"The original seed money for 9Marks was given by a non-Christian neighbor, who had seen the things CHBC was doing in the surrounding area and wanted them to replicate it elsewhere."
In our post – Mark Dever's 9Marks Ministries – Initially Funded by a 'Generous Neighbor' – we were duly corrected in the comment section, and we wanted to inform our readership. We speculated in that earlier post that the initial funding for 9Marks may have come from Mark Dever's BFF C.J. Mahaney and/or Covenant Life Church/Sovereign Grace Ministries since they have been known to dole out cash to individuals and entitles outside of their 'denomination'. Here are three comments posted by someone who claims to be in the know.
A number of our commenters reached out to 'anon' for some additional information, but so far there has been no reply. Dee had a great response to anon (see below).
This has to be one of the weirdest anonymous comments we have ever received. Obviously, it is someone who is involved in CHBC or 9 Marks. Here they are.
1. Expositional Preaching
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
5.Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
6.Biblical Understanding of Membership
7. Biblical Church Discipline
8.Promotion of Church Discipleship And Growth
9.Biblical Understanding of LeadershipI had no idea that by promoting such things, we could get the nonChristian world to ante up. Good night! The world is looking for the 9 Marks solution.
It is absolutely remarkable that a non-Christian would fund such an endeavor. Capitol Hill Baptist Church is having a far greater impact on the D.C. community than we ever imagined! Of course some of our commenters scoffed at anon's remarks, questioning his/her credibility.
We have decided to take 'anon' at his/her word since he/she claims to know Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker. That being said, here's our bottom line… We are grateful that someone in the 9Marks camp is keeping up with what we are writing. Three years ago I (Deb) misquoted Jonathan Leeman, who quickly pointed out my error. That online correction served as confirmation that the guys at 9Marks are monitoring what is being said about them on the internet. Here is our apology post. We do try to own up to our mistakes. It just goes to show that the 9Marks staffers are definitely earning their keep. Here is what Jonathan Merritt over at Religion News had to say about Mark Dever's ministry.
9 Marks, for example, hosts conferences around the globe, has published dozens of books, operates on a nearly $1 million annual budget, and maintains a staff of five full-time and one part-time employee. Between 3,000 and 4,000 congregations nationwide are affiliated with the ministry. Many similar ministries to IX Marks—including pastor John MacArthur’s $19 million-a-year “Grace to You” ministry and the 500+ church Acts 29 network—promote similar teachings and are also thriving.
Jonathan Merritt doesn't quote his source for this information, but as the son of a former SBC president, we would assume he has done his homework. Jonathan shared this information last year, and we would imagine that 9Marks' revenue has grown in the wake of T4G2016. Let's not forget that Together for the Gospel operates out of Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC), as the address on its website indicates.
And, of course, the 9Marks Ministry shows the same address as above. Looks like the seed money from that non-Christian is bearing much fruit.
We would be remiss if we didn't give C.J. Mahaney some of the credit for what his BFF has accomplished because he has contributed to Dever's ministries on at least two occasions. Here is information about those donations.
As we have been doing more digging about the Mark Dever/C.J. Mahaney connection, some more interesting information has surfaced. For example, the year that 9Marks began – 1998 – was a pivotal year for Mahaney's organization. Not only did Larry Tomczak finally sever his relationship with C.J. Mahaney, but the church planting network established by Tomczak and Mahaney underwent a name change. Here is the announcement in Christianity Today.
This blurb appeared on April 27, 1998. A mere seven months later, 9Marks was launched. Of course, PDI Ministries went on to change its name to Sovereign Grace Ministries in 2002. In recent years, it has morphed once again and is now called "Sovereign Grace Churches". Are all these name changes 'divine providence'?
We have spent very little time researching PDI, but when we did a search, something interesting showed up. It was a book review of The Five Star Church by Greg Gilbert, one of Mark Dever's former interns. He finished the CHBC internship program in 2000 and currently serves as pastor of a church in Louisville, Kentucky (see screen shot below).
Here is a portion of what Greg wrote: (see screen shot)
None of this surprises us. Mahaney is the conference planner extraordinaire and has taught his buddies, Dever, Mohler, and Duncan, well! Greg Gilbert's commentary just goes to show that Mahaney has mastered the art of putting on a great conference, beginning when he and Larry T. were 'People of Destiny". (see screen shot below)
Gilbert's statement regarding Mahaney / PDI – "the effect was to make us feel incredibly loved" – must ring hollow to those who supported him at Covenant Life Church, and PDI, SGM, Sovereign Grace Churches through the years.
We remember reading testimonies about how CLC members made HUGE sacrifices in order to contribute to the building of Covenant Life Church. We'll never forget those comments over at SGM Survivors divulging how Mahaney (and Tomczak) wanted more $$$ to build a multi-million dollar gymnasium, and some CLC members sacrificed by eating oatmeal for dinner to make their leaders' dreams come true. đ
We are planning to do a follow-up post on 9Marks next week, and in preparation for that piece, we want to pose the following question to our readers:
What are the three most important things you wish your church knew about 9 Marks?
Feel free to comment here or by email – deb@thewartburgwatch.com
Max wrote:
Let me see if I understand Ware’s logic. Woman was made from man, which makes woman lower than man. Man was made from dirt, which makes man lower than dirt? No, wait, that won’t work. Ok, lets try this. Man was made after all the plants and animals, which means man has dominion over all of them. Woman was made after man, which means woman has dominion over man. No, wait, that doesn’t work either. What’s a poor complementarian to do?
@ patriciamc:
I posted this here on Sept 15, 2015, that is also from Wade Burlseon’s blog on this issue of Patriarchy & Eternal Subordination of the Son. (There’s a very good link to an article that Wade gives that refutes Eternal [a lie] Subordination of the Son heresy.)
Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, The Wartburg Watchâs EPastor on Sundays, on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/eternal-subordination-and-sbc-divorce.html
âHereâs the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominateâbe it the husband or the wifeâ âthe curse.â The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call âthe normâ what the Bible calls âthe curse.â When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).
Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that âthe Gentiles lord over othersâ and âexert authority,â but âit shall not be this way among youâ (Matthew 20:24-26).
Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of âthe eternal subordination of the Son.â Iâve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnsonâs article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.â
Dr. Keith Johnsonâs article:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9
Ken F wrote:
Thank you, Ken F. That’s what I’ve said too! Rocks, water, dirt and plants have authority over man according to Comps.
Ken F wrote:
It’s called “flawgic.”
Mark wrote:
Well, I guess I would also fall in the “Fundamentalist” category, Mark. I believe the Bible presents to believers various fundamentals to accept and follow:
(1) “God is Love” (1 John 4:8) … What love would believe that a loving Father condemns some to salvation and others to damnation before they ever draw breath?
(2) “God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ” (2 Cor 5:19) … The WHOLE world has access to God’s grace through faith in His Son, not just a chosen few.
(3) “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12) … It’s the whosoever wills who enter heaven by their free choice to receive, rather than reject Christ.
(4) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9) … Those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins (anybody!) will be forgiven by the Father.
(5) “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) … Not man’s interpretation of it, not teachings about it, not traditions in belief and practice … It is not subject to change to support one’s theological system … Scripture alone is inerrant in every jot and tittle.
(6) “Everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one anotherâ (John 13:34-35) … Not lording over folks, but loving them! Love never fails. Some of the meanest people on the planet go to church. Some of the most arrogant cusses who ever lived lead religious movements – they succeed for a season by intimidation, manipulation, and control.
(7) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19-20) … The mission for the Church is to reach ALL nations and ALL men … anything less than this endeavor is a Great Omission, not the Great Commission.
Yep, I believe this stuff … so guess I’m a fundamentalist.
@ R2:
Were you reading SBC outpost back then? You are very close to what I observed. There was a big attempt to present the Reformed as totally different and everyone else as Patterson followers. More binary thinking that worked. Sharp lines were drawn. Reformed wing good, Fundy wing bad.
Gram3 wrote:
That explains the positively bizarre and blindsided hateful encounter with an Ascol minion several years back. It took me a while to scrap myself off the floor and ask, what happened?
patriciamc wrote:
Have you met him? If you did, you might get some insight. Napoleon comes to mind.
Bill M wrote:
AKA: Wisdom
Mark wrote:
I think it is a good thing when a big group like the SBC has no long time identifiable leader. Presidents are elected and come and go. That changed with the CR.
My view from the outside: The time frame we are discussing Patterson was trying awfully hard to be the big name by going after the Charismatics. He had always been the search and destroy guy. He was the last of the old CR tactic guys and had been one step ahead of the firing ax (from his own wing!) for years. Criswell tried to get rid of him, SEBTS got rid of him but he knew where too many bodies are buried and they put him at SWBTS.
Everywhere he goes, he causes trouble and the entity his personal bank for plush living. Until the Reformed wing pretty much neutered him. He was an easy mark because he is sort of the boss hog of the SBC.
But they were worse. Patterson was one man who played tactics. He did not have a massive loyal following like the YRR. He had burned through a lot of people who agreed with him doctrinally.
The Reformed branding was an easy pitch to the young guys who saw Mohler as more intelligent.
I saw this thinking play out on SBC outpost. The Reformed play was very much played off Patterson as the poster boy for the ‘old’ SBC that we don’t want anymore. Now Patterson is joining the Unity bandwagon and I see he is speaking at some TGC conference.
He had had more than 9 lives and knows how to take care of Patterson. He is probably all about his legacy these days.
Patterson was the perfect foil for the Neo Cals early on. Now, they all look alike. But Mohler bests him a million times over when it comes to total power in the whole of the SBC. Patterson could only dream of such.
That is a Fundy vs Neo Cal in the SBC: Power politics. Doctrine was just the rally cry for young troops.
Ken F wrote:
Well, first you have to ignore the rules of logical reasoning. Then you need to cram your head full of every logical fallacy in the book because that is very useful knowledge that can be deployed to confuse the gullible and willfully ignorant. Then you learn to use language to hide what you really mean. Then you Make Stuff Up. Then you scream “Feminism” and “capitulating to culture” whenever anyone raises any objections to either your exegesis, your interpretation, or your reasoning method. Finally, you slather on a generous amount of “because of the sake of the Gospel which is neutered if Complementarianism is doubted because Jesus was a male person.” If that doesn’t work, then yell louder.
@ Lydia:
Let’s just say there was nothing winsome about the ARBCA folks we dealt with for a season. Timmy Brister is abrasive, and I do not think that is a coincidence. He is almost as abrasive as I am, and I have many more years of experience.
@ Lydia: Too bad power politics and celebrity pastors have consumed evangelicalism, not just the SBC. So much for the Kingdom of God, a spiritual kingdom, not of this world.
@ Gram3:
I just read a comment by an SBC Pastor who said that the CR was needed to stop radical feminism in the SBC. It is amazing what they held up as radical feminism back then in the SBC. I think there was alarm at how many women were becoming M.Divs and were on faculty at seminaries. I think the CR guys like Stanley, Rogers, etc viewed them as competition for the guys. And I think that was a big part of the thinking behind CBMW becoming a part of the SBC
@ Mark:
It is a horror, Mark. And not to be too dramatic but I think we will answer for it if we continue to be a part of it knowing truth. I think it is that evil. Jesus had scathing words for the religious leaders of his time. Yet he had little to say about the “worldly” Roman oppressors. I think there is a big lesson in that.
@ Gram3:
Timmy came out of Southern. He had a prolific online presence as a champion of Calvin/Founders during that time and after Ascol recruited him. I was only too happy to lose track. Those were the days I was trying figure out what the Dickens was going on in the SBC. I had been a refugee from the wacky non denominational (sort of) seeker mega world. I thought I was returning to my roots but the tree was rotten.
Lydia wrote:
He was pretty feisty. To his credit, I do not recall him using “winsome.” đ
@ Gram3:
You are a better person than I am. You found something to compliment him about.
Lydia wrote:
I just want to say I completely agree with this. I think Jesus and Paul for that matter were chiefly concerned with how we acted within the confines of culture and government, not changing culture and government. Their scope was very specific. I read paul as addressing things like slavery because they exist, not because they should exist. The same with the treatment of women in that society, he addressed things as they are.
Lydia wrote:
Really? Radical feminism? Women learning and using their God given gifts is considered radical feminism? All I hear in such statements is fear filled men.
@ Gram3:
Priceless Gram3, priceless.
The only thing I would add to this nonsense (on their part) is the solemn declaration that “This is what the Bible teaches”.
Guaranteed to make the teachees quake in their boots and not even consider any dissent.
Rather like Scarecrow when he genuflected before the great and powerful OZ.
I’ve just read through the following document on church polity which is 9Marks approved regarding “the keys”. Of particular interest is the part where the author recites Jonathan Leeman’s interpretation of Matthew16:18-19, Matthew 18:15-20 and how he (Leeman’s)relates them to the Great Commission at the end of Matthew 28. It is quite breathtaking in its arrogance, to the point where a case could be made for saying that Leeman is blatantly “adding to Scripture”.
I was also astounded to read that having argued that the “authority” is granted to the congregation, the author finishes the article by suggesting that, actually, it should be vested only in the elders! The sleight of hand is worthy of the Magic Circle. Scripture teaches that authority is given to the Church. Scripture also teaches that there are certain offices in the church. Scripture does NOT teach that the Church’s authority is to be held in the hands of the few special ones. Baptists are congregational in polity, not episcopal. What 9Marks seems to want is hundreds of little Marks reporting to the one and only Mark Dever.
The link is here
https://9marks.org/article/journalall-churches-saints-why-new-testament-polity-prescriptive/
Muff Potter wrote:
“PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!”
And the Great and Powerful OZ actually had a good reason to puff himself up like that. He was running a bluff to keep the Wicked Witches of the East and West from attacking the Emerald City.
lowlandseer wrote:
Well, right out of the gate Leeman is quoted,
(The all caps is mine for emphasis).
You will not find a single instance where the word FORMALLY is used as a delineator on Jesus’ promise that when 2 or 3 of us gather together in His name that He is among us.
Slight change, but devious. By “formally” Lehman limits Jesus’ promise of His presence when 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, to those times when it is a FORMAL gathering. An OFFICIAL gathering.
Does Lehman ever define what he means by FORMAL gathering? I would hazard a guess that a FORMAL gathering would be one organized/overseen by the leaders…
And then I knew I was heading into heavy seas as soon as I got to the 2nd paragraph:
INDUCTIVE – first shot over the ships-bow of this upcoming verbiage – that what he is attempting to establish as “binding on churches across time and space” – cannot be located in Scripture as anything approaching a directive.
I’ll go get my swimmies and see if I can go further into the article without drowning…
BL wrote:
According to Mark Dever and 9Marxists, 2 or 3 are gathered together to exercise Church Discipline.
Pastors/elders order church members in to meetings, blind-side them with accusations, bully them behind closed doors, make certain there are no witnesses for the church member, order the church member in to *secrecy* and not to tell anyone else what happened, don’t gossip, and don’t bring an accusation against your elders without witnesses. Total set up.
Lived it at my 9Marxists church. So thankful to be out of the NeoCalvinist Gulag.
BL wrote:
According to Mark Dever and 9 Marxists when the Bible says the early church was growing and that people were being added to their numbers, this really indicates that they were taking attendance and had Membership!
I kid you not!
Gram3 wrote:
And anyone who dares to question them must *not be saved* and *must not be one of us*.
@ Velour:
Many of them were visiting for festivals and would be returning home. The timing of the crucifixion and Resurrection was pivotal for Jerusalem. it just kills me what they try to pull off from scripture. So self serving!
@ lowlandseer:
I am still astounded from reading Leeman trying to explain to other pastors how there are appointed (by God) human mediators for people in the body of Christ yet that does not negate our standing with Christ.
It was pure gobbledygook with lots of fancy words and footwork.
These guys are paid well to do this?
Bridget wrote:
I understand, though I disagree regarding “radical feminism” comment. If you read the preface of the Piper and Grudem book, “Reclaiming Biblical Manhood,”. One of the great concerns the scholarly Piper and Grudem had was inroads Christian feminism was having at northern evangelical seminaries, such as Bethel Seminary in Minnesota and Trinity Evangelical Seminary. I wonder how radical the feminism was that was making inroads at these evangelical seminaries? I have a friend who is a Baptist pastor’s wife and she felt ashamed working years ago outside the home. It never mattered to me. It never dawned on me a woman working to support a family was radical feminism, but I wonder if some of these people who were strident about radical feminists would view a woman working outside the home as a feminist? I realize that cultural changes in the broader society shock some. They shock me , but it is what it is, and fighting changes in broader society with culture wars may not be the best strategy. You may end up winning the battle but losing the war.
Lydia wrote:
I didn’t know that piece of Biblical history, Lydia. But I am in complete agreement that Mark Dever/9Marxists are self-serving.
I left out the rest of the title “and womanhood.”
Gram3 wrote:
“For the Glory of God” of course.
Mark wrote:
In middle and upper class American society decades ago it was deemed improper for women to work. First, she was ‘taking a man’s job’ that he needed to support his family. Secondly, if she had a man in her life (husband, father) than he must be a real failure if his wife or daughter had to work and he couldn’t provider for her/them.
On farms, ranches, and in lower-income earning households, women always worked and they weren’t maligned for it.
World War II’s labor shortages, and women working in factories and taking jobs held traditionally by men (who had joined the war effort) certainly changed the role of women in American society, before feminism in the 60’s and 70’s.
Some segments of conservative American Christianity are fond of blaming everything on feminism, instead of reality.
Velour wrote:
I usually don’t go in much for celebrity autobiographies, but Mel Blanc’s That’s Not All Folks is a pretty good read.
At one point, Mel remarks “Remember, this was during the Great Depression. It was a point of pride for a man if his wife didn’t have to work.”
Lydia wrote:
“If you can’t Dazzle them with Brilliance,
BAFFLE THEM WITH B.S.!”
“First you take a step
And then you Jive;
Then you take a step
And then you Jive;
Step and Jive,
Step and Jive,
Step and Jive…”
— guy in my college years describing how to BS a client
Lydia wrote:
Absolutely! What defies explanation is, how are today’s religious leaders so oblivious to this fact?
How are they able to read the Gospels and be completely blind to His continuous warnings about, and rebukes to, religious leaders?
They have built their mountainous house of complimentarianism cards on less than a half-dozen verses. They have constructed a vast tower on ‘church discipline’ on less than a half-dozen verses. And in BOTH cases the majority of those half-dozen verses are being viewed (and twisted) through their testosterone-soaked, apostolic-authority filters.
BUT, the massive number of warnings, in both Old & New Testaments regarding false leaders, bad leaders, abusive leaders – it’s as if those don’t even exist.
Where are the books, videos, teaching materials and conferences on Abusive Leaders?
They want to be the door, they want to decide who is in and who is out. I ran across the following excerpt from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on John 10:1 at biblehub.com:
THAT sounds familiar!
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
Sometimes you discover, when you’ve been officially excommunicated, or coerced out, or just spiritually beaten and thrown outside the ‘church doors’ – that Christ is also outside the ‘church doors’.
As He was for the blind man in John 9, who was kicked out of the synagogue after Jesus healed him. Mr. Formerly Blind Guy, brought into the synagogue for QUESTIONING, kept giving the credit to Jesus and would not submit to his religious leaders’ authority and instructions.
So, the Religious Keepers of the Keys to the Kingdom wielded their authority and shut him outside the door – and then…
(Keep in mind that Mr. Formerly Blind Man had never seen Jesus, so he could not visually identify that his Healer was speaking to him.)
This is one of my favorite chapters in Scripture.
And I believe that it is the first record in Scripture of someone worshiping Jesus after He began His ministry.
Not bad for an excommunicated, outside the church, former blind guy…
.
Mark wrote:
That’s the thing. Many of these guys were reacting against Fundamentalism and many came out of Fundamentalism. But the NeoCals are really just a rebranded Fundamentalism.
They’re kind of like the troubled girl who dates bad boy after bad boy, going from one abuser to the next because they never addressed their core problems.
@ Lydia:
Yes, I read the SBC Outpost at the time, as well as the Founders blog and sundry other Reformed Baptist blogs. But any more, this and Wenatchee are the only blogs I read about that group.
BL wrote:
What you posted was so powerful. Thank you!
That has been my experience, after being ordered to be excommunicated and shunned at my NeoCalvinsit church on some trumped up charge (nothing to do with immorality) just like they did to everyone else before me. Jesus met me outside the institutional church.
It occurred to me one weekend that, since I’d help set up communion at my former church (matzoh crackers broken, grape juice in little cups) that I could buy the elements and have communion at home. So I did. And I do.
@ Velour:
It is fascinating to research this. They were camped out everywhere even outside the city walls. It was a ‘boiling cauldronas a one scholar put it. A typical time for the Zealot’s to strike, the Romans on full alert, etc and in walks Jesus Christ. Or rides, rather.
The reason why I drove into this history is because I got so sick and tired of hearing megachurch preachers pointing to Acts as the source for “see mega churches are biblical”. Still, the Jerusalem church was large compared to others until the Persecution started.
All those Hellenized Jews would caravan back and tell others what went on in Jerusalem. It all fit so perfectly. Passover then Pentecost. Both fit the message of death/resurrection.
R2 wrote:
Oh my word. Perfect analogy.
@ R2:
I am glad you are here with your perspective and experience.
BL wrote:
In my experience they have managed to convince themselves that it is the pewpeons who are Pharisees. Please do not ask me how because I have come to the conclusion that I am unable to make sense of their explanations. And constant questioning of their explanation just get you in more trouble and called biblically insulting names.
BL wrote:
I am of the opinion they are emulating the OT corrupt priests. The parallels are chilling.
Praise Jesus Christ, as I am now a priest.
@ BL:
You bring life to that passage. Thank you. I have never been so free yet so responsible –after leaving the institution. When I think of those days it feels like tons of bricks me. An oppression that is other worldly. I can’t go back to that. And I don’t really have a charismatic bone in my body so that is big for me.
BL wrote:
Folks who have been shunned/excommunicated by New Calvinist rebels can find comfort in this passage. When the poor guy was thrown out of the church by authoritarian leaders, Jesus came looking for him!
Max wrote:
I cried yesterday when I read that. And my eyes are getting misty right now!
@ Velour:
The guy’s testimony was pretty simple. He repeatedly responded to the Pharisees’ questioning “I was blind and now I see.” While the blind Pharisees continued in their blindness, Jesus went looking for the guy after they kicked him out of church, found him, and saved him. The first will be last and the last will be first.
Lydia wrote:
It’s one of my favorite chapters for a reason. đ
When we were kicked out of the shepherding discipleship church, we received the usual dire warnings of the danger and we were told that we were deeply deceived.
That one can do a number on you. “God, if I am deceived, how can I know that I’m deceived?” “Was I deceived then or am I deceived now?”
Circle, circle, circle. Cry out to God some more.
That chapter on the Blind Man, the Pharisees and the Synagogue, not only ministered to me – as I read it over and over – it made me LAUGH. You can watch as the blind man gets stronger and bolder in his answers during his interrogations from the Pharisees.
I wonder if any of the current YRR leaders have ever exposited about the Pharisees, or have they been to busy searching for complimentarianism in Scripture?
“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you find complimentarianism & gender roles. These are the very Scriptures that testify about ME,”
The High Sparrow wrote:
I spend three happy months on the south island. It’s been ten years now and I still miss some of the lovely folk there.
Hope you’re enjoying your autumn.
BL wrote:
I wasn’t excommunicated, just one of those who was beat down spiritually and found my sight restored once outside the Pharisee’s institution. Thank you for a wonderful composition.
@ BL:
Fantastic comment!
Velour wrote:
We would love to share your testimony in a post. You don’t have to identify the specific 9Marx church.
Velour wrote:
That’s where He is doing His best work these days! As I’ve noted before, Jesus redeems and works through individuals, not institutions. The only institution He blesses is the genuine Church, but that is getting tough to find amidst all the counterfeit which is called the church. Why would I want to go to a place where Jesus doesn’t go?! Where His Bride is tossed out and shunned for not following Pharisees?
BL wrote:
Love this. And your other comments!
Deb wrote:
OK Deb. I will email you and Dee.
@ Max:
Thanks, Max.
I say to myself looking at the rules upon rules that churches invent, “Jesus wasn’t that complicated. It can be THIS complicated.”
^Correction: It CAN’T be THIS complicated.
R2 wrote:
Communism begets Objectivism.
Velour wrote:
They look at a Bible and see Themselves as in the mirror.
They look at God and see Themselves with Absolute Omnipotence.
God agrees with them 1000%.
God has all the same Enemies they do.