Stacie didn’t move with her boys; however, Tullian and Kim’s son, Gabe (along with Gabe’s wife and child), are living with Tullian and Stacie.

He thinks that a pastor who has had an affair, needs to think about staying out of the pulpit for 5 years. Those who have committed grave sins must never return to the pulpit.

So if I understand your professor correctly, committing adultery (an affair) is not a grave sin and staying out of the pulpit for 5 years is appropriate. Did your professor state what sins would fall into the grave sin category and why those sins are grave sins and adultery is not a grave sin?

Julie Anne wrote:

where image is key.

And photos.

Ok. If a pastor cheats on his wife, lies, steals etc he/she knows there’s supposed some sort of consequences in the afterlife, end of time, rapture or whatever.
Some of these clowns claim God himself speaks to them.
Now if I really believed that the all seeing, all knowing God is real, and talking to me, I’d really be on the straight & narrow.
But hey, God forgives right?
So by that logic, I’m kind of glad that God has left me alone. I’m faithful to my wife because of my own code of honour & I don’t expect any cosmic rewards in the hereafter for doing so.

You know they’d never treat a woman whose husband did these things the same way when “restoring” her to the church. She’d be blamed, probably harassed, put under years of church discipline, and victimized over and over again. They’d say she didn’t do enough for her husband.

Somehow, that *not really adultery* clause reminded me of another individual…

…a wannabe Commander of Gilead who keeboarped his Handmaid in between cosplaying as General Patton or an 18th Century Highborn Nobleman, then when caught wiped his mouth and announced “I did not know that woman in a Biblical sense.”

It amazes me when churches seems to think that it is fine to “restore” a pastor back to the position of pastor, after they have shown that they should not be a pastor according to Biblical qualifications, especially since these churches also claim to hold to Bible inerrancy. It also makes them hypocrites because they rely on the same verses that disqualifies these pastors, to disqualify female pastors.

Also, I highly doubt these churches would be quick to “restore” a Church Treasurer if he violated their trust and embezzled funds.

Obviously the problem with most of the regulars here is that you’re all looking for the perfect church.

What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

Yours Sincerely,

Arnold Smartarse

Arnold Smartarse wrote:

Yours Sincerely,
Arnold Smartarse

Listen, one-note-Charlie, you need to take another look at your name. Not the ‘arse’ part but rather the ‘smart’ part. You seem to be working on the supposition that people are looking for the perfect church. I am not convinced of that so much. Perhaps some are, but to think that ‘most’ fit the category of lookers for a perfect church misses the darker side of this issue.

Sometimes people find exactly what they are looking for, and sometimes what they are looking for is something to criticize. Being able to criticize something has its uses, especially if one would otherwise have to criticize oneself instead. For example it is easier to criticize one’s spouse than it is to examine oneself concerning the problems in the marriage. It is easier to criticize the school than it is to jerk a knot in one’s own juvenile offspring. It is easier to gripe about the shallowness of the sermon than it is to get serious about studying for oneself. It is easier to finagle doctrine than it is to put feet on one’s faith and get busy with some very unhandy ‘works’ that some better church might be doing.

Now, no doubt you have a point that there are those for fit your assumption. But if you carry your allegations too far you may end up like your cousin Dumbarse and his twin Head-Up-The and miss the larger picture.

It is rare that a pastor sins in only one aspect of his/her life. Where there is the sin of disloyalty in marriage, one will also usually find a sin of organizational abuse (dictatorship behavior) and/or financial abuse (taking more than the congregation has approved or has knowledge of). The basic sin is EGO, and it reaches and grasps over a lot of behavior. The treatment for EGO is humiliation and the proof of successful treatment is humility, as in disappearing from the public scene except when caught in service to the needy without the seeking of publicity.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

Would that fallen Christian leaders follow the example of disgraced British politician, John Profumo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Profumo#Later_life

Amen to that. Now THAT is the behavior of man who is truly repentant.

I find it interesting that Christians who live in other parts of the world who are being literally persecuted for Christ, risking death just to meet don’t have these problems. They don’t draw a paycheck much less a pastors pay package, no traveling to different parts of the world for vacations disguised as Christian conferences. They don’t sleep in 100,000 + homes or drive cars yet they risk their very lives just to have a page of the scriptures. We never hear of or see these Christians engaging in shenanigans. I can only imagine what they are thinking of us Christians over here and the men standing in these pulpits representing the church of our Lord Jesus not just blatantly in sin but seem to be whitewashing the seriousness of what these pastors are doing! I’m sorry but its embarrassing the way these men flaunt forgiveness. Do we continue to ignore what God says about men called to the pulpit/ ministry then being double accountable???? Of course forgivness is given to men who fall but I say heck no to being restored to the pulpit ever after that!!!! It’s like a circus the way these popular pastors support one another moving from one church body to another take away money and let’s see how many are really called to be pastors. I guarantee you more than half would run for the hills if there were zero financial support!!! Do what my former pastor did have a regular day job and guess what he still serves as a pastor and works over twenty years later!!!!! The church only provides partial support man do I wish he was in our state, very few like him who doesn’t draw a pay package. Again I can only imagine what our persecuted brothers and sisters are thinking about these shenanigans

@ Harley:

Amen! God bless your friend!

I cannot and will not step down as Pastor, for to go against Pastors is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen

DEW wrote:

Demons exist and exorcisms are sometimes necessary. Whether ARC gets it right I will not address. Most orthodox or conservative churches hold to that view.

Yes. More and more people and denominations are denying this, however, and also even denying the miracles of Jesus himself and denying the resurrection as anything more than a series of visions. One of our retired bishops is heavily into this sort of thing. He seems to think that he is helping people continue to call themselves christians while actually denying the faith by denying the resurrection.

Sigh. Are we really that deceived? Who are these people who think that anybody who can even deal with a quadratic equation is tooooo smaaaart to believe that there is anything beyond what one can see with the unaided eye? That is basically what he is saying, and there are those who get snookered in by his nonsense.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. (because this will definitely go into moderation, as there is NO clean way to describe this):

“Keeboarp” is a term from Boontling, a local dialect of the Anderson Valley in Northern California about a century ago, used because any other term would break TWW’s rating.

It refers to the (ed.-A sexual act that does not involve penetration) thus not REALLY sex “in the Biblical sense” (“LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE!”). Which according to the lawsuit in the case, is what Douggie ESQUIRE did to his much-younger Handmaid-in-all-but-title.

Again, check the Category dropdown on this blog for “Doug Phillips/Vision Forum”.

Harley wrote:

When I was growing up, I often heard that people with a “testimony” of being saved from a life of crime, drugs, adultery, etc. seemed like a bigger draw for the churches.

Spectacular JUICY Testimony, i.e. “Pornography for the Pious”, giving all the Respectable Church Lady types a vicarious fix of JUICY Sin Sin Sin while still remaining Respectable and Pious.

I do believe pastors should have the opportunity for restoration to the pulpit. Peter denied Christ (grave?); David did not lose his kingship; Saul (Paul) persecuted/killed? the Church on behalf of the Temple (arguable prior to conversion, though). Maybe, they should be restored, a la Sampson (Nazarite vow), in order to take the Philistines with him!? – LOL. Maybe, TT should break the pillars of HIS church and bring the whole thing down.

The bigger point is the issue of what is repentance. Most of these guys are growing THEIR flock with a ‘Jesus forgive-a-me’ (open says-a-me) mantra. We can get that taken care of in 5 minutes! The brokenness, contrition, humbling is not an easy affair. My previous denom required 2 years, and restoration was never back to the same locale, and never back to a mega. If they are willing to relocate and toil in relative obscurity, that shows humbleness. I agree that pride is always the issue.

Either the blood of Christ is sufficient for all sins and sin, or not at all. We must hold to this despite our own sense of righteousness and pain. An incomplete restoration is not restore by definition.

dee wrote:

Maybe you believe one affair, pedophilia and serial affairs are identical in gravity? If so, then what follows will not make sense to you. Someone who has committed adultery, 1x, needs to stay out of the pulpit for a minimum of 5 years, if not forever. My example of my former pastor was included to give you an idea of just how grave a sin it is.

I think your professor may be too kind by identifying one sin and making an exception for that sin by requiring a minimum of 5 years for 1x adultery. I hesitate to attempt and identify which sins are graver than others because the ones you mentioned are all grave. It’s my understanding that adultery is premeditated, well thought out and planned in advance. Therefore, if I had my way, 1x adultery and you’re out not for 5 years, but permanently.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

I am aware of that. ARC is one extreme; Bishop Spong is the other extreme; your Church is not at either extreme, at least not officially and not now. I am not going to make sweeping decisions based on other people’s extremes.

dee wrote:

He’s just a businessman hiding sausage being made.

I think you’re exactly right, Dee. They still hold to this concept of quick restoration to ministry, and their approach to Rizzo and Patrick, etc., proves it. I just wish the video of Hodges was still public, so I could provide a link. The way they approach leadership suddenly made sense. I think there are some good people in ARC, mainly sheep, but some “leaders” too. But the culture and the structure are fundamentally flawed.

In my way of thinking, ordination is a demotion. “Congrats, you’re now a servant. Expect to be treated like one.”

@ dee:
George Müller, training to be a pastor, was a liar and a thief. Caught and jailed, he repented and committed to change.

As a pastor, Müller neither sought donations nor made known needs. However, he was 100% transparent with funding that came in and how it was spent, keeping meticulous and published records. With unsolicited funding, Müller built orphanages and schools, caring for and educating 10,000+ orphans in his lifetime.

Müller commit to God to change and God honored his commitment. Müller lived a changed life.

Muff Potter wrote:

Even if I haven’t done anything (past or present) to deserve hell?

Be assured Potter, you deserve hell even for the tiniest infractions.
This is Introductory Christianity 101.

@ dee:
@ JYJames:
However, the family photo of the new couple with one big happy blended family, aka the Brady Bunch, is the veneer of a totally different daily life reality. But then the featured couple doesn’t seem to be grounded in daily life reality.

Like the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, “Burst of Joy”, reality is completely different from the picture.

@ dee:
I think he is following his own advice in his book ‘Glorious Ruin: How suffering Sets You Free’, reviewed in Themelios volume 38, no. 2, July 2013. The reviewer observes
“”Perhaps the most helpful insight of this book is that believers are not required to understand the anatomy of suffering in order to redeem it. They must simply cling to their redeemer. Christians do not have to minimize or moralize their pain. They have the freedom to fail, and this failure includes the inability to respond rightly in the midst of inexplicable pain. You do not have to burden yourself with the pressure to explain or even understand why you hurt, or how it will all work out in the end. The gospel allows us to cast away “the idol of explanation” (p. 152″
https://ref.ly/o/themelios38-2/462134?length=573).

Freedom to fail, move on, no regrets. Nice philosophy.

Restoration to a platform of influence or a position of authority/responsibility seems to be ever more common a question. When it hit social media last week that Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchividjian were on the comeback trails, a friend direct messaged me with this: Are there good examples of leaders who’ve failed and done this [i.e., repentance and restoration] well?

I happened to have one situation to share with her, since I work in case studies as much as possible so there are detailed examples to illustrate, and not just hypotheticals and theologicals to debate. Here’s an expanded and edited version of what I messaged back to her.

There is one person that I know of that I’d consider a good example: Gordon MacDonald. As best I can recall, he was pastor of a large church, well-known author, teacher at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. And he got into an adulterous relationship — with a woman on staff, if I remember correctly. When confronted in 1987, he fessed up and confessed his sexual misconduct, resigned from ministry, got counseling, disappeared from public ministry for a number of years while remaining under the oversight of a small number of male elders. Eventually he was deemed rehabilitated and consistent enough to resume public pastoral ministry. He wrote, *Rebuilding Your Broken World* and other books. This was all in the 1980s/90s.

The Kicker: About 10 years after he resigned, MacDonald ended up being one of 2 or 3 personal pastoral advisors to Bill Clinton after his sexual scandals hit the news. (Tony Campollo was one of the others.) MacDonald knew what it was to fail in fidelity, but repent and be restored, and so to be a chaplain of sorts to others in similar situations.

Here’s a Washington Post article from 1998 about this. From it, we can put together a timeline of MacDonald’s rehabilitation process in stepping away from ministry, repentance with oversight from others, reflection, and eventual restoration to public ministry from this article. I also had a friend who went to Grace Chapel, the church Gordon MacDonald pastored after the restoration period. So I remembering hearing how it was a controversial decision to hire him, and the church lost some members who felt he should never be in public ministry again. As far as I know, MacDonald did not have infidelity issues again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/09/28/clintons-pastor-with-a-past/112e3e65-7098-40ac-a50e-6ef52a010ecb/?utm_term=.78deb5d8e509

To my knowledge, there is no such evidence of this kind of integration and integrity in the case of Tullian Tchividjian. He inflicted substantial damage upon others — which, yes, he’s acknowledged in general but not taken reparative steps in specific. But, there’s been no indicators of authentic oversight during a long-term process of repentance and relational repair. Yes, he’s had multiple cheerleaders for his return to public ministry, but no indication they’ve challenged him to do the necessary personal rehabilitation and relational remediation work before attempting to resume a role of influence.

“This leads me to believe that Darrin Patrick always had his finger to the wind. He gave up Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition and all the really cool *dude* stuff and traded it in for exorcisms, cheap grace, and a really, really good paycheck.” (Dee)

Follow the money!

At least, Patrick cleaned his appearance up a bit … instead of the bedraggled macho preacher dude look he carried for years. I guess the ARC pastors try to look more respectable than the Acts29 bunch; the ARC church planter in my community wears a suit and is clean-shaven unlike the disheveled New Calvinists across town. Driscoll also cleaned up a bit for his new gig, whatever that is.

dee wrote:

Stacie is back in Fort Meyer with TT, leanving her high school son quarterback to face his senior year in high school without her presence in Texas. Nice move…

It might actually be a nice move. Who wants this duo around school-age kids on a regular basis????

@ Max:
The appearance deal is interesting. It really is a “Thing”.

Over the summer, due to schedule conflicts, we watched 4-5 live streamed worship services on Sunday mornings, flipping back and forth. Sometimes the pastors all wore the same outfit – the same shirt. (Moreover, at times several were in the exact same series, with differently-nuanced titles.) Formulaic. The marketing of “Jesus”.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

“…Boontling, a local dialect of the Anderson Valley in Northern California about a century ago”
+++++++++++++++++++

you win the terrifically-obscure-info-gem award of the week!

“Pastoral restoration” is incomplete without brand restoration.

“I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company”

(became)

“I’d like to the world a Coke”
_______________________________

“What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,”
No not just for some but for everyone.

(becomes)

Tullian

Maybe we should all just grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle doves.

@ JYJames:

“Made in the image of God = glorious.
Fallen heart of humankind = acutely in need of redemption.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(no real argument, but here are my thoughts)

i think this is true, as one side of a coin. as i see it, the other side of the coin is how fabulous people are in heart, mind, body, soul, spirit.

brotherly and sisterly love and kindess towards strangers — i see this all the time, and it might sound weird but it makes me proud to be human.

other things, too — self-sacrifice & generosity with money and time expecting nothing in return, honesty, kindness,… i see these all the time everywhere as i observe people and talk to them.

i think christianity’s official stance gives human beings a bad name (and of course it gives its own members an undeserved too good of a name). (all said with too much cliche, here).

I think christianity’s official stance is too much boilerplate — it does not honestly appraise reality with skin on.

Here’s just the first **Scriptural guideline** in Titus.
That most pastor/leader/elder/overseers, “Ignore,” or “Twist.”

1 – Must Be *BLAMELESS.*

Titus 1:5-8 KJV
5 …ordain elders in every city…
6 If any be *BLAMELESS,* the husband of one wife,
having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop 1 – “Must Be” *BLAMELESS,*
as the steward of God; NOT self willed, NOT soon angry,
NOT given to wine, NO striker, NOT given to filthy lucre;
8 a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober,
2 – *JUST,* 3 – *HOLY,* temperate;

1 – *Must Be*
Strongs #1163, die. – It is necessary (as binding).
Thayer’s – necessity established by the counsel and decree of God.
This *must be* is the same Greek word. – You *must be* born again. Jn 3:7
Seems to be a small word but very important. Yes?

1 – BLAMELESS
Strongs #410 anegkletos – unaccused, irreproachable, blameless.
Thayers – cannot be called into account, unreproveable, unaccused.
Dictionary – Without fault, innocent, guiltless, not meriting censure.

How many, pastor/leader/reverends, who honestly examine themselves, seriously considering this one qualification,
can see themselves as BLAMELESS, without fault, innocent, and thus qualify to be an elder/overseer?

And if you can see yourself as BLAMELESS?
Is that pride? And NO longer without fault? 🙂

The Bible talks about elder/overseers.
And Qualifications for elder/overseers.
Can you have one without the other?
——–

If an EXX- pastor/elder/overseer does NOT Qualify???

Why should they be “Restored?”
“Restored to what?”

They did NOT Qualify to begin with.

They should Go Away…
And be a good example to the Flock.

Yes?

Today on FORBES:
“Anything worthwhile in life requires teamwork, and you cannot manage what you don’t understand.” – Martine Rothblatt, Founder of United Therapeutics and Sirius

First team ever? Adam and Eve.
Lifelong team ’til death do us part? Marriage.
To be a church leader, one would think a person needs to have at least a faint idea of team work and some type of success at marriage.

The Titus verses that Amos refers to above also mention this.

Bridget wrote:

Bridget

I concur with Ken. Adultery, too, is a very grave sin. It’s certainly grave to the offended spouse! What if the offended spouse ends up with an STD? That could be for life. It could even be deadly. Adultery murders the marriage. It certainly is grave.

And we wonder why it is parishioners don’t blink when their pastor is practicing pornography? We don’t consider anything to be grave. And this is how we got here, to abusive pastors doing anything they please.

Furthermore, through much of history, adultery *was* considered a legal crime. Sadly, the state would for the most part punish the woman rather than the man. The irony is, especially in the case of a Calvinist like Tullian T., is that John Calvin was all for equally punishing the man and the woman for adultery. In Calvin’s Geneva, if you were an adulterer, whether man or woman, and you got caught, you would have to pay a fine and go through a lot of counseling with the ministers. If you got caught a second time, they tied you up in a sack and drowned you. Yes, that’s right. It was the death penalty.

Determining whether a sin is grave or not by how the government authorities feel like (or don’t feel like) punishing it is a huge mistake. What if the government stops considering pedophilia a crime? (And plenty of governments in the world today don’t care about it, so I’m not exaggerating here!) Should we then no longer consider pedophilia a grave offense? Should we restore a pastor to the pulpit after 5 years of timeout if he rapes a child?

Do you see the problem? Do you see how our Christian standards have slipped by basing our moral values on how the rest of the world views certain actions?

What Happened wrote:

Maybe we should all just grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle doves.

That sure beats the hell outta’ AR-15s, Kalashnikovs, and an ever expanding arms industry.

@ A. Amos Love:

You mean I just can’t be a Mensch (Yiddish for good person) and have done with it?

Forgiveness does not have anything to do with some pastor who fell into sin being put back in the pastorate. It is not just about the particular sin. It is about the fact that a character flaw has been shown in the person, and persons with that character flaw should not be pastors, aka shepherds of souls in some traditions. They never should have been in the pastorate in the first place, but who knew? Of did they know? Anyhow, they are not qualified for that kind of ministry-not by biblical standards. Think ‘a good reputation’ in the community. Think ‘husband of one wife and having his children in submission?” That is not saying one wife plus various others, or saying damaged children due to daddy’s mess, or a bad reputation in the community.

There is no-repeat no-entitlement to a job as a pastor; not education or prior experience or charming personality or former success in packing the pew and filling the plate. No entitlement.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

It refers to the (ed.-A sexual act that does not involve penetration) thus not REALLY sex “in the Biblical sense” (“LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE!”). Which according to the lawsuit in the case, is what Douggie ESQUIRE did to his much-younger Handmaid-in-all-but-title.

Deb/Dee – your edit does not convey the disgusting/degrading nature of the specific act, one I have ONLY heard of before in the context of a pornography “money shot”.

dee wrote:

I remember this. He was the pastor of Grace Chapel in Lexington, MA. I visited there a few times when I lived in Boston. Thank you for reminding me of his fine example.

There are a lot of well-reasoned questions about how and when to engage in repentance processes — and potential restoration to roles of influence — and the limits of what we could/should allow. I’ve been researching these topics off and on for a decade. As best I understand, the answers require crowd-sourcing of evidence, discernment, and decisions. Not exactly easy to do, but necessary to do, in order to both extend forgiveness to those who fail AND protect people from those who show predatory patterns.

Gordon MacDonald represents perhaps the clearest and most detailed example I’ve found where we can track the history of a repentance process for an individual.

I’ve been searching for examples where institutions address “fallen” people of prominence within their midst — pastors, professors, authors, denominational leaders. One that I’ve spent quite a bit of time investigating is how the Mennonite denomination eventually dealt with decades of sexual indiscretions/misconduct by John Howard Yoder, who was one of their foremost theologians, authors, and leaders. They failed to listen to a significant series of survivors who attempted to call out Yoder and the denomination over a very long period of time.

I’m not quite ready to publish my findings, but will just say here that the Mennonites addressed Yoder’s sexual abuses and systemic cover-up/enablement with systemic responses that engaged with survivors, advocates, resource development, and required preventive training for leaders, plus liturgical events to lament and repent publicly for how the denomination had failed. Actually, MOST of these actions were done over a several year period, in public, with investigation findings and resources posted. It was not done perfectly, and many of the criticisms look to be valid. But, they did something substantial nevertheless. And what if they had not? Mennonites are known as having peace-making as a prominent part of their mission. You can’t not deal with systemic abuse and call yourselves peace-makers …

With these comeback attempts by Mark Driscoll, Tullian Tchividjian, and others, there are some signs that other individuals and institutions are supporting these efforts. I believe they will have more to be accountable for, for promoting men whose “repentance” has been more about relocation in a new platform than taking care of spiritual business in repairing damage done to real live people in their last location.

dee wrote:

but an angry pastor is no problem

Angry, belittling, venemous verbage, to get his way, or, maybe it’s his wife who is the wicked witch of the church, another problem altogether.

Several true crime shows document local Evangelical cheating pastors murdering the wife – a disqualification, it seems. There are also missionary pastor cases.

Sidenote: An elderly lady friend once said, “Local churches often harbor a witchy gossipy controlling finger-pointing pastor-patronizing woman (major donor board member hubby), and a philandering man [old-guy hours-of-service usher whose hands and eyes wander as he clumsily passes the plates down each row]. Beware.”

Recalls the saying, “If the Evangelical church of record (news, Courts, crime files) is an indicator, Heaven is a Jerry-Springeresque orgy; better to end up elsewhere for Eternity.”

“An overseer, then, must be above reproach” 1 Tim 3:2

A pastor who commits such a sin is not above reproach, and never will be because it can always be pointed out, and therefore can never be a pastor/elder again. Fully restored to his victims and his church, yes, but never to leadership.

dee wrote:

TEDSgrad wrote:

An incomplete restoration is not restore by definition

Let me make sure I am hearing you correctly. Are you saying that a pastor restored to being a communing member of the church is not being fully restored?

We are talking about different levels of restoration. Yes, being restored to communing member is spiritual life – restored. But the possibility (not automatic) of pastoral role restoration should be there. Again, we have to classify sin IN HUMAN TERMS,for what is possible for pastoral role restoration. Levi, as High Priest, was not disqualified for his sin. Peter was not for denying Christ – much more serious than a moment of sexual weakness, IMO. We want a verifiable formula to makes us feel better, but there is not. I agree that the predatory nature of some things mentioned should disqualify. There is always the possibility of spiritual life restoration in scripture! The Church leadership should hold open that possibility to leadership roles as well, even though the qualifications are much more strict. Leaders need to model forgiveness/restoration in their own ranks, as well. To be totalitarian or absolute is not modeling what scripture portrays. I am not offering specific parameters, just that the possibility back to leadership role should exit. Brad’s example is a good one. Mercy enhances justice.

I take issue with the ‘one wife’ clause as commonly interpreted. Am I disqualified for never having a wife? Would Christ, almost all the apostles, Paul, and most of the founding fathers be disqualified? No one in the first couple of centuries took that position, why do we?

A Calvinist who gets divorced while in the church is not supposed to remarry. If he/she does, they are disqualified. Why not say, “well, I was never saved then (their back pocket excuse), but after remarriage I am really really saved; therefore, I really do have one wife after conversion.” – Ridiculous

JYJames wrote:

The marketing of “Jesus”.

Yes. I call it “merchandising the gospel.” (which, of course, is not the Gospel at all). All that glitters is not God.

Sad. These guys and the bozos that “restore” them are not going unnoticed by God. They will give an account.

I know two pastors that committed adultery, were disciplined, and accepted accountability for many years. As far as I know, they were both “one-off” flings. One was caught, the other came forward. Neither ever returned to the pulpit. They are now both up there in years and over time I have learned to respect them again. I was young when I witnessed this and it did make me mad at the time. They looked like hypocrites to me, but sin can be more complicated than that.

With help and humility, their marriages were saved. They both eventually moved out of state and returned to teaching, but just small Bible studies in their churches. Both needed to change careers. In their cases, I see a lot of God’s grace and the maturity of other men and women that helped them. The interesting thing in one of the cases, is that it was the unpaid deacon and elder teams that provided a lot of the accountability. It wasn’t the “good old boys” club looking out for each other, the congregation played a major role.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

What the world needs now is the pulverized residue of a life forcibly taken, in the school of hardest knocks both self-inflicted and imposed by the world. A life taken away, that life turned to dust—that is the life Tullian knows…inside out.

How exactly has Tullian’s life turned to dust? How exactly was this a ‘pulverised residue of a life forcibly taken’? This hyperbolic paragraph is total BS & I find it infuriating.That kind of heated prose should be reserved for those who really deserve it, those who’ve been sold into sexual slavery or had unspeakable tragedy happen. Tullian’s life turned to dust? Is he or is he not remarried, with his kids around him & back to ‘pastoring’? Doesn’t sound very dust like to me, unless his self-esteem was so unnaturally high that any criticism – however justified – seems like the pains of death.
I am embarrassed beyond belief for the moron that wrote this ‘plea’ & terrified for those who fall for it. What if extra broken people head for this ministry based on its blurb? How long before one of the women, or one of the wives gets a text from TT? Beyond foolish to consider this man ‘cured’ of his sexual complusions.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Admission of personal sin is not the same as remediation of relational damage.

This right here.

George wrote:

The interesting thing in one of the cases, is that it was the unpaid deacon and elder teams that provided a lot of the accountability. It wasn’t the “good old boys” club looking out for each other, the congregation played a major role.

The unpaid, unrecognized, non-celebrity wise ones did the right thing, saving their local church, the pastor’s marriage, and their own souls, for eternity.

It’s interesting that Darrin’s “Historical Pattern of Sin” includes things like “refusal of personal accountability,” “domineering over those in his charge,” and “misuse of power/authority.” Those are the very same things CJ did, but CJ remained unscathed until the sex abuse stories broke. I wonder why Darrin’s church took such decisive action against him for things that were ignored in CJ’s case? In fact, for most other Gospelly pastors, that whole list would be a resume enhancer.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

That’s an awful lot of repair work to do, when trust has been betrayed and relationships broken on so many levels, with so many people. And that web of behaviors involved in carrying out seduction could well be taken as demonstration of the opposite of every fruit of the Spirit.

True, furthermore…
brad/futuristguy wrote:

Admission of personal sin is not the same as remediation of relational damage. What has he done to take responsibility for his destructive impact on the lives of others? Where is the evidence from the victims that Mr. Tchividjian has taken steps to repair the relational damage he inflicted?
If there is no pattern there, why should anyone think it will not be more of the same in his next ministry platform?
Pulverized poison is poison still.

Beakerj wrote:

How exactly has Tullian’s life turned to dust? How exactly was this a ‘pulverised residue of a life forcibly taken’? This hyperbolic paragraph is total BS & I find it infuriating.That kind of heated prose should be reserved for those who really deserve it, those who’ve been sold into sexual slavery or had unspeakable tragedy happen. Tullian’s life turned to dust? Is he or is he not remarried, with his kids around him & back to ‘pastoring’? Doesn’t sound very dust like to me, unless his self-esteem was so unnaturally high that any criticism – however justified – seems like the pains of death.
I am embarrassed beyond belief for the moron that wrote this ‘plea’ & terrified for those who fall for it. What if extra broken people head for this ministry based on its blurb? How long before one of the women, or one of the wives gets a text from TT? Beyond foolish to consider this man ‘cured’ of his sexual complusions

Exactly! And if I hear another person (or him) talk about him understanding suffering I will barf!

What Happened wrote:

Sorry, I wasn’t joking about peace and harmony.

Sorry if you took offense, but I wasn’t joking either. I was affirming your stance and the use of the old Coke song. All I did was add another dimension in reference to the culture of glorified violence that our society seems to thrive on.

Beakerj wrote:

Tullian’s life turned to dust? Is he or is he not remarried, with his kids around him & back to ‘pastoring’? Doesn’t sound very dust like to me

True. I’m someone who tried living a godly life for decades, and did God ever reward me with a spouse, as so many Christians told me he would? Heck no. Yet guys like Tullian who cannot keep it zipped up get two marriages. Not just one, but two.

But anyway, your point is taken that he’s not a victim. He was a perp.

Reminds me of how Driscoll talks about himself as a victim after the Mars Hill fiasco. He bullied people, yet he has the nerve even now to talk about himself as though he was the one bullied.

Daisy wrote:

Anyway, the point is, the theory by that other poster is (and it resounded with me, sounds very plausible) is one big reason these famous preachers rally around pervs and obvious failures who should be barred is that they’re all scared it could happen to them.

They are afraid if they get the boot from their pastor job, they cannot financially support themselves or their families, because they can’t get a “real” job on via their religious degree. And they don’t want to spend decades flipping burgers and serving fries.

@Daisy … I think this link goes to the comment you mentioned. It’s a long one by someone going by “LT,” and was posted September 30, 2016, on an SSB post titled, “Is This Tullian Tchividjian’s Spiritual Comeback Tour?” (Just a year ago — the last time he seemed poised for a return to a public platform — he was on ExPastors.com with some articles that they later deleted once it was revealed he’d been juggling connections with multiple women.)

The comment has a Vimeo video link to the Ted Haggard documentary, and also talks about the theory you mentioned about why the “Celebrity Pastors Rehab Movement” supports quick-turnaround restoration of fallen leaders. Some very intriguing details there as well about Mark Driscoll and “restoration.”

Definitely worth a read.

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/09/30/is-this-tullian-tchividjians-spiritual-comeback-tour/comment-page-1/#comment-349588

Robin wrote:

he talked about his messy life and grace ad nauseam

An apt line from the comedian Lily Tomlin: “I get more cynical every day, but I just can’t keep up”.

Daisy wrote:

he had to get an honest to goodness job like everyone else, …, and was barely scraping by.

Welcome to the real world, what many in their former congregations face. It’s a faith journey and a challenge when
– a company downsizes or
– jobs go overseas or
– technology replaces the worker
– or there are family medical issues
– or a spouse dies
– or they have a special needs child.

Lots of circumstances invade the lives of ordinary folks and then they are barely scraping by. What did that pastor do for those folks when he was on the throne? What did the ordinary folks do to get by?

If pastoring is a spiritual gift, as the Bible says, perhaps tent-maker leaders is the norm.

A local church (mega) teaches the magic 7 for the rest of us, the laypeople:
1. work your job
2. care for your family
3. attend to your marriage
4. maintain your home, befriend your neighbors, engage in community
5. care for yourself spiritually, healthwise, socially
6. then come to church and tithe generously
7. and bring your spiritual gift and volunteer to build up the church.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

“Celebrity Pastors Rehab Movement”

Does anyone know if “Leadership Network” might be involved in celebrity pastor restoration? Many celebrity pastors have links to this organization (Robert Morris, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll), even crediting their success to exposure to LN over the years. Driscoll once said that LN essentially initiated the emerging church movement. I wonder how involved LN has been in mentoring New Calvinist leaders?

http://leadnet.org/

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Douggie Phillips ESQUIRE, head of Vision Forum.
(Yes, he always stressed that faux-Noble (or is it faux-Gentry?) title like a bogus Doctorate.)
Search on “Doug Phillips” here or at Spiritual Sounding Board.

Esquire? Really. Wow. Not only does that man advocate child abuse (sorry, I mean discipline), but now he literally is “lording over others”. Wow. Just wow.

Max wrote:

Does anyone know if “Leadership Network” might be involved in celebrity pastor restoration? Many celebrity pastors have links to this organization (Robert Morris, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll), even crediting their success to exposure to LN over the years. Driscoll once said that LN essentially initiated the emerging church movement. I wonder how involved LN has been in mentoring New Calvinist leaders?

I haven’t heard anything about Leadership Network (LN) being involved in celebrity pastor restoration, and would be attuned to that if I did, because I’ve been aware of LN since the mid-1990s, as I was a participant in a number of Young Leaders Network (YLN) events. Here’s some stuff I think is relevant backstory to what you asked, @Max.

First, I would be cautious about taking *ANYTHING* Mark Driscoll says at face value. He has a verifiable track record of leaving out important details and/or giving information a spin that puts himself in the best light.

Anyway, in this case, while it is accurate that, in the mid-1990s, Leadership Network gathered together young leaders in what we were then calling the “emerging church” or “emerging ministry” movement, I think it’s inaccurate to say LN “initiated” it. It was something that was happening, the Holy Spirit was moving in new ways as GenXers were often being shut out of meaningful participation in the shaping of culture-current expressions of being church.

As LN spokespeople themselves said at the time, they were there to support and resource what was happening, and to identify those who seemed to be listened to as leaders and give them opportunities for influence. LN funded the Young Leaders Network and singled out about a dozen men as key national leaders. This group included Mark Driscoll. Any official involvement by LN and YLN ended in the early 2000 decade. Here’s a timeline I put together to overview how “emerging” morphed over time, and how LN/YLN were involved in facilitating the movement going forward.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/timeline-for-young-leaders-network-and-terra-nova-project/

The other thing about the emerging ministry movement, is that it incorporated people from what turned out to be as many as six different streams of theologies. What brought participants together at first was in response to the negative marginalization of GenXers in ministry and to the positive movement of the Spirit for fresh expressions of church/ministry. Then, it gradually became apparent that there was a range of theological and ecclesiological approaches from Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan to next-generation Evangelical to missional to Neo-Monastic to progressive, with some mix-and-match types and variations in between. These approaches are not really compatible in how they view being church together, and some of these streams were dominated by “leaders” who turned out extremely toxic.

Most of these went their own separate ways in the early 2000 decade, and as far as I know, there were no further official connections with Leadership Network — but I have not followed LN closely since that time. Maybe someone else reading TWW has and can fill in what’s happened in the last 10-15 years with LN. It seems leaders in most streams connected with or started up other organizations closer to their own theology, such as The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, Emergent Village, Community Christian Development Association, Sojourners, etc.

If interested in those streams and tracking what happened (because several streams have created a track record of authoritarian spiritual abuse), you can check out some research I’ve posted on my futuristguy blog. See the CATEGORY search, select “3. CULTUROLOGY CASE STUDIES” and the subcategory of “Taxonomies of Emergence.” There are about a dozen articles in that thread.

In the navigation bar section on CASE STUDIES AND ARTICLES, there are links to case studies on two of the streams that came out of emerging, (1) Diagnosing the Emergent Movement [Emergent Village/Progressive Theology], and (2) Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll.

@ brad/futuristguy:
Found your website, well, looking at one of them.

In your:
OVERVIEW: MY TOP FIVE CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING A “HOME” FELLOWSHIP/CHURCH
#4. Biblical Church Discipline

In light of the value of Biblical Church Discipline, and with regard to qualifying leadership, what about the issue of the Dear Church Leader caught in a misstep and then being subjected to church discipline?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

What brought participants together at first was in response to the negative marginalization of GenXers in ministry and to the positive movement of the Spirit for fresh expressions of church/ministry.

It doesn’t appear that many of the young leaders who emerged during this time have been led by the Holy Spirit. For example, the cast of young New Calvinists taking over traditional churches in the SBC have done so through stealth and deception, which are not fruit of the Spirit. Not to mention the host of “spirit”-led leaders of popular churches and movements who continue to fall and provide food for TWW fodder.

Max wrote:

Driscoll was emergent, who then became resurgent before he became submergent. Unfortunately he has surfaced again … a master at re-inventing himself to stay afloat.

I’ve heard tales of cockroaches that even after a flushing down the commode, are able to climb out of the bowl, dry off their wings and still achieve flight.

@ dee:
Exactly:
Les Mis vs. Sovereign raiding country coffers

Each serious requiring a serious (not surface) regard.

Max wrote:

Driscoll was emergent, who then became resurgent before he became submergent. Unfortunately he has surfaced again … a master at re-inventing himself to stay afloat.</blockquote

Might one add:

Driscoll was emergent, who then became resurgent before he became submergent. Unfortunately he has surfaced again … a subvergent – a master at re-inventing himself to stay afloat.

Definition: Subvergent – A psychological revolution; a divergence, told through the eyes of a fearless.

Max – your quote may go viral, as light exposing darkness for what it is.

@ brad/futuristguy:
And then there’s Tony Jones. One of the chosen?

TJ is promoting:

PROGRESSIVE YOUTH MINISTRY 2018 :: RADICAL INCLUSION
MARCH 7-9, 2018 :: MONTREAT CONFERENCE CENTER, MONTREAT, NC

JYJames wrote:

In your:
OVERVIEW: MY TOP FIVE CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING A “HOME” FELLOWSHIP/CHURCH
#4. Biblical Church Discipline

In light of the value of Biblical Church Discipline, and with regard to qualifying leadership, what about the issue of the Dear Church Leader caught in a misstep and then being subjected to church discipline?

A couple of thoughts about that post, which can be found at this link. Excerpt on what I then considered “biblical church discipline” follows.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/recovery-from-spiritual-abuse-part-2a-five-criteria-i-now-use-to-choose-a-relatively-healthy-fellowship/

4. Biblical Church Discipline – I am looking for a fellowship with a track record of church discipline conducted in a biblical manner for restorative purposes (or willingness to take this approach, if they have not done church discipline in the past). By “biblical,” I refer primarily to Matthew 18: First time, go in person one-to-one; if a second time is needed, take a witness; if there is no restoration, then tell it to the entire body. Also, from this and other passages, church discipline is not to be misused as a tool for embarrassment or punishment, nor is it to be avoided when needed in situations to protect the congregation from immature, heterodox, or counterfeit Christians.

First, I have been doing research writing on spiritual for about 10 years, and that post was one of my earliest posts on the subject. I doubt I’d ground everything about church discipline into Matthew 18, and expect that sometime I’ll write something about that.

These days, first I’d emphasize prevention so that intervention is not so necessary with a church leader gone astray. This means figuring out what we believe the criteria are for qualifying those in the public eye as church leaders, teachers, people with a ministry platform online, etc. With a set of indicators for what it means to be QUALIFIED, we also need to know what it is to be UNqualified (in my definition, lacking in necessary personal maturity and/or professional skills for the role at hand) and DISqualified (character and behavior patterns that directly go against the spiritual maturity and self-control mandated of leaders, especially as defined in the pastoral epistles, plus passages on the fruit of the Spirit, and discernment as a hallmark of maturity).

UNqualified people can eventually qualify, with time and tempering through everyday discipleship.

DISqualified people can potentially find transformation, through repentance, counseling, oversight, and time — but with NO guarantee of restoration to the kind of public role they were taking, and often, the repentance process will mean retirement from public roles. Depends on the degree of toxicity.

Grace toward “fallen leaders” calls on the rest of us to live in a balance of showing a conciliatory spirit toward them AND ALSO protecting the flock from them. As we see in practice, however, most who’ve been in such public roles of power and prestige *rarely* are willing to undergo such a process. They want restoration without rehabilitation, and they will find ways to do so. Which is yet another indicator that they are unfit to minister and are on the road to be identified publicly as wolves who are out to fleece the flock.

I know first-hand some people who’ve benefited from being withdrawn from ministry roles beyond their maturity level, and from a personal transformation process where they were surrounded by people who showed unconditional love and care for them, over a long period of time. But I have rarely seen this play out at the level of national recognition. That is why, earlier in this thread, the only case study I could come up with was that of Gordon MacDonald. And there is the case that Bill Kinnon linked to about British politician John Profumo.

What we generally see are deflections, not corrections. For instance, they issue a general admission of wrongdoing, but no apologies or reparation to those specific people victimized. An emphasis on what the perpetrator has supposedly learned about their weakness/sin and God’s strength/grace, but no demonstrated repair work to make things right for what they’ve done wrong. Morphing their theology to a different stream that is more conducive to letting them perpetuate their platform, instead of critically examining their past/current theology for what they took as permission to abuse others.

For a more recent expansion on the kernels of ideas on discipline from the 2008 post, see the page at the top of my futuristguy blog, “Responsibility for Spiritual Abuse (Compilation of Posts).” That’s the long-form series that covers that, plus I attempt to provide frameworks for thinking through practical questions like:

* What kinds of character/behavior issues by leaders who damage others are toxic enough to disqualify them from leadership?

* What kind of recovery/rehabilitation process is appropriate for what level of personal brokenness, and when should restoration to a role of ministry be totally out of the question?

* What ethical responsibilities do churches/ministries/organizations have to fallen leaders and to those whom they have victimized?

So, hope that’s of some help. These are all concepts that I try to apply consistently when I produce case studies on situations or systems involving spiritual abuse.

@ dee:
Feel free to share my take on the evolution of the potty-mouth preacher from Seattle.

@ brad/futuristguy:
There are guidelines in Scripture for the NT Body of Christ, as you mention,
– Matthew 18
– Galatians 6
– 1 Corinthians 5.
etc.

This would be the beginning of restoring a leader that is a click off – to the Body of Christ, but not to Leadership. (Leadership requirements in Scripture are in the comments that A. Amos Love has posted above.) However, back to restoring to the Body of Christ, is the Leader in a separate class or is this, too, a necessary 1st step, even for a Leader?

Lauren Winner, Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity author, has written candidly about the prevalence of extra-marital intimacy among Evangelicals, noting that they don’t practise what they preach (i.e., the “dorm whores” – her term – at Christian colleges, and yes, she mentions Wheaton, of all places, the ultimate Evangelical Christian post-secondary education with lots of celebrity grads and street cred).

Regarding qualifications and dis- and pre- for Leaders, perhaps we need to take a step back to the more basic, What does it mean to be spiritually sound in the general public of the Body of Christ? If the Laity doesn’t practice what they espouse, perhaps their expectations of Leadership are, in parallel, equally low? Everyone gets a compassionate “Evangelical Life is Tough”, so says TT, pass?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Douggie Phillips ESQUIRE, head of Vision Forum.
(Yes, he always stressed that faux-Noble (or is it faux-Gentry?) title like a bogus Doctorate.)
Search on “Doug Phillips” here or at Spiritual Sounding Board.

This guy’s a real piece of work. The Free Jinger website does an excellent job of keeping tabs on him. Just google “Where in the World is Doug Phillips Who is a Tool” and it should pop up. Most recently he’s been galavanting around Europe under an alias, videotaping quasi-burlesque shows. Free Jinger has his photos and videos on their message board. Side note, last week one of Phillips’ sons married one of Sproul, Jr’s daughters.

Max wrote:

Driscoll was emergent, who then became resurgent before he became submergent. Unfortunately he has surfaced again … a master at re-inventing himself to stay afloat.

Would Driscoll now be re-emergent? Regurgant? Or just a brand that needs a new marketing strategy?

A. Amos Love wrote:

Hmmm? Ever see, or hear of, a 501 c 3, IRS corporation church…
Who openly declared, **this church** does NOT have “Biblically Qualified Elders?”

Regarding Patrick’s new ARC church, do they even have Elders? Or has the idea of Elders from among the “sheep” been replaced by “overseers,” who are fellow church leaders from other similar churches?

OK, I looked it up, and ARC churches DO typically have Elders. But if “pastoral misconduct” happens, the Elders are supposed to contact the Overseers, who will start and investigation and hand out discipline.

JYJames wrote:

Didn’t listen.

Well, sounds like she listened, but went her/his own way . . .

GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

But if “pastoral misconduct” happens, the Elders are supposed to contact the Overseers, who will start and investigation and hand out discipline.

I just don’t see this option as biblical or wise. The local body should be involved with the process, not overseers who have less contact with the pastor than the local body.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

genuine discipleship that is relational and involves mentoring and focuses in the long run on learning to discern good versus evil and make wise decisions helps inoculate people against toxic people in the flock,

Makes sense, and aligns with the Bible.

@ dee:
Hi Dee, I’m not saying that both adultery and pedophilia are in the same league, or have the same gravity. However, what I *am* saying is that both would have gotten you stoned to death in Old Testament times, because both are still grave, even if not at the same gravity. We should consider how grave a sin is through God’s eyes, not by society’s, or by our personal feelings.

Just the fact that so many people have no problem with a pastor who covers up for pedophilia tells you that they no longer believe that even that sin is grave. Our standards are slipping, and this is why we are in the mess we are in today.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I believe that genuine discipleship that is relational and involves mentoring and focuses in the long run on learning to discern good versus evil and make wise decisions helps inoculate people against toxic people in the flock, whether in the pulpit or in the pews

Indeed. What is missing in the institutional church today is discernment – the testing and trying of spirits to see if they be from God. This is perhaps the greatest need for prayer. While much of discernment is simple observation – keeping your eyes and ears open – we definitely need a new measure of spiritual discernment. The church should have known that Driscoll, Patrick, Tchividjian, etc. were bad boys from the get-go. The early church had a better handle to discern good versus evil and kept the wolves in sheep clothing in check. We now let them in the front door, with little scrutiny.

JYJames wrote:

– wisdom is a spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit to some in the Body of Christ for the benefit of all
– discernment is, too.

I have seen discernment, as given by the Holy Spirit, in action for the benefit of the church. However, not all church leaders nor church members want to recognized this.

I agree, these are spiritual gifts — given as a sort of “espresso shot” to some within the Body of Christ, and they are needed. Desperately.

Also, from what I’ve studied over the years, I’d suggest that almost *every* spiritual gift has a “everyday coffee version” that is part of general discipleship. These are especially covered in the “one another” passages, but in some other places as well. All disciples can/should discern, show hospitality, teach, live with wisdom, share knowledge, share the gospel, etc. etc. etc. [And I say “almost” to set aside (1) the argumentation over so-called charismatic gifts, and (2) what some designate as gifts from Ephesians 4, I see as roles; those are not the same things.]

Those at the top of a pyramid of abuse typically block some kinds of gifts, or some specific people from using their gifts, as this keeps them in control of the *system*. I believe it’s part of what creates systemic abuse that infuses poison into the very structures and relationships of a local body, or ministry, or non-profit, etc. In essence, malignant leaders hijack the role of the Holy Spirit and the assets of the people in the organizations, for their own selfish benefit.

Max wrote:

The early church had a better handle to discern good versus evil and kept the wolves in sheep clothing in check. We now let them in the front door, with little scrutiny.

I wonder if part of the contemporary problem with churches and discernment is that we’ve over-individualized it, and left out the communal aspects of congregational crowd-sourcing of discernment. Some students of Scripture see Matthew 18 more in this light of building evidence toward a consensus interpretation of what is happening when things go awry.

Sorry, I can’t recall at the moment specific people who’ve posted about this view.

But, if you’ve read the *Divergent* series by Veronica Roth or seen the movies, you see this kind of communal process in action, especially in the second book/film, *Insurgent* when Tris, Four, and others have fled to Amity, and the entire faction has to come to a decision about what to do with these exiles — allow them to stay, turn them over to other factions that are chasing them, etc. Their spokesperson puts the question to the community. Then individuals turn to talk through the situation with one or a very few others around them. As they reach an intermediate opinion as a duo or trio about what to do, they join with another nearly group and continue the discussion. That process continues until there is an overall sense from the community of large groups of small groups of smaller groups about the direction to go. The goal is consensus, which is not the same as unanimity. So, even if there are concerns (as there likely will be), there is a decision for moving forward WITH a commitment to continue watching for indicators of any need to adjusting course. So, the initial decision is not static; it continues to be part of a dynamic process of observation, interpretation, discernment, evaluation, revision.

Back to the ways that American churches seem mostly to function, is that it’s left up to a select group of leaders or influencers, or people with designated spiritual gifts. Again, individualistic. And even more congregational approaches to church structures can end up with problems of “troublesome congregants” — individuals or cliques of people who hijack the organization so it orbits around their personal concerns.

JYJames wrote:

4 passages

3 passages. May the math be with us.

@ Darlene:
Yes, thanks, lots of verses about wisdom in the Bible, as well as great need for all of us daily.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

I stopped by the House of Driscoll this morning for a bit. I had a sign with the Twitter handles of people who Driscoll blocked on Tuesday (voluntary opt-in by the people who were blocked). It was fine; my pale freckled skin appreciated the cool air and the Vitamin D. I’d also note that he’s not packing them in. He only had 108 cars in the lot for the first service. IMO, I think he needs Patheos more than Patheos needs him.

Pray for those people…

Re: pastors and church membership. This varies by denomination. I grew up in the Presbyterian church and in both the PCA and the PCUSA, ministers are *not* members of a church. They are members of the local presbytery.

http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015BCO-Reprint-with-bookmarks.pdf
http://oga.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/book-of-order2017-electronic.pdf

In the SBC, ministers *are* members of their church.

Muff Potter wrote:

nowhere is it written in stone that people of faith must be in lock-step agreement om everything.

Good point.

Tullian Tchividjian and his letter remind me of Micah from Judges. Micah found just one Levite to give his made up religion a semblance of validity, and then it was off to the races.

Darrin Patrick: seems like another Acts29 luminary who didn’t like “biblical church discipline” as much when it happened to him. Imagine that.

http://andynaselli.com/a-study-of-church-membership-and-church-discipline

Here’s what Darrin Patrick says about it:

Trying to get modern-day people to understand the importance of church membership and the need for church discipline is one of the most difficult things I do as a pastor. We live in a culture that is sick with an autonomous, individualistic spirit that shuns accountability and commitment. Biblical church membership and discipline are the cure for this dreaded illness. Those Who Must Give an Account is a timely book for a timeless challenge.

Muff Potter wrote:

Clockwork Angel wrote:
In Calvin’s Geneva, if you were an adulterer, whether man or woman, and you got caught, you would have to pay a fine and go through a lot of counseling with the ministers. If you got caught a second time, they tied you up in a sack and drowned you. Yes, that’s right. It was the death penalty.
Determining whether a sin is grave or not by how the government authorities feel like (or don’t feel like) punishing it is a huge mistake.

I’m also eternally grateful to the old dead white men who founded our Nation in that they made sure to put a lotta’ distance between us and Calvin’s Geneva.

Wise words, Muff Potter. How anyone can laud Calvin’s Geneva is beyond me. Imagine being forced to attend church, and if one fails in this regard, they are punished. That place was Control Freakery on steroids.

M. Joy wrote:

Side note, last week one of Phillips’ sons married one of Sproul, Jr’s daughters.

Thus uniting House Phillips-ESQUIRE with House Precious-Sproul.

Like uniting House Lannister with House Baratheon.

Max wrote:

A young reformer and his gang of thieves rode into my community a few years ago proclaiming that they were going to “Make God Big” in our city (as if God wasn’t big enough).

“Make God Great Again”?

Clockwork Angel wrote:

That was in fact a carry over from older times, and even in Protestant England they punished it the same for a while before laws became lax.

It ain’t perfect but I would take our lax democracy over Old Testament Israel and late medieval Europe. I like a pluralistic society where I can worship (or not worship) as I please.

Oh and I would also take our democracy over such “put ’em to death” societies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think adultery is a death sentence in those countries – might just apply to women though.

@ Darlene:
Lots of people did and do laud Calvin’s Geneva, including George Bancroft, an American historian and all round good guy. There are others which you can find in Schaff’s ‘History of the Christian Church’. He also includes the usual negative reviews but he does try to maintain a balance.
Anyway Bancroft said
“We boast of our common schools; Calvin was the father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free schools. We are proud of the free States that fringe the Atlantic. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France. William Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots; the ships from Holland that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled with Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”

As always there are (more than) two sides to every story. And it is quite remarkable how he (Calvin) gets dragged into the debate about the restoration of fallen adulterous pastors.

@ Lowlandseer:

I do hope he included in his research, as I dare say he did, some of the reasons why certain calvinists left where they came from to come to these shores. As far as I have been able to ascertain it was not primarily because of love for the unspoiled forest primeval.

But then, many of our ancestors fled where they came from because of religious problems or poverty or political issues and such, so I am not saying that they were any different from others who also could not make it work like they wanted to back home. But don’t we even teach the wee kiddies in school that some fled ‘religious persecution’ to come here. What we don’t do is take a really good look at that ‘persecution’ and see what we think about the involved issues.

We have had thanksgiving programs with wee ones in little bonnets and aprons without addressing the issues. I have seen some articles in the past few years questioning that whole process. I am guessing that there will be an increasing push back as the calvinists grow more numerous and more theologically aggressive.

Disclaimer: As someone who was raised in a somewhat calvinism-influenced religious tradition the more anti-all-things-calvinist I personally become with time, having mostly escaped that influence.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Douggie Phillips ESQUIRE, head of Vision Forum.
(Yes, he always stressed that faux-Noble (or is it faux-Gentry?) title like a bogus Doctorate.)

In Doug’s defense, it is a professional doctorate, but it’s pretentious as all get out to refer to yourself as Esquire when you’re not doing it on legal documents. I’d never used the title, myself, bevause it’s pretentious.

Darlene wrote:

“I am way worse than anybody knows.” – Tullian Tchividjian

Darlene wrote:

So, let me get this right. Now the goal is to be as wicked of a person as possible in order to be able to preach the gospel more accurately and zealously.

There is a strange phenomenon in the church world of Christianity Lite. Folks are attracted to preachers who keep telling them how sinful they are … it makes them feel better about their own sinful state. They don’t seek pastors who live godly lives, preach holiness, and exhort their members to Christlikeness … it requires living in a way that pleases God, something Christianity Lite christians just don’t want to do.

Darlene wrote:

“I am way worse than anybody knows.” (Tullian Tchividjian)

“I know.” (God)

@ JYJames:
I suppose context is everything. Bruce Gordon also wrote in his book on the Institutes

“Calvin never doubted he possessed a singular calling, that he was a David, Isaiah, or Paul to his age. He regarded Martin Luther as an apostle, while he was a pastor and teacher. 2 Despite suggestions to the contrary, Calvin never called himself a prophet. His self-belief, however, was evident as he spoke from the pulpit, sat at sessions of the Consistory in Geneva, and appeared before the magistrates of the city, many of whom detested him. An unbowed sense of purpose flowed from the printing press in countless editions of treatises and commentaries, and, naturally, from his beloved Institutes of the Christian Religion .”

Secondly, the quote about being the most intelligent man in the room comes from a review of Gordon’s book in The Telegraph newspaper in 2009 in which the reviewer quotes Gordon who is himself referring to a letter Calvin sent to Cranmer in July 1552 urging him to purge the church in England of the relics of popery. He says
“The eyes of many are fixed upon you, either to second your exertions, or to imitate your lukewarmness. And sincerely do I desire that, under your leadership, they may be advanced to such an extent during the next three years, that the difficulties and contests of the present time, caused by the removing of the grossest superstition, shall have ceased to exist. I, for my part, acknowledge that our cause has made no little progress during the short period the Gospel has flourished in[ 357] England. But if you reflect on what yet remains to be done, and how very remiss you have been in many matters, you will discover that you have no reason to advance towards the goal with less rapidity, even although the most of the course has, as it were, been gone over; for I need not inform you that I, as it were, take note of your assiduity, lest, after having escaped danger, you should become self-indulgent. But to speak freely, I greatly fear, and this fear is abiding, that so many autumns will be spent in procrastinating, that by and by the cold of a perpetual winter will set in.“ And he finishes by saying “Adieu, most distinguished and esteemed Primate. May the Lord long preserve you in safety; may he fill you more and more with the Spirit of wisdom and fortitude, and bless your labours! Amen.“.

Doesn’t sound like pride in either case.

@ okrapod:
Perhaps they had to face this kind of thing, as Calvin had to in Geneva with the Libertines.

“Perrin, then a member of the Little Council, and his friends, Peter Vandel and Philibert Berthelier, determined on rule or ruin, now concocted a desperate and execrable conspiracy, which proved their overthrow. They proposed to kill all foreigners who had fled to Geneva for the sake of religion, together with their Genevese sympathizers, on a Sunday while people were at church” (Schaffer)

Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

In Doug’s defense, it is a professional doctorate, but it’s pretentious as all get out to refer to yourself as Esquire when you’re not doing it on legal documents. I’d never used the title, myself, bevause it’s pretentious.

Remember this WAS the guy who cosplayed as a Highborn Nobleman. And as General Patton.

“the removing of the grossest superstition” (from Calvin’s letter to Cranmer)

Yeah, England and historically Calvinist countries, how’s *that* workin’ out for ya?

DEW wrote:

reemergent

I suppose there are a lot of “gent”s that would describe Driscoll, but he is a long way from a “Gent.”

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

This leads me to believe that Darrin Patrick always had his finger to the wind. He gave up Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition and all the really cool *dude* stuff and traded it in for exorcisms, cheap grace, and a really, really good paycheck.

“Paris is worth a Mass.” — The Huguenot King Henry IV, upon converting to Catholicism in order to gain complete control of Catholic-dominated Paris.

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/07/paris-is-worth-mass-paris-veult-une.html

dee wrote:

Just a few weeks ago, one of these YRR types told his church that they should not use FaceBook.

YRR pastors should be concerned that social media is spilling the beans on the ails of their movement; thus, they want their members to steer clear of Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. The new reformers are in a squeeze in this regard. New Calvinism would not exist if it weren’t for social media – their leaders have been masters at using cyberspace to promote their message and attract followers. However, the same technology may also prove to be their downfall as the word gets out about their aberrant belief and practice.

Robert Morris also discouraged his members from cruising the Internet: “I’m really concerned about how much time people spend on the Internet. I’m extremely concerned about it. Extremely concerned about it; here’s one thing, just even the blogs that mention Christian leaders, and I’m one of ‘em. Praise the Lord, I’ve made the Satan, Satan’s hit list ..” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/09/27/gateway-pastor-robert-morris-calls-blogs-satans-hit-list/

Satan’s Hit List … whew!

Thanks TWW for doing your part to inform and warn.

dee wrote:

Why is it that the majority of Christian leaders who are Calvinists like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc seem to be so rules focused?

Easy Metrics as to who’s In and who’s Out.

dee wrote:

I would agree with you. Unfortunately, there’re a fair number Calvinists who would love to see Geneva recreated along with all of its rules.

With Themselves as Calvin, of course.

(That could get interesting… The Universe Cannot Have Two Centers.)

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Calvin had a woman flogged for praying and weeping at the grave of her son. Calvin was not a nice person.

It beggars the mind that people still take that old monster seriously.

dee wrote:

Why so many rules.

Can I please speculate?

I suspect it has to do with biblical literalism.

For them there is no middle ground.

So they take everything back to the old testament. Old testament Israel was a very rule based, caste based, society.

Whereas the Christianity I was raised in focused on the new testament, with that being the cornerstone of the faith, these guys work it backwards from Paul.

From what I understand, Paul was originally a follower of the Jewish laws and that does come out in his teachings.

So for those neo Calvinists, exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy are the real focus. For their god is the god that smote the people of Canaan with no mercy or quarter given. A god who sends plagues of punishment. Who decrees death to those who break his law. Who makes bets with satan whether a good man will turn, and proceeds to allow to allow his innocent kids to be wiped out in a storm.

Theirs is a god that is to feared and obeyed. There is no love or redemption.

So their churches reflect that. Laws, contracts, fear, and above all obedience.

Darlene wrote:

“I am way worse than anybody knows.” – Tullian Tchividjian

Brilliant! If I do say so myself. I take full credit for despiring (opposite of inspiring) that one. And I’m proud of despiring the “I was just minding my own business at an important conference, cane home, and out popped this cheater cheater pumpkin eater of a woman god stuck me with.”
All the other things– he thought of those himself.

Muff Potter wrote:

dee wrote:
So, let’s take it further like Jesus did. If you even look at another person with lust, you have committed adultery.
Could it be possible that Jesus was using hyperbole* here?….

I think that’s a great question! Frankly, if my husband were to commit adultery (which God forbid), I’d far rather that he do it in his heart than in reality. And if someone hates me enough to kill me, I’d far rather that he or she kill me in his/her heart than in reality. But that’s just me. 😀

This may be off subject, but someone commented about the documentary showing Ted Haggard trying and failing to get a job due to his useless divinity degree, and ferrying his family around from one motel to the other, etc. He was portrayed as struggling financially as his former evangelical pastor friends turned their backs on him, but I’m pretty sure his overseers took care of him financially.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/2548/ted-haggards-cash-for-heaven-offer
This article says Ted still owned his seven hundred thousand dollar house, was paid his salary for the next year, and credits several churches for taking care of his handicapped son.

dee wrote:

Why so many rules

Short snarky answer:
Because control freakery.

Longer answer based on personal experience in a MacArthurite church:
They don’t trust the Holy Spirit to move people’s hearts in the direction they want them to go, so they impose rules and call the breaking of their rules ‘sin’. These are very fearful and impatient people.

I once read this described as ‘personal conviction used as a measure of grace for others’. IOW, regardless of whether the Bible says something is sin, if they feel personally convicted that it is sin for them then they operate as if it is sin for everyone and anyone who does it is not a real believer. That’s how they stray from “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 10:31) to “behave the way WE want you to behave and WE will let you into heaven” (I Opinions 1:1).

They usually allow themselves and their ‘In Crowd’ lots of loopholes, though, which makes them look like the arbitrary and capricious Pharisees they actually are.

Burwell wrote:

Patrick’s ‘conversion’ to ARC’s theology

Perhaps he was a little upset with the Calvinist God for not coming alongside him in his rebellion. Surely, sovereign God was on his side – it was going so good for him for years. He and Mark Driscoll were at the top of the heap – they were Top Dudes. He could pretty much do what he wanted and still enjoy the blessing. That is, until victories turned to defeat, and his New Calvinist buddies abandoned him. The reformed movers and shakers now considered him a hot potato – no longer an asset, but a liability. So, he entered the ranks of fallen idols along with Driscoll. But ARC was there with an ark, so he got on board. So, what the heck, give it a try!

A.Tumbleweed wrote:

So the log in the eye was really an actual log? I wonder what species of wood it was…

“Gopher Wood” like Noah’s Ark — what else?

dee wrote:

Clockwork

Hi dee, I think we’re having a misunderstanding. I’m not daydreaming that we should have laws that stone people for certain behavior. What I am saying is that basing our church polity and whether someone should be a pastor or not based on what the current civil laws are is a mistake, regardless of the laws. Much of the point of the Old Testament laws was to point out the gravity of sin, and to differentiate the gravity of one sin from another. The New Testament follows suite by laying down strict qualifications for pastors.

Yes, we can be forgiven. Yes, it is not God’s first choice to thrown rocks at people. He desires mercy and repentance. But we must recognize the gravity of a sin in the way that God sees it, so that such people are restored after a Biblical fashion. Because we have failed to see the gravity and have sin leveled such that all sins are the same (either diminished such that they are at the level of saying “bleep it” when we stub our toes, or overblown to where they are all at the same level of child rape), we have this situation where a pastor can pretty much get away with anything, and hardly anyone blinks.

I also think multiple people here have repeatedly misunderstood my comment regarding Geneva. I’m hardly a Calvinist. Quite the opposite! Again, my point is to demonstrate the irony of the very same pastors like Tullian who daydream of their own Geneva, and yet they themselves would end up tied in a sack and drowned if they had had their wish. These same people the nerve to insist they make a comeback to be pastors. It’s sickening and gross. The worst part is that if any of us laity were to do the same and if they had their Geneva daydream come true, they wouldn’t hesitate to tie *us* up in sacks and drown *us*.

But more to the point, our standards are to be those of the Bible, regardless of what era we live in and what laws we have in the civil society. Laws might be too harsh and excessive, or too lax, and as such should not be used as a moral compass to determine if someone should be a pastor after having committed a sin. What we do have are strict regulations in the Bible regarding who can pastor. They are to be blameless, so as to be examples to the flock. Tullian knew what he was doing when he committed adultery. He knew what he was throwing away, repeatedly. To restore him even after 5 years is to embolden others to commit adultery with impunity. After all, you only get a timeout for 5 years! No biggie!

And no, I’m not saying we need to throw rocks at him, or that laws need to be passed to throw rocks at him, or to tie him in a sack. To restore him as laity should be sufficient, provided he is truly repentant. Which really means he should be ending his adulterous marriage and making restitution to his victims and quite possibly remain single for the rest of his life.

I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this. But I would like to ask a question: Why does your professor think 5 years is the rule of thumb for restoring someone to the pulpit after adultery has occurred? Why not 3 years, or 10 years? Why 5? Where did he get that number from? Who gets to determine the number? This is what bugs me. I don’t know where these numbers come from. Did somebody roll some dice? I just don’t know. It seems very arbitrary, and it really shouldn’t be.

Max wrote:

@ JYJames:
From the link you provide:
“The two big obstacles to admiring Calvin are a chill authoritarianism and his repulsive doctrine of double predestination.” (Christopher Howse)
The same reasons why most of Christendom has rejected Calvinism for the last 500 years. New Calvinism may be new in its method and message, but still carries the same old authoritarian punch and aberrant soteriology.

I concur. It seems there is a DNA that runs throughout all aspects of Calvinism, whether it be Old or New. I do not honor the man for I cannot honor the theology which he believed and taught. I cannot believe in so many aspects of the God that Calvin firmly believed in. The thought of viewing God as someone who damns people, not because of anything they have done, but for the sheer pleasure of His glory, is reprehensible to me. I do not know that God and further, I do not think that Jesus is the image of that God. The scriptures say this of our Lord: “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being..” I cannot reconcile this Jesus that I know with the Jesus Calvin preached. His mission was not limited to harvesting only those who were chosen before they ever took breath, leaving everyone else to rot in their sin. The Jesus Christ I know from the scriptures died for ALL people. What would be the point in Jesus coming to this earth, taking on human flesh, dying an excruciating death just so those who were already chosen could be….what?…chosen again? It would be a redundant act and wholly unnecessary. Christ made a way for all human beings when He died on the cross of Calvary. I have not nor could I ever subscribe to Limited Atonement.

Anyway, I could go on about my disagreements with Calvinism. But I don’t want to write a 20 page essay on TWW.

@ Darlene:
Oh, Darlene, I know you are not way worse than anybody knows! That’s why I put TT in parentheses to point the reader to his comment, not yours. Can you believe that a preacher would keep reminding folks that he is an active rotten sinner?! Paul said “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” … that’s the way a preacher of the Gospel should act and preach. He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! But not free to sin and make it the theme of his ministry. Sure, we are all sinners and some more chief than others, but Good Lord we need to press on in Christian maturity and leave some of this sinnin’ behind! Especially our preachers!

dee wrote:

Jack wrote:
It ain’t perfect but I would take our lax democracy over Old Testament Israel and late medieval Europe. I like a pluralistic society where I can worship (or not worship) as I please.
I would agree with you. Unfortunately, there’re a fair number Calvinists who would love to see Geneva recreated along with all of its rules.

They might love to see old Geneva resurrected here in the states, but I think they know that ain’t gonna happen. Hence, they (especially the Reconstructionists) are terrified that they are losing control and our society is going to h_ll in a hand basket. They would relish living in a Calvinist Theocracy, where they are the ones who decides what punishments to mete out to dissenters.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Darlene wrote:
The thought of viewing God as someone who damns people, not because of anything they have done, but for the sheer pleasure of His glory, is reprehensible to me.
If Calvin is too much to stomach, try Jonathan Edwards:
When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state, so exceedingly different from it! When they shall see how miserable others of their fellow-creatures are, who were naturally in the same circumstances with themselves; when they shall see the smoke of their torment, and the raging of the flames of their burning, and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the meantime are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how will they rejoice! (http://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/293.html)
That entire article is chock full of other joyful quotes – it’s hard to know which one to pick to use as an example to illustrate Reformed theology at its finest. I think the YRRs consider Edwards America’s greatest theologian, but I could be wrong on that.

It seems Edwards was a chip off the old block, a child of Calvin himself. It seems these guys get a kick out of being as scathing and unsympathetic as possible. I can’t appreciate or honor the god of which they speak. It is so far from what I know of Jesus Christ.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Calvin had a woman flogged for praying and weeping at the grave of her son. Calvin was not a nice person.
It beggars the mind that people still take that old monster seriously.

Agreed. Empathy was not his strong point. Yet I have dear Calvinist friends who overflow with the milk of human kindness. It’s a mystery.

CGC: The same for me. Some of the dearest Christian friends of mine are Calvinists. Mystery indeed!

Max wrote:

Burwell wrote:
Patrick’s ‘conversion’ to ARC’s theology
Perhaps he was a little upset with the Calvinist God for not coming alongside him in his rebellion. Surely, sovereign God was on his side – it was going so good for him for years. He and Mark Driscoll were at the top of the heap – they were Top Dudes. He could pretty much do what he wanted and still enjoy the blessing. That is, until victories turned to defeat, and his New Calvinist buddies abandoned him. The reformed movers and shakers now considered him a hot potato – no longer an asset, but a liability. So, he entered the ranks of fallen idols along with Driscoll. But ARC was there with an ark, so he got on board. So, what the heck, give it a try!

Max, sometimes I just get a kick of how you describe the goings on of New Calvinism. It puts a smile on my face.

JYJames wrote:

And then there’s Tony Jones. One of the chosen?

At least TJ admitted he has NPD? Would that MD & TT do the same. (And I’m no fan of TJ, who doesn’t appear to have received much help for his NPD diagnosis.)

Darlene wrote:

goings on of New Calvinism

Well, I just wish it would go on and into the archives of flash-in-the-pan church movements. When it does (and it will), so many Generation Xers and Millennials will be left disenchanted and disillusioned – but, a great mission field for the Gospel if the Church can get their attention again.

@ Jack:
@1:30 Comment,

IMO, the Old and New Testaments are one. There is not a god of one and one of the other. Certainly, there is a ramping up of revelation in the NT, but Christ came to fulfill the OT.

Why did God wait so long to more fully reveal His love and mercy (it is in the OT, just not as fully)? Why not offer love and mercy right after the Fall, sin @ Mt Sinai, or Babylonian exile? IMO, the Holiness and justice of the OT safeguards the love and mercy of the NT. Yet, there were kernels of love and mercy inherent in the OT.
God is demanding: Be ye holy for I am holy! You want to know what God has said? Leviticus is in the middle of Torah (3 of 5 books). It is 90% Divine speech (in quotations – look it up). The Levitical sacrifices looked forward to Christ. The love of Christ cannot be understood without Leviticus.
Israel presumptuously said that they would do all that God had commanded – it wasn’t possible. They were never supposed to live that way in the OT (Paul’s argument in Galatians). They were to look forward to the Cross, we look backward – both by faith in the promise.

We must not think that we are the center of God’s love – God is. He loves because He is love. Too many put themselves at the center of His love (because He loves us, XYZ). The atonement is first of all an act of God towards God. His justice and holiness must be satisfied. He satisfies Himself by paying the demands of His holiness and justice. He glorifies Himself in His Son – PRIMARY REASON for it all. His great Love is displayed, but only after holiness and justice have been assuaged.
Then, as a byproduct, He saves us and redeems the world.

I was taught that errors in sanctification can be traced back to misunderstandings or incomplete understandings of salvation. It is one completed work of Calvary. We need more contemporary atonement theologians (contra Driscoll and easy believism)!!! How can we exhibit pride when we see the cost Love paid for us!!

More Indicatives:

To God be the glory, great things He hath done,
So loved He the world that He gave us His Son,
Who yielded His life our redemption to win,
And opened the life-gate that all may go in.
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord,
Let the earth hear His voice;
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord,
Let the people rejoice;
Oh, come to the Father, through Jesus the Son,
And give Him the glory; great things He hath done.

TEDSgrad wrote:

Why did God wait so long to more fully reveal His love and mercy (it is in the OT, just not as fully)? Why not offer love and mercy right after the Fall, sin @ Mt Sinai, or Babylonian exile?

Because at the time and with the tribal culture of the OT, that would have been Crazy Talk.

Beakerj wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

What the world needs now is the pulverized residue of a life forcibly taken, in the school of hardest knocks both self-inflicted and imposed by the world. A life taken away, that life turned to dust—that is the life Tullian knows…inside out.

How exactly has Tullian’s life turned to dust? How exactly was this a ‘pulverised residue of a life forcibly taken’? This hyperbolic paragraph is total BS & I find it infuriating.That kind of heated prose should be reserved for those who really deserve it, those who’ve been sold into sexual slavery or had unspeakable tragedy happen. Tullian’s life turned to dust? Is he or is he not remarried, with his kids around him & back to ‘pastoring’? Doesn’t sound very dust like to me, unless his self-esteem was so unnaturally high that any criticism – however justified – seems like the pains of death.
I am embarrassed beyond belief for the moron that wrote this ‘plea’ & terrified for those who fall for it. What if extra broken people head for this ministry based on its blurb? How long before one of the women, or one of the wives gets a text from TT? Beyond foolish to consider this man ‘cured’ of his sexual complusions.

And how on earth was his life “forcibly taken”? Say what? TT was not the victim!

Muff Potter wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Agreed. Empathy was not his strong point. Yet I have dear Calvinist friends who overflow with the milk of human kindness. It’s a mystery.

There are also Muslim people who are filled with kindness.

Yes, there are.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Yikes! He saves us only as a byproduct of satisfaction and glorification of His justice? Sorry; I just can’t go there.

Unless the necessity of the atonement be grounded in eternal principles (outside creation), even the death of Christ cannot be seen as a moving expression of God’s love.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Vaccination: Expose the immune system to a harmless or fake version of a pathogen to build up an immune response trigger; when exposed to the real thing, their immune system will automatically REJECT it.

Yes, sadly that fits indoctrination to New Calvinism.

Creation is temporal. Only God is eternal. So creation is not grounded in eternal principles (need better word choice as a principle is not eternal, only God and He is not bound). You might say that God always had a plan to create, but creation itself has a beginning and an end (the present creation, anyway). Love is creative and will make all things (created things) NEW!

Maybe my word choice of ‘byproduct’ wasn’t accurate. How about ‘secondary,’or ‘as a result of.’ It wouldn’t be quite ‘incidental’ because He came to save us and the world, but satisfaction had to be made first. Making the Son great was primary – glorifying Himself in His Son, His only Son, the Son Whom He loves. This is where most post-moderns (Driscoll) have disagreed.
The Atonement cannot be described by one mode, definition, or facet. But the hinge-pin that holds all the definitions together is Propitiation (Substitutionary Sacrifice, Penal Substitution). Post-moderns don’t like talk of violence or abuse (who does?). But the wages of sin is death – no getting around that. We all face it.
Sin is an insult to God’s holiness. Committed by a finite creature to an infinite God – so the insult is infinite. If we pay the penalty, we are out of existence (physical death and spiritual separation for eternity = game over). Can the finite offer something for the infinite insult? – God offers Himself, Incarnate. This satisfies His justice, so that mercy can be extended – no injury/impingement to justice or to mercy.
Leviticus is where the Bible indicates this – at the center of Torah. Also, pre-figured in Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Calvary in the Gospels is where it is actualized.

Errors in being like Christ (sanctification, Law is a reflection of God’s character) can be traced back to misunderstandings or incomplete understandings of God’s Love (redemption). One cannot do the Law (conformity to Christ) without Love as the impetus or dynamism (Holy Spirit’s indwelling – God’s self-giving). The Law (being conformed to God’s character) cannot be imposed from without by your own self-effort (flesh), no matter how well intentioned (Israel at Mt. Sinai). It must spring from within via the Holy Spirit’s empowering presence (new covenant Jer. 31:31-4).

When we see these pastors sin and abuse (us, too), we can be sure that they have forgotten, misunderstood, or have incomplete understanding of God’s love. For love would not behave this way. Our leaders are a reflection of us; therefore, we have forgotten the covenant (theme of Deuteronomy – Remember the Covenant) of Love. We desperately need contemporary Atonement theologians among us. Or we aren’t going to be able to obey (conformed to Christ’s image/character). God’s love is designed to win our hearts/will. Only His Love can break the chains of sin-guilt-shame; sin-guilt-shame, etc.
More Indicatives:
Love lifted me, love lifted me
When nothing else could help
Love lifted me
Love lifted me, love lifted me
When nothing else could help
Love lifted me
All my heart to Him I give
Ever to Him I’ll cling
In His blessed presence live
Ever His praises sing
Love so mighty and so true
Merits my soul’s best songs
Faithful, loving service too, to Him belongs

This post is way too long. A book I recommend: The Glory of the Atonement, edited by Charles E Hill and Frank A James III, IVP. Trigger Alert – the editors are Reformed, but the book is a collection of essays by various authors.

There is a simple solution to keeping these Elmer Gantry types out of the pulpit. Don’t fund them.

Don’t buy their books. Don’t attend the church which pays them a salary. Don’t attend their conferences. Don’t sit quietly if your pastor invites one of these wolves to speak at your church. Educate your friends.

In short I agree 100% with what you are saying. These churches really jumped the gun when they rush a false teacher back up to be a pastor again. A faith in God IS NOT about how much of the bible a person know. Even the demons know that Jesus is God as a fact. But the demons hate God and hate their neighbours. Hence demons will be thrown into hell, no matter how much theology these demons know.

The bible write about different degrees of condemnation and different degrees of rewards. The following is a simple 6 level model of heaven and hell, as well as their rewards and punishments. Keep in mind that for someone to be a pastor, they should already be at #2 and is trying hard to become #1.

Heaven:
1) Love even his worst enemies so much that he give up everything, including your his life, to save your enemies.

2) Out of love for God and neighbours, donate 10% of his income and volunteer 10% equal of work hours to help the least of these and bringing them the Gospel. They love everyone equally and sees everyone as children of God.

3) He is barely touched by the love of God. His faith is like mustard seed size, and so as a result his love for God and love for his neighbours is also mustard seed size. So he donate and volunteer very little time and money to help the poor. But they at least hates evil and delight and rejoice in God’s love and his righteousness.

Hell

4) Non-believers. They never claimed to believe in God at all.

5) False believers. They say they are Christians but they delight and rejoice in evil instead. They hate their neighbours, picking and choosing who to “show” love. By this they also hate God. There are the type of people who would go to Church every Sunday, even donate and volunteer to “show” how loving they are, but then go home and punch their wives in the chest to hide their abusive ways.

6) False teachers. They know a lot of the bible but just as above they delight and rejoice in evil. So when they hurt others, they do not feel guilty but instead enjoys watching that person suffer. Hence nothing comes before their selfish desires. When they know of God’s goodness but instead choose to do evil, their knowledge and wisdom instead condemns them to greater condemnation. These are the type of pastors who would preach a sermon and then go cheat against their wives.

In this case we have false teachers who knows the bible and yet cheated against their wives. As per the Word of God, these false teachers deserves the greater condemnation. They are better off renouncing their faith and become a non-believer. God actually have more respect for non-believers and will only give them the “standard” punishment (which will still be terrible of course. But you get my point.)

How can someone jump from #6 to #1? No one can.

A person at #6 should first become #4, realizing that they are in fact NOT a Christian. That they have absolute zero relationship with God, because the Holy Spirit is not inside them. Because they cannot possibly have any love for God when they do not love all of their neighbours. The love from the Holy Spirit do not pick and choose. A Christian cannot “love” his mistress and hate his wife, for example. This isn’t true love, but lustful sin from one’s selfish desires.

And after much soul searching they should goes back to a baby faith at #3. In that they have a small faith for God, which leads to a small love for everyone. (Everyone means everyone! So he no longer pick and choose who to love. He no longer love person A while hates and hurts person B.) Even if person B is his very worst enemy, he must now love person B a tiny bit. Even if just a mustard size seed of love, he must now love person B. And that mustard size seed of faith will hopefully grow into bigger fruits later.

After that they further grow in the Holy Spirit and become #2. At that point perhaps they can go back to ministry as they aim for #1. But this process takes years. There is no way for someone to jump from #6 to #1.

Do not be deceived by someone who pick and choose who they love and who they hate. These false believers in reality doesn’t love anyone. It is a mask to hide their sinful selfish desires.

FWIW and WADR, TEDS grad, I don’t see Penal Substitution in the Bible, and I do not see how you have biblically demonstrated your case. You have cited events from salvation history, with which we are all familiar. But how does that prove that Christ’s self-sacrifice was primarily meant to glorify God and only incidentally intended to redeem and save humankind? Where is the Bible verse that explicitly states this? Thanks in advance.

TEDSgrad wrote:

The Atonement cannot be described by one mode, definition, or facet. But the hinge-pin that holds all the definitions together is Propitiation (Substitutionary Sacrifice, Penal Substitution).

A few years ago I would have been in hearty agreement with your thoughts on Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). But due to life events I did quite a lot or reading on this topic starting a few years ago. This TWW link has a list of links to some of the better articles/papers/essays I read that argue against it: http://thewartburgwatch.com/interesting/books-movies-tv-etc/#comment-326343.

The bottom line for me now is that I can no longer believe it. The Biblical support for PSA is thin at best, and the arguments against it are not weak. Also, if PSA is true, then the church got it wrong for the first 1500 years. That is possible, but not likely. While I don’t believe that one can gain or lose salvation by believing or not believing PSA, I do believe that PSA paints the wrong picture of God that will impact how we experience Him and how we relate with others.

I will also post a link to some questions I posed.

@ Todd Wilhelm:
We had a pastor that deposited into his own bank account funds from the missionary offerings (to build his mansion). He went to jail. The board filed charges.

TEDSgrad wrote:

If He is not our penal substitute, but is certainly our substitute; Is that a certainly partial substitute? A life is required, so whose is it?

How many of the articles did you read from the list that I posted? If you read more than a handful I think you will find yourself less confident in the “truth” of PSA as it is currently taught. My list comes from a variety of Christian sources: Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic.

Wow I had not heard about Darrin Patrick But I remember him preaching at coral Ridge and I think he was at liberate once as well…

Disgusting. It seems like a lot of these guys are flocking together in association in groups like Christ hold fast ( what liberate eventually became when they were disgraced by TT’a behavior).

So many of their colleagues can’t seem to see it even when they are warned about their friends, the only reason I can think they don’t see it is because teachers don’t think it’s a big deal. They don’t seem to understand the concept of “a little leaven…”

Any of those guys who think it’s OK to continue to associate with those adulterous preachers and teachers in that group are suspect, in my opinion.

It’s amazing to me how many marriages, associated with that group and their families, are falling apart.

But hey it’s sll good cuz grace right?

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

TEDSgrad wrote:

If He is not our penal substitute, but is certainly our substitute; Is that a certainly partial substitute? A life is required, so whose is it?

How many of the articles did you read from the list that I posted? If you read more than a handful I think you will find yourself less confident in the “truth” of PSA as it is currently taught. My list comes from a variety of Christian sources: Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic.

Ken,
I respect the strength of your conviction, please respect mine. Exposure to your sources does not logically follow that I change my convictions (intellectual abuse).

I’ve noticed from your 20 questions that you explicitly mention wrath quite a bit. You never explicitly mention LOVE! – not even once! If you go back up and read my posts, it is the Love of God that makes the Atonement necessary. He is the Self-giving God of Love. He endures our penalty (penal) as a supreme act of love. He was given “for us.” Understanding His love is necessary for right living/sanctification/being conformed to His Image. It is correspondingly, the reason for so much ungodliness in the world and in the church.
You are absolutely correct that this is a foundational issue – the crux(cross/crucifixion) of history.

Best wishes

Oy! WADR TEDSgrad: Propitiation is not the same thing as Penal Substitution. Satisfaction is not the same thing as Penal Substitution. Therefore, providing verses about propitiation and satisfaction — verses with which I am already quite familiar, BTW — does not prove Penal Substitution. All it does is move the goal posts.

CHIPS wrote:

But my salvation is not on if I believe correctly about PSA or other theologies. The point is that Jesus died for my sins. And if I accept Jesus as my savior I am saved. Did Jesus only suffered a physical death, or did he also suffered punishments in hell? I don’t know for certainty. But I don’t need to know this to be saved. I only need to accept Jesus as my savior.

Yes! This is the point! Sadly, I have been accused of denying the faith because of my denial of PSA. Being a member of a SBC church in Northern Alabama does not make it easy to be a PSA-denier. It would be much easier for me to go with the flow, but for the sake of conscience I cannot. If you are interested in looking at both sides, the list of links I provided are among the best arguments I found against PSA. To find arguments for PSA you can find plenty on any of the popular New Calvinist sites such as T4G, 9Marks, Founders, Challies, Ligonier, GTY, or desiringgod.

TEDSgrad

We must not think that we are the center of God’s love – God is.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Say what? Read I John. Read the gospel of John. Read Psalm 8. Your view of God’s love is, in my opinion, distorted.

The atonement is first of all an act of God towards God. His justice and holiness must be satisfied. He satisfies Himself by paying the demands of His holiness and justice. He glorifies Himself in His Son – PRIMARY REASON for it all. His great Love is displayed, but only after holiness and justice have been assuaged.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Holy Moley, what kind of God Who is Creator of the Universe, needs appeasement? This sounds more like one of the many Greek gods who must be held at bay or else they will smash you into little pieces. God in Christ willingly and freely gave Himself for humanity out of love, mercy and compassion. I do not know this god that needs to be appeased.

Then, as a byproduct, He saves us and redeems the world.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No, we are not a “byproduct.” He has crowned us with glory and honor. Read Psalm 8. The reason Christ came and took on flesh in the Incarnation was for the sole purpose of saving humankind. His passion and resurrection were for the sole purpose of redeeming humankind. When Christ came to this earth, the salvation of humanity was not something secondary or incidental. The whole point of the Incarnation is Christ becoming one of us that we might become like Him. I have never heard this idea of the salvation of humankind being a by-product, but I can say without hesitation that it is quite disturbing.

TEDSgrad wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Yikes! He saves us only as a byproduct of satisfaction and glorification of His justice? Sorry; I just can’t go there.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unless the necessity of the atonement be grounded in eternal principles (outside creation), even the death of Christ cannot be seen as a moving expression of God’s love.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Whoa, Nellie!!! Where are you learning this kind of theology? The very act of Christ’s humiliation, leaving His glory in Heaven to become one of us, shed His blood on the cross, and be raised from the dead is entirely and all about God’s moving expression of love toward us. I think you need to start reading the gospels and John’s letters all over again if you think of God’s love in such minimalist terms.

No problem, Ken. I don’t have much context to interpret you. So please forgive me, if I pushed back too hard. It doesn’t put your salvation at risk. The thief on the cross didn’t have his theology down pat, neither do I. It’s OK to disagree. It’s one thing to read the Scriptures; it’s another to interpret them aright. Brilliant minds (not mine) disagree on interpretation, but it must be done. Not everything is explicit.

What follows is my opinion (not what I can prove): The Father turned away from His Son (forsook)as sin was laid upon Him – He died spiritually before He died physically on the cross. This was the agony Christ foresaw in Gethsemane. The Trinity was fractured for three days. Read the Suffering Servant, especially Isa. 53:10 – God was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief. The Son had to have faith that the Father would raise Him from the dead – just as we do. He was separated, but had to trust the Father while separated, because of our sin that He bore. Separation equals spiritual death. The Father and Spirit raised Him to New Life. What Self-giving Love!!!
When Christ became Incarnate, the Trinity was no longer Consubstantial – all Three equal in the Godhead (especially regarding the Will). The Three were always equal in Will at the same time (we have to speak of time, but God is outside of time – no separation of will). He didn’t regard Christ came to do the Will of the Father – submitted to it, was not His own Will. He also laid down the independent exercise of His Divine Power. Although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equalitly with God a thing to be grasped (Phil. 2:6-11). All the miracles He performed, He performed by the power of the Holy Spirit. He could not use His own Divine Power as Second Person of the Trinity, or he would not be like us and could resist temptation by Divine means (temptation in wilderness). Everything He did, we (as believers) can also do by submitting to the Father’s Will and via the Holy Spirit’s power. His Incarnation was also when He became consubstantial with humanity in order to redeem us.
He went into the pit, and set the captives free as He could not be held longer than three days (don’t know the why, here, penal?). As He Himself did not sin and faithfully obeyed the Father’s Will, He could not be kept any longer, and Father and Spirit raised Him as the First Fruits of a New Creation. He takes His place at the right hand of the Father, Consubstantial with the Godhead, and still consubstantial with a new humanity (Col 1:15-20).
This gives meaning to “made in the image of God,” – the fullness of God in us! When we have new life “in Christ,” one can see how Lucifer was envious as he could never attain that. When we have new life “in Christ,” we are seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians). We don’t become as God (Consubstantial with the Godhead), but we do have life in the Son (consubstantial with the Son). So we will live in the Love and Glory that exists between the Godhead as we are “in Christ” (bring many sons to glory, Heb. 2:10)- He is our Life (predicate)! He is our Brother.
I understand that there will be disagreement on my opinion. I don’t put it forth as knowledge with explicit quotations. But, How can we neglect so great a salvation?

“that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” (Eph. 3:18-21)

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

ARC are the Spiritual Warrior bozos behind “Operation Ice Castle” against the Demon “Queen of Heaven” atop Mount Everest.

Who bragged about killing Princess Di and Mother Teresa with their “Imprecatory Prayer”

Wait whaaaat?

TEDSgrad wrote:

The Trinity was fractured for three days. … He was separated, but had to trust the Father while separated, because of our sin that He bore. Separation equals spiritual death. The Father and Spirit raised Him to New Life.
When Christ became Incarnate, the Trinity was no longer Consubstantial – all Three equal in the Godhead (especially regarding the Will). … He could not use His own Divine Power as Second Person of the Trinity, or he would not be like us and could resist temptation by Divine means (temptation in wilderness).

Can I ask how you came to this set of beliefs? I have not heard any Christian state that the Trinity was ever fractured or not consubstantial. I’ve not read it in any of major creeds or confessions, nor in the Bible.

How does your belief take into account what Jesus said here: John 10:17-18 –
“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

I should clarify:
Consubstantial is the English that came out of the Nicene Creed – you can google if you want more. It indicates that the Father, Son, And Spirit are of the same Nature, Divinity, Essence – Three in One.
I have qualified it a couple times in reference to Will. I want to make that clear – as to Will. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. Fully God according to the normal Consubtantial meaning – always.
I have used it as referring to the Will so that the Father’s Will and the Son’s Will are not quite the same, as Jesus is submitting and learning to obey it at the cost of the flesh, not at the cost of His Divine Nature. He never had to submit to the Father’s Will as it was Consubstantial in heaven – coexistent, instantaneous, and of the same between the Three in One. And, the laying aside of the independent exercise of His Divine power was different than eternity passed. He didn’t lay aside His Divine Nature. I don’t want anyone to ever think that I am saying that. These are difficult concepts, no doubt.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

I would encourage you to be careful because you are proposing a theology that has no historical or Biblical roots.

I strongly disagree with this statement!
But putting my opinion’s truth or validity aside, this kind of statement smacks of the Authoritarianism many on this blog are reacting against. You can disagree, but it is the wording where I am motivated to push back at you, again. Maybe, if you state that it is your opinion that I am wrong, I would not react thus (a little more humility and love vs wrath and judgment in your wording and in the content of your proposals).

Blessings,

Sam wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Douggie Phillips ESQUIRE, head of Vision Forum.
(Yes, he always stressed that faux-Noble (or is it faux-Gentry?) title like a bogus Doctorate.)
Search on “Doug Phillips” here or at Spiritual Sounding Board.

Esquire? Really. Wow. Not only does that man advocate child abuse (sorry, I mean discipline), but now he literally is “lording over others”. Wow. Just wow.

Back when Douggie was getting famous on this (and other) watchblogs, one commenter referred to him as “Little Lord Fauntleroy” because of his physical stature and cosplay preferences.