My trust in God flows out of the experience of his loving me, day in and day out, whether the day is stormy or fair, whether I'm sick or in good health, whether I'm in a state of grace or disgrace. He comes to me where I live and loves me as I am. Brennan Manning link
Over the last two weeks I have been in discussions with an individual whose family has been both harshly and unfairly disciplined by a church which is a member of a group of churches which stress church membership and discipline. We hope to tell this story in the near future and expect it to get a similar response to the story about The Village Church. The mother in this story said something quite profound.
I joined this church years ago when they said that they stressed grace in the church. What I didn't understand at the time, was they meant they stressed the doctrines of grace and not the grace I was looking for.
She said that those doctrines led to an atmosphere of legalism that reminded her of the shepherding movement. At this point I cannot tell the story but you will understand when you eventually hear it. One part of the story led me to tears and I could barely speak. The abuse and pain in this situation demonstrates what can happen when grace is not part of the actions and spirit of the church.
Parents should never skip church for a kid's sports game.
I once heard a stern lecture from a pastor about attending church on Sundays. He berated the parents who skipped church to attend the sports tournaments of their kids. He was the father of tiny children. In his authoritative style he told parents to "make their leagues" stop Sunday games. He said that he would do so when his son started playing sports. He claimed that being church on Sundays was the number one priority and that his sermon was the center of the church's worship.
Most experienced parents understand how certain sports can interfere on Sundays and there is not a blasted thing one can do about it except to pull the kid out of that sport. Most parents will not do that. That pastor will learn that lesson soon enough.
The Gospel Coalition has a plethora of articles on not skipping church like this one from Kevin De Young, The Scandal of the Semi-Churched.
4. Are you willing to make sacrifices to gather with God’s people for worship every Sunday? “But you don’t expect me to cancel my plans for Saturday night, do you? I can’t possibly rearrange my work schedule. This job requires me to work every Sunday–I’d have to get a new job if I wanted to be regular at church. Sundays are my day to rewind. I won’t get all the yard work done if I go to church every week. My kids won’t be able to play soccer if we don’t go to Sunday games. If my homework is going to be done by Sunday, I won’t be able to chill out Friday night and all day Saturday. Surely God wouldn’t want me to sacrifice too much just so I can show up at church!” Not exactly the way of the cross, is it?
He even suggests that missing church might indicate that you are not even a Christian!
The sermon is the pivotal point of the worship service.
In conclusion, then, the reason that preaching is so prominent in worship is that worship is not just understanding but also feeling. It is not just seeing God, but also savoring God. It is not just the response of the mind, but also of the heart. Therefore God has ordained that the form his Word should take in corporate worship is not just explanation to the mind and not just stimulation to the heart. Rather the Word of God is to come teaching the mind and reaching the heart; showing the truth of Christ and savoring the glory of Christ; expositing the Word of God and exulting in the God of the Word.
That is what preaching is. And that is why it is so prominent in worship. It is not a mere work of man. It is a gift and work of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it happens most and best where a people are praying and spiritually prepared for it. That is what we will talk about next week.
In Sermon Centric Worship, Austin McCann said:
Everything in the worship service should be centered around the sermon. Nothing should be more important than the sermon. The sermon is where the Holy Spirit convicts, challenges, and changes the hearts of the listeners through God’s inspired Word.
…3. Preaching is the designated means of Gospel communication. I firmly believe every Christian should share the Gospel verbally in their day-to-day life, but the Gospel is primarily shared through proclamation of God’s Word .
…When we hear preaching from God’s Word we hear God speaking to us. We give God ourselves for His glory and He reveals Himself to us through preaching of the Word for His own glory as well.
He closed with the following:
I fear that many churches are putting more emphasis on other parts, and may I say good parts, of the worship service other than preaching. God has given me a huge desire to preach and I believe preaching is something we need to restore in many of our churches. Matt Chandler once said, “The pulpit drives the church.” I fear that many churches are being driven by emotion, creative worship services, music, and so much more other than preaching. This starts with the pastors. I urge you pastors, spend most of your time in the week studying God’s Word and preparing the message God has given you. Lead the way pastors, preach God’s Word faithfully and keep it central in your worship services.
A pastor who gets grace.
Attendance in church
I heard a sermon that caused me to really want to listen. I was attending a new church which has a liturgical bent. In a short, 10 minute sermon, I heard him offer the gift of grace to the weary people sitting in church. He was focusing on "Remembering the Lords Day." I remember thinking, "Here it comes. You are a bad Christian if you are not in church."
Instead he offered grace to the people. He said that he understood it when families had to go to the soccer games for their children on Sundays. He had done it himself. He also commiserated with folks who are working to put bread on the table and are so exhausted on a Sunday that they sleep in. He remarked that this is one of the reasons that they decided to provide a Saturday service.
He stressed that coming to church and gathering with the folks is important. However, when it cannot be done, then everyone should take some time out(a few hours) during the week and meditate on Scripture, pray, listen to a sermon on line or just sit quietly and listen for God. He said that such a practice would provide strength to face the trials of life.
I remember smiling, thinking about the rigidity of many evangelical church groups on church attendance. But he had even more to say.
The sermon is not the most important part of the worship service.
He told the folks to pay careful attention to what he was about to say. In a truly humble moment, he grinned while saying that he was sure that some might find his sermons boring. He then said, "That's alright." He stressed that the worship service has many aspects to it. Some might find the time of prayer meaningful. Others might be drawn into the Scripture readings or the music. A few might be heartened by repeating The Apostles Creed. Of course, there is always the sacrament of the Lord's Supper which is celebrated each meeting.
Imagine that! A pastor who didn't make himself the center of worship. I felt as though a weight of guilt had been lifted off my shoulders. I tell you this to give you hope that there are those pastors and leaders out there who are not consumed with their own importance.
Have you ever had these issues with a small group?
- It is a mandatory part of joining the church.
- The leader is appointed by the pastors and people are assigned to the group.
- You are told to confess your sins to one another/discipline one another, etc. and you barely know one another.
- You are told that this group is going to be a close knit group of people "doing life together" but the membership is always in flux.
- The group must read a book or review a sermon as mandated by the "leader of all small groups."
- The church has the prerogative to split up the group at will.
- What is shared in the group is shared with the pastors/leaders.
Did you know that you and some friends can start your own small group and you do not need the permission of your pastor to do so? Let me tell you about the small group that I have been in for 14 years.
A group of us in a Sunday school class decided we wanted to start a small group to meet twice a month. We didn't ask permission. We just did it. We opened it up to whoever wanted to join us. We meet on Saturday nights at the home of our unofficial small group leader. Although everyone is willing to have the small group come to their house, it just has worked out that way.
We all subsequently left the church in which we met each other and began attending different churches. During this time, a few more people joined in with us. We are not a closed group. We study the Bible or a book and have even watched a movie(Luther) together. We celebrate holidays together and have done a Passover dinner as a group.
We have shared tragedy together when the husband of one of our members passed away from cancer. All of us have lost elderly family members or have had hospitalizations. I remember waking up from an operation and seeing about 5 women jammed into my hospital room, shooting the breeze! We bring food to one another and the women celebrate each other's birthdays. We have attended our children's weddings, prayed for jobs and finances, shared pain and heartache in our families and some of us stood up to a church which mishandled a pedophile situation.
We have a white elephant exchange each Christmas and it can get pretty rowdy. We have one framed picture of the bris of Jesus. He is surrounded by people dressed in Renaissance clothing. It is terribly tacky. Each year, it is hidden in the white elephant presents in terribly clever ways. The family who wins (or loses depending on your perspective)must hold it for a year and bring it back the next exchange. That family signs their names on the back and date it. It is fun to see it again and sometimes it is a bit poignant as we read the name of our friend who passed away.
We have doctrinal differences. There is a Calvinist, Arminians, and some who are not sure. We differ on baptism, the interpretation of some passages of the Bible, etc. But we ponder it through together. We are all very different people but all of us are committed to the idea of such a group.
We have not needed a pastor in all of those years to tell us what to do, think, or pray. We just hang in there with one another. We offer the gift of forbearance, grace and love that has lasted through the years.
I tell you this for one reason. Find a group to hang with. You do not need to do it through the church. In many instances churches mess it up by attempting to impose their agendas or "formats" that may not fit your group. Find a person who will make sure it happens each time you meet. Get together if there are only 3 of you-don't cancel. Find someone who likes to remember birthdays, etc. and remember the fun things.
Stick it out through the years. I can tell you that it is worth it. I know there are some people out there that would run to my aid if anything happened. They pray for me (and all of you, by the way.)
I look at our group a bit like the many varieties of Bush's Baked Beans. We are different yet the same. And, remember, there are no "rules" that say you must be under the authority of a pastor to have a small group which sticks together.
Nice article. This needs to be exposed in churches!
Yep – some of us in liturgical churches really *do* have our priorities in better order. For us (Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, RCC, Eastern Orthodox) the focus is on communion, and secondarily on the scripture readings (which “preach” eloquently on their own), the various parts of the service (music, responsorial reading of psalms, etc.), as well as the seasons of the Church Year. Preaching really comes in close to last place in that scheme of things – not saying it’s unimportant, but it is just a small part of what an ordained minister does.
Dee, I’m so glad you’re attending at this particular congregation, and I hear what this pastor said re. people who must work on Sundays, have kids who are playing in games or tournaments, and just plain exhaustion. (Many put in full work days on Saturday, after all.) It is a realistic way of living out “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
@ numo:
Note: if you’re unfamiliar with the concept of the liturgical (or “church) year, I would suggest doing a few searches. I just tried to find a simple explanation to link to, but am a bit stumped on that at the moment.
At any rate, I grew up with this being the norm in church and still find it gives focus to thinking and praying, as well as adding to the overall rhythm of the year (spring/summer etc.).
The criterea for small groups fits the groups that were at CLC when I attended. I was in a grace-filled small group in another church but am not in one now, and don’t know that I could do it again without having anxiety attacks. And if I ever hear the phrase “doing life together”, I will vomit all over the nearest person!
When I was going through divorce and was a baby Christian I joined a men’s bible study. It was led by the guy who taught the new believers class at the church I attended. Do not know what would have become of me if not for those guys. Over time, men from different churches joined us. We all became close. Together, we helped each other climb Half Dome in Yosemite. Twice. For some reason, the pastors at the church decided they needed to control what was being taught, to bring us under their “guidance”. We decided that was not going to happen and most left that church for others.
Best thing that ever happened to me.
I got a taste of what other faith communities could be and never turned back. Ten years later I have moved on to a progressive American Baptist church. There I joined a small group studying “Love Wins” which the pastor was teaching through. Like Dee’s group, we went on to study anything we wanted. Now I help people form there own small groups. Not top down, but bottom up.
@ Loren Haas:
Wow-the Half Dome? Impressive. I would have my small group hang out at the Ahwahnee Hotel! I am so happy to hear of your group!
Former CLC’er wrote:
I know exactly how you feel. When I first moved to Napa, CA where I live now I joined a men’s small group. I was expecting grace and confidentiality, because that is what I had experienced previously. Instead, I got reported to a pastor because I stated I accept evolution and a ancient universe. Then I got a looong lecture from the pastor about how “evolution is a dying theory”. UGH! That started me out the door and a bad case of small group willies. Fortunately, like the man in the Monty Python movie who had been turned into a newt, “I got better.”
At my former Gulag NeoCal Church everything we did was accounted for and discussed by the pastors/elders: church attendance (they’d call if you were absent and said it was caring for you), Bible study attendance (I was screamed at by the senior pastor for not attending a weekly one and *what was my reason*, something called a job and a commute), attendance at adult Sunday School, etc.
Authoritarianism every step of the way and the heavy Shepherding.
Bible studies groups were taught by men only, approved by the church, hand-picked by the senior pastor.
I have never been so bored in my life. There was no life. No joy. No fun.
Women’s events, such as ladies’ teas, digressed into some women ranting on about gays. Really? It doesn’t even cross my mind. Let alone going to a social event, that’s supposed to be for *ladies*, who are supposed to act like *ladies*, and don’t.
If those former church members spent as much time on improving themselves, and confessing before God their sins, as they do on their hate-filled rants about others, maybe they would vastly improved human beings…and nicer to be around.
It got…so very old. All of it.
This was my experience with a small group. In fact, in a Shepherding church, small groups are how control is wielded effectively. I like Dee’s version better.
dee wrote:
Here’s the webcam for Half Dome: http://www.yosemiteconservancy.org/webcams/half-dome
“That is what preaching is. And that is why it is so prominent in worship. It is not a mere work of man. It is a gift and work of the Holy Spirit.”
Sorry, not buying it. I’ve heard early morning jazz improv on the radio that’s more edifying than many of these guys’ sermons. So thanks, but no thanks. I’ll just read my Bible and pray. 😀
@Loren Haas – the best small group I was a part of was a lady’s group in my former church that was a start up church. Another lady and I led it, and we often watched DVD bible studies, or just made up our own studies based on scriptures about a certain topic. We had several strong personalities, and sometimes the discussion would get hijacked and suddenly we’d be talking about something like bras. Whoever was leading would just shake their head, then try to get the discussion back. Unfortunately the pastor was a narcissist so the group ended when we all left the church. But it was fun.
As far as sermons being the centerpiece of the service, personally I prefer the music. Either that, or skipping church and going walking in nature.
If “the pulpit drives the church”, you know your church is in trouble.
Sermons, well, my grandmother used to sleep through those. She was wide awake in Sunday school, though!
Grace: favor or goodwill; mercy, clemency, pardon; the freely given unmerited favor and love of God.
Grace should be an active part of our lives ~ not just a doctrine.
“Everything in the worship service should be centered around the sermon. Nothing should be more important than the sermon. The sermon is where the Holy Spirit convicts, challenges, and changes the hearts of the listeners through God’s inspired Word.
…3. Preaching is the designated means of Gospel communication. I firmly believe every Christian should share the Gospel verbally in their day-to-day life, but the Gospel is primarily shared through proclamation of God’s Word .
…When we hear preaching from God’s Word we hear God speaking to us. We give God ourselves for His glory and He reveals Himself to us through preaching of the Word for His own glory as well.
Permit me to translate as I am a expat living in this country:
“Everything in the worship service should be centered around me delivering my cut and paste sermon from Piper. Nothing should be more important to you than me delivering the sermon YOU need to hear. The sermon is where I tell you how the Holy Spirit convicts, challenges, and changes your heart to obey me through God’s inspired Word.
…3. MY Preaching is the designated means of Gospel communication. I firmly believe every Christian should share the Gospel I have taught them with themselves day to day, but the TRUE Gospel is really only shared through MY interpretation of God’s Word.
…When YOU hear MY preaching from my (Piper’s actually) interpretation of God’s Word then YOU hear God speaking through ME. I make it possible for YOU to give God yourself for His glory and He reveals Himself to YOU through MY preaching of the Word for His own glory as well.”
The number one reason to be in a church on Sunday should not be duty. When duty, “you need to be there” becomes the major reason to attend, it should be time to re-evaluate.
I’m also interested in what this alternate definition of “grace” is. There is someone I recently came across that made special mention of being about grace but doesn’t exhibit in any sense as it is normally thought of. Is there some specifics someone knows about? These odd word usages reminds me of some of the use of gospel as if it were a part of the trinity. Is there a common hidden definition, is it just an empty word used to assure others, or is a code word for something specific.
Their grace may be some theological meaning but implemented in a way that strips away all the meaning in the generic sense, no charm or beauty. But stripping away beauty and decency certainly makes whatever grace they are selling repellent.
Bill M wrote:
All I know is that I saw a spot-on post over a Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board by her, and others. That many of these authoritarian, abusive churches have *Grace* in the church’s name and it is the thing they lack the MOST.
Yes, my former church – the one that did the excommunications and shunnings for all dissenters – also had the name “Grace” in its official title, something that it did not live by.
Velour wrote:
Ah, I recall HUG made a point of this some time ago. Using “grace” in a manner similar to People’s Republic of Korea, neither a republic nor belonging to the people.
New Calvinism “preaching” is all about indoctrination, not worship. The new reformation is underway and they must indoctrinate, indoctrinate, indoctrinate.
The mother in your upcoming post nailed it on the head when she said “they stressed the doctrines of grace and not the grace I was looking for.” When I think on situations like this, “grace” almost becomes a bad word … for it’s not grace at all.
“Matt Chandler once said, “The pulpit drives the church.”” The New Calvinist pulpit drives reformed teaching into the mind, so that theology will drive the church in belief and practice (e.g., his sermons on complementarianism and elder rule).
When Piper says “the Word of God is to come teaching the mind”, he really means “My interpretation of the Word of God will indoctrinate your mind – if I can control your mind – to convince you to change your mind – I have you where I want you.”
“Have you ever had these issues with a small group?” Your list nails the typical small group in a New Calvinist church (often called LifeGroups). The NC small group ministry is a way for the “lead” pastor to control all members through the week via hand-picked leaders. Members who appear to be getting out of control (such as questioning reformed doctrine or the pastor’s teachings) are flagged and watched and potential targets for the “shunned” list. Periodic small group leadership meetings with the pastor may discuss you.
Bill M wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Spot on.
Since H.U.G. hasn’t given us a theme song for this yet, I will: Pink Floyd’s
“Another Brick in The Wall”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Former CLC’er wrote:
Take a few people with you and I’m in.
This emphasis on the 20 minute lecture, or even the music, is at odds with the “never skip church”. Why not stay at home and get it off the TV, radio, or internet, it will likely be of better quality. The more these guys stress the importance of their message the more they sow the seeds of their own irrelevancy.
I’d much rather be out on the trail with Former CLC’er.
Bill M wrote:
I’ll make sandwiches and bring sunscreen!
memo to church-service-&-sermon-centric pastors: We’re just not that in to you.
About “small groups” in the early church …
Actually, small groups were the early church! In his book “Heaven on Earth”, author and theologian Alan Streett details a history of the home church structure. They were “voluntary associations”, actually “meal clubs”, which picked up on the Roman culture of groups (voluntary associations) meeting in homes throughout the week for various purposes. These associations had one thing in common – fellowship and discussion around a meal … they were supper clubs, essentially!
First century Christians, to avoid visibility and persecution in large gatherings, adopted this piece of Roman culture. But instead of talking about the newest chariot or the emperor’s clothes, or worshiping a pagan diety, believers took the opportunity to break bread with each other. In their small groups, they ministered to each other with their individual giftings, sang hymns, taught about the Kingdom, read apostolic letters, and worshiped Christ.
If you can find a small group like that – one that is not controlled by a parent church and authoritarian pastor – get in it!! You don’t have to go to church to be the church. The thing we call “church” is OK if it is keeping the Main thing the main thing and equipping individual believers (who themselves are priests) to do the work of the ministry. Whose job is the ministry? Every believer has a role!
@ Bill M. and Velour – if you guys are in the D.C. metro area, we’ve got ourselves a small group!
Former CLC’er wrote:
I’m in California by the Pacific Ocean! LOL. Sailing?
church-service-&-sermon-centric pastors, get over yourselves. best not to take a poll on “So, what did you get out of my sermon?” it will become clear just how many people aren’t really listening. For many reasons.
-we’re exhausted
-we come to church out of habit
-it’s a unique moment during the week when we can be in a social environment but don’t have to give out. (there ‘s nothing to do, anyway, but wait for you to finish talking). we can be in the presence of others, and yet retreat into our own private world and mentally/emotionally snooze. once again… we’re exhausted.
-what you have to say is simply not that great (especially when you use someone else’s sermon; double especially when the sermon you’re passing off as your own is one which I’ve seen on youtube, and you’re adopting the same voice intonation, body language, & mannerisms.)
-I’ve heard ALL OF IT before. a zillion and one times.
-it’s not a good use of time of our tithe — many people simply don’t learn from hearing one person drone on & on.
-10 minutes after it’s over, bzjoop… it’s gone. can’t remember whatever snippets I managed to take in.
This post is wonderful. It reminded me of something I’d like to share about a recent encounter with my pastor.
My wife and I have been dealing with the aftermath of a personal tragedy this year, and Sunday’s are really hard for her. Sometimes she’ll get emotional and down when we’re about to get to church, and we end up being late, or unable to show up at all. As an usher I’ve had to call in a couple of times just to let the other ushers know that I can’t make it. Sometimes this is on a moment’s notice. The other ushers, AND my senior pastor know about what happened, and completely understand. In fact, when I informed my pastor, he responded with immediate sympathy, and told me that I made the right decision–that when I have to choose between ministering to my wife and making it to church on time, my wife comes first. That was huge. It’s nice to know that the pastor is in my corner.
Judging from what I read here, I consider myself a lucky guy.
@ elastigirl:
Best laugh of the week!
Velour wrote:
It’s the Christianese version of the “People’s Republic of Tyranny” trope.
Where the more adjectives about Democracy there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.
Velour wrote:
Since I first read Chronicles of Narnia some 30 years ago, I’ve always wanted to score the beginning and ending frames of The Silver Chair with that Pink Floyd number.
Max wrote:
Increase Political Consciousness among all the Comrades, Commissar.
@Velour – love California! Haven’t been there in years, unfortunately!
Bill M wrote:
Bill, I do not know what the lady specifically meant, but if she was dealing with Calvinists, the doctrines of grace are TULIP. It is used to put down nonCalvinists. We do not really get Calvinism.
Former CLC’er wrote:
Ahhh, wish you were here. We have great trails! Lots of green space.
Pacific Marine Mammal Center webcam (see the fun patients!):
http://www.pacificmmc.org/webcam/
Monterey Bay cam:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals-and-experiences/live-web-cams/monterey-bay-cam
Former CLC’er wrote:
I am in the DC area. I think a few of those here are in this area. As you know, this is ground zero for 9 Marks. I can get to several 9 Marks churches quite easily. My former church was 9 Marks, and they certainly stressed the sermon. Everything revolves around the Sunday sermon.
I hear a power-grap when I hear stuff like that.
Where is it written that the sermon is the most important part of the Sunday gathering or that one must hear an “authorized” or “official” sermon every week? The God they preach is much smaller than my God. My God cannot be contained in buildings or limited to feeble humans preaching on a Sunday alone.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe going to a gathering of Christians and being in community is important. Scripture does tell us so. But insisting on specific strict attendance and isolating one element of a service seems the work of human conviction as opposed to godly conviction.
Will M wrote:
Yes, I believe she means just this. That a rigid theological system pertaining to grace was not the true grace she (or you and I) need. Teachings about grace through a reformed grid (TULIP) is not the spiritual life that the grace of Christ brings for someone who is longing to know Him, rather than doctrine. The teachings and traditions of mere men can never bring real grace to your life, only the Son of God can.
Max wrote:
Exactly!
Bill M wrote:
Here is a book that explains the 5 points of Calvinism which some call the doctrines of grace.
http://www.desiringgod.org/doctrinesofgrace
Here is Spurgeon’s explanation.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm
The doctrines of grace are often code words for churches that are heavily authoritarian and make quick use of church discipline. In other words, she found a Calvinista church which ended up abusing her. I will expound on that when it is possible to tell her story.
By the way, Dee, there was the story of the lady who was being harassed by a church (abused minor child), harassing her regarding work, etc. I believe this is a criminal case.
She should contact the district attorney as that is potentially intimidating a witness and is a crime. Additionally, there are attorneys who represent parents in litigation in these cases (and children too). She needs a good one.
@ elastigirl:
Oh hey, i do fall asleep! I’m with Corbin on hearing good jazz, too…
I was a care group leader at John Folmar’s church in Dubai. We had a care group leaders meeting where Richard Ngwisha, Folmar’s assistant in charge of care groups, told us we could either discuss the sermon at our weekly meetings (with study questions he provided) or go through a book, as long as we got the pastors approval on the book. I told Richard I wanted to go through a book by Jerry Bridges. Richard approved. I then ordered the books and study guides. After our first week Richard told me that John Folmar wanted me to scrap the book and go back to discussing the sermon. I protested based on what Richard had previously told us and the fact that we had all just purchased the books with our own money. After some high level meetings Richard told me that when John Folmar preached we had to discuss his sermon, on the weeks someone besides Folmar spoke we could use the Bridges book!
This was one of many items that got me thinking it was time to leave.
Here is a quote from a recent article on UCCD’s web page, you hear this sort of stuff all the time from the pastors. John Welkner wrote this:
“How does one hold on to a spoken word?
Well, first, you’ll want to listen carefully – even critically, make sure that it is truly the Word of God that is being preached. Then consider taking some notes, that way, later, when you gather with other believers you can consider what was taught so that you can be careful to walk in obedience to the word of God. If a sermon goes un-discussed, it’s probably a sermon that’s not being held on to – and those whom Christ has saved are those who stand firm and hold onto his word.”
numo wrote:
Herbie Hancock and Michael Brecker playing Prince’s “Thieves in the Temple”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6I4oTtfVfI
Corbin wrote:
Heh. I’m listening to Steve Ray Vaughn’s “Little Wing” right now and so resonate to that!
These guys are making church attendance a duty. Jesus said he has a light yoke. He didn’t come to put more rules on people.
Regarding this DeYoung heading:
“The Scandal of the Semi-Churched.”
It’s been a few years since I’ve been to church at all. So, in this line of thinking, I guess this guy would be happier with people being Zero churched?
I think I’ve discussed on an old post here how turned off I am by preachers who slam people in the audience who show up for Easter or Christmas services.
I once went with my dad on an Easter service at a church (my dad was church shopping at that time), and during the service, that church’s pastor slammed people who only went to church on Easter and Christmas.
And this was my dad and my first visit to this guy’s church, it happened to be on Easter. I was so put off by that, I never wanted to return. I don’t think I ever went back to that church.
These preachers should be happy people go at all, rather than attend zero days at all.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I am so glad you got out of that Hotel NeoCalifornia (Nancy3’s term) church, Todd. These 9Marxist churches are such a nightmare.
A new blog article by Pastor Wade Burleson of The Wartburg Watch’s own E-Church on Sundays:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/
Wade’s other articles on Authoritarianism being the greatest threat in the churches and also the danger of Church Membership Covenants (he’d never sign one; the Bible says let your yes be yes and your no be no) are excellent!
mirele wrote:
I started to listening to SRV again as soon as I got excommunicated and shunned from my Gulag NeoCal Church (re child predator in our midst, a friend of the leaders). I have never danced so much in my life and had such a good time!
And I recovered my love of The Blues, something I had to listen to in secret when I was at that church. I found this great gig of Quinn Sullivan (8 years old) and Buddy Guy on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix4TNJvVk8M
Quinn is now a teenager. Amazing.
@ Velour:
I hear you on how being called by a church for being absent can feel stalkerish, but the flip side of the coin I’ve experienced, and I’ve read others who mention this, are churches where you attend fairly regularly for weeks / months / or years, but if you begin missing Sundays, or stop visiting totally, nobody seems to notice or care.
That can be hurtful.
This usually happens to middle aged adult singles, but I’ve read of married couples who said it happened to them, that they went every Sunday for X years in a row, but when they and the spouse stopped going, not a single person from the church phoned or wrote to ask if they were okay or needed help.
No, I sure as heck don’t want a church to stalk me and harass me for skipping a Sunday here or there, but OTOH, it can be painful if people don’t seem to notice or care about your absence.
dee wrote:
I sucked it up and listened. At 1:20 “Another name for the doctrines of Grace is Calvinism”. later he tells the story of a suffering family and the father says: “if it hadn’t been for your sermon I couldn’t have survived”, I bailed and couldn’t make it to the end. Granted, it would have been hard to win me over, yet it was all God’s sovereignty and Calvinism. Skip Jesus, the Sovereign God sent Calvin and Piper’s sermon. I exaggerate but does anyone know a real person who talks like this? Insufferable.
So grace = calvinism = we sometimes burn people who disagree, I exaggerate again. My experience has been largely on the other end of the spectrum, arminian, I didn’t buy into that either but at least they didn’t talk about it all the time and it certainly wasn’t made paramount.
It’s old but how many Arminians does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one, but first the bulb must want to be changed.
From the OP about small church groups:
Oh no, I’m not naive and dumb enough to fall for that anymore!
I used to be more trusting and an open book. The years after my mother’s death taught me the hard way to be very careful and discerning in when and in whom I get vulnerable with and share my struggles with.
At least in real life – here on a blog under a screen name, I feel safer sharing personal information. But no way would I just spill my guts with any church people!
Many church-going Christians I’ve come across (in real life, and a portion online) are very quick to scold, judge, offer up platitudes, or shame you if you confide in them or go to them wanting encouragement if you are hurting, depressed, in grief, etc.
Learned that the hard way. Never again. I like having boundaries, thank you.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, Daisy, it depends on the motives for contacting people. My former Gulag NeoCal Church used it all as control, there was some care and concern. But we were all measured for everything.
I always made it a point to contact people who hadn’t seen at church: drop them an email, give them a call, mail them a card when I was at my former church. I thought it cold to do any less. After all, we are supposed to be *family* in the Body of Christ.
Corbin wrote:
LOL. 🙂
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Looking back, such things came slowly and after I was rooted into the system. It was after a friend left my same church, after being abused by same, and started asking me the hard questions that I had to start looking at it clearly. Now I wonder how I could have put up with such over the top control freaks.
Bill M wrote:
Oh trust me the NeoCals are working up to that. First they start with the excommunications and shunning of all dissenters (after having stripped members of their rights via Membership Covenants).
__
“The 501(c)3 ‘Gospel’ Preacher?”
huh?
“Called, anointed, appointed, sanctioned, set apart, and dully apportioned?”
hmmm…
“Pulpit pounding is an art, not a science…”
“Only we can expound and interpret the word of God” -Thepulpitpounder
“Everything in the worship service should be centered around the pastor. Nothing should be more important than the pastor. The pastor is instrument the Holy Spirit utilizes to convict, challenge, and change the hearts of the listeners through preaching of the inspired Word of God; only he is qualified to do so…”
🙂
__
Comic relief: “Ride Congregation, Ride?”
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=UAx9h_R23PQ
—
Bill M wrote:
I was just saying several posts ago that I don’t understand why some of these churches insist the pedos attend in person, when these pedo guys can sit at home and watch church services online or on TV.
Assuming it’s a male pedo, the men from church can go over to the guy’s house once a week for Bible study. I don’t see a need to risk having these guys around a place (church building) where kids might be.
Daisy wrote:
Because the pastors/elders give other men a pass for criminal behavior in most cases, especially their friends (as I witnessed happen in my former church). They minimize the seriousness of it and the safety of children. They treat their cars, in most cases, with more care than they do other peoples’ children. They lock their homes, their valuables, their cars…but give pedos easy access to children and lie to parents.
Bill M wrote:
Good for you that you listened to your friend who was being a true friend to you. The natural response is to defend what we are a part of and because we are a part of it, it is difficult to see from the inside what is going on. Not enough perspective. Been there, done that, been willfully blind more than once.
In my experience, the controlled small group is the rule nowadays in conservative churches. We are in a small group made up of people from a former church, and the leaders have told senior leadership they do not intend to follow the “rules” sent down from the top. So we do whatever the group decides to do, but honestly our main focus is on caring for one another and encouraging one another. A book study or sermon regurgitation and rumination is not on our radar.
At our most recent former church the groups follow the control-freakery model with group leaders who are very tightly vetted and with interests tied to the senior pastor.
__
“In Da Market?”
hmmm…
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life… -Jesus
;~)
__
Comic relief:
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=MbAGatQqcvQ
🙂
—
Well, it seems that TULIP is now not “trendy” enough for some Calvinista types. The new, hip way to teach it is to ask “Are you a 5-Strip BACONist?” No, really. A friend in TX sent me this; saw it in a PCA church bulletin about an upcoming Sunday School class.
We’ve all heard that “sixty is the new fifty,” and “Orange is the New Black,” and “Marsala is the new color for 2015.” But have you heard, “B.A.C.O.N. is the new T.U.L.I.P?” Yes, folk, in certain Reformed theological circles, the famous “five points” have been re-branded to convey eternal truths in modern terms: though we are *B*ad and corrupt, God’s people are *A*lready elect since before time, through our *C*omplete atonement by Jesus Christ and the *O*verwhelming call of the Father, and will *N*ever perish. In true BACONistic fashion (greased with appropriate door prizes and inappropriate illustrations), we will examine these doctrines and the classic objections leveled against them. By the way, Marsala is the same color as bacon! This port-fest will run for 11 weeks.
Flowers are sooooo yesterday. BACON. It is the new white meat.
Boyd wrote:
Rats, my favorite things, first tulips and now bacon, whats next c.h.o.c.o.l.a.t.e?
@ numo:
Very well said!!
Velour wrote:
Uff da. No Kool-Aid in these 4 statements. Shazam.
numo wrote:
My pastor has been known to skip the sermon if he feels that enough has been said. He also ALWAYS has two versions of his sermon–the one he plans on preaching, & the one he uses when he wants/needs to close early. The 2nd is about half the length of the 1st. 🙂
(PS: This wonderful man is retiring next year; pray that we get another one who understands what love & grace really are).
Bill M wrote:
Since they seem to never mention Jesus, nor do they give any room to the Holy Spirit, I suspect that they have a “definition” that no respectable dictionary would ever accept in its pages.
@ Divorce Minister:
“But insisting on specific strict attendance and isolating one element of a service seems the work of human conviction as opposed to godly conviction.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
i’d say it’s the work of protecting one’s paycheck, justifying one’s job, and feeding one’s ego and the primal need to control others.
JYJames wrote:
Yep. Straight up. The pastors/elders hated me for it and excommunicated me and ordered that several hundred people shun me when I wouldn’t obey them about pedo.
elastigirl wrote:
And it’s also a way for authoritarian leaders to impose church discipline on members for not *obeying* their Membership Covenants. Saw it happen at my former Gulag NeoCal church.
Velour wrote:
That’s really nice, cool sax tone.
Grace used to be AMAZING. Now, it is scary. Where you hear it screamed the loudest is where you’ll find it the least. Sometimes I think I bought the wrong Bible at the bookstore. Mine doesn’t say anything about the importance of the sermon. In fact, I can’t seem to find a pulpit in my Bible. Much of what I read was written by a guy sitting in prison, not a pastor’s plush office. The best sermons I’ve heard have been softly spoken by my wife sitting in STARBUCKS on Sunday mornings. I’ll probably “go to church” tomorrow but it won’t be to hear a “great” sermon.
All of this junk being pushed down the throats of good people sitting in the pew would disappear if “pastors” WORKED during the week. I’ve known many (and been one). They are, without doubt, the laziest group of people I’ve ever known (a generalization with a few exceptions).
numo wrote:
And it is just a small part of what the follower of Jesus needs to be doing with his time and attention. Stripping christian practice down to basically just listening to what somebody else has to say about it, be it sermon or studying some ‘approved’ book or having conversations which do nothing more than affirm each other is whatever the doctrine du jour is, that is about like sitting down to meal after meal of nothing but mashed potatoes. People develop spiritual malnutrition that way. Christianity is a many splendored thing; why not live in as broadly as possible both individually and in communion with other people.
As I have repeatedly said, my whole family has moved from non-liturgical to liturgical with all that this entails, and we are all immensely the better for it. And no, the sermon/homily is not the ultimate place where God and man meet.
Max wrote:
Why when I read this I can hear the Daleks from Dr Who Exterminate Exterminate Exterminate
chipandmybrothersnameisdale wrote:
Thank you for making me laugh this morning.
Steve wrote:
That is one great comment. I may use it in a post in the near future
Boyd wrote:
Really!! Wow! Thank you for letting us know.
Boyd wrote:
I sure wish I could sit in that class. I would give them more than the classic objections.
JYJames wrote:
Unfortunately, if you read this blog long enough, you will see quite a few documented abuses involving children in which the pedophile was protected or declared cured. Then you will read what happens if people happen to bring up that fact. And you can even read about well known pastors and leaders who protect their buddies.
Boz Tchividjian has famously said that the child sex abuse scandals within evangelicalism eclipse those of the Catholic church.
Badda Bing…
@ Boyd:
I name all my rescue pugs after flowers. A couple of years back, in honor of this blog, I named one Tulip. It appears the next pug dog will need to be called Bacon.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
Make sure you see my email. Jonathan Leeman retweeted John Folmar. I then replied that he needs to remember Tood Wilhelm and make sure mercy and love are more important than strength.
Leeman replied: What do I need to remember?
Whoop Boy….getting really touchy.
I will be out of pocket most of the day working on a gathering of Christian medical and dental students at a lake. We try to help them to learn how to show the mercy and love of Christ as they enter the health care field. As health care because more and more like another corporate business, we want to make sure that they show an attitude of kindness and concern to those who are suffering.
At my church no. 1, three of my friends and I decided to meet weekly and study the Bible. A few weeks into it, two of our pastors showed up and took over the meeting, telling us that all small groups had to go through their approval. Then, they proceeded to tell us that they knew us well enough to trust us, so we were “allowed” to continue. Power-play. It was a mild but rude form of church discipline.
Church no. 2 pushes small group book study at the pastor’s discretion. Small group leaders keep the pastor updated on the goings-on of the group.
Both church pastors evolved to the shallowest Sunday sermons you could imagine. Usually self-help or pep-rally type messages. If we want depth, well then, join a small group! It’s only one more night a week. Sorry, if we actually read the book, it is more like 2 or 3 nights a week.
I finally stopped attending. I watch sermons with depth on the web and listen to the audio Bible. Sundays, I take a nature walk like @ Former CLC’er:
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
I do not blame you.It actually sounds like a nice Sunday!
I have come to the conclusion that I will not tell a church about our Bible study since i do not want wish their input since it usually turns into an “We control you and this Bible study’ baloney, I bet we have held this study together for far longer than some leaders who want to give us their advice.
My take on the post is that some people are ‘looking for grace in all the wrong places’
I’m Catholic, and I comprehend ‘Church authority’ in a much different ethos than the ‘new’ Calvinism sees it. I can be advised by my Church, I can be taught ‘what the Church teaches on this’ . . . but THEN, I am expected to consider the reality of my own situation, to pray, and to consult my own conscience prior to decision-making.
It seems the new-Calvinists don’t have the same respectful attitude towards the ‘dignity of the human person’ and one red-light I see is that they want to invade the privacy of a person’s conscience, which in my Church is seen as the private place where God meets with the person alone. When a neo-Calvinist Church demands a sinner to publicly confess his sins, that sets up a whole string of trouble that I don’t think these new young Churches can address OR handle . . . they may mean well, but the opportunities for abuse are increased as well as the likelihood that folks, having shamed themselves publicly, will want to ‘move on’ to a faith community where they can be at peace and not feeling so ‘exposed’ to judgment by other sinners, who ‘never forget’ what they heard confessed (you better believe this is true). I’m sure there are horror stories out there about the difficulties arising from complete honesty about one’s own sin which one has exposed publicly in a Church . . .
I’ve never been part of a “small group”. I shouldn’t be surprised about them being used as a means to control the flock. I’m amazed at what people will put up with. My wife went to one as a young person where “prophecy” would occur, to the point of telling people who would marry who. She didn’t stay. Freedom of association should be important and a small group can lead to deep and lasting friendships (it seems that way from the post).
As for sermons, not all are good – even the best pastors can be off their game. This is why God gave us discernment and conscience. We should glean comfort from all aspects of a service, what aspect works for you could change on a given week or day. I don’t really have a frame of reference since I ceased attending church regularly 10 years ago and in the last year have not attended church at all. I think it’s all a bit of a minefield in the current environment. For good or ill, I haven’t missed it and haven’t felt any tug to go back. Let your conscience be your guide – if it feels “wrong” – chances are it is.
Bill M wrote:
Maybe G.R.A.C.E. Is an acronym for something?
dee wrote:
So let me give you a little feedback from my current experience of the health care industry from the viewpoint of the patient which I now am as opposed to the practitioner which I used to be and as opposed the patient I have been from time to time back when and under the old system.
More and more I feel like I have to compete with the computer for the doctor’s attention, and the more the shift towards medical records the worse it is.
More and more I feel like I have to ‘talk fast’ because the doctor is on a time schedule imposed by management (if a group practice or hospital affiliated) with a minimal amount of time allocated for actual patient contact. How do I know that? They explained the tight schedule business to us while I was undergoing radiation therapy. Nice people caught in a mass of can’t help it management practices.
And now the records are a mess. For specific example, more and more I have to keep telling people that my own medical records have become inaccurate due to (1) problems when they shifted to the new system, or so they say and due to (2) they have clerks with little or no adequate medical knowledge doing the patient history and inputting that into the system, or so they themselves tell me is a problem. Specifically, my records show a history of a cervical biopsy (a gyn procedure) which I never had, when what I had was a biopsy of a lymph node in my neck-a node in the anterior cervical chain–two different uses of the word cervical but a major difference in the information. But nobody can change the record, they say, because only a doctor can change it and the doctor is too busy and too stressed to care. My record also shows a diagnosis of arthritis which I do not have and never have had. But they insist on trying to make me tell them how my ‘arthritis’ is doing and what pain meds I take for it when I neither have arthritis nor take pain meds for a condition I do not have nor can I make them understand that the error is theirs and not mine. Sooo, my thinking is that if all this is messed up why should I trust those yahoos to do anything right including the doctors. This is a real concern since I have a life threatening illness or two.
Not only that, the last time we went to university med center pediatric specialty department for a certain chronic condition of one of the kids we were seen by a nurse practitioner who proceeded to tell us that she disagreed with the board certified department head neurologist who is the child’s doctor and how we ought to doing this and that differently. She was into ‘alternatives.’ I thought she might break out into some voodoo procedure any minute. This is their new procedure-alternate between the MD and the NP and never mind that they are not singing out of the same song book. Cheaper for the institution this way. I would tell you what we really think of that but not here in public. I agree with the judicious use of mid level practitioners, but if and only if the team can all get on the same page.
Sweetness and light in somebody’s attitude will not solve this. I think it is good if you all are going to tell the young docs to be caring people, but that does not solve some of the structural problems with the systems as they now are. I don’t want some nice doc to pat me on the arm; I want him and his buddies to be in a position where they can kick some you-know-what until some of the problems are solved.
And if anybody says ‘Miss Okrapod, do you want me to pray for you?’ my response will land me in an orange jump suit before it is over.
I no longer recommend health care as a potential career choice.
@ Lydia:
Aaaaaand Lydia nails it.
Some great comments here. It’s amazing to see how God seems to be calling some of y’all out of dead churchy legalism into joyful service and community. That’s encouraging to me. The wife and I are there. We’re done with it. Just don’t know where to go from here. Everyone we know is churchy.
Sopwith wrote:
“All the world is a stage, and the men and women are merely actors.” ????
“You are told to confess your sins to one another/discipline one another, etc. and you barely know each other.”
Yes. This. It drove my wife to tears twice after she came home from ladies’ group meetings.
Somehow I just don’t think confessing my sins to what amounts to a stranger on the street qualifies as biblical confession and community.
It all comes down to control (no, really!?!?): they have decided how the group is run, they’ve decided who the members are, they’ve decided what is discussed, they’ve affirmed who the believers are, and therefore, on your first day in, you best be ready to spill your deepest and darkest to them because by golly that’s what we’re called to do!
I spill the beans to 2 or 3 people in my life – people who have proven their character to me in various ways and I know I’ll get both grace (not Grace™) and truth from them. None of them are ordained pastors.
Come to think of it, I’ve never had a pastor in my life until very recently. I’ve had ordained ministers.
@ elastigirl:
Agreed. Ego feeding and making money are undercurrents there as well. I guess I was being charitable to them…maybe overly so!
@ dee:
I am in my late 40’s (yes, my avatar photo is outdated, but it really is me!) and I am trying to figure out when Evangelicals shifted to a micromanagement mentality. Or did I just shift to an “I am old enough to live my own life” mentality?
Former CLC’er wrote:
Where’s your small group, if you don’t mind my asking?
Nancy2 wrote:
Like N.I.C.E.?
@ okrapod:
I refer you to the terms “Crapsack World” and “Crapsacchaine World” over at TV Tropes.
Summary:
“Crapsack World” was originally coined as a definition of the Warhammer 40K universe.
“Crapsaccharine” is “Crapsack” with a thick ersatz sugar coating.
zooey111 wrote:
Screwtape Semantics, specifically redefining words into their “diabolical meanings”?
Velour wrote:
“One hand washes the Other…”
@ Lydia:
To further tack on to what you said there….
“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life. I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
1 John 2:20-26
I think this should be one of TWW’s statement passages. It rips the foundation out from underneath most of these abusive environments, and rips the pulpit away from these wolves.
Teaching is a luxury to me – I choose to sit under someone to fill in gaps in my knowledge, to learn from someone else who’s been there, done that, so I can be further equipped to go out and live like what I’m called to be more effectively. This is true no matter the subject I’m learning, whether secular or spiritual.
I can do that with anyone.
I don’t need sermons. My lifeline to God is not at 10:15 on Sunday morning. I love to hear a good study through Hebrews, or the Beatitudes, and it’s good to be challenged, but to say that’s the pivotal weekly event in my life is sheer pastoral ego tripping.
I’ve ranted on this before because just recently it’s become apparent to me, and it’s angering.
I’ve been trained to mute the Holy Spirit in my life. None of my pastors have ever emphasized His work. Never. He’s seen as a power too dangerous for the common man and woman to wield, and boy we don’t want to look like that “Charismatic Confusion!” Just stay grounded in the word and keep coming to Sunday/Wednesday services and you’ll be ok without Him. His sovereign work ended in the inspiration of Scripture nohow, so just let us take over from here….
It’s one of the greatest promises the Christian has – that Jesus would leave but he would send his Spirit to each of us, and yet the pulpits in my life have been largely silent and dismissive of His work.
“Quench not the Spirit”
Velour wrote:
No, Velour, they give pedos easy access to the pewpeons’ children.
I am sure Pastor’s Mini-Mes are protected.
JMJ over at Christian Monist has recounted that in the church he grew up in, it was an open secret that one of the pastors/elders was a pedo. The Respectable Church Members would steer Elder Pedo towards the children of new members so that he would rape THEIR kids, not Mine.
Velour wrote:
Though with all the stuff that gets covered here, make that an Abusive Dysfunctional Family.
Corbin wrote:
Indeed. (I saw Herbie Hancock play this one live. Amazing.)
And given Jesus’ anger about the “thieves in the temple”, I thought it appropriate.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Actually, H.U.G., at my former NeoCal Church the pastors/elders gave the Megan’s List sex offender access to their own children and they said he was a long-time friend and they had no problem with him touching their kids. I watched the sex offender come in late to church one day and walk up to a pew where one of the pastor’s teenage sons was sitting with his friends and embrace the teenage boy who looked alarmed.
Those pastors/elders don’t care. As sex crimes attorney/author/child advocate Andrew Vachss would says, “They aren’t just sick, but sickening.”
@ GovPappy:
“…joyful service and community. That’s encouraging to me. The wife and I are there. We’re done with it. Just don’t know where to go from here. Everyone we know is churchy.”
+++++++++++++++++++
I’ve thought a lot about all of this.
(this is part 1, for easier reading)
if I was stranded somewhere with a few other people, say a muslim, a hindu, a Buddhist, and things were dire — I guarantee tha at least I would put away all religious fastidiousness and would pray with my companions. For the sake of the mutual strength and encouragement we could give each other, as well as the power of agreement to the Supreme Being (who I acknowledge as God/Elohim/Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Spirit (although not in any particular order — interesting it should come out of my mind ordered as such).
I believe all of my companions would put away their own religious purity thinking and we’d all come together to do anything and everything to get through our circumstances and get free of them.
(part 2 below)
Bilbo Skaggins wrote:
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe…
… A few weeks into it, one of our pastors approached us one Sunday after the service. “I hear that you guys have formed a Bible Study group – I think that’s wonderful! If any questions or issues come up in your discussions that you think I might be able to assist you with, please don’t hesitate to let me know – I would be honored to attend your meeting one night and give you my input”.
*sigh*
@ GovPappy:
“joyful service and community. That’s encouraging to me. The wife and I are there. We’re done with it. Just don’t know where to go from here. Everyone we know is churchy.”
++++++++++++++++++
(part 2)
I’ve prayed with 2 friends once a week for 4 years. we are all very different from each other (charismatic, non-charismatic, catholic-eastern orthodox). we focus on what we have in common, and leave our differences by the wayside in the dust.
our prayer times are intense, with a buzzing power you can feel in your body. as far as we’re concerned, God simply shows up.
where we live is extremely diverse in every way. we are tired of being exclusive and insular. we miss everyone else. all the beautiful people in our neighborhood, our city.
we are working on putting together an interfaith prayer meeting that meets regularly, focusing on what we have in common:
we are human
we care about our community
we believe we can accomplish good spiritually
we believe we can put aside our differences and work together
and we figure this: my friends & I will arrive early welcoming God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. what other supreme being is going to show up?? Ghanesh certainly won’t be there.
it is our way of bringing the physical/spiritual/tangible presence of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to our community.
(this is just a cursory explanation of our plan — much more that could be said)
i’m so sick of church sucking it’s people into itself, with this tight airlock.
I miss my earthly companions. my neighbors. my neighborhood. in all its raging diversity.
Nancy2 wrote:
Thanks Nancy, that’s what I needed.
GRACE church = Ghastly Regulation And Control Enterprise
Jack wrote:
Perhaps the 18-19 gifts the Holy Spirit gives to the church, Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4, provide checks and balances for healthy collaboration and fellowship (rather than the one-hit wonder gift of preaching or prophecy or whoever runs the show, in lieu of the Holy Spirit).
There are wheels in Ezekiel 1 & 10 rather than a hierarchy (upright triangle with the leader at the top or an inverted triangle with the servant-leader at the bottom). Are the gifts like the wheel as the presence of God working collaboratively in a circle? No lords and sheeple, only Jesus as Lord and the Holy Spirit indwelling His people. But then the wheel(s) left the temple?
roebuck wrote:
So little humility displayed in that line.
The Bible is a tapestry intricately woven by the Holy Spirit telling the story of Jesus. Religionists, I can’t call them theologians, have cut apart this tapestry and fashioned patch quilts of their own designs declaring “The Bible says!”
No. It doesn’t.
Sopwith wrote:
One of hubby’s favorite verses. Applicable for sure.
Bill M wrote:
I don’t understand? The context of my little scenario was supposed to show some humility on the part of the pastor. IF he was INVITED by the group, he would feel HONORED to attend and offer his thoughts. If THEY thought it would be useful.
okrapod wrote:
It is an assembly line only you get to sit in one room and the belt transports the doctor. When the buzzer goes off he is whisked off to the next room.
But we digress
We were in a small group for about 6 years. We got small group burnout and stopped going.
I love this small group parody:
Shallow Small Group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMyTMTmJU6E
dee wrote:
Your bible study group sounds like what the church should be. If so what is pastor, programming, building, and parking lot for?
roebuck wrote:
Sorry, I misunderstood your sigh at the end. It triggered memories of past interactions where the the pastor acted as if he was something special and we needed his direction. The non verbal communication was missing when I read your comment.
Bill M wrote:
Question of the day.
Bill M wrote:
I thought the same thing you thought, Bill M.
GovPappy wrote:
A good teacher must be a student, no matter what the subject is.
Bill M wrote:
GRACE church = Ghastly Regulation And Control Enterprise
Great idea! Now, let’s see if we can sell it!
“Sovereign *Ghastly Regulation And Control Enterprise* Ministries”?
Velour wrote:
Sorry guys! I thought I’d made it clear that the pastor was humbly making himself available if they felt it would be helpful – he wasn’t butting in, or even suggesting that they needed to consult him.
The *sigh* was just a wistful expression because it seemingly doesn’t often go that way…
roebuck wrote:
Translation – IF you don’t think it would be useful and don’t invite me, you must not understand how humble I am, nor are you willing (submitting) to honor me. YOU ARE SELFISH, PRIDEFUL, AND FULL OF SIN!
elastigirl wrote:
Jesus said that where two or three are gathered in His name, He will be in the midst. He didn’t say we have to be labeled and stamped by any specific man made “religion”.
I read this earlier today and was trying to think of the word I wanted. I looked at The Junia Project and low and behold there it was, mentoring. We do not need pastor oriented churches, power hungry leaders of megachurches and organizations or sermons that spread legalism. We need small groups where we are mentored and in turn mentor. Montoring takes time and includes deep relationship.
http://juniaproject.com/mentoring-church-apollo-priscilla-phoebe-paul/
roebuck wrote:
Obviously, from the reaction from many of us, it rarely goes that way and the undertones are accusations against a ‘rogue’ small group.
Bill M wrote:
That’s my thought as well.
You get around the word and a table with food on it, you ask some hard questions, get some good answers from folks in all walks of life, maybe share a need if there is one, and you leave refreshed and ready to face a world of Mondays again.
Heck, if “church” was more like that, I’d be there more than once a week.
Here’s something I put together. I noticed at The Gospel Coalition all the articles about Planned Parenthood and abortion. I read yet another article by Trevin Wax. I’m sorry….but you can’t speak about the horrors or evilness of abortion while staying silent on child sex abuse. What are you going to do? Defend the right for the child to be born while ignore it been sexually abused afterward?
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/trevin-wax-you-cannot-talk-about-the-horrors-of-abortion-and-be-silent-on-child-sex-abuse/
Bridget wrote:
Are you willfully trying to distort the meaning of what I was trying to get across? That was not the point at all. He was simply offering his insights IF THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL. If they don’t think their pastor is any good for anything, why do they attend that church?
Some of you people must have encountered some real sh*ts for pastors to be so hairtriggered – guess I’ve been lucky.
Time for my long-planned hiatus from TWW – I feel like I’m walking on eggshells around here.
@ roebuck:
Yep. And if we don’t let them “help” us then we are self-willed troublemakers. After decades of falling for this manipulation, I am finally out of it.
I wrote this about Fairfax Community Church and how they earned a unique distinction on Dee’s blog as being the only church to have a pastor go for Dee’s jugular when they are being written about. 1,800 posts Dee has written and this is the only one where a pastor involved attacks her. Unbelievable…I know how to pick them.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/hello-clarksburg-did-pastor-dave-bullock-attack-and-go-for-dee-parsons-jugular-on-the-wartburg-watch/
Wisdomchaser wrote:
Bingo! We strenghten those who are weak ~ we don’t lord over them. We should also mentor one another. You help me where I am weak, and vice-versa! There is strength in numbers, but only when we support and strengthen one another. We share our strengths and our knowledge, while always being open to the strengths and knowledge of one another. We work and learn together and “complement” one another, if you will pardon my use of that term.
@ Eagle:
Good work.
@ roebuck:
Roebuck, FWIW, I understood what you said in the way that you meant it. But, I haven’t suffered the abusive experiences of which some of our friends on TWW have been victims.
Cut’em a little slack, okay? Sometimes it’s hard to understand what someone means when all we have to see is typed words.
Grace.
@ roebuck:
Whoops, I also misread your comment. Sorry. You did start it wit the “alternate universe” phrase which should have tipped me off. I am glad your pastor was humble about it all.
@ GovPappy:
Gov, 1 John got me through some really dark days when I was totally rethinking what I had been involved in and why I got sucked in. First, I could not believe that the Jesus they were hawking all around me in evangelicalism was the same Jesus I learned about as a kid. Was I taught wrong? So I made a decision to only read the Gospels for three years straight. (with serious prayer and some cultural contextual study)
Then Paul started to make more sense if filtered through Jesus Christ. But I was also drawn to John. He is less utilitarian and has a beauty and majesty in his descriptions that are like no other. It is like he is inviting us to a more noble and overarching understanding of what it all means. Add that to Matthew 5-26 and it is dynamite!
I also paid more attention to the promised Holy Spirit and how that fit into a believers life. We were taught to seek guidance and wisdom from the HS as children in the SBC in my neck of the woods and especially about our responsibility which was part of soul competency/liberty and the Priesthood. But I was not seeing that focus anywhere so I needed to figure that out for myself, too. What happened? Was I just raised in a soul liberty bubble?
And I had to do all that alone. There is this push out there that we HAVE to be in some overseen community at all times for any study. That would have killed everything for me. Some of us long time believers who are ashamed of what we supported might find it helpful to go on a journey and seek that personal relationship one to one– THEN go into community. Nothing wrong with that. We really do have to learn how to “practice” what we believe.
These days I prefer to read or listen to ancient scholars who help me understand context. Not sermons. I don’t see the point anymore. But that is me. it is dangerous, though, because a sermon is different than learning and questioning. People tend to pick up snippets or platitudes and then repeat them over and over. Many from my last church many of the youth are now claiming to be perpetually “broken” and wearing it as a badge of righteousness. I find that scary.
Back to 1 John. In chapter 1 he writes about walking in the light. What is this? From my study I believe John is referring to a lifestyle of living out the truth of the resurrection as a believer. (not sinless perfection, folks) of seeking to be a completed follower of Christ. I think this fits his later focus on sin as lawlessness. (something we often confuse with Mosaic law)
Long time maturing Christians do not go around doing wrong/evil to others as a matter of course because “they cannot help it”. If they cannot help it, what was the point of the cross/resurrection? (Note I am focusing on behavior toward others, not personal struggles that do not harm others)
If they continue, there is a much deeper problem that mere words won’t change. And for those who make their living as believers, this is especially onerous. But if we buy into their brand, we deserve nothing less. You see, I have known too many believers who would rather slash their wrists than harm a child. Who would be too ashamed to even attempt to deceive their spouse with infidelity. What about them?
Maybe they were not trained to mute the Holy Spirit in their lives like some are being taught now and what I got sucked into without even realizing it! All I can say is that I am profoundly grateful to my parents, Aunts and Uncles who were totally sold out to the concepts of the priesthood and soul liberty. Without that foundation, I doubt I would have even recognized the red flags. The reason is because that focus encourages one to look to Christ and not some “professional Christian” making a living from Jesus, for truth. That, to me, is step one.
Elevating ‘the sermon’ to the most important part of the church service is simply another way of elevating the importance and prestige of the pastor.
The gospel is primarily communicated through sermons? Not in my experience.
@ roebuck:
Please don’t go away. Some have not met such a pastor!
roebuck wrote:
No. I am not. Did you see my next comment after this one where I ‘got’ what you were trying to say? I was not the only one to misunderstand. The wording is obviously very triggering for many people. But please don’t accuse anyone of wilfully trying to distort your words. Words on the internet, without the rest of the communication ques that are present in person, need more time to work out.
Glad that you have a humble, honest, pastor. I’m afraid that many of us have not experienced pastors without the dual-meaning conversations and accompanying actions.
In the OP, McCann attributes Chandler with, “The pulpit drives the church.”
For me, this inspires a cartoon image of a giant bus with a large pulpit up front at the wheel… Behind the bus are former elders and pew peons flattened by tire tracks. The pulpit is emblazoned “Pastormark”…
“If you have attended Mars Hill Church for any period of time you know we consider the pulpit to be sacred ground. Consequently, I only like to use the pulpit to preach and teach the Word of God; I don’t like to use it to address current events or respond to controversy—even when the controversy involves me, your pastor…”
From Driscoll’s final Mars Hill sermon, August 24, 2014
Oh, the irony!
BTW, I know they have nearly 500 years of Protestant Pulpit tradition, but you know where they CAN’T find anything about “The Pulpit”? That’s right! The Bible! My 5-second Biblehub search reveals a grand total of ONE “pulpit” reference, only in old versions, and it was something Ezra stood upon, not in or behind….and not a figurative metaphor for ‘the sermon”.
Dave A A wrote:
Love this. Thank you.
Nancy2 wrote:
I didn’t get the meaning of his post since he closed with *sigh*, which people frequently use to express a negative emotion (somebody else *just doesn’t get it*, cynicism, disgust), etc.
Apparently he used *sigh* in a positive sense.
In the Eastern Church, the phrase “Word of God” is interpreted to mean Jesus himself (as in, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”) in 99% of the cases where it is found in the NT. When I learned that I began reading my NT in that light. Wow! It shone a much deeper meaning on the passages where the phrase appears.
@ Lydia:
Me, too.
Dave A A wrote:
Thanks, this explains a lot!
@ dainca:
Thanks for pointing that out. Usually when it refers to scripture it simply says “scriptures” or as Jesus said, “It is written”.
It is one of my pet peeves that seems be to be so pervasive as to be overwhelming. But another subtle way that turns bible interpretation into the Holy Spirit.
Dave A A wrote:
I see an old coal-fired train speeding down the tracks.
Pulpit with pastor at the controls; black smoke billowing out, leaving soot on every thing in it’s wake; people strapped to the tracks ahead of the train; no brakeman.
ALL ABOARD!!!
In the mid-2000s, some of the friends my wife and I had known from a previous church, who like us had since moved on to other churches, expressed a desire to get together with us for a worship night.
Many of us had been involved in the worship team at this previous church, and we all missed the wonderful times of worship we had experienced, but we all had left within the same year due to increasing dysfunction we encountered at that church.
So we started getting together, initially just to worship together, even as we all attempted to “plug-in” to the churches we were now attending, since like the classic profile of the DONES, we were all “ministry” people. I use quotes around “ministry” because this word has become very loaded to me and I don’t really like using it any more. This may be my personal hang up, but to me now, there is just serving, as in serving Christian brothers and sisters, or serving those outside the body of Christ with whatever gifts, talents, time, energy or money the Lord directs.
We continued to get together with this group, which was so satisfying spiritually, and included interactive sharing of the Word, and being charismatics, the gifts of the Spirit. We just naturally kept things very informal, no one taking charge, some times we would just sit and talk, catching up with each other, and then go home without singing a single song or doing anything super spiritual.
We began to experience how wonderful it is when Jesus is allowed to orchestrate a meeting, if we just look to him and not a man as our head. A common theme regularly emerged for the night’s meeting with everyone contributing.
We all eventually moved on from the respective churches we had tried to plug-in to, to other churches, where we tried to plug-in again (LOL), but found ourselves encountering the same dysfunction and authoritarian issues manifesting in different forms, that we had frankly experienced all our adult lives as Christians.
About this time my friend’s adult daughter introduced Viola’s Pagan Christianity to us and individually we began to read this and other Viola books and investigating similar material. What we had been doing quite naturally in our own group now made sense to us.
This is what led up to our becoming finally DONE with the institutional church, when we realized what we had been doing as a group mirrored what we saw in the Bible much more closely than decades of church-going. I say this realizing that many are happy with the churches they belong to and I think that’s great.
Currently, in addition to what we have been doing as a group, we get together for Bible studies, or studying other books with other Christians, and I started a men’s coffee group just for fellowship. We started incorporating a full meal into our regular meeting although we temporarily have suspended that due to concerns about a member’s health, which I won’t go into further. It didn’t seem important to continue something legalistically that might be un-loving in this instance.
Dave A A wrote:
The church I grew up in had a grand pulpit front and center reserved only for the head pastor and his approved cohorts, preaching. Then there was a mini-pulpit off to the side for announcements, elders, missionaries, and everyone else. When a young couple in the front pew got filled with the Holy Spirit, they were told to leave by the guy in the grand pulpit. Brings to mind the scene in Daniel 3.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I saw the phrase “Pew Potato” on a Christian lingo site.
I think I may use Pew Potato as opposed to Pew Peon myself. It makes me grin every time I see it. I visualize a lines of potatos sitting on pews.
@ Will M:
Will what was your former church? I live in the DC area. You ever want to get together I am game.
@ Flat Top:
Great comment!
Flat Top wrote:
Awesome post! Thank you!
Daisy wrote:
Mr. Potato Head with a row of little pew potatoes sitting beside him??? : O
Daisy wrote:
I saw the phrase “Pew Potato” on a Christian lingo site.
I think I may use Pew Potato as opposed to Pew Peon myself. It makes me grin every time I see it. I visualize a lines of potatos sitting on pews
Daisy, Potatoes are PERFECT food to go with the new NeoCal BACON (bits), previously known as the 5-points of Calvinism (TULIP) below, from Boyd’s post yesterday.
Any meanings yet for: CHIVES? BUTTER? SOUR CREAM?
Boyd wrote:
@ dainca:
“In the Eastern Church, the phrase “Word of God” is interpreted to mean Jesus himself (as in, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”)”
++++++++++++++++++
I think word of God / logos is sort of a fluid idea.
The main way ‘word of God’ resonates with me is as his actual voice speaking sounds in communication of information (even if not audible to our human ears, it still registers on wavelengths which other things respond to, even parts of us).
When God spoke things into existence, I think the sound is still reverberating and plants and animals continue to respond to it.
I think he shouted/shouts/is shouting “I LOVE YOU!!”, and we may or may not pick up on it, or pick up on it some times and not other times.
I think he says things at points in time, like
“Relax, dear.”
or “Listen up: THIS is what is wise. It would be best to……”
or “That was wrong. I know it was very complicated and hard to see, but…”
or, “That was wrong. And you knew it.”
or, “Peace”, and the instrumentalist plays his/her instrument.
or, “Be strong and courageous”, and the dancer dances it out.
the bible as the sole meaning of ‘word of God’? someone please justify that one, conclusively.
at the very least, it’s God’s voice processed through a human mind already loaded with biases and perhaps a migraine headache or worry or depression, etc. and then further processed through the transference of ideas into marks on papyrus or whatever. In a sermon, it’s processed yet again through I don’t know how many generations of interpretation, and then through final word choice.
I really think these sermon-centric pastors are, to be charitable & in the words of my grandma, ‘full o’ beans’.
ION: Athletics.
Insofar as people criticise Mo Farah, they comment that he is yet to match Bekele or Gebrselassie as a breaker of world records (though Farah does hold the world indoor 2 miles record). But as regards racing the opposition in front of you, Farah simply looks unbeatable. Credit to Ndiku, though, for a bold front run rewarded with a fine silver medal.
On this occasion, the US mens’ sprint relay team decided that anything the UK team could do, they could do better: both failed to place in the 4×100 final, won by Jamaica with the Chinese team raising the roof with the silver medal. Ashton Eaton broke his own world decathlon record, however.
IHTIH.
May wrote:
The moment the sermon/pulpit is elevated as, THE SERVICE, a red neon light should flash, danger ahead, danger ahead!
@ Velour:
Baked to a crisp on the outside ….. Soft on the inside …. Steaming hot .
Put some cheddar cheese on mine and I’ll stick a fork in it.
@ GovPappy:
“joyful service and community. That’s encouraging to me. The wife and I are there. We’re done with it. Just don’t know where to go from here. Everyone we know is churchy.”
++++++++++++++++
GovPappy — dang, my first comment, maybe 2nd too, came across a bit self-righteous — i’m sorry. not my intention at all. I wanted to communicate my evolving thoughts on community, made up of all different kinds of beautiful human beings who are worth embracing & partnering with in different ways.
roebuck wrote:
Thanks for the reminder there are humble men and women as pastors, I’ve know some myself and should remember that. My reaction to your statement reveals that I am still somewhat jaded concerning pastors in general. Many are good people, they go into the ministry to help.
My recent experience, the one I’m still adjusting from, was an authoritarian system that took a pastor who began as humble and with good intentions and resulted in pride with good intentions. The latter mixture was toxic.
I’m still sorting out what “church” should look like while taking refuge in a larger church that seems to be well balanced with humble and accountable pastors. I’m glad you have a good story to tell, I’ll need to start doing the same. For those jaded as myself don’t worry, I won’t add a sugar coating.
@ Lydia:
Thanks for sharing that, Lydia. Much of that resonates with me strongly. In some ways I had a strong foundation in the priesthood of every believer, but how that played out in my churches was extremely downplayed.
My wife and I have been focusing lately on getting back to the basics of what being a Christian means, and for both of us that means stripping down our church history to almost nothing. Her family had strong patriarchal Gothardite leanings combined with reformed SBC, my upbringing was fundamental Ruckmanite Puritan holiness madness. Stepping away from churchy activity has been good for us in rediscovering who we are, what our gifts are, and, without the “authority” of a church telling us how to serve, we’ve been forced to assess our own lives and environments to see where we can serve. It’s a work in progress, but the freedom is glorious. We’ve been more of a positive influence in lives since stepping away than we were under the authority of churches. God’s design for each believer is amazing, if only we can get away from churchy-ness long enough to see it.
Interesting point of view. If he really thought the sermon was that important, I expect he would put more time into it. I heard once that a pastor should spend an hour of work studying for each minute of sermon. The far majority of sermons I have heard appeared to be the reverse. (And of course many pastors are doing that because they weren’t bright enough to get a real job, so it isn’t really any surprise that they can’t put together a good sermon.) On the other hand when the music is so loud it requires earplugs to prevent hearing damage, and the words are repeated so many times that they become meaningless… maybe the sermon is the best part of the service by default.
Bridget wrote:
I went through and explained again, and you came out with your ‘Translation’, and it seemed like you were twisting my intention.
My last several posts here have resulted in some very weird misunderstandings in spite of my attempts to clarify my language. I see now that many people have been so burned that they see things with a different lens.
I’m going to take a little break…
@ elastigirl:
You did! You’re good. I see what you’re saying and I appreciate it. I don’t really know what church looks like to the wife and I right now, but it can at least start with more or less what you were describing.
@eagle
@dee
@velour
Honest question: Does anyone else sense a disconnect here of
1 – the legalism of disciplining and controlling church members meeting in a small group Bible study (no grace)… yet
2 – blindly letting criminal perpetrators have free reign in the fellowship at large? (all grace – cheap grace?)?
What’s up with that? It does not make sense. Seems completely contradictory.
@ roebuck:
I got your meaning on the first reading. You’re alright. Thanks for sharing – I don’t think we share enough of the good, when folks are doing it right. That’s society in general, I know.
@ elastigirl:
Of course. The Word of God is living… When we encounter him, we hear what he says. 🙂
roebuck wrote:
I read on a phone. This happens when I comment as I read down the thread. A person (me in this case) may comment before they read additional comments. It is hard to read and then go back and remember what you wanted to respond to. As soon as I saw your additional comments I responded explaining what had happened — so no attempt at twisting words. I don’t communicate that way. I also find it helpful to say what I mean and not leave hidden or vague meanings — especially on the internet.
I enjoy your comments. I hope you stay around and continue share.
@Joy and @Bill M. – there is no small group yet. Guess we could investigate that, although going to school has made my time at a premium. Just don’t say you’re in Fairfax or Upper Marlboro!
@Velour – I have been to the Monterey area, but mostly to Southern Cal. Ventura County, San Diego, Torrey Pines, LaJolla, San Juan Capistrano. Sigh!
@ JYJames: I think that you are conflating two different subjects There are certain very bad behaviors that have lifelong consequences for the victims. Those sorts of behaviors are criminal behaviors and must be punished strongly.
On the other hand there are people who believe that every last sin needs to be punished so long is it is Not one of their sins.
In general I have become concerned With churches who apply unjust and abusive church discipline.
Nancy2 wrote:
And don’t forget to sign the boarding pass!
JYJames wrote:
“None of that Holy Ghost stuff around here, yunguns! What do yer think this is– a church?!?” :0
Max wrote:
This is a really important point. Everyone “wants” to emulate early church patterns to the point that the neo-reformed crowd thinks their version of seeker sensitivity churcherations are a direct replica. Unfortunately none of them seem to be able to avoid the pyramid scheme structure and highly doubt whether US church culture as a whole will ever be able to change.
If there was a way to replicate exactly what you are describing I would join up.
JYJames wrote:
I think it is because the “perp” said the word “repent” and placed themselves under the authority of the pastor/elders. The Bible study people did not ask permission or have the proper oversight. Bigger sin.
Dee, I found your heart in this to be sincere. Hats off to the pastor who learned that self importance is a fool’s game and found security in something other than his title and position.
Your small group sounds lovely and is something that all believers should seek to be a part of – a genuine community of sojourners gathering together to encourage one another without the layers of complexity that can so often be added by well meaning but misguided pastors/elders/deacons.
@ lydia:
Wow, (jaw drops to the floor).
@ Dee:
Thanks for your reply. And, whoops – I don’t think I stated this well. Then below, Lydia had an explanation. TWW seems to be a safe place to sort things out, particularly subtext. So appreciation to the sponsors and contributors, all.
JYJames wrote:
Welcome to TWW, where we deal in the jaw-dropping insanity that religious folk try to get away with almost daily.
Stick around, feel free to disagree!
@ GovPappy:
Thanks so much for your welcome.
@ Flat Top:
I also have benefited from Viola and Barna’s “Pagan Christianity?”
The chapter titled “The Sermon: Protestantism’s Most Sacred Cow” is particularly relevant to our discussion. They point out that the first record of regular sermonizing is from the late second century. In the Old Testament preaching was not a regular occurrence delivered to a passive audience utilising a specific structure. Rather it involved prophets and priests speaking spontaneously with active participation and interruptions by the audience.
In the New Testament preaching was sporadic, utilized to deal with particular problems, spontaneous and without rhetorical structure. It was not a monologue but featured audience interaction.
By the fourth century the sermon that we know today had become standard practice. The concept was borrowed from Greek and Roman culture where orators were celebrities who made a living from their oratory.
The shift began in earnest in the third century. Mutual ministry faded as many pagan orators and philosophers became Christians and replicated their pagan practice in the church by occupying a special seat and receiving payment for their performances. (In contrast Jewish rabbis took up a trade in order not to have to charge for their teaching.) Functioning Christians had trouble fitting into the developing ecclesiastical structures.
Chrysostom and Augustine brought the monologue sermon to its peak but during medieval times it faded with the Eucharist being most prominent. Luther and Calvin revived the monologue sermon. Calvin claimed that the preacher is the “mouth of God” and following his example Austin McCann says: “When we hear preaching from God’s Word (sic) we hear God speaking to us.” Similarly Mahaney says: “The preaching event, being addressed by God through the reading and proclamation of His Word, is the most important event in the life of this church every week.”
In many New Calvinist churches communion is relegated to an occasional event when some other part of the service, usually not the minimum three-quarters of an hour long sermon, is curtailed in order to accomodate it.
Obviously, I love the sport of athletics and have been endeavouring to keep you all up to speed with the world championships currently drawing to a close (tomorrow is the final day) in Beijing. However, I realise this is tangential to the main point.
Apparently, Matt Chandler once said that the pulpit drives the church. If indeed he said this, he was quite simply wrong. Only a one-legged scriptural case can be made for this. That is, you can only make a scriptural case for “the pulpit drives the church” by assuming a great deal of equivalence between the non-biblical word “pulpit” * and the broad biblical idea of preaching, and then by ignoring everything else the bible says about stuff other than preaching.
Although if his involvement in the church revolves around his giving a lecture from a pulpit, I can understand why he might be tempted to believe this: it drives church for him. It’s not uncommon; people whose role in the church community involves Sunday-meeting performance, often get carried away with the enjoyment and fulfilment they gain from carrying out that role. Churches that follow the charismatic liturgy, and thus have an extended time of worship, can fall victim to the worship-leader who gets similarly carried away. I remember on particular meeting where, if I understood matters aright, the Holy Spirit was actually quite keen to move on and involve some other people, but the worship leader was enjoying himself far too much to stop playing “My Jesus, my saviour”. And this was in a UK-charismatic setting, that attracts a certain type of personality and in which a state of pleasurable emotional arousal brought on by singing is often confused with “the presence of God”, so there was no collective will to stop. The broader purpose of the gathering was lost because of the collective lack of self-discipline.
I have to stress: these people aren’t necessarily narcissistic zeroes. They’re just doing something they love doing, and I don’t think that’s wrong in itself. Heck, I love speaking in public too, whether in church or not, and I’ve often been a worshipleader – that is, the Guy Behind The Microphone. And it is fun, however much humility and self-control you bring to it. Provided we remember that other people enjoy different things, and that we should not demand that they sacrifice the orderly expression of their gifts and callings just so that we can maximise the pleasure we derive from expressing ours.
* It may not be coincidence that “pulpit” combines “pulp” and “pit”. And not necessarily in a good way.
JohnD wrote:
I, too; in fact, I am always drawn to books that are vilified as evil and deceptive within mainstream christian circles. (Not every mainstream christian has vilified “Pagan Christianity”, obviously, but you know what I mean.) They often contain truths that people would actually benefit greatly from if they could only stop reacting against them.
Likewise, “The Openness of God” (on open theism, shock, horror) encouraged me a great deal without eroding my confidence in God’s power or Jesus’ kingship in the slightest.
JohnD wrote:
This is a good bit of history to keep handy the next time I hear someone tell me I’m trying to fit the current culture into the church when I’m critical of an all powerful pastor.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
This reminds me of problems I see in different organizations, the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
Some years ago I stopped off to buy something at the auto parts store a half hour before closing. Although they had recently computerized the sales guy wrote my sales ticket up manually. I inquired if their new system was down, no he said, the back office does their backup at 4:30 and they have to enter in the manual tickets the next morning. I asked, couldn’t they do backup after closing?. With his co-workers looking on he answered wryly, “we thought of that”.
Someone should tell the pastor he is the back office and the retail business happens somewhere other than 20 minutes on Sunday.
@ JohnD:
@ Bill M:
It is ironic, isn’t it? Many – perhaps most – of the institutional church’s most treasured traditions were brought in from secular or pagan culture. But the current generation of clergy doesn’t recognise them as such because they didn’t see these traditions arrive.
@ Bill M:
You put it so well!
Somehow I am missing the reasoning here about not just the Viola and Barna thing (I also read the book) but about the whole ‘new testament church’ thing. Disclaimer: I grew up SBC way back when they were saying how the thought they were like the NT church in some aspects. I did not ‘get it’ then and I still do not.
So what I don’t get is why we today would want to recreate first century circumstances in the church or anywhere else. And I am not sure from scripture where people see that we are commanded to do that.
For one thing we have lots of folks arguing against some things in scripture as being cultural and based on some ‘bad’ stuff from that era. So if we recreated the first century church model would we not have to implement the stuff that some people really are glad that we don’t do it that way any more. Like patriarchy and head coverings for women and financial communality for a few examples. Like the issue of a high rate of illiteracy.
My thinking is that if we wanted to be like Jesus in the area of religion we would all be Jews, but since we crossed that bridge why have we taken up with the idea of ‘first century’ anything at all? Already in the NT the church was moving away from some old stuff and heading off in new directions. Why would we want to put that process to a full stop? Let me try to be blunt here. Did God blow the whistle at the end of the first century and stop the play at that point? The old SBC sort of thought he did, they being militant cessationists and all, or so it seemed to me, but I do not think the order ever came to the church to freeze in place at any specific point.
Here is a hilarious parody of small groups:
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=life%20groups&sm=1
@ okrapod:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your question, and I haven’t read those books, but I’m not sure anyone here really wants to return to the New Testament church as it was then, but anything we want to say about how the Body operates today seems to start with interpreting why what was written was written so we can apply it to our current culture. When Paul said this or that, what was the spirit of his intent in writing?
Most come from a standpoint of the authority and authenticity of Scripture, so it stands to reason that you’d look at the scriptures to try to glean insight on how the Body operated at that time in order to see how the instructions and wisdom apply to today’s people.
That’s how it should work in theory.
Of course what we often find is a confusion of how it was done with how it must be. Many things in Acts are recorded without direct commentary on whether the action was right or wrong – simply that it happened. Paul often addressed individual situations with instructions that may or may not be for all time. It’s up to us to sift through it all and discern principles that can be applied today but also just what may be cultural casualties with no real present relevance today, like head coverings, IMO.
So, if anybody wants to return to actual 1st century church, I’d say it’s foolish. I think that’s some of what has gotten churches in trouble – rigid, undiscerning application of texts written to a people a long time ago in a land far, far away. But we do worship the same Lord they did.
Lately I’ve been approaching scripture with a much less conservative eye though, given some questions in my mind.
Sorry, bad link above, here is the correct one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMyTMTmJU6E&sns=em
GovPappy wrote:
Oh, but you ought to read the book-or both of the books actually. In the first one Viola and Barna want to totally deconstruct the church as it now functions and in the second one they want to recreate what they see as the first century church. They are radical beyond radical in what they want to eliminate and what they propose.
Former CLC’er wrote:
I’m in the DC metro area!!!
lydia wrote:
In all honesty, I still think that #1 and #2 are related and that it’s the same root problem of AUTHORITARIAN control by the pastors/elders and these elder-led churches played out in different scenarios. These authoritarian pastors/elders call all of the shots and they have no healthy boundaries. If they had healthy BOUNDARIES, respect, and humility they would:
#1: stay out of other peoples’ personal business (small groups, forced sharing, etc.) that is essentially none of their business, respect the priesthood of all believers, and respect individual Christian conscience, and
#2: guard against the unhealthy such as predators and have safeguards in place to prevent abuses.
@ Former CLC’er:
I hope you get a chance to travel again in the near future, including to my state – California.
XianJaneway wrote:
I hope you guys get a chance to hang out together.
okrapod wrote:
That is not how I read it at all. They were basically giving facts about how we got where we are now — how and when things changed. They are not proclaiming that everything has to go back to the way it was in the NT. At the same time, they are conveying that we don’t have to only gather and fellowship the way that current church authorities tell us we have to, or we are supposed to today. As it is, churches are trying to declare people unregenerate if we do not attend an official meeting on Sunday morning. Barna and Viola weren’t advocating that everyone change how they worship at all.
@Xian Janeway, Bill M, and I forgot who else… Dee and Deb have my email.
Bridget wrote:
1″. Pagan Christianity is not a stand-alone book. It’s only the deconstructive, first part. If someone reads it, they’ve only heard the first half of the argument. Reimagining Church is the constructive sequel and gives the second half. It discusses the issue of contextualization and culture in detail. Both books go together. One is not complete without the other.”
-Frank Viola-from his blog 2-01-2010
He does seem to be saying that he did what I said he did. “Deconstruct” and then “reimagine.”
You may like what he said, while I may not like what he said, but he did try to deconstruct and reimagine. We may also disagree as to how radical the authors were or were not being-that probably would go along with liking or not liking the ideas.
But the point I was trying to make is why would we feel it necessary to deconstruct/reimagine in order to try to recreate something more nearly first century. Why would we assume that the first century-like things that they visualize and propose would be necessary.
@ Velour:
Thanks. I noted to Dee earlier that I probably poorly worded my question in the first place, and included “grace” where I shouldn’t have, however, your reply and that of Velour are very helpful. You have clarified a conundrum for me. Something did not feel right. Didn’t pass the smell test.
@ Velour:
Whoops again, meant the comment/explanation of Lydia. So Lydia and Velour, thanks.
XianJaneway wrote:
I’m in Oregon so it’s a bit of a commute but otherwise it would make a great day.
Back in the 70’s I knew someone who wanted to fly in from Poland and land in NY, they asked if we could pick them up at the airport. At the time I might have done it but couldn’t afford the 200 gallons of gas.
GovPappy wrote:
Very much agreed. And they’ll have clobber texts galore to show that you can’t be ‘Biblical’ unless you do it the way they (1st cent. church) did and the way Paul specified it must be done.
There’s also a Muslim equivalent of the “Return to the First Century Church”. The Wahabi branch of Sunni Islam, which dominates Saudi Arabia and has spawned such extremist groups as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS began as the latest of many attempts to (forcibly) Return Islam to its Original Pure Form As It Was In The Days of the Prophet.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Granted it is a parody but I was intrigued by the following: “We hate bad theology as the next guy, and we know the surest way to prevent bad theology is to avoid theology altogether.”
I know Velour had visited Istoria Ministries today! Has anyone else read the article that Wade Burleson posted today? “I Want to See with Clarity: Not Sit With Authority”
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Hee hee, that is why I was drawn to read it, too.
Nancy2 wrote:
Darlin’, you are quite the spy!
http://www.wadeburleson.org/
Bill M wrote:
That was hysterical! Where did you hear about it?
okrapod wrote:
A lot of people did not like the book and I get it. I did not read the sequel except a few excerpts here and there. I am not a huge fan of Viola or Barna. However, Viola did put something very interesting together in his “straight talk to pastors” that is worth a read and doing some research to check his assertions.
When I read PC, not all of it was so shocking as I had already been very interested in the history of Christianity and doing some research on where certain “traditions” originated. I had been on that track for a few years anyway. Most of it simply affirmed what I had pieced together but am not scholarly enough to make connections.
I guess I read it totally different than you did. I did not think it was about creating 1st Century “cultural conditions”. But more about rethinking the spirit in which the Body operated. However, it has been a long time since I read it. When I had been doing some research before reading the book, some archeology sources wrote about a home they uncovered in Ephesus during that era that had evidence of enlargement and could hold about 70 people. Very large for that time. They wondered if it was used as a meeting place for early Christians. The point being that the average home might have held about 20-30 at most people for a gathering. It gave me a totally different picture in my mind of how it might operate than the more formal institutional approach we think of as “church”.
BTW: I don’t think 1 Corin is advocating wearing head coverings. I know many do but I don’t think that is the message of the passage at all.
ION: Bolt wins gold.
okrapod wrote:
A lot of people did not like the book and I get it. I did not read the sequel except a few excerpts here and there. I am not a huge fan of Viola or Barna. However, Viola did put something very interesting together in his “straight talk to pastors” that is worth a read and doing some research to check his assertions.
When I read PC, not all of it was so shocking as I had already been very interested in the history of Christianity and doing some research on where certain “traditions” originated. I had been on that track for a few years anyway. Most of it simply affirmed what I had pieced together but am not scholarly enough to make connections.
I guess I read it totally different than you did. I did not think it was about creating 1st Century “cultural conditions”. But more about rethinking the spirit in which the Body operated. However, it has been a long time since I read it. When I had been doing some research before reading the book, some archeology sources wrote about a home they uncovered in Ephesus during that era that had evidence of enlargement and could hold about 70 people. Very large for that time. They wondered if it was used as a meeting place for early Christians. The point being that the average home might have held about 20-30 at most people for a gathering. It gave me a totally different picture in my mind of how it might operate than the more formal institutional approach we think of as “church”.
BTW: I don’t think 1 Corin is advocating wearing head coverings. I know many do but I don’t think that is the message of the passage at all.JohnD wrote:
I do not know why but when I first discovered this it made me think of Paul renting the Hall of Tyrannus during the daily rest hours for teaching and discussion because he could no longer use the synagogues. He did this for 2 years! Who was Tyrannus? History is not clear but some suggest he was teaching oratory or rhetoric.
oops, once again my device messed up! Sorry.
@ Lydia:
Well, I read the second book first and only then went back and got the first book, so perhaps that makes a difference in my perspective.
Then also, my father was forever ‘deconstructing’ everything he could about ‘church’ until I was so p. o’d with the whole topic I wanted to spit. And a lot of what he did was what Barna and Viola did with the same information–this is not new information after all. I am sure that influenced my thinking. I was so sick and tired of listening to somebody who could not be pleased with anything that the church did or was. Only much much later did I come to realize that my dad actually ‘had a problem’ which would influence his outlook on almost everything.
None the less, I am still not getting it as to why these issues matter. Take the issue of places of worship. The matter of whether one hears the verbal presentation of the message in somebody’s house (we see that in NT) or in a synagogue (Paul and Jesus) or in a temple (Jesus et al) and like you noted a rented hall, it seems to me that the issue is not where the body is but where the heart is -as in ‘the day will come when….” So why is it necessary to make a big deal, or any deal for that matter, about location? Is the message somehow more true in a house than in some other place? Of course not.
And especially why care about what format is used for the verbal transmission of the message. Jesus preached, if one thinks that ‘Matthew’ accurately portrayed some format for verbal discourse (as opposed to just some literary approach to accumulated sayings.) Peter preached at Pentecost. Stephen impromptu preached at his trial. Paul preached at Mars Hill and also far into the night they time the man fell out of the second story window. Preaching. Now some want to come along and say, well the preaching style with time became influenced by greco-roman ideas of rhetoric. So??? No doubt. The languages they used also changed. If people now want to say that ‘pagan’ styles of rhetoric should not be used maybe they need to go all the way and say that modern english also should not be used. (Like my poor dad just wallowed in ‘it says in the greek’-maybe we can resurrect Koine as a sacramental language?) I just think that some of this is about like how my dad did and it jerks my chain. I fail to see any logical necessity to it.
And: I think that protestantism has stripped christianity down to its bare bones and if we now eliminate emphasis on preaching, or for that matter doctrine, what is left? Covered dish get togethers? No thanks. Who likes to be out in the kitchen that much, or who is they exercise stewardship of time has the time for it?
Lydia wrote:
Well, insofar as you have expressed repentance, we wish to affirm God’s love and compassion towards you. However, you must submit to a plan of blog community discipline under the authority of Deebs in order to be restored to full fellows
… bah. I was this close to typing that entire paragraph with a straight face.
😉
@ okrapod:
The discussion about methods and such matter insofar as they’ve replaced the real thing in some people’s/denominations’/etc minds. The means has become the end for the average pastor, and Christian.
It does subtle things to our thinking, like leading a church to insist that a child molester should be allowed in the church services–along with kids and one of his victims–because the weekly church service is the most vital thing in a Christian’s life each week and if we bar him from coming, we’ve abandoned him to Satan (true story).
That’s one reason why the discussion matters. Sure, it can become a sacred cow for some (like your dad – I feel for you a bit!), but if we don’t keep some kind of healthy perspective on what really matters, we’ll get hung up on the peripherals, or, as is the case in the example I gave, do some really dangerous things.
May wrote:
Exactly.
okrapod wrote:
How about the REAL Original Biblical Language, Kynge Jaymes Englyshe?
roebuck wrote:
Viva la difference! Everyone comes to the table with a different perspective. In many churches and families people can’t really say what they mean or they will face criticism at best or ostracism at worst. The general rule of thumb I’ve used in posting is “Can I say that to a person’s face?” If I feel I can then I post. Sharing ideas is a good thing, healthy discussion is a good thing. Hearing something I disagree with is a good thing. Having someone disagree with me is a good thing. I sat down recently and thought about my own faith based on reading this blog and other sources, and came to the conclusion that I am probably no longer Christian – why probably? Because it is hard to deny the faith that I was raised in but I can’t say with a straight face that I agree with it anymore. My wife’s a committed Christian and understands but there are friends and family (mostly my in laws) who may not. There is a temptation to keep up the facade to them but I get the feeling if there is a God, lying is not the answer. Anyway that was a non-sequiter to conversation at hand. Take care. Difference is good.
@ okrapod:
I can see why deconstructing would be a hot button issue for you! I also think that any focus can become an obsession and that is not good either. And I think it is healthy for those who have seen some bad stuff in church to seek other ways to live out being a Christian.
I am one of those who does not think all tradition is bad but have been trained in my career to ask, “why are we doing it this way”? So much of this was pretty natural to me.
You ask the question why the format of the “message” is important. And in the examples you use the message and method of preaching was mainly to those not converted. That is one thing I did back then. Search the NT for “preaching” and the audience/venue just to get a feel for it. The other thing is that guys like Paul were talking to people who were not Jewish and had a background of many gods. And we see the problems with the whole Gentile/Jewish problem all through the letters.
We don’t really have that problem now. Yet, we own bibles, are literate and have have the resources but still go and sit in a seat and listen to one guy preach to us over and over as if checking the “listened to sermon box” is part of the Christian duty box. We pay a person to study and teach for us?
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with this. It is not a sin, so to speak. But is it stifling? I think it is for me.
As to venue well that would be my pet peeve. The money that goes into building and maintaining buildings and such would definitely be better used to help real people who need help but the church is more apt to trot out the widow with two mites and ask for them. The whole focus on bigger is better and growing the church is not as innocent as some might think. I think there will be a lot to answer for in this respect and it scares me I was apart of it.
Again, buildings are not sinful. Even Jesus paid the Temple tax even though the Jews were paying it to the Romans to keep it up for them. But Jesus said, the sons are free not meaning the Jews but the Romans! But like the Temple, they cannot become all important because God does not live there. He lives in us.
So if we strip Christianity (I am not a protestant) down to its bare bones what is left? What is left is what we DO as believers here and now to reflect Christ back out into the world. The Good News is about believing and doing. Somewhere over the millenia we lost that part.
Lydia wrote:
Do you go to a church? If “yes”, is it a liturgical church?
Bill M wrote:
That’s a neat idea. I was thinking that it stood for the attributes of abusive churches.
Maybe something like, “Greed, Rigidity, Authoritarianism, Control and Elitism”.
@ Velour:
I don’t miss church at all. And that is HUGE coming from me. I grew up in church. My mom had a key to every church we were in. I spent years in marketing and strategic planning projects in mega churches.
When I finally gave myself permission to simply “not go” I don’t think I have ever been closer to Christ!
I am enjoying visiting around now and then. Most likely I will never ever officially join another church. It would be interesting to see what churches will allow you to attend perpetually without joining. Even the liturgical ones which I visiting more because the sermon is not the most important event there? But I do not view sacraments as a “means of grace” so wondering how that might play out. Funny story, we visited a more high liturgical church and the communion had real wine but we did not know it. I wish you could have seen the kids faces when they downed it. It was hilarious. They were chewing up Altoids like crazy. They deserved a slurpie after that!
Lydia wrote:
Thanks, Lydia, for your quick reply.
@ Lydia:
I posted too soon, Lydia. Thanks for your honest reply. I miss the friendships I formed. I don’t miss the rigidity and conformity and having to do everything *somebody else’s way*.
@ Lydia:
@ okrapod:
I have certainly been interested in your dialog as I am of two minds on this and you have articulated each side well.
I’ve quoted John Adams a few times here and generally like his reasoning. He seemed to define things as less what they are and instead spoke against what they should not be. To me it allows flexibility and implies the inherent lack of perfection in human endeavors. Thus I’m staying away from anything that over-values one man’s opinion but at the same time have difficulty seeing how a less structured approach works, I haven’t seen it in action. The church I’m now attending started off as the small dedicated group with a congregational style and may now be considered a victim of their own success as they have grown large.
As someone who has deconstructed a good deal over the years, what was “the problem” you refer to Okrapod? I’m curious if I have the same issue.
Gabriel wrote:
Gabriel, in my 60+ years as a Christian, I have glimpsed “church” like this so infrequently that I’m convinced that a genuine gathering of the Body of Christ is a rare and endangered species in the 21st century.
Velour wrote:
When I left I find I miss some of the associations, a few that I would consider friendships have continued. It is more difficult to maintain the latter when you don’t see them each week but then maybe friends should seek one another out.
After leaving, those who have no interest in speaking with me, even though I’ve known some of them for 30+ years, do not fit my definition of friends. Yeah, that hurts.
__
“Smitten By Sultans of Religious Swave?” *
hmmm…
For after kind folk have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are succumb by the prodigious wrangling of the sultans of religious “swave?”
What?
…preach the word of God; be ready in and out of season; to reprove, rebuke, exhort, but with great sense of patience and gentle instruction?
huh?
For the time will come when folks will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their itchy ears tickled, – they will accumulate for themselves religious Brahmin in accordance with their own natural bent, and will turn away their ears from the truth (their feet will soon follow) and they will turn aside to religo-mirth-psychobabble?
(tears)
hum, hum, hum…
…♪♫♪ There are unsmiling pew faces, in bright neon religious chains,
Succumbing to a mega-church wheel in perpetual motion,
And they follow the rat-race that pays out no gains,
from a pulpit with no show of an outwardly kind emotion,
And they think it will make their lives easier,
For God knows, up till now it’s been hard,
But the religious game never ends when your whole world depends…
On the word of a friendly pastor?
hmmm…
(sadface)
S“㋡”py
___
(*NOTICE: This TWW post comment is dedicated to my good friend Robuck, ATB… )
“The Alan Parsons Project – The Turn Of A Friendly Card ” lyrics writen by Alan Parsons and Norman Eric Woolfson. ; Lyrics © Arista Records (parody adaptation, US Title 17 infringement unintended.)
;~)
—
Bill M wrote:
In my case, I was ordered by the pastors/elders to be excommunicated and shunned by some 200 church members and their families (including friends I had for 8-years and I was close to). My *crime*? Standing my ground with the pastors/elders who had brought their friend a Megan’s List sex offender into church, gave him church membership, didn’t tell all church members, put him in a position of leadership and trust, and said he was *safe* and *coming off Megan’s List*. His supervising law enforcement agency (the sheriff’s sex offender’s task force) called that *all lies* and *total lies*. I was threatened by my pastors/elders that I was *destined for Hell* for discussing…the safety of our children. (I’d watched the sex offender run his fingers through my friends’ 4-year old son’s hair, and my friends did not know he was a sex offender and hadn’t seen what he did to their son. The senior pastors/elders said it was fine.)
The pastors/elders told me that I was to never contact law enforcement again, that I was *to obey [my] elders* and to *submit to [their] authority*. They then made up a pack of lies about me and read me out of the church. (Oh yes, I was banned from church property. Prior to my excommunication/shunning, they did the same thing to a doctor, married to his wife for 45+ years, who disagreed with them in private. Ditto for a professional woman/wife who wanted to leave the church and was troubled by it.)
I am glad that I am not in such an authoritarian, abusive place any more; I miss some dear friends.
Bill M wrote:
I am a big fan of the curmudgeonly John Adams who got much wrong in policy decisions but lets face it, having both sides debated in the public arena is what we should be about. Sometimes I get the feeling when reading the Founders they were pretty much in a similar boat we are today concerning practicing Christianity. You have ADams whose father wanted him to go into ministry and who struggled financially in law. Madison who writes about the Baptist preachers in jail in Virginia. Jefferson who was disgusted with all of it and so on. They were all recent descendents of the state church mentality so the thinking was pretty raw.
My favorite Adams:
“You and I ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other. – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (13 July 1813)”
The Church started with participants in a circle around a table with a meal. As the institution crept in, the table was put on a raised platform, only accessed by the priestly class, the meal became a frustratingly small snack, and the participants became observers, sitting in rows.
The Reformation just replaced the table with the pulpit. And later added a rock band.
The core element of modern Christianity, the sermon, is still a passive experience. Omnidirectional, in an age of interactivity. A weird brand of performance art, performed only by those trained in the rhetorical form. And only by dudes.
So maybe the small groups are a attempt to restore the table, but it won’t work if the people around the table are conditioned by years of western church to observe. And if the leaders see the restoration of the openness and real participation of the table as a threat to their authority.
Sorry, I’m grumpy on Sunday mornings.
GSD wrote:
Exactly.
GSD wrote:
I am constantly amazed that everywhere I go –I find that most adults believe there has to be another adult in charge of them. I can understand this to some extent in business but the church? That thinking defeats the whole purpose of the cross/resurrection and the promised Holy Spirit.
@ Jack:
“I sat down recently and thought about my own faith based on reading this blog and other sources, and came to the conclusion that I am probably no longer Christian – why probably? Because it is hard to deny the faith that I was raised in but I can’t say with a straight face that I agree with it anymore”
++++++++++++++++++
can I ask why you think you are probably no longer a Christian? what do you no longer agree with?
I ask because i’m trying to come to terms with what “Christian” means.
going by Christian culture it would come down to façade & how you vote (and if you’re not wearing the façade, many would raise their eyebrows in “hmmmmm, she’s just not chrisch’n, is she.”)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I meant to respond to this before but got sidetracked. I cannot emphasize enough what you have said here. I saw it up close and personal. You get it because you have experienced it to some degree. And of course this happens in various forms and degrees depending on the church.
I honestly started to wonder what the pew peons would think if they saw the process involved in putting on the “show” for the weekend services in a mega church? The behind the curtain power plays for “stage time” were unbelievable in every facet from music, skits, announcements, etc. It was like a Broadway production week after week. People on stage are pumped and that bleeds over into the audience. Some spectators are pumped miles away watching it all happen on an IMAX as if they were there.
@ GSD:
“Sorry, I’m grumpy on Sunday mornings.”
+++++++++++
WOW, what a great comment, all of it! (not just the grumpy bit).
you’re not grumpy — you’re lucid.
that thing about the table, growing into a raised platform,…. I could totally see in my mind’s eye a time lapse photography thing, showing the evolution of “church”…. the table growing into a platform growing into an elevated stage sprouting all manner of things like a ‘pulpit’ and choirs sprouting up out of the stage morphing into hippie guitarists morphing into rock band morphing….. and part of the morph & sprout is a paul character morphing into a pope character morphing into … a Priscilla character morphing into man after man after man…..
a 3 minute pictorial story of the history of the church — I think it would be a lightbulb moment for many. wish I had filmmaking and animation skills.
(if someone ever runs with this, i’d like a “based on a concept by elastigirl” in the credits)
@ elastigirl:
That would be so powerful.
@ elastigirl:
That is a GREAT idea.
I think small group where it was understood that each person was free (but not obligated) to share a 5-min. testimony. It could be a revelation, an clearer understanding of a scripture passage, a sad situation that needs prayer, a song, a drawing, a request for a friend, etc.
Each could bring something to contribute to a buffet that could follow that time.
okrapod wrote:
Sorry I wasn’t able to respond sooner. As info – I did read both of Viola books. I don’t view them as the end all, be all. I did work at a church for four years, directly for elders. Also volunteered helping with administration in another church. I’m sure this has all been incorporated to develop my perspectives. You’d probably agree that we are all shapes by our experiences.
The reason for me to rethink (or whatever language we may use) what we do and why is simple. It appears that much has been added to the simplicity of the believers’ gathering together to encourage one another and worship. Like some have stated, the funds needed to support the institutional church has become an overbearing weight. There is nothing wrong with rethinking, getting rid of extra baggage, being simple, using money for needs instead of buildings, salaries, etc.
No one is saying that anyone has to change or do anything different if they are content with what they do now. I would just like for those (not all do this) who are part of the many different traditional churches to stop making pronouncements about believers who may not want to gather like them, use their money like them, sing like them, etc.
Most experienced parents understand how certain sports can interfere on Sundays and there is not a blasted thing one can do about it except to pull the kid out of that sport. Most parents will not do that. That pastor will learn that lesson soon enough.
Unless he is the pastor of an extremely controlling church and has his listeners firmly under his thumb. In that case, parents will be persuaded to take their kids out of sports, or never entertain the thought of sports in the first place.
I knew a kid whose life-long passion was to serve in the military. The church leadership took a dim view, talked to the parents, talked to the kid… You can probably guess the result.
Bill M wrote:
We siblings have settled on the word eccentricity. I try to stay away from diagnoses, no matter how popular, because the professionals change their criteria so often and so extensively. I am defining eccentricity as a personality with too many variables that are too far from the mean, and these all interacting with each other to produce problems.
I am not avoiding your question. When I dropped out of that psychiatry residency, which I hated to have to do, I noticed that from time to time I had the terrible urge to turn into an amateur psychobabble jerk. My better self rejected that, big time, and I have deliberately and with determination left myself a pretty wide margin of error in this area. Jerk is not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up.
So, odd. The problem was oddity.
This article is really triggering for me, and I’ve barely read past the Kevin deYoung quote about people skipping church.
I remember being almost… paranoid? About missing church. To the point where I brought our newborn baby to church way too early. We should have stayed at home at least a month after her birth, I now believe. To the point where we would return from a vacation late Saturday, or get up between midnight and dawn to drive back so we could get home in time to go to church.
Church became a burden, too. Instead of a day of rest, it was an all-day affair: bible study, worship service, shared meal, small group study, evening service. It disrupted the little ones’ nap schedule, as a mom of young ones I really could have used a nap myself and Sunday was one of the rare days I could give myself permission, as it was given to be a day of rest. But church just grew and grew to consume the entire day, and I fell into bed Sunday night exhausted and hardly refreshed from that day of “rest”.
What was that? Was it the impact of this kind of teaching?
GSD wrote:
trained = indoctrinated = brainwashed
In some countries, a central committee “elects” the country leader. To get to the committee, one has to have enough “committee” thought. To get to be leader, one has to have mega “committee” thought.
Bridget wrote:
I certainly agree with that. My issue is with the fundamentalist idea that we must always and slavishly do everything the NT says and we must also always and slavishly refrain from doing anything not specifically mentioned in the NT. Now if individuals want to live like that-that is going to have to be their own doing. But it seems to me that this idea leads to both the doing of some weird stuff and the required omission of some good or at least potentially good stuff. Rules and quarrels develop over head coverings for women, instrumental music in church, sunday school, VBS, youth ministry, stained glass windows, kitchens in a church, choir robes, carpet on the floor, post secondary education, clergy salary (whether to have paid clergy), wives submitting to husbands, what is and is not permitted for women in church-in detail, missions boards vs missions societies, diet and nutrition, medical care, child rearing, lawsuits, divorce with/without remarriage, burial vs cremation—it just goes on and on.
And then when folks want to eliminate brick and mortar and eliminate sermons and eliminate teaching ministry and eliminate any organizational structure I think, mercy on us all. Folks, my feet don’t look good in sandals as in days of yore. Maybe the current level of diversity is a good thing after all.
refugee wrote:
I hear you on this one. It didn’t just consume my entire day, but the days preceding Sunday. Cooking and shopping for the church lunch meal, getting nice clothes out, dressing up, etc.
It did become a burden.
refugee wrote:
It sounds like it was the teaching of your former church that drove this exhausting, burdensome pace and consumed members’ energy.
Were you in a shepherding-type church? (Elder-rule, lack of congregational vote, membership covenants, (mandatory or pressured) to be in a small group?), pastors/elders who demanded submission to their authority, made decisions for others, interfered in others’ lives, lack of appropriate boundaries, not respecting the priesthood of all believers, not respecting the role of the Holy Spirit.)
okrapod wrote:
Agreed.
Jack wrote:
@ okrapod:
As for their hammering on all kinds of things coming from a secular or “pagan” context, my goodness, people were simply using their own already-established social and cultural framework! That’s equally true of the Jerusalem church, or any other church, at any time, in any place. I think part of the fallacy in these books is the division of society into secular vs. sacred. (There are other problems with the 1st book, which is the only one I’ve read, but it’s been awhile, so I’m a bit fuzzy on that, and besides, it’s not really germane to this discussion.)
I don’t think it’s even remotely possible to “reconstruct the 1st c. church” absent a time machine…
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
Jack wrote:
Sorry, sometimes I think my iPad has a mind of it’s own!
Jack, I wonder …. Is your problem with true Christianity in it’s simplest and intended form, or is the problem because of the way men have misunderstood and contorted God’s word into a different definition of “Christianity”?
__
“Follow Da Son?”
hmmm…
“If I Be Lifted Up…” -Jesus
What?
“So if we strip Christianity down to its bare bones what is left? ” –Lydia
What?
“Greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world…”
(grin)
Sopy
__
Inspirational relief: “I’ll follow the Son…
Beatles Cover – Andréanne St-Louis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKkOke2noyc
🙂
—
@ refugee:
“…But church just grew and grew to consume the entire day, and I fell into bed Sunday night exhausted and hardly refreshed from that day of “rest”.
What was that? Was it the impact of this kind of teaching?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
very similar for me. i’m sure it’s how the shepherding model/authority horsesh!t influences leaders and followers.
i also think the consuming busy-ness aspect is simply what churches in general default to. Regardless of the mixture of motivations, I believe the reason for it is job justification. The professional Christians have to have things to do to keep them occupied. To give them a purpose. And of course they would like it to be meaningful.
And at the bedrock bottom of it all, is money. The need for money. The fear of dwindling money. The desire for money.
And I am beyond nauseated that I’ve been used for all this. That we all have been.
Velour wrote:
Be glad.
In a Christian homeschool group, a teenager was physically assaulting the pre-schoolers, including our youngest son.
My husband spoke with the teenager’s dad to request that the bully teenager play with other teenagers but stay away from the little ones.
The group leaders told us to apologize or leave. We left.
The bully teenager took out the eye of his own preschool brother.
We are glad that our son still has his two eyes. (Sorry for that boy – we tried to protect all of the preschoolers but in the end, could only protect ours.)
Sometimes, circle the wagons, protect your family, be glad, let the “fellowship” go.
JYJames wrote:
Thanks for your wise words. I think the hardest part was the lying. Being lied about before several hundred people by the pastors/elders, people who bought it.
Before it was done to me, I had watched the pastors/elders do it to a doctor, married to his wife for 45+ years (good marriage, loving; loving father to grown children) for simply disagreeing with the pastors/elders in private. That day the senior pastor ordered several hundred of us to never speak to the doctor again, that he was *not one of us* and probably *destined for Hell*, I thought:
1) We are not supposed to do this to one another (he’s a good man, the doctor), and
2) If they did it to the doctor, they will do it to anyone.
P.S. The senior pastor told the church members to *pray for [the doctor’s] wife*.
The doctor’s wife told an entirely different story to me this past year:
She always hated the senior pastor, the elders, the church, and had warned their husband they shouldn’t go there.
__
Worship, Participation, & Equipping?”
hmmm…
“It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior. This assurance is not based upon any kind of human merit, but is produced by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms in the believer the testimony of God in His written Word…God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justifies them in His sight…God admonishes His people to assemble together regularly for worship, for participation in ordinances, for edification through the Scriptures, for mutual encouragement and for being equipped for service.”
“Loving God, Strengthening People” and everything we do revolves around that mission. We exist for the purpose of equipping believers to worship in truth, walk in holiness and bear witness of Christ’s love in order to glorify God and derive joy from Him.”
“A church is not a building, but people—people who have come to faith in Jesus Christ and gather together for corporate worship, encouragement, teaching and ministry.”
-Wade Burleson
Paster, Enid Baptist Church, Enid OK.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2BnBPf37Zss
—
__
You Got To Hide Your Christian Love Away?
hmmm…
“The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling. In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).3
__
3 “calculations based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s August 2012 Current Population Survey, which estimates there are 234,787,000 adults in the U.S.”
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/#_ftn3
__
Comic relief: The Beatles: “You got to hide you love away…”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NNyPXWMnIz0
🙂
—
Does anyone know what this means?
From Desiring God
In conclusion, then, the reason that preaching is so prominent in worship is that worship is not just understanding but also feeling. It is not just seeing God, but also savoring God. It is not just the response of the mind, but also of the heart. Therefore God has ordained that the form his Word should take in corporate worship is not just explanation to the mind and not just stimulation to the heart. Rather the Word of God is to come teaching the mind and reaching the heart; showing the truth of Christ and savoring the glory of Christ; expositing the Word of God and exulting in the God of the Word.
That is what preaching is. And that is why it is so prominent in worship. It is not a mere work of man. It is a gift and work of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it happens most and best where a people are praying and spiritually prepared for it. That is what we will talk about next week.
numo wrote:
Strange, I thought they were attempting to do the opposite.
elastigirl wrote:
Good call, elastigirl! Actually, I am an animator, of sorts, with a background in architecture. And way too little free time. But it would be fun to illustrate the shift. So many people don’t understand that so much of what we associate with “church” is actually a relatively recent invention.
And it would be too cool to have “Concept by Elastigirl” in the credits.
By the way, there is a segment of the Organic Church world that believes that God has “left the building,” and is only working in house church type meetings. Viola seems to border on this outlook at times. And I disagree completely. I believe that the Body of Christ, the Church in the Locality, is truly organic, and can adapt to any culture. I was fascinated at the comment above at how the house church of the first century was an adaptation of a Roman dinner party. They met in a form that was culturally familiar, which also made it hard for the authorities to spot them.
In short, we need more freedom in how we meet, and some historical perspective. Not less.
@ Steve:
Ha ha. I think he is saying his sermons are very important as they are direct from God.
“The sermon is the pivotal point of worship.”
Not so! Just like the person who experienced something quite different at that liturgical church, such has been my experience within Eastern Orthodoxy. The sermon, while instructive and upbuilding is not considered the main focus. Rather, the Eucharist is considered far more central to worship than the sermon. With that said, I think it is unwise to put God in a box. Because we as people are not cookie cutter cut-outs of one another, what will be profound and healing for one person during the worship service may be quite different for someone else. God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. For some, the healing and encouragement may come during coffee hour after the service. For others, it may be one the ride home after the service. The wind blows as it wills…we cannot control the Holy Spirit.
What seems obvious to me is that these churches stressing covenant membership, mandatory small groups, and church discipline are preoccupied with control and authority. That’s exactly the way it was in the Shepherding Movement. The result of such control is discouragement, fear (paranoia), and judgementalism (I know, not a word but I can’t think of one that is apropos at the moment) which leads to self-righteousness. At some point that self-righteousness can come crashing down when one is unable to keep up the performance of following all the spoken (and unspoken) rules. Peer pressure is the modus operandi in these churches. Hence, trust between people is often compromised and bonds of close friendship are often at risk. Everyone’s personal lives become the business of everyone else. The entire aspect of one’s life becomes controlled by the group, and by extension, the rest of the congregation. A person’s thoughts become molded by the group think tank. At some point a person in this system wakes up (or at least they should) and realizes, “I am no longer able free to think on my own.” Everything in my life must be processed and judged through the lens of this group think tank. And where, one might ask, is the Holy Spirit in all of this? He is pushed aside and ignored. In effect, the group think tank has become the *Holy Spirit* (sic) molding and shaping members into a type of unified Borg. Such *unity* however, does not reflect Christ and becomes suffocating to the point of despair.
If you find yourself in an environment as described above, flee for the sake of your spiritual, mental, emotional, and physiological health!
@ GSD:
Agreed. God is where his people are. Even if they’re crazy.
GSD wrote:
People have said this is what Viola believes. He has refuted this.
Darlene wrote:
Thanks, Darlene. I needed to hear that.
okrapod wrote:
That is not where I’m coming from at all.
numo wrote:
Some professions require people to work on some Sundays such as police, firemen, nursing and other hospital staff just to mention a few. What is absent in such a controlled system is that God can and DOES work through and in the lives of those who must work on Sunday. For example, the nurse who is caring for the needs of her/his patients, the policeman who is working to keep the community safe, the fireman who is on call in case of a fire, and many more such examples.
Velour wrote:
You are welcome, Velour!
okrapod wrote:
Agreed!
Former CLC’er wrote:
I never heard of the phrase “doing life together” until I started reading TWW. However, the Christian cult I belonged to had its own loaded language. *Fully there* became a catch phrase that meant 100% sold out for Jesus.
refugee wrote:
I came out of a movement that “encouraged” (read: mandated) attendance at everything, including baby and bridal showers for people you didn’t know.
Lydia wrote:
I ran across this underlying characteristic at the former church. It was stated by someone who I expected would think otherwise. I would mess up the quote, it ran along the lines that we should know our place, it wasn’t our place to question. At the time I was unprepared to challenge the reigning dogma. In some ways I wish I knew and could articulate then what I know now, but honestly I wouldn’t have been able to change their mind so it would have merely moved up my departure time.
There were things I did articulate, the need to implement accountability and independence in their council (pastors rubber stamp committee), the need to undergo an immersive training on listening. These proposals were given little regard, no push back but also nothing happened, nothing adopted but lip service. I found it remarkable that a group of people spent a good deal of time developing a training on communication and listening at the council’s direction (pastor rubber stamp committee) and received absolutely no communication back. They were not even told it was voted down, it came only through back channels.
On emailing several people of my departure I was told they were making great strides. At the time I was now no longer listening to them so I didn’t ask for particulars. They ended the year with a deficit amounting to 25% of budget and passed off the budget as balanced to the congregation without saying they did so by raided other funds. There are times to realize some things can’t be fixed, you can’t live with them the way they are, so it is time to walk away.
refugee wrote:
Speaking of control freak churches. I have mentioned this same church/ preacher here at least twice before and remained bowled over by how controlling some of these guys are.
Ohio pastor forced vasectomies, abortions on members while children were secretly sexually abused: report
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-pastor-forced-vasectomies-abortions-members-report-article-1.1973158
Tina wrote:
Thanks for the reminder. Same here at the Gulag NeoCal Church. And it got expensive and time consuming.
@ Steve:
Whole lotta’ nuttin’! Piper always comes off to me as semi-mystical. When I read in the gospels, Jesus’s teaching/preaching on a subject matter, it’s not prefaced by this type of goobly speak.
Tina wrote:
I know I said this on the last thread from a few months ago about that really controlling church where the 50 something guy married a 20 year old after his wife died and used church money to buy porches, but I’m such an introvert and couch potato, good luck with any authoritarian church prying me off my couch to go attend some church function, Bible study, or bridal party.
I’d be more than happy to tell them to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. I wouldn’t have been able to do that when younger, but now? Oh yes.
@ Tina:
That sounds familiar! “If the church doors are open, why wouldn’t you want to be there??”
You’d be at weddings where everyone was sitting around at tables not talking to each other, bored out of their minds. No idea why they were there, other than “hey, there’s a wedding of church members and we should be there.” I was planning on leaving the church right after one wedding (my brother’s wedding), and I was just watching people sit at tables with a sour look on their face the whole time. Entire tables.
Presumably there was nothing else to do on a Saturday afternoon than show up to a church wedding, but I guess when you’re in a cult, you really don’t have anything else to do.
Nobody leave The Village!
Daisy wrote:
I meant Porsches. 🙂 As in the expensive sports cars.
Will M wrote:
There has to be a reason for the pastor to get salary and benefits in the upper six or lower seven figures to the left of the decimal point! So make him the star of the show, front and center, with lighting on him, some sycophants doing the warm up. So that when they pass the plate or send you the automatic withdrawal slip, you are willing to pay them for the entertainment.
Bill M wrote:
Indeed.
@ Bill M:
Some of these “check your brains at the door” churches are very subtle. My former church is evolving into the same thing as I hear from a few who are totally confused. Our kids have similar ongoing interests so they have asked me some questions about why I am gone for which I have been extremely broad and vague. I just don’t go there with people because it is usually a waste of time.
but they keep calling me and asking about this or that. I send them to places like SBCvoices or here to get a feel. They freaked over Driscoll/Acts 29 and Mahaney.
The husband, an engineer, wanted to know how this church full of bankers, lawyers, and all sorts of professionals have literally turned over their input/voice which used to have to go congregational votes but are now stacked committees operating in secret. And asking questions about such things bring a cold wind. He has gone there since he was in the womb and has been extremely active except his years away at college.
So, I asked him to explain it to me. He can’t. It is inexplicable. Time to move on. The very young Neo Cals got their paid for asset and won the hearts and minds of a few pivotal people and it is all over.
I understand how all this works in a mega because you go in there knowing you are not going to a part of decision making for the body. I don’t understand smaller long time congregational churches literally changing their entire operating structure within a years time. It boggles.
(by the way, they insist tithing is at all time highs. But it used to be published weekly along with a quarterly budget review. All that is gone. but attendance is down quite a bit. Personally, I find most of them to be deceivers including the influencers who want to save face for a very bad decision)
@ Arce:
Don’t forget the golden parachutes! I have been amazed at those deals.
@ Darlene:
Restaurant and retail employees have to work 7 days a week. We tend to forget how many professions and jobs are not 9-5, M-F. (Speaking as a former retail worker…)
I find it interesting that few people have commented on the part of Dee’s post where a minister said some very freeing, good things about worship, church attendance (or not) and much more.
While I realize that there are some highly negative quotes at the beginning of this post, I think Dee did a great compare/contrast job – and the result (what the minister she quoted had to say about a number of things) seems like it would be great for discussion.
The thing is, I wonder if a lot of us commenters are able or ready to move on to the next step post-abusive churches? It is very hard – I know that from my own experience with it. But there’s a point at which we need to start looking forward rather than back, or at least begin to realize that there is such a thing as “forward.” It took years for me; I don’t have any expectations that recovery follows a schedule or timetable for anyone. But sometimes I think it might help to focus – at least some of the time – on positive things.
Just my .02-worth…
@ numo:
* I did not intend my previous post as a critique of any individual here; just thinking out loud.
Bridget wrote:
You’re probably right, Bridget. Viola does seem to be pretty balanced, and I need to re-read some of his work, when I have time. But I have heard people use his work, and other materials, to make this point. So I need to retract that statement, and say that I have heard people use Viola’s writings to support their position that the Organic Movement is the only place where God is moving. I disagree with that position, and it sounds as if Viola does as well. Which is good to know.
@ Lydia:
I’m curious too. I’ll admit I’m not much of a “need to know/vote on everything” kind of guy (at least I didn’t used to be) but are we really that tired and worn out from working all week and disinterested in being active that turning our decisions over to others is so appealing?
My former SBC church leans reformed, and there were a few there that might have wanted to go all Calvinista on it, but it was mostly full of feisty, old-school country types that loved their right to vote. No way in heck there’d be a takeover. I guess there’s not enough of those folks in the average suburban jungle church anymore.
GovPappy wrote:
I think you are on to something there. I know my busy parents would have been appalled and thought every single person from janitor to pastor deserved a say and a vote. Perhaps few want one anymore?
What boggles my mind is people give them money to not have input!
@ Steve:
oh oh oh it’s magic
you knowoo
never believe it’s not so…
Really, I do think they think there’s something magical or mystical about listening to the sermon-preacher in the church building— you can’t get the feeling/savoring/stimulation/exulting otherwise. I’m reminded of an anti-note-taking article– by DeYoung, I think— will look it up.
For the Jazz lovers amongst us (and music lovers), here’s the Wynton Marsalis Septet group playing a jazz version of “Happy Birthday” for a friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYi5hJR7O7Y&sns=em
Daisy wrote:
This the ManaGAWD who high-pressured his pew potatoes into abortions so the money the parents would have put into childrearing was available for TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! into the MoG’s pocket & perks?
GSD wrote:
I disagree with that position too.
Darlene wrote:
Because the damage done is long-term to permanent, lasting from years to the entire rest of your life.
Darlene wrote:
Comrade Fidel (Maximum Leader of six-hour !Socailsmo o Muerte! speeches fame) would agree.
Lydia wrote:
So said Jim Jones…
Dave A A wrote:
Can we just call them what they are – delusional!
@ Dave A A:
My apologies to DeYoung — it was Jared Wilson echoing Ray Ortlund echoing Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
This from Ortlund:
“Hearing a sermon is not like hearing a lecture. It is your meeting with the living Christ. It is you seeing his glory, so that you can feel it and be changed by it. Let’s pay attention to him and what he means a sermon to be, lest we miss him.”
I think they do make some valid points, but— equating hearing a sermon with “meeting with the living Christ”?
Former CLC’er wrote:
I noticed your handle is CLC’er. What does that stand for?
Another beautiful music video that was just emailed to me, a flashmob in a beautiful old square in France playing all different kinds of music, including
the Beatles for someone’s birthday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJQdo1kLiis&sns=em
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I like everything you said except I’d replace Piper with…..CALVIN. As one well-known Calvinist preacher said: “Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else.” Now I just know that someone here at TWW knows who said this. Take a guess. 😉
Velour wrote:
Oh, the Beatles. No other group can compare to their music. I think there is a Beatle song for just about every moment in life. That includes the music each of them wrote, produced and recorded after they each went solo.
Darlene wrote:
Since when has H.U.G. been a NeoCal preacher? (LOL)
numo wrote:
Ok, I will bite. While I think it is great Dee’s pastor said that and that she shared it with us I am not sure why what any pastor says about how we make life decisions is relevant. Guess I am too old or something but a pastor’s opinion about whether or not we are there was certainly not relevant when I was growing up. Because we did not think we reported to him or were accountable to him. The pastor was viewed as one of us but also an employee. Unless asked, getting into such details of our personal lives simply was not done whether it was sports or a vacation.
The other thing is that there are still many people coming out of authoritarian churches so implying some are not “moving on” is a bit insensitive. Why isn’t it a good thing to share experiences with those just coming out? That is pretty much what this blog is about. I am thinking there are a lot of people here who probably don’t have many in their lives they can discuss such things with.
Back when the Viola/Barna book came out it was the talk of the Christian blogosphere. From my surfing around I found, in general, two types who were totally against the book. The first was those who made their living in ministry. The second tended to come from liturgical backgrounds. I could not figure the second group out because I am woefully ignorant of liturgical churches and have only visited a few. And I liked them even though I am personally uncomfortable with sacraments as a means of grace type thinking. Was it because liturgical tend to focus on tradition/ritual? I could never figure out their response to that book.
Here is a positive: I probably would not have visited some liturgical churches if not for the positive reviews of such, here. And for that, I am thankful. I am enjoying visiting all kinds of traditions and types of churches. It is very freeing. We have even gone to the Temple for some classes in OT.
Velour wrote:
This cool concert was played to honor the late Francis Poulenc’s birthday (French composer and pianist).
Bill M wrote:
Bill, it’s not uncommon for controlling groups to use words and phrases from Scripture and put their special twist on the meaning of such words and phrases. The group to which I once belonged used the term “fall into the earth and die” – which btw, is from John ch. 12, to hold each other’s feet to the fire. We could be heard saying “Have you fallen into the earth and died?” Another phrase we used from Scripture was “abiding in the vine” but that also had a particular twist to it meant to control fellow members. This kind of using Scripture as insider heavy loaded language led to some folks not being able to read the Bible for quite some time after they left the group.
Darlene wrote:
It seems it can be traced back to Spurgeon but many have copied him. Sooooo…..Piper?
Velour wrote:
I hear ya, Velour. And some like to have the phrase “Sovereign Grace” in the name of their church for special emphasis. When you see “Sovereign Grace” in the name of the church, you can bet 99.99999% of the time that it is a Calvinist/Reformed church. Perhaps I should just say 100 percent of the time. 😉
Darlene wrote:
+100
@Darlene – CLC stands for Covenant Life Church, which was the original church in the Sovreign Grace churches – the only church when I originally was part of it.
The point i was attempting to make was along the lines of “the sabbath was made fot man, not man for the sabbath.” Had i heard comments like the ones i alluded to back,when i was in an authoritarian church, it would have helped immensely. But the messages i got were the exact opposite.
At any rate, i think it is intended to be something one wants to do, not an onerous duty.
Maybe I’m hanging out in the wrong place? (Not literally “wrong”; maybe not the best place for md, right now, though.)
Max wrote:
Free thinkers will not be tolerated. Either they will conform or be disciplined Calvinista style or excommunicated and shunned. It sounds like a new playbook but it really is taken from the old Puritanical playbook of New England which came from the Puritanical/Reformed thinking of men such as Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, and of course John Calvin himself. Here’s an article about life in merry ole England (which wasn’t so merry) under Cromwell. Seems he was into authoritarianism and controlling people’s lives just like the Neo-Cals of today. The Neo-Cals are just taking their script from the old Calvinist playbook attempting to put a new face on it with young hip dudes and the latest technology. But it’s the same old/same old. Only thing different is that the Neo-Cals don’t have the power that the New England Puritans, Cromwell, Knox, and Calvin had. Just imagine if they did. Me thinks they’d be using the sword to carry out their idea of justice.
Here’s the article about what life was like in England under Cromwell. There wasn’t any grace for the Sabbath, as mentioned in the title of this thread. Calvinist *grace* back then was cruel, harsh and without mercy.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/stuart-england/life-in-england-under-oliver-cromwell/
Bill M wrote:
I hear ya, Velour. And some like to have the phrase “Sovereign Grace” in the name of their church for special emphasis. When you see “Sovereign Grace” in the name of the church, you can bet 99.99999% of the time that it is a Calvinist/Reformed church. Perhaps I should just say 100 percent of the time.
I even know of a Desiring God Community Church in Charlotte, NC. I guess they worship Piper directly.
Sorry, Darlene wrote that.
Darlene wrote:
Precisely!
numo wrote:
An entire thread with no mention of Piper would be a positive thing(smiley face here)
I’m sure you know it isn’t a step but a process. I’ve spoken with some that went through horrible circumstance decades ago, now live positive lives and you wouldn’t know their former pain. But crack the surface and it appears still close at hand for them.
The negative stories here gave me real hope because I found I wasn’t the only one and they still had faith. I may also be making up for all those decades living under the “totalitarian niceness” regime where saying something positive was not a suggestion but a requirement.
On a positive note I recently chatted with someone at a function that looked familiar, this person had attended my former church many years ago but not at the one I’m currently attending. He had been through quite a bit and mentioned that it was good that he had a supportive friend through it all. He mentioned the name and I noted his friend was an elder in my present church. I found it a positive indicator of the culture where I’m at that devoted friends cross church boundaries.
Bill M wrote:
I concur. My experience too. (It’s nice to know that, like in Dee’s post, there was one nice pastor who humbly got real peoples’ lives. After the devastation, however, that I have seen the NeoCals cause at my former church – excommunications, shunnings, threats, destroying friendships, reputations, marriages, the spread of this across America, the child abuse scandals are rampant, Acts 29/9 Marx abuses, the lack of respect for the priesthood of all believers, comp doctrines, etc. — it’s just a lot to process. A nice pastor in some other church won’t take away the pain, loss, grief, and trauma that so many are still dealing with.)
elastigirl wrote:
Realistically most people do not have the attention span of listening to an hour long sermon. And this doesn’t have anything to do with the Fall, or sin nature or the flesh or the devil. Further, in any given audience there will be people with different learning styles and abilities. Here is an article by Howard Gardner on multiple intelligence that addresses the different intellectual capacities that people possess in their ability to learn.
http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/MI%20Theory.htm
Darlene wrote:
Wow you’re right, especially the last few sentences. One of the worst things about abuse is its turning of good things into triggers and giving innocent things associations they shouldn’t have.
My sister can no longer read the KJV because of our upbringing. There’s hymns I no longer want to hear. Bible verses that forever have meanings associated with them that they weren’t meant to have.
Evil.
Divorce Minister wrote:
Well, since these folks are so convinced that the sermon is the end all be all, main focus of the service, I’d like to know how they can back that up. They’re always stressing that their views are from the Bible. But where do they get from the Bible that the sermon is THE most important aspect of Christian worship on Sunday?
Bill M wrote:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb? None. Monergism – it’s all God from beginning to end.
@ Bill M:
Re. your 1st point, you bet! 😉
I am by no means wanting to suggest that people not tell their stories. I’ve needed that, and needed to do that, myself. A lot. But right now (for entirely unrelated reasons), I am dealing with a lot of sadness plus grieving yhe recent death of a family member, and am thinking that pics of baby animals and the like are what i might need to be looking at – and i mean that quite seriously. It csn be a grest relief on difficult days.
As for my comments above re. the book Pagan Christianity, I think the authors ran into problems with errors of fact (partly because neither are historians, and in some cases, took dubious sources at their word, in good faith – I wish their publisher had had better fact-checkers on hand, as these problems could have been avoided). The other difgiculty – one that i believe was not intentional on the authors’ part – is that the book comes across as an anti-liturgical church polemic; also – unfortunately – as a highly selective tske on church history. Both authors might have bern surprised by the amount of things they would have agreed with, had they dug a little derper into the history of the church. Yes, institutional churches (overall, am not referring to inherently abusive or authoritarian ones here) are messed up, but there is a lot of good stuff in the midst of the dross. My best guess is that this has always been true. (I do think there’s a whiff of anti-Catholicism in the book, but that is a whole other topic; still, sadly, not uncommon in many evangelical publications and views).
@ XianJaneway:
Finally!!!! :-p
@ Darlene:
If you look into the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, you’ll see very similar things. Perry Miller is excellent on this – he was, for a very long time, *the* go-to source, and although he died some time ago, he is still one of the best.
Interestingly, author Nathaniel Hawthorne had a lot to say about the bad side of the Puritans/more extreme legacy of the English Reformation. His grandfather was one of the judges for the Salem witch trials.
As for Cromwell et. al., there is much more to it than religion per se. Had Elizabeth I had her own child/heir, and/or if Charles I had been a better monarch, Cromwell and his New Model Army might never have gained so much power. The English Puritans also did some low-down things in order to take over Parliament. No matter the religious fervor, there was a great deal of money and power up for grabs. They won, for a while, anyway.
Boyd wrote:
If they are Already elect before time and will Never perish, then why are their churches so controlling? Ain’t nothin’ all the control in the world can do if they ain’t one of the elect. And if they are one of the elect, ain’t nothin’ in all the world that authoritarianism and control can do to change that.
Darlene wrote:
You know, I was thinking this morning about baptism about the whole Calvinism/NeoCalivinism “The Elect” concept as it relates to baptism. Why do they insist that people get re-baptized as adults, who may have been baptized as children, if they are part of The Elect?
Lydia wrote:
No, not exactly. It is complicated but not exactly hard to understand. If you want to some time we can discuss it over on the ODP. I have gone from non-liturgical to liturgical for some reasons that I think non-liturgical folks can understand, but I am still a protestant.
Darlene wrote:
Exactly. And, why spend so much time on church and Bible studies? That isn’t going to make any difference, either. Is is just because the pastors and seminary students are financially dependant on the church members?
Arce wrote:
Something else that annoys me are the talking head Christians (not necessarily preachers) who make huge bucks too. Such as.
Franklin Graham’s salary raises eyebrows among Christian nonprofits
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2015-08/franklin-grahams-salary-raises-eyebrows-among-christian-nonprofits
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeah, some of his former members surmise the rationale was he wanted all their time and money going to him, not any kids
Also: thank you for trying to make Pew Potato
happen, HUG!
No offense to the other blog denizens who favor “Pew Peon,” but “Pew Potato” either makes me grin or giggle every time I see it. Must be the Couch Potato in me. I don’t know.
GovPappy wrote:
I have come to dislike Romans 8:28. Not that it’s been twisted by most Christians, but I forever got that quoted at me after the passing of a loved one.
Christians giving me Romans 8.28 every time I came to them because like a cliche’, not a help or a comfort.
Daisy wrote:
A correction:
That should be:
Christians giving me Romans 8.28 every time I came to them became like a cliche’, not a help or a comfort.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
I have the same reaction to Philippians 4:8 that was used to silence me during a time of pain and loss. I can’t even look at it.
@ Velour:
The funny thing is, some of these verses aren’t even bad or horrible in and of themselves. In my case, Rom 8.28 became painful because it was being used to brush me off or get me to shut up and go away.
The Bible says to “weep with those who weep,” but lots of Christians I came across prefer an unwritten rule of,
“Quote Bible verses at a hurting person, or use a verse like a weapon to bludgeon them, to get them to shut up and go away, so you can return to watching my favorite TV shows undisturbed”
——————
Rom 8.28 isn’t even a horrible verse, but when you have Christians quoting it at you like it’s supposed to solve everything (it becomes a platitude), it hurts.
Darlene wrote:
JUST. BECAUSE. THEY. CAN.
And since they KNOW they’re The Elect, they never need to worry about getting on God’s bad side or Judgment or Hell, so what can God do to them? They’re The Elect, God’s Speshul Pets.
And besides, everything they do was Predestined by God before the creation of the world, so It’s Not My Fault!
Daisy wrote:
Spot on post, Daisy! It does hurt. I think, “Can’t they just be quiet and empathize?” Did people who are in pain ask for a lecture?
I was one of the few people at my former NeoCal church who did empathize with folks, did listen, didn’t toss our Scripture verses nor advice nor lectures.
Christians said that I was one of the only people they could trust and unburden to.
Velour wrote:
Or restore the trust destroyed by the ones we thought were “nice” but turned out to be control-freaks. There are good and true pastors, but I just don’t trust that I can recognize them any more.
numo wrote:
There are wintry times when I look for a warm place to sit and read, usually retreating into a good history book. I’m glad you and others were here with your stories when I needed it and of course thanks to Dee and Deb.
Sermon Centric Worship
Pastor Centric Fellowships
Pulpit Centric Churches
Imagine, as God patiently corrects His church, recycling will claim outdated books, videos, recordings, teachings, etc. Just like when the earth became spherical instead of flat, rotating around the sun instead of vice versa. Fortunately the Bible itself never fails. Just the uninspired teachings. New day.
Velour wrote:
That is good to know that you could be there for people, the sort of person other people feel comfortable opening up to.
I am the same way, especially in real life. I take after my mother. I am also introverted, which means I tend to do more listening in a friendship than in talking.
From my mother, I learned that when folks come to me angry, crying, or sad, they don’t want or need advice or criticism. They just want to be heard and have their pain acknowledged, which means just sitting and listening and telling them you are sorry they are hurting.
My mother used to serve that role for me (and I have for others), but nobody has wanted to do that for me since she passed away, not even friends or family I used to console for hours when they were sad or angry.
My sister has expected me to be a friendly shoulder for her to cry on both before and after our mother died (which I did do), but anytime I’ve tried unburdening myself ot her, she screams at me,tells me she has no sympathy for me, etc., so I learned a few years ago to stop going to her.
People love it if and when you will listen to them cry about their problems and don’t judge or give advice,but most of them are not willing to return the favor, I have learned the hard way.
I’ve also had to learn to develop boundaries. I can no longer listen to and absorb hours-long rants from people who are hurting or angry, so I have to gently let them know I have to end the conversation. (People exploited my good nature and ability to listen in silence for long stretches of time.)
Gram3 wrote:
So true, Gram3. Me too.
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
I am glad you were there for other people, as your Mom taught you how to do and was there for you. I am sorry that other folks weren’t there for you. You were right to set boundaries on your time, energy, and emotions.
@ Velour:
And P.S. In all seriousness, a few of my Christian family would tell me my phone calls were disturbing their favorite TV shows (which were retired relatives who sit around home all day, and their fave TV shows are 40 to 50 year old re-runs of sit coms and Westerns).
It really made me feel even worse to discover I am on a lower rung than some people’s favorite TV shows. Shows that are like 50 years old that you can get on DVD these days, even.
Nancy2 wrote:
Makes me think of an old Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson) song Locomotive Breath from the Aqualung Album.
Daisy wrote:
I am sorry, sweetheart. Terrible…
elastigirl wrote:
Think of the beans as fully processed and ejected. Now think of a very popular and colorful word which is often used to name the ejecta and you’ll quickly see what Potter would say they’re full of.
Muff Potter wrote:
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQyVH2TD1pM
Daisy wrote:
So sorry, God bless you, Daisy. Their loss, they missed the boat.
Daisy wrote:
True. This topic requires its own post. The Deebs should put that on their “to do” list.
@ Daisy:
Sounds like some stupid people don’t have sense enough to know what a good friend is.
@ Velour:
Thanks Velour! I saw Tull at the Greek Theatre in LA back during the wind-down of the Vietnam Era.
Muff Potter wrote:
Welcome, Muff!
@ Velour:
I prefer “Heavy Horses”, but “locomotive breath does fit, doesn’t it?
“He sees his children jumping off at the station one by one” …..
….”He picks up Gideon’s Bible, open at page one.
God, he stole the handle and the train won’t stop going – no way to slow down”
Nancy2 wrote:
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzCvljJIJQw
Your California dj,
Velour
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for the info. I took and delivered collections for Samaritans Purse for 3 Christmases. No more. How far would half of Graham’s salary go for an organization like that? Makes me mad to know that I’m pinching pennies and burning gasoline in my 1999 car, when he’s raking in nearly a million a year!
@ Nancy2:
I thought the same thing about Samaritan’s Purse. Ditto World Vision (why I am paying to them when they have a $1 billion dollar operation?).
@ Velour:
Ha! “The heavy horses coming home!
Thank you!
@ Velour:
Non-profit ….. Minus the non?
Nancy2 wrote:
Welcome, Nancy!
Nancy2 wrote:
ROFL.
Velour wrote:
(And @Nancy2 and @ JYJames)
Thank you for your concern and well wishes, that does mean something to me.
I’d like to clarify that I was not calling these relatives all the time, I was trying not to be a nuisance.
I had to work up my nerve to contact any of them, as I am usually pretty introverted and have a hard time phoning people about anything.
I even asked all of them ahead of time in an initial phone call if it would be okay to call them once every few months to talk. I was wanting someone to talk to in the years following my mother’s passing.
They all said yes, it would be fine for me to call them and chat about my mom or whatever.
These relatives are older, retired, and in good health. Most sit around home all day watching T.V.
I have no idea how a 30 to hour phone call from me once ever 3 to 4 months is such a huge interruption for them.
But yes, I had some of them tell me I was interfering with their 50 – 70 year old TV show reruns, and they’d like to cut the call short or have me call back another time.
These were also some of the same people my mother used to take phone calls from every week when they were grieving the loss of another relative or undergoing some kind of heartache.
I don’t know why people are like this.
@ Nancy2:
I used to admire some of his charitable work, but hearing about his huge salary and his over-drive into the culture wars the last few years (he recently did a Facebook post complaining about Target taking down girl/boy signs, for example), have soured me on him a bit.
Daisy wrote:
Yikes, that should read a 30 MINUTE phone call.
I had no intention of having anyone on the phone for 30 hours!
Daisy wrote:
Self-absorbed.
Daisy wrote:
No worries, we got your drift. To them…1 minute of giving their time might as well have been 1-hour.
@ Daisy:
30 minutes to an hour once every 3 or 4 months is a tiny sacrifice to make for a friend or family member. Really, it’s not even a sacrifice. Both parties could benefit so much. Daisy, I understand that their behavior hurt you, but I think it was their loss, too. They are just too selfish to see it.
Bill M wrote:
I can relate to the totalitarian niceness part.
@ Daisy:
I have an extended family member who works for him and makes a lot of money, too. “Ministry” has become something very disturbing in so many ways.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. The candor of peoples’ experirnces saved my sanity. So grateful.
@ Bill M:
IKWYM about curling up with a good book. Same here. Good music helps lots, too.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
July 27th, on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, “Is the Sermon Toxic? (by Jeff Cook)” discussed this topic:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/07/27/is-the-sermon-toxic-by-jeff-cook/
Lydia wrote:
Again from Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, a comment:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/08/03/caught-in-the-malestrom/
A comment from Denny Gunderson: “‘Who’s in charge?’ What if that is not the most important question? In a fallen world this seems to be the predominate default question at which most of us begin or eventually arrive. I think there is a deeper question, however, namely, ‘What is the nature of all relationship, including within the Trinity?’ A correlative sub-question might be ‘How close can we become while maintaining both our sense of self and the relationship to the other?’ In relationships that grow and mature, is not the deeper issue primarily about the nature of intimacy or its lack thereof? Is not appropriate intimacy the goal of relationship? If that is not the case, it seems to me that relationships would only be governmental or utilitarian and love would be excluded.”
[end of quote]
Who’s in charge? – and do adults function in relationship, including in the church, only when someone is in charge? In small groups, someone has to be in charge? In marriage, someone has to be in charge? Where two or three are gathered, there is mandated hierarchy? Not agency but hierarchy?
Daisy wrote:
It takes a special kind of sombich to twist Rom. 8:28 into a clobber verse to use on Christians.
My first pastor was that sombich.
@ Bill M:
Yes. This.
The funny thing about growth and moving on is that the stories can become numbing. You can look at others’ anger in their stage of life, newly awakened from a nightmare, and merely feel annoyance at their immaturity.
Been there, done that.
I gotta rein myself back in and think it wasn’t that long ago I was there (and still am in many ways). Immature, processing, dealing with anger. It’s still very helpful to me to come here and see broken people still fighting for their faith, through all they’ve been through.
Even so, I gotta take a break sometimes. The potential to simply be numbed to others’ pain is very real, and it’s helpful to step away and get lost in something a little more lighthearted once in awhile. My Fundy training tells me though that if I take my foot off the gas for one minute, souls are going to be lost, etc, and therefore I can’t ever rest – I must be 100% sold out and involved or I’m letting Jesus down. I think that’s a lie of the devil to get you to burn out and lose healthy perspective.
GovPappy wrote:
WRETCHED URGENCY:
God’s got his Hell gun pressed to the back of your head with one up the spout and the safety clicked off — “If you do not Witness to him and Save His Soul, I WILL HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE!!!!!”
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classic-wretched-urgency%E2%80%94the-grace-of-god-or-hamsters-on-a-wheel
Nancy2 wrote:
Rank Hath It’s Privileges, PEON.
@ JYJames:
Thanks so much for that link. I am cheered that Carolyn Custis James interacted in the comments. And I am looking forward to reading her new book, “Malestrom: Manhood Swept into the Currents of a Changing World”. I have enjoyed two other books she wrote that are so well researched and make one think deeply. The Gospel of Ruth is incredible.
I noted that some in comments are referring to a TGC review of her book. Have you read it? Here is her response to it:
http://www.whitbyforum.com/2015/07/skirting-issues.html
here is a snippet most of us can relate to:
Even though in his review of Malestrom for The Gospel Coalition, Parnell concedes agreement with Malestrom on two major points—that patriarchy is “horrible” and that Jesus as the perfect imago dei embodies true manhood/humanity as God intended—he parts company with a lot of complementarians by disassociating his complementarian views from patriarchy. He writes,
I have no attachment to the term. In fact, because of all the baggage, I would recommend it not be used in reference to God’s vision for men as expressed in Christian complementarity. Even if some proponents of its use envision a “kinder, gentler” version, as James recognizes, it’s not a term worth salvaging. Malestrom convinced me of this all over again, and therefore, her repeated jabs at “patriarchy” left me unscathed. I even shared her disgust for what she described.”
His stance is not unique among complementarians. In fact the very name “complementarian” was chosen by the formulators of complementarianism to put distance between themselves and patriarchy. But denying their patriarchal foundations, puts Parnell and others at odds with fellow complementarians, such as Russell D. Moore, a complementarian stalwart and President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. While Moore distinguishes and rejects “secular patriarchy” that abuses and objectifies women, in an article entitled “After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Gender Debate,” he goes on record insisting that “Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy” (573) and that reclaiming “authentic biblical patriarchy is necessary” (574) for the movement to survive.
@ JYJames:
From that link:
“Worse still, the medium of the sermon reduces thinking. What the sermon does is create Christians who are increasingly ineffective at actually talking to people who disagree with them. Because the way we experience and process information about God is often custom fit to our pre-held beliefs, the sermon trains us–not to process and communicate–but to parrot and talk down to others.”
Oh, this is true! Great article, thanks!
Lydia wrote:
It interests me to hear you say that. I’ve never been in a mega church, only a small attempt at a carbon copy. I wonder if what you experienced was more of a business than ‘church’ as the NT intends it. Implement the same techniques, and your church will grow too. Download rather than pray.
I’m not an advocate of not ‘going to church’, but if you stop doing this for a while or even a long while, it’s only then you realise just how much attendance can be little more than habit or carrying out a perceived duty, rather than getting together with other believing people. I only know that because I read it in the internet …
There is little point in attending a church if, instead of building you up in the faith, it gradually erodes your faith and undermines it. I suppose that is a way of saying not everything that calls itself church is church, and there comes a time when you have to come out from among them.
@ Nancy2:
I was thinking more along the lines of ‘And The Mouse Police Never Sleeps’ –
“Window-box town crier;
birth and death registrar.
With claws that rake a furrow red —
licensed to multilate.
From warm milk on a lazy day
to dawn patrol on hungry hate.”
GovPappy wrote:
Yes. This was used as a clobber verse by a Christian woman to silence the people around her facing hard times. I have never been able to hear it again.
Ken wrote:
I will take it a step further. If attending a church where I know nefarious teachings and/or behavior are taking place, then my attendance/support could be enabling unless I have chosen to take a public stand within said church. Now, I realize that position is considered a horror for most people and that they think unity at all costs is the more Christian position. I am a big fan of simply leaving quietly because very few minds will be changed anyway.
There are some precious people in history who have convicted me of the enabling view including Elie Wiesel and Desmond Tutu. What is scary is that when we look the other way at what many might be perceived by some as “lapses of judgment” (excuses we heard from TVC, SGM, Driscoll, etc ) they will become horrors with many victims if not checked.
Nancy2 wrote:
Me thinks that Franklin’s sister Anne is probably no slouch either when it comes to living the good life off the mites of widows.
You know what bothers me about this thread. And really my anger is directed at many Neo-Calvinists… One of the best attributes of Protestantism is the sermon. I love a good talk, expository preaching, etc… Its one of the things that makes Protestantism unique and distinguishing it from Catholicism and orthodox forms of faith.
That said, one of the best attributes of Protestantism is being destroyed by the Neo-Calvinists. They are doing it by abusing their authority, membership covenants, legalism, 9 Marks, etc… You know I would be open to attending a Neo-Cal church if membership wasn’t rammed down my throat and if they didn’t require covenants. Why? I think it would be fascinating and healthy to listen to differing takes on the Bible or to have me engage and ask someone, “How do you deal with the Problem of Evil in Neo-Reformed theology?” Strength comes in diversity and by how Neo-Calvinists act they are destroying themselves in the process. When people are walking away, and the system is left in ruins some people are going to wake up and realize the harm they have done. By that point it will be too late.
Ken wrote:
Yes, considering the condition of the 21st century church, it becomes a matter of deciding at the individual level which Scripture you must embrace: “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25) … or … “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” (Revelation 18:4).
The true Church is agonizing in the Spirit over increasing apathy and approaching apostasy in the organized church … in addition to the counterfeit camping out with the genuine (as reported on this blog). I can hear those groanings in various comments on TWW. The church is not the way it should be, but it is the way it is. Whether we go to church or not, believers, we are the Church! Look for where God is working, and join Him there! It may be next door, or in your workplace, or in your child’s life … or hopefully, in a church near you. Minister in Jesus’ name as you get opportunity.
As the lepers proclaimed when the city cast them outside the gate and the enemy was moving in “Why sit here ’til we die?!” (2 Kings 7) … they got up, put their behinds in their past, and saved their lives! If Elijah had continued to sit by the brook when it dried up and the ravens stopped coming to feed him, he would have died of thirst and/or hunger (1 Kings 17). Some folks just sit there, never thinking about getting up! You’ve got to move where and when the Spirit leads.
@ M. Joy:
M Joy…did you see my question up above? Would you be willing to say what 9 Marks church you went to in the DC area? I would be more than happy to meet you.
lydia wrote:
I first noticed someone using the term here about six months ago. It was one of those, yeah! that’s it! I know what you mean moments.
I recall council meetings where we had to begin with “ministry wins”, taking a good deal of precious time from the beginning of each meeting. The pastor brought the agenda and needless to say any real issues that someone dared to bring were ALWAYS crowded at the end of a meeting that went overtime. The issue would not be resolved and it would not be put on the agenda to be resolved at the next meeting. If it was important we needed to keep forcing it onto the agenda and deal with it when everyone was tired. But we all had to be nice and say only nice things.
It would be interesting if I had the ability then to articulate how that construct of meetings, stacking them with staff and family members of staff, wasting time on fluff, driving an agenda full of issues that no one outside of staff had knowledge of prior to walking in the door, was an appalling manipulative exercise that tried the patience of saints, it was maddening. But we had to be nice.
Ken wrote:
Contrary to your trailing sentence your statement sounds like it is grounded in experience. If so, what was the resolution?
@ Bill M:
Exactly! It is a manipulative tactic to control people. You cannot ever really deal with actual issues, and of course, to bring them up you have to find the right “tone”, “words” and venue and so on. Of course, if they don’t like the negative truth or issue then they will still not like the “tone”, words or venue. One can only take a few years of that if they are sane and actually want to get things done.
There were always the people who wanted to start the meeting with “praises”. Why can’t we start with objectives or even dare I say it: a sit-rep? (banging head against wall) But I am quite familiar with the tactic of leaving serious issues until the end and then pretend they are not that serious.
Lydia wrote:
Control, manipulation, and intimidation are neither fruit or gifts of the Holy Spirit. Wherever those are in operation by church leadership, you will not find Spirit-led ministry.
Eagle wrote:
At our church we have liturgy including a homily on Sundays, but we also have pastor’s class on Wednesday night which is done in a lecture format. There are also small groups with facilitators (during what would be SS time) and also sinners dinners (more typical small groups to include food and socializing.) People are expected to attend mass but the rest is totally optional. What I am saying is, why should it be either/or when it comes to lecture format-why not all of the above plus whatever else people can use.
Velour wrote:
Yes, any time I had Romans 8:28 quoted at me in person, or heard it on televised sermons, sometimes, its intent is to make you think the tragedy you went through, or are currently in, is no big deal, because somewhere down the line, God will magically work it out to make it good for you.
When you are in the middle of heart break or stress, right then and there, I am sorry, it is not comforting (to me, anyhow) to hear that at some remote day in the future (or in the after life) God is going to make it up to you by giving you a rainbow, a puppy, and a Lollipop.
What I usually need or want in the middle of a heartbreak is not promises of justice and gum drops at some vague future date, but for someone to put their arm around me right then and there as I am hurting, maybe give me some original heart felt words of encouragement (not Bible verses).
Then, I had some other Christians quote Rom 8.28 (and a few other verses at me) just to get me to shut up and go away because they couldn’t be bothered.
I do think Bible verses can and do have their place in providing comfort to the hurting, but I guess Christians need to practice sensitivity about it, if quoting them at another person – it depends on the context, timing, and severity.
Bill M wrote:
This reminds me of the term and concept of “Mandatory Fun”
“This job requires me to work every Sunday–I’d have to get a new job if I wanted to be regular at church.”
Well, my wife is a nurse who works Saturday nights and crashes on Sunday mornings, sleeping through church worship time. If you want to judge her for working on a Saturday night, I sure hope you never have a medical emergency that requires a hospital on a Saturday night.
Eagle wrote:
Eagle you must have me mixed up with another post. I have never lived in DC or attended a 9 Marks church.
@ Jeff S:
Instead, I will thank God for her, EMTs, doctors, orderly and others!
@ Daisy:
One of my favorite books for reminding me that pain is not so easy is “A Grief Observed” by CS Lewis.
If I was starting a church I think maybe that would be required reading for anybody wanting to stick around.
I’m sure Mr Lewis knew Romans 8:28.
Daisy wrote:
Where all except Church is Forbidden, and what is not Forbidden is Absolutely Compulsory.
@ Jeff S:
Christians like to pretend that jobs should exist but that we shouldn’t be involved in them. We won’t say restaurants should be closed on Sundays, but we’ll still hit the buffet after church.
Somebody’s gotta be a policeman on Sunday, but it ain’t for you, Christian! No sirree! How can you commit to a church when you’ve committed to the world?! Ain’t no man ever served two masters!
We’re an odd bunch.
Velour wrote:
“EEYUP!”
Actually, one of my writing partners (the burned-out country preacher) goes by the handle “Heavy Horse” in some circles. He used to be involved in a horse rescue group.
@ lydia:
🙂
Jeff S wrote a very well-argued response to the following quote from Kevin Of Young:
To provide the priceless sacrament of preaching to those of my congregants who work on a Sunday, many of them in jobs providing a service to the community that is of much greater immediate significance than my sermons, I’d have to put on some kind of service on other days as well.
If I can’t do that – well, I’m not exactly exemplifying the way of the cross, am I?
Here’s CT on RC Sproul Jr…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/august/ligonier-suspends-rc-sproul-jr-over-ashley-madison.html
dainca wrote:
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can completely agree with your comment. Whenever one hears the phrase “Word of God” in or outside the worship services, it is almost always being referred to Jesus Christ. In fact, we have hymns that worship the Word, meaning – of course – the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Only Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Virgin Mary,
Who without change didst become man and was crucified, O Christ our God,
Trampling down death by death, Who are one of the Holy Trinity,
Glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!”
The mindset in the Eastern Church is quite different from that in the Western Church.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In fact, this is what I went to my church leaders and asked for, and it prompted a mid week prayer and praise meeting. Not weekly, but at least something that could provide for worship outside of Sunday mornings.
Also, my pastor watched the kids (along with another adult, as we always have two for church functions) one week so that the prayer and praises meeting could have childcare. So this kind of servant leadership does happen 🙂
And from RC Sproul Jr’s blog….
http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/general/judgment-and-grace/
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I don’t think Christians of any era can separate culture from church. Every church service, every Christian gathering has some aspect of culture to it. Culture in and of itself is not bad. Traditions in and of themselves are not bad. It is when we elevate certain cultural proclivities and traditional preferences ABOVE loving God with all our hearts and loving our neighbors as ourselves that the problems arise.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, the saying comes from C.H.Spurgeon, “The Prince of Preachers” himself. So, when one reads Spurgeon, keep in mind that he understood the gospel through the Calvinist lens.
@ Eagle:
What was it, ten years ago he was defrocked by his denomination for tax fraud or misuse of tax exemptions or something? Then there was the whole Ligoneir scandal over money that involved Ligon Duncan’s brother and suing a blogger. The first case of its kind that made USA Today and the Orlando Sentinel. Then Jr joined up with Doug Wilson at CREC. Now I see he is fully in daddy’s “ministry” business as a rector in daddy;s Reformation Bible college.
@ Darlene:
Spurgeon totally shunned his own brother over the “Downgrade” controversy. Not a fan.
@ Lydia:
Lydia….I just call it nepotism. Pure and simple nepotism. Some of these guys need to hold down a real job and deal with a real boss. If they had to deal with performance evaluations, sales goals, managing a project, etc…that would bring them down to earth.
Jeff S wrote:
I grew up around pastors like that. It is rare these days.
elastigirl wrote:
Many pastors, bishops, elders, churches, weak Christians, have scandalized the Christian faith so as to cause others to despair and give up entirely. If I only understood the Christian faith through those who have deeply wounded me or were poor examples of following Christ, I would give up on my faith in Christ as well. But I understand and know Jesus Christ to be quite different from the examples I gave. He is nothing like those who twist the meaning of salvation and know little to nothing of the love of God. He says, “Come to Me, all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest for your souls.” This truth has NEVER changed. It will last unto the AGES of AGES!
@ Lydia:
How to become a CELEBRITY Pastor:
Be born the firstborn son of a CELEBRITY Pastor and have your name end in “Junior”.
Jeff S wrote:
I’ll be sure to time any of my future heart attacks or car accidents for Tuesday afternoons. Har har. 🙂
GovPappy wrote:
Oh, there’s a covert takeover in my opinion and it’s happening in the most unassuming ways. The other day I was listening to Janet Parshall on the popular Christian radio station that broadcasts in my area. A fella named Dr. Samuel Storms was the guest speaker on her show. As soon as I heard a few *buzz* words and plugs to read certain book, I knew the man was a Calvinist. So, I decided to look up info on him after the show. Turns out my radar was on to him. In the Wiki bio it states: “Sam serves on the board of Desiring God ministries, Bethlehem College and Seminary, and Acts 29 Network.” Also, “In 2004 he left Wheaton College to found Enjoying God Ministries. In 2008 he became the lead pastor of Bridgeway Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.”
Does anyone else notice that the names of these NeoCal churches seem so unsuspecting? Who would think they are Calvinist? This is where I think they should just be blatantly honest and name their churches after their beliefs. Why not have Calvinist or Reformed in the name of the church. At least with the Presbyterian churches, such as the OPC and PCA, you know ahead of time that they are Reformed. So, I’m inclined to think that such unassuming names given to NeoCal churches is related to their covert attempt to Calvinize evangelicalism.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I didn’t know that. What was the “Downgrade” controversy. Can you link me to a good and accurate article about it?
Lydia wrote:
I just attended a reunion of ex-members from the Christian cult I once belonged to. Actually, I was the one who organized it. I learned from one of the ex-members that he is now on the *bad* list in his church because he is attempting to address some wrongdoing. Apparently the pastor has been tampering with the church charter so that all the authority and decision-making resides in him alone. Ahem…not surprising at all.
Unless I was unclear, I meant to say that the pastor of that particular church is attempting to gain control so that he alone is the one that has authority in making decisions for the church.
@ Lydia:
RC Sproul Jr was defrocked by the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly due to their finding that he had illegally used another organisation’s tax exemption reference number. I understand that this constitutes the crime of identity theft under both Virginia state law and Federal law. He was also found guilty of other charges.
The eldership of the church (Saint Peter Presbyterian Church) was charged along with Sproul Jr for following his lead. Part of the judgement against Sproul and the elders reads: “The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1Timothy 3:1-7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified.”
Our YRR pastor is a fan of Sproul Jr and tweets stuff written by him. When I challenged him on the inappropriateness of giving Sproul Jr his approval the response was along the lines of: “So I can’t quote someone if he has committed a sin?”
@ Darlene:
Oh I know that – the pastor’s son tried to do a Calvinista takeover at another church in town but they filed a lawsuit and kicked him out. He proceeded to take over another church, where he still is today.
Point being, it wasn’t happening at his home church. The members weren’t going to have it, in no uncertain terms.
Lydia wrote:
There was a time when all churches used wine in the Lord’s Supper. Then the Temperance Movement in the 19th Century led Mr. Welch to discover a way to make grape juice without the alcoholic content. Voila! The Teetotalers’ dream was answered. Me thinks those folks completely forgot that Jesus Himself turned water into….gasp!: Wine!
GovPappy wrote:
Good for them that they caught on before the coup d’etat was successful.
JohnD wrote:
I can “quote” someone who has committed a sin. But I can’t cast stones in that person’s name…
I suppose a good response would be actively to seek to build fellowship with Bishop Margaret Vertue in Cape Town (no idea how far away that is; I know South Africa is a big place!) and give him the same response.
(I have NO doubt that we are of the same mind here, of course – just thinking aloud!)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
P.S Background information for any who require it:
Margaret Vertue was the second woman to be consecrated as a bishop in the Anglican Communion of Southern Africa. The first was Ellinah Ntombi Wamukoya of the Diocese of Swaziland and it occurs to me that, depending on whence in South Africa John hails, Swaziland might be closer than Cape Town.
@ Darlene:
I can remember when I first came across it reading around on Neo Cal type sites. You would have thought the English Baptist Union pastors were denying the resurrection or something.
I could never really get a clear picture of exactly the issues from the Neo Cal articles or even McArthurs book, but Spurgeon himself was pretty clear in his newsletter the Sword and Trowel where he basically said they were going liberal theology. What was “liberal” in Spurgeon’s view? They were going “Arminian” which to him, he wrote was the same as Pelagian. (there is a Spurgeon site that Mcarther has with the old newsletters in print)
And here is how Spurgeon claimed it happened over time: England expelled Puritanism from the CofE back in the late 1600’s and replaced its Calvinism with ARminianism which produced independent Baptists. Spurgeon claimed they were all Calvinist Baptist churches but became way too lawless (antinomian) and that scared people who then over corrected by going Arminian.
He claimed Arminianism ruined the CofE. He claims it was first the ministers then the churches on the “downgrade”.
All this has to be read between the lines of Spurgeon, unless of course, one thinks Arminians are horrible. Most most articles are written in support of Spurgeon. Spurgeon seems to be have been very resolute and he alienated himself from many of his former friends and family and his health suffered as he died at 57.
IOW: I would have probably been on the Downgrade, too. The history of this stuff just fascinates me.
JD Hall is going to lots of trouble to promote the concept of a Spurgeonesque downgrade in the SBC.
Velour wrote:
Velour, I would posit their insistence on re-baptism has to do with their staunch view of baptism itself: that it must be Credo/Believer’s baptism in order for baptism to have any biblical meaning. And, in many cases their disdain for paedo-baptism because of its connections to Roman Catholicism which they despise.
JohnD wrote:
Thanks for more detail. As to the above, would it make a difference if there is a pretty bad PATTERN of behavior over time as one in the ministry? Nah. That hardly matters anymore.
My goodness, I used to read his site just to be shocked what he wrote about women! Did you know we are all on the internet just looking for some Lothario to pay attention to us instead of doing our housework?
Nancy2 wrote:
I know know people have said this before but I’ll say it again. I think he is so different from his father. And not in a good way.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hey! I’ll have you know that I’M a PEW POTATO! Not a PEON!
@ Darlene:
Poor guy. At least he recognizes the wrong doing. I hope he finds peace even if that means walking away.
numo wrote:
Ah, yes. I know I meant to come back and comment on that, but I ran out of time. I may have said something and forgotten, so beg pardon if this is a repetition — I don’t have time to go back and read comments again, just saw this one in passing.
It was refreshing to read about the pastor who did not see himself as the center of worship, but a part of a whole.
While contemplating what the most important part of a worship service is, I’m not sure I would pick the sermon, either. I’d be tempted to focus on the praise, but then I am a musician and music resonates deeply. Maybe someone else would find another part more important.
Jeff S wrote:
I may be confused. After all, I am a woman, and we ARE more easily deceived. But, don’t preachers and pastors work on Sundays???
JohnD wrote:
What I would do is the following….
Start quoting from Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinski, John Edwards, etc…. 😛
Jeff S wrote:
We have what is called a Wednesday night prayer meeting. It’s way more preaching than prayer.
Darlene wrote:
I can’t speak for the NeoCals in question, but I must comment on the term “re-baptism”.
I have never been re-baptised. I was christened as a baby at the instigation of my family, and I’m sure they meant well and that this was a very decent gesture and a lovely occasion for all concerned, or would have been had I not been teething really badly. (We still have the family photos, and my little face is bright red in all of them.) I don’t despise this ceremony at all but, at the same time, I cannot acknowledge its having any authority as a baptism. Ergo, when I became a believer around 18 years later, I was baptised. A proportion of Christians would claim that I was re-baptised, and some of them would consider me guilty of an act of heresy (and yes, I have heard that word used very explicitly in this context). For which I forgive them all; but they are every bit as wrong as the Flat Earth Society *.
Personally, I have no issues with those who consider themselves to have been baptised as babies. If they don’t take the issue of baptism lightly, and are fully persuaded in their own minds, then I hold that there’s nothing important to argue about. I’m well aware that there are credobaptists and paedobaptists who would fight each other to the ends of the earth over this. But again, they’re Flat-Earth wrong to do so.
So, I have not been re-baptised. Nor would I claim that a paedobaptist had been, for instance, “faux-baptised”, or similar. To be frank, I think both terms are equally divisive. I know “faux-baptised” isn’t really a term, but you know what I mean.
* There really is a Flat Earth Society. I can never quite tell whether they’re joking or not, if I’m honest.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Not to mention the differences regarding the meaning and nature of infant baptism among the churches that practice it. Zwingli was hardly Roman Catholic or EO or CoE. And some credo-baptists differ on what believer’s baptism means and who is the proper subject. There is a movement among the YRR Baptists, especially 9Marks, to delay baptism until the subject is independent from his/her parents. And there are some credo-baptists who baptize 3 year-olds, so go figure that. Some Church of Christ churches say it saves or is necessary for salvation. Lots of variations.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Me too.
I never actually heard it officially called re-baptism because the initial contact between an infant and water in a religious format is not considered baptism. What I can’t figure out is why the baptists make such an issue of the how and when of baptism in the first place since they do not consider it a sacrament. If they think they have to get it just perfect, even though they do not consider it a sacrament why do they not apply the same rigidity of practice to the other non-sacrament of the lord’s supper and actually use bread and wine? But they don’t- they go with crackers and grape juice.
Personally it is not a problem for me what they do, but keeping my mouth shut when they start in with insistence on why they are right and others are not, that has been difficult from time to time. I mostly just want to ask some of them if they are making it all up as they go along-not just the procedures but also the reasons for why they do what they do.
Similarly, why would marriage after divorce be called re-marriage unless the person was marrying a former spouse. Otherwise would it not be just marriage instead of re-marriage.
And then there is re-imagining church, apparently assuming that church was imagined in the first place. Well, okay, some of it seems to have been. Perhaps that is taking this idea too far.
@ okrapod:
? If you still adhere to non-Anglican beliefs, I get this. But if not, then i am truly confused, since it is a sacrament regrdless of the age at which a person is baptized.
@ numo:
Baptists do not believe in sacraments. To them nothing is a sacrament, but communion and baptism are ordinances which are symbolic but nothing more and which are acts of obedience only. Hence, I use the word non-sacrament because that is what they believe. Strongly believe.
So what I was saying is why, if they consider them both non-sacraments, would they get so precise about one and so careless about the other. That inconsistency does not seem to bother them, and I don’t know why it does not bother them.
Nothing that I said had anything to do with any religious group other than the baptists.
okrapod wrote:
Perhaps that is why they call it “believers” baptism denoting a free will choice in the matter? It seems to go back to some of the Ana Baptist groups who were drowned for “believers baptism” calling it their “third” baptism.
Some do consider a necessity for membership even going as far to say one must be immersed not sprinkled. Others don’t care. I am thinking Felix Manz probably poured a pewter pitcher of water over their heads in his 16th century kitchen. He was drowned for doing it, too.
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2006/06/20/baptism-by-firetruck
And then there is the “fire truck” Baptismal for kids that the current SBC prez had at his church. I bet that reeled them in.
Nancy2 wrote:
Haha :), which they are compensated for too. My old pastor would have a fit over that, especially coming from a lowly woman’s lips.
elastigirl wrote:
I went through the doctrinal statement of the last church I attended and could not honestly answer “yes” to a single statement. That’s the simple version. I actually found TWW when I went looking for websites regarding leaving Christianity. At this point I had been out of church for a while and one of the articles I found was a 9 Marks article regarding not letting people leave a church, which led a further search, which led to TWW. One of the doctrinal statements that I most struggled with is the bible is “infallible truth” and “supreme authority”. To this I say “yikes”. For example when the Israelites entered the holy land, the city of Jericho was exterminated to the last man, woman and child (apparently donkey, oxen and little lamb as well). And I’m sure that none of us would execute family or friends who are gay (I have both) or advocate execution for moral crimes like adultery – or worst disobedient children. I find the misogyny rife in the bible not in line with my current beliefs about equality or egalitarianism for all of our citizens (yes, I know our society is not like this in practice for everyone but we have something to work towards). And don’t look forward in glee to seeing all the unbelievers cast into the pit for all eternity (including the Muslim doctor who saved my wife and son during a difficult birth). In fact when my father died, I prayed that the wrongs he had done to me would not be held against him in the afterlife. We had a contentious relationship but I don’t want to see him go to hell – yes I still pray. Many people who attend church (my wife included) would never advocate anything that would place our freedoms at risk and yet many Christians also don’t repudiate the parts of the bible that fly in the face of 21st Century human rights. When I posted a question at one church regarding the old testament laws on execution, the pastor replied that Jesus paid the price because we couldn’t keep those laws. Think about that. I shall insert a “yikes” here. Yikes. I could go on about Paul and his edicts regarding women or the entire book of Revelation but now seems a good place to stop. So there was no spiritual abuse, no controlling church (never signed a covenant). Where does the “probably” come in and why pray at all? As I said, tough to deny what you’ve been raised in but there are redeemable points about Christianity. I’m just having a hard time making it fit with what I know to be right. Peace.
okrapod wrote:
The young NeoCal who took over my previous church, did away with the midweek classes. Everything was to center around the Sunday sermon where we were to be pounded over the head with Calvinism. And, I also learned that those in full-time ministry would be especially blessed of God.
numo wrote:
Interesting thing I have discovered, mostly from on line but also have been told, but ‘episcopalians’ on the one hand and ‘anglicans’ on the other hand disagree with each other on right many things. Episcopalians also disagree with each other, and anglicans also disagree with each other to the point of fragmenting into separate groups. Also some who identify as ‘anglicans’ may not actually be part of the ‘anglican communion’ and may disagree with Canterbury on significant issues. In short, it seems that a good rule of thumb is to assume that in actual practice everybody disagrees with everybody on almost everything. At our church, for instance, there is no agreement about the eucharist and Father S is actively trying to bend the general opinion in a certain direction, but since he is still trying I assume he has not succeeded to the extent that he wants to.
Father S has said that freedom of conscience is fine unless it gets to outright heresy. Not sure what he calls heresy, but eventually I guess we will find out. Our church for example at this time does not call itself anglo-catholic but rather an episcopal church in the catholic tradition. I don’t know all the nuances of that but the two are not the same thing-this information directly from F.S. to a family member.
This is way over at the other end of the continuum from what I hear people saying about the neo-cal folks and their emphasis on group think. And this is one of the reasons I can fit in with these people.
BTW, at the lutheran school where the gandkids go they have religion class-for a grade-and have a great way of dealing with things. They tell the non-lutheran kids that when the answer to some question on a test is different from what their own church teaches the kid should write down ‘lutherans believe…(answer to question)’ but nobody has to violate their beliefs in order to pass a test. I love it.
Darlene wrote:
Velour wrote:
That makes sense, Darlene. Although the NeoCals have set up their church structure EXACTLY like the Roman Catholic Church with every neighborhood NeoCal church’s senior pastor crowned as Pope, the elders as Cardinals, complete with the power to “key out” (Gram3’s saying for Excommunication/Shunning) any church members (the majority for, what else, dissent).
And those insufferable, dangerous, un-Biblical Membership Covenants that strip members of their rights, rob them of their role in the priesthood of all believers, make the subjects not equals, put the elders in the place of the Holy Spirit, and basically set up a religious state. Insufferable.
For those reading, if you haven’t read it already, here is conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson’s (Oklahoma; The Wartburg Watch’s E-Church pastor here on Sundays) excellent article about why folks should NEVER sign a Membership Covenant (and he would never sign one).
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/it-takes-village-covenant-to-raise.html
And that Wade sees the main problem in today’s churches as Authoritarianism (I believe he’s correct), not Legalism:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
Darlene wrote:
The Rev. Billy Graham always said that his daughter Anne Graham Lotz (her husband just died so keep her, her children, and their family in prayer please) was the best preacher in the family!
Anne, by the way, has dealt with being excommunicated and shunned (along with her husband) at a former church. She wrote a good book about it: Wounded by God’s People.
Darlene wrote:
Thanks for the tid-bit of history, Darlene, from wine to grape juice for communion.
Since my excommunication and shunning at my former Gulag NeoCal Church (over the issue of the pastors/elders’ friend the Megan’s List sex offender and his hyper-control in our church), I bought a good bottle of RED WINE and every now and again I take communion at home with a piece of Jewish Matzoh crackers and a little glass of red wine and I “do this in memory” of our Lord.
Lydia wrote:
Sad and bad. Clanging bells, these guys.
Lydia wrote:
Sometimes just believer’s baptism isn’t enough. When I was first baptized, it was by a General Baptist preach. When joined a Missionary Baptist church, I had to be baptized again to be a member! So many different kinds of baptists, so many loopholes to get tied up in!
Daisy wrote:
Excellent post, Daisy!
To me throwing Bible verses at folks to shut them down is a form of “taking the Lord’s name in vain” because it makes a mockery of God.
Lydia wrote:
ROFL.
Ranks right down there with that Baptist College president who recently *resigned* for having an affair with a woman, married college executive there.
refugee wrote:
I don’t know what kind of music you like, Refugee, but here is one of my favorites: Mama Mosie Burks singing “I Love To Praise Him” with the Mississippi Mass Choir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGsmL-lgBZ0&list=PL0h_VoMvLDFJjfaUQkHFZBHuei93jOn8w
There are more wonderful songs that you can find on youtube. Also, The Gospel Legends (filmed in Mississippi) on youtube has wonderful, uplifting performances.
@ Velour:
Please forgive my previous snarky comment toward Graham-Lotz. It was unkind and uncalled for.
Nancy2 wrote:
Dear Nancy2,
ROFL.
Law school in your horizons? Math brain, logic, quick witted, and wins…just about all arguments.
(P.S. In case you don’t know according to the NeoCal’s Jesus’ blood was good enough to atone for Adam’s sin, but not Eve’s. Thus the patriarchy movement.
Yes, according to the NeoCals – Eve is more powerful than Jesus.)
Muff Potter wrote:
I hadn’t seen it, yet, Muff. But you are forgiven.
Thanks.
Darlene wrote:
Not only that, but many of them that I’ve met go through all kinds of (would the word be “hermeneutical”?) contortions to prove that the wine really wasn’t wine, but grape juice. As was the wine that was drunk by any godly figure in the Bible. Because it is not for kings to drink wine… (And Paul’s advice to Timothy, to take a little wine for the sake of his stomach? You guessed it. Grape juice!) They insist that’s the proper way to translate it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thanks, Nick. I was thinking that NeoCals would explain baptism v. christenings that way (like Darlene has explained as well). I was just mulling over my Sunday morning coffee, “If they claim to be The Elect, then why do they care about baptism?” If God knew that this NeoCal person was in The Elect, than a christening would have counted.”
Nancy2 wrote:
I didn’t know that.
Me, I would have retorted with, “Well the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized!”
Lydia wrote:
Sickening.
Velour wrote:
Yeah, well … I was 14 … Still had a lot to learn. If I’d been disrespectful to a church pastor at age 14, my dad would have made sure I would be able to sit down until I was 16!
Velour wrote:
If that be the case, I hereby joyfully cede my power, neither to the Neo-cals nor to the men, but to Jesus.
I’d never make as a lawyer – judges would take turns holding me in contempt. Jury duty pushes the limit for me. I’ll stick with math. A smart mouth doesn’t land me in jail in the world of mathematics
Lydia wrote:
That is just bizarre.
That may be even more out there than Steve Furtick’s staged baptisms from a couple of years ago.
okrapod wrote:
Oh poo. okrapod, you know they didn’t drink wine in the NT! They just drank grape juice and called it wine! Leest thats the way ah heerd it told at da church. And, crackers are a kind of bread. ;> … giggle.
@ Daisy:
And P.S. Sorry, I am reading that page Lydia linked to as I go along, so I didn’t get to this part until after I hit the “post comment” button above:
Source:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2006/06/20/baptism-by-firetruck
Are they serious?
I got baptized at a very young age, because I accepted Christ as my savior at a very young age (before turning ten years old), and I was baptized in the normal, baptist tank thing on the stage of the church where adults were baptized.
And I understood, even at a young age, what the baptism represented (dying and being raised with Christ), and how serious and solemn it was. I did not need or want confetti shot out of canons, not even as a kid.
I would’ve felt, (even as a kid!!), that it would have been disrespectful to turn the baptism into a circus show with blaring sirens, lights, confetti, and in a fire- truck- shaped tank.
Daisy wrote:
I wonder how many kids got “re-baptized” with the “fire truck”?
Daisy wrote:
I got baptized in a cow pond …. twice. It was cold both times.
JohnD wrote:
I google Sproul Jr. and found this: http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/01/03/the-christian-patriarchy-movements-dark-secret-of-wife-spanking/
Claims that he spanked his wife as a disciplinary measure.
Velour wrote:
sorry…autocorrect put some goofy word in that sentence. It shouldn’t be “hyper-control.”
@ okrapod:
Oh, ok, i somehow thought that you were still of that opinion regarding baptism, as an Anglican. Apologies for the confusion!
@ okrapod:
Lutherans are verydiverse,too. Same as what you’ve just desctibed, pretty much.
@ okrapod:
This is interesting re. the church you attend. Sounds like it’s just shy of being truly Anglo-Catholic. Agreed that that is verymuch its own thing, too.
okrapod wrote:
Excellent point.
Nancy2 wrote:
I would expect Cowgirl Nancy2 who rode her pony up the front porch and through the front door to the family’s living room…would have been baptized in true cowgirl style!
Jack wrote:
@Jack,
I appreciate your thoughtful posts.
Here are some of conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson’s (Oklahoma, United States; he’s the pastor for The Wartburg Watch’s EChurch on Sundays) excellent blog articles that support your views about women’s worth (which is also Biblical). And I thank you!
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/08/it-honors-christ-and-is-biblical-for.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/strange-belief-that-woman-cannot-teach_19.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/artemis-redux-women-and-i-timothy-29-15.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/sheri-klouda-gender-discrimination_17.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/12/russ-moore-women-and-preaching-false.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html
Nancy2 wrote:
Good answer, Nancy2.
AMEN!!!
Gram3 wrote:
“There is a movement among the YRR Baptists, especially 9Marks, to delay baptism until the subject is independent from his/her parents.” 9Marx certainly knows about contracts since at the age of majority a young person, independent of their parents, can sign the authoritarian, controlling Church Membership Covenant/contract.
Nancy2 wrote:
Gotcha! (I am glad you’re still with us, to comment here and all, and that you weren’t dispatched to meet your Maker.)
@ Lydia:
Offered without comment, from UHF a.k.a. the Weird Al Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc5ltzKq3Y
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, apparently domestic discipline in the form of wife spanking was associated with R.C. Jr. Apprently there are some within Reformed/Calvinist circles that see nothing wrong with wife spanking.
Lydia wrote:
Are you sure we didn’t leave the same church?
Darlene wrote:
I guess they see nothing wrong then with sitting in jail. It’s assault and battery (and other crimes can be added to the list). If someone dared lift a hand to me, they would be calling a bail bondsman and an attorney!
@ Jack:
One of the doctrinal statements that I most struggled with is the bible is “infallible truth” and “supreme authority”. To this I say “yikes”…..
….As I said, tough to deny what you’ve been raised in but there are redeemable points about Christianity. I’m just having a hard time making it fit with what I know to be right. Peace.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
well, hey, me too. entirely.
you know what? let’s just let the word “Christian” go. such a loaded word (thanks to all the nitwits with their agendas, & the non-thinking masses). we’re better off without it.
and I bet happier and free-er. the word goes poof, and the consernation goes poof, too. well, I think the word itself which is a label forced on us is largely what we fight with.
bottom line: God is good, fair, kind. there are apparently 30,000-40,000 denominations in “Christianity”. obviously no one can agree on what it’s all about. they can’t all be right. why should we feel pressured to fit in? And fit in to what, exactly?
I have my beliefs & way of looking at things — kind of a hybrid — just as valid as all the other 40,000.
@ Sopwith: Nice post and music you did for Roebuck.
Continuing the off-topic, but interesting, discussion on baptism while it’s still early in the morning over on the left of the Atlantic.
Point 1 of 2: adult-only baptism within 9 Marx et al
If indeed this is going on, it is more than likely linked to membership contracts designed to maximise the gain accruing to the leading elite from each individual member. These contracts essentially complete the transformation of a local expression of the church, under the Kingship of Jesus, into a local motivational speaking franchise that ultimately has no king but Caesar.
Point 2 of 2: non-sacramental Baptists
As a preface: “baptists” is a very broad term, and so phrases like “baptists teach…” or “baptists make a big thing about…” need to be read with appropriate caution.
But back to the point in question, the Christian life is not divided into “sacraments” and “trivial things we shouldn’t fuss about”. The fact that baptists don’t believe in sacraments as such doesn’t mean they don’t believe in important things, and in particular, they can believe baptism to be vitally important without believing it is a sacrament in the sense that the liturgical denominations commonly use the term.
Point 3 of 2: separate “baptisms” for membership of separate churches
Personally, I only recognise being baptised into Jesus, not into some separate para-church splinter group – not even into The Church. Any group that said to me, “you can’t join us until we’ve baptised you”, WOULD be demanding my re-baptism. And for the worst possible reason: to align myself with a faction and consolidate the walls of division between that faction and the rest of the Church.
I’d walk away.
@ Stan:
LOL!
@ Bill M:
:o) So many similar patterns from folks who have been in these churches taken over by the Neo Cals.
Nancy2 wrote:
Ours has no preaching at all 🙂 Just people praying and signing.
Jeff S wrote:
Singing. As cool as signing is 😀
Jeff S wrote:
Perfect imo! Just the body ministering to one another and worshipping the Lord.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
As to your point 2 of 2, that was not much my experience growing up SBC in what Lydia is now calling ground zero. I heard a lot of what I thought was trivializing baptism with an emphasis on how it is 'just a symbol' but perhaps that was because that town had a large catholic population and I heard a lot of reasons why 'we' did or did not do thus and such in contrast to what the catholics did. None the less, a short explanation (a sentence or two) of how communion was only symbolic was a part of every communion service IIRC. The closest I can relate to your understanding is that perhaps there was an excess emphasis on downplaying baptism because of the particular local cultural circumstances and the opportunity for an anti-catholic emphasis. At the same time, believer's baptism by immersion only any time after a poorly defined age of consent was the rule. I 'heard' them saying something like–this is not really important but (ed.) let's be sure to get it right.
Similarly, the rules for communion were emphasized as symbolic only (in contrast to the catholics down the road) while they changed the elements and in doing so apparently did not worry too much about the details. I 'heard' them saying in that case that this is not all that important so let's don't get too picky about it. I just find that inconsistent.
okrapod wrote:
Correction: important but
For a fuller explanation of what Baptists believe regarding baptism, see this
http://www.baptisthistory.org/pamphlets/baptism.htm
And for 9Marks thinking see this excerpt from a recently published book by them
http://2kl5ma24l18p3ki8k9n07k71.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Going-Public.Front-Matter-and-Chap.-8.pdf
okrapod wrote:
That does not sound right. Age of consent has to do with laws about sex. It was age of something, however. Here where I am now and at the local SBC mega that age is defined as being in the second grade at school. When the child is in the second grade s/he is issued the invitation to attend a couple of pre-baptism classes, meet with the children’s director and then get baptized. #2 grandchild went through this process a couple of years ago, and at that time there was nothing that looked like a profession of faith but there was an attempt to be sure the child ‘understood’ about baptism. The second grader could not adequately tell us what it was that she was supposed to understand exactly, but she apparently convinced them that she understood. And was baptized by immersion with the use of the trinitarian formula. Meets the gold standard.
We already knew that they were leaving the baptists, but we thought that going through the local baptist hoops as done at that church was sort of covering all the bases in case she wanted to go back to SBC when she grew up, and considering that many churches will recognize that style of baptism whereas one cannot count on some baptist church to recognize ‘alien baptism’ in the future.
If that system is taking something seriously I missed the part where it was evident just what was being taken seriously? The spiritual condition of the children? Not so’s you’d notice. The number of baptisms per year per church? Hmm.
Eagle wrote:
I’m not sure if R.C. Jr. would be labeled as a “New” Calvinist or an old guard sort like his father, but it appears that certain segments of NC are heading toward antinomianism. Under the dispensation of grace, such “Christians” believe they are released from the obligation of adhering to any moral law. They toss aside the Mosaic moral laws, noting that was Old Testament stuff and we are under New Testament liberty now. You are walking on dangerous ground when you use grace to justify the abuse of Christian liberties. Christ did not set us free to freely sin! If you want to affix grace to that behavior, call it cheap grace.
In listening to NC sermon podcasts for SBC church plants in my area (to see what makes them tick), I have noticed a scarcity of preaching against “sin” and repentance-themed messages. It’s all grace, grace, grace. One young reformed pastor even proclaimed from the pulpit “There is one prayer Christians should not pray ‘Jesus forgive me of my sins.'” Of course, 20s-40s looking for a religious expression different from the fuddy-duddy beliefs and practices of older generations love to hear stuff like that!
@ Max:
It appears that the Lords’s prayer has nothing to teach us then.
Lydia wrote:
Amen.
Bridget wrote:
New Calvinists over-emphasize “God” and under-emphasize “Lord.”
An antinomian would not pray “lead me not into temptation” if a sovereign God brings everything our way, including that which tempts us to sin. He would not pray “deliver me from evil” if God is the creator of everything, including evil (yes, many Calvinists believe this).
elastigirl wrote:
Same here elastigirl. I keep my own counsel on what I sign onto or what I don’t sign onto. Hybrid’s a good locus word, because it can describe an amalgam and yet simultaneously preserve uniqueness.
@ okrapod:
Age of acvountability?
Max wrote:
Sproul Jr is one who believes that God created sin. These are excerpts from his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999). God himself “introduced evil into this world” (p51). “It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures.” (p57) “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin” (p54). If as a consequence God is accused of doing evil, Sproul Jr responds with: “Shut up! He’s God, and he can do what he wants” (p56).
JohnD wrote:
That is just sick! Sproul, Jr. really believes this? No wonder I can’t sit through many sermons of the Reformed persuasion.
numo wrote:
That’s it. Thanks.
Max wrote:
So, that would be “lead me not to God” and “deliver me from God”?
okrapod wrote:
In the SBC affiliated churches I have been involved with, we don’t call it the “age of consent”. We call it the “age of accountability”. And, the age of accountability varies from one child to another. The age of accountability is when a child can discern right from wrong and has a good understanding of what sin is. Children are saved when they choose, of their own accord, to accept Jesus as their personal Savior (ie,”the Roman Road, ABC, etc). Baptism follows, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
@ Nancy2:
What you describe is how things were when I was a child. They are not that way any more here in the SBC mega that my folks recently exited. Age of accountability has morphed into (been defined as I suppose) second grade. The second graders are offered the opportunity to go to a two session class, fill out the little workbook and get baptized. It is not a completely irresponsible process, but it was disappointing at best.
@ Bridget:
TBH, that seems to be way, way ofv from the beliefs of yhe historically Reformed churches, but i am sure that JeffS and a few others are better equipped to address that thanmi am.
Either way, it sounds pretty darned weird; heterodox, even. (I’m not wanting to yhrow acvusationns around, but it does seem like those claims are at the extreme edge of something or other per xtianity, period.)
@ okrapod:
Oof. That’s why (imo) actual catechism classes are more effective, though not for kids that age.
@ JohnD:
Sproul Jr.’s views of the sovereignty of God regarding sin and evil are not that uncommon in New Calvinist ranks.
@ Nancy2:
Yep, it gets about that weird in New Calvinist ranks, Nancy2.
Velour wrote:
And thank you as well. I think everyone who posts brings something valuable to the table (and yours are also appreciated). I will check out Pastor Burleson’s articles. Thanks for sharing.
@ Gavin White:
9Marks has a rather narrow interpretation of Baptist history and Baptist thinking, so I would not recommend them as a resource for understanding much except the Founders version.
Max wrote:
Jr. is definitely not what we call New Calvinist, though he shares with them some form of Calvinism and shares their misogynistic views of women. Jr. is not what I would call classically reformed like Sr. who is PCA though he runs an independent operation. An independent Presbyterian. Go figure. Anyway, Jr. runs with the lunatic fringe of the Federal Vision “Reformed” who think that the classic Reformed have lost the real theology of Covenant. Our YRR types are New Covenant Theology rather than classic Covenant Theology, for the most part, with a few Covies here and there like Ligon Duncan and Kevin DeYoung and a few others. Hysterically enough, Jr.’s crew thinks the Old Covenant laws are mighty fine. I think it would prove very inconvenient for Jr. if the Federal Visionists had their way. The law cannot produce sanctification, no matter how hard you push it on yourself or others. It can kill, however.
elastigirl wrote:
Done and done! Every person should have complete freedom to articulate those beliefs without fear of “excommunication”. We have our conscience and I think there’s nothing wrong with accepting the good of Christian philosophy – Love thy neighbor, Judge not lest ye be judged – and critically (even skeptically) assess other aspects – such as parts of the old testament, ie misogyny, slavery, genocide etc. The bible was a product of its time. The people in the bible were also products of their time and we’re products of ours. The printing press changed the face of Christianity by allowing the bible (in the common vernacular) to be read and interpreted by all who could read – not just a select few. The internet has the same potential – outside of the traditional structure of denomination, creed or church. The reaction is the impetus to control through instruments of authoritarianism (like covenants). One of my favourite websites is APOD – Astronomy Photo of the Day. The sheer scale of creation is very humbling.
numo wrote:
THese guys are the fundamentalist end of the Reformed spectrum. They are not Neo-Calvinist but old-school ultra-conservative Reformed. Van Til was one of them. Rushdoony was grown in that soil.
They diverge from Kuyperian Calvinists, who don’t think we could/should take over the world but should be as salt within it, and that all was made by God and therefore worthy of effort/healing/re-formation. So the Calvinist “fundies”, like all fundies, are separatists, legalists, and desirous of power, whereas the Kuyperian bunch is more about open-hearted participation/cooperation. (These are, of course, caricatures.)
There is overlap between the “fundie” Reformers and the Neo-Cals because the latter has a penchant for grabbing bits/pieces from the former.
When I told a Reformed (RCA) friend that some people are now singing the praises of Jonathan Edwards, he laughed himself into tears.
@ Patrice:
But how old school are we talking – early-mid 20th c., or earlier than that? I can see this kind of thing coming from the hardcore Fundamentals of the Faith crowd, but really, it is so far from my Lutheran background that i have difficulty associating this kind of thinking with xtianity, period.
Your mileage, however, may vary.
I have to say that the way some of the neo-Cals recast Luther and thers in his circle in a Calvinist light is, well, kind of hilarious. It could be a comedy bit if not for the historical revisionism involved.
@ numo:
Most folks don’t recognize thenames of the similarly-minded crowd that Luther attracted, although they are important. I guess Lutherans are the only ones who take these details seriously. If
@ numo:
If was meant to be a 😉
Gram3 wrote:
I concur. Very skewed.
Max wrote:
This is clearly false teaching. Christ Himself instructed us to pray: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Jack wrote:
Thanks, Jack! I really appreciate the fact that Dee and Deb open up this blog to let everyone come and express themselves. Their one rule is: Respect for those who have been abused.
They are incredibly fair here at The Wartburg Watch to various perspectives, which isn’t true of most of the big Christian blogs.
Gram3 wrote:
And yet all these types of Calvinists, whether they be Reformed Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Federal Vision, or Founders, or generic Calvinists like Driscoll was and what Matt Chandler is, all have one thing in common: misogyny in their Comp/Pat teachings. I think that is because they all carry with them the spirit of Mr. John Calvin when it comes to women.
Darlene wrote:
Read the article. Somebody tell me how fear and shame are grace. To me, that’s twisted.
Patrice wrote:
Thanks for the education! That explains a lot about my bad church experience.
@ Gram3:
I am trying to find where they draw their interpretation from. I came across an article where Jonathan Leeman said/suggested that church membership was a sacrament! I’m currently ploughing through “The Radical Reformation” which is probably the most complete account of the history of Anabaptists in Europe.
@ Gram3:
As a starting point I came across these 25 quotes from Jonathan Leeman in another blog. Some of them are a bit odd.
https://matgilbert.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/25-quotes-from-jonathan-leemans-church-membership/
One other thing I would like to draw to your attention. In looking into ” the Church” I came across this passage in ‘Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles Creed’ by Herman Witsius (1636-1708) where he is discussing the Communion of Saints. He says
“That Faith which we profess regarding the communion of Saints, implies principally the three following particulars. First that we recognise and celebrate the admirable power of our God, which unites believers of every nation, age, condition and sex, often separated from one another by such vast intervening spaces of land and sea, of such dissimilar capacities and tempers, and engaged in such diversified pursuits; and so closely co joins them by one Spirit, that they most harmoniously concur in the same sentiments and feelings respecting God and Christ, and in the same devout prayers and praises, and discern in each other, with mutual congratulation and applause, the same effects of Divine grace; so that, even at their first meeting, a most delightful interchange of love often arises.
Secondly, that we regulate our life and conduct in a manner becoming the communion of Saints. 1 That we promote, as far as possible, the unity of the Church, and carefully take heed, not to disturb the peace of this sacred society by unnecessary controversies, hot disputations, ambitious projects, or perverse passions of any kind; but making many allowances for human infirmity and for those imperfections under which we all labour- to cultivate assiduously that harmony which Christ so earnestly inculcates upon us, and promote it to the utmost of our power, by fervent prayers, and by a Christian moderation of spirit. 2 That we edify one another by the communication of spiritual gifts. This is the duty, not merely of Pastors, but of believers of every class. The communion of Saints ought, doubtless, to flourish not only in churches, but also in private houses. 3 That we comfort the poor, the sick, the afflicted in mind and body, by our conversation, our prayers, our kind offices.
Thirdly, that we seek in this communion the solace of our souls. what can be more delightful than the mutual fellowship of brethren, mingled together, as Tertullian expresses it, in spirit and soul! What more amiable than the reciprocal offices of love, and the holy familiarity of the friends of God, edifying, admonishing and comforting one another, and uniting in the same supplications and spiritual songs…In this communion of saints, in fine, there is a kind of prelude of heaven, where there will be no private or separate interest but ONE GOD SHALL BE ALL IN ALL”. (Volume 2, pages 381-384, reprinted by the den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1993).
That does not appear to be the vision of the church that 9Marks has. How different is their narrow, legalistic, exclusive sectarianism from this expansive, inclusive and uplifting, praise-invoking view of the Body of Christ!
numo wrote:
It’s been decades since I read Reformed history and my memory being crappy, I lack specifics. But these guys are direct heirs of our very own Puritans. When you read Nathaniel Hawthorne, there they are. People of such ilk burned witches and destroyed Quakers.
IMO, they aren’t Jesus followers but of course, no true scotsman blahblahblah (I think that fallacy has limits and is often misused.)
Many Christian Reformers (not all) immigrated from the Netherlands in mid-late 19th century. My pastor-father was in the last bunch, coming after WWII. My grandparents on both sides came between the Wars, to thriving immigrant communities in Edmonton Alberta and Modesto California.
Their reason was that the Netherlands was becoming too secular but I suspect most of them were just bored and looking for adventure and better “economic opportunity”.
Re Luther. Being raised in the CRC, I heard good things about Luther. He was considered one of us, except that he didn’t go quite far enough. 🙂
@ Patrice:
There was also economic gain associated with witch hangings. The land ( desirable land at that ) was confiscated from some of the women. Also, the Puritans (distinct for the Pilgrams) were merchants, sea traders , farmers, etc. During The Revolution, it was not uncommon for the sea captains to engage in piracy against the Brits ; and that activity being lauded as patriotic. The city of Salem was an enormously wealthy city in the 18/19th centuries.
Puritan piety had a whole lot of mingling with economic prosperity.
@ Mae:
Yeah, the Protestant work ethic carried the seeds of prosperity gospel.
That same theory about work is in the program that Josh is supposedly attending. Work is cleansing, redeeming, God’s chosen method for fighting sin.
We can also see it nationally, in a longer more productive work week than the rest of the west.
It makes sense that people who kill others over religious quibbles, will have no qualms about grabbing their lands, etc. The hard part is dehumanizing them, the rest follows automatically. Taking the land completes the annihilation. All external reference is wiped from the community. I suppose it helped them shove it out of memory too.
Mae wrote:
Aha. If we look at the modern neo-puritan mega churches that link with prosperity apparently still exists, albeit with a slightly different look.
Patrice wrote:
Luther was great unless, of course, you were a Jew, a woman, a Catholic or one who was not in step with the state church mandatory rules . :o)
Darlene wrote:
That may be, but I’ve never thought about it on this issue. I imagine that Calvin and Luther borrowed heavily from Augustine’s view of women which was basically the Greek view mixed in with Alexandrian rabbinical misogyny. And the Church Fathers built on the Greek legacy which Augustine inherited. Throw in his own personal issues with women and pretty soon the entire Bible is misinterpreted to reflect their own personal views.
Gavin White wrote:
For sure Founders would deny they get their view from the Anabaptists. They believe they are Baptistic Calvinists, and any Anabaptist influence over present-day Baptists is strenuously denied. You can read some of Michael Haykin’s work to get an idea of that, and Tom Nettles, the hyper-Calvinist proper, has a book out on their version. It is my opinion that the English Baptists got their baptisty thought when they mixed and mingled with the Anabaptists while both were in The Netherlands fleeing persecution. That is not to say that Anabaptists are/were saints.
You would know more about the history of Baptists in England, but the Founders guys definitely want to disassociate from the General Baptists, some of whom went off the deep end. The Founders base their beliefs on the 1689 LBCF, so that should give you some idea. America had a lot of Quaker influence, and I don’t know how much effect they had in England.
Gavin White wrote:
I believe that 9Marks is a reactionary movement against what they call “unregenerate church membership.” In this, they are absolutely baptistic and even Anabaptistic. They believe that too many Baptist churches have baptized non-believers in their membership, and so they think the cure is to make membership harder and also to expel those who do not conform to their vision of the “communion of the saints.” IMO that is because they confuse conformity with unity and mix that with elitism to yield a system which effectively denies the priesthood of every believer and makes that priesthood into a collective. And, IMO, they do the same thing with the indwelling Holy Spirit whom they seem to think works only through the visible and organized church.
Darlene wrote:
No doubt about it! I don’t think mainline Christianity has awakened yet to the fact that we are in a spiritual battle with New Calvinism.
Gavin White wrote:
Some of his statements aren’t just a bit odd ~~ some of his statements are flat-out WRONG!
Gavin White wrote:
But, don’t we worship Christ by worshiping the pastor??? (Okay, I’m being a little snarky here.)
Lydia wrote:
True. As you know, I’m not much for any of these guys these days, although I am glad that Luther took a stand against the excesses of Catholicism which was playing power like the good ole monopoly that it was.
It seems, to be angry/courageous enough to take huge anti-establishment steps, one needs an intense and extreme personality. Some with this personality act out of a desire for purity and righteousness. I can see that this might tempt them to bizarre hatreds, such as Luther’s.
There are a few with this type of personality who are driven by the extremities of love, but they are few, apparently. 🙁
Nancy2 wrote:
No doubt that New Calvinism has some idol-worship going on and often put their pastors and other leaders on thrones. These young folks appear to put more faith and trust in the NC who’s-who, than Christ. They hang on every Piper Point, Driscol Drivel, and Mohler Moment that flies across cyberspace. It’s approaching Catholicism in nature where the masses consider the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” … that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church! And we wonder why New Calvinists structure their churches with elder-rule? How else can they exert patriarchal authority over the flock? These poor young followers of Calvin have become so open-minded to reformed theology that their spiritual brains have fallen out!
“16. Church membership is a formal relationship between a church and a Christian characterized by the church’s affirmation and oversight of a Christians’s discipleship and the Christian’s submission to living out his or her discipleship in the care of the church.” Jonathan Leeman
This stuff is scary.
The quotes are from a blog by a man who is a student at Boyce. I guess the students that want to be recognized start blogs and namedrop their favorite authors/teachers/professors. Leeman’s vision of the local church looks more oppressive and collectivist than anything.
Patrice wrote:
Arbeit macht frei.
@ okrapod:
Horrifying, isn’t it? Oy.
Bridget wrote:
Scary for sure. “Church” meaning leaders, lol. Not scary for them, unless they had any wisdom. (If they had wisdom, they wouldn’t take the positions because def too scary.)
Would you mind telling me what you mean by “collectivist”? Many people on the more conservative end use that word and I don’t know what they mean by it because I have a different understanding of the word.
Patrice wrote:
I used “collective” when talking about the 9Marks view of the church. What I mean by collective or collectivist is an emphasis or over-emphasis on the group or the group’s interests as opposed to the individual and the individual’s interests or gifts or whatever. Certainly the church is the Body of Christ and we are interdependent, but the Holy Spirit still works in individuals.
@ Patrice:
Generally this is what I mean by the word –
Collectivism is a political theory associated with communism. More broadly, it is the idea that people should prioritize the good of society over the welfare of the individual.
As we know, this was the theory behind communism. However we also know that communism still had its elites, so not a true collectivist community. But we did see the abuse of the individual to the welfare of the group. I think of you, Julie, McMahan, Karen Hinkly, Todd Wilhem, victims of SGM, victims at Dee’s former church, etc.
Bridget wrote:
i.e. Which is more important, the Individual or the Group?
Throughout history, different societies have had different takes on that. We live in one near the high end of “the Individual is more important” end of the curve. A lot of traditional and tribal soceities (and a lot of my impression of East Asian civilizations) seem to be firmly on the other end, where the Group (tribe, clan, social class, caste) trumps the Individual.
That said, “collectivism” has become an Intellectual-sounding snarl word that obscures its original meaning. Just like “ideology”, originally “the study of belief systems”.
@ Patrice:
The man was a train wreck in all kinds of ways. That isn’t in dispute here, from my pov. The synod i belong to has repudiated his anti-semitic writings. I have yet to see anyone agree with his views on women, etc. People do not go around quoting Luther the way the neo-Cals seem to love quoting Calvin and some of his followers.
I think most folks see what is good in Luther’s thought and writing and ignore the rest. To be honedt, i seriously doubt most Lutherans are aware of his more repellent views on various people and topics.
It gets tiring, saying this same stuff over and over, too. It seems necessary, though, at times.
At any rate, there’s the disclaimer. Make of it what you will, folks.
@ Bridget:
Thanks, Bridget. That helps. As you say, communist ideology prioritized the group over the individual. How do you see that differing from a democratic republic like ours, where “majority rules”?
I agree that they failed to understand the human need for privacy and personal authority. I think their worst fault was not taking human corruption into account. That is why elites remained. That is why work fell off and there was endless quibbling and power-struggling.
The ideologists had the bizarre idea that they could force human “evolution”. “Enlightenment of the masses” Communism, as I see it, is utopian.
Because these immense failures were set into it from the beginning, they inevitably fell into fascism, the polar opposite of communism. Tout de suite, too.
I really like workers’ coops, where a company is owned by the workers. It is a tightly circumscribed form of “collectivism”, involving only one aspect of an individual’s economic life. I think this approach to business ccan be one way for us small peeps to fight the monopolization of trans-national corporations.
To me, collectivism is a small idea and should never be pushed beyond itself.
What do you think about that?
@ Gram3:
So what is the difference between collectivism and authoritarianism, as you see it?
Lydia wrote:
Someone on a thread here earlier was scolding someone else over this very thing.
You’re not supposed to take the founder of a church / denomination / religion into account, they were arguing. That doesn’t make any sense to me, not a whole lot.
You’re supposed to respect that a denomination in some Deceased Dude’s name is okay, because that denomination plays Cafeteria Theology, they only keep the stuff by Deceased Theological Dude they like and ignore the offensive stuff.
To a point, I might be able to accept that, but…
I just find that odd. I’m supposed to divorce or ignore the origins and originator from their current situation/ church/ doctrine.
Daisy wrote:
Exactly, Daisy!
Bridget wrote:
*Church Membership* and related covenants are nothing more than AUTHORITARIAN control by the church’s pastors/elders over the lives of grown adults, inappropriate interference in their lives by pastors/elders, a fundamental disrespect for the priesthood of ALL believers, stripping members of their autonomy and their rights to govern their own lives, idolizing church pastors/elders, and 9Marx IS the abusive Shepherding Movement – in all of its destruction – all over again (from the 1970s). New language, same game.
The pastors/elders have usurped the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html
@ numo:
I think that disclaimer will need to be repeated until Luther is forgotten. His hatred was astonishingly bad even while the good he did was also amazing.
For those familiar, who have processed it, it’s settled and conversation commences with the other implied. Repetition is needed for those of us who are still trying to come to terms with the fact that one human can contain both tremendous evil and great good. It’s a paradox, a seeming impossibility and yet there it is.
The path to such acceptance is a mind/heart-twister, too. It was the most difficult thing for me to settle regarding my father. And I mean “settle” because eventually I had to let it rest without coming to understanding. Like the tongue to a sore tooth, are we to a conundrum. lol
In a way, bringing up the Luther’s good requires also bringing up his bad. Conversely, too, bringing up his bad requires bringing up his good. Even though they don’t blend, they are inextricable. I hate it, but it is so.
@ Daisy:
@ Velour:
You can do what you want to, but if you are going to be accurate you have to see things through the eyes of the actual participants in something. During my years as a methodist I did not hear any mention of Wesley that correlated with the attitude that calvinists apparently have toward Calvin. The man himself was basically not mentioned although some of his ideas were mentioned.
Based on that experience with methodism, and based on what I have read about the complexity of the interaction between religion and nationalism in the time of Luther himself, and based on the picture of the lutheran church in Germany during WWII that I read in a bio of Bonhoeffer, what numo is saying makes perfect sense to me. One cannot take an attitude from one religious tradition (calvinism) to another (lutheranism or catholicism or anglicanism) and expect to get a true fit. Ideas can bleed over sometimes but attitudes and priorities and how people ‘see’ and experience their faith system can be quite different, in my experience.
@ Patrice:
I agree, but am tired of having the same people here bring up the same things over and over, and saying the same things over and over in response. They already know my position; I know theirs, and would prefer to just let it go.
@ Patrice:
in other words, it is feeling like “broken record” time, with the needle stuck in the groove so badly that it’s wearing a hole right through to the turntable surface.
Sorry. I’ve had it.
@ okrapod:
Thanks so much, okrapod. You cannot make the 15th and 16th centuries (or any other century, for that matter) be the 21st, no matter how hard you try. Do I despise a lot of Luther’s attitudes? Yes. Was he alone in holding those views, during his time? Sadly, no.
Finally, do I wish he had never writte “On the Jews and their Lies”? Most emphatically YES.
okrapod wrote:
Yep.
Again, yep. It is, in the words of the old cliche, like comparing apples to oranges. One size does NOT fit all, and all that jazz.
Daisy wrote:
your word choice is, um, interesting.
Please read what okrapod and I have written. I’m not “scolding” anyone, but I am tired of being lectured about how whenever X person from church history is mentioned, then it is Exactly Like Calvin and Neo-Calvinism, because it just isn’t.
@ Velour:
Perhaps you might be better off not assuming this? Overgeneralizing in this way leads to some big problems, because not all situations are like the ones you have personally encountered in the Neo-Cal ranks.
By the same token, just because some of us (including me) have had horrible experiences with churches does not mean that *all* churches everywhere are going to do those things to people, or hold beliefs that put them into the authoritarian/cult crowd, or whatever.
I sincerely wish that I had stayed put in my own denomination when I was younger (and went wandering off into evangelical/charismatic territory), because there is freedom of conscience and the members of congregations are treated like adults – responsible people who can make their own decisions.
numo wrote:
Yes, my dear friend, you are understandably worn through. We all need to work out of surplus, not deficit. And we also need to believe that commenting is a good use of that surplus.
Take care of yourself, please. I want you your vital self, wherever you choose to be. Anywhere that you feel refreshed and energized. Like staring at Durer’s Young Hare. Shall we find some more tres sweet paintings like that, and share our awe and respect together? I’m game. It makes me feel better too.
I don’t know how to get super close-up, though. I could not distinguish the window in the eye of the hare.
@ Patrice:
Super-close-up would require (probably) a browser extension that allows you to zoom in to very huge whatevers of magnification, and there are things like that for both Firefox and Chrome. Not sure about Safari, though.
On touch-screen devices, it is very, very easy to zoom to that level of magnification. It only requires taking two fingers, putting the fingertips on the touchscreen, and then spreading them apart until the desired degree of magnification is achieved. Pull the fingertips together, and you zoom out.
Patrice wrote:
I believe that collectivist thinking promotes authoritarianism, and people who desire to rule over others need to obliterate the individual’s belief in their importance as an individual person created in the image of God with agency and worth. The elites will also appeal to a Big Idea to get people to give up what God has given us, and the Big Idea usually precludes thinking about the real issues. Secular elites will obliterate our sense of self in one way and religious elites in other ways.
I believe it is both/and, and particularly in the Kingdom of Christ. God has created and redeemed us as individuals, but he has also created us to live together in one Spirit under one King. We live together in mutual love and respect.
But even in the world, liberty flourishes when people use self-restraint *and* when they act responsibly toward others. Libertarianism works best when people are self-governed. In a fallen world, obviously, we cannot be free from laws or coercion, but I believe in incentives and disincentives rather than coercion when possible.
Did that answer what you were asking?
@ Patrice:
And thanks. You have some replies from me, elsewhere.
@ numo:
If we are to comment about someone like Luther or Calvin in this combox, it might be useful, when we say the bad thing, to also say the good thing. Just as an exercise, to help us not become polarized either here or in our hearts. As an aid to keep us on that narrow path which is about both justice and mercy, and is also about both knowing the truth and also allowing it to set us free.
@ numo:
Unfortunately I have no touchscreen. But I use firefox and will find that ap. Thanks, lady.
@ Patrice:
De nada. I think there are several, and am using an Android tablet right now, so not able to tell you the name of the extendion thst i use without seitching to laptop. A quick search should give you some nice alternatives, though.
@ Patrice:
Good idea, though one that requires work on our parts. It is so eady (for me, snd the rest of us) to grossly oversimplify, or paint all of Them as “bad” simply because They are not Us.
Fwiw, i know very little about Calvin and his views. I was not raised i that part of xtianity, so it is as alien to me as the Orthodox churches are to those of ux who (like me) have little resl-life experience with them. I often feel like thd Neo-Cals are practicing an entirely different religion. 5-point C-ism is not part of my universe, either. We are all limited to, and by, our personsl experiences, no matter how well-educated (in “book learning”) we might be.
okrapod wrote:
That is wise.
Even inside Calvinism there are many groups who do not worship Calvin. That is, in fact, why they call themselves Reformed rather than Calvinist.
That’s also why I keep distinguishing between various Reformed groups and also distinguish what is now called neo-Calvinism (or my preferred term, Neo-puritanism).
If one needs to use a broad brush, ISTM better to ply it across groups in a different way. Every group has a fundamentalist/legalistic element, a power-hungry element, a cash-hungry element, and a firm gentle element. And even though I am what the media is pleased to call “liberal”, I belong with most of you here in the firm gentle element, and we fight together against the others.
@ numo:
I really don’t get along with you and normally choose to scroll past your posts rather than engage.
I didn’t even remember who scolded whom the other day over this.
numo wrote:
Yep, that was really bad. Badder than bad. Looking at the history of the church, however, Luther was not the first nor the last to be really vile in his anti-semitism. He did not originate anti-semitism. That does not excuse him but it helps explain why some of his ideas took root. That said, I see no reason to hold modern day lutherans, especially in America, responsible for this.
As I have said repeatedly two of my grandchildren have been removed from the local public schools and put into a lutheran school. (Run by ‘yankees’ no less, or at least people who were originally not from around here.) What I have not said is why we chose that school-besides academics. This lutheran school is only one of many local church affiliated schools, and it has by far the highest ethnic and racial diversity percentages among private schools in this city. My grandchildren are Asian, and we are trusting the lutherans with them. We did not even consider the presby school or the several fundie schools or the school at SBC mega or either of the rich folks schools–they are far too lilly white for us among other issues.
Too bad and too awful about old Martin there, and horror upon horror about the last century, but I do not see that bad stuff here in this place or now at this time among these lutherans–quite the opposite.
And yes, that is what people are supposed to do-keep the good and turn their backs on the bad and move on. What sane human would not do that?
numo wrote:
Perhaps you are out of the loop and don’t understand the gravity of what 9Marx/Acts29/Sovereign Grace and others are doing? The churches that uphold their beliefs are into the un-Biblical heavy Shepherding Movement from the 1970s complete with all of its damage on lives, marriages, families, friendships, believers, and our witness before unbelievers.
The damage is wide-spread and spreading across the globe into other countries. The NeoCals are filling up the seminaries with their drones and booting out all others. They are having stealth take-overs of churches across the nation.
It’s not my particular experience, it’s the NeoCal plan.
Their have been plenty of posts here, from other people, backed up with links about the dangerous spread of these authoritarian, un-Biblical beliefs. Those have been posted for many months. Did you not read them?
^correction: “There”
okrapod wrote:
Perhaps you don’t know, in reference to the NeoCals, that there has been a plan of theirs to take over the seminaries and the nation’s churches? Stealth takeovers. Their dangerous, authoritarian, un-Biblical beliefs are infiltrating churches around the globe. It’s not funny. They are damaging lives, families, marriages, churches, reputations, our freedom in Christ, our freedom as believers, God’s reputation, and the witness of The Gospel before unbelievers.
Daisy wrote:
I just want to say Daisy that I have ALWAYS appreciated your posts and insights and I have learned so much from you.
numo frequently finds fault with most who post here and posts (inappropriate) criticisms. I am sorry, Daisy. I cannot agree with this habit.
@ Gram3:
Thanks, Gram3. So when you use “collectivist” you are denoting it’s inevitable end-result, the oligarchy/dictatorship? And the uniformity is like that of the authoritarian group: one for the group, the other for the leader? Corruption catches and wrecks both systems. We want neither.
IMO, libertarianism could be a possible alternative, being centered on the individual, but to me, it is also an utopian ideology. You write, “liberty flourishes when people use self-restraint *and* when they act responsibly towards others.” Unfortunately, they don’t, a lot. They keep mucking it up. I guess for me, a moderated form of capitalism in a social democracy, although not a sweet ideology (or even an ideology at all but merely a smudgy combo), is the best we fallen humans can do.
But inside the church, I think a kind of libertarianism can work. Because we commit to an ethical system with an overseeing God, there is inherent correction and disrespect for the mucking-up that we all sometimes do (and some of us do more often than not lol)
Re the elites, I agree they’re nasty pieces of work, both right and left, along with most of the media and the financiers. Just like in the church, which is so sad. And also an awful joke since these very same religious leaders go on and on about “not being part of the world”. They have, in fact, adopted the worst of the world. And people outside see that and mock them/us.
Anyway, that helps me better understand the words you all use. Thanks again.
@ Patrice:
Re. your last graph, ’tis so true! When we pigeonhole things, or label them for purposes of discussion, it can be hard to keep this in mind. But you and okrapod are correct.
As for nuances within the Reformed part of Protestantism, i had always bern under the impresdion that there were msny degrees of difference, if only due to my contact with Swiss L’Abri. The Schaeffers originally went to Europe at the behest of one of yhe splinter Presby groups (not OPC, but similar) to evangelize in a part of Switzerland that is almost entirely Catholic, but used to be Protestant (during the Reformation). Francis Schaefer subsequently became far more “liberal,” but seemed to revert back to his Fundamentalist Presbyterian roots in the last decade of his life.
L’Abri in the 70s was quite a mix of people and beliefs, but there were a lot of Presbyterians from the US (from a variety of Presby churches) there at the time I was a visiting student. The hymnal that was used for L’Abri church services was kind of a shock to me, because i only recognized 2 or three of the pieces! That was my 1st encounter with on hour-plus sermons, and my mind invariably drifted off into daydreaming after the 1st five-ten minutes or so…
@ Daisy:
It would perhaps have been kinder to not tell me that, Daisy. I would have appreciated some discretion on the subject.
You tend to be combative at times, and it can be difficult (for me) to discuss things with you. I wish things weren’t that way, and have a suspicion that text-only is the real problem here, but what do i know? (Seriously; i am not being sarcastic.)
Velour wrote:
FYI – Numo has been reading/commenting at TWW longer than me and I have been here longer than you, so I’m sure she is aware. Just because someone is tired of repetitiveness does not mean anything more or less than that. Her experiences with a certain church were as tramatic as yours.
@ okrapod:
It is, i think, one of the worst anti-semitic and anti-Judaic screeds of all time, which is why the Nazis seized on it as propaganda.
A whole lot of Lutherans don’t even know about it, and the synod i belong to is the only one in the US that has repudiated it and made an effort to reach out to the Jewish community on these issues. I am sure that European Lutherans have been far more emphatic about this, post-WWII, but i can’t read any of their languages, so don’t know what steps they have taken.
@ okrapod:
I have a reply to you that’s on the back burner – please check back.
Again, thanks for your observations and level-headed assessment of these things. It is very much appreciated.
@ Bridget:
Thank you, and you are all too correct about what was done to me by That Church.
Velour, you have company in the awfulness of what you experienced – far more than you realize.
okrapod wrote:
We need to do this even in our day to day relationships and interactions, as far as I can tell. Or, we’ll find ourselves alone in a room. (I am not advocating really bad behavior or abuse, so please, no one read that into what I have said.)
@ Velour:
You do not know me and have not been around here for very long. I do not feel like re-telling my story, but go back a couple of years in the comments and you will find it.
Disagreement does *not* eqate to finding fault. I do not wish to discuss this any further, but i am starting to see what Albuquerque Blue saw as far as “swarmibg.” Please, let’s drop it. Now.
@ Daisy:
@ Velour:
@ Velour:
Yeah, so this is not ok, you guys.
It is good to have differences of opinions. No one is improved by existing in an echo chamber—we all know this, having come from horrid places that were such.
I ask questions of Bridget and Gram3 because I want to understand differences. It makes me a better person because it broadens my understanding. It then makes the world around me better because I find more things to embrace in others. It humbles me, and makes me happier.
There is so much antagonism of persons in this country! Argue the material. When someone says, “yeah but…”, it is an opportunity to grow wiser. The world is a gigantic place; there is no end to the learning we can do.
Also mercy for each other, much mercy because we do not know what the other is living with. Most everyone in this combox carries a heavy burden of one sort or another. When we handle each other with grace, we help ourselves and them to carry our respective burdens with aplomb.
numo wrote:
Those hour-long sermons were only done in the very conservative churches, leftover from the old Puritan stuff. One’s spiritual strength was measured by one’s ability to attend to the whole thing! Blech. And preaching is different than a college lecture.
My father (CRC) made sure his sermons were 20-minutes, partly because there were a number of dairy farmers in the congregation and they’d milk from 5-9 and come tired into a warm quiet sanctuary. But also he knew that people’s attention span was limited and saw no particular value in making them stretch that in a service. He was good that way.
I also have comments on backburner, to Velour and Daisy. Check back?
@ Velour:
Oh, okrapod is very well aware of these things. Lots of us are. Some of us have been caught in the middle of these or similar takeover attempts, even. (Speaking from personal experience, though in my case, it was not Neo-Cals, but a fringe charismatic crew who also mix3d Dominionism and some Gothardism into it.)
As they used to say on Battlestar Galactica, “All this has hapoened before, and will happen again.” (A quote from one ofntheir sacred texts, fwiw.)
@ Patrice:
OK, i will do that.
I think the context re. Swiss L’Abri is important. The only sermons i heard were preached by Udo Middelmann (married to the Schaeffers’ daughter, Debnie) who is a lovely guy but more like a lecturer at a German university when he’s in the pulpit, or at least, he was at that time. I had a chance to talk with him many years later in an informal gathering, and he was very relaxed, friendly, with a good sense of humor, and very kind. His sermons bored me to tears, but i saw how he interacted with people, and think he has considerable gifts there.
@ numo:
Debbie. Blasted Android “keyboard”!
okrapod wrote:
That’s good advice. Lutheranism isn’t something I know much about at all, having been in mostly Calvinistic and Baptist churches of one sort or another. Of course we hear about Calvin this and the Institutes that and so forth in the places I’ve been. But I can’t say I hear Lutherans talk all that much about Luther or what he wrote like I’ve heard the Reformed and Calvinists talk about Calvin. Is that just because I’ve missed it or because there really is not that much focus on Luther the person/theologian? Maybe that’s because he didn’t systematize his theology?
It is also interesting, IMO, how insiders to any particular system process what they observe. There are the rabid defenders and also the harshest critics among the insiders.
@ Velour:
Oh, i have had encounters with SGM since the early 1980s, and have a dear friend wo is still a member of one of the D.C.-area churches. (One of the churches that figures in the 1st abuse lawsuit.)
My friend tried – kindly – to get me to join that church, all the way back in the mid-80s.
So please hush up about these things. LOTS of us here know far more than you realize.
@ Velour:
It is repwckaged discipleship/shepherding movement garbage, re-named and re-branded – but *the same thing* that cut like a razor in my life, and the lives of many others who comment here. SGM is a product of the discipleship movement. The church that kicked me out – where people were told not to speak to me – is, too. (Though it has nothing to do with SGM.)
Please don’t make these assumptions. You are making personal attacks, too, which are just not right.
numo wrote:
????
I beg your pardon?
Your comments to all of us are getting, well, frankly odd.
numo wrote:
OK, your comments to posters are frequently inappropriate and you have been told that. Please take heed.
@ Gram3:
No, you haven’t miseed anything! Now, there are indeed *some* people who speak that way about Luther, usually in reference to his work on Romans, the catechisms he wrote (which are still in use), and suclike. But mostly, people just don’t cite him because he helped to begin changes that are still ongoing. It is not 1500 anymore, you know? And his intention was always to reform the RCC from within, not to start another church. He was, i thiink, a faithful Catholic to the end of his days, even though he had been excommunicated long before that time.
I do recall (vaguely) a VBS lesson about him, but the book we were using included Bach, John Wesley, and many other people, from many different traditions and denominations. It had brief biographies of many people. By no means did anyone dwell on “what Luther said,” even in catechism classes, which are for teenagers (adults who want to become Lutherans have separate classes, or did when i was younger).
@ Velour:
I will not discuss this with you.
@ Velour:
I left a comment for you and Daisy at 4:36pm.
Patrice wrote:
Did I answer the question you were asking? Sometimes I don’t get the question right. Asking and answering questions is good for clarity since this medium is pretty limited and our various perspectives and experiences are so different.