9Marks and Grace to You: You Dumb Sheep Can’t Last Without an Approved™ Church to Protect You

“A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=43722&picture=funny-face
link

I have had the opportunity to move around the country due to my husband's job. As you know, my conversion was a bit unusual. However, I have always felt the love and care of my Father and His presence as I began to look for the fellowship of believers in new places. In fact, I looked at such changes as opportunities to learn how Christians in different churches and in different parts of the country express their faith. I never really cared about denominations. Instead, I looked for a church with folks who expressed a lively faith. Consequently, I have been a member or attended a variety of denominations and Bible churches: Episcopal, Christian Reformed, Southern Baptist, Congregational, Lutheran and assorted Bible churches with varying polity.

Perhaps the most unique church I attended was located on the Navajo Reservation(well actually in the Checkerboard area to be precise) which was Christian Reformed. We sang two hymns every week in Navajo and had the sermon translated into Navajo as well. I cried when I left. Along the way, I have met Christians of all different stripes and am thoroughly blessed to have learned varying views on all sorts of secondary issues.

Such differences were fascinating and not threatening until I joined an SBC church in North Carolina. There I learned some secondary issues were to be treated as ordained by the Gospel.™ However, that church led us to seek out a different place to worship in my area and once again I enjoyed visited a myriad of churches until we settled on one that we have now attended for almost a year. 

Little did I know that I should not enjoy moving around and exploring different churches. According to 9 Marks I should have felt bereft of protection from my former church and should have felt afraid. Why? It appears, according to that 9 Marks (aka Hotel California), I am in need of protection and was in jeopardy each time I moved or switched churches. It seems that inviting God along on my journey is not enough. I need THEM even more to keep me away from being affected by heresies and Satan. Apparently, my conscience, my study of Scripture and theology, along with Holy Spirit is not enough to keep me safe because I am a really stupid sheep. I need THEM.

It's really scary out there for poor, defenseless sheep when they leave a church!

I have been enjoying the Dear Abby column that Jonathan Leeman has been running over at the 9 Marks website. His answers give me a better look at what they believe about Scripture, church discipline etc. In this particular segment, Leeman answers the following question (which says quite a lot about controlling churches to begin with.)

When a church member moves away from the area, at what point do you remove him or her from the roll? I’m talking about cases when a person moves due to a job change or something, not a problem situation. The individual is probably not going to join another church immediately, so allowing for a transitional period would make sense. However, how can church membership happen in a meaningful way if the person lives at a far distance? And what if in the interim the individual falls into serious sin? Could church discipline actually happen? That danger would seem to argue for removing him as soon as he moves away (or at the next members’ meeting). Would appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks.

It appears that the questioner feels churches need to tie up loose ends on the membership question once a person moves and has yet to join another church. He wants to know what he should do if said person falls into sin during that time in between memberships. Why is it that he isn't concerned how to be a good friend to the person as opposed to how to go after him if he sin?. Why wouldn't they want to encourage those who have left?

Former members should feel they need protection in a new place and plop down, post haste, in a new church since your former church drops you like a hot potato.

So, Jonathan Leeman responds.

I like your instincts. My church encourages people to resign their memberships as soon as they move elsewhere because we cannot do much to fulfill our covenant with them from a distance. We cannot affirm or encourage them. We cannot warn them against sin. We cannot be the body of Christ in a 1-Corinthians-12, mourning-and-rejoicing sort of way. So, as a general principle, we encourage them to resign even if they have not settled on a new church yet. Membership is not some sort of force field that magically protects people apart from the active engagement of relationships, which is very difficult long distance.

In fact, I kind of hope they resign on their way out and then do feel a little unprotected once they arrive in a new city. Maybe that will incentivize them to act more quickly in joining another church! Of course, I wouldn’t say this for everyone leaving the church.

If a member leaves and doesn’t resign, one of our elders will probably begin an email correspondence within a month or two just to check in on them and to ask about their church search. This can go on for a few months, sometimes longer.

Apparently the church cannot encourage them or warn them against sin if they are no longer really present. Except, I know that pastors who really care can do so. 9 months after moving to Dallas, our daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Guess who encouraged us and prayed for us from a distance. Our former pastor and a number of people in that church. Abby was put on prayer lists and even received some stuffed animals for folks at that church. You see, that church gave a hoot about us in spite of our move. We felt their care during our struggle.

20 years later, we returned to that church. We once again joined with friends who had cared for us and kept touch from a distance, including that pastor. It appears that real love and concern transcends some sort of manmade church contract which quickly ends when you are out of sight. Before I launch into a bit of a tirade on this answer, let's look more at long distance excommunication from Capitol Hill Baptist Church

You can't excommunicate me, I'm already gone!

 Leeman elaborates:

If we caught wind of the fact that they were engaging in unrepentant sin in another city while in this process, what would we do? I don’t recall encountering that situation. It’s possible we would move toward excommunication, but there would be some reluctance to do so since we are not longer in active fellowship. It’s sort of like taking a person to court for a crime on the other side of the planet, where the defendant, the evidence, and the witnesses are over there, not in your courtroom. Uhhhh? Maybe we would if the facts were super clear and undisputed by everyone, including the member him- or herself.

Now you must remember, 9Marks believes they hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven and therefore are qualified and called to judge the church you join in another city. If it does not meet their standards, you are in sin. In their mind, you cannot join a church that 9 Marks thinks is a bad church, then you are still a member of their church. Therefore, excitement builds as they announce your name being placed on the care list which is lingo for you are on your way to an all out church hoop dee do of judgment. See, they can judge from a distance but they cannot encourage from a distance. 

Imagine the scenario. Bubba leaves Capitol Hill Baptist Church, moves to Texas and joins the Church for Cowboys. CHBC finds out that this church gives communion in the bull pen. After being resuscitated, they decide that Bubba is a sinner in need of repentance. Suddenly, they determine he is still a member of CHBC. They flash a picture of Bubba in his cowboy hat, waving a lasso and recommend he be excommunicated. The members always agree so they aren't viewed with suspicion and be put on some sort of list. Most of them don't really remember Bubba since the cowboy mentality hasn't been cool since *W* left office. Anyone in a cowboy hat is definitely suspect.

So, is this idea of *protection* unique to 9Marks?

 It is interesting. When I Googled church and protection, I got a bunch of posts which deal with protecting the church from pedophiles. More on that in a minute. When I Googled, "Is a church member under the protection of the church," I was directed to this post by John MacArthur (Grace to You). In an answer to this question "What is the pastor’s responsibility, besides preaching and studying?" GTY responded:

Shepherds Are Feeders 

Sheep spend most of their lives eating and drinking, but they are indiscriminate about their diet. They don't know the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous plants. Therefore the shepherd must carefully guard their diet and provide them with pasture rich with nutrients.

Shepherds Are Protectors 

Sheep are almost entirely defenseless–they can't kick, scratch, bite, jump, or run. When attacked by a predator, they huddle together rather than running away. That makes them easy prey. Sheep need a protective shepherd in order to survive.

Christians need similar protection from error and those who spread it. Pastors guard their spiritual sheep from going astray and defend them against the savage wolves that would ravage them. Paul admonished the pastors at Ephesus to stay alert and to protect the churches under their care:

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:28-30).

…Church leaders are undershepherds who guard the flock under the Chief Shepherd's watchful eye (Acts 20:28). Theirs is a full-time responsibility because they minister to people who, like sheep, often are vulnerable, defenseless, undiscerning, and prone to stray.

The dumb sheep ought to be glad they have a protector because they do not know what the heck they are doing. But, the church leader does. He (it's all he in this context) is to be obeyed and somehow he doesn't fit the category of a dumb sheep. Catch this. You can be an intelligent Christian with 20 years of Bible study under your belt. However, you need a 25 year old whippersnapper who just graduated from seminary to protect you or you will fall into heresy.

If your pastor is faithfully carrying out the duties required in his job title, remember to follow this admonition of Scripture:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you (Hebrews 13:17).

The *dumb sheep in need of protection* meme is an outgrowth of the abusive shepherding movement.

The dumb sheep theory is a perversion of Scripture which originated in the shepherding movement of the 1960s and 1970s. We have written a number of posts on this. Three posts that are worth reading in this regard are: 

1. Idiot Sheep or Beloved Children of the Shepherd King?

Our closing comment:

I have read one too many stories of people deeply hurt by current day churches. Some of these people have found their way to TWW- tired, questioning, broken down and beaten up by one too many leaders who treat them as if they are pond scum. They are told they are lucky to be saved as well as blessed to be informed just how rotten they are by egotistical preachers and leaders. 

To these dear people, we are here to proclaim a wonderful Gospel. Jesus not only offers you unlimited grace and total forgiveness, He pursues each of you because He deeply loves you. He is the Great Shepherd and He willingly gave His life for His beloved sheep. Never, ever will He call you idiots.

2. Why Do Calvinistas Love the Dumb Sheep Metaphor?

In this Tim Challies describes sheep in need of a pastor to keep us from dying.

"Sheep can’t fight, they can’t run away, and they can’t scare away. So what does a sheep do when danger comes? It flocks. When a bear approaches, the sheep will gather with others in a pack and run in circles in complete panic, just hoping that the bear will choose someone else. Without a shepherd to protect them, they’ll be picked off and eaten one by one."

3. Mark Dever/9Marks on “Healthy” Pastors and Unhealthy Sheep

In this post, we quote Mark Dever who is extolling a book, Church Elders: How to Shepherd God's People Like Jesus. Here is what he had to say about Jesus' beloved sheep.

This book makes plain Scripture’s teaching on eldership. For example, the eight chapter titles actually summarize the biblical job description for an elder: "Don’t Assume," "Smell Like Sheep," "Serve Up the Word," "Track Down the Strays," "Lead Without Lording," "Shepherd Together," "Model Maturity," and "Plead for the Flock" (9). If you’ve read or taught on this subject, you can probably hear verses in your mind as you read those titles. It’s an instructive way to frame up such a short book. The headers that give shape to each chapter teach as well. For example, in the chapter “Track Down the Strays,” there’s a section titled “Five Species of Straying Sheep.” Already curious, aren’t you? Subheaders lead us through descriptions of “Sinning Sheep,” “Wandering Sheep,” “Limping Sheep,” “Fighting Sheep,” and “Biting Sheep” (62–68). [emphasis Deb’s] That’s a great section for a discussion over coffee with a prospective elder or for a team of pastors burdened for the flock.

Here is a pithy comment in that post by Deb.

We propose that Rinne has failed to acknowledge a sixth category of 'straying sheep', which we fondly call Savvy Sheep.  One such sheep is Todd Wilhelm, our friend and fellow blogger who resides in Dubai.  No doubt you remember Todd's tragic story.  The leaders of his 9Marks church approached him about heading up UCCD's book ministry store.  When he refused to promote C.J. Mahaney's books, the leaders rescinded their proposal to Todd.  Shortly thereafter, Todd and his wife submitted their resignation letter.  It took six and a half months for their names to be removed from the church roll. 

Some thoughts on the views of sheep by both 9Marks (to include Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman) and John MacArthur.

  • The Bible consistently talks about the beloved sheep of the Savior. He runs after one who has gone astray and brings him safely home. The Bible does not linger on stupid and biting sheep.
  • It is the men of harsh churches which denigrate the sheep as dumb, biting, and fighting. Sheep are problematic and need to be protected from themselves. The pastor can do this. They do not resemble the Great Shepherd in the least.
  • If this is how sheep are to be viewed, why doesn't Scripture describe sheep in this fashion?
  • Leeman talks about being protection for the sheep. Well, why did they kiss CJ Mahaney's feet and let him hide out in their church, knowing that there are serious questions about the alleged abuse going on in his churches? Why did they push Mahaney's book, The Cross Centered Life which leaves the believer at the foot of the Cross, constantly to be beat up by their sin? Why did they not reach out to the victims to ask about the abuse when they decided to host him and ask him to be a speaker, etc. at their events?
  • Why did UCC Dubai go after the one guy, Todd Wilhelm, who showed discernment about the problems at Sovereign Grace Ministries? Why did they put him on their *this boy is in trouble* list? This is called protecting the church? 
  • Why did Leeman blow off the incident at The Village Church (yes, we dumb sheep knew what you were writing about) saying they were mistaken but *pious?* Baloney. Pious men do not abuse former members.
  • So, did God protect me in my journeys despite the fact that I had *no one to protect me?*
  • Why are sheep always referred to as dumb or problematic when it has to do with church leaders being in charge?
  • What is the deal about long distance excommunication? Don't they ever give up trying to control and discipline people?
  • If your pastor constantly refers to dumb sheep, get the heck out of that church. He is showing you exactly how he views you.
  • Be sure to read some posts on the Shepherding movement. Authoritarian control led to serious abuses. Look at how Sovereign Grace Ministries got its start.
  • Why is it that so many churches who think they are protecting their *sheep* come across as abusive.
  • Why do some churches who claim they are protecting the sheep do a bad job job dealing with child sex abuse and domestic violence?
  • Is it about protecting the sheep or protecting their *admiral in a rowboat* status?

Here is an excellent article called Are You a Dumb Sheep? at Exit Churchianity. 

On dumb sheep and the shepherding movement:

As one can imagine, the Shepherding Movement became plagued by controlling religious leaders with a superiority-complex. They saw themselves as “the wise shepherds” and their followers as “lowly laymen” who didn’t know their right foot from their left foot. Believers were taught that “God calls His people sheep because sheep are dumb. They aren’t the brightest creatures. They’re stupid, rebellious, hardheaded, and defenseless.” The implication being that God’s people are brainless goats who “need to be corralled by a man of God who knows what’s best for them and can save them from their sheeple ways.”

Although the Shepherding Movement was dismantled decades ago, its abusive and demeaning teachings (including the dumb sheep concept) are alive and well. Believers continue to put themselves down in an attempt to seem humble (“Oh I’m just a dumb sheep dependent on the Lord!”), and religious leaders continue to insult and control their congregants by diminishing their spiritual identity in Christ

Does the Bible call the sheep dumb?

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the body of Christ is a flock of “dumb sheep” or dumb in the sense of being stupid.

How does Jesus view sheep?

The Lord used the metaphor of a Shepherd and His sheep to illustrate His protective nature, guidance, provision, tender care, oversight, and sacrificial love for us. The Lord calls us “sheep” as a term of endearment, not to imply that we are idiots, aloof, or simpletons.

…Jesus has a complimentary view of His sheep. He said that we recognize His voice and come to Him, and that we follow Him because we know His voice. But we will not follow strangers, we run away from them. Does that sound like a “DUMB sheep” to you? Is that the behavior of someone who is stupid? Not at all. Following Jesus and avoiding false shepherds is discerning and spiritually-smart.

“Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. So be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)

Did Jesus send us out as “DUMB sheep” among wolves? No. As “wise serpents” (meaning INTELLIGENT, careful, and mindful).

How should we view leaders who do the "dumb sheep" thing?

In a world full of put-downs, insults, verbal abuse, and demeaning language – especially towards Christians, the last thing we need is to seek comfort and encouragement among the saints, only to be called “dumb sheep” by some “wise shepherd” who ought model the Chief Shepherd’s grace, loving-kindness, and tender care.

Frankly, if religious leaders think that congregants are so stupid and dim-witted, then that’s simply a reflection of their poor leadership and dumbing-down of the Gospel.

In other words, do not follow any leader who views you in a derogatory manner. Jesus doesn't and they shouldn't either. Never, ever forget, you are dearly loved by Jesus.

Look at the quote at the top of this post and think about it. Guess what such a church looks like in the long run?

"A lion does not concern itself with the opinion of the sheep."

Comments

9Marks and Grace to You: You Dumb Sheep Can’t Last Without an Approved™ Church to Protect You — 335 Comments

  1. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And leaders’ mouths water for Fresh Mutton.

    The best place to find dumb sheep in Kentucky is the Moonlite Barbeque in Owensboro.

    Sheesh!!! Do these guys go through all of their dictionaries and black out the word “metaphor”?

  2. The reference to Jesus as the Good Shepherd and the parable of the lost sheep were more about Jesus and the shepherd and not so much about the sheep and the people. The theology of dumb sheep is what happens when a metaphor or analogy is taken too far. Metaphors and analogies can be very useful but one can get confused by concluding that the things being compared are exactly alike.

    As to where that theology originated, I share this story: Years ago, on vacation in a remote-ish part of Scotland (IIRC on the Isle of Skye), I picked up a local tourist brochure which warned about the many local free range sheep. “Drive carefully. Sheep are suicidal.”

  3. It really is an incredible con. People PAY these men to view them as dumb sheep. Thought Reform works.

  4. I kind of hope they resign on their way out and then do feel a little unprotected once they arrive in a new city.

    This sounds like Covering Doctrine or Covering Theology. It requires that you be submitted to a church leader in order to be “covered.” The concept was very much a part of the Shepherding Movement.

  5. This whole discussion about sheep and shepherds is interesting in light of the huge blowup now consuming the Mormon community over yesterday’s declaration that the children of gay and lesbian parents cannot be blessed, baptized or receive other Mormon church ordinances until they’re 18. Now I know the typical evangelical view is that Mormons are heretics or “not Christian,” but y’all are tired of me using Scientology as an example, right? 🙂

    Lots of Mormon church members who would have never questioned the church leadership before yesterday are now doing so in droves because the notion of punishing children for the sins of their parents is unbelievable. (Granted, the children of polygamists were/are treated the same way, but that’s a small handful of people by comparison to children of GLBT persons.) There’s a lot of discussion about how parents can be living out of wedlock, be rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc., and yet their children can be blessed and baptized. Just not the kids of GLBT families. It’s causing a lot of people to have their heads explode.

    And then there are the people who are tying themselves into knots defending this craziness. These people don’t see that it’s going to cause problems for little kids living in LGBT families from the day they’re born, through no fault of their own. Can’t be named and blessed. Can’t be baptized at eight. Can’t receive the priesthood at 12 (if a boy). Can’t go on a mission if they don’t disavow their GLBT parents. Now a lot of Christians who don’t think Mormons are Christian would think this is a good thing, “maybe they’ll come our way.” I don’t think so. After you’ve lived your life with a church saying NO because your parents are GLBT, it’s really doubtful that they’re going to accept an evangelical Protestant church with remarkably similar beliefs. Really doubtful.

    The Mormon church was rumored to have a press conference this afternoon to give more information about the new policy, as the original news was a leak which was confirmed. That press conference didn’t happen. I suspect it’s because the leadership did not expect the firestorm. Here’s Pat Bagley, the cartoonist of the Salt Lake Tribune, on the church leadership:

    http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3147472-155/bagley-cartoon-primary-mormon-concern

  6. I’d really like to know what knowledge they think they have as pastors that the dumb sheep can’t also have. I can understand wanting to help guide naive baby Christians, but good lord, not everyone needs you! Your sermons are not the voice of God! The fact that these guys think they have authority over much older and experienced Christians just baffles me.

  7. Here’s a thought. The average Christian I’ve met is hardly dumb. Perhaps uninformed at times, perhaps undiscerning, perhaps not bright *individuals* to begin with (I’m not going to make claims to intelligence myself). But isn’t it in the pastor’s job description to faithfully teach the word to these uniformed, undiscerning individuals, to the purpose that eventually they’re not dependent on his leadership? We’ll never “arrive” this side of heaven of course, but if your people are stuck in the same place they were spiritually that they were years before–dumb sheep–is that not a failure of pastoral vision? “You’ve got to dream a bit bigger, darling.”

    I get the sense from these quotes, and the way they talk of folks who leave, etc, that they believe us laymen are at best dumb sheep, always in need of leading. There’s no pastoral vision of coming alongside and helping us mold ourselves into the image of Christ, supporting us in our daily walk where needed. The “dumb sheep” metaphor provides a constant vision of the man of gawd leading us around by the nose. Their online interactions, and those of their followers, seem to support this. I sense some of these “men of gawd” (including the pastor of the church my Fundy family attends) are perfectly content to have folks hanging on their every word for the rest of their days. This attitude is going to be prevalent wherever the preaching service is seen as “the most important event in the Christian’s week.”

    Oh and Dee, it would please you to know that when I went to DC and visited the 9marks church with my friend, it took exactly one service for the “Dumb sheep” phrase to make an appearance by an elder.

  8. With the rapid proliferation of New Calvinism, it appears that there are a lot of dumb sheep out there! Some are highly educated, but spiritually not very smart. Intellect doesn’t shield you from aberrant theology, only spiritual discernment. Education doesn’t produce one ounce of revelation. This new brand of Calvinism is authoritarian, controlling, manipulating, and intimidating. If they can scare the hell out of you about leaving their church, they own you. If you are reading this and trapped in such church, put your behind in your past. There is a Body of Christ much larger than Calvinism … it is a free church comprised of baptized believers across the planet … you can exercise your free will to worship with any of your choosing. New Calvinists are not the keepers of the keys to the Kingdom.

  9. I remember learning that sheep have been domesticated longer than any other species. They have been shepherded so long that they have lost any fighting instincts they might have had. Because they were domesticated, they’ve become smaller and lost their horns. I wonder if they were selectively bred out over the centuries? I wonder what christians lose when they are shepherded?

  10. For 20 years I was heavily involved in Bible study. Wednesday morning Bible Study fellowship and Kay Arthur’s Precept upon Precept. As well as Tuesday night and Sunday night small group fellowship Bible Study. After 20 years I kind of rebelled against it all and decided to put into action what I had learned instead of just sitting around learning more. Years later I am grateful for both paths. Because of my Bible knowledge I am indeed able to rightly divide the word of truth . I can sniff out false teaching a mile away. And because of my leaving learning for the sake of learning , I ended up learning more from ministering . Ten years ago I thought my 20 years in Bible Study was a waste of time, now I know it wasn’t. There is a good balance between Bible Study and ministery. If we don’t know God’s word we can be fooled and deceived. Being in God’s word gives us the courage and knowledge to not be deceived.

  11. Leslie wrote:

    Being in God’s word gives us the courage and knowledge to not be deceived.

    Amen! Good word! Church folks are so easily led astray because they have not developed a disciplined life of prayer and Bible study. Spiritual discernment is the result of these disciplines, as the Holy Spirit leads you into truth and away from error. Prayer is a privilege … we should practice it regularly. The Bible is a good book … we ought to read it more!

  12. When I got fired by a fellow member at The Village Church two years ago, I had to move in with my parents seven hours away. Contacting the church to remove my membership was the last thing on my mind. I finally contacted them after I heard about the Mark Driscoll stuff that summer, as I didn’t want my name associated with Acts 29. I let them know I was removing my membership because I moved, but I would have removed my membership if I had stayed for the following reasons: 1. My roommate who is BFF with the Chandlers and TVC staff, and a celebrity blogger sent a letter to my home group leader letting her know all the things she didn’t like about me as a roommate, instead of coming to me first, 2. My home group stopped talking to me as a friend, 3. My roommate also got a guy to break up with me, 3. My roommate is suspected to be the reason I got fired, and 4. None of my supposed “community” was there for me when I got fired and needed help. The TVC contact person told me I would need to meet with a TVC staff member to officially remove my membership, and the only meeting that was available was a month away. I told the TVC contact person that I no longer live in DFW, so I am not able to attend this meeting. I also inquired why a meeting isn’t possible until a month out. She never replied. So for all I know, I could still be listed as a member there.

  13. @ Christina:
    Christina, what you have described is not authentic Christianity. Genuine church loves; it does not shun. Fellow believers support each other; they do not turn their hearts from those in need. They too will cry, but not be heard.

  14. @ Christina:

    Christina….why didn’t you file a defamation of character lawsuit against Lori? I dealt with a false accusation from someone in a former Sovereign Grace church and in speaking with an attorney he explained why I had a defamation of character lawsuit. You should speak to an attorney.

  15. Dee, after bashing Reformed and Lutheran churches, have you moved on to cowboy churches now? This time you’ve gone too far! 😉

  16. Eagle wrote:

    @ Christina:
    Christina….why didn’t you file a defamation of character lawsuit against Lori? I dealt with a false accusation from someone in a former Sovereign Grace church and in speaking with an attorney he explained why I had a defamation of character lawsuit. You should speak to an attorney.

    Thank you for letting me know. I am thinking about letting her know I will be contacting a lawyer to prevent further information about me from being spread — especially after her Twitter post this week that was in response to an email exchange I had with a church elder here in Denver. As you may know from my previous posts, she is on staff at a church I was attending and was considered a member at for a bit here in Denver. Because of our unresolved issue that she has never contacted me to apologize for, some information I got from another girl we lived with, and this blog’s coverage of Karen Hinkley’s ordeal, I chose to remove membership with that church. Lore is in love with TVC (one look at her Twitter and Facebook posts, you know she thinks TVC is the best church ever), so I don’t trust her leadership at this new church. I also don’t trust her leadership because of the reasons I stated above. Anywho, I am emailing the elder and her this weekend to let them both know that I will be contacting a lawyer about Lore’s supposed “church discipline” against me, which is really defaming my character to others. She has befriended the “friends” I had at The Village and got them to stop talking to me. AND she befriended the friends I had here in Denver. Lord knows if she has said anything to them about me.

  17. Jamie Carter wrote:

    I remember learning that sheep have been domesticated longer than any other species. They have been shepherded so long that they have lost any fighting instincts they might have had. Because they were domesticated, they’ve become smaller and lost their horns. I wonder if they were selectively bred out over the centuries? I wonder what christians lose when they are shepherded?

    I’m interested in sheep, because I spin their wool. I watched a documentary a couple of weeks ago on YouTube about a particular subspecies of Icelandic sheep. Since Iceland is so isolated, the sheep there now are the descendants of the sheep brought there by the Vikings, and there are laws which forbid the importation of non Icelandic sheep. Anyway, there are a very few sheep, they’re not as meaty or woolly as regular sheep, but they’re smart. These are the leadersheep, which are a subspecies of Icelandic sheep. They take point whenever sheep are being led to pasture (this has been tested). There are stories about leadersheep who lead their flocks out of oncoming storms or refuse to lead the rest of the flock out of storms.

    Anyway, not all sheep are dumb, at least in Iceland. I still haven’t spun any Icelandic wool, because it’s actually two coats–tog, the outer rough coat and thel-the fine inner coat. I guess I should get some and spin it up.

  18. Christ is the good shepherd, on the other hand Jonathan Leeman exemplifies that some sheep are dumber than the rest.

  19. My concern is when these leader type guys start referring to “my sheep” and “your sheep.”. Amongst themselves, of course.

  20. And I don’t think any of these guys are actually Calvinists. Even though this is common in neo-cal circles, they don’t have a monopoly on authoritarianism.

  21. And I am referring to some of our local pastor-types as non-calvinists. Obviously Johnnie Mac and the Village People are neo-cals. My point is that the possessive shepherd attitude is not isolated to the neo-cals types.

    Wow, I really shouldn’t post when sleepy.

  22. Take Dee’s advice a d send a letter certified mail with return signature stating you are no longer a member! If Christina wrote:

    When I got fired by a fellow member at The Village Church two years ago, I had to move in with my parents seven hours away. Contacting the church to remove my membership was the last thing on my mind. I finally contacted them after I heard about the Mark Driscoll stuff that summer, as I didn’t want my name associated with Acts 29. I let them know I was removing my membership because I moved, but I would have removed my membership if I had stayed for the following reasons: 1. My roommate who is BFF with the Chandlers and TVC staff, and a celebrity blogger sent a letter to my home group leader letting her know all the things she didn’t like about me as a roommate, instead of coming to me first, 2. My home group stopped talking to me as a friend, 3. My roommate also got a guy to break up with me, 3. My roommate is suspected to be the reason I got fired, and 4. None of my supposed “community” was there for me when I got fired and needed help. The TVC contact person told me I would need to meet with a TVC staff member to officially remove my membership, and the only meeting that was available was a month away. I told the TVC contact person that I no longer live in DFW, so I am not able to attend this meeting. I also inquired why a meeting isn’t possible until a month out. She never replied. So for all I know, I could still be listed as a member there.

  23. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    I kind of hope they resign on their way out and then do feel a little unprotected once they arrive in a new city.
    This sounds like Covering Doctrine or Covering Theology. It requires that you be submitted to a church leader in order to be “covered.” The concept was very much a part of the Shepherding Movement.

    “The Shepherding Movement” — a control freak’s wet dream.

  24. Lydia wrote:

    @ Burwell Stark:
    Some sheep are more equal than others

    Remember Orwell’s ethnic typecasting for Those Who are More Equal Than Others.

  25. Max wrote:

    This new brand of Calvinism is authoritarian, controlling, manipulating, and intimidating.

    God exists only to give the Elect the Divine Right to Rule, Predestined from before the creation of the world.

  26. Didn’t we have a Reformation in the 16th C. to break away from having to go through a clergy to worship Christ?
    Talk about regression….

  27. Stan wrote:

    Dee, after bashing Reformed and Lutheran churches, have you moved on to cowboy churches now? This time you’ve gone too far!

    Stan,
    Be careful, some of our local ” Cowboy Churches” here in this section of Texas are NOT without controversy….just like anything else, there are good ones…..and bad ones…

  28. Christina wrote:

    Anywho, I am emailing the elder and her this weekend to let them both know that I will be contacting a lawyer about Lore’s supposed “church discipline” against me, which is really defaming my character to others. She has befriended the “friends” I had at The Village and got them to stop talking to me. AND she befriended the friends I had here in Denver. Lord knows if she has said anything to them about me.

    Christina, please don’t contact her without first discussing the issue with an attorney. If you tell her that you’re thinking about starting legal proceedings she’ll definitely start gossiping about you. She’ll put stuff on her blog and put her spin on the story. If you do decide to move forward with a suit, the initial filing can include injunctions to prevent her from mentioning you online.

    I’ve had some dealings with people who are “internet famous.” One in particular is still posting online about how she dumped her “toxic friends” two years ago when she was the toxic one.

    From the things you’ve said about LF, I wonder if she has a personality disorder.

  29. K.D. wrote:

    Didn’t we have a Reformation in the 16th C. to break away from having to go through a clergy to worship Christ?

    I don’t know about Calvin, but I just scanned Luther’s 95 theses and I don’t see that sentiment there. He objects to various things which he considers abuses, but I don’t see any assault against the basic structure of the church at that time. To put it in my vernacular, he seems to want to make people do right, but he does not seem to want to abolish the whole infrastructure.

    But then, they had kings back then, so perhaps we are now seeing some things from a different aspect since we reject that sort of arrangement be it in politics or the church or the family.

  30. Max:

    The OLD brand of Calvinism was also authoritarian, controlling, manipulating, and intimidating too. Just ask the Anabaptists and citizens of Calvin’s Geneva. Thousands of them ended up dead because they refused to worship at the “state-sponsored” church.

    KD:

    The Reformation in the 16th Century changed nothing about the heretofore Roman Catholic clergy/laity divide. The Reformers did not repudiate this hierarchy but reiterated this distinction in their protestant churches.

  31. Why Do Calvinistas Love the Dumb Sheep Metaphor?

    From my time on the Inside, I can give you some insight. Remember, “Calvinistas” (I still make a distinction between “Calvinistas” and theological Calvinists) consider themselves “educated”. WE went to seminary – you pewsitters didn’t. On top of that, they are convinced that their interpretation of theology is near to perfect – NOBODY else has it 100% right, therefore nobody else is to be fully trusted. And since their theology is right and almost everybody else’s is wrong, then the pewfolk need guidance as to what they should and should not be reading and listening to – it’s hard enough to teach True Calvinism from the pulpit without having to deal with the errors of Left Behind, Max Lucado, Joel Osteen, ad infinitum every week. The theological tastes of the congregation can’t be trusted.

    So, you have an educated, theologically correct pastorate leading a congregation that in their view is not educated and may not be adequately dedicated to Calvinistaism to be trusted to make the right decisions as to what to read and where to worship. IOW, “dumb sheep”.

  32. Eagle wrote:

    Okay…here is the latest. This is about McLean Bible which is run by Lon Solomon being affiliated with The Gospel Coalition.

    McLean Bible Church? In the Gospel Coalition? Back when I attended, you may have heard a “theological” sermon once in a blue moon. McLean Bible in the Gospel Coalition? Either things have really changedat MBC, or somebody at the TGC website got their stories mixed up.

  33. K.D. wrote:

    Didn’t we have a Reformation in the 16th C. to break away from having to go through a clergy to worship Christ?
    Talk about regression….

    Actually, they want this regression back to earlier times, when the “reformed” ruled the protestant world.

  34. Reading through the post, it struck me, as it always does, these so called “shepherds” don’t love their congregations. In fact,identifying them as sheep, instead of people, places me on notice, I am just a poor lamb to be bullied. Jesus is the good shepherd, and the only authority in my life.

    It’s hard to break away from being bullied, especially when it’s coupled with dosings of shame, and accusations of strife/rebellion.

    Thankful for the Deebs, and the posters for the determination to stand and fight back on the abuse of authority amongst the clergy…be it Calvinistic or Fundamental in nature.

  35. The one thing that surprises me in this post is Jonathan Leeman’s opinion on those moving away from a church. I would have thought that he would insist on a member’s inability to resign until they had already found a new 9 Marks approved church, complete with new membership vows. In fact, I’d be surprised if they don’t utilise the old Reformed practice of letters of transfer.

    Instead, Leeman seems to rely on some sort of reverse psychology to (hopefully) stimulate church members to the desired actions. You’d think that’s a good way to simply lose more folks from his particular ecclesiastical world, but maybe they’ve so indoctrinated members with spiritual covering ideas or obligations to leadership that they’re not too worried about it.

  36. @ Rhonda Montgomery:

    Hi Rhonda. Let me ask you, when and how did the idea develop that there is no distinction between clergy and laity? I am not a historian, but I note that one or more of our ivy league schools were started for the education of the clergy, so we must have still been seeing some distinctions relatively recently.

  37. Mae wrote:

    Reading through the post, it struck me, as it always does, these so called “shepherds” don’t love their congregations. In fact,identifying them as sheep, instead of people, places me on notice,

    Excellent way of putting the problem. Their religion is not about real love. They are good at love-bombing, but it is manipulative “love” and not Jesus-like love.

  38. Mae wrote:

    so called “shepherds” don’t love their congregations. In fact,identifying them as sheep,

    Milk, cheese, wool, and mutton???

  39. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Christina wrote:

    Anywho, I am emailing the elder and her this weekend to let them both know that I will be contacting a lawyer about Lore’s supposed “church discipline” against me, which is really defaming my character to others. She has befriended the “friends” I had at The Village and got them to stop talking to me. AND she befriended the friends I had here in Denver. Lord knows if she has said anything to them about me.

    Christina, please don’t contact her without first discussing the issue with an attorney. If you tell her that you’re thinking about starting legal proceedings she’ll definitely start gossiping about you. She’ll put stuff on her blog and put her spin on the story. If you do decide to move forward with a suit, the initial filing can include injunctions to prevent her from mentioning you online.

    I’ve had some dealings with people who are “internet famous.” One in particular is still posting online about how she dumped her “toxic friends” two years ago when she was the toxic one.

    From the things you’ve said about LF, I wonder if she has a personality disorder.

    Thank you for letting me know. I will be sure to not say anything until I talk to an attorney. Yes, I have wondered about a personality disorder as well. After the stuff that went down in DFW, I have no reason to trust her. I often wonder why she moved to Denver. I remember telling her when I lived with her that I was thinking about moving here. I think it is strange that she happened to get a job at the church I was going to, and she bought a house on the street I live on. I literally live within walking distance of her. I have no evidence that this isn’t a coincidence, but I am still leery of it.

  40. Chrstn wrote:

    remember telling her when I lived with her that I was thinking about moving here. I think it is strange that she happened to get a job at the church I was going to, and she bought a house on the street I live on. I literally live within walking distance of her. I have no evidence that this isn’t a coincidence, but I am still leery of it.

    Now that is totally creepy.

  41. NJ wrote:

    You’d think that’s a good way to simply lose more folks from his particular ecclesiastical world, but maybe they’ve so indoctrinated members with spiritual covering ideas or obligations to leadership that they’re not too worried about it.

    I have met with some ex members of this church. All of them successfully extricated themselves. I wish I could share them with you but I promised to keep it confidential. Their methods would make you smile.

    However, if any of you need help in getting out without getting skinned alive, let us know via email and we will share some techniques.

  42. Mae wrote:

    It’s hard to break away from being bullied, especially when it’s coupled with dosings of shame, and accusations of strife/rebellion.

    The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them and reveal their tactics. I believe that Todd Wilhelm, out official TWW hero, has done so with the 9 Marks crowd. He has even given permission to share his story from their side. Leeman was not pleased when I told him Todd would do that and has not commented since.

    Now, why won’t they do it? Theo only way to work out these things is to be honest and look carefully at the situation. Karen Hinkley helped all of us by keep documentation and being willing to release it. We must get this out in the open.

  43. Christina wrote:

    I am thinking about letting her know I will be contacting a lawyer to prevent further information about me from being spread — especially after her Twitter post this week that was in response to an email exchange I had with a church elder here in Denver.

    Christina, make sure you document negative comments against you because these may disappear from the internet. Copy and paste them into a Word document to save them, do a screen shot, whatever you have to do. Include dates and sources. Give them to your lawyer if it comes to that, and also: do not make negative comments against named individuals online or in emails. They can be used as libel against you, and complicate your case. In other words, be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.

  44. Eeyore wrote:

    So, you have an educated, theologically correct pastorate leading a congregation that in their view is not educated and may not be adequately dedicated to Calvinistaism to be trusted to make the right decisions as to what to read and where to worship.

    Great comment. There is one other aspect to this that I find rather amusing. You get some celebrity pastor who thinks he is a theological hotshot. He is them confronted by bright people in his congregation who are equally well educated or even more so and they know how to call him on his poor exegesis.

    By calling them dumb sheep, he sidelines them since he is the only one given the *keys,* the authority,* or the role. He is unassailable and Dr Smart Member is effectively trashed as a dumb, egotistical sheep as I heard from a well known local celebrity Calvinista.

  45. @ okrapod:
    Here is what I have learned in studying that time period. The distinction has helped me as I have sought to understand diverging denominations.

    John Hus and Martin Luther wanted to reform the church from within. That is why you saw the development of Lutheran churches which looked remarkably like the RCC cathedrals. Luther chastised some of his followers who were going into RCC churches and trashing the statues, etc.

    John Calvin believed that the old ways needed to be thrown out and the churches built in keeping with his view of Scriptures. In keeping with this, those churches were rather simple in design, often elevating the preaching platform which emphasized the preaching of the Bible which was to be central as opposed to the sacraments.

  46. Stan wrote:

    “Basically, we call it ‘church in the dirt,’” he said. “Yes, there are — and will be — rodeo events, but there are always moments of church and prayer. I preach from horseback or a chuck wagon.”

    Too funny!

  47. marquis wrote:

    Take Dee’s advice a d send a letter certified mail with return signature stating you are no longer a member! If Christina wrote:

    And you know it better than most.I would love to talk with you on Monday if you have a minute. I need to catch up with you. Please forgive my absence. Things have been a bit difficult around here. Could you let me know what time works for you?

  48. @ Stan:
    You might be surprised to know what kind of a church I attend. i shall reveal all when we get together. BTW, I have a thing for cowboys. After 10 years in Dallas, I returned with boots, two hats, a lasso, and spurs.

  49. @ Christina:
    I would be willing to act as a go between. I could call her through her current church if you wish. Perhaps she would be willing to discuss this with you to avoid a potential post here. Let me know.

  50. @ dee:
    And they hate it even more when Dr. Smart Member is female! Then Dr. Smart Member must be shunned and ostracized, no questions allowed. They don’t like it when someone proves their pet theology wrong.

  51. Rhonda Montgomery wrote:

    The Reformation in the 16th Century changed nothing about the heretofore Roman Catholic clergy/laity divide. The Reformers did not repudiate this hierarchy but reiterated this distinction in their protestant churches.

    One of the things I find really odd about the current Protestant church climate is how they so often repeat or emulate aspects of Roman Catholicism.

    When I was a kid, and into my 20s, I read a lot of books about the Protestant disagreements with Roman Catholicism. The Protestants, from what I read of them, vehemently disagreed with some of the RC’s practices or theology. But here in 2015, I see some of these Protestant denominations sounding or behaving almost exactly like Roman Catholicism that they once claimed to dislike so (at least RCism from several hundred years ago).

    I can’t figure out why a group that broke off from the RC is now repeating some of the very RC practices or doctrines that the RCC did or still does.

  52. Dee,

    As for John Calvin and his views on the corporate worship of the church, one of the reasons I will probably be leaving the larger Reformed world some day is this: I eventually came to the conclusion that their doctrine of the Regulative Principle of Worship is ironically, not even biblical. Neither is it historical prior to the Reformation. It appears to be a tradition of men in response to some of the idolatries of the late medieval Roman church.

  53. @ Eeyore:
    So, they essentially feel that Calvinism is the Gospel.

    It rather reminds me of a blog post I saw on an Ex Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) blog, where they posted a screen shot from an IFB church that was bemoaning the lack of Gospel in some part of Europe or where ever it was…

    Well, if you looked at the map of the area, it was covered liberally with Christian churches, but very few IFB churches. The people who were posting this map felt that only IFB churches were “true” churches that could really save people.

    All the Methodist, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, or whatever other churches in the area didn’t count, LOL.

    The people in that area were never going to get the Gospel from a bunch of Methodists or whomever, no, it had to be from IFBs, or it wouldn’t work!

  54. this post, along with Dee’s original post, just highlights why there so many different flavors of Christianity… so many these sub-groups are based on the concept that they “alone” have the superior way to the kingdom. Plus, we humans, in general, tend to what to be lazy and follow the leader, as opposed to working on it ourselves, trying to figure it out ourselves. So, the stage is set for strong, alpha wolf to lead the “flock” as he sees fit.. and if he is politically savvy, he can do it in a way that is subtly telling his flock how “superior” his way is over others… or how he/they hold the “keys”?
    In reality, this behavior repeats itself in many different venues.. look at current behavior of outspoken Democrats and Republicans!! Or, most recently, look how the various Republicans are trashing each other!

    Daisy wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    So, they essentially feel that Calvinism is the Gospel.
    It rather reminds me of a blog post I saw on an Ex Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) blog, where they posted a screen shot from an IFB church that was bemoaning the lack of Gospel in some part of Europe or where ever it was…
    Well, if you looked at the map of the area, it was covered liberally with Christian churches, but very few IFB churches. The people who were posting this map felt that only IFB churches were “true” churches that could really save people.
    All the Methodist, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, or whatever other churches in the area didn’t count, LOL.
    The people in that area were never going to get the Gospel from a bunch of Methodists or whomever, no, it had to be from IFBs, or it wouldn’t work!

  55. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Christina, please don’t contact her without first discussing the issue with an attorney.

    I totally agree. Christina I think if you speak to an attorney and discuss this your eyes will be opened to all the issues that exist. An attorney will explain how your name took a hit and how this threatens you. I can think of how this has of will affect future employment. When you search for a job and they ask you if you have been fired or lost a job you will have to explain this issue. That is how Lori is affecting you among many things. Don’t contact Lori consult with an attorney. You need to do this for yourself. People keep trying to resolve situation without discussing an attorney and it just plays into their hands. That is what the article yesterday about arbitration is about.

  56. @ Eeyore:

    Go to The Gospel Coalition church directory and do a church search for Virginia. You’ll find a surprise about McLean Bible. That is why I wrote about them, especially in light of the other issues with The Gospel Coalition.

  57. Chrstn wrote:

    Thank you for letting me know. I will be sure to not say anything until I talk to an attorney. Yes, I have wondered about a personality disorder as well. After the stuff that went down in DFW, I have no reason to trust her. I often wonder why she moved to Denver. I remember telling her when I lived with her that I was thinking about moving here. I think it is strange that she happened to get a job at the church I was going to, and she bought a house on the street I live on. I literally live within walking distance of her. I have no evidence that this isn’t a coincidence, but I am still leery of it.

    Okay time to break out the Twilight Zone theme song! 😯

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

  58. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    this post, along with Dee’s original post, just highlights why there so many different flavors of Christianity… so many these sub-groups are based on the concept that they “alone” have the superior way to the kingdom.

    All 150,000 or so One True Ways.

  59. Eeyore wrote:

    So, you have an educated, theologically correct pastorate leading a congregation that in their view is not educated and may not be adequately dedicated to Calvinistaism to be trusted to make the right decisions as to what to read and where to worship. IOW, “dumb sheep”.

    Isn’t that the Heresy of Clericalism?

    That only Priests, Monks, Nuns, and/or Educated Theologically Correct Pastorates count in the sight of God and everyone else can all go to Hell? And that Salvation lies entirely in becoming a Priest, Monk, Nun, or Educated Theologically Correct Pastor?

    And don’t they call it “Priestcraft” when applied to Those Romish Papists?

  60. Rhonda Montgomery wrote:

    The Reformation in the 16th Century changed nothing about the heretofore Roman Catholic clergy/laity divide. The Reformers did not repudiate this hierarchy but reiterated this distinction in their protestant churches.

    Because now THEY were the Priests and Popes, not that guy in Rome.

    (Plus in Western Europe, the Catholic way of doing things and its trappings were the only example of how-to-do-Church in living memory.)

  61. Eeyore wrote:

    it’s hard enough to teach True Calvinism from the pulpit without having to deal with the errors of Left Behind, Max Lucado, Joel Osteen, ad infinitum every week.

    It’s hard enough to achieve True Communism without having to deal with the errors of Capitalism, Trotskyism…

  62. Daisy wrote:

    @ Eeyore:
    So, they essentially feel that Calvinism is the Gospel.

    There is no Christ, there is only CALVIN.

  63. Eagle wrote:

    People keep trying to resolve situation without discussing an attorney and it just plays into their hands. That is what the article yesterday about arbitration is about.

    Yes!

  64. Chrstn wrote:

    I often wonder why she moved to Denver. I remember telling her when I lived with her that I was thinking about moving here. I think it is strange that she happened to get a job at the church I was going to, and she bought a house on the street I live on. I literally live within walking distance of her. I have no evidence that this isn’t a coincidence, but I am still leery of it.

    That sounds STALKER.

    The type of STALKER who doesn’t break into your house with duct tape and box cutter but who is always trailing you from a distance so you can NEVER be free of him/her.

  65. dee wrote:

    John Calvin believed that the old ways needed to be thrown out and the churches built in keeping with his view of Scriptures. In keeping with this, those churches were rather simple in design, often elevating the preaching platform which emphasized the preaching of the Bible which was to be central as opposed to the sacraments.

    Elevating the preaching or elevating the preacher?

  66. __

    “My “Hope” (C) Is In ‘You’, Jesus?””

    hmmm…

    9Markz?

    huh?

    Go eat lotza brococli and ‘go’ there N’ break wind 4 da glory of their ‘cavlvinista dear leader’ (r) ? Sit close, get hits…

    -snicker-

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief:
    Third Day: “My hope is you, Jesus!”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_M_pMyJZjik

    🙂

  67. @ okrapod:

    I am from the view that we cannot totally separate the political from the spiritual when it comes to the Reformation. that is how the system operated as a state church. A lot of it was about power, money, land, etc. The electors/princes were not thrilled being under the financial burden of Rome, etc. Indulgences made a great rally cry.

    Genevam political leaders begged Calvin to come back the second time because Catholicism as a powerforce was creeping back in and they desperately needed a structure/format for the non Roman religion everyone would be expected to adhere to.

    The irony for me was reading Luther say something like, ‘I dream of a true church alongside the visible church’…or something to that effect.. As if he had to accept a state approved church but would really like to see a church made up of true believers, too. I always found that curious in many ways. Of course, Calvin had no such qualms. :o)

  68. @ NJ:

    I eventually came to the conclusion that their doctrine of the Regulative Principle of Worship is ironically, not even biblical.

    Yeah, if the standard is “only do in worship what is explicitly stated in the Bible,” then where is the RP stated in the Bible?

  69. NJ wrote:

    Dee,
    As for John Calvin and his views on the corporate worship of the church, one of the reasons I will probably be leaving the larger Reformed world some day is this: I eventually came to the conclusion that their doctrine of the Regulative Principle of Worship is ironically, not even biblical. Neither is it historical prior to the Reformation. It appears to be a tradition of men in response to some of the idolatries of the late medieval Roman church.

    Bingo!

  70. Bill M wrote:

    Elevating the preaching or elevating the preacher?

    Well, you know, can’t have one without the other, So ‘they’ say.

  71. Eeyore wrote:

    Eagle

    McLean Bible Church is now part of The Gospel Coalition? As Charlie Brown would say, “Good grief.”

    I was aware that some other Northern Virginia churches were involved with TGC, including Cherrydale Baptist, Cornerstone Evangelical Free, Little Falls Presbyterian, Reston Bible and The Falls Church Anglican. I’m more than a bit surprised that MBC has now joined them.

  72. dee wrote:

    @ Chrstn:
    Question: do you know if anyone is sharing your comments with her? It would be interesting to get her response.

    I am not sure. I sent her an email a few months ago (after my email communication with the elder)telling her why I left Park, that I have no beef or ill will towards her, but that I don’t trust her given that our issue was never resolved or reconciled. I have reached out to her quite a few times in the past couple of years to ask for us to meet up and reconcile, and she hasn’t seemed to be interested. She was “sick” for a week when I moved out of the house in DFW, and the same thing happened here about two weeks ago. She gave the email I sent her to one of the elders at Park. Hr reached out to me to do a reconciliation meeting. I agreed to it, but they both mysteriously got sick on the same day. He didn’t bother reaching out to me to reschedule until a week later and he asked me to take off work AGAIN to meet them at a time that was convenient for them. I asked if we could meet in the morning before work or evening after work, and apparently they are only available during the times I work. That told me they weren’t serious about the meeting, and they obviously can only do their ministry work during the day while most people are at work. God forbid they bend their schedules for people ONE TIME. I wrote a letter to the elder declining the meeting and telling him I think it’s silly that Lore lives literally on the same street as me, but we have to have an elder come to our meeting and the meeting is difficult to schedule for some reason. He may have shared that with her, but I have no idea.

  73. Headless Unicorn Guy (12:32):

    DING DING DING!! CORRECT!

    Lydia (12:51): Yes, I read that quote from Martin Luther too. Isn’t that an amazing, telling quote!

    For more on Anabaptists: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin

  74. The last thing I ever expect is a phone call from my previous 9 Marks pastor. If you aren’t on their rolls, they don’t keep up with you. In one sense, pastors do have enough on their plate already. But prayer, keeping in touch, etc., just won’t be there. The irony – and don’t miss this, please – is that they feel under obligation to clean up their rolls because they don’t want to stand before Jesus and give an account for people on the rolls they didn’t shepherd. Then you leave their rolls legitimately and never hear from them again, though they did shepherd you.

  75. To Daisy (11:29):

    I guess I might attribute that to the ecumenical climate of our day. As Neo-Cals it is just not “winsome” to bash Catholics, for above all Neo-Cals must come across as “winsome.” It is in their DNA.

  76. Christina wrote:

    She was “sick” for a week when I moved out of the house in DFW, and the same thing happened here about two weeks ago.

    In my opinion you should have no communication with this woman whatsoever. I think it’s freakish that she looked for a job where your parents live and chose to move into a house on your street.

  77. dee wrote:

    He is unassailable and Dr Smart Member is effectively trashed as a dumb, egotistical sheep as I heard from a well known local celebrity Calvinista.

    The alternative explanation is that the Smart Berean is rebellious or unserious or does not value the LocalChurch. My personal favorite is that said Smart Berean is “hurt” and therefore it is understandable that Smart Berean is “confused” and “tossed about” and we need to help Smart Berean to understand where he/she has missed the truth of “the gospel.” Or, in the words of The Village ELDERS, they need to push Smart Berean under their care (and control.)

  78. To okrapod (9:43):

    Well, I am not a historian nor a biblical scholar either. But, I guess that I was under the impression that from the beginning, in the early church, there was no clergy/laity distinction among the believers. Certainly, elders are mentioned as worthy of respect as more mature believers who help younger believers in their walk with Christ. Yet, was there not a “plurality” of elders present? One comes to the conclusion that perhaps the concept of a “pastor” standing in front of gathered Christians delivering a “sermon”, something we as 21st century Christians find irrefutable, indispensable was not even common in the early church.

    Instead, the idea of a lead pastor delivering a weekly soliloquy to the gathered believers sitting in their little rows, mute and unquestioning, was a development that happened much earlier than Colonial American, much earlier than Yale and Harvard Divinity Schools. Perhaps this happened as far back as the 3rd century when Christianity became the favored state religion, the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

    The Reformers, though rediscovering the biblical concept of “sola fide”, never changed the ecclesiastical practices of the Catholic church. There was still a hierarchy, just a protestant one. There were still “Shepherds” and “sheep”, clergy and laity, the root of much of the abuse we deal with today. Christ never intended his Church to function like this.

    For a picture of the TRUE shepherd, read Ezekiel 34. This is a comfort for all of us who have experienced false shepherds.

  79. Gram3 wrote:

    f The Village ELDERS, they need to push Smart Berean under their care (and control.)

    Sheep??? No. Sounds like Smart Bereans are seen as more like rogue cattle. Their Village congregations are their herds.

  80. Rhonda Montgomery wrote:

    For more on Anabaptists: The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin

    Even more startling, Verduin was a Dutch Calvinist but he was a serious scholar. His “Anatomy of a Hybrid” is brilliant, too. He wetted my appetite that there was much more to be researched concerning the Reformation than I had imagined. We simply cannot look at it as a solely “spiritual” movement. It was extremely political.

  81. Rhonda Montgomery wrote:

    But, I guess that I was under the impression that from the beginning, in the early church, there was no clergy/laity distinction among the believers

    Exactly! That was a huge change. Jesus was the Temple/Kingdom of God totally available to anyone with no mediator in the Holy of Holies so people no longer needed the priestly class. All believers were priests.

    Elders are not commanded for every single body of Christ. They seemed to be viewed as the ones most experienced in actually living out the Faith and some places needed that more than others….like the Cretins– who were all liars. :o) There is nothing in Corinthians about them at all. The closest we come is that Chloe had “people” and Junia as a apostle, Phoebe as a deacon, etc.

    I am not a big fan of Viola but he gave a very interesting talk on this years back called “Straight Talk to Pastors” that sort of outlines the problems with demands for a command polity as scriptural. It isn’t. There is no real consistency to such from the NT.

  82. @ Elizabeth Lee:

    I totally agree. That behavior is disturbing. Simething is wrong with Lori if she thinks that is mormal. It’s not. Consult with an attorney and tell him or her what happened. That’s what you need to do.

  83. This is in response to the header above:PATRIARCHY: A WORD USED IN LAW & ORDER SVU LAST NIGHT. So I googled “christian patriarchy” and looked up the wikipedia article entitled “Biblical Patriarchy.” In the first paragraph there is this following sentence:
    Notable people associated with biblical
    patriarchy include Douglas Wilson, R.C.Sproul,
    Jr.,the Duggar family, and Douglas Phillips.
    Wow! 3 out of 4 discredited!! Waiting for the 4th to bite the dust! Wahoo!

  84. I tried doing a Google search of The Village Church and spiritual abuse. I also did variations of that, like The Village Church and cult, The Village Church and church discipline, etc. The only thing that popped is the Karen Hinkley case. I know there are many incidents connected to TVC, but those people are just not vocal about it. It seems like TVC has a good PR team based on the public apology they gave to Karen, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have people handling their search engine optimization to make sure their name isn’t associated with the word ‘cult’ and ‘abuse’. I would like to work on getting more information about stories from A29 and The Village Church. Does anyone know of more people from TVC who have been hurt by them? Or people from A29?

  85. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Well there must be dumb sheep out there, because these pastors have jobs! But the only reason this theology works is that key concepts like love and serve have been fundamentally redefined.

    My Dear Wormwood:
    I refer you to my previous epistle regarding Semantics — specifically, the redefinition of words into their “diabolical meanings”.
    Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
    Screwtape

  86. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    f The Village ELDERS, they need to push Smart Berean under their care (and control.)

    Sheep??? No. Sounds like Smart Bereans are seen as more like rogue cattle. Their Village congregations are their herds.

    Herds that end up in the slaughterhouse for the financial gain of their owner.

  87. Christina wrote:

    She was “sick” for a week when I moved out of the house in DFW, and the same thing happened here about two weeks ago. She gave the email I sent her to one of the elders at Park. Hr reached out to me to do a reconciliation meeting. I agreed to it, but they both mysteriously got sick on the same day.

    This is Mind Games in addition to the Stalker vibe.

  88. @ Rhonda Montgomery:

    I hope you enjoy it as I did. I read the first chapter 3x cos there was a lot to digest. Happy reading. I wonder if he ever thought his scholarship would be sought by us peasants a generation or two later? I think he would love that. He seemed to be all about the peasants.

  89. Rhonda Montgomery wrote:

    Ezekiel 34

    “Eat the watermelon and spit out the seeds”– Dr. Roy Beaman
    Ezekiel 34 sets a plumb line in regard to leadership.
    This link: http://bit.ly/1khAEfN
    has interesting discussion of how Israel, too, struggled with leadership: “‘Shepherds’ often referred to kings, priests and prophets who had oversight of the affairs of the Jewish nation. They were men of authority (Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 2:8; 10:21; 23:1-6; 25:34-38; Micah 5:4-5; Zechariah 11:4-17). Our word ‘pastor’ is the Latin for shepherd.”

  90. “Yeah, if the standard is “only do in worship what is explicitly stated in the Bible,” then where is the RP stated in the Bible?”

    Well Hester, technically it’s only doing what is specifically commanded for worship in the Bible, OR by “good and necessary consequence” may be deduced from it. The devil’s in that latter part, which can be observed in the wide variety of practices and features of worship just within the reformed and presbyterian branch of churches alone. Self-described reformed folks from JMac to Tim Keller to the RPCNA with its exclusive psalmnody and no musical instruments, all claim to adhere to the RPW. I’m not even including anything like what color the carpet is, or the starting time of the service. Just the basic elements (like prayer, preaching, singing, gifts for the poor), plus whatever the “circumstances” are. They basically have tried to treat New Covenant worship the way Old Covenant worship was with all its regulations. The lack of agreement on what all this supposed biblical doctrine entails was a significant factor in my deciding it was a well-meant crock of doodoo.

  91. Moreover, the book of Ezekiel (8 – 11) opens with the wheels leaving the temple, indicating an empty structure without the presence of God.

    Have the wheels left the institutional church?

    Or, maybe, WHERE is it then, that the wheels have already left the church and what is remaining is an empty structure without the presence of God – which, in reality, is not actually the church?

    Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice.” Who is listening and who is not listening?

  92. dee wrote:

    @ Christina:
    I would be willing to act as a go between. I could call her through her current church if you wish. Perhaps she would be willing to discuss this with you to avoid a potential post here. Let me know.

    Dee, thank you. I just sent you an email about this. Let me know your thoughts.

  93. nancyjane wrote:

    This is in response to the header above:PATRIARCHY: A WORD USED IN LAW & ORDER SVU LAST NIGHT.

    I managed to see the last 20 minutes of that episode.

    The preacher at the end told the woman something like, “Stop disagreeing with your patriarch” – the “patriarch” being her husband. They got that right. The women are expected to blindly go along with whatever the husband wants in the more severe gender comp settings/ marriages or in patriarchy.

    Which is kind of stupid anyway, because weren’t their examples in the OT of various women disagreeing with, or standing up to patriarchs?

  94. My take on the sheep/shepherd analogy is that Jesus used a common activity of the time to make his point. As you read further, there is much more going on about serving, giving to the poor, assisting those in need, judging not lest ye be judged. What I take from the gospel in this regard is that church should be a place where we can gather together for protection. In the post modern world this can take the form of support like Dee experienced during her daughter’s illness. Ultimately the “shepherd” is supposed to be none other than Jesus himself. It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not control his disciples. They appear to have been free to come and go. At no time did he engage in them as “dumb animals”. Instead these 9 Marks folks see themselves as more of a “priestly class” a la the old testament Levites. Unfortunately Christianity has not purged itself of that bronze age mentality. Look around, what makes more sense in today’s world? People are fighting and dying right now to free themselves of this type of religious control (or they’re fleeing in rickety boats past hostile borders). I wonder how the 9 Markers would fare living in a real Theocracy (say under ISIS, Saudi Arabia or Iran – and even Iran is softening it’s stance.)

  95. Jack wrote:

    I wonder how the 9 Markers would fare living in a real Theocracy (say under ISIS, Saudi Arabia or Iran – and even Iran is softening it’s stance.)

    As long as they get to be God’s Anointed Theocrats holding The Whip.
    “Problem? What problem? The System works just fine.”

  96. Christina wrote:

    I tried doing a Google search of The Village Church and spiritual abuse. I also did variations of that, like The Village Church and cult, The Village Church and church discipline, etc. The only thing that popped is the Karen Hinkley case. I know there are many incidents connected to TVC, but those people are just not vocal about it. It seems like TVC has a good PR team based on the public apology they gave to Karen, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have people handling their search engine optimization to make sure their name isn’t associated with the word ‘cult’ and ‘abuse’. I would like to work on getting more information about stories from A29 and The Village Church. Does anyone know of more people from TVC who have been hurt by them? Or people from A29?

    Back when the story about Karen Hinkley broke, specifically on Amy Smith’s watchkeep blog, there were a few people who spoke up about situations at TVC. I myself shared one of the stories with Amy regarding a friend and her husband who were former TVC members (church discipline for the wife telling her husband to “shush”).

  97. Daisy wrote:

    I can’t figure out why a group that broke off from the RC is now repeating some of the very RC practices or doctrines that the RCC did or still does.

    Daisy wrote:

    I can’t figure out why a group that broke off from the RC is now repeating some of the very RC practices or doctrines that the RCC did or still does.

    You are looking at Reform Doctrine and the Reformation as sequential to the RCC. Or a doctrinal development from the RCC and it’s practices.

    Both the RCC and the Reformation were fathered by Augustine. This is despite the fact that that Calvin lived over a thousand years after Augustine. He was a disciple of Augustine and interpreted all doctrine through his mentor.

    Augustine is not some distant historical figure. Some of the subjects on this blog directly result from his teachings. That includes abuses often mentioned here.

  98. “The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want” PS 23

    Don’t you just love that.

    Remember in the OT when they found the scroll (they had been without) and all stood and listened as it was read and leaders gave understanding. In the NT they preached the gospel and related the stories of Jesus. Does it have to get more complicated than that?

  99. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Chrstn wrote:

    I often wonder why she moved to Denver. I remember telling her when I lived with her that I was thinking about moving here. I think it is strange that she happened to get a job at the church I was going to, and she bought a house on the street I live on. I literally live within walking distance of her. I have no evidence that this isn’t a coincidence, but I am still leery of it.

    That sounds STALKER.

    The type of STALKER who doesn’t break into your house with duct tape and box cutter but who is always trailing you from a distance so you can NEVER be free of him/her.

    Agreed. Very creepy behaviour…..

  100. @ GovPappy:
    ” . . . when I went to DC and visited the 9marks church with my friend, it took exactly one service for the “Dumb sheep” phrase to make an appearance by an elder ”

    the truth is, if people are dumb enough to fall for signing contracts in order to get accepted into a ‘Church’, they really must seem dumb to the ‘pastors’ of said ‘church’ . . .

    sometimes I think people will do anything to ‘get accepted’ by a social group posing as a ‘church’ and then are very fearful of being rejected, which makes them easy to manipulate

  101. From John MacArthur’s post:

    Christians need similar protection from error and those who spread it. Pastors guard their spiritual sheep from going astray and defend them against the savage wolves that would ravage them. Paul admonished the pastors at Ephesus to stay alert and to protect the churches under their care…

    “Pastors” in Ephesus? My current version of the NT doesn’t mention Paul meeting any “pastors” there; it mentions “elders”. Does MacArthur always equate pastors with elders? Or only in this case?

    He wouldn’t be trying to artificially elevate the office he and his buddies share… would he? 😉

    And I wonder if he takes seriously Paul’s warning that some of those wolves would be from among them — those who had responsibility over the church. Is MacArthur prepared for the possibility that Christians under his care might need protection from his fellow “leaders” someday?

    Here’s a riddle (shamelessly cribbed from my favourite trading card game):

    “What’s worse than a wolf in sheep’s clothing?”

    Will post the answer later, if anyone’s interested. 🙂

  102. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    From John MacArthur’s post:
    Christians need similar protection from error and those who spread it. Pastors guard their spiritual sheep from going astray and defend them against the savage wolves that would ravage them. Paul admonished the pastors at Ephesus to stay alert and to protect the churches under their care…
    “Pastors” in Ephesus? My current version of the NT doesn’t mention Paul meeting any “pastors” there; it mentions “elders”. Does MacArthur always equate pastors with elders? Or only in this case?

    Don’t know about MacArthur, but the YRR crowd continually assert that the NT “clearly states” that Pastor = Elder.
    Once the congregation swallows this…

  103. KMD wrote:

    Don’t know about MacArthur, but the YRR crowd continually assert that the NT “clearly states” that Pastor = Elder.
    Once the congregation swallows this…

    So let me understand. Are you all saying that elder is just some old guy who has been around a long time? I am wondering why there are therefore qualifications listed for determining who can be an elder, or perhaps which of the old guys one ought to listen to. That sounds like a lot more than just some old guy.

    You all have yet to deal with whether an episcopos and a presbuteros are the same person, and if so why the necessity for two different designations. And if they are the same person are they two different aspects of that same person’s ministry. Of course, to conflate the two and arrive at the designation of pastor/teacher who also has oversight responsibilities is one way to deal with the two functions of oversight and teaching, or to have bishops and pastor/teachers both is a way of dealing with it. But once you say that there are no bishops and no pastors and no oversight function and if I hear correctly nobody identified and held responsible as a teacher-well, let me be blunt. Joe the plumber may be gifted in prophesy or healing or tongues or street evangelism or may be an example to the faithful in compassion and such, but he is unlikely to be a person of the sort that Peter claimed for the apostles when he established the diaconate-someone who gives himself over to study of the scripture basically full time having been relieved of other duties.

    I may not be understanding, but what I seem to hear you all saying is a system in which both oversight and teaching go begging and what is left is some combination of social club and welfare agency. We have some of those in this town, but we do not call them churches. We call them women’s organizations and crisis control and auxiliaries and such. They do a lot of good, but they are at best only one aspect of the church interacting with the world. They are not the totality of the church itself.

    Please some of you all be clear to me as to what you are saying the church is/should be, not just what it is not/should not be. Bluntly again, I want to know why, since scripture can be understood in more than one way, I would be better off without a specifically educated person on site for teaching functions and with nobody with any oversight responsibilities and just the milling herd of the mixed multitude of tares and wheat left to their own devices.

  104. okrapod wrote:

    he is unlikely to be a person of the sort that Peter claimed for the apostles when he established the diaconate-someone who gives himself over to study of the scripture basically full time having been relieved of other duties.

    Where does Peter give this description of such a person? When Peter would have said this, there would have only been scripture relating to the prophets and law. The NT didn’t exist as yet.

  105. Bridget wrote:

    Where does Peter give this description of such a person? When Peter would have said this, there would have only been scripture relating to the prophets and law. The NT didn’t exist as yet.

    Not a person only but several persons in defining the apostolic function. Acts 6:4.

  106. BC wrote:

    “The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want” PS 23
    Don’t you just love that.
    Remember in the OT when they found the scroll (they had been without) and all stood and listened as it was read and leaders gave understanding. In the NT they preached the gospel and related the stories of Jesus. Does it have to get more complicated than that?

    Yes, I do love that. We have a great, loving shepherd!

  107. @ okrapod:
    Briefly, I think the main point of difference is whether there is some ecclesiastical office(s) and whether those who occupy such office are in some way superior to the pewpeons. The question is not for me, at least, whether some should devote themselves to studying for the benefit of the others in the church nor is it whether they should be paid a reasonable salary which, in my view, would approximate the opportunity cost of them pursuing theological studies and service to the church. Any human organization after the Fall is going to need some folks to lead, but that isn’t the same thing as lording or assuming a position of formal authority.

    IMO, Paul and the Apostles were instructing the fledgling churches how to best organize themselves both for the propagation of the Gospel and also their survival through persecution. The Apostles spoke into a culture where older people were *also* generally the overseers of the particular group in view. However, it is clear that the church is no ordinary group, and therefore being older is not the *only* or even the most important qualification for leadership. Clearly being learned in Torah was not considered by the Lord to be a sufficient or even necessary quality of leadership, considering he chose unlearned men from Nowheresville to lead his church. He taught them by his example what that leadership should look like.

    None of the references to leadership in the NT, IMO, can be pressed into confessing a special office for some which commands obedience or special deference, and certainly not because someone has been “ordained” or has a degree from a religious institution. Certainly some denominations who see more continuity between the OT and NT see church office as being analogous to the OT priests and Levites. That, however, is a theological conclusion and not an exegetical one, IMO, and is not sufficient to overcome the other instructions from the Lord and his Apostles. Even Paul said the early church was to follow him *as* he follows the Lord. Paul said that the Bereans were noble *because* they educated themselves and equipped themselves to question Paul! Frankly, I don’t see much of what goes on in the conservative church’s “leadership” as being much like the Lord, and they reserve for themselves privileges which Paul and the Apostles did not claim for themselves.

    Is that at least a start at answering your question?

  108. @ Gram3:

    I agree with much of what you have said. But then, I usually do.

    However, it is noted in scripture that Jesus himself at 12 had a lot of information relative to religious issues and was interacting with the learned ones at the temple. We hear what a smart kid and where did he get this knowledge. Hence the fables about who his teacher might have been and so on. We also note that he not only chose some as apostles who were illiterate? (that has been concluded from a comment from the crowd at pentecost) but he also chose Paul who was anything but illiterate. If we arbitrarily weed out the learned from active ministry because some have turned out to be arrogant bullies we have stepped aside from what we see in scripture, I am thinking.

    I do think, however, that the idea of office and the idea of function/calling are not the same thing. Paul, for example, did argue for avoiding civil law suits but rather going before what would either be mediation or canon law of sorts within the church-those who could judge such things, as in do you not have somebody I think he said. This presupposes that such persons would reasonably be identifiable and their judging function would be available within the church itself. And it presupposes the requirement to accept their decisions if one goes that route. With the current state of the church, however, I would choose the secular court system, but that does not mean that Paul’s idea is not a good goal to work toward.

    I agree with what you have said about abuses, but I am not seeing throwing out whole ideas merely due to abuses. Rather I am thinking we clean up the abuses, which I think we were just saying that Luther was trying to do.

    And as for Jesus leading by example, certainly he did that, but are there not statements in scripture that he also spent chunks of time teaching the disciples-getting them off to themselves for not just R&R but also for instruction? I will have to search that out, but without chapter and verse I have to just say that somewhere I got this impression.

  109. okrapod wrote:

    You all have yet to deal with whether an episcopos and a presbuteros are the same person, and if so why the necessity for two different designations.

    “Episcopos and Presbuteros…”

    You have just jogged my memory of one of the oddest experiences I had in-country during the late Seventies. Going on FORTY years ago and it’s still weird enough to remember:

    Sunday at a church associated with one of the most extreme Christian “Fellowships” on the Cal Poly campus. A wild-eyed bearded preacher-man (like a Rasputin with a Zardoz beard and Bible) preaching in a LOUD voice from Revelation about How The Nicolaitans denounced in Revelation were REALLY the Roman Catholics and how Catholics REALLY Worship Satan — all through a long chain of “logic” starting with Koine Greek having two words for “priest” (Episcopos and Presbuteros).

    I think the route went through “Presbuteros Good! Episcopos BAAAAAAAD!” and “US PRESBUTEROS! THEM EPISCOPOS! DON’T TAKE THE MARK!” In any case, it was one of those Fridge Logic moments where it all makes preacher sense as long as preacher-man is preaching but half an hour after he stops speaking and you leave the church you realize it sounds like BS.

  110. P.S. Said on-campus “Fellowship” was called “Studies in the Word of God” and from what I remember was purely local — not affiliated with any other group. Best short description is “they out-Navigated the Navigators”.

    This was also around the peak of The Shepherding Movement, The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay, and The Gospel According to Watchman Nee. (When the latest possible date for The Rapture was 1981 — Israel founded in 1948, add 40 years for One Biblical Generation, subtract 7 years for The Tribulation, tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick…) I am sure this factored into the equation for a Perfect Storm of strangeness.

  111. You have to wonder that if the BIG $$$$$ Bucks stopped happening for ministries how many of these guys would be around. The same with persecution just how many of these guys would be singing the song of the other side and making money there.

  112. @ nathan priddis:
    I concur. What’s your perspective on the current state of affairs?

    For myself, I start from the position that the effects of the fall were overturned by Christ, and that the truth of the gospel has had a progressive influence in the world – especially the church – since its advent.

    I think God worked through the Reformers as agents of change, and we should extract what the will of God was in that period of change, in light of the gospel, in order to discern what was built upon it.

    As the will of God has progressed through the changes that occurred because of the Reformation, and then on down through the Great Awakenings and so on to today, I think it’s important to take stock and know where the church stands on the battlefield today. Who and what are the foes that she has conquered? What are the dead bodies we should walk over and not attempt to resurrect? Where do the battlements lie and what is raging on the front lines?

    In order to move forward there needs to be agreement and concensus; that’s where the power lies to bind the power of the strongman. Whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven! It feels to me like one of the foes the church is facing is a lack of faith in how far we’ve come, and a lack of confidence in the fact that there’s no enemy force that can stop us from advancing.

    What I despise about the efforts of the new Calvinists is that they seem to be saying, “Hey Everybody, follow us. God has given us command of his army and we have appointed ourselves the generals, captains and commanders. Gather around us and enter the fortress we have built for the church to find shelter and refuge during these perilous times! For ‘where else can you go?'”*

    *Question that Al Mohler has posed.

  113. How about posting the salaries that these guys get? Don’t forget the hidden ones like the retirement plan, the platinum health plan forever, other special benefits like their house payment, the new car every year, etc etc etc

    Oh yes the cash for speaking tours, special events, cruises etc etc

  114. @ okrapod:
    In general, I think that the model of leadership which Jesus and the Apostles taught is one of emulation where Jesus himself is the one by whom we pattern ourselves. I think that education and theological literacy is extremely important. Where I differ from the Gospel Glitterati and possibly some others who have a high view of church officers is the notion that the education and theological and Biblical literacy should be confined mostly to the “officers” and not also encouraged among the “laity.” ISTM that much of the abuse is a result of either the abdication of the responsibility to study the Word–written and the Word himself–or the usurpation of the Holy Spirit’s place in the lives of the believers.

    Put another way, a fully functional body is one where each cell and organ of that body functions well. That, IMO, was the reason for Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians about lawsuits. A functional body with mature leadership that the body as a whole trusts should be able to resolve disputes. However, even that assumes that the parties to the dispute are mature believers who are seeking to emulate Christ rather than merely being lords of the flock. So, I conclude from that that we have a goal of *becoming* Christlike, and that means that each of us bears a responsibility to do that. And it means, therefore, that personal responsibility cannot be outsourced to some self-anointed and properly-credentialed theological expert. We must all grow up into the Head rather than parroting or mindlessly following theological gurus and depending on them to be our High Priests and rulers.

    It is my impression, based on no study, that the present idea of ecclesiastical hierarchy is grounded in an adoption of Greco-Roman culture more than anything else. It does not look anything like the body metaphor that Jesus and the Apostles used nor does it look like the metaphor of a living Temple built of individual living stones with Christ as the cornerstone. IMO the implementation of those metaphors might look different in different cultures, but I have not thought through that very much.

  115. Oh they just all think they have an advance copy of the Lamb’s Book Of Life, & are entitled to pass judgement now.

  116. Ugh…so I did some research on the Shepherding Movement this morning, and 9 Marks/Calvinsta/Acts 29 is basically the same thing. Has anyone noticed that?

  117. okrapod wrote:

    And as for Jesus leading by example, certainly he did that, but are there not statements in scripture that he also spent chunks of time teaching the disciples-getting them off to themselves for not just R&R but also for instruction?

    Yes, and I think a great deal of that time was spent helping them to unlearn and de-tox from false beliefs that they had received from the esteemed Torah Teachers. I think that he, as the Living Torah, taught them what the written words really mean. Right now, Gramp3 and I are involved in de-toxing some people from false beliefs they have received from false teachers. Those false beliefs have created false identities, and we have found that a big part of the process is teaching them Who They Really Are and Where Their Real Value lies. Not an easy task.

  118. Paula Rice wrote:

    What I despise about the efforts of the new Calvinists is that they seem to be saying, “Hey Everybody, follow us. God has given us command of his army and we have appointed ourselves the generals, captains and commanders. Gather around us and enter the fortress we have built for the church to find shelter and refuge during these perilous times! For ‘where else can you go?’”*

    That is a funny statement. The neo-Calvinism IS a fortress. A militaristic group that will always seek to expand and conquer other groups and ideas.

    My thoughts on the state of affairs? I am not within the pale of normal Christian views on the history and direction of the Church, and the end of the age. I may not be the person to ask. But since you did, go read the second and third chapter of the Revelation.

    These seven letters are lumped together into the book but they should be viewed as seven separate books to the Church.

    All local churches in all centuries will fall somewhere into one of these sort of categories. The letters are so important in that regard that all who have an ear on the side of their head are to listen to what is being said to the churches.

    The letters also diagram the entire history of the Church and describe the Church age prior to the return Jesus promised to his disciples in Acts . The Church age is divided into seven separate ages from Ephesus-Laodicea. The first three follow each other in order. Pergamos is the ruling church age and has given us a consolidated “orthodoxy” which we follow to this day. This was when Augustine compiled his teachings from the earlier Church Fathers and Greek philosophies.

    Plotted on a graph, the ages would look like:
    1
    2
    3
    4-5-6-7

    The last four have different starting years but run concurrently until the end.

    Neo-Calvinism as part of the reform age is number five. It is the Sardis Church and so far is about five hundred years old. It comes to a bad end.

    I believe that the last age began very recently. There is no way to tell how long the last age will run. This will be the age where the falling away takes place. The falling away is the most important event in church history and is an open rebellion against Jesus and the Scriptures as given to us by the Apostles.

    The Apostles teachings will be replaced by Church Leaders who provide a second revelation.

  119. BC wrote:

    Don’t forget the hidden ones like the retirement plan, the platinum health plan forever, other special benefits like…

    …and like all the money that was used to establish trust funds for their children. Why else, for example, have all the Mahaney kids followed their parents to Louisville? Because the parents provide them with a guaranteed income.

    Has anyone seen pictures of the Mahaney compound? Or the sale documents? Remember what was revealed about Steven Furtick’s mansion? It was purchased through a trust fund set up using money people have to the church, which the Furtick’s used for themselves.

    Which is what Mahaney did. Does anyone believe the Mahaney girls live exclusively off their husband’s salaries, like what their mother has taught all married women to do? One of the Mahaney sons-in-law is one of several pastors of the church in Louisville. How much do you supposesuppose he makes? The other guys work blue-collar jobs. Maybe they received a bump in their salaries when they became deacons? Probably!

    Carolyn Mahaney believes a woman’s education is optional, which she demonstrated by limiting the education of her own daughters despite having the money to invest in their education, so they could become independent. But no , because complementarianism teaches a feminine woman doesn’t need an education, and if she obtains one, she is to use it to improve the her primary sphere of influence – her home – where in God’s order that is where she should confine the use of her education, her gifts, and her talents. Society, or “the world” is where men belong. And men are to be the ones who go out there and make money to support their wives and children. If a woman gains any advanced degrees, it should be done as more or less “a hobby”.

    But thank goodness Carolyn Mahaney has all her kids and grandchildren nearby since she’s lost her career telling other women what not to do. Imagine spending all her time cooking & cleaning for CJ? No, shes always got to find a way to beat her own system!

  120. What Paula said about the neocalvinists reminded me of the NAR. From what I’ve read so far, they have the same goal; assimilation of all other churches or their eclipse, if not destruction. It’s like having a church universe with ecclesiastical Cybermen or the Borg, depending on which fandom you prefer.

  121. @ nathan priddis:
    Omg where did you come from!? I had hoped for an answer like this because I suspected it was there. And I love how you rooted your reply in the scriptures!

    I have neglected to read Revelation so what you’re saying hasn’t entered in to my mind in thinking about all of this! And of course! Off to read the Revelation. Where else should we look to ultimately gain our perspective on all these events!? Thank you for sharing this, and not holding back 🙂

  122. Chrstina wrote:

    Ugh…so I did some research on the Shepherding Movement this morning, and 9 Marks/Calvinsta/Acts 29 is basically the same thing. Has anyone noticed that?

    You appear to be a newcomer to our blog, so you may not realize that from the very beginning we have been hammering home the point that these new movements are just revamped versions of the shepherding movement. Here are two posts we published just weeks after launching TWW.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/04/09/the-shepherding-movement-%E2%80%93-reformed-revamped-reee-diculous/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/04/14/the-shepherding-movement-reformed-revamped-reee-diculous%C2%A0-part-two-%C2%A0/

  123. Deb wrote:

    Chrstina wrote:

    Ugh…so I did some research on the Shepherding Movement this morning, and 9 Marks/Calvinsta/Acts 29 is basically the same thing. Has anyone noticed that?

    You appear to be a newcomer to our blog, so you may not realize that from the very beginning we have been hammering home the point that these new movements are just revamped versions of the shepherding movement. Here are two posts we published just weeks after launching TWW.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/04/09/the-shepherding-movement-%E2%80%93-reformed-revamped-reee-diculous/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/04/14/the-shepherding-movement-reformed-revamped-reee-diculous%C2%A0-part-two-%C2%A0/

    Thank you! Yes, i have been reading of and on since you guys broke the Mark Driscoll story last year, and I came back after I heard about Karen Hinkley. Amazing that you guys basically predict this stuff before it happens. I read the Sheparding stuff this morning, and I was in shock. Everything I read was basically how I exoerienced church at TVC. I don’t understand why more people aren’t speaking up about this.

  124. So to sum up what everyone is saying – The Shepherd (pastor) and his band of posses (deacons) are always way to smarter than us dumb sheep. That they are the only ones who can understand God’s word and will for our lives, even though many of us have Christians for decades and been involved in every church program there is out there. We are such dumb sheep that they have to tell us how much we tithe, who we should marry, etc. I’m sorry, that doesn’t work for me. God gave me a brilliant mind, and I know how to use it. To tell me that some 25 yr old deacon knows how to shepherd me in the church is ridiculous. Ain’t going to happen. Not in my lifetime. I would have loved to see my late grandfather debate this issue. He would have the pastors that preach this stuff so confused, they wouldn’t know which end was up. He did that to all the Mormon “missionaries” who would visit his house. I saw it first hand. He first fed them, fellowshipped with them, then got his Bible out and pointed out how they were wrong. By the time they left they weren’t even sure if they believed why they were Mormon or not. We need more strong Godly men and women to stand up and say enough of this nonsense. As for me and my house, we are having nothing to do with it.

  125. Chrstina wrote:

    I don’t understand why more people aren’t speaking up about this.

    What I I don't understand is why people stay in these abusive systems. 🙁  Glad you are speaking out!

  126. Question: Should a sheep be required to take time off work to attend a reconciliation meeting? Or Should supposed shepherds be understanding of people’s work schedules and try to accommodate?

  127. __

    “Jesus’ Gift Is Still ‘Free’?”

    hmmm…

      Presenting Jesus’ gift offered of the remission of sins, baptism of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life to ALL who would ‘believe’ in Jesus (John 3:16): –since when does this include some form of collaborative 501(c)3 church harassment, the possibility of abandonment upon departure, or the pursuit of abusive tactics?

    If Jesus’ gift is so free(-ing), why all the proverbial 501(c)3 church clubs?

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  128. okrapod wrote:

    oe the plumber may be gifted in prophesy or healing or tongues or street evangelism or may be an example to the faithful in compassion and such, but he is unlikely to be a person of the sort that Peter claimed for the apostles when he established the diaconate-someone who gives himself over to study of the scripture basically full time having been relieved of other duties.

    In 1st Century Palestine among the Jews, Peter would have been the equivalent to Joe the Plumber.

  129. okrapod wrote:

    We also note that he not only chose some as apostles who were illiterate? (that has been concluded from a comment from the crowd at pentecost) but he also chose Paul who was anything but illiterate. If we arbitrarily weed out the learned from active ministry because some have turned out to be arrogant bullies we have stepped aside from what we see in scripture, I am thinking.

    Just to clarify, the typical route for a Jewish boy was to study Torah at age 7 and if he showed a lot of promise he would continue after age 14. They were not usually illiterate. If at age 14, there was not a decision to continue study they would work in a trade. Therefore guys like Peter were not considered the cream of the crop in that world.

    Paul was the educated Jew who ended up taking the Gospels to the Gentiles. I do think God has a bit of a sense of humor when it comes to our thinking about such things as wisdom, education, etc…as it relates to Him.

  130. okrapod wrote:

    do think, however, that the idea of office and the idea of function/calling are not the same thing. Paul, for example, did argue for avoiding civil law suits but rather going before what would either be mediation or canon law of sorts within the church-those who could judge such things, as in do you not have somebody I think he said. This presupposes that such persons would reasonably be identifiable and their judging function would be available within the church itself. And it presupposes the requirement to accept their decisions if one goes that route.

    He said that to the Corinthians where there was never any mention at all of elders. Some scholars project the Corinthian church had even been around for about 6-9 years before that letter was even written. So could it be he was simply speaking of some with wisdom and neutrality within the body who could help them work through disagreements? He did mention they were “trivial matters”.

    Is it possible we read back into the NT a lot of our formality into it that is not there?

  131. Lydia wrote:

    Is it possible we read back into the NT a lot of our formality into it that is not there?

    I am thinking that if one must read I Timothy in light of everything else that Paul wrote, why would one not have to read I Corinthians similarly. I thought that the whole counsel of scripture was always the issue.

  132. Paula Rice wrote:

    Carolyn Mahaney believes a woman’s education is optional, which she demonstrated by limiting the education of her own daughters despite having the money to invest in their education, so they could become independent. But no , because complementarianism teaches a feminine woman doesn’t need an education…

    Only a womb, a vagina, and ovulation.
    All else is superfluous.

  133. Chrstina wrote:

    Yes, i have been reading of and on since you guys broke the Mark Driscoll story last year, and I came back after I heard about Karen Hinkley. Amazing that you guys basically predict this stuff before it happens.

    That’s because church crooks and abusers are so predictable.

    Others have commented there must be some playbook or instruction manual on “How to Abuse” that they all follow letter-for-letter, the pattern is so identical.

  134. @ Lydia:

    I am not thinking that a Jewish boy who studied scripture as a youth and then spent three years studying under Rabbi Jesus for three years as an adult is any where near the image of Joe the Plumber who was a mini-icon on the media a couple of years ago. I just don’t see the similarity.

    As for cream of the crop, they were galileans which was the wrong side of the tracks. But then I did not say anything about cream of the crop to my knowledge.

  135. nathan priddis wrote:

    The Church age is divided into seven separate ages from Ephesus-Laodicea. The first three follow each other in order. Pergamos is the ruling church age and has given us a consolidated “orthodoxy” which we follow to this day. This was when Augustine compiled his teachings from the earlier Church Fathers and Greek philosophies.

    Plotted on a graph, the ages would look like:
    1
    2
    3
    4-5-6-7

    The last four have different starting years but run concurrently until the end.

    Neo-Calvinism as part of the reform age is number five. It is the Sardis Church and so far is about five hundred years old. It comes to a bad end.

    First, my experience with The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay has made me very leery of any attempts to interpret Revelation as one-to-one correspondences and/or a direct chronological order checklist.

    These days, I think of Revelation as organized primarily in repeating parallelisms (classical Hebrew way of showing emphasis) and patterns repeating through history.

    That said, what events in church history do you map to the Seven Churches of Revelation? What correspondences do you make between the Seven and RL church history? And your idea that Churches 4-7 run concurrently is a new one on me (the usual Dispy chronological approach being going down a checklist one at a time) — how did you come to that conclusion?

  136. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Others have commented there must be some playbook or instruction manual on “How to Abuse” that they all follow letter-for-letter, the pattern is so identical.

    I need a copy of that instruction manual. Any dissidents out there who have kept a copy? Send it to Dee and Deb.

  137. Dee and Deb,

    As usual that was an excellent analysis. I especially liked the addition of the “Savvy Sheep” category. May I suggest one additional category…

    We have the sheep, we have the wolves and we have the shepherds, both good and abusive with all kinds of motives. There is a fourth category IMO. It is the sheepdogs. These are the people that guard the sheep against all evil. Unlike the shepherds, there is no profit or personal gain to be had for their tireless efforts. Indeed, they put themselves at risk and consume much of their lives helping those who need protection and assistance. They guard against evil because they are loyal, decent, kind and good, not because there is something in it for them. They are, by far, in the best position to see when a shepherd has turned into a wolf. The Deebs are the sheepdogs. You are the tireless Chris Kyles of our world. Thank you both so much for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar1WygVl_Vg

    PS comparing anyone to Chris Kyle is as good as it gets in DFW ; )

  138. Chrstina wrote:

    Amazing that you guys basically predict this stuff before it happens.

    The only reason some of us can predict some of these things is because we’ve been through it before and have seen the warning signs.

    In the case of Driscoll, he reminded me of a former pastor so much the it was utterly painful to watch the coming train wreck that promised to be 100s of times worse than what I went through in my little church.

    Thinking about it, the lyrics of a song come to mind,

    “Second verse same as the first. A little bit louder, a little bit worse”

    Yep, describes what it’s like for me to watch men like Driscoll and Wilson hurl down the tracks towards the bridge that’s out.
    Will the madness never end?

  139. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Well, I can’t comment on parallelism.
    As far as Hal Lindsey, I’ve only seen brief moments of him on TV and have no idea of specific ideas he has. He does not strike me as a serious scholar or having a detailed connection to current events. I could be wrong.

    As for the questions you asked, they are somewhat broad. I could comment on very narrowly on one question for the sake of brevity.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And your idea that Churches 4-7 run concurrently is a new one on me (the usual Dispy chronological approach being going down a checklist one at a time) — how did you come to that conclusion?

    (sadly it’s not my idea)

    Go read the last four letters. Notice that a reference to the Lord’s return is made in each. Each reference is different in that it means something different to each Church. Each Church exist at the Lord’s return.

    Thyatira is a long grueling wait and they have to hold fast till he comes. To the believers it will be a relief.
    Sardis is an unexpected un-looked for disaster. Their works are not graded. But even in Sardis there are believers. They are not judged because there is no condemnation for those who walk after the Spirit.
    Philidelphia is to expect he is coming quickly. It’s now getting late in the Church age. His return is to be viewed as a happy event to an often paranoid, or at least fearful church. They are characteristically rattled by world events.
    Laodicea is unique from the other six. The Lord purposely delays collecting his people. He is already come and is standing at the Church. The Church is not able to recognize him. His delay allows any individual who feels inclined to be saved. There will no doudt be a few individuals saved. The remaining Church in it’s entirety is ejected from the Body.

    Chapter four then begins with “after these things.” The things of the Church age are over.

  140. I studied the book if Revelation twice many years ago. This discussion is encouraging me to go back through my notes and then study it fresh. One of my favorite Bible scholars was J. Vernon McGee. He would have made short work of these new-cal pastors. I think his Thru The Bible Series is still available. He had a good mixture of love of God, a passion for The Word, Discernment, a love for people and good common sense. I hope I still have his series. If not I will buy them again.

  141. Chrstina wrote:

    Yes, i have been reading of and on since you guys broke the Mark Driscoll story last year

    Same here, it was just after I went through detox from a stressful “church” experience due to authoritarian “leaders”. Since then it has been quite an education but it sure is nice to breath fresh air and see clearly isn’t it?

  142. nathan priddis wrote:

    As for the questions you asked, they are somewhat broad. I could comment on very narrowly on one question for the sake of brevity.

    I’ll narrow it down.

    In your previous missive, you identify the Fifth Church as the Reformation church. Or at least draw a one-to-one correspondence between the two. What similar matches do you make for the other six?

    Chapter four then begins with “after these things.” The things of the Church age are over.

    Again, you seem to view Revelation as being written in internal chronological order. Though this seems to be the default among American Protestants, is it really a valid assumption?

  143. Leslie wrote:

    I studied the book if Revelation twice many years ago. This discussion is encouraging me to go back through my notes and then study it fresh. One of my favorite Bible scholars was J. Vernon McGee

    J Vernon McGee of Through The Bible, a staple of Seventies Christianese AM Radio. And much more worthy of trust than most of those on the air.

    Though I remember when he got to Revelation, he was very Dispy in his interpretation.

  144. nathan priddis wrote:

    As far as Hal Lindsey, I’ve only seen brief moments of him on TV and have no idea of specific ideas he has. He does not strike me as a serious scholar or having a detailed connection to current events. I could be wrong.

    He may not have been a serious scholar — these days I figure he just jumped on the bandwagon of his time, Christianized the widespread trope of Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War, and got very very rich off the best-seller royalties — but his Late Great Planet Earth ended up literally SCRIPTURE(TM), the 67th Book of the Bible, equal in Inspiration and Superior in Authority to the other 66.

    I am not making that up. I remember Bible studies of the time where the Bible was never mentioned except for the proof text zip codes in Late Great Planet Earth. I remember the “Christians For Nuclear War” attitude it birthed and raised. I joke about “when the Bible had only 3 1/2 books: Daniel, Revelation, the ‘Nuclear War Chapter’ of Ezekiel (the 1/2), and Late Great Planet Earth,” but that was no joke — that WAS the actual attitude.

  145. I don’t remember. Maybe we should all do an online study of the book of Revelation. It would be edifying for sure and we could learn from each other. Has an online blog Bible Study been done before??@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

  146. okrapod wrote:

    am not thinking that a Jewish boy who studied scripture as a youth and then spent three years studying under Rabbi Jesus for three years as an adult is any where near the image of Joe the Plumber who was a mini-icon on the media a couple of years ago. I just don’t see the similarity.

    I was referring to when Jesus called him. Namely his Jewish educational creds at that time. Jesus changed the format. I am not saying he did not become more educated with Jesus but it was of a different sort.

  147. @ Lydia:
    It would be akin to Jesus calling Joe the plumher as one of the 12 instead of a seminary PhD. That sort of thing

  148. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Though this seems to be the default among American Protestants, is it really a valid assumption?

    How do Roman Catholics, such as yourself, interpret this differently? I think it would be helpful to put that out there on the table so people are aware of the divergence of views and what the differences are that you hold within the framework of this particular discussion in which you’re raising your question. I, for one, have no idea what the Catholic interpretation might be, so maybe you could enlighten us? (no pun intended)

  149. okrapod wrote:

    I am thinking that if one must read I Timothy in light of everything else that Paul wrote, why would one not have to read I Corinthians similarly. I thought that the whole counsel of scripture was always the issue.

    If we are talking about church structure at what point did the church have the NT canon to consult? It was centuries, right? I think I am confused where you are coming from.

  150. Lydia wrote:

    If we are talking about church structure at what point did the church have the NT canon to consult? It was centuries, right? I think I am confused where you are coming from.

    Dear goodness, the early church did not have to look up everything in a book. They had the apostles themselves. Where are we going with this?

    Think about this, you cannot say at the same time that all things have to be a reproduction of the early church, and that as early as possible, and at the same time say that one must discount the earliest writings which in my bible are attributed to much earlier dates than ‘centuries later.’ We are talking about Paul and Ephesus and Corinth. There is nothing centuries later about Paul’s letters and his preceding oral instructions which he refers to in his writing but which we do not have. If we believe that Paul was an apostle as he claimed, and if we accept that he wrote what is attributed to him in the current canon, then we have an apostle already in the first century talking about episcopos and presbuteros and diaconos and ‘the women/wives?’ whichever that was. And he criticized the church at Corinth about why does your church (Corinth) not have people who can judge matters for the church. And we have clear evidence of something of the interaction between the apostles at Jerusalem and Paul and what looks like a struggle over what is right and who may be the ones to say what is right, even to the point of there being sent out from Jerusalem what appear to be people to check out what is going on and report back to the people in Jerusalem.

    This is structure, at this point built on the testimony and direct involvement of the still living apostles and what appears in 1 Timothy to be an attempt to be sure that the people who function in the structure meet certain qualifications. So if Paul reminds Timothy of when they laid hands on him that certainly looks like some official ordination or commissioning or such.

  151. @ okrapod:

    So while I am trying to explain where I am coming from I want to talk about Corinth. I do not see why anybody would want to hold Corinth up a some example of how great some early church was to be free of law and leadership (those are my words) when Paul had to get hold of them because they were making a mockery of the lord’s supper, tolerating gross and public sexual sin, had no way to solve disputes, and were not controlling the gifts and manifestations of the spirit in their gatherings. So Paul told the Corinthians: clean up your act, and act like you have some sense (again, what looks to me like the big picture in my words.)

    Corinth was not then and is not now some great example against which all the other churches should be judged. But, that is just my take on it.

    I have not gotten into the problems that arise from arguing from the absence of evidence, as in Paul did not specifically say in one place what he did specifically say in another place so what he did say is automatically suspect being at best limited to the specific people he was addressing. If we use that reasoning it does result in some conclusions about 1 Timothy that can resolve certain difficulties that some people have, but it also means that what Paul said at Corinth only applied to Corinth and we may now feel free to make a mockery of the lord’s supper and excuse gross sexual sin and leave disputes unsolved and turn gatherings into chaos because he was only talking to the people at Corinth.

  152. @ Paula Rice:

    Let me explain something which you may have noticed and which may help at this point. Practicing roman catholics are very hesitant to place themselves in the position of speaking for the church. This is a part of how they do. So here we have a number of catholics commenting here but I have never yet heard one who would preface some comment with ‘the church says.’ There are those who will very carefully say ‘I think…’ on occasion and not directly on church dogma or doctrine, and you might get more information by asking somebody what they think rather than what the church teaches. I also think that some catholics may be hesitant to say what they think lest somebody mistake that for the official teaching of the church, which would be a mistake. I have found a lot of information about what the church teaches both from elaborate sites (we have been down that road) but also from some sites for catholic apologetics on line.

  153. okrapod wrote:

    . I do not see why anybody would want to hold Corinth up a some example of how great some early church was to be free of law and leadership (those are my words) when Paul had to get hold of them because they were making a mockery of the lord’s supper, tolerating gross and public sexual sin, had no way to solve disputes, and were not controlling the gifts and manifestations of the spirit in their gatherings.

    I did not realize that is what I was doing. I dont think it was a great early church. My original reference was Paul’s point in 1 Corin about them taking matters to court instead of having some within the church help settle disputes. As some see elders doing today. Since no where does Paul mention appointing elders in the letter, I am wondering what sorts he had in mind and why give that advice if there were no elders. If there were elders but just not mentioned why aren’t they mentioned in dealing with the problem(s)?

    And some overseers are like Diotrephes’. As we have seen these days. I don’t see elders solving the problems and keeping the children inline. If that were the case then would’ NT all his letters be addressed to elders who would have been in charge of the churches?

    I just don’t see the clergy/laity division others see in scripture. I do see giftings and those with more experience/wisdom benefitting the body. I don’t see any uniform polity declared for all of them.

  154. @ okrapod:
    Which then begs the question, since issues here are debated and discussed of a religious nature, why, if you don’t have the freedom to share your views lest they be viewed askance by the church, do you participate in these discussions? I honestly don’t understand what the point of that would be. Wouldn’t it be best to find contentment within your own faith, within a church hierarchy that decides the dictates of your dogma for you, rather than be a part of something where people can and do share their personal beliefs?

  155. okrapod wrote:

    I have not gotten into the problems that arise from arguing from the absence of evidence, as in Paul did not specifically say in one place what he did specifically say in another place so what he did say is automatically suspect being at best limited to the specific people he was addressing. If we use that reasoning it does result in some conclusions about 1 Timothy that can resolve certain difficulties that some people have, but it also means that what Paul said at Corinth only applied to Corinth and we may now feel free to make a mockery of the lord’s supper and excuse gross sexual sin and leave disputes unsolved and turn gatherings into chaos because he was only talking to the people at Corinth.

    I am having a hard time eqyating tabout Lords Supper with the practice of electing elders (the Greek can mean hand stretching as in voting. The translators chose appointing)

    The problem is that except by word of mouth and sharing of letters how would,say, the church at Philppi know that Lydia was not allowed to teach the men who to her home church? :o)

    The decisions made at the Jerusalem Council spread because some sent representatives

    This is not about absence of evidence but plain old logistical problems when it came to getting the word out about theze supposed uniform secondary doctrines. How were all churches to know they had to have elders? Why not all letters written to elders in charge? I mentioned Corinth because they had been around a while and there is no mention of elders or even an admonition to get some to solve their problems. I find that interesting.

  156. Today’s news: Starbucks is not serving coffee in cups with decorative Christmas print on them, so evangelicals are accusing Starbucks of “waging a war” on Christmas .
    I just saw this on CBS!

  157. Nancy2 wrote:

    Today’s news: Starbucks is not serving coffee in cups with decorative Christmas print on them, so evangelicals are accusing Starbucks of “waging a war” on Christmas .
    I just saw this on CBS!

    I saw that as well. It’s just pathetic that some evangelicals have to make up claims that they are somehow ‘persecuted’ in order to claim they are victims when, in fact, they are really all about persecuting others who do not follow their narrow and bigoted ‘gospel’. The whole ‘war on Christmas’ cry is complete BS.

  158. Lydia wrote:

    supposed uniform secondary doctrines

    You are twisting my words. I have not said uniform or secondary or doctrine. I am talking about practices. At this point we have said all we need to say, and we need to take a break and maybe take this up again some time in the future.

  159. @ okrapod:
    I am so sorry. I felt my words had been misunderstood, too, and was attempting to explain but have not done a good job. I was shocked to think my explanations could be construed as excusing sexual immorality.

    Traditional practices have been presented as correct doctrine and even the Gospel…historically.

  160. @ JeffT:
    Both sides are ridiculous. Not many view the image of a decorated tree as the Gospel. :o). I know too many athiests and even Jews who decorate a tree and give their children gifts so not sure there is a huge offense there. And these evangelicals grasp at any molehill to turn into a mountain.

  161. @ okrapod:

    Ok so you’re not Roman Catholic, but you’re representing RCC beliefs and practices in this instance. It sounded as though you were saying HUG, as a Catholic, can ask people to explain their personal views (as he did when he addressed Nathan), but when asked to explain his own, it’s not kosher? (I’m not interested in his opinion btw. I’m mentioning him only because of your comment. If he chooses not to give a defense of his own views on Rev 2-3 in answer to my question, then perhaps it will prove your point.)

    As for me, I personally believe (and I’m free to say this without worrying about what the Vatican might think) that if you ask someone to explain their personal beliefs, then you should be willing to do the same. If you are not prepared to do so, or are restrained in some way, then don’t be asking the questions. That is just fair play, in my opinion. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Because if, for example, you wish to examine others but avoid being examined yourself and default, instead, to the teachings of your church, how do you avoid sitting in judgment of those who take it upon themselves to share their personal religious views? If you are not free to do so, and believe it’s appropriate instead to let the church speak for you, how does what is wrong for you become right for someone else? I dare say it cannot, unless there’s a separate way for Catholics to be right while others can also be right, which means there’s no real truth to it.

  162. Lydia wrote:

    It would be akin to Jesus calling Joe the plumher as one of the 12 instead of a seminary PhD. That sort of thing

    Jesus on the whole thought fishermen could do the job as well as anybody. At least plumbers as a modern equivalent would be less likely to put a spanner in the works than many a PhD!!

  163. @ Lydia:

    I’m curious who the evangelicals are that are causing all the reporting I am hearing about? I am seeing lots of accusations but I haven’t seen the evidence. (I am sure there are some evangelicals doing this.)

    Why do all evangelicals get lumped together as one voice? I’m disgusted with that attitude.

  164. Paula Rice wrote:

    you’re representing RCC beliefs and practices in this instance.

    No, I am not, and that is a perfect example of what I was saying. I did not say or even hint that what I was observing about catholics was “RCC” beliefs and practices. An observation about some apparent communication styles does not say anything about the RCC itself or its beliefs. But you have taken it that way, and I can see why some would be very hesitant in expressing an opinion or an observation in that situation.

    Paula Rice wrote:

    Wouldn’t you agree?

    No, not at all. Asking someone how he arrived at some conclusion is how people gather information regarding issues. The questioner need not have a fixed opinion themselves, and asking a question is not throwing down a gauntlet. It is acquiring more knowledge about how people think about some subject. The idea that asking a question is wishing to ‘examine’ someone or that replying to a comment/or not is ‘sitting in judgment’ is not accurate. Well, some people may operate that way, but no assumption like that would be accurate in the majority of cases, certainly not in what I have seen on TWW.

  165. Nancy2 wrote:

    Today’s news: Starbucks is not serving coffee in cups with decorative Christmas print on them, so evangelicals are accusing Starbucks of “waging a war” on Christmas .
    I just saw this on CBS!

    I think this is fake news made up by some liberal to make evangelicals looks stupid. I thought all the REALLY good evangelicals didn’t go to Starbucks anyway.

  166. @ Lydia:

    I’ve read of that. I find it a little bizarre that Non-Christians, including vehement, strident, atheists, never- the- less want to celebrate a major holiday that exists only because of Jesus.

    I remember reading an account by a celebrity atheist lady who talked on the internet about going out to buy Christmas-related paraphernalia a week or so before the holiday.

    While she was out Christmas shopping, some guy innocently inquired if she believed in Jesus (he seemed to just be wanting to make friendly chit chat), and she blew up over this – not at him personally then and there, but in her essay that she wrote about this incident.

    She said she didn’t know how to respond to the guy at the time, she felt caught off guard, didn’t want a religious argument, and just told the guy “yes,” (she lied, in other words), and so he smiled and moved on.

    But she spent this essay ranting and raving about how dare someone ask her around Christmas time while she was spotted buying Christmas related stuff, if she was a Christ-follower, the nerve! She was all like, I may be an atheist, but I do enjoy me some Christmas festivities.

    Now, I don’t have a problem with atheists per se, the live and let live types, you know?

    But this lady seemed pretty touchy, easily offended, and defensive about her atheism, in addition to wanting to celebrate a holiday mainly about a Guy who did in fact claim to be deity (yes, he did), but whom she denies.

    I’ve read of other atheists who celebrate Christmas. They buy Christmas trees and put them up in their homes, sing Christmas songs, buy each other Christmas gifts, etc.

  167. Mara wrote:

    Chrstina wrote:
    Amazing that you guys basically predict this stuff before it happens.
    The only reason some of us can predict some of these things is because we’ve been through it before and have seen the warning signs.
    In the case of Driscoll, he reminded me of a former pastor so much the it was utterly painful to watch the coming train wreck that promised to be 100s of times worse than what I went through in my little church.
    Thinking about it, the lyrics of a song come to mind,
    “Second verse same as the first. A little bit louder, a little bit worse”
    Yep, describes what it’s like for me to watch men like Driscoll and Wilson hurl down the tracks towards the bridge that’s out.
    Will the madness never end?

    I hope it does end. I am getting sick of it. These supposed leaders don’t seem to give a damn about anyone, but yet they work for churches?

  168. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I thought all the REALLY good evangelicals didn’t go to Starbucks anyway.

    The really good LDS and seventh day adventists do not drink caffeinated beverages period. It is a health issue. If the evangelicals want to be more righteous than everybody they ought to try giving it all up. And then, they could take the money they save and give it to missions, or at least that was the reasoning applied to a lot of things back in the day.

  169. @ Bridget:

    I have not seen anything at all on it. Just basing my response on years of this stuff making it into the media to paint ALL Christians as idiots. But experience shows us both left and right wings like to get their name in the media using certain issues and sadly many in both factions go right along. It seems to be a low hanging fruit rally cry for the troops on both sides.

    Nancy said she saw it on CBS so perhaps she can tell us who the evangelicals are that are complaining about Starbucks. Which I find ironic since it IS a business. Just stop drinking their coffee if you are offended!

  170. Daisy wrote:

    want to celebrate a major holiday that exists only because of Jesus.

    Or, maybe mainly, because of Jesu, to be a bit more accurate.
    There may be traces of a pagan like origin in the holiday, but it morphed somewhere along the way to being primarily a Christian based holiday, I think.

    Maybe the celebrity atheist lady I wrote of who was cranky about being asked about her Jesus beliefs while out Christmas shopping a week prior to Christmas, can cook up an Atheist Day holiday, where she buys an Atheist tree and puts a Flying Spaghetti Monster ornament on the top of it, and she can get other atheists to participate?

  171. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I thought all the REALLY good evangelicals didn’t go to Starbucks anyway.

    The Starbucks here in certain parts of town are overrun by the YRR and other assorted mega church types who meet there for bible studies, men accountability groups and such. Starbucks are too sterile for me, anyway. If I am going to pay that much I would prefer a more eccentric/iconoclastic ambience. Such as the coffee dives here and there around town– but most have trouble staying in business. (sad face)

  172. @ okrapod:
    I think you might be misunderstanding the fact I was asking HUG for his opinion. Now, in light of what you’re saying, I could have worded my last sentence “I have no idea what A Catholic interpretation might be” instead of “THE Catholic interpretation might be”, because it seems you assumed I was asking HUG to speak for the church when I was not. It does help to know what you shared regarding the rules by which practicing Catholics abide by in their interactions with others on matters of biblical interpretation. Obviously, if this were true for HUG, he’d preface his response with a disclaimer, which I trust he’d feel free to do. Im guessing then that you shared what you did in order to inform me that whenever I address a Catholic, I should do so without asking them to “speak for the church”? (@ okrapod)

  173. @ Paula Rice:

    This is one of several reasons I gave up debating Roman Catholics about Catholicism years ago (a friend of mine kept asking me to speak with RCs he was running into on forums, because around that time, he knew I had done a lot of reading about RC beliefs in books, some from former RCs, some from still-practicing RCs, I also read RC apologetics to get their side).

    On the one hand, RCs will say they are superior or true because of the authority of their church, and RCs are in more unity than Protestants.

    But at times, in some particular debates, they then fall back to making statements that disagree with official RC positions, or with each other. They want to simultaneously hold both positions, that RCs are in unity but not in unity.

    It’s like trying to herd cats. It was pointless, arguing in circles. So I got out of those disagreements.

  174. @ okrapod:
    Yes. If only because many, many Protestants do not know much about Catholicism, and because there are strong anti-Catholic biases held by many Protestants – who generally don’t even understand *why* they are prejudiced against Roman Catholics and Catholicism.

    Unfortunately, an awful lot of this is rooted in the backlash against the English Reformation (by rulers like Mary Tudor), as well as what were pretty legitimate ongoing fears that England was going to be invaded by one of the great powers – namely, Spain or France – that was inherently hostile toward the Reformation. The Spanish did try, and *should* have succeeded, but a storm hit their Armada, and the rest is history.

    Beyond that, there was ceaseless persecution of English Catholics by English Protestants for several centuries (with the blessings of the monarchy), along with very real fears that the Stuarts were going to force England to become a Catholic country again, this time under French domination. One king was beheaded for it; there were a series of civil wars in England… and a bunch of adamant Protestants who literally thought they were building the New Jerusalem in the American wilderness left England shortly before the execution of King Charles I and the beginnings of the civil wars. They founded the Mass. Bay Colony – and some of them went back to England to fight on the side of Oliver Cromwell.

    All that to say that American Protestant anti-Catholicism has complex roots, and that it is as much political as it is religious, even if most people are unaware that these roots even exist.

    If I were Catholic, I wouldn’t feel compelled to answer some of the questions that have been asked recently in the combox here. There is only so much that can be discussed in blog comments, and they aren’t a good place for nuances like the ones that really *need* to be present in any kind of decent dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, in general.

    That’s not to criticize anyone here, only to say that comboxes aren’t, by their nature, a place where one can give more than headlines or highlights.

  175. Paula Rice wrote:

    It does help to know what you shared regarding the rules by which practicing Catholics abide by in their interactions with others on matters of biblical interpretation.

    I don’t think it is rules. I think it is habit or caution or even custom but I do not think that it is rules. I do think that there has been so much ill will between protestants and catholics that some degree of caution is a really good idea.

  176. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I think this is fake news made up by some liberal to make evangelicals looks stupid. I thought all the REALLY good evangelicals didn’t go to Starbucks anyway.

    I’ve been seeing this on social media, mostly from people who are criticizing evangelicals on this.

    I’m not completely on either side of this. I can see how it’s, yes, goofy to feel you’re being persecuted over a coffee cup design, but, the other side (that likes to mock Christians for claiming persecution) seems blind to the fact that the current culture has in fact turned very inhospitable towards Christians or those who have traditional values over the last several years.

    We may not be living in a nation where Christians are sent to prison for being Christian, but the nation is not as friendly or welcoming towards people who don’t walk in lock-step with progressive social values, either.

  177. Nancy2 wrote:

    Today’s news: Starbucks is not serving coffee in cups with decorative Christmas print on them, so evangelicals are accusing Starbucks of “waging a war” on Christmas .
    I just saw this on CBS!

    Well, since a week has passed since The Devil’s Holiday(TM), this year’s War on CHRISTmas(TM) has kicked off right on schedule. All Outer Party and Proles must mobilize NOW to fight this Latest Threat. Culture War Without End, Amen.

  178. @ okrapod:
    In order to get into a nuanced discussion, people on all sides of the discussion have to be willing to do something equivalent to learning another language. Languages are complex and nuanced, and I think anyone who has ever studied another language quickly finds out that that other language has a different way of conceptualizing many things – time, for example. The more fluent you become in that other language (or languages), the more you find yourself shifting into a different way of thinking – and you find that coming back and changing your way of thinking overall.

    For me, Catholicism is its own universe, even though there is considerable overlap with what I will call “high-church Protestant” beliefs and practices. And the Eastern Orthodox universe is one that is very, very much separate from either of these as they are practiced in English-speaking countries.

    Add to that the catholicism (universality) of the Roman Catholic church – the fact that it is the dominant religion in most of the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking world, as well as in many, many other cultures where a whole array of attitudes and ideas and social customs and I don’t know what all else are the norm (very often conflicting with those held and practiced in other Catholic countries) and you get something that simply cannot be boiled down to 100 words or less [:understatement:]

    Protestants rightly get a bit heated when they are all lumped together, without any nuance. Same goes for Catholics, and for the Orthodox, for that matter. There isn’t one definitive answer to any of this stuff. You can talk all you want about what X church officially teaches, or what is in its doctrinal statements, but the fact is, there’s a wide range of beliefs among people who actually belong to X church – even among the very devout. (I am, btw, not referring to Catholicism per se, but to pretty much any/every Protestant denomination I’m familiar with.)

  179. Daisy wrote:

    We may not be living in a nation where Christians are sent to prison for being Christian, but the nation is not as friendly or welcoming towards people who don’t walk in lock-step with progressive social values, either.

    And yet the odd thing is that you can not run for higher political office in this country without at least pretending to be a good church-going Christian. When have you heard a Presidential candidate flat out declare “I’m an atheist”?

  180. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    As far as I know, only a few overboard zealots are voicing accusations, but the media is having a field day.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/christian-evangelists-upset-with-starbucks’-red-cups/ar-CC5K2t?ocid=ansmsnnews11

    Take it from the guy with 20+ years in-country in Furry Fandom:
    THE LOUD CRAZIES HAVE A WAY OF DEFINING THE PUBLIC FACE OF ANY MOVEMENT.
    Because they don’t have any jobs or lives to get in the way, only their obsession.
    And they flock to media — “I’m On TV! I’m IMPORTANT!”

  181. @ roebuck:
    Not all that long ago, a candidate’s religious beliefs were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. In fact, it was thought to be in very bad taste to do anything approaching that, with the exception of the furor in some circles over the then-candidate who was Roman Catholic (JFK).

    Back in 1972, George McGovern’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination was stopped by his Republican opponents’ use of information about his VP choice, Tom Eagleton – nothing that would be considered remotely scandalous today. What was Eagleton’s big “sin”? That he had had a psych hospitalization at one time, iirc, for depression.

    Daisy, things were not always as polarized over religion and “values” as they are now. That changed forever during the 80s.

  182. Paula Rice wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Though this seems to be the default among American Protestants, is it really a valid assumption?

    How do Roman Catholics, such as yourself, interpret this differently?

    I think I’m the wrong guy to ask on that one — too much residual contamination from my time in the Evangelical Circus (where Dispy & Pre-Mil/Pre-Trib Rapture reigned supreme).

    I DO know that RCC these days is primarily Amil, after some Pre- and Post-Mil in earlier days. Though Pre- and Post-Mil are still around, nowadays they are definitely MINORITY interpretations.

  183. mirele wrote:

    @ mirele:

    “refuse to lead the flock out of the sheephouse if a storm is brewing.”

    Mirele, this was fascinating.
    Thank you. These smart sheep leaders don’t sound at all like the church leaders under discussion.

  184. numo wrote:

    Back in 1972, George McGovern’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination was stopped by his Republican opponents’ use of information about his VP choice, Tom Eagleton – nothing that would be considered remotely scandalous today. What was Eagleton’s big “sin”? That he had had a psych hospitalization at one time, iirc, for depression.

    “He said ‘I need someone
    To carry the South’,
    So he picked ol’ Tom Eagleton
    But the press they found him out…”
    — “Watergate Blues”, a novelty song of the time making a snarky story ballad of the 1972 election season

  185. JeffT wrote:

    I saw that as well. It’s just pathetic that some evangelicals have to make up claims that they are somehow ‘persecuted’ in order to claim they are victims when, in fact, they are really all about persecuting others who do not follow their narrow and bigoted ‘gospel’. The whole ‘war on Christmas’ cry is complete BS.

    Ever heard the one about “Crying ‘PERSECUTION!!!!!’ means they’re not allowed to persecute everyone else”?

  186. @ mirele:
    You know, I have actually seen regular old sheep (two different breeds, neither of them Icelandic) both leading and standing point. Right here on my street, in fact. (Part of a flock that had escaped from a neighboring farm.)

    But when I wrote about it here, it was met with derision by someone who had raised sheep and was convinced that they are stupid. I then posted a couple of links to YouTube video – one was of sheep doing agility, and another was of a clicker-trained rescue sheep who did all kinds of complex “tricks.”

    Interestingly enough, that person did’t bother replying to the post with the links.

    *

    I wondered about what you said a few weeks ago about the technological development of knitting, knits and knitwear. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re a spinner! 🙂

  187. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    The amillenialist thing is also true of most Lutherans that I’m aware of, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some out in the Midwest were dispensationalists.

    * This translates into: 99 and 9/10th% of what is referred to in Revelations has already happened, and it happened in the 1st c. A.D.

  188. roebuck wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    We may not be living in a nation where Christians are sent to prison for being Christian, but the nation is not as friendly or welcoming towards people who don’t walk in lock-step with progressive social values, either.

    And yet the odd thing is that you can not run for higher political office in this country without at least pretending to be a good church-going Christian. When have you heard a Presidential candidate flat out declare “I’m an atheist”?

    Politicians try to chart a course where they don’t alienate the other camp. My generation has seen a culture that has become increasingly driven by an entertainment media that is largely secular and lacking understanding of people of faith. As to the latter, with so many stories of dysfunctional churches, I’m may lack that understanding also.

    I hope the internet will be useful both for ameliorating the dysfunction in churches and also be a tonic to broaden the voices that influence culture.

  189. numo wrote:

    Not all that long ago, a candidate’s religious beliefs were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny.

    That’s because it was simply assumed they were a good (Protestant) church-going Christian. Yes, I remember the JFK thing, and the Eagleton thing.

    The point is that now, when there is so much crying about ‘persecution’, one’s religion IS a matter of public record, and you’d better say the right things if you want to get elected.

    I just find a bit of dissonance there.

  190. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I thought all the REALLY good evangelicals didn’t go to Starbucks anyway.

    Haven’t you heard? Sovereign Grace won’t do a church plant unless there is a Starbucks around the corner! Remember it’s all part of “The Gospel”

  191. @ okrapod:

    I once dated a guy who was considering becoming a Mormon. He was at one time hanging around a lot of Mormons.

    He decided against becoming a Mormon when he saw otherwise devout Mormons drinking coffee, tea, and soda, after they and others had told him that it’s wrong to drink caffeine.

    I thought that was kind of an odd and yet interesting reason to reject a faith.

  192. okrapod wrote:

    The really good LDS and seventh day adventists do not drink caffeinated beverages period. It is a health issue.

    In the Mormon faith its due to Joseph Smith’s teaching. Doctrine & Covenants 89:10 are the instructions for what Mormons cannot drink. Coffee, tea, etc.. are on the list. Mormons have faced discipline over drinking coffee. Those who leave Mormonism find it hard at times to break this habit.

    Now…you want to hear something really fascinating…did you know that Brigham Young had a brewery in his home? 🙂 You won’t hear about that in LDS history!

  193. Lydia wrote:

    Nancy said she saw it on CBS so perhaps she can tell us who the evangelicals are that are complaining about Starbucks

    I skimmed the article. There were two guys named, a Nathan someone, and I forgot the other’s name. They each did Facebook posts saying as Christians they were outraged over the cup.

    Some British politician (if I remember right) was also cited in the same CBS article as saying the cup design was an affront to Christians.

    So… if that article is any indication, two everyday, “Joe Americans” on Facebook, and one UK politician, constitutes “Christians everywhere” having a fit over a coffee cup design.

  194. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In your previous missive, you identify the Fifth Church as the Reformation church. Or at least draw a one-to-one correspondence between the two. What similar matches do you make for the other six?

    Missive/ hmmm. Yes it was cold an wet outside and I just kept typing since I didn’t want to go out.

    Well, you asked several questions and I picked the last one regarding concurrent running and all having the same ending.

    Did you go to those four letters where tha Lord’s return is addressed to the last four? That would be one the reasons why I would beleive that.

    After hitting send, I realised that did not communicate well at all. You mentioned parrellism and history repeating itself. I don’t think that the one segment (mutual end to four churches) I commented on was useful. If you will go to chapter one – verse one you will see the initial disription of what the book is..

    The Revelation of Jesus Christ—-which God gave unto him…to show unto his servants…things that must shortly come to pass… And it continues from there, including three timeframes in which “things” come to pass.(vs.19)

    So, it’s an actual address by Jesus Christ to all beleievers and Churches everywhere, not a general example of Jewish literature.

    My assumption that the Reform Church is number five and addressed by him, makes the Sardis Letter the definitive statement on all things Reform. And therefore, how many of the subjects on this blog are viewed by myself.

    Did you read those sections?

    Now as soon as I hit post…I’ll see my typos.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    The Starbucks here in certain parts of town are overrun by the YRR and other assorted mega church types who meet there for bible studies, men accountability groups and such. Starbucks are too sterile for me, anyway. If I am going to pay that much I would prefer a more eccentric/iconoclastic ambience. Such as the coffee dives here and there around town– but most have trouble staying in business. (sad face)

    FWIW, save yourself some $$ and go to Burger King; they serve Seattle’s Best coffee which is owned by Starbucks. Seattle’s Best vs Starbucks, probable six of one half a dozen of the other. I can get a small Seattle’s Best coffee with FREE refills for 65 cents at the local BK!

  196. @ roebuck:
    but there is a lot of dissonance now, in, say, the prayers that are preayed at presidential inaugurations.

    It used to be that they were non-denominational. Now they are flamboyantly, verbosely Christian, and a certain kind of “Christian” at that.

    Then again, back in the 60s and 70s, nobody in mixed Jewish-gentile towns blinked at the greeting (or ad slogan, or jingle) that said “Happy holidays.” Of course, the Bing Crosby hit “Happy Holiday” was still fresh in the memories of many. But people just didn’t assume that a) you should have cash register clerks issuing religious greetings or b) that everyone who bought anything as a gift between the day after Thanksgiving and Dec. 25th was , in fact, xtian. I bet that’s still true in large metropolitan areas.

  197. Lydia wrote:

    I just don’t see the clergy/laity division others see in scripture. I do see giftings and those with more experience/wisdom benefitting the body. I don’t see any uniform polity declared for all of them.

    Agreed. I think it’s only been in the last 40-45 years or so that Paul’s letters have been used as an absolute ‘blueprint’ for church polity. Here’s what was written as a preface to 1st Timothy in the AV (King James) Bible I use for study:

    To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and, as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant whatsoever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.

    From: E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible p-1799 first published in 1922.

  198. @ roebuck:

    That may be true, but I don’t see the current cultural climate in the USA as being super friendly towards social conservatives and/or towards conservative Christians, either.

  199. @ Muff Potter:
    Agreed that is’s recent. I mean, there are historic denominations founded in the US – like the African Methodist Episcopal Church – that make it clear right in their names that they have bishops. (Not surprising, considering that John Wesley was an Anglican priest…)

  200. Joe2 wrote:

    FWIW, save yourself some $$ and go to Burger King; they serve Seattle’s Best coffee which is owned by Starbucks.

    I just saw an article a few days ago by an author who says he (or she?) now gets all his coffee from McD’s rather than Starbucks, because it’s way cheaper and service is much faster.*

    I don’t buy coffee from either place, so I don’t have a pony in that race.

    full disclosure: I may have purchased a coffee-like drink once or twice around 12, 13 years ago from a Star Bucks, because I remember my co workers at the time liked SB’s, but other than that, I don’t go to SB.

    “I started going to McDonald’s instead of Starbucks for my coffee — here’s why”
    http://www.businessinsider.com/i-started-going-to-mcdonalds-instead-of-starbucks-for-my-coffee-here-are-4-reasons-why-2015-10

  201. I’ve come to this discussion late, but I’ve been wondering about some of the things all of you have been mentioning.

    I was raised Catholic, but now belong to a Congregational Church, whose pastor teaches to give us the historical, linguistic, and cultural context of scripture, and a church whose main focus is service to others. There is no requirement for any belief, although we are certainly Christian and worship God and Christ quite enthusiastically (no we are not charismatic, we just truly love them). We journey together on our spiritual paths, learning from and supporting each other on those paths.

    Many posts here describe how difficult it is to end one’s membership in certain churches. I fully understand wanting to get one’s name off the roles, but is that the only thing the church refuses to do immediately when asked? You also describe being disciplined when leaving. What does that consist of? If you’ve moved away on bad terms, what can/do they do to you to discipline you? If you’ve moved away, what good do they expect that to do? I’d be grateful for any explanation, so that I can better understand some of your posts. It’s clear that I’ve led a very sheltered life, because none of this resembles anything I’ve ever heard of.

  202. Joe2 wrote:

    FWIW, save yourself some $$ and go to Burger King; they serve Seattle’s Best coffee which is owned by Starbucks. Seattle’s Best vs Starbucks, probable six of one half a dozen of the other. I can get a small Seattle’s Best coffee with FREE refills for 65 cents at the local BK!

    I guess I’m really cheap – I brew my own coffee. If I want coffee in a cup with Christmas decor, I have about 16 Christmas stoneware mugs stored with my Christmas decorations! Maybe the guys trying to raise a riot over Starbucks’ seasonal cups should go to the Dollar Store and plunk a dollar or two down on some Christmassy-looking mugs!

  203. numo wrote:

    But people just didn’t assume that a) you should have cash register clerks issuing religious greetings or b) that everyone who bought anything as a gift between the day after Thanksgiving and Dec. 25th was , in fact, xtian. I bet that’s still true in large metropolitan areas.

    People didn’t worry about it at all back then. I’ll bet it’s still true even in medium metropolitan areas. All the squawking seems to me to be just another manifestation of the identity politics that is fracturing the country into a zillion pieces.

  204. Daisy wrote:

    So… if that article is any indication, two everyday, “Joe Americans” on Facebook, and one UK politician, constitutes “Christians everywhere” having a fit over a coffee cup design.

    Note the word FACEBOOK.
    That automatically makes it Public Knowledge all over the world, and a MOVEMENT.
    Online Flash Mob time.

  205. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I don’t think it was “the press” that was truly responsible. I think it was some well-placed sources from within the Nixon campaign HQ.

    I was just quoting the song lyrics. Heard it often enough in ’74.

    And dropping a dime on your opponent through a “well placed source” leak is an old, old, trick.

  206. Yasmin wrote:

    I’ve come to this discussion late, but I’ve been wondering about some of the things all of you have been mentioning.
    I was raised Catholic, but now belong to a Congregational Church, whose pastor teaches to give us the historical, linguistic, and cultural context of scripture, and a church whose main focus is service to others. There is no requirement for any belief, although we are certainly Christian and worship God and Christ quite enthusiastically (no we are not charismatic, we just truly love them). We journey together on our spiritual paths, learning from and supporting each other on those paths.
    Many posts here describe how difficult it is to end one’s membership in certain churches. I fully understand wanting to get one’s name off the roles, but is that the only thing the church refuses to do immediately when asked? You also describe being disciplined when leaving. What does that consist of? If you’ve moved away on bad terms, what can/do they do to you to discipline you? If you’ve moved away, what good do they expect that to do? I’d be grateful for any explanation, so that I can better understand some of your posts. It’s clear that I’ve led a very sheltered life, because none of this resembles anything I’ve ever heard of.

    You sound blessed! Most folks had no idea things were like they are until they disagreed with or questioned church leadership. Then it is a devastating shock.

  207. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Thank you. I appreciate your reply! And after being around the block so many times, how’s your bike holding up? Chain still on? Enough air in the tires? You’ve had quite a ride, haven’t you?! 😛

  208. @ nathan
    priddis
    :

    @ Paula Rice:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    This is how I have heard the 7 churches broken into history –

    Ephesus – The church of the first century, generally praiseworthy but had already lost its first love.

    Smyrna – 1st to 4th century, suffered persecution under Roman Emperors.

    Pergamos – 4th & 5th centuries, Christianity recognised as an official religion under Constantine.

    Thyatira – 6th to 15th century, Roman Catholic church held sway until rocked by the Reformation, in the east the Orthodox church ruled. Extra biblical teaching.

    Sardis – 16th & 17th centuries, post reformation period, the light of the reformation soon became dim, incomplete works keeping some extra biblical teaching.

    Philadelphia – 18th & 19th centuries, open door, mighty revivals and great missionary movements.

    Laodicea – Church of the last days, lukewarm and apostate. Wealthy, liberalism, ecumenism.

    Can’t remember where I heard this…If a person is Catholic or Reformed they probably have heard it differently.

    I think Nathan make a good point about 4,5,6,7.

  209. The thing that bothers me most about MacArthur’s analogy is that it’s totally self-serving and a matter of pick-and-choose with the one guiding principal apparently being to make the shepherd as important, heroic and insightful as possible and the sheep to be as subservient, cowardly and idiotic as possible.

    There are many, many attributed of shepherds and sheep, any set of which anyone could cite to prove their point. Some of the things that stand out about shepherds in the Bible and/or in common knowledge is that they were considered disgusting in that part of the world, ritually unclean, common laborers, uneducated, hopefully loyal but in all circumstances expendable for the protection of mere livestock–they were less important in the entire scheme of things than the money it took to acquire and breed a sheep!

    MacArthur–who in my opinion is a scripture twister par excellance–just picks and chooses those things that support his own opportunistic system and ignores anything to the contrary.

  210. @ Joe2:
    Thank you for promoting coffee, it’s consumption, refills, and the buying of it. You are a good and godly man, I can tell!

  211. “Sinning Sheep,” “Wandering Sheep,” “Limping Sheep,” “Fighting Sheep,” and “Biting Sheep”
    _______________________________________________________________________

    One could make the argument that the sort of deluded, abusive church leaders cited above are, at best, one of these types of less than whole sheep and are, at worst, full blown wolves.

  212. “… which is very difficult long distance.” What does he think Paul and the other epistle writers were doing? They carried on lonig-di9stance care and teaching back before instantaneous electronic communication, when you had to write things down on parchment and find someone you trust who’d carry it hundreds of miles for you while you hope they reached the right recipient.

    And on this idea that sheep need a shepherd, do they not realize that they are as much sheep as anyone else, and as likely to fall into error and hardship as people in the pews? Our shepherd is Jesus, not the person who is pastor here now and moves on to another church later.

    P.S. I think the church I wrote about here is a 9 Marks church too: The Church That Tells You Where You Are Allowed To Go To Church.

  213. Joe2 wrote:

    FWIW, save yourself some $$ and go to Burger King; they serve Seattle’s Best coffee which is owned by Starbucks. Seattle’s Best vs Starbucks, probable six of one half a dozen of the other. I can get a small Seattle’s Best coffee with FREE refills for 65 cents at the local BK!

    If I have a cup of coffee out, I prefer Ryan Bro’s or Coffee Bean. They aren’t bitter like Starbucks.

  214. Does anyone plan on seeing the movie Spotlight? I would like to see the spiritual abuse among the YRR crowd exposed to the press like the abuse in the Catholic church. It seems like a ripe time for the media to pick a story like this up.

  215. @ Nancy2:
    Wait, so…are you saying you’re still going to celebrate Christmas this year? I thought Starbucks cancelled it. I think you possess the spirit of Mary and Joseph who trudged onward with their Christmas plans despite the fact the Inn was having none of it!

  216. Tim wrote:

    “… which is very difficult long distance.” What does he think Paul and the other epistle writers were doing? They carried on lonig-di9stance care and teaching back before instantaneous electronic communication, when you had to write things down on parchment and find someone you trust who’d carry it hundreds of miles for you while you hope they reached the right recipient.
    And on this idea that sheep need a shepherd, do they not realize that they are as much sheep as anyone else, and as likely to fall into error and hardship as people in the pews? Our shepherd is Jesus, not the person who is pastor here now and moves on to another church later.
    P.S. I think the church I wrote about here is a 9 Marks church too: The Church That Tells You Where You Are Allowed To Go To Church.

    What church is this? I saw DFW. Was it TVC?

  217. Once upon a time, many years ago, my wife was co-leading a metro area Christian event that would involve hundreds. When she decided to undertake this, she told by a key person in church leadership “You must have a covering!” It was not stated as an option. Since it was an event that would involve several churches, it was suggested that the covering involve several of the area church pastors and sundry leaders. So my wife and I arranged a meeting of several area leaders. It was catastrophic. A pastor from a huge area church immediately started preening about the size of his church, another took offense, a third chimed in how he thought it ought to go, another chimed in, before we knew it there was a huge argument among the pastors, each with voices rising. I’ve been in rooms with toddlers where there was better decorum observed. The meeting broke up with hard feelings on all sides; we hadn’t expected to have to break up fights among pastors.

    My wife was praying to the Lord the next day in desperation when she told me (and still holds to it to this day) that she heard Jesus clearly tell her “I AM your covering!” At that point, she dropped the pastors and leaders entirely and the event went off without a problem.

  218. Law Prof wrote:

    My wife was praying to the Lord the next day in desperation when she told me (and still holds to it to this day) that she heard Jesus clearly tell her “I AM your covering!”

    Amen and Amen.

  219. @ Law Prof:
    Your comment made me think of Mascots and football. Why isn’t there a team called, “The Fighting Sheep”? There’s the Rams. Why not the Sheep? I watched some of the TCU vs OSU game this weekend. Texas Christian’s mascot? The Horned Frogs. At the very least, you’d think maybe a school with the name “Christian” in it might willing to called the Sheep. Frogs, after all, were one of the plagues. It’s not right. It’s just not right. I’m starting a petition. Go Sheep!

  220. Bridget wrote:

    They aren’t bitter like Starbucks.

    And I thought I was the only one. Reminds me of coffee from a giant percolator in the church fellowship hall.

  221. Christina wrote:

    The TVC contact person told me I would need to meet with a TVC staff member to officially remove my membership, and the only meeting that was available was a month away.

    Luckily they can’t actually do anything to you. The way these fundamentalist SBC churches with reformed skinny jeans on handle church membership and discipline is condescending and patronizing at best and overtly abusive at worst (Karen Hinckley anyone?).

    There are many of us who have come out and many more will follow as churches continue their inevitable loss of market share in the US. Sometimes the sheep can only take so much herding before they decide there are greener pastures elsewhere.

  222. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Christina, please don’t contact her without first discussing the issue with an attorney.

    I agree. You never want to signal your intentions until you actually have conferred with a legal advisor. You can’t predict how irrational, judgmental people will react and you want to make sure you don’t provide them with any info they could potentially spin against you.

  223. XianAtty wrote:

    The reference to Jesus as the Good Shepherd and the parable of the lost sheep were more about Jesus and the shepherd and not so much about the sheep and the people. The theology of dumb sheep is what happens when a metaphor or analogy is taken too far. Metaphors and analogies can be very useful but one can get confused by concluding that the things being compared are exactly alike.

    And as I said above, you can just rip shepherds if you want to take flight with analogies. As a point of fact, I have to assume that shepherds occupying the very low rung in society that they did, that Jesus referring to Himself as a shepherd was just another in a long line of things He said that nonplussed His audience. It surely made no sense for the great descendant of David, the Messiah, to refer to Himself in these terms. Jesus was perhaps as much referring to His lowly state as to anything else with this analogy.

    For a modern day so-called leader to latch onto that and start running with non-biblical sheep analogies AS DOCTRINE would be shocking were it not the type of thing we were warned about by Jesus almost 2,000 years ago.

  224. Daisy wrote:

    Well, if you looked at the map of the area, it was covered liberally with Christian churches, but very few IFB churches. The people who were posting this map felt that only IFB churches were “true” churches that could really save people.

    That was a big part of my upbringing as a pastors kid in an IFB church. Missionaries would pull in with kids in tow and bemoan the fact that such and such a city was filled with cults and no gospel witness… then the list of cults and other groups would scroll by: Hindus, Pentecostals, Methodists, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelicals, etc. In other words lots of other believers in Jesus to work with if we didn’t think that we were the only ones with true gospel.

  225. GSD wrote:

    My concern is when these leader type guys start referring to “my sheep” and “your sheep.”. Amongst themselves, of course.

    I once saw a bad case, worst so-called pastor I’ve ever met, a semi-closeted sadist, who looked out at the congregation one morning as said “Look at all the little sheepies in the sheep shed!” I was also sharing the stage in the worship group and immediately said into the mic “We’re all sheep!” Guess how long I lasted in that church after that?

  226. @ Law Prof:

    Your story sort of reminds me of a ridiculous story I read on another site.
    There was a church that wanted a husband and wife team to present a lecture on some topic during Sunday morning services on which both were experts, but the wife was more the expert than her husband.

    I don’t remember the particulars of this, but something happened where the preacher of the church, who forbid women to speak at the pulpit, did not allow the wife to speak- I think her husband was sick and could not attend the service, so the wife had to go solo or what not. It would just be her, IIRC. There was some sort of problem like that.

    The preacher wanted the wife to stand in a back room, out of view by the congregation, while she read her speech lines into an ear piece worn by a male church member. Something like that.

    It was something to the effect that the preacher was okay and fine with a woman speaking her knowledge to the church crowd, but not from her mouth directly, it had to be her lines parroted through a man to the church audience. It was so ridiculous.

  227. Paula Rice wrote:

    nathan priddis wrote:

    Now as soon as I hit post…I’ll see my typos.

    lolol

    And yes I did. It’s a long story that I make so many.

    Go back to the title of this post and the subject about leaders shepharding dumb sheep. This is a post about public comments from a Nicolaitin. This is what they are, this is what they do.

    It’s not an etheral concept. They are realife people and teach realife doctrines, resulting in realife events and actions in the Church. They overan the Church over 1600 years ago. This guy is just a modern decendent. The events that we see today don’t just happen out of thin air.

    For example, this blog talks a lot about the Shepharding Movement, or it’s results, such as SGM, etc. But this did not just pop up in 1970. The concept of what we call the SM was codified into Church doctrine by Augustine durying the Pergamos Age. That’s why it is mentioned there.

    Nicolaitinism is now structuraly part of the Church and will be until the end. What it means to be a Christian today was largely defined during this age.

  228. Law Prof wrote:

    the type of thing we were warned about by Jesus almost 2,000 years ago

    Yep, Jesus warned us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. Two millennia later, a glance at Christendom indicates we ignored His advice. There are over 40,000 “Christian” denominations and organizations on planet earth (according to Christianity Today). Today’s church does not resemble the first century model – one Body of Christ. Truth has been diluted to suit the whims and fancies of men. Calvin was a man.

  229. GSD wrote:

    My concern is when these leader type guys start referring to “my sheep” and “your sheep.”. Amongst themselves, of course.

    I once saw a bad case, worst so-called pastor I’ve ever met, a semi-closeted sadist, who looked out at the congregation one morning as said “Look at all the little sheepies in the sheep shed!” I was also sharing the stage in the worship group and immediately said into the mic “We’re all sheep!” Guess how long I lasted in that church after that?
    okrapod wrote:

    Let me ask you, when and how did the idea develop that there is no distinction between clergy and laity?

    It developed with the Bible and the New Testament Era.

  230. @ nathan priddis:
    This is interesting to me, Nathan. Ever since you shared what you did about Revelation, I started re-reading itit, and although ice looked up info on the Nicolaitans in the past, I needed to refresh my memory and in doing so, discovered (not surprisingly) that there are various interpretations as to who these people were, what they believed & practiced, and their influence today. (and btw I got a chuckle out of your typo comment, hope you didn’t mind)

  231. nathan priddis wrote:

    For example, this blog talks a lot about the Shepharding Movement, or it’s results, such as SGM, etc. But this did not just pop up in 1970. The concept of what we call the SM was codified into Church doctrine by Augustine durying the Pergamos Age. That’s why it is mentioned there

    Again, you refer to “Pergamos Age” (from one of the Seven churches in Revelation). Can you give a span of years or start dates for these seven “ages”?

    From my time in-country, I vaguely remember Dispensationalism (and its really offbeat variants like the SDAs) taking the Seven Churches as a chronological sequence from the time of the NT to the Present (“the present” being the same as “the time of Christ’s return” in the Dispy of the time), one following after the other. The “Pergamom Age” (“Where Satan has his Throne”) was usually said to have started around AD 300 with Constantine and continued up to The Reformation, obviously a reference to the Catholic Church. (Eastern Orthodoxy was usually not on their prophecy radars.)

  232. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    dropping a dime

    LOL. The younger generation will have no idea what you’re referencing.

    How about “sticking a shiv into”?

  233. Paula Rice wrote:

    Texas Christian’s mascot? The Horned Frogs. At the very least, you’d think maybe a school with the name “Christian” in it might willing to called the Sheep. Frogs, after all, were one of the plagues.

    Maybe they’re implying they’re a plague on the opposing team?

  234. Law Prof wrote:

    MacArthur–who in my opinion is a scripture twister par excellance–just picks and chooses those things that support his own opportunistic system and ignores anything to the contrary.

    Reminds me of a joke on mid-Eighties Christian AM Radio:
    “Ever heard about the Jehovah’s Witnesses Hair Band? TWISTED SCRIPTURE.”

  235. Christina wrote:

    I tried doing a Google search of The Village Church and spiritual abuse. I also did variations of that, like The Village Church and cult, The Village Church and church discipline, etc. The only thing that popped is the Karen Hinkley case. I know there are many incidents connected to TVC, but those people are just not vocal about it.

    One of the unfortunate things is there are times, given the culture of cultic organizations, where there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between a church’s propensity to be abusive and the likelihood of information being disseminated about it. There may be such pressure on people and such fear put in them, they are terrified of breaking free, for fear of moving outside the reach of their “godly covering” or saying a thing, for fear of being labelled “divisive”. Unless a church has a huge media and online presence, such as Mars Hill, they often run under the radar. I once attended a church where there was a generally healthy environment, but they had one catastrophic pastor hire and degenerated into a cultic structure for a few years. This kicked up a visible net stir, because people who rightly rebelled against the cult leader weren’t afraid of standing up. That church in NY with the tragedy, however, not a word before the killing of the young member.

  236. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ nathan priddis:
    This is interesting to me, Nathan. Ever since you shared what you did about Revelation, I started re-reading itit, and although ice looked up info on the Nicolaitans in the past, I needed to refresh my memory and in doing so, discovered (not surprisingly) that there are various interpretations as to who these people were, what they believed & practiced, and their influence today. (and btw I got a chuckle out of your typo comment, hope you didn’t mind)

    Though the wildest definition was that one preacher with the Zardoz beard whose entire sermon PROVED from SCRIPTURE that the Nicolaitans were REALLY the Roman Catholics and this PROVED that Catholics worship Satan. Real convoluted train of logic there.

    Double synchronicity was this preacher in beard and in-your-face intensity was practically a twin of this gamer and SF litfan I knew named “Nicolai”. Even the two’s deliveries were similar. (I think that’s why I still remember that guy.)

  237. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I wrote this earlier <b>—</b>. It was to you, nathan priddis and Paula Rice. This is how I have heard the 7 churches broken into history – Ephesus – The church of the first century, generally praiseworthy but had already lost its first love. Smyrna – 1st to 4th century, suffered persecution under Roman Emperors. Pergamos – 4th & 5th centuries, Christianity recognised as an official religion under Constantine. Thyatira – 6th to 15th century, Roman Catholic church held sway until rocked by the Reformation, in the east the Orthodox church ruled. Extra biblical teaching. Sardis – 16th & 17th centuries, post reformation period, the light of the reformation soon became dim, incomplete works keeping some extra biblical teaching. Philadelphia – 18th & 19th centuries, open door, mighty revivals and great missionary movements. Laodicea – Church of the last days, lukewarm and apostate. Wealthy, liberalism, ecumenism. Can’t remember where I heard this…If a person is Catholic or Reformed they probably have heard it differently. I think Nathan make a good point about 4,5,6,7.

    <b>MOD Inappropriate commentary deleted.</b>

  238. okrapod wrote:

    KMD wrote:
    Don’t know about MacArthur, but the YRR crowd continually assert that the NT “clearly states” that Pastor = Elder.
    Once the congregation swallows this…
    So let me understand. Are you all saying that elder is just some old guy who has been around a long time? I am wondering why there are therefore qualifications listed for determining who can be an elder, or perhaps which of the old guys one ought to listen to. That sounds like a lot more than just some old guy.

    No, not “just some old guy”, I frankly don’t think anyone’s saying that now or that anyone has said that. Instead, it ought to be some oldster who meets the qualifications of not raising kids up who are wild and unruly, some oldster who’s known to be not some old drunk but knowledgeable in the Bible and solid and steady and reliable by general acknowledgement of the community. Someone who, completely unlike the present crop of self-appointed leaders, is beyond the age of youthful ambition or arrogance.

  239. @ Law Prof:

    I thought the argument they were making was that whatever an elder is it is definitely not somebody who is ordained or been to school. I got the impression that it was primarily an argument against ordination and against the idea that a church can have a pastor. We have been having a lot of talk recently about pastors, or not, as a valid thing in the church.

  240. okrapod wrote:

    So if Paul reminds Timothy of when they laid hands on him that certainly looks like some official ordination or commissioning or such.

    That’s fallacious, “laying on of hands” could mean anything, including mere prayer. It does not have to mean some formal commission.

    I think you strain too hard to see the system into which you’ve bought in the first century texts, and strain too little to see the simple irrefutable maxims that leaders are never to lead under any possible circumstances by anything but example, and thus have no formal authority except to serve and be the least and last, not the spotlight-grabbers, that there is no real biblical evidence of what a pastor is, but that it in any event it is not a title and would never be a title imbued with any particular prestige or power, because such does not exist in the New Testament Era.

  241. okrapod wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    I thought the argument they were making was that whatever an elder is it is definitely not somebody who is ordained or been to school. I got the impression that it was primarily an argument against ordination and against the idea that a church can have a pastor. We have been having a lot of talk recently about pastors, or not, as a valid thing in the church.

    Sure pastors are valid within the church. There there are in Eph 4. But what are they, exactly? Not a title, not an honor, not a formal office. That stuff was made up after the fact.

  242. Paula Rice wrote:

    Starbucks cancelled it. I think you possess the spirit of Mary and Joseph who trudged onward with their Christmas plans despite the fact the Inn was having none of it!

    I didn’t know that Starbucks is the Inn. I thought it was a temple in need of clearing!

  243. Law Prof wrote:

    That’s fallacious, “laying on of hands” could mean anything, including mere prayer. It does not have to mean some formal commission.

    Maybe, but perhaps the reasoning here could be a little tighter. I said ‘looks like’ and you said ‘could mean’ which are basically two ways to present the same idea of lack of certainty.

    I don’r know what you mean by bought into, but I was born SBC, raised my kids FWB, spent some time as a Methodist and now am a member of an episcopal church. These all have pastors. Two of the four have bishops. I have alway thought this as far as I know, and I have no idea why people have turned with such vehemence against the idea of pastors. I do understand bad experiences, though I have never had a bad experience like some report, but the rest of it-I don’t know where these people (you?) are coming from.

  244. @ Paula Rice:

    In all seriousness, I don’t think it was. I can’t remember who it was, or what church, but I am pretty sure it was not Piper or some other big name preacher.

  245. Daisy wrote:

    The preacher wanted the wife to stand in a back room, out of view by the congregation, while she read her speech lines into an ear piece worn by a male church member. Something like that.

    Yeah. Had that wife been me, that male church member would have been left standing there listening to dead air. I’d have been outta there, speech in hand.

  246. okrapod wrote:

    I have no idea why people have turned with such vehemence against the idea of pastors.

    Just the abuse we’ve seen and experienced from people who make “pastor” a formal title with honor and authority and power (“Touch not the Lord’s anointed!”), when it’s just something that comes from the word “shepherd”, which is a low-level, unclean, blue collar, farm laborer, expendable and forgettable–except that Jesus shockingly referred to Himself as one in reference to Psalm 23, another one of those unexpected curve balls He always seemed to be throwing. But, all that said, I get my back up at the whole thing perhaps a bit too easily, and people like you, who seem like a reasonable person, a brother in Christ just asking fair questions, sometimes get caught in the crossfire.

  247. @ Eagle:

    Eagle, HUG originally said, “And dropping a dime on your opponent through a ‘well placed source’ leak is an old, old, trick.”

    Back in the day when someone wanted to make an anonymous phone call they would use a pay phone. It cost ten cents to make a local call. Hence the term “dropping a dime.” Politicians or their henchmen would call the press to give an anonymous tip about the opponent.

  248. @ Elizabeth Lee:

    The youngsters also don’t get the connection between a pencil and a tape cassette. They won’t know the joys of rotary dial phones or the long, curly phone cords, or what those little plastic disc things for .45 records are. 🙁

    Before the internet, you had to go to a library for research and use card catalogs.

  249. @ Daisy:
    I didn’t think it was, but according to some of Pipers weird gender assigned do’s and don’ts for women, I could see him insisting upon something like this!

  250. @ Elizabeth Lee:

    When I make a reference to Johnny Carson in class, they often look at me with those blank and uncomprehending stares. It is as if the world began with their birth.

  251. Law Prof wrote:

    people like you, who seem like a reasonable person, a brother in Christ

    Do you mind if I use this as an illustration for the sake of an entirely different issue? It seems to be a given in some circles that men and women do not think similarly. Men are rational but women are emotional. Men are objective but women are subjective. Men will talk about an issue but women will talk about themselves. I hope that the net may help to modify this idea, what with privacy and all.

    I am not your brother. I am a little old lady. Thanks for the compliment however, because I have heard that other mess ad nauseum. You have made my day.

  252. Law Prof wrote:

    Let me ask you, when and how did the idea develop that there is no distinction between clergy and laity?

    It developed with the Bible and the New Testament Era.

    I read up on this years ago. There are sheep, priests, functions such as apostle, elder, shepherd, etc but no where is there the idea of a laity or clergy in the NT. It is something we read back into it. It is so ingrained it is rarely questioned.

  253. okrapod wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    people like you, who seem like a reasonable person, a brother in Christ
    Do you mind if I use this as an illustration for the sake of an entirely different issue? It seems to be a given in some circles that men and women do not think similarly. Men are rational but women are emotional. Men are objective but women are subjective. Men will talk about an issue but women will talk about themselves. I hope that the net may help to modify this idea, what with privacy and all.
    I am not your brother. I am a little old lady. Thanks for the compliment however, because I have heard that other mess ad nauseum. You have made my day.

    Hi Nancy,

    I was wondering how you would respond to that ‘brother in Christ’ comment… 😉

  254. Gosh, if only I’d known you were a woman I never would’ve assumed reasonableness, I would’ve chalked up your opinions to post menopausal hysteria or weak-minded femininity. I also wouldn’t have been so forceful with my comments, wouldn’t want to damage your tender womanly sensibilities. So thanks for the clarification! I think my views on the weaknesses and emotion-over-logic propensities of the female gender are well-known to virtually all on this forum, just take a quick look at what I’ve posted, it’s really kind of the axe I grind.

    Just joking, Okrapod, this one time the only thing of which I am guilty is assuming “Okrapod” was a man, my weaknesses, though they be myriad, do not include assuming that women are any more or less reasonable, intelligent, spiritual or logic-driven than men. I married a valedictorian who went on to join the mathematics faculty of a Pac 12 university and put me through law school. That emotion-driven, logic-stunted lady can spin logical circles round me. The primary differences I see between the sexes are that women produce offspring and men do not, that women tend to be more solid when under duress and men tend to fold, and that women seem to have more introspection than men and thus are more likely to be the strength–or “ezer”–for men than vice-versa.

  255. roebuck wrote:

    Hi Nancy,
    I was wondering

    Hi, Roebuck!
    The way I figure it, when we all get to Heaven it ain’t a gonna matter.
    Jesus said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.”

    I would take the comment as a compliment. I think Law Prof is recognizing okrapod not only as an equal, but also as a child of God. No gender boundaries either way. In the Bible there are many references to brothers, meaning fellow Christians.

  256. Nancy2 wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Hi Nancy,
    I was wondering
    Hi, Roebuck!
    The way I figure it, when we all get to Heaven it ain’t a gonna matter.
    Jesus said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.”
    I would take the comment as a compliment. I think Law Prof is recognizing okrapod not only as an equal, but also as a child of God. No gender boundaries either way. In the Bible there are many references to brothers, meaning fellow Christians.

    I agree. Gender is not an issue – not to me, anyway, being a manly man confident in his manly masculinity (that was meant to be funny). We are all brothers/sisters/what-have-you in Christ. I do believe He made that quite clear.

  257. Lydia wrote:

    I read up on this years ago. There are sheep, priests, functions such as apostle, elder, shepherd, etc but no where is there the idea of a laity or clergy in the NT. It is something we read back into it. It is so ingrained it is rarely questioned.

    I think it originated as the church (or churches) grew larger and more widespread. After you get past the troop-size limit (around 150) in any group, some sort of hierarchy (and accompanying bureaucracy) is inevitable. Because the troop-size limit is the average number of people someone can see as people before they blur into a collective whole.

  258. Law Prof wrote:

    @ Elizabeth Lee:

    When I make a reference to Johnny Carson in class, they often look at me with those blank and uncomprehending stares. It is as if the world began with their birth.

    In this, they echo the Baby Boomers.
    Nothing existed before US, and nothing could possibly exist after US.
    They have learned well, except now they stare at smartphone screens instead of mirrors.

  259. Paula Rice wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yeah, haha. I like that. Beware the Frogs!

    “FEAR THE CLAW! FEAR THE CLAW!”
    — HALO rover in Red vs Blue YouTube machinima

  260. All this talk of sheep and sheherds reminded me of some teaching I heard about David, the quintessential shepherd boy. We have a very romanticized view of the noble, brave, solitary, musical shepherd boy, playing his lute on the hillside as the moon sets over the distant hills and his stupid sheep sleep soundly.

    The reality was that the shepherd was a very lowly position, often reserved in a family for the slow child, the retarded child, or even the illegitimate son. They often slept, and even ate with the sheep, and weren’t really part of the family. And they smelled like sheep. Which apparently isn’t good.

    For Jesus to call himself the Good Shepherd was surely a shock, as Law Prof mentioned. But appropriate for the Son of David.

  261. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I read up on this years ago. There are sheep, priests, functions such as apostle, elder, shepherd, etc but no where is there the idea of a laity or clergy in the NT. It is something we read back into it. It is so ingrained it is rarely questioned.
    I think it originated as the church (or churches) grew larger and more widespread. After you get past the troop-size limit (around 150) in any group, some sort of hierarchy (and accompanying bureaucracy) is inevitable. Because the troop-size limit is the average number of people someone can see as people before they blur into a collective whole.

    … which is why I will never have anything to do with a ‘mega’ ‘church’. I grew up in a church where everyone knew each other, and sort of imprinted on that church model.

  262. Ok. I must be absolutely obedient to a person who claims his is the will of God? Who is available to check the teachings of this self appointed vicegerent of God if dumb people shouldn’t question their authority? The Bible also speaks of false teachers. Who is to say that a self appointed vicegerent of God isn’t a false teacher. It is a little difficult when he and his enforcers say obey. He hasn’t provided me evidence he answers to anyone but this claim. What kind of faith is this?

  263. @ Q:
    The discussion surrounding Revelation has renewed my interest in the book. Thanks for sharing this 🙂

  264. Q wrote:

    @ Paula Rice:
    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    That would be the general idea for the time frames. It does not fit with scripture, but if you diagram the last four horizontally instead of vertically it does. (4-5-6-7)

    That would be the start. If the interpretation is correct, all the cities names, characteristics, and histories need to fit every word in the individual letters. Or, at least as far as can be seen.

    About when the Pergamous Age was. The name gives it away. The church “married” the Roman Empire for a period of time. The narrative that the Church conquered the Empire is just made up, like a lot of things we hear. It existed for a period as the imperial church. It was a perverted or un-natural marriage.

  265. okrapod wrote:

    Not a person only but several persons in defining the apostolic function. Acts 6:4.

    I view the apostles and prophets as unique in function and authority, gifted by God, with Jesus as the Cornerstone, to lay the foundation upon which God’s household is built.

    There is no comparative function and authority for men today. Although, that doesn’t seem to stop many today from claiming to possess such.

    Should we assume that because the apostles didn’t think that dealing with a dispute regarding the fair distribution of food between the Greek & Hebrew widows was a wise use of their time – that this would therefore mean that there should be a professional class of paid clerical pastors?

    That doesn’t really follow.

    Additionally, this was a decision by an assemblage of several apostles for this specific incident – several men of equal standing – apparently publicly teaching *daily*.

    There was no singular Pastor Authority van One-Note surrounded by his personally chosen toadying underlings. Which, although a snarky observation, is much more descriptive of many of today’s pastorlings; than is any comparative reference to the apostles.

  266. __

    “A Lmited Time Offer?”

    hmmm…

      According to the Holy Scriptures, the present ‘Christian church age’ is purposed by Christ as an limited time offer, allowing the ‘gospel’ [1]  of the kingdom to be preached world-wide, then the Christian church age will be Divinely brought to an end.

    …hope this helps,

    ATB

    Sopy

    __
    [1] “THE GOSPEL” (the good news) –This Jesus, who was crucified outside of Jerusalem in 33 A.D. , God did raised Him up from the dead three days later and has made Him both Lord, and Christ: You are presently invited to ‘Call’ on the name of the Lord Jesus and be saved from the wrath to come. Therefore, repent (i.e. change your mind) , and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Eternal Life. (Consult the Bible for details…)

  267. okrapod wrote:

    . I also think that some catholics may be hesitant to say what they think lest somebody mistake that for the official teaching of the church, which would be a mistake.

    I’ve come to the same conclusion.

  268. @ zooey111:

    okrapod wrote:

    @ Nancy2: People drink too much coffee anyhow. That is not the issue of course, but I just mention it.

    I shall run off to the nearest Starbucks….and order tea. (The look of confusion & outright horror on their faces is priceless. Which, considering the price of their tea, needs to be priceless!)

  269. I have no idea how I managed to be (apparently) quoting myslef–twice, yet). I was quoting Okrapod (whose moniker makes me hungry for my grandmother’s fried okra whenever I read it).

  270. Law Prof wrote:

    that there is no real biblical evidence of what a pastor is, but that it in any event it is not a title and would never be a title imbued with any particular prestige or power, because such does not exist in the New Testament Era.

    This is true. There could be multiple pastors functioing ( however one describes it) in one Body. . But I do think it would be interesting to define the function as I do not see it as being permenant if the goal is for others in the Body to mature.

  271. BL wrote:

    There was no singular Pastor Authority van One-Note surrounded by his personally chosen toadying underlings.

    I do believe that the quote from me which you used and this sentence from you say the same thing.

    I disagree, however, about the deacons being limited to just ‘this one thing’ as being the daily distribution of bread. Consider Saint Philip the Evangelist and Saint Stephen the Martyr, Stephen being described as an excellent what we would call debater. BTW, for anybody who is interested in how other traditions disperse functions and such a quick look at what people of the permanent diaconate in the RCC do. Their functions can and do include some things that protestants reserve for pastors, including preaching including the homily at mass and performing weddings for example.

    What I do think is that Peter instituted a visible and systematic though limited distribution of function with an emphasis on study and teaching for the apostles. Why we would drop the idea that it would be a good thing to free up some people for just that-study and teaching-just because the last apostle died is beyond me.

    Now we seem to have people wanting to eliminate that whole idea of functions within the church. The thing is, nobody can do it all much less do it all well. If there is a system in which everybody is expected to do it all then we will have the very thing that you all are talking about-dysfunction, only the details of what dysfunction looks like will be different. Somebody has got to be the hand and somebody has got to be the liver and such if we are using the body analogy; or different pottery vessels for different functions is another analogy from scripture.

    And here I go over the line, for those who claim that turning the thing over to the people without any form of leadership is all spirit driven, well show me. At minimum I want to the the scriptural charismata at work; a miracle of two would help-at least healing; I want to be able to identify what somebody does and says as being consistent with either the deposit of faith or a special work of the spirit or both. This is for my own protection from mere competitive foolishness which might infiltrate the group.

  272. okrapod wrote:

    Now we seem to have people wanting to eliminate that whole idea of functions within the church

    I think it is just the opposite. It is not about eliminating functions. They are questioning the idea that functions within the Body means title, authority over others, special spiritual knowledge others do not have, etc.

  273. okrapod wrote:

    . Why we would drop the idea that it would be a good thing to free up some people for just that-study and teaching-just because the last apostle died is beyond me.

    I think it would be great if that is what some in ministry actually did. We could ask questions, think deeper, etc. But any semblance of that has morphed into indoctrination in too many circles.

    But if we are talking about knowing Jesus, not just about Him, how would such a person facilitate that? Encouragement? Prayer?

    . None of the functions we are discussing can take the place of the Holy Spirits function. I would like to see more people in the Evangelical world become less dependent on the elders/pastors.

    I wish I had the time to study how the canon was formed. But I can only read others research. I enjoy reading ancient scholars who help us understand the background.

  274. Lydia wrote:

    I think it would be great if that is what some in ministry actually did.

    We do have theologians and academicians, they just are not pastors and we don’t call it ministry. What is currently being expected of pastors (a combination of hospital visits and preaching/teaching) looks very similar to what the original seven deacons did.

  275. okrapod wrote:

    Somebody has got to be the hand and somebody has got to be the liver and such if we are using the body analogy

    The idea that I am opposing is the notion that somehow the liver rules the hand or the hand rules the liver. In a functioning body, they each do their function and one serves the needs of the other. It isn’t function but hierarchy and rulership that is the big issue in my mind. Where the Spirit comes in is that he is made irrelevant. Why the Spirit has been evicted from the YRR churches is another topic all together, so I’ll leave it there.

  276. Lydia wrote:

    None of the functions we are discussing can take the place of the Holy Spirits function.

    Yes. The Son is eternally subordinate and the Spirit is eternally superfluous.

  277. okrapod wrote:

    Why we would drop the idea that it would be a good thing to free up some people for just that-study and teaching-just because the last apostle died is beyond me.

    I don’t believe someone needs to be paid a full time salary to study and teach. Considering the Apostles backgrounds, I believe they all worked for a wage outside the function of Apostle. That would very much explain the need for help in caring for those in need. Likewise, deacons surely earned a wage to care for their families as well.

  278. okrapod wrote:

    KMD wrote:
    Don’t know about MacArthur, but the YRR crowd continually assert that the NT “clearly states” that Pastor = Elder.
    Once the congregation swallows this…
    So let me understand. Are you all saying that elder is just some old guy who has been around a long time? I am wondering why there are therefore qualifications listed for determining who can be an elder, or perhaps which of the old guys one ought to listen to. That sounds like a lot more than just some old guy.
    You all have yet to deal with whether an episcopos and a presbuteros are the same person, and if so why the necessity for two different designations. And if they are the same person are they two different aspects of that same person’s ministry. Of course, to conflate the two and arrive at the designation of pastor/teacher who also has oversight responsibilities is one way to deal with the two functions of oversight and teaching, or to have bishops and pastor/teachers both is a way of dealing with it. But once you say that there are no bishops and no pastors and no oversight function and if I hear correctly nobody identified and held responsible as a teacher-well, let me be blunt. Joe the plumber may be gifted in prophesy or healing or tongues or street evangelism or may be an example to the faithful in compassion and such, but he is unlikely to be a person of the sort that Peter claimed for the apostles when he established the diaconate-someone who gives himself over to study of the scripture basically full time having been relieved of other duties.
    I may not be understanding, but what I seem to hear you all saying is a system in which both oversight and teaching go begging and what is left is some combination of social club and welfare agency. We have some of those in this town, but we do not call them churches. We call them women’s organizations and crisis control and auxiliaries and such. They do a lot of good, but they are at best only one aspect of the church interacting with the world. They are not the totality of the church itself.
    Please some of you all be clear to me as to what you are saying the church is/should be, not just what it is not/should not be. Bluntly again, I want to know why, since scripture can be understood in more than one way, I would be better off without a specifically educated person on site for teaching functions and with nobody with any oversight responsibilities and just the milling herd of the mixed multitude of tares and wheat left to their own devices.

    Nancy, I’m sorry for not being more clear in my remark. I didn’t for a moment mean that there should not be a place for all of the offices described in the Epistles.
    However, I was specifically referring to the conceit that YRRs and perhaps others nowadays are insisting upon: that the terms “Pastor” and “Elder” (and for that matter “Bishop”) are equivalent, and can be used interchangeably for the same set of leaders.
    In many traditions, I believe, the Elders are unpaid and elected by the congregation. Often such people would in fact be elder, i.e., have participated in the life of the same church for many years, probably raised children to adulthood, experienced their share of griefs, perhaps dealt with a church split or two.
    An Elder board made up of such folks would be responsible for hiring a Pastor and other paid staff. Such an Elder board would, ideally, be able to gently correct a Pastor who might be heading toward aberrant doctrine.
    Obviously, there are possibilities for this system to go off the rails too, and one could easily argue that this arrangement isn’t the only or best possible polity. However, having such checks and balances might have prevented so many of these churches discussed here at TWW from going astray.
    By insisting on the novel interpretation that Pastors = Elders, however, the YRR have cleared the way for the paid Pastoral staff to also be the Ruling Elders.
    (This “Elder Rule” business is one of their favorite clobber verses – see 1Tim 5:17 ESV: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.)
    We see it often here, and I saw it in my own 28-yr membership in a mega: When the “Elders” are paid staff, appointed by the senior Pastor, there can be no accountability, and no stopping the senior Pastor from leading the church into self-glorifying folly.

  279. Lydia wrote:

    I think it is just the opposite. It is not about eliminating functions. They are questioning the idea that functions within the Body means title, authority over others, special spiritual knowledge others do not have, etc.

    I agree with you that it is just the opposite.

    The ingrained, institutionalized organization parading itself around as THE church has effectively squelched the Body of Christ.

    And not only that, but the Body of Christ is indoctrinated into a perpetual state of infancy. Which parallels well with the pastoral view iterated in the article – that the hoi-poloi is a bunch of stupid sheep.

    And as a result of the authoritarian/covering/shepherding/submission-focused teaching of the last 40-50 years, the pews are filled with people who are drowning in fear.

    Jesus worked with his disciples for 3 years – and off they went.

    We sit under pastoral teaching for 3 decades, and can’t be trusted to move across town.

    These pastors are not making disciples of Jesus. They are making disciples unto themselves.

  280. Gram3 wrote:

    Why the Spirit has been evicted from the YRR churches is another topic all together, so I’ll leave it there.

    I would like to hear what you think some time. I can’t form much insight as to why this is going on in this country. I know it is not limited to this country, but why this country. Some people think we have taken religious liberty too far. Some people think that neither the society as a whole nor the public schools are teaching people how to think. Some people think that rapid societal change has so thrown people off balance that they crave stability at any cost. And now we see the elevated death rate among middle age middle class and how that is happening, and I think there is more going on here than just religion.

  281. BL wrote:

    Jesus worked with his disciples for 3 years – and off they went.

    We sit under pastoral teaching for 3 decades, and can’t be trusted to move across town.

    I love this.

  282. My…(I will use the term “pastor,” but I should explain that he teaches us, he would be appalled at the thought of himself as a leader having any authority over us) pastor explains the function of pastors and elders and fellow believers as being like a hand that points to the moon. Sometimes we all need help finding the moon again, but you know you’re in trouble when you are told to pay all your attention to the hand as it points to the moon, rather than to the moon itself. I like that analogy.

    My own analogy is leaders being those who lead us to God. The good ones walk WITH us, learning as well as teaching, and we all move forward toward God, with the Holy Spirit correcting us when we need it. The bad ones walk AHEAD of us, actually blocking our view of the goal and insisting we follow even when they veer off course. They don’t need to listen to the Holy Spirit, and claim that we don’t hear Him correctly if He disagrees with them.

  283. Sallie Borrink wrote:

    BL wrote:
    Jesus worked with his disciples for 3 years – and off they went.
    We sit under pastoral teaching for 3 decades, and can’t be trusted to move across town.
    I love this.

    Yes, a very salient point. Good stuff!

  284. __

    “Q. What Is The Gospel?”

    (The following is the official 9 Marks Org’s answer to this astute question) : 

    “The gospel is the ‘good news’ about what Jesus Christ has done to reconcile sinners to God.” -Mark Dever

    ( Here’s the whole 9Marks gospel story):

     “The one and only God, who is holy, made us in his image to know Him.” (Gen. 1:26-28).

    “But we sinned and cut ourselves off from Him.” (Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23).

    “In His great love, God sent His Son Jesus to come as king and rescue His people from their enemies—most significantly their own sin” (Ps. 2; Luke 1:67-79).

    “Jesus established His kingdom by acting as both a mediating priest and a priestly sacrifice—He live a perfect life and died on the cross, thus fulfilling the law Himself and taking on Himself the punishment for the sins of many.” (Mark 10:45; John 1:14; Heb. 7:26; Rom. 3:21-26, 5:12-21); 

    “Jesus rose from the dead, showing that God accepted His sacrifice and that God’s wrath against us had been exhausted.” (Acts 2:24, Rom. 4:25).

    “He now calls us to repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness.” (Acts 17:30, John 1:12). 

    “If we repent of our sins and trust in Christ, we are born again into a new life, an eternal life with God.” (John 3:16).

    “Now that’s good news.”

    **

    “A good way to summarize this ‘good news’ is to biblically unpack the words God, Man, Christ, and 
    Response.”

    “God. God is the creator of all things.” (Gen. 1:1). 

    “He is perfectly holy, worthy of all worship, and will punish sin.” (1 John 1:5, Rev. 4:11, Rom. 2:5-8).

    “Man. All people, though created good, have become sinful by nature.” (Gen. 1:26-28, Ps. 51:5, Rom. 3:23). 

    “From birth, all people are alienated from God, hostile to God, and subject to the wrath of God.” (Eph. 2:1-3).

    “Christ. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to bear God’s wrath in the place of all who would believe in him, and rose from the grave in order to give his people eternal life.” (John 1:1, 1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:26, Rom. 3:21-26, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Cor. 15:20-22).

    “Response. God calls everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and trust in Christ in order to be saved…”  (Mark 1:15, Acts 20:21, Rom. 10:9-10). ” 

      -9Marks, “What Is The Gospel?”
    __
    Reference:
    http://9marks.org/answer/what-gospel/

  285. Yasmin wrote:

    The bad ones walk AHEAD of us, actually blocking our view of the goal and insisting we follow even when they veer off course. They don’t need to listen to the Holy Spirit, and claim that we don’t hear Him correctly if He disagrees with them.

    We can never know for sure, but I have to wonder if the prevalence of this “follow me, I’m the anointed leader” attitude was behind John telling Christians: “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know…”