“Contract law is essentially a defensive scorched-earth battleground where the constant question is, “if my business partner was possessed by a brain-eating monster from beyond space time tomorrow, what is the worst thing they could do to me?” ― Charles Stross link
Recently, Jared Wilson wrote a post that helps to pinpoint the problems with the word *covenant* as it relates to church membership. In 5 REASONS YOU SHOULD (PROBABLY) LEAVE YOUR ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH, I find myself agreeing, in principle, with his thoughts on what he calls *attractional churches.* I disagree with his solution because I happen to know that the men he admires and serves have hurt lots of people with church covenants.
What is an attractional church according to Wilson?
By attractional, I am referring to the ministry paradigm that has embraced consumerism, pragmatism, and moralism as its operational values.
He states there are 5 aspects to identifying an attractional church.
1. It is rare to hear anything from the stage resembling the gospel.
2. There is no meaningful membership process or pastoral care.
3. There is no significant attention given to life or discipleship beyond the weekend worship service.
4. You’re not in a position of significant influence.
5. The teaching your children are receiving in the church is training them to become the consumeristic moralists the church is currently reaching.
There is an idea running in the background that gives legs to my coming critique and that involves the use of the word or the implication of the word *covenant.*
Nobody should leave any church lightly, and it should never be a Christian’s first impulse or first resort. A covenant lightly instituted might still be heavily held.
Does your church have membership? If it does, does it function beyond assimilating volunteers into areas of service in the church? Is there a ministerial structure in place that oversees and cares for the needs of members, taking responsibility for their ongoing discipleship, and disciplining them when they engage in unrepentant sin?
Do you have any kind of beyond-superficial relationship with any pastor or elder or anybody else in leadership responsible for your spiritual well-being?
If your church puts very little energy toward helping Christians at all stages of spiritual life grow in Christlikeness, it’s possible you have outgrown them and need to covenant with a church that functions more like the multi-faceted body of Christ.
If your primary parental discipleship of your kids consists largely of trying to “undo” or protect against what they’re getting in Sunday School or children’s church or the Fantabulous KidZone, this might be a good prompt to reconsider which covenant community you want supporting your development of them as followers of Jesus.
Where I agree with Jared Wilson
I, too, want a thoughtful worship experience along with a carefully thought out sermon which is on short secondary disagreements, devoid of politics and long on the love of God and the love for one another. I spent about 2 years listening to Ed Young Jr.'s sermons and cannot remember anything beyond his antics involving tanks and fishing poles on the stage. We thankfully found Bent Tree Bible Fellowship and Pete Briscoe shortly thereafter. We both take the Bible and the living out of our faith seriously.
The two main usages of the word "Covenant."
The first one is not the focus of this post. However, since covenants are usually stressed by the neo-Calvinist groups, it is important to understand the distinction. I am only providing a brief overview of both usages of the word covenant.
1. Covenant Theology link
Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture. It is usually contrasted with another interpretative framework for Scripture called “Dispensational Theology” or “Dispensationalism.”
Covenant Theology looks at the Scriptures through the grid of the covenant. Covenant Theology defines two overriding covenants: the covenant of works (CW) and the covenant of grace (CG). A third covenant is sometimes mentioned; namely, the covenant of redemption (CR). We will discuss these covenants in turn. The important thing to keep in mind is that all of the various covenants described in Scripture (e.g., the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant) are outworkings of either the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.
2. Covenants are legal agreements between one or more parties. Link
This is the definition which I shall use for the post. I want you to note that this is a legal agreement, something which is rarely mentioned by churches. I use the word contract since that word, in modern usage, is a more descriptive word.
A covenant (Hebrew berith, Greek diatheke) is a legal agreement between two or more parties. The word, "covenant(s)," occurs 284 times in the Old Testament (as found in the New American Standard Bible). "Covenant(s)" occurs 37 times in the New Testament, which gives a total of 321 occurrences.
The following is taken from Covenant by CARM.
In this quote, carefully look at the sentence that describes obligations on the part of both parties.
A covenant is a contract or agreement between two or more parties. Covenant is how God has chosen to communicate to us, to redeem us, and to guarantee us eternal life in Jesus. These truths, revealed in the Bible, are the basis of Christianity. The Bible is a covenant document. The Old and New Testaments are really Old and New Covenants. The word, "testament," is Latin for Covenant.
There is a pattern to the covenants found in the Bible. Basically, it is as follows. The initiating party describes himself and what He has done, then there is a list of obligations between the two (or more) parties
The difference between a conditional and a nonconditional covenant/contract
Read this carefully. Remember, Wilson is describing a covenant that gospel™ church members should sign because…why?
Covenants can be conditional or non-conditional. A conditional covenant might depend on the faithfulness of one more more parties, and the covenant is invalidated should one or both break the conditions. An example of this would be the Adamic Covenant where God promised Adam eternal life if Adam remained obedient to God's Word.
An unconditional covenant is one that is not dependent on the faithfulness of the parties but remains valid. The Noahic Covenant is unconditional in that it is God's promise to never destroy the earth again by water. There is no condition for the covenant.
The website, Bible Study Tools, offers further insights into the word Covenant.
Pay particular attention to the idea of a contract between two equal parties versus one between God and His people. Note also, that Joshua made a covenant that was expressly forbidden by God. In other words, he did something he shouldn't have done. Therefore, covenants can be used wrongly by sinful people.
The generally accepted idea of binding or establishing a bond between two parties is supported by the use of the term berit [tyir.B]. When Abimelech and Isaac decided to settle their land dispute, they made a binding agreement, league, or covenant to live in peace. An oath confirmed it ( Gen 26:26-31 ). Joshua and the Gibeonites bound themselves, by oath, to live in peace together ( Joshua 9:15 ), although Yahweh commanded that Israel was not to bind themselves to the people living in the land of Canaan ( Deut 7:2 ; Judges 2:2 ). Solomon and Hiram made a binding agreement to live and work in peace together ( 1 Kings 5:12 ). A friendship bond was sealed by oath between David and Jonathan ( 1 Samuel 20:3 1 Samuel 20:16-17 ). Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life.
The covenants referred to above were between two equal parties; this means that the covenant relationship was bilateral. The bond was sealed by both parties vowing, often by oath, that each, having equal privileges and responsibilities, would carry out their assigned roles. Because a covenant confirmed between two human parties was bilateral, some scholars have concluded that the covenant Yahweh established with human beings is also bilateral. This is not the case. God initiated, determined the elements, and confirmed his covenant with humanity. It is unilateral. Persons are recipients, not contributors; they are not expected to offer elements to the bond; they are called to accept it as offered, to keep it as demanded, and to receive the results that God, by oath, assures will not be withheld.
A Church Covenant is not a contract between the church member and God.
I think this is the key point to consider. I am so grateful that God has made many promises to all of us. If we repent, believe, and seek to follow Jesus, He will be merciful and forgive our sins and give us eternal life with Him. He loves us.
I trust God. He is not devious and I certainly I do not expect Him to pull a new *rule* out of his hat and say that He doesn't forgive us because we were really were not supposed to eat shellfish! I trust Him totally to do what He has promised.
A Church Contract is a legal obligation between you and who?
Here's the deal. First, you are rarely told that you are signing a legal document which could have serious legal implications for you down the road. Any church which denies that you are signing a legal document is either stupid or devious. If they are just plain stupid, you are still obligated legally. Let me assure you that your stupid *leaders* will quickly learn the value of the signed contract if something untoward happens.
If your leaders are devious, narcissistic, little Napoleons or Admirals in rowboats, then let me warn you that they are really into church discipline and you may be on the receiving end of their punishment before you can say *That's not in the Bible!*
The problem with most contracts in churches is that they appear to be between you and the church yet they are often enforced by church leadership. So, the other party involved is not well defined.
Church covenants/contracts do not outline the obligations of both parties and this could come back to cut you to your soul.
As I said above, I trust God. I believe that He is faithful, loving and just at all times. He is not out to punish me because His feelings got hurt or I didn't go to my small group last week. Unfortunately mankind is frail. I know that I am a sinner as well. As I have told a number of people, I am human. I will fail you, myself and God. But, I rejoice in Jesus who was crucified, resurrected, ascended and coming again. He loves me and forgives me and in that I find peace and freedom. I love my church in which we do a general time of confession of sins and our pastor reminds us afterwards that all of our sins are forgiven. All of them…
This is the problem with church contracts. I am signing a legal document that tell sme what I am supposed to do but rarely tells me what the sinful church members or the sinful church leaders are supposed to do. Let's look again at what Wilson had to say.
If it does, does it function beyond assimilating volunteers into areas of service in the church? Is there a ministerial structure in place that oversees and cares for the needs of members, taking responsibility for their ongoing discipleship, and disciplining them when they engage in unrepentant sin?
When I sign a contract which states that I am subject to discipline for unrepentant sin, what in the world does that mean? Does it mean adultery or skipping church 4 weeks in a row? Maybe it means that you will not be allowed to divorce your pedophile husband until the elders say so? (See The Village Church.) Maybe it means you cannot quit your church until you join another, even when you disagree with their support of a ministry that you personally find repulsive. (See Todd Wilhelm, CJ Mahaney and 9 Marks.)
Did you know that signing such a contract could allow a sinful church leadership to send out a letter to 6,000 members about you wanting to divorce your pedophile husband and how he is repentant and you are not? Do you understand that contract allows them to chase you to another church, spreading their version of the so-called gospel™ truth to the other pastor? (See my letter to an Anglican pastor.)
When you join the church, you do not have any idea of the internal struggles and sins of your elders and church leadership and they don't have to tell you.
For a minute, I thought Wilson was going to get to this point but he stopped short.
Do you have any kind of beyond-superficial relationship with any pastor or elder or anybody else in leadership responsible for your spiritual well-being?
Wilson claims that there is no problem with being in a megachurch since it is possible to have this sort of relationship. This is where I say BALONEY! First of all, most of the gospel™ boys are flitting around the country going to conferences, speaking at other churches, and writing books. The number of people who know Matt Chandler in any sort of relational way are far and few between. Did you know that the elders did not apologize to Karen Hinkley after their epic fail yet they were the ones *caring for her soul and trying to push her under their leadership?* Did they own their own sin?
The main problems with church contracts for church members.
- It defines what the member is supposed to do. It rarely defines what the church (church leadership, whatever) is supposed to do for the member except, maybe, to discipline them for whatever they feel is the gospel™ discipline issue du jour.
- All men are inherently sinful and you, lowly church member to be, have no idea with what sins the gospel™ dudebro leaders are struggling. Their sins could become your problem.
- The problem with evangelicalism is that each church, in general, is a city unto itself. What one church defines as unrepentant sin (not tithing) is not what the other church is concerned with (not supporting the latest $40 million building campaign.)
Unless you like to live on the edge of gospel™adventure, here are my suggestions to avoid unnecessary pain and to be a support to others.
- Do not sign any church contract unless your have discussed it with a lawyer who is not a member of your church.
- Do not sign any church contract (or even verbally assent to it which is also binding) unless it spells out the sort of unrepentant sins that are subject to church discipline.
- Do not sign any church contract unless it states what the church's obligations are to you. It should go both ways.
- If you see unjust church discipline being applied to another person, don't remain silent. Speak out against unjust behavior. There were few people, including elders, who spoke out on behalf of Karen Hinkley at The Village Church, either before or after the apology. This is an example of a church filled with gospel™ wusses. They stay silent since they do not want to be on the receiving end of such discipline.
- Remember, if unjust discipline is being applied by 9 Marks churches, churches led by men like Matt Chandler and CJ Mahaney who are supposedly leaders in how to apply church discipline, why do you think this will not happen in your church? Be prepared to respond.
Revoke your church membership if you realize that you made a mistake in signing such a contract.
The United States recognizes the right of people to resign from membership in a voluntary organization. You are not slaves to your local church.You may send a certified letter to your church stating that you are withdrawing from membership. If they do not let you go quietly, you might also tell them if they put your name into retroactive church discipline and making it public, that you will seek legal redress for public harassment. I happen to have experience with pastors who played games with pursuing me to another church. They really do not know what to do with those who do not follow their paradigm.
Finally, never, ever forget that God loves you. If you feel like your church emphasizes your sins, makes you feel like a lowly worm, and emphasizes their authority over your life, get out! Also, tell them that TWW would love to post your story.
I hope this makes you laugh. The picture at the top which was cut off is a picture of Mentos, Coke, and a Rocket! The guy who writes notes like these is a practical joker.
Bingo.
You had me at the headline. Excellent work, as usual.
ISTM, in most cases, when people sign church “covenants”, they are signing themselves over as indentured servants (bodies, possessions, and souls) to the church leaders. Given the changes I’ve seen in the SBC coupled with what I have learned about church covenants on TWW and a couple of other sites, I don’t believe I would ever sign one.
An interesting feature of biblical covenants (testaments, contracts, treaties) is that rather than being imposed by God, they were supposed to have been accepted voluntarily. This is a problem for Jewish theology, since Jews cannot “opt out” of Jewish law, but become automatically subject to it as soon as they come of age. One school of thought explained this by means of reincarnation–all Jews must have been present at Mt. Sinai in a past life! Unfortunately, it is difficult to reconcile the current Jewish population of 14 mil (?) with any remotely plausible figure for the number of Moses’s followers.
Agreements can be symmetric or asymmetric. While the biblical covenants are symmetric in the sense that God also accepts certain commitments, there is the obvious power differential (which presumably translated into a negotiation advantage) to consider. Compare this with what the Chinese call “Unequal Treaties.” Of course most treaties are made between signitaries who are unequal in some way, but the idea is that the element of duress is sufficient to invalidate them, so long as China was the disadvantaged partner. In the case of these evangelical “covenants,” prospective church members are obviously unable to negotiate terms, but are presented with an already-prepared document, much as though they were signing up for a gym membership, or clicking “accept” on a user agreement. (Fortunately there are plenty of competitors, most of which lack this requirement.) Marriage, in contrast, is symmetric between the two partners. even when its terms are not up for negotiation, but presented as a socially-entrenched package. (Here too commitment-free substitutes are likely to be available, though at some point the analogy breaks down.)
“Do not sign any church contract unless …”
I wouldn’t depend on the “unless” element to play out well for the church member. The hidden legalese embedded in these documents usually cover the leadership, rather than protect the members. I would simplify the matter by saying “Do not sign any church contract (period).” When a believer professes faith in Jesus, he enters the Kingdom through a covenant which has been signed by the blood of the Lamb. To be a member of the Body of Christ requires no other contract written by the hand of mere men. Church contracts, particularly those floating around in New Calvinism, are designed to control, manipulate and intimidate. Most membership agreements in NC ranks are designed to advance the cause of church leadership and the reformed movement, rather than the cause of Christ.
@ Max:
As “Needlehead Ned” in Groundhog Day” said, “BING!”
I don’t recall Our Lord sending His apostles out with contracts to be signed by new Church members. The ‘business model’ wasn’t in effect in the days when most of the original Apostles were ‘sent forth’ to proclaim the Good News until they were martyred.
Some other gospel these ‘contract’ churches are preaching, for sure.
1. “It is rare to hear anything from the stage resembling the gospel.”
What? Are we at a concert or the theater?
Christiane wrote:
I think that nails it on the head. Did God preach a Kingdom or a contract? Last time I checked it was Kingdom. Contract sounds an awful lot like the “Old Covenant” these folks love to suggest as deficient…irony, anyone?!
By the way, thanks for this article Deebs. Before I came to this blog today, I started a discussion on the danger of signing membership covenants – in actuality contracts – at a Calvinist site on Facebook. It is astonishing to me that folks don’t understand the implications of signing such document. And that they seem to think a church that doesn’t have such membership covenants are either antinomian or lack commitment to Christ’s teachings.
Here is an article that reviews two articles at Desiring God. 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/analysis-of-2-desiring-god-posts-jennifer-brogdons-two-funerals-in-two-days-jon-blooms-will-you-wrestle-with-god/
Greg Boyd has a 11 minute video that explains the difference between a covenant and a contract. I was planning on using this for a post in the future.
http://reknew.org/2016/02/covenant-vs-contract/
Darlene wrote:
Darlene, that got my attention too. When young Calvinist Jared Wilson noted this, he was referring to “attractional” churches … as if New Calvinist churches don’t have gimmicks to attract the young, restless and reformed! Actually, I’ve attended NC churches and have yet to hear anything that resembles the Gospel (the real one). You hear a lot about gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that, but very little about the message and Cross of Christ. You will hear a lot about God, less about Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit. You will hear a lot from the writings of Paul, but hardly a note from the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. You will hear a lot about Calvin and the who’s-who in New Calvinism, but not much about Christ. The sermon may end with a plea to join the church, but no invitation to accept Christ. But, yet, young folks are being attracted to these reformed attractional churches! They are cool, but largely dead works.
OP:
This might be kind of related to that point?:
Megachurches Have Less Involved Members Than Smaller Congregations, Study Finds
http://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurches-less-involved-members-than-small-congregations-duke-study-finds-157080/
OP:
On a similar note, that still makes me laugh (satire news site)
– there is a picture on the page of the first-grader’s spaceship design you have to see (it makes this even funnier IMO):
Aerospace Engineers Warn First-Grader’s Design For Spaceship Completely Unsafe
http://www.theonion.com/article/aerospace-engineers-warn-first-graders-design-for–38523
Dee, please check your email. 🙂
I am in need of help…job ended 3 months ago, health issues. If anyone would like to help, my aunt had me set up a gofundme site – http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Please feel free 5o delete this comment if you feel it is not appropriate.
Thank you.
Too bad I’m not more of a rabble rouser, I could take my attorney to the membership class. When the church “leaders” objected, I or my attorney could point out to the prospective members present that the leaders had attorneys help draft the contract, er covenant.
I first read a post here on the evils of church contracts shortly after I left my former authoritarian church. Simultaneous to that post I ran into one of these at another church. Since then I have read a bunch of these contracts and almost all of them include a reference to Hebrews 13:17, SUBMIT!!!
So I will humbly submit, do NOT sign any church contract if it includes Hebrews 13:17.
MOM!!! Love the Eagle picture…but then again I may be biased! 😛
TWW on point again.
Max wrote:
As their REAL God Calvin did Geneva.
Christiane wrote:
The Gospel of “I OWN YOU!!!!!”
“Do you have any kind of beyond-superficial relationship with any pastor or elder or anybody else in leadership responsible for your spiritual well-being?”
So, CJ Mahaney, in their view, has responsibility for people’s spiritual well being? They think this is a good thing? I am curious how one has anything but a superficial relationship with a YRR. They are all about their importance and power
Bill M wrote:
For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.
That, I would submit, is what in practice a church covenant really is, and if I’m right, then it is indeed biblical™!
Now I can understand churches wanting members to be committed to Christ and his teachings, and in a sense committed to each other as the outworking of that. To get involved, to give and not just take. But you can’t bring this about by rules and regulations, let alone enforce it by some kind of legal contract. At best that might produce outward conformity.
I’m afraid I think the whole concept of membership covenants is thoroughly worldly, more a reflection of corporate culture, where in today’s companies the emphasis in solely on what you can do for the company, who wish to control your every waking hour given the chance, with precious little about how the company will take care of you as an employee. This has certainly been the trend over my working life.
I began studying this issue about ten years ago. The pastor was trying to get our church on board with Rick Warren and seeker sensitive. Something didn’t feel right, so I began studying and came across Bob Deway’s 15 part series on Rick Warren. It was informative and one installment was about these covenants that he would get church folks to sign. This is not biblical because Jesus said:
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Church covenants are just religious oaths that Jesus said to avoid. He said that only evil comes from it, and I’d think we’d all agree that we’ve seen this rotten control system and mini-popes this covenant discipline results in.
I much preferred being controlled by the Holy Spirit. You’ll notice how these covenant types just can’t seem to trust in the third person of Trinity to do its job. They’re always doing their work in the flesh, using control tactics and psychological tricks to keep the flock doing their will.
Anyway, I would never sign a church contract, and if I’m asked why, it’s ’cause Jesus Himself told me not to!
@ republican mother:
Yep. Little known is that Rick Warren introduced this concept in the seeker world. The same seeker world Wilson makes fun of in the post. It was much harder to implement in Megas. There were attempts in some to present it by signing a member handbook in certain member classes but it was hard to track. Too many Megas have attendees that never join and those who join but never come. They probably work better in smaller venues.
These days I am even against clicking “terms of agreement” on internal church sites. That is how little trust I have in their character/ integrity.
Jesus said:
“Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one.”
“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.
And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.
And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah.”
Max wrote:
republican mother wrote:
Right on.
Good article. I do think most covenants today are more about legal covering/protecting the reputation of the church to the outside world than about the kinds of things Jared Wilson is talking about in his article.
Many of TWW readers are Southern Baptist. Most Southern Baptist churches I’ve seen have a Church Covenant in their Constitution and By-Laws. Should we hesitate to be part of these churches or is it the signing of the name, the being legally bound, that is the problem?
js wrote:
Most of the churches that want you to sign a covenant will not let you be involved unless you sign it. So, there is no “being a part” unless you agree to their covenant.
I was going to volunteer to help with children in a church a while back. They gave me a consent form that basically gave them permission to check every area of my life, as often as they chose, including my finances. I had no problem getting a criminal background check, but what they wanted me to sign seemed extremely invasive. Not to mention they wanted my social security number and my drivers license number, with all my other personal information. That is a recipe for disaster. I don’t give my SSN number to anyone – not even doctors offices. There are services that can be used for background checks without having your personal information floating all over church offices.
You don’t need a legal document to convince any kind of church that a family man who hires a prostitute should be castigated or a person who can’t live a normal life because of an addiction needs aggressive help. It’s for the nitpickers.
Have we ever assembled a list of things the gospel™ crowd disapproves of from their articles? Missing two Sundays in a row, being too big of a sports fan, being not enough of a sports fan, watching a naughty comic book movie, using biblical knowledge to criticize a pastor, etcetera etcetera etcetera
I’m with Max, Todd and others in saying that no believer should ever sign a membership covenant with anything calling itself a church. There simply is no “unless…” that covers the fundamental flaw in the whole idea that any man-made contract is necessary to make up for the deficiencies in the covenant made with Jesus’ own blood.
As for the strange question:
This challenge can nearly always be put to any church seeking to enforce the signing of membership contracts. They organisation will have little real function beyond assimilating volunteers as unpaid staff for the CEO’s ambitions. Even the “teaching” and “discipleship” functions of these corporations will do little more than enforce the CEO’s exclusive privileged position as guru and primary representative of his own doctrinal (conference-platform-occupying) peer-group.
Bill M wrote:
In an SBC church plant near me, those volunteering to be leaders of small groups (they call them LifeGroups) must sign a leadership covenant. In that document, small group leaders must agree to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a rigid statement on the tenets of reformed theology. A member of that church I know shared with me that he was asked to sign the document by the 29 year old pastor and his “elder” team in their 20s-30s before he could lead the small group. Not familiar with the Wesmtinster confession or the overall implications of signing such an agreement, he took the document to his lawyer to review. To my knowledge, he didn’t sign it and is not now a small group leader although very capable to lead small group Bible studies. A long-time Southern Baptist who joined the fledgling church to help get it established in the community, is now finding out that SBC’s current church planting movement is more interested in planting reformed theology than Gospel churches. To the reformed mind, Calvinism = Gospel … to which I humbly and vocally disagree.
Max wrote:
Do these pastors and elders really know what they are asking people to do?? I don’t think so. I think they are setting up their church business like they have been trained to do(.) Unfortunately, in the process, they are filling their church with false teaching about the Church.
Max wrote:
Are you serious? While I personally have no problems with the WCF, I find it strange that a SBC church plant would require adherence to its tenants. Most notably, the section on baptism:
This is from Chapter 28: Of Baptism
To me, this is a inexcusable display of willful ignorance. The pastor and elder(s) have likely not read the document themselves, either.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
And they said, “Amen”.
js wrote:
Typically the by laws in a typical SBC church that has been around a while outlined the congregational polity from a previous generation of real grown ups who started the church :o)
We are running out of grown ups.
Dan wrote:
Then you have probably been hanging out in a Calvinist church or one influenced by the swelling tide of reformed theology in America. (Once solid gospel-preachers are now quoting Piper!) Calvinists, as a group, have a mistrust in personal Christian experience. They prefer to think that the essence of Christianity rests in adherence to rigid doctrinal propositions about “grace”, rather than a direct experience of Grace with the living Christ. If they steer clear of “personal relationship” messages, I wonder if they have one. It’s a whole lot easier to teach the fine points of doctrine, than preach a message of life that is not in you.
Max wrote:
Amazing. From a general history seems this confession was originally Church of England adopted by Presbyterians in America.
What next? Ecclesiastical courts with Mohler as the Bishop?
Burwell Stark wrote:
The New Calvinism movement is not about promoting the free church of Jesus Christ, which is comprised of baptized “believers.” They are all about promoting reformed theology to the utmost corners of the earth … to harvest the predestined “elect”, rather than reach the lost … and, thus, allow wiggle room if the elect have been baptized by some other manner than immersion. An SBC church plant near me is getting away with that; members who claim to be baptized, even if that baptism was as an infant, are welcomed into the church “if” they sign the membership agreement. The emphasis of being a believer before one is baptized is not the big deal it should be, even if stated as such in SBC’s Baptist Faith & Message. Many SBC church plants resemble Presbyterian works, rather than Baptist, in this regard.
Aargh. Under point #4, Wilson talks more than once about *casting vision*. That concept, like membership covenants, needs to go away. The Church already has her marching orders from Christ; I believe it’s called the great commission.
Max wrote:
This is true. The danger, well documented here and elsewhere, is the combination of hierarchical theology and congregational rule. The Presbyterian denominations have the session and synods that can provide checks and balances, if and when they are used correctly. The SBC has no such mechanism of accountability for its elders and leaders.
Bridget wrote:
This while focus goes back a few years. It is one reason I don’t trust any of them. A big deal was made of cleaning off membership roles in the SBC under the guise of the numbers were a lie. True and fair.
The leaders of this movement were Dever, Mohler, the Founders types. They passed a resolution based on cleaning the roles and showing true membership, etc. But the real truth was more about making people commit as members. It was about control all along. Never, ever trust what sound like plausible plans from these people. You will find out years later it was about something else.
As far back as 2000 Mohler played this game by insisting at the last minute they add an “s” to priesthood of believer in the BFM. Sound innocent? Not so fast. As we found out.
NJ wrote:
And “casting vision” came from the seeker mega playbook back in the early 90’s. The ones he makes fun of that don’t preach the gospel. He sure is using a lot of their stuff. Hee hee.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, as you know, SBC’s church planting movement has been greatly influenced by Acts 29 (Mark Driscoll’s former ministry). Whether they sign on as an Acts 29 affiliate or not, many SBC church planters are of the reformed persuasion and have adopted the Acts 29 position on confessionals such as the Abstract of Principles (Al Mohler’s favorite creed), the 1689 London Confession, and the Westminster Confession. Southern Baptists historically have not been a creedal people, but are now trending in that direction as a mechanism to enforce doctrinal “purity” … which the New Calvinists, of course, believe to be reformed theology. While “traditional” SBC churches may not support this trend, the 1,000 new SBC church plants each year do. With 1,000 traditional churches closing each year and 1,000 new ones (primarily reformed) popping up each year, it doesn’t take a mathematician to predict the generational shift to Calvinism within a few decades.
Lydia, not to worry. I’m sure they’ll justify it along the lines of “plundering the Egyptians”, or something like that.
Max, what you describe reminds me of the weird amalgamation of the CREC. Pseudoreformed, with members of both the paedobaptist and credobaptist persuasion. The only thing I haven’t seen them do yet, is go the way of John Piper, CJ, etc. and tack on charismatic distinctives and practice.
“By attractional, I am referring to the ministry paradigm that has embraced consumerism, pragmatism, and moralism as its operational values.”
Why does Wilson define attractional in this way? He’s been in the neo-cal movement for a long time and is familiar with Ed Stetzer and his work. “Attractional”, at its simplest, is about getting people in the church building. And then within the church walls is where the bulk of “ministry” happens.
I would argue that this is “consumeristic” model but it does not necessarily have to be pragmatic or moralistic.
Just a little curious to me.
NJ wrote:
That is in the works. The IMB use to ban missionaries who used “private prayer language”, speaking in tongues. Just a few months ago, they relaxed their stance and began sending out missionaries who speak in tongues.
I wonder what’s next?
NJ wrote:
“Yet” is the key word. Hold on, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
Max wrote:
One wonders what happened to sola scriptura?!!
Lydia wrote:
There is an article in Wiki on this, and actually it was Puritans who wrote it during attempts to reform the C of E during a flap with the Scots after the Bishop’s War in which the Scots had deposed the bishops appointed by the crown and had returned to presbyterianism Part of the political agreements at the time specified that a confession be drawn up for possible adoption by the C of E. So a bunch of Puritan scholars were assembled by parliament for this purpose, they drew up something which parliament sent back for lack of adequate biblical references, and eventually a later parliament adopted a form of it. A few years later the C of E returned to an episcopal style of government and those prior parliamentary acts were nullified. If I understand what is being said. I don’t want people to think that the Westminster Confession is an agreed upon statement of faith for the anglican communion. The reformers tried to get that done but did not have any lasting success with it. It is just a whole lot more complicated than that. But this is about what my limited brain can process.
Politics, my dear Watson, politics.
There is also a good article in Wiki on Anglican Doctrine which some might find interesting. In it one notes that there is no agreed upon confession of faith per se. This is where I do the ‘complicated’ thing again.
okrapod wrote:
I think I have read the same thing.
okrapod wrote:
Yep!
It may well be that some church leadership is much more comfortable enforcing the stipulations of a church covenant, or contract, than they are enforcing the mandates of the Bible. And enforcing the Bible is called “discipline” and the most obvious reason, to me, for that reluctance would be the realization of how short they fall, of hitting the mark, themselves.
Ken wrote:
1 Cor 11:20 is a good counterpoint, know of anyplace that includes it in the covenant?
I’m an IT consultant and I can give testimony that the leaders of many corporations take an active interest in the people employed. One recent example was a well respected employee that took a position at another company. The internal conversation I heard reflected they were sad to lose the guy but were happy he was able to grow in his capability there and only wished they had a position open for his expanding talents.
So when I hear the problem of churches is they are running them like a business, I would like to insert they run them like a BAD business.
Lydia wrote:
I was in a church that slowly transformed into an authoritarian culture, where nearly all things flowed from the staff. Your short statement reflects the result. The adults left and those remaining stagnate in their growth, led around and spoon fed by the staff.
Divorce Minister wrote:
That’s just because THEY didn’t write that Covenant.
“White man wants everything in writing, and that’s only so he can use it against you in court.”
— Billy Jack, 1971
NJ wrote:
Or invoking the Book of Joshua against the Heathen Canaanites just like the old New England Puritans.
Nancy2 wrote:
The only thing I know for certain about speaking in tongues is that I don’t do it myself.
A close second (from experience) is that Tongues Tongues Tongues crowds out most everything else (especially Wisdom) among Charismatics.
NJ wrote:
“Charismatic distinctives and practice” WOULD be advantageous to a control-freak Pastor/Dictator; another PROOF that they are God’s Speshul Pet and YOU MUST OBEY! All justified by woo-woo Tongues and Visions (“I SEE Things…”)
Max wrote:
In which case, how do they differ from the Communists of the past century, promoting Marxist-Leninist Ideology to the utmost corners of the Earth? By force if Necessary (and it was always necessary)?
Bill M wrote:
Absolutely my experience. There’s in general a lot of honor among corporate-types and professionals. It’s not all bottom line, you’re nothing but a number to management. There are individuals who act that way, but they tend to be hated in the corporate and professional worlds and flame out.
I’ve seen more honor, respect and decency in the secular corporate and professional world than in the churches I’ve attended in the last decade, and it’s not even close.
Nancy2 wrote:
So are they, or are they limiting it to private prayer language if the missionary will agree to keep it private, that is to say no public message in tongues? IIRC one of the issues back when was just how far the IMB (I think it may have still the FMB at the time) was entitled to infringe on anything that was a private devotional practice, but I think the non-infringe argument did not win the day originally. And was it not Dr. Rankin himself who admitted to a private prayer language? How awkward.
Bob Cleveland wrote:
They try, in their naive and ham-handed ways, to link all that church covenant stuff to the Bible, but it’s invariably preposterous on its face. Have yet to see a church covenant with accompanying proof scriptures that even passes the straight-face test (i.e., a person with a scintilla of integrity couldn’t make the arguments they make and keep from bursting out in laughter). You’re not supposed to look too closely, not expected to actually read that string of scriptures that tails along after their various pronouncements in the membership covenants, and certainly not supposed to look at the entirety of the Bible and other verses that bear on the subject, consider historical context, or, heaven forbid, actually look up the meaning of a word (“pithos”, anyone?) in the Koine Greek. Do any of the above and you’ll be divisive, possessed of a Jezebel spirit, persona non grata.
I left my church almost 2 years ago. We were made to sign new membership covenants each year. I had a face to face with an elder the last day o attended, letting them know we would not be returning to our spiritual home of ten years…for manyany reasons.
My question is, does this mean legally my membership ended, at least the next year when it was time to re-up? Or am I still legally a member there because I didn’t inform them in writing???
Annoyingly, recently, I went into CCB and tried to erase myself and my family’s personal information and it said someone could never fully be deleted, just inactivated. I feel very upset that my personal name, birth date, anniversary, family members names and info as well, could be accessible by any random person or leader who logs in to CCB :'(
@ Law Prof:
I was told just the other day by a “ruling elder” on a blog that because I was born a sinner I naturally hate authority. Evidently I am still “unregenerate” for not affirming the titled perfumed princes as my authority.
Just think if they had the power held in 16th Century Geneva!
@ okrapod:
Well no wonder the Neo Cal Baptists like it so much now. They love the Puritans.
Most of those confessions, councils and creeds came out of state/church political struggles. As did some translations like the KJV.
Max wrote:
Written by SBTS Founding pro chattel slavers…..which Al took out of the basement and dusted off to make into law…..again….I might add. Time to put it away for good.
Here is Mohler’s convocation in 1993 when he was what? 34 and the new President talking about the Abstract and why they are so important. It is basically TULIP. Was the SBC asleep at the wheel in 1993 or were they so enamored with his stance as a culture warrior they ignored this?
http://founders.org/stand/
Perfect title for going the way of Calvin:
DON’T JUST DO SOMETHING;
Stand There!
Lydia wrote:
By the same token, because < b > he < /b > was born a sinner, he naturally covets authority.
@ Law Prof:
My experience, too. There is both a sadness and celebration when a valued person moves on. But life is all about onward and upward. If the Body of Christ had this attitude about growing in wisdom and spiritual maturity we would all be better off. Instead they seek to stifle and micromanage.
“Charismatic distinctives and practice” WOULD be advantageous to a control-freak Pastor/Dictator; another PROOF that they are God’s Speshul Pet and YOU MUST OBEY! All justified by woo-woo Tongues and Visions (“I SEE Things…”)
You know HUG, I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that makes sense. Another thing that occurs to me is to wonder if that would make them easier for the NAR Borg to absorb, or if the YRRs are still too Calvinist for Robert Morris and company.
Nancy2 said:
“That is in the works. The IMB use to ban missionaries who used “private prayer language”, speaking in tongues. Just a few months ago, they relaxed their stance and began sending out missionaries who speak in tongues.
I wonder what’s next?”
Ok, I didn’t know that. Do you think they are actually changing theological convictions on this, or are there other factors at work?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, didn’t you get the memo? They are God’s appointed agents to lead and teach the ignorant masses. He cannot help being a “ruling elder”. God appointed him such. :o)
“No, we’re here because we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God’s people from ignorance. ”
–Al Mohler. In a sermon preached at FBC Jax pastors conference in 2011
Lydia wrote:
Like when Dilbert clicked “accept” to activate some software and found out the hard way he’d just signed off on an indenture to become towel boy in Bill Gate’s smart mansion for all Eternity?
Ken wrote:
DILBERT: “Why are you throwing last week’s Temps into the dumpster?”
POINTY-HAIRED BOSS: “They’re too big to flush.”
Lydia wrote:
They are of Brahmin Caste, and they’ve got the appointment papers signed by God to prove it!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yes, like that. :o)
To be on the church internal social media or website, there is no telling what you are agreeing to. Who is going to read through the terms— written by a lawyer? I know people who go on them to pay their tithes by credit card! Many mega’s have been doing this since the technology came out.
Lydia wrote:
My guess is that “ruling elder” hates the Lord’s authority, which is why he likes to point smugly to his own.
Lydia wrote:
Gosh I wouldn’t want to be that Mohler fellow standing before the Lord someday. My goodness!
Lydia wrote:
I have no problem with members having a close relationship with their pastor. My husband and I had a close relationship with one of our pastors when we were Evangelicals. In fact, we are still in touch with him till this day. Even now that we are Orthodox Christians, we have a close relationship with our priest. But in both cases we are talking about a different kind of relationship than the one New Calvinists speak about with elders and pastors who are watching you to make sure you are following all the rules. It is not a relationship of control over our spiritual lives, but rather, sharing our faith with one another. Even in confession, which Orthodox Christians practice, it is very much like a counseling session. Further, I’m not required to report so many times out of the year like these cell groups that New Calvinists have where they keep tabs on your attendance and behavior. Funny, New Calvinists will criticize Roman Catholic practices and hail the Reformation as breaking free from a controlling, abusive system. But how much different are they than the ones they criticize. From all that I know of the current Roman Catholic Church, I’d say that New Calvinist churches are far more controlling of their member’s lives.
NJ wrote:
Check out this website re how many SBC pastors believe what about this subject. My best guess is that the IMB does not want to lose the financial support of supporting churches over this issue.
http://www.bpnews.net/25765/lifeway-releases-prayer-language-study
Burwell Stark wrote:
They should have used the 1689 Baptist Confession which supports credo baptism and rejects paedo baptism. The Westminster Confession is primarily used by Presbyterians (at least originally) who are Reformed and subscribe to Covenant Theology. Southern Baptists who call themselves Calvinists but are in essence Reformed Baptists, do not affirm Covenant Theology, and hence reject paedo baptism.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HILARIOUS ! Isn’t it astonishing what they consider ‘smart’ in these times?
Darlene wrote:
It depends on how you define ‘believer’ in believer’s baptism. The local SBC mega has moved away from actually presenting the gospel and waiting for the person to actually initiate a profession of faith themselves. What they do with the children is put them in pre-baptism class in the second grade (optional of course), give them a picture workbook to fill out, ask them if they believe in Jesus and if they get a ‘yes ma’am’ answer they baptize them. This is somewhere on a continuum between infant baptism and believer’s baptism as I see it. But it certainly tends to minimize any problem with a Holy Spirit who may not realize the importance of the second grade to suit them on the one hand and some balky old free will which also may not be kicking in soon enough to suit them either. (Sarcasm of course.)
I can easily see that this line of thinking could progress to an allowance of paedobaptism for some people. How young is too young and what exactly does one have to believe in order to be a believer?
Max wrote:
Your comment is duly noted, Max. “Rigid doctrinal propositions about “grace” says it all when it comes to N.C. Calvinism is built upon a strict system, a tightly woven system of cohesion, whose goal is to be free of any loop holes or flaws. It is like an impenetrable edifice erected to be impervious to all outside influences. And so it is very much akin to a parochial environment in which a narrow-mindedness reigns. The mindset becomes one of us versus all those other Christians out there. And the reigns must continually be tightened so that no one is infected by *outsiders.*
I met with an elder at an Acts 29 church this pat year to revoke my membership. I mentioned the Karen Hinkley incident and how I felt uncomfortable with this practice of “church discipline”. He said TVC apologized, so it’s “all good”. I don’t think these people understand that it’s the whole system that’s flawed. Side note: this elder named his child Piper, after John Piper.
https://vimeo.com/71843247
………David Platt on speaking in tongues.
There was a big dust up at our church over it. Someone played this video to the congregation, hoping it would appease certain people, but it didn’t work.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/imb-ban-speaking-in-tongues-baptism-baptist-missionary.html
Lydia wrote:
He/they can believe that if they want to. Their “god” is no god, but the work of mens’ hands.
By contrast, the risen Jesus – fully God, fully man, and the true Word of God – gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds or teachers to equip the saints for the work of service.
@ Lydia:
“To be on the church internal social media or website, there is no telling what you are agreeing to. Who is going to read through the terms— written by a lawyer? I know people who go on them to pay their tithes by credit card! Many mega’s have been doing this since the technology came out.”
++++++++++++++++++++
if a person is going to tithe, why not just do it in cash? keep it truly between you and God. how freeing. is the ‘tax deductible charitable contributions’ thing really all that important?
ION:
Finally completed the 7a/+ route at the climbing wall tonight! 11 metres of rounded slopers, underclings, bridged layaways and a huge balancey reach to a finger-pocket-come-pinch-grip hold, that I call Kevin, at half-height.
IHTIH
Of course, that means it probably has to be downgraded to 6b+ …
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Amen
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
@ Christina Dowers:
Yes! It is a flawed system. The system is the problem. While it might attract some who are already corrupt to run it, the system itself corrupts. Brad Sargent, who comments here, has done a yeomans work on the system and what enables it to operate….on his site: bradfuturistguy.
Btw, Matt Chandler of the village promised new procedures with that apology. Either they are not sharing them or they were just doing PR spin. As usual.
elastigirl wrote:
Better yet, give it directly to some poor family. Fix a single moms brakes. No tax deduction there, either. But a huge help!
Christina Dowers wrote:
It’s called idol worship.
@ Darlene:
You see it Darlene. Pray for tens of thousands of young folks ensnared by New Calvinism who don’t.
Lydia wrote:
The Conservative Resurgence leadership put up with Mohler and his reformed buddies to help drive liberals from the denomination. I don’t think they realized at the time that Al would ride the SBC pendulum back 500 years and resurrect John Calvin. When he made his SBTS convocation speech in 1993, they should have sent him packing … the window was open then, but it’s closed now.
Lydia wrote:
Perfectly put.
Treasure in heaven, an’ a’ tha’.
Max wrote:
Generals preparing to fight the last war, an’ a’ tha’. I suspect they (like at least a proportion of UK evangelicals) are still so phobic about the Horrors_Of_Liberalism they haven’t yet realised there are other horrors as well. A full generation may have to pass before they realise what they’ve done. If and when that happens, I hope and pray they learn the lessons of what will then be history, and don’t make yet another faustian bargain.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Just to clear up any possible ambiguity: that’s last as in previous, not last as in ultimate/final.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick: The CR hurt so many dedicated Christians! Those that inflicted all of this hurt seem to really believe they did something great and wonderful for God.
Max wrote:
Reminds me of a novelty song on Dr Demento circa 1979 about the then-current Islamic Revolution in Iran. All I remember some 40 years later is one fragment:
“Bravely marching Forward
To the Thirteenth Century!
AYATOLLAH! AYATOLLAH!
AYATOLLAH! AYATOLLAH!”
Max wrote:
I’ve heard it said by the Calvinists on that Facebook site that the Southern Baptists were originally Calvinist. So, they have no problem the Calvinist resurgence with the SBC because they’re only taking back what was originally theirs. Or so their story goes. Let me see if I can dig out that thread from about 2 months ago.
*they have no problem with the Calvinist resurgence*
@ Christina Dowers:
Following Cephas! Like a teenager picking out her favorite Jonas brother, a big part of biblical manhood is emotional and affectionate relationships with these celebrity pastors they’ve only seen through a computer screen.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you for telling me about his site. I will check it out. I am always on the prowl for new information on the subject. Yeah, I am 99 percent sure it is a PR spin. I contacted them to get an apology about stuff that went down while I was there, and I never heard from them. As far as I am concerned, they are all cowards and full of cr#p (ed.).
I’ve been involved on a thread over at the Calvinist Facebook site about the danger of signing membership covenants. A fella from Capitol Hill Baptist Church is taking great offense at my comments. The following is what he posted taken from the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website. I find it quite problematic, while this member of Dever’s church sees no problem with it. Here is what it states:
“We use our covenant in two key ways today. We require all new members to sign it before joining the church. We also reaffirm our commitment at all members meetings and before taking communion, when we stand as a body and recommit ourselves to it. By featuring the our life in the covenant together, we strive to protect ourselves from individual and corporate sin. Of equal importance, we spur one another on to live in light of a greater covenant, one imitated by love, sealed by sacrifice, and for eternity by our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
After posting this the loyal member of Dever’s church responded to me: “And because they require a signature, you call it legalistic.”
Well, as far as I know one doesn’t need to sign a membership covenant to do any of those things described in the covenant that they sign. What, pray tell, is the necessity of signing such a document? What is its purpose? Why can’t a person be a member without signing a document like this? Thousands of churches have functioned quite well without requiring members to sign such a document.
By the way, would anyone here know if the leadership, i.e.- Mark Dever and the elders – have to sign this document? Oh, another person commented saying the covenant is fairly innocuous. There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Darlene wrote:
Yes, there is some truth to that. Most of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinist. Many Baptist pastors and deacons in the South prior to the Civil War were slave-holders. They assumed sovereign God was on their side until early victories by the Confederacy turned to defeat. They began to sing a different tune after the War and distanced themselves from reformed theology in belief and practice… until New Calvinism came alone. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years and Calvinism was essentially nothing more than the strange cousin who showed up every now and then … but that’s not the case now – there are strange cousins everywhere!
typo : *The third sentence says: By featuring the covenant in our life together*
Max wrote:
Oh well then, I suppose their victory motto should be: The South Shall Rise Again!
Here’s an excellent article on church covenants and membership policies. It addresses the problems quite well.
http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/mempolicyqa.htm
Darlene wrote:
Slavery was a sin. Calvinism is aberrant theology. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Southern Baptist Convention should not go back to its roots … to an authoritarian patriarchy. If it had slavery wrong, it might just have some other things wrong as well. From the Civil War forward (until recent years), faithful men of God steered the SBC from errors in theology and lifestyle by the founders. The denomination should not put people back in bondage again; adherence to reformed theology in belief and practice is spiritual bondage. And to stay on topic … signing a church covenant in a New Calvinist church would be to enter spiritual bondage to a leadership touting questionable doctrine (if it’s been debated for 500 years, it’s questionable).
okrapod wrote:
Well, the Anglicans do have The Common Book of Prayer to unite them, yes? At least that used to be the case.
Max wrote:
Well, Max, I think you make a lot of sense. Then again, I’m not a Calvinist of any stripe – new, old, or in between. 😉
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You mean like the treaties the Native Americans signed with the white man after they had been given alcohol? 😉
Darlene wrote:
Exactly!
I attended United Christian Church of Dubai. John Folmar, senior pastor of UCCD, served as an assistant pastor to Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist. Folmar is a Dever devotee. His church is a CHBC knock-off. We also recited the church covenant prior to communion. Looking back now it seems rather creepy.
Just prior to my resignation from UCCD Folmar hand-picked Josh Manley to plant a church in a small city north of Dubai. Manley is also a Dever devotee, having attended his church in the past. Manley graduated from SBTS and was working for Al Mohler when Folmar plucked him out of the Southern Baptist “Mecca” (Louisville) to come to Dubai.
I wrote an article on Manley and the obsession all of the 9Marks churches in the UAE have on formal church membership contracts. If interested, you can view it here: https://thouarttheman.org/2015/12/13/why-are-the-uae-churches-obsessed-with-formal-church-membership/
Mercy’s Mama wrote:
What is CCB?
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Todd, I mentioned you on that thread on that Calvinist Facebook site as one for whom signing a membership covenant did not bode well. I hope you don’t mind. Question: Are Mark Dever and the elders and pastors of other 9Marks church required to sign the membership covenant?
Let’s see if this works. Here is that discussion over on Facebook at the Calvinist site. I hope it actually brings up the discussion.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/calvinismthegroupthatchoosesyou/permalink/1278648778819196/?comment_id=1279320912085316¬if_t=group_comment
@ Darlene:
Church community builder is a site where they input everyone’s info and keep track of giving, ministries, small groups etc. I never personally utilized it, they added all the info they have for folks into it.
Darlene wrote:
I don’t mind Darlene. The word needs to get out on how authoritarian pastors abuse church members via their church contracts.
As to your question – I am not 100% certain if the senior pastors, such as Dever and Folmar, sign the contracts. It would seem hypocritical if they didn’t. (But it wouldn’t be the first hypocritical thing Dever did – he let Mahaney flee to his church when things heated up at CLC.) The elders would have to sign the contract because they are church members and to be a member you have to sign the contract.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“an’ a’ tha’”
+++++++++++
“and all that”?
alright, one for you:
“the pastors want a copy of our tax return? ‘tcha!”
@ Stan:
“Like a teenager picking out her favorite Jonas brother, a big part of biblical manhood is emotional and affectionate relationships with these celebrity pastors they’ve only seen through a computer screen.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
more like Biblical(tm) 12-Year-Old Adolescent Boy Regression.
(or, awakening the inner child with the promise of jr high redemption and putting to sleep whatever measure of adulthood has been reached)
Lydia wrote:
Good deeds are just filthy rags in god’s sight. Sanctification is where it’s at…chuckle…chuckle
@ Darlene:
“…signing membership covenants. A fella from Capitol Hill Baptist Church… The following is what he posted taken from the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website…:
“We use our covenant in two key ways today. We require all new members to sign it before joining the church. We also reaffirm our commitment at all members meetings and before taking communion, when we stand as a body and recommit ourselves to it. By featuring the our life in the covenant together, we strive to protect ourselves from individual and corporate sin. Of equal importance, we spur one another on to live in light of a greater covenant, one imitated by love, sealed by sacrifice, and for eternity by our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
“Covenant, I give you my heart
I give you my soul
I live for you alone
every breath that I take
every moment i’m awake
Covenant, have your way in me”
***
The Membership Covenant — The New and Improved Holy Spirit!
Predictable & easy to manage. Church leaders will especially love the built-in feature of no more worry over speaking in tongues. Yes, you, too, can put the hassle of the spontaneous behind you. Guaranteed to bring you the control you’ve longed to have over the people in your church. Old or young, married or single, men or women — You will be amazed at the results. Order your starter kit today, complete with master copy and presentation script. Just 5 easy payments of $19.95. Order yours today!
what a great idea. ‘tcha
Lydia wrote:
Boy I wish I understood this sooner. My wife and I did a lot of charitable donations but we gave a lot to the local church. Unfortunately I think it became a “check the box” and then switch off. Yes it instilled a useful discipline but how I wish I had looked beyond for a more useful application than a building or staff salary.
Considering the past I see that giving a large percentage to my local church had two problems, it absolved me from looking deeper and it encumbered funds that could or should have gone elsewhere. And that is just the money part. I can only imagine if I could go back and also divert the time and attention I spent on the institution and instead invested it directly in people.
@ Bill M:
oh my goodness, Bill M, I feel exactly the same. I have some to see church as a very hungry machine that demands to be fed. with money, time, work, and emotions — church is very emotionally needy, you always have to be happy, upbeat, gung ho. frank discussion takes people by surprise and they are uncomfortable with it, sarcasm makes people nervous or they look at you as if you’ve just punched them; offer some thoughtful criticism and they look like they’re about to cry.
it’s very jealous. it has to be number one. just like my dog when our cat is around — all I have to do is say hi to my cat and suddenly my dog is in my face all nervous-like (I’m #1, right? I’m #1…) decline a small group or a Sunday or other event for any reason and church people feel betrayed & rejected. you can see how much it makes them smart (like, “ow…that hurt…. what’d you do that for?!”)
I have gotten so worn out. I had no time or energy for anything or anyone. and I’d think about the other communities in my life — my neighborhood, the families at my kids’ schools, my professional clientele,…. don’t they count?
In the last year and 1/2 I’ve retreated from church for a number of reasons, and have begun to focus on these other communities of mine. because it felt utterly ridiculous to neglect them for the sake of church. and I came to recognize that all of my effort, money, sweat equity, talents, time, and emotional supportiveness had essentially gone to the pastors’ job security and so they could feel good about themselves and have an enjoyable/interesting career with plenty of things to do.
Max wrote:
You beat me to it…..
@ Bill M:
I think we’re both on the west coast…. it’s really 3 hours earlier than 2:00.
@ elastigirl:
Ken’s 9th Law (as amended): Too much church attendence is driven by habit coupled with guilt at the thought of not actually turning up.
I’m not actually an advocate of not going to church, but I have to admit to not being seriously involved in a church on a continuous basis for about a decade until recently. What I have realised is that church or churchianity must not become a substitute for having a normal life, doing normal things with normal people, or it become the place where you can make up for being a bit of nobody in the outside world. Something is seriously wrong if church is the greatest source of stress, or it gets you down more than it builds you up.
Christian teaching and fellowship are wonderful things, church services, on the other hand …
@ elastigirl:
an’ a’ tha’ does indeed mean “and all that”. It mirrors an iconic line from Robert Burns’ famous (over here) poem on equality, entitled Is There for Honest Poverty:
@ Nick Bulbeck:
This is probably the worst case of unclosed &,lt;blockquote> tags ever seen on TWW.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And it’s not getting any better.
elastigirl wrote:
It is interesting that the covenant is the one they and their lawyers have drafted. The covenant sealed by Jesus himself is just a covenant. It may be “greater” and have other poetic decorations but it remains remote, impractical and clearly insufficient to protect them from sin. “Of equal importance”… but, like women, of lesser role.
There’s a reason God commanded his people never to make an image to bow down to. It’s impossible to avoid the trap: When you create a man-made thing to represent God, that thing becomes God to you and supplants him for all practical purposes.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Sackcloth and ashes for you then!
elastigirl wrote:
Oh my, this is so true.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Amen to that!!
Bill M wrote:
Exactly!!! I view it exactly like elastigirl does, a hungry machine that has to be fed. A few hundred one month could mean the world to a desperate person but the machine just burns it up.
Interesting post, at least for me at this point in time. We have actually left my former church, at which I did sign a covenant, with no problem at all. I talked to the pastors and explained our reasoning, and it was very peaceful.
We are now attending a church that Wilson would probably call “Attractional”. It is large. It has a fabulous kids program. It has no membership covenants/contracts. But, I’d say the Gospel *is* a part of the preaching and small groups are an important part of church life (in fact, it is the small groups we are primarily there for- we have not yet committed to making this church our “home church”, but regardless we are welcome to connect and be a part of our small group).
I don’t know, I struggle with a few aspects to this church (not a fan of the smoke machines in worship, nor one the pastor’s doctrine of divorce), and yet there are several aspects that are very good for us right now (the flexible worship schedule means it is the first time since we’ve met that my wife and I have been able to attend church together every week, and the kids really enjoy their program, which thus far hasn’t been teaching them anything that worries me- and they send me info on what they covered every week). But the membership covenant (or lack thereof) is the least important consideration in my mind.
Mercy’s Mama wrote:
Church Community Builder software is very disturbing, creepy even. Sobering to think how much church leaders can potentially control and keep tabs on members with this software and others like it.
http://www.churchcommunitybuilder.com/our-versions/
(You can click on each heading to get a description of what functions each category comprises.)
Darlene wrote:
We do have a Book of Common Prayer and the liturgies and prayers are really good stuff, but the catechism portion is quite minimal and I have yet to hear a sermon in my church on what the Baptists of my yesteryear would call doctrine. Nor are episcopal churches all alike in liturgies, there being a latitude in even this. And that is just the US. The Anglican Communion is an international bunch and there are differences which seem to be national. Someone has said that it is the last remnants of the former British Empire and does not seem to be holding together.
The Anglican Communion is right now being evaluated by Canterbury, or so I have been given to understand, to see if some re-organization and re-thnking may be indicated to try to hold things together. This is my terminology as I understand it. And that portion of the Anglican Communion in the US known as The Episcopal Church includes a wide margin of thinking and practice from one church to the next and from one individual episcopalian to the next, and this is what we were ‘officially’ told in class-not just my observation.
So, Book of Common Prayer? Yes. United? Not in any way that my prior religious tradition (Baptist) would define the word.
As for me, I was for a long time a bible-toting-scripture-memorizing-evangelizing-studying-to-be-a-medical-missionary Baptist, until I left for well thought out reasons of faith and practice. And I was for several years an immersed-in-the-catechism-attending RCIA-going to mass diligently-wanna be RomanCatholic, until I also abandoned that pursuit for reasons of faith and practice. It is the very latitude and tolerance of ‘the middle way’ that has enabled me to find a place for myself that enables me to continue in the corporate practice of christianity, and so I am an ‘anglo-catholic episcopalian’ which is just one small slice of how some people in the anglican tradition do.
Y’know, the more I read about Neo-Calvinism, the more it reminds me of the Azorius Senate, a lawmaking guild featured in my favourite card game.
http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Azorius
Case in point:
Darlene wrote:
It sounds like Calvin and the Reformers are performing for church CEOs the same role described here: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=107440
“In death, as in life, they protect the Grand Arbiter from exposure to contrary points of view.”
As an additional point of irony, the primary strategy of most Azorius-style decks is… control.
I’m thinking about drafting up a covenant myself. It will be a covenant binding the leaders to the other members, if I ever go back to institutional church and am presented with a membership covenant, I will thrust this in the face of the leader handing. It will be accompanied by a string of scriptures after each point and say things like:
“When I lead it will be exclusively by example, never under any circumstances by compulsion”,
“I agree that all are priests and specifically reject the Mosaic leadership model, which didn’t work all that well with even the most humble man on earth at the head of it”,
“I acknowledge that I am not the most humble man on earth”,
“I will submit to all members, because the Bible tells us to ‘submit one to another'”,
“I will not refer to myself or any other leader by any title, as that would be in direct opposition to Jesus’ clear commands”,
“I will not gossip about, slander, or conduct secret whisper campaigns about members”,
“I acknowledge that ‘obey’ on the part of other church members only means ‘be persuadable'”,
“I understand that church discipline is for the members of the body as a whole to carry out, not leadership exclusively, and it can be conducted by members upon those who refer to themselves as leaders”,
“I acknowledge that not a single letter with written in the New Testament was written to leadership, but to the church body as a whole”,
“I will never point to my authority, because I understand that I have none, except to be a servant; I will be the least and the last”,
“I will never define ‘servant’ as the average sociopathic church leader defines it”,
“I understand that according to the New Testament, mature believers are not in need of teachers, as the have the Holy Spirit who teaches them”,
“I will sit down and shut up and in humility consider others better than myself”.
Bill M wrote:
But if you did that, where would be the money to put the coffee shop with wifi off the foyer? How could they have the money to get the line of credit to conduct the major building campaign to put up the new church that looks exactly like a warehouse in the suburbs with the aerobics room, the gymnasium and the 1,500 seat sanctuary with the state-of-the-art audio visual system? In short, if you just gave money to people in need, how does this serve the needs of the leadership to expand their influence and get conference honoraria?
Peach wrote:
I agree! A volunteer sat many hours entering everyone’s info and them we were encouraged to use it, as a directory, as a means to communicate with other people, a way to schedule ministry stuff, track our giving, but I refused to engage with it.
Only after we leave do i realize how utterly creepy it is when you actually think about it and I’m beyond upset that I cannot remove myself, my family, and our info!
Feeling defeated, I tried to change our info at least, making it incorrect, like wrong birthdays, generic address, but I’m not even sure it worked 🙁
Coming back to this one more time (maybe nobody wants to talk about it). Many churches have covenants written into their by-laws, especially Southern Baptist Churches. Is the presence of a covenant within the church documents a red flag in your mind, or is requiring a signature the problem? In other words, is the issue of covenant automatically a step into legalism, or are covenants acceptable within a local church?
@ Mercy’s Mama:
This might well be illegal in the UK. The Data Protection Act places constraints on how organisations can store personal data, and on what they can use it for. It would not be illegal for a church corporation to store your personal data in order to track your giving, if the corporation declared up front that this was what it was doing, and if you then agreed to it. But even then, you remain the owner of that data and can require them to remove it.
Law Prof wrote:
Don’t forget the professional-quality recording and broadcast studio (for all the future franchise campus Telescreens) and the onsite amusement park (I’m not making that one up). And the onsite “Just like Starbucks, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Peach wrote:
Building “Community” or “People’s Collective”?
js wrote:
To my mind, the issue of covenant is more than just a step into legalism. It is a direct insult against the New Covenant that Jesus himself instigated. Also – closely related – it cements the sinful division of the local church into isolated self-governing factions whose leaders are not accountable to anyone who will genuinely challenge them. (This in turn has many knock-on effects that make for an unhealthy local church.)
All of that said, I agree with you: it is a step into legalism as well as all the above.
js wrote:
Possibly it depends. Is it a covenant between equal parties, detailing requirements for everyone involved? (I think Law Prof gave some good examples of stipulations that could hold self-styled leaders and 30-something “elders” accountable.)
Or is it a covenant between the “lords” and the “lorded over”, in which little or nothing is required of the “lords”, and the “little people” simply give up their civil and human rights?
If it’s the second kind of covenant, then it’s not just a red flag. It’s a giant red flag with sirens, bells and whistles.
Speaking of red flags, I checked out Wilson’s article, hoping to give him some choice words. Only to find that the comments are closed already, but not before he’d started to get pushback, and had to defend himself with things like, “Well, any system can be abused.”
Deflection and minimizing. In my mind, red flags.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
neat.
but you didn’t take a stab at my ‘tcha. gave you context and everything.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
!!?!!?
What are they aiming for? “First Church of Mall of America”?!?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes, it is. And while I cannot actually put myself into the mindset to understand why somebody would rather have something / anything rather than the New Covenant of Jesus as their own faith position, I do think I can see why some people would want be the ones to inflict something else on other people; to usurp the authority of Christ himself actually. I would have to lapse into ‘spiritual’ terminology to describe what I think is behind that, but I have offended some folks previously by doing that so I will stop here and just use Dee’s term ‘sinful.’
@ Ken:
fancy that! we agree!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“It is interesting that the covenant is the one they and their lawyers have drafted. The covenant sealed by Jesus himself is just a covenant. It may be “greater” and have other poetic decorations but it remains remote, impractical and clearly insufficient to protect them from sin.”
+++++++++++++
talk about ‘o ye of little faith’…. hellOooo, the holy spirit exists and is real and within…. right? am I missing something?
as a lively flickering flame-to-blaze-to-dynamite-blast transforming to cheering squad to best friend to pal to liquid compassion to teacher to revealer to waymaker to empowerer…
either they’re sorely lacking in the faith department, or else they simply don’t know what they don’t know. blimey.
@ Darlene:
Exactly. Which is the Confession I expected @ Max to mention, but the church he is referring to clearly didn’t want the “baptized” version. The Founder’s Movement of the SBC was big on touting the London Baptist Confession back in their early days.
Nancy2 wrote:
I just got around to this link-had too many people competing for the computer at our house last night. Thanks for the link. I can see where his thoughts would not really please anybody at either far end of the thinking on this subject, but I appreciate his position and frankly he probably is a more thoughtful person than I previously thought.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
It makes me feel nauseous to be honest.
@ okrapod:
He puts on a great humble show. I was disgusted he took the IMB job when hie led his church not to support the CP. He actually said’ “I now see the beauty of the CP” after he was given the six figure job and after years of teaching them to radical giving it all away at Brook hills. He is the celebrity face of the IMB. And that is what it was all about. Oh, I forgot. He led folks back home to think he was in danger at the Dubai Marriott for preaching Jesus. He never came clean.
Then he and his six figure new hires at IMB come up with the godfather deal for over the 50 years old long term missionaries. And he announces not much later the plan to hire 600 asap. I could go on and on.
His humble act is a real act. It is worthy of Olivier. I know a mega pastor just like him. They fool a lot of people. But they are good on stage. And it works. Platt makes me ill because he is really good at it. He has that aww shucks Opey thing going on while he tells you, you need to give Jesys (me) a blank check.
js wrote:
I believe I responded up thread when you first asked. But maybe I read your request a different way.
Like others, I believe it is wrong to ask believers to sign covenant. I will never sign one.
@ Lydia:
So what do you think is Platt’s actual position on tongues?
@ js:
It is more than a red flag to me. Ask yourself why they need one. I am thinking of 9 Marks as I write. The answer can be flowery and opaque but the bottom line is one thing: control. Period. If they are having you sign it as a condition of membership it is about control.
My guess is you might think control necessary and good. And many agree with you. I tend to believe those who insist on control can never get enough, eventually.
The covenant says more to me about what sort of people I am dealing with. The real body of Christ is not about indoctrinated step ford lemmings all singing the same note. It is much messier than that.
Lydia wrote:
Yep. Just like the rest of creation. Diversity is good, chaos is bad, and the inability to distinguish the two is a trap which some folks all into.
@ okrapod:
Whatever the audience wants to hear at that time. Humbly, of course. I never bother myself with what theological positions frauds take on those sorts of issues, Platt thinks sinners prayer is the number one problem out there. You are not the real thing unless the elders examine you, you know. (Oh and have sufficiently given enough away)
Platts biggest problem now ai IMB is the audience now contains more than just adoring Neo Cals. But he will do fine. He is getting rid of all who are not on the right.
@ elastigirl:
not that I’ve had all that much experience with all that the holy spirit is and can do — cheering squad, best friend, pal, teacher, waymaker mostly. but flickers enough of everything to know the tremendous resource available to us that largely goes ignored by us.
Lydia wrote:
So on this issue of what he said about tongues, is it your take on it that the audience agrees with him and wants to hear what he just said? At the same time I am wondering who the designated audience would be relative to this subject-the churches? the big wigs? That is to say, who it that is both important enough to matter and who also wants to hear him preach what he just did about tongues?
I am trying to get a feel for where the SBC, however defined, may stand right now and in which direction they may be going.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
According to my informant, they’re aiming for all the young Yuppie parents with small kids and $$$$$. You can’t turn off a kid like you can a TV commercial.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Don’t you know the Lowborn exist ONLY for the enrichment and convenience of their Highborn Betters? GOD HATH WILLED IT!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Is marriage a covenant in any sense, between a man and a woman or between a couple and God? I am trying to work out the implications of covenants in light of the new covenant and value the perspectives others bring.
As always, fantastic job on a vital church issue! I was wondering if y’all had looked into the late Jay Grimstead’s Coalition on Revival (COR)? A surprising number of the usual suspects (Bob Mumford, Bob Weiner, and many more) were on board with it in the ’80’s, but a lot of more mainstream leaders were as well. It spawned a sister org focused on churches, and in their position paper on the church, membership contracts are strongly urged.
Bill M wrote:
Come to think of it, the way we ‘do church’ (model-wise) really hasn’t changed since the times of the Levitical Priesthood, Constantine, and the Nicene Fathers.
js wrote:
In the legal sense there are laws that are basically contractural when it comes to civil marriage.
A great book that touches on what you are asking was written by the Hebrew scholar, David Instone Brewer. I cannot remember name of title.
What entails breaking a covenant? For example God was poised to divorce. Was that covenant breaking? Was that over after the resurrection? I think you ask interesting questions.
Law Prof wrote:
Awesome contract Law Prof. One thing, you missed adding the proof texts that are always inserted throughout their contracts, that way your contract will be Biblical™.
elastigirl wrote:
YES ! This !
Makes me think of the song Roam by the B-52s.
Ken wrote:
Your statement triggers a large amount of cognitive dissonance. There is such a vested interest, so much tradition in church services, they fall well short of fellowship, yet I still go. At the church I escaped to the preacher is humble and very good at his job, the structure is non-authoritarian, yet when they recently advertised a “men’s event” to go deeper, the structure was the same, come hear speakers. And the speaker are? More pastors. Sheesh.
Bill M wrote:
Just like the Calormenes citing the Poets in Chronicles of Narnia: A Horse and His Boy.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Exactly. The Book of Hebrews is clear that the Old Covenant was about what God would do and what Israel had to do, while the New Covenant is about what Christ has already done for us.
Great job, Dee. These covenants put burdens on God’s people that are nowhere mentioned in the Bible as applying to those under the New Covenant of Christ.
P.S. And you know how I feel about such covenants.
okrapod wrote:
This sounds sublime!
I was in an old Anglican church about 6 mos ago to hear a soloist in an evening service. It was more focused on “going forth from here in service to mankind” sort of thing. I also miss that sort of music i grew up on. The music is so dumbed down and kitchy in Baptist circles anymore. Mohler got rid of the outstanding music program at Southern. Now it is Kauflin SGM music.
The service was inspiring in a very real way. I can’t explain it. If we try again, it will be a place similar that has actual old people. My last church, after the takeover, succeeded in running most of them off. I will just try harder not to think of Henry the 8th. :o)
@ Law Prof:
Brilliant! And truth!
@ Law Prof:
For some reason this made me think of Jeff Iorg, the President of Golden Gate seminary. When word came out that the IMB had a quarter of a billion deficit, his reaction was to publicly proclaim that Baptists (the pew sitters) had been robbing God.
I kid you not. It really is that bad out there in Evangelical bubble world.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
One mega I am familiar with sent their in-house new coffee shop employees to be trained as baristas. Not kidding.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is how the Data Protection Act applies to churches in the UK.
https://www.stewardship.org.uk/downloads/briefingpapers/Guide%20to%20data%20protection%20law%20for%20churches.pdf
js wrote:
The new covenant deals with the individual’s standing before God. It contains the conditions, not negotiable, for receiving God’s grace and mercy.
Marriage is also a covenant, and is so described in Malachi, where God expects faithfulness from a man to the wife of his youth. It is also an agreement based on promises, but I don’t see it being any more than that. I don’t regard marriage as a precedent for making other kinds of covenant, for example, the church covenants being discussed.
If you did decide marriage could mirror to some extent the commitment of church members to church leaders, then it would have to be mutual, promises in marriage are made on both sides, though not necessarily completely identical. The impression I get is church covenants are all one way, you make a promise to the leaders in return for … nothing from them.
@ okrapod:
Been loosely following the Platt trajectory for years. Some through friends who live in Mountain Brook and very familiar with Brook Hills.
I think Platt has a shitck he developed and is now stuck with. But he tries to make it work within a ton a cognitive dissonance. The humble guy living in a bad neighborhood sacrificed alk that for a plush office and six figures.
As far as the IMB goes, I see him as the figurehead put there by the Mohler wing. The tongues issue goes back to Patterson wanting to get rid of Rankin. Platt is part of a cabal that promoted guys like “I see things” Driscoll and prophecy mic Mahaney. The Neo Cal movement is full of charismatics. Grudem is charismatic! But none of these are historically SBC but their DNA is all over it. Tongues is a tiny subset that people tend to make a big deal over.
Patterson started thus silliness. Seriously, who would know if you had a private prayer language? The regional guys would find out if missionaries were practicing it on the field in public.
The Neo Cals have a problem as they have welcomed many a fruitcake in for the young guys to emulate that use certain types of charismata to indoctrinate. They walk a thin line here. Platt called a sinners prayer a superstition.
Lydia wrote:
It may already be possible to spend your entire life (from Birth/Altar Call to Homegoing(TM)/Rapture) without EVER having to interact with any of those HEATHENS outside of Church…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And possibly even without ever having to interact with the God who lives and who is here and now and who makes Himself available to people. Sad to say.
Muff Potter wrote:
This is something Verduin points out in “Anatomy of a Hybrid” about John the Baptist. How radically different he carried out and approached his beliefs. He totally blew off the typical temple/religious leader model out of Jerusalem. Even mocked it somewhat. Makes for an interesting juxtaposition when it comes to Jesus Christ
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is the goal of the one stop shopping lifestyle mega church…except, of course, when it comes to making big money to give them. :o)
@ Bill M:
“…yet when they recently advertised a “men’s event” to go deeper, the structure was the same, come hear speakers. And the speaker are? More pastors. Sheesh.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
it’s easy & convenient — just hire people out to come in and do it. all church staff have to do is turn on the lights.
meanwhile, people are attracted by this “go deeper” marketing bit. and they come with a modicum of hope & expectation. they come in, take a seat, get comfortable, and flip their switch to their receiving mode. most will be wandering all over their place in their minds.
this isn’t going deeper…. good grief. it’s crossing something off a pastor’s to-do list with all the ease & convenience of buying a pre-prepared boxed dinner.
so many creative ideas for ‘going deeper’ that could be conceived, so many creative and capable people that go untapped. it takes work, effort, time, mess and other risks… these things themselves are part of ‘going deeper’.
js wrote:
Good question, and it’s funny you should mention it because it occurred to me that marriage is an exception even while I was typing my previous reply to you. I can’t go into details this instant because I promised to take my son to the gym tonight (when your teenage son asks if you’ll help him do physical exercise you say yes) and we’re off out the door the noo, but in a nutshell, I believe:
Marriage is a covenant, yes, but
It’s the exception that proves the rule about no covenants being needed.
Not that my opinion is the last word on the subject, but I’ll elaborate when we’re back fae the gym!
Mercy’s Mama wrote:
I would send a cease and desist letter via registered mail. I don’t see how it could be legal for them to retain your information like that.
okrapod wrote:
When our child was born, we asked clergy about infant baptism, given that an infant can’t understand church teaching. The reply was something like this:
“God already has a relationship with your baby, and it doesn’t depend on language. When your child learns to talk, listen to what he says about God.”
I must say that we didn’t talk much about God to our child. We had him baptized, prayed with and for him, said table graces, and carried him to church in his little car seat. (He did not go to the church nursery.)
One day, when he was about two years old, our son said he remembered meeting Jesus the day he was born. Jesus said he would see our son in heaven.
For the longest time, our son believed that baptism and marriage were the same thing. I never dared correct him.
At bedtime he used to reach up from his little bed and use his thumb to make the sign of the cross on my forehead.
I can think of humdrum explanations for all of the above, but to me these things show a relationship that God struck up with my child–a relationship beyond words.
Looks like all the TGC, Acts 29 and “together for Gospel” folks are still the same a-holes they’ve always been. So much for sanctification. It’s cool, though, because God’s sovereign over that shiz.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I look forward to reading your thoughts on this.
Ken wrote:
This is part of a whole complex of questions in my mind right now. I am inclined to be against the “legalese” kind of signed covenants which are highlighted here, but wonder about the biblical merits of other kinds of covenants, even the church covenants that have been in many church by-laws for decades. I guess I am trying to determine if only the latest generation of covenant promoters (emphasized by the YRR but also present in many attractional churches and mega churches) is the problem or whether the very idea of a church covenant of any kind is misguided?
Lydia wrote:
I think the basic laws of the land are probably points of social order to which we should submit, so the legal issues I take to be right for Christians to affirm.
On another level, I am thinking about whether covenant keeping should be any part of the Christian life? I’ve thought of the example of marriage as a possibility, but within the church is there any way in which we are to covenant together? I have thought of a couple of places in Romans . . . “We are members one of another” and “let no debt remain outstanding among you except the continuing debt to love one another.” Then of course there are the teachings of Jesus regarding oaths and I wonder where that comes into the discussion.
Lydia wrote:
I actually tend to agree with most on here who dispute the need for a signed covenant. I think it is interesting and important to think about this issue though in broader terms, though. Is there any confessional center which should be present which must be affirmed for one to be a member of a local church? Is there any difference between the stepford idea and a local church having a confessional statement which members are to affirm?
Do denominations who have a confession of faith at the center (like the Westminster, for example) of their denominational identity require members to affirm the confession in order to be members?
Bridget wrote:
I am sorry if I missed an earlier reply. My questions revolve not so much around the signed covenant but with the covenants that are present in the by-laws of many traditional churches. Are these covenants wrong? Are they helpful? Is the criticism of this article over having covenants at all or is it over having signed covenants?
Some “covenants” do not require conscious acceptance of the terms. For example, I would say that a “covenantal relationship” exists between parent and child. The parent “chooses” to enter the covenant, when they either conceive, and give birth to, or adopt a child.
The child really doesn’t have any choice in the matter. They are just born (or adopted) with the covenant in place. The parent is to love, protect, provide for, educate the child etc. The child is to honor, love, and obey (during childhood) the parents.
Each party can either carry out their duties faithfully, or fail to do so.
Just an interesting thing to think about.
Anyway, that’s us back fae the gym the noo, so re-joining the conversation on the marriage / covenant thing:
Point 1 of 3: Marriage as a covenant
In a number of ways, marriage is unique among human relationships. “What God has joined together, let man not separate”; marriage is likened (as is no other relationship) to the relationship between Jesus and the church; a husband and wife are one flesh; all being well, the relationship is only properly ended by the death of one or both partners. (While God hates divorce, he hates other things too and ISTM that the local body of believers needs to exercise some responsibility to protect the victims of abusive marriages.)
Point 2 of 3: The new covenant
If we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, then our covenant relationship with God is necessarily also a covenant relationship with each other. We’re in covenant whether we like it or not, therefore. Thus, with my believing friends, I already have a covenant better than any contract that lawyers could come up with. Equally, I have that same covenant with believers I wouldn’t otherwise get along with easily and I am not free to dissociate from them by joining a separate “church” from which they are excluded. Neither is any church leadership free to separate itself from the rest of the local church and be accountable only to their buddies who agree with them, as Marq Driskle did (having himself mocked the practice, of course). Paradoxically, the creation of “church membership” contracts creates division, not unity, because it only defines a splinter-group within the local Church.
I cannot over-emphasise the point here that the Local Church is, in truth, ALL local believers, not just all the members of “my church” as distinct from the “other church” down the road who I don’t agree with on liturgy / this doctrine / that doctrine / the other doctrine.
Point 3 of 3: The complication of false believers
… and the attendant complication that God does call groups of people together for particular purposes (e.g., “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” – from Acts 13). I have no short or easy answer to this, other than that believers must make the effort necessary to learn, individually and collectively, to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. To my mind, replacing him with a set of rules does not make this task simpler; it abdicates it altogether and settles for an inferior substitute.
It’s nearly midnight in Blighty and that’s the best I can dae fae the noo. IHTIH…
js wrote:
Well, I am a bit of an anomaly as in I believe all human relationships are contractural in nature. The sort of thing I am talking about is doing the right or just thing in daily life, viewing others as equals and treating others as we want to be treated. Easy to say. Hard to do.
Would that be covenant keeping? The problem is this sort of thing cannot be regulated by any humans. But I believe it was God’s intention for His creations. And I believe the resurrection was restarting point.
The bigger problem with institutionalizing what we are calling covenant keeping is it becomes institutionalized. :o). How in the world does one institutionalize the Holy Spirit?
A lot of people take advantage of position and/or others. We call this normal or even altruism. I don’t think it is normal at all.
js wrote:
I once heard a scholar talk to an ecumenical gathering about this. He basically said that creeds are of the church, and that we therefore recite the shared beliefs of the church rather than swearing or affirming that we as individuals believe every jot and tittle; we are free to doubt and struggle while stating the tradition. He pointed out the time and difficulty required to develop the creeds–mainly the Apostles’ and Nicene, but he mentioned some others as well.
I’ve spent much of my life in churches that recite creeds, and they have never been presented as a litmus test.
Bart wrote:
This is lovely, thanks. And I think it reflects the origin of covenants. They come from God.
(Not from Your Regional Tithing Center.)
js wrote:
History is an interesting teacher when it comes to the quest for a “confessional center”. I like that descriptor, btw. Early on the various councils were trying ascertain and regulate what were to be accepted doctrinal beliefs. It descended into the political with bloody wars and persecution. From the Donatists disagreeing with Augustine over corrupt priests to Roger Williams’ banishment by Puritan leaders. Centuries of evil in the Name of God. All of it a result of using doctrine for power. Then we see the glimmer of religious freedom and no state regulation of doctrine which brings forth tons denominations as a result. :o)
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the Letter to Diognetus but there is a beautiful description of the early Christians in it worthy of a read.
Personally, I now tend to view Christianity as more behavioral than doctrinal. I know…gasp! She is hawking works salvation! Nope, far from it. I honestly think the resurrection means a restart of Gods original intention for His creation with Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, modeling humanity for us. Not perfect on this corrupted earth but a noble attempt anyway. Better than viewing a belief in him as fire insurance. And a better start for living on the coming redeemed earth.
I don’t know if any of the churches here in Hong Kong ask members to sign covenants. I would certainly hope not, as it seems to me that this opens up a whole load of problems.
As I have written before, don’t sign anything that legally binds you to a church. It’s lovely to feel you ‘belong’ but it seems to me that mega church leaders use this, more often than not, as a weapon.
We are saved by HIS grace and our faith. That’s really it.
Happy Lent.
What’s with the ™ at the end of gospel? I don’t think you can trade mark a word…am I missing something™?
Bill M wrote:
Whereupon elastigirl wrote:
Good points both; picking up the baton you have carried thus far:
Point 1 of 2: More, Lord…! syndrome
More, Lord! was a phrase I’ve often heard in emotion-dense worship settings, but the idea of “going deeper” is common to pretty much every flavour of christian culture. “Going deeper” means more of the same kind of stuff that we enjoy and have fallen in love with.
I’ve often been in settings where someone has sung, stated or otherwise prophesied that God is about to do a new thing. I know there are people who scoff at that kind of idea, but I do not. Doing new things is in God’s nature (and recorded often enough in scribsher). The problem I have is not that we keep hearing prophecies about God doing a new thing. Rather, it’s that I’ve realised recently that we so rarely listen when that happens. Instead, we get excited that God has said something, and then throw ourselves with redoubled vigour into the old thing we’ve come to enjoy so much. For God actually to do a new thing among believers, he thus has to move on to someone else who will sit still and pay attention for long enough to see what that new thing is, and then fall in with it as appropriate. (Naturally, we then reject them as heretics.)
Point 2 of 2: Can’t think of a title
Some Wartburgers may have heard of Jackie Pullinger. (If not, she’s a missionary who went to Hong Kong’s walled city – Clarissa may have come across her – although Hong Kong contains a lot of people!) Apparently she was one of the speakers at a conference here in Blighty a couple of years back, which at one point went into just such a More, Lord! moment. At which point the congregation began to do the usual thing of praying, worshipping, whatever. But Pullinger (according to the observer who wrote this anecdote) appeared agitated, left the stage and paced about in the wings for a bit. At an opportune moment she came back onto the stage and took the microphone.
Her admonition to the congregation was to this effect: If you really want more of God, you have to pause the time of worship and go out into the world to meet the people he loves and died for. You have to get immersed in your communities, and meet the poor and the downtrodden and encounter God there, among the people who won’t come to these conferences and whom he really wants to reach out to. Do that, and you’ll truly see more of God. Stay here, and you’ll just immerse yourselves in same ol’ same ol’ whilst thinking you’ve “gone deeper”.
I think she was right.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I was privileged to be raised in a home (in South Africa) where pioneer missionaries were frequent guests. Some in the earlier generations of the extended family had established mission stations in parts where the gospel had not been heard before. They lived with a trust in God that was awe-inspiring. The stories of God's demonstration of his love and power were numerous. They were in places where witchdoctors and the forces behind them appeared to reign supreme, where man-eating predators were a constant threat and where disease could end a life in a matter of hours. They encountered God in a deeper way.
JohnD wrote:
…
… yes indeed.
Friend wrote:
This is a really interesting point. I’d never thought of it like that before, but now that you mention it, I was involved in an Anglican church for several years (this was actually in England too; before I emigrated to Scotland). We recited the Nicene (Communion service) and Apostle’s (Evensong) creeds every week, as remains the practice in the C of E. And whatever emdy wants to say about the C of E, at least they aren’t puffed up with pride and self-righteous arrogance over their doctrine.
Your scholar laddie’s take on the creeds is also interesting. The more I think about it, the more ISTM that the creeds are actually more like songs of worship than declarations of allegiance. If you really believe that…
… then I don’t see how it can be anything other than a source of wonderment. Any person who recites the creeds, and is moved to self-satisfaction at the correctness of his doctrine, hasn’t understood them.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I still remember In quires and places where they sing, here followeth the anthem! p23 during evensong. It was a family joke.
It’s a tragedy that doctrine has become a dirty word. It ought to denote illumination, the truth setting you free, edification and encouragement. Instead, it has all to often been debased into being something where you measure now much you disagree with someone, or whether someone is ‘sound’ enough to fellowship with.
You will see proof of this whenever you read a comment that starts ‘I recently read a book by [famous preacher], and although I don’t agree with everything he says … It really shouldn’t be necessary to have keep saying this last part of the sentence, and the fact people do find this necessary can get irritating.
Just an FYI: There’s an ex Methodist pastor in the Dallas Ft. Worth area who has written about Acts 29 before. I came across one of her articles a few months ago, so I decided to write to her to get her opinion about the network. She posted my question and someone else’s in her column called “Ask the Thoughtful Pastor”. Now if you Google Acts 29 cult, it comes up in the Google search results. You can see my question and her explanation here: http://christythomas.com/2016/02/16/ask-the-thoughtful-pastor-is-acts-29-a-cult-why-do-they-marry-so-young/.
Friend wrote:
Wanna know what the real litmus test of faith is? Works.
Christina Dowers wrote:
Excellent article. I’m going to have to follow her blog. Acts 29 people and other comps will dismiss her because she’s a woman. Since she criticizes them, they’ll also brand her a liberal and call her the very worst insult in their cult-like culture: a feminist! (gasp!). The young people who fall for movements like this are in for a world of hurt later on.
Ken wrote:
I’m confused, Ken. Isn’t this the very thing you just did in regards to Doug Wilson? . . . and the fact people do find this necessary can get irritating . . .
Ken wrote:
That is a defensive move to keep away the snarling pack who will be sure to say that whoever it is you quoted actually said something else somewhere else that was pure nonsense, or else did something egregious or whatever. And I want to say, so what? That neither discredits the quote or the quoter, for crying out loud. So to distance oneself from that it is good to make a comment of ‘not everything of course.’ But I agree that it should not be necessary.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
blimey, Nick. those are some great thoughts.
when we ask for “MORE!” and get excited about this “new thing” which was expressed, do we really think it’s going to be a localized thing contained in the church assembly? like some spiritual orgasm? aside from the moment when it happens, what’s the point of that?
I say it’s going to be full o’ mess!
…cause all kinds of problems. make people feel weird & uncomfortable. and we work our way out of a’ tha’,…growing pains…. and in the process the more happens, the new thing takes shape.
whatever it is, won’t it be nurtured and come to fruition as we live our live day to day, out & about with our fellow human beings whoever, wherever? I mean, ….’tcha.
[come on, somebody, anybody, please entertain my ‘tcha interpretation challenge]
@ JohnD:
“The stories of God’s demonstration of his love and power were numerous. They were in places where witchdoctors and the forces behind them appeared to reign supreme, where man-eating predators were a constant threat and where disease could end a life in a matter of hours. They encountered God in a deeper way.”
++++++++++++++++
do you remember any of the stories of God’s demonstration of love and power?
my grandparents were missionaries in darkest (not Peru, but) south east asia. yes, amazing stories. spears, headhunters, ambush, backing off because of the huge white warriors who were also there (as it turns out)…
I respect my grandparents to the moon & back, but no mission trips for me (very disillusioned on that greater subject) — partly because there are all kinds of needed exploits to be done here, & full of danger (if not in a mortal way, then to one’s peer-acceptance, reputation, job security, bank account, need for control & predictability,… embarrassingly, danger to one’s comfort zone)
but back to the stories….. do you remember any? they are very encouraging to me.
@ elastigirl:
to sum up my point, God is encountered in a deeper way in the midst of pressure, conflict, dire straits, humiliation, stress, & more. plenty of opportunities, whether in ‘darkest peru’-for-God or home-based-for-God.
one thing I know: it won’t happen while sitting in a chair listening to a speaker.
@ elastigirl:
and it sure as he// won’t happen at a conference.
(if conference speakers, organizers, and goers were honest with themselves, they know it, too.)
elastigirl wrote:
So your grandparents were the origin of that Christian Urban Legend?
The version I always heard sets it in Darkest Africa and adds a climax with the headhunter chief after his conversion.
Muff Potter wrote:
At which point, all the Justification By FAITH FAITH FAITH Alone types pile on you.
Lane Roberts wrote:
It refers to the Gospelly Gospel as defined fast & loose by these MenaGAWD/Cult Leaders, slinging around the word “Gospel” until it becomes another “Smurf” or “Marclar” that can mean anything.
elastigirl wrote:
I do. One was told by my great-uncle Willie McKenzie. He was a slightly built man who with his wife Alice set up a mission station in a remote part of what was then Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia. There were no roads and travel was on foot or by bicycle along footpaths and game trails. He would cycle alone for days on end sleeping over at the villages. Carrying a rifle on the bicycle was impractical so he carried only a revolver. While on a trip he was asked to go to a distant village that was being terrorised by a man-eating leopard that was killing children. He went. The only solution was to kill the leopard which he agreed to attempt to do despite having only a revolver. If I remember correctly Elastigirl you are a fan of Wilbur Smith so will know that a wounded leopard is exceptionally dangerous. Knowing the risk to himself he sat up that night and waited. In due course the leopard arrived. He could hear it in the bush but could not see it. It was unlikely that he would get a better opportunity at a shot. He asked God to guide the shot and fired at the sound. After that there was silence. As soon as it was light the next morning he and the villagers cautiously followed up. They discovered the carcass of the leopard with a bullet hole precisely between the eyes. The villagers eagerly responded to the gospel.
It’s late here. I will post a couple more sometime tomorrow.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
down, boy ….all I know is my grandfather chronicled the circumstances in his diary in the 1950s. his linguist colleague helped interpret what was being said amongst the locals.
urban legends amongst Christians are pathetic.
my grandparents had no need to fabricate anything. they had no one to impress.
Patriciamc wrote:
elastigirl wrote:
NOT your grandparents fabricating, but those they told it to embellishing and those they told it to embellishing further with each retelling. Until the original source or any documentation was lost and it became one of those stories that gets name-dropped in sermons.
Problem is, Missionary Miracle stories from remote areas circulate all over the Christianese Bubble. Kind of like the tabloids — earth-shaking sensational, always on the other side of the world where they can’t be confirmed, any physical evidence lost, destroyed, or suppressed by The Vast Conspiracy. It would be interesting to compare your grandfather’s diary to the current versions of the story and see how much it drifted in transmission and propagation.
Patriciamc wrote:
I keep doing something to mess up my comments. Oh well. Anyway, Thoughtful Pastor has an excellent article on young men and neo-cals.
@ JohnD:
thank you, JohnD. Great story. from my own experience, it’s amazing how when you put yourself out there, doing something purposeful for God, & you take risks & leaps of faith, God kicks in and joins us in our efforts and we suddenly can do more & do it better than we dreamed.
and yes, I do love Wilbur Smith. What a memory you have. When The Lion Feeds and all the subsequent books in the Courtney series. Amazing. The Burning Shore is my favorite. Eagle In The Sky is a favorite, too (a south African pilot joins the Israeli air force, & the story unfolds).
Indeed yes, Nick Bulbeck, I have not only heard of Jackie Pullinger,and heard her speak but have friends who work with her. I actually lived in the same village as she and her late husband.
And yes indeed, that is exactly what she still says; get out there and be with the lost – the unwanted – the poor and un-reached. That is where we will get the more of Him we so long for.
Mind you – doesn’t this fly against the beliefs of neo Calvenists?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
hard to imagine my humble grandparents in their obscurity could have provided the source material for any urban legend. perhaps God has done this remarkable thing on many occasions.
yes, there was a chief & he did become a believer & was baptized. I know his name and have met his grandsons.
elastigirl wrote:
Urban Legends and oral traditions have a way of growing on their own.
Some (such as the “Angels of Mons” in WW1) were fiction mistaken for fact.
Some were accounts of actual events which grew and mutated in the retelling.
Some (such as Robin Hood) were a bit of both.
Some were the Liberty Valence Effect — “When fact and legend collide, Print the Legend”.
elastigirl wrote:
Profound apologies – I meant to respond and kept forgetting.
ADHD? Tcha! (An’ a’ tha’.)
Patriciamc wrote:
On this occasion, it appears you forgot a closing </blockquote> tag. I managed the same to spectacular effect further up this thread.
Clarissa wrote:
That’s a claim to fame!
Frivolity aside, fame is exactly what Jackie Pullinger has never sought. One of the things I admire about her.
Like all Wartburgers, you are welcome to call me “Nick”, BTW – Nick Bulbeck is my real name. (And my avatar fotie is my real face, too – taken on the summit of Conival, in the northwest of Scotland, early one morning in May 2010.) “Bulbeck” does sound like several rather rude words (more so in the UK than in the US, I think), so I had to develop a certain resilience at school. 😉
@ Nick Bulbeck:
alright…. here it is:
“the pastors want a copy of our tax return? ‘tcha! (yeah, right)”
or, as Wayne would say in the movie Waynes World, “& monkeys flew out of my butt”
now wasn’t that exciting.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Do I have to type that, or does it just appear? Kind of like above just now? Or maybe I’m just irritating the comment software.
elastigirl wrote:
Even if I got the “early bird special” for only $249.95?
Bill M wrote:
You’ll just be a sitting duck.
@ Bill M:
tell me you didn’t!
well, all is not lost. you can make signs that say, “How many times have your preached the message you’re giving today?” “How much are they paying you to do it?” “you’ll be giving it away to those in need, right?”
@ patriciamc:
Firstly, apologies for any of this that is already familiar…
Secondly, as a quick preface: Angular brackets are a code-character in HTML, so when you type them, the blog software tries to interpret them as an instruction and they don’t generally appear. There’s a dodge to make them appear which I’m using here for the sake of clarity.
So, to business: to get a nicely formatted block quote, if you type exactly the following:
<blockquote>Once more unto the breach, dear friends; once more!</blockquote>
… and then post the comment, what you’ll get is:
“<blockquote>” is called a “tag”. With the second one, “</blockquote>”, the forward-slash closes the tag. A bit like asking the waiter for the bill/check (UK english / US english) tells him you’ve finished your meal. If you forget to put the second one in, the waiter will keep offering you pudding / desert (… you get the idea) and the rest of your comment, likewise, will appear as part of the fancy quote.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I did not know that. That makes so much sense. I have just been highlighting some massive amount of text and then editing out what I don’t want, which also works but is tedious and prone to error at least in my hands
Thanks
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Hey Nick. I’ve used HTML a very small amount, and that was years ago, so your info is new to me. So, if I understand correctly, I need to make sure the closed tag appears at the end of the quote, and if not, then I can add it. Afterwards, my comment will appears unitalicized. Right?
Patriciamc wrote:
Right!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thanks!