"9Marks exists to equip church leaders with a biblical vision and practical resources for displaying God’s glory to the nations through healthy churches. To that end, we want to see churches characterized by these nine marks of health: Preaching, Biblical Theology, The Gospel, Conversion, Evangelism, Membership, Discipline, Discipleship, and Leadership."
First Five Years – 9Marks Conference
It's that time of year… 9Marks is hitting the road again to train pastors and future pastors in how to "do church" the 9Marks way. For the next two days, Dever and gang will be in Fort Worth, Texas – home of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Perhaps for the first time a non-Calvinist will be speaking at one of the conferences. Can you guess who? (See screen shot of the speakers above).
Paige Patterson, who is a non-Calvinist, must have recently adopted the mantra — if you can't fight 'em, join 'em. He has been at the helm of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary since 2003, and before that he served as president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Patterson's claim to fame is that he and Paul Pressler masterminded the SBC's Conservative Resurgence. Little did he realize that Al Mohler would use the exact same strategy to push Calvinism throughout the SBC from the seminaries to the churches to the NAMB and IMB to other SBC entities.
It's hard to believe it was just a decade ago that Patterson and Mohler participated in a debate regarding Calvinism at the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro. The Baptist Press reported on it in an article entitled Patterson, Mohler: Calvinism shouldn't divide SBC, which I highly recommend. In that article, Patterson shared an observation with which I wholeheartedly agree. One of the concerns he has with some Calvinists is that there has been…
— a failure of Reformed pastors to be “completely forthright” with pulpit committees during interviews. “This is a concern not only about Calvinists,” Patterson said. “It is a concern about people who happen to be dispensationalists, like me. It's a concern about any position which you hold." There should be “full disclosure of what you believe and what you plan to do once you become the pastor of that church."
Patterson voiced that concern ten years ago, and I happen to know of a church where this has recently occurred. Last fall the pastor search committee of a small rural church recommended a pastoral candidate to the predominately non-Calvinistic congregation, and they voted unanimously for him to come and pastor the church. About a month ago a member of the church met with the pastor and asked him about his theological beliefs. During that conversation the pastor, who had been at the church for around 10 months, finally admitted he was a Calvinist. When this individual asked the pastor why he didn't reveal this to the pastor search committee, he responded: "They didn't ask." The church members are just now finding out that their pastor is Reformed, and a good number of them are asking the question "What is a Calvinist?"
That's a problem! The pastor explained to the congregation that he responded in depth to the pastor search committee's questionnaire. When asked what books had been important to him in his ministry, he included 9Marks of a Healthy Church. It is doubtful that the pastor search committee knew anything about this book, but the title no doubt sounded convincing to them.
Danny Akin, Patterson's successor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has stated that pastoral candidates should lay all their cards out on the tabie regarding their theological beliefs. If you're a Calvinist, say so! Through our seven years of blogging we know from the many testimonies we have received that in so many cases the pastoral candidates avoid bringing up Calvinism. They may use terminology like 'reformed' or 'doctrines of grace' in an attempt to skirt the issue. Hopefully, this important matter will be addressed at the 9Marks conference taking place tomorrow and Wednesday.
Here is a brief description of that 9Marks event:
And here is a video describing the conference:
Of course, some of the same pastors who attended Together for the Gospel will no doubt be shelling out more money for yet another conference (of course, they go home with an armful of FREE 9Marks books!)
The next conference on the calendar is a 9Marks Weekender, which will be held September 15-19 at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. 9Marks schedules three of these events each year, and they have been occurring for quite a while. According to the conference description, they host around 100 pastors, seminarians, etc., so imagine how many have attended this weekender over the years.
Then September 30-October 1, 9Marks at Southeastern will take place. The first one was held back in 2009, and we will always remember that C.J. Mahaney accompanied Mark Dever to Wake Forest. The conference theme was "God Exposed", and Mahaney's spoke on 'Expository Faithfulness". This year's theme is Discipleship.
Two days later, 9Marks has a one-day event in Indianapolis called Life Together: The Church and Biblical Counseling. Yes, 'Biblical Counseling' is growing in popularity among the Neo-Cal crowd, and we are concerned that some serious problems are being kept 'in house' with biblical counselors (who are untrained professionals) treating problems inside the walls of the church. No doubt there are instances where 'blblical counseling' is not adequate in treating certain conditions. We have addressed biblical counseling before and will be doing some follow-up posts soon because we are very concerned!
The final conference for the year will be 9Marks at Cedarville which will take place November 9-10. 'Church Membership' will be the topic of discussion. Just another one of those nine marks.
9Marks also holds an annual conference at Southern Seminary and will most likely be planning one for Midwestern Seminary as well. Can there be any doubt that more and more churches are affiliating with 9Marks? There have been quite a few complaints over the years against the 9Marks style of pastoring, so much so that at the 2016 Together for the Gospel one of the breakout sessions (hosted by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman) was entitled: "Don't Be a 9Marxist".
It would be interesting to know who is paying for these pastors to attend these conferences (travel, food, conference fee, books, etc.). Is they any doubt that quite a few Neo-Cal churches are financing these outings?
One of my biggest concerns is that the more Southern Baptist pastors (in particular) attend these events and put into practice the instructions they receive from 9Marks leaders, the less autonomous the local Southern Baptist church will be.
Looks like the number of Calvinista conferences just keeps growing and growing and growing! As long as there is a monetary incentive, the number of events will be on the rise… Thoughts?
Wowie! The gold! And I even read it all. But my mind is telling me to sleep on it and comment tomorrow if I have anything to say. I should be coherent after I nap a bit.
Silver!
Bronze, I guess. Looks like I get to listen to Tree’s anthem!
Three of the kingpins spending 12 minutes in lofty cliche rhetoric that is absolutely mind numbing when you look behind the curtain. I find it very ironic when they speak of God’s sovereignty when they got God pinned down on every single aspect of life and they are in full retreat crying out “victory” as an entire generation walks away from the faith.
https://youtu.be/jscdlO1BUj0
brian wrote:
This is something that mystifies me about hyper-Calvinists as well. It’s like they view God as one of their members, and they have to tell Him what to do along with everyone else. There’s no room for listening to the voice of God or being guided by the Holy Spirit. And you definitely can’t let church members listen to God–they would get all out of line!
From the OP “Dever and gang will be in Fort Worth, Texas”
Thanks for the warning!!
This post is just silly. You know not of which you speak, as the historic SBC was overwhelmingly Calvinistic in belief.
It seems strange to me that the seminaries are to deferring to 9Marks to do the very type of training that they are commissioned to do: “9Marks exists to equip church leaders with a biblical vision and practical resources…”. If SWBTS wants to do a Church Leadership Conference, why not do it under their own banner?
Al Mohler recently wrote a piece on what Southern Baptists need to do to maintain their identity in the 21st century. If people like he and Patterson are concerned with the convention’s effectiveness, why do they support so many extra-denominational organizations, i.e. 9Marks, CBWM,T$G, etc.?
Some years ago I read a great article on church planting in Leadership Magazine. They interview Ed Young and a man whose name I unfortunately cannot remember who specialized in planting micro churches.The author asked both how they would go about planting a church in Chicago.
Ed Young’s answer included recruiting a fair amount of people from his current church to move to Chicago, and invest a significant amount of money to get an adequate venue, advertising, and audio-visual equipment.
The micro-church planter said he would drop off two people in Chicago and pray. I thought that sounded a lot more like Jesus than Ed Young.
With all the changes societally, I think the micro-church planting model is more of the future–I wonder how long before the 9-Marks/TGC corporate model peaks in terms of influence. The Moral Majority and other political/church movements consumed so much in terms of resources–and it would appear that the resources were primarily wasted in terms of long-term influence. I wonder if the 9-Marks/TGC consumer culture will be looked at the same way–so many resources poured in, making a few rich, with little good fruit remaining (not to mention the divisive legacy and arrogance of its proponents).
Interesting that the biblical way, dare I say ‘Gospel’ way, is stated by Paul: “poor, yet making many rich”.
FW Rez wrote:
BTW: The pictures really help. We’ll know who to look out for if we go out to eat tonight.
Deb:
What happened in the situation where the pastor was hired, but it took the congregation 10 months to discover he was a Calvinist? Did the church dismiss him? Is he still there?
If he was not forthcoming on the questionnaire, that would clearly be a ground for dismissing him.
It also would be really interesting to read that questionnaire that the pastor says he fully filled out.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
This is very much how I would plant a church as well, and was supported by much of the missions literature I studied as a missionary student.
This post demonstrates so clearly why 9 Marks and groups that affiliate with 9 Marks have had such an impact on young pastors and the SBC.
Groups that feel differently are so far behind they aren’t even playing catch up.
People who disagree and who are in the field of pastoral training are going to have to create attractive alternatives that are effective at reaching young pastors.
I have looked around for some but don’t see them.
Do you all know of any to recommend?
Again… As I watch the video on their/his home page. I ask myself, who the heck died and left this guy in charge. If you notice how many times he said “I” when coming up with the 9m’s… Maybe I missed something… A scripture reference? That’s what gave us the stupid tulip.
@ Anonymous:
This just came to a head last Sunday. The head deacon announced to the congregation that the deacon board took a vote and unanimously endorsed the pastor, but two deacons did not vote because they were away. Perhaps they wouldn’t have been on board with the decision. Looks like it’s a done deal. Another stealth takeover by a Neo-Cal pastor. This church is over 100 years old and has never been Calvinist.
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
…and the prominent leaders were slavery-affirming. Also, you did not specify what you mean by “historical.”
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
Charles, you need to define the word ‘historic’ because that could mean at the time of the civil war when the SBC clearly delineated itself on a certain issue and actually originated as a separate group. If you call that ‘historic’ then you could say that the SBC was overwhelmingly pro-slavery/ pro states rights. Except, that would give a false picture of SBC taken as a whole over the succeeding years.
The SBC that I knew as a child, youth and young adult, was not a determiner of individual faith and practice but left that to the local autonomous churches and the individual Baptist persons. Nobody that I ever heard from referenced the BFM as though it were a creed or a confession. What I saw, and continue to see in retrospect, was a conglomeration of beliefs which certainly sounded calvinistic in the idea of eternal security and certainly did not sound calvinistic in its evangelist outreach in preaching ‘whosoever’ and ‘Jesus died for all.’
And your namesake was not SBC, but I guess you know that.
@ Deb:
Thank you Deb for another great post! Your comment above reminds me of FBC Rocky Mount.
Do you or any of the other commenters here have any updates?
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
Apologies. I meant “historic.”
Also, it is silly to attempt an ad hom here. “Silly” is one that most of us have heard, at least the female ones among us.
@ okrapod:
Thank you. You beat me to it.
The issue with those who don’t agree with those in power at the SBC isn’t that they don’t want to confront them. The issue is the sheer viciousness the group from Paige Patterson up through Al Mohler have attacked people who don’t believe as they do. Mohler got the job at SBTS after Honeycutt resigned rather than hold a “heresy” trial for his friend on staff.
For those who haven’t lived through it, it is hard to communicate the level of evil excrement that group dumped on learned Biblical and Christian scholars and pastors because they refused to bend on core Baptist principles. Many were accused of being heretics and not Christian.
Now that behavior has gone from the bigwigs at the convention level to the pulpit. Make no mistake about it, these types of purity of belief and control exemplified by 9 Mks are what seminary professors, IMB, NAMB, and Convention personnel have been subjected to for years.
In less than a generation, Southern Baptists have become for all intents an purposes Presbyterian.
Before anyone freaks out, I have no quarrel with my Presbyterian brothers and sisters. I believe that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters have a system that works for them. That’s why they are Presbyterian. I am a Baptist in faith practice and when I go to a church labeled Baptist, I expect it to be Baptist in practice and polity. Just as my Presbyterian brothers and sisters want a church labeled Presbyterian to be Presbyterian in practice and polity.
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
That may have been the case in the early history of the SBC, but that brand of Calvinism, and modern Baptist hyper-Calvinism are different theologies. Most Calvinists reject hyper-Calvinism, even such as George Croft in the 19th century, who said that hyper-Calvinists tend to ignore the work of Christ. Their avoidance of Christ and the true gospel of Christ’s work on the cross makes them anti-Baptist.
Besides, I have yet to see a hyper-Calvinist use more of the Bible than about 10 passages. They throw out passages which are uncomfortable for them, which I believe makes them an unbiblical movement, and therefore, it doesn’t matter one bit whether they have a historical basis or not.
9Marks is the work of a man, and glorifies men in many of it’s “marks”. It runs quite counter to the vision of the church as presented in the Gospels and in Acts.
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
Exactly. I’m going to disagree with Nick (which I acknowledge is disagreeing with God) and say that I’m not disturbed by the fact that there are many different denominations because I think that the real Church is invisible and we are united in and by Christ and not by our sets of beliefs. Presbyterians achieve visible unity by forming different denominations which John Frame has written about.
“Reformed Baptist” used to connote a small denomination. Now it means “5 points and Control-freakish leadership” that has swallowed up an entire denomination that is *not* historically exclusively Calvinistic.
Ah yes, the conferences that are essential to convincing Christians that a family man hiring an escort should receive biblical church discipline.
I would like to point out the location: First Christian Church in Downtown. Christian/Disciples of Christ churches are mainline. I absolutely believe the 9Marxists are looking for mainline churches to bring into the fold.
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
The funny thing is that apparently it is not at all uncommon for baptists to jump ship and become Presbyterians. Maybe because they have abandoned their core. I still feel baptist at heart but can no longer be baptist in reality.
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
Do all dead Calvinists feel it necessary to speak from the grave in order to push their agenda?
@ Gram3:
And you both beat me to it! I was thinking the same thing, which is probably what distracted me and resulted in my HTML error. Or at least, that’s my story. 🙂
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
The TGC/9Marks groups are rejected by most Presbyterians, too. Lately because of their anti-trinitarian heresy of eternal subordination of the Son, but also for their emphasis on patriarchy. The Calvinists don’t want them either.
The reason I think they are taking over SBC churches is because Southern Baptists place too much emphasis on the pastor and the sermon. It makes it much easier to implement an authoritarian structure when the pastor is already elevated.
I believe that pastoral emphasis actually runs counter to the Baptist theology of soul competency, but hasn’t really ever been challenged well.
Anonymous wrote:
I suppose Our Lord didn’t really help too much in providing ‘attractive alternatives’ models,
considering that most of His Apostles were eventually martyred, some after much suffering. It took the Fire of the Holy Spirit to give them the courage and the strength to go forth.
Burwell wrote:
It happens to me because I am a “Top Downist” when reading comments. Perhaps we could discuss whether “Bottom Uppism” is superior or inferior to “Top Downism” on the ODP.
I imagine that “Charles Spurgeon” is either a seminary pup for whom SBC history started in 2000. Or perhaps it is Ick Bulbneck trying to stir the pot.
There is no hope for Ick, but a young seminarian could actually learn some Baptist history if he/she would look beyond Haykin and Nettles. There is a history of Anabaptist thought within what is now the SBC that began in the 18th century in the US. Once upon a time, Baptists spent more time reading and memorizing the Bible than reading and memorizing Spurgeon’s and Edwards’ sermons.
And these are just the biggies. I wonder how many smaller conferences happen that fly under the radar? Like this one that Jonathan Leeman spoke at this past weekend :
http://fbcpowell.org/9marks
Gram3 wrote:
You caught me. Now I have to confess that I am a true liberal since for me, it all depends on the context. When I’m behind I scroll to the bottom to find what the current conversation is but when I’ve been able to keep up I read chronologically.
On the labels, I would suggest we use “FIFR” and “LIFR” as “First In First Read” and “Last In First Read” in honor of our MBA hosts (these parallel accounting terms for inventory management).
I have a blog post in the works about a horrendous outcome of ignoring mental illness in my former “church.” They don’t believe in mental illness. They think it is all sin related. A mentally ill mother doused herself and her three children with gasoline and set them ablaze. Two children died, and the mother is disfigured.
I think “Biblical counseling” is very dangerous. I think it borders on malpractice in some situations.
Anonymous wrote:
Maybe it is the “field of pastoral training” that is the problem?
I did not realize that pastoring was to be “attractive”. Could you give us some examples of such?
Gram3 wrote:
And Christianity started in the 1500’s.
I will believe that the Baptists are calvinist when I see them baptizing infants and accepting the theology that goes along with that.
In the meantime I do wish that they would quit calling themselves ‘southern’. They are giving the rest of us in the south a bad name.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t think more “systems” are the way to go, but I see Anon’s point. 9Marks is probably really attractive to many young men with ego issues because they can control and be lauded by others. And hyper-Calvinism gives a framework to ignore Jesus’s ministry and example. Essentially, you become a CEO with a trophy wife.
I think focusing on Christ is s better solution, though.
ishy wrote:
Oh, absolutely. But since Jesus described following him as taking up one’s (own) cross, how does one become rich and powerful and admired by doing that? How does one market oneself as a ‘leader’ when Jesus has defined discipleship as being a ‘follower’ (of him). I am with you, though, that it is a better solution, but then I am not a young man who was trained for birth to be a ‘leader’ whatever it takes, which is of course part of our current culture.
okrapod wrote:
I hear ya!
There are some Southern Baptist churches that hide the fact that they are Southern Baptists, so at least they don’t use the descriptor ‘Southern’. 😉
@ ishy:
Agreed!
okrapod wrote:
Which is ramped up even further in the “Christian” culture.
What happens when biblically illiterate come together to produce libel and unfounded claims on other believers? The Wartburg Watch happens.
Gram3, I am a committed Top Downist for comment reading. Clearly that’s the only conclusion any serious student of opinion pieces can come to. To believe otherwise puts the very gospel of commenting at stake. They may be commenters, but just barely. (Written in jest, of course.)
@ Burwell:
We'd love to hear an update. I heard there was some kind of pastors conference in RM back in June perhaps. Do you know anything about it? Maybe your former pastor went. I understand there is a MAN CAMP coming up at Redeemer.
9marks at Cedarville…
As an alumna, this bums me out. I think if I were a prospective college student today, I wouldn’t even consider a conservative evangelical school such as this one. I’m glad to have met my husband there, but I think we’ll probably be encouraging our kids elsewhere. An M.R.S. degree by itself is not worth it.
@ ishy:
Yes, and Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt and Aimee Byrd are sounding the alarm.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Jay Adams is the father of Nouthetic Counseling. It has developed a bad reputation (which is well deserved), so they changed the name to ‘Biblical Counseling’. What else would they call it?
Just like ‘9 Marks of a HEALTHY Church’, the name ‘BIBLICAL Counseling’ is terribly DECEPTIVE.
C.G. Finney wrote:
At this blog, we always provide references to back up our claims. Libel is clearly defined by law as a deliberate telling of lies in order to bring harm to another person. If you are a Christian, it behooves you to act like one and document carefully the examples of libel-showing how we knew them to be lies and told them anyway.
If you cannot and will not do this, you will no longer be allowed to comment here since it it proof positive that you do not know what you are talking about and you are merely spouting off ignorant baloney.
okrapod wrote:
It gets even weirder than that. One of the supposedly Reformed 9Marks “distinctives” is that baptism by immersion of children should be delayed until the “child” is independent of their parents. The proffered purpose of that delay is to try to ensure a regenerate church membership.
ishy wrote:
Ego and also that 9Marks offers an implicit guarantee that, if their system is followed, the pastor will be successful *and* pleasing to God. Just like Female Subordinationism offers a similar implicit guarantee of Your Best Marriage Now and Forever.
@ C.G. Finney:
Furthermore, do no think you can get thru moderation by constantly changing names. Your comments all show the same ignorant signature.
@ ishy:
No, not really. There’s that small group of whistle blowers from the confessional Presbyterian churches, but search “Presbyterian” on TGC or 9Marks’ church search pages and see how many Presbyterian churches are throwing away their confessions for the gospel™-centered bandwagon. I recently left a PCA church that started hosting Redemption Groups from Mars Hill Church. And this was one of PCA’s largest churches.
Gram3 wrote:
I find this really Bizarre as well! Was it Jonathan something or other at chbc who said he didn’t feel comfortable telling his kids they were Christians because he just didn’t know?? Yet, they think if somebody answers all the questions right in their church interview that makes them a Christian?
These guys are strange sorts.
Stan wrote:
Pcusa is safe from them at least. Because girls are icky!
Deb, I’m thinking that nouthetic “biblical” counseling may deserve an entire blog, not unlike Recovering Grace. Someplace to serve as a clearinghouse of background information, personal stories, and critique. I think there is a real possibility of certain cases in which this type of counseling alone would cross the line into the practice of unauthorized medicine. I foresee potential legal liability in the future (plus legislative action?) if its proponents aren’t careful, never mind the other negative consequences.
Dee, nice to see you back. If I missed you earlier, I’m saying hello now!
@ ishy:
What you win (potential pastors) them “with”, you win them “to”.
dee wrote:
“CG Finney”, I hope you chose that name ironically, because the Charles Finney, despite being a lawyer, was not the most Biblically literate man in American Christian history. A simple reading of his Systematic Theology will make that abundantly clear.
Stan wrote:
Ugh. I crossed swords with a Disciples of Christ pastor who was praising one of the TGC regulars (Thabiti Anaybwile) last week. He told me snippily that the Disciples of Christ were a Calvinist denomination. While Wikipedia describes the Disciples as "reformed," they did grow out of the Second Great Awakening, which I don't think of as a reformed movement.
And the money will come in in buckets!
To the Predestined Elect Glitterati!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ
I get the impression Finney and Spurgeon know each other. :o)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ah. I was expecting that link to be this:
https://youtu.be/2tpvxsJAZPk
Gram3 wrote:
And Blessed with their very own Furtick Mansion!
And NYT Best-Sellers!
Deb wrote:
None of the SBC churches around my neck of the woods have the word “Southern” in their names.
C.G. Finney wrote:
9 Marks Sock Puppet…
Amazing how they come out of the woodwork when Deb & Dee say anything bad about their REAL Personal LORDs and Saviors…
Nancy2 wrote:
Or those channeling them like Seth Speaks, Oashpe, and those pods of spiritually-evolved dolphins.
“O the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all;
Straight it runs to the witch’s abode
As it did in the says of Saul;
And no one knows the sorrow in store
When you set on the road to En-dor…”
— Rudyard Kipling “En-dor” (from memory)
Gram3 wrote:
I wonder if that is just a way of controlling the young people through fear?
Stan wrote:
Only if they’re not Pastor or one of Pastor’s favorites.
TOMORROW THE WORLD!
okrapod wrote:
It is a problem. I’ve been thinking on this for weeks now. The first solution is to work individual by individual. There’s a lot of positives to that, as it can illicit real change. But it is slow.
Another solution would be to form a “Get Back to Jesus” type group that campaigns against hyper-Calvinism in visible ways but focuses on the true gospel. With the Calvinistas controlling all the SBC entities, I don’t know if this would get through to many Southern Baptists. It’s not like NAMB or Lifeway would probably allow that as a published study through them. But maybe it can gird up other denominations.
Gram3 wrote:
Especially if you are a MAN!
If you are a woman ……. really …… who cares?
@ Burwell:
He was president of Oberlin and later an Abolitionist. I don’t have a problem with his ST which most Cals call “decisionism”. But then the Neo Cals call me Pelagian so what do I know? :o)
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
This the Ed Young of Seven-Day Sex Challenge fame with the private jet?
Gram3 wrote:
That’s odd.
On the one hand perhaps they believe in baptismal regeneration and want to be sure that the baptized person ‘knows what he is doing’ before he gets regenerated. They certainly would not want somebody to get regenerated young and then regret it later but be locked into something he could not get out of, seeing eternal security and all. Surely that is not what they think, that people actually get regenerated and then actually regret it.
Or on the other hand perhaps they believe that baptism does not produce regeneration at all but is able to prevent actual regeneration if it is done too soon, the person subsequently being rendered immune to regeneration itself since he has already been baptized. Immunization theory-if it works for smallpox and the flue why would it not work for regeneration?
Or perhaps they want to be sure that the individual has been thoroughly indoctrinated in their style of religious thinking, because who wants people going around thinking they are actual christians too soon and then questioning the leadership as they further mature. Perhaps they want to really own the person before they perform any sacrament or ordinance of any kind so they can then disavow any relationship to the person should they later dissent. Sort of brand theory-be sure you really own the cattle before you brand it. Now, that might be what they think.
Or maybe they just want more and more unique things that set them apart and identifiable as religious competitors in an already overcrowded market. Like having longer tassels on some prayer shawl. That really might be what they think.
Deb wrote:
“Biblical Counseling”. Hmmmmm. How about “Biblical Marriage”? Bride price ….. Political marriages …. and how many wives did Solomon have? Isn’t all that “Biblical”?
Steve Scott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YfYtZ32d4
@ okrapod:
Ummm. Flu as in the disease, not flue as in the stove pipe. I can type faster than I can think.
@ okrapod:
Lol. I have observed quite a few conversations concerning the word “regeneration” between Cals and Non Cals in the SBC. And it seems in the Neo Cal ordo salutis, that takes place first…so you can believe.
I had not considered how that affected baptism. Maybe 9 Marks wants to affirm believers baptism as SBC but also include the more Presbyterian Covenant family piece?
@ okrapod:
Or, if your believe in Occam’s Razor, the membership covenants are and have always been liability waivers, and letting minors sign them would compromise their legal status.
@ okrapod:
I know someone in a spin-off of Capitol Hill Baptist. As for baptism of kids, they suggest waiting until at least 18 for the kid to try to ensure the kid is doing it thoughtfully and not out of submission to parents or elders. I don’t like 9Marks, but I think it’s a good idea. Also, remember this: If you join a church as a full member before you are 18 you cannot truly be held accountable–legally–if you decide to leave, or at least you shouldn’t. How can a kid under 18 make a legal contract? Just a thought. Would be interested in what a lawyer on this blog might say about it.
Lea wrote:
New one on me.
Usually on that subject I alternate between Pink Floyd and Cabaret.
Recent discussions revealed we have had similar encounters with pastor who do little sermon prep and are not engaged in the lives of the people who attend. This begs the question, what do they do with their time? It must be awfully boring at the coffee shop, but wait, a 9Marks conference, T4G conferences, conferences, conferences. What a great idea, the servant is entertained and gets to hang out with his pals.
Godith wrote:
And the newest iteration of a very old controversy: Paedobaptism vs Credobaptism.
Baptists historically use Credobaptism (by immersion) as a tribal identifier, and a lot of Evangelicals follow suit.
Bill M wrote:
And rake in the speaking fees and expense accounts, not counting plugging your latest NYT best-seller.
okrapod wrote:
Or the children’s rhyme (only part I remember is the last two lines):
“So they flittered and flew
Through the flaw in the flue.
@ Stan
@ Godith
I bet you are right about the legal aspects of it. I did not realize that they link baptism with signing their church contracts, but I bet that is at the heart of it.
@ Stan:
Wow –this made me think of something related. It was not unusual in our SBC churches growing up that under18 teenagers would join by themselves…no family attending. I wonder if that would even be allowed at a 9 Marx church?
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my God, they want the money! They have no shame.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChortlesWeakly/status/765572299038785536?p=p
Speaking of confessional Presbyterian whistle blowers, Chortles Weakly is talking about 9Marks today too. I imagine he knows Federal Vision when he sees it.
Patterson speaking at a 9Marks conference?! ‘The’ anti-Calvinist Paige Patterson?! ‘The’ once-outspoken passionate defender of SBC’s non-Calvinist belief and practice?! His appearance on the platform with the 9Marks crew is a clear sign that Southwestern seminary, one of SBC’s last bastions of non-Calvinist pastoral training, is poised to surrender to the New Calvinist movement.
I can see the smile on Al Mohler’s face as he rejoices in victory and considers who he will handpick to replace Dr. Patterson, who is approaching retirement with a now-stained legacy. I’ll give Dr. Mohler this, he has championed a well-executed strategy, absolutely brilliant. And the millions in the pews still don’t know this is happening, as they continue to fund the rebellion … brilliant!!
Patterson throwing in the towel is one thing, but it’s a crying shame that 45,000+ SBC pastors of non-Calvinist churches have not informed their congregations of this development, and their flocks have been caught largely unaware as SBC belief and practice is trending toward Calvinism. On the other hand, if I (as a 60+ year SBC member) have devoted time to learn about the ails of New Calvinism, millions more could have informed themselves as well. To be uninformed or misinformed is one thing, but to be willingly ignorant is sinful as one of the greatest soul-winning denominations on the planet forfeits its denominational gift of evangelism. Evangelism and mission under a reformed banner will not be the same as the “whosoever will” outreach that Southern Baptists took around the world for the last 100+ years. I keep waiting for the right point to step away from the denomination I have served for a lifetime; it’s getting close. But God …
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
As I’ve written on several occasions, sooner or later these guys are really gonna eff-up. Whether it’s harboring a child sex predator within their ranks and insisting that they be allowed to ‘handle it in-house’, or if they’re directly complicit in the kind of horrific instance you’ve cited, the courts are rapidly losing their ambivalence over what is and what is not church-state meddling.
I am convinced that a tipping point will soon be reached, and when that occurs, the gavel will come down hard and heavy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
SBC mega here has eliminated the invitation method which requires a public profession of faith prior to baptism but instead puts the children in a ‘class’ when they are in the second grade (two sessions and a little age appropriate work book) and then baptizes them. Because, it is so much better to have a little second grade assembly line than to require that somebody make a profession of faith. (In case anybody missed this, the facts are accurate, the sarcasm is mine.) I can see where that would increase your baptisms per year when you lower the requirements, and they do have to report baptisms I think.
Muff Potter wrote:
Sexual predation of a minor is a federal crime, regardless of where it happens. Protecting predators from the legal system is also a crime. IMHO, the state/federal authorities need to “meddle”, and enforce the laws!
okrapod wrote:
Baptism by fire truck, a la Ronnie Floyd?
Max wrote:
sad comment, MAX, but at least you know who you are within your own Baptist heritage, which is commendable
Apparently, an awful lot of innocent people are in SBC Churches and are vulnerable because they don’t understand what how that heritage is being threatened by the neo-Cals
Here is the latest on Community Evangelical Free in Elverson, Pennsylvania.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/a-closer-look-at-mike-culbert-dr-schrier-dr-kenney-and-the-community-evangelical-free-church-elder-board-plus-do-sexual-assault-allegations-qualify-brock-estes-for-elder/#comments
This is a review of the Elder Board and how they failed in practicing church discipline on an alleged sexual assault victim. Also Brock Estes who allegedly raped his wife and pointed a loaded gun at her is now an Elder candidate. I emailed this post to Eddie Cole who is the District Superintendent of the Eastern District of the EFCA and so far he has not responded to it.
Tomorrow’s post is about how Neo-Calvinism/Reformed theology makes the problem of evil worse. I am using John Piper’s response to Adam Lanza’s massacre in Newtown to make my case. This has been a dark post to write as I have to read a lot of details about the massacre and Adam Lanza as well.
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
The spirit of Spurgeon lives! It is sadly true that SBC founders were Calvinists. They used their theology to defend their slave-holding rights, feeling that sovereign God was surely on their side in the Civil War. When early Confederate victories turned to defeat, these racist Baptists changed their tune! Soon after the Civil War, Southern Baptists began to distance themselves from reformed theology and for the last 150 years have been non-Calvinist in belief and practice … until the New Calvinist rebellion came in by stealth and deception to take Generation Xer’s and Millennials back to SBC roots they know nothing about. “Silly” is not a word I would use to describe the mess this post reports on.
FW Rez wrote:
Because Patterson needs something on his turf to let prospective seminary students know “We love New Calvinists.” Southwestern competes with other SBC seminaries for new students … and it appears that most young pastoral hopefuls want to ride that wave.
C.G. Finney wrote:
Finney sounds oddly like Spurgeon!
@ Muff Potter:
I have a question about this. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, some seminaries have a nouthetic counseling track but are not encouraging state certification. And I wondThis means the counselors would have to work in a ministry structure. I wonder what this means when it comes to mandatory reporting? And what the credentialing folks think if it?
@ Max:
It’s all about unity. They are worried about Guidestone and pensions.
Anonymous wrote:
This is indeed a dilemma for non-Calvinist denominations (of which SBC still is for a while). The New Calvinists are holding all the cool conferences and writing all the popular books. Young folks are attracted to them, rather than the fuddy-duddy stuff being served up by the main-liners … it’s the Pied Piper effect which leads to the great unknown, but it’s a fun ride while it lasts.
NJ wrote:
Get the Cedarville guys and girls early. It is sad to see what has happened to Cedarville. I liked it better before it was SBC.
Gram3 wrote:
That’s probably a sentence that has never been written before! (But, in this context, I thought the same thing.)
Deb wrote:
This is not stopping the young rebels! The fact that an SBC congregation has been non-Calvinist since before these whippersnappers were born means nothing to them. They are on a mission to Calvinize the denomination and will come through a back door with stealth and deception to do so … and then ask God to forgive them for lying, but only after they have succeeded with their takeover for the good of the new reformation.
Nancy2 wrote:
Why not? John Calvin does!
Deb wrote:
You will find few SBC church plants which clearly identify with the denomination. I dare say if you surveyed members of such churches, they would not know that their church was planted by the SBC and would not call themselves Southern Baptists. But their young “lead pastors” are thrilled to accept Southern Baptist church planting funds!
C.G. Finney wrote:
Are you related to the great evangelist Charles Finney? I suppose you also go by the alias Charles Spurgeon. But, then, God knows who you really are and how far off-track you run.
@ NJ:
I agree with you. Wish someone would take it on. Dee and I have our hands full. 😉
Max wrote:
This is wrong on every level!
Max wrote:
More like ‘the new deformation’ with all the manipulation of membership contracts and humiliating ‘Church Discipline’ aimed at controlling through abuse
Lydia wrote:
Its all about money!
Stan wrote:
That is nauseating to read those twelve points.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think they have, for all practical purposes, a very un-Baptist sacramental view of baptism and church membership. I take them at their word that regenerate membership is the reason, but it might be to restrict the voting pool. I don’t know, but I do know that lots of parents do not like this. At all.
Nancy2 wrote:
If you are a woman, the implied guarantee is you will get a good guy who will be Jesus to you.
Stan wrote:
I had not considered that. Voidable contract. Makes sense.
Muff Potter wrote:
I hope so. As it now stands, “In 1988, the California Supreme Court ruled that “nontherapist clergy” do not have a duty to refer suicidal persons to medical professionals. Nally v. Grace Community Church, 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1988). However, the court emphasized that its ruling applied only to clergy who are not licensed therapists. Courts in many other states have followed this ruling.”
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201003/201003_048_hot_topics.cfm
@ Gram3:
They could disagree with the elders and get by with it. :o)
Max wrote:
It’s not just Patterson, but where are the big non-Calvinist pastors speaking out on this? I am thinking of one right now that could have major impact, but is very silent on this issue, and I know he knows about it. They might not be Patterson and be worried about being fired, but what is holding them back?
Godith wrote:
I agree that there is a practice in some Baptist churches of baptizing very young children, and that is problematic, IMO. However, I don’t think that problem is solved by a swing to the opposite pole. I was baptized at a reasonable age, but it wasn’t 5 or 6, and certainly not 3.
@ A.Stacey:
It reads like joining the Communist party cells back in the 1930’s.
Lydia wrote:
Yup! Looks like they share the same computer. 😉
A.Stacey wrote:
Yeah. I say, why take 12 steps when all you really need is 3 steps!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SM3jgkChV6M
@ Gram3:
Here is what I don’t understand. If they really believe God determines–then how do they know a 10 or 12 year old hasn’t been chosen for regeneration at that very time?
Deb wrote:
I bet I could drive around to some Starbucks here and find him…er them. :o)
Lydia wrote:
Yes! After all, the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world! They were chosen for regeneration before they were even born!
@ Nancy2:
And…how do they know when the “activation” of that regeneration occurs? Especially when they teach we are dead and unable to know until regeneration occurs?
I can’t take credit for saying that the push for 18+ baptism idea is liability-motivated, it’s from other commenters here.
I remember this TWW article, where they caught a TGC article seemingly about gay marriage spell out in plain English what we all think covenant membership is about:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/04/09/further-proof-you-are-signing-a-legal-contract-not-a-membership-covenant-courtesy-of-the-gospel-coalition/
Here’s the article linked:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-actions-churches-should-take-in-a-changing-legal-culture
okrapod wrote:
By George, I think you've got it! That has to be the reason for delayed baptism.
A.Stacey wrote:
I especially dislike their view of children in church life. They believe they cannot ‘discern’ appropriately whether someone is a Christian or not at a young age???
They cannot discern this about adults. That is not their job either.
ishy wrote:
Their retirement package from the SBC annuity program?
Gram3 wrote:
I think they cannot work out what’s baptism even means – they can’t go the way other reformed denims go because baptist – but they aren’t actually baptist at heart about this topic. From that weird article, it’s like baptism is part of signing the membership contract with the church, not a profession of faith for the lord.
Everyone should check out Righteous Wretch (http://righteouswretch.bigcartel.com/) so they can get their Calvin gear for the conference.
It’s this type of thing that caused me to look at Calvinism in a different light — it’s all a fad. Yes, let’s put “The Spurge” on a T-Shirt with a boom box and buy a few snap backs. Apparently, this little business took off such that the owner could quit his position as music minister. There are enough hipster, bearded, cigar smoking, whiskey drinking Calvinists out there to sell to.
@ Lea:
My daughters were baptized together and were 10 and 7 years old at the time. That was almost 17 years ago and both are still walking with Christ, Praise God!
I believe it's a HUGE mistake to force them to delay baptism just because of their age. Hadn't considered the 'legal age' and 'signing a membership covenant before'.
What a fantastic blog post topic!
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Telling info. The laws with regard to licensing and reporting need to be revamped just as much as those concerning financial disclosure (religious non-profits) need to be overhauled.
mot wrote:
That’s essentially what Southern Baptist members of a long-established congregation down the road from me said following takeover of their church. The young reformer lied to the pastor search committee about his theological persuasion. After gaining the pulpit, he recruited new members from a nearby reformed church and then took elder-rule polity to a successful vote (thanks to the new members). The church split with much weeping and gnashing of teeth following that meeting, with older members leaving behind the church building and other assets that ‘they’ had financed over the years! These new reformers are a militant bunch!
Lea wrote:
Mark 10:13-16
@ Max:
Enlightening comment.
Stan wrote:
Proof they do skip the pesky Jesus parts of their ‘gospel’.
@ Lydia:
Absolutely!
Another Anon wrote:
In honor of Mark Driscoll, you forgot “cussing”. The young reformers even have a “Calvinus” beer to drink! (true story)
Lydia wrote:
It’s beginning to look that way, Ms. Lydia. The SBC non-Calvinist leaders who should be kicking and screaming about SBC Calvinization are approaching retirement. If SBC fails, so does their pension program. So preach “unity”, agree to disagree, go along to get along, and make room for theological aberration under the big tent. Theo-politics at its best!
This morning I’ve been reading about rat control. The publication discussed all the different methods for ridding a property of rats and then summed up: if the conditions aren’t changed to make them unattractive to rats, the control problem will be perpetual.
I just thought this was kind of pertinent.
As long as there are large groups of gullible, uneducated people, money, and power to be had, rats (the human variety) will infest the church.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, one in the same.
Another Anon wrote:
At first, I read that as “Righteous Retch” – which is a perfectly appropriate response to such codswallop
Christiane wrote:
Ha! Great comment.
Max wrote:
I personally hold to the doctrines of grace, and am an SBC pastor. To say that I am in the SBC because of money is so discouraging. First, we don’t take ANY money from the local association, state, or general funds. In fact, the other pastors and I don’t take ANY money or benefits at all from even the church. We are SBC because we love missions, we love the conservative and biblical doctrine espoused by the Faith and Message, and we love God using such a denomination to spread His kingdom. Oh, and we haaaaaate hyper-Calvinism, as do most of my fellow pastors who believe the same as I. Please don’t lump everyone in the same camp.
dee wrote:
I’m not lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
You relaying an anecdotal story does not count as a credible reference. You have basically alledged that a pastor intentionally misrepresented himself (hiding his Calvinism) in order to become the pastor at this church of which you speak. You provide no evidence or reference for such a claim. You have simply crafted a narrative (I’m sure using *some* accurate information; I’m not accusing you of fabricating the story) for your own agenda. And now your portrayal of the circumstance has a mob mentality by some commenters calling for the removal of the pastor. So it seems you have a single witness, who is probably not telling an outright lie, but probably not telling the full truth with full context either, leading to others calling for a man to lose his job. That seems like an intentional agenda that could certainly lead to harm. That certainly seems like a slippery slope towards libel.
Do not get me wrong, however, because I’m not suggesting you raise any more issues of context regarding the situation! I’d suggest that’s an issue for that local church to decide, not the Internet–you know, part of that local church autonomy so many commenters keep talking about.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
I do not even want to think about how that could go so wrong in so many ways…
@ Another Anon:
Be a cool depraved sinning Christian in style!
Whatever happened to Saints?
Gram3 wrote:
The tricky thing is that new comments do not necessarily appear at the bottom!
@ Max:
I think some should take a closer look at Guidestone. The president is one of the highest paid in the SBC. And after the missionary VRI and that debacle, I think there is more to the story.
@ siteseer:
Lol!
A.Stacey wrote:
I was hoping someone brave like DaveAA would nutshell them for those of us who cannot give them a pageview for reasons of conscience.
Max wrote:
Max, that is what I was trying to explore. Not every effective communicator is in the SBC is Calvinist.
But you seem to be saying that based on what you see, the Calvinists have good conferences and material.
It just doesn’t seem to me that the answer to that is to say that everyone who finds those conferences and books appealing is stupid or a bad person (and you are not saying that).
And it doesn’t seem to be that there are only Calvinists who are capable of doing this?
I just wonder if the field has not been abandoned. Or if the efforts from others appear to be lame.
I don’t know what the answer is.
I was wondering from the people on this site if a young pastor 5 years into his ministry wanted to get some encouragement with others that are not Calvinist, where would they go?
I agree with you about the observation regarding Patterson. I have never believed that the gulf between Patterson and Mohler and the 2 schools of thought that they represented were that wide. They both agree with inerrancy, which is still the driving theological point for this generation in the SBC – to distinguish them from theological liberals, modernists, people into higher criticism etc.
But there are differences between them that are worth talking about.
And you would think that the non-Calvinists who want to encourage pastors and such like 9 Marks could write books and have meetings to encourage young pastors.
I know that at one time there were John 3:16 meetings.
To what do you attribute the apparent lack of an equal response?
Max wrote:
I have wondered about this over the years and why more churches are not subject to takeovers like this.
If a church has congregational rule, and a determined group decides to join the church and they outnumber the existing membership, what keeps any church from not being taken over?
It seems really precarious to me.
Say an older church, in NYC, with really valuable property. It’s congregationally governed.
Why couldn’t Donald Trump encourage 500 people to join and over time vote out the staff, hire new people, and eventually vote to sell the building to Donald Trump for a song?
Anonymous wrote:
There was a time they basically apprenticed with a seasoned pastor staff. Now they are “church” planters or church takeover artists right out of Seminary. Mohler designed that system and put loyalist at the entities to fund it.
It has been a disaster. Your questions seem very pastor centered. We are talking about inexperienced young men who were taught arrogance and deceit in seminary.
Lydia wrote:
Don’t get me started.
Most people hardly noticed that a couple of years ago, Guidestone obtained from the SBC a change in its program statement.
Now, instead of just handling retirement funds and benefits, Guidestone can make investments.
My sources tell me that Guidestone has a plan to become a Charles Schwab type of operation. Selling investments to people in the pews. Opening store front operations. With the pitch being “we only buy morally responsible stocks etc.”
This all sets up a very bad thing, IMO.
Lydia wrote:
The same way a PCA church I know baptized a 26 yo adult who no way is regenerate if fruit is the measure. They don’t but it doesn’t matter. IMO, the Presbys get their vision of baptism a lot better than the 9Marks crew does theirs.
In Baptist theology, baptism by immersion is for *believers* with no age specified beyond a reasonable ability to understand the commitment one is making. Church members are baptized by immersion. That’s it. There is nothing in Baptist theology, AFAIK, that is anything like the 9Marks “guideline.”
Even the P&R commune mature children. The Federal Visionists will baptize a baby in the delivery room. And give the newborn wine, too. There are some parallels between the Federal Vision for the P&R and YRR/9Marks for the Baptists.
Nancy2 wrote:
Eternal Justification is a thing.
Max wrote:
They had better hope that the investment managers are better at math than the IMB trustees.
siteseer wrote:
We could split into Most Recent Top Downists and Most Recent Bottom Uppists. And then into Threaded Most Recent Top Downists and Unthreaded Most Recent Top Downists, etc.
Gram3 wrote:
I had no idea there were even options.
Anonymous wrote:
Marketing. The Christian book distribution chain has changed. Very, very few Christian bookstores anymore. Kids and lazy people like me go to Amazon. Crossway created the YRR movement in a sense, IMO. Crossway is a TgC “partner.”
If you look at the conference promotional materials, you see FREE BOOKS. The young guys signal their theological gravitas by their collection of (mediocre and repetitive) books. So, Crossway (and Lifeway who saw the way this works) “help” put on these conferences and they distribute FREE BOOKS to the attenders (attendees?) and those guys/gals take those books back to their churches. Those books automagically appear on the shelves of the church library/bookstore/bookstall and also on the purchase lists for upcoming Sunday School/small group/Wednesday night classes.
Win/Win. Except for the pewpeons who have no idea what is going on.
@ Anonymous:
Oh my. Former “pastor”, O.S. Hawkins is the President/CEO.
https://www.guidestoneretirement.org/AboutUs/StaffBios?_ga=1.126123021.1814370662.1471378167
If you click on home, you see a book he wrote promoted on the Guidestone site. The book promotion takes you to his personal site to order.
These guys really know how to milk it for personal gain, don’t they? There is so little integrity.
Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t this “Just like the Investment Bankers who got rich setting up the 2008 Crash and Second Great Depression, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”?
Anonymous wrote:
Well, as an investment manager, you need to decide if you are going to maximize net returns or be pristine and picky (the principle applies along the ideology spectrum, BTW.) Or at least pretend that you are being pristine and picky so that your investors can feel morally and spiritually superior. Social signalling and conscience-salve bundled with a dose of spiritual superiority.
Lydia wrote:
“Komsomol youth whose military skills were mediocre but whose loyalty to the regime was total.”
— One of the WW3 novels of the Eighties describing Russian political troops
I find it interesting that people who think they know what SBC history is, claim it was forever and always 5 PointCalvinist.
First of all, Baptists in general were persecuted by Calvinists because they did not believe in infant baptism, did not have an authoritarian church governance, did not require educated clergy, and allowed all church members to read and interpret scripture for themselves.
The Puritans were Calvinists and had no love for Roger Williams a Baptist or others who refused to adhere to the Puritan faith and practice.
One of the ways Baptists have differentiated themselves outside of congregational polity, freedom of individual conscience, and priesthood of the believer is that Baptists have held Armenianism and Calvinism in tension in their theology. Neither one nor the other, but Baptist.
Predestination in particular, along with its cousin limited atonent were held in low esteem compared to the Whosoever will of Armenianism.
At the same time, Baptist did not embrace the Universalist idea proposed by some hyper Armenians that stated all are saved regardless of confession of faith.
Furthermore, the SBC split from the Northern Baptists over how to fund missions and the morality of slavery – not over Calvinism or Armenianism.
As a matter of fact, it has been the Northern Baptists who have historically been more Calvinist in theology and practice than their Southern counterparts.
The reason for the missionary effort among Southern Baptists, until the 2000’s, was based in the idea whosoever will after whosoever hears. Not only was that the history taught in GA’s, but the history discussed by missionaries themselves. I know because I’m a former FMB/IMB MK.
The hyper- Calvinism on the SBC scene is not business as usual for most SBC churches.
It might help, Mr. Spurgeon, for you to read Leon McBeth’s excellent book on Baptist history: The Baptist Heritage Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. You might learn something and not make such asinine comments about SBC history in the future.
ishy wrote:
I imagine TGBTC determined before the foundation of TWW the way that comments would work! And probably had no idea what he was signing up for with this cat parade. 🙂
@ Gram3:
You are so right. It is about who is running the Christian Industrial Complex at the time. In the 80-90’s it was Christian radio marketers and publishers.
Lydia wrote:
That does fit with “Just like Investment Bankers, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
After the 2008 crash, the Investment Bankers all got their seven- and eight-figure Golden Parachutes while their investors (source of the money) ended up on Unemployment.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Brock Estes is Lead Pastor’s Son, and Lead Pastor’s Son trumps all else.
@ Gram3:
Its going to be a dark post. John Piper said that Newtown was a warning by God.
Pay close attention to this last paragraph in his second article about Newtown.
“Which means that the murders of Newtown are a warning to me — and you. Not a warning to see our schools as defenseless, but to see our souls as depraved. To see our need for a Savior. To humble ourselves in repentance for the God-diminishing bitterness of our hearts. To turn to Christ in desperate need, and to treasure his forgiveness, his transforming, and his friendship.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/a-lesson-for-all-from-newtown
okrapod wrote:
Padding the Numbers like Ergun Caner’s resume?
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
I have seen this brought up before and found out that some SBTS seminary students were told McBeth got it wrong. It’s the indoctrination. Instead of having them read many different views, they indoctrinate. Nettles.
@ Dave (Eagle):
Yes. Because we are all depraved like the shooter. Sigh. Classic Piper.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
I keep pointing out that on the very same day Grinning Ed proclaimed his Seven-Day Sex Challenge from the “pulpit” (a bed onstage at his Mega), my church and all other Western-Rite Liturgical Churches were celebrating the Solemnity of Christ the King.
Christiane wrote:
But when you’ve NEVER “acquired that fire”, you have to fake it somehow.
Deb wrote:
Like “Democratic People’s Republic”.
(The more adjectives about “Democracy” there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.)
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Because God is into murdering innocent children so that John Piper may be warned. Makes me want to put my fist into a wall. I’m sure if God wanted to warn Piper He could do it far more directly. Like by lightning strike or something.
Muff Potter wrote:
“Christianity Delenda Est”?
With compounded interest?
@ Anonymous:
You wrote:
“But you seem to be saying that based on what you see, the Calvinists have good conferences and material.”
Good in what sense? That they make the organizers and speakers more money?
The subject matter is comp and Calvin.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
But Piper’s God killed His own child. So it makes sense to him.
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
First, what does that even mean? Second, Piper is saying that God was teaching us a lesson by little children and some brave adults being slaughtered? There is one angle that could make it worse, and that is if Adam had been “treated” by nouthetic counseling. There is such a thing as serious mental illness, John Piper and Jay Adams and Gospel Glitterati. That’s my last comment on the topic so the post does not get derailed into side issues.
Gram3 wrote:
More Flutterhands’ Word Salad, that’s what it means.
Either that or Merlin’s practicing the Curse of Babel again.
One of the things that bugs me about this whole SBC/Calvinista takeover mish-mosh relates to what has been discussed on this thread.
Baptists believe in Believer’s Baptism.
Calvinists believe in one or the other (seriously, they do not agree, so there are both paedo- and credo-baptism Reformed).
Methodists practice both, although they technically do not fit into the Calvinist realm.
Catholics and Orthodox practice infant baptism.
That is not a comprehensive list; it’s just a brief list to set up my statement.
FINE. We can debate all this in our own lives–it’s not really the point of TWW. MY beef is that if you are in a Baptist Church, you ought to support Baptist teaching. Don’t call yourself a Baptist and teach something else. And if you are in a Reformed Church, same thing. Don’t go having altar calls or asking people if they have accepted Jesus into their hearts. That is not Reformed teaching.
There are other places you can go that support what you want to believe. Don’t go messing it up for the other folks…ESPECIALLY if what you are really after is their tangible assets.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Or this from “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!” (1966 comedy gem).
A dim-witted Soviet sub crew is stranded on a New England island. They try to subdue the panicking locals by walking around in a pack, reciting in unison, “Emergency. Everybody to get from street.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TszIJX-F4U&list=RD2TszIJX-F4U
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
How many beds would it take to plant a church?
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
“…. have held Armenianism and Calvinism in tension in their theology. Neither one nor the other, but Baptist.”
A lot of people make the mistake of putting Baptists in the middle between Arminianism (not Armenianism) and Calvinism. This is playing on the field set up by Calvinists. I think someone made the comment here that Calvinist think Christianity began in the 1500’s. Baptist aren’t an amalgamation of Arminian and Calvinist. They are very distinct in rejecting the the DEFINITIONS that both Arminians and Calvinist use. So Total Depravity to both Arminians and Calvinist is actually Total Inability which Baptist traditionally reject outright. Phrases and words like Sovereignty and Doctrines of Grace have different definitions than those embraced by Arminians and Calvinists etc etc. There is actually church history before Augustine and Baptist think bigger than the reformation and what the Arminians and Calvinists brought out of it.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Same at Covenant Life in the past. They had to change their stance, I think because of at least one tragedy. Probably a lot of other things I don’t know about as well.
What bothers me the most about the whole 9marks organization is how sneaky it is when it comes to Calvinism. Jesus himself stated “let your yes be yes and your no be no”. We as Christians (be it Calvinists or otherwise) are not supposed to approach people hiding who we are and what we believe in order to gain followers, money, power etc. That is NOT of the kingdom of heaven.
And anybody who refuses to be straightforward about their beliefs on ANY subject should not be considered for a church position (be it pastor or elder).
At SBTS chapel this Spring 9Mark Dever was coaching seminarians to “avoid labels” and make sure their sermons didn’t “smack of” Calvinism:
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/lectures/mullins/the-art-of-preaching-2/
(starts just before the 30 minute mark)
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Right, because your first thought about a maniac who murders innocent children as “a warning” to you is to treasure his friendship…
Anonymous wrote:
What are the buyers/attenders *really* getting out of these conferences and materials?
As an outsider, it seems like they become hooked, both on the need for more of the same, and on the leaders / materials. They seem to delve into and quote from the word less and less and from these leaders and their sources more and more.
Many of them go back and cause problems at their churches, offending and alienating brothers and sisters in the Lord and splitting their churches.
Many of them transfer their confidence in Christ and his word to programs and systems and hierarchies.
I just wonder if most of the benefits are an illusion.
Jerome wrote:
That is going to upset Charles Spurgeon if he is still with us. Because Calvinism is the gospel. Or something.
I find that the 9Marks type conferences are extremely insular and isolated. The lack of opposing points of view is a recipe for all kinds of trouble.
@ Lydia
So true about indoctrination instead of education. Silly ole me keeps forgetting that a seminary’s main duty is to indoctrinate people not educate them on how to read, synthesize information, and think for themselves.
On a serious note and Baptist history note, it sickens me that the denomination that pushed for the Bible to be translated into English (other languages, too) and for public education to teach people to read for the purpose of reading the Bible for themselves has devolved into a denomination of anti-education.
@ Jamie Carter:
Absolutely!
@ Jerome:
Thank you for letting us know about Dever's chapel message at Southern and the advice he doled out to seminary students.
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
Yes. And now many people have to decide whether they are going to stick with the denomination at the cost of changing their values, or stick with their values at the cost of leaving the denomination. That is a hard situation for people to be in.
@ Celia
Good point! I confess to having the tendency to look at Baptist history from 1400’s instead of the totality of the history of the church. Thanks for pointing it out. I will endeavor to be more sensitive to that in the future.
I also apologize for the misspelling. I was using my phone and kept losing the fight with autocorrect.
Max wrote:
So were those that took over the SBC. It is there way or the highway. Dissent is not allowed.
@ okrapod:
Sadly, this also happens in individual churches.
If a Neo-Cal pastor gains control of a church that has been non-calvinist, long-time congregants (who financially supported the church) have to decide whether to stay and compromise their theological beliefs or leave the facility they helped build and the friends they have had for years.
Sam wrote:
Amen and Amen!
okrapod wrote:
This is exactly where I am right now. When I move, do I find a church that I don’t agree with, or that doesn’t seem to be living out the Great Commission, or that has a lot of beliefs that I don’t share? I visited a few over there, and still don’t know what I’m going to do.
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
Thank you for this important information. I am sharing it again for emphasis.
@ ishy:
I’m in a super liberal, old school Calvinist church. So, maybe.
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
Ahh autocorrect 🙂 Calvinists just believe that their definitions and their interpretations are the only place to start or I guess the only orthodoxy. So Arminians are as Sproul would say “just barely saved” because Arminian thought was the response to Calvinism using the Calvinist paradigm. You can’t really have a conversation with today’s Calvinist because they have a very small “box” of ideas that they’ve been taught are the only acceptable way to think about Christianity. Thus when you can get them to even notice you’re not using the language in their very limited box they will cry “heretic.” To disagree with Augustine must = Pelegius etc.
I’m I first time commenter, long time reader of the Wartburg Watch. I have to disclose up front that I would consider myself theologically reformed, and I am convinced of what is commonly called the complementarian view (not the eternal subordination of the Son doctrine however). The reason that I read the Wartburg Watch is not so I can see what “the enemy” is up to. On the contrary, I have deeply appreciated some of the criticism that has been brought forward here, and I feel that many weakness in the modern “neo-Calvinist” movement have been brought forward. Of course, I disagree with many of the basic theological commitments of the authors, but I refuse to engage in the genetic fallacy and I will carefully consider the arguments that are put forward, no matter what perspective that may arise from.
Introduction aside, what I want to say is that I am confounded by the continual criticism of 9Marks, TGC, SGM, etc. All of these ministries are largely centered around proclaiming the redemptive work of Christ to the world. To my knowledge, unless you can prove otherwise, none are disseminating heretical doctrines, even from a classical Arminian point of view. Coming from a reformed perspective, I would never critique the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Calvary Chapel, or Christianity Today, to name a few examples, without making clear that I recognized that all of these organizations believe and proclaim the biblical gospel, even if I disagree with their methods and secondary doctrinal positions in some respects. I rejoice when I hear of someone come to faith in Christ through an Assemblies of God church, or a Nazarine summer camp, etc. What I don’t detect in the postings at the Wartburg Watch is any recognition that these organizations, however imperfect or flawed they may be, are still on the same team, and working toward the same goal of building Christ’s church. I’m simply asking for some balance people. Instead of pigeonholing Calvinists with broad accusations, why don’t you engage with them personally? Most of the things I hear about Calvinists on this site have nothing to do with what I believe, or what my church believes, and most importantly, what I hold to be the teaching of God’s word.
I would suggest, for the sake of your own credibility, to engage with what reformed Christians actually believe, and not create a straw man out of what you believe the necessary logical outcome of their belief entails.
Deb wrote:
They steal the facilities that they have little to no investment in.
Anonymous wrote:
Pastors should not be young to begin with if they believe in biblical guidelines for elders.
@ Celia:
Good points.
As a Baptist who favors the five points of Calvinism, I am glad for this reasonable discussion on the 9Marks Conference. 9Marks has a history of harboring foolishness that makes Church look like a joke to Baptists, non-Baptists, Christians, and non-Christians alike. For Baptists more interested in Reformed Baptist theology, there are other entities where people can turn.
I personally see 9Marks as an outfit that carries a strain of Affluenza contaminated with egotism. Not a fruit of the Spirit. Scores of discerning people, saved and unsaved, should be able to see the circus-like hucksterism of 9Marks as it is more clearly exposed.
Thank you, TWW.
There are other organizations that present Reformed Baptist theology
Celia wrote:
Celia, few Calvinists I know would ever make such a blatant false dichotomy. Most of us recognize that Arminians are our beloved brothers in Christ, and not heretics. While I’m sure that some Calvinists are immature, stuck in the cage-stage, or just plain old jackwagons, most that I know exercise the principle of charity with liberality.
TheInternetIsNotAChurch wrote:
First of all, what I shared about the pastor was not anecdotal. I have first hand knowledge.
Secondly, I have not named the church or pastor, so how in the world could the internet ‘mob’ as you describe it have any impact whatsoever?
Slippery slope toward libel? That sounds like an accusation.
What I described has played out over and over and over again in Neo-Cal church takeovers.
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
One of the things I learned the hard way at ground zero when interacting with these young men is never assume they are reasonable or educated. They were taught to parrot, be bold, win and deceive. I honestly don’t think they knew any different. It was bizarre. How I might imagine other certain radcal movements of young men from history.
Glenn wrote:
Good way to describe it.
The very first secretary of the SBC’s Foreign Missions Board, James B. Taylor, wrote in the 1850s that “the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [was] that the atonement is general in its nature”.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TKQ9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA289
@ Coram Deo:
Her point was that many of us were never Arminian at all and never followed the roots of Augustine inherent in both systems.
Lydia wrote:
They have been taught by militants to be militant. They believe they are always right.
Anonymous wrote:
a den of Money Changers?
immorally irresponsible stocks any way you slice it
@ Jerome:
Wow. Interesting find!
Coram Deo wrote:
Hmm, I think you may be missing the point that most Baptists are not “Arminians” so when the Traditionalist Statement was presented you had Calvinists like Al Mohler declaring it “heresy” and “semi-Pelegian” The point here is that if you dont’ agree with either Arminianism or Calvinism the only label Calvinists like Al Mohler have for you is “heretic.” Now of course a lot of Calvinists like Mohler believe that to be Christian you’re really just a Calvinist and don’t know it. Sorry but I didn’t just pull this out of thin air – it’s my experience after years reading Calvinist all over the internet not just the cage stage ones.
@ mot:
Handing them a pastorate is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen boys.
Lydia wrote:
Kinda made my point didn’t he/she?
@ Deb:
Is TheInternetIsNotAChurch using the same computer as Finney and Spurgeon? 🙂
mot wrote:
There is only the One True Way(TM).
(Like all the other One True Ways(TM) littering the history books…)
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
As in signing back in under another identity?
Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
Increase Political Consciousness and Ideological Purity, Comrades.
@ Celia:
It took me a while to catch on to their Arminian/Calvin box. When I did, it made total sense. They wanted us to identify Arminian. They could keep it in the right era. The only one they know about. :o)
@ Coram Deo:
Thank you for your comment, and I appreciate your POV.
I only wish those whom you defend were as open-minded as you believe we should be. We have a section called ‘My Comment Was Deleted’ where our followers post comments that have been deleted on blogs such as The Gospel Coalition.
We allow virtually ALL comments as long as they don’t violate our commenting policy.
Coram Deo wrote:
I have engaged personally – many times. I’ve tried to be respectful and unintimidating, but it’s never gone well. People get angry or avoidant – it seems to be a very polarizing topic. I sent my list of questions about penal substitution to several of the prominent Calvinist ministries often discussed/criticized here. One “leader” got pretty cranky with me – accused me of trying to suck him into an argument. Another ministry leader was a bit more gracious, but accused me of having an agenda and maybe being emotionally unstable because I could not see things his way. Neither answered my questions – they deflected and projected. Another ministry gave me a list of sermons that I had already listened to. My agenda was to find out if a Calvinist can offer intelligent, unambiguous Biblical evidence for penal substitution that does not does not rely on unverifiable premises. I have yet to find one who will answer the questions from the perspective of “sola scriptura.” Maybe you can give it a shot. My 18 questions got posted on the interesting items tab above under books.
Lydia wrote:
Like I keep saying, sixty years ago it would have been Communism instead of Calvinism.
Eighty years ago it would have been Fascism.
Over a century ago, Anarchism.
@ Coram Deo:
Bless your heart but you are just not quite getting a whole bunch of points being made here.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I'll check. 😉
Celia wrote:
I’ve been listening to Mohler for well over a decade and it would shock me to know that he stated that to be a semi-Pelegian, or a non-Calvinist, is tantamount to heresy. I’m not denying what you claim Mohler said, but I’ll lay down the gauntlet for you. Provide a primary source for Mohler saying these things and I will never listen to or read from him again.
Coram Deo wrote:
I have great respect for the loving-kindness shown by the Dutch Reformed people who operated and oversee Eastern Christian Children’s Retreat where my son lives in a group home. There is NO resemblance between those Reformed people and what I know of neo-Cal bullying practices which have abused and injured innocent people.
I agree with, from what I know of my old piano teacher, a lovely Christian lady whose husband was a Presbyterian minister, and also from meeting that wonderful pastor whose gentle humility and old-world dignity shone,
I realize that what is coming out of the SBC seminaries in the way of ‘neo-Cal’ threats to the denomination is NOT the same thing as main-line Reformed behavior. Far from it.
What is coming out now is ‘cult-formation’ by the new graduates hawking neo-Cal 9 Marks bullying in the form of ‘membership contracts’ and a weird unorthodox type of Church Discipline that tries to get the dirt on people by having them publicly confess their sins, and then using that dirt to humiliate and control them, all the while bringing in the congregation to continue the bullying …… the very congregation that Our Lord would want to surround a weaker member with care, not torment.
Neo-Cal-ism is a new denomination/cult entity. Southern Baptists have every right to be greatly concerned for their people, their Churches, and their religious tradition especially the beauty of the missions ….
no way is bullying and abuse ever ‘acceptable’ in any religion, and my own Church has found that abuse, when tolerated by some silent leaders, is poisonous and destructive;
and to root it out, expose it, condemn it, and adopt protective measures against it is the ONLY way back to a ‘healthy’ Church. 9 Marks is NOT ‘healthy’, it’s hellish
@ Lydia:
For Calvinists there are Calvinist = super Christians who as Whitefield said “have graduated to the University of Election,” Arminians who as Sproul says “are just barely saved” and then everybody else is either too dumb to realize they have to be Arminian or Calvinist or they are just plain ol’ heretics. Most Calvinist can’t actually have a conversation outside of the Augustinian paradigm.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes. That person replied to a comment Dee made to Finney, so I just wondered.
From the real Charles Spurgeon:
“I hear it boasted of a man’s ministry, although it gradually diminishes the congregation, that it is doing a great work among thoughtful young men. I confess that I am not a believer in the existence of these thoughtful young men: those who mistake themselves for such I have generally found to be more conceited than thoughtful. Young men are all very well and so are young women, and old women, also”
https://books.google.com/books?id=2ra_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PT66
@ Coram Deo:
Are you saying semi-Pelegianism is not heresy?
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2012/06/06/is-an-anti-calvinist-statement-by-sbc-leaders-actually-semi-pelagian/
Former CLCer wrote:
You know, as I read some of the SGM stories over the years I saw a lot of similarities between them and my former church. If you put them side by side there’s not a lot of resemblance, but still a lot of similar practices. I couldn’t figure out the connection. Then I read that PDI “arose out of the shepherding movements in the 1970s.” My former church is also a shepherding church that splintered off from the UPCI in the 1970s. So, there’s the connection. It’s Shepherding. And this 9Marks movement is just Shepherding 2.0.
Celia wrote:
And conferences like 9Marks certainly don't help in that regard.
@ Coram Deo:
What happened after the Trad statement is he carefully worded the SP implication for plausible deniability. It’s how they roll. And they know their fans don’t question and defend them.
The last 10 years of dealing with that movement has been a string of young men demanding: prove it! Prove it!
One links then they try and convince you that you misunderstood what you saw it heard. That movement contains the Masters of gaslighting.
@ Lydia:
I forgot that insult Mohler made to paraphrase “they don’t really believe what they just said they believed” to imply that the signers were too dumb to understand what they were signing on to.
I was trying to find the Mohler quote about the only place to go for anyone who truly believed the Gospel is Calvinism – would have a link?
Mohler has insulted nonCalvinists for years and his sycophants will defend him with Clintonian arguments – you just don’t understand English!
@ Deb:
Those conferences are just a place for ego stroking. Mark Driscoll actually said something years ago about these people just going from conference to conference that was on the money. Let me see if I can find it.
Celia wrote:
Should of known the original article is gone but Voices blogged about it – you can pick up a gist from the comment stream.
http://sbcvoices.com/the-crisis-of-conference-christians-by-mark-driscoll-wow/
Celia wrote:
The link to that video with Mohler and theother T$G guys was posted here a lot. When it first went viral, I double dog dared Mohler, on several blogs, to say it again at the mic at SBC convention, unedited. Word for word.
Funny how they play to certain audiences. They are frauds.
It freaks me out that Spurgeon and Finney are commenting. I just had surgery. Don’t do this to me, guys.
@ Celia:
https://youtu.be/T6lRMMvNCn8
Coram Deo wrote:
Here’s the actual article by Mohler that Celia alluded to with the TGC link (I found it on my first try, but she beat me to the post): http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/06/southern-baptists-and-salvation-its-time-to-talk/. Here’s the pertinent section:
“That said, I could not sign the document. Indeed, I have very serious reservations and concerns about some of its assertions and denials. I fully understand the intention of the drafters to oppose several Calvinist renderings of doctrine, but some of the language employed in the statement goes far beyond this intention. Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied. Clearly, some Southern Baptists do not want to identify as either Calvinists, non-Calvinists, or Arminians. That is fine by me, but these theological issues have been debated by evangelicals for centuries now, and those labels stick for a reason.”
He will never come right out and call it heresy because men like this refuse to make unequivocal statements on what they believe. They seem to always leave a way to slip out of being held to anything. Still, that statement is about as close to saying semi-pelagianism is heresy as you can get.
As a side note, he includes this statement at the bottom of all of his articles:
“I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.” I sent him my list of questions (twice) and never got an answer.
@ Celia:
From my perspective, having a synergistic view of salvation does not qualify as damnable heresy. It’s honestly difficult, with the little research I have done, for me to differentiate between Arminianism and Semipelgianism. I know that Semipelagianism has been associated with Molinism, which I also would not consider to be heresy, but certainly heterodox.
As for Mohler’s response to the SBC Traditionalist statement, I cannot find where he labels Semipelagians, Arminians, non-Calvinists, or Traditionalists as heretics. I was encouraged by this portion of his statement though, and feel that it speaks to our current discussion:
“That leads me to make another qualification. I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document. I know many of these men very well, and I know them to be doctrinally careful and theologically discerning. Some of these very men have served most boldly in the defense of the faith, and they have taught me much. We should be honored by the privilege of a serious theological conversation with one another, and we will all speak more carefully when we are respectfully questioned by those with whom we disagree.”
@ Lydia: Just saw that video this morning thanks to brian. Fast forward to the 6:25 mark.
Good thing on the internet that people do actually leave a ‘trail’, written or oral, and can be held responsible for what they have said, rather than what others say they have said.
Coram Deo wrote:
I accidentally signed on as my wife and posted the link to the applicable Mohler article. But that comment is not visible. When it does clear customs, please know that it was me that commented and not my wife. This is the problem with sharing a computer.
Ken F wrote:
I don’t bother with the blogs, but trying to honestly discuss theology with the hyper-Calvinists I have known has been a total bust. They just recite Piper or Grudem or Mohler word-for-word believing that is the end of the discussion. I remember one said there was no point in asking questions. When asked about verses that seem to contradict their points, they say that verse “doesn’t count” or “doesn’t mean that”. If I asked them what it does mean, they don’t know. It’s like arguing with a robot programmed to answer every question with only 3 books.
@ Lydia:
I like your version of the video better!
@ Marie: LOL!!!
Anonymous wrote:
As I noted, this is SBC’s dilemma. When a young man leaves seminary to enter his first pastorate, there is essentially no network within SBC to nurture him and encourage his ministry. When these young men seek that, they find 9Marks, TGC, T4G, Acts29, etc. willing to meet their need … leading to indoctrination in reformed theology if they weren’t already leaning that way. While I don’t agree with the theology, I have to admit the new reformers have a good strategy in this regard to hook Generation Xers and Millennials. The Pied Piper approach to capturing a generation is working … working, but wrong in my humble (but accurate) opinion.
@ Lydia:
I’ve always thought that Guidestone had a slimy feel to it.
Celia wrote:
Chrome on my PC is blocking SBCVoices. 🙂 I used my phone to follow your link. Is this the same article you were looking for?
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/158714-mark-driscoll-the-crisis-of-conference-christians.html
@ Coram Deo:
He was trying not to alienate his army of militant followers but at the same time be careful not to unleash too big of a backlash. . It was pure politics. And too little too late.
Btw, who gets to decide if the question is respectful enough? See what he did there? Classic Mohler. He was given way too much power, too young and it shows.
@ Lydia:
Lydia, your assertion that Mohler was being purposefully deceptive in his statement requires a significant burden of proof. I give my ultimate allegiance to Jesus, not to my theological mentors, including Mohler. Once again, I’ll say that if you can provide any evidence that Mohler, or any other teacher, made an explicit categorical claim that all true Christians are Calvinists, then bring it forward and I will heartily agree with you that this person is proclaiming a false gospel.
@ Coram Deo:
Again you’re pulling out of your Calvinist box what you believe those who reject Calvinism must believe. If one isn’t a Calvinist then one must therefore have a synergystic view of salvation. Not true. And from the time of Augustine to call one Pelegian or semiPelegian is to declare one a heretic as those views have been called heresy for centuries. So Al Mohler would know that to accuse someone of semiPelegianism is to accuse them of what since Augustine has been declared heresy. Further the statement you find encouraging is actually a backhanded insult implying that the people who put together and affirmed the Traditional statement didn’t really believe what they wrote and/or affirmed.
You need to be careful of the sources when looking for definitions of what semi-Pelegianism is or is not. It’s one of those words that Calvinists have hijacked and twisted out of it’s original meaning to make it fit when they want to throw it out as a pejorative. Just google semi Pelegian Traditional Statement – there were a lot of blog posts on the subject. But again Calvinist have different definitions for words such as synergism and monergism.
Anonymous wrote:
As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I am not aware of any determined groups taking over SBC churches until the New Calvinists came along.
@ Deb:
He gave us the pertinent part. When was this filmed? It was a few years back…even before the Trad statement. Can you imagine Mohler being man enough to say the exact same words at the convention the same year he filmed this? This is why I have no respect for these guys. They play people.
@ Kimberly Rock-Shelton:
Good perspective on SBC history. Real Baptists identify with the heart of the persecuted Anabaptist reformers, rather than the spirit of Calvin and his strong-arm magisterial reform.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Yes that’s it. I was suprised that he had some good points since he’s mostly an idiot otherwise. But the #1 about the elder board whatever ever was ironic coming from him.
Coram Deo wrote:
I can’t prove anything to blind followers. I stopped trying. I don’t play the Clintonian parsing game with you guys anymore. I bet others hear the Mohler implication that “all true Christians are Calvinists” in that video…..loud and clear.
PaJo wrote:
It would have been a much easier row to hoe if SBC’s New Calvinists had simply joined one of the Reformed Baptist organizations, or even the Presbyterians. But they need stuff (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, etc.) to make a bigger splash. SBC was a good target.
@ Lydia:
Look if Calvinists declare Mohler hasn’t said anything wrong then everybody is just expected to accept it. Calvinists really believe they own the English language and can declare insults as not really insulting.
Celia wrote:
Good point. The Baptists I have known in my long journey have been Biblicists, refusing to be labeled either Arminian or Calvinist.
Max wrote:
Tragically, most SB congregations have no clue. Like taking candy from a baby. 🙁
Here's the Mohler quote transcribed:
Al Mohler: ‘Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they going to need and where else are they going to connect. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth."
@ Coram Deo:
Ken F wrote:
I’d like to second this request 🙂
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, you are so wise not to play games with ‘these” people.
Celia wrote:
Exactly.
Check this out with his back and forth pseudo academic parsing:
” Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied”
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/06/southern-baptists-and-salvation-its-time-to-talk/
“Appear to affirm”? Come on. I thought he was a brilliant theologian! What he is doing is planting the SP idea in the minds of his followers. He wants them to repeat. And they did.
Celia wrote:
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not present in Al’s statement IMO.
Sam wrote:
Exactly. But if the young Calvinists were honest to search committees about their theological persuasion, they would not be hired in traditional SBC churches. SBC seminaries have produced a gob of them in recent years – where are they going to go? That’s why they evade those questions or creatively lie in order to secure a pulpit and then slowly release their belief and practice. Of course, if they can’t wiggle into a traditional church, SBC’s church planting program will accommodate most of them – there are numerous SBC-YRR church plants in my area.
Celia wrote:
Isn’t is sort of weird that he specifically mentions age here? Are old evangelicals different, or just more well informed and less easily lead?
Curious.
@ Lydia:
What’s interesting is to look at this exchange which proves the point I was making upthread that Calvinist have this little box and they have to put one of THEIR labels on you. So to start this person talks about “Arminians” of course being Christians and then we move to “semiPelegians” and “Molinism” is thrown in there. It doesn’t compute that there are people who reject Calvinism who are none of the above. And then the synergism insult is thrown out because of course if you’re not a Calvinist you believe you’ve helped save yourself.
@ mot:
I wasn’t wise. I finally figured out all they know is gas lighting. I saw it in one church situation after another and on blogs since 2005 or so at ground zero.
Because of my background I started to view it as a sort of social/religious/ psychological movement that needs to be studied in regards to young men (and some women who are allowed) and how they are caught up with following gurus and pledging their allegiance to them without realizing what they are really doing.
Mohler is power politics. Calvinism was the rallying issue.
Coram Deo wrote:
Certainly none of us should erect straw men. Or women! That is one reason I think you should give some thought to the straw men that the various Gospel Glitterati we talk about here erect. No one should erect strawpeople. No one should mistake assertion for argument. No one should practice selective hermeneutics. No one should be inconsistent or apply different rules for different texts (at least if one is a conservative, which I am.)
The problem is that the Glitterati Guys do *all* of those things. I try to engage the texts and the reasoning. Personally, I had zero success getting a YRR pastor-pup to engage the actual text of the Bible which I had with me! I was astounded, but mostly I was female which means I am by nature rebellious. I do not know if you are male or female, but it seems a bit disingenuous to say that Wartburgers should be willing to engage when the Glitterati Guys have no desire to to that. They are concerned with capitulation, not discussion and not study of the texts.
I don’t think anyone can tell from my comments how many petals are on my tulip. That is a good thing, IMO. ISTM that you may agree doctrinally with the Calvinistas (a term that arose to distinguish between the mutant strain and classic Calvinism. I do not sense that you agree with their practice. And that is the big problem. Their practice does *not* look like Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the King. It looks a lot more like the world to those of us who have lived “in the world” for a long time.
I hope you will continue to read and comment. If someone says something wacky, maybe you can provide a different perspective or some additional facts.
Lydia wrote:
Anyone can sling around ad homs, but what would you say if someone said the same thing about the followers of this blog? I don’t expect to persuade you of my positions, but I grant that you are a dear sister in Christ, and even if you weren’t (hypothetically, I’m not implying anything) I would still have a duty to frame your words in the best possible light and not seek to accuse you of things that I believe were implicit in your speech. Mohler is a sinful person like anyone else, and I most certainly do not agree with all of his positions. I do listen to The Briefing every day and am able to glean some things from his cultural commentary. But I also listen to podcasts from Charismatics and Prophecy folks (sorry, I don’t know of a better name) and am able to gain wisdom and insight from them, as well a be challenged by differing theological perspectives (and sometimes I even change my mind!). Yes, there are blind followers of men like Mohler, Piper, Grudem, et al., but there are closed-minded people represented in every conceivable group of human beings. Just because some are closed-minded doesn’t say anything about the soundness of their arguments. Saying that there are blind followers of Al Mohler doesn’t equate to a rational, sound argument against Al Mohler’s positions, any more than saying that blind followers of Jim Wallis makes for an argument against Wallis’ positions.
How cool is it that a commenter called Coram Deo comes right after a comment that mentions Sproul!
@ Celia:
Yes. They will claim you think you can “save yourself”. Well I cannot resurrect myself so that is just plain silly. But I can –am able– to “respond”….. and to them that is synergistic and you are taking credit for saving yourself.
But the memo went out: unity. So now they are back peddling a bit on what they can “accept”. How there can be any trust after the last 10 years of disaster, scandal and deception, I will never understand.
Coram Deo wrote:
Those who are closely monitoring the work of these ministries don’t consider that mission first and foremost. The work of the Cross of Christ receives far too little attention IMO. I listen to a lot of YRR sermon podcasts in my area. I have found that “God” gets a LOT more airtime than Jesus, with hardly a note about the Holy Spirit.
@ mot:
In my experience Calvinists don’t actually talk about Jesus or the Cross much. My salvation is because of Christ work on the Cross. For a Calvinist it’s the cross plus God doing some additional work. Calvinist focus on the additional work they think is needed for salvation.
@ Coram Deo:
No one pays to read Dee or Deb. This is like a giant backyard where people wander in and out to talk. The fact you can’t see the difference in Al Mohler and the deeds is concerning.
@ Deb:
IINAC has mistaken indignation for an argument.
Bridget wrote:
Good point. The church leadership model that SBC churches once followed involved assigning young pastors in an associate role with a mature senior pastor. The nurturing and encouragement they needed for ministry was found in the local church they served in, without running off to conferences to find affirmation and identity. Putting an inexperienced seminary graduate into a pastorate without an internal support network (e.g., new church plants) is not a good idea and certainly not the Biblical model (Paul:Timothy, Barnabas:Mark, etc.).
@ Coram Deo:
Why would I have you define “rational” for me? I don’t get that. I don’t think Mohlers partnering, promotion and protection of Mahaney, Apostle of a shepherding cult, was rational. I don’t think partnering with Driscoll on Acts 29 was rational. And so on.
Glenn wrote:
It’s refreshing to hear a Calvinistic Baptist say that!
@ Lydia:
The idea is that somehow your response forces God to act. They have to make faith into a work which it’s not. I’ve seen it explained in this way – All people have faith in something; New Ageism, Mormonism, Buhda, Hinduism, Atheism and on and on. Unless you have faith in the one who can accept your faith and actually has the power to save you that faith means nothing. It’s not the faith that saves you it’s the ONE who has the power to save. The Work of Salvation is all on the side of God.
Celia wrote:
I’m sure they–(the calvinists) would not accept my simply asking Jesus into my heart when I was 16 years old, many years ago and that I have the Holy Spirit living in me. That is just too simple-is it not.
Christiane wrote:
As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I have worshiped with several classical Calvinists in SBC churches. I have found them to be civil in their discourse and offering good perspectives on certain Bible passages. New Calvinists are a totally different animal … most of the ones I have met are arrogant, aggressive, militant, and mean-spirited.
Gram3 wrote:
Heh. I just went full on Presbyterian. My issues with these guys are not generically that they are reformed. They are chiefly the authoritarianism and anti female strains that run through their thinking. Although I do think reformed in their style and baptist in the way that I was brought up don’t seem to sit comfortably – as we discussed earlier regarding baptism of children.
@ Coram Deo:
I can’t look at Mohler without seeing the gentleman Paul Debusman. That is a microcosm of who Mohler really is.
Max wrote:
Those that have taught them are also arrogant, aggressive, militant, and mean-spirited. These people do more harm for the Gospel than they ever do good.
Celia wrote:
To be fair, that was before he had his “Big Tent” conversion in the wake of the ESS fiasco. Not a good time to continue tossing around the “H” word for him. I do know some mellow Calvinists, but they are settled in their convictions and are not evangelists or enthusiasts for Calvinism. They think more about salvation by faith alone than about salvation by LocalChurchCovenantMembership alone.
http://www.txbc.org/1997Journals/Oct1997/Oct97LongtimeSouthern.htm
Mohler was 34 when he did this. Too much power, too soon.
Celia wrote:
See the way I see it, God acted and we respond. So I can’t get this whole works thing at all.
Coram Deo wrote:
Read the original statement he put out when the court dismissed the civil case against Mahaney because of the statute of limitations. That statement was false, no matter what the facts are about Mahaney. It was manipulative, and people called them out on it so it got “revised.” Just like his triangulation on ESS. He gets away with it because of tribal loyalty. And I do know something about that.
@ mot:
Oh noes! You said the dreaded “sinner’s prayer!” Much too simple. Years ago I think it was at the Founder’s website they had a twelve page document that any potential convert had to fill out to prove they understood salvation. When I was at a Calvinist church back in the day potential converts had to go through a three month new members class with the Pastor so he could determine if you were really really one of the elect. They really believe in a High Priesthood who are capable of determining who is and isn’t elect.
@ Max:
That’s my experience of the SBC. There were always Calvinist around but they didn’t go around trying to get all the nonCalvinist removed from leadership positions.
Celia wrote:
And yet, they prove themselves to be lacking in discernment by the company they keep.
Celia wrote:
These folks who try to determine who the elect are must think of themselves as some type of god. Must be a powerful and coveted position.
Ken F’s wife wrote:
Maybe if you sent an email to Docent…
@ Lea:
They just say that faith is something “good” and because of Total Inability man/woman is incapable of anything “good” so faith has to be given but then that kinda makes it not really faith doesn’t it.
@ Gram3:
He gave a statement to the religion reporter of the Courier Journal right after Mahaney was exonerated by Truman, Ortburg, etc. Mohler said bloggers just don’t like strong leaders like Mahaney. The thing was, the statement came out on their religion blog a day after the exoneration! How could the paper have known? No one knew outside their circle. He was framing the outcome. It was taken down as more and more came out about Mahaney. Back then, we were too trusting to get screen shots. That is the sort of power Mohler has amassed.
ishy wrote:
That’s what they are teaching now. start with a couple. Your job is to pray and share the gospel and spend just as much time praying as you do sharing. Listen to the Holy Spirit. Share how much God loves them.
When you lead someone to Christ, pour your life into him or her and start with a house church. Once the house church gets too big, you move to a different church.
The gospel can go through people groups like wildfire.
@ Celia:
Thanks for that transcription. What unseemly arrogance and total lack of wisdom and modesty befitting a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I see nothing of Jesus in those remarks. Where are they going to go? Ummm….to Jesus? To join with other like-minded believers who are not starstruck by the Big Names like the Kadres of Kardashian Kristians are?
Celia wrote:
Exactly. If we believe this, did God make little puppets? Because that doesn’t seem to fit.
mot wrote:
Beat me to it. Exactly.
@ Kinda krunchy:
You move to a different house. Sorry. You have the bible and use it only. Work yourself out of a job as soon as possible. Let the culture listen to the Holy Spirit and let Him lead them how to do church. When they ask the opinion of the missionary, take them to all the passages in scripture that speak on that topic.
The thought is that they have the Holy Spirit and He is fully capable of leading them.
@ mot:
Remember they “Hold the Keys to the Kingdom” per 9Marks.
@ Celia:
Note: Mohler is claiming “this generation” wants to stand with old dead guys, Apostles and Paul.
Where is Jesus Christ? Is Paul, Christ?
You listen to them long enough and you hear very little about Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. And it has been across the board. And it is for a reason.
Celia wrote:
I was baptized in an SBC church at the age of 10 after saying the “sinner’s prayer.” I only learned a few years ago that the pastor who baptized me was a “moderate.” I then went on to join a cult that sometimes requires years to be deemed worthy to join, and has a 138 page Confessions book to sign when you do. But, sometimes I wonder, after all I’ve been through, if I wouldn’t still be a believer today if not for my foundation in the SBC teachings of Jesus’ work on the cross and my acceptance of that.
I’ll admit that some of these convos go way over my head, but I’m sad that the message of the cross is being made almost unattainable for people.
Coram Deo wrote:
The words of females are *always* viewed in the worst possible light if those words are not 100% affirming of whatever the authority figure says. That, Coram Deo, is a core principle of their version of Complementarianism. Because Susan Foh, ironically, said so 40 years ago. And that means that none of the YRR’s have any living memory of a time when Foh’s view of female nature was not TheTruth.
Female are born usurpers of male authority who desire to “buck” their husband’s authority. Females are more easily deceived, yet I wonder how they explain all of the false *male* teachers.
Please stop and think about your support of men (and some female enablers/Queen Bees) who are promoting this poison. Adding to the gospel is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether that addition is Covenant Church Membership or Gender Roles or wearing your hair up in a bun and a long prairie dress.
@ Lydia:
I have a copy of Piper’s Desiring God. He postulates about whether his work will stand the test time the way Paul’s letters, and Augustine and yada, yada have. Piper actually puts his work in a line with Paul’s letters.
Coram Deo wrote:
Grudem’s writing on the Woman Question is nothing but ad hominems and assorted other logical fallacies. Feminist! Cultural Capitulation! Slippery Slopes to Liberalism and Denying the Authority of Scripture!
Danvers is premised on ad hominem arguments and bare naked assertions.
Fact is, in their world, it is an offense and a stench in the nostril of God for a woman to proclaim the truth in God’s written word. Better a Mark Driscoll, in their thinking, than a woman of high character and a high regard for the actual text. That, Coram, is how twisted and sick this ideology is.
Max wrote:
Sanctified Testosterone poisoning. Clearly.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
It is very sad to see how hard some are making salvation. I was saved when I was 11. I didn’t know anything about propitiation or even justification. I just knew that I was a sinner and that sin separated me from God but Jesus died on the Cross to take away my sin so I could one day spend eternity in heaven with God. It’s been years since I’ve worked in Bible school but we used to present the ABC’s of salvation A=Admit you are a sinner, B=Believe that Christ died on the Cross and rose again and C=Confess to God that you’re a sinner and in need of Christ. I bet the Calvinists have messed up Lifeway’s VBS material.
That film link:
Deb wrote:
so Mohler asks ‘where else are they going to go’ except to something like ‘new Calvinism’?
and Mohler calls this mess ‘biblical’????
Mohler’s question reminds one of the response of St. Peter, when Our Lord asked him ‘do you want to go away as well’
and St. Peter gives what Our Lord says is an inspired answer ‘To whom shall we go, Thou hast the words of eternal life’
and today I see Mohler’s answer which is not inspired, and it is not biblical, no . . . Mohler believes that ‘they’ have no choice but to seek out ‘new Calvinism’
A different gospel? Oh yeah.
Check this out:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19930116&id=S1UeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ScgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1318,2034554&hl=en
If some faculty and even the President did not resign from SBTS, they were going to hold “heresy trials”!
Christiane wrote:
A man-made gospel that has nothing to do with Jesus.
@ Celia:
Oh, I read it. And “Future Grace”. I have extended family who studied with him. They came back zombies who told their family, including their grandmother who ministered in the inner city for 25 years, we did not know the “true Gospel. That was back in the late 90’s. That is when I started paying attention to this movement. It was like they had joined a cult.
Lydia wrote:
So many Southern Baptist have little to no knowledge how many good Christian people were forced out of their positions by the TAKEOVER.
I was also less than impressed by DeYoung’s mention of ‘muscle’ in new-Calvinism as appealing to the young
I expect he has no clue about the power of the Holy Spirit operating through the fruit of the Holy Spirit in this world. A power where patience has more influence for good than ‘discipline’, and kindness is a way of grace far above the pitiful control of a ‘membership contract’ and the bullying it brings on its victims.
These young pastors may understand playing ‘hardball’ with people as having ‘muscle’,
but they have no clue about the way of grace and the power therein to transcend what not even ‘muscle’ can move in the human heart. They have no clue. Maybe in time, ‘life’ itself will teach them some humility before the Lord. But in the meantime, people need protection from neo-Cal ‘muscle’, yes. The work of the Deebs is vital work indeed.
Celia wrote:
I’m not sure which Calvinists you have spoken with, but your perception is waaaayy off. In our church, we speak of the cross and of Christ, AND our need for proclaiming the gospel to our neighbors and family members unceasingly.
Celia wrote:
There is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks.
@ mot:
It was pre Internet. And that article was because SBTS was here and because the treatment of the WMU thing was a huge scandal here. I wasn’t paying too much attention at the time but it was all a big deal with my extended family.
I mean, without the WMU, the SBC would have folded long ago. As my 97 year old curmudgeonly step father says tapping his cane, ‘Women have been the backbone of the SBC!’ Love that man. :o)
@ Lydia:
The last sentence in the article indicates what other good Southern Baptists have experienced in challenging the proliferation of New Calvinism within SBC: “He is simply a gentle man who spoke his mind in an ungentle venue.” The denomination has indeed become an “ungentle venue” in which my-way-or-the-highway began with the Conservative Resurgence, merging into a Calvinist Resurgence. And I say that as one of the most conservative believers you would ever meet, but not so conservative that I get ugly about it.
Gram3 wrote:
Heck, they don’t even talk much about Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the King! But they LOVE to talk about Mohler, Piper, Dever, etc. The YRR church plants in my area are dragging as much world into the church as they can, while trying to still appear Christian.
@ Max:
I think there is fatigue in the SBC from dealing with clever and saccharine sweet bullies. People have to get to the point they realize they are dealing with indoctrinated unreasonable young men and there are no answers except to conform or go to war if they stay. No one wants war, but it is a big mistake to back down from bullies no matter how many times they claim to love you as a brother in Christ right after they have attempted to clean your clock. (It is SGM wiki leaks all the time with these guys)
And because of all this many pew sitters will go along with unity…..because they view that as being Christian. But they have to ignore a lot of history that screams, “untrustworthy”!
Unity is working because the Trads have totally ignored ESS!
@ Celia:
I actually have the same hope for Piper’s work, but more like in the way Arius’s or Faustus Socinius’s have.
Max wrote:
TheInternetIsNotAChurch wrote:
*Fixes “TheInternetIsNotAChurch” with a beady stare:
If it were up to you, Scientology would be that really slick organization with the many, many prominent Hollywood stars promoting the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. A little wacky, sure, but not a problem. That’s the way it was 20 years ago, when those who had been badly damaged by Hubbard and his successor, David Miscavige, could barely get anyone to hear them.
The Internet you despise changed all that. The reason Scientology is the butt of jokes in the 2010s is because a small band of people, many who had never stepped into a “church” of Scientology EVER, decided they didn’t like Scientology’s lawyers telling us we couldn’t talk about their $uper $ecret $acred $criptures on Usenet (and later, on the World Wide Web). This went on for well over a decade, before it caught fire in 2008 with people outside the relatively small band of picketers and protesters (but still on the Internet).
The fact of the matter is that like the Scientologists, you and yours do not like sources of information you cannot control. It’s apparent that local churches are doing a horrible job of dealing with sex offenders in their midst. All too often, these men are “forgiven” while their victims are shamed and warned away from reporting the crimes against them to the police.
The Internet is an equalizer and you don’t like it because you can’t control it.
Signed, that woman who stands on a church sidewalk in Scottsdale most every Sunday because people need to be warned about Mark Driscoll. Who I found out about from–again–the Internet.
@ Jonathan:
It was within the first couple of pages of a later edition of Desiring God. He was marveling over how he’d written it so many years before and wondering if it would stand up with other great works like ya know The Bible. I didn’t get much further into the book because I realized the man was a crank.
Lydia wrote:
These guys really are stuck in the 16th century. As always, it beggars the mind how otherwise rational and learned academics can buy into this piffle.
Oh, speaking of Driscoll, I’m going to Massachusetts for a week and will miss next weekend’s picketing, but should be home in time for Sunday, August 28.
@ mirele:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/08/15/mark-driscoll-worship-god-with-your-wallet-to-put-content-on-my-website/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=adrianwarnock&ref_post=jesus-the-liberator-of-women
How many of you have gone and actively fought for the rights of the unborn within the past six months? And before you ask me, yes I have. Instead, sheep with sharp teeth enjoy biting and tearing down others within the kingdom. While I’m not a Calvinist, I have never encountered one with so much vitriol as some people on this thread.
Lydia wrote:
Speaking of Acts 29, here’s the latest failure in case you haven’t seen: http://www.commercialappeal.com/columnists/david-waters/churches-tried-to-help-trotter-what-about-victims-39e12e1e-e896-3e90-e053-0100007fb5a2-390077061.html
Very good coverage in this article contrasting what the church leaders SAY they did and what the victims say actually happened.
OK I will try to me nice about this and believe the best about people even if they cant believe the best about all of humanity because of their twisted theology. Dr. Mohler thinks the Flintstones is a historic documentary, He believes women cant teach because they are the cause of the fall and weak though he may use some of that fancy hand waving etc. His ilk are sneaky in my opinion when they take over or attempt the take over of franchises ‘churches’ to be assimilated into the collective. Some of this ilk also deny many aspects of mental illness and support “voodoo” interventions to deal with serious problems.
When they convince some individual with a mental illness that Jesus healed them because they repented of their mental illness they stop taking their medication. Then when said individual starts manifesting issues they apply “biblical” discipline on said soul, then boot them out, then say the person was never regenerate and move on to the next train wrench. For a group of people who blabber on about personal accountability, appose almost all government intervention in these issues and then do hat dances to avoid taking any responsibility or support church leaders like CJ SGM.
I have seen this happen so many times to people with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities when these issues are equated with “sin” or moral failing. Talk about moral failing they should all take one long look in the mirror, again in my opinion.
mirele wrote:
To whit, see my post above: @ siteseer:
brian wrote:
And a reminder- Al Mohler’s introduction of CJ Mahaney at the T4G conference http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/04/15/al-mohler-extolls-cj-mahaney-at-t4g-while-joking-at-the-expense-of-sgm-victims-does-money-play-a-role-in-the-relationship/
Lydia wrote:
Keys to a bus and its full of people.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
Abortion is not the topic of this post.
Is this person trying to comment under several different names? I’ve noticed several angry comments, comments we don’t normally get.
TheInternetIsNotAChurch wrote:
Sorry. That ship has already sailed.
@ Jonathan:
Are you the Jonathan who used to comment on stuff fundies like, by any chance? Just curious. Common name, I know.
I gave 17 years of my life to help with a child of a family member, much of my income has gone to help with children when I was making more money. I can tell you one thing my real world “church family” gave me bupkis when I asked for help about how to raise a kid, I was only 22 at the time and I got informed about it and made a decision in about 1/2 hour. Never did I deviate and that was thirty seven years ago. God where does the time go. My nephew said he always looked at me as a “father” though I always just considered him a gift from God and a blessing, Im stupid that way.
I have also worked on the units where the severely developmentally disabled resided, the kids whose head is almost as big as their body, born with just a “core” brain functions, and I could go on. I always had to fight tooth and nail for funding still do every year. Take a guess who some of the biggest opponents to this type of funding from the government are?
I am sorry for the pain on all sides and I have tried really hard to understand DR. Mohler and his ilk. I do believe they are not totally evil and servants of satan, I can't say they don't feel the same for people like me, I have had many Christians tell me that directly.
Dee Deb thank you. I can't tell you how much this is helping me personally. Sorry if I am posting too much.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
“Fighting” may raise funds for political causes but it is a big negative for those trying to work with individuals to change outcomes. I’ve been very active trying help provide alternatives and assistance for those being pressured into an abortion but unfortunately one of the big hurdles to overcome is the image portrayed by many “fighting for the unborn”.
So many young women don’t turn to us for help for help because there has been so much judgement and “fighting for the unborn”. So before you jump in here all judgemental and holier than thou, back off for a moment and ask are you demonstrating love for young women, the would be mothers.
@ brian:
Brian, God will deal with those people who have used His name to make money and, in their greed, have wounded others. Don’t be impressed by a big name or someone who is ‘famous’, especially if you know they have harmed others.
Thank you for bringing light into the darkness by helping to care for people with developmental disabilities. God will remember you on the Day of the Lord for your kindness to these people.
@ Bill M:
very thoughtful response
“Mohler was 34 when he did this. Too much power, too soon.”
I agree with this statement and that is another reason to not support the YRR borg collective.
Wouldn’t these attempts at “channeling” the “spirit” and “wisdom” of Spurgeon and Finney constitute a form of necromancy?
Or maybe it’s just trying to meme Poe’s Law for Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritans?
@Brad that was really needed, thank you 🙂
The answer on whether or not they believe the gospel is the work of Jesus on the cross is very simple–if they did, they’d be focused on planting new churches. Instead, they are focused on taking over denominations and preexisting churches. They do not believe Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient for salvation.
Their takeover of the SBC and its entities has been strategic and as soon as they get a leader in, they replace almost everyone with other neo-Calvinists, even though most of the members of the denomination are not Calvinist.
But how can I prove this? Well, first, I saw it firsthand, like many others here. Second, all I have to do is go look at the TCG website rosters, as well as the staff pages of NAMB, IMB, and the six seminaries.
@ Eric Hillhaghan:
The absolute best war strategy on that front have been 3-D imaging ultra sound machines installed at crisis centers bought and operated by volunteer warriors.
@ Bill M:
Bingo. It involves doctor visits, places to live, etc, etc. it is major. Some of the volunteers even adopted.
@ Patriciamc:
“…I’ve noticed several angry comments, comments we don’t normally get.”
It’s the Mohlerites, whenever people start bringing the receipts out on Mohler the Mohlerites have to come out and try to distract with cries of “vitriol” and “hate” yada, yada. It happens with the Piperettes also.
@ Eric Hillhaghan:
Oh, well now that you have brought that up. I have tried to do an actual little thing or two.
Two of my grandchildren, who with their mother now live with me at some significance expense to me right on, were Chinese girls who escaped the abortionist only to be abandoned at birth. They are awesome people, by the way. IMO, if you are not willing to at least consider adoption then maybe you need to reconsider how far you are really willing to go to rescue people.
And a couple of years ago I scraped up some money, well actually I tithed the price of my new car, and I and a big bunch of people sent our money to a man (Bruce Marchiano) who has made an anti-abourtion movie which is available for showings and is being placed in (hopefully) every crisis center in the nation which can use it. You ought to check it out. It is called “Allisons’ Choice.” When the credits roll and you see how many of us did this and became ‘co-producers’ of the movie maybe you will ease up a little on thinking that you are the only one who does anything.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
Are you trolling?
Jonathan wrote:
Not been my experience!
@ Jonathan:
It’s not my perception but my experience over many years. Others have also noticed the same thing in their life experiences dealing with Calvinists.
Lydia wrote:
Anyone who is a student of the SBC would know that women have carried the SBC, but they must not teach the young seminary boys this.
@ okrapod:
http://alisonschoice.com
Thank you.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
This is handwavium not engagement.
Wow, criticize 9marx and people come out of the woodwork!
siteseer wrote:
Hee hee. Whenever I hear a plea to keep it within the confines of local church autonomy– I have come to the conclusion that is code for, ‘go submit to your elders’, which means you can’t talk about it at all so the bad stuff and bad people have carte blanche to operate.
If only they could shut the peasants up! :o)
@ Jonathan:
I think it depends on your crew. My church is Calvinist but they are the old school squishy lovey kind apparently. I still don’t buy in but I think they’re good people.
I don’t like the new kinds so much. I think they are too young and too all in and maybe not having had time as baptists and mature Christians to work things through.
Lydia wrote:
I say be wary of people who want to keep the truth hidden. Evil flourishes in darkness.
Lea wrote:
It is actually a compliment. It means the pushback is finally having some effect.
Lea wrote:
The young ones are not seasoned.
@ Lea:
I think it was Max up thread who said the same thing. Calvinists and non Calvinists have been in the SBC from the beginning it’s only since the rise of Mohler and his cohorts that the Calvinists have been so militant about pushing out anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Lea wrote:
Make no mistake, we absolutely LOVE it! Glad they are at least taking note of what we are saying. 🙂
@ Lea:
These people really don’t believe in Priesthood of the Believer. They believe that High Priests should be involved in your life giving approval about how you should live your life including what you’re allowed to think and talk about. Not listening to a High Priest and talking about not approved subjects = gossip.
@ Celia:
Or slander.
mot wrote:
They’re controlled much easier when they are young and eager. Jump on the bandwagon with the promise that you might be leading the parade one day.
Patriciamc wrote:
There does seem to be an unusual abundance of this type of commenter on this post. It begins to feel like a coordinated effort. Or maybe it’s just one person logging in under different names.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
I am not in said kingdom because I have been keyed out by the likes of Jonathan “Keys” Leeman. I am, however, in the Kingdom of the King, and he was not reluctant to sink some sharp teeth into the religious big shots in Jerusalem. I don’t remember him talking about the Big Shots in Rome, oddly enough.
Thank you for trying to protect the weakest of all. Some of us here have done that, and some are doing other things to protect the vulnerable, including the ones vulnerable to spiritual abuse. The Big Shots in contemporary conservative circles seem utterly incapable of policing their own ranks, so mere pewpeons must do that job.
mirele wrote:
Well said. People who love to be mediators and take their fees hate the new information channels which are highly disintermediated and pretty wild in the sense of not being controlled pipelines. Yet, at least.
brian wrote:
You’re not posting too much, brian, and you’re not stupid. I think you know that. Hey, you don’t have a small brain – you just have a big heart! And, you have the courage to go with it.
Gram3 wrote:
Interesting, that.
Lea wrote:
For the record, I’m really altogether ignorant what 9 Marks does apart from knowing that Mark Dever is somehow affiliated. As I said, I’m not even a Calvinist. But I have read WW a few times in the past, and a lot of what I have seen from both the posters and the comments is not edifying. It seems that gossip has another name here: “discernment blogging.”
Back on topic – My son works near where this seminar is being held. He also goes to church with some of the seminary students. I will have to ask him this weekend if he has heard anything that’s been said about the 2 day 9-marks seminar. We have a 9-Marks church nearby us in Tyler, that I had thought about visiting, until my daughter pointed out to me that is a 9-Marks church. We didn’t go visit them after all.
In regards to the increase in angry comments, I don’t know if it’s one person or a coordinated effort with several, but I’ve always said that it’s really a compliment in that they see this site as a viable threat- and it is!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Having had close encounters of the most unpleasant kind with some YRRs, these comments are fairly representative of the attitudes of a good portion of them. Thankfully, I also know of some graduates of SBTS who are *not* like this, and the reason they are not like this is that they have seen behind the curtain as well.
The arrogant ones will try to put on a good face, but when they are pressured or not totally affirmed, they will turn. Classic Cluster-B. Then comes DARVO where the abuser gaslights and shifts the blame. I believe they are incapable of facing the real problems in the movement and in their gurus.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a blessing that technology has been to put a face on these tiny little children. And also the insistence by some that legislators make abortion facilities subject to the same regulation as medical facilities.
Second BillM’s comment as well.
@ okrapod:
Thank you for doing that and for your comment.
Lea wrote:
I’m actually one of the “new kinds” you speak of, and was one before attending one of the six SBC seminaries (don’t worry, it wasn’t SBTS). The incredible thing you don’t see is how much commaraderie and true friendship is between professors and staff who don’t necessarily agree on these issues. I apologize for the idiots who some of you have come in contact with, but not all who believe in the doctrines of grace are like that. Sure, some “Calvinists” are hateful, don’t believe in sharing the gospel, and only love winning arguments. And I would say they are acting like unbelievers in doing so (and may not actually know Christ). But I also see the same hatred and pride from some people on the other side as well, and would condemn all of this. I personally share the gospel and share the unfettered love of Christ A LOT, and have never once mentioned “Calvinism” from the pulpit. This isn’t because I’m trying to hide anything, but because it doesn’t matter. Labels don’t matter. The primacy of the gospel of our Savior matters.
Celia wrote:
It’s the current feral form of Calvinism that is so troubling, whether it is the YRR Baptists or the Federal Vision “reformed.” What they have in common is unbounded confidence that their way is The Way, and their truth is The Truth, and their system for doing life is The Life.
There are very mellow Calvinists, and I imagine they are as exasperated with YRR as some of us are.
Gram3 wrote:
Sixty years ago, their One True Way would have been Communism instead of Calvinism.
Celia wrote:
While screaming from the pulpit about Romish Papist Priestcraft…
mot wrote:
“Overripe boys”?
Celia wrote:
Like the Michael Jackson fanboys swarming the kids who dared to accuse The Celebrity of molesting them…
Gram3 wrote:
I have heard from the ‘mellow’ side, tulip described as bumper sticker theology.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
“Oh the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all;
Straight it runs to the Witch’s abode
As it did in the says of Saul…”
— Rudyard Kipling, “En-dor”
okrapod wrote:
Makes no difference to a True Believer, Okrapod.
During my time in-country in the Eighties, I noticed EVERY pro-life group had developed tunnel vision that their way and ONLY their way was really pro-life:
* NRLC was “elect a Republican President who’ll appoint Born-Again Supreme Court justices who’ll overturn Roe v Wade”.
* ALL was NRLC except ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! with threats of Eternal Hell if you didn’t give them money.
* Operation Rescue was “If you’re not going to jail with us, Christ will spew thee out of his mouth, LUKEWARM! Have Fun on J-Day!”
And all of these One True Ways were infighting each other like the People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front.
mot wrote:
I call them flesh babies. Many of them are simply not equipped nor ready to be released on the church. When flesh rules, anything can happen … and guess what … anything is happening in New Calvinist ranks!
Lydia wrote:
The New Calvinists utilized social media and the blogosphere effectively to advance their cause. It is now working to expose their ails.
Lea wrote:
“Love” is not a descriptor used much for the new thread of Calvinism sweeping America. “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” Arrogant, militant, aggressive, mean-spirited. What love is this?!
As I wade deeper into the reformed world, I’m finding there are more flavors than Baskin-Robbins.
mot wrote:
Amen and Amen! I can tell you from a long 60+ year snapshot of SBC life, if it weren’t for godly women, many SBC churches would have closed their doors years ago! In many places, women pray while their men play … or go AWOL.
DEEBS, it would appear from the new names commenting on this blog piece that TWW has made the coveted “Go Get ‘Em” list the New Calvinists are keeping. Congratulations! They’ve even resurrected Charles Spurgeon to come and get you!
Gram3 wrote:
Since its beginning, “Old” Calvinists – the classical ones – have been embedded within SBC. For the most part, they are a civil bunch which respect the non-Calvinist belief and practice at SBC churches. Some of them are card-carrying members of the Founders Ministries, a group which has attempted unsuccessfully for decades to take the denomination back to its Civil War roots where Calvinism was the default theology. They have even promoted a “Quiet Revolution” (yes, they call it that) encouraging Calvinists to quietly and patiently go about converting SBC members to reformed theology. While most “Old” Calvinists may be opposed to the message, method, and mission of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with this new brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks and elsewhere. They are relying on an army of young and restless to accomplish what they could not … Calvinization of the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America!
Bill M wrote:
I listened to a Matt Chandler diatribe on this issue recently and noticed that this is exactly what was missing. I am encouraged by your personal testimony of specific efforts to provide specific help rather than railing against policy.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
I see you don’t know much about sheep – sheep don’t have sharp teeth in which they tear at each other. They are not carnivores – they are herbivores. Sheep are faithful to stay alert and sound a sharp “BEEP” to warn the flock when wolves enter the pasture. Much of New Calvinism is just not Christlike, so the warnings go out from TWW and other watchblogs to inform and warn.
mirele wrote:
And that must drive them absolutely crazy!!
FW Rez wrote:
What good does railing against policy even do? Do Christians really think that a different political party will put an end to women ridding themselves of unwanted pregnancies? This practice has been around for thousands of years. Policy isn’t the answer . . . (Back to the topic.)
Lydia wrote:
Unity or harmony? There’s a difference.
According to my old Webster, “Unity” is a continuity of identity without deviation or change. “Harmony” is a pleasing arrangement of parts.
Harmony says to the diverse parts “let’s try to get along, even if it means change.” Unity says to the primary identity “let’s stick together, lest we change.”
I was young and now I’m old … and during my journey I’ve come to discern what genuine unity looks like. What is unfolding within SBC is a compromise for the sake of harmony, not unity. Majority Southern Baptists, who are non-Calvinist in belief and practice, can’t afford to be harmonious, but unified against Calvinization of the denomination.
Bridget wrote:
Hearts and Minds. I agree the 3d/4d ultrasounds are the key.
But you are also right, that people will always be getting rid of pregnancies one way or another. We cannot fix all of humanity.
FW Rez wrote:
Within Chandler’s patriarchy, he calls female members of The Village Church “our girls.” For those who may have missed it, check out Piper’s interview with Chandler on “Calvinism and Sexual Complementarity” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEpVzHnUw0
But in this case you have. I have first hand knowledge of this pastor that you speak for over twenty years. I can assure you that he is not now nor has he ever been a “Neo-Cal”. He was not deceptive and provided complete answers to the church at length. @ Deb:
Coram Deo wrote:
My issue with 9Marks, their arrogance aside, is that their end game, in my opinion, is to promote authoritarianism. Example: I was reading on their host church site where a person cannot become a member without an elder recommending them to the board of elders who then approve/disapprove of them. Only after the stamp of approval from the elders does the congregation get a vote. Even though it is a congregational form of government, power has been concentrated into the hands of a few by the elders acting as a filter.
FW Rez wrote:
It’s because they’re Baptist and trying to turn themselves into Presbyterians.
Sidenote, the elders at my church voted me in this week. I had to tell them I loved Jesus, I think.
@ C.G. Finney:
“What happens when biblically illiterate come together to produce libel and unfounded claims on other believers? The Wartburg Watch happens.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Many here are credentialed on biblical literacy, but realize there’s a problem when any of the various & sundry interpretations on what is “biblical” is destructive to human lives.
Jonathan wrote:
What you don’t see and cannot see is into the heart of a woman who deeply loves God’s word but is told by the YRR Female Subordinationists (and that is the accurate term for that view, BTW) that she is rebellious and more easily deceived and that it is a grave offense against God’s “good and beautiful design” if she desires to teach what she has learned to a male. Or, in Piper’s bizarro world, if she merely offers to give directions to a male but does not do so in the precise way he desires for her to offer him help.
I offer the evidence of Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler’s “handling” of Karen Hinckley, and the others we have discussed here to support my view that this current iteration of Calvinism is aberrant and toxic. Who was it who called Driscoll to account? Which male leader did that other than the ones he threw under his “gospel” bus? What kind of “gospel” does Chandler and Acts29 offer to a woman who was deceived into marriage with a pedophile yet chastises *her* rather than the deceitful and predatory male?
If you cannot see those glaring examples of the corruption endemic in this “theology” then I respectfully think you should not offer criticism to those who do see it.
Jonathan wrote:
After the moderates and women who dared teach men all got chased out, though, right?
I mean, I’m glad the staff gets along now. But what happens if somebody jumps off the reservation?
Jonathan wrote:
Men and women? Because . . .
Jonathan wrote:
@ Coram Deo:
If you make it out to the Washington, D.C. area I would be happy to meet and grab a bite with you.
Jonathan wrote:
“For the Collective, Comrades!”
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Take him up on it, Coram. He knows some pretty good eateries.
Jonathan wrote:
There you go. Professors and staff.
Where is the student body?
Max wrote:
Or called Dr Herbert West to reanimate him.
“BRAAAAAAINS!!!!!”
roebuck wrote:
And particularly ineffective at that. To come here and admit not knowing about why we are concerned with 9Marks and then roll out the tired “gossip” word. If theirs is what passes for informed discourse in their circles it is clear why 9Marks can so easily setup authoritarian shop and start dispensing abuse.
Max wrote:
Yes, Challies was such a successful blogger and web designer that some Canadians made him a…pastor. Because pontificating like I do here on the internet qualifies a guy as a pastor or elder. Uh huh. It’s all about the numbers. They are young and were early adopters, but the rest of us have somewhat learned our way around in the meantime.
@ Eric Hillhaghan:
Yup…let’s go to war for the unborn only to not give a damn about a child after they are born and sexually abused. Quite a pro-life position!
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/sean-demars-at-desiring-god-going-to-war-for-the-unborn-only-to-not-give-a-damn-when-children-are-sexually-abused-after-they-are-born/
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Remember, Brad, today is an Age of Extremes and One-Upmanship.
As far-out and crazy as you can think of as a Poe, there’s going to be a True Believer out there twice as far-out, twice as crazy, and Dead Serious.
Lea wrote:
…without the Presbyterian guardrails.
Nancy2 wrote:
i.e. Commissars and Ideologists of the Inner Party.
Narodniki?
Gram3 wrote:
I would like to note that NONE of the folks jumping in to criticize in this particular thread have actually engaged with the topic. Mostly has been complaints and deflections.
Aside from having gone to Dever’s church many years ago, most of these people I know only through their written word and I judge based on that.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly! I think that is why we see more untethered craziness coming from the Baptist/non-denom side of things, with the Presbyterians (albeit, the non-liberal comp side of them) trying to pull it back.
Nancy2 wrote:
Elitism all the way down. They are the ones “in the know” and the pewpeons Do.Not.Matter except to set up automatic payments.
Coram Deo wrote:
Dee and Deb have documented many times how all these groups are pushing the necessity of membership contracts (I refuse to call them “covenants” — that word is just window dressing). Forcing believers to sign a legal document just to be considered a member, and a “real” Christian?
I don’t know whether it’s heretical doctrine, but I see nothing Christlike about it. If you like, I can give you more tidbits to chew on, Coram, but they’ll have to wait until tomorrow. Until then, think about those evil contracts, and what they say about the character of men who insist upon them.
Lea wrote:
My presumption about anyone who does that is that if they *could* make a reasoned and supportable point or argument they would. But they don’t, so I infer that they can’t.
Chemie wrote:
At first, I read that as “Righteous Wench” – which would make a really great name for a blog.
Gram3 wrote:
>>>>> And this is the attitude of a part-time preacher’s wife.
9marks, Acts29, T4G, CBMW, TGC, the SBC, etc, even men at my own “home” church have said and done things to support my bad attitude over and over.
TheInternetIsNotAChurch wrote:
So have I.
The one near San Francisco Airport, last BABSCon.
They’re pretty good places to stay, with a good all-you-can-eat free breakfast buffet.
Lydia wrote:
BINGO! Makes me think of the scene in the movie Hoffa (played by Jack Nicholson) where he organizes the first teamster strike:
“…We’re gettin’ to em’ now!…”
Anonymous wrote:
“Don’t spend your hear-earned bread
Keeping those HEATHEN well-fed;
Line CHRISTIAN pockets instead!”
— Steve Taylor, “Guilty by Association”
“I go chop you dolla,
I make you money disappear;
Four-one-nine just a game;
You be the mugu, I be the Masta!”
— Nigerian pop song about a swindler
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
Not what I’m called to do. I’m called to let people know that some outfits are not worth your time, talent and money. And my calling is secular because I concentrate on the very real hurts coming out of organizations, not whether they’ve gotten everything exactly right on some creed. My calling* started out with Scientology, which is now the butt of jokes. It is now continuing with (mostly) weekly warnings to people attending Mark Driscoll’s new church plant.
I know that regular picketing of Scientology worked to get people out, even from the Sea Org. If my picketing keeps even one from getting hurt by Driscoll’s latest scheme to obtain power and riches, then it’s worth my time and money.
*Can I just say that I feel a bit uneasy saying it’s a calling? I mean, I do it, but I’m not saying that I heard directly from God to do it. It just seemed the right thing to do after considering all the available evidence. And I haven’t seen anything, either with Scientology, or with Driscoll, to dissuade me from what I’m doing.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Nor is it either described or prescribed in the actual text of the Bible, even by Paul. And that is a huge red flag coming from people who crow so much about being Biblically faithful and all that.
I think Dever caught the shepherding bug from Mahaney and they created a joint venture to promote their authoritarian doctrines. That, IMO, is why Mahaney converted to “reformed” theology. It gave him some intellectual gravitas, and he brought the business model to the table. Mohler provided the footsoldiers and financial resources, and Ligon Duncan provided his silky accent and some Presbyterians. Now, if we could find the business broker who put all this together, it might get really interesting.
roebuck wrote:
Probably a group of young Mohlerites at Southeastern seminary with nothing better to do during their summer break.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
“White man wants everything in writing, and that’s just so he can use it against you in court.”
— Billy Jack
@ Nancy2:
You aren’t “joyfully” submitting while they “lovingly” lead?
@ Nancy2:
Wow – lost part of my comment…..
My current attitude towards church:
I have been a member of SBC churches ( neither Calvinists nor Arminians) since 1978. I have seen the slow, subtle changes in our churches in rural Southern Kentucky over the years. I have come to the conclusion that our churches have been reconstructed specifically for men. From what I’ve experienced, men expect women to sit down, shut up, look pretty, and stay out of church business. Women don’t really matter. Men are just expected bring their wimmenfolk to participate in the dog and pony show.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
If one likes waffles?
Lydia wrote:
Only when I have a pin ulterior motive with a plan to execute. ; ^ )
Bill M wrote:
Warning is not gossiping. Even Paul put out the word to believers about those who they should be cautious around … “Beware of Alexander the copper smith, he has done us much harm.”
Lydia wrote:
Only when I have an ulterior motive and a plan to execute. ; ^ )
No. I haven’t been to church since the last Sunday in February.
Lydia wrote:
Comp guys: Ladies, oops sorry I meant ‘Girls’, you have no agency on your own. Literally every thing you do should be in support of a man, whether it is your husband or if you don’t have one some random men at church. Even with your choice of attire, think only of men – you do not want them to stumble, but you also do not want to be ugly because men like pretty things. You have no worth on your own.
Now, joyfully accept this loving leadership, obey men in all things, stop thinking, stop leading, stop giving directions, stop teaching men, even if they are really really exceedingly stupid and you know much much more than they do, make sure you don’t hurt their delicate man feelings….WAIT, Where are you going???
elastigirl wrote:
Amen elastigirl! That is the underlying driver for TWW and other watchblogs. The critics of what is being done here just don’t see it because the interpreters they follow have blinded them with their interpretations.
@ Nancy2:
Yeah, did you see how Driscoll is routing his sermons through Mark Driscoll Ministries? You can’t go to the church’s website (or even Mark Driscoll Ministries) to see what Mark preached if you didn’t watch the sermon when it was being streamed on Sunday. That’s not what normal churches do, they usually put up the sermon right away or within the next few days.
I’m personally of the opinion that he’s going to monetize his sermons. He’ll make “some” of the sermons from the current Jonah series available for free, but if you want the whole series, you’ll have to pay to get the complete set.
It’s all about Jesus, oops, nope, it’s about Mark and the money.
Nancy2 wrote:
And when you do the research and critical thinking (I can only speak for myself here), it’s anything but “good news”.
Lea wrote:
Yeah. Stop trying to slip the bridle bit, throwing your master, and jumping the fence……….
Stop trying to chew through the leash and slip out of the dog collar. We can’t risk having you tree cats and chase cars …..
Uh huh. That is exactly what I think every time I hear the phrase “loving servant-leadership”.
@ Lea:
I will be surprised if the Presbyterian push back grows legs. All one has to say is they affirm Nicene and it becomes a tolerant big tent in the Reformed venue. CBMW will delete. Ware will say they misunderstood. It’s over. That is how this stuff rolls. Never mind the damage.
If the SBC had not been totally sold out to comp doctrine and the earlier culture war they lost, they might have recognized it pushed back on its promotion on SBC Voices and SBC Impact. Adrian Rogers son was even affirming it on blogs back then. Crickets from the non Cals. It was disheartening. I think it had been effectively tied to comp doctrine and it blinded people.
It seems one can teach it and affirm Nicene if they use a lot of fancy wording and triangulation.
@ Nancy2:
:o)
mirele wrote:
He’s just using Jesus for a money making scheme. All donations go to Mark Driscoll Ministries – his private, personal account.
Max wrote:
I had to smile when I saw “Quiet Revolution.” The only “Quiet Revolution” I’m aware of is what happened in Quebec in the 1960s, when the Catholic church lost its control and veto power over the province and Quebec rapidly turned secular. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the Founders actually want.
@ Gram3:
Brava Gram3! Well put.
Nancy2 wrote:
Which of course is not subject to the same transparency rules non-religious non-profits must abide by.
@ Nancy2:
I still can’t get my head around Driscoll hosting a “Pastors School” at his new church in Phoenix. Giving the leaders of that the benefit of the doubt, I hope Driscoll is in the audience and not on the platform.
Max wrote:
We can hope beyond hope. But the reality is that we know better.
@ Max:
My personal favorite is Diotrephes. :o)
@ Nancy2:
Frrreeeeeedom!!!
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
There has been some discussion of abortion here at TWW. See http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/01/genetic-engineering-taking-evolution-into-our-own-hands-guest-post-by-oldjohnj/ This is more looking forward than your complaint but abortion is not totally overlooked here. In the absence of UNDERSTANDING of science, especially genomics, by the Christian Church these problems are going to get a lot worse. The FDA, for now anyway, has banned any human genetic editing that modifies the germline (i.e. is inheritable). If your interest in this is deeper than just ranting make a post to the Open Discussion page.
@ Lydia:
@ Lydia:
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
It may be worse than ‘heretical’ if the intent is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as ruling out certain people from ‘membership’ and labeling them as not ‘real Christians’ does border on not accepting that these individuals have the choice to turn towards Christ, even in their final moments on this Earth.
Are people who reject that some “non-elect” human persons among us don’t have the choice to turn to God also blaspheme the great power of the Holy Spirit Who is able to go where He wills and to pray for those who cannot pray for themselves? I think neo-Cal abusers do this when they formally declare that a specific human person cannot be a ‘real Christian’ and therefore is ‘not going to be saved’.
Driving victims into despair is also flirting with blaspheming the Holy Spirit’s power in the life of that victim, when the victim is emotionally fragile;
and that is something that ought to put second thoughts in these arrogant ‘leaders’ for their OWN salvation, if in fact these leaders are believers at all and not just businessmen making a buck off of vulnerable people they ‘control’.
@ Muff Potter:
Well, Muff, when you’ve been up close and been burned by the fire of their zeal without knowledge, it just comes out in the hope that it will wake some of them up from the indoctrination. And also repent for my past refusal to search the Scriptures to see if those things were true which I so confidently asserted.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
Pro-Life One-Upmanship. Counting Coup on the Lukewarm Apostate Christians-In-Name-Only.
“What Have YOUUUUUUU Done For The Unborn/The LOOOORD? HUH? HUH? HUH?”
“Have Fun Explaining To God at The Great White Throne, LUKEWARM!!!!!”
Max wrote:
i.e. Their REAL Messiahs, Kings, and Gods.
Christiane wrote:
“Muscle” as in “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”?
Or just the appeal of being so Big and Strong and In Control by “I’m Bigger Than You!” Even if the “I’m Bigger Than You” is a buttery doughy guy like Driscoll or a skinny whiny dork like Womb Tomb. “ME BIG DOG! ME BAD!”
This is the “muscle” appealing to the Omega Male who sees a chance to be the Alpha Male, With Payback.
Celia wrote:
He’s THAT modest and humble?
Why not go all the way with the New SCRIPTURE superseding all previous ones like the Book of Mormon?
Gram3 wrote:
Traitor! Thought-Criminal! Goldsteinist! Oldthinker Stooge!
Gram3 wrote:
Hypermasculinity — redefine Masculinity entirely in terms of Power Struggle and Aggression, burn out everything else with a white-hot iron, and firewall what’s left. Just like that Austrian guy with the funny mustache, according to the 1943 OSS psych profile.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
LOL !!!
Against my instincts, I watched the embedded video promotion, and the last part got me thinking about a 9Marks-y church. The Five Year conference theme is about the first five years of a pastor’s ministry, presumably spent rolling out the 9Marks schema. In the case of the 9Marks-y church I know something about, at the five-year mark (pun intended) the pastors/elders got much bolder about what they were really implementing and what they really believed. Some members remarked about how things flipped relatively suddenly. There was staff upheaval when staff (who had served the church since way before the new guy came) got pushed out and replaced (surprise!!!) by loyalists. A single woman who had been working in the high school and college group got pushed out in favor of a younger woman who was married to a young guy who was, you guessed it, a loyalist. Because the girls needed a Role model of a godly wife and mother. A godly single woman just does not meet criteria because she doesn’t have a Head, dontchaknow.
Lydia wrote:
Oh yes. Poor ole Diotrephes … the arrogant authoritarian Bible character who desired to be first and excommunicated/shunned believers who challenged his teaching. Sounds familiar. Just as John warned about that 1st century deceiver, Wartburgers have every right to sound the alarm about his 21st century counterparts.
mirele wrote:
The New Calvinists will marginalize the old boys when they gain full control of the SBC. The whippersnappers are well on their way to achieving that goal. When they do, they’ll put the Founders in their rear view mirror. The Founders are about to find out that the new reformation ain’t their grandpa’s Calvinism.
@ Max:
John gossiped and slandered him based on nothing but testimonies in a letter….. for millions to read about for a few thousand years!
That is why I always think of him when called a gossip or a slanderer or told I must “prove” it.
Personal anecdote:
A young male relative and I used to regularly have spirited theological discussions. We didn’t always agree, but enjoyed debating.
Then he joined the staff of a 9Marks church (not SBC, by the way), and, boy, did things change. He no longer seemed to listen to what I had to say, but just kept repeating his point of view over and over again. We went round and round regarding church membership and this “covenant” business. I kept asking him to show me his point of view from Scripture, but got nothing. All he did was repeat the church membership mantra.
At this point, I refuse to talk theology with him. Too tedious, frustrating, and pointless.
I really hope he turns around someday. His grandfather was the finest person and best pastor I’ve ever known. And I’ve known a lot of pastors.
Max wrote:
Love your sense of humor Max!
Gram3 wrote:
So the son or daughter moves back home after military service or college? Where does the above rule come from?
The rules or playbooks simply lay out the plan of action for the Enemy. Perhaps that is why Jeremiah 31:31-35, Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 say that the Law will be written on our hearts, as we are guided by the Holy Spirit that Jesus left as our Guide. Perhaps that is why Jesus summed up the Law with Love God, Love others. No published playbook, no formula. Keep the Enemy guessing as we follow after the Holy Spirit. God tends to never do the same thing twice.
Playbooks are the simple-minded drudgery of the Simple-Minded, not God at work. And to think that some make $$$ off of seeking believers as they publish, conference, and endlessly promote their playbooks for success in the Kingdom. Blah, blah, blah. And boring to boot. Endless.
Max wrote:
And so many in SB pews haven't a clue.
@ Deb:
I’ll even give Spurgeon the benefit of the doubt after preaching his “Calvinism is the Gospel” sermon. Every now and then, I have a bad day too.
Regarding the slams posted on this blog. Here’s the way I see it (once you see it, you can’t un-see it). Wartburgers know a thing or two, because collectively we’ve seen a thing or two. Arguments thrown at us are no match for our real life experiences and first-hand knowledge. So we speak to inform and warn.
Deb wrote:
I use the 80:20 rule here. Of the millions in the pew, 80% ain’t got a clue regarding New Calvinism – they are not now or ever will be in the debate. Of the 20% who have an inkling about the reformed movement and its implications on SBC belief and practice, 80% of those won’t challenge it. The 20% of the 20% may make some rumbles about it when reformed theology rears its head in their church; but of those, 80% will throw in the towel early – they just don’t like being contentious about church stuff. That leaves 20% of the 20% of the 20% standing to confront the New Calvinist takeover of SB in some form or fashion. Will that be enough to change the tide at this point in the flood?
A question: does anyone on this board know of what has happened with Seattle’s First Presbyterian Church? I am not close enough to any source to be certain of my understanding, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
That church’s membership had dwindled, and they had a husband/wife pastor team. The existing members decided to leave PC-USA (and take the building with them–$20M value) and the pastors renounced their PC-USA ordinations. Then somehow ____Gaydos (formerly affiliated with Mars Hill) somehow is involved in all of this–which makes me wonder if it was one of the “silent takeovers” among that crowd. Well, the presbytery and the ones who wanted to leave and take the building got into a lawsuit, and apparently, the presbytery kept the building and installed a PC-USA interim pastor.
This is super sketchy and not in order of happening…like I said. I wonder about it in light of the silent takeover attempt (if that is what it was, which I think it was). At any rate, it looks like the “Presbyterian guardrails” above have kept that from happening.
I’m not here to discuss the theological reasons for leaving or staying with PC-USA, or even who should “get” the building. I WOULD like to understand if a silent takeover was foiled. Does anyone here know?
Max wrote:
Actually, their not liking to be ‘contentious’ about ‘church stuff’ may change when they are told to ‘sign up’ for Church Membership and to pay up financially,
for such people who ‘don’t care’, you often find that they may not show much concern over the abuse of a neighbor, but when their ox is gored, they will howl;
or maybe not . . . if they are so passive as to watch their caring neighbor get crucified by the new leaders, then they might just roll over and play ball . . . but I do think some may take notice when confronted with schemes for contracts and money-collecting, as well as the brutalization of the neo-Cal ‘Church Discipline’ abuse.
Maybe for the eighty percent, ‘Church’ has become too much about socializing and fellowship;
and not enough about Christian formation along the lines of being in accord with the mind and the heart of Christ ???
Max wrote:
You mean one person per 100? It could work…
@ Deb:
To put my previous comment in perspective. SBC claims 16 million members and 45,000 churches. Using the math considerations I set forth above, that leaves an average of only 3 Southern Baptists in each church attempting to hold back a huge collapsing wall. Thus, the SBC is easy pickins’ for the reformed movement; New Calvinist leaders knew that going in.
Burwell wrote:
Yes, if they put on the full armor of God.
JYJames wrote:
What about “children” who are disabled and live with their parents because they can’t function independantly?
Burwell wrote:
Yes, if they put on the full armor of God!
Burwell wrote:
Your hopefulness does you credit. Yes, even one person can make a difference. The power of ONE. May we never forget that.
I’ll be honest and say that I don’t believe many of these men that TWW reports on are part of the Kingdom. I think they are wolves. I don’t see them confess Christ or trust in the work of the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe they are “biblical”, as they espouse heresies, and seem to leave out large parts of the Bible.
So I definitely believe it’s my duty to warn other believers of danger.
Christiane wrote:
Yes, that describes not only the SBC, but the American church at large. Entertainment is the theme of the day, with not many who call themselves Christian engaged in the Great Commission.
Here’s something interesting that you all might want to hear. Kyle Jenison the new youth pastor at Lakeside Bible Church in Montgomery, Texas who just replaced the former youth pastor ( Billy Blakey) preached on a few weeks back 7/17/16 ” 9 Marks of a Healthy Youth Ministry”! Wow this couldn’t be more fit to post here under a topic, right?
Kyle Jenison was hand picked by Ken Ramey as are all the pastors coming into his corporation. Ken constantly uses the term ” Corporate worship ” and in the past five to six weeks he has preached six sermons on ” Why We Go To Church”. Wow I have never heard a pastor dedicate six weeks to telling people why they need to be in his church every sunday! It seems like Ken Ramey is pushing the “you are in sin if your not in church ” agenda. Its one way to get the masses there to hear several sermons on church discipline and church membership! It’s also interesting to note that Tim Drumm who left LBC shortly after Adam Tyson (former youth pastor) to be at Adams church (placerita bible church) in California/ Adam replaced Scott Ardivantis who left placerita to go pastor in Arizona. These guys flock together, train together, and study under one another before taking over churches like ken Ramey did with Walden Community Church and Chris Mueller did with Valley Fourth Memorial Church in Spokane Washington where by the way ken and kelli ramey met and where Kelli Ramey is from. Chris Mueller has preached at Ken’s church once in 2010 and once in 2013 but they knew each other years back when Ken Ramey just started in the ministry as an intern. The connections begin with up and coming pastors in their 20’s. Anyways I got a little side tracked but I find these connections very interesting and it go’s to show that pushing membership and attendance is a must or there is no way to support the life styles of the pastors. Even A pastor commented when introducing Ken as a speaker. He bragged about where ken Ramey lives ( on the lake in Texas with a starbucks and restraunts) he said “Lifestyles of the Rick and Famous Pastors, Dr. Ken Ramey” is how he introduced Ken to his congregation.
Now to Kyle Jenison another up and coming pastor because so far three youth/music pastors left LBC with in the last three years to become head pastors or associate pastors in churches. So here’s Kyle Jenison making a statement about the title of of sermon well really he’s down playing it and lying his butt off when he tries to make it look like he’s not talking about Mark Dever’s book ” 9 Marks of a Healthy Church”! This is unbelievable to me and this is exactly what ken did when promoting another book as he always does. Anyways heres his quote and i’m typing verbatum as I am listening to Kyles sermon on line which was posted on 7/16/2016.
Kyle Jenison speaking ” I want to say one other thing my title is not intended uh to making you think about theres a book called um 9 uh it’s by a uh organization called 9 Marks a guy named Mark Dever he wrote a book uh 9 gasps uhh sorry what is it? Someone helps him and says 9 marks of a healthy church, Kyle repeats this and says “9 marks of a healthy church”! ” There it is, so umm so he wrote this book that was more about how to do church and uhh so as I was going through this I was seeing 9 things that stood out to me and I was like these are kind of like maaaarks , oh man that sounds like the 9 marks book”. ” So i’m not trying to connect to that like if you know about that umm i’m not trying to pattern after this i’m not trying to write the youth group version of what his book was ” It’s just 1 Thessalonians chapter 1 and this just happened to be 9 things in there so thats what were looking at, so maybe will write the youth ministry book later.
Ok, I find this interesting since LBC is a 9 Marks supporter. They even have 9 Marks on their webpage showing it’s a ministry they support and not only support and endorse but teach it! So how is it that Kyle is acting like he doesn’t know anything about 9 Marks? I find his behavior to be very deceptive and dishonest.
Thank you Deb for posting this topic.
PaJo wrote:
I don’t know how that all works. I know that my old church got tossed out of the SBC after having the church building/land donated and managed to keep the building (which they later sold because they didn’t have enough people/money). But that was after been it’s own entity (though still SBC mostly) with the same pastor for 30 years.
I don’t know how it works with PCUSA though.
Eric Hillaghan wrote:
I don’t like calling someone a troll but when in two posts the last name is spelled differently: 8/17 12:18A Hillhag… and 8/17 9:01A Hillag… you begin to wonder if troll isn’t the appropriate term.
Eric Hillhaghan wrote:
So, if i fought for the rights of the unborn in the last 6 months I am OK. If I did something else like care for a relative on hospice, I/m not? Goodness. I didn’t know that being out there, protesting abortion clinics was the one thing all Christians must do in order to be saved.
Nancy2 wrote:
Excellent question! Some situations test the waters (pardon the pun) but I think the neo-Cals may be smart enough not to demand ten percent of the disabled person’s income as ransom, but once released, greed will become rabid and takeover better judgement eventually.
Eric Hillaghan wrote:
And yet, you feel compelled to be mad that people are discussing it because it’s ‘not edifying’??
Maybe you should look into it so you will no longer be ignorant.
Lea wrote:
I meant to mention that there was a court case or Baptist court or some sort of thing to make a decision. I gather the specifics matter rather a lot, as far as who gets the building.
Matt wrote:
Welcome to TWW.
It just goes to show how friends can change. He said he is a Calvinist with tears in his eyes. He loves Mark Dever’s (9Marks) 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. he is pushing the ESV. The women studied Jen Wilkin’s book (She looooooves her pastors at The Village Church), etc.
I suggest you do more reading on his 14 page transcript that he gave to the church. Also, check his other sources, like his somewhat dormant Twitter account.
Take some time to acquaint yourself with his beliefs. It might help your friendship to be on the same page. Also, do some reading over here. It could be beneficial to you as you make comments on blogs.
Feel free to give us a call and ask us any questions. We would be happy to help you understand the current status of the underlying soteriology that is now coming into the open.
dee wrote:
Every time he heard the phrase “Long Live Big Brother”, tears of Love came into his eyes…
— paraphrase of the ending scene of Nineteen Eighty-Four
Max wrote:
The paradox is that the most protective armor of all is Christ-like humility. The powerful grace this humility brings to a person can shield them from evil.
Max wrote:
80% is also the critical mass for Groupthink to lock in and Purge or Destroy the 20%.
Max wrote:
Or Purge them as the Dantonists did the Hebertists and the Jacobins did the Dantonists and the Thermidorians did the Jacobins…
Gram3 wrote:
That may be the rosy, religious reason they give it, I attribute it more towards the inability of minors to sign contracts, I mean covenants…
dee wrote:
I like how this comment helps your argument, DEE:
“Bill M wrote:
“
dee wrote:
And childbearing, too! ……according To their interpretation of 1st Tim for women.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3 did a good job of expressing my feelings in regards to Eric’s comment. I also wanted to express my thanks to Eric for defending the rights of the unborn.
My feeling is that God has given each of us a “calling.” Everyone feels passionate about at least one issue. How we respond to these passions can be very diverse, but at the end of the day I must be true to my convictions and my actions should be such that at the end of my life Christ can say “Well done Todd, you have been a good and faithful servant.”
Are all my actions honoring to Christ? Unfortunately, no. I have flaws, but I press on. I try to keep an open mind, keep learning and keep growing. I have learned much from the participants of this blog and I am thankful for the role this blog has played/continues to play in exposing corruption and abuse.
Lea wrote:
It works differently with each denomination. There is a PROCESS for leaving the denomination in PC-USA; all but one of the 5 churches I attended over 30 years have left the denomination, 3 with their buildings. In PC-USA, the presbytery “holds in trust” the building that the congregation has paid for. On the face of it, it seems that the congregation ought to keep the building, but the fact is that the people who PAID for it (mostly many years ago) built a PC-USA church because that was what they wanted it to be…so both sides have a point.
The thing I am interested in specifically in this situation, however, is whether those guardrails managed to foil a stealth takeover…but I can’t find enough of the story to know. So that is all I was asking.
It does make it seems that the SBC churches are pretty vulnerable if there isn’t someone from the outside who has the authority to stop hostile takeovers.
FWIW, I am no longer Presbyterian, but I care about the churches I attended.
Eric Hillaghan wrote:
I think that depends on your definition of edifying. For people who have been abused by control-freakery, TWW may be *very* edifying and refreshing. For the institutional Gospel Glitterati, it probably is not edifying for them personally. Some of us think they have made a mockery of Jesus’ Church and have substituted something which has nothing to do with Jesus. Sometimes you have to demolish the structure that exists and take it back to bedrock and then rebuild. Jesus never, ever said he would build his church on authoritarianism. In fact, he said exactly the opposite several times in several ways. So also Paul.
Eric Hillaghan wrote:
Which is an excellent reason for you to listen to some of us who *do* know what 9Marks teaches and does. That would be wise.
PaJo wrote:
No, I think its fascinating and I would be curious too.
PaJo wrote:
I doubt they are held in any kind of trust – the situation I knew about the land was originally donated by a different SBC church (in the old church plant/split style!), so there was an initial investment by a Baptist church expressly to create another Baptist church. But the church body had paid for the renovations and had held the land for 30 years. So I think that made it theirs, legally? (My details on this are sketchy).
I suspect a Baptist church without any specific history of having their land donated would be extremely vulnerable to a takeover.
I never said he wasn’t a Calvinist. I said he was not a Neo-Cal as you like to put it. I have watched his life and his family. They are wonderful people who love the church. Have you ever heard him preach salvation by anything other than the gospel? Have you had a conversation with him about how he fleshes out his “Calvinism in everyday life or the church? What did he do to make Calvinism a first tier issue or did someone else do that? I know him better than you, I know his heart and what you are saying about him (I know you haven’t named him on here) is slanderous. Idee wrote:
PaJo wrote:
It’s sad that the neo-Cals figured out that what Southern Baptists always held to as a ‘strength’, their ‘autonomy’, could be used against them when in a takeover, there was no ecclesial authority to intervene. This is another sign that the work of the neo-Cals is not ‘of Christ’. Nor, I suspect were the mechanizations of the takeover during the CR, when many faithful people were stabbed in the back.
People who ARE Christian will always honor the moral imperative of NOT doing evil that good may come of it. The neo-Cals ignore this at their own peril of condemnation by God.
Matt wrote:
There goes that word again. Slanderous for calling him a Calvinist, which he is? Confused. Unless calling him ‘neo-cal’ is slanderous, because he’s a regular cal? Is that what you’re saying?
PaJo wrote:
I think this is perfectly understandable.
I myself was never Southern Baptist, but my maternal grandmother of blessed memory WAS, and for some reason, I DO care about what has happened to her Church.
Maybe this comes from my Canadian ancestry where family and tradition really MEAN something to a person’s identity.
I have thought this, and came to the conclusion that I identify my grandmother as a person within the Body of Christ, and in doing so, I accept the people OF GOOD WILL of her faith tradition as also a part of that Body, so I want only good to happen for them.
Am I saying is he a Calvinist? Yes. Is he trying some Form of Nazi takeover of the church? No. I am saying that the people with concerns have voiced them in secret and not directly to their pastor. The fact is he would encourage all to search the scriptures and see what God is telling them. He would have no problem with both views being believed in the church as long as you could present biblical evidence of what you believe. If the church he is at divides or releases a pastor and his family over this issue, it will not be because of a Calvinist. @ Lea:
Matt wrote:
Did we say he wasn’t wonderful?
Matt wrote:
Silly question. Both Arminians and Calvinistas believe in salvation by the gospel. That is not the issue. You are trying to get us off topic here and it will not work.
Matt wrote:
Yawn. Once again a silly statement. Slander is deliberately telling a lie. It means you know it is a lie when you tell it. You are playing a typical Calvinista game. Scream “slander” and offer absolutely no proof. There is nothing that Deb said in this post that is not what she believes to be the truth.
It is now up to you to prove that Deb deliberately lied in the post. If you do not, then you are truly guilty of slander since you are accusing Deb of deliberately telling a lie. You are morally obligated to provide proof of your charge of slander. If you do not, then you are a charlatan who has nothing to back his words. And Jesus nor calvin sure as heck wouldn’t approve of it.
It might behoove you to read a post we wrote called Slander of an Inconvenient Truth. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/03/18/slander-or-an-inconvenient-truth/
It will show you how the Bible defines this charge and you will be able to see how your words match up to the Bible’s words. Perhaps you have not been well taught in this area. If so, always be a Berean and check the words of those who you follow.
Charles Spurgeon wrote:
Perhaps you are just trying to be an ironic troll. But in the unlikely event (given the existence of the internets) that you actually believe what wrote, I think you will find that “overwhelmingly Calvinistic” as a descriptor of historic SBC fails on at least two levels. First, it is not historically accurate, as the primary historical references indicate. Second, “Calvinistic” is a meaningless aphorism that can mean almost anything. If you study the history of Christian theology and soteriology you will find that Arminianism is “Calvinistic” – in fact, theologians consider the two streams kissing cousins.
So know you you know what Jesus would approve of for me. That’s a pretty Caviniat statement according to you guys.
Slander- to make a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone. Also means to defame.
Defame- to hurt the reputation of someone by saying things that are false or unfair. @ dee:
FW Rez wrote:
I think it is quite clear that Mohler et al are either motivated primarily by money, or they are raving lunatics. I suspect the former is accurate.
Christiane wrote:
“A fanatic is someone who does what God would have wanted if God only KNEW what was REALLY going on.”
— don’t know where I heard that one, but it’s good
It’s obvious Matt will NOT go away until all of us bend the knee to him and he proclaims to all “I. WIN.”
Gram3 wrote:
It’s a More-Spiritual-Than-Thou putdown, Gram.
I was on the receiving end of it during my time in-country (Koinonia House Christian(TM) Fellowship, mid-Seventies). Because only Party Line SCRIPTURE(TM) was “Edifying(TM)”. Christians were supposed to be so Spiritual and Scriptural they ceased to be human and became mindless worship/praise-bots on auto-response.
Hey headless. That made me chuckle a bit.
Max wrote:
We’ve been on the receiving end of Spiritual Abuse, control-freak MenaGAWD, and Cult(TM)-like behavior. Ever heard of the post-WW2 Jewish phrase “NEVER AGAIN!”
“When you’ve walked my road and you’ve seen what I’ve seen
Well you won’t go talkin’ ’bout righteous men;
You’ll know damn well why I want to keep to my sky
Never cry ‘neath nobody’s heel again…”
— Michelle Dockery, “Mal’s Song” (Captain Mal Reynolds, Free Trader Serenity)
Matt wrote:
I’ve got it. You’re my sociopath brother Mike, here under an alias!
PaJo wrote:
I did some research. The results are…muddy.
As of February 18, 2016, it looked like the Seattle Presbytery was filing a suit to force Jeff and Ellen Schulz (the then-pastors) to vacate the premises and turn the church over to the Presbytery. Prior to that, the Schulzes tried to take FPC Seattle outside the PCUSA and were looking to sell it (news articles talk about the building and property being worth in the neighborhood of $28 million).
Well, there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over the last six months. The presbytery, to its credit, put the legal documents up on its website:
http://seattlepresbytery.org/fpcs-ac
The last action in the case was a denial of motion for a stay which was made by the Schulzes on July 26. This appears to have allowed the Presbytery-recognized First Presbyterian Church to resume meeting in the building. This explains a note on the Presbytery-recognized FPC website indicating that they were now meeting in the church, and not at another location, where they had been meeting the last several months.
I cannot tell where the Schulzes are meeting, or if they’re even meeting anywhere.
It *appears* from a cursory overview of the denial of stay that the measures put in place over the past few decades by presbyteries and dioceses to keep their hands on church property worked here.*
I would point out, however, that each Southern Baptist church is separate. There is no presbytery or diocese. In fact, the SBC is the Southern Baptist *Convention*, not a denomination. So I would think that a pastor who got control of a church and put an elder body in could in fact pull a church out and, oh, join, for example, some other organization.
* The American Episcopal Church has had these issues since the 1970s, starting out with people who wanted to keep the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, then ordination of women, etc., etc. Generally, in these hierarchical church situations, courts have found for the diocese.
@ Matt:
Where did I say "Neo-Cal"?
siteseer wrote:
Here’s the link with my questions about penal substitution from the open discussion section: http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-6/#comment-253033
I’ve leave this as an open challenge for any penal substitution advocate to answer the questions on the open discussion page. The answers have to be based on clear texts from the Bible, not logical manipulations based on unproven assumptions. Also, penal substitution cannot be proven by verses proving just substitution because it’s the nature of the substitution that is in question. So the verses must specifically show that Jesus paid a penalty to satisfy God’s wrath.
Gram3 wrote:
Well, it’s true that God usually agrees with me.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch… I’m not disturbed (actually, I’m delighted) by the many different perspectives in the real Church. What disturbs me about multiple denominations is the way they allow – nay, encourage – these different perspectives to separate out into different camps in which one only has to mix with people who are similar to oneself.
Although this can create an appearance of unity, it is a unity that falls far short of the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. As Jesus put it: “if you only love those who love you, what good is that? Even Old Earth Creationists do that” – I paraphrase slightly but, I think, fairly. This supports, to my mind, another paraphrase: “If you’re “united” with people you find it easy to agree with, what credit is that? Even liberals/calvinistas [delete as palatable] do that”. The trouble with splitting the Church into denominations is that one can spend one’s entire life in Christian circles without ever having to learn to love.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Bless ‘im…
Best regards,
God
Matt wrote:
Actually, slander is “oral defamation.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander
Nobody on TWW has slandered anyone.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I LOVE that quote,
my guess at to possible source:
Flannery O’Connor, Paul Atreides, or HUG (or not) 🙂
@ Christiane:
One more guess: my hero, Stephen Colbert 🙂
No sociopath and not your brother Mike. The article was about 9marks. Most of you folks seem to think that they are trying to hold a hostile takeover of the church thru Calvinism. My pastor friend was grouped in among them via the article. He is not trying to engage in a hostile takeover of the church. Although he likes 9marks I dare say he would not agree with all of those pastors on every issue. Not all Calvinist are bad and before you drag a righteous mans name they the mid just because you don’t agree with him on a second or third tier point you should find out his intentions. I will leave you guys alone. Be blessed and be gracious.
C.G. Finney wrote:
Welcome to TWW, C.G.; I trust you won’t feel too out of place here!
Matt wrote:
I feel blessed now. Thanks Matt!
C.G. Finney wrote:
This statement can be understood in two ways. It could mean that the “biblically illiterate” are ministries like 9Marks, Gospel Coalition, John MacArthur, Desiring God, Act 29, Together for the Gospel, Founders, etc., that “come together to produce libel and unfounded claims on other believers.” Hence the need for groups like TWW to expose the problem.
But I’m guessing that’s not how he meant for it to be understood.
PaJo wrote:
I just wanted to confirm that the documents collected by the Seattle Presbytery confirm that Tim Gaydos and Tyler Gorsline of “A Seattle Church” was mixed up in the First Presbyterian Church of Seattle business, with some members of the session thinking that “A Seattle Church” might want to merge with FPC Seattle. However, it appears from the recollections of one of the members of the session that “A Seattle Church” simply wanted to lease the facilities of FPC Seattle for a year. That’s it.
mirele wrote:
And I need to retract what I said. It appears that there was talk between “A Seattle Church” and FPC-Seattle in 2014 about merger. However, based on my (admittedly sketchy) understanding of Presbyterian polity, it would be difficult to see how such a merger would have come about and in any case, it didn’t happen. By 2015, it has dwindled down to the opportunity to lease the FPC-Seattle building.
@ Matt:
Newsflash! No one here (other than Dee and me) knows who you are defending. Yes, let's just drop it.
Matt wrote:
But you have no problem at all slandering more than half of the church and demoting the Eternal Son to a lesser status (I’m not impressed by the clever language, and neither was Paul)? Because that is what 9Marks does. Repeatedly. Women are rebellious. Women desire to overthrow authority. Women are more easily deceived. The Man was formed first, so the Woman bears a derivative image of God. Man was created first, so Man rules over Woman eternally. The Eternal Son is Eternally Subordinate to the Father. The relationship between fathers and sons is primarily one of authority rather than love.
You, Matt, have a selective slander meter. Here’s a test case. Were you outraged by Mark Driscoll’s characterization of the purpose of women? Were you outraged by the treatment dished out by Matt Chandler and the ELDERS at The Village? I suspect your hermeneutic is similarly selective when it comes to elder qualifications. Male who passes the Edwin Edwards test.
Matt wrote:
@ Deb:
Matt has now lumped “most of” us in with speaking ill of a man who has not even been mentioned by name, so no one here knows who the man is . . how weird. Matt is behaving very oddly.
Bridget wrote:
I think Matt is using ‘friend’ in the way that people do on tv when they refer to a ‘friend’ – but mean themselves.
Honestly, I think he was talking about dever for a while! He seems to be mad and it has made him confused and illogical.
But at least be blessed us! So we have benefited 🙂
@ Lea:
Sorry, I ‘thought’ he was taking about dever.
Btw, I feel like I should get bonus points for having gone to his church. They had great little old lady potlucks.
Perhaps Matt doesn’t understand that we are a widely read blog. I daresay most of the commenters here do not live anywhere close to North Carolina.
If our readers don’t mind, could you please mention the state, region, or country in which you live when you comment next time? We already know Nick (aka God) hails from the U.K. 😉
Should you prefer to keep your geographic location private, not a problem!
TheInternetIsNotAChurch wrote:
As to your screen name, “The Internet Is Not A Church”
It’s not? Jesus said where ever two or more are gathered in his name, there shall he be.
I just watched an interview with a Christian truck driver a few days ago who started posting theological commentary and inspirational content in a Facebook group he created.
The truck driver says he receives a lot of personal messages from un-churched people in that group who tell him how grateful they are for his online ministry.
He says they have told him they would never step foot in a brick- and- mortar church (because of dislike, distrust, or what have you of such places), but they are being helped and reached via his Facebook group.
‘Til The Wheels Fall Off: Christopher Preston’s Facebook Ministry to the Un-Churched
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/august/til-the-wheels-fall-off-christopher-prestons-facebook-ministry-to-the-un-churched
Reaching the ‘Un-Churched’
Christopher Preston is also reaching millions of people with the gospel; many who have never attended a church.
“There are some people who don’t feel at home in your traditional church. Well, just because they don’t feel at home in these places, that does not let me off the hook as a Christian whose job it is to go and seek these people,” Preston said.
“I don’t want God to come back and I say I didn’t reach them because they didn’t come to where I was. I can’t be so hung up on my traditional way of reaching people. At some point as a minister of the Gospel, I’m going to have to care more about reaching them than I care about doing it my way.”
@ Lea:
Yes, you definitely get bonus points for having attended Dever's church!
From the OP:
SBC churches should be autonomous because Baptist. But as we discussed on a previous thread, the autonomy is a limited autonomy. Which, in my view, is a fiction that is convenient for some to believe. It’s also an oxymoron. I share you concern, but I think that ship has sailed, sadly, and Baptist churches who want no part of this circus (I’ve been a Baptist a loooong time, and this is a circus) may have to go it alone and support missionaries out of their own church funds. independently.
@ Deb:
I'm really hoping Charles Spurgeon will chime in with his geographic location because I'd love to know from whence he is engaging in the 21st century activity of blogging. If he does report in with that information, we'll know where Finney is as well since they utilize the very same computer. 🙂
@ Dave (Eagle):
Something about your post reminded me of how every time there is a natural disaster (or terror attack) in the U.S.A., some John Piper or Pat Robertson type of guy blames it on, I don’t know, the U.S.A. not sticking up for Israel enough, gay marriage, what have you.
I don’t know if I think it’s a good idea for any Christian to automatically assume that flooding, a tornado, or some other calamity, is necessarily due to God’s judgment.
Then I heard about this post recently:
LOUISIANA: God Destroys Tony Perkins’ House
(Perkins is president of the Family Research Council)
http://www.joemygod.com/2016/08/17/louisiana-god-destroys-tony-perkins-house/
I’m fairly socially conservative myself, so I’m not exactly down with the views of the dude whose blog I just linked to – “Joe My God” – but I do at times agree with left wing folks that some conservative folks are daffy or overboard.
Deb wrote:
Awesome.
__
“Calvinism: An Unwritten Church Language, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
The Law of God, mans love of sin, unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel?
…such is the language 9 Marks uses to describe their ‘undisclosed’ devout adherence to Calvinism.
huh?
The law of God (as you may recall) was written for God’s people, the Jews.
The gentile nations were offered something completely different.
What?
The gentile nations were offered an opportunity to share in Christ Jesus’ finished work shortly after the Jews unfortunately rejected Jesus as Messiah.
The gentiles were offered eternal life, forgiveness of sin, and an opportunity to enter in a relationshIp with the maker of the universe, and His Son.
Apostle Paul did not offer them (the gentiles) circumcision, or the law of God , as Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross faithfully fulfilled those requirements, and gave them entrance into the Holy Of Holies.
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch !
Jesus satisfied all the requirements of the law of God and gave gentiles entrance into the kingdom of God, by their belief in God’s precious Son Jesus Christ.
“Come unto Me all ye that are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest…” is the language Jesus used.
“…watch out for those who cause divisions and obstacles that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Turn away from them. For such as these are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.” is the language Apostle Paul used.
Be careful out ‘there’ !
ATB
Sopy
—
Matt wrote:
Maybe I missed something in the OP or the comments, but I don’t think anyone named names. So who are you talking about?
If you don’t mention his name, I will have no idea who you mean.
So how is your friend’s name being dragged through the mid? (Mid, hee) 🙂
Years ago I was on a Christian discussion board that had many forums.
In 2 or 3 posts in like 2 different forums, I shared, under a false screen name like I use here (‘Daisy’ is not my real name), some problems I was having with my family members (as I’ve done on this blog).
At no time did I state my real name, the names of my family members, where they live, or their occupations (no identifying information).
Some woman on that board went bonkers and started stalking me from forum to forum, saying, “How dare you gossip about your family, your brother, sister and others, and ruin their names on these forums!!!”
I first told her that her repeated stalking of me across forums for a week was super creepy, and I then asked her to give me the following:
What is my sister’s name? Where does she live? What is her job?
What is my brother’s name? Where does he live? What is his occupation?
What is my real name and where do I live? What is my career?
Of course she couldn’t answer. It’s kind of funny being accused of ruining people’s reputations when nobody knows their -or my- true identities.
@ Gram3:
I am coming to that realization. 🙁
I am wondering what the “slander” is in the OP. Seems straightforward. He didn’t say he was Calvinist (this is SOP)because no one asked? So, by that standard, it would be perfectly ethical for an Arminian to sound Calvinisty enough to get by the pastoral search committee as long as no one specifically asked him if he is Arminian? And then it would be OK to teach Arminianism from the pulpit and SS as long as he was OK with having Calvinists in the church?
Is that the ethical standard Matt is advocating? I will say that one of the Presbyterian guardrails is a rather rigorous ordination examination. Depending on the Presbytery, there are pretty strict rules about what it means to be a Presbyterian and about revealing changes in belief on doctrines.
Bridget wrote:
I’ve seen it happen before. When someone’s idols are challenged – a person or a system of belief – they first get angry, then defensive, then confused, then odd. The process can be redemptive in the end if the person yields to Truth that is being presented to them.
@ dee:
And why are they pretending to be a famous historical Christian figure?
Christiane wrote:
I know I didn’t originate it — I remember hearing or reading it somewhere on the Web.
And if it were Muad’dib Atriedes, it would have more specific DUNE-universe references.
Gram3 wrote:
I prefer to think of it in terms like I saw on some funny list, like this:
——
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.(*)
————
Also, remember, God saves the best for last:
[Regarding: Jesus changing water into wine at wedding, from John chapter 2]: (ed.)
Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone serves the fine wine first, and then the cheap wine after the guests are drunk. But you have saved the fine wine until now!”
—–
(*) Source: “10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry.”
https://sojo.net/articles/10-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-ordained-ministry
Deb wrote:
Who would have thunk it?!
Does anyone remember when Mark Driscoll used an alias to challenge blog comments criticizing him? True story. He signed in as “William Wallace II”. Hmmmm … could “Spurgeon” and “Finney” really be Mark Dever?!
Former CLCer wrote:
Remember Douggie ESQUIRE?
Until he went down in that sex scandal, he always liked to cosplay as a Famous Historical Figure (George Patton) or an 18th Century Nobleman. And he really LOVED that Noble Title of ESQUIRE.
@ Daisy:
Oh sorry, I think the water to wine story is from John chapter two, not ten??
Max wrote:
And never actually realized Braveheart was HEAVILY fictionalized.
Former CLCer wrote:
It’s a sickness.
Deb wrote:
Southern California for me. I don’t want to pin it down in public any closer than that.
So this is totally off topic, but yesterday I talked to an old friend who still attends CLC. We’ve never discussed the tumult at Covenant Life, but we talked a bit about it in our conversation, and last night I had a dream that included (convicted child molester) Dave Adam’s wife. Creepy!
Gram3 wrote:
What’s the “Edwin Edwards test”?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That's why I included 'region'. Thanks for chiming in.
Bridget wrote:
Can we have a contest and make up a name for whoever this guy is?
I’ll go first:
“Barney Fumpledinkle”
–Here’s his fictional bio:–
Barney Fumpledinkle is a Calvinist preacher who enjoys playing “Pokemon Go” when not reading books by John Piper, listening to Mark Driscoll podcasts, or marveling at how God chose him for election, rather than an eternity in Hell.
Fumpledinkle credits the providence of God for not allowing him to choke to death on a Tinker Toy part when he was a boy.
He is head and master of his wife, Bertha Fumpledinkle, for 18 years, and father to Walter and Gertrude, whom he likes to cheer on in their spirited games of Jenga on weekends.
@ Daisy:
Point made. I'd love to get back to the topic at hand. 😉
@ Matt:
Slander is oral. We write here so you mean libel. Also, according to the law defamation means to *knowingly* make a false statement in order to cause damage to another person. There are three layers here
1. Knowingly-this means to say something false that you know is false.
2. Proven false- it actually has to be untrue
3. The intent of it is to cause harm to another.
All three of those facts must be present. So, Matt, prove that we said something that we knew was false when we wrote it. Then prove we did it to purposely cause harm to another. If you cannot do this, then you are worse than us. Everything that Deb wrote she believes to be true and can speak to the truth of what she said. She is not doing this to cause harm to your buddy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You’re ok as long as you don’t get caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. Yes, indeed, Edwin Edwards was that kind of individual.
Deb wrote:
Id say sec country but that’s rather broad these days…go hogs?
Matt wrote:
He more than likes 9 Marks. He recommends 9 Marks of a Healthy Church.
Matt wrote:
I assume you meant *mud.* Which righteous man’s name was dragged through the mud? I don’t see any name. Could you clue in our international reading audience… Also, how do you define a *righteous* man? Are you one?
@ Deb:
Those historical people might be borrowing a computer with the internet from an Amish community. 🙂
Matt wrote:
An interesting, if baseless, hypothesis. Nevertheless, my complaint with 9Marx is nothing of the sort. It is that they are promoting evil and unchristian ideas that harm actual humans, as well as the church's reputation. Also most of their writing is cr#p (ed.), although that is a stylistic annotation, not an ethical concern.
dee wrote:
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Deb wrote:
The Show-Me state.
Deb wrote:
My license plate says:
Live Free, or Die.
@ roebuck:
My favorite professor in college moved to your fine state after he retired. He taught religion at Duke.
@ Max:
For the longest time I thought you lived in New England. But a while back someone here asked you where you live, and you responded – 'the Midwest'.
Deb wrote:
I believe the Siamese twins, Finney-Spurgeon, are both on Mir, the Russian space station. They're out there!
Dee!!!
It’s great to have you back, and loaded for bear!
Deb wrote:
New Hampshire is indeed a fine state, though I’m a relative newcomer, having only lived here for 25 years, making the long trek over from Vermont (another planet). I have come to love NH, at least what I know of it, which is mostly the rural areas. Very, very solid people.
I have felt for a long time that I would like to become better acquainted with NC – I have been to the Smoky Mtn. National Park several times, but I’d like to get to know the coastal area…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
At least we do know that both William Wallaces flipped up their kilts and showed their ….. well, you know what.
Deb wrote:
Portions of the Show-Me state are considered ‘South’ – you may have noticed a Southern accent in my comments ;^).
I need to conceal my exact location, as I am a hunted man by the New Calvinists. They keep waiting for the old guy to go to my predestined eternity, but I ain’t done yet.
@ roebuck:
And, of course, wherever the Deebs dwell! 🙂
@ roebuck:
Several years ago my husband and I went out for dinner. Our server was from Vermont. I said, "How do you like living here in North Carolina?" He said he couldn't wait to get out of here and back to Vermont. It's the only time I can remember a transplant wanting to leave our state.
Max wrote:
Don’t let them get you down! I really value, learn, and grow from your posts here…
roebuck wrote:
I’ve passed through NH lots of times. Always stopped to eat in Graham. It ain’t nuthin’ but trouble when a Southern Kentuckian tries to order French fries at the Graham Micky D’s or BK. Mt. Washington is great, though – rode up the Cog Rail
Max wrote:
Now that you mention it…
We are grateful you are part of our TWW community. Your input has been invaluable.
I guess I don’t have to say what state I live in, but you won’t find me anywhere near the Covenant Life Church building!
Deb wrote:
The Lone Star State.