"Over the last ten years Acts 29 has emerged from a small band of brothers to over 500 churches around the world."
Acts 29 and its current president, Matt Chandler, have been capturing some headlines lately, and it dawned on us that some of our readers may not be that familiar with this church planting movement. We first heard about it back in 2008 and are still learning the ins and outs seven years later. Some in our readership know much more about Acts 29 than we do, so please chime in with your knowledge and experience.
When we published our series on Countryside Community Church a year and a half ago (links can be found in our previous post), we began with a history of Acts 29. Here is what we shared in that introductory post.
In case you have ever wondered (as we have) how Acts 29 came into existence, here is some interesting information.
How and when did Acts 29 begin? (link)
Acts 29 was founded in 2000 with Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle when it was about 200 in attendance and David Nicholas, a Presbyterian pastor (now retired) of a large church in Boca Raton, Florida. They formed the network to plant qualified, entrepreneurial men who held to a reformed soteriology (salvation) and were willing to engage urban cities with the gospel.
So did Acts 29 begin in 1998 (as Mark Driscoll indicated in the above quote) or in 2000? Inquiring minds want to know…
Somehow your blog queens missed the fact that Mark Driscoll co-founded Acts 29 with Dr. David Nicholas (who died on January 25, 2011). Who was Dr. Nicholas? Here is some pertinent information in the Sun Sentinel at the time of his death.
The Rev. Nicholas died of cardiac arrest at Boca Raton Community Hospital the night of Jan. 25, a day after teaching a seminar for 25 ministers. He was 79.
During his decades at Spanish River, the Rev. Nicholas oversaw the establishment of a lively, contemporary worship style that helped grow weekend attendance to 1,700. The church also launched a counseling center with seven counselors and a school with 560 students.
Under the Rev. Nicholas' supervision, Spanish River fostered 250 churches in 11 countries, plus 40 orphanages in Haiti, Chad and Malawi. After his pastorate, he founded an organization called Church Planting Network to concentrate on forming congregations.
"David's life is marked by great work," said the Rev. Tommy Kiedis, who succeeded him at Spanish River. "His passion was always spreading the message of Jesus around the world."
The Boca Raton Tribune stated the following about Dr. David Nicholas (link):
Dr. Nicholas started the church in 1967 with a small group of people meeting in an empty storefront and continued to serve there for 42 years.
Under Dr. Nicholas’ leadership, SRC planted more than 200 churches in the United States and around the world, according to the SRC website.
Dr. Nicholas also co-founded the Acts 29 Network “He was an incredible supporter of our church and mentor to me and our pastors,” said Chan Kilgore, Acts 29 board member and planter of CrossPointe Church in Orlando.
Pastor Mark Driscoll founded the Acts 29 Network with Dr. Nicholas in 2000. He was influential in starting many current Acts 29 churches, and provided much support for many church planters.
And here is an excerpt from the tribute to Dr. David Nicholas on the Acts 29 website: (link)
Nicholas was influential in starting many current Acts 29 churches, and provided much support for many of our church planters.
“As a young church planter, Dr. David Nicholas was very generous to me with both finances and wisdom,” Driscoll wrote. “I often thank God for the massive investment that he has made in my life and ministry, as well as hundreds of other church planters. Though we miss him, it will be exciting one day in eternity to see the lasting legacy of the fruit of his long and faithful ministry.
I found this comment by Robert (over on another blog) fascinating:
Just FYI: Driscoll did not found Acts 29.
It was founded by a Florida pastor, Dr. David Nicholas, who passed away last year. Dr. Nicholas’ organization helped fund some of Driscoll’s early church-planting activities, and at some point, Driscoll took over the organization from Dr. Nicholas. The history is unclear as to how Driscoll did this, whether it was a friendly or hostile takeover. We will probably never know the truth.
In case you'd like to read more about the co-founder of Acts 29, there was an interview in Christianity Today with Dr. Nicholas shortly before his death.
Mark Driscoll resigns as Acts 29 president in 2012
How fascinating that it was just a little over a year after Dr. Nicholas's death that Mark Driscoll resigned as president of Acts 29. Here is a portion of Driscoll's announcement:
Acts 29 has grown rapidly, now totaling more than 400 churches in the U.S., as well as international church planting involvement. Since then, other qualified men have taken the reins of Acts 29 and run with the vision David and I had years ago.
Recently, I sensed that not all was well in Acts 29. As my concerns grew, I recently resumed the presidency of Acts 29 to work directly with our network captains, most influential pastors, and staff. It seemed to me that some of our relationships, board size and structure, communication, systems, and such were not as effective as we needed, which is to be expected to some degree in a large, complex, fast-growing entrepreneurial network such as ours.
Seeking wise counsel, I asked Darrin Patrick and Matt Chandler to fly to Seattle in order to meet with the executive elders of Mars Hill for a full day to decide a course of action. They graciously did so, and in our time together was a rich, true brotherhood, a renewed and deepened commitment to Acts 29, and a Spirit-lead unity.
Together, we decided, in light of all the complexity we’re facing, that the best thing for Acts 29 going forward would be for Matt Chandler to assume the presidency, move the network offices to Dallas, and select his Acts 29 staff.
In light of this, I want to sincerely thank the people of Mars Hill for investing millions of dollars over the years in Acts 29 and the people of The Village for being willing to house the Acts 29 headquarters.
You can read the entire statement in this TWW post. I had forgotten that Driscoll stepped down from The Gospel Coalition Council on the very same day.
Matt Chandler Takes the Helm of Acts 29
As I recall, Matt Chandler and his Acts 29 colleagues were low key for quite a while after this transition. Then in August 2014, the Acts 29 leadership made this stunning announcement (see screen shot below):
We believe it is important to share this historical information because as far as we can determine, there is no mention of it on the About Acts 29 page.
The Acts 29 Agenda
The following statement by the president of Acts 29 sums up the mission of Acts 29.
As the video on the About Acts 29 page reveals, they are all about exponential growth. They believe they have a system in place that will ensure their church planting success. In that clip, Chandler focuses on the diversity found in Acts 29 on an individual basis as well as across denominational lines. At the end of the video he encourages established churches to get in the church planting game as well as individual church planters.
Acts 29 Distinctives (link)
Here are the doctrinal distinctives of Acts 29 churches:
1. We are passionate about Gospel centrality.
2. We enthusiastically embrace the sovereignty of God’s grace in saving sinners.
3. We recognize and rest upon the necessity of the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for all of life and ministry.
4. We are deeply committed to the fundamental spiritual and moral equality of male and female and to men as responsible servant-leaders in the home and church.
5. Acts 29 embraces a missionary understanding of the local church and its role as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.
Additionally, we hold to the The Lausanne Covenant Statement of Faith.
Values of Acts 29 Churches (link)
The website also lists the four values for Acts 29. They are:
VALUE #1: CHURCH-PLANTING CHURCHES (We will be a network of church-planting churches).
VALUE #2: HOLINESS AND HUMILITY (We will be known for holiness and humility.)
VALUE #3: A DIVERSE AND GLOBAL COMMUNITY (We will be a radically diverse and global community.)
VALUE #4: PRAYING FOR CONVERSIONS THROUGH EVANGELISM (We will pray for conversions through evangelism.)
Church Planting (link)
That all sounds really great, doesn't it? On the Plant Churches page, there is a short video of Darren Patrick, which I found alarming. Patrick attempts to to instill fear and motivate viewers to look to Acts 29 as the solution to their problems. My immediate question after seeing the video was: Why wasn't he, Chandler, and the other Acts 29 'experts' able to assist their buddy Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, which has to be one of the worse church planting failures in history!
In this section, Acts 29 reaches out to both church planters and existing churches. At the bottom of this page, applicants can apply to become involved with the Acts 29 Network. The applicant goes through an Assessment Process. Should the existing church or church planter be accepted, they must agree to abide by The Acts 29 Membership Covenant. In this covenant, the leadership is agreeing to provide:
1. Clear Direction
2. Consistent Performance
3. Demonstsrated Concern
4. Modeled Practice
The next part of the covenant is what really caught our attention. (See screen shot below).
(Additional screen shot below)
The financial component definitely bears repeating —
* We agree to allocate at least 9% of general offerings to church planting.
* We agree to invest 1% of general offerings to the Acts 29 Catalyst Fund
We're trying to understand what is meant by this part of the membership covenant…
Note: Each local church determines the allocation of monies for church planting, including denominational agreements and affiliations.
Is The Village Church, for example, giving that 9% of general offerings to the Southern Baptist Convention (for church planting) or to Acts 29 — or is it divided somehow between the two? Does anyone know?
Perhaps one of the draws for member churches is the vast amount of resources and events that Acts 29 has to offer. For those who want to give individually, Acts 29 has provided a way to give online or by check. 
As we wrap up this post on church planting a la Acts 29, here is Darrin Patrick explaining what's next for church planting (also featured on The Gospel Coalition website). We are looking forward to monitoring the growth of the Acts 29 church planting movement in the years to come. When will market saturation occur?
With regard to the Christianity Today article mentioned in the previous post, we hope to discuss it next week (that is, if nothing earth shattering occurs….)
Thanks for all your research in trying to keep this all straight–especially since some of the principal players keep changing their stories.
Huh. Tithing extended to include churches. It really does remind me of MOM somehow.
I wrote this yesterday, its an ongoing series of articles about how to deal with someone in a faith crisis. 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/how-to-respond-to-a-faith-crisis-finding-common-interests/
I think that one reason why church planting is so important and attractive to many of these young men is that they can set up their own shop and be accountable to no one.
They start a new church plant together with a few friends who then all become elders. They believe in elder-led churches (as per Mark Dever’s 9signs of top-heavy churches), where the elders are not elected by the congregation but selected by existing elders. If that does not create group-think and loyalty to the group and its leader (the “pastor”), I don’t know what does.
All those newly planted churches have a lot of people on their payrolls, more than the size of the church warrants. They pay themselves handsome salaries, hence the need for tithing and giving “beyond the tithe”.
The people calling all the shots are the elders (all of whom are on the payroll). There is no external oversight and no accountability to those in the pews. Hence a hugely inflated sense of their own importance (and often, hugely inflated salaries and expense accounts), and very little capability of self-reflection – there is just nobody who can tell them to stop being an a… .
To me, the whole shenanigan looks like a protection racket for young graduates who subscribe to the “right” theology.
I agree about the vid with Darren Patrick on the Plant Churches page: http://www.acts29network.org/plant-churches/
Inadequate biased analysis = imbalanced conclusions/solutions.
Altogether weird!
@ Gus:
You hit the nail right on the head!
Gus wrote:
I like it! I may have to use that phrase in the future.
Gus wrote:
In God's sovereignty, I actually witnessed this at an Acts 29 church. When my younger daughter went off to college five years ago, my husband, other daughter, and I went with her to visit a church she was considering attending. The lead pastor stood before the congregation and told them he strongly recommended two men to be elders. All he needed was their affirmation, and they gave it. Simple as that…
It was the only time any of us attended there. I would like to mention that both of my daughters made going to church a priority while in college without any prodding from their parents. The younger generation isn't as bad as some would have us believe. 😉
I notice there is no mention of Jesus Christ in any of these excerpts. Lots of “Gospel”, including God, and one mention of the Holy Spirit. I know it sounds nit-picky, but is this an unintentional “tell”? My former church (being very anti-Pentecostal) rarely mentioned or taught about the Holy Spirit. I began saying they believe in a trinity, but teach a “twinity”. Is seems the same with Acts 29 but with the omission of Jesus.
Deb wrote:
That is great! And I agree!
@ Bilbo Skaggins:
Now that you mention it, I do recall watching a Matt Chandler video in which he explains the mission of Acts 29. He used "Lord" over and over again.
Of course, his Acts 29 predecessor was fond of saying, "It's all about Jesus!" Hindsight tells us otherwise…
@ molly245:
I'm hoping I somehow missed the history of Acts 29 on the website and that someone will point it out to me. I find it incredible that there is no mention of how the church planting organization started. Glad I did that research due to my own curiosity.
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
I believe these omissions indicate a highly flawed doctrine of sanctification. It seems that this abusive kind of YRR / Resurgence / Neo-Calvinism / Neo-Puritan perfectionism ends up being about behavior conformity via acts of the will, as most legalistic systems seem to be, and there really is no place (or need?) for the Holy Spirit’s empowerment.
Following the law gives clear-cut checklists that we can understand and either live up to, or not. Freedom in Christ requires wisdom, and that calls forth discernment, and that process is “squishy” not solid, options not checkboxes.
I guess all you need is to be predestined by the Father / God, and you’re “in.”
All this “gospelly” stuff sounds good, but ends badly. To quote the Apostle Paul — whose writings surely trump anything from Acts29 — it just seems to have “a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people” (2 Timothy 3:5).
@ Gus: @ Todd Wilhelm:
O.K. now you guys have gone and done it!
Your comments reminded me of a post I wrote a few years back 'fondly' called Nine Marks of an Abusive Church (taken from Ronald Enroth's book Churches That Abuse).
Let's go over that list again…
(1) Control-oriented style of leadership
(2) Spiritual elitism
(3) Manipulation of members
(4) Perceived persecution
(5) Lifestyle rigidity
(6) Suppression of dissent
(7) Harsh discipline of members
(8) Denunciation of other churches
(9) Painful exit process
Does any of this sound familiar?
Gus wrote:
We discussed this on our radio show a while back…….it is about control.
For years, guys like this just went non-denominational. Now they have ” help” from a so-called denomination.
Eagle wrote:
Loved the article….and the trains.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
True. I am glad I’ve recently found a few preachers online who have preached the difference between law and gospel in a way that finally got through my thick noggin. They are from the more traditional denominations that I used to scoff at when I was a Fundy. It’s amazing how some of these preachers can cite writings of the early church leaders (Even Barnabus) where my Independant Fundamentalist teachings were sorely lacking. Of course the Fundies avoided these writings because they didn’t line up with heir doctrine of good works. When I see this battle of Truth vs. Agenda it boggles my mind.
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
That made me laugh.
Gus wrote:
You have been reading my thoughts!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Darn, you say it so well!
@ Bilbo Skaggins:
I arrived at evangelicalism out of an old-time Lutheran background that wasn’t all about a social gospel, but held forth a lot of teachings about personal salvation and sanctification. After my college-era immersion in fundamentalism, and in Baptist and Reformed theologies, I still read some Lutheran theology and recall the essence of Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, by C.F.W. Walther. He held “law” and “gospel” in a more paradoxical interconnection, and less a checklist-legalism “versus” uncontrollable license.
This dynamic tension approach makes a lot more sense to me. So, we can have New Testament commands/mandates, but that doesn’t mean we’re under the Old Testament Mosaic Law. Also, we have the Holy Spirit to empower us and guide us in living out those imperatives and to transform our character from the inside out toward greater Christlikeness. So, you can have both standards and freedom, where the Law works from the outside in to require behavioral modification and conformity that is standards and punishment.
I find it weird. For the extreme amount that YRRs/Neo-Puritans/Neo-Calvinists seem to use the terms law and gospel, it feels like they’re always just bouncing against the barriers, like the ball in a pinball game. All their either/or back-and-forth makes me spiritually dizzy, if not giving me a spiritual concussion!
Walther seemed to have it more as a smooth transition in a spiral of how law (commands) counterbalance gospel (empowerment, grace).
Anyway, if you’re interested, I did a nine-part series of blog posts on legalism, liberty, and license and their relationship to churches that are “welcoming and affirming” versus “condemning and rejecting” versus “welcoming and mutually transforming.” There’s material on paradox in there, and some relevant descriptions and visual illustrations of churches like the punitive, religious-conformity profile that Acts29 seems to fit with.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/missional-movement-part-one/
dee wrote:
It was figure it out, or die spiritually!
So, I learned about “squishy” wisdom by being squashed in a form of legalism that provided answers where the Bible didn’t, and allowed no questions where the Bible did.
Huh … that kind of sounds like legal-contract covenant expectations …
Deb wrote:
There is absolutely no doubt that Karen, along with others, have been abused by TVC. Will they change-I hope so.
However, given the ducklings at TVC, I have a feeling that there change will need to be monitored.
I bet you re wondering what I mean by ducklings. This morning I got to thinking about baby ducklings who carefully follow, step by step their mama. She turns; they turn.
That is precisely the behavior that was seen by many at TVC. Instead of using their God given ability to assess what was seriously abusive behavior by the pastors and their appointed elders, the baby ducklings were running behind them, nodding their heads at the behavior, coming up with stupid explanation for covenant marriages, memberships, etc and never once pausing to see what was happening. This included some former supporters of Karen who happily jumped on the abuse bandwagon.
If this is the DNA that is imported to Acts 29, then there are abusive years ahead. We have already documented some of these and plan to document more. Whatever is going on in Acts 29 churches, especially those closely aligned with TVC, is enough to give anyone pause in joining such a church,
Pastors drunk on their own supposed authority™ find the ducklings to march along in back of them and mow down anyone who doesn’t see it their way.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
oops-a-doodle! Make that “requirements.”
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
You’re welcome.
dee wrote:
If you have to remind people of your authority, you’ve already lost it – any spiritual authority that you may have derives from the fact that others trust you with this authority.
I have been contending that these congregations are made up of younger Christians who trust their leaders implicitly. How many more will be hurt because they were too trusting of men who are just as fallible as the rest of us?
Deb wrote:
And the younger crowds are becoming …” Dones” and ” Nones” at a rapid rate….
dee wrote:
And this is the biggest thing I’ve come away with from this whole thing – even if you buy into the apology and “putting people first”, etc – There. Is. Still. No. INSTITUTIONAL. Change. It will just happen again. Maybe not at TVC since they’ve been to the woodshed(best case scenario, I think. Ha.), but without institutional change of some of these core “doctrines”, there’s no reason it won’t happen again and again.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
That scripture fits Acts 29 perfectly! Good observation!
Question: Are membership covenants prevalent in these places?
Gus wrote:
Forgot to add: any spiritual authority that you may have derives from the fact that others trust you with this authority, because you have earned that trust.
@ GovPappy:
And we stand ready to share their tragic testimonies when the time comes…
Deb wrote:
See, I knew nothing of 9marks/Acts29 etc, but I knew something was wrong at the church we attended for a few months even though I couldn’t put my finger on it.
Why don’t more people see it? Does the lure of “strong doctrine” really blind people that much? Maybe – it blinded me for a bit while we went there: “they have to be alright – look, they’re so Christ-centered!”
I’m rambling again.
Yes.
@ GovPappy:
In fact I compared an Acts 29 covenant membership form to a Mars Hill one back in the day and found them pretty identical. Which concerns me.
Melody wrote:
refugee wrote:
Reminds me of Scientology, where some of the take in the orgs has to be paid uplines as licensing fees. It’s even more obvious in the Narconons (Scientology’s alleged drug rehabs) where the take by Scientology’s leadership is enforced and it’s substantial. Ironically, Scientology distances itself from Narconon in public but among Scientologists, Narconon is held up as a great example of Scientology “dissemination.”
“Additionally, we hold to the The Lausanne Covenant Statement of Faith.”
There are red flags throughout this statement of faith. It’s first distinctive is defining “The Purpose of God.” What hubris. Exactly where does the “infallible” bible tell us his purpose? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any organization that attempts to bind the purpose of the infinite one into its agenda. Yes, God has revealed some details of how he functions among men, but he has not revealed his ultimate purpose as the pre-existent creator of the cosmos and beyond. But good try, guys!
Also, exactly to which version of the inerrent bible does it refer? The one without error? They should mention which one it is. Is the inerrant word not Jesus Christ?
This creed smells Reformed…it does not mention that God created only the elect for salvation, but I would almost swear it’s there. But mentioning it would severely call into question the need for and urgency of evangelism that is it’s primary distinctive.
There is so much secondary and man-made “doctrine” in this statement that it demands it’s own commentary. And BTW, “grace” is not mentioned once.
This document floors me.
“4. We are deeply committed to the fundamental spiritual and moral equality of male and female and to men as responsible servant-leaders in the home and church.”
If you happen to own one of the decoder rings, the above means that the man is more equal. “Servant leader” means the man serves you by owning the trump card. Servant leader in the mega world actually meant: Benevolent dictator.
Can someone explain “moral equality” to me?
Lydia wrote:
The Man sinned because of the Woman and the Woman sinned because of the Woman?
Gus wrote:
In curriculum materials I’ve been writing on identifying systems of spiritual abuse, I’ve been using the contrast between trustworthy and toxic.
I believe unearned, unwarranted trust is behind much of what turns out toxic in such churches, ministries, and organizations. People don’t pay enough attention to the mandated leadership requirements of what elders/overseers “must have” and “can’t have” when it comes to character qualities and behaviors. They naively entrust the care of their spiritual life to those who are unworthy. Abuse is what results, because their “leaders” are there for the power/prestige/funds, and fear becomes endemic to the system.
Lydia wrote:
That sounds strangely similar to the misuse of the term I’ve heard used mostly in Baptist churches, of the pastor being “first among equals” on the leadership board — which translates in effect to pastor as CEO-dictator.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Thanks so much. What you are saying is right where I am. I will check out your blog and the book.
Gram3 wrote:
Hmmm. this is one area sin
leveling is not needed. :o)
@ Bilbo Skaggins:
Glad that was helpful. After a series of two out of three toxic churches in my first dozen years in evangelical churches, it was figure this stuff out or else drop out, because it sure looked like that branch had root rot. Or I had really bad spiritual radar for abusers.
If you’re shopping for for a book on the leadership dynamics of programism and control versus organic and grace-oriented freedom, I’d highly recommend Lance Ford’s UnLeader: Reimagining Leadership … and Why We Must.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/review-of-unleader-by-lance-ford/
@ Bilbo Skaggins:
“I notice there is no mention of Jesus Christ in any of these excerpts. Lots of “Gospel”, including God, and one mention of the Holy Spirit.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
wondering here….. perhaps it’s because “Jesus” is too much of a cultural lightning rod? if they keep it more general they’ll attract a greater swath of people?
or, is it that as soon as Jesus is talked about (him, who he is, what he did) they are suddenly not so important? the limelight is not on the pastor any more? could it be???
Gus wrote:
I think church planting is an adaptation of restaurant planting. You can plant a new church like you open a new restaurant. I believe this gentleman is experienced in both endeavors.
http://www.issaquahreporter.com/news/182419011.html#
@ brad/futuristguy:
Bilbo: notice there is no mention of Jesus Christ in any of these excerpts. Lots of “Gospel”, including God, and one mention of the Holy Spirit…..
Futurist Guy: … Following the law gives clear-cut checklists that we can understand and either live up to, or not. Freedom in Christ requires wisdom, and that calls forth discernment, and that process is “squishy” not solid, options not checkboxes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
seems to me that churches run by these clear-cut checklists to live up to is conducive to money coming in. and power.
Freedom on Christ, discernment, & such “squishy” option doesn’t seem compatible with leaders retaining and wielding power. And money coming in less predictable. Requires faith on the part of the leaders.
But it’s much easier not to walk by faith, isn’t it.
And it’s much easier (& feels good) to self-cater to base, caveman-like urges for power. Especially when you can use “God” to promote it (& feel righteous at the same time)
elastigirl wrote:
Well noted, elastigirl. It definitely *seems* easier, but I wonder … I’d suggest the unintended consequences can be worse and require more recovery time than walking by faith from the get-go and preventing the damage would have.
Plus, it was for freedom that Christ set us free, right? Regardless of our station or situation in life, our conscience is free and we should not got back to spiritual slavery.
Also, what i find most distressing is how people who sincerely want to follow Jesus and grow spiritually get that righteous desire co-opted by those who substitute a system for a person. Which goes right back to a core idea of the Jesus People movement of the 1960s and ’70s: “Not a religion, but a relationship.” But then, hasn’t that been what it’s supposed to be, since day one 2000 years ago?
How does Church Planting(TM) differ from a Pyramid Scheme?
Or Amway without the soap?
Or Campus Crusade’s “Multiplying Ministry” where the church’s only purpose is sheep saving more sheep who in turn save still more sheep who in turn save…?
Lydia wrote:
Is that not the stupidest effort to placate women you’ve ever heard? If there ever was a contest to see who could double talk the most, these guys would be winners.
Unless I overlooked it, I saw nothing for adult singles on their site.
(When I say “singles,” I mean primarily anyone single over the age of 30.
I do not mean teen aged kids, or 21 year old who are still in college; those groups get tons of attention from most churches, and usually fall under the “youth ministry” or “family” label.)
Some churches (I don’t know why) cram any and all adult singles material under the “Marriage And Family” heading. Their site has a “M & F” heading, but nothing about singles under that category that I could see.
They have this under the M&F category (on the resources pages):
“Mistake: Neglecting Your Family & Marriage”
I see irony. They are neglecting adult singles.
Of course, given that this series of churches or preachers give terrible input about marriage, maybe it’s a blessing that they say nothing to or about adult singles.
They are messing up marriages but at least not adult singles, in other words.
dee wrote:
Especially the young Elders(TM), starry-eyed and on fire for The Pastor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc
Lydia wrote:
A conundrum … what kind of corroded thinking is behind using the term moral equality to justify immoral inequalities?
They also have something under their Resource section called “Brotherhood.”
That sort of male-centered terminology can be alienating to some women. Are women included in “Brotherhood”?
The only page I see under “Bro hood” is a page called “Fighting for One Another: Gospel Friendship”
I don’t know what “Gospel friendship is,” but the topic friendship can be gender neutral.
It’s not that I’m incredibly politically correct on language. I am to a small degree, but not totally crazy about it.
Even as a girl, I noticed in church that all the phrases referred to “men” or “mankind” when the preacher would quote from the Bible.
I did sincerely wonder as a kid if I was included in that, if God loved me less because I was a girl. The use of language did play into that a little bit.
It wouldn’t kill these preachers, church planters, and churches to refer to “sisterhood” or “humanity” once in awhile in their sermons and sites, instead of “brotherhood” and “mankind” constantly.
Under the “Calling” category is this:
“Mistake: Not Staying True to Your Values and Calling”
What about women who feel called to teach, lead, or preach? Acts29 would not permit that.
They also have this on the “calling” page:
“A Qualified Man” and
“The Man: Gospel-Fluent,Called, Equipped, Bold, Dependent, Humble, and Brave”
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
Some denominations or Christians give the Holy Spirit the boot and replace Him with the Bible.
So, they still have a Trinity, only their Trinity consists of Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.
I am all for sola scriptura, but, I think some Christians are way out of bounds with it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Richard de Vos makes no money out of it – I hope.
Lydia wrote:
I think “moral equality” is one of those religiousy sounding phrases that doesn’t really mean anything, like Dr. Fundystan’s “gospel saturated” phrase he found in some other church literature.
You’re right, though.
Telling men they are “servant leaders” to women is like telling black Americans of the late 19th century to 1960s they are “separate but equal.”
You’re not considered truly equal in complementarian churches that teach this “servant leadership” stuff, but they sugar coat it with nice- or religious- sounding language, hoping you don’t notice.
Daisy wrote:
It appears that in order to become one of their “Church planters” it is “required” for the wife to have an interview (about what??). Therefore is it impossible for a single man to be an Acts 29 planter?
@ Joe2:
brad/futuristguy wrote:
The same kind that says that the Eternal Son and the Eternal Father are equal in power, but the Eternal Son is eternally subordinate.
Banjan wrote:
The wife is expected to be the primary one to teach/indoctrinate the women. At one of our former churches, only trusted wives of trusted elders were permitted to teach the ladies. Sometimes one of the elders was the teacher.
Gus wrote:
I was part of a group like this for a few years. There was constant talk about “missional,” “churchplanting church”, “maintaining the DNA”,”community”…when I started to ask questions I was first sidelined and then told I wasnt welcome to participate in the activities, and my character and mental stability questioned. Just now I feel I would never again join an “independent” church with no external accountability for the leadership
@ refugee:
That was supposed to be “MLM” not “MOM”.
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
Ah, but even the Early Fathers can be misused by elitists. And in reading about Augustine recently, I began to have some doubts about him as well…
@ brad/futuristguy:
You know, I remember hearing this talked about at our controlling church. That’s one of the things that held us so long. The sermons were good! The culture was oppressive, though.
refugee wrote:
When I was in seminary low these many years ago, I took an elective history class on the early church fathers from Dr. Penrose St. Amant. He was one the SBC’s authorities on it and the name of the class was, Early Church History….He reminded us…often, these early church fathers were 300-400 years after Christ….and the Reformation guys 1500-1700 years after Christ. He couldn’t say this today, but he told us, ” these guys, I am sure, got some stuff wrong….”
__
“Chart Da Fruit Growth?”
Deb
hey,
The Acts 29 non-profit 501(c)3 Christian church ministry may ‘have’ started with “good intentions’ but WHAT are their primary intentions presently?
huh?
“Love thy neighbor as thyself?”
hmmm…
SKreeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!
(smirk)
I wonder.
Bump.
Wherez da ‘profit’ in dat?
(grin)
hahahahahahahaha
ATB
Sopy
—
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I whole heartedly agree, it is a great approach. Turn the organization chart upside down, see yourself as a servant and not the one in charge at the top.
The Christianity Today article with Nicholas is billed as a “A Leadership Book Interview” but from what I can tell after reading all the reviews of his book I could find, “Whatever Happened To The Gospel?” it isn’t a leadership manual type book. It’s emphasis is on his idea of preaching “why we need to be saved” type message, nothing really new. So I don’t think there will be solid clues in the book to why control instead of servant is so often adopted in Acts 29 he co-founded.
In my thinking Driscoll is just a thug so I’m wondering if he and his kind have some type of foundational manual they use to pattern and justify their “leadership” style after. Too often I hear the criticism they are following a business model for the church, the CEO pastor. Please don’t blame it on business, there are a lot of leadership books continually written and the tightly controlled CEO model is falling into disrepute by business, especially if you want a motivated work force. Thankfully I don’t swim in Acts 28 waters but I’m interested if they have some foundational leadership management theology.
I’m not implying Driscoll Chandler et al need a manual for tyranny, human history indicates it comes naturally. Still many despots had a court philosopher they refer to for justification.
From the Christianity Today interview with Nicholas he wanted Acts 29 churches to change from what he saw as the usual:
“Some assume they are preaching the Gospel, but in reality, they preach in a language I call “the Christianese language,” a language understood only by believers, but unbelievers don’t have a clue.”
The recent posts here by Acts 29 defenders are examples that he largely failed.
refugee wrote:
The denomination of my former church did this. Sitting in on the “leadership” meetings (I now dislike that word) I recall there were a bunch of legalities about what was and wasn’t subject to the tithe.
Till your comment I hadn’t caught the dramatic irony. Then again that is the definition of dramatic irony, I didn’t see it when I was one of the cast in the play, I needed to remove myself and see it from the audience perspective.
I checked out the first Darrin Patrick video when he assumes his best sober, concerned voice and tries to scare the daylights out of churches because their institution will surely be gone, just like the fine church museum he stands in, in a generation or two if they don’t get things right. What do they need to get right? Older men need to “finish well” and teach middle aged men how to preserve their marriages and the younger men how to be men. MEN! MEN! MEN! But the chauvinism aside, Darrin goes on to talk about the young men getting older but remaining adolescent. Arrested development. There’s the problem, a big reason why churches die.
This is funny because the problem, as I have seen it formerly as an elder running with the YRR crowd, is that A29 and others in the movement are made up of little adolescent boys in the bodies of paunchy, cool-nerd “men” like Darrin Patrick. They are the least mature crowd I’ve ever been around in all my several decades on this earth. They are, in my anecdotal experience, almost to a man stuck at adolescent or pre-adolescent levels. Projection.
Law Prof wrote:
It’s hot here in East Texas. So, I say in the house and drink ice tea…Soooo, I look at the map of where these A29 churches are in Texas
This entire movement is about “being cool.”
They are in rich or “cool” sections of towns.
They are near universities.
They are in rich suburbs.
All the leadership looks like hipsters. Lots of beards. Lots of untucked shirts..and looking at the pictures, there are no older “worn-out” people like me. If some of these guys showed up at places where I worked all my life looking like they do, applying for a position, they’d be laughed out the door.
I see no ministry to nursing homes….I see no ministry to older adults….
I see no real ministry to rural areas…or poor areas….
I see no real ministry to Latinos. I see Africa-Americans on some staffs, but they’re not in leadership rolls. ( In the 1970s there was a huge push by Texas Baptists to do mission work in South Texas, Del Rio, Laredo, El Paso…There are 2 A29 churches in far South Texas, both lily pretty much all Anglo.)
You want to get serious about church, you try and people who are unchurched. Or have no family background of church to start to attend. In many cases these people can’t afford to tithe…or their so called 10% is not going to be as much as a person in the suburbs.
Sorry A29, your form of church is a business. It’s about money. It’s about being ‘cool.’
@ Gus:
He has been a big source of funding for Sproul Sr and the late D James Kennedy, though.
K.D. wrote:
Clement, letter dated roughly 90AD
“Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.”
“For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”
Bill M wrote:
I had similar questions. And I come from the corp training world so I recognized a lot of the language back in the seeker mega days. Pastorpreneur seems to have been passed down from Peter Drucker and his focus on entrepreneurial non profits. Rick Warren was a devotee of Drucker. And frankly, the YRR borrowed a lot from the seekers except used doctrine as a hook. The you have the leadership network guys like Buford. “Good to Great” was a big one that was promoted in these circles. Blanchard did a pilot with one mega and coined “Servant-Leader” but others have claimed it came before him. It really seemed to me a lot of it was evolving.
There is a huge difference when people talk about the business model of church and leadership. In a church environment there are no laws that protect the people who give the money or even the people who work there because attendance and association is considered voluntary and protected. You take your chances with employment because they not regulated by any labor laws.
And that sets up the whole foundation for what we are seeing as far back as the beginnings of the church growth movement. Churches can pretty much treat people any way they want. Businesses cannot.
You have no idea how often I am thankful we do not live in a state church nation. I shudder to think of what church discipline would look like from many of these guys. I honestly believe if they had government sanction it would be even worse.
K.D. wrote:
Ya think? If today’s leaders are any indication of getting it wrong, then there was plenty wrong. I get so tired of people quoting “so and so” as if that is proof that whatever is said must be correct.
Matt Chandler who is known to be a fan of John Piper, John Calvin, and any of the current conference speakers du jour, got it wrong at his church-big time. Can you imagine the creeds that would have come out of this group of people?
My advice- do not sign church contracts! Be an alert observer.
dee wrote:
I do have an idea, I’m of the same persuasion. Luckily many of those influential after the American war of independence, were also of your view, while religious many were very skeptical of church power.
Bill M wrote:
Curious the “system” attributed Lydia’s comment to Dee.
My bad, I must have pushed the button below Dee’s comment after highlighting Lydia’s comment.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Since you brought it up…
Some of us read the testimony posted last year by one of Mark Driscoll’s ‘friends’, Ron Wheeler, Jr. It was titled I.Am.Not.Anonymous.
https://ronwheelerjr.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/i-am-not-anonymous-2/
Here is the pertinent excerpt:
Looks like Acts 29 may have been partly inspired by Amway’s co-founder. Maybe that’s why they keep quiet about the history of the organization.
Deb wrote:
Oh wow. That really helps to understand what we have seen happen. Acts 29 is modeled on Mark Driscoll’s version of Amway.
I posted this comment on the wrong page. It is in reference to the quote at the top of this article…
Since today is the 71st anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy, I think we might remember that true Band of Brothers, who gave their lives to bring freedom to a world at war with a great enemy.
From History .com
“By dawn on June 6, 18,000 parachutists were already on the ground; the land invasions began at 6:30 a.m. The British and Canadians overcame light opposition to capture Gold, Juno and Sword beaches; so did the Americans at Utah. The task was much tougher at Omaha beach, however, where 2,000 troops were lost and it was only through the tenacity and quick-wittedness of troops on the ground that the objective was achieved. By day’s end, 155,000 Allied troops–Americans, British and Canadians–had successfully stormed Normandy’s beaches…
The heroism and bravery displayed by troops from the Allied countries on D-Day has served as inspiration for several films, most famously The Longest Day (1962) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). It was also depicted in the HBO mini-series Band of Brothers (2001).”
http://youtu.be/9Opg7LwUdPs – Katherine Jenkins singing the song Requiem for a Soldier.
Lydia wrote:
So, it’s leadership by proxy, and as we’ve seen in the past few years, it’s also support and push-back for them by proxy on social media, by outside commenders, by questionable-diligence invitations …
It seems to me that the larger the relational distance between “overseer” and “overseen,” the stronger the institutional element in the organization, where the more the overseen are merely cogs who keep the machine going.
@ brad/futuristguy:
There needs to be more cog nation dissidence …
@ brad/futuristguy:
And if you are really really blessed by God then you might just get to be in the leader of the leader of the leader of leader’s presence for a 2 min interaction in a large group. You might be able to actually shake his hand!
I find it interesting that the Acts 29 Network claims commitment to the Covenant Statement of Faith of Lausanne, a global mission movement. Unlike Acts 29, Lausanne includes women in leadership (including *gasp* the Board of Directors), in plenary sessions, as speakers and partners in evangelism—not just as “spiritual and moral equals,” whatever Acts 29 means by that.
Here are a few excerpts from the Lausanne Statement:
5. CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
. . . We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all people. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression. Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive . . .
11. EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP
We confess that we have sometimes pursued church growth at the expense of church depth, and divorced evangelism from Christian nurture. We also acknowledge that some of our missions have been too slow to equip and encourage national leaders to assume their rightful responsibilities. Yet we are committed to indigenous principles, and long that every church will have national leaders who manifest a Christian style of leadership in terms not of domination but of service. . .
David Hamilton is just one of many speakers and presenters over several years who relied on the Scriptures to address the (unscriptural) global exclusion and/or oppression of women. At Lausanne Congress 2010 in South Africa, he said in this 15-minute video that we need everyone, and no one—man or woman—should be “benched” from using his or her gifts in Jesus’ commission:
http://www.lausanne.org/content/men-and-women-partnerships-in-the-leadership-of-ministry
And here is an insightful Lausanne paper on the implications of mega churches, from 2014. Hmm-m-m, something familiar about some of this:
http://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2014-09/megachurches-and-their-implications-for-christian-mission
So, it will be interesting to see what comes out of a Lausanne gathering which takes place in a few days on “church planting in the Americas”:
http://www.lausanne.org/gatherings/issue-gathering/strategic-consultation-on-church-planting-in-the-americas
Gram3 wrote:
Yes! This! (And our former church wasn’t even Acts29. It doesn’t have to be part of Acts29 to use the same methodology…)
@ Daisy:
THIS!! Dearest Daisy you have explained to me what was missing in our last church. (now closed) Thank you. Could never put my finger on it at the time, coming out of Charismatic stuff I think we swung too far the other direction.
Sorry my post should have included this quote
Some denominations or Christians give the Holy Spirit the boot and replace Him with the Bible.
So, they still have a Trinity, only their Trinity consists of Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.
I am all for sola scriptura, but, I think some Christians are way out of bounds with it.
Mykingdomforahorse wrote:
Yes, because it morphs right into ‘solo scriptura’, and everyone has their own opinion and interpretation and exegesis of Scripture, complete with passages that they feel are of vital and eternal importance, and others they don’t like because they don’t fit their political views, so they ignore them. And everyone becomes their own little pope – the Body is fragmented to smithereens. It is the downside of Evangelicalism and I see it all over the place all the time.
It’s sad they really think Jesus isn’t able to build his church if they don’t get it right.
@ Law Prof:
This is sooooo true! Agreed also. Hot here in San Antonio too. 😉
@ K.D.:
@ brad/futuristguy:
I have a joke: Old men were sitting around the retirement home, and shouting out numbers. After each number was called out everyone would laugh out loud. At one point a man shouted out 42! and no one laughed. So, I asked what this was about. And the old man next to me said, “We’ve known each other so long we know each other’s jokes. So to save time we gave them all numbers. So when we call out a number everyone knows joke and we all laugh.”
And I said, “But when that man called out 42, no one laughed.”
And the old man said, “Yeah, well he never could do a decent Scottish accent.”
* * *
Hi, all. I’m new to the ways of talking about sets of thinking rather than specific individual issues, and so Neo-Calvinism is new to me. I’ve been reading here a lot about how bad Neo-Calvinism is, and I’ve looked up the points of it on Wikipedia (which is 80% right, 50% of the time) and the phrasing is so general that I can’t make out the details of it, or why it in itself is a bad or failed system of thought.
Would do me the favor here and mention what the top three (or as many as you like) things you find destructively wrong about neo-Calvinism are?
Thanks.
@ Flicker:
Actually 42 is “The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”, from Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy.
That’s what I thought of instantly reading that comment. 😉 Have a pastor friend who was really into the philosophy of Hitchhikers guide…I never understood it. Long time ago when film came out watched about twenty mins of it, looked at my friend, mutually shook heads, and we put something else on lol. It resonates with several people tho. To each their own! I think it is an interesting commentary on how people can redefine reality maybe though. Like Jabberwocky, or the future of the church resting on manly leadership skills…
Bill M wrote:
Flicker wrote:
1) heretical Trinitarian theology expressed as Eternal Subordination of the Son as well as practical denial of the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit
2) celebrity idolatry of men with associated merchandising of the Gospel
3) authoritarianism as exercised in church covenants and discipline and disregard for the priesthood of every believer
4) elitism expressed as possessing a superior doctrinal set or system or greater holiness or seriousness or clergy spiritual authority
5) patriarchy or Complementarianism which is a type of 3 and 4
6) intellectualism expressed as a desire for more knowledge/books rather than imitating Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit
@ Flicker:
Good joke … ! FWIW, to hear the appropriate Scottish accent, I think Gimli utters that very number in The Two Towers, when he is comparing battle stats with Legolas.
Also, FWIW, here is my list of top six deep system issues that seem to typically crop up in the Neo-Puritan / Neo-Calvinist / YYR paradigm. Some are specifically theological, and some go deeper into the ways that everything gets processed and either stays connected or gets disconnected. This is a quote from a post I did in 2012:
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
Dualism – a system of black-or-white thinking that constantly splits holistic phenomena into fragments, while valuing certain parts and devaluing others. [The opposite of dualism is holism – considering the whole to be more than the sum of the parts, and that analyzing or dividing something too much can kill its vitality.]
Reductionism – a system overfocus on particular philosophical elements while intentionally or ignorantly leaving out others. It favors supposed simplicity and clarity over complexity and nuance. In the case of neo-Reformed/Calvinistas, only elements considered “gospel truth” are of importance and thus dominate faith and practice. For instance, the underlying theology of Calvinistas seems to believe that the effects of The Fall severely impact human emotions, making them utterly trustworthy. However, somehow, the mind is not touched to this degree, and so we can accurately apprehend “truth” through rational thought because the mind is not broken like the emotions are. [The opposite of reductionism is being comprehensive – looking at all the elements or dimensions of something, and valuing the parts AND the whole, and keeping the relationships between them intact.]
Patriarchalism – an extreme form of the gender complementarian theory that values males and devalues females, while attempting to explain away the inherent implications of devaluation. [The opposite of patriarchalism is gender parity – valuing both men and women, girls and boys as people of worth in God’s eyes, and as equally necessary and vital in their participation to make the Body of Christ all that God intended.]
Totalism and Authoritarianism – totalism is a legalistic system of comprehensive control over all aspects of the lives of its followers, and which requires their total submission to the authoritarian leaders and to the ideology in order to prove their worthiness to be included in the movement. [The opposite of these is self-determination. This does not mean there is no such thing as authority, but that each disciple, in his or her “priesthood of the believer,” is personally responsible for their own choices and to grow in discernment and no longer be a “spiritual baby.” All forms of legalism rely on some outside expert or pedagogue to make the rules and set the boundaries for you; this means a system of legalism/totalism automatically keeps you spiritually immature.]
Perfectionism – a combination of beliefs along the lines that Christians can eradicate their sinful nature, that they can or should live perfectly in line with God’s commands, and/or that repentance and confession are supreme signs of spiritual maturity or growth. [The opposite of perfectionism is redemptive progress – a belief that transformative growth is possible and that this process needs to be pursued for the rest of our life. There is a trajectory to this growth – a unique, specific starting point for each person, depending on his/her background – and a common goal for all disciples to become Christlike in character. Perfectionism typically keeps people orbiting around a few concepts and practices; progress moves people forward into and through deeper stages of developing a large set of biblical concepts and applications.]
Dominionism – a system of attempted comprehensive control over all aspects of the societies, political processes, and cultures in which the Calvinistas live. [The opposite of dominionism is sojourning – being sensitive to the realities that our home as followers of Christ is in Him and with His Kingdom, and that we are here on earth to serve others for Him – not to control them in efforts to convert them to Him.]
The key personal problem here is that all of these elements are integral parts of a system of legalism and control. And, as the New Testament epistles tell us, the Law always works directly against the Spirit of God. The key social/organizational problem here is that an extensive system of control demonstrated by a Christian leader, ministry, church, or agency legitimately allows people in our communities to consider that entity as a “cult.” And that works directly against the witness of healthy churches and of the Church in those communities.
* * * * * * *
A few notes to bring this up to date:
* Not all of these Neo-Calvinist systems hold to dominionism. Some seem more isolationist in their politics. They don’t want to control government, but they also don’t seem to want any government control over them. This may be part of why so many of these authoritarian groups want to keep everything “in house” when it comes to sins that are actually also crimes. They don’t want to be tainted by the world, or they believe they know better how to deal with “confessed”/”repentant” sinners than the legal system does. Ironic how leaders who expect to the sheep to submit to them don’t get it about the principle of godly submission to civil authorities which the New Testament tells us are appointed by God to punish wrongdoers.
* I wrote this in December 2012. Think about how many authoritarian leaders and their organizations have been forced into the light in the two and a half years since then. Not all are this Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan, but they share many of the same underlying paradigm elements. I think that goes to show how the deepest parts of a paradigm can be corrosive, and manifest in multiple different ways theologically, and end up with similar destructive impacts of harassment, marginalization, and abuse.
To my other comment about the “Calvinista” mentality at the link below, I would add this characteristic: militancy. There is a firm belief that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You can’t have Totalism, Authoritarianism, Perfectionism, or Dominionism with that radical militancy that claims such completion of human knowledge. But that very idolatry about the capability of the human mind — even one steeped in Scripture — is what starts shifting true doctrine toward gnosticism (an elitist dogma which I define as, “Only smart people count.”).
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
Thanks Gram3 and Brad for giving answers to Flicker’s question about what is so wrong with Neo-Calvinism. I agree.
It is so destructive and so very wrong. Suffocating.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, your observation is an unfortunate consequence of the “homogeneous unit principle” that has driven church marketing for the last 40 years. Homogenous units make marketing (and cash flow) easier. Adult singles are a small enough (in size and money) that it doesn’t usually make financial sense to pay attention to them. Sad but true.
@ Gram3:
Very well said, Gram3.
@ Bill M:
I know you’re kidding. Actually, it’s 54; the ultimate question being “What is six times nine?”
This is totally off topic, but a friend told me someone posted on facebook that C.J. was preaching in town here last weekend. I did some research and sure enough, he was preaching at the “new” Sovereign Grace church. It was very enlightening to see who attends there. And kind of creepy to know that C.J. snuck into town.
@ Melody:
The movie was NOT the Hitchhikers Guide. That’s like saying Babylon Five is Star Trek. You have to watch the original. (I have it on video, but I lost my VCR.) It’s also od that there are now five(?) versions of it, two or three radio versions, a book and a couple of TV version. I have the five volume trilogy, if that makes sense.
I would have written this long-hand, but I can’t find any of my empty ball-point pens.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I’ve read on other sites that preachers view married people as having more money, and some of them seem stuck with the idea that being single equals ’21 year old college kid who’s not married yet, who is broke.’
However, many people today are not marrying at all,or not until 35 or older. A lot of singles have money.
This is from 2014:
Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married – A Record Low
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/
(There are now more single adults in the United States than married ones, and the percentage of marrieds with kids still at home is one of the smallest slices to the demographic pie.)
@ Gram3:
Is this all the outgrowth of Neo-Calvinism? Or the way it’s misused today.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Are you sure?
Anyway, thanks all.
Melody wrote:
Hitchhiker’s Guide was an odd book but back when it came out likely so was I. The only story I remember was the elevators that were programmed to see into the future, rebelled, and people had to go back to using stairways. A good commentary on things getting too complex, better to keep it simple.
Daisy wrote:
And yet many churches don’t do anything for these people. Most of the churches around here seem to cater to the married-with-young-kids demographic. You’d think they’d figure out that there are many, many single adults.
I’m in the middle of a multi-year spiritual crisis–my ex-husband and his family did a real number on me and my kids. I haven’t decided if I’m done or not.
Flicker wrote:
I don’t call it neo-Calvinism because that term had already been taken long ago. I prefer the term YRR to describe this movementn which came to prominence during the 2000’s.
Not sure I understand your question because I don’t know if you are talking about Kuyper or not. Certainly I think that Kuyper and Van Til and later Rushdoony and his disciples certainly were an outgrowth of neo-Calvinism. The YRR, however, take some of those ideas and mix in a dose of pietism and puritanism and Gothardism. It is an interesting brew of ideas, IMO.
That, I believe, is because of cross-pollination or cross-contamination, depending on your POV, which occurred during the 1970’s. There was a meeting of minds at least on the pressing cultural issues, and that made other considerations somewhat more secondary. I suppose you could say that prior generations of theological conservatives withdrew from culture and institutions, but I think that Roe produced a huge paradigm shift WRT culture toward more engagement. If that is what you mean, then I think it is in some respects an outgrowth of neo-Calvinism. Another person who influenced a lot of people was Francis Shaeffer, and that influence extended into Baptistic circles.
That’s as deep as I can get on the topic. PCAPastor might have some thoughts given the discussions within the PCA/OPC about 2K or not 2K and the Kellerites and the Federal Visionistas.
@ Flicker:
A couple of examples that illustrate the shift are Billy Graham, is a Baptist who has shown very little interest in cultural transformation. That was the stance of most Baptists before the late 1960’s. Contrast that with Mohler. James Dobson, a Nazarene, became a culture warrior in the 70’s. It was a weird time.
Flicker wrote:
I think that the YRR and Gospel Glitterati misuse a lot of things today, not least of all the Bible. They are supposed to be conservatives, but their hermeneutic is anything but. It is reactionary and ad hoc. And that, IMO, is why they are so unbalanced and spin out of control.
Flicker wrote:
Why yes, just checked my transcript files: The Two Towers, Extended Edition, Scene 62, “The Final Tally.” [This scene is not in the Theatrical Edition.]
Legolas : Final count…. 42.
Gimli: Forty-two? Oh, that’s not bad for a pointy-eared Elvish princeling. I myself am sitting pretty on 43.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110914061953/http://www.council-of-elrond.com/tttrans2.html
@ Flicker:
Everything Gram 3 said and:
Calvinism is deterministic in its foundation. Everything has been predetermined just as life was determined in the pagan world. The pagans had mean gods with total power.
There is a strong theme of dualism running through it because of its definition of total depravity which really means total “inability”. (Brad has a general definition at his link above) Calvin borrowed heavily from Augustine who believed that all spiritual is good but the material world is all bad which was part of his Mani religion before he was converted. Augustine encapsulated this belief with his view of original sin which includes imputed guilt. You are born sinning. Your very existence is sin. Your only good is what God determines for you. You do not have the capacity to make the choice. Your relationship with Jesus Christ is not synergistic but determined.
This dualistic view of humans seperates man from himself. It is the way people can be “wicked” and “saved” at the same time. (We tend to view it as either sinning or sinless perfection which is I believe a false dichotomy) There is no real new birth or no new creation in Christ.
This theme has permeated much of Protestant Christianity to varying degrees. There is a strong belief out there we cannot be “good and decent” people. That sinning all the time is normal. And that is because a lot of what is just life on this corrupted earth is considered sin.
This is one reason why you hear them constantly bragging about their sin. Or a quick “sorry” should force us to treat that person as if it had never happened. Because wickedness and sin is normal. You cannot help it.
If you read the Institutes you wil find a section where Calvin basically says that you can believe you are saved, act like you are saved and yet be reprobate and not know it until you die. And worse, God actually gives you this temporary faith! (Section 3)
That’s a lot to think about. Thanks all, again. I tend to rail against lack of logical consistency, but at the same time reserve the right to embrace a few paradoxes. I think if we fully understand the mind of God, then these won’t be paradoxes anymore.
What does YRR mean?
I suppose my last question is: Does this theological view inherently make a pastor ruin a church, or do you take this view because deep down you want to own your own church?
I think I got it. And I was almost right: I guessed it might mean Young, Restless and Radical. I was close. So the YRR isn’t a discrete approach or theology or theological discipline, but a modern movement within the standard template of organized churches, in the same way non-denominationalism and the Jesus movement was. Right? More or less?
Gus wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment here, except for two small things, which are not really disagreements so much as added comments:
(a) The Acts 29 church plant set-up is especially attractive if you are young male who strongly desires to be in charge, be in control, and who thinks you have amazing wisdom and genius to share with the world.
Imagine: fill a room with one hundred 22 year olds. Now ask them: who among them is ready to plant and pastor a church? Consider who will raise their hands and who will not…eager, arrogant, and naive guys will jump at the chance, while mature, wise, and humble guys will think, “I’m nowhere near ready to plant and lead a church!”
(b) Just want to note that many Acts 29 planters have a serious lack of formal theological training. So when you refer to “young graduates” – it could even mean a young kid with a degree in a non-theological field such as “communications” (a la Driscoll himself) or “political science” or even “engineering.” There are a good number of Acts 29 planters who have not been to Bible college, much less a seminary. Furthermore, some Acts 29 planters don’t even have a college degree! (My former Acts 29 pastor earned a HS diploma, and nothing more. He claimed he was “self-educated” because he “read a lot of books”).
Law Prof wrote:
EXACTLY.
Projection is one of the most fundamental characteristics of what the YRR/Calvinista/Neo-Reformed crowd does.
Gram3 wrote:
This was our experience as well, in an Acts 29 church.
The wives of the elders were de facto “deacons” (not given any formal title, though), who were in charge of the women of the church.
Each elder’s wife was in charge of a women’s small group. We found out just before we left the church that the elders’ wives were secretly reporting back to their husbands (the elders) on the various sins and struggles of the women in their groups. Occasionally, the elders would become alarmed by this or that sin, and would seek to exercise church discipline on one of the ladies.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Wasn’t Octavian (Augustus) – the first true Roman emperor – the one to whom the informal title of “princeps,” that is, “first citizen,” was first given?
Deb wrote:
And as one who saw this from the inside, I can say that the elders very much reinforce this naive, unwise “trust” by accusing anyone who critiques or questions an elder of some sort of sin (usually gossip or divisiveness). Moreover, numerous sermons are preached about “wolves” who – according to the Acts 29 definition – are people who don’t trust their elders.
So you have a bunch of young, inexperienced kids sitting in pews, terrified of being placed under discipline for “gossip” or “divisiveness,” and certainly appalled at the idea of being a “wolf.”
It’s very difficult to speak out in an Acts 29 church, even for those who are wise, mature, and insightful enough to see the problems. Even after my wife and I began to sense some of the dysfunction, we refrained from speaking out for 1.5 years because of the constant threat of church discipline and of course the social consequences of this (humiliation, ostracization, etc.).
Gus wrote:
No one is worthy of respect, who demands it.
Mr.H wrote:
Exactly. Apart from the basic respect that every human being is due, all respect has to be earned.
Mr.H wrote:
A degree from a seminary may not be a protection against false doctrine and abuse (there are enough examples that show this), but at least it can protect against a certain shallowness of thinking and the repetition of mistakes made before – if you don’t know (church) history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Some of these guys’ thinking is so shallow that it doesn’t even completely wet your toes.
And a serious lack of understanding the subject matter at hand often leads people to concentrating on the easier but secondary aspects that they at least think they understand.
Flicker wrote:
YRR is a movement that has spawned a particular approach/theology, and has BECOME a standard template for organizing churches, and large organizations of churches and church planting. I don’t see it as at all analogous to non-denoms/Jesus movement.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Haaaa, we just witnessed a geek-off 🙂 I love it.
@ Gus:
i’ve meant to ask you… you express yourself so well in “American”. Are you an ex-pat living in Austria? no need to answer if you don’t care to.
Mr.H wrote:
Where have we seen this before? This is how some 'care groups' in Sovereign Grace Ministries functioned.
I believe it was called 'sin sniffing'. 🙁
I believe Collin Hansen was the first to coin Young, Restless, Reformed in this article for Christianity Today – or perhaps the editor or whoever wrote the headline. I don’t recall hearing the term before. Though it’s been a while, so I don’t really remember.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html
Interesting to read this article now that I’m pretty much done with Christianity and God. And certainly done with this version of it.
Gus wrote:
Having a seminary training means nothing….trust me on this one….I went to seminary with some folks and their views and doctrines are so varied…..and a ” Gentleman’s C” in Church History guarantees very little eduction in that area from the seminary. And a bunch of these guys out there barely passed Dr Estep’s class.
@ M:
That's what I recall as well about YRR. I had never heard of it before reading that CT article.
Please don't allow this domineering, power-obsessed crowd to taint your view of God. He loves you! Praying you will feel His presence in your life.
Blessings!
elastigirl wrote:
No, Austrian. Genuine article, though – my forebears came from a lot of different places in the Habsburg Empire, mostly Bohemia, Hungary and (today’s) Austria.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Brad, this is a great summary. I will be sharing it with the one calvanista friend I have left. I think I might also hardcopy to my former elders. Great blog.
K.D. wrote:
I agree with your entire comment but this last part…LOL!!!
Daisy wrote:
This is true, I have noticed it myself.
Gus wrote:
You fooled me. I would have said native english speaker from somewhere in the more or less central regions of the US or else from Canada.
Mr.H wrote:
This is such a horrible breach of trust. If this happened to me I would be devastated. But I know that this has happened to people, not just women. In the SGM church I was in, it was pretty much understood that if a woman shared something with another woman, she would share it with her husband. I totally disagree with this stance. Homegroup leaders often turned around and shared everything going on in their group with elders. I totally disagree with this concept as well. My husband and I never forwarded any information to anyone, unless we were asked by the sharing party to do so. If we felt someone benefit from help or care from someone else, we would encourage that someone to go on their own to talk to additional persons. Or, we got permission from the people involved to pray with others or pass information on. We would never betray a confidence unless, of course, it was a matter of life or death, harm to a second party, or illegal activities. Trust is so very important.
Nancy wrote:
That’s because you’re a woman and more easily deceived.
😉
One of my non-churchy, non-religious friends brought this to me: Hillsong has dropped Mark Driscoll from its Australian and UK conferences. (The link is to the Guardian.)
Three things I take away from this:
1) Brian Houston of Hillsong has been warned for months about Driscoll yet insisted on keeping him on the roster–until now. Why.
2) It’s important enough to report that the Guardian has a report.
3) A non-religious friend brought it to my attention.
Mark’s hit the big time and not in a way he probably expected.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/07/hillsong-church-drops-controversial-us-preacher-mark-driscoll-from-conferences?CMP=twt_gu
Flicker wrote:
There are two pages on my Diagnosing the Emergent Movement blog that give general historical background about the “emerging ministry movement” that started in the mid-1990s and how it sorted itself into multiple streams, one of which was the YRR/Neo-Calvinist bunch. All of these were post-evangelical (though some Christians from mainline denominations connected with them), and mostly within Generation X (born 1965-1981). Pages 02 and 03 overview the context.
02 Historical: Tracking the “Emerging Ministry Movement”
03 Historical: Differentiation into Streams [This post ends with a section on What Makes a Ministry “Safe/Hospitable,” Regardless of its Emerging Stream Paradigm?]
https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/
Also, what makes this confusing is that there are multiple names and labels used for this particular paradigm-movement-stream, some used by insiders and others by outsiders. Ones I’ve seen:
* Neo-Calvinist. Sometimes used by insiders of the younger generation movement. But, as several people have commented in these posts on TVC and Acts29, the term Neo-Calvinist or New Calvinism was already in use by some from denominations with a long-standing Reformed/Calvinist theological tradition. Sometimes you’ll see protests from them that the beliefs and behaviors of the post-evangelical “Neo-Calvinists” have little to do with their mainline tradition. [Similar frustration has been expressed by traditional/mainline theological progressives at how the post-evangelical Emergent Village “progressives” seem to have co-opted the term without so much being it.]
* Reformed / Neo-Reformed.
* Neo-Puritan. I think I’ve seen this term used mostly by outsiders to the movement, when they’re critiquing the doctrines of the so-called Neo-Calvinists and saying that really, it’s more in line with pietism and perfectionism theologies than with traditional Calvinism.
* Resurgence / Resurgent. Mark Driscoll used this term and applied it to media, conferences, and publications that he was connected with. “Resurgence Publishing” was also the imprint name for a partnership between Tyndale House and Mark Driscoll’s Resurgence/Mars Hill stuff.
* YRR / Young, Restless, and Reformed. Goes back to the title of Collin Hansen’s 2008 book, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.
* Calvinista. Coined by The Deebs here at TWW and used to emphasize the militant nature of the movement and it’s penchant for takeovers.
Beakerj wrote:
When there’s a commenter who goes by the handle of *Bilbo Skaggins* then surely Tolkienesque mischief is bound to ensue …
Mr.H wrote:
Creepy how many parallel “dictator in citizen-sheep’s clothing” practices find sources in the Empire.
“A ruse by any other name …”?
The “first among equals” stuff that gets misused to turn a “lead pastor” into a CEO-dictator who acts as if he owns the non-profit corporation was addressed some in this post from abuse survivors of Mars Hill Church. (Along with the “Jesus is our Senior Pastor” slogan.)
https://musingsfromunderthebus.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/mars-hill-church-please-drop-the-religious-talk/
brad/futuristguy wrote:
CORRECTION: As posted in an earlier comment by “M,” the term was used at least two years earlier in Collin Hansen’s 2006 article in Christianity Today..
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html
Interesting that there’s been fallout and push-back, such as Austin Fischer’s 2014 book, Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love, and a Journey In and Out of Calvinism. And one wonders how many “nones” and “dones” and “gones” come from YRR backgrounds.
http://www.amazon.com/Young-Restless-Longer-Reformed-Calvinism/dp/1625641516/
roebuck wrote:
I see it as more analogous to Calvinjugend or Komsomol.
Mr.H wrote:
Thought Police Informants.
Mr.H wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
i.e. Bedroom Evangelism Breeders, breeding future Tithing Units.
Flicker wrote:
It means you know where your towel is, you Hoopy Frood.
Melody wrote:
What would God ever do without them?
Lydia wrote:
“SEE HIS FACE! HEAR HIS VOICE! FUEHRER! FUEHRER! FUEHRER!”
— Leon Uris, Armageddon: a Novel of Berlin
K.D. wrote:
Make that “Lots of IRONIC beards. Lots of IRONICALLY untucked shirts.”
Just like North Korea!
Because that’s NOT where the money is.
All about the Benjamins, baby.
Gram3 wrote:
And the Man is forgiven through Christ but the Woman, nope, no forgiveness for us. We’re still under the sin of Eve. No. Thanks.
Gram3 wrote:
That’s the way it was in “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Women indoctrinated women. Women enforced punishment against other women. Because their rank and status depended on keeping those lower in line.
Deb wrote:
Deb, Maybe the YRR definition could be put on the TWW definitions page?
In other news, Satin’s Dad Stan has overcome da minions of Novak at Roland Garros.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
In yet other news, Hillsong has disinvited the former Mars Hill “first among equals” from their upcoming conference.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/07/hillsong-cancels-mark-driscolls-appearance-at-june-conference/
Mr.H wrote:
As well, a recent grad of SBTS or SEBTS is essentially uneducated as well, since they receive only a very narrow slice of Christian theology by teachers that have to walk in lock-step or be fired (I speak from experience).
brad/futuristguy wrote:
“First among equals” has also been used to define “Kephale” usage in the NT.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
And the adult singles (with our disposable income) look around and decide the church ain’t all that, so we go elsewhere.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Exactly! So those who want formal theologial education need to beware that it is often more indoctrination than it is education or training. The training these days in church admin at these seminaries consists of what we are seeing take place in churches.
When I was a kid, grads from SBTS were more likely to go and apprentince with an older seasoned pastor for years or find a church in the country with no money to pastor. It was all about real experience. It was not glamorous and most were serious simply because there was NO money or instant fame attached to entering into that vocation.
Lydia wrote:
They’re not learning anything there. Every SBC college now seems to have their own divinity school/seminary. They churn pastors out like cord wood…..all of them thinking they know everything….and instead they’re as ” dumb as a box of rocks.”
Mr.H wrote:
You didn’t mention that these guys are married or will be married by the time they plant a church. These guys marry women who are attracted to their self-confidence and arrogance. The women have hitched their wagon, so to speak, to who they believe is the next rising star and has potential to pastor a mega church. The guys have problems and their wives have problems too; they are not innocent.
@ Mr.H:
And it can be a great way to get a comfortable living without having to put in the school time, just work ones charisma. I totally get people wanting to go into being a pastor, there’s good money there for the successful ones.
K.D. wrote:
Some of the better ones have ceased taking SBC money after some wrangling with the SBC micromanaging and are focusing on other options in academia besides ministry. There are two in my state who basically told the KBC Mohler driven faction to take a hike when the KBC said they would withold money if they did not heed their meddling. Both are pretty good schools focusing on much more than ministry. They are doing ok without KBC/SBC money because their focus was on academics in the first place.
And they are attracting the more serious academic types who are refugees from the SBTS/SBC authoritarianism/indoctrination.
Dave A A wrote:
How interesting.
Sincerely,
Velour, Satin’s (sic) Sister in Christ
Lydia wrote:
If all of that were true, why does Paul instruct believers in 1 Cor 5 to bar the constantly sinning guy from among them??
Mr.H wrote:
I would not want to attend a church where every one was constantly up in my business and disciplining me for it, especially if it was based on stuff I told someone in confidence, and they blabbed it to the next guy.
mirele wrote:
In one of the reports I saw, Houston is claiming that he is only JUST NOW (caps for emphasis, not yelling) that he’s learning about some of Driscoll’s controversial comments.
On what planet is Houston residing where there is no Google? A quick google of Driscoll’s name will turn up 5 billion pages of all the obnoxious stuff he’s done. Surely they have Google or its equivalent in Australia.
mirele wrote:
Yep.
And I can only withstand only oh-so-many of the “Twelve Steps To Having A Healthier Marriage” type sermons. Too many marriage sermons (or ones on parenting).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
^!
@ brad/futuristguy:
I think I’ve got it now. Frankly, I believe in all these as simple nouns, perfection, dominion, reduction, (for simplicity and clarity), dual — as two contrasting ways of looking at something — AND a holistic (or global, or big-picture approach. I can’t say I agree al all with authoritarianism, but then again, it’s often more important how these words are used and the implied meaning of the words.
It looks like each of these nouns are fine until you weight them so heavily that they become as -ism. Being social is fine; socialism is a whole other thing.
Thanks so much.
Lydia wrote:
Just curious, do ” folks in the pews” in Kentucky support these divinity schools over SBTS, calling pastors, other staffers?
I know here in Texas, more churches are looking at other schools than SWBTS…..but some, are still stuck on SWBTS…..
Velour wrote:
Since you asked I’m pretty sure I’m some kind of batik.
Beakerj wrote:
Christian batik … is that some sort of tithe-die fabric technique? Like, where the preacher waxes eloquently?
@ Lydia:
I have a family member (Baptist seminary – trained, no less) who says their attraction to Calvinism is due to the “assurance of salvation”. We try to not roll our eyes on that one. The lack of assurance is the thing that keeps people in line. If you just die enough, maybe God might save you, but you can’t earn it.
I wonder if these people can just read the Institutes online?
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Ha!
@ brad/futuristguy:
I’m loving your work Brad…weren’t the fabrics to do with being Satin’s minions though? Who exactly, therefore, is waxing eloquently? It could be the work of the Denim.
@ Beakerj:
hopefully Denim et al do not get exorcised to the Open Discussion thread, but if we can keep this tied to the church planting threads then the material ought to be okay.
So knowing nothing about Hillsong church in Australia, other than something is out of order inviting Driscoll, I search and the first headline popping up is:
“Hillsong founder defends not referring sex abuse allegations to police”
Isn’t there a different script these guys can follow? Can’t they add a little variation to at least make it interesting?
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Let’s just don’t drag the Muslins into this…
@ roebuck:
i must confess when i read about denims like Southern Batiks (or non-denims like A29) i read it as demins every time…
M wrote:
I daresay you may not have given either Christianity or God a fair hearing if you’ve based your perceptions on it upon the sort of institutions and beliefs that are being discussed here. Don’t throw the baby the way of the bathwater. That’s the path of the weak-minded. Don’t take it.
Daisy wrote:
Houston is obviously a full blown liar if that’s what he’s claiming. But that should be no surprise to anyone who’s spent five minutes google-searching his positions on anything else. But Houston is typical of the type. We need to realize and accept that many people coming in the name of Christ not only do not truly represent Him, but are involved in actively persecuting His followers. In my opinion, Houston belongs firmly in this camp and should be called out as such.
Daisy wrote:
It looks like they’ve figured out how to use Google. They’ve dropped Driscoll from their event. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-07/controversial-pastor-no-longer-attending-hillsong/6528482
Daisy wrote:
Tell me about it. In hindsight, I’d say that my wife and I both agree with you.
At the time, though, there was a tremendous amount of pressure and manipulation going on. If we resisted the intensely personal “invasions,” we were told that we were sinning, being defensive, etc. etc. I remember times where I would be in my men’s small group, and everyone would have to share their weekly sins, and I would share this or that (I got angry and snapped at my wife, or I got road rage, etc.) and the elder in the group would dismiss those and try to dig for more stuff – juicer sins, I suppose. A lot of the time I couldn’t think of very juicy stuff to share, and in those cases I was accused of “hiding my sins.” It was very weird.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
That’s very true, my friend. (Sadly).
So much for 1 Peter 5:2…
Bridget wrote:
Having been friends with, and having spoken to, several of the ladies who were victims of this breach of trust, I can confirm that they indeed were devastated. Two of them (along with their husbands) left the church immediately. A third left a bit later. From what I am aware, two of them refuse to become involved in small groups, and one won’t even go to a formal church service.
K.D. wrote:
I don’t agree. It all depends on the seminary, the degree, and the design of the program.
Are some seminaries lightweight degree mills? Sure. But not all seminaries are.
I myself hold two degrees from a well-known and respected evangelical seminary. I can say with confidence that someone like Mark Driscoll, for example, would not have made it through the MDiv program at my former seminary. The mandatory psychological assessment and counseling, along with the mandatory mentorship program, would have brought forth a lot of Driscoll’s junk. (Not saying it could have “fixed” him – just that he probably would have flunked/dropped out). Moreover, the rigorous academic character of the program would have also been a stumbling block to someone like Driscoll – his plagiarism would have gotten him an F (for a first offense, assuming it was only accidental) or expulsion (if the plagiarism was clearly intentional).
@ Mr.H:
Fill in the blanks here for me on this. In your comment at 4:04 AM you mention the seminary degrees that you have and how the seminary was well known and respected and academically rigorous. I believe you. But in your comment at 3:50 AM you discuss how you were treated in a small group and fail to mention that you immediately denounced them as soon as you recognized what was going on and gathered up your people and left. So, did the seminary not warn you about this sort of thing and tell you how to avoid it, or did the seminary condone the general idea of what looks very much like the old communist cell technique? Or what?
The point being that we have been tending to think that more rigorous seminary training and education would be an antidote for some of this abuse, but that does not seem to be the case if I understand what you are saying.
Mr.H wrote:
That’s creepy as hell.
Mr.H wrote:
I was not sitting in judgment of you, that you went to this church or went through any of that. I was sympathetic to your first post (and now your second), I was just tossing in my two cents saying if I did end up in that situation, I’d bail.
I did go to one church where I am now where if or when I opened up and shared personal information about myself – not sins, but just stressful things I was going under – one of the ladies at the church would become a little judgmental. She even snapped at me one day after I shared a minor personal struggle with her, in front of the class (and it wasn’t a sin).
This was not long after my mother had died, which I was having a hard time dealing with, and which this lady knew. Instead of receiving comfort from her (and other church people),I got chided and snapped at.
So I never went back to that church.
And I had gone every single Sunday, including a few afternoon luncheon things, for months.
I’ve said this before on a really old thread here, but I’ve had to learn the tough way since my mother (who was my best friend) died, that you cannot open up to anyone and everyone, not even Christian people, because they will take whatever painful, private stuff you share with them and judge you on it, or scold you over it.
It’s also why now, when I watch Christian TV and there’s always a guest on imploring other Christians to be open with other Christians at church and be vulnerable, I roll my eyes of think ‘that’s naive.’
If you open up, you will regret it, nine times out of ten. Your personal information will be used against you in some fashion by like 95% of Christians. (And this is not even in regards to sin. Just personal problems or pain you’re going through.)
Mr.H wrote:
How about “I feel like strangling the elders always digging for more and juicier sin in their sleep.”? Would that be juicy enough?
Daisy wrote:
I think that is correct. It is too bad, but it does happen. Many fellow christians would just as soon stab you in the back as look at you-just like anybody else. And that is why they want to know your business, in order to do that. This betrayal is not some side effect of the behavior, it is the payoff off for the behavior. It is a set up.
When I was in RCIA and Father T was talking about the historical development of the element of privacy in confession he dealt with this. He said that originally all confession was public and required the miscreant to go around and be reconciled to everybody in the church in person, but this caused so many problems that eventually confession was made private with the priest only. He said the problems came from too many people knowing too much about everybody which spread the problems rather than containing them. Of course, I am not a historian, so I just took his word for it, especially since we still see that same behavior from people.
“4. We are deeply committed to the fundamental spiritual and moral equality of male and female and to men as responsible servant-leaders in the home and church.”
Which means that any woman who does not have a man around the house is living in a second-class home.
Mr.H wrote:
I think the key word in this is JUICY.
How else can Respectable Church Ladies (of either sex) get a Vicarious Porn/Sin Fix and still say Holy and Respectable?
roebuck wrote:
Cue ridiculous amounts of laughter this morning 🙂
i really am glad i read this post and comments. you guys are really good at putting things together that make sense. i have been trying to discuss this topic with friends and what you all wrote is so much better than how i was trying to explain what was wrong with Acts 29 churches, thanks
Nancy wrote:
Hi Nancy,
Let me help fill in some blanks for you.
No, I did not immediately denounce the small group when strange things would happen. The strangeness which is in hindsight quite obvious was at the time quite subtle. And again – the power of peer pressure and groupthink is very real.
But to your point – that my seminary training was ineffective to deal with the dysfunction – your premise is based on a faulty assumption, that is, that for seminary training to be effective, it must train folks to immediately react against any negative thing. I disagree with this assumption.
I believe that my seminary training was effective in helping me identify the dysfunction. It just didn’t happen immediately. As a matter of fact, I was one of the first people in the church to begin seriously questioning leadership and criticizing church policies and practices. I became the most vocal critic, and if I may say so, the most effective critic. My seminary education gave me not only the tools to analyze and criticize the dysfunctional Acts 29 culture, but also the credibility to avoid being dismissed by the elders (none of whom had any formal theological training).
So, my apologies to you if you feel that I should have been able to immediately assess and react to a very complex and nuanced situation. Perhaps you would have been able to do so, if you had been in my shoes. I did, eventually, and my seminary training is a large part of why.
I am confused by something. On the video, Darrin Patrick talks about equipping the members of the body for ministry and erasing the line between laity and clergy, but if I recall correctly, Acts 29 espouses the CEO model of leadership that Mars Hill used: head honcho “prophet-priest-king” preacher man and a couple of other “kings” to support him. Everyone else is to be a worker bee. Can anyone clarify?
Bill M wrote:
Good to Great by Jim Collins is one of the business books going around in Neo-Calvinist circles.
Abi Miah wrote:
Up oh, we did a series based on that book a couple of years ago. Probably due to our MBA bent.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/07/08/good-to-bad-how-sidelining-members-is-harming-the-church/
Beakerj wrote:
Dear Batik,
I knew that you would be something artsy and interesting!
Cheers from California,
“Velour”, sister in Christ to “Satin” (sic) [aka Dee]
@ Mr.H:
What happened to me was that I dismissed the doubts I had about certain things which did not seem quite right but which I could not absolutely say were wrong *at the time* because there was also a reasonable alternative explanation. And there were some really great things going on as well. Maybe even mostly good things among the pewpeons. However, at a certain point, it became clear to me that I had been deceiving myself because there were some very troubling events that I could not either dismiss or explain away. It was only in hindsight that I could see the rationalizing I had done along the way. I did not recognize the errors at first and it was not because I did not know that they were errors. I just denied that what I was seeing was really what I was seeing. And to be totally honest about my self-deception, I deceived myself because other things were more important to me at the time. I don’t think that more education in seminary or otherwise would have helped in my case, but as you said, my education certainly helped crystallize the picture once the scales fell away.
@ Gram3:
I think that what you are describing is extremely common and perhaps ubiquitous. I hear people say things about having lived in an abusive marriage but not having seen it as abuse at the time. I hear parents of kids who got in trouble say that in retrospect there was this or that but they never recognized it for what it might lead to. In medicine there is that line (borderland) between normal variant and early pathology-and sometimes it is extremely difficult to know which it is, especially in the light of some individual variability. In listening to what comes out of the pulpit or the printing press it can be enormously hard to differentiate between ignorance and borderline heresy.
There are some clues that help. They have shown that people tend to believe to be true in a positive way what they remember hearing before or a lot. For example, if a doctor tells the patient to not do something and says it several times the patient may remember that the doctor mentioned it but ‘remember’ it as having been said to do it. Changing the negative to the positive. If we know that we tend to do that we can sometimes remember to remember that we sometimes remember incorrectly and look it up. Sending written instructions home with the patient should help and is being done more now.
Also, we ‘hear’ what we want to hear and tend to filter out what we don’t want to hear and/or think is not important. We have to filter out stuff that we hear or see or such or we could not function-there is too much constant sensory input for the brain to cope otherwise. Or that is what they say. So we dismiss some stuff-lots of stuff they tell us. The only help for that which I have found is to read the book again. For this reason I do not underline. I want to pick up the second time through what I overlooked the first time. But who can do that with everything? Not I.
I am going through a process right now of re-assigning a level of importance to stuff that I had previously not paid that much attention to, mostly because I had lots of other things on my mind. I come along again and again and realize that I have actually thought or believed something for about as long as I can remember but never placed a tremendous amount of importance on that belief one way or the other. It is disconcerting. It leads to a constant background brain chatter in which I think to myself a lot ‘what on earth was I thinking all this time?’
Anyhow, I have been there in the sort of thing you are describing and I think we all do that a lot.
Nancy wrote:
Me, too. As disturbing as that sometimes is to me, it seems better than the alternative of never re-examining conclusions in the light of new evidence. ISTM that is why God gave us a brain, though mine takes extended vacations more and more these days.
@ Mr.H:
I am not putting things together very well this morning, so if you have already told all of your story, or the “what happened after” part, I apologize for bringing it up again.
You say here that your training helped you to recognize and confront the unhealthy Acts29 influences in that church. What happened? Were you able to make a difference, or did you have to leave in the end? I forget, were you an elder in that church?
I believe you when you say that your seminary education was an asset, in that they couldn’t dismiss your input out of hand, as they could with the “average” attendee.
@ Abi Miah:
Interesting thought. I remember in the Episcopal church (30 years ago now, and I don’t know what current trends are), that they were talking about erasing the line between clergy and laity, but it was because of a shortage of clergy, to do all that needed doing.
Gram3 wrote:
It is so easy to do that.
@ Nancy:
Fascinating analysis. Good food for thought for the day. Thinking about thinking.
refugee wrote:
No, I was not able to make a difference, at least that I could tell.
The very short story:
The elders of our church verbally and spiritually abused young ladies for “not submitting” to male authority.
I tore into the elders. They defended themselves and would not admit wrongdoing.
At a later time, they “apologized,” but in a very qualified and careful way, using avoidant and blame-shifting language that would be quite familiar to anyone exposed to Mars Hill Church and/or Acts 29.
Only a few weeks later, the “repentance” apparently wore off, because they were back with a vengeance, and a new sermon series on how elders have authority and why the church should submit to them. I also, as a volunteer, had access to private communication between elders, and I saw some nasty things that indicated to me that nothing had changed for the better.
No, I was not an elder. Our Acts 29 church plant, like others at the time, had different “tiers.” They had a core group, including the pastor and his family, and 2-3 elders and their families. These guys were all paid staff, and the group was recruited and arranged for prior to planting the church.
The second tier, which I was considered, was officially “volunteer.” I and my family, along with several other “second tier” members, was recruited in the target city, after the initial team arrived. I was unpaid and with no official authority. But boy, did they feel free to give me work to do! I did administrative stuff, academic work, teaching, small group stuff, etc. I had more input that “regular members” but much less than the elders themselves.
Yes, I am thankful that the Lord put me in a position to help defend some vulnerable young ladies. I was male, so the elders couldn’t argue that I “wasn’t submitting to male authority” (although in response to my actions, they later broadened their witch hunt to include anyone who wouldn’t submit to an elder – male or female). I am also seminary educated, so I went toe to toe with them on specific doctrinal and theological points, and specific exegetical approaches to certain passages. (None of them knew Greek or Hebrew, and mostly they just parroted John Piper and Wayne Grudem theology).
Gram3 wrote:
This is exactly what happened to my family.
Only after I personally witnessed some extremely horrendous behavior, did I realize the full extent of what was going on behind the scenes. Until then, it was easy to rationalize my (mostly hunch-based) concerns away.
Bill M wrote:
Karl Marx was pressed into service as such a LOT in the past century.
Mr.H wrote:
This is exactly what happens. People can actually know, see, hear, etc. about alarming behavior and the cognitive dissonance that is created when it doesn’t match what they expect from church leadership causes the data to be cast aside or to be explained away. It would be interesting to figure out what finally makes it stick.
__
“What Is The Gospel Of Calvinism?”
hmmm…
1. God is sovereign over all. (God controls and oversees everything)
2. Man is completely dead in trespass and sin, therefore can do nothing to save himself.
3. However, God sent his Son to save the ‘elect’, those that God has ‘chosen’ to save.
4. Man has absoutely no say in the matter.
5. If you are one of the ‘elect’, God will extend irresistible grace to you and save you.
6. Because you are of the ‘elect’, God will grant you perseverance as to be saved.
7. Because God has chosen some to be damned and spend eternity in Hell, be thankful that as one of the elect, (if your are chosen by God to be so) that in His sovereignty, he has chosen you for His glory. Amen!
8. According to Calvinism, if you are of the elect, you have nothing to worry about.
9. If, per-chance, you are not chose by God to be one of the elect, it is nothing personal, John Calvin has written that God is glorified in such actions.
10. God sent His Son to save some, good luck, if you are fortunate enough to be of their number.
This is the gospel according to John Calvin.
ATB 🙂
Sopy
—
__
What Is The Heart Of The True Biblical Gospel?
hmmm…
1. We are accountable to the God who created us.
2. We have All sinned against that God and will be judged.
3. But God has acted in Jesus Christ His Son to save us.
4. We take hold of that salvation by repenting from sin and having faith in what Jesus has done for us on the cross.
Believe on the Lord Jesus, God’s dear Son and be You saved?
huh?
God so loved You that He gave His only Son, that if you will believe in Him, You shall not perish but have everlasting life. – John 3:16 (adapted)
“All those who call upon the Lord, shall be saved.”
This is the gospel as presented in the New Testament.
ATB
Sopy
—