“Between now and March 11, the elders are respectfully asking every Covenant Life member to either reaffirm your membership, let us know you are moving on, or indicate you would like to discuss this with an elder.”
Correspondence to CLC Members
Covenant Life Church (Facebook Photo)
Change is a-comin’ once again at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Earlier this month, the church filed for a new trademark – CHRIST CHURCH METRO (see screen shots below):
This congregation, which began in someone’s home back in 1977 (ed. 2/25/18, 9:00 a.m.), was first called “Gathering of Believers (GOB)”. Some years later the name changed to “Covenant Life Church (CLC)”. Now all indications point to yet another name change – Christ Church Metro.
Looks like the man who pastored this church for 27 years, C.J. Mahaney, was right about one thing. He was known for saying: “Constant change is indeed here to stay.” Perhaps those who have remained in the congregation have become accustomed to ‘constant change’.
Once the name change takes place and CLC ceases to exist, the history of this congregation may disappear as well. In case that does happen, we have decided to preserve the church’s history in screen shots taken from the current website. (see below)
**************************************
*************************************
Never mind that the Take and Give Bible study mentioned at the beginning of CLC’s history was started by Lydia Little. Larry Tomczak and C.J. Mahaney took over the weekly meetings, and Lydia is given no credit whatsoever (as you can see above). Lydia died on August 25, 2016, and her passing was mentioned in The Washington Post under “Notable Deaths”. (see screen shot below)
In addition to the likely name change, each member of the congregation has been asked to reaffirm his/her membership (see screen shots of correspondence below):
When you click on MEMBERSHIP REAFFIRMATION SURVEY, this is what appears:
It will be interesting to see how many in the CLC congregation remain as members. Some of our readers will remember that Mark Driscoll pulled a similar stunt at Mars Hill Church, and it didn’t work out so well…
As I was preparing this post, I decided to take a look at the Wikipedia article about Covenant Life Church, which I haven’t seen in a while. I was shocked when I read the following (see screen shot below):
So the allegations of child sexual abuse at Covenant Life Church and/or Covenant Life School “likely never happened” at all, according to an independent investigator hired by CLC???
We have met with parents of some of the children who were abused, and we believe them.
UPDATE: (2/25/18, 9:00 a.m.) The above paragraph has been removed from the Wiki article. The pertinent section now reads: (see screen shot below)
One of the reasons we began this forum was to give a voice to those who have been abused, particularly in the church. With regard to Covenant Life Church, we absolutely believe Grant Layman, a former CLC pastor and C.J. Mahaney’s brother-in-law, who testified under oath that reports of sexual abuse were handled in house instead of being turned over to the proper authorities.
A number of sources reported on Layman’s testimony in court, including The Washingtonian, which published a must-read article entitled The Sex Abuse Scandal that Devastated a Suburban Megachurch. That article included the following (see screen shot below):
Who to believe… Grant Layman (who testified under oath) or an independent investigator HIRED BY and PAID BY Covenant Life Church?
Folks, that’a a NO BRAINER! Remember the Ambassadors of Reconciliation, who were in the pockets of SGM leadership?
We continue to stand by the SGM victims who have suffered terrible abuse and have subsequently been re-victimized by their pastors and anyone else who refuses to believe them.
No doubt there will be more to report on the changes taking place at Covenant Life Church, which appears to be re-inventing itself.
First from the UK!!!1
Yay !!!!
Wow! That wiki entry is quite telling. They cannot hide the truth from God.
Plausible. Who knows?
“That’s a yes or no.”
“I believe so.”
They can’t even give a straight answer when they’re told to!
Hmmm, didn’t Someone say something to the effect of, “Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No”?
Odd – the first three commenters are all sporting the union flag. At least two of us are based in Scotland as well.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I’m up super-late working on a freelance project, but I’m about to go to bed.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Sounds fun…
Wickipedia can be edited by anyone, and in the case of Covenant Life Church there are a few Kool-Aid drinkers who have done a good job of editing it to give a favorable impression of what C.J. Mahaney formerly called “The Happiest Place on Earth!”
Here is what Brent Detwiler had to say about the independent investigator hired by CLC:
“The Lars Liebeler “independent” investigation of CLC in 2013-2014 was not independent. How could it be? Liebeler was hired by the pastors to investigate the pastors while retained as their lawyer. Because of this arrangement, Liebeler could not put the CLC pastors or church members in legal jeopardy. He could not report criminal findings. Such is forbidden under the law governing attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. Any incriminating evidence had to be withheld from his oral report to CLC in October 2014.
[January 25 update: I am now told that “The results of the contract [investigation] were to be reported to the CLC leadership…with any public reporting being at CLC leadership’s discretion.” In other words, the CLC pastors and their lawyers had the final say on what was reported to the church. That is one reason why the public comments made by Liebeler, Mitchell, Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco, and Megorden were so scripted.]
I contacted Mr. Liebeler to discuss this and other matters but he refused to engage me. So too the CLC pastors on several occasions. They would not meet with me.
[January 25 update: I now know why they would not answer my questions, meet with me or make the contract available. I would have discovered that what was reported to the church in October 2014 was under the control of the pastors. That was completely contrary to all their promises that the “independent investigator” would report independently.]”
Source – http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/long-story-by-washingtonian-magazine-about-cj-mahaney-covena.html
Covenant Life Church members would be well advised to move on. Covenant Life Church hired P.J. Smyth to replace Joshua Harris and immediately after Smyth took charge he was embroiled in a scandal in which his father’s life-long pedophilic practices of abusing young men came to light.
You can read all about how P.J. Smyth lied to his new congregation about what he knew at the link below. He came out with two statements and then said he had a total loss of memory about the occassion he and his father went to a meeting with church officials to discuss the murder John Smyth (P.J.’s dad) was charged with. How do I know? I talked with one of the pastors who interviewed P.J. and his dad.
Changing stories, changing church names, it’s all very dodgy. Not the type of guy I would choose for a pastor, not the type of church I would be a member of. I can guarantee more revelations will be forthcoming.
https://thouarttheman.org/2017/02/19/pjsmythmemoryloss/
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That’s what happens when I stay up late working on a post. Everyone on this side of the pond was asleep. 🙂
I’d be interested in knowing what their “Biblical basis” is for local church membership.
“Dear Covenant Life Members … let us know you are moving on …”
Here’s your chance folks! Check the following box:
“No. I am withdrawing my membership.”
Take this amazing opportunity and move on!
Why do organizations change their name? For some businesses I know of (much of the church is really a business), they changed their name in response to: a bad reputation for the legacy name, the legacy name continued to hurt the business, they were marketing a brand that no longer sells, conflict with stakeholders, or the current name was irreparably damaged by scandal.
I’d say most of that fits SGM/CLC … time to change the name!
What does the third choice really mean? I can’t help but wonder if it means “we’re going to talk down to you, kick you out, and shun you” given what so often happens in these churches when someone talks to an “elder”.
Max wrote:
My thought too. The only option!
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Revelation 6:10 (NASB)
and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Is there a way to flag the Wikipedia article? The moderators should know the article is misleading. That can be fixed.
Shannon H. wrote:
I think you have encapsulated the meaning behind choice three, but only “if” the talk with an elder starts to go South. When you enter their office, they will greet you with kindness and allow you to ask a few questions – to which they will give canned responses (all the elders will sing the same tune). If you buy it, they will get you to sign the new covenant before you leave. If you stall, they will turn the heat up a bit. If you reject their spin on things, they will stare a hole through your soul – the beginning of the shunning you will experience in the community when you encounter them again.
The Wiki information is such a blatant lie. It implies that NO sexual abuse ever happened at CLC. This is such a blatant lie. How Mahaney in Kentucky and the rest of the churches can live with themselves I don’t know.
Perhaps the church members should be given a fourth option for their response:
(4) Given the history of this organization, I recommend that it be dissolved rather than renamed.
I know that this is an elder-ruled church, rather than one governed by the congregation, but some things just don’t need to go forward just because the elders have decided to. The people of God ought to have some say in this matter – sure they can “talk with an elder” but what good is that really going to do? Will the new thing ‘really’ be a Christ Church? Jesus didn’t get very far in the last one.
@ Bridget:
Well, that was a bit redundant . . .
They leave no room for people who just may be attending a church to check out the people or its beliefs. I belong to a fairly run of the mill evangelical church that requires membership to vote, hold offices, etc., but we fully embrace those who just show up with a welcome, follow up if desired, and inclusion in all activities. They are encouraged to volunteer and become involved. If they stay, they often come to faith in Christ and/or membership. The CL “choices” are saying “if you don’t think like us, we’ll show you the door.”
There’s plenty of other good churches out there that don’t require a membership covenant.
ishy wrote:
I’m wondering too. 10 bucks says it’ll have more than a smattering of 9Marks in there…
Wow! A golden opportunity to break with a cult! My advice is run. Run far. And don’t look back.
I wonder if there’s a legal reason for this. They might be winding down CLC and “creating” CCM. Would this make it more difficult to sue since CLC would be defunct?
It wouldn’t be renewal, it would be enlisting in the new church.
The added benefit would be a fresh start with only true believers.
The fact that such a stunt could occur highlights the complete lack of accountability. Questions? Please see your elder for reeducation.
@ Jack:
I wonder whether the reason for the name change, etc. has to do with legalities, too.
Linn wrote:
No, and many 9 Marks and similar churches I’m aware of do not let you participate in any smaller groups unless you’ve signed a covenant, which makes it even more difficult to find out if they are a decent church. It attracts people who want to badly belong and feel more “special” than outsiders, but they are basically signing away their freedom and have no idea they are doing so.
Jack wrote:
In most States, if a “company” has elected to dissolve the organization through a formal filing, State statutes typically keep it open for suit for a few years, so you can still sue during that period. I suppose a “church” would operate under the same regulations, even if they are ‘non-prophet’.
Jack wrote:
Those might be hard to attract given the SGC/CLC legacy; Christians in an area typically know about such things (or should!).
Does anyone know how the finances worked out when SGM moved out of the CLC building?
From what I recall, SGM rented a large portion of the building from CLC. Once SGM moved out, and the congregation diminished in size, how has CLC been able to support the whole thing alone?
ION: Sport
So, a 4-1 win for Liverpool today over Dr Fundystan’s Hammers – let’s put it down to home advantage. West Ham drop to 13, three points above the ZoneOfDeath, but that’s not an insignificant cushion given how tight it is in that half of the table. We’re up to second, with EvilScum United and Chelsea to play tomorrow – so at least one of them has to drop points. If that match ends in a draw, we’ll remain second on goal difference.
Rugby Union: Scotland are 3-0 up on England after 12 minutes in what is evidently a tight game at SirAndyMurrayfield. Whoops – things are happening fast. First Owen Farrell levelled with a penalty, but as I type, Huw Jones (an ironic name for a Scotsman) has gone over to put the Scots 8-3 ahead! One conversion and a second Owen Farrell penalty later and it’s now 10-6 to Scotland. Basically, the score is changing faster than I can keep up. Against the Auld Enemy, there’s no doubting that Scotland are Up_For_It, and as is so often the case in a sporting occasion that is a mismatch on paper, the higher-ranked team (England, in this case) are playing craply.
IHTIH
Jack wrote:
At some point in the next couple of years, I home to fly over and catch up with my Canadian relatives (of which I have many). I realise Canada is a very big place – especially if you’re over in Vancouver – but we should share a beer or two.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
P.S. Ireland beat Wales earlier on, but – no offence – naebdy cares about that.
ishy wrote:
I think you’re right, and this is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed when he wrote:
“You only have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power—he’s free again.”
That’s what these Neo-Cal regimes deliver to their people, a sense of belonging and a sense of exclusivity from the wider world. But the price is dear.
Whether it’s voluntary (as Lydia has pointed out) or by force of Government, the transfer mechanism is the same.
@ Muff Potter:
And bless Providence for TWW and other blogs who are helping to free people from these despots.
ishy wrote:
I’m watching the video, to try to figure that out. My guess is that the Bible talks about us being “members” of the Body of Christ, therefore signing a contractual obligation to a 501c3 non-profit organization [aka, “Membership”] is biblical.
Here are the four “engines of membership.” “In membership at Covenant Life Church, the four essentials for everyone are Sunday services, serving teams, small groups, and financial giving. Learn how these four activities move us forward in our mission.”
Max wrote:
Ain’t that the truth! When my goddaughter left her “charismatic covenant community,” she asked local friends whether they considered the community a cult. “Of course it’s a cult!” they told her. “Everyone in Augusta knows that.”
@ Forrest:
Reads like the story from the documentary film series, “The Keepers”.
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
Yeah, it takes a leap of logic to transfer “body of Christ” or “the church” to “local church”, from all arguments I’ve seen for it. But I doubted it would be in the video since the statement said you had to come talk to an elder to find out.
My membership is denominational, but then again, I never agreed to allow anyone to have authority over me, which I know they require for membership. I am also called a “partner”, not a “member”, and I think that’s a key difference. I still am not a fan of memberships, though.
Scotland 23-12 ahead with 12 minutes to play at SirAndyMurrayfield. A famous victory looking certain… grand slam for Ireland and Scotland will narrowly miss the wooden spoon, but WTF.
#WhenWillWeSeeeeeeeeYerLikeAgain
Scotland 23-12 ahead with 12 minutes to play at SirAndyMurrayfield. A famous victory looking certain… grand slam for Ireland and Scotland will narrowly miss the wooden spoon, but hey.
#WhenWillWeSeeeeeeeeYerLikeAgain
This is the last Six Nations for legendary Scottish commentator (and former player) Ian Robertson. He’s getting his perfect send-off…
#AndSentHimHameWardTaeThinkAgain…
Oh flower of Scotland… when will we see yer like again –
Who fought and died for yer wee bit hill and glen?
Sorry. It’s partly the wine commenting at this stage.
And it’s all over at SirAndyMurrayfield!
500 Miles by The Proclaimers is playing over the tannoy.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Actually, let’s be honest. I’m completely sozzled.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
What was the reason for originally bringing in Joshua Harris at such a young age? Was he viewed as some mindless lump of clay that could be moulded?
In browsing some of his material, I didn’t get the opinion Harris was an intellectual giant. The persona I got was a pleasant follower, and yes man.
I suspect CLC wants to change their name because people searching the web prior to attending their church are coming up with lots of links to this blog, and others that do not paint their church in a positive light.
It’s all about the money. They desperately need to attract more “giving units.” After all, it’s one of their four essential engines of membership.
GOB to CLC to CCM. I’m reminded of the change of descriptors over my life, “retarded” “crippled” and “handicapped” are now considered offensive and “disabled” is now the go to word. Because the underlying condition is thought negative eventually disabled will take on a similar negative connotation and will need to be replaced. Similarly unless the underlying problem at CLC/CCM remains unchanged then yet another name change will be required in the future as the new name will also become synonymous with corruption as CLC has.
Just sayin…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think we got the picture 🙂
#andstoodagainsthim
Max wrote:
Nouthetic counseling >>>> “Biblical” counseling ???
Neo/YRR Calvinism >>>> “Gospel” ???
Same game >>>> New name!!!
Forrest wrote:
I was about to say something along the lines of it’s a wonder I can still type. That said, I may review this tomorrow and find myself mistaken.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
ROFL
Nathan Priddis wrote:
He was REALLY well-known. His book was a huge topic at my Christian college (before they made him a pastor), sometimes all people would talk about. I think it was probably more because he attracted what they perceived as moldable young followers. They probably thought they could mold him as well, but he had grown up in that environment and did have a good bit of charisma. His parents were also quite well-known for writing books on Christian homeschooling.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
OK: 7 comments in succession from the same drunk idiot.
Everything they say about TWW is clearly true.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Too right. Bah.
You’re all rubbish.
Up yours,
Roger Bombast
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, it’s obvious to me that the trouble with all of you is that you’re 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
Sport
So: Scotland have beaten England at rugby for the first time in 1300 years.
Also Liverpool won again.
No other sport has happened anywhere.
IHTIH
Jack wrote:
Anne wrote:
Wikipedia is a bit more of a free-for-all. Since I have no conflict of interest in regards to Covenant Church (I’m neither a member nor a victim [for that matter I’m not even a Christian]), but, I do have an interest in facts and accuracy, I’ve edited the article a bit. Note that even those with a conflict of interest are free to point out reliable sources in the article’s talk page. There are also the questions of neutrality and accuracy for which one can use templates to mark articles (start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV)
@ ishy:
First, may I ask how, or through who, was the book achieving influence on your campus?
Regarding Harris’s wider influence,
I remember the book’s promotion by Focus on the Family, and believe this gave him the national audience. Without it, I’m not sure the homeschool subculture could have given him the quanitative audience, needed to reach escape velocity.
But best seller status, of itself, does not convey any administration skills. Perhaps he had them seperately.
One thing he lacked was intelectual gravitas. This would also appear to dovetail with his later return to theological study in Vancouver.
Im fascinated by apparent intelectual disconnects surrounding these groups and individuals.
Example.
Harris claims his mother gave him a copy of Elizabeth Elliott’s, Passion and Purity. Harris later writes to Elliott for confirmation of his own thesis.
*This is a problem, because a man is not supposed to be taught by a female. This is non negotiable for much of Evangelicalism, specifically, Neo Calvinism.
*Courtship doctrine would be at odds with the premarital relationship of Jim and Elizabeth Elliott. Short of premarital sex, the Elliotts would have violated multiple components of Courtship. (Journal of Jim Elliott)
My assumption is, Harris does not realize the contradictions of what he is espousing in his book.
@ Nathan Priddis:
Perhaps Joshua Harris was husband material for one of Mahaney’s daughters. Ater all, he lived in the Mahaney’s basement for about a year after he arrived in Gaithersburg. CJ has done a great job of insulating himself with ‘family’.
Unfortunately (for CJ), Joshua Harris fell in love with someone else at CLC.
Just for clarification it was actually started in the house owned by Bill Patton’s father and not Larry Tomczak’s house. Bill Patton started at Gathering as a full time deacon then became an elder and was “sent out” to form Covenant Fellowship Church near Philadelphia.
Bill Patton’s father didn’t stick around too long at Gathering of Believers. Bill’s dad before his death made some comment on SGM Survivors about not being comfortable with Gathering of Believers. As I recall the father mentioned something about clone making and it being too controlling. Comments were also made about the young (at the time) leadership of Gathering not wanting to listen to older people and the wisdom that older people many times had.
I found the comment that Bob Patton (Bill’s father) posted:
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
Aha. I knew financial giving would be in there as a non-negotiable. You sign the membership covenant, the organization owns a piece of every paycheck.
ishy wrote:
People I’ve talked to from a local 9Marks church seem bewildered at the thought of not being under authority. I’ve been told the function of a church is to provide accountability for believers, one to another.
Is accountability = building up and equipping the saint?
Nathan Priddis wrote:
I think I Kissed Dating Goodbye was popular across the country in Christian culture circles at that time, not just at my university. And Harris was about the same age as the students there.
Whether or not it was admirable, and I didn’t think it was (I wrote an editorial in the school newspaper at the time about it being the wrong way to thing about dating and courtship), there were a lot of students at my school who took it hook, line, and sinker.
Harris realizes it now and has said he regrets writing it. I do wonder if, at the time, his parents notoriety in homeschool circles, along with his dad’s connections from having a bestselling book, made it easier for him to get it published.
I don’t think being admirable really has anything to do with what attracts people to ideas in Christian culture.
refugee wrote:
But don’t I think many talk about authority and accountability the same way the covenants do of those churches. Keeping one another accountable is not what is in those covenants, because if it was, the covenants would have stipulations on how to keep the pastors and elders accountable. I do think some 9 Marks churches want people to believe it goes both ways, but they find out it doesn’t when they or their friends end up in church discipline for something they didn’t deserve.
Some covenants are kind of vague about it, like Bethlehem’s, for example, “respect the elders” is interpreted as “obey the elders”. But some I’ve read basically say that you can make no major choice in life without having an elder decide for you. And I know people who have been very surprised to find out that was in their covenant. Though, granted, some of those covenants have changed after people have signed them. I know that’s one of the New Cal deceptive tricks.
refugee wrote:
Just to add, in one conversation, when I talked about being uncomfortable about a church having an emphasis on authority, I was asked if I rejected God’s authority in my life, then… isn’t God the ultimate authority over everyone and everything?
refugee wrote:
I read things like that from women in churches like that, but most of the people I’ve known IRL were male (because of seminary, mostly). If they did talk about authority of the church, it was because they were the authority as pastor or they wanted to be that kind of pastor. Most of the non-pastor guys were somewhat bewildered by it, as if they hadn’t even noticed it was in there. I don’t even think most of them bothered to read the whole covenant.
I’m sure it differs in how well-trained(re:brainwashed) they were by that point. And if the church had changed the covenant since they signed it, which happens a lot, I think. I know the church I used to go to got everyone to sign a pretty general, somewhat vague covenant, and then it was completely redone to be very 9 Marks authoritarian, and retroactively applied to members who had already signed. But that pastor I know went into that church and didn’t tell anyone he was Calvinist. I was there during his hiring. It was classic deceptive New Cal methodology.
Nathan Priddis wrote:
Interesting that Josh Harris was “personally trained” by CJM and yet he has apparently felt some lacking in his preparation and has gone off to school (I almost wrote “back to school” except that I don’t think he’s had any formal accredited academics). His only academic credentials, as far as I can recall, were a homeschool high school degree. His parents were reformed charismatics (charismatic Calvinists, perhaps?)
I can say that as a teen, he was quite charming and persuasive. Homeschooling parents would listen to him, say, on a panel about “Homeschooling through High School”, and they’d be so impressed. The Harrises were big on the teaching that there’s no such thing as a teenager, and teens should be treated like apprentice adults, or something like that.
The Harrises and their teachings had a wide impact on the Christian homeschooling crowd in their state, pushing the state organization in an increasingly patriarchal (and paranoid) direction.
This is a pretty good summary:
https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/01/25/no-unbelievers-allowed-how-homeschooling-became-a-christians-only-club/
@ Deb:
None of the Mahaney girls were as vertically challenged as Josh. He’s super short and exaggerates his height in his book. One of many of his untruths.
@ ishy:
Interesting. It was a woman who was talking to me about God’s authority. I’ve heard this whole “authority” spiel especially from people in the military or formerly in the military. They say things like “Everyone’s under authority in life. If you work for a company, you have a boss.” I guess company owners are under the authority of the shareholders, maybe? Or the board of directors? If you’re a child, you’re under the authority of your parents? (At least until the kids become adults, I guess, though I know adults who try to keep their adult kids under their thumbs forever, it seems.)
So it makes sense to them that even (or especially? because God is the “ultimate” authority?) in church, people are going to be under the authority of the pastors and elders. Because some bible verses can be interpreted that their watch-care is authority. Or something like that. I have a headache and don’t feel like looking up the exact wording, but I’m sure you know the verses I mean, like the one about congregations not being a grief to the elders.
@ Steve240:
Thanks for the correction. I will edit the post in a bit.
Max wrote:
Seriously, you could get out without the threat of discipline. That seems like a “wise as serpents, innocent as doves” situation.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I traveled to Texas and got the Canadian flag designation.
Max wrote:
ChEKA changes its name to OGPU which changes its name to NKVD which changes its name to KGB…
Kari wrote:
An even more shrewd move could be to send a resignation letter as described here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/. This method gives a better legal footing if there is risk of the church pressuring people to stay.
I wonder what would happen if people just ignored the letter and left without a word.
Steve240 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksP2jYr7mS8
Root 66 wrote:
As was said in SF movie fandom at the time:
“RUN, LOGAN!”
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Furtick Mansions and Private Jets are EXPENSIVE.
Max wrote:
Or find out you just targeted yourself for reprisals.
After the Columbine Massacre, a lot of schools did the same, encouraging the students to write essays on the subject which were used to “smell out the Witches among us”. Two years ago in the overflow hotel for BABSCon, I met a young Brony from New Jersey who got caught in that trap and ended up with his life ruined.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thank you for filling us in on the important stuff! My sister and nephews were at Murrayfield a few weeks ago. I’d love to hear the singing..been a long time since I watched a good rugby match!
Heather- doing a dance called America…and not likely to be going home when the summer is coming in…
refugee wrote:
So… these people basically *invent* a church, creating it *ex nihilo* out of whole cloth. It’s a “denomination” that was unknown to anyone on Planet Earth until a few decades ago.
Then they have the immortal crust to claim spiritual and doctrinal authority over you? Such that you have to check with them — and be subjected to re-education — before you can dare to leave?
“By what authority” do they do such things? And who gave them such authority, besides themselves?
refugee wrote:
The New-Calvinists are big proponents of accountability. But it’s pretty hypocritical for these “sola scriptura” gents to push for it when it cannot be found in scriptura. They seem to pick and choose when “sola scriptura” applies.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
My new mantra for all things relating to church is, “Says who?” I am becoming more and more convinced that we should seriously consider the ancient paths.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, checking anything but the first box would put you on the first draft of the “Shun List.” Personally, I would just walk out of there without completing and returning the survey.
Kari wrote:
But be shunned at the local WalMart when you bumped into those who kept the faith.
Look into some of the boys who have killed themselves who had close ties to Covenant Life. (four names redacted).
Nathan Priddis wrote:
IMO? Man-crush.
Steve240 wrote:
If they backed up their suggestion with a return of funds or transfer to a different ministry, that would be one thing.
ishy wrote:
Yep, who minds the minders, especially those who are called to be “above reproach” per Scripture? Yet how often do we hear about pastors and elders having no clear accountability model prior to a fall?
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
They will claim the authority of Scripture and their interpretation of the Bible.
The plethora of sects, Bible cults, and fellowships that you allude to is almost exclusively American in origin, and not much older than 40-45 years.
“Constant change is here to stay” ah yes I remember that phrase well from my time at a Youth With a Mission church plant in 1981 in Crawley England (Crawley is a town south of London). It was a regular phrase from Tony Fitzgerald, one of the leaders there. Actually he called himself an apostle. Youth with a Mission in those days was big into Apostle status. It gave them a godlike status.
CJ Mahaney visited Crawley 1981-2 at the invite of the Youth with a Mission church in Crawley. He was treated like a rock star by the leadership. He was young then, around 28 years old. My instincts were he was creepy, but I was terrified of speaking up. We were so indoctrinated with fearing the leaders, to challenge them was like challenging God.
refugee wrote:
I know the sort. And I’m still not sure what it means to be “under my pastor’s authority.” Does it mean that I do what he says, without questioning? Does it mean that I listen to him for at least an hour each week? What if I study the Bible myself, and come to different conclusions than he does? What if my pastor starts quoting Piper, taking him seriously, without a sense of irony?
I think some of this can be traced back to Gothard, and the “umbrella of authority” nonsense. Seriously, Google that phrase, and look at the images.
I still remember a message that Wade Burleson did on authority. It was the best thing I’ve heard on the topic, and Wade has a way of distilling ideas down to a very simple, and often shocking, sentence.
@ The Lowly Sparrow:
Thanks for sharing such enlightening information!
refugee wrote:
“He who was born in a cage
Yearns for his cage;
With horror I understand
That I Love My Cage.”
— Yevgevny Yevtushenko, Soviet-era Russian Poet
The Lowly Sparrow wrote:
Hey Dale, isn’t that called “Priestcraft”?
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
In the words of the prophet Steve Taylor:
“Take your workbooks and turn with me
To the chapter on Authority;
Do you top the Chain of Command?
Rule your family with an Iron Hand?
Because a good wife learns to cower
Beneath the umbrella of Power;
Under cover of Heaven’s gate
I. MANIPULATE.“
Muff Potter wrote:
And they all claim to be “Founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD.”
And none of them hang out together; the Universe cannot have two Centers.
The Lowly Sparrow wrote:
The creepiness aura factor. Same thing said on some tweets about Savage throughout his ministry – over 19-20 years, no less.
Muff Potter wrote:
I must beg to differ slightly, in that the phenomenon arose independently in England/Wales as well, at around the same time. Denominations and isolated local groups (and combinations of the two, whereby isolated local groups joined together or sought some kind of affiliation with other groups) proliferated rapidly during the 70’s and 80’s, in what is still widely known as the house-church movement.
Not every church-planting leader in that setting has styled himself an apostle. Even among those who have, not everyone of them uses that designation to arrogate authority to himself and evade accountability among believers. But many have, and still do.
Last evening I was alerted that the Wikipedia article for Covenant Life Church has been altered, specifically, the paragraph that I included in the post has been removed. The pertinent section regarding sex abuse now reads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Life_Church
I have updated the post with this most curious change.
Whatever someone believes about the potential CLC name change, the church seems to be at a turning point in moving on. This year the congregation will vote on whether to join Advance, the group of churches led by PJ Smyth.
Terry Virgo, leader of New Frontiers ministry, will be speaking at CLC this Sunday morning. Virgo is Smyth’s mentor. Advance was formerly part of New Frontiers, and PJ is clearly viewed as one of Virgo’s successors.
@ BoughtTheField:
We’ll be discussing these developments soon.
BoughtTheField wrote:
From wiki…
“Newfrontiers (previously New Frontiers International) is a neocharismatic apostolic network of evangelical, charismatic churches founded by Terry Virgo. It forms part of the British New Church Movement, which began in the late 1950s and 1960s combining features of Pentecostalism with British evangelicalism.[1] Other streams of the British New Church Movement with which it shares some features include Together, Ministries Without Borders, and Life-Links. Groups like Pioneer, Ichthus Christian Fellowship, and Vineyard are more distantly related. Newfrontiers describes itself as “an international family of churches together on a mission to establish the Kingdom of God by restoring the church, making disciples, training leaders and planting churches.” Its theology is distinctively Reformed.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfrontiers
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Even when I attended church, I never went that far down the rabbit hole.
It’s the danger of being in a closed community. That community becomes the be all, end all, in your life.
School could also be a closed community as well.
That’s why I encourage my kids to be part of activities outside school.
It’s best to diversify your connections. Lots of christians have fullfilling relationships both in and out of church. But many of the issues here relate ro the fact the church becomes all consuming. The kids go to the church school, the parents friends are all associated with the church, the only social activities are church sponsored or church approved.
Humans are social animals by nature, sometimes the way to freedom is very painful when those you thought were family aren’t.
Muff Potter wrote:
I think this was also happening in the early church before authority was consolidated in Rome. Almost all the church fathers wrote some sort of book against heresies. Once Catholicism became the state religion of the Roman Empire, it was easier to squash heretical sects.
I think a big factor for the religious diversity we have in the US is the historical devotion to religious freedom. It is such a big part of who we are that it almost encourages people to try new things.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
We may disagree on this point, but I think any church claim of authority over a person is suspect, no matter how young or old the church.
@ Ricco:
“We may disagree on this point, but I think any church claim of authority over a person is suspect, no matter how young or old the church.”
No disagreement here, Ricco!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This makes me wonder how the first century church would have been different if they had the same easy access to media that we have enjoyed in the late 1900s to today. Just look at what happened after the invention of the printing press.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The closed community mindset can manifest anywhere. A friend of mine was very involved in the local Klingon group. She was even the president for a while. Loved the comraderie and charity stuff they did but it got to be too closed and took a turn for the dark side. She was excommunicated for having a relationship with a Starfleet ‘admiral’. She laughs about it now but it’s 20 odd years later. At the time the stress & upset was very real.
I’m no social psychologist but it’s built within us to join a tribe and close ranks against the other. Very useful to our ancestors, and can be beneficial to us now but it’s a double edged sword.
Social media has even made it a commodity.
“In an interview, Harris said the isolation of Covenant Life, and of a small cluster of churches of which it was a part, may have fed leadership mistakes, including the decision of pastors — himself among them — to handle a child sexual abuse case internally instead of going to police.” (Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2015)
“Isolation” is the key word here. Cults of personality have little to no accountability systems in place. Elders do what they want to. When members are controlled and manipulated to “Trust me”, group think takes over – critical thinking falls in the street. If the only “spiritual” instruction someone receives comes from the pulpit … if members are not in the Word themselves to test that teaching … if members are discouraged from interacting with the Body of Christ outside their church walls … if members are advised to turn the blogs off … they become ensnared.
BoughtTheField wrote:
Gee, the suspense is killing me.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hell no they don’t hang out together, they’d just as soon threaten each other with their ‘eternal states’ as duke it out with each other.
And it’s not just American fundagelicalism.
A couple of years back I read a short piece on Yahoo news in which the EO (eastern orthodox) and the Coptic clergy squared off in a fist fight over who had what rights to what floor space in the Church of the Holy Nativity in Jerusalem during Advent.
Jesus Wept (shortest verse in the New Testament).
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Good catch Nick. I believe it was Darby (Anglo-Irish) who got the whole dispensational theology shtick and subsequent rapture fever going.
The lass Margaret MacDonald (Scotland) was no slouch either. She added greatly to the rolling inertia of rapture fever.
Jack wrote:
And the end-up point?
Not good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF_4EWSuzQY
Muff Potter wrote:
OH!!! The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is closed today. It, like the Church of the Holy Nativity, is managed by at least three religious groups and they notoriously do not agree on anything. But they agreed to close today because the mayor of Jerusalem is demanding an outrageous sum in so-called back taxes (and it is outrageous, nearly $200 million US). I just thought I’d bring this up–it seems money has a magic ability to unite people in a common cause.
BoughtTheField wrote:
Is PJ Smyth related to John Smyth (in South Africa, I believe)?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yes. I remember going with our youth group to Canterbury Cathedral in the early 1970s to hear Gerald Coates talk about his vision for the House church movement. He was accompanied by an American and the two of them sat on a raised platform as if they were kings (or gods) being worshipped by us American kept leaning forward to whisper in Coates’ ear and Coates would then stand up and make a pronouncement to encourage an already feverish crowd of charismatics to increase their intensity of worship. It was absolute bedlam. We gathered up our little band of bewildered teenagers and left. Coates clearly saw himself as an apostle and Dr David Bebbington of Stirling University places him in the Restorationist movement along with Bryan Jones and John Noble in his book ‘Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s’
*by us plebs. The American….* Oops. Some words disappeared.
This article gives a good summary of the movement.
http://www.immanuelcommunity.org.uk/about-us/—–part-2
This is a better summary
https://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/research-php/887/02-2008
So a couple more things stand out:
“reaffirm your membership, let us know you are moving on, or indicate you would like to discuss this with an elder”
Why does this remind me of Nazi Germany where you have to basically turn yourself in and confirm your name and birthday to get your yellow star? Oh that’s right: they want to know who is on their side and who is ready for the figurative gas chambers.
If you’re not sure about which to choose (“for some it’s an easy decision and for some it’s hard”), please choose the option of talking to an elder so they can help to brainwash you into the correct decision. I mean, what could be hard about choosing to stay at a church with registered sex offenders and a pastor who is the son of a child rapist and murderer? Gee. It’s just such a difficult decision I’m not sure.
“We’re doing this to update our records and more importantly to help each of us to opt in rather than drift in.” You can’t just visit Covenant Life or drift in. You’ve got to be tithing and serving and opting in so you can get your yellow star to pin on your shirt. Opt in! It’s the happiest place on earth. Do they serve koolaid in place of grape juice during communion?
JYJames wrote:
Yes. John Smyth is PJ Smyth’s father.
I’m sad, but not surprised, to see Terry Virgo is speaking at the church formerly known as Covenant Life. My pastor gave me his book God’s Lavish Grace to read a while back. The first part of the book is an exposition of Romans and is really excellent. It helped me see my freedom in Christ more clearly. The problem happens, as it does with most evangelical books, is that he says to much. He tries to systematize this freedom and show how your church leaders can help you find it and you start to see the authoritarianism he has been accused of poke through. I wish preachers could simply say, “this is my best understanding of who God is, go live your life in light of that. I’ll leave the application up to you because no two people are the same.” I know the answer to this question; the answer just makes me sad.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Son of Smyth the Whipper.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Any of them running around barking like hyenas or slashing their arms with knives?
(And like Grima Wormtongue & King Theoden, it’s plain to see which one was really in control.)
The Lowly Sparrow wrote:
Comrade Trotsky’s Doctrine of Continuous Revolution.
@ Lowlandseer:
This article mentions two founders from “christian brethren” backgrounds. Is this referencing Plymouth Brethern?
@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Wow. Thanks for sharing that. So true!
@ Jack:
I agree about being tribal which basically starts with family and spreads from there. The key is becoming an independent thinking adult within the larger group. Many today, on all sides and groups, are simply not allowing it. The more collectivist a society becomes, the harder it is.
Muff Potter wrote:
Reading through some of John Adams letters, I found a shirt and most curious one written to John Quincey in 1815 that your comment reminded me of (there was another where he rails on denominations, Jesuits and translations, etc)
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Correspondent%3A%22Adams%2C%20John%22%20Correspondent%3A%22Adams%2C%20John%20Quincy%22%20Period%3A%22Madison%20Presidency%22&s=1111311111&r=102
@ Todd Wilhelm:
The younger writes online that he is ever so grateful to escape troubled SA and UK by being embraced, welcomed by USA (churches).
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Good Lord! What a crew leading the “church”!! When will this madness end?!
Lydia wrote:
I was reading a book recently in which the author wrote about the importance of differentiation of people as a sign of maturing and growing.
Ricco wrote:
When my goddaughter was thinking of leaving her “charismatic covenant community,” she went to her parish priest and told him some of what went on there — the extreme micromanagement of people’s lives. The priest was honestly shocked. He said, “No priest or bishop would impose rules like that!” (About whom to date, how to keep house, etc.)
There are a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church. Trust me, we are *nothing* like these authoritarian churches. These guys out-pope the pope, big-time. If you seriously think we are in the same league…well, all I can say is: Ask your local Catholic priest about membership covenants and letters of excommunication. He won’t have a clue what you are talking about.
And BTW, the Spanish Inquisition was over quite a while ago. 😉
@ Max:
UK to SA to USA. Country hopping.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I fully agree. It seems like the smaller the sect, the crazier they get.
I’m not anti-Catholic. I’m not Catholic and I disagree with some of the church doctrine, but I don’t hold any anti-Catholic sentiment. I completely agree that the church does not continue in many of the abuses of the past. Also, the Catholic Church was not the only religious group abusing people back then.
I see Jesus’ ministry properly understood, as far as I can tell, as the anti-religion. So much time in Jesus’ ministry and even in the prophets was spent criticizing religion. As I see it, every corner and sect of Christianity has missed the mark on this to some extent. Many groups get some of the anti-religious parts of Jesus’ teaching right, with groups like the Calvinistas doing worse at this than most other streams of Christianity
Nathan Priddis wrote:
Arthur Wallace was Brethren of the J N D Darby school I think.
@ Ricco:
“I see Jesus’ ministry properly understood, as far as I can tell, as the anti-religion.”
That is a great way to put it.
@ Ricco:
There is a stream of thinking among a group/sect? of Jews that adheres to the Mosaic laws but rejects rabbinic Judaism which they say is a continuation of the Pharisees of the time before destruction of the temple. It can be argued that what Jesus opposed were the man-made rules of the Pharisees while upholding the Mosaic laws. If that is true, and it does look to me that it probably is true, then it explains some things that Jesus said about laws and burdens and traditions.
If so, then it would be that Jesus was not opposed to the national god and his cult (YHWH and the mosaic laws) but rather he was opposed to the corruption of that ‘religion’ by those who added the traditions of men to it.
Ricco wrote:
Ricco, it’s amazing how many church folks never get this! It’s all about relationship, not religion … life not law. Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions. The thing we call “church” is OK only if it is reaching individuals for Christ, and then equipping ‘them’ to do the work of the ministry. Individual soul competency and priesthood of ‘the’ believer gets lost in all the religious noise. Folks who reduce their Christian experience to doctrines about grace may very well miss a touch of Grace, an encounter with the living Christ.
Has anyone looked at the text of their church covenant, to see if there have been any recent changes? By clicking “I am reaffirming my membership” are they agreeing to new/changed terms… more restrictive membership and “discipline” policies, non-disclosure, things of that sort?
Seems like this “come to PJ” moment (“rededicate your life to CLC”) would be the perfect opportunity to tighten the grip on the insiders.
okrapod wrote:
Yes, Jesus warned us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. Yet, 2,000 years later, we have done just that in much of Christendom.
Max wrote:
There are droves of us who are neither neo-cal nor do we agree with that statement, if we take the statement as written. I am thinking that while you continue to preach that, and assuming that you want to be accurate, then you will have to realize that the neo-cals are not the only ones who disagree with that.
You are saying, or so it seems, (a) that God works either through individuals or through institutions but not both, and (b) that individuals work independently but not in or through institutions. In other words, what you are saying is the very thing that Catholics accuse Protestants of saying which is ‘just Jesus and me’.
So, on the record, I do not believe that.
bendeni wrote:
Good way to put it … a red flag identifying a cult of personality. Much has been said on this blog and elsewhere about church covenants – DO NOT sign them! The only covenant that a believer needs is the one written in blood by Christ … no other church membership agreement needed! If a church is forcing you to enter into contract terms and conditions, move on. The Word of God is the only guide you need – you don’t need to be restrained, controlled and manipulated by mere men in your walk of faith.
okrapod wrote:
Well, I haven’t really been saying that. I fully realize that the Church of the Living God is an institution comprised of individuals, with different giftings … we are many who have been joined to together to fulfill the Great Commission. What I am saying is that when we emphasize the institution over the individual we set up a system which advances institutional belief and practice, sometimes at the expense of individual freedom in Christ. New Calvinism is only one example of that. I am saying “it’s Jesus and me and you” if we do this thing right together. If we allow an institution to prevent that – to establish an overlord structure which controls every jot and tittle of our individual walk – then they own us.
Max wrote:
…but then one might miss out on one’s Indulgences…
@ okrapod:
Just a thought. The “chosen” institution, Israel, did not work real well as an “institution” of sorts. It went way off the rails. It’s always individuals that choose to obey God and work together as individuals. I think that is what the “Body” metaphor communicates.
Lydia wrote:
Indeed! “You are together the Body of Christ, and individually you are members of Him … God’s distribution of gifts is on the same principles of harmony that he has shown in the human body.” (1 Corinthians 12 Phillips)
We get off track in the organized church when we put more emphasis on membership in a religious institution, rather than membership in Him. The Body of Christ is certainly an “institution” – one comprised of believers – but it is one formed by Christ not by men in which God places great emphasis on working through individuals. Not everybody that goes to church is the Church. There has always been the Church within the church, despite the attempts to snuff it out through teachings and traditions of men. Within the walls of most churches you will find the genuine intermingled with the counterfeit – it is known in Heaven as the: Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, Church of the Firstborn, God’s Building, the People of God.
@ Lydia:
What I see when I look at Israel is Israel, not just the hero-individuals. The prophets (individuals) were sent to the people/the kings with instructions as to what needed done for the sake of the nation-not just select individuals. The kings were judged in part by what their reign did to the people. The judges and kings from time to time made war on behalf of Israel. The law was read to all the people and required of the people. God told Pharaoh let me people go; not just Moses-the people. It was the people who suffered when they did not do right by being carried off into captivity and such. The covenant was with the people and the promises were to Israel.
Now as to the fact that Israel did not work very well as an institution, well just look at the hero-individuals and how they did. Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land. David is forever being highly rejected by people on this very web site. The judges were mostly a mess by today’s standards. Many of the kings caused Israel to sin with other gods. A few, but only a few of the big players seem to have been ‘righteous’ but even so God did not reject Israel because of it.
And when I look at the near east today I see Israel as a people-group-a nation, not just some individuals in leadership; regardless of whether one thinks that the current Israel is of God or not.
My conclusion is that you and I are looking at the same thing but ‘seeing’ something different. Specifically I do not see where God required some level of perfection from the nation as a nation; loyalty yes but perfection no.
okrapod wrote:
You might enjoy Shmuley Boteach’s essay on The Tyranny of Perfection.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/the-tyranny-of-perfection_b_514338.html
Our Lord said the wheat and the tares would grow together until the Eschaton. He expressly forbade the kind of purist perfectionism that insists on tearing out the tares by the roots (and destroying a whole lot of wheat in the process).
We Christians have been defying Him on this point ever since He made it.
Christianity is dy definition communal: “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.”
And the Church is a hospial for sinners, not a haven for the perfectly pure.
@ okrapod:
I did not realize the concept of “perfection” was included.
I view institutions much like I view the concept of a corporation. A designation. An ‘IT’ which become the focus when things go bad, etc. Not the individuals involved.
I am not arguing against corporations, btw. But I am arguing against the Body of Christ as an “institution”.
I do tend to view Israel in a different light. They were chosen to be the light of the world. Had they obeyed God they would have shown the Barbarian pagans how much better it would be to follow him. They were to be an example. Israel included both good and bad “individuals”.
Well, “institution” may be the wrong word. Maybe a better word would be “organism.” A Body is an organism. And an organism is visible and physical, not merely spiritual. The Incarnation has implications. 😀
Max wrote:
Outside of Christ as the head of the Church it becomes murky to define the relationship of the Church to the individual and the individual to the church. We are social creatures and in many ways find our meaning within relationships. My hackles get raised when the church is no longer defined by the people within and how they work and serve together. Way too often the church organization is defined by the one man who happens to preach on Sunday and the success is measured by the number of non-individuals sitting in pews on any Sunday. This emphasis on one man exercising one gift is not the Church.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher
I agree with you. Can you expound on what you mean by this as it sounds interesting:
“The Incarnation has implications. “
@ Lowlandseer:
Thanks. I really don’t know my Brethren history. Closed Brethren where totally removed from my world.
It took awhile before I figured out some Brethren had a bad reputation in the UK, Australia and Canada.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Just another view
1. Is taken from Hebrews who were in a situation of increased persecution. A time when they needed each other the most. Also, it would be wrong, from my perspective, to take that as a command if the institution is corrupt.
2. I believe the church should be as welcoming as a hospital for sinners. I do believe there is a time to get up off our mats and walk. Maybe unhook the IV which would be maturing. Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect is about maturing.
The concept of sinless perfection is often used to excuse evil. It’s one reason why I have moved away from the concept of “sin” and focused more on the original “good versus evil” or right/wrong within circumstance. For many, our very existence is sinful so it becomes a moot point.
Thersites wrote:
Agree. An even more interesting endeavor is to research the origin of the word, church. It’s a black hole.
@ Max:
“…and then equipping ‘them’ to do the work of the ministry”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
i personally would like to rediscover what in the world ‘the work of the ministry’ means.
to me, it’s become like ‘signing up to be a Mary Kay Lady’.
you are given products that promise to make beautiful things out of us and improve lives, and are trained in how to use them, and how to talk about them. how to sell them.
you are given reading material to share with people, told to get people together to show them the products in a certain way, explain them in a certain way, how to apply the products in a certain way.
make it fun and inviting, cultivate adherents who love the products & are sold-out on the products so much that they regularly sign on the dotted line of their checks in exchange for the products.
and they bring in other friends who are then sold to, some of whom then become Mary Kay Ladies themselves, armed with glossy literature & products to improve lives. and those in the pyramid are enriched, all the way up to the Mary Kay figurehead at the top.
the most charismatic and effective of Mary Kay Ladies are able to draw in lots of people. we know this because they are rewarded with pale pink cadillacs. They are given a public platform, so to speak, to represent the brand. Celebrity Mary Kay Ladies.
is this not the picture of the devolution of ‘the work of the ministry’ in the institution?
Thersites wrote:
Amen! Unfortunately, much of the 21st century church has migrated in that direction. This leads to cults of personality, in which men and movements are promoted over a personal relationship with Christ. In the pursuit of numbers, gimmicks are used to attract a crowd.
Mega-church is most often glitter which is not gold. Folly.
Max wrote:
Yet “Relationship, not Religion” has itself become a clobber-verse putdown.
I’m sure you’ve encountered it: “You have a (sneer) Religion(TM); I Have A (smug) RELATIONSHIP(TM)!”
Lowlandseer wrote:
And if I remember my weird trivia, occultist Aliester Crowley was raised Plymouth Brethren.
Max wrote:
“IN FIRE.”
— Vorlon Ambassador Kosh, Babylon-5
@ elastigirl:
tell you what, I’M doing the work of the ministry, pastor-free. Right-Now Media indoctrination-free. tucked away in my neighborhood.
IMO,the reason CLC is asking members to reaffirm their membership is quite simple. Their constitution states that members must affirm any church association by a favorable vote of at least 67% of those casting a ballot.
CLC leadership intends to associate with PJ Smyth’s Advance network. They are fearful that the 67% affirmative vote will not be obtained if the disgruntled members cast a vote.
What are the odds that disgruntled members will reaffirm their membership? Not many will.
Thus CLC will purge their membership roster of a large block of individuals who would most likely not vote to associate with Advance.
I forgot to post the link to the CLC Constitution.
https://www.covlife.org/grow/articles-and-papers
A question a CLC member may wish to raise is what authorizes CLC leadership to implement a membership reaffirmation?
elastigirl wrote:
Mary Kay ladies (bless their hearts) serve Mary Kay – she sits at the top of the pyramid. Believers are to serve Christ, who sits on the throne. We do that by individual “ministry” as the Holy Spirit lead us. Whose job is the ministry? Every believer has a part.
This line of thought aggravates authoritarian church leaders who desire to separate the clergy from the laity. In their effort to control and manipulate the sheep, they fail to acknowledge that the real Church is a Body made of up of several parts who are ministering together as they serve Christ on earth. Their role is to equip the parts and release them into service for Christ, rather than keep them in the sheep-pen.
This is all the CLC Constitution states about withdrawal of membership. I saw no provision for church leadership to implement a reaffirmation. It is pure manipulation.
“Section 5.04
Termination or Transfer.
Members may request to be removed from membership by informing an elder of the church of their intention to withdraw. At their request, they will be given letters
indicating their standing in the church and their termination of membership.
The Board of Elders can decide to withdraw the right of membership from a member who fails to share in the fellowship and responsibilities of this church for an extended period of time.
Such reasons for removal may include, but are not limited to: 1) habitually forsaking the assembly of the church, unless
providentially hindered,
2) divisive action based on rejection of a portion of the Statement of Faith, and
3) death.”
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Ahhhh … the old “preach the church empty” approach to getting everybody on your side, by eliminating potential trouble-makers. It’s a lot easier to shepherd a bunch of yes-folks than dealing with those who might do some critical thinking and dissenting.
Max wrote:
I agree with this entirely, Max. It is why we can enjoy fellowship with individual believers but have problems with the ‘church’ they belong to.
Nathan Priddis wrote:
Check out the exclusive brethren connected with James Taylor Jr. I have met the man who denounced him, whose home he was visiting at the time of the ‘Aberdeen Incident’. That group is seriously bad news.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I have! As I get older and further down the road, those who have a relationship with Christ are getting easier to spot than those who have let religion get on them.
Max wrote:
By getting rid of people they can also consolidate their hold on the church assets. Think of all the money plus the building and any other stuff they might own.
Those that are left will be under stricter control – and like true party members will love every minute of it.
I feel bad for anyone who gets sucked in to this group. I TWW keeps tabs on what the new organization is up to. This church is trouble.
Forrest wrote:
Before I retired, I traveled extensively as an environmental consultant. I often encountered other Christians on planes, at conferences, in hotel lobbies, in workplaces. The Holy Spirit drew us together – we had “church” in those times of fellowship!
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I think they’re trying to make it look like CLC is defunct and a new church beginning. Interestingly I couldn’t find anything in their documents about what happens to assets should the non-profit disband. Plus in their constitution it appears they’ve made the elders, the board and the church immune to lawsuits. Like to see that challenged.
People who associate with this church are probably so brainwashed they don’t even know what their rights are.
Jack wrote:
True. Critical thinkers capable of independent thought bailed out long ago.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
Deception and manipulation. People who continue there chose it.
Thersites wrote:
The main leader [pastor, priest, etc.] too often defines the “flavor” of a church. If I were to tell someone that a new church was opening across town, their first question is almost always, “Who is the pastor?” That answers lots of questions. And it probably indicates a cult of personality in the making.
I’ve discovered the Facebook Live Map. On Sunday mornings at 11:00 or 11:30, there are a bunch of churches broadcasting their services live. Which pretty much consists of a guy talking. The more liturgical churches have less talking, with a sermon in the 15-20 minute range, which is tighter and more concise. The less liturgical is all about the preach, with 40-60 minute sermons pretty common. It’s the main attraction, I guess.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Standard Calvary Chapel fare.
It’s trotted out especially to Roman Catholics.
Jack wrote:
And you won’t find anything.
Religious 501(c)(3) outfits do not have to follow the same transparency rules as secular non-profits.
Muff Potter wrote:
Specifically the Form 990 that would outline how the money is spent. If their gross receipts are less than $50K it fits on a post card. Although religious organizations do not have to provide a Form 990 they should supply you with the budget information upon request. Generally if you are shunned when you request the budget it is bad, any decent organization should welcome accountability. If they are unwilling to provide the budget, walk out the door and don’t come back.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I didn’t know who to reply to, so I picked CGC. I attended an Episcopal church for 2 years, so I think I understand a little bit about liturgy, and I really like it. I think when my family moves, we may go back look for an Anglican or Lutheran church. I like how the service sums up the whole christian experience and it deemphasizes someone getting up and telling everyone what to do with their lives. I don’t think I’d be comfortable as a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, not because of the theology, which I generally like, especially EO, but I think I’m too much of a Protestant at heart. I’m also done with church planting churches. I would love too see a church like that send people to struggling churches in the community and help them out. Everyone things they have figured out the one true Gospel ™, so no one wants to do something like that.
My problem with religion is I think that it sets itself up as a way to get back to God. Whether it is through prayer, meditation, fasting, tithing, mission trips, confession, communion, church planting, “mortification of the flesh,” religion, as far as I can tell, comes from a place of trying to get back to God. That is a piece of standard church doctrine I find that bumps up against scripture. We were created in Jesus (John 1). When Adam fell, God didn’t hide from him, Adam hid from God. God had pity on Adam and made clothes for him and Eve. The people were constantly running from God’s presence, chasing more religious signs and experiences in the desert. Point being, I don’t think “original sin” cancels original glory. Jesus “is the reflectiona of God’s glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3). Paul told the Greeks (non-believers) on Mars Hill, “for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’” (Acts 17:28). I have come to believe, from lots of soul searching and reading, that we see ourselves separated from God, but he doesn’t see us that way. In Jesus, God was “reconciling the world to himself.” (Colossians 1:20).
How this all impact religion is that institutions/activities that are constantly telling me how to get back to God aren’t helpful. Activities/institutions that help me learn who I am and fellowship with others who are on a similar journey is extremely helpful. I don’t want to neglect to get to gather, but sometimes I just get beaten down by the constant talk of separation and sin-sniffing I find so often in church. The comments section on this site is more helpful to me than any bible study I have ever attended. I can write what I believe and have it criticized and that helps me learn and grow and reconsider things. I would also never condemn someone for attending church. I attend church. Some people find real meaning in prayer and contemplation in a group setting, and I think that is excellent. For me, in my current time and place, thinking within a religious framework hasn’t been helpful.
@ Ricco:
I greatly resemble your comment. I also like the EO but have avoided it for some reasons also, not big on incense and icons for one. If possible after some though it would be great if you could expand on your objection “but I think I’m too much of a Protestant at heart” at some point. So far I haven’t been able to articulate it well myself either.
My doctor left the same authoritarian denomination I escaped from and eventually joined the EO, many of his peers treated him as if he were going through a mid-life crisis. As much as I usually discount such forces I likely still fall prey to them and would face a hurdle getting my significant other to also make such a jump from “Protestant”.
Thersites wrote:
I miss the open discussions page for conversations like this that veer off topic. I am going through this same struggle. I call it a struggle because I am truly torn over whether or not to become EO. Their theology and anthropology are very attractive, but the customs and traditions are a big jump. One thing I greatly appreciate about EO is the lack of pressure to join. Another is their refusal to say that one has to be EO in order to be saved. They have a “come and see” attitude. About half of the people in my local EO parish are converts from Protestantism, including the priest. Their stories are similar to mine. EO has its own set of drawbacks, just like every other form of Christianity. Right now I am trying to probe the drawbacks to see if EO is better or worse than from where I’ve come. If there is a connection to this current thread, perhaps it is the possibility that God left us some freedom in how to assemble as a church. Maybe we don’t have to get it perfectly right.
I@ Ricco:
I love the episcopal church and my children have all been christened/baptized/dedicated there. The liturgy is peaceful and calming. I enjoy following the readings for advent and lent and other days through out the year. That is why I take it personally that Covenant Life wants to choose a name that is most often associated with the Episcopal or Anglican Church.
Lydia wrote:
Brings up the old saw “fool me once…”
We all know how it goes.
We can wring our hands and stew over the wrong that’s done to those who stay, but at day’s end, who is really to blame?
I know it sounds callous, but after all, it’s as you’ve pointed out before, it’s voluntary, no church-state coercion involved, and on that basis they deserve each other.
Ricco wrote:
THANK YOU! And a double Amen.
I have come to believe that the propositions which assert we are ‘separated from him’ because ‘we can never be good enough for him’ are two of the cruelest lies ever hatched by the devil.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
I think I am often the thread hijacker. Sorry. I’m relatively new.
I do think it is germane, because the question this article raises is “what is a church.” Is it a membership list, a meeting, or what? Many of us agree on what the Church is, but how does that play itself out in the institution that goes by the same name.
Thersites wrote:
It is hard to describe for me as well. I think that is part of the answer. The church culture we grew up in has a huge impact on us. Even though I have had some bad experiences in churches, I grew up Protestant, and the concepts like “priesthood of the believer” and emphasis on our individual standing before God are ingrained in me pretty deeply. Plus, Protestant church culture is what I am familiar with and it feels comfortable.
Also, I believe the Reformation was a good thing that needed to happen. I am aware it was not a universal good. As I am growing older, I realize that everything has a cost, even necessary or good things. I am not comfortable with a small group of elite people telling us how to interpret the bible. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what the idea of papal infallibility and the Magisterium being the last word on theology feels in my Protestant heart. Unfortunately, we evangelicals have squandered our inheritance and look to Evangelical Thought Leaders ™ to tell us what to think. I get the irony of a former evangelical saying what I just said, believe me.
I also don’t really buy apostolic succession the way the Catholic Church states it. I read a good bit of Irenaeus lately. His writing Against Heresies is often used as the basis for apostolic succession. I could see how you could read him to support classic apostolic succession as the Catholic Church teaches it. It seems to me, thought, that what he is saying is adhere to the doctrine that was handed down to me from Polycarp who got it from John. Don’t trust these people claiming a brand new revelation. Believe those of us who sat at the apostles feet and the words of the apostles in the gospels and letters. This interpretation could be a product of my Protestant mindset, but that is how it seems to me.
This is just how I see these things. I’m sure that Catholics feel completely the opposite, and that is the beauty of the Church.
Gendered Visions of The Piper Pastorate
https://womenintheology.org/2018/02/21/gendered-visions-of-the-piper-pastorate/
A few quotes from that page:
But something about today’s complementarianism doesn’t stick to the typical conservative script. Its ethos feels fiercely political, though many find this hard to see because it still maintains a smokescreen of spiritual devotion that presents male-female relations as a matter of piety or orthodoxy rather than gender politics proper.
… we should start understanding complementarianism as a men’s issue rather than a women’s issue, since it is mostly men who seem to instigate these gender debates about how women practice ministry.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Merely being a large sum of money doesn’t make it outrageous (for an US example, I’m fairly sure Trinity Church Wall Street pays fairly hefty property taxes on the land that it leases to various Wall Street businesses). Whether it is outrageous depends on whether there is equal treatment with other groups. Note this tax is apparently on church properties used for commercial purposes such as hotels not on property used for actual worship. I gather these churches are major landowners in Jerusalem and the businesses on their property do require fire and police protections while not previously contributing to the municipal coffers. On the other hand it could be certain groups are being singled out. I don’t know.
The churches are also protesting to oppose a bill on land sales. The bill’s stated aim is to protect tenants of church land from having the land sold out from under them by the church and the tenants being evicted by their new landlord. The church feels it is limiting their right to sell the land at the best price possible. Again I don’t know.
@ Erp:
Some very good poonts, Erp. When churches are barely distinguishable from businesses then they should be treated as businesses.
@ Thersites:
In the churches I grew up in, the process was that laypeople developed the budget and put it up for congregational vote. Typical practice. Blows my mind that this is rare now. Why?
@ Thersites:
When I was a preteen I asked my mom if we were Protestants. She asked me what we would be protesting? 🙂
Actually, I later learned Baptists used to be all over the board on such labels. Where I came from, we did not really make such designations but probably identified more with the step children of the Reformation who were running from both sides. It was a bit of a shock to me when I discovered some Presbyterian groups, like the OPC, were still fighting the anti Catholic Reformation as the internet bloomed. As the Neo Cals took over, such thinking became more prevalent in the SBC, too.
It is all so weird to me since this is America. 🙂
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I have same issues and am not big on “high church” style accoutrements. It’s also weird looking at the political history of the EO in different parts of the world. This is where I have to give a nod to our very imperfect Founders and the blessing of a huge ocean. Reading Locke, Bastiat and others without a “divine” right of a king near, and the tyranny of the Puritans made a huge difference, I think, in their approach.
Lydia wrote:
The “strange new respect” for Puritan writers is one of the weirdest and most disgusting things about New Calvinism.
@ Ricco:
Why is it weird and disgusting to enjoy Puritan writings?
@ Lowlandseer:
Because they lived out their theology in ways that were exceedingly cruel to this around them. Witch trials, abuse of Quaker missionaries, lack of freedom of religion, etc. It is one of the dramatic ironies in American history that Unitarian Universalism grew out of New England Puritanism.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
By that definition, I may no longer be a Christian. I cannot bear the company of Christians in real life anymore. TWW is safer somehow, whether it is the anonymity or the ability to put it down and walk away at any time without hurting someone else.
@ Ricco:
Having looked at the official Salem website, I think it was more to do with hysteria arising out of a number of factors rather than laying the blame at the Puritans’ door. As for the Quakers, they were acknowledged deliberate troublemakers.
https://thehistoricpresent.com/2008/07/02/why-the-puritans-persecuted-quakers/
And there were lots of reasons for the decline into Unitarian Universalism, including discrimination in business.
Christ Church. Hmm. I wonder if they intend to join CREC.
elastigirl wrote:
Anyone remember that Bloom County collection, “Attack of the Mary Kay Commandoes”?
JYJames wrote:
As in “Staying one jump ahead of the cops”?
@ Lowlandseer:
My experience with Puritan loving Calvinist, is admititly dated, from circa 2000. However, I consider this to be amoung the most violent orientated of tribes. It is an evolutionary advancement to combine Seven Spheres theology, with Puritan mindsets. The intended outcome of SP/Seven Mountains is the forcible elimination of designated population groups. It is this elimination, that opens the way for The Kingdom of God, and fulfillment of the Great Commision.
@ refugee:
Lol. I came to a similar conclusion except I don’t interpret them the same strict way.
@ Ricco:
Yes it did. My experience with their writings was a laser like focus on sin. Sounds good, right? It’s as if they could not get past the cross or did not factor in the resurrection. It was like making dates with Satan to look for sin and it made them feel virtuous. And, they had all sorts of ways to rationalize their own sin such as with uncooperative Indians. Or Anne Hutchison or Roger Williams. You either fell in line or were banished to the wilds, the stocks or worse. . It wasn’t just witches.
the resurrection means “new life”.
@ Lowlandseer:
I remember reading that there was serious punishment for using anything to alleviate labor pains. Then fast forward to 2005 or so and hearing Paul Washer teach the same as the Puritans! We need labor pains to remind us of our sin.
One of the last books Spurgeon read was Alice Morse Earle’s The Sabbath in Puritan New England. His assessment, penned in December 1891, included this admission: “An amusing But saddening book. The seamy side of New England religion exposed.”
Ricco wrote:
Theirs is a cruel and petulant god.
Why would they live out anything different?
Lydia wrote:
Do you have the source?
Not that I have any doubt that Washer would parrot such old Puritan cruelty, but just for the record and citing purposes later on.
Lowlandseer wrote:
It depends on the writings. Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is considered one of the most famous sermons in America. I consider it a disgusting piece of religious fiction that should have gotten him cast out of the New World. It is weird and disgusting for anyone to enjoy it. Here is sample, but it’s difficult to know which part of it to quote because all of it is so thoroughly rotten:
The old liturgies describe God as the lover of mankind. How did Edwards get so far from this truth? How did this sermon become so famous? And why do New Calvinists soak this up without puking?
Lydia wrote:
I’m finding there are pros and cons with just about every form of church. Every one sucks in one way or another, but some suck much worse than others. And different people probably have different experiences. The fact that Jesus addresses seven churches in Revelation could be evidence that there is no expected one-size-fits-all version of church. It’s making me wonder what Christian unity is supposed to look like. In any case, I am grateful that TWW serves as a place to civilly explore topics like this.
@ Muff Potter:
Sorry. I listened to a lot of his early sermons because he made such a big splash coming in from the mission wilds and my cousin knew him from before and had just converted to Calvinism so I was trying to get a feel for his views. I did not take notes or archive anything. Certain things stand out as that did. As one who has experienced labor, is it wrong to wish kidney stones on someone……. because I was tempted. 🙂
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Totally agree.
@ Max:
I agree. Just shut it down and give everyone a fresh start.
I was talking to a friend tonight and, according to her landlords, who attend CLC, a lot of people are not in favor of the name change. Supposedly there’s going to be a meeting in which people will vote on it. First of all, is there really going to be a vote? And if there really is a vote, how do you think that’s going to go?
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Jerry Falwell considered this the best sermon ever given.
Enough said
@ Nathan Priddis:
I’m a bit confused. I take it you are talking about YWAM type of seven spheres and not the hermetic magic of Rufus Opus?
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Hyperbole, used to impress on sinners the seriousness of their condition outside of Christ. Towards the end of the sermon he says
“And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling, and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north, and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God”.
Much as people hate the man and his sermon, he spoke the truth in such a way as to shake people out of their complacency.
@ Lowlandseer:
And to put things in some kind of perspective here is a lengthy quote from Prof John Murray’s sermon on Romans 1:16-17 on why there is such a thing as the “wrath of God”.
“Two considerations explicit in this very context draw attention to that fact. There is, first of all, the degradation, the squalor of iniquity that the apostle Paul describes in the latter part of this chapter. We must remember what that involves. What is, after all, the essence of sin? People will say sometimes that sin is selfishness. Well, that’s a woefully inadequate definition of sin! All selfishness is sin, but sin is not simply selfishness. There’s something far more serious about sin than the fact that we are absorbed in ourselves. Sin is the contradiction of God. When sin came into the world, something came into the world that was the very contradiction of God—the contradiction of his sovereignty, the contradiction of his authority, the contradiction of his holiness, and yes, the contradiction of his righteousness. And that contradiction of God is what exists in all the description that the apostle gives in Romans 1 of the degradation and degeneration of the world. When God created the heavens and the earth, when he created all creatures at the beginning, there was no contradiction at all; there was nothing that existed that was in contradiction to God because there was nothing that existed but God himself. When he spake and it was done, when he commanded and it stood fast, there was no contradiction at all. Therefore, God could create simply by the command of his will. The second consideration in the context of this passage that points to the impossibility of salvation simply by the exercise of God’s omnipotent power is the wrath of God. You see, the very next verse to our text is, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1: 18). The wrath of God, of course, is God’s necessary reaction to that which is the contradiction of himself. There must be the wrath of God wherever there is sin because sin is the contradiction of God! Again, when God created the heavens and the earth, there was no wrath of God. There was no need for it. There was nothing that was a contradiction of himself, and so God wasn’t pouring out his wrath upon anybody. The creation in its primitive perfection didn’t call forth the wrath of God. But now there is the reality of the wrath of God, and it is inseparable from the degradation and degeneracy that the apostle Paul depicts. Consequently, when we come to this matter of salvation, what is indispensable is righteousness and nothing less than the righteousness of God. The only thing that can meet human degeneracy is the righteousness of God! And the only thing that can meet God’s own wrath is his own righteousness. You see what a situation there is! It’s a situation for God himself, you see. It’s an exigency, it’s a demand, that God himself cannot waive. If there is going to be salvation, then there must be righteousness—righteousness to meet the contradiction that sin offers and righteousness to meet even his own wrath. Oh, how magnificent is the apostle’s explanation! “I’m not ashamed of the gospel.” Why? “Because it is the power of God unto salvation.” And why is it the power of God unto salvation? “Because therein the righteousness of God is revealed.” Oh, my friends, do appreciate that sequence because we’re getting to the heart of that which is the most precious thing for human beings in this whole universe! It is the supreme manifestation not only of the grace of God but of the wisdom of God, and it is something that will cause the eternal ages to ring with joy! Don’t fail to get hold of the glory of this: “Therein is revealed the righteousness of God.” (‘Oh Death, Where Is Thy Sting?’ Kindle edition).
Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud
Lydia wrote:
Well, the same thing persists in Italy today even although the RCC stated in 1956 that they were not against the use of epidurals.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Hyperbole, one might argue, for this quote as well, used to try and convince people that, despite what he Edwards just said about how much God hates them, that God actually loves them — if they accept his legal declaration, then he will swap moods more swiftly than a child lately subdued in its temper tantrum.
To save people from hellfire, rather than to call them into relationship with the source of their being: Is this not the very foundation of Edwards’ theology, and those who come after him? To save from fear, rather than call into joy?
I think Paul has some choice words for that method…
Lowlandseer wrote:
You mean among the “religious,” or among the genuinely practicing? Of the former, there are many. And of all things, they are least concerned about the “awareness of sin.”
Of the latter — you’d be hard-pressed to find them. They exist, but are sort of obsolete around here.
But among them all, it strikes me as a bit odd to claim they still view epidurals as sinful. I wonder how many of them make that claim, but don’t actually live it out?
Now, pasta cooked for more than 6 minutes, on the other hand…
That will get you tied to a post in the square and tortured.
Lowlandseer wrote:
What do you mean by “the same thing persists in Italy”? That some Italian women refuse epidurals and prefer natural childbirth? Or that the Catholic Church in Italy preaches against epidurals and condemns women to painful labors?
If you mean the latter, please provide evidence. Thank you.
Lisa Belliveau wrote:
I seriously doubt that the congregation will be asked to vote on this. It’s a done deal. As Deb notes in the beginning of her article, CLC has already filed for the new trademark “Christ Church Metro.” To my knowledge, members were not asked to vote on that beforehand – this is an elder-ruled church, not congregational governance. The “Membership Reaffirmation” appears to be linked to the name change, given the timing of the application for a new church name. The elders are going to darn well do what they want to, regardless of any dissent from the membership. Members who leave will be clobbered with “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us” (1 John 2:19). And for those who opt to distance themselves from the legacy of this church and its authoritarian leaders, they would be right – they don’t belong to such a mess; Christ has more in store for them than hanging out with this crew.
For the record, it never even crossed my mind not to have an epidural. I’m a cradle Catholic, and I never heard of such a thing. The anti-epidural folks are the Natural Childbirth Brigade, and their opposition to pain-relieving drugs during labor has absolutely nothing to do with sin or punishment. Plus, they don’t necessarily oppose epidurals for other people, just for themselves. I’ve never been preached at by a natural-childbirth advocate. They tend to be very nice women, in my experience. Slightly cuckoo IMHO. But nice. (Just kidding about the cuckoo part. I personally can’t understand wanting to tough out childbirth without pain-relieving drugs. But different strokes and all.)
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I didn’t say either of those things. Nor is there a Natural Childbirth Brigade.
@ Lowlandseer:
Lowlandseer wrote:
Question, though. Did the loving father ever feel this wrath towards the Prodigal Son?
Lowlandseer wrote:
This is your take away from the article you quote above?
This is a direct quote from the article.
“To the New England Puritans, both toleration and presbyterianism were unacceptable. They had spent painstaking years establishing a system of church government called the New England Way that was based on the independence and power of the individual congregation. The state in Massachusetts did not appoint clergy, nor was there one over-arching body that regulated churches. Each church was a sovereign unit. And only one church was tolerated in Massachusetts: the Puritan, or Congregational church (which was, to them, the purified Anglican church in America).”
In Massachusetts, the Puritans were the reason the Quakers, and any other spiritual group, were persecuted as expressed directly in the article.
@ Ricco:
That’s another literary device used to highlight another aspect of God’s nature.
@ Bridget:
It’s part of it. Even us simple Presbyterians had a hard time.
These kind of arguments – jumping from the present day back to a different time to say how bad this man or that group was – are fruitless. It would be like me saying that Baptists are a bad lot because in 1550 at the Synod of Venice they denied the deity of Christ, denied the existence of the Devil and Hell and excommunicated those who disagreed with them.
(The Radical Reformation, George Hunston Williams, page 872 – the most complete account of religious groups on the fringes of the Reformation)
Max wrote:
Yes. They already applied. That speaks volumes. But I thought the by-laws had changed to a congressional polity. So I am a bit confused about this.
Is it just as fruitless to say how “correct/right” a certain man or group, from the past, and their theology was then? It seems this argument must apply to pulling the past forward for the bad and the good, not just the bad.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Lowlandseer wrote:
But does that include shaking them into despair and self loathing, some to the point of suicide?
I need to read the gospels again and remember how Jesus presented God his Father to the world.
@ Lowlandseer:
Let me ask the question in an different way. Jesus said “if you have seen me, you have seen the father.” What in the recorded life and ministry of Jesus do you see that supports Jonathan Edwards’ construction of an Angry God.
@ Lowlandseer:
My point isn’t that they did bad things. Everyone group has done bad things in the past. My point is that it seems to me that the bad things flowed directly out of the theology. That isn’t so bad either, there is a long history of that. The problem for me is a modern reverence for the theology that birthed this system. Theology is our best attempt to sum up everything we know about God. It needs to be subject to change because Jesus said, “no one has seen the Father except the Son.”
Lydia wrote:
I just recently passed a kidney stone.
Them things hurt like a sumbitch.
Wouldn’t wish em’ on the worst snake I could think of.
Nor would I wish (or actually perpetrate) any pain on anybody.
It’s not something I’d want done to me.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Truth? That God hates mankind?
What ever happened to “for God so loved the world” and “not desiring that any should perish” (talking about God’s patience)?
God hates sinners and… that image of god as a monstrous, furious being, suspending his creatures on a gossamer thread over a raging furnace… kind of reminds me of the troubled middle-school kids who like to pull the wings off of flies and then watch the little creatures crawl about. Or maybe ties a thread on one and dangles it over a candle flame.
Throwing the door of mercy open… so in that analogy, Christ opens a window of escape lets a few of the trapped flies buzz away, intact.
That’s supposed to make God look merciful and glorious?
@ Lowlandseer:
“IF” they were “chosen” before the foundation of the world for salvation. Sigh
@ Lowlandseer:
I am not denying God’s wrath however it might be defined. I just believe WE choose it. Not Him.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
LOL
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher
Even when I was a kid they used them so I don’t know where that came from. My dad was on the board of a Catholic Hospital with a maternity ward. Back then, women were all about alleviating pain if possible.
Bridget wrote:
Alert: when you read 9marks referring to ‘congregational polity’ they are using the Puritan definition which is anything but congregational. Their definition has more to do with it not being a Monarchical Anglican type polity.
Dever uses it quite a bit and it caught on among the neo Cal’s and caused all sorts of cognitive dissonance.
@ Bridget:
An interesting aspect to all of this is that the Puritans who came here became worse and worse until dying out as their descendants became Universalist. The Puritans who stayed in England, moderated. That is because they lived around and did business with non Puritans.
Ricco wrote:
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man in hell is what they’ll point to as affirming that Jesus taught more about hell than he did heaven.
And it’s not just Edwards’s type of reformed theology, Calvary Chapel teaches the same thing, while they also maintain that they are not reformed.
@ Lydia:
For me, seeing God’s wrath as his firey live set against anything that would hurt his little ones, many things began to make more sense.
I’m not saying you can’t read the One Angry God I to scripture. You can. I was a Calvinist for 6 years, give or take. When you read the Bible with different assumptions, the whole thing takes you in a wildly different direction. I’m not sure the way I read it now is right, but I want to see where it goes. One of the first things that made me question Calvinism was this podcast. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/e2medianetwork/2016/11/ask-pastor-john-did-my-lust-cause-our-miscarriage/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Evangelical%20111616%20(1)%20remainder&utm_content=&spMailingID=52792825&spUserID=NjkyNzY5NjE2NjES1&spJobID=1045824455&spReportId=MTA0NTgyNDQ1NQS2
I knew in my soul that this was wrong, but it was also logical within my “God causes everything that happens for his Glory” Calvinist world view. Due to personal issues in my life that I have written about here before, the cognitive dissonance was so overwhelming I had to reconsider.
What I have learned is to follow the logic of theology all the way to the ground. It seems like few people do this. It’s also why I’m not a complementarian anymore. I realized I was just a moderate, less logical Doug Wilson. His position is logical, it is just based on terrible assumptions. I don’t want to be on the moderate end of a spectrum that includes Doug Wilson. It was time for a paradigm shift.
I’m currently trying to think through Barthian/Trinitarian theology all the way to the ground. It has help up so far; we will see how it goes from here.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I will have to look that up because I’m amazed such a sect of rebaptizers were not put to death soon after speaking.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you for the explanation! It has made some things come a little clearer.
Ricco wrote:
Well, I’ve heard that God poured out his wrath on the Son while Christ was on the cross. Don’t remember if it was Sproul in his “Holiness of God” seminar or someone else who taught that.
And I know there’s a teaching among some televangelists that Christ descended into hell to be tormented on our part (and I’ve heard it called a heresy since, as he really went to tell the gospel to the captives? Or something like that).
But I do seem to remember Sproul, Sr. thundering on about the wrath of God in his “Holiness” seminar.
@ Ricco:
I know I over simplified things but I do it on purpose. And because I just do not have the theological language that I think is a big black hole. I take a lot of comfort that Jesus came teaching the Great unwashed. He thought they could understand his message.
How in the world is it that we do not choose God’s Wrath whether that is simply a separation from God for eternity or worse.
Where I part with people like Jonathan Edwards is that he views God’s Wrath strictly in terms of salvation. Chosen or not chosen. You have no choice. It was made for you.
I view God’s Wrath in terms of Justice. Spend your life grooming and molesting children? The most innocent and vulnerable? I believe those types choose God’s Wrath. People who choose heinous evil should expect God’s Wrath.
I think this way because I am a firm believer in Free Will choice. Our personal responsibility here and now. Good/Evil. Choice.
@ Ricco:
That link: It’s barbarian. So, God purposely chooses and punishes an innocent for another’s sins. So Jesus was not enough for Piper? I don’t even read the Old Testament that way. Sheesh.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I’m sensing a pattern here. It seems that when the Catholic church is mentioned In a potentially negative way you respond in a similar fashion as some Highpoint Church members have to the Deebs , Amy Smith, and the Wartburg Watchers when their leadership is called out.
@ Lydia:
I think this is really good. People will have to answer to God for the people they hurt and the lives they destroyed.
I like your point about good and evil versus sin. Sin ends up being about religious preference in my church experience, not good and evil. You have the right idea.
@ Lowlandseer:
Know nothing of Rufus Plus.
No. YWAM was a different tribe. Cunningham did not get into Seven Mountains until circa 1975. He and Bill Bright claim to have recieved simultaneous visitations from Jesus. They where told that God was doing something new and directed them to the Seven Mountains.
SM is just another name for Seven Spheres, developed by Kuyper in Holland, and brought to Princeton, circa 1905/ish. Seven Spheres is racist.
SS was mixed with Rushdooney’s Reconstructionism after 1973. I cant remembet who first said Seven Mountains. Some groups on the Reform side long for a return of godly Colonial American culture, so perceived. It all just get thrown into the toxic brew.
@ Nathan Priddis:
Oops. While there was racism involved with Dutch Neo-Calvinism, I meant to say Seven Spheres was fascist. Spell checker changed that. Any racism was incidental and a product of the times
Lydia wrote:
Yes. I’ve studied this. It is fascinating. Massachusetts is a very interesting state to visit and study. I love the Concord/Lexington area. Many of the former Puritan families moved to this area.
Lowlandseer wrote:
This sermon is no mere hyperbole. It is blatant false teaching that is completely unsupported by both the Bible and the consensus of at least the first 1000 years of Christian history. As much as I dislike Calvin, I am convinced that even he would condemn this sermon. I don’t see how anyone could call it truthful. It sounds like you are saying he righteously used such foul imagery as a way to scare people into belief. How does this compare with that little verse saying “the kindness of God leads you to repentance”?
Edwards’ god is much closer to Molech than the God described both in the Bible and Christian history. Not everything he wrote was this bad, which tells me that perhaps he knew better but did it anyway. I don’t think I could ever be convinced that this sermon is not evil.
refugee wrote:
It is a theory of the atonement invented by Calvin – it was never taught by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity, and is still rejected by the vast majority of Christians. Sproul was a very big proponent of it, as are all of the YRRs.
refugee wrote:
Good point. And the decision on who gets to be saved is completely arbitrary. Some more quotes from that “sermon” to show this:
This is pretty sick stuff…
Lowlandseer wrote:
This is only true when no one is trying to make a connection between the past and present. However, the New-Calvinists are making this connection. They are pretty much enamored with Edwards and the Puritans, to the point where one can buy “Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy” T-shirts. TGC has tons of material praising the Puritans. Therefore it is very pertinent and fruitful to bring Puritan teaching into the conversation. If the New-Calvinists did not make such a big deal of the Puritans then your point would be sound.
Mercy wrote:
Gaslighting Alert.
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
It’s good to hear that the Italians have their priorities in order. They make the world’s best espresso, which I understand they view as a combination of art, science, and religion.
Lydia wrote:
Justice huh?
According to them (Neo-Cals), in god’s court system, a jaywalker deserves the same punishment meted out to a child molester.
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
You ain’t just a whistlin’ Dixie it’s sick stuff.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
With a side order of “NO POPERY!”
refugee wrote:
All depends on how you redefine “mercy”, My Dear Wormwood.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_mercy.htm
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep.
@ Ricco:
I started to feel like churches, especially the Neo Cals, needed their own Talmud.
@ Mercy:
That is a by product of being in allegiance to a group. I get defending Christ but not much else.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Yes, the YRR brought Puritanism back with a vengeance. Especially Dever. They were enamoured with their control of the church.
Max wrote:
I agree, and I couldn’t believe folks would think they have a say in it, especially after having been in the church for years.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. Hardly hear about Jesus from some folk.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Totally disagree on this. What I have experienced on this site is when people share their bad experience with the Catholic Church, and some Catholics minimize that person’s experience. They claim “that is not what Catholics believe, we have addressed those issues, you must not have learned your Catholicism properly, etc.” Some Catholics have even declared that what the RC decrees, every Catholic believes and adheres to exactly the same. (This is absurd, of course, as they couldn’t possibly know what happens in every Catholic Church).
This attitude is what I experienced on this site. It is quite hurtful and minimizing when you have been hurt by the RC or those in the RC. I honestly don’t understand why every denomination can be criticized, but the RC.
And, I am not anti RC as some seem to be. I just don’t believe the RC is any better, or worse, than any other denomination with a heirarchy structure. I believe true believers are found in all denominations.
@ Bridget:
“And, I am not anti RC as some seem to be. I just don’t believe the RC is any better, or worse, than any other denomination with a heirarchy structure. I believe true believers are found in all denominations.”
This is where things are today in a nutshell. Every church system with a hierarchal structure will be targeted by perps seeking soft targets.
ishy wrote:
This might strike some as ‘way out there’, but I tend to think the Joshua Harris’ of the world are mere tools, sort of like – dare I suggest it – Billy Graham? Much of the aura, fame, etc. around these people is manufactured by press, and Focus on the Family was basically the religious Kingmaker in the day.
Harris ‘wrote’ a book as a mere kid, which shaped the entire religious and particularly homeschool community. He can backpedal now, but how many thousands of young lives have been damaged by the less than healthy ideas that they were raised with? I personally interact with many who feel as though they were severely and negatively impacted by not only this book, but the whole ‘official’ dogma that was being pushed by the ‘official’ homeschool movers and shakers, which included influential mind controllers and exposed abusers Doug Philips and Bill Gothard.
I would suggest this takes place in other arenas as well, including politics, science, literature and Hollywood. The people with the right mix of connections, looks and charisma, and who have been carefully mind controlled, are given their scripts and perform as told. This is admittedly only a theory, but it is supported by many stories of the mind control done on very young children, particularly among those with ‘connections’. It also answer some of the rumors, questions and anomalies that have long existed when some longterm ‘idol’ proves to not have the knowledge, skills or giftedness to have performed as his ‘fame’ suggests – Shakespeare, Einstein, and other household names who have shaped the public mind and set the course of humanity. Merely studying the scholastic literature on propaganda and mind control is very eye opening, and most would be shocked at the ideas discussed and officially ‘researched’ in the area of population management (controlling the thoughts, beliefs and behavior of the masses).
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
Welcome to the club! That has been my official religious belief for several years now. But them’s fightin’ words at authoritarian, Calvinist churches – as I discovered the hard way.
It is all about authority and control for these people. And ‘abuse’ is essentially a tool for destroying the victims’ self confidence and ability to function healthily. Frightened, traumatized, hurting people are much easier to manipulate. Strong, secure fighters are ‘smoked out’ as one commenter put it, and either frightened or ‘disciplined’ out of the community. I saw it happen so many times.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is an excellent deduction. Any way the site can update old posts so that any new name can be added? Most people have no idea of the history of this group unless they come across this blog.
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, if you are not an anti-Catholic, you sure are doing a pretty darned good imitation of one. You and Mercy both.
No one is minimizing or denigrating your experience. No. One. But *countless* Catholics have had a very different experience. Doesn’t our voice count, too? Are we not allowed to saty what *our* experience has been?
Are all Christian churches and communions a mess? Yes. Of course. I have repeatedly made that point, although you seem to have missed it. We Catholics are not the unrealistic purists. Not by a long shot. We take seriously what Christ said — that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the Eschaton. The hyper-purists tend to be the hyper-Calvinists, not the Catholics. Au contraire.
Look. We have 1.4 billion members globally, about 70 million here in this country alone. While Protestants *in general* outnumber us in America, no single denomination does so. We have a huge, humongous, Big Tent Church — the good, the bad, and the ugly. James Joyce famously described the Catholic Church as “Here Comes Everybody!”
Well, guess what? When you’re that big, you’re going to have some bad apples, some jerks and creeps, some Mean Nuns, some aberrant groups, some liberal priests, some cold, impersonal parishes…you name it.
But you’re also going to have an overwhelmingly large number of just normal, everyday people in nornal, everyday parishes doing normal, everyday things…like attending Mass, being there for each other, helping out at the soup kitchen and homeless shelter, supporting charities, etc. (Did you know that the Catholic Church is *THE largest* provider of charity services in the entire world — larger than Unicef and Red Cross combined and cubed? Did you know that Catholic Relief Services — to name just one charity —
provides food, clothes, and shelter in the poorest places on earth, where most other groups will not go — and all this with 4% overhead? Did you know that the Catholic Church founded the hospital and health-care system in the West — and that these were charity hospitals, run by religious sisters and brothers? Just sayin’, that’s all, just sayin’.)
I am certainly not telling y’all to ervert to Catholicism. I am just a guest here — an ecumencial Catholic, fellowshipping with my brothers and sisters in Christ from various traditions.
But that does not mean I have to stand by silently when my Church is grossly micscharacterized and misrepresented. Or when my own *statements* are grossly mischaracterized and misrepresented.
Y’all haqd bad experiences. I understand that. I respect that. That’s your reality.
But, throughout my 66 years on this earth, I have had overwhelmingly *good* experiences, in virtually every parish I’ve belonged to. That is *my* experience. And it is just as legitimate as yours.
My current parish is incredibly close-knit, warm, welcoming, and friendly. Our pastor, from Cameroon, absolutely radiates the love and joy of Jesus. I am very sorry y’all have not exoerienced something like this. But I have. And I am suire in heck not going to deny that that is my lived experience…because it is. Your mileage obviously varies. But, just as my experience cannot be absolutized, neither can yours.
And finally, IMHO, there’s a lot to be said for The Church of Here Comes Everybody. At 1.4 billion strong, we Catholics may be many things. But a teeny purist cult isn’t one of them.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Sorry for all the typos. I was too upset to proofread, LOL.
BTW…it’s strange that the Catholic-Bashers never get around to telling us what church they attend. But it’s always easier to bash someone else’s church, isn’t it?
I believe true believers are found in all denominations.
For the record…when have I (or HUG) ever denied this? When have we even remotely hinted any such thing? ISTM we have gone out of our way to affirm that we consider all our fellow Christians our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Have I ever denied that I think Bridget, Mercy, and all the others here are “true believers”? ISTM I have bent over backward to affirm that “we are one in the Spirit, one in the Lord,” as the old ecumenical Baptist hymn goes. I am not the one going out of my way to bash someone else’s church!! I have issues with some of the doctrines of Calvinism…but I have dear Calvinist friends, who I believe are far better Christians than I am. And I have certainly never bashed Arminianism of any description.
I’m not the one bashing other people’s churches. Maybe, Bridget and Mercy, y’all should take a look in the mirror to see who the bashers are. At the same time, you may want to consider the Golden Rule: How would y’all like it is HUG and I routinely bashed, misrepresented, and mischaracterized your current church (whatever it is)? Would you lap it up meekly? Somehow I doubt it.
For the record, i have only ever expressed what my own personal experience was. I never attacked CG-C or HUG or anyone else. It is not how i operate. But i have been accused of Gaslighting. This is a blog that reflects the deep desire to encourage victims of abuse and expose the evil deeds within faith communities. I never thought it was a place for one person to attack the others who have been faithful to lend it support. The verbal thrashing by Catholic Gate Crasher is unnecessary and goes against everything The Wartburg Watch has stood for.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
You have been continuing to abuse and accuse members on TWW for almost 48 hours now on this thread. It needs to stop. Now.
Oh, and I didn’t see where anybody said anything against HUG.
Forrest wrote:
Funny, I don’t see where Catholic Gate-Crasher has abused or accused any Wartburgers. Please, let’s not make this place like Belfast was back during the troubles.
Muff Potter wrote:
Thank you, Muff! Apparently defending oneself is “abusive.” Yikes!
I mentioned “gaslighting” because I was being gaslighted. IOW, defending myself. But again, I guess one can’t defend oneself. One must just suck it up and take it. Um, OK, I think not.
For the record, I do not deny the legitimacy of **anyone** else’s personal experience. But neither do I deny the legitimacy of mine.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
No I’m not. This is exactly what I mean. I shared my experience and you imply I’m anti Catholic. You don’t appear to have heard what I said, especially my last paragraph. I’m moving on from this thread.
Bridget wrote:
Sharing your experience is one thing. Denigrating someone else’s is quite another. I respect your experience. You don’t seem to respect mine, which is very different from yours. Why is your experience valid but mine isn’t?
All churches are a mess, because all human beings are a mess. I have no idea what church you belong to, but I guarantee I would not bash it the way you have bashed mine. No way.
However, I can see that rational arguments are just gonna fall on deaf ears. You refuse to see any other perspective but your own. You refuse to see how insulting other people’s faith traditions may come across as deeply offensive.
As I said before, if you’re not anti-Catholic, you coulda fooled me. But I forgot: Your perspective is absolute and above criticism, whereas mine has no legitimacy. Got it.
I too am moving on.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I never ever said it was.
In one of the few philosophy courses that I took in college I picked up this pearl from one of the professors. It regards argumentation. That is to say actual argumentation such as would be discussed and practiced in such a classroom setting.
This:
If, during argumentation, you feel that if your position loses, then you as a person lose, then you have lost already.
I think I see when it comes to religious argumentation it may be very easy for someone to so identify with their ‘position’, denomination, church, clan or tribe that one could slide into the idea that if someone is not convinced by my arguments then they have won and I have lost-I as a person have lost that is. Too bad, because once ‘I’ feel that ‘I’ have lost at that point ‘I’ have indeed lost.
I have tried to remind myself of this again and again, sometimes with success and sometimes not, but I have never seen it to be anything less than good advice
@ okrapod:
Very good point, okrapod.
@ okrapod:
Good point, and allows for freedom from gaining one’s identity from institutions and denominations of admittedly fallible human beings (been there…)
And, at the risk of preaching to the choir (been on the literal receiving end of that): I would add that, for Christians, if our identity is in Christ, we need have no fear of seeing our groups or leaders fail, since our identity does not depend on the institution. “Christians behaving badly” does not mean the same as “My worldview is being attacked.”
I am 100% certain that is redundant on this site, but I thought it relevant for the occasion…
okrapod wrote:
This is a very good observation. It looked to me like parties on both “sides” of this discussion misunderstood what that other “side” was trying to communicate. I realized that entering the fray would not have helped, but I was wishing that a few people would eat a Snickers bar. TWW is normally a pretty good place to discuss differences, but every now and then the discussion goes of the rails for reason that I don’t understand. But what you wrote here helps me to understand better. Thanks for this input.
@ The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday:
Really good comment!
The Man Who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
Good words! Folks, we need to print this and stick it on the refrigerator.