Aren’t these dudebros (Brandon and Griffin) being passive-aggressive by preemptively blocking people on social media? Aren’t they acting like the very deluge of passive-aggressive men they reference?!

“If your conflict or offense is with a pastor, approach them humbly and make sure your heart is right in terms of submitting to leadership prior to the confrontation”

And take a guess WHO gets to decide whether you are humble and your heart is right?

Do people not see how dangerous these men become with that view of themselves affirmed by the pew sitters? Seriously, is this 1500’s Geneva?

After reading all that…. whew, almost became a member of a Neo-Cal church. They had contracts- did not see one, because we left a few months after we thought we going to join.

Quietly we came in, and quietly we left. Not a peep nor whisper.

The entirety of Scripture points to the importance of gender distinction? No, the entirety of Scripture points to Jesus.

Since they confuse those two items, it’s easy to see how they confuse the church and the gospel. As one person commented at my place: So “Leaving our church = Abandoning the Gospel”? Let the “leavings” cancel each other out, and the equation is revealed to be “Our church = the Gospel.”

P.S. Thanks for the shout out about my take on their departing member policies, Dee!

ISTM that the surge of the “dones” is easy to explain: joining or even attending such a “church” is more trouble than it’s worth.

Lydia wrote:

Faith wrote:
The word redemption is being thrown around too loosely these days. I hear this new translation of the word in various circles lately (even with an aquaintance the other day). Redemption to me is a precious word which means “It is Finished” We are redeemed when we put our faith in the SAvior. Other then that it is not to be used so liberally to mean every situation relies on redemption. Of what? Loaded language again that confuses and distorts- they are prepping the congregation to continually be in the need for salvation.
Bingo. They want you stuck at the cross, continually broken and needing their guidance which is never finished. They do NOT want you living out the hope of the resurrection with the Holy Spirit as your guide. You would be too independent of them

So true. It is finished means just that.

Let us know when you get a copy of the leaving-member-form. If you don’t get one, I have an acquaintance at The Village who may be able to get us one.

“Gender is a redemption issue.”

I live in a town where there is a Chinese Buddhist high school and university. One of my friends visited there and spoke at length with a Buddhist nun. My friend learned that one cannot achieve Nirvana, at least according to this stream of Buddhism, unless one has been reincarnated as a male.

Same bloody difference. I bet the Calvinistas and other hard-core complementarians would not even be able to see it; they would find fault with reincarnation and fail to be aghast that this same way of understanding who human beings are is what follows from this tenet that they make a matter of the Gospel™.

as long as the people who embrace religion and choose to follow whatever camp they feel comfortable with BUSINESS’s like this will continue to pop up and deceive saying they are the true church and only speak the truth from the Word of God.

it is always look to me for your answers,and while you are at it pay your tithe also without question.

Gus wrote:

…why do some pastors say “my church” in such a possessive way?

Perhaps because they are telling the absolute, accurate truth. It is their church, but it may well not be the Lord’s.

Law Prof wrote:

It is their church, but it may well not be the Lord’s.

Precisely. We tend to call anything and everything ‘christianity’ when perhaps that is not what some of it is at all.

Gus wrote:

why do some pastors say “my church” in such a possessive way?

http://nakedpastor.com/2013/05/who-is-it-all-about-anyway/

Tim wrote:

The entirety of Scripture points to the importance of gender distinction? No, the entirety of Scripture points to Jesus.
Since they confuse those two items, it’s easy to see how they confuse the church and the gospel. As one person commented at my place: So “Leaving our church = Abandoning the Gospel”? Let the “leavings” cancel each other out, and the equation is revealed to be “Our church = the Gospel.”
P.S. Thanks for the shout out about my take on their departing member policies, Dee!

This stuff just screams abusive cult. The thing that fascinates me is the very types who speak most of divisiveness are almost invariably the most divisive.

When the Bible speaks of divisive people whom we’re to have nothing to do with, they precisely fit the mold of these who put themselves as a barrier between lovers of Jesus and Jesus Himself: “…watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.”

When they talk about divisive practices, they fail to understand that Paul was directly addressing people like them. What irony!

With the state of church litigation and the cultural pervasiveness in avoiding healthy conflict (and with special sensitivity towards the deluge of passive-aggressive men in our culture) CityView is committed to clarity and action regarding the Christian practices of rebuke, correction, conflict resolution and reconciliation.

I’m confused here. CityView is a 9Marks inspired and Acts29 sponsored plant. Were not the Driscoll matter where he disappeared after tendering his bye-bye note *and* the Mahaney matter, where 9Marks/CHBC/Dever sheltered him from the accountability of his elders at CLC, examples of how not to do what they say is vital to do? For the gospel, of course.

This is what passes for thinking?

The requirement of 2-3 witnesses ensures that no victim of abuse will be protected at CityView Church. And that no perpetrator will be punished. Abusers aren’t stupid, they do their deeds of evil without witnesses present.

My abusive pastor shouted at me, called me names, and fired me without cause in front of *one* witness. The deacons’ response was to call us both liars (even though the one witness was an elder of the church!). I assume that would be the response of CityView Church as well.

My first reaction to the repetitive requirement of at least 2-3 witnesses: How do you ever assemble these witnesses when you are not allowed to talk to anyone else about it first?

rike wrote:

My abusive pastor shouted at me, called me names, and fired me without cause in front of *one* witness. The deacons’ response was to call us both liars (even though the one witness was an elder of the church!). I assume that would be the response of CityView Church as well.

Naive one, don’t you know? It’s not about the Bible, it’s not about justice, it’s about abusing people and consolidating power. If two dozen witnesses came forward, that would not mean a thing. I know of one case where more than two dozen came forward and the leaders merely sought to excommunicate the witnesses so they could no longer have standing to witness anything in that neocal church. It isn’t about the truth, two witnesses or two dozen.

Law Prof wrote:

Naive one, don’t you know? It’s not about the Bible, it’s not about justice, it’s about abusing people and consolidating power.

“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort

My goodness, a form required to leave?

Do we need to invent a new word like fascism to describe these radical authoritarian religions? Does there have to be another Jonestown Massacre before this madness is generally repudiated?

I’m not generally given to hyperbole and I’m not even sure I have committed it here.

Cliff notes:
Don’t join! Run away screaming!

From the church’s page:

In SOME cases, we might make an attempt to pursue a former member …However, the church is a mission-driven entity. If we perceive the pursuit of former members will detract us from leading our standing-members on mission, we would choose NOT to pursue the former member.

CityView Church sounds like obsessed former boyfriends who stalk the objects of their affections.
(Does anyone remember Ray Stevens “It’s Me Again Margaret”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1F2RrmMlc )

Or… Do they hire bounty hunters, like Boba Fett, I-88, or Boss, to hunt – I mean “pursue” – these wayward members?
I can see this church getting SkyNet to send a T-800 or T-1000 after members who have not left “in good standing.”

They sound like control freaks.

“CV ties leaving to the Gospel™”

Honestly…….is there anything they don’t tie to the Gospel?

Law Prof wrote:

One has to wonder how many molestations of little children are ever perpetrated in full view of two or three witnesses?

Even domestic abuse is generally kept in private, where the husband strikes the wife in their own home, with no eyewitnesses (unless they have children present who see it).

I’ve also learned in researching verbally abusive relationships that verbal abusers will almost always abuse in private, with no witnesses. They will put on a nice, kind face when around others, but only dish the abuse out when alone with the target.

I’m related to a verbal abuser, and trying to figure out how to deal with her or get her to stop, which is how I got interested in that topic.

And yes, it’s true – this verbal abuser only outs act when we are alone or just me and her on the phone.

There is no way I could prove to this church that this family member has been verbally abusing me for years, since she never carries out these actions in front of other people (only a few times in front of her other target, her ex).

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Don’t join! Run away screaming!

I’m sorry, no. CityView must insist that you fill out their “Running Away” and “Screaming” forms first, and in triplicate, double spaced, in Times New Roman, size 12.

Two copies must be filled out in English, and the last must be in Swahili. Then, you must have the church organist and three elders stamp all the paperwork.

LT wrote:

This is sad. I’m afraid you may have to rename this “A Tutorial: How to become a predator at CityView Church in Ft Worth”. By stating up front that the victim must have 2-3 witnesses, CityView has unwittingly announced that if you are a predator and you work or volunteer at CVC, all you need is to be mildly clever.

My thoughts exactly. This is absolutely ridiculous. Do they only consider witnessed sin to be of interest to God, & thus to them? God help the abuse victims that come into their circles because they have set up systems which preclude victims being able to get justice, or maybe even help. They are living in a hideous fantasy world, a Chrisney World where all sin sneaks in dressed as an obvious villain, in plain view.

I did have to smile at the term hard-core complementarians. And I suppose the ‘complement’ of passive-aggressive men is aggressive-passive women. But then everyone knows that! 🙂

I’m afraid legal aspects apart, I have a bit of thing about respecting other people’s consciences, even when they are not particularly well-informed consciences. I suppose they (leaders) have a point that leaving a church over secondary issues (elders or deacons, music style) is not a good idea, but I think it a fundamental ‘right’ or responsibility for believers to choose which church to fellowship with, and that they have a right to move on if they believe this is the right thing to do. I doubt if in reality many believers who have been in a church for some time do this lightly. This moving on is subject to what they (the members) believe God’s will is in the circumstances, the church leadership should in no way attempt to interfere with this. This is Christian liberty and a legitimate use of ‘free will’. It is something a good church leadership ought to be upholding.

I think the law should as far as possible be kept out of membership requirements for a church. The prospect of leaders and/or members suing each other – and that before unbelievers – has the potential to do enormous damage to the witness of the church, and frankly such a church would deserve a bad reputation.

Law Prof wrote:

they are telling the absolute, accurate truth.

Sadly, you may be right.

Mark wrote:

a cult like aura and silo mentality where followers are expected to be unquestioning in their devotion to the ideology and the church’s leadership

That is what happens if they borrow some secular political ideas and are enticed to see ‘church’ as some sort of religious totalitarianism.

Today We rule the local church, tomorrow the entire culture, and eventually We win (rule?) the whole world? And then Jesus will come again and be so proud of us. (And We will rule with Him forever and ever amen??) Only the words have been changed to protect the perpetrators of this distortion of christianity.

Just imagine though how much more attractive this may be than humble obedience or much less martyrdom of any sort. Take up one’s own cross? Forget that. They have a better idea. Hmmm. Wonder where they got that idea?

LT wrote:

–
I realize churches do this to avoid false accusations or looking bad to the public. But what about how you’re going to look in front of God someday trying to “spin” how you made it easier for these horrible things to happen so you could avoid awkward conversations? If you can stomach it, listen to the predators as they tell you that they research where to find their prey. If this is the minimum requirement to even start a conversation, how likely do you think the victim will feel any other support from the leadership? Just reading it makes me feel it’s hopeless.

This.

These guys go through all this trouble to “keep the work going” – focusing on keeping the temporal organization going and protecting themselves – while seemingly paying much less attention to the eternal consequences of setting the stage for preventing justice in the event of abuse, at very least.

Your church name and organization will likely be dead before a quarter century has passed, but your people are eternal. Mind the things that are eternal. Live out what you say you believe.

dee wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
But only one Calvin can sit on the Iron Throne of Geneva.

Fascinating…I had never thought of it this. I wonder what would happen if there was a throne of Geneva. Who would get it? What a battle it would be!

Tip: Don’t go to any Red Weddings.

Nancy wrote:

It is about the ideology. Not about truth. Not about ‘hermeneutic.’ Not about proof or witnesses. It is always about the ideology.

Nobody needs to lose any sleep looking for any other reasons. The money and status and ego and and and may be motivators as to why some glob on to this particular ideology, but it is still ideology uber alles.

Ask any survivor of the Killing Fields of Cambodia about Ideology Uber Alles.

@ dee:
CS Lewis was not shy on voicing his concern for this sort of thing – That Hideous Strength and the short essay “The Inner Circle” come immediately to mind.

@ Amy Smith:
I guess the 2nd victim should just take comfort in knowing that a biblical process was followed in allowing a predator.

Does anybody in these things think through how their rules can be taken and perceived?

@ Amy Smith:

How they proof text the 3 Witnesses verse makes me ill.

Here are references to “Three Witnesses” from scripture:

Deuteronomy 17:6

On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15

[ Witnesses ] One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Matthew 18:16

But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

2 Corinthians 13:1

[ Final Warnings ] This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

1 Timothy 5:19

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

Hebrews 10:28

Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Now, how many people think this is about protecting evil elders? (BTW, I can just imagine the sort of false accusations that might pop up in Pagan Ephesus during Timothy’s time there that might have precipitated Paul making that point to them but not telling the Corinthians, Philippians and others the same exact thing. The Jews would recognize this rule of thumb. The Gentile converts, probably not unless someone knows something I don’t.

dee wrote:

I had never thought of it this way before.

I think it may have to do with the whole notion of the church as a corporation with the (head) pastor as its “CEO”.

I once had an abusive boss who really hated it when people walked out on her. Also she never forgave you if she had to ask you to join the team and you wanted to think about it first. She liked to be in a position where people asked for jobs and she was free to deny them.

One other thought….of all the verses, topics, admonitions, encouragements, etc in the NT…… the “three witnesses” is what they want to pull out, feature and communicate to people about their “servanthood”? That fact right there communicates all I need to know about that place and how highly the leaders think of themselves. No thanks.

They could have pulled out 1 John 3:16 about themselves. But that is not who they are, is it?

Another way pastors like those at CityView protect themselves is by the word ‘accusation’. Any concern of a church member, no matter how mildly expressed, can be called an ‘accusation’. I asked my abusive pastor a question about church funds, in the presence of the deacons. He called this a “public accusation” and attempted to bring church disciplinary proceedings against me for rebellion (the deacons did block him on that one).

But you know what? The question about the church funds was. never. answered. Still has never been answered. The “accusation of an accusation” technique worked beautifully to get rid of uncomfortable questions, and the people brave enough to ask them.

If you think this discussion is unfair, CityView, then define your terms, like “accusation” so that everyone knows what they are. What have you got against clarity?

dee wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

But only one Calvin can sit on the Iron Throne of Geneva.

Fascinating…I had never thought of it this. I wonder what would happen if there was a throne of Geneva. Who would get it? What a battle it would be!

And all the Great Houses playing the Game of Thrones for that Iron Throne of Calvin. You Win or You Die.

House Piper: Sigil — Fluttering Hands. Motto — “In’Shal’Lah” or “God Punishes! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH!”

House Driscoll: Sigil — Brass Knuckles with Five-o-Clock Shadow and Mouse Ears. Motto — “I CAN BEAT YOU UP!” or “WHORES! WHORES! WHORES!”

Dont’ know about Sigils for the other Houses (can anyone help me on those?), but as for Mottos:

House Mahaney — “See How HUMBLE I Am?” or “Chuckle Chuckle”.

And lotsa Great Houses use the same three mottos: “Just Because I Can”, “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”, and “My Boot, Your Face, PRAISE GOD!”

rike wrote:

Given the focus of scripture on the requirements of elders, not of church members (see Titus and I Timothy) these guys have it completely backwards. The ones signing the contract should be the CityView staff.

∆∆∆∆∆∆EXACTLY RIGHT∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

rike wrote:

But you know what? The question about the church funds was. never. answered. Still has never been answered. The “accusation of an accusation” technique worked beautifully to get rid of uncomfortable questions, and the people brave enough to ask them.

It’s a very effective technique, especially when the person(s) in power can report to their friends/supporters that a pewpeon has “accused” them. That provokes a purely emotional response from the supporters that stops all thinking about the matter in question or the actual content of the “accusation.” There is no perceived need to answer the “accusation” so the question is never answered. Problem solved.

Gram3 wrote:

Jesus was a tekton, which in Galilee at the time probably meant he was a stone mason who did not have pneumatic tools and mortar mixers and man lifts. Judging by the pictures I’ve seen of Driscoll, I’m pretty sure there would not be much danger of Jesus being beat up by Driscoll under any circumstances. Driscoll was being delusional and blasphemous at the same time.

I’ve wondered if when the Bible talks about Jesus just passing through the snarling crowds who were trying to push Him off a cliff (Luke 4) or somehow getting away from crowds who were trying to seize Him (John 10), if those were miracles or perhaps just the attempts of effete religious leaders (some of them likely chubby and soft-edged like Driscoll) and common office workers and laborers trying to pull down a very solid fellow in the building trades Who simply was built like a solid rock and too much for them to handle. I had an acquaintance who worked on an old school sort of farm from his youth, grew up picking up 5 foot bales of hay and wrestling with farm animals, all sinew and veins and lean muscles, we were playing pickup basketball many years ago and he set a screen on me and I’ve never experienced anything like it in my life, he was a fence post, an absolute rock, it almost felt supernatural. I bet trying to wrestle down Jesus was a similar proposition.

dee wrote:

Gus wrote:
If THEY make YOU leave, now that’s a whole ‘nuther question – this won’t hurt their egos so much. And – bonus – they can still malign you to other churches.
I had never thought of it this way before. I agree with you. Great comment! I will use your comment in the future. Thank you.

Nine marks has 2 recent mailbags. Number 7 has a “discipline” question about a woman planning to move away from “the church” to help care for her mother. Leeman advises no “discipline” in this case, but the fact that church leaders are considering this is illustrative.
http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-7-cake-baking-principles-two-services-or-one-youth-pastors-a-discipline-issue/
In Number 8, it’s what to do about churchgoers who don’t believe in “joining” and becoming “members”.
The solution is to exclude them from as many church activities as possible in hopes that they’ll shape up or ship out.
http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-8-confidentiality-among-elders-meaningful-membership-can-an-elder-be-single-and-young-earth-creationism/

Dave A A wrote:

dee wrote:
Gus wrote:
If THEY make YOU leave, now that’s a whole ‘nuther question – this won’t hurt their egos so much. And – bonus – they can still malign you to other churches.
I had never thought of it this way before. I agree with you. Great comment! I will use your comment in the future. Thank you.

Nine marks has 2 recent mailbags. Number 7 has a “discipline” question about a woman planning to move away from “the church” to help care for her mother. Leeman advises no “discipline” in this case, but the fact that church leaders are considering this is illustrative.
http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-7-cake-baking-principles-two-services-or-one-youth-pastors-a-discipline-issue/
In Number 8, it’s what to do about churchgoers who don’t believe in “joining” and becoming “members”.
The solution is to exclude them from as many church activities as possible in hopes that they’ll eventually shape up or ship out.
http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-8-confidentiality-among-elders-meaningful-membership-can-an-elder-be-single-and-young-earth-creationism/

OHMYGOSH

GovPappy wrote:

Your church name and organization will likely be dead before a quarter century has passed, but your people are eternal. Mind the things that are eternal. Live out what you say you believe.

This is the problem, I believe you have your finger on it. For many, God is just a prop to support and justify their power. I am not certain at all that they really care about people or doctrine or God or anything except themselves: the idol of many who go down the path described at CityView may well be the organization and their own authority within it.

Their power and authority is the only thing that matters, the only thing eternal to them, so if you could take one of them aside, perhaps Young Master Smith, the one who’s too afraid to confront the opinion of a strong woman who is not under his church’s control, I’m sure he’d give lip service to eternal things and the Kingdom of God, but he gives evidence that he understands it no more than I understand Differential Equations.

Our old pals at Prestonwood made the news again… http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/collin-county/2015/05/02/debate-sparked-by-plano-pastors-candidate-endorsements/26757043/

Two weeks ago, the executive pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church sent an e-mail from his personal account. In it, Pastor Mike Buster endorsed five candidates in next week’s local elections. Some church members are concerned that this message crossed the line.

Are any church members concerned that failing to report allegations of child sex crimes crosses the line?

Working from the principle of general justice, the requirement for 2 witnesses is a good one. The fact that they are anticipating the need for this is telling, also frightening. That alone would be enough to make me run from such a church. However, remember that CCTV, medical examinations, etc., not just “eye witnesses”, constitute a witness to a crime or evidence that corroborate a crime. The membership contract is exceedingly scary. I hope people started leaving the church in droves when TWW’s post appeared and continue until the church wises up.

Godith However, remember that CCTV, medical examinations, etc., not just “eye witnesses”, constitute a witness to a crime or evidence that corroborate a crime.

Another excellent point to consider!

A covenant is a contract, and is enforceable against both parties. However, these covenants seem very one-sided. By definition, these covenants are designed and created for the purpose of enabling spiritual abuse and legalizing defamation against any member who does not totally kowtow to the powers that be, aka the pastors and elders (who generally are the same people in these churches!). I believe it is a sin of the greatest magnitude to propound such a covenant and to ask believers to sign it.

“So when D or D or JA criticize them in any way, it is not only perceived an existential threat, but a threat coming from the most despised possible source.”

Sadly, I think it is far easier to dismiss female critics than those who appear to be their male peers.

“Again, we will still go through the process of leveraging our departing-member form.”

More evidence of the corporatizing of the American church. You know, it doesn’t specifically say so anywhere, but reading between the lines of this document, I get the impression that any member leaving CV will be in for an exit interview. Just one, if they’re lucky.

dee wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Get out of my head. Now! I just finished reading those 15 minutes ago.

I see things…

Dave A A wrote:

dee wrote:
@ Dave A A:
Get out of my head. Now! I just finished reading those 15 minutes ago.

I see things…

ewwwwwwwwww……..

@ NJ:

This makes one sick- no wonder so many look at the church as no different then Big corporations- crony capitalism anyone?

I am a conservative and enjoy free market, but I am a little worried that the one who becomes President in the next election will give more fodder to the church and it will increasingly be conjoined with the government. Dominionism/reconstructionism is a real threat to the freedom of this country.

Dave A A wrote:

Bridget wrote:

I was so revolted by that section.

One highlight (for those who haven’t followed the link): “Plus you (non-joiners) won’t receive the same level of pastor care.”

This is, in my opinion, aa sign of one with a full-blown Romans 1 mind. This is reprobate.

dee wrote:

CS Lewis quote: “… my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state …”

He pictured this very well in That Hideous Strength. Absolutely frightening how powerfully evil a well run bureaucracy like the NICE institute in that book can be.

Dave A A wrote:

“Plus you (non-joiners) won’t receive the same level of pastor care.”

Which might not be such a bad thing, I’m thinking. 😉

dee wrote:

@ dee:
@ Bill M:
Discussion ended. Lilly and Petunia 1st and 2nd. The ayes have it. Motion passed.

It might genuinely be a useful exercise to write a “pastoral contract” and offer it in kind to those churches who require a “membership contract”! Unlike the membership contracts, which skate on veeery thin eisegesis indeed, there is plenty of good exegesis on which to formulate a pastoral contract.

dee wrote:

Thank you for this informative comment. Pastors get off unless there are 2-3 witnesses? This gave me the here jeebies.

This rule really puts victims in a tough spot.

It may have been the other thread where I mentioned I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on verbal abusers, because one of my family members, a sibling, is, I realized, a verbal abuser.

I’ve known for years this sibling has a temper problem, but it’s not been until lately I’ve had my eyes opened to the severity of it, that she is an emotionally abusive person, and words (not usually fists) are her weapons of choice.

According to a book I have on the topic, one of the biggest, most common traits with a verbal abuser, is that verbal abusers only abuse in private. They choose to berate their partners when there are no eyewitnesses around.

That book was predominantly about married couples, where the husband verbally abuses a wife, but it can apply to other people. It certainly applies to my sibling.

The author had case studies in her book, where the victims of verbal abuse (usually wives), said they found it quite strange when their cousin or aunt would come by for a visit and stay with them and their husband for a few days.

These women said when these visitors came over, their normally abusive spouse morphed and changed into “Mr. Nice Guy” around them, and around the visitor. But the minute the visitor packed up and left, the husband reverted to being a verbal abuser again.

I had a boss harass me on one job who kept her jabs, pressure, and catty comments on the sly with me.

But one morning when I came in very early, it was just her and me at the office, this boss marched back to my office, and for the first time, raised her voice loudly at me, was screaming at me, letting the hostility hang out – precisely because there was nobody else in the office to hear her.

I don’t know how that church expects any target to walk in with 2, 3 witnesses to plea on their behalf and back their story up, when often times, abuse is done in private, with no witnesses. And the abusers intentionally plot it that way.

@ Law Prof:
I’ve already had 23 years in a shepherding movement “church.” I’m good. 🙂 I’ll make room for others to have the . . . um . . . blessing.

Law Prof wrote:

To a man, virtually without exception, their relationship with the father was somewhere between difficult and horrific. The fathers are often outwardly pious, diligently churchgoing

Very interesting. A disturbed relationship with their father makes them attracted to and fiercely loyal to the Big Men in the movement. That makes sense. Also if they had a chaotic household or childhood, then the structure which some of us find suffocating and oppressive would seem to them as a good thing.

@ Law Prof:

Going back about 14 years, I saw first hand the heavy recruitment in colleges from Cru to Intra-varsity to bible colleges. For example, my relatives at Wheaton became John Piper fanatics even going to MN to study and work with him after graduating. I had another relative at McGill around the same time doing post grad work who joined intra-varsity and invited about 30 of those students down for break and they were all Piper fanatics. Another relative was at a college in London and there was a group there affiliated with the US shepherding movement. Of course, none of us knew the “true Gospel” when they made treks back home.

Too many young people were changing their studies to become ministers and ministers wives.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Dave A A wrote:

“Plus you (non-joiners) won’t receive the same level of pastor care.”

Which might not be such a bad thing, I’m thinking.

LOL!

Please, no Pastoral Care! NOOOOOOOO…..Not that!

Gram3 wrote:

I think a far greater threat is the humongous global corporate interests, and they do not care what color a candidate’s jersey is. Cronyism and corruption of our institutions is rampant. And both color jerseys have their enthusiasts and their corporate interests. If we can keep our republic, it’s a great system to damp out the craziness that occurs at the tails of the distribution. Just my opinion.

I agree. The corruption of our institutions is a huge threat from both parties. When congress passes laws (and they have been doing this for 80 years)mandated for the peasants but exclude themselves, we are well on our way to the oligarchical collectivist model.

@ Tim:
Yes, most of the complementarians orbiting CBMW are confused to the point of muddying up the gospel. Which isn’t surprising, considering their willingness to sacrifice historic trinitarianism for the sake of their pet social construct. But at the end of the day, it is the lack of graciousness and charity that I find offensive about the crowd. Many of them don’t look a thing like Jesus.

Lydia wrote:

@ Law Prof:
Going back about 14 years, I saw first hand the heavy recruitment in colleges from Cru to Intra-varsity to bible colleges. For example, my relatives at Wheaton became John Piper fanatics even going to MN to study and work with him after graduating. I had another relative at McGill around the same time doing post grad work who joined intra-varsity and invited about 30 of those students down for break and they were all Piper fanatics. Another relative was at a college in London and there was a group there affiliated with the US shepherding movement. Of course, none of us knew the “true Gospel” when they made treks back home.
Too many young people were changing their studies to become ministers and ministers wives.

I was in Intervarsity in the 80s, was led to Jesus through the witness of IVCF members, but never had any of those issues. Later, when I visited a chapter in another state during grad school in the 90s, my wife and I got some unsettling vibes, something was amiss. We assumed it was just that particular chapter and never went back, or maybe it was us, the now-cynical marrieds, maybe we just didn’t fit in being older, maybe. I now wonder if something didn’t happen to that organization 20-some years ago or if there wasn’t something larger happening to young Christians in the 90s that was dark. I think young Christians are now quite likely to be in idolatry of Great Men and Youtube preachers and apostles and tweeters and bloggers. When I was in my teens and twenties, it never occurred to me or most of my Christian friends to spend our time tracking down videos of Great Men who we needed to teach us the truth, we didn’t go wild when some speaker or conference was in town.

NJ wrote:

Sadly, I think it is far easier to dismiss female critics than those who appear to be their male peers.

I’ve seen a study or two that report when a woman takes a male name on the internet, their ideas get taken more seriously by men, and they receive less harassment, and so on.

This link is about a woman who became a man (Ben Barres), and he/she discusses how after he/she changed her gender, he/she was taken more seriously:

Why Aren’t Women Advancing At Work? Ask a Transgender Person
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work

He [after she became a man] was more carefully listened to and his authority less frequently questioned. He stopped being interrupted in meetings.

At one conference, another scientist said, “Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister’s.” (The scientist didn’t know Ben and Barbara were the same person.) “This is why women are not breaking into academic jobs at any appreciable rate,” he wrote …

On other individuals who made female to male gender changes:

Personality traits that had been viewed negatively when they were women were now seen as positives.
“I used to be considered aggressive [when I presented myself as a woman],” said one subject [who now presents herself as a man]. “Now I’m considered ‘take charge.’ People say, ‘I love your take-charge attitude.’”

Gus wrote:

Great minds think alike

Absolutely! Though I’m not sure I can take credit for a great mind as much as a bad experience. 🙂

Victorious wrote:

Really, it wasn’t His maleness that the gospel focuses on. Nor was it His maleness that He focused on. But His humanity, His empathy, His compassion, His love is what we all are to imitate.

Exactly. This gender thing has gone way beyond the beyond.

Gram3 wrote:

Don’t get me started on “ladies’ Bible studies” which bore me silly.

I didn’t know there was such a thing as a ‘ladies’ bible. Is it a separate translation or is it just written at a simpler reading level? Or maybe is the red letter addition actually done in pink? That would just be too cute for words. Possibly it is a parallel bible with the original text on one side for the husband to check before giving his approval. I am so glad you told me about this. I shall be rushing out to the bible book store tomorrow to find a ladies bible to study.

Bill M wrote:

My first reaction to the repetitive requirement of at least 2-3 witnesses: How do you ever assemble these witnesses when you are not allowed to talk to anyone else about it first?

That’s what I was wondering.

Nancy wrote:

I didn’t know there was such a thing as a ‘ladies’ bible.

I recently received, for no reason that I can discern, a catalog of all kinds of Bibles – women’s, men’s, children’s, you name it. There were all kinds of ‘themed’ Bibles, whole lines of Bibles (I kid you not – there is a line of ‘Duck Dynasty’ Bibles). Many different women’s Bibles. Men’s sports Bibles. Military Bibles covered in camo (yes, not kidding). Most of them were Zondervan/NIV.

I was nauseated by the whole spectacle. It all just screams ‘commerce – markets – MONEY’! It’s a sad day when Christians are no longer on the same page, as it were.

By signing them we automatically elevate any included commentary above scripture, and if they include scripture, we are elevating those scriptures above the rest. Please never sign any membership contract. Membership is your in every church because of what Christ did for you on the Cross, no local pastor or church can either give or take away what was won on the cross.

Kind of not on topic, but worth knowing about:

ORLANDO, Fla. — Jimmy King, a Dallas Theological Seminary graduate who now serves as senior pastor of Proclamation Church in Orlando, accused the school said to be one of the top 20 seminaries in the U.S. of not providing him and other black graduates with enough support in finding employment, and further asserted that he was once told, “we’ve never placed a black graduate to a white church.”

King, who graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 2006 with a master of theology in pastoral ministry and leadership degree, according to his church’s website, revealed during The Reconciled Church: Healing the Racial Divide Summit at the Orange County Convention Center last Wednesday that when he went to get help from the school’s placement office in his final year they gave him the surprising news.

In the last year, I went to the placement office, I said ‘I’m ready to be placed.’ They said, ‘we’ve never placed a black graduate to a white church,'” King recalled before a panel of church leaders, including reconciled church founders Bishop T.D. Jakes, Bishop Harry Jackson, and televangelist and pastor James Robison.

“I go back to my class that they have for senior members. They have a panel of pastors from all over Dallas, Texas, all white pastors with the elders’ board. I left that placement office really angry and upset. So when I went to that class with the panel sitting there when they asked do you have any questions, I said ‘why don’t you hire black graduates?’ You could hear a pin drop. I still haven’t gotten an answer,” he said.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/dallas-theological-seminary-graduate-says-school-told-him-weve-never-placed-a-black-graduate-to-a-white-church-138633/

roebuck wrote:

There were all kinds of ‘themed’ Bibles, whole lines of Bibles (I kid you not – there is a line of ‘Duck Dynasty’ Bibles).

An NAR apostle has come out with his own NAR translation of the Bible, called “The Passion Translation.”

Apostle Brian Simmons, of Stairway Ministries, is the lone translator of this “groundbreaking” project.

http://www.spiritoferror.org/2013/04/a-new-nar-bible-the-passion-translation/3014

@ Law Prof:

I am waiting for the day some serious big wig files suit on a church demanding their tithe money back for breech of verbal contract and it hits the news. (Can you tell I am not a lawyer?)

But I have a family member who is a corp atty on retainer with some mega’s and they do fear suits from the well knowns because of PR. People might be shocked at how often mega churches are sued but they rarely go anywhere. Many of them are from family members fighting the legacy of a dead parent.

Nancy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Don’t get me started on “ladies’ Bible studies” which bore me silly.
I didn’t know there was such a thing as a ‘ladies’ bible. Is it a separate translation or is it just written at a simpler reading level? Or maybe is the red letter addition actually done in pink? That would just be too cute for words. Possibly it is a parallel bible with the original text on one side for the husband to check before giving his approval. I am so glad you told me about this. I shall be rushing out to the bible book store tomorrow to find a ladies bible to study.

In my experience, it is the study to teach you that the complementarian perspective is the ONLY gospelly perspective that is appropriate for ‘ladies’ in the church – blah!

Law Prof wrote:

it’s hard to imagine a membership covenant in which you cannot possibly get rescission being anything but unconscionable

I’d be interested your opinion of this article if you get the time.
http://www.speakupmovement.org/Church/Content/userfiles/Resources/church_seven_bylaws.pdf
One paragraph:
“The church should place a provision in its bylaws for formally terminating membership and this provision should prohibit the voluntary resignation or withdrawal of membership of a member once the discipline process has begun. Because the waiver of a church member’s right to resign his membership must be voluntary and intentional, it is a good idea to have church members sign an explicit statement that they have read and agree to this provision of the bylaws.”

These people who devised this contract are of baptist background? Baptists have a history of nasty struggles between church members and leadership. They are known, particularly in the past, for ousting pastors. I have family and friends who have been at the receiving end of an ouster and it is also a form of spiritual abuse, in some cases. Could some of this contract issue be a reaction to pastors getting ousted?

@ roebuck: I agree with you, however in all fairness to pastors, baptists have been very hard on their pastors. I have been pretty close to the epicenter of this. In some cases, such as in Jerry Sutton case, it is absolutely fair. But in others, the pastor can be spiritually abused and has nowhere to turn. Association officers will not intervene which is a strength and weakness of congregational polity. My brother was at deaths door in an ICU and those hypocrites from a church that ousted him came to visit him. Good thing he and his wife didn’t live in a parsonage.

I was part of a Ladies bible study from 1976-1996. We did Bible Study Fellowship and Precept upon Precept, although it was somewhat complementarian, it was an intense study into God’s Word. Our bible study teacher said that if we would follow through with the intense study and many hours of homework, that we would end up knowing more than graduates of seminary. She was right. At this time in my life I can recognize fals teaching right away.it is easier to recognize fals prophets. There are also good Men of God out there. Usually they are humble servant leaders

.@ Bridget:

@ roebuck:
Again I agree with you, and I am not a fan of these contracts. I am just trying to understand where these may have come from? The church contract morphed into something pretty awful, and the contract follows you if you choose to leave a church. It goes against everything I hold dear such as priesthood of believer and they have taken the conscience out of the equation. I realize the resurgent SBC kind of downplays the priesthood of believer, but even the GARBC, a more conservative baptist denomination is proud to place it in their acronym of BAPTIST. If I leave a church out of conscience, chances are I will be viewed as an apostate. My question is “an apostate to what?” I have a friend who left the LDS church. She claims that elders were harassing her even after she moved across the country. I don’t know, but doesn’t this kind of contract give the church leadership license to harass former church members? Just trying to figure this out; I find this church contract issue baffling, so if I ask questions, I am trying to make sense of something I find shocking.

roebuck wrote:

That’s why I like the Deebs’ idea of ‘pre-emptive’ posts.

The “speakupmovement” or “Alliance Defending Freedom” 7 Church bylaws essentials are designed, ostensibly, to protect churches from lawsuits, government interference, and gay marriage. But they don’t clarify how these religious freedoms necessitate the “discipline” of former church-members, nor what forms of “discipline” they think are appropriate. One last quote:
‘Once a member has rescinded her membership, she is no longer consenting to the church’s doctrine. This could limit a church’s legal protection if it is sued for disciplining someone after they have revoked their membership. At least one state court has allowed a suit to proceed against the elders of a church who attempted to discipline an individual after she had formally withdrawn her membership.11 But that court also held that an individual can waive their constitutional right to withdraw from church membership in the midst of a discipline process as long as the waiver is “voluntary and intentional.”’

roebuck wrote:

If the congregation wants the pastor ousted, why shouldn’t they be ousted?</blockquote

I've recently seen some glimmers of hope even from conservative/patriarchal quarters…one small midwestern church near me had the gumption to fire their neoCal authoritarian pastor, and another, looking for a new pastor, has openly stated that they are approaching the process with great care so as not to get one of those "young pastors who kill churches". Word is getting out, and TWW has alot to do with that.

@ Gram3:

Well it is interesting what you said about corporatism- my husband actually stated that he thinks church and corporations would likely become more intertwined. But do not forget Rick Warren’s 3 legged stool:
government, church, and business. I am not so worried about a president being a Reconstructionist; I agree I do not think many would go for that. I am more worried about the ones surrounding the president. Churches already claim 5013c (LBJ), Faith based initiatives (Bush), and now a push for Religious freedom laws- I am more concerned about what many power brokers in the church will ask the government to do for them once a president elected that is more favorable towards the right. What they will ask the president to do for them to protect them from any “persecution” if you get what I mean.
I know maybe I am a little cynical but just have this nagging feeling- could be wrong.

Gram3 wrote:

I’ve tried. Really, I have.

The following is a rant. It is not about you, gram. I am just using your comment as a jumping off place.

Why? Why on earth would you try the ‘ladies’ bible” scene. I have seen that sorry disgrace on display at Lifeway when we were looking for a bible for one of the kids. We did not want a comic book bible, just one with print size that a youngish kid could read it. I was trying to be sarcastic in that comment. If there is no ladies’ edition of Gray’s Anatomy (for example) why would women permit such a spectacle to be made of themselves as a special ladies’ bible? Whatever happened to “ladies” that they let themselves be treated that way? I mean, really? Somebody would carry around a pink bible with roses on the cover and then expect to be taken seriously at church??? Have some self respect people.

There is no provision in the atonement for second class citizenship in the kingdom. Some churches are apparently packed out with people who want to think that women are second class citizens, if that. Do not ever give any impression that you may think there may be such a thing as second class christianity for anybody, including women. Pink bibles with rosebuds gives that impression.

And go find another church.

@ Nancy:

I am going to have to try to get a nap today since I can’r sleep now for some reason, and since I want to go the the pastor’s bible study tonight at church. It is taught by the pastor who dishes out substance not ruffle in class. It meets in the nave, is open to anybody and everybody, and is well attended by adults of all descriptions and genders and ages and for that matter attitudes. And he does not talk down to anybody.

In his homily on Phillip and the eunuch last sunday he emphasized the eunuch’s statement about how could he understand what he was reading unless someone explain it, and pastor used this to emphasize that we all learn from each other and need more one on one and face to face with one and all to facilitate learning discipleship by watching how others get it done in various circumstances because, he said, it gets some kind of hard to follow Jesus sometimes. I almost said amen right there in the middle of mass amid all that fabric.

lydia wrote:

Yes. And they are the third Great Awakening. Or is it the 4th?

Do you really think so, or is this all just stuff that needs thrown on the compost pile? In other words, is there any hope for this segment of christianity considering how far this has gone and how many people seem clueless ( or care-less) about it?

Nancy wrote:

why would women permit such a spectacle to be made of themselves as a special ladies’ bible? Whatever happened to “ladies” that they let themselves be treated that way? I mean, really?

From a marketing perspective, I guess the Bible publishers think they can sell more Bibles that way. They aren’t particularly interested in Bible studies. I have no idea why some women allow and even encourage second-class status. It makes no sense as far as I can see for anyone, including men. But that is the way it is. There is one sense in which gender-segregated classes might make some sense and that is for people who feel more comfortable there.

The reason I’ve really tried is that my hope was to stimulate thought and careful and intensive study, but there is a substantial number of people, church or not, who simply do not want to think but rather to ingest pre-digested thoughts. Or fill in blanks. Or listen to videos. Too canned for my taste.

Mark wrote:

And what of female suffrage in church? Isn’t it unbiblical for women to make any decisions?

Some very good questions. I think the reasoning behind allowing women to vote within the Calvinista churches is that Galatians 3:28 applies and that the decisions being made are ones made by the body and women are part of that body. Please don’t ask me to explain the inconsistency.

The patriarchal churches of various types do prohibit women from voting unless they are the head of the household. I don’t personally know of a church that makes a female head of the household yield her vote to, say, an elder or to forfeit her vote.

@ Gram3:
Gram, thank you so much for your loving comment earlier. (I think I linked to the wrong one.) Please keep harping on that issue—that mind/body/spirit all need nurturing, & that Christians need to be trained in good decision making principles. You are very kind, perceptive, & sharp, and I appreciate everything you write here. <3

@ Gram3:

I know this will sound strange to some but I grew up in a home where this was discussed a lot. My parents early on warned of the dangers of demanding prayer in schools or the 10C posted in government buildings. Votes were considered extremely private. They debated issues not potential candidates because it was considered the wise would vote for proposed policy not personality. They believed in individual freedom and responsibility.

However, if people fear religious imposition from the political sphere, would it not be wise to consider how that could ever be enforced? I believe the pump has been primed over the last 80 years. No government can control thought but it can control behavior. And there are many forms of oppression. When we give over our freedom of choice, freedom to create opportunity without all the governmental barriers and give over more of the reward of our labors with fewer and fewer boundaries, what should we expect? The trade off for perceived security might prove to be very costly. For they cannot give what they do not first take. And government tends toward always taking more than it can give if unchecked.

I am starting to really question whether Americans still believe they even have the ability to govern themselves.

Nancy wrote:

The choice for a lot of people will be simply in whose collection plate do I throw my money, but surely choice time will come.

That’s a good way of putting it. People should exercise the freedom they have to spend their money, energy, and time at the place where they choose, and they should not worry about making sure everyone else must make those same choices, much less bring coercion to other people’s choices. The problem is that it is difficult for us to see how other people could possibly see things they way they do. That, and the fact that circumstances which inform our opinions change over time.

I have much sympathy for people who have been caught up in deception or who have had their church of long-standing hijacked. It’s not just Baptists, but also the P&R who have seen this. The errors are somewhat different, but the takeover process is similar. You’ve escaped these problems, thankfully.

Lydia wrote:

However, if people fear religious imposition from the political sphere, would it not be wise to consider how that could ever be enforced?

I think that Americans have never really experienced strong-form Church/State tyranny like so many others historically have. That is different from the State or the Church influencing the other. And I think we confuse those two. There are outliers in both of those spheres who hope to dominate the other sphere. But I think the vast middle is either in favor of a careful balance or indifferent to the issue due to ignorance or laziness.

Perhaps it would be helpful to speak in terms of ideology rather than religion, because that would encompass some strongly-held belief systems which are not necessarily based in a religion as we think of religion but which can be equally as oppressive. The dynamic can still be the same, and I think the danger is of the elites of any system gaining control of the people, and that is usually accomplished by using attractive or beneficial language appeals to those people or by controlling the means of information dissemination and processing.

@ Nancy:

The older I get the more I see it from a different perspective. It seems like each generation matures later and later. For example, my parents generation were well on their way to building their futures in their teenage years. They also had a war that interrupted their plans but actually provided new opportunities which they quickly took advantage of. Speaking in generalities, the boomers had more leisure in their teen years for entertainment and for each generation after to now most are amusing themselves to death well into their 20’s and beyond.

What is weird is that we tend to think earlier generations were more acquiescent when the truth is they learned earlier to think for themselves and make decision according to their opportunities but responsible for the consequences of those decisions. They had few other choices but to be responsible. But many factors in our culture have led to more and more young people not really thinking for themselves but— they think they are. They are carried away with movements, fads, etc. I was one of them, of course. I speak in generalities and am looking at what passes as “normal” now compared to earlier generations.

I am not making a case that “things were better” back then. I don’t believe that at all. Things were certainly different and produced a different sort of citizenry.

So what happens to culture, religion, etc. when, in general, people mature in their 40’s instead of in their 20’s? I can give you a stark example that is so obvious it makes my head spin. After many obvious problems with maturity and incompetence, do you know what some of the stalwarts at the church had to say concerning the YRR pastor they had voted in without allowing a serious debate? They said: We just need to give him time to mature. That pretty much sums it up.

As if people are mean if they expect a mature pastor. As if people are supposed to pay someone a very large salary while they are growing up. (Which means they don’t earn it so they don’t really grow up) That is the entitlement mentality that just pervades our culture even at church.

Take what is happening in churches, for example. I cannot even imagine the adults in my childhood putting up with even half of it much less paying for it. The thought of any of them actually signing such a document we are discussing is unthinkable. And it has not surprised me one bit that many seniors are simply leaving churches I am familiar with. The churches they paid for.

@ Gram3:

Around here there came a parting of the ways between SBC churches and former SBC churches who now affiliate with other baptist associations. Three of the big and affluent formerly SBC churches are now in fact former SBC and have thrived and grown after they split from the SBC. Seeing that, I am not totally convinced of the helplessness of people in the face of this problem. Sometimes the church can, before it is too late, get rid of the problem pastor and drop SBC affiliation and move on. And if not, there is still the option for the individual to change churches, still within the larger baptist tradition.

But what I was talking about was the church and state issue, and how I think people are going to have to choose where they stand on that issue at least partly by deciding where they go to church and who they choose to financially support.

Gram3 wrote:

Perhaps it would be helpful to speak in terms of ideology rather than religion, because that would encompass some strongly-held belief systems which are not necessarily based in a religion as we think of religion but which can be equally as oppressive.

I agree. The overarching problem gets muddled when we pick parties/sides because the elites in both are about control. And the bigger danger is the big financial interests that control them both. I think they like it muddled and work toward that end.

When I was in my 20’s I worked on a Governors campaign and was startled to learn that big money donors were giving to both candidates. So naïve!

@ Eagle:
Surely that is because I am so strongly Complementary. 🙂

@ Nancy:
I think there are still some churches who maintain joint affiliations with the SBC and other entities. When the churches of the SBC were “resurged upon” as you so wonderfully put it, I was not in the neighborhood, so I don’t know the particulars of what happened and to whom and how. But I’ve seen the results, and I conclude from those results that it was either political from the start or morphed into a political movement. I don’t know when the churches you are talking about disaffiliated, but if it was during the CR, maybe it was easier to persuade people to leave the denomination when the issues were, as I understand it, pretty clear. I just don’t know how that works or worked.

@ Gram3:

As to how much of whatever may be theological and how much religious politics, I have not idea.
One of the local three was having a problem with a pastor and some people who wanted to be fundamentalists when that had not been the direction of the church in the past. In that church the fundy folk left and set up their own church. In the other the church saw what was going on and just chose not to go in that direction (fundamentalism.) Either at that time or somewhat later there were issues with the then FMB and missionary appointments, and at least one missionary couple resigned about that time and spilled the beans about some stuff when they got home. I am not sure where exactly that fits with the timing. There were theological issues of some sort for all these churches. The third church was First B downtown which had lots of ties to other downtown churches of other denoms and they still maintain the position as moderate and connected and of course First. All three have a history of female clergy persons at one level or another of function at some time or other.

There were no scandals. Just people exercising the option to say no.

@ Nancy:

I just checked the web site of First B and they are announcing that they have just called a new pastor-a woman. I think that baptist fundamentalists probably have harder ground to plough here than perhaps at some places.

GovPappy wrote:

A conflict within the local assembly does not mean a conflict with the Body.

Indeed – it doesn’t even mean a conflict with the local Body these days, splintered as it is into so many assemblies of one kind or another. Which I must admit to being conflicted about: the diversity is a very good thing; but the splintering, whereby different congregations rigorously maintain their separate identities and have little to do with one another, is not.

Going back to the actual title of the post (How to Assess the Membership Contract at [frankly, any church – ed]): An important step is to go around a reasonable sample of the other church groups in and around Fort Worth and see whether any or all of them feel that CityView Church is in good standing with the rest of the Body in the city. For instance:

 Does CityView Church work with other, different, congregations?
 Does its leadership have a track record of humility and respect for other believers?
 Does it consistently give preference to others in honour, rather than seeking members or prominence for itself?
 Are its leaders teachable and willing to learn from the experiences gained by other leaders in other denominations?
 Does its leadership as a whole submit to the wider Church – i.e., are they accountable to any local group whose composition they cannot dictate or pre-determine?
 Does CityView display a critical or negative spirit towards other groups locally, or does it resolve differences in a spirit of humility and mutual respect?
 On points of doctrine, does CityView respect the scholarship of other groups, or does it attempt – overtly or otherwise – to assert ownership of the Bible for itself?
And most importantly:
 Is CityView’s application of its Membership Contract subject to the oversight of the rest of the Body in and around Fort Worth?

If CityView [or any other church – ed] is NOT in good standing with the rest of the local Body, then I would judge them by their own words and refuse to engage them in any significant kind of fellowship until they come to proper repentance. And if it IS in good standing, I still don’t personally see the need for any such Contract…

Gram3 wrote:

I think that Americans have never really experienced strong-form Church/State tyranny like so many others historically have.

Don’t forget the Church of Latter Day Saints. They experienced out right state tyranny and persecution not to terribly long ago for their religion.
roebuck wrote:

Originally, the government of the town was a Theocracy – a small republic independent of all outside authority

Early American states were really a weird time. It’s like looking back at an alien world. Massachusetts a hotbed of religious contention?

Nancy wrote:

I think that baptist fundamentalists probably have harder ground to plough here than perhaps at some places.

Sounds like it. I don’t think that the SBC Powers are too concerned about churches that have already left, but I do think they are very concerned with keeping a coalition together within the SBC so that they can control the assets. IMO that is the real reason for much of the culture warrior stuff coming from Mohler. Keep people focused on that and they won’t make a big stink about other stuff we want to get by them. That’s coalition politics, not theological conviction.

When commenting about female pastors, I’m treading on thin ice because I’m going to be breaking out of my gender role this afternoon and go out and slay the mosquito dragons who have taken dominion from me, and by the sweat of my brow, no less. The bats used to take care of them, but I think the mosquitos must have finally gotten mean enough to eat the bats or something. Anyhow, there is a study out of Hebrew University that demonstrated that applying a fruit/sugar/boric acid mixture to foliage is effective in reducing the mosquito population by about 90%. It also requires beer or wine to start the fermentation, but, hey, once you break one rule, what’s another one? For my Complementarian discussion partners, I will frankly admit that it is the female mosquito that bites. This could have huge implications for places where malaria is endemic, so that’s good news.

Gram3 wrote:

Yikes. Evidently some people had trouble learning the bloody lessons all around them in Europe and Great Britain and still thought, “If only the right people who think rightly–like us–had total control over everyone, all would be well.”

Yikes indeed! And these were persecuted Puritans, just arrived on these shores a year or two earlier. More than anything else, I think they wanted to be left alone. But they had to join the Colony basically for protection against the natives, who were getting hostile. This stipulated ‘liberalizing’ the voting rights.

It might amuse you to know that this church is considered quite liberal now. I haven’t set foot in it in over 30 years, but from talking to people, it seems to be largely the same. It is so old and established that it seems like it can afford to be a bit more easy-going on some matters without feeling threatened. 375 years ain’t a bad run, and it seems to be still going strong.

@ Dave A A:
I went and read the 9Marks mailbag membership question and answer. Chilling. The casual arrogance of the questioner (“they say typical things like membership is not Biblical”), and the manipulative nature of the answer…

@ Bob M:

Just read this. If your child was abused go to the police first. The government is the ordained party when the law is broken.

Bridget wrote:

@ Bob M:
Just read this. If your child was abused go to the police first. The government is the ordained party when the law is broken.

^^ Yes!!

Gram3 wrote:

@ roebuck:
Yikes. Evidently some people had trouble learning the bloody lessons all around them in Europe and Great Britain and still thought, “If only the right people who think rightly–like us–had total control over everyone, all would be well.”

“And This Time We WILL Achieve True Communism!”

Lydia wrote:

Speaking in generalities, the boomers had more leisure in their teen years for entertainment and for each generation after to now most are amusing themselves to death well into their 20’s and beyond.

“20s”? I’ve seen more like “50s”.

So what happens to culture, religion, etc. when, in general, people mature in their 40’s instead of in their 20’s?

You get the same contrast as the ancient Jews,whose Torah established sanitary practices which meant their lifespans averaged about 10 years more than their Canaanite neighbor tribes. To the point where they DID live long enough to age out of adolescent shticks. The difference between being dominated by “grown-ups” and perpetual children.

Nancy wrote:

As to the other issue you mentioned in the previous comment, I think that the boundary between church and state is about to be a really big issue in the very near future. And I don’t trust either one-not in this area.

This I agree with Nancy and see this too as a big problem in the future.

Nancy wrote:

What else can they do but stay in the pot until the water boils, and continue to give.

They tend to jump in the pot one burner over.

@ Nancy:

I don’t know. Everything is muddled and it could be more of the leaders trying to follow the culture. Did you know the Mohler/Akin Coalition (Baptist 21 Neo Calvinists) used enough pressure to get Ben Carson disinvited from speaking at the SBC Convention this year?

I am totally against political speakers at churches/conventions right or left. It is one reason I am loathe to attend a CBF church I really like. They have non stop political left politicians coming in to speak.

but the line up of speakers are the typical Reformed control types. Including James McDonald who thinks congregational polity is from Satan. (or Stan)

But this one is a bit unprecedented for the SBC. Not only that– in recent years Mohler even suggested SSA might be genetic. (That one is huge folks) And there is more are more anecdotal hints I don’t have time to get into.

I think it is all political and has nothing to do with beliefs. I think they see the tide turning and want in on it. They seem to be somewhat redefining the culture war.

New story of abuse and cover-up out today:
A Youth Minister’s Downfall Is Tearing First Christian Church of Florissant Apart http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/05/first_christian_church_of_florissant_brandon_milburn.php?page=all

Wingfield and his elders went into damage control. On April 7, three elders arrived at Doug Lay’s college office and read him a prepared statement. Effective immediately, Doug and his wife Tammy were barred from teaching their adult Sunday School class at FCCF. The reason? “For rejecting the leadership’s authority.”

Hester wrote:

…and then after Doug Phillips’ affair went public, it came out that his wife and daughters had been voting in elections the whole time, because they “had to” to increase the # of Christian votes.

That’s the same reason one of the conditions of Utah statehood was they had to deny women the vote. There was fear in the non-Mormon parts of the country that Mormon patriarchs would have all their plural wives vote as a bloc and swing elections — one vote (the Patriarch’s) counting as dozens (all the extended family including plural wives).

roebuck wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“And This Time We WILL Achieve True Communism!”

No, really! It’s gonna be different this time!

You can tell I grew up during the mid-to-late Cold War.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
nailed it.

XianJaneway wrote:

1) I’m sending someone from “Christians for Biblical Equality” here, because she has a need regarding a church discipline issue, specifically with teachings coming out of the Village Church in TX

I’d be glad to help out anyway I can. Dee and I are currently supporting someone who recently left TVC. My email is watchkeepamy@gmail.com.

Amy Smith wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Pardon me while I throw up

Pardon me while I clean up from vomiting.

You know, my family feels so isolated right now since being shunned by our former cult. My homeschooled kids have no friends. Every time I entertain the idea of finding a church just for some fellowship, stories like this repel me from the very idea. Churches just aren’t safe for kids. I don’t know what to do.

My latest comment is awaiting moderation. Shame – it’s a really good one.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I can see that. Imagine that widow resigning her membership and her “pastor” refusing to officiate her funeral.

Some churches already do this over lack of tithing, even if it’s an elderly member who cannot afford tithes, who has been a member of the church since forever.

In this case, membership or lack thereof also played a role.

I’m unclear if this lady was a member or not. I thought I read in previous news coverage of this story that she WAS a member, but in this thing, the preacher disputes that she was, so I don’t know.

“No Tithe, No Burial: Pastor Refused to Bury 93-Year-Old Parishioner (Watch)”
http://www.eurthisnthat.com/2014/11/30/no-tithe-no-burial-pastor-refused-to-bury-93-year-old-parishioner-watch/

But even this offer was refused by Houston, who told Jacques, “Membership has its privileges.”

Adding insult to injury, Jacques says that during his conversation with the pastor, who said the burial was refused because Blair was no longer a member (which the family denies) and she had not held up her financial obligation to the church he asked, why no one had gone to check on the absent member.
Jacques was told by the pastor, if they cared so much for her, why didn’t they send a dollar to maintain her membership.

I can’t believe how petty some churches are.

The texts on 3 witnesses, has been used and abused to keep private and silent those who would stand up against interputive errors as well as all out heretical teachings. THAT is the cause of patriachy being alive and well for centuries. But I like to take the concepts of a biblical writer and see them in light of the context of the way that they lived function. Take Paul for instants, he did not keep it private and he did not bring two or three witnesses quietly to deal with his issue with Peter over uncleanness and separating from the Gentiles, nor were Peter or Paul quiet and private about their outspokenness of the false religions of their day. If what somebody says in the Scriptures contradicts their practices sometimes it’s because it’s not a universal teaching sometimes it is a situation specific teaching for a very particular group of people at a particular time for a particular reason.

Somebody tell me why being “” expelled from a church is such a horrific thing right now? they’re not going to burn you at the stake they might make membership with another church more difficult but that’s not going to keep you from attending another church….

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I noticed something about this serial pedophile’s sentencing hearing:
1) All those who spoke in the pedo’s defense were from Church.
2) The pedo’s pre-sentencing speech was in fluent Christianese.

And he really, really wants the judge to go easy on him, so he can continue in his music and film making career. 🙄

Daisy wrote:

formerly anonymous wrote:
Oh Daisy, that’s silly. Of course they do not have an organist!
I beg pardon.
But when you fill those forms out in triplicate, make sure you do humbly and with a right heart.
You must also have 2 to 3 witnesses who watch you type the whole thing up. You must also hand the documents over in a very submissive manner.

That’s better. Much more reasonable. 🙂

@ Gram3:
Alternatively, if they were raised in a highly structured environment, they might find such structure reassuring, perhaps even essential.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

You can tell I grew up during the mid-to-late Cold War.

So did I (I turn 60 next month), did the whole duck’n’cover thing in elementary school, etc.

Perhaps this has already been covered elsewhere, but it makes sense to me that this agreement is simply “boilerplate” supplied by 9Marks to member churches and customized to fit details of the local congregation.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

You know, my family feels so isolated right now since being shunned by our former cult. My homeschooled kids have no friends. Every time I entertain the idea of finding a church just for some fellowship, stories like this repel me from the very idea. Churches just aren’t safe for kids. I don’t know what to do.

I don’t have an answer for you, but as another homeschooling mom I do understand to a certain degree. We are currently without a church home, having pulled our membership from our previous church. I do not see us becoming “official” members of a church again. There is just too much craziness out there.

@ Gram3:

“From a marketing perspective, I guess the Bible publishers think they can sell more Bibles that way.”
++++++++++

have we seen a “The BBQ Bible” yet? Or “The Cupcake Baker’s Bible” yet? It’s all beyond silly.
————

“They aren’t particularly interested in Bible studies. I have no idea why some women allow and even encourage second-class status. It makes no sense as far as I can see for anyone, including men.”
+++++++++++++

I’d say there is great pride and self-congratulations in ‘joyfully’ choosing 2nd-class status, under the premise that it takes greater strength to be submissive than it does to presume “you’re the top, you’re the coliseum… you’re the top, you’re the Louvre museum”… (& somehow convincing yourself you’re being a servant in doing so).

@ Nancy:
You haven’t seen the “for women only” bibles at the christian bookstore? Pretty covers and all.

@ Sallie Borrink:

Thank you for your kindness. I’m sorry you are currently without a church home, too. It takes a special effort to find relationships outside of a church for homeschooling families. I recently discovered an inclusive homeschool co-op that offers a wide variety of classes from choir to P.E. They’re not free, but I think the investment would be a healthy change for the kids. Tbh, it’s mama that needs to come out of her comfort zone.

Law Prof wrote:

This legal document was produced by an idiot.

Sadly, in most states, the idiot was correct on the law. It is an enforceable condition on WHEN you can leave, not that you can never leave. The latter would not be enforceable.

@ Gram3:
I once belonged to a church which did not keep track of the amount that was given, except in very confidential records, but did check off who had given. A nickel was as good as 1,000 times as much in getting on that list! So give a nickel each week and see what happens. You will shortly know what is confidential and what is not!!!

@ dee:Dee, please consider sending those documents to me as well. Thanks.

@ Lydia:

“…the truth is they learned earlier to think for themselves and make decision according to their opportunities but responsible for the consequences of those decisions. They had few other choices but to be responsible”
++++++++++++

perhaps distance in time from ‘the old world’ has something to do with it. Living on inheritance (inherited means, privilege, comforts, etc.)

my immigrant husband WORKS HIS BUTT OFF. he expects nothing to be given to him (because there’s never been anyone who would). he’s succeeded and accomplished a lot — by hard work and determination, all on his own. he learned his trade on his own dime after arriving here. he simply did whatever it took. he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. He sees very clearly how much of a land of opportunity this is, and he makes the most of it. I am very proud of him.

refugee wrote:

@ XianJaneway:
You and I must be related.

For your sake, I’m sorry to hear that. 🙁

For my sake, “Woohoo!!! A new relative!” <3

By the way, the Firecracker came home from school today without eating any lunch, or snacks. We’re going to have to start supervised lunches at school, with either me or the Vulcan eating with her. 🙁

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
have we seen a “The BBQ Bible” yet? Or “The Cupcake Baker’s Bible” yet? It’s all beyond silly.
————
I just had to look. There actually IS a Barbecue Bible. http://www.amazon.com/The-Barbecue-Bible-Steven-Raichlen/dp/0761149430
I didn’t find a “Cupcake Baker’s Bible,” but there is a “Cupcake Bible.”
Ok, Ok. I know that’s not what you meant.

It does prove her point though 🙄

@ elastigirl:
of course, that lyric goes on to say “You’re Mickey Mouse!,” so I’m not sure it really is something those guys would want to claim for themselves… 😉

You cannot accuse a pastor of this church without 2-3 witnesses along with a humble and right heart!

This is absolutely key to the Acts 29 culture. When it gets to the nitty gritty of a problem issue, this is their trump card, and in my personal experience it is used quite liberally.

Example 1:
“I didn’t understand the sermon very well. Perhaps if Pastor Hipster stopped writing his sermons in the style of E.E. Cummings and, and quit basing his illustrations on obscure pop cultural references?”

“You need to check your heart, Mr. Smith. Are you being prideful? Bitter? Why don’t you support Pastor Hipster’s unique mode of expression? He loves you and wants to serve you!”

Example 2:
“I’m a little concerned about the childcare facilities…specifically, the fact that we have none. Currently the kids are being held in a converted storage closet in the back of this pub where we are meeting for church. It’s really unsafe…broken glass in the corners, mold in the ceiling, cleaning chemicals on the shelves…”

“What is your heart issue here? Need to control your circumstances? Can’t trust God with your kids? Too prideful?”

Mr.H wrote:

I didn’t understand the sermon very well. Perhaps if Pastor Hipster stopped writing his sermons in the style of E.E. Cummings and, and quit basing his illustrations on obscure pop cultural references?”

LOL!

@ refugee:

There was a puppy version of the Bible at one point. A regular Bible, but with a photo of a puppy dog on the cover.

There is also a stock car racing Bible (NASCAR Bible).
http://jalopnik.com/5516861/the-holy-bible-stock-car-racing-edition

@ Daisy:
Y’know, one special bible format really struck me as a good idea. Oh, not necessarily the cover designs (among them, pink, and camouflage, and others I can’t recall), but the fact that these bibles were waterproof and practically indestructible. You could spill an entire cup of hot coffee (with cream and sugar, too) over the pages. No harm done. You could drop it in a muddy puddle, or pond or lake. As I recall, being run over didn’t even phase the book.

The pages were waterproof, but you could still underline or take notes if you used a pencil or colored pencils.

@ Arce:
Just between you and me, I don’t ever assume that anything is confidential.

elastigirl wrote:

I’d say there is great pride and self-congratulations in ‘joyfully’ choosing 2nd-class status, under the premise that it takes greater strength to be submissive than it does to presume “you’re the top, you’re the coliseum… you’re the top, you’re the Louvre museum”… (& somehow convincing yourself you’re being a servant in doing so).

That is exactly what happens. Everyone is talking about how joyful they are living under bondage, whether they are male or female. Competitive submission and competitive leadership. For all I know, the guys compare notes on who has the most submissive wife. It is really ridiculous and so counterproductive to a healthy church body and a healthy marriage.

refugee wrote:

@ Gram3:
Alternatively, if they were raised in a highly structured environment, they might find such structure reassuring, perhaps even essential.

Yes, I think that is true. If you don’t know how to function independently or outside of a bubble then you must find another bubble to occupy.

DaughterofDebrah wrote:

Somebody tell me why being “” expelled from a church is such a horrific thing right now?

I don’t think it is horrific, but if someone has invested a lot in a church and has many meaningful relationships there, it can be emotionally difficult, to say the least. It is hard to leave that behind, especially if you know that people there are totally unaware of the issues which prompted the exile.

Daisy wrote:

formerly anonymous wrote:
Daisy wrote:

If I really wanted to be like the ruling class at CityView Church, I’d add a few other requirements, such as…
You must jump through five hoops of fire, swim through a shark infested tank, and fight with a grizzly bear on an obstacle course to hand the documents over to the elders, who are standing at the end of the course.

That would work if you insisted the documents must be dry and unwrinkled, not singed at all, and no blood of animal or human origin.

I was thinking it might also be beneficial if the witnesses had to fill out forms too as we should have their testimony on file. They should fill out a Witness Form, which they could find at the church office between the hours of 10:01 and 10:02 AM on Sunday morning, just after the start of the 10:00 AM service, which naturally they are expected to attend — and be prompt as tardiness and absenteeism are subject to church discipline. We trust this is not an inconvenience of any sort and so expect full cooperation in these matters. Any complaints will be taken as resisting the church authorities, which is also a church discipline issue, and will discredit you as a witness.

We must have standards for these witnesses, you know. They must prove their full commitment to the church and submission to the leadership in order to qualify as witnesses. And their giving must be up to date because, you know, priorities….

@ roebuck:

castrated

Arce wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
This legal document was produced by an idiot.
Sadly, in most states, the idiot was correct on the law. It is an enforceable condition on WHEN you can leave, not that you can never leave. The latter would not be enforceable.

Cite me some caselaw to support that proposition, I’ll be glad to take a look and give you my opinion.

The Guinn case, which is cited by the document produced by the ironically-named “Speak Up Movement” as standing for the proposition that a well-crafted covenant could prevent a church member from resigning their membership when under discipline, does not establish that proposition. In fact, the Guinn case stands for the opposite proposition: the moment the member gave notice that she was leaving the church, the elders had to shut up about her private sins or risk being sued. And in fact, they were successfully sued. Guinn is a very friendly case for anyone who wished to blow apart the Hotel California covenant at CityView.

If you can find anything to the contrary, again, cite me caselaw, I’m willing to be proven wrong.

Sallie Borrink wrote:

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

You know, my family feels so isolated right now since being shunned by our former cult. My homeschooled kids have no friends. Every time I entertain the idea of finding a church just for some fellowship, stories like this repel me from the very idea. Churches just aren’t safe for kids. I don’t know what to do.

I don’t have an answer for you, but as another homeschooling mom I do understand to a certain degree. We are currently without a church home, having pulled our membership from our previous church. I do not see us becoming “official” members of a church again. There is just too much craziness out there.

Dear BeenThereDoneThat and Sallie,

I am sorry BeenThereDoneThat for your family’s losses (community) and isolation.
Perhaps, besides, doing fun stuff together as a family you can also have some honest conversations about what was wrong with your former church and what kinds of things you picked up on/ignored/etc.

I was excommunicated/shunned from my former church because I had inadvertently discovered, while doing research for a prosecutor on Megan’s List sex offenders, that a new church member was on Megan’s List. It turns out that he’s a long-time, close personal friend of the pastors/elders, they moved him in to positions of trust and leadership, screamed at me in an elders’ meeting and threatened me, and insisted their friend was ‘coming off Megan’s List’ and had I done my part and ‘prayed for him’. The Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force called what my pastors/elders told me about the sex offender “all lies” and “total lies”. The Sheriff’s contacted the California Attorney General’s Office (which runs my state’s Megan’s List) and the Attorney General’s also confirmed the pastors/elders story to me was ‘all lies’.

So I am starting to enjoy life without the restrictions of church. My time. My music (couldn’t listen to stuff I liked before because of church), my friends (those who don’t go to church), and to be just more open-minded and loving.
I enjoy a nice leisurely Sunday breakfast and kickin’ back! So much to enjoy.
Start doing nice things just for you and your family. It’s an awful shock. So just up the self-care and the be good to yourselves activities.

Here are Dr. Ronald Enroth’s well-known books about abusive churches that he has made available for FREE:

1. Churches That Abuse http://www.ccel.us/churches.toc.html

2. Recovering From Churches That Abuse
http://www.ccel.us/churchesrec.toc.html

@ Gram3:
Yes, and exile can seem worse than death if it’s the kind of church that drew you in with more and more involvement (small group meetings, homeschool support group, homeschool co-op, church people social gatherings, park days, etc.). The church grows to take up the main part of your schedule. It provides many of your resources — homeschooling help, support in trouble, can become your entire social circle, encompasses all your “friends” and children’s “friends” — it means going out into a world you’ve been taught to fear, friendless, alone, without resources.

After we’d been out (some days? I don’t remember, I only remember the pain of staying had finally grown to be greater than the fear of the unknown), we found the world a much different place than what we’d been conditioned to expect.

@ Bill M:

Milburn is the perpetrator now in prison. The family, who was not contacted by the church, is the victim’s family.

Law Prof wrote:

This legal document was produced by an idiot.

Could it be it’s just a percentages thing? If enough sheeple sign something/anything “intentionally and voluntarily”, regardless of quality, that will cut down on the chances former sheeple will sue if they’re “disciplined”?

refugee wrote:

Chilling.

Indeed.

Bridget wrote:

The family, who was not contacted by the church

Understood now, family had no contact from the church, thanks Bridget. I had thought Amy was referring to the church not contacting the perpetrator when she was instead corroborating the lack of contact with the victim’s family.

I also note the same pastor from the church lobbied the court to reduce bail for the confessed abuser. I just can’t get my head around this single minded concern for the confessed perpetrator without a greater concern for his victims.

The information is limited but so far there appears to be no demonstrated concern for the victims. I’d be horrified, if through good intentions but due to human frailties, I were guilty of such inattention as the leaders of this church. But then to follow up with this type of behavior from the church leadership is anything but honorable.

Gram3 wrote:

elastigirl wrote:

I’d say there is great pride and self-congratulations in ‘joyfully’ choosing 2nd-class status, under the premise that it takes greater strength to be submissive than it does to presume “you’re the top, you’re the coliseum… you’re the top, you’re the Louvre museum”… (& somehow convincing yourself you’re being a servant in doing so).

That is exactly what happens. Everyone is talking about how joyful they are living under bondage, whether they are male or female.

North Korean population units Dancing Joyfully With Great Enthusiasm before Comrade Dear Leader.

An Attorney wrote:

@ Law Prof:
My favorite of those was a document signed “no effin way”, with the middle word spelled in the normal manner for that word. When someone tried to claim that it was a signature accepting the document, the judge horse laughed at the attorney trying to make that argument.

Funny as heck, you see the craziest things in court. Bit of a mutuality of assent issue with the no blipping way in the signature line on the K, eh?

Lydia wrote:

I also think our history is a bit different than yours in major ways that probably comes into consideration such as actual wars to decide if you were a Catholic state church or Protestant state church.

Yes, we’ve certainly had those…

Arce wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
This legal document was produced by an idiot.
Sadly, in most states, the idiot was correct on the law. It is an enforceable condition on WHEN you can leave

dee wrote:

Thankfully, Tim is patient

I try. Still, the people who appear in my courtroom may beg to differ at times.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Mr.H:
It sounds like you’ve seen this movie before.

Indeed, I have.

Served in an Acts 29 church for three years. Lead pastor was a guy who was mentored by Driscoll himself in Seattle before planting said Acts 29 church.

In our specific situation, it basically amounted to this:

(a) Our Acts 29 church was planted by kids (Pastor = late 20s; “elders” = early, mid-20s.). These kids had virtually no idea what they were doing. Moreover, they had been empowered by the dysfunctional Mars Hill Church culture, so they were like mini Driscolls.

(b) These kids ended up making a lot of mistakes, some of them serious, some not so serious. The key problem was that they refused to ever acknowledge their mistakes, either by (i) hiding them and keeping things hush hush, or (ii) accusing anyone who critiqued them of some sort of sinful motive. (Gossip was sort of the go-to for that, but other accusations were used…rebellion against male authority was popular if the critiquer happened to be female).

@ Mr.H:

What is the state of this church now? How did you depart? (if too personal, please don’t respond)

An Attorney wrote:

@ dee:Dee, please consider sending those documents to me as well. Thanks.

Yes, since if he’s a practicing attorney he lives in the world of Real Stuff rather than the world of hypotheticals for students that I live in, he’d probably have a clearer view of this than me. Remember, I am not a practitioner.

Tim wrote:

Oops, only meant to quote Dee in that last comment!

Judge Tim – You probably know the definitive answer to this and could jot off a law review quality article on it off the top of your head, couldn’t you?

Tim wrote:

I try.

As a judge, I suppose this is only to be expected …

numo wrote:

for those of us from liturgical churches, all this “contract” stuff just makes no sense.

Trust me when I say that all this contract stuff doesn’t make sense from a Baptist ecclesiology, either. However a contract-like covenant matters if the essence of the church is discipline of its members rather than its members mutually serving one another in love. And a contract-like covenant matters if some members of the church body believe they are in a special authority relationship to the other members of the church body such that they have the Keys to the kingdom.

Law Prof wrote:

Judge Tim – You probably know the definitive answer to this and could jot off a law review quality article on it off the top of your head, couldn’t you?

That’s what research attorneys are for.

@ Gram3:
It just doesn’t have anything to do with church. Period. It screams CULT.

Good grief. Now I’ve heard everything. I’m supposedly a Thrall of Tyrannical Rome, yet, if I were to leave my parish (happens all the time) or even the Catholic Church itself (which God forbid), nobody would have a melt-down over it. People might pray for me, at least in the latter case, but they certainly would not track me down in order to force some sort of resolution. And I sure in heck wouldn’t have to explain myself in writing or sign some stupid form.

It’s a free country, folks. If you want to leave a nut-house like this CV place, just do it! And don’t worry about it, either. There is nothing (legally) they can do to you.