First? On Friday evening no less.

“Attractional world”?

Oh Dear. They all attempt to communicate like a Piper clone.

Wonder who he thinks is a bad celebrity pastor who can help it? Benny Hinn?

An Attorney wrote:

The elders in the early church were literally people with experience in the faith, all of them, who were to share the responsibility of helping the newer converts.

Totally agree! And it was not needed for every church, even back then.

Dee wrote ” Wilson appears to believe that we are involved in a gospel renewal movement and this will take care of the celebrity thing. Can I ask a question? Since when has the Gospel needed to be renewed?”

The YRR and their affiliated agencies (TGC, T4G, Acts 29, 9Marx, etc.) have created more celebrity pastors than you can shake a stick at! They have spawned a whole new celebrity thing! When it comes to the Gospel, the word is “restore” not “renew.” New Calvinists operate under the deception that they have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the true Gospel that the rest of Christendom has lost. To the reformed mind, Calvinism = Gospel … anything not reformed is just not gospel truth.

As Al Mohler says “If you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there.” Before Dr. Al and his YRR army came along, Southern Baptists had lost the Gospel (can you feel the arrogance?). The message of the Cross of Christ taken by faithful SBC missionaries around the world to reach millions was just off track if you follow his reasoning … 45,000+ SBC churches in the U.S. have been preaching the wrong stuff for over a century if you buy the lie!

Mr. Wilson’s “gospel renewal movement” (the new reformation) is not producing fewer celebrities, it is breeding more! The young whippersnappers are tripping over themselves trying to outdo each other and gain recognition by the NC elite … even if it means cutting off most of the Body of Christ who don’t agree with their theology and certainly their tactics to achieve fame.

And that triangle is exactly what the church SHOULD NOT look like.

Lucy still pulling her hair . . .

Church of the Highlands now has plans to plant churches in Jasper Sylacauga Oxford and Gasden. I Just watched vision Sunday service. Through a series of “coincidences” starting at Christmas dinner the Lord has laid the burden on my heart to try to get the word out about them. It just so happens I have business in all of these towns. Pray for me and pray God gives discernment to his people.

You know, if Jared Wilson and the rest of The Gospel Coalition want to do something about Driscoll, they could use their bully pulpits to lay out what’s wrong with the guy. The problem is, I know they will go after some picky matters of doctrine, while ignoring the abuse of women and the money shenanigans. And I’ll tell you why that is. That’s because they hold similar positions on women and they engage in similar sordid details regarding salaries, book promotions and so on and so forth.

But they could do it. If they wanted to. But they don’t because it would be an indictment of them as well.

In the meantime, I’ll be on the Northeast corner of the intersection of 86th and McDonald in Scottsdale this Sunday around 9 am Arizona time, waiting to see if Jared and the rest of the Gospelly Boys can find it within themselves to point out that they made a monster in Mark Driscoll.

Here’s a similar cry to tweet from Jared Wilson aimed at blogger: https://twitter.com/jaredcwilson/status/723191506496974848

He never says who he is talking about so it gives him plausible deniability.

Bridget wrote:

And that triangle is exactly what the church SHOULD NOT look like.

Yep, I found that one offensive also. These guys are on a power trip, they put their “obedience” message into everything.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

a top-down, consumerist culture where people plug in their umbiblical cords right back into the same old overseer oligarchy switchboard.

Co-dependency. Pure and simple. After Jesus died to remove every obstacle between us and God – what a travesty.

mirele wrote:

In the meantime, I’ll be on the Northeast corner of the intersection of 86th and McDonald in Scottsdale this Sunday around 9 am Arizona time, waiting to see if Jared and the rest of the Gospelly Boys can find it within themselves to point out that they made a monster in Mark Driscoll.

Thank you for doing this every Sunday

“Does God ever call talented people to minister in obscurity in Four Bears Village, North Dakota?”

Yes, but we will never hear their stories because they are the truly humble ones.

“They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.”
Hebrews 11:37-38

Bridget wrote:

And that triangle is exactly what the church SHOULD NOT look like.

Lucy still pulling her hair . . .

Where is the like button?!

I said this somewhere else so repeating myself. No matter what happens, in this demonic, perverted TGC-type model we, the ordinary Christian in the chairs, are alwaya wrong. The elite “clergy” are never at fault. Ever. It’s always our fault. They never sin, they never make mistakes. Even when they do – it’s our fault that they do.

I’m not disgusted anymore -I’ve started to despise this clique of modern-day Pharisees.

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

You quoted Steve, from Winnipeg, Canada in a comment he made on Jared Wilson’s article. Steve’s comment is indicative of what is wrong with the culture Jared Wilson is a part of:

“I’m not meaning to be combative at all. Just respectfully asking: Does this mean that you would not in the future be involved in such an arrangement?

The celebrity men are easily offended by questions that point out their inconsistencies. If you don’t “kiss the ring” by prefacing your question in gratuitous language your question will be dismissed and you will be labeled uncharitable or edgy. I speak from experience. It is time to breakdown this artificial wall of superiority that the celebrities have erected. State your question plainly, as equals, because that is what we are.

“Pride causeth men to hate reproof: the proud are forward in finding faults in others, but love not a plain reprover of themselves…If they valued or honored you before, you have lost them or angered them if you have told them of their faults. If they love to hear a preacher deal plainly with others, they hate him when he dealeth so with them. This pride is the thing that hath made men so unprofitable to each other, by driving faithful reproof and admonition almost out of the world, because men are so proud that they will not hear it…He must be exceedingly skillful in smoothing and oiling every word, and making it more like to a commendation or flattery, than a reproof, that will escape their indignation.”
-Richard Baxter, “The Signs of Pride in and about Religious Duties”

Spot on! x100

He makes some decent observations but isn’t he basically sawing off the branch he’s sitting on?

@ siteseer:
No. He is in control of the tree. They are very clever. They purport to be against the same thing @ Todd Wilhelm:
Note that Baxter is speaking only of a “pastor” dealing with others. And goes along that is what they believe in that movement and what we have seen.

Bill M wrote:

Bridget wrote:

And that triangle is exactly what the church SHOULD NOT look like.

Yep, I found that one offensive also. These guys are on a power trip, they put their “obedience” message into everything.

Basically that sums it up. The entire Neo Cal resurgence is one big ego trip and the young men want in on it. You get there by idolizing the gurus.

Ron Oommen wrote:

said this somewhere else so repeating myself. No matter what happens, in this demonic, perverted TGC-type model we, the ordinary Christian in the chairs, are alwaya wrong. The elite “clergy” are never at fault. Ever. It’s always our fault. They never sin, they never make mistakes. Even when they do – it’s our fault that they do.

Actually, they are on record communicating that the Christians in the pews are ignorant. They are appointed by God as Messengers to teach the ignorant. Al Mohler actually taught this at a Pastors conference years ago. This is what they think of us and why we are a joke to them.

If you go back and listen to a lot of their sermons to Young upcoming pastors you will hear a variation of this theme over and over.

Another observation: to be in the top rungs of that movement means you mostly preach to other pastors or wannabe ministry types.

It is very hard to wrap your head around just how sociopathic the top layers of this movement are.

I find the rhetoric fascinating. On the one hand, this is following an almost text-book predictable pattern. On the other hand, you would think someone in the group would have the kind of education and awareness to spot this phenomenon. First it’s “No problems!” then it’s “Some few sinners whom we never really supported anyway have problems.” Then “There are some problems, but it’s everyone else’s fault.” Then it is either repentance and change, or defunct. I think Wilson is at stage three, while most of TGC etc. are at stage two. We’ll see what happens, but the TCG and their cronies have already lost any cred with thinking and ethical people, so maybe they should just rip the bandaid off.

Let’s not forget that ‘Jared the Gatekeeper’ is also the one who thought Doug Wilson’s absurdities about men and women were simply peachy for the church.

I notice in the lovely triangle that Elders are accountable to no one, while ‘you’ the ‘congregation’ are accountable to each other. That triangle needs to be burned.

Tree wrote:

I found that triangle illustration to be a succinct explanation of the celebrity pastor problem: if your elders/ pastor is the king and everyone else supports and praises and implicitly trusts and obeys him, how could you possibly avoid some level of celebrity worship?

What “The Membership Triangle” captures is the essence of “Overlording by Oligarchy.” That’s precisely what Jesus says that the gentiles do — and we need to remember the context he said it in: when the Mom of two disciples [James and John] hits him up to have one of her sons at his right hand in his kingdom, and the other at his left. And at the end of the conversation on leadership, Jesus notes that those who want to be first serve from underneath, not overlord from above. [Matthew 20:20-28]

We do well to remember that one of the two disciples whose Mom wanted them to have a prominent role of power — John — was the “Apostle of Love” … who, decades later, called out Diotrephes for his love of pre-eminence, his inhospitality, his slander, his bullying of believers, and his shunning. John contrasts Diotrephes with Demetrius, whose good reputation aligns with truth and with the assessment of people in general. [3 John 9-12]

So very many things wrong with that Triangle. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see very toxic, authoritarian definitions of the terms recognize and obedience for disciples, oversight and shepherd for elders, and accountability (which, notably, does not extend to the elders).

If you want an intriguing comparison, check out the Pyramid of Responsibility for Abuse, which can have an individual dictator at the top or an oligarchy of overlords.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/responsibility-for-spiritual-abuse-part-2b/

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

“Does God ever call talented people to minister in obscurity in Four Bears Village, North Dakota?”
Yes, but we will never hear their stories because they are the truly humble ones.
“They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.”
Hebrews 11:37-38

Exactly. Reading this, and the previous post about “protecting the pastor,” I was reminded of John 10. Silly me, I thought the pastor’s responsibility was to protect the flock, not the other way around.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will abandon the sheep because they don’t belong to him and he isn’t their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he’s working only for the money and doesn’t really care about the sheep.
I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep.”
(John 10:11-15 NLT)

With respect to what they believe… Good question… Old school Calvanist taught you did not have to make the Gospel attractive… Just get it out there and the elect will come….
In practice, the YRR are behaving like Arminians… They are “marketing” the Gospel to make it attractive to get the young in the door…. My question is why?? Their practice speaks stronger than their words….

Ron Oommen wrote:

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Why do they ” attractional” pastors???? If they truely believe in TULIP, there is no need …. G&d has already taken care of all of it!!
LOL!! They don’t actually live like they believe TULIP. Why do they believe it then…?

Daisy wrote:

This may be a fatal mistake on their part.

I don’t think so. I used to, though. It is actually working. Think of it. Islam is growing in the West. Mormonism is growing.

I think it says a lot about where our society is going. Too many people are seeking out dictatorial collective groups. Our society does not reward independent thinking or freedom of thought as much as it used to. Correct speech has just about ruined us. People don’t want to be independent as much as they want a “strong leader” who shows the way.

It scares me to death. Especially for my children.

K.D. wrote:

amazes me how they all want to be famous ” truth tellers” as they call themselves now….

Yuck. The YRR who took over my former church used the term “truth tellers” about themselves all the time.

Bridget wrote:

You are referring to the Good Shepherd as opposed to the undershepherds.

At one point Paul refers to himself as an “under rower” which denoted a slave rower on the very bottom level.

EMR wrote:

Silly me, I thought the pastor’s responsibility was to protect the flock, not the other way around.

Just like their pyramid, TGC has that upside down also. TGC puts a whole new spin on “Pastoral Care”.

I endeavored to post something over on Jared’s blog, this: (but I don’t know if it will ‘take’)

““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.

And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.
For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?

Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.
Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”

St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
a Father and Doctor of the Church

That triangle thing needs to be inverted, with the ‘leadership’ in the position of supporting and defending the ones they serve . . . any other model won’t work, when you think that the only ‘raised up’ position Our Lord used to draw men to Him was a wooden cross . . . these men need His humility, or they cannot be His ministers, no . . . someone needs to teach them to get out the forgotten foot basins and get on their knees and take ‘care’ of their people, not victimize and take advantage of them. It’s not too late. Thank God for the Deebs and the work they do… they are prophetesses who keep alive hope in the Church, yes

@ Bill M:

Thanks @Bill M for the shout-out. I developed that Pyramid based on my own experiences, without reference to anyone else’s work, but it’s kinda kreepy how this neo-Shepherding Movement triangle fits.

I am revising it in my forthcoming “Field guide” for survivors of spiritual abuse (1) to clarify that it can be an individual or an oligarchy at the top, (2) to split the three types of Extinguishers and Reinforcers into two images each — a nicey-nice looking one for the “positive” grooming/conditioning (reinforcing) and a harsh one for the “negative” (extinguishing), and (3) add a “loyal opposition” role for those who attempt to change things from the inside.

Then I’ll have parallel pyramids (1) for the survivor with support and advocacy, and (2) for activism, resistance, and dissent against the “Shepherding Industrial Complex” (acronym: SICK).

BOOK WRITING UPDATE: I’m down to one last push to finish the book, and hope to have the text, graphics, and related website done by mid-July, and have print-on-demand and eBook versions available as soon as possible after that. Many TWW readers have been supportive through prayer, encouragement, and giving so I could do this book. I couldn’t have gotten this far along without all y’all! I’m really grateful to have this opportunity and hope the book will be of help to survivors, their advocates/support networks, and those working to prevent abuse in churches, social change enterprises, and other types of organizations.

Daisy wrote:

Or, at the very least, listen to an in-depth sermon, not some watered-down, shallow sermon-ette that is tailored to entice the supposedly dim-witted, Non-Christian guy in the back who wants to be entertained.

Now that I think on it, you know what this reminds me of?

When I was in public school way back when, a group of teachers thought it would be a nifty idea to take some of the problem or special needs or challenged kids and stick them in the regular kids classes.

I was a regular kid in regular kid class. They took this one kid who was a problem kid – he acted out quite a bit, liked to talk back to the teachers and behave like a class clown – and put him in my classes all day long.

This was grade school, where we had five or six different teachers through out the day, and went to different class rooms all day, BUT, you had the same 24 or 29 kids in class with you all day.

So, this kid was in almost all my classes all day, even though we had different teachers all day long.

And in almost every class I was in with this kid, the teacher would stop to help him.

He was either yelling and carrying on being obnoxious, and had to be disciplined, and/or he could not keep up with the lessons.

The teachers would have to put the whole class on “pause” to cater to that ONE kid, sometimes for ten, 20, or more minutes. There were no teacher assistants.

So, the rest of us would sit there bored out of our minds in class with nothing to do while the Problem Child got all the attention. It was very frustrating.

Churches today that insist on catering to only the unconverted goats at the expense of sheep and what the sheep need remind me of this.

Lydia wrote:

People don’t want to be independent as much as they want a “strong leader” who shows the way.

It scares me …

At the church that I attended for forty years I saw a similar transition. The documentation for the church organization was top heavy but operationally for the first 140 years of the church’s existence the people ran things. That gradually and almost imperceptibly changed while I was there till it became authoritarian and abusive. People wanted a king to take care of things for them.

I’m just finishing up Ron Chernow’s tome on Hamilton. It reminded me again of the fear and revulsion many had towards a monarch in the early acceptance of the US constitutional government. People carefully guarded their independence and it was an ultimate insult to say someone desired a king.

It does appear that humans keep going back to the poisoned well of desiring a worldly king to rule over them, someone to take care of them. Unfortunately, worldly kings are a poor substitute to the one true King. After our brief 200 year deviation from wanting to be subjects I sense a change back to the norm and it seems to be something of the world that has crept into the church.

Daisy wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Or, at the very least, listen to an in-depth sermon, not some watered-down, shallow sermon-ette that is tailored to entice the supposedly dim-witted, Non-Christian guy in the back who wants to be entertained.
Now that I think on it, you know what this reminds me of?
When I was in public school way back when, a group of teachers thought it would be a nifty idea to take some of the problem or special needs or challenged kids and stick them in the regular kids classes.
I was a regular kid in regular kid class. They took this one kid who was a problem kid – he acted out quite a bit, liked to talk back to the teachers and behave like a class clown – and put him in my classes all day long.
This was grade school, where we had five or six different teachers through out the day, and went to different class rooms all day, BUT, you had the same 24 or 29 kids in class with you all day.
So, this kid was in almost all my classes all day, even though we had different teachers all day long.
And in almost every class I was in with this kid, the teacher would stop to help him.
He was either yelling and carrying on being obnoxious, and had to be disciplined, and/or he could not keep up with the lessons.
The teachers would have to put the whole class on “pause” to cater to that ONE kid, sometimes for ten, 20, or more minutes. There were no teacher assistants.
So, the rest of us would sit there bored out of our minds in class with nothing to do while the Problem Child got all the attention. It was very frustrating.
Churches today that insist on catering to only the unconverted goats at the expense of sheep and what the sheep need remind me of this.

It wasn’t teachers who came up with ” mainstreaming” trust me, we hated dealing with the knucklehead as much as the kids hated being in the class with him….

@ Bill M:
I saw the transition in organizations over the course of many years, sadly ebough. There was huge myopic focus on “visionary strong leaders”. Rock star leaders. And it seemed like there was a cognitive dissonance between that focus and the focus on teams.

I am not saying that organizations didn’t have leaders before this focus but the concept of leadership changed. I believe much of evangelicalism adopted this and now it is part of the normal.

It’s a huge topic that used to keep me up at night. During this time I discovered a rather interesting but obscure secular book written by a professor at the Dallas Theological Seminary, of all places, titled “Corporate Cults”. It was very interesting and spoke to some of the problems I was seeing happen right before my eyes.

I read the Chernow book. Hamilton is an interesting character in our founding. And while individual freedom from the rule of a king, radical at the time, was not carried through all the way early on, the ideal did not die.

However, we are losing that ideal, I fear, because we do not recognize the same characteristics of such “ruling” control in our institutions.

K.D. wrote:

It wasn’t teachers who came up with ” mainstreaming” trust me, we hated dealing with the knucklehead as much as the kids hated being in the class with him….

Exactly! It was the “brilliant” experts advising the Feds on how to experiment with children at a local level and attach money to the experiment.

Lydia wrote:

I cannot wait to read it.

Me either!

Oh, right …

Anyway, this editing down process began in 2009, so it’s taken that long to get the material boiled down to the espresso essentials and figure out the format that works with it. And if all goes well, there will be a couple books after this Field Guide. One a few more levels of detail on all the topics plus more resources (films, books, etc.), and another that gives a system of indicators for trustworthy versus toxic leaders and systems, and practical how-to’s of prevention.

So, heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it’s back to work I go …

Daisy wrote:

@ K.D.:
I don’t know ultimately whose idea it was, but I do vaguely recall the day one of the teachers introduced Problem Child to the class before he showed up.
The teacher told us it was decided (I don’t know by whom exactly) that it was thought it would be good for him to be in class with us.
At first, the idea didn’t bother me. I guess we were supposed to rub off on him or something. But he ended up distracting the rest of us and holding classes up.
I’m somewhat sympathetic with special needs or problem kids, but not necessarily if it comes at the expense of holding up 24 other kids in the process.
It might be more beneficial for all involved if kids like him had/have their own classes.
I do see this sort of parallel with the trendy, seeker friendly churches today who think converting goats is worth ignoring the sheep and what the sheep need.

The poor teacher had to ” sell” the idea of the kid being in class, even though they knew good and well what was about to occur.
The difference is the church leadership may want to convert the goats, especially if the goats have $$$….

Julie wrote:

I want to see leaders be like Paul when the whole city came out praising him as though he were a god. He rent his clothes and set them straight about the only One worthy of praise. Why isn’t this taking place? Very bad sign coming from the top, I think.

Rent those Nordstrom purchases? Not very likely! Maybe they might do like Perry Noble and sell them through Instagram.

@ siteseer:

In case you haven’t seen it https://twitter.com/watchkeep/status/729069231078178817

Daisy wrote:

Or, at the very least, listen to an in-depth sermon, not some watered-down, shallow sermon-ette that is tailored to entice the supposedly dim-witted, Non-Christian guy in the back who wants to be entertained.

I wonder, do the goats who show up really want to be entertained? Maybe they don’t know what they really want.

I’m with you, Daisy. They have utilized marketing methods to fill churches with this type of person and if they want to keep them there, they have to keep delivering.

Bridget wrote:

@ dee:
Me either.
And why do people have to preface a question with all the bowing down? Are Jared and company so fragile that their egos need assurance before a question is asked?

It might be ego-stroking, but if you think about it, a big part of human psychology is that “a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.” Especially with these big guys, people will make the tone of your question an issue in order to avoid answering it.

I don’t get Jared’s answer – he basically said “I made an exception for Matt, because he’s a good and influential celebrity.” So…all the more reason not to enable the hero-worship by working at the book factory?

From John MacArthur’s website today: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B160513

The article admonishes believers to stop complaining for a number of reasons, including “For the Sake of Your Leaders”:
“We need to understand that in God’s spiritual economy, living the kind of lives that are a blessing to the leaders He’s placed above us is just as important as protecting our testimonies and reaching out to the lost with His truth.”

There is an element of truth in this, which is why this type of teaching is so effective in grooming people to submit to abusive leaderships.

Ken F wrote:

There is an element of truth in this, which is why this type of teaching is so effective in grooming people to submit to abusive leaderships.

I disagree. I believe Jesus made it very clear that God has not placed anyone above us. I reject the premise.

Ken F wrote:

There is an element of truth in this,

What truth is that?

I find this statement extremely problematic –

Ken F wrote:

“We need to understand that in God’s spiritual economy, living the kind of lives that are a blessing to the leaders He’s placed above us

He has not “placed spiritual leaders above us.” This is precisely the problem with people who think they are spiritual leaders.

@ Lydia:

“I just don’t buy into the idea there is ONE person for this in the body.”
+++++++++++++++++++

but that would result in job cuts. 😮

Lydia wrote:

I discovered a rather interesting but obscure secular book written by a professor at the Dallas Theological Seminary, of all places, titled “Corporate Cults”. It was very interesting and spoke to some of the problems I was seeing happen right before my eyes.

Sounds like it would be a good read so I bought a copy, thanks for the tip.

Lydia wrote:

We are all priests now but with different giftings to function within the Body.

Does anyone read Hebrews?

@ brad/futuristguy:

Ironically, because I think the concerns he raised are valid, they boomerang back into questions about the history of TGC in relationship to Mark Driscoll specifically.

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2016/05/jared-c-wilson-on-troubleshooting.html

I know Jared Wilson’s not exactly the most beloved author here at Wartburg but I am willing to take his public dissent regarding Driscoll as a former supporter seriously. I don’t think that Wilson himself ends up implicated in the points I bring up about the Gospel Coalition and Driscoll’s connection. I think Wilson was principled about both his support for and criticism of Driscoll.

But I do think that one of the troubling aspects of Wilson’s concerns about celebrity leadership is that is that it’s too easy for people in the media business end of it to focus on the idolatry of demand side economics rather than supply side economics, to put it in a potentially weird way. The problem is that people are making the stuff for sale, not just that people buy it.

I agree with Wilson on the idea that if that satellite campus is only viable because of a screen you shouldn’t make that satellite campus. I think on the whole TGC is more likely part of the problem than the solution by the nature of its activity, though. I’ve been hammering away on Jacques Ellul’s Popaganda this year and that north American Christianity has more in common with marketing/propaganda machines than traditionally church things.

I’m willing to make a proposal that the problem with a lot of “churches” is that they simply aren’t churches but marketing mechanisms that are promoting brands. Christian celebrities in north America are often propagandists rather than pastors, let alone scholars. I grant the legitimacy of Jared Wilson’s concerns about the celebrity pastor thing, I really can, but it’s become too easy to complain about the consumerism of the people who buy without paying attention to the consumerism of the people who sell. I’m not sure anyone at the Gospel Coalition (or anywhere else within the popular Christian media ecosphere) necessarily grasps that yet.

Bridget wrote:

What truth is that?

The element of truth is that leadership is talked about in the Bible in a positive way. This is what makes the sophistry sound reasonable.

On the one hand, we have Jesus saying this: Matthew 23:10 – “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”

But on the other hand we have these verses:
Acts 15:2 – “… leading men among the brethren,”
Hebrews 13:17 – “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.”
Hebrews 13:24 – “Greet all of your leaders and all the saints.”

For the sake of this discussion it would be easier to eliminate verses talking about leadership among believers. But for the sake of intellectual honesty I cannot. The challenge is to expose the sophistry.

@ brad/futuristguy:

Not just that, but who were the leaders? Young men out of seminary? Someone who decided to plant a church? They were older men and women among them who led by example, not over them, as John MacArthur states.

@ Ken F:

@brad/futuristguy,

I’ve read that the word “obey” in the English translation of the Bible is the incorrect word and the Greek word is to be “persuaded” (by a loving, gentle
shepherd). Have you studied this? Anybody else reading this who can shed light on it? Thanks.

Dee, we are all for you, and more than one of us is praying for you & family. Do make sure you get some time for yourself every day. -hugs-

D.

Velour wrote:

I’ve read that the word “obey” in the English translation of the Bible is the incorrect word and the Greek word is to be “persuaded” (by a loving, gentle
shepherd).

That’s my understanding of an accurate rendering of the Greek word in Hebrews 13:17. It’s not something I’ve written about, but know various people have posted extended comments on the difference in translations. Will post links if I find those.

@Velour … I did a search and here are a couple of the links I came up with on TWW in years past that looked familiar.

From @Lydia in 2011:

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/02/10/avoid-spiritual-abuse-by-avoiding-the-moses-syndrome/#comment-16259

Excellent post! So much meat to consider. I would recommend a very close reading of the Greek in Hebrews 13:17. The translations we read today are from those laboring under a “divine” king in a state religion. In fact, many of the Greek words in this verse are translated totally different in other passages of the same translation!

An excellent analysis of the Greek in this passage is found here on this blog post: Elders: Servants or Leaders

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/elders-rulers-or-servants-part-2.html

Test everything

If you go to the coffeetradernews” blog, check out the series “Elders: Rulers or Servants” that Lydia linked to. It deals in depth with word studies relevant to Hebrew 13:17, and the translation issues therefrom.

@Velour … continued. Another helpful comment came from @Nick Bulbeck in July 2015. He focuses on the big picture of the overall context of the New Testament, whereas authoritarian leaders pull out that one verse of Hebrew 13:17 to use as a hammer. (Well, maybe more like a hammer and sickle, actually.)

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/10/the-magisterium-of-the-united-christian-church-of-dubai-have-spoken-by-todd-wilhelm/#comment-206072

Nick Bulbeck UNITED KINGDOM on Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 07:01 AM said:

Of course, Heb 13:17 does not say “obey” your leaders at all, but rather that you should allow them to persuade you.

This is no mere hair-splitting exercise, either. This single verse from Hebrews must be understood in the context of everything else the new testament says about authority, submission, leadership and the like, and especially the commands explicitly given to those in positions of responsibility. An ongoing theme in real church leadership is that leaders lead by example, not by diktat.

So when a church CEO or other manager says, you must submit to me, the response is simple. Of course. Show us what you mean, by submitting to those who are in leadership over you, and we will be happy to be persuaded by your example.

@ Ken F:

“For the sake of this discussion it would be easier to eliminate verses talking about leadership among believers. But for the sake of intellectual honesty I cannot.”
+++++++++++++++++

these verses are taken to ridiculous proportions amongst Christians. it’s comedy — i’m sure there are many Far Sides that say it all. it’s redemption from jr. high. it’s elevation to big man on campus, by however many degrees are needed.

it’s entirely adolescent.

the way I see it, in any group of 2 of more people, leadership naturally comes to the surface so that something more than sittin’ there, lookin’ at each other can happen.

I really think Jesus, etc. were simply acknowledging that. According to Jesus, keep it simple, sweetheart. I don’t see why that has to be superseded by conjectures from “Paul”, whoever.

elastigirl wrote:

these verses are taken to ridiculous proportions amongst Christians.

I completely agree. This is what stuns me. I cannot understand why so many Christians listen to the Siren songs being sung by the YRR and similar “leaders” and accept their words as truth. These “leaders” are not even self-consistent (maybe that is on purpose?). I find very few Christians wanting to wrestle with truth issues like this. I don’t understand that. It seems to be linked to an aversion to rocking the boat. Or maybe it’s due to denial.

@ Bill M:
It’s dated but the big themes are in there.

Bridget wrote:

@ brad/futuristguy:

Not just that, but who were the leaders? Young men out of seminary? Someone who decided to plant a church? They were older men and women among them who led by example, not over them, as John MacArthur states.

@ Ken F:

I found this critique circa 1995 on MacArthur, I haven’t finished reading it yet https://web.archive.org/web/20101202090206/http://withchrist.org/MJS/aberr.htm but it’s interesting to see the further direction he took after this was written, where he’s gone from there.

Ken F wrote:

I find very few Christians wanting to wrestle with truth issues like this. I don’t understand that. It seems to be linked to an aversion to rocking the boat. Or maybe it’s due to denial.

Lack of confidence in their own ability to reason/comprehend/discern and fear of making a mistake, too.

Lydia wrote:

Show us what you mean, by submitting to those who are in leadership over you, and we will be happy to be persuaded by your example.

Sorry it probably wasn’t clear enough in that comment you quoted from, but the content there is all from our UK friend, Nick Bulbeck.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Propaganda/marketing machines, indeed. But I think the Penn State-Sandusky-Paterno scandal in the secular realm and the movie Spotlight in the religious realm have provided breakthroughs in social consciousness of how these machines work. Expect to see a lot more push-back in the next five years …

And now Woody Allen. The same old dynamics all over again. I sure hope you are right, Brad.

@ siteseer:
I think that’s true. It also doesn’t help being pre-innoculated with ideas about the fallenness of your mind etc which undermines their confidence.

@ Lydia:

Forget religion and the bible in what I am saying in this first paragraph.

I am not seeing how ‘let yourself be persuaded’ is somehow better than ‘obey’ in practice. It looks to me like someone might obey something while all the while having their own opinion to the contrary, perhaps looking for ways to counteract or deal with the thing that one is obeying and still be in a position to use the available opportunities to convince other people of their own opinion. But if one allows oneself to be persuaded then one has given up one’s own intellectual autonomy, bought into the system and become a part of the borg not by coercion but by desire–because they believe it is right. Is this not what happens when people are sent off to re-programming situations? So, if one is not persuaded and continues to have one’s own opinions is that thought crime, regardless of whether one acts on his own opinions or not? If being persuaded is the goal, then it surely would be.

Now to apply that to religion.

Based on however one translates that particular word, it may indeed be what the bible says, but it seems rather awful to me for people to be under some obligation to let themselves ‘be persuaded’ (apparently with no limitations as to what one is persuaded of) based just on the idea that the bible says that they must do that very thing. Everything in me says surely not; that does not fit in with the other things in scripture about being careful for wolves and false teachers or practicing discernment, etc.

@ dee:

But seriously, keep an eye out for rhetoric that invalidates the American Christian tradition. Take Russ Moore (please!):

“If we take the opportunity to be the church, we may find that America is not ‘post-Christian,’ but is instead maybe ‘pre-Christian.’ It may be that this land is filled with people who, though often Christ-haunted, have never known the power of the gospel, yet.”

http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/05/26/is-america-post-christian/

PS: When double-checking my knowledge of the founding of Mormon, I found out that Joseph Smith was only 14 when he saw the golden plates! I suppose it could be worse than the 30 year old “elders”.

okrapod wrote:

I am not seeing how ‘let yourself be persuaded’ is somehow better than ‘obey’ in practice.

You make an interesting point, there is a hazard in either interpretation. I’ll stick with the “allow yourself to be persuaded” approach. It is useful to weight what others say, not just elders. I’ve found myself wrong enough to not be stubborn when a superior understanding is articulated, it can sometimes be hard to crack open my own hard headed opinions.

@ okrapod:
I see “being persuaded as voluntary interaction from a strong recommendation and “obey” as response to a command. So here we have a letter writer making a strong recommendation in the midst of trying times about those whose lives have proved worthy of emulating. (Verse 7?)

It is a strong suggestion, I agree with you on that but we have no idea who the author is referring to. Could it be same leaders as verse 7? That makes sense.

The bigger problem is hegeomai which was changed from those to leader. Are we really going to buy that anyone in the body of Christ has “rule” over another? That totally negates the words of Christ. There are very clear choices in Greek for rule. Archon, for example. (This is the similar word and discussion for Pat/comp interpretation)

But translators used rule! But we have made progress except we superimpose our concept of Leader as boss instead of “example to emulate”.

I would read the link above to the series on Elders:Rulers or Servants. It is very in-depth and shows word translation for other verses.

I really think verse 7 is important. And verse 17 has to be read with a Jesus filter and His words in the Gospels. Sorry! I just referred to scripture!

@ Bill M:
I will check it out. Did you ever watch the Milgram experiment? Or any of Zimbardo’s stuff about the Lucifer Effect?

http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/cialdini/cialdini.htm@ Bill M:

You might find this interesting concerning influence.

Bridget wrote:

Stan wrote:

PS: When double-checking my knowledge of the founding of Mormon, I found out that Joseph Smith was only 14 when he saw the golden plates! I suppose it could be worse than the 30 year old “elders”.

And how many 14 year olds, who thought they had special revelation from God, wouldn’t grow up to require multiple wives?

Ha! Excellent point.

@ Todd Wilhelm:

We need a like button. Love this Todd!

Christian Counseling in Limbo
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/may/christian-counseling-in-limbo.html

Allegations against Mercy Multiplied reveal the range of faith-based approaches to mental health.

Janey wrote:

My grandparents had only a 3rd grade education, but their knowledge of Scripture and devotion to the Lord would never allow them to sit at the feet of this type of pastor.

Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Your grandparents discovered that. I have known many saints who “knew” the Lord and many highly educated churchmen who did not. It’s by the Spirit saith the Lord, not by intellect.

“Jared C. Wilson is the Director of Content Strategy for Midwestern Seminary …”

What the heck does someone do in that capacity? What sort of content is he strategizing and directing?

BL wrote:

The clergy class celebrities do not deign to listen to the Elijahs and Nathans coming from the pews to warn you. “You people are trouble-makers,” you say! How did Ahab respond to Elijah? “When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”

America could use a few prophets right about now. We’ve got enough preachers and teachers in the mix, but desperately need anointed folks to come out of the wilderness with a Thus Saith the Lord to call some church celebrities into account. We need some pulpits troubled – Lord knows there’s enough trouble in them. Until the time of their showing forth for God’s prophets, long-live the watchblogs!

@ Bill M:

@Lydia and @Bill M … FWIW, currently on my to-watch list for my book research are *Experimenter* about Milgram’s experiment — and also *The Stanford Prison Experiment* and the German film *Das Experiment*, both based on Zimbardo’s experiment.

*The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil* looks like a key book for understanding Zimbardo’s processing of what happened with his simulation experiment. It’s on my list.

I also did some background book research and came up with two titles on Milgram’s work that look crucial to updating our understanding of his research procedures from the archived materials, and for confirming or critiquing his findings and interpretations:

*Behind the Shock Machine* by Gina Perry.

*Milgram at 50* Journal of Social Issues, Volume 70, Number 3.

I’m looking at these movies and books to learn about authority, passivity, obedience, etc., and how that all ties in with spiritual abuse and with resisting faulty authorities through social change.

Timely, all of this … and I do wonder about those with Narcissistic and/or Antisocial Personality Disorder and how much is absorbed by osmosis during those early developmental years just by experiencing what works in “getting what I want” (i.e., manipulating people).

Always more to learn and reflect on …

Lydia wrote:

Or any of Zimbardo’s stuff about the Lucifer Effect?

I did some follow-up and realized I had listened to Zimbardo’s Ted Talk on Abu Garib some time ago. I read up on the Stanford prison experiment, wow, ugly, civilization is a thin veneer. In similar fashion to the guy who exposed the abuses at Abu Garib and had to go into hiding, confronting abuse in your local church will not endear you to your comrades.

Max wrote:

“Jared C. Wilson is the Director of Content Strategy for Midwestern Seminary …”

What the heck does someone do in that capacity? What sort of content is he strategizing and directing?

Ask Barnabas Piper. His last title at LifeWay was similar. (rolling eyes)

Jared is an SBC entity employee protected by the Mohler faction. Probably a nice salary and side income on SBC time dime. Not like the career missionaries over 50, non Cal’s, thrown to the curb by Platt.

He can feel very important and write vaguely about celebrities as he owes his rise to them.

Bill M wrote:

I say “again” because until it happens to someone the first time it seems near impossible to convince them of the problem.

This is a biggie. Society has norms we point to so when we see something bad, we can describe it and most will say, that is wrong.

What we are discussing is totally different. Deception. And unless one has a strong sense of self, ethics, etc, it is easy to get sucked in. That is why the YRR is a targeted youth movement.

Deception is something much harder to pin down and deal with because it’s goal is to deceive. That is why their favorite rebuke is slander/gossip.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Timely, all of this … and I do wonder about those with Narcissistic and/or Antisocial Personality Disorder and how much is absorbed by osmosis during those early developmental years just by experiencing what works in “getting what I want” (i.e., manipulating people).

Here is an aspect of how our institutions play into this. Schools. There is a subtle message from the Feds (no law, mind you, just funds) about reporting violent behavior of students. Money is at stake. Our local system reported less than 200 restraints/isolations to the Feds when the truth was more like under 2000.

Then a measure to make the code of conduct more lenient is floated. Money at stake. Dumb diwn expected behavior.

We have horrible behavior in our schools here. Most if it is hidden from the media.

So here is a system in place, paid for by taxpayers, that will most likely churn out more sociopathic behavior. When there are no real consequences for violent behavior we end up with more and the decent students suffer, too.

I see all around me how our institutions play into this problem- all for the sake of image and money.

@ Lydia:
Oh, I see. So Directors of Content Strategy in the reformed movement have a strategy to make sure the content in ministry communications are in line with the line to be delivered by the new reformers? Even before “The Gospel Project”, LifeWay editors were subtly introducing reformed theology in Sunday School literature, particularly the young adult curriculum (New Calvinism’s primary target).

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Kemi wrote:

My son walked by while I reading this article, saw the membership triangle, and said “Illuminati confirmed.”

Sounds like a meme to me. Full credit goes to your son.
http://imgur.com/rzODZ7H

That is awesome.

Lydia wrote:

I find it a bit hard to believe that LifeWay could not find a Baptist for the job.

Well, they found a Piper instead 😉

There has been lots of interesting dialogue about leadership and whether or not the church should have leaders. As long as there are humans there will always be leaders and followers. God even takes credit for establishing the various authorities. The issue is whether the leader/follower dynamic is healthy or unhealthy. I posted a comment at 1130 yesterday about “connections” that seems to have gone unnoticed. I’m starting to think that maybe the common thread among all these various interconnected movements is the leadership model they are pushing in the name of discipleship, shepherding, and mission. It appears to me that the YRR crowd and related “leaders” are attempting to use Biblical sophistry to foist a bad leadership model onto the “laity.” The laity seems to be buying into it. Sad.

Beakerj wrote:

Max, have you never been involved in Calvinism? What’s your background?

I have been a Southern Baptist layman for 60+ years. I have taught in SBC churches and led workshops in discipleship training; my wife is a prayer warrior. My son-in-law is an SBC pastor; my daughter is a talented Christian musician. As a family, we have used the gifts God has given us to further His Kingdom under the SBC umbrella. The theological “default” in the SBC ministries we have been involved in has been distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice. Indeed, the majority of Southern Baptists, even today, would not identify with reformed theology.

I understand that some SBC founders were of the Calvinist persuasion, but denominational belief trended away from that for the last 150 years … until New Calvinism showed up. I have worshiped alongside “old” Calvinists during my long tenure with the denomination; I have found them to be civil in their discourse. However, this “new” Calvinism is a totally different beast; it is militant, it is aggressive, it is arrogant. I have witnessed first hand the destructive nature of some young, restless and reformed “pastors” – one came in by stealth and deception (lied to the search committee) to split a traditional church my family belonged to for years. I once assisted in an SBC church plant in my area, only to realize (too late) that the young pastor was reformed as he began to indoctrinate members in sermons and Bible studies. Anything with deception at its core cannot be of God. As an old guy, I have been reluctant to enter cyberspace theological debates, but speak as the Lord leads. This new reformation has some nasty characteristics to it that are not Christlike – watchmen need to speak into it. In a nutshell, that is my background.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

And that usually takes some spiritual seismic action of major proportions to shock the system.

I have a feeling that both America and the American church are in for a great awakening … but it’s not going to be the one that praying Christians long for. Only a touch of judgment by the hand of God will right this ship, and when it begins, it will begin first at the house of God. This “spiritual seismic action” will darn near empty our churches as God works a deep purging and cleansing to remove the counterfeit, so the genuine can move forward. There always has been the Church within the church – God will make that apparent when He moves in His way and in His time. Before then, there is still time for repentance.

@ Janet:

Thanks, Janet. I appreciate you sharing that resource. I will use it.

Max wrote:

Beakerj wrote:
Max, have you never been involved in Calvinism? What’s your background?
I have been a Southern Baptist layman for 60+ years. I have taught in SBC churches and led workshops in discipleship training; my wife is a prayer warrior. My son-in-law is an SBC pastor; my daughter is a talented Christian musician. As a family, we have used the gifts God has given us to further His Kingdom under the SBC umbrella. The theological “default” in the SBC ministries we have been involved in has been distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice. Indeed, the majority of Southern Baptists, even today, would not identify with reformed theology.
I understand that some SBC founders were of the Calvinist persuasion, but denominational belief trended away from that for the last 150 years … until New Calvinism showed up. I have worshiped alongside “old” Calvinists during my long tenure with the denomination; I have found them to be civil in their discourse. However, this “new” Calvinism is a totally different beast; it is militant, it is aggressive, it is arrogant. I have witnessed first hand the destructive nature of some young, restless and reformed “pastors” – one came in by stealth and deception (lied to the search committee) to split a traditional church my family belonged to for years. I once assisted in an SBC church plant in my area, only to realize (too late) that the young pastor was reformed as he began to indoctrinate members in sermons and Bible studies. Anything with deception at its core cannot be of God. As an old guy, I have been reluctant to enter cyberspace theological debates, but speak as the Lord leads. This new reformation has some nasty characteristics to it that are not Christlike – watchmen need to speak into it. In a nutshell, that is my background.

Max, I am debating too entering the ” fight.”
I have been SBC for only 50+ years, well, I am still on the rolls, not active.
I am an alumni of a SBC seminary, I have served on church staffs, served as a missionary in ” The Valley” section of far South Texas and Northern Mexico.
I hate to be pessimistic, but I think the YRR’s will kill the SBC. The membership is in a downward spiral and will continue to go in that direction. The average pew sitter doesn’t care. They really do not… 🙁
I debate often if I should battle on my blog or not…..I am writing a blog on Calvinism for the future, but do I need to continue afterward?

@ mirele:

Thanks! That was interesting.

I’ve met an inordinate amount of Mormons in my life, and the belief system is interesting to me. I hope none of the Driscollites came at you with a steam powered flamethrower this morning.

Bridget wrote:

And how many 14 year olds, who thought they had special revelation from God, wouldn’t grow up to require multiple wives?

Isn’t 14 when most males are real horndogs?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Something far deeper is going on, and that’s an excessively black-or-white, this-or-that, right-or-wrong, us-versus-them thinking process that gets applied to everything. It divides principles from practices, leaders from laity, men from women, church from society, etc. Inerrant and elitist authority structures naturally stem from that kind of thinking.

Thank you for your insight. You are spot on. These false dichotomies are used to support false teachings. If it comes down to sheep vs sheeple, the sheeple need to start thinking in more differentiated terms. We need to call these “leaders” out on their false dichotomies.

I just now posted some questions challenging penal substitution on the Open Discussion. I won’t pretend that my questions are perfect, but we sheeple need to start asking our “leaders” more questions along these lines.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Bridget wrote:
And how many 14 year olds, who thought they had special revelation from God, wouldn’t grow up to require multiple wives?
Isn’t 14 when most males are real horndogs?

In my high school teaching experience. 14-18 is pretty bad.

@ brad/futuristguy:

“So, ultimately, we need to look at paradigms and paradigm shifts … and those kinds of radical changes rarely happen until someone sees their need for it. And that usually takes some spiritual seismic action of major proportions to shock the system”
++++++++++++++

interesting comment, all of it.

wouldn’t large numbers of people indicating ‘no, I don’t think so, i’m not buying into this anymore, this is where I leave you’ (either articulated or with a vote of feet) be seismic enough?

perhaps such a grand ‘this is where i leave you’ event would be spiritually-galvanized (through supernatural means). but i think human initiative can be seismic enough.

I think that where the spiritual is concerned, people tend to feel that they shouldn’t interfere with it, shouldn’t be presumptuous about it, should just sort of wait for the spirit to put things together, to take care of things. and so they don’t take action, including ‘leaving’.

I also think that much of life is wasted in the process, and bad ways of doing things are allowed to perpetuate, with consequences (to oneself, one’s family, one’s community, & beyond)

i think God can impress someone to wait it out for a time while he works behind the scenes. but i don’t see any reason to believe this is a hard and fast rule. so, when something is sorely amiss in church/any Christian environment (or anywhere for that matter), I think it is faulty to wait for a spiritual prompting (which may not be discerned or not ever happen) and not take action.

I don’t think it is accurate to say that seismic shifts are waiting for something spiritual to happen before they happen. i think human initiative is powerful and enough.

(but of course no one will ever know the ratio of human initiative to spiritual initiative when things happen.)

Bill M wrote:

The system I escaped from wasn’t particularly black and white but was authoritarian, there can be exceptions to everything. I can see how portrayal of a crisis can be used to justify the need for a dictator I just didn’t see that used where I came from.

Ironically, it’s not as black and white as that. The YRR types use false dichotomies combined with sophistry and self-contradictory statements. They are very squishy in their hardness.

John Piper gives us numerous examples. So many examples that it feels cheap to use them because they are so east to find. For example, he urges people to trust Christ:
“But the glory of God and the love of Christ and the longing of my own heart compel me to close this service with an urgent appeal. If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and for the fulfillment of all his promises, then the wrath of God abides on you this morning (John 3:36). And you do not have to leave this room under that condemnation.” (see http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/joy-exchanged-and-joy-forfeited)

But most of his teaching is based on the Calvinistic belief that we are utterly incapable of making a choice for Christ apart from God choosing us:
“Our election to eternal life is not based on what we choose or what we do. It is based on God alone. Which person chooses to trust Christ and be saved, and which one chooses to reject Christ and be lost, is finally God’s choice.” (see http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-freedom-and-justice-of-god-in-unconditional-election)

He would be more consistent to tell people that it’s impossible to make a decision to trust Christ unless God has already chosen to save you. That the is fact you do have to “leave this room under condemnation” if God did not choose to save you because your salvation is not based on what you choose. Why appeal to people who have no free will? How does he justify appealing to people’s ability to make choices while at the same time denying them the ability to make choices? Which is it?

This is how these folks sway the masses. The masses need to start asking hard questions.

@ elastigirl:

Some thoughts on your comment:

If we were in leadership, perhaps the collapse of numbers, funds, etc., would be enough to wake us up and instigate change. But for someone dedicated to their own benefit derived from draining everyone else, not so much. They seem to have a major problem in the conscience and compassion department, so it doesn’t really matter to them. For the rest, it may take a whole lotta shakin’, but sooner or later they’ll get the message. And by the time the message about their mess is clear, it may be too late to salvage the system and it needs to be dismantled. That’s a huge discussion in itself …

Also, some of what you’re talking about goes with a discussion about “loyal opposition.” I myself and many others I know have sensed the Spirit leading us to enter — or not (yet) exit — a situation that turns out abusive. We may be there for any number of reasons. To observe and learn. To participate and earn trust in order to challenge. To resist. To speak the truth to those in power and/or those being harmed. To exit when the Spirit leads.

For those of us who believe in the importance of freedom of conscience that is bound with responsibility to discern and decide, we let others have the same — even when we know they’re staying in a toxic situation that will be to their own peril. But there are situations we can’t rescue people from — but only be available for them afterwards to help them in the recovery process.

Anyway, that’s what happened in one particular situation I was in. I knew intuitively going in there was something “off” about the pastor. Later I was able to intentionally analyze why I had those queasy feelings about his lack of trustworthiness. (For instance, his insidious and malignant backbiting, undermining, self-promotion, and lack of follow-through when he gave his word.)

I wanted for a looooong time to leave, but felt compelled to stay, observe, speak the truth about toxicity, and help other people survive in the situation. And because I did, I observed things that became absolutely crucial to all the research on spiritual abuse that I’ve done since then. I eventually sensed that period was over, and I left — gladly — and still had to deal with some of the worst times of nightmares and flashbacks and triggers ever. But, I was then outside and available whenever another one of my friends left — which took the next three years — to support, encourage, listen, help them interpret what happened.

I guess one point in this is that being an insider who tries to activate change can be rough, and there’s no formula I know of for if/when to exit. And for those who are being used as pawns to keep a toxic system going, no easy-peasy formula to wake them up or get them out. If we can’t help prevent the damage, we can at least be there to help the victims redeem their situation and grow past it.

Ken F wrote:

God even takes credit for establishing the various authorities.

I would be interested in hearing your take in this statement from the NT.

elastigirl wrote:

I don’t think it is accurate to say that seismic shifts are waiting for something spiritual to happen before they happen. i think human initiative is powerful and enough.

This is pretty much my view. Every time this discussion comes up, I cannot help but think of people in concentration camps waiting on God. It’s us who did not come soon enough. Not God.

Lydia wrote:

Ken F wrote:

God even takes credit for establishing the various authorities.

I would be interested in hearing your take in this statement from the NT.

Are you asking me where the NT states this? Here are my references:

Romans 13:1 – “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”
Colossians 1:16 – “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

One commentator suggested that Paul argued against Jesus about this. That’s a possible solution, but it’s not what the church believed from its earliest days. I believe the church got it right in canonizing the NT, so we have to come to grips with the “fact” that all authorities were established by God. That leads to some rather unsettling possibilities, but we don’t have the option to clip things out of the Bible that we don’t like. At least not unless we want to abandon the ancient Christian faith (that would make us no better than the YRR this site is trying to expose). Rather, we need to try to understand what these things mean.

Lydia wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I’m looking at these movies and books to learn about authority, passivity, obedience, etc., and how that all ties in with spiritual abuse and with resisting faulty authorities through social change.

Groupthink is so powerful and results in so much we discuss here. It all goes back to independent thinking and not valuing acceptance to the group over your freedom of conscious.

If that is not taught growing up in the home, then where? Not school. Not church. Both of those tend to focus on conformity of thinking.

I went to busIness school and we studied things like groupthink and how to avoid it. Iirc, having someone who was actually able to disagree and play devils advocate was one thing. Keeping the big boss (or what have you) out of the room while some things were hashed out was another. Churches could benefit at looking at some of this.

If nobody is allowed to disagree you are not going to make good decisions, unless it’s purely by luck.

Lydia wrote:

Every time this discussion comes up, I cannot help but think of people in concentration camps waiting on God. It’s us who did not come soon enough. Not God.

Indeed. We came too late to save the many victims of those who were “only obeying orders.” This makes me wonder anew why obedience to humans is even a concept in the church.

@ patriciamc:
Yes, God is faithful to send a warning before His judgment falls.

Paula Rice wrote:

My impression is that these backwards types of efforts are led by people who draw their inspiration from the past and its heroes, and seek to recreate something old rather create something new. From my viewpoint, there’s an inevitable rigidity that sets in because the whole thing isn’t in tune with the present and progressive work of the Spirit.

Good words, Paula! Southern Baptists are just now waking up to the reality that the “Conservative Resurgence” was really a Calvinist resurgence. Even most of the architects of the CR did not realize that there were men at work to make sure the pendulum traveled back 500 years to retrieve Calvin and his teachings. It is a movement of flesh and law, not a “present and progressive work of the Spirit.” YRR preacher boys in their “Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy” tee-shirts may be able to handle tulips, but not usher in a genuine move of God.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I wanted for a looooong time to leave, but felt compelled to stay, observe, speak the truth about toxicity, and help other people survive in the situation. And because I did, I observed things that became absolutely crucial to all the research on spiritual abuse that I’ve done since then. I eventually sensed that period was over, and I left — gladly — and still had to deal with some of the worst times of nightmares and flashbacks and triggers ever. But, I was then outside and available whenever another one of my friends left — which took the next three years — to support, encourage, listen, help them interpret what happened.

I truly believe that God maneuvers some folks through situations like you describe in order to fully “see” what is going on. It is not meant to discourage you in your walk of faith, but is a part of it to equip and enable you to encourage others. Many who comment on TWW have been on that journey and now warn others. You can’t help someone out if you are still in. Note: I am not saying that God ‘allows’ one to be abused in order to comfort those who are abused (that is not the God I know), but He develops discernment in others to hear their cry.

K.D. wrote:

Does the average ” pew-sitter” know or care Max?
Can the SBC EVER get back on track?

K.D., as noted elsewhere in this comment stream, I have been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years. I’ve seen the SBC during better days when the message of the Cross of Christ was taken to a lost and dying world, when Sunday morning gatherings saw folks surrender to faith in Christ, when Wednesday night prayer meetings were characterized by saints kneeling and weeping at the altar, when believers lived out their faith in their communities through the week, when young men were being called into the ministry, when spiritual fellowship of like-mind flowed like honey. But, I have to say that apathy-approaching-apostasy has now settled into the pews of this once-great denomination. Nothing short of wide-spread repentance (a genuine work of 2 Chronicles 7:14) will get the SBC back on track. In her current state, the denomination is easy pickins’ by movements and their movers. When you get millions who are prayerless, they are powerless against error and aberration. God send us prophets, not more preacher boys!

Max wrote:

Nothing short of wide-spread repentance (a genuine work of 2 Chronicles 7:14) will get the SBC back on track.

I believe that Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Mark Dever, and others planned to take over seminaries with NeoCalvinism, then indoctrinate pastors-in-training, send them to take over churches and spread Neo-Calvinism. They succeeded with their plan. And now…disaster.

K.D. wrote:

Does the average ” pew-sitter” know or care Max?
Can the SBC EVER get back on track?

I was one of those for years. I don’t think most people in the SBC know about this, and don’t know that they should care about it. It can get back on track after a tipping point is reached. But that won’t happen until pew-sitters stop sitting and start asking their “leaders” some hard questions.

Velour wrote:

I believe that Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Mark Dever, and others planned to take over seminaries with NeoCalvinism

Not Paige. He hates Calvinism with a passion. No, they were united over something else. Simply put, tribalism. Or as a rather clever friend of mine puts it, “neo-fundamentalism”.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Not Paige. He hates Calvinism with a passion.

It certainly appears that someone/something has sufficiently silenced the once out-spoken anti-Calvinist. He doesn’t have the fire in his bones about the issue that he once had. However, he still has a passion for big game hunting! Otherwise, he appears to be done, but just not quit yet.

Ken F wrote:

But that won’t happen until pew-sitters stop sitting and start asking their “leaders” some hard questions.

And that won’t happen until non-Calvinist church leaders at SBC’s 45,000+ churches hold the family talks about the ongoing Calvinization of the denomination. As you note, most folks in the pew are uninformed or misinformed about this critical issue – their pastors need to put the facts on the table. Of course, there are many church members who are willingly ignorant and/or don’t give a big whoop as long as the social functions of doing church continue.

Ken F wrote:

It can get back on track after a tipping point is reached.

The SBC lost a whopping 200,000 living members last year, fed up with the bizarre teachings that the SBC leadership foisted on them. The problem isn’t with the people in the pews, its with the SBC leadership.

@ Ken F:
Book you will find interesting that touches on these questions.

Anatomy of a Hybrid by Leonard Verduin.

It is really hard to believe that history is replete with Theocracies but it is really a good thing it is not that way now. Is that view of Christ? Verduin argues it is from scripture and understanding the historical context.

One thing people do is take Scripture such as Romans and map it to today in ways it does not map. How do you map a dictatorial government to a government by the people? What would that context be in the NT?

The Jews hated the Romans. Jesus is saying they are not your big problem. That is what the sermon on the mount was about. Dealing with Roman oppressors. He was not so nice about the religious leaders of his time.

So now we submit to laws, not the whims of rulers. (We are close to losing that, though)

That should be the natural trajectory since we are to be the temple where God resides and that all adults have the ability to know right from wrong and laws protecting freedom of speech and civil rights.

We have the ability to ourselves because we are literate and free.

History shows just how off track Christianity became and kept that from being the case. Christianity could have been in the forefront of literacy early on but it was hijacked by political power mongers.

@ Max:
I think Patterson is this type: if you can’t beat them then unify with them.

At least he gets to speak on stages more and the Neo Cals can trot him out for the Unity show.

This is the problem with anointing tribal leaders.

@ K.D.:
Same at SBTS later. It was ridiculous. The truth was more like those who dared dissent from Mohler were ousted.

Lydia wrote:

Book you will find interesting that touches on these questions. Anatomy of a Hybrid by Leonard Verduin.

Verduin’s “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” is another good read. This scholarly work sheds light on the shenanigans of Calvin and his followers and also reveals who the true reformers were … the Anabaptists (the stepchildren).

Max wrote:

I truly believe that God maneuvers some folks through situations like you describe in order to fully “see” what is going on. It is not meant to discourage you in your walk of faith, but is a part of it to equip and enable you to encourage others. Many who comment on TWW have been on that journey and now warn others. You can’t help someone out if you are still in. Note: I am not saying that God ‘allows’ one to be abused in order to comfort those who are abused (that is not the God I know), but He develops discernment in others to hear their cry.

I agree. It took me some time to figure out why we would ask God to lead us to the right church (and work) and we ended up more than once in toxic environments. We left numb and hurt and many other things. Eventually it became clear that we weren’t in those churches for the reasons most people were there.

We were there because God had other plans in mind for us and He wanted us to go through those situations so we could better minister. I can see it now, but it was incredibly bewildering in the midst of it. We kept wondering how we could be so wrong over and over again in thinking we were following God’s lead and everything ending up so badly. But at each place we learned important lessons.

I blame myself. Don’t ever pray:

Lord, make me patient.
Lord, make me useful for the Kingdom.

Okay, I’m joking, but I didn’t fully appreciate what I was asking when I prayed those things back in my twenties. Don’t pray that stuff unless you really want them answered.

Max wrote:

It certainly appears that someone/something has sufficiently silenced the once out-spoken anti-Calvinist. He doesn’t have the fire in his bones about the issue that he once had

Wave six-plus figure check —
“And that’s how you get invited back! (chuckle chuckle)”

Bridget wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I find it a bit hard to believe that LifeWay could not find a Baptist for the job.

Well, they found a Piper instead

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “Playtime’s over! Time to Pay the Piper!”

@ Lydia:
@ Max:

Thanks for the recommendation. I’m guessing it might not be available at Lifeway?

Velour wrote:

So I was sold a bill of goods at a John MacArthur-ite church/NeoCalvinist/9Marxist church, with a senior pastor who was a graduate of JMac’s The Master’s Seminary.

John MacArthur stated “the ultimate reality is that believers have been saved from God.” What could possible go wrong with a theology like that? Why he still has so many followers is too much for my pee-brain to understand. The early church believed we are saved from sin, death, and Satan. That makes a lot more sense.

Ken F wrote:

my pee-brain

Freudian slip? I meant pea-brain.

Lea wrote:

i am all astonishment

+1 for quoting Austen

+1 for making me think about Darcy taking down Caroline Bingley. LOL!

Max & Ken F.,

I put some of these resources that Max recommended, including a youtube lecture, at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab (then go to the Books, Movies, etc. tab).

Stan wrote:

I’ve met an inordinate amount of Mormons in my life, and the belief system is interesting to me. I hope none of the Driscollites came at you with a steam powered flamethrower this morning.

LOL!

I actually had a good time out there. I changed where I hang out at. I was standing west of the curb cut to their east lot, and walking between that and the front of the church. However, I noticed that because the curb cut is small (can barely handle one car going in), attendees have to really slow down to enter. So I stationed myself on the eastern side of the curb cut, which means less walking (and is a bit stressful on the back), but lots more people taking a look at the sign as they turn in.

I did talk to one of the attendees, a young man in the “fatherless” age group that Driscoll had talked about pitching to. He asked me if I’d talked to Driscoll. What I should have said was, “No, Driscoll doesn’t need to talk to me, he needs to talk to the people in Seattle he wronged,” but I did not. However, I refused to get caught up into the Matthew 18 trap–where I am supposed to talk to Driscoll first. I told this young man he was the first person in all the weeks I’ve been out there to come up and talk to me. I said how they were avoiding me was creepy and cultlike, and reminded me of Scientology. I also pointed out that in Driscoll’s world, I am a non-entity, because I’m female, middle-aged and childless (as opposed to female, with a husband and children). I gave him one of my flyers. He’s talking to Driscoll on Tuesday. He encouraged me to talk to Driscoll. I told him I would only talk to Driscoll in public and, as I had done with Scientology, I would not go on church property.

I also took a video of me singing a silly (and inaccurate, but hey, I was having fun) song that I stole from a video called “Mind Control Made Easy” by Carey Burtt (you can see it on YouTube). “We love Mark Driscoll / Mark Driscoll is love / When we’re not with him / We feel like we’re schlubs.” Driscoll would strenuously object, and yeah, I would understand, but I was being silly.

I do think next week’s sign is going to say something like “Welcome To Mark Driscoll’s Cult of Personality!”

Max wrote:

YRR preacher boys in their “Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy” tee-shirts may be able to handle tulips, but not usher in a genuine move of God.

I’ve been reading a biography of Margaret Fuller, a Massachusetts woman who was part of the 1830s-40s Transcendentalist movement, knew all the players, and was in many ways quite an extraordinary woman. She was born in Cambridge, Mass., and was descended from Puritans, but by her generation (she was born in 1810), the Puritanism had become either Unitarianism or Congregationalism.

I’m trying to understand why that happened, and I have to wonder whether the modern-day Calvinistas could push people into more liberal belief systems. Was it the preaching, or something else? Inquiring minds…

mirele wrote:

I’m trying to understand why that happened, and I have to wonder whether the modern-day Calvinistas could push people into more liberal belief systems. Was it the preaching, or something else? Inquiring minds…

I think you’re right. When in Concord, Mass this past fall, I read quite a bit about the Puritans and the Transcendentalist. It was quite interesting and sobering. Concord was a hotbed of ideas in the mid 19th century.

Sallie Borrink wrote:

I blame myself. Don’t ever pray:

Lord, make me patient.
Lord, make me useful for the Kingdom.

You may be onto something. I recall scoring low on the compassion index on some gifting test decades ago. At the time I figured if someone can pray for wisdom I could pray for compassion. If being run through a meat grinder helps to understand and relate to the plight of others then my prayer was answered.

Lydia wrote:

It all goes back to independent thinking and not valuing acceptance to the group over your freedom of conscious.

If that is not taught growing up in the home, then where?

In the Bible. I’m not sure how so many people miss it.

@ Ken F:
It’s always surprising when the place where you live gets referenced on a blog that’s predominantly dominated by news and issues of the American church, which then may spill onto other countries… However, it seems that sometimes this works the other way round.

Mike Breen was a leader in an Anglican-Baptist church at Sheffield (England) for several years, and the European offices of 3DM are also located in this city. As far as I understand it, the Order of Mission also originated here, in the same church or in a plant church located down the hill. I’ve been hearing about ‘missional this and that’ a lot for the last few years.

However, the English churches that are most influenced by the YRRs are not necessarily the same that would follow these type of things, at least openly… Based on my own experience and using very broad strokes, I would define two large church groups within the Evangelical side of the Church of England: those who use the Alpha Course and those of use Christianity Explored.

Churches that use Alpha for evangelism tend to be more charismatic and open to ‘new’ things and ways of doing church, for better or for worse. Many congregations, more often than not the largest and most influential of them, may even create new names for things that already existed before. This, to me, generally feels like giving something a fresh coat of paint and then selling it like new. They may also look more enthusiastic, a welcome change compared with more stuffy churches… But at times it feels like a forced and shallow enthusiasm, always waiting for the next revival from above.

On the other side, churches that use Christianity Explored are congregations that define themselves as ‘Bible-believing churches’ and tend to be pretty conservative, usually not very willing and quick at adopting the latest fads and movements within the Evangelical world. Many of these churches are also quite influential, some would argue that disproportionately so considering their size in the overall Anglican communion. In my experience, these churches are the most clearly influenced by YRRs, with people like Piper, Keller, Grudem and Carson being common household names. There are a few other non-Anglican churches over here that would also fit this mould, usually associated with New Frontiers, Acts29 and similar groups.

mirele wrote:

I’m trying to understand why that happened, and I have to wonder whether the modern-day Calvinistas could push people into more liberal belief systems. Was it the preaching, or something else? Inquiring minds…

That was my take reading around on the history around that era. I mean how do you go from Puritan grandparents to Universalist grandchildren?

I can’t remember in which book I read it but John Adams touches on this in his own family history.

K.D. wrote:

The average pew sitter doesn’t care. They really do not…

You are right, They really don’t care unless it affects them personally… in a negative way.

@ refugee:
(the “restoring the true Gospel” part, I mean.)

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Not Paige. He hates Calvinism with a passion. No, they were united over something else. Simply put, tribalism. Or as a rather clever friend of mine puts it, “neo-fundamentalism”.

Yup. It’s very easy for young folk to make the switch from old school Fundamentalism to neo-fundamentalism. The Neo-Calvinism just dresses the same structures up a little more in sophistry. Young men who learned to hate Fundamentalists tyrants are led to believe that plural eldership addresses the problem. But in practice there’s no difference between a Neo Calvinist guru stacking the elder board with his henchmen and a Fundamentalist blowhard stacking the deacon board with yesmen. The NeoCalvinists are just more theologically literate and that gives the system a surface level appearance of being more “Biblical.” On top of that, they throw around the word Biblical a lot to reinforce the appearance.

mirele said:

“I’ve been reading a biography of Margaret Fuller, a Massachusetts woman who was part of the 1830s-40s Transcendentalist movement, knew all the players, and was in many ways quite an extraordinary woman. She was born in Cambridge, Mass., and was descended from Puritans, but by her generation (she was born in 1810), the Puritanism had become either Unitarianism or Congregationalism.

“I’m trying to understand why that happened, and I have to wonder whether the modern-day Calvinistas could push people into more liberal belief systems. Was it the preaching, or something else? Inquiring minds…”

If you’ve never done so, research the history of the half-way covenant. I think it had a lot to do with the decline of Puritanism, although not the sole reason.

@ R2:

“there’s no difference between a Neo Calvinist guru stacking the elder board with his henchmen and a Fundamentalist blowhard stacking the deacon board with yesmen.”
++++++++++++

I like this line, the rhyming comparison/contrast. do I hear a song coming on :|)….?….. henchmen…. yesmen….. ‘Fundamentalist blowhard stacking’ — hmmmm, how could we make that singable?

@ NJ:
Sorry!

R2 wrote:

The NeoCalvinists are just more theologically literate and that gives the system a surface level appearance of being more “Biblical.” On top of that, they throw around the word Biblical a lot to reinforce the appearance.

Just as classic Communism had the intellectual veneer of Marx’s 19th Century economic analyses. And they (and their Third World imitators) threw around the words “Democratic” and “People’s” a lot to reinforce the appearance. (But then, they always did have skilled spinmeisters.)

Lydia wrote:

Yes. I can remember reading somewhere about how intensive mass movements tend to be over corrected.

Again, COMMUNISM BEGETS OBJECTIVISM.

If you have read much of the Puritan writing these people were exhausting in their sin sniffing. It seemed to me that sin sniffing was basically their definition of love.

It seems to me that that definition of love is a lot like that of an abusive parent.

Hmm….for the first time in many years, I have begun reading the Bible again (the Lamsa translation….I am liking it).
Today, I was reading 2 Peter 2 and all I could think of was these Calvinista leaders….sad….especially verse 2 – they ate causing evil to be spoken of the way of Christ.

Bill M wrote:

He declares himself the “senior guardian” of “The Order of Mission” (TOM), it sounded like someone and something to keep at a safe distance and not bring into your local church.

That anything like proclaiming yourself “Head Apostle” of “The People of Destiny”?

Max wrote:

Oh yeah. The New Calvinists have pushed “freedom in Christ” beyond Biblical bounds. Some are abusing Christian liberty – if left unchecked some corners of New Calvinism will become antinomian.

Yes, this one is confusing because of the imbalance in application. But it is one reason why Pedophiles who say the magic words are welcome and their victims have to forgive them or are they are in sin.

“astronomically gifted pastor”
“strategic kingdom advantage”
“gospel-centered pastors”
“attractional world”
……………………………………………..

The phrases of a confused follower, a non-thinker, a worshiper of men, a cultist.

@ Lea:
I cannot stand any service where the pastor and his words are the center of it. I am done with that totally. (I will gladly attend scholarly theoligical lectures or debates, though but that is not the typical evangelical sermon)

That is one reason I enjoyed the Episcopalian service (sans the political reference) It was chocked full of scripture passages, incredible music and only 10 min on the meaning of the resurrection.

If I go that route, I will just have to deal with the sacraments part which is a whole new world to me.

Max wrote:

The primary target of the New Calvinist movement are 20s-30s who can be easily indoctrinated. They work college campuses, particularly Christian colleges which have been non-Calvinist in belief and practice.

My ex-NeoCalvinist/John MacArthur-ite/9Marxist church, located in Silicon Valley, CA, targeted the elite Stanford University for a Bible Study for undergraduates and graduate students. Those students then invite their friends, which is how they all get roped in. (They also make the most of U.C.L.A. graduates who move up to Silicon Valley for tech jobs, and get them to invite their friends who move here as well.)

The church did not target the poorer and larger state university’s students for a Bible Study, San Jose State University.

Additionally, my ex-church also rents space from established Seventh Day Adventist Churches in high networth neighborhoods. (Someone here pointed out before that these church planters don’t plant churches in poor neighborhoods. So very true.)

Lea wrote:

Also, a 9 year old girl read the scripture verse a couple weeks ago and I felt like saying ‘take that’ to some of these Piper types. Heh.

In my church (RCC), lectors and cantors can be male or female. The only exception is a tradition that if a Deacon is participating in the Liturgy, he will be delegated to read the Gospel passage. (Currently all Deacons are male, but there’s rumbling in the Vatican about reinstating the ordaining of Deaconesses.)

And of course, the Liturgy of the Eucharist must be presided over and Consecrated by a male priest, though these days in the US, distribution of Communion once Consecrated is normally done by lay Eucharistic Ministers.

@ Lea:
The music was actually closer to what I grew up with in Baptist Church. I am old! Back then the music programs at Seminary were about excellence. The choirs, made up of laity, practiced for long hours. There was much more of an effort to develop and encourage musical giftings in the pews.

@ Tim:
I think he would if Trueman spoke up about his role in exonerating Mahaney.

@ Lydia:

From what I’ve heard, TGC and CBMW have been shunning Trueman, et al.

Lydia wrote:

I was not impressed with Pruitt calling us slanderers. It was just more of the same we see out there from Ministry leaders.

Nor was I, or with his tweet of – I was warned…

Martos wrote:

Mike Breen was a leader in an Anglican-Baptist church at Sheffield (England) for several years, and the European offices of 3DM are also located in this city. As far as I understand it, the Order of Mission also originated here, in the same church or in a plant church located down the hill. I’ve been hearing about ‘missional this and that’ a lot for the last few years.

Many US Christians are reading and sharing his books and discipleship approach. I personally believe that his emphasis on “persons of peace” and “huddles” grooms people to be too submissive to their leaders. And I am concerned with how he throws out so many new terms to define old concepts. While he does not seem to be closely related to the YRR crowd, the similarities with Mahaney-like practicies are spooky.

@ Lea:
Christians are never under a gag order to speak truth or explain a public position, are they? Isn’t that one of the tenants of our beliefs?

I don’t think they are who some would like us to believe they are. After all, for questioning Trueman, we were called slanderers by his writing partner. When are we going to wake up about ministry leaders? Why are they always held to a lower standard? I don’t get it.

Oh well. :o)

Velour wrote:

(Someone here pointed out before that these church planters don’t plant churches in poor neighborhoods. So very true.)

That’s very practical. I mean if a neo-Cal pastor wants to buy in a gated community, he’s got to have the big bucks. He won’t get that kind of $ down in the hood, will he. They will only follow the $pirit’s call.

Mark Driscoll Takes On Anorexia, Might Be Demonic
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/05/16/mark-driscoll-takes-on-anorexia-might-be-demonic/

Unfortunately, Driscoll doesn’t refer her to anything like competent help. She tells him that her pastor said an eating disorder is a disease and her Christian 12 step program said it is rooted in sin. She wants to know what Driscoll thinks.

Not to beat up on the woman who wrote Driscoll… but I am grieved and bewildered that anyone would write him for advice about anything, especially a woman, considering his raging sexist views from the past.

Secondly, many Christians are terrible at counseling stuff such as anorexia or depression. They will almost always blame personal sin as the cause and tell the afflicted person to read the Bible and pray (which won’t do anything to help or heal the person0.

Daisy wrote:

Not to beat up on the woman who wrote Driscoll… but I am grieved and bewildered that anyone would write him for advice about anything, especially a woman, considering his raging sexist views from the past.

I wondered the same thing, Daisy. Talk about being a glutton for punishment. He’s the last person anyone should seek advice from. Plus, he’s engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine, a crime.

Lea wrote:

I do think the ‘modern’ music was better in the 80/90s than it is now, but maybe that’s just nostalgia.

There was a brief move to sing scripture, anyone remember those tunes? They didn’t catch on for long; probably because they were in King James and everyone was moving to modern translations. But they were great because as you learned the song you were memorizing scriptures.

Lea wrote:

But I swear, when I’m forced to go to these non-denom churches like gateway randomly there is always at least one where I have to stop singing and make faces because the lyrics are so incredibly bad or nonsensical.

A lot of songs are on the level of “See Jane. See Jane worship. Worship, Jane, worship.” -only it’s “See me. See me worship.”

A lot of singing about self- “I will praise you” “I will worship” “I will lift my hands” (why don’t we just do it instead of telling Him we’re going to?) or making vows of things we’re going to do, and I think vows are ill advised. I would rather sing about God’s attributes and get my thoughts on Him. And I can handle more than one or two thoughts about God per song.

What is “worship” anyway? How is it defined?

WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

A guy who told his wife he needed more sex from her to cure his mood swings and depression is not someone whose judgment should be taken seriously in counseling

WHAT?!?

Stunned wrote:

WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

A guy who told his wife he needed more sex from her to cure his mood swings and depression is not someone whose judgment should be taken seriously in counseling

WHAT?!?

I am no longer surprised by any gibble-gabble that Driscoll spouts. But that was my reaction the first time I heard this particular tidbit.
The man is the living, breathing embodiment of a nutjob.

Christiane wrote:

Paige and his wife Dorothy are big in CBMW circles, .

Not anymore. However, Patterson is trying desperately to become relavent again. :o)

Lydia wrote:

I mean how do you go from Puritan grandparents to Universalist grandchildren?

Communism begets Objectivism.