Tim Challies: Church Members Drool; Pastors Rule

"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci link
"A crown is merely a hat that lets the rain in." Frederick the Great link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2699&picture=the-one-on-the-highest-chair
link

Last week, someone, I forget who, sent out a Tweet that made me think. The person asked why none of the Village Church  pastors or elders were formally disciplined after harassing Karen Hinkley for months. I even called a former friend who is an elder at that church and asked him how he could be involved in such an affair. I wanted to know why he didn't personally apologize to Karen or stand up and confess his sin in this blatant abuse of a dear person. Of course, I received no answer. Karen got beat over the head but the pastors got support from all quarters and, after all, Matt Chandler apologized. Case closed.

For years, TWW has documented case after case of unjust church discipline. People have been disciplined for alleged gossip, questioning the budget; asking for the pastor's salary; discussing their under-aged child's sex abuse by another church member; divorcing her chronically drunk husband who abused her; for expressing concern that a church supports a group which had been accused of covering up child sex abuse, etc. It is always the little guy who gets punished while the pastors get book deals, speaking engagements and pats on the back from their BFFs.

Have the Calvinistas christened a two tier system within the church?

It's the members who usually cause the disunity.

A week ago I read The Crack Begins at the Bottom by Tim Challies. In this post, Challies blames church members for causing most of the problems of disunity in the church.

Lately I’ve found myself pondering unity in the local church and considering that cracks in the unity of a church often begin at the bottom. They often begin at the foundation and work their way up to the roof. What I mean is that disunity often begins with the membership and spreads toward the leadership rather than beginning with the leadership and spreading toward the membership. This is not always the case, of course, but often it is.

His list of *member only* sins include but are not limited to:

  • One person gossiping
  • Two members quarreling
  • Three or more members of a clique
  • People who cause disputable matters being made into a matters of spiritual life and death
  • One person who gets others to question the good intentions of the pastor since, of course, all pastors only have good intentions.

It's the members who are also responsible for bringing unity to the church.

If disunity begins at the bottom and works its way to the top, so too does unity. 

I guess the pastors are just standing around writing sermons and being the good guys.

It's the members who must be disciplined for all kinds of things.

Challies linked to another relevant article he wrote Obligation to Assume: Church DisciplineRead this carefully. Challies and Dever appear to be calling for a wide spread usage of church discipline, not just in the area of scandalous sin (a term used an another article which I take to mean adultery.) If you read the entire article you will note that there is no mention of the sins of pastors.

Church discipline today is generally reserved for only the most terrible sins. I suspect many churches are willing to overlook almost any sin provided it does not cause rifts in the church and call the leadership into question. Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century. Matters of morality and godliness are regarded with far more leniency. Sadly this shows that many church leaders are more concerned with how the members of their churches regard them than with how they regard God. This has not always been the case.

Even 100 years ago many churches considered almost any consistent transgression of biblical rules grounds for discipline. In 9 Marks of a Healthy Church Mark Dever provides some examples from the rules of his church which were drawn up in 1878. The document outlined many ways in which members could be liable to discipline. They included: any outward violations of the moral law; any course which may…be disreputable to it [the church] as a body; neglecting to contribute financially; being habitually absent from church. In short, the church required believers to act and live like believers and any consistent transgression of this rule would begin the process of discipline as outlined in the Scripture.

I decided to check another one of Challies' posts on discipline, Why the Local Church Really Matters. Calvinistas, who write articles on the importance of the local church, always seem to mention church discipline as applied to the church members.

It always seems that members are upsetting the apple cart of the always good and faithful pastors. Read the following excerpt carefully. Does Challies ever mention any discipline problems with the pastors? Also, note the word *biblical* in front of discipline. This assumes that all discipline administered by church leadership is *biblical.*

The local church is the best place for spiritual accountability. We have probably all encountered people who believed they were called to ministry or who even carried out some kind of ministry even though their lives were a mess. This happens where people do not have proper spiritual accountability. “All Christians need the spiritual accountability and discipline that being a member of the local church brings. It stops us from drifting. It offers a context for encouragement and rebuke. It provides a community to stir one another on to love and good deeds.”

The local church is the place from which discipline is biblically administered. The task of disciplining disobedient or unruly Christians belongs to the local church. This is a difficult task but one given specifically to the church as a means to show the deepest love and concern for the spiritual care of believers (Matthew 18:15-17). Discipline belongs to the church as one of its important functions.

Thom Rainer also seems to take Challies' position that it is sinful church members who cause the problems. Fourteen Key Reasons for the Breakdown on Church Unity. Read the entire article and see if any pastor is ever blamed.

Gossip. Church members talk about one another instead of talking to one another. Paul calls church members who gossip people “filled with all unrighteousness” (Romans 1:29, HCSB).

Actions cloaked in darkness. I recently heard of a church personnel committee and a few church staff members who worked in darkness to fire a pastor without ever meeting with him first or giving him reasons for his dismissal. Then they refused to respond to church members who were asking questions.

Failure to confront church bullies. Some church members seek power in a church they can’t get elsewhere. They are devious and dangerous. They must be courageously confronted.

Self-serving church members. Some church members insist on getting their way for everything from worship style to the order of the worship service. Biblical church membership, however, is selfless and more concerned about others.

The pastors and leaders of your church are just as sinful as the next guy.

I am going to make an assumption that most of you believe that your pastor is as capable of sin as you are. I wrote something about this years ago. 

Ultimately, the person bringing a question or complaint is accused of being the problem, and the original issue is quickly forgotten.  This is an excellent way to obfuscate the real matter at hand.  The priesthood of the believers is no longer in play.  The pastors become the untouchable leaders, and the congregation exists to carry out their mandates without complaint.  We have watched as the role of deacons has been relegated to directing traffic and the elders serve merely to relay the mandates of the untouchable leader.

We want to leave you with a true story.  There was a very large church in Texas whose senior pastor was well-known and considered to be a pillar of the community.  He was authoritative, and the church grew to include thousands of members.  Unfortunately, he was involved in a long-term affair with a member of the church.  His deacon board spent years covering up this sin.  Members who were hearing rumors and had the temerity to bring a complaint were accused of being divisive and of spreading malicious gossip.  Eventually, the pastor went too far and was fired; however, this did not make up for the years of deception and the abuse of thoughtful members who left the church, both discouraged and bitter. The church itself was the butt of jokes for years.  The cause of Christ was tarnished, especially as the cover-up became common knowledge throughout the area.
 

Does the Bible really mean that pastors and church leaders are to be treated and disciplined differently than the lowly church members?

I have read reams of articles on bad behavior on the part of pastors. Early on, I came across a caveat about discipline when it comes to pastors that I had never seen before. It has caused me to be quite concerned about the beliefs on accountability by church leadership. I decided to Google the phrase *discipline of church pastors.* Most of the articles that popped up dealt with pastors and affairs. I take it that pastors do not gossip, act quarrelsome, hang in a clique, etc.

There seems to be an underlying belief by authority driven leaders that church elders are not to be confronted unless there are multiple witnesses. Do they make the assumption that church members don't need the same number of witnesses, if any.

1 Timothy 5:18 states

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

Pastors and Sin: Nine Ways Church Elders are Held Accountable well demonstrates my contention that pastors should be treated as a separate class than the lowly members. Read carefully to see how dangerous it can be when misapplying this Bible verse.

3. Multiple witnesses

Holding church elders accountable requires two or three witnesses, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses." Notice how the Lord has commanded that there be a careful process that includes the following elements. First there must be a personal witness. Then in order to bring an accusation, that person is obligated to bring a minimum of one other witness. This language implies a vigilant examination and verification process.

This procedure is designed to protect the elder from trivial, false or evil accusations. It also protects him from accusations based on rumors, gossip or internet slander. It is part of the territory: Church elders are often targets of criticism since they are all imperfect in their life and doctrine, and the best of men can be picked apart. Furthermore, elders are often subjected to unrighteous criticism because the standard to which they are held is often higher than any elder is able to meet. It is common for church members to fall into merciless criticism, because elders are sinners and have weaknesses and inadequacies.

However, the process commanded by God in 1 Timothy 5 protects elders from unnecessary accusations by immature, unnecessarily offended or envious parties.

The requirement Paul outlines here is obviously only for flagrant, public, or scandalous sins. If the sins are private and lesser in nature, then the rebuke should be less severe and spoken in private between brothers. However, if a public rebuke for serious sin is to be delivered, it must be upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. These witnesses are evaluated and if found to be truthful then the rebuke is required. The foundation for Paul's command is found in Deuteronomy 19:15, where Moses communicates the law of witnesses: "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established."

Thus, Paul establishes a careful and orderly environment where hard evidence is gathered (not rumors), and testimony is examined.

But:

  • Some acts may be witnessed by only one person. Take, for example, adultery. If a church member saw a pastor checking into a hotel with a woman who was not his wife, should the church leaders blow off this observation since only one church member saw it? What if it was not a church member who reported it?
  • What happens when it is an act that only happens behind closed door such as domestic violence? 
  • Should church members not be afforded 2-3 witnesses like an elder of the church?

Assuming that Timothy believed that church leaders were sinners, then what did Timothy really mean? I believe that Timothy meant to protect leaders from silly complaints like "he was mean to me" which might be reported by only one person. However, if a number of people report someone is consistently behaving in a belittling manner, the leader should be questioned. S

Shouldn't the same thing apply to the us little guys? Absolutely. It is vital that we do not take Bible verses beyond the scope of intent. 

Is seems to me that Tim Challies believes that church leaders behave less sinfully than church members. I dare you to find that view of sin in the Bible.

Tim Challies is dangerously wrong. Church leaders and church members are all capable of causing disunity. He is setting up a scenario that is doomed to failure. It is an Us vs. Them scenario instead of a "We are all in this together." That to me is perversion of the gospel and disruptive to the unity of the church universal.

This is why I believe that church discipline is being mishandled on a pervasive scale throughout the church. Pastors believe they are above the fray and can clearly see the sin of the little guy. The little guy is fearful when being confronted by his alleged sin because the pastors hold the power in this scenario. The gullible cannot believe that their pastor and church leadership can sin and sin badly, causing much pain.

Folks, never forget this. Your pastor is not in a different league as you. He is capable of great sin, just like anyone else. If you ever hear any pastor say to church members *you guys are the real problem," get the heck out of there and find a church in which the pastors gets it. I do not think these guys and their BFFs ever will.

 

Comments

Tim Challies: Church Members Drool; Pastors Rule — 297 Comments

  1. I gasped just a bit when I read this on the “members only” sin list:

    * People who cause disputable matters being made into a matters of spiritual life and death.

    Assuming by disputable matters they mean turning wisdom decision options into moral imperatives, then how much of what passes as “biblical” church authority structures and leadership and “success” are exactly that — disputable matters turned into covenants and shepherding and such like?

    “Troublesome congregants” may be far higher in the hierarchy than those whose place is in the pews.

  2. Challies writes:
    “All Christians need the spiritual accountability and discipline that being a member of the local church brings. It stops us from drifting. It offers a context for encouragement and rebuke. It provides a community to stir one another on to love and good deeds.”

    Wait a minute!

    does this man not believe in a person’s moral conscience as guide?????

    I have problems with people trying to substitute their own ‘authority’ for the primordial aboriginal ‘small Voice of God’ that every human being possesses.

    It is one thing to ask people to consider ‘what the Church teaches’ before making moral decisions;
    but no reputable religious leader anywhere in the world would insist that THEY and their ‘local church’ is a SUBSTITUTE for any individual’s moral conscience. No way.

    Maybe it comes down to Challies’ theology about what real moral ‘authority’ is.
    ?

  3. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I gasped just a bit when I read this on the “members only” sin list:
    * People who cause disputable matters being made into a matters of spiritual life and death.
    Assuming by disputable matters they mean turning wisdom decision options into moral imperatives, then how much of what passes as “biblical” church authority structures and leadership and “success” are exactly that — disputable matters turned into covenants and shepherding and such like?
    “Troublesome congregants” may be far higher in the hierarchy than those whose place is in the pews.

    These “churches” led Challies, Dever, Chandler, etc, are really just little kingdoms. The pastors are not pastors, but self-appointed kings. If only the serfs would stop revolting, their kingdoms would be perfect.

  4. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I gasped just a bit when I read this on the “members only” sin list:

    * People who cause disputable matters being made into a matters of spiritual life and death.

    Assuming by disputable matters they mean turning wisdom decision options into moral imperatives, then how much of what passes as “biblical” church authority structures and leadership and “success” are exactly that — disputable matters turned into covenants and shepherding and such like?

    “Troublesome congregants” may be far higher in the hierarchy than those whose place is in the pews.

    Amen.

  5. Karen was punished because she dared to examine the reality of her situation and to use that reality as a legitimate factor to help her make a reasonable moral conscientious decision.

    The ‘pastors’ (Chandler et al.) were not going to permit Karen that right.

    Seems to me that the neo-Cal approach is to ask people to live without considering their own reality when making a moral decision. And the truth is, that discounts something too important to leave out of the equation:
    that God is the God of Reason Who gives us the gift of being able to examine and weigh our circumstances and evaluate for ourselves what is the most reasonable path to take …. to ignore what is really happening in our lives is NOT an example of ‘faith’, but a rejection of a God-given gift of reason.

    We NEED to consider our circumstances before making moral conscientious decisions. It’s a part of honoring the God who gave us the ability to do so by means of His gift of ‘reason’, which when used with considering ‘what the Church teaches’, and in praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, forms the whole process of the right response to our consciences as moral guides.

    If our conscience tells us something different from what ‘the local church’ is teaching, then the conscience IS the final authority, yes.

    ” “re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul” (Samuel Clemens a.k.a. ‘Mark Twain’)

  6. “Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century.”

    Oh MY. Seriously??

    I don’t remember “unity” being one of the 10 commandments. I don’t remember Jesus telling anybody that the greatest sin is “disunity.” Man, I’d better get my bible out. I’m really vague about the unity/disunity stuff. All this stuff about the little people at the bottom causing problems is…annoying me.

  7. "Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century." – Tim Challies

    Tim Challies used the incorrect word in this sentence. He meant to say, "Disuniformity". He and the likes of Mark Dever and all of the other authoritarian cult leaders demand "uniformity" not "unity".

  8. Velour wrote:

    “Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century.” – Tim Challies

    Wasn’t the Antichrist’s regime in Thief in the Night named something like “UNity”?

  9. Great post, Dee!

    There's no question that pastors can cause disunity in the body of Christ. Take Dennis Darville, for example. He's the pastor who recently split First Baptist Church in Rocky Mount when he and the other pastors and staff resigned on of all days February 14th. 🙁

    What a tremendous show of love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. You can't make this stuff up!!!

  10. Velour wrote:

    Tim Chaillies used the incorrect word in this sentence. He meant to say, “Disuniformity”. He and the likes of Mark Dever and all of the other authoritarian cult leaders demand “uniformity” not “unity”.

    I think you are right.

    They have lost the value of ‘diversity’ and the healthy atmosphere it brings to the Church, which mirrors (or should mirror) the beautiful diversity reflected to us by the Holy Trinity itself.

    A faith community, with a forced lock-step ‘unity’ that refuses to incorporate a healthy diversity, will not be able to accept the varied gifts and talents that God has given ALL of its members in order to build it up in love. The result: tamping down and rejecting varied God-given gifts of members so that one man’s ‘vision’ must be ‘obeyed’. In short, idolatry of male-headship. Not exactly what Our Lord had in mind, I think.

  11. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    “Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century.” – Tim Challies
    Wasn’t the Antichrist’s regime in Thief in the Night named something like “UNity”?

    It was UNITE. (I watched the movie in sixth grade. Scared me to death.)

  12. I could never figure out WHY any person who follows Christ would to beat any of the sheep who go astray,
    when the Lord Himself would have gone to find the lost wanderer and carry it home to safety on His shoulders?

    This whole ‘church discipline’ thing seems so warped. It fails in so many Ways.

  13. Is it any wonder Challies doesn’t allow comments on his blog anymore? Saves him the trouble of actually having to defend his crazy assertions.

  14. Christiane wrote:

    I could never figure out WHY any person who follows Christ would to beat any of the sheep who go astray,
    when the Lord Himself would have gone to find the lost wanderer and carry it home to safety on His shoulders?
    This whole ‘church discipline’ thing seems so warped. It fails in so many Ways.

    Most of the sheep never went “astray”. They simply are Bereans, use critical thinking skills, and are supposed to be berated into submission to authoritarian NeoCalvinistic/cultish church leaders.

  15. @ Velour:
    you are RIGHT …. I ought to have put ‘astray’ in quotes to indicate that ANY sign of an individual thinking for himself/or herself would be perceived as wandering from the ‘authority’ of the leadership.

    I also think the public humiliation of those who dare to break ‘lock-step’ serves as a warning to everyone else to keep in line. Kind of like what the Romans did when they hung people on crosses all along the Roman roads.

  16. I’m not a believer in papal infallibility, but I’d take that over THIS new idea of “pastoral impeccability” any day….

  17. I have some ambivalent feelings on this issue. Coming from a family with a long line of pastors, I am aware of real situations where my family was abused–IMO–by the congregation. These were godly men who were pushed out for things like getting sick or being too old, for example. My point is that there are abuses of power in both directions, and the Calvinistas may be operating to insulate themselves from such things by grabbing at power (which doesn’t make it right, of course).

    I think it is a horrible idea to go back to the “old days” of church discipline! The irony of all of this is how unaware Challies et al. are about how this is EXACTLY what the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were doing. Did that save them? Accountability can quickly turn into control and legalism.

    In my opinion, pastors who push “accountability” hard may need to re-examine whether they truly believe in the Holy Spirit. It strikes me as a matter of lack of faith–or immaturity in one’s faith–if one insists the issue is that the church isn’t convicting people enough of their so called “sins.” I think it is precisely our penchant to control and seek power that God is the one who is to convict, not humans.

    Finally, this sort of accountability idea creates a culture of fear and not love. I John 4 is very clear about that difference as fear comes with always worrying about punishment. God did not set us free so that we can join a church to become enslaved to some leader’s fear tactics. At least, my God didn’t set me free for that.

  18. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I don’t remember “unity” being one of the 10 commandments. I don’t remember Jesus telling anybody that the greatest sin is “disunity.” Man, I’d better get my bible out.

    Aha! Perhaps they’ve finally identified the true nature of the unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible.

    …except I had the impression it had something to do with quenching the Spirit. Which is what these men do, in assuming the role of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives.

    Which might mean that the pastors and elders and authoritarians are actually the ones who are committing the unforgivable sin…?

  19. wrote:

    Your pastor is not in a different league as you.

    I’m afraid this is simply not true. Many pastors, a strikingly high percentage, are very much in a different league. Recent academic research in which hundreds of Presbyterian pastors were administered tests for personality disorders indicates that hey have, on average, a 500% to 3,000% greater likelihood of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which means, essentially, they care about no one on Earth but themselves and, more or less, hate every single person in their congregations, at best seeing them as useful fools, as well as hating God Himself) than the general population.

    Mind you, this study with the downright terrifying results was from lower-key Canada, not the U.S., and was exclusively of PCC pastors, who are the Canadian equivalent of the PCUSA, the “squishy liberals” (who, whatever one may say of them, it cannot be said that as a group they tend to be particularly of the vulgar guttural filthy-mouthed Mark Driscoll or big hair, Robert Morris, look at me types.

    One can only imagine the numbers if scholars surveyed pastors in the SBC, in the ranks of neocalvinism, among the televangelists, in the NAR crowd. Does anyone doubt the prevalence of NPD among pastors wouldn’t be higher–and probably a great deal so–in those environments?

    So sorry, Dee and Deb, you’re wrong, peoples’ pastors have a much, much greater chance of being in a different league from them–just a much lower league.

  20. Divorce Minister wrote:

    These were godly men who were pushed out…

    They might be or have been very godly men, but the position itself is made up, and not being biblical, by definition it is not very godly, and if you can show me anywhere in the New Testament where God created that pastor as single leader/head of the team of elders/primary Sunday morning and Wednesday night speaker position, I’ll apologize and retract this statement. Do not assume automatically that it was the work of sinful men or the Devil himself behind them being pushed out, because if that long line truly were godly, it’d seem to me best for them that they didn’t continue donning that mantle that is reserved for Jesus alone among the people.

  21. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I have some ambivalent feelings on this issue. Coming from a family with a long line of pastors, I am aware of real situations where my family was abused–IMO–by the congregation. These were godly men who were pushed out for things like getting sick or being too old, for example. My point is that there are abuses of power in both directions, and the Calvinistas may be operating to insulate themselves from such things by grabbing at power (which doesn’t make it right, of course).
    I think it is a horrible idea to go back to the “old days” of church discipline! The irony of all of this is how unaware Challies et al. are about how this is EXACTLY what the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were doing. Did that save them? Accountability can quickly turn into control and legalism.
    In my opinion, pastors who push “accountability” hard may need to re-examine whether they truly believe in the Holy Spirit. It strikes me as a matter of lack of faith–or immaturity in one’s faith–if one insists the issue is that the church isn’t convicting people enough of their so called “sins.” I think it is precisely our penchant to control and seek power that God is the one who is to convict, not humans.
    Finally, this sort of accountability idea creates a culture of fear and not love. I John 4 is very clear about that difference as fear comes with always worrying about punishment. God did not set us free so that we can join a church to become enslaved to some leader’s fear tactics. At least, my God didn’t set me free for that.

  22. Chaillies: “Great ruptures in the church often begin with just one member gossiping about another or just two quarreling members who have no desire to pursue reconciliation.”
    Okay, if it is easy, name one “great rupture” caused by the little guy. History teaches the opposite, great ruptures in the church were caused by prideful leaders, not lowly pewsitters. Believe me, if it were up to me I would like to spark a mass exodus from a certain authoritarian church but I would come up empty. Meanwhile at the same church the “pastor” drove off a quarter of the church members but he is exercising “leadership”.

    Some of these pastors have put themselves in a different league by grasping power and are thereby capable of much worse sins than the rest of us. I would need to work very hard to equal the carnage caused by an authoritarian pastor in just the lives of people I know.

  23. I must agree.. I also have ambivelent feelings on this issue. My husband was asked to resign from the elder board of a church we were in, because they said “he was the conscience of the elder Board.” He did end up resigning because it was so stressful to our family and we had small children who did not need to deal with their parents being stressed out. I brought this issue up on this blog in August and was attacked because I cared about those in ministry also being victims.

  24. Law Prof wrote:

    Many pastors, a strikingly high percentage, are very much in a different league. Recent academic research in which hundreds of Presbyterian pastors were administered tests for personality disorders indicates that hey have, on average, a 500% to 3,000% greater likelihood of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which means, essentially, they care about no one on Earth but themselves and, more or less, hate every single person in their congregations, at best seeing them as useful fools, as well as hating God Himself) than the general population.

    I am not surprised by this research. I’ve seen articles about it.

  25. Leslie wrote:

    I must agree.. I also have ambivelent feelings on this issue. My husband was asked to resign from the elder board of a church we were in, because they said “he was the conscience of the elder Board.” He did end up resigning because it was so stressful to our family and we had small children who did not need to deal with their parents being stressed out. I brought this issue up on this blog in August and was attacked because I cared about those in ministry also being victims.

    I’m sorry for what happened to your husband and family. I’ve heard about this. I haven’t experienced it. At my ex-church we got to deal with the heavy-handed abusive pastors/elders who abused pastoral staff, church staff, church members and even attenders with impunity.

    I’m sorry that your husband was forced out for doing the right thing.

    And I’m sorry that you weren’t met with some degree of empathy for what happened.

  26. Leslie wrote:

    I must agree.. I also have ambivelent feelings on this issue. My husband was asked to resign from the elder board of a church we were in, because they said “he was the conscience of the elder Board.” He did end up resigning because it was so stressful to our family and we had small children who did not need to deal with their parents being stressed out. I brought this issue up on this blog in August and was attacked because I cared about those in ministry also being victims.

    Of course anyone can be a victim. Elders as well as anyone. Who around here ha ever suggested otherwise? What’s really an elder in the biblical sense other than an older person, a servant who leads by godly example alone, never compulsion, one who seeks to be the least and the last, not one who thinks they have the right to plan out much of anything, but rather just to come under and serve? I can see nothing about the description of an elder in the Bible that would indicate in any manner they’d be less likely to be victims–hey, one would think they’d be more likely to be victims since they’re always putting themselves last.

    Of course, if your family member, that “conscience of the elder board”, is as quick to take offense as you, as likely to remember slights and not forgive them such that back they come, three months later to take petty shots at others, well, maybe they’re not an elder in the biblical sense anyway.

  27. Law Prof wrote:

    Of course, if your family member, that “conscience of the elder board”, is as quick to take offense as you, as likely to remember slights and not forgive them such that back they come, three months later to take petty shots at others, well, maybe they’re not an elder in the biblical sense anyway.

    Law Prof,

    It seems to me that Leslie shared a painful, stressful experience for her family here previously, and their bad church experience, and she wasn’t validated and didn’t receive empathy.

    Perhaps she wouldn’t have repeated it if she’d received empathy the first time.

    Thank you.

  28. And this is why I do not attend a church. My conscience is not seared. As the Holy Spirit lives within me I am acutely aware of my sins and deal with them. But I must wonder, do they?

  29. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    THIS new idea of “pastoral impeccability”

    I’m not familiar with this term, but if it means what I think it means, then it must refer ONLY to Christ Himself, who never sinned.

    ‘peccatoribus’ means ‘sin’ in the Latin,
    and the prefix “im” means ‘without’; so the ONLY ‘pastor’ (Shepherd) who was, is, or ever will be ‘impeccable’ is Christ the Lord Himself.

    That term ‘pastoral impeccability’ cannot be applied to anyone else.

  30. GMFS

    Tennis:

    Today’s semi-final at the Paris Masters between Scotland’s Andy Murray and Canada’s Milos Raonic will be attracting more attention than usual; should Murray win, he will become world number 1. This would be noteworthy for several reasons, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

    The winner of that match, regardless of ranking, will play either Croatian Marin Cilic or American John Isner in the final; their semi is up first on court at around 13 o’clock UTC (that is to say, 14 o’clock CET).

    IHTIH

  31. It’s interesting to me that Jesus rarely had a bad word to say about the “little guy”, but he had a whole lot of nasty things to say about the religious leaders.

    They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

    Matthew 23:1-13

  32. ishy wrote:

    “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    methinks the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew is NOT what the neo-Cals mean when they talk about ‘the gospel’.

    Maybe they should re-think what they have set aside.

  33. From Challies:
    “Failure to confront church bullies. Some church members seek power in a church they can’t get elsewhere. They are devious and dangerous. They must be courageously confronted.”

    I believe these bullies are commonly referred to as pastors.

    “Comrades,” he said, “I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

  34. I suddenly realized why Calvinistas say complementarianism is equal to the gospel. If they define “gospel” as forcing all churches under (their) strict authority, then complementarianism is one of their primary ways to do that.

    Too bad that makes them heretics, since Christ is the gospel.

  35. One of the main issues in Challies’ view, in my opinion, is the ‘vertical’ relationship he’s establishing between the people in the church and the ‘leaders’… Rather than considering the ‘leader’ as a person equal to others in the congregation but with more responsibilities, he’s placing him at the top. (Note: The problem would be the same if the leader being placed at the top was a *her*, but I guess that is not an actual option under Challies’ complementarian views!)

    That is obvious from the way he started the initial paragraph, and is saying a lot about their views on church governance and discipline: “Lately I’ve found myself pondering unity in the local church and considering that cracks in the unity of a church often begin at the bottom”.

    Is it possible that some of these ‘leaders’ take the literal meaning of the title ‘pastor’ (shepherd) a bit too seriously? Yes, the picture of the shepherd and the sheep in the Bible as a representation of some aspects of the relationship of Jesus and his people has beautiful and poetical connotations… But I think it can only be taken so far, especially when it is used to represent the relationship between the ‘leader’ and the congregation in the local church: In a real flock, can the sheep discipline the shepherd if the shepherd is cruel? Can they say ‘we need a better shepherd’? But even more importantly, can the flock be actually lead by another sheep, even if the sheep was trained to behave like a shepherd?

    Any group of people has the potential for conflict, for the simple reason that it is made by people. Some ‘leaders’ may aim to reduce that potential by creating uniformity, thus minimising the differences between the people… Maybe that’s why they see people as ‘dumb’ sheep fighting for a bit of grass or space, and they are the shepherd who know better.

    What I wonder is, though, if you place yourself outside of the people by being ‘above them’, can you actually be ‘one of them’ in the full sense of the idea?

  36. @ Christiane:

    Well, things need to be seen through the larger picture. During the years which we look back to a the early years of the cultural revolution in this nation, somewhere after the Korean War and certainly during the VN war and later, the SBC slid into what many considered a disreputable state of being, at least in some areas. I came smack on this in the seventies when I had to make some decisions as to the religious training of my children. Before that I was too busy and too disinterested to notice or to now have any reliable first hand experience to report. Anyhow, the SBC had people who took the ideas which you seem to be saying, let conscience be your guide, to let themselves be guided into not just the toleration but the acceptance of some things which others thought to be contrary to scripture and contrary to what Baptists had thought and practiced traditionally. Scripture was more and more dismissed, twisted and ignored from the pulpits. Children and youth were ‘let to run wild’ with apparent parental approval. At FirstandMostly BC where I lived an actual free sex group of some of the ‘best’ families was found to have a place at the beach with wife swapping, information that came out in an actual divorce case that went to court. Among these were lay leaders of a sort at FirstandMostly. And it turns out that this was known and condoned by some. Apparently this deterioration was widespread enough that when the conservative resurgence came along there were enough people glad to see it that it caught on and spread.

    The conservative resurgence emphasized ‘back to the bible’ and no, you can’t just believe anything you want to or do just anything you want to if it conflicts with some clear teaching of scripture. And no you cannot ‘let conscience be your guide’ because some of you have a seared conscience (I believe that is a biblical term). And no, if what you think is you conscience clearly conflicts with some clear teaching n scripture, if what you want is adultery plain and simple regardless of what you want, you cannot justify acting on that desire and then say ‘I have a clear conscience about that because exceptional circumstances’ for example. Just no. Simple answer. You can repent. You can be forgiven. But you cannot justify some things with an appeal to conscience.

    That is the background. If anybody was saying ignore what you have been taught and what you know and what you call your conscience and wallow in sin and unbelief because it sure is fun, it was not the church which officially said it, but it was the church which ignored it. And when the resurgers resurged it was a call to repentence and a call to return to what SBC had been and could have been again.

    I saw what was going on, took my children and left SBC before the resurgence, and went to a different Baptist group. I like the song ‘build an ark’. That is what we did, and we rode out the storm. I do not know what if anything went wrong after that in SBC. I listen to others on what went on after we left.

    One can have a seared conscience. The bible says so. Not all conscience is seared. Caution is needed.

  37. @ okrapod:
    perhaps in a Baptist context, my Catholic use of the phrase ‘moral conscience’ would better translate as ‘soul competency’ a term I think means ‘individual soul liberty’.

    Your thoughts?

  38. okrapod wrote:

    One can have a seared conscience. The bible says so. Not all conscience is seared. Caution is needed.

    ‘autonomous’ conscience does not serve mankind well without the guidance of the Holy Spirit …. for us Christian people that means we pray for His guidance before making important moral decisions, we also look to the Word of God, without which there is only the darkness, and the Word of God provides a ‘lamp unto our feet’, a help by which we can search out God’s wisdom in His revealed word. We cannot proceed. even then, without consideration of the reality of our own situations, or we risk mocking the God Who gave us the ability to reason.

    I don’t know the process by which people of other denominations conduct their formation of Christian moral conscience,
    but I do know that even Baptists might respect the struggle of the person who says, “here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

  39. Christiane wrote:

    perhaps in a Baptist context, my Catholic use of the phrase ‘moral conscience’ would better translate as ‘soul competency’ a term I think means ‘individual soul liberty’.
    Your thoughts?

    I think you are absolutely correct about terminology. What you as a Catholic mean my conscience is apt to be understood quite differently by conservative evangelical protestants. Soul competency would not be misunderstood nearly that much. I had not thought about terminology per se. That was a good catch.

  40. Christiane wrote:

    I don’t know the process by which people of other denominations conduct their formation of Christian moral conscience,

    For the conservative evangelical that would be ‘the bible says’ and the Achilles heel of that approach is that what it boils down to is ‘the bible says as understood/translated/taught by whom’. And now, for better or worse, the ‘by whom’ has become a competitive amateur sport and hobby. Confusion.

    In your tradition you also seem to have the ‘by whom’ issue as it relates to what the Church teaches and whether that is being adhered to; such that you have the traditionalists and the progressives, with the occasional bishop who gets into trouble by going public with some unpopular idea. I note that this varies somewhat over time and varies with who sits in Peter’s seat and results in some disagreements. I really think the difference here between Catholics taken as a whole and Protestants taken as a whole is not all that great. That is to say that the fact that there are differences in the camp in the first place is seen in both groups. And the fact that these differences are being labeled conservative vs progressive is similar.
    And the fact that a lot of people feel very strongly about the rightness and virtue of their take on things is similar along with the criticisms across the conservative/progressive divide seems to have some similarity.

    But I am making fried potatoes for everybody to pig out on any minute now, and I will perhaps feel better after I get on some carbohydrate high.

  41. Challies has certainly practiced what he preached when it came to C.J. Mahaney. He used to not allow any negative comments about him on his blog (maybe still doesn’t).

    On Feb. 28, 2013, he wrote: “The great theme of the Bible is God’s unfailing love. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul explains some of the implications of this love, saying that it “believes all things, hopes all things and endures all things” (v7). *This is not a call to be naive or to deny the obvious, but an instruction to maintain a hopeful attitude toward others, even, and perhaps especially, those who have been accused.* (My emphasis.)

    He wrote this shortly before the lawsuit but after “national media outlets” had reported the alleged child sexual abuse. Evidently his “hopeful attitude” was extended only to the leaders.

  42. JYJames wrote:

    “Unity” being defined as “Shut up and put up.”

    Isn’t that what membership contracts, uh, covenants are for?

  43. Nancy2 wrote:

    membership contracts, uh, covenants are for?

    Aren’t the contracts for money, a guaranteed budget/income for the leaders?

  44. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    “Disunity is the cardinal sin of the twenty-first century.”
    Oh MY. Seriously??

    yep-it’s those dang bloggers who are disrupting things out there’d causing people to ask questions of the religious elite.

  45. Deb wrote:

    There’s no question that pastors can cause disunity in the body of Christ.

    Don’t you know how they spin it? It was the people in that church who wouldn’t listen to the anointed one.

  46. Bri wrote:

    Is it any wonder Challies doesn’t allow comments on his blog anymore? Saves him the trouble of actually having to defend his crazy assertions.

    Many of his privileged elect are forgoing comments. They are fining it difficult to manage the riff raff

  47. dee wrote:

    yep-it’s those dang bloggers who are disrupting things out there’d causing people to ask questions of the religious elite.

    Satin and Stan on TWW?

  48. okrapod wrote:

    And no you cannot ‘let conscience be your guide’ because some of you have a seared conscience (I believe that is a biblical term)

    We also see it termed as “hardness of heart”. That could also describe grooming and molesting children as a pastor or priest. People tend to automatically respect titles.

    Moral conscious as guide doesnt mean we don’t pay careful attention to the behavior of priests and pastors. There are many frauds and deceivers out there.

  49. Martos wrote:

    What I wonder is, though, if you place yourself outside of the people by being ‘above them’, can you actually be ‘one of them’ in the full sense of the idea?

    Great comment. My answer to your question is no. Such a mindset necessitates that you separate yourself from the sheep.The only sheep they hang around are the ones with lots of money who give it to them.

  50. dee wrote:

    privileged elect are forgoing comments

    The top down lazy person’s spiritual quest, i.e. religion.

  51. dee wrote:

    The only sheep they hang around are the ones with lots of money who give it to them.

    And who do not want to put any effort into their faith. It is a lazy person’s “quest”.

  52. I once attended a church where the pastor told the entire congregation that everyone, except himself of course, was under “level one church discipline” for not tithing. Needless to say, that church is no longer in existence and the pastor is no longer in ministry.

  53. Martos wrote:

    Is it possible that some of these ‘leaders’ take the literal meaning of the title ‘pastor’ (shepherd) a bit too seriously?

    My ex-pastors/elders (at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley) actually say in church documents now that the Bible ‘mandates’ them to have authority over the sheep (adults who are voters, tax payers, educated, have families, work jobs).

    “Preface. The Statement of Faith represents the doctrinal position of Grace Bible Fellowship (GBF) as adopted and taught by the Elders of GBF. The Bible mandates that, as overseers and shepherds of Christ’s Church, the Elders protect the doctrinal purity and integrity of the Church (Acts 20:28-31; Jude 3; 2 Timothy 4:1-5).” This is just a taste of the authoritarianism at the NeoCalvinist/9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite GBFSV.

    http://www.gbfsv.org/gbf-statement-of-faith

    I learned my lesson: I will never step foot in a NeoCalvinist church again. They are the most insufferable tyrants.

  54. Challies quotes from the May 2006 article Obligation to Assume: Church Discipline. My comments are in brackets. He says,

    Almost sixty years ago [about 1947] H.E. Dana observed that:

    “The abuse of discipline is reprehensible and destructive, but not more than the abandonment of discipline. Two generations ago [mid-19th century] the churches were applying discipline in a vindictive and arbitrary fashion that justly brought it into disrepute; today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme – discipline is almost wholly neglected. It is time for a new generation of pastors to restore this important function of the church to its rightful significance and place in church life.”

    Well, it seems the pendulum continues to swing. Dana’s concern which has been picked up by the new Calvinists, now seems to be back at the other end where church discipline is increasingly being applied “in a vindictive and arbitrary fashion that justly [brings] it into disrepute”, thanks to the internet. Finding the happy medium seems to be the hardest thing of all.

  55. NJ wrote:

    Almost sixty years ago [about 1947] H.E. Dana observed that:
    “The abuse of discipline is reprehensible and destructive, but not more than the abandonment of discipline. Two generations ago [mid-19th century] the churches were applying discipline in a vindictive and arbitrary fashion that justly brought it into disrepute; today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme – discipline is almost wholly neglected. It is time for a new generation of pastors to restore this important function of the church to its rightful significance and place in church life.”

    I wonder if this author/book inspired Mark Dever, who writes this way almost verbatim in 9 Marks.

  56. I think that his use of the words “bottom” for the pew peons and “top” for the pastors tells us everything we need to know. As is so often the case with these guys, everything is about maintaining power, authority, control and privilege for them and their fellow “leaders.”

  57. Christiane wrote:

    ” “re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul” (Samuel Clemens a.k.a. ‘Mark Twain’)

    okrapod wrote:

    One can have a seared conscience. The bible says so. Not all conscience is seared. Caution is needed.

    Both of you make excellent points. On the one extreme there’s the “if it feels good do it” crowd, and on the other; we have the non-negotiable-black-and-white-scripture-bullet-points-with-no-wiggle-room camp. Extremes at both ends of the continuum are fraught with danger.

  58. “Have the Calvinistas christened a two tier system within the church?”

    Al Mohler developed a “theological triage” system a few years ago, in which he put certain doctrines into essential vs. secondary & tertiary tiers. He compared such arrangement with a disaster triage where victims were placed in hierarchical order of treatment. In an effort to get the heat off New Calvinist proliferation within the Southern Baptist Convention (thereby, buying him more time to Calvinize the denomination), he placed soteriology as a non-essential doctrine which Southern Baptists should not be fussing about. Think about it, he put God’s plan of salvation in a non-essential tier (predestination vs. free will acceptance of Christ)! A pretty smooth move that majority non-Calvinist Southern Baptists should have been up in arms about, but weren’t for some strange reason (complacency I suppose).

    In like manner, the Neo-Cals have successfully placed a firewall between pulpit and pew. You can’t touch authoritarian leaders, no matter how much the congregation squawks. They, after all, are highly called and of more spiritual import than the peons … they are immune from church discipline. They have essentially created a “membership triage” within their churches, where “lead” pastors are essential, his hand-picked elders are secondary, and the average church member is tertiary … the essential can’t be disciplined … the tertiary are expendable! The New Calvinists justify such behavior for the good of the new reformation. It’s a sickness that has hit the American church.

  59. Max wrote:

    They have essentially created a “membership triage” within their churches, where “lead” pastors are essential, his hand-picked elders are secondary, and the average church member is tertiary … the essential can’t be disciplined … the tertiary are expendable! The New Calvinists justify such behavior for the good of the new reformation. It’s a sickness that has hit the American church.

    If people are justifying something harmful and saying it is ‘okay’ to do it because it is for a good reason, they are practicing immorality.

    Any harm to people done for the sake of ‘good’ violates an important corollary of the ‘golden rule’. And if the participants in doing harm justify it, you can bet your boots they have ‘seared’ consciences which can no longer adequately serve them as moral guides. Likewise, those who see the harm being done and look away or accept the harmful treatment of others because their ‘leadership’ tells them it is for a ‘good reason’. Comes to mind a term for such people:
    ‘morally bankrupt’.

  60. GC wrote:

    everything is about maintaining power, authority, control and privilege for them and their fellow “leaders.”

    And crowds are flocking to their churches! What is wrong with folks?!

  61. Burwell wrote:

    that church is no longer in existence and the pastor is no longer in ministry

    Sad to hear that about the church, but the man was obviously not a “pastor” and should have never been in ministry.

  62. Max wrote:

    GC wrote:

    everything is about maintaining power, authority, control and privilege for them and their fellow “leaders.”

    And crowds are flocking to their churches! What is wrong with folks?!

    It is where the culture is headed with nanny as “the perpetual authority” thinking. Power and Corruption is the new normal.

  63. @ Max:

    Max, I have a heartfelt sorrow for your Baptist denomination, and that it has come to this. Please do not take offense, but this is why a strong central church government (like the lutherans have, both conservative and liberal synods) is better than just loose articles of confederation. It prevents strongmen (the mohlers, the pipers, the mahaneys…) from taking over and imposing their will on the rank and file.

  64. dee wrote:

    The only sheep they hang around are the ones with lots of money

    These “shepherds” most likely keep a little black book of who to feed and who to starve … rich sheep vs. lowly sheep. When it comes fleecing time, they know who to shear first with soothing words to get in their pocketbooks. These leaders would have no sheepfold, if it weren’t for deceived rich sheep!

  65. GC wrote:

    I think that his use of the words “bottom” for the pew peons and “top” for the pastors tells us everything we need to know.

    How is it possible for there to even be unity of you consider yourself not part of the group from the beginning?

    Disunity is baked into the cake.

    And I don’t think the congregation even has the power to make side issues requirements, so what they actually mean here is that a few member refuse to agree with the pastor/elders.

  66. Muff Potter wrote:

    this is why a strong central church government (like the lutherans have, both conservative and liberal synods) is better than just loose articles of confederation

    Southern Baptists have prided themselves in local church autonomy across 45,000+ churches, as long as they stay with certain boundaries of belief and practice. It’s definitely time to rethink that position in order to get more theological and ecclesiastical accountability in the system to control the “strongman”, but Baptists are stubborn about this so it ain’t going to happen.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    It is where the culture is headed with nanny as “the perpetual authority” thinking.

    I was invited once to teach a workshop at a church on being called and accountable as Christians. I was approached by a lady after the session who said “I always thought I should just listen to and accept what the pastor said. I didn’t know I was personally supposed to do anything like study Scripture myself.” Southern Baptists were once called a “People of the Word” … unfortunately, not many read it these days as they ought; thus, they have been easy pickins’ for New Calvinism since they don’t have the Biblical foundation they should to test and try the teachings coming at them.

  68. GC wrote:

    I think that his use of the words “bottom” for the pew peons and “top” for the pastors tells us everything we need to know. As is so often the case with these guys, everything is about maintaining power, authority, control and privilege for them and their fellow “leaders.”

    Post of the year! PRIDE is destructive. This applies to more than just Challies, far too many church leaders think this way and insulate themselves. Note the pattern: Lucifer’s pride was the root cause of self-appointment to the “top”.

  69. “Did you know that church members are the real problem for those gospel™ driven pastors?”

    Actually, there is a lot of truth to this. Such leaders would have no stage if they didn’t have an audience to finance them. I’ve never seen more uninformed, misinformed and/or willingly ignorant sheep in a church movement than what we are seeing in New Calvinism. It’s a very strange phenomenon.

  70. @ Max:

    Southern Baptists also need a centralized system to deal with the epidemic of child sexual abuse in their churches and prevention of it. At present, it is left up to every church.

  71. Max wrote:

    Southern Baptists have prided themselves in local church autonomy across 45,000+ churches, as long as they stay with certain boundaries of belief and practice. It’s definitely time to rethink that position in order to get more theological and ecclesiastical accountability in the system to control the “strongman”, but Baptists are stubborn about this so it ain’t going to happen.

    Ther was a recent article on SBCVoices about disciplining or dis-associating churches in Indiana who don’t report certain info to the state association. I think some certain people are trending towards an SBC papacy.
    Max wrote:

    Southern Baptists were once called a “People of the Word” … unfortunately, not many read it these days as they ought; thus, they have been easy pickins’ for New Calvinism since they don’t have the Biblical foundation they should to test and try the teachings coming at them.

    Yep. Most never open their Bibles except on Sunday mornings when they follow along with the sermon, and take whatever the preacher says as the correct interpretation. Even Sunday school class books that are used seem to discourage actually studying – hey, everything you need to know is condensed right there in the Sunday school booklet.

  72. Velour wrote:

    Southern Baptists also need a centralized system to deal with the epidemic of child sexual abuse in their churches and prevention of it. At present, it is left up to every church.

    Agreed. In lieu of that, church members need to call 911 rather than consult church leaders when child abuse happens. This is a criminal act, not a church matter.

  73. Nancy2 wrote:

    Even Sunday school class books that are used seem to discourage actually studying – hey, everything you need to know is condensed right there in the Sunday school booklet.

    This is the very problem I have with SBC’s “The Gospel Project” Sunday School literature. The material was written exclusively by New Calvinists, with subtle indoctrination into reformed theology.

  74. Law Prof wrote:

    wrote:

    Your pastor is not in a different league as you.

    I’m afraid this is simply not true. Many pastors, a strikingly high percentage, are very much in a different league. Recent academic research in which hundreds of Presbyterian pastors were administered tests for personality disorders indicates that hey have, on average, a 500% to 3,000% greater likelihood of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which means, essentially, they care about no one on Earth but themselves and, more or less, hate every single person in their congregations, at best seeing them as useful fools, as well as hating God Himself) than the general population.

    Mind you, this study with the downright terrifying results was from lower-key Canada, not the U.S., and was exclusively of PCC pastors, who are the Canadian equivalent of the PCUSA, the “squishy liberals” (who, whatever one may say of them, it cannot be said that as a group they tend to be particularly of the vulgar guttural filthy-mouthed Mark Driscoll or big hair, Robert Morris, look at me types.

    One can only imagine the numbers if scholars surveyed pastors in the SBC, in the ranks of neocalvinism, among the televangelists, in the NAR crowd. Does anyone doubt the prevalence of NPD among pastors wouldn’t be higher–and probably a great deal so–in those environments?

    So sorry, Dee and Deb, you’re wrong, peoples’ pastors have a much, much greater chance of being in a different league from them–just a much lower league.

    This makes perfect sense!

  75. Law Prof wrote:

    Divorce Minister wrote:

    These were godly men who were pushed out…

    They might be or have been very godly men, but the position itself is made up, and not being biblical, by definition it is not very godly, and if you can show me anywhere in the New Testament where God created that pastor as single leader/head of the team of elders/primary Sunday morning and Wednesday night speaker position, I’ll apologize and retract this statement. Do not assume automatically that it was the work of sinful men or the Devil himself behind them being pushed out, because if that long line truly were godly, it’d seem to me best for them that they didn’t continue donning that mantle that is reserved for Jesus alone among the people.

    I agree. They reverse the order established by Jesus.

  76. And there was that guy who came on here the other day claiming that pastors are only accountable to God and that God will deal with them if they do wrong… I have heard that one a few times.

    Enforced “unity” = guarantee of ongoing employment & financial provision for pastors. Truth and good have no part in any of this.

    It seems like these guys would really love to have the power of the state behind them but even though they don’t, they have decided to move forward AS IF they did!

  77. Velour wrote:

    Tim Challies used the incorrect word in this sentence. He meant to say, “Disuniformity”. He and the likes of Mark Dever and all of the other authoritarian cult leaders demand “uniformity” not “unity”.

    Yes, disuniformity of thought is the ultimate sin for the little people. How dare we question.

  78. Leslie wrote:

    I must agree.. I also have ambivelent feelings on this issue. My husband was asked to resign from the elder board of a church we were in, because they said “he was the conscience of the elder Board.” He did end up resigning because it was so stressful to our family and we had small children who did not need to deal with their parents being stressed out. I brought this issue up on this blog in August and was attacked because I cared about those in ministry also being victims.

    In the organizational structure of today’s “church” it is often the sociopaths who seize and maintain control. The M.O. of the pastors in this article is to out-sociopath anyone in the church in order to grasp and maintain control.

    I am a “done” because I have recognized that none of the churches I tried -and I tried many- had healthy group dynamics. Is it possible? I guess so but there would have to be a whole different structure, somehow.

  79. okrapod wrote:

    But I am making fried potatoes for everybody to pig out on any minute now…

    <tangent>When our daughter was wee, she used to call potatoes “bitatoes”. Now that she’s studying chemistry, I (predictably) refer to the alkali metal “bitassium”.

    IHTIH</tangent>

  80. Jack wrote:

    Hey, I’m helping solve the problem of church disunity! I stay away from church!

    Me too! We are problem solvers! Hee Hee.

  81. Max wrote:

    “Did you know that church members are the real problem for those gospel™ driven pastors?”
    Actually, there is a lot of truth to this. Such leaders would have no stage if they didn’t have an audience to finance them. I’ve never seen more uninformed, misinformed and/or willingly ignorant sheep in a church movement than what we are seeing in New Calvinism. It’s a very strange phenomenon.

    It works like this…the pew sitters either don’t recognize serious problems or they don’t require enough accountability to ever see them. They tend to trust titles. So when a glaring issue comes up, they might respond by questioning. The powers see this as dissent to their authority and over react.

    But there were seriously deep problems all along. Now that person must be “marginalized” using the words of Mohler.

  82. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ Max:
    Max, I have a heartfelt sorrow for your Baptist denomination, and that it has come to this. Please do not take offense, but this is why a strong central church government (like the lutherans have, both conservative and liberal synods) is better than just loose articles of confederation. It prevents strongmen (the mohlers, the pipers, the mahaneys…) from taking over and imposing their will on the rank and file.

    Yikes. Strong central government is exactly what Mohler accomplished in the SBC by taking over all the entities that manage SBC money and resources.

    There is no guarantee the powers in a strong central government will be fair, benevolent or not corrupt once they have that power. As we all well know.

  83. Jack wrote:

    Hey, I’m helping solve the problem of church disunity! I stay away from church!

    I like your style.

    QWhat’s the definition of a Holy War?
    ATwo evangelicals in the same room.

  84. @ Leslie:

    Leslie, in my opinion the problem with elder boards is that the pew sitters usually have absolutely no clue what is going on with them. I find that extremely problematic for the body of Christ. I know many people think that elders are commanded in the New Testament for every church. I don’t agree with that assessment and think that we get that and the meaning of “elder” very wrong —2000 years later.

    Diotrephes could not have been successful without some support.

    I have seen staff and even elders totally marginalized and ousted over any dissent or disagreement. And I was only able to see it because I was up close. The pew sitter throwing their money in the offering plate had no clue what was going on behind stage. That is the bigger problem.

    More and more churches have an outside board of elders made up of other like minded pastors. I am floored that people in these churches do not see what a huge problem this is.

    I am very sorry that you went through that and think you both made a wise decision for your family. It’s not worth it. When a group is corrupt and only one of the group has a decent conscious, it is best to cut losses and walk away.

  85. I was young and now am old and I have never been in a church that did not have problems, usually serious problems. On both sides of the altar rail. I suppose that for those who think at some level that you can’t have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother (to borrow an idea) this would be a crippling problem, especially when Dad and Mom get to struggling with each other for control of the situation.

  86. The “two or three witnesses”–isn’t that supposed to mean that one who is making the charge bring two or three witnesses to the point of confrontation? It is a protection for both parties:

    It protects the one making the charge from being called out or bullied as a singleton; and
    It protects the one being charged from lone wolves who would devour them in private but not stand up in public, in front of others, in making these accusations.

    It is ridiculous to say that this instruction means that there have to be two or three witnesses to the crime/sin/abuse.

  87. This is how Jonathan Leeman sees church membership.

    “What is church membership? Church membership is the church’s public affirmation of an individual Christian’s profession of faith in Jesus, and it’s the individual’s decision to submit to the oversight of the church. When your church begins to understand that, the idea of church discipline will start to make a lot more sense.
    It will also help people to understand why they don’t have the authority to simply resign their membership when threatened with discipline. People join a church by the authority of a church, and they exit a church by the authority of a church.”

    He then says “Church discipline, then, is fundamentally about love. The Lord disciplines those he loves (Heb. 12:6). The same is true for his church.”

    But before you introduce the idea of discipline into a church there are four things you need to do first.

    GET THE CHURCH’S DOCUMENTS IN PLACE
    Some churches have bylaws. Some have constitutions. Some have statements of faith and church covenants. Whatever a church might have, churches in Western contexts will serve their members by making sure the documents explain (1) what’s expected of members in terms of belief and behavior; (2) how the church’s authority structures operate; (3) what to expect for the receiving and dismissing of members under ordinary circumstances; (4) how church discipline works for the extraordinary circumstances.
    It’s an act of kindness to let people know what standards they are going to be held accountable to before you discipline them

    ENSURE PROPER LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
    Getting a church’s documents in place also helps to establish the proper legal foundations for practicing church discipline in a highly litigious society. Churches have been successfully sued over church discipline.
    One of the most effective ways to prevent such lawsuits is to adopt explicit biblical policies that comprehensively describe how your church will exercise discipline over unrepentant members. And one of the most effective defenses to any lawsuit is informed consent. To secure this defense, a church needs to be able to prove to a court that the person complaining of a wrong was in fact fully aware of the church’s policies and procedures and knowingly agreed to be bound by them.
    In addition to making discipline procedures explicit in a church’s constitution or bylaws, a church should explicitly teach its discipline procedures in church membership classes.
    An excellent resource on these matters is Peacemaker Ministries: http://www.peacemaker.net.

    ORGANIZE THE CHURCH’S MEMBERSHIP ROLLS
    Practicing church discipline requires churches to know who the church is.

    ENSURING THE LEADERS AGREE
    Finally, it’s important to make sure that a church’s leadership as a whole is on board with church discipline, both in principle and in any given instance of practice.

    He rounds the section off by listing 22 ways of getting it wrong!

    1) They fail to teach their congregation what church discipline is and why they should practice it.
    2) They fail to practice meaningful membership, which includes (1) teaching people what membership entails before they join; (2) encouraging casual attenders to join; (3) carefully interviewing everyone who wants to join; (4) giving regular oversight to all the flock; and (5) maintaining an up-to-date membership list that accurately reflects who is present at the weekly gathering.
    3) They fail to teach their congregation about biblical conversion, especially the need for repentance.
    4) They fail to teach new members as they enter the church about the possibility of church discipline, and that preemptive resignations don’t work.
    5) They fail to ensure that the church’s public documents (bylaws, constitution, articles of incorporation, etc.) address the procedures of church discipline, thereby exposing the church to legal risk.
    6) They fail to follow the steps of Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 5, depending on the circumstance. In a Matthew 18 situation, for instance, they fail to begin the process by confronting sin privately.
    7) They misjudge how quickly to move toward formal discipline, either by dragging their feet or by rushing into judgment.
    8) They fail to adequately teach and explain to a congregation why a particular act of discipline is necessary.
    9) They tell the congregation too many details about a particular sin for which they are recommending discipline, embarrassing family members and causing weaker sheep to stumble.
    10) They treat the processes of church discipline entirely as a legal process with little consideration for shepherding the unrepentant individual’s heart.
    11) They give little attention to the differences between kinds of sinners and how that might affect how long a church should bear with a pattern of sin before proceeding to subsequent stages of discipline (see 1 Thess. 5:14).
    12) They forget that they too live by the gospel’s provision of mercy, and therefore prosecute the discipline from a posture of self-righteousness. Other mistakes follow from this wrong posture, such as an overly severe tone and standoffishness.
    13) They fail to truly love the sinner … by not begging the Lord for his or her repentance.
    14) They demand too much from a smoldering wick or bruised reed. In other words, their stipulations for repentance are too high for someone who has been deeply enslaved in sin’s grip.
    15) They fail to properly instruct the congregation on how to interact with the unrepentant sinner, such as how to relate to him or her in social situations and how to pursue his or her repentance.
    16) They fail to invite the disciplined individual to continue attending services of the church so that he or she might continue to hear God’s Word (assuming there is no threat of criminal harm). Also, they fail to inform the church that everyone should hope for the disciplined individual to continue attending.
    17) They put the responsibility for leading the discipline process entirely on the shoulders of one man, the senior pastor, thereby tempting individuals in the church to accuse the senior pastor of being personally vindictive.
    18) They fail to have sufficient elder involvement in the congregation’s life, such that the elders are unaware of the state of the sheep. This failure of formative discipline will inevitably weaken the church’s ability to do corrective discipline well.
    19) They fail to teach God’s Word on a weekly basis.
    20) They allow the congregation to approach a case of discipline with a wrongful spirit of retribution, rather than with the loving desire to warn the unrepentant sinner about God’s ultimate retribution to come.
    21) They pursue discipline on nonbiblical grounds (playing cards, dancing, etc.).
    22) They pursue discipline for any reason other than for the good of the individual, the good of the church, the good of the onlooking community, and the glory of Christ.

    All this comes from his book “Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus”. It seems to me that he’s got things round the wrong way. It is Jesus who protects His Church. It is Jesus who is Our Mighty Fortress, Our Rock, Our Hiding Place in the storm.

  88. Lydia wrote:

    Strong central government is exactly what Mohler accomplished in the SBC by taking over all the entities that manage SBC money and resources.

    Yes, the SBC seat of power is now centralized in Louisville, Kentucky, not Nashville TN. There are no other leaders who effectively lead SBC; the folks in Nashville think they do, but they don’t. Mohler is the SBC potentate right now and his SBTS seminary is ground-zero for New Calvinism. The darnedest thing I’ve ever seen, for millions of Southern Baptists to yield so easily to his takeover of their denomination.

  89. okrapod wrote:

    that for those who think at some level that you can’t have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother (to borrow an idea) this would be a crippling problem, especially when Dad and Mom get to struggling with each other for control of the situation.

    “…struggling for control…” of the membership or Body of Christ. Imagine struggling against the Almighty Himself for His People. Would not want to be the other party in that Face Off – the ultimate contest.

  90. @ Max:
    And the BFM2000 is the living document now that the central government unifies on.

    Local church autonomy now means local church authority.

  91. Lydia wrote:

    Yikes. Strong central government is exactly what Mohler accomplished in the SBC by taking over all the entities that manage SBC money and resources.

    Again quoting Emo Philips and/or Steven Wright …”When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.”

    Meaning, maybe the leadership sets out to establish a legitimate work of God in a local church, but when the big bucks don’t come through the door, dishonorable practices supplant integrity.

    Where God guides, He provides, with resources at every level.

  92. @ Lowlandseer:
    I would be very leary of Peacemakers. Their main goal seems to be protecting the church/para church orgs at the expense of victims. When hired, they are most often paid by the institutions.

    They could not exist without institutional payment.

    Ken Sande was the Founder of Peacemakers. He is a lawyer so it has that bent. People who go into any conflict resolution with church/para church and Peacemakers needs to know they are dealing with legally vetted processes that may work against them in the long run.

    Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe Peacemakers has been involved in the past with vetting church membership covenants for protection against lawsuits.

  93. @ JYJames:
    True. I can only go by words and actions and sometimes ommission. I wish I had a dollar for Everytime I was told of a leaders original good intention– as if that mattered anymore. Usually after being told to “think the best” while i was to ignor e really bad stuff. :o)

    Love the bike story. :o)

  94. Forrest wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Divorce Minister wrote:
    These were godly men who were pushed out…
    They might be or have been very godly men, but the position itself is made up, and not being biblical, by definition it is not very godly, and if you can show me anywhere in the New Testament where God created that pastor as single leader/head of the team of elders/primary Sunday morning and Wednesday night speaker position, I’ll apologize and retract this statement. Do not assume automatically that it was the work of sinful men or the Devil himself behind them being pushed out, because if that long line truly were godly, it’d seem to me best for them that they didn’t continue donning that mantle that is reserved for Jesus alone among the people.
    I agree. They reverse the order established by Jesus.

    You are insulting my family (and me) by making such statements. I just want that to be clear. It is not ungodly to be a leader in the church.

  95. Lowlandseer wrote:

    All this comes from his book “Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus”. It seems to me that he’s got things round the wrong way. It is Jesus who protects His Church. It is Jesus who is Our Mighty Fortress, Our Rock, Our Hiding Place in the storm.

    I agree with you on this!

  96. Lydia wrote:

    There is no guarantee the powers in a strong central government will be fair, benevolent or not corrupt once they have that power. As we all well know.

    You’re very right Lyds, there is no guarantee. But in the cases of the Lutherans and our own National government, it’s worked quite well for a long time.

  97. The only office/function with the name servant is diakonos. If everybody is a diakonos where are the others (prophets, teachers, elders-a whole list of those with specific spiritual gifts, etc)? How could the scripture say that is anyone desires the office of bishop he desires a good thing?

    Oh, well there is the Servus servorum Dei. The servant of the servants of God, one of the titles of the Pope.

    Can everybody be the least among you? Technically no. In any number of people only one can be the numerical least on whatever criteria there is. I think that the idea of servant is a descriptive term meaning an attitude. That would be an attitude that one holds a gift or an office or an opportunity as a steward of that thing for the good of all. It cannot mean quit preaching for how can they hear without a preacher, I believe was said.

  98. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I just want that to be clear. It is not ungodly to be a leader in the church.

    I agree. The scripture is clear that there are leaders, both good and bad, and that the good ones deserve financial support, some even a double portion, while the bad ones need identified and avoided. Being in a family where there is a history of church leaders is a good inheritance.

  99. Lydia wrote:

    And the BFM2000 is the living document now that the central government unifies on.

    I wonder how many of SBC’s millions of members understand this Lydia? That the Baptist Faith & Message was revised in 2000 to provide the framework for Calvinization of the denomination to be an easier row to hoe. There’s enough theological wiggle room in the SBC statement of faith now, thanks to the crafty revision team, to allow non-Calvinist and Calvinist to exist. But can two distinctly different soteriologies ‘really’ exist is a single denomination going forward? I don’t think so. As the Baby Boomers pass from the scene, the Generation Xers and Millennials will more easily merge into reformed belief and practice and the whosoever will evangelistic message that characterized Southern Baptists around the world for over 150 years will fade from memory. But God …

  100. Well, loosely related. Tomorrow at my church they are going to so something with which I do not agree. It is something which the more catholic-like among the anglican tradition can officially do, but you won’t catch me doing it. So….I am just not going to church tomorrow. I am not going to raise the issue with anybody in some perceived need to find somebody who agrees with me, and the church has no desire nor system to know or care what I think one way or the other. This is so refreshing to me. I am sick to the bone of struggling over doctrines and such. It is so good to be in a situation where one does not have to feel obligated to do that.

  101. Lydia wrote:

    Peacemakers

    Shove it under the rug? The “Important People” win? Put up and shut up? – as “Peace”, Protect the Upper Classes and the Lower Ones cover for them?

  102. Tim Charlie’s acts as if it’s awful that church discipline is used against only heinous immorality. Well wasn’t that really the only time we have recordings of it being used? I don’t recall any New Testament church issuing discipline for anything other than behavior that would shock pagans. I could be wrong and am willing to be corrrected but I can’t recall any. Well people who were false teachers were really talked about in Paul’s letters but that was about the Leadership not the laity. You know I think these men have the misguided idea that they can make a most pure church here on earth. But I think they have yanked out lots of wheat while trying to throw out the chaff.

  103. Ok, but Challies is a documented anti-christ. He has endorsed his church’s unbiblical and wicked refusal to allow a woman to read the Bible in the church service (not the first instance of a man putting a vagina ahead of Christ, but an oddly platonic instance). And don’t get me started on his sycophantic “praise with faint damn” of SGM, etc. I see no reason to deconstruct his foolishness as he has already disqualified himself.

  104. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lowlandseer:
    I would be very leary of Peacemakers. Their main goal seems to be protecting the church/para church orgs at the expense of victims. When hired, they are most often paid by the institutions.

    They could not exist without institutional payment.

    Ken Sande was the Founder of Peacemakers. He is a lawyer so it has that bent. People who go into any conflict resolution with church/para church and Peacemakers needs to know they are dealing with legally vetted processes that may work against them in the long run.

    Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe Peacemakers has been involved in the past with vetting church membership covenants for protection against lawsuits.

    If you google [ken sande sgm], you’ll start finding some blog posts on how Peacemakers and Ken Sande were involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries and CJ Mahaney. I echo Lydia’s warning.

  105. Lowlandseer wrote:

    This is how Jonathan Leeman sees church membership.

    “…Churches have been successfully sued over church discipline.”

    Well, that’s encouraging to hear, at least!

  106. @ okrapod:
    I think they are all serving functions whether waiting tables or teaching. I don’t believe they were ever intended to be static “offices”.

    When I looked into this a while back, I found that “office” had been added by translators which makes sense in a church state paradigm. We follow their tradition in basic church structure.

    I am not arguing that viewing them as offices is sinful more than musing the traditional systems are in place for the very abuses we have seen over history. So I often wonder why we are surprised. That doesn’t mean there have to be abused but the “looking to someone” with a spiritual title rather than a linear function in the Body lends itself to lots of abuses.

    For example, we tend to view overseer/elder as an authority figure when the reality at the time was more about danger. “Protect the flock” was more about getting as many to safety as possible while putting yourself in danger. It was not very glamorous.

    I did a bunch of research on “leader” from the book of Hebrews and the sense was more of one who has “been in the trenches” and “gone before” you than simply a position to follow and obey. Timothy was young but had been in the real trenches with Paul.

    I juxtapose all this with the understanding from scripture we are all to mature in wisdom and understanding. I think viewing such functions as static offices can send the opposite message to those without the titles.

    This is just another view– as unpopular as it is. :o)

  107. Lowlandseer wrote:

    All this comes from his book “Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus”. It seems to me that he’s got things round the wrong way. It is Jesus who protects His Church. It is Jesus who is Our Mighty Fortress, Our Rock, Our Hiding Place in the storm.

    Because of these people, the way of truth is maligned. The arrogance to imagine they are protecting him!

  108. @ Lydia:
    Thank you Lydia. I just brought the subject up so it is clear that not all leaders in the church go along with the pastor or the yes men. During a church takeover when narcissistic and power hungry people are trying to control and want to oust anyone who does not go along it is very stressful to be in that position. I just used our situation as an example. I have seen too many Godly Pastors and other church leader/servants hounded and made miserable by self righteous authoritarian “leaders” trying to take control of a church. To the point of one dear Godly man committing suicide..I would bet that in all of the bad situations described here that if an elder or two went against the board and Pastor they would also be hounded and insidious gossip started about them and their lives made miserable. I think Mark Driscoll did that to a few of his elders. These attacks can also extend to their innocent children. All can be abused. No one is protected from these wolves.

  109. @ JYJames:
    Yep. That is pretty much how it works out.

    If I remember correctly, some Peacemaker folks started a new org called Ambassadors of Reconciliation. They were involved later at SGM. Interviewing victims, I think. Which went no where but to help SGM. So watch out for them, too

    It all sounds nice until you look behind the curtains. If you can find them. :o)

  110. @ Leslie:
    Frankly, it describes me, too. Not as an elder but someone in those circles that dissented –so I am not unfamiliar with the stress and marginalizing tactics.

    My big thing after that was to question what I had missed. How could I have not seen it? For one thing, I knew the structure was problematic but ignored that at the time. It did not set well with me but the structure fit large churches. Rationalization! It gets us every time.

    Where I came from the congregations voted on everything at business meetings. That gets a lot of grief from many quarters now but after what I have seen, I see the wisdom of it. There was not one single thing in the budget that those who wanted to know about, didn’t, because every change in the budget was detailed and voted on by members who came to the business meeting.

    There are people now who never experienced such a thing at church. Sad.

  111. Leslie wrote:

    These attacks can also extend to their innocent children. All can be abused. No one is protected from these wolves.

    Btw: that happened with mine using pure deception on very young children. Pure evil.

  112. @ Robin C.:
    Back when he was just a new blogger, not a pastor/Reformed leader, I used to read it. I had to stop when it was filled with comments from his Reformed readers bragging about God being glorified as He threw babies in hell.

    I am not kidding! Chilling stuff.

  113. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    If you google [ken sande sgm], you’ll start finding some blog posts on how Peacemakers and Ken Sande were involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries and CJ Mahaney. I echo Lydia’s warning.

    Brad,

    Wasn’t there a woman at Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board who is divorced and the church’s pastors made her do Peacemakers first, said they’d pick up the bill when she said she couldn’t afford it, and then she got stuck with it. (Or maybe it was A Cry for Justice, the blog by Jeff Crippen and Barbara Roberts.) Peacemakers services aren’t cheap.

  114. Robin C. wrote:

    You know I think these men have the misguided idea that they can make a most pure church here on earth.

    The church has always been a mess. If it was not for the problems of the 1st century church, we probably would not have much of a New Testament. Sola scriptura stands on the foundation of semper messy. They are totally naive to think they can do better now.

  115. Things the little people are “disciplined” for (discipline = excommunication; shunning; ruin of reputation, relationships and sometimes business):

    Going to the authorities about a child sex predator in the church
    Divorcing an abusive spouse
    Divorcing a sexual predator
    Asking questions that aren’t welcome
    Wanting to know where their money goes
    Vague undefined “gossip”
    Following one’s own conscience as opposed to the leadership’s demands

    Things leadership is “disciplined” for (“Discipline” = “repent”, take some time off, then back in the driver’s seat or perhaps change churches or denominations):

    Having an affair (includes sexual predation)

    Extreme alcoholism

    Leadership that actually gets convicted for child sex predation will be quietly removed, erased from history and we pretend they never existed or helped write books and bylaws and so on

  116. Velour wrote:

    brad/futuristguy wrote:
    If you google [ken sande sgm], you’ll start finding some blog posts on how Peacemakers and Ken Sande were involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries and CJ Mahaney. I echo Lydia’s warning.
    Brad,
    Wasn’t there a woman at Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board who is divorced and the church’s pastors made her do Peacemakers first, said they’d pick up the bill when she said she couldn’t afford it, and then she got stuck with it. (Or maybe it was A Cry for Justice, the blog by Jeff Crippen and Barbara Roberts.) Peacemakers services aren’t cheap.

    Found more information about Peacemakers. It was on A Cry for Justice blog.
    https://cryingoutforjustice.com/tag/peacemakers/

  117. @ Ken F:
    I can only imagine how messy when Jews and Gentiles were thrown together in this new “Way”. One would think we would get more right after 2000 years and without the impediments of history.

  118. Lydia wrote:

    One would think we would get more right after 2000 years and without the impediments of history.

    I wonder if God left things messy like this so that we are forced to respond in faith. If church was neat and tidy, maybe we would not need God.

  119. Max wrote:

    The darnedest thing I’ve ever seen, for millions of Southern Baptists to yield so easily to his takeover of their denomination.

    I think these same millions allowed the FUNDAMENTALIST TAKEOVER OF THE SBC. Those that tried to be speak out were sadly effectively labeled as “liberals.” It was too easy of a strategy, but IMO it worked.

  120. Ken F wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    One would think we would get more right after 2000 years and without the impediments of history.

    I wonder if God left things messy like this so that we are forced to respond in faith. If church was neat and tidy, maybe we would not need God.

    God wants us to do the right things. I don’t think he has anything to do with evil or harm done to others that has taken place for centuries going back to burning heretics or even having such a thing as a pope. I think it is more about relationships than leaders, structure or buildings.

    I also think in every era of history, there have been some brave souls who got it. Many paid dearly for it, too.

  121. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t think he has anything to do with evil or harm done to others that has taken place for centuries going back to burning heretics or even having such a thing as a pope.

    I hope you are not projecting such a foolish belief onto me. I was simply stating that I wonder if God lets the church remain messy for a reason. I’ve not been able to find a perfect church in any age or region. Every expression of Christianity I can find has problems. And yet the body of believers presses on. That’s pretty amazing.

  122. @ Ken F:
    Not at all!

    I just think that what we see as tradition and the normal has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I do think that not having a commanded structure was on purpose. And that has resulted in messiness.

    I don’t think it is necessary anymore. It all boils down to some seeking to control people for some reason or the other. Power, ego, money, etc, in every era. And today, a lot of people are attracted to that. In the past, they had no choice.

    I am very strange. I am not seeing the point of church as it is structured, anymore. I don’t disparage anyone who does, either. I am glad we can discuss such here.

  123. Lydia wrote:

    I am not seeing the point of church as it is structured, anymore. I don’t disparage anyone who does, either. I am glad we can discuss such here.

    I think I feel the same. I am not sure what church is supposed to look like, but I’m not liking how so much of it currently looks. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are now getting.” I’m wondering if the current design has a fatal flaw. Or maybe this is as good as it gets. I plan to go to church in the morning, but I don’t get excited about it anymore.

  124. siteseer wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Tim Challies used the incorrect word in this sentence. He meant to say, “Disuniformity”. He and the likes of Mark Dever and all of the other authoritarian cult leaders demand “uniformity” not “unity”.

    Yes, disuniformity of thought is the ultimate sin for the little people. How dare we question.

    in the Church, the idea of ‘unity’ is best presented in the concept of ‘communion’, or coming together at the Table of the Lord. People ARE asked to ‘go and make right what they have done to wrong someone else’ before they come to the Lord’s Table, or to voluntarily wait until they have made peace with their brothers and sisters.

    The REASON this concept of ‘unity’ around the Eucharist is such a deeply-held belief is that the Church has always taught that our ‘unity’ is ‘within Christ’.
    I think the neo-Cal leaders believe that ‘unity’ has to do with people surrounding and agreeing with them as leaders, but that is not ‘communion’ in the traditional sense of the word, no.

  125. Ken F wrote:

    I am not sure what church is supposed to look like

    It’s the place that when you go there, you can kneel down and pray and not feel alone. Even if no other people are around, you will know without doubt that you have not been abandoned or forsaken. It’s a bit like coming in from the cold. You will know it when you find it. 🙂

  126. @ Christiane:
    BTW, it doesn’t have to be a ‘cathedral’ or a ‘chapel’;
    sometimes it can be as simple as a garden. Like my Aunt’s garden which she dedicated to the memory of her daughter who had died. It had a shrine and all along the edges of the garden were bird houses my uncle Sam had built, placed up on poles for protection, providing places for ‘choir’ .

    You will find your ‘church’. You can come ‘as you are’ and leave refreshed and nourished. It’s a good thing. 🙂

  127. okrapod wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    I don’t know the process by which people of other denominations conduct their formation of Christian moral conscience,
    For the conservative evangelical that would be ‘the bible says’ and the Achilles heel of that approach is that what it boils down to is ‘the bible says as understood/translated/taught by whom’. And now, for better or worse, the ‘by whom’ has become a competitive amateur sport and hobby. Confusion.
    In your tradition you also seem to have the ‘by whom’ issue as it relates to what the Church teaches and whether that is being adhered to; such that you have the traditionalists and the progressives, with the occasional bishop who gets into trouble by going public with some unpopular idea. I note that this varies somewhat over time and varies with who sits in Peter’s seat and results in some disagreements. I really think the difference here between Catholics taken as a whole and Protestants taken as a whole is not all that great. That is to say that the fact that there are differences in the camp in the first place is seen in both groups. And the fact that these differences are being labeled conservative vs progressive is similar.
    And the fact that a lot of people feel very strongly about the rightness and virtue of their take on things is similar along with the criticisms across the conservative/progressive divide seems to have some similarity.
    But I am making fried potatoes for everybody to pig out on any minute now, and I will perhaps feel better after I get on some carbohydrate high.

    Very well stated, Okrapod. It seems we human have a strong inclination when thinking and acting as individuals, to believe our point of view is the best one.

  128. JeffB wrote:

    Challies has certainly practiced what he preached when it came to C.J. Mahaney. He used to not allow any negative comments about him on his blog (maybe still doesn’t).
    On Feb. 28, 2013, he wrote: “The great theme of the Bible is God’s unfailing love. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul explains some of the implications of this love, saying that it “believes all things, hopes all things and endures all things” (v7). *This is not a call to be naive or to deny the obvious, but an instruction to maintain a hopeful attitude toward others, even, and perhaps especially, those who have been accused.* (My emphasis.)
    He wrote this shortly before the lawsuit but after “national media outlets” had reported the alleged child sexual abuse. Evidently his “hopeful attitude” was extended only to the leaders.

    JeffB: Perhaps among these NeoCals and other authoritarian church structures (think ARC and Robert Morris et al), it is a matter of self-preservation – about preserving the role of pastor. As long as they defend one another, they have a tight-knit, impenetrable safety net.

  129. ION

    Fitba’:

    Arsenal host Spurs in the lunchtime fixture today, and will go top if they win; a draw would see them remain third, behind Man City on goal difference. Liverpool are at home to Watford later but, with our goal difference currently somewhat inferior, we’re unlikely to go top unless Arsenal drop points. And, of course, we’ve actually got to beat Watford first.

    IHTIH

  130. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    P.S. It’s goalless at the Emirates after 15 minutes. In many ways, a draw would best suit us, because although we’re vying most directly with Arsenal (level on points at the start of the day), Spurs are close behind us and it’s always useful when two of your rival teams drop points at the same time.

  131. I would find it easier to listen to Challies if he would reveal his financial interest in the preservation of a culture that elevates and profits from the writings and conference ministries of those he so zealously defends. I think a true, biblical ethic would demand that disclaimer. The barbarians (that be us) must be kept outside the gates.

  132. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    I would find it easier to listen to Challies if he would reveal his financial interest in the preservation of a culture that elevates and profits from the writings and conference ministries of those he so zealously defends. I think a true, biblical ethic would demand that disclaimer. The barbarians (that be us) must be kept outside the gates.

    I think an article on the money the TGC bigwigs are generating would be interesting. They do generate a lot of money not only for these individual leaders, but as a whole through Lifeway, Crossway, and their pastor network.

  133. Velour wrote:

    @ Max:

    Southern Baptists also need a centralized system to deal with the epidemic of child sexual abuse in their churches and prevention of it. At present, it is left up to every church.

    I cannot agree that this would solve the problem. It certainly didn’t in the Catholic Church. Something else is needed.

    I actually would say that central authority is a huge part of the problem baptists are having because they are not designed to have also much influence from a few people like dever/mohler.

  134. Here is an email I sent to my former pastor, John Folmar, of United Christian Church of Dubai, after I heard him promoting a book titled “Modest” authored by Tim Challies and R.W. Glen.

    I guess Challies was right, cracks in unity start at the bottom!
    ====================================================
    September 30, 2014

    Dear John,

    You may wish to reconsider your promotion from the pulpit of the book “Modest”, co-authored by Tim Challies and R.W. Glenn. Glenn has recently been removed from his position of senior pastor of Redeemer Bible Church due to a three year affair with a woman in his church.

    Challies, whose publishing company, Cruciform, printed the book, has removed the book from the Cruciform website.

    -Todd

  135. Lea wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    @ Max:
    Southern Baptists also need a centralized system to deal with the epidemic of child sexual abuse in their churches and prevention of it. At present, it is left up to every church.
    I cannot agree that this would solve the problem. It certainly didn’t in the Catholic Church. Something else is needed.
    I actually would say that central authority is a huge part of the problem baptists are having because they are not designed to have also much influence from a few people like dever/mohler.

    The Catholic Church did not have a centralized system for dealing with the epidemic of child sexual abuse. It was litigation (adding up to billions of dollars in losses) and arrests/prosecutions/convictions that forced the CC in to changing and adopting a centralized system, training, and child abuse prevention policies.

    Other denominations have centralized child sexual abuse prevention and reporting policies.

    The Southern Baptists are simply behind the times and have left such a critical issue up to each congregation, when they simply don’t have the expertise in most cases to handle it.

  136. Lea wrote:

    @ Velour:
    IMO, the system should be reporting to the police. And not covering it up.

    I totally agree with you about the importance of calling the police and not covering up child sexual abuse.

    But there’s so much more to child sex abuse prevention and reporting than just calling the police. It’s screening volunteers and background checks. It’s designing rooms where children are at so that windows are in them and there are no hiding places for abuse to take place. It’s locking rooms and closets so that they can’t be used for CSA by predators. Richard Hammar, attorney at Church Mutual & Tax blog, has many articles on this subject (some are only accessible to paid subscribers).

    Church Mutual, the largest insurer of churches in the United States, also has articles and prevention strategies. There is so much that can be done to prevent children from being abused.

  137. One thought: Consider the “gospel-centered” and “9Marx healthy” church directories. If Challies’ experiences are with the type of people who check on the internet to see if their churches are elite churches for elite Christians, they might actually be that insufferable.

  138. @ Velour:
    It says a lot about the heart and soul of Christendom they are now more vigilant about pedophiles because of insurers and possible law suits!

    I guess whatever works….

  139. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    It says a lot about the heart and soul of Christendom they are now more vigilant about pedophiles because of insurers and possible law suits!
    I guess whatever works….

    Isn’t that how many institutions, sadly, operate? They do the right thing only after litigation attorneys come sailing down their backs (and bank accounts)?

  140. @ Velour:
    I find it harder to lump Christ followers into “any institution”. Maybe that is the problem. Christians are institutionalized and use it as our excuse for covering up evil done to innocents until we are caught.

  141. Velour wrote:

    The Southern Baptists are simply behind the times and have left such a critical issue up to each congregation, when they simply don’t have the expertise in most cases to handle it.

    I dont see how that makes sense. That is like saying now that we have a centralized system of training and vetting workers it cannot happen again in a centralized denomination. Actually it makes it easier to hide for litigation purposes. It reminds me of how large companies started protecting themselves from sexual harassment lawsuits. There was still some of the behavior but at least the company was not totally legally responsible anymore because they did everything legally needed to protect themselves from large settlements.

    Even in a smaller local church like my former SBC church of about 500, everything you are discussing had been done. Even down to installing Windows in every single children’s room. It did not take a centralized denomination to demand such things. Major changes were voted on in a business meeting several years before I left.

  142. Lydia wrote:

    Sounds safer not to go to church.

    Besides the authoritarian wacko stuff going on in church leadership, there are increasing security issues to be concerned about as well. Some pulpits are accused of “hate speech” when they confront sin in the culture in their sermons and societal wackos don’t like that much. Many churches have “deacons” now packing heat during church services. (By the way, there is no hate speech in the Bible – only uncomfortable words about sin).

  143. @ Lydia:
    And ironically, it was the women in charge of children’s ministries, lay people, who developed the procedures (one is a family issues lawyer) and changes. They presented the budget and it was voted on.

    If a church is not authoritarian, there are good smart people in them who can use their expertise to make it a better place.

    Sadly the church was stealthily taken over by Neo Cals who years later now make all the decisions. IOW, the church became “centralized”. Of course there are only about 200 members left.

  144. Lydia wrote:

    Christians are institutionalized

    Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions. The institution we call church is OK if it is preaching the true Gospel message of the Cross to reach souls for Christ (whosoever will), equipping them to do the work of the ministry, and engaging them in the Great Commission. Anything short of that is not church.

  145. Lydia wrote:

    Even in a smaller local church like my former SBC church of about 500, everything you are discussing had been done. Even down to installing Windows in every single children’s room. It did not take a centralized denomination to demand such things. Major changes were voted on in a business meeting several years before I left.

    I am glad to hear that your former SBC church was able to handle child sexual abuse prevention properly. Many churches, however, do not have the resources to develop safety guidelines and haven’t done so and do need outside assistance to implement a proper child abuse prevention program (and yearly training).

    The SBC has been faulted for doing what the Catholic Church did: passing pedophile clergy on to unsuspecting churches for them to prey upon even more children. The SBC has to kick it in gear and stop this.

  146. Velour wrote:

    The Catholic Church did not have a centralized system for dealing with the epidemic of child sexual abuse.

    Thought:
    The RCC did have a centralised system. But that system was not set up – or equipped – to deal with an epidemic of child sexual abuse. I think @ Lydia’s observations on non-RCC centralisation and otherwise are also relevant here. The structure – whether devolved or central – was set up to protect the institution from the consequences of paedophilia, not to protect children from the possibility of it happening.

    Paul in particular warns his readers of the need to be diligent in managing one’s own life. (E.g., this from 1 Corinthians: Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.) The same, surely, is true of institutions. It’s not enough to put process in place. Those in leadership must also, continuously, discipline the entire organisation to make sure that everyone understands why those rules exist and that everyone follows them in spirit as much as in letter. And I use the word “discipline” in the real, sporting/athletic/military sense, not in the revenge/Calvinista sense.

  147. Max wrote:

    Some pulpits are accused of “hate speech” when they confront sin in the culture in their sermons and societal wackos don’t like that much.

    I was ordered to use hate speech against gays at my ex-NeoCal church. I refused. I can get fired from my job for that kind of ‘speech’ (which I just find offensive and crass). I work with a diverse work force, have gay colleagues and a supervisor, everybody does their job, gets along fine, and we’re expected to. (We also have strict anti-discrimination laws.)

    It was always the church people who had the most to work on in themselves, i.e. take the log (or even the forest) out of your own eye first, that did it.

    My attitude is that if we can’t order someone to get a certain haircut as an adult, we certainly can’t order them to do anything else.

  148. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Paul in particular warns his readers of the need to be diligent in managing one’s own life. (E.g., this from 1 Corinthians: Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.) The same, surely, is true of institutions. It’s not enough to put process in place. Those in leadership must also, continuously, discipline the entire organisation to make sure that everyone understands why those rules exist and that everyone follows them in spirit as much as in letter. And I use the word “discipline” in the real, sporting/athletic/military sense, not in the revenge/Calvinista sense.

    Agreed, Nick.

    It seems many churches are deficient when it comes to addressing this serious subject.

  149. It’s all about the cracks, and from whence they come.

    In architecture, if your building starts cracking, it because you either built it wrongly, or you built it in the wrong place.

    Imagine building the walls of a house right on the dirt, and then pouring a concrete foundation on top of the roof. The foundation would be very visible, and people might even complement you on how good your foundation looks. But cracks would develop right away, maybe even starting from the bottom, because you put the right thing in the wrong place.

    Leadership is supposed to be a foundation. Solid, grounded, barely visible. In the dirt. Under pressure, but able to handle it.

    If you get the structure wrong, every part suffers, cracks will develop, and the building will eventually collapse.

    Maybe we are having so many problems in churches because this is how we build churches now, with the foundation on top. And that attracts concrete blocks who want to be seen, who NEED to be seen, and especially heard. Who see the entire reason this building is here is for the building under them and people who drive by to see THEM, to hear THEM.

    Blockheads.

    So even if some of the “Blockheads” are NPD types, they are still victims of the bad design, and end up suffering when the building collapses. The point is that we have a culturally normative design issue that empowers the dysfunction of certain individuals and results in hundreds of churches that are structurally unsound and destined to collapse. And we have a bunch of people with the good sense to stay out of such dangerous churches, even while they wish they could find a good one.

    Like I’m doing this morning.

    [This would work so much better if I could present it on a Sunday School Flannelgraph board.]

  150. Velour wrote:

    am glad to hear that your former SBC church was able to handle child sexual abuse prevention properly. Many churches, however, do not have the resources to develop safety guidelines and haven’t done so and do need outside assistance to implement a proper child abuse prevention program (and yearly training).

    How so? Every single institutional church has a tax status which means they have insurers. Insurers are providing those guidelines in oder to be insured. They even have playground requirements, gym use requirements and such. Everything that you have presented is from a legal protection point of view. Even the training. For protection.

    None of that is bad. That is not my argument. My argument is that you do not need a Byzantine centralized government to make these things happen. They are now required in order to be properly insured. My point, which I did not make well, is that the women in my former Church went Far and Beyond the requirements without a centralized government telling them to do so.

    People need ownership not central government authorities.

  151. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Paul in particular warns his readers of the need to be diligent in managing one’s own life. (E.g., this from 1 Corinthians: Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.) The same, surely, is true of institutions. It’s not enough to put process in place. Those in leadership must also, continuously, discipline the entire organisation to make sure that everyone understands why those rules exist and that everyone follows them in spirit as much as in letter. And I use the word “discipline” in the real, sporting/athletic/military sense, not in the revenge/Calvinista sense.

    Not only for Nick . . . just jumping off from his comment.

    This is so true. I helped get all the safety measures in place at my former church. It was difficult to educate people about the “why” of following the procedures. We had families that wanted to serve as family units and didn’t understand why it was not appropriate to have only family members serving in a classroom on a given day.

    By far, however, was the difficulty getting the elders to understand that people should be free to call CPS (Child Protective Services) on their own to report a suspected child abuse situation. The elders wanted any suspected problem to be filtered through them for “fear” of false allegations, and the problems that could cause to someone falsely accused. Forget about the victim?

    Here is the problem. Elders are not qualified to investigate any kind of abuse. They know nothing about it. They cause more problems and get more people involved than need be. They can uknowingly alert an abuser by simply asking questions. These actions all impede a needed investigation. They hang themselves by not trusting CPS to investigate. It often ends up that authorities get involved any way (and thankfully), find out that the elders did nothing, or very little, then elders can be in trouble for how they handled the situation . . . duh! But try being a woman explaining this to a male elder.

    The elders I have encountered are uninformed as to how easily CPS can investigate without any false information being spread about. The elders are simply fearful and prideful. Many believe they can handle these situations and cause much more mess in the church than need be. And they don’t want to discipline people to simply call CPS.

    Banged and banging head on desk . . . call CPS in your area if you suspect anything please.

  152. Lydia wrote:

    My point, which I did not make well, is that the women in my former Church went Far and Beyond the requirements without a centralized government telling them to do so.

    As I said in my earlier comment, that’s terrific that the women at your former church spear-headed this.

    I can think of several large denominations that have done an excellent job of child sexual abuse prevention training, implemented policies, and are constantly evolving and disseminating information to churches to assist them with this. I know that the clergy, staff, and parents at those churches are pleased with the soundness of the policies.

    So there effective ways to tackle child sexual abuse prevention and reporting.

    I still think the Southern Baptists will have to come up with a centralized computer system, and other protocols, to track known predators and stop them from wreaking damage at new churches.

  153. Velour wrote:

    to track known predators and stop them from wreaking damage at new churches.

    Shouldn’t they actually be reported to police, in the first place, so that they are not floating around from church to church? How can the SBC have a website up of “suspected” predators without being sued for false allegations if the suspected predator has not been convicted?

    Pastors and churches that just fire a predator and let them move on without getting the police involved are evil, IMO. They should not be pastors, elders, or whatever.

  154. Bridget wrote:

    Shouldn’t they actually be reported to police, in the first place, so that they are not floating around from church to church? How can the SBC have a website up of “suspected” predators without being sued for false allegations if the suspected predator has not been convicted?

    The predators were already turned in to police, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and served jail or prison time. And despite all of that, they’re able to go to other Southern Baptist churches, embed themselves, and tally up more child sex abuse victims.

    There needs to be a centralized computer system to keep track of known offenders.

  155. Velour wrote:

    The predators were already turned in to police, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and served jail or prison time. And despite all of that, they’re able to go to other Southern Baptist churches, embed themselves, and tally up more child sex abuse victims.

    I guess I don’t understand why fingerprint background checks would not be done on anyone who is being hired. It seems odd that people would trust an SBC site before they would trust the legal records of an individual.

  156. @ Bridget:
    Yes. This takes average people with ownership of the problem. But we are actually teaching people to look to their leaders for protection and prevention instead of taking ownership for their lives and the Innocents around them.

    If they have been convicted then they are on the registry which any citizen can look up. I check it all the time for my neck of the woods.

    The problem is not an SBC database, the problem is cheap Grace, sin leveling, etc. IOW, the problem is what the centralized “leaders” are teaching those who teach the locals.

    The problem is most predators are not caught until they have an average of 75 victims of various degrees of grooming and molestation.

  157. Hmmm? Who wooda thunk it?
    I can agree with Tim Challies. Oy Vey…

    Callies writes in #3. Multiple witnesses

    “…Furthermore,
    elders are often subjected to unrighteous criticism
    because **the standard** to which they are held
    **is often higher than any elder is able to meet.**”

    Yup – “The Tuff Standard,” — **is often higher than any elder is able to meet.**

    Yup – When I finally checked out “The Tuff Standards” given by Paul, for ME…
    I realized I, Amos, ordained, in leadership, could NOT meet “The Standards.”
    “The Tuff Standards” found in 1 Tim 3:1-7, and Titus 1:5-9.

    Well, Lord, here’s another fine mess I’ve gotten myself into. 🙁
    Now what am-I-a-gonna do?

    It took awhile…
    An ugly dose of **spiritual abuse** when questioning leaders… 🙁
    A separation from the folks, believers, friends, who I loved…
    And four or five years… And lots of tears…

    But eventually I ripped-up those papers…
    And cut-up one laminated card with scizzors. 😉
    And removed myself from having, and desireing, those coveted “Titles,” and “Positions.”
    And desireing the Power, Profit, Prestige, Honor, Reputation, that comes with those “Titles.”

    Yup – That “laminated card,” fit in my wallet, and I could still use it at hospitals and stuff, where I could gain favor as “Clergy.” uggghhh! Even after I knew I did NOT Qualify.

    Yup, WE, His Sheep, can be good at justifying bad behavior.

    And, Just for the record…
    I, Amos, have never met a “Titled” pastor/elder/overseer, when questioned…
    Who could meet “The Tuff Standards,” given by Paul, and the Bible.
    Yup – NOT one. NOT one “Titled” pastor. NOT one elder. NOT one overseer.

    And eventually I totally left “Today’s Corrupt Religious System.”
    Knowing, Most, If NOT all, “Titled” pastors, could NOT meet “The Tuff Standards.”
    That they said they “Did Meet,” communicated, by taking the “Title” pastor.

    And, I went out, NOT knowing where I was going.
    Hebrews 11:8

  158. Max wrote:

    Some pulpits are accused of “hate speech” when they confront sin in the culture in their sermons and societal wackos don’t like that much.

    I think at some times they are giving hate speech and then defend themselves that it’s just the thought police that are trying to force them to be politically correct.

  159. @ Lydia:
    Did I mention pastors and church members who show up to court as character witnesses for the “repentant” pedophiles? Then beg leniency on sentencing? Then they accept them at church with designated escorts. The church is more concerned about the redemption story of an expert con who mastered the double life to fool a lot of people than they are for children.

  160. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The RCC did have a centralised system. But that system was not set up – or equipped – to deal with an epidemic of child sexual abuse. I think @ Lydia’s observations on non-RCC centralisation and otherwise are also relevant here. The structure – whether devolved or central – was set up to protect the institution from the consequences of paedophilia, not to protect children from the possibility of it happening.

    Paul in particular warns his readers of the need to be diligent in managing one’s own life. (E.g., this from 1 Corinthians: Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.) The same, surely, is true of institutions. It’s not enough to put process in place. Those in leadership must also, continuously, discipline the entire organisation to make sure that everyone understands why those rules exist and that everyone follows them in spirit as much as in letter. And I use the word “discipline” in the real, sporting/athletic/military sense, not in the revenge/Calvinista sense.

    And here is the problem, as happened at Bethlehem Baptist regarding spouse abuse, the church can have a wonderful statement with great sounding words which is ignored in actual practice, because the organization’s good always comes before the individual’s.

  161. Bridget wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    The predators were already turned in to police, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and served jail or prison time. And despite all of that, they’re able to go to other Southern Baptist churches, embed themselves, and tally up more child sex abuse victims.
    I guess I don’t understand why fingerprint background checks would not be done on anyone who is being hired. It seems odd that people would trust an SBC site before they would trust the legal records of an individual.

    Good point. Many churches don’t take the time to do background checks.

  162. @ siteseer:
    As much as we might disagree they have a right to be jerks. And others have a right to be offended and disagree publicly. It’s a great thing we take for granted until you are silenced afraid of losing a job or whatever.

  163. @ siteseer:

    My point being, it *looks* like they are doing all of this right. But in practice, they are not. I don’t think a person would be able to know if the guidelines are actually being followed or not unless and until they were in that position of needing to depend on them.

  164. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Did I mention pastors and church members who show up to court as character witnesses for the “repentant” pedophiles? Then beg leniency on sentencing? Then they accept them at church with designated escorts. The church is more concerned about the redemption story of an expert con who mastered the double life to fool a lot of people than they are for children.

    Spot on, Lydia.

    It’s an outrage. And of course in case after case, as even Boz T. at Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (G.R.A.C.E.) has noted that the pastors, elders,
    deacons, and church members…don’t sit with the victim and his or her family…ever.

    It’s just sick.

  165. @ Velour:
    Most don’t even bother to check the national registry! They don’t take ownership. They think following guidelines for insurance and protection of lawsuits is all they need.

  166. @ Velour:
    It makes my blood boil. The “Christians” think they are a great witness for proving God’s Redemption by doing so. They have a very upside-down understanding of who Jesus Christ really is.

  167. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Most don’t even bother to check the national registry! They don’t take ownership. They think following guidelines for insurance and protection of lawsuits is all they need.

    You’re absolutely correct, Lydia.

    And in my ex-NeoCalvinist church the pastors/elders refused to vet their friend a Megan’s List sex offender/child pornographer with his supervising law enforcement agency (insisting that the sex offender was ‘safe’ & they’d ‘trust him’ with their own children) yet if any sane Christian wanted to leave that church they’d have to undergo an ‘exit inteview’ by two pastors/elders.

    Go figure.

  168. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    It makes my blood boil. The “Christians” think they are a great witness for proving God’s Redemption by doing so. They have a very upside-down understanding of who Jesus Christ really is.

    Between your boiling blood and mine we have a volcano!

  169. @ Velour:
    There’s a difference between preaching the Truth and abusing your pulpit privilege to meddle in the lives of others with your personal belief system. As I noted upstream, there is no hate speech in the Bible – only uncomfortable words about sin. The 21st century church is having trouble hitting the right balance in this regard. We live in an age when folks are calling evil good and good evil, even in the church. We need to stand on the Truth and nothing else, regardless of what it costs. The church of the living God cannot compromise Truth or the culture will get mixed signals and spiral deeper into moral chaos. I’m old enough to remember when the church was counter-culture to the world; it is now a sub-culture of it in many places and sending a confusing message of what is right and what is wrong in God’s eyes. As has been noted by TWW commenters repeatedly about New Calvinism, for example, you can twist Scripture to make it say what you want to, but that doesn’t make it right. New Calvinism’s attempts to be “culturally relevant” are lowering the standard and pushing back the boundaries that don’t measure up in the Kingdom of God.

  170. Velour wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Most don’t even bother to check the national registry! They don’t take ownership. They think following guidelines for insurance and protection of lawsuits is all they need.

    You’re absolutely correct, Lydia.

    And in my ex-NeoCalvinist church the pastors/elders refused to vet their friend a Megan’s List sex offender/child pornographer with his supervising law enforcement agency (insisting that the sex offender was ‘safe’ & they’d ‘trust him’ with their own children) yet if any sane Christian wanted to leave that church they’d have to undergo an ‘exit inteview’ by two pastors/elders.

    Go figure.

    All this stuff is why I am so frustrated with institutional church. Rationally, I know that not all have such problems. But the last 15 years has been nothing but more witnessing it first hand, dealing with people involved in other churches and more information on how either evil some are or just plain authoritarian and ignorant

    I remember the days of looking at a new church and assuming it is good on the face of things.. Now I Wonder what is hidden– because I know how good the leaders are at such tactics. And this covers the gamet from budgets, takeovers, plans they don’t share with the members, agendas, etc etc.

    I don’t want it to be that way and some even claim I am sinning by being negative. But how much does one have to witness to be wise as a serpent but gentle as a dove?

    I went for a lovely walk this fine crisp morning. :o)

  171. Lydia wrote:

    I went for a lovely walk this fine crisp morning. :o)

    Me too, Lydia.

    I also put out at the curb a bunch of really nice free stuff. Crystal, glasses, artwork, a Bose stereo system I am not using, a plant, etc.

    Now, it’s time for kettle bell.

  172. Lydia wrote:

    I remember the days of looking at a new church and assuming it is good on the face of things.. Now I Wonder what is hidden– because I know how good the leaders are at such tactics. And this covers the gamet from budgets, takeovers, plans they don’t share with the members, agendas, etc etc.

    I hear you. I have found the same problems.

  173. Hi Lydia

    I’m having a lovely time at Barnes and Nobles this fine crisp morning…

    And I’m having a fine cup of coffee, while hanging out with a couple of friends…

    One a believer, and another who is questioning…

    And NOT one pastor in site…

  174. Hi Velour

    “I also put out at the curb a bunch of really nice free stuff. Crystal, glasses, artwork, a Bose stereo system I am not using, a plant, etc.”

    Sounds like I’d like to be a sanitation worker in your neighborhood. 😉

  175. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Hi Velour
    “I also put out at the curb a bunch of really nice free stuff. Crystal, glasses, artwork, a Bose stereo system I am not using, a plant, etc.”
    Sounds like I’d like to be a sanitation worker in your neighborhood.

    Or just a neighbor walking by. Trust me, in my neighborhood it’s usually gone within hours.

    We have a huge crowd of people that exercise (walk) where I live. Folks who live in houses, townhouses, condos, and apartment buildings.

    I put out a huge framed photograph of a cowboy and his horse last week and it was snapped up in less than 15 minutes.

  176. In the bible, it appears that “monarchy” is looked to as the perfect government.

    Of course the concept of the liberal democracy that many of us live would have been anathema to the writers of the bible. Monarchy was what they knew so monarchy was what they desired. Go to books like Genesis and those stories were in circulation in the oral form probably dating back to the dawn of civilization.

    Even Martin Luther at the start of the protestant reformation had issues with the peasant class. They were all about “divine right to rule”.

    Can it be any surprise that bible based religion is so hierarchical. God is placed in the hierarchy as “king” not “president” or “prime minister”.

    So, these pastors, steeped as they are in this hierarchical culture based on the “divine right to rule” principle, find themselves genuinely perplexed that the rank and file would actually have the temerity to question what they have to say. So the problem is not them, it’s the membership. They are not following the “biblical way” of running things.

    Of course this “divine right” leads to all the other problems that are being addressed here. (I mean if God didn’t want guys like Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney et al to represent him then why are they there? In their minds they are there by “divine right”)

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy? (You could also ask the same questions of Judaism or Islam for that matter)

    As for our American friends, keeping you in my thoughts as you go to the polls this week. Imperfect as it is, democracy is still better that some of the other forms of government. Please exercise your right to vote. It matters.

    November 11th in Canada is “Remembrance Day”, when we honour those who fought and died for our country. They sacrificed (and many in our armed forces still are) so my generation didn’t have to. To those reading this who are veterans (or still serving) regardless of nation – Thank you.

  177. And another friend, who I met at Barnes and Nobles, a believer, just stopped by..

    After he attended a 501 c3, non-profit, tax deductible Religious Corporation…
    That the IRS calls church, this morning…

    He goes to a Methodist building… Retired post office… In leadership… Of a committee…

    And, over and over again, he shares the horror stories, of trying to get something done…
    the conflicts, of trying to do the right thing, the God thing, but most are NOT interested.

    Some times I let him rant…
    Some times I ask him, Well, – Did any of His Disciples call themselves leader?
    NO??? NOT one Disciple???

    Why do you want the position of “leader?”

    When NOT one of His Disciples called them self “leader?”

  178. Lydia wrote:

    Even down to installing Windows in every single children’s room. It did not take a centralized denomination to demand such things.

    I have found there is can be much good sense in a gathering of believers, they appear to become stupid only when they look to the leaders for their direction. In a church run by the pastor and his staff, the issues not on the pastor’s radar fall to the wayside.

  179. Jack wrote:

    In the bible, it appears that “monarchy” is looked to as the perfect government.

    This may be another example of two people reading the same book and coming to completely opposite conclusions. God warned Israel through Samuel about what they would get with a king. Then fast forward to the litany of the vast supplies consumed just by Solomon and his household, remember this was a subsistence economy.

    David was a man after God’s own heart and Solomon was supposed to be one of the wisest men that ever lived, both were lousy kings. Solomon ruled so badly the country suffered a civil war after his death, attributable to his high taxes. The old testament is a continual recitation of “so and so” was a bad king. I’m done with kings, whether with the country or the local church.

  180. Jack wrote:

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy?

    Well, perhaps not. The RCC emphasizes that it is not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic. As you say, the bible was comfortable with monarchy, as was western Christianity for centuries. I really don’t know where and how Christianity as a pure democracy has happened and thrived. Perhaps some of the communes were like that, maybe the Quakers but I sure don’t know, but I don’t see a history of Christianity linked with democracy.

    That is an interesting question, though. Good for thought.

  181. Ken F wrote:

    I am not sure what church is supposed to look like,

    Agreed, although I am finding there is benefit knowing what it is NOT supposed to look like.

  182. okrapod wrote:

    Jack wrote:

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy?

    Well, perhaps not. The RCC emphasizes that it is not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic. As you say, the bible was comfortable with monarchy, as was western Christianity for centuries. I really don’t know where and how Christianity as a pure democracy has happened and thrived. Perhaps some of the communes were like that, maybe the Quakers but I sure don’t know, but I don’t see a history of Christianity linked with democracy.

    That is an interesting question, though. Good for thought.

    It has been linked with something close to anarchism, though (not anarchism as in chaos, but anarchism in the libertarian sense; there’ve been a lot of Christian thinkers, including some Eastern ones like Berdyaev, who viewed government by its very nature as ultimately antithetical to Christianity in the long run).

    While the RCC itself is not a democracy, they have in recent years come around to supporting Christian Democracy in the secular realm.

    Although beyond the bounds of Christianity, Mormonism promotes “theodemocracy”.

  183. Jack wrote:

    In the bible, it appears that “monarchy” is looked to as the perfect government.

    Of course the concept of the liberal democracy that many of us live would have been anathema to the writers of the bible. Monarchy was what they knew so monarchy was what they desired. Go to books like Genesis and those stories were in circulation in the oral form probably dating back to the dawn of civilization.

    Even Martin Luther at the start of the protestant reformation had issues with the peasant class. They were all about “divine right to rule”.

    Can it be any surprise that bible based religion is so hierarchical. God is placed in the hierarchy as “king” not “president” or “prime minister”.

    So, these pastors, steeped as they are in this hierarchical culture based on the “divine right to rule” principle, find themselves genuinely perplexed that the rank and file would actually have the temerity to question what they have to say. So the problem is not them, it’s the membership. They are not following the “biblical way” of running things.

    Of course this “divine right” leads to all the other problems that are being addressed here. (I mean if God didn’t want guys like Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney et al to represent him then why are they there? In their minds they are there by “divine right”)

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy? (You could also ask the same questions of Judaism or Islam for that matter)

    As for our American friends, keeping you in my thoughts as you go to the polls this week. Imperfect as it is, democracy is still better that some of the other forms of government. Please exercise your right to vote. It matters.

    November 11th in Canada is “Remembrance Day”, when we honour those who fought and died for our country. They sacrificed (and many in our armed forces still are) so my generation didn’t have to. To those reading this who are veterans (or still serving) regardless of nation – Thank you.

    I recommend Leonard Verduin’s “Anatomy of a Hybrid”. He asks and answers this question.

    Remember, Christianity was born into a pagan governmental occupation. And Judaism was never meant to be a theocracy. God was very angry They begged for a king!!!!They were supposed to be the light if the world reflecting Gods wisdom to those around them. Miserable failures!

    The question is what do Christians do with the freedom to do good to others without a church state? Examples: they used to fund and build hospitals, train nurses,built orphanages, disaster help and relief, etc. (Not that people did not misuse some of this)

    Now they build big churches.

  184. @ Max:

    “I’m old enough to remember when the church was counter-culture to the world”
    ++++++++++++

    hello, Max. i’d be interested to hear in what ways was the church counter-culture to the world?

    my own conclusions from a lifetime of church is that church culture is no more enlightened or virtuous than non-church culture. the only different is style and branding.

    style, as in window-dressing: clothes, make-up, jewelry, dancing, movies, wine and beer, personality, etc. but the boundaries of “christian vs worldly” for these things are entirely subjective.

    branding: kindness, generosity, honesty, faithfulness to commitments only count if a christian does it.

  185. Jack wrote:

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy? (You could also ask the same questions of Judaism or Islam for that matter)

    But then, also, it was not God’s intention for Israel to have a king. The people demanded it and God reluctantly allowed it while warning them how it would harm them. And most of the Bible history shows what a brutal system it was.

    It seems like Jesus avoided all attempts to bring him into political discussions. His kingdom is not of this world. We are called to live out our faith in whatever system we find ourselves but improving the system to make it as equitable as possible is congruent with our faith and it seems like we are afforded the freedom to use reason and experience to do the best we can?

  186. Bill M wrote:

    Agreed, although I am finding there is benefit knowing what it is NOT supposed to look like.

    I am no longer sure of what “not” is supposed to look like other than in extreme cases. I attended my normal SBC church this morning. I’m finding it to be the low point of my week, probably because of what I’ve been finding out about the new-Calvinist takeover of the SBC combined with a run in I had with the board of elders a few years ago before I had ever heard about new-Calvinism. They had misunderstood my questions about their decision to eliminate adult “Sunday school.” I got called into a meeting of elders, but I cancelled it when they refused to tell me what it was about. We eventually had the meeting and they decided I was not a threat, but I never recovered my enthusiasm. In hindsight, I learned from that experience and more recent experiences that our church has not yet drunk the new-Calvinist kool-aid, but it seems to me that they are thinking about it. Considering how pervasive new-Calvinism is here in Northern Alabama, I think I am better off here for now. Also, the pastor is very humble, which is the reason I keep going. I’ve thought about looking into mainline “high church” denominations but that messes with me in other ways.

  187. Lydia wrote:

    they used to fund and build hospitals, train nurses,built orphanages, disaster help and relief,

    Ken F wrote:

    I plan to go to church in the morning, but I don’t get excited about it anymore.

    maybe we are not supposed to ‘get excited about it’
    ….. seems to me that people these days have greater need of the Peace of Christ in a world where we are SO rushed and over-stimmed and out of sorts;
    as Wordsworth would say: ‘the world is too much with us …. and we are out of tune’ 🙂

    no, I think people need something MORE from Church than excitement

  188. Lydia wrote:

    As much as we might disagree they have a right to be jerks. And others have a right to be offended and disagree publicly. It’s a great thing we take for granted until you are silenced afraid of losing a job or whatever.

    I agree freedom of speech gives them the right to be jerks, I guess there’s a line that has to be drawn between being jerks and encouraging criminal behavior.

    example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html?_r=0

    The church I went to as a very new Christian, IFB, did engage in what I see as hate speech and eventually members were arrested for bombing an abortion clinic. It was the natural outgrowth of what was being said from the pulpit. I feel like the church has the right to say they don’t believe in abortion but there comes a point they take their outrage too far and encourage people to take the law into their own hands.

    It’s a touchy subject and at base I wonder how does “they will know you are Christians by your love” relate.

  189. I had a fine prayer walk on the sidewalk next to my former 9Marks church. As long as I do not set foot on the property the police won’t arrest me for trespassing. It’s a long story.

  190. siteseer wrote:

    It seems like Jesus avoided all attempts to bring him into political discussions. His kingdom is not of this world. We are called to live out our faith in whatever system we find ourselves

    I have thought a lot about this in this political season we, in the US, find ourselves at present. I simply don’t understand the push by so many to bring back, or be, a totally Christian government. Jesus never advocates this. Instead, he advocated individual life changes and living as a member of the Kingdom of God. This idea that we can make a government a Christian theocracy is bizarre.

    siteseer wrote:

    but improving the system to make it as equitable as possible is congruent with our faith and it seems like we are afforded the freedom to use reason and experience to do the best we can?

    Yes. But I don’t think Christians have the right to insist that our government be a Christian government. Jesus was not concerned with such things and, honestly, Christianity can not be forced on anyone nor onto an entire government system. Jesus offered a gift. He did not force himself, or his ways, or his ideas on anyone! And he is the King of Kings.

  191. Dale wrote:

    I had a fine prayer walk on the sidewalk next to my former 9Marks church.

    Next time circle it 7 times and blow a trumpet to see of the walls come tumbling down.

  192. Dale wrote:

    I had a fine prayer walk on the sidewalk next to my former 9Marks church. As long as I do not set foot on the property the police won’t arrest me for trespassing. It’s a long story.

    Same here.

  193. @ siteseer:
    The problem is we can only publicly claim that is false Christianity. We can’t make all hateful speech criminal and convict unless a specific threat. Those types rarely last in jobs outside their bubbles.

    I saw a bumper sticker a while back that said “kill all fat chicks”. Should that guy be convicted for promoting hate and death?

    Your speech may be “hate” next if you disagree with whoever is in power who doesn’t like it. I fear we are going to far with all this especially on college campuses where there are a lot of special snowflakes.

  194. siteseer wrote:

    I feel like the church has the right to say they don’t believe in abortion but there comes a point they take their outrage too far and encourage people to take the law into their own hands.

    It’s a touchy subject and at base I wonder how does “they will know you are Christians by your love” relate.

    I’ve never seen so much hate speech in my life as the hate speech dished up by certain ‘christians’ who say they are ‘speaking the truth in love’;

    and yes, the evil speech can and DOES kill, it’s meant to cause harm, just indirectly, from a distance

  195. Lydia wrote:

    Yes. The question would have to be, “whose” version of “Christian” government!

    If it is a theocracy it will be abusive regardless of the religious flavoring.

  196. Ken F wrote:

    Also, the pastor is very humble, which is the reason I keep going. I’ve thought about looking into mainline “high church” denominations but that messes with me in other ways.

    In the meantime, you might be blessed by the E-Church service here. Wade has a very powerful message today that is worth a listen imo. It’s evident to me that he knows what “church” is supposed to be. 🙂

  197. Sigh, does anyone take Challies or any other Calvinist or reformed “theologian” serious? There is no bigger cult presently available to join. To stop all these Calvinistas to control you, to insult you, to own you, to brainwash and lie to you, simply leave their synagogues and cut off their money supply. What a bunch of ungodly men; the whole lot of them. And to think I’m from the same city as this deceiver and LIAR. he has bugged me for years, a typical modern-day pharisee is Challies.

  198. Bill M wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Yes. The question would have to be, “whose” version of “Christian” government!

    If it is a theocracy it will be abusive regardless of the religious flavoring.

    Geneva or Rome. Take your pick.

  199. Dale wrote:

    I had a fine prayer walk on the sidewalk next to my former 9Marks church. As long as I do not set foot on the property the police won’t arrest me for trespassing. It’s a long story.

    Gosh, you too? As long as I don’t step on Mark Driscoll’s church property, I won’t be arrested either!

  200. Angie Lee, Hamilton, Canada wrote:

    Sigh, does anyone take Challies or any other Calvinist or reformed “theologian” serious? There is no bigger cult presently available to join. To stop all these Calvinistas to control you, to insult you, to own you, to brainwash and lie to you, simply leave their synagogues and cut off their money supply. What a bunch of ungodly men; the whole lot of them. And to think I’m from the same city as this deceiver and LIAR. he has bugged me for years, a typical modern-day pharisee is Challies.

    While I agree with you, these people are making boatloads of money, so they’ve definitely got an audience. And I think a lot of these groups get people in with much of the lingo of any church, until the contracts are signed and the control and threats begin. They make it sound really good, and solid, and “biblical”.

    Also, owning your wife and children, and having a wife that’s a servant and pet, sadly seems to be really attractive to a lot of men. There’s also the promise that if you play the part of the good submissive member, that one day you will be the elder calling the shots and controlling everyone else.

  201. Another Sunday at the House of Mark Driscoll, aka “The Trinity Church.” I learned yesterday afternoon that Driscoll is starting his Christmas celebration today (as in “three weeks before Advent”). I saw this on the church’s Instagram, from which I was later unceremoniously blocked, because I had the temerity to follow them. Seriously, that is so bizarre, they’re on the lookout for me. I’m absolutely boggled that they see me as a threat.

    Car counts:

    9 am service: 105 cars
    10:45 am service 126 cars

    Today, as I said, was their kickoff for Christmas. I am not kidding. The church is decorated for Christmas. (Did I mention that the First Sunday in Advent is in three weeks?) On top of that, the two bouncy houses that the church either rents or owns were dragged out to the front of the building, along with a tiny Ferris wheel which could only fit small children in its cage-like seats.

    The church got to hear me let them know about Driscoll before the 9 am service. I said NOTHING before the 10:45 service, nor did I say anything when I came back for a bonus round of picketing at noon. Seriously, my source told me they were doing baptisms today and there was a number you could text GETBAPTIZED to if you wanted to be baptized. I was wondering if it would be “stunt baptisms” in the front of the church (a la Steven Furtick), but nope. According to their Instagram (remember, I’m blocked, but Private Browsing for the win), there was at least one baptism in the church today. However, there were a lot of kids outside, and as these children were the captive audience of the bouncy houses and the tiny Ferris wheel, I kept my mouth firmly shut. I did, however, have my signs.

    I think I had better control of my GoPro today and I have a bunch of footage. I have to say the camera is for my protection, because I am still showing up. The father-in-law of one of the associate pastors, Brandon Anderson, asked me if it’d been 17 weeks. Nope, I said, it’s been seven months. Oh, by the way, Driscoll hired some guy named Dustin Blatnik from Seattle to be the music minister. So much for local talent, eh? Driscoll’s up to three associate pastors now. Oh, and he didn’t even bother to step outside the church during the whole business with the bouncy houses and such.

  202. Jack wrote:

    Of course this “divine right” leads to all the other problems that are being addressed here. (I mean if God didn’t want guys like Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney et al to represent him then why are they there? In their minds they are there by “divine right”)

    Saul was the first king of Israel, chosen by God to satisfy the demand of His people, and look how things turned out for him.

  203. Bill M wrote:

    David was a man after God’s own heart and Solomon was supposed to be one of the wisest men that ever lived, both were lousy kings.

    Solomon was a real slave driver, and I mean literally. The Temple was built on the backs of slaves.

  204. Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:

    Driscoll’s up to three associate pastors now.

    That is a lot of overhead for a relatively small number of people. I believe his first downfall was more about money shortages than any new found principles by those in leadership at Mars Hill. Hopefully the high costs will hasten his second downfall.

  205. Are there any reported cases of that someone can share where pastors have incurred church discipline such as rebuking in the presence of all that Paul instructs one to do when they continue in sin. I certainly haven’t heard of this happening. Thus this makes me think that church discipline is really only applied to regular members and many times as a means of bullying and keeping members “in their place.”

    It really isn’t surprising that it is this way since the leaders are the ones in control and thus wouldn’t want this applied to themselves.

    I would be curious to hear if anyone can name when a church leader has been publicly rebuked. I am sure they are few and far between.

  206. Steve240 wrote:

    Are there any reported cases of that someone can share where pastors have incurred church discipline such as rebuking in the presence of all that Paul instructs one to do when they continue in sin. I certainly haven’t heard of this happening. Thus this makes me think that church discipline is really only applied to regular members and many times as a means of bullying and keeping members “in their place.”

    I can only cite one example in my entire life. I was 4 years old and it was a Presbyterian Church in Northern California where a senior pastor was “disciplined before all”, several hundred church members. My parents were members of the Presbyterian Church and so were my maternal grandparents.

    The pastor had sex with a married woman church member (I guess we call it clergy sexual abuse). He was also married. It was very somber, very serious. Adults cried. The pastor lost his job, sorry I’m not clear on the details as I was only 4 years old when it happened.

    The church’s elders and members took getting a solid pastor that didn’t have these kinds of problems so seriously that they hired a Scottish Presbyterian pastor all of the way from Scotland. He, his wife, and young children moved from Scotland to California.

  207. Lydia wrote:

    Your speech may be “hate” next if you disagree with whoever is in power who doesn’t like it. I fear we are going to far with all this especially on college campuses where there are a lot of special snowflakes.

    Very much agreed Lyds. The PC police are every bit as tyrannical as any commissar in the old Soviet Union. Even though I’m a socialist (NOT marxist, but FDR style) and you’re a libertarian, we have common ground. Somewhat like Ginsberg and Scalia huh?

  208. Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:

    I kept my mouth firmly shut. I did, however, have my signs.

    your PRESENCE there was a strong voice that they could not extinguish ….. and they are NOT ‘growing’ so I think you have stood as a ‘silent witness’ with a message that is apparently being heard loud and clear

    Be safe. Be blessed.

  209. Christiane wrote:

    Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
    I kept my mouth firmly shut. I did, however, have my signs.
    your PRESENCE there was a strong voice that they could not extinguish ….. and they are NOT ‘growing’ so I think you have stood as a ‘silent witness’ with a message that is apparently being heard loud and clear
    Be safe. Be blessed.

    Amen, Christiane.

    Brava Mirele! Thank you.

  210. Velour wrote:

    Steve240 wrote:

    Are there any reported cases of that someone can share where pastors have incurred church discipline such as rebuking in the presence of all that Paul instructs one to do when they continue in sin. I certainly haven’t heard of this happening. Thus this makes me think that church discipline is really only applied to regular members and many times as a means of bullying and keeping members “in their place.”

    I can only cite one example in my entire life. I was 4 years old and it was a Presbyterian Church in Northern California where a senior pastor was “disciplined before all”, several hundred church members. My parents were members of the Presbyterian Church and so were my maternal grandparents.

    The pastor had sex with a married woman church member (I guess we call it clergy sexual abuse). He was also married. It was very somber, very serious. Adults cried. The pastor lost his job, sorry I’m not clear on the details as I was only 4 years old when it happened.

    The church’s elders and members took getting a solid pastor that didn’t have these kinds of problems so seriously that they hired a Scottish Presbyterian pastor all of the way from Scotland. He, his wife, and young children moved from Scotland to California.

    I remember reading that Horatio Alger (yes, that one!) was a Unitarian minister, but was kicked out following allegations of improper conduct with adolescent boys.

    As a result, there have been a LOT of people who’ve speculated that his stories (the common theme of which involves a grown man acting as a mentor and close friend to an adolescent boy) were an outlet for his sexuality. It seems quite likely.

  211. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    I remember reading that Horatio Alger (yes, that one!) was a Unitarian minister, but was kicked out following allegations of improper conduct with adolescent boys.
    As a result, there have been a LOT of people who’ve speculated that his stories (the common theme of which involves a grown man acting as a mentor and close friend to an adolescent boy) were an outlet for his sexuality. It seems quite likely.

    Pedophilia it seems, right?

  212. Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:

    Another Sunday at the House of Mark Driscoll, aka “The Trinity Church.”

    “Frank perceived that a preacher can be a scoundrel or a hypocrite and still be accepted by his congregation.”

    Lewis, Sinclair (2010-06-13). Elmer Gantry (Kindle Locations 4563-4564). Penny Books. Kindle Edition.

  213. @ Todd Wilhelm:
    I’ve heard that in literature, there are only about twenty-some original plots for stories. When I read your comment about Sinclair Lewis’ character Elmer Gantry, I thought,

    yep, neo-Cal bullies ….. same old story

    those plots, those ‘original stories?

    I think the ones that are about evil connect back to the ‘yes’ of Adam & Eve to satan;
    and the ones that celebrate what is good are connected to the ‘fiat’ of Mary who gave her ‘yes’ to God

    And Christ, as the climactic turning point in our whole human history, is the Source of resolution of all the stories of mankind 🙂

  214. GMFS

    To follow on from @ Jack’s very thoughtful comment, I have an observation on the election.

    By way of a spoiler: I’m not going to comment on either candidate, by name or allusion, here.

    The identity and policies of the US president is something in which the denizens of Blighty take an interest; in fact it’s of considerable interest to us because globalEconomyAndStuff. We too have just had an election – the Brexit referendum, to be exact – in which the campaigning was at times bitter and accusation-loaded, and in which the result was expected to be close. In the event, it was very close – 52 to 48 – and even in terms of simply setting national policy, the result created at least as many problems as it solved. In short, Britain is deeply divided over the Brexit issue.

    The US election, at the time of writing, hasn’t happened yet and the result may not be as close as expected. But even if the result looks decisive on paper, it seems unlikely that it will draw a line under the divisions that have surfaced during the campaign.

    It’s easy to be gracious and respectful to the people we agree with. It’s also easy to make bland and pious calls for “love” and “unity” when in fact there are difficult real-life problems to address. Paul wrote to Timothy (I paraphrase, but fairly): The end goal of what we do is love. The other things we do are basically a means to that end. My prayers are for those for whom love isn’t just a means to an ideological or commercial end, to be be “salt and light”, as the saying goes.

  215. Christiane wrote:

    I think the ones that are about evil connect back to the ‘yes’ of Adam & Eve to satan;
    and the ones that celebrate what is good are connected to the ‘fiat’ of Mary who gave her ‘yes’ to God

    And I think that the ones who are about truth recognize both the fall of man and the redemption of man as parts of the same narrative about the history oF God and man. The story is not either/or but rather both/and as I see it.

  216. okrapod wrote:

    And I think that the ones who are about truth recognize both the fall of man and the redemption of man as parts of the same narrative about the history oF God and man. The story is not either/or but rather both/and as I see it.

    And Christ, as the climactic turning point in our whole human history, is the Source of resolution of all the stories of mankind

    IF you see the story’s both/and meeting in Christ, then I agree with you OKRAPOD

  217. Christiane wrote:

    IF you see the story’s both/and meeting in Christ,

    In my decades as a protestant and in my very few years worshipping with the catholics, and in my extremely limited exposure to orthodoxy, I have come to believe that all of christianity believes exactly that. I think it is inaccurate to look at other christian traditions and conclude that they do not think exactly that.

  218. @ okrapod:
    I think the only REAL unity Christians do have in ‘in Christ’;

    but in my Catholic faith, I am also able to see an even greater extension of hope for humankind, by virtue of the Incarnation:
    IF a person who does not know Christ by name has said ‘yes’ to the voice of their conscience that calls them to do what is good, and refrained from what they know is wrong, then they also may be included in the Paschal Event.

    That possibility is not shared by most evangelical people, although some mainline Christian people do see a greater meaning in the Incarnation than others.

    The possibilities opened to humankind by the Incarnation are most certainly accepted among the Eastern Orthodox Christian people as their comprehension of the Incarnation is the most hopeful of all within the whole Church.

    In no way is this a belief that ‘everybody goes to heaven’, no;
    Catholics and Orthodox are not ‘universalists’. But we see something MORE in the power of Christ that offers a greater hope for those who, through no fault of their own, have not known Him ‘by name’. Biblically, there is also this to think about: “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)

  219. @ Christiane:

    Is that what this is about? The philosophical and theological questions about what about those who have only the revelation of God as described by Paul in Romans and what that means or not for those who have never heard the gospel? Good grief. There is loads of discussion on that all around. I thought you had mostly listened to the tales of problems told by those who have had problems and had concluded that all is bad and nothing is good about certain other christian denoms (names withheld purposely).

    Now knowing that both catholicism and protestantism have launched vast missionary endeavors here again I think that things are not all that black and white between the two attitudes regarding missions, historically at least. But I do agree that modern catholicism tends to emphasize the incarnation per se more than protestants do and modern protestants tend to emphasize the individual person’s response to Jesus’ death and resurrection more (the atonement), while all the time neither tribe completely ignores either part of the story. And there is the increasingly popular idea of the ongoing validity of the Abrahamic covenants with Israel among some protestants. But, all in all the protestant emphasis tends to be on covenant and atonement. So, yes, there is a different emphasis. And no, I do not see protestantism broadly embracing Islam so there is that, like you have noted I think.

    My mouth zips however before I characterize either outlook as good or evil, much less characterize the persons who emphasize one or the other as persons who see evil vs persons who see good. You do what you believe on that, but I am not going there. The day may come when I do, but not yet.

  220. @ okrapod:
    well, at the heart of the faith of all Christian people, if ANYONE is saved, it will be through Christ the Lord.

    we may differ on how the Paschal Mystery unfolds, yes, but I do think you are right that Christ is the center of fallen mankind’s salvation story and that all Christian people hold to this truth.

  221. okrapod wrote:

    And no, I do not see protestantism broadly embracing Islam so there is that, like you have noted I think.

    no, I don’t see that happening …. sorry if you misunderstood …. I have failed to communicate well.
    I’d say Catholics and Orthodox are more closely connected to those of other faiths, most definitely. Pope Francis prays with Muslims and with Jews. We honor the Islamic faith as one of the three Abrahamic faiths, yes because it holds to one God. That is not something evangelical people accept, no. I do understand that.

  222. Christiane wrote:

    okrapod wrote:

    And no, I do not see protestantism broadly embracing Islam so there is that, like you have noted I think.

    no, I don’t see that happening …. sorry if you misunderstood …. I have failed to communicate well.
    I’d say Catholics and Orthodox are more closely connected to those of other faiths, most definitely. Pope Francis prays with Muslims and with Jews. We honor the Islamic faith as one of the three Abrahamic faiths, yes because it holds to one God. That is not something evangelical people accept, no. I do understand that.

    It’s a little ironic, because several centuries ago, there were some Protestants who praised Islam and said it was closer to the truth than Catholicism was. Look up the Wikipedia article on “Islam and Protestantism”. There were even Dutch people who wanted the Turks to invade and liberate them from the Catholic Spaniards. You could hardly imagine today’s evangelicals doing such things.

  223. Velour wrote:

    MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    I remember reading that Horatio Alger (yes, that one!) was a Unitarian minister, but was kicked out following allegations of improper conduct with adolescent boys.
    As a result, there have been a LOT of people who’ve speculated that his stories (the common theme of which involves a grown man acting as a mentor and close friend to an adolescent boy) were an outlet for his sexuality. It seems quite likely.

    Pedophilia it seems, right?

    Yep.

  224. Lydia wrote:

    And ironically, it was the women in charge of children’s ministries, lay people, who developed the procedures (one is a family issues lawyer) and changes. They presented the budget and it was voted on.

    My mother instituted changes at both churches worked for for protection of children as well.

  225. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It’s not enough to put process in place. Those in leadership must also, continuously, discipline the entire organisation to make sure that everyone understands why those rules exist and that everyone follows them in spirit as much as in letter.

    And they must act to protect children and not themselves when problems occur. That seems to be the sticking point, in both centralized and decentralized churches.

    @ okrapod:

    okrapod this is not related to this comment, but I went to church sunday and realized it was ‘all saints day’ and wondered what it is they do at your church that you objected to. Obviously, you don’t have to tell me! I was just thinking about you.

  226. Bridget wrote:

    The elders I have encountered are uninformed as to how easily CPS can investigate without any false information being spread about.

    This reminded me of something. A friend of mine in school got called into the counselors office one day to ask if she had been abused at home! She didn’t know where the information came from because it was all basically factually wrong, so it was just a weird blip, but I never thought about the process of how that happened..

  227. Jack wrote:

    November 11th in Canada is “Remembrance Day”, when we honour those who fought and died for our country

    It is Veterans Day in the US, so we will be there with you.

  228. Jack wrote:

    “divine right to rule” … Driscoll, Piper, Mahaney et al. … In their minds they are there by “divine right”

    In addition to taking advantage of their fame in New Calvinism (book sales, speaking fees, etc.), I think they seriously believe that they have come into the world for such a time as this. Under this delusion, they believe they are under a divine appointment to restore the gospel that the rest of the church has lost. So they go about deceiving others because they are deceived.

  229. Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:

    Today, as I said, was their kickoff for Christmas.

    Apparently a few people have started a ‘decorate for Christmas on halloween’ thing. I am not sure if it is widespread in any way, but now I’m curious.

  230. Lea wrote:

    but I went to church sunday and realized it was ‘all saints day’ and wondered what it is they do at your church that you objected to

    They announced that there would be relics on the altar, sent here by Whomever of the following Situation in England. I imagine that Whomever is an okay person, and doing this is within normal limits for our denom, and I imagine that for some people this may be, well I don’t know what, but for me it would have been a serious error to participate in that given what I think about relics and all.

    There are a number of things out there in religioland that I am not on board with, but I am not saying that for some people it may not be an okay thing to do. I just can’t skate that close to the edge of the ice and be comfortable with it.

  231. okrapod wrote:

    They announced that there would be relics on the altar

    Ah! Interesting. Thanks!

    We lit candles and recognized those who passed in the last year, which was nice.

  232. okrapod wrote:

    They announced that there would be relics on the altar,

    we have relics of martyrs and saints ‘under’ the altars …. I think this may have been Christian practice early on in the Church, even before the New Testament was written because there is a reference in Revelation, this:

    “9And when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld.” (Rev. 6:9)

  233. @ Max:

    “Under this delusion, they believe they are under a divine appointment to restore the gospel that the rest of the church has lost”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    what about the “gospel” has the rest of the church lost? how are they defining “gospel”? i’m truly puzzled.

  234. ishy wrote:

    Also, owning your wife and children, and having a wife that’s a servant and pet, sadly seems to be really attractive to a lot of men. There’s also the promise that if you play the part of the good submissive member, that one day you will be the elder calling the shots and controlling everyone else.

    Like the subtle change in the end of the 1984 movie version of 1984.

    Only when you are broken to The System will you be permitted to advance within The System.

  235. I don’t think these church leaders appreciate the degree to which a structure of unaccountable power will inevitably produce corruption, no matter how morally upright the individuals within the structure. (Obviously, if you have people with poor character in this situation, it will be even worse.)

    You’d think that people who believe (doctrinally) in the depravity of the human heart would realize that putting too much power/money/influence into the hands of one man will corrupt him.

  236. Edward wrote:

    I don’t think these church leaders appreciate the degree to which a structure of unaccountable power will inevitably produce corruption, no matter how morally upright the individuals within the structure.

    Completely agree. I think they are too addicted to the power/authority they believe they should have that they refuse to see it, even when it’s right in front of their face.

    They are convinced (pride again!) that they should be in charge of and directing others lives. They do not realize that they might be the problem, and people who are profiting off selling a book/system are not willing to back down from that – even if it requires them to write a thesis of the 21 ways it can go wrong. When any rational person would say ‘hey, maybe I’m missing something because the results of this aren’t what I hoped’ and go back to the drawing board.

  237. Edward wrote:

    You’d think that people who believe (doctrinally) in the depravity of the human heart would realize that putting too much power/money/influence into the hands of one man will corrupt him.

    They believe it is ‘biblical’ and so rationality and watching the actual results of it doesn’t matter. Because ‘bible’.

  238. Lea wrote:

    Edward wrote:
    You’d think that people who believe (doctrinally) in the depravity of the human heart would realize that putting too much power/money/influence into the hands of one man will corrupt him.
    They believe it is ‘biblical’ and so rationality and watching the actual results of it doesn’t matter. Because ‘bible’.
    “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”

  239. I am reminded of something Rich Buhler said on the radio in the Eighties regarding Jesus’ ministry:

    “Jews with a hunger for God would seek out those Rabbis who had the reputation for being closest to God — the Pharisees. After which, they would walk away shaking their heads with ‘If that’s what being Godly is like, I want no part of it.’ And Jesus would seek those out and show them ‘This is what God is really like.'”

  240. Edward wrote:

    You’d think that people who believe (doctrinally) in the depravity of the human heart would realize that putting too much power/money/influence into the hands of one man will corrupt him.

    This is a really good point.

    An article in the New York Times back in 2009, entitled “Who would Jesus smack down?” and addressing the issueOfMarkDriscoll, ended thus
    :

    Driscoll is still the one who gazes down upon Mars Hill’s seven congregations most Sundays, his sermons broadcast from the main campus to jumbo-size projection screens around the city. At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view. Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

  241. elastigirl wrote:

    what about the “gospel” has the rest of the church lost? how are they defining “gospel”?

    To the New Calvinist, Calvinism = Gospel. It’s their determinist God mumbo-jumbo which predestines everyone to be saved or damned before they ever draw breath. Sovereign God does everything; humans are unable to do anything about their salvation. They do not agree that “whosoever will” can be saved by freely choosing to accept Christ, turning by faith when they hear the message of the Cross. They firmly believe that organized religion over the centuries has lost the true gospel, which is the version according to Calvin of course … which is not the true Gospel of course.

  242. Max wrote:

    To the New Calvinist, Calvinism = Gospel.

    Reformed theology is ‘the’ correct theology. Anything else is error to a New Calvinist. But, of course, the rest of Christendom would not agree with that.

  243. Good Grief!!!

    I’m not surprised really…

    Lydia wrote:

    @ Robin C.:
    Back when he was just a new blogger, not a pastor/Reformed leader, I used to read it. I had to stop when it was filled with comments from his Reformed readers bragging about God being glorified as He threw babies in hell.

    I am not kidding! Chilling stuff.

  244. Most of the “content” published by these Neo-Cals consists of opinion pieces. I am Magent that there is a tremendous burden to continually come up with original blog posts, to generate clicks, and thus income.

    The problem is when the majority of your content comes from your own “musings” and yet is framed as being some sort of pseudo-religious teaching.

    Either teach the Bible, or go start a Deepak Chopra self-help blog. Quit trying to do both!

  245. Jack wrote:

    My question is (and I’m serious) – Is Christianity compatible with democracy? (You could also ask the same questions of Judaism or Islam for that matter)

    Short answer? No. Not unless you (generic you) separate the two spheres (church and state). I think it’s important to remember that for those guys — the original Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers — there was no such thing as The Rights of Man or even human rights for that matter. You were at the whim and fancy of a potentate whether king or clergy.

  246. Christiane wrote:

    “9And when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld.” (Rev. 6:9)

    Interesting. I would have never connected relics with this passage.

  247. Mr.H wrote:

    Most of the “content” published by these Neo-Cals consists of opinion pieces. I am Magent that there is a tremendous burden to continually come up with original blog posts, to generate clicks, and thus income.

    The problem is when the majority of your content comes from your own “musings” and yet is framed as being some sort of pseudo-religious teaching.

    It does seem rather fluffy, doesn’t it? But it’s dressed up as the ‘gospel’ rather than the musing of so and so on this website.

  248. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Here is an email I sent to my former pastor, John Folmar, of United Christian Church of Dubai, after I heard him promoting a book titled “Modest” authored by Tim Challies and R.W. Glen.
    I guess Challies was right, cracks in unity start at the bottom!
    ====================================================
    September 30, 2014
    Dear John,
    You may wish to reconsider your promotion from the pulpit of the book “Modest”, co-authored by Tim Challies and R.W. Glenn. Glenn has recently been removed from his position of senior pastor of Redeemer Bible Church due to a three year affair with a woman in his church.
    Challies, whose publishing company, Cruciform, printed the book, has removed the book from the Cruciform website.
    -Todd

    What is it with these pastors and having affairs? It seems so commonplace anymore.

  249. Darlene wrote:

    What is it with these pastors and having affairs? It seems so commonplace anymore.

    Alpha Males/Herd Bosses have sexual rights over ALL the females in their harem/herd.

    And…
    “Most cults are started so the cult leader can (a) get rich, (b) get laid, or (c) both.”
    — my old Dungeonmaster

  250. Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:

    Driscoll’s up to three associate pastors now. Oh, and he didn’t even bother to step outside the church during the whole business with the bouncy houses and such.

    Perhaps he was avoiding you, manly man that he is. 😉

  251. Darlene wrote:

    What is it with these pastors and having affairs? It seems so commonplace anymore.

    There is a pastors study they did that says something like 30-40 percent. Or maybe it was 50. I think it was at expositors. Anyway, that seems insane.

  252. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Dee Holmes (fka mirele) wrote:
    Driscoll’s up to three associate pastors now.
    Jobs program for relatives and cronies?

    Yes. That’s apparently how they all work, including at my ex-NeoCalvinist church.
    Pastor’s kids become paid “interns”. Friends are hired as pastors/elders and moved
    from out of the area, including from out of state.

  253. Bridget wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    “9And when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld.” (Rev. 6:9)

    Interesting. I would have never connected relics with this passage.

    There’s also the miracle with Elisha’s bones in the OT.

  254. I find it odd (or maybe not) that Challies uses a metaphor for God’s household that has church members as the foundation. It is interesting in Ephesians 2 that the foundation is the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the corner stone, and we are the building on top of the foundation.

    It should be no surprise that a foundation of man would crack all the way to the top.

  255. Thank-you Steve Scott. And Jesus is the Cornerstone of His Ekklesia.

    I personally came out of a conservative Baptist church where the pastor was pursuing the married women he counseled. He had been doing this for years with a few women coming forward addressing the church leadership with their experiences. They were called “liars” by the church leadership and sent on their merry way. Finally the wolf in sheep’s clothing was caught by a teenager, who took her mother’s cell phone into the church board, for the ‘bum’ was caught texting love messages to another mother.

    It took a child to finally reveal the truth to the board. And what did this super religious, super spiritual board do? They wanted the adulterous pastor to go through counseling for a time, and reinstate him as their pastor. His Assembly of God degree, his ability to interpret ‘tongues’, his ‘the lord spoke to me’ extra Biblical revelation, and his charm and good looks whoooooooed many a woman, and held men captive to their own foolishness. He was a viper!

    And we had to listen to a ‘jezebel sermon’ complete with haughty eyes and a very, very proud countenance two weeks before the ‘church wiki-leaks’ came out. Since that proverbial ‘jezebel spirit’ actually deals with sexual immorality per the Book of Revelation, I believe he was actually giving us a sermon about “himself!”

    But here again, the church hierarchy, who sins not, wanted to keep this womanizer in the office of the pastorate, for after all, he knew (?) his Bible better than the rest of us.

    No longer attend that abusive church system, and no longer believe the Gospel is administered by church leadership, but instead, know the Gospel is shared by the lower laity, the least of these, and the ‘last’ of those believers and followers of Jesus Christ, amongst us, His children.

  256. Thank-you Steve Scott. And Jesus is the Cornerstone of His Ekklesia.

    I personally came out of a conservative Baptist church where the pastor was pursuing the married women he counseled. He had been doing this for years with a few women coming forward addressing the church leadership with their experiences. They were called “liars” by the church leadership and sent on their merry way. Finally the wolf in sheep’s clothing was caught by a teenager, who took her mother’s cell phone into the church board, for the ‘bum’ was caught texting love messages to another mother.

    It took a child to finally reveal the truth to the board. And what did this super religious, super spiritual board do? They wanted the adulterous pastor to go through counseling for a time, and reinstate him as their pastor. His Assembly of God degree, his ability to interpret ‘tongues’, his ‘the lord spoke to me’ extra Biblical revelation, and his charm and good looks whoooooooed many a woman, and held men captive to their own foolishness. He was a viper!

    And we had to listen to a ‘jezebel sermon’ complete with haughty eyes and a very, very proud countenance two weeks before the ‘church wiki-leaks’ came out. Since that proverbial ‘jezebel spirit’ actually deals with sexual immorality per the Book of Revelation, I believe he was actually giving us a sermon about “himself!”

    But here again, the church hierarchy, who sins not, wanted to keep this womanizer in the office of the pastorate, for after all, he knew (?) his Bible better than the rest of us.

    No longer attend that abusive church system, and no longer believe the Gospel is administered by church leadership, but instead, know the Gospel is shared by the lower laity, the least of these, and the ‘last’ of those believers and followers of Jesus Christ, amongst us, His children.

  257. Karen wrote:

    And we had to listen to a ‘jezebel sermon’ complete with haughty eyes and a very, very proud countenance two weeks before the ‘church wiki-leaks’ came out. Since that proverbial ‘jezebel spirit’ actually deals with sexual immorality per the Book of Revelation, I believe he was actually giving us a sermon about “himself!”

    Probably it was about all the wicked women leading a man of god astray…

  258. Darlene wrote:

    What is it with these pastors and having affairs? It seems so commonplace anymore.

    “Bait a trap with p*ssy and you’ll catch a preacher every time.”
    — one of Christian Monist’s uncles