Constant Gardening on the Space Station-NASA
I choose gentleness… Nothing is won by force. I choose to be gentle. If I raise my voice may it be only in praise? If I clench my fist, may it be only in prayer? If I make a demand, may it be only of myself? Max Lucado-Upwords
Recently, a few readers commented that Roger Olson advocated the use of church covenants: A Model for Church Discipline. There is difficulty in cutting and pasting at his blog so I will have to do this via screenshots.
He contends that there is little church discipline outside of near-cultic, fundamentalist-evangelical churches. Does this description nclude the SBC? Many SBC churches have covenants these days.
Who is Dr. Olson?
I think it might be helpful to understand Dr. Olson’s beliefs and history. When I first started blogging, several readers referred to his website as a place to learn about what an Arminian believes. At the time, I was expressing my frustration that Calvinistas had overtaken much of the theological writing found online. They were right. I am grateful for Olson’s writings. Here is what Olson says about himself. (Confounded protection does not allow me to cut and paste!)
He is the Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at the Truett Seminary at Baylor University. He has written a number of books, including my favorite: Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology. This book helped me at a time when I began to doubt that I could provide a counterargument to the John Piperesque, Calvinista thinking that was so prevalent.
Thankfully, Wikipedia presents Olson’s arguments for classical Arminianism somewhat succinctly.
Olson fundamentally defines Arminianism by God’s “limited” mode of providence and by God’s “predestination by foreknowledge” mode of election,[13] expressed another way :
““Arminianism,” […] is simply a term we use in theology for the view, held by some people before Arminius and many after him, that sinners who hear the gospel have the free will to accept or reject God’s offer of saving grace and that nobody is excluded by God from the possibility of salvation except those who freely exclude themselves.[14]
According to him, adherence to Classical Arminianism is defined by being classically Protestant, affirming total depravity, conditional election, unlimited atonement, prevenient grace, and that God is in no way, and by no means the author of sin and evil but that these are only permitted by him.[15] Olson’s definition, without taking a position on the conditional preservation of the saints, is close to the opinion of Arminius. His opinion was in fact expressed in The Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610), mentioning both the necessity of perseverance and an uncertainty regarding the possibility of apostasy,[16] which was not removed by the Remonstrants until 1618.[17]
For Olson, “Classical Arminianism” as defined is centered on God’s Grace[14] and sovereignty,[18] and is intrinsically an evangelical theology.[19]
Olson also refers to “Classic Arminianism” as “evangelical synergism”:[20] “Synergism” referring to cooperation between God and creature (through prevenient grâce)[21] and “evangelical” to distinguish it from Catholic or Easter Orthodox synergism.[22] This is “because Arminius’ beliefs did not begin with him. For example, Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier promoted much the same view nearly a century before Arminius”.[21][23]
Olson says that the first principle of Arminianism is “Jesus Christ as the full and perfect revelation of the character of God”.[24] This principle has a particular significance within the Calvinism-Armininian debate, where the character of God (and especially his love) as revealed by Jesus-Christ, is for Olson, better represented by the Arminian view:
“Basic to Arminianism is God’s love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not sovereignty but God’s character. If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell. […] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is not providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is God’s character.”[25]
Olson says that, as a consequence of this point, Arminians only believe in libertarian free will to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and because it is an experienced reality necessary for responsibility:
“Classical Arminianism does NOT say God never interferes with free will. It says God NEVER foreordains or renders certain evil. […] An Arminian COULD believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. […] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will –as if that were central in and of itself.”[26]
I think this sums up Olson’s arguments. It’s all about the character of God. He said what I was thinking and he said it well.
“Basic to Arminianism is God’s love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not sovereignty but God’s character. If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell. […] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is not providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is God’s character.”[25]
Where does Olson go to church?
Olson, an ordained Baptist pastor, is a member of Calvary Baptist Church in Waco which he describes as a congregation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Here is a link to the church. The church has just called the Rev Hannah Coe to be their new pastor.
What is Olson’s experience when it comes to church covenants/discipline?
He does not have extensive experience with covenants or church discipline from what I could tell. From his post on Patheos
He goes onto describe a church which he attended that he claims is *slip-sliding* away from evangelicalism in terms of “doctrine and ethics/morality.* It is his belief that a church covenant will solidify the beliefs and practices of the members who sign a covenant.
He says:
” But I have noticed that in the last couple or three decades very few churches have any kind of church discipline process.”
Three out of five churches that I’ve attended in the past 30 years have had covenants. He obviously has a far different experience than I have.
Here is the covenant that he suggests to deal with this *slip-sliding* away from evangelicalism.
This covenant would be a requirement of church membership and overseen by the church elders (which includes women in his model.)
Possible problems with his model
- Olson does not seem to understand that this signed covenant is a legal contract. When asked if this was a membership contract he claimed he had never heard of this before which is highly probable. In fact, church covenants are widely used and also misused in Reformed SBC churches, 9Marks churches, and most Reformed denominations. Here is a post I wrote on the matter.
- He foresees this as a means to oversee someone’s entertainment viewing habits, making sure one is humble and modest, and making sure one attends Bible studies. This is all well and good but most difficult to assess in the short run. Who gets to decide that an individual is a conspicuous consumer? Is this defined by the size of the house or the car one drives? I am not being facetious. Having spent 10 years in the DFW area, I was introduced to conspicuous consumption on a level that I had never seen before. How will elders deal with such issues?
- The problem with most covenants is that the expectations are not spelled out a priori, resulting in a member getting blindsided by a *rule.* For example, Todd refused to sell books by CJ Mahaney and left his church due to a matter of conscience. The church disciplined him because he didn’t immediately find a new, acceptable church join. Being a supporter of CJ Mahaney’s books was an expectation not spelled out in advance. I wrote about this in Church Discipline and Abuse
- Olson says “Why not find a good way to do church discipline rather than drop it entirely?”. That’s a great idea. However, the far-reaching behaviors as found in his 9 points of behavior (see above) are going to be hard to solidify and even harder to prevent serious conflict and abuse.
An agreement: Spell out doctrines and beliefs prior to membership.
I do believe that it is good to spell out the beliefs and the doctrines of the church to potential members prior to their joining the church. I think the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are a good base. However, my Reformed SBC church demanded a belief in a Young Earth. I am a theistic evolutionist in my beliefs. Had I know about this prior to joining, I would have stayed away which would have prevented conflict.
A prediction:
Any covenant based on a list of general behaviors will inevitably lead to conflict. How do the elders judge whether someone is humble enough in their private life? How do the elders determine whether or not an individual is *spreading the good news of Jesus to as many as possible? How do the elders determine that a member is *living in peace with those outside the church?*
Elders who are asked to make impossible determinations will make bad determinations. Also, elders who are put into positions to judge those *under* them, are at risk of thinking that they are in charge and above it all. This is what has happened in Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition churches and 9Marks churches. I have documented such stories for 12 years.
Dr. Olson says he doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but what if the entire paradigm is screwed up? Maybe it’s time to rethink what the Bible means about discipline. The one instance mentioned in Corinthians was a man sleeping with his mother-in-law, a serious offense since the church was celebrating this relationship. Yet many instances of church discipline that I have documented involve ridiculous incidents such as the SBC pastor who disciplined a wife who wanted to divorce her child porn viewing husband. Also, the Bible never mentions church covenants. Maybe there’s a reason for that?
It is my opinion that Olson has not seen or heard of the number of abuses of church contracts (Yes, they are legal documents) that I have seen in my 12 years of writing this blog. Also, he has not thought of anything new. There is a reason that some churches have rejected church covenants. Olson is a professor. He knows how to do research and he needs to do lots more research in this area before writing more on this matter. Everything he suggests has been done and it’s often been done very badly. What’s that old saw? First, seek to understand?” (I am willing to help.)
Well, well, well. Juan is such a lonely number.
Afterburne,
🙂
As long as I am not foisting any “questionable entertainment” on someone else what business is it of any elder to know what entertainment I am engaging in? The assumption here is that the entertainment is at least legal.
Even more objectionable in my mind is whether I am attending Bible study! What if my energy levels are not up to someone else’s and doing all these “required activities” is simply beyond my physical capacity? Do I have to explain everything I do?
Let my “no” be a danged “no” for crying out loud.
Grrrrr.
IMHO, the way Church Covenants pan out is Rules for Thee (general laity or anyone else without power, not making the rules) & Not for Me (Clergy & power [as in $$$, donors supporting clergy] making the rules).
Apparently, NT churches did not have these, since NT writers argue for change on a case-by-case basis, while attempting to establish Jesus-follower norms, sans covenants.
If churches upheld the Rule of Law (mandatory reporting of illegal offenses, for example), maybe church discipline would have at least an aura of authenticity. As it stands, churches with covenants & discipline stuff are havens for CSA & various predators. Reference: the ever-growing database of @RobDownenChron at @HoustonChron.
IMHO, nothing to see, discuss here, until rule-makers address church predators as defined by law.
– Hire independent investigations
– Maintain databases of public records
– Do mandatory reporting
– Address DV
– Address CSA
… as a start.
Just the last 2 posts:
Is LU dealing with the behavior of their beloved icon?
Does the Xian reality show family deal with their #1 son’s sex crimes legacy?
Previously, there was a Camp Criminal, but oh yeah, he was marketing, IOW $$$.
Why do “leaders” hound average Churchgoer about minutia?
Because they feel they can … hold him hostage while the $$$-guy does whatever.
$$$. To grift from Big Money, they must let him get away with anything.
$$$. To grift from Average Working Churchgoer, they must (en)force with a covenant.
$$$. Church. “Leadership”. MO.
Great comment and BINGO!
Who decides if your entertainment choices are lofty enough for Dr. Olson’s model?
I’m beginning to think that Olson wants an Arminian version of a Calvinista ‘church covenant’.
You know, if the early church had signed covenants, we would know about them.
These covenants did not exist.
This is just an innovation that’s designed to control people. I don’t need a Roger Olson to oversee my viewing habits. He might say I’m wasting my time watching the fire fountains from Geldingadalir volcano in Iceland. At times the fire fountains are going over 1000 feet into the air. It’s mesmerizing to watch the lava go so high and then fall on the sides of the spatter cone.
Or they might think that my protesting is a violation of their covenant. Or something. I’m just against it because of the very real possibility of misuse!
My impression, too. (Maybe covenants entrap when we worker-bees don’t read AND discuss the Bible away from authoritarians? The NT Bereans went home & discussed their OWN thoughts AWAY from NT preacher-teachers.)
Now, I have to find the fire fountain vids – away from the preacher-teachers. Didn’t a preacher rail on someone for beachcombing for seashells, unauthorized entertainment apparently?
My basic question is this: If a church is formed that is committed to certain values, those values spelled out, and then people get into leadership positions, knowing they do not believe in those values, and start spending money in ways contrary to those values, and then changing the character of the church (and the values the church stands for), what then? It seems to me that this has happened in a LOT of churches I have gone to in the past. There was one in Chapel Hill I went to where a new pastor came in and decided to change the whole character of the church. It seems to me he lied when he was brought in, and those who brought him in probably knew he was not what they told the church members he was, and what he believed in.
Should there not be some sort of process to kick out leaders who decided they want to change the believes of the church that were espoused when the church was founded? So… perhaps a contract with the church LEADERs as opposed to the congregation?
He might say that my copy (DVD) of The Shawshank Redemption is too humanistic and does not glorify God.
Or that The Green Mile has a questionable undercurrent of Witchcraft.
We could go on and on, but yeah, who wants to have every breath of their lives scrutinized?
Dee wrote:
“There is difficulty in cutting and pasting at his blog so I will have to do this via screenshots.”
As to the copy / paste being disabled on the page, there are (free) browser extensions one may use to get around it.
This page lists a few of them (and other methods):
“How to Copy Text from a Blocked Site in Chrome”
https://www.maketecheasier.com/copy-text-from-blocked-website-chrome/
Disabling Java Script didn’t work for Olson’s page, but one of the freebie extensions did the trick.
(One extension called “Simple Allow Copy,” which is free, worked for me)
If you install Simple Allow Copy to try to do a test run on Olson’s page, you will have to refresh the page first,
and click on the extension’s little icon,
and wait for it to go from grey-ed out to colorized to be able to select text on the page and then copy it (right click and choose “copy” from the menu)
I used that extension and did a test run on Olson’s page, and that extension worked for me (I’m on Chrome).
I’m skimming down Olson’s page, and parts of it make me uncomfortable or are turn-offs.
I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a churchy type person any more, so I don’t have to worry about stuff like this so much.
I can empathize to a point with some of this, I will say.
Some churches claim to follow Christ and Judeo Christian values, but the members live any ol’ way they want to and one can’t tell from their behavior that they’re “saved.”
So I can maybe see wanting to have some kind of accountability of members?
OTOH, I don’t think I’d want to attend a church who thinks it’s okay to “hold me accountable for my lifestyle,” (that seems kind of broad),
and to tell me (if I were married) that I can only divorce on account of adultery or domestic abuse only (as his blog post mentions).
As a never married, childless, woman, I’m persona non grata at most churches any how.
If I were to join a church like what Olson describes, I’d likely fly under the radar,
and I could habitually sin all over the place if I wanted, and nobody at those busy-body churches would notice, since they only care about married mothers.
LOL!
Oh, sorry, another thing I saw on Olson’s page that I forgot to mention previously.
He mentioned something about churches expecting or demanding regular attendance of ‘worship services, Bible studies, and other church activities.’
This highly introverted couch potato
who possibly is also a H.S.P. (see the book or site by Elaine N. Aron)
says a BIG NO to all that.
Not everyone is a extrovert who loves, loves, loves!! getting out of the house, socializing, being in groups / crowds, and having to put up with new, loud, or obnoxious or strange sights, smells, and sounds.
Many Christians seem to like to “stick it to” people who are not keen on the usual life style choices, preferences, comfort zones, and habits of out-going, adventurous, extroverts who love being overly stimulated.
Didn’t John Piper do this a few years ago and Dee blogged about it
– Piper criticized some woman for collecting sea shells, or he wrote a paper criticizing Christians who have pet dogs and like taking their pet dogs for walks?
Piper felt that such hobbies or pursuits were not time well spent, they weren’t glorifying God enough, or whatever.
I forget the exact nature of his anal retentive criticisms.
Oh yeah, I ran a search, here it is:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2017/02/24/john-piper-dogs-can-distract-you-from-giving-god-glory/
From his blog post: “Very few students grew up in churches that practiced any kind of church discipline. Those who did grow up in churches that practiced church discipline reported its abuse.”
This should be a major red flag to Mr. Olson.
A year ago, the new senior pastor at the church we’d returned to in order to escape/recover from authoritarian leadership preached a sermon on “this thing not a lot of people have heard of – covenant membership.” I turned to my husband and said, “It’s starting all over again.” He thought I was overreacting. I insisted we meet with the senior pastor (assuming he was simply naive) to share our stories. The main thing I wanted to know from the pastor was, how was this church going to be different from the others that had tried covenant membership and failed?
Covid lockdown hit literally the week we were going to meet, so I never really got the question answered.
Over the next six months, without even trying very hard, we tracked a pattern of deception on the part of senior leadership. When the last straw was reached and I diplomatically approached the pastor about something pretty black-and-white, he dismissed, defended, dissembled, and invoked the devil to get me to drop it.
So, my question for Mr. Olson is the same. How is his church going to be different?
Dee said,
“Yet many instances of church discipline that I have documented involve ridiculous incidents such as the SBC pastor who disciplined a wife who wanted to divorce her child porn viewing husband.”
Mmm-hmm, and Olson deleted the name of that pastor / church in the comments section when a commentator brought it up as an example of how church discipline can and sometimes does go wrong.
I’ll go on, just a little ……… I have actually heard a few Baptist women say some pretty snarky things about the inappropriateness of certain costumes in The Ten Commandments (Charlotte Heston, Yul Brenner …….).
Yes, really.
God made covenants with people in the Bible — seven, I think. But they were covenants — promises God made —- not contracts. All but one of those convents were unconditional promises that God made, such as the Noahic Covenant.
Don’t remember reading anything about the apostles having to sign any contractual obligations to Jesus.
I’ll be danged if I’m going to sign a contract giving control of my life to some group of mortal men, so that they can have pleasure of supposedly keeping watch over my immortal soul, at their leisure.
OTOH, I don’t think I’d want to attend a church who thinks it’s okay to “hold me accountable for my lifestyle,” (that seems kind of broad)
Understood, although my lifestyle has become even more boring since the pandemic started.
As a never married, childless, woman, I’m persona non grata at most churches any how.
As a never-married, childless man in his 60’s, I suspect I’m considered several notches lower than pond scum at this point. And that’s despite belonging to a church with a never-married senior pastor. Families with children are still king.
He mentioned something about churches expecting or demanding regular attendance of ‘worship services, Bible studies, and other church activities.’
I’d like to see how Roger Olson would enforce that at a time when many churches are restricting in-person service attendance or not meeting in person at all.
By the way, I understand where Daisy is coming from as a HSP introvert myself. My relationship with my current church is hanging on by a thread, but I do not look forward to a church search either.
Wild Honey,
I look at his list of “bare minimum” requirements and shudder. “Give and serve within the congregation on a regular basis – as possible… spreading the good news of Jesus Christ to as many as possible… expectation of regular attendance in worship services, Bible studies, other church activities as possible…”
Who determines “as possible”? Is there some sort of rubric? How on earth does he propose to take into account the millions of variables that determines how much an individual is able to do things “as possible?” Let’s start with income, number (and age) of children, work/career requirements, daily commute, physical/learning disabilities, physical/learning disabilities amongst family members, mental health, mental health of family members, care/upkeep of an individual’s home, time expected to be spent with extended family, personality type, physical distance from church…
And as much as I’d like to see women as elders alongside men, that’s not going to totally eliminate susceptibility for abuse. It’s not a gender thing, it’s a power thing.
And all God’s people said, “Amen!”
This is extremely relevant for me right now, as I am dealing with a Calvinist friend who is beating up my Church for its alleged failure to adequately discipline certain prominent members. He claims *his* Perfectly Pure Pristine Reformed PCA Church would never even allow these reprobates to *join,* let alone remain as communicants. Apparently, like Calvin in Geneva, his church’s almighty elders have discipline down to a science.
In fact, my friend seems to believe that the one and only true mark of The True Church is discipline.
And he is utterly oblivious to the fact that this makes his church appear completely off-putting to us ordinary people. I mean, ugh. Thanks but no thanks. I’d rather have a root canal.
It doesn’t need to be that complicated. Scripture gives us the example of the Corinthian guy sleeping with his mother, mother in law or whatever. You turn the guy over to Satan. Thus has two advantages:
One. It eliminates the leaders making dumb decisions. Whatever happens next…you blame it on Satan. Wasn’t us…not our fault…talk to Satan about it.
Two. It eliminates the leaders making dumb decisions. If nothing happens, he must not have been guilty as charged. Not our fault nothing happened after the turnover…go talk to Satan about why the guy never keeled over.
Roger Olson wants members to use at least one “gift of the Holy Spirit.”
I have the gift/curse of noticing historical and contextual errors in sermons. Is this kind of gift encouraged?
I’ll note that Patheos put in copy disable “feature” a few weeks ago not caring that anyone intent on copyright infringement can get around it very easily (and probably isn’t using the standard copy feature anyway) so it just annoys the people wanting to copy to comment who aren’t savvy about getting useful addons. I’m not aware of any bloggers who asked for it.
His proposed covenant has a procedure for the church to remove or separate a congregant but not for a congregant to leave the church. It might be a bit safer if (a) it was explicit that it was not a legally enforceable contract and (b) explicit that the congregant was free to walk away from the church at any time and for any reason.
One would like to believe that it would be possible in a Christian church for a culture of virtue to be created and to thrive through the exemplary lives of the spiritual leaders of the group (not all of whom would necessarily be “ordained” to formal positions of leadership. The people who are trusted, for whatever reason — though often it will be age, experience and good reputation — , to provide wise counsel at need are the natural leaders within such groups and will often function in that way even if not invested with formal authority). The theory is that the good examples would serve as models for the entire group — in Paul’s words, “imitate me as I imitate Christ”.
(As has been apparent in the recent posts on developments at Liberty U, it is often the case even in Christian settings that the “invested with authority” leaders of groups are not necessarily the sort of people who are in fact the best kinds of examples to the rest.)
I interpret Prof. Olson’s post to be something of a counsel of despair that the above approach to the formation of a culture of righteousness within local congregations does not, in his experience, appear to be working. “Plan B” is to compel people to make promises to abide by a list, and then to police them. That may work, but it will not work as well as the more organic, and more Biblical, “Plan A.”
Perhaps part of the problem is that the people who are being invested with authority are in many cases the wrong people.
“Elders who are asked to make impossible determinations will make bad determinations.” (Dee’s comment)
Absolutely right. As St. Peter remarked in Acts 15, “Why, then are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?”
He was speaking of the Mosaic law, but I think the concept applies to “church discipline” as well. The concept keeps being tried, and it keeps not working. Maybe you just have to leave things up to God.
Catholic Gate-Crasher,
I recommend “The Journey to the Mayflower,” by Stephen Tomkins. You are correct in thinking that “church discipline” and “covenants” are key features of the strain of English Protestant Christianity that crossed the Atlantic.
“Invoked the devil” made me laugh, because it’s so stereotypical. Are they all issued a script?
Here’s my bottom line on church memberships covenants. A great multitude of believers in Jesus, Spirit-led, faithful saints of God, God-fearing and God-loving followers of Christ … have moved their address to Heaven during the past 2,000 years without having signed one!
I repeat, the only covenant a believer needs to enter into is the one written in red by Jesus. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t convict and control a church member to walk the straight and narrow, a piece of paper won’t.
Olson’s 9 “marks” comprise a good Statement of Faith, but shouldn’t be held over the head of a believer as a method to discipline them. A contractual arrangement between a church and church member just doesn’t fit in the Kingdom of God, IMO. If a contract is required to control the flesh, there’s something wrong with the flesh that needs to be taken to God, not church leaders.
As an alternative to church covenants, I suggest that church leaders call members to humble themselves, pray, repent, and seek God on a regular basis. There’s something about genuinely doing that which removes all need to sign on the dotted line.
Yes, through the Biblical model of congregational governance of the church, rather than elder-rule polity. The congregation meets, considers if what the bad-boy is doing is out of bounds, votes, and shows them the exit if necessary. SBC’s Calvinistas have been scurrying to take over churches and replace congregational governance with elder-rule so they can change belief and practice without being booted out.
I suppose elder-rule can work if they are truly spiritual pastors/elders appointed by God, rather than installed by a movement. In such cases, a congregation of discerning believers would submit to their leadership. They would love each other and work with each other to fulfill the Great Commission together. (that sounds so foreign considering the condition of the organized church in many places)
I found this of interest.
Let’s Talk Forum: Calvinism & Arminianism, Roger Olson,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0RWF_XByMM
Agreed. I, too, believe that is what Dr. Olson is doing here. The church at large would benefit from actually living in 2 Chronicles 7:14, but I don’t see much movement in that direction. Thus, if a righteous standard among the people has fallen in the street and church doctrines have become error … with little “Plan A” in motion … then ‘something’ must be done! But a “Plan B” contract won’t effect what the Holy Spirit has been unable to do with a knucklehead bunch of church folks.
(P.S. I have been a fan of Roger Olson for years … he’s a good man)
A couple of weeks ago I flagged up the issue of membership covenants which were argued for by the Puritan Thomas Goodwin (1600×1680) and an exchange of letters between him and another minister called Goodwin (no relationship). The details are in volume 11 of Goodwin’s Works. Todd Wilhelm subsequently provided a link. Goodwin’s line of reasoning is contained in a massive treatise found in the same volume. Goodwn’s works make difficult reading so I turned to another Puritan, John Owen (1616-1683) who knew how to address ordinary people in easily understandable terms.
He wrote – “All this authority in and over the church is vested in him alone; 2. It is over the souls and consciences of men only, which no authority can reach but his, and that as it is his; whereof we shall treat more afterward.
The sole end of the ministerial exercise of this power and rule, by virtue thereof, unto the church, is the edification of itself, Rom. 15:1–3; 2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10; Eph. 4:14, 15.
III. This is the especial nature and especial end of all power granted by Jesus Christ unto the church, namely, a ministry unto edification, in opposition unto all the ends whereunto it hath been abused; for it hath been so unto the usurpation of a dominion over the persons and consciences of the disciples of Christ, accompanied with secular grandeur, wealth, and power. The Lord Christ never made a grant of any authority for any such ends, yea, they are expressly forbidden by him, Luke 22:25, 26; Matt. 20:25–28, “Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” (Volume 15, works – The True Nature of a Gospel Church and its Government).
It’s interesting to note that “Gospel Church” was in use long before the New Calvinists adopted the name and Owen’s exposition states, the purpose of the church is for edification, not for “dominion over the persons and consciences of the disciples of Christ, accompanied with secular grandeur, wealth and power!. Indeed they are expressly forbidden by the Lord himself in Luke 22;25, 26 and Matthew 20;25-28.
So this begs the question! On what do the Calvinists base their authority and legitimacy. Who was their teacher? And why do they think they can disobey the clear teaching of the Son of God?
Do not sign their membership contracts!!
With church membership declining, I suspect the push for membership is all about putting up a theological Berlin Wall to keep people in.
Double down on controlling those on the inside. I just finished reading a book on Word of Faith Fellowship.
A number of those leaving were raised in the church. Even children understand the concept of freedom.
More control will not create better Christians. It’ll build better unbelievers.
“I got no strings to hold me down
To make me fret, or make me frown
I had strings, but now I’m free
There are no strings on me…”
– Pinocchio
Yep!
Calvinists have their TULIP…
Arminians have a Daisy…
He loves me… He loves me not…He loves me… He loves me not… He loves me… He loves me not…
I wonder if that was my former church? CHBC? We left because he changed e everything and waxed eloquent on John Piper.
I am not a huge ge fan of Owen, because he encouraged Cromwell to crush the Scottish Covenanters resulting in 1000s of them being marched to Newcastle and deported to the Colonies as bonded labour – to all intents and purposes slaves. In so doing he overrode the dictates of a man’s conscience and freedom of worship and association. ( in this regard some of my early ancestors were thrown out of the church, some were for fined and others imprisoned.) ,Similarly he allowed Cromwell to raze the towns of Drogheda and Wexford in Ireland. The best defence his defenders can offer is hat “he wasn’t present on the battlefields when the decisions were made!
But I try to give a fair reading ::-)
Daisy,
Thank you.
I love that question. I don’t think it will be different.
I wasn’t happy about that.
I’m with you.
I bet they don’t want to do this because it decreases their control.
Good comment.
*New Calvinists* above, not Calvin
One has to be very careful when attending a 501c3 church establishment today. Please make sure you read the fine print. The life you save may be your own.
Them Arminians need to be kept in check just as much as the Calvinists!
Why can’t we all just be Christians?
“BUT THIS TIME WE WILL ACHIEVE TRUE COMMUNISM!!!”
GAWD’s Anointed doing the Scrutinizing, of course.
“I HOLD THE WHIP!”
Lowlandseer,
Thank you. Most “evangelicals” don’t know what “the gospel” is, hence they won’t allow us to count the good cost. A Church should recite the Nicene Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, simple as that.
What heavies are interested in how I am into three of the fivefold – as are probably most of you? You and I will be effective if we pray for effectivity, not because of propaganda from heavies.
“If the foundations have been destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11)
The remnant of God groans in the Spirit with words that cannot be expressed (Romans 8:26). Another spirit has taken over the church in America. The foundations have been destroyed.
Again, “BECAUSE THIS TIME WE WILL ACHIEVE TRUE COMMUNISM!”
doubleplusungood doubleplusunfact.
Don’t “suspect”.
You Are.
If I hadn’t swum the Tiber, I’d be in the same situation.
Same gender, same orientation, same marital status, similar age.
“Getting Married” is Christianese for “Getting Laid”, with all the accompanying baggage.
“Just like ‘If you’re not Doing somebody, You’re a Nobody!’, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Well, Calvin (pbuh) WAS the only man in all history to Have God All Figured Out…
Why do I hear this scene from one old movie where a guy “returns from a fishing trip “to find the Nazis have taken over the country”? The scene is the Gestapo-Sturmbannfuehrer equivalent screaming over and over about The Glorious New Order: “ORDER! DISCIPLINE! ORDER! DISCIPLINE! ORDER! DISCIPLINE!”
Don’t forget “Book of Joshua: The Live Role-Playing Game” once they arrived at The Promised Land.
Q. Is Roger Olson forcing people against their will to go to 501c3 Christian church establishments?
Ever heard of “duckspeak”?
“Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.”
http://www.orwelltoday.com/duckspeak.shtml
That is an exceptionally vivid and evocative way of describing it.
Oh My! (chuckles) Thanks for the inspiration, Daisy! My next book can be “Don’t waste your volcanoes!” This whole train of thought logically follows from my highly Unbiblical theology of Christian Hedonism.
Folks like Olson, may be presenting the illusion of understanding. You might want to rewrite your risk map.
I had a cousin in her 90’s who told me that my Grandmother hated
Presbyterians due to forced conversion. I was confused and wish I asked, who/what/when/where, or why the family left Scotland at all.
I know nothing of deporting and sending prisoners, only bits and pieces of info after they arrived. Americans don’t realize the ugly history of the Colonies. They where in some respects a penal colony.
What is a good starting point to learn of ScotsIrish deporting?
Ain’t that a Daisy, the back and forth tennis match (so to speak) of faith.
Good one drstevej, good one.
At least with Calvinism you (generic you) know where ya’ stand, heaven bound or hell-fodder, no hemmin’ no hawin’, till’ the role is called up yonder.
I wonder if Olson realizes that many “churches” are becoming more like secular military institutions than Houses of God? Well, except the money flow is reversed —- the enlistees do the paying instead of getting paid. And, military personnel have more freedoms with their personal time and choices.
Sign on the dotted line and follow orders!
Do members need ID cards to go through the gates of Heaven?
Yep. I remember the husband of an old friend, who was barely functional with heart failure but yet was criticized for not being more active in his church. NOT anyone else’s job to judge.
“Real ID’s” for access to eternity are written on the heart.
Hmmm … Pastor John might be coming around!
I’ll dispute that statement a little. The real Shepherd knows His sheep. We don’t need IDs.
Complete with the it’s-not-me-it’s-you fake apology. At all. Three. Churches we’ve been members of over the last 10 years.
This is getting old.
Let’s scrutinize his 9 Marx a bit, shall we?
1-4 are good, but give little opportunity for discipline. Members can give lip service and still be unbelievers or live like the devil. 5, 6, 8, and most of 7, leaders could discipline all members every day and twice on Sunday if they wanted to. Right now I’m listening to a worldly tune. If I were a member with leaders, I’d best not confess this to them. I’m conspicuously consuming too much coffee, perhaps. First part of 7 is likely directed at gay marriage/ordination— more than that would need oodles of complicated snooping prying and gossiping to enforce. Unless leaders “see things” like Park Fiscal.
This leaves us with Marx 9, the very most popular with 9 Marx. ATTENDANCE! Hebrews 10:25!! Hebrews 13:17!!! How can we know for whom God will hold us to account if they don’t &$$&^#} ATTEND!!!!!
If you want an ear-opening couple hours, listen to Dr Schmucker and Dr Dever explain to Dr Leeman how they disciplined and excommunicated over half of CHBC for the mortal sin of leaving without permission. https://www.9marks.org/pastors-talk/episode-149-on-cleaning-the-membership-rolls-part-1-with-matt-schmucker/
They even had members who affirmed their statement of faith and signed their covenant, and they still excommunicated them for non-attendance.
Sorry for long rant. I have 0 tolerance policy for church discipline. Parents discipline children. God, our Father in heaven, disciplines us. In the Bible, when brother disciplines brother, it leads to murder (Cain, Absalom etc.)
dee,
You are exactly correct… Whenever “authority” gets involved, the power has the tendency to corrupt… just like a that the history of police and the courts in the US, which has, and continues to try to follow the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”…
We could go on and on about this…
(Your Orthodox gate-crasher here…)
Dr Olson’s blog is one of the few Protestant bloggers I still read; I think he’s a pretty balanced and sane Evangelical/Baptist. Not all that long ago, most Evangelicals would have agreed with him on most issues. Haven’t read all the comments here, so don’t know if anyone brought up the following:
Dr Olson is waxing nostalgic for the way the church of his late childhood and adolescence did things. He writes very positively of his experience in that group (it was a “full Gospel” kind of church, but not a large denomination). He has also written about what disillusioned him about it, but that had more to do with anti-intellectualism and shutting down his questions than the basic Christian doctrines and everyday sort of Christian behavior that the church advocated. The congregation was small and everybody knew everyone else; the elders knew people well enough to visit them unannounced, it seems. It’s also pretty clear that the church members knew up front what was expected, what they were getting into. Again, it was pretty much the same as any non-sacramental Protestant church of the 1950s-60s. He thought it was a good thing. And perhaps in that iteration, it was, especially with the encouragement for people not to buy into (pun intended) the consumerist mentality. Things have changed since then, and I agree with Dee that having the kind of stipulations for membership that Dr Olson promotes is easier said than done.
I do agree with Dr Olson that – as we who comment here have experienced – Evangelicalism is not what it used to be in terms of people knowing what they believe and actually trying to live by it. Yes, there was hypocrisy; there always has been and there always will be. But there are deep cultural reasons (church culture and American culture) for current church statistics. See the work of Christian Smith.
Wild Honey,
This suggests that there is a source from which they are all drawing … and it’s not the Bible, because church membership contracts are not in the Bible.
For whatever it’s worth, New England’s Congregational churches have had covenants since colonial times. Usually, they are rather vague and toothless, simply an agreement to be faithful to God and to each other. That’s probably an oversimplification, by the way.
Nathan Priddis,
Nathan, I came across this article that gives some information.
https://www.geni.com/projects/Scots-Prisoners-and-their-Relocation-to-the-Colonies-1650-1654/3465
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mcclell2/homepage/migrate.htm
For a history of the Covenanters, there is the two volume “THE COVENANTERS: A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE ” by J K Hewison.
I was unaware of all this until a couple of years ago when I started reading The Works of the Rev High Binning, one of the Scottish ministers who preached against Cromwell when he came to Glasgow. I’ve often commented since that it is reprehensible that Scots are not taught their own history but are fed all the usual nonsense about the kings and queens of England and the great British Empire. (But that’s another story).
I suppose I have, because I read “1984” in school, but it was very upsetting, and I’ve never read it a second time.
This “duckspeak” concept is extremely interesting!
Bottom line: How does his concoction differ from the Pharisees’ extrabiblical rules?
Also: Have a loving, caring church where people actually give a rip about each other, and guess what? You’ll have people falling over themselves to be there and serve there.
Dee:
If you use Firefox as a browser, there is a reader mode that you can access by clicking on the small “page” icon near the right-hand end of the location bar of the browser. In reader mode, all distracting elements and a lot of the scripts are disabled.
This will not help you if you want to quote any of the Disqus comments, but for the main article it works a treat.
Gus,
I have now read Dr Olson’s article.
According to one commenter over at Dr Olson’s blog, this reader mode also exists on the Chrome browser, and works the same way.
——————
WRT to the article, I still think that any kind of institutionalized “church discipline” brings with it so much potential of abuse, and if there is a lot of potential for abuse, there will be abuse. (25th corollary to Murphy’s law – no, not really, only joking).
Hi Dee, Story alert
Please go to Christian Post. FBC Fort Lauderdale FL has booted over 150 members who were not happy with their new Dictator Pastor
Please look at this and give your thoughts. I have mixed feelings about this.
I wonder if they were “under contract”? I always wonder about SBC churches which have a leader called “Lead Pastor” (commonly used title in the NeoCal movement).
It’s always sad when you read things like “an 84-year-old deacon who wrote the church’s bylaws and had been a member since he was a 9-year-old was also among the members purged from the church.” It’s tough on old folks when they are booted from their church after 75 years! The young whippersnappers who take over usually don’t give a big whoop, since they are always right.
Does anyone know what the actual story is here? The root issue?
I read in another article it was 200 hundred ! Is that a record? From what I read in a newspaper article, the pastor supposedly makes $250,000 and the folks just wanted some answers according those excommunicated.
Olsen also stated in the comments “Are you familiar with Saint Ambrose’s humbling of Emperor Theodosius? Now that was church discipline!”
My mind went immediately to an incident where a Christian mob led by its bishop burnt down a synagogue. Emperor Theodosius ordered the bishop to pay for the rebuilding. Ambrose rebuked the emperor and persuaded him to rescind the order.
Olsen is of course thinking of another incident.
BTW I’m not commenting on Olsen’s blog since he is very clear that his comment section is meant for evangelical Christians.
The article from Florida bulldog.org
A1 TOP STORY, FORT LAUDERDALE, RELIGION MAY 1, 2021 AUTHOR: NOREEN MARCUS6609 SEEN READ 22 COMMENTS
First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale implodes over challenge to pastor’s iron rule
Share:Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on PinterestBuffer this pageEmail this to someone
First Baptist Church
First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale
By Noreen Marcus, FloridaBulldog.org
First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale, a venerable downtown religious landmark, is in full-out civil war after a year of sporadic confrontations about financial accountability and transparency.
On Friday night First Baptist trustees, seemingly under the control of Lead Pastor James Welch, released an email that expelled from membership — much like Catholic excommunication — an entire dissident faction, an estimated 200 churchgoers.
The group has been pressing for dialog about finances, the future of the property-rich institution and Welch’s controversial, top-down management style. He took control of the church in early 2019.
There could be no more dramatic example of that style than the trustees’ Friday night purge.
“All we ever wanted was to have a voice,” said Brian Keno, a leader of Concerned Members of First Baptist Church, and now, apparently, a former congregant. “We started strong. So many left in disgust.”
Following inquiries from Florida Bulldog, Romney Rogers, a lawyer for First Baptist and a longtime church insider, forwarded the trustees’ statement that exiled the dissidents.
Many grievances at First Baptist
It lists many grievances against them, saying they “attempted a hostile takeover of the church through illegal meetings … claiming to act in the name of the congregation.” Also, they “refused to respond with repentance to Church discipline.”
The trustees accuse the dissidents of engaging in “a public campaign of slander, defamation, accusations and threats against the pastors, trustees, deacons and other Church leaders.” They decided that further efforts to arbitrate disputes “will be an unfruitful waste of the church’s time and resources.”
Therefore, the trustees “recently voted to terminate the membership of all church members who have identified with, participated in, or supported any actions of” the dissidents.
The news spread fast, and members of Keno’s group expressed shock and outrage in Facebook posts. “I want to scream!” said one. “They need a dose of their own discipline,” said another. And a third: “We will have to figure out next steps. In the meantime, don’t give in to their bully tactics.”
Welch did not respond to emailed questions from Florida Bulldog. Former Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler, a lawyer for the church, said it would release a statement. That statement, separate from the trustees’ purge announcement, was not produced by deadline.
A real estate goldmine
The 114-year-old church sits atop a real estate goldmine — seven acres off Broward Boulevard and Northeast Third Street in downtown Fort Lauderdale. The property has an estimated value of more than $125 million, which could increase if a planned government center is sited four blocks away.
Meanwhile, First Baptist seems to have financial problems. The church applied for and received federal Payroll Protection Program loans in 2020 and this year, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration’s PPP database. In 2020 it received $599,780 to retain 61 jobs; on March 13 it got $558,978 for 74 jobs.
A former deacon and his wife, Daniel and Deanna Wielhouwer, raised financial concerns in a Jan. 24 letter to the congregation explaining their decision to leave after 30 years. They said Welch was being paid $250,000 in salary and expenses, and described his spending of church funds as “out of control.” They also questioned why Welch is paid at least $50,000 more than the pastor of the much larger Calvary Chapel on Cypress Creek Road.
At the same time, the new pastor ended First Baptist’s money-making annual Christmas pageant, a popular tradition for 36 years, as of 2020. Deanna Wielhouwer, who worked for the church and ran pageant ticket sales, said they accounted for a third of the church’s $4.2 million budget in 2019.
The combination of financial plight and real estate riches has led the Wielhouwers, Keno and others to wonder about what closely held plans Welch and the church leadership have in mind for First Baptist.
“It’s never been clear what Welch’s vision is,” Keno said before the purge. “People don’t know what he’s gonna do.”
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related posts:
Fort Lauderdale zoning vote on church’s expansion plans delayed again
Classic power struggl
Max,
This is and SBC church, too! And, there’s chatter about from SBC!
Maybe someone should send an alert to Olson???
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Sorry, no chatter from SBC
https://news.yahoo.com/josh-duggars-internet-usage-sent-174131999.html
Guilty.
Q. is Olson, with some forty books under his proverbial belt, misleading kind folks on what Christian church is really all about?
From the Christian Post article: “The restoration process includes “a minimum waiting period of one year, the completion of a course in biblical conflict resolution through Peacemaker Ministries, reconciliation with all persons harmed by their actions, and re-application for church membership.””
The mention of Peacemaker Ministries is a huge red flag. (“biblical conflict resolution” pretty much says it all.)
And unless it has changed, Peacemaker Ministries is also used in some secular businesses. (Remember to read the fine print.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20151103184513/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-religious-arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html
From the 2015 New York Times article In Religious Arbitration, Scripture Is the Rule of Law: “Customers who buy bamboo floors from Higuera Hardwoods in Washington State must take any dispute before a Christian arbitrator, according to the company’s website. Carolina Cabin Rentals, which rents high-end vacation properties in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, tells its customers that disputes may be resolved according to biblical principles. The same goes for contestants in a fishing tournament in Hawaii.”
(I read the New York Times article a few years ago when I read through the articles on Wade Mullen’s Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/wademullen/status/1000090402060472320 )
Chuckp,
Looks like the usual SBC fight over how the mammon is spent, rather than a concern about the drift in belief and practice within the SBC and most likely at their church. As a previous 70+ year Southern Baptist, I saw members come to weeping and gnashing of teeth over how much to spend on carpet and what color it would be. Spending hard-earned tithes on things not related to building the Kingdom of God or the Great Commission is business as usual in most SBC churches. Of course, the excommunicated members have a right to express concerns over their heavy-handed treatment by “Pastor.”
Local church autonomy, you know.
Amen!
Of course it was….
They look the other way if “Lead Pastor” is trying to “reform” a church.
Those who brought him in were not involved in deception. You may well be right, however, that an explicit written contract may have been the only thing that could have prevented what happened. Churches would be wise to consider that option when hiring–especially in the current climate.
In the 3-step process of
-evangelism (commit)
-discipleship (engage a lifestyle of values: Love God, Love others as self), and
-fellowship (more Common Mission than coffee & doughnuts),
it is discipleship that is the long game.
Jesus said: Go tell, Make disciples (help each other grow in Loving God, Loving others as self in deed, in action). Doing this together is a Common Mission.
The discipleship process is an earth-years lifetime of moving forward. The covenant or initial commitment was only the beginning. Then comes the long haul of discipleship. Step by step, if it’s real change.
How can church be a healthy & safe community with saved sinners at various points on this discipleship path, communing together?
1 Corinthians 5 lists 6 behaviors forbidden in the social fabric of church community, for the safety of the group. Do church covenants use these 6 recommendations as guidelines?
A church covenant that focuses on other stuff (we signed a lifestyle commitment to not drink alcohol, etc.) seems superficial or artificial rather than spiritual growth directed.
The purpose behind each item listed on the church covenant would reveal what the church leadership is going for, the underlying agenda. What’s their End Game? Make disciples or something else?
Olson will brook no dissent or even a tacit disagreement on his blog.
The one and only time I ever commented, I got my head bit off, haven’t been back since.
Oxymoron?
Definitely an oxymoron. Dee is the oxy – she tackles the greasy grime, and Piper is the moron.
(Should I have said that? Oh well, just thinkin’ out loud.)
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
LOL. Good use of language.
Just saw this, an update on an earlier post. Maybe you saw this, too:
http://specials.idsnews.com/hope-church-pastor-sexual-harassment-allegations/index.html
Wow.
After having the PCA thrown in my face as So Much Better At Godly Discipline Than Those Dastardly Catholics, I find this article illuminating indeed.
Complete with Heathen Canaanites already in The Land.
(And we’re still living in the aftermath. Ask any Pequot, Narangasset, or Massacusett — if you can find a survivor.)
I have gotten that too. At least at a conservative church people who are divorced are second-class citizens and people like us who are older and never-married and no children, it is like we are from another planet and not worth talking to.
If you are introverted and not into a lot of busy-body cliques and you don’t like commotion, multiply your “otherness” by ten!
I did have a few times of almost being accepted at church. I had been going to a Lutheran church for a few weeks and they seemed to like me but then I told the pastor I was not a young earth creationist and suddenly my other Lutheran qualifications due to my background didn’t matter and I was pretty much unwelcome because I could not check off one or two things on their list. Then I had been going to an Anglican church for a couple of years – I liked it for a while but then there was a scandal that I was obvious to and a few other things – I just couldn’t deal with that and dropped out. I know institutions are not perfect but there is a point where enough is enough.
Wow! That is so wrong but somehow I am not surprised.
That attitude seems to be strong in Reformed churches and especially strong in fundamentalist churches. It seems to be inherited from the Puritans. Basically, any enjoyment or innocent pleasure is bad – at best it is a distraction and you need to be working 110% for God’s kingdom or maybe you really aren’t “saved.” You either work in “full-time Christian service” or else you are “in the world” and not of much use to God. Luther’s idea of vocation is a good antidote to this but it goes against the grain of many churches.
I have an 80 year old friend who was excommunicated from his longtime SBC church after the New Calvinists took over the non-Calvinist congregation by stealth and deception. His “sin” … he attended Sunday School there, but worship services at another (non-SBC) church occasionally.
Jacob,
Not just wrong, it evil/diabolical… we need to call this stuff for what it is….
Jacob,
I experienced exactly this not just in my IFB church/school, but also in campus ministry..
the irony is that I saw plenty of them enjoy their “acceptable” pleasures… plenty of them were obese, drove their big Cadillacs, and sure liked their desserts at pot lucks…. or being in the “lime -light”
my point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder… or in this case “acceptable” and unacceptable “activities/behaviors”….. which goes along with the theme of this post…. who decides what is on the “list” for church discipline and how is it “equally” enforced???
Yes they are spirit-led … but not by the Holy Spirit.
“In ‘that day’ many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we preach in your name, (didn’t we force believers to sign our contract), (didn’t we discipline the hell out of church members), (didn’t we excommunicate old saints for not agreeing with us), and do many other great things in your name?’ Then I shall tell them plainly, ‘I have never known you. Go away from me, you have worked on the side of evil!’” (Matthew 7)
Oh, I missed that Piper Post. Yuck.
It makes me want to go hug my precious little mutt. Good dog, Coco! Don’t let that mean Miss Gulch — I mean Mr. Piper — make you feel bad. He’s a kook.
I’m Dutch reformed of origin (in the Netherlands). When we become members by public profession of faith (we’re baptised as infants) we are to answer three questions.
1. You acknowledge your faith in the trinity
2. You accept the call to fight against sin and the devil, to follow your saviour in life and dying, to confess him before the people, and labour with joy in his Kingdom.
3. Promise to be faithful under the service of the Word and the sacraments, persevere in prayer and the reading of the scripture, and to contribute to the building of the church of Christ with the talents you have been given by God.
You answer yes, in front of the church and that’s it. You receive a certificate that proves you are a member now but it’s not a contract, let alone legal. Just your word and it’s enough.
I’m fine with the church asking commitment from its members, but I would run if they put something to sign under my nose. You only do this once and just orally. Nobody ever brought his ruler to measure if your contribution to the Kingdom was enough. It’s my promise before God and his church.
We did get an elder to visit us once a year to see how we were doing, both spiritually and physically. And if we needed extra support spiritually, practically or financially we could get that. I liked that part especially from Olson’s proposal, the annual elder visit. Sort of taking temperature.
So I think that Olson’s points are not all bad. But I would think not so detailed and most certainly not signed as a legal document. Just in good faith. The possible details that matter are already in the Bible.
“If you openly admit by your own mouth that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and if you believe in your own heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” For it is believing in the heart that makes a man righteous before God, and it is stating his belief by his own mouth that confirms his salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10)
Which then makes you a member of the Body of Christ … no other membership contract necessary.
Max,
Yup….
“I think it’s interesting how Catholics and Protestants didn’t get along. How did that play out? ‘See those people over there with the almost identical beliefs as mine? I want to kill them. ‘Cuz my God’s all about love.'” – Jim Gaffigan https://youtu.be/f5TPR2vFfZQ
More, from the link comments:
“The difference between a Catholic and a Baptist is the Catholic will say ‘Hi’ to you at the liquor store.”
Why do some folks make young Earth creationism such a big deal?
In a grander scheme of faith and living life, six days or six billion years don’t mean s|-|it. It’s what you (generic you) do with your here and now that matters.
Max,
Exactly…..
Max,
It was entirely new to me, a membership contract. It comes across as a sort of business thing. Which is maybe not too strange when some of those churches are actually run like a business 🙂
So maybe get away with both, the membership contract and the businesslike model the churches are run.
There was a time of church & state, as in State Churches. Some took to sailing away, establishing the separation of Church & State, as policy & in practice. We gaze with wonder, “How could the government run the church? We would never …”
Nowadays we have church run as business, church & business. Will some take the journey, perhaps metaphorical, of getting away, establishing the separation of church & doing business? Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple comes to mind.
Church as community, not run by the State, nor run as a business. Can we even imagine?
Lowlandseer,
Thanks. I’ll read up.
Jacob,
This is a commonly held view but mistaken. William Perkins, often called the Father of Puritanism, made this quite clear in his writings. In the Preface to volume 10 of his Works it is said that “Perkins was no ascetic. He had no problem with “natural” delights (both within marriage and in society in ‘things indifferent’). Indeed he wrote “We may use these gifts of God not sparingly alone, and for mere necessity…but also freely and liberally, for Christian delight and pleasure. For this is that liberty which God has granted to all believers.” (This is discussed in much detail in volume 8 of his Works). The way to holiness, therefore, is not found in abstaining from God’s good gifts, but in enjoying them (1 Cor 10:31). Godliness encompasses all of life.”
In some parts of the country, people did still pay calls in the 1950s… but those things, although unannounced, happened at expected intervals, like Sunday afternoons. A lot of folks didn’t like receiving callers, because they had to sit around in their good clothes all afternoon, and heaven only knew who might show up—if anyone.
If elders try to revive the custom of showing up unannounced, I guarantee they will misunderstand the old ways (even more than I do), and turn a visit into a power play, to catch the missus wearing shorts, or the kids playing on a trampoline out back.
employee contracts and CEO management … Christian Industrial Complex … nothing spiritual about it
Yeah, I’d probably get hammered hard by the new-fangled version of church leaders, if I allowed them to.
This “missus” actually been horseback riding, while wearing shorts, with church deacons. …… been blackberry pickin’ with a deacon and a trustee —- neither complained about my lace-up boots or the pistol on my hip.
Muff Potter,
I have asked the same question for over 45 years….
You’re quite a deadeye if you can pick off a quart of blackberries! 😉
Them guys prolly ain’t been converted by John Piper and Denny Burk.
What’s the make of your piece?
I got me a Glock 17 and a Ruger single action revolver in .45 long colt.
Friend,
Ha haa.
It’s the snakes, the snakes: rattlers, copperheads, and cottonmouths! I don’t like snakes. I will tolerate non-poisonous snakes, provided they stay at least a few feet away from the house I am a dead-eye with snakes, though.
We have all three versions of poisonous pit vipers in this area. The wild blackberries draw in rabbits and birds, which, in turn, draw in the snakes…… The dogs go a pickin’ with us, too. A few years ago, a copperhead bit one of our dogs about 3 feet away from our carport.
BTW, we don’t pick blackberries by the quart. We pick ‘me by the gallon, with a 3 gallon bucket along for the ride, in case we really get lucky!
Muff Potter,
I have several pieces.
But, my blackberry pickin’ piece, and my favorite to carry around the farm and in the woods is my clip-load .22 cal. long Ruger. Light weight, well balanced, long- barrel, and accurate. I can hold a flashlight with one hand and nail a snake with the other with that one.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Would that be a Mark I, II, III, or IV Ruger?
Max,
Mark II. Had it for ………. 35 years??
Agreed. I have seen clear signs of pure arrogance on his blog myself. So he is a slightly nicer version of someone like Grutem? I have seen this tendency is all of the self-proclaimed Theologians. This just proofs what is written when it says that “knowledge puffs up.” The problem is all the talking about Christianity in the third person instead of humbly helping the less fortunate in the first person.
My concerns with 501(c)3 churches are that a lot of them tend to hide finances from their attendees and otherwise abuse their status as tax exempt entities in various ways. We can all name examples. I would just point out that Mark Driscoll is alleged to, for example, not allow the members of his church to see the financials or the bylaws for said church.
HOWEVER, organizations that say they are NOT 501(c)3 churches or religious non-profits can be just as problematic. Some of these outfits are run by sovereign citizens, who think they don’t have to obey any laws, including things like remitting taxes on behalf of employees. And YES, I have run across a few of those, one of whom had to spend over 8 years as a guest of the federal Bureau of Prisons and STILL thinks he was wrongly convicted. And if the organization runs itself as an actual for-profit corporation, most likely closely held, you might as well be throwing your dollars down a hole. For example, one of the more notorious prophets out there, a woman with pink hair, she makes it very clear that she’s a for profit operation so the government can’t examine her books. (That’s actually not true, btw. If she’s not submitting tax returns on her for profit business, or if she cheats on her taxes, the government actually can come and look at her books.)
My point is that 501(c)3 organizations aren’t all problematic. Just some of them.
Naive question: Since donations to churches are tax deductible, aren’t a whole lot of churches classified as 501(c)(3)?
My problem is not a church or church school falling under this classification, but the array of businesses that are claimed as part of the church’s mission.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
(venomous)
And I totally just had a comment deleted on his blog.
“Every proposal for change meets with objections” was his rather dismissive response to my first comment. When I replied, “Fair enough. But proposed changes should also be tested to make sure they are sound,” and asked a follow-up question, it never made it past moderation.
Looks like he is getting distracted by the shiny idol of power.
His own students are telling him of abuse, for goodness sake.
I get it now, and the way catholic familes had their homes burned down and thrown out of their jobs, before then authorities started machine gunning children in their homes. Thank you both.
I see he is a “dialectician”. I’ve met those.
As a complete outsider to this tradition, here are my comments on the proposed “covenant”:
1. Not that it makes much difference, but I wonder why the Apostles’ Creed was chosen over the Nicene Creed?
2. Ah, here’s specifically Protestant language. Of course this raises questions about how the Christian Bible is interpreted. The previous item indicates that at least some extrabiblical traditions are acknowledged as authoritative.
3. Seems redundant, given no. 1 above.
4. Baptism is a normal requirement for church membership in many denominations, not all of them Protestant, but the other part–being “converted to Christ by faith”–suggests that adult baptism may be meant. Would affirmation of the creeds be a sufficient statement of faith?
5. Vague
6. This seems to describe an ideal which may not be perfectly attainable. (Living at peace with all humanity, = loving one’s neighbor?) Perhaps it is meant to exclude open racists?
7. I can tell what some of these items are aimed at, but the later ones are a little mysterious. Again, some items seem to be describing an ideal.
8. Ah, the specifically “evangelical” influence. I have to wonder which “gifts of the Holy Spirit” are contemplated (do they speak in tongues?), and how one might judge whether the Holy Spirit was truly responsible.
9. “Regular” could either mean “periodic” (without specifying the frequency), or “according to a rule.” I believe the Catholic requirement is to attend at least twice a year, at Christmas and Easter, which would technically qualify as “regular” attendance in the first sense. If a rule is meant, then shouldn’t that be specified in the covenant?
The devil is whispering to me that if churches can have “covenants” like this, perhaps marriages can as well. One can easily imagine the sort of document that would be produced, specifying fidelity, the headship of the husband, and so forth. In fact Jews and Muslims do have a tradition of marriage contracts, although these would not generally concern themselves with the behavior of the couple after marriage. I believe a few American states have attempted to introduce “marriage plus” on this basis (e.g. banning no-fault divorce). Anyway, perhaps there is an opportunity here for some enterprising soul.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
What Roger Olson is apparently attempting to convey, is that Christian church has basically become a free for all…
(toot)
..
Christian churches today apparently believe you have to give them your hard earned money, no questions asked.
Roger Olson, …dirty Christian leadership deeds done dirt cheap?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9BtOwlvYsU
Like how the third or fourth time Jesus appeared to you in a dream or vision to tell you that COVID was His punishment on the Church for apostasy? And you made this into a Litmus Test of our Salvation and shook our dust off your feet when we “scoffed”?
Religious celebs of all persuasions seem prone to this.
My interpretation of Prof. Olson is that he is kind of like a theological version of the old-school political conservatives characterized by William F. Buckley as “standing athwart history, yelling ‘STOP!'”
He really doesn’t like the recent-history developments in the churches in US, and I think that’s a sound assessment.
I’m not thrilled with the obvious “control of discussion” character of his relationship with his commenters, but OTOH it is his ‘blog, created to serve his purposes, and he has the right to exercise small “s” sovereignty over it. Going in, one needs to recognize that; if one is interested in a wider range of potential solutions to the churches’ problems than he is willing to contemplate, one is likely to be disappointed by what on finds there. I rarely read further than the ‘blogpost titles these days.
I take comfort in the thought that there is a kind of historical dialectic going on in the churches, along the lines of Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor 11, that God works by means of the disagreements among His people toward good ends (i.e., the manifestation of what is approved).
Prof. Olsen is a part of that, as are we all.
While God expects believers to sow into the Kingdom of God. Not all “churches” are part of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, very little that goes on in the organized church in America would be considered Kingdom activity. Be careful where you sow your hard earned money.
Agreed, discussion is better than decree, but a lot of discussion is unhealthy, stunted, primitive. Who is allowed to join the discussion? Who ends it? How are decisions made? Do revivals and schisms ever take people back to worse practices?
American Christians tend to believe we’re supposed to be all nicey-nicey. This shuts down healthy discussion. Most churches I’ve known have done a poor job of handling conflict. Quaker meetings are good at making decisions, but Quakers are a tiny minority. My current congregation does hear people out in many but not all cases. Although that process is tedious, people at least come to understand two things: they are heard and valued, and nobody gets what they want every single time.
I’ve always enjoyed his blog & have made comments without issue, but this would have been a few years ago so I don’t know if it’s changed.
I think it’s important to note WHY he’s chosen quite a heavy level of control on his blog – it’s simply that his pushback at some of the YRR etc meant he was always getting what he calls ‘Piper Cubs’ descend on his page to wage all out war on him & his views. That is both unhelpful & exhausting, as well as mid numbingly repetitive. I think if you are constantly treated as the front line for heresy fighting by young men who have more zeal than knowledge you draw a strong line somewhere.
Exactly. The Piperites, Mohlerites, Deverites, etc. would dearly love to see Olson off the air.
BeakerN,
Good point.
The amusing thing for me is that I’m far to RO’s left, so much so that from my perspective his views — at the points that I find most crucial — look quite similar to those of his antagonists to his right.
For me, the aim when commenting is to try to make a constructive contribution (the exceptions being snark and comic relief, though one might argue that those can be constructive, too). I’ve had many comments not get through at multiple sites, and I reckon that those were less constructive in the view of the moderator than I hoped they might be. It’s one of the advantages of a strong view of Divine sovereignty (a point at which I am to RO’s right) — you have less occasion to get angry at other people.
This hasn’t happened to me, but I don’t comment in many places. I understand that blogs are bombarded with spam, trolls, bots, etc. But beyond that there should be good moderation, not just deleting a comment because it disagrees.
Why would anybody want their comment section to be an echo chamber? Didn’t they write their insights in hopes of promoting discussion?
/naivete
Dee and GBTC, I apologize for accidentally ringing your doorbells. I should have remembered.
Yeah, Olson really is a good guy … and an anti-New Calvinist … that’s a good thing! So, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on his views about church covenants. He’ll eventually come around to how bad those can be once he thinks it through … and becomes wise about them like us Wartburgers 🙂 Theologians sometimes aren’t as smart about such things as pew-peons who have been burned by pulpit abuse!
LOL! Yep, we Papists have been accused of many things, but teetotaling isn’t one of them!
I think it depends a great deal on the purpose of the forum. One of my favorite sites (news/analysis and some opinion from the site proprietors) regularly solicits input from its readers, and it has attracted a significant “stable” of astute commenters, some of whom are subject matter experts in their own right. This, IMO, is ‘blogging at its best, drawing together people and ideas who otherwise might never interact, and resulting in a “whole” that is greater than the “sum of its parts.”
There are also sites that are much less open to outside input. I don’t recall site names, but I’ve read at TWW of forums run by neo-cal-minded people that have disabled comments in order to avoid unwelcome feedback. So much for “rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”
Unfortunately, but perhaps inevitably, there is ideological warfare going on in the churches, and social media are tools of that warfare. Depending on what a ‘blog owner’s goals and self-perceived strengths and weaknesses (not to mention practical matters such as time constraints) are, unfettered discussion may or may not be on the menu.
Samuel Conner,
Not to sound like an echo chamber 🙂 …. excellent comment.
(Way more succinctly and clearly explained that I could have done.)
The New Calvinist movement would not exist without social media platforms. It could also be what eventually brings them down … so they will attempt to control the narrative (like they do everything else) as long as they can.
The alarm is because membership covenants and discipline actions or activities are now apparently frequently being misused by various churches and their leadership.
Q. Hoe do we as parishioners proceed with churches that abuse their leadership powers?
Calvinists are apparently now days using their religion to harm their parishioners.
Social Media gives everyone a voice.
Some voices are louder than others. Bullying.
Like the school playground.
There will always be bullies to deal with, as well as the religious leaders who pass by (on the other side of the road) the vulnerable & plundered.
Within New Calvinism, many of those voices are simply parrots. The new reformers tweet and retweet Piper Points, Mohler Moments, Dever Drivel, etc. There is little critical thinking in the New Calvinist movement … their idols think for them.
There is only reason to become a member of a church: to gain something of actual value. Here’s what I think is of actual value in church: money (being paid for the work you do at the church), power (decision-making authority through a vote or position), or opportunity (permission to serve in various ministries). As a caveat I think that opportunity is valid only if it comes with money or power. Otherwise you’re just building the pastors’ reputation for free.
This is common-sense cynicism. My old church covenant listed things like being prioritized for pastoral counseling as a benefit of becoming a member. That is not something of value to me – counseling from a trained and licensed counselor is of immense value to me – my pastors were neither. I found out after I left that non-members were regularly serving in positions that the covenant said were open only to members.
I think there’s a need to police the social boundaries of a church. But if you’re going to sign on the dotted line to give this authority to unaccountable pastors, you’re not thinking straight. If you’re going to give this authority to accountable pastors and/or a congregation and you’re going to get money, power, and opportunity for doing so, the deal makes sense to me.