Sovereign Grace® Churches Host Conferences in the UK

"Two Conferences, One Hope"

"This is a unique opportunity to be part of one or two day conferences that Sovereign Grace is hosting, with one hope: That we might advance the gospel of Jesus Christ, in the UK, Ireland, and Europe by strengthening churches for the glory of God."

Sovereign Grace Churches: UK & Ireland

screen-shot-2016-09-21-at-8-02-13-pm

Alerting our British readers… 

The Americans are coming, the Americans are coming! 

One if by Land Two if by Sea (link)

(Three if by Air) 🙂

All joking aside, Sovereign Grace® Churches are hosting TWO conferences in Bristol over the next TWO days, and THREE Americans will be speaking in order to "advance the gospel of Jesus Christ in the UK, Ireland, and Europe by strengthening churches for the glory of God."     

http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/events/2009The theme of tomorrow's conference (as shown in the screen shot above) is "Entrusted with the Gospel".  This conference logo was first used by Sovereign Grace Churches at the 2014 Pastors Conference which took place in Nashville, Tennessee.

When The Gospel Coalition (TGC) held its first ever National Conference back in 2009, it was called they very same thing (see screen shot at the left).  Dee and I remember it well because we launched our blog right around the time this conference was announced. We haven't forgotten the names of three of the conference speakers who were all TGC Council Members at the time — Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney, and Joshua Harris

Sovereign Grace Churches® garnered some publicity when Bob Kauflin was interviewed by a British publication called EvangelicalsNow (see screen shot below).

SGC Twitter

Regarding the ENTRUSTED WITH THE GOSPEL conference, the speakers are C.J. Mahaney, Bob Kauflin, and Jeff Purswell (see screen shot of the conference schedule below).

https://twitter.com/sovgraceuk/status/771667784337993729

For Mahaniacs who will not be able to attend this event, you are definitely in luck!  C.J. will be repeating several messages he delivered at Together for the Gospel (T4G) conferences. 

His morning address (Ordinary Leaders), taken from 2 Timothy 4:1-5, will probably be similar to the message he gave at T4G 2010 called Ordinary Pastors. Mahaney's afternoon session will no doubt be the same one he delivered at T4G 2016 –  Creating a Culture of Joy in Your Church – and his message tomorrow evening, When a Leader Loses Heart, should be much the same as his address at T4G 2012When a Pastor Loses Heart – taken from 2 Corinthians Chapter 4.  I guess the Brits who are paying to attend this conference won't mind hearing Mahaney's warmed-over messages.  Folks here in the United States are used to hearing his canned sermons.

Jeff Purswell's morning message (The Leader and the Gospel) will probably be much like the one he gave at the 2014 SGC Pastors Conference, which was called The Gospel and the Pastor

The SGC conference on Friday (September 23) called TRUE WORSHIPPERS has the following line-up (see screen shot below):

https://twitter.com/sovgraceuk/status/772029421620457472The Friday morning message, Living Before the King of Glory (Psalm 24), was first delivered by Bob Kauflin at his home church, Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville, on October 20, 2013.  You can either watch it or download the audio here.

Kauflin's afternoon session Pastoring Through Song will likely be similar to the one he conducted at the TWIST Pastors Conference that took place in Australia in 2011.  His notes on this topic can be accessed here (at the bottom of the page).

A Surprising Prayer, taken from Psalm 88, was a sermon Mahaney delivered three years ago at Sovereign Grace Church Louisville. 

Given all this repetition, can there be any doubt that Bob Kauflin will be leading worship both days with the same songs performed at previous T4G conferences?

One of our astute readers from 'across the pond' informed us that Sovereign Grace's presence in the UK has been limited, perhaps because of similarities to the much larger Newfrontiers network founded by Terry Virgo.  Our British informant explained that C.J. Mahaney began receiving exposure in the UK several decades ago through his friend Terry Virgo.  Back in 2007 Adrian Warnock, another good friend of Virgo's, wrote:

"We have also been shaped by our exposure over several decades to CJ Mahaney."

We researched the Mahaney/Virgo friendship six years ago and shared what we discovered in a post entitled Terry Virgo – Founder of Newfrontiers.  Back in 2005 Mahaney was invited to speak at Together on a Mission, an annual conference founded by Virgo/Newfrontiers and held in Brighton.  This four day event was primarily for Christian leaders (and also students), and it involved Christian teaching and worship.  Other Americans who were subsequently invited to speak at the conference included Wayne Grudem (2006) and Mark Driscoll (2008).  We have theorized that Mahaney and his T4G buddies got the idea of hosting a Together for the Gospel conference, which began in 2006) from the UK's Together on a Mission conference.  According to the Together on a Mission Wiki article, the last conference was held in 2011 (in its present form). 

It appears that Sovereign Grace Churches® are attempting to expand their church planting network in the United Kingdom and Ireland through these two conferences.

screen-shot-2016-09-21-at-7-42-53-pmRegistration appears to still be open (as of midnight, September 22nd) for any last minute takers…

Comments

Sovereign Grace® Churches Host Conferences in the UK — 276 Comments

  1. It is evident that the “Humble One” lost the mantle of the Holy Spirit long ago. Mahaney has been recycling his “speeches” for years. He regurgitates them so often that they are practically word for word. And yet the blackmailer still talks of the hours and hours and hours a preacher must dedicate to sermon preparation. He is a hollow man, a blind guide. My apologies to the UK, hopefully his audiences will be limited and the damage minimal.

    “C.J. Mahaney Once Again Displays Minimal Effort”
    https://thouarttheman.org/2014/01/18/c-j-mahaney-once-again-displays-minimal-effort/

  2. One, if by land, and two, if by sea,
    With an evil grin ‘cross the face of Mahaney.
    Our Blog Queens write to spread the alarm,
    And keep you all safe from spiritual harm!

  3. here’s hoping that the Brits across the Pond will see right through these charlatans

    My money is on the good sense of our British cousins

  4. Church planting in the UK. If only the United Kingdom already had a widespread church organization dedicated to serving every member in every corner of the entire country…

  5. This is so typical and I think they will find takers. CJ and his ilk, in my personal opinion, have a schtick and will market it to people looking for answers. You know what really gets me, if CJ or any of these others if they affirmed the Theory of Evolution, affirmed gay marriage, were egalitarian, did not believe in people signing contracts to become members of a church, etc they would not be welcomed and the superheroes here in the states would have disowned them years ago. But what SGM leaders did was far far worse, of course, the things I listed are not even a big deal if you bet my point. A while back I tried talking to Phil Johnson on facebook about CJ and basically got the bait and switch routine. I want folks here to know I actually prayed about what I wrote, spent time thinking about it because I really wanted to understand. Those who know me know that is outside of my norm, especially the personal prayer thing. I will admit to just be dismissed out of hand bothered me but that is no biggie compared to the families of the kids abused who were dismissed out of hand just like the victims. Then they go on about “watch blogs” and other nonsense. I dont know how Dee Deb JA etc deal with it to be honest.

    What happened to those kids should take precedent. It’s like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

  6. How do you the readers here view Bob Kauflin? Why do people think he is supporting Mahaney? Is this for financial reasons? He's exceptionally talented, and he's written some good music.

  7. Christiane wrote:

    here’s hoping that the Brits across the Pond will see right through these charlatans

    My money is on the good sense of our British cousins

    I think these guys will definitely find people that will listen to them over here.

    A significant portion of the evangelical churches in the UK spouse the same beliefs as them, or at the least sympathise with their theological positions. For a start you got the evangelical conservative wing of the Anglican church, where Grudem, Piper, Carson and Keller, among others, are household names. And there are networks (Newfrontiers, Acts29 Europe) and independent churches which may be also identified to belong to that camp.

    Even if they can only get a niche section of the evangelical market in the UK, they will still have an audience. However, I guess that the size of that audience is possible to be proportionally smaller than what they have in the USA.

    Ond of the the issues with all this is that their market share is most likely to derive from people who are already christians and have a favourable attitude to their positions, at least initially. So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations. Besides that, I cannot see how what they may do to attract people from outside the church could be any different to what many others already do over here. And despite their ‘celebrity’ status within the evangelical circuit, outside this ‘bubble’ nobody knows them. It may be the same in the USA, but I guess their circuit/bubble over there is larger.

  8. Martos wrote:

    A significant portion of the evangelical churches in the UK spouse the same beliefs as them, or at the least sympathise with their theological positions.

    Allistair Begg is one of them, and he was born in Scotland and has a degree from th London School of Theology.

  9. Oh brilliant. I’ll start saving…

    Fwiw, a bunch of their more Americanised shenanigans will not go down so well over here.

  10. Martos wrote:

    Besides that, I cannot see how what they may do to attract people from outside the church could be any different to what many others already do over here. And despite their ‘celebrity’ status within the evangelical circuit, outside this ‘bubble’ nobody knows them. It may be the same in the USA, but I guess their circuit/bubble over there is larger.

    Agreed. I never heard of these guys until reading about them here. In my day to day life, no one in my circle knows them, evangelical or mainline. Certainly my secular friends & coworkers draw a blank (I did an informal poll after becoming a TWW reader) Full disclosure though, I'm not Christian.

  11. “Leaders and Wives Conference”

    Yuck. People should start holding “Leaders and Husbands” conferences just to mess with these misogynists.

  12. I'm just going to say that the only other religious outfit I know of that has trademarks for its name is Scientology. I also remember that the Mormon Church got laughed at by other people and other churches descended from Joseph Smith for trying to trademark the common word "Mormon" some years back.

    Seriously, Sovereign Grace® looks really bad.

  13. @ mirele:
    Perhaps you are not aware that Mark Driscoll tried to bully a church in Sacramento over using the an encircled "M" along “Mars Hill Church”. He got his lawyers involved.  You can read about it here:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/mars-hill-trademark-fight.html

    “Seattle’s prominent Mars Hill Church says the way it handled a Sacramento, California, church’s similar name and logo was a mistake. The California church, meanwhile, has promised to redesign its logo and website.

    Officials from the Ballard, Washington, multisite church say a member called attention to the Sacramento church’s website, asking if the churches were connected. When elders saw a logo similar to their own, which has been in use since 1996, they sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sacramento’s Mars Hill Community Church, which has three locations if its own. Mars Hill Seattle filed an application to trademark its name and logo in August.”

    Later in the CT article:

    “In hindsight, we realize now that the way we went about raising our concerns, while acceptable in the business world, is not the way we should deal with fellow Christians,” Mars Hill Seattle’s elders said. “We made a mistake in not calling these churches prior to sending the letter. We should have picked up the phone before sending any other communication.”

  14. Jack wrote:

    . Certainly my secular friends & coworkers draw a blank (I did an informal poll after becoming a TWW reader)

    I am thrilled that they know nothings of these guys! They are a total embarrassment to thoughtful Christians.

  15. Martos wrote:

    So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations.

    Of course it’s sheep stealing. They aren’t actually going in and preaching the Good News to every creature, only to the ones already in their network. It’s rather like Driscoll’s church plant, which appears to be made up of people who moved from Seattle, locals who went to other churches, and a goodly chunk of out of towners. Actually having to preach the Gospel to someone whooght querion your authority? Naw, not gonna happen.

  16. Paul D. wrote:

    Church planting in the UK. If only the United Kingdom already had a widespread church organization dedicated to serving every member in every corner of the entire country…

    Ah, yes. Apparently Acts 29 thinks the UK is lacking that organization also.
    http://www.acts29.com/find-churches/

    And, last Christmas my dear sister thought the perfect gift to me was to make a donation in my name for an Acts 29 church plant in the UK. I think it might have been a passive-aggressive gesture on her part since she knows I am a biblical egalitarian, and have affiliated with that US church with deep UK roots. 🙂

  17. Stephen wrote:

    “Leaders and Wives Conference”
    Yuck. People should start holding “Leaders and Husbands” conferences just to mess with these misogynists.

    Agree! And that is coming from an ex-wife of an ex-“leader.”

  18. Deb wrote:

    Perhaps you are not aware that Mark Driscoll tried to bully a church in Sacramento over using the an encircled “M” along “Mars Hill Church”. He got his lawyers involved.

    I remember that, but it vanished quickly off my radar. Not like the Indie Scientologists still trying to carve out an exception for its “First Independent Church of Scientology” and sofar striking out with the USPTO.

  19. Martos wrote:

    So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations.

    Sadly, they have absolutely no problem with that behaviour. In fact, they encourage it since their churches are the true gospel believing fellowships.

  20. “Entrusted with the Gospel” is code for “Entrusted with Calvinism”.

    It’s not surprising that New Calvinist notables are extending their outreach to Europe. In the business world, it’s called a new market. I’m sure they will have no problem finding enough young, restless, reformed gullibles (YRRGs) in the UK to finance their new venture. Proliferation of the reformed movement to the uttermost parts of the earth depends on tapping spiritually immature Generations Xers and Millennials. New Calvinist leaders will one day pay for their use and abuse of young folks.

  21. The underlying assumption of these men seems to be that the church in the UK and Ireland is on its deathbed and in need of resurrection to a proper ‘gospel’ understanding. As some have stated above, it takes incredible hubris to imply, and even more to outright state, that you are a minister who is bringing a correct understanding of the Biblical gospel to an ignorant people. (Even if those people are genuinely ‘unreached’ we are to proclaim the good news with humility.)

    Why the UK? Perhaps it is because here in the States they have, in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, no one left to lie to.

  22. Deb wrote:

    Yes, when anyone in the YRR camp uses the term ‘gospel’, they mean the ‘correct’ theology – Calvinism.

    If I may, it means their version of Calvinism. They have taken what they wanted from Reformed theology and eschewed the parts they don’t. A practice they condemn in others, btw.

  23. Burwell wrote:

    Why the UK? Perhaps it is because here in the States they have, in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, no one left to lie to.

    My understanding [and please correct me if I’m wrong] is that the Charismatic stream in the UK is far more Calvinistic than the same movement in the US. NewFrontiers is an example of this. I’m not really sure about the reason, but I would imagine that the influence of Martin Lloyd-Jones is a factor.

    These Charismatic Calvinists may be seen by Sovereign Grace® as the perfect target demographic, similar to CJ himself. And the language barrier is minor.

    Lots of churches have been planted by sheep stealing. The thing that the leaders don’t seem to get is that people are free to go where they feel safe, and free to stay home. The whole rigamarole over church discipline and covenants is an attempt to get people to ignore their actual freedom by creating the illusion of control. And fear of losing relationships.

  24. Martos wrote:

    So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations.

    Church planting has nothing to do with planting churches with Jesus as the center. “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed. It would be more honest if they would just call it franchising, because that is exactly what it is. Create a brand and then sell the rights to use that brand for a fee and a percentage of gross. Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

  25. No indeed he did not, for good reason. Driscoll has a very superficial and generalized view of the UK Christian situation, as in my experiences, Americans generally do of the rest of the world. He released a statement after his visit and interview with Justin Brierly which made that clear. His treatment of Brierly was IMO an exercise in narcissistic entitlement: https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/What-my-45-minutes-with-Mark-Driscoll-told-me-about-him

    Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Mark Driscoll didn’t go over too well in the UK.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyS1wwi8GlU

  26. Gram3 wrote:

    Church planting has nothing to do with planting churches with Jesus as the center. “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed. It would be more honest if they would just call it franchising, because that is exactly what it is. Create a brand and then sell the rights to use that brand for a fee and a percentage of gross. Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

    I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?

  27. brian wrote:

    You know what really gets me, if CJ or any of these others if they affirmed the Theory of Evolution, affirmed gay marriage, were egalitarian, did not believe in people signing contracts to become members of a church, etc they would not be welcomed and the superheroes here in the states would have disowned them years ago.

    Absolutely. Their priorities are doctrine not people. And it shows.

  28. mot wrote:

    I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?

    You could ask the same question about restaurants. Even though it’s one of the riskiest businesses to start, new ones open every day. Some are still mom-and-pop local places, but many are franchises, which tend to survive longer.

    Church in the US has always had an entrepreneurial flare. It was probably inevitable that someone would apply the franchise model to it, as Gram3 noted. The question is whether a franchise can birth an actual church. Does the mark of the “brand” remain, and hinder the development of actual relationships? I think that depends largely on leadership, and whether they model humility, honesty, and accountability. But it also depends on whether the organizational structure imposes a distinction between “leadership” and “the led.” The shepherds and the sheep. When the shepherds are held to a different standard than the sheep, and when the shepherds have little to no accountability to the sheep, the internal structure hinders the development of real relationships, and the organization is doomed to exist as a social club, never developing into a church.

    Maybe the question is, what sort of culture is this franchise replicating? This is a big question in the business world. What about the franchise model is incompatible with Jesus? As Gram3 points out, maybe it’s the financial pyramid scheme that spawns a large organization and substitutes strategy for faith?

    For what it’s worth, the ARC folks just crossed the 600 church mark.

  29. Jack wrote:

    I never heard of these guys until reading about them here.

    The only ones I had heard of ones were I used to go to their church (Dever) or where I have friends who go there (Morris). But now that I know to look, it’s easy to see them, in particular I see this stuff in facebook quote shares. It’s like seeing behind the curtain.

  30. “Sovereign Grace® Churches Host Conferences in the UK”
    +++++++++++

    they’re still around?! crimany….

  31. Max wrote:

    “Entrusted with the Gospel” is code for “Entrusted with Calvinism”.

    Not just Calvinism. They don’t much like the PCUSA version of it.

  32. Gram3 wrote:

    “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed. It would be more honest if they would just call it franchising, because that is exactly what it is.

    Yes! That’s exactly what it is.

    And like McDonalds, they pick property that will appreciate (hopefully).

  33. GSD wrote:

    Maybe the question is, what sort of culture is this franchise replicating?

    I think that many of the seminaries are franchisee training grounds, teaching seminarians to set up their own “shop” (church) like a 7-11. My ex-pastor went to John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary and I think that’s what they produce.

    I also find it odd that so many of these pastors are setting up their own seminaries.

  34. @ GSD:

    The weirdest thing about this franchising is that it is like a denomination, but it isn’t. It’s like a sneak denomination!

  35. Mahaney’s latest sermon is a 50-minute oration titled “Sports.” A few weeks prior to this he preached on laughter. IMO this is a perfect example of the spiritual bankruptcy of this “celebrity.”

    Don’t bother listening unless you have a strong stomach.

    http://www.sgclouisville.org/sovereign-grace-church-louisville-sermons#series_12

    Here is a retweetable gem from the sermon – “It is a pure joy to knock down a three-point shot.”
    I guess that’s the gospel.

  36. these stupid conferences and the morons who go to them. tell me, what does it feel like to be served up cans of warm & watery anemic green beans? And they all said, “Mmmm! Delicious!”

    of course, they’re giving you the recipe so that you, too, can bring it back home and serve it up: go to the store, find it on the shelf, put it in your cart, go to check out, pay with the church credit card, the publisher is enriched, bim bam boom & bob’s your uncle.

    But, of course, so are you and your church with those revolutionary nutrient-rich pekid green beans, sitting in yellow water.

    😐

  37. @ Lea:

    “The weirdest thing about this franchising is that it is like a denomination, but it isn’t. It’s like a sneak denomination!”
    ++++++++

    good grief….

    “I may be promiscuous but I am not a prostitute!” (Barbra Streisand as Doris Wilgus to George Segal as Felix Sherman in my favorite comedy “The Owl And The Pussycat”….. such great entertainment)

  38. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    “It is a pure joy to knock down a three-point shot.”
    I guess that’s the gospel.

    He should have said: “It is a pure joy to knock down a five-point shot.”

    Mahaney is a great case study on how far a former insider is allowed to drift until they become an outside. It is almost like he is trying to see how much he can get away with, this time in sermon material.

  39. Velour wrote:

    I think that many of the seminaries are franchisee training grounds, teaching seminarians to set up their own “shop” (church) like a 7-11.

    We’ve seen that in my corner of the world. There was a small evangelical church on the edge of town that had been around for at least 30 years. From what I can tell, the elders forced the pastor out and brought in a fellow from MacArthur’s school. An older guy, who had graduated from the seminary, but had also served on staff in some capacity. I’m assuming that the change was somewhat motivated by a desire to be more calvinistic, to “reform” this congregation from within. There was a new website, with an audio clip from MacArthur himself, giving his endorsement, and lots of expository teaching. Within 2 years, the church closed, partly because the new pastor was very inflexible. There is probably more to the story, but I don’t really want to know.

    Somehow, MacArthur’s brand has not caught on here.

  40. “Advance the gospel” is one of those meaningless phrases that gets repeated ad nauseum. All they mean is they are looking to advance their own little kingdoms, enlarge their influence, and open new marketing venues. It takes bald faced audacity to call it “advancing the gospel” but we already know that’s one thing they have in huge supply.

    It would be great if the publicizing of what they have done here could precede them wherever they go. The UK has been dealing with their own child molester scandal of late, Jimmy Savile, why would they want to import one they don’t need, in the person of C J Mahaney?

  41. that photo of one Bob Kauflin in the newspaper article….

    is anyone else bugged by the histrionics? the posturing? he obviously knows the camera is on him. the big heavy bible draped across the open palm held aloft, the other hand also held aloft gesturing, head held high, wildly engaged facial expression….

    another good grief from me

  42. elastigirl wrote:

    is anyone else bugged by the histrionics? the posturing? he obviously knows the camera is on him. the big heavy bible draped across the open palm held aloft, the other hand also held aloft gesturing, head held high, wildly engaged facial expression….

    Anyone remember the Koine Greek for “Actor onstage”?

  43. Velour wrote:

    GSD wrote:
    Maybe the question is, what sort of culture is this franchise replicating?
    I think that many of the seminaries are franchisee training grounds, teaching seminarians to set up their own “shop” (church) like a 7-11. My ex-pastor went to John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary and I think that’s what they produce.
    I also find it odd that so many of these pastors are setting up their own seminaries.

    Ever heard of a “Pyramid Scheme” — excuse me, “Multiplying MINISTRY”?

  44. GSD wrote:

    For what it’s worth, the ARC folks just crossed the 600 church mark.

    Don’t pyramids eventually run out of suckers on the bottom trying to climb the list?

  45. mirele wrote:

    I’m just going to say that the only other religious outfit I know of that has trademarks for its name is Scientology.

    Which should tell you something.

    When your church is best described as “Just like Scientology, Except…”, that’s NOT a good sign.

  46. And (as usual) BEWARE OF ANY CHURCH THAT HAS “GRACE” IN ITS OFFICIAL (and trademarked) NAME.

    “The more adjectives about Democracy there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a Third World Dictatorship it is.”

  47. @ Lea:

    Although that one is fellowship not arc, I think.

    BTW, has anybody been able to acquire a line item budget with money spent on all these para church orgs/conferences by their churches? It would be interesting.

  48. Martos wrote:

    I think these guys will definitely find people that will listen to them over here.

    A significant portion of the evangelical churches in the UK spouse the same beliefs as them, or at the least sympathise with their theological positions. For a start you got the evangelical conservative wing of the Anglican church, where Grudem, Piper, Carson and Keller, among others, are household names. And there are networks (Newfrontiers, Acts29 Europe) and independent churches which may be also identified to belong to that camp.

    Even if they can only get a niche section of the evangelical market in the UK, they will still have an audience. However, I guess that the size of that audience is possible to be proportionally smaller than what they have in the USA.

    Ond of the the issues with all this is that their market share is most likely to derive from people who are already christians and have a favourable attitude to their positions, at least initially. So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations. Besides that, I cannot see how what they may do to attract people from outside the church could be any different to what many others already do over here. And despite their ‘celebrity’ status within the evangelical circuit, outside this ‘bubble’ nobody knows them. It may be the same in the USA, but I guess their circuit/bubble over there is larger.

    I have to respectfully disagree with your “significant portion” claim. Anglican evangelicalism also has “open” and “charismatic” wings as well as “conservative”. The latter are a minority. There’s the Baptist churches – our main Baptist association is egalitarian. Same for the Pentecostals – overwhelmingly egalitarian and definitely not calvinist. Plenty of “new” churches (eg Vineyard) wouldn’t be interested either. Whilst the New Frontiers churches have some historic links to CJ, they are “reformed charismatic” and I doubt SGM are charismatic enough for them. Acts29 Europe is tiny – I think about 25 churches over here. So, overall, most UK evangelicals will differ with SGM on one or more of women in leadership, spiritual gifts, and Calvinism. I’d reckon perhaps 5-10% of UK evangelicals share SGM’s theology. Being realistic, the vast majority of UK evangelicals haven’t heard of CJ or SGM and won’t be aware this conference is happening.

    The UK Christian demographic is markedly different to the US. We have perhaps 2 million evangelicals, around 3% of the population. And we don’t do celebrity!

    On the subject of church planting, just like in the US, most church growth over here results from transfers. I tend to regard church planting as empire building – for example most of the Acts29 churches looked to be in towns and cities where there will already be evangelical churches and Christians who might be persuaded to join a new church. I agree with you that there’s nothing SGM can do that isn’t already being done.

    All this makes it unlikely SGM will achieve much in the UK. But they could still be a bad influence on those churches that do share their distinctives.

    Let me mention about Kauflin and the music. My understanding is that this is a major source of income for SGM, and it certainly brings attention to them (eg the article linked to above). There is a shortage of contemporary worship music from the non-charismatic world, and conservative evangelical churches find the music from SGM very attractive. This has definitely given them a profile in that community, and it wouldn’t surprise me if people have gone to the leadership conference today because of Kauflin and the music, not because of CJ. But the pair of conferences does seem to be a bit of a marketing effort for SGM in the UK.

  49. Martos wrote:

    So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations

    Infiltrate, then conquer.

  50. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Mark Driscoll didn’t go over too well in the UK.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyS1wwi8GlU

    This is excellent! Thank you for posting. Here are a few highlights from pastor Stephen Holland’s remarks:

    “God save us from celebrity pastors, well-known young celebrity pop stars.”

    “Mark, your comments are silly, unhelpful, not needed, because you know nothing about the UK… take away your props, take away your bands, … and I really wonder what you have left.”

    “I don’t think the Apostle Paul were much of a celebrity, were he?”

  51. Ian wrote:

    Let me mention about Kauflin and the music. My understanding is that this is a major source of income for SGM, and it certainly brings attention to them (eg the article linked to above). There is a shortage of contemporary worship music from the non-charismatic world, and conservative evangelical churches find the music from SGM very attractive. This has definitely given them a profile in that community, and it wouldn’t surprise me if people have gone to the leadership conference today because of Kauflin and the music, not because of CJ. But the pair of conferences does seem to be a bit of a marketing effort for SGM in the UK.

    Yes, in the US at least, Sovereign Grace music is popular among conservative evangelical (primarily Baptist/Presbyterian) churches. They are often sung alongside the likes of Chris Tomlin and (some) Hillsong. Some of the more popular Sovereign Grace songs contain some serious Total Depravity navel-gazing which, when combined with the history of SGM, makes it impossible to sing. So I didn’t. So I went looking for a place where the singing is worship.

  52. Deb wrote:

    “In hindsight, we realize now that the way we went about raising our concerns, while acceptable in the business world, is not the way we should deal with fellow Christians,” Mars Hill Seattle’s elders said. “We made a mistake in not calling these churches prior to sending the letter…”

    I can imagine the phone call: “Nice little church you’ve got there. It would be a real shame if anything happened to it.”

  53. My experience with Newfrontiers was remarkably similar to the reports of peoples’ experiences with SGM, just with a Brit accent. At bottom, though, it’s top-down, man-centered, unethical, authoritarian, fake nice smiley front pseudo Christianity that, when one scratches a bit on the surface, ends up being brutal, freedom-hating, vicious, and destructive towards anyone who’s actually in love with Jesus and willing to say anything against an organization that systematically kills faith in Him.

  54. Friend wrote:

    “Mark, your comments are silly, unhelpful, not needed, because you know nothing about the UK… take away your props, take away your bands, … and I really wonder what you have left.”

    Obviously not much, as we got to see the spiteful, others-blaming little boy who remained after the bands and props were taken away, and though he’s put together a faint shadow of what he once had in the Pacific Northwest in the Desert Southwest, that too seems to be faltering.

  55. Lea wrote:

    Not just Calvinism. They don’t much like the PCUSA version of it.

    Yes, sorry, I should have clarified that. New Calvinism is a different beast than classical Calvinism. I have worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists in SBC ranks over the years. I have found them to be respectful and civil in their discourse, often offering good perspectives on Scripture. The new reformers are quite the opposite – they are militant, aggressive and arrogant.

  56. Deb wrote:

    Yes, when anyone in the YRR camp uses the term ‘gospel’, they mean the ‘correct’ theology – Calvinism.

    Indeed. When the new reformers talk about restoring the gospel to the church that the rest of us have lost, they mean putting reformed theology on the throne.

  57. Burwell wrote:

    They have taken what they wanted from Reformed theology and eschewed the parts they don’t. A practice they condemn in others

    The old guys (classical Calvinists) may not agree with the method and message of New Calvinism, but they put up with their neo-brethren because reformed theology is being advanced. The is the case with Founders vs. the YRR in SBC ranks. The old guard tolerate the antics of the younger folks because they are accomplishing what the Founders could not … Calvinization of the SBC.

  58. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    He is a hollow man, a blind guide.

    So while the pastors criticize pewsitters for following low brow reality TV, pastors pay to listen to Mahaney.

  59. Max wrote:

    “Entrusted with the Gospel” is code for “Entrusted with Calvinism”.

    Perchance Nick can prompt God to drop in and let us know he is dropping the word “gospel” from his lexicon.

  60. Max wrote:

    The old guys (classical Calvinists) may not agree with the method and message of New Calvinism, but they put up with their neo-brethren because reformed theology is being advanced.

    For the Cause, Comrades!
    Party First!

  61. Max wrote:

    Indeed. When the new reformers talk about restoring the gospel to the church that the rest of us have lost, they mean putting reformed theology on the throne.

    With themselves as Calvin, Ayatollah of Geneva.

    But There Can Be Only One Calvin on the Throne…

  62. Burwell wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    When your church is best described as “Just like Scientology, Except…”, that’s NOT a good sign.
    Just like Scientology, except with less David Miscavige.

    No.
    Just like Scientology, except with a LOT of David Miscavige Wanna-Bes.

  63. Christiane wrote:

    here’s hoping that the Brits across the Pond will see right through these charlatans
    My money is on the good sense of our British cousins

    Prepare to be disappointed! I live in the UK and am now pretty much a “done” because the situation is no better here. There are many churches associated with the Go$$$pel Coalition and promoting Mahaney’s books. Evangelical Church leaders in the UK can pretty much get away with anything, as long as they affirm “the party line” on women preachers and gay marriage. It’s all an old boys club.

    In a previous church I challenged the promotion of a book that contained blatantly racist material and the elder said “I don’t wish to discuss it” and carried on promoting the book. I was also told by someone “if God predestines your unbelieving parents to hell, and if the Bible is racist, sexist and homophobic so be it”. I was chilled by the cold attitude with which this white, heterosexual, married man blurted it out. Needless to say, I left that church. It has hosted Kevin DeYoung and Don Carson, and many people there thought the sun shined out of John Piper’s you-know-what! It is affiliated to the FIEC. In a previous charismatic church I was abused by a pastor for saying that the Holy Spirit does not make people bark like dogs or roar like lions. (ed.) I was told that I was “opposing God” and “blaspheming the Holy Spirit”. They promoted these abusive conferences which were hosted by money-grabbing charlatans. They had made up their minds and did not want to be confused with facts.

  64. Clarification on the last post: I was abused by the pastor for saying the Holy Spirit does NOT make people bark like dogs etc…

  65. I think people know this, but C.J. has been affiliated with Terry Virgo since the 90’s, although C.J. kind of dropped him when he turned reformed.

  66. @ ZechZav:
    Just this morning I had an unpleasant flashback to when CLC participated in the “move of the spirit”. Thankfully no one barked or roared.

  67. @ ZechZav:
    very troubling to hear this …. my vision of religion in the UK is the beauty of the Anglican choir tradition, the glorious ancient historical village Churches throughout the UK, and the common sense of the people PLUS the attempts to monitor ‘hate speak’ posing as ‘truth in love’ by extremists on street corners and in shopping malls. ‘Hate speak’ is discouraged in the UK.

    I didn’t know it was becoming a hot bed of the sickness we have seen developing with the neo-Cal/male-headship movement here in the states.

    Thanks for the heads up. I am and will remain a great Anglophile with ties from my Stafford maternal family history to ‘the old country’. 🙂

  68. mot wrote:

    The Neo-Cals will completely takeover the SBC IMO.

    They are well on their way! They now control most SBC entities (leading seminaries, home and foreign mission agencies, publishing house), and have fielded an aggressive church planting program staffed primarily with YRR, coupled with a stealth takeover of an increasing number of traditional SBC churches. What other term would one use than “takeover”?! … they are taking over a denomination which is (was) predominantly non-Calvinist in belief and practice. The darndest thing I’ve ever seen, since traditional pulpits and pews are not confronting the movement in any serious manner.

  69. Ian wrote:

    I have to respectfully disagree with your “significant portion” claim.

    No problem at all about disagreements! 🙂

    I’ve been thinking about this throughout the day, and you may be right. I’ve wondered if, perhaps, my perception of the situation might be a bit biased due to my church experiences… For example, my introduction to evangelical christianity in the UK came through the Christian Union at uni. While there were students from different church backgrounds in there, many were from congregations that are Reformed/Calvinist and very familiar with TGC and similar groups. The evangelical Anglican church I’ve been attending for the last few years is pretty much the most conservative in the area, and rather famous for its positions on various issues. There are several other churches in my city that share similar views. For example, we got a pretty complementarian church associated with Acts 29, and I’ve visited it a handful of times due to friends attending there. There’s also a Presbyterian church that, in some ways, makes my church look like a happy-clappy liberal party.

    I know about the other wings of the Anglican church and I’ve been interested in exploring them a bit. I’ve visited a couple of open evangelical congregations, and one that is pretty much at the other end of the spectrum compared with my church. Very liberal theologically, but have to admit that I enjoyed the more open attitude to differing positions and the more frequent use of silence in the services. And they are lovely people as well.

  70. Max wrote:

    The darndest thing I’ve ever seen, since traditional pulpits and pews are not confronting the movement in any serious manner.

    But WHY????
    Are people so blinded? Or do they care?
    Or is there fear? Fear of what?
    Surely there remain some voices like Wade Burleson’s?

    The Deebs get it.
    There is the witness of the coming evil from its victims, surely. And they speak from a place of authenticity, having ‘been through’ experiences that defy belief that their ‘church’ was anything to them but brutal and hateful.

    WHY are there not more voices raised???? I know David Miller caved in early, and I think he wanted attention and ‘recognition’ within the SBC hierarchy. So SBCvoices seems to cater to the neo-Cals, to male ‘headship’, and to the more extreme fundamentalists among conservative Christian Southern Baptists.

    Surely more people said ‘hey, wait a minute’ when they first heard the heresy of the ‘eternal subordination of the Son’????

    (sigh) frown-face

  71. @ Christiane:

    The Anglicans are a mixed breed to be fair. I did attend one evangelical church that has close associations with the Gospel Coalition which I would never go to again. But I also later attended an Anglican church that would not touch the teachings of Piper and others, as I warned the vicar about it. My bad experience was mainly with the independent churches which are much more monolithic and sold out to the dogmas of the Gospel Coalition. I would avoid any that churches that call themselves “evangelical” and would particularly avoid any associated with the Gospel Coalition. I would not set foot in any church affiliated to the FIEC (who have promoted complimentarianism to be a primary issue). I would also avoid “the Evangelical Alliance”, New Frontiers or Ichthus churches.

  72. Max wrote:

    mot wrote:

    The Neo-Cals will completely takeover the SBC IMO.

    They are well on their way! They now control most SBC entities (leading seminaries, home and foreign mission agencies, publishing house), and have fielded an aggressive church planting program staffed primarily with YRR, coupled with a stealth takeover of an increasing number of traditional SBC churches. What other term would one use than “takeover”?! … they are taking over a denomination which is (was) predominantly non-Calvinist in belief and practice. The darndest thing I’ve ever seen, since traditional pulpits and pews are not confronting the movement in any serious manner.

    We have already seen one major effect of the Calvinization of the SBC was the major reduction of our Missionary force. But the people in the pews do not seem concerned about this at all IMO.

  73. Christiane wrote:

    WHY are there not more voices raised???? I know David Miller caved in early, and I think he wanted attention and ‘recognition’ within the SBC hierarchy. So SBCvoices seems to cater to the neo-Cals, to male ‘headship’, and to the more extreme fundamentalists among conservative Christian Southern Baptists.

    Miller is a very proud foot soldier of the SBC Takeover. He helped ruin people’s lives and ministries. He would have a fit if someone tried to interfere with his ministry. He is a man without a conscience IMO.

  74. mot wrote:

    He is a man without a conscience IMO.

    I wouldn’t go that far, but I do believe that he has been heavily influenced by those he ‘looked UP to’ and has been dismissive of those who did not agree with the big shots. I don’t think David has thought things through. There’s still time. Maybe. I have hope.

  75. mot wrote:

    We have already seen one major effect of the Calvinization of the SBC was the major reduction of our Missionary force. But the people in the pews do not seem concerned about this at all IMO.

    If bringing home 1,000 seasoned missionaries doesn’t stir the pew, nothing will. On the other hand, try taking a way the monthly potluck dinner and you’ve got a fight on your hands!

  76. Burwell wrote:

    The underlying assumption of these men seems to be that the church in the UK and Ireland is on its deathbed and in need of resurrection to a proper ‘gospel’ understanding.

    It’s a correct assumption but they are not the answer! They are actually the problem. The complimentarian doctrine is culturally offensive, and Calvinism is not the Gospel.

  77. Former CLCer wrote:

    @ ZechZav:
    Just this morning I had an unpleasant flashback to when CLC participated in the “move of the spirit”. Thankfully no one barked or roared.

    I remember those days well too. What bothered me more than the “spirit manifestations” was the way the elders reacted nastily when questioned by innocent people. It opened my eyes to what “heavy shepherding” was all about.

  78. Christiane wrote:

    But WHY????

    Well, some say that the pew is simply not informed about the ails of the reformed movement within SBC … or that they are misinformed about it. But with concerns becoming more mainstream, the average Southern Baptist would have to plead being willingly ignorant as the denomination falls to New Calvinism. There is just not sufficient grassroots energy or capable leadership to turn it around at this point. This thing is taking on a strange spiritual dimension which is unsettling to me. I have been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years; it is sad to witness the denomination crumbling at a time when we need to get back on course with the Great Commission, rather than debating theology!

  79. elastigirl wrote:

    is anyone else bugged by the histrionics? the posturing? he obviously knows the camera is on him. the big heavy bible draped across the open palm held aloft, the other hand also held aloft gesturing, head held high, wildly engaged facial expression….

    another good grief from me

    Yes!

    I have been noticing how often the body language of these guys screams NPD. Also I notice a lot of them have this posture where their chin is defiantly jutting out. Kind of interesting. Reminds me of a C S Lewis poem, “Posturing.”

  80. Max wrote:

    I have been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years; it is sad to witness the denomination crumbling at a time when we need to get back on course with the Great Commission, rather than debating theology!

    you have seen all this happen over a long period of time, but I imagine the loss of those 1000+ missionaries in the field was like a great funeral bell sounding for many old-timers in the faith

    I remember when Paige Patterson et al got rid of the seventy-seven missionaries who would not SIGN the new BF&M 2K

    The culling of God-called missionaries is a profound sign of the dismantling of a respected denomination that was recognized by the WHOLE Church as sincerely wanting to bring Christ to those who needed Him world-wide. Now, they replace the missionaries with YRR ‘pastors’ who are trained in ‘stealth neo-Cal takeover tactics’ OR YRR who will act as ‘church planters’ and create a new franchise of a cult-like organization that doesn’t know of ‘soul freedom’ in the tradition of the old-time Baptist people. Sad times.

  81. Christiane wrote:

    But WHY????

    I believe quite a few Southern Baptists have no idea any of this is happening. It's mind-boggling to me that before the fall of 2008 I had absolutely NO CLUE that any of this was happening, and I was in a Southern Baptist church that unbeknownst to me was starting to go down this path.

    We must educate, educate, educate!

  82. @ Ian:

    “And we don’t do celebrity!”
    ++++++++++

    England is so great in this repect — so down to earth. not like many of us Americans, taking ourselves (& others) so dang seriously.

  83. Deb wrote:

    @ ZechZav:
    Made that correction for you.
    Thanks for your insightful comment. I’ve never heard of FIEC. What does it stand for? Thanks!

    Thanks Deb. The FIEC stands for “Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches” and has hosted John MacArthur at some of their annual conferences. There is a very enlightening piece on their website called “Why We Are Complimentarian”:

    https://fiec.org.uk/what-we-do/strand-blog/why-are-we-complementarian

  84. Deb wrote:

    before the fall of 2008 I had absolutely NO CLUE that any of this was happening, and I was in a Southern Baptist church that unbeknownst to me was starting to go down this path.

    DEB, what were the first signs you noticed that something was going on?

  85. Max wrote:

    If bringing home 1,000 seasoned missionaries doesn’t stir the pew, nothing will. On the other hand, try taking a way the monthly potluck dinner and you’ve got a fight on your hands!

    My church didn’t say much about bringing missionaries home. The discussion about private prayer language sure did get some conservative blood boiling, though.

  86. I know that for the first little while, the effects of such teachings were almost like sleeper agents in Christianity. It recruited a few, but once activated, they spread the teachings like wildfire. I think it’ll be a few years yet before we see the same effects in the states have jumped the pond and afflicted the kingdom. At least they have the benefit of a strong Anglican tradition that should pose a challenge to these teachings.

  87. NFI are on the wane anyway, in the aftermath of their leader retiring and their movement going in different directions. This story is quite instructive about the character of their movement. There are definitely echoes of overbearing leadership:

    http://eutychus.free.fr/nfiabuse

  88. “How do you the readers here view Bob Kauflin? Why do people think he is supporting Mahaney?”
    ++++++++++++++++

    hmmm…. he was a salaried employee under CJ Mahaney at Covenant Life Church for 15 years. When CJ fled and moved to Louisville, KY Bob moved as well (a big move, in every way), and is still a salaried employee, with plenty of opportunities for high-profile promotion.

    if this isn’t supporting i don’t know what is. I would also call this complicity to crimes (whether prosecutable or not is beside the point), and profiting from it along the way.

  89. Nancy2 wrote:

    My church didn’t say much about bringing missionaries home. The discussion about private prayer language sure did get some conservative blood boiling, though.

    I’ve seen little to nothing about these missionaries. I can not begin to imagine what these missionaries have been going through since they have come back home. So many broken promises by the leaders of the SBC to these people who mad way more sacrifices than these leaders could even begin to imagine. I am very angry about how these missionaries were treated.

  90. Christiane wrote:

    I remember when Paige Patterson et al got rid of the seventy-seven missionaries who would not SIGN the new BF&M 2K

    Yep, sign the document that they could not in good conscience sign or come home. What a horrible choice to present to these 77 missionaries. IMO they made the right decision to not violate their consciences and sign this man made document.

  91. Gram3 wrote:

    Church planting has nothing to do with planting churches with Jesus as the center. “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed. It would be more honest if they would just call it franchising, because that is exactly what it is. Create a brand and then sell the rights to use that brand for a fee and a percentage of gross. Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

    There’s the flip side, in that the pastorate now is viewed as a place to become rich and famous. I didn’t talk to a single pastoral major at Liberty that talked about how they wanted to see more people talked to Christ. Nope. They talked about how they were going to plant megachurches and everyone would buy their books. Most of them were not very socially adept, and had been very sheltered growing up by their parents.

    Me the missions major usually messed with them with one question, “Who are you reaching?” They had never sat down and considered the purpose of ministry.

  92. mot wrote:

    IMO they made the right decision to not violate their consciences and sign this man made document.

    Yes. They did right to honor their consciences. But the loss to the Church (and the whole Church) was heavy. I call it ‘culling’ because it was a ‘getting rid of’ and no bones were made about it being anything else.

  93. mot wrote:

    Max: The Neo-Cals will completely takeover the SBC IMO.

    I see people in the halls of my SBC church with their newly acquired “Gospel Project” workbooks and wonder if they have any idea that the editors have a distinctly Calvinist point of view.

  94. @ Christiane:
    In the summer of 2008 Dee and I learned about a young lady whom we knew who had just gotten engaged. She and her family were members of Dee’s church. She was a rising senior in college, and her fiancé and pastors were encouraging a short engagement. We didn’t understand why there was such a rush. She was going to graduate from college the following May. Why not wait til then to get married?

    Dee and I met with three pastors from her church to inquire about this push for short engagements. It was quite enlightening.

    Prior to this meeting, we began researching young marriages and short engagements on the internet. Mind you, I had never done much research using my computer and I knew absolutely nothing about blogging.

    Not long after meeting with those pastors, Dee and I began to have our eyes opened to some of the things we discuss here. SGM Survivors and SGM Refuge were particularly enlightening. We also started learning a lot about the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement. It was not unusual back then for me to spend most of the day doing research since I had the time to do so.

    That young lady ended up getting married in January 2009, and I believe she graduated from college the following May.

    Had that circumstance not happened eight years ago, I wonder how long it would have taken us to begin figuring things out.

    The Lord works in mysterious ways…

    We weren't all that surprised that five and a half years after our meeting with Dee's pastors that C.J. Mahaney was invited to preach at Dee's former church. 

  95. Former CLCer wrote:

    I think people know this, but C.J. has been affiliated with Terry Virgo since the 90’s, although C.J. kind of dropped him when he turned reformed.

    Maybe even since early to mid 80s.

  96. @ Stephen:

    ““Leaders and Wives Conference” Yuck. People should start holding “Leaders and Husbands” conferences just to mess with these misogynists.”
    ++++++++++++

    yuck is right.

    to be SGM (among other christian lables) is to have your empathy potential snuffed out to nil. whoever decided to call it ‘Leaders and Wives Conference’ is of necessity enjoying his privilege and scores high on ignorance and stupidity.

    imagine what it is like to have your unique human self subsumed with the word “wife”. to only be seen and understood in terms of my relationship to a man (who retains his name, his job title, priority, privilege, and every freedom). how many times have i been referred to as X’s wife? Me? My name? Nah, not important.

  97. FW Rez wrote:

    I see people in the halls of my SBC church with their newly acquired “Gospel Project” workbooks and wonder if they have any idea that the editors have a distinctly Calvinist point of view.

    I would bet they are clueless. I can remember when Baptists were a people who studied and knew their Bibles. Sadly, these people prove those days are gone.

  98. @ Gram3:

    “Church planting has nothing to do with planting churches with Jesus as the center. “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed. It would be more honest if they would just call it franchising, because that is exactly what it is.”
    ++++++++++++

    still free associating here… makes me think of James MacDonald and MD’s nonprofit -“Churches Helping Churches”. now that rings with credibility, doesn’t it! 😐

    How much money was generated? What happened to it?

  99. Deb wrote:

    @ FW Rez:
    Guess what we are now using at my Southern Baptist church…

    One of the other offering this fall deals with exploring science and the Bible. I don’t even want to know. If they want to do a Godspell project, however, I’m all in.

  100. @ Melody:

    “Driscoll has a very superficial and generalized view of the UK Christian situation, as in my experiences, Americans generally do of the rest of the world”
    +++++++++++

    good gravy, americans (especially christians) are insular & obnoxious where the rest of the world is concerned. (spoken as someone with red white and blue stars and stripes in her blood, but only by an accident of birth)

  101. Tina wrote:

    One if by land, two if by sea, three if by air . . . four if by TARDIS?

    In the episode I watched yesterday, London was their intended destination. They only missed by 7 years.

  102. @ mot:

    “I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?”
    ++++++++++++++

    job security. for the whole evangelical industrial complex foodchain. seminaries & their administrators and professors and graduates, publishing houses, music royalties, professional christians,…

    the quest for money, power, and personal significance.

    you know, all the laudable things about human nature.

  103. @ GSD:

    mot: “I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?”

    GSD: “You could ask the same question about restaurants.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    & retail. ha…. wherever I am at any given point within at least a 25 mile radius, I am always within 2 miles of a Wal-Mart, a Target, and/or a Costco.

    immigrating to iceland…. looking very attractive….

  104. elastigirl wrote:

    @ mot:

    “I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?”
    ++++++++++++++

    job security. for the whole evangelical industrial complex foodchain. seminaries & their administrators and professors and graduates, publishing houses, music royalties, professional christians,…

    the quest for money, power, and personal significance.

    you know, all the laudable things about human nature.

    Jesus would be unwelcome in so many so called evangelical churches today. These places are all man centered.

  105. @ mot:

    i’m sure your original question was rhetorical. i relish the topic, though, in some fantasy that just maybe somesuch feeder on the eva industrial complex foodchain reads it and says “Oh! Wow! You’re right! I’m going to do something about it! You see, I saw what happened. In fact, i know where the bodies buried…”

  106. elastigirl wrote:

    @ mot:

    i’m sure your original question was rhetorical. i relish the topic, though, in some fantasy that just maybe somesuch feeder on the eva industrial complex foodchain reads it and says “Oh! Wow! You’re right! I’m going to do something about it! You see, I saw what happened. In fact, i know where the bodies buried…”

    I have seen the church world I have lived in become so man centered and man ruled. And if you dare question the system–away with you and the quicker the better.

  107. elastigirl wrote:

    immigrating to iceland…. looking very attractive….

    But how about those pies you were making for us from scratch. Who will be making us homemade pies since you plan on leaving for Iceland? Chocolate chiffon. And someone here asked for rhubarb.

  108. @ mot:

    it’s a cardboard, paperdoll Jesus, with plastic cling-on clothes they dress him up in. the He-Man outfit, the conservative politician outfit (hair parted on the side and plastered down, pasty complexion, light blue shirt, dark suit, red & navy tie), the complementarian outfit (a hat that says “LEADER” on it, a T-shirt that says lead LEAD Lead leader LEADERSHIP all over, a lanyard around his neck with a big badge that says “LEADER”, and a hand-held sign that says “Wayne Grudem”),….

  109. elastigirl wrote:

    @ mot:

    it’s a cardboard, paperdoll Jesus, with plastic cling-on clothes they dress him up in. the He-Man outfit, the conservative politician outfit (hair parted on the side and plastered down, pasty complexion, light blue shirt, dark suit, red & navy tie), the complementarian outfit (a hat that says “LEADER” on it, a T-shirt that says lead LEAD Lead leader LEADERSHIP all over, a lanyard around his neck with a big badge that says “LEADER”, and a hand-held sign that says “Wayne Grudem”),….

    They want a Jesus they can control and want to be other people’s Holy Spirit.

  110. FW Rez wrote:

    I see people in the halls of my SBC church with their newly acquired “Gospel Project” workbooks and wonder if they have any idea that the editors have a distinctly Calvinist point of view.

    No, not a clue. If LifeWay promotes it, it must be OK, right?! Surely, our publishing house wouldn’t put SS literature in our churches that were produced by non-Southern Baptists! Folks need to wake up to the fact that LifeWay is not the Sunday School Board it used to be!

    Speaking of LifeWay, Ed Stetzer recently left. Get this … he is now the Executive Director of the Billy Graham School of Evangelism at Wheaton College! While at LifeWay, Stetzer promoted Calvinist publications and personalities. Yep, there’s a lot the pew ain’t got a clue about!

  111. @ dee:
    Ignorance is double edged sword. When they do hear the rhetoric they’ll be turned off. But worse if they or loved ones fall into the orbit of this belief system, it may become too late.
    The problem is that the Sunday service is not always representative of the churches true intentions.
    For me, It took about 2 years for the irreconcilable differences to become obvious, & 2 more to come to the realization that I was among people who really did not consider me one of them.
    Naivety on my part, maybe, but it sounds like honesty is even less common with the neocalvinist set. I wasn’t that invested so leaving was easy but for those sucked into the false sense of community, it must be difficult.
    Forewarned is definitely forearmed.

  112. Deb wrote:

    Guess what we are now using at my Southern Baptist church

    They probably hooked your church on the “first quarter free offer” of TGP literature. LifeWay reps are making the rounds in my area like high school drug dealers handing out TGP freebies to hook rural churches which have limited funds.

  113. Gram3 wrote:

    Church planting has nothing to do with planting churches with Jesus as the center. “Church Planting” is another phrase that has been re-purposed.

    Yep, they are planting reformed theology not Gospel churches … unless you buy the lie that Calvinism = Gospel.

  114. Gram3 wrote:

    Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

    SBC church plants are the first ministry opportunity for fresh seminary graduates. These 20-somethings with no pastoral experience can walk in to a plant as a “lead pastor”, recruit a few 20-30 year old “elders” of like-mind, find a cool band, promote books and conferences of the New Calvinist big dogs, and start working their magic as new reformers. It’s exciting stuff for a youngster!

  115. mot wrote:

    They want a Jesus they can control and want to be other people’s Holy Spirit.

    Well, those are tough things to actually accomplish! So they end up doing church without Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but still hang on to their determinist Calvinist God.

  116. Max wrote:

    These 20-somethings with no pastoral experience can walk in to a plant as a “lead pastor”, recruit a few 20-30 year old “elders” of like-mind, find a cool band, promote books and conferences of the New Calvinist big dogs, and start working their magic as new reformers. It’s exciting stuff for a youngster!

    Goodness Gracious! What would an old liberal apostate like Muff Potter do in such a locale?

  117. @ Velour:

    ha…. these pies are in the land of all my best intentions… along with all manner of fabulous entertaining, outrageous tablescapes, light fixtures with all working light bulbs, walls without peeling paint & texturing, landscaping in the backyard and front yard, finally achieving being organized…

  118. Velour wrote:

    And someone here asked for rhubarb.

    Twas’ Muff wanted rhubarb pie. Do Southerners do rhubarb? Or is that pretty much a Yankee thing?

  119. Virgo, Mahaney, and others from their organizations have been speaking at each others’ conferences since the 1980s. Mahaney and Tomczak both spoke multiple years at NFI’s Stoneleigh Bible Week (I was there with them in 1995) and Virgo spoke at multiple PDI/SGM Celebration conferences over the years and at Covenant Life Church. They’ve stocked some of each others’ books. PDI/SGM also used some of the premiere NFI band Phatfish as the rhythm section on some of their worship CDs, including No Greater Love and All We Long to See c.2001.

  120. Gram3 wrote:

    Create a brand and then sell the rights to use that brand for a fee and a percentage of gross. Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

    Makes me wonder Gram3. Do the big kahunas who run the planting efforts get a piece of the action from the plantations? If so they must be a lot like the Dutch East Indies Company of old.

  121. Also, NFI songwriter/worship leader Stuart Townsend was a featured guest at some of SGM's WorshipGod conferences. There were more connections but you get the idea.

  122. Deb wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    But WHY????

    I believe quite a few Southern Baptists have no idea any of this is happening. It’s mind-boggling to me that before the fall of 2008 I had absolutely NO CLUE that any of this was happening, and I was in a Southern Baptist church that unbeknownst to me was starting to go down this path.

    We must educate, educate, educate!

    I’m not sure how many years but a few. I had moved to Colorado and had gone to a couple of services at a Southern Baptist church. Having come from up North I was only familiar with Conservative Baptist and didn’t know this was a Southern Baptist.

    I read that the Southern Baptist Convention had voted “wives must be submissive to their husband”.

    I asked the young pastor “why didn’t they read the scriptures and have that “husbands are to love their wives?” He didn’t have any answers.

    Not long after I read that Jimmy Carter (former US President) left the denomination because he said they were trying to force creeds (paraphrase).

    After not getting caught by Bill Gothard, the Shepherding movement, covenants, the laughing movement, etc., I had gotten gun shy about churches going off in wrong directions and so never went back to that church. I still struggle finding places that aren’t corrupted.

  123. Muff Potter wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    And someone here asked for rhubarb.
    Twas’ Muff wanted rhubarb pie. Do Southerners do rhubarb? Or is that pretty much a Yankee thing?

    I’m in California and I do rhubarb. Nancy2, Gram3, Lydia, and our other Southerners will have to give us a full pie report.

  124. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Velour:
    ha…. these pies are in the land of all my best intentions… along with all manner of fabulous entertaining, outrageous tablescapes, light fixtures with all working light bulbs, walls without peeling paint & texturing, landscaping in the backyard and front yard, finally achieving being organized…

    Best intentions. Look it, I told you if you make the pies, I will do the dishes. OK, now I’ll bring a bag of good coffee beans and my coffee grinder too. We’ll just sit and look at our pie, contemplate each delicious bite, sip some coffee.

    Take the other projects one thing at a time.

    Being organized. Declutter, etc. I like http://www.flylady.net Free.

  125. Muff Potter wrote:

    Do Southerners do rhubarb? Or is that pretty much a Yankee thing?

    I’m a Yankee, and I don’t do rhubarb pie. I do strawberry-rhubarb pie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen straight-up rhubarb pie – always strawberry-rhubarb. A piece of that pie, and a dab of good vanilla ice-cream, and you are winning.

  126. roebuck wrote:

    A piece of that pie, and a dab of good vanilla ice-cream, and you are winning.

    OK. You’re bringing the vanilla icecream.

  127. Speaking of NFI songs, in the NFI church we used to sing an NFI song in which the chorus went “You rule the world, you reign!” Pretty tune, moving, purportedly sung to Jesus.

    But I cannot find anything in the Bible stating that Jesus rules the world or reigns here at this time, In fact, He went out of His way to tell us that His kingdom was NOT of this world, and told us that in fact Satan is the ruler of the world (Gospel of John).

    Apparently, we were unwittingly singing a song to Satan himself. How very NFI/SGM.

  128. Velour wrote:

    I’m in California and I do rhubarb. Nancy2, Gram3, Lydia, and our other Southerners will have to give us a full pie report.

    I don’t like rhubarb, but my grandma had a rhubarb bed in her garden here in southern Kentucky.

  129. roebuck wrote:

    I’m a Yankee, and I don’t do rhubarb pie. I do strawberry-rhubarb pie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen straight-up rhubarb pie – always strawberry-rhubarb. A piece of that pie, and a dab of good vanilla ice-cream, and you are winning.

    My Yankee husband polished off a strawberry rhubarb pie that my mom’s aunt brought with her last week from Ohio when she visited.Velour wrote:

    OK, now I’ll bring a bag of good coffee beans and my coffee grinder too. We’ll just sit and look at our pie, contemplate each delicious bite, sip some coffee.

    I make hickory nut pie. I’m serious. Hickory nuts are cousins to pecans. They work as a very good substitute in a pecan pie recipe!

  130. @ Nancy2:

    I have never heard of them. Sounds delicious. I love pecan pie. I know I will feel the same about hickory nut pie. Do you serve it with whipped cream? Ice cream?

  131. ZechZav wrote:

    The Anglicans are a mixed breed to be fair. I did attend one evangelical church that has close associations with the Gospel Coalition which I would never go to again. But I also later attended an Anglican church that would not touch the teachings of Piper and others, as I warned the vicar about it. My bad experience was mainly with the independent churches which are much more monolithic and sold out to the dogmas of the Gospel Coalition. I would avoid any that churches that call themselves “evangelical” and would particularly avoid any associated with the Gospel Coalition. I would not set foot in any church affiliated to the FIEC (who have promoted complimentarianism to be a primary issue). I would also avoid “the Evangelical Alliance”, New Frontiers or Ichthus churches.

    Here’s some figures to show the breadth of UK evangelicals and the minority nature of complementarian views.

    There’s about 16,250 Anglican churches in the UK. I saw a statistic saying 26% of these are evangelical, although that figure is a few years old and many have increased. So about 4200 evangelical Anglican churches. Perhaps 1/3 of these are conservative and complementarian, so 2/3, around 2800, are egalitarian.

    Independent churches are not monolithic – they vary considerably in doctrine and practice, although most tend to be complementarian.

    The FIEC has 564 churches, all complementarian. But I don’t think they are all Calvinist.

    By contrast, the Baptist Union (now Baptists Together) has 2150 churches, and whilst it doesn’t dictate a view on women’s roles to its members, its official position is egalitarian.

    The Evangelical Alliance is simply an umbrella body for evangelicals – it is not a denomination and doesn’t have a position on the many points of contention. I’m not sure why you feel they are to be avoided. In general, I would be more suspicious of churches that are not members – these tend to be the more separatist groups (eg reformed Baptists).

    New Frontiers has been discussed elsewhere so I’ll leave them. Numerically they are not large.

    Ichthus is a new church grouping which I would say is Arminian and egalitarian. There may be some issues relating to the their charismatic theology, but again I’m not sure why you feel they should be avoided. However, they comprise just 9 churches, plus 25 linked churches – a tiny grouping.

    There’s about 2200 Pentecostal churches – I’ll assume these are egalitarian.

    So there’s 1400 conservative Anglicans plus 564 FIEC, let’s say 2000 complementarian churches.

    On the other hand, there’s 2800 non-conservative evangelical anglicans, 2150 Baptists, 2200 Pentecostals, making 7150 egalitarian churches.

    This is obviously very simplified and incomplete (I haven’t included Methodists, with 6000 churches – they are egalitarian but I don’t know the percentage of evangelical Methodist churches). However a more rigorous study isn’t going to be vastly different. It all points to 20-30% of UK evangelical churches having complementarian views. Numerically, the percentage of Christians is almost certainly lower as FIEC and conservative evangelical Anglican churches tend to be on the small side. I’d guess 10-15% of UK evangelicals are complementarian.

    As not all these would be in sympathy with SGM, it’s consistent with my previous figure (which was a guess) of 5-10% of evanglicals sharing SGM views.

  132. elastigirl wrote:

    @ mot:

    “I do not understand all of this church planting that is going on these days. There are so many churches, why is there the need for more?”
    ++++++++++++++

    job security. for the whole evangelical industrial complex foodchain. seminaries & their administrators and professors and graduates, publishing houses, music royalties, professional christians,…

    the quest for money, power, and personal significance.

    “We must away, ere break of day,
    To seek our pale enchanted gold.”

  133. Bill M wrote:

    Perchance Nick can prompt God to drop in and let us know he is dropping the word “gospel” from his lexicon.

    Not going to happen. The Good News is Mine, in any language (Old English included) and always will be, no matter who purloins it, for whatever purpose.

  134. Ian wrote:

    New Frontiers has been discussed elsewhere so I’ll leave them. Numerically they are not large.
    Ichthus is a new church grouping which I would say is Arminian and egalitarian. There may be some issues relating to the their charismatic theology, but again I’m not sure why you feel they should be avoided. However, they comprise just 9 churches, plus 25 linked churches – a tiny grouping.

    Interesting stuff, I am personally connected with a couple high up in NF, but have been to any NF service except their wedding. As NF was getting off the ground here we all used to laugh at some of their ‘shenanigans’ as they tried out quite authoritarian types of dating for example, to see real life break right through them & they’d drop them later, as a mistake of a young chirch.
    Now as far as Icthus is concerned I have great respect for Roger & Faith Forster, its founders. Roger has been a huge bastion for arminianism & womens’ place in leadership. He is closely associated with Greg Boyd, & his books have brought him to the notice of Pope Piper. However as Roger holds at least one first, if not a double first, from an Oxbridge college, as well as decades of pastoral experience, he has no problems in holding his own in that debate.

    I’m sad to hear that there are inroads into the UK church but I still remain convinced that we are less likely to be swayed by overt showmanship, poor manners & pushiness a la Driscoll, & celebrity culture in general. We are still a cynical bunch who will label people ‘show-offs’ instead of ‘dynamic’ 🙂

  135. @ Ian:

    Thanks for the research. My main issue with the EA is their hypocrisy over Steve Chalke. In 2004 he wrote a book denying penal substitution and rejecting it as "cosmic child abuse". This is a serious error as it undermines the basis of our salvation and forgives. Yet his membership was never questioned until he affirmed gay marriage 11 years later. Chalke and his Oasis was promptly expelled at this point. Laying aside the debate over gay marriage, the EA said, by their actions, that gay marriage is a bigger issue than Jesus. But the EA do have churches with women pastors and are much better here than the FIEC. They have some good churches, but what bothers me are the things they quietly tolerate.

    I will reply more to you later.

  136. How happy I am that the American cavalry are coming over to the uk to rescue us- not! Thanks ladies for the warning.

  137. Christiane wrote:

    I am and will remain a great Anglophile with ties from my Stafford maternal family history to ‘the old country’.

    I grew up not far down the M6 from Stafford, and – even though I emigrated to Scotland some 25 years ago – retain a great affection for the North Midlands.

  138. william wallace wrote:

    How happy I am that the American cavalry are coming over to the uk to rescue us- not! Thanks ladies for the warning.

    I’m an American with relatives who live in England and Scotland. (I’ve worked for Yorkshire Cricket while in England.)

    I’m glad that warnings are being given about these destructive males (I don’t think they deserve to be called “men” for their adamant refusal to protect children in their churches from harm), their authoritarianism, and false Gospel.

    I hope that those across The Pond won’t be giving money or time to them.

  139. Beakerj wrote:

    I’m sad to hear that there are inroads into the UK church but I still remain convinced that we are less likely to be swayed by overt showmanship, poor manners & pushiness a la Driscoll, & celebrity culture in general. We are still a cynical bunch who will label people ‘show-offs’ instead of ‘dynamic’

    Although I do definitely agree with you here, especially in the different attitude of the British to ‘showiness’, my feeling is that the people most likely to adopt the ‘teachings’ of CJ Mahaney, Driscoll, Piper and Co over here are the younger ones, especially university students and young professionals.

    Many churches have significant student ministries, especially in cities with large university populations. While this is nothing rare (or wrong), many cases I’ve seen are at churches who hold strong Reformed/complementarian views. When I was in the Christian Union not that many years ago, most invited speakers had a particularly Reformed ‘flavour’ even if the students were from many different backgrounds. In the case of church plants, many originated from those Reformed/complementarian churches, and tended to have a pretty homogeneous congregation even years after being planted, with mostly university students and young families.

    I guess it’s possible that my city is a particular case of a higher concentration of conservative/reformed/complementarian people and churches compared with the rest of the country… For example, Acts 29 Europe UK offices are located here!

    However, while I do not disagree that the evangelical landscape and the general attitude of people towards certain trends are different in the UK compared with the USA, I think that the influence these ideas have had is significant. In my mind, you don’t need to have a large proportion of the population influenced by some ideas for the situation to be significant, as long as the investment and attachment that people have for them is strong enough, and the churches are willing to put time, effort and money into expanding and church planting.

  140. Max wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Train the franchisees well, because if they do well, then the franchisor does well.

    SBC church plants are the first ministry opportunity for fresh seminary graduates. These 20-somethings with no pastoral experience can walk in to a plant as a “lead pastor”, recruit a few 20-30 year old “elders” of like-mind, find a cool band, promote books and conferences of the New Calvinist big dogs, and start working their magic as new reformers. It’s exciting stuff for a youngster!

    And how much do these youngsters mess up sincere Christians?

  141. elastigirl wrote:

    how many times have i been referred to as X’s wife? Me? My name? Nah, not important.

    I actually introduced a family member as ‘My family members husband’ at church the other day and I though wait, maybe I was supposed to say his name. Whoops!

    He was fine but it would be madening to be constantly thought of this way I guess. I am bothered by ‘leaders and wives’ for a lot of reasons but mainly be the idea that the simply fact of being a wife means you can’t be a leader.

  142. ZechZav wrote:

    Thanks Deb. The FIEC stands for “Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches” and has hosted John MacArthur at some of their annual conferences. There is a very enlightening piece on their website called “Why We Are Complimentarian”

    Yuck, and double-yuck…

    I skimmed through that article, focussing on their numbered list of reasons for being Female Subordinationists. Really, though, the first paragraph tells me all I need to know about them. Reading the phrase “good response” as a description of anything written by Doug Wilson is enough to make my skin crawl.

  143. Ian wrote:

    There’s about 2200 Pentecostal churches – I’ll assume these are egalitarian.

    Interesting stats. The Pentecostal Church I attended was fundamentalist but allows women to pastor. However I get a bit of an uneven vibe. The women’s ministries all happen during the day with a focus on crafts like quilting. Men’s ministry is focused on fishing and other ‘guy stuff’.
    They’re still promoting Promise Keepers ( are they still around?).
    So from a church perspective, what is egalitarian really?

  144. Law Prof wrote:

    Speaking of NFI songs, in the NFI church we used to sing an NFI song in which the chorus went “You rule the world, you reign!” Pretty tune, moving, purportedly sung to Jesus.
    But I cannot find anything in the Bible stating that Jesus rules the world or reigns here at this time, In fact, He went out of His way to tell us that His kingdom was NOT of this world, and told us that in fact Satan is the ruler of the world (Gospel of John).
    Apparently, we were unwittingly singing a song to Satan himself. How very NFI/SGM.

    I don’t even know the song, much less can comment on the intention of the songwriter, but I must respectfully beg to differ that the song must have been addressed to satan.

    Jesus did describe satan as the ruler of this world – right before declaring that the ruler of this world is about to be driven out. And before His ascension into heaven, He declared that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”.

    I must agree, of course, that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, in that it didn’t originate within it. And there is conclusive biblical (and empirical!) evidence that His kingdom will not be fully manifest and universally seen until His return. But I also have to say that He has nevertheless fully supplanted satan as the ruler of this world. IOW, the apparent rule of satan in this world – such as it is – is actually an illusion, perpetuated – to take one example – where people think he’s still in charge and therefore let him call the shots. Rather like the legitimacy of an authoritarian “pastor” – he has no actual right to lord it over the flock, but if the flock won’t stand up to him, lord it over them he certainly will.

    Singing that Jesus rules and reigns is, in itself at least, legitimate therefore; indeed, ISTM that Psalm 24 says as much.

    For me and Lesley, this is not an academic distinction. Our calling is to the poor and the downtrodden, and in particular, to those here in the UK who are trapped in poverty and injustice through unemployment and/or long-term low wages. There’s a host of manifestations of these injustices, indeed far too many to list here, and accordingly there’s a host of ways in which they need to be addressed. We’re not “dominionist” and do not believe that we can make a righteous nation by passing christian laws (whatever they are). Though even that’s something of a grey area – consider Wilberforce and the outlawing of slavery, for instance. We certainly do believe that it’s our legitimate task, as followers of Jesus, to build something that usefully demonstrates to a fallen world that Jesus is a kindly and loving Friend, but also a great and wise King.

    I hope that makes sense…

  145. mot wrote:

    And how much do these youngsters mess up sincere Christians?

    New Calvinism is accompanied by a spirit of confusion. Some sincere Christians who are drawn to it … out of curiosity, or to check out another church option in their area, or a desire to help a new church plant get established … can become confused by the aberrant belief and practice they encounter.

    “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33)

    “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1)

  146. Jack wrote:

    So from a church perspective, what is egalitarian really?

    Thanks for bringing that up. I have my own ideas about that, actually.

    I have not bought into the idea that a church has to adopt anybody else’s definition of what anything is. A church does not have to fall into some neatly defined category of egalitarian, or not, or liberal/progressive, or not, just because some outsiders may think they should have the right to define those words for everybody and then insist that others accept their definitions and conform to their standards. I with Mel on this one: freeeedoooommm.

  147. okrapod wrote:

    I have not bought into the idea that a church has to adopt anybody else’s definition of what anything is.

    I don’t like the idea of having to claim labels and groups, personally.

    Maybe a church has crafting stuff during the day because old ladies who don’t work like to craft. Or mom’s with kids in school like to craft. IDK. It doesn’t bother me just because I don’t like to craft. Churches can go too far with this stuff, but I would hate to see it go too far in the other direction.

    Amusingly, we had a deal where they talked about the different sunday school classes and the lady who introduced the mens class said it was called the mens class but it really wasn’t just for men at all. Which was a confusing presentation because why not just change the name but also kind of funny.

  148. Martos wrote:

    [A nearby congregation was] Very liberal theologically, but have to admit that I enjoyed the more open attitude to differing positions and the more frequent use of silence in the services. And they are lovely people as well.

    I’ve had a quick look at the website of the Evangelical Alliance today, since it’s come up in conversation and I knew relatively little about it. On their “Basis of faith” page, they have a section entitled “Evangelical Relationships Commitment”; it’s several hundred words, which is a bit too long to quote in full here. And it was most interesting.

    Whilst I’ve obviously selected the following quotes and am open to correction as to their meaning and context, I believe they are representative:
     We welcome as Christian brothers and sisters all who experience the grace of new birth…
     … duty of trust and mutual encouragement to all who serve Christ as Lord, not least to those who conscientiously prefer not to be identified with the same churches, alliances or councils as ourselves
     We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people…
     … by the Spirit promote personal relationships of love, peace and fellowship within the Body of Christ, His universal Church
     We call on each other, when speaking or writing of those issues of faith or practice that divide us, to acknowledge our own failings and the possibility that we ourselves may be mistaken…
     We owe it to each other, in making public comment on the alleged statements of our fellow Christians, first to confer directly with them and to establish what was actually intended… to weigh the proportional significance of what we perceive to be in error, and to put a charitable construction on what is doubtful
     We rejoice in the spread of the Gospel across the world and urge all Christians to commit themselves to this task, avoiding unnecessary competition and co-operating, wherever possible…

    I suppose these calls may not always be heeded by all members of the EA. On the other hand, they are worthy calls. I know there was a very strong disagreement between the EA and the Oasis Trust over <longStoryShort> the latter’s general support for gay marriage </longStoryShort> some years ago, which led the to EA suspending the latter’s membership. But even there, I don’t believe the split was marked by acrimony and accusation, covert or overt.

  149. Deb wrote:

    @ FW Rez:
    Guess what we are now using at my Southern Baptist church…

    I recommended against using the Gospel Project at a church I used to attend. One of the biggest issues I have against it is the fact that it is pre-packaged. The teacher doesn’t teach, s/he facilitates discussion and nothing more. Which is also the reason why I cannot attend any small group that only studies the pastor’s sermon.

    As Christians, we need to study the Bible together, not someone else’s interpretation of the Bible. Can we use study helps? Of course, to not do so would be foolish. But we do not need to feed ourselves on the regurgitated interpretation of someone else.

    In my opinoin, the worst aspect of the YRR/9M/TGC indoctrination is convincing the average lay-person that they are not qualified to read and interpret the Bible themselves, but they need a ‘highly educated professional’ to do it for them. Of course, once people were convinced of that, everything else became easier.

    Ironically, that is what the Protestant Reformation was all about, yet those pushing the pseudo-reformed TGC/9M view are actually leading American Christians back under a Pope-ish style system. Look at the evidence: only qualified ministers can interpret Scripture, people can be ex-communicated and shunned, massive amounts of monies are being raised for building funds, the Christian elite are consolidating power (Bishop-style), etc.

  150. Jack wrote:

    So from a church perspective, what is egalitarian really?

    In practice, it usually means that women can preach and/or, in sacramental denominations, preside over the Communion service or its equivalent.

    I know this wasn’t your question, but from my perspective, it’s all to do with – bizarre as it sounds – the freedom Jesus has to rule over, and be the Head of his church. So, it’s nothing to do with whether women (or men) are free to exercise their gifts. It’s whether Jesus is free to give women those gifts in the first place.

    If a given woman wants a preaching or leadership position but has no gift at preaching or leading, I am fiercely opposed to giving her that position. That’s an abomination on many levels, just as it would be for a man, to exactly the same degree and for exactly the same reasons.

    But if Jesus wants to gift, equip, call and enable a woman to teach, preach, prophesy, or anything else, then it is His royal prerogative to do so. It was His word, after all, that states “In Christ there is neither… male nor female…”, and it is for Him alone, not us, to interpret that infallible and eternal truth and bring it to bear on His church, at any point in history, as he sees fit.

  151. Burwell wrote:

    I recommended against using the Gospel Project at a church I used to attend. One of the biggest issues I have against it is the fact that it is pre-packaged. The teacher doesn’t teach, s/he facilitates discussion and nothing more. Which is also the reason why I cannot attend any small group that only studies the pastor’s sermon.

    Burwell, you have hit on my primary concern with TGP, in addition to its exclusive-Calvinist authorship. I call it “Canned Indoctrination” when a Bible teacher is not allowed to teach as the Spirit leads, but must refer to a prepared study outline. Of course, some would argue that following a Sunday School curriculum of an sort is canned delivery, but TGP discourages direct input by a teacher.

    You are also right to avoid small group meetings focused only on the pastor’s sermon. This is modus operandi at SBC-YRR church plants in my area. The “LifeGroup” leader takes pastor’s last sermon and frames it to fit a small group discussion to keep the indoctrination flowing through the week. It is wrong to call these meetings “Life” Groups, since very little spiritual life flows through them.

    New Calvinism is all about indoctrination … from the pulpit message, to small group meetings, to controlling the flock’s belief and behavior through membership covenants.

  152. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    The EA did break fellowship with Oasis on the gay marriage issue. What grieved me was the fact that they didn’t apply the same standard when the person and work was attacked.

  153. Max wrote:

    I call it “Canned Indoctrination” when a Bible teacher is not allowed to teach as the Spirit leads

    The 2000 revision of the SBC Baptist Faith & Message diminished long-held Baptist doctrines of the “priesthood of the believer” and “soul competancy.” Individual believers, in effect, are discouraged from seeking direct revelation by allowing the Holy Spirit to teach them as they read the Bible. All teachings must be filtered through church leadership … the perfect set-up for New Calvinist indoctrination. If you can control what they hear and believe, you can control them.

    When the BFM2000 revision was first released, with it obvious trend toward Calvinism, I thought it was impossible to “re-program” millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists … but i’s happening in a progressive manner. Why are New Calvinists targeting Generations Xers and Millennials? Whey are they converting and equipping young pastor wannabes at SBC seminaries? Why do they appeal to our youth with popular books and cool conferences? They know that if you can successfully indoctrinate a generation of believers with your belief system, you can change the default belief and practice of a whole denomination as older generations pass from the scene. A strategy that’s working for them.

  154. Max wrote:

    New Calvinism is all about indoctrination … from the pulpit message, to small group meetings, to controlling the flock’s belief and behavior through membership covenants.

    You are correct. As others have stated here, on various posts, being a ‘Berean’ is neither encouraged nor is it looked favorably upon. Better today to be well studied in the latest Piper, Dever, Grudem claptrap, able to quote chapter and verse, than to be learned in the Scriptures.

  155. Martos wrote:

    Ond of the the issues with all this is that their market share is most likely to derive from people who are already christians and have a favourable attitude to their positions, at least initially. So, if they’re thinking of church planting, it may be done by removing christians from other congregations. Besides that, I cannot see how what they may do to attract people from outside the church could be any different to what many others already do over here. And despite their ‘celebrity’ status within the evangelical circuit, outside this ‘bubble’ nobody knows them. It may be the same in the USA, but I guess their circuit/bubble over there is larger.

    I’m late commenting here, but this is a concern for me. I can just see them appealing only to those who to some extent are already in their demographic, to the point of sheep stealing. For a few months in 1994 I was a student at London University while staying with a host family in one of the suburbs. I heard at the time that *regular* church attendance was down to about 2% or so for the population of the U.K.; I don’t know what it is now. My guess is there are more citizens and immigrants going to Mosque than to Church–of all denominations put together.

    The trouble with groups like the ironically named Gospel Coalition is that they frequently make reference to the gospel in sermons, etc. but too rarely get around to actually preaching the law to convict people of their sins, followed by a clear proclamation of the gospel. The real one I mean, not the gospel of complementarianism, the gospel of church growth, the gospel of TULIP, etc., etc…..

  156. Burwell wrote:

    … being a ‘Berean’ is neither encouraged nor is it looked favorably upon. Better today to be well studied in the latest Piper, Dever, Grudem claptrap …

    If the Bereans searched the Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true, how much more we should be diligent to test what Piper et al. are saying! The New Calvinists have even twisted what Paul was saying!

  157. Zechzav wrote:

    Thanks for the research. My main issue with the EA is their hypocrisy over Steve Chalke. In 2004 he wrote a book denying penal substitution and rejecting it as “cosmic child abuse”. This is a serious error as it undermines the basis of our salvation and forgives.

    I deny penal substitutionary atonement too, and it caused me a lot of mental grief and anguish. I don’t think you can discount how horrifying it is to think that God would want to sacrifice his own son to satisfy something he put in place. That goes against a couple of very ingrained ideas in our society: you don’t sacrifice children and you don’t have human sacrifices. The prophets of the Old Testament were huge on no child/human sacrifice because the God they represented didn’t want them.

    It should be noted that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not part of the early church but instead is an outgrowth of Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo” as refined through Luther and Calvin.

    Jesus is Emmanuel “God With Us” through everything. He knows what life and death are like. He has shown us that even in the worst of instances, God is with us. He has reconciled us to God by his death where *we* killed him and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead. But this is not penal substitutionary atonement.

    I am going to be very, very blunt here: You need to think VERY HARD about what you’re saying when you say that Jesus had to die as a substitution. It makes God look awful and is an enormous stumbling block to belief. I’d rather go to hell than believe in a god who is that cruel. And I am DEAD SERIOUS about that. I see Jesus’ death and resurrection as God reconciling the world to himself and PSA is unnecessary and dangerous.

    If I could tell people how much mental anguish PSA has caused me, and I am just one person…Jesus was not a human/god hybrid sacrifice to appease an offended God the Father. He was God himself, reconciling the world to himself after we killed him and vindicated by God via his resurrection.

    Seriously, think through the awfulness that is PSA and see how much it hurts people before you call it “serious error.?

  158. @ Lea:

    “the simple fact of being a wife means you can’t be a leader”
    ++++++++++++++

    in christian culture, you can’t be an individual, a human being. you become humanoid, like Rosie the domestic robot on The Jetsons, or like the husband’s service dog in a vest — if you get acknowledged at all it’s with a pat on the head of sorts.

    a bit hyperbolic, of course — but it’s not far off from the truth in experience.

    when were visiting churches some years ago looking for the right one, each and every time the pastor made an energetic bee line for my husband, open facial expression with big smile, hand extended in greeting, a pat on the back — not once NOT ONCE was i even acknowledged. i was standing right there, not a little behind but right alongside, just as eager and happy to meet the pastor. My husband was too preoccupied — i had to interject, introduce myself, extend my hand. a hurried handshake was returned, while continuing the conversation with my husband. no eye contact.

    quite a ritarded culture in so many ways (socially, emotionally, values-wise). in some cases, of course, it’s intentioned and deliberate, with no qualms.

    quite frankly, i can spend my time, energy, and faith in much better ways with a better return on my investment.

  159. Zechzav wrote:

    @ Ian:

    Thanks for the research. My main issue with the EA is their hypocrisy over Steve Chalke. In 2004 he wrote a book denying penal substitution and rejecting it as “cosmic child abuse”. This is a serious error as it undermines the basis of our salvation and forgives. Yet his membership was never questioned until he affirmed gay marriage 11 years later. Chalke and his Oasis was promptly expelled at this point. Laying aside the debate over gay marriage, the EA said, by their actions, that gay marriage is a bigger issue than Jesus. But the EA do have churches with women pastors and are much better here than the FIEC. They have some good churches, but what bothers me are the things they quietly tolerate.

    I will reply more to you later.

    I see what you are saying. But note that the EA is not a denomination, unlike FIEC.

    Exactly what Steve Chalke believes about the atonement is debateable. And let’s remember that NT Wright (probably the greatest living theologian) felt that Chalke was right and wrote some highly critical comments about the book Pierced For Our Transgressions which was written in response to supposedly set out the orthodox position.

    I disagree with Chalke over homosexuality, but as far as I know the EA only expelled his organisation (Oasis), not him as an individual. I also felt it was hypocritical, but because they have tolerated churches that preach a prosperity gospel and promote notorious American health and wealth preachers. If I was in charge, I would expel such churches.

    The difficulty for the EA is that UK evangelicalism is divided. They have to act as an umbrella body for many different Christian groups that, if we’re honest, don’t get on well with each other.

  160. Regarding New Frontiers, in that ex-pastor’s story I couldn’t help but notice references to the “apostolic delegate”, “apostolic anointing”, and holding an “Apostolic Consultation”. I don’t know if they are in any way connected to the NAR, but I find the language uncomfortably similar. I am slowly realizing that I need to stay away from any church entity that throws around the “apostle” language, because since the first century, there are no more apostles! Anyone claiming such authority is either deceived or is on a power trip.

  161. @ Burwell:

    In June, I left a PCA church after they started running Mark Driscoll’s Redemption Groups. Two weeks ago, lo and behold, they started putting out small group discussion questions based on the sermon.

    You’re right about the YRR going into the worst kinds of Catholicism. Gospel Coalition’s foundation document lists individualism as both the evil of secular culture and the mistake of “old evangelicalism”, and thus matches years of Catholic literature on the great sin of individualism behind the heresy of Protestantism. And then, the subtle suggestions of flagellation, such as the previously mentioned Redemption Groups.

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision

  162. Stan wrote:

    right about the YRR going into the worst kinds of Catholicism. Gospel Coalition’s foundation document lists individualism as both the evil of secular culture and the mistake of “old evangelicalism”, and thus matches years of Catholic literature

    I can verify that the Catholic teaching is different from your understanding in the matter of acting personally (individualism) in the moral decision-making process:

    1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as PERSONALLY to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”53

    It is always better to check your facts about what a Church teaches formally before saying that you ‘have read some literature’ ….. there is enough that IS true about the Catholic Church that is open to criticism so that you don’t need to resort to mis-representations.

    My advice: google “the sin of individualism” (your term) together with ” Vatican Catechism” and it will lead you to a proper discussion of how the Church feels about personal moral responsibility/moral conscience. It will save time for you and you will get your facts correct from the horse’s mouth about the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

  163. NJ wrote:

    Regarding New Frontiers, in that ex-pastor’s story I couldn’t help but notice references to the “apostolic delegate”, “apostolic anointing”, and holding an “Apostolic Consultation”. I don’t know if they are in any way connected to the NAR, but I find the language uncomfortably similar. I am slowly realizing that I need to stay away from any church entity that throws around the “apostle” language, because since the first century, there are no more apostles! Anyone claiming such authority is either deceived or is on a power trip.

    New Frontiers traces its origins to the British house church movement of the 1970s, which gave rise to a number of new groupings (they always said they were not denominations but others disagree!). This movement featured self-proclaimed “apostles” from an early stage. I would say they were both deceived and on a power trip! I’m sure it predates the NAR, which is a much more recent development from America.

  164. @ mirele:

    AMEN and AMEN mirele. I too reject PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) and I know we’re not lone dissenters (heretics?). There are many others out here who don’t dare and come out of the closet on this because of FEAR.

  165. @ Christiane:

    Well, there is the catechism and then there is the pope and the secular media. I just now googled ‘individualism pope francis’ and found quite a bit of negative referencing of ‘individualism’ in relation to various circumstances. I am thinking that this may be what Stan is talking about. It certainly is what the media reports from time to time.

  166. okrapod wrote:

    then there is the pope and the secular media

    Looks to me like Francis is condemning the enormous selfish greed that takes away from the common good. (example: Like the epipen huge price increase for profit.)

    That is NOT the same as ‘personal moral conscience’, no.

    I did find this:
    ““You are often disappointed by facts that speak of corruption on the part of people who put their own interests before the common good,” Francis told a crowd who had gathered on a football field to hear him speak.”
    http://www.rawstory.com/2013/07/pope-francis-condemns-culture-of-individualism-that-creates-economic-inequality/

    Two different things. Like the Ryan Plan of another election year. The Nuns On The Bus exposed Ryan’s claim that he was ‘inspired’ by his Catholic Social doctrine …. it made the nuns mad, and they took to the road:
    “The reason we’re out around the country is because most people don’t know what the House of Representatives has done.” What it has done, in Sister Simone’s view, is attempt to reduce the deficit by cutting vital social services to vulnerable families while further reducing the income taxes for the top 2 percent.
    This is a view that is shared by U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, an organization that acts collaboratively on issues important to the church and society. In letters to Congress, the conference has stated its opposition to the budget cuts, indicating that the “circle of protection” around essential programs for poor people has been broken.
    But what seems to really fuel the passion of Sister Simone and the other nuns on the bus is Rep. Ryan’s statement that his budget was informed by his Catholic social teachings. As Sister Simone noted in the Des Moines speech, “If he hadn’t uttered those words, I don’t think we’d have a bus trip. He made me mad.” 🙂

    BIG difference between extreme for-profit greed in capitalism attacking and affecting the environment, people’s health, the situations of those at the margins, and the general common good shared by all people AND

    a person’s private moral conscience

  167. Ian wrote:

    New Frontiers traces its origins to the British house church movement of the 1970s, which gave rise to a number of new groupings (they always said they were not denominations but others disagree!). This movement featured self-proclaimed “apostles” from an early stage. I would say they were both deceived and on a power trip! I’m sure it predates the NAR, which is a much more recent development from America.

    I believe Restoration Ministries/Covenant Ministries International started during this same time frame. I don’t know if they are still around now. Their leaders/apostles were frequent guests at PDI/SGM/SGC. I believe that the SGC group got their ideas about apostles from CMI. Terri Virgo may have been part of CMI in the early years. I seem to remember his name from the early 80s.

  168. Bridget wrote:

    I believe Restoration Ministries/Covenant Ministries International [CMI] started during this same time frame. I don’t know if they are still around now.

    They did, and I was part of a CMI church for several years in the early 1990’s; indeed, it was the first church I joined after becoming a Christian. In an unusual arrangement, Lesley and I are still very close to the then-pastor and his family (though Lesley didn’t meet them until some years after we were married); they were always, to a greater extent than I realised at the time, square pegs in round holes in the Restoration setup. Not least because he’s always supported women in leadership wherever God has called them to it.

    Technically, CMI still exists. But it never really survived much beyond Bryn Jones’ death some ten years ago. I met Bryn Jones several times, but no more than that, so I can’t claim to have known him well. Terry Virgo was not, to my knowledge, part of CMI as such, but he was both a contemporary of Bryn (an brother Keri) Jones and a part of the small group of men around that time who believed God was calling them to re-visit the longstanding assumption that apostles and prophets were not obsolete.

    I think it’s worth pointing out that, whatever we all may think of them and their legacies, and whatever they subsequently went on to do, these men did not simply decide one day that they were apostles. Rather – and I’m pretty sure this does pre-date the highly-denominational New Apostolic Reformation – they became convinced that there still are apostles today. If you believe there are apostles, then the next question is obvious: who are they, and how do you recognise them?

    The problem came with what happened next. I often liken it to the ancient Egyptian and Mayan civilisations. If you don’t have the technology to create concrete, and you don’t have steel as a building material, then if you want to build something enormous you have to make a huge pile of stones – IOW, a pyramid. By the same token: if you have a vision to build a large organisation, but you haven’t yet understood how the Holy Spirit works in believers collectively together (as distinct from, making people speakInTongues or agree with your doctrine individually), then inevitably you’ll build a hierarchical pyramid. Which is what most of these movements became.

    Much more could be said, but it’s bedtime in Blighty. I’ll pick this one up tomorrow if emdy’s still interested then.

  169. @ mirele:

    What you reject and express here is not the Biblical doctrine of “penal substitution” I believe in. Jesus was God in the flesh and he willingly laid down his life for us. He died for our sins and rose on the third day. He bore our sins in his body on the cross and the iniquity of us was laid upon him. This is the plain teaching of Scripture and it is how I express the doctrine. Maybe I have used the wrong terminology.

    Human sacrifice, which the prophets rightly condemned, was involuntary, as contrasted with Christ’s voluntary sacrifice of himself. And he was not a child at the time he did this, he was a fully grown man. So comparing Jesus’ death on the cross with human sacrifice, or child abuse, was faulty logic on Steve Chalke’s part. He was pushing an illustration too far and creating a lot of confusion.

    And it was God’s love for us that prompted this action: In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the sacrifice for our sins. And Jesus said that nobody takes his life from him, he could call down legions of angels. So The Father and the Son were agreed to make atonement for our sins.

    To be fair, the Bible does not say he that he died IN THE PLACE sinners. That is the language of theology. He died FOR us. That does require a bit more thought and meditation.

  170. okrapod wrote:

    I have not bought into the idea that a church has to adopt anybody else’s definition of what anything is. A church does not have to fall into some neatly defined category of egalitarian, or not, or liberal/progressive, or not, just because some outsiders may think they should have the right to define those words for everybody and then insist that others accept their definitions and conform to their standards

    Great insight. This helps me see my own situation in a new light. I should not expect any church to fall into my own definitions/expectations, or even Christianity in general. I should just let it go and move on.

  171. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    If you believe there are apostles, then the next question is obvious: who are they, and how do you recognise them?

    The problem came with what happened next. I often liken it to the ancient Egyptian and Mayan civilisations. If you don’t have the technology to create concrete, and you don’t have steel as a building material, then if you want to build something enormous you have to make a huge pile of stones – IOW, a pyramid. By the same token: if you have a vision to build a large organisation, but you haven’t yet understood how the Holy Spirit works in believers collectively together (as distinct from, making people speakInTongues or agree with your doctrine individually), then inevitably you’ll build a hierarchical pyramid. Which is what most of these movements became.

    Yes. This is a pretty accurate picture of what took place. I will add that as time went on, the basics in these groups were mixed with the Shepherding group. The second generation leaders of CMI, at least the one I am familiar with on this side of the pond, became very authoritarian/covenental and also mixed in Reformed Theology. His website is downright scary. I also had some contact with a brother who he was close to with the initials of PS. The two of them together, when they were in their late 20s, were the most self-important men I had ever met.

    I had a fair amount of contact with Bryn Jones and his family on this side of the pond. He was part of the church I belonged to here when I became a Christian, which was about 10 years ahead of you. My husband and I went out “church planting” before church planting was a thing. It did not end well 12 years later when young CMI leader insisted we move back to his location when the plant folded. We refused. “We broke covenant, according to him.” He never spoke with us again as friends who had labored together. Actually, he would never consider me as a friend, since I am not male 😉 Very sad.

  172. @ Bridget:

    Good point about the Shepherding doctrine. And I’m sorry to hear you experienced that kind of broken relationship, and sexism.

    Interestingly, this was present to varying degrees in CMI churches, in my experience. In fact, it was present to varying degrees even within one church. My own first encounter with “heavy shepherding” came at the hands of what I would now consider a young man (though a little older than I was at the time) in middle-management in the Cambridge congregation I was part of. The pastor (for want of a better title) himself was not into capital-S Shepherding, in either theory or practice. To this day, I’m slightly mystified as to how this happened! I suppose it goes to show that people (such as the young middle-manager) can have more than one significant influence in their lives.

    I read, this morning, a brief reflection by David Matthew on his own history with CMI. I take it you’ll have heard of him, but for the benefit of onlooking Wartburgers, David Matthew joined in with CMI very early on and went on to be the principle of the Bible College that CMI set up. For what it’s worth, I’ve a lot of time for him; his article was – typically of him, I think – thoughtful and measured. He feels that the movement had two main weaknesses: its tendency towards isolation, and an over-emphasis on the organisational / executive authority of the apostle today (I paraphrase, but I think that’s a fair summary). At the same time, he believes it contributed something important to the Christian landscape in the UK that he was glad to be part of.

    Overall, I agree. And I write as someone who experienced both extremely unpleasant abuse within a CMI offshoot, and all the usual shunning and defamation from that same offshoot when we finally left. We also had opportunity to gather alongside Christians who were willing to live out a 24/7 faith that we’ve struggled to find elsewhere.

  173. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    if Jesus wants to gift, equip, call and enable a woman to teach, preach, prophesy, or anything else, then it is His royal prerogative to do so

    Amen, Brother Nick! The 1st century Church understood this. Certain corners of the 21st century church do not.

    Consider different translations of Ephesians 4:8:

    “He gave gifts to PEOPLE” (NIV, Holman, others)

    “He gave gifts to MEN” (ESV, KJV, others)

    The Greek word in the original manuscripts for this word is “anthropos”, meaning human being, mankind … from which we get the word anthropology, the study of humans.

    Thus, “He gave gifts to HUMAN BEINGS” … there are no limits put on spiritual gifts by race, class or gender. We are all one in Christ.

  174. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Do you have any insight into Mike Breen, 3DM, and The Order of Mission? From what I have read, it seems like shepherding movement. He is getting traction on this side of thr pond.

  175. mirele wrote:

    It should be noted that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not part of the early church but instead is an outgrowth of Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo” as refined through Luther and Calvin.

    I agree, Mirele, PSA is something I’ve had issues with. It’s been really helpful for me to see atonement theory as it’s developed over history. We would all agree that Jesus died for us; what that actually means is a bit more complex.

    It’s interesting to me that our British friends had an entire verbal war over the atonement around 2007, and most of us on this side of the pond didn’t know anything about it.

  176. @ Ken F:

    Just seen your comment this morning. In a nutshell: no, I’d never heard of them until you mentioned them! So I had a wee look.

    We’re off out just the noo (UCT+1), so I’ll get back this afternoon, but on first inspection the movement looks really interesting. What I’ve read thus far actually looks very different from Shepherding. Crucially, the Shepherding heresy involves hierarchy and the embedding of ungodly authority that was never meant to exist in the Church. Breen’s approach involves smaller groups with much more emphasis on “horizontal”, peer-to-peer relationships.

  177. Roger Bombast wrote:

    What I’ve read thus far actually looks very different from Shepherding.

    I saw a big emphasis on accountability and new terminology. Thr kairos groups look like pyramid shepherding. The Order of Missiom requires monastic vows. It looks weird.

  178. GSD wrote:

    I agree, Mirele, PSA is something I’ve had issues with. It’s been really helpful for me to see atonement theory as it’s developed over history. We would all agree that Jesus died for us; what that actually means is a bit more complex.

    Certainly dying for our sins (1 Corinthians 15) is very clear. In the UK controversy Steve Chalke caricatured God’s wrath as a fit of rage which was not Biblical, so he set up a straw man. He seemed averse to the doctrine of God’s wrath. But God’s wrath is not only a Biblical doctrine, it is something our sense of justice cries out for. God’s wrath is not arbitrary or capricious, but righteous and just. I find it very comforting to know that murderers, abusers etc, will face Gods’ wrath and justice one day. I think we all want that. But even greater than this, God is love and any who come to him can find forgiveness, peace and reconcilation.

  179. ZechZav wrote:

    I find it very comforting to know that murderers, abusers etc, will face Gods’ wrath and justice one day. I think we all want that.

    Will they? Even those who turn to God? The murderer on the cross next to Jesus?

  180. I agree completely, ZechZav, there are some phrases that have to mean something for Christianity to be real. Jesus died for our sins. God loves us, and loves the kosmos.

    And to be fair, I’ve listened to some folks explain their opposition to PSA. It’s often very complex, with lots of words, and sometimes ends up with the Cross being merely a show of solidarity with suffering and marginalized humanity. Sort of an “attaboy, hang in there, I’m with you,” sort of thing. That’s a problem for me. The Atonement must have accomplished something powerful and profound, and we need to be able to boil it down to a sentence.

    I’ve been reading a book called, “Four Views on the Atonement.” It’s pretty heavy, but it’s really instructive how the authors argue back and forth, but never descend to name calling. The big lesson I take away is there are several views of the Atonement which have developed over history, and none of them show up in the historic creeds. It’s a massively important secondary issue, but one that we are free to study and debate without leaving the simplicity of faith in Jesus.

    Personally, I find the Christus Victor view compelling. I also think that we miss the element of Covenant, that all that Jesus did was to establish a New Covenant, in which we have forgiveness. I also think that there are several words in the Scriptures that describe what Jesus did, and they describe different aspects of the Atonement, like the facets in a diamond. The challenge is figuring out which one is at the center.

    I could go into my issues with PSA, but it would take some time, and the cinnamon biscuits are ready.

  181. I like your illustration of a diamond – I have heard Rabbis use that to talk about the meaning of verses in the Old Testament. It shines light whichever your turn it. I would be very interested to unpack these thoughts on the various views a bit more – although this forum is probably not the place. To be honest I don’t like the term “Penal Substitution” – it is a theological term and is not used in Scripture. What Steve Chalke meant by it, and what the Reformers meant by it, and what I understand by it, may be several different things entirely. The main point is that Jesus died for our sins.

  182. Bridget wrote:

    But even greater than this, God is love and any who come to him can find forgiveness, peace and reconcilation.

    I repeat the next bit which answers your question: But even greater than this, God is love and any who come to him can find forgiveness, peace and reconcilation.

  183. That last quote didn’t go through correctly. In reply to Bridget’s earlier post, I just re-affirmed what I had already written. Anyone come to Christ will be forgiven and have eternal life. I will also quote Fanny Crosby – “the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives”.

  184. I looked for a comment by Ken F. on May 15, 2016. Maybe one of you could find it. He had 18 questions about PSA, which were a very effective way of expressing his concerns. BeenThereDoneThat also had a long series of links.

    Did Jesus die to save us from our sins, or to save us from the wrath of an angry father? Is the Gospel the story of how God killed God to save us from God?

    Obviously there was a “penal” aspect to the cross. Jesus took a nasty beating. And there was a substututionary aspect. He took a nasty beating so that we might benefit.

    The big question is, did God the Father do the beating Himself, to satisfy his justice by inflicting enough pain on the Son that it was equal to the pain due to all people [or just the elect, for the Calvinists] over all history? Did Jesus take the beating from the Father that we deserved?

    Hopefully someone can find the list from Ken F. He did a much better job than I did.

  185. @ GSD:

    I think Jesus died to save us both from our sins and from the wrath of God. This is confirmed in many places, including Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 1. I think it goes together. When I first heard the gospel, I was told, and believed, that the cross was where God expressed both his justice and his love.

    The question of whether it was to all people or just the elect is another theological debate. I agree with the Arminian position that it was sufficient for all, but efficient for those who believe. If God provides a banquet and invite everyone to come, his invitation is be sincere because he cannot lie. Those who don’t come have only themselves to blame for losing out. But there are good Calvinist brothers who will respectfully disagree with me on this. But this is my position.

  186. Ian wrote:

    Ichthus is a new church grouping which I would say is Arminian and egalitarian. There may be some issues relating to the their charismatic theology, but again I’m not sure why you feel they should be avoided.

    I forgot to reply on this previously. I was greatly blessed to read Roger Forster’s book God’s Strategy in Human History and also his book Women in the Kingdom. The former was a critique of Calvinist dogmas and the latter argued for women in leadership. I would highly recommend those books. My contention with them is not their charismatic theology in itself, but their promotion of the “Toronto Blessing” some 20 years ago. When I was subjected to heavy shepherding for questioning this, the leaders were very much influenced by Ichthus, New Frontiers (Terry Virgo) and Pioneer (Gerald Coates). They also led this thing called “March For Jesus” where they people to “claim the ground” and do “spiritual warfare” There is also something with them I just can’t put my finger on, so I personally avoid it.

  187. @ ZechZav:

    Excellent resources. I will copy and paste them to the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV/etc. tab.

    You can also copy helpful resources over there.

  188. @ Christiane:

    I think any of that still suggests a preoccupation with that word. My point is this, without saying anything is good and bad: The Gospel Coalition is made up of the type of Baptists and Protestants who laugh at the Catholic sex abuse scandal as God punishing them for being wrong on doctrine. In their seemingly pathological aversion to self-awareness, they actualize the grossest caricatures of extreme Catholicism.

  189. ZechZav wrote:

    The question of whether it was to all people or just the elect is another theological debate.

    Ain’t it the truth!

    My point is that there are a range of views on the Atonement, and that what we often understand as the “default” view of PSA hasn’t been the dominant view throughout church history. Even today, the Catholic and Orthodox parts of the church hold a different view, and they are by far the majority of Christians on the planet.

  190. GSD wrote:

    Hopefully someone can find the list from Ken F. He did a much better job than I did.

    My list of questions is now 20 (19 and 20 were inspired by Baxter Kruger):
    1. Where does the Bible explicitly state that on the cross Jesus bore the punishment that we deserved?
    2. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? To whom was the penalty paid?
    3. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God?
    4. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God’s wrath can and must be satisfied?
    5. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot forgive without first being appeased?
    6. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot simply forgive without compromising His own holy standard?
    7. How is it justice to punish the innocent in place of the guilty? (see Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin)
    8. How can an infinite being, who needs or lacks nothing, be unsatisfied based on human sin and then consequently satisfied by sacrifice? If God’s wrath can be satisfied, how does it not imply that God lacked something prior to being satisfied? What did the satisfaction change about God (e.g., His mood?, His attitude?, His disposition?)?
    9. Was God’s wrath fully satisfied or partially satisfied? Where does the Bible state this?
    10. If fully satisfied, why does the Bible describe it as something that remains for unbelievers? (see John 3:36 – He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.)
    11. If fully satisfied, why does the Bible describe it as something that will still be poured out in the last days? (see Rev 16:1 – Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.”)
    12. How does full satisfaction not logically lead to universalism, since there is no wrath left for anyone to endure if it was fully satisfied?
    13. If not fully satisfied, what distinguishes the wrath that was satisfied from the wrath that was not satisfied? Where does the Bible most clearly state this?
    14. If not fully satisfied, what was “finished” on the cross? (see John 19:30 – Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.)
    15. Since we have been crucified with Christ, did we also participate in satisfying God’s wrath by being punished with Him? Why or why not? If we were not punished with Him, in what essential way were we united with Christ in the likeness of His death? (see Romans 6:5 – For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death; see also Romans 6:6 – knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him; and see Galatians 2:20 – I have been crucified with Christ)
    16. Was our debt fully paid by Jesus or fully forgiven by God? If fully forgiven, what was left to be paid and what was accomplished on the cross? If fully paid, what was left to be forgiven? Or was it partially paid and partially forgiven. How is it just to forgive a debt by requiring payment? Doesn’t forgiveness negate the requirement for payment?
    17. If the penalty for our sins is eternal separation from the Lord (see 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power), how could Jesus pay that penalty? How would it not require Him to be eternally separated from Himself? Where does the Bible say that Jesus paid an eternal debt or suffered eternal destruction or suffered eternal separation from Himself or the Father?
    18. What does it mean for God to command us to forgive others in the same way that He forgave us? (see Ephesians 4:32 – Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.) Does God needing to vent His wrath as payment before He can forgive us mean that we must also vent our wrath as payment in order to forgive others? Does God hold us to a higher standard than He holds himself? Why or why not?
    19. What was the role and activity of the Holy Spirit during the crucifixion? Was the Holy Spirit united with the Father in pouring out the full cup of his wrath on the Son, or united with the Son in paying the full penalty for our sins, or with neither? Where does the Bible best describe this?
    20. What was the state of the Trinity during the crucifixion? Where does the Bible best describe this?

  191. GSD wrote:

    I’ve been reading a book called, “Four Views on the Atonement.” It’s pretty heavy, but it’s really instructive how the authors argue back and forth, but never descend to name calling. The big lesson I take away is there are several views of the Atonement which have developed over history, and none of them show up in the historic creeds. It’s a massively important secondary issue, but one that we are free to study and debate without leaving the simplicity of faith in Jesus.

    I read that book and was very disappointed by all of the arguments because they were so shallow. The atonement was/is much bigger than any of us can describe in theological terms. Penal substitution is the logical outcome of the Greco/Roman view of god as a necessary vice contingent being, the uncaused cause, the immovable mover, a simple being of pure actuality with no potentiality, etc. The Greco/Roman god (small case intended) requires nothing, not even relationship. Contrast this with the God revealed in John 1:1 – The Word was face-to-face with the Father before anything was created. Our God is Father/Son/Spirit, existing in eternal relationship that pre-existed creation. Jesus Christ, the incarnate God, lived and died to include all of humanity in that eternal relationship. The god of the New Calvinists is Greco/Roman, not the God revealed in the Bible.

  192. Ken F wrote:

    GSD wrote:
    Hopefully someone can find the list from Ken F. He did a much better job than I did.

    I copied and pasted Ken F’s questions and links at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV, ETC. tab. I save the really good comments there for future reference for us all.

    I drive H.U.G. a little crazy. But hey, it says “ETC.”

    H.U.G. may proceed to his nearest See’s Candy for his reward/free samples.

  193. ZechZav wrote:

    God’s wrath is not arbitrary or capricious, but righteous and just.

    I was stunned when I learned of the Eastern Orthodox view of God’s wrath. One word-picture describes it as the difference between running against the wind and then turning and running with the wind. In the first case, the wind feels like punishment. In the second case if feels like joy. The wind does not change, it’s our turning (repentance) that changes our experience of the wind. God’s wrath is real and fierce, and its purpose is to turn us around. We can resist if we chose, but we don’t have to.

  194. Ken F wrote:

    I copied and pasted Ken F’s questions and links at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV, ETC. tab.

    Can you find a way to include the last two questions? They might be the most important. I’ve sent my list of question to more than a dozen prominent ministries (mostly Calvinistic). No one has directly answered them yet from the Bible, but some have attempted from the perspective of Greco/Roman philosophy (see my comment above from a few minutes ago). Can someone out there in the internet find someone who can answer them without going ad hominem?

  195. Ken F wrote:

    No one has directly answered them yet from the Bible, but some have attempted from the perspective of Greco/Roman philosophy (see my comment above from a few minutes ago).

    This is interesting. I doubt you will find a Calvinist (neo-type) who will respond to you using his understanding of Eastern Christianity. That makes me think that the wisdom of eastern Christianity may contain within it something of value that can help these neo-Cal folk to find their way back to orthodoxy again. But that TULIP thing???? So bizarre in how some take it to extremes, and I suppose since it IS a ‘logic system’, I wonder if that is what Calvin himself would have wanted to happen????

    There is a great difference in the Christian faith as represented by the neo-Cal males and by the Dutch Reformed Church in the northern USA. Like two different faiths, in some ways.

  196. Christiane wrote:

    I wonder if that is what Calvin himself would have wanted to happen????

    Calvin was not as Calvinistic as the New Calvinists. Luther was even less so.

  197. GSD wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    It should be noted that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not part of the early church but instead is an outgrowth of Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo” as refined through Luther and Calvin.
    I agree, Mirele, PSA is something I’ve had issues with. It’s been really helpful for me to see atonement theory as it’s developed over history. We would all agree that Jesus died for us; what that actually means is a bit more complex.
    It’s interesting to me that our British friends had an entire verbal war over the atonement around 2007, and most of us on this side of the pond didn’t know anything about it.

    PSA is very much like a god who needs to be placated and appeased, like some of the Greek pagan gods.

  198. Ken F wrote:

    Calvin was not as Calvinistic as the New Calvinists.

    That explains a lot. ‘New’ isn’t just an adjective then, but indicates the formation of a whole new religion which looks more and more like a ‘cult’

  199. Ken F wrote:

    God’s wrath is real and fierce, and its purpose is to turn us around. We can resist if we chose, but we don’t have to.

    I honestly don’t get this. God’s wrath is NOT what turned me toward him. It was his unending love explained to me and portrayed in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that changed me.

  200. Bridget wrote:

    I honestly don’t get this. God’s wrath is NOT what turned me toward him. It was his unending love explained to me and portrayed in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that changed me.

    Different people respond differently. He calls us in love, but does not abandon us if we reject his love. Some people will not turn toward him until they experience his wrath. Some, by their own choice, might never turn.

  201. Ken F wrote:

    Some people will not turn toward him until they experience his wrath.

    What does that look like? How would someone know they are experiencing God’s wrath? It seems to me that experiencing God’s wrath, whatever that looks like, would result in death.

  202. I recall reading a discussion on a theological online forum whether they were arguing what would happen if Calvin were alive today. Would he be a Calvinist, and if so, how many points of the TULIP would he agree with?

    That’s when I stopped hanging out on those forums. TWW is so much more fun.

    Ken F, I’m still trying to get through the 4 Views book. I found it to be very circular, much like reading Athanasius. But what I took away from it is that these guys could probably go out for a pint afterwards. It’s a very serious issue, at the core of Christianity, but the tone never degrades into name calling, like so much of popular Christianity. None of these guys is going to be having a “Strange Atonement” conference to talk about how dangerous their fellow authors are.

    Questions 19 and 20 are excellent, by the way.

  203. Ken F wrote:

    7. How is it justice to punish the innocent in place of the guilty? (see Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin)

    Here’s another one for the mix Ken:

    “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
    — Ezekiel 18:20 —

  204. Velour wrote:

    I copied and pasted Ken F’s questions and links at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV, ETC. tab. I save the really good comments there for future reference for us all.

    Thanks for finding the 20 Questions, Velour. The Interesting Tab is a great collection of past comments!

  205. GSD wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I copied and pasted Ken F’s questions and links at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV, ETC. tab. I save the really good comments there for future reference for us all.
    Thanks for finding the 20 Questions, Velour. The Interesting Tab is a great collection of past comments!

    Welcome!

  206. Ken F wrote:

    “Roger Bombast” wrote (because Nick B forgot to reset the “Name” field before posting):
    What I’ve read thus far actually looks very different from Shepherding.

    I saw a big emphasis on accountability and new terminology. Thr kairos groups look like pyramid shepherding. The Order of Missiom requires monastic vows. It looks weird.

    Sorry about the further delay in replying, Ken; I was doing a bit more digging, and it all got very interesting which in turn meant that I got a bit carried away.

    My first bit of research (for want of a less grandiose label for a bit of web-surfing) was just looking up Mike Breen himself and how he first got into ministry. It seems he started out as an Anglican vicar, and in less than easy circumstances – he was basically picking up the pieces after a major scandal which received national prominence at the time.

    It was these origins that I really liked the look of. This was very much a time when, here in the UK at least, the new church movements were growing rapidly, and several of them relied a great deal on centralised control and the inevitable shepherding excesses that go with that. Against this backdrop, Breen’s approach seems to me to be radically de-centralised with a refreshingly large amount of trust invested in people outwith the leadership. Put it this way: I’d rather have been involved with that, than with what CMI became. In those days, he was just the vicar of a very large Anglican church that met in many different locations around the city because it outgrew its historic building.

    I started looking up 3DM and the TOM monastic order after my provisional comment!

    The monastic order is evidently just that. Other Wartburgers will know more than I about monastic orders, but the vows involved a probably par for the course if you’re going to become a monk/nun. The problem seems to be that members of the TOM order don’t go off and live in a monastery, but remain embedded within their congregations, and this creates an often-uncomfortable us-and-them atmosphere. I’ve read stories from people who really didn’t like it, and people who were involved and found it a great support. I can understand why it would create awkwardness locally. On the other hand, I doubt whether the criticisms of it as being “masonic” are justified.

    The 3DM bits I’m equally ambivalent about. They’re a model of “doing church” that is brought in from outside, and as such they would certainly cause damage in the wrong hands. Accordingly, they have been execrated in some quarters. But I’m sceptical about some of the negative reports. For one thing, the top Google hits are generally heresy-spotting attack sites that have their own strong theological biases. For another, although TWW tends to lift the lid on authoritarian/abusive leadership, there are also abusive memberships out there. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, was vilified by some traditionalists in his congregation in Durham simply for trying to get the church to start reaching out to non-Christians and demonstrating the gospel to them. (And I do mean the gospel – not some ideological “Gospel™”. He didn’t change a single iota of doctrine.) One parishioner wrote the following words to him (emphasis added): “… But you have destroyed my church, and I can never forgive you for that”.

    The idea of functioning peer-level relationships is always going to be complex in church. ISTM that they are both necessary and dangerous. They can become suffocating and/or invasive, but they can also be fantastic sources of energy and encouragement. I did note that the 3DM pages, under “What we believe”, simply state the Nicene Creed rather than a host of “distinctives”; which is something.

    Not sure how long this comment ended up being… I may be a bit shocked when I post it! I’d be interested in your thoughts in turn.

  207. Roger Bombast wrote:

    Breen’s approach involves smaller groups with much more emphasis on “horizontal”, peer-to-peer relationships.

    Thanks for looking at this. I knew Mike Breen a long time ago and he was a nice guy but that’s really all I know about him.

  208. Lea wrote:

    “Roger Bombast” wrote:

    My bombastic alter-ego is really coming back to haunt me on this thread!

    On a less frivolous note, you’re welcome!

  209. GSD wrote:

    Obviously there was a “penal” aspect to the cross. Jesus took a nasty beating. And there was a substututionary aspect. He took a nasty beating so that we might benefit.

    So lemme get this straight. All the suffering and human misery down through he ages is not enough, and therefore the Almighty had to levy an additional ‘penalty’?

  210. ZechZav wrote:

    Ian wrote:

    Ichthus is a new church grouping which I would say is Arminian and egalitarian. There may be some issues relating to the their charismatic theology, but again I’m not sure why you feel they should be avoided.

    I forgot to reply on this previously. I was greatly blessed to read Roger Forster’s book God’s Strategy in Human History and also his book Women in the Kingdom. The former was a critique of Calvinist dogmas and the latter argued for women in leadership. I would highly recommend those books. My contention with them is not their charismatic theology in itself, but their promotion of the “Toronto Blessing” some 20 years ago. When I was subjected to heavy shepherding for questioning this, the leaders were very much influenced by Ichthus, New Frontiers (Terry Virgo) and Pioneer (Gerald Coates). They also led this thing called “March For Jesus” where they people to “claim the ground” and do “spiritual warfare” There is also something with them I just can’t put my finger on, so I personally avoid it.

    I would agree with you on those subjects. Most of the UK charismatic church jumped on the March for Jesus and Toronto Blessing bandwagons, and there are many horrific tales of people being spiritually abused for raising concerns.

  211. Bridget wrote:

    Ian wrote:

    New Frontiers traces its origins to the British house church movement of the 1970s, which gave rise to a number of new groupings (they always said they were not denominations but others disagree!). This movement featured self-proclaimed “apostles” from an early stage. I would say they were both deceived and on a power trip! I’m sure it predates the NAR, which is a much more recent development from America.

    I believe Restoration Ministries/Covenant Ministries International started during this same time frame. I don’t know if they are still around now. Their leaders/apostles were frequent guests at PDI/SGM/SGC. I believe that the SGC group got their ideas about apostles from CMI. Terri Virgo may have been part of CMI in the early years. I seem to remember his name from the early 80s.

    Just to add some historical stuff to Nick’s excellent insights…

    The restorationist philosophy developed in the late 1960s / early 1970s and led to the birth of various new church groups, often called house churches as they began in homes.

    The group known as Restoration Ministries (they published a magazine called Restoration), later Covenant Ministries, was headed by Bryn Jones and based in Bradford (in northern england). They were famous for organising the Dales Bible Week. As Nick said, whilst the group is still around, they are much smaller and less influential, partly due to the early death of Bryn.

    Terry Virgo began a similar group in the south of England (based in Brighton) which grew into New Frontiers. They had the Stoneleigh Bible Week. Virgo is now getting on in years, there doesn’t seem to be a successor, and so the group is far less centralised. As has been documented elsewhere, there are historic links between New Frontiers and PDI / SGM.

    Both Restoration/Covenant Ministries and New Frontiers have both been described as highly authoritarian (going all the way to the top) with accusations of heavy shepherding and spiritual abuse.

    However, as both groups were built around strong personalities, I don’t think they got on well together and I doubt that Bryn Jones had anything to do with Terry Virgo. There was little or no co-operation between the groups, and I’d be surpised if Virgo was ever involved with CMI (I’m sure the CMI name wasn’t used in the early 1980s).

    Hope this helps!

  212. Ian wrote:

    However, as both groups were built around strong personalities, I don’t think they got on well together and I doubt that Bryn Jones had anything to do with Terry Virgo. There was little or no co-operation between the groups, and I’d be surpised if Virgo was ever involved with CMI (I’m sure the CMI name wasn’t used in the early 1980s).
    Hope this helps!

    I believe that Bryn and Terry spoke at each other’s events on occasion. They may not have cooperated beyond that, but I know I heard TV speak in the US at a few churches that were part of Restoration Ministries (early 80s)

  213. Ken F wrote:

    1. Where does the Bible explicitly state that on the cross Jesus bore the punishment that we deserved?
    2. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? To whom was the penalty paid?
    3. Where does the Bible explicitly state that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God?
    4. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God’s wrath can and must be satisfied?
    5. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot forgive without first being appeased?
    6. Where does the Bible explicitly state that God cannot simply forgive without compromising His own holy standard?

    Quick answer? Nowhere are these doctrinal points explicitly stated. They are derived by presupposition, tradition, and a particular reading of various Scriptures which can vary from believer to believer.
    No wonder the various churchmen you approached with these questions couldn’t give you a straight answer.

  214. Ken F,

    While Derek Rishmawy doesn’t answer all of your questions, he does provide one of the more through blogpost level defenses of PSA I have found, and it either directly or indirectly works through several of your questions (and ones that Mirele brought up). It contains quite a few links to scriptures as well as links to other articles and books that address certain aspects in more biblical detail. Responding to all of your questions probably would take an entire book though!

    Here is the link to his article.

    https://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/10/23/the-beauty-of-the-cross-19-objections-and-answers-on-penal-substitutionary-atonement-500th-post/

  215. Speaking of Calvinism, I just wanted to give another plug to that wonderful little book that someone here recommended, can’t remember who it was, called Reconsidering TULIP by Alexander J. Renault. He’s a former Calvinist now Eastern Orthodox Christian.

    The book is 117 pages of well-reasoned arguments refuting Calvinism. I highly recommend it.

  216. Joey wrote:

    While Derek Rishmawy doesn’t answer all of your questions, he does provide one of the more through blogpost level defenses of PSA I have found, and it either directly or indirectly works through several of your questions (and ones that Mirele brought up).

    Joey,
    Thanks for the feedback. I am pressed for time right now and fear that I will not be able to respond in a full enough way. But I can at least get started. I only skimmed the article, but based on the parts I did see I agree with you that Rishmawy’s article is one of the better ones supporting PSA – good enough that I will add it to my list of articles supporting PSA. The comments on that post were also interesting, especially the one at the bottom of the comments. PSA is an incredibly well formulated explanation of the atonement. As an argument, it is very impressive and believable. But here are the things that made me doubt it:
    1) It’s not directly supported by the Bible. One can find all kinds of verses that can be explained in terms of penal substitution if one looks at them the right way, but there are no verses that cannot be understood in any other way. As an analogy, the concept of trinity cannot be explained away because there are so many passages that cannot be understood in any other way without severely twisting the meaning of the verses. PSA is the opposite – it can only be supported by making assumptions and bending verses to fit the assumptions.
    2) PSA was not a Christian doctrine until the time of Calvin. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox never believed it and they continue to reject it (combined they make up almost 2/3 of Christians today). And I have yet to find any solid evidence that the early church believed it. All the evidence I can find point to it being a 16th century invention.

    This past Spring I posted some of the better links I found against PSA on this site. Here is the link that that comment: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/#comment-253218. In the meantime I’ve found some even better articles, papers, posts, and books. But I think this list is enough for now.

    I think in large part it boils down to the difference between the Greco-Roman way of viewing God vs the Hebrew way of viewing God that I described in my post last night.

    I hope this helps.

  217. Muff Potter wrote:

    Quick answer? Nowhere are these doctrinal points explicitly stated. They are derived by presupposition, tradition, and a particular reading of various Scriptures which can vary from believer to believer.
    No wonder the various churchmen you approached with these questions couldn’t give you a straight answer.

    That is exactly why I worded the questions the way I did. They start with a Greco-Roman view of god, along with all kinds of humanisms that they project onto that god created through human understanding, and then they build lofty and persuasive arguments. It’s a great theory. Probably it’s only real pitfall is that it does not come from the Bible. Other than that…

  218. Muff Potter wrote:

    So lemme get this straight. All the suffering and human misery down through he ages is not enough, and therefore the Almighty had to levy an additional ‘penalty’?

    I get your point. It’s the end of a long day, but I’m going to give this a shot.

    Penal is defined as “relating to, used for, or prescribing the punishment of offenders under the legal system.” And in a human sense, Jesus did get a serious beat-down and crucifixion after a rather short legal process. The penalty was handed down by Pilate, egged on by the Jewish leaders. And probably inspired by the powers of darkness. But there was a legal process and a sentence.

    And to the casual observer, watching some guy drag a crossbeam down a narrow street, it would be tempting to wonder what this fellow had done to hack God off. It looked divinely penal, on the surface.

    The question is, did the Father merely allow the beatdown, or did he cause it / sponsor it / inspire it? Was the suffering servant “smitten by God,” or did it just look that way to us?

    Would the phrase “apparently penal” work? I’m sure there’s a much better theological term, but I’m not that educated.

  219. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’d be interested in your thoughts in turn.

    Nick,
    Thanks for the feedback. I’m not quite sure what to think of 3DM, but my gut tells me to be wary. This post has lots of information, especially in the comments: http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2013/11/mike-breen-and-building-discipling.html. I originally came across 3DM when I was trying to understand how the college ministry my sons were in did so much damage to their faith. In addition to having new-Calvinism dumped on them, there was a huge emphasis on missional communities. It turns out that Mike Breen is one of the leading experts and writers on missional communities. His name and ministry kept coming up in my internet searches. He emphasizes “low control and high accountability.” I’ve learned enough by now to know that accountability among believers is not taught in the Bible, so that was a red flag. Another red flag is how much 3DM charges to train/consult (follow-the money). Another red flag is new terminology and “life shapes” to go with it. The “persons of peace” concept also seems like a way to divide the haves from the have-nots. And it also seems way too close to shepherding movement ideas. But I could have a wrong impression, which is why I wanted some feedback from someone from his home country.

  220. GSD wrote:

    The question is, did the Father merely allow the beatdown, or did he cause it / sponsor it / inspire it? Was the suffering servant “smitten by God,” or did it just look that way to us?

    Here is an interesting article on Isaiah 53: http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2013/10/punished-for-or-by-our-sins-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53-santo-calarco.html. I found it to be a very good balance to what I was taught as a conservative protestant. It answers your question: “did it just look that way to us?”

  221. GSD wrote:

    It’s a very serious issue, at the core of Christianity, but the tone never degrades into name calling, like so much of popular Christianity.

    That was the best part of the book. But I was overall disappointed in how weak all of their arguments were, and the fact that they only covered four view when there are several others. It was helpful in my search and I’m glad I read it.

  222. Bridget wrote:

    What does that look like? How would someone know they are experiencing God’s wrath? It seems to me that experiencing God’s wrath, whatever that looks like, would result in death.

    I’m still trying to figure this out. But I have been very encouraged by the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Gospel. Here is a very thought provoking article: http://www.pravmir.com/the-original-christian-gospel/.

    One thing about his wrath they teach is that it is an expression of his love. To those who oppose and turn from him, his love is experienced as a consuming fire (wrath/hell). To those who turn to him, his love is experienced as bliss (heaven). There is so much more to this. Try searching on “eastern orthodox god’s wrath” – it should point you to some interesting reading.

  223. siteseer wrote:

    Mike Breen… that name rings a bell. Is he involved with the NAR?

    I don’t know. I cannot find anything about a connection other than on conspiracy sites.

  224. Ken F wrote:

    I’m not quite sure what to think of 3DM, but my gut tells me to be wary. This post [by a laddie called Keith] has lots of information…

    This is a really useful discussion, so thanks for replying. Keith’s post, whereof you spake, is quite interesting. I think two phrases of his encapsulate the difficulty very well.

    Laddie_Called_Keith quote 1 of 2

    I also have a problem with the fact that Breen insists on the necessity of a common language with which to do discipleship, but then instead of using the language that the Bible already gives us, he substitutes his own.

    The ideas Breen developed are not, in themselves, contrary to scripture. But neither are they mandated by scripture, and once you take what is simply a viable idea and turn it into A Thing that people have to follow formulaically, you’ve fallen into the age-old Man-Movement-Monument trap.

    I love the look of what Breen and his fellow-beleivers built in Sheffield. But in turning it into (with due respect) a franchise, he’s missed a fundamental point about training leaders. That is, in order to train leaders, you must also train pioneers – that is, men and women who are imaginative and resilient enough to grapple with the challenges God faces them with, and then build their own relationships and together create their own structures. If they’re just doing my Thing, then they’re not leaders at all – they’re just assertive photocopiers.

    Laddie_Called_Keith quote 2 of 2

    I don’t think that there is anything in the 3DM pyramidal approach that will PREVENT it from going down the same path as the Shepherding movement of the 70s and 80s.

    Emphasis mine there. But there, I think, you have it: I believe Breen and 3DM genuinely haven’t set off to create Shepherding. But neither did the Fort Lauderdale Four. The formulaic, franchise model means that Shepherding is almost inevitable.

    Ken F quote 1 of 1

    I think you’re onto something important here, too:

    He [Mike Breen] emphasizes “low control and high accountability.” I’ve learned enough by now to know that accountability among believers is not taught in the Bible, so that was a red flag.

    There’s something about this “accountability” that is problematic in my experience too. In a nutshell: it has everything to do with controlling, binding, holding back, subjugating and preventing, and nothing to do with spurring one another on to good deeds. Now, if I saw something like: “low control and high encouragement”, that would be different.

    I’ve one more point in this comment, but I’ve got to go and pick Lesley up! I’ll finish later…

  225. One last thing for today, and then I really must go and mix a ton of concrete.

    Laddie_Called_Keith quote 3 of 2

    He does make this observation:

    I’m sure that most people using [3DM] are well-meaning people who only want to help others become more Christlike, but if the foundation is not solidly biblical, the fruit won’t be, either.

    To which I have an über-observation.

    The whole structure and nature of the western church today, fragmented into many separate “local churches” that are not in meaningful relationship with one another, is not solidly biblical – indeed it isn’t remotely biblical. Churches (plural) in the New Testament were separated by geography; they were absent from one another in body, but one in spirit. Churches (plural) today are separated in spirit. They may be physically next door to each other geographically, but they are divided from one another along man-made lines of doctrine, tradition, history, or even just the convenience and comfort that goes with a familiar setting and well-known group of people. If you try to merge even two “local churches” into one, never mind all of the “local churches”, you’ll immediately discover just how precious and important those dividing walls are.

    The Church is a community; and it’s “missional”, or whatever word one prefers, and it’s much more besides. Any attempt whatsoever to turn one of these non-biblical communities into something biblical, without addressing the non-biblical factionism and dividedness at its heart, will produce limited fruit.

  226. Velour wrote:

    Speaking of Calvinism, I just wanted to give another plug to that wonderful little book that someone here recommended, can’t remember who it was, called Reconsidering TULIP by Alexander J. Renault. He’s a former Calvinist now Eastern Orthodox Christian.

    The book is 117 pages of well-reasoned arguments refuting Calvinism. I highly recommend it.

    Thanks Velour. There is also an excellent website called examiningcalvinism.com which contains an index of their favourite verses.

  227. I’m very interested in this post as I live in the UK and I am very concerned about organisations such as the Gospel Coalition and CBMW influencing the church in the UK. I agree with ZechZav the main denomination or group involved with TGC and CBMW is the FIEC.

    Colin Smith, now on the TGC council was once on the staff of FIEC and Alistair Begg is from Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh another FIEC church. FIEC churches can also be found on the list of suitable UK churches on TGC’S website.

    There is a new FIEC church beginning in central London. Their pastor has already held conferences with CBMW leaders in the UK.

    Some FIEC pastors also attended the T4G conference in April.

    I have asked members of these churches what they think of Mahaney. They just say well he came from a large church and you must expect that sort of thing to go on in large congregations.

    I have heard similar comments about Mark Driscoll. Apparently the only mistake he made was plagiarism, which anyone can make and everything he says is to appeal to young people not from a Christian background.

    Finally John Stevens, who wrote the following article is National Director of the FIEC:

    http://www.john-stevens.com/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html?m=1#!/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html

  228. @ Jenna:
    Thanks so much for your comment! I am really mad that this stuff is being exported from the USA.

    We just heard of FIEC as a result of this post. We will definitely be looking into it.

    Since you are new to our blog, you might want to check out our archives about some of these American pastors. Just search the blog or check out our categories section on the right side of our blog.

  229. @ Jenna:

    Well, that is quite the article from someone who claims to not have the credentials to be a voice in the debate. He does mention he is a lawyer, which probably explains his need to write his opinion.

  230. Ken F,

    Thanks, that is helpful and I’ll check some of your resources out. I have a good friend who used to be more inclined toward reformed theology (like me) but has since moved toward Eastern Orthodoxy, and currently attends an Eastern Orthodox parish. We have great conversations about atonement theory (as well as several other things). Its always instructive and beneficial to interact with folks who are studying deeply from a different theological strain than ones own.

  231. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Any attempt whatsoever to turn one of these non-biblical communities into something biblical, without addressing the non-biblical factionism and dividedness at its heart, will produce limited fruit.

    Thanks for the feedback. My approach with 3DM/Breen/TOM will be avoidance while I wait and see.

  232. Jenna wrote:

    @ Bridget: I thought that the second comment at the bottom of the article was interesting.

    So did I. I would defer if “Unknown” was Todd Pruit, Carl’s blogging partner.

  233. @ Ken F:

    Thanks for this information, Ken. Don’t know where I stand on all of it, but I’ll continue to read up on it.

  234. Joey wrote:

    Its always instructive and beneficial to interact with folks who are studying deeply from a different theological strain than ones own.

    I agree. I find myself often reading stuff that challenges what I believe. I think it’s because I am convinced truth will rise to the surface, and I don’t want my beliefs to remain unexamined. But it sure can cause headaches at times.

    I finally read the article and have a few comments.
    1) It’s the most reasonable and balanced article I have read by a PSA supporter. But he is so reasonable that he almost talks himself out of it.
    2) He correctly states that no early church councils hammered out what Christians are supposed to believe about the atonement. I believe there are several reasons for this. First, theories of the atonement try to describe the “how” of it, but the Bible does not describe how. The more important points seem to be the who and the why. Second, there were no heresies being taught about the atonement, so there was no need to address is at councils. Third, the early church did not seem to care much about the how of atonement since belief about the theory behind it does not impact our salvation.
    3) He often points out that various teachings about PSA are mere caricatures. But in fact, it’s the promoters of PSA who propagate most of those caricatures. John MacArthur might be the worst. He says PSA is the ONLY way to understand the atonement, and that the ultimate reality is Jesus saves us from God (those quotes are easy to find on gty.org). All of big-name Calvinists teach PSA in a way that keep those caricatures alive. If it was just the PSA-opponents, I might think differently, but I don’t see this author as believing in PSA in the way that most advocates do. And they also all teach that PSA is an essential belief, that to deny it is to somehow deny the atonement. And they teach that PSA is the key to understanding all other models of the atonement. Even Rishmawy describes it as a linchpin.

    The bottom line for me at this point is that believing in the right theory of atonement has no impact on our salvation. But it can have an impact on what we believe about God, ourselves, and others. I personally believe that PSA is inadequate at best, and harmful at worst. And I believe that we are free to believe what we want about it, mostly because neither the Bible nor church tradition mandate it.

    I hope this does not mess with you mind as much as it did mine. I was a firm believer in PSA a couple of years ago, so this was quite a shift for me.

  235. Ken F wrote:

    Mike Breen is one of the leading experts and writers on missional communities. His name and ministry kept coming up in my internet searches. He emphasizes “low control and high accountability.” I’ve learned enough by now to know that accountability among believers is not taught in the Bible, so that was a red flag.

    Thank you so much for saying so. This red flag was present in two churches I previously attended but I did not see it as a red flag at the time. But “accountability” was a buzzword. The Bible talks far more about loving one another and caring for the needs of each other and even laying our lives down for each other. But this is missing from many churches, and actively caring for each other in practical ways seems to have been replaced by “sit down and talk sessions” where you are called out for particular sins and they clobber you with Bible verses. This is neither Biblical nor fruitful. Looking back I see how abusive it was.

  236. Ken F wrote:

    He often points out that various teachings about PSA are mere caricatures. But in fact, it’s the promoters of PSA who propagate most of those caricatures.

    Interesting point. I saw Steve Chalke’s statement as a caricature because I had never heard it described in his terms before, and he was not describing the view that I believed in. So I felt within my rights to reject his statement as a caricature. But if he got that idea from a promoter of PSA, he could also have been replying to a caricature.

    Also, to be clear again, I am not defending PSA but I am defending the view that Christ died to save us from our sins. I put that difference on a previous post. And I also don’t agree with MacArthur on many things, and I am more on the Arminian side than on the Calvinist side. Steve Chalke reacted strongly to Jonathan Edwards and to be honest, I am not a big fan of Jonathan Edwards writings. He views on eternal suffering are wrapped up with his Calvinism. The idea that God predestines people to hell because of his own “sovereign pleasure” is a revolting, monstrous doctrine that almost turned me away from God. It makes God into a cosmic and cruel monster that delights in causing suffering. If people reject PSA because of exposure to doctrines like this, I can’t blame them.

  237. ZechZav wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    Mike Breen is one of the leading experts and writers on missional communities. His name and ministry kept coming up in my internet searches. He emphasizes “low control and high accountability.” I’ve learned enough by now to know that accountability among believers is not taught in the Bible, so that was a red flag.

    Thank you so much for saying so. This red flag was present in two churches I previously attended but I did not see it as a red flag at the time. But “accountability” was a buzzword. The Bible talks far more about loving one another and caring for the needs of each other and even laying our lives down for each other. But this is missing from many churches, and actively caring for each other in practical ways seems to have been replaced by “sit down and talk sessions” where you are called out for particular sins and they clobber you with Bible verses. This is neither Biblical nor fruitful. Looking back I see how abusive it was.

    both of these comments radiate the truth of the Holy Gospels of Our Lord ….. words like ‘accountability’ seem threatening and intimidating because they were meant to be

    we are accountable to the God who gave us this life to live and Who sustains that life moment by moment …. this same Lord asks us to love and care for one another selflessly and offers us the grace to live accordingly

    beautiful and inspiration comments from Ken and Zech, yes

  238. mirele wrote:

    Zechzav wrote:
    Thanks for the research. My main issue with the EA is their hypocrisy over Steve Chalke. In 2004 he wrote a book denying penal substitution and rejecting it as “cosmic child abuse”. This is a serious error as it undermines the basis of our salvation and forgives.
    I deny penal substitutionary atonement too, and it caused me a lot of mental grief and anguish. I don’t think you can discount how horrifying it is to think that God would want to sacrifice his own son to satisfy something he put in place. That goes against a couple of very ingrained ideas in our society: you don’t sacrifice children and you don’t have human sacrifices. The prophets of the Old Testament were huge on no child/human sacrifice because the God they represented didn’t want them.
    It should be noted that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was not part of the early church but instead is an outgrowth of Anselm’s “Cur Deus Homo” as refined through Luther and Calvin.
    Jesus is Emmanuel “God With Us” through everything. He knows what life and death are like. He has shown us that even in the worst of instances, God is with us. He has reconciled us to God by his death where *we* killed him and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead. But this is not penal substitutionary atonement.
    I am going to be very, very blunt here: You need to think VERY HARD about what you’re saying when you say that Jesus had to die as a substitution. It makes God look awful and is an enormous stumbling block to belief. I’d rather go to hell than believe in a god who is that cruel. And I am DEAD SERIOUS about that. I see Jesus’ death and resurrection as God reconciling the world to himself and PSA is unnecessary and dangerous.
    If I could tell people how much mental anguish PSA has caused me, and I am just one person…Jesus was not a human/god hybrid sacrifice to appease an offended God the Father. He was God himself, reconciling the world to himself after we killed him and vindicated by God via his resurrection.
    Seriously, think through the awfulness that is PSA and see how much it hurts people before you call it “serious error.?

    well said – and thanks – i have been trying to understand why PSA bothers me so much – and you have made it so clear………..

  239. mirele wrote:

    I see Jesus’ death and resurrection as God reconciling the world to himself and PSA is unnecessary and dangerous.

    Amen! Yes!

  240. Pingback: Sovereign Grace Pastor Nathan Smith Deletes Inconvenient Truths - Thou Art The Man