"Do I believe in arbitration? I do. But not in arbitration between the lion and the lamb, in which the lamb is in the morning found inside the lion." -Samuel Gompers link
Church covenants are there to protect inept church leadership from lawsuits.
The Deebs give our readers a standing ovation. We have been expressing our concerns about church covenants, which we prefer to call church contracts, for a number of years. This summer, The Village Church/Karen Hinkley debacle demonstrated inept church discipline by supposed celebrity leaders. One of the primary *reasons* that Matt Chandler and TVC gave for their inappropriate discipline of Karen was "she signed the covenant." In other words, they believe she was stuck with them.
We are getting through to people, slowly but surely. Readers have alerted us to a few churches which have recently voted down covenants. We have heard from a couple of folks, members of celebrity churches, who have decided to rescind their membership due to their concerns of the incompetent application of church discipline on "the little guy."
As you may know, the last two weeks have been unusually busy for me as I attempt to deal with serious illnesses within my family. My daily reading of religious news stories has declined from an average of 1 hour /day to about 15 minutes. Thankfully a number of you have sent links to an important story in the New York Times which looks at the foibles of *religious arbitration.* Folks, the NYT offers an excellent example of Christian arbitration gone bad. Read it. It should alert you to the underlying, self-preserving motives of some church leaders who love such tools to suppress the little guy.
What is an arbitration clause in a covenant or contract?
Here is an article that defines arbitration in an easily understood fashion.
An arbitration agreement is a written contract in which two or more parties agree to settle a dispute outside of court. The arbitration agreement is ordinarily a clause in a larger contract. The dispute may be about the performance of a specific contract, a claim of unfair or illegal treatment in the workplace, a faulty product, among other various issues. People are free to agree to use arbitration concerning anything that they could otherwise resolve through legal proceedings.
An arbitration agreement can be as simple as a provision in a contract stating that by signing that contract you are agreeing to arbitration in the case of any future disputes. For example, a business owner can ensure that potential dispute costs remain low by requiring anyone doing business with them to sign an agreement to arbitrate instead of litigate–to settle the matter out of court. In the case of more complicated business matters, a mandatory arbitration clause may be necessary. An arbitration provision in a contract might look like this:
An investigation by the New York Times into religious arbitration clauses found:
that companies have used the clauses to create an alternate system of justice. Americans are being forced out of court and into arbitration for everything from botched home renovations to medical malpractice.
By adding a religious component, companies are taking the privatization of justice a step further. Proponents of religious arbitration said the process allowed people of faith to work out problems using shared values, achieving not just a settlement but often reconciliation.
Yet some lawyers and plaintiffs said that for some groups, religious arbitration may have less to do with honoring a set of beliefs than with controlling legal outcomes. Some religious organizations stand by the process until they lose, at which point they turn to the secular courts to overturn faith-based judgments, according to interviews and court records.
Understand that this is arbitration; not binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, both parties must agree to abide by the outcome in advance.
Reread the highlighted sections again. Churches play the game of gospel™ reconciliation until they lose and then they run whining to the secular court system for redress because they don't like it. In other words, friends, they only play the game to get the little guy to back down. If they don't succeed watch out! They will use your tithe™ money to jerk you around.
Don't believe me? Read on…
The story of Pamela Prescott and Northlake Christian School
The title of the NYT's article is In Religious Arbitration, Scripture is the Rule of Law by Michael Corkery and Jessica Silver-Greenburg. Although the article covers disturbing arbitration problems with Teen Challenge and Scientology, I want to focus specifically on the incident surrounding the firing of a teacher, Pamela Prescott, by Northlake Christian School. This is important because it reveals the underlying motivation for church and parachurch organizations adopting such clauses in their contracts (covenants.)
Prescott had been a teacher and a principal at the school for 12 years. A new school administrator came on board and began to make her feel uncomfortable. In one instance, he insisted on washing her feet at a staff meeting. She was fired and given very little explanation as to why. She attempted to find out the reasons for her termination and to resolve it internally, but the school was uncooperative.
Prescott, like your adorable blog queens, had always been against suing other Christians. She changed along the way just as we did. She discovered no other Christian school would hire her and she had no where to turn. Since it was clear that her reputation was being damaged, resulting in her being unable to get a job in her preferred environment, she filed a federal lawsuit.
Three things happened after this filing.
- People avoided her in the community. (aka-shunning)
- Her church told her to stop teaching Sunday School.
- She found out what it means to have an arbitration clause in a contract.,
The school moved to compel Christian mediation and then arbitration (ed. note: Most likely part of her contract.)
The school called on Peacemakers Ministries to arbitrate. Please note the assumptions in the following statement from the article.
Centuries later, Paul’s writings inspired a group of lawyers in Los Angeles to develop the practice of Christian conciliation. The group’s work ultimately gave rise to Peacemaker Ministries, a nonprofit that devised a legal process that draws on the Bible.
…The peacemaker method is used by private schools, Christian lawyers and others. Clauses requiring Americans to use Christian arbitration instead of civil court now appear in thousands of agreements like the one Mr. Ellison signed with Teen Challenge. (ed. note: and churches)
“Our secular court system is darn good,” said Bryce Thomas, a Christian conciliator in Hickory, N.C. “But it doesn’t get into deep moral issues like sin and reconciliation.”
The assumption that everyone should pay attention to is that this process is "drawn on the Bible." It also assumes that the procedure will deal with sin and reconciliation. In the end, everyone is supposed to kiss and makes up. There is an underlying premise that the church will play fair since, after all, they are God's men, right? Still, it overlooks the very real possibility that church leaders are just as sinful and can deal sinfully with those they hurt.
In this instance, the lawyer from Peacemakers decided that the school needed to man up to some of their mistakes.
The school argued that a survey of parents revealed unhappiness with Ms. Prescott’s leadership. But only a small number of families had filled out the survey, and Ms. Prescott never saw the results.
Mr. Thomas dismissed Ms. Prescott’s claims of harassment and gender discrimination. But he found that the school board had violated its own contract when it failed to provide Ms. Prescott with any feedback before firing her. The contract required the school to follow Matthew 18:15, which implores Christians to confront each other before raising their problems with anyone else.
“If your brother sins against you,” the verse states, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.”
Mr. Thomas awarded Ms. Prescott about $157,000 for lost income and damage to her reputation.
“This woman had no idea her job was in jeopardy,” Mr. Thomas said in an interview. “They treated her badly.”
So, was it all settled? Did the school kiss and make up with Prescott?
Not on your life. The school took the decision all the way to the Supreme Court!
Read this carefully. The school said the Peacemaker was not allowed to rule in this case even though they were the ones who requested this!
In his ruling, he urged the two sides to reconcile in a way “that glorifies God.” But Northlake was not ready to move on.
The school had required Ms. Prescott to agree to Christian arbitration as a condition of her hiring. But when Northlake lost, it appealed the arbitration award in federal court, arguing that Mr. Thomas’s ruling was inconsistent with Louisiana law.
Church and Christian organization contracts/covenants are one big fat con job and you, lowly person, are the one who is being conned. Think about it.
1. Do you have the money, time and strength to fight this sort of outcome?
The case dragged on for four more years. An appeals court in New Orleans ruled that it had no ground to overturn the Christian arbitrator. Northlake appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it.
The current headmaster of Northlake said he could not comment on the case because it involved a previous administration. He added that the school still used Christian arbitration.
In the end, Ms. Prescott said she felt vindicated, despite having spent all but $8,000 of her settlement on legal costs.
2. Did you ever consider that some Christians, leaders and members, are con artists? Do you really understand their motivations?
“My faith is still strong,” she said. “But I am more careful in dealing with Christians than I used to be. They are just people with no more ability to be good than anyone else.”
3. Do you understand that many church/parachurch organizations want these contracts for only one thing: to protect the church from lawsuits.
Do not be fooled into thinking that you are signing a "we will all love and pray for one another" covenant. This deal is one sided. And, when it doesn't work out for the organization, they will appeal the decision in court. Note how much this cost Prescott during her four year of battle. $149,000 and, I can imagine, countless sleepless night. Many entities have big pockets of money and can spend an average person into the ground.
Basically, you have two options.
1. Do not sign the contract.
However, some churches will not allow you to participate in various activities if you don't join. I have personally discovered that it is quite easy to circumvent the system by attending the church, starting your own Bible study, and serving within parachurch groups.
2. You sign the contract in order to get a much needed job.
You have three methods of action if things don't work out. By the way, think about your options if it doesn't work out prior to signing on.
1. Quit before you are fired.
2. Be fired, don't fight back and chalk it up to experience.
3. Fight back and hope you have the money and stamina to see it through.
Here is a piece of advice for religious organizations.
It is a really dumb move by churches and church organizations to prevent people from getting a job after firing them by snitching to a renegade's new job prospect.
I am addressing church leaders in this statement. The court system looks askance on leaders calling other leaders and urging them not to hire a person for a job. Big lawsuits can emerge from this sort of activity. We are waiting for permission to post a story in which this sort of thing is occurring.
Be careful of pursuing any church member who has voluntarily resigned from a voluntary organization. The United States law recognizes a person's right to leave a voluntary association.
Read the story of church discipline at The Village Church. Karen had resigned and the church kept sending out missives to 6,000 closely knit church members (snort) about what a rotten person she was by not following their ridiculous advice. I am pretty sure that TVC knows they avoided a really big lawsuit solely because Karen is a gracious individual.
To potential church members or employees of religious organizations: be wise.
Please read this entire post and think long and hard before you sign over your rights to church leaders who are just as sinful as everyone else. It is nice to believe that your pastor or employer is a godly person. The problem is that sometimes they are not and you are the one who could get run over by the proverbial bus.
Let us know if you need help in getting out of a bad situation. We have some advice on the matter. Also, if you ever wish to share your story, let us know. We are here for you.
First?
First?
first?
@ Gus:
nope!
Third… sort of.
Fourth! :-). Great post Dee!
That’s been obvious for years to anyone reading the coverage of Christian Arbitation groups by Wartburg Watch.
“And for justification make long prayers…”
— some Rabbi from Nazareth
I thank God for you guys!! I wish more people would open their eyes to the manipulation of their church leaders. I believe back in the 1980s when the business model was being adapted by churches to increase membership, the whole focus of community changed. Now it is an us-them relationship. With mega-churches, the pastors are becoming more disengaged from their flock. I am waiting for the whole system to eventually implode on itself!
Hopefully there will be enough believers remaining to pick up the pieces. Maybe the “nones” and “dones” are waiting in the wings to help recover true worship!
The WORST type of con artist is the con artist who has come to genuinely believe their con. At which point, the con shades into delusion. Examples off the top of my head are Alistair Crowley, Anton LaVey, and L Ron Hubbard.
Who are all these people signing contracts to go to church? Just stop it already.
Eeyore wrote:
Reflexes like a Black Marlin!
Gus wrote:
However, you were only 1 minute behind-enough to qualify for reflexes like a Wahoo.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Perhaps like a Tarpon?
Pingback: Theology-related quote for the day | Civil Commotion
Ann wrote:
The new generation of ministers are all ” Me! ” ” Me!” ” Me!”
Was reading the latest Pew Poll from yesterday, people ages 20-40 are dropping church like a hot potato.
There has to be a re-structuring of the church or it will implode. And it is it….and these guys will wonder…” What happened?”
Ann wrote:
That is a great point. I slowly started to see it as an “us v them” model just about everywhere I turned but thought I was overreacting. But it is true.
dee wrote:
Reflexes like a Black Marlin!
More like luck of the draw. 😉
I don’t have a comment on the issue of arbitration clauses, but when it comes to church generally this is an interesting note you wrote: “some churches will not allow you to participate in various activities if you don’t join.” I’d figure it’s then time to look for a different church regardless of whether they had one of those church covenant thingies or not.
Arbitration only works when the parties have equal power. In all other cases they are used to limit access to justice. When businesses force consumers to accept arbitration as part of of purchasing their product/service, for example, the consumer always gets screwed. Why? Because each party can eliminate particular arbitrators from the list of possibilities, is one major reason. So if your an arbitrator, are you going to rule against a business that regularly has many arbitrations vs. a consumer who may only ever have one? To rule against the business would mean they will strike you off the list in any future arbitrations.
Any church that requires arbitration is one that knows they’re going to be abusive and will be challenged on it by someone so they stack the deck in their favor. Moreover, the abusive pastor gets his legal fees paid for by the church while the pew peon has to pay them out of their own pocket, the church can just financially grind them down. Which is why I’m all in favor of holding the church accountable through lawsuits seeking damages where an attorney can get paid on a contingency basis.
And the church essentially lies by selling arbitration as a ‘biblical’ process that allows parties to sit down together and sing Kumbaya and results in sunshine and rainbows when, as Dee says in her post, it’s simply one more way for the ‘church’ to control its sheeple.
@ Tim:
They would have to drug me to sign one of these things.
Arbitration may sound nice up front, but in reality, it’s still a legal process, and involves lawy$rs. Don’t be suckered.
@ Tim:
THIS.
If people don’t go to these churches, the churches will stop the practice.
If people don’t watch the Duggars, the Duggars will go away.
Frankly, I am crabbier about the people who watch the Duggar/Kardashian/you name it shows than I am about the Duggars/Kardashians. But I’m still pretty crabby about them, too.
@ Tim:
Amen. That kind of behavior is not Christ-like.
AFAIK, forced signatures on “church covenants” have not popped up in my neck of the woods. But, if my church ever starts them, I’m outta there. That’s one misaligned behavior of which I was not aware.
Many thanks to the DEEBS and their cohorts for having the courage and dedicating so much of their time to educate us!!!!
P.S. – Dee – I’m thinking about you and your family.
JeffT wrote:
Another angle to this that concerns me is using the Bible in this manner.
I respect the Bible, I do. I think it can certainly shed insight into spiritual stuff, but that Christians fail spectacularly when using the Bible in other non-spiritual matters – such as
1. coaching abused wives to keep submitting to abusive husbands, that they
2. instruct clinically depressed persons to just read the Bible more – etc and so on
– does not give me any confidence that a “Christian” company or arbitration group is going to competently, safely, or fairly handle legal disputes by using the Bible as a guide.
Christians have by and large failed at using the Bible to instruct folks on how to handle church based child abuse cases, divorce, abusive marriage, mental health problems, etc.
PaJo wrote:
Been saying this for years – the congregations/crap-TV-consumers are the enablers. Yes, there are all sorts of social dynamics why this is so, but at the end of the day…
As my good friend and neighbor never ceases to remind me… we live in a fallen world.
Thank you, Dee and Deb, for all the research and writing you have done on the subject of church covenants. I went to a church for a year and learned during that time that agreeing to a covenant (I don’t know whether it was only an oral agreement or a written agreement as well) was a requirement for church membership. I knew based on my reading of this blog and other blogs that I would not be joining that church because of that. I stayed at the church for a while after learning about the membership covenant because I liked the worship, teaching, and people. But I left in August.
I appreciate the reporting you guys have done — especially on the Karen Hinkley case. I admit, I was skeptical on the reporting at first, and I was one of those people who said TVC was in the right at first.Then, the story kept unfolding and the cherry on the sundae for me was when they sent out a letter to 3,000? plus members who aren’t involved in the situation. It reminded me of the situation I dealt with with my ex roommate when we both were members at TVC. She is BFF with Matt Chandler and all the staff members there, so I was shunned due to our disagreement. Due to her celebrity status in A29 and TGC, she got a job at the A29 church I had just become a member at in Denver this year. I have been back and forth with an elder there about resigning my membership and my concerns about Lore being on staff there. I resigned my membership, but they still felt it was necessary to have a reconciliation meeting. I took off work last week to meet with them, and they cancelled at the last minute. They didn’t bother rescheduling until this week and asked me to take off work again. Turns out, they are only willing to meet during their work hours a.k.a. they need to get paid to reconcile with people. I declined our meeting, and I am really ticked off I agreed to meet at all. Thank you for your reporting; otherwise, I would never had gotten the courage to leave that church.
Oh, and I sent my final email to the elder today letting him know I don’t agree with how my ex roommate handled the situation and how she sent a letter to my home group leader about our situation and got other people to shun me, etc. She posted a Tweet about an hour later that said “Philippians 4:2-9 Paul made conflict public and made the path to resolution clear. ‘None of your business’ doesn’t exist in Christianity.” Looks like her Neo Cal beliefs make her believe that airing out people’s dirty laundry to others in an effort to get people to shun you is Biblical.
Whatever happened to the church as the body of Christ, where one member is no more important than another, no matter what his or her role or function maybe. Where Jesus Christ, and Christ alone, is the head of the church all members are submissive to and servants of Jesus. The body of Christ has been replaced by a corporate,top down, model. All the non-management people are expected to serve and obey the CEO and his minions instead of Christ. It has been mentioned on TWW often that there is little talk of Jesus in these churches. Perhaps that it is because the pastor sees himself as the infallible son of god. So,it stands to reason, if you have an infallible pastor, who needs Jesus.
My wife and I were essentially told to leave a church because I refused to sign a leadership covenant stating I would agree to give 10% of my gross income to that church alone. A senior pastor at that church told me that he monitors giving and would have a conversation if he thought the giving was far too low from leaders–i.e. a subtle threat. The stick of this was refusing to let us lead a small group at the church for not signing the leadership covenant as is. The other co-lead pastor had the gall to tell us that she hoped we found a church where giving 10% was a joy and not an obligation totally missing how compelling members to such an agreement was by definition legalism.
We left,of course.
@ Divorce Minister:
If Martin Luther was roaming the earth, he would have some choice words to say about your ‘church’. And I would bet they wouldn’t pass moderation on TWW 🙂
Christina wrote:
The concept is in there, though, in the form of boundaries.
Having healthy boundaries sometimes necessitates telling other people (even other Christians) ‘none of your business.’
Christina wrote:
Apparently neither do human dignity, compassion, discretion, and appropriate boundaries–at least, not in the church you are wisely exiting.
I’m tired of people bludgeoning one another with simplistic, crude notions of handling conflict in the church, based on one or two verses.
Deuteronomy 22:8 reads, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof; otherwise you might have blood-guilt on your house, if anyone should fall from it.” To the literal-minded Christian, this verse could easily be enshrined as complete, inerrant, and infallible building code.
We are allowed to think.
Friend wrote:
Wait, are you saying you don’t have a parapet for your roof? OMG! What is this world coming to? And more importantly, what is a ‘parapet for your roof’? 🙂
@ danlinrm:
“It has been mentioned on TWW often that there is little talk of Jesus in these churches. Perhaps that it is because the pastor sees himself as the infallible son of god.”
++++++++++++
I’ve gotten the impression that they want to be #1. And Jesus makes that inconvenient. it’s like they feel threatened by Jesus — like perpetual 7th graders, insecure and desperate to fit in, only now they’re on the top of the social strata. and Jesus is like the 6’4 hero. better to just leave Jesus out of it. that way the limelight, attention, & focus is all theirs.
Friend wrote:
According to Matt Chandler himself, she is the smartest human being he knows. He said this in a sermon one Sunday. She is TGC’s and Acts 29’s example of “See, we value women. Look, we give this woman who reads books and stuff a platform.”
When I signed my application I never thought of it as a contract, I was ignorant and very naive to this whole thing. Really I was until my child was harmed and our former pastor prostituted my kid for his church along with the elders and leadership. Now I'm on his butt like flies on honey and I will never ever fill out an application to join any Christian group or agree to sign over my rights. It never had crossed my mind that this is what could happen.
Clayton wrote:
Oh my word, yes!!! I got a copy of an article my former pastor wrote where he clearly calls the members HIS SHEEP!!!! didn’t Christ use sheep as a metaphor??? And don’t We belong to Him only??? Not a man!@ elastigirl:
We just left a mega church where the pastor’s celebrity status was really getting to his head.
Now visiting a more traditional church and inquired about joining. They sent us two membership applications and the church by-laws which contained three pages on church discipline. It was the most discussed topic.
Really??? Remember when an alter call was all we needed. Now we join like its a Costco!!!
@ Christina:
@ Christina:
The pastors and your former roommate sound like unreasonable people. The former roommate is totally misquoting those scriptures. I guess she wants everything in her favor.
I love what I’m hearing in the intro. Thank God for the raising of the weak to shame the strong.
A few weeks ago I had a prayer request about my girlfriend’s family and their conflicts at their 9Marks gospel-centered(TM) church. A few weeks ago they had a members meeting to change by-laws, and after some minor business, the elders recommend the head pastor take a “sabbatical of indefinite length”. Members starting speaking out on how he had hurt them, and his response was, of course, that he was the real victim. Apparently it was quite a sight. Now, for them to realize that he wasn’t a Jim Jones acting of his own fanaticism, but was being taught by a very organized and resourced group. So thank you to those who responded.
Watermark is a seeker-senstive 9Marks mega in Dallas, and da coooolest church in town. Christina – do you know about them? I noticed on Watermark’s blog these articles, so they seem to be getting blowback even there:
http://www.watermark.org/fort-worth/blog/six-signs-of-a-healthy-community-group
http://www.watermark.org/fort-worth/blog/the-secret-sauce-of-staying-together
Christina – do you know about them? I noticed on Watermark’s blog these articles, so they seem to be getting blowback even there:
http://www.watermark.org/fort-worth/blog/six-signs-of-a-healthy-community-group
http://www.watermark.org/fort-worth/blog/the-secret-sauce-of-staying-together
Yes, I do know about them. Watermark was the only other Gospel-approved TM church that TVC wouldn’t talk trash about. Apparently the elect in Dallas either go to The Village or Watermark. Everyone else isn’t really Christian. Question: does your girlfriend’s family go to a church in Tyler, Texas by chance? I saw a post on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about a lead pastor of an A29 church being asked to leave (https://www.facebook.com/lacy.stuartdavis/posts/10205286339173879?fref=nf&pnref=story).
@ roebuck:
Their house had flat roofs. A parapet (just in case you weren’t joking) is a low wall… you never read about castles and such when you were a kid? They’ve got lots of ramparts, parapets, battlements, and suchlike.
Seriously, people used to sleep up on those flat roofs in hot weather -am sure they still do, where folks have older, taditional houses. A sleeping person could eadily fall off the roof; so could wide-awake types, given the wrong circumstances.
@ roebuck:
Btw, not to be confused with a porcupet, which is a baby porcupine. (Really.)
Stan wrote:
Yes, I do know about them. Watermark was the only other Gospel-approved TM church that TVC wouldn’t talk trash about. Apparently the elect in Dallas either go to The Village or Watermark. Everyone else isn’t really Christian. Question: does your girlfriend’s family go to a church in Tyler, Texas by chance? I saw a post on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about a lead pastor of an A29 church being asked to leave (https://www.facebook.com/lacy.stuartdavis/posts/10205286339173879?fref=nf&pnref=story).
Wow, this is a classic heads you win, tails I lose. The aggrieved was prevented from suing and had to go through arbitration but the school then wouldn’t abide by the results and took her to court, pretty slimy bunch.
In this case it sounds like Peacemakers surprisingly came through. Typically I would not trust them to judge a dispute with a religious organization, I would only hazard a chance with them for only a dispute between peers.
I continue to get more disturbed by institutional christianity. Following this unprincipled fiasco maybe these folks will instruct us how their “system” is better than sharia law.
Christina wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me the inability of these “leaders” to achieve even a basic level of decency.
In browsing the Internet, I found this interesting article written in 2006 warning against signing church covenants. Christians need to wake up. There is no good reason to sign a membership covenant. Now….write that 100 times so it sinks in.
Here’s the article.
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/08/should-you-sign-church-covenant_30.html
Colt .45s are called “Peacemakers”, too.
@ Nancy2:
Is that related to the “Legislator”? You know, it won’t work and you can’t fire it…
@ Darlene:
That’s an amazing article, and given that it’s from almost a decade ago, in hindsight it’s hard not to see it as prophetic.
Samuel Rutherford, one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, addressed the issue of church covenants in, The Due Right of Presbyteries.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A57969.0001.001/1:6.5?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
The question:
Whether or not all are to be In-churched or entered Members of a visible Church by an explicit, and vocall or professed Covenant?
His Conclusion:
But that such a covenant is required by divine institution, as the essentiall forme of a Church and Church-membership, as though without this none were entered members of the visible Churches of the Apostles, nor can now be entered in Church-state, nor can have right unto the seales of the covenant, we utterly deny.
and
we hold that such a Church-covenant is a conceit destitute of all authority of Gods Word, Old or New Testament, and therefore to be rejected as a way of mens devising, …but to tye the oath of God to one particular duty rather then another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seales of grace and Gods Ordinances, is will-worship, and that by vertue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it.
These so called covenants, contracts, read more like Sharia Law, then not.
Bill M wrote:
Exactly. And we can include basic character and integrity.
Josh wrote:
Good ones are hard to come by these days.
@ Mae:
Chrislam
@ M. Johnson:
Good stuff. I’ll sign off on what Samuel Rutherford said!
Christina wrote:
It is called image rehab. They took a huge hit publicly over their treatment of Karen Hinckley. Now they have to say the ‘right words’ publicly. Most will believe whatever they say.
@ Christina:
I read the fb entry. I suspect we will continue to see more of this. It is what happens when massive egos and arrogance (inbred at Acts 29) are expected to share power.
I wonder if the SBC pewsitters helped pay to start or grow this Acts 29 church. One cannot get a straight answer out of Ezell at NAMB, Mohlers guy.
GK wrote:
It is an unbrave new world.
This is an informative post. However I have a concern I’d like to express which I hope I’m not alone in, and that is the message repeated a couple of times in the post that Christians are sinners who sin as badly as the unregenerate sinner.
I have to disagree with this position, respectfully, and I think it’s important to understand, believe, and bear in mind that our salvation, purchased by the blood of Jesus, is both powerful and effectual in delivering us from the dominion of sin and in the birth of the New Creation of Christ within us.
Why do I feel the need to say something about this? To be controversial? No. Rather, as topics are discussed concerning problems that believers encounter within the church, that the world is also taking note of, that there emerges a message of hope and of victory over sin, which is only found in Christ. There is “no other fount I know – nothing but the blood of Jesus.”
If we insist all those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ are no better off in regards to the exercise of sin in and through their lives, then I dare say there is no hope, and for some, this all just boils down to information we may or may not have the good fortunate of sense & sensibility to apply.
If, however, we know with assurance that while not God, He has begun a good work in usus, which includes sanctification of sin and ongoing transformation. To suggest that true believers are still bound by sin and that there is no distinction robs the real gospel of its power.
We are exhorted to exercise discernment and judge according to fruit. We have been told there would be deceivers and wolves among the sheep. These people come dressed as Christians but cause division and controversy, and while there may be some seriously misguided individuals, in time there should be evidence of repentance. That should be a sign we look for. If a person continues in sin (and yes, if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves…) after being admonished and convicted it’s normally a big red flag if an individual doesn’t show any sign of repentance, which is a major work of the Spirit – to convict of sin and conform to righteousness. And those walking with God, responsive to the Spirit should not be lumped in with those who have no conviction whatsoever in regards to sin.
Lydia wrote:
Rather than writing off the faith(s) of a few billion people, I suggest we consider a narrower designation: ChrISIS
@ Christina:
No, but that’s interesting. This is a Bible church that signed on to TGC and 9Marks (and to their credit, put it on their website!).
I wonder if he was booted because his wife hyphenated her married name.
I asked a couple of Episcopal priests, “What would an Episcopal parishioner have to do to come under church discipline?” The answer: something truly egregious, such as the abuse of another parishioner. The list of offenses would be the same as for clergy, although clergy are always under far greater scrutiny. The discipline of John and Mary Pewdweller is so rare that it took some effort for the priests to think of real-life examples. Poor attendance and “attitude” (such as a perceived failure to submit) would not lead to discipline.
The parish alone cannot mete out discipline. A process exists that must involve the bishop of the diocese. In some cases, the parishioner might be told that he or she cannot receive Communion without completing a process of reconciliation, which is also established. Yes, this is called excommunication, it is not necessarily permanent, and reconciliation is the goal. All of this is done privately, so there are no dramatic scenes at the altar. The church would not try to stop a parishioner from leaving the church before completing reconciliation.
Both priests showed admirable restraint in answering my question before asking me what on earth prompted it.
K.D. wrote:
No, they won’t. They’ll congratulate themselves on weeding out the half-hearted and the “pretend Christians”, and think they are being Truly Faithful.
Christina wrote:
Is this Lore Ferguson? I’m so sorry. 🙁 I very nearly did a comp vs. egal blog survey with her, but when I saw the questions she sent out, I decided against it. I can tell she’s been through a lot of pain, but the questions she sent out to the blog readers told me that she’d already decided what the “correct” answer was, and I feared that any of us who disagreed w/ the comp position were going to be made to look selfish. 🙁
Paula Rice wrote:
My wife would agree with you on this, having got into discussions in a church on this very theme. If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come is not just words on a page, but God’s word, and if we genuinely are ‘born again’ believers, we cannot simply carry on as before.
I’m not very keen on sitting in judgement as to just who is or who is not an authentic Christian, but this whole thing of covenants/contracts for church members seems to me to be the corporate management culture invading the church, and as such is thoroughly worldly. It’s almost like members are becoming employees, or to use more first century biblical language, bondservants (or even slaves).
And, having signed the membership contract, they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread, the prayers and preparation for the mandatory annual appraisal (with feedback from at least two other church members) to be signed and left with the Human Resources pastor.
@ Friend:
Sorry. I am not politically correct. :o) I can love people and not like their religion at the same time. Not liking Islam does not have to correlate to treating all Muslims badly. I don’t like Mormonism either but saying so does not illicit this sort if response. I always find that curious.
Eeyore wrote:
I agree, and this deeply concerns me. When people flee extremist churches, they often leave religion for good; and, of course, fewer people are religious these days. The eventual result could be a society of non-religious people and extremists—leaving Christian critical thinkers to hope against hope that our healthy churches won’t suddenly turn on us.
The mainline church of my childhood took a turn toward fundamentalism. The youth pastor’s favorite verse was Rev. 3:16: “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” The verse has been grossly misused. The future of healthy, vibrant Christianity lies in being lukewarm.
Eeyore wrote:
Double down on Purity of Ideology.
Purge after Purge after Purge.
Bill M wrote:
“Morals are for men, not… GODS…”
— Second Star Trek pilot, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”
If I may speculate, what Ms. Rice is discussing below is the very reason we see so much cover-up and heavy handedness on the part of Church leaders. They know they are “suppose to” behave better, as “Christian leaders” and if we pewpeoons continue to point out failures, their authority comes into question. The level to which information is now available on the internet, compared to what it was just 20 years ago, must really have some leaders really uptight… For example, I would never have dreamed that Bill Gothered (SP?) had so many issues… There is clearly a inconsistency with respect to what was taught, and what was really going on in that organization. The internet now allows us to see this… and in my opinion, calls that whole “ministry” into question…
Paula Rice wrote:
Tim wrote:
I’m with Tim here. People crazy I can handle – I can’t escape that. Workplace crazy is more or less expected. Church institutional crazy though, I have a choice in that.
Completely off topic, but all leadership needs to see this.
“Much of Christendom remained silent under Hitler’s rule, they did what institutions often do, they acted in their own best interest. They were more concerned to protect the institutions of Christendom than to follow Christ.”
Dr. Diane Langberg
http://youtu.be/VGPwBOUqdNs
Lydia wrote:
Thank you. We devote much time to figuring out the good and bad of beliefs. The common foe is extremism, and the common fun is finding shorthand to take it down a peg. I very much appreciate the voices here at TWW.
TWW readers should realize by now that it’s unwise to sign a church agreement or covenant … period. Even agreeing to an apparent innocuous clause such as “I agree not to sow discord about church leadership” can come back and bite you. These things are indeed one-sided and are designed by authoritarian leaders to control, manipulate, and intimidate … rather than edify the Body of Christ.
When you accepted Christ, you agreed to the only covenant you need in your life … you endorsed the only church relationship required – it’s a personal one with the living God. Jesus paid for it with His blood. In your Christian journey, the Bible is your instruction for living a life pleasing to God. Read the red and pray for power to overcome the work of the enemy … and don’t sign any church contracts written by mere men!
Granted, most church leaders probably have the right spirit in this, but have simply fallen into the “church covenant” craze – everybody is doing it. However, they just need to get over it and get back to preaching the Gospel and leading their flock by example, rather than contractual terms and conditions. The Great Commission is greater than a great contract … if a leader is truly pursuing this, he will be protected from the pursuit of law suit.
Max wrote:
I’m sure it feels that way in some churches and regions, but as a fusty ol’ mainliner, I never even heard of church covenants until a few months ago. I joined church the old-fashioned way, through baptism and confirmation, and later by being received into a different tradition on a Sunday morning.
My memories of these events are warm and gauzy. This covenant thing sounds more like refinancing a mortgage.
Dee wrote “I have personally discovered that it is quite easy to circumvent the system by attending the church, starting your own Bible study, and serving within parachurch groups.”
Lord, that almost sounds Biblical, Dee!
A word about “parachurch” organizations. I have found many of them to be doing the work of the Church more than the thing we call “church.” To do so, their founders had to go “para”, rather than be distracted by the drama of organized religion. (There are scary exceptions to this, so we need to pray for discernment to sort out the genuine from counterfeit parachurch groups). There is only one true Church … it can be found doing the work of Christ on planet earth, rather than rounding up signatures to protect pulpit posteriors. There are legitimate parachurch ministries doing their part to fulfill the Great Commission … they are “Church”, too.
@ Friend:
I will leave that for the moderators to decide.
Friend wrote:
Friend, I identify with fusty, old and mainline … but still have my radar turned on – the church is a changin’. Many of the commenters on TWW are coming at this issue through their concern about the proliferation of New Calvinism. The church agreement/covenant is widely used by the young, restless and reformed as they set up systems of authoritarian control over the church and its members (it is a tool commonly used by SBC church planters). Wherever you find elder-rule church governance, you will most likely find membership agreements in place. Of course, other church leaders (besides Calvinists) execute church covenants – some are harmless in letter and intent, others are not … and sometimes they are designed to “execute” dissenters.
@ Friend:
BTW, just like the false patriarchal christianity, Mormonism and others, I think Islam is not good for women. Just call me an old feminist. :o)
@ Paula Rice:
I always enjoy your comments, Paula. I love a good pushback since it causes me to think about my position more carefully.
My experience has caused me to believe that Christians not only sin, but can sin badly and still be Christians. There is a pastor I know who had an affair which deeply hurt the church. He repented and bore the consequences. Today, he is one of the most thoughtful teachers that I know. Much of what I believe on this subject comes from him.
I have watched Christians who have gotten caught up in fraud, embezzlement, affairs, etc. run from their actions, repent, and make restitution. I have watched Christians who have become substance abusers finally deal with their problems and get clean while still struggling with their habits.
Look at Christians through history. How many held slaves? How many believed the Bible taught a separation of races? How many of them participated in the hanging of witches? Were none of the Christians? I would imagine that such a thing would make for a great debate. My answer, as of right now and subject to change, is: Some of them were probably Christians.
In my own life, i know that I sin and there are areas that I have had to work on for a very long time. If I didn’t have that hope, then I would despair because, like Paul I do things that I don’t want to and often do not do things that I should.
I would be hard pressed to say that those I mentioned, including myself, are not Christians. But perhaps am deluded. I long ago gave up trying to decided who is and isn’t. I’ve left that in God’s hands.
However, you are correct. There are wolves in the church as well. The problem is discerning the difference between the Christian who is a sinner and the person who pretends they are a Christian. Take a look at King David. He was an adulterer and a murderer. He was loved by God and I think that it was due to how he responded when confronted with his awful sins. He repented and perhaps that is the key.
Like you, Paula, I look at the leaders in Sovereign Grace Ministries and wonder how they could have done what they did. I look at pastors who have covered up for pedophiles in their congregations and i do wonder where they stand before God. In the end, i leave it up to him but I do hope those who have abused children will face their punishment in this world and the next.
Also, let me make this perfectly clear. Just because a Christian, or anyone else, does something terrible doesn’t mean that I believe that they are incapable of stopping themselves from doing that act. Take a substance abuser. He/she can stop if they wish to do so. We all sin in different ways but we can work on those sins with the help of God and good counselors.
Max wrote:
Yep!
Max wrote:
People who have a hard time finding a church should consider joining up with a parachurch organization. There are rescue missions that need workers. Many of these also have Bible studies and worship services that volunteers can join in. Also, it is a great way to meet other Christians who may be members of decent churches which are not out to con their members.
Happymom wrote:
Some Christians in Germany traded being a voice for the oppressed for being silent and left alone. Many today keep silent in the face of sex abuse in churches. The comparison is apt.
@ Paula Rice:
Amen Paula!
“We are all sinners” has been greatly exaggerated. I was young, and now am old. I remember a day – yes, even in SBC ranks – when the pulpit exhorted a pursuit of holiness by all believers. Today’s message has been greatly diluted to be “culturally-relevant” … you don’t hear many holiness sermons these days, because the pulpit itself is not living holy. In particular, the message and method of New Calvinism – if allowed to run its course – could lead to antinomianism among its followers.
These issues are about “Churchianity” rather than Christianity. Church, as traditionally and culturally defined, didn’t even exist when the Bible was written. It was invented by Constantine following his “conversion” in 313 A.D.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
I would agree in as far as some church leaders view their position as lords & rulers over the flock, shepherding the sheep from their spiritually higher ground. They seem to think their calling is more effectual and despite the subterfuge of impressions they may create to the contrary. They merely say these things about themselves because if it’s true about them, then it’s certainly true about you. They pretend like “we’re all in this together” when really, that’s not how it really is because if it were, then what would the foundation be by which your submission & obedience is demanded? They want you to think you’re the sinful one, and that becomes a lever whereby you can be manipulated, controlled, forced into signing a membership agreement, and led to believe your sanctification is a matter of attendance, tithing, and participation in their church, and doesn’t rest alone on the blood of Jesus.
It’s a form of spiritual abuse.
And here’s why. It’s spiritually abusive to tell Christians they are sinners like everyone else because not only is it not true, it totally undermines the effectual love of God at work in the life of the believer. Because it’s the love of God, poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, that gives us the power to love God and others. And when you love someone you are not motivated to cause them harm or injury, instead you wish to seek their good and if possible, lead them to Christ and out of sin and its consequences.
If we tell Christians they are still locked in sin, they we are literally enabling them and working to make them vulnerable to abuse. The message needs to be clear and uncompromising: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation!
Max wrote:
Max, I cannot get verification on this but heard that the VRI paperwork the SBC missionaries are required to sign has some similar language. This concerns me greatly because some brave soul would have to go public and it could jeporardize their future options as they have to start over in middle age.
Paula Rice wrote:
I agree. It is also a form of collectivism putting people in one broad category which lends itself ti desensitizing us to wrong/evil and negates individual responsibility for behavior.
@ Lydia:
Lydia, I have not heard that … but don’t doubt that the severance agreements between IMB and its “voluntary” and “retiring” missionaries might include some restrictive language on “if you know something, don’t say something.”
“Karen had resigned and the church kept sending out missives to 6,000 closely knit church members (snort) about what a rotten person she was by not following their ridiculous advice.”
in my Church we have a hymn with these lyrics: ‘we will guard each one’s dignity ‘
I just want to know one thing: HOW in the name of heaven did these pastors and their minions stray so far as to be actively trying to harm someone? WHAT is in their ‘teachings’ that enables the blatant abuse of anyone? ?????? I don’t get it.
@ Paula Rice:
I understand what you are saying, but we also need to consider Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares. The best we can do is remove a person from fellowship if they are unrepentant. To me, that does not include shunning but treating them as an unbeliever until evidence of repentance is seen.
Christina wrote:
And ironically, the girl in question is the leader of “Community and Formation”. With attitude and tweets like that, I bet everyone there feels the gospel-centered love.
@ Burwell Stark:
The church was relatively easy to figure out, thanks to the fact that EVERY SINGLE A29 church likes to post the names, pictures and bios of all their leaders on the internet.
Paula Rice wrote:
There is a difference between acknowledging that believers still at times sin, and saying believers are “locked” in sin. It is precisely because of the Gospel that we are e not locked in sin. I believe the Apostle Paul tried to explain this.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Comrades of the Politboro?
Protraits lines up like old May Day in Red Square?
@ dee:
I see where you’re coming from, and I need to add, I’ve noticed you call Christians sinners in other posts, not just this one.
It’s a tricky subject because on the one hand, obviously, we see a lot of problems. The purpose of the blog is to dissect these problems and point out their trends. But I think it’s vitally important that in doing, the message of the gospel remains uncompromised.
Fact is, we walk by faith. And faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Many problems discussed here stem from poor teaching, flash teaching, and/or poor exegesis of Scripture. Christians need to believe that only are their sins forgiven, it’s so much more. We are literally delivered from the power of sin. If Christians are not taught this, and told over and over they are sinners (and given plenty of examples to point to as evidence) then it makes it difficult to equip them to walk by faith, to appropriate the truth, and live in the good of the abundance of life that is available to us. But, it is a matter of faith.
If someone thinks and believes that Christians are sinners, that we’re “doing much better than we deserve”*, that’s we’re the” worst sinners we know”**, and that there is no power at work in our lives to deliver us from sin, then what might the result of that be?
If Christians believe sin is a fundamental aspect of their identity in Christ, then what prevents a wolf like a CJ Mahaney, for example, from coming in to the sheepfold over the wall, and telling God’s blood bought children that they should live under guilt, thus being easily to mislead into following a different gospel and a different Jesus. Consequently, this is a crucial theological issue to have right, if you follow me. Jesus said the one work is for us to believe in him (Jn 6),and it does take work, esp among so many competing ideas. But this, on my opinion, is the most important aspect of watch-care – to watch out for falsehood and false gospels, to protect the sheep, sound the alarm, and expose the wolves and the little foxes.
I hope I’m making sense here. I don’t think I’m pontificating. Thanks. And I’m sorry I’m limited to my phone today which makes it a bit more tricky to compose things super carefully.
Friend wrote:
I remember a quote from some CIA type or political enforcer about “The more people we get into the middle class, the more we have Peace and Order.”
Because being saddled with a 30-year mortgage plus health insurance plus student debt makes people very very peaceful towards their pointy-haired bosses. No matter how the pointy-haired bosses treat them. Don’t Dare Rock The Boat.
Paula Rice wrote:
As was said before about Calvin Fanboys:
“If you’re the Utterly Worst Sinner You Know, why should I trust you?”
Paula Rice wrote:
That’s not a bug, that’s a Feature.
*
**
Starred quotes in my last comment are words repeated often by CJ Mahaney, who I am convinced is a false apostle, false teacher, and a false Christian who preaches a false gospel and a false Jesus, who routinely and habitually accuses Christians of being bound under sin and uses that to manipulate them and portrays himself as someone who God has called to lead his people.
He is just one example of the types of people preaching falsehoods that we need to be on the lookout for and warning others about.
@ Bridget:
Wouldn’t we just deal with behavior that hurts others.
Bridget wrote:
Absolutely agree we are not locked in sin, even though we still possess a sinful nature.
What I’ve observed in the type preaching/theology, that harps on the,” we are all awful sinners ” syndrome, is the real sins are hardly addressed. Lots of admission to being prideful and talk off how bad an ungodly culture is. No specifics however, on such sins such as: greed, coveting, lust for power, cruelty in relationships, etc.
We can be freed from the power of sin as the Holy Spirit, the bible, opens our hearts and our minds, as to what sin is and isn’t.
@ Bridget:
Yes, I agree. We are able to sinsin, no doubt about it, because we have that choice. But I believe the love of God at work in us through the presence of the Holy Spirit within, gives us the power to choose not to sin against God and others, this fulfilling the great commandment that sums up all the others, “Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself.” This is possible and in fact, is the hallmark of the Christian what is to characterize Christian community.
When Paul mentions being a wretched sinner, that is not the end of the story. He goes on to say, “thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ my Lord” is how we are delivered from sin, made powerful through the law.
In Romans 7, Paul explains that we were married to the law, which kept us bound in sin. Marriage to the law, Paul points out, is like being married to a fault finding spouse who only points out where you’re wrong all the time, but never lifts a finger to help you.
Moreover, this spouse is unable with you to produce any fruit in you to God. That is, there’s no power contained in the law to create righteousness in you. None, what’s over. The law is impotent.
And to make matters worse and worse, we are bound to this spouse FOR LIFE!!! There is absolutely no way out because THE LAW IS ETERNAL. IT WILL NEVER PASS AWAY!! So, we’re totally stuck in this eternally, unhappy, untruthful marriage.
But wait!!!! Hallelujah!!! What’s this Good News?!?!
Yes!! We can be totally and completely freed from this bondage. But how? WE DIE TO THE LAW THROUGH THE BODY OF CHRIST (who fulfilled the law and delivered us from its curse) SO THAT WE CAN BE MARRIED TO ANOTHER!! We die to the law and the power of sin held over us, and are joined to Christ. And in Him, through faith in Him, are we then, and only then, able to bear fruit unto God.
Its all there in Romans 7. Then Romans 8 just tops it all off with whipped cream and a cherry!
Paula Rice –
THANK YOU! I agree with what you are saying. Just spending a short amount of time on Facebook or blogs/websites written by young/hip women clearly demonstrates what you are saying. These women wallow in their sin. They delight in it. They think it makes them authentic to trash themselves and talk about how sinful they are. It doesn’t. It is a slap in the face of what Christ accomplished on the cross to glory in our sin or place our identity in our sins.
The redeemed in Christ are not sinners. They are a new creation. The old is gone and the new is come. Do we still sin? Yes. But we are not sinners. We are heirs. Sons and daughters of the Most High. Might we have sins we struggle with? Yes. But we are still redeemed, new creations in Christ.
It IS abusive for leaders to tell Christians over and over again that they are wretched sinners, etc. It IS controlling. It’s just so so wrong!
Christina wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I looked up the “Our Team” page for that church. The “team” includes a couple coordinators and directors, one elder, one elder-in-training, TVC, TGC, IXMarx, and, wait for it…….. The ESV!
Mae wrote:
As in, “Yes, I’m an awful sinner because I ate too much ice cream and exceeded the speed limit by 3 mph. But, let’s ignore the fact that I support and protect pedophiles.”?
Christiane wrote:
As far as I know, all these men who harassed and publicly maligned Karen and got church friends to shun her are still working at TVC.
@ Mae:
We’re definitely involved in a conflict between the forces of the flesh and the Spirit,which are contrary to one another. We have to resist the flesh by the Spirit and fight, putting on the weapons of our warfare.
I think the major manifestations of the flesh, or the carnal nature, are things like pride, independence, fear, doubt, unbelief, legalism, etc. When in operation, the Spirit is not. But with the sword of the Spirit and the shield of faith we can defeat these foes!
I think I’m done now. I’ve said my peace.
@ Sallie Borrink:
Sisters! 🙂 Amen
@ Amy Smith:
Jonathan Leeman said they were mistaken in how they handled things but they are *pious.* Snort. In that respect, the guys who hung the witches we pious in their actions but they mishandled it.
Lydia wrote:
So because I agree what does that make me?
__
“The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation 4 deze elect folks only?”
huh?
4 da ‘elect’ ONLY?
What?
All else are gonna need (according to this wackey calvinistic theological system) –well you’ll first gonna need a official ‘Divine’ ‘restoration pass’ JUST ta ‘believe’ in Jesus.
Yep.
Then ya gotta be divinely picked 4 ‘election’…
figures.
Do we really have ta take their escrement, these Calvinestas?
hmmm…
Ya know Jesus gotz a better way, huh.
Yep.
Jesus gave up all his stuff ta B wit us & save us! Then God Almighty sent da Holy Spirit ta clinch da deal, …the devil being a real brick and all.
(don’t let these religious b@s tard($) take God’s gift away from ya!)
-snicker-
they’re gonna try…
…b part of The Lord’s house today?
hmmm…
All ya gotta do is ask Him…
(Jesus did all da ‘fancy’ footwork!)
(grin)
hahahahahaha
(He is still listening as well…)
ATB
hum, hum, hum… I feel the warmth of Your gentle embrace! My God, ‘You’ are able…
Yes Sir! 🙂
Sopy
—
Bridget wrote:
And how did Jesus treat unbelievers?
Christina Dowers wrote:
I am curious to know, because Power Point, email, social media and blogs weren’t around then.
Paula Rice wrote:
Actually, it is not very hard. Because CJ is a sinner and, I believe, should never have been allowed to be a pastor, i would tell him point blank that his sin is causing him to persecute decent people and to allegedly cover up child sex abuse. One of the major problems in SGM was their misunderstanding of sin.
Some sins are worse than others. If I cuss out a guy who cuts me off and no one hears it but me, then that sin of not giving the guy the benefit of the doubt affects only me. For example, i remember when my daughter was quite sick. A few times i was so upset i cut off people in the road and they would honk and flash me the bird. I used to think “If they only knew what I was going through.”
Now, let’s take the sin of pedophilia.The consequences of that sin are literally life changing, causing pain for the victims and their families and friends for the rest of their lives. That sin is far worse than my cussing out a driver and needs to be dealt with unless one is misusing Scripture to protect themselves.
I would have told CJ to stuff it if he played those head games with me.
Every week, in my church, we have a confession or our sins-asking God to forgive us for our known sins and our sins unknown. At the end of this confession, the pastor says that it is his duty to assure us that all of our sins are forgiven in the name of Jesus. It is a wonderful moment for me and a reminder that Jesus is at work in me spite despite my sins.
In fact, that part of the service has been particularly meaningful to me because I tend to be quite hard on myself.
The other thing that CJ did which was a ruse is that he left everybody at the foot of the Cross, with Jesus still hanging there. Last week in church they had a litany of remembrance for those who died the previous year. Here is how the first sentence goes.
“Almighty God, we praise you today for the hope we have in Christ crucified, risen, ascended and returning.”
I circled that and have decided that an understanding of the whole of Christ’s accomplishment is understood through this statement. It doesn’t leave us as sinners at the Cross so that awful men like CJ can attempt to abuse us. It starts at the Cross and sees a risen Christ coming back for his beloved people.
If I were to confront CJ regarding what happened to any of the victims and he tried to turn it back on me using silly things like pride, disunity, etc. I would tell him that he is purposefully attempting to deceive me. I would agree that sometimes I struggle with pride but I never, ever covered up anything to do with child sex abuse and he can stick his theology up his nose.
Christina Dowers wrote:
He loved the honest unbeliever and was not fond of some of the Pharisees.
@ dee:
PS, regarding that statement:
“Christ crucified, risen, ascended and returning”
I intend to use it frequently around those who are playing fast and lose with the lives of wonderful people in our churches.
Christina wrote:
Talk about poor reading skills. I wonder if she thinks that the chapter numbers/verses is an indication that a whole new topic has begun?
The chapter prior contains:
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.
2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
What mind is that? The mind that Paul describes just a paragraph or so above.
Has absolutely nothing to do with two women disagreeing.
And the Gospels have numerous examples of Jesus effectively telling both opponents AND followers ‘none of your business.’
@ dee:
Regarding general confesdion and absolution during your church services, i would only add (to reinforce this) that this tradition – one in which i share, from a small distance – sees us as both fully sinners *and* fully saints. It is very freeing, and afaik, makes it much harder for anyone to play the “Sin” card against another person.
2e are in the process of being saved, evety single nanosecond. While, at the same time, being in communion eith God, as much-loved daughters and sons.
Puts a different spin on things, i think – typical of a number of “higher” Protestant denoms (including the more Anglican-leaning Methodists), along with the RCC.
@ Paula Rice:
Quick question:
When I first got to know you a few years ago, did you find me supportive of you? Please let me know if I ever mentioned your sin. It was my intention to thoroughly support you in the pain that was caused by the sinful men in charge of SGM. I believe that what was done to you and many others was evil-from the pit of hell itself and it has been my goal to be of support to all of you.
PS-I think we are rapidly heading into the Christmas season. Spell check attempted to change “was evil” to “wassail.” Frankly, a couple of mugs of wassail is in order when thinking about what happened at SGM.
@ dee:
Despite? Nah, more like the grace and love of God surrounds and keeps you. And yes, we all screw up, but repent, confess, and move on in God’s forgiveness, through Christ. 🙂
numo wrote:
Yes, in fact that was the title of a post a couple of weeks ago. Not only that, it was the subject of the sermon this week. He explained “Simul Justus et Peccator.” i also like my other pastor’s phrase “Positionally holy and functional sinner.” I decided that since it kept coming up, I needed to incorporate it into my explanation a bit more. Thanks for reminding. me.
I know, for sure, I am both. The hard part for me is figuring out who is both and who is just a sinner.
@ dee:
Why are you trying to figure it out? (Apart from the obvious, as far as abuse and the like.)
@ numo:
Loved your explanation, BTW. Keep me in your prayers. Things are still a bit difficult around here. Today, my m-i-l gets the oncologists opinion at Mass General. Then, the planning regarding living, etc. begins. She probably has less than a year. Lou is still in rehab.
Max wrote:
Oh, I agree. People should also know, though, that healthier churches still exist. If folks don’t join them, they will disappear.
The Episcopal Church went through an ugly split a few years ago, with some parishes and a couple of dioceses storming off, taking with them a few nice buildings and cemeteries. It’s now quite a peaceful denomination, but smaller. There is some risk that it will fall to neo-Cals or some Anglican equivalent. The greater risk, though, is that the Episcopal Church will die out because people don’t realize how much it has to offer.
@ numo:
That deserves a longer explanation. i have to go to visit Lou now and bring him some clothes and drive my mom. She is having in MRI tonight (yes-in the evening!). From there we will discuss surgery, etc.
Do me a fvaor. If i forget to answer you, remind tomorrow in the AM. Its a great question.
@ dee:
I think his statement is a bit off, insofar as yes, we sin, but we are able to do what is good/right as well. All good comes from the Father of Lights, or so it seems to me from reading about humans being made in the image of God, plus the freedom that Christ’s redemption brings – and will eventually bring in the fullest sense – to all creation.
Just my .02 for today. 😉
@ dee:
You arein my thoughts and prayers, as well as your family. I will try to remember! (“Try” being the operative word here.)
“If someone truly is the worst sinner, meaning he is committing sins of wanton destruction, one expression of humility would be to self-evaluate his behavior and confess his error. But here is the issue: Would this man of actionable moral failing become the poster child for “humble” leadership? Don’t be absurd. “Forget the genocidal pedophile destroying nations. We don’t even tolerate the smallest failing in leaders that offend our most delicate sensibilities-sex with the church secretary, molesting altar boys, building the PTL club with the emotional extortion of old ladies. If a leader confesses actual sin, actual guilt, we put a scarlet letter around his neck and drive him from the pulpit soonest. But to our shame, if a leader confesses theoretical sin, theoretical guilt, that places his actions on the same moral par with Genghis Khan, we oooh and aaahhhh and applaud his manifest humility, diving head first into the moralistic sleight of hand. One we call humility. The other we call hypocrisy. What is the difference? One guy is being honest.”
Blight in the Vineyard: Exposing the Roots, Myths, and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny
by John Immel
(Kindle Locations 3039-3047)
Paula Rice wrote:
Ummm no, the Law of Moses was not written to me, I’m not an Israelite and I have no such ‘marriage’ contract with it whatsoever. What I am responsible for is making the choice to cultivate or not cultivate the divine image the Almighty has placed inside me at birth, a kind of Jiminy Cricket (conscience) and built-in moral compass. In that regard I am a law unto myself and will be judged accordingly (Romans chap. 2).
Amy Smith wrote:
Of course they are. That’s because they did exactly what they thought they should do. The only problem is that other people discovered what they are really about. In other words, it was/is a PR problem which they handled with PR techniques. They do not view it as a sinful exercise of illegitimate authority, much less spiritual abuse. And they will never see that. Their spiritual lens is distorted by their ideology which excludes the power and even the necessity of the Holy Spirit in their lives and the lives of TVC people.
There is a very short and to the point wikipedia article under the title of christian perfection. Sinless perfection. Holiness movement. Second blessing and such.
As to whether christians sin I wonder why the line about forgive us our transgressions as we forgive those who transgress against us was included by Jesus in the model prayer if we do not transgress. And if we say that we may ‘transgress’ but that is not really sin, then the people we are to forgive have not sinned either but only transgressed, which would have to mean that there is no such thing as sin in the world.
For one example Peter sinned when he denied Christ, repented and was forgiven, and then Paul later accused Peter of hypocrisy over the eating with gentiles issue (another sin.) Was Peter unregenerate and was the Spirit absent from is life? I think not. I just don’t see anything like sinless perfection in scripture, in myself or anybody else, and not in this life. Baptists used to repeatedly proclaim that there had only been one person without sin (Jesus) and they would assure whomever that they were not the one. I assume they still teach that.
@ dee
I am cracking up over auto correcting evil as wassail.
As to the functionally sinner, positionally Holy, my problem with that is it presents the options as conferred upon us as if we cannot help but be sinners. Can one help sinning? I think so but then I doubt I define sin the same way and perhaps that is the problem. I believe sins are actual actions we do to harm others. I think sin starts in our thoughts and we are to take them captive— but we have a choice as to our actions.
I realize I run the risk of being accused of believing in sinless perfection but I don’t see “sinner or sinless perfection” as the options.
@ dee:
Good words, Dee. And thank God there is not only forgiveness of sin, but healing as well. None of us are immune from bring victimized by sin, but thank God he heals us and strengthens us so that what may have been done to us, or what we may have done to others, doesn’t have to leave us warped, or with a defective filter through which we then everything.
And I agree with you about the importance of the full gospel. Years ago I read something in a book I’ve forgotten the title of. But, it was incredibly timely and stayed with me. The author said there’s a danger in assigning more importance to just one aspect of Jesus’ ministry and emphasizing it more than others. He said what Christ accomplished needs to be taken as a whole and not, for example, parked at the Cross.
He explained that the Cross is vital because it’s where we find our atonement for our sins. The Resurrection is important because we weren’t left with another dead guy in the dead religion society. The Resurrection proves Jesus conquered sin AND death. (I’m simplifying)
But, the author said if he were to assign more worth to any aspect of Jesus’ ministry, it would be to His Ascension, which he said (and I agree) was the crowning achievement of His ministry.
Everything moved toward IT.
Having fulfilled the Mission for which he had been sent, Jesus uttered my favorite bible verse, “I am ascending to My Father and to
your Father, to My God and to your God.” Reconciliation complete. And then, of course, the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost, which was the birth of the church, and we were initiated as full-fledged citizens in the Kingdom of God. But, if Christ had not ascended, then the Kingdom would not have come.
So, yes, stopping short at the cross leaves us there as sinners. Forgiven, maybe, but void of the Spirit, lacking full acceptance, and without entrance into the Kingdom.
This is what helped me identify the problem that was happening at CLC that I couldn’t put my finger on at first, when Mahaney shifted the whole thing over to Calvinism without telling anyone, and started focusing only on the Cross. And yes, I spoke up about it. And it was for this reason I stopped attending and left, because I knew it wasn’t the gospel as has been delivered to us but rather a powerless interpretation of it, promoted by someone who assumed they possessed the “calling from God” to interpret Scripture and for that interpretation to be followed without question. And I trust under the circumstance, like you’re saying, you would have done the same thing. It wasn’t until years after I left that everything came out about the pedophilia and the cover ups, but I wasn’t in the least bit surprised. Nor was I surprised at how many members chose to stay despite these revelations!
@ Nancy2:
Exactly.
@ dee:
I honestly don’t understand the question. Mind elaborating? Are you saying you think that I think you’re calling me a sinner and that I’m personally offended or something?
I realize you care for people who have been abused. I don’t know for sure, but you’ve often mentioned a backlog of hundreds and hundreds of emails. My guess is you are providing support and encouragement behind the scenes to many people who have been affected by abusive churches and leaders, etc, in various ways. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing this has become, more or less, a ministry of yours.
Which is wonderful if it has. Which makes it all the more important, I would think, for there never to be any confusion over who the sinners are, and that there is healing and deliverance fully offered in the Gospel.
And you’re very fortunate to have an RN, which affords you the power to be involved in real hands-on help in the lives of people requiring skilled care, who are true victims. I can see how you may be carrying your education over into caring for victims as much as you can in a virtual reality. It’s a noble endeavor!
Amy Smith wrote:
My experience in these authoritarian churches is that men are not promoted/demoted based on their spiritual maturity, rather on how well they mindlessly affirm everything the Senior Pastor says and does.
The underlings never act independent from the SP. I am sure in the case of Karen all actions taken were done so with the full knowledge, if not the direct instruction of Matt Chandler. Therefore, even though Chandler was savvy enough to meet with Karen and thereby avoid a costly lawsuit, he is not about to demote his yes men for doing his bidding.
@ Lydia:
You do not sound anything like you are saying sinless perfection.
@ Muff Potter:
OK, well, perhaps you don’t accept the entire New Testament, every epistle, as being God-breathed, I don’t know. Do you?
Because the New Testament is all about our deliverance from the law of sin and death, which is what I’m referring to.
Or do you not believe you were born under the law, or under sin?
The Bible says that the law was added because of sin. The law defines sin. The law is perfect and spiritual and thunders out God’s standards, and is intended to lead us (like a tutor) to an understanding that we cannot keep the law, thus our need for Christ.
Christ fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law as ONLY GOD Can. The law was added because of sinsin, and the Bible says the strength of sin is the law.
Since we were born in sin, under the law, we are eternally bound to it. Thus Paul’s illustration of marriage in Romans 7. You’re no exception for all have sinned. The solution is Christ. Since he fulfilled the law, and bore the penalty of the law for us (death), then we are completely released from the law, and from its sin and death, by dying to it. We die to it because we are placed in Christ and his righteous is imputed to us.
But this is standard gospel. Not sure where your disagreement lies.
Paula Rice wrote:
Real…help? True victims? Virtual reality? I spent half a century as a health care professional and nothing I ever did was more ‘real’ than what people do when the reach out to hurting people in any other way. And ‘real’ victims. There is nothing much more real than being attacked in your very person by people you trusted. A wound of the heart or of the mind is far more serious than for anybody to suggest that it is not real. And regardless of the use of electronics there is nothing virtual about the people who interact here or the people whom the Deebs reach out to in other ways.
Paula Rice wrote:
There is a neat little article, again in wikipedia, about ‘imputed righteousness’ and in that article they note that the issue of imputed righteousness is a signature doctrine of the lutheran and reformed traditions. Not all of us are lutheran or reformed. It is an interesting topic, but looking at the statistics of the denominational affiliation of most christians then it must be said that most christians (statistically) do not believe that imputed righteousness as you have described it is ‘standard gospel.’
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Yes, indeed!
Mae wrote:
Mae,
This is where I have to disagree with you. Believers have a ‘new nature and are new creations’ in Christ. We fall short at times, but we are new creations.
Lydia wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean here, Lydia. Can you elaborate?
Mae wrote:
I totally agree.
@ okrapod:
Oh, I totally agree. And I think it’s also awesome when someone possesses the skills to provide actual hands-on healing too. And when I say “actual”, I’m not dismissing at all the help, support, and encouragement we can provide to one another in a virtual reality. I don’t know about you, but I think God is logged in, too.
Furthermore, I believe on the power of the gospel. The gospel is my primary source of health and healing. But like any prescription or any doctor’s order, it needs to be accurately applied in order to receive it’s full benefit.
If our gospel falls short, so eventually will our prescriptives.
Christina Dowers wrote:
He loved them and continued to interact with them if they were interested. He did not shun them, yet they were not included in intimate fellowship with him and the other disciples.
@ okrapod:
What’s your position on that? You told me what Lutherans and Reformed Christians believe. What do you believe? And if your righteousness before God has not been imputed to you through your faith in Christ’s finished work, then what, pray tell, does it stem from?
@ Stan:
“A few weeks ago they had a members meeting to change by-laws, and after some minor business, the elders recommend the head pastor take a “sabbatical of indefinite length”. Members starting speaking out on how he had hurt them, and his response was, of course, that he was the real victim. Apparently it was quite a sight. Now, for them to realize that he wasn’t a Jim Jones acting of his own fanaticism, but was being taught by a very organized and resourced group.”
+++++++++++++++++
Stan — what kind of by-law changes were being proposed?
i’d say it’s a very organized and resourced group kind of fanaticism.
The publicity they’ve cultivated makes improbable any trips to some Guyana or a lethal communal punch bowl — but the 9marks & Acts 29 control issues are weird. Fanatical is an apt descriptor.
and to think it’s becoming ‘normal’ to some. my level-headed, decent and honest non-religious family and friends would think this is utterly fanatical and dangerous. I sure do.
@ Paula Rice:
There are many people who believe Christianity is nothing but sin management. You can “manage sin” but does that show anything in the end? I would suggest that many Christians put incredible pressure on themselves to perform. Legalism is attached to evangelicalism. You don’t have to be a Christian to be moral. There are many atheists, skeptics, and agnostics who can be more moral, and more in tune than Christians. The bottom line is this…people are people and they will make mistakes. One of these days Paula, you and I will be dying in a hospice and/or nursing home and even then in an inebriated, broken state you will still be sinning and making mistakes.
XianJaneway wrote:
@ Todd Wilhelm:
These places can act more like the mob or a gang. Loyalty is rewarded, and the way you climb up the ladder is by being more loyal. The greatest reward is when you get your own church. (i.e. John Folmar at UCCD or Garrett Keel at Del Ray Baptist) then you will know that you have arrived.
What this post is all about is how the cards are stacked and dealt. The church claims to be about the Lord, but in the end it is a machine for some that is used to control and affect the outcome. Arbitration is about control in these circles. Its not true arbitration at all.
@ Paula Rice:
“If, however, we know with assurance that while not God, He has begun a good work in usus, which includes sanctification of sin and ongoing transformation. To suggest that true believers are still bound by sin and that there is no distinction robs the real gospel of its power.”
++++++++++++++++
i’d say that yes, transformation can happen, by degrees. and a person having been transformed by degrees and continuing on in that trajectory can at any time choose to betray, lie, abuse, indulge, be character cowards, etc. and sometimes they/we do.
Bridget wrote:
These churches don’t do that. In fact, they don’t even always bother telling you that they have an issue with you. They tell everyone else but you. Jesus didn’t do that. He gave people the opportunity to tell their side.
Bridget wrote:
Yes, we are a new creature in Christ…..forgiven, redeemed, made joint heirs with Jesus. But, our former self, our earthly tent still rears it’s earthly nature. We aren’t free of it until the resurrection where; When we see Him, we will be like Him.
@ Paula Rice:
One other thing I want to say is that evangelicalism is obsessed with instant sanctification. Its also harming Christianity in the long run. There are some sins that are heinous and frowned upon and others that are not a big deal.
For example in my case I knew a guy from Eric Simmons Redeemer Arlington who was so obsessed with sexual purity that he asked me to change the password on his computer. THEN he turned around and as a military officer gave birth to a false accusation that threatened my name, job, and future employment. Here it is 2 years later and I am still dealing with the effects of this mess. So what was the lesson I learned in all this? If you are sexually “pure” but engage in a false accusation that is perfectly acceptable. Yes, an Air Force Captain by his behavior taught me why rape and sexual assault is a major issue in the US military. Today I believe…on May 7, 2013 the day before the false accusation I didn’t understand, however now I believe.
The same holds true for CJ Mahaney. Look as his teaching on modesty and sexual purity. SGM was fanatically obsessed with it. But then consider…child sex abuse or even blackmail is not a sin. Its okay in the minds of many people in the Neo-Calvinist world. Now if CJ Mahaney had a sexual affair like the guy in Minneapolis did people would kick him to the curb. But he didn’t he engaged in an alleged cover up of child sex abuse and blackmail and that is perfectly acceptable. In many parts of Christianity child sex abuse is not a sin, nor is blackmail.
This is part of the reason why I want to see Mahaney convicted in a court of law. That is the only way some people are going to get it if you see a bald man crying after the verdict came down and he’s facing significant legal ramifications.
Evangelicals have a warped way of defining sin.
Eagle wrote:
Marked and off the bottom of the deck.
XianJaneway wrote:
Yes, this is Lore Ferguson. I am not surprised that the survey was written to make egalitarians look bad. The Village uses manipulative language like that in their recovery and steps program. Every answer you give forces you to say it’s your fault. She learns from the best. Yes, she has been through a lot, but so have a lot of other people, yet she counsels and “disciples” them to just get over it and trust Christ. I understand being a product of divorced parents is tough and the fact that her brother died whens he was young was no doubt hard. But she acts like that makes her story different from everyone else’s and others in her circle play into it. I am sure all of us on here have at least one story that wasn’t easy to go through. My mom is an alcoholic, my dad was verbally and physically abusive growing up, and both of my siblings have train wreck lives that have left my nieces and nephews in crappy situations. I moved in with her because she advertised community and wanted to disciple women. I got nothing mildly close to that. I was ignored, talked about, left out and eventually shunned. Yes, she has been through a lot, but there are quite a few things she has brought on herself, like the guy she was engaged to in 2013. Her blog makes it seem like the wedding being called off was such a tragedy for her. No, it was a tragedy for him. She broke up with him and on top of that she told the TVC elders and staff that he had idolatry issues, so he had to go through steps and counseling. It is amazing at how when you know the right people in certain circles that you get to manipulate the system. She is a great example of that. She is so wise, so smart and so Godly that she can’t do anything wrong.
Eagle wrote:
“I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough to Parliament;
I voted always at my Party’s call
And never thought of thinking for myself at all!”
— Gilbert & Sullivan
And there was this one preacher who would order his subordinates to drink “poison” as a Loyalty Test…
@ Paula Rice:
“And when you love someone you are not motivated to cause them harm or injury, instead you wish to seek their good and if possible, lead them to Christ and out of sin and its consequences.”
+++++++++++++++
I love my husband. I wish to seek his good. from time to time I’m frustrated & tired enough to say things that I know will sting & hurt him. indulging in revenge, I suppose.
No one is immune from these things. Not even Billy & Ruth Graham. (or whoever is lauded as exemplariest of the exemplary)
Stan wrote:
The most common characteristic of a sociopath is the ability to reverse/shift the blame and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim.
@ Paula Rice:
“If we tell Christians they are still locked in sin, they we are literally enabling them and working to make them vulnerable to abuse. The message needs to be clear and uncompromising: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation!”
++++++++++++++++++++++
yes it is. and we still f*ck up.
marquis wrote:
And did Pastor mention how his favorite dish is Fresh MUTTON?
elastigirl wrote:
JMJ over at Christian Monist once reported a local band festival where one of the songs’ choru went:
“I’m F’ed up,
You’re F’ed up,
They’re F’ed up,
Were all F’ed up!”
Paula Rice wrote:
Dictated word-for-word by God?
Just like the Koran, except in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of Meccan Arabic?
Max wrote:
Today you hear a lot about sinning as normal and sort of rebukes toward pastors who encourage character, integrity, etc as “morality” sermons which are “bad”. I don’t get it. It is one of two reasons I have appreciated NT Wright apart from his ancient scholarship. He focuses on what it means to be fully “human” as God’s intention. Instead we are inundated with messages that being human means sinning. It Is not about sinless perfection but striving to reflect Christ in love, justice and beauty out into the world. Very few with large platforms are communicating this anymore about kingdom living here and now which was a typical theme when I was a kid in church.
dee wrote:
i.e. He hung out with the Losers instead of the Holy God Squadders.
Mae wrote:
Like George Carlin in “Class Clown” on how he would step-and-jive his way through Confession without really saying anything.
Paula Rice wrote:
First let me say that christianity believes that all things come from God and that by grace through faith. The differences lie in beliefs about humanity, the relationships between God and man, and the how not the what, of grace and faith.
I belong to an anglo-catholic episcopal church. We are closer to catholicism than to anything, but we are protestants.
I am sure you know that a number of protestant traditions have derived from the church of england the largest being methodist (which I used to be) but also the holiness and the pentecostal traditions were heavily populated with people who had been methodist. And then there is the salvation army and how that got started. There are doctrinal similarities and differences. Plunging into what this tradition believes is not where to start, given that the differences get complicated. If you would like to discuss this I would be happy to, but I am not going to undertake a tutorial on this because it is way too complicated. If you are interested in how this tradition tends to think there is just a huge lot of information on line.
If you are specifically interested in the justification/sanctification issue and how reformed thinking differs, and that is where to start in my thinking because it is at the heart of the reformed tradition, then I suggest you first look at what the catholic church teaches and then follow the trail away from the catholic church and see the progression of differences as the various groups in this larger tradition get farther and farther away from catholicism. I am thinking that one cannot get much of a grip on the reformed thinking as far as seeing it in relation to other thinking without getting somewhat of a grip on what thinking it was that they wanted to change. In other words, start with catholicism and keep asking yourself how is this different. At least that is what works for me.
Actually by tracing one concept only I find it easier to see a matrix of inter-related thinking which I think is useful once differences get nuanced and vague. And justification/sanctification is the very place to start IMO. I know this sounds naive, but there are several good articles on wikipedia. Personally I would not start with the catholic encyclopedia or the catechism of the RCC or with any episcopal web site I have found; that is a good way to get too confused to breathe.
If I can be brief (and therefore of course not really very accurate) we believe that also it matters what you do, not just what you believe, in the relationship between God and man, that God and man co-operate as it were (that is a poor description) but that as I said all things come by the grace of God.
@ Sallie Borrink:
“blogs/websites written by young/hip women clearly demonstrates what you are saying. These women wallow in their sin. They delight in it. They think it makes them authentic to trash themselves and talk about how sinful they are. It doesn’t. It is a slap in the face of what Christ accomplished on the cross to glory in our sin or place our identity in our sins.
The redeemed in Christ are not sinners. They are a new creation. The old is gone and the new is come. Do we still sin? Yes. But we are not sinners. We are heirs. Sons and daughters of the Most High. Might we have sins we struggle with? Yes. But we are still redeemed, new creations in Christ.”
++++++++++++++++++++
I focus on what is practical & try to keep it simple, avoiding christianese self-talk. when I make a bad choice, I apologize to whoever and to God (& make further amends if needed), get up and get back on my saddle, and God-Jesus-HolySpirit and I ride off into the sunset. we’re still partners, companions, doing exploits for good. God doesn’t carry a grudge and I refuse to eat worms.
@ elastigirl:
I would not even call that sort of thing “sin”. Goodness! It gets to the point where people are pointing out ” tone” as sin. Body language as sin. Yelling at the dog is sin. Frustration at the guy who parked in two spaces is sin. Sheesh! We are not robots.
I am not convinced there won’t be frustrations on the redeemed earth where we will be busy. However, I won’t have to worry about murder, rape, theft, deception, etc. those who Harmi and others for personal gain won’t be a problem. Can you imagine how productive it will be without all that???
@ Bill M:
Lydia wrote: “BTW, just like the false patriarchal christianity, Mormonism and others, I think Islam is not good for women. Just call me an old feminist. :o)”
Bill M wrote: “So because I agree what does that make me?”
++++++++++++++++++++
a feminist — anyone who champions the welfare of women wears it as a badge of honor. it’s something to feel good about, be proud of. and you’re my hero.
Now let me hear you say it, “I, Bill M, care about the welfare of women . I am a feminist.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
🙂
@ Mae:
I like how John Quincy Adams responded to an inquiry about himself:
John Quincy Adams is well. But the house in which he lives at present is becoming dilapidated. It is tottering up on its foundation. Time and the seasons have nearly destroyed it. Its roof is pretty well worn out. Its walls are much shattered and it trembles with every wind. I think John Quincy will have to move out of it soon. But he himself is quite well, quite well.
Bill M wrote:
“Old” feminist? Hee hee
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I really enjoyed that book. Immel gets it. The hypocrisy is astounding. When people like CJ brag about their being sinners, it makes me want to hide the children and lock up the silver.
@ okrapod:
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion over the terminology involved in this issue and related topics. That Wiki article is in itself confused and confusing (and there’s a banner at the top of the page stating that Wiki itself believes that it needs to be cleaned up, and citations provided, and all of that – I bet the “Talk” page is revealing!).
There are lots of nuances here, as well as uses of words that might – and have been – misunderstood, like “sanctification.” (Speaking of the high church tradition I come from, not Wesley and the Holiness crowd). The only way to get a clearer picture of what, say, Luther and his “crew” had to say is to read them. Ditto for one about whom I know next to nothing – John Calvin.
I am not really clear as to what, exactly, your current church says regarding a number of topics. Are there specific links you could point me to? (Many thanks in advance for your help!)
@ okrapod:
Ok, thanks for responding. Still am unclear though about how you stand before God and what that’s based on. Sounds like a mixture of things, and that you’d like me to read up on it, so I understand where you’re coming from.
@ elastigirl:
We do? Well I’m shocked. Shocked and appalled. And now I’m getting up and throwing the gospel in the can.
okrapod wrote:
This deserves to be repeated. I would have preferred a severe beating with the evidence of bruises and broken bones.
elastigirl wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following what you are saying about what I said. 🙂
I despise trendy Christian-ese. For example, as soon as a Christian starts using the word “messy” I check out. I am so sick of that word.
On the other hand, the Bible is full of richness that includes terms that God himself gave us through the Holy Spirit. I think because some segments of the church and some false teachers have used these terms to bludgeon people, the pendulum has swung waaaaay too far to the other end of the spectrum where now people won’t even use the most basic of Biblical terms for fear of “triggering” or sounding holier than thou or whatever. That’s not helpful either.
And just for the record based on some of the discussion since I posted… I do not believe in sinless perfection here on earth.
@ Lydia:
Lydia wrote:
What I meant is in that passage it is implied we won’t know who the “Tares” are. I find that interesting. For example, many professional Christians do horrible things to people through their rules like Chandler, Mahaney, Driscoll, Mohler….yet no one will dare call them a Tare. Instead, their doings are spun on a technicality and folks will accept them as believers. I find it all very confusing and creepy.
I really messed up the combox. Is that part of a fallen world or sin? Ha ha
@ Lydia:
Parable of the fares, Matt 13: The servants ask the man if he wanted them to go gather the fares that were sown in the wheat. The man answers, “Nay,; lest while ye gather up the fares, ye root up also the wheat with them.”
Lydia wrote:
Very well expressed, quite applicable.
@ Paula Rice:
You pose some fair and honest questions Paula, and they deserve a condensed answer.
I hold to the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed and especially the supernatural components of Jesus’ virgin birth, his bodily resurrection from the dead, and his bodily return to this Earth at some point in future. These tenets (for me) are non-negotiable and at the same time they afford me a wide latitude of conscience and human freedom.
The rest of the stuff you cite? I keep my own counsel as to what I believe or don’t believe.
Paula Rice wrote:
I am so sorry. i wrote this just before I left to bring some things to Lou who is in rehab and then take my mother to get her MRI. I am not communicating at peak efficiency, for sure.
The point I was trying to make is this.You know that I believe in Christians as righteous sinners. You asked me how those who believe this can prevent people from being verbally mugged by the CJ Mahaneys of the world.
The fact that I believe that were can still sin does not mean that I am going to abuse anybody because I believe that they sin. I don’t because I sin. By this sort of sinning I think of cussing the guy out who cuts me off.
That is precisely what CJ pulled. He was confronted by the way things were handled by his minions and him. Those actions were deeply wounding many people. A child was told to forgive her molester. He played games with Larry Tomczak by threatening to expose his son. This is a man who was participating in actions that I believe are deeply damaging. That stuff was so damaging that Deb and I went after the issues, putting ourselves on the line and getting threatened along the way by the sycophants who were kissing the backside of Mahaney.That was a hill for me to die on.
I was trying to explain that I go after these awful sins and failures of those who are harming my brothers and sisters. I would never hurt anyone who cam to us for help by playing the game of “Well, you sin so why are you pointing out the sins of Mahaney, Driscoll, etc.”
There are sins that we should point out and fight. Childe sex abuse is one of those. The rest of the sins we all struggle with in our own lives can be dealt with between us and God. I sure as heck am not going to run around like some in SGM “observing” minor issues in others.
My intent was to try to convey that, in spite of how I view this sin issue, I would never, ever intentionally hurt anyone who came to me to discuss a terrible sin that was perpetrated against them.
So, what I was trying to say, very badly, is that I will take the side of those who have been abused and I would never play the “sniff out the sin in the other” game.
Nancy2 wrote:
So was the B-36 bomber.
This post was very informative in driving the argument against church contracts home. Our local church has recently abandoned the whole covenant thing with the focus on church discipline. You do not need to be a member to take part in ministry neither. It can be like turning the Titanic with a spoon but I think by providing a locus where people can find the support of others, the culture can be changed. So “good work” TWW! Many people aren’t aware of their rights and groups like 9 Marks and Acts 29 con people into believing that these contracts are Godly and bible based and the secular world is un-Godly.
If Christians believe that God works in all things then I would say the Constitution of the United States (or the Bill of Rights for those of us north of the border) is also a Godly document – it’s our fault when it’s not applied to all citizens equally. Our rights have been bought and paid for with the blood of our past citizens. Secular automatically does not equal evil.
Pingback: Too Many Christian Leaders Act Like Demagogues or Bullies | Study - Grow - Know
Eeyore wrote:
You nailed that.
Jack wrote:
How did this miracle come to pass?
@ numo:
Please check on the ODP.
@ Jack:
Would you consider writing a post about why? Let me know dee@thewartburgwatch.com
@ Muff Potter:
And thank you for your thoughtful reply and I respect your privacy.
In regards to the gospel, however, I will state I believe it’s public truth. In other words if it’s true for me, it’s true for you. And I don’t support private interpretations of it. In my experience, that’s what leads to all kinds of trouble.
If the gospel was not public truth, intended for everyone, then Jesus would have never assigned us the Great Commission. But again, it comes down to how you define the gospel, and who you believe Jesus is.
@ dee:
Sallie mentioned to someone earlier that she doesn’t believe in sinless perfection here on earth. Nor do I. And I’m not suggesting thus. Honestly? Anyone who understands salvation has a pretty good grasp on the fact that placing ones faith in the sinless perfection of Jesus Christ does not, nor should it, turn us into God, incapable of sin. God alone holds that title. The good news of course is that because He loves us, He provided a Way for the sin issue, which alienated us relationally, to be once and for all dealt with. Our acceptance with God, our right standing before Him, is purely based on His work of righteousness which God fully accepted. Through faith in Him, we are placed in Christ, and when God sees me, for example, He sees me in His Son, and I am accepted in the Beloved. God does not view me as a “righteous sinner” only because I am not viewed on the basis of my sin. I am viewed on the basis of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ on behalf of my sin – which is a HUGE distinction.
It feels in general like this conversation has devolved into similar ones I’ve had regarding God’s grace, where the question ends up being asked, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” because a lot of this just seems too good to be true, I guess.
Christiane wrote:
C. S. Lewis explained it this way:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Lydia wrote:
Heck, very few preachers period proclaim the Kingdom of God anymore! Yet, the Gospel at its core is about the Kingdom. Jesus preached more about Kingdom living than anything else. We’ve drifted so far off track in 21st century church, we are not even delivering the essential message of the New Testament! As you note, the Kingdom is here and now … we would all do well to discover that great truth.
Christiane wrote:
New Calvinism = New Reformation = New Revolution. When you feel that you have been sent into the world for such a time as this to recover the gospel that the rest of Christendom has lost, you can justify your actions. If some peon is abused along the way while you are advancing the grand revolutionary cause, then it must have been in the divine sovereign plan. Calvin repeatedly oppressed those who questioned his message and method, some to the point of death.
@ Paula Rice:
@ Paula Rice:
Numo tells me that people need to read something more than just wiki because the wiki article is confusing She is suggesting actually reading Luther and Calvin. I am not sure I agree with that, but I will grant that she may be right. Therefore I am furnishing a link to a good article which talks about grace, justification/sanctification, righteousness both imputed and infused and such from both a catholic viewpoint and from the protestant viewpoint(s) as seen by them. I think it will explain the major points in the different viewpoints. As to the issue of what does God see when he ‘looks at’ a person, the article should explain their view well enough. Mostly I believe it helps establish both ends of a continuum of opinion on these matters. IMO there is way too little of people comprehending the other side of the issue. I said comprehending, not necessarily agreeing with.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
Stan wrote:
Haha! Yeah, maybe his wife said hush to him, and the elders decided to boot them.
Paula Rice wrote:
Hey, Paula, Muff said he believed in the Apostle’s Creed, a longstanding public statement of Christianity. What else do you think needs to be added for it to be considered Gospel?
Do you see the Gospel as a total-world theological package that loses integrity when any part is altered/moved? Or do you believe there’s room within the faith for variation?
Dave A A wrote:
OMG! I am thinking about burning my ESV Bible simply out of principle. I was told I had to use the ESV several times in certain Bible studies at TVC. People get shamed when they read from the NIV or any other version.
@ okrapod:
Okeydoke!
@ elastigirl:
She showed me the email announcing a members-only bylaws meeting and no specifics other than that childcare would be provided. Maybe the agenda was mentioned at another time. The meeting started with an item concerning gay marriage that was uncontested, and then it broke into the senior pastor taking an indefinite leave.
@ Christina Dowers:
Weird! And I believe it. Didn’t she change the last name on all her blogs and social media accounts? So she changed them back? And The Village people are into pushing single members to live with each other, aren’t they?
@ Paula Rice:
Paula,
I believe that selfishness, anger, and hedonism among other things will always be part of my life on Earth. And those things will even change my acts of righteousness, but they are made perfect by the Spirit. But understand that one, the extremes of Sovereign Graces Churches/Ministries discipline are as much a part of Presbyterian and Reformed tradition as charismatic gifts are. And two, what I said about myself is my understanding of total depravity taught by a PCA church. That does not mean it’s my pastor’s job to convince me that I’m a danger to myself and others because of my “sinful heart” or “critical spirit or “idolatry of myself” or that I “worship my job”, so I need to be “in authentic community”.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Yes, that’s exactly why I left Park. I found out what her position was going to be, and I said no thank you. At this point, it’s hard to not be insulted. She is totally down for helping foster community, but when it comes to me specifically, she has an issue. She is perfectly OK telling every Tom, Dick and Harry about her issue with you but she can’t come to you about the issue. I am not entirely sure that that Bible verse is condoning blabbing things to people to get those people to stop being friends with you,s top dating you and fire you. But hey, it’s Lore Ferguson. No one questions her motives. If someone seems like a nice person on the Internet, then it is must be true.
@ Paula Rice:
Just wondering if you are familiar with the Apostles Creed?
There is much room for differing points of view in that, and in most denominations. Granted, those of us who went through various iterations of the discipleship movement (and adjuncts, like Gothardite stuff) can have a tough time in beginning to adk questions and think things through, since it’s the exact opposite of whst those groups permit people to do.
I found that taking a good, long look at the Apostles and Nicene Creeds has bern very helpful to me, but i was raised in a church that taught them, and actively prays them aloud during the liturgy. There’s a fair amount that is not covered in them (aka the ecumenical creeds), which does lay groundwork for thinking as well as for differing interpretations.
We all interpret Scripture; the biggest fight in church history seem to always have arisen among and between those whose interpretations vary significantly (though very often, tiny nuances have been the cause of schisms and worse).
At any rate, i am glad Muff posts here. There is quite a cross-section of beliefs and interpretations among commenters, and i think that is a sign of the healthy state of the blog itself. I suspect we agree on most essentials, speaking of those here who are Chridtian.
It’s “Back to the Future” with this church emphasis on discipline vice winning souls.
Wonder where they are hiding the stocks and scarlet letters?
Who polices the self-anointed?
@ okrapod:
Are you planning to post some resources over there? Or maybe you fid, but i don’t seem able to find them – ? (Links can put posts on the back burner; will check again tomorrow.)
Paula Rice wrote:
Paula, there are several different theories of the atonement that have unfolded over hundreds of years of church history. The “imputed righteousness” model is but one of them. I would argue, in fact, that the “legal language” used by the apostle Paul to describe justification was a metaphor, a way of pointing to the realitym but not the reality itself. IOW, the penal-substitution version of the atonement is not equivalent with the gospel. The “catholicisms”–my territory–tend to stress “infused righteousness.” Anyway, too much to get into in a blog post, but try Googling “theories of the atonement” to get a sense of the territory.
@ Patty in Massachusetts:
+1, though i think the RCC and some Anglicans and Lutherans are *far* closer on some of these issues than most would credit.
@ numo:
P.S.: i have a hunch that imputed and infused are far more interrelated than any of us realize.
@ Christina:
Royalties to their book publisher, Crossway? I always found it curious Mohler was not loyal to his employers translation.
@ BL:
Thank you. So true.
dee wrote:
Parachurch organizations are not immune. I was looking for a Bible study to join when I went to grad school and called up the local Nav leader. He told me they didn’t like having people join their studies who didn’t start out as Navs. But he said he would change his mind “if I would come over to his house and shovel his driveway”!
@ me:
No way!!! Are you coming on Saturday night, BTW?
Christina wrote:
That is cultish.
Bridget wrote:
Yes, it is. But for some reason no one sees that. TVC is the best church in all the land.
@ Lydia:
I view that parable as we can’t always tell who is and who is not a believer. We are not to make that decision. That does not mean we should put up with errant and/or sinful leaders. I have called such leaders out. When they would not cooperate with those requesting cooperation I removed myself from their leadership. I am finished with institutional, brick and mortar church corporations and pastor CEO s
Just in case you get put under church discipline for not being manly enough, here’s a book to help you be more dudely: http://www.amazon.com/The-Dudes-Guide-Marriage-Husband/dp/1400205492. Are books like this evidence of sanctification, or does it show the more you study Calvinism, the more ridiculous you get?
Christina wrote:
Actually, it is cultish AND abusive. Shaming is always abusive. It is the action of bullies.
Patrice wrote:
Off topic, but it appears that Kentucky’s governor elect is buddies with Al Mohler.
https://baptistnews.com/culture/politics/item/30631-ky-governor-elect-has-friends-in-sbc
Patrice wrote: (sorry I butchered my last comment) “Do you see the Gospel as a total-world theological package that loses integrity when any part is altered/moved? Or do you believe there’s room within the faith for variation?”
Muff’s objection had to do with the law and my rendering of Romans 7,as I read it. He stated:
I’m not sure what you mean by a total-world theological package, but I do think it’s important to understand the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the central role the law plays in both, and our relationship to the law as Christians. Muff stated he’s a law into himself. I mean, I don’t get how he arrives there and he’s decided to keep his own counsel, but it must have something to do with his saying he’s “not an Israelite” and “the law of Moses was not written to” him.
But I’m not sure that answers your question. Do I think there’s room for variation? I would say there’s certainly room for us to grow into a deeper understanding of the gospel, but I don’t believe we should play around with the essentials, no.
@ Paula Rice:
I suspect Muff was trying to say that he is a gentile – you know how the Jerusalem church debated over whether gentiles who believed in Jesus should have to formally convert to Judaism, and whether they were required to keep all of the laws or not? What they finally got it boiled down to is there in Acts.
I don’t think Muff was implying what you think he was implying. I mean, the Apostles Creed sums things up pretty well, in a short/sweet manner.
@ okrapod:
That’s a long read Okra, but I did get through some of it. And yes, there must be some disagreement here, and maybe it’s of a Catholic/Protestant nature. I tend to think of the discussion centering mainly on issues concerning reformed doctrine and not Catholicism, but I’ve made note of your persuasion on these matters.
@ Paula Rice:
Let’s just say that many Protestants (like myself) grew up in denominations thst look screamingly Roman Catholic to most evangelicals, and leave it at that.
In other words: it’s complicated.
@ Stan:
So you’re a Calvinist, eh? I’m familiar with the PCA,the whole shebang. It used to be my cup of tea but thing is, I’ve never liked tea, so I’m back to drinking coffee and have left the tea behind me.
@ numo:
The faith of Calvin and Luther closely resembled the Catholic Church. What passes today for modern day Protestant evangelicalism does not reflect the faith of these early reformers. Maybe that’s where it can get complicated!
@ Paula Rice:
I think you got it, because it was complicated back then, too!
@ Patty in Massachusetts:
Infused versus Imparted, hmm. Different views on the atonement, hmm. Is this maybe why we have so many various denominations?! Gosh. And here I was hoping to join the TWW choir but at the end of the day, Im unsure of the tune. But thankfully I’m assured of my salvation! 😀
@ okrapod:
Oh hey, i just meant, get hold of a good summary of what was said by both plus their associates. Because then it’s the undiluted original, not reinterpretations thst go on at great length. A few pull-quotes would do iy, i think.
Just a comment after reading this conversation — Paula, Muff was answering your summary on Romans 7 with his own summary of Romans 2. I think Numo is right, Muff was referring to Paul’s summary in Romans 2 of Gentiles who are not under Jewish law, but obey the law written in their own consciences and are thus justified before God. So your comeback question of whether Muff believes in the inspiration of the entire Bible came out of left field, to my reading. I think he is wise in keeping his own counsel here. He professed his belief in the Apostle’s Creed. According to Romans 10:9,10, those are the essentials. Adding any other criteria is adding to the Gospel.
BTW, Paula, infused and imparted righteousness occur in the church because they occur in Scripture. The Cross of Christ by John Stott is a great read on the history of many different views of the atonement over church history — all inspired by the Scriptures.
Christina wrote:
I already had one before joining an Acts29 church, and it seemed pretty good, even though it seemed odd it was the only one used. Then one Sunday a pastor read a Psalm, and a couple added words jumped out at me. So I mentioned it after church, did a parallel search which showed that absolutely no other versions include the phrase, and sent him an email. I thought an interesting discussion of various versions might ensue, but he was apparently too busy.
@ Paula Rice:
I think what might not be clear is that over the course of churvh history, different understandings of the atonement have come to the fore. Imo, none of them are “wrong”; all of them contain different facets of a truth that is, ultimately, beyond our understanding, here in this life.
An analogyz: if you go to an art museum to look at sculpture, you quickly find that works “in the round” (meant to be seen in a 360-degree view) are just that. You can’t comprehend the whole of a piece by simply standing still and looking at it from one angle only. By walking around the piece, you get to see it from every angle, and what you see changes – not because the piece changes. But because your literal point of view is changing. This brings out nuances and beautiful things that you’d never notice if you only stood still – or, at even more of a remove, stayed home and looked at photographs of that same piece in a book. Being there in person can alter one’s impression drastically.
There are a series of different views of what the atonement is and how it was accomplished that have developed throughout the past 2000 years. I know that for me personally, it was an incredible relief to learn that penal substutionary atonement is not the only game in town. I now look at this more through the lens of plain old substitutionary atonement (without the added weight of wrath and blood somehow “appeasing” the Father), as well as via a view that is often called Christus Victor, but has gone by other descriptions/names in the past. Understand that a lot of these ideas were present very early in the church’s history, though it took centuries (in some cases) for some of them to be more fully articulated. And they come from the multi-faceted ways of describing the atonement that are found within the NT itself.
There is nothing new or radical about any of this, though at different times, and in different places, the church has tended to emphasize one or another view.
For me, this is part of the heritage of what is called “one holy, catholic [universal] and apostolic church” in the Apostles Creed. I am derply grateful for it all – and i do think the churchmis catholic, since it belongs to Christ, not us alone.
Honestly, i think you are misding the main points that people have bern trying to make. What is found in the Apostles Creed are primary isdues regarding the faith – pretty much everything else truly is secondary.
@ almost60:
Good point. Over at internetmonk.com, there’s a recent post on whether penal substitutionary atonement is all there id. Some of the comments are really good, though in this case, you have to scroll through some unrelated stuff to get to them. Am on my phone, and posting links to specific comments isn’t wasy, or else i would do so.
For the rest, I’ll reiterate my belief in the ecumenical creeds and leave it at that.
@ numo:
Easy. Oh man, the typos! Apologies to all.
@ Paula Rice:
I believe Patty is Roman Catholic. She is Christian, of that I’m convinced.
No single denomination is – imo – the only game in town, and though i am Protestant, i have benefited greatly from some things that come to us through the RCC.
@ almost60:
Muff is a longtime commenter, and he has a lot of love for Jewish thought and observances. You’re right that Paul is hashing things out from his own perspective, which can be (is!) hard for me to follow, since i don’t have the religious education that he did. Am betting thst lots of readers feel the same.
@ Paula Rice:
The short answer on Luthermis that he was never *not* Catholic – not even after he was excommunicated from the RCC. His whole brief from day 1 was reform from *within* the RCC. Creating another church probably never ocvurred to him until the point at which it became inevitable. And even then, he and the others who hashed out whst is now called the Augsburg Confession were prfoundly Catholic.
Different denominations that call themselves Luthersn today are not at all the same thing as what was called “Lutheranism” back then. Different place, different time, so much so that i find it impossible to imagine their world and ways of thinking as if I were one of the people from that era.
Christina wrote:
I rather winced at the idea of burning a bible. Whilst it’s fine for a church to have a pew bible, it shouldn’t dictate which version should be read by members. I’ve always thought English-speakers should regularly read from more than one version, preferably a literal one in the King James tradition, and a freer meaning for meaning version.
Most translations go to great lengths to keep denominational or theological bias out of a translation, but it can nevertheless crop up occasionally for example in versions with the word ‘bishop’. Even a very liberal version like the New English Bible can contain very clear, fresh English in it renderings – except when it is dealing with spiritual gifts.
@ numo:
I don’t have the kind of information you are talking about. Quotes, links, summaries, stuff on the net-basically I don’t do that I guess. I don’t have any idea what happened to the thing I wrote to you about your statement about not knowing where my church stood on some things seems to be missing. I have no idea what happened there. What it was was some page numbers in the book of common prayer and one illustration I think of why my approach could be a problem for, let us say, baptists since that is the opposite reference point that I am familiar with. Not trying to diss the baptists in that sentence.
If I had quotes or summaries or links I would send them. Sorry.
almost60 wrote:
That is a good statement. There can be a tendency for people to take this or that idea about or explanation of something (which by definition are not the thing itself) and so elevate them in importance that they call them part of the very gospel itself. That is adding to the gospel, and it is an easy pit to fall into.
@ Nancy2:
Let’s hope the size of government is shrunk anyway. I hope we focus on individual issues. The pension system is totally broke and has reached critical mass. We have spent money like drunken sailors for decades unchecked. It won’t be easy. The entire infrastructure that works for him now in state gov are in the other party. I am not kidding.
Check out the Lt. Gov, Jenean Hampton. She is an inspiration.
Paula Rice wrote:
This is a huge reason as to why we had the reformation. The issue of sola fide was at the heart of the reformation, and the ideas about the atonement intertwine with and are part of the ideas about infused vs imparted vs combination thereof are all part of the same issues.
Hence the idea that when God looks at me he does not see me but rather sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus (imputation) and when God looks at Jesus he sees my sin (double imputation) and the linking idea that all that matters is faith and that defined by only the intellectual assent to a certain doctrine of atonement (or not even that for the Calvinists idea of double predestination)–that is at the core of the reformation. Grace then becomes the definition of what God does when he implements that system, which is a somewhat different concept of grace between catholic and reformation thinking.
This is it right at the heart of the matter, and how one believes about these things has secondary effects as to how one believes about a lot of things both beliefs and actions.
IMO we all have to understand the basic arguments and the basic beliefs on both sides, we all have to back way off from slinging attitude about it. I am not saying that you are doing that but a lot of folks want to preach their concepts as ‘the gospel’ and sling scorn and ridicule toward those who disagree.
Now that we have public forums, as opposed to when there was no internet, we have to both inform ourselves and control ourselves if we are to practice peace with all.
@ Lydia
@ Nancy2
I am so sorry about this turn of events in ole Kaintuck. Always remember that we would be more than delighted to have you folk over here on this side of the mountains if you have to relocate!
@ okrapod:
I am not sorry. My focus is on actual issues not personalities. That means a Muslim who is fiscally responsible would be preferable to me than a Baptist increasing increasing the size and reach of gov. If an elected public servant shrinks the size and reach of government over daily lives and choices, they shrink their own power because we need them less. I think folks miss that.
almost60 wrote:
This really is a problem with Romans. People read it as treatise on individual salvation instead of the whole Jew/Gentile dichotomy of that time in Rome. I have never understood the idea that Gentiles in that day and time would have been expected to be so familiar with Mosaic Law. But they could understand right/wrong.
danlinrm wrote:
You just called it…..
roebuck wrote:
I dunno, but that most likely means that I don’t have one either!! Well, there’s my next project: hunting down all my friends & family & getting them to work on some nice cut-rate parapets. Be back with prices soon…..
Nancy2 wrote:
Hmmmm…….Maybe I should cancel the parapets & go into the Equalizer business…..Decisions, decisions…..
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Something about church discipline makes this song run through my head:
They took all the trees
And put ‘em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see ‘em.
zooey111 wrote:
Go ahead and cancel. There’s a free parapet app, available online… somewhere, I’m sure.
@ okrapod:
Lydia is right about our future Gov. We have been under almost complete one -party control for decades, and we’ve been on a downhill slide.
I’m hoping Matt Bevin does what he said he’ll do politically. I was just surprised to learn that he is buddies with Mohler with a self-described “quiver full” family.
Lydia wrote:
That sounds like something his mother may have taught him; she was given to that kind of language. How wonderful that it stuck, after all those years!
@ Nancy2:
He has an interesting quiver. Half are adoptees from Africa.
@ Lydia:
Very different from the Duggars, for certain!
Christina wrote:
The Party Can Do No Wrong, Comrade.
Not entirely related to the article, but the Mormon church announced yesterday that children of legally married same-sex couples could not be blessed or baptized in church and could not join until they were 18 and disavow their same-sex parents. (Also, Mormons in same-sex marriages are now considered apostates.)
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-156/new-mormon-policy-makes-apostates-of
As you might imagine, this is not going over well and people are sending in their resignation letters because this was their tipping point and they’ve had enough.
The irony is that the Mormon church follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, who illegally “married” teenage girls and women already legally married to other men.
@ mirele:
We just saw Francis fail to get what he wanted from the recent vatican synod on the family with headlines saying things like conservatives won. Now this from the LDS. I am thinking that we have not even begun to see more than the tip of the iceberg of the conservative backlash on these related issues.
Lydia wrote:
I did a bit of Googling and found out that the pastor was advertising his church on Puritan Board (a very very very Calvinist operation) back in 2008. That I found interesting.
Christina wrote:
No doubt about it. The ESV is the sword of choice among New Calvinists – Scripture is not truth unless it comes through the ESV filter. It’s become an identifying mark for the young and reformed. Early Christians used to draw a fish or cross symbol in the sand when meeting someone they thought was a believer; it was a way to quietly identify themselves to each other in the midst of great persecution. The young Calvinists simply display their ESV to demonstrate that they are “in”. The ESV Study Bible is filled with Calvinist commentary … you’re “The Man” if you are seen toting one of those! In the same way, spiky Driscoll-type hairdos used to be a distinguishing mark for the young whippersnappers (a display of “gospel-centered hair” as an earlier commenter put it) … however, the spiky thing appears not to be so popular since Driscoll fell … bald seems to be in these days.
mirele wrote:
Sure, let’s scorn and punish children because they were placed in homes that do not meet with our approval.
How Christ-like! NO! More Cult-like!
@ okrapod:
No worries, and no need to apologize – i tried Googling some of these topics and ran into a mess. Am thinking the BoCP is probably the best place to look, as you’ve stated.
Sometimes the internet swallows replies whole – not unlike the way socks vanish in the dryer, never to return.
Max wrote:
HUMBLY Bald, of course (chuckle chuckle).
mirele wrote:
Yes, they rarely connect their own doctrinal dots!
mirele wrote:
Well, when Romney won the GOP nomination in 2012 (after six months of God’s Anointed after God’s Anointed to a chorus of “Not The Mormon! Not The Mormon!”, Mormons suddenly became Real True Christians. Then when he lost the General election to the Obamanation of Desolation, Mormons went back to being a CULT CULT CULT.
Maybe this will spark their reinstatement as Real True Christians?
Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend?
@ mirele:
I visited that forum a few times but could not really get past the name or the monikers used by commenters. :o)
mirele wrote:
“Most cults are started so the cult leader can (1) get rich, (2) get laid, or (3) both.”
— my old Dungeonmaster, post-game in his apartment parking lot
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. And then there’s Douggie ESQUIRE, Got Hard, Polishing-the-Shaft Schaapf…
@ Max:
I am convinced the ESV promotion and propaganda is linked with book publishing deals with some of the players.
Lydia wrote:
And these days I read the decline narrative intro of Romans 1 with a refrain of “For these are the things which the Goyim do” in the voice of an old Rabbi.
About professing Christians not behaving any better than Non-Christians.
This study mentions Christians as well as Muslims:
If you raise your kids with religion, they’re likely to be judgmental jerks
http://nypost.com/2015/11/06/if-you-raise-your-kids-with-religion-theyre-likely-to-be-judgmental-jerks/
I do sometimes wonder why so many people who claim to follow Christ don’t resemble him or even try to.
Lydia wrote:
Could be. The LCMS school where a couple of my g’kids go requires each student to have an ESV, and the weekly memory verses are from the ESV. So, it is not just the calvinists. At my church various translations are used sometimes being the ESV in adult formation but usually not, including one translation which includes the apocrypha for reading during the liturgy of the word. We told the g’kids don’t worry about it. When there is a real problem we will let you know.
almost60 wrote:
Thank you for this, although I must admit I am no clearer to understanding Muff’s thinking in regards to his having stated the law was not written to him (which you and others say is to be interpreted as him saying he’s a Gentile not a Jew), yet, as you’re saying based on what either your and/or his take on Romans 2 and him being a law unto himself is intended to mean. My initial impression was, and remains, that Muff has employed the “law unto himself” in a way that seems to run contrary to what Paul builds throughout the rest of Romans. Admittedly, Romans is intricate, but I believe it’s all perfectly balanced. Even if Muff is placing himself in the verse as a Gentile believer who sees himself as a law unto himself, something about it felt off balance to me, thus prompting my question as to whether or not he holds to some type of private interpretation he’s formed out of his possibly not accepting all of Scripture as God breathed. Idk because I don’t know the guy from Adam as others here do, and my apologies to Muff if my question was offensive regarding his beliefs, esp those regarding the bible.
mirele wrote:
Dats nuttin! 19 yo reality star Maddie Brown was rejected by the LDS because her parents are—— Polygamists!
In udder news, 190 yo apostle Brig Joseph has announced a new revelation that all 2.5million descendants of Smith or Young (including dead ones) will need to be rebaptized after renouncing their ancestors teachings.
@ mirele:
I actually had someone tell me (in the flesh, not online) that one reason we shouldn’t allow marriage equality is because that’ll lead to adoption (as if same-sex couples don’t already raise children), and that could lead to difficult situations for kids of same-sex couples if the kids convert to True Christianity (TM) and end up disagreeing with their parents’ relationship.
@ Max:
Well, I can’t do much about my thin, short hair, but it makes me want to prominently carry an NRSV to identify myself as existing outside of that particular cultural boundary marker… 😮
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
A simpleton is someone who reads Romans 1 and forgets that Romans 2 exists. Slightly better – but not much – is someone who acknowledges that Romans 2 exists, but only inasmuch as they can get mileage out of “And such were some of you” to beat the discredited drum of orientation change. Meanwhile, anyone with a modicum of understanding knows that these two chapters exist for many more reasons than just to harp on that one singular culture war topic.
@ Daisy:
The lack of empathy of so many Christians I know, whether toward survivors of abuse, or toward people on the other side of the Culture War, or toward people with less money or privilege than themselves, is hard for me to comprehend. I sometimes wonder if growing up as an invisible outsider to the conservative Evangelical community opened my eyes to this. I fear for what kind of jerk I’d have been had I been able to feel like I fit in 100%…
@ numo:
Yes, I get what you’re saying and agree. And historical context is important in understanding the dynamics and the limitations of someone’s thought processes. We have a perspective on things developed from centuries down the road. One thing I hold true is that God’s revelation of himself and of his will progresses, so I think over time we should observe an advancement and an enlargement of God’s work in the world. Which is why the idea of going back in order to move forward, like to a form of Christianity experienced in earlier times, is extremely distasteful to me.
Lydia wrote:
Totally off topic now but I know a few former sailors who related their stories of intoxication and they would be insulted. They neither spent that much money and especially they could not print more money.
Daisy wrote:
They’re too Righteous(TM) to be generous or altruistic.
@ dee:
Your view of sin and how Christians deal with it or are sometimes vulnerable to it sounds similar to mine.
I do think some Christian sometimes sin, but I’m not into the “all sins are equally horrible” shtick that some of these preachers have been advocating the last few years.
I also think it’s possible for Christians to live cleaner lives. I don’t think it’s a given they will always cave in and sin, or not all the time, or make excuses for it.
Eagle wrote:
“Religious children meaner than agnostic and atheist kids, study finds”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/religious-children-meaner-than-agnostic-and-atheist-kids-study-finds/story-e6frg6so-1227597959661
Eagle wrote:
I’ll try to keep this brief so as not to get this too far away (or for too long) the original topic, but I find this statement true for other areas of life.
Evangelicals and other types of Christians generally expect instant “everything.” After the death of my loved one, I was expected by Christian family and friends and people at a church or two to instantly get over it, deny the pain and grief, and just tough it out and get on with life.
You’re expected, by many a Christian, to instantly get over depression, anxiety, worry, grief, and a host of other issues too. You’re not given time to decompress, reflect, heal, get treatment, and work through your stuff.
Nancy2 wrote:
To some of us outside Kentucky, Matt Bevin looks scary.
And, smaller government is not the panacea people think it is.
*runs away from the political discussion*
Christina Dowers wrote:
Wow. There is a lot I could say about other things you wrote about in your post, but as to this part of it.
I’m guessing her/their multiple choice quizzes are like:
1. You’ve suffered from depression for the last X years. This is (pick one):
a. your fault
b. your fault
c. both a and b
😯
Christina Dowers wrote:
This has been my experience as well with many other Christians since my mother passed away.
You’re supposed to just “trust Jesus,” read your Bible, and go volunteer at charities. Nobody but nobody wants to actually sit and wrap their arm around you and be there for you. I also went through that in regards to depression.
Christians have the same attitude towards that and other things. If you encounter a hurdle in life, you’re supposed to just keep it to yourself, think sunny Jesus nice thoughts, and stuff it down.
I’ve read books by Christian psychologists who aren’t actually quacks who say that manner of dealing with pain in life actually prolongs it, makes it worse, is wrong – you need to talk about it with sympathetic people and deal with your issues, not go into denial or busy work to cover it over.
I’m sorry she and the others ignored you and excluded you.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
There is a Christianese site somewhere I once linked to. I think that is where I learned one of my new favorite (sorry) phrases: Pew Potato.
There is also this:
A definitive guide to evangelical lingo, part 3
http://lauraturner.religionnews.com/2015/11/05/a-definitive-guide-to-evangelical-lingo-part-3/
Lydia wrote:
No kidding. The whole anti-NIV blowup, IMO, was battlefield preparation for the ESV. Crossway has Doug Wilson in their stable; hence no one dares to criticize him if they are also in the Crossway stable. Same with TgC “partnership” with Crossway which seems to consist of TgC bloggers writing content for and promoting Crossway titles. I think of Crossway as Cross-sell. And, it is hard for me to acknowledge that for a number of reasons. But the evidence overwhelms my denial.
Lydia wrote:
I will! I will!
I straight up said on Julie Anne’s blog at least twice I don’t think Driscoll is a Christian. I don’t think he is one based on things he’s said and done, and continues to do. That is not usually something I throw out there lightly, either.
Christina Dowers wrote:
This type of crap counsel is rampant in these circles, a la both Nouthetic and the ACBC, and in my opinion does more damage that it helps. I remember getting a “check up” about 5 years after my four year old daughter died. The counsel I was given: Isaiah 43:18 “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old…”! And this was from a counseling professor at SEBTS.
All it did was make me mad; fortunately, I didn’t actually need his advice as I was trying to be proactive. He did nothing to help.
Thank you for this good quotation. I agree completely.BL wrote:
numo wrote:
The thread:
Questions about Penal Substitutionary Atonement
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/60714
Josh wrote:
One thing that has been shocking and eye opening to me was after my mother’s passing. My mother actually did stuff for people, she did acts of kindness. She would drive sick neighbors to doctor appointments, bring food over to sick people, etc, etc. She was very loving and would be there for people.
After she died and I tried to get understanding or support from my Christian family (both immediate and extended) and from church going Christians, I was turned away. Sometimes reprimanded for seeking help.
My mother was one of the few Christians I’ve known that did more than just read her Bible and pray. She would get off her rear end and do stuff for people – bring them food, take long tearful phone calls where the person cried and unloaded their burdens on her, etc. I’ve not seen that in many Christians since she’s gone.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And you know what? It sometimes costs very little, time or money wise, to do an act of kindness to someone who is in need.
But I see a lot of Christians (at least ones I’ve run into) who refuse to do even the simplest of gestures.
I couldn’t even get some of my extended family to take an hour long phone call off me once every few months to just let me talk thru the grief of losing my mother. To them, that was a huge, huge imposition and too time consuming.
It is astounding to see how unwilling some professing believers are to put the Bible down, get off their behind, and help someone, even if it costs them nothing, or next to nothing.
@ Daisy:
It is a tricky position. Guys like Driscoll ran around around saying look at me –I represent Christianity/Jesus. We have to respond: No you don’t and here is why.
mirele wrote:
I prefer choices and independence from a big brother environment. I can leave a church but have no resources to fight, say, Treasury department injustices. They literally took quite a bit of money a few years ago with no explanation of how or why it was owed after days and days on the phone. Why? Because they can. No audit, no explanation. Just a letter saying they were taking it. I found out later I was not the only one.
@ Paula Rice:
I wouldn’t want to livein earlier time periods (though i wish i could somehow visit them), but “going back” can mean many things. By no means are all of them negative. For example: my going back to the liturgical church (denomination) thst i was raised in has been good gor me – such a weight lifted, so much more emphasis on true grace, mercy and the love of God. Yes, it’s formal, compared to evangrlicsl and vharismatic services, but i find thst there’s much more dpace for quiet reflection. And i really like the music (always have), as well as the centrality of communion. Sermons are very short and to the point, and aren’t intended to be the focal point of the service.
Lydia wrote:
We have to respond and not be dismayed when we feel we are a lone voice in the wilderness.
Boy, I felt that way when I first started pointing out what was wrong with Driscoll. His followers and defenders attacked and refused to look at the proof I gave. But I had to keep saying it and let their attacks roll off.
It was nice when I found others that also warned against Driscoll.
@ Paula Rice:
Why is it important to you? I am surprised that anyone would react so strongly to what he said, and honestly, I’m not certain why you’re scrutinizing his comment in this way. That’s not meant to criticize you personally – it’s an observation, asking why his comment troubles you. Nobody else seems to mind… and the Apostles Creed is so central to Christianity as a whole that i don’t see anything problematic in what he said.
I have problems with signing these covanants for the reasons stated and because I am an old fashioned baptist. I have an aversion to signing these documents. And they are legal contracts.
There is another part to this story: do you work in a state where you can be fired without cause. Louisiana as I understand it is a state where you can be fired without cause.
I perused some blogs about the ESV. The ESV is the 1971 edition of the National Council of Churches Revised Standard Edition with 6 percent changes. In particular the concern was gender inclusive language, but even here there were some improvements in changing exclusive to more inclusive language. There was much controversy about the RSV with some conservative evangelicals calling it a liberal slanted Bible. The embracing of the ESV makes me question if these criticisms were or are political rather than factual. I like the ESV. I like the NIV. I like the new NIV there is a stink regarding, Does it matter? They may all be excellent. The important think is that I read the Bible (Sola Scriptural).
Christina wrote:
If I had one, I’d be tempted to throw it in the woodstove. Our former church ( stealth Calvinists takeover ) advocated the ESV. I don’t have negative feelings towards other translations, NAS, NIV, NKJV, RV…etc., but when I see someone reading one, alarm bells go off.
Daisy wrote:
Again, they’re too busy being Righteous(TM).
@ Mae:
ESV = The Gospel According to Calvin?
Daisy wrote:
Eagle’s late grandmother in Montana had a very similar reputation.
Mae wrote:
Yeah, I only have hard copies of the ESV at home, because of my time in A29 churches. I have started reading the NIV on my Bible app and don’t touch the hard copies anymore. I know there is nothing wrong with the ESV, but I wanted to read other translations to see if the ESV isn’t skewed for reformed theology.
Gram3 wrote:
Crossway = PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! + Peculiar Institutions re Animate Property?
@ numo:
I think it was more an explanation of why I reacted the way I did to how he responded to me in what I said about Romans 7 and the law, etc. I guess I’m the only one who’s curiosity was aroused by his remarks. Troubled? No. Curious as to his perspective? Yes. But I’ll have to live with that, which is fine. Bit frustrating though!
me wrote:
Navigators.
When I was at Cal Poly in the late Seventies, we had Navigators on-campus. They had a reputation for extremism, burnouts, and flunkouts. Far worse than anything you hear out of Campus Crusade.
And JMJ over at Christian Monist was a burned-out Nav missionary. He saw a LOT of the seamy side of the Navs during his time in-country. Check his blog archives sometime; he doesn’t post much any more as his job keeps him truly crazy-busy.
I also wanted to put my two cents in on my former roommate who is a well-known blogger, because it appears that there are a few Wartburg Watch readers who follow her and are friends with her on social media. I am not quite sure how people can be against spiritual abuse but be fans of the people who cause spiritual abuse.
Nancy2 wrote:
And another of the Seven Mountains falls to the Mandate.
Dave A A wrote:
Sounds like what you hear about the Jehovah’s Witness translation.
Do you remember what the added phrase was, and whether it changed the meaning of the Psalm?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, I totally associate the ESV, with Calvinism.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I used to think the ‘Seven Mountains’ stuff was way out there. Not feeling quite so sure of that anymore.
@ Burwell Stark:
I am so very sorry for your loss, and the insensitive advice you got.
I went through similar stuff from Christians after my mother passed away, I got the platitudes from people, told to forget about it already, etc.
Mae wrote:
Remember my standard quote from my Dungeonmaster about how cults are founded for cult leaders to get rich, laid, or both?
That was actually part of a back-and-forth about the Moonies. His next sentence was “But Moon is different. Moon’s been after political power from day one.”
Elron Hubbard was also after political power. During the time he was on the run and on the move around the Med on a Scientology-owned ship crewed by Sea Org, he talked about a long-term plan to take over and “Clear” a Third World country, then use it as a base to “Clear the Planet”. He was not successful, despite backing coup attempts in Algeria(?) and Morocco(?); the whole thing read like a James Bond Wannabe farce.
Daisy wrote:
This is why when you’re hurting, the absolute LAST people you want to be in contact with are Born-Again Christians.
Again, “Nouthetic Counseling; just like Dianetic Auditing, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I bet the extended Christian family of mine who refused to take an occasional phone call off me, or to check up on me every so often, probably consider themselves fine, upstanding Christians.
Many of them attend local churches weekly, pray, and believe in Jesus. One even volunteers at a charity helping strangers.
I can just picture some of these Christian aunts of mine (all retired) sitting all snug under a warm blanket in a recliner, sipping hot tea, casually flipping through magazines, when the phone rings, and it’s me asking to speak for a bit. And they find excuses to get me off the phone pronto, or tell me religious cliches.
I had one aunt blow me off and get strict about when I should call her, because she liked to watch repeats of 50 and 60 year old sit coms and Westerns TV shows from like 2 PM to like around 7 PM Mon-Fridays. Her priority was TV re-runs #1, and me, Daisy, down the list somewhere. She’s a Christian too. Sigh.
Hey, on the bright side….
A Christian lady I bumped into about a week ago invited me to her church. I haven’t decided if I will ever go or not, but I did know enough, thanks to this blog!! (Deb and Dee!!), to research her church first.
I did not find the lady’s church listed in an Acts 29 or whatever controversial network I’ve seen discussed here on TWW, at least.
I don’t see anything on the church’s site about having to sign a covenant/ contract to join or attend.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My dad is rather grouchy, but is like that. He will actually get off his duff and drive sick neighbors or guys from his church to doctor appointments. He’s done free repairs for elderly ladies who live alone.
I’ve tried to be that way over my life. Between anxiety and not having a lot of money at times, I’m not always able to do everything, but since I was a kid, I have done stuff for people.
I sometimes put the Bible down and assisted people in whatever way I could. (I didn’t just tell them I’d pray for them and wish them well, I would do something if I could.)
I’m just not seeing a lot of Christians around me who are like that. It’s very sad and frustrating.
@ Christina Dowers:
I’m not familiar with her and don’t follow her (Lore Ferguson is her name?) on social media. Her name looks familiar, but I didn’t really hear about her (I don’t think) until you posted about her on this thread.
Maybe the others who follow her just aren’t aware of how she’s treated people before?
Sometimes people follow people they disagree with on social media, just to keep tabs on whatever new thing it is they are writing, not because they agree with or like that person’s positions.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Preach it. That is the truth. You’re more apt to get a lecture, shamed, a platitude, or unwanted advice than empathy from a lot of Christians in your time of hurt. I have come to learn that one the hard way.
@ Burwell Stark:
The man was an insensitive callous jerk, not to mince words. Faculty or no faculty there are a lot of these people around. A faculty job means nothing. Something inside him has dried up and crumbled.
I have lost a lot of people and things in my life but never a child. In my experience you don’t get over it but rather you learn to live with it. Demands for people to get over it do an injustice to the memory of those who have been temporarily lost to us and those demands treat the survivors as automatons by demanding that they dissociate themselves from the actual realities of loss.
So there he was urging you to remember not…and there we were at my church having a requiem mass on the feast of all souls which was specifically for the purpose of remembering. When I die my children will include my name on the list of names remembered at that mass, year after year after year. Things like that help the living. Like a white rose on mother’s day if your mother is dead. A commitment to remember.
I did not mean to intrude on your life like this, but I wanted to say it for anybody who might want to hear it.
Well, oops, perhaps I should not be calling people names in public even if the individual was not identified? Perhaps I should have said the the statement itself was insensitive and callous and seemed to be from some dried up and crumbled heart. Hey, I don’t know. Feel free to change what I said if you want to.
@ Mae:
I get it. I felt that way about Jeremiah Wright and all his hating whitey sermons. But it got votes in Chicago.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think it did, as well as the disrupting he poetry. In Ps 18 and II Sam 22, ESV has:
“With the merciful you show yourself merciful;
with the blameless man you show yourself blameless;
with the purified you show yourself pure;
and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.”
Compare the NIV and similar versions:
“To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.”
IIRC, a single Hebrew word meaning, “you show yourself” is repeated 4 times in classic parallel structure. Not a really crucial change, but rather odd.
okrapod wrote:
Like Grinning Ed Young preaching his Seven Day Sex Challenge the same day my church was celebrating High Mass for the Feast of Christ the King.
Lydia wrote:
ESV is published by Crossway, the leading publishing house for all things Calvinist. They are currently promoting a documentary on J.I. Packer, a reformed icon. If you go to a Christian bookstore to buy a new Bible, some young clerk will most likely point you to an ESV first … after you walk past the rack of best-sellers written by New Calvinist who’s who. I’ll give them this … New Calvinists are writing most of the popular books and hosting cool conferences. The 20-30 age bracket, who are disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church, is their targeted market.
okrapod wrote:
The ESV, in itself, is harmless enough. Not much different from the NIV (the old one before it became gender neutral). The ESV Study Bible is another thing; it’s loaded with Calvinist commentary.
Christina Dowers wrote:
Christina, as I noted earlier in the comment stream, the regular ESV issue appears to be harmless enough … Calvinism won’t get on you if you read it! However, the ESV Study Bible is loaded with reformed commentary.
Max wrote:
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod uses the ESV, and they aren’t Calvinist. They have their own Lutheran Study Bible.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, that’s her name. Well, Lore Wilbert now (married a guy this summer she only knew for three months). Yes, maybe they aren’t aware. I have written on here about her before, though. Yes, it may be that some follow her just to keep tabs, but I have seen a few who comment, like and retweet her stuff. I saw a comment on a Tweet that Dee tweeted earlier from a TGC article that the person doesn’t blame the woman who wrote the article, rather the leaders (men) who run the show. Isn’t that mentality anti-egalitarian? Why aren’t we holding men and women accountable for spreading abusive theology?
@ Paula Rice:
Let me be frank and up front.
I don’t subscribe to the doctrines of original sin & penal substitutionary atonement.
When I asserted that I’m a ‘law unto myself’ it means that I revel in God’s goodness to me, and I thank Him by extending the same kindness and tolerance to others.
In this way, the long list of do(s) and don’t(s) thundered out of Horeb to the Israelites does not apply to me. I stand on my statement and my conscience.
@ Paula Rice:
Careful now, the Acts29 dudes seem to have a thing for locally sourced, organic, gluten-free, non-GMO, fair trade, but not kosher, coffee.
I certainly lean that way, but I reject confessional Calvinism. Reformed theology = cessation, covenant baptism, regulatory principle of worship, creeds and confessions, etc. The Gospel Coalition sells commercialized Calvinism. Even if you’re already Baptist, even if you’re already charismatic, forget all those things and just say TULIP and you’re in.
I think you have a point that about that movement’s adherents though. To them, being a Christian is not about service, nor a holy lifestyle, that’s all works-based righteousness. It’s having something horrible done to you, or doing something horrible to you, and going to your small group to confess how *BROKEN* you are. Remaining in sin so that grace may abound.
@ Paula Rice:
I think most of us who have been around here for a while have had friendly con:os with him, here in the comments. He certainly was around for a while before i got here, and predates most who actively comment.
All that to say that nobody else took his comment as an attempt at hiding something. He’s pretty forthright about what he believes.
@ okrapod:
Wee said. Nobody just “gets over” the death of someone they love. Recover, go through whatever kind of grieving process happens, learn to live with the loss – yes. But “get over it”? As the kids say, I. can’t. even.
Ever.
@ okrapod:
Apologies for inadvertantly repeating some of what you already said.
Agreed that things like remembering peoples’ names during a service – remembering the people themselves – is a good thing.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Oh man – what a telling contrast. It exposes his little carnaval sideshow for what it really is.
@ Muff Potter:
Well, I’m now in your corner on both of those issues, but then, the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe in “original sin” – and neither do observant Jews. Sin, yes, but “original sin” – nope.
I can’t buy it, any more than i can buy penal substitution. Plain old substitutionary atonement + aspects of Christus Victor is whete i am at.
It has been good for me to be able to come here snd think some adpects of these things through with other folks, although i guess i part company from most regarding the afterlife (received notions of it that seem especially urgent in some churches, anyway).
@ numo:
Thanx numes! and I appreciate your defense of my comments.
I did not arrive at my views overnight or lightly by caprice.
And yeah I know what you mean by ‘notions of heaven’ in the evangelical paradigm.
Heaven is always a place you wanna ‘get to’ and it’s not ‘here’, it’s always something ‘other’. To me the Jewish concept of Olam Ha-Ba makes way more sense, the best of this world without the bad stuff.
Here’s something John Adams wrote in 1812. Do I agree with everything Adams wrote regarding religion? No I don’t, but with this much I do:
“I am weary of contemplating nations from the lowest and
most beastly degradations of human Life, to the highest
Refinements of Civilization: I am weary of Philosophers,
Theologians, Politicians, and Historians. They are immense
Masses of Absurdities, Vices and Lies. Montesquieu had
sense enough to say in Jest, that all our Knowledge might be
comprehended in twelve Pages in Duodecimo: and, I believe
him, in earnest. I could express my Faith in shorter terms.
He who loves the Workman and his Work, and who does what he
can to improve it, shall be accepted of him.”
@ Muff Potter:
Ok Muff. No problem. Your personal views are personal. Parts of the Bible are tricky to understand and like I shared before, I believe the gospel is public truth, so I thought maybe you’d shed some light on Romans 2:14 in a way you could safely say was true for everyone, know what I mean? But I see what you’re saying about standing on your statement and your conscience being clear. I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Stan wrote:
Haha Stan this made me smile, well played. Good comment, too. And I didn’t know the Acts29 dudes were coffee snobs. Guess I’m not surprised though lol
Muff Potter wrote:
Me either. Guess we are a denomination of two. Hee hee.
@ Mark:
Mark, a lot of people bought into the rhetoric about the ESV being the most literal translation. But that is silly if we are attempting “understanding” as word meanings change as do understanding of literary genres. Mark Strauss wrote a paper on the problems with the literal concept and some of it is hilarious. They revised it fixing some the more ridiculous literal translations. You can Google the paper or parts of it. It was long!
Every translation has its problems, though. I think in reading the long preface of the KJV you will find more humility, ironically, from those translators than what we see today in hawking new translations that make money.
@ Lydia:
Reading Strauss critique. Some literal translations like women grinding together don’t translate well literally into English. Thanks for suggesting critique.
@ Mark:
Lol! I know! I liked the one about badgers being a people.
@ Muff Potter:
I like that quote. A lot.
Say what you want about the Catholic Church, even we don’t sign covenants.
@ elizabeth:
Did you or anyone else happen to watch the 20/20 interview of Leah Remini? She signed a BILLION YEAR contract with the Church of Scientology!!
@ Muff Potter:
No worties! I like the Adams quote a lot.
Btw, someone called me a “closet fundie” in the comment on another dite. I mean… [cue giggling]
@ numo:
Site.
numo wrote:
You a closet fundie??!! That would be like saying Potter’s a closet Rushdoony disciple.
Pingback: Linkathon! » PhoenixPreacher | PhoenixPreacher
GO HERE>>> http://churchlawgroup.com/our-clients/
I’m sure A LOT of this is coming from here. I know the positions on gay marriage and immorality that you hear do. If you kind of match the faces with their positions, they will say the same thing. I’m not say that is bad…just that folks are taking these guys word for a lot of things. I know that’s where my old church got theirs.
A lot of faces will be very familiar. Including my old pastor.
I was in some sort of leadership so I kind of knew what was going on (a little)…I’ll leave at that.
In our church if you want to do anything at all. I MEAN ANYTHING! You must sign that waiver for arbitration. You are handed an iPad with this huge document that seemed like a UELA agreement for software. I had to sign it just to help in a local disaster that we were assisting with. Trust me do you really think that even one percent reads that, then to be put in a position not to do God’s work if you don’t sign the darn thing.
In my real job I deal with the legal field. I am no way a lawyer but we do assist in the defense for large companies.
It reminds me of the of the gravel truck that has a sign on the back “STAY BACK 100 FEET – NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BROKE WINDSHIELDS” Like that some how indemnifies them.
I’m just thinking…that in the right circumstances this think could be successfully argued.
The only “church” referred to in the article upon which this blog entry is based is the so-called “Church” of Scientology. I happen to think anyone who joins and supports Scientology deserves what they get if they should ever withdraw, because that “church” is one of the most pernicious cons in American history. However, all the other institutional examples in that NYTimes article are Christian non-profit organizations, not churches. If you are going to warn readers against agreeing to arbitration in the context of employment in a non-profit organization, what’s the alternative? Do you really think litigating an employment dispute in court is less expensive, less onerous, less intrusive, and more God-honoring than Christian ADR through Peacemakers? If so, you seriously do not know what you are talking about. Apart from the example of the Church of Scientology, there was nothing in that NYTimes article about Christian reconciliation programs that is worrisome. Now, there was a lot to be taken notice of about un-Christian attitudes such as blacklisting, gossip, unfair treatment (which the Christian arbitrator in the article handled extremely well!!), and pride. But NONE of those problems arises simply because of Christian arbitration.
When I joined our church I had no idea I was signing a contract! Our former pastor put it in a context that ” we are shepherds who have to give an account and are doubly accountable, we are shepherds of your souls and care for you”. Ok so this to someone unaware of this type of speak it seems good. When I filled out the application I had no idea it was a contract. I thought I was just giving information about my testing of how I became a believer and what God has been doing in my life. The questions seemed harmless. Also the pastor gave this big speak on being responsible for his members and wanting to loving shepherd he also talked about if we go to another church that they want to be able to pass our application to them so that they would know us and know that we had been part of this church and served the body. He puts,everything in a context of we want to help you we want to make sure you don’t slip through the cracks. Everything you should watch out for our pastor downplayed it so much that one would never believe leaving would ever be an issue, questioning was welcome. I never believed for one second that I would do anything to Warr church discipline. I never heard of it and never had anyone attempt to control our lives. Lots of people go in unaware of really what these churches mean when they say church discipline. I’m no idiot either but I was deceived by a good deceiver. Clayton wrote: