreciate the answer to the following question: Why do you guys make so much of this issue [age of the earth, Adam and Eve, etc.], but never call out Tim Keller? I have watched Al Mohler go hard after people who hold to theistic evolution, but Keller is left untouched.
Denny did not respond
However, I would like to add another observation that might explain this. Keller has remained remarkably quiet when TGC goes after theistic evolutionists, etc. I believe that the reason Carl Trueman was marginalized is because he dared to speak publicly on issues like Mark Driscoll. Here is another example that proves my point-the Tullian Tchividjian debacle.
Jonathan Merritt wrote a fascinating article The troubling trends in America’s ‘Calvinist revival’ that supports many of Moore's points and examples.
Tullian Tchividjian is pastor and blogger at The Gospel Coalition who has been challenging neo-Calvinists from within the ranks. He announced just this morning that what he calls “the powers that be” were forcing him to take his blog elsewhere. The decision was less than ideal, he said, and is a result of having “some differences with some of the other contributors.” Tchividjian said the decision was “probably over due” since “the messaging of The Gospel Coalition has morphed over the last seven years.”
Tullian committed the unforgivable sin by publicly disagreeing with TGC on the issue of grace and law. You can read our assessment of that here.
Moore challenges TGC to open up the doors to those who do not always agree with them and who might even, uh oh, critique them.
The Gospel Coalition would be better served by having people like Fred Sanders, Roger Olson, and Scot McKnight involved. Oh yeah, and that Trueman guy as well. He is a very committed Calvinist! Let me close with a challenge I have posed in various places. It always engenders deafening silence. I am still waiting to hear a name given. Here goes: Name a person within a Christian organization who raised a serious concern, and was not booted or marginalized for doing so. Even though Charles Barkley is friends with both Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots, and Coach Belichick, good old Chuck was more than willing to question whether they were telling the truth about “Deflategate.” Evangelical organizations, churches, parachurches, and schools are in desperate need of people like Charles Barkley. As Peter Vardy says, “It takes courage to stand up to your enemies. It takes more courage to stand up to your friends.”
I would say that the chances of this happening are slim to none. There are far too many people in TGC who cannot even take the critique of people like The Deebs, Janet Mefferd, etc. They must have a full time blocking bouncer. However, surely they know I still follow them with my super secret email, don't they? It must be nice and cozy in their gospel™ bubble. That's how Jesus did it, didn't he? Blocked people from coming to him…Wait…
A reminder to 9Marks – Love can be quite wonderful.
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 11:1-12:8 Mark 5:21-43 Psalm 38:1-22 Proverbs 10:8-9
Uno?
It’s good to see that other people are noticing and questioning the actions of the ‘powers that be.’
The Neo-Cals can’t handle criticism…not in the least. And they often won’t bad mouth you to your face, but instead, close ranks and attack within you behind your back.
I wrote a blog about 3 weeks ago on my site in which I said that both Arminianians and Reform both are saved….they can’t handle the idea that there are no real salvation in isms. Only through Christ.
K.D. wrote:
There can be only One True Way.
@ Estelle:
You are the *one!*
5th? I prefer the Queen version, despite the fact that that will get me in trouble with just about every evangelical/funnymentalist.
@ Dan from Georgia:
I like Elvis’ version but none of the videos did much. I, too, like Queen’s version and you are correct about the problems that I might encounter if I posted it. I cause enough trouble as it is.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
” The One True Way” reminds me of a story…shortly after I retired from teaching, I co-hosted a radio program in East Texas. The station owner hated preachers who were the ” Answer to Everything.” He told us one night after the show that he ” hoped to go to Hell just to see the ” One Way” minsters being thrown into the pit. ”
He lost money giving preachers a break-even time on Sunday mornings….and over 75% owned him money….many of them Baptists.
Our former pastor liked to quote Jonathan Leeman — especially after we left! “Stop calling yourself a Christian if you make a habit of living independently from the local church.” Do they not see how ridiculous this sounds?
@ Another one:
I am so glad that you escaped. That pastor sounds desperate. In fact, I believe that this stuff is born of desperation.
K.D. wrote:
One of the mods over at Internet Monk said the same thing. He used to work in the advertising section of a magazine or radio station. They’d been burned by Born-Agains so much that “Christians = Cash In Advance, NO EXCEPTIONS”. Said they’d extend credit to a crackhead before they would a Born-Again Bible-Believer(TM).
Dan from Georgia wrote:
Queen rocks. No apologies.
I hadn’t thought of it as being an escape Dee, but now that you mention it…. Actually it was an escape times two. He was fired so we went back. Slow learners I guess but we loved the people. Unfortunately a family crisis resulted in the board supporting a wolf in sheep’s clothing instead of our family. As agonizing as it has been for us, we can see that it’s all about law and very little grace. I guess “escape” is the right word after all!
Another one wrote:
You learn something new each time. Bet you can spot problems a lot more quickly now.
“Help them to see that God’s Word prioritizes things like preaching the Word, centering everything on the gospel of Christ, and wise and loving leadership.”
Sheesh! They really believe that Jesus Christ prioritized preaching and leadership? (they get to define what is wise and loving, don’t they)
I just cannot get over the arrogance of their believing their preaching is the most important event of your week. (Many of them actually say this but call it preaching the Gospel) They are so full of themselves. Thank God there are no church/state magistrates !
Oh, oh, oh…I almost forgot. They really believe you should continue to give them money after you leave if you are not in another approved church? Seriously? I cannot even fathom the bubble they live in to say this with a straight face. They need a reality check.
@ Lydia:
I can’t fathom ever being in a church led by men (or women) who believe and teach this stuff.
@ Janey:
Darn right Queen rocks!
@ Bridget:
My favorite line
” I don’t think you have the authority to insist they stay.”
My answer…”Ya think?”
@ dee:
Keep causing the trouble Dee! It is VERY MUCH appreciated by so many people!
@ dee:
We’ll have to call them the “Gospel Gliteratti Enforcers.”
Bridget wrote:
Sometimes people are in a church that is “evangelized” by a YRR enthusiast who comes to the church to fill an empty pulpit. People in the church are drawn to the movement and they encourage others to call a pastor who claims to be gospel-centered and who is a good teacher. It isn’t always apparent to everyone what the church is getting until it is too late.
In some cases there is an overt takeover, and in some cases there is a more subtle intentional colonization by a group of like-minded individuals who introduce ideas to people gradually and in a non-threatening manner. People either get onboard or get marginalized or leave quietly. Sometimes the church splits over it. I’ve seen both scenarios. So, when you wake up one Sunday morning and realized what has happened, what can you do?
I am undecided whether Jonathan Leeman thinks that the maturity level of the average pewpeon is age 5 or 6. In general the 9Marks guys write from an incredibly paternalistic and condescending manner as if they need to make up for the Holy Spirit’s deficiencies or something.
Lydia wrote:
Ha! The reality check would bounce right off them, I’m quite sure. 🙂
@ Dan from Georgia:
I just remembered something to tell you.
When we first started blogging and were making fun of the Driscoll macho garbage (almost 6 years ago now) there were few people reading our blog. We put up The Village Peoples” Macho Man.”
Here’s the link. https://youtu.be/AO43p2Wqc08
There were a few people that were not amused. However, The Deebs laughed for weeks.
As far as the woman in DC and any other member of a 9 Marks church, what can they really do if they don’t “approve” of where a former member is going to church. And, if a new church really cares about this, than that is telling of them as well.
Crazy Little Thing Called Love always reminds me of the aerobic routine that we had to prepare in 9th grade P.E. class. Leg warmers and all!
Lydia wrote:
Well, some of them belittle the non-committed as merely “dating” the church. Then they use marriage language to describe church membership and the relationship of members to the church. So, maybe, tithing after you leave is analogous to, let’s say, alimony? That concept would be consistent, no?
…I don’t think you have the authority to insist they stay.
…But I do think we must remember that it’s allowed.
“Yeah, he’s got that right. If they don’t let them go, it will be considered a *hostage situation* and could involve figuring out how to deal with a SWAT team in a gospel™ manner.
I can see an article detailing how SWAT hostage situation protocol has a low view of the authority of scripture.
Steve Scott wrote:
When you pair this with patriarchy, it gets terrifying.
From the main body of the Post:
I truly would appreciate the answer to the following question: Why do you guys make so much of this issue [age of the earth, Adam and Eve, etc.], but never call out Tim Keller? I have watched Al Mohler go hard after people who hold to theistic evolution, but Keller is left untouched.
Denny did not respond
I truly am surprised that Burk even went after Biologos. His usual two focal points are homosexuality and gay-marriage.
The powers that be are actually have no power really. Good to remember. They need to be reminded from time to time that they can’t control the Spirit nor contain the Holy One.
On a less sarcastic note, it sickens me still how committed Western Christianity is to dotting theological i’s and crossing behavior(u)ral t’s yet forgets it really is all about love…and fruits…which are actually not grammatically correct theology, but instead are shown naturally by spiritual fruit.
Maturity has been replaced by “knowledge” which is being used as a reason for pride.
It’s also sad to see how when women challenge holier than thou men, how quickly they get put down for being female rather than treated as equal members of the Body of Christ. I’m really “Done” as they say, but what is silly about the divisions in Christianity is that no one can divide us from the love of Christ.
If we love Him, are found in Him, etc, it really doesn’t matter what people who disagree with us think of us. It’s actually just sad for them. They are missing out on the diversity and beauty of the bride when we could all be learning and growing in Christ.
People who think they cannot think outside the box may find themselves stuck in an ever-increasingly small living space. I guess what I’m saying is I’m moving through anger at the ignorance of many self-appointed leaders towards pity for the lack of spiritual understanding too many of them possess. If they truly loved the God I love, it wouldn’t matter what their friends think or say. They would freely say what needed to be said and do what needs to be done. His glory is everything; image is nothing.
If any of these men read this and actually for once hear it, wanting to humble themselves and change, they can start by contacting an abuse victim (whether spiritual or SGM) and sitting down with them to hear their story, no cameras, no publicity, no blogging, just listen. Just shut up and listen.
It would be a start. As things stand, we are seeing a deep spiritual apostasy within the church. It’s not out there in our government; it’s in house in us. We don’t need better leaders or better understanding of theology; we need humility and more love of God.
Obviously something I read triggered something… Sorry that previous comment’s a bit long. Delete if nec. Suffice it to say that to expect someone to give money to a church they don’t agree with on conscience is nuts. In such cases, it is an issue of Whose are we and Who do we follow? So done with this nonsense. It’s all about control. Sad.
Yep. I think your last sentence says something about the level of control some leaders like to maintain and to which they expect to be entitled. It really irritated me whenever Mark Driscoll referred to his congregation like they were his kids. Uh, no. We’re all under one Shepherd, with Christ as the head of the church. I mean, do these guys even hear themselves when they claim to be Reformed (which implies there was a Reformation)?
@ Gram3:
Kathi wrote:
I have wondered the same thing. If someone decides to leave without their church’s permission, what are they going to do? Sue the church member? Or show up at their house on Sunday morning with a posse to make sure they’re dressed and on time for Sunday School?
@ Melody:
It’s as if money is the most important element in the relationship between churches and membership . . . no? That says more than 9Marks folks want people to know, except it’s too late. We know. 🙁
Lydia wrote:
Amen and amen Lydia. I bless Providence that the old dead white men who founded this great Nation of ours took steps to ensure that these kinds of men will never acquire the power the so desperately covet.
@ Gram3:
Oh, I understand how people get there, and I have empathy and hope for them to see clearly. The key word in my comment is “I.” Being a Christian for 35 years, “I” won’t participate in such a church. 😉
@ Bridget:
exactly. And money is used in some of the most wasteful and ridiculous ways in many American churches with the motive to draw people in rather than to lovingly serve people. It’s just wrong.
Melody wrote:
Money and books sales, etc… so many issues so little time…I remember saying in the days of everyone being blocked by TGC for #IstandwithSGMvictims that it seems some @TGC were more about the Crossway than the Cross. Unfortunately how TGC treated people who stood up to their ridiculous party line, mishandled that debacle by blocking dissent rather than learning from it, and the pervasive lack of true care or concern for “ordinary” believers shown then and since just confirms my suspicions. It’s heartbreaking, despite my sarcasm.
@ Gram3:
“…pastor who claims to be gospel-centered…”
++++++++++++
all this emphasis on ‘gospel-centered’…. what other kind of ‘-centered’ can any Christian person or organization possibly be?
sort of reminds me of this chicken I saw in the meat department: “all-natural chicken” (‘guess we can’t claim hormone-free, but maybe we can make people believe it’s the only natural chicken around.’) As if all the other chicken in the aisle are imposters.
“gospel-centered”….. guess it’s a desperate attempt at market share.
@ Dan from Georgia:
“5th? I prefer the Queen version, despite the fact that that will get me in trouble with just about every evangelical/funnymentalist.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
who gives a flying fick what they think. drink deeply of the music you love.
it sucks that a person can’t enjoy living their life doing what they love to do without the shadowy specter of fear/shame/guilt looming over them from their time in church culture. (not that this is necessarily you, Dan from Georgia)
“Help them to see that God’s Word prioritizes things like preaching the Word, centering everything on the gospel of Christ, and wise and loving leadership.”–Jonathan Leeman
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
does it, now.
good grief, is everyone high over there in TGCland?
I think their brains are suffering from lack of oxygen, breathing each other’s exhales.
elastigirl wrote:
Heh, that, or they’re all related…
Here is the latest.. 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/forgiveness-reconciliation-the-story-of-mary-johnson-and-oshea-israel-in-minneapolis/
@ Melody:
You have to remember that many Pastors view their congregation as their own personal ATM. When I see churches consumed with growth pleading for money when they can’t disciple or take care of people in their midst, that deeply troubles me.
Forget theistic evolution. I think the better question is why they’re getting away with approvingly linking to a known patriocentrist, plagiarist and AIDS denialist who married an innocent young woman to a pedophile.
Lydia wrote:
Really! When I was struck by conscience ultimately leading me to take my family and flee a neo – con church, stopping my giving was the FIRST thing I did. It was like I knew I could no longer support that place but hadn’t worked up the courage/energy/whatever to walk out the door. We didn’t get the “keep giving til you join another church” bit. What we got was “is the 6 weeks notice you’re giving really allowing you to ‘leave well’ considering the commitments you’ve made to the church?” In other words, “your wife takes care of all that unglamorous, messy organizing of children’s ministry (for free btw) and who’s gonna do that now?!”
All of these problems leaving these churches reminds me of stories I’ve read about leaving the Mormon Church. There’s a website that tells you how to do it – mormon no more. Maybe we need a website to assist people in leaving a 9 Marks church?
My hand is raised. I have a question. When you state that these contracts/covenants are legally enforceable, what do mean? How does a church keep someone from leaving? I’m sure you probably have answered this before, but please indulge me.
I am trying to wrap my head around the “keep tithing” comment (by Mark McNeil); was that a satirical retort or was the person being serious. If he was being serious, then it reveals where the heart of this movement is–cash flow and controlling your money.
Steve Scott wrote:
That is the funniest statement of the week!
Muff Potter wrote:
Well, as gay marriage becomes the law in many states, they have to have something else to be grouchy about.Notice how they are not out there protesting against people living together?
Dan from Georgia wrote:
Not this one. It is the best version bar none.
Steve Scott wrote:
BWAHAHA!!! I love it!!
Eagle wrote:
Furtick Mansions and juicing books onto the NYT best-seller list takes Big Bucks.
Gram3 wrote:
This (the more subtle colonization) is exactly what happened to my beloved church. On the surface, the new pastor is a great, Bible-focused pastor, and a lot of people like him. But he’s always going on and on about how everyone else is bad. Psychiatry is bad, charismatics are bad, anyone who doesn’t hold to a literal six-day interpretation of the Genesis creation account is bad, Catholics are bad. Boy oh BOY, are Catholics bad. We could hardly get through a single sermon without some reference to the badness of Catholics.
I finally (quietly) walked away. It almost broke my heart because I’d been at that church for decades and loved it, but I’d had it. I’ve been down that “everyone but us is bad” road before, and I’ve seen what it’s like. I’m not going there again.
Haitch wrote:
“If your family tree does not fork…”
@ Chris Fischer:
Congrats Chris! Welcome to the Free West!
(Most jobs only require 2 weeks notice. But the people have “rights” at work. At church only tbe leaders have “rights” because they get to decide)
@ Reader:
The new– very young– YRR pastor at my former church has only been in that position 9 mos and has conned them out of 2 vacations, 4 conference trips and 3 paid trips overseas for church planting and missions. He is rarely there!
M. Joy wrote:
Clay Crouch wrote:
What that means is this. They can hold meetings at the church to discuss your apostasy, your wife, your kids whatever. Then, they call call other preachers in town to beware of the disciplined individuals. Read some of the stuff at 9 Marks. They have a few articles on how to call other churches to *report* on you.
This could be considered harassment. However, if you have signed one of these covenants/contracts, you have little recourse if they trash you all over the place. There have been court cases on this very issue.
Now, there is an out. We have published, on numerous occasions how to leave your church. You must send them a certified letter telling them you are no longer a member as of a particular date. I am providing the link at the end of the comment-scroll down towards the end of the post for the process.
Once you have notified them that you are no longer a member and will take legal action if they continue to discuss you in any public meeting or by calling people in the community like pastors. A recent court judgement against a church who went after a woman who wrote such a letter shows that this process will extricate you .
Now, let me tell you what happened to us. We left a church over what we believed to be the mismanagement of a pedophile situation. We were not under discipline. We had not signed a contract. Our former pastor (SBC) spoke with the pastor of an an Anglican church that we had decided to join. We were then told we could not join that church until we had repaired the *relationship* with the other church.
My husband stormed over to the former church and discussed how Jeff Anderson had advised us and that he would be the next one making a call on the church if they pulled that nonsense ever again. Needless to say, everyone backed down. We were offered membership in the Anglican church which we turned down. Can you imagine ever trusting that church again?
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/01/how-to-minimize-damage-when-resigning-from-a-mark-driscoll-like-church/
dee wrote:
Thanks. Now I have that song going through my head.
M. Joy wrote:
They can’t *force* you to show up, but they can tell people not to contact you, that you’re being divisive, that you are not obeying the elders, etc. It’s tough to leave a church, and it’s even tougher when they bring pressure or punishment through people you love.
Haitch wrote:
The contracts with Crossway might tell us a lot about why certain people do certain things. TgC is a Crossway “partner.”
There is a new post up on albertmohler dot com titled “The Importance of Words and Our Confession of Faith.” If anybody has any idea that these people are not dead serious about confessions and contracts please read this article. He even goes so far as to decry any mental reservation when it comes to signing a confession of faith and denies that the individual retains right of dissent (my words), but that is what it sounds like to me. He quotes Machen as basically saying they they and they only are actually the true christianity. When he got to ‘we live by words and we die by words” I could barely finish the article.
Anyhow he is talking about seminaries and how they have to do in order (apparently) to get the rest of the world in line, which is mostly sign on the dotted line, quit thinking, forsake intellectual autonomy and apparently denounce everybody who does not do that.
To which I personally say: Try and make me. I would have quoted Clint Eastwood but that has been done too much already.
dee wrote:
I think it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who pointed the finger at Evangelicals and said they have little right to criticise abortion and homosexuality which Jeus himself never directly mentioned until they have addressed the scandal of divorce and remarriage in their own ranks, which he did mention.
Now the church cannot wait until each Christian is personally sorted out before giving its diagnosis of the world around it and God’s answer to this, but it trades in a large amount of its credibility if it seeks to make people followers of Jesus, but has areas in its life where it doesn’t follow him itself.
dee wrote:
I would have done the same thing. Our experience, however has been different. When young daughter went from sbc mega to episcopalian she filled in the papers and the secretary at the episcopal church said that they knew how the baptists do but that they would notify them by e-mail as a matter of courtesy only while not expecting a reply. SBC mega then said and did nothing–wise choice on their part.
Nancy wrote:
Quote: “The teaching imparted to seminarians will shortly be inflicted upon congregations…”
Boy, ain’t that the truth!
Ken wrote:
If he said that then Tutu was way off base. The divorce/ remarriage issues are probably out of control, but none of it terminates an innocent life with dismemberment no less, so it does not remotely compare with abortion. His comment was hard-hearted at best if he thinks that little of the unborn. As to the other, Russell Moore wrote a short article on his web site not too terribly long ago as to whether divorce/ remarriage is the same thing as homosexuality as far as the church is concerned. One may or may not agree with Moore’s conclusions about this issue but it is worth reading either way.
Hester wrote:
That’s not true! John Piper says that Doug Wilson may be surrounded by people who are dumb, but he “gets” the Gospel. And if John Piper says so …
😉
Gram3 wrote:
With the proviso you haven’t actually been bolshy and stirring things up, a church that treats you like that probably isn’t worth attending, it’s attitude is wrong. People do on occasions take your leaving a church as a kind of personal insult.
In a church I helped lead a very long time ago, being in a house-church grouping with something of a reputation for tending to be a tad authoritarian, I explicitly stated at least once that members were at liberty to go and visit other churches, indeed were encouraged to do so to widen their Christian experience (there is only one body of Christ), and had the ‘right’ to leave if they so chose. Attendance at a particular church is a freewill decision between the believer and God.
If someone does decide to leave, I think the leaders have a right to chat about it and find out why, but it is not for them to pressurise anyone into staying if they don’t want to. It’s a good example of Christian liberty.
@ dee:
Thanks for clearing that up. For the life of me, I couldn’t imagine that a church could sue you for damages in civil court over a breach of a membership covenant. What I still don’t understand is how does signing a church covenant (as Episcopalians, our membership is based on our baptismal vows) abrogate defamation laws? I find that hard to believe that in situations where there are signed membership covenants church leadership can slander and libel any member who has signed a covenant and is under church discipline?
Sorry about your bad experience with your local Anglican church.
@ Nancy:
I think you might have missed his point. It’s not that the church should remain silent in the face of abortion, it is that is loses credibility if it attacks that whilst simultaneously ignoring gross sin in its own ranks. I only heard this second-hand, but I thought it ought to make us uncomfortable with our level of discipleship.
It’s the old thing of giving the impression that God condemns sin in the unbeliever, but condones it in the believer.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Maybe we should introduce a standard for “Good Pastoral Living”. The main problem is that of naming the units:
1 Furtick = 2 Brunsons = 4 Mohlers
1 EdYoungJr = 2 Gaines = ??
If only they would open their books so that we could properly establish the correct hierarchy, that would further the cause of the Gospel greatly, I’m sure.
Gus wrote:
Let’s call it the gold standard.
Dee
Wow – Kapusta… I love kapusta…
And kielbasi
And pierogi
And golumpki
And garachki
This whole discussion astounds me. In my decades of church membership, including being a deacon, an elder and church council moderator, I’ve never had to sign a document, let alone a legal document regarding membership. Is this a southern thing? or a fundamentalist/evangelical thing?
Puzzled in Minnesota
Ken wrote:
I don’t think that I missed the point, because these arguments have been all over the place, loud and public, front and center and done to death. The people who think like that and make that argument have been quite open about it. Which is why Moore officially addressed it.
And it is not about believers vs unbelievers, unless you think that christians don’t have abortions or are not homosexual. Or else you think that divorce and remarriage are limited to church people.
@ RollieB:
I have not been asked to do it either. And I live in the south. This, I think, is relatively recent in its spread to evangelical churches and I think it comes from the usual suspects. I would use gram3’s terminology if I could remember how to spell it, but you get the picture.
Thank you, Nancy.
Dee
Yup – You write…
“The Gospel Coalition which heartily endorses all things 9Marks. (Don’t deny it, guys.)”
Kevin DeYoung at TGC just did a post…
““Nine Marks Of An Unhealthy Church”
And seemed to get lots of comments NOT favorable to “The Gospel Gliteratti” 😉
Looks like lots of folks, today, are NOT buying what TGC is selling…
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/03/10/9-marks-of-an-unhealthy-church/
Nancy wrote:
On second thought they were perhaps glad to see her go since she has broken almost every rule in the new book of rules. She is divorced. Her adopted children are chinese. She has an advanced degree and teaches is a public (excuse that dirty word here) high school. And she does not have a blond pony tail, a minivan or plastic surgery. Yes, I am convinced, they probably thought good riddance to bad rubbish. Not that I have an attitude problem you know.
Dan from Georgia wrote:
Solidarity, brother!
@ Lydia:
“The new– very young– YRR pastor at my former church…”
+++++++++++
how young?
Corbin wrote:
True enough. I was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned at my former 9 Marks church where I had been a member for 8+ years. My “crime”? I had inadvertently discovered, while doing legal research for a prosecutor, that a new church member was a registered sex offender on Megan’s List. The sex offender is a friend of the pastors/elders and they have protected him, fast tracked him in to positions of leadership, not told parents/adults, and even invited him to be a volunteer at the summer children’s evangelistic basketball camp for 1-week where believers and unbelievers entrust their children to us!
The pastors/elders insisted he was ‘harmless’ and they entrust their children to him. Idiots one and all! They even said he was ‘coming off Megan’s List’. His supervising law enforcement agency, the Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force, called that ‘all lies’ and ‘total lies’. Alarmed at my pastors/elders lying, the Sheriff contacted the California Attorney General which runs my state’s Megan’s List. The Attorney General said the story was ‘all lies’ and that everything that my pastors/elders told me about this sex offender was ‘a lie’.
The pastors/elders ordered me to NEVER have contact with the Sheriff or the Attorney General again and that I was ‘to obey my elders’ and ‘to submit’ to them because of my membership covenant. That’s a crime called ‘obstruction of justice’ (preventing a witness from cooperating with law enforcement, reporting, aiding with an arrest, prosecution, etc.).
In the United States, you can’t ‘contract’, including via a ‘membership covenant’, for illegal activity. That’s unenforceable in the U.S.
Since what my pastors/elders ordered me to do can get them prosecuted for a felony crimes (obstruction of justice, intimidating a witness) in California, and land them in state prison, I dropped the dime on them and turned them in! They are also legally mandated child abuse reporters.
Mark Devers and 9 Marks is beyond A JOKE, it’s a NIGHTMARE! That guy should step down. He’s not fit to serve. Controlling, authoritarian, disrespectful, treating grown adults like idiot children and trying to take the place of God and the Holy Spirit in their lives! And I frankly think the guy is lazy. He said churches should have membership covenants to keep members from exiting the ‘back doors’. OK, Mark, maybe your church members can’t stand you or your leaders if they find the need to exit without giving you an explanation. And why do they owe you one?
Mark says that you need to have Membership Covenants to keep people in your church and not on your membership rolls. What? Too lazy, Mark, to pick up the phone and call people, ask how they are doing, and if they consider themselves members or not? This guy has no healthy problem solving skills!!!
Michaela wrote:
Why not build a Wall with guard towers and minefields to keep them in?
Like the USSR did in Berlin?
Gus wrote:
“You know what a watt and an ampere are, but have you heard of a goering and a goebbels? A goering is the amount of metal that can be pinned to one man’s chest and a goebbels is the amount of nonsense a man can spout in one minute.”
— A.Hitler (source 1943 OSS psych profile)
There’s a church in my area with “Grace” in its name, and they have one of those covenants for members too. If you leave under unapproved circumstances, they show their grace by shunning you and telling all their members to do the same.
As for The Gospel Coalition and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I’ve been blocked by both on Twitter. It seems odd to me that an outfit that claims to want to spread the gospel and another that claims to want to teach people what’s biblical then take those steps to prevent someone like me (I assume they see me as someone needing to learn the gospel and Bible better) from reading their offered wisdom. It’s illogical and counter-intuitive, but there you have it.
Then again, The Gospel Coalition has gone so far as to delete a comment where I said I liked a blog post. The woman who wrote it spoke of how important it is for women to seek to learn more Bible knowledge from their pastors. All I said was that I thought it would be great for pastors (all male at TGC, of course) to listen to women who know their Bible well too. Deleted. (Is Hospitality Lacking at The Gospel Coalition?)
Gram3 wrote:
Which is why you need to keep social contacts/friends/interests OUTSIDE the church. Not only can they provide a reality check, they can be a fallback and escape route.
I remember reading online that within two years of Saying the Magic Words and joining one of these type of churches, almost all church members have NO social contacts or friends or activities outside of Church(TM). At which point the church has them by the short hairs with the threat of shunning, never mind the claims that they are now Outside God’s Protection and fair game for the Devil. Once kicked out and shunned, they are completely isolated and alone.
Clay Crouch wrote:
They most certainly can speak ill of you so long as it is done under the auspices of the church. Be careful with the word *defame.* This involves lying under US law. The harmed individual would have to show that the church is deliberately lying( in other words, they know they are lying) and that they are doing so in order to harm you.
So long as the church tells what they believe to be the truth and, you have signed up for church discipline, the courts are hesitant to get involved in church affairs,. So, they can discuss a member’s *sins* as the church defines sin (the courts leave that up to churches.) However, they cannot discuss the sins of a nonmember.
Here is a case we wrote abut on a post. I do not have time to look up the link. A church went after a member who was committing adultery with a member of another church. Said church not only notified the member’s church and place of business but did the same for the women who was a member of another church. Big suit. The church was found liable only for their actions towards the woman.
RollieB wrote:
@ Puzzled in MN.,
The whole Membership Covenant idea has been promoted by conservatives such as Mark Dever/9Marks at Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, DC, and John MacArthur at Grace Community Church in Southern California. They are spreading their ideas to seminaries.
The *Membership Covenant* idea was sold to me and my fellow church members by our pastors/elders as necessary to know who they *flock* was, that they had to give an account to the Lord for their *flock*, had to take care of us properly, etc.
We were told that *church discipline* had to be restored to the church as the sign of a healthy church (Mark Dever/9Marks language).
The reality is that Membership Covenants are used to exert authoritarian control over church members’ lives, to punish them for ANYTHING (even things that aren’t gross sins like sexual immorality/affairs), and to excommunicate and shun them for disagreeing their elders. Grown adults are treated like idiot children!
Ironically, the first church member that got excommunicated/shunned at my former church was a godly doctor who is a long-time personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s. (My former senior pastor is a graduate of MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary.) The godly doctor has been a faithful, loving husband to his wife for 40+ years, devoted, loving father, gave of his time and money to our church. His ‘crime’? He spoke to the pastors/elders about the Biblical errors in their leading the church. He was hauled into meetings and screamed at by them. They then trashed his good name before the entire church.
Next was a married woman who refused to go to our church any more with her husband because she disagreed with their teachings and their lack of accountability to ANY higher authority and their being and independent church. She moved out of the family home over the issue. She faced ‘discipline’ for that before a members only meeting. She wasn’t there. They trashed her name. She would not back down and disconnected her cell phone and email so no one could reach her and went to another church.
Finally, I was excommunicated/shunned for discovering during a legal research project that a fellow, new church member was a Megan’s List sex offender. The pastors/elders protect him and defend him because he’s their friend. They have fast-tracked him into leadership positions, not told parents/adults about him, said he was ‘coming off Megan’s List’ (The Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force called that ‘all lies’ and ‘total lies’ as did the California Attorney General’s Office which runs my state’s Megan’s List).
The pastors/elders ordered me to NEVER have contact with the Sheriff or the Attorney General again. That’s obstruction of justice and intimidating a witness, felony crimes in California that the pastors/elders can be arrested, prosecuted, and land in state prison for that! (It doesn’t matter if the ‘order’ comes from a criminal gang or from pastors/elders: It is a crime!) I dropped the dime on my pastors/elders and turned them in. They are legally mandated child abuse reporters, and can be arrested and prosecuted for NOT reporting.
They also rent space from another church and that church can be sued for my former church’s acts of negligence on their property, and that church is self-insured and is a large denomination who takes child safety very seriously.
These churches DO NOT practice ‘church discipline’ the way the Apostle Paul ordered that man who was having an affair with his step-mother be disciplined: confront him. Then, welcome him back.
Tim wrote:
Doesn’t that move make you laugh? They know you can access it through other means. Little do they know that I communicate with them regularly through a super secret email and different IP.
TGC and CBMW has bounced so many people, they must have a full-time enforcer. What are the boys afraid of?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
H.U.G.,
The irony about these conservative, fundamentalist churches and leaders is that they have far more in common with Communist regimes.
I just popped over at CBMW and found this
http://cbmw.org/public-square/complementarianism-as-a-movement/
Reading through the article, we will find that complementarianism is now a doctrine and should be an anchor in the evangelical church . . . no words.
Ken wrote:
Here’s some insight into the current state of the conservative Gospel Glitterati churches. If you ask a question, in private, of a pastor, you are by definition being bolshy. That’s because the pastor is deemed the central character in everything that goes on in the church.
9Marks and the PCA make a big deal about having multiple elders for accountability, and 9Marks makes a big deal about the congregation’s authority. But, the fact is that the pastor can do pretty much as he pleases because everyone is either so enamored of him or fears him. That’s just the fact.
Now, all that is if the quiet and discreet inquirer happens to be male. If said inquirer is female, then not only is she bolshy, but she is rebellious against authority as well. Every question is a bolshy and divisive question because the pastors do not want to answer questions, especially questions about the Bible, believe it or not. Further, the pastors do not believe that they have any responsibility to answer questions because Hebrews 13. Like the other “authority” verses, they twist Hebrews 13 until it “means” what they want it to mean and what they need it to mean in order to secure their dominant position.
The pewpeon’s role is to be volunteer labor and a financial silent partner. And a silent partner who signs away any returns as well.
Bridget wrote:
I just wish they would state that it’s ‘a doctrine of men’ and that all of the big name proponents of it have been accused of sexual misconduct, are being sued, etc. You know the old saying, “Consider the source.” We have boundaryless deviants telling us to have no boundaries. And we’re supposed to listen to that? Listen to them?
dee wrote:
Blocking on Twitter is hilarious. All you have to do to see the person who blocks you is sign out. You don’t even NEED a secret email.
Al mohler has become a bit of a sideshow with his rants about doctrine. He and his crew will flash the Nazarene signs for persecuted Christians, talk about the 21 martyrs in Egypt, etc., but if they were stateside he likely wouldn’t fellowship with them because they don’t fit his doctrine. It’s a different variant of him not publicly taking keller to task re: theistic evolution…he and his movement need the cultural and intellectual heft that keller brings, who else can they say has credibility in the new York metro area? While I disagree with about everything JD Hall writes, at least he’s consistent with what he believes….he’s come and said the 21 martyrs weren’t true Christians (again, I don’t agree at all with him on that point, but at least he’s consistent).
dee wrote:
And what does it say about their commitment to the gospel that they block people from reading what they have to say about the gospel?
@Michaela
Jaw-dropping experiences, these. If I had experienced that kind of churchianity I would have left earlier. I’m pleased to be free of that kind of BS. I must add, however, that shunning over a disagreement with church “leadership” happens in even the most progressive groups. It’s one of the reasons we are now happily free of the church. We now practice simple discipleship unencumbered.
dee wrote:
What the Bible actually says? That their inability to answer questions will become obvious to more and more people? That communication is two-way including disagreement? That someone might notice they are mere humans and not (super)men?
Bridget wrote:
I can make an argument that “Complementarianism” *is* an anchor to the evangelical church. But probably not in the way that he meant it. I am hearing more about younger women who are not buying that Comp=Gospel and from older women who already know that and are shocked to hear such thinking brought into the church.
RollieB wrote:
Amen to that RollieB. I, thankfully, still love the Lord Jesus Christ and I don’t blame Him. I blame these arrogant, pride-filled church leaders.
But I have found a whole group of devoted Christians (men and women) who got burned by the organized church and it is just heartbreaking. There is a whole ministry for those folks and their wounds! I regret that I ever thought critically of the folks who didn’t attend church.
I like David Hayward’s blog up in Canada, The Naked Pastor. (Naked as in “transparent”.) He’s a former pastor, blogger, and cartoonist.
There’s this brilliant cartoon: http://www.nakedpastor.com/2015/03/the-number-one-reason-why-the-church-doesnt-care-for-its-own-victims/
others here: http://www.nakedpastor.com/
Gram3 wrote:
The pewperson is not glued to the pew. The pewperson may be held in the pew like the circus elephant who is tied to a stake by only a rope, because the elephant thinks he cannot get free. This is sad at best and abusive at worst.
@ Michaela:
So that author lives in Louisville. Let me give some hope here. Whatever is going on out on seminary hill, it is small potatoes compared. I just got the latest alumni magazine about what is going on at U of L, and we still outnumber and out think the seminary folk exponentially. (And always could.) Yes. Louisville survives!
Michaela wrote:
When the only difference between Christians and Communists is which Party Line gets recited chapter-and-verse, there is something WRONG.
Nancy wrote:
That is certainly true. For obnoxious and strong-willed people like me, it is not so difficult to disregard the silliness and pretentiousness of the pastors/elders. However, in these churches people, including other leaders, are instructed not to contact the questioning or departing persons. They are *warned* about us. That merely irritates me, but for a lot of people it is devastating. They are afraid of losing their friends and, in some cases, their families. They have seen what happens to others who dare to say anything other that what is approved in advance, either explicitly or implicitly.
@ Gram3:
I believe you, but it is very different from my experience. (I believe this is not the first time I have said that about one thing or another.) I currently participate in two different churches, one methodist and one episcopalian. I am a member (a contributing member) of a methodist church and participate in a small group there with some of my favorite people, but I attend worship and some other activities at the episcopal church with my children. The methodist pastor and the episcopal priest and the small group members all know this and nobody has batted an eye. I am obviously a person in transition and everybody says nothing more than glad to have you and if we can help you let me know.
I thought this ought to be said because anybody reading this blog needs to know that not all churches function like the problem churches discussed here.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Amen to that.
Nancy wrote:
This is true. There are churches who do not buy into any of this, and have managed to fight off attacks from the Neo-Cals and others who would subversively take it over. My church is a case in point. The leaders are routinely questioned and held accountable and like it that way. But most of these churches are too small for most to bother with, because they don’t have all of the programs consumers expect and require individual involvement to function properly. For a whole lot of people, that is just too much work.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Spot on, H.U.G.!
Nancy wrote:
Spot on, H.U.G.!
@ Elizabeth Lee:
Only when you want to make a comment and you don’t want them to know who you are
Nancy wrote:
No doubt about that, either. At the same time, this is a powerful movement in conservative churches that is something relatively new, and I’ve been in lots of different conservative churches in different places over a long time. Church discipline was *never* applied the way *some* conservative churches are applying it today, and I *never, ever heard teaching on the Keys in conservative churches before the 9Marks/Gospel Glitterati crew became the Big New Thing.
Authoritarianism is new as a *movement* in conservative churches, though the IFB and Reformed 1689ers have always been authoritarian. We’ve always had control-freak pastors and flaky members. This movement among the broader conservative evangelical churches is something new.
I’ve never been shunned formally (but with plausible deniability) for asking questions until my former church decided to do that. From what I’ve heard, people are usually not formally commanded not to contact people like me, but they are rather *warned* by their “spiritual authorities” not to contact people who ask questions. And a surprising number of people are willingly, even joyfully, handing over their responsibility to be mature believers to these self-appointed spiritual authorities.
It’s great that you have found a solution that works. For people like me, this feels like we have been taken over by hostile forces. Even when SBC churches have not been taken over, their money is used to promote this nonsense. We have a Comp=Gospel or No-True-Gospel-Without-Comp guy as head of the IMB!
For better or worse, this is the weakness currently fashionable in conservative circles. Every flavor of church has vulnerabilities, so I’ll talk about conservative evangelicals because that’s what I am. Don’t have enough energy leftover to clean the attics of the Methodists and Episcopalians. 🙂
dee wrote:
Me thinks the ‘boyz’ are scared you-know-what-less of the primal power of women.
In other news, many of us on this side of the pond will be saddened to hear of the death, today, of Sir Terry Pratchett.
Pratchett, who was 66, had been suffering from Alzheimer’s for 8 years. For all of that time, he campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of the illness, to de-mystify it and to remove the stigma associated with it. His extraordinary dignity and good humour are exemplified by the manner in which, knowing the end was near, he tweeted his own obituary (bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-31859675)
In memoriam: Sir Terry Pratchett.
The Gospel Coalition is a Petri dish for theistic evolution and the worldly nonsense called the Social Gospel, which, ultimately, may lead to some sort if universalism. I recommend to anyone to ignore TGC completely. they are really not worth reading or promoting and contribute nothing to true Christianity as started and preached by Jesus Christ.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh,sure, everybody has problems. It is just not this.
Apologies to Albuquerque Blue – I’ve just noticed your announcement of the same news on the Open Discussion page.
Gram3 wrote:
Back when I went to Africa one of the strong reasons given for the board for wanting to send married couples (and preferably married couples with children) was stated as the idea that the target groups of indigenous peoples could look at the christian family and see something or other–how a family ought to be I guess. I did not hear anything about subjugation of the female at that time however. Apparently what has changed is not the emphasis on family but rather the idea of what family is supposed to be.
Gram3 wrote:
This is my experience, too. There used to be a focus on the priesthood and soul liberty. Personal responsibility was valued. That is gone or has been redefined.
but I am also seeing this movement in the larger culture with less independent thinking and more dependency on some expert or the government.
Juliette Lanois wrote:
I do ignore TGC but I don’t think they are associated with either theistic evolution or the Social Gospel.
I am though. I believe in an old earth and a slow evolution of life. And I take very, very seriously what Jesus said in Matthew 25:36-40.
Juliette Lanois wrote:
CHRISTIANESE/THEOLOGICAL BUZZWORD BINGO!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Alzheimers or Suicide?
There’s been a story going around litfandom on this side of the pond that Pratchett was on record that when his Alzheimers got too bad he was going to off himself. My writing partner went to World Fantasy Con where Pratchett was GOH and the first question at the panel was “Assisted Suicide”, which set off a preaching binge by Pratchett on the subject that dominated the rest of the panel. (It was my writing partner’s only chance to meet Pratchett, and all he’d talk about after that first question was his upcoming suicide.)
Marsha wrote:
Me too.
@ Lydia:
“Keys of the kingdom” have been there in Reformed Churches going back hundreds of years.
@ Juliette Lanois:
Marsha wrote:
I, too; on both counts. If the Kingdom is not good news for the poor, the downtrodden and the exploited, then it is not good news.
I must respectfully submit a third reflection: unless I’m hopelessly mistaken, Jesus didn’t start Christianity. He is Christianity.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The story is partly true; he was a vigorous campaigner for assisted suicide and, though I’m not sure he stated an intention to end his life, he did say that he’d prefer to die at a time of his choosing. However, his publishers stated that in the event, his death was natural and unassisted.
I have gotten so depressed after reading all the stories here, I am almost in tears…..( the fact we haven’t seen the sun in weeks might have something to do with it…)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think you and Gram could beat any Piper ‘n pals member easily.
K.D. wrote:
Ohh noooooo,K.D. Bummer. I’m in sunny California and I wish you could be here and get recharged! (Take out some suntan lotion and smell it. Do some nice stuff for you!!)
I have put together a few (black) Gospel songs to send your way that recharge my batteries. I hope you will be blessed by them as well.
1. “When I Rose This Morning” sung by Mama Mosie Burks and The Mississippi Mass Choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYgrCzuNM0w
2. “I’m Not Tired Yet” sung by Mama Mosie Burks and The Mississippi Mass Choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk_1ZE7Rwcg&list=PLMdghR7wngz8Tg_gSNCaj7oFDJyf5CFie
3. “Lord Help Me To Hold Out” sung by Spencer Taylor and Doug Williams at The Gospel Legends recording in Mississippi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTf8gTHme08
4. “Don’t Let The Devil Ride” sung by Neal Roberson at The Gospel Legends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAsv6j7cs4o&list=PLz2xUCRxDZ2ECDMF54xbDf3_z9qo63iM6
5. “On Time God” sung by Dottie Peoples and Paul Porter at The Gospel Legends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dLxHkG83o
6. “Jesus Will Fix It” sung by Lee Williams at The Gospel Legends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ZmC_HTlHI
6. “God Did It” sung by Evelyn Turrentine-Agee at The Gospel Legends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd4TjYG4lYQ
K.D. wrote:
I feel that way frequently. But then I think about all the people here who care for one another and that raises my spirits. You all bring such joy and meaning to what we do here.
And today, the sun was out in Raleigh. It made me smile. I pray for sun for you.
Now, I am off to bed so I can be on my A game tomorrow.
K.D. wrote:
Probably the lack of sunshine. SAD is a real thing. Another way of looking at what is talked about here is that these things have been with us from the beginning, but now there is a way to shine the light. So, that’s what I try to think about! We can rejoice that we have the freedom to talk about church abuse, unlike the past, and we can offer some hope of healing to the victims, and to join with others who would like to call the church back to her Lord.
Been busy the last couple of weeks with the trial of young earth creationist Kent Hovind. I had an opinion piece published in the Pensacola newspaper and have been on a podcast to talk about Hovind’s legal issues. Today the jury found him guilty of one of the four charges: criminal contempt of court. The other three (conspiracy and mail fraud) they deadlocked on. Sentencing is June 12.
Kent’s followers think this is some great vindication of him by God. I’m of the opinion that an example of God’s vindication would have been acquitted of all charges. That did not happen, obviously.
I’m also of the opinion that Hovind’s conviction changes nothing. If he’d been convicted, he’d keep doing what he’s been doing for the last eight years, which is to file reams of paper to try and stop the sale of properties forfeited to the government. If he was acquitted, he would do the same thing. Kent Hovind has doubled down on the sovereign citizen rhetoric, he doesn’t believe the government has the authority to take his property and I don’t expect that to change unless and until he’s declared a vexatious litigant. And maybe not even then. He’ll bear watching, especially since he’s got an active and whipped-up fan club which has this bad habit of calling the judge “Jezebel” and “satanic.”
As for 9 Marks, seriously, guys, when you get compared to the Mormon church (as in one comment above) for your unwillingness to let people go, you need to give it up. The reality is that a person can resign from your organization, send you a letter and the moment they drop that letter into the box, they are not a part of your outfit. And you need to respect that. But the 9 Marks guys think they know better than the rest of us.
@ Corbin:
I had never heard of John Piper until about 10 years ago. Don’t get out enough. When I saw how young people were/are just over the moon for him, I was truly shocked. And confused. He doesn’t say anything that others haven’t said much better before, so I just don’t get the Piper phenomenon. At all.
Now, the SBC power politicians I do understand. Keller is impossible to understand without taking into account that he is the Christian whale among self-identifying intellectuals. Men in the PCA don’t dare touch him though some would really like to. Mohler needs him for a couple of reasons I can think of, but Mohler also needs to keep the 6-day creationists on board in the SBC, so he needs to walk a very thin line.
IMO, Keller really blew his credibility with Driscoll. This grandmother who lives in a cave knew Driscoll was a trainwreck waiting to happen ten years ago. Because of what was known then. By the 2007 coup, it was blindingly obvious to anyone who cared to look at the qualifications for an elder. Keller now says that there were problems from the beginning which Driscoll has confessed repeatedly? Really? Why didn’t tell us about those problems then and do something about it? Because Grudem was so cozy with Driscoll? Why do we need “leaders” when the “leaders” with Keys can’t see what the pewpeons can see?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
A few on this side of the pond, too. I met him briefly several years ago when he was in my city. My children and I were huge fans of his work.
@ Godith:
That explains a lot. Thanks
@ Godith:
@ lydia:
So, given that some things in the reformation were about religion and some things were about politics, and given that the idea of the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter and passed on by apostolic succession is maintained by the catholic church, how much of this current keys of the kingdom idea might be anti-catholicism (perhaps for mixed reasons) and how much might be purely religious conviction based solely on scripture?
What I am saying is, of course, could the keys of the kingdom idea be tainted by motivations other than exclusively biblical convictions? And could both ideas (catholic and protestant) be tainted ideas?
Nancy wrote:
This is strictly my experience so take that for whatever it is with. But no where have I witnessed more mocking anti Catholic vitriol but from certain segments of the Reformed wings of Christendom. But I noticed something else, too. They seemed to adapt some seemingly Catholic doctrines and redefined them in some respects. The “keys” is one example.
lydia wrote:
Is this possibly because the reformation was a reaction to medieval Catholicism, where salvation was in the hands of men in the form of the church and its priesthood, and the reformers wanted to put it back in the hands of God and so emphasised God’s sovereignty, predestination and election?
Some reformed do seem to be carrying on yesterday’s battles, although I can’t blame them for resisting more modern attempts to put man back in the saddle as far as salvation goes.
Something I don’t like is making the elders of the local church the ‘door’ to the fold, as was taught in the shepherding error. This strikes me as a move straight back to the situation 500 years ago.
Chiming in with all of the last three comments (but not wanting this one to collapse under the weight of hyperlinks) –
I’ve often thought that, however the reformation began, it rapidly morphed into a kind of coup d’église. That is to say, within a few short years of Luther’s (presumably sincere) anger against the selling of indulgences, the reformation was about power for its own sake, rather than truth for its own sake. It was relatively simple then to wield the Sock-Puppet Scriptures, and it has been going on ever since.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
aaaaand I forgot to close the italic hashtag. It was all going so well up to the word église.
@ Gram3:
Gram3
Great comment…
“Why do we need “leaders” when the “leaders” with Keys
can’t see what the pewpeons can see?”
IMO – WE, His Servants, do NOT need “leaders.”
I would just add – WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Church, His Kings and Priests…
His Called Out Ones, His Disciples, do NOT need **Mere Fallible Human Leaders.**
WE, His Bride, can go directly to our husband, Jesus… NO middle man.
And, avoid the mess these wanna-be “leaders” are creating.
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.
———–
WE, His sons, have a “leader.“
For as many as are “led” by the Spirit of God, they are “the sons” of God. Rom 8:14 KJV
WE, His Sheep, can Hear His Voice, and go directly to Jesus, NO middle man.
My sheep hear MY voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27 KJV
And follow…
The “ONE” Shepherd… John 10:16 NASB
The “ONE” Leader… Mat 23:10 NASB
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Ken wrote:
But this time WE THE TRULY REFORMED are on the Throne Speaking for God!
“And this time we WILL achieve True Communism!”
mirele wrote:
As Tim the Judge put it, when the opening statement is reading a Sovereign Citizen Manifesto, you KNOW it’s going to be a LONG day. And it can only go downhill from there.
mirele wrote:
And worse, when you get compared to Scientology.
Gram3 wrote:
“These five Kings said one to another:
‘KING UNTO KING O’ER THE WORLD IS BROTHER’…”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”
Ken wrote:
Well, I tend to agree with Nick’s view but with a different slant. I think the whole thing was economic and political but NOT spiritual. There was a lot of money going back to Rome and Roman entities regionally and many were looking for ways to make that unscriptural which it was.
I don’t think the Reformers were intent on putting salvation back into the hands of God… so to speak. From their actions, it seems they (the leaders) wanted control over people just as the Catholics had in those regions.
@ lydia:
I wonder if the Reformation wasn’t a marriage of convenience between church reformers who chafed against church teaching and practice and civil authorities who chafed against the authority of the Pope. It is certainly evident that the principle of church/state separation and freedom of conscience was not the driving force, except for the Anabaptists. I wish I knew more about the general history and cultural climate during that period.
The 9Marks teaching on Keys comes from the Reformed Baptist tradition which is itself from the Church of England. Other Baptists are products of Anabaptist thinking, if not from Anabaptist churches, so those Baptists are not so keen on the Keys.
I think the teaching of the Keys can be compared in some ways to other sayings of Jesus to his disciples. When he said, “This is my body” at the Last Supper, he didn’t say he was speaking metaphorically or literally, so we get various ideas about what he meant by the words he spoke. I think he was making a metaphorical allusion to his body being the unleavened Passover bread which is broken. He is the Passover. So I take it much more metaphorically.
Same with the Keys. Some take that literally being Christ transferring his authority to someone, whether Peter or the church, where others like me see it metaphorically as a reference to the Gospel (which Peter confessed) being the Keys of the Kingdom that opens the Door.
Someone with a Jewish perspective may be more likely to see the metaphorical breaking of his body as a reference to the Passover, and someone without a presupposition of ecclesiastical authority may be more likely to see the Keys as being metaphors of the true Gospel which Jesus entrusted to the disciples.
We see things differently for various reasons, and that, IMO, is a very good reason to continue to have conversations.
A. Amos Love wrote:
Respectfully, while I get the bride of Christ thing as a nice metaphor for fealty and fidelity, I also think that it has gotten carried too far over the last 40-45 years or so and can tend to get, well what can I say? Creepy?
Gram3 wrote:
I have read quite a bit on it and my take is that the general population –who were usually illiterate– because of a class system were pretty much ignored in all the changes. Which means the uprisings and other radicals who refused to go along with the Princes/Magistrates and Electors were necessary for eventual change. Some were peaceful and gave up their lives and others were violent.
Gram3 wrote:
I had always understood the keys as a prophetic reference to Peter’s speaking at Pentecost after the resurrection.
And as for breaking of the bread at Passover, I understand it as metaphorically speaking to Jesus as our “rescue” (cross/resurrection) as God rescued the Israelites at the first Passover. And Jews have been “remembering” that ever since. I think some tend to forget that Jesus was Jewish. :o)
Lydia wrote:
I have seen so much of this lately and it just baffles my mind. First I keep asking myself aren’t there any responsible adults in that church with real jobs who are going to say “NO” this type of behavior. Second I notice that more and more “Church Planters” do this type of stuff. How can you expect to spread the Gospel in a city and disciple those who come to faith in that city when you yourself are seldom in that city?????? I just do not get it.
Lydia I am betting that those 2 vacations were pretty nice vacations as well and that the trips overseas were more vacation than he would ever let on.
Mitch wrote:
I watched as the stage was set for this to happen. Remember, people are primed to believe what they are told: that the Holy Spirit brought him there.
Very rarely do church folks call out “new pastors” anyway. They are tolerant to a ridiculous degree for years because they live in the cognitive dissonance of the “Holy Spirit” brought him to us so how could all of this stuff be wrong. It is not like he is having an affair or doing drugs. (They measure things like that). And, they believed it all because they voted him in.
@ Mitch:
The only way they learn is by withholding the money. We now give directly to groups that are doing work that we know they are doing. No more 10% to the local church nonsense.
I have a little bit of the free market competition deal in me. Let the pastors and ministry directors prove to me that they are actually doing something.At first we were designating funds. However, the church always took their cut for their expert oversight…
So, we decided to give directly. Members of TGC/9Marks etc faint dead away.
@ Mitch:
“Lydia I am betting that those 2 vacations were pretty nice vacations as well and that the trips overseas were more vacation than he would ever let on.”
+++++++++++++++++
oh, yes. how many days will be spent in London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt and their environs?
i’m so disillusioned. People going on missions trips ask others to pay for it, and how many days are spent around the connecting flights?
short-term Christian Mission Trips: an exercise in self-enrichment, while burdening your overseas hosts as well as your benefactors back home. Pay your own way, please.
Lydia wrote:
I think we have failed to understand or appreciate the breadth of the atonement and that our theories do not do it justice. One of the “I am” statement of Jesus was “I am the bread of life…”, this in what has been called a bread culture setting in which bread was the one indispensable staple between life and starvation. So, yes, “rescue” needs to be seen in what he was saying at the meal. But and also he used the word “ransom” elsewhere which is problematic if you think about it. If all his death accomplished was penal substitution then why would he not have used the roast lamb for the metaphor at the last supper? He said else where about eat my flesh and drink my blood-okay we got that-but where does bread come in? There is more here than we have paid much attention to, I am thinking. The symbolism and the words do not fit nicely into a simple pattern.
@ Nancy:
Great points, Nancy. We tend to miss out because we do not communicate the same way today. they were big on symbolism, metaphors and other devices. We even miss out because we don’t really understand the gravity of the agrarian illustrations or the cultural norms that are not normal to us. such as the son being the same as the father, etc.
some here do not like Kenneth Baily (I have mentioned him before) but I have enjoyed his book “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” quite a bit for a better understanding on some of it. He even goes into depth on how we get the “Christmas” story quite wrong concerning “no room at the inn”.
Lydia wrote:
The other thing that comes to mind about the Keys is the imagery of the Doors/Gates of heaven opening at Rosh Hashanah when Jesus said he is the Door. Peter’s Pentecost sermon was a very public display of the beginning of the New Covenant. Too many times the Jewishness of Jesus is lost. There is Jesus/Messiah imagery in all the Jewish festivals, but somehow that has been lost. It’s a bad brain day for me today, so I can’t remember all of it just now, but it’s fascinating.
elastigirl wrote:
I don’t know about pastors, but I do know of many pewpeons who take real working missions trips where they pay their own way, and they were not to glamor spots. Sri Lanka and Haiti after the natural disasters there and some other places. The best short term trips are providing labor and training for locals to carry on the work, IMO. I guess we just need to look into things more carefully to see what these mission trips are really doing aside from stroking our egos.
Muff Potter wrote:
Not as creepy as its Medieval corollary, Bridal Mysticism.
Bridal Mysticism expressed spiritual highs using highly-erotic language, on the order of “Thrust me through with Thy Divine Love! Fill me with Thy Holy Spirit as with child!”
Gram3 wrote:
And the only thing both Catholics and Reformers could agree upon was Anabaptists Must Be Exterminated.
Lydia wrote:
Don’t forget diverting the cash flow that was going to Rome.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You’re right HUG, now that IS way far up on the creepy meter!
@ elastigirl:
Well, ya’ gotta spend all that Jeezus money in the coffers some how, no?
Dee–totally agree with you re the money. We now give to the local church only enough–maybe–to defray the costs of the materials they use for our family. And since we are not too thrilled with the materials being chosen (not all SBC and what is comes out strongly YEC and Calvinist) we don’t always worry about that.
Last week we experienced the first “bad sermon” since the new pastor came. Hopefully it isn’t a harbinger of things to come. He was telling us if we give God will give more, and curse us if we don’t give 10% of the gross. He misquoted and quoted out of context so many stewardship verses it was mind boggling. He challenged those on food stamps to figure out how to convert it to cash money and tithe off it. He then after going through social security, welfare payments, disability, and even drawing down savings if I remember correctly explained his version of tithing. Explained he tithes on what the free parsonage is worth (commendable), his medical benefits (commendable), and then stated he doesn’t tithe what is withheld for retirement or social security as he doesn’t benefit from it yet. Says he will tithe that when he retires. Of course, he had just told all of us we must tithe on it now AND when we retire or be cursed. He also said if you dislike how the church spends its money and designate funds to the church you are evil. If you direct fund mission groups, etc, with tithe money you are evil AND under a curse.
I sat there mentally noting that the tithe is not required of Christians, although proportional giving is recommended in the Bible. I cannot for the life of me see where I am obligated to support something if I think the funds are mismanaged. I also figured he would be put off by our plan to donate designated funds for VBS this year. See, he can’t tell our tithes from our offerings anyway since we do whatever we do anonymously with cash in envelopes. We decided long ago to remove our local association, state association, and cooperative program overhead from our contributions. Like you, we give directly where we believe the money needs to be used and will be used wisely.
After church we had sit down with a grandchild and systematically go through Biblical tithes and offerings. Didn’t take her long to see what he was claiming for “the priesthood which today is preachers and the local church” was actually intended by God to feed the poor. And didn’t take her long to recognize that we all are part of the priesthood of believers.
And didn’t take her long to come to the conclusion he should get a day job, and donate his time like the rest of us.
@ Gram3:
“…many pewpeons who take real working missions trips where they pay their own way, and they were not to glamor spots. Sri Lanka and Haiti after the natural disasters there and some other places.”
++++++++++++++++
that is heartening to hear.
my observation has been that the trips are really -1 part enriching the people who go; -1 part crossing an item off the “Christian to-do list” to make your church look good; and -1 part believing you are the answer for this foreign community.
in actuality, they create a huge amount of work for the hosts, and the mission trippers are so tired from jet lag, food and sleep changes that their effectiveness is quite limited.
but what you describe sounds much better.
@ elastigirl:
I know of plenty of the other kind, too, unfortunately. We come from a missions-oriented family with friends who are life-long missionaries. Another problem with the traditional short-term mission trip is the missed opportunities to make a lasting and ongoing difference.
For example, instead of taking an entire work crew, take a few skilled people to train and oversee the work. Then the funds that would be expended to send U.S. people can be used much more effectively to pay locals for their labor and train people. I would love to hear much more discussion in the church about sustainable missions, to use an overused word. Things like micro-investment, co-ops, and development work coupled with evangelism and discipleship.
It is tragic that the new head of the SBC’s IMB thinks that there is No-True-Gospel-without-Patriarchy. That is the *last* thing that people in the third world need to hear from the church.
linda wrote:
This sort of thing just burns my heart. I remember listening to a James McDonald broadcast where he was exhorting people to “painful giving”, including similar stuff about food stamps, SS, etc. This shameless character lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, has an admitted gambling habit, and asks his flock for ‘painful giving’?
But I’ll sing my same old song – it’s the congregation that enables this nonsense. No one needs to go to Harvest. No one needs to go to any particular church. No one needs to put up with this garbage. It’s voluntary, people…
@ Gram3:
Here is also another model for non-resident missions. Our church has partnered with a basically tiny church in some place or other. We help from here with some things that can be done long distance (not sure exactly what that is) and we send a team down there every year for some of the bigger stuff. It is an ongoing relationship with the same struggling little church.
linda wrote:
Exactly! Good for you for taking the time to be a Berean with the young
Well, I think everyone should tithe, and make sure it goes to their local Levitical priesthood.
Failing that, they can give what they have decided to give having made up their own minds as to how much and where.
linda wrote:
Sounds like ManaGAWD’s got his eye on his very own Furtick Mansion…
Ken wrote:
Actually, they should eat it before the Lord in the place where he chooses to put his name. And make sure the local Levites get to share it, obviously.
linda wrote:
Preach it, sister.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Oh, I have read many. They are farragos of nonsense. A guy I know calls them a cargo cult in search of just the right magic paper to file with judges. It will never happen.
@ Nancy:
Hmm… my two cents worth….
One of the things that always stood out to me regarding the symbolism was that in the OT, the ritual of making a peace pact with a neighbor or an enemy (Abraham & Melchizedek, Jacob & Laban) involved breaking bread and drinking wine together. So I think at least part of (far from all) it was symbolizing God making a peace pact with humanity.
Not so fast. Todd was planning on joining another church but he wanted to do some deep thinking about that. He also wanted to make a statement that he was leaving over what he believed to be an unjust situation. That is not allowed once you sign away your rights of conscience in their *gotcha coming and going contract.*
Frequent reader on my night shifts (as now), and infrequently comment. Above is the excerpt from Dee that caught my eye. My full disclusure is I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. I have never met Todd Wilhelm, but have scanned over the many times this situation has been commented upon from this site. I have no personal connection with the Dubai church, except their pastor was one of the elders at CHBC as I was joining years ago.
All that was necessary to resign membership in good standing was a letter expressing that desire, and that he was planning on joining another church and naming it, or even a couple of different churches. I can witness that CHBC would accept that letter, and I have voted to accept resignations from a letter worded that way. It seems that simple act wouldn’t be nearly as “blogable” as getting oneself removed from membership due to not stating one’s intentions in a timely manner, even though that is exactly what you intended to do-join another church. That would be going in peace, which is exactly what people have done that have left CHBC over a disagreement.
As second point is the claimn that one must join a “9 marks approved church” when they resign membership. That is simply false, at least at CHBC. We have had former members join Mclean Bible Church, for example, not on any 9 Marks list as far as I know. It is true that our members leave usually for geographic reasons (not always), and gravitate towards another similiar church that are frequently on the 9 Marks church search engine (these churches self-affiliate is my understanding).
Preston Bennett wrote:
1. Why is all that necessary?
2. And what happens to those who do not follow those “necessary” leaving rules?
@ Jeannette Altes:
That is a great idea. I did not know they did that. Like people have been saying, Jesus was a Jew and it was a long time ago and a different culture. I am going to have to read about that.
@ Preston Bennett:
At the heart of the idea is this: who came up with the idea that the church is a mediator between God and man?
Apparently the 9Marks people do not find this in scripture either since they have to write it in a contract.
This “contract/covenant” is a business deal and a matter of power over people. How is this power over the people all that different from the pre-reformation idea of church having power over the people?
Preston Bennett wrote:
That means McLean Bible is a 9 Marks approved church.
Preston Bennett wrote:
He didn’t know which he would join. He wanted to think about it. So, he couldn’t put the name of the church. Nor should he. He is a deeply committed Christian and does not need you guys babysitting him. He should be able to leave in good conscience because he no longer trusts the judgement of CHBC, Mark Dever, UCCD, etc.
You should get to know him. He is a wonderful guy trapped by your Hotel California.
@ Preston Bennett:
You decide which churches you will *allow* your controlled sheep to visit. That is why I call them 9 Marks approved churches. You know you do not *approve* of a number of churches.
And if you think Todd was trying to cause a scene, you are wrong. But then again, judging people is what you all seem to do very, very well.
Didn’t read all the comments above, but Leeman recently debated Wayne Jacobsen regarding this issue of what constitutes church, church discipline, authority and other matters. Was a good listen: http://www.moodyradio.org/radioplayer.aspx?episode=156451
I just do not get it why people let churches blackmail them. So you signed a covenant/contract. If you made a financial pledge I suppose they can take you to small claims court or something and get their money. But if all they can do is fail to approve of you–and tattle tale to your mommie and your boss–so what? Jesus already dealt with the family issue-unless you hate your mother and father and wife etc. And the boss? If you are an asset to his business and he is making money off you-why should he care? And besides, it gives one the perfect opportunity to bad mouth the church to one and all, since it would all be in self defense.
It is one thing to sign away your freedom in a misguided act of ignorance, but it is another thing to continue in that situation once you know it for what it is. Two different decisions entirely.
“….All that was necessary to resign membership in good standing was a letter expressing that desire, and that he was planning on joining another church and naming it, or even a couple of different churches. I can witness that CHBC would accept that letter, and I have voted to accept resignations from a letter worded that way. It seems that simple act wouldn’t be nearly as “blogable” as getting oneself removed from membership due to not stating one’s intentions in a timely manner, even though that is exactly what you intended to do-join another church. That would be going in peace, which is exactly what people have done that have left CHBC over a disagreement….” – Preston Bennett
@Preston,
How long have you subscribed to the adults-as-idiots-who-should-be-controlled-mentality?
Mark Dever has done SO MUCH DAMAGE to Godly Christians, conservatives, the name of Christ, and the cause of Christ before a watching world. The man lacks love and healthy problem solving skills and should, in my opinion, step down.
Mark Dever claims that churches need Membership Covenants to keep members from exiting through the back doors. OK, Mark, let’s get honest: Obviously you have members who can’t stand you or your other church leaders if they feel the need to quietly exit. Instead of looking at your OWN failings, Mark, you pin the blame on others.
Mark has also said that you can’t have church members on the membership rolls who aren’t showing up. Here’s my take: That man is too lazy to pick up the phone, call members, ask how they are doing, and if they still consider themselves to be church members or not. Everything, according to Mark, is somebody else’s (a church member’s) fault.
9 Marks is nothing more than a modern day Salem Witch Trials. I went to a 9 Marks church and what a nightmare that turned out to be!
Here were the excommunications/shunnings that went on at my 9 Marks church:
First Excommunication/Shunning
1. A godly doctor who has been a faithful loving husband to his wife of 40+ years was ordered to be excommunicated/shunned by the pastors/elders. The godly doctor is also a loving father, close to his adult children. The godly doctor is a conservative and gave of his time and money to our church. The godly doctor is a long-time close personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s at Grace Community Church in Southern California.
The doctor’s ‘crime’? He respectfully confronted the pastors/elders about their Biblical errors in leading our church. Their response? They had him in meetings and screamed and yelled at him and threatened him!!!
The pastors/elders trashed the good doctor’s name before the ENTIRE church and ordered that he be excommunicated/shunned. (Many families left our church after that stunt.)
Second Excommunication/Shunning
2. A married wife refused to attend our church any more with her husband because of all of the problems that she saw in the church and their lack of accountability to ANY higher authority. She moved out of the family home over the issue. (The senior pastor had visited her and she said he screamed at her!)
She disconnected her cell phone and email so that no one could contact her. She went to another church.
She was subjected to ‘church discipline’ before the entire church!
Third Excommunication/Shunning
3. Finally, there was my excommunication/shunning last year. My ‘crime’? I had inadvertently discovered while doing a legal research project for a prosecutor that one of our new church members was a Megan’s List sex offender. I reported it to the pastors/elders. They met with me and screamed and yelled at me. It turns out the sex offender is their friend and they defend him, said he’s ‘harmless’, quickly moved him into positions of authority and leadership at church, and said he was ‘coming off Megan’s List’. His supervising law enforcement agency – The Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force – called that ‘total lies’ and ‘all lies’. The sex offenders’ task force was SO ALARMED by the lies that my pastors/elders told me about this sex offender that the Sheriff contacted the California Attorney General who also called what my pastors/elders said “total lies”.
The pastors/elders ordered me to NEVER have contact with the Sheriff or the California Attorney General again and that I was “to obey them” and “to submit” to them. Their “order” to me are felony crimes in California called ‘obstruction of justice’ and ‘intimidating a witness’. It is A CRIME to tell a person that they can’t cooperate with law enforcement, give information, aid in an arrest and a prosecution. It doesn’t matter if the silencing comes from a criminal gang or from pastors/elders: It is FELONY CRIME in which the givers of the threat/order can be arrested, prosecuted, and land in state prison!
The pastors/elders are also mandated child abuse reporters. They REFUSE to report. They can also be arrested, prosecuted, and serve jail time for NOT reporting.
The pastors/elders even invited the Megan’s List sex offender to volunteer at our children’s summer evangelistic basketball camp, unbeknownst to: a) Christians who entrusted their children to us for 1-week; b) unbelievers who entrusted their children to us for 1-week; and c) another demonization that rented their school and gym to us and can get SUED for my pastors/elders acts of negligence that occur on their property and have their church’s reputation trashed.
The upshot for my refusal to ‘obey’ my pastors/elders? I was ordered to be excommunicated/shunned before the entire church and lost all of my friends of more than 7 years.
Mark Dever has a lot to answer for. The Sheriff and the California Attorney General wanted to know what kind of church I went to that would threaten me. Along with the names of the thugs pastors/elders that led that church, I ALWAYS mention Mark Dever’s bizarre beliefs/9 Marks of an UNHEALTHY CHURCH!!!
^correction for above (due to autocorrect): c) [should say] ‘denomination’
@ Preston Bennett:
If 9Marks says churches are congregational, then why is a member who is contemplating leaving over an issue not permitted to make a statement to his fellow members at or before a congregational meeting? Are you aware that people have been put on a do-not-call list? How is any of that remotely like the motivation that 9Marks claims for its processes? They claim it is for the benefit of the members, but clearly it is for the benefit of the leaders, and in a 9Marks church the leaders in at least some of the 9Marks churches are actually proxies for Mark Dever who is the archbishop.
Do you think Dever should have brought Mahaney to CHBC and sheltered him from the discipline and reconciliation processes of CLC? Do you think Mahaney meets/met the qualifications for elders? Do you think that people who ask questions about doctrines or practices at 9Marks churches are being divisive by default?
Todd Wilhelm is not an exception. He is but one example of a toxic control-freak system that is based on nothing more than a wrong reading of Matthew and the Corinthian letters. And also Hebrews 13 where they get the idea of one human being the spiritual authority over another human. How is that consistent with Baptist distinctives, let alone what Hebrews 13 actually says?
How did Mark Dever get connected with C.J. Mahaney in the first place? They are an odd couple in more ways than one.
@ Preston Bennett:
Preston, I know many people at CHBC think the only date that matters in history is October 31, 1517. That’s not true…I live in DC and the day you’re at church and you hear pounding on the door. Well that will be me nailing a list of 95 questions to the door of CHBC. History doesn’t begin on October 31, 1517…history starts the day I do this.
Holler if you want to grab lunch sometime! :-p
Gus wrote:
If John Piper says so, I immediately decide its all 3-day-old carp.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Let’s hope he’s not reading this……
Michaela wrote:
Michaela wrote:
Word.
Example of “9 Marks” pastors and 9 Marks staff encouraging each others to monitor you and your family members wherever you go:
Jonathan Leeman is an elder at Capital Hill Baptist Church. He writes a post on making life miserable for former church members – His post on the 9Marks website disappeared between August and November 2014, but you can find it on Internet Archives here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140820135612/http://www.9marks.org/blog/churches-cooperating-discipline
@ Janey:
Thanks for the link. I note that Leeman used the term “members who once belonged to you.” Belonged to you? Seriously? He did not say ‘belonged to the church’ (a common expression though apparently meaning one thing to one and something else to another) or ‘worshipped with you’ (an apt description.) But belonged to you. They turned themselves over to some sort of perpetual servitude and ‘belonged to?” How much did they sell themselves for and what is the going price for this? I am going to have to take a break from all this; it is getting too disturbing, what with ideas of ownership and attempts to hold people captive to some local corporation (somebody else can call it church-not I) and tales of abuse and corruption.
And what happens to the person who just does not believe, either ever perhaps or certainly not any more? Or the person who has come to irreconcilable disagreements on substantive matters with the people who think they own them? They can’t go their way in peace knowing that if they wander back in again they are welcome? Somebody thinks they have a right to punish these people? We can’t disagree and still be neighbors? This is just such a mess.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, these so-called church leaders are just control freaks.
Do you see Jesus controlling and manipulating people in the Gospels? No, if they weren’t interested, they walked away. Jesus didn’t chase them, nor did he call down fire and brimstone on them.
These leaders don’t know Jesus. They ought to read the Gospels.
Janey wrote:
That is my thinking.
@ Janey:
If they knew Jesus they could not make a living hawking their brand of Jesus and they would have no followers or authority. Knowing the Jesus of the Gospels is not the lifestyle they seek.
@ Lydia:
Dang where’s the like button? 🙂
Wow!
Can’t these churches just let people leave? I recently decided to leave a church for another one (I won’t go into details here) and I left silently without telling anyone because I did not want to experience these three things:
(1) – “the love-bomb squad” – you know the people who barely spoke to you nor gave you the time of day suddenly have the time to visit you and try to convince you how loved, very important, and valued you are with grandiose overkill that you can tell it’s fake,syrupy, and scripted.
(2) – “the prophe-tryers” – you know the people who try to prophe-try you to stay claiming either bad things will happen, gods protection will be removed from you and your family, or that your potential and destiny has just been short-circuited with some having the audacity to add “thus saith the lord” to the chatter if you choose to leave.
(3) – “the evangelical exit interview” – much like corporate America when one chooses to leave a company for a new job they are required to go through an exit interview where the company claims to really want to know why you are leaving and try to convince you to stay but you know it is useless because once you walk out the door, things are still going to be the same.
If people want to leave, let them leave. People are people, not property.
Nancy wrote:
I think you have put your finger on something there. Each generation of Christians is tempted to follow the culture around it, and at present this is the corporate culture and its management style. Now there has always been a ‘them and us between’ employer and emplyoee – especially in the UK, and this had plagued industrial relations. However, more recently there has emerged a new corporate culture, aided and abetted by the computer, of control-freakery and mico-managing, coupled with an attitude that the employee should be unconditionally loyal to the company, but the company does not have an obligation to reciprocate this.
Now I wonder if the church is following this ‘worldly’ trend. Pastors are (inadvertantly?) modelling themselves on CEO’s. They demand loyalty from the sheep, but this is not reciprocated. There is new clergy/laity divide, even within free churches with no official ‘priesthood’. Loyalty is a one-way street, and members are expected to be loyal to the local church as a kind of corporate entity existing in its own right. I wonder if the written ‘covenants’ people are required to sign on joining a church only go in one direction? They detail your commitment to the church, but say little if anything on the church’s commitment to you.
I do my best to avoid any articles or videos that have Jonathan Leeman telling the common folk how they should interpret the Scripture regarding church membership. He rubs me the wrong way, as do most of his ilk. Show me the biblical basis for signing some membership contract. It is doubtful I will ever formally join any church again. I am fine with attending but have seen way too much abuse masquerading as “scriptural” membership requirements with the gospelly coalition crowd.
zooey111 wrote:
😉
@ Ken:
Like the analyisis Ken.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
Thank you for weighing in. My husband and I feel the same way. Mark Dever has taught me well. The only ones in his system who are allowed the rights conscience are his pastor BFFs
Back to collecting shells at Sanibel. You always make me envious with your. Trips to the Maldives. So I decided it was time to go back at us!!
@ Dee:
At you. Autocorrect stinks
@ Todd Wilhelm:
We are thinking of trying this. Attend some churches but not join. I wonder how this will go over. Has anyone asked you why or urged you to join? If so, what do you tell them?
@ Dee:
Look Lord my seashell collection!?!? 😛
Lydia, We have been attending the Anglican church (right next door to UCCD) and nobody has asked me to join. If they did I would be happy to share my thoughts on the subject.
I find it refreshing to never hear about the “importance” of becoming a member in a sermon. I believe John Folmar of UCCD makes a pitch for membership in every sermon. He is a real magician with the Scripture. I was listening to a sermon by him a few days ago on the 3rd Commandment. 11 minutes into it he did some wonderful exigetical work describing how the 3rd Commandment pointed to the importance of becoming a member at your local church! A blog post is in the works.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
To the man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I regard the membership issue as more pragmatic. The vicar/elders/pastor or whatever designation given for those with responsibility for the fellowship of believers need to know who they are responsible for, and for whom they will give an account.
So it is reasonable to make this clear, so that if the telephone goes in the middle of the night because of some emergency it is not likely to be someone who attends once in a blue moon, but expects the pastor and/or church members to drop everything and come to their assistance, only to ride off into the sunset once the dust has settled. This is the converse problem of pastors who want loyalty covenants to be signed to prove memebers’ commitment to the church.
I think the British Baptist system is pretty good, where usually following baptism you apply for membership, this is voted on (usually rubber stamped!) in a church meeting and you them get own with being involved.
I hope you can enjoy the laid back attitude the Anglicans usually have to this subject, especially having had a bad experience of the shepherding/control-freak attitude to membership. The church is not a club, nor does it belong to the pastor!!
@ Todd Wilhelm:
Thanks Todd. How refreshing it must be. My last church was like that, too. No pressure. Just glad you are here.
But then it hired a YRR guy. (There are no other candidates here in that denomination)
Ken wrote:
Pay to play?
Ken wrote:
So, the leader only goes if the person is in his club, oh church (sorry) then? You have me confused. Church isn’t a club, but you have to belong if you need help. Jesus helped all kinds of people he didn’t know.
I think people would know who they fellowship with. If I need to make a point to make sure a certain ‘leader’ knows me, then he doesn’t know me and I don’t know him. But I’m not one for large fellowships either, where people really don’t know one another.
@ Lydia:
@ Bridget:
That sounds good ideologically, but the business of being on call 24/7 can destroy a person, even if they do not call you all that much. If the churches decide to provide pastoral care to one and all and around the clock they would need to set up a system to rotate call and even provide some rules about security since some folks think the pastor should wade into the middle of actual family fights. And yes, that would cost some money (which is not exactly a dirty word if done wisely.)
I am just saying that there are two sides to this story.
Anglicans and Lutherans seem more laid back, they don’t have celebrity pastors, they don’t seem to push church membership. A person can be a member of a church without signing a covenant or saying of vow of obedience. I think classes for people joining are a good idea so people know ahead of time what kind of church (doctrines and practices) they are joining with. However, church membership is not like a marriage relationship–that analogy is quite bad. BTW, the “power of the keys” is present in Lutheran churches as well as the Neo-Calvinist and other Reformed churches. It is applied differently, though.
@ Bridget:
I’*d echo what Nancy said. I’ve been there with this one; helping lead a fellowship in my spare time, and approached by someone outside the church for some sort of ‘pastoring’, who, it turned out, simply wanted an unending commitment of time to sort out their problems.
Now I am not saying it is wrong to undertake this, but there is no automatic obligation to accept it either. The decision is discretionary, and needs to take into account other commitments.
In the event, the question ‘what have you tried to do about it so far’ was enough for them to go elsewhere – they were really after unlimited hours of attention.
There are people who will simply suck the life out you if you give them the chance.
There is also the spiritual gift of mercy listed in the Romans 12 list, which is (amongst other things) the ability to keep going with someone long after everyone else would have given up in despair. There was a family in the church who had this gift, and needed it – and used it!
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I am sitting in Florida laughing my head off. “You shall not take the Lord’s name in vain” is now a treatise on church membership?
My husband said that they must be having trouble getting people to join the church if they must keep doing this. Who would want to join their church if you must check your rights of conscience at the door and take up the banner of 9 Marks who will discipline you faster than Petunia gets to her dog bowl at dinner?
@ Ken:
You specifically mentioned an emergency in your first comment about this. That is what my response was in regards to.
I am not against common sense and having boundries when people are being demanding. I worked at a church. I took the calls that came in for help. There weren’t that many from strangers. None in the middle of night from strangers, as they didn’t have a number to call in the middle of the night. People who had a number to call in the night and did so, usually had a good reason and they got a response.
I don’t believe we need membership so we know who we should and shouldn’t respond to. There was more to my comment about relationships and large churches if you care to read that part.
dee wrote:
Because they might eventually get married and thus be able to “join the club”. So let’s not drive them away. Gay couples will never be allowed to join “those clubs”. So “off with their heads” as the queen would say.
Ken wrote:
All Evangelical conservative Christians know that he’s a commie liberal and thus can safely be ignored.
[/sarcasm]
Godith wrote:
I attended one of these at the church Dee left a while back. Attended twice to be honest. Very thin on many subjects. In hindsight they basically avoided any subject that they firmly believed in but thought might scare folks off.
Basically they kept the sausage making room off limits till after you had been there a while. AND your kids were well entrenched. Because it’s very hard to explain to kids why you are taking them away from their friends and the nice teachers.
RollieB wrote:
From my long view of it. growing up in a flat congregational SBC church in the 60s then attending various Evangelical churches starting about 2000. (Yes I was AWOL for a while.)
There are/were non trivial numbers of churches in the SBC (and others I’m sure) that would basically keep their pastor impoverished with no allowance for retirement so they got to preach until they died. And many of the SBC churches had “those in charge” deacons or maybe just members who really pulled the strings. And a pastor could find themselves on the street with no notice after a behind the scenes plan brought up at a monthly business meeting.
Not all SBC (and other) churches were like this. Most were not. The one I grew up in wasn’t this way. But basically there were some where the congregations were doing a reverse of the “pastor knows best” and is in charge of everything.
What seemed to happen is SBC seminaries (and they have a lot of weigh in the entire Evangelical community) gradually switched to the “pastor must be in charge” with a closed elder system.
Now the problem with all of this is the way things are set up it only takes 50% +1 votes at a monthly business meeting to switch a church to a hierarchical closed elder system. But once there the congregation can really never take it back unless the closed elder fans drop below about 20 to 40 in absolute numbers.
In the end the current mess (as I see it) is a totally over the top over reaction to some bad things that were happening at a few churches.
Which opened the door to “big ego I’m in charge because I’m anointed” pastors taking over. And I don’t see it going back unless the SBC gradually implodes over the next 100 years.
@ NC Now:
Yes, I saw that also in baptist churches. I want to mention something I have noticed which may interest some people. There is a far right web site ‘barbwire’ (run by Matt Barber) and one of the writers is a man named Muehlenberg from Australia. M is distinctly over on the right side of the arguments on a lot of issues. In all probability they are all on somebody’s watch list.
So, M has an article up today in which he addresses the issue of touch not God’s anointed, and he criticizes the misunderstanding and misuse of that much like some on here have criticized it and then also says that at the same time leadership is needed and needs to be treated appropriately, along the lines of what you have said. Basically he says nobody is beyond critique and criticism, including the leadership.
Why would I say this? I find it encouraging to note that a far right person would write this and a far right web site would publish it. Light in a dark tunnel perhaps? Because evidently the preacher worshippers have not convinced everybody even in the far right camp.
And no, I don’t know where the line is to start using the word ‘far’ for either right or left.
NC Now wrote:
Bingo. That is a very typical strategy.
@ Nancy:
I think the problem is deeper than that with many pastors. They set themselves apart as specially anointed and the spiritual expert from the pulpit and people believe it. Then when a crisis situation occurs people want the specially anointed person there who they think has some sort of inside track, spiritual power or whatever. The “spiritual doctor” so to speak.
That is the entire underlying problem in so many institutional churches. a lack of under standing of what the priesthood is in the body.
The megas fixed this problem years ago. The great one on stage only deals with the inner ring and other celebs. The megas have paid staffers for everyone else who requests a spiritual guru during a crisis. Often they have never even met them before.
Ken wrote:
Those types are everywhere. It is just harder to have boundaries with them in a church setting situation. They are also the ones who come to SS week after week, year after year and monopolize with their tales of woe while another person in the room is quietly dying of cancer.
@ Bridget:
I agree. I think pragmatically a church needs to know who’s in and who isn’t, but this doesn’t have to involve signing forms. Name on a register is enough, but it’s usually pretty obvious who regards a particular church their spiritual home.
I’ve mananged to avoid signing anything so far, I’m not sure I could do this in good conscience any more anyway.
Incidentally, I’m not doing very well at communicating at the moment!
Ken wrote:
This is never easy for me, maybe for most of us. It’s even harder on a blog with no physical cues and the many voices. I’d say it is harder than letter writing which is private and one on one.
@ NC Now:
The Mormon chruch operates in the same way. The sausage making room is in the back and you get introdcued to it after you get baptized and sucked into the system.
I’ve worked on a couple of more posts. Lot to get out of my system. This is how I approached Sovereing Grace for forgivnees on hate.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/seeking-forgiveness-from-sovereign-grace/
This is an open letter to one of the guys who walked with me during my faith crisis. He prusued a lot of discussions and wasn’t afraid of hard questions. He showed me love, had good discernment, and had a healthy balance of primary and secondary issues (he’s YEC but he doesn’t force it or make it primary…)This is my open letter thanking him for walking with me through my faith crisis.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/an-open-letter-to-scott-van-swernigan/
@ NC Now:
NC Now I think I met you at Dee’s Bible study when I was down there in Raleigh in January. Hello! 🙂
dee wrote:
I’ll take your Macho Man and raise you one Matzo Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imOHHGk90KY