Deebs, why not get the appropriate leaders at the seminary involved. They could possibly ameliorate some of the damage and/or participate as authority figures with regard to disciplining the rogue pastor.

A good analysis, Elizabeth used much from the playbook. Hers/his was a tour de farce.

Someone who I dearly love just asked me a few hours ago if I was bitter about what happened at FBC. I said, “Duhhhhh, you must not know me as well as I thought you did. I am bitter and I won’t lie about it. No need to be bitter and a liar.” Thank you for answering our prayers that this mess would be exposed. Exposed so that this won’t happen again to another church and to another group of believers who loved their pastors. History has a crazy way of repeating itself. I stand on the wall so that it won’t happen again. I praise the Lord for His mighty provisions thus far. Bitter is beautiful.

Alan House wrote:

For decades, protestant evangelical pastors were on the short end of the stick where control and authority were concerned

Not in our neck of the woods. I attended an Evangelical church from 2000 to 2005 (and very loosely since then as my wife still attends) While not Calvinist, the pastors certainly did not lack in the control & authority department.

Deebs, thanks for giving us a forum. Some of those in “leadership” roles at fbcrm think we should sweep this under the rug and move on…..take the high road. WE WERE ABANDONED by an entire staff, secretaries, Sunday school teachers, 19 deacons, etc. Sweeping it under the rug is not helping us heal. Talking about it in groups of 3 is not helping us heal. Some of have close friends that left. Rocky Mount is not that big. We run into them all the time. It can be quite awkward. My hope is that some of those who have said, “I don’t want to know,” will begin to have their eyes opened from reading this.

Yes, those with heads in the sand will hopefully wake up! It’s not fun or easy, but it’s necessary for healing.

Catherine wrote:

Yes, those with heads in the sand will hopefully wake up! It’s not fun or easy, but it’s necessary for healing.

“Ignorance is Bliss and I WANT EUPHORIA!”

Watchman on the wall wrote:

Exposed so that this won’t happen again to another church and to another group of believers who loved their pastors. History has a crazy way of repeating itself.

WOTW, thank you for your honesty. I have witnessed similar actions done by “Christian” leaders (not worthy of the title pastor) other places. A few years ago this happened in Durham at Bethesda Baptist Church. The ‘pastor’ failed in his attempt to remodel the church a la 9 Marks and decided that God had called him to plant elsewhere in the RTP area. Coincidentally, several of Bethesda’s bigger givers went with him (funny how that happens with these guys).

I wish that BBC had fully recovered, but unfortunately, through a series of events, they called a younger guy to pastor. He was youth pastor during the above situation, and, after he completed his studies at SEBTS, he then completed what the other man had started at BBC. (I am not, nor have I ever been, a member at BBC, but I have several friends who were and tried to resist the take-over. All of them are committed, born-again believers who love Jesus.)

I find it super interesting that while Southern Baptists have defined SB church polity as congregational in that oft cited Baptist Faith & Message 2000 when defellowshiping churches over the roles of women, as far as I can tell not one church has been defellowshipped for non BF&M 2000 polity. So, to say there is not a single SB consensus on church polity is in short BS.

Watchman on the wall wrote:

No need to be bitter and a liar

Ha! Nice response.

I hate that people are using these kind of bits of advice about anger and bitterness as a club to hit people over the head with or silence them.

I think there are occasions when bitterness eats at you over time, I know I’ve seen it in my own family, but telling someone not to be bitter is pretty much never going to help!

And anger is properly part of the grieving process. You SHOULD be angry. What was done was wrong. I wish the best to all of you in healing.

HickoryNut wrote:

WE WERE ABANDONED by an entire staff, secretaries, Sunday school teachers, 19 deacons, etc.

That is awful. I’m so sorry.

@ Burwell

 I am VERY sorry to hear this. 🙁

When my older daughter moved up to 9th grade at North Raleigh Christian Academy, some of her best friends through high school were from Durham and attended Bethesda Baptist Church. They were fantastic Christian friends. My daughter attended a youth retreat with them one time, and we attended BBC once when the teens shared what they had learned.

I got to know their parents but have lost track since their HS graduation in 2007. My daughter is in South Africa right now and will be back toward the end of June. I'll see if she can get in touch with them and get their perspective on what happened.

@ Alan House:
That course plays right into their hands. They have had years to right this shipwreck.

Akin was promoting Driscoll! Akin has gone along for years.

Akin wanted in on the goodies. Do you know nothing of Baptist 21? The Akin family ministry dynasty to get church plant dollars? Besides Akin played the “point” card in the past. Didn’t he claim to be a 3 or 4 pointer? I can’t remember. Moore is supposedly a 4 pointer. That game is old and tells us nothing.

Why do we need to hear from an “authority” when they ARE the problem as “authorities”? We need to Stop giving them that power. It does not bring accountability. They don’t see themselves as responsible in any way.

The only thing you will hear is that they are sad about the split and know Darville as good man.

Deb wrote:

Looks like this is what they’re gonna have to do to protect themselves. Have an attorney draft an employment contract that the prospective pastor will not attempt to alter church polity. If he tries, he is in violation of that contract and is promptly dismissed. If a pastor refuses to sign such a contract, then he’s not the right choice for your congregation.

I think that is the only way to shut this down. Membership covenants are legal contracts so that movement is already known for going that route.

@ Burwell:
I have seen the same. The problem is we have very coming out of Seminary who don’t play the game. When your suppliers, that you pay to operate, are the source of the problem…what can one do? It is a huge problem. It’s like turning the Titanic.

Mohler is the most politically astute strategist around. He missed his true calling. Most SBC up and comers hitched their wagon to his ship. Like Akin. Rainer. Ezell. Moore. And the list is long.

Wow. Excellent analysis. The comments from Elizabeth sound eerily similar to some of the responses I and others (including one who is ordained minister and another two who served as elders in their churches) got from a family member who has been deep in the John MacArthur camp for many years when we challenged them on behavior that was clearly, clearly, obviously, glaringly sinful and unethical. I was called restless. I was called bitter. I was told I was greedy and had verses quoted at me. There was an incredible unrepentant resistance to any plain and truthful talk.

think this is a trait of authoritarian churches. I’d even say it’s one of the ways they are cult-like. Authoritarian leaders produce authoritarian followers. Abuse breeds abuse. If a leader is convinced they have a corner on God’s special truth, or the only right doctrine or whatever, and sends demeaning signals about anyone who disagrees with them, their followers will be the same way. That can lead to astonishing abusiveness.

Deb wrote:

Congregations need to take a stand up front regarding church polity. Looks like this is what they’re gonna have to do to protect themselves. Have an attorney draft an employment contract that the prospective pastor will not attempt to alter church polity. If he tries, he is in violation of that contract and is promptly dismissed. If a pastor refuses to sign such a contract, then he’s not the right choice for your congregation.

Yes, absolutely.

And that contract should include a non-compete clause that would disallow the ability for the disappointed-that-he-didn’t-get-his-way pastor from establishing another assembly within, say, 60 miles.

Also, the contract should insist that the leaders would not be permitted to discuss from the pulpit/podium any negative responses they may feel afterward regarding votes that went against the leadership’s pursuit of changing the existing church.

Anonymous Insider wrote:

When a pastor has to meet at Milton & Miles to keep his anger in check, and to keep himself from throwing chairs then there is a problem.

Yeah.

I don’t care if you are incredibly gifted in teaching, speaking, education, and knowledge.

I don’t care if you can miraculously heal someone from 100 paces, angels sing softly behind you whenever you speak, and clouds of gold glitter follow swirlingly behind your every move –

if you lack self-control, you should have no place in leadership.

Lea wrote:

I hate that people are using these kind of bits of advice about anger and bitterness as a club to hit people over the head with or silence them.

If a Christian community is decimated by the process being described, I would think a part of the healing process would be to want to alert other Christian communities in the area about what happened so that these other communities could be more pro-active in guarding themselves from harm. It does look like there is a great need to sound the alarm (as the Deebs are doing) but then Churches who are vulnerable do have an obligation, having been alerted to the possibility of harm, to do what is good and right to protect their people from going through a sad and painful experience.
The Deebs are alerting people to a pattern of destruction that works when a Church is unaware of possible danger. What an informed Church then does, knowing what has happened to other unsuspecting faith communities, might prevent a similar fate with all of its pain and sadness.

Human nature, being what it is, does require people to take responsibility to do what is right to protect innocent people, whether these innocents be the faith community’s children in need of shielding from abusive predators, or unaware adults who are child-like in their trusting and therefore vulnerable to sheep stealing.
Being protective actively is not the same thing as isolationism, it’s just using common sense when, having become aware of predatory practices and pattersn, reacting with responsible and careful precautions. This would be ethical and Christian, and would discourage a newly-minted neo-Cal minister from falling into the sin of doing evil in order to do ‘good’ for a faith community that has offered him a home.

Sometimes, as we say in my Church, we ‘have sinned by what we have failed to do’. And the consequences of not taking action have led to harm and pain. Taking action responsibly IS a Christian act of mercy. It is in accordance with the teachings of the faith. It is a good thing to protect the innocent pro-actively.

Whether unwittingly or not, Elizabeth was engaging in propaganda. A former interest in politics taught me that propagandists are unfortunately all too effective. They don’t change anyone’s mind, they just throw out a kernel of doubt for someone to hang onto so they don’t have to re-assess. Thus if someone new reading here begins to drift off the plantation and starts to question, “hey a pastor dividing a church isn’t right”, they will instead be diverted back with people here don’t have all the facts, we are just bitter, it isn’t that big a deal, etc.

I noticed early that Elizabeth did not engage with those who questioned the basic premise that dividing this church should be okay. She responded to a few commenters, sometimes betraying a marked superiority in doing so, but she didn’t grapple with legitimate tough questions.

I wonder about the motivations. Do they think we will fall like a house of cards, “yeah you’re right, it is okay to tear apart so many relationships to divide a church”, or is it calculated propaganda designed only to impugn commenters and divert attention from their dear leader.

There have been other occasional posters that drop in to set us straight and betray a similar sense of superiority over us rubes. One even dropping in on the Darville thread to tell Ken he was “Wrong.”. This same someone first dropped in almost a year ago to set us straight about Tony Jones so there can be no discernible ideology other than maybe us pawns have no business discussing the actions of “pastors”.

Burwell wrote:

Burwell wrote:
When a pastor has to meet at Milton & Miles to keep his anger in check, and to keep himself from throwing chairs

What kills me is the continued commitment from denominational (or whatever the SBC actually is) leaders who will stand behind men with rage issues, or who protect child molesters, have extra marital affairs, etc., without batting an eye. This type of anger is such a clear violation of what Paul wrote about elders in 1 Timothy 3:2-3

Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

(Emphasis mine)

Oh come on. Everybody knows the only important thing there was excluding women from office (even if they are mentioned later as ‘elder’ women teaching younger women)!

All that other stuff was just talk.

Burwell wrote:

Burwell wrote:
When a pastor has to meet at Milton & Miles to keep his anger in check, and to keep himself from throwing chairs
What kills me is the continued commitment from denominational (or whatever the SBC actually is) leaders who will stand behind men with rage issues, or who protect child molesters, have extra marital affairs, etc., without batting an eye. This type of anger is such a clear violation of what Paul wrote about elders in 1 Timothy 3:2-3
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
(Emphasis mine)

In my 29 years as a faculty member at a major, SECULAR, University, I have been to many heated/contentious faculty meetings, some over important issues (such as the future of departments). I have NEVER seen it degrade to people “throwing chairs!”

I was waiting for Elizabeth to tell us that we were gossiping and that she was just speaking the truth in love. How many times have phrases like “gossiping” and “speaking truth in love” been used to do great harm?

siteseer wrote:

It is sad how the Christian’s devotion to being Christlike gets used against them.

“There’s a sucker born every minute!”
— P.T.Barnum

Bill M wrote:

You should always question the self proclaimed “call to ministry”.

Sorry for the quick quip, I should have said WE should always question the self proclaimed “call to ministry”. I meant not correct but to remind my self that even I am too trusting and should not neglect the spiritual gift of skepticism.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

I have NEVER seen it degrade to people “throwing chairs!”

Yes. I think most places that would be considered a HUGE problem! I did have a boss who threw books at the wall once, though.

siteseer wrote:

All the average person wants is an excuse not to get involved or have to think and even a lame excuse works.

We are all pretty pathetic, I’ve seen the response in myself and everyone from a PhD to those with a 6th grade education, Democrat to Republican, atheist to true believer.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

You’ve been watching TBN, haven’t you?

Hee hee! Could you tell? 🙂

No, but I do confess to occasionally viewing the various whackadoodles in all their splendor on youtube.

Those same whackadoodles that continue writing and selling books, cross pollinating with their fellow churchianity celebs producing a myriad of apostles and apostolic thingamabobs, issuing their decrees, scheduling their conferences – and all making a very good living on the backs of the naive, the desperate, the needy, the greedy and the gullible.

@ Deb:

Brava! Throughout these long litanies of abuses in the SBC, this is by far the best practical and common sense suggestion I’ve heard here at TWW.
An iron clad way to inform any would be pastor that you work for us, we don’t work for you. Again, brava!

@ Deb:
Brilliant. A church prenup.

DustInTheWind wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:

I was waiting for Elizabeth to tell us that we were gossiping and that she was just speaking the truth in love. How many times have phrases like “gossiping” and “speaking truth in love”
been used to do great harm?

And “pot-stirring”

And “divisive” don’t forget that one. A divisive spirit

Bill M wrote:

You should always question the self proclaimed “call to ministry”.

Absolutely.

John wrote:

think this is a trait of authoritarian churches. I’d even say it’s one of the ways they are cult-like. Authoritarian leaders produce authoritarian followers. Abuse breeds abuse. If a leader is convinced they have a corner on God’s special truth, or the only right doctrine or whatever, and sends demeaning signals about anyone who disagrees with them, their followers will be the same way. That can lead to astonishing abusiveness.

John, it’s not just churches. It’s corporations, too. They don’t fling verses at you, but they fling “team-talk” at you: You’re undermining the team; you’re not a true team player; blahdeblahdeblah.

A friend and I were just recently observing that all the good bosses (caring, people-oriented) seem to get pushed out of upper management. Only the narcissistic bullies survive. The bullies are in control, and the the result is abusive, toxic corporate culture. And it just seems to be getting worse.

I don’t know whether these churches are borrowing from corporate culture — or whether people are just getting meaner across the board. But boy, it sure does seem as if true compassion (as opposed to PR window-dressing) is becoming rarer than hen’s teeth.

I believe it was Martin Marty who said that the great religious divide of our day is not between left and right but between mean and non-mean. That seems to be true across the board — in secular society, too.

Deb wrote:

Let’s see… Dennis Darville was/is a close colleague of Danny Akin since he worked at SEBTS for over a decade.
Sorry, but it’s not our responsibility to get the proper authorities involved, especially where there are such close ties between the ‘rogue’ pastor and the institution where he was educated (B.A. and M.Div.) and built a career.

I see your point. Wasn’t trying to delineate your responsibility. Appreciate your reporting so that others can see what is going on. This whole incident speaks volumes about Darville’s attitude toward people under his care. I imagine that many of the folks who followed him in his abrupt departure are going to dislike the final product.

Bill M wrote:

You should always question the self proclaimed “call to ministry”.

You are 100 percent correct. Any “self-proclaimed call” is dubious by itself. It needs to be supported, and probably initiated, by the body of Christ. Paul says that whoever “aspires to the office of [pastor]… desires a good thing. However, that is immediately tempered by behavioral qualifications. And, according to Jesus, one’s behavior is always a reflection of one’s heart. Thus, Paul is talking both about how that person is to act as well as how they are to be.

To quote the motto of NC (which, ironically, is where both Rocky Mount and Southeastern Seminary are located), Esse quam videri, most often translated as “To be, rather than to seem”, which is also a good motto for any practicing Christian.

Quoting from the OP

I’d just love to know how you know their heart motives to “take over a church” I guess, since a couple of these men worked for 15+ years at or below the poverty line as pastors at FBCRM.

I guess the above OP assertion doesn’t fall under the OP’s standard of:

The rumors and lies that the members of FBCRM have circulated have hurt a lot of people

So, telling us that the church members s^cked so much that they kept these pastors at or below poverty level FOR 15 YEARS doesn’t come under the “rumors and lies” being circulated that could hurt a lot of people?

(Although the above does out Elizabeth as someone closely associated with one of those ‘couple of men’ so desperately mistreated & purposely impoverished by the church members for 15 years.)

And, if what she said was true regarding the financial provision for leaders, then the church members who flew the coop with Dennis, are from the very same membership who mistreated and impoverished them before.

So, in this case, Elizabeth makes ALL the members (both current and former) look bad, while glorifying those poor, mistreated couple of men in leadership who slaved away for 15 years, and what thanks did they get? Why, no thanks at all!

They were formerly given the equivalent of dry bread and stale water by this miscreant membership.

But now! Now! Things will be different!

These couple of leaders leaving to establish a bright, new church, trailed by members (did we mention they still tithe like usual and we won’t have to take a pay cut?) who were part and parcel of the miscreant membership that had formerly kept them in poverty…

Oh, wait.

The 300 hundred, still-tithing former members who have joined in your new churchy endeavor are from the SAME people who treated their leadership so poorly?

I’m thinking that Elizabeth’s couple of leaders will need to fly Robert Morris in real soon to get the membership in shape for the upcoming financial needs of said couple of leaders.

.

Alan House wrote:

I imagine that many of the folks who followed him in his abrupt departure are going to dislike the final product.

They will be at the stage of “too much invested to quit now” for a long time before they realize that abuse of power is never sated.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

A friend and I were just recently observing that all the good bosses (caring, people-oriented) seem to get pushed out of upper management.

This is true in general. I have been in organizational development as a career in and out of hundreds of organizations from the biggies to non profits and have witnessed this trajectory evolve over many years.

Our culture is becoming top down authoritarian. However, there are laws protecting you at work (if you are willing to go that route) but not at church. Church is social and voluntary. The worst evil is that done in the Name of God.

siteseer wrote:

They will be at the stage of “too much invested to quit now” for a long time before they realize that abuse of power is never sated.

Good insight!

Alan House wrote:

Your point is well taken. You know much more background here than I do.

From the seeker megas 20 years ago to the Neo Cals today, we are told to “believe the best” or “trust the positive intentions of the leaders “.

And people want to do that. But long-term patterns of behavior and words that don’t match behavior, taken all together, means we must question everything now. They have not earned our trust to believe anything they say.

Deb wrote:

Why did he have to go that far away? Because of the non-compete clause in their business contract. It was a fair deal for everyone.

I think the idea of contracts stating boundaries for potential leaders is an excellent one.

Church members are behind the times on this one. Leadership has been lugging in and incorporating the ways and wiles of *business* for some time now into churches.

How many times have we seen pastors compared favorably to CEOs? So far, it’s been a one-way street, their way.

These leadership contracts should also include that leaders who are brought to discipline are contractually required to remain at the church and undergo the same disciplinary processes they established for others. With the addition that the church membership can release the leader from this requirement if they deem this best for the church.

Yep, totally agree with you and (ed.) churches need to get over the fear that something like this is too worldly or unspiritual.

The idea is great – what needs to be included for consideration are ways or processes to disseminate this concept (once fleshed out) out to the church pewishioners.

Deb wrote:

Alan House wrote:
I believe that they do not want to be seen as preparing pastors to tear churches apart.
Of course they don’t; however, it is happening more and more. Dee and I were hoping that at some point our blog wouldn’t be necessary, but the more these situations play out in churches across our land, the more difficult it is for us to cover all the tragic stories – there are just so many.
Rest assured, we are digging in our heels…

Well, when you consider that an entire denomination that began as Mennonite and now has been taken over by Reformed (Calvinist) soteriology, it’s not hard to believe what these Neo-Cal pastors are doing in Southern Baptist churches. How does an entire denomination that had Mennonite/Anabaptist roots get taken over by Calvinists? If they could do it with the Bible Fellowship denomination, they could do it with ANY evangelical church. That means Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Wesleyan, Christian Missionary Alliance, Holiness, even your typical non-denominational church. Here is a Wiki article on the Bible Fellowship denomination that began in Pennsylvania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Fellowship_Church

@ Darlene:
Wow. What is the draw, I wonder?

Lydia wrote:

@ Darlene:
Wow. What is the draw, I wonder?

The Lure of the Inner Ring, being One of the Inner Circle of The Movement That Will Change The World. (Illuminati…)
The thrill of putting one over on all those stupid sheeple.
Triumph over the Enemies of The Righteous Cause.
Occult Gnosis (Speshul Sekrit Knowledge) known only to the Chosen Elect. (Illuminati…)
And of course, Money and POWER.

Darlene wrote:

They then go on to ask other Calvinist’s opinion of what they can do to change the hearts and minds of the people so they’ll be converted to the “Doctrines of Grace.” THIS IS THEIR M.O. FOLKS. They see NOTHING wrong with bringing about division and dissension within a church body. In fact, when division occurs because of them preaching Reformed soteriology, they believe they are being persecuted for the truth.

Like Citizen Robespierre’s Society of Perfect Virtue or Comrade Pol Pot’s Perfect Communistic Agrarian Cambodia, the Cause is so Righteous as to justify any evil whatsoever to bring it about. “FOR THE CAUSE!”

@ Burwell:

AMEN!

dee wrote:

That makes perfect sense. I think seminary graduates today think they should be making 6 figures as they lead churches to split.

Make that 6+ figures and a juiced best-seller book deal the first day out of seminary.

Lea wrote:

Alan House wrote:
I feel they (SEBTS) will want to dispel the notion that such an attitude exists and that they, in no way, condone what has happened in this instance
Well, the 9marx guy wrote a how to article about it…IF they don’t want you to know about it it’s only because it makes it easier to sneak in unawares.

I read that 9Marx article about how to “reform” a church. Classic Calvinist Christianese. “Reform” in their paradigm means subdue and indoctrinate with Calvinist tenets. All those who resist must be flushed out and exposed as dissenters.

okrapod wrote:

This is disturbing but this is nothing new. I have personally been in some church two times where people fell to fighting with some backing the pastor and some not. In one case they ran off the pastor. In another case the pastor stayed and so many of the congregation left that they could no longer meet the budget-and then the pastor left.
There used to be an old saw back in yesteryear that the way baptists start new churches is by way of a church split. I am not making light of this nor am I condoning this process, but I am saying that this fits securely in baptist tradition as to how people do. I used to think that this was a reason to perhaps think twice about an exclusively congregational form of government and whether that was the best way to do. Everything has its strengths and weaknesses. Where there are bishops they can intervene, or so I witnessed in my former Methodist church. Anyhow, it is an interesting thing to think about.

I hear what you are saying, Okrapod. One of the reasons that drew me to Eastern Orthodoxy is the possibility of a church split occurring was highly unlikely. I think the reason this is the case has to do with a deeply ingrained mindset that schism is regarded as egregious and something that should be avoided if at all possible.

This blog was written well over a week ago by one of the teens at FBCRM. The hurt and scarring is deep and affects all ages.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/didnt-fit-in-at-youth-group

Gudbrand wrote:

This blog was written well over a week ago by one of the teens at FBCRM. The hurt and scarring is deep and affects all ages.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/didnt-fit-in-at-youth-group

Poor girl. And people wonder why the young are leaving the Church? That ‘youth group’ she attended sounds a bit like that film ‘Jesus Camp’ which made my blood run cold.

Deb wrote:

@ BL: Fixed it. 🙂

Thanks! Sometimes there is a time/space continuum disconnect between the thoughts and the fingers, and when that happens, heaven only knows what’s going to come out. 🙂

Deb wrote:

Louisville’s rag The Courier Journal:

Oh my. I remember it when it was called “The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times.” The evening paper did not survive but the Courier-Journal (aka the Journal) did. I notice you called it a rag? What on earth happened to it; did it deteriorate into some rag? That would be so sad.

When I was a wee thing one of the section editors of the paper had a job during the depression but his wife, a school teacher, was unemployed. They had a little boy child my age so she opened up a pre-school/kindergarten in their basement, and thus I learned to read early . They were good people. The paper was a good paper then.

heads up: Trump reported just appointed a new religious advisary board . . . some of the names were predictable, others quite surprising

@ Deb:
How humiliating for such a young girl to be exposed to that abuse.

@ dee:
You’re welcome.

GSD wrote:

There are more than a few Kentuckians here. So there is still hope for the Commonwealth. We should all meet up and have breakfast some Sunday, maybe in Louisville, then “attend church” together at some small church plant, like the one at the Marriott off Hurstborne. I’m joking, of course.

I like the idea of meeting up, though. I live in Pennsylvania and Louisville, Kentucky would be about a 4 hour (ed.) drive.

Darlene wrote:

GSD wrote:
There are more than a few Kentuckians here. So there is still hope for the Commonwealth.
We should all meet up and have breakfast some Sunday, maybe in Louisville, then “attend church” together at some small church plant, like the one at the Marriott off Hurstborne.
I’m joking, of course.
I like the idea of meeting up, though. I live in Pennsylvania and Louisville, Kentucky would be about a 4 mile drive.

Whoop, I meant 4 HOUR drive.

Christiane wrote:

It certainly is. Nothing wrong with gently, firmly saying up front: ‘no, not here’ to a young neo-Cal pastor coming aboard … it is a great kindness to guide and guard the young man away from performing that which brings harm

Our former pastor used to do this with sbts Seminary students who came to “volunteer”. He told them they would only be frustrated as we voted on everything, had women deacons and women taught men in classes.

@ Darlene:
Todd county is about the same!

okrapod wrote:

The evening paper did not survive but the Courier-Journal (aka the Journal) did. I notice you called it a rag? What on earth happened to it; did it deteriorate into some rag? That would be so sad.

The Bingham kids had a family feud and one of them wrote a tell all about the parents.

I want to read the history of how it got started and it is not nice at all. Basically Flagler’s Widow (Miami developer) married poor Colonel Bingham and then mysteriously died of an overdose of laudanum. He inherited Flagler’s money and started The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times.

I do hope all present appreciate my choice to not turn my acerbic wit upon Elizabeth. Though sorely tempted, I assure you…

Deb wrote:

@ Christiane:
The strap across her chest sounds just like C.J. Mahaney. The poor women in CLC/SGM had to be careful how they bucked their shoulder seatbelts across their bosoms. I am dead serious!

I’ve read that ladies in Doug Wilson’s Kirk and seminary had to be aware of the same thing. Funny how that is. Not only having to worry about showing any kind of cleavage, but also have to worry about wearing anything that reveals the fact that you have breasts. That’s a big problem with females who are well endowed.

dee wrote:

These pastors have quick tempers. My husband and I met one in Panera who decided to try to convince us of the reality of Young Earth Creationism. When we presented our disagreement he slammed his head down on the table and covered it with his arms. People turned and looked all over the restaurant. I told Deb when it happened.

All that fuss over a difference in flying spaghetti monsters? One which claims you can only use ragu and never prego? And said pastor is how old? There was a time when no pastor, of any stripe, would have made a scene like that.

Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:

to say there is not a single SB consensus on church polity is in short BS

If you Google “Southern Baptist Convention FAQ”, you will find an interesting list of questions and answers on church polity, such as:

Q: Why is the SBC so committed to the autonomy of the local church?
A: We recognize that in the New Testament there was no centralized ecclesiastical authority over the churches that forced the churches into any form of compliance. There was encouragement, exhortation, and admonition, but there was never enforcement. We strongly adhere to that principle. Jesus Christ is the head of the local church – we are not. Each church is responsible before God for the policies it sets and decisions it makes.

Q: What is the SBC’s stance on a church having elders?
A: The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on these matters. Because each church is autonomous, each issue is addressed and determined by the local church.

That last answer is used a lot on the FAQ page. By pleading autonomy, a local church can get away with most things as long as they don’t commit BFM2000 blasphemy. Before you know it, Calvinism will be acceptable theology in SBC, where non-Calvinistic belief and practice is the default. Oh, wait a minute, it already is!!

Darlene wrote:

Oh, and every female had an “Eve spirit” for which the males should be on sharp alert lest they be devoured by such a spirit. Yes, DEVOURED was the actual word used.

I just heard a Calvary Chapel pastor teach over the radio that this is what Genesis 3:16 is all about, namely woman’s desire to dominate men and stray from their authorized role in Scripture.

Lea wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Lydia wrote:
@ Watchman on the wall:
For the gals it is a Jezebel spirit.
Back in my former Christian cult, it was called an “Eve spirit.” The leader/pastor invented a series of teachings on the characteristics of an “Eve spirit.” Oh, and every female had an “Eve spirit” for which the males should be on sharp alert lest they be devoured by such a spirit. Yes, DEVOURED was the actual word used.
You’ve just got to wonder what these peoples damage is!
Also an Adam spirit i guess would be sinning willingly and blaming the wife?

Lea, the only time the leader/pastor spoke of an Adam spirit is when he would label the men “dull Adam” because they had allowed themselves to be devoured by an Eve spirit. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted to. 😉

Muff Potter wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Oh, and every female had an “Eve spirit” for which the males should be on sharp alert lest they be devoured by such a spirit. Yes, DEVOURED was the actual word used.
I just heard a Calvary Chapel pastor teach over the radio that this is what Genesis 3:16 is all about, namely woman’s desire to dominate men and stray from their authorized role in Scripture.

Yep, misogyny isn’t limited to the Neo-Cals. My former Christian cult was not Calvinist by any stretch of the imagination.

Deb wrote:

After the marriage license is signed, she is stuck with him FOR LIFE!

Well, that triggered a thought train for me!

She is stuck with him for life – Ah, but just like in the days of Moses, these pastor-hubbies have given themselves the right to issue a bill of divorce at any time they please and then move on down the road to a better church-wife.

Come to think about it, their positional pastor-stance makes them the uber husband of the church, made in their image of husbandness.

Pastor-hubby can go completely off the rails, and church-wife is called to submit, submit, submit.

Pastor-hubby can speak harshly and make enormous demands, and church-wife is to respond in humility with respectful ‘yes sirs’ and provide whatever pastor-hubby desires. And, with joy!

Pastor-hubby has purpose and vision from God to accomplish important things, and church-wife is to sublimate her purpose and vision and do everything possible to help pastor-hubby in the pursuit of his purpose and vision. Because God called pastor-hubby to this position see? God called church-wife, sure, but in a completely different way.

There is no abuse that pastor-hubby can do that would possibly justify church-wife seeking assistance or intervention from others, or speaking to others about the relationship, and separation or divorce initiated by church-wife is right out!

However, if pastor-hubby gets burned out on his current church-wife, or gets a seductive wink from a prettier church-wife across town – no problem! Pastor-hubby announces that God has called him and he must follow.

Yep, pastors are the uber-hubbies of the church.

Darlene wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Oh, and every female had an “Eve spirit” for which the males should be on sharp alert lest they be devoured by such a spirit.

Wow, sounds a bit like the heresy we know as ‘Two Seed In The Spirit Predestination’ … very, very strange theology, much beloved of the Christian Identity White Supremist Groups …

Christiane wrote:

Wow, sounds a bit like the heresy we know as ‘Two Seed In The Spirit Predestination’ … very, very strange theology, much beloved of the Christian Identity White Supremist Groups …

Yes, there’s something for everyone out there in fundagelical land.

@ Bill M:
Wow. She is sharp for her age! More of an independent thinker than most hee age.

Gudbrand wrote:

This blog was written well over a week ago by one of the teens at FBCRM. The hurt and scarring is deep and affects all ages.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/didnt-fit-in-at-youth-group

I keep telling myself that Jesus snubbed the Righteous God Squad types and hung out with the rejects and losers.

Darlene wrote:

Back in my former Christian cult, it was called an “Eve spirit.” The leader/pastor invented a series of teachings on the characteristics of an “Eve spirit.”

And of course there was no corresponding Adam spirit even though Adam purposely rebelled.

Muff Potter wrote:

I just heard a Calvary Chapel pastor teach over the radio that this is what Genesis 3:16 is all about, namely woman’s desire to dominate men and stray from their authorized role in Scripture.

It’s Calvary Chapel. I have always gotten a vibe of something wrong from them, like they distill down and concentrate all the ways Christians can go sour.

Back when I was listening to Christianese AM Radio, CC dominated the airwaves in SoCal. They defined “born-again Christian” locally like there was No Salvation Outside of Calvary Chapel.

Max wrote:

Jesus Christ is the head of the local church – we are not.

Now, there’s a radical idea! Authoritarian, move over … Jesus is supposed to be in charge!

As a former member of FBCRM, I watched and listened as this drama unfolded. I used to watch FBC sermons on local TV. When Darville started as interim his sermons were light, airy with a dose of humor. As soon as he became permanent full-time pastor the tone and content of his sermons changed. I made the comment to my wife at the time, "they have gone and hired themselves a hyper-calvinist." Subsequent conversations with friends at FBC confirmed the statement. They were taken by surprise by his uncompromising theology as well as his increasingly confrontational attitude. I had read accounts of other Neo-cal takeovers on TWW. Darville had obviously read the playbook. Deceptive is one of the kinder words to describe Darville. He had a plan from the beginning. As it became obvious that it was not going to become a reality he became angrier, showing contempt and hostility toward those who opposed him.

Lydia wrote:

For the gals it is a Jezebel spirit.

The Jezebel spirit is gender-less. Throughout church history, it has manifested itself best in authoritarian men. It is a spirit which drives the flesh to control, manipulate and intimidate others. It is at home in the hearts of arrogant New Calvinist pastors/elders.

Darlene wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Christiane wrote:
It certainly is. Nothing wrong with gently, firmly saying up front: ‘no, not here’ to a young neo-Cal pastor coming aboard … it is a great kindness to guide and guard the young man away from performing that which brings harm
Our former pastor used to do this with sbts Seminary students who came to “volunteer”. He told them they would only be frustrated as we voted on everything, had women deacons and women taught men in classes.

Lydia, so if you don’t mind sharing, how is it that your former church was taken over by the NeoCals when it had congregational vote, and women deacons & teaching men? How long did it take for the *reform* to be successful?

Reform is not complete but getting there. The pulpit committee was totally ignorant about the YRR movement. The former pastor just never got into it. We were friends and knew I had issues with SBTS and asked me about SGM out of the blue one day. He was a scholar but could not teach there and knew it. He was old earth, too. He wanted to teach toward the end of his career so moved to where he could. He did not bother with the convention.

So, the pulpit committee after a year hired a young man who said he was not a Calvinist. For the year they had an interim that primed them and he was extremely likable. I was just not interested. I could not stand his sermons. To go from a quiet scholar to the show (again) was more than I could stand. We rarely stayed for service. I knew the train wreck was coming. It was like he was sent there to smooth the way.

When I went there after my seeker megas experience, I promised myself I would not get too involved. I limited myself to stuff the kids were involved in. I taught GA’s, SS. No committees! No way.

People don’t want to know. I learned that at the seeker megas which give the spectators nothing but a big show they love. Now I am a done.

Btw: I don’t believe the vote outcome for one minute. There were some older retired SBTS people there who spoke up after the candidate was announced. A lot of people left. I would say about 1/4. The vote was like 2 over a super majority. By that time the pulpit committee was trying to save face and literally selling the guy with emotionalism that was ridiculous. The state convention guys were leading the effort behind the scenes I came to find out later.

So, I got to witnessfrom, a window, similar to what I had been reading about and heard from others in this city about takeovers. (10 years ago a woman cutting my hair told me about her church takeover by SBTS! Her husband was youth minister and was fired)

I knew better than to get involved. A few years later some people from there now call me with questions, etc. I have more influence when they approach me. I tell them what to look for that is coming. I get calls back….’They are doing this or that you warned about!’. I am like a seer. :o)

Truth is people dont know. It does not occur to them they cannot trust their own Seminary. During these takeovers the Pew sitters never stick together they always end up factions and at each other’s throats. They rarely blame the leaders or hold them accountable.

There is another piece to this I like to warn people about. This comes from my organizational development days. There is a tyranny of “change” out there. People are often accused of just not liking change. This is meant to marginalize them as backwards rubes who don’t want progress.

But not all change is good. Change for change’s sake is ignorant. And I say that as someone who craves change all the time. I am not a routine person and I would never make it going to the same office every day. I love change. But not all of it is profitable or efficient. I’m getting better as i had kids and got older, though. :o). It would be unfair of me to accuse my family of not liking change in order to accommodate me.

I have noticed that a lot of these take over guys use that accusation against people. Of course the change that they are touting is biblical because as you know, people were not really biblical before they got there.

I did not mean to write a novella!

@ Dan:
And Elizabeth was dispatched to remind us that people had listened to his preaching for a year before he was hired full time. Yes it’s right out of the Playbook. Blame the very people you deceived!

It just floors me that they think they will get by with all the deception either here and now or later….

@ Lea:

We may look at it as Darville performed a long overdue house cleaning of staff.

Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:

The Neo-Cals aren’t just interested in taking over churches. My suspicion that is gaining more traction is that Mohler wants to take over the world as it were and make himself Protestant Pope of the Evangelicals…Money and power by any means necessary is the name of the game.PS – I’m not bitter, just gifted with insight, discernment, and a highly calibrated BS detector.

Spot on!

Lydia wrote:

@ Max:
I was never called that in the SBC,btw. I used to read these blogs where women had come out of fundy patriarchy and they were called that all the time. I thought it was weird because I knew Jezebel was an archetype.

I thought all of that stuff was weird cultish sects. I’m so freaked out at the concept of it infiltrating the Sbc! Like that poor youth group girl hearing she tempted boys by existing. That’s not the church I grew up in.

I feel like we need a corresponding ‘Jezebel spirit’ term to toss back at em.

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:

@ Max:
I was never called that in the SBC,btw. I used to read these blogs where women had come out of fundy patriarchy and they were called that all the time. I thought it was weird because I knew Jezebel was an archetype.

I thought all of that stuff was weird cultish sects. I’m so freaked out at the concept of it infiltrating the Sbc! Like that poor youth group girl hearing she tempted boys by existing. That’s not the church I grew up in.

I feel like we need a corresponding ‘Jezebel spirit’ term to toss back at em.

Diotrephes

@ Lydia:
Scripture indicates that the things which come against the Church fall within three categories: the world, the flesh and the devil.

Lord knows that the world comes to church these days. The Church of the living God used to be counter-culture to the world; it is now a sub-culture of it in far too many places. The New Calvinist movement is focused on being “culturally-relevant” and is dragging as much world into the church as it can while still appearing to be Christian. And. of course, flesh is being manifested in all its glory in the 21st century church. The steady stream of TWW reports are evidence of that. But what we don’t want to admit is that the devil is alive and well on planet earth … many of the battles that are being fought over theo-political issues were started in a spiritual realm, designed to divert the Church from the Great Commission. The New Calvinist takeover of the SBC is but one example of that .. the devil surely has his hand in things.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Burwell wrote:
Burwell wrote:
When a pastor has to meet at Milton & Miles to keep his anger in check, and to keep himself from throwing chairs
What kills me is the continued commitment from denominational (or whatever the SBC actually is) leaders who will stand behind men with rage issues, or who protect child molesters, have extra marital affairs, etc., without batting an eye. This type of anger is such a clear violation of what Paul wrote about elders in 1 Timothy 3:2-3
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
(Emphasis mine)
In my 29 years as a faculty member at a major, SECULAR, University, I have been to many heated/contentious faculty meetings, some over important issues (such as the future of departments). I have NEVER seen it degrade to people “throwing chairs!”
Never in my 13 years either in the same academic environment. And to think they accuse us professors of being grown infants and petty schemers. I’ve never seen anything in academia to match what I’ve seen in three of the last four churches our family attended.
Unfortunately, I agree with you..

I taught high school for 30+ years…also saw some heated discussions…..never saw a chair thrown, never saw a punch thrown…..I am so glad that God sent me away from being in churches. I do not think y’all understand how glad, blessed I been…

@ Lea:
Oh wow. That is the big gun! :o)

The deception they perpetuate on people is a variation of the Judas kiss.

K.D. wrote:

I taught high school for 30+ years…also saw some heated discussions…..never saw a chair thrown, never saw a punch thrown…..I am so glad that God sent me away from being in churches. I do not think y’all understand how glad, blessed I been…

Ever watch IU basketball…Bobby Knight?

Patriciamc wrote:

And of course there was no corresponding Adam spirit even though Adam purposely rebelled.

I have heard teaching on what we might call the Adam spirit or the essential sin of males. You guessed it. Avoiding taking authority. Letting their wives control them. Listening to their wives with any possibility of changing their minds due to their wives' input.

Max wrote:

Burwell wrote:
What kills me is the continued commitment from denominational (or whatever the SBC actually is) leaders who will stand behind men with rage issues, or who protect child molesters, have extra marital affairs, etc., without batting an eye.
SBC, at the national level, is pretty much hands-off on these sort of issues. On its website, the FAQ page says this:
Q: I believe our pastor (or my church) has acted inappropriately. What will the SBC do about it?
A: Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention is not in a position to take any disciplinary action regarding pastors or churches. Again, because of the autonomy of the local church, each SBC church is responsible before God to set its own policies regarding pastors or problems in the church. Such policies are entirely up to the individual congregation.
Soooo … how would a local congregation go about getting relief in nasty situations if congregational governance does not exist in the case of elder-rule polity? In such churches, the pew has no say in establishing policies to cover these things.

Except when a local church ordain’s a women… I am sure they would come down on it faster than Dee pugs on a piece of bacon on the floor!

Gram3 wrote:

have heard teaching on what we might call the Adam spirit or the essential sin of males. You guessed it. Avoiding taking authority. Letting their wives control them. Listening to their wives with any possibility of changing their minds due to their wive’s input.

Oh my word. Did you read that piece Russell Moore wrote for the Henry Institute a while back where he chided men who had asked their wives about attending a Promise Keepers rally. Evidently that was a really bad thing to do. They don’t ask and coordinate schedules with their wives. They are to “tell” their wives they are going.

I’m not sure but I think it was the same paper where he wrote, comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy.

Sounds like what you are talking about.

K.D. wrote:

The young adults and youth are leaving.

The young adults and youth in my area are being drawn to an SBC-YRR church plant. The cool pastor, loud band, and free coffee/donuts have hooked them. The young lead pastor and his “elder” team are only in their 30s, but they are pulling it off. Gimmicks work.

@ Muff Potter:

No Sypathy here…

Lydia wrote:

Oh my word. Did you read that piece Russell Moore wrote for the Henry Institute a while back where he chided men who had asked their wives about attending a Promise Keepers rally. Evidently that was a really bad thing to do. They don’t ask and coordinate schedules with their wives. They are to “tell” their wives they are going.

I’ll be though, that they would like to be consulted if their wives wanted to go to an event. So, I guess the “do unto others as you’d have them do to you” doesn’t apply to husbands. Too bad the neo-cals weren’t around to advise Christ.

Gram3 wrote:

I have heard teaching on what we might call the Adam spirit or the essential sin of males. You guessed it. Avoiding taking authority. Letting their wives control them. Listening to their wives with any possibility of changing their minds due to their wive’s input.

Geesh, talk about adding to the Bible. I guess they overlook the part about God telling Abraham to listen to Sarah.

Max wrote:

Burwell wrote:

What kills me is the continued commitment from denominational (or whatever the SBC actually is) leaders who will stand behind men with rage issues, or who protect child molesters, have extra marital affairs, etc., without batting an eye.

SBC, at the national level, is pretty much hands-off on these sort of issues. On its website, the FAQ page says this:

Q: I believe our pastor (or my church) has acted inappropriately. What will the SBC do about it?
A: Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention is not in a position to take any disciplinary action regarding pastors or churches. Again, because of the autonomy of the local church, each SBC church is responsible before God to set its own policies regarding pastors or problems in the church. Such policies are entirely up to the individual congregation.

Soooo … how would a local congregation go about getting relief in nasty situations if congregational governance does not exist in the case of elder-rule polity? In such churches, the pew has no say in establishing policies to cover these things.

The autonomy of the church is used when it supports the SBC position of no wimmin in any positions of authority.

Christiane wrote:

Does the SBC still have its Ethics Commission?

The current mission of ERLC is to engage in “culture wars”, rather than deal with internal SBC ethical issues. Russell Moore, current president of ERLC, is a highly visible and outspoken critic of moral decay in the country, but not in the church.

@ Max:
The ERLC was one of the dumbest ideas ever. The Baptist ideal would never have one guy speaking for millions on specific issues. It is starting to backfire. Thank goodness!

@ Christiane:

“Russell Moore, current president of ERLC, is a highly visible and outspoken critic of moral decay in the country, but not in the church.”
++++++++++++++++

with a statement like that, you as a common-sensed human being are qualified to judge it hypocritical and laughable. broken, indeed.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

In Christianese, “Moral Decay” = HOMOSEXUALITY! HOMOSEXUALITY! HOMOSEXUALITY!
Given Culture War Christianity, ever wonder if Fred Phelps was just too direct for his own good

You can get kicked out if your church is too “friendly” to homosexuals.
Homosexuals and any kind of women leaders are just not wanted in the SBC.

@ elastigirl:
I’m rather fond of the art of understatement. 🙂

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

My suspicion that is gaining more traction is that Mohler wants to take over the world as it were and make himself Protestant Pope of the Evangelicals.

“Today the SBC — TOMORROW THE WORLD!”

No way HEADLESS, for some reason I can’t see the dignified Dr. Mohler kneeling down, washing the feet of prisoners who are female and Muslim. He doesn’t roll that way.
Mohler should hang out with Francis for a season which would cure him of any dreams of world domination big time. 🙂

Gudbrand wrote:

This blog was written well over a week ago by one of the teens at FBCRM. The hurt and scarring is deep and affects all ages.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/didnt-fit-in-at-youth-group

I’m so sorry to hear of kids being subjected to all that rot. Sheesh. But what a good head she has on her shoulders!

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I do hope all present appreciate my choice to not turn my acerbic wit upon Elizabeth. Though sorely tempted, I assure you…

I am disappointed

Darlene wrote:

What? Covered up the windows in the traditional sanctuary? Now why would this be? I’m trying to wrap my mind around this.

Exactly. It’s very odd. Yet the part really baffling (try to wrap one’s head around this…) is: Thousands of attendees who do not question the logic here.

Moreover the facility was paid for, modern, beautiful.
So why start a capital campaign to renovate?
The major givers were in the traditional group.

Is it just me or is this anti-trump screed from Russell Moore sound a bit hollow given what him and others do in other venues concerning church polity? I did not totally vet this thought I am just asking but it seems to me that Dr. Molher, Mr. Moore, and their ilk seem to coop churches and seminaries and “refine” them to their liking. Again I could be wrong but this rhetoric concerning Trump strikes a bit ironic.

Rose wrote:

As a former female student at Southeastern…let me tell you that SEBTS is a place of double speak, things going on under the surface, very money and connection driven, lots of nepotism, the women there are generally very socially manipulative (you have to be in order to operate as a female in that world.) It’s not objective, and it’s definitely celebrity culture driven while they pretend they’re not. It’s a very confining non-free place where everyone talks like robots. It’s a seriously creepy place. I don’t think I’m eager rating when I say it is very cult-like. Lots of the men at SEBTS and in the surrounding SBC churches have a really low emotional IQ. What’s being said often doesn’t match what’s actually happening. I really think it’s a business front disquised as a seminary. They were the most unfriendly people I have ever met in my life. People seemed miserable and stunted while pretending and saying everything was great, etc.

Oh my…..Oh my goodness…..you hit the nail the nail on the head….this how I saw people when I was at SWBTS in Ft. Worth…..wow…..I thought it was just my experience.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

siteseer wrote:

Christiane wrote:
No way HEADLESS, for some reason I can’t see the dignified Dr. Mohler kneeling down, washing the feet of prisoners who are female and Muslim. He doesn’t roll that way.
Mohler should hang out with Francis for a season which would cure him of any dreams of world domination big time.
Such a shame he can’t seem to do anything about sex abuse in the RC church

He and we have done quite a bit. We are working very hard to address the problem, and even secular media admit we are making huge strides.

That’s good to hear. I think anyone can have bad actors, it’s what the leadership does in response – does it protect the people or the staff/priest, that tells the tale.

Christiane wrote:

No way HEADLESS, for some reason I can’t see the dignified Dr. Mohler kneeling down, washing the feet of prisoners who are female and Muslim. He doesn’t roll that way.

Try TBN. They put on shows like that all the time. Were there cameras There? Ask yourself why. For what reason?

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/pope-francis-washes-feet-of-refugees-on-holy-thursday/

Burwell wrote:

It is a sad day when Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” can now be applied to many churches in America.

Oh my. I didn’t think of that. You are spot on!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

He and we have done quite a bit. We are working very hard to address the problem, and even secular media admit we are making huge strides.

How would people know? The same top down polity exists. The same structure is in place. The same bureaucracy and layers. The same -no women priests. No married priests.

Can priests no longer be alone with children? Is that a rule now that everyone is aware of?

@ Lydia:

Yes, it seems to be a political statement.

If one looks at the gospel story of just what Jesus did, he did not wash the feet of the masses. He preached to and fed and healed the masses, but he washed the feet of those who were about to ‘inherit’ the message-the inner circle of what was to become apostles and leaders and He taught that the leadership ought to be servants of each other. ‘As I have washed your feet so you ought to wash one another’s other’s feet’. One another it says.

Should that symbolism be expanded to the entire membership of the body of Christ? I really don’t see why not, but that is an expansion of the symbolism-justified expansion in my opinion but not exactly what went on back in Jerusalem at the time.

But should that symbolism of yes, ‘servant leadership,’ be extended to the unbelieving world? Is the church the servant of the world in the same sense in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples? Well, it depends on how one views the issue of the church in the world, and here comes a mixture of religion and politics perhaps, or so it certainly appears.

Personally, I think that to stretch that symbolism that far weakens and perhaps even totally misses the message of Jesus in what He actually did and said at the time. But then I used to be a Free Will Baptist and they practice the washing of the saint’s feet at the time of the communion service. The understanding of this can be quite different when seen from the angle of a different perspective.

I suppose we all notice the basic philosophical differences not only between major christian traditions but also between various ideologies within each of the major christian traditions. We need not go our separate ways because of this but neither should we fail to see the trajectories of the various understandings of things.

Well stated, @Rose. All the rules that you know or don’t know kept us at FBCRM nervous just walking in the door – always fearing what was next or what charge might be brought against us, or when we might be ordered in to a pasotor’s office to be ranted at! Freedom from that now is wonderful!

Lydia wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

He and we have done quite a bit. We are working very hard to address the problem, and even secular media admit we are making huge strides.

How would people know? The same top down polity exists. The same structure is in place. The same bureaucracy and layers. The same -no women priests. No married priests.

Can priests no longer be alone with children? Is that a rule now that everyone is aware of?

Goodness. Where to begin?

*** We have a Zero Tolerance Policy, adopted by the US bishops some years ago in the wake of the Abuse Scandal. All Catholic clergy are mandatory reporters. I have seen this in action in my own diocese, where the diocesan chancery proactively alerted the police to a case they had discovered — even though the accuser himself had not yet officially come forward. The priest in question was immediately arrested.
*** Everyone who works in lay ministry has to go through the Protecting God’s Children program. I’ve been through it. It’s not perfect, and it won’t stop manipulators and liars, but it’s a heck of a lot better than nothing, which is what most churches have.
*** Several years ago, the US Bishops commissioned a totally independent study by a secular institution — the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Again, NO other church has done this. The exhaustive John Jay Study found that about 4% of US Catholic priests had been “credibly accused” of sex abuse over a 40-year period, with most cases dating to the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s IIRC. Four percent is 4 percent too many, but it hardly fits the popular stereotype of rampant abuse committed by huge hordes of pedophile priests, with offenders in every rectory. (Four percent is also about the same percentage as in other communions, across the board. Again, NO excuse!! Just putting it in perspective.)
*** “Reconciliation rooms” (for Confession) have big honkin’ glass windows. Visit any Catholic church in Louisville if you don;t believe me.
*** No, priests are not typically alone with children. If for no other reason…do you think the Church wants more lawsuits? And today’s parents are not stupid. The era of sleepovers at the rectory is over, over, over.
*** This article is a few years old, but it shows the trajectory: http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2013/annual-audit-shows-number-of-abuse-allegations-in-church-dropped-in-2012.cfm

At the same time, speaking anecdotally: Every other day our local news media carry stories about evangelical pastors caught in sex abuse. But the stories are usually buried in the back pages, and, because evangelicalism itself is so fragmented, the news often flies under the radar. Even the Orthodox fly under the radar. (Google the Greek Orthodox monastery in Astoria, New York, that imported young Ukrainian novices for the express purpose of molesting them. Bet you didn’t hear about that on the evening news or read about it in the Boston Globe!)

But just because you don’t hear about abuses in other settings, that doesn’t mean they don’t happen. It just means they are under-reported.

The Catholic Church is the 800-lb. gorilla. Everything we do (especially if it’s negative) gets blared across news media and trumpeted in the streets. But seriously…if you think this means we are worse than everyone else, then you must not believe in Original Sin, which (last time I checked) was a universal affliction, not just a Catholic one.

America has a long history of lurid anti-Catholic bigotry, much of which has focused on the myth that Catholics are worse sinners than all other Christians. (E.g., the notorious Maria Monk case in the 19th century.) But the reality is that ALL churches and communions — not to mention families, schools, and Scout troops — have sex-abuse issues. The Catholic abuse scandal was horrible beyond belief, and no Catholic I know would dream of justifying it. But no, it was not unique to Catholics. And yes, we *are* actively addressing it — which, again, is a heck of a lot more than many other churches are doing.

Can the measures we are trying to implement prevent abuse from ever happening? No. Are there still bad bishops out there? Yes. We have nearly 70 million members in America alone and 1.3 billion worldwide. Policing a church that large is like herding cats. We are trying, but we are not there yet. Still, we *are* trying, and our efforts have had some effect.

By the way…what does “no married priests” have to do with it? Most sex abusers, religious and otherwise, are married or at least non-celibate. If celibacy were the issue, then we wouldn’t have so many public school teachers involved in sex abuse of minors. 😉

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

I agree. The RCC has made great strides in this area. Would that all of protestantism could say the same.

And no, celibacy does not cause child sex abuse. You are quite right about that. If it did, then Paul was in error in recommending celibacy as a life style. Bible toting protestants can surely see that.

To hear of the pain suffered by many here at the hands of those that should be walking beside them in their faith journey grieves me. Grace and peace to those of you who who have experienced such abuse.

Burwell wrote:

This is precisely why reformed church polity, i.e. elder led, does not work well in autonomous church settings.

Especially in churches where the pastor and his “elders” are in their 30s! When the youth group is running things, it is a recipe for disaster. Not many 30-somethings have the spiritual maturity to lead a church. SBC planted 1,000 new churches last year – most led by YRR pastors fresh out of seminary (at least in my area) … think about it!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

if you think this means we are worse than everyone else, then you must not believe in Original Sin

I’m glad to hear your church has implemented new measures of protection and they do sound promising, but I wanted to point to this. I do not agree that ‘original sin’ is what makes one church more dangerous than another. As I mentioned, I think bad actors can pop up anywhere (maybe even in equal numbers), however it is the way the SYSTEM deals with it that makes one church worse than the other. The catholic church was burying the problem. That was a system issue and system changes can help dramatically.

A bad actor is terrible. A church that supports them, moves them around to be bad actors elsewhere, or keeps the victims quiet? They cause more problems by not dealing with it. I am not just talking about the catholic church here obviously.

Lydia wrote:

Must be my mega church days coming out but I think it wise to be skeptical of such photo ops whether it is the Pope or Al Mohler or Pat Robertson.

I do think this is a double edged sword, though. IF you do a photo op, people may suspect its fake. If you do something in the quiet, people think you do nothing. Obviously the second option is the more biblical, though.

@ Lea:
I guess I am at the place where i ask: What does it matter what people think? I fear this plays into the notion our gurus must perform for us. Why do we have such distant gurus in the first place? Why do we need them? Why is that the normal? These are philosophical questions I ask myself as I get older and have seen so much spuritual destruction. (Sad face)

Pope Francis can’t save us. Al Mohler can’t save us. Only Jesus Christ can. He is our model for humanity.

@ Lea:

I should say years in dc. Oh for an edit function!

Lydia wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

America has a long history of lurid anti-Catholic bigotry, much of which has focused on the myth that Catholics are worse sinners than all other Christians. (E.

What a strange thing to say. Just for clarification, the city I grew up in has a huge Catholic population. That means I played with them in the neighborhood and went to school with them everyday. It just wasn’t a big deal. As a teen I used to go to Catholic picnics with my friends.

I can hardly believe you played the bigotry card.

I believe CGC was talking about ‘historically’. It is quite true that there was anti-Catholic bigotry in US history, some of it quite lurid. It was wrapped up with anti-immigrant sentiment as well.

Not much of it today, outside of Jack Chick tracts (‘lurid’ barely describes them – really nasty stuff). Though you can certainly find plenty of fundagelical websites that describe the RCC as ‘filthy papists’, ‘the whore of Babylon’, etc. ad nauseam.

But by the 60’s or so, the rank mainstream bigotry had mostly played itself out. It was a big deal, though, when JFK was elected president. There was doubt in the party whether a Roman Catholic could be elected president, and of course the opposition stirred up all kinds of “he’ll take orders from the Pope – the US will be ruled from Rome!” nonsense.

CGC had a valid point, IMO.

deb wrote:

siteseer wrote:

bewbs

Interesting spelling.

I confess, that’s a new one on me!

Thanks! Will tells friends who are waiting! @ roebuck:

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I guess I am at the place where i ask: What does it matter what people think?

It does if you’re a politician. Maybe my year in DC shaped my thinking on this.

Religious leaders shouldn’t be politicians…but they are.

Oh yes. Personally I would prefer honest unattractive non charismatic bean counters in Congress and the white house. But I tend to be alone in this thinking so those types could never be elected. :o(

And I am certainly not “proselytizing.” Defending is not the same thing as proselytizing. I am a guest here at the Deebs’ sufferance. I realize that most folks here come from a Baptist tradition; I’m not trying to convert anyone from that or from anything else, for that matter. I live in the Bible Belt, in the midst of many Baptists, with whom I work and recreate and even fellowship.

But when people lob charges or make sweeping generalizations that I know are inaccurate, I do respond. Again, I do not see how this constitutes proselytizing. I am simply responding to what you and several others have said. Am I not allowed to respond to what I perceive as inaccuracies?

My suggestion: Perhaps we should move this discussion to that general thread I keep hearing about. I do not want to derail this thread with a “your church is worse than mine, neener-neener” debate. Sound like a plan?

@ okrapod:
Is it wrong to question it? The SBC is under no obligation to change the BFM policy on no women preachers, either. I still question the policy even though I am no longer in the SBC. Is that wrong? I guess I am confused.

I am a big proponent of the separation of church and state. The “denominations” can organize themselves any way they want that does not harm or break the law. These are voluntary associations.

I am not clear where I presented it as a demand or as a Protestant…which I am not. I am way too libertarian for that!

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Why do you feel the need to defend an institution? Why is that so personal to you? Jesus Christ transcends all if it: The SBC. The Catholic Church. The Methodists. The Episcopalians. And so on.

It is an honest question.

Lydia wrote:

defend an institution?

Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions! As you note, Jesus does indeed transcend organized religion. The Christian experience should be about relationship, not religion. It’s OK to be religious as long as you don’t miss Jesus in your journey. If we don’t keep the Main thing the main thing, we will lose what we think we have!

Deb wrote:

I hope this thread doesn’t get derailed…   I am really hoping commenters will stick with the topic at hand.  Those who have been deeply affected by what happened at FBCRM (and who are new here) shouldn’t be subjected to an unrelated stream of comments.  Please either stop the back and forth about denoms or take it to the Open Discussion page.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Yes, please!

Deb wrote:

I hope this thread doesn’t get derailed…  

Please, please stick with the topic at hand.  Those who have been deeply affected by what happened at FBCRM (and who are new here) shouldn’t be subjected to an unrelated stream of comments.  Please either stop the back and forth about denoms or take it to the Open Discussion page.

I am trying to write the post, and Dee is busy with a Hospice visit.  Thanks for your cooperation.

FBC people…let’s keep our mouths shut until Deb gives us our post. We are very well trained in keeping our mouth shut.

Deb wrote:

FBC people…let’s keep our mouths shut until Deb gives us our post. We are very well trained in keeping our mouth shut.

I don’t know what the ‘bombshell’ is about and will wait semi-patiently, however I would love to hear more from you guys! Do you know anything about the youth program changes? That poor girls blog post broke my heart.

@ Lea:

That one was supposed to go to Watchman on the Wall. Whoops!

Burwell wrote:

Elder led churches need an extra-congregational level of accountability in order to prevent the abuse of power and the slide to oligarchy. It is a sad day when Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” can now be applied to many churches in America.

Burwell, you got me thinking this morning along this line. It’s been said that SBC’s New Calvinists are having such easy pickins’ in Calvinizing the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America because of widespread apathy in SBC pews. Just as easy to sway, are the minds of young seminary students who become ensnared by reformed indoctrination.

Here’s a line from Hayek in his book section on “Why the Worst Get on Top”:

“He must gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

Yep, that’s why the worst are now sitting on the pinnacle of the SBC pyramid.

You are very appreciated for what you are doing! @ Deb:

And that said, I’m honestly not convinced God judges bitterness in hurting people the way the current evangelical church does. It’s like anger or other negative emotions in my book-we go through periods of them and to be healthy can’t stay stuck. But to judge someone processing pain is only going to compound the feelings-it’s just counterproductive. I wish people read the Psalms more and the evangelical blogs less…

Melody wrote:

Exactly! Missing the grace of God is bitterness. We can review the past to try to make sense of it and improve things without ultimately missing grace. The “bitter” card is as thought-stopping spiritually abusive as “judge not”.

@ Divorce Minister:

K.D. wrote:

Rose wrote:
As a former female student at Southeastern…let me tell you that SEBTS is a place of double speak, things going on under the surface, very money and connection driven, lots of nepotism, the women there are generally very socially manipulative (you have to be in order to operate as a female in that world.) It’s not objective, and it’s definitely celebrity culture driven while they pretend they’re not. It’s a very confining non-free place where everyone talks like robots. It’s a seriously creepy place. I don’t think I’m eager rating when I say it is very cult-like. Lots of the men at SEBTS and in the surrounding SBC churches have a really low emotional IQ. What’s being said often doesn’t match what’s actually happening. I really think it’s a business front disquised as a seminary. They were the most unfriendly people I have ever met in my life. People seemed miserable and stunted while pretending and saying everything was great, etc.
Oh my…..Oh my goodness…..you hit the nail the nail on the head….this how I saw people when I was at SWBTS in Ft. Worth…..wow…..I thought it was just my experience.

What was that verse about you’ll know them by their fruit?

Lea wrote:

It’s wrong. It’s doing real damage and it needs to be called out.

AMEN.
any attempt to shame the natural human dignity of a young woman is wrong … and that slices both ways: the abuse takes two forms which are surprisingly the SAME, when you think about it:

1. A young girl who is made to be molested at a young age, possibly sexually abused by a family member and who goes on to become a sex-object as a run-away who is taken up by a pimp and marketed as a sex-slave …. what begins with shaming confuses the child and ends in ‘acting out’ or in replaying the tragedy hopefully looking for some kind of pitiful acceptance or some attention that mimics the love these girls so desperately need

2. A young girl who is made to be molested at a young age, possibly sexually abused by a family member and who goes on to become a sex-object in the form of a Botkin-style Daughter of The House where the girls are overly dressed ‘modestly’ in cover-up clothing and YET may have their very long hair curled and styled in the manner that the preacher Gothard thought attractive on girls and women. So strange the manipulation, together with the shaming …. as the objectification of a young woman into a ‘submissive’, ‘you can’t say no to sex with your husband’ ….
(sigh) the rest of the description gets too grim for me to continue.

The two comparisons both tell stories of terrible attacks on the dignity of the human person,
not just the female victims, but also the male perpetrators who participate in the subjugation, shaming, and objectification of these precious young women at a time when they are vulnerable ….

Abuse of women is satanic. In whatever form it propagates itself.
It’s painful to see ANY expression of it.

Sopwith wrote:

What utter contempt must these New Fangled Calvinists have for the non-Calvinist element of the body of Christ; repetitively (which means they have a history of) permitting and promoting corrupt abusive pastors, mis-appropriating churches, pushing the un-biblical five points of Calvinism –by stealth.

From Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”:

“Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the
consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves ‘the good of the whole’, because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.”

If New Calvinism is allowed to run its course, it will lead to antinomianism.

@ Max:
You don’t have to imply. I’m afraid it is a hard fact!

JYJames wrote:

Darlene wrote:
What? Covered up the windows in the traditional sanctuary? Now why would this be? I’m trying to wrap my mind around this.

Exactly. It’s very odd. Yet the part really baffling (try to wrap one’s head around this…) is: Thousands of attendees who do not question the logic here.
Moreover the facility was paid for, modern, beautiful.
So why start a capital campaign to renovate?
The major givers were in the traditional group.

Somebody told them that lighting effects and videos work better in a black box theatre. They want to be like the other Cool Kids with their fancy theatres…oops, I meant churches, so they covered up all sources of natural light.

roebuck wrote:

deb wrote:

siteseer wrote:

bewbs

Interesting spelling.

I confess, that’s a new one on me!

It’s a younger generation thing. I’ve seen it from teens/young adults for several years.

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

and videos

Honestly if I never see another dumb video in church it will be too soon.

Friend wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I was going to share some articles from the Baptist Standard with Kimberly about the making of the BFM 2000 and Mohler insisting on adding the “s” to priesthood of believer… but they are gone! The Dilday article on the BFM2000 is gone, too.

Have you ever tried using the Wayback Machine? It’s over at archive.org and it’s quite miraculous.

Though I understand there are tricks you can use to prevent your page/article from being archived by Wayback Machine. Mars Hill Dudebro was said to use that trick, and I’m sure the word got around.

Russian bureaucratic tradition: NEVER write anything down for Plausible Deniability. If it’s not written down, It Never Happened and You Can’t Prove it Ever Did!

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

so they covered up all sources of natural light.

Covering the light. In more ways than one.

doubtful wrote:

but don’t let them shut you down with the “bitterness” card.

It is a variation on “shoot the messenger”.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Effective Propaganda consists of Simplification and Repetition.”

Here it is, boys. It’s really pretty simple. Think of a flower … a tulip … a tulip with 5-petals. Petal one doctrine means …. Petal two … etc.

doubtful wrote:

Don’t let people do this to you. Often times I’d respond with ” If you mean that I’m very upset at how the pastors are lying and mistreating people-then yes-I am bitter” or something to that affect. Don’t let people turn the conversation back onto you when you are simply trying to point out the problems you see.

Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees:

“47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. “

Here we have Jesus bringing something up dating back to SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.

Or Paul:

“You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. ”

Paul! Why are you bringing up that “killing the prophets” thing again? That was SSOOOO last year! Haven’t you moved on yet?

And Stephen:

““You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? “

I mean, really! When are you ever going to get over that whole killed and persecuted the prophets thing?

Bitter, bitter, bitter. Rehashing things that occurred as far back as thousands of years ago! You just need to let go and let God. Oh.

Not only that, we only got ONE SIDE of the story! Who knows what those rebellious, out of control, under no one’s authority prophets did that caused them to have to be disciplined?

Severely.

JYJames wrote:

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

natural light

Matt. 5:1-12 28AD, Jesus is on a hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee. In a natural amphitheatre he speaks to folks who have trekked from Jerusalem, Galilee, Judaea and the Decapolis: the sermon from the mount.

The speakers and smoke machines were artfully hidden among the rocks for that ‘supernatural effect’, and the laser show after sunset was to die for! The whole show was simulcast to the Capernaum campus for those who couldn’t make it to The Mount. Free donuts and coffee! Well, some bread and fish anyway…

@ Max & Lydia,
Deb and her husband had the best idea I think, vetting these new young guys and then making them legally bound to not try and change church polity, if they do, it’s breach of contract and they’re out. I have zero experience or knowledge of Baptist polity or tradition, but I do know that it must suck when neo-cals come in and foist their cruel religion on unsuspecting and trusting parishioners.
Is there a way forward for Baptist folk to avoid these predatory clergy and their despotic religion?

Lea wrote:

That poor girls blog post broke my heart.

And pegged out into the redzone of my Bizarro-Meter.

Girls on one side, boys on the other. Or girls in one room and boys in another.

If such separation is needed for prepubescent children – I can’t imagine why these leaders aren’t separating out the adults during worship, preaching, etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t somewhere on their list of “Things to Do Soon”. Truly Chrislam as someone referenced earlier.

I am really fed up with the nauseating teachings and actions that cause females to view their bodies as something negative.

I ran across the following snippet, that really expresses this negative attitude toward women that seems to be gaining steam in churchianity.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/burqas-reveal-more-about-men-than-women-20141020-118mce.html

The primary reason that women are required to swathe themselves in fabric, covering their collarbones necks, arms, legs, ankles, elbows, shoulders, throats, thighs, ears, the napes of their collarbones, necks, their hair and in some cases their faces, is because culturally, they are considered untrustworthy and immoral, condemned to the role of seductress. The fine shape of an ankle or tendril of hair are the tools of seduction. In essence, the veil, much lauded by so-called Islamic teachings, is a protection for men against us voracious vixens of the mortal world. Not, as so many pundits state, a protection for women against men.

Isn’t this the same seed being planted by churchianity in young girls?

Rose wrote:

As a former female student at Southeastern…let me tell you that SEBTS is a place of double speak, things going on under the surface, very money and connection driven, lots of nepotism, the women there are generally very socially manipulative (you have to be in order to operate as a female in that world.) It’s not objective, and it’s definitely celebrity culture driven while they pretend they’re not. It’s a very confining non-free place where everyone talks like robots. It’s a seriously creepy place. I don’t think I’m eager rating when I say it is very cult-like. Lots of the men at SEBTS and in the surrounding SBC churches have a really low emotional IQ. What’s being said often doesn’t match what’s actually happening. I really think it’s a business front disquised as a seminary. They were the most unfriendly people I have ever met in my life. People seemed miserable and stunted while pretending and saying everything was great, etc.
So, no interaction or direct knowledge of Dennis Darville, but this is the world he was operating in and SEBTS likely enabled or hid his behavior. I wouldn’t trust them to do anything about it, because they probably already saw or knew about his behavior. Unless something tragic happened recently to him that could explain a sudden behavior change or he has a brain tumor that has suddenly altered his personality, he’s probably been like this his whole life.
SEBTS also has a reputation of people leaving because of some sort of conflict or hiding something and them pretending that the person just neutrally left when there is usually more to the story.

Here is an article about SEBTS. I find some of the Christanese in the article to be rather telling.
http://www.sebts.edu/mobile/headlines/articles/Spring2012_Birch.aspx

@ Christiane:
That’s a very god question – and I’m not certain the answer would be, um, orthodox, in the broadest possible sense.

mot wrote:

Max wrote:

I often wonder, Lydia, why there are not more Baby Boomers in SBC ranks making a fuss about things right now. I feel like a rare and endangered species sometimes.

I sadly think that those that took over the SBC did such a good job the remaining Baby Boomers in the SBC have seen how others were treated and just do not want to go through the mess of trying to stop the bleeding going on in the SBC.

Church is not that big of a deal to many people like it once did….the average person really wants to ” go along to get along” in the church now…

K.D. wrote:

Church is not that big of a deal to many people like it once did….the average person really wants to ” go along to get along” in the church now…

I so remember BOLD MISSION THRUST. But when the TAKEOVER began in earnest in 1979 BOLD MISSION THRUST was pushed to the side. IMO a great opportunity missed but the ding a lings running the SBC today are clueless of how they messed this up.

mot wrote:

I sadly think that those that took over the SBC did such a good job the remaining Baby Boomers in the SBC have seen how others were treated and just do not want to go through the mess of trying to stop the bleeding going on in the SBC.

When you’ve only got a few years to retirement, you don’t want to rock the boat and risk losing everything.

BL wrote:

siteseer wrote:
BL, once again, your post is full of insight- it is an exact parallel.
Thanks – it really was a light-bulb moment for me.
In the same way that wives are treated as children in their patriarchal view, so they treat the churches they lead – children forever, never to mature. With all and everything to them, and the churches existing only to serve their purpose, vision & mission.

I hope more of these folks within NeoCal churches have light bulb moments. I’ve been having my usual conversations with Calvinists on the Fb site. This time a hubbub occurred when a Calvinist fellow posted about going to a summer camp and having to endure a woman teaching during one of the sessions. He wanted to know what he should do in such a case, and then the advice came rolling in. During the back and forth, one woman commented that the pastor at her former church used to tell women from the pulpit to “shut up” – as a reminder that women talk too much. She also said that this same pastor said from the pulpit that “if a wife interrupts the husband at the dinner table before guests, that the husband was to excuse himself, drag his wife by the hair to the bathroom, and give her a good tongue lashing.” Of course you won’t be surprised to learn that this was a Reformed church. 😉

When I spoke up and told this same woman that I would have walked out on that service and privately reached out to the pastor’s wife to get help and find a safe place to get away, she proceeded to defend this pastor. It boggles the mind, it really does. (By the way, she did say that the elders had this pastor removed after she left the church.) And when I said that he was promoting spousal abuse from the pulpit and that I wouldn’t be surprised if husbands followed his example, she admitted that there was wife abuse in the congregation. And “other sin in which the husbands thought there would be no accountability.” But then immediately after this comment she stated: “I’m quite sure this is not what the pastor was going for.” How can a person be so naive? Well, I guess I should know the answer to that question having been in an abusive Christian cult. One thing I noted on that Facebook thread was that only one fella came out and denounced that pastor’s behavior. But when it came to denouncing the woman teaching at a summer bible camp, the men piled on in numbers, vilifying such an unbiblical practice. This kind of repeated scenario among Calvinists leads me to wonder just how much wife abuse is going on behind the scenes.

Lydia wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
America has a long history of lurid anti-Catholic bigotry, much of which has focused on the myth that Catholics are worse sinners than all other Christians. (E.
What a strange thing to say. Just for clarification, the city I grew up in has a huge Catholic population. That means I played with them in the neighborhood and went to school with them everyday. It just wasn’t a big deal. As a teen I used to go to Catholic picnics with my friends.
I can hardly believe you played the bigotry card.

Lydia, I’m glad to hear of your good experiences with Catholics. Notwithstanding, there is enough in our recorded history that in fact shows anti-Catholic bigotry was quite prevalent when immigrants from Ireland and Italy began settling this nation. My personal experience in growing up was quite different from yours. I was warned not to trust Catholics from my atheist grandmother because “they are liars.” Also, my mother, who was also an atheist, raked me over the coals for sneaking off to church with my Catholic friend. She said it wouldn’t have been as bad if it had been the Lutheran church. When it comes down to it, I think many of our views our formed by our experiences.

Deb wrote:

I hope this thread doesn’t get derailed…  
Please, please stick with the topic at hand.  Those who have been deeply affected by what happened at FBCRM (and who are new here) shouldn’t be subjected to an unrelated stream of comments.  Please either stop the back and forth about denoms or take it to the Open Discussion page.
I am trying to write the post, and Dee is busy with a Hospice visit.  Thanks for your cooperation.

I’m sorry, Deb. I just read this now. Blessing to the both of you. You Deebs are loving and gracious to allow us to comment here in such an open manner. I appreciate that.

BL wrote:

In essence, the veil, much lauded by so-called Islamic teachings, is a protection for men against us voracious vixens of the mortal world. Not, as so many pundits state, a protection for women against men.

I think it may be both/and. Women are seductresses *and* they are severely harassed by males. And, from what I’ve heard from a young Arab woman, they are severely harassed and worse. Because that is what women are designed for. Sound familiar?

mot wrote:

K.D., I have found in my church experiences that people do not speak up about wrong because they do not want to choose sides.
Leviticus 5:1 If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.
Praise God for this blog and an opportunity for FBCRM to share what they know and have first hand experience of. To God be the Glory!
May we continue to seek truth.
Solomon said: Ecclesiastes 7:23
All this I tested by wisdomand I said, ‘”I am determined to be wise but this was beyond me. Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound- who can discover it? So I turned my mind to UNDERSTAND, to INVESTIGATE, and to SEARCH out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and madness of folly”‘
FBCRM needs to get KNOWLEDGE of what happened so we can UNDERSTAND what happened so we can gain WISDOM and not let it ever, ever happen again on OUR WATCH!! Arise church!!!

Dennis wrote:

What’s the bombshell???

Is that you, Dennis Darville?

Fresh off the press at The Gospel Coalition: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2016/06/21/3-ways-the-gospel-might-divide-a-church/. Looks like they are prepping folks for the division they will be bringing. Nice.

Ken F wrote:

Fresh off the press at The Gospel Coalition: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2016/06/21/3-ways-the-gospel-might-divide-a-church/. Looks like they are prepping folks for the division they will be bringing. Nice.

How sad that people have no problem dividing a church and using the “Gospel” as the reason.

Christiane wrote:

Jared has blown the Neo-Cal stealth program to smithereens.

Yep, Calvinism is now coming to your local traditional SBC church.

Dennis wrote:

What’s the bombshell???

The Gap Band – “You Dropped A Bomb On Me”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lkdqoLt44

@ Watchman on the wall:
Understand!! Checking during choir!

Watchman on the wall wrote:

Dear Deb,
FBC is getting restless. We can’t concentrate, due to waiting on your post. Do you have a ETA? Can we take a shower and eat dinner?. No one will leave their computers. Help!

I provided every one with some perfectly good entertainment in a post above: The Gap Band, “You Dropped a Bomb On Me” that they can pass the time with.

And instead of debating Catholicism v. Protestantism, I’d like to suggest people here consider debating…
1. Young, skinny Elvis vs. Older, tubbier Elvis
2. Should toilet paper be folder over or under

Topic 2 can get really heated.

@ Daisy:
I think I know who this is….,

mot wrote:

How sad that people have no problem dividing a church and using the “Gospel” as the reason.

Glad you put the word “Gospel” in quotation marks! They have redefine that word. It has nothing to do with “Good News” in their world

Nancy2 wrote:

Glad you put the word “Gospel” in quotation marks! They have redefine that word. It has nothing to do with “Good News” in their world

“They” definitely have a different definition of the word gospel. It is not the one I am familiar with.

Daisy wrote:

And instead of debating Catholicism v. Protestantism, I’d like to suggest people here consider debating…
1. Young, skinny Elvis vs. Older, tubbier Elvis
2. Should toilet paper be folder over or under

Thank you!

Oh, over is how the elect hang toilet paper.

Ken F wrote:

Q. How many men does it take to change a roll of toilet paper? A. No one knows.

LOL

Ken F wrote:

Fresh off the press at The Gospel Coalition: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2016/06/21/3-ways-the-gospel-might-divide-a-church/
Looks like they are prepping folks for the division they will be bringing. Nice.

I took a glance at their page. Neo Calvinists tend to define Gospel to mean Calvinism. If you’re a Calvinist, you don’t have the Gospel, in their view.

@ Ken F:
🙂

@ Catherine

Expert advice, then!

Do I even need to add that hanging the TP ‘Over’ is also the Gospel way of hanging it?

Daisy wrote:

Catherine wrote:
Hahahaha! Over, BTW!
I agree. (‘Over’ is also the biblical position on the issue of how to hang toilet paper.)

Worked for a national hotel chain while an ungrad, briefly….always under….

Tick tock tick tock…..

K.D. wrote:

Once again, select Gospel….

KD: The SBC has been done for years–it is a joke. It saddens me that an organization that was once so alive has been taken over by those that will be the ones to put the final nails in the coffin.

Daisy wrote:

Fresh off the press at The Gospel Coalition: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2016/06/21/3-ways-the-gospel-might-divide-a-church/

I asked the following question at this blog site: “Is this division of a “church” necessary for the church to be Calvinistic if it is not already?

It did get published and here is the answer from Jared :”Tom, I’m not sure I understand the question. Could you restate it?
(The post has nothing to do with Calvinism, for what it’s worth.)”

So his post has nothing to do with Calvinism–rolling my eyes.

Christiane wrote:

These last few days have been really strange. I kept wondering why and then it came to me that we are sitting underneath a full ‘strawberry’ moon, known to drive people a little wacky. Now, everyone will settle down and discuss the important roll TP plays in the workings of the cosmos, and there will no more animus until next FULL MOON.

Back in the Eighties on KBRT-AM afternoon talk radio, Rich Buhler would sometimes talk about the Full Moon, AKA “Weird Call Days”. He used to say that sometimes he’d get whole shows like this:

“Talk from the Heart, you’re on the air.”
WEIRD. CALL.
“Talk from the Heart, you’re on the air.”
WEIRD. CALL.
“Talk from the Heart, you’re on the air.”
WEIRD. CALL.

For the entire show (“I don’t even know what galaxy some of these callers are calling in from”), and he’d joke “must be the Full Moon or something”. Then he’d go home at the end of the day and guess what? Full Moon.

Weirdest of Weird Call Days (which I actually listened in) was the Friday before the prophesied date of the 1984 Olympics Earthquake Scare, but that’s a story in and of itself.

John wrote:

Wow. Excellent analysis. The comments from Elizabeth sound eerily similar to some of the responses I and others (including one who is ordained minister and another two who served as elders in their churches) got from a family member who has been deep in the John MacArthur camp for many years when we challenged them on behavior that was clearly, clearly, obviously, glaringly sinful and unethical. I was called restless. I was called bitter. I was told I was greedy and had verses quoted at me. There was an incredible unrepentant resistance to any plain and truthful talk.

think this is a trait of authoritarian churches. I’d even say it’s one of the ways they are cult-like. Authoritarian leaders produce authoritarian followers. Abuse breeds abuse. If a leader is convinced they have a corner on God’s special truth, or the only right doctrine or whatever, and sends demeaning signals about anyone who disagrees with them, their followers will be the same way. That can lead to astonishing abusiveness.

Hi John

I so agree with your post, thank you.

I grew up as a baby Christian in the same group as Dennis. We went to the same meetings, same leadership training school, also attended the meeting of all the church form all campuses every month for three days. We sat under the same teachers.We spent one week together with all the church at Christmas through New Year. Many years, we did this…

I helped to plant more than a few churches. It was violate combination of the Truth of God and His genuine movings and stirrings in His people and the push of the flesh of the leadership. It was never separated of seen clearly, nor did anyone really repent for the damage done to the sheep, even at the end.

It is so heartbreaking to see , it still going on with no apparent slowing down. We will stand before God one day.I pray for us all. Later some did see, for which I am thankful.

“A 130 year, successful church was lopped in two by an ineffective pastor.”

What an ignorant statement! FBCRM has been split for 25 years, yet remained under the same roof because the previous pastor treasured peace at all cost.

Dennis didn’t split this church – the disenfranchised fringe finally staged a coupe and won.

And if the history of FBCRM fits your definition of a successful church, it is only because you prize the country club mindset that now dominates its decisions.

Stuart wrote:

“A 130 year, successful church was lopped in two by an ineffective pastor.”

What an ignorant statement! FBCRM has been split for 25 years, yet remained under the same roof because the previous pastor treasured peace at all cost.

Dennis didn’t split this church – the disenfranchised fringe finally staged a coupe and won.

And if the history of FBCRM fits your definition of a successful church, it is only because you prize the country club mindset that now dominates its decisions.

Stuart, bless your heart.
Have you ever met Elizabeth on this post? If not, you should because you two are definitely kindred spirits. I hope you two meet up at CCC and become best of buds! Y’all will have fun reading all those John Piper books and having “church in a box” with your lead pastor and his Maranatha ways. By the way dear Stuart…has he yet to mention Maranatha to you guys? He never mentioned it to FBC. I don’t know why he didn’t put it on his bio? He was a director of Maranatha and stayed until it exploded. I don’t understand why he didn’t mention it to FBC at same time he was telling us of his affair. And we all know confessing of past sins is much, much different than telling of past sins because a secret call was made to Brad Bobbit exposing him.
Oh well, maybe that kind of stuff doesn’t bother you or Elizabeth. Your statement about how 1 man could make a successful church of 130 years split was ignorant…Stuart, read your Bible. You know the book that’s under your latest John Piper book. Read Kings! It’s full of successful nations falling within a couple of months because of 1 man. It’s amazing what 1 evil man can do in just a short amount of time. Also, equally as interesting , it’s amazing what 1 godly man can do in 21 years.

Go TWW reporters!

Stuart wrote:

“A 130 year, successful church was lopped in two by an ineffective pastor.”
What an ignorant statement! FBCRM has been split for 25 years, yet remained under the same roof because the previous pastor treasured peace at all cost.
Dennis didn’t split this church – the disenfranchised fringe finally staged a coupe and won.
And if the history of FBCRM fits your definition of a successful church, it is only because you prize the country club mindset that now dominates its decisions.

Country club? We’re not the ones who demanded the giving records of the entire church to see who was worthy of being chosen. We’re not the ones who took “promising” members on recruiting dinners to Lou Reda’s (on First Baptist’s dime). We’re not the ones who called some members about the new meeting places and not others. We’re not the ones who excluded teens whose parents voted no confidence. We’re not the ones who met AT AN ACTUAL COUNTRY CLUB.

You know, at first I was hurt, then angry. Now, I really feel sorry for you who left. I am truly burdened by the blindness to manipulation you all have. I see how cult mentality works…..even on really smart folks. If not by the grace of God, I’d be sitting in that lobby every Sunday, too. I know….you all see us as spiritually inferior….not conforming to new and trendy worship styles….like you have some higher, intellectual track to “the Gospel” thru the almighty…John piper, mark Driscoll, JD Greear, John MacArthur, Tim Keller, CJ Mahaney, Dennis Darville, Jeff Hedgepeth, Tim Griffin, etc….. open their eyes, Lord.