Contract law is essentially a defensive scorched-earth battleground where the constant question is, “if my business partner was possessed by a brain-eating monster from beyond space/time tomorrow, what is the worst thing they could do to me?” ― Charles Stross link
Some of you are wondering why we spend so much time on Mark Dever and 9Marks. Take a look at the resource section of many churches. Scroll down and see how many of them list 9Marks of a Healthy Church. TWW has heard from a number of readers whose churches took on a different culture as they began implementing the 9Marks approach to church membership, church contracts and church discipline.
I am currently on vacation with my family in Florida. Riding in the car for long periods often helps me clear my mind. During this time, I have come to the conclusion that TWW must put together a resource page of our own which deals with church contracts (covenants for the uninitiated) and church membership. We will also provide resources on how to remove oneself from a church which believes you have no further rights of conscience because you are owned. Over the next couple of weeks, I will be working on a permanent page in which our readers can find help in these areas.
In order to help our readers understand why things are they way they are, we must look at a number of writings by Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, John Folmar and 9Marks proponents in order to get understand what is going on beneath the surface. Always ask the question, in any church, "What do they mean when they say….?"
3 things to remember
1. Church discipline is never defined prospectively. In other words, when you go driving in your car, you know you can get fined or arrested if you drive over the speed limit, drive while intoxicated, fail to use your turn signal and text while driving. How would you feel if none of these laws were predefined and the following scenario occurs?
You are driving and talking on your hands free unit and are stopped. The police officer hands you a ticket for $10,000 for breaking this unwritten law. You say you had no idea that such a law existed. The policeman tells you that the Board of Commissioners of that county had just decided they would impose this today and that they can determine whatever they darn well feel like at the moment because they "have the authority to do so". Unfair? Of course. Such impetuous mandates would quickly be overthrown by the courts. However, you do not have the same rights when you join the church and sign their contract.
2. When you sign a church contract, you are signing a legal document. This means they can impose certain disciplinary methods on you and your legal rights have been somewhat attenuated. So, they can discuss you in a large public meeting of the church and urge the members to shun you and the courts will not interfere if you are still a member.
3. You have a legal right to dissolve your contract with the church. Once you do, they cannot make you the subject of a public meeting of the church without risking the possibility of lawsuit. Such lawsuits against churches have been won. You must do so in a documentable fashion. All of the "how tos," along with relevant materially will be placed on the page we are developing.
Recently, Mark Dever wrote a post addressing the question "What I Can and Cannot Live With as a Pastor". There are some illuminating sections that could have a profound effect on the culture of the church you join.
Immature believers can't handle the truth
Corollary: If you do not believe exactly as they believe, you are *immature* and might even be *wicked,* *sinful,* and *unregenerate*. Dever has this to say:
I’m not suggesting that you be deceptive, but simply that you explain things to your congregation as they are ready to hear them.
He is being deceptive, darn it. In fact this approach is being used in many churches around the world. The incoming pastor obfuscates that he is a hardcore Neo-Calvinist and starts throwing around the *gospel* word because all good Christians believe in the gospel, right?
We discussed this despicable tactic by featuring a post by Andy Davis link and link who allegedly used this technique at FBC Durham. 9Marks featured Davis' post as a wonderful example of church reformation.™ When you see wonderful people that you know personally (I do know them) being called wicked and unregenerate, then you know there is a problem with unholy arrogance. Such conceit will eventually bite you.
Dever writes this to pastors who he assumes are mature.
That is, are they mature enough to follow where you lead? If not, you may only do more damage by quickly “leading” in that direction.
Therefore, be prepared to be thought of as immature if you do not agree with the pastor's vision. There is a reason why you might feel sidelined.
Dever believes that church polity is relevant to the gospel.
Most people don’t think polity is something that’s relevant to the gospel. I do.
Ah-the ultimate gambit. If you do not agree with the church governance in regards to church discipline or membership, you might be in danger of denying the gospel. That means you may not be a Christian, or in their lingo, regenerated. Make sure you understand that when you are called *unregenerate*, they are saying that you are outside of the faith. That might lead to church discipline.
Folks, be careful in calling a new pastor to your church. I know of a church in which the elders refused to let the congregation know that they were changing the polity and would do so by bringing in a new pastor who would implement that polity. They would not allow any questions that dealt with Calvinism during the Q+A. He got voted in, and now the church is fully part of the Neo-Calvinist movement.
Do not go to a church that has female elders because they are too far gone.
Female elders. I might be able to live with female elders, but not for long, and probably not at all, so I probably just shouldn’t try. I want to allow for those situations in which you’ve had an ill-taught church that’s willing to follow your leadership, where even the female elders themselves are happy to step down. But normally, if a church accepts female elders, has been clearly instructed to the contrary, and will not change, that seems like a battle you won’t win. So I probably wouldn’t even begin with such a church.
Mark Dever needs to consult with Andy Davis. He took care of that problem by calling female leaders *wicked* and *unregenerate* when they disagreed with him. It can be done if someone is a bulldog.
Drums need to go in a 9Marks sort of church.
Drums. I can live with drums. Like organs, if they are overpowering and actually discourage congregational singing, then I would prefer not to live with them for long. No instrument should discourage the biblical practice of congregational singing. But here, as in so many other places, teach before you act, and certainly before you call the congregation to act.
Wow- there is gospel teaching involved in getting rid of drums? It apparently screws up biblical singing. Good night!
Church membership is a must so they know over whom they have authority to discipline for sin and error
12. No formal membership. I can live with this. But, depending on the situation, not for long! In this fallen world, sin and error will arise within the church, which means that we must know who has the final authority for acting against sin and error. Since the New Testament teaches that the congregation has this final say (see Matt. 18; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2; Gal. 1) I have to know who belongs to the congregation. Too, the members need to know of their own obligations, responsibilities, and privileges. There may be cultural reasons why a church in a non-transient, small community in which Christians are a minority could effectively operate with only an informal membership. But except for these very particular circumstances, Scripture and practice mandate that we have a clear membership in order to function biblically as a church.
Read between the lines. They must have a declared membership in order to implement church discipline. Although they don't admit it, they know that there is a legal reason for this. However, from what I can tell, this group never defines what they will discipline. That is to their advantage. They can discipline what they want, whenever they want. Never forget Todd Wilhelm, "The Guy From Dubai".
Infant baptism is a sin…think about it.
Infant baptism. I cannot live with infant baptism. Having said that, if I were the pastor of the only church allowed in Mecca, maybe . . . But even then, I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized. It is, as one said not too long ago, “above my pay-grade.” I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors.
I believe that we can agree to disagree on a number of issues. There are *A* issues and *B* issues. Dever ratchets it up. If you disagree with him on baptism, you are in sin. Can you imagine what else he might declare as sin? Maybe thinking that it is OK to have drums in worship after you have been properly taught, for example? And does he say what he will or will not discipline? Of course not. All options must be kept open.
Then, there is a myriad of other issues that need *wise consideration* by the pastor.
Note-wise consideration by the pastor. So many things to pronounce sinful or not, so little time.
This is just a little taste of those things that I can and cannot live with as a pastor. Questions of Calvinism, open-air preaching, drama, dress, prophecy, politics, having an American flag on the platform, and myriads of other matters need prayerful and wise consideration by the pastor.
Please read Dever's entire post. There are a number of other things that I could have discussed, but my family is getting antsy to do some things. In the meantime, reflect on this quote by Henri Nouwen and ask yourself a question. How often are you called "Beloved" by your church?
“Over the years, I have come to realize that the greatest trap in our life is not success, popularity, or power, but self-rejection. Success, popularity, and power can indeed present a great temptation, but their seductive quality often comes from the way they are part of the much larger temptation to self-rejection. When we have come to believe in the voices that call us worthless and unlovable, then success, popularity, and power are easily perceived as attractive solutions.
The real trap, however, is self-rejection. As soon as someone accuses me or criticizes me, as soon as I am rejected, left alone, or abandoned, I find myself thinking, "Well, that proves once again that I am a nobody." … [My dark side says,] I am no good… I deserve to be pushed aside, forgotten, rejected, and abandoned. Self-rejection is the greatest enemy of the spiritual life because it contradicts the sacred voice that calls us the "Beloved." Being the Beloved constitutes the core truth of our existence.”
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 15:1-16:28 Mark 7:1-23 Psalm 40:11-17 Proverbs 10:13-14
Very helpful post!
First!
J. Vernon McGee always closed his radio program with, “May God richly bless you my beloved” or something like that.
A very warm and inviting statement.
I just finished Leeman’s book on church discipline. I believe it is a condensed version of a large work that I have not read (my nephew, of course, has).
I agree that in my context, SBC churches, that church discipline was essentially abandoned in the last half of the 20th century. That has had long ranging and disastrous consequences.
Today, large “power point” type churches typically have no discipline. The churches are essentially preaching stations. People attend anonymously and may jump from congregation to congregation, missing some of the blessings of being truly connected with a local body.
I don’t believe that a church should have a code with specific sins listed and punishment for those sins. I can’t imagine coming up with that.
Church covenants don’t have to be legal documents. I would not want one that was a disguised contract.
I would reserve discipline for extreme cases (renouncing the Gospel etc.), and all others would be opportunities for discipleship and learning. In cases of divorce, however, our covenant says that the member will be in covenant with the other members, and that cannot happen where two people have broken the covenant between them. So, in those cases, we allow the couple to choose who will remain at our church and who will relocate.
I also would leave membership discipline in the hands of the elders where it can be exercised with some care and privacy, and would not make it a congregational matter.
I believe in membership, for many of the same reasons Dever cites. It’s not called such in the NT, but given that churches vote on things, do ministry etc., it’s important to know who are members and who are not.
My biggest disagreement with Leeman is in the area of ecclesiology and the local church. Coming from the Jesus movement era, I tend to think more in terms of the universal church. The local church is an extension of that, and needs processes etc., but I do not appropriate some of the promises to the church that Leeman does, in the same way.
Anonymous wrote:
Your quote is accurate. I remember listening to J Vernon McGee when I was into Christianese AM radio in the Seventies. Very unpretentious man. Said he was going through the entire Bible in five years of broadcasts, and that’s exactly what he did.
He opened his radio programs with the hymn “A Fertile Foundation”; recently my church has been using that as an opening processional and I can’t stop expecting J Vernon McGee’s voice to cut in after the first verse.
Anonymous wrote:
So when they try to reinstate Church Discipline, they flip all the way to Control Freak.
WOW, WOW, WOW!!!!
You guys have got to read this from Matt Redmond! Amazing points!
http://mattbredmond.com/2015/03/11/theses/
Anonymous wrote:
If you sign your name to a covenant it is a legally binding agreement. And you better well understand what you are signing or you may find yourself in a bad way with a one sided agreement.
My personal favorites on Matt Redmond’s theses are the following:
*Evangelicalism is no longer in charge in America. How we respond to this and the resulting hostility will show the watching world if we follow the One who loved those who crucified him.
*Those who have espoused the doctrines of grace are far too often the least gracious.
*If the world around us cannot see our love for enemies and for each other in a way they can understand, we should not be surprised by their lack of unbelief.
*Churches that hire through résumés have more in common with the corporate business world than they do with the church throughout history.
* Jesus was hard on the rich and spoke graciously to the adulterous. We are the exact reverse.
Anonymous wrote:
But, UCCD hurt Todd Wilhelm when he left for excellent reasons.
Why should I trust the elders? I certainly wouldn’t trust his or any other church affiliated with 9 Marks. I wouldn’t trust the elders from my former SBC church and I wouldn’t trust the elders from my more recently former church.
You wouldn’t make a list of possible things to discipline? Why not? Wouldn’t it help to alert people like what I am getting into? Why should I join a church that wouldn’t tell me what they will discipline?
Dee….when you see the person who was called “wicked” and “unregenerate” next Sunday in Sunday school give them a hug from me. I would love to go down to Durham and give Andy Davis a “Gospel Centered” kick in the …well…you know 🙂
Remember it would be foreordained and willed by God to! 🙂
This discipline business. Just makes me cringe. It is headed so hard toward the SBC…..so glad I am a backslider. I wish they’d just remove me from the church roll. ( that’s terrible to say isn’t it? Or perhaps not?)
I’ll just take my chance with Jesus alone.
@ Dee:
Not just that but many people always have the belief that people can be disciplined for things like adultary, etc… The reality is that in many situations people can be disciplined for mundane and trivial things. That’s just how fundementalism works. I think of 9 Marks as being fundementalism on steroids.
No drums? He’s denying Scripture: “David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with castanets, harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums and cymbals.” (2 Sam. 6:5.) Of those instrument, only harps and lyres are not percussion instruments.
I can’t find the organ in the Bible though.
@ Tim:
Did you know that David wore a kilt when he danced?
@ Anonymous:
I enjoy listening to J. Vernon McGee on the radio. I can hear him say those words in my mind.
dee wrote:
Well then, I can’t be part of a church if the elders don’t wear kilts and if they don’t dance 🙂
There are a good number of Southern Baptist churches that are not on board with Mark Dever and his 9Marks. I was speaking last weekend with a friend who has been a long-time member of a rural Southern Baptist church. She told me that when they were searching for a new pastor, they steered clear of candidates who graduated from a certain Southern Baptist seminary in my native state. The word is definitely getting out in SBC land about the Neo-Cals.
Dee,
Thanks for introducing me to that wonderful Christian couple that has been wrongly labeled as unregenerate. I seem to recall a commandment about bearing false witness…
Shame, shame, shame! 🙁
Maybe Mark Dever will eventually decide there should be no instruments at all. He'll fit in well with another strict denomination that has that rule.
I am alot more concerned with the things God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit can/cannot live with than the personal preferences of Pope Dever or really any other pastor. I know that sounds awful coming from a minister and seminary student but I have to tell you the more stuff like his I read or hear and the more I see the flat out misuse and abuse happening in our churches the more I would just rather go fishing!
As far as all the membership agreements and covenants go, people really need to ask themselves “Why does my church/pastor want me to sign this document?” I have yet to see a document where the member has any rights or that sets out what the member can expect the church to do for them. What I see is what the church expects from the member and what the church plans to do when they find the member in violation of the agreement.
It has been awhile since I studied the covenenats in the Bible but it seems I recall that the powerful person made a covenenat with those in lesser power and basically told them what he would provide, his promises to them. What these membership covenants seem to do is tell the powerless what the powerful expect. These are no different that contracts with your mortgage company or bank. Basically abide by the contract or we come take our stuff back. That is a fair agreement for a bank, seems a little out of place for the Body of Christ. Didn’t God already make the last covenant we need with the blood of His son? Didn’t He pay the earnest money or down payment in the form of His Spirit so that we would have confidence of our future inheritance? With that being the case what in the world do I need some piece of paper from a church for?
Ok I am done, this stuff really gets under my skin 🙂
@ Mitch:
Good words, Mitch! Thank you!
One of the main reasons why some Christians get involved with these authoritarian, almost cult like churches is that they see themselves as the ‘elite’ the ‘enlightened’ or true spiritual ones.Those who get involved generally do so from an insecurity that wants to be accepted by the group. In truth we should only be secure in the love of Christ and from that foundation we become open hearted to all who have called on the name of Christ.
There doesn’t ever seem to be much talk about loving people, including the sick & needy. Where is the love? Do they ever write or worry so much about learning how to listen those who are hurting or how to spot when people are in need?
william wallace wrote:
What C.S.Lewis called “The Lure of the Inner Ring.”
Deb wrote:
And Mohammed.
(Though I suspect Mohammed’s reason for banning musical instruments in mosque was to head off infighting over what is truly Islamic musical instruments.)
@ Mitch:
Just once, I would love to see someone bring a contract to one of these churches stipulating what they expect before they give one single dime. And one of those things is opening the books….all of them including ALL of the pastors income streams. I doubt the “elders” would dare sign it. Right?
Someday, I hope some very wealthy people do just that
“‘I’m not suggesting that you be deceptive, but simply that you explain things to your congregation as they are ready to hear them.’
He is being deceptive, darn it. In fact this approach is being used in many churches around the world. The incoming pastor obfuscates that he is a hardcore Neo-Calvinist and starts throwing around the *gospel* word because all good Christians believe in the gospel, right?”
Dee, this isn’t just deceptive, it’s one of the tell-tale marks of a cult. 🙁 It’s the idea that some information is only for higher-ups in the faith, and new initiates just aren’t ready for it yet, so we ***hide it from them***.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That wasn't the religious group I had in mind, but great point!
Tim wrote:
Applause from Voyager and her crew!!!
Lydia wrote:
What a hoot that would be! If it ever happens, I hope they find TWW and post the reaction they got!
Anonymous wrote:
And please give examples of “prior” church discipline in the SBC which was abandoned. You make it sound like the SBC was monolithic in practicing what ever you think was church discipline when, in fact, they were big tent prior to the CR. A very big tent considering they only reason the SBC existed 100+ years prior was over taking slaves on the mission field. I think the SBC abandoned that hard line of hierarchical thinking and became quite big tent until the CR and power grabs.
Anonymous wrote:
Strange way to describe it. Of course they “don’t have to be”. But wise people think twice before “agreeing” to anything. My hope is that people would insist on seeing detailed budgets, assuring their vote and perusing the pastors yearly diary approved by the congregation (conferences, speaking gigs, etc)before they would even consider joining.
Problem is, once they sign these things no matter how benign they read, the “church” (translate: a small group of men) have the right to discuss them with people any way they want. Some folks don’t see the big deal here but I have seen people’s business reputations ruined and worse.
The only thing a church covenant communicates is that you agree to a spiritual oligarchy making your decisions for you. Jesus is quite enough. My government is already doing enough of that sort of thing to me as it is.
@ Victorious:
I met a guy a few years ago who had attended a mega for about 10 years giving quite a bit of money. Over time he noticed several stewardship things that really bothered him. They sort of piled up so he decided to insist they show him a detailed budget. He was a businessman familiar with large budgets.
His story of the maze they sent him into is astounding. I wish he would write it up. It took months of them redirecting him to different depts, sweet secretaries “getting back to him” and finally redirecting him to specific “elders” who did not return calls but had very sweet assistats, and so forth before he decided it was all about getting him to drop it so they would not have to tell him there was NO WAY they were showing him anything.
They did not want to be the bad guys who said the “negative truths” to him. In effect, over several months, no one told him outright “no” but their obfuscation was the message. They had plausible deniability. Of course he left. He had never signed the “what we believe” class booklet, either. Had he been Joe six pack chances are they would have said no.
@ XianJaneway:
Yes, but would it be one of the 9Marks of a Cult™ ???
@ XianJaneway:
How does the pastor know what the congregation is ready to hear? He is judging them as a “group” by what standard? The standards he has outlined so far? Seriously?
The problem with these guys is they have been trained (by the seminaries) to walk into a church thinking everyone is spiritually ignorant and they possess the truth they need. This attitude has been all over their blogs and comments for the last 8 years.
From Rick Warren (method) to Al Mohler (doctrine) it has been nothing but arrogance.
Lydia wrote:
Seriously: Do prospective congregants ever attempt to attach a rider to the membership covenant? If so, have any been successful?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Huh? i play musical instrumentsfrom predominantly Muslim countiries – many are used during religious celebrations, though outside the mosque, and there is a HUGE amount of Muslim religious/ddevotional music – from all around the world – that is either vocal with instrumental accompaniment, or just instrumental.
Please, please don’t generalize on the basis of assumptions. I have Mudlim musician friends who would be more thsn happy to help people lear about the instruments they play, as well as about the music…
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You might want to look into the traditional and clasdical music of, say, Iran, Turkey, the Arab countries of yhe Middle East, Muslim music from the Indian subcontinent, Africa, etc.
Believe it or not, Saudi Arabia hahas a tremendous store of traditional music and dance, though odds are that the only way to hear or see it is via uTube or going to one of the Gulf countries.
And I’ve only hit on a few countries and regiins – there are many more, all with hugely diverse and rich traditions in music and the other arts.
Mitch wrote:
Well stated!!!
Mitch wrote:
Preach it! Thank you.
@ Sergius Martin-George:
I can see quite a few in the article that fit Lifton’s Thought Reform criterion.
Deb wrote:
Is that Kentucky? Or North Carolina?
@ XianJaneway:
This behavior reminds me so much of Mormonism. I wonder if Mark Dever or Jonathan Leeman are wearing magic underwear?
Do you think Mark Dever is capable of having a man burned at the stake like John Calvin? Will I end up like Michael Servetus on the corner of A (NE) and 6 (NE)? Gram3? I guess in your case and to honor the Puritans they can accuse you of being a witch. 😯
@ K.D.:
SEBTS and SBTS are the strongest Neo Cal SBC seminaries. President Akin promoted Driscoll quite a bit, too. All of them are patriarchal.
On the subject of drums, do remember that some churches may have loud, even amplified drums, perhaps played insensitively, and this can create a performance environment where people don’t participate in the singing. Whilst I have a lot of issues with Dever, I think he’s right to emphasise the congregational nature of worship and seek to remove obstacles to this, be they drums or organs.
Good point in the article about Dever writing this for mainly young pastors who hang on his every word. I wish people would read up on these guys before they ever visit their churches.
One thing I caught onto about Mohler years back is that his messages were vastly different depending on who he was speaking to. It is almost as if the general public did not know the other (real?) Mohler who was working hard to take over the SBC to Calvinism and sell the determinist god as the “true Gospel”. They only knew the culture war Mohler. Mohler even spoke differently in Non Cal churches than he did around the YRR. You would think he was free will in the Non Cal church. But Mohler, Piper, etc really do up the “Calvin is the Gospel” theme with the young pastor wannabes.
I would not trust any of them with my recipe books.
Mom, I was thinking that your example about being pulled over and given a $10,000 ticket for a law you didn’t know you broke is a good illustration. The way these church’s operate and use authority I find they have more in common with the communist states of Romania, East Germany, etc… When a church starts mowing down people in the same manner that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army did in Tiananmen Square you know its jacked up.
“Most people don’t think polity is something that’s relevant to the gospel. I do.”
Everything is “relevant” to the “Gospel” for them.
“Drums. I can live with drums. Like organs, if they are overpowering and actually discourage congregational singing, then I would prefer not to live with them for long. No instrument should discourage the biblical practice of congregational singing.”
LOL, This is borderline IFB status.
“Female elders. I might be able to live with female elders, but not for long, and probably not at all, so I probably just shouldn’t try.”
Don’t you feel sorry for the women in these churches?
Corbin wrote:
Hot off the 9-Marxist press, complementarianism is crucial to discipleship.
http://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-is-crucial-to-discipleship/
“why?” you may ask…
Mr Leeman explains:
“Why? So that all creation would have a picture of the gospel, which Paul later says that husbands and wives picture in their love for one another (Eph. 5). When a church holds up models of biblical masculinity and femininity, therefore, it makes the gospel easier to comprehend.
Without such models, the gospel is simply harder to explain, almost like the Bible translator who wants to a describe Jesus as the “lamb” of God in a jungle culture that’s never heard of a lamb or a sacrifice. Is it any surprise that the devil, who hates the gospel, would want to homogenize men and women as well, thereby blurring one set of images for picturing the gospel?”
This stuff “pictures” why I’ve become convinced that the whole “picturing the gospel” stuff is diabolical.
Dee–Just what I was thinking last week–a resource page about church membership vows, covenants, etc. I am curious about what churches require vows, membership classes, etc. I have noticed that the LDS churches talk a lot about the “keys of the kingdom” which is interesting to say the least. Great idea.
Lydia wrote:
Can you imagine what would happen. Why that person or couple would certainly get more than shunned! It would be as if the anti-christ walked in an introduced himself. lol But I sure would like to see it.
I mean really how can it be a covenant if only the pew-sitter has responsibilities? I would like to write on that says no canned, plagiarized sermons, no proof texting of scripture, no more than one story of what happened to you the other day and that only once a month. Let’s see, I expect to be visited when I am in the hospital more than 24hrs, I expect the body to take care of the hurting among us, more care for victims and justice, little to no care for victimizers (ministers included)……………..
I Just realized I could go on and on but will leave it at that.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“How Firm A Foundation,” surely.
Dave A A wrote:
Words can not express how sick of this kind of teaching I am getting. I would like to go through the document item by item but just the first pass through made me too mad to right. I am sure that means I am either a. in rebellion, b. lost and going to hell or c. both a and b.
I will leave it at I can not figure out where they get gender roles out of Genesis 2. The only way to get it from there is to super-impose what they want to teach on the text. From there the article just goes down hill but the gist seems to be that being conformed to the image of Christ is not enough, somehow there is a masculine Christ and a feminine Christ. Give me a break.
I will say there is a well reasoned comment that pushes back very hard on this perversion of the Gospel.
Dave A A wrote:
I’m thinking nothing says Good News to most of the women in the non-Western world and to the vast majority of women throughout history like the Good News that “your husband is your authority and you *must* submit in everything.”
Funny how Paul describes the effects of the Gospel in terms of mutual love, mutual submission, considering others more important than ourselves, lifting one another up, and reconciliation between ethnicities, and classes, and sexes. But we must not let the actual Bible get in the way of the precious blood-bought Gospel of Gender and Male Supremacy.
Does the ESV contain Galatians or did Grudem edit that inconvenient book out?
Eagle wrote:
Hahahahah!!! But with the SBTS crest, instead of the little symbols. 😉
Mitch wrote:
Masculine Christ=Lord. Feminine Christ=Servant. Just like Eternal Father=Eternal Boss and Eternal Son=Eternal Servant. I have no idea what they did with the Holy Spirit in their scheme because they never talk about him, and that makes me wonder if they are Nicene. The indwelling Holy Spirit and his power is totally unnecessary in their system because Rules, Roles, and Doctrine are all that we need.
nth!
First mark of a church takeover — pastor wants more authority, get rid of congregational business meetings except to rubber stamp pastor or his nominees. The profession most populated with people with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) — pastoral ministry!
Here you go – the husband/wife relationship –
“Now, it’s comparatively easy to see what this means in a marriage, where there is one man and one woman in an authoritatively structured relationship.” Leeman
http://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-is-crucial-to-discipleship/
Deb wrote:
I’ll listen to McGee before I’ll listen to many of today’s pretenders.
Mitch wrote:
Leeman says all dis here (or is it dat dere) faith, repentance, knowledge of God, and conformity to Christ stuff is fine and dandy, BUT, “if that’s all…then it will have implicitly smothered the God-intended differences between men and women…” Somehow… And then creation can’t get da picture… Somehow…
My experience with this “* Jesus was hard on the rich and spoke graciously to the adulterous. We are the exact reverse.” in the evangelical industry, the rich cannot sin, it is impossible, unless someone who is richer says they did, then its sin. As for the basic “sinner” (who is not rich), they can rot. Period. Yup it works real well, sort of.
Gram3 wrote:
And it’s not just humans what needs this “ism” to “get” the gospel, but “all creation” and even da debbil hiss-self!
Gram3 wrote:
Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip, nothing in-between.
Bridget wrote:
(… Ellipses mine)
Really inspires me to treat my wife more lovingly…
All I can take tonight… Time to go hold Mrs AA’s sore feet.
I read Mark Dever’s article what I can and cant live with, ug. I think the church membership / discipline model cannot work in the evangelical church as practiced in the USA or even the west. Too much power is granted to the management and not enough to the workforce who is actually paying the bills, and the managements salary. In my real live experience I have seen literally dozens given the left foot of fellowship, never, not one time ever was it done with restoration in mind. It was done first and foremost to retaliate, in that it was very effective in breaking up families, ruining people’s lives and literally terrifying the laity into submission. It works in the short term so thus it is a spiritual tool. The second most used reason for discipline is to strengthen the pastor’s power base, which is also a God honoring reason to use it. But reconciliation, even if God almighty demanded it, it cant happen, gravity will fail first. Church discipline may work in other business models IE churches, but not in the standard evangelical franchise.
Bridget wrote:
These guys think that a good and God-honoring marriage is an authoritatively structured relationship first and foremost? Before unity and oneness and love? All the single women need to run for the hills from this idea of marriage. Many of these marriages will not end well. How is this not perpetuating the battle of the sexes from Genesis 3? This isn’t what redemption looks like. This is what fallen sin natures look like.
http://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-is-crucial-to-discipleship/
How about http://www.we_do_church_right.org/why-slavery-should-be-practiced-so-we-can-see-Lordship-in-action.html
or http://www.we_do_church_right.org/why-we-should-not-go-to-doctors-so-we-can-experience-the-total-sovereignty-of-God.html
Yup that works
/sarcasm
A note on the speed limit analogy – The “reasonable and proper” speed limit Montana used to have was actually struck down because of its vagueness. I believe it was reserved for state highways an low-populated areas. Urban legend was that Montana had no speed limits like the Autobahn, but the law was actually the whim of a police officer.
And, “brother-pastor” is a new one.
@ Dave A A:
That’s such a sad article. One thing I still don’t understand: how are things like support, encouragement, respect etc. sex specific? Because it sure seems like all they’re saying is that one sex should have more of certain character traits than another, and vice versa. Really? That’s what you’re trying to sell us? I know that this supposedly comes from Genesis 1 and 2, but when they try to spell it out, it sounds quite cheesy.
Mark Dever, 9 Marks and the rest of them won’t be happy unless they’re running your entire life, like John Calvin did in Geneva. We know how that worked out.
Gram3 wrote:
Huh? But wait! Owen (not John) says that many women thrive under comp-ism!! Matt Chandler said something very similar in an interview with Piper. Don’t tell me they’re wrong?!
@ brian:
I’d say with these rules that 9 Marks wants to run a church in the same manner that a plantation was run prior to the Civil War. There is no equality…just master and slave.
mirele wrote:
At least they’ll run it *Biblically* .
I have to tell you, I would *love* to see a resource page on church membership from you guys. It would absolutely be a huge blessing as a resource for people looking to find a healthy church. Honestly, I’d love to see a resource page on what you guys think constitutes a healthy church 🙂 Just my $.02 to encourage you on that front! I can tell you that I would stay away from a 9Marks church and honestly, I’m iffy on Acts 29 at this point. I like denominational oversight, for all its tendency to close ranks – at least it allows some possibility for managing problematic leaders.
Dave A A wrote:
As always, all the single ladies (and gentlemen) get stuck with … nothing. And the apostle Paul was apparently confused when he said that celibacy is preferable to marriage, because how would the world see a “picture of the gospel” without tons of married Christians everywhere?
I realise that organs are a remnant of European traditions like stained glass windows and steeples and wooden pews, and, as such, definitely unnecessary. But what’s wrong with them if the people in a church like them? Dever says that since organs are very expensive, it’s difficult to get rid of them.
The guy definitely has a god complex. If he doesn’t like it, it must go, if not now, then definitely in the future.
THe thing that displeaseth the DEaver is an abomination unto HIM. (Deaver, that is.)
Gram3 wrote:
Yes!
@ Josh:
Precisely. They worship every word out of Paul’s mouth, except of course the words they don’t want to hear. Barf!
And biblically masculine males must be bullies and biblically feminine females must be ninnies and just look, put the two together and they can facilitate living out bullyhood and ninnyhood since each can draw excuses for their own shortcomings from blaming it on the other person’s behavior.
As in: I am not a bully. Just look at her. She could not function at all if she did not have me to tell her what to do. (Perfect excuse. I am her savior here.)
As in: I am not a ninny, I am just trying to keep peace at home and get these children raised and you know ‘how he is’ about things. (Perfect excuse. I am the heroine of this tale.)
With always the great threat: If you sir do not act like a bully there must be “something wrong” with you. Do I need to spell it out? And if you, little lady, do not act this way god will be mad at you and that is a lot worse than anything your husband is doing now. Playing on her fear.
Gus wrote:
I can think of a few organs that, if Dever et alia were to lose might improve the state of Christianity in America: larynxes and the part of the brain that enables communicating ideas like these in words.
Here’s the imaginary scenario at the beginning of the article: A fellow pastor is fired from his church because “when the former senior pastor’s daughter has been known for some time to not be attending (though still a member) and even living with her boyfriend, I suggested at a deacons’ meeting that we do something about it. The next thing you know . . .”
So, the “sins” of this girl seem to be
1. Not attending this church
2. Living with her boyfriend (perhaps. Could also just be gossip)
And the new pastor wants to “do something about it”. Something that involves deacons or at least requires their permission. Something the deacons were so strongly against that they fired their new pastor! And the deacons, in this telling of the story, and the bad guys?!
This is pretty disturbing, no?
I don’t want Dever et al to have organs, either, because perhaps what they could or would do with one would be a discredit to a fine instrument. Meanwhile, some of us are enjoying maintaing a certain musical tradition that is a part of our civilization and trying our best to do it, like all things should be done, for the glory of God. Who would want Dever messing that up?
And finally (because I should be cooking dinner), why is “Questions of Calvinism” so bad as to be worthy of listing here? Surely if Calvinism is your main theological basis you’d be happy to defend it? If you believe something so strongly surely you’re confident the thing you’ve put your faith in can withstand a little questioning? Surely such questioning would strengthen your faith and prove to the other party how valid it is?
The hypocrisy surrounding Dever’s teaching on church discipline and his protecting Mahaney at CHBC when he fled his own church is too obvious to take him seriously. He is a fraud.
@ Dave:
Piper excommunicated his son, Abraham.
Josh wrote:
Good point, Josh! And we don’t hear them pushing the single life, do we? After all, Paul says marriage is a distraction from serving the Lord.
Arce wrote:
It doesn’t mean that organs per se are good, and I can also think of quite a number of organ-accompanied church songs that sound so funereal that losing them could be a bleesing to everyone.
But a good organ is a great instrument, you just need the right kind of musician. It also doesn’t mean that it has to be used exclusively to accompany the people singing.
OTOH, while I like a lot of rock music as much as the next guy, I’ve seen quite a few videos of churches’ Sunday services where the music is definitely not appropriate.
I know it’s difficult to find the right style of music for church services:
it shouldn’t be mostly 300-400 years old (as a Lutheran, I know what I’m talking about here), it should be at least vaguely contemporaray, it shouldn’t be shoddy as music or poetry, …
But that’s exactly why I think that a wide variety of styles can be OK, including organ music.
Josh wrote:
And how could we Outbreed those Heathens?
Nancy wrote:
You DO know “organ” has an off-color meaning?
Nancy wrote:
Synergistic in their abuse, like a Bitch & Nag married to a Drunk and Proud of It.
And the only difference I can think of between Biblically Masculine and Ayn Rand Objectivist Hero is lotsa cigarettes and obsession about “Am I Getting Fat?”
Eagle wrote:
Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip, nothing in-between.
Don’t a lot of these MenaGAWD go all fanboy over the pre-Civil War South? The Slave States are right up there with Ozzie & Harriet 1950s as the Godly Golden Age.
Corbin wrote:
Just like the Talibani and ISIS wold run it “Koranically”.
I had difficulty finding servant leadership anywhere in that article. Instead, the article oozes disdain for the average church member, and can barely contain the author’s disdain for women.
Also, the idea that complementarianism is essential to helping people know Christ would be laughable, if the 9 Marks crew and others like them weren’t so serious about it. I would say that, if anything, their form of complementarianism is a hindrance to the Gospel. I mean, who would knowingly sign on for that, except for men who want to control the women in their lives? They act as if only two options exist – either men seize control of everything and lead, with their handmaidens following meekly behind to “help,” or men abandon all of their responsibilities and any sense of leadership, forcing women to “take on men’s roles.” The vast middle ground, where men and women, husbands and wives, work together to get things done, seems not to exist in their world, while it’s the norm for a majority of Christians in the “real world.”
Agree with the first poster…this is helpful and very needful for today. Many will avoid unnecessary heartache and misery by thinking through these things. Thanks for your efforts, Dee!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You DO know what I was saying based on the second sentence.
I’ll give Dever this much: many people in our local town, and especially many in the 20-30 something age range, have had their fill of “contemporary” services. What truly was authentic worship for the baby boomers, praise bands and drums, etc, come off more as Finney or even dare I say it Elmer Gantry manipulation to them. So they do tend to drop those churches as they hit adulthood, and flee to either liturgical or traditional evangelical churches. Unfortunately, to find those they have to choose between hyper liberalism and hyper fundamentalism in THIS specific town.
Those who still want to follow the dictates of the church growth movement aren’t listening now that it isn’t a ruse to have THEIR music and THEIR worship style.
Otherwise we would have some kickbutt traditional non liberal non fundamentalist evangelical churches around.
Corbin wrote:
I don’t want anyone telling me how to run my life….well, except my wife….:)
“As a man, I want to help the other men I spend time with know what it means to be a leader and initiator, to have courage, to be protectors, to make sacrifices for those weaker than myself, and so on. My wife, on the other hand, wants to help the women she spends time with know what it means to be a supporter, a helper, a facilitator, a counselor, a fan, occasionally a rebuker, and so on.”
So various godly attributes are now gender specific. Got it.
“Without such models, the gospel is simply harder to explain, almost like the Bible translator who wants to a describe Jesus as the “lamb” of God in a jungle culture that’s never heard of a lamb or a sacrifice. Is it any surprise that the devil, who hates the gospel, would want to homogenize men and women as well, thereby blurring one set of images for picturing the gospel?”
Wow, I guess the preaching of the Word (law and gospel) will be largely impotent without biblical marriages to show off to those being evangelized.
@ Bridget:
🙂
Deb wrote:
Yep-definitely a false witness. I wonder how those leaders sleep at night…
Mitch wrote:
Many have decided that exact same thing.
Mitch wrote:
It has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the poor person who signs this contract. It was put in place to protect the church from lawsuits. You are the potential enemy from which they are protecting themselves.
linda wrote:
In your specific town what kind of a thing in a church looks to you to be hyper-liberal and what looks to be hyper-fundy as found in liturgical and traditional evangelical churches?
william wallace wrote:
Beautiful. Also, you name made me laugh this morning.
Beakerj wrote:
Love is being redefined as “loving you so much we will make an example of you in front of the congregation.” Being kind is not part of the plan. Whipping you into shape as they define it is their goal.
Lydia wrote:
OOOOOOH! You just gave me an idea for a post.
Dee:
As I said, I believe the benefits of handling discipline privately, by the people appointed by the congregation to handle that (our elders fit that description) protects the privacy of the people being disciplined and it allows for a more informal process that is not likely to get out of hand and become a public food fight.
Putting a member “on trial” so to speak in front of a congregation would be an awful spectacle. I would not want it to happen in our church. In churches where it has happened that I am aware of, it was not a good experience.
We have been a church for 22 years, and have never had to remove anyone.
I believe that situations are so diverse and there are so many factors that may come into play that I would not want to draw up a criminal code that attempts to address every type of behavior and what the punishment would be.
There are some denominations that have church codes like that, but even then, if you read the press from time to time, the way they are applied involves a lot of discretion. Sometimes so much so, from press reports, that ministers who violate them are found not guilty of provisions that seem clear.
I believe that there needs to be practical wisdom applied to situations, and that does not lend itself to a codification of laws.
Also, to draw up a codification of laws with resultant penalties would be a real culture changer. We have such a peaceful situation. That kind of project is so punitive and it would take quite a bit of energy and effort from the congregation that would focus us on discipline and negativity, and that would change our culture.
If you know of a church that has done this that you would cite as a good example, I would be interested in seeing what they have done.
Most places that I have heard of that have a really active discipline process and rules, etc. are pretty weird places that I would not want to be part of.
XianJaneway wrote:
He is trying to justify why he tells his Markbots to obfuscate. It is wrong. It shows they do not trust God to take care of their ministry if they tell the truth. I wonder if they all get together at their little back scratch conferences and slap each other on the back for being so gospelly deceptive?
XianJaneway wrote:
One of my favorite Voyager scenes ever is when Q appeared on the bridge with his marimba band.
Bridget:
Your claim that every church covenant is a legal document is not accurate.
Before making that determination, you probably ought to at least read the document (the covenant) in question.
In our church, and most churches, really, the constitution and bylaws provide how the church operates. When a person joins, they join an organization that is subject to a constitution and bylaws. That person is subject to the bylaws, regardless of whether they sign them.
Our membership issues are addressed in the bylaws, not the church covenant.
And no one who joins our church signs the bylaws.
@ Lydia:
I think we have to be careful in going back to history to show examples of church discipline, etc. There are far too many examples of leaders getting carried away. Also, agreed on the SBC comment.
I think we should go all the way back to Jesus who seemed to get really miffed off at the godly™ Pharisees and leaders and seemed to show incredible compassion to the *sinners.*
Bridget:
I think that some of the uber Reformed guys – like at Doug Wilson’s church, wear kilts.
We had a wedding recently at our church, and one man who was attending wore a kilt.
Dave A A wrote:
For all of their blather about biblical gender roles, I have yet to hear one person say “Now I get the relationship of the Father to the Son. Fred and Mary’s marriage exemplifies it. ” Nope-not once.
In fact they are totally unable to define it in any practical, concrete way. I keep asking and no one is answering.
@ Godith:
Thanks-I realized that we have written a ton on this subject. I did some google searches and our blog keeps coming up when this subject is raised. It is just a matter of sitting down and putting all the posts into categories like: legalities, emphasis, how to read a contract, etc.
I do know this. Apparently some people in one church read a couple of these posts and refused to sign the new membership contract.
@ Mitch:
Yes!! I love you guys. You write posts for us! A couple of years ago, Deb called me and wondered what we should write about the following week. I said “Sit back and file your nails. Our readers will direct us.” And they did.
Mitch wrote:
Actually, they believe that Christianity has only a masculine feel. Prepare to get irritated.
http://www.challies.com/articles/does-christianity-have-a-masculine-feel
@ Arce:
This comment bears repeating!
Anonymous wrote:
What signifies that a person has “joined” this group then? Honestly, this sounds more underhanded than being given a covenant to sign. You don’t sign anything but you have somehow agreed to the bylaws and the constitution. I was a member of three churches over 34 years. No one ever showed me bylaws, or a constitution, or a covenant for that matter. Now maybe that was do to my being female instead of male?
Lydia:
The SBC is not the only denomination that fits this. You can read basic histories of denominations and how churches were operated in the 1800s and early 1900s in the U.S., and see that discipline was a well known feature. In many SBC churches at that time, closed communion was more prevalent and “alien immersion” was a prevalent concept. I disagree with both. And I do not want to return to the discipline practices of the 1800s.
The state of discipline in “power point” churches, SBC or non-SBC, and lots of county seat, tall steeple SBC churches, is non-existent.
Even the church rolls in most places are not periodically reviewed. In most large SBC churches in our town, the membership rolls might be in the thousands, with barely 1000 attending.
Where is everyone else?
This practice just reflects a failure of basic discipleship to people. The people on the rolls should be contacted to see if they are still in town, and if they have any intent of participating in the life of the church. If they are ill or shut in, of course they should remain on the rolls. But if they haven’t been in 10 to 20 years, and have no interest in participating, they should be encouraged to join another church and removed from the rolls.
I believe that having large, inflated membership rolls of people who have not been attending a church for years and have no intention of participation is a deplorable state. Churches should deal with this, for integrity sake, if for no other.
You, and others, may have a different perspective on this. I am fine if you do, but I do not think that is a good practice.
I believe that you have said before that you are a member of a small church. I bet you guys do a good job of keeping up with everyone.
Some return of discipline would be a good thing.
But not too much, of course. I do not agree with Leeman on many points.
@ Anonymous:
Did they dance before the Lord in their kilt? 🙂
Deb wrote:
I thought this same thing because I grew up in the Church of Christ, which does not allow instrumental music. I’ve actually seen congregations split over hand clapping (technically musical accompaniment and therefore “unscriptural”). My point is that you can always end up on the wrong side of someone else’s theology. According to the CoC, Mark Dever is going to hell. And they have the proof texts to back it up!
I recently mentioned to a friend that I would never join a church again. The look on his face was as if I had just denied Christ. People seem to have it in their minds that “church membership = salvation,” even if they deny that they believe that. We did talk through what I meant. He seemed sad about what I might not be able to do. But I pointed out that this would be the organizations stipulations to answer for, not mine.
Anonymous wrote:
“MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!”
dee wrote:
As in “ME MAN! RAWR! CAGE FIGHTING! RAWR! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! RAWR! YOU WOMAN, SHUT UP AND SPREAD ‘EM! RAWR!”?
Nancy wrote:
Yeah, but filtering it through a dirty mind is funnier.
NJ wrote:
“The Man PENETRATES! COLONIZES! CONQUERS! PLANTS! — the woman just lies back and accepts. PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”
Bridget:
No one “agrees” to the constitution and bylaws of a church.
People who join a church, or any organization, join an organization that has already set up principles and rules that govern the organization.
Are you a member of any organizations that are non-profit corporations?
If so, which ones? Like the YMCA? Well, the Y has a charter and it has bylaws. And when you joined, you just paid your fee and started attending the Y. The local Y may have adopted some rules, or they may not. Regardless, any person who joins a non-profit has joined an organization that has a charter and bylaws that govern that organization.
Bridget:
They did not dance! Fortunately. I did not want to see this guy dance, anyway.
A lot of the uber “Reformed” people I know are Presbyterians. They were suits to church, starched collars, glasses and bow ties. They LOVE organ music. Don’t see most of them dancing.
Anonymous wrote:
I have got to tell you this. I promise it is true. At an area church, headed by a pastor who is on TGC’s ruling board, a Sunday school class decided to call everyone on the roster who never came. Here are some responses
1. We left the church years ago. Why are you calling me now?
2. We left the church last year after attending for 17 years and no one even bothered to give us a call.
3. I do not attend your class. I have other obligations on Sundays.
So, they decided to clear the roles. They got an immediate call from one of the pastors who had not talked to any of them for a long time. They were told to put the people back on the roles because “someone has to care for them.” They refused. It became a battle. They would send the class the updated list with the names added back on. They would send it back with them crossed off. It never got resolved. But most of the folks in that class left the church. Perhaps they, too, are still on the roles.
My guess is that many people, even TGC leaders, play the numbers game.
Anonymous wrote:
Then why do Acts 29/9Marks affiliated type churches involve the congregation when they want to change the bylaws and constitution? Why does the congregation get to vote on the bylaws and constitution?
If I join the YMCA, I cannot vote-that is left up to the larger organization. I am not a true member-merely an allowed user of the facilities. Churches are supposed to be different than that.
Anonymous wrote:
CS Lewis claimed the invention of the organ was a work of the devil.
@ dee:
In this case then, arguing about the empty deckchairs on the Titanic!
dee wrote:
Dee I believe that CBMW has recently stated that now that they are repeating themselves with comp doctrine material and they have no intention of wavering, they will now turn their writing attention to the practicalities of living the doctrine out. The reading should be quite entertaining but as in all things be careful what you ask for.
For my part I wish they would turn their attention to Christ-likeness, justice, mercy, self-control, kindness, gentleness and abandon the gender specific gospel that seems to only wish to create a world that never existed anyway. I often say that these men live in a world that does not exist and never has existed. It is a fantasy land, now if I wandered around talking, writing and living in a world that did not exist most people would say I was a little off and might attempt to lock me up for my own protection. In the case of the comp warriors it would be for the protection of the rest of us in the real world.
@ dee:
I agree about going back toJesus. Just rankles me to see anonymous attempt to rewrite history to shore up his position. The SBC evolved to big tent after the civil war when they found out God was not on their side. Autonomy of local church became highly valued and the SBC only existed to fund missions cooperatively. It was very big tent up until the CR. That big tent always included jerks and bizarre autonomous churches :o)
dee wrote:
Satan hates Handel’s Messiah which needs a pipe organ to do it justice. :o)
Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you on this item.
Unfortunately, UCCD, and I assume, most churches modeled after Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist, do not practice congregationalism when it comes to selecting/voting for elders. Whereas the typical congregational church allows any member to nominate elders – who are then voted on, UCCD elder candidates are selected by the elder board (read Senior Pastor) and then rubber-stamped by a vote of the members. Those selected for elders are generally younger men who have been vetted by the Senior Pastor. He wants to ensure they are lovers of peace and unity – loosely translated that means their head can move only up and down, never right to left in elder meetings. So the elder board cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
Because of the compliant elder board the Senior Pastor is able to discipline whomever he wants. I have seen abuses take place in UCCD. After I had quit the church a friend of mine, a fine Christian, was excommunicated. The story is too involved to go into here, but the Pastor lied to the congregation in the meeting. I wrote an email to a couple of the lay elders and warned them that just as they had not received the whole story from John Folmar on why I was leaving, they also were not hearing the full story on my friend. I urged them to interview my friend in an elder board meeting prior to taking any action. Of course I did not receive a reply and the congregation voted to excommunicate my friend. The case was a travesty – I will leave it at that.
There were legitimate cases brought up for discipline while I was a member of UCCD, but as a member I would have preferred the elder board handle these cases discreetly, as you suggested in your comment.
@ Anonymous:
A church is not the same sort of non profit and you know it. There are actually more donor and consumer protections in the sort of non profit you use as an example that are not required for churches. Publishing their 990’s is but example. Churches can hide all sorts of things from their members/donors other non profits cannot.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I think an open discussion on “elders” and the NT is sorely needed for educational purposes.
@ lydia:
Absolutely correct, up to the takeover by fundamentalist calvinism. And if anybody is inclined to doubt this, just listen to some of the conversations that gram3 and I have had about what it was to be baptist before the takeover. She and I had quite different experiences. We are both telling the truth. And we were proud way back in my day that the baptist statement of faith (SBC) could not be imposed on anyone-not the local church and much less the individual.
I never saw a withdrawal of fellowship imposed on an individual, but I did see a former member almost denied membership when they wanted to return after voluntarily leaving because of some foofaw or other. And, yes, some folks got into some messy situations, but the church did not turn its back on them.
lydia wrote:
Anointed Elect Senior Pastor Holds the Whip and pew peons Feel the Whip.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I think an open discussion on “elders” and the NT is sorely needed for educational purposes. Anonymous wrote:
The mega SBC churches would have a hard time. They tend to attract the wealthy who may have residences in Fla for tax purposes and are only in town for periodic stretches. You might be surprised of the numbers that fall into similar scenarios. Mega churches dont mind because of the checks they send.
In an above comment you likened church to sort of paying club type of non profit. The Y does not tell me I have to show up. Neither do the bylaws of the church.
My point? None of this reflects a Body of Christ.
In Presbyterian circles, the congregation votes for elders, pastors, etc. The non-profit corporation votes for budgets, land purchases, etc. The trustees of the corporation are stacked by the pastor and elders so their will is done–at least on earth! A Baptist friend told of a IFB church that was holding a vote (male only) to buy air conditioning units for the church. The units were already purchased and downstairs in storage? Nice, huh? When the church would not make public the pastor’s salary, the friend left the church. IFB churches speak of “paying the tithe” although that is actually and Old Testament concept. Another friend said in Utah, even the federal government lets the Mormon elders see the salaries of LDS members so the Mormon higher ups can see in the rank and file are tithing.
Mitch wrote:
And this is where they will have a problem. Everything is all nice and good when you have a theoretical theology. Once it gets down to the nitty gritty, they will have to defend themselves.
Yet, we already know that they cannot do this. All of the comp ladies disagree on what a woman can and cannot do. It will be boiled down to: male pastors, elders and tie breaking votes at home. I anticipate a massive food fight.
Nancy–as to hyper liberal, when the local ELCA and UMC churches are viewed as “out there liberal” by their synod or district, you can bet they are pretty far gone down the liberal path. As to hyper fundy, we have some extremely fundamentalist Baptists here. Too far fundy to be accepted by the IFB.
NJ wrote:
Definitions of manliness seem to change from one group to another, and from one era to the next: Striving for “Manliness” is a Fool’s Game.
lydia wrote:
Yep. The baptists did not have “elders” until after I left. The presbys did, but they had a different system. I am clueless as to how the baptists took up the terminology and apparently some of the ideation of such clusters of power. The baptists had brother jones (pastor) and sylvia (on the piano) with some multiples of that in larger churches and of course the deacons. The rest were lay volunteers. Alas, the wind passed over it…and it’s place shall know it no more. No. Wait. The methodist church where I am still a member is just like that. Well, my my.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, that was the SBC i experienced, too. Msybe it was our neck of the woods back when SBTS was actually about scholarship? Soul competency amd the priesthood were the watchwords. Now it is “church discipline” carried out by specially anointed elders who get to decide what and who to discipline. What power!
my mom was usually the one who threw a baby shower for the pregnant unwed teen at church. What is done is done. We dont turn our backs. That was the attitude for many in the SBC back then when it was actually a shameful predicament! Not any longer, sadly.
Now all they do is quote the BFM.
@ Nancy:
It was explained to us as kids why we did not have elders. The verses where they are mentioned had more to do with those specific situation. Not many mature believers existed in those situations. We dont see them promoted or referred to in most of the letters.
Churches that have quite a few mature and wise believers dont need such a thing as elders. Whuch tells us a lot about the state of theSBC today. The deacons were dealing with serving the needs in real hands on practical ways such as building maintenance and making sure old Mrs Jones had a way to church.
lydia wrote:
I remember my father (a deacon) saying that the deacons had a function in allocations of money. The pastor did not own the money. The church annually voted on a budget, of course, but beyond that the pastor may have had his plans, but the deacons had to sign off on expenditures by voting on it and then recommending it to the church and then the church would vote on it. The phrase “by recommendation of the board of deacons” was the key to getting monies spent and projects pursued. But without that the people might not feel any particular need to cough up the cash and might decide they needed a new pastor. It reminds me of saying “the position of the union is…”
@ Nancy:
The beauty of that was that the deacons worked for free and had a reputation in the community to uphold long after this pastor was gone and maybe the next one also.
Anonymous wrote:
At the YbI pay a fee for services, agree to the rules for using the facilities, and sign an agreement. The church isn’t a business. Your comparing apples and oranges.
Bridget wrote:
It is now.
dee wrote:
Reality cannot be permitted to conflict with Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
Todd:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I have seen elders who had some independent backbone rescue a couple of churches from grandstanding pastors. Just 2 weeks ago in our town, the pastor planned to dismiss the elder board because they would not go along with his plan for succession. He had hired 2 of his sons in law who worked in the church. The pastor was going to retire, and he wanted his sons in law to become the next pastors, co-pastors or something. This is a very large church.
When the elder board did not agree with his plan, he developed a plan to dismiss the entire elder board, and he would be the sole elder “under the direction of the congregation.” (This, btw, is the 20th Century most prevalent model in the SBC – with the Deacons acting as sort of a quasi board of directors, instead of servants.)
The elders then had a meeting with the pastor. He agreed to resign, and they gave him a generous severance package.
But then – on Sunday, in what was supposed to be his last sermon, the pastor said from the pulpit that God had told him that it wasn’t the right time for him to resign. He asked the congregation to give him a vote of confidence by standing, and he moved to suspend the bylaws of the church immediately for an indefinite time. I am not sure the vote ever happened. Everything remained calm, however.
On Monday, the church’s attorney, a long time member told the pastor and elders that what the pastor had done was not legal, and that it was unenforceable.
The pastor then resigned again – and got his generous severance package, which the elders offered to him again.
So – that’s a good elder story.
But the ones you recount, and the ones I have seen recently, like at Mars Hill or SGM churches, or the Dubai thing with the 9 Marks church, seem awful.
It’s clear in lots of these instances that the elder board is stacked with cronies who are either not willing to make a decision contrary to the pastor or are not wise enough to understand what they are doing.
As I have said above, discipline should be used in only the most extreme cases. I would not use discipline to try and force everyone to agree with the elders on all points or to back every decision that may be made.
Discipline is primarily to help people. Before any punitive action should ever be considered, people who come to the church should be loved and cared for. And people in today’s world need to be discipled. People will come to the church with doctrinal misunderstandings, personal failures etc. The goal is to disciple them, not marginalize them.
And on some things – minor issues, we are just not going to agree. This may include some doctrinal matters (e.g. mode of baptism, eschatology etc.) If the church has adopted a doctrinal statement (which it should), then all of the teaching should conform to that, but the church should not hunt down everyone who disagrees and discipline them over it.
The absence of discipline is bad. The overuse and misuse of discipline is worse. And it is very easy for discipline to be misused.
Bridget:
I am not saying churches and all non-profits are the same.
I am simply saying that all non-profits, including churches, are governed by corporate structures that are in place when a person joins, regardless of whether they sign anything.
In our church those documents, not a church covenant that is signed by a member, controls the processes for discipline.
Our church covenant is not a legal document that we use for discipline purposes.
Anonymous wrote:
Does every adult get a copy of these? And how does someone know that they are now bound to these regulations?
Anonymous wrote:
What is the purpose of the church covenant then?
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Nifty way of putting it.
Anonymous wrote:
And, I suppose, everything in between. It looks to me like the first deacons had a financial function in seeing to the needs of the widows. In our case the deacon board definitely looked after the needs of the church (board of directors-ish sort of) but also they were the ones you told if so-and-so had a problem and they would address the issue.
Are you familiar with the office of deacon in the RCC? They have two kinds actually, quite different from the baptist model. They are more like mid level service providers as found in other professions.
And servant is basically whatever people decide it is. If Jesus described himself as one who serves then that role can hardly be considered to be limited to carrying bed pans.
Anonymous wrote:
Like not attending church the way the pastor/elders decide is acceptable? That “despicable” cleaning off the roles “church discipline’ issue?
Readers here should know that the “church discipline” gurus like Dever and Mohler presented this issue years back in the SBC as “honesty in reporting numbers” by cleaning up the roles. It was a guise. It was a bait and switch power grab. Once they got widespread agreement on that issue, it progressed and you can read how in Devers linked article in this post. That is where it was always headed for SBC churches to institute.
They always seek agreement on seemingly benign but reasonable issues and progress from there. Who would disagree with
cleaning up the church roles? Our clue should have been their calling it “church discipline”.
There was a bigger reason for calling it that. Get people used to the concept and power concentrated in the hands of a few. Get them associating attendance with church discipline. That was not hard for YRR wannabe pastors.
Live and learn. Better yet. Flee the SBC.
lydia wrote:
Mouths watering at the chance to be their very own Calvin in their very own Geneva. “GOD WILLS IT!”
I’ve seen church discipline exercised only in 50 years or so in the church.
Two were clear cut cases of spouse abuse. The guys doing it were disciplined and lost church membership. In both of those cases the church continued to try to reach the men and see redemption. One rejected it, one got serious help.
One was a church leader caught hiring a prostitute, then harassing his wife publicly for leaving him. Lost his membership. Again, church took a redemptive tactic which he rejected.
Other was a leader in the church who got his secretary preggers, left his wife and many small children high and dry financially to marry the younger woman. He and she both lost membership but again urged towards repentance and restoration. He felt his sex life was his business and never came back. The secretary, years later, came and repented. She was welcomed back into membership but not leadership or teaching.
Those are very different from what neocals are doing.
@ Bridget:
Again, I contend that it would be used as a legal contract if they attempted to discipline someone and that person resigned from the church. Then, if the church continued with the process, publicly announcing that said person was in need of discipline and that person wished the process to stop they would continue since the have legally signed that the process could continue.
We have written extensively on this topic. Whether or not you think the one in your church isn’t legally enforceable, it is and many churches have used it as such.
Gus wrote:
Yes. I grew up in a church with a fine organ and a great (I mean world-class – people came from Europe to study with him) organist/musical director. Also a fine choir, of which I was a member for a time.
Very powerful when done right. I can still remember, 50+ years later, how transported I was by the preludes and postludes to the services…
Here’s the PowerPoint version of what Mark Dever says:
– Pastors are the Pope, all others in the church are his servants
– Church membership contracts + church discipline = Happy Pastor
– Women are of the Devil and must be driven out of and excluded from eldership
– Calvinism Rules, everything else drools
– Infant baptism=No communion for you
– Don’t be up front about it, it’s OK to implement all of the above by stealth
The World can live without Dever’s Drivel.
@ dee:
I completely agree with you and will never sign such a document. I’m trying g to figure out what Anonymous is saying and how it works in his/her church. His scenario sounds vague and roundabout and one would not know where they stand in regards to church discipline.
@ JeffT:
Good synopsis.
@ Bridget:
You are supposed to take their word on everything. Then when they decide to discipline you the situation warrants it because they, as the spiritual leaders, decided it did.
What I dont understand is anonymous says they only discipline for very serious things but then also says church attendance is serious. He also says the people on church roles who do not attend is a despicable thing. So is confronting these folks about their lack of attendance a “church discipline” issue or not? Is it really that sort of horrible serious issue like sleeping with your step mom and flaunting it ala 1 corin 5?
Everything seems to revolve around controlling people as elders/pastors.
Lydia wrote:
Seems a bit over the top as it was more about owning slaves. The ability to take them on the mission field was a bit of a straw man as the policy at the time was no servants for anyone. Slaves were just a subset of that. The issue seems to have been forced around 1844 and the SBC formed in 1845. The civil war ended in 1865 so it was only a “real” issue for 20 years. And I wonder if any SBC missionaries even took slaves with them in that time period.
Now the fallout from all of this has lasted nearly 200 years.
Toss in Landmarkism and the move from no excessive alcohol to abstiance as being the one true way forever and it gets hard to keep a straight face when a hard core SBC person starts a rant.
Says he who grew up in a conservative SBC church.
Anonymous wrote:
In the USA if it has obligations and a person of sound mind signs it it is basically a contract.
Ian wrote:
And organs, pianos (see that boom mic under the hood), electric guitars, trumpets (playing into a mic), singers with mics, etc….
Singling out drums is just dumb. Or so it seems to me.
@ NC Now:
I don’t think the real issue is a particular instrument. For me, it is the loudness of any instrument that drowns out the voices that bothers me.
brian wrote:
But it seems to work.
It seems that most people in these places WANT others to do the thinking and deciding.
What it seems to me is most people in these churches (and many others) are really in a social club. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t bother me with details. Just give me a safe place to meet with friends and raise my kids away from the dangerous outside world. Etc…
lydia wrote:
The writer of Hebrews mentioned?/ admonished? about not forsaking the gathering of (yourselves) together, but stopped there. No mention that I can see of any “or else” statement to go along with it. No hint of discipline that I can see. No admonition to turn such a one over to satan, etc. No requirement to shun the person. But of course, I suppose that does not count because there is no proof that Paul wrote it and it can’t be worth anything unless Paul wrote it, or so I gather from their approach to scripture.
NC Now wrote:
I am not trying to be contentious just for the sake of it, but there is a place for letting others do the thinking and at least influence the deciding. The accountant, lawyer, doctor and even the plumber are hired to think for us, or at least furnish the information and guidance we need for good decisions. (I just took the advice of a plumber on some bathroom work that is being done.) I don’t want a church situation or pastor who is so uninformed in his own field that I have to go search out everything or else do without. Of course, there are the ancient creeds and a couple thousand years of folks wrestling with issues, so why should I have to start from scratch on everything?
Deb wrote:
Not sure if you’re referring to Churches of Christ, Deb; but if you are, there are about thirty Churches of Christ that DO have an instrumental service. The Church of Christ I worship with is getting ready to add an instrumental service, and I’m waiting for the cow manure to hit the combine blades when word gets out among other Churches of Christ that we are doing this. I recently had an online discussion with a very conservative Church of Christer who told me that our elders needed to be “reprimanded” for adding a service with instruments and that they were leading us down “a dark and dangerous path”. I pointed out that the Bible doesn’t prohibit instruments, and was eventually asked, “Do you believe what the Bible says?” My answer: “If I say yes, you’re going to ask me why I don’t necessarily believe that instrumental music is a sin.”
@ dee:
You’re talking about my wife? Right?
She’s still has the ability to get irritated over trying to understand their thought process.
Their position was that EVERYONE had to be assigned to a class. Even the one lady who was the paid organist at another church and had NEVER EVER been in the class.
@ Bridget:
That was my point. Musical instruments are great when used appropriately. Anything can be too loud. Singling out drums is just dumb.
Same as singling out Disney years ago as an SBC boycott target due to them having marketing policies to attract gays to their parks. All voted on by people who worked for companies that did exactly the same thing.
Nancy wrote:
I agree with you. But as I age I feel more and more people want others to do almost all their thinking. What meals to serve. What jobs are acceptable. How to worship Biblicaly. Whatever.
Time to insert this link. Great satire on business meetings as I remember them from my youth.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-pope-needs-a-business-meeting
linda wrote:
Wow. That’s alot of fundyism.
I am heartbroken over this. I think the pastor who just resigned from my church was influenced by Mark Dever. This pastor was hired knowing that we had women deacons. As far as I know, he did not raise any objections at the time. But soon he started agitating that the women be removed from their positions, claiming that we are going against the Bible. How could he have accepted this position if that’s what he believed? He blames the elders (godly men all) because they didn’t cave in to his wishes, but what right did he have to expect anything else? These Neo-Calvinists are so sure they’re right they can justify the most unbelievably controlling, underhanded tactics. Women deacons torture their consciences but they have no problem condemning others to hell for a difference in interpretation.
lilyrosemary wrote:
As a current member of the Church of Christ, I understand exactly where you are coming from.
There are about 30 Churches of Christ that DO have services with instruments. My church is about to join them. I’m waiting for the howling to start once this becomes common knowledge among Churches of Christ.
NC Now wrote:
Hmm. I am talking about the split from the Northern Baptists. There would have been a split sooner had it been just an issue of “owning slaves”. Maybe you know some angle I don’t?
NC Now wrote:
yes.
camilleophelia wrote:
Welcome to TWW. The experience at your church is being played out all over the world. I am so sorry. I left a church in which they sneaked in a NeoCal without informing the congregation of the change of polity.
Please understand that it is nothing that your church did. It is the teaching these guys are getting at their interminable conferences that they attend and the seminaries that they frequent.
We will be setting up a page with helpful articles on how to spot these guys before they do damage to your churches. Also, for those who are not so fortunate, we will be showing folks how to extricate themselves from these silly autocrats and the churches that let them do their thing.
Tina wrote:
I believe that Max Lucida’s church allows instruments at some services.
camilleophelia wrote:
It’s called “Stealth Takeover”.
The same way Comrade Stalin took over Eastern Europe after WW2.
Eagle wrote:
Only if she floats.
Nancy wrote:
I’ve not been regularly “going to church” for some considerable time now, and this verse has been making me somewhat uncomfortable of late. It’s easy to make excuses for not bothering. Jesus and me doesn’t cut it.
Having said that, I have often wondered if we had continued to attend our local free evangelical Willow Creek outfit, whether humanly speaking I might have ended up being agnostic.
You can omit only so much NT doctrine or experience, substitute psychology (“Say yes to yourself you are special”) and sociology/marketing gleaned from unbelievers (“All truth it God’s truth”) , serve watered-down downloaded gruel to the sheep for so long before you start to wonder if the church itself has anything meaningful to say to the world around it. Is this stuff really true, or it a means of making us feel good about ourselves?
So ‘going to church’ can, far from being edifying and building you up in the faith, lead you into doubt and despair, or make you lukewarm and indifferent, and it’s no good quoting the Hebrews verse you mentioned to induce a guilt trip into getting you to put your seat of learning in a pew again as though that in itself is what matters. But there are plenty of people who will! (Doesn’t work on me any more.)
The children have had their best exposure to Christian fellowship and truth in holiday camps organised by thinking UK evangelicals from various backgrounds, and in comparison, much of what is served up in more ‘trendy’ churches is not only not much use, it does positive harm.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Young elders is of course a contradiction in terms. And whilst I don’t think you can or should vote elders into position, surely they are people the body comes to recognise have that function, so far from being appointed by the pastor, he and the members only have to recognise someone using gifts that God has already given them.
@ Ken:
So where does that verse say ‘go to church’ specifically? And even if it did, where does it say what ‘go to church’ means and what to do once you get there and what the order of service should be etc etc ad nauseum? I think it means don’t let yourself get totally isolated from fellow believers. How they did that back then (hey, even in my childhood) was heavily focused on ‘go to church” but there are lots of options now. And lots of different kinds of church systems to get involved with. TWW is a gathering of sorts. I would not substitute everything for ‘going to church’ but it does help to diversify like you would your investment/ retirement accounts. Then one thing goes under and that is too bad but the damage is limited.
There is a thing called a ‘crazy quilt.’ For a lot of folks utilizing the opportunities available today results in a crazy quilt sort of religious practice. Also involves gathering, but nobody thinks they own you exclusively. My favorite default philosophical idea: “it is complicated.”
Wow. Dever has clearly only ever heard really bad organists, or knows nothing about the organ at all. Well-trained organists are specifically taught how to encourage congregational singing with their registration (= sounds they pick and volume level). But in my experience, people tend to fail in the direction of being so quiet that the congregation won’t sing, not in the direction of drowning them out. Also, the congregations I’ve known sing more when the organist plays louder because it allows their individual voice to “hide” in the wash of sound (i.e., it assuages their fear of being heard singing).
Per drums, the problem he may be hearing with congregational singing doesn’t derive from how loud the drums are, but the fact that most CCM songs are just about impossible to follow (even for this classically trained musician) because they deliberately include weird counting/phrasing and lack recognizable cadences that encourage group singing. A lot of them are more like highly embellished solos that someone misguidedly tried to transcribe for congregation, and shocking, they don’t work well that way. Don’t blame the poor drums.
@ Tim:
That’s because it hadn’t been invented yet. The component parts of it (reeds and flues) are mostly there, though. 😉
Seriously, was that Mark Dever backhandedly digging at organs and/or traditional liturgical churches? I mean, it would be nothing new. I already know that my instrument is the undeserving focal point of a bunch of hate by non-liturgical folks (and I assume most neo-Calvinist churches are set up for praise bands), but it’s just so…unoriginal by now. Like others pointed out above, it’s not as if drums are the only loud instrument in a CCM praise band. Just how loud does the organ have to be before it ticks over the “too loud and it has to go” threshold?
Hester wrote:
It takes considerable sound to carry through a large building. Don’t forget amplifiers (and simulated organs) are a 20th century invention. The classic organ reached its peak development in the 17th and 18th centuries.
At my home church 30 years ago, getting rid of women who headed up the youth committee and Christian Ed committee was the first thing our new pastor did.
It was done in a very clever way. First he called the chairs of these committees “elders.” That was okay with people. But then he said the Bible said elders had to be men.
“Ta-ta” to the women who did a fine job.
@ Hester:
Add to that the problem for them that the current praise songs offer nothing of theology to compete with the pablum and the ballyhoo that some offer from the pulpit, while ‘traditional’ congregational singing (organ and all) was pedagogical as well as musical. There are quite a few ideas in even the older baptist hymnals (think broadman of old) that the neoMediocrity crowd do not want the people to think about much less believe.
Nancy wrote:
That is an accusation which I need to back up. About twenty years ago, certainly no more than that, I was in probably my last baptist service and noticed that the words to a certain hymn had been changed somewhat to eliminate a certain idea. So, then I read the intro/preface in the new hymnal and there they explain that indeed editing has been done and lyrics modified where indicated. So I flipped through the book and found several changes just in the period of time I had sitting there to do so.
I did not make a false accusation. They admitted that they did it.
Ken wrote:
Todd is using “vetted” in the sense of a Pastorjugend Loyalty Test.
Gus wrote:
I did a quadruple take when I saw the organ on his list. (FIRST on his list! Talk about priorities . . . ) Because it’s not in the Bible? Seriously?? I would dearly love to send him a list of every instrument used in church worship that’s not in the Bible.
@ dee:
Thank you Dee. At the end of his sermon this pastor read a resignation letter that culminating in questioning the salvation of the elders because they interpret the Bible in a way that women are not marginalized and silenced to the extremest degree. I have a history of spiritual abuse so I have seen this before. Any difference of opinion escalates to damning the other side to hell. It’s a vicious tactic but I really think a lot of these people don’t understand that not everyone sees everything in stark black and white and it’s not because they’re moral slackers. Far from it, we are trying to be true to the deeper principles in Christ’s teaching! The neo-Cals, fundamentalists, and others whose first priority is to engage in culture are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. It is a shame but they are so busy pointing out others’ flaws they don’t question themselves for a minute.
@ camilleophelia:
Above should say “engage in culture WARS…” Nothing wrong in engaging in culture. 🙂 More of these guys should try that out actually!
Okay, I will venture out onto some thinner ice. There is at least a fundamental flaw in some of the reformation ideas, and that is when they adopted a cult-model for church instead of a church-model. Exclusivity vs inclusivity. Shibboleth sayers vs the mixed multitude. Law keepers vs repentant sinners. People who ‘qualified’ to be part of the group forgetting than nobody ‘qualifies’ such that God owes them anything. Children’s wannabe elite clubs with a sign on the door “no (fill in the blank) allowed.”
This crept into some kinds of protestantism (not all by any means) and it is highly destructive.
Here is the latest post…
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/what-does-a-faith-crisis-feel-like-3/
Linda:
Those are excellent accounts of how the church should engage in discipline. Very rare. With redemptive purpose. Only in extreme cases.
Horror stories can be found at either end of the extremes, regardless of denomination or church government.
NC Now:
Great history on slavery and the SBC.
The case that actually brought the South’s split with the Northern churches involved a Southerner who was a Cherokee Indian who owned slaves. The Indian wanted to go to the mission field, and the mission board, which by that point was controlled by abolitionists, refused to appoint him because he was a slave owner.
Reader wrote:
Not only instruments. Where is (electronic) amplification mentioned in the Bible? After all, Jesus addressed large crowds in open areas without amplification technology. Why can’t the mega church preachers do the same?
@ oldJohnJ:
Where are western style business suits mentioned, much less jeans. I can’t wait to see them break out in down to the ankle robes made of homespun. That must have been what the biblical injunction for men to dress like men and not women came from-the manly man homespun robe.
@ Anonymous:
So is church attendance a church discipline issue or not? And at what point. Mark Dever says it is.
Nancy wrote:
Mention is made in 1 Tim of suit-able apparel … 🙂
Ken wrote:
LOL! Thanks for the smile, Ken!
Mitch wrote:
I would love to read such a thing!
Bridget:
Our covenant is a statement by a person joining that they are a Christian, have been baptized, and want to join our church knowing its statement of faith, leadership structure and mission, and that they want to live in covenant with others in the church.
All of this – the statement of faith, the leadership structure, the mission of the church, is covered in a membership class that prospective members must attend before joining.
We know someone is a member because we have a covenant from our members. Persons for whom we don’t have a covenant are not members.
The bylaws contain the provisions about membership and how discipline is exercised, but those provisions are very short.
The covenant is not the operative document for us. The bylaws are.
If a person has not signed a covenant, then they would not become the subject of any kind of church discipline process because they are not members. If they were threatening or unruly to the point of danger or such, I guess we would have to call the police or something? But that’s never happened.
If we ever had to exercise discipline against a member (which we have not had to do in 22 years) we would point to the bylaws and do what we needed to do.
I hope this is making sense.
The absence of a covenant in a church does not mean a church cannot govern itself or exercise discipline against its members.
In my old church, there was no covenant. One walked the aisle, professed faith in Christ, and the congregation voted to accept them. They were put on the church roll.
If discipline needed to be exercised, the pastor would explain the situation to the congregation, and the congregation would vote to kick them out. There was no church covenant signed by anyone.
The courts generally abstain from getting involved in church governance matters, for good reason. There are doctrinal and church operations issues that courts should not be handling.
But if something is done outside the regular process of the church, courts should be involved in my view.
Corbin wrote:
I have seen women who appear to, at least outwardly. I have friends who attest to this being the most wonderful and fulfilling way to live. I don’t know if they simply don’t know another way, or if they have seen failures among egalitarians, and truly think comp is the better way to go.
Lydia:
Why do you keep trying to make this conversation about me, personally?
I am trying to discuss with everyone some issues of church discipline.
But you keep trying to talk about who I am, and where I go to church and such.
Why are you doing that?
I am an elder at my church, so I should be listed on our church website as an elder?
We are not endorsed by 9 Marks. We are not a 9 Marks Church.
As it relates to this post, I believe that I have outlined some fairly clear differences between our church and what 9 Marks advocates. We have some common convictions, but some differences, too.
If you would like to contact me and ask me some questions, I would be glad to speak with you. Dee and Deb have my email and number.
I would like to be friendly with you.
I do not enjoy being put down, and really don’t think that you should do that.
I have been civil with you, and have tried to discuss the issues as best I can.
Your intense interest in who I am and where I go to church etc. is not healthy or civil.
Reader wrote:
Reader wrote:
There are an awful lot of things that are not in the Bible, to be found in churches today. Even (maybe I should say “especially”) 9Marks churches.
I mean, like signing church covenant papers. I haven’t found those in the Bible anywhere, and I have been looking for them.
dee wrote:
This is the reason being given at a church we’ve been visiting, for people to sign membership covenants. It’s so the pastors know who to care for.
Refugee:
Any process can be botched or abused.
There is really no excuse for a church to have 3000 members on the books and 750 attending. Something is amiss.
I would follow up with each one. I would remove those who have moved and confirm no interest in returning in the immediate future.
Those who are ill or give some solid hope of future attendance, I would leave on, but I would follow up in another year or so.
I would never remove people for spotty attendance.
Most people are adults. If they are not interested and you call them, they will pretty much tell you they are not interested.
It’s really not that hard.
But I would be cautious about removal.
I don’t believe that a church should prematurely remove someone, but a church should not just leave names on their rolls for that sake.
Back in the old days, you had to buy or pay for your pews. If you did not pay, your pew was locked.
I believe that Jewish congregations today still have dues.
We looked a merging with an old Baptist congregation about 15 years ago. Their founding documents from around 1900 had a dues requirement.
There is a proper balance, I believe, between a church becoming the equivalent of a movie theatre or being an exclusionary weird bunch.
refugee wrote:
I do wish churches would not use the term covenant. There is only one convenant now in operation, and it is between God and man and not man and man. It’s not usually rocket science to discern who is in a fellowship or not, because the word fellowship (lots of people in the same boat) used to be defined at any rate as shared life, and this soon determines in most cases who is really in.
Some token of commitment to fellow believers and the leaders and helpers is OK I think, but it doesn’t have to be anything remotely like a written contract. If the bible doesn’t require this, why should we ever insist on it?
Mitch wrote:
My husband defends complementarianism and authority by saying that it is the way the world works. In the workplace, there are bosses and underlings. Out on the street, there are cops (enforcers of authority) and the populace (I don’t remember what word he used instead of populace, but he meant general population, as in not-cops or cops-off-duty, maybe?). Thus, the Son is under the authority of the Father (and said so, in scripture). And children are to obey their parents and honor their mother and father. And the husband is over the wife as Christ is over the church.
Thus when our children disagree or don’t want to do things the way he wants them to do them, they are rebellious. I guess that applies to me, too.
Anonymous wrote:
Or, they could be a church 😉
Godith wrote:
IFB churches aren’t the only ones preaching the “tithe” — so are Presbyterian churches. And somehow you are in sin, or unbiblical, if you’re not tithing.
refugee wrote:
Or maybe their husband has not walked out the door leaving them with the children and no job skills. Or worse yet, taken the children with him when he split. Or maybe he has not spent their last dime on internet gambling. And for sure he has not insisted on horrendously kinky sex. Or smacked her around one time too many. Or molested one of the children. Or. Or.
refugee wrote:
The world does tend to work that way if left to its own resources, but we are talking about the church–those called out of the world. The world is not our plumb line.
Nancy wrote:
Quite. And at the risk of getting into trouble for repetition,
We know that we are of God, and the <b<whole world is in the power of the evil one.
Anonymous wrote:
Actually, my point was not about removing people from rolls (or not), but about the bolded text. The idea that people need to sign church membership papers so that the elders know who they ought to be caring for. So, if someone attends church services regularly (weekly, or two or three times a month because circumstances take them out of town the other Sundays), and participates in Bible studies and small group activities, and goes to prayer meetings — if they (for whatever reason) don’t sign membership papers, they’re obviously not members, and don’t need to be cared for. (?) Whatever that means.
Anonymous wrote:
So is this covenant a verbal “yes” I am agreeing? Do the prospective members get a copy of the bylaws, constitution, and the covenant to study before they make a decision? Do husbands and wives individually agree to this covenant?
In the church I recently left, we found that later membership classes were given different information than earlier members, and the earlier members had no idea of the changes. Only the pastor and two elders were aware that changes were made (they were the authorities after all – right?). The church was changing slowly and members didn’t know why. People were confused.
Ken wrote:
. . . a believer.
I feel the same way about the use of the word covenant. 😉
dee wrote:
Educate me, was Lewis just rattling on in jest over the invention of the organ, or was he really serious?
refugee wrote:
No kidding. People should know each other enough in a church/fellowship to know who one of them is.
Muff
He was being tongue in cheek.
Refugee
Now, you need to find out what they mean by the word “care” in the “know who to care for.” When Todd Wilhelm left his church they put him on the *care* list. In that church, such a placement means you are about to get in mucho trouble.
@ Anonymous:
Your members do sign a covenant then. Isn’t a signed document legally binding?
Bridget:
I have said that we have a covenant and that people sign it.
But I also saying that the covenant is not used in our church for anything but to confirm the person’s membership.
Our discipline procedures flow from the bylaws that have been adopted by the church. If we had no covenant, we would still have the same discipline process. The covenant does not add or supply anything.
Whether a signed document is legally binding depends on what the document is used for. If it’s not a legally binding document, it’s not legally binding.
To use an absurd example, one could sign a registration list at an auto repair store, or a funeral home or any other place. It would be used to show you were there. But the legally binding document would be the repair order or the agreement for services. The fact that you signed the registration list or a register is insignificant.
I am not trying to get anyone to sign a document that they are not comfortable with. And I clearly realize that some churches today have covenants that contain language about church discipline.
I am just making the point that even in churches that do not have covenants, or churches that have very limited covenants with none of the legal language, there is still church discipline.
Ours is in the bylaws.
Hope I am making sense.
If you are at a church that has a covenant and you are uncomfortable with it in any way, under no means should you sign it.
And I agree with Dee’s suggestion that if you leave a church, you should send them a letter etc.
I do not agree with trying to keep people in a church, or trying to discipline them after they have gone.
I believe those are terrible practices.
Roebuck:
Quick wit, my fellow blogger!
Refugee:
We obviously would care for people in that situation.
They could not vote or serve in a teaching capacity, unless under certain circumstances.
We have more than a few people who attend who were not baptized as confessional believers. We immerse, and we encourage people to be immersed, but we insist that person’s baptism was an act of volition as a confessional believer.
That is one of the great theological points of Baptist churches – that the church is comprised of confessional believers. Churches prior to that have argued that the church is comprised of confessional believers – plus. Usually meaning, baptized (but not unbaptized) infants.
Billy Graham used to say so effectively, “God has no grand children.” Theologian Michael Horton has said in one of his books in recent years – yes, God does have grandchildren. The baptized infants of believing parents. We don’t believe that. I do not know how the Lord takes care of children, so I am not going to guess, except to say I know that God is totally just. But I will say that I do not believe it depends on whether the child is baptized or not.
Anyway, I am rambling.
A few comments removed.
Anonymous wrote:
I didn’t see this until your previous comment. I must have missed it.
I believe you are the person who commented earlier that your bylaws aren’t specific about what causes a discipline process to take place and that no one has been formally disciplined at your church?
@ Nancy:
refugee wrote:
Refugee: “My husband defends complementarianism and authority by saying that it is the way the world works.”
Nancy: “The world does tend to work that way if left to its own resources, but we are talking about the church–those called out of the world. The world is not our plumb line.”
++++++++++++++++++++
i’ll pull this one out of my back pocket again (From ‘The African Queen’):
Charlie Allnut: “…… it’s only human nature.” ”
Rose Sayer: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”
Dave A A wrote:
Steady on, don’t give Marxists a bad name ok?
Bridget:
That’s right. The congregation has given to the elders the responsibility to exercise discipline in accordance with the NT.
As I have said, the only causes I can think of for exercising discipline are really big deals, where the person renounces Christ, or the Church, or some serious moral failure (I Cor 5 talks about an unrepentant relationship with one’s mother in law), abandonment – the person stops coming to the church, is contacted and says they have no plans in future to come back (not that they are struggling and need a break etc.).
I believe those are pretty clear cut cases.
I guess unrepentant violence toward the church or abuse toward its members would be other cases.
Those seem like pretty clear cut cases to me.
I don’t see church discipline being used in marginal matters.
As I said, we have been a church for 22 years, and we have never had to do it, so I guess we are fortunate.
And, again, when we have divorcing couples, one of them typically leaves. That is the one item the covenant addresses. The NT does not address that issue. That’s the way we have decided to address it.
I would be the first to say that the NT contains a lot of grey area in church polity and discipline (and the 2 are connected).
And no matter what “system” is selected, each system has weak spots such that discipline can be abused (by neglect or overuse) by people.
@ refugee:
“I mean, like signing church covenant papers. I haven’t found those in the Bible anywhere, and I have been looking for them.”
+++++++++++++
maybe they’re hiding along with the words ‘men lead’.
Anonymous wrote:
I have a couple of problems with what you are saying. Not arguing, just mentioning. Billy G was good at his calling as an evangelist, but he was a long way from being a theologian. How he got to the position he had on infant baptism I have no idea, but he was raised presby and his wife and children were presby and story is Billy did not have enough education to be ordained presby is why and how he became officially a baptist. So, I am thinking he had a good line there, but who knows where he got it all and/ or what he really thought. Be interesting to know if the Grahams had their children baptized as infants.
As to “we don’t believe that.” There are people on baptist pews, duly immersed at the appropriate age, who do believe that. How do I know? I was one of them. I grew up sooooo baptist, but the surrounding culture was about one third catholic for the socioeconomic stratum in which I grew up. Quite a few catholic ideas were floating around that some of us agreed with–but had the good sense to keep our mouths shut about it. So, let me borrow from Mr. Clinton and say: It depends on what the word ‘we’ means.
@ refugee:
“My husband defends complementarianism and authority by saying that it is the way the world works….
Thus when our children disagree or don’t want to do things the way he wants them to do them, they are rebellious. I guess that applies to me, too.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
refugee — what is this like for you? how do you manage to live in a household like this? (forgive me & ignore if too personal)
So let me ask this. In health care merely having a signature on a consent form can be challenged. Consent is supposed to be informed consent. I don’t know how successful such challenges are, but I sure sat through a gracious plenty admonitions from my malpractice carrier about being sure the patient was informed and understood and the form showed that. The last surgery consent form I was asked to sign for my own surgery was broad and non-specific and I refused to sign it until the surgeon wrote in her own handwriting exactly what she intended to do and what she had told me.
So, have people challenged the church equivalents of consent forms and if so with what success?
refugee wrote:
What does he think about matriarchal and matrilineal societies then?
Anonymous wrote:
I’d like to hear some legal opinion on this.
@ Haitch:
I don’t think a church would have a leg to stand on if they tried to discipline a person who had not signed an agreement.
Nancy:
You said a lot of good things there, many of which I agree with.
My main point was my belief that the “church” is comprised of confessional believers. I believe the NT teaches that.
I don’t go to war about the Lord does with infants and the infirm.
But if someone comes to me and asks me if they are a Christian, I think the NT would ask whether they believe. And if so, they are. If they do not, I do not believe that any ordinance or procedure performed on them in infancy makes them a Christian.
I suspect that you agree with that.
Also, I saw your question about “Elders” above and your reference to the when Baptists started having elders.
The NT words for pastor, elder and bishop basically the same. A pastor, and elder and a bishop all did the same thing in the NT church, I believe.
So, Baptists have always had an elder, and they typically used the term “pastor” which is a Latin derived term.
The difference in the 20th century is that the prevalent practice became that the pastor was seen as the only “elder”. So, Baptists did not change the practice on having an elder, the single elder model became more prevalent in the 20th century.
Before that, in the 17th and 18th centuries, more Baptist churches had a plurality of elders. That is the practice to which you are seeing churches return.
So, instead of having Brother Will, the pastor and the sole elder, you are seeing a plurality (more than 1) elders, most of the time with the pastor being one of the elders.
That’s how is works in our church since its founding in 1992. We have several elders, one of whom is employed and does most of the preaching, though we have 4 other elders who preach, along with the staff.
Only the pastor is an elder. The other staff, associate pastors etc. are not elders.
Hope this makes sense, but am not suggesting you have to agree.
Nancy;
Just re-read my comment, and saw that it is confusing.
The pastor is the only staff member who is an elder. We have 13 elders total. The pastor and 12 others. The other staff members are not elders.
Haitch:
I am a lawyer.
I can guarantee you that if any non-profit (a church included) has a constitution, bylaws etc. that vest in the congregation, elders, an executive committee, a condo association etc. the authority to receive members and to expel members for cause, that the non-profit can do that legally.
The member does not have to sign a document before a non-profit can police its membership.
So, if a Mosque says that a member has violated some command of the Koran, and that he will not stop, that Mosque can vote him out (or the elders can – if they have the equivalent).
And the courts will not review that typically, as that is a matter of process within the legal community.
Are you maintaining that a person can walk the aisle and join a church, and then later down the road he commits some offenses which the church finds to be a violation of their beliefs and order and they can’t kick him out, unless he signed a document saying they can?
Maybe I am missing what you are saying.
If one says that the bible says that husband : wife :: Christ : church then that very analogy carries with it limitations. Which is to say, it can be true only certain within limits. If the comps come along then and preach anything which lies outside the limits they have distorted scripture itself.
The church worships Christ. A wife worshipping her husband would be idolatry.
The church is a corporate body with (sorry folks) leadership and corporate decision making such that no single individual has control of what the church does. A wife is an individual and bears individual responsibility for decisions, without benefit of group decision making or outside leadership. Think vulnerable.
A husband is a fallible person and a sinner (which is to say a human person.) Nobody is ever asked to swear primary allegiance to another person; only to Christ. The church does not swear primary allegiance to a fallible person or a sinner. (“God from God…”) Christ will not lead the church astray. Such cannot be said with certainty for any husband.
And if a woman has indeed sworn primary allegiance to Christ then she must not renege on that oath and replace Christ with her husband.
Christ does not infantilize the church but calls it to maturity and steadfastness and courage. Hypercomps in preaching the micromanaging of wives do just the opposite.
Nor do I think that Paul meant what the hypercomps say he meant. What Paul said (and what Peter said about submission) all has appropriate limitations. Which fits in with Paul’s comment as to how Christ gave himself for the church. Giving one’s self for is not the same as imposing one’s will on. The problem is not Paul, the problem is the hypercomps.
Anonymous wrote:
So when they changed was this the lure of history, pragmatism, or the influence of the presbyterians with their board of elders?
Haitch:
The most recent examples around here involved Two Rivers Baptist Church. They voted to expel a member named Frank Harris. Mr. Harris had never signed any covenant or agreement. Mr. Harris and some of his supporters sued the church. The courts refused to consider the church action to kick Mr. Harris out because that was an internal, private church process.
The courts did order the production of some records, but the discipline against Mr. Harris not only stood, the court did not even review it due to the separation of church and state doctrine.
Another prominent example involved the SBC back in 1984. At the convention, a couple by the name of Crowder made a motion relative to some procedure. The chair ruled the motion out of order. The Crowders sued the SBC. The SBC, defended by the former U.S. Attorney General under Jimmy Carter (his name escapes me now) won the case. The Court refused to consider the chair’s ruling because it was a matter of church process and the courts typically abstain from that.
I am sure there are exceptions to that (e.g. let’s say natives wanted to offer a child sacrifice) but I don’t know the standard.
The basic point is that courts are loath to enter into church disputes.
@ dee:
ta Freedoooooooooom!
Anonymous wrote:
Since I am part of a very different christian tradition than baptist, we do not need to get into the details, since I do not believe in ordinances or procedures either one for either the believer or the unbeliever. Now a sacrament, that is different. You see why we do not need to discuss this. But for what it is worth I have not run into any christian belief system that denies the necessity of belief for those who are able to potentially believe. As to the infant or the severely mental handicapped or such-God is trustwothy and will always do the right thing, whether any of us knows what that is or not.
Nancy:
That is a really good question.
Religious trends are hard to trace sometimes, I think. There can be several streams of thought that bring about change, and the culture around us can cause a change.
In my own church, it really happened naturally. I talked with a friend I had known since he was 14 and I was 16 about starting a church. We started with 5 couples and 4 children. 3 of us were on a “Leadership Team.” I am not even sure 9 Marks was around then. 1992? Maybe. John MacArther was.
Both of us had seen the way most Baptist churches ran. The pastor was God’s man. God spoke to him. He called the shots. He would tell the congregation what he thought God was saying to him, and the congregation usually voted in favor of what he wanted.
We had an excellent example of pastoral leadership when we were teens. I cannot say enough good about this man. He just passed last year at age 89. So, we never saw this system abused by him. But we did see that he suffered from a lack of good voices around him, people whom he trusted who were skilled in other areas that would have helped him in decision making. We had deacon meetings, but the respect was so great for him and his position, that the deacons just went along with what he asked for. We saw that this deprived him of good assistance, a team with whom he could share, and it frustrated some good seasoned leaders in the congregation who felt like bad decisions were made, but they were afraid to speak up for fear of looking difficult. And a congregational discussion and vote is not the time to lodge an objection and get an in depth discussion.
We also had some theological education. My friend went to seminary. I went to a Bible college in undergrad, and got a lot of theology there. I took a class in pastoral leadership. It was basically Baptist and a lot of SBC material. I was taught that the pastor should never become close friends with anyone in the church. He was God’s man and prophet, and he needed to speak to all the same. If he became friends with some at a deeper level, he would be criticized for picking favorites. Also, he could open himself and family up to a critical examination and even slander if people got to know him too well.
Our reaction against these models, along with the NT caused us to think differently about a church that we would be forming. The NT is very clear that in NT churches there was more than 1 pastor, elder or bishop. There was plurality. Even the SBC had one church with co-pastors – First Baptist Jacksonville with Jerry Vines and Homer Lindsay.
We felt it was biblical, more stable, beneficial to the person who would serve full time vocationally, and more beneficial to the congregation as a whole if there were a plurality of leadership. And we could not help but see that there were other types of churches that did this.
So, that’s how we started.
This was in the late 80s, early 90s. Churches were pursuing the seeker model and doing all sorts of different things.
I remember when we went to the local Baptist Association to be approved. Most of our friends thought we should be independent, but we wanted a denominational connection. And the SBC had the least amount of control. We went into this meeting with 4 local pastors in 1993. We did not have “Baptist” in our name, we had 3 elders, and we had no building. The committee could not understand us, though they were as kind as they could be, but they really could not understand. They really wanted to know if we had a church sign, and there was quite a bit of discussion about that, as I recall.
So, I tend to think that there were different streams of thinking that influenced us that also influenced a generation of people. I don’t know when 9 Marks started, but I suspect it was a couple of years after that. By the late 90s, we were still a rarity, but soon thereafter, it became more common.
Even the largest local SBC church in our area now has elders. Their pastor is still the big cheese, and they only about 5 or 6 elders, and they do not act as we do. They are more of an exalted business and strategy board only. Our elders preach, baptize, marry couples etc.
I know this is rambling, but it’s the best sense of things that I can give you.
Sorry didn’t mean to write that- though in many ways where Christ and the Spirit is there should be FREEEDOM -not bondage. It is interesting, I was involved with an authoritarian church where the members had to tithe and in some cases tithe gross. Eventually there was a coup and tHe main leader of the church was forced out to be replaced by another authoritarian leader who also taught tithing. Recently I was talking with the first leader who told me that he had gone to visit his old church. He said every time he goes they always talk about tithing and it is just teaching legalism! I told him that when i was in the church and he was the leader that’s what he used to teach! In fact this leader called it ‘God’s tax’ which we have to pay, offering were on top of that. This was such a
turnaround now the shoe was on the other foot. I wonder sometimes if some of these authoritarian leaders would sign covenants etc if they weren’t the ones calling the shots!
Okay, now that I’ve had time to go read all of the original article by Dever, I’m even more convinced he’s not a musician.
1. If he’s going to take the line of “only congregational singing is in the Bible,” he should be against all musical instruments in church, period. There’s no need to single out the organ.
2. I repeat what I said earlier: if he thinks organs automatically “smother and discourage” congregational singing, then he’s never heard a good organist (or has only heard an organ way too big for its room), doesn’t understand how organists are trained, and/or has never been in a church that is used to organ accompaniment. He also has to explain why most of the congregations I’ve ever played in sing MORE when the organ is louder, and apparently doesn’t know about chamber organs which are much smaller and quieter.
3. “Financial and emotional commitments”? That’s all organs represent? Umm, try an entire centuries-old art form and musical tradition that’s worth preserving. Maybe that’s just my “emotions” talking but I think we should keep history around for future generations. But what do I know, I just earned my associates’ degree equivalency in organ performance from the American Guild of Organists this week. Silly me and my emotions that took years’ worth of practice to perfect. In reality, entire chunks of music history and entire art forms should be eliminated because Mark Dever doesn’t like them and thinks they’re loud and expensive.
4. When I hear a Reformed person say that organs should be “reformed and eliminated,” excuse me if what comes immediately to mind is the mass destruction of that instrument in England by the Puritans during the Commonwealth. I hope Dever’s not in favor of this. If he is, I question how his mindset is any different from the one that’s currently leading ISIS to destroy Babylonian archaeological sites in Iraq. Idols are, after all, idols.
Nancy:
I understand the importance of sacraments, and you are right, we differ on those, though I am sure that we could have a civil discussion.
Baptists, and most evangelicals, believe in “ordinances” not sacraments. Evangelicals are not liturgical.
This came up because I told you that we have attenders who will not become members because they did not have baptisms as confessional believers. We do not insist on the mode. We believe that the NT displays immersion, as well as the Baptism of confessional believers, and that’s where we are.
These people are welcome in our church. I suppose all churches have some people like this – people who attend, but are not members because of a belief difference or something. God is big enough to work around that, as we all know.
Hester wrote:
Oh, wow. That is so great. Congratulations!
You are right in that whole comment. My kids’ church has just purchased and resotored an old Hooks and Hastings organ, an almost majestic thing. and the organist can tame it for accompaniment as needed. Of course, when they did the Mozart Laudate Dominum I sat there thinking “He lives” and had to fight back the tears to keep from embarrassing myself right there among all the proper episcopalians. I don’t think they do that a lot you know, cry in church just for the sheer beauty of it all that is. But my soul was dry and thirsty for something like that. Good thing Dever and crowd were not there, what with the emotion and all. To each his own I suppose.
william wallace wrote:
In *some* cases tithe gross? You mean there’s an option to do differently? (In our ex-church, “gross” was the only option.)
@ Hester:
Congratulations, Hester. Quite an accomplishment.
@ NC Now:
Yep. She had her head on straight The leadership did not
@ Hester:wow!!!!!
@ Anonymous:
I really appreciate this information. I was gone from the baptists before this trend started, basically moved completely out of state from the churches I had known, and it is easy to get out of touch with things. Thanks for taking the time with that. It makes a lot of sense how something like that would take place.
Andy Davis is a product of Mark Dever’s failed church in Massachusetts, Topsfield Reformed Baptist Church. It’s rare to see any mention at all of that church in the 9Marks-ist literature.
Jerome wrote:
Was Mark Dever the pastor of the failed church? Or was it a plant from the church in DC?
Yeah, Dever pastored the church in the 1980s while studying at Gordon Seminary, after his stint as a United Church of Christ minister there (Topsfield Congregational). Dever left to study in the UK and serve under Ray Stedman (Eden Baptist Church Cambridge, also rarely mentioned by Dever).
Hester wrote:
That’s exactly what I thought….it reminded me of what they did during the Commonwealth….these guys want to go back 400 years…
I’m sorry, the church name was was New Meadows Reformed Baptist Church, Topsfield Mass.
Jerome wrote:
From what I can tell, Ray Stedman was never at Eden Baptist Church in Cambridge. There was a Roy Clements in Cambridge at the time Dever might have been there, if he was there.
Thank you. Hav
(cont.) -ing trouble with remembering names, sorry.
Reader wrote:
Dever sounds to me like he’s making up excuses to justify his preferences. Throwing something out there hoping it will stick.
refugee wrote:
Yeah. Yet somehow they insist such things are there. The usual reference is that passage in Acts where it says the Holy Spirit added to their number those who were being saved. I don’t get what that has to do with any kind of formal membership deal or covenant signing.
Another thing I haven’t found in the Bible is the official church building. I see quite a bit about gathering and assembling at certain folks’ homes. But not an official church building. Dever doesn’t seem to want to do away with those, though.
@ Jerome:
I grew up in Salem Massachusetts and attended the Topsfield State Fair every year. The Danvers statement (complementarianism defined) was cobbled together in Danvers, Massachusetts which is pretty much next door to Topsfield.
I had no idea that Andy Davis was also involved there. He treated some dear friends in a despicable manner during his *takeover* of FBC Durham.
Jerome wrote:
Love the 9 Marks-ist quip. If the shoe fits….
Hester wrote:
Congratulations!
dee wrote:
It’s disturbing what allegiance to an ideal can do. Almost always, human feeling and the better angels of our nature are the casualties we can least afford.
Hester, congratulations on the great accomplishment!
Nancy:
Thank you for the discussion and great dialogue and your gracious manner.
Nancy, you said it would be interesting to know “if the Grahams had their children baptized as infants”.
They had, at the least, their daughter Anne baptized as a baby; Anne talks in one of her books about her experience with spiritual abuse. One of the things she talks about is that the abusive church never recognized her baptism because she was baptized in infancy. I would infer, from this & other statements by the Graham offspring, that this all occurred as a part of Ruth Graham’s presbyterianism (?), since both the elder Grahams have said that because their father was gone so much of the time,they decided that the children should be raised in their mother’s church which she attended & continued to be an active part of, all her life.
So Mr Graham seems to have been less than totally in the camp of “believers’ baptism”.
Thanks for all the congratulations, guys! 🙂
refugee wrote:
That’s more $$$$$$$$ coming in to the ManaGAWD.
(In my tax bracket, gross is half again the net.)
All about the Benjamins, baby.
Hester wrote:
Mohammed would agree.
Nancy wrote:
Isn’t that the whole idea behind Comp/Patrio?
Anonymous wrote:
Why, why, why in the world would you believe this? Please, read Matthew 18. Then re-read it. The Matt 18 passage regarding church discipline is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Dever and his contemporaries teach.
Notice: there are no elders in the Matt 18 passage, but only the congregation is mentioned. Jesus did this on purpose to avoid all the types of garbage that TWW constantly writes about.
STEP 1, a sin is confronted individually by the person (not an elder) who sees the sin. This is done so as to make it, in your own words, “exercised with some care and privacy, and would not make it a congregational matter.” STEP 2, if the sinner doesn’t repent, then one or two more (not elders) are brought in to bear witness. There is no command that the other witnesses be elders, so the one who originally confronts the sinner gets to choose the witnesses. Notice that at this point, only a max of three people know about the sin. STEP 3, if the sinner doesn’t listen to the multiple witnesses, then the one who originally sees the sin takes it to the church. The church is an assembly of believers, so when Jesus says it should be told to the church, He means the whole church. Notice, again, no elders are even mentioned. And, Jesus is the one who decided to make it a congregational matter at this point. STEP 4, if the sinner doesn’t listen to the church (not the elders), then he should be treated as a tax gatherer.
What the current church membership fad does, and this is the evil of it, is that elders insert themselves into Jesus’ Matt 18 saying as a STEP 2 1/2. But notice, there is no STEP 2.5 in Matt 18. They also eliminate all the other steps so as to hijack the discipline process. This is why we so often hear of idiot cases of pastors “getting fired” and people placed under discipline without even knowing about it.
Anonymous, when you say that you would want discipline left in the hands of the elders, the effect of this is to never let people learn how to do the process themselves the way Jesus intended. This creates Christians with stunted growth, and then the elders are overwhelmed and need to resort to drastic, authoritarian practices because they are the “only ones” who know how to do anything.
What we need is to take church discipline OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE ELDERS, and put it back in the hands of the common people, just like Jesus wanted.
Also notice in step 3, Jesus is talking to the one who sees the sin. That individual is the one to bring it to the church. Notice also, no elders are given authority over whether that person gets to bring it to the church. Jesus already gave that person the authority, and the elders do not get to veto Jesus.
Nancy wrote:
Thanks Nancy, that is exactly what I was going to say. I will add in case the original poster is still checking these comments, that the world and it systems are a direct result and picture of the fall. You want to see how things should be you must look at Gen 1 and 2 without superimposing comp doctrine. You want to see the results of comp doctrine, read the OT and see how women are treated. You want to see what heaven will be like? It is not like the world, If Jesus is the direct image of God, then how did he interact with women and men? How did he treat them? Seems as if all were equal in his eyes.
@ Anonymous:
Anon, thank you for sharing your perspective. I think there are a few things you could think through a bit more before cementing your position. For starters, you have a few presuppositions that I would question, e.g., church discipline was essentially abandoned in the last half of the 20th century. That has had long ranging and disastrous consequences.
Today, large “power point” type churches typically have no discipline….missing some of the blessings of being truly connected with a local body.
For starters, what data do we have to indicate that an abandonment of church discipline had “long ranging and disastrous” consequences? Churches have been full of sinners for 2,000 years. In fact, “church discipline” has much more severe consequences throughout history – from the Inquisition to Calvin burning Servetus. In other words, we have no historical evidence that “church discipline” is an effective method of preventing “long range and disastrous” consequences.
I’m also not sure that you have considered that “elders” are also sinners. Entering into a legal agreement (and yes, every signed document is a legal agreement, although it may not be binding if it is improper – but it takes a court to decide that) that empowers a group of men to “discipline” “sin” is just a blank power check that can be used to empower all kinds of wickedness and injustice. It also seems to me to be the embodiment of the OT law, not the grace of Christ.
I get where you are coming from, and have signed similar agreements with loving elders and never had a problem…but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Excellent comment – thank you!
XianJaneway wrote:
This is actually a pretty good indicator that you are dealing with an idiot. The gospel has had a very clear, very narrow definition for 2,000 years. The “gospelly gospel” thing is an obfuscation and abuse of the term. If you hear someone using “gospel” (or worse “gospel-centered”) as an adjective, you know that they can’t possibly understand what the gospel actually is, by virtue of sheer logic.
Dave A A wrote:
Yeah, no. This is part of the problem – some of these “teachers” have never taken a logic course in their life. Mr. Leeman is missing at least one major premise to reach his conclusion. It is really post-hoc eisegesis designed to support a presuppositional socio-economic paradigm. Just like they did for slavery back in the day.
Gram3 wrote:
For Luther, James was an epistle of straw. For Neo-Cals, Galatians is the epistle of straw.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Thanks for this comment. I recall Anonymous saying that he was a lawyer and that a signed Covenant isn’t (or doesn’t have to be) a legal agreement. I don’t quite understand how a signed Covenant isn’t legally binding myself, maybe one has to be a lawyer to understand 😉
I do appreciate Anonymous’continuing conversation, though we disagree on some things. A signed Covenant is a path I won’t go down myself. I don’t think it is called for or appropriate for a gathering of believers. So I guess I am out of the club as far as most churches go, though I am all for gathering of believers. The 501c3 church clubs will have to answer for themselves when they put limits on other believers for not signing covenants.
Bridget wrote:
Of no more than tangential relevance, but Roy Clements was the minister of Eden Baptist in Cambridge when I was there too. I never met him, but one of my house-mates was a regular at Eden Baptist and knew him well.
Bridget wrote:
I know a couple of people who went to Ray Stedman’s church in California more than 20 years ago. It’s called Peninsula Bible Church.
Bridget wrote:
I was thinking last week about the Apostle Paul and that he would be subjected to ‘church discipline’ under Mark Dever’s criteria for not ‘being a member’ of a local church.
At my former, NIGHTMARE, 9 Marks church attenders who didn’t join but attended faithfully were forbidden by the pastors/elders from attending church any more for their unwillingness to sign a membership covenant. The pastors/elders said that if they weren’t willing to sign that document it was ‘a sign from God that they weren’t ‘called’ to be at that church’. One dear man, from a poor Asian country, faithfully attended the church for more than six years but he didn’t believe in membership covnenants. The pastors/elders forbade him from coming to church again.
With the decreasing numbers of people going to church in America, it would be nice to show people the love of God ‘we’d love to have you at church’.
My former church also does/excommunications & shunnings for not agreeing with them. The first person to be excommunicated/shunned? A godly doctor who is a long-timer personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s in Southern California. The doctor has been married to his wife for 40+ years, faithful, loving marriage. Awesome father to his adult children and loving and close with them. Invested his time and money in the church. His crime? He spoke to the pastors/elders about their Biblical errors in running the church.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Did you know Mark Dever at all? He was apparently at Cambridge for a time.
Tim wrote:
Amen to that! I, a white woman, was evangelized by older born-again Christian black women who became my friends, loved me, and showed through their reverent behavior and love for all kinds of folks that there was something ‘different’ about them. That difference was Jesus. They took me to their churches, where many times I was the only white person, to their fried chicken fundraisers. They told me The Gospel over sweet potato pie and would so lovingly say, “Now, baby, you really need to have another slice of pie.” That IS witnessing! Bless those sisters!
To this day, the majority of my Christian music is Black Gospel from Mississippi.
Here’s Mama Moises Burks and The Mississippi Mass Choir singing “When I Rose This Morning” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYgrCzuNM0w (I’ve seen them live. Wow!)
Poor, poor Mark Dever. That brother doesn’t know what he’s missing!
Some more Christian Gospel music that has drums and that Mark Dever is missing out on!
Spencer Taylor and Doug Williams (at The Gospel Legends in Mississippi)
“Lord Help Me To Hold Out”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTf8gTHme08
Dottie Peoples and Paul Porter (at The Gospel Legends in Mississippi)
“On Time God”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG0glN2Y5K8
Lee Williams and The Spiritual QC’s “So Much To Be Thankful For”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U62FgM6iTMc&list=PL0ruRkJYJNWp4x4_jOOQlRucou70-7eqY
Evelyn Turretine Agee at The Gospel Legends in Mississippi
“God Did It”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd4TjYG4lYQ
Lily Lillian (of The Mississippi Mass Choir) singing “Praise Him” at The Gospel Legends in Mississippi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg1_l1ds_z8
@ Michaela:
You have been given a wonderful gift in the love and friendship of these women. Maybe a black church would bd a good fit for you now?
The black churchgoers i knew in D.C. were far more real, down to earth and friendly than the vadt majority of white churchgoers (like me) that i met, and in a lot of ways, i felt more at home with them than with people who looked lkke me. I wonder if I’d have been better off at one of the black churches thst had some white and Latino folks who came all the time. Home isn’t necessarily found where we expect to find it.
@ Michaela:
Btw, i have a great love for some of yhe older gospel grests, like Dorothy Love Coates, and am a big fan of singers lkke Mavis Staples and the late Fontella Bass.
XianJaneway wrote:
numo wrote:
Man…I have had the same experience!
Didn’t Bonhoeffer have a similar experience of sorts with folks from the Abyssinian Baptist Church?
Here’s the latest post…
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/tribute-to-a-pastor-i-loved-joe-jenkins-from-wooded-hills-bible-church/
@ Michaela:
Roy Clements wrote a great book, “Songs of Experience” on the Psalms. He came out as a practicing homosexual quite a number of years ago.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
“The gospel has had a very clear, very narrow definition for 2,000 years…. If you hear someone using “gospel” (or worse “gospel-centered”) as an adjective, you know that they can’t possibly understand what the gospel actually is, by virtue of sheer logic.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
so, just to make sure i’m still in my familiar universe and not the weird parallel gospelly one, please tell me i’m not alone in understanding the gospel as:
-middle wall of separation has been abolished
-I can know God/Jesus/HS and communicate with them on my own
-God in me and I in him
-my constant companion, friend, helper
This parishoner recalls Mark Dever AND Don Carson (founder of TheGospelCoalition) serving under Roy Clements on the pastoral staff of Eden Baptist Church:
http://www.stevemaughan.com/sermons/roy-clements/
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Something like this?
A: Christ submits to God. God leads Christ.
B: The church submits to Christ. Christ leads the church.
C: Wives submit to husbands. Husbands lead wives.
A + B = Gospel
C looks like A and B.
Therefore: C is an “imbedded icon” of Gospel which “pictures” it to creation by “making it easier to comprehend”.
All 3 premises are “missing” a few bricks.
Just premise A, for example.
In church yesterday we were discussing John 14. Jesus says his words are not his own, but belong to the Father who sent him, that the Father is greater than himself, and that he does exactly what his Father has commanded him. This may look like a lead-submit relationship BUT in between these statements he promises the Holy Spirit (how is He “pictured” in marriage) to his disciples, gives them his peace, AND says he’s going away and will return so tha the world might know that HE LOVES THE FATHER. Love is why he follows the Father’s commandments, and why we follow his commandments. And we can see “love” as a primary missing premise by the way Leeman and friends so often replace it with “lead” or “submit” in teaching husbands and wives.
elastigirl wrote:
You’re not alone– in fact, Jesus spends the whole of John 14 saying just that!
elastigirl wrote:
Well, that’s how I understand the gospel. But then again, I’ve never published a book, and I’m not on the conference circuit, so what do I know? 😉
Hi, everyone,
Some people here may have seen my Yelp.com review of CHBC from December 2014 (which was written from my perspective of being a former CHBC member). The review was not unfair, nor was it a purely negative rant, but it was honest about both the good and the bad. I rated the church three stars out of five.
Now, somehow, despite the fact that my review was voted as “Helpful” by nine people, the review has been relegated to a spot on CHBC’s Yelp page that is very, very hard to find. You can only see my review now if you do a search for “Capitol Hill Baptist Church,” go to the reviews, and then go to the *very bottom* of the page, where there is a link to “3 other reviews that are not currently recommended.” http://www.yelp.com/biz/capitol-hill-baptist-church-washington
I can’t help but wonder, how is it that my review is “not currently recommended” when nine people voted it as being “Helpful”? Does anyone here know how these things work on Yelp?
(Unfortunately, because the review is “not currently recommended,” it seems that the only way to see its “Helpfulness” rating is to be logged into my actual, personal Yelp.com account. When I’m not logged in, I can still find the review, with some effort, but I can’t see that anyone at all rated it as “Helpful.”)
numo wrote:
@numo,
Thanks for the wise counsel. I have thought about going to a black church, but want to look at any church now carefully and prayerfully after my terrible experience at a 9 Marks church (being excommunicated and shunned for not siding with the pastors/elders who defended their convicted sex offender friend who is on Megan’s List of sex offenders and has a supervising law enforcement agency).
I lost all of my friends of 8+ years and relationships.
Currently I am training for two races with a group of women, a couple who are Christians. I also have found a whole group of people — men and women — who have been badly hurt by the organized church (including those whose children were sexually abused by pastors and then the entire family was shunned!). Those families have never stepped foot in a church again.
I am sorry I ever thought critically of folks who didn’t go to church; and I never thought more deeply that there just might be a VERY good reason for them not going. I feel like I’ve discovered a whole ministry of very wounded people who need to be heard and attended to. And that’s been pretty incredible for me.
Godith wrote:
@Godith,
Thank you. I will check it out. I had not heard of the author or his book.
numo wrote:
@numo,
Oh yes I so enjoy these singers too! Black Gospel just uplifts this (white) ‘girl’ like nothing else can!
@ Mitch:
Preach it, bro.