"Dever has a very high view of the skill set of a pastor, and a very low view of the abilities of the sheep."
Dale – a former member of a church affiliated with 9Marks
9Marks of a Healthy ChurchWe are tremendously grateful that some of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been members of 9Marks affiliated churches are coming forward and speaking out about their experiences. Several weeks ago we featured the testimony of 'Dale', a professional who lives in the Charlotte area. In case you missed it, here is the title of that post along with a link:
Church Membership – Dale Shares His Testimony Regarding Membership in Churches Affiliated with 9Marks (link)
Dale discovered our blog after having experienced first-hand the implementation of Mark Dever's 9Marks, and he has become passionate about getting the word out regarding abuse in the church. Here are two statements from Dale's first post that really caught our attention:
"I saw the recklessness of church covenants. I now see them as violating Scripture's warning regarding improper oath taking. Especially disturbing is the practice at many 9Marks churches of reciting the Church Covenant during the New Covenant meal."
"9Marks churches are very dangerous places to attend church. The ones I had attended lacked love and integrity — two marks of a congregation of true worshipers (John 4:24)."
In this post we are sharing Dale's second installment –What Makes 9Marks Churches So Unhealthy? As you will see, Dale has given considerable thought to the implementation of the 9Marks and the problems that result.
We will publish Dale's third installment – What Should We Do About 9 Marks and Other Abusive Churches? – next time.
Thank you Dale for taking the time to write these important posts. We have no doubt that they will be highly beneficial to our brothers and sisters in Christ who have had experiences in churches that embrace Mark Dever's 9Marks.
What Makes 9Marks Churches So Unhealthy?
By: Dale
Apparently, I am the kind of person who has to learn by making mistakes. I became a Christian at a relatively late age (34). The only religious system I had ever known was Roman Catholicism. So, I had no idea what to look for in a church. One of my first forays away from Rome occurred on January 12, 1992. I attended The Church of Christ (Scientist). I thought it was cool that they had reading rooms. After the service, I picked up a book by the church's founder, Mary Baker Eddy (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures), and went on vacation for a week in Florida. As I read about how sickness was not real, guess what? I got sick. The more I read, the sicker I became. By the end of the week's vacation, I had developed Bell's Palsy. One side of my face was paralyzed. Lesson learned, Lord. I returned the book to the church when I got back and never returned.
It is now almost 25 years later. Looking back, I see that God has taken me on another "long vacation". He seems to have made me an expert in 9Marks churches. I find it amazing that it has taken so long for me to learn the lessons I needed.
I have read and reread the book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever. Finally, I have figured out the problem with 9Marks. If you read the list of the marks, none of them seems out of place. Good preaching, sound doctrine, the gospel, conversion, evangelism, belonging, church discipline, discipleship, and godly leadership are all important. Where Mark Dever goes astray is that he pollutes each of the nine marks with his faulty paradigm. In the introduction to the book, Dever reveals his hand:
In God's providence, I had done a doctorate focusing on a Puritan (Richard Sibbes) whose writings about the individual Christian I loved, but whose concessions on the church came to seem increasingly unwise to me.
This is what Dever means — the early Puritan Richard Sibbes wrote a book entitled The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax. The book exalts the gentleness and patience of Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. Where Dever believes Sibbes erred is in extending this kindness and patience to the church. In a word, Dever has a Puritanical understanding of the local church. He is convinced that there are way too many false converts in the church and insists on changing that. And he is up to the job! This viewpoint pollutes his application of each of the nine marks.
Dever has a very high view of the skill set of a pastor, and a very low view of the abilities of the sheep:
(1) I hold the office of anointed one.
Comments from the book:
"In our preaching, we stand in the place of God"
"It is appropriate for us to gather together and listen to one who is standing in the place of God…"
(2) It is my job to purify the church. We must weed out the non-anointed.
Comments from the book:
"It is easy to fool ourselves into thinking we're Christians"
"As we [use wrong methods] to draw people into the church, we end up polluting the very church we are drawing them into."
"Membership is the church's corporate endorsement of a person's salvation"
"God's plan for the local church does not encourage us to leave weeds unchecked."
"How to Shepherd: help people to see that they may be mistaken about their own spiritual state"
"Do your church members recognize that they are to examine one another to see if they are in the faith?"
(3) Since I stand in God's place, submit to me!
Comment from the book:
"The kind of trust that we are called to give to our…leaders in a church, can never finally be earned. It must be given as a gift–a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given."
Keep in mind the Puritanical paradigm as I share the lessons that I learned attending 9Marks churches and expose its problems.
Problem #1 – A Lack of Love
It is my humble opinion that the most damning issue at the 9Marks churches that I have encountered is a lack of love. Here is what I wrote to the pastor at my first 9Marks church that led to my excommunication:
Pastor, I urge you to consider these things [issues related to his improper excommunication of my friend]. The church at Ephesus had it all. They had right doctrine. They did not tolerate evil men. They put to the test those who called themselves apostles, but were really false. They persevered; they endured for His name's sake. They did not grow weary. AND YET, THEY WERE THE ONLY CHURCH OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES THAT WAS THREATENED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THEIR LAMPSTAND! They lacked love.
I have experienced some good preaching at 9Marks churches. I have seen a passion for truth and protection from false teaching. I have witnessed tireless effort, discipline and zeal. But 9Marks churches appear to have the "Ephesian love problem". In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul speaks of the preeminence of love. A pastor may have prophecy and great insight, but without love he is nothing. The Father seeks true worshipers that will worship in spirit and truth. Love and integrity are two marks of a healthy congregation. If the pastor and elders are impatient, immature, unkind, aloof, worldly, or double-minded, you can be certain you are in an unhealthy church.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love thinks no evil.
Mark Dever's paradigm is "Do not assume that the sheep are believers." This exposes a lack of love that leads to flattened reeds and quenched flax.
Problem # 2 – An Inward Focus
It has been over 37 years since my last "date". One of my problems in dating was that I was too self-focused. It caused me to try too hard. I longed to be like one of those extroverts who could easily interact with his date. An unhealthy self-focus is the second problem I see in 9Marks churches.
When your paradigm is that it is your job to purify the church, the focus turns inward. The preaching centers around exposing false converts. The theology concentrates on the sheep's faults. The pastor spends his time convincing you that you may not have received the correct gospel. In place of true discipleship, the law is used as a mirror to expose false professions. Examine yourselves! Are you in the faith? Are we staying pure enough by kicking out enough sinners? I hope you catch my drift. Self-focus exacerbates the lack of love problem discussed above.
Problem #3 – They Have Taken Their Eyes Off of Jesus
I have been a life-long runner. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Hebrews 12:1-2:
"…Let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith."
I believe that the flip side of the self-focus mentioned above is that 9Marks churches have turned their focus away from Jesus. They desire to be seen as healthy and holy churches. But they seek holiness in all the wrong places. They have become "nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins." 2 Peter 1:9. Their constant refrain is "examine yourself to see if you are in the faith." I think in trying to obtain a "pure church" they have turned their focus away from Jesus, our Source of holiness.
Problem #4 – They Have Succumbed to Legalism
When a church becomes self-focused and turns its eyes from the Savior, the inevitable result is legalism. Last fall I wrote an article comparing two legalistic religions that demand improper submission: Roman Catholicism and Islam. I found it interesting that both had a set of five legalistic demands.
For Roman Catholics, they are called the "Five Precepts":
Attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
Mandatory confession of sins to a priest at least once per year.
Receive the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
Observe the days of fasting and abstinence.
Provide for the needs of the Church.
For Muslims, they are called the "Five Pillars":
Mandatory worship 5 times per day.
Mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca at least once per lifetime (Hajj).
Testimony of faith – "There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the Messenger of God" (Shahadah).
Fasting in the month of Ramadan (Sawm).
Mandatory giving (Zakat).
In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever lists what he calls the "Five Special Responsibilities":
Attend services regularly.
Attend Communion particularly.
Attend Members' meetings consistently.
Pray regularly.
Give regularly.
The Pharisees were excellent rule followers. They tithed to the very last herb. But they did not learn the most critical lesson. Twice Jesus warned them:
"It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: "I desire compassion, not sacrifice, for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matthew 9:13, 12:7.
9Marks churches tend toward a stifling form of self-righteous legalism. One "fruit" of this is the creation of mandatory church covenants. They focus on the law to purify the church.
Problem #5 – They Bind Consciences with Improper Oaths
The Pharisees were notorious for their oath taking. This is another characteristic they share with 9Marks. In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Dever writes:
…many Baptist and other evangelical churches express a commitment to God and to each other in writing by signing a "church covenant." This is an agreement members make with each other and with God to live out the Christian life together in a local church."
He goes so far as to recommend that this written Church Covenant be recited during the Lord's Supper. This is a serious issue. It is the natural consequence of the first four problems. Once the focus is off of Jesus and on to legalism, how does one control the flock? Answer: by requiring oath-taking.
I cannot stress how inappropriate it is to recite a Church Covenant during the New Covenant meal. The focus of the New Covenant is the forgiveness of sin through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. What is the focus of the Church Covenant? Is it not my obedience? Dever has committed a grave error. He has replaced the New Covenant with a covenant of his own making. By requiring adherence to this covenant of obedience, he improperly binds the consciences of the members. All in an effort to keep the church pure.
Problem #6 – They Do Not Properly Administer the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper
Not only do many 9Marks churches improperly recite a legalistic covenant during the New Covenant meal, but they also divide Christ's body. It has become customary for 9Marks churches to "fence the table". During the New Covenant meal, the pastor stresses that the table is restricted to those who are currently members in good standing at an evangelical church. This is wrong at so many levels! It is a very serious error.
Paul warns the Corinthians not to fence the table: "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you." Paul goes on to rebuke this divisiveness: "For those [divisive ones] who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."
9 Marks churches do not discern the body of Christ. Think for a moment about the issue of the wounded Christian. Perhaps she has been abused at her former (9Marks?) church. She is looking for a loving congregation at which to heal. She looks forward to sharing the covenant meal at her new church. Suddenly she is told that she is not to participate in the Lord's Supper. She is cut off. The body is divided into two groups: members-in-good-standing and non-members. This has happened often to me, and it is grievous. Those who improperly "fence the table" have committed spiritual abuse. They re-victimize the multitudes of wounded sheep, the bruised reeds and smoking flax, that are part of Christ's Body. Why do they do this? To purify the Lord's Table by keeping the disobedient "separated brethren" out. I guess they think these wayward souls have lost their spiritual "covering." Never mind that they commune with their Christian friends and attend. They are loose cannons, severely at risk since they are not submitted to the "anointed one" who speaks for God.
Another manner of dividing the sheep is the "worthiness requirement". Only Christians who are pure enough are to come to the Supper. Having excluded non-members, now "impure sinners" are also excluded. It seems to me that this turns the new covenant meal on its head. "Sorry, you are not worthy enough to come to the Supper." "I thank you, Lord, that I am worthy to eat at your table. I'm not like that sinful tax preparer over there." At the Lord's Supper the focus should be on Jesus and his forgiveness, not on me and whether I am worthy to participate. Paul says "But let a man examine himself, and then eat." Truthful self-examination should reveal unworthiness, not worthiness. I think Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine the way they are treating their brethren. Examine their attitude. This fits the context of the entire passage. But the 9Marks paradigm fences out the "impure" and allows only the "pure" to eat. They are divisive.
Problem #7 – The Leaders Tend to Have Control Issues
It is my experience that the leaders of 9Marks churches have control issues. This is the natural result of the Puritanical paradigm. They are like over-protective "helicopter parents" that hover over their children. In order to become a member, you must sign a confessional statement. Never mind that you don't understand all that is in it. Never mind that you have not been adequately instructed. Never mind that the confessional statement may contain errors. If you want to join us, YOU WILL SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. Then, there is the restrictive Church Covenant, with all of its unintended consequences. How many have been burned by swearing an oath that they eventually could not uphold? Or had their consciences seared? Or have been excommunicated based on a legalistic covenant?
Next, let's ponder the issue of submission to elders. I swear, if mention is made of Hebrews 13:17 in a membership class you should immediately scream, get up and run out of the room! These 9Marks leaders misunderstand the issue of submission. Please listen to what I am about to say:
IF SOMEONE DEMANDS SUBMISSION, THEY DO NOT DESERVE SUBMISSION. [This is an important lesson men need to learn in their marriages.]
No one should ever submit to an unqualified, unloving pastor who questions their salvation, points them back to the law, mandates improper oaths, and improperly celebrates the Lord's Supper.
But what about Hebrews 13:17? I doubt that these Hebrew leaders demanded submission based on their office. Instead, I believe they deserved voluntary obedience based on their character and teaching.
The effect of having pastors and elders with control issues is to quench the Holy Spirit. And this will inevitably lead to your church becoming a very unhealthy place, indeed!
Problem #8 – Immature Leadership
Okay, I admit that I am getting old. Thirty-five years ago I was sitting at a minor league baseball game with my wife when I noticed that every single player on the field was younger than me. Thirty-five years ago! But I have found that I am a much more mature person at age 60 than I was at age 25. A serious problem that I have encountered at 9Marks churches is immature leadership.
The New Calvinism that has swept into the church has been described as a movement of the "Young, Restless, and Reformed". Paul warns about the danger of immature leadership.
"An elder must not be a new believer, because he might become proud and the devil would cause him to fall." 1 Timothy 3:6
There is also a warning in the Bible concerning treatment of older folk such as me:
"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father."
I fear that by setting up a "system" of 9Marks, the immature pastor becomes prideful in the "healthy church" that he is leading. Young, prideful pastors do not accept correction well. They also tend to be impatient. They are overly sensitive. They don't listen to the advice of more experienced, discerning Christians who just might be among the "lowly sheep". If problems arise, the first reaction is to kick them out the door to keep the church "pure". I think this is why you see so many improper excommunications and other forms of church abuse at 9Marks churches.
These are a very unhealthy traits. God will resist the proud.
Problem #9 – 9Marks Leaders are Overly Scrupulous
I recently watched a sermon on Jesus' parable of the mustard seed. The pastor pointed out that there were birds that nested in the large mustard plant. He warned that the church must be careful not to "shoo these birds away". Perhaps these are unbelievers who are just beginning to fall under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps they are new Christians who do not have a firm understanding of their newfound faith. His advice was to LET THEM NEST! But the paradigm of 9Marks is to purify the church. Better to kick out ten true Christians than let one false "Christian" slip into the church!
The stifling legalism of 9Marks leads to stagnant, unhealthy churches. These churches rarely witness the extraordinary grace of God in the salvation of sinners. I think much of the growth in 9Marks churches comes from lateral moves from other churches. If the Holy Spirit has been quenched, you will not see much "new blood" entering the church. The beauty of new believers is their unparalleled joy and zeal. If that is missing at a church, you may be participating in an unhealthy church.
Conclusion: Are the Nine Marks Biblical?
David Platt, in the Foreword of Dever's book, writes this about the nine marks:
"You may think some of them are questionable and others of them are controversial. But brother or sister, these nine marks are biblical, and that is why they are so valuable."
While the words and concepts [perhaps] may be biblical, the application of the concepts is thoroughly unbiblical.
If you think it proper to pursue a pure, regenerate, Puritanical church where a controlling, unloving, immature, unqualified pastor (who stands in the place of God) constantly preaches legalistic sermons that question your conversion, who assumes the worst about the sheep, who improperly administers the Lord's Supper, who requires you to make improper oaths, that excommunicates your friends for not being pure enough, who point you away from Christ, who quenches the Holy Spirit, and who demands unquestioned submission, then 9Marks churches are for you.
But if you think that good preaching by a loving, qualified pastor based on sound doctrine that points the sheep to Christ and away from self, who reminds them of their former purification, who is inviting to strangers, who "holds the reins" loosely and lets the Holy Spirit lead the church, who assumes the best in the sheep, who gently woos people to submit based only on their godly example and instruction, who encourages them to search the Scriptures for themselves, and who is patient when controversy or sin erupts, then 9Marks is not a place to congregate.
Mark Dever has made a grave error. He has an incredibly negative view of the sheep. This is what he writes about his ministry at Capitol Hill Baptist:
"It is in the nature of sheep to stray and of wolves to eat. I guess if I can't deal with that, I should just get out of under-shepherding."
Mr. Dever, if that is your experience with God's people, maybe you are doing something wrong. Maybe you should consider leaving the ministry.
It is my opinion that Mark Dever is a hypocrite who thinks the best of himself (he is a bruised reed) and the worst of others (they are false professors). He has devised a puritanical system that has caused much harm to the Body of Christ. He claims to stand in the place of Christ and then tramples the bruised reed and extinguishes the smoking flax. May God have mercy on his soul.
Thank you, Dale, for your series on 9 Marks gulags (aka “churches”).
Your experience in a 9 Marxist gulag mirrors my own at the 9 Marxist Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. I would describe it as Salem Witch Trials II.
I’ll admit it’s selfish of me to say it, but I’m so glad Mark Dever packed his stuff up and hauled his sorry butt out of Kentucky!
If he sees himself as standing in the place of God, he must have a pretty low opinion of God!
Thanks, Dale!
Great post, Dale. Very thoughtful and well-reasoned from the Scriptures and your own experience. My experience with PDI/SGM churches pre-dates Dever’s book, but those churches had similar issues with legalism.
Another similar issue was the idolization of the church and its leaders, such as with counseling. Psychology was dismissed as white-washing sin. We were taught to go to our pastors for counseling. But serious issues, such as mental health or abuse issues, require a skilled, well-trained counselor, not a pastor who does not have the necessary education, experience, time, etc. to deal with those issues.
Yes, the church is an important tool for God to use, but it doesn’t replace God. The church didn’t die for your sins. Jesus did. The church didn’t create you. Jesus did. The church doesn’t know what your future holds. But Jesus does. He is the only one who knows you completely and who can completely love you. The church can’t hold a candle to Jesus because He is God and the church is not.
Again the question begs itself:
What is the draw?
What makes folks ignore the better angels of their nature and sign on to these despotic religious regimes?
Probably a whole Deebs post on just that issue alone.
Wow… the oath before communion is the scariest part
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ll admit to it too. I believe there’s such a thing as a healthy selfishness. It can spark and fuel self preservation. And that’s a good thing.
The 9 Marks remind me of being in YWAM in the early 1980s in the UK. They were heavily into heavy shepherding. Except for membership covenants, they didn’t need them as long as they scared the pants off us by using the ” do not touch Gods anointed” line.
CJ Mahaney visited us in 1980. He was treated like a rock star.
So he then links with Dever:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/04/14/the-shepherding-movement-reformed-revamped-reee-diculous%C2%A0-part-two-%C2%A0/
To me, the 9 marks are just a revamp of the shepherding movement I experienced. The wolf just tweaked his sheeps clothing a bit.
Muff Potter wrote:
I signed on the dotted line at my former 9 Marxist gulag (Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley).
It looked harmless. It was filled with scripture verses. What could possibly go wrong? I describe it as a set-up. Like one of those plants – a Venus Flytrap – that eats living creatures. The bait is attractive, you walk in innocently, and the jaws slam shut on you and you’re digested in the System before you know it.
You are told all of the time leading up to your bondage that — in Mark Dever language — that what is wrong with the church is that these 9 essential marks were “lost” and have now been “recovered” at churches that are “doing it right”. All of those other churches that are messes are “wrong” and have “forgotten” the 9 Marks.
Look it. People like me just wanted to go to church on Sundays. I, nor others, didn’t realize it was fraught with danger. I never realized that I would have to spend as much time or more time researching churches as I invested in buying a new car.
@ The Low Sparrow:
Thanks for this important information!
Great post. Brought back unfond memories of when we were part of one twenty years ago when we bought so heavily into the idea of preaching. Came across this book which was influential in my rethinking the concept of preaching.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B8SWMWC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
This is a Nathan post which every Deverite should read and re-read again but never, ever will because Spiritual Pride. These are the words of a true friend, but they will be received by them as the words of an enemy because they cannot bear any correction at all.
Thank you, Dale. I think you nailed every point I would have written if I were to try to capture what is wrong with the system. Very well done.
“Problem #8 – Immature Leadership”
This is really at the root of all other problems you list in regard to the New Calvinist movement. When you release an army of 20-30 year old “lead pastors” and their 20-30 year old “elders” on the church, you have a recipe for disaster. They just don’t have the spiritual maturity to be leading church … and with the nasty streak of arrogance they carry, they never will. Age doesn’t always produce wisdom, but it helps. The neo-Cals may talk about the need for multi-generations within church membership, but the young reformers in their heart of hearts don’t really give a big whoop about older folks. The Church (the real one) operates best when the wisdom of age is coupled with the energy of youth … when young folks speed things up a bit and older folks slow it down. Most New Calvinist works, especially church plants, look like the youth group is running things! The New Testament balance of pulpit and pew, age and youth, is lacking in the new reformation.
Comments from the book:
“In our preaching, we stand in the place of God”
“It is appropriate for us to gather together and listen to one who is standing in the place of God…”
>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
Because the two excerpts seemed over-the-top I checked them against the actual book on Google to make sure the quotes were not taken out of context.
Holy fruitcake, Dever is even worse when I read the context of the excerpts. Dever follows the "listen to one who is standing in the place of God" with "we contribute nothing to it other than hearing and heeding it". Authoritarian doesn't describe Dever's approach, sociopath comes closer. No wonder so many seriously deranged men are attracted to the pastorate when this is their handbook. This is a toxic recipe for abuse, not to be simply avoided but to be condemned by all.
Bill M wrote:
Exactly.
Dever is beyond pompous.
Dale: “I swear, if mention is made of Hebrews 13:17 in a membership class you should immediately scream, get up and run out of the room!”
>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
Excellent recommendation.
David Platt: “But brother or sister, these nine marks are biblical”
>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<
When someone pulls out the absurd Biblical™ argument, I usually think of the last half of Matthew 27:5.
@ The Low Sparrow:
Sparrow, the daughter of a very good friend of mine went to Europe to attend a Y.W.A.M. meeting. Their cult qualities scared her terribly. She was able to contact her parents and flee in the dark of night. On the bright side, she met her future husband at the Pantheon.
Velour wrote:
Don’t the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses say exactly the same thing about THEIR churches?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I guess they do, H.U.G.
The confusing part about these 9 Marxist churches is that there is a grain off truth in what they say. That so many churches are off track and many of us know it. The 9 Marxist churches just don’t admit that they are part of the problem.
Hi DALE,
just came across this and wondered what you might make of it:
http://www.dennyburk.com/the-benedict-option-comes-to-southern-seminary/
@ Dale:
Dale, I came down with Bell’s Palsy on a winter vacation trip to Yosemite.
I guess we had just better keep our heads down and continue to work hard.
@ Christiane:
DALE, I asked about that because I also read about this possibility which sounds ominous:
http://www.dennyburk.com/the-benedict-option-for-evangelicals-will-likely-include-9marks/
I don’t see Catholic monastical practice as translating to evangelical faith communities at all. I’m afraid the neo-Cals will make of ‘The Benedict Option’ something more aptly named ‘The Koresh Option’ with creating an isolation that will only increase and intensify efforts to micro-manage and control the lives of members of the faith community.
The ways of St. Benedict are appropriate for the Benedictine monasteries, NOT for evangelical church members, no. Honestly, if any wanted to learn more about the REAL ‘Benedictine’ ways, they could visit and observe in a monastery for a week or so.
What is going on? I’m concerned that something meant for good in a very different Christian tradition will be distorted and corrupted and used to herd ‘sheep’ into a situation that they cannot cope with under ‘shepherds’ that have no mercy for them what does not ‘obey’ the ‘leadership’.
What are the neo-Cal Nine Marks folks up to???
Christiane wrote:
http://nakedpastor.com/2014/07/10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-call-church-members-sheep-anymore/#jp-carousel-19822
Bill M wrote:
Consistently, these guys want to be God, which means everybody should run far, far away from them. There’s nothing of the God of the Bible in this.
Bill M wrote:
my goodness, the ‘we’ he dismisses so abruptly have God-given souls and moral consciences helped by the guidance of the Holy Spirit ….. methinks Dever has no comprehension of the relationship between the individual human person and God, much less the close relationship of the individual Christian person and God ….
have the neo-Cal folks altered their bibles so much that Dever can get away with such teaching???
?
Christiane wrote:
I don’t think they really read their Bibles. My experience with neo-Cals is that they read neo-Cal theologians, and then claim to know the Bible. As we know, the neo-Cal theologians cherry-pick verses while ignoring the major themes of the Bible. It’s like they are holding up a dried leaf and claiming it’s the forest.
Christiane wrote:
The fact that Mark Dever and his co-pilot Jonathan Leeman had to shut down all comments at the 9 Marks website [by the way that was a story based on my experience of being excommunicated and shunned at the 9 Marxist Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley], obviously they are getting push back, which they can’t handle.
Deb and Dee, thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns with a wider audience.
Muff Potter wrote:
I would suggest that these folks have suppressed the better angels of their nature. With their view of Total Depravity, I would also suggest that they don’t even believe that they have *better angels of their nature.* They have a very low view of humanity, which causes me to wonder if they even believe that human beings possess the Imago Dei.
@ Loren Haas:
Thankfully my Bell’s Palsy lasted only two weeks and it left no noticeable weakness. I hope your version was also short lived!
@ Christiane:
These are great questions, Christiane. I I am no prophet, but I see grave danger to those unfortunate enough to become entangled in a 9 Marks style “Ben Op.” I harken back in history to the 13th century and two very different visions. Francis of Assist and Peter Waldo both went to Pope Innocent I I I to ask permission to found movements. Francis was accepted and Waldo was rejected. Francis formed communities that were in submission to the Papacy. Waldo formed lay communities that rejected the authoritarianism of the papacy. They placed the Scripture as their authority and traveled around Europe advancing their message. The response of the Papacy was the beginning of the Inquisitions.
The grave danger of “Ben Ops” is legalism and authoritarianism. 9 Marks churches, I believe, are already “Ben Ops” of this nature.
@ Dale:
As I see it, 9Marks is the latest version of heavy-handed shepherding. I believe your testimony and warnings will help countless brothers and sisters in Christ avoid the painful experience of having their lives micromanaged by pastors who, for the most part, haven’t a clue about real Christian love.
Velour wrote:
Thank you for pointing this out. 9Marks shut down comments (except for their Mailbag section) last fall, and we informed our readers in this post:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/03/just-how-healthy-is-the-9marks-organization/
Here is how we wrapped up that post:
Thank goodness folks like Velour and Dale are coming forward with first hand accounts of how they were treated in 9Marx-style churches. We know there are MANY others out there who have been harmed, and we would love to share their testimonies as well.
@ Max:
As usual, your comment is SPOT ON!
Dale, have you considered writing an article on 9 Marks' use of the regulative principle? I think this is the theological grounding for their ecclesiology. Good article here. As a former 9 Marks elder, I confirm much of what was written is accurate. @ Dale:
“It is my opinion that Mark Dever is a hypocrite who thinks the best of himself (he is a bruised reed) and the worst of others (they are false professors). He has devised a puritanical system that has caused much harm to the Body of Christ. He claims to stand in the place of Christ and then tramples the bruised reed and extinguishes the smoking flax. May God have mercy on his soul.”
The worst part to me is the total investment people make into defending corrupt closed religious systems. They will believe whatever they are told by a titled Prince of the church.
I do understand people who are a casual part of them. It’s like anything else, the week to week involvement seems benign with what looks to be nice and normal. It’s easy to dismiss the overall corruption and closed operation.
But to constantly promote and defend it is another issue altogether. It clouds the mind and the personal investment becomes all encompassing.
I understand the charlatans, the career ministry people with lofty titles, etc. They will always be about hawking or defending their “faith community”.
I don’t understand the rabid followers who make it their life mission to defend closed systems and institutional corruption. If not for them, the closed systems would collapse. They don’t even demand the system be open. They accept it and defend it.
I hate to say this, but when I saw the cover of that “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” book. I wanted to take it and put it on top of a fence post and put a few bullet holes through it. I don’t own a gun and I don’t shoot as a hobby, and I can’t account for this visceral reaction…
Lydia wrote:
I think it is fear of loss. They’ve been taught to believe that their way is the only true way, and through their many programs they isolate people so that giving up the church seems too hefty a price. Loss avoidance fuels all of it. That was what kept me in a similar place. It’s lonelier on the outside, at least at first. It’s also easier to breathe.
My wife and I spent this past weekend in DC. We were within walking distance of Dever’s church on Sunday morning, but we decided to skip on the opportunity to experience his preaching. But it did make me think quite a lot about 9Marxism.
Dale wrote:
Your 9Marx posts are outstanding. It would be great if you could assemble this into either a book of some kind of a downloadable document that can be printed.
A quote from Dallas Willard in "The Divine Conspiracy" speaks to the problem with the legalistic nature of Nine Marks and other like minded congregations: "The Pharisee takes as his aim keeping the law rather than becoming the kind of person whose deeds naturally conform to the law."
The leaders of such churches do not believe in true regeneration and transformation. So, they teach that the only way to attain it is to obey the chosen leader. Very self-serving and anti-christian. Let me see, do I choose the heavy yoke of Nine Marks or the light and easy yoke of Jesus? To quote Anne Graham Lotz, "Just give me Jesus."
Willard, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God (p. 184). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
The part where Dever says we haven't kicked out enough sinners in the church really bothers me. Isn't the church where sinners are supposed to come? If the church is only for believers (the ones that Dever thinks are true christians), then where is the evangelism? This sounds like a Country Club of some type that only allows members to come. Who are these so called men of Gawd to tell people that they aren't really Christians? That is not up to them. It's between God and me and no one else.
@ Muff Potter:
We crave certainty. We are uncomfortable with mystery. We need community.
Deb wrote:
Very true. This morning my wife and I read from John 10. The part about the “hired hand” felt very applicable to 9Marks and the YRRs. While I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with churches hiring and paying pastors, I suspect much of the problem with the YRR movement is too many of the YRRs pastors are in it because they don’t have other viable sources of income. The end up becoming the “hired hands” who don’t care for the sheep.
Harley wrote:
Yes, it would be like hospitals kicking out all the sick people. Or AA kicking out all the alcoholics.
Velour wrote:
Good point – a grain of truth.
1 – It is confusing that they begin with the Bible, and that is a common platform for many, if not most, Christians.
2 – They build a social community – “church” – and again, everyone is looking for fellowship.
3 – They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, practicing Christian holidays and traditions: Easter, His birth, the Sabbath, etc.
4 – They affirm a certain moral quality of life – marriage and family, the value of work and education, adherence to civil law.
5 – Etc.
But then, they get off track, as you write, and that is where it is very tricky for a person seeking God and growing in their faith.
Dale quotes Scripture to refute the misuse of Scripture, which we have always used, also, to “stay on track” when our local church veers off course.
What Dale describes in this post applies to many churches and experiences, beyond the 9Marx and Dever (et al) groups.
Dale, Thank you for your careful analysis of these 9 problems with 9 Marks.
This is probably the best critique I have read about 9 marks. I came out of 9 marks, and received theological training at Southern Seminary. I was a member in a 9 marks church for 5 years, I have pastored and worked in a para church ministry over the last 5 years.
I have often wrestled with 9 Marks but never could reconcile why. I think the Scriptures taught these principles, but something wasn't right. As I read the book and Scriptures, I came to the conclusion that Dever was mostly theologically correct ( I had issues with his teaching on authority, baptism, and the lord's table), but as Dale said, it was being applied poorly. Dale has clearly and succinctly summarized my thoughts and feelings that's taken me years to come to.
I do think the key is immature pastors. Now, I love young pastors. I used to be one! 🙂 I know many who are wise and mature that no one will give them a chance or listen to because of their youth. Many of them truly love God, his Church,and the Truth. They are really do want to be faithful pastors. They make the mistake that what works in the classroom easily transitions to real life. 9 Marks works beautifully in the classroom, but real life isn't so neat and orderly. Many simply do not have the patience to walk with people, pray with them, and love them in life.
The only church I pastored was an absolute mess. There was grievous sin in the membership (adultery, sexual promiscuity, drunkenness to name a few). The church had a horrible reputation in the community. I learned very quickly that no amount of "church covenants" would deal with this even though the church had one (it was written in the 1920's). These were heart issues that only the Holy Spirit could work, so I just set myself to preaching the Bible faithfully, and loving the people that were open to me as best I could.
I think it was Wade Burleson who said if you preach the Truth faithfully, the unregenerate members will either be converted or they will leave on their own. Sinners do not like the Truth unless the Spirit works in their heart. Church discipline will rarely be needed. Or, in my case, they'll reject the Truth and throw you out! 🙂
Anyway, all this to say, thanks Dale!
Ken F wrote:
In a 9 Marx church it would mean kicking out the pastors.
I have wondered about Mark Dever’s reasons for leaving Kentucky. He was born and raised in Madisonville, population +/- 20,000. There aren’t many wealthy people in the area. Most of those who are wealthy gained their wealth from the coal mines – Madisonville is in the Western Coalfield region. Rural Western Kentuckians, as a whole, are friendly but opinionated – can’t be pushed around. Just ask GSD and GBTC!
I wonder if Dever left because he knew he would never have enough money, power, and control here to satisfy himself?
Ken F wrote:
Pay these guys and expect trickle down spirituality to happen.
ishy wrote:
The New Calvinist movement would not exist if it weren’t for social media. The young reformers tweet and retweet their lives away in coffee shops. They hurl Piper Points, Mohler Moments, Mahaney Malarkey, and Dever Drivel across cyberspace. They huddle together for affirmation and confirm their collective arrogance. They are parrots of the New Calvinist elites; they have no sermons of their own. And they are coming to a church near you!
Ken F wrote:
Second that.
On the Healing Journey wrote:
Journey, my first 9 Marks church had a book table that had “Competent to Counsel” by Jay Adams. Unfortunately, the pastor (and only elder) was incompetent to counsel. He was also a control freak. To disagree with his counsel was to slander him. This led to the excommunication of my friend, and eventually my own excommunication.
You know who else is into false convert sniffing? Paul Washer; in fact, he’s made a career out of it. Notwithstanding Jesus’ warning about not pulling up the tares before the Time, these men run the risk of dislodging wheat as well.
Richard Sibbes was himself a Puritan, and they sometimes differed from one another in their approaches to the Christian life. Dever has gone from The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax to “The Almost Christian Discovered”. From “The Marrow of Modern Divinity” and the men aligned with it, to their heavily legalistic opponents in the early 18th century Scottish Kirk.
Bill M wrote:
And Luke 10:37.
Max wrote:
If not trying to take one over.
Harley wrote:
Just a slight quibble on your statement. Sinners are certainly welcome at church, but members of the body (the big C Church) should be sinners saved by grace. Either way, apart from gross sin (see biblical examples) it is not Dever’s job to rid the church (little c) non-believers.
Remember the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares? It’s for God to sort out who and who is not a believer. Dever seems to have forgotten.
Ken F wrote:
This got me thinking about the Ben Op, the CREC, and SGM, where too many people experienced the downside of having their entire lives wrapped up in one church community, including their livelihoods. Dreher’s blog has an interesting recent discussion on whether evangelicals have what it takes to do the Ben Op. One issue to appear in the comments was the danger of cult-like bodies abusing the idea. I hope to see more discussion on ways this can be avoided.
“The kind of trust that we are called to give to our…leaders in a church, can never finally be earned. It must be given as a gift–a gift in faith, in trust more of the God who gives than of the leaders he has given.”
I wonder if he would have said this to Martin Luther.
@ Dale:
Keep swingin’, Dale. Knock ’em out of the park. People need to know about 9Marxists. Here, in Western Kentucky, my daughter and her husband were repeatedly “invited” (bordering on harassment) to attend a 9Marks affiliated church that is located about 2 miles from their home. Thanks to people like the DEEBS and you, I was able to share info with them and tell them about certain things to watch for. That church pushes Piper, Dever, etc. They are elder ruled and require members to sign a “covenant.
My sil has to associate with a member of that church through his job. The last time that member approached my sil about going to that church, my sil said, “Hey, I don’t know anything about local churches. Go talk to my wife”. That didn’t go over very well, but this church member and his wife paid my opinionated, outspoken daughter a visit.
The couple hasn’t invited my daughter and sil to church since then.. heh heh heh!
Ken P. wrote:
Ken, did you forget that Dever stands in the place of God???? For all we know, Dever may be the one who will sit on the Great Throne!
Nancy2 wrote:
The PCA church my husband has been taking us to has a pastor who occasionally quotes Piper during a sermon. He also has the church carry Tabletalk magazine in the foyer, and I discovered in the latest issue that not only is Ligonier allowing Piper to promote his “christian hedonism” (which leads to spiritual bondage), but Sproul Sr. teaches that “tithe 10% of your gross income or you’re sinning against God” skubalon. The pastor and members seem to genuinely care about people, and appear to not make the mistakes 9 Marks has been making. I suppose I could at least sound him out on those two issues before deciding to appeal to my husband to join me in finding another church.
Dale wrote:
Ahhh…Jay Adams and Paul Washer in one thread. Years ago, maybe 10 or 11) I listened online to a conference at some church in Muscle Shoals where both were bannered speakers. The conference was really geared to young pastors and church staffs. it was mainly about church discipline.
I was astonished to hear Adams literally add a step to Matthew 18 in order to make elders the deciding factor of whether any conflict/sin situation is presented to the entire church to decide. (I don’t even agree with Matt 18 as a church discipline passage)
I was floored because at no time did anyone ask for clarification or simply disagree with his interpretation. It was presented as the biblical interpretation. (Such things no longer astonish me, sadly)
Washer has been an avid promoter of authoritarian closed systems using the “they aren’t real Christians” mantra. Early on he wowed a lot of people by pointing out the shallowness of evangelicalism. I agreed with him on that. But his solution for the shallowness is scarier than a fire truck baptistry for children.
Regarding problem #6 on fencing the Lord’s table: I think it depends on why it’s being done. I have heard of persecuted churches doing this because of the problem of infiltrators who would betray them to the government. I can understand why a newcomer claiming to be from another church or province would need to be vetted first.
Also, it comes down to one’s theology of what is happening in the Lord’s supper. Some traditions believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and interpret Paul’s warnings accordingly. Others are memorialist, in which case there wouldn’t be such urgency. The YRR are the latest version of Calvinistic Baptist (usually). I don’t know how seriously they take John Calvin’s actual sacramentology, but he believed in the spiritual presence of Christ for the elect, through the working of the Spirit—any unsaved communicants only consume bread and wine. Ironically, I’m pretty sure Calvin himself would be horrified by their new practice of reciting a man-made church covenant during the Supper, at least on Regulative Principle of Worship grounds, if not others as well.
Adam E. wrote:
Adam, I looked at the 9 Marks website for articles on this topic. One that I read seems to hold to a very rigid view on mandatory attendance on Sunday morning and evening. It reminded me of my Catholic upbringing where to miss Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation was considered a mortal sin.
NJ wrote:
Great insight. Calvin was also quite okay with playing some lawn bowling on Sunday afternoons. That might not go over well with the Westminster Divines!
NJ wrote:
Church attendance was mandatory in Calvin’s Geneva. I fear his being horrified over such is a moot point. :o)
9Marks summation:
“It's just me and thee and I am not sure about thee.”
Gram3 wrote:
The whole thing makes me so sad. I think Dever had gifts and he has misused them terribly.
ishy wrote:
This is a great metaphor.
“How to Shepherd: help people to see that they may be mistaken about their own spiritual state”
“Do your church members recognize that they are to examine one another to see if they are in the faith?”
Wow. Just. Wow. That is completely unbiblical.
Matthew 5:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (ESV, courtesy of biblegateway.com)
(Bolding mine. Well, maybe it is after all biblical. Just not in the way Dever might think it is.)
NJ wrote:
This is the story I thought of when I read the ‘pulling out the weeds’ bit!
Ken F wrote:
I see but one of many issues with YRR and the Big Eva/Gospel Industrial Complex being that it has spawned a multitude of young “pastors” who are imitators and sychophants chasing after the celebrity, wealth, and status that their heroes (Dever, Piper, Mohler, Chandler etc.) have attained. These infantile men are driven not by spiritual calling to care for and nurture the Church as Biblically defined, but rather by worldly careerism and they see their current churches and congregants as platform to seek bigger, brighter, more lucrative stages.
Dale wrote:
Thank you Dale for your well rounded analysis. 9Marks recently made its appearance in my community and I know someone whose daughter attends there. Hopefully your input will be heeded.
When the group I referenced above started taking attendance, my wife and I decided to get the heck out of there. They claimed it was the only satisfactory way for the shepherds to keep track of the sheep in order for their consciences to be clean that day far far and away when they had to give account to God.
Funny thing is – the timing of Dale’s post is right when I’m halfway through a book called “The Problem of Political Authority…An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey” by Michael Huemer. There are some fascinating similarities in how Nine Marx churches are so successful at getting people to remain in their grip of control compared to how governments are so successful.
Chapter 6 (The Psychology of Authority), pg. 123 he compares a method of control government’s use to that of the Stockholm Syndrome:
“Stockholm Syndrome is named after an incident that occurred in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1973. A pair of bank robbers held four bank employees hostage for six days. During the ordeal, the hostages bonded emotionally with their captors, came to side with the kidnappers against the police, and seemingly did not want to be rescued. At one point, a hostage said that the robbers were protecting them from the police. On the last day, as the police used tear gas to force everyone out of the bank, the hostages refused to leave without the kidnappers. After the incident was over, the victims continued to sympathize with and defend the criminals. Since then, the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ has been used to describe the emotional bond that victims sometimes form with the kidnappers. The term is also often extended to a wider class of cases in which a person or group is subjected to the control of another.”
Seems many of these 9 Marx members are actually (unknowingly of course) hostages to their captors. On our part it would have been helpful to read a post like Dale’s for a different perspective that we so desperately needed at that point in our spiritual journeys.
Lydia wrote:
Washer’s solution for people questioning the authenticity of their conversion is to tell them to spend extended time in Bible reading and prayer, long enough for them to hopefully have some major spiritual experience that will give them assurance of salvation. Anyone halfway familiar with psychology can see the problem. If our assurance is not grounded in trusting Christ Himself and the gospel, I don’t see how anyone can have it.
kin wrote:
I’ve heard this too. I’m starting to suspect that a huge driver of their authoritarianism is the fear that if they let any members “get away”, that they will personally be held accountable by God for each one at the last Day.
Gram3 wrote:
You are so right about that. As I was reading parts of the post to someone near and dear, this person was explaining everything away as “necessary”. You have to be able to remove disruptive elements. (That’s not possible without 9Marks?) You have to be able to judge whether an elder is in sin, as he shouldn’t be in the position of elder if he’s in sin… (somehow I don’t think that has been the main focus of 9Marks teaching but I can’t seem to convince “near and dear” of that.)
Ken P. wrote:
or he has ‘special knowledge’ as in the days of the Gnostics …. and his ‘pure’ sinner-free ‘church’ reeks of Catharism
Neo-Cal-ism likes to resurrect the old heresies, I think.
@ pdog:
Thanks so much for your excellent comment, and welcome to TWW!
Nancy2 wrote:
Interesting question. I’m guessing he would have had to leave for college [at Duke] and seminary. But it might have been better if he had stayed in Madisonville. There is far less potential to cause 9Marx level controversy and damage if you live somewhere that hardly anybody [especially those in the state capital of Frankfort] knows is here!
@ Dale:
but 9 Marks is not liturgical ….. without the liturgy of the people, you get things like reciting a man-made creed that mocks rather than celebrates the Lord’s Supper
NJ wrote:
The church my family is attending offers me the same dilemma. It is a 9Marks church, with the apparently typical veneration of Piper, Keller, and 9Marks. There is a member covenant, which I have not signed (and will not), even though I sat through the membership class. My lack of membership has only hampered me thus far in not having a vote in congregational meetings, and having to leave such meetings when sensitive matters were being discussed (not often).
Yet Christ is preached, and the church is known by its love. It’s a paradox. It is a 9Marks church, but it is not a 9Marks church in the worst sense of the phrase. If that makes any sense at all.
Christiane wrote:
Liturgy:
1. a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, especially Christian worship, is conducted.
synonyms: ritual, worship, service, ceremony, rite, observance, celebration, sacrament; More
2.(in ancient Athens) a public office or duty performed voluntarily by a rich Athenian.
How is it not A traditional form or formula that was man developed?
@ GSD:
What about Herschel York’s (former?) church?
refugee wrote:
Not yet anyway. 😉
refugee wrote:
Makes total sense to me. Remember, the audience for 9 Marx is pastors not pew sitters. There are often several disconnects that go on that mean the pew sitters would never really know what is going on and dont care. They trust nice leaders and view them as sincere.
If you want to test it, I would suggest insisting on an open detailed budget with votes from the entire congregation. At first they will patiently explain their “biblical” process to you. But if you keep the idea alive, you would probably be marginalized.
@ Lydia:
‘the work of the people’ is the way that the Church prays in community ….
you should be very glad that there WAS a liturgy in the early Church, because the portions of the Holy Gospels and the Epistles that were used in that liturgy, throughout Christendom, over time, was the source of verification for what, among all of the thousands of extant writings, were considered appropriate to be used in the canon of the New Testament by the Councils
today, you have a New Testament ….. the early Church had its liturgy …. you would not have your bible were it not for the way the early Church prayed, including using the actual words of Our Lord during the Lord’s Supper
take another look at ‘liturgy’, and understand that there is a tremendous amount of sacred Scripture that is used in it to this day …. read aloud AND prayed ‘in community’
you can’t discount or divorce the role of the early liturgies of the Church as incorporating what was handed down from the Apostles as a way of preserving that deposit of faith until the formal approval of the canon and the New Testament itself by the early Councils,
or how would the Church have known to verify what WAS in use throughout Christendom over time in the way that it prayed ‘the Service of the Word’ or the ‘Eucharist’ ???
Christiane wrote:
Sure I can. I don’t buy into the succession interpretations you do. Your explanation sounds like Christianese to me. Flowery and mystical.
It still stands as man formulated whether it was handed down from an apostle or not– which was my point from your original comment to Dale. I dont even have a problem with that.
I have no problem with liturgical churches at all. I do, however, disagree with your mystical assertion they are not man formulated.
Lydia wrote:
Bingo. IMO, the assumptions of preaching (as 45 min monologue) and a pastor that is salaried are two pillars that are intrinsic to maintaining the toxic system of control.
Both vastly contribute to the Big Man on Campus attitude. Both keep people feeling validated that they are part of a healthy group. Both keep most people from asking probing questions of what goes on behind the closed doors.
Man made traditions are extremely hard for people to over-turn even when they become pillars of such toxic environments.
@ Lydia:
Lydia, the ‘Gospel’ was spoken and prayed before it was ever written down ….. that is something that is beyond conjecture
the reason?
the early Christian people believed that Our Lord was returning imminently so the Gospels were not written immediately after the Resurrection ….. in the interim time, there was ‘the oral Tradition’
surely you know about this?
Lydia wrote:
What are succession interpretations?
On the other issue, I was taught as a baptist child back when that in fact the ideas of what did or did not represent inspired writings (scripture) was in part based on what was actually being used in christian worship at the time. Apparent authorship was another consideration, and whether some writing promulgated some teaching at odds with what had already been accepted as inspired writings based on usage and authorship. The word liturgy was never used by the baptists telling us this, but in fact that is what it was. Was that not what you were taught?
As to the fact that the catholic church eventually made that official is important to catholics but not so much to protestants. And this was the attitude which I was taught at the time. What are the baptists teaching the kids now about these things?
Lea wrote:
He thinks that the pastor stands in the place of God. They have replaced the God-Man with the Man-God. And they cannot see it. And dare not see it.
@ refugee:
Didn’t write that, but agree with it!
Christiane wrote:
Well, that has been postulated, but there is another answer that seems likely also. IMO both the idea you have cited and the idea that I am about to state are both true.
The other answer is that there is reason to believe that there were actually earlier manuscripts which are now missing, and the issue of where are the original/older manuscripts, if any, and how come they are missing, if they are, and how accurate can we assume that the current gospels are given that the authorship is supposed but not proven and given the later date of writing of the oldest manuscripts currently available. Hence we have ‘the gospel according to..’ with the assumption that authorship can be accepted but not proven based on the current available manuscripts.
BTW the now atheist Ehrman, a textual critic, says that the very earliest manuscripts and fragments which are available do have some slight inconsistencies between them and this leads to the conclusion of scribal errors from yet earlier and missing manuscripts, but he goes on to say that the differences are minimal and not significant and that the scholarly consensus is that what we have is accurate.
It is interesting to see how catholics and protestants seem to see so many things like this so differently. As for me, I almost always tend to think that everything is more complicated than it seems and that the more complicated approach to an issue is quite apt to be the more correct. Occam be hanged.
Dale wrote:
Dale, that was exactly my experience with my ex-9 Marxist gulag, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. The pastors/elders wasted years of my life in mandatory meetings about “unity” with other church members who had serious problems. Instead of getting an older woman alcoholic to the care of a physician to supervise her treatment, the pastors/elders spent months in meetings with me and other members and wrote about “gossip” on a chalkboard. The problems she caused at church with members and attenders, and in her own family with her adult children (she was a widow), were caused by alcoholism!
The pastors/elders blamed me for the genetically inherited memory problems of a woman church member who was Dyslexic, couldn’t work, failed school, and gets a monthly disability check from the Social Security Administration. She doesn’t believe in medical care or special support groups for her disability. When she can’t remember things, she accuses other people of “lying”. The pastors/elders agreed with her, because they too don’t believe in medical care and believe they have the capacity to treat a brain disorder with scripture verses.
On and on the problems went.
I and others also learned that my ex-senior pastor’s “Ph.D.” was a fake from a diploma mill in Missouri. Cost? $299 to be issued a Ph.D. His other advanced degree was also a fake from the same diploma mill.
Since David Platt is popping up in the conversation….Lon Solomon the Senior Pastor at McLean Bible here in the DC area is stepping down but will still be involved. David Platt is going to be the interim teaching pastor along with some other McLean Bible staff. I wrote and published that last night.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/mclean-bible-is-looking-for-a-new-senior-pastor-and-deep-concerns-about-its-new-interim-teaching-pastor-david-platt-plus-here-is-the-problem-with-being-radical/
@ Christiane:
No. I am an ignorant heretical rube. :o)
I agree with most everything in this article. With the exception of this: Mr. Dever, if that is your experience with God’s people, maybe you are doing something wrong. Maybe you should consider leaving the ministry.
1) He has NEVER been in the ministry, in my opinion. And it is more than “maybe” that he should leave leadership.
From the OP:
We had similar teachings in my former church that some dubbed the “Jesus in the flesh doctrine.” You were expected to receive any ministry, not just Sunday sermons, as Jesus speaking to you. Can I just say how abusive this plays out in real life? Couple that with the fact that I have yet to see anyone in leadership take any responsibility for failures resulting from their ministry.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly, Dale. I didn’t come from a 9Marx church, but they were very much into Shepherding. The similarities are remarkable, and I fear it will be equally as damaging.
@ Dale
You seem to have been able to see behind their curtain and you express it all really well. What a mess. Is there something in scripture about deceivers in the end times and some great deception(s?). You seem to be able to sort it out and see the deception. Thanks for this.
kin wrote:
My ex-gulag Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley – which was 9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite – also took attendance. In fact, I was one of the people assigned to take it! Boy do I regret that.
Any absence was followed up with reminders by the pastors/elders to your home that do not forsake the meeting with other Christians.
The control over peoples’ lives was insufferable. People shouldn’t have to give an explanation for being gone from church. They have other legitimate things to attend to…visiting family etc.
After my own excommunication and shunning, I got calls from members who asked me in secret to give my opinion about their concerns. Instead of criticizing the church, I asked them to tell me about their experiences attending or being a member of previous churches. How were they treated? Did they get these kinds of calls? They all told me that they were treated respectfully at other churches and that this was NEVER done to them, the monitoring and phone calls and attendance. I told them that they had the answer and I was confident they knew how to make a healthy decision when they were ready.
NJ wrote:
If the pastor is quoting Piper and pushing Sproul, he most likely will get around to making New Calvinist mistakes of one sort or another. PCA churches tend to lean more classical Calvinist, than neo-Cal, but the young reformers are working them to come around to the new reformation. Classical Calvinists tend to be more respectful of non-Calvinist belief and practice and more civil in their discourse than their new-brethren … but as aging PCA members drop from the scene, YRR are sure to move in.
NJ wrote:
That would fit with some things I came across during my time in-country. The idea was that the only thing God would judge you on at the Bema was “How Many Souls Did You Save?” Add the lines from Ezekiel that if you do not Witness to someone and they die Unsaved, God Will Hold You Accountable(TM).
And that way lies Madness — Wretched Urgency on steroids. Really insane levels of Desperation resulting in Crazy Desperate Witnessing to anyone and everyone encountered to stay off God’s Skubalon List.
CHUBBS wrote:
I went to college and seminary with a good number of people who probably weren’t fit for much job-wise, but people had told them their whole lives that they should be a pastor. Most of them pre-date the neo-Cal conversion of the seminary, but it seemed to me like a lot of men went believing being a pastor was easy, and had little to do with dealing with people. Just study, preach sermons, and people would get saved. And perhaps in a some of Baptist churches, there were pastors that were allowed to get away with that mindset. I don’t think that’s true of most of them, though.
But as a missionary in seminary, it was a mindset that totally mystified me. God’s mission is people. Jesus’ mission was people. Even as Christians, our mission is people.
NJ wrote:
But they don’t seem worried one bit that they’re not teaching love. Doubt they will get away with that, and I don’t think God is going to be gentle about it.
Velour wrote:
Our experiences overlap quite a bit (MacArthurite wannabe), but I wasn’t x’d from the church. Close though – I was chicken pecked hard on my chest with his index finger and told if I hung around I’d be put under the “D” word.
I’ve seen him recently and he couldn’t care less about me, but I have compassion and pray for his eyes to be open. Prob won’t happen. Their system really sucks. Gives me the heebie-jeebies when I think back and remember we were so gung-ho about it. Is really freeing to be out of that mentality.
kin wrote:
Yes, I pray for my ex-pastors/elders too and the people still there.
And you are so right…it is so freeing to be out of that mentality.
Great post! I agree wholeheartedly with Problem #1. Any claim to 9 marks of a healthy church that doesn't have love on the list at all, when it should be mark #1, is Fake Christian
ishy wrote:
That’s exactly what I found in seminary….
@ Lydi:
Far from it. 🙂
JeffT wrote:
Yes!
JeffT wrote:
if ‘love’ were included, so much of the other would have to be altered
maybe it wasn’t an oversight at all to exclude ‘love’ and my goodness, seeing all the abuses and suffering, I suppose ‘love’ was not an assumption that they felt did not need stating
ishy wrote:
I’ve always wondered if for some clergy it was avoidance of any other job, rather than a commitment to pastoring (and thus, to people, as you point out).
@ The Low Sparrow:
I grew up in a highly controlling Pentecostal/Charismatic church (apostolic/prophetic or NAR[New Apostolic Reformation]), and YWAM was spoken of positively. The pastor loved to quote “touch not My annointed”, mention how David wouldn’t go after Saul, even when Saul was trying to kill him, make references to Korah, Absalom, Ananias, and Sapphira(the latter in reference to giving).
There were no covenants formally signed, to my knowledge, but we were seen as “under covenant” and leaving was seen as “breaking covenant”, and those who left were seen as subject to divine retribution.
While the Charismatic shepherding movement was shut down, our pastors referred to the teaching. (Actually our pastor had been to Jack Hayford’s church in Bible school.)
Addresses Nouthetic Counseling:
Why The Bible Is Not Enough For Abuse Victims
http://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/the-bible-is-not-enough-for-abuse-victims
Snippet:
That is familiar. During my years of depression and (I still have it- anxiety), I kept coming across Christian articles or TV shows where you’re told your mental health problem is due to some personal sin of yours, and if you just “trusted the Lord” more, your anxiety (or whatever you had) would just vanish.
@ Velour:
Kinda like the verse that says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light?
ATTN John Piper:
Olympic athlete and gold medalist Simone Biles speaking:
Source:
http://www1.cbn.com/olympic-gymnast-simone-biles-faith-and-courage
@ Velour:
Kinda like the verse that says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light?ishy wrote:
Any time folks tried that in the Bible they got in trouble.
Kevin wrote:
Indeed.
Daisy wrote:
Which always struck me as Christianese one-upmanship. Let’s add the unspoken to the above:
Christian articles or TV shows where you’re told your mental health problem is due to some personal sin of yours, and if you just “trusted the Lord” more [Like MEEEEEEEEE], your anxiety (or whatever you had) would just vanish {like MINE did – oh, I NEVER had it in the first place, ever since the instant I AcceptedJesusChristAsMyPersonalLOORDandSavior].
There is nothing that can bring you closer to suicide than being the ONLY Christian in the entire universe with Depression or Anxiety or Doubt when all the Christians around you have NEVER EVER Doubted, or got Anxious, or Depressed…
Kevin wrote:
During my time in-country in the Seventies, I remember the name “PastorJackHayford” from Christianese AM radio. Don’t remember anything other than the name, but I DEFINITELY heard that name.
Consider that churches which announce themselves as special churches for special Christians (authentic, gospel-centered, healthy, etc.) are breeding grounds for malignant narcissists, and the inevitable conflicts among such a group only serve to affirm the need for 9Marx methods.
Velour wrote:
Let’s add Narcissistic as well.
Darlene wrote:
Spot on, Darlene.
Bill M wrote:
You know what? The word Biblical has been use so much by this Neo-Cal crowd that it has virtually been emptied of its meaning.
Christiane wrote:
Interesting that Rob Dreher’s viewpoint would be considered among evangelicals. Dreher is an Orthodox Christian. I say interesting, and that could be a good thing.
Kevin wrote:
Saul really was physically anointed with oil by Samuel at God’s instruction. Who anointed this pastor? Korah rebelled against Moses with the intention of taking Moses position as leader. Did God appear to this pastor in a burning bush and tell him to take off his sandals? Absolom was a prancing, murdering, evil peacock of a spoiled brat. Ananias and Sapphira – that’s about lying, not giving. Maybe the “pastor” should be careful what he says!
Christiane wrote:
Uh oh, you may be right, Christiane. I read the article and was reminded of my experience in a Christian cult that attempted to live according to the Benedict Option, although we didn’t call it that. What began as an option quickly turned into a requirement, foisted upon us. Anyone wishing not to comply with the leader’s strict rules and teachings was publicly humiliated. It didn’t take long before the leadership prohibited marriage. We were told to cut ties with our family and friends because our new family was this Christian community. Our family and friends were of the world and would only be bad influences upon us. One of the teachings was that owning a home was being “into this world.” Eventually all members handed in their paychecks and received a skimpy allowance. As time went on, the goal was for all members to work in church businesses because a job “in the world” was working for “Pharoah.” Anyone that continued working in the secular arena was looked down upon. Publicly exposing member’s sins at meetings was the norm. We were never zealous enough for God; never faithful enough; never sacrificial enough. The public berating became oppressive and unbearable. I could go on but it would become a book. Suffice it to say that my former Christian cult misused and abused a Benedict Option model.
Harley wrote:
And you know they’re kicking out all the wrong people.
What makes them think the pretenders would only be among the members?
To me, anyone who can say they “stand in the place of God” with a straight face is deluded and to be feared.
Holy SMOKES! I never read this garbage before. How on earth can he be endorsed by evangelical leaders? This is just naked false teaching of the Nicolaitan stripe.
siteseer wrote:
a Church without sinners would be empty, at least in my Church ….. even Francis says ‘I am a sinner on whom God has looked’
I wonder if Dever has ever heard of or comprehends the term ‘the Church militant’?
I doubt it.
A Christian Church offers sanctuary, not a cage …. if it does not carry within itself the peace of Christ then there will be no compassion or kindness to be found there for our kind who struggle with weaknesses and who are lost in grief or worry
what kind of place is Dever wanting HIS ‘church’ to be? it sounds sterile rather than pure and fear-filled more than comforting ….. I can’t sort out what it is that 9 Marks folks are offering ‘assurance’ of????
I feel sorry for the people in his grasp.
Ken F wrote:
Interesting points there, Ken. I, too, think fear is a motivator – fear of all those evil sinners that reside in the secular world. Fear that if you get too close you just might be sullied. I also think that living in such an insular environment/mindset, leads to hubris. The mindset that “we are living the genuine Christian life” while all those other Christians out there are false believers. It feeds the ego. In my Christian cult we called those other Christians “Laodiceans.”
Darlene wrote:
Yes, that was definitely the mentality of The Navigators ministry when I was in college. I think The Navigators has eased off of this over the years.
NJ wrote:
Christians in the US have no reason to fear their churches will be infiltrated by government informants, so I hope that is not the 9Marx justification.
Churches do have this right to exclude, but I no longer understand why anyone would impose human criteria on this most mysterious interaction between God and a human. I lost interest in attending RC Mass after the Vatican banned non-Catholics from receiving Communion. It wasn’t just the ban so much as the written instructions from the archdiocese about what thoughts I should think while I watched others receive. (To be clear, the RC practice isn’t exactly fencing, since I don’t think anyone would have challenged me at the altar.)
Another time I was in a WELS church, where people who were WELS members visiting from another area had to fill out little index cards for official approval. That actually made me cry: they wouldn’t even take their own members at their word.
Fencing seems to boil down to 1) official membership, or 2) a foolish belief that church leaders can read minds and intentions. Fencing is not a belief. It is a procedure.
Many churches, including mine, practice open Communion, welcoming all of God’s people. At first I thought it was a bit wild: what’s next, open marriage? Now I think, why not? Communion takes place between the worshiper and God. Yes, these churches have lots of theology about Communion, and plenty of instruction for children and adults. But the sheep are trusted to make up their own minds.
NJ wrote:
Paul Washer, definitely. Don’t even get me started. That guy is dangerous. He actually might be worse than Mark Dever. As timing would have it, I’ve been responding on a Calvinist Facebook site that posted a meme by Washer. It goes like this:
“The people who hate women more than any other on this planet are feminists. They hate women. They want them to be men.”
I proceeded to address the absurdity in this statement but the male commenters there can only respond with something akin to “Feminism is evil!” All of their reasoning capabilities go out the window when it comes to the subject of women, marriage, feminism, and Patriarchy. They live in a very fearful world where Feminism is to blame for all the evils in our society. And men like Washer affirm their worst fears. They promote Gender Wars that fuel strife between men and women, rather than uniting them under the banner of Christ. Neo-Calvinists are the movers and shakers of this toxic mindset.
Ken F wrote:
It seems to me from what I have learned is that the majority of these evangelical ministries and fellowships that started in the 70’s emphasized the Us v. Them approach. Each of those groups thought they had a corner on the Truth that all those other uncommitted, lazy Christians lacked. It was an era of much arrogance and it seems it has manifested itself in New Calvinism as Arrogance on Steroids.
Darlene wrote:
I fully agree. Except I think this strain is more virulent. Probably because we did not have things like the internet and Right Now Media back then. Here’s the link to RightNow: https://www.rightnowmedia.org/. As far as I can tell, about 80% of the material is blatantly New-Calvinist.
Clay Crouch wrote:
True. We also crave security, which in some ways is just another word for certainty. Believe such and such, and all your uncertainties about what happens to you when you die will resolve themselves into pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by.
If not, the other certainty awaits you, you’re hell fodder whether you (generic you) deserve it or not, and they (generic they) will admonish you that you most assuredly deserve it, even for jay-walking.
Harness this stuff up with the very human need for community (we’re hard wired for it) and a tribal shaman (authoritarian preacher) to wield the whip, and you’ll get community all right, community based on aggression and violence.
I’m glad she did get out. My experience nearly shipwrecked my faith. I did leave the YWAM church in Crawley Sussex but only to join another YWAM church plant in another town, called Abundant Life. Over the years it became adsorbed into New Frontiers ( Terry Virgo). I finally escaped not in a conscious, I need to get out of this cult way, by emigrating to Australia in the mid eighties.
It’s only in the last few years have I realised I was in a cult. I still believe YWAM is a cult.@ Dale:
@ Dale:
Thanks Deb. Just trying to help joining the dots. Deb wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Job’s friends redux.
I checked out the local 9Marks church website to see their current doings. I had to chuckle at the tag line at the top, they are “Gospel Centered”. I wonder if 9Marks has tried to trademark the word.
Lydia wrote:
I know this might sound a bit extreme, but I think Paul Washer has some serious psychological problems. A reputable shrink would do him good. 😉
Bill M wrote:
Ha ha…trade marking the word “Gospel.” I can actually picture the 9Marks folks attempting to do that. After all, in their minds they have recovered the True Gospel that was lost.
Darlene, I get the same “sense” at times.
Speaking of intense this is very interesting and a bit scary.
https://youtu.be/Ffac0ZfaJsQ
NJ wrote:
Well, if one is a Calvinist who especially tends to be overly scrupulous, they just might always have that nagging feeling in the recesses of their mind that God hasn’t chosen them to be one of the elect. Like the Calvinist fella said over on that Facebook site the other day: “If God didn’t choose you, you’re going to be in hell and there’s nothing you can do about it.” I cannot even fathom believing in a god like this. As far as I’m concerned, it’s horrifying.
Darlene wrote:
Having been a member of a NeoCalvinist church, without my fully knowing that’s what it was, I also found Calvinism reprehensible and NeoCalvinists incessant chatter about being among “God’s Elect”. The whole thing made a mockery of The Cross. If what Calvinists/Neos claim is true, than why did Jesus even bother coming to earth, being born, living, being crucified, and being resurrected?
refugee wrote:
“If that makes any sense at all.” After reading what you wrote above, Refugee, it doesn’t add up. So no, it doesn’t make sense and I would be very cautious, even suspicious. Perhaps they haven’t yet implemented all the 9Marx objectives….er…..brought the hammer down. If they’re venerating Piper and Keller, and praising 9Marks, then expect more to come in the way of authoritarian control and discipline.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Boy can I relate to this from my former Christian cult days. I have some crazy stories to tell, like 5 people banging on a telephone booth late at night just so that we could get a convert! The fella inside that phone booth looked scared, let me tell you!
Darlene wrote:
most of us Christian people CAN’T fathom ‘a god like this’ because ‘deep speaks unto deep’ and from the depths of our God-given souls, we can sense God’s loving-kindness
“7 Deep calls unto deep at the sound of Your waterfalls; All Your breakers and Your waves have rolled over me. 8 The LORD will command His lovingkindness in the daytime; And His song will be with me in the night, A prayer to the God of my life”
(from Psalm 42)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-zt0lJwrFk
Darlene wrote:
Did you see his wife’s teaching on Esther? Her takeaway on Esther was that wives should beautify themselves like she did for the king, for their husbands. That was her takeaway. You can’t make this stuff up. Talk about shallow and missing the point!
Darlene wrote:
This is so stupid!!! I think their ‘logic’ goes something like this: Men are Human: Women who say Women are fully human with wants and needs beyond what their husband tells them want to be men.
I mean, it makes no more sense than that.
Lydia wrote:
Gah!! More than Shallow. A complete perversion.
Lydia wrote:
Charo is not a theologian nor pretends to be. Give her a break.
@ okrapod:
Heartcry peddled her teaching on Esther years ago as the wife of an evangelist. Color me confused why it matters whether she is a trained theologian or not that we must give that interpretation of Esther a break? You lost me here.
Lydia wrote:
That’s even worse than Driscoll’s takeaway.
Driscoll had Esther as Bachelorette in a Reality Show; this has Esther’s example as Hubby’s Personal Porn Star Fantasy.
Darlene wrote:
“FASTER! FASTER! THE HEATHEN’S GETTING AWAY!”
— car chase in The Simpsons
Darlene wrote:
Which leads to Wretched Urgency attempts to PROVE to themselves that they are Elect.
At one time, this PROOF of Election was getting rich (i.e. Blessed); this turned into the Protestant Work Ethic and the Prosperity Gospel.
These days, the PROOF of Election is Perfectly-Parsed Theology/Ideological Purity.
Darlene wrote:
So did Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Mo David, David Koresh…
okrapod wrote:
“Charo” as in “Koochie Koochie!” in a thick Castillian accent?
Adam E. wrote:
This got me to thinking. 9 Marks is really into the regulative principle of worship. If it ain’t commanded in the Bible, you shouldn’t do it in worship. My question: where in the Bible is it required to preach through an entire book of the Bible? Any example of this being done?
I was meeting weekly with the pastor and several men from my second 9 Marks church. The dispensational one. We were taking turns teaching on Psalm 19. When it was my turn, I focused on how Psalm 19 pointed to Jesus. I made the comment that the Old Testament pointed to Jesus, and that we should look for Him in its writings. I was corrected by the pastor and told that the story of the Old Testament is about Israel, and that I had an improper hermeneutic. Now let’s consider expository preaching in such a church. You can spend six months preaching on the book of Daniel and teach all about the various dispensations and you will effectively starve your congregation. If you are sitting week after week passively listening to a pastor teaching about Israel and the end times, where is Jesus?
Some say that expository preaching prevents a pastor from skipping difficult passages. I find this to be a weak argument for such preaching. If the topic is Jesus and his love for me this would be preferable to a full year teaching from the book of Joshua verse by verse.
I am reminded of the great quote by St. Augustine:
God has many the church does not have. The church has many God does not have.
Dever cannot stand in God’s place because he is a mere man and does not see the inside. In fact Dever seems to be unusually blind to the motivations of his pastors.
“9 Marks is really into the regulative principle of worship.”
Unless they’re into exclusive psalmnody with no instruments, it must be a different version than the RPCNA.
“When it was my turn, I focused on how Psalm 19 pointed to Jesus. I made the comment that the Old Testament pointed to Jesus, and that we should look for Him in its writings.”
Amen.
“You can spend six months preaching on the book of Daniel and teach all about the various dispensations and you will effectively starve your congregation. If you are sitting week after week passively listening to a pastor teaching about Israel and the end times, where is Jesus?”
This is one thing that draws me to orthodox Lutheranism. They use a lectionary to get through the entire Bible, with each book pointing to Christ as either coming Messiah or revealed Redeemer, plus the emphasis on law and gospel.
refugee wrote:
Yes, it does. For myself, I’m keeping an eye on things for now. Thanks to sites like TWW, I know what to look for.
Max wrote:
That is a very real concern, as if the PCA hadn’t already been dealing with enough other stuff in recent years. Size wise, it’s the 800 lb. gorilla of NAPARC, which also means it’s automatically going to be bull**** central in the U.S. corner of the Reformed world.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I would say “none, for it’s God who saves”. And where the heck does Ezekiel say that?
ishy wrote:
They probably think they’re practicing “tough love” with straying sheep.
Friend wrote:
In my personal opinion, some of the most conservative Lutheran bodies have gone overboard with the degree to which they restrict table fellowship with even other Lutherans. They don’t just bar anyone who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, they bar anyone from a denomination that has lower standards than them in this area, or is in fellowship with such denominations.
As far as the Catholic church goes, I understand a lot of parishes have been quite lax about fencing the table from non-Catholics or those who have been excommunicated. Christiane or HUG probably know more than I do on this, however.
Darlene wrote:
The Bayly brothers have preached this for years, and our former church has leaders that appear to agree with them, which is one reason we left. They have some interesting ideas about a potential Benedict Option, but unfortunately this belief is coloring it. I told my husband I’d sooner link up with our local Catholics and Free Will Baptists.
Velour wrote:
Yeah, if they’re not careful they can certainly take the gospel of salvation by the cross and turn it into salvation by sovereign election. It really depends on the Calvinist, though. And God help you if you run into one in the infamous “cage stage”.
Dale wrote:
9 Marks lost me at Mark 1 where they turn the practice of expository preaching into a dogmatic requirement. The sermons I recall in the New Testament were sweeping overviews of how God worked throughout history. Jesus told stories and made applications. As to the Old Testament pointing to Jesus, we see many examples of the scriptures being opened and then explained how they pointed Christ all along, starting with Jesus reading from Isaiah and proclaiming that the passage is being fulfilled.
I have nothing against expository preaching but the hubris of those promoting it as the only way to preach is off-putting.
Lydia wrote:
Does that include liposuction, implants, and face lifts??? Snort. Maybe when it comes to women, their God judges women by appearances……. Eye candy.
Seriously, as a farm girl, I can’t help but laugh at people who say silly things like that, whether they be male or female. I’d get a real kick out of it if prissy Mrs. Washer would come out here and try to teach me how to beautify myself to: help my husband get his truck out of the mud in the pouring rain; or round up 20 head of cattle who got loose and then fix the barbed wire fence ….. when it’s 92 in the shade with a humidity level of 85%!
Velour wrote:
There is no cross in New Calvinism. They have replaced it with doctrines of men. You must come to God through reformed theology, not transformed by the Cross of Christ.
Evangelical ‘Christianity’, particularly the neo-Cal branch, has gotten to the point where their focus is on oppression: women, gays, even their own members through ‘church discipline, among others, which borders on hatred. In addition, they are creating a dictatorial church hierarchy with their own ‘ministers’ installed as mini-Popes who dictates are not to be questioned. In short, they have turned the Reformation on its head and sided with the Papists, albeit Popes of their own ilk. To them, the ‘priesthood of all believers’ is as dead as Martin Luther.
They have strayed so far from the teachings of Jesus that they are no longer Christian.
“Everybody wants to rule the world”
Max wrote:
Which reminds me, how many of these celebrity ‘preachers’ even have a cross anywhere in their ‘sanctuary’? In all the videos I’ve seen, there’s only a big graphic of their own logo, not a cross in sight. Couldn’t be a more telling sign of where their priorities lie.
JeffT wrote:
Amen! But, that is not confined to celebrity and mega – that is characteristic of New Calvinism. That was the first red flag for me when New Calvinist church plants starting popping up in my area … no Cross on the wall and no Jesus in the message.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have not made a study of the Washers but from what I know Charo is Peruvian with a husband who battles serious physical problems, several children, and from what little I have heard from her she seems to have a good heart. And she has to do it more or less in the public eye while much of the public disagrees with what her husband preaches. So if she shares with people what I suppose she has found advantageous in her own life, and uses the story of Ester in the process, why would she not do that. And why would be not assume that this scenario does not in fact work for a lot of women?
But about Ester of OT fame. There is much about the story of Ester which bears some similarity with the story of Dowager Empress of China, Tzu-hsi. Both women were ordered to present themselves to the ruler for possible choice for either wife or concubine. Both spent time being prepared by palace staff for their sexual interview with the ruler, and both found favor with that staff. Both applied themselves to the task, both had their session with the ruler, and both got chosen. And both afterwards were effective in impacting the political outcomes and choices of the ruler whom they had ‘pleased’ and whom they continued to please.
These are stories of women who did use their sexuality and cleverness to do great things. If we leave that aspect out of it we have missed an essential part of the story. And, IMO, missed an essential aspect of female power.
@ okrapod:
Totally agree, historically. But isn’t the goal not to need to do that sort of thing? Especially as Christians? Xerses was a pagan king demanding to be satisfied. Not a Christian husband. I think she left that important point out. A Christian husband will hopefully stand by you after say, a mastectomy or such.
Darlene wrote:
To you it was “Devil in the phone booth calling Nine-One-One!”
To him it was The Omega Man, with the Albino Manson Family banging on the walls of his booth.
Lydia wrote:
Which sort of thing? Monarchy and concubinage? Defending one’s sexuality and maintaining attractiveness? Or maybe that sort of thing means using whatever one has in whatever circumstances one find’s oneself to the glory of God and the benefit of the kingdom? Or maybe just showing appreciation for the kind of husband who will stick around after a mastectomy by trying to present as good a public image as possible for his sake, regardless of what lies under the camisole or not?
Dale wrote:
I think there is room for both kinds of preaching. I like short topics, but we mostly do those in sunday school. I did notice the passage preached last week…the very next verse (that we didn’t talk about) was about the penalties for raping slaves, basically, and I thought sometimes we should talk about that stuff too. And how it’s right there. And we need to deal with it.
But no, I don’t want a year on Joshua either. Balance is nice.
@ Muff Potter:
“I believe there’s such a thing as a healthy selfishness. It can spark and fuel self preservation. And that’s a good thing.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
‘healthy selfishness’. i like that.
seems to me it’s the first step towards sober, independent thinking.
and also the first danger signal alerting the group to respond with shaming such a person with the ‘selfish’ indictment.
Janey wrote:
Dever started this thing, but Leeman seems to have taken charge of a lot of it. I wonder if Dever doesn’t just hand most of the hard stuff over to him so he doesn’t have to think about it?
okrapod wrote:
I think she’s missing the point, though. If she is going to teach the bible in a way we think is wrong, why not disagree?
okrapod wrote:
Well now I feel like I need to actually here what she said to judge if that’s what she was actually saying. If she was saying something like ‘Esther means you should get pretty for your husband’ that’s different than ‘Esther means sometimes women can use the power they have to persuade in a life or death situation they didn’t ask for’. Those are different things, to my mind.
okrapod wrote:
You are right about that.
But, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply those particular passages to daily life, as I have heard some people insist on women doing. *** I love the story of Jael, but not every woman has a Sisera in her life. : ) ***
In my experience, speakers who’ve present the story of Esther always fail to cover the fact that Esther was a captive who did what she had to do. They talk about her beauty, her obedience to God and the king, her womanly (yet submissive) courage, her grace and tact. Speakers will use Esther as a woman that other women should emulate, but they skip over how she ended up being a wife of a non-Israelite king, and the social constructs of the times. IMHO, people lose the real message by focusing on almost solely Esther’s beauty and femininity.
Tee hee…….. It just crossed my mind that Delilah used her sexuality and cleverness, too! ; )
Lydia wrote:
Ok, now I’ve actually read her article and I don’t agree with this (assuming what I’m seeing is what you saw). She isn’t talking about beauty. She is talking about using the time you are single to ‘prepare’ to be married and ‘seeking god’.
Now I have a lot of issues with some of the things she IS saying (it’s pure selfishness to want not to be lonely, ya’ll!) but I don’t think this actually has anything to do with Esther.
Lea wrote:
Why? Why would the use of sexual power be alright if and only if one were in a life or death situation but not in a marriage?
Nancy2 wrote:
My problem is that they want women to adhere to the ‘submissive to the foreign king who literally kindnapped her, could kill her if she stepped out of line, and forced her to be his sex slave or alternately wife, depending on what he felt like worked for him’ and apply it to marriage.
okrapod wrote:
Depends on how fond of manipulation you are as a tactic, I guess. That wasn’t really the point I meant to make, though. I think your intentions matter. Are you attempting to ‘use your sexual power’ to manipulate? Or are you doing something out of love.
My point was that people are sometimes all ‘look at Esther getting pretty for her husband’ and that’s really really not the point of Esther.
anyways, I don’t think that’s what she’s actually saying so it’s a moot point in reference to her.
Oh, and just got to the end of this thing, and this is her only tie to Esther. The article as a whole was not about getting beautiful ‘on the outside’ at all! I think she just wanted to tie her random thoughts about how single people should be happy with being single to Esther and it didn’t fit at all so she added that ‘and out’.
okrapod wrote:
Let me clear something up. I have no business in how people choose to live if they are not harming others or destroying property. I am all about freedom to operate and believe what one will. I am very anti micromanaging others.
However, when ideas, teachings and such are put into the public square, I think they are fair game for discussion. I don’t understand why that is seen as mean by so many people. As if disagreeing with an idea, concept or teaching is bad.
My guess, as I don’t know her, (Washer is an old friend of my cousins husband from Western Ky) she is a great mom and wife. It is none of my business how she lives that out within her sphere. But when her teaching literature and audio on Esther is put into the public square on the internet (where they also ask for donations, btw), it is fair game for discussion and analysis. Otherwise why disseminate it for public consumption?
Mark Number 2: Biblical Theology.
Quote from Dever’s book:
“If people are basically good, then a church needs to be a place where people seek encouragement or perhaps enhancement of their self-esteems. People need to take the good that’s in them and build on it. However, if something is radically wrong with us humans, if we are spiritually dead, guilty before God, and separated from him, then churches must do something different…How we “do church” depends on how we understand God and ourselves. To be biblical, we must know that God is a holy God and that we, by nature, are dead in our sins and transgressions and justly stand under his condemnation.”
Okay, Mr. Dever, who are you preaching to primarily? Do you assume that your church is made up of Christ followers? Heaven forbid that you should encourage “your flock.” Do any of “your people” have good in them that can be built upon? I, for one, have Christ in me. I think building on that foundation might be possible?
Once again, in mark number 2, Dever demonstrates his puritanical outlook toward the church.
@ okrapod:
I think healthy people have self pride and want to look their best for themselves and those they come across daily. My mom used to say, do the best with what you have then forget about it when you walk out the door. I think that is wise advice for young women.
I found the YRR pre occupation with the “smoking hot wife” meme and sex, sex, sex a bit amusing when contrasted with their worm theology and ‘all pride as evil’.
@ Nancy2:
Great points.
Lea wrote:
I found the article. Some of it makes sense, some of it, no.
@ Lea:
I wonder if it is the same exact thing she did when it was first disseminated? It was about 7-8 years ago and was discussed on several blogs when it came out. Maybe she changed it. I did not look it up. I need to remember that things are often changed or deleted.
Dale wrote:
Boy, these New Calvinists have everything turned upside down! How we “do church” depends on how we ‘know’ Jesus and how much we ‘surrender’ ourselves to Him. It has nothing to do with us … it has everything to do with Jesus! Attempts to understand God and ourselves is philosophy, not faith … it is doing church without God. New Calvinists are still trying to figure out who God is … believers know Him.
@ Dale:
Dever teaches the exact opposite of what I have always been taught …………… If you try to clean yourself up before you come to Jesus, you’ll never make it. You’ll never be clean enough. Just come to Jesus, and he’ll clean you up.
We are all works in progress.
@ Nancy2:
I think she took the concept of ‘spend the time you’re single working on yourself’ and overspiritualized it.
Lydia wrote:
No idea. She basically mentioned Esther spending a long time waiting to be ‘prepared’ for the king and then riffed on how you can use single time to prepare and serve god and then bookended with that esther comment about inner and outer beauty.
Cults of control freakery masquerading in wholesomeness aren’t limited to religious institutions.
All this description of 9Marx is so similar to my recent experiences with Nextdoor (social network for neighborhoods).
Rigid rules variously interpreted by controlling moderators, arbitrarily applied, neighbors reporting on each other for ‘violations’ and infractions, censoring, not allowed to say anything negative about Nextdoor, people kicked out arbitrarily, for currying disfavor with moderator, people kicked out for expressing anything negative about Nextdoor. Racial profiling. Neighbors ganging up on other neighbors for having a different viewpoints. Bullying.
Nextdoor corporate acts like a predator, finding thriving neighborhood social groups, sells itself as a wholesome and good thing, they take over, favor moderators who they can control – who in turn control the members – who in turn act like gestapo.
Top down control. Free labor.
All so those at the top can profit. Their valuation is based on numbers of people. Free service = the product is “you”, the member. Moderators are volunteers, put in many hours. 125,000 neighborhoods in US alone so far — by my calculations, between 1 and 2 million hours of free labor each week, to boost Nextdoor’s valuation.
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s because it is “another gospel” … the one Paul warned us about! The great deception is that New Calvinists use Paul to defend their version of the gospel by twisting his words to support their theology. It is a religion of mis-truths, not Truth.
Young folks listening in who have been drawn to the glamour of the reformed movement: not everything that glitters is gold … almost right is not right. My suggestion to you: remove yourself from the YRR noise for a season, read the Word for yourself and pray … focus on the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and listen to what Jesus has to say … you will find then that the writings of Paul come into proper perspective with the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Darlene wrote:
Fear and fear of the lash works wonders in places like that. That’s how their shamans remain in power and hold the sway they have over their congregants.
@ elastigirl:
Hmmm. I’d never heard of Nextdoor. Sounds like I need to do some research.
Darlene wrote:
Soooooo, why even bother trying?
Dale wrote:
“Biblical” there is that word again. If such a depressing outlook is their gospel, then maybe Matthew 27:5 “he went and hung himself” and Luke 10:37 “do it quickly” is not a joke.
NJ wrote:
It might be a good choice for you. I grew up as an orthodox Lutheran. You’ll find nothing aberrant or cultic in Lutheranism. The Bible to Lutherans is not a source book for whatever pet peeve or cause du jour the pastor-preacher-shaman may have.
Nancy2 wrote:
“In’shal’lah… Eh, Kismet?”
Seriously, this is one of the problems Islam has had for much of its history — passivity before Fate. Probably a side effect of Predestination/Determinism beliefs in general.
elastigirl wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices – to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill – and suspicion can destroy – and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own – for the children – and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is – that these things cannot be confined – to the Twilight Zone.
Lydia wrote:
It’s the Alpha Male parading his Female before the Beta-to-Omega males.
“SEE WHAT I’VE GOT THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE? SEE? SEE? SEE?”
Christiane wrote:
Regarding “wheat and tares” In Matthew 15:13,14, when Jesus makes reference to the weeds (tares) he is referring to the Pharisees as the tares. So, when Dever, a modern day Pharisee, writes that he is going to get rid of the tares in the church, does he realize- according to the words of Jesus – he is in reality talking about himself?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is exactly what it is. There is nothing christian about it.
@ Nancy2:
I believe that’s covered under P erseverance of the saints.
That you (generic you) must persevere in the doctrines of grace to show evidence that you’re truly elect in the first place.
Muff Potter wrote:
If “P” means I get points for persevering (and overcoming) the New Calvinist movement in SBC ranks, then I qualify!
Max wrote:
Whether it be mis-truth or half-truth, religion for the last 2,000 years has been cluttered with other gospels which are close yet so far from Truth. New Calvinism is no exception. Discernment is needed when you listen to their words. To borrow a quote from one of the New Calvinist heroes:
“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” (Charles Spurgeon)
Almost right is deadly stuff when it comes to Christianity.
Dale wrote:
I like the comment someone made here months ago: Jesus didn’t do expositional preaching.
Velour wrote:
Jesus ‘was’ the Word! It’s amazing to me that New Calvinists spend so much time going through gyrations to distort the Pauline epistles to support their theology, while neglecting the Gospels where they could learn what Jesus is saying to His Church.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have met many folks who grew up in such areas (myself included) who struck out on their own to make their mark in this world. Their journeys have been a search for significance. Those raised in church take one of two approaches when it comes to faith: find their significance in religion or relationship. In Dever’s case, I would say he has found a significant niche for himself within New Calvinism … but religion (of whatever flavor) will never satisfy a void in the heart for a relationship with Christ.
Lydia wrote:
No, but I’m not surprised. My opinion, but I think women in those circles are necessarily going to be shallow. More often than not, they are suppressing their real thoughts, ideas, opinions, perspectives, in order to be subject to men. After awhile, that can take a toll on the person.
Mark Number 3: The Gospel.
Two quotes from Dever’s book:
“What is repentance? It is simply turning from our sin. To repent is to recognize that you’re a sinner and to renounce sin.”
“True belief demands not only faith but also repentance; it demands that our lives actually change.”
Mr. Dever, repentance is not a demand note. When it comes to the gospel, there is no demand made for improved performance. In other words, our justification is not dependent on our future performance; the gospel is not conditional. No, it is “come as you are.” Change occurs as a fruit of faith and repentance, not a cause or a “demand.” Somehow sanctification has suddenly become part of the gospel. This is happening in the PCA sponsored “Gospel Reformation Network” as well.
Lydia wrote:
And while they “literally can’t even” with the prosperity gospel, biblical formulae for assured relationship success are a theological priority.
Repentance as it relates to the gospel is a change of mind, not behavior. Dever, even here, turns the focus away from Jesus and turns it back to us.
Nancy2 wrote:
whoah! that sounds difficult
now if it was COWS instead of cattle, you could try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvtT3UyhibQ
Darlene wrote:
True. And also just the cumulative affect of peer pressure. There are probably men suppressing their real thoughts on this subject too.
Christiane wrote:
Nah. It’s just a Pavlov’s dogs kinda thing.
Load a pickup truck with hay. Drive into the pasture. Blow the horn. Toss out the hay. Do that for a week, and the cows will come a runnin’ every time you blow the truck horn!
@ Darlene:
Tim Fall has a recent post on his blog refuting the subordination of women. Excellent.
Lea wrote:
You sure got me to thinking and I would agree that these men only want their wives, and by extension all women, to only desire what they think women should desire, and that boils down to being wives and mothers only. A woman who desires to have a profession, or work outside the home, or do anything that does not fit into their biblical gender roles, is being rebellious and disobedient to God’s created order. You would be appalled, I think, at the comments made by men on that thread. I refuted Washer’s comment by stating that there are others who hate women far more than modern day feminists such as:
*Wife abusers
*Rapists
*Radical Islamists
*The Manosphere
One of the fellas went on to attempt to prove that women are not hated in radical Islam, pointing out that even though these Islamists treat their women as inferior, equal to cows, sheep, and goats, that doesn’t mean that they hate them. Are you suggesting that they hate their stock too? he asked. Then he went on to say (in order to prove his point that these radical Islamists don’t hate women): At best you can say that they disdain the humanity of their women and therefore treat them badly, but you shouldn’t be painting them with the broad brush of hate. And this was the guy’s defense that radical Islamists don’t hate women! I posted an article that listed all the abuses of women in that radical culture and all I got was crickets. You can’t make this stuff up!
I point out this absurd conversation at the Calvinist Facebook site to show how twisted these Neo-Calvinist’s ideas of women are. Anytime, and I mean anytime, a post about women, marriage, feminism is started on this Calvinist site, the majority of men who comment reveal their anger, resentment, and disdain toward women who don’t fit their rigid ideas of what women should be. Any men (which may only be 1 or 2) or women who disagree with them are viciously attacked. They are labeled as leftist liberals supporting a Satanic agenda. This, folks, is the face of New Calvinism. Women are not safe in this environment.
@ Nancy2:
LOL ….. you are a descriptive writer: I can picture the whole scene!
Darlene wrote:
Good for you, Darlene, for taking them on.
I weary of them, having gotten an overdose of it at my ex-NeoCalvinist/9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church.
Darlene wrote:
Wow.
You know, I would previously just dismiss these people as troglodytes and cultists, but the inmates seem to be taking over the asylums these days.
okrapod wrote:
Neither is Lori Alexander of The Transformed Wife blog (formerly Always Learning), a theologian. But I won’t give her a break, or any other women out there defending Patriarchy on their blogs. These bloggers are in the public domain, and have a substantial influence on many young, impressionable women. Their views are becoming more popular within the evangelical camp and need to be refuted as harmful to women.
Darlene wrote:
Also, the crazy thing is that I started at an old school/egal Calvinist church and it’s the first church I’ve been where women were really treated as equal in every way in ministry. So to see this other face is so strange – its like two roads diverged into a wood or something.
Max wrote:
It’s not just the New Calvinists. Many Arminian outfits are on the same page with regard to Paul. The leadership of Calvary Chapel for example also believes that Paul’s missives are the very words of Jesus, and should be interpreted as binding commands from the Lord for all times and all spaces in the life of the Church universal.
Lea wrote:
And by the way, Lea, (or any female reading this), should you ever lock horns with one of these Comp/Pat guys, remember one of their m.o.’s is to tell you to that you are whining or ranting and to REPENT of feminist rebellion. Disagreement with the sexist male consensus on this Calvinist site equals whining, ranting, and disobedience. And no mistake about it, Dever, Mohler, Piper, Sproul, Chandler, Platt, Challies, Grudem, Ware, Strachen, et al, are their heroes.
Muff Potter wrote:
I encountered something like this over at SBCvoices, from which I have been banned (but I’m not bitter about that as David thought it best and it’s his blog)
What I believe is that Our Lord spoke and acted in the very Person of God and that the Holy Gospels are the most important portion of the New Testament and Our Lord is the central focus of all of sacred Scripture which means that HE, alone, is to be used as the ‘lens’ through which we encounter Scripture.
What I found at SBCvoices were people who said that every word of Scripture was of the same importance and St. Paul was on the same level as Jesus. ‘Course I was shocked, but I wondered if maybe it had something to do with the idea of ‘inerrancy’ and if people realized that it is always going to be easier to manipulate the writings of St. Paul than what Our Lord Himself has said …….. people can talk about ‘what St. Paul ‘meant’, but when Our Lord spoke in sacred Scripture, there was no ‘in other words’.
Culture shock? Yep.
Darlene wrote:
HaHa!
Yeah, that’s not happening.
NJ wrote:
Knowing how 9Marxists and Neo-Calvinists are into covertly taking over churches, I’d encourage you to look for those Red Flags every time you are at church. As for me, I just wouldn’t bother attending a Calvinist/Reformed church of any stripe, be it 9Marks, Acts 29, PCA, OPC, etc. This way I wouldn’t even have to be concerned about looking for Red Flags.
NJ wrote:
What does NAPARC stand for?
@ Darlene:
It’s deterministic Chrislam. Gods pecking order.
@ Lea:
First they need to define feminist. 19th Amendment? Just how deep do they want to go? I don’t think women should have special rights. I think they should have to compete in the marketplace….and they can. That has been proven. I don’t believe in giving a woman a position because she is female. To me, that misses the whole point of equality and turns into reverse discrimination.
When these manboys learn the secret to a blessed alliance, there is no stopping the things that can be accomplished in families.
@ Dale:
wouldn’t it be better to use sacred Scripture fully by connecting references in the OT and the NT???? Example: at Christmas, spending time during Advent reading the prophecies and connecting them up to the coming of Christ?
In expository preaching as described here, I don’t see people inter-connecting the Bible in order to make it more meaningful to congregants …… a lot of trouble in what I’m reading about seems to come from failure to pull the camera back far enough to capture the full context …… reading verses or chapters or books in isolation doesn’t cut it …. an old saying in the Church puts it this way:
” the New Testament lies hidden in the Old
and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New”
NJ wrote:
NJ: “So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.”
I am quite familiar with how this verse is taken out of context to lay burdens on Christians. Evangelizing becomes a stressful exercise of getting as many people as possible to say ‘The Sinner’s Prayer.’ This was a technique used in my former Christian cult.
Here’s the Ezekiel passage in chapter 33.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+33%3A1-11&version=RSV
NJ wrote:
NJ, if you don’t mind saying, what is the name of your former church? I notice often at TWW that a good deal of commenters speak about their former authoritarian, abusive church but don’t mention the name of it. I think these churches should be exposed. If anything, just for the chance that someone reading this blog might be attending one of those churches. I know this wouldn’t be the case with my former Christian cult because there are few people who have remained and they wouldn’t be reading this blog anyway.
Lea wrote:
Exactly how is this repenting supposed to happen, when we are told ‘there is neither male nor female in Christ’ ….. I see in those words in Galatians something to be celebrated and not ignored as meaningless
being unified in Christ cannot be reconciled with the practice of patriarchy, no ….. you can’t have both
Darlene wrote:
I have no doubt Islamic men love their stock: barbecued, baked, roasted, fried, or boiled.
Christiane wrote:
Have you noticed how few women even bother commenting on SBCVoices. ……. or SBCToday, for that matter?
NJ wrote:
I think some Calvinists never leave the Cage Stage. 😉
Christiane wrote:
There is an application problem with this in that the Jews claim that Christians ‘see’ messianic prophecies in scripture where no messianic prophecy is actually there. In other words, if one were to use the ‘lens’ analogy, they would be saying that one needs to get one’s lenses out of one’s eyes in order to see clearly. They have a point. It is arguable. It is very easy to see what one wants to see, either way. I believe that Dale spoke about this in a disagreement he had with his church previously. It is not sufficient to simply claim that a certain approach to scripture is the correct one. There must be evidence, not just opinion, to show which side of the disagreement is correct and to what extent.
Similarly, there is the idea that ‘all scripture…inspiration of God…profitable’ means ‘all’ and ‘inspired’ as opposed to the idea of ‘not exactly’ and ‘it depends on who wrote it’. This idea that Paul’s letters and, I suppose. the other epistles can be if not discounted at least demoted in value is a new idea in Baptist thought compared to what was taught and believed during my youth and before the cultural revolution in this country. To this extent then, some of what the Baptist conservatives are in fact doing is going back to some old Baptist ideas (roots) in regard to scripture.
This is why the conservative resurgence in SBC focused and rallied around the issue of the Bible. They wrote a book called The Battle for the Bible. This issue is huge.
There is nothing comparable in Baptist thought to the idea that sacred scripture and sacred tradition might be on a par, nor do I see evidence of a trend in that direction at all. What I see is both sides preaching their ideas and I suppose the winner will be who gets the most adherents.
@ Nancy2:
I have …. the truth is that some very fine ladies have been ‘lectured’ rather severely at times …. I would call it ‘disrespect’ but I have also thought about how sometimes people posture in from of others in order to get their approval …. ‘boyz club’?
I guess the female view point was not appreciated there. Or the ‘talking down to’ those ladies would not have occurred…….. a little like seeing Elizabeth Warren being told to ‘sit down and shut up’.
funny thing about women: they have a tendency to persist until they are ‘banned’
I did. I was banned. I guess I wasn’t the only one.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2, I’ve noticed that this is the case within many Comp/Pat blogs. I think it has to do with a few things. First, the men in those circles aren’t interested in hearing from women who disagree with their perspectives, and are able to refute their assertions by formulating a reasonable and coherent response. I wonder how many women’s comments don’t ever get past moderation. Bayly Blog, anyone? Then there are those women who may think about commenting but are too afraid or lack confidence to do so. These I would say are women who attend Comp/Pat churches and are not used to having their views/opinions heard by men. Or it could be women who know what the unspoken rules are on these blogs, one being that women have their place and if they say anything that is considered rebellious toward God’s Created Order, they will be banned. So, why bother commenting? It’s too much of a hassle.
Lydia wrote:
I had a friend that went to catholic that used to ‘joke’ about repealing the 19th. I just wrote him off as 22 year old idiot.
These guys? Probably think a woman who dares to have an opinion or expect to be treated as an adult is ‘feminist’. Feminist to them means refuses to cowtow to me. That kind of label I’ll happily own (without getting into 1st/2nd/3rd wave etc).
@ okrapod:
Yes. I know about the issue and it is a very important difference.
From my point of view, I know that it is wrong to ‘shoot the messenger’ if you don’t like the message;
but in the case of the Bible, is it right to elevate the importance of the messenger to the same level as the One Who Is The Message????
Not even the Holy Spirit points to Himself …. He points us only to Christ.
Different perspectives, yes. But what flows from those perspectives can be even more revealing, I think. It’s an interesting issue.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yeah….I’m sure all those pioneer women back in the day out West were concerned about how to beautify themselves. Or the women who had many children close in age to care for. I’m sure the first things on these women’s minds was how to beautify themselves for their husbands. Let’s see….where’s my lip stick and eye liner before I go wash the floor? I must powder my nose before I chop the firewood. 😉
Darlene wrote:
That’s the one.
And the end result is Wretched Urgency:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/64264
Muff Potter wrote:
That’s why I’m neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am a Biblicist. Any group that emphasizes Paul’s writings over the words written in red are off-track. To be on topic, that is a spiritually unhealthy thing for a church to do.
Max wrote:
Except for a few pet verses from the gospels Jn 6:37, they have little interest in what Jesus has to say. In fact, excluding certain verses from the Gospel of John, I don’t recall reading or hearing Calvinists quote the words of Jesus. I’m sure there must be a few, but I would say it’s rare, especially within this new crop of Calvinists.
Christiane wrote:
SBC = Southern Baptist Convention is now a misnomer.
SBC really = Sanctified Boyz Club.
Women are only welcome if we bow and cater, agreeing with everything they say.
Max wrote:
Same here, I have disagreements with both. Oh, and inerrancy? Somebody explain Revalation chapters 6 thr. 18 to me, with inerrancy, please.
Lydia wrote:
I thought a woman who uses her feminine wiles to manipulate/persuade a man is not a good thing. Is this considered virtuous behavior in Comp/Pat circles? I prefer the Direct Approach without guile.
Max wrote:
The neo-Cals, along with most inerrantists, hate red-lettered Bibles. There is no nuance allowed in Biblical interpretation for the humanness of the authors. When the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) was adopted, one of the things it did was remove Christ as basis for Biblical interpretation by flattening all the words of the Bible to make them equal, removing the primacy of Christ’s words.
Previously, the BFM stated that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” The 2000 BFM substituted, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.”
Lea wrote:
How about expository preaching, verse by verse in the Song of Solomon with Mark Driscoll as your host? 😉
Here’s the 9Marks playbook for “reforming” a church: https://9marks.org/article/church-reform-when-youre-not-necessarily-the-pastor/
elastigirl wrote:
I don’t even think Scripture criticizes selfishness, per say. Selfish ambition, yes. But that’s a horse of a different color.
“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition and conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” Philippians ch. 2
@ Ken F:
Ha! So they admit to using stealth and subterfuge to overtake a church!
JeffT wrote:
So how does that not say what Jesus said about the work of the Holy Spirit in John 16? It looks to me like Jesus said that when the Spirit speaks He speaks with the authority of the Trinity since what he says is ‘what he hears’ and not on His own authority. And Jesus say that what the Spirit will be saying is ‘what is Mine’ and that all that the Father has is His (Jesus) so how is that not the Spirit speaking on behalf of the Trinity?
However, people seem to be saying that if there is a quote from Jesus that is more true than if there is a record of what the Spirit reveals about things including ‘all things to come’ (back to John 16). I guess this idea of relative value within the Trinity goes along with ESS and maybe lowest of all the Spirit, but if so we have to rewrite the creeds and re-decide a lot of doctrine. There are an awful lot of issues along this path.
Now if we say that not everything that Paul said was inspired by the Spirit, I can live with that. Not sure we would be too accurate about the details, but I have no problem with the basic idea, especially since Paul himself said this. But layers of rank within the Trinity I am not yet ready to deal with.
Dale wrote:
The problem with this doctrine is that they are not consistent. They preach “depravity” as a general concept UNTIL an abused wife comes looking for help. Then she is told her husband is basically good and she needs to look for the good in him and she should never ever talk about his depravity. It’s gossip and slander and bitterness and all kinds of bad to mention the evil deeds of her depraved husband. So the whole thing is a double standard to be used when it’s convenient.
Nancy2 wrote:
It used to not be so.
I am no longer a southern baptist. Still have hope that they will see the light one day.
@ Ken F:
When you’re not ‘necessarily’ the pastor???
Mary27 wrote:
This is brilliant insight. Thanks so much for pointing this out!!!
Lea wrote:
They support subversive actions except when it goes against them. How convenient.
JeffT wrote:
That should have been a big clue to Southern Baptists that Al Mohler (on the BFM revision team) was up to no good! When you elevate theological interpretation of the Bible above the Lord of the Bible, you are walking in error. If Jesus is not at the center, man is.
Christiane wrote:
I myself have been banned from Voices. I do not care at all for Mr. Miller. He has publicly stated he was a foot soldier in the CR and I have challenged him several times as to whether it concerns him the innocent lives he destroyed due to his zeal in the Takeover and his response has always been crickets. Miller and others like him believe in the subordination of women–I do not.
Nancy said
“Ha! So they admit to using stealth and subterfuge to overtake a church!”
I cannot state how much this happens in church, I have personally seen a very vibrant loving family/community church and they sucked the life right out of it. I mean a Hero pastor swings in making all sorts of promises. I wont leave, I wont split the church I wont pull people away. So the church pays for his Phd education tuition and pays for him to work and right when he graduates he splits the singles group. Stops the ministry I was in which was with people with developmental disabilities. Of course they don’t pay tithes so well, they don’t count. This happens all the time the stealth take overs then the overt take overs with the physical intimidation, the harassment, the calling the cops having people hauled off who disagree with the power holders at the time. then there is the well why are you angry about the issues come talk to me and so you make appointments and they don’t show up.
I cant tell you how this really frustrates me. I have seen this situation repeated and people lose their social support, some lose their job, medical insurance, families split up and all the non effected widgets are not even bothered/aware. This and other sites have helped so many but you folks are maligned by the True Believer crowd.
Thanks all I wish you all the very best.
Lea wrote:
We will all see the Light one day. 🙂
to mot, Christiane, and others,
I am so glad to know each of you. And I am so glad that you stood your ground on those other blogs, even if you got banned from them. You were in the right.
Dale wrote:
“If something is radically wrong with us humans, if we are spiritually dead…separated from him, then churches must do something different.” Wait a minute, is Dever saying this is the condition of Christ’s church, those who are His servants?
“How we “do church” depends on how we understand God and ourselves….we, by nature, are dead in our sins and transgressions and justly stand under his condemnation.”Is Dever actually saying this is the condition of the members of his church? If so, that means he’s included. If Dever is included with those who are “spiritually dead in sins and stand under God’s condemnation, then should anyone even listen to his preaching?
Can someone please clarify? How does “doing church” according to Dever’s way make sense? He sounds like he’s talking about unbelievers, not those who follow Christ. I don’t get it.
Max wrote:
You’ve got that right, Max. These New Calvinists sure know how to analyze, analyze, analyze. Constantly focusing on their belly buttons to figure out what’s wrong with them. What evil, dark, sin lies beneath the surface that must be probed and dealt with. Psychoanalysis on steroids. And then after they figure out just how depraved they are, what do they do about it? They might say “repent” – but that requires a change of heart and direction. New Calvinists seem to be stuck in the muck and mire, preaching the gospel to themselves over and over. Never quite moving on to life in the Spirit.
@ Kin:
“IMO, the assumptions of preaching (as 45 min monologue) and a pastor that is salaried are two pillars that are intrinsic to maintaining the toxic system of control.”
++++++++++++++
these 2 things, among others, compromise the mission of church — its raison d’etre. i’m amazed more people don’t question things like this. just receiving things the way they are, with all the critical thinking of a potato.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I remember that episode of The Twilight Zone well.
Dale wrote:
Dale, I must disagree with you on this. For example, if a spouse commits adultery and they repent of it, they must both have their mind and heart changed. And they must change their behavior, i.e. – go and sin no more, stop being unfaithful to their spouse. This could also be said of a thief. Not only must he change his mind and attitude about stealing, in order to be repentant. He must change his actions and behavior by not stealing any longer. As the Scriptures say, “Let the thief no longer steal.” Repentance actually means that we change the way we live by our actions, i.e. behavior.
@ Darlene:
Agree. Metanoia does have a “from-to” meaning and one must change their thinking to change direction but…The Reformed position always made me uncomfortable. It veered toward a thought police meme IMO.
All we know about a person is from words or actions. If those don’t matter and we are only positionally righteous because we are sinning all the time, then what is the point? That is also dualism. Yes, our flesh is weak. But It’s not hopeless or unable.
And yes, evil people can look very righteous on the outside, too. Deception is how evil operates.
But it seems to me without a change in direction, a philosopher king with keys is needed to be able to read our minds. And that is how Dever approaches it. He becomes the Holy Spirit.
Then we are left with, lock up your children, the Christians are coming over. Which is how so many of their churches operate when it comes to dealing with predators who are “under the care” of the philosopher king elder. The predator is the same depraved sinner as everyone else.
@ Darlene:
The only way I made sense of it was when I started reading the Puritans and their history. Then it dawned on me that salvation is something they have to constantly chase. The way they do that is by focusing on sin. Then every thought is a sin and so on. It’s fatalism.
@ Darlene:
I wondered about this, too.
Luke 3 and Matthew 3 both say, “Bring forth the fruit [behavior] of repentance.” – not as a way of earning forgiveness but as the authentic proof that one has actually repented.
Darlene wrote:
My exact thought!
Unless it doesn’t really mean anything except ‘all have sinned’ in which case we don’t have to base church around it and talk about it so much.
@ Darlene:
This is very common in the churches in this circle. We heard it constantly in an SGM church we were in for many years. I mentioned this scenario to people in the church a few times and said that I felt like the sermons were directed to unbelievers, instead of the Church. People looked at me with glazed over eyes.
We eventually left this church. It was clear they wanted the Sunday service to be a time to bring the unsaved to get saved. But that isn’t what that time is for IMO. That time is for the gathering of the saints, not to preach to the world. But the rallying cry was that the lost had to hear the “preached” Word to be saved . . . which is a false statement to me to begin with. It also destroys the time the Church has to gather, and the saints aren’t encouraged but are treated as unbelievers instead.
brian wrote:
Or Pastor shows up surrounded by Armorbearers constantly fondling their guns.
Lydia wrote:
You mean those 17th Century Puritan journals that are nothing but navel-gazing sin-sniffing?
Darlene wrote:
I also disagree with him on this, and I agree with you. In the great commission Jesus said ‘teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you’. Obey refers to behavior, not just thoughts. When one is converted to Christ both one’s thinking and behavior change. And when a believer falls into sin and repents both his thinking and behavior change. Just thinking something is not enough. ‘The demons also believe and tremble’.
However, 9 Marks and some others use this against people as a method of control, and that is tragic.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
These are people who prayed to be shown the depths of hidden sin —-constantly. They just knew that there were horrors inside everyone they had no clue about. You can never know your wicked horrible self. You need the philosopher kings God gave special anointing, to micromanage you and remind you of your total depravity.
NJ wrote:
Back in the old days, I always consulted with the priest before Mass, to outline my beliefs. Every priest granted me permission, and I felt good about receiving Communion.
After the Vatican clarified and (re)tightened the rules, I no longer wanted to seek this permission. It felt wrong to ask a priest to invite me to sit at the front of the bus, as it were. I’d rather go to a place that actually accepts me–or at least to a place that does not tell me, in writing, to stay in my pew and pray for the unity of the Church.
Lydia wrote:
That may well be true that there are lurking horrors of sin, but that is why people need a Savior not just a Teacher. Perhaps the Puritans forgot the ‘seek and save that which was lost’ mission of Jesus. Perhaps, and I am not expecting everybody to agree with me here, perhaps when the Puritans historically abandoned the means of grace which would have been part of their Catholic history prior to the English Reformation, they had to develop the doctrines of grace. But then when the doctrines of grace were found to be insufficient individually and corporately they relied on law, which to their disappointment did not bring them to Christ or to an ideal society but rather brought them to more and more law.
The thinking somewhere may be that if the medicine did not work, take more of it, maybe you just did not take enough last time.
okrapod wrote:
Correction. That should say that they had to turn to the doctrines of grace.
okrapod wrote:
This is what I think, but I also think the problem here is that people can mimic behavior, but we don’t know their thoughts. Which is how you get people acting pious with no love. Which we are specifically told is useless.
We can watch behavior and still be deceived about some individual, because only God knows the heart. The hubris of people like Mark is that they think they can see what is in the heart based on whether you follow the rules they made up, not the important things like Love. And their buddies get a pass on everything, because they pretend with the stuff Mark cares about, but they don’t bother with the important stuff, like protecting children from harm.
@ Lea:
I agree.
Lea wrote:
There is another angle. Love bombing. This is psychological but there is understanding out there about the power of first impressions or initial encounters and how they tend to influence views/judgements in ways we don’t consider.
It can take long term patterns of behavior to override the first impression from the feigned kindness and caring of Love bombing. People tend to value that over truth or even directness.
The strategy of love-bombing won them over. It’s crafty and deceptive. And people tend to believe that’s who they really are. After all, they don’t live or work with them on a daily basis so how would they know? Love bombing often overrides the ability to question or detect red flags.
Lydia wrote:
Oh, yes, that is true. Absolutely. An impression can be made and it takes a very long time to unmake it. And having been through this myself, you have to admit you were wrong which hits your pride.
Nancy2 wrote:
Kings, priests, potentates, and paupers have largely been clueless about where the real power lies. Weaker vessel huh? HA! That’s a good one!
This one’s for you:
Who are they foolin’? Playin’ at rulin’
It’s the queen behind the scene who pulls the strings
So, in conclusion, it’s an optical illusion
If you think that we’re the weaker race
Men got the muscle, but the ladies got the hustle
And the truth is staring in your face
— Lyrics by Rupert Holmes —
From the OP:
Anyone else reminded of Antiochus IV (who made it his mission to destroy the Jewish religion)? Didn’t he give himself the nickname “God Made Manifest”?
@ Lea:
Or how easy it is to fall for charm and flattery and confuse it with reality. I saw this often in mega churches. Since then it has been a common theme precursor in the spiritual abuse arena.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, as you said, All we know about a person is from words or actions. Yes, exactly. How does a parent know if a child actually listen to their instruction? Because the child actually carries out that instruction. If we read Jesus’ parables, the majority of them point to how we are supposed to live. Matthew 25, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats is a prime example of this. Jesus says many times, IF you don’t do X, there will be repercussions/consequences. Since being a Christian, regardless of what church I attended, I have never believed in alien righteousness. The idea that no matter how much we sin, we still have some right standing with God. Those who commit serious sin in the church can have a field day. Commit rape? No problem. You’re positionally right with God. Just a little slip up. Move on. Commit adultery. Rinse wash and repeat. Commit acts of pedophilia? Rinse wash and repeat. And don’t get me started on: Well then, they were never saved to begin with. To we need to continue repenting after we have been saved/enlightened/reborn/regenerated (hope this satisfies all denominations) – absolutely we do! Can we be genuine Christians after we have been saved/enlightened/reborn/regenerated – if we don’t keep on repenting? No, how is this even possible? What kind of Christianity is it that says we have some alien righteousness, some position with God that can never, ever, ever be changed no matter what we do? This antinomianism, cheap grace!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, of course. This is the other extreme. The Christian life is a balance. What we do does matter. Some things we do can actually have an adverse effect upon our standing/relationship/position with God. We can’t just willy-nilly do whatever we want and expect God to look the other way. I’ve never believed in that adage, which I’ve heard bandied about that: “When God looks at me He doesn’t see me (and by extension my sin); rather He sees Christ. Uh…no. He sees His child who errs, and commits trespasses and sins, but in seeing our weak estate He is merciful, kind, compassionate, loving, always willing to forgive, and full of grace. But, He doesn’t wink at Serious Sin, such as the kind addressed here at TWW. No. He will hold all of us accountable for what we have done in the body. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one must receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”
@ Darlene, Lydia and Lea – good thoughts about ongoing repentance and faith…hallmarks of the New Creation.
Bridget wrote:
The church is the ecclesia – the called-out ones. Our gathering together corporately to worship God is a gathering of Believers in Christ. Yes, there may be some tares within that gathering. But our worship and all which that entails – from the hymns, to the reading of Scripture, to the sermon/teaching, and the partaking of the Eucharist – should be directed at the ecclesia – the saints/believers/called out ones. Perhaps my view has to do with how I understand the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. In my church, it it the pinnacle of worship. The most intimate time we have with our Lord. And that time is not intended for unbelievers.
@ Darlene:
If one rejects Luther’s idea of alien righteousness, either as imputed or imparted or a combination of both, that only leaves merit. Is that the EO teaching? Merit?
@ Muff Potter:
Throughout history, many a “weaker vessel” has used her power, charm, and beauty ( whether inner beauty, outer beauty, or both), for good or evil, to influence or control a man. Esther, Ruth, Tamar ……… Jael offered refuge to Sisera to help the Israelites win the battle against him and his men…….. Cleopatra …….. Marie Antionette….
Bathsheeba asked David to ignore the patriarchal tradions of inheritance of firstborn sons, and leave control of the kingdom of Israel to Solomon. David did as she wished.
@ Nancy2:
Eve
okrapod wrote:
Yes, this! Thank you, Okrapod. To add to what you have said, I find it odd that Dever, and by extension 9Marks churches, would use people’s sins against them as a means of control. Don’t the Reformed believe that once they have been justified, nothing can change that position, not even any sin that they have committed? So why ostracize these folks if the Reformed teach that God doesn’t ostracize them. The more I try to make sense of Calvinism and its variations within the Reformed Movement, the less I can make sense of it.
Darlene wrote:
Yeah, but in most things, that’s only for men. If you have internal plumbing, it’s a whole nutha ballgame.
okrapod wrote:
It didn’t take very long, did it?
Lydia wrote:
Flattery is so dangerous. I never really got it before last year.
There are many thoughts that goes through my head as I read this.
1) “In our preaching. We stand in place of God.”
“It is appropriate for us to gather together and listen to one who is standing in the place of God…”
Whoa, just whoa! Did he really say that a pastor preaching is standing in place of God? What in the world?
That means God has been “replaced” by the preacher during preaching. So during preaching you should fear the preacher just as you feared God. And obey the preacher just as you obeys God. And all authority of heaven and of earth has been given to the preacher.
Hence the creature, size much smaller than a tiny ant in God’s eyes, claims to be God.
2) “It is easy to fool ourselves into thinking we’re Christians” “Membership is the church’s corporate endorsement of a person’s salvation”
How in the world can a church “endorse” someone’s salvation? Someone can donate and volunteer on the outside, but inside the heart hates God and hates their neighbours. How can the church be certain of the inside just from what they observed from the outside? Did Mark Dever ever read Luke 11:37-54. What did Jesus said about those that pretend on the outside but is rotten on the inside? Here is a small part of it:
“39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.”
And since Mark Dever loves to say the church, not Jesus, holds the KEY to salvation:
“52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.””
3) 1 Corinthian 11:28 “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.”
This is another verse taken out of context by these neo-Calvinist.
Firstly Paul is talking about “Self examination” not “examination by the church”. So it is FALSEHOOD to quote this verse and say the church should prevent certain people from taking communion.
Secondly reading the whole chapter tells a very different story from what these neo-Calvinists are saying. We see verses like #22
“Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!”
and #33
”So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home,so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.”
What is the theme here? Yup it is the Greatest Commandment. Love GOD and love your NEIGHBOURS as yourself. Do not let the rich or the poor divide you. We are all equal at the table of the Lord Jesus. We are one in unity.
The communion doesn’t require a person to live sinlessly or pure. If that is the case then NO ONE can take the communion. Ok so you are not sleeping with your GF. But you are jealous and angry every day. You really think you are more pure than someone else? We all have sins that we are struggling with.
Instead we should examine our LACK of love. If you are rich, why do you hurt the poor? If you are poor, why do you hate the rich? There are thousands of other categories that can separate us Christians. Race, height, hobbies, etc. Why are we focusing on what DIVIDES us instead of what UNITES us, the CROSS and the BLOOD of Jesus?
If you don’t love your brother, go first reconcile with him. (Matthew 5:23-24) God can wait. Because you cannot possibly love God when you hate your brother. God said it is literally impossible. You cannot separate the two. (1 John 4:18-21)
You know that God created your brother, whom God loves deeply. And now you hate your brother because of his sins, or because you are jealous of him. How then can you love God? Because you are saying God is UNFAIR when he forgives your brother. If you think God is unfair, HOW CAN you love God?
Dale you nailed it when you said “Better to kick out ten true Christians than let one false “Christian” slip into the church!” And this is a huge problem.
This is the situation every single time a neo-Calvinist (or any other Christian) excommunicates a true believer. That believer might be sinful on the outside, but no one except God knows the inside. They are saying this “sinner” is unworthy of God’s love and forgiveness. But fact is God DOES love that believer. So they are saying God is unfair. If so, how then can they claim to love God?
Darlene wrote:
The original Calvinism believes in a theology called TULIP. And the “P” stands for Perseverance of the Saints. What they meant was PRESERVATION of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved). So God will preserve his followers to make sure they are saved.
Neo-Calvinist on the other hand take the P literally. So it is PERSEVERANCE. And by that they mean if you are a true Christian, you will certainly perseverance in your faith. And part of that is living a “relatively” sinless life, as defined by neo-Calvinist definition of purity.
PRESERVATION and PERSEVERANCE has a huge difference in meaning.
CHIPS wrote:
Why is it that no matter what tangent line this whole ‘sin issue’ takes in whatever brand of ixtianity you (generic you) subscribe to, the orbital mechanics will always revolve around sex?
okrapod wrote:
I’m not EO, but I found this EO perspective very helpful: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness. I found this when I was trying to find the difference between imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness. I discovered that imputed righteousness is an essential belief for protestants because imparted righteousness is too Romish. But then I found this article that basically says, “neither.” This article makes much more sense of this topic than anything I have heard from the protestant or RC sides. It specifically addresses your question on merits.
Lydia wrote:
Not only the Puritans did this sort of thing. My former Christian cult had detailed, in-depth teachings on the deceptiveness of sin, how it is at work within our hearts, and how it seeks to tear down “honest fellowship.” “Catch us the little foxes that spoil the vineyard was one of our favorite verses. There was even a particular teaching on the “Eve Spirit” – the ways in which women are prone to sin. Everyone was always looking out for the ways they, themselves, were sinning – as well as everyone else. Every meeting was about exposing sin. And we were Arminians, not Calvinists.
Ken F wrote:
Thank you, Ken, for posting that. I had to do some errands and wasn’t able to answer Okrapod’s question right away. I haven’t read the article yet, but I was going to reply to Okrapod that EO doesn’t quite fall into either category that she presented. The Eastern mindset is difficult for the Western mind to comprehend, at least initially. I will read that article and see if there is anything which I can add.
@ Darlene:
Interesting article.
“The presupposition underlying both (Catholic/Protestant) views is that we inherit Adam’s guilt,…”
Yes and I think both are wrong
“To the Greek Fathers, what we inherit from Adam is not his sin and consequent guilt, but mortality.4 From Adam (understood, really, as an archetype), we “inherit” the sting of death. Death has spread to all of humanity, as an inevitable consequence of our fallen nature; yet each of us, under the threat of death, rebels personally against God, the Author of Life. This means that our guilt is our own; we bring it upon ourselves”
Exactly.
Great link, Ken.
@ Darlene:
Darlene, I view Arminianism as Calvin-lite. That may or may not apply to your cult but the more I dug in the more golden threads I saw woven between them.
Darlene wrote:
The Eve Spirit!!! Ugh.
Darlene wrote:
What about a sin “spirit ” for the men??? There are lots of those to choose from: Adam, Cain, Saul, Jeroboam, Balaam, Ahab, and Judas ……. For starters!
Muff Potter wrote:
I know. It always makes me feel so bad for all those OT women we read about.
Muff Potter wrote:
Because Christians have a dirty mind and won’t admit to it.
And the bluer the nose and more superior the morality, the dirtier the mind.
Lydia wrote:
It does come up rather a lot doesn’t it?
I attended a church for a few months, a few years ago, that considered themselves a Nine Marks church in practice, but also heavily identified with John MacCarthur and his doctrine of “Lordship Salvation, but also were great fan boys and girls of the early Puritans, and especially Jonathan Edwards. In my opinion, the combination of teachings were an absolute spiritual death cocktail. No one ever left that church the same way they went in as a believer, and I would say as much that it was a force in ‘de- conversion’ of some more tender souls.
He said “In our preaching, we stand in the place of God”
WHATT???
That’s getting too close to the antichrist type of spirit that sets itself up in the temple as God!!
If Mark Dever is concerned about potential false converts in the church, based on the fruits he is apparently producing, the first place he needs to look is in the mirror.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
As far as I can tell, every cult says this, and if the church you’re in says this, then it’s probably a cult, or at least spiritually unhealthy.