After having read the blog post.

Mahaney sermonizes that he thinks preachers should be respected.
That sermonizing looks pretty self-serving, and to quote Gomer Pyle: “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

Which you can hear Gomer say himself here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI

Mahaney mentioned wanting to “advance the Gospel.” I think what looks like his covering up of child abuse is acting as an impediment to the Gospel, since it is likely turning off a lot of Non-Christians and not making Christianity look palatable to ex- Christians.

Can I suggest strong Gnostic elements in this obsession with the soul – almost as the body and this present life is of no importance. Maybe that is why there seems to be this disregard for the abused?

Besides this perversion of the Bible by taking the verse in Hebrews to an unconscionable end – why does it disgust me profoundly? It is so contrary to the Spirit of Jesus – how can such learned people be so blind?

The Hairless Wonder continues to preach and teach with no shame or remorse being expressed. This has been enabled by the rest of that self-proclaimed elite.

Nothing any of us say will make any difference to their behaviour. With the psalmist I’m forced to say “How long O Lord will you let the wicked triumph?”

“That protection is needed in order to preserve the trust, in order to protect the unity of this church.”
The absence of contrary voices is not unity especially when it comes by suffocation of the truth. Silence here does not indicate unity but a tolerance for corruption. I find Mahaney and company appalling and those supporting the sham at T4G should be ashamed.

“advance of the gospel”? Mahaney advances himself while the gospel gets sullied. It should be unbelievable but as Daisy alludes to above, it is not a surprise.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Really, I was taught it was the blood of Christ that kept me from going to hell?? So, it really is CJ and my pastor that is keeping me from going to hell?

🙂

__

Da Good Samaritan:  “Exposing a certain known big dog protected proverbial ‘religious’ new fangled calvinesta minted Southern Baptist  (SBC) pastor?”

hmmm…

(Whew!)

With an ‘alleged’ forty year documented history of covering-up of child sex-abuse? [1]

huh?

 Obey your SGM/SGC Calvinesta leaders and submit to them, for they keep watchful ‘control’ over your souls as those who will certainly apply the proverbial religious sucker punch to you and pocket all the monetary profits?

bump.

Do this proverbial stupid submission SGM/SGC congregational dance with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for them?

Reap a whirlwind? 

(many a soul already has…)

(sadface)

Any report about this Sovereign Grace Church (SGM/SGC) Louisville, Kentucky pastoral team should be examined extremely , carefully, and closely. (the other SGM/SGC churches as well…)

Please remove yourself quickly from this unhealthy TGC, T4G, 9 Marks, Acts 29 protected 501(c)3 church environment upon examining the available accumulating, court vetted, litigated, documented evidence. [1]

Reaching for the Kleenex box…

You’ll be ‘real’ glad you did!

(tears)

“Oh oh oh!
You Jesus are alive in us,
Nothing can take Your place,
Your love has set us free
In the midst of the darkest night, Yeah ! ” -Alive [2]

ATB

Sopy
__
[1] see: 

http://thewartburgwatch.com/category/sovereign-grace-ministries/

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/

https://www.scribd.com/user/86813507/sgmwikileaks

[2] Hillsong : “Alive”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEvEVALLjNQ

—

what has Al Mohler released on the SBC ???

Is Mahaney the ‘Trump’ of a new SBC ???

Ron Oommen wrote:

Can I suggest strong Gnostic elements in this obsession with the soul – almost as the body and this present life is of no importance. Maybe that is why there seems to be this disregard for the abused?

Yes. It is dualism. Mahaney is one of the philosopher Kings who has been enlightened to lead the ignorant masses.

In our tradition the primary role and responsibility of the priest/pastor is the care of souls. I have said it before but here I go again: ‘CJ is not all the way protestant.’

That said, I come down on side of the idea of the care of souls, but then ‘I am not all the way protestant either.’

“Even though the Leader himself is completely nonviolent, he urges you to be as violent as you like in capturing the Simpsons.”

Daisy wrote:

After having read the blog post.

Mahaney sermonizes that he thinks preachers should be respected.
That sermonizing looks pretty self-serving…

As one of my old pastors said in a somewhat similar context, “Respect is EARNED.”

On Sunday, days after the controversy, Mahaney preached from Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

It’s hard for me not to see this as an in-your-face to the protesters and everyone criticizing him on the internet. Hey look, he still survives the controversy! Within his church, the adults are probably aware of what’s been going on, and he knows it. I’m sure it’s to his advantage to preach about obedience and overlooking faults in a pastor as the higher, more spiritual path.

Eeyore wrote:

but that’s not the point of being a shepherd, right?
…RIGHT?!?

A problem here is that the issue of what exactly is the point of being a shepherd has not been chiseled in stone so various ‘leaders’ twist it to mean anything that they want it to mean, apparently provided that it is to their personal advantage to do so. So some seem to say that the shepherd shepherds souls, others say that the shepherd rules the totality of some poor sheep’s life, and others say that if the sheep have the Spirit there is no need for shepherds. Various opinions here in the past have seemed to be saying that the idea itself of being a shepherd is not applicable to the churches today.

C.J. Mahaney:

“He said that church members should have “a joyful disposition to trust and protect the pastoral team.”

and

“That protection is needed in order to preserve the trust, in order to protect the unity of this church. That’s why that’s needed ultimately, for the advance of the gospel from this church.”

Translation: the sheep are to protect the shepherd, not vice versa, and of course obey him at all times. The shepherd watches over your souls; you watch over his safety. The gospel depends on it.

NJ wrote:

Translation: the sheep are to protect the shepherd, not vice versa, and of course obey him at all times. The shepherd watches over your souls; you watch over his safety. The gospel depends on it.

And the shepherd’s mouth is watering for mutton.

When Paul warned Timothy to “Beware of Alexander the copper smith; he did me a great deal of harm” was he slandering Alexander’s reputation? No, he was protecting the young minister, as well as the people of God from Alexander’s influence.

“Today’s church cannot remain faithful if it tolerates false teachers and leaves their teachings uncorrected and unconfronted” (Albert Mohler).

Unbelievable!

“And the shepherd’s mouth is watering for mutton.”

Don’t forget the nice, tender lamb.

And if the senior shepherd suddenly decides to take off for greener pastures to gather a new flock (and more $$$), that’s his prerogative. That’s not just a comment about Mahaney, but the long standing pattern of starting new seminary grads in little country churches, where they hope to eventually get called to bigger churches that can actually pay them a viable wage. I wonder if Mahaney has had to go bi-vocational, or if he’s still living high on the tithes, both past and present.

I think it was “New Members” Sunday that day Mahaney preached that message. I’m sure it was already planned and on the schedule.

CJ said in the *choke* sermon *cough* (excuse me, I need a sip of water, that’s better) that *cough, cough, cough* preaching (another sip) to his little flock is much, much more of a privilege *choke, spurt, hives, rash, itching, swelling* (sorry, I’m having an allergic reaction) than preaching before 10,000 like he “and the guys” just did at T4G.

By the way, I heard Carolyn Mahaney mixed and served the kool-aid herself at the New Members Reception, and that everyone enjoyed all the new flavors: Pink Swimmingo, Triple Awesome Grape, Eerie Orange, Great Blue-Dini and Scary Black Cherry. Quite a variety! A few people were interviewed afterwards and said, “She’s always given us the standards, but, today, Carolyn went overboard!”

okrapod,

Megachurches especially have a pastor of every-permutation-of-ministry-possible instead of planting more daughter churches. This issue came up in the comment thread of Jared Wilson’s post. I’ve long thought that thousands of people is too big for one church, in spite of the concentration of resources.

Burwell wrote:

Interestingly enough, Jared Wilson (of TGC

That is enough to take what he writes with a huge grain of salt. Would anyone outside his family or small church even know his name if he were not a participant in the Gospel Glitterati enterprise? I think perhaps not. When he disappears into the obscurity and hard work of pastoring a non-Gospel Glitterati franchise operation, then maybe we can believe what he says about the the Problem of Celebrity Pastors and his proposed solutions. Until then, I believe that he is writing a blog post which professes deep concern about something which benefits him. The benefit to him of writing said blog post is to profess concern about something which really is concerning while not actually doing what he is prescribing. Deflection is one word for that. There are others.

okrapod wrote:

I think that the importance and role and ministry of the laity is grossly neglected in some protestant traditions. That would include lay men as well as lay women. The work and impact of deacons has been minimized for example. Lay leadership has been re-assigned to an ever increasing staff of the newly minted ‘pastors’ way too much. But then, if the leadership is limited to the staff, and if the staff depend on that job for salary, then they can be controlled by whoever signs the check.

“Pastors” used to be called “Priests”;
“Lead Pastors” used to be called Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, etc.
“Staff” used to be called Deacons, Subdeacons, Monks, Nuns, etc.
Wasn’t the RCC having a Priestly Caste one of the really big beefs of the Reformation?
Guess they were just mad THEY weren’t the Priestly Caste…

And the laity are supposed to think and do what they are instructed to think and do which of course includes throw it in the plate.

In Trad-Catholic jargon, this is called “Pay, Pray, and OBEY.”

NJ wrote:

“And the shepherd’s mouth is watering for mutton.”
Don’t forget the nice, tender lamb.

In full Flowering…
With Loooong… Waaaaavy… Hair…

@ Former CLCer:

“… when he couldn’t give a flying fig about those people, as evidenced by his consistently standoffish and unfriendly manner?”
++++++++++

well that struck me. his personna is one of cheerful, fun, friendliness. he seems to be a ‘close friend’ (the engineered quality of that label is starting to bug me) to a number of his peers. but sounds like at ground level at ground zero, that’s not the case

@ Christiane:
No that was Driscoll. Mahaney is the Hillary Clinton of the SBC. ;o)

@ okrapod:
Do you have a good definition for “soul”? Is there any way to define it leaving our minds out of the equation?

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yes, I’d say something like that, pretty sure, almost, but not quite, maybe like 85%? Or maybe I’ll Putin for 100%. How’s that? 😛

@ Paula Rice:
That point #5 sounds like an invention of Jesse L’s, not from Jared Wilson’s article. Jesse L and his pal Chortles Weakly are notable reformed Twitter-critics/lampooners of TGC.

Lydia wrote:

They did the exact same thing with child abuse after all the sgm Scandals.

And then there was the time back in about 2011 or 2012 when they were all so very, very *concerned* about wife abuse *after* John Piper accidentally told the truth when he said a wife should be willing to endure her husband’s abuse “for a season.” Winsomely and joyfully, I presume, and for the “sake of the Gospel” or something. They were all about how what John Piper plainly said is plainly not what he meant. Or something, since it is never quite plain what John Piper is saying.

And I would like to emphasize that there are more women than we suspect who are abusers of their husbands and children. Yes, even physical abuse. Very few men will admit it, however, and we need to be careful we do not forget them. Just so my comment is not misunderstood.

Uncle Dad wrote:

I don’t see this verse as referring to church leaders at all, since the institution of “church” hadn’t even been invented when the letter to the Hebrews was written.

Can you explain what you mean a little bit more. Jesus did mention his intention to build his church. There does seem to be something that Paul set out to demolish and which was identifiable at Damascus when he staggered in. So, maybe you can say a little more about how you came to your conclusion?

@ Chemie:
Yeah, it’s an invention. Sorry for any confusion. I was being totally sarcastic.

Well, if Mahaney simply *claims* not to be an authoritarian pastor, that means he isn’t, right? Ho hum.

On the ‘slander’/let’s protect pastors point, I was going over a local church website after their pastor got in trouble and was dismissed/resigned/is being brought up on charges…they have a section on ‘biblical perspectives’ of church discipline (because it has infiltrated everything apparently!).

So according to them, you the congregant can be brought up on discipline for a list of things (including ‘unwillingness to repent’ and ‘a disorderly life’ particularly unwillingness to work). But they have a separate sections for pastors/elders that says they need 2-3 witnesses to protect them against false of vindictive accusations!!! Why does this only apply to pastors, and not the church membership, because I don’t recall that specified in Matthew anywhere.

@ Uncle Dad:
Yes, a big portion of Christian history is an evil bloody dictatorial mess. Looking forward to reading your blog!

Quoting Mahaney:

“Any slanderous comment about the pastoral team should be challenged, and if necessary resolved,” Mahaney said. ”

What ‘slanderous’ comments? Did Mahaney produce a list of these ‘slanderous’ comments that are being uttered ‘about the pastoral team’?

Or does Mahaney define ‘slanderous’ as any utterance that is less than positive? Which, of course leaves his obedient pewishioners completely incapable of utilizing any personal discernment regarding truth.

No need to exercise discernment – because anything less-than-positive about Mahaney and cohorts is immediately thrown into the “slander’ bin.

How are the pewishioners supposed to “if necessary, resolve”?

And the pewishioners will base their ‘challenges’ upon what foundation? It’s not as if the pew-peons have/had any special knowledge about the various Mahaney/SGM issues. So, they aren’t in a position to challenge the supposed slanderous comments of falsity with actual truth or facts. All they are left with is a blind, robotic defense mechanism. The equivalent of “is not!” observed in preschoolers.

Quoting Mahaney:

“Why? Because the pastors are just sensitive souls, because pastors are so sensitive? No. That protection is needed in order to preserve the trust, in order to protect the unity of this church.”

This is just complete, utter bullocks.

Preserve ‘the trust’? Trust in what? In whom?

Always, always, always – these authoritarian leaders always place responsibility upon the pewishioners and never upon themselves.

Did he confess to breaking the unity of the church when he high-tailed it out INSTEAD of actually walking through the disciplinary process he had instituted and often applied to others?

Did Mahaney confess to breaking trust as a result of his sins? Blackmail, pride, mishandling sexual abuse, harsh leadership, deceit, additional abuse of abuse victims, manipulation, hypocrisy?

No?

No.

Why is it that false teachers can so completely ignore their own sins and its consequences, while insisting on focusing on the so-called sins and consequences of the people who expose those sins?

Who breaks trust and destroys unity? The abuser who abuses, or the abused who finally speaks out and reveals the abuse going on?

“That’s why that’s needed ultimately, for the advance of the gospel from this church.”

What Mahaney advances from his church is not the Gospel – what he advances is Mahaney.

dee wrote:

“It’s deja vu all over again!” -Yogi Berra

He may also be the same person who said,
“I saw a fork in the road. So I took it.” (?)

@ BL:
This is just another reason I cannot stand “vague” when it comes to these ministry types.

Lydia wrote:

Do you have a good definition for “soul”? Is there any way to define it leaving our minds out of the equation?

Tell me what you mean by mind and I will see what I can do.

When did Mahaney’s church joined the Long Run Baptist Association and what did the 160 other churches know about their church polity? They should never have been allowed to join because they are not congregationalist.

Maybe the association was afraid to cross Mohler because there are so many SBTS students and staff spread out across the churches. On the other hand, I know Mohler hasn’t been very popular with many churches in the local Baptist Association due to the way SBTS folks infiltrate and take over local churches.

I would love to hear this story.

R2 wrote:

When did Mahaney’s church joined the Long Run Baptist Association and what did the 160 other churches know about their church polity? They should never have been allowed to join because they are not congregationalist.

Hand over a six-figure check with hints of more in the future?

“And THAT’s how you get invited back! (chuckle chuckle)”

BL wrote:

Or does Mahaney define ‘slanderous’ as any utterance that is less than positive?

Works for the Kims of North Korea…

“With a ruler, you can lay the flattery on with a trowel.”
— Benjamin Disraeli

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lea wrote:
BL wrote:
What ‘slanderous’ comments? Did Mahaney produce a list of these ‘slanderous’ comments that are being uttered ‘about the pastoral team’?

I think this means anything bad you have to say about the pastor that doesn’t have 15 witnesses and a signed confession to back it up.

And all those 15 witnesses have to be ELDERS.

They absolutely do! Thanks for the correction 🙂

Lea wrote:

…all the sermons seemed to be about the pastor. The pastors kids. The pastors wife. Stuff the pastor did that weekend. The pastors mens group golf outing.

I vividly do not remember two multi-Sunday series of sermons at the church where I grew up. “A Church Is Not a Country Club” was indeed the title of the first series. The other series had some title about finding God’s glory in the natural world–and all of the sermon illustrations were about golfing in Hawaii.

We were oh so glad that Pastor, following his sojourns, brought these miraculous visions back to us rubes in the Rust Belt. It gave us hope, by crackey, that something better glimmered in the distance. Something heavenly, if we only strained our eyes to see it through the belching smoke of the last remaining steel mills. Surely we would all get there together, and meet our dear departed and our precious Maker at the ninth tee.

@ roebuck:

WHEN you come to…

Protect the pastoral team, defend the pastors.

Perhaps Mahaney would be good enough to trot out some Scriptural support for this teaching.

Because, Scripture DOES have a lot to offer regarding protection and defending. Oddly enough, not so much in regards to protecting and defending pastors and pastoral teams.

A few random, quick snippets from Old & New Testaments:

* Defend the weak and fatherless.

* Uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

* Seek justice, defend the oppressed.

* Speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

* Defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy.

* Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

* Give a right decision for the child who has no father, see to the cause of the widow.

But then we have – Poor ol’ Hebrews 13!

Do you know one way I know that the majority of today’s churches are not really feeding the sheep, but are instead overlording the sheep? (Beyond the evidence that few pewons are eating ‘meat’ or can tell the difference between good and evil).

ALL those teachings on Hebrews 13:17 – ALL those teachings from the pulpits on trusting their leadership, obeying their leadership, submitting to their leadership, and now we can add – defending and protecting their leadership.

The Hebrews 13:17 brickbat from the pulpit, used to corral all the eternally-infant followers into remaining in perpetual pietistic spiritual servitude to the pastor.

But, where are all the teachings from the pulpit on the topic of BAD Shepherds?

Where are the teachings instructing the shepherds to weep, wail and moan for abusing the sheep? Where are the teachings on shepherds who have been feeding themselves, taking care of themselves, eating the curds, taking the wool, and eating up the choice members? Where are the teachings from the pulpit on shepherds who have not strengthened the weak, or healed the sick, or bound up the broken?

Or how about the one against the shepherds because they have not brought back those WHO WERE DRIVEN AWAY. Not wandered away, mind you – DRIVEN AWAY. “Nadach” – to impel, thrust, banish.

False teachers, wicked priests, evil shepherds, self-interested apostles – both Old and New Testaments are *filled* with teachings, warnings, instructions regarding BAD leadership.

Multiple verses, multiple chapters, multiple books, multiple testaments – all expressing God’s view of leadership gone-wrong. And we get nada from the pulpit.

One verse, in one chapter, in one book, in one testament – resulting in a gazillion teachings from a gazillion teachers – from the pulpit.

There is something very wrong with this picture.

Tree wrote:

Another oft quoted phrase I endured during my years in this culture was “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft”, which comes from some OT passage. It was an effective put down and shut down if you started to ask an uncomfortable question or made an astute observation of something you thought was not right.

Some of the Calvary Chapel pastors are really keen on this verse (and other verses, always helicoptered out of context with virtually no connection to whom it was written to and the culture it came out of). They have a clobber verse for every contingency.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Really, I was taught it was the blood of Christ that kept me from going to hell?? So, it really is CJ and my pastor that is keeping me from going to hell?

A newly ordained clergyman once talked with me about the “cure (care) of the soul.” He believed that God would one day hold him accountable for the state of every soul in his parish. It was clear that he viewed this as his private burden, solemn and eternal.

I feel responsible for my own soul. However, his viewpoint moved me, and reminded me of Christ’s own sacrifice.

That clergyman did not in any way imply that I had a responsibility to protect or uplift him. Quite the opposite.

@ elastigirl:
He wouldn’t deign to befriend anyone in his congregations!

elastigirl wrote:

well that struck me. his personna is one of cheerful, fun, friendliness. he seems to be a ‘close friend’ (the engineered quality of that label is starting to bug me) to a number of his peers. but sounds like at ground level at ground zero, that’s not the case

“For Satan himself can transform himself to appear as an Angel of Light.”

Which is also the sign of a successful Sociopath.
All he lets you see is the Mask.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.

I think these guys take this verse backwards. It is those who DO care for the souls of others who should be considered leaders and worthy of honor. I.e., not those who have appropriated a title for themselves, but those who have PROVEN by their actions that they care for the welfare of others, along with the other requirements of elders.

…to prepare your soul for that final day. Our concern is with your soul in relation to heaven and hell.

His language seems to be insinuating that he has the power to determine other peoples’ eternal destiny. What audacity.

okrapod wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Do you have a good definition for “soul”? Is there any way to define it leaving our minds out of the equation?
Tell me what you mean by mind and I will see what I can do.

I don’t know if I have the intellect to even articulate my questions. We often hear pastors and others refer to our “souls”. Do you think they mean something that is not related to our thinking that goes on in our mind?

A bit of background on this: you know all those Bible verses that refer to the heart? I was reading (secular) that around the same time as when NT scripture was written, the conventional wisdom was that thinking and decisions came from the heart. About 100 years after Paul , The physician Galen started to discover that the brain/head controlled human limbs. And from there it’s progressed to assigning thinking and decisions to the brain.

This got me to thinking about how the word soul is used by much of Christendom. And thinking of our cognitive function after we die. It seems to be presented in scripture that we will know what is going on. I am wondering if the soul and the mind are the same thing? I guess I am just curious what others think a soul is.

The YRR crowd gets lots of attention, but John MacArthur should also be discussed because he is one of the featured speakers at T4G. He seems to be more old-school Calvinist than new-Calvinist. He is critical of some of the new-Calvinist teachings related to their charismatic tilt and has articles on his site expressing his concern about men like John Piper. This gives him some credibility. But…

On the bright side, he recognizes the importance of selecting pastors who are properly gifted and who approach the task with humility:
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A104/a-few-good-shepherds?Term=shepherd%20qualification:
“As elders, we must lead our people humbly. The shepherd determines the direction of the flock. No church can be successful if its leaders fail in their task. And no flock can survive and prosper if its shepherds try to trade their staffs for thrones.”

But on the not so bright side, he describes us sheep as stupid, filthy, and defenseless. Does he forget that pastors are also sheep? Here are just two article from his site that confirm this (there are more):
https://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A408/more-than-just-a-preacher?Term=Sheep%20are%20almost%20entirely%20defenseless
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-297/how-to-shepherd-the-flock-of-god?term=shepherd%20conference?Term=defenseless%20sheep

I don’t know if he intends this, but the effect is to promote a class difference between pastors and “pewishioners” (great term BL). He seems to be giving great top-cover for Mahaney, whether he intends to or not. And among the non-Pastors, Calvinism promotes a difference between the sheep (the elect) and the goats (the reprobate). It becomes a caste system with pastors at the top, sheep in the middle, and goats at the bottom (I don’t pretend to know whether female sheep rank above or below male goats, but that’s another topic). Ironically, the reformation opposed this division by class, but the new-Calvinists are running right back into it.

But probably my biggest beef with MacArthur’s theology is his insistence on Penal Substitution as the only proper foundation for any view of the atonement. Here’s quite a startling quote: “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” (see http://www.gty.org/blog/B131002/heavens-perspective-on-the-cross-satisfaction.) How does one get to the point where the good news of the Gospel is Jesus saving us from God?!? Where is that in the Bible? MacArthur’s only solid proof-text is his definition of the word propitiation, which is a Latin translation of a Greek word that does not have an unambiguous meaning (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/). The more I study this, the more I am starting to believe that early church would have condemned penal substitution as heresy because of how it divides the Trinity.

@ Lydia:

My working definition of soul would encompass mind, body, and spirit.

Daisy wrote:

Mahaney sermonizes that he thinks preachers should be respected.

I don’t respect a man just because he has a he “pastor” title. He still needs to prove he is respectable like any other person in life.

Getting it resolved? How? By performing a citizen’s arrest on the pedophile shielding and child sex abuse denying pastor? This should be “resolved” in the civil court following a citizen’s arrest. It would show how much the church members “love” that pastor because for the pastor’s edification he should serve some time. After all in Neo Calvinism suffering is a blessing. I am not being nice but what Mahaney did was not nice.

R2 wrote:

Maybe the association was afraid to cross Mohler

There seems to be a lot of that going around in SBC. I continue to be amazed that SBC’s national leadership hasn’t called the good doctor into account for various things. Besides the Mahaney/SGM mess, Dr. Mohler has led the reformed rebellion against mainline SBC non-Calvinist belief and practice.

Ken F wrote:

Ezekiel 34 is very pertinent. It calls out both pastors and the “fat sheep.” I don’t ever remember hearing a sermon on this passage.

I bet Leonard Ravenhill preached some sermons in that regard – he spent a long ministry preaching against fat pulpits and fat pews. David Ravenhill (Leonard’s son) wrote in an article Modern Day Money Changers “I’m convinced that the carnal, cunning, conniving, crooked crooks that Jesus drove out of the Temple are still among us today.”

There’s so much junk in the 21st century church that is not the Church at all.

“a joyful disposition to trust and protect the pastoral team.”

Reminds me of how wives are supposed to be “joyfully available” sexually to their husbands at all times. It’s the “joyfully” that makes both of these situations abusive. It’s not enough that you do what these men tell you to; they expect you to obey AND to affirm them emotionally. It’s simultaneously demanding and insecure. I know three year olds who behave better.

Ken F wrote:

but John MacArthur should also be discussed

My ex-pastor, a graduate of JMac’s The Master’s Seminary, is extremely abusive (verbally, spiritually, emotionally), authoritarian, controlling, dishonest. I have seen the same stories across the nation from these abusive graduates and the damage they’ve done to their members (mishandling sex abuse cases, Nouthetic Counseling by inept pastors/elders instead of bona fide care by licensed professionals who know what they’re doing, Patriarchy, and authoritarianism). My ex-pastor was so arrogant he even excommunicated a personal friend of JMac’s, a godly doctor in his 70s, faithful husband and father, on some trumped up, bizarre charge.

I’ve come to see JMac’s seminary as a training ground for future franchisees, to spin off churches for their own power and financial gain.

I’ve never seen more people lacking in love.

elastigirl wrote:

honestly, as soon as I hear the title ‘pastor’, especially when self-designated, my opinion of the person goes down. it simply does.

that, and I begin to feel a bit of panic, my skin starts to crawl, I have to get out….

Not too many years ago I would not have known what to think of your statement. Since then I have run into far too many who are proud of their title, who have elevated themselves above me and seem to respect only men of their own caste.

I am now of the opinion that there is only one flock and only one Shepherd. If I were employed by an institution that calls itself a local church I would eschew the title and find a different descriptor than “pastor”, one less sullied by the likes of Mahaney and his enablers at T4G.

Yentl wrote:

CJ – I can’t believe you could preach about “those who will give an account” without utter terror.

OUR souls are your main concern? Did you know the vast majority of the hundreds and hundreds of children that grew up in CLC will NEVER set foot in a church again because of your divisiveness? For your fleeing from accountability and discipline? Do millstones come to mind?

Did you know their parents, who labored tirelessly week after week, setting up Children’s Ministry, sound, chairs, music, communion, song sheets, practicing instruments, writing plays, singing, making videos, landscaping, traffic control, snow shoveling, leading care groups, cleaning their houses for care groups, sitting through hours and hours of classes, making snacks for care groups, studying your books and messages to repeat them by rote, will never set foot in a church again? The ones who estranged themselves from relatives and friends while they built their lives around your kingdom so YOU could be the most important hour of their week are wondering if there is a God? The ones who gave tens upon tens of thousands of dollars so your family could live comfortably to be a joy to you while their own families sat hungry and trusted God for provision will never do this again? YOU would be nothing without us.

How dare you talk about preserving the trust and protecting unity of the church. How dare you.

CJ, we are watching you as you prepare for that final day.

Our concern is with your soul in relation to heaven and hell.

These are the most powerful words I’ve read in regards to Mahaney.

Max wrote:

. I continue to be amazed that SBC’s national leadership hasn’t called the good doctor into account for various thin

Ronnie Floyd spoke at T$G. They end up joining the gravy train. Patterson is speaking at some upcoming Reformed gig. Mohler is not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing and the money changers get on the bandwagon.

Yentl wrote:

CJ – I can’t believe you could preach about “those who will give an account” without utter terror.

It makes one wonder what is really going on between his ears. What does he really believe about God, justice, and eternity. Because though he levels eternal judgment against others as a weapon, he lives as though it is nothing he should be concerned about for himself.

Yentl, you have done a good job painting a word picture of the experiences of those who have dealt with this fraud, CJ. And it is heart wrenching.

@ Lydia:
Lydia, interesting stuff.

There is new evidence which points to thinking not just happening in the brain.

@ Yentl:
Well said, Yentl.

@ elastigirl:
I was just thinking about this some more. If someone like Oprah or another powerful person did this, I think the CJ sycophants would see this as oppression or persecution. It would make them believe their poor, victimized ruler even more. I know sociopaths and they know how to twist truth like nobody’s business.

Stunned wrote:

I know sociopaths and they know how to twist truth like nobody’s business.

That’s the problem in a nutshell. They will never stop. As long as they have people who will listen, they will spin an manipulate on. Going up against them only emboldens them. They best thing to do with people like this is leave, encourage others to leave, and never interact with them on any level again. Ironically, social media makes that hard.

Look at Doug Wilson. Irrelevance would make him disappear, but because he can write provocative enough statements to always ensure people will argue with him , he’ll be around forever.

“never interact with them on any level again”

YES! They often crave attention. Of any kind. I had to learn to NOT interact with the sociopath in my life, despite all of their attempts at provocation. Walk away. Slowly if you must. (Literally, fast moves can raise their adrenaline and they will then RUN after you.) But move away and if you must, move across an ocean to get safe. Please.

Kemi wrote:

That’s the problem in a nutshell. They will never stop. As long as they have people who will listen, they will spin an manipulate on. Going up against them only emboldens them. They best thing to do with people like this is leave, encourage others to leave, and never interact with them on any level again. Ironically, social media makes that hard.

They are hard to spot. By the time people figure out something is wrong they are already sucked in. And narcissistic sociopaths never target everyone. They divide and conquer so you look like a mean angry bitter person who is against them. Then others will rally around them and protect them. They always become the victim. Always.

There are some characteristics to look for but most people freak out if you even discuss them because innocent people have some of the same characteristics. They really do masquerade as angels of light.

They are exhausting and not worth the effort.

Kemi wrote:

Though I do believe that given time they will alienate everyone, because the people that were on his good side for one issue inevitably get on his bad side for another later on. An abuser always needs an abusee; no one is ever safe with people like this.

Keep in mind I am focusing more on such types in a leadership capacity. They will move on or surround themselves with new people. Driscoll is a perfect example of this. Look how long he lasted at Mars Hill but not before he used a lot of people, threw some under the bus, etc. And he left wealthy. Now, he is starting over with a new crop of people.

There are usually some inexperienced young people you want in on what they see as a success bandwagon.

Look at how long the Mahaney lasted at SGM. The biggest part of his protection, in the end, was partnering with outside names to support him. Had he not had all that protection from people like Mohler, Dever, Piper, Trueman, Ortburg, etc, one has to wonder what would have happened.

The key is having power, control and insulation. Those are protections for sociopathic narcissists.

Driscoll took a bunch of money instead of paying people back and is trying to build another Empire. My guess is Mahaney took a bunch of money, too.

I guess what I’m trying to say is don’t be too convinced that they always end up alienating everyone. They always find new people to adore them . These people can wreak havoc in lives for thirty and forty years.

@ Deb:
When Ronnie Floyd joins the stage at a T4G/CBMW and Paige Patterson becomes a 9Marxist, clear signs are being sent to millions of mainline non-Calvinist Southern Baptists … you have no one in national leadership for you.

Kemi wrote:

Though I do believe that given time they will alienate everyone, because the people that were on his good side for one issue inevitably get on his bad side for another later on. An abuser always needs an abusee; no one is ever safe with people like this.

Lydia wrote:

I guess what I’m trying to say is don’t be too convinced that they always end up alienating everyone. They always find new people to adore them . These people can wreak havoc in lives for thirty and forty years.

“BUT I’M HIS COURT FAVORITE!
HE EVEN LET ME BRING THE BOWSTRING FOR LAST WEEK’S FAVORITE!”

Mara wrote:

It makes one wonder what is really going on between his ears. What does he really believe about God, justice, and eternity. Because though he levels eternal judgment against others as a weapon, he lives as though it is nothing he should be concerned about for himself.

Because he KNOWS he’s God’s Court Favorite, and God’s Speshul Pet gets away with anything.

Predestined Elect, waving his personal Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card God signed especially for His Speshul Pet before the foundation of the world.

@ Max:
Which is why leadership is over rated in Christendom. It is simply not necessary but many have been convinced it is and their unending goal is to find righteous ones who don’t turn bad in the position. It’s a waste of time and effort.

@ Yentl:

Bless you, Yentl!

Yentl wrote:

SGCL signed up as Baptists because the seminary required all students to attend Baptist churches and if they didn’t, students couldn’t go to their church.

Not exactly. You have to attend a Southern Baptist church to get the tuition discount. Mohler had been offering the discount to SGCL members but was forced to retract the offer in one of the few successful acts of resistance to him from the SBC.

So he got around it by sneaking SGCL into the local Baptist association which made them Southern Baptists.

R2 wrote:

So he got around it by sneaking SGCL into the local Baptist association which made them Southern Baptists.

What I’m confused about is if CJs church is still also part of SGC? How is it both SBC and SGC?

Deb wrote:

@ Bridget:
It’s always about money with this crowd. Students at Southern Baptist seminaries get a substantial discount when they are members of Southern Baptist churches.
It’$ still all about the Money!

So did Mahaney mainly join because he had a son and SIL attending seminary or was it to get SCC students to come join his church so they could get a discount at seminary?

This is such a naked, self-interested sermon, I am surprised he wasn’t struck down during the delivery. But God is gracious to us all – me included.

But Christians should see through this sort of thing you would think.

Adam Borsay wrote:

So something as simple as not having a permanent cross at the center of the worship center created this pocket of destructive grumbling. How did we get to deal with it and how was it resolved? A number of wonderful God honoring individuals in the membership became aware of it and confronted the grumblers and exposed the lies. They took seriously the importance of standing with the church leadership and even protecting them from lies and slander. They didn’t do so blindly, but with openness and honesty. So instead of it becoming a bigger and bigger divisive issue, “regular” church members defended leadership and the problems were resolved without it blowing up.

Was the decision to not have a cross in the main area a secret decision of leadership? I’m assuming that this is something that would have been discussed with the church body along with explanations and that most of the church was in agreement. The background is important in this scenario. I can see people being suspicious if this was a leadership decision with no explanation.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Three- I think there DOES need to be a high bar to supporting and defending church leadership.

No higher bar than the one protecting any other member of the body against wrong doing!!!!

Adam Borsay wrote:

So something as simple as not having a permanent cross at the center of the worship center created this pocket of destructive grumbling.

The SBC-YRR church plants in my area don’t have a Cross displayed anywhere!

@ Lea:

I don’t want to compare in peoples minds that church decorations and abuse are similar. Instead to see that the principle of defending leadership has value. When we don’t take it seriously it leads to problems. And, in the case of visitors, people who might not know anything about Christ or church, for them to show up and be warned about how terrible the leaders are, they could respond by deciding to not darken the doors of a church again because there first experience is a bunch of angry argumentative people. So while decorations are ultimately of little importance, how they are responding to it can have significant impact.

When little things are allowed to grow into big things how it impacts the watching community has a powerful affect on how they view Christianity. If all they know is that those “church people” are always arguing over stupid things, why would they ever want to be a part of that?

One of our denominational statements is “In Essentials, Unity, in non-essentials, Liberty, in all things, Charity”. There are very few hills we would be willing to die on, and in everything else, we have to be wise to not always be bogged down by endless debates about what color the new carpets should be. When we move into non-essentials(to cross or not to cross) there are going to be as many opinions as there are people. Once a decision has been made it serves no one to continue to argue and grumble about it.

-as a quick aside; we did address it…wrote about it, spoke about it from the pulpit—and it did nothing to stop the whisper campaign–

Every believer in any church is able to know Biblical truth, and have a responsibility to stand for God’s truth. When leadership is in sin they have a responsibility to stand with God, not with men. But, so many issues that churches and church leadership deal with are not the abominable sinfulness as shown in CJM’s ministry, but people elevating non-essentials and personal preferences to a position of idolatry.

I have always told people that if they don’t prefer how we do things, or, have some doctrinal disagreements on some secondary issues, that is totally ok. For example, we are a reformed church(EPC) and some people aren’t comfortable with that, and I have happily encouraged them to visit our local E-Free church. I love our brothers and sisters there and we have often shared in ministry to serve our community for the Gospel.

If you have chosen and committed to a local body, and outside of sin, why would you go around trashing and disrespecting leadership? It creates a stumbling block to young believers and can put a wall between the Bride and those outside of faith that is unnecesary.

And what is frustrating is that for many regular people their most common perception of a church is a bunch of infighting over silly things coupled with ignoring significant sins(Driscoll, CJM, etc) The American church really has, in general got this all screwy. We fight over non-essentials and make excuses for sin in the churh. What a powerful testimony could we have if we truly had unity and didn’t fight over paint colors and got ferocious about real sin and abuse.

Bridget wrote:

I’ve only seen this principle used to silence the body while the head(s) does what it wants.

I would run for the hills of any church that ignores leadership sin and twists this passage to defend it. The principle is applied to non-essentials. To be able to say, “I don’t prefer, or agree, with that position, but it isn’t a reason to start a fight. I want to support our church and our leadership even when it isn’t my personal preference”. I have rarely seen fights over critical sin issues, but I have seen tons of fights over the most absurd things

Lea wrote:

So now I’m thinking this need for older women and men to instruct the younger is very, very important. Not that they should be making all the decisions (I am fond of a congregational vote and full information available to members!), but they should be OLDER, MATURE Christians who have been around the block so to say and are capable of instruction. That is not what we see happening…

What we’re seeing is 20-year-old Pastorjugende whose only qualification for “Elder” is total blind loyalty to the regime.

Same qualifications as Komsomol, the Allgemine-SS, and Chairman Mao’s Red Guard.

@ Yentl:
Thank you for this dose of reality. The really sad part is that the people who most need to hear your words are the ones who will be quickest to defend Mahaney. It is a cult. You could say the same thing about 9Marks or MacArthur or any of the Gospel Glitterati franchises. There are many people who have post-traumatic church disorder (I would like to credit the commenter who included that apt term some time in the recent past, but I cannot remember who that is!)

While I am playing amateur psychologist, I think that many of these people are seriously disordered themselves. They appear to me to be stunted emotionally as well as spiritually. Certainly Mahaney’s comments and behaviors are disordered. Or worse. Those who believe they have the maturity to judge secular psychologists as being godless lack the bare minimum discernment to see that something is terribly wrong in YRRville. They externalize all of their problems and lack all capacity to look at their own problems that they have created. And we should trust their nouthetic judgment? I think not.

Lea wrote:

I’m thinking this need for older women and men to instruct the younger is very, very important … they should be OLDER, MATURE Christians who have been around the block so to say and are capable of instruction

Indeed! That is the Biblical pattern for doing church as we ought. The YRR churches of 20s-40s are missing the wisdom of a generation that has been around the corner, both in and out of church. I was young and now I’m old – I’ve learned a lot being pulled through the knotholes of life! Now, that’s not to say that every old gray-haired person in church has wisdom … but age helps. We need multi-generations working together. We need the energy of youth coupled with the wisdom of age … young folks to speed things up, old guys to slow it down. In the SBC-YRR takeovers of traditional churches in my area, they use the old folks (particularly their money) rather than sit under them for instruction … until the saints get wise to their scheme and break ranks (otherwise known as a church split, which the YRR are masters of).

Lea wrote:

A man on staff apparently cannot just be the ‘Director’ of something. Or Accountant. Or what have you. He must be a PASTOR!

Hehe, Pastor of Accounting, I haven’t seen that yet but I have seen:
Youth Pastor
Executive Pastor
College Pastor
Outreach Pastor
Head Pastor
Discipleship Pastor
Lead Pastor
Marriage & Family Pastor
Senior Pastor
Pastor to seniors
Worship Pastor
Pastor Emeritus

I’m sure there’s more. Thankfully I seen some start calling them ministers or directors and dropping the silly over use of “pastor”.

Gram3 wrote:

Those who believe they have the maturity to judge secular psychologists as being godless lack the bare minimum discernment to see that something is terribly wrong in YRRville. They externalize all of their problems and lack all capacity to look at their own problems that they have created. And we should trust their nouthetic judgment?

As much as we should trust Scientology’s Dianetic judgment.

@ Christiane:
And followers of Hillary

Lydia wrote:

They are hard to spot. By the time people figure out something is wrong they are already sucked in. And narcissistic sociopaths never target everyone. They divide and conquer so you look like a mean angry bitter person who is against them. Then others will rally around them and protect them. They always become the victim. Always.

Great summary! I should have read the entire thread before making my previous comment.

Christiane wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
total blind loyalty to the regime

same is required by the Followers of Trump – I shall never forget when Trump tried to get them to give him a raised hand salute . . . thank God it didn’t take, at least ‘not yet’ . . . dark times ahead, yes

Problem is, Christiane, that statements like yours these days are usually linked to gushing over Hillary Who Can Do No Wrong. “HERE AHURA-MAZDA, THERE AHRIMAN!” plus Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy are now the default in American politics.
“WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?????”

(This is the first American Presidential campaign I can remember where EVERY Big Name in the primaries — except for Bernie Sanders — sounds like He/She Who Would Be Dictator. Trump, Cruz, Hillary, all of them. Each one seizing Power in the name of stopping the Vast Conspiracy of all the Others. Looks like it’s not only the Communists who turned Politics into a Fundamentalist religion…)

Lydia wrote:

By the time people figure out something is wrong they are already sucked in. And narcissistic sociopaths never target everyone. They divide and conquer so you look like a mean angry bitter person who is against them. Then others will rally around them and protect them.

While they’re targeting some, they’re grooming others.

“But he was such a NICE boy! So polite!”
— said of so many serial killers after their capture

From experience:
Nobody is as Concerned as a sociopath, as Compassionate as a sociopath, as NICE as a sociopath, as Sincere as a sociopath, as Innocent as a sociopath, as Unjustly Wronged as a sociopath, as Persecuted as a sociopath — until the instant you Outlive Your Usefulness.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

From experience:
Nobody is as Concerned as a sociopath, as Compassionate as a sociopath, as NICE as a sociopath, as Sincere as a sociopath, as Innocent as a sociopath, as Unjustly Wronged as a sociopath, as Persecuted as a sociopath — until the instant you Outlive Your Usefulness.

You know, I’ve always said I don’t trust charm. But d*rn if I didn’t get suckered in by it last year. Oh well. Live and learn.

Christiane wrote:

same is required by the Followers of Trump – I shall never forget when Trump tried to get them to give him a raised hand salute . . . thank God it didn’t take, at least ‘not yet’ . . . dark times ahead, yes

Today, on The Wartburg Watch, Christine compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

I think Friday the 13th brings out the crazy in some people.

@ Adam Borsay:
If pastoring is hard there are other career options but you will probably end up working for a jerk there, too, with whom you have to see everyday– not just on weekends. Or, you can put them under church discipline and hope they still tithe during the process. :o)

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It is getting old. All of it. Trump does not make the oligharcical (now stinking rich, too) Orwellian Hillary into Mother Theresa. There is a nasty history there. I am certainly not going to go along with rewriting it.

Lydia wrote:

Driscoll took a bunch of money instead of paying people back and is trying to build another Empire. My guess is Mahaney took a bunch of money, too.

My question is still, what happens when the money runs out? Is SGCL self-sufficient yet, or are they still running on SGM monies? Can Driscoll collect enough new naive giving units in Phoenix before the Mars Hill dollars dwindle? I think their tone will change.

@ Adam Borsay:
Hi Adam, I enjoyed your comments. I thought you gave a reasonable explanation and I’m sorry for the way some people here have chosen to interpret your words. You seem to have a fine character and don’t seem contentious or malicious in the least bit to me.

Thank you giving your life to serve the Lord and to labor in the fields for His Name’s sake. It’s not easy. And it doesn’t make it any easier when you come here and share your experience of dealing with critical church members only to be faced with critical blog commenters. You were probably hoping for some encouragement and understanding.

Well, I’m here to say keep up the good work Adam. May the Lord bless and strengthen your heart and refresh you in your labors, for the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few.

I thank God that you are a good leader and that you recognize a problem such as CJ Mahaney. I sat under his misleadership for 12 years. I’ve learned how to spot the bad guys, and you’re certainly not one of them.

Many, many blessings to you and may the Lord strengthen you in His joy and multiply His grace in your life, enabling you to stand, and then to keep standing!

Mara wrote:

It makes one wonder what is really going on between his ears. What does he really believe about God, justice, and eternity. Because though he levels eternal judgment against others as a weapon, he lives as though it is nothing he should be concerned about for himself.

The obvious conclusion is, people like this do not actually believe in a real God who sees and weighs them, or else they see God as an extension of themselves.

Adam Borsay wrote:

If somebody in another department doesn’t like how you are using your budget towards the end of accomplishing the task you have been assigned, you aren’t beholden to their criticisms.

You are if they convince your boss! And although you don’t work for everyone in a company, if you have customers, clients, other departments you deal with? Their opinion does matter.

In life, people will complain, so too in church. We’re human. The key is to see why they are complaining, and to be honest with yourself about whether that person is just difficult or if you are doing something that is divisive.

(I do wonder if elder led is not more prone to this kind of middling complaint, since most of the church gets no say except to pack up and leave, but I have no data on that)

He wouldn’t deign to befriend anyone in his congregations!

I know bosses that are exactly like that. Kiss up, kick down.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Really, I was taught it was the blood of Christ that kept me from going to hell?? So, it really is CJ and my pastor that is keeping me from going to hell?

My thought exactly!

Adam Borsay wrote:

All that to say, CJM is not in any position to teach these things, but the principle is important.

Adam, I think that you are merely describing being open and honest about dealing with issues that come up, not a need for leadership to have some kind of special protections.

Ron Oommen wrote:

Can I suggest strong Gnostic elements in this obsession with the soul – almost as the body and this present life is of no importance. Maybe that is why there seems to be this disregard for the abused?

You certainly can Ron. And Lydia too from up-thread. From my own investigations and what elastigirl refers to as experiential data from real life, I believe that body and soul are an integral unit. You can’t have one without the other. I believe that the idea of a sharp bifurcation between the two is a product of Hellenism and its influence on Western theology.
I no longer believe in the concept of an immortal soul. I am now convinced that the only thing that leaves the body upon expiration from this world is the Almighty’s gift of life-force which animates all living creatures.

Adam Borsay wrote:

To go back to the cross issue at our church…some older folks wanted to understand it more and came to talk…after talking through purpose and reasons they were like…ok, I miss it, but I understand.

See, now I’m sort of sad for them. They’re old. They want a cross. Maybe you could get a temporary cross that you can up for sundays? I want to fix this for you, heh.

I think we’re mostly in agreement, I just get concerned with the shifting of focus on ‘Protect. The. Leaders’. That’s not really you necessarily, just a general concern.

The ironic thing is, because of his actions, nobody will protect their pastors. Pastors once affiliated with SGM are attacked by those loyal to SGM and attacked by those who aren’t. The bottom line is, nobody will ever trust or protect their pastors again. Well-meaning conscientious pastors who love the Lord and are seeking to follow him are facing a barrage of gunfire from skeptical members who distrust their motives.

Each year in the pastor’s college graduation, CJ gives an ominous exhortation (threat) that he NEVER hear a bad report about any of them.

Now, ALL of these pastors are dealing with the wreckage of his divisive hypocrisy and failing in their home churches.

Now, EVERY pastor affiliated with T4G that was never associated with SGM is coming home to distrustful congregations because of T4G’s choice to embrace Mahaney.

He’s not just splitting his founding church. He’s splitting the Protestant Christian world by his refusal to repent. And…it isn’t “advancing the Gospel”.

The distraction his sin has caused churches has kept pastors from being able to tend to the very real needs of their flocks. Pastors are spending all of their time solving their own spiritual identity crisis, trying to determine the new direction of their churches, solving issues of polity and affiliation and having to answer to their congregations for CJ’s behavior.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Why do you have to have so many crosses…..

Ha!

Lea wrote:

I think we’re mostly in agreement, I just get concerned with the shifting of focus on ‘Protect. The. Leaders’. That’s not really you necessarily, just a general concern.

I think the broader implication of the passage is not protect the leader…at all costs…but the importance of being supportive of leadership. There is no way a pastor can make everyone happy all the time. Whether we put up no crosses, 1 cross, or multiple crosses, SOMEONE is going to have an opinion on it. We need to be gracious, but we can’t just keep changing with every opinion.

Too often church leadership is bogged down with navigating and trying to appease non-essentials. In the same week we will get a complaint about music being too loud AND it being to quiet. There are some days that it would be nice to actually deal with a real issue. Not that I want real issues to be an issue, but that at least is of consequential life value. Helping someone with a broken marriage is a lot more valuable then writing the 15th email to explain why we didn’t do a specific event(true story).

Healthy churches put down their rights and preferences to the end of the work they are entrusted to. Unhealthy churches get lost in the weeds making sure everyone is super comfortable and their preferences are getting equal time.

Another One wrote:

In an article on “A Cry for Justice”, Jeff Crippen calls this ‘Reflective blaming’– taking the focus off the abuser. He says, ” Don’t try to remove guilt from yourself by deflecting it to me. I am not guilty of abuse. You are.” In my opinion, this is what Mahaney is doing!

Isn’t there some study somewhere that found this to be the most characteristic sign of a sociopath?

@ Yentl:
I know right! I mean this whole thing has been incredibly damaging, yet the man will not remove himself from the stage, and men like Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, John Piper and Mark Dever will not relent in their endorsement of the man!

For crying out loud!!

I mean what is it? Do they believe that because Mahaney has aligned himself with them and adheres to their doctrines, that innocence and righteousness are automatically and unquestionably conferred upon him?!

I’ve stated here and do so without any doubt (not saying others need to agree with me, but it makes perfect sense based on all the evidence) that Mahaney isnt even the real deal! His whole “I’m a Christian leader” is a fraud. He’s a fraud.

Why are people so unwilling to suspect this man of conducting a fraudulent ministry? Can’t they see he’s a Con Artist? Are they so self assured that they think no one could ever pull the wool over their eyes?! I mean, Con Artist do just that – they work by gaining your confidence, but in the end you’re damaged by their deception. What must these men care about if they’re not able to identify and protect the church they seem to care so much about from individuals like Mahaney?

I’m baffled. Something opened the door to all this though. I suspect it has to do with rebellion, and not in the true Protestant sense!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Note that this is not “soul-sleep” in the sense of the Seventh-Day Adventists. That says your consciousness, memory trace, and first-person POV still exist “in stasis/storage” for the Resurrection; your consciousness still exists, but “jump-cuts” from the moment of death to the moment of resurrection with no memory of the time in-between. Without a body, you’re just not conscious of the fact (or of the passage of time).

@ siteseer:

It can be quite humorous, when you can deal with it from a healthy place.

Sadly, this stuff isn’t rare. Most people who attend a church are never even aware of how common this sort of absurdity is. Now to be clear, when leadership is unhealthy, the way the deal with these things can become the problem itself.

Something that I wanted to add to all of this. I forget who, but they mentioned finding a compromise. Finding a compromise for peoples self-centeredness is never a good idea, nor a plan for long term health.

Here is why; Take unhealthy selfish church member Joe and healthy selfless church member Jane. Jane is excited about the mission and purpose of the church. Joe is just looking for a place to feel comfortable on Sunday. Joe complains about some mundane decision of the church and even though it really isn’t a big deal, changes are made to accomadate his selfish desire. The church wants to compromise and keep Joe happy. Jane doesn’t make a stink about it, even though it is different than her preference because she practices putting others first.

But what does Jane intuitively learn. That the loud selfish complainers get what they want, and the quiet selfless people keep sacrificing to make the Joe’s of the church happy. On the surface this seems like a good peacekeeping church. But the Jane’s of the church, as the observe this pattern over and over, they recognize that the mission of the church has been co-opted by providing personal preference comforts for the selfish Joe’s of the church. The Janes, the ones you can really build a ministry around, don’t stay in those conditions. They leave for a church where mission matters above preferences. Now your church is full of selfish Joe’s, And sadly, those Joe’s don’t even agree with eachother, so you spend all your energy making sure each individual is getting what they want. Your focus becomes completely internalized.

The outflow of trusting and supporting leadership is that the Joe’s of the church aren’t given the power to be selfish, and the Jane’s are empowered to do ministry.

Lea wrote:

(I do wonder if elder led is not more prone to this kind of middling complaint, since most of the church gets no say except to pack up and leave, but I have no data on that)

Good point. Elder rule…err…led is set up for systemic dictatorshios. Even if they have elections. Like Congress they make rules that benefit themselves.

I will take the contentious old style Baptist business meeting any day of the week. There are always two or three curmudgeons or complainers in the group. Even though such polity can look like sausage making it is a lot safer than these dictatorships we are seeing.

In my former Church, before the reformers took over, the pastor was not even on the budget committee! He was literally given a budget for his Department. And he would not have wanted it any other way!

When it is everyone’s Church it can get really messy.

But these days people have been trained to look to their Pastor for everything. It has been a disaster for the church.

@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, I was in organizational development for 25 years, a part of that spent in working with mega churches. Trust me, I know the drill.

Listen to your normalized language: direction, Unity, can’t poll for decisions, etc. Is this the body of Christ or a tax exempt organization with leaders who want the position but not the headache?

You had better bet I answer in some way to a lot of people (the ones who pay and ones i pay ) about every decision I make in business. It’s called being a grown up and not a dictator.

The body of Christ is not about everybody being kept happy. It is about people functioning within their gifting that benefits everyone else. The body of Christ is not about a few people with titles making all the decisions for everyone else.

The body of Christ is either a place where people flourish growing in wisdom or remain as children looking to their “parent” leader. Sadly most institutional churches are now more of the latter.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Finding a compromise for peoples self-centeredness is never a good idea, nor a plan for long term health.

We can start with the pastors out there.

Not the small Church pastors who are the janitor, plumber, lawn mower excetera excetera but most Pastors in Middle to large churches have it pretty easy all week. You can buy teaching curriculum off the shelf, there are a plethora of websites to choose from for sermons and everything that goes with them including video, and outline for notes!. There are tons of software programs to manage all the member information even down to doing projections for you.

Church staffers have some of the easiest jobs in the world. And that gets them comfortable so that when a troublemaker member gives them a hard time, they freak out.

But then I can almost remember when the bulletin had to be mimeographed.

@ Adam Borsay:

The real problems come when Joe is the pastor. Or his bff.

Adam Borsay wrote:

I can’t tell you how much of a confidence boost, and safe you feel as a leader when even the people who don’t always agree with you support you against the Joes of the church. Too often the leadership isn’t “protected” and then we wonder, why did Pastor Sam resign….oh he resigned because you left him on an island and he had to deal with the Joes all by himself…day after day after day.

I’ve never seen a pastor have it rough like this at all. Maybe in really small churches.

I wish members could have the feeling of safety and confidence as well. I probably won’t ever again be part of an institutional church as they exist today. I don’t see them as functional bodies of believers, but I see them as leaders and then everyone else.

Adam Borsay wrote:

You can’t be a butler to every individual in the church. You, as a leader, are entrusted with serving the WHOLE church, and that is only apropriately done in light of the church is to serve Jesus and the responsibility of all Christians to “Go and make disciples”.

Jesus washed feet.

I mean I know you’re getting pushback and I’m sure you’re a nice guy. But being a servant is more than sermons.

I do feel you on random complaints though. As I said, that really just human. My favorite was when I would organize meetings with free food and people (who btw were getting money to pay for their breakfast lunch and dinners too) would complain about the food. It’s free! Bah. But you nod politely and if there is an option to accommodate in the future you do.

Bridget wrote:

I’ve never seen a pastor have it rough like this at all. Maybe in really small churches.

Perspective is shaped by our vantage point. As someone who has been in ministry for 15 years, and grew up in a ministry family, and converses and fellowships with all sorts of pastor and ministry leaders….what I see virtually in each of their experiences is exactly what I am describing. While there are absolutely abusive selfcentered church leaders that abuse the members, it is a rare pastor that doesn’t have a number of these stories and experiences in their ministry.

We oversee a small church in a difficult area(joblessness, drugs, etc). The pastor is a quiet and humble guy who came because he cared about these people. But he has had a terrible experience. He started gathering supplies to have a food pantry for people in their area….he was told…not exagerratting…if you do that who knows what kind of people are going to walk into our church. Lots of latchkey kids in single parent homes, he wanted to start an after school program for them. Again, we don’t want those people here.

The heartbreaking stories I have heard over and over—anonymous hate mail, wivese yelled at in grocery stores, criticisms for the shirt they wore(true story), go on and on. And this encompasses all types and sizes of churches. The difference between pastors and churches that move past these things and stay healthy is not that the pastor is really good at getting people in line(because that attitude just excaberates issues) but that the church members themselves stand up for the pastor. Healthy long term pastors are the ones that are able to look back and laugh at the absurdity BECAUSE they knew they were not going to be taking down by the critical Joes. The ones who knew they were alone are the ones who got burnt out and left bitter.

This does not mean that the response is to treat pastors like God’s special annointed class who can do no wrong, their is a mutuality in protection and care. But many pew sitters(and I use that on purpose to indicate selfish consumers) think the pastor exists to be their personal servant and their feelings and life are inconsequential.

@ Lea:

“He must be a PASTOR! Because caste.”
++++++++++

(because peepee)

@ Adam Borsay:

“I think there DOES need to be a high bar to supporting and defending church leadership. While I have personally dealt with the abuse side of leadership, I MORE often deal with unhealthy and destructive members who tear down leadership.”
+++++++++

could it be that it’s the church leadership model that fosters unhealthy destructive members?

perhaps they are synergistic.

perhaps the chicken and the egg, and which came first(?).

Velour wrote:

Holy Spirit may call them to do something that is entirely different than the church’s “mission” and it doesn’t make them wrong or “not on board”.

I agree. But no church can do everything that there is possible and necessary to do. It is totally fine to not be in allignment with the specific mission and process of a church. But what do you do when you find your call in conflict with you local church? You, generally speaking, have three choices. 1- Get on board with your community, 2- Find a place that is in allignment with your passions, 3- Be contentious. Assuming that the current direction of the church isn’t sin, then the first two choices are the only acceptable ones.

Driscoll’s response to people not being on board was less to do with mission, and a whole lot more to do with dictatorship. MH wasn’t dealing with, “We want to reach down town seatle and you want to reach the country side”.

In our church, we have a clear mission, and process. If you want to do something that doesn’t fit in that, that’s cool. Either we help you plug in where it is happening(we have a lot of people doing “backyard” mission trips with a few other churches) or, we encourage you to do it—for instance a middle aged woman asked me if we would do a womens aerobic class…I said, we won’t do it, but you are welcome to and we can give you a room for it!

Adam Borsay wrote:

But many pew sitters(and I use that on purpose to indicate selfish consumers) think the pastor exists to be their personal servant and their feelings and life are inconsequential.

I have never thought this about anyone – no leader/pastor especially. You come from one perspective and I come from another, one of seeing pastors abuse their positions and expecting servanthood, money, and honor from members. Your perspective is as tainted as mine, I’m sure.

@ Adam Borsay:
I am going to agree with you that there are many contentious, sinful church members who make life miserable for their pastors. Gramp3 and I know of good people who are no longer in paid ministry because of that very thing.

The difference between abusive pewpeons and abusive pastors is the effects which their abuse creates. Abusive pewpeons do not usually create Dones, people who are totally done with the institutional church. Abusive pastors create Dones by the Panamax boatload. And this is not new to the YRR. It is because people believe or are taught that the pastor speaks in the place of God himself. And people bail when they see the way certain “pastors” represent God.

Thankfully, there are pastors like you and some others I know who have not been swept up in the latest religious fad or bamboozled by cult leaders. I’ve lived long enough to see way too many of those, and most were not Reformed.

Adam Borsay wrote:

but that the church members themselves stand up for the pastor.

They stand up for Christ.

Lea wrote:

so most people are going to be supportive on these little things.

I have never yet been in a church where quibbling over stuff large and small was not going on. The church where I now am has identifiable subgroups of quibblers. I strongly suspect there may be a meeting of quibblers anonymous somewhere over there. They have not been able to trash the church, however, because there are both clerical and lay authority structures and because every reasonable accommodation has been made. Example of quibble: some rascal changed the Sunday low mass Rite I from 7:30 AM to 8:00 AM which just of course must not be tolerated because 7:30 is the required time; so they changed it back to 7:30. There are just lots of stuff like that. Quibbling occurred over some blue fabric which was used as a backdrop for the side altar; the blue fabric stayed. I am thinking Get A Life.

doubtful wrote:

He is not a man of his word.

Exactly. Nor a man of The Word.

Paula Rice wrote:

Something opened the door to all this though.

My working hypothesis is that the Fab Four or someone known by them realized at some point that they would have more impact (or make more money or secure a larger legacy) Together than separately. Mahaney was not always reformed, and it just seems to me that the Fab Four have been changing positions in order to better accommodate the others. Mohler was egalitarian back when that was the cool position. Dever was not always Baptist. Mahaney was unreformed. Duncan, I suppose, has changed the least. So, what they actually have in common–authoritarianism and gender supremacy–is emphasized as a Gospel imperative while some major differences are downplayed, such as the charismatic/cessationist and credo/pedo positions. Carl Trueman has remarked on this with some puzzlement.

Lydia wrote:

The body of Christ is not about everybody being kept happy. It is about people functioning within their gifting that benefits everyone else. The body of Christ is not about a few people with titles making all the decisions for everyone else.

The body of Christ is either a place where people flourish growing in wisdom or remain as children looking to their “parent” leader. Sadly most institutional churches are now more of the latter.

Preach it, sister!

The organizational church’s purpose, is not the purpose of the Body of Christ.

Let me confess right up front that the standard organizational church and its structure for worship / Sundays utterly fails, IMO, as an assembling together of those who believe in Christ.

And as a result, attempting to solve church problems (such as the examples Adam provided) strike me as a type of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

My understanding of the assembly of believers is so at odds with what the organization that is (and has long been) called ‘church’ that I usually avoid the topic.

We are supposed to be a BODY. We are not supposed to be “a couple of leaders” and “a bunch of sitters”.

A body made of different parts, with different functions, different giftings, different strengths, different weaknesses. Some parts used continuously, some parts daily, some on very rare occasions. Some functions obvious, some hidden. Some jump into action when there is danger, and some jump into action when a baby cries.

Think of a healthy human body – and the incredible action and interaction of an incredible array of incredibly different parts – all working together as you go through your day.

Now imagine a healthy human body that was strapped down to a gurney at birth. From head to toe – completely restrained from doing anything – except using its lips to speak..

The lips want to talk, that’s what they do. And if the lips are put in charge of the whole body (as opposed to every part actually being connected (with their own connection!) to the head) – then the other parts of the body are going to get short-shrift.

The lips have no need of those other parts, beyond wanting the ears to listen to them (and obey them) as they do what lips do.

A body that is comprised of big lips, who is barely alive, has atrophied muscles, and a weak heart.

That’s the structure for the assembly that meets in churches today.

Lips don’t want to hear anything from the feet, or the eyes, and CERTAINLY don’t want to hear from the alimentary canal. Unless it is a chorus from those parts of “atta-boys!” to the lips.

Bodies are messy. Infant and toddler bodies that haven’t gained sufficient control over their parts – they’re messy as well. They also yell, demand attention, are incredibly self-centered, occasionally throw conniption fits, and they whine.

It is MUCH less messy, to just have the lips in charge and to keep all those other, unneeded body parts from participating.

Lea wrote:

Man: Senior Pastor. Man: Music Pastor. Man: Childrens Pastor. Man: Something else Pastor, etc..etc..

And did you notice that there is never a Sanitation Pastor?

LOL

Gram3 wrote:

I am going to agree with you that there are many contentious, sinful church members who make life miserable for their pastors.

One of my observations is that expecting the pastor to handle everything, including the people, is the rest of the people do not grow. There is no iron sharpening iron with all the assorted noise and sparks flying. For example on this blog there is a lot of give and take, that does not happen in a typical church. If I were to speak up in a similar in a local church I would be quickly ruled of of my place.

With the pastor in charge we miss the hurly burly conflict but we get mediocrity at best and abuse at worst.

Adam Borsay wrote:

Did anything I have said indicate I don’t believe that? The question is “WHOSE” servant are you. You can’t be a butler to every individual in the church

Adam, you are unhappy with the situation. If you want the institutional position of pastor, it comes with tons of baggage because people have been taught to rely on human leaders.

You could find a position in a 9 Marks style church where they sign a contract to obey the leader. Then you could discipline the guy about the crosses. The young restless and reformed guys who took over my former Church hardly ever work. They are off to conferences, mission trips alone, etc. And paid well not to deal with hospitals, sick, dying, needy, etc.

It is always a ‘cake and eat it too’ situation when it comes to the word servant. I guess my question to you would be: what do you think a pastor is? What were you taught about it as a function?

You have complained about typical stuff that goes on in churches. We are alk familuar with it. Sometimes church is the only place some people can feel important. Sometimes important people come to church and think they can be important there, too. My mom was a minister of music for years and I noticed one thing she did with those types was to ask them for help. Amazing how that works.

But what about the teen who is on the verge of committing suicide? What about the single moms who can’t make ends meet? What about the elderly members who are lonely and can’t get out much anymore? There are tons of places to ‘pastor’. Yes you might feel like a butler and some of those situations.

It could be that we just love our buildings and titles way too much.

@ Gram3:
Yes, it does sound like spiritual blackmail. All the more reason for pew peons to question and discuss the relationship of souls to minds and bodies!

Uncle Dad wrote:

My broader point is that modern day forms of organized church did not exist when the New Testament was written.

Which does not make them automatically bad. Not does it make them automatically good. The fundamental question is, is this form of organization conducive to forming Christ-like communities or not?

Fwiw, in previous eras, the word “soul” has been used the = person, human being. You can still see thst in expressions like “not a living soul” and you’ll find it fairly often in 19th c. and older books, letters, etc. Even in general assessments of places, where a community’s population is sometimes expressed as “3,000 souls” rather than “3,000 people.”

So, while this has nothing to do with Greek or translation, i do think it can be helpful to keep in mind that usage and definitions have changed (sometimes a great deal) over time, and that there can be many nuances that we miss in assuming that X word has always had the same meaning. Languages change over time.

I’ve often seen refs to “care of the soul” in pre-19th c. writing. Leaving aside the arguments about dualism, it really does seem to mean the psyche. I don’t think most uses of the phrase are intended to denigrate the body. We tend to forget that until the advent of antibiotics (and other seemingly “miraculous” forms of treatment), lots of people died. Childbed fever, a suppurating cut on the hand, going to a public swimming pool in the summer… all were potentially deadly. Infant mortality was high. It’s no wonder people focused on the part of the self that many of us believe is undying, because nobody – absolutely nobody – could make the assumption that they could or would ever be safe as far as mortal illness and its end. This is still true for most people in the world today, since vety few have access to the kind of medical treatment that we take for granted.

I think the old translation used in the Book of Common Prayer, where it’s said that Chtist will transform our “vile bodies” to be like his “glorious” body, is sldo a rejoinder to death and mortality. (This passage was and probably still is used during funerals.) Given the epidemics of smallpox, bubonic plague, cholera, thyphoid… it takes on a real poignancy. I’m willing to bet that a lot of people in the African countries recently ravaged by Ebola would relate (as we said back in the 70s).

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And a fundamental axiom of Anti-Catholic Hate Literature since Hislop’s “Two Babylons”, though I’ve also seen it in Seventh-Day Adventist literature.

The late Dave Hunt’s tome A Woman Rides the Beast was another fundagelical anti-Catholic propaganda screed. Thing is, Catholicism learned from its past mistakes and came to grips with the Enlightenment and The Rights of Man.
Not so with fundagelical protestantism, the YRR, and other sects. Most, but not all, are still stuck in the 16th century.

Bill M wrote:

With the pastor in charge we miss the hurly burly conflict but we get mediocrity at best and abuse at worst.

Yes! People tend to hate disagreement and see it as conflict when it is actually an opportunity to think deeper on a subject and discuss various positions. There is also thinking out there we have to agree on every detail in order to be friends or accomplish anything together.

There are hills to die on. But not that many.

And most of us know our threshold for tolerance. And we avoid those situations. I have no tolerance for authoritarian controlling or caste system churches. So I avoid them.

@ Lydia:
Etymology can be fun stuff!

BL wrote:

I love hearing my fellow worshipers as they sing.

16 years ago almost all the churches in town canceled their Easter services and we all met together at the basketball arena. There were 10,000 people present, too bad I never heard my voice join with theirs, we were all drowned out by the “worship team”.

Eeyore wrote:

The fundamental question is, is this form of organization conducive to forming Christ-like communities or not?

Taking a gander at the fruit – I would say “no”.

Gram3 wrote:

Abusive pewpeons do not usually create Dones, people who are totally done with the institutional church. Abusive pastors create Dones by the Panamax boatload.

I’m intrigued… what effects do you think that abusive pewpeons have on their fellow pewpeons?

Friend wrote:

Gutsy move! How are people responding?

This is nothing new. I think everybody already knows this. He is just reminding people to not forget the ground rules while we deal with some unrelated changes.

I ran across 1 Timothy 5:20 this morning. I must have read it dozens of times in the past, but this is the first time it really hit me. Here it is in the ESV (the favorite version of the YRR): “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”

This verse looks like it applies to elders because it’s right after the guidance on how many witnesses are required to to bring an accusation against an elder. Unless I am reading it wrong, it appears that public exposure is the right way to go for cases like this so that other elders will fear. Is this the right way of reading this?

Gram3 wrote:

Carl Trueman has remarked on this with some puzzlement.

It is puzzling. And I like your hypothesis. I’m starting to think they may all be ‘unconditionally elected’ to remain camped whole everyone else decamps.

I like to watch Masterpiece Theatre on Sunday nights. I’d never seen Wallander before, but I was intrigued by Alan Cummings’ introduction. He said, “He’s a 40 year veteran of the Swedish police force who ought to retire except that he can’t resist being pulled back by his fierce sense of justice, compelled by a dogged optimism that there’s nothing that can’t be mended. Nothing. Not even the wounded soul of a weary detective.”

I believe that – that there’s nothing that can’t be mended. I also believe there’s a time, like the Bible says, to tear, and a time to mend. For the mending to happen, there needs to be a tearing, no? Which is why I believe Mahaney must be torn off the stage in order for the mending to truly begin.

The Fab Four are contributing to the tearing; they’re causing divisions not ‘togetherness.’ I say it’s time to declare them, along with The Gospel Coalition, rogue organizations. And may the the time of mending begin.

My Catholic church is frequently criticized for having a Pope and requiring belief in his infallibility. However, even in our hierarchical church, we only have to accept the Pope’s teaching when he teaches Ex Cathedra – not any other time and yes, there are times when it is recommended to resist the Pope if he is teaching incorrectly and there have been saints who have done so (St. Catherine of Siena, for instance).

Maybe CJ might want to take a page out of his (formerly) Catholic playbook. . .

Paula Rice wrote:

Hi Ken, I’m going to read the info in the link you provided, but I wanted to say that although I’m only a trained theologian, I know my Bible, and I would not be involved in this struggle in a public way if I did not think there was a biblical basis for it. That’s my 2 cents.

Likewise, I am not a trained theologian either. I’ve learned enough over the last year to know that Calvinism is off base and the YRR crowd is leading people astray. My goal now is to find out what is true. Looking back to church writers before Constantine’s influence is proving fruitful. But it’s difficult to know where to start because many of the early church fathers were prolific writers.

Lydia wrote:

I tend to agree with Muff this is right out of Hellenistic thinking. Separating the spiritual from the material world. Dualism. Without thinking about it we are easily led to believe they have some sort of special knowledge about the spiritual world and our position in it, that we cannot have.

Doesn’t “Gnostic” mean “He Who Has Special Knowledge”?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Doesn’t “Gnostic” mean “He Who Has Special Knowledge”?

Yes. And since Calvinists claim that only Calvinists can truly understand Calvinism (they certainly believe that non-Calvinists don’t understand Calvinism), new Calvinism could be called new Gnosticism. Food for thought.

@ BL:
Good comment! So true.

Bridget wrote:

I’ve never seen a pastor have it rough like this at all. Maybe in really small churches.

YES in really small churches.
That’s what burned out my writing partner.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

YES in really small churches.
That’s what burned out my writing partner.

And a lot of them are bi vocational to make ends meet.

Ken F wrote:

But it’s difficult to know where to start because many of the early church fathers were prolific writers.

Yes, imagine a time before TV, the internet, or modern appliances. Imagine scratching everything out with a quill pen!

A good book can definitely change your life. I know there have been a few times when I know I was led to discover a certain book, because it contained the knowledge I was searching for. If we seek we shall find!

Ken F wrote:

it’s difficult to know where to start

Free advice: I start with a reasonably good encyclopedia and follow the clues from there. Don’t spend a dime before you check out what is available on line. And, unless the issue is one in which I am a professional with the credentials to show for it I follow this rule of thumb: never believe anything you hear and believe only half at most of what you read–until you personally check it out further.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Doesn’t “Gnostic” mean “He Who Has Special Knowledge”?

Papa Chuck (founder of Calvary Chapel) taught that in the resurrection, the physical body is not brought back to life and animation, but rather God is forced, to manufacture a new body which is compatible with ‘the spirit’, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Whether he was privy to some speshul knowledege not available to regular pew serfs, or if he just put his own spin on what the Bible says or does not say, I was Berean enough to do my own homework and come to my own conclusion that Smith was full of….er….ah….horse poo-poo.

@ Ken F:
I read all those links. That was helpful and informative! I had known bit and parts, but that was a more comprehensive overview and served to refresh my memory on some of the events I had read about before.

In the Wikipedia article, the “Hostile Meeting” in Denver was described in which Herschel H. Hobbs (I mean, really, who names their kid that, but I digress) the “respected elder statesman and former SBC president” was booed when he “urged restraint.”

Then in the SBTS article and the video, Mohler addressed SBC’s Calvinism (great video by Peter Lumpkins).

And then my mind took a brief detour and I remembered my dear old friends, Calvin and Hobbes!

I appreciated all the info, thank you Ken.

@ Ken F:
Get your wife on here commenting! That’s great you two are, like, literally, on the same page 🙂

@ numo:

Smith was obsessed with what I believe to be the false dichotomy of the ‘flesh’ vs. the ‘spirit’, with infractions of a sekshul nature being the absolute worst ‘sins’ of all fleshly existence (he had all the clobber texts to prove it too).
So it’s no marvel then, that contempt and loathing of what it means to be human, could cause such a one to manufacture a sweet by and by in the sky with little or no connection to this present world.

Ken F wrote:

But probably my biggest beef with MacArthur’s theology is his insistence on Penal Substitution as the only proper foundation for any view of the atonement. Here’s quite a startling quote: “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” (see http://www.gty.org/blog/B131002/heavens-perspective-on-the-cross-satisfaction.) How does one get to the point where the good news of the Gospel is Jesus saving us from God?!? Where is that in the Bible? MacArthur’s only solid proof-text is his definition of the word propitiation, which is a Latin translation of a Greek word that does not have an unambiguous meaning (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/). The more I study this, the more I am starting to believe that early church would have condemned penal substitution as heresy because of how it divides the Trinity.

Thank you for this thought provoking post. You are, of course, correct, that early Christians would have never put up with the theological shenanigans of dome of these folk.
elastigirl wrote:

but yes to retiring the title of ‘pastor’. ‘Lead Pastor’ and my toes start curling backwards. they both should go the way of powder blue station wagons (w/navy blue shiny vinyl interior).

Good heavens, yes!! The whole thing makes my skin creep. What ever happened to “Brother” [name here]. I suppose it went out when the inmates took over the zoo…..

Bill M wrote:

16 years ago almost all the churches in town canceled their Easter services and we all met together at the basketball arena. There were 10,000 people present, too bad I never heard my voice join with theirs, we were all drowned out by the “worship team”.

What used to be a corporate experience is now an audience and a performance.

zooey111 wrote:

Good heavens, yes!! The whole thing makes my skin creep. What ever happened to “Brother” [name here].

Brother so and so makes my skin crawl, too. I like calling someone named Bob, Bob. Not Pastor Bob or Brother Bob. Any title I find odd. We don’t call firemen, Fireman Bob or a grocery store clerk, Grocery Clerk Bob. They’re just Bob. Why the need for titles in the church when we’ve eschewed them in the rest of the world? If we need a new person in the church to figure out who the minister is, well, they’ll figure it out when the person whose giving the sermon gets up to give it. Other than that, we’re all to love each other and NOT be a respecter of persons. If we’re going with titles, then people can start calling me, One Hot Sexy Momma Though Terribly Delusional Stunned

Adam Borsay wrote:

But what does Jane intuitively learn. That the loud selfish complainers get what they want, and the quiet selfless people keep sacrificing to make the Joe’s of the church happy.

On the surface of it, it may sound like Joe is a jerk.

But as someone who was strongly conditioned by church culture and my traditional mother to be a doormat – because Jesus wants women to be doormats, don’t you know – I would have to commend Joe for speaking up and getting his needs and preferences met.
(Rather than remaining quiet, stuffing them down, to be perceived as nice and accommodating.)

There is something to be said for the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” expression.

All my years of not speaking up for what I wanted, of putting me and my needs dead last, got me nothing but buckets of resentment and depression, and I was more than occasionally used and taken advantage of people who could see I had a hard time saying “no.”

Lydia wrote:

Not the small Church pastors who are the janitor, plumber, lawn mower excetera excetera but most Pastors in Middle to large churches have it pretty easy all week. You can buy teaching curriculum off the shelf, there are a plethora of websites to choose from for sermons and everything that goes with them including video, and outline for notes!. There are tons of software programs to manage all the member information even down to doing projections for you.

There’s this one TV preacher I used to enjoy watching when I was younger. I learned a few years ago his yearly salary from his church is something like $300k to $400k.
I am at a loss to understand how or what this guy does that is of that value. All he does is give a sermon once or twice a week…

And as you said (and as I’ve learned on other sites) many of these preachers don’t do their own work. They have ghost writers that write their books, they purchase already made sermons from sermon sites, etc.

Velour wrote:

Adam Borsay wrote:
If serving Joe is in conflict to serving the mission of the church(go and make disciples) then serving Joe is not serving our primary responsibility.
——————
(Velour said)
This seems very heavy handed and reminds me of Mark Driscoll’s stance and throwing people under the bus who weren’t on board with the mission. If Christians have the Holy Spirit in them, then the Holy Spirit may call them to do something that is entirely different than the church’s “mission” and it doesn’t make them wrong or “not on board”.

I understand that one reason for the church’s existence is to spread the Gospel, but. It’s also there to meet the needs of people who are already members.

Galatians 6.10
“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

There has been a trend in churches the last few years for preachers to insist their church (or The church in general) should exist ONLY to convert people.

So, if a member (one of the sheep) asks the preacher for stronger, deeper sermons (as opposed to the usual seeker friendly watered down gruel that is used to appeal to the goats), the preachers throw fits and scream at the members like that to “self feed.”

Lea wrote:

I’m saying this is meant to be a symbiotic relationship. It’s not really about ‘support your leaders’ just because.

I agreed with the rest of your post. I just wanted to say something about your comment I am quoting triggered memories of seeing “How to help your pastor and make his life easier” types of articles I periodically see on sites such as “Christianity Today.”

Such articles usually make me want to puke. It seems to me a lot of preachers already have life pretty cushy and easy, but then they expect church members to treat them with even more tender, preferential treatment.

Adam Borsay wrote:

or, we encourage you to do it—for instance a middle aged woman asked me if we would do a womens aerobic class…I said, we won’t do it, but you are welcome to and we can give you a room for it!

I kind of think that is a cop out.

As a never married lady, I see that most churches neglect adult singles. Most classes, sermons, etc, are about and for married people who have kids.

This does not mean, should I approach a pastor at such a church to bring this topic up, that I want the onus put ON ME to start up some kind of ministry for adult singles.

Lydia wrote:

I tend to agree with Muff this is right out of Hellenistic thinking. Separating the spiritual from the material world. Dualism. Without thinking about it we are easily led to believe they have some sort of special knowledge about the spiritual world and our position in it, that we cannot have.

The Fitness-Driven Church
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/june/fitness-driven-church.html?share=VxLW3Rg1kDznSEfgimag/rjQDisBoOk8&paging=off

Snippet:
————-
Beyond Dualism

All this may hardly sound revolutionary, but outside the church, it challenges the prevailing notion that our bodies belong to us alone—either as machines to be hacked and fueled, or as “plastic” to be reshaped, starved, pierced, and used for pleasure or vanity.

And inside the church, it challenges the dualistic worldview that God cares only about “spiritual” matters. It was that dualism that led Gary Thomas to leave his bestselling Sacred series to pen Every Body Matters.

…At the heart of these beliefs and practices—stewarding our God-made bodies and glorifying him in everything—is a growing understanding of the unity and integrity of the human self.

It’s an essential stake in the wellness revival tent: that body, mind, and spirit are inextricable, and that true health and true spirituality will address all three.
——-

@ Ken F:
I’m going to recommend Thomas Oden’s Systematic Theology where he doesn’t do the Grudem thing, but takes a wide range of original documents from the early church onwards that give what he would call the classical christian consensus on all the major issues. It’s so different & very enlightening, & profoundly non-determinist.
He’s also Editor I think of a humungous set of tomes on the Early Church’s exegesis of the Bible, believing that these are the riches of the church, & should be better known, & that if they were far fewer issues would arise.

All this stuff is so hard – I’ve been off sick & looking at all this has given me a bout of what I call ‘theolurgy’ – when my brain worries about ‘what if’ all the scary bad determinist stuff is true, just because someone somewhere believes it…appreciate people’s prayers for this to abate pretty please.

@ zooey111:

“What ever happened to “Brother” [name here].”
+++++++++++

I prefer just “Tom”, “Dick”, or “Harry”, “Dawn”, “Jill”, or “Mary”.

Beakerj wrote:

Write a book Ken & his wife! Save other young people from your son’s experience.

Even if I had the time to write such a book, it would read like a trashy conspiracy novel. It’s unbelievable, which is probably why the connections are so pervasive.

Ken F wrote:

It’s unbelievable, which is probably why the connections are so pervasive.

Why so? This sounds interesting.

I pulled together some connections in a comment I posted to the most recent TWW post. When it clears I think you will see a bit of what I mean.

Daisy wrote:

Galatians 6.10
“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

There has been a trend in churches the last few years for preachers to insist their church (or The church in general) should exist ONLY to convert people.

So, if a member (one of the sheep) asks the preacher for stronger, deeper sermons (as opposed to the usual seeker friendly watered down gruel that is used to appeal to the goats), the preachers throw fits and scream at the members like that to “self feed.”

Hear! Hear!

The church has become the evangelist. Once we become believers and join a church we find we are all just cogs in the machinery to produce more of us sitting in the pews so they can produce more… I came to feel like what is the point? To enlarge some guy’s kingdom so he can feel important in front of his colleagues…

It is very common for those in leadership to care more about the unbeliever they’ve never met than the brothers and sisters in Christ who are dying on the vine around them.

Beakerj wrote:

appreciate people’s prayers for this to abate pretty please.

I am praying for you with the “benefit” of having had the experience. It is a dreadful place to be.

Thanks John D. for posting those names (Jerry Walls and Roger Olson) and resources. I hadn’t heard of them either. I’ve posted these resources here at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies/etc. for others to easily access.

@ JohnD:
I have really enjoyed listening to Walls. A former 5pt Calvinist, Leighton Flowers, has some interesting podcasts and blog posts that compare and contrast doctrines.

http://Www.soteriology101.com

@ siteseer:

“I’ve been told by “the powers that be” that music HAS to be loud or the men are not comfortable singing- they’d be too embarrassed if they could hear their own voices”
+++++++++

sigh…. why must everything in christian church culture revolve around men, and their apparently fussy, fragile, and delicate constitution?

on the other hand, if they don’t want to sing, so what?? why must they sing? it’s not like God has a giant clipboard and checklist in the sky & is checking off whether or not x, y, & z have been done, and will be mad unless they’re done.

why must they and everyone be constantly jammed into a mold of one kind or another? Gender molds, marriage molds, ‘worship’ molds, behavior molds, the right-way-to-be-a-member molds,….

all this is the result of sin invention to make the jobs of professional Christians easier, more fulfilling, more fun, more profitable, & to keep some narcissistically supplied. and with that, I’ve made some enemies, i’m sure.

elastigirl wrote:

this is interesting. what data or sense brought about this conclusion? do you think this life-force entails our personal awareness, personality, self?

Like I said up-thread, I believe body and soul to be an integral unit, and so did the writer of Ecclesiastes. No sharp lines of demarcation, not separate entities as taught in Western theology. My mind, my feelings, my likes and my dislikes are all intricately woven into my physical body, when I cease, they cease.
I also believe the prophet Daniel. I will be literally, supernaturally, and bodily resurrected from the dead at some point in future. Every last carbon atom and poly-peptide chain that was me, and I will be judged by my Maker.

elastigirl wrote:

@ siteseer:

“I’ve been told by “the powers that be” that music HAS to be loud or the men are not comfortable singing- they’d be too embarrassed if they could hear their own voices”
+++++++++

sigh…. why must everything in christian church culture revolve around men, and their apparently fussy, fragile, and delicate constitution?

I’ve been off topic all day so why stop now. As an electrical engineer I did sound systems for about twenty years and stopped doing so about 10 years ago because of issues with “worship leaders”. In that time I never came across the “men like it loud” argument so I wouldn’t run too far with the idea.

I did find that each member of the “worship team” were often contending they wanted their own monitor louder. From my simple viewpoint I though if they were functioning as a team they would want to hear each other and not just themselves. It ended up loud because the “worship team” wanted it that way.

I tried suggesting an experiment to measure participation versus loudness but pardon the pun, it fell on deaf ears.

@ Bill M:

thanks for the reply. I don’t believe men like it necessarily loud, either. i’m just amazed at the lengths some churches go in treating men with kid gloves. doing everything possible to cater to them, not to upset them. Christian culture seems to think men are delicate fragile flowers — but of course that’s very wrong imagery, so the guns and war games and fighting references. it’s just totally weird & screwy. a field day for a psychologist and a sociologist. and I appreciate you not getting offended at my potentially offensive comment.

but THAT is not what I really wanted to say. lifelong musician here, been on many a worship team, OD’ed on all the songs, hate ’em all (well, almost all of them) — eventually had to turn on the hard rock radio station to ’11’ all the way home just to recover.

…but about monitors — if you can’t hear yourself (a bit more than each other, and with certain sound qualities that are hard to put into words), you can’t play or sing with any real understanding of what you’re doing. it’s like being a served a prime rib dinner but not being allowed to swallow any of it. the denial is unbearable.

it’s like what I imagine being deaf to be like. you talk, but you don’t really know what you sound like or whether it sounds right, too soft or too loud, is it intelligible, am I pronouncing the words correctly — it’s all a guess.

to a musician, music is all-important. it means everything. to not be able to hear what you’re doing, to not be able to connect to the music and become one with the music, feeling the vibrations and the rise and fall, being in perfect sync with the other musicians, letting the music come to life and begin to play itself — to be denied this is unbearable.

but chances are you know these idiosyncrasies.

@ Muff Potter:

very interesting. I love to explore mysterious things. my dream is to see a UFO (& not a satellite masquerading as one).

what do you make of stories of people who have died and been resuscitated or simply come back to life — the hovering above their body & people present, dark tunnel, bright light, & other things. it’s data of some kind.

@ Bill M:
Liked.

elastigirl wrote:

what do you make of stories of people who have died and been resuscitated or simply come back to life — the hovering above their body & people present, dark tunnel, bright light, & other things. it’s data of some kind

Scripture (1 Samuel chap. 28) does record an instance of communication with the dead. It has been endlessly debated by theologian and lay person alike. Was it real or memorex? I cannot say for certain, certainty has a peculiar way of coming round’ and biting one in the backside. So I’ll go with what Shakespeare wrote:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

okrapod wrote:

Uncle Dad wrote:

I don’t see this verse as referring to church leaders at all, since the institution of “church” hadn’t even been invented when the letter to the Hebrews was written.

Can you explain what you mean a little bit more. Jesus did mention his intention to build his church. There does seem to be something that Paul set out to demolish and which was identifiable at Damascus when he staggered in. So, maybe you can say a little more about how you came to your conclusion?

Thank you, Okrapod. I don’t want to get into a huge ecclesiological debate, because that’s not what this blog is for or about. But that nonsense about Constantine and Bablylonian mystery religion is not simply utter rubbish. It is also a cudgel used against Catholics (and, to a much lesser extent, Orthodox). America has a long and lurid history of rabid anti-Catholicism, and it’s still very much alive today.

Yes, Jesus founded a church, and He never, ever said it would stay small and obscure or look exactly like the earliest Christian communities. In fact, He said just the opposite, in the parable of the mustard seed. The question is not whether the modern Church looks exactly like the primitive one. The question is whether it has the same DNA. The mustard bush does not exactly resemble the mustard seed, just as the human adult does not resemble the zygote. But they have the same DNA. John Henry Newman masterfully covered this subject in his *Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.* And he was a genuine patristics scholar, with exhaustive knowledge of early Christian writings. Sure, one can disagree with his conclusions, but please do not do so on the basis of this Hyslopsian trash, which bears no relation to anything remotely resembling historical scholarship.

And now I will get off of my soapbox. I’m sorry, but I am just so sick of the lies. Maria Monk, call your office!

I apologize for the digression. Now back to Mahaney et al.

Uncle Dad wrote:

I don’t see this verse as referring to church leaders at all, since the institution of “church” hadn’t even been invented when the letter to the Hebrews was written.

okrapod wrote:

Can you explain what you mean a little bit more. Jesus did mention his intention to build his church. There does seem to be something that Paul set out to demolish and which was identifiable at Damascus when he staggered in.

To build his –

Assembly. Congregation. A called out people.

Ekklesia is not kyriakos.

A called out people who gather together in His name. A body. A living entity.

kyriakos – Church.

A building. Clergy. Institution of religion.

Two very different ‘flavors’.

Ekklesia is also in the following where it is accurately translated as “assembly”.

“31 Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater. 32 The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there.”

In regards to what Paul set out to demolish – just believers.

No specific building, no specific leaders, just believers wherever he encountered them.

“they continued to meet together in the temple courts.”

“On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Going from house to house, he (Saul) dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.”

” And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13 No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.”

“Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.”

“Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.”

” He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. ”

“Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagoguesthat Jesus is the Son of God. ”

Institutionalized churches as we know them did not come into being for several hundred years.

BL wrote:

Lydia wrote:

This is just another reason I cannot stand “vague” when it comes to these ministry types.
++++++++++++++++
Vague. Also the undefined and/or ill defined. Where terms and phrases might initially sound good, only to discover through a little examination, that there is no “there” there.

There is also plausible deniability. When the strong implication of their statement is knocked down they will then claim “That is not what I meant”.

Lydia wrote:

Ronnie Floyd spoke at T$G. They end up joining the gravy train. Patterson is speaking at some upcoming Reformed gig.

Yeah, they saw where all the energy was and went that direction. Sometime in the 2008 – 2009 time frame they made the switch. It was a done deal by the 2009 Annual Meeting. If you attended it you could clearly see that Floyd, Patterson, etc., were onboard with the changes. They might not have been happy but they were on board.

Abused bt SGM wrote:

This same CJ Mahaney who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to SBTS and the Al Moler gang wanted SGM to pay for his son’s ticket and expenses to go with him.

How many times did we hear CJ say he didn’t care about money, that he wasn’t sure how much he made, as if money didn’t concern him, as though he were free from greed?

This was yet another example of how Mahaney manipulated people’s minds. He’d go out ahead of the story and create the narrative he wanted you to accept and believe, before anyone thought to wonder or ask any questions. He’d create a lie for everyone to believe, and you’d be dammed if you didn’t believe it.

The SGM Cover-Up begins with Mahaney himself. His trusty sidekick Gary Ricucci defended and covered for him with the energy of a child who keeps hidden the fact his Dad’s a drunk. The only authority these two men possess is of the type assumed by a crime syndicate, whose business depends upon defrauding people. It’s no wonder Mahaney doesn’t rest.

SGM was built on the Moon, where there’s no natural resources. They need everyone to believe the light they have (“the Gospel”) produces growth, but in reality, the only life that’s there is what they extract from the people who believe the organization and its’ leaders are drawing life from The Source – which is, simply, not the case.

The tone of Mahaney’s message, in which he recently warned his congregants at Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Louisville, to defend and protect him, was that of an angry man. He, Ricucci, and the other parasites on staff, know they can’t fend for themselves; they don’t produce any real food. They’ve always depended upon those who serve them to bring in the crops when there’s no actual harvest on the Moon.

Paula Rice wrote:

SGM was built on the Moon, where there’s no natural resources. They need everyone to believe the light they have (“the Gospel”) produces growth, but in reality, the only life that’s there is what they extract from the people who believe the organization

Like Parasites latched onto a Host?

siteseer wrote:

I agree. I’ve been told by “the powers that be” that music HAS to be loud or the men are not comfortable singing- they’d be too embarrassed if they could hear their own voices.

“If this is Too Loud, you’re Too Old”?

@ Bridget:
Yes. I also attended CLC where I heard him give the same message many times under very different circumstances. This one was distinctively different. It was easy for me to detect the dishonestly that’s always underlied this message, especially when he talked about how much more of a privilege it is for him to speak to his home church than it is to speak before crowds of people. That’s simply not true, and it stood out this time. The threat contained in the message was also far more thinly veiled. What is behind that is a frustrated man, whose experience at T4G was no doubt vastly different from times past. Im sure he wasn’t treated with the deference and respect he expects and it wounded his ego. In an effort to restore a sense of power and control, he went overboard here, and lost composure in his voice. I could practically hear the growl in his voice as he lied his way through this, acting as though he’s the honorable man who deserves not only the honor he didn’t get at T4G, but especially from the church there that he leads which, incidentally, he’d be out of business for good without their support.

I’m guessing since you were in SGM yourself for a very, very long time that none of my analysis should surprise you. I was in CLC and listened to the man preach for years, week after week. But I always find it interesting how so many people come out of SGM and hold to such varying interpretations of what they saw and heard, or what they continue to see and hear. I think a lot of it depends on why you attached yourself to the group to begin with, and why you left, and whether or not that was in good faith. There are very few people I’ve interacted with, who used to be in SGM, that I’ve discovered to be trustworthy.

@ Bridget:
I heard him speak enough times in person that I can detect things in his voice, in his presentation, especially when he’s presenting a message that I’d heard many other times, but under different circumstances. What I mean by that is that when I heard him preach, he was at the height of his career, enjoying widespread acclaim. In this, he confidently expected everyone to accept what he said without question or challenge, and you could hear that in his voice.

No one in SGM needed to be to personally mesmerized by the man himself to fall under his spell. There was no escaping it no matter what SGM church you were involved in. People may deny this and they can try, but Mahaney made certain all the churches and it’s leaders marched in step with his orders. Any leader that did not was replaced or “defeated.” Mahaney established and maintained the doctrine and the agenda, and made his rounds to deliver messages such as these so that they were certain to become dogma. I cannot emphasize this enough. Anyone who knows the system understands this is how it functioned, which is why all who clearly separated themselves from it, knows without a doubt that Mahaney knew EVERYTHING there was to know about EACH AND EVERY case of child sexual abuse.

Paula Rice wrote:

In this, he confidently expected everyone to accept what he said without question or challenge, and you could hear that in his voice.

But that, of course, has all changed. Since I left CLC as a confirmed dissident back in 2001, a lot has certainly changed. Back then the SGM propaganda was in full bloom, and Mahaney was praised all over the Internet. That changed in Nov of 2007 when SGUncensored launched (later SGM Survivors), where I started immediately participating under the pseudonym “claireon.” Then, four years after that in July of 2011 sgmwikileaks released the Detwiler Documents, and the tide continues to turn against The Apostle.

Mahaney, at 62, is the oldest of the T4G Four of Dever(55), Duncan(55), and Mohler(56). It’s almost certain he’ll never address the allegations. He’s skilled at hiding, manipulating, and suppressing information, but after the stories of abuse and abusive leadership leaked out, the only lie he’s been able to invent in response has been to deny any of it is true, play the Chief Victim (think Job), and instruct the Barnacles on his Fellowship to “protect” him from slander.

In other words, the athlete has zero game.

elastigirl wrote:

do you mean his “spell” was irresistible? or just that complete adherence was expected and people just went along with it?

It’s both, but it was the potion that he mixed that contained the poison, which is what so many people refer to as the “kool-aid”.

elastigirl wrote:

were there positive factors?

What is positive about being part of a cult? Can you name any? If you can, then that would be your answer.

BL wrote:

That’s how I understand it.

Thanks. I don’t remember hearing much from the pulpit on this passage.

elastigirl wrote:

do you mean his “spell” was irresistible? or just that complete adherence was expected and people just went along with it?
++++++++++++++
so, it was a matter of dogma being drilled into people so much and so often that people were worn down to the point of acquiescence?

It’s group conformity. Usually brought about by the frog slow-cook method.

If most of these groups STARTED where they end up, they would not be as successful.

They start free, open, exciting, participatory, egalitarian, motivated, generous, loving – and they slowly end up rigid, exacting, closed, driven, parsimonious, hierarchical, isolating, punishing, invasive, us vs them.

They appeal to the young in age or young in belief initially – the members in the shepherding/discipleship group I was in ranged in age from late teens to mid-thirties (not counting the underage children).

Paula Rice wrote:

How many times did we hear CJ say he didn’t care about money, that he wasn’t sure how much he made, as if money didn’t concern him,

People who live pay check to pay check or who are not VERY comfortable normally know how much they make.

BL wrote:

But the men who taught these rules from the pulpit, do not play according to their own rules.

Amen, BL. I was stunned (no pun intended) by the man who threw us out of our SGM/ Sovereign Grace Churches church. He was sitting there, right in front of my very eyes behaving in ways my own ears had heard him preached against. I was in my 30’s but still way too naive and I was cut to the core to see this. If you had told me, I wouldn’t have believed you. God had to have me witness it myself.

Stunned wrote:

People who live pay check to pay check or who are not VERY comfortable normally know how much they make.

No one ever knew how much Mahaney actually made, and it’s true he claimed not to care, as if to suggest he was above that, so focused was he night and day on serving the Lord that money didn’t matter.

But we know how meaningful money is to the Mahaney’s. All of their relationships have either stood or fallen on the basis of it.

Both he and his wife practiced a particular deception in what they taught the men to do at CLC. They said that the men, and not the women, should manage the family finances. Yet, the whole time it was Carolyn Mahaney who privately managed their household finances.

These people don’t serve in good faith, they serve for the purpose of financial gain. Their admonition to “Obey, for we must give an account” really means, “Give, so we can open accounts.”

Bill M wrote:

I’m inclined to view boasting of a virtue to be cause for suspicion

Yup.

Thanks for saying that. Makes me wonder what it is that I comment on often and how it shows what I am self deluded about, too.

@ Bridget:
@ JohnD:
Thanks so much, this is something that surfaces when I get really really low, I have had an ongoing anxiety disorder so when I first came across this it hit a totally over-reactive nervous system & so made a much bigger impact than it really ought. I’m just starting to see some light. I’m hoping to get much nearer to a satisfactory resolution this time round though, as I never knew before that all that Calvinist stuff was not the teaching of the church until Augustine (& they didn’t agree with his teachings on this), so all those verses they spout on about originally had a very different interpretation in the church, & that they held fast to the notion that God both loves & genuinely wishes to save all individuals, & works to draw all.
I have read some of Olson’s stuff & commented on his site, & have found him very very helpful. I’ve also recently read Udo Middleman’s The Innocence of God, which has been enlightening too.

@ Beakerj:
Also,just to clarify: Augustine does not equal Calvin and Calvinism. For one thing, you’re talking many, many centuries in between.

I wonder if you might like John Wesley and co.? Of course, he was C of E. 😉 but certainly, the God he believed in is gracious, good, and compassionate. Food for thought, eh?